corporation could carry on the business of common carriers upon their tramways, and as ancillary to that business do all things necessary for the collection and delivery of goods, &c., carried on their tramways, but they were not entitled to expend any part of the corporate funds or rates, or the receipts of the tramways in carrying on a general parcels delivery business apart from their tramways. AtorneyGeneral v. Manchester Corporation (Ch. D., 5 Feb., 1906), [1906] 1 Ch. 643; 75 L. J. Ch. 330; 54 W. R. 307; 70 J. P. 201; 4 L. G. R. 365; 22 T. L. R. 261. Right of Passenger to Break Journey-Non-payment of Fresh A passenger on a tramcar who had taken a ticket entitling him to travel to a certain destination, alighted at an intermediate stopping place, walked a quarter of a mile in the direction of his destination, and got on to another tramcar, which was performing the same journey, in order to reach the point to which he might have travelled by the first car. He refused to pay the fare demanded of him on the second car, contending that he was entitled to complete his journey with his original ticket. Held, that the contract of carriage had been determined by the passenger's act, and that he was liable to be convicted for travelling on the second tramcar without paying his fare. Bastaple v. Metcalfe (K.B.D., 4 May, 1906), [1906] 2 K.B. 288; 75 L,J,K,B, 670; 70 J.P. 343; 4 L.G.R. 1073. Repair of Road by Company "Junction" between Paving of Tramway and Ordinary Surface of Road Settlement of difference Jurisdiction of High Court-Norwich Electric Tramways Act, 1897, s. 57 (5) ; Tramways Act, 1870, ss. 22, 33By section 57 of the Norwich Electric Tramways Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. ccliv.), if a tramways company failed "to maintain and keep in good condition to the satisfaction of the corporation (5) the junction of the paving laid and maintained by the company with the surface laid and maintained by the corporation," the corporation were empowered to do the work themselves and recover the expense from the company. The paving laid by the company was granite setts and the surface laid by the corporation macadam. As the latter wore more rapidly, a trough formed at the junction which could be made good by putting in fresh metal over a space of about 3 inches in breadth from the setts. The Divisional Court' decided that the defendants were liable for such repair as the "junction" could not mean the mere line where the two surfaces met, and that the even contour of the road at the junction must be maintained See Law and Legislation, 1905, p. 148. Tramways-continued. by the defendants. On appeal against the decision the defendants contended that under the operation of sections 22 and 33 of the Tramways Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 78) any difference between the promoters and any local authority or road authority with respect to inter alia the propriety of or mode of execution of any work relating to any tramway or the question whether any work is such as ought reasonably to satisfy the authority should (unless otherwise provided by that Act) be settled by an engineer or other fit person nominated as referee by the Board of Trade, and that the High Court had consequently no jurisdiction in the case. Held, that the jurisdiction of the High Court was ousted and that the appeal must be allowed notwithstanding that the point taken was first raised in the Court of Appeal. Norwich Corporation v. Norwich Electric Tramways Co. (C.A., 15 May, 1906), [1906] 2 K.B. 119; 75 L.J.K.B. 636; 95 L.T. 12; 54 W.R. 572; 70 J.P. 401; 4 L.G.R. 1114; 22 T.L.R. 553. Sale of Undertaking to Local Authority-" Within such District" A local authority of a district may, under section 43 of the Tramways Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 78) require the promoters of a tramway to sell to the authority their undertaking or so much of the same as is within such district upon terms of paying the then value of the tramway and all lands, buildings, works, materials, and plant of the promoters suitable to and used by them for the purposes of their undertaking within such district. Among the buildings of the promoters of tramways required to be sold under the section was a depot situated outside the district connected with the main undertaking by a spur line not belonging to the undertakers and over which they had no assignable rights of user. The referee appointed by the Board of Trade to determine the value of the tramways in effect found that this depot was suitable to and used for the purposes of the undertaking. Held that the district council must take the depot as part of the undertaking. Decision of Court of Appeal' (1904) (69 J. P. 57) reversed, and of King's Bench Division (90 L. T. 795) restored. Manchester Carriage and Tramways Co., Ltd. v. Swinton and Pendlebury Urban District Council (H. L., 15 Dec., 1905), [1906] A. C. 277; 75 L. J. K. B. 839; 93 L. T. 821; 70 J. P. 81 ; 4 L. G. R. 214; 22 T. L. R. 154. 'See Law and Legislation, 1905, pp. 149, 150. 2 See Law and Legislation, 1904, p. 166. Unsound Food: : Sale or Exposure for Sale-Prosecution by Private Person- A private person may take proceedings under section 47 (2) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76), in respect of the sale or exposure for sale of any animal or article diseased, or unsound, or unwholesome, or unfit for the food of man; and where a sanitary inspector lays an information under that enactment purporting to be "on behalf of the ... borough council," when in fact he had not been expressly authorised to do so, the reference to the council may be regarded as surplusage. ALLMAN 7. HARDCASTLE (1903) (89 L. T. 553) followed. Giebler v. Manning (K. B. D., 2 April, 1906), [1906] 1 K. B. 709; 75 L. J. K. B. 463; 94 L. T. 580; 54 W. R. 527; 70 J. P. 181; 4 L. G. R. 561; 22 T. L. R. 416. Liability of Wholesale Dealer-Sale to Retailer-Article not Exposed for Sale-Article Liable to be Seized-Public Health (London) Act, 1891, s. 47 (3). The respondent, a wholesale dealer, sold to a retail pork butcher a quantity of pigs' plucks, one of which was unsound, unwholesome, and unfit for the food of man. The unsound pluck was seized in the purchaser's shop by a sanitary inspector, who obtained an order for its destruction. In proceedings against the respondent under section 47 (3) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76), for selling an article liable to be seized and condemned under the section, the magistrate found that the unsound pluck was not exposed for sale, and would not have been sold or offered for sale by the retail shopkeeper until the inspector had passed it, and without calling upon the respondent, dismissed the summons. Held that the magistrate was wrong in stopping the case; that a prima facie case had been made out against the respondent calling for an answer; and that the case must go back to the magistrate to be proceeded with. Per Lord Alverstone, C.J.: subsection 3 of section 47 is intended to deal with the case of the vendor of an article intended for the food of man, which in fact at the time it is sold by him is in such a condition that it is liable to be seized, that is, in the condition of being unsound and unfit for the food of man. Per Channell J. The words "any article liable to be seized" in subsection 3 mean any article prima facie liable to be seized by reason of its condition. REG. 7. DENNIS ([1894] 2 Q. B. 458) considered. Grivell v. Malpas (K. B. D., 7 April, 1906), [1906] 2 K.B. 32; 75 L. J. K. B. 647; 95 L. T. 123; 70 J. P. 334; 4 L. G. R. 668; 22 T. L. R. 514. See Law and Legislation, 1904, p. 121. Water:-see also "Rates and Rating:-(3) Recovery." Injurious Affection of Land - Loss of Support - Authorised Working Compensation Interest-Heading of Section-Construction of Section – Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, ss. 6, 12. By a special Act which incorporated the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 17), a corporation were authorised to make and maintain certain waterworks, including a well and pumping station. After the completion of the works the corporation, for the purpose of their undertaking, commenced pumping operations, and in so doing caused damage to the plaintiff's premises by the abstraction of a bed of wet running silt which formed the subsoil and support of the plaintiff's land. In respect of the damage thus sustained the plaintiff claimed compensation under section 12 or section 6 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, and, an arbitration having been held, was awarded compensation by the umpire. Held that the plaintiff's premises had been injuriously affected; that section 12 empowered the corporation to take water not only for the purpose of the construction of the authorised works, but also, after their completion, for the purpose of the undertaking, and that compensation was therefore payable to the plaintiff under section 12; that, assuming the power to take water after the completion of the works was derived from the special Act, and not from section 12, the plaintiff's premises had been injuriously affected by the exercise of the powers authorised by the special Act within the meaning of section 6 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, so as to entitle him to compensation under the section. Held, also, that interest at 4 per cent. from the date of a demand in writing claiming payment and notifying that interest will be charged, was payable on the amount of compensation awarded and on the taxed costs. The rule of construction of Acts of Parliament that the effect of words, perfectly clear in themselves, is not limited by general words in a preamble applies equally to the heading of a section. Fletcher v. Birkenhead Corporation (K. B. D., 21 Dec., 1905), [1906] 1 K. B. 605; 75 L. J. K. B. 183; 94 L. T. 18; 70 J. P. 170; 4 L. G. R. 483; 22 T. L. R. 206. Injury to Water Main by Traction Engine-Excessive Weight. A duly licensed traction engine, weighing upwards of 10 tons, and drawing 3 trucks, broke the water main belonging to a municipal corporation under one of the streets for which the corporation were the road authority. The main had been laid at least 30 years, but was found as a fact in an action in the county court to be sufficiently strong and well laid to withstand the pressure of the ordinary traffic of the district. The county court judge found that the injury was 2 Affirmed on Appeal (C. A,, 18 Dec., 1906), [1907] 1 K.B. 205 ; 23 T.L. R. 195. caused by the excessive weight of the traction engine. Held that in using an exceptionally heavy locomotive the owner was liable for the cost of repairing the broken water main. GAS LIGHT AND COKE Co. v ST. MARY ABBOTT'S VESTRY (1885) (15 Q.B.D. 1; 54 L.J.Q.B. 414) and ATTORNEY GENERAL 7. SCOTT ([1905] 2 K.B. 160) considered. Chichester Corporation v. Foster (K.B.D., 1 Nov., 1906), [1906] 1 K.B. 167 ; 75 L.J K.B. 33; 93 L.T. 750; 54 W.R. 199; 70 J.P. 73; 4 L.G.R. 205; 22 T.L.R. 18. Weights and Measures: Prosecution by Inspector-" With the Consent of the Local Authority"-General Consent-Weights and Measures Act, 1904, S. 14. Under section 14 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 28), which provides that an inspector of weights and measures may, with the consent of the local authority, prosecute before a court of summary jurisdiction any information, complaint, or proceeding arising under the Weights and Measures Acts, a separate consent is not required in each particular case; a general consent of the authority that a named inspector shall prosecute is sufficient. Tyler v. Ferris (K. B. D., 19 Dec., 1905), [1906] 1 K. B. 94; 75 L. J. K. B. 142; 93 L. T. 843; 54 W. R. 469; 70 J. P. 88; 4 L. G. R. 201; 22 T. L. R. 181. Workmen's Compensation": Gas Mains-" Factory -Liability for Accident-Workmen's Gas mains used merely for the distribution of gas from gas works are not a part of a "factory" within the meaning of section 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37), so that where a workman employed by a gas company in making a trench in a road near a main about a quarter of a mile from the works met with an accident he was not entitled to compensation under the Act. Spacey v. Dowlais Gas and Coke Co., Ltd. (C.A, 7 Nov., 1905), [1905] 2 K.B. 879; 75 L J.K.B. 5· 93 LT, 685; 54 W, R, 138; 22 T.L.R. 29. Sewer Work-Accident to Night Watchman -Liability -- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, s. 1 (1). A night watchman in connection with sewer work, whose duty it was to look after tools and traffic lamps, left his watch-box and went into a loosely-constructed shanty where the tools were kept, and to See Law and Legislation 1905, p. 106. Much of the interest in these decisions will cease on the coming into operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, page 128 ante, by which the Act of 1897 is repealed and the law much modified. |