Highway Rate-Exemption-Liability to Repair ratione tenuræ The liability of the owner of land to repair a particular highway is not of itself a ground for assuming that he is exempt from contributing in respect of that land to the repair of the highways generally. Whether an owner liable to repair ratione tenure is exempt from payment of highway rates is a matter of evidence. Non-payment of rates or other circumstances giving rise to the exemption must be proved. Ferrand v. Bingley Urban District Council (K. B. D., 2 July, 1903), [1903] 2 K. B. 445; 72 L. J. K. B. 734; 89 L. T. 333; 52 W. R. 77; 67 J. P. 370; 1 L. G. R. 845; 19 T. L. R. 592. General rate-Amalgamation of Rates-Liability of Promoters of Section 10 (2) of the London Government Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict., c. 14) provides that the general rate and the poor rate shall be assessed, made, and levied together as one rate, which shall be termed the general rate, and shall be assessed, made, collected and levied, as if it were the poor rate, and all enactments applying or referring to the poor rate shall be construed as applying or referring also to the general rate. Held that the words in the section "enactments applying or referring to the poor rate" meant enactments by way of machinery as regards assessment, &c. ; that section 133 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18) under which promoters of undertakings to which the section applies are liable to make good the deficiency in the assessment for the poor rate, whilst their undertakings are in progress could not be described as an enactment applying to the poor rate; and that promoters were therefore liable to make up not the whole of the deficiency in the general rate but the deficiency in that part only of the general rate which represented the poor rate or was chargeable as poor rate. FARMER 7. LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (1888) (20 Q. B. D. 788) distinguished. Decision of King's Bench Division' ([1902] 2 K. B. 701) affirmed. Islington Borough Council v. London School Board (C. A., 1 July, 1903), [1903] 2 K. B. 354; 72 L. J. K. B. 677; 89 L. T. 53; 52 W. R. 115; 68 J. P. 35; 1 L. G. R. 704; 19 T. L. R. 589. Rates and Rating:--(3) Recovery. General District Rate-Local Act-Levied as Poor RatePublication-Validity of Rate-Derby Corporation Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. cclxvii.); Poor Rate Act, 1743, §. I. * See Law and Legislation, 1902, p. 184. Rates and Rating: (3) Recovery-continued. It was provided by a local Act that a corporation might instead of levying a general district rate order that it should be made, assessed and levied in the same manner as a borough rate, and that if any such order was made the rate should be made, assessed and levied by the overseers in the same manner and under the same provisions (including the provisions as to rating of owners instead of occupier's compositions and appeals) as in the case of the poor rate, but subject to the exemptions applicable to the general district rate, and that the rate might be assessed and levied either separately or together with the poor rate and that the overseers could recover and enforce the poor rate in the same manner as a general district rate. A rate was made under the provision to comprise both poor rate and general district rate. It was not published in accordance with section of the Poor Rate Act, 1743 (17 Geo. 2, c. 3). Held that the rate being required to "be made, assessed and levied in the same manner and under the same provisions as in the case of the poor rate was put exactly on the same footing as a poor rate, and that it was a good defence against a summons for an unpaid amount of the rate that it had not been published as required by section 1 of the Poor Rate Act, 1843. REX 7. NEWCOMB (1791) (4 T. R. 368) followed. LE FEUVRE 7. MILLER (1857) (8 E. & B. 321; 26 L. J. M. C. 175; 29 L. T. (0.S.) 344) distinguished. Beeson v. Derby Overseers (K. B. D., 19 May, 1903), 89 L. T. 47; 67 J. P. 282: 1 L. G. R. 624. Rivers--see "Pollution of Rivers.” Sale of Food and Drugs Acts: * * Brandy-Strength- Certificate of Analyst- Sufficiency-Sale of A public analyst, to whom a sample of brandy had, for the purposes of section 5 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 30), been sent for analysis, on his certificate stated "I am of opinion that the said sample contained the parts as under, or the percentage of foreign ingredients as under; it has been reduced from 25 degrees under proof to 27.6 degrees under proof." Held that the certificate was sufficient. Findley v. Haas (K. B. D., 25 March, 1903), 88 L. T. 465; 67 J. P. 198; 1 L. G. R. 377; 19 T. L. R. 353. Compounded Drug-British Pharmacopeia-Commercial Standard-Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, s. 6. The standard for a compounded drug prescribed by the British Pharmacopoeia is not necessarily conclusive, and therefore where at person is charged under section 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63) for selling & drug which is not of the nature, substance and quality of the article demanded by the purchaser, he is entitled to produce evidence that there is a commercial standard for the drug different from that prescribed by the British Pharmacopoeia. DICKENS 7. RANDERSON ([1901] 1 K. B. 437 70 L. J. K. B. 344) considered. Boot's Cash Chemists (Southern), Ltd. v. Cowling (K. B. D., 26 March, 1903), 88 L. T. 539: 67 J. P. 195; 1 L. G. R. 884; 19 T. L. R. 370. Compounded Drug-Vinegar of Squills--Liability to Decomposi tion-Evidence-Contents of Analyst's Certificate--Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, ss. 6, 17, sched. The British Pharmacopoeia does not prescribe the quantity of acetic acid which should be present in the compounded drug vinegar of squills, but prescribes the mode of preparation and the proportion of the constituents. It also defines one of the constituents, namely, dilute acetic acid, so that 4-2 per cent. of acetic acid is originally brought in as an ingredient. A sample of vinegar of squills bought for analysis was certified by the public analyst as containing only 2.5 per cent. of acetic acid, but he made no report whether any change had taken place in the constitution of the article that would interfere with the analysis. It was proved that the deficiency in acetic acid might have been caused by the decomposition of the drug, but the decomposition does not affect the analysis in the same way as the decomposition of milk or butter does. It was also shown that the diminution of the acetic acid did not affect the utility of the drug. Held that there was no material evidence that the article was not of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the purchaser contrary to section 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63). Semble the certificate of the analyst in the case of a drug liable to decomposition must in accordance with the note in the schedule to the Act of 1875 contain a report as to whether any change has taken place in the constitution of the article which would interfere with the analysis. Per Channell, J., the words "interfere with the analysis" mean prevent the analysis being effective for the purpose for which it is intended, that is to say, of showing what the constitution of the article was at the time of sale. Hudson v. Bridge (K. B. D., 26 March, 1903), 88 L. T. 550; 67 J. P. 186; 1 L. G. R. 400; 19 T. L. R. 369. Milk-Sample Procured Outside Inspector's District-Sale of An inspector of nuisances cannot, in the exercise of his power under section 3 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 30), to procure at the place of delivery a sample of any milk in course of delivery to the purchaser or consignee in pursuance of any contract of sale, take any such sample at a place of delivery not within the district for which he is appointed. Sale of Food and Drugs Acts-continued. McNair v. Cave (K. B. D., 29 Oct., 1903), [1903] 1 K. B. 24 72 L. J. K. B. 26; 87 L. T. 680; 51 W. R. 112: 67 J. P. 50; 1 L. G. R. 28; 19 T. L. R. 6. Milk-Warranty of Wholesale Dealer Responsibility after Wholesale milk dealers entered into a written contract to sell to a retailer "but without accepting any responsibility after delivery" a certain quantity of pure milk every day for a specified period. Held that the stipulation as to a responsibility after delivery did not prevent the retailer who sold the milk in the same state as he received it from being entitled under this warranty to be discharged from the prosecution as provided by section 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 63). Wilson v. Playle (K. B. D., 3 April, 1903), 88 L. T. 554; 67 J. P. 263; 1 L. G. R. 870. Summons-Service-Day of Return--Sale of Food and Drugs It is provided by section 19 (2) of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1889 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 51) that in any prosecution under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts the summons shall not be made returnable in less time than fourteen days from the day on which it is served." Held there must be 14 whole days between the day of service of the summons and the day of return. McQueen v. Jackson (K. B. D., 27 May, 1903), [1903] 2 K. B. 163; 72 L. J. K. B. 606; 88 L. T. 871; 67 J. P. 353; 1 L. G. R. 601. Sewers and Drains :—see also “Nuisances,"" Pollution of Rivers Single Private Drain-Nuisance-Alteration or Amendment— Application of Statutory Provisions-Public Health Act, 1875, S. 41; Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, s. 19. Section 41 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), under which where on complaint of nuisance a drain is found to be in bad condition or to require alteration or amendment, the sanitary authority may require the owner to do the necessary works, applies to all cases including single private drains within the meaning of section 19 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 59)—where a drain is a nuisance or injurious to health. Southwold Corporation v. Crowdy (K. B. D., 29 April, 1903), 67 J. P. 278; 1 L. G. R. 899. "Drain' “One Building only"—Semi-detached Houses-Public Health Act, 1875, s. 4. By the definition in section 4 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), "Drain' means any drain of and used for the drainage of one building only." No general rule can be laid down as to whether a pair of semi-detached houses are one building only" within the meaning of the above definition or not, even though they were built at the same time and be under one continuous roof. It is in each case a question of fact. Humphery v. Young (K. B. D., 3 Nov. 1903), [1903] 1 K. B. 44; 72 L. J. K. B. 6 ; 87 L. T. 551; 51 W. R. 298; 67 J. P. 34; I L. G. R. 142; 19 T. L. R. 20. Drain Receiving Drainage from more than One Building A drain used for the drainage of two adjoining houses, not being a drain for the drainage of a block of houses by a combined operation under the order of a vestry or district board, held to be a "sewer" within the definition in section 250 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict., c. 120), although from one of the houses it carried away rain water only. Silles v. Fulham Borough Council (C. A., 7 April, 1903), [1903] 1 K. B. 829; 72 L. J. K. B. 397; 88 L. T. 753; 51 W. R. 598; 67 J. P. 273; 1 L. G. R. 643; 19 T. L. R. 398. Notice by Sanitary Inspector of Defective Drain---Repair by Notice was served by the sanitary inspector upon the plaintiff to the effect that certain drains upon the premises were in a defective condition. He thereupon had them put into proper condition. It was afterwards discovered that the repairs required to be done were work upon a sewer which it was the duty of the sanitary authority to maintain. In an action by the plaintiff to recover from the sanitary authority the expenses incurred, held that the expenses were recoverable as the work was done under compulsion. Decision of King's Bench Division1 (18 T. L. R. 505) reversed. It was, however, said by Vaughan Williams, L. J., in the course of the argument in SILLES V. FULHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (see above) that the Court of Appeal gave no decision and that what was done was by consent of the parties. Proctor v. Islington Borough Council (C. A., 18 March, 1903), 67 J. P. 164; 1 L. G. R. 652. Sewer-Notice to Connect with Sewer in Neighbouring District— Objections-Declaration of Right to Connect--Public Health Act, 1875, s. 22. The owner of an estate intended to be laid out for building gave 1 See Law and Legislation, 1902, p. 193. |