Gibbs, Plymouth Union v. Glamorganshire Canal v. Merthyr Tydfil Union County Council, Ex parte ... Godstone Rural District Council and Caterham Urban District Council, Re Hills v. Davies... Hoare, Mile End Union v. ... Holbeach Union, West Ham Union v. Hove Corporation v. Brighton Intercepting and Outfall Sewers Board ... 41 833 PAGE. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, West Lancashire Rural District Council v. 788 Lawford v. Billericay Rural District Council 535 Manchester Corporation, Agnew v. South Junction and Altrincham Railway, Stretford Urban District Council v.... 683 Mile End Union v. Hoare 732 857 113 769 777 765 5, 692- ... 282 ... 519 711 173 613 Lancashire Rural District Council v. Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway ... Woodthorpe, Charing Cross and Strand Electric Supply Corporation v. Yabbicome v. Bristol Brewery Young, Humphery v. PAGE. 8 Add:-Note.-This decision was affirmed in the Court of Appeal, post, p. 692. 76 Add to head note :-Mason v Wallasey Local Board (1876) 42 W. R. 246 n. and Pethick v. Plymouth Corporation (1894) 42 W. R. 246, considered. So Add:-Note.-The powers of an urban authority under section 39 of the Public Health Act, 1875, were considered in Mayo v. Seaton Urban District Council, December 9, 10, 1903, of which a report will appear in due course. 105 Add:-Note.—This decision was reversed in the Court of Appeal, post, p. 696. 132 Add:-Note.-This decision was followed by the Court of Appeal in Meltham Spinning Co. v. Huddersfield Corporation, 2 L. G. R. 32. 141 Add to the note :-As to the conversion of a natural watercourse into a sewer, see Pakenham v. Ticehurst Rural District Council, 2 L. G. R. 19. 156 Add to note :-Devonport Corporation v. Tozer in the Court of Appeal is reported, post, p. 421. The Court of Appeal there expressed approval of the judgment of Buckley J. in A.-G. v. Ashbourne Recreation Ground Co. on the preliminary objection. 243 Add:-Note.-See Smith v. Kynnersley, post, p. 393. 268 Add:-Note.-The procedure under the Borough Funds Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 91) has now been altogether altered by the Borough Funds Act, 1903 (3 Edw. VII. c. 14). 281 Add:-Note.-See White v. Sunderland Corporation, post, p. 483. 310 Add to note:-. -Stockdale v. Ascherberg is reported, post, p. 548. Valpy v. St. Leonard's Wharf Co. has since been followed by Wright J. in Harris v. Hickman, 2 L. G. R. 1. See also Re Warriner, Brayshaw v. Ninnis, post, p. 765. 336 Add:-Note.-After the above decision the justices in accordance with the directions of the court convicted the respondent and inflicted a fine. The appellant then again demanded inspection of the accounts in question, but the respondent refused to permit this on the ground that the audit being over the right of inspection had come to an end. The appellant then on November 15, 1903, obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus commanding the respondent to permit the inspection. The rule did not, however, come on for argument in the Michaelmas term. 352 Add:-Note.-The above decision was upheld in the House of Lords on December 15, 1903. A report of the case in the House of Lords will appear in due course. 411 Add to note :-The question of the finality of the standard set up by the British Pharmacopoeia came under consideration in Boots Cash Chemists v. Cowling, post, p. 884. 420 Add:-Note.—This case was taken to the Court of Appeal and there settled : see 2 L. G. R. 31. 444 Add:-Note.-See Silles v. Fulham Borough Council, post, p. 643, and the note thereto. 472 Add:-Note.-This case was followed by Wright J. in Hackney Borough Council v. Lee Conservancy Board, 2 L. G. R. 74. 506 Add:-Note.-This decision was affirmed in the Court of Appeal on Dec. 8, 1903. A report of the case in the Court of Appeal will appear. Add:-Note.--This case was followed in Re Warriner, Brayshaw v. Ninnis, post, p. 765. In Harris v. Hickman, 2 L. G. R. 1, Wright J. distinguished the present case and followed Valpy v. St. Leonard's Wharf Co. 550 593 Add to Note.-West Ham Union v. London County Council, 1902, 1 K. B. 562; 71 L. J. K. B. 299, was affirmed in the House of Lords on Dec. 17, 1903. A report of the case in the House of Lords will appear in due course. 653 Add to Note.-The question of the "compulsion " put on an owner by pressure from the officers of a local authority to execute sanitary works was considered by Wright J. in Harris v. Hickman, 2 L. G. R. 1. |