New Buildings -Approval of Plan Showing Several Houses- Byelaws as to new buildings made under section 157 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55) contained a clause repealing byelaws previously in force "except as regards any work commenced before the date of the confirmation of this byelaw." A plan showing several houses in a terrace was approved before the new byelaws were confirmed and some of the houses were begun to be constructed before such confirmation. Held that the repeal clause was not ultra vires and that the justices were right in deciding that in the case of those houses of which the construction had not been begun before the byelaw was confirmed, the execption as to "work commenced" did not apply and the new byelaws must be complied with. White v. Sunderland Corporation (K. B. D., 21 April, 1903), 88 L. T. 592; 67 J. P. 199; 1 L. G. R. 483. New Buildings--Reasonableness- Dispensing Power Excep tional Cases-Powers of Justices -Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 16. A byelaw made by a rural sanitary authority requiring all new buildings to be constructed of good bricks, stone, or other hard and incombustible materials properly bonded and solidly put together was held not to be unreasonable because it did not contain a dispensing power enabling the authority or their officers to exercise their discretion under exceptional circumstances. Where proceedings are taken, the justices have power under section 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49) to deal with exceptional cases by inflicting a nominal penalty or by dismissing the information. Salt v. Scott Hall (K. B. D., 25 May, 1903), [1903] 2 K. B. 245; 72 L. J. K. B. 627; 88 L. T. 868; 52 W. R. 95; 67 J. P. 306; 1 L. G. R. 753; 19 T. L. R. 518. New Buildings--Reasonableness-Dispensing Power-Trivial s. 16. A byelaw cannot be held to be unreasonable because its application inflicts hardship in a particular case and it contains no provision under which the local authority can dispense with its application. The justices may consider whether the case is one for the exercise of their powers under section 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49) to dismiss the information. A person who has been convicted of erecting a new building in contravention of byelaws cannot properly be convicted of a continuing offence unless it is shown that he continues to have control over the building. Pomeroy v. Malvern Urban District Council (K. B. D., 6 July, 1903). 89 L. T. 555; 67 J. P. 375; 1 L. G. R. 825; 19 T. L. R. 597. Byelaws-continued. New Street-Contravention of Byelaw-Injunction-Public Health Act, 1875, ss. 157, 183. A new street was being laid out of a less width than was prescribed by byelaws made by a local authority in pursuance of section 157 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55) and enforceable under the Act by penalties at the instance of the authority. Held that notwithstanding the statutory remedy the local authority with the Attorney-General joined as plaintiff could maintain an action for an injunction to restrain the street being laid out in contravention of the byelaws. Attorney-General v. Ashborne Recrea tion Ground Co., Ltd., and Smith (Ch. D., 6 Nov., 1902), [1903] I Ch. 101; 72 L. J. Ch. 67; 87 L. T. 561; 51 W. R. 125; 67 J. P. 73; 1 L. G. R. 146; 19 T. L. R. 39. New Streets and Buildings-Erection of Houses alongside Highway-Laying out New Street-Remedies for Breach of ByelawsInjunction-Public Health Act, 1875, s. 157. The defendants owned a triangular piece of ground abutting on two highways. They erected houses on the ground and made openings in their boundary fence to communicate with the highways, but they did not do anything outside their own land. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were laying out new streets within the meaning of the byelaws in force relating to new streets and buildings, and claimed an injunction to restrain the defendants from erecting any buildings and laying out any new streets without submitting plans and without laying out the street of the width prescribed by the byelaws, or a declaration that they were entitled to remove, alter, pull down, or otherwise deal with any works begun or done in contravention of the byelaws. The byelaws were enforceable by penalties, and under them the plaintiffs could remove, alter, &c., any works done in contravention of the byelaws. Held that (1) the defendants were not laying out new streets; (2) an action for an injunction could not be maintained by the plaintiffs without the AttorneyGeneral and a declaration ought not to be made. ATTORNEYGENERAL v. AshBORNE RECREATION GROUND ([1903] 1 Ch. 101) (see above) approved. Decision of Chancery Division' ([1902] 2 Ch. 182) affirmed. Devonport Corporation v. Tozer (C. A., 18 Feb., 1903), [1903] I Ch. 759; 72 L. J. Ch. 411; 88 L. T. 113; 52 W. R. 6; 67 J. P. 269; 1 L. G. R. 421; 19 T. L. R. 257. New Streets-Alternative Offences-Convictions-Uncertainty- A person was convicted for contravening a byelaw in respect of the laying out or construction of certain streets. Held that, as there must be one conviction for one offence, the conviction, being for "laying out" or "constructing," was bad for uncertainty. Rex v. Slater; ex parte Bowler (K. B. D., 18 May, 1903), 67 J. P. 299. Closed Burial Ground: Faculty for Vestry and Parochial Hall-Restriction to Ecclesiastical and Charitable Purposes-Enlargement to ChurchDisused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, s. 3. A faculty was granted authorizing the erection on a disused burial ground of buildings with doors opening into a church-namely, a clergy and a choir vestry on the east side of the church and a parochial hall with lavatories and a kitchen abutting on the end of the chancel to be used as a vestry room and for ecclesiastical and charitable purposes, but not for secular purposes. Held that the faculty authorised an infringement of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 72), in so far as it sanctioned the erection of the parish hall and the lavatories and the kitchen connected with it, and was to that extent a nullity; that section 3 did not extend to render lawful the erection of buildings which, though under the same roof as the church and in physical communication with it, were intended to be used for ecclesiastical and parochial purposes for which the church itself would not be usually used, and that so far as that section related to churches it only permitted buildings in physical communication which enlarged the church for the main and primary purpose of religious worship. Decision of Consistory Court of London' (18 T. L. R. 789) reversed. London County Council v Dundas (Arches Ct. of Canterbury, 5 Aug., 1903), 19 T. L. R. 670. School and Playground Part of Churchyard - Faculty for The site of a parish school and playground formed part of a disused burial ground. It had been appropriated for the purpose many years before 1884, and was fenced off from the rest of the burial ground. To comply with the requirements of the Board of Educa tion it was proposed to rebuild and enlarge the school and a faculty was prayed for that a portion of the playground might be utilised for the enlargement. Held, following LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL v. DUNDAS (see above), that in view of section 3 of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. 72), a faculty for the purpose ought not to be issued. Re St. Sepulchre, Holborn Viaduct (Consist. Ct. of London, 17 Aug., 1903), 19 T. L. R. 723. See Law and Legislation, 1902, p. 157. Closed Burial Ground-continued. "Open Space"-Right of Adjacent Landowner to Light---Extent of Powers of Local Authority--Joinder of Attorney-GeneralMetropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1877, s. 1; Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1881, ss. 4, 5; Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, S. 3. A borough council, in whom, under the Metropolitan Open SpacesActs, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 35) and 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 34), and the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 72), the management and control of a disused churchyard as an open spacewere vested, threatened to erect on the ground a screen for the purpose of preventing an adjoining landowner, who had built on his land houses which overlooked the churchyard, from acquiring any rights of light or air which would interfere with the enjoyment by the public of the churchyard as an open space. In an action by the AttorneyGeneral at the relation of the landowner, and by the landowner, to restrain the erection of the screen, held, that in erecting the screen the council would be holding and administering the ground for a purpose other than its enjoyment by the public in an open condition authorised by the statutory provisions, and that the council must be restrained from erecting the screen. Semble, that the landowner could not have maintained the action in the absence of the AttorneyGeneral. Decision of Chancery Division (1903] I Ch. 109) reversed. Boyce v. Paddington Borough Council and Abbott (C. A., 25 July, 1903), [1903] 2 Ch. 556; 72 L. J. Ch. 695: 89 L. T. 383; 52 W. R. 114; 68 J. P. 49; 1 L. G. R. 696; 19 T. L. R. 648. Closet Accommodation -see" Delegation." Compulsory Acquisition of Land- see also "Arbitration," "Costs." Compensation--Waterworks-Reservoir - Lands Compulsorily taken-Natural Adaptability. In assessing compensation for land compulsorily taken for the purpose of making a water reservoir, the fact may properly be taken into consideration that the land has peculiar natural advantages for the supply of water to a particular district or area, apart from any value created or enhanced by any Act or scheme for appropriating the water to a particular local authority; and it is not necessary to show that the land in question could be similarly used by other specified local authorities. In re Gough and Aspatria, Silloth, and District Joint Water Board (K. B. D., 20 Feb., 1903),' [1903] 1 K. B. 574 = 72 L. J. K. B. 285 ; 88 L. T. 421; 51 W. R. 590; 67 J. P. 137. 1 Affirmed (C.A. 22 Jan., 1904, 20 T. L. R. 179). Compensation-Reservoir-Enhanced Value of Different Parcels of Land by Reason of Contiguity-Liability to Provide School by Reason of Works--Lands Clauses Acts. In determining the value of 3 parcels of lands belonging to different owners compulsorily taken for the purpose of a water reservoir, the arbitrator in respect of a particular parcel had regard to its natural character and position and its proximity to the other parcels and to the probability that if ever there was a demand for the 3 parcels of land for the purpose of one entire reservoir site the owner of each parcel would by reason of the natural character and position of the land rendering its combination with the others necessary, have obtained some enhanced value for the parcel belonging to him, but he considered the extent of the enhancement would not be the same in each case nor ought he to attach the same value per acre to each of the 3 parcels. It was contended that compensation ought also to be allowed in respect of an elementary school which would have to be provided in consequence of the influx of workmen's children whilst the reservoir was being constructed; but this claim the arbitrator decided was not maintainable. Held that the arbitrator was right on both points: the claim in respect of the school was too remote and uncertain. Re an Arbitration between Tynemouth Corporation and the Duke of Northumberland and Others (K. B. D., 18 July, 1903), 89 L. T. 557 67 J. P. 425; 19 T. L. R. 630. Compensation--Tied House-Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. s. 21. In assessing under section 21 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 70), the compensation payable in respect of the interest of brewers as the lessors of a publichouse taken compulsorily in pursuance of the Act, a covenant tying the lessee not to sell any malt liquor not purchased from the lessors must be taken into consideration. In re Chandler's Wiltshire Brewery Company and London County Council (K. B. D., 20 Feb., 1903), [1903] I K. B. 569; 72 L. J. K. B. 250; 88 L. T. 271; 51 W. R. 573: 67 J. P. 119; 1 L. G. R. 269; 19 T. L. R. 268. Compensation-Easement Under City Church-Severance-Basis By the City and South London Railway Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. cevii.), a railway company were empowered to acquire compulsorily an easement or right of using the subsoil under a church, including such part of the crypt and foundations as they might require for their undertaking. Held that in assessing the compensation the arbitrator was bound to take into account the fact that the land might in M |