Page images

sons apprehended and brought before the borough | entitled to recover the lands in ejectment. Doe d. justices by constables appointed by the watch Bristol Hospital of Queen Elizabeth Governors committee, disposed of by such justices, and v. Norton, 11 M. & W. 913; 12 L. J., Ex. 418; which fees the clerk to the justices cannot 7 Jur. 751. recover from such person or persons, either on account of their not being specifically imposed on them by acts of parliament, or from their inability to pay, are expenses necessarily in curred in carrying into effect the provisions of the act, under s. 92; and a mandamus will go to direct their payment out of the borough fund. Reg. v. Gloucester Corporation, D. & M. 677; 5 Q. B. 862; 13 L. J., Q. B. 233; 8 Jur. 573.

Improvement not Specifically AuthorisedFreeing Bridge from Toll-Agreement for, not Void, but Borough Fund not Applicable, excepting any Accidental Surplus.]-Sce Newcastleapon-Tyne Corporation v. Att.-Gen., col. 602.

Non-Rateability of.]-Property forming part of the borough fund, which, by the Municipal Corporation Act (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76), s. 92, is to be applied to purposes that are for the public benefit of the borough, is not rateable to the relief of the poor. Reg. v. Liverpool Corporation, 9 Ad. & E. 435; 8 L. J., M. C. 41.

A municipal corporation is not rateable to the relief of the poor in respect of its property, although outside the limits of the borough. Reg. V. Erminster, 9 L. J., M. C. 108.

Property Subject to Charitable Trust.]-A testator, in 1586, devised a manor to trustees for the founding, by the mayor and aldermen of Bristol, of a hospital for the education of poor infants and orphans, and that they should be for ever the governors of the same. Queen Elizabeth, by a charter, ordained that the mayor and common council, and their successors, should be called "The Governors of the Hospital of Queen Elizabeth of Bristol," and should have the government of all the orphans, and of all the lands, tenements, &c., and should be a body corporate and politic of itself, for ever capable of holding lands. The hospital and lands continued vested in the mayor and common council down to the passing of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76. By s. 71, where the body corporate of any borough shall stand seised of any estate or interest of any hereditaments in trust for charitable uses or trusts, all the estate, right, interest and title, and all the powers of such body corporate, in respect of the uses and trusts, shall continue in the persons who, at the time of the passing of the act, were trustees, until the 1st of August, 1836, or until parliament shall otherwise order. Provided that, if parliament shall not otherwise direct on or before the 1st of August, 1836, the lord chancellor shall make such orders as he should see fit for the administration, subject to such charitable uses or trusts, of such trust estates. No act of parliament was passed on the subject prior to the 19th of October, 1836, on which day the lord chancellor appointed new trustees of the hospital lands-Held, first, that the meaning of 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 71, was that the estate and interest in the uses and trusts only, and not in the legal estate, were continued in those in whom it was vested by the act up to the 1st of August, 1836 secondly, that the legal estate remained. and always had been, vested in the corporation, the 71st section affecting only the equitable interest or right of administering the charitable funds; and therefore that the corporation was

Semble, that if property is granted to a corporation, subject to a payment for charitable purposes imposed by the grantor, this falls under the provisions of 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 71; and that s. 68 applies, not to such property, but to cases where the payment has been made by the gift of the corporation itself. Rex v. Sankey, 5 A. & E. 423; 6 N. & M. 839; 2 H. & W. 275 ; 5 L. J., K. B. 255.

Property of Hospital-Purchase by Corporation.]A hospital having a corporate charter was established in close connection with a municipal corporation. The ex-mayor was to be the governor, the masters and assistants were elected from the corporation, and the mayor and aldermen were visitors-Held, that the corporation and hospital were incapable of contracting, and a purchase by the corporation of property belonging to the hospital was set aside. Att.-Gen. v. Plymouth Corporation, 9 Beav. 67; 15 L. J., Ch. 109.

See also, as to the power of municipal corporations to purchase, sell, mortgage, and lease corporate land, to contract loans, to transfer stock, to maintain bridges, to sell, &c., advowsons, and as to the misapplication of corporate property, the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50), ss. 105-132; and as to the payments to be made to, and the application of, the borough fund, ss. 139-143.

b. How CHARGE OBJECTED TO. Mandamus.]-An order made by a town council for the payment by the treasurer of a sum of money out of the borough fund having been brought up by certiorari and quashed, a mandamus was applied for, commanding the town council to cause the treasurer of the borough to render an account for the purpose of having that sum of money restored to the borough fund. The court discharged the rule, upon the ground that there had been no demand npon the town council, and subsequently refused a second application, founded upon a demand and refusal made since the first. Reg v. Stamford Corporation, 9 Jur. 159.

The court will not grant a mandamus to the mayor of a borough to hold a fresh meeting of the ratepayers of the borough for the purpose of granting or withholding their consent to the incurring by the governing body of a borough the expense of opposing a bill in parliament under 35 & 36 Vict. c. 91, s. 4, after a prior meeting has been held where a poll has been refused, in order that at the fresh meeting a poll of the ratepayers of the borough may be taken, upon the application of a ratepayer of the borough, who is also one of the promoters of the bill. Reg. v. Peterborough Corporation, 44 L. J., Q. B. 85; 23 W. R. 343.

Register of Owners and Proxies, whether necessary - Poll.]-The town council of a borough is not bound, under the Public Health Act, 1875, sched. II. r. 19, to keep a register of owners and proxies for the purpose of taking a poll in the borough with respect to the application, under 35 & 36 Viet. c. 91, of the borough funds in opposing local and personal bills in

parliament. Ward v. Sheffield Corporation, 56 householder resident in any street or house, or L. J., Q. B. 418; 19 Q. B. D. 22.

By Certiorari.]-Where an order for payment of money out of a borough fund is brought up by certiorari, and quashed with costs, the court should decide, when the quashing is ordered, who is to be charged with the costs as the prosecutor of the order, and the name of such party should be inserted in the rule. Reg. v. Dunn, D. & M. 737; 5 Q. B. 959; 13 L. J., Q. B. 237; 8 Jur. 773.

An order signed by the mayor, at the meeting of a town council properly convened, and in which the majority concurred, for payment of certain illegal expenses and sum of money out of the borough fund, may be removed by certiorari, though it is not signed by three members of the council, and countersigned by the town clerk, according to 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 59. Reg. v. Lichfield Town Council, D. & M. 491; 4 Q. B. 670; 12 L. J., Q. B. 308; 7 Jur. 670.

by any police constable, to desist from making such sounds or noises, either on account of any illness of any inmate of such house, or for any reasonable cause," &c. Edwin Gay was summoned before the justices of Truro, on the 13th October, 1883, and convicted by them of an offence against the above by-law, and fined 21. 28. and costs. It was proved that Gay was a captain in the Salvation Army, and that on the morning of Sunday the 7th October, he was in Victoria Square, Truro, playing a concertina, and surrounded by a large crowd; that he was requested by the superintendent of police to desist from playing the concertina, but he refused to do so, the superintendent at the same time telling him that he had reasonable cause for asking him to desist, as several complaints had been made by the inhabitants. It was also proved that on many previous occasions the Salvation Army had marched through the streets, playing musical instruments, tambourines, and triangles; that they had been frequently cautioned and required to desist, as many complaints had been made of their proceedings. On a rule for a certiorari to remove the conviction into this court :-Held, that the by-law was not unreasonable, and that the con

Where an order of the council of a borough for the payment of a sum of money out of the borough fund is removed by certiorari, objections not appearing upon the face of it may be shown by affidavits. Reg. v. Lichfield Town Council, 10 Q. B. 534; 16 L. J., Q. B. 333; 11 Jur. 888. The court is not bound either wholly to con-viction thereunder ought to stand; also that firm, or wholly to disallow, the order of the there was reasonable cause for calling on the council of a borough, brought before it by certi- prosecutor to desist from playing. Reg. v. Powell, orari, but has a discretion over the order as well 51 L. T. 92; 48 J. P. 740. as over the costs, and therefore no less power to modify than either to confirm or disallow the order. Reg. v. Prest, 16 Q. B. 33; 20 L. J., Q. B. 17; 15 Jur. 554.

See Reg. v. Liverpool Corporation and Town Council and Reg. v. Ramsgate Corporation, col. 611.

By Injunction.]-See Att.-Gen. v. Waterford Corporation, col. 607; Att.-Gen. v. Wigan Corporation; Att.-Gen. v. Norwich Corporation, col. 608; and Att.-Gen. v. Blackburn Corporation, col. 612.


And see cases, post, B. IX. (col. 644).

A by-law made by the town council of a borough under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 90, provided that every person who in any street should sound or play upon any musical or noisy instrument, or should sing, recite, or preach in any street without having previously obtained a licence in writing from the mayor; and every fail to observe, or should act contrary to any of person who, having obtained such licence, should the conditions of such licence, should forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding 208., and not less than 18.:-Held, that the by-law was unreasonable and ultra vires, and therefore void. Munro v. Watson, 57 L. T. 366; 51 J. P. 660.

B. used a concertina in a street in a borough, a by-law of which, made under 5 & 6 Will. 4,

See Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 c. 76, prohibited the use of any noisy instrument Vict. c. 50), ss. 23, 24.

to the annoyance of any of the inhabitants. The
justices found it was a noisy instrument, and
some inhabitants proved being annoyed :—Held,
that it was not necessary to prove that the
instrument was a public nuisance to all the
inhabitants, and that the by-law was not ultra
vires. Booth v. Howell, 53 J. P. 678.
See Innes v. Newman, infra.

Validity-Prohibition of Music in Street.] A by-law made by the council of a borough under s. 23 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, provided that no person not being a member of her majesty's army or auxiliary forces, acting under the orders of his commanding officer, should sound or play upon any musical instrument, in any of the streets in the Prohibition of Juvenile Street Vendors.] borough on Sunday :-Held, that such by-law-The N. corporation made a by-law that parents was unreasonable and ultra vires, and therefore void. Johnson v. Croydon Corporation, 55 L. J., M. C. 117; 16 Q. B. D. 708; 54 L. T. 295; 50 J. P. 487.

Sect. 90 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, gives powers to boroughs to make bylaws for the good rule and government of the borough, and for the prevention of all such nuisances as are not already punishable in a summary way. Under these powers the city of Truro made the following by-law :-"Every person who shall sound or play upon any musical instrument, or sing or make any noise whatsoever in any street, or near any house within the said borough, after having been required by any

should be liable to a penalty if they suffered a child to be selling articles in the street after a certain hour :-Held, that the by-law was in excess of the powers given by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, as being too general and absolute, and void. Macdonald v. Lochrane, 51 J. P. 629.

Prohibition of Slaughter-houses.] - A by-law that no person should slaughter animals within the walls of a city under certain penalties, is good, because merely a regulation of trade, and not a restraint, and other inhabitants are bound, as well as the members of the corporation. Pierce v. Bartrum, Cowp. 269.

Regulation of Trades.]-The common council of the city of London has by custom a right to make ordinances for regulating carts worked within the city for hire, restraining their number, licensing them, and regulating the manner in which they should be licensed. A by-law was made in common council, that 420 of such carts, and no more, should, by the president and governors of Christ's Hospital, be allowed or licensed to work for hire within the city :-Held, that such by-law was supported by the custom; and that the discretionary power of licensing was rightly and ex necessitate delegated by the common council to a smaller body. Shaw v. Pope, 2 B. & Ad. 465.

A custom of the city of London, that no person not being free may sell or put to sale any wares within the city or liberties by retail, or keep any shop or other place for show, sale, or putting to sale, of wares by retail, or for use of any art, trade, or mystery, within the city, liberties, or suburbs, is sufficient ground for a by-law forbidding any non-freeman to show, sell, or put to sale wares by retail within the city, liberties, or suburbs, or to use any art, trade, or mystery within the same. Clarke v. Denton, 1 B. & Ad. 92; 8 L. J. (0.s.) K. B. 333.

Erection of Booths.]-A by-law of a borough, which provides that no person shall erect any booth, or place any caravan for the purpose of any show or public entertainment in any public place within the borough, without the licence of the mayor, and that any such licence given at any other time than fair-time should be revoked by the mayor, if three inhabitant householders, residing within one hundred yards of the place for which it was granted, should memorialise the mayor to revoke it, is an unreasonable by-law, and therefore bad. Elwood v. Bullock, 6 Q. B. 383; 13 L. J., Q. B. 330; 8 Jur. 1044.

made by a town council, under 5 & 6 Will. 4, Against Keeping Swine.]-A by-law, c. 76, s. 90, imposing a fine upon every person "who shall keep, or suffer to be kept, any swine within the borough from the 1st day of May to the 31st day of October inclusive in any year," is a bad by-law. Everett v. Grapes, 3 L. T.


Ordinance of Burgesses Pecuniary Benefits.]-An act of parliament passed for dividing and inclosing open lands in a borough Where a municipal council had power to make the sole right of pasturage, enacted that those over which a corporation immemorially exercised by-laws for regulating and governing hawkers, a lands should be divided between and allotted to by-law prohibiting hawkers from plying their trade at all in part of the city was ultra vires. the lord of the manor and the corporation, and Toronto Corporation v. Virgo, 73 L. T. 449-leases of their allotments, as the burgesses in that the corporation should have power to make P. C. Closing Cemetery.] A by-law of a municipal council in New South Wales, empowered to make by-laws for regulating the interment of the dead, prohibiting interment altogether in a particular cemetery is not ultra vires because it takes away from owners of burial places therein the only use of their property. Slattery v. Naylor, 57 L. J., P. C. 73; 13 App. Cas. 446; 59 L. T. 41; 36 W. R. 897.

Betting in Streets.]-A by-law made by a borough council, that any person who shall frequent or use any street or other public place for the purpose of bookmaking and betting shall be liable to a penalty, is not ultra vires, being aimed at persons standing on the pavement with books in their hands lying in wait for customers, and it has no application to a person happening to be in the street and casually making a bet. Strickland v. Hayes (65 L. J., M. C. 55; [1896] 1 Q. B. 290) commented on. Burnett v. Berry, 65 L. J., M. C. 118; [1896] 1 Q. B. 641; 74 L. T. 494; 44 W. R. 512; 60 J. P. 575; 18

Cox, C. C. 325.

common hall assembled should think proper. A
rule, order or ordinance of the burgesses in
common hall assembled, ordered that no lease
should be made to one burgess of more than fifty
or less than five acres; and it being the desire
and opinion of the burgesses that every burgess
residing within the borough should receive a
benefit from the inclosure, it was further ordered
that the rents arising from the inclosure should
be paid and distributed yearly, by the common
attorneys of the borough, among twelve senior
burgesses residing within the borough, and that
no burgess who should take a lease should be.
entitled to receive any of these rents :-Held,..
that the ordinance was a valid by-law, and that
an action was maintainable on it at common law
by the parties to whom pecuniary benefits were
granted by it. Swansea Corporation v. Hopkins,
8 M. & W. 901-Ex. Ch. Affirming 8 L. J., Ex.

Food.]-By the Municipal Corporations Act Against Exposing for Sale Provisions unfit for (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76), s. 90, it is lawful for the council of a borough to make by-laws for the The power of a borough council to make by-laws under section 23 of the Municipal Cor- prevention and suppression of all such nuisances as are not already punishable in a summary porations Act, 1882, is not wholly restricted to offences for which a summary method of punish-borough. A town council of a borough made a manner by virtue of any act in force in such ment already exists. Ib.

Roundabouts, &c., on Land adjoining Street or Public Place.]-A by-law made under s. 23 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, providing that "no person shall, to the annoyance or disturbance of residents or passengers, keep or manage a shooting gallery, swingboat, roundabout, or other like thing, in any street or public place, or on land adjoining or near to such street or public place, provided always that this bylaw shall not apply to any fair lawfully held," is not bad by reason that it extends to land adjoining or near to a street or public place. Teale v. Harris, 60 J. P. 744.

by-law, "that if any butcher or dealer in meat,. or any fishmonger, poulterer or other person, shall expose or offer for sale on his premises, or have in his possession with intent to sell or expose for sale, any meat, fish, poultry, or other victuals or provisions unfit for the food of man, he shall be subject to a penalty, to be recovered before justices, who shall decide on the unfitness." A grocer exposed for sale on his premises cheese which the justices held was unfit for food, and convicted him accordingly: Held, that to expose for sale, or to have possession of with intent to sell, things unfit for food, was a nuisance at common law, that consequently the by-law

was within the powers of s. 90, and that the grocer was within the by-law. Shillito v. Thompson, 45 L. J., M. C. 18; 1 Q. B. D. 12; 33 L. T. 506; 24 W. R. 57.

Enlarging or Limiting Class from which Officers chosen.]-A by-law, enlarging or limiting the class of persons from whom a corporate officer is to be selected beyond the number or class described by the charter, is bad. Rex v. Barnstead, 9 L. J. (0.s.) K. B. 321; 2 B. & Ad. 699; Tucker v. Rex, 2 Bro. P. C. 304; Lee v. Wallis, 1 Ld. Ken. 292.

"Shall be Lawful"-Optional.]-The words "shall be lawful," when found in the bylaws of a corporation, are not to be construed as obligatory. Therefore, where a by-law ordained that under certain circumstances it should be lawful for bailiffs to admit to the freedom of the town certain persons :-Held, that this by-law was only optional, and that the admission of such persons to the freedom of the borough could not be enforced by a mandamus. Rex v. Eye, 2 D. & R. 172; 1 B. & C. 85; 4 B. & Ald. 271.

As to the Right of Free Trading in Boroughs, notwithstanding any By-Law.]-See 45 & 46

Limiting Electoral Body.]-See Vol. vi., Vict. c. 50, s. 247. ELECTION LAW, B. Municipal, col. 158.


See Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, ss. 228,

Liability to Repair.]—A borough incorporated

Limiting Number of Attorneys of Sheriff's Court.]-In a city which was incorporated before time of memory, there had been a court from very ancient times, held first before the mayor 229. and bailiffs, and, after a charter of Richard 2, before the mayor and sheriffs. By a by-law made in 3 & 4 Philip and Mary, by a select body by charter with a non-intromittent clause was of the corporation, who had immemorially made rules and regulations as to the practice of the court, and who had, at their discretion, selected the persons admitted to practise as attorneys there, it was ordered, that thenceforth there should be no more than four persons admitted to be attorneys of the sheriff's court; and from that time it did not appear that any more than that number had ever been allowed to practise:-Held, that the by-law was reasonable. Rex v. York (Sheriffs), 3 B. & Ad. 770; 1 L. J., K. B. 211.


Against Temporary Obstructions Erections not within.]-Under a by-law made in pursuance of 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 90, the causing of a temporary obstruction in the streets was made punishable by fine. A. was convicted under this by-law for erecting a front to his house which encroached upon the footway. A case, stated by consent of the parties, found that this erection was substantially built, and formed the front of A.'s house, but submitted the question to the court-Held, that, the offence not being within the by-law, the conviction must be quashed. Reg. v. Dickenson, 7 El. & Bl. 831; 26 L. J., M. C. 204; 3 Jur. (N.s.) 1076; 5 W. R. 654.

Sufficient Compliance with.]-Though a bylaw of a corporation required an indenture of apprenticeship to be inrolled; yet, if it had been exhibited to the town clerk, who marked it as being inrolled, it was sufficient, notwithstanding it was not inrolled in the corporation books. Rex v. Cambridge, 2 Chit. 144.

Evidence of Breach Annoyance of Inhabitants.] In a prosecution under a by-law which prohibits any person from making a violent noise in the streets to the annoyance of the inhabitants, it is sufficient to prove that one inhabitant has been annoyed. Innes v. Newman, 63 L. J., M. C. 198; [1894] 2 Q. B. 292; 10 R. 348; 70 L. T. 689; 42 W. R. 573.

Mandamus.]-In the absence of any precedent, the court refused a rule nisi for a mandamus calling on the mayor of a town to propose a resolution to the burgesses in guild assembled, for repealing certain by-laws, though it was alleged that by-laws and ordinances might by charter be made, and had formerly been made at such guilds. Garrett v. Newcastle, 3 B. & Ad. 252.

enlarged under 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 64, s. 35, and 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 7, by the addition of a parish in the same county, containing a bridge which until that time that county had repaired. There was no evidence that the borough had been used to maintain any bridges :-Held, that the transfer of the new district did not render the borough liable to repair the bridge. Reg. v. New Sarum Borough, 7 Q. B. 941; 2 New Sess. Cas. 133; 15 L. J., M. C. 15; 10 Jur. 176.

Effect of 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 103.]-By a charter of Edw. 3, the men of the villa of Coventry, tenants of the queen mother of the manor of Chilesmore, in Coventry, were incorporated. The corporation consisted of the mayor, bailiffs, and men or commonalty of the villa of Coventry. By that and subsequent charters (some of the king, some of Isabel, the queeen of Edward 3, and others of the Black Prince), various franchises within the villa of Coventry, and throughout the view of frankpledge of the manor of Chilesmore and elsewhere, were granted to the mayor and bailiffs of Coventry. By a charter of Hen. 6, the villa of Coventry, with Radford, Keresley and other specified places, were made into a distinct county, called the county of the city of Coventry. By a charter of Jac. 1, regulating the government of the corporation, the aldermen of Coventry were made justices of the peace of the county of the city. There were ten aldermen of Coventry, being one alderman for each of ten wards; and the limits of the wards did not appear far to exceed the continuous lines of streets and houses, popularly known as the city of Coventry :Held, that, under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 103, places being within the county of the city of Coventry, and through which the mayor and bailiffs of Coventry had a coroner, and other franchises, under the above charters, but being beyond the lines of such streets and houses, and not within any of the wards of Coventry, were not part of the city of Coventry. Coventry Corporation v. Lythall, 10 M. & W. 773; 12 L. J., Ex. 409.

Under previous Statutes.]-In boroughs, the limits of which for the purposes of parliamentary representation have been fixed by 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 64, s. 35, Schedule O., and which are included in the 1st section of Schedules A. and B. to 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 7, all places within the limits so fixed are, by s. 8 of the latter act, parts of the


borough for all purposes; and an ancient borough | L. J., M. C. 73; 2 Jur. (N.S.) S09; 4 W. R. market may be lawfully held within such limits, although outside the limits of the old municipal borough. Dorchester Corporation v. Ensor, 39 L. J., Ex. 11; L. R. 4 Ex. 335.

Extension of Borough-Privileges of Freemen.]-See Leicester Freemen v. Lewitt, col. 578.

As to dividing the Borough into, or altering the Boundaries of, Wards.]-See Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50), s. 30.


County Gaol-Expenses.]-A borough sending its prisoners to the county gaol, without any special contract, is liable under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 98, s. 18, to pay a proportion of the expenses of the enlargement of the prison necessary in order to conform to the requirements of 28 & 29 Vict. c. 126. Reg. v. Wigan Corporation, 39 L. J., M. C. 68; L. R. 5 Q. B. 267; 21 L. T. 715; 18 W. R. 455.

By 5 & 6 Vict. c. 98, s. 18, where no special contract shall be subsisting between the borough and county relative to the prisoners sent from the borough to the county prison, the borough shall pay to the county a proportionate share of the expenses of the conveyance, transport and maintenance of such prisoners, including therein repairs, alterations and additions to the prison. This provision refers to special contracts made, under 5 Geo. 4, c. 85, between the magistrates of boroughs and of counties for the support and maintenance of borough prisoners in county gaols. Reg. v. New Sarum Corporation, 2 El. & Bl. 654; 22

L. J., M. C. 155; 17 Jur. 934.

The council of a borough having a grant of a separate court of quarter sessions, and having no gaol, entered into a contract with the county, that all prisoners who should be committed, or removed to, or confined in, the gaol of the county from the borough, should be supported and maintained therein during the agreement, at 78. a head-Held, that the agreement, while in force, exempted the borough from contribution to the county in respect of those things contracted for, but no further; that the words support and maintenance, used in the contract, included the expenses of keeping up the prison, and the borough was not liable to contribute in respect of those, but that the borough was liable to contribute in respect of the expenses of the conveyance of prisoners upon summary convictions, in respect of offences committed in the borough (but none other), and of prosecutions at assizes and sessions of borough offenders, and of lock-up houses for the county. Reg. v. Gravesend Borough Council, 5 El. & Bl. 459; 24 L. J., M. C. 141; 1 Jur. (N.S.) 878.


Establishment of.]-In 1864, a municipal cor poration, as local board of health, purchased under the Public Health Act, 1848, s. 74, a piece of land of about ten acres to be added to a public garden of fifteen acres. In 1875 the corporation determined to appropriate about a quarter of an acre at one extremity of this piece of land as a site for the erection of town buildings, and of a museum, public library and school of art, and conservatory:-Held, by Bacon, V.-C., that no portion of the land could be appropriated for any of these objects, except the museum and conservatory. But held, on appeal that the erection of a free library was also allowable, as being conducive to the better enjoyment of the public walks and grounds as such. Att.-Gen. v. Sunderland Corporation, 45 L. J., Ch. 839; 2 Ch. D. 634; 34 L. T. 921; 24 W. R. 991.

Borough Prisoners.]-Under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 114, the treasurer of a county may make an order upon the council of a borough, having a separate court of quarter sessions, for the costs arising out of the punishment and maintenance of offenders committed for trial to the county assizes from the borough:-Held, that this clause applied to prisoners committed, in the first instance, to the borough gaol before trial, and, after trial at the assizes, committed to the county prison in execution of their sentences; and that the council was liable, although there| was no contract in force, under 5 Geo. 4, c. 85, XV. BOROUGH JUSTICES.-See JUSTICE OF

between the county and borough justices for the maintenance of such prisoners :-Held, also, that the council was made liable not only for the expenses of food, clothing and punishment of such prisoners, but for a proportionate share of the general expenses of the county gaol. Reg, v. Johnson, 2 P. & D. 610; 10 A. & E. 740; 8 L. J., M. C. 99.

5 & 6 Vict. c. 98, s. 18-Special Contracts.-The 5 & 6 Vict. c. 98, s. 18, which enacts that where no special contract shall be subsisting between the borough and county relative to the prisoners sent from the borough to the county prison, the borough shall pay to the county a proportionate share of the expenses of the conveyance, transport and maintenance of such prisoners, including therein repairs, alterations and additions to the prison, refers to special contracts nade under the 5 Geo. 4, c. 85. Bramston v. Colchester Corporation, 6 El. & Bl. 246; 25

Adoption of Public Libraries in Borough.]— See LIBRARY.



XVI. CONTRACTS BY AND WITH.-See post, B. X. (col. 653.)

XVII. ACTIONS BY.-See rost, B. VI. (col. 634.)


See also cases ante, A. II. (col. 570.) Prescription presumes a charter. Anon., Lofft, 556.

Power to Bind Members.] Although the charter of the Tobacco-Pipe Makers' Company may be inadequate to bind all the tobacco-pipe

« EelmineJätka »