Metropolis-6. Sewer-Drain-Combined
operation - No order of the vestry-
Signature of surveyor

-

Metropolis
Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict.
c. 120), s. 250.

It being customary to treat as duly sanctioned
by the vestry any drain for draining a
group of houses by a combined operation,
if the plan has been included in the register
of applications in that behalf, and has
been duly signed by the surveyor of the
vestry, no formal order of the vestry need
be made in order to constitute such drain
a drain and not a sewer within the meaning
of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855,
and any subsequent alteration of the course
of such drain, not so as to increase the
number of houses drained thereby, but
merely to improve the flow of drainage
through it, cannot change it into a “sewer."
63 J. P. 420. Queen's Bench Division.
April 12, 1899. Greater London Property Co.
v. Foot

...

...

...

Metropolis-7. Obstruction of thoroughfare,
Costermonger-Metropolitan Police Act,
1839 (2 & 3 Vict. c. 47), s. 60 (7)-Metro-
politan Streets Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict.
c. 134), s. 6-Metropolitan Streets Act
Amendment Act, 1867 (31 & 32 Vict.
c. 5), s. 1-Police Regulations, the 28th
of December, 1869.

The penalty imposed by section 60 (7) of the

Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, for erpos-
ing anything for sale in any carriageway
or footway so as to cause annoyance or
obstruction is not impliedly repealed or
superseded by the 6th Police Regulation
of the 28th of December, 1869, made under
section 1 of the Metropolitan Streets
(Amendment) Act, 1867 (31 & 32 Vict.
c. 5). A private person who is aggrieved
by such annoyance or obstruction can take
proceedings by way of summons to recover
the penalty imposed by the section. The
magistrate has to decide as a matter of
fact whether such annoyance or obstruction
exists.

Metropolis-8. Dangerous structures-Re-
moval of-Breaking up pavement-Duty
of county council to restore pavement
after removal of hoarding-Liability of
county council for injury caused by non-
reinstatement-Metropolis Management
Act, 1855, (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), ss. 109,
122-London Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58
Vict. c. ccxiii.), ss. 106, 107.

The London County Council are not bound
under sections 109 or 122 of the Metropolis
Management Act, 1855, to give a vestry
notice of their intention to remove the
pavement and erect a hoarding when they
are about to remove a dangerous structure
under Part IX. of the London Building Act,
1894; and if in the course of the removal
of a dangerous structure they remove the
pavement for the purpose of erecting a
hoarding, they are not bound to reinstate
the pavement on the removal of the hoarding,
and are consequently not liable for injuries
caused to a person by its non-reinstatement.
63 J. P. 484. Queen's Bench Division.
March 18, 1899. Crisp v. London County
Council

...

Metropolis - 9. Vestry - Sewer Urban
District Council-Drainage into Vestry's
sewer-Injunction.

Action by the plaintiffs, the Vestry of St.
Mary, Islington, in the county of London,
against the defendants, who are outside the
county of London, for an injunction to
restrain the defendants from permitting
their drains and sewers to remain conne ted
with the plaintiffs' sewer; also an injunction
to prevent any future connection.

Held, that the court had no jurisdiction to

compel the defendants to remedy the incon-
venience caused by the connection of their
drains and sewers with the plaintiffs'
sewer; and the court would not grant
an injunction the result of which would be
to create a public nuisance.

63 J. P. 488. Chancery Division. May 3,
4, 9, 1899. Vestry of St. Mary, Islington, v,
Hornsey Urban District Council

Metropolis-10. Street betting

...

-

Byelaws

made by county council-Validity of—
Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46

Metropolis-continued

Vict. c. 50), s. 23-Local Government
Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 16-
Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867 (31 & 32
Vict. c. 134), s. 23.

A byelaw which prevented any person using or
frequenting any street or other public place
for the purpose of bookmaking, betting or
wagering, or receiving or settling bets, is
valid, and is not inconsistent with or affected
by the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867
(30 & 31 Vict. c. 134), s. 23.

63 J. P. 550. Queen's Bench Division.
May 9, 1899. White v. Morley ...

...

Vict

Metropolis-12. Coal office in yard of railway
company - Building erected for "the
purposes of, or in connection with, the
traffic of the railway company "-London
Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58
c. ccxiii.), ss. 84, 86, 200 (3) (e).
The appellants, who were coal merchants,
erected on the premises of the railway
company, and by their permission, a
wooden structure without the license of the
respondents. The structure was used as
an office in connection with the sale of coal
by the appellants, and the railway company
used to deliver their advice notes as to the
arrival of coal consigned to the appellants.
Held, that the structure was one used for, or in

connection with, the traffic of the railway
company within the meaning of the London
Building Act, 1894, 8. 86, and was, therefore,
exempt.

63 J. P. 645. Queen's Bench Division.
June 12, 1899 Elliott & Co. v. London
County Council

-

Metropolis-13. Building-Drainage-Vol-
unteer drill-hall - Private property -
Military barracks-Exemption - Metro-
polis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19
Vict. c. 120), ss. 75, 240, 241.

A building used as an armoury storehouse
and drill-hall for a volunteer corps which
is vested in the commanding officer, and is to
be used by the corps only, is not exempt
from the provisions of section 75 of the
Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19
Vict. c. 120), under the provisions of
sections 240 and 241 of that Act.

63 J. P. 725. Queen's Bench Division.
June 13, 1899. United Vestries of the Parishes
of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, v.
Hoskins

Metropolis-14. Building line-Erection of
structure beyond—“ Land lawfully occu-
pied by building or structure "-London
Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.),
s. 22.

Land occupied by buildings or structures origin-
ally erected thereon in accordance with sec-
tion 75 of the Metropolis Management
(Amendment) Act, 1862, but subject to
a condition that the height of such
buildings or structures should not exceed
one storey, is not lawfully occupied by
such buildings or structures within the
meaning of section 22 (2) of the London
Building Act, 1894, so as to justify the
substitution without the consent of the
London County Council of three-storied
buildings or structures on the same sites in
advance of the general line of buildings in
the same part of the same street as fixed
under the Act of 1894.

Per Ridley, J.-Land occupied by buildings
or structures of one storey high originally
erected thereon in contravention of 7 Geo. 4,
c. cxlii., s. 140, is in a similar position
with regard to the same sub-section.

Per Darling, J.-Such last-mentioned land is
not lawfully occupied in any sense by such
buildings or structures although no means
exists for punishing the original contra-
vention.

-

Metropolis-15. "Building or structure "—
Glass and iron portico or shelter dove-
tailed into and supported only by porch-
Projection of such erection beyond the
building line London Building Act,
1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.), ss. 22, 200 (3).
The appellants, with the consent of the respon-
dents, had erected a porch, but without
their consent had dovetailed into the porch
an iron and glass shelter projecting some
four feet over the pavement beyond the
general building line.

Held, that such erection was a structure or
building within section 22 of the London
Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.),
8. 22, and could not be erected without the
consent of the London County Council.
63 J. P. 805. Queen's Bench Division.
November 1, 1899. Coburg Hotel v. London

County Council
See also POOR RATE, 5. PUBLIC HEALTH
(LONDON).

Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46
Vict. c. 50), ss. 140, 143, sched. V.—
Licensing appeals-Payment of costs of
chief constable in opposing — Borough
Funds Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 91), s. 2.
A town council have no power under the

-

Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, or the
Borough Funds Act, 1872, to pay out of the
borough fund the expenses incurred by the
chief constable in appearing by counsel at
quarter sessions to oppose licensing appeals.
The effect of section 140 of the Municipal
Corporations Act, 1882, and schedule V.
thereto, does not extend to expenses incurred
by the chief or head constable of a borough
in discharging duties outside the functions
of the town council or the functions of the
chief constable as their officer.
administration of the licensing laws is
outside the functions of a town council.
An improper payment by the order of the town

The

council may be called in question by
injunction at the suit of the Attorney-General
on the relation of a person interested as
well as by certiorari under section 141 of
the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882.
The only proper respondents to a licensing
appeal are the licensing justices. If any
other person appears to oppose such an
appeal he can only be heard by the per-
mission of the bench, and can neither receive
nor be ordered to pay costs.

PAGE

398

63 J. P. 212. Chancery Division. March
8, 9, 14, 1899. Attorney-General v. Brighton
and Hove Co-operative Supply Association,
Limited. Note of case

See also GASWORKS, 1, 2; LOCAL GOVERN-
MENT, 6; PUBLIC HEALTH, 1, 11, 12.
Offensive Trade. See PUBLIC HEALTH, 11;
PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON), 2.

Official Secrets Act, 1889. See CRIMINAL
LAW, 12.

Passengers' Fares, Duty on. See REVENUE, 2.
Paving Expenses. See METROPOLIS, 2.
Pawnbrokers Act, 1872. See CRIMINAL
LAW, 9.

Penalties. See FINANCE ACT, 1898.
Petroleum-Composition containing 33 per

cent. of petroleum-Petroleum Act, 1871
(34 & 35 Vict. c. 105) ss. 3, 7-Petroleum
Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 47), s. 2.
A composition containing 33 per cent. of
petroleum which gives off an inflammable
vapour under the test prescribed by the
Petroleum Act, 1879, sched. 1, is petroleum
within the meaning of the Petroleum Act,
1871, s. 3, and a license must be obtained
from the local authority in order to store it.
63 J. P. 615. Queen's Bench Division.
June 14, 1899. London County Council v.
Holzapfels Composition Company, Ltd.

Physician, See MEDICAL ACTS,

Picketing. See TRADE UNION. ·

Piracy Act, 1721. See MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1.
"Place." See GAMING, 1, 2; Betting.

PAGE

187

72

315

relations-Enforcement of order-Civil
debt procedure-Summary Jurisdiction
Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49), ss. 6, 35.
An order under section 6 of the Poor Law Act,
1601, for the maintenance of a pauper
relation is only enforceable by the civil
debt procedure under sections 6 and 35 of
the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.
63 J. P. 101. Queen's Bench Division.
December 16, 1898. Re George Gamble
Poor Law-2. Settlement-Pauper lunatic-

Notice of chargeability accompanying
order of adjudication-By whom to be
signed-Clerk to the guardians-Lunacy
Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), s. 302.
63 J. P. 118. County of London Sessions.
January 6, 1899. Guardians of St. Olave's
Union v. Guardians of Poplar Union ...
Poor Law-3. Settlement by residence, 39 & 40
Vict. c. 61, s. 34-What is "residence
The place where the pauper "lived"-
Reg. v. St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, L. R.
1 Q. B. 23.

-

The pauper lunatic, T. J., slept from Sunday
to Saturday at the place of his employ-
ment in the parish of M., in the appellant
union, where he had all his belongings and
took his meals. On Saturday, after work
was finished, he used to go to his brother's
house in the parish of T., in the respondent
union, where he slept on Saturday nights
and had his meals on Sundays, and paid
38. weekly for these privileges. He returned
to M. on Sundays about 7.30 p.m., in time
for work.

Held, that M. was the parish where he must be

said to have "resided," for the purpose
of acquiring a settlement.

63 J. P. 118. County of Middlesex Quarter
Sessions. January 14, 28, 1899. Guardians
of Richmond Union v. Guardians of Brentford
Union

...

...

...

Poor Law-4. Settlement by residence-39 &
40 Vict. c. 61, s. 34-Three years' residence.
63 J. P. 280. County of London Sessions.
April 8, 1899. Guardians of the Poor of St.
Olave's Union v. Guardians of the Poor of the
Poplar Union

Poor Law-6. Guardians - Relief - Work-
men on strike-Unauthorised purpose-
Sudden and urgent necessity-Jurisdic-
tion-Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834
(4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76)-Poor Law Orders
of October, 1870-Poor Law Amendment
Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 101)-Poor Law
Audit Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 91)-
Vagrancy Act, 1824 (5 Geo. 4, c. 83), s. 3.
Guardians are bound to give urgent relief out

of the poor relief funds in all cases when
it can be shown that refusal to relieve
would result in the death of, or serious
injury to, the applicant, even though such
relief is rendered necessary by his own
deliberate refusal to work; but they are
not bound to give such relief permanently,
and should take steps under the Vagrancy
Act, 1824, s. 3, to compel such persons to
work for their own support.

The proper remedy of ratepayers who object
to a rate as excessive is to go before
the auditors appointed by the Local
Government Board and appeal from their
decision, if desired, as provided by the
Poor Law Amendment Act, 1844, though
it is within the jurisdiction of the court,
where a proper case is made out in an
action by ratepayers, to restrain guardians
from applying the rates to unauthorised
purposes.

PAGE

234

267

Poor Rate-2. Issue of distress warrant-
Right of appeal to quarter sessions-Poor
Relief Act, 1601 (43 Eliz. c. 2), s. 6-Poor
Relief Act, 1743 (17 Geo. 2, c. 38), ss. 4, 7.
An appeal does not lie to quarter sessions
against an order of justices directing the
issue of a distress warrant for poor rates.
63 J. P. 388. Queen's Bench Division.
February 3, 10, 1899. Reg. v. London JJ.; Ex
parte Bayne

...

...

...

Poor Rate-3. Ratable value-Waterworks
-Assessment-Cost of land and works.

A reservoir and waterworks constructed by the
appellants under Act of Parliament
enabling them for the purposes of such
construction to submerge the sites of a
parish church, vicarage, and schools, and
of certain roads, on condition that they
should provide another church, vicarage,
and schools and make new roads and
bridges, ought to be rated on the basis of
taking into account the cost of the new
church, vicarage, and schools, and roads
and bridges, as well as of the actual
reservoir and waterworks themselves.

63 J. P. 452. Court of Appeal. May 5,
1899. Mayor, etc., of Liverpool v. Assessment
Committee of the Llanfyllin Union and Others

Poor Rate-4. Distress - Plaintiff's goods
improperly seized.

When a warrant of distress is handed by a
vestry (the rating authority) to brokers
merely with instructions to execute it, and
there is no evidence of any special instruc-
tions having been given by the vestry, the
vestry are not liable in an action by the
plaintiff, whose goods have been illegally
seized.

63 J. P. 487. Queen's Bench Division.
June 29, 1899. Carter v. Vestry of St. Mary
Abbotts, Kensington

...

...

Poor Rate (Metropolis)—5. Provisional List
-Alteration in value-General increase
-Evidence-Valuation (Metropolis) Act,
1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 67), ss. 46, 47.

Poor Rate-continued.

To justify a new valuation under sections 46
and 47 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act,
1869, the alteration in value must be such
that, if the fact constituting the alteration
had been present at the time of the original
valuation, it could properly have been
taken into consideration in arriving at the
assessment, and the fact constituting the
alteration in value should affect the
hereditament in particular. A general
rise in values would not be a fact constitut-
ing such an alteration.

The fact, however, that the increase in value
affects a class as a whole will not exclude
the increase from the operation of these
sections if it is shown that the increase in
value arises from some cause affecting
merely the class, and not from the cause of
general prosperity affecting all classes of
the community.

In each case it is for those who alter the assess-
ment to prove the nature and cause of the
alteration in value.

The amount of a premium paid for a public-
house is admissible in evidence on an
appeal against the assessment.

63 J. P. 820. Court of Appeal. No-
vember 2, 18, 1899. Ellis v. Assessment Com-
mittee of Camberwell

Practice.
LAW, 1.

See PUBLIC HEALTH, 4; POOR

Prescription. See LOCAL GOVERNMENT, 6.

Private Street Works Act, 1892. See
PUBLIC HEALTH, 2, 16.

Privies. See PUBLIC HEALTH, 1, 15.

Prohibited Business. See PUBLIC HEALTH
(LONDON), 2.

Public Health-1.

Nuisance-Privies-Cleans-
ing undertaken by local authority-
Notice to substitute water-closets for
privies-Definition of cleansing-Duty
of local authority-Public Health Act,
1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 42, 94.

Where a local authority have themselves under-
taken the cleansing of privies under sec-
tion 42 of the Public Health Act, 1875,
and, owing to cases of typhoid fever in the
houses to which the privies are attached,
the privies have become in such a state as