Buildings:-see also" Byelaws," "Streets :-(1) Building Line." Passing of Plans by Corporation-Undertaking by Builder- A local Act provided that every undertaking or agreement in writing given to the corporation to or by or on behalf of any owner of property on the passing of plans should be binding upon the owner of the property for the time being and upon his successors. Plans for the alteration of buildings upon which an undertaking was given, were rejected by the corporation and another set of plans was subsequently passed. Held that the undertaking given upon the first set of plans did not bind the owner. It was further provided by the local Act that the conversion of a building into one or more dwelling houses or of two or more buildings into one dwelling-house should be deemed to be the erection of a new building and by a byelaw that a person shall not let or occupy any new dwelling-house until certified by the surveyor of the corporation to be fit for human habitation. Held that the conversion of part of a building into three dwellings was the "erection of a new building" within the Act and that each dwelling was a "new dwelling-house" within the meaning of the byelaw. Hall v. Eastbourne Corporation (K. B. D., 20 July, 1905), 69 J. P. 369. Burials near Dwelling-Houses-Application of Prohibition to Where ground is used or appropriated as a cemetery after 14th of August, 1855, the date of the passing of the Burial Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 128), the prohibition in section 9 of the Act of its use for burials within the distance of 100 yards from any dwelling-house without the consent of the owner, lessee, and occupier, applies generally to dwelling-houses even if erected subsequently to the acquisition of the ground for a cemetery.' Decision of Chancery Division (94 L. T. 606; 4 L.G.R.519; 22 T.L.R. 496) affirmed. Godden v. Hythe Burial Board (C.A., 12 June, 1906), [1906] 2 Ch. 270; 75 L.J.Ch. 595; 95 L.T. 129; 70 J.P. 285; 4 L.G.R. 787; 22 T.L.R. 631. Closed Burial Ground-" Open Space"-Right of Adjacent Landowner to Light-Extent of Powers of Local AuthorityMetropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1877, s. 1; Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1881, ss. 4,5; Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, s. 3 A borough council, in whom, under the Metropolitan Open Spaces 'This case is in effect overridden by section 1 of the Burial Act, 1906 (page 25 ante) subject to a saving for existing rights. Acts, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 35) and 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 34), and the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 72), the management and control of a disused churchyard as an open space were vested, threatened to erect on the ground a screen for the purpose of preventing an adjoining landowner, who had built on his land. houses which overlooked the churchyard, from acquiring any rights of light or air which would interfere with the enjoyment by the public of the churchyard as an open space. Held that such a screen is not a building within the meaning of either section 5 of the Act of 1881', or of section 3 of the Act of 1884. Decision of the Court of Appeal ([1903] 2 Ch. 556; 72 L. J. Ch. 695), reversed, and that of Chancery Division ([1903] 1 Ch. 109; 72 L. J. Ch. 28) restored. Paddington Borough Council v. Attorney-General (H. L., 14 Nov., 1905), [1906] A. C. 1 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 4; 93 L. T. 673; 54 W. R. 317; 70 J. P. 41 ; 4 L. G. R. 19; 22 T. L. R. 55. Erection of Monuments-Fees to Incumbent Extension of In 1893 a burial board purchased for burial purposes 8 acres of land adjoining their existing burial ground. The 8 acres were separated from the burial ground by a wall, and in 1897 this wall was lowered and a communication between the old and new portions of the burial ground was made. The 8 acres were then laid out and adapted for burial purposes, and divided into consecrated and unconsecrated parts; but no burials took place in the 8 acres before November, 1902. Held that the area of 8 acres had not been "laid out and used" before the passing of the Burial Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 15) within the meaning of section 3 (4) of the Act, and that the incumbent was therefore not entitled to receive fees in respect of the erection of monuments therein. Young v. Kingstonon-Thames, Surbiton, New Malden, and Coombe Joint Burials Committe3 (K. B. D., 15 Dec., 1905), [1906] 1 K. B. 338; 75 L. J. K. B. 225; 94 L. T. 196; 54 W. R. 507; 70 J. P. 107; 4 L. G. R. 121; 22 T. L. R. 163. Byelaws: --see also “ Buildings," "Housing of Working Classes,” Drain-Reconstruction or Repair-Compliance with Byelaws- Respondent, in compliance with a statutory notice served by the appellart, restored a drain in a trench from which the old pipes had Now see sections 10, 20 of the Open Spaces Act, 1906, pp. 103, 109 ante. * See Law and Legislation, 1903, p. 176. 3 Affirmed on appeal (C.A., 18 Dec., 1906), 23 T. L. R. 218. Byelaws-continued. been removed, by laying a bed of concrete and in it four new lengths of pipes and a new gully and connection, and replaced one old pipe only with the gully attached. The restored line of pipes was laid in the same line and level as the old line. Held that upon the facts as stated there had been a reconstruction, and not a mere repair of the drain, and that plans of the reconstruction should have been deposited, and the reconstructed drain have been ventilated in accordance with the byelaws of the London County Council under section 202 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), Agar v. Nokes (K.B.D., 9 Aug., 1905), 69 J.P. 374; 93 L.T. 605; 3 L.G.R. 1168. Good Rule and Government-Refuse, Waste Paper, &c., in A byelaw made by the London County Council under section 16 of the Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), which provided that no person shall sweep or otherwise remove from any shop, house, or vehicle into any street any waste paper, shavings, or other refuse, or, being a costermonger, newsvendor, or other street trader, throw down and leave in any street any waste paper, shavings, or other refuse," held to be good notwithstanding that among the offences in any street or public place punishable summarily under section 60 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839 (2 & 3 Vict. c. 47), is "(3) Every person who in any thoroughfare shall throw or lay any dirt, litter, or ashes, or any carrion, fish, offal, or rubbish." Batchelor v. Sturley (K.B.D., 4 Aug., 1905), 93 L.T. 539; 69 J.P. 398; 3 L.G.R. 1056. Market Toll on Persons who "Hawk or Expose for Sale"- A byelaw of a borough council required the payment of a market toll on persons "who shall hawk or expose about the town for sale certain specified articles. Held that a man in charge of a wagon containing mineral waters who called on customers and delivered to them at the same time what they wanted, whether ordered before or not, but who made no attempt to attract casual customers, did not hawk articles for sale within the meaning of the byelaw. To" hawk means to offer articles for sale as you carry them about. Philpott v. Allright (K. B. D., 10 April, 1906), 94 L. T. 540; 70 J. P. 287 ; 4 L. G. R. 1013. New Buildings-Foundations Laid before Byelaws madeApplication of Byelaws-Public Health Act, 1875, s. 157. Between March and May, 1904, appellant dug trenches and laid concrete foundations for a block of cottages and built upon the foundations from two to four courses of brickwork at the corners of the block. Bricks for the building were ordered about 1st April, 1904, and a contract entered into about 8th July with a builder to do the work of building the rest of the block. Nothing was done from the end of May until 11th October, when the builder commenced the work. Byelaws as to new buildings under section 157 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), were for the first time made in August by the rural district council, and on 31st of that month confirmed by the Local Government Board. Held that the block of cottages was not a new building within the meaning of the byelaws. Hubbard v. Bromley Rural District Council (K. B D., 9 Aug., 1905), 69 J.P. 437; 3 L.G.R. 1377. New Buildings-Open Space-Party Wall--Building comprising three blocks-Application of Byelaws-Public Health Act, 1875, s. 157. A long building consisting of three blocks of stables and coachhouses with lofts, and two intervening blocks also suitable to be fitted as stables of one storey, was proposed to be erected with only one way into and through the building, which ran along the whole length from one end to the other. The building was capable of being occupied by more than one person. The byelaws of the local authority required open spaces in the front and rear of new buildings and that there should be no openings in party walls; and the authority contended that there was more than one building for the purposes of the byelaws, and that the byelaws were infringed. It was admitted that if the erection comprised but one building there was no contravention of the byelaws. Held upon the facts that although capable of occupation by more than one person, the erection was one building. Attorney-General, at the relation of Wood Green Urban District Council v. Melville and King (Ch. D., 31 Oct., 1905), 93 L. T. 612; 70 J. P. 17; 4 L. G. R. 166. New Streets-Notice and Deposit of Plans-Houses Built upon The appellant purchased a piece of land abutting on and fronting an old occupation road over which he acquired a right of way for foot and vehicular traffic for himself and his purchasers and tenants. He divided the land into plots and sold four of them; but he reserved a strip of land six feet wide along the whole front of the plots between them and the road. Houses were built upon the plots M Byelaws-continued. sold, and whilst they were being built the appellant took down the hedge between the reserved strip and the road opposite the plots and threw that portion of the strip into the road. Held that under all the circumstances there was no evidence that appellant intended to lay out a new street within the meaning of bye-laws, which required notice to be given and plans to be furnished to the local authority by "every person who shall intend to make or lay out any new street." Fellowes v. Sedgley Urban District Council (K.B.D., 28 May, 1906), 70 J. P. 412; 4 L. G. R. 970. Removal of House Refuse-Duties of Occupier--Notice by A byelaw of the London County Council, made under section 16 (2)(b) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76), provided that, where a sanitary authority arrange for the daily removal of house refuse in their district or any part thereof, the occupier of any premises should, at such hour of the day as the sanitary authority fix and notify by public announcement, deposit on the kerbstone or outer edge of the footpath immediately in front of the house or in a conveniently accessible position on the premises as the sanitary authority may prescribe by written notice served upon the occupier, a movable receptacle in which the house refuse should be placed for the purposes of removal. A sanitary authority gave notice by means of a printed notice to all the occupiers of houses within a specified area, requiring them to deposit on the kerbstone or edge of the footpath immediately in front of their respective houses a movable receptacle in which should be placed for the purposes of removal the house refuse which had accumulated since the preceding collection; the notice contained a statement that the dustmen were prohibited from going on the premises for dust in the streets within the prescribed area. An occupier of a detached house standing back 40 feet from the highway, and approached by a carriage drive, who had a coveniently accessible position on his premises in which he was willing to put his house refuse in a movable receptacle for the purposes of removal, refused to place the receptacle on the kerbstone, and took out a summons under section 30 (2) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, against the sanitary authority for unlawfully and without reasonable cause failing to comply with a notice to remove the house refuse from his premises. Held that the notice of the sanitary authority went beyond the byelaw in prescribing that every occupier within a given area must place his house refuse in a receptacle on the kerbstone, and that there was not a proper prescription of a conveniently accessible position on the premises as contemplated by the |