lant, who was duly authorised by the Board of Trade in that behalf, against the respondent, Henry Howden, an accountant of Liverpool.

The first information charged that the respondent, on the 12th May 1896, at Liverpool,

Did unlawfully act as a passage broker by being concerned in the sale of a steerage passage for one Ernest William Craven in an emigrant ship, proceeding from the Kritish Islands to a place out of Europe not being within the Mediterranean Sea, without being duly licensed, contrary to sect. 342 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894

The second information charged that at the same time and place the respondent

Did unlawfully receive from one James Craven the sum of 81. 188. 11d. for and in respect of a passage for Ernest William Craven as steerage passenger in an emigrant ship without giving to the said James Craven for Ernest William Craven a contract ticket signed by or on behalf of the owners, charterer or master of the ship, and in the form required by sect. 320 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.

The facts proved or admitted were as follows: Ernest William Craven was a young man, about seventeen years of age, who was desirous of being placed as a farm pupil upon a farm in Canada. He was the son of Mr. James Craven referred to in the second information.

The respondent was secretary to "The AngloCanadian Farm Pupil Association," named at the head of the letters written by him in the matter; neither he nor his association could act as a passage broker without offending against sect. 342 of the Act.

On the 6th May the respondent wrote a letter to Ernest Craven inclosing rates for placing, &c., which were as follows: First, including saloon passage and first-class rail fare, 271.; second, including saloon passage and second-class rail fare, 251.: third, including intermediate passage and second-class rail fare 221.; fourth, including steerage passage and second class rail fare 181.; and the letter stated that these rates included steamship fares from Liverpool and also rail fares to destination in Ontario, with the respondent's charges for placing and supervision of the pupil for one year.

Between the 6th and 12th May, choice was made of "Third, including intermediate passage and second-class rail fare, 221." named in the paper of rates, and 221. was paid by Mr. James Craven, the father, to the respondent, and a document dated the 12th May was given to Mr. James Craven.

This document of the 12th May was as follows: Received from Mr. James Craven, of &c., the sum of 221., the same being a premium for which we undertake to place his son, Mr. Ernest William Craven, who is now seventeen years of age, as a farm pupil in Western Ontario, Canada, with a good farmer there, where he will be treated as one of the family, and have as comfortable a home as farmers in that district usually have, and be practically taught Canadian farming, receiving also his board and lodging, and in addition thereto, pay in proportion to the value of his services. It is expected that he will remain with the farmer upon the above terms for twelve months, but this arrangement is entirely based upon the reciprocal promise that he is to conduct himself properly and diligently aid in the work of the farm. It is distinctly understood that the above-named sum includes second class steamship passage from Liverpool to Quebec, and second class rail to Thames.

[Q.B. DIV.

ville, together with the charges of this association for placing, and for the after supervision of Ernest William Craven, but it does not include any bonus or bribe to the farmer, who has agreed to receive the pupil without any such payment, on the express conditions that the pupil is recommended by this association, and that he has given a written undertaking stating that he goes to the farm prepared to work in the same manner as the farmers and their sons do in the district where he is located. This association will not be responsible for any consequences which may arise from disobedience, intemperance, or misconduct on the part of the pupil, or physical incapacity arising from any cause whatsoever.

On the 18th May the respondent wrote a letter to Mr. Ernest Craven, giving full instructions for the journey out, and inclosing a passenger's contract ticket for a passage from Liverpool to Mon treal, viâ Quebec, in the Allan Line steamship Mongolian, which was to sail from Liverpool_on the 21st May. This contract ticket was in due and regular form, and was duly signed on behalf of the owners of the ship. The contract ticket was obtained by the respondent from, and the 81. 188. 11d. named in the contract ticket was paid by, the respondent to, Messrs. Thomas Cook and Sons, through their agent at their office in Sheffield, and Messrs. Thomas Cook and Sons were duly authorised to act as passage-brokers, and the agent in question was duly appointed their passage-broker's agent within sect. 342 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. The sum of 81. 188. 11d., which was paid by the respondent for the contract ticket, was paid by him out of the 221. paid to him by Mr. James Craven.

66

It did not clearly appear what the Anglo Canadian Farm Pupil Association" was, but the respondent, as its secretary, did not dispute his own liability for breach (if any) of the Act in what he did as its secretary.

The defendant's association or himself had a profit in the 221., the amount of which did not appear; but it was said that none was directly made in any way on either the steainship fare or the rail fare, nor did the respondent get any commission in any way from the shipping people. Passengers carried under contract tickets such as that now in question are not messed throughout the voyage at the same table with the master or first officer of the ship.

was

The magistrate dismissed both informations. As to the first information, the magistrate was of opinion that, as Ernest Craven was not, when a passenger on the Mongolian, to mess at the same table with the master or first officer, he was not to be deemed a cabin passenger but a steerage passenger, and that therefore his passage rightly said by the appellant to be a steerage passage (see sect. 268 (3) (b) and (4) of the Act of 1894. He was of opinion that, in the negotiations that had taken place, Messrs. Thomas Cook and Sons had acted as the passage-broker in the sale of a steerage passage by the owners of the ship to Ernest Craven, and that, if Messrs. Cook and Sons had not been duly qualified, they would have rendered themselves liable to a penalty under sect. 342; but that the respondent had not, directly or indirectly, acted as a passage broker, and that the agreement between the parties wa, in fact, an agreement by the respondent to take 81. 188. 11d. of the 221. to the qualified passagebrokers, Messrs. Thomas Cook and Sons, for them to make a passage contract between the shipowners

Q.B. Div.]

and Ernest Craven, a transaction which would not make the respondent liable within the section.

With regard to the second information the magistrate thought that although the respondent received the 8l. 188. 11d. from James Craven, sect. 320 applied under the circumstances to Messrs. Thomas Cook and Sons rather than to the respondent, and as they had duly satisfied and complied with the provisions of the section it was sufficient.

The question was whether upon the facts stated the respondent was guilty of either of the offences charged in the informations.

The Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), provides :

Sect. 341.-(1.) Any person who sells or lets or agrees to sell or let, or is anywise concerned in the sale or letting of steerage passages in any ship proceeding from the British Islands to any place out of Europe not within the Mediterranean Sea shall for the purposes of this part of this Act be a passage broker..

Sect. 342.-(1.) A person shall not act directly or indirectly as a passage broker, unless he-(b) holds a licence for the time being in force to act as passage broker. (4.) There shall be exempted from this section (a) the Board of Trade, and any person contracting with them or acting under their authority; and (b) any passage broker's agent duly appointed under this Act. (5.) If any person fails to comply with any requirements of this section, he shall for each offence be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

Sect. 320.-(1.) If any person, except the Board of Trade and persons acting for them and under their direct authority, receives money from any person for or in respect of a passage as a steerage passenger in any ship, or of a passage as a cabin passenger in any emigrant ship, proceeding from the British Islands to any port out of Europe and not within the Mediterranean Sea, he shall give to the person paying the same a contract ticket signed by or on behalf of the owner, charterer, or master of the ship, and printed in lain and legible characters. (2.) The contract ticket shall be in a form approved by the Board of Trade and published in the London Gazette. (3.) If any person fails of this section, he shall fine not exceeding fifty

to comply with any requirement for each offence be liable to a pounds.

Bonsey for the appellant. The respondent ought to have been convicted on both informations. Our contention is that the respondent, in acting as he did in this case, was acting in contravention of both sections of the Act. He was acting as a passage broker within sect. 342 without having the necessary licence; and he received money in respect of a passage of a steerage passenger within the meaning of sect. 320. If the respondent had done this business merely as an act of friendship and not for profit, and if he had made no profit, then the case would not have been within the Act; but here he made a profit on the 221. received by him, though the amount of such profit does not appear. The money paid to the respondent merely left the pupil at the farmer's house in Canada, and left him to make his own terms with the farmer. It merely paid the expenses of the passage of going out, together with a little over. This small sum that was over the actual passage money was the profit of the respondent, so that the respondent did not do this for friendship, but for profit which shows that he was acting as a passage broker within sect. 342; and by receiving the 221., without at

[Q.B. DIV. the same time giving a contract ticket, be was acting in contravention of sect. 320. The respondent did not appear.

Cur, adv. vult. Jan. 15.-The judgment of the Court (Wright and Bruce, JJ.) was read by

BRUCE, J.-The principal question in this case is whether the respondent Howden acted directly or indirectly as a passage broker within the meaning of sect. 342 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. The meaning of " passage broker" is to be ascertained by reference to sect. 341, which defines a passage broker to be "any person who sells or lets, or agrees to sell or let, or is any wise concerned in the sale or letting of steerage passages in any ship proceeding from the British Islands to any place out of Europe not within the Mediterranean Sea." Looking at the other sections of the statutes bearing upon the matter, and to the forms contained in the schedule to the Act relating to passage brokers and to steerage passengers, I think that the section of the Act referred to means a selling or letting in a named ship of a passage to commence at a definite time for a specified voyage. I am, therefore, of opinion that the agreement entered into on the 12th May, of which the written receipt of that date signed by the respondent is evidence, was not an agreement for selling or letting a passage within the meaning of sect. 341. The respondent undertook for the sum of 221. to place Ernest William Craven as a farm pupil in Western Ontario, and out of the 221. to procure for him a second-class steamship passage by sea from Liverpool to Quebec, and a passage by rail to Thamesville That was, I think, an agreement to procure him a passage at some convenient time in some fitting ship from Liverpool to Quebec, but it was not a selling or letting, or an agreement to sell or let a passage at a definite time in a named ship; and, although the passage ultimately obtained was a steerage passage, I am not at all sure there is anything in the letter of the 6th May, or in the receipt of the 12th May. to show that the intermediate passage, or the second-class steamship passage, in those documents referred to, is a steerage passage within the meaning of sect. 341 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. On the 18th May the respondent seems to have received information that E. W. Craven was ready to leave at once, and apparently on the same day the respondent obtained from Mr. Robinson, who acted as agent for Messrs. Cook and Sons, and for Messrs. Allan, a passenger contract ticket for a passage for E. W. Craven, on board Messrs. Allan's steamship Mongolian from Liverpool to Montreal, via Quebec. Messrs. Cook and Sons were duly qualified as passage brokers, and Mr. Robinson was duly appointed as their agent. This ticket was forwarded to E. W. Craven on the same day, the 18th May. E. W. Craven therefore received a contract ticket made out in due form, signed by the authorised agent of Messrs. Cook and Sons, which conferred upon him all the advantages which the Merchant Shipping Act has provided for the security of steerage passengers. But it is said that this contract ticket was selling or letting of a steerage passage in a ship within sect. 341, and that the respondent was concerned in the selling or letting. No doubt the respondent procured the ticket, and paid

a

Q.B. Div.]

81.188. 11d. for it out of the 221. mentioned in the receipt of the 12th May, but the respondent made no profit out of the ticket, and received no commission from the shipowners, or from the passage brokers. So far as the act of the respondent was concerned, it seems to me that what he did was to purchase as agent for James Craven a ticket for a passage for E. W. Craven. I think it must be conceded that a person who, as a mere act of friendship paid for and procured a passenger ticket for another could not be said to be concerned in the contract of sale or letting contained in the passenger ticket. To be concerned in a sale or letting means, I think, to have a part or share in the sale or letting; to have something to do with the sale or letting; to have some interest in this transaction, or in some way to derive some profit or advantage from it. In Todd v. Robinson (52 L. T. Rep. 120; 14 Q. B. Div. 739), the Court of Appeal seems to have thought that a person might be interested in a contract and yet not concerned in it. In the present case the respondent seems to have been a passive agent paying on behalf of Craven for the ticket, and forwarding it to him. If the father, James Craven, had purchased of Messrs. Cook and Sons, through their authorised agent, a ticket for his son E. W. Craven, he would not I think have been guilty of any breach of the provisions of sect. 341, and as regards the act of the purchase of the ticket, I cannot see upon what principle it is possible to distinguish between the purchase of a ticket by a father for a son, and the purchase made by the respondent in this case. It is said that the respondent, or those on whose behalf he acted, made a profit out of the 221. But we are dealing only with the 8l. 188. 11d. paid for passage money, and out of that there was no profit. It seems to me that it would be straining the language of sect. 341 to hold that the respondent was concerned in the sale or letting of the passage. I therefore think that the learned magistrate was right in refusing to convict of an offence under sect. 342.

I also think the magistrate was right in refusing to convict under sect. 320. The respondent did give to Craven a contract ticket duly signed on behalf of the owners of the ship. But, further, I am not satisfied that he received money from Craven for, or in respect of, a passage in any ship within the meaning of sect. 320. It seems to me to be clear that this section must mean a receipt of money paid for a specified passage, commencing at a fixed time in a named ship. The 221. which the respondent received was not paid to him in respect of a passage in any named ship, and it would have been impossible for the respondent, at the time he received the 221., to have procured a contract ticket such as is mentioned in sect. 320. In coming to this conclusion,

I have not overlooked sect. 347 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, which seems to be directed to acts such as the acts complained of in this case. Appeal dismissed.

Solicitor for the appellant, The Solicitor to the Board of Trade.

[Q.B. DIV.

Dec. 15, 1896, and Jan. 15, 1897. (Before WILLS and WRIGHT, JJ.) VENNER (app.) v. McDONELL (resp.). (a) Metropolis-Building notice-Erection of seating in public hall-“ Structure or work "-Necessity of building notice-London Building Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.), s. 145.

By sect. 145 of the London Building Act 1894 "where a building, or structure, or work is about to be begun, the builder or other person causing the work to be executed shall serve on the district surveyor a building notice respecting the building, or structure, or work."

The owners of the Agricultural Hall, which is a large public building in London constructed for the purpose of shows and exhibitions, caused seating to be constructed upon and under the galleries of the hall, to accommodate some 3000 persons. This seating consisted of tiers of wooden platforms, and was constructed in separate blocks, so that it could be erected when required for the convenience of the spectators, and taken down and stored when not so required. When any portion of the seating was re-erected or replaced, it was always replaced in the same position as before, and no support was afforded to the hall by the seating.

Held, that this seating was not a "structure or work" within the meaning of sect. 145; and that the replacing of the seating, as occasion required, was not the beginning of a structure or work within that section in respect of which a building notice was necessary.

66

CASE stated by the metropolitan police magistrate sitting at Clerkenwell Police-court.

The appellant appeared before the magistrate in answer to a complaint by the respondent, the district surveyor under the London Building Act 1894 for the district of West Islington, that the appellant on or before the 26th May 1896, at the Royal Agricultural Hall, in the parish of Islington, within the police-court district of Clerkenwell and within the district of the respondent, did, without notice to the district surveyor, begin to execute a work respecting which the appellant ought to serve a building notice before commencing such work, contrary to the provisions of the said Act.

It was proved or admitted:

(a) That on or before the 26th May 1896 certain seating was, by the direction of the appellant, placed in the Royal Agricultural Hall, and that notice of intention to place such seating in the hall had not been given to the district surveyor previously to its being placed therein.

(b) The Royal Agricultural Hall is a public building licensed for music and dancing pursuant to 25 Geo. 2, c. 36 (the Disorderly Houses Act 1751) and 51 & 52 Vict. c. 41 (the Local Government Act 1888), s. 3, and occupies a large area of ground, in the centre of which is a hall. There is a gallery constructed along each side of the hall, which is supported by iron columns carried through the floor of the galleries up to, and afford support to, the roof of the hall. Access to the galleries is obtained by means of staircases, and, except when a show or entertainment is being exhibited or performed, the hall contains nothing but the galleries and staircases.

(4) Reported hy W. W ORR, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

Q.B. Div.]

(d.) The hall belongs to the Royal Agricultural Hall Company, by which it is let for the purpose of holding exhibitions and shows, as many as twenty exhibitions and shows taking place in the hall during the course of each year.

(e.) For certain of these shows, such as the annual horse shows and military tournaments, seating is required for the convenience of the spectators, while for other shows, such as dog shows, dairy and cattle shows, no seating is required. The company, for the purposes of its business, caused seating to be constructed some years since in such manner as that such seating could be placed in position when required, and when not required could be taken to pieces and kept in store until again required; and the practice of the company has been and is to let the hall furnished with the seating, or unfurnished, as the particular tenant by whom the hall is rented requires that the hall should be so furnished or unfurnished. When the hall is let furnished with the seating, payment for the use of the seating is either included in the rent, or is made separately and as an additional payment by the tenant.

(f.) The placing in position of the seating upon the occasion of a military tournament in the hall in May and June 1896 is the work of which it was contended by the respondent notice should have been given to the district surveyor. This seating, which was calculated to seat over 3000 persons, occupied an area of 17,240 square feet, and the seating beneath the galleries consisted of tiers of wooden platforms resting upon and secured to brackets fixed to inclined wooden beams, which beams were supported by transverse wooden beams resting at the back in sockets attached to the iron columns, and supported in the front by a small iron and wood girder resting on upright wooden posts, each of which posts when in position stands in a socket let into the floor of the hall, which socket is part of the permanent structure. The construction of the seating in the gallery is similar to that beneath the galleries, the wooden posts re-ting on the gallery floor and being kept in place by footplates and braces temporarily placed there. The whole seating can be placed in position in separate blocks, each of which blocks beneath the galleries is situated when put up in or in front of the space between each pair of the columns, and each block of the gallery seating when put up is situated in the spaces or bays" between each pair of such columns. For the seating beneath the galleries separate means of access is provided consisting of wooden staircases, while for the gallery seating no staircases are required as the platforms rise from the gallery floor, and such number of blocks of seats as may be required can be, and are, placed in position separately and independently of any other block of seats, the whole of the seating being required by some tenants, while part only is required by others.

Every platform, beam, and post of which the seating consists is so numbered that it can be and is placed in the same position when replaced after having been taken down and stored as that in

[Q.B. DIV. which it was before it was taken down, and when any portion of the seating is replaced it is always replaced in the same position as it was before. No support was or is afforded to the hall or any part of the hall by any portion of the seating, and the taking down of the seating when not required and the replacing it when required in no way affected or was likely to affect the hall, except so far as the seating is supported by parts resting in the permanent sockets in the floor of the hall, or by being placed on the floors of the galleries, or by resting on the brackets on the iron columns of the hall. No part of the seating was on the occasion referred to, in any way built up, erected, or constructed other than by the placing together of the several permanent parts of the seating in the positions or places in which they had been theretofore placed.

For the respondent, in support of the complaint, it was contended that whenever the seating was erected and replaced work was thereby done in connection with, or for the purposes of the hall, within the meaning of sect. 78 of the London Building Act 1894, and that the appellant should have served in respect of such work the notice required by sect. 145 of that Act, and no such notice having been served, the appellant had rendered himself liable to the penalty prescribed by sect. 200 (11b) of the Act.

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the work contemplated by sect. 78 of the London Building Act 1894 was work done to a public building during its construction, and where the work was done after the building had been constructed was work affecting or likely to affect the building, and that as the erecting or replacing of the seating did not and was not likely to affect the hall, and was not done in connection with, or for the purposes of the building, but for the purposes of the tenants' occupation, no notice previously to the erecting or replacing of the seating was required by the Act to be given to the district surveyor; and further, that if the work were held to be of a character which came within the wording of sect. 78 it nevertheless did not actually come within the provisions of that section, on the ground that it was a structure or work originally created or constructed before the commencement of the Act, and as such excepted from the operation of sect. 78 and the other sections of the Act, by the operation of sect. 210.

The learned magistrate was of opinion that, the Agricultural Hall being a public building used for shows, the erection of the blocks of seating on or about the 26th May 1896 was work done in connection with a public building for the purpose of seating the public to see the show, and required the approval of the district surveyor, and he ordered the appellant to pay a penalty of 20s. and 11. 1s. costs.

The question for the opinion of the court was whether, under the circumstances herein set forth, notice was required to be given to the district surveyor by sect. 145 of the London Building Act

1894.

The London Building Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.) provides :

Sect. 78. Notwithstanding anything in this Act every public building, including the walls, roofs, floors, galleries and staircases, and every structure and work constructed or done in connection with, or for the purposes of the same, shall be constructed in such manner as may be

Q.B. Div.]

approved by the district surveyor, or, in the event of disagreement, may be determined by the tribunal of appeal, and, save so far as respects the rules of construction every public building shall throughout this Act be deemed to be included in the term building, and be subject to all the provisions of this Act in the same manner as if it were a building erected for a purpose other than a public purpose. No public building shall be used as such until the district surveyor, or the tribunal of appeal shall have declared his or their approval of the construction thereof. After the district surveyor shall have so declared his approval, or shall certify that it has been constructed as directed by the tribunal of appeal, any work affecting or likely to affect the building shall ot be done to, in, or on the building without the approval of the district surveyor or such certificate as aforesaid.

Sect. 82.-(1.) Where a builder is desirous of erecting an iron building or structure or any other building or structure to which the general provisions of Part VI. of this Act are inapplicable, or in the opinion of the council inappropriate, having regard to the special purpose for which the building or structure is designed and actually used, he shall make an application to the council, accompanied by a plan of the proposed building with such particulars as to the construction thereof as may be required by the council.

Sect. 83. Where an application is made to the council by any person stating his desire to erect in any place an iron or other building or structure of a temporary character, to which the general provisions of Part VI. of this Act are inapplicable the council may, if they approve of the plan and particulars of the building or structure, limit the period during which it shall be allowed to remain in that place, and may make their approval subject to such conditions as to removal of the building or structure as they think fit, &c.

Sect. 84.-(1.) No person shall set up in any place any wooden structure (unless it be exempt from the operation of this part of this Act) except hoardings inclosing vacant land and not exceeding in any part twelve feet in height, without having first obtained for that purpose a licence from the council, and the licence may contain such conditions with respect to the structure, and the time for which it is to be permitted to continue in the said place as the council think expedient.

Sect. 145. In the following cases and at the following times (that is to say): (a) Where a building, or structure or work is about to be begun, then two clear days before it is begun. the builder or other person causing or directing the work to be executed, hall serve on the district survey or a building notice respecting the building or structure, or work.

Sect. 200.-(11) (b). Any person who being a person who ought to serve a building notice fails to do so, or begins to execute a work respecting which he ought to serve a building notice, before serving such notice, or having served a building notice, begins to execute the work to which it relates before the expiration of two clear days after the notice has ceased to operate shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings, and to a daily penalty not exceeding the like amount.

Macmorran, Q.C. and R. Cunningham Glen, for the appellant, were stopped by the Court.

Avory for the respondent.-The matter is complicated by the introduction of sect. 78, as the summons was taken out under sect. 145, and the whole question is, whether the work done here in replacing this seating is a "building, or structure, or work," with n that section. If so a building notice is required to be sent to the district surveyor. Sect. 78 of the Act of 1894 corresponds with sect. 30 of the Metropolis Management Act 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 122); but the present section is much wider in its scope than the corresponding MAG. CAS.-VOL. XVIII.

[Q.B. DIV.

section in the Act of 1855, where the words "structure or work" are omitted. Sect. 84 was specially enacted to deal with wooden structures such as this, and provides that no wooden structures shall be erected without a licence, and sect. 190 gives power to the council to annex conditions in such cases and speaks of buildings" or "structures." thereby showing that structure is something different from a building. If notice is given to the surveyor then he has an opportunity, under sect. 163, of informing the council, and the council has. an opportunity of intervening. Structure" is equivalent to something constructed; and it is no doubt a difficult thing to draw the line as to what is a structure and what is not, but it is a question of fact in each ca-e, and it is for the magistrate, as the judge of fact, to say what is a structure and what is not. The magistrate here has decided as a question of fact that this structure was not a building of such a kind as to require a notice to be sent. Assuming that a structure of this kind may be within the Act the object of which is prevention rather than cure, then no case could come more within the mischief of the Act than such a structure as the present, upon which thousands of spectators may have to be seated. But, if this is not a structure within sect. 84, then it is a structure within sect. 82. [WRIGHT, J.-I should think that sect. 145 is your best point.] Sect. 78 was inserted to give the district surveyor power to approve or disapprove of public buildings. It is not necessary to hold that this is within sect. 78 at all. It is a structure within 8-ct. 145, and if it is a structure within the Act at all, then the notice has to be given.

Macmorran Q.C. in reply.—It is quite clear that some limitation must be put upon these words "structure or work." There is no decision as to

the meaning of the word "work; but there ar◄ many decisions as to the meaning of "structures." In Hall v. Smallpiece (59 L. J. 97, M. C.) it was held that a steam roundabout and shooting galleries were not "wooden structures or erections of a temporary character" within sect. 13 of the Metropolis Management and Building Acts Amendment Act 1882; and in the London County Council v. Humphreys Limited (71 L. T. Rep. 201; (1894) 2 Q. B. 755) a bungalow constructed of wood, and erected for exhibition and sale, was held not to be a "wooden structure" within the same section. So, in Lavy v. The London County Council (73 L. T. Rep. 106; (1895) 2 Q. B. 577) it was held that a dwarf wall between two and three feet high was not a "building, structure, or erection within sect. 75 of the Metropolis Management Act 1862. The case cannot be brought within sect. 84 unless it is said that that section applies to any trifling alterations in a private house. If it is not within sects. 78 or 84, then it cannot come within sect. 145, as that section seems to imply that a notice is required only with reference to erections which are brought under the jurisdiction of the district surveyor by other sections of the Act. These seats are rather in the nature of fittings.

Cur. adv. vult.

Jan. 15.-The judgment of the Court (Wills and Wright, JJ.) was read by

WILLS, J.-The information in this case charges that the appellant, at the Royal Agricultural Hall, did, without notice to the district

K