Tramways-continued. provided by section 43 of the Act of 1875 without regard to the fact that the property was suitable to and used for the leased lines. The case was carried to the Court of Appeal, and in that court an arrangement was come to by which the tramways company kept the depôts inside the city of Manchester upon the leased lines and the rest were taken over by the purchasing authorities. Manchester Carriage and Tramways Co. v. Manchester Corporation (C. A., 4 May, 1903), 19 T. L. R. 439. Purchase by Local Authority-Expiration of Notice- Dispute as to Basis of Purchase-Possession of Tramway-Tramways Act, 1870, s. 43. An injunction was granted to restrain a local authority from taking possession of tramways under a notice to purchase the time for which had expired, where the purchase money for the tramways agreed to be sold had not been paid and an appeal was pending against a decision of the King's Bench Division as to the extent of the undertaking which had to be purchased. Manchester Carriage and Tramways Co. v. Manchester Corporation and Stretford Urban District Council (Ch. D., 12 Dec., 1902), 87 L. T. 678; 67 J. P. 17. Transfer of Areas: Addition to Parish of Area in Another Union—Alteration of Union Area-Effect of Order-Local Government Act, 1888, s. 57. Part of the area of a parish in the Poor Law Union of B was by an order under section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41) made by a county council and confirmed by the Local Government Board transferred to another parish of S in the Poor Law Union of W, but the order made no reference to union boundaries. Held that a union consists of parishes, and that under the operation of the order the whole of the parish of S, including the added part, was in the Poor Law Union of W. Bootle Guardians. v. Whitehaven Guardians (Ch. D., 8 May, 1903), [1903] 2 Ch. 142; 72 L. J. Ch. 582; 89 L. T. 237; 51 W. R. 550; 67 J. P. 325; 1 L. G. R. 585; 19 T. L. R. 453. Creation of Urban District-Subtraction of Parish from Rural Where a rural parish was by an order of a county council under section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), constituted an urban district, and the contributions of that parish to the rural district had exceeded, on account of highway expenses, the RE expenditure incurred by the council in the repair of the highways in the parish, held that the loss to the rural district council caused by reason of the subtraction of that parish from their district constituted a matter for adjustment under section 62 of the Act of 1888. ROCHDALE UNION AND HASLINGDEN UNION ([1899] 1 Q. B. 540) ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 531 followed. Re Godstone Rural District Council and Caterham Urban District Council (C. A., 27 Feb., 1903), [1903 1 K. B. 554; 72 L. J. Q. B. 279; 88 L. T. 414; 51 W. R. 353; J. P. 116; 1 L. G. R, 311; 19 T. L. R. 290. Transfer of Officers: Abolition of Office of Transferred Officer-Damages in Lieu of A metropolitan borough council, on succeeding to a vestry, abolished in pursuance of the power conferred upon them by section 30 of the London Government Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 14) the office of a transferred officer who under his contract with the vestry had been entitled to three months notice of the termination of his engagement. Held that on abolition of office he had no right of action for damages in lieu of notice but was only entitled to compensation for his pecuniary loss by abolition of office under section 120 of the Local Government Act, 1886 (51 & 52 Vict., c. 41) as applied by the operation of subsection (2) of section 30 of the Act of 1899. Clarke v. Lewisham Borough Council (K. B. D., 14 Nov., 1902), 67 J. P. 195; 1 L. G. R. 63; 19 T. L. R. 62. Unwholesome Meat: Warranty of Vendor-Seizure and Conviction-Liability for Costs of Proceedings and Fine-Public Health (London) Act, 1891, s. 47. Wholesale dealers sold to a retailer 4,400 "sound tins" of tinned mackerel on condition that he should export them. He exported some but the rest were seized and destroyed at the instance of the local authority under section 47 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76), and he was fined £20 by the magistrate. Held that the buyer was entitled to recover from the vendors the value of the destroyed goods and also the costs of the proceedings but not any portion of the fine in the absence of evidence to show what influenced the magistrate in imposing a heavy fine. Crage v. Fry and another (K. B. D., 7 Feb., 1903), 67 J. P. 240; I L. G. R. 253. Urinals-see "Nuisances" Vaccination : Neglect of Parent-Medical Certificate-Evidence of Excuse— Appellant was summoned for that he did within six months after the birth of his child neglect to have the child, which at the time of the summons was eleven months old, vaccinated, contrary to section 29 of the Vaccination Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 84). A medical certificate was given the day before the hearing of the summons that it would be unsafe to vaccinate the child at present. Held that the certificate, as it showed no excuse for the greater part of the time, was no defence. Hinds v. Elsam (K. B. D., 25 May, 1903), 88 L. T. 867; 67 J. P. 328. Water:-see also "Compulsory Acquisition of Land." Waterworks-Obligation to Supply Water for Purposes of Mills Under a local Act a Corporation were required as compensation for the appropriation of certain streams and waters to cause to flow daily from a reservoir a certain quantity of water into a specified dike and to construct and maintain suitable necessary gauges open to the inspection of the owners and occupiers of mills, works and navigations interested therein. In case of neglect on the part of the corporation to maintain any such gauge in a state of efficiency and in case of any other neglect by or in consequence of which the quantity of water from the reservoir did not so flow, the corporation were made liable for every day on which the neglect occurred to forfeit and pay to the occupier of each of the mills and works affected thereby (who may sue for and recover the same) the sum of £5 and in addition to make compensation for any loss, damage or injury sustained by such occupiers, or any of them, in respect of which such penalties are an insufficient compensation. The waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 17) was incorporated in the local Act. For some months the proper quantity of water did not flow, not on account of any deficiency of water in the reservoir but because the pipe through which the water was discharged had in the lapse of time become obstructed and the corporation had taken no steps to find out or remove the obstruction. Held that the corporation were under an obligation to exercise a high degree of care and to take reasonable means to maintain their works in an efficient condition and that in case of neglect they were liable to pay £5 a day to the occupier of each mill and works affected by the neglect. Beaumont v. Huddersfield Corporation (C. A., 5 Dec., 1903), 67 J. P. 57 ; 1 L. G. R. 118; 19 T. L. R. 97. Neglect of Obligation to Supply Water for Purposes of Mills- With respect to the mode of recovering penalties referred to in the previous case, held that the remedy being in the nature of compensation and not of punishment, an action could be maintained in the High Court for penalties under the local act notwithstanding that the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 17) was incorporated and section 85 of the latter Act incorporated sections of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18) under which penalties were recoverable by summary proceedings before two justices. Meltham Spinning Co., Ltd. v. Huddersfield Corporation (C. A., 11 Aug., 1903), 89 L. T. 403 ; 67 J. P. 445. Supply to Water-closet-Charge Where no Supply-Local Act. Under the South Essex Waterworks Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. cxxxvii.), a supply of water for domestic purposes includes a supply for one water-closet (s. 32) and the company may charge in any one year in respect of every water-closet beyond the first in or belonging to any private dwelling-house the sum of 5s. (s. 33). Held that under these enactments it was intended that a water-closet to be charged must have water laid on and that therefore a charge could not be made in pursuance of section 33 in the case of a closet, to which, although it would require flushing when used, no water supply had been laid on. Roberts v. South Essex Waterworks Co. (K. B. D., 3 July, 1903), 67 J. P. 404; 1 L. G. R. 719. Agreement for Supply of Water-Recovery of Charges-Limitation of Period for Proceedings- Public Health Act, 1875, s. 256; Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, s. II. Section 256 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), which provides that "if any person assessed to any rate made under this Act by any urban authority fails to pay the same when due and for the space of 14 days after the same has been demanded in writing " he may be summoned before a court of summary jurisdiction, applies to a person who has entered into an agreement with a local authority for a supply of water by the authority; and the 6 months limited by section II of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 43) as the period within which proceedings may be taken runs from the time of making the demand in writing under section 256 of the Act of 1875. Elliott v. Russell (K. B. D., 28 Oct, 1902), [1902] 2 K. B. 748; 72 L. J. K. B. 15; 88 L. T. 204; 51 W. R. 269;. 67 J. P. 158; 19 T. L. R. 5. |