« EelmineJätka »
made against the company, and in favour of private property. (g)
66. So likewise the provisions for the taking of toll by the company must be couched in clear and unambiguous language; or, if the words fairly admit of different meanings, then that meaning must be adopted which is most favourable to the interests of the public, and most against that of the company, because the company, in bargaining with the public, ought to take care to define distinctly what payments they are to receive, and because the public ought not to be charged, unless it be clear that it was so intended by the legislature. (h)
67. On the other hand, clauses providing compensation for parties whose property is injured by the railway, ought, it seems, to be liberally, and not strictly construed, so as to advance the remedy intended by the legislature in making such provisions. (i)
68. Some forms prescribed for the internal government of a railway company, may be imperative, and others only directory. (k)
(g) Scales v. Pickering, 4 Bing. 448; Webb v. The Manchester and Leeds Railway Company, 4 My. & Cr. 120; S. C. 1 Railway Cas. 599, per Lord Cottenham, Ld. Ch.
(h) See Gildart v. Gladstone, 11 East, 675; Barrett
(i) Reg. v. The Eastern Counties Railway Company, 2 A. & E. N. S. 347; S. C. 2 Railway Cas. 752; Bell v. Hull and Selby Railway Company, 6 M. & W. 699; S. C. 2 Railway Cas. 286.
(k) Judgment of Wigram, Vice Ch. in Foss v. Harbottle, 2 Hare, 495. See further as to this distinction between directory and imperative clauses in railway acts, post, cap. 3 aud cap. 7.
69. III. Of the rules of construction applicable to several acts relative to the same company. It must often happen, that, from some change in the purposes of the company, the lapse of time, &c., a further act or acts becomes requisite, in order to vary or extend the powers given by the original act. In this case, the subsequent and prior acts, being framed upon one system, having one object in view, and being in pari materia, may be construed together as if they were one law.
The subsequent act, instead of particularizing the powers and capacities that it intends to confer, ordinarily embodies the provisions of the prior act by a general clause of reference. The fair construction to be put upon such a clause is, that all the general powers and provisions given and made in the former act shall be virtually incorporated in the latter, but not such as are of a special nature, and have a peculiar application to the subject-matter of the prior act. (1)
70. A subsequent act, where it is so intended, may have the effect of reviving proceedings taken under a prior act, or even of ratifying and healing what is irregular in the same. (m) To have this latter effect, however, the later act must contain a clear, direct, and particular ratification of such proceedings. A railway act enacted that no calls
(1) Sirhowy Tramroad Company v. Jones, and Homfray v. Jones, 3 A. & E. 640, n. (a); Att. Gen. v. Eastern Counties and North Eastern Railway Company, 2 Railw. Cas. 832; S. C. 10 M. & W. 263.
(m) The Stratford and Moreton Railway Company v. Stratton, 2 B. & Ad. 518; see also Smith v. Goldsworthy, 4 A. & E. N. S. 430.
made against the company, a
66. So likewise the provis
67. On the other hand, clause
68. Some forms prescribed for vernment of a railway company, ma and others only directory. (k)
should be made at an interval of less than two months from each other, and that none of the powers of the act should be put in force till the sum of £33,500 was subscribed. The committee began the works before the above sum was subscribed, and made a single order for the payment of various calls at intervals of two months. A subsequent act noticed in a recital, that the capital of £33,500 had not been subscribed, but that the company had proceeded in their works, had incurred debts, &c., and that a certain sum was due from defaulters in payment of calls; it at the same time provided for the carrying on the works, and making further calls, and enacted that the powers of the former act (except where expressly altered) should remain vested in the company, though the £33,500 had not been subscribed. It was held to ratify what had been done in breach of the latter enactment, but not to recognize the calls as valid. (n)
(n) The Stratford and Moreton Railway Company v. Stratton, 2 B. & Ad. 518; see also Smith v. Goldsworthy, 4 A. & E. N. S. 430.