DIGEST OF CASES IN THE COURTS DECIDED AND REPORTED IN THE YEAR ENDING 30th SEPTEMBER, 1903. Acquisition of Land-see" Compulsory Acquisition of Land." Act of Parliament : Repeal of Enactment - Re-enactment with Modification - Meaning of Modification-Interpretation Act, 1889, s. 38. Section 38 (1) of the Interpretation Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63) enacts that "Where this Act or any Act passed after the commencement of this Act repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, any provisions of a former Act, references in any other Act to the provisions so repealed shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as references to the provisions so re-enacted.” Held that " modification" in this enactment is not to be limited to alterations which narrow repealed provisions, but includes alterations which take the direction of an extension of repealed provisions. Stevens v. General Steam Navigation Co. (C. A., 23 April, 1903), [1903] 1 K. B. 890; 72 L. J. K. B. 417 ; 88 L. T. 542; 51 W. R. 578; 19 T. L. R. 418. Adjustment of Liabilities-see "Transfer of Areas." Adulteration-see "Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893,"" Sale of Food and Drugs." 66 Arbitration: see also Compulsory Acquisition of Land," Factories." Lands Compulsorily Taken-Compensation -Arbitrator's Fee. An arbitrator appointed by a district council to value lands compulsorily taken, charged on the amount of his award a scale fee of 2 per cent. which exceeded 5 58. Held that a scale fee for such a service was quite unknown; and he could not be allowed more than £5 55. Re Frank James & Sons, solicitors (Ch. D., 13 May, 1903), 115 Law Times Newspaper, p. 83. Audit of Accounts: Deposit of Accounts for Inspection-Disqualified Councillor"Person Interested"-Public Health Act, 1875, s. 247 (4). A member of an urban district council who had become disqualified, by reason of bankruptcy, to be a member of the council during the Audit of Accounts-continued. period for which the accounts of the council were about to be audited held, notwithstanding his bankruptcy, to be a "person interested" within the meaning of section 247 (4) of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55) and therefore entitled under that provision to inspect the accounts when deposited prior to audit. Marginson v. Tildsley (K. B. D., 27 March, 1903), 67 J. P. 226; I L. G R. 333. Bread : Sale by Weight-Exact Weight not Mentioned-London Bread Section 4 of the London Bread Act, 1822 (3 Geo. 4, c. cvi.) requires all bread to be sold "by weight." A baker issued a notice to his customers that "As it is impossible to prevent the loaves varying, and we are obliged by law to sell bread by weight, we sell each loaf as weighing 13 lbs. only, our price for which is 24d." He weighed all his loaves, and those which were over 12 lbs. he passed for sale, but did not ascertain the weight of any particular loaf. Held, that he had not contravened the Act. Bridge v. Passman (K. B. D., 6 April, 1903), 47 Solicitors' Journal, p. 420. Bridge-see also" Tolls." Erection before 1803-Repair-Liability of County Council — Where a bridge carrying a public highway was built before the County Bridges Act, 1803 (43 Geo. 3, c. 59), the county council are liable to repair the bridge unless they can cast the liability on others. Attorney-General at the relation of the Doncaster Rural District Council v. West Riding of Yorkshire County Council (Ch. D., 29 Jan., 1903), 67 J. P. 173; 1 L. G. R. 223; 19 T. L. R. 192. Buildings-see also "Byelaws," "Hospitals," "Streets :-Building Line." Double Tenement House-" More than One House "—Meaning of "House." A site was sold subject to the restriction that not more than one house was to be erected on it. Held that a building comprising two tenements structurally separated on different floors, with no internal communication, or common front door, constituted two distinct houses. GRANT V. LANGSTON, ([1900] A. C. 383, 399), followed. KIMBER V. ADMANS, ([1900] I Ch. 412), distinguished. Ilford Park Estates, Ltd. v. Jacobs (Ch. D., 25 June, 1903), [1903] 2 Ch. 522; 72 L. J. Ch. 699; 19 T. L. R. 574. Front or External Wall-Taking Down to be Rebuilt or Repaired A section of a Local Act provided that when a front or external wall of a building in a line of houses or other buildings in a street should "be taken down to be rebuilt or repaired," it was to be rebuilt in compliance with certain conditions. A workman who was employed to alter a window took out without instructions a stone sill which he replaced with brickwork. Held that as the stone sill was never intended to be taken out but was taken out by mistake the section did not apply. Yabbicome v. Bristol Brewery Co. (K.B.D., 2 April, 1903), 67 J. P. 261; 1 L. G. R. 477. Burial Ground-see "Closed Burial Ground." House Let in Lodgings-Ordinary Six-Roomed House-Not An ordinary six-roomed house not specially constructed to be let in separate tenements had a common staircase and a common front door which was always kept open. The landlord or any representative of the landlord did not reside in the house. On each floor were two rooms which were let to and occupied by a separate family. The magistrate decided on the facts that the house was let in lodgings within the meaning of byelaws under section 94 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76). Held that on the facts found the magistrate was right. Kyffin v. Simmons (K.B.D., 27 March, 1903), 67 J. P. 227; 1 L. G. R. 381. New Buildings-Exemption of Crown-Public Health Act, 1875, In the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55) there is no express mention of the Crown so as to bind the Crown; and there is certainly no necessary implication that the Crown itself is to be bound. In the absence of express words the Crown is not to be bound, nor is the property of the Crown to be affected except by necessary implication. The saving with regard to some portion of the rights of the Crown in section 327 of the Act was put in simply ex abundanti cautela. Held therefore that byelaws made by a local board with respect to new buildings did not apply to houses built by the Prison Commissioners on property vested in the Secretary of State or the Commissioners in connection with a prison and intended for and used as officers' quarters for the use of the prison, Gorton Local Board of Health v. Prison Commissioners (K. B. D., 17 June, 1887), 89 L. T. (Note) 478; 68 J. P. 27; 52 W. R. (Note) 233; 73 L. J. K. B. (Note) 113; 1 L. G. R. (Note) 838. Byelaws-continued. New Buildings-No Deposit of Plans-Pulling down work in Contravention of Byelaws-Completion of Building — Limitation of Time-Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 157, 158. The powers given by section 157 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55) to enact in byelaws as to new buildings made under the section provisions as to their power to remove, alter or pull down any work begun or done in contravention of such byelaws are not confined to cases which come within the requirements of section 158 and such may be exercised where no plan of a new building has been deposited. An order under such a provision to pull down work done in contravention of the byelaws was held to be valid although made after the expiration of six months from the date of the completion of the new building. Fairbrass v. Canterbury Corporation (K. B. D., 27 Oct., 1902), 67 J. P. 181 ; 1 L. G. R. 181. New Buildings -Approval of Plans-Subsequent Repeal and Reenactment of Byelaws- Lapse of Approval --Harrogate Corporation Act, 1893, s. 27. Section 27 of the Harrogate Corporation Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. ccix.), provides that the deposit after the passing of the Act with the corporation of any plans of any street or building should be null and void if the execution of the work specified in such plan be not commenced within three years from the date of such deposit. A builder deposited in 1894 under byelaws then in force plans on which were shown eleven dwelling-houses and other buildings and the plans were approved by the corporation. A certain number of the buildings were erected and certified as fit for occupation. In 1951 new byelaws were made and the existing ones repealed "except as regards any work commenced before the date of the confirmation of this byelaw, or of any work not so commenced but of which plans shall either have been approved by the council before such date or have been sent to the surveyor of the council one month at least before such date and shall not have been disapproved by the council." Some of the buildings shown on the plans deposited in 1894 were not commenced until after the confirmation of the new byelaws. Held that to such buildings the new byelaws applied and that the deposit of plans in 1894 had so far as those buildings were concerned became null and void under the provisions of the local Act; as where a plan included more than one house it was to be regarded as a number of plans for a number of houses included merely for convenience on one sheet of paper. Harrogate Corporation v. Dickinson' (K. B. D., 21 Feb., 1903), 88 L. T. 299; 67 J. P. 100; 1 L. G. R. 275. 1 Affirmed (C. A., 22 Jan., 1904), 106 Law Times Newspaper (Note) p. 297. |