shall thereupon issue a summons requiring the owner or occupier of the premises, or the builder or person engaged in any work contrary to this enactment, to appear at a time and place to be stated in the summons to answer such complaint; and if at the time and place appointed in such summons the said complaint shall be proved to the satisfaction of the justice before whom the same shall be heard, such justice shall make an order in writing on such owner or occupier, builder, or person, directing the demolition of any such building or erection, or so much thereof as may be beyond the said general line so fixed as aforesaid, within such time as such justice shall consider reasonable, and shall also make an order for the payment of the costs incurred up to the time of hearing; and in default of the building or erection complained of being demolished within the time limited by the said order, the said vestry or board shall forthwith enter the premises to which the order relates and demolish the building or erection complained of, and do whatever may be necessary to execute the said order, and may also remove the materials to a convenient place, and subsequently sell the same, as they think fit (g); and all expenses incurred by the said vestry or board in carrying out the said order and in disposal of the said materials may be recovered by the said vestry or board from the owner or occupier of the said premises, or the builder or person engaged in the work, either by action at law or in a summary manner before a justice of the peace, at the option of the said vestry or board, in manner provided by the two hundred and twenty-seventh section of the firstly-recited Act as to the recovery of penalties.

provision, by which the bodies in question were required, in cases in which they intervened, to take upon themselves the responsibility of demolishing the buildings in whole or in part in the first instance,-a responsibility which they were frequently reluctant to assume.

(g) This is a new power. In Tear v. Freebody, supra, note (c), the removal of the materials was held to be a conversion.

are hereby repealed; and in lieu thereof be it enacted, that no building (b), structure, or erection shall, with out the consent in writing of the metropolitan board of works, be erected beyond the general (c) line of buildings in any street, place, or row of houses (d) in which the same is situate in case the distance of such line of buildings from the highway does not exceed fifty feet, or within fifty feet (e) of the highway when the distance of the line of buildings therefrom amounts to or exceeds fifty feet, notwithstanding there being gardens or vacant spaces between the line of buildings and the highway, such general line of buildings to be decided by the superintending architect to the metropolitan board of works for the time being, and in case any building, structure, or erection be erected, or be begun to be erected or raised, without such consent, or contrary to the terms and conditions on which the same may have been granted, it shall be lawful for the vestry of the parish or the board of works for the district in which such building or erection is situate to cause to be made complaint (f) thereof before a justice of the peace, who

(b) Neither this Act nor the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, gives any interpretation of the word building. The 1st section of first schedule to the Metropolitan Building Act, post, Appendix, regulating the structure of buildings, requires that every building shall be enclosed with walls. See as to the meaning of the word under that Act, Stevens v. Gourley, 29 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 1, cited in note to sect. 143, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, ante, p. 104.

(c) The word " "general" is substituted for "regular," which occurred in the repealed enactment. See Tear v. Freebody, 22 J. P. 707; and Robins v. Bury, 25 J. P. 83.

(d) The words "place or row of houses" were not in the repealed section, and their addition will remove doubts as to the application of the provision to separate rows of houses, terraces, and the like in long lines of road. See as to the construction put upon analogous provisions in schedule (E.) of the former Metropolitan Building Act, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 84, by the official referees, Lawes' Proceedings under the Metropolitan Building Act, 1846.

(e) The distance in the repealed enactment was thirty feet. (f) This enactment, providing for an inquiry before a justice of the peace, is substituted for the provision in the repealed

shall thereupon issue a summons requiring the owner or occupier of the premises, or the builder or person engaged in any work contrary to this enactment, to appear at a time and place to be stated in the summons to answer such complaint; and if at the time and place appointed in such summons the said complaint shall be proved to the satisfaction of the justice before whom the same shall be heard, such justice shall make an order in writing on such owner or occupier, builder, or person, directing the demolition of any such building or erection, or so much thereof as may be beyond the said general line so fixed as aforesaid, within such time as such justice shall consider reasonable, and shall also make an order for the payment of the costs incurred up to the time of hearing; and in default of the building or erection complained of being demolished within the time limited by the said order, the said vestry or board shall forthwith enter the premises to which the order relates and demolish the building or erection complained of, and do whatever may be necessary to execute the said order, and may also remove the materials to a convenient place, and subsequently sell the same, as they think fit (g); and all expenses incurred by the said vestry or board in carrying out the said order and in disposal of the said materials may be recovered by the said vestry or board from the owner or occupier of the said premises, or the builder or person engaged in the work, either by action at law or in a summary manner before a justice of the peace, at the option of the said vestry or board, in manner provided by the two hundred and twenty-seventh section of the firstly-recited Act as to the recovery of penalties.

provision, by which the bodies in question were required, in cases in which they intervened, to take upon themselves the responsibility of demolishing the buildings in whole or in part in the first instance,-a responsibility which they were frequently reluctant to assume.

(g) This is a new power. In Tear v. Freebody, supra, note (c), the removal of the materials was held to be a con

version.

Conditions

as to build

line of

street.

LXXVI. The metropolitan board may, in giving conings beyond sent for any erection (h) beyond the regular line of the buildings in any street, annex any condition to the consent given by the board, and in case such erection shall not be made in accordance with the consent of the board, or be in any manner altered or raised without their consent, the board may enter and demolish or alter the buildings or structure, or any part thereof, and recover all expenses, or may impose any penalty not exceeding 40s., to be summarily recovered for every day during which any building or structure being a contravention of such condition shall exist after notice from the said board or any officer of the board to remedy the complaint.

Expenses of paving new streets.

LXXVII. Where any vestry or district board shall, under the powers given by the one hundred and fifth section of the firstly-recited Act, have paved or be about to pave (i) any new street (k), the owners of the land (1) bounding or abutting on such street shall be liable

(h) This section is evidently hastily drawn, and contains some verbal inaccuracies. The word "erection" only is here structure" ocused, omitting the words "building" and

curring in the preceding section, and in the subsequent part of this section the words "buildings or structure" are used, and the word "erection" is dropped. If the preceding section proceeds upon the supposition that there may be structures or erections which are not buildings, the present section seems to lose sight of the distinction, and it treats all three expressions as synonymous. This section gives a concurrent power to the metropolitan board, and to the vestries and district boards to intervene by the special mode of proceeding pointed out in case of an infraction of its provisions, and great caution must be taken to prevent any collision or discordance in the proceedings, which may be adopted.

(1) See interpretation of word “ pave," sect. 112, post.

(k) See R. v. Dayman, 26 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 128, cited in note to sect. 105 of 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, ante, p. 73, wherein it was decided to be a question for the magistrate to determine whether or not a street was a "new street." See now the definition of the expression " new street," sect. 112, post.

(1) The provision referred to imposed the cost of this work on the owners of houses exclusively, and the section as now

to contribute to the expenses or estimated expenses of paving the same, as well as the owners of houses therein, provided that it shall be lawful for the vestry or district board to charge the owners of land in a less proportion than the owners of house property, should they deem it just and expedient so to do; and any such costs or expenses, including the cost of paving at the points of intersection of streets, and all other incidental costs and charges, shall be apportioned by the vestry or board, and shall be recoverable either before the work shall be commenced, or during its progress, or after its completion; and it shall be lawful for the vestry or district board at their discretion to accept payment of the amount apportioned or charged in respect of each house or premises by instalments spread over a period not exceeding twenty years, and any such amount shall be recoverable from the present or any future owner of the premises either by action at law (m) or in a summary manner before a justice of the peace, at the option of the vestry or board.

costs.

LXXVIII. In case any footway laid out at the passing Vestry may flag footways of the firstly-recited Act shall have been repaired by the and levy the vestry or any other body, but shall not have been flagged, and the vestry (n) or district board shall have deemed it necessary or expedient, or shall deem it necessary or expedient that the same should be flagged, and such vestry or board shall have flagged or shall flag the same, either throughout the whole breadth thereof or any part of such breadth, it shall be lawful for such vestry or board to levy the cost and expenses by a rate

framed contains additional provisions for the recovery of incidental expenses. It also gives a wider discretion to the vestry as to the time and mode of payment.

(m) These expenses could not before be recovered by action. Vestry of St. Pancras v. Batterbury, 26 L. J. (N. Š.) C. P.

243.

(n) This applies only to vestries in schedule (A.) to 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120.