Page images

forfeit 51. for every day they neglect to make the same. (1) Such returns, however, are made privileged communications. (1)

458. Bye-laws.

A further jurisdiction (m) is given to the Board of Trade in regard of any byelaws, &c., made by a company under the powers of their act. No such bye-laws, &c. are valid until two calendar months after a certified copy thereof has been laid before the Board of Trade, unless before that time they are approved of by the Board. (n) The Board of Trade may disallow any bye-law, &c., and if at the time of such disallowance it is already in force, may further prescribe the time at which it shall cease to be. (o) All provisions of railway acts requiring the concurrence of courts of quarter sessions, &c. to give validity to bye-laws, are repealed. (p)

459. Disputes between connecting railways, &c. about the conduct of their joint traffic. Such disputes, so far as they relate to the safety of the public, may, upon the application of either party, be decided by the Board of Trade, who may also determine about the proportion of the expenses attending the necessary arrangements to be borne by either party. (q)

(1) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55, s. 8, App.

(m) For an important instance of the good effect of the power thus reserved to the Board of Trade, see Report of Officers of Railway Department, 1842, p. xv. See also Ib., 1843, App. p. 190. As to standard regulations proposed by Board of Trade in pursuance of the authority given them by the above act, see ib. 1841, p. xvii. et seq.

(n) 3 & 4 Vict. c. 97, s. 8, App. See 8 Vict. c. 20, s. 109. (0) 3 & 4 Vict. c. 97, s. 9.

(p) Ibid. s. 10, App.

(9) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55, s. 11, App. Company neglecting, &c. to obey order of board liable to a penalty of 201. per day. Ib.

460. Level crossings. So likewise, where a railway company are willing to carry any road, &c. over or under the railway, instead of crossing the same on a level, the Board may, on application of the company, and after hearing the several parties interested, if it shall appear to them that such level crossing endangers the public safety, and that the proposal of the company does not involve any violation of existing rights, &c., without adequate compensation, authorize the company to remove the danger at their own expense, by building a bridge, or by such other arrangement as the nature of the case shall require, subject to such conditions as the Board shall direct. (r) And again they may, where

(r) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55, s. 13, App. As to the meaning of this clause, and as to the arrangements which the Board of Trade will or will not sanction by virtue of it, see Report of Officers of Railway Department, 1842, pp. xxi. xxii.

"An application was made to the Board of Trade by the Croydon Company to sanction the diversion of a road, in order to get rid of a level crossing over the railway at the Jolly Sailor Station. Notice of this application having been given to the board of surveyors of highways for the parish of Croydon, they objected to the diversion; and the inspector-general having reported that the diversion being about a quarter of a mile would be a serious inconvenience to the public travelling by the road, and that there was no impediment beyond that of expense to carrying the road under the railway in the present line, the application was refused. With reference to the diversion of roads to adjoining bridges in order to get rid of level crossings, it was considered that although such a measure might under certain circumstances come within the arrangements which by the 13th section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55, the Board of Trade were empowered to direct, yet that the primâ facie intention of the clause being that the railway company should carry the road over or under the railway entirely at their own expense without

they are satisfied that it will be more conducive to the public safety, order the gates at level crossings to be kept closed across the railway, instead of across the road, as required by the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55, s. 9. (s)

461. Branch Communications. (t) So likewise the

any violation of existing rights or interests, a diversion should only be authorized where engineering difficulties prevented the making of a bridge or tunnel in the present line of the road, or where the parties interested in the road did not state any valid objection.

Acting on these principles, a similar application from the Manchester and Leeds Railway Company to be allowed to divert a highway near their Brighouse Station to a bridge about seventy yards distant was rejected, the diversion being opposed by the trustees of the road, and the report of the inspectorgeneral being unfavourable. A subsequent application from the London and Croydon Railway Company to be allowed to carry the road from Dulwich to Bromley and Lewisham, which crossed their line on a level at the Dartmouth Arms Station, under the railway by a tunnel, making a moderate deviation, was acceded to, and the requisite powers given in the terms of the act, the inspector-general having reported that it was impracticable to carry the road over or under the railway in a direct line."

(s) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55, s. 9, App. See 8 Vict. c. 20, s. 47, post, App.

(t) The following is an instance in which the Board of Trade has been called upon to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by the 19th section of the act for regulating railways, of determining disputes relative to the opening of branch communications with railways. It arose in consequence of a dispute between the Great North of England Railway and the proprietors of a warehouse and brickyard adjacent to the line, who had enjoyed a right of communication by means of a short branch line with the main railway, which the extension of traffic consequent on opening the line from York to Darlington had rendered highly

Board of Trade is authorized to determine all disputes and disagreements touching the proper places for openings in the ledges or flanches of railways, in order to admit branch communications; (u) and the provisions in various railway acts, giving the jurisdiction in such cases to two justices, are repealed. (x) This latter branch of jurisdiction is carried still further by the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55, s. 12, which empowers the Board of Trade, in the case of any passenger railway, to order that all powers of making branch lines opening into the flanches of main lines, &c. given by any particular company's act, shall only be exercised upon such conditions as the Board shall direct, where, that is to say, it appears to the Board that the powers in question cannot be exercised without danger to the public, and that an arrangement can be made with a due regard to existing rights of property. (y)

462. Extension of Powers of Company. The Board of Trade may likewise empower companies to enter upon adjoining lands to repair or prevent accidents, &c., (≈) and in certain cases, and under certain limitations, certify for the revival of a com

dangerous. It will be seen from the report and correspondence relative to the case, Appendix, p. 283, that an amicable arrangement was effected through the intervention of this department, by which the danger to the public was entirely obviated and the rights of the parties preserved; Report of Officers of Railway Department, 1842, p. xxi.

(u) 3 & 4 Vict. c. 97, s. 19, App.

(1) Ibid. s. 18, App.

(y) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55, s. 12, App. For definition of passenger railway, see ibid.

(2) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55, s. 14, App.

pany's compulsory powers of purchasing and taking land. (a)

462. Legal proceedings. (b) The Board of Trade

(a) 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55, s. 15, App.

(b) The Board of Trade has been called upon in several cases to exert the powers vested in it by Lord Seymour's Act, in order to prevent alleged deviations on the part of railway companies from the provisions of their acts and of the general law, but it has not been found necessary to institute any prosecution for that purpose.

In April, 1841, an application was made to the railway department of the Board, to interfere for the purpose of preventing the Glasgow and Greenock Railway Company from indirectly becoming steam boat proprietors, for the purpose of forwarding passengers by the railway to places beyond Greenock, and acquiring a monopoly of the whole passenger traffic on the Clyde. After a full consideration of the circumstances, it was determined that this was not a case in which the Board of Trade could interfere, on the following grounds, which may be stated as illustrative of the principles upon which their lordships have acted in the exercise of the power of instituting prosecutions against railway companies, vested in them by Lord Seymour's Act, &c., in cases where personal safety is not concerned :

1st. That this power, being of an extraordinary nature, is only to be exercised in cases where it is quite clear, 1st, that the conduct of the railway company is illegal; 2nd, that it is contrary to public policy and injurious to public interests.

2nd. That in the present case neither of these points was suf ficiently established, for although it is clearly illegal for a company incorporated for a specific purpose, such as making a railway, to undertake a different and distinct branch of business, yet in the present instance it might be fairly a question whether the employing steam boats to forward passengers from the terminus of the railway was not incidental to the main business and a public convenience; and at any rate it did not appear that whatever might be the ultimate object of the railway company any loss was in the meantime sustained by the public, but rather

« EelmineJätka »