a f T e 9 THE TONBRIDGE AND SEVENOAKS HIGH- In the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, on Friday last, before Mr Justice Grove and Mr Justice Hawkins, was heard the appeal case of Tonbridge District Highway Board v. The Sevenoaks District Highway Board, which raised an important question with regard to extraordinary traffic. Mr M. White, Q.C., and Mr Baldock Stone were for the appellants (instructed by Mr T. F. Simpson, Tunbridge Wells); and Mr H. Collins, Q.C., and Mr D. Kingsford for the respondents (instructed by Mr W. C. Cripps, Tunbridge Wells). It will be remembered that, on the 28th December, upon the application of the Sevenoaks District Highway Board, a summons was issued by the County Magistrates, on the t certificate of the Board Surveyor, calling upon the Tonbridge Board to appear before them, pursuant to the 23rd section of the 41st and 42nd Victoria, cap. 77, to answer to a claim made by the respondent Board for the sum of £93 incurred in respect of the repairs of a highway in their district, called Carter's Hill, from the 25th March, 1883, to the 12th December, 1883, by reason of damage caused by the conducting of excessive weights and extraordinary traffic over the same, and thereby causing the cost of repairs as compared with previous years to be excessive. The case came on for hearing before the Justices on the 25th January last, when it was proved or admitted-that the respondent Board is the authority liable to repair the highway in question, and the appellant Board to repair those in the district adjoining that of the respondent Board; that the parish of Seal is one of the parishes comprised in the respondent's district in the same range of hills as the parish of Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Brasted; that, in the parish of Seal, there is a road called Carter'sbill, about one mile six furlongs in length; that this road is not a main road but an agricultural road; that, previously to the commencement of the year 1882 it was seldom used except for agricultural purposes and that but trifling expenses were incurred by the respondent Board in maintaining it, but, on the 25th March, 1882, a quarry was opened on the top of Carter's-hill, for the purpose of supplying the public with hard stone, and, between that time and the 25th March, 1883, a large quantity of stone was dug and carried into the appellants' district and the surrounding country a considerable portion being hauled down Carter's-hill. In March 1882, the road was in good condition for ordinary traffic, but this new traffic for which it was unfitted so damaged it that the respondent Board had, in the year ending 25th March, 1883, to expend £88 17s. 6d. in repairing it, or against £14 14s. 33. in previous years. Subsequently to the 25th March, about 5,000 yards of stone was procured by the appellant Board from the quarry at the top of Carter's-hill, and, between the 1st April and the 1st December, contractors were employed by the Tonbridge Board to cart the stones into their district and a quantity of 1,321 yards or thereabouts was carted down the hill into their district, the rest going through the parish of Seal, along some level hard roads, which was a longer route, but the respondent Board had not claimed anything for that. It was admitted by the Tonbridge Board that the stones were carted away in loads of about 4 to six tons, drawn by three to five horses, and that the wheels of the waggon were four do 43 inches in breadth and were such as were manerally used r ke ed ir ir 18 to it nt 19r Mr White, Q.C., in addressing the court on behalf of the appellant Board, argued that stone quarrying was part of the normal condition of the parish, and the natural he industry of the district. The only reason of the comld mencement of the traffic being unlooked for was, because ell the quarry had not been discovered, also that the justices had not taken a proper basis for finding the expenses were excessive. The learned counsel, in support of his argument he referred to several cases, notably that of Wallington v. rill Hoskins, 16 Queen's Bench Division. ter Der ley ied vas e. d The other side was not called upon. Mr Justice Grove said in this case the magistrates had rds found expressly that the traffic in question over Carter's ort Hill was extraordinary within the meaning of the Act, the and that the weights were excessive within the meaning of hey the said section, also that extraordinary expenses to the the amount claimed had been incurred by reason of the nd. damage caused by excessive weights. The parties had ich left the question for the opinion of the Court, as to ght whether here was evidence to justify the finding. He he was of opinion that there was. It was not a question whether he should have to come to the same conclusion as see they did, but he was inclined to think he should have. Now what was extraordinary? One would have thought ed the term a very simple one, but it appeared not to be so go judging from the number of cases that had arisen out of at it. Mr White had quoted no less than six, and it was in singular enough three of them had been tried before him. He would only call attention to two in which he had d expressed his opinion generally on the meaning of the section. First the Monmouth Board v. The Monmouth e Railway Company, in which case the extraordinary traffic was caused by the cutting of trees at irregular seasons, when certain large woods were cut down out of the usual time. Then it was held that it was not extraordinary. In the case of Wallington v. Hoskins, which was that on of what Mr White mainly relied, no doubt it was somewhat similar to the present case. It then appeared the owners ft of stone quarries in the district had the stone conveyed in it heavy loads on the highways and made the cost of s. repairing them greater. The Magistrates found that the traffic was not extraordinary, and the Court confirmed the decision; but in that case there were not the exceptional y circumstances which appeared in the one now before the 38 Court, namely, that it was an agricultural road, and it was a new quarry situated at a new place, and the road was not meant for such traffic, and the increased weight upon re it, together with the skidding of the drays, made it necessary to have an entirely new road made for the quarry, and therefore it was not parallel with the Wallingtton case. What was the most material point was that the r magistrates, knowing the district in question, found the traffic was extraordinary, and he thought in the present case, looking at the surroundings of the district, it was so tHe (the learned Judge) thought the building of a farmhouse or a cottage might not have been fairly called extratordinary traffic for the road, and would not be extraordinary; whereas the building of a college, some mansion or a palace might be extraordinary. The question must be to some extent one of fact, and he thought that there was evidence, and in his judgment ample evidence, for the magistrates to have reasonably come to the conclusion they did. Therefore he gave judgment for the respondents with costs. .e W n 10 B 3 |