(780.) [IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.] THE TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL v. APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. [JULY 27TH, 1896.] Local Government—Public nuisance-Action by Local Authority-Right to Sue-Public Health Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 107. By section 107 of the Public Health Act 1875, it is provided that any local authority may, if in their opinion summary proceedings would afford an inadequate remedy, "cause any proceedings to be taken against any person" in any Superior Court of law or equity, to enforce the abatement or prohibition of any nuisance under the Act. Held, that such proceedings mean the ordinary proceedings known to the law, and that, in the absence of special damage, a local authority cannot sue in respect of a public nuisance except with the sanction of the Attorney-General by action in the nature of an information. Judgment of STIRLING, J. in Wallasey Local Board v. Gracey (57 L. T. Rep. 51; 36 Ch. D. 593) approved.—(L. T., C. A. [1896], vol. lxxv. p. 238.) (781.) [IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.] IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN E. GONTY AND THE MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LINCOLNSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY. [AUGUST 4TH, 1896.] Lands Clauses Acts-Compensation-Railway Company-Statutory Right to take Portion of Property-Exception if "Material Detriment" to Remainder-Access over Land taken-Power of Company to Grant Right of Way- Arbitration-Power of Arbitrator to consider Sufficiency of Access-Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18), s. 92—Special Case stated by Arbitrator-Costs in Court of Appeal-Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 20. A railway company, under their special Act, were entitled, notwithstanding Section 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, to take a portion of certain houses or other buildings or manufactories scheduled in their Act without being obliged to take the remainder, if the portion taken could, in the opinion of the authority to whom the question of disputed compensation should be submitted, be severed from the remainder of the property without material detriment thereto. The company gave notice to treat for a portion of certain property, and, before the arbitrator appointed under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act to assess compensation, they undertook to provide access to the remainder of the property by means of a right of way over the portion taken. On a case stated by the arbitrator in his award : Held, that the arbitrator was entitled, in determining whether there would be "material detriment" to the remainder of the property arising from the taking of a portion, to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including the sufficiency of the proposed access : Held, also, that as the giving the proposed right of way over the lands of the company was not inconsistent with the purposes for which the lands were taken, the company had power to grant it. Mulliner v. Midland Ry. Co. (11 Ch. D. 611) commented on. The Court of Appeal has power under the Arbitration Act, 1889, to deal with the costs of an appeal on an award stated in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Court. In re Holliday and the Mayor of Wakefield (20 Q. B. D. 699) no longer applies in such a case.-(L. R. [1896], 2 Q. B., vol. ii., p. 439.) (782.) GOODSON v. THE SUNBURY GAS CONSUMERS' COMPANY LIMITED. [JULY 3RD AND AUGUST 5TH.] Highways-Public Nuisance-Breach of Statutory Duty-Special Damage-Right of Action-Gasworks Clauses Act 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 15), ss. 11, 29. A gas company, in laying down a main along the side of a public road, filled up the trench so carelessly and defectively that the wheel of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was driving sank into the trench whereby the vehicle was upset and the plaintiff injured. A jury having found not only that the company were guilty of negligence in the filling up of the road, but also that they left the road in such a state as to constitute a nuisance and a danger to those using the road. Held, that, as the company had left the road in a'condition which amounted to a public nuisance, they were liable to the plaintiff, notwithstanding the provisions of section 11 of the Gasworks Clauses Act 1847.(L. T., Q. B. D. [1896], vol. lxxv., p. 251.) (783.) IN RE AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN MORGAN AND THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. [AUGUST 10TH AND 11TH, 1896.] Lands Clauses Acts-Compensation-Land Let for Public ParkPower to Re-enter if Compulsorily Taken. The claimants demised land to a corporation at a low rent on condition of its being laid out and maintained as a public park. The lease contained a proviso that in case any part of the land should be compulsorily taken under the powers of any Act of Parliament it should be lawful for the claimants to re-enter upon and repossess it. Part of the land having been compulsorily taken by a railway company under the powers of an Act of Parliament : Held, that the claimants were entitled to the commercial value of the land taken as freed from the lease, and not merely to the capitalised value of the rent paid therefor by the corporation.-(L. R. [1896], 2 Q. B., vol. ii., p. 469.) (784.) [QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.] THOMAS v. JENNINGS AND OTHERS. [MARCH 12TH AND AUGUST 12TH.] Tenant's fixtures not removed during the continuance of the tenancy become on its expiration part of the freehold even though they are on the premises by the parole consent of the lessor; and though such consent might give the tenant a right of action for the value of the fixtures against the lessor if he subsequently refused to permit their removal, it will give no such right as against the lessor's mortgagees who were no parties to it, should they refuse. A was tenant of a house and garden for the residue of a term of twenty-one years. Before the expiration of the said term it was agreed verbally with B, A's landlord, that A should be at liberty to leave certain tenant's fixtures annexed to the premises on the chance of their being bought by an incoming tenant, and if not so bought he was to be permitted to remove them. After the expiration of the term and while the tenant's fixtures were still on the premises, C took possession of the house and garden as receiver for certain of B's mortgagees. C refused to permit A to remove the fixtures. Held, that no action lay against C or the mortgagees.-L. T. [1896] Q. B. D., vol. lxxv. p. 274.) (785.) THE VESTRY OF THE PARISH OF ST. MARY, BATTERSEA, APPELLANTS; PALMER AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS. [Nov. 5TH, 1896.] Metropolis-New Street-Road with no Houses thereon-Expenses of Paving -Liability of Owners of Land Abutting on Road-Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 105Metropolis Management (Amendment) Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), ss. 77, 112. The word "street" in Section 105 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, means a street composed wholly or partially of houses on one side or the other, and this meaning of a "street" has not been extended by Sections 77 and 112 of the Metropolis Management Act of 1862, so as to include or bring within the operation of Section 105 of the earlier Act, or Section 77 of the later Act, a road with no buildings thereon. The local authority paved a road 200 yards long which was a highway, and which was formed and laid out as a road since the passing of the Metropolis Management Act, 1862, but which had only two houses thereon, and the authority sought to charge the owner of two plots of land abutting on the road with a proportion of the expenses. Held, that the road was not a "new street" within Section 105 of the Act of 1855 or Section 77 of the Act of 1862, and that the owner of the land was not liable for paving expenses.-(L. T. [1896], Q. B. D., vol. lxxv., p. 362.) (786.) THE VESTRY OF ST. MARTIN-IN-THE-FIELDS v. WARD. [NOVEMBER 14TH, 1896.] Metropolis-New Drainage System-Discontinuance of Old Sewer-Insufficiency of Drain into Old Sewer-New Drain into New SewerExpenses-Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), ss. 69 and 73. Where a new system for the drainage of a district which is being carried out by a metropolitan vestry under Section 69 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, involves the discontinuance of an old sewer, and therefore also of a house drain connected with it, the vestry cannot recover from the owner of the house, under Section 73, the expense of making an entirely new house drain into a sewer of the new system, although the house drain connected with the old sewer may not be "a sufficient drain" within Section 73. This was an appeal from a judgment of Wills, J. at the trial of the action without a jury. The action was brought to recover £167, being the costs incurred by the vestry of St. Martin-in-the-Fields in constructing a drain and works to No. 19, Buckingham Street, Strand, of which the defendant was the owner within the meaning of the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 and 1862, and in connecting the said drain with a sewer within 100 feet of the house. St. Martin's-in-the-Fields is one of the parishes mentioned in Schedule A to this Act. In 1893 the vestry of the parish directed their surveyor to survey the drainage of the area in which Buckingham Street, Strand, is situated. The surveyor made a report and recommended a new system of drainage for the district. On the 3rd Oct., 1893, the vestry passed a resolution "that the surveyor's report and plans for the drainage of the area be adopted, and that occupiers be relieved from any extra cost incurred in consequence of the alteration of the public sewers." Under this resolution a new sewer was made running down the middle of Buckingham Street in front of the defendant's house, and the vestry then served a notice in writing on him, requiring him to construct from his house into the new sewer a drain adequate for the drainage of his house. The defendant's house was at that time drained by an old pipe drain, six inches in diameter, which was connected with an ancient sewer running along at the back of his house. According to the evidence given at the trial of the action by the vestry's surveyor, this pipe drain had no fall, and no ventilation, was leaking in the joints, and in his opinion was wrong everywhere so that it could not be repaired but needed entire reconstruction. The defendant failed to comply with the notice requiring him to make a drain from his house into the new sewer, and the vestry then proceeded to carry out the works, at an expense of £167, which they now sought to recover from him. At the trial of the action before Wills, J. without a jury the learned judge held that the vestry was not entitled to recover the costs of making the drain, and accordingly gave judgment for the defendant. The vestry appealed. Lord ESHER, M.R. In this case the vestry, in pursuance of their statutory powers, have made a new sewer for the drainage of the district in which the defendant's house is situated. This new sewer they have made in front of the defendant's house in a spot where hitherto there has been no sewer at all, and, contrary to his will, they have made a drain from his house in connection with the new sewer. The drain is absolutely new, and differs in position, direction, and in every respect from the drain which formerly drained the defendant's house. The question now is whether the vestry is entitled under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, to recover from the defendant, as owner of the house, the expenses of making this new drain. Two sections of that Act have been referred to, which give to a metropolitan vestry power to act in certain ways under two different sets of circumstances. In a case where the drain of a house communicating |