Cornell University Law Library The Moak Collection 1^ PURCHASED FOR The School of Law of Cornell University And Presented February 14, 1893 IN HEnORY OF JUDGE DOUGLASS BOARDMAN. FIRST DEAN OF THE SCHOOL By his Wife and Daughter A. M. BOARDMAN and ELLEN D. WILLIAMS Cornell University Library KD 43721891 Cases decided during the sessions, 1885' 3 1924 017 620 497 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017620497 RIOKARDS AND MICHAEL'S LOCUS STANDI REPORTS. CASES DECIDED DURING THE SESSIONS, 1885-6-7-8-9, BY THE COURT OF REFEREES ON REPORTS OF CASES DECIDED IN 1885 AND 1886, BY A. G. RICKARDS AND M. J. MICHAEL, BARKISTERS-AT-LAW. REPORTS OF CASES DECIDED IN 1887, 1888 AND 1889, BY A. G. RICKARDS. LONDON : BUTTERWORTH & CO., 7, FLEET STREET ILato Puijltsbtts to tlje 'Mmm's JSIost ffiicellcnt fHajestg ; HODGES, FOSTKK & CO., GEAFTON STREET, DUBLIN. 1891. Printed by PEWTRESS & CO., 2^, LiTTLii: Queen Stbekt, London, W.C. PREFACE TO RICKARDS AND MICHAEL'S REPORTS. The Reports contained in this Volume include the Cases Decided by the Court of Refebees in Parliament during the Sessions 1885 — 1889, inclusive, and are in continuation of the Reports of " Clifford and Richards " (themselves a continuation of " Clifford and Stephens" Reports). The Reports for 1885-6 are by Messrs. Rickards and Michael, but owing to the retirement of Mr. Michael from the Editorship through ill-health the Reports for 1887-8-9 are edited by Mr. Rickards alone. For the sake of completeness, a notice of every Case decided by the Court op Referees will be found in this series of the Reports, although in cases depending mainly upon questions of Competition, Construction of Agreements, or other special circum- stances, and involving no definite principle, a short mention only is made, giving the Decision of the Court as to the Locus Standi of the Petitioners. Other cases will be reported at length as in the former Volumes of Reports. For convenience of reference, the Cases of each year are arranged in alphabetical order, but a com- plete Index of Cases and Subjects for the whole Volume is appended. Vols. I. and II. of " Clifford AND Stephens" (1867—1872) and Vols. I., II., and III., of "Clifford and Rickards" (1873—1884) and the present Volume of "Rickards and Michael's" Reports, together furnish a Record of the Decisions of the Court during the Sessions 1867 — 1889, inclusive. The Reports of Cases decided in 1890 and in subse- quent Sessions, will be edited jointly by Mr. A. G. Rickards and Mr. R, C. Saunders. (f Temple, February, 1891. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Eepokts of Cases of 1885 ....... 1 Eepoets of Cases of 1886 ...... 87 Kepokts of Cases of 1887 ....... 137 Keports op Cases op 1888 ...... 195 Reports of Cases of 1889 . 235 Index of Cases ........ 317 Index op Subjects ........ 327 ERRATA, e 29 (1st Column) Lines 44-46 should be read, as if^jmnctuated as follows : " Greenwich and Millwall, the powers for " constructing the works under tjre original Act " being still unexpired, the Court decided." Page 160 (1st Colhmn) Line -20; For/^12th March, 1887," read "18th March, 1887 Page 210 (1st Column)\ine jf(. For " 13th April, 1889," rend " 13th April, U Page 212 (1st Column) Eine 3. iUter " are not," insert " only." Page 221 (1st Coiumn) Line 26K After " Railway," insert "iSupra, p. 165)." Page 227 /(fst Column) Line 8. For " 1^ April, 1889," read " 18th April, 1888." ^e 248 (2nd Column) Line 31. For " Petition ><^ (2)," read " Petition of (4)." COURT OF REFEREES m PARLIAMENT. REPOETS FOE THE SESSION 1885. *** Wliere a Standing Order w quoted or referred to, the number is that of the Standing Orders for the Session 1886, BALLTMENA AND AHOGHILL TRAMWAY BILL. Petition of William Young, signing the Petition of John Young and William Young. 24tli April, 1885.— (Before Mr. Pembeeton, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Roundell, M.P. ; Sir John Duckworth ; and Mr. Bokham-Carter.) In this case an arrangement was come to between the parties that the locus standi of John Young should be Allowed, and that the locus standi of William Young should be Disallowed. The Court concurred. Agents for Bill, Dyson Sf Co. BELFAST CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) Belfast Harbour Commis- SIONERS. loth July, 1885.— (Before 4fr. Pemberton, iljr.P., Chairman ; Mr. Parkbe, M.P. ; and Mr, Bonham-Carteb.) Railway Amalgamation — Ra/rhov/r Commissioners Representing Trade Interests — Through Rates, Apprehended Alteration of — Railway Commis- sioners, Application to, for Through Rates — Undue Preference — Regulation of Raihiiays Act, 1873. The bill provided for the sale and transfer of the undertaking of the Belfast Central railway company to the Great Northern railway company (Ireland). The Belfast Central railway was a short line connecting the harbour and quays of Belfast with the Great Northern railway. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners claimed to be heard against the bill as representing the trade interests of the port on the ground that it would affect certain through rates for trafiB.c sent from their harbour over the Belfast Central and Great Northern railways, which rates had been fixed by the Railway Commissioners on the appli- cation of the Belfast Central railway company, whose interest had hitherto been the same as their own, and who had been in a position (which the Harbour Commissioners were not) to apply to the Railway Commissioners for a through rate underthe Regulation of Railways Act, 1873. It was contended on behalf of the promoters that the objections of the petitioners to the bill related more to their legal status under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, than to any provision of the bill, which did not affect through rates ; and that the Harbour Commissioners had not at the present time any more control over the Belfast Central company than they would have over the Great Northern company after that com- pany became the owners of the Belfast Central undertaking : Held, that the status of the petitioners was not prejudicially affected by the bill in such a manner as to entitle them to be heard against it. The locus standi of the petitioners was ob- jected to, because (1) no lands, houses or property of theii's wonld be taken or affected ; (2) the sale and transfer proposed by the bill COUET OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. would not so affect the trade and interests of the port and harbour of Belfast as to entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill upon snch ground according to the practice of Parliament ; (3) the possible diversion of traffic from the port and harbour of Belfast was too remote a con- tingency to entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (4) the bill did not alter or in any way deal with or affect the tolls, rates and charges authorised to he charged on the Great Northern railway or the undertaking proposed by the bill to be transferred ; (5) the position of the petitioners with respect to through rates for traffic over the lines of the Great Northern railway company (Ireland) was not in any way altered by the bill, and the petitioners were not entitled to be heard upon the allega- tions of the petition in that respect; ('6) the allegations of the petition were in respect to existing public legislation, and not to any provisions of the bill, and the petitioners were not entitled to be heard thereon against the bill ; (7, 8) the petition did not show that the bill contained, nor did it contain, any pro- visions affecting the petitioners. Balfour Browne, Q.C. (for petitioners (1) ) : The petitioners are a body of trustees in whom is vested the harbour of Belfast. The Belfast Central railway is a short line connecting the harbour and quays of Belfast with the Great Northern of Ireland, which runs from Belfast to Dublin on the one hand and to Londonderry on the other. The bill provides for the sale of the Belfast Central railway to the Great Northern of .Ireland company. The Great Northern quoted such rates for traffic coming from the Belfast Central to places in the interior of Ireland that the Belfast Central complained of the rates and made several applications before the Railway Commissioners with the view of having reason- able through rates fixed, and these were in some cases allowed by the Railway Commissioners, but the amalgamation proposed by the bill will at once put an end to these rates. The amalga- mated undertaking will all he Great Northern, and they will have the sole power of fixing the rates from Belfast to places inland. The Harbour Commissioners have not themselves the power to propose through rates under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873. The Chairman: Do you say that Harbour Commissioners, not being themselves traders to whose harbour the Railway Commissioners have allowed through rates, could be heard against the amalgamation of any part of the railway system with which their harbour was in connection ? Balfour Browne : No ; they do not want to prevent the amalgamation per se, but, as repre- senting the trade of Belfast, which has derived benefit from those through rates, the Harbour Commissioners seek to be heard against this amalgamation, in so far as it will affect through rates -frhich the Great Northern will in future have power to raise. The Chairman : You say a through rate has been granted over the lines of the two com- panies ; have not the Railway Commissioners the power to prevent an alteration of that rate when the two companies amalgamate ? Balfowr Browne : The Harbour Commissioners are not a body who could apply to the Railway Commissioners for a through rate. Under the Act of 1873 the Belfast Harbour Commissioners would have the power to apply to the Railway Commissioners when there was a question of undue preference or undue prejudice of traffic ; but they would not have the power to apply for through rates, which is only given to those interested in the traffic to be forwarded. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : What the peti- tioners contend for amounts to a claim that the general law should be altered in their favour in this private bill ; what they complain of is that the Act of 1873 has not given them the same power of applying to the Railway Commissioners for a through rate, that it has given them to apply in the event of undue preference. The effect of the amalgamation will not be to ex- tinguish the through rates, and any such rates, for instance, for coal brought from England to Belfast to be transhipped there and taken inland, will be unaffected; because the for- warding company, that is the steamboat company, would have the right of applying to the Railway Commissioners for a through rate. If the Great Northern charged an unfairly low rate for the carriage of goods from some other port to the prejudice of Belfast, then the Harbour Commissioners could go to the Railway Commissioners to show that such a rate gave an undue preference to that port as against Belfast. The amalgamation will not in any way alter the status of the Harbour Commissioners, except that they will no longer be able to influence the Belfast Central company, over whom, however, they have no more power than they will have over the Great Northern railway company. Balfour Browne : The point I was putting was that the through rates would be extin- guished. Suppose the rates charged by the Great Northern from the port of Newry to Armagh were just as high relatively as between Belfast and Armagh, if this bill passes the Harbour Commissioners could make no complaint to the Railway Commissioners, but if the Belfast Central company remains a distinct company Part I;] BELFAST CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL. tliey could go to the Railway Commissioners and have the rate reduced. This they have done, and that is the state of things which we want to preserve. Through rates are sanctioned by the Railway Commissioners, not on any question of undue preference, but with regard to the reasonable cost of forwarding the traffic. The Chairman : We do not see how the petitioners would be prejudicially affected in any way. We must disallow the lociis standi. Locus standi Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Sherwood 8f Co. Petition of (2) Fiest and Second Debenture Holders in the Belfast Central Railway Company. Railway — Sale ly First Debenture Holders — Insufficient Price — Second Debenture Holders, Bight of, to oppose — Distribution of Assets — Arbitration — Companies Acts, 1862-1883 — Practice — What amounts to Discussion of Clauses in First House. This was a, bill which had originated in the House of Lords. After the decision on the preamble of the bill by a Select Committee of that House, the Parlia- mentary Agent for the petitioners asked the Committee what it was that had been decided, adding that he was prepared to tender a clause in a certain event. The Chairman informed him as to what the decision was, and explained that in the argument on preamble, the principle em- bodied in the clause, which the petitioners wished to insert, had been discussed, and the Committee had decided not to insert such a clause : Held, that what had taken place before the Committee of the House of Lords amounted to a discussion of clauses, and therefore that the petitioners were not entitled to a locus standi against preamble generally, but only against that part of a clause in the bUl which raised the question of the principle contended for in the clause pro- posed to be inserted in the first House, and so much of the preamble as related thereto. The bill authorised the sale of a railway at a certain price, the company to be wound-up under the Companies Acts, 1862-1883. The petitioners, second debenture holders, alleged that the price was too small, and sought to be heard to show either that an arbitration should be held to determine in what proportions the assets of the company should be distributed, or that directions should be inserted in the bill, directing the Court, by whom the distribution should be carried out, as to the principle of dis- tribution : Held, that the petitioners were entitled to a locus standi against sub-section 5 of clause 5 of the bill, which provided for the distribution of assets under the Companies Acts, and so much of the preamble as related thereto, but that they were debarred from going into the question of price, because, having ' been heard on clauses in the first House, they were not entitled to be heard on the preamble generally, in the second House, and that to be heard against the question of price amounted to being heard against the preamble generally. Tahourdin (Parliamentary agent for peti- tioners (2) ) ; The notice of objections states that " The petitioners petitioned in the House of Lords against the preamble of the bill, and on the preamble being declared proved by the Select Committee of that House the petitioners took part in the discussion of clauses, and are therefore not entitled to be heard against the preamble of the bill according to the practice of Parliament," This statement of fact is incorrect, the notes of what took place in the House of Lords showing that the petitioners did not enter upon a discussion of clauses, nor did they bring up any clause, nor was anything conceded to them either by the promoters or by the Committee. All that was done was that the Committee were asked for the explanation of their decision, and the petitioners announced that if it were so and so they were prepared to tender a clause. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters), contended that what was said by Mr. Tahourdin in the House of Lords amounted to a discussion on clauses. [In the course of the discussion, the following extracts from the shorthand writer's notes of what took place in the House of Lords were read by Mr. Tahourdin and Mr. Pope.] " The Chairman : The Committee decide to proceed with the bUl, and they do not propose to insert the clause asked for by Mr. Balfour Browne on behalf of the Harbour Trustees, nor to appoint an arbitrator. B 2 COURT OF REFEEEES. [Vol. I. " Tahourdin : On the part of the second debenture holders, do I rightly understand that the Committee have decided against the principle of conceding any distributive portion whatever to the second debenture holders, or merely against the principle of arbitration ? I am prepared with a proviso to the clause for authorising the distribution in an equitable form of the assets of the company, so as to allow something to the second debenture holders. I had not the advantage of being in the room when my counsel, Mr. Shiress Will, was here, and when the decision was given by the Committee. " The Chairman : We decided that they should take their chance under the Court. Whatever the Court award to them they will get. " Tahourdin : Under the Winding-up Acts, then, my lord, they will get nothing at all. " The Chaieman : That was the question that was argued before us, as to whether we should decree that a certain portion of the sum might be set apart for them. We decided that we could not entertain that. " Tahourdin ; I was prepared to ask your lordships to insert a proviso authorising the Court to exercise its discretion in giving them a distributive portion of the assets, if the Court should consider that they are entitled to it. " The Chairman : Of course if the Court con- sider that they are entitled to it, and have the money to give them, they would give it. " Tahourdin : I am afraid that under the Winding-up Acts, the Court would have no such discretion, and that is the reason why I ask your lordships to give them that discretion. "The Chairman : This is a question that was argued before us, and we were obliged to decide against it. " Tahourdin : I was not aware, my lord, that that was so.'' The Court held that what Mr. Tahourdin said before the Committee of the House of Lords amounted to going into a discussion on clauses. Tahourdin : The petition is that of holders of the second debenture stock, although one of the petitioners holds a small amount of first debenture stock in the Belfast Central railway, which by the bill is proposed to be sold to the Great Northern of Ireland railway. I submit that I am entitled to say that the mortgagors are selling at a price which will exclude the second debenture holders from getting anything back; for the whole of the assets will be absorbed in paying the mortgagees in front of them. Under sub-section 5 of clause 5 the company is to be wound up under the Winding- up Acts, and by those Acts the assets are dis- tributed according to priorities. Inasmuch therefore, as there is £250,000 of the first debenture stock, and there is only an available asset of £127,500 to meet the whole liabilities of the company, the second mortgagees, the petitioners, will get nothing. The Chairman : A third or fourth mortgagee cannot prevent a mortgagor selling his property. Tahowdin : This is not an ordinary case of a mortgage ; this company cannot sell without the authority of an Act of Parliament. This com- pany is paying its expenses at present, and the promoters, a speculative company who have bought up the assets of the company at a very low price, and are promoting this bill as first debenture holders, seek to sell at a price which will give them a good profit upon their investment, but is a price too low to enable the second debenture holders to receive a single sixpence back for the money they expended. The Chairman: We have decided that you took part in the discussion on clauses ; does not that prevent you from being heard on preamble, that is to say, from going into the principle of the bill ? Tahourdin : It precludes me from going into the whole of the preamble, but not into so much of the preamble as affects me. The Chairman : If you are to go into the whole of the preamble so far as it affects you, our decision that you discussed clauses in the House of Lords would be of no effect. Tahourdin : I submit that the fact of my having discussed clauses does not prevent me from being heard on so much of the preamble as affects me, unless I had got something inserted for my benefit in the other House. On that point I refer the Court to the Waterford and Wexford Bill, 1876 (1 Clifford & Riokards, 274). Pope, Q.C. (in reply) : The petitioners are entitled to propose in this House exactly the same clause as they proposed in the other House. That gives them a locus standi against sub-section 5 of clause 5, which covers the two points raised by the petitioners before the pre- amble was decided in the other House. Those two points were that there should be arbitration, or secondly, if not arbitration, that there should be instructions given in the bill to the Court to distribute the assets in their favour. They would be entitled to ask for arbitration, and to use any argument to show that arbitration was a proper mode of distributing the assets. They are not entitled to be heard against clause 4 or generally as to price,_for that raises the question of the whole preamble of the bill. The Chairman : We think the petitioners are entitled only to a locus standi against sub-seo. 5 PaBT I.] BRENTFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. of clause 5, and so much of the preamble as relates ttereto. . Locus standi limited accordingly. Agents for Petitioners, Tahourdin §f Ear- greaves. Agent for Bill, Rees. therefore unable to carry on business, the petitioner was not entitled to a locus stamcU against the bill. BBXHILL DIRECT RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company. 20th April, l88o.— (Before Mr. Pemberton, M.P., Chairman; Sfc, See, §rc.) In this case the promoters withdrew their objections to the locus standi of the Petitioners, which was Allowed. Agent for Bill, Hanly. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson §r Co. BRENTFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. Petition of (1) Frbdekiok Bebteam Smart. 24th April, 1885.^Befr the compulsory purchase of lands until the 28th of June, 1887, and for the com- pletion of the subway until the 28th of June, 1888, and your petitioners humbly object to any extension of the said powers, aind allege that the inhabitants of the metropolis will be injuriously affected by any such extension." Wherever anything has been proposed to be authorised affecting through communication between various portions of the metropolis the Metro- politan Board of Works have always been allowed to be heard. In the case of the Metropolitan Railway Bill, 1870 (2 Clifford & Stephens, 22), the general principle was dis- onssed, and the Metropolitan Board of Works were allowed a locus standi. In the case of the Metropolitan Railway Bill, 1871 (2 Clifford ;ainst us, we should be heard, would it be possible for the promoters to say that because we had not opposed those powers in the first instance, we should not be heard ? Under S. 0. 134 it is entirely within the discretion of the Court to grant us a locus standi, and so far as I know the Metropolitan Board of Works have never been refused a locus standi where they have alleged that the inhabitants of the Metropolis would be injuriously affected. Is Parliament never to review its legislation or to remedy a wrong on the proper occasions, namely, when the pro- moters of a scheme, whose Act contains the objectionable clauses, come for an extension of powers. Mr. Bonham-Caetee : You claim for a public body, as guardian of the public interest, a right which a private party would not have. O'Hara : There is no comparison between the case of a private party such as a landowner and the case of a public body like the Metropolitan Board of Works, for by S. O. 134 a right is given to a public body beyond that w^iioh they would have as owners of land. Pemhroke Stephens, Q.O. (for the promoters) : This is an extension of time bill ; against the original bill the Metropolitan Board of Works petitioned, and having considered the ciioam- stances fully they took a clause and withdrew their petition. Parties cannot be heard to com- plain of prior legislation, least of all of prior legislation to which they have assented. The effect of the petition is, not that tlie Metropo- litan Board of Works would be injuriously affected by the extension of time, but that if they got what they asked for in the way of a modifi. cation of sec. 55 of the Act of 1882, they would be content with the prolongation. The peti- tioners say that sec. 55 has got in somehow, and thereby injury may be done to the public for all time, and there is no way of redressing it unless you now allow a locus standi to the petitioners. In the Huddersfield Bill, 1876, on the petition of the Ravensthoi'pe Local Board (1 Clifford & Eickards, 232), a locus standi was claimed on similar grounds, but the petitioners were told if they wanted to remedy a wrong which had crept into a former Act of Parlia- ment by mistake, the course for them to adopt \«as to bring in a bill themselves to remedy that wrong, and accordingly their locus standi was disallowed. There is not a definite allegation of injury in the petition, even if such injury exists. So far from the Metropolitan Board of Works occupying the. position of never having been refused a locus standi, in the Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation, No. 3 {Wool- wich and South-East London Trantways Order) Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford & Riokards, 364), the locus standi of the Metropolitan Board was dis- allowed. O'Hara : I said in no case in which they alleged that they were injuriously affected. In the case you refer to they did not allege that they were injuriously affected. Stephens : And here they have not alleged that they will be injuriously affected by the extension of time. The time for carrying out the works put into the original Act was not a matter of contract with the petitioners. In the case of the Metropolitan District Railway Bill, 1868 (1 Clifford & Stephens, 5), the locus standi of the Whiteohapel District Board of Works was disallowed, and that is a case on all fours with the present one. On the ground of prac- tice, of their own action when the bill was before Parliament, of the frame of the petition, of past legislation, and that the iocus standi of the Metropolitan Board of Works has been dis- allowed in other cases, and that they have a remedy open to them by bringing a bill into Parliament themselves, I submit they have no iocus standi. The Chaieman : We think that the locus standi in this case ought to be disallowed. We do not see any special reason for the interference of the Metropolitan Board of Works, much as 46 COUET OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. we respect them, in a case in which certainly nobody else would be allowed to interfere. Locus standi Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson Sf Co. Agent for Bill, Cooper. MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL. Petition of (1) Adelaide Watts. 11th Jane, 1885. — (Before Mr. Pembeeton, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. EOONDELL, M.P. ; Mr. Meldpn, M.P. ; and Mr. Bonham-Caktek.) Ship Canal — Interference with Estuary — Diver- sion of Deep Water Channels — Dredging — Riparian Owner — Loss of Access by Water — Development of Property interfered zoith — Con- servancy Board and Port and Barbour Trustees ■ — Representation — Individual Interests. The bill authorised the construction of a ship canal from Manchester to the estuary of the Mersey, and inter alia empowered the promoters to do certain dredging in the estuary for the purpose of deepening the access to the entrance of their canal. The petitioner was the owner of a large estate upon the Lancashire side of the estuary, exactly opposite to the pro- posed entrance to the canal from the estuary. At the present time the deep water channel in the estuary ran alongside the river frontage of the estate enabling ocean-going ships to approach within a few feet of the shore. The petitioner alleged that the dredging works authorised by the bill would divert the deep water channel from the Lancashire side, where it now was, to the Cheshire side, with the result that the estuary opposite the petitioner's land would be silted up, and as a consequence her estate would lose its water access and would never be utilised for the extension of docks, which existed in close proximity to it, whereas if the channel remained as at present, iu a short time her property would become valuable for the extension of the adjacent docks and the erection of ship- building yards in connection therewith. The promoters denied the probability or possi- bllity of their proposed works or dredging producing any effect upon the deep water channels of the Mersey, which, as they existed at present, constantly varied their position from natural causes, and contended that even if the Court should hold that there was a reasonable probability of such a change of the channels it was a matter affecting the estuary generally, and the proper persons to oppose on that ground were the conservators of the River Mersey, who were opposing the bill and represented all interests connected with the preservation of the channel of the estuary. The promoters further contended that the Court should take into consideration all the facts of the case, namely, that in addition to the improbability of any diversion of the deep water channels by the proposed dredging, and the fact that the conservators of the Mersey were opposing the bill on the same ground, the fact that there were no docks at present constructed upon the petitioner's land, that the land of the petitioner was within the limits of the Port of Liverpool, and that both the port author- ity and the corporation of Liverpool were opposing the bill on the ground of injury to the estuary of the Mersey ; and that a decision in favour of the petitioner would be a precedent for letting in any number of landowners similarly situated : Held, that the fact that other petitioners opposed the bill on the same ground as that urged by the petitioner could not deprive her of any right she might have to be heard ; and that she had an individual interest, which might be affected by the works authorised by the bill, in the deep water channel being maintained in its present position apart from the general interest of the conservators or the port authority in the maintenance of a proper channel for the purposes of navigation, and that on those grounds she was entitled to a separate hearing. The locus standi of the petitioner (1) was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) The petition does not allege, nor is it the fact that any lands or property of the petitioner will be taken or interfered with by the bill. The pro. Part. I.] MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL. 47 notera deny that the proposed works will de- jrive the petitioner's estate of its water front- ige or access to the estaary of the Mersey, or will divert the water thereof or of the nplaads "rotn channels in which they now flow, or, even if the allegations of the petition to that effect were true, that the petitioner has such a right in the said water as entitles her to be heard igainst the bill ; (2) the promoters deny that the drainage of the said estate will be prejudicially iffected by the said worljs ; (3) the Garston Socks belong to the London and North-Western railway company, and the petitioner is not en- titled to be heard as to any matter prejudicially iffecting the same ; (4) the protection of the sstuary of the river Mersey has been committed bo the commissioners for the conservancy of the river Mersey, and they and not the petitioner ire the proper persons to be heard as to any lUeged injury thereto; (5) the estate of the petitioner is too remote from the proposed works to entitle her to be heard against the bill ; (6) the petitioner is not entitled to be heard according to practice. Aspinall, Q.C. (for Adelaide Watt) : The bill proposes to authorise the construction of a ship canal coming out into the estuary of the river Mersey on the Cheshire side at a place called Eastham ; and certain powers of dredging in the estuary both above and below Eastham are given to the promoters. Miss Watt is the owner of a valuable estate on the Lancashire aide of the estuary exactly opposite Eastham with a river frontage of 5,500 yards. At pre- sent the estate is an agricultural estate highly sultivated, but it is capab'e of being, and pro- bably at no very distant date will be, used for the erection of shipbuilding yards, &o., in con- nection with the existing docks of Garston which ire adjacent and owned by the London and North-Western railway. Miss Watt opposes the bill on two grounds : firstly, that the dredg- ing powers in the estiary given to the promo- ters may or will alter the course of the channels }f deep water in the estuary with this result : ihat whereas at present ocean-going ships are ible to come to within a few yards of her river 'rentage, if the proposed dredging is permitted }he channels of deep water giving access ;o her land will be silted up, and will shift to the [Cheshire side of the estuary ; and secondly )n the ground that the drainage of her estate Till be interfered with from the same cause. That this is no fanciful apprehension of lamage is proved by the fact of the lengthy sontest in the House of Lords this Session on ;his very point raised in that House by the [iondon and iNorth- Western railway as owners >f the Garston docks, and by the weight of professional evidence called to prove that this alteration of channels was not only possible, but likely. With regard to the objection that the conservators of the Mersey are the proper persons to be heard with regard to any injury thereto, I submit that there is nothing in the position of the conservators as constituted by their Act of Parliament which takes away the right of anybody else to be heard, though of course Miss Watt in common with all land- owners on the estuary is interested in no injury being done to the water way as a whole ; for instance, in the condition of the bar ; yet that is not the case she sets up ; her case is one of special injury to her property by the diversion of the channels, and in that she is not represented by the conservators. Their duty is to maintain the best practicable channel, and this, it may be, would be accomplished by the promoters carrying out their dredging works and per- manently maintaining the deep water channel, and, if the conservators thought that, they might think right not to oppose the bill ; none the less, however, would an irreparable injury be done to the estate of the petitioner, which would be deprived thereby of the deep water access to her property, on which the future prosperity of the estate depends. There are two cases on all fours with the present, viz., the Kingston-upon- Hull Docks Bill, 1878, on the petition of T. Spurr (2 Clifford & Eickards, 110), and the Uoylahe Railway and Tramway Bill, 1881 (3 Clifford & Eickards, 65). The objection of the promoters that we are too far away to be entitled to oppose, is of no importance, as injury, not distance, is the test of locus standi. Pemler, Q.C. (for promoters) : With regard to the Hoylake case there was a distinct inter- ference with the access to the land, but there is nothing of the same kind here. Even admitting that there would be an injury to the access to the petitioner's land (which the promoters do not in fact admit) Miss Watt is represented by the conservators of the Mersey, and they are the proper persons to be heard on the question. In the case of the Rhondda and Swansea Bay Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford & Eickards, 330), the Great Western company, who were owners of the Neath docks, were held to be represented by the conservators of the river Neath, and were not allowed a locus standi with respect to interference with the navigation, which they alleged would injure the access to their docks. This lady has no docks nor has she land con- tiguous to the Garston dock, for there is a land- owner intervening. Her land is agricultural land, yet she asks for a locus standi upon a ground which was held to be insufBcient to give the Great Western company, who were owners 48 COUBT or EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. of docks, a locus standi. If a petitioner can show that he has some particular sort of user or right differing in quality, not in quantity, from other members of the public represented by the representative body, and if he can show that that right is interfered with, he is a,d- mitted, but only in that case. My contention is that if a private owner (e.g., the Great Western company in that case) whose land had been turned into docks was sufficiently safe- guarded by being represented by the conser- vators, u, fortiori a private owner {e.g., Miss Watt), whose land has not yet been turned into docks, is sufficiently safeguarded by being represented by the conservators. The Chaikman ; I think the difference between the two cases is this : in the Ehondda case the works proposed affected the whole of the navi- gation ; and it was for the conservators to deal ■with a question which affected the whole of the navigation of the river, whereas the allegation here is that these works will affect the par- ticular individual in a particular way. Pember : I do not think that is so ; the only way in which Miss Watt can be affected at all is by the alteration of the channels of the river, which will affect everybody in common . The Chaikman : No j I do not think that is necessarily so. She says it will affect the depth of the channel and the course of the river so far as it runs along her land ; it might not affect the river generally, or if it did, the alteration made might be such as to make the general navigation of the river better, and would be therefore a scheme supported by the conservators. Pemler : That is not the allegation of Miss Watt. Her petition says, " the entire bed of the river lying outside the proposed channel will, by accretions of soil and silt, become land ; " so that it is the general effect upon the river. I put it therefore that she is really in the same position as Mr. George Lane Fox was in the famous road case, the Midland Railway Bill, 1871 (2 Clifford & Stephens, 108). In that case the Midland company proposed to shut up a highway. Mr. Fox was the owner of land which he alleged was available for mills because of a water privilege he possessed. By the road upon which his property abutted it was only a quarter of a mile into Skipton. If that road was closed all traffic to reach Skipton would have to go 2i miles, and pay a turnpike toll on the way, the consequence of which would be to turn his land into ordinary agricultural land. Mr. Fox was not allowed a locus standi, becanse it was held that he was only one of the public using the highway, and though injured in a grea'er degree perhaps than anybody else, he was only injured as one of the public. There is this further objection to Miss Watts's locus standi, the river in front of her land is part of the poet of Liverpool, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Mersey docks and harbour board, who are the main opponents to the bill. The whole question is whether this is a scheme which does or does not interfere with her. The Chaikman: That is the whole difficulty. We must in all cases see whether there is a reasonable probability of injury being done. Can we say that it is impossible, or so impro- bable, that her land may be affected by the dredging here below her property that she is not to be heard ? Pemher ; I should have thought you might. To begin with, the river is about three miles broad here. In the bills of last year and the year before we proposed to divert the channel from where it now is on the Lancashire side, opposite this lady's property (though it may not stop there three weeks, for between certain points the deep-water channels are constantly varying in position) and to stereotype that channel by means of training walls in the middle of the estuary. That was the scheme of last year and the year before ; this year there is no such provision in the bill nor any such intention; it was, indeed, urged in the House of Lords that the proposals of this year would divert the channel which we do not touch or want to divert, but unsuccessfully. The dredging that we take powers to do below Eaatham, where the canal comes out into deep water, is to shear away a lump of ground just at the month of the locks, and a little minor dredging, though the estuary below Eastham is nearly deep enough for our purpose. We also take powers to do dredging above for the purpose of giving certain docks and ports an approach through our canal. I therefore say that it is a highly problematical and improbable supposition that these works should divert the whole of the moveable channels of the Mersey which we do not touch, and it is upon that supposition alone that the petitioner founds her claim for a locus standi; and even if the Court should decide against me on the question of probability, I contend that the fact of the petitioner's land being within the port of Liver- pool, and that there are no docks on her land, and further the fact of the existence of the conservators of the Mersey are sufficient to disentitle her to a locus standi. The Chairman : We think Miss Watt is not really represented by anybody else, and we think we cannot say that there is no question of her Part I.] MANCHESTEB SHIP CANAL BILL. 49 being injured. I do not mean that there is any likelihood of her establishing any case ; that is another point. Locus standi Allowed. Agents for Petitioner, Wyatt Sc Co. Petition of (2) Cokporation op Bootits-cum- LlNACKE. Ship Oanal — Bocks within Borough hut not Property of Oorpoi'ation— Decrease of Bateaile Value hij Abstraction of Trade — Interference with Sewage Otitfall — Practice — Petition of Owners of Docks — Same Interests Represented by several Petitioners — 8. 0. 134 — [Municipal Authorities and Inhabitants^ — Discretionary Power of Court under. Within the limits of the borongh of Bootle were sitnated a part of the docks owned by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The corporation of Bootle contended that the ^ works authorised to be executed in the \ Mersey, woald injure the approach to the docks, as well as interfere with their ' sewage outfall into the Mersey, and that i the construction of the canal authorised ! by the bill would result in an abstraction of traffic from the docks, and a, consequent decrease in their rateable value, and would ) generally injure the trade and well being of their borough. Under these circumstances they claimed to be heard under S. 0. 134 : Held, that, inasmuch as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the owners of the docks in question, as well as the corporation of Liverpool, represented the same interests and would raise the same questions before the Committee on the bill as the peti- tioners, this was not -a, case in which the Court would exercise the discretionary power vested in them by S. 0. 134 in favour of the petitioners whose locus standi must be disallowed. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (.1) No property of the petitioners is taken or affected by the provisions of the bill ; (2) the docks within ^ the petitioners' borongh belong to the Mersey 'looks and Harbour Board, who are the proper pdrsons to be heard with regard to any alleged injury thereto ; (3) the alleged loss of rateable value in respect of the docks, even if true, gives the petitioners no right to be heard; (4) the promoters deny the right of the petitioners to be heard with respect to any injury to the estuary of the Mersey, the Eiver Mersey com- missioners petitioning and being the proper persons to be heard thereon ; (5 and 6) diversion of trade from, or injury to, the port of Liverpool, is a matter to be opposed by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and not by the petitioners ; (7) the promoters deny that the proposed works can or will interfere with the discharge of sewage into the estuary; (8) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard according to practice. Aspinall, Q.C. (for the corporation of Bootle- oum-Linaore) : Bootle is in fact a portion of Liverpool, and within its limits are the newer and in that sense the more important portion of the Mersey docks, and it is upon those docks and therefore upon the preservation of the Mersey that the population almost entirely depend. Last year the promoters introduced a bill into Parliament for the construction of a ship canal j and the present petitioners, together with the corporation of Liverpool, were heard In both houses against that bill. The petitioners claim a locus standi against the bill on the ground of the general injury which would be done to Bootle by the competition of the proposed canal ; they say the bar of the Mersey would be injured. The Chairman : The petitioners say, if the Liverpool docks are affected, Bootle will be affected ; is not that rather too remote ? The corporation of Liverpool will be before the Committee. Aspinall : I mainly base my contention upon S. 0. 134. It is no answer to Bootle to say that the corporation of Liverpool are appearing ; we may or may not have faith in the persistence of Liverpool. The Chairman : I suppose S. 0. 134 was made with a view to the general protection of the public, and I suppose we should not be anxious to exercise our discretion if we found that the particular case before us, that of your corpora- tion for instance, was abundantly represented by other people. I do not suppose the S. O. meant that if there were half a dozen corpora- tions in one interest we should therefore be bound in the exercise of our discretion to let everybody in who had the same interest. Aspinall ; If any public body, or any individual even, has a right, why should he or they be deprived of that right because two or three other persons have a similar right and are sup- posed to be going to press it ? We are enor- -50 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. Tiiously interested, and we want to be present ourselves. The Chaiiiman : Without saying that the peti- tioners are within the scope of the S. 0., I apprehend that the object of the House in passing it was, that where there was a chance of a bill being got through withoutany opposition, or where there was not a reasonable prospect of the opposition to it being fairly represented, the House enabled a corporation or any other local authority to go before the Committee to repre- sent the interests of the district generally. The object of the S. O. was to enable the Committee to have the case before it properly stated, and I do not think it was intended to give a right to every local authority who had any possible interest or any remote interest to go before the Committee. Aspinall : Can anyone say the interest of Bootle is a remote interest P I contend that the fact of other petitioners having a similar interest in no way interferes with our right to be heaid to protect that interest. There is another and distinct point raised by our petition, namely, that at present the sewage of Bootle is carried into the Mersey and thence out to sea, and the petitioners apprehend that the proposed works will interfere with the effective working of their sewerage scheme. Pember, Q.C. (for promoters) : With regard to the sewage point, there can be no question about there being water enough in the part of the estuary where Bootle is situate for them to dispose of their sewage, whatever works we might carry out ; at all events, that is a mere matter of clause. With regard to the claim of Bootle to be heard under S. 0. IS-t, it is clear that that S. 0. is not of universal application, because S. 0. 134a is of universal application, showing that Parliament intended that the Referees should exercise a discretion as to admittinglocal anthori. ties under S. 0. 134. The claim of Bootle to be heard comes to this — some of the docks belong, ing, not to them but to the Mersey harbour board, are in Bootle, and it derives a consider- able revenue from the rating of those docks ; the canal may remove the trade from the docks and the value of the docks will therefore be less, and will produce less rates. The proper person, however, to be heard in respect to the injury to property is the owner of the property. That principle was recognised in the Cheshire Lines Bill, 1881, on the Petition of the To,vteth Local Board (3 Clifford & Riokards, 29). The Chaieman : We do not think there is any necessity for us to exercise the discretion which S. 0. 134 has given us. We might explain the circumstances under which we think we should have been obliged to exercise it, bat we do not think there is any necessity for doing so in this case. We disallow the locus standi of the cor- poration of Bootle. Locus standi of (4) Corporation of Bootle- oum-Liuaore Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, 8hai~pes l^t Co. Petition of (3) The iNfoiiPORATEn CnAMBEBOF Co.MMEKCK OF LlVKBPOOL ; (4) LlVEUPOOI/ Wool Brokers' Association ; (5) Lancashiuk SUGAE BeKINERS' ASSOCIATION ; (6) LiVEB. poor. Corn Traders' Association ; (7) Asso- ciation OF THE LiVKRPOOL PROVISION Trade; (8) Liverpool Shipowners' Asso- ciation; (9) Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association; (10) Liverpool General Brokers' Association; (11) Liverpool Cotton Association ; (12) Ameeican Chambee of Commerce of Liverpool. Ship Ciinal -Intrrff fence with Fsiuanj — Injury to rnrf and Trade — Chaniher of Commerce — Trade Associations — How far Rejiresented bij IlarJiour Board — S. 0. 133o. [^Chambers nf Com- merce, (J'c, may be heard as to Rates, .^'c] discussed. Practice — Amal.gamation by Consent of several Petitions Representing similar Interests. The bill was also petitioned against by a number of trade associations, including » chamber of commerce, on the ground of injury to the port and trade of Liverpool. Special objection was taken to the locus standi of the chamber of commerce on the ground of practice, and it was objected generally that the case of the petitioners was really that of the Mersey docks and harbour board, whose locus standi was con- ceded, and who were the proper parties to speak as to injury to the port of Liver- pool. The counsel for the petitioners con- tended that it was impossible for the board to represent all the diverse interests of the petitioners, but undertook to consolidate all the petitions before the Commitjtee, and that they should be treated as a joint peti- tion, and only one appearance by counsel made on behalf of them. This was, after some discussion, agreed to by the counsel for the promoters, and the Court assented to this arrangement between the parties, without expressing any opinion ag Part I.J MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL. 51 to the special claim of the chamber of com- merce of Liverpool to be heard. The locus staiidi of the incorporated chamber of commerce of Liverpool waa objected to on the following grcnnds : (1) The promoters deny that the said chamber represents any trade or business in snch a way as to entitle it to be heard against the bill ; (2) if the peti. tioners claim a right to be heard either generally or under S. O. 133a, the promoters deny that right for the following reasons also ; — The bill is not H, railway bill. The petitioners do not sufficiently represent any trade or business in the district to which the bill relates. The petition does not allege that any trade or business will be injuriously affected by the rates or fares proposed to be authorised by the bill, nor does it object to such rates or fares; (3) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard on their allegations of injury to the estuary of the Mersey. The protection of the said estuary has been expressly committed by Parliament to the care of the commissioners for the conser- vancy of the river Mersey, and they and not the petitioners are the persons entitled to be heard against any bill injuriously affecting the same, and they have obtained alterations in the bill and are satisfied therewith ; (4) the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board are, or claim to be, conservators of the port of Liverpool, and they and not the petitioners are the body entitled to be heard on any question affecting that port, and they have petitioned against the bill, and their right to be heard is not objected to ; (5) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard against the transfer to the promoters of the undertakings known as the Mersey and Irwell navigation and the Bridgewater navigation on the grounds of public policy, as alleged in para- graph 5 of the petition, or on any other ground j (6) tlie promoters deny the right of the peti- tioners to be heard as to interference with the estate of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, that board being the proper body to protect its own estate and jurisdiction; (7) the petitioners appear to claim a right to be heard as rate- payers of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. If they are such ratepayers (which the pro- moters do not admit) they are represented by that board, who have petitioned against the bill, and whose right to be heard on their petition is admitted; (8) the expediency of the pro- posed scheme being carried into execution by a public body or as a public trust is not a matter as to which the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill ; (9) the promoters deny the allegations of the petition, but even if true, the petition does not disclose any grounds which would, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill. The locus standi of the various trade associa- tions (petitions 4 — 12) was objected to on similar grounds mutatis mutandis. Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners (3—12) ) : The petitions are those, first of the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool, which represents several trades {e.g., the corn and provisions and shipowners' trades), and has many objects and purposes, which are described in the petition, and in itself includes representatives of some of the trades who also petition individually by their trade associations, but all the petitions have much in common, and in common allege injury to the estnary of Mersey, and hence injury to the trade of Liverpool in general and their own trade in particular. There is a great distinction between the case of the petitioners and thatof the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. That body are interested so far as the receipt of revenue from the docks is concerned, but they are a special trust expressly confined to the administration of the dock estate, and have no interest in the trades represented by the chamber of commerce or the trades' associations who are petitioning. The Chaikman : Does not S. 0. 133a require us to be satisfied that the chamber of commerce sufficiently represents a particular trade ? Pope : I am not claiming under S. 0. 133a, which only relates to railway bills, and is not applicable to these cases, although I apprehend that that S. O. would be to some extent a guide in dealing with the question of right to be heard against such a scheme as the ship canal. The Chaieman : Certainly. Pope : Although I am endeavouring to enforce upon you the right of traders, who m ay not be inhabitants of Liverpool at all, who are not necessarily represented on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, or bound by the action of that board, but who are represented by their trade associations, to be heard, I am quite prepared on behalf of these trade petitions in order to save time before the Committee, to consolidate the petitions and to undertake that that consolidated interest should be represented only by one appearance. Pember, Q.C. (for promoters) : I object to the petitioners generally being heard, their case being really that of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and I cannot at all events admit the locus standi of the Incorporated Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool, who are E 2 52 COUET OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. not entitled to be heard according to the practice of the Court. Pope : The Salt Chamber of Commerce was heard against the London andNorth- Westei-n Bail- way BUI, 1884 (3 Clifford & Eiokards, 412), which ia an exact case in point. The Chairman : We have not heard a Chamber of Commerce or an Association simply because it called itself so, but we have beard any suffi- cient numbers of persons representing a parti- cular trade or even one person who represents one particular trade. If we were now to say, we will allow a sufficient representation of the trade of Liverpool to be heard, it would be only doing what we have done in many cases. This is a very special case, and I really think it would be wise on the part of the promoters to accept the oiier of Mr. Pope, viz., that these petitions shall in Committee be treated as one joint petition. Pope : I will take care that the understanding is loyally carried out. Let it be understood that these petitions, including that of the Chamber of Commerce, are to be consolidated as thongh they were one petition, and there is to be only one argument, one cross-examination, one counsel or set of conusel upon these consolidated petitions as thongh it was a joint petition. Pember ; If it is the view of the Court that I ought to do so, I have nothing more to say but to consent to the arrangement. Locus standi of all the Petitioners (3 — 12) Allowed, the order of the Court standing, that a locus standi was allowed on each of the petitions, the understanding that there should be only one appearance thereon being one between the parties. Agent for Petitioners' (3—12), Bees. Petition of (13) Cheshire Links Committee; and (14) William and Akthub Geoege Guest. The promoters withdrew their objections to the locus standi of the above petitioners, and it was accordingly Allowed. Agents for Bill, Dyson §r Co, MERSEY RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (L) Peter W. Dumville and Henky D. Davies. 16th April, 1885.— (Before Mr. Pembkrton, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Parker, M.P. ; Mr. Eoundell, M.P. ; afr. Meldon, Jkf.P. ; and J)/"v. Bonham- Cabtkb.) Company— S. 0. 132 — Dissenting Shareholders — Transferor and Transferee of Shares — Refusal of Company to Register Transfer — Notices of Wharncliffe Meeting not Sent — Bquitahle Claim to Locus Standi — S. 0. 62 \_Meeting of Pro- prietors, ij'c] — Compliance with S. 0. reported by Examiner — Decision of Examiner not Re- viewed by Court — Practice. The petitioners were respectively the transferor and transferee of shares in the company promoting the bill, but the transfer had never been registered, and neither of the petitioners had been present at the Wharn- cliffe meeting called to consider the bill in accordance with S. 0. 62. They, however, alleged that the fact of the transfer of the shares not having been registered was in consequence. of the refusal of the company to register it after due application on their part, and further that the company had given them no notice of the WharnoliiJe meeting, and they asked the Court to consider them as occupying the same position as dissenting shareholders, in reference to the bill, as they would have been but for the wilful act of the company. These allegations were denied by the promoters, and it was objected that the petitioners could not go behind the report of the examiner on Standing Orders, who had reported compliance with S. 0. 62, and that they could not claim to be heard under S. 0. 132, not being shareholders who had been present and dissented at a WharuolifEe meeting within the terms of that Order : Beld, that the examiner having reported com. plianoe by the promoters with Standing Orders, it was not for the Court to review his decision, and that it must be assumed that the proper notices were sent, and as, in fact, neither of the petitioners had been present and dissented at the Wharnoliffe Part I.] MERSEY RAILWAY BILL. 53 meeting, they were not dissenting share- holders within the meaning of S. 0. 132, and oould not be heard. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) no land or property of the petitioners is taken or affected by the bill ; (2) the petitioners or one of thom olaiais to be heard as a. shareholder, but the petition does not allege or show that either of the petitioners is a shareholder ; (3, 4 and 5) the petition alleges that Mr. Damville has transferred his shares to Mr. Davies, but Mr. Davies refuses or delays to deposit the transfer for registration. The statement that the transfer has been and is refused by the company is denied by the promoters, and even if true gives no ground of locus standi against the bill ; (6) if the petitioners, or either of them had attended the Wharncliffe meeting neither of them oould have legally voted, for the one had transferred his shares, and the other had failed to register the transfer ; (7 and 8) the petition alleges that owing to the company not having given the petitioners notice of the WharncliSe meeting the petitioners were prevented from attending that meeting and taking the necessary steps to entitle them to a, locus standi as dissenting shareholders ; this allegation might have been raised before the examiner bat cannot be enquired into by a Committee of the House ; (9 and 10) the bill contains no provisions affect- ing the petitioners, and according to practice they are not entitled to be heard. Oresswell (for petitioners) ; The petitioners are respectively the transferor and transferee of shares in the company promoting the bill. lu July, 188i, Mr. Damville, by a legal transfer which I produce, transferred his shares to Mr. Davies, but that transfer has not been registered, as we allege, on account of the refusal of the company to register. One or other of these petitioners, therefore, must be a shareholder in this company, but to neither of them did the company send notice of the Wharncliffe meeting to which the bill was presented, and the conse- quence is that one of the petitioners has been deprived of his right in respect of the shares to attend that meeting ond vote against the resolution, and to acquire the right of a dissen- tient shareholder to oppose the bill. The Chaikman : Tou say you had no notice. We cannot go into the question whether the company gave legal notice or not, we must assume that everything has been properly done. So far as Mr. Dumville is concerned, your case is that in equity he had ceased to be the holder of the shares, and Mr. Davies could not have been heard as a shareholder at the Wharncliffe meeting till the transfer had been registered. Oresswell : That is so, but there was nothing to preclude Mr. Davies as equitable holder of the shares from appointing Mr. Dumville, who was upon the register, to act as his proxy if the company had given either of them the notice of the meeting. The Chairman : Have yon not got to prove that Mr. Davies is a dissenting shareholder within the meaning of S. 0. 132, because but for that S. 0., you would have no right to be heard. Oresswell : The petitioners submit that the company having put it out of the power of either of the petitioners to attend the WharnolilTe meeting by not sending a notice of that meeting to either of them, the company ought not now to be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong to deprive the petitioners of a locus standi, which bat for that wrong the petitioners would have been enabled to obtain. I propose to satisfy the Court that this gentleman would have been a dissenting shareholder and to prove that the transfer was duly presented in August, 1881, and that there was a refusal on the part of the company to register the transfer. I ask this Court to intervene in its equitable jurisdio- tion to place me in the position in which I ought to have been but for the wilful act of the company. The Chaikman : Have you done anything since to compel registration ? Oresswell : I cannot say the petitioners have done nothing since, for there has been a corre- spondence extending over several months. Bidder, Q.C. (for promoters) : At this stage T will take this preliminary objection. Under S. 0. 132 unless the petitioner is a, dissenting shareholder he cannot be heard. The petitioners allege that neither of them was a dissenting shareholder because the company did not give to either of them the necessary notice of the Wharncliffe meeting. S. 0. 62 provides that the examiner is to report compliance or non- compliance with the requirements of that S.O. as to notices. The promoters of this bill have satisfied the examiner on this point, and inas- much as the examiner has reported that he is satisfied that we have complied with the requirements of the S. 0. as to notices, it is not competent for my friend to raise the question here. This Court is not a Court of Appeal from the examiner. Oresswell : In answer to that objection, I say that the Wharncliffe meeting was held on Saturday, and the appointment before the examiner was on Monday, and that we received 54 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. no notice of the meeting and no notice of the appointment before the examiner. The Chairman : We muat aasume that the examiner satisfied himself that everything was properly done. If the examiner lias made a mistake, it is not for us to correct him. Cresswell : Bat it wa3 because we received no notice that we were not before the examiner to show that Standing Orders had not been complied with. Bidder : We are not bound to give notice to anybody of the bill coming before the examiner. The ChairiMan : It is the function of this Court to decide upon the rights of parties to be heard before Committees, in the position in which they stand when they come before us, whether that position has been rightly or wrongly obtained. We have no jurisdiction over the proceedings either of the railway com- pany or of the examiner. hocus standi Disalloived. Agent for Petitioners, Rees. Petition of (2) The Wirkal Railway Company. This case was not argued, both the petition and the objections to locus standi being with- drawn upon an agreement being entered into by the parties. Agents for Petitioners, Martin ^ Leslie. Agent for Bill, Rees. METROPOLITAN OUTER CIRCLE RAIL- WAY BILL. Petition of The Trustees of Henry Cline. 15th May, 1885. — (Before Mr. Pemberton, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Parker, M.P. ; and Mr. Bonuam-Carter.) Abandonment of Railway — Repayment of Deposit — Landowners under Agreement as to Tailing of Land — Legal Status — Alleged Affecting of. The bill sanctioned the abandonment of a rail, way authorised in 1882, and the repayment of the deposit money to the depositors on the ordinary terms. The petitioners were landowners, who had withdrawn their opposition to the Act of 1882, upon the promoters entering into an agreement that if they took their land it would be upon oer. tain terms, and subject to the payment of the costs and charges of solicitors and surveyors, as if the claim had been settled under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. The petitioners con- tended that, inasmuch as the clauses in the Act of 1882 made no provision for the repayment of the deposit fund to the depositors, but only for pay- ment of the fund into Her Majesty's Exchequer, to form part of the Consolidated Fund after compensating landowners and others, whereas the bill substituted the depositors themselves as the persons to whom the fund or the balance of the fund was eventually to be paid, the bill created fresh claimants to the fund, who would do their utmost to resist the claims of the petitioners, whereas the officials of the Treasury were not persons who would have equally adverse in- terests. The petitioners contended that was an alteration for the worse of their legal status by the bill. It was pointed out by the counsel to the promoters that the clauses for the repay- ment of the deposit fund were the usual clauses as settled by the authorities of the House, and that such repayment was declared by clause 5 of the bill to be " subject to the provisions of sec. 79 of the Act of 1882, and sec. 3B of the Act of 1883, for payment of compensation to landowners and other persons injured and for the protection of creditors." The Court held that the position of the petitioners was unaltered by the bill, and Disalloived their locus standi. Pemhrol;e Stephens, Q.C., appeared for the Petitioners ; Pope, Q.C., for the Promoters of the Bill. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson Sc Go. Agents for Bill, Martin ^ Leslie. METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) Metropolitan District Railway Company, and (2) The London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company. 20th March, 1885.— (iJe/ore Mr. Roundkll, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Pabkee, M.P.; Sir John Duckworth ; and Mr. Bonham-Cartek.) Railioay Companies — .Joint Lease of third Com- pany's Undertaking — Agreement as to Lands between two Joint Lessees in derogation of other Joint Lessees' Rights —Partnership — Alleged Breach of—Eijuitahle Claim to Locus Standi — Ambiguity in Clause- Claim for protection as to. Clauses 31 and 32 of the bill empowered the promoters- to make agreements with the South - Eastern railway company with respect to certain lands, which at one time belonged to the Bast London railway Part I.] METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL. company. By ths East London Railway Act, 1882, it was provided (see. 38) that the whole of the nndertaking of the East London company, with the exception of " surplus lands " was, upon the completion of the railways authorised by that Act, to be jointly leased to the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District railway companies. By a subsequent Act the South-Easterc, the London, Chatham & Dover, and the London, Brighton & South Coast companies had also been admitted as joint lessees of the East London undertaking. The petitioners contended that the bill authorised two out of five joint lessees, without the concurrence of the other lessees, to make agreements as to lands, which were the subject of the joint lease authorised by the East London Railway Act, 1S82, although that lease had never been actually executed as it should have been, upon the completion of the railways authorised in 1882, owing to disagree, ments between the parties. The promoters objected (1) that the lands dealt with by the bill were not the subject of the lease contemplated by the Act of 1882 ; (2) that the South - Eastern company had obtained a lease of them prior to the comple- tion of the railways authorised in 1882, and the commencement of the lease ; (3) that they were " surplus lands,'' and therefore specially excluded by the Act of 1882 from the lease. The petitioners replied that the words of clause 31 were so ambiguous as to leave it doubtful what lands were intended, and that they should be heard to obtain the insertion of words of limitation ; that they were equitably entitled to be heard against two of the joint lessees subsequently dealing with any lands which were the subject of the lease authorised by the Act of 1883, although such dealing was prior to the actual commencement of the lease, and that the point being a disputed one, it was for the Committee to decide as to whether the lands in question were " surplus lands : " EehJ, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard as to the clauses objected to by them. The locus standi of the petitioners (1 and 2) was objected to on similar grounds, tiz. : (1, 2 and 3) the bill confers power upon the pro- moters to agree with the South-Eastei'n railway company as to the use and application by that company of lands formerly belonging to the East London railway company for the erection of engine-houses, Ac, and the petitioners allege that they, in common with certain other railway companies, inolud i ng the South-Bastern company, are joint lessees of the whole of the East London company's railways, works, and lands, and that therefore the bill gives an advantage to one of the joint lessees in derogation of the rights of the petitioners, but in fact the lands in question were leased to the Sonth-Bastern company at a date prior to the lease of the East London company to the petitioners and the other lessees, and are included in that lease, and therefore the petitioners have no right or title in respect to the said lands ; (4) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard according to practice. Pope, Q.C. (for (1) the Metropolitan District railway company) : The petitioners seek to be heard against clause 31 of the bill which empowers the promoters and the South-Eastern railway company to agree for the use by the latter company of certain lands for the erection of engine-sheds and other works upon lands at New Cross, " which they hold upon lease from the East London railway company," and which at one time belonged to the Bast London railway company ; and against clause 32, which authorises those companies to enter into agree- ments for the provision and use of terminal and other accommodation at New Cross. In 1882 the East London company promoted a bill for the construction of lines connecting their system with that of the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District, and in that Act of 1882 was inserted a clause (38) as follows :- " When, and so soon, as the railway by this Act authorised, or any other railway connecting the railway of the company with the railways of the Metropolitan and the Metropolitan District shall have been completed, the company shall grant to the lessees, and the lessees shall accept as and from the date of such completion and opening, which date is hereinafter referred to as the commencement of such lease, a lease in perpetuity of the East London railway, and all stations, buildings, lands, works, conveniences, and appurtenances to be held therewith, or appertaining thereto, and all lands, heredita- ments, works, and conveniences whatsoever of the company, exclusive of any surplus lands, and of the railway and works by this Act authorised." Since that there have been other partners admitted into that joint lease, and these partners now are the Metropolitan, the Metropolitan District, the South-Bastern, the 56 COUET OF BEFEEEES. [Vol. I. London, Chatham and Dover, and the London, Brighton and South Coaat railway companies. The meaning of the words, " surplus lands," is the ordinary meaning, namely, lands taken under the powers of the Lands Clauses Act, and not required for the purposes of the undertaking. As a matter of fact no joint lease has ever been drawn out, because the joint lessees have not yet agreed as to the subject-matter of the lease, but they stand in the position of being entitled to claim the gi-ant of the joint lease. The objec- tions ;il lege that the land proposed to be dealt with by sees. 31 and 32 of the present bill is land held by the promoters under a separate lease of a date prior to (he passing of the Act of 1882, but whether or not that is so with regard to these par- ticular lauds, the petitioners claim a locus stancli against clause 31, because it is so general in its wording that it would apply not only to this land, which the petitioners allege they hold under a separate lease, but also to the land held by the promoters in common with the other joint lessees under sec. 38 of the Act of 1882. If the words of sec. 31 are so wide as possibly to enable the promoters to enter into agreements with the South-Eastern com. pany as to the use of lands over which the joint lessees have rights, we are entitled to be heard against the clauses which would give an advantage to the two agreeing companies in derogation of our rights as joint lessees. But the petitioners traverse the allegation that the lands to which the promoters allege this clause is alone intended to apply, are in fact leased, but even if they are it would rather be a question for the Com. mittee whether such a lease by the Bast London company prior to 1882 was not ultra vires. ' Then I have a distinct ground of locus standi against clause 32 which authorises the promoters and the Sotith-Bastern company to enter into agreements for the provision and use of the terminal and other accommodation at New Cross. The whole undertaking of the East Loudon company, except surphis land (which certainly is not property which could be used for terminal accommodation), is covered by the joint lease, and yet under clause 32 the Metro- politan company are seeking to agree with the South-Eastern : that is, one of the joint lessees is seeking Parliamentary power to agree with another of the joint lessees, without the consent of the other three, for terminal accommodation in the undertaking which is partnership property. Mr. Bonham-Cakter ; Suppose the completion of these lines and their connection with the other railways had been indefinitely postponed, would you have held then that the East London company would have no right to deal with its surplus lands ? Pope: That right would be subject to sec. 38 of the Act of 1882. Whatever they did with their lands would be subject to the equitable interest given by that clause. Worsley Taylor (for promoters) : Clause 31 does not take power to purchase or deal with the lands in qaestion, but only gives us power to spend money upon that land ; if, therefore, it should turn out as the petitioners allege, that we have no title to those lands, so far from the other joint lessees being injured, they would have the benefit of the money spent upon the land. Pope : The clause actually recognises your title because it asserts that you are proposing to build on land which yon " hold upon lease." Worsley Taylor .• That gives us no title at law. Those words do not confirm the lease ; they are words of definition only. The Chairman : On the assumption that you have no title to these lands, would not the other companies be put to expense in asserting their right to these lands ? If you proceeded to build upon them, the other companies would be put to expense in getting rid of your claim to do so. Taylor : That would not be in consequence of this bill, if passed. The question is, firstly, have the petitioners any right on these lands, and, secondly, does the bill interfere with that right P The Chairman : Unless you can show by an agreement that the lands in question are outside the Act, is there not, as the petitioners have put it, such a generality in the words " which they hold upon lease from the Bast London railway company," as ought to be restricted by proper words of limitation ? Taylor : The words " which they hold upon lease," refer to the date of the bill clearly, and unless we could produce hereafter some lease existing at the date of this Act, we should have no authority under this clause to spend this money. ilr. Parker: You hold some land under a joint lease and some under a separate lease. Taylor : It is important to notice the date specified by the Act of 1882 for the commeuoe- ment of the joint lease ; it is, so soon as the connecting link between the Metropolitan and the Bast London companies was completed. This took place in October, ISSt, and the date of my separate lease of these lands is 30th of June, 1884., and is therefore prior to the vesting of the joint lease. Pope : I have never heard of this lease till now. My point on it is that these two com- panies, two of the joint lessees, could not, after the Act of 1882, in derogation of the rights of Part I.] NORTHWICH LOCAL BOARD WATER BILL. 57 the other joint lessees secure to themselves part of the partnership property. Taylor : That is a question to be tried in a Court of law, and not one for the Committee. The East London company have between the passing of the Act of 1882 and October, 1884, been granting a number of leases. Are the five joint lessees to be allowed to go into the qaestion of the validity of these leases because they allege they have an equitable right to everything belonging to the Bast London company. Lastly, I contend that these are surplus lands, and therefore were expressly excluded by the Act of 1882 from passing to the joint lessees, that being so they have no interest in them and are not entitled to oppose either clause 31 or 32 which allow us to agree for their use. The Chairman : The locus standi of the peti- tioners is allowed against Clanses 31 and 32. This decision was by consent taken to govern the petition of the London, Chatham and Dover railway company, the points raised by both petitions being identical. Locus standi of (1) the Metropolitan District Railway Company, and of (2) the London Chatham and Dover Railway Company Allowed against Clanses 31 and 82 of the bill. Agents for Petitioners, Martin ^ Leslie, Agents for Bill, Sherwood ^ Go. NORTHWICH LOCAL BOARD WATER BILL. Petition of The Northwich Waterworks Com- pany. 19th March, 1885. — {Before Mr. Pemberton, M.F., Chairman ; Mr. Parker, M.P. ; Mr. RoUNDELL, M.P. ,- Mr. Bonham-Cartek ; and Sir John Duckworth.) Water Supply iy Local Authority — Company without Parliamentary Powers Supplying part of District — CoTnpetition — Puilic Health Act, 1875, ss. 51, 52 — Competitive Schemes to Supply the Same District — Distinction between Companies with and without Parliamentarij Powers. A local board already supplying part of their district with water under the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, took special powers by the bill to make waterworks and supply their district with water. The petitioners were a company incorporated under the Joint Stock Companies Act, and had for many years been supplying water, but without parliamentary powers, to that part of the promoters' district not supplied by the promoters. The petitioners claimed a locus standi on the ground of competition generally, and especially urged the fact that they were themselves before Parliament in the present Session for parliamentary powers to supply a district incloding that to be supplied under the bill : JJeld, that as the promoters were already empowered by the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, to supply the whole of their district with water, and were at the present time supplying a pai't of it, the bill did not create a competition entitling the petitioners, who had no statutory powers in reference to the part of the district already supplied by them, to be heard against it. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : — (1) It is not proposed to take or interfere with any property of the petitioners ; (2) the peti- tioners have no parliamentary right to supply water within the promoters' district, nor have they any right to break up streets within such district forthe purpose of lay ing down, repairing, or renewing water mains and pipes; (3) the promoters are now supplying part of their district with water in pursuance of the powers and duties conferred and imposed upon them by the Public Health Act, 1875; and the object of the bill is to enable them the better to perform those duties ; (4) the allegation contained in paragraph 10 of the petition, that the petitioners have performed all their duties to the public, is not accurate, inasmuch as they have not under, taken the usual duties and obligations of a water company, and at present no duties are imposed upon them ; but as a matter of fact the petitioners are not able and willing to supply water proper and sufiBoient for the reasonable purposes of the inhabitants of the promoters' district ; (5) competition between the pro- moters and petitioners is not created by, nor will it arise, under the bill ; it aJready exists, and the petitioners are not entitled to bo heard upon any question of competition ; (6) the petitioners do not allege, nor have they any interest which entitles them, according to the practice of Parliament, to be heard against the bill. ErsTcine Pollock (for petitioners) : The peti- tioners are a company incorporated under the Joint Stock Companies Acts and are supplying 58 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. water to the larger part of the district included by the bill, but without Parliamentary powers. The local board take powers by the bill to make waterworks and supply water in a part of their district which the petitioners have supplied since 1856, and this we oppose on the ground oF competition. The principal objection taken against us is that we have no Parliamentary powers, but that point has been deoidod in our favour in the St. Helen's Water Bill, 1887 (1 Clifford & Stephens, 14). Our case in some respects resembles that of the Rsigate Water- works company on their petition against the Caterhayn Spring Water Bill [supra, p. 14), but it is a stronger case. The case of the Croydon Corporation Bill, 1881', on the petition of the Company of Proprietors of the Lambeth Water- works (3 Clifford & Bickards, 383) is in my favour. There is no case where a local board has come to supply a district already supplied by a waterworks company thoua^h without Par- liamentary powers, where that company has been shut out on locus standi. We are this Session seeking Parliamentary powers, and are therefore a competing company seeking power to supply the samo district, and on that ground also are entitled to be heard. Balfour Broivno (for promoters) ; In the case of the Caterham Spring Water Bill, the locus standi of the Reigate waterworks company appears to have been conceded. In the St. Helen's case Mr. Mellin was allowed a locus standi because the Improvement Commissioners had no existing powers of water supply. In the case of the Croydon Corporation Water Bill the petitioners were a company having powers nnder an Act of Parliament. In this case the Northwioh local board have for a number of years supplied water in that portion of their district not suppliei by the petitioners. At the present time, therefore, there is competition going on between the two bodies within the district of the local board as a Whole. By the Public Health Act, 1875, sec. 51, the local board have full power to supply their district, and we seek the powers in the bill only because we cannot get water (by pumping, for instance) within our own district, and it is therefore necessary to construct works and to take land oompulsorily. It is a, mere accident arising from the fact thai we are obliged to go outside the limits of our own dis- trict to obtain water, that we are in Parliament at all, but the bill does not really affect the position of the petitioners. Pollock ; This bill gives the promoters power to do something they cannot do under the Public Health Act ; otherwise, what is the object of their coming to Parliament for a bill at all p Broione : The local board have full power under an Act of Parliament to supply every house in their district already, and the petitioners have no such power. They are simply traders in water. The Public Health Act draws a distinction between companies with, and companies without, Parliamentary powers ; for by sec. 52 it is enacted that it shall not be lawful for the local authority to construct waterworks when and so long as there is a company empowered by Act of Parliament or any order confirmed by Parliament to supply water, and that company is able and willing to supply water. The petitioners are, in fact, complaining of the Public Health Act. Even a Parliamentary company would not have a locus standi to oppose the construction of new works and the raising of further capital, which is what is proposed to be done by the bill, as was decided in the Southwark and Vauxhall Bill, 1880 (2 Clifford & Riokards, 307). The Chairman ; Are the limits of your water supply under this bill co-incident with the limits of your local board district ? Browne : Yes ; we do not by the bill add an inch of territory to our district, which we can already supply nnder the Public Health Act. The Chairman : The question is whether the bill creates the competition or not. It seems to us that the competition is not created by this bill ; the competition, or the power to compete, is already conferred upon the promoters, who are already authorised to supply the whole of this district, and do not extend their area of supply by the bill. Pollock : They are not going under the general powers of the Public Health Act ; they are now coming for a special Act. The Chaieman ; But only on the lines autho- rised by the Public Health Act. You would get all you want by your own bill, whether you were heard against this bill or not, would you not? Pollock: The two bills should be treated as competing bills, whereas if my locus is dis- allowed, this will become an unopposed bill. The Ghaiuman : A loctcs standi is claimed on the ground of competition. The question is whether that competition has not been already created by existing legislation. We must dis. allow the locus statidi in this case. Locus standi Disallowed, Agents for Bill, Sharpe Sf Co. Agents for Petitioners, Taylor, Hoare Sf Co. Pabt I.] begent's canal city and docks railway bill. 59 PONTYPEIDD, CAERPHILLY AND NEWPORT RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Rhtmnet Railway Company. 20th April, 1885.— (Be/ore Mr. Pembebton, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Pakkee, JT.P.; Ifr.EonNDELL, M.r. ; Mr. Meldon, M.P. ; and Mr. Bonham. Cauter.) JBxtension of Time Bill — Railway Company as Landoivners — General Locits. The bill provided, inter alia, for an extension of time foS: the compulsory purchase of lands authorised by an Act obtained by the promoters in 1882. That Act (sec. 6) empowered the promoters to acquire com. pulsorily certain lands belonging to the Bhymney railway company, and (sec. 27) gave the promoters and the Brecon and Merthyr railway company power to acquire oompulsorily certain other lands in which the Rhymney company were not interested. The petitioners contended that clause 3 of the bill was so worded as to authorise an extension of the time limited by the Art of 1882 for the compulsory purchase of the lands referred to in sec. 6 as well as sec. 27 of the Act of 1882, and that therefore the bill affected their rights as landowners. The promoters denied that this was the intention of the clause, or that it was capable of such a construction. The Court decided that clause 3 of the bill was so ambiguously worded as to render the effect of the clause contended for by the petitioners possible, and under these circumstances allowed the petitioners a general locus as landowners. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to, because (1) the bill contained no provisions for taking or using any part of their lands, railway stations or accommodations, or for running engines or carriages over the same, or for granting other facilities affecting them ; (2) they weie not affected by or entitled to be heard against the provisions of the bill authorising an extension of time for the com. pulsory purchase of land by the promoters and the Brecon and Merthyr Junction railway company ; (3) the bill did not affect the agreement with the Taff Vale railway company set forth in schedule A to the Promoters Act of 1878, and the petitioners were not parties to it ; (4 and 5) the bill contained no provisions affecting the petitioners' rights or property, and their petition alleged no ground for a hearing according to practice. Jeune appeared as Counsel for the Billj Batten for the Petitioners, Agent for Bill, Bell. Agents for Petitioners, Wyatt, HosMns ^ Eooier. REGENT'S CANAL CITY AND DOCKS RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) School Board fob London ; (2) The Vestby of St Lore's, Middlesex. 8th May, 1885. — {Be/ore Mr. Pembeeton, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Parkeb, M.P. ; Mr. Boundell, M.P.; Mr. Meldon, M.P. ; aiid Mr. Bonham- Cabtek.) Railway — Conversion of Undertaking as a whole into Separate Undertakings — Separate Capital — School Board as Landowners — Agreement as to Payment of Compensation, Conditional upon Raisii}g of Capital — Postponeme^it of Period for Payment — Variation of Conditions of Agreement — Practice — Alteration of Agree- ment, although not Injuriously Affecting Interests of Petitioners, a Ground ^of Locus Standi. By an agreement scheduled to an Act of 1882, authorising the promoters of the present bill to acquire the Regent's Canal and construct certain railways, the promoters agreed with the School Board for London, inter alia, that within three months after any portion of the capital required for the construction of such portions of the under- taking, as were the subjectof the agreement, should be raised, the company should pay the School Board twenty thousand pounds, in consideration of the School Board trans, ferring certain land to the company. The present bill authorised the company to divide the railway undertaking as a whole into separate undertakings with separate capitals, and by clause 16 it was expressly enacted that " the separate capital of any separate undertaking for the time being of the company shall, as regards all matters, claims or proceedings affecting or connected with such separate undertaking, and for the purpose of all agreements entered into by the company with respect to the puroh ase 60 COUET OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. or acquisition of lands which may be required for Buch separate undertaking, bo deemed to be the only capital of the com- pany." The School Board contended that these provisions affected the terms of their agreement with the promoters under the Act of 1882, and the period at which their right to the payment of the twenty thousand pounds provided for by it, would accrue. The promoters, whilst admitting that the bill might be said to vary the agreement, contended that such alteration did not pre- judice the petitioners : Held, that inasmuch as the bill prima fade altered the conditions of the agreement, it was not necessary to prove that the peti- tioners would be prejudiced by such alteration, and that they were entitled to be heard before the Committee on the bill. The locus standi of the School Board for London was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not show, nor is it the fact, that any land, property, right or interest of the petitioners will be, or can be, taken or afieoted, under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners do not specify on what ground they object to any of the provisions contained in the bill ; (3) the agreement referred to in paragraph 1 of the petition is not affected by the bill, and looking to the provisions of that agreement, the proposed constitution of separate undertakings of the Regent's Canal, City and Docks railway com- pany in no way prejudices the petitioners; (4) the bill does not contain any provisions affecting the petitioners ; (5) the petition does not show that the petitioners have, nor have they in fact, any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard against it. The locus standi of the Vestry of St. Luke's, Middlesex, was objected to on similar grounds inutatis mutandis. O'Hara (for the London School Board) : In 1882 the promoters of the pi-eaent bill promoted a bill incorporating the Regent's Canal, Cily and Docks railway company, for the transfer to them of the Regent's canal company, and for authorising the construction of certain railways. The proposed railways passed under and inter- fered with certain of the schools and land of the London School Board, aud the Board accordingly petitioned against that bill, but before their case was gone into an agreement was come to with the promoters as to the terms upon which the land should be acquired ; and that agree. ment was sohedaled to the ict of 1882. The agreement provided, inter alia, that " within three months after any portion of the capital required for the oonstrnction of such portions of the nndertaking, as are the subject of this agreement, shall be raised, the company shall pay to the Board twenty thousand pounds sterling, and the Board shall accept the same in full payment and discharge of all purchase, moneys, compensation, and claims." In 1883 the Regent's Canal and Docks company obtained two other Acts, one constituting the canal a separate undertaking, and the other authorising the company to resolve and determine that certain specified portions of the railways authorised by the Act of 1882, called the " City Lines,'" should be formed into a separate under, taking with a separate capital. Against those Acts, however, the School Board did not peti. tion, and I am not now complaining of that Act or of past legislation. By clause 13 of the present bill, the company may, before creating any part of the capital authorised by the Act of 1882 (other than the " canal capital, and other than the city lines capital, if that capital be created as a separate capital) resolve and determine — that the railways authorised by the Act of 1882 (other than those included in the city lines undertaking) or some of them, or some part or parts thereof, shall be a separate under. taking, and that the capital necessary for the purposes of such undertakings (the amount of such capital to be then and there determined) shall be a separate capital or separate capitals of the company." Then, by clause 16 it is pro. vided with regard to the separate capitals which the company by clause 13 are empowered to raise " the separate capital of any separate undertaking for the time being of the company, shall, as regards all matters, claims, or pro- ceedings affecting or oonneoted with such separate undertaking, and for the purpose of all agreements entered into by the company with respect to the purchase or acquisition of lands which may be required for such sepai'ate undertaking, be deemed to be the only capital of the company, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 1882, or in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, the company may put in forco the powers of those Acts or any Act incorporated therewith in relation to the compulsory taking of land for the purposes of any separate undertaking of the company for the time being." That is a direct negative to the clauses of our agreement. The Chairm.^N: Would these clauses in the bill affect the lands that were the subject of the agreements ? Part I.] south-eastern railway (various powers) bill. 61 O'Hara : Yes, the lands which were the subject of the agreement would be required for Railway No. 2, for what is called the street widening j and for Railway No. 6, all of which form part and parcel of the lines authorised in 1882, which are dealt with by the bill. Thus Clause 13 allows the company to divide their undertaking up into separate portions with separate capitals, and Clause 16 says, notwith- standing anything in the Act of 18i^2, or in any agreement, the separate capital of each portion and that capital alone, is to be available for the purposes of each separate portion of railway. The payment, however, to us of the £20,000 under our agreement is only contingent upon the raising " of any portion of the capital " required for the conatruction of such portions of the nndertaliing as are referred to in the agreement, and, therefore, the bill affects that agreement, and we, as parties to it, have a right to be heard . Even where all that is proposed to be done is to gi^ e statutory power to carry an agreement into effect the parties have the right to go before the Committee to see that that is properly carried out. The Chairman : That would seem to be very good law : even if an agreement is to be carried out, either of the parties to it has a right to see that it is carried out. Cripps (for promoters) : Admitting that the bill does vary the agreement, it does not alter it to the detriment of the petitioners. O'Hara : That is not necessary if the bill in any way varies the agreement. The Chaikman : According to the agreement, directly any portion of the capital is raised the petitioners are to be paid ; if under the bill separate portions of the capital might be raised in a manner not authorised by the Act of 1882, and yet the promoters do not come under that obligation to the School Board, it is enough to give them a locus standi. We do not construe the clauses ; we only see whether they, prima facie, vary the agreement. We think the School Board are clearly entitled to a locus standi. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for St. Luke's VestryJ : My case for St. Luke's Vestry is practically the same as that of the School Board. Cripps ; Yes. Locus standi of both Petitioners Allowed against clauses 13, 14, 15, and 16, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for (1) School Board for London, Gedge, Kiriy ^ Millet. Agents for (2) The Vestry of St. Luke's, Middlesex, Dyson ^ Go. Agent for Bill, Bees. SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. Petition of (1) Henry A. Deane and William Chubb. 23rd March, 1885. — {Before Mr. PEMBERT0N,3f.P., Chairman ; Mr. Parker, M.P. ; Mr. Meldon, M.P.; Mr. RouNDELL, M.P.; and Sir John Duckworth.) Lands Scheduled — Second Mortgagees in Posses- sion — Agreement to Purchase from First .Mortgagees — Legal Estate. The petitioners were second mortgagees of pro- perty scheduled under the bill, with an agreement to buy out the first mortgagees, the mortgagor having absconded. Under these circumstances, the counsel for the promoters conceded the right of the peti. tioners to be heard as representing the mortgagees in possession, and the Court concurred in allowing their locus standi. The locus standi of Henry A. Deane and William Chubb was objected to on the following grounds : (1) No lands, houses, or other pro- perty belonging to the petitioners will be taken under the powers of the bill; (2) the said peti- tioners are not, as alleged, the owners of the three private dwelling-houses, or of any or either of such houses and other property referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of their petition, nor are they the owners, lessees, or occupiers of any other property which will, or may, be taken nnder the powers of the bill ; (3) Save as owners of the dwelling-houses and property referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the petition (the fact of which ownership the promoters deny) the petitioners do not allege, nor is it the fact that they have any such right or interest in any of the objects and provisions of the bill, as, according to practice, entitles them to be heard against it. Ohulb (for Henry Deane and William Chubb) : The question is whether we are owners or not of property scheduled for compulsory purchase under the powers of the bill. We have not yet got the fee free from encumbrance, but our position is this. The original freeholder was a Mr. Couch who first mortgaged the property to Messrs. Shorter & Smith, and then mortgaged it to my clients for a, further amount. We are second mortgiigees in posses- sion. We have entered into a contract with the first mortgagees to purchase, Mr. Couch having absconded. 52 COURT OF RErEEEES. [Vol. 1. The Chairman: Have yon the legal estate ? Chubb : The first mortgasfees have the legal estate, bat we have entered into a binding agreement to buy them out on Lady-Day. Worsley Taylor (for promoters) ; If my learned friend assures ns that he represents the mort- gagees in possession I shall not dispute his locus standi. Locus Standi Alloived. Agents for Petitioners, Deane Sj' Chubb. Petition of (2) The Great Northern Railway Company ; (3) The Midland Railway Com- pany ; AND (4) The Great "Western Railway Company. Metropolitan Raihoay — Running Powers, Proposal to ciinfer, upon Third Company objected^ to by Company having similar Ponders — Special Cir- cumstances— Bill varying previous Arrange- ments betiveen Parties — Locus Standi of Petitioners not objected to on Previous Appli- cations to Parliament for ^ame Powers — Priority of Traffic — Limited number of Trains — Agreement, Power to make, affecting Com- panies not Parties to if — Arnbiguity of Clause, Claim to obtain limitation of, before Com- mittee. Practice — Court will take cognizance of decision of a Committee on a similar question affecting sam.e Parties. The three petitioning companies claimed to be heard against clause 33 of the bill on the ground (1) that it would empower the promoters and the South-Easteru railway company to make agreements for the use of one another's railways, and so would admit the South-Bastern company to run over the Metropolitan railway system generally, and (2) that the words of the clan=e (33) were so wide and ambiguous in their meaning that they might be construed to admit the con- tracting companies to use the railways of any companies " leased, worked, or used," in whole or in part, by either of the con- tracting companies, in which category the petitioning companies were. With regard to the latter ground (2) of objection, the promoters contended that it was im- possible to hold that such a power of agree - ment between the promoters and the South- Eastern company could bind or affect third parties. The petitioners, however, claimed to go before the Committee to obtain the insertion in the clause of words of limitation. As to ground (1) of their opposition to clause 33, upon which the argument princi- pally turned, the petitioners had themselves a partialrigbt of user over the Metropolitan railway, and urged that they had repeatedly and successfully opposed similar attempts in Parliament on the part of the South- Bastern company to obtain general running powers over the Metropolitan railway, and they contended that this circumstance together with the previous history of the dealings between the parties took the case out of the ordinary rule of practice, that railway companies with running powers over another company's railway could not bo heard to oppose the grant of similar running powers to a third company : Held, that the fact that a Committee had heard the petitioners on the same point against a previous application by the promoters for similar powers and had decided in the petitioners' favour, was a circumstance taking the case out of the ordinary rule, and that the petitioners were entitled to be heard against the lause in question. The locus standi of (2) the Great Northern railway company and (3) the Midland railway company was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitions do not allege or show, nor is it the fact that any land, railway, railway station or other property of the peti. tioners, or of the Metropolitan railway com- pany, of which the petitioners have the separate use, will or may be taken or used or interfered with under the powers of the bill; (2) the powers sought by clause 33 of the bill do not and cannot deprive the petitioners of any rights or powers they possess by statute, agreement or otherwise, over or with respect to the Metropolitan railway or any part thereof; (3) the existing rights of the petitioners over the portion of the Metropolitan railway re- ferred to in the petition, and their relations with the Metropolitan railway company are secured to the petitioners or governed by statute or agreement, and could be maintained by law, and any agreement entered into between the promoters and the Metropolitan railway company under clause 33 of the bill could only be made subject to any pre. existing rights of the petitioners, who cannot PaET I.] SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERs) BILL. 63 consequently be prejadioed by the said clause, and they are not therefore entitled to be heard against it; (4) the agreement between the petitioners and the Metropolitan railway compauy referred to in paragraph 5 of the petition gives the petitioners no exolasiye rights over the Metropolitan railway or any portion thereof, except the right to separate station accommo- dation, which the bill does not seek to interfere with, and such agreement cannot be invalidated or the petitioners' rights under it impaired or prejudiced by the powers sought by the bill ; (5) the petitioners have not sufficient interest in the Bubjeot-matter of the agreements proposed to be sanctioned by clause 33 of the bill to entitle them to be heard against it ; (6) the petitioners do not allege or disclose any ground of objection to the bill which according to practice entitles them to be heard against it. The objections to the locus standi of (4) the Great Western railway were in effect the same as those against petitioners (2 and 3), with the excep- tion of objection 4, which was as follows : — The powers and rights acquired by the petitioners under the Acts of Parliament and agreements referred to in paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7 of their petition give the petitioners no exclusive rights over the Metropolitan railway or any portion thereof, and such powers and rights cannot be impaired or prejudiced by the powers sought for by the bill. Pope, Q.C. (for Great Northern railway company) : Clause 33 is the clause to which the petitions of the three railway companies relate. That clause provides that, " The South- Eastern company on the one hand and the Metropolitan railway company on the other hand may from time to time enter into and carry into effect, alter and rescind contracts and agreements with regard to the use by the con- tracting companies or either of them of the railways, stations, works, and conveniences of the other of the two companies " (the main question between us arises on that part of the section), " or of the East London railway company " (then follow these remarkable words), '■ or the railway or railway stations, works, and conveniences of, or belonging to, any other railway company, whose railway or any part or parts thereof are or is leased, worked, or used by the contracting companies and the East London railway company respectively, or any parts or part thereof respectively." Those last words are very peculiar, and if it should turn out that there is any portion of the Great Northern that is leased, worked, or used by either the South-Eastern or the Metropolitan company, that clause would empower either of those two companies to admit the other over that portion so used. Unless the clause is modified it might give the South-Eastern statutory power to admit the Metropolitan to an user of that portion of the Great Northern which is " leased, worked or used " by the Sonth - Eastern company, e.g., our line as far as Highgate, over which the South-Eastern now run trains, and it is arguable that the words of the clause might be construed to have a wider meaning so as to include the whole of the railways of any company, part of whose lines are " leased, worked or used " by either of the contracting companies. We are at any rate entitled to go before the Committee fjo have the clause made perfectly clear. The more important part of the section is, however, that which would give the South-Eastern power to make agreements for the user of the whole of the Metropolitan system. On several occasions, and particularly in the years 1873 and 1874, applications were made to Parliament to admit the South-Eastern over these lines, not exactly in the same form in which the application is now made, but with substantially the same object. In 1874, an application being before Parliament on the part of the South-Eastern for general running powers over th^ Metropolitan, an agreement was come to between the South-Eastern and all the companies interested, the South-Eastern, the Metropolitan, the Great Northern, and the Midland being parties to it, by which the application for rnnning powers was struck out and a clause inserted (South-Eastern Railway Act, 1874, sec. 11) allowing the South-Eastern to run over only those Metropolitan lines between the junction of the London, Chatham and Dover at or near Charterhouse-street and the junction with the Great Northern and Midland at King's Cross. So that the arrange- ment among all the parties in 1874 was this, to permit the South-Eastern company to run from Holborn or Farringdon-street to King's Cross on condition of their striking out of the bill their general rnnning powers. That arrangement the bill extends and practically cancels. The present case is distinguished by the existence of the agreement of 1874, and the previous history, from those cases where companies which have running powers simpUciter seek to oppose the admission of a third company to like powers, in which it is a recognised practice that the objecting compauy cannot be heard. Bidder, Q.C. (for the Midland company) ; My case is really on all fours with that of the Great Northern company, but I will refer to the cases bearing upon this point. The Great Northern company in the case of the Metropolitan Railway Bill, 1871 (2 Clifford & Stephens, 106), petitioned on the ground that the line was 64 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. crowded and on no other ground , and in that case the Court decided that there was nothing to take it out of the ordinary rule, and the locus standi was refused. In the Metropolitan Bill, 1875 (1 Clifford & Riokards, 172), the Great Western railway company alleged that in addition to rnnning powers they had a right of priority for their traffic, and they sought to be heard to preserve that priority : it was pointed out that there was nothing in the bill to interfere with that priority and so the locus standi was disallowed. In the case of the Great Eastern Railway Bill, 1874 (1 Clifeord & Eickards, 78), the Metropolitan District company opposed the granting of rnnning powers to the Great Eastern railway company over the Metropolitan ra,ilway on the ground of the particular rela- tions between the two companies with regard to the interchange of traffic, and the Court held that that was sufficient to take the case out of the ordinary rule and allowed the locus standi. In the London and Eastbourne Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford and Rickards, 299), the South- Western company opposed the granting of running powers to the promoting company over the London, Chatham and Dover railway company's railway on the ground of the crowded state of the line.* In that case the company whose line was to be run over also opposed, and it was on that ground that the locus stanAi was disallowed. The special circumstances which distinguish the case now before the Court from those cases are as follows : in 1873 the South-Bastern promoted a bill identical with the present in so far as it admitted the promoters over the Metropolitan lines, and that we opposed on petition, and it was thrown out. The Chaikman : Was the proposal made then the same as now, and were you in the same position ? Bidder : Yes. In 1874 the Sonth-Easteru company renewed their application to Parlia. ment for similar running powers, and we again lodged a petition against their bill, which resulted in the arrangement already explained to the Court by Mr. Pope. The promoters again attempted to get general powers in the Sessions of 1880 and 1882 with similar results owing to our opposition. Saunders, Q.C. (for the Great Western railway company) : We seek to be heard upon very similar grounds to those urged by the Great Northern and Midland railways, and we have like them, rnnning powers over parts of the Metropolitan system. Our case is, however, stronger than the case of those companies, inasmuch as we have, by agreement embodied in an Act of 1865, the right not only to run a certain number of trains, viz., 30 over the Metropolitan railway, but also the Metropolitan company is bound to give a priority to our trains over the trains of all other foreign companies, and it is upon this priority I ^mainly rest my case, the power to run a fixed number of trains being unusual in granting running powers, and especially important in the case of a crowded line like the Metropolitan. The Chaikman : The question of priority was set up as a ground of locus standi in the case of the Metropolitan Railway Bill, 1875 (1 Clifford and Rickards, 172), and the answer was that the priority was not attemped to be interfered with Dy the bill. Saunders : I say that in this particular case it is sought to be interfered with practically, if not by any particular clause. I am asking you to vary a decision, but you do that occasionally under changed circumstances. The Chairman : I do not know that we should be varying a previous decision. Mr. Pope and Mr. Bidder have put it on other grounds. Did you, like them, oppose the bill of 1873. Saunders : We did, and our locus standi was not objected to. Further as a company, over part of whose line the Metropolitan have the right to run, we say that the meaning of clause 33 may be, that the section would give to the promoters power to use that part of our line, and unless the promoters can show that is not the meaning of the clause, I am entitled to be heard against it. The Chaibman : It is enough if the meaning is doubtful. With regard to previous oppositions to similar bills, if petitioners have gone before a Committee, no matter how they got there, and been heard aud been successful on the points now raised, it would be a very strange thing for this Court to say that they had no locus standi upon the same points again. Worsley Taylor (for promoters) : Each of the three companies has running powers over the Metropolitan railway, and they oppose the grant of like powers to the South-Eastern company on the ground of possibility of interference with their rights. The cases show that this is no ground of locus standi. The Easthoume case, 1883 (3 Clifford & Rickards, 299), is not only the last, but is as strong a case as could be cited so far as regards the point of special circumstances taking the case out of what is admitted to be the general rule . The decision was, however, against the Sonth-Western railway. In the Metropolitan Railway Bill, 1875 (1 Clifford & Riokards, 172), the Great. Western company referred to the same agreement giving priority and specifying the number of trains, but the Court refused their locus standi. As to the construction of clause 33, the objection is not raised in the petitions. Part I.] south-eastern railway (various powers) bill. 65 The Chairman : The petition of the Great Western company states the clause, and says in effect, it may be exercised in such a way as to be injariona to their company, as well as putting forward their agreement as to priority of trains, as to which there is the question whether that does not make some difference. Worsley Taylor : That was decided in the Metropolitan Railway case. Taking it that the allegation is sufficient, with regard to clause 33 I say that it is not arguable that this, a mere permissire power to make agreements between two companies, could give them rights in derogation of other companies' rights, rights which are defined by agreement or by Acts of Parliament. This clause only entitles the com- panies to agree between themselves for the forwarding of each other's traffic, and could not be held to bind third parties. The Chairman : Then I do not see what the use of the words is. The question is whether there is a reasonable doubt that they can be construed to affect the petitioning companies. Worsley Taylor : I contend that it could not be so constrned. The only point the petitioners rely on as taking this case out of the admitted rule, is the previous dealings in the matter in 1873, 1874, and 1880. As to the arrangement come to in 1874, that we should drop the clauses for general running powers over the Metropolitan railway that was not a bargain for all time, precluding us from coming for these powers. Bidder : At any rate we should be heard against any attempt to alter that arrangement. Taylor : That these petitioners were heard before a Committee in 1873, the South-Easteru not opposing their being there, gives them no right to be heard now, for it may have been that their locus standi was not objected to, because other petitioners were certain to raise the same points. The Chairman : The difficulty that I feel is this. The petitioners were before the Com- mittee in 1873, however they got there, and the Committee not only heard them but decided in their favour on identically the same point. Assuming that the question is the same at the present moment, or nearly the same, how can we say that they have no locus stamdi. There are different ways of getting a locus standi, by the rules and practice Of the Court, by a decision of the House, and by the practice of Committees of the House ; and if we find in a particular case that certain parties have appeared before a Committee and the Com- mittee have decided in their favour, when practically the same question was before them, it would be impossible for the Court to say they have no right to be heard against a subsequent similar proposal. If they had never been before a Committee on the same question the decision of the Court might have been different. It is impossible for the Court to say that the petitioners who so succeeded before a Com- mittee should not now be heard upon the same question. Locus standi of all three petitioners Allowed against clause 33 and so much of the preamble as related thereto. Agents for Petitioners (2), Nelson, Barr ^ Nelson. Agents for Petitioners (3), Beale If Co. Agent for Petitioners (4), Mains. Petition of (5) London Tramways Company. Tramway — Alteration of Level of Road — Physical Interference — Interference with Traffic — Practice as to Terms in which Locus Standi Allowed. The bill proposed by clause 5, to make a widen, ing of the promoters' railway, involving the raising of the road on which the peti- tioners' tramway was laid. The petitioners claimed a locus standi that would enable them to raise questions not only of physical interference with their tramways (as to which their locus was conceded), but also of the consequences of the interference in respect to loss of traffic : Held, that the locus standi should be allowed against sub-section 7 of clause 5, so far as the same authorised interference with the tramway or with the traffic thereon. The locus stamdi of (5) the London Tramways company was objected to on the following grounds ; (1) the petitioners do not allege or show, nor is it the fact that any house, land, tramway, or other property belonging to, leased or occupied by them, will or may be taken nnder the powers of the bill; (2) the peti. tioners have only an easement on the road referred to in paragraph 5 of the petition along which their tramway is laid, and they have no right to be heard with reference to the altera- tion of the level of the said road under the powers of the bill, the road authority being the proper party, if any, to be heard in respect thereof; (3) the petitioners do not allege or 66 COURT OF EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. show, nor is it the fact, that any injary or damage will or may aocrue to them by reason of the increase of the powers contained in clause 10 of the bill ; (4) if the petitioners are entitled to be heard at all against the bill (which the pro- meters do not admit), they are entitled to be heard only against so much of clause 5 thereof as authorises a physical interference with their tramway ; (5) the petition does not allege or show, nor is it the fact, that the petitioners have any such right or interest in any of the objects and provisions of the bill as, according to practice, entitles them to be heard against it. Leslie, Parliamentary agent (for petitioners) : The London Tramways company own a large system of tramways, an important portion of which runs along the New Cross-road. The bill, by clause 5, proposes to make a certain widening of the South-Eastern i-ailway, and this neoessi. tates the raising of the New Cross-road, where the petitioners tramways are, involving physical interference with them as well as loss of traffic. In the Tramways Order Oonfirmation, No. 3 {City of London, ^c.) Bill, 1881 (3 Clifford & Riokards, 105), the petitioners opposed an inter- ference with their tramway by its being crossed by another tramway. In that case their locus standi against the crossing was allowed, but another point was raised with reference to possible interference with the traffic on the tramway, on which point a locus standi was refused. But that is distinguishable from the present case, because it was not traffic that would be interfered with by the crossing, bat traffic that might be interfered with by reason of the construction of certain other proposed lines and junctions alorg the side of the pro- moters' tramways. In that case a locus standi was allowed against "so much of clause 6 as authorises the crossing of the petitioners' lines by the proposed tramway." ' Worsley Taylor (for promoters) : I am content that the petitioners should have a loeus standi limited as in that case. Leslie : I claim a general locus standi against paragraph 7 of the clause in these words : Locus standi allowed against so much of clause 5 as authorises the proposed widening. After some discussion as to the terms of the order, the Court Allowed the locus standi of the Petitioners against sub-section 7 of clause 5, so far as the same authorised interference with the tramways or the traffic thereon. Agents for Petitioners (5), Martin ^ Leslie. Petition of (6) The Vestry of the Parish or St. Clave, Southwark. The petitioners objected to the extension of time authorised by the bill for the compulsory purchase of lands authorised by the South. Eastern Rail way (Yarious Powers) Act, 1882. The same lands were also the subject of compulsory powers of purchase by the Metropolitan Board of Works under their Act of 1882, and there was a clause inserted at the instance of the Board in the Soath-Gastern Railway (Various Powers) Act, 1882, to the effect that the com- pany should only exercise their compulsory powers of purchase of the lands in the event of their not being required by the Metro- politan Board for a certain street widening, in which event the company might give notice to the Metropolitan Board of Works of their desire to purchase the lands within two years from the passing of the Company's Act of 1882. This right of option on the part of the company was subsequently extended by Parliament to 10th August, 1886. The lands in qaestion had been exempted by the Metropolitan Board of Works Act, 1882, from the provisions of sec. 133 of the Lands Clauses Act, 18i5, i.e., from liability to land tax or poor's rate, and the petitioners were apprehensive that the effect of the bill would be, not only to extend the general powers of purchase of the South-Eastern com- pany, but also to extend the time within which the company might exercise their option as to purchasing the lauds in qaestion from the Metropolitan Board, and that the period during which the lands would be- exempted from ratability would be similarly extended to the injury of the ratepayers of their district. Upon further discussion of the clause in the bill for the extension of the company's compulsory powers of purchase, it was conceded by the counsel for the petitioners that the effect of the clause alleged in the petition, could not be sustained, and the Court Disallowed the locus standi of the Petitioners. Macrae appeared as counsel for the Peti- tioners. Worsley Taylor for the Promoters. Agents for Petitioners, Sherwood ^ Co. Petition of (7) The Corpoeation of Croydon. Railway-Interference ivith Roads and Sewers- Local and Road Authority, how far affected as Landowners — Public health Act, 1875 — Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 s. 92. PaeT I.] SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. 67 A municipal corporation petitioned as an urban sanitary authority against interference by the construction of a railway with the roads and sewers in their district vested in them by the Public Health Act, 1875. They also complained in their petition of the exemp- tion sought by the promoters from the operation of sec. 92 of the Lands Glauses Consolidation Act, 1845. They claimed a general locus standi. The Court held that the petitioners had not a general locus standi against the bill, but that they were entitled to be heard against the construc- tion of railways within their district, their locus standi being limited in the same manner as in the case of the vestries who petitioned against the South-Eastem Railway {New Lines, ^c), Bill, 1882 (3 Clifford & Eickards, 213). The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to, because (1) they were not owners, &c., of any lands taken, nor were any of their rights, jurisdiotions, f removing' them : 82 COUKT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. Held, that the liability to the expenses for sewering and paving would only become attached to the petitioners upon their electing to make their land a street, and that the liability to the remoTal of urinals was not of such a nature as to entitle the petitioners to a locus standi, and that on neither ground, therefore, were the peti- tioners entitled to be heard. The locus standi of the market company was objected to on the following grounds : (1) It is not proposed to interfere with any property or rights of the petitioners ; (2) there is nothing in the petitioners' Acts of Parliament entitling them to an extension of their market limits, in case of an extension of the municipal borough limits ; (3) the peti. tioners' market limits were defined by their Act of 1847, sec. 16, as the Parliamentary borough of Wakefield. Since then the mnnioipal and Parliamentary borough of Wakefield have both been extended, but no extension has been made of the market limits. There is still, therefore, ah area outside the market limits, bat within the municipal borough of Wakefield, to which the Company's Acts do not apply ; (4) the com. petition between the promoters and the peti- tioners will not arise under the bill, and the petitioners are not entitled to be heard upon the question of competition ; (5) the bill does not confer upon the promoters any powers with regard to markets and slaughter-houses which they, or the local authority whose district is proposed to be incorporated, do not now by law possess ; (6) clause 52 of the bill will not in any way affect the petitioners ; (7) the provisions of clause 72 will not extend or apply to the peti- tioners' urinals referred to in their petition ; (8) the petition does not disclose any ground of objection to the bill, which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitles the petitioners to be heard. Balfour Browne (for petitioners) : The bill pro- poses to extend the boundaries of the borough of Wakefield. The petitioners are the Wakefield borough market company, and were incorporated by 10 & 11 Vict., 0. 49. The limits within which that Act was to be put in force were the parlia- mentary borough of Wakefield. The company was authorised to construct a market-place, with all necessary works. The company were also authorised to provide such slaughter-houses as should from time to time be suBjcient for the slaughtering of cattle for the supply of the said borough and the neighbourhood thereof. The 2lBt seciionuf that Act prohibits the slaughtering of cattle in any place within ^he borough of Wakefield, other than in the slaughter-houses of the company. The petitioners obtained two further Acts of Parliament, and, in pursuance of the powers contained in their Acts, built a market- place and slaughter-houses. The petitioners are therefore at the present time protected from competition, but should the present bill be passed into law, the boundaries of the borough of Wakefield will be extended, while the peti- tioners' powers and privileges will be confined to the area of the existing borough, and so it will be lawful for the corporation of Wakefield under the General Acts to construct markets and slaughter-houses in the extended area, which will be in competition with the petitioners. By clause 52 of the bill it is proposed to enact that the word "street" "shall, in addition to the meaning assigned to it by the Public Health Act, include any land laid out as a street, whether or not buildings have been erected on either side thereof." That clause practically does away with any distinction between roads and streets. The petitioners claim a locus standi on the ground of being owners of land in the market- place, laid out as a street, to which that section would apply, with the consequence of putting them to the expense of sewering and paving such intended streets, which they would be obliged to do before building upon the site of such streets, which they have laid out as roads, but which they may never build upon. If any obligation is put upon the petitioners as landowners to which they are not now subject, that gives them a general locus standi against the whole bill. Then the petitioners have a third ground upon which they claim a locus standi. By sec. 72 of the bill, the erection of urinals in, or adjoining, any street is prohibited, except with the consent of the corporation; and if any urinal now or hereafter to be erected in, or adjoining, any street shall, in the opinion of the medical officer of health or the inspector of nuisances, be so placed as to be offensive to public decency, the corporation may, by notice in writing, require the owner to remove such urinal to a place free from such objection. The petitioners have provided two of these Conveniences, to which no objection has at present been made* It is unfair and unwar- rantable to make it obligatory on the petitioners to remove them. (Mr. 8. Wright was called to prove that these urinals were adjoining existing streets, and to prove that the petitioners owned land laid out as a street, but not built upon either side ; and cross-examined on these points.) Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for promoters) : With regard to the claim of the petitioners to a Part I.] WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. 83 locus standi as being affected by see. 52, by that aeotion we propose to adopt the machinery which is generally employed in towns to pro- vide for the sewering and channelling of streets ; that is, that the corporation, in the first instance, does the necessary work, and then assesses upon all the various people the expenses. Mr. Bonham-Cartek : The petitioners' argu- ment is that they are not subject to those clauses at present, and they will be if the bill PembroTce Stephens : They may be in certain events ; if the street is built on to the extent of one-fourth they will be, but assuming the petitioners do not take the necessary steps, it will never become a street. (Pablio Health Act, 1875, Part III.) As to the claim of the peti- tioners with regard to clause 72, the urinals would not be likely to be interfered with unless they were likely to be an offence to decency, in which case the sooner they were removed the better. With regard to the question of com- petition, the outside district was no man's land, in which anybody might have put up anything he liked, subject to the provisions of the Public Health and Towns Improvement Clauses Acts ; and the Wakefield Borough Market company could not have restrained them, so that no really new competition will arise under the bill. The Chaieman : We do not think the peti- tioners have shown any ground to entitle them to be heard. Locus standi Disallowed. Agents for petitioners (1) Torr ^ Co. Petition of (2) Ownebs, Lessees and Occupiebs OF Mills, MANnFACTOBiEs, Wokks, and other Pbemisbs on Booth DBan Olough and the River Rybubn. Waterworks — Extension of Time Bill — Mill, owners, Sfc. — Agreement — Hight of Petitioners to Construct Works after Time Specified in Original Act. The bill proposed to extend the time for the construction of waterworks and reservoirs. B7 an agreement maele between the pro- moters and the petitioners in the same year as, but previously to, the passing of the original Act, viz., 1880, authorising the con- struction of the waterworks and reservoirs by the promoters (which Act partially embodied the terras of the agreement), the petitioners were to be entitled, in the event of the promoters not having executed the works, after ten years to give notice to the promoters to do the works j and upon the failure of the promoters to comply with such notice, the petitioners were to be entitled to entertain propositions from other parties for utilising the watershed, springs, &c., in question. The petitioners claimed a locus standi to protect that right under the agreement, which they apprehended might be affected, if an exten- sion of time beyond the ten years specified in the agreement were granted to the cor- poration without mention of the agreement in the bill. The promoters contended that either the agreement was an existing one, and would not be interfered with by the provisions in the bill, or that the terms of the agreement had been embodied in the original Act, in which case, the present being merely an extension of time bill, the petitioners, according to practice, were not entitled to oppose it : Seld, that the miitter being doubtful, the locus standA of the petitioners must be allowed. The locus standi of the petitioners' was objected to on the following grounds : (1) no lands, waters, or other property of the petitioners will be taken 01 interfered with under the powers of the bill, nor will any rights or interests of the petitioners be injuriously affected thereby ; (2) it is proposed by the bill that the powers conferred upon the promoters by the Wakefield Corporation Water Act, 1880, for the construction of the . waterworks thereby authorised, should be extended, but the promoters are not under any statutory or other, obligation to construct the said waterworks either within the period limited by that act or within any definite time ; (3) the time limited for the completion of the works is a statutory obligation placed upon the promoters by Parliament, and not a contract between the promoters and the petitioners ; (4) the agreement referred to in paragraph 14 of the petition was preliminary to the settlement of the clauses of the bill, which afterwards became the said Act of 1880, and the clauses of that bill were in pursuance of that agreement and satisfactory to the petitioners, as appears from a petition presented by them to the House of Commons in the gession of 1880 ; (5) if on the other hand it can be shown that the said- agreement has not been completely G 2 84 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. satisiigd by the provisions made in the gaid Act of 1880, the promoters maintain that there is nothing in the bill to take away or prejudice the petitioners' rights under the said agreement; (6) the said agreement expressly contemplates an extension ot time by Parliament for the construction of the said waterworks ; (V) the petition does not disclose any ground of objection to the bill, which, according to the practice of Parliament, entitles the petitioners to be heard. Pember, Q.C. (for petitioners (2) ) : The bill is for the purpose of extending the boundaries of the borough of Wakefield, at)d to make further and better provision in relation to the water supply, health, and local government of the borough. The part of tlie bill dealing with the water powers is part III., comprising clauses 35, 36, 37, against only one of which, namely, ulanse 37, my contention is directed. That clause is as follows : — " The power conferred on the corporation by the Act of 1880 for the con- struction of the waterworks thereby authorised is, as regards such of the works as are not com- pleted, extended, and continued for the further period of live years from the expiration of the period limited by that Act for the construction ot those works ; and on the expiration of such further period the powers for making and completing such works shall cease to be exer- cised, except as to so much thereof as shall then be completed." The Act of 1880 gave the corporation power to [construct the waterworks in ten years, so that they have now about five years of their powers unexpired ; but on the ter- mination of that period of ten years, our rights, under the agreement, are to come into force. The petitioners are owners, lessees, and occupiers of mills, &c., on the Booth Dean Clough and the river Ryburn. The Wakefield corporation in 1880 took power to impound the water of these two streams under certain conditions. The petition, after stating that the Wakefield cor- poration took such powers in the Act of 1880, states that " (3) By clause 21 of the Act of 1880 it was enacted that ' if the waterworks thereby authorised to be constructed should not be completed within ten years from the passing of that Act, then, on the expiration of that period, the powers of the corporation under that Act for making the waterworks, or otherwise in relation thereto, should cease to be exercised except as to so much as should then be com- pleted.' " The petition goes on to state that, by an Act of 1830, certain commissioners were constituted called the uommissionors of the Bishworth reservoirs, representing the owners of falls of water (the present petitioners) ; and power was given to them to construct reservoirs. two of those reservoirs being upon the Gre( Withers Clough, upon a site substantially tl same as that proposed to be occupied by tl Green Withers reservoir authorised by tlie A of 1880, with powers by means of waterworks keep and maintain a uniform supply of wat for the work. It is true that the Act of 181 was repealed by the Act of 1880, but i power survives in the agreement partial incorporated by the Act ot 1880. So th if there had been no subsequent legislatii we should be able to make those reservoi at the present time. Onr powers under tl Act of 1839 were not exercised, or proposed be exercised, till 1873 and 1874. We allei that shortly after surveys and borings had bee made, and other preliminary steps taken, with view to the construction of a reservoir und the powers of the Act of 1839, engineers ai surveyors, interested on behalf of various loc authorities in obtaining a supply of water, i spected the district with a view to ascertainii its suitability for the construction of wate works. Ultimately it became known that tl Corporation of Wakefield intended to apply Parliament for powers to take the waters th would flow into the proposed resei'voir, ai themselves construct a reservoir upon the san site, and , with great propriety, we stood back see whether an arrangement could be made 1 which the public bodies would carry out t! works, giving us proper compensation for t! water taken. During the progress of the b of 1880, an agreement dated the 2nd Februai 1880, was entered into between the owners water falls on the river Ryburn or Booth Dei Clough, interested in the Act of 1839, and t Corporation of Wakefield. This agreement the document upon which my locus standi han( As to it onr petition says: "(2) By the sa agreement the millowners, in effect, consent to the qprporation obtaining the powers whi they afterwards obtained by the Act ot 1880, intercepting, impounding, and utilising t waters ot the water shed supplying the Boo Dean Clough and the river Ryburn aforesa; for the purpose of supplying their district wi water." The petition then sets out the t' conditions in that agreement relevant to t present question : " The corporation are to at liberty to construct within the period of t years, or other period granted by Parliamei their intended works, when, or in such amanr or succession as they think fit, but that in t event ot the corporation, at the end ot t years, not having begun to occupy the ont water shed, coloured green ou the said map, t mill owners shall then be at liberty to enterti propositions for tlie oconpalion thereof by a Part I.] WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. 85 other corporation, local board of health, or company: Provided that, before entertaining any snoh propositions, the millovrnera shall give the corporation three calendar months' notice that such propositions have been made, and there- upon the corporation shall determine whether they will occupy the portions of the said water- shed to which saoh propositions relate, or not ; and if they determine to do so, they shall be entitled to do so npon the terms and conditions of this agreement, and be at liberty to proceed to Parliament for powers (if needful) upon the terms and conditions herein contained." The agreement further says that the bill or bills are to contain all the necessary provisions for the protection of the millowuers, and they are to appear to see them in. ilr. Meldox : Were any of the provisions of that agreement incorporated in the Act of 1880? Pemher : The compensation water was ; but I do not want to be heard to say that the compen- sation was not sufficient. I am bound by the pro- visions of the Act of 1880, but they are coming to alter those provisons by asking for an additional ftve years to make the reservoir. Ten years is the limit fixed in clanse 4 of my agree- ment, and they took the ten years by the Act of 1880 ; but now they come in 1885 and ask for five years more. We have a right to see that our agreement is not modified in any way by the Act of 1885. Mr. Meldon : Does not the Act of 1880 sweep away all previously existing agreements ? Pemher : Not altogether. This agreement survives beyond the Act of 1880, so far as article 4 of the agreement is concerned. So far as the question of giving us compensation was concerned, we were before the Committee in 1880, to see that the compensation proposed to be given us was sufficient. So far as the Act of 1880 ifulfiUed the agreement of 1880, by putting its terms into clauses, we are pre- cluded from re-opening the matter ; but there was one matter which conld not be concluded by the passing of the Act of 1880, and that was that, in the event of their not carrying out certain stipulations of the Act of 1880, or of this agreement, i.e. , if they did not make the reservoirs within 10 years, we were to be entitled to make them for ourselves. If this Act gives them five years extra, without reference to our agreement, we fear it would enable them to say, " Parliament has said we may have an absolute power of doing these worksf or 15years from 1880 ; it is true your agreement conditioned our Act of 1880, bnt it did not condition our Act of 1885, by which latter Act Parliament has given ns an abso- lute unqualified right to have tiU the year 1895, instead of 1890, to do this work ; Parliament has altered the relations between us in 1885." There is a contract existing now, that at the end of 10 years, if the corporation have not done the work, we may take steps to force them to do it, or do it ourselves, and we say that that contract would be seriously jeopardised if, in lieu of 10 years put into the Act of 1830, an extra five years were added without any refer- ence to ns. The Romford Canal case (2Cli£Eord & Rickards, 305) and other cases, may be cited against me, where you have said that yoa will not hear people who simply appear against an extension of time bill ; but all those decisions go upon this, that there has been no contract between the ]»artie3 in the direction of fixing h date for the completion of the works, the period being fixed by Parliament in the public interest ; but here there is a contract fixing a date for the completion of the works. The Chairman : I suppose the promoters say that the condition as to your interference after 10 years must be treated as waived by the acts of the parties. Peniber : The date of the agreement being 1880, the bill being settled, drawn, and introduced the same year, it must have been the intention of everybody that our power of interfering at the end of 10 years should remain, and the fact of that not being inserted shows that we did not consider our right to interfere was gone. Pembrohe Stepliens, Q.C. (for promoters) : According to all ordinary practice against a, mere extension of time bill the petitioners woold have no locus standi. This agreement was made in anticipation of the bill of 1880 being introduced into Parliament ; the peti- tioners were to be at liberty to appear against the bill, and they had every opportunity of getting everything they wanted inserted in the bill ; and therefore it may very well be assumed that the agreement was fulfilled by the Act of 1880, and there was an end of it. My learned friend is clearly seeking an exceptional locus standi, the right to which he foands npon a document which he thinks contains a provision, first, that we are to be limited to ten years ; secondly, that at the end of ten years our powers are to lapse. When we refer to the document we find that it is not ten years and nothing more, and we find that it does not say that at the end of ten years the powers are to lapse, bnt that the corporation are then to determine whether they will do it or not, and they are then to be entitled to do it upon the terms and conditions of this agreement. Peniber : Showing that the agreement is alive. 86 COUET OF REFEREES. [Vol. ] Stephens : We are to be at liberty to go to Parliament for power, if needful, at the end of ten yeai-s. We need not complete onr works within that time, we need only begin to occupy the ground. The parties, in introducing those words, evidently contemplated that the ten years might be extended. This bill does not take away any right which the petitioners may have of dealing with any other corporation or com- pany, because that, on their own showing, is a right outside the Act of 1880. If they have that right under the agreement it would still h exercisable, and the agreement will continue i exist apart from, and outside, this bill. [T/te room was cleared.^ The Chairman : We have considerable dout upon this matter, and we think as that is so, w must give the petitioners the benefit of it. Locus standi Allowed against clause 37. Agent for Petitioners (2), Rees. Agents for Bill, Sharpes, Parker Sf Co. END OP REPORTS OF 1885. COURT OF REFEREES IN PARLIAMENT. REPORTS FOR THE SESSION 1886. Wliere a StaiMiui Order is quoted or referred to, the number is tliat of the Standing Orders for the Session 1887. BEDFORD AND PETERBOROUGH RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Geeat Noethkkn Railway Company. 8th March, 1886.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Compton, il/.P.; Mr. Shieess Will, M.F. ; Sir George Russell, M.P. ; Mr. Bonham-Cakter ; The Hon. E. Chandos- Leigh.) Railways — Competition, Improvement of Emist- ing, how far amoimting to New — Independent Line as Link in Chain of Thro^igh Co^mnuni- cation — Pojffir to malce Wo^-king Agreements loith Third Company Competing with Peti- tioners — Direct Substituted for Circuitous Route — Passenger \. Qoods Traffic — Sufficiency of Allegation of Competition. The bill authorised the construction of a railway between Bedford and Peterborongh by an independent company, but empowered the promoters to enter into working agree- ments with the Midland railway company, who would thus, by means of their own railway from London to Bedford, gain a direct route between London and Peter- borough. The Great Northern railway company petitioned against the bill, on the ground of competition, as owners of an ex- isting direct railway from London to Peter- borough, and pointed out that although the Midland company were already at Peterborough, the route by which they arrived there was so circuitous that in effect it could not be considered as an existing competitive route, especially as regards pas- senger traffic. They also complained of the powers conferred upon the promoters of running over portions of railway and using a station belonging to other companies, over which they already had similar powers, but this point was not insisted on. The promoters objected that the petitioners were not carriers between Bedford and Peterborough, having no access to Bedford except by interchange of traf&c with, a third company, and that the petition did not raise the question of competition for through traffic between London and Peterborongh : Held, that although the allegations of the peti- tioner were imperfeci, having regard to the ■ district to be served by the proposed rail- way, and the powers of agreement taken by the bill, which would enable the Mid- land company to acquire a direct route between London and Peterborough, a suf- ficient ground of competition of a, fresh character was disclosed to entitle the peti- tioners to a locus standi. The locus standi of the petitioners was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) the bill contains no provisions for taking or using any part of the lands, railway stations, or accommo- dations of the petitioners, or for running engines or carriages, or for granting facilities over the same ; (2) the railway companies over whose lines powers of running and user are sought by the bill have petitioned against the grant- ing of such powers, and their locus standi against such provisions is conceded; ;(3) the interest of the petitioners in the said railways and stations is confined to statutory running powers over the Northampton and Peterborough 88 COURT or EEPEREES. [Vol. railway of the London and North-Western rail- way company and the use of the Great Eastern railway company's Peterborongh station; the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact that such rights were conferred to the exclusion of other companies, nor does the bill in any way affect or repeal the same ; (4) the said running powers and user do not constitute a ground according to practice entitling the petitioners to be heard against either the preamble or the provisions of the bill ; (5) the petition does not show any such competition as according to practice entitles the petitioners to be heard ; (6) the petitioners allege a competition between Bedford and Peterborough with the promoters intended railway. The petition does not allege nor is it the fact that the petitioners are owners of a railway between Bedford and Peter- borough, but only that they are owners of part of the railway between those places, and the petitioners are not in fact carriers between Bedford and Peterborough ; (7) there is no competition with the Eastern Counties from London contained in the provisions of the said bill. The promoters take no powers by the bill east of Peterborongh or south of Bedford, and the petitioners do not allege that they are carriers to any place in the eastern counties ; (8) the bill contains no provision affecting the petitioners, nor does their petition show it. Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners) ; By the bill it is proposed to make a railway about 31 miles in length, commencing by a junction with the main line of the Midland railway at Oakley junction, near Bedford, and terminating in the parish of South Longueville by a junction with the railway of the London and North-Western just outside Peterborough, with running powers at both ends over the two companies' lines into Bedford and Peterborough respectively, and the bill authorises the promoters to make working agreements with the Midland company. If the Midland company make a, working agreement with the owners of the new lino under the powers conferred by tlie bill it will give them for the first time a direct through route from London to Peterborough in abso- lutely direct competition with the present through route of the Great Northern. No doubt this is the line of a new company, but there is a distinct intention of taking* powers of agreeing with the Midland. I ought to point out that the Midland, who are at Peter- borough at present, can by a circuitous through route from Peterborough through Stamford, Luffenham, Kushton, Kettei-ing, and Oakley get to Bedford, but they cannot carry traffic by that route in competition with the direct line from Peterborough to London of the Great Northern or the London and North- Weste because the distance round would be so en mously greater. Therefore the existing Midla access to Peterborough for ti-affic from 1 south is practically no access at all, and th< is no real Midland competition, which this 1 would introduce for the first time. The case competition is thus alleged in the petition " (8) The proposed railway is for some distai parallel with your petitioners' railway, and is 1 a distance of 10 miles from its termination oi about 2i miles distant from your petitione railway, and in no part of its route is it m( than 6 miles from an existing railway, and will compete seriously with your petitione railway for the said traffic destined for a coming from Bedford, and for much of tl in the district through which the line is propos to pass ; (10) a serious competition may also established with your petitioners for tral coming from or destined for the Eastern count to or from London, as the company seek pow to enter into agreements with the Midla railway company, who are at Peterboroufj and have access to the station of the Gre Eastern railway at that place." In the seoo place the bill proposes that the new compa should exercise running powers over the Lend and North- Western company's Northampt and Peterborough line into Peterborough, fr( their j unction at Overton, over which line we exi cise running powers, and which running pow( were given us by agreement, but at the sai time by statute. When the relations of the t' companies in ihis district were adjusted soi years ago, the London and North- Western coi pany gave the Great Northern company runni: powers over the Northampton and Peterborou line into Peterborough, and by that means ' gained immediate access to the Great Easte station at PeterborouE;h, which is upon a low level, and serves a different district of count) Ordinarily I should concede that the mere ex tenceof running powers in favour of one compa over the line of another does not simpUciter gi a right to the company having those powe to object to the admission of a third, unit there be an allegation in the petition that t admission of the third company would destr or interfere with the exercise of the statute right of the second. That is precisely what ■ allege in the petition, and I claim this in aid my locus. Erskine Pollock (for promoters) : I will ! dress myself to two points. The first is whetl the Great Northern company have a limit locus standi in respect of the user of and ri ning powers over a railway which does not belc to them but to the London and North-Westt Part II.] BRIDGEWATER RAILWAY BILL, 89 company ; and the second is whether the Great Northern ax-e entitled to a general locus standi on the ground of competition. I will lake tho second point first. This is a line from Bedford to Peterborough; at present there is a line between those places but it is not owned by the Great Northern but by the Midland company. My learned friend calls it a circuitous route, but I should imagine that for all purposes of goods it could not be suggested that the new line would create any more severe competition with the Great Northern than the existing line of the Midland. With regard to passengers, Bedford is on the Loudon and North- Western, and for a passenger to go thence to any place served by the Great Northern he must go » journey of between nine and ten miles upon the London and North- Western and then he gets to the main line of the Great Northern at Sandy. The Great Northern are not carriers from Bedford to Peterborough for passengers or goods J the Great Northern do not run to Bedford ; they have no running powers over the bit of line from Sandy to Bedford in the pos- session of the London and North- Western, and all the Great Northern can do is to exchange traffic at Sandy with the Loudon and North- western. I submit that in respect of passenger traffic between points served by the Great Northern and Bedford the petitioners ought not to have a, locus standi. The principle laid down by this tribunal is that the traffic in respect of which a locus standi is claimed on the ground of competition should be in the hands of one company as the carriers from the locus in quo to the locus ad quern. This prin- ciple was laid down in the case of the Hull, Barnsley andWest Biding Junction Railway, ^c, Bill, 18S2 (3Clifiord&E.iokards,170). That case was on all four's with the present. Mr. Shibess Will : Assume, for the sake of argument, that there is at present a competi- tion for the carriage of goods, and that one of the effects of this bill would be to make more effective the existing competition in respect of goods, stiU if there be no real competition at present for passengers, and if the effect of this bill would be to create a new competition for passengers, would not that be sufficient ? Erskine Pollock : I think if it was distinctly stated in the petition it might have been, sub- ject to this consideration, that this is only a. railway from Bedford to Peterborough. The mere fact that we take power to agree with another company who have a terminal station in London is not sufficient to create a new com- peting route between London and Peterborough. Mr. Shikess Will : Ton are going through a district that seems to be purely agricultural, and we find in the bill power to agree with the Midland. How can this line be intended for any other purpose than competition ? Mr. CoMproN : What is the diiference in dis- tance between London and Peterborough by the direct line of the Great Northern and the route afforded by the Midland i-ailvvay as far as Bedford, and so on, by the proposed railway to Peterborough ? Frshine Pollpch : I am told -the distance by the Great Northern from Loudon to Peter- borough is about 75 miles, and by the Midland and the new line the distance would be about 81 miles. There is, however, no allegation in Paragraph 10, or anywhere in the petition, of competition between London and Peterborough. It is expressly said that the competition is in respect of traffic coming from or destined for the Eastern counties to or from London. Peterborough or Northampton cannot be called Eastern counties ; therefore, if their case is competition between London and Peterborough, they have not alleged it, or set up their case frankly on the face of the petition. The Chalrman : No doubt the allegation in the petition is imperfect, but, looking at the map and at the general competition, the Court is of opinion that the locus standi must be allowed. Locus Standi Allowed. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson. ^ Co. Agents for Bill, Burchell ^ Co. BRIDGEWATER RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Gkbat Westbhn Railway COMPANT. 6th AprU, 1886.— (Be/ore Mr. Pabkbr, MP-, Chairman; Mr. Shibess Will, M.P.; Sir George Russell, Jlf.P.j TheHon. E. Chandos- Lbigh.) Extension of Time Bill — Revival of Powers for Compulsory Purchase of Land — Railway Com- pany OS LandowTiers — Notice to treat under Original Act Invalid — Capital not Suhscrihed — Lands Clauses Act, 1845, s. 16 — Easement for Crossing over Petitioners' Railway — Locus Standi Limited or TXnliniited — Railways Clauses Act, 1863, ss. 9-12 (" Junctions ") — S.O. 133 ("In what cases Railway Companies to be heard"). Under the powers conferred by an Act obtained in 1882, the promoters were authorised to construct a railway which crossed that of £ 2 90 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. the petitioners', and for that purpose an easement was taken over such portion of the petitioners' land as was necessary for the construction of a bridge. In pursuance of the powers given by the Act of 1882 the promoters had served upon the petitioners a notice to treat, but the promoters con- tended that the notice was invalid under sec. 16 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, by reason of the capital of the promoters' company not having been fully subscribed. The present bill revived the powers of the promoters,which had expired in the previous year, for the compulsory purchase of cer- tain lands specified in the schedule to the bill, amongst which the petitioners' land was included. The petitioners claimed a general locus stamdi against the bill on the ground that the powers under the Act of 1882 having expired the present must be taken to be a new bill, and that inasmuch as the notice served under the promoters' Act of 1882 was invalid, they were outside the cases which decided that landowners served with a notice to treat were in the position of creditors and therefore had no locus standi against an extension of time bill. The promoters denied that the notice to treat was in fact invalid, and submitted that the Court must presume it to be a good notice, and contended that the bill con- ferred upon them no further powers over the petitioners' land than they already pos- sessed under the Act of 1882 ; and that in any event, it being only an easement that wag taken, the locus standi of the petitioners should be a limited one : Held, that the powers under the promoters' Act of 1882 having expired, the present must be taken to be a bill to acquire land compulsorily, and that the petitioners' land being expressly scheduled to the bill they were entitled to an unlimited locus standi. The locus standi of, the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) in the Act incorporating the company, viz., The Bridgewater Railway Act, 1882, provisions for the protection of the petitioners were inserted, and these provisions are unaltered in the bill. It is not the fact that the petitioners' property is liable to.be taken under the Act of 1882, and inasmuch as the company are expressly pro- hibited by that Act from purchasing any lands of the petitioners, they are not entitled to be heard against the provisions of the bill relating to the revival of powers of that Act, which are not varied by the bill, for the compulsory purchase of lands or to the extension of time for the completion of works ; (2) in pursuance of the powers conferred by sec. 51 of the said Act the company have entered into agree- ments vrith the London and South-Western railway company, and therefore the powers contained in clause 11 of the bill will not affect the petitioners farther or otherwise than they are already affected ; (3) the petitioners will not be affected by, nor are they entitled to be heard against the powers sought by the bill for pay- ment of interest out of capital and for the con- firmation of agreements scheduled to the bill ; (4) the petitioners have not, and their petition does not ajlege or show that they have any such interests in the objects of the bill as, according to the practice of Parliament, entitles them to be heard against it on any of the grounds specified in their petition. Saunders, Q.C. (for petitioners) ; The bill is not an ordinary extension of time bill, but one for the revival of powers which have expired, and therefore should be treated as a new bill, and the petitioners oppose the renewal of those powers. In 1882 an Act was passed for the construction of the Bridgewater railway. The Great Western Company were owners of land scheduled for the purposes of that Act, and a clause wSis inserted therein prescribing that the promoters should not take the freehold of the land, but should only take an easement over the land. Those powers having expired the peti- tioners contend that tjiey have exactly the same right to a locus standi against this bill as they had against the bill of 1882. But under the powers of the Act of 1882 the promoters have served us with u, notice to treat. That notice, however, is invalid, for under the pro- visions of the 16th section of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, it is a condition precedent to the ser- vice of a valid notice that all the capital of the company should have been subscribed. We have the best possible evidence that the whole of the capital has nob been subscribed, because it is so stated in the preamble. Therefore the notice that has been given to us ia not a valid notice within the Act, and the powers, nnder the pro- moters' Act of 1882, have not been exercised and the time for exercising them has expired. In the first schedule of the bill nnder the heading " Lands for the compulsory purchase of which powers are revived " the land of the petitioners is included. That schedule has to be read Part II.] BEIDGEWAT$!R EAILWAY BILL. 91 with the 4th clause of the bill, which pro- vides "The powers of the company for the compulsory purchase of such of the lands delineated on the plans and described in the book of reference deposited for the purposes of the Act of 1882 as are specified in the first schedule to this Act, are by this Aot revived and may be exercised within, but shall not be exercised after, the expiration of three years from the 18th day of August, 1885." Mr. Shikess Will : You argue that this bill IS an application for a new power against which you have a locus standi, unless you are to be held to be estopped by the notice to treat 'f Saunders : Yes ; I say that clause 4 gives the promoters a power of a new kind, because under that clause they would have the power to compel us to sell them these lauds, and not as under the Act of 1882 to take merely an easement. The decision in the case of the Great TFesiei-n Railway (Additional Powers) Bill, 1866 (14 Law Times Keports, New Series, 374; Smethurst, 2nd' ed., 110) that people who have received notice to treat are in the position of creditors aud not of landowners, was a decision where there was no question as to the validity of the notice to treat ; and that was merely an extension of time bill. The Ch.urman: If the notice to treat is not a valid one, you are not a creditor unless you choose to accept the position of one. Saunders : Clearly not. The land is our own land, and we are entitled to disregard that notice to treat, it being no notice at law. The promoters have treated us as landowners by serving us with the usual notice to owners, and therefore we are entitled to a locus standi under S. 0. 133. The following are decisions in my favour : Burnham Tidal Harbour Bill, 1876 (1 Clifford & Rickards, 205) ; Greenwich and Millwall Subway Bill, 1885 (1 Rickards and Michael, 29). Ball, parliamentary agent (for promoters) : The petitioners are asking for a locus standi, svhich has never been granted by this Court under such circumstances. At the outset, I say that this Court does not pronounce upon the ralidity of notices, and it presumes that every- ;hing that has been done is rightly done. The 3ases cited by the petitioners are not in point, [n the Burnham case the whole of the powers )f the company, both for the purchase of the and and for the construction of works, had apsed for some time. That.being so, the S. O. )f this House requires that such a bill shall be created as a new bill entirely. New plans and jections are required to be deposited. New esti- mates are required, and a fresh deposit of money has to be made. The Greenwich and Millwall case has no more to do with the present case than any case you might take at random. The Metropolitan Board of Works opposed on the ground that if the bill was allowed to pass it would alter the relative status of the promoters and the Metropolitan Board of Works, because it would involve the payment of compensation to the subway company in respect of a com- peting ferry, for which the Metropolitan Board of Works were promoting a bill. There are numerous decisions of this Court that the taking of a compulsory easement is not sufficient to give a landowner a locus standi. The Chairman : Under S. 0. 133, it is im- perative upon ns to give a locus standi to a railway company whose lands, railway stations or accommodations are proposed to be taken, or used by any other company. Ball : The Court only grants a limited locus standi in the case of junctions because only an easementis taken. The Railways Clauses Act, 1863, expressly provides that where a new company proposes to make a junction with another company the new company shall not purchase the fee simple but they shall merely take an easement ; and in the present case, though it is a bridge over the petitioners' railway, the law is the same. The practice of this Court is condensed and expressed very clearly by Sir Francis Reilly in the case of the Oxted and Groombridge Railway Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford & Rickards, 327). The Act of 1 882 only authorises the promoters to take an easement and there is no suggestion in the petition that those powers are varied in the bill. That power I have under the Act of 1882. Clause 4 of the bill merely revives such of the powers under the Act of 1882 as have expired. The case of the London and Eastbourne Railway Bill, 1883, petition (2) of Oxted and Groombridge Railway Company (3 Clifford & Rickards, 301) decides that where only an easement is taken a locus limited to so much of the bill as authorises the taking of the easement is all that is granted. The Chairman : You contend that you still have the power of taking the easement notwith- standing the expiry of time. Ball : Yes, the powers of the company are twofold ; there is power to take land aud there is power to make the works. The time for taking the land has expired, but the time for constructing the works has not expired ; and if the company had the money at the present time there would be no necessity for this bill because the railway could be made at once. 92 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. The Chairman : The Court are agreed that the petitioners are entitled to an unlimited locus standi. Locus Standi Alloived accordingly. Agent for Petitioners, Mains. Agent for Bill, Ball. BUTE DOCKS (CARDIFF) FURTHER POWERS BILL. Petition of Loud Windsor. 24th May, 188Q.— (Before Mr. Pabkeb, M.P., Chairman ; Sir Gbokoe Russbm, M.P. ; Sir John Duckworth ; The Hon. E. Chandos- Leigh.) Pier and Doch Works — Riparian Owner — Dei'eZop- vient of Property interfered with — Lessor of Competing Docks and Slipways entitled to Roijalties — Interference with Channel giving Access to Docks — Extension of Dockmaster^s Jurisdiction — Bye-Laws — Undue Preference. Practice — Time for Service of Notice of Ol^jcc- tions — Discretion of Referees to Extend — S. 0. 88 (Rules of practice and procedure relating to Referees). The trustees of the will of the late Marquess of Bute, acting in concurrence with the present Lord Bute, as owners of the docks at Cardiff on the east side of the river Taff, promoted the present bill authorising (inter alia) the extension of an existing em- bankment and pier running along and into the estuary of the river, and conferring upon the undertakers power to make bye- laws for the regulation of vessels coming to the Cardiff docks. The petitioner. Lord Windsor, was the owner of land abutting on the west side of the river Taff, and of certain mud-shoala in the bed of the river. Portions of that land had been leased by the petitioner to a company owning a dock at Penarth, which competed with the Cardiff docks, one of the terms of such lease being that Lord Windsor should be entitled to a royalty in the shape of a ton- nage rate on goods shipped at the Penarth docks. Other portions of the same land wero leased to a company who had constructed slipways and other works thereon. Lord Windsor opposed the extension of the em- bankment and pier on the ground that there was a probability of the channel of the Taff being caused to silt up thereby, thus injuring the access to the existing slip- ways and any future docks which might be constructed on that part of his land. Fur- ther, inasmuch as the authority of the promoters' dock-master extended laterally for a distance of 300 yards from their pier, the petitioner alleged that the proposed extension of the embankment and pier would extend the dock-master's authority over the petitioner's land and mud flats. The petitioner also opposed the power of making bye-laws conferred on the promoters by the bill, on the ground that such power might be exercised so as to give a preference to ships going to the Cardiff docks over those going to the Penarth docks. On behalf of the promoters it was contended that any injury to the channel of the Taff was so unlikely that there was no primd facie case of injury es- tablished, and that, as a matter of fact, there would be no extension of the dock- master's authority affecting the petitioner's property otherwise than it was at present affected ; that all bye-laws would be subject to the sanction of the Board of Trade, who would refuse to sanction any bye-laws giving such a preference as that appre- hended ; and that the petitioner's interest in the Penarth docks was too remote to entitle him to a locus standi on the ' ground of any apprehended injury to those docks, and that he was moreover represented by the com- pany who owned them, whose locus standi was admitted : Held, that there was a prim& facie case of injury established, and that Lord Windsor was entitled to a general locus agaiust the bill. The locus standi of Lord Windsor was objected to because ; (I) no land or property of the petitioner will be taken under the powers of the bill ! (2) the petitioner is not entitled to be heard in respect that u portion of his property has a frontage to the river Taff, and the petitioner is not affected by the bill in such a way aa to entitle him to be heard against it ; (3) the petitioner is not entitled to be heard in respect of any apprehended injury to the docks and works of the Windsor Slipways and Dry Part II.] bute docks (cardiff) further powers bill. 93 Docks and Engineering company ; (4) the petitioner is not entitled to be heard on the ground of apprehended injury to harbours, docks, shipping places, slipways, and other "(vorks which may hereafter be constructed on his property ; (5) the petitioner is not entitled to be heard on the ground of apprehended injury to the river Taff from the works pro- posed by the bill; (6) the petitioner is not a shipowner or trader and is not entitled to be heard in respect of the extension of the dook- niaster's authority over tho docks and works of the Windsor slipways and dry docks and engineering . company, or over any pi-operty alleged to belong to the petitioner on which docks or works may hereafter be constructed, in respect of bye-laws to be made for the regulation of vessels navigating the river TafE ; (7) the petitioner is not entitled to be heard in respect of any apprehended injtiry to the Penarth harbour and docks at Penarth ; (8) the allegations in paragraphs 8 to 11 inclusive of the petition are irrelevant, and the petitioner is not entitled to be heard in respect thereof; (9) the statements in paragraph 7 of the petition, even if true, do not entitle the petitioner to be heard ; (10) the petitioner is not entitled to be heard against the bill or any clauses thereof according to practice. Jeuiie (for petitioners) : I first take the pre- liminary objection that the notice of objections to our lofvs standi was not served in time. Rule 1, of the Rules framed under S. O. SS, pi-ovides that " the promoters of any private bill, who intend to object to the right of the petitioners to be heard against the same, shall give notice of such intention and of the grounds of their objection to the clerks to the Referees and to the agents for the petitioners not later than the eighth day after the day on which the petition has been deposited in the Private Bill Office. " This petition was deposited on the 19th day of April, eight days would have been the 27th of April, but no notice was served upon us until the 3rd of May. Easter week intervened, and the 3rd of May was the first day after the Easter recess upon which to deposit the notice of objections at the Referees' Olfice, but that was no reason why they should not have served the notice upon us within the eight days. Mr. Ch.\xcos-Lbigh: The rule goes on. " But it shall be competent to the Referees to allow such notices to be given under special circumstances, although the time above limited may have expii'ed.'* Jeune : In order to bring themselves under that relaxation of the rule, the promoters ought to have come to you, and asked for special leave to lodge the objections, though the time had expired. That they have not done ; they cannot now ask for an extension of time. Mr. Ohandos-Leioh : Can yon say that yon have been prejudiced by having been served with the notice of objections six days after the eighth day ? Jettne : Xo ; I cannot say that. Pember, Q.C. (for promoters) : On the 19th of April, this notice was issued by the Clerk to the Referees : " Parliamentary agents are informed that, in cases in which the time for the deposit of notices of objection to the lociis standi of petitioners against bills will expire dtiring the adjournment of the House, the period for their deposit is extended to Monday, the 3rd of May." The agents for the pro- moters took the notice of the Clerk to tho Referees extending the period for deposit in the House as applying equally to service of notice on the petitioners. The Chairman : I think under these oirctun- stances we mtist over-rule this preliminary objection. [Preftniinari/ objection or«r-ri(?eiJ.] Jf lino .• Lord Windsor is the owner of certain mud flats fronting on the west side of the river TafE on which there are already constructed slipways and works, and which might be further utilised for those purposes. The only access for ships to these lands and works is by the river TafE or across the mud flats when there is sufficient water to cross them. What is pro- posed to be done by the bUl is to extend for 300 yards a certain pier of Lord Bute's on the eastern side of the channel, which, in addition to its being likely to catise physical interference with the channel of the river TaJEE, will have the effect of extending the jurisdiction of Lord Bute's dock-master, so that it may be exercised over vessels coming to the slipways and works of the petitioner's tenants. Furthermore, power is taken of making bye-laws to regulate the navi- gation of vessels as far south as Cefn-y-Wrach, which will have the effect of controlling the access not only to the mud flats, but also to the Penarth docks. Lord Windsor has leased the Penarth docks to the Taff Vale railway company, but he is interested in their prosperity, being entitled to a royalty on every ton of goods shipped there. The TafE Vale company have petitioned against this proposal to authorise Lord Bute, who is the o^vner of the competing Bute docks at Cardiff, and thus a rival in trade, to make bye-laws regulating the navigation of vessels through waters forming the access to their docks, and their locus standi is admitted. 94 COUET OF REFEEEES. [Vol. I Lord Windsor being directly interested in the Penarth docks seeks a locus standi on the same ground. It is not to be said that the Taff Vale company can protect Lord Windsor's interests, for arrangements might be come to with the Taff Vale company which, for reasons of their own, would satisfy them, but which would not satisfy Lord Windsor. With regard to the pier, the petitioner seeks to show that if, as proposed, a solid embankment is made for a long distance and then a pier beyond is oon- stracted, the tendency will be for the Taff to silt up and thus injure the access to the slip- ways of which he is lessor. So important was it that the TafE should always be kept open that a clause was put into the Bute Docks Act, 1866, which compelled the Bute trustees always to keep the Taff dredged at its then depth, but, unfortunately, the Act of Parliament put the power of enforcing that into the hands of the Glamorganshire canal company, and since then Lord Bute has virtually acquired the Glamorgan- shire canal, therefore the position of things is worse now that it has heretofore been. The following cases are on all fours with the case of Lord Windsor : Kingston-upon-Hull Docks Bill, 1878, petition (3) of Thomas Spurr (2 Clifford & Biokards, 110) ; Purness Railway Bill, 1879 (t6., 158) ; Hoylalce and Birkenhead Rail and Tramway Bill, 1881 (3 Clifford and Eiokards, 65) ; Manchester Ship Canal Bill, 1885, petition (1) of Adelaide Watts (1 Eickards & Michael, 46). Pemler (in reply) : In Miss Watts' case against the Manchester Ship Canal Bill, there was a possibility of the petitioner being injured, so that she had a priind facie case. With regard to the Furness case there was also there a prim of Health Bill, 1877 (2 Clifford & Rickards, 9) ; and the Epsom and Swell Gas Bill, 1877 {ii. 11). Mr. Chandos-Leigh : In the Harrow Gas Bill, 1873 (1 Clifford & Rickards, 29), con- sumers were held to be entitled to be heard, notwithstanding the support of the bill by the local authority. Baggallay : In all the cases referred to by the Court it was shown that the petitioners were ai large and important body of ratepayers. Here the petitioners only consist of ten persons. The Chairman We are told that they are large consumers, and that one of them is the largest consumer in the town. Baggallay : They are, however, only ten out of 450 consumers. On this point I refer the Court to the Sutton Gas Bill, 1876 (1 Clifford & Rickards, 266). Mr. Shiress Will: The bill is of the ordi- nary kind for incorporating an existing com- Paet III.J CATHCAET DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. 139 pany, and fixes the amount of its capital, the standard price, illuminating power and ao forth, and under those circumstances it is the ordinary course for the Court to allow peti- tioners to be heard as gas consumers, if they fairly and substantially represent the gas consumers in the place. It is not even neces- sary that the petition should, as it does in this case, emanate from a public meeting. Baggallay : The bill does not alter the position of the consumers for the worse, because the company in its present form is not limited as to pressure or price, both of which will be fixed by the bill. The Chairman : The bill provides a tiiaioimum price above what you are at present sup. plying at. Baggallay : We can at present charge any- thing we like. We now propose to limit ourselves. Mr. Chandos.Leigh : The petitioners object to the amount of capital you propose to have as excessive, to the price, illuminating power, and so forth, and claim to be heard against your getting parliamentary powers in respect of them, and practically getting a monopoly of supply. Are they not directly affected ? Baggallay : I do not admit that they are, and, if they were, I say they are an insufficient number of consumers- I refer to the dicta of Mr. Rickards in the Castleford and Whitwood Oas Bill, 1878 (2 Clifford & Rickards, 78). Mr. Chandos.Leigh : In my judgment as one member of the Court, looking at the amount of gas these gentlemen consume, they are a sufficiently representative body to entitle them to appear as gas consumers. The Chaibman : The Locus Standi of the Peti- tioners is Allowed. Agents for Bill, Wyatt ^ Co. CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Nokth Bbitish Railway Company. 25th April, 1887.— (Be/ore Mr. Paekee, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; and The Hon. B. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) In this case the petitioners claimed to be heard in virtue of a provision contained in the Caledonian and ScottishNorth-Eastem Railways (Amalgamation) Act, 1866, whereby the peti- tioners were entitled to the joint use of all stations, present or future, belonging to (among other companies) the promoters of the bill. The bill scheduled certain lands which the petitioners maintained were intended for station purposes, but contained no special provision for the protection of their rights. The arguments turned upon the construction of the section (106) of the Act in question, and the case generally was of too special a character to be of value as a precedent. Locus Standi Disallowed, Clerk, Q.C, appeared for the Petitioners j Pemher, Q.C, for the Bill. Agents for Petitioners, Sherwood 8f Go. Agents for BUI, Qrahames, Cwrrey Sf Spens. CATHCART DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Glasgow and South- Western Railway Company. 26th April, 1887 .—(Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; The Hon. B. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham- Carter.) Railway Owned Jointly hy Two Oompam,ies — Interference with, under Bill, objected to hy one of the two Companies — Joint Ownership, how far a Ground of Landowner' s General Locus — Abandonment of Authorised Railway — Rail- loay Compamy, Benefited by its Construction, Claiming to be Heard against. It was proposed by the bill to extend the exist- ing railway of the promoters in such a manner as to cross by a bridge the Kil- marnock railway jointly owned by the petitioners and the Caledonian railway company, and certain lands, part of the joint undertaking of the two companies, were also scheduled to the bill. In respect of these powers over the railway and lands in question, the petitioners as joint owners claimed a landowner's general locus standi ; and in addition to their claim on this ground, urged their right to be heard in respect of the abandonment pro- posed by the bill of a railway (railway No. 3) which had been authorised by the Cath- cart District Railway Act, 1880. This rail- way No. 3, as authorised, consisted of a short connecting spur between the princi- pal railway authorised by the Act of 1880 E 2 140 COUKT OF REFEEEES. [Vol. I. and the Kilmarnock joint line, and the petitioners alleged ^that its constructiou would have been the means of their obtain- ing a share of the traffic coming on to the Kilmarnock joint line from the. promoters' railway (the Cathcart district railway), whereas at present the Caledonian com. pany, who already had a junction with the Cathcart railway, which they worked under lease, had a, monopoly of such traffic. The petitioners pointed out that not only did the bill authorise the abandon- ment of railway No. 3, and so deprive them of a junction with the joint line which had been already granted by Parlia- ment in 1880, but that the extension of the Cathcart railway, as proposed by the bill, carefully avoided a junction with the Kilmarnock joint line, while it provided a junction with the Caledonian company, their partners in the joint line ; and thus benefited one partner to the injury of the other : Held, that the petitioners were entitled to a general locus standi against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners are not the sole owners, lessees or occupiers of lands, stations, sidings, works, or other property or conveniences proposed to be used or otherwise interfered with under the powers of the proposed bill ; (2) the petitioners are not the owners of any railway with which the railway proposed to be authorised by .the bill would effect a junction, or with which the construction of such railway would, as alleged, interfere; (3) the promoters of the bill are under no obligation, parHamentary or otherwise, to the petitioners or otherwise, to construct the railway No. 3, authorised by the Cathcart District Bailway Act, 1880, and proposed to be abandoned under the powers of the bill ; (4) the abandonment, as proposed by the bill, of the said authorised railway No. 3, affords no title or ground, according to parliamentary practice, to the petitioners to be heard against the same by reason that such railway. No. 3, as authorised, would have effected a junction with the joint railway of the petitioners and the Caledonian railway company ; (5) the provisions of the said bill and the railway pro- posed to be constructed under them, will affect, if at all, the joint property and interests of the petitioners and the Caledonian railway company, as joint owners of the Glasgow and Kilmarnock joint line, and will inflict no injury to, or interference with, the line, property, rights or interests of the petitioners as a separate company; (6) the petition does not disclose, nor is there in fact any such case of competition with the petitioners, as entitles them to be heard against the bill ; (7) the bill contains no provisions affecting the petitioners, nor do they allege any interest entitling them to be heard against it. Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The Cathcart line commences by a junction with the Caledonian railway, in the neighbourhood of Pollokshields East, passes under the Kilmarnock joint line, ownedjointly by the Caledonian and the Glasgow and South-Westem companies, and terminates at present at Cathcart. The main proposition of the bill is to continue the existing Cathcart railway circle by a, line which will be carried over the Kilmarnock joint-line by abridge at the point of intersection, pass by Strathbungo, and form a connection with the Caledonian railway in the neighbourhood of Strathbungo. The proposed crossing of the Kilmarnock joint line involves, of course, an interference with the works of the joint line ; and, in addition to that, the line at the Strathbungo end is laid out so as necessarily to interfere with lands which have been acquired by the joint line for the purpose of enlarging the Strathbungo station, so that in point of fact lauds and works belonging to the joint line are necessarily scheduled to this bill which is promoted by the Cathcart company, but in the interests of the Caledonian company, who werk the ^ Cathcax-t railway under lease, and are our partners in the Kilmarnock joint line. The principal question raised by the notice of objections to the petition of the Glasgow and South-Westem company is how far joint owners of a line are entitled to be heard iu respect of interference with the works of that line in their individual capacity, as there can be no question that if the petitioners were sole owners of the Kilmar. nock Ime they would be entitled to be heard in respect of the interference with it authorised by the bill. The Kilmarnock joint-line, which is an extension of the Barrhead line, was originally Caledonian proper, but under the powers of the Caledonian and Glasgow and South-Westem Eailways (Kilmarnock Joint Line) Act, 1869, Parliament gave the Glasgow and South- Westem company, upon paying a moiety of the cost acquired, the right to joint ownership. Sec. 22 of that Act says that upon payment Part III.] CATHCART DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. 141 of siTch moiety the Kilmarnock railway shall from the vesting period be vested in the two companies jointly for their joint and separate use and benefit on equal terms in every respect. Then sub-seo. 20 of sec. 54, which is the section providing for the appointment of a joint com- mittee to regulate the management of the line, provides as follows : — "All actions, suits, indictments and other proceedings at law or in equity or otherwise, in relation to the joint-line, which might be brought and prosecuted by or against either of the two companies, if that company were sole owner of the joint line, may be brought and prosecuted by or against the two companies jointly or either of them separately." So in fact it is vested in the two companies with a distinct provision that as regards each of them separately their rights are to be respected as if they were sole owners ; and in truth we are not merely joint owners, but joint owners, with separate rights. Mr. Shibess Wili, : Railway partnerships are not like ordinary partnerships, but each company uses the line for its individual interests. The Chairman : If these were proceedings under the existing law, sub-sec. 20 of sec. 54 would place your right to be heard beyoijd the shadow of a doubt, but this is a case of proposed legislation. Pope : Just so ; but these are " other pro- ceedings at law or in equity." Saunders, Q.O. (for promoters) • That is qualified in the words in the sub-section, " Or otherwise in relation to the joint line." Pope : But this is a proceeding in relation to the joint line so far as it is an interference with the works of the joint line, and that interference gives us a locus standi to be heard. Our second ground of objection to the bill is that it provides by clause 17 for the abandonment of railway No. 3, authorised by sec. 5 of the Cathcart District Railway Act, 1880. Railway No. 3 is a short connecting line between railway No. 1, the principal railway authorised by that Act, and the Kilmarnock joint line, and by means of it we should have been.enabled to have obtained a share of trafiic coming on to the joint line from the Cathcart company's railway and have been in a position to compete with the Caledonian company, who already have a junction with the Cathcart company's line. On the other hand, the extension of the Cathcart railway as pro- posed by this bill carefully avoids a junction with the authorised line, thus prejudicing our position under the Act of 1880, and depriving us of the benefit we should have derived from fVio nnnaf.Tnpf.inTi nf ■Al.llwa.V No. 3. Mr. Chantios-Leigh : In effect you complain of the obstruction of traffic from the joint system to go upon the system of one of its partners ? Pope : Yes. Saunders (in reply) : The abandonment of railway No. 3 does not confer any right upon the petitioners, who say they would have been benefited by it, to be heard. The power to construct it, which we obtained in 1880, and which was extended, so far as the period of construction was concerned, by another Act of 1885, was a permissive power, subject to a penalty if we failed to construct it. There was no privity between ourselves and the peti- tioners in the matter. The practice of the Court with regard to abandonment bills was well summarised by Mr. Chaudos-Leigh in the Gr^at Northern Railway Bill, 1884 (3 Clifford & Riokards, 402). Saunders : That was on a landowner's peti. tion. The petitioners do not complain of the abandonment of railway No. 3 qua landowners. Mr. Chandos.Leigh : The petitioners' case is that they are joint partners, and that the aban- donment of that particular railway No. 3 would enure to the benefit of one partner and the • detriment of the other. Saunders : The Cathcart district railway is leased to and worked by the Caledonian company, but they are not partners with the Glasgow and South-Western company. Pope : The partnership between the Glasgow and South-Western company and the Caledonian company relates to the Kilmarnock joint line. The injury that we complain of is that the bill deprives us, as one of the joint owners of the Kilmarnock line, of a junction, previously authorised, between the Cathcart railway and the Kilmarnock joint line, while providing for a junction between the Cathcart railway and the Caledonian railway. The Chairman : The petitioners may fairly say, if this short railway No. 3 were made, we could carry traffic into our station at St. Enoch's, which we cannot do without it. Saunders : Now let me come to the other part of the case. Does the fact that they are joint owners with the Caledonian company of land which is included within the limits of deviation give them the right to appear in the same way as if they were absolute owners of that land? Both upon principle and upon authority, I say it does not. Under the Joint Line Act of 1869, there is a provision for a standing arbitrator, who, in case of any division of opinion at the meetings of the joint committee, is to be called in ; he may take part in the discussions, and he is to give the casting vote 142 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. in any matter upon which the votes are equally divided. The Caledonian and the Glasgow and South-Western have an equal number of directors at the board, and the proper machinery for the Glasgow and South- Western company to have adopted would have been to call in the arbitrator to determine whether they should or not petition in respect of rights, not of the Glasgow and South-Western, but of the Kilmarnock joint line committee. This is an attempt by the Glasgow and South-Western company to use the rights of the joint line committee not for the purposes of the joint committee, but for the purposes of the Glasgow and South-Western company who have interests quite apart from those of the joint committee. There is a machinery by which the joint com. mittee could have been heard, but the Glasgow and South-Western did not venture to bring before the joint committee the proposition that a petition should be presented against this bill. They have never got a refusal upon the part of the joint committee to petition, they have never got to the point of there being an equality of votes, and they have never, therefore, called in the standing arbitrator to determine whether they should petition or not. The Chairman : What would have been the position of the Glasgow and South-Westem company if the Caledonian had refused to take part in a joint petition P Satmders : They would have gone to the standing arbitrator, and he would have deter- mined the question. Mr. Shieess Will ; In the London and South-Western Railway Bill, 1882 (3 Clifford & Riokards, 177), the Metropolitan railway com- pany, who were jointly interested in a station with the Metropolitan district railway company, petitioned separately, and were heard. Saunde7-s : I will concede the petitioners a limited locus standi so far as physical inter- ference with the joint line is concerned. Pope : The whole of Strathbungo station and part of the joint line is scheduled, and the promoters woiild have the power to buy it. I rely upon my rights as a landowner with regard to that part of my petition, and, inasmuch as this bill is promoted in the interest of my partner in the joint line, the Caledonian railway company, I rely also upon the right one partner has to prevent interference with the joint property by the other partner for his own exclusive interest. Mr. Shieess Will ; Although the Glasgow and South-Western and the Caledonian com- panics are joint owners of the Kilmarnock line, their respective interests are sole and seliish interests, and it is for their own ends and purposes that they acquired a joint interest in it. The Chairman (after deliberation) : The Locus Standi is Allowed generally. Agents for Petitioners Sherwood Sf Co. Agents for Bill, Robertson Sj" Co. CLYDE, ARDRISHAIG, AND CRINAN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) The Caledonian Railway Company. 29th April, 1881.— (Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; Mr. CoMPTON, M.P. ; and The Hon, B. Chandos- Leigh, Q.C.) Railways, Through and Local — Competition — Power to Through Railway to worli Local Rail- way — Independent Steamers as Auxiliaries to Railway Traffic — S. 0. 156 (Raihvay Com- pany not to acquire Canals, Doclts, Steam- Vessels, SCc.) Practice — Special Order of Court aw to Locus, for Protection of Petitioners' Company. The bill authorised the construction by an independent company of short lines of railway along the shores of certain Scotch lochs with piers in connection therewith, with power to the promoters to ovnx and run steamers between two points on the shores of Loch Pine ; and clause 66 of the bill empowered the company to enter into agreements for the working, maintenance, management, &c., of the proposed railways with the North British railway company. The Caledonian railway company peti. tioned against the bill on the ground that it would enable the North British company to compete with them for tourist traffic in the Western Highlands, as they (the Caledonian) could by means of through booking arrangements with steamers and coaches convey tourists from Edinburgh and otht,r places south of the Highlands to the same parts of the Highlands, which the proposed railways, when worked by the North British in connection with and as an extension of their own system, would serve. Part III.] clyde, ardkishaig, and ceinan railway bill. 143 The Court, after commenting on the special character of the competition alleged by the petitioners, granted them a locus standi against the clauses in the hill which empowered the promoters to enter into agreements with the North British railway- company, viz., against clause 66 pro- viding for a working agreement with that company ; and clause 6T, providing for the appointment of a joint committee of the two companies. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not disclose, nor is there in fact, any such case of competition with the peti- tioners as entitles them to be heard against the bill ; (2) the lines of railway and connecting line of steamers authorised by the bill will be situated wholly in Argyleshire, and are sepa- rated by the Firth of Clyde from the nearest point of the petitioners' undertaking. Even, therefore, if any competition were capable of being suggested as possibly arising under the bill, the same would be too remote to entitle the petitioners to be heard ; (3) the steamers and coaches mentioned in the petition as running in connection with the railways of the petitioners are not steamers or coaches belonging to or worked by them, but merely steamers and coaches, owned by other companies or persons with whom the peti- tioners have, as they state, entered into through booking arrangements ; and, even if they belonged to the petitioners, the' routes traversed by these steamers and coaches are not the same as the route pro- posed to be authorised by the bill ; (4) the circumstance that the piers present or pro- posed, belonging to the petitioners are or may be superior to those of the company incorporated by the bill, or to those of the North British railway company, affords no ground for a hearing according to practice ; (5) the state- ments contained in the petition, as to piers and other works, are in many respects inaccu- rate and misleading, and, even if correct, are not such as to confer a locus standi on the petitioners; (6) the petition does not allege or show, neither is it the fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners will or can be taken oompulsorily, or that any rights, powers, property or interests of the petitioners will be interfered with under the bill ; (7) the petition does not disclose any grounds of objection to the bill upon which the petitioners can be heard according to practice. Pember, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The com- petition which the promoters of the bill will be enabled to carry on with us by means of the working agreement with the North British railway company, authorised by the bill, will be of a substantial character. The fact that that competition will be affected by means of steamers running between the short pieces of railway proposed to be constructed along the shores of the loch under the powers of the bill, does not really affect the character of the competition that will be set up between the North British company and the Caledonian company for tourist traffic between the High- lands and the south parts of Scotland. {Felix- stowe Railway and Dock Bill, 1886, 1 Riokards and Michael, 100, cited.) The bill, moreover, by authorising the construction of piers in connection with the proposed railways is in violation of S. 0.,156. Femhrolce Stephens, Q.C. (for promoters) : The proposed railways together only form m, short local line, and there could be no competition whatever if the clauses providing for working arrangements between the promoters and the North British railway company were not in the bill. In any case the competition, depending as it does on the intervention of steamers which are the property of independent parties, is not pari materid, and is' altogether too remote to entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill. The Chairman : The competition is of a very peculiar kind. It seems likely to extend only to tourist traffic, and not to affect goods traffic at all. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case the Court will make the following order as to the locus standi of the petitioners : — " The Locus Standi of the Caledonian Railway Company is Disallowed except as regards clauses 66 and 67 of the Bill and so much of the preamble as relates thereto ; and in giving this limited Locus Standi the Court consider that it will be open to the Caledonian Company to suggest to the Committee on the Bill the insertion in the Bill of such conditions, if any, as the Committee may deem just for the protection of the Caledonian Company.'' Agents for Petitioners, Qrahames, Ourrey Sf Spens. ■ Petition of (2) The Glasgow and Inverary Steamboat Compaxy.' Competition — Railways v. Steainhoat Company owning Coaches — Summer Traffic v. Regular 144 COURT OF EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. Traffic — S. 0. 130 {Competition a Ground of Locus Standi). The petitioners were a steamboat company, who also owned coaches, which they used in connection with their steamboats, and by means of the two they carried passenger^ by two different routes between Glasgow and Inverary and intermediate places. They claimed a locus standi against the bill on the ground that it would enable the promoters to compete with them for local traffic on the shores of Loch Fine and Loch Bok, and for through traffic between Glasgow and Inverary by means of a working agreement, which clause 66 of the bill empowered the promoters to enter into with the North British railway company. On behalf of the promoters it was contended that this competition was too remote ; (1) because the undertakings were not pari materid; (2) because the termini between which the proposed rail- ways would run were, with hardly any exceptions, not the samfe as those to which the petitioners ran ; (3) because the peti- tioners took off their steamers in the winter months, and merely accommodated summer tourist traffic. The Court, after commenting on the fact that the petitioners had been the first to establish communication between Glasgow and Inverary by means of their steamers and coaches, granted the petitioners a general locus standi on the ground of competition. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) The petition does not disclose nor is there in fact any such case of competition with the petitioners as entitles them to be heard against the bill ; (2) the communications between Glasgow and Inverary by steamers and coaches stated to have been established by the petitioners are passenger communications exclusively running during the summer months, and then discon- tinued. The railways and line of steamers authorised by this bill will not run between the same points or serve the same traffic as those of the petitioners. Moreover, as stated in the petition, in addition to the services afforded by the petitioners there are already in existence two other lines of steamers and coaches con. ducted by other parties, whereby all the accom- modation proposed to be furnished by the bill is already provided ; (3) the circumstance that the railways proposed to be authorised by the bill will or may be worked by the North British railway company in place of the company itself does not alter the character of these railways, or of the probable traffic thereon, so as to give to the petitioners a right to be heard which they would not otherwise possess ; (4) the petition does not allege or show, neither is it the fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners will or can be taken by comi^nlsion under the powers of the bill ; and the statements in the petition as to piers, or some of them, are inaccurate and mis- leading, and even if well founded would not confer a locus standi on the petitioners ; (5) the petition does not show that the petitioners have, nor have tMey any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard against it according to practice. Saunders, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The peti- tioners are owners of steamboats, and also owners of coaches, and therefore by means of the two combined are interested in a complete route. They were incorporated as a company (under the Companies Acts, 1862 and 1867) in 1877 for the purpose of opening up com. mnnication between Glasgow and Inverary on Loch Fine and the intermediate places. They have run a large saloon steamer for nearly ten years between Glasgow and Inverary, calling at Greenock, Dunoon, and other places in the Kyles of Bute and on Loch Fine on its way, and returning to Glasgow in the evening by the same route. The petitioners have also established, at great cost, another route between Glasgow and Inverary, i'ii(f Loch Eck, on which loch they also run a steamer, and in connection with this route they have a line of coaches. This double route enables passengers to vary their tour between Glasgow and Inverary and intermediate places. We not only opened up these new routes by our steamers and coaches, but we have been the means of establishing piers, to and from which the steamers work. And we can fairly claim to have been the first to provide communication between these points. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for promoters) : The petition itself admits that there are ali-eady two other lines of steamers and coaches con- ducted by other parties, one to Inverar/ and the other to Oban and to places beyond. Saunders : 1 am not bound to prove that the petitioners have a monopoly of the whole Part III.] clyde, ardrishaig, and crinan railway bill. 145 traffic of the district. It is objected by the promoters that the railways and line of steainers authorised by the bill will not rnn between tlie same points or serve the same traffic as those of the petitioners, but practically they will carry the same traffic. The Chairman : Do yon carry goods largely ? Saunders : 1 do not suppose we do ; we carry a small quantity. The Chairman : What do you do in'winter ? Saunders : Neither of our steamers run in the winter months, although we manage a steamer, not belonging to us, which runs as far as Loch Gilp Head on Loch Fine. The Chairman : Would the comm\inication proposed by the bill be constantly open in winter as well as in the summer ? Stephens : The proposed railway would be worked like an ordinary railway. It would be a question in this case whether a limited com- petition for a limited number of months in the year by steamers and coaches, going to places we do not go to, was such a competition as to entitle the petitioners to be heard. Mr. Shibess Will : I do not gather from the objections that it is asserted that there would be no competition, and the question as regards incus standi seems to be not so much whether this is a strong enough case to induce a com- mittee to throw out the bill, as whether there is not sufficient competition to bring the case within S. O. 130, so as to induce the Court to exercise their discretion in granting the peti- tioners a locus standi. Here you have people like this steamboat company who act as pioneers in giving the public travelling accommodation, and then subsequently Parliament is asked to sanction a larger scheme, snuffing out these earlier pioneers. Stephens .- The competition would only be for a portion of the tourist traffic during the sum- mer months and is not pari materid. Steam- boats and coaches have not fixed routes like a railway. Then again with regard to through traffic, until something else is done and further powers are given in a future session, the pro- posed railways must remain local lines along the shores of the Lochs. The petitioners have not even a complete route by means of steamers ; and owners of coaches have never been allowed a Zooms standi where railways are proposed. The Chairman: This is a joint coach and steamer Hue, both being in the hands of one company. Stephens : Coaches and steamers are a means of giving people pleasure excursions, but are not a means of communication in the same sense as a railway ; and as a matter of fact we do not touch them at any one point on the whole of the route. What we do is this: we make a railway from Sandbank to Newton, and then from Newton there is a line of steamboats specially authorised by the bill in our own hands across to Furnace, but we cannot go a yard to the right or left. A railway company like our own is committed to its undertaking and must run trains, whereas the petitioners might take off their steamers and coaches to- morrow and no one would have a right to complain. Mr. Chandos Leigh : The railway company could take off a certain number of trains. Stephens : They must run at least one through train every day. Mr. CoMPTON : Do you contend that passen- gers who now go from Glasgow to Inverary by one of the petitioners' two routes would not to some extent be diverted from those routes by your new rail way ? Stephens : A passenger wanting to go to Inverary by our line would be turned out at Newton, that being the only point on the water's edge. Mr. Shiress Will: But we may take it that your railway company would take care that there was some mode of conveyance for an Inverary passenger. Stephens : Surely that is a, matter outside the present bill. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of the Glasgow and Inverary Steamboat Company is Allowed. Agents for Petitioners, Qrahames, Gurrey Sf Spens. Petition of (3) Owners, Lessees, and Occupiers OF Peopbety in and Inhabitants op Sand- bank. Construction of Railway along Foreshore — Owners, ^c, of Property abutting on Foreshore — Frontagers — Loss of Access — Injurious Affecting — Southport and Cheshire Lines, Sfc, mi, 1882 (3 Clifford & Rickards, 227), followed. The bill authorised the construction of a railway along the foreshore of Holy Loch through the village of S. which was a rising watering-place. The petitioners were owners, &c., of houses in S. abutting upon Holy Loch, and they complained that the construction of the railway would in- juriously affect their property by interfering 146 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. with their aooess to the shores of the loch. They relied on the decision in the Souihport and Cheshire Lines, ^c, Bill, 1882 (3 Clifford & Rickards, 227), hut claimed that their case was even stronger than that of the petitioners in that case, inasmuch as under their feu charters their superior was bound, if he constructed any works between their fens and the loch, to keep open by means of accommodation works their access to the shores of the loch : Veld, following the decision in the Southport, Sfc, Bill, 1882, that such of the petitioners as were owLers of property fronting the shore of Holy Loch were entitled to be heard against the bill as frontagers. The locus standi of the petitioners was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) it is not the fact, as alleged, that houses or other pro- perty of the petitioners, or any of them, will or can be taken compulsorily under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners are not the local or road, or other authority, of the village of Sandbank or of the district, and do not represent the inhabitants thereof for the pur- poses of opposition to the bill, and they have individually no sufficient rights apart from the general public in the roads or communications of the district, or the foreshore of the jlooh, or in the access thereto entitling them to be heard ; (3) the bill contains the usual clauses for compensation to persons whose lands will be injuriously affected, and if the petitioners, or any of them, are so affected (which the pro- moters deny) the usual remedy is jirovided by the bill ; (4) the petition does not disclose any ground of objection or allege or show any such interest on the part of the petitioners as entitles , them, according to practice, to be heard against the objects and provisions of the bill. Oripps (for petitioners) t The petition alleses (paragraph 5) : " That, according to the de- posited plans, the railway is proposed to com. menoe near Dunoon, and to proceed along the shore of the Holy Loch through Sandbank, a rising and much frequented watering-place. (6) That the railway is proposed to bo con- structed between the villas and other houses in Sandbank and the shore of the Holy Loch, and to cross on the level the entrance to the pier at Sandbank, niid will entirely cut off the access and communication between those villas and houses and the shore. (7) That the railway will thus deprive your petitioners and the inhabitants of Sandbank of their access to, and use o'f, the foreshore of the looh, and will destroy the amenity and value of your petitioners' property, and of a large portion of the residences and other houses in Sandbank.'' Mr. Chandos-Leigh : I suppose you say your case is the same as that of the petitioners against the Southport and Cheshire Lines, 8cc., Railway Bill, 1882 (3 Clifford & Rickards, 227) ? Cripps : Yes ; this case is rather stronger than the Southport case, because the petitioners under their feus, in the event of the landowner constructing any works between their houses and Holy Loch, have the same rights as against the owner that they would have had against a railway company if they wore taking their property ; in fact, they have the right to what may be called accommodation works. The feu charter under which the land was fened to us provides that "in the event of the owner making any works upon the piece of ground hereby disponed, then and in that event tho said George Taylor" (that is the feuar) " shall have ingress and egress to and from Holy Loch " (that is across the foreshore to Holy Loch) " and such passages and avenues as the owner should find convenient to make opposite the said ground." Mr. Chandos- Leigh : If he constructed a railway on the foreshore he would be bound to give you those entrances through it, and yon want to i)ut the railway company under at least a similar condition ? Cripps : Yes ; I refer to that clause of the feu charter because it makes our case stronger than the Southport case, the decision in which seems to me to govern this case. The Chairman : You wish not only to argue that you should have access through the rail- way, but further to argue that there should be no railway. Cripps ; Yes, certainly. I claim a general locus standi. The Southport case cannot be distinguished in any way from the case I am supporting, except that our case is stronger. The Chairman; You ask for the same deci- sion as in the Southport case — that the locus standi should be allowed of those who are frontagers. Crippn : Yes ; I only want a locus standi for those who are frontagers. Mr. Shiress Will : By the terms of your title deed you are entitled against your superior to get down to the shore, come what may ? Cripps : Yes. Malcolm (parliamentary agent, for the promoters). In the first place we do not pro- pose to interfere with any of the properties Part III.] DUNDA.LK COMMISSIONERS GAS BILL. 147 belonging to these petitioners. Then under the agreement which we have entered into with the trustees of the superior for the purchase of the pier we have undertaken to form accesses to the shore through the embankment on which the railway would be carried ; and I submit that that would be quite sufficient for the purposes of these own ers . They have no right of property in the foreshore ; they have simply the same right that any member of the public would have of going on the foreshore. I have an extract from the conveyance to one of these owners, in which it is provided that the feuar is to be satisfied with whatever passages the landowner, in the event of any work being made on the foi-eshore, chooses to make to the foreshore. Mr. Shibess Will : Ton say the promoters have agreed with the trustees of the superior to make these accesses, still that does not preclude the persons who are entitled to have the accesses from having a voice in it. ilalcolm : No doubt in the cases of all the petitioners, with the exception of one, whose property adjoins the foreshore, there is a public road intervening between their properties and the foreshore. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : If I remember rightly, at Southport an esplanade belonging to the corporation and used by the public intervened between the petitioners and the shore. The point was not whether the esplanade intervened, but whether the people were to be deprived of their access to the sands. Malcolm : The foreshore belongs solely to the owner, with whom we have entered into this agreement, and the Grown. The Chaibm.\n : Subject to the ordinary public rights ? Malcolm : Subject to the right of any member of the public, no doubt. The petitioners have only the same right of access to the foreshore that any member of the public has. The Chairman : Following the Southport case, we Allow the Locus Standi of the Petitioners. Agents for Petitioners, Sitnson,WaJceforl ,^ On. Agents for Bill, Robertson Sf Co. CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL. Petition of George P. Witt and Others. 11th August, ISSI-— {Before Mr. Parker., M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; Mr. Oompton, M.P. ; and The Hon. B. Chandos. Leigh, Q.C.) No person appeared on behalf of the Peti- tioners, whose Locus Standi was accordingly Disallowed, Saunders, Q.C, appeared as Counsel for the Bill. Agents for Bill, ^^llrtin Sf Leslie. DIDCOT, NEWBURY AND SOUTHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Southampi'ox Chamber op Commerce. 29tU April, imT.— {Before Mr. Pakker, Jl/.P., Chamnan ; Mr. Shiress Will, Jkf.P. ; Mr. 'CoMPTox, M.P. : and The Hon. B. Chandos- Leigm, Q.C.) No person appeared on behalf of the Peti- tioners, whose Locus Standi was accordingly Disallowed. Agents for Bill, Martin S" Leslie. DUNDALK COMMISSIONERS GAS BILL. Petition of The Ddndalk Gas CoMPAMi'. 12th May, 1887 .—{Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiuess Will, M.P.; Mr. Healy, M.P. ; Mr. Compton, M.P. ; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) Practice ^Competing Bills in Former House — Alteration of one Bill so as to become Sup- plejnentary to the other — Claim of Protnoters of Principal Bill to be heard against Appre- hended Alterations in Supplementary Bill — S. 0. 128, 129— {Petition to Specify Grounds of Objection, and Time of Depositing in Prirate BUI Office). The Duudalk gas company and the Dundalk town commissioners had in the House of Lords promoted competing bills, the company n bill to turn their limited company into a statutory company with additional powers, and the commissioners a bill for constructing gas works of their own for the supply of Dundalk. The Committee of the House of Lords, to whom the two bills were referred, declared the preamble of the company's bill proved, and that of the commissioners not proved, but subsequently the commissioners' bill was recommitted, and so much of it as enabled the commissioners to raise money for the purchase of the company's undertaking was 148 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. passed by the same Committee. The power for the commissioners to pnrohase the undertaking of the company was containedin the gas company's bill, which also provided for the settlement by arbitration of the price to be paid by the commissioners for the undertaking of the gas company. The commissioners had lodged a petition against the bill of the gas company in the present House asking to be heard with reference to the basis upon which the value of the gas company's works should be estimated in the event of their purchase by the commissioners, and their (the commissioners') locus standi against that bill had been conceded. The gas company now sought in turn to be heard against the bill of the commissioners on the general ground that the two bills were of the nature of competing bills and would be heard together by the same Committee of the House of Commons, and that they (the company) were apprehensive that alterations would be introduced into the bill to their prejudice. On behalf of the promoters of the present bill it was pointed out that there was nothing in the bill affecting the petitioners, but that the bill instead of being a competing bill to that of the gas company was now merely supplementary to it, simply enabling the commissioners to raise the money for the purchase of the gas company's undertaking, and not taking effect until the terms of that purchase had been arranged in accordance with the provisions of the gas company's bill. It was further argued that the petitioners could not be heard against alterations in the present bill under S. O. 129, none having been made in the filled-up bill or suggested by other petitioners {Qreat Eastern Railway Bill, 1874, 1 Clifford & Riokards, 78, cited) : Held, that as the bill contained no provision injuriously affecting the petitioners, the mere apprehension on their behalf of prospective alterations in it was not sufficent to entitle them to a locus standi against it. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the bill does pot contain any provision to take or interfere with any lands or property of the petitioners ; (2) the petition does not allege nor is it the fact that the bill in any way affects the rights, property or interest of the peti- tioners ; (3) the petition does not contain any allegation or show any ground upon wliich, according to the practice of Parliament, the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill. Cripps (for petitioners) : In the House of Lords this year two competing bills were before Lord Derby's Committee, one promoted by the Dundalk gas company for additional powers, and to turn what is now a limited company into a statutory company, and the other a, bill introduced by the Dundalk commissioners for a rival scheme of gas works within the town of Dundalk. The Committee unanimously resolved that the preamble of the bill of the Dundalk gas company was proved and the preamble of the Dundalk commissioners was not proved. After the decision of the Committee, it was pointed out on behalf of the Dundalk commissioners that in order to enable them to raise sufficient capital to purchase the gas works of the Dundalk com- pany, it would be necessary for them to have a bill of their own, so having struck out of their bill all power to construct gas works, but retaining the power to raise money for the purchase of our gas works, they got their bill in this abridged state recommitted and passed by the same Committee of the' House of Lofds, and it is against that bill, as it now comes to this House, that we seek to be heard. The bill (sec 5) provides that, " Notwithstanding anything herein-contained, this Act (except the provisions thereof as to the payment of the costs of this Act and the borrowing of money for that purpose) shall not commence or have effect until the commissioners have given notice to the 'company of their desire to purchase the works and undertaking of the company, and the prior, terms, and conditions of the transfer have been agreed upon or determined by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Dundalk Gas Company's Act, 1877." So, therefore, the effect of the bill is to give the Dundalk commissioners power to raise money in order to ■ carry out the purchase of the undertaking of Dundalk gas company provided for under the Dundalk gas company's bill. There is a ]owj; petition by the Dundalk commissioners against the gas company's bill in this House, seeking important modifications of the arrangement as to the terms of the arbitration for ascer- taining the value of the gas company's X A£\iX J.XX. UUiNDAljA UUMMlBISiUJNiaitS WAiS tULiU. l'±V undertaking, and we have not disputed the loctis standi of the commissioners against that bill. My contention is that these two bills cannot be considered separately, but substan- tially are part of the Isame matter, namely, the taking over the undertaking of the Dnndalk gas company by the Dundalk commissioners on arbitration terms. That is the result of these two bills taken together. Now, if there had been uo opposition to the terms as accepted by the House of Lords in passing our bill, there would have been no necessity for the Dundalk gas company on the other hand to have presented any petition against this bill of the Dundalk commissioners, because the power to raise money in their bill having reference to the terms in the Dnndalk gas company's bill, that bill would have settled the matter, but the commissioners have petitioned against the company's bill. That being so, it is necessary that the two bills should be taken together and considered as one bill, either of which is incomplete in itself, and the parties are mutually entitled to oppose each other's bill ? The Chaikman : Are there any other peti- tioners against either of the bills. Gripps : No. Mr. Shibbss Will : You, the gas company, say you are entitled to be heard, because the whole thing is one transaction and you ought to be heard to suggest amongst other things some conditions relating to arbitration ? Cripps ; Yes ; I should like to put it in this way. That if they had not petitioned against our bill we should not wish to alter the arbitra- tion terms as they stand in their bill which has come from the House of Lords ; but the com- missioners have petitioned against the Dundalk gas bill for alterations, and we want to be before the Committee substantially against alterations. Mr. Healy : Is not the time to fight them when they seek to make alterations in your bUl? Gripps : No; these two bills would be refer- red to the same Committee. Mr. Healy : Supposing your bill came on first and they succeeded in altering the terms of your bill, surely your right to appear upon this bill would not benefit you, because when yon were heard against their bill you could not go back upon the alterations that had been made in the other bill ? Gripps: Just so, but the two things would be considered together by the same Committee; they would be appointed to be heard by the same Committee one after the other. Mr. Shiekss Will : Your claim to be heard appears to be summed up in this paragraph of your petition : "Your petitioners submit that no alteration should be made in the company's bill, and that no alteration to the prejudice of your petitioners should be made in the town commissioners' bill." Gripps : Yes, I may put it in this way. That supposing there were no company's bill here at all, and supposing the commissioners were bringing forward a bill with certain powers to raise money to purchase our undertaking, we should be entitled to be heard. If on the other hand this bill and the gas company's bill were left unaltered, it would exactly suit the com- pany, and we should not want to be heard. Mr. Shikess Will : You are not hurt appar- ently by this bill until the terms have been settled. Gri'pps : What we are fighting about is the basis upon which the terms under arbitration should be settled. The peculiarity is this : — You have the purchase in one bill, and the raising of the money in the other. You cannot draw the line. Directly you look at one bill you see the other must come in. Mr. Healy : I can quite, understand your claim to be heard against alterations in this bill. Gripps : That is substantially our position. Mr. Shiress Will : You are not asking a locus standi for the purpose of saying that the bill shall not pass, nor for the purpose of in- serting anything in it, but you are asking to be before the Committee to be on the defensive as it were in case you are attacked. Cripps : That is so ; we want matters to stand as they are. We say in our petition : " The bill of the town commissioners is sup- plementary to the company's bill, and your petitioners submit that, in the circumstances stated, the powers sought by the town com- missioners should not be granted unless on condition of the passing of the company's bill in the terms in which it has come down to your honourable House." Mr. Healy : Could any circumstances arise in which you could ask the Committee to reject this bill ? Gripps : I might almost say not. I think our position is to ask that the bill should not be altered. The Chairman : If their bill passed in the altered form, could not you defeat them by withdrawing your bill ? Fitngerald (for promoters) : They could then petition against alterations under S. 0. 129. . Mr. Hkaly : We may assume that the two bills will come before the same Committee. Suppose the gas company's bill be heard first, 150 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol, I. in that bill the terms on which the commis- sioners are to purchase will be settled ; is it conceivable that aifter the Committee have on one bill decided the terms of purchase, the next moment on the second bill they could vary those terms ? Gripps ; No ; but the Committee will not decide it in that way ; they will take the two bills as one matter, and they will decide on the two. Mr. Shibess Will : Yon had a locus standi against the commissioners' bill as it originally stood. Orvpps : We not only had a locus standi, but we were very successful in our opposition, because the bill was thrown out ; then the main part of the bill was struck out, and the bill was reconstructed and passed in this form. Fitzgerald (in reply) : My learned friend's con- tention amounts to this : He does not object to a single provision in our bill, but because we have petitioned against his bill ; therefore, he wants to petition against ours. The Chairman : He wants to be before the Committee as a petitioner against your bill to see that the bill is not altered to his dis- advantage. Fitzgerald : This is not a petition against alterations in the ordinary sense. S. 0. 128 provides that — " No petition against a private bill, or a bill to confirm any Pro- visional Order or provisional certificate, shall be taken into consideration by the Committee on such bill, which shall not distinctly specify the ground on which the petitioners object to any of the provisions thereof." To comply with that y . 0. the petition must do two things — it must point out some provision in the bill which is objected to, and it must state the grounds of objection. This petition does neither ; it does not object to a single provision in the bill, and, as it does not object to any provision in the bill, it cannot state any ground of objection. Mr. SiUEESs Will: There are two grounds upon which these petitioners seek to be heard, as 1 understand their petition. One is con- tained in that paragraph of the petition in which they say: — " Yoiir petitioners submit that no alteration should be made in the com- pany's bill, and that no alteration to the pre- judice of your petitioners should be made in the town commissioners' bill, and that both bills should be referred to and considered by the same Committee." I can understand that point, though I give no opinion upon it at present. The second point is contained in this allega- tion: — "Your petitioners submit that, in the circumstances stated, the powers sought by the town commissioners should not be granted unless on condition of the passing of the com- pany's bill in the terms iu which it has come to your honourable House." That seems to me at present to be an untenable ground ; but the first giround, treating it as a petition against alterations, may be a different thing. Fitzgerald: I do not think there is any authority for the petitioners being given a locus standi against apprehended alterations in the bill. On the contrary, there is a most distinct decision that a mere apprehension of alteration in a bill gives no locus standi. That is the case of the Great Eastern Bailway Bill, 1874 (1 Clifford & Rickards, 78), where the petitioners asked for a locus standi against possible alterations, and where the Court said that the locus standi of petitioners depends upon the terms of the original bill, not upon upon possible amendments in the filled-up bill. In no possible way can this bill affect the interests of the gas company. When a petition against alterations is presented, and where the people who present that petition are allowed to go before the Committee, is where the bill directly affects the interests of the petitioner ; but where the petitioner is protected to his satisfaction in the bill, and he does not object to the bill passing in its present form if that protection is continued, he has no locus standi to appear to argue in favour of the bill as deposited. It is a common case where the petitioner has appeared in one House and got protective clauses, but some one has an interest in upsetting those protective clanses, that he comes to the second House, and says: " Clauses have been inserted iu the first House to protect my interest. If those clauses remain in the Bill, I do not object to the bill passing, but it is possible some one else may object to those clauses, and, in that event, I claim to be heard that those clauses shall be continued iu the bill." That is the sort of case which is meant by a petition against alterations; but you must first show that your interests are directly affected by the bill, or by alterations. You cannot claim a locas standi because you apprehend that some provision may be inserted in it that may affect you. Suppose we had an agreement with them to purchase, and we came for a bill to enable us to raise the necessary capital, they could not be heard against that. That is in fact their case here. The company have a clause in their bill giving the commis- sioners an option to purchase withiu a certain time. The only point between us is the basis upon which the arbitration shall proceed. Whether the price to be settled by the arbitrator shall be the value of the company as a going concern as it now stands, or the value of the company plus the extra value added to it by its being turned into a Parlia- mentary company. Mr. Hbaly : As the bill stands, is that left to free contract ? Fitzgerald : As the company's bill stands vpo have power to give them notice to purchase their works in a, certain number of years on arbitration terms. We want to have the basis of arbitration defined, and therefore we petition against their bill ; but there is nothing in tliis bill about arbitration ; it is only a money bill. Nothing in our bill can in any way, however remote, affect the Dundalk gas company. If we had not got oar bill recommitted, we should have had to get a Provisional Order to raise the necessary money ; we take power in our bill to raise the necessary amount to carry out the purchase, and' that is the whole bill. The provisions of the bill may be summed up in these words ; That if the commissioners exercise their right to purchase under the Gas Company's Act, they may raise whatever sum shall be found necessary for the purpose of carrying out the purchase. Mr. HeaIiY : One thing is clear, you can in no way be damnified by a locus standi being given to the petitioners. Fitzgerald ; We may be put to a large expense by it. Mr. Shikess Will : Mr. Cripps drew our attention to clause 5 of the bill. It is perfectly true that clause 5 of the bill expressly says this Act shall not commence till certain events have happened ; but then it is suggested that they may be altered in some way, and they say, if it is altered we, do not desire even then to be heard, but only if it is altered to our prejudice in any way. Fitzgerald : That can give no ground for a locus standi, because if that gives a ground for a locus standi any one is entitled to come and say : " This bill does not affect me at present, but it is possible that it may be so altered as to affect me." Mr. Shieess Will ; Not anyone, because we must recognise that there are two parties in this transaction. Fitzgerald : There are two parties to the transaction as far as the company's bill is con- cerned, but not so far as this bill is concerned, with which the company have nothing to do. The Chairman : I do not understand what alteration they apprehend. Fitzgerald : They have no direct motive in opposing the bill, they may have an indirect motive in opposing it ; they may think that by opposing onr bill they may possibly get better terms in case the matter is settled out of doors, but there is nothing in the bill that can affect them. Before lodging objections to the locus standi of the Dundalk gas company, we in- formed them that we had no intention to make any alterations in the bill. Mr. Healy: If this bill was altered in Com- mittee in a way that would affect the gas com- pany, it would be competent for them to lodge a petition against alterations. Fitzgerald : Yes, under S. 0. 129, if any alteration is made in a fiUed-up bill in the progress of a bill through Committee, parties affected by those alterations can lodge a peti- tion against it. The Chairman : The petitioners submit that no alteration should be made in the Company's bill, and that no alteration to the prejudice of the petitioners should be made in the town commissioners' bill. The answer is, as to any alterations in the company's bill, of course they will have the opportunity to be heard, and as to any alterations to their prejudice in the other bill they can also be heard by petitioning against it after such alteration has been made ; they will have-.a way of being heard upon both bills. Locus Standi of the Dundalk Gas Company Disallowed. Agents for Bill, Sadham Sf Gore, Agents for Petitioners, Martin Sf Leslie. GLASGOW SUBWAY BILL. Petition of (1) The Glasgow Tramway and Omnibus Company. 20th May, 1887.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman ; Sir Geohge Russell, M.P. ; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; JkTr. Healy, M".P. ; and The Hon. B. Ohandos-Leigh, Q.O.) Subway and Tramways — Competition — Tramway Company as Lessees of Tramways — Limited Locus as to Physic&l Interference with Tramways conceded — General Locus Claimed by Tramway Company — Subway Worked by Stationary Engines, how far a Raihoay — Incorporation of Bailioays Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8^9 Vict., c. 33) — S. 0. relating to TramwoAjs applicable to Siibways. The bill authorised the construction of a subway in Glasgow through which it was proposed to run carriages npon rails by means of stationary engines and an endless rope. 152 COURT OF BEFBREES. [Vol. The Glasgow tramway and omnibus com- pany, who, as lessees of the corporation of Glasgow, worked a, system of tramways along the surface of some of the principal streets, nuder which it was proposed by the bill to construct the subway, claimed to be heard generally against it on the ground of competition. The promoters, while conceding the petitioners a limited locus standi in respect of any physical interference with the tramways, which the construction of the subway might involve, denied their right to be heard generally on the ground of competition. They contended that the subway was in fact a railway, and therefore not pari materid with the tram- ways worked by the petitioners. In support of this contention they pointed to the fact that the bill incorporated the material parts of the Railways Clauses (Scotland) Consolidation Act, 1845; that there were stations at fixed intervals where the carriages would pass one another ; and that there would be a regular train service at fixed times ; whereas the tramways of the promoters were of the ordinary kind drawn by horses and worked under entirely different conditions to those of the subway as authorised by the bill. Contra the petitioners argued that the subway would serve the same trafiic as their tramways, and that there would be a substantial competition between them : Held, that the petitioners were entitled to an unlimited locus standi on the ground of competition. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (I) the petitioners do not in their petition allege, Dor is it the fact, that they are owuers, lessees or occupiers of any lands, houses or other property which are subject to the compulsory powers of purchase proposed to be conferred by the bill, and they have not such an interest in any such lands, houses or property as entitles them to be heard in respect thereof against the bill according to practice ; (2) the streets or portions thereof mentioned in the petition, upon the surface of which are laid the tramways leased and worked by the petitioners are public streets vested in the Lord Provost, Magistrates, ai Town Council of the City and Royal Burgh Glasgow as the police commissioners und "The Glasgow Police Act, 1866," and tl subsequent Acts amending the same, and tl said Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Tow Council as owners of the said tramways, an as the police authority, in whom the said streel are vested, have petitioned against the bill (3) the petitioners are not, according to th practice or usage of Parliament, entitled to b heard against the bill on the ground of con petition as alleged in their petition. Th subway proposed to be authorised by the bill i practically a railway and the principal pre visions of the Railways Clauses Consolidatio (Scotland) Act, 1845, are by the bill mad applicable thereto. Further, the termini of th proposed subway are not the same as thos of the tramways leased and worked by th petitioners, nor are the means to be employei for working the subway the same as those t^ which the petitioners are restricted for working the tramways, and there is therefore no com petition proposed under the powers of the bil such as is recognised by Parliament as a gronn( for allowing petitioners to be heard upon thei: petitions against a private bill ; (4) thi petitioners have no such interest in the subject matter of the bill, and they have not set fortl in their petition any such case of injury oi any such fact or reason as entitles them to b( heard upoQ their petition according to practice Badenach Nicolson (for petitioners) : The proposed subway will be worked by carriages running upon a single pair of rails with passing places at the stations, which will be equidistant from one another, and the traction power will consist of stationary steam-engines by which the carriages will be drawn by means of an endless rope. The subway will run for some portion of its length actually under the streete along the surface of which the petitioners run their tramways, and the stations will be at points served by those tramways. Under these circumstances, there must be a substan- tial competition between the two undertakings, both of which will serve the same traffic. Although we are not the owners of the tram- ways, they were leased to us by the corporation in 1871, and the lease does not expire until 1896. The tramway company , has invested between £300,000 and £400,000 in the lease, and pay a rental of over £30,000 a-year to the corporation, so that our interest is a very sub- stantial one. The Ch.mr.man : Is it a competition entirely for passenger traffic ? Nicolson ! Yes. rAKT 111. J GLASGOW SUBWAY BILL. lOO [Mr. Chandos-Lkigii called the attention of the learned counsel to the case of the Goole, Epworth, Src, Railway Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford & Kickards, 285) ]. The Chairman : The promoters say that this subway is practically a railway. Nicolson : It differs from a railway in many respects. There is to be a single pair of rails only throughout, except at the stations, and tlje traffic will go backwards and forwards on the same rails. The distance between the stations will be about 700 yards, and the car- riages will come to a rest opposite each other at the station. Mr. Chandos- Leigh : During the last year or two, in consequence of the multiplication of these subways, the S. . relating to tramways have been altered so as to include subways so that you might argue that this subway is a tramway. Nicolson : That is a material fact in our case. The Chairman : Are you under an obligation to work your tramways by horses ? Nicolson '. Yes, at present. I wish to point out that the interests of the corporation and the tramway company are not the same in this matter. If this subway is made and proves to be a public benefit, then the corporation, as representing the whole community, will of coarse benefit by it; but the greater the success of the subway, the greater the loss to the tramway company. Mr. Shikess Will : I think that the tramway company have as strong a claim as their land- lords, if competition is recognised here as a ground for locus standi. [Mr. Chandos-Leigh here referred to the Paisley and District Tramways Bill, 1884 (3 ClifEord & Rickards, 455) j the Sutton and Willoughly Bailway Bill, 1884, ib. 471; and to Smethorst, 3rd Ed., p. 121.] Nicolson : On the point of competition arising between undertakings not ejustem generis, I refer the Court to the Edinburgh Street Tram- ways Bill, 1871 (2 ClifEord & Stephens, 130) ; and to The Chreenwich and Millwall Subway Bill, 1877 (2 ClifEord & Rickards, 23). The Chairman : What would be the speed of travelling on the subway as compared with the speed of the tramway ? Jeune (for promoters) : The speed would be 10 to 15 miles an hour. There is no limitation in the bill as to speed, but we should have to go to the Board of Trade who would limit the Jeune (in reply) : I concede the petitioners a right to be heard as regards physical interference with their tramways, but I object to their appearing on the ground of competition. The petitioners are a tramway company without steam-power, whereas we are a steam-railway although steam-power is applied to the traction of a rope instead of to the propulsion of a locomotive.. We incorporate the Railways Clauses Acts and not the Tramways Acts ; and as a railway we shall be under a different system of legislation, and under different physical conditions to any tramway. A railway must ex necessitate rei have certain fixed stopping places and fixed times of running, according to a published time table, and a railway company can be compelled to give through facilities on application to the railway commissioners, all, which conditions we shall come under. We shall employ the ordinary narrow-gauge, and shall in fact be an underground railway. Mr. Healy : If this subway is » railway, what is the necessity for a provision which I see in the bill declaring that it shall not be exempt from the Subway Acts ? Jeune : That is in order that the Subway Acts as well as the Railway Acts may apply to our undertaking ; but we expressly incorporate all the material provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, and we have had to give notices to landowners, lessees, and occupiers just the same as a railway com- pany. We shall be under the same obligation as a railway company to give reasonable facilities to the travelling public. Mr. Healy: How would you distinguish a steam-tramway from a horse-tramway with reference to competition with your subway ? Jeune : A steam-tramway is certainly more like a railway in such matters as speed and the accommodation afforded by running more car- riages than one at a time. Horse-tramways are omnibuses running upon rails. Again, the expense of constructing a horse-tramway bears no relation to that of constructing a raOway. Mr. Chandos-Leigh' : Omnibus companies have not parliamentary powers. Jeune : I submit that would make no dif- ference. Then, with regard to another point, it is worth observing that we cover a consider- able amount of ground that the tramways do not. We have a terminus at the western end, which is different to their terminus, and we shall serve some streets where there is no tramway. In fact, I should think that for quite a third of the distance we cover there are no tramways at all. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : It would certainly appear that on other parts of the scheme there is direct competition. You have five stations ■upon the same line as these tramways. The Ch AIRMAN : The Court, without going so far as to say generally that the case of 154 COURT or EEFEEEBS. [Vol. I. a horse-tramway company seeking to be heard against a railway company is on the same footing as a steam-tramway com- pany would be as regards competition, is of opinion that the Glasgow Tramway Company have a Locus Standi against this Subway Com- pany on the ground of competition. Agents for Petitioners, Martin ^ Leslie. Petition of (2) The Corporation of Glassow. Subway and Tramways — Competition — Scotch Corporation as Owners of Tramways — Rever- sionary Interest — Interference with Streets- Claim of Corporation to General Locus as Owners of Solum. "' Practice — Claim to Limit Locus of Petitioners to certairl Allegations of their Petition. The petitioners, the corporation of Glasgow, claimed to be heard against the bill generally, (1) as owners (by virtue of ancient charters) of the solum of the streets under which the subway was to be con- structed ; (2) on the ground of competition, as owners of the Glasgow tramways, which were, however, leased by the corporation to the Glasgow tramway and omnibus company, who also petitioned against the bill. The promoters conceded a limited locus to the corporation on account of physical interfer- ence with their lands, bnt contended that they were not entitled to be heard generally as owners of the solum of the streets ; or upon the allegations in their petition relat- ing to competition, because the proposed subway was really a railway, and because the corporation were not worldngthe tram- ways themselves, but were only interested in them as reversioners, and therefore the competition was too remote. Held, however, that the claim of the promoters to exclude the corporation from being ' heard on the allegations of their petition relating to competition could not be sus- tained, and that the locus standi of the petitioners must be allowed generally. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners (who as owners of the said tram- ways are in no position different from other owners of tramways) are not,-according to the practice or usage of Parliament, entitled to be heard against the bill on the ground of compe- tition. The subway proposed to be authorised by the bill is practically a railway, and the principal provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, are by the bill made applicable thereto. Further, the termini of the proposed subway are not the same as those of the tramways belonging to the petitioners, nor are the means to be employed for working the subway the same as those to which the petitioners are restricted for working the tramways ; and there is there- fore no such competition proposed under the powers of the bill as entitles the petitioners to be heard according to practice. Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners) : As far as the petition of the corporation of Glasgow is con- cerned, the principal question seems to be one of practice, because the promoters by their notices of objection admit the right of the corporation to be heard in respect of the scheme, but not in respect of the allegations in their petition which allege competition. It is contrary to the practice of the Court to limit petitioners to allegations in their petition. The Committee could decide what was relevant to their case. With regard to actual competition, the subway being unconnected with any railway system, is obviously a mere means of local inter-commn- nication by an underground tunnel, and I pray in aid of my case on this point the arguments that have already been addressed to you by the learned counsel for the Glasgow tramway and omnibus company, who are our lessees for a term of years of the various tramways which we, the corporation, have constructed and own in Glasgow. The only difference between our case and that of the Glasgow tramway company is that their interest is a present one, and ours in the' nature of a reversionary interest ; but this does not, according to the practice of the Court, prevent us from being both heard. As regards the corporation being owners of the solum of the streets, their petition alleges that by virtue of their charters, title deeds, and various Acts of Parliament they claim the absolute ownership, not only of the surface, bnt of the sub-soil of the greater part of the streets under which the subway will be constructed. The Chairman : Would they claim to be able to take a price for the solmn ? Pope : Yes. In the case of a recent con- struction of a railway through Glasgow, they not only claimed but obtained a certain price for the actual stone which was excavated during the oonstruotion of the work. Part lll.l GEE AT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. 155 Mr. Shiebss Will : I have known the claim you are now making established by law in the case of Beckett v. The Oorporatio7i of Leeds (L.R. 7 Ch. 421) as regards a particular street. There it was held that the law that you assert here for Glasgow prevailed as regards a street in Leeds ; even if that were not so, the fact of your being the local authority having the control of the streets, under which this subway is to be made, would seem to give you a very large right. Pope : That being the case, I fail to see how the promoters can establish their claim to restrict us from going into certain portions of our petition before the Committee on the bill, viz., those allegations which raise the question of compe- tition between the proposed subways and our tramways, which, it is true, are leased at the present moment, but which, nevertheless, are our property. We say that the subway will by competition decrease the value of our rever- sion, and the promoters " object to the right of the Lord Provost, Magistrates and Town Council of the city and royal burgh of Glasgow as such .... being heard upon their petition against the bill, in so far as the said petition relates to alleged competition between the subway proposed to be authorised by the bill and the tramways belonging to the peti- tioners," I submit that the Court wOl not limit our undoubted right to a locus standi by striking the allegations, as to competition, from our petition. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : As I understand, by an Act of 1870, the tramways were taken over by the corporation, and the present tramway and omuibus'company was incorporated in 1871, and on their being incorporated the tramways were leased for 25 years by the corporation to the present company ? Pope ; That is so ; and all recent extensions since the first tramway was constructed have been constructed by the corporation at their own expense out of the corporate funds, and included in the property leased to the tram- way company. I am unable to find any case in which the Court has limited the locus standi of petitioners to certain allegations in their petition. Limitation of locus standi is always made by reference to clauses. Jeune (for promoters) : The interest of the corporation in these tramways is purely rever- sionary, and ought not to entitle them to be heard. Mr. Shikess Will : Where injury ^is done to a property which is leased, the reversioner is entitled to bring his action. If a house is injured, both the tenant and the landlord have causes of action, their interests being separate and distinct. Jeune : What you have to look at is not right of action, but materially of interest, and whethel: the interests of these petitioners is sufficiently affected. The Chairman : The suggestion in the notices of objection seems to be that the locus standi of the corporation should be limited to certain allegations in their petition. We generally limit the locus standi with reference to the clauses of the bill. Mr. Pope also argued that if the corporation were admitted at all, they must necessarily be admitted to argue that this subway is not required, and in arguing that the subway was unnecessary they would, of course, be entitled to show that there was plenty of existing accommodation for passengers, and then they would get so near the question of competition that it Would not be worth while perhaps to distinguish it. How would you propose to limit the locus standi ? Jeune : I should propose that you should say that the petitioners had no locus standi on the ground of competition. The Court frequently limit the locus standi of a railway company to physical interference and preclude them from going into the question of competition, as in the case where a railway company has running powers over another, and there is a physical interference with that railway. The Chaiuman : How can you define so much of the bill as relates to competition ? Jeune : I do not think that would be necessary, if you limited the purposes of the locus standi. The CkAiEMAN : The Glasgow Corporation are Allowed a general Locus Standi. Agents for Petitioners, Simson, Wakeford ^ Go. Agent for Bill, Loch. GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of Holdebs os B Dbbentube Stock. 28th February, 1887.— (Be/ore Kr. Paekek, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shieess Will, ikf.P. ,- Sir G. Russell, M.P. ; and The Bon. B. Chandos- Leigh, Q.C.) Bill for Conversion of Redeemable Debenture Stock — Debenture Holders — Option — Saving Clause — Sinking Fund. The petitioners were certain holders of redeem- able B debenture stock of the Great Eastern railway company (representing dE100,000 out pf a total amount of £2,800,000 of stock still unredeemed), and they objected to G 2 156 COURT OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. certain clauses (57, 58, and 59) in the bill, which provided for the conversion of the stock into 4 per cent, debentures, an equivalent amount of the debenture stock being offered by the company at the rate of £120 for each £100 of the existing stock. The acceptance of such offer by the holders of B debenture stock was to be entirely optional on their part, and in the event of their declining the offer their rights were expressly preserved by clause 57 of the bill. The petitioners, however, contended that the bill would injuriously affect their present status for the following reason : the B debenture stock was held by them as 5J per cent stock, of which 5 per cent, was paid to the holder and i per cent. (10s.) was carried to a sinking fund, which was allowed to accumulate until it reached £50,000, when it was applied in redeeming the debentures, the shares to be redeemed being determined by drawing, the com- pany having at the present time £27,000 accumulated ready to be applied to the redemption of the stock. The petitioners argued that the effect of the bill would be to reduce the total amount of the deben- tures, and therefore to proportionately increase the chance of the remaining debentures being drawn, thereby preju- dicing the holders of the stock and depreciating the value of it by its increased liability to redemption. Contra it was argued that the conversion of the stock was entirely at the debenture holders' option, and that the sinking fund would be reduced proportionately to the reduction of the total amount of the debentures ; and that as to the £27,000 already accumulated, the petition did not refer to it : Held, however, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard against the clauses and the part of the preamble relating to the conver- sion of the debentures. The locus standi of the petitioners was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners object only to the scheme of con- version of redeemable B debenture stock of the promoters proposed to be sanctioned by the bill, but that scheme of conversion would not be compulsory as against the petitioners, and would in noway affect their existing rights, which, on the contrary, are expressly reserved and saved by clause 57 , of the bill ; (2) the bill does not contain any provision affecting the petitioners ; (3) the petition does not allege or show that the petitioners have, nor have they in fact, any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard against it. Bidder, Q.C. (for petitioners) : We claim a loous standi against the clauses of the bill that affect us, viz., clauses ,57, 58, and 59, and so much of the preamble as relates to those clauses. The preamble recites : " And whereas the market price of the redeemable B debenture stock has, for some years past, exceeded the sum of £120 per centum, and the directors have from time to time accumulated the original redemption fund, under the powers of the Act of 1878, and at intervals of about two years and a-half applied the fund (which, at the expiration of each such period amounted to a sum sufficient for the redemption of about one per centtim of the entire stock) to such redemption by drawings by lot on a scheme settled by the directors. And whereas the^ amount of the redeemable B debenture stock is £2,800,000, or thereabouts, and the amount of stock redeemed and cancelled is £200,000, or thereabouts, and a sum of about £14,000 per annum (but decreasing as the stock is redeemed) has been annually applied to the redemption, and there is a sum of money in hand applicable to further redemption. And whereas the conditions attaching to the redeemable B debenture stock are prejudicial to the investment by the public in such stock, and have the effect of depressing the stock in the market when compared with the price of other stocks of a like character, and a period exceeding 2,000 years would be required for tho redemption of such stock under the existing arrangements, and it is expedient that the com- pany should be enabled to enter into such arrangements as are authorised by this Act with such of the holders of the redeemable B debenture stock as may desire to exchange such stock for 4 per centum debenture stock of tho company and that provision be made for a sink- ing fund for the purchase on the market and ultimate extinction of the 4 per centum deben- ture stock to the extent of the issue of such stock in exchange for redeemable B debenture stock." Although the preamble says that the conditions attaching to this particular deben- ture stock have a prejudicial effect upon the rART ill. J GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. 15Y market price of the stock, and though the pro- moters say that they are going to bring forward a new scheme with reference to that stock, they say that the B debentnre holders have no right to be heard upon that scheme Then clanse 57, so far as it concerns the petitioners, provides : " The respective holders of the redeemable B debentnre stock shall, until they exchange into 4 per centum debenture stock as in this Act mentioned, have the same rights, and be subject to the same liabilities of redemption aa they had and were subject to previously to the passing of this Act under the Finance Act, and the resolutions under which the stock was created and issued." Then clause 68 provides, " For the creation and issue of 4 per centum debenture stock tn betaken in exchange by such of. the holders of redeemable B debenture stock" (and four other stocks) " as may desire on the terms by this Act authorised to exchange their respective stock into 4- per centum debenture stock, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say : (a) The company may, by resolution of a general meeting convened vrith special notice of the purpose, create 4 per centum deben- ture stock in addition to and to form one class with the general 4 per centum debenture stock for the time being of the company, created and to be created by the company under the powers of any Act or Acts by which they are or may be authorised to create and issue debenture stock in lieu of borrowing upon bond or mort- gage, and the 4 per centum debenture stock shall bear interest at the rate of four pounds per centum per annum, and at such meeting the company shall (subject as hereinafter pro- vided) fix the amount of 4 per centum deben- ture stock to be given in exchange for one hundred pounds of redeemable B debentnre stock, and so in proportion for any less sum than one hundred pounds, and the amount of 4 per centum debenture stock to be so created shall, as nearly as may be, be sufficient tp allow of the exchange of the whole of the redeemable B debentnre stock at the rate so fixed. Pro- vided that if the amount of 4 per centum debenture stock created in the first instance be insufficient for the purpose of completely effecting such exchange, the company may in like manner from time to time create such additional amount or amounts of 4 per centum debentnre stock as may be necessary for that purpose, and provided further that not more than the following amount of 4 per centum debenture stock shall be given in exchange for £100^ of the redeemable B debentnre stock, viz., £120." Then clause 59 provides for the issue of certificates of the exchanged stock. The bill therefore contains a power to create a 4 per centum stock, and a power to fix the price at which that shall be exchanged for B deben- ture stock, viz., £120 as a maximum. That would be very prejudicial to us in various respects. The promoters object to our locus standi against this scheme of redemption because it is optional and not compulsory. I will show yon that that is a mistaken view. This B deben- ture stock was created as a 5J per centum stock by the Great Eastern Railway (Finance) Act, 1867, it being provided that only 5 per centum should go as interest or dividend, and that the remaining !; per centunf\ should go to form a sinking fund and be applied from time to time for the redemption of the stock by bargain with the holders of the stock at a price not ex- ceeding £120 ; and if nobody was willing to sell at that price, by drawing the debentures. There is no doubt that when the stock was created it was intended that the J- per centum on the whole £3,000,000 debentnre stock authorised to be issued by the Finance Act of 1867 should' accumulate as a sinking fund, but as the Act creating the stock was worded it is only I per centum of the dividend on the existing deben- ture stock, consequently under that arrangement it would take a very long time, much longer than 2,000 years, to redeem this stock, because, assuming there was nobody willing to sell in the market, the redemption must necessarily be done by drawing lots, because the market price of the stock is over £120, owing to the rise in the value of securities of this kind. This was found to be very inconvenient, and by the Great Eastern Railway (General Powers) Act, 1878, instead of applying the sinking fund in redemption of the stock every year, which would be a comparatively small sum, it was provided that the i per centum should be accu- mulated till it got to the amount of £50,000, and when it arrived at that amount the company were empowered to apply it to the redemption of the B debentures. Under the present circum- stances, it comes to £50,000 about every three or four years, and it will be at longer intervals as the amount of stock to be redeemed becomes smaller aild the J per centum yields a smaller ■ sum. At the present time, according to the accounts of the company, there is an accumula- tion of about £27,000, and therefoire in another year and a-half or two years they would be bound to perform another redeeming opera- tion. The amount annually redeemed is 2^th of the whole, and, if the lots were drawn every three years, it would be jTjth of the whole. Still the chance, though it is only 79 to 1 against being drawn at the end of three years, has sent the price of this stock 158 COUET OF EErEREES. [Vol., I. down from £146 to £129 or £130. That being the present state of things, the arrangement proposed by this bill would give the company an antagonistic interest to the carrying out of any scheme that might be brought forward to put this stock upon a better basis. Again, suppose this bill passes, and suppose I say I will not avail myself of it, and suppose under the bill the company constitute a certain amount of debenture stock at a certain price, and suppose they exchange £2,000,000 out of the £2,800,000 existing B debenture stock for the new debentures, see where I am left when the time of drawing comes. The company has at the present moment accumulated £27,000, which, under the existing Act, they will aocumu. late to £50,000 before applying it to redeeming the existing B debentures ; and, if this bill does not pass when they apply that £50,000, they will take £50,000 out of the £2,800,000 which remains unredeemed^ — that is -^th. If, how- ever, the bill passes, and they in the meantime bought up £2,000,000 under this new scheme, they would then apply the £50,000 towards the redemption of £800,000 only, so that instead of the chance against my stock being redeemed being represented by -Jjfth, it would be repre- sented by T&th. In the same manner as regards the body of non-assenting B debenture holders generally, the smaller the proportion of non. assenting debenture holders becomes, the more would the residue be damaged by the proposals of the bill. Mr. Chandos-Lbioh : You say that the value of the security of the non-assenting B deben- ture holders wonld be impaired ? Bidder .• Yes ; unquestionably it would be depreciated according as it was exchanged under this Act to a greater or less extent. Mr. Chandos-Lbigh : You say that after this bill was passed if you went to an insurance office to insure against the chance of your particular holding being drawn for redemption, they would drive a harder bargain with you and demand a bigger premium than at the present time ? Bidder • Undoubtedly. Femher, Q.C. (for promoters) : The petitioners' status is untouched, the scheme so far as they are concerned being entirely optional, and their rights being expressly preserved by clause 57. They only represent their own holdings, i.e., £100,000 out of £2,800,000 remnjning still unredeemed. Mr. Shibess Will : I do not think the small- ness of the proportion makes any difference, if their interests are distinct. Peniber : The bill is an attempt to remedy a state of things which both the petitioners and the Gteat Eastern company say exist. If the bill passes when the last debpnture stock comes to be redeemed the proportion between that debenture stock and the sum accumulated for its redemption by reserving 10s. out of the 5i per centum which this stock bears, will be exactly the same as the proportion is at the present moment between that 10s. and the £2,800,000 which remains unredeemed'. Again, the £120 which is the limit the bill authorises the com. pany to go to in effecting the exchange of the redeemable B debenture stock, in no way affects the option of the petitioners to decline the exchange, but merely fixes the limit to which the directors may go in making the offer. Sec. 61 of the bill shows how completely the present status of the petitioners will be pre- served : — " The original redemption fund arising from the application of the 10s. per centum per annum shall continue to be applied under the provisions of the Finance Act and other Acts relating thereto in respect of the redeemable B debenture stock which is not exchanged uuder the provisions of this Act ; " that is to say, that nothing shall be suffered by a non- assenting party. The Chaikman: Are you bearing in mind that to be drawn is a disadvantage and not an advantage, and that the argument is that if this bill were to pass, and a certain proportion of the B debenture holders were to exercise their option the chance of the residue of them being drawn would be greater than heretofore ? Femher : I absolutely dispute it. I say the same proportion would exist. There is at this moment £27,000 in the bank available for redemption, and that £27,000 represents a sink- ing fund created at the rate of J per centum per annum upon £2,800,000. The actual amount created by the sinking fund of J per centum each year upon that sum is £14,000, but suppose that during the period in which that £14,000 was accumulating before being applied in the redemption of the existing B debenture stock, £1,400,000 of this B redeemable stock was converted under the powers of this Act, there would then remain only £1.400,000 upon which the ^ per centum sinking fund would accrue for redemption, i.e., only £7,000 wonld be set aside for redemption each year instead of £14,000, and the period for applying the re- serve fund towards the redemption of the B debentures would take twice the time to recur that it did when the capital upon which it accumulated was double the amount, i.e., £2,800j000, and ■ so on in proportion as the capital sum upon which the sinking fund is accumulated became smaller. The ^ per centum being an invariable per centage on the capital sum remaining unredeemed, but that I'AET ill. J HAEEOW, EALING, ETC., RAILWAY BILL. 159 capital sum being reduced as the B debentures were redeemed. With regard to the £27,000 already accumulated under the existing scheme, which would be applicable to the redemption of an amount of B debentures which will have been diminished by the operation of this bill, the claim of the petitioners to be heard on that score, flimsy as it is, is negatived by the fact that the petition contains no reference to it. If the present risk of being drawn for redemption is a risk insurable by the B debenture holders, it will remain in- surable on the same terms by the last two debenture holders for the reason I have given above, viz., that the amount upon which the i per centum will be calculated will decrease as the debentures are redeemed. The proportion will remain still what it is now, and the chances of being drawn will remain the same. The Chairman : On the whole, the Court are of opinion that these debenture holders are entitled to a locus standi against the clauses which they ask to be heard against, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Locus Standi of Petitioners Disallowed, except as against clauses 57, 58, 59 of the Bill and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners, Orahames, Ourrey & Spens. Petition of (2) The Vestky os St. Leonakd's, Shoekbitch. Mr. Rees stated that he would withdraw the objection to the locus standi of the Petitioners, the agent for the Petitioners having stated that he would not raise tte market question. The Court Allowed the Locus Standi upon this under- • taking. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson ^ Co, Agents for Bill, Rees Sf Freere. GEEAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Metropolitan Boakd O]? Works. 28th February, IS87 .—(Before Mr. Parkek, M.P., Ohairman; Mr. Shiress, Will, M.P. ; Sir G. Russell, M.P. ; and The Son. B. Chandos- Leigh, Q.C.) The objections to the locus standi of the Petitioners were withdrawn. Locus Standi Allowed accordingly. Agents for Bill, Dyson 8f Co. HARROW, EALING, AND WILLBSDEN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) The North - Western and Ealing Railway Company. 10th March, ISSI.— (Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; The Hon. B. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C; and Mr. Bonham-Carter.) Bailioays — Competing Schemes —Same Lands not Scheduled — Construction of both Railways Practicable — Practice — Absence of Distinct Allegation of Competition in Petition. The petitioners were themselves promoters of a bill for constructing a railway between practically the same termini, and to aoeommodate the same traffic as the railway proposed by the present bill, and had con- Ceded the promoters a locus standi against their bill. They claimed a reciprocal right of appearing against the present bill. The promoters and petitioners did not schedule the same lands, and physically there was no reason why both railways should not be constructed. {Bristol and London and South-Western Junction Baihoay Bill, 1883, on petition of promoters of the Pewsey, Salisbury, ^c. Railway Company, 3 Clifford and Rickards, 261, cited and distinguished.) The real objection to the locus of the peti- tioners was that their petition did not allege competition, but merely stated that the petitioners' railway " would better accommodate the traffic than that of the promoters," which would accordingly be " an obstacle to prevent the formation of your petitioners' railway." (Pier and Sairbowr Orders (Redcar Pier) Confirma- tion Bill, 1871, 2 Clifford & Stephens, 195, cited) : Keld, that competition must be inferred from the statements of the petition, and was obviously pointed to in them, although not specifically alleged, and that the locus standi of the petitioners must be allowed generally on that ground (i.e., competition). Erskine Polloch appeared for the Petitioner ; Pembroke Stephens, Q.C, for the Bill. Agents for Petitioners, Burchell ^ Co. 160 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. Petition of (2) The Great Western Railway Company. A general Lotus Standi was Allowed to the Petitioners on the ground of competition. The case was of no value as a precedent. Pemher, Q.C., appeared for the Petitioners ; Pemhrolte Stephens, Q.C., for the Bill. Agent for Petitioners, Mains. Agent for Bill, Bell. HULL AND NORTH-WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) The Midland Railway Com- pany. l-feh March, 1887.— (Be/ore Mr. Pabkee, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shibess Will, M.F.; Sir Geoege Rus'ell, M.P. ; The Hon. E.Chando.s- Leigh, Q.O.; and Mr. Bonham-Caetee.) Railways — Transfer of Parliamentary Poioer to Construct Extension Line from one Company to Another — Running Powers of Petitioners over Extension Railwa/y under AfjreemeiU, Loss of. Practice — Right of Petitioner to refer to another Bill Introduced " pari passu " with and Affecting Present Bill. In 1882 the Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction railway and dock company (subse- quently referred to as " the Barnsley com- pany"), had obtained powers to construct an extension line from Cudworth, on their existing railway, to Huddersfield, vid Kirk- burton, where the line was to form a junc- tion with a branch of the London and North- western railway, and over the whole of that extension line they had agreed (the agreement being subsequently scheduled to and confirmed by the Midland Railway [Additional Powers] Act, 1883, to give the Midland company running powers. The bill transferred to the promoters the power conferred by the Act of 1882 Upon the Barnsley company, of constructing the railway between Cudworth and Kirk- burton (where the junction was to be made with the London and North- Western rail- way), and another bill, promoted by the Barnsley company, was before the House for the abandonment by that com- pany of so much of the line authorised in their hands in 1882 as was beyond Kirkburton, i.e., between Kirkburton and Huddersfield. The Midland company petitioned against the present bill on the ground that it did not preserve their right to running powers over the railway authorised to be constructed in the hands of the Barnsley company by their Act of 1882, eveu as far as Kirkburton, while, as regards the portion between Kirkburton and Huddersfield, the Barns- ley company were seeking by their own bill, running pari pn.ssu with this bill, to abandon that portion. They also contended that the bill would injuriously affect their interests by the powers it contained for the promoters to make working agreements with the London and North- Western com- pany, whose railway ran on from Kirkburton to Huddersfield, thus giving the London and North-Western railway company the monopoly of Huddersfield traffic. The promoters asked the Court to put alto- gether out of their consideration the bill promoted by the Barnsley company for the abandonment of the line beyond Kirkburton, but the Court declined to do so, and under the circumstances allowed the Midland railway company a locus standi against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was ob- jected on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege or show, nor is it the fact that the bill contains provisions for taking or using any part of the lands, railway stations, or accom- modations of the petitioners, or for running engines or carriages upon or across the same, or for granting other facilities affecting the petitioners ; (2) the petition does not allege or show that any such competition between the petitioners and the promoters of any other C9mpany or companies would be caused by, or result from, the bill if passed as according to practice entitles the petitioners to be heard against it ; (3) the position of the petitioners under the agreement referred to in the petition is not altered by the bill, and the petitioners are not entitled to be heard against the transfer Part III.J hull and north-western, etc., railway bill, 161 of the powers proposed to be etEeoted by the bill on the strength of that agreement, or on any other ground; (4) the allegations con- tained in paragragh 4 of the petition (even if correct, which the promoters deny) do not entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (5) the provisions of the bill empowering the petitioners to enter into working agree- ments with the promoters and other companies are entirely permissive, and the petitioners are not entitled to be heard against the same ; (6) the powers of the bill with respect to working agreements between various companies other than the petitioners do not affect the petitioners in such a manner as to en title them to be heard against the bill ; the bill does not contain any provisions affecting the petitioners ; (8) the petition does not allege or show that the peti- tioners have, nor have they in fact, any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard against it. Bidder, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The Barnsley railway was first sanctioned in 1880, from Hull to Barnsley, and in 1882 they came to Parliament for an • extension to Hud- dersfield and Halifax. The Midland railway company at first opposed the bill of 1882, but withdrew their opposition upon an agreement being entered into between them and the Barnsley company, which was scheduled the following year to the Midland Railway (Addi- tional Powers) Act, 188.3. That agreeinent provides that from and after the opening of the intended railways from Huddersfield to Halifax, or any portion thereof, the Midland company shall have running powers over the line, including the use of termini, and so on. That Being so, the present bill proposes to incorporate a new company, the Hull and North- Weateru junction railway company, and to transfer to such company so much of the power obtained by the Barnsley company in 1882 as shall enable them to make a railway between the existing Barnsley railway at Barnsley (or Cudworth), and the Kirkburton branch of the London and North-Westeru rail- way. There is another bill being promoted this Session called the Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Baihvay and Doclc Bill, and running pari passu with this bill, for the aban- donment of so much of the railways authorised by the Act of 1882 as extend from the Kirk- burton branch to Huddersfield and Halifax. Clause 26 of the present bill provides as follows : — " On and as from the passing of this Act, all the powers, rights, privileges, and authorities (other than the powers for raising money by shares, or stock, or borrowing, or debenture stock, and of levying tolls and .charges) granted to or conferred upon the Hull company by the Act of 1882, as amended by the Act of 1885 (including all powers, rights, privileges, and authorities conferred by any Act or Acts incor- porated wholly or partially with either of those Acts) for the purposes of, or in relation to (1) so much of the railway No. 1 (that is the main line) authorised by the Act of 1882, as will lie to the eastward of the point of junction therewith of the railway No. 1 C (that is the junction with the Kirkburton branch of the London and North-Western) authorised by the Act of 1882 ; and (2) the whole of railway No. 1 A, and railway No. 1 0, authorised by the Act of 1882 (which portion of railway and railways are hereinafter referred to as and included in the expression 'the railways') and all the property, interests, agreements, and benefits of agreements held or acquired in con- nection with, or for the purposes of the railway, by the Hull company, or relating to the rail- way or any lands required for the purposes thereof, and of, or to which the Hull company are seized, or entitled shall subject to the provisions of this Act be transferred to and vested in the company.'' That is to say, the line of 1882, over which by that agreement we had running powers as between Barnsley (or Cudworth) and Kirkburton, is proposed to be transferred to this new company; and by the other bill, which is not before the Court at the present moment. The piece between Kirkburton and Halifax is to be abandoned ; so, taking the two bills together, the Barnsley company being financially unable to , complete their line, the proposal is to substitute for the line between Barnsley and Huddersfield, authorised in 1882, in the hands of the Barnsley company, a line to be made by a new company, which is not going to Huddersfield or Halifax at all, but is going to terminate at Kirkburton. Then clan se 28 provides that " all the rights, powers and privileges of the Hull company and their directors, officers, and servants respectively, which by virtue of the Act of 1880, or the Act of 1882, as amended by the Act of 18S5, or of any Act or Acts wholly or partially incorporated with those Acts or any of them, might be exercised and enjoyed by them for the purposes of, or in relation to, the railway, shall be exer- cised and enjoyed by the company and their directors, officers, and servants respectively." Then clause 29 provides " From and after the passing of this Act the provisions of the Act of 1882 and the Act of 1885 (including the pro- visions incorporated with either of those Acts of any other Act or Acts) so far as they relate to or confer powers for the purpose of or in relation to the railway shall (subject to the 162 CODBT OF BEFEEEES. [Vol. I. provisions of this Act) be read and have efeeot as if the Act of 1882 and the Act of 1885 had been passed with respect to the company instead of with respect to the Hnll company." There is not one word in this bill abont trans- ferring to this company the obligation that the Barnsley company came under by the agree- ment scheduled to the Midland Railway (Addi- tional Powers) Act, 1883. There is nothing in the bill to provide that this company shall take over the obligations and liabilities of the Barnsley company as well as their powers and privileges, as is usual in such cases ; but even if there was such a clause, the running powers which we got under their agreement scheduled to the Act of 1883, we only got by agreement with the Barnsley company, and we could only enforce them at law against that company. Even if the bill did transfer the obligations of the Barnsley company, those running powers would not ex- tend to Huddersfield, bat would land ns at the London and North -Western railway near Kirk- burton, without any power to run over that railway ; therefore, even supposing we had the running powers, we should be left at Kirkbnrton instead of being carried on to Huddersfield, which was our object in obtaining those powers. There is a further matter referred to in the petition, to which I also wish to call the atten- tion of the Court. There is a clause in the bill which empowers the Hull and North-Western junction company, the London and North- western, the Great Northern company, and various other companies, including ourselves, tp enter into agreements, inter alia, for " the working, use, management, and maintenance by the contracting companies, or either of them, of their respective railways." The only com- pany with which any such agreement could be made is the London and North-Western railway company, as this is a line which ends at Kirk- burton by a junction with the London and North- Western railway, and the effect of the clause, speciously fair though it appears to be, would be to give the monopoly of the Huddersfield traffic to the London and North-Western company. Pember, Q.C. (for promoters) : On behalf of the promoters I concede the Midland company a locus standi against clause 29 of the bill, in order to preserve the agreement entered into between them and the Barnsley company, which agreement happens to be scheduled to the Midland Railway (Additional Powers) Act, 1883. That will enable the petitioners to establish against the new Hull and North-Western company such rights over lines in their hands as they would have had over lines in the hands of the original Hull and Barnsley company. The petitioners, how- ever, have no right to be heard against this bill in respect of the loss of running powers between Kirkbnrton and Huddersfield and Halifax. If the petitioners are entitled to be heard at all in respect to that matter, it will be against the bill of the Barnsley com- pany themselves for the abandonment of the onward line beyond Kirkbnrton. That has nothing to do with this bill, and the petitioners are not entitled to import into this bill the sub- ject matter of another bill. Mr. Shibess Will : Supposing the two bills were combined in one, would not the Midland company have been entitled to a locus standi in respect of the abandonment Y If so, are they less entitled because the thing is done by two bills ? Pemier ; The petitioners may be entitled to a locus standi against the other bill, but that is in addition to and independent of their rights against this bill. The abaudonment of the line beyond Kirkbnrton is proposed by the Barnsley company, who are authorised to make it, and with that this company has nothing to do. Mr. Shibess Will : Looking at this bill only, can the Court shut their eyes to the fact that, if the lines referred to in clause 26 are trans- ferred to this new company, it is not at all likely that the Barnsley company would make the other line, when this bill itself proceeds on the recital that the other lines cannot be made on account of financial difiioulties. Pember : There is no provision provided in this bill for the abandonment of those lines. The running powers conferred upon the Mid- land company by the agreement scheduled to the Act of 1883 were dependent upon the con- struction of those lines by the Barnsley com- pany, and, as those lines have never been made, there is an end of the matter. Then as to the power for the company to make working agree- ments with other companies, that power has been struck out of the bill, and the technical right of the petitioners to be heard against the bill as deposited is valueless. The Ohaieman : The Court are agreed that the Locus Standi of the Petitioners must be Allowed. Agents for the Petitioners, Beale Sf Co. Petition of (2) Mortgagees and Holders of First Issue or Debentures of the Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Hail- WAY AND Dock Company. Transfer of Power to Construct Railway — Mort- gagees in Possession and Debenture Holders — Diminution in Value of Security — Deposit .RT 111. J HULL AND NOETH-WESTERN, ETC., RAILWAY BILL. 168 loney — Railways Clauses Act, 1845 (8 Vict., hap. 20), sec. 3 {Definition of " Railway.") 3 bill transferred to the promoters the power to construct a, railway, authorised to be constructed by the Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding, &c., railway and dock company (subsequently refei'red to as " the Barnsley company ") in 1882 as an exten^sion of their authorised railways. The petitioners were mortgagees in posses- sion (a receiver having been appointed) and debenture holders of the Barnsley company, and they objected that the effect of the bill would be to diminish the value of their security. The Barnsley company had not commenced the construction of the extension railway, but their Act of 1883 for its construction had contained the usual provision that the extension railway,' when constructed, should for all purposes form part of their original undertaking, and they had, prior to their obtaining their Act in 1882, made the usual deposit in respect of the railway thereby authorised. The promoters contended that inasmuch as no part of the railways authorised in 1882 had been constructed, or the necessary lands acquired, there could be no diminution in the value of the petitioners' security by means of the transfer of powers effected by the bill; and that the deposit money was not an asset of the Hull and Barnsley company or part of their capital. The promoters further contended that the power to construct the extension line given by the Act of 1882 could not be regarded part of the security of the petitioners, whose seourity at the present time was in fact merely the existing railway and works of the company, and could not be construed as extending to authorised railways or works (Definition of " the Railway " in sec. 3 of Railways Clauses Act, 1845, relied on ; Cheshire Lines Committee Bill, 1875, on the petition of the Bridgewater Trustees, 1 Clifford & Riokards, 150, cited) : Id, that the petitioners were not entitled to a locus sta/ndi. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners claim to be heard as mortgagees and holders of debentares granted pursuant to the Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Act, 188U, against the powers contaiiied in the bill .for the transfer to the promoters of certain powers granted to the Barnsley company under the Hull, Barnsley, and West Biding Junction Railway and Dock (Hud- dersfield and Halifax Extension) Act, 1883, but the petitioners have no interest in those powers, nor will they be in any way affected by the proposed transfer ; (2) the petitioners are not affected by or entitled to be heard against the granting of the running powers and powers for entering into working agreements proposed to be conferred by the bill ; (3) the status of the petitioners is not in any way altered by the bill, nor can theif rights or interests be affected by reason of the exercise of the powers contained therein ; (4) the bill does not contain any pro- vision affecting the petitioners or their propert y or rights ; (5) the petition does not allege or show that the petitioners have, nor have they in fact, any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard against it. Saunders, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The petition is signed by holders of £95,000 of iirst mortgage debentures. The bill (clause 26) proposes to transfer to the company incorporated by it certain railways authorised to be constructed by the Hull and Barnsley junction railway and docks company in 1882 on the terms and conditions mentioned in clause 27 ; clause 28 proposes that the powers of the Barnsley company should be exercised by this company ; and clause* 29 provides that the Acts of the Barnsley company should apply to the railways proposed to be transferred ; clause 48 empowers the company to run over the railways in that clause mentioned, and particularly the railways of the Barnsley company ; and clauses 51 and 52 of the bill empower the company, and the other companies therein named, to enter into working- agreements. We allege that this transfer of powers to a new company, together with the proposed running and working agree- ment powers, will alter the undertaking of the Barnsley company, and will create an interest in that company adverse to the interest of the petitioners. The petitioners' debentures are secured upon the whole undertaking of the * For the substance of clauses 26, 28 and 29 in extenso, see the arguments of Bidder, Q.C, in support of' the petition of the Midland rail- way company, siipra. 64 COUET GF REFEEEES. [Vol. I. irnaley company, and such an alteration in e nndertaking of the company as is proposed ' the hill must be injnrioua to the interest of e petitioners. The bill is proposed in order to liere the Barnsley company from financial fficnlties without regard to the rights and terests of the petitioners. The mortgage leds are in the usual form, and are dated the ith April, 1882, running for 5 years, from t April, 1882, and declare that they are ortgages on " the undertaking of the said impany," the principal being repayable on the t April, 1887, but the interest is in arrear. Mr. Shiress Will : Your petitioners' money as not lent upon the Act of 1882 ? Saunders : No ; but all portions of the under- king of the company, whatever they may be at ly time enure as security for the original mort- iigees ; therefore if au attempt is made as is •oposed by this bill to diminish the security of le company the mortgagees have a right to see lat they are not injured in that respect. Mr. Shikess Will : In this particular case le railways are not made, and you have not )t any charge upon anything at present ; it is mply a power. Saunders : That is a question of merits. How ,r the railways authorised in 1882 have been )gun is immaterial for the purposes of locus andi against the hill which transfers a future laet enuring to oar benefit. I believe also that le deposit made for the bill of 1882 is by this 11 going to be transferred to somebody else, hat deposit at present is a security to us for le construction of the railways authorised to i constructed by the Barnsley company in 1882. The Chairman : Do you hold that yourdeben- ires are secured upon the powers of the Act ■ 1882 as well as the Act of 1880 ? Saunders : Yes ; they are secured upon the hole undertaking of the Barnsley company as may be from time to time extended. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : In 1880 the line was motioned to Barnsley with a capital of 3,000,000; then in 1882, if I remember ghtly, a further capital of £2,000,000 was iked for, but it was brought forward as part ' the same scheme. Sawnders : Yes ; instead of the scheme of i82 being created as a separate undertaking, ! is not uncommonly done, it was made part id parcel of the nndertaking of the company, id therefore the mortgagees get the beneiit of . I regard the Act nf 1882 as in the nature ' a concession, which is part of the propeity hioh forms our security. I also regard the aposit made for the purposes of that Act as of ilue to the mortgagees. Again, I submit that tie powers contained in clauses 51 and 52 of the bill for this company, to whom the railways authorised to be constructed by the Barnsley company in 1882 are transferred, to enter into agreements with the London and North-Western company as to construction and working, may have the effect of transferring those railways to the London and North-Western company with interests adverse to those of the mortgagees. I claim a locus standi also on behalf of the mortgagees in respect of those proposals. Pember (for promoters) : With regard to the claim of the petitioners to be heard against the grant of running and other powers by the rail- way company over whose undertaking they hold their security, it is contrary to all practice and principle that a creditor should be allowed to interfere in any degree with the management of the company whose security he holds (Judgment of Lord Cairns in Gardner x\ London Chatham and Dover Railway Company, L.R. 2, Ch. 201). The power for the promoters to enter into working agreements and give running powers to other companies is no affair of these creditors, who have never had any other security than the undertaking of the Barnsley company as it stood at the date of their mort- gages in 1 882, and that is unaffected by this bill (Cheshire Lines Committee Bill, 1875, 1 Clifford & Rickards, 150). The mortgages were never meant to include anything except the undertaking of the company at the time they were made. Neither the Act of 1882, nor the money deposited in connection with it, is part of that undertaking. There is in the Act of 1882 a provision which is contained in all rail- way Acts, that for the purposes of rates, tolls, charges, and all other purposes whatsoever, i.e., purposes connected with the working and use of the railway, the railways by that Act authorised shall be deemed to be part of the railway undertaking of the company, and so they would be, but they do not and never have existed. The meaning of that provision is that the rail- ways authorised, by the Act of 1882 when they are completed, not the Act of Parliament which authorised them, are to become part of the undertaking of the company. An Act of Parliament is not a concession, and does not involve a concession, as it might in foreign countries, but is a mere permission to make a railway. The undertaking of a rail- way company means the railway and works as authorised to be constructed, but does not include the special act which authorises them. (Railways Clauses Act 1845, 8 Vic, cap. 20, sec. 3, definition of the railway.) The under- taking of the Barnsley company has not been filtered since these mortgages were granted in 1882, and will not be altered by the Part III.J HULL, BARNSLEY, ETC., DOCK BILL. 166 )ill. Again as to the deposit of 1882, it is not jart of the general assets of the company, but s made by private individuals. Mr. Chandos-Lbigh : The deposit is not ieemed part of the capital of the company. Pember : As a matter of fact the moment ihose Hues were constructed the deposit would be released and be repaid to the depositors. [n this case there is no transfer of the deposit, which will be left with the Court of Chancery. The petitioners would have no right to be heard if this were an abandonment bill promoted by the Barnsley company, because the railways authorised in 1882 have never become part of their security and they have no lien upon the deposit. A fortiori they have no right to be heard against this bill. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Simpson, Wakeford and Co. Agents for Bill, Bees 8/' Freere. HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL. Petition of Midland Railway Company. 12th March, 1887 .—(Before Mr. Pabker, M.P., Chwirman ; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Cakter.) Transfer and Partial Aicmdonment of Authorised Bail way — Running Powers of Petitioners under Agreement with Promoters, Interference with— Competition by means of Working Agreements with other Com/panies — Injurious Affecting — Qeneral Locus. Practice — Same Objects effected by two Bills — Bight of Petitioners to be Heard against both Bills. The bill authorised the promoters, the Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding junction rail- way and dock company (subsequently referred to as " the Barnsley company "), (1) to make agreements with certain companies (among whom were the London and North-Westem company and the Hull and North-Western railway com- pany, the promoters of the previous bill, q.v. supra, as to facts in connection with this case) for the transfer of cer- tain powers relative to the construction of railways authorised to be made by the promoters themselves in 1882, under the Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock (Huddersfield and Halifax Extension) Act, 1882; (2) to abandon certain portions of those railways west- ward of Kirkburton, i.e., between Kirk- burton and Huddersfield. The petitioners, the Midland railway company, had in 1882 entered into an agreement (subse- quently scheduled to and confirmed by the Midland Railway [Additional Powers] Act, 1883) with the Barnsley com- pany, for running powers over the whole of the railways authorised to be constructed by the Barnsley com- pany under their Act of 1882 ; and they claimed to be heard against the pre- sent bill because it gave the promoters power to agree for the transfer to other companies, including the Hull and North- Western Junction railway company incor- porated by the previous bill, of the power to construct part of the railways referred to in their agreement, but did not preserve the running powers of the Midland com- pany over those railways ; and also because it empowered the promoters to abandon the remaining portion of those railways, by means of which the petitioners would have been enabled to carry traffic to Hud- dersfield. The promoters, in view of the decision of the Committee on the Hull and North-Western Bailway Bill, conceded the right of the petitioners to be heard as to the transfer of powers relating to portions of the railways authorised in 1882, but not as to the abandonment of the remainder, as to which they contended that the abandonment of a railway, over which when constructed the petitioners would have been entitled to running powers, con- ferred no Locus standi upon such petitioners according to practice : Held, however, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard generally, the abandonment and the transfer by the promoters of portions of the railways, as to the whole of which the.petitioners had running powers, 166 COUET OP EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. beiDg, under the oircumstances, inseparably connected with one another. The locus standi of the petitioners was ob- jected to on the following grounds: (1) the petition does not allege or show, nor is it the fact that the bill contains provisions for taking or using any part of the lands, railway stations, or accommodation of the petitioners, or for running engines or carriages upon or across the same, or for granting other facilities affecting the petitioners ; (2) the petition does not allege or show that any competition between the petitioners and the promoters or any other company or companies would be caused by or result from the bill if passed, or by or from the works to be thereby authorised ; (3) the agree- ment between the petitioners and the promoters referred to in the 4th paragraph of the petition (and to which the promoters crave leave to refer) affords no ground for the petitioners being heard against the present bill ; (4) the allegations in paragraph 5 of the petition (if trne) have no bearing upon the present bill and cannot entitle the petitioners to be heard against it ; (5) the sug- gestions in paragraphs 6 and '! of the petition are mere matters of surmise, and, even if well- founded, afford no ground for the petitioners being heard against the present bill; (6) the powers proposed to be conferred by clause 25 of the bill are, as regards the petitioners, merely permissive, and do not, according to practice, entitle the petitioners to be heard. As regards the powers to be conferred by the clause on other companies, the petitioners state no ground of specific objection thereto, or in what way they would be unjust or injurious to the peti- tioners ; (7) the petitioners, whilst objecting to the powers to be conferred by clause 26 of the bill upon the Loudon and North-Western railway company, state no ground of objec-' iion thereto, except that they are alleged to be inconsistent with those conferred upon Llie petitioners by the agreement therein referred to. The promoters deny that they ire so inconsistent. The mere fact that the petitioners have running powers over certain railways of the promoters under that agree- ment does not according to practice entitle the jetitioners to be heard against similar powers 3eing granted to other companies ; (8) as regards clause 28 of the bill, the powers thereby jought to be conferred upon the company are aermissive only, and as regards other companies ;he petitioners allege no reason why the powers should not be granted nor do they show what •ight or interest they have in objecting to them ; ^9) the bill does not contain any provision affecting the petitioners ; (10) the petition does not show that the petitioners have, nor have they in fact, any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard against it. Bidder, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The right of the Midland company to be heard against this bill is stronger than it was against the Bull and North-Western Junction Bill, which has been already heard by the Court, because the Barnsley company, who promote this bfll, are the company who gave the petitioners running powers under the agreement of 1882, which was subsequently scheduled to the Midland Railway (Additional Powers) Act, 1883. The Barnsley company now by this bill (clause 25) propose to transfer so much of the undertaking as goes up to and forms a junction with the London and North-Western railway at Kirkburton to one or more of five other companies, including the London and North- Western company and the Hull and North- Western junction railway company in. corporated by the previous bill, and by clause 7 to abandon the portions between Kirkburton and Huddersfield and Halifax, and there is no provision in the bill keeping alive the petitioners' running powers even over the portion trans- ferred. Pember, Q.C. (for promoters) : After the decision of the Court upon the petitioners' case against tlie Hull and North-Wesiera Junc- tion Railway Bill, I concede the petitioners a locus standi against the clauses of the bill transferring to other companies the power to construct the railways authorised to be con- struoted by the Hull, Barnsley, &c.. Act, 1882, but the petitioners have no right to be heard against the abandonment of those railways beyond Kirkburton. Bidder : The transfer from the Hull and Barnsley company nominally to any one of five other companies, but really to the Hull and North- Western company, as is apparent from the bill promoted by that company, of the powers to construct the railways authorised in 1882 and the abandonment of those railways beyond Kirkburton by the Hull and Barnsley company are inseparably connected. This bill is a, proposal by the other party to the agreement of 1882 of the Barnsley company with us, by which we got running powers over those extension railways that they may have power to agree with any of those companies for the transfer of the power for constructing the railway, but there is no pro- vision in the bill giving us running powers over the railways, the power to construct which is transferred. Moreover, this transfer is coupled Part III.] Liverpool water and improvement bill. 167 with the proposal to abandon the portion between Kirkburton and Huddersfield, which was a, part of the same scheme in 1882, and that abandonment will have the efEect of giving the London and North-Westeru company a monopoly of the Hull and Bamsley traffic to Huddersfield to our seclusion. I submit that the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the whole principle of the bill. Pember (in reply) : The agreement made between the Bamsley and the Midland companies in 1882 was that when the railways authorised in 1882 were made and opened, the Midland company should have running powers over them. Those railways have never been made. The Chairman: Those were running powers which at the time the Midland company ex- pected would carry them into Huddersfield and Halifax. Pemler : Granting that that was so, this bUl affects two distinct objects, one of which only affects the petitioners. The first of those objects is to transfer to other companies the power to construct the railways authorised in 1882, as far as Kirkburton, as to which I con- cede the Midland company a, locus standi. The second object of the bill is the abandon- ment of the railways beyond Kirkburton, and against that portion of the bill the petitioners have no right to be heard according to the practice of this Court. The Court has never decided that because an agreement has been come to, that in the event of certain lines being made, a, certain company shall have running powers over them, that that company has got a right to object to the abandonment of those railways. Mr. Shieess Will : You would say that it was necessary for them to show there was a contract to make the line which they could not show ? Pember : Yes ; against the abandonment of a line over which they would have had running powers when made, they have no right to be heard according to numerous previous decisions of this Court. The Chaieman: To me it seems of some importance that the bit to be abandoned, although relatively a very small bit, is exactly the bit the abandonment of which damages the interests of the Midland company. There is so much of it proposed to be made that when that little bit from Kirkburton to Huddersfield is proposed to be abandoned it seems to belong to the same question and ought to be heard by the same Committee. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : It seems like a virtual transfer to a rival company. The Chairman : The Bamsley company are keeping alive for the Hull and North-Westerii junction railway company so much of thoir powers as suits them, and taking away the powers relating to the small portion of railway in which the Midland company are more particularly interested. Pember : Because I give a company running powers over my lines in the event of my lines being made, that does not give that company a locus standi against my proposal to abandon a half or a third of the line. Mr. Shieess Will ■- The Midland company withdrew their opposition to your bill of 1882 upon making a bargain with yon, by which they were to get running powers to Huddersfield. The bill defeats that agreement by omitting a little piece of line that took them into Hudders- field, thereby making that bargain valueless to the Midland company, and you are seeking to transfer the power to make the line up to Kirkburton to another company. Pember : No ; the Bamsley are not seeking to transfer the power to make the line; it is the Hull and North-Western company who are promoting another bill to transfer the line to them. Mr. Shieess Will : We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the two bills carry out parts of the same scheme, and that the purchaser is seeking to buy with the consent of the vendor. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of the Midland Company is AUoioed. Agents for Petitioners, Beale 8f Co. Agents for Bill, Bees 8/" Freere. LIVERPOOL WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL. Petition of (1) Severn Commissionees. „ „ (2) SlArFORDSHIEE AND WOEOESTER. SHIRE Canal Company. „ „ (3) Great Westeen Railway Com. PANY. „ „ (4) Corporation or Cheltenham. ,, i< (S) CORPOEATION op GLOUCESTER. „ „ (6) Corporation op Woeoestee and Beidgnoeth. i! )) (?) Sharpness New Docks and Gloucester and Birmingham Navigation Company. „ „ (8) Conservators op the Severn Fishery District. 26th March, 1887 .—{Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shieess Will, M.P. ; Sir George Russell, M.P. ; Mr. Hbaly, M.P. ; The Hon. B. Chandos-Leigh, Q. C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Oartbr.) COURT OF REFEREES. [VOL. I. ration Sv/pplyinr/ Water — Power Sought hy i to Supply Water to Bodies and Persons hin 20 ikile Radius of Existing Aqueducts Ixiension of Purposes not Limits of Supply — itions ofMunicipal Corporations, Navigation, ', Railway Companies, ^c, Interested in intaining Proper Amount of Water in el's Contributing Supply — Mortgagees of Is — Guarantors of Revenue of Navigation npany —Complaint Against Existing Legis- on— Interpretation of Previous Act^Public dth Act, 1875 (38 ^ 39 Vict., cap. 55), 61 — S. 0. 134a (Local Authorities to have us Standi against Lighting and Water '.s.) sill was promoted ,by the corporation of iiverpool, who already supplied water rithin their own limits nnder their previous Lets. Those limits of supply were not xtended by the bill, but remained the ame as they were defined to be by the irevions Acts, to which reference was lade in the bill. Clause 26 of the bill uthorised the corporation " to supply 'ater by agreement, in bulk or 'other- wise, and for domestic or other purposes, o any local or sanitary authority, com- •any, or person, any part of whose district r premises is situate within 20 miles f the Vyrnwy or Rivington Aqueducts," n terms to be agreed between them, 'he above provision formed the principal :round of objection to the bill on the part f the various petitioners, who all objected the bill as being interested directly or adirectly in the abstraction of water from he river Severn. The promoters were Iready empowered under an Act obtained y them in 1880, viz., the Liverpool Cor- loration Water-n^orks Act, 1880, sec. 86, to Impound, &o., all the waters of the ivers Vyrnwy, Marohnant, and Afou !onwy, subject to the provisions of this Let" (sic), those rivers being tributaries of he Severn, but subject to certain provisions s to compensation water. Such being the losition of the Liverpool corporation under heir previous Acts, the bill, as stated bove, empowered them to extend their lupply in bulk to local authorities, &c., to ,n extent involving a very large are^ and population, subject to the usual proviso that they were not to do so as to interfere with a proper supply within their own district. The petitioners contended that the corporation being empowered by the bill to supply an extended area would, ere necessitate rei, require and draw from the three rivers a larger quantity of water than heretofore, and, therefore, leave less to flow into the Severn, which would affect one and all of them according to their respec- tive interests in that river. Contra, the promoters, while admitting that the bill extended the purposes of their supply, contended that being already empowered to impound all the waters of the three rivers, they could, so far as those rivers are concerned, already do all that the bill authorised them to do, and that the complaint of the petitioners was in effect a complaint against past legis- lation. The petitioning corporation also claimed a locus under S. O. 134o, but the Court does not appear to have decided upon this ground, and the argument mainly turned upon the interpretation of sec. 36 of the Liverpool Corporation Water- works Act, 1880. (Edinburgh and District Water Bill, 1872, 1 Clifford & Rickards, 66, cited ; and as to S. 0. 134a, Birmingham ' Corporation (Consolidation) Bill, 1883, on the petition of the Aston Manor, 8cc., Local Boards, 3 Clifford & Rickards, 259.) The Court, after considerable hesitation, allowed the locus standi of the petitioners against so much of the clauses 5, 6, 24, 25 and 26, and of the preamble, as related to the supply of water by the corporation beyond their own limits. The locus standi of (1) the Severn commis- sioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the promoters do not object to the locus standi of the petitioners in respect of clause 5 of the bill which the promoters intend to with- draw, and they have given notice of such intention to the petitioners ; (2) the only other clauses of the bill to which the petitioners object by their petition are the 24th, by which it is proposed to confirm certain agreements therein referred to, and the 25th, empowering the promoters to enter into farther agreements Part III.] Liverpool water and improvement bill. 16[ for the supply of water aa therein mentioned. The petition also seta oat claaae 26, bat without stating the objection of the petitioners to that olanse, which ia merely a saving olaase, and can- not in any way affect the petitioners ; (3) the petitioners claim to be interested in certain sur- plus water flowing from the promoters' Vyrnwy reservoir in addition to the compensation water provided for by the Act of 1880 referred to in the petition. But the promoters allege that the petitioners have no such interest, iaasmuchas by section 36 of the said Act of 1880 the promoters were authorised to impound, take, and use all the waters of the rivers and their tributaries men- tioned in that Act, and the compensation water thereby provided ia expressly stated to be com- pensation for all the said waters ; (4) the promoters deny that the purposes for which they were authorised to impound, take, and use or abstract the waters of the said rivers, were in any sense limited by the Act of 1880, or that (even were such the case) the powers conferred by the bill would involve the impounding of more water than was contemplated when the amount of compensation water was fixed ; (5) the amount of compensation water provided for by the Act of 1880 was not calculated on any supposition or expectation that surplus water would flow down the river, but even were such the case the promoters allege that the bill does not empower them to take any surplus water which they are not now authorised to take, and that the matter complained of in the petition is a matter of past legislation ; (6) the pro- moters deny that the agreements proposed to be confirmed, or some of them, were entered into without the knowledge of the petitioners, and they submit that a refer- euoe to the proceedings before the Committee in the House of Commons on the bill for the Act of 1880 will show that the matter was fully considered, and that the Committee decided that the principle recognized in the Manchester Corporation Waterworks Act; 1879, should be followed, and required that certain facilities for future wat >■ supply should be afforded by the promoters under agreements ; (7) the promoters deny that the bill will empower them in any way to diminish the compensation water for the river Severn ; (8) the promoters deny that the bill will enable them to extend their limits of supply so as to include an additional area of 4,000 square miles, or to enlarge their gathering ground, or to use or sell more water than they are authorised to take by the Act of 1880 ; (9) except as aforesaid the petition does not allege or ' disclose any such ground of objection as, according to practice, entitles the petitioners to be heard against the Bill. The locus standi of (2) the Staffordshire anc Worcestershire canal company, who were mortgagees of the tolls of the Severn commis. sioners, was objected to (1) and (2) on similai grounds taken in objections (1) and (2) to the locus standi of the Severn oommiasioners {q. V. supra) ; (3) because the petitioners claim to be interested in the compensation water pro- vided by the Act of 1880 referred to in the petition, and they allege that under clauses 24 and 25 of the bill the promoters will be enabled to impound flood waters to which the petitioners aasert that they are entitled in augmentation oi such compensation. Then follows a similai statement by the promoters to that contained in objection (4) to the locus standi of the Severr commissioners (q. v. supra) ; (4) because the promoters contend that they were empowered by the Act of 1880 to impound all the waters ol the rivers and their tributaries which were by that Act authorised to be taken ; (5) because the promoters deny that the bill enables them to extend their limits of supply so as to include an additional area of 4,000 square miles, or to make profits by selling water for trade purposeg within that area ; but, even supposing these statements to be correct, the petitioners are precluded by the legislation of 1880, to which they were parties, from objecting to the present bill on this ground ; (6) becaase the petition discloses no ground for a hearing according to practice. The locus standi of (3) the Groat Western railway company, who were guarantors of the Severn commissioners in respect of loss of income arising from competition with their railway, was objected to (1, 2, and 3) on similar grounds to those taken in objections (1) and (2) to the locus standi of the Severn commissioners (q. V. supra) ; (4) because paragraph 17 of the petition alleges that their railways and works may be interfered with by sc;me of the aque- ducts, conduits, and pipes used by the promoters in distributing water as therein mentioned, but the bill contains no provisions enabling the pro- moters to distribute water or to construct or lay down any aqueducts, conduits, or pipes, as stated in that paragraph ; (5) because the petition discloses no ground for a locus standi according to practice. The locus stand.i of the corporations of (4) Cheltenham, (5) Gloucester, and (6) Worcester and Bridgnorth, all of which places were situated on the banks of the Severn, and whose rights had been expressly protected by sec. 49 of the Liverpool Corporation Waterworks Act, 1880, was objected to (1 — 8) ou similar grounds to those taken in objections (1 — 8) to the locus standi of the Severn commissioners {q. v. supra) ; H L/U COURT OP EEFEREES. [VOL. JL. nd (9) because the petition does not disclose r allege any injury to the district of the ietitioners, or to the inhabitants thereof, within he meaning of S. 0. 134, nor does the bill relate the water supply of the said district so as to ntitle the petitioners to be heard in pursuance of . 0. 134a; (10) because, except as aforesaid, the he petition does not allege or disclose any such round of objection as, according to practice, en. itles the petitioners to be heard against the bill. The locus standi of (7) the Sharpness new ocks and Gloucester and Birmingham naviga- .on company, who owned a canal in connection ith the river Severn, and in fact used the malised part of the Severn at Glouoester as firt of their own canal, was objected to on milar grounds to the objections taken to the cus sta,nSi of the Severn commissioners [. V. supra) ; as was also the locus standi of !) The conservators of the Severn fishery dis- ict (which included the river Vyrnwy), to whose cits standi, however, the following additional )jeotion was taken : (4) the bill contains no •ovision for enabling the promoters to enlarge eir gathering ground, as suggested in para^- ■aph 14 of the petition, and the petition-ers are it entitled to be heard against any possible ture enlargement thereof. Femiroke Stephens, Q.C. (for (1) the Severn mmissiouers, and (2) the Staffordshire and orcestershire canal company) : The main jection of the petitioners to the bill is to luse 25, which is as follows : — " It' shall be fvf ul for the corporation to supply water by reement in bulk, or otherwise, and for mestic or other purposes tp any local or nitary authority, company, or person, any ,rt of whose district or premises is situate thin 20 miles of the Vyrnwy or Kivington neducts on such terms and conditions in all speots and for such periods as the corporation d such local or sanitary authority or person ly from time to time agree." Although the 1 does not seek to extend the limits of supply, 9 above provision involves an enormons tension of the purposes of the supply by the [•poration, which were limited by the Liverpool rporation Waterworks Act, 18S0. That Act ows them to impound certain rivers, but only • the purposes of the Act, viz., the supply of I'erpool and its environs. Sec. 36 of the fc of 1880 is as follows: — "Subject to the )visions of this Act, the corporation may m time to time take, collect, divert, iTnpound, i use all the waters of the river Vyrnwy at i above the point at which the embankment the Vyrnwy reservoir crosses the same, and the rivers Marchnant and Afon Conwy . . . and of all the tributary streams and springs of the said rivers, &c." That license to impound the waters of those rivers is, how- ever, " subject to the provisions " of the Act, and those provisions must be taken to include the purpose for which the power to impound those rivers was given, which purpose is declared in the preamble in the following recital ; " And whereas it is expedient, for the purpose of enabling the corporation more effectually to carry out the objects of the recited Waterworks Acts for the supply of water to the town and the district within tVie limits of supply prescribed by the recited Water- works Act, that they should be empowered to obtain a supply of water from the rivers Vyrnwy, Marchnant, and Afon Conwy, in the county of Montgomery." This bill extends that " purpose " to an incalculable extent by empowering the corporation by clause 25 to supply water to local authorities and others for miles round. Then, in addition to the limit fixed by the purposes of this supply, there was of course a physical limit to the works. Mr, Bonham-Caktek: Suppose the corpora-, tion came for powers to increase the capacity of their reservoirs, do you contend that you would have a locus standi against that ? Stephens : Undoubtedly. In addition to that, sec. 49 of the Act of 1880 is as follows ;— " Except only as is by this Act expressly pro- vided, nothing herein contained shall take away, lessen, prejudice, or alter any of the rights, powers, authorities, or privileges of the Severn commissioners (who are the custodians of the navigation) vested in them by any of the Acts whatsoever . . . . or of the municipal corporation or sanitary authority of any city or place on the banks of the Severn, or of the Board of Conservators of the Severn Fisheries, and except as aforesaid all such powers, rights, &c, may be exercised and enjoyed by the same bodies in as full and ample manner as if this Act had not been passe'd." Then follows a provision for giving compensation water upon the impounding of these rivers. I contend that those sees. 36 and 49 of the Act of 1880, read by the light of the words in the preamble to that Act to which I have referred, distinctly limit the purposes for which the corporation were authorised to impound the waters of these rivers. If any doubt exists as to the interpreta- tion of the Act of 1880, the petitioners are entitled to go before the Committee to have that doubt explained by the provisions of this bill. [Edinburgh and District Water Bill, 1874, on the petition of the Caledonian Railway Com- pany, 1 Oliftord & Riokards, 66.) With regard to the petition of the Stafford and Worcestershire canal company, they are mort- Part III.] Liverpool water and improvement bill. 171 gagees of the tolls of the Severn commisaioners, and exchange traffic with the Severn, and are interested in the same question relating to the flow of water in the Severn, and their right to be heard will stand or fall with that of the Severn commissioners. Saunders, Q.C. (for (3) the Great Western railway company) i The Great Western railway company are guarantors of the Severn commis- sioners of any loss of tolls arising from the construction of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton railway up to an amount sufficient to make Up those tolls to the sum of £14,000 per annum. That obligation was created by the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolver- hampton Railway Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict., c. 184), sec. 94; and under that Act estended to both the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolver- hampton and the Great Western companies, but it has since been transferred solely to the Great Western company by the Great Western Rail- way (South Wales Amalgamation) Act, 18B3, 26 & 27 Vict., c. 198, and under it we pay annually to the Severn commissioners about £6,000 a year. Anything that injuriously affects the navigation of the Severn would tend to diminish the tolls of the commissioners, and to make us liable as guarantors to pay them a larger yearly indemnity. On these grounds fre claim to be heard against the bill. [On the question arising whether both the Severn commissioners and the Great Western railway company should be heard, Pember, Q.C, ■on behalf of the promoters, stated that he would not raise any objection to both being beard if the Court were of opinion that either of them were entitled to a locus standi.'] Bidder, Q.C. (for corporations of (4) Chel- tenham, (5) Gloucester, and (6) Worcester and Bridgnorth) : The corporations whom I repre- sent claim to be heard as local and sanitary lauthorities against the extension of the powers ■of the corporation in reference to the purposes of their water supply, and as bodies whose rights were expressly preserved by sec. 49* of the Liverpool Corporation Waterworks Act, l-SSO. The petitioners also respectively claim to be heard against the bill as local authorities under S. 0. 134a (^Bi'fmmgha'm Corporation {Consolidation) Bill, 1883, on petition of the Aston Manor, ^c, Local Board, 3 Clifford & Rickards, 257.) Sutton (for (7) the Sharpness new docks and Gloucester and Birmingham navigation com- pany) : The canal belonging to the petitioners * For words of section, see argument of Pembroke Stephens, Q.C, on behalf of the Severn commissioners, supra. commences at Sharpness and goes by a navigable out to Gloucester, where it joins the Severn The petitioners use the canalised portion of tli€ Severn near Gloucester, and at the terminatior of that portion their canal recommences agair and proceeds to Birmingham, where it is in con. nection with all the canals and waterways o: the Midland system, so that, in fact, the Severr forms u. link between two portions of theii canal, and everything that affects the Severn as a waterway affect us. The corporation, as a local authority, cannot even supply an adjoining local authority with water in accordance with sec. 61 of the Public Health Act, 1875, withoui the consent of the Local Government Board whereas the bill gives them carte blanche tc supply all bodies and persons within 20 miles oi their existing aqueducts. Brown, Parliamentary Agent (for (8) the Board of Conservators of the Severn Fishery District) : By the Severn Fishery Act, 1865, and amending Acts, the control of the fisheries within the Severn fishery dictriot is vested in the petitioners, and they are authorised and required to take all legal proceedings and do all acts necessary for the protection and improve- ment of the Severn fisheries. Part of the Severn fishery district consists of the river Vyrnwy and its tributaries, and the rivers Marchnaut and Afon Conwy. The river Vyrnwy forms one of the chief tributaries of and is the chief source of supply of salmon to the Severn, and the effect of the bill will be to compel the pro- moters to draw upon the Vyrnwy and the Severn to a much larger extent than heretofore. Pember, Q.C (for promoters) : Sec. 36 of the Liverpool Corporation Waterworks Act, 1880, gave the promoters power to take, collect, divert, impound, and use all the waters of the river Vyrnwy, and the rivers Marchnant and Afon Conwy, and it is impossible, therefore, that this bill could extend our powers with reference to those rivers. With regard to the claim of the corporations to be heard under S. 0. 134or, the bill cannot affect those corpora- tions in respect of their water supply, and it is not sufficient to bring them within that S. 0. that the petitioning corporations should make an untrue and absurd allegation of injurious affecting in their petitions. If the promoters were going to deal with the watershed for the first time, or to an extent that they are not entitled to deal with it now, then if the corporation could allege that their watershed was affected, S. 0. 134o would admit them to discuss the question, whether it was proposed to supply them with water or not ; but a mere groundless allegation in a petition of a local authority that their water pnpply is affected by H 2 72 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. 1. e bill is not BufBoient to bring them within at S. 0. The Chairman ; If the corporations could show at the construction of the sections of the evious Acts relating to water supply is ubtful, and that the bill may alter their status, ,ve they not a, prinid facie case to be heard ider S. 0. 134a ? Peniber : The construction of those sections nnot be regarded as doubtful, and the allega- )ns in the petitions are entirely without undation in fact, ond they have no right to I heard in reference to them. The Chairman ; The Court have decided, not ithout hesitation, that the locus standi limited the water clauses of the bill must be granted all the petitioners. Locus Standi of all the Petitioners Disallowed, cept as against clauses 5, 6, 24, 25, and 26, and much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners (1), Martin Sf Leslie. „ „ (2), Baher. „ „ (3), Mains. „ „ (4), Wyatt 8r Co. „ „ (5 & 6), Sharpe, Parker, Priichard ^ Go. (7), Bell. „ „ (8), Brown. Agents for Bill, Rees Sf Freere. LONDON AND NOETH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. tition of (1) The Wandsworth District Board or Works. th March, l»87 -—(Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shikess Wili, M.P. ; Mr. Healy, M.P.; and Mr. Bonham-Cartbr.) nslruction of Bridge across Road within Metropolis — District Board of Worhs as High- way Authority — Road not Paved or Repaired by Inhabitants, how far a Highway within neaning of Metropolis Management Act, 1855 [18 ^ 19 Vict., cap. 120), sec. 9 ti — Highways ict, 1835 (5^6 Will. IV., cap. 50), sec. 23— Iloherts v. Hunt, 15 Q.B. 17, cited— S. 0. 134 Municipal Authorities and Inhabitants of fowns). B promoters took power under the bill to construct a bridge across a road culled Rosendale-road, within the district of the petitioners, who claimed to be heard as the local authority, in whom all highways within their district were vested by sec. 96 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 and 19Yict., cap. 120). They alleged that unless -the bridge were constructed in accordance with their suggestions, it would, being in immediate proximity to two other railway bridges already constructed across the same road, be a serious obstruction to the traffic passing along the Rosendale-road. The road at this part was partially sewered and lighted by the petitioners, but had not been paved, and was not repaired by them ; but they contended that it was a highway, and as such vested in them by sec. 96 of the Metropolitan Management Act, 1855. On this point they relied on the decision in Roberts v. Hunt (15 Q.B. 17) ; and they also stated that the road had been actually used as a public highway for 30 years : Under these circumstances the Court allowed the locus standi of the petitioners. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the 'petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it the fact, that any land or property of theirs will, or can be taken or interfered with under the powers contained in the bill; (2) the peti- tioners do not allege, nor is it the fact, that their district or the inhabitants thereof are pre- judicially affected by the bill within the meaning of S. 0. 134 ; (3) the bill does not contain any provision under which any road or sewer belonging to or under the jurisdiction or control of the petitioners will be interfered with ; (4) Rosendale-road referred. to in the petition is a private road in which the petitioners have no interest, and even if, as alleged in the peiition, the construction of the proposed works would cause injury to private property or private interests (which the promoters deny) the petitioners are not the proper persons to be heard against the bill in defence thereof; (5) if the petitioners have as alleged in the petition been served with notice of the bill (which the promoters do pot admit) such notice was not a landowner's notice, but was served as a matter of precaution only and such service does not entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (G) the petition does not allege or disclose any ground of objection which, according to Part III.] London and north-western railway bill. 173 practice, eutiiles the petitioners to be heard thereon against the bill. W. W. Young (parliamentary agent, for petitioners) : The promoters take power to acqnire certain lands on bpth sides of and adjoining Rosendale-road and near the north end of the Knight's-hill tunnel on the London, Brighton, and South Coast railway with power to construct over Rosendale-road a new bridge on the south-east side of, and close to the existing bridge carrying that railway over Rosendale- road. We are the local authority for the Wandsworth district, constituted under the Metropolis Management Acts, and the pro- perty in, jurisdiction over, and control of the roads and sewers within that district, which includes Rosendale-road, is vested in us by sec. 96 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855. The promoters in their objections deny that this is a public roadj but although it has not been paved by the Wandsworth District Board of Works, it is under their jurisdiction, and has been, used as a public road for the last 30 years. We sewer and light part of it, but it is the practice of our Board never to pave a street until three-fourths of the land adjoining the road has been built on, and the Board think it ought to be paved. Mr. Healt ; Do yon keep the road in repair, and macadamise it ? Young : Not at present ; for the reason that if we did we should be held to have adopted the road, and thereby preclude ourselves in future from charging the cost of paving it on the owners of the property abutting on it. Nevertheless, it is under oar jurisdiction, because it has been dedicated to the public as a highway. The Chairman: It will have to be paved by the owners before you take to it f Young : We shall pave it ourselves, and charge the expenses to the owners. We are repeatedly proceeding against persons for throwing rubbish on it, and we exercise every con- trol over it, except that we have not paved it. The Chairman : Is there any other authority except your board who could appear to protect this road? Young : No. If we went before the Com- mittee, we should ask that proper provisions should be inserted for preventing the dripping of water on to the road, for lighting the road under the bridge, and for deadening sound. Mr. Shikess Will : The question is whether, where the owner dedicates the road to the public, but the inhabitants have not taken to it, and are not liable to repair it, the case comes within sec. 96 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855 ? Young : The case of Roberts v. Hunt,l5 Q.B. 17, decides that where a road has been dedicated to the public, although it has not been repaired by the parish, it is a public highway, and all public highways are by the Metropolis Manage- ment Act, 1855, vested in the district boards of works. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : I leave the case upon the facts in the hands of the Court. The Chairman : The Locus Standi is Allowed. Agent for petitioners, Young. Petition of (2) The Vestry op Saint John's, Hampstead. Aeg,Ufisitlon of Land for Construetion of Railwaif Works — Demolition of Houses — Bepreciatior, in Value of Residential Properiyy adjoininr, Proposed Works — Diminution of Rates — Vestry as Sating Authority — Quantum of Injury— S.O. 134. Clause 17 of the bill authorised the promoters to acquire 16 houses, and land attached t( them, in the pariah of which the petitioners were the rating authority, and to appro priate the site so acquired " to the purpo8< of extending their stations, sidings, ware houses, coal wharves, depSts, and othei accommodation for mineral goods and cattli traffic, and for other purposes oonneotec with their undertaking." The rateabk value of the property to be acquired was £1,116, and the loss, to the local rates (exclusive of poor rate) was £135 pei annum. The total rateable value of pro. perty in the parish was £560,599, anc produced between £80,000 and £90,000 ir rates per- annum .- The Court held upon these figures that the diminution in rates apprehended by the petitioners was too insignificant to entitle them to be heard against the proposed appropriation of property by the promoters, The locus standi of the petitioners was ob- jected to on, the following grounds.:- (1) it is not alleged in the petition, nor is it the fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners do not 174 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. illege in their petition, nor is it the fact that ;liey are the authority having the local manage- nsnt of a district injuriously affected by the Dill within the meaning of S. 0. 134; (3) the Dromotera deny that under the powers of the oill they will acquire such a large quantity of property as alleged in the petition, or that the icquisition thereof will entail the destruction )f houses in either case so as to cause such a lirect loss of rates to the petitioners as to entitle them to be heard on their petition vgainst the bill ; (4) the promoters deny that -he appropriation of the site referred to in jaragraph 4 of the petition for the purposes referred to in paragraph 3 will depreciate the leighbouring property, so as to entitle the jetitioners to be heard against the bill ; (5) the jetitioners do not allege or disclose in their jetition any grounds of objection which, accord, ng to practice, entitles them to be heard against ,he bill. Coates (parliamentary agent, for petitioners) : The petitioners are the governing body and ■ating authority of the parish of St. John, Sampstead. The promoters by the bill seek jower to acquire compulaorily certain lands, ncluding sixteen houses and buildings, in that jarish, representing a rateable value of £1,116, md involving a loss of £165 a year in local ■ates, apart from the poor rate, which would imount to an additional £93. (South-Eastern R,ailway (Various Powers) Bill, 1883, on petition tf Vestry of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, 3 Clifford & iiokards, 220.) Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : The total rateable ralue of St. John's parish is £560,599, producing £80,000 to £90,000 in rates, end my contention s that the anticipated loss of rates under the )ill is too insignificant a matter to entitle the reatry to be heard. Mr. Shiress Will.: The loss of rates must )e substantial, otherwise a local authority would lave a locus standi where only one house was aken. Ooates : We anticipate a consequential depre- iiatiou in value of the property in this case as veil as a direct loss of rates, because the rail, vay company takes power to appropriate this iroperty for the purpose of extending, inter alia, heir coal wharves, dep&ts, and other acoommo. lation for mineral goods and cattle traffic. This rould depreciate the valae of the residential )roperty in the neighbourhood of the proposed rorks. Pope (in reply) : With one exception, all the lases in which the local authority has claimed to )e heard in respect of the demolition of houses lave been oases in which property was taken, n which the local authority was interested. The case of the Metropolitan, ^c. Railway Bill, 1879, on. petition of Committee, Sfc, of Parish of St. Dunstan's (2 Clifford & Eickards, 201) was au exception to this rule, but there it was proposed to take property representing a rateable value of from £12,000 to £15,000 a year. Here the loss of rates is too insigniflcant to entitle the petitioners to be heard ; and, according to the decision on the Cheshire Lines Committee Bill, 1881, on petition of Toxteth Parle Local Board (3 Clifford & Rickards, 29) the vestry are nob entitled to appear in the interests of owners of residential property that might be injured by the user to be made of the works proposed by the bill. The Chairman: The Court are of opinion that there is not a sufficiently substantial inter, ference with the rateable value of the parish to give the vestry of St. John's, Hamps.tead, a loiCUS standi. Locus Standi Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson ^ 00. Petition of (3) The Gbeat Eastern Railway Company. The petitioners claimed a right to be heard against a provision in the bill to stop up a portion of a street leading to the Liverpool. street ter. minus of the promoters, and the arguments turned upon the amount of injury to be bus. tained by the petitioners. The case was of no value as a precedent. Locus Standi Disallowed. Pember, Q.C, appeared for Petitioners Pope, Q.C, for Promoters of the Bil Agent for Petitioners, Fearn. Agents for Bill, Sherwood §r Co. METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. Petition of Thic Commissioners of Sewebb (City of London). 28th February, 1881 .—(Before Mr. Pabkbr, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; Sir George Russell, M.P.; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leiqh, Q.C.) Practice — Objections to Locus Standi Lodged after Time — Affidavit in Excuse — Discretion of Referees— Rule I. Relating to Practice and Procedure of Referees under S. 0. 88 (Pro- ceedings of Referees, §rc.) Part III.] metropolitan district railway bill. 175 Metropolitan Railway Companies — Joint Com- viittee, Amendment of Existing Act Relating to — -Local Authority Claiming to he Heard as Contrihutors to Street Improvement in Con- nection with Construction of Railways, and under S. 0. 134 {Municipal Authorities and Inhaiitants ofToions'). The promoters had failed to give notice of their objections to the locus standi of the peti- tioners within the- eight days prescribed by Rule I. for the Practice and Procedure of the Referees under S. 0. 88, but now pro- duced an affidavit of the clerk to their solicitors, explaining that his indisposition at tlie time prevented his acting according to his instructions for giving the required notice. It did not appear that the peti- tioners were injured by the delay in receiving notice of the grounds of objection to their locus standi, and under these circumstances the Court exercised the discretion given them by the rule, and allowed the case to proceed. By the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railway and Companies Act, 1879, a joint committee of the two companies had been constituted for fixing through rates and other purposes in connection with a through train service over their respective railways, and an arbitrator had been appointed, to vfhom points of difference between the two companies were to be referred Clause 4 of the bill substituted the Rail, way Commissioners for the arbitrator. The petitioners, the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London, under a provision of the Act of 1879 (sec. 91), con- tributed £300,000 towards the formation of a new street, which had been made by the two companies concurrently with the con- struction of the railways authorised by that Act, and they claimed to be heard against the bill on the strength of that contribution, and as the local authority of the City of London under S. 0. 134, in order to enable them to go before the Railway commis- sioners and to protect, if necessary, the interests of the inhabitants and public using the companies' railways through the city. It appeared, however, that theircon- tribution was to the new street only, and not to the railways themselves, aud the Court took the view that the bill was onlj one for legalising a domestic arrangemen( between the companies, and did not affeci the petitioners either as contributors undei the Act of 1874 or as the local authority ol the city, and disallowed the locus standi of the petitioners. The locus standi of the petitioners waj objected to on the following grounds : (1) nc right, power, property, or interest of the peti tioners will be taken or interfered with uader th( bill ; (2) no new railways or works are proposec to be authorised by the bill ; (3) the petitioner; are not the owners, lesseers, or occupiers of an} land, house, or property, which can be taken oi affected under the powers of the bill or in con sequence of the execution thereof ; (4) the sun of £300,000, which the petitioners state bi paragraphs 2 and 3 of the petition they hav( contributed towards the construction of th( works authorised by the Metropolitan and Distric Railways (City Lines and Extensions) Ace, 1879 was not contributed towards the oonstruotioi of the inner circle railway, but to the construe tion and maintenance of the new street an( street improvements, and works and convenience! connected therewith, and does not entitle thi petitioners to be heard against the present bill which in no way affects or interferes with suol new street and street improvements ; (5 clause 4 of the bill, by which certain differencei (as to fixing fares and rates, and other matter relating to the working of the railway), betweei the representatives of the promoters and thi Metropolitan railway company on the join Committee, are proposed to be referred to thi Railway Commissioners, instead of as at presen to a standing arbitrator, does not in any waj affect the petitioners, who are not entitled t( be heard before such standing arbitrator, nr; does it affect the street and street improvenic ,, to which they have contributed as aforesaid nor will it in any way encroach upon or interfeii with the streets or rights of the petitioners The powers sought by the said clause relati solely to affairs of the promoters and thi Metropolitan railway company, and in no wa; affect the petitioners j (6) the petitioners an not entitled to be heard with respect to thei being the local authority for the city of London inasmuch as there are no provisions in the bil by which the petitioners or their district will b 76 COUKT OF EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. ijuricusly aHeoted ; (7) the allegations and .atetnents (the accuracy of which the promoters not admit) set forth in the petilioii are not ich as to entitle the petitioners to be heard jainst the bill ; (8) the petitioners have shown grounds, and in fact none exist, entitling lem according to precedent and practice to be sard against the bill. Mr. Leslie (parliamentary agent, for pro- loters), made an application ander the first of )e Hales governing the practice and procedure : the Referees (S. 0. 88). Ue stated that 1 the 10th February a petition was deposited gainst the bill by the Commissioners of Sewers irthe City of London, and the 18th of February as, therefore, the last day on which objections I the locus standi of the Commissioners of Bwers could be lodged. They were not, in ict, lodged till the 22nd of February, three ays after the time limited by the rule ; and he lad the following affidavit to show the circum- ances under which the notices of objection ere lodged after the proper time : — " I, Andrew Maitland Watson, make oath and .y as follows : — 1. I have been for 35 years erk and shorthand writer in the employment ' Messrs. Baxter & Co., Nos. 5 and 6, Tictoria- reet, Westminster, Solicitors to the Metro- :)litau District railway company. " 2. On the morning of Thursday, 17th ebruary, Mr. Robert Dudley -Baxter, who had 1 the previous evening received instructions om the company, dictated to me a letter to be Idressed to Messrs. Martin & Leslie, the irliamentary agents for the Metropolitan istrict Railway Bill, which letter I took down . shorthand in my note-book (which I can roduce if necessary) and of which the following a transcript : — " I7th February, 1887. "Dear Sirs, " District Railway Bill. "Referring to the petition of the Oommis- oners of Sewers presented against this bill e shall be glad if you will, at the proper time, ike the necessary steps to dispute the locus audi of the petitioners. Perhaps, therefore, ou will kindly take an opportunity of con- jrring with us on the matter. — Tours, &o.," "3. Shortly afterwards Mr. Baxter left the lice to attend the half-yearly general meeting ' the District railway company, which was eld at the Cannon-street hotel, where he was igaged the greater part of the day. " 4. I had that morning been suffering from chill and headache which gradually became orse and I felt too unwell to continue my work, and did not remember that I had not transcribed and despatched the above-mentioned letter to Messrs. Martin & Leslie as in the ordinary course I should have done had I not been unwell. " 5. The matter accordingly escaped my attention and it was not until the evening of Monday, 21st February, that it was discovered that the notice of objection had not been drawn and lodged. " 6. On the afternoon of that day Messrs. Martin & Leslie were seen and steps were at once taken to rectify the omission^ and the notice was drawn and served on the agents for the petitioners in the course of Tuesday, 22nd February, and was also lodged with the Clerk to the Referees. " Sworn at No. 6, Vic-, toria-street, in the City of Westminster, this L^bkewm" Watson. 23rd day of February, 1887, ' " Before me, " A. T. Tkeheaene, " A Commissioner to Administer Oaths in the Supreme Court of Judicature." Mr. Leslie submitted that no one had been prejudiced by the notice of objections having been lodged three days too late. Mr. OoldneTi (city remembrancer) objected to the rule being relaxed in favour of the Metropolitan District company, the facts dis- closed in the aiEdavit not being, as he submitted, sufBcient to constitute special circumstances under which the Referees would relax the rule. He pointed out that though Mr. Watson, the shorthand clerk, was unwell on Thursday, 17th February, it appeared that it was not till the 22nd February that the objections were lodged. Mr. Chandos-Leigh asked Mr. Goldney whether, if the Court relaxed the rule, the Commissioners of Sewers would be prejudiced in any way except having to come to the Court and discuss their locus standi. Mr. Ooldney stated that he could not say that they would, buthe submitted that these technical rules should be adhered to. The Chairman stated that the Court were agreed that the application should be allowed. Mr. Ohandos-Leigh desired to say that if this had been a case at Common Law there could be no question that Mr. Leslie would have had to bear the costs of the day, but unfortu. nately, the Court had no power to order him to pay them. The Court then proceeded to hear the argument in support of the locus standi of the petitioners. Part III."] midland great western of Ireland railway bill. 177 Russell Griffiths (tor petitioners) : The peti- tiouera claim a locus standi, (1) as contributors of £300,000 towards the street improvements made in connection with the railways authorised by the Metropolitan and District Railways (City Lines Extension) Act, 1879 j (2) as the local aathority of the City of London under S. 0. 134. Sec. 91 of the Act of 1879 provided that " the two companies on the one hand, and the corporation, the commissioners, and the Metropolitan Board respectively, or any of them, on the other hand, may from time to time enter into and carry into eSect oon- tiaots, agreements, and arrangements for or with respect to the constrnction and maintenance of the new street and works or any of them." Under the Act of 1879 a joint com- mittee of the two companies was constituted for carrying into effect that Act, and in case of the failure of the two companies to agree with respect to such matters as the interchange of traifio, times of trains, rates and through booking, an arbitrator was appointed for the decision of the matters in dispute. Clause 4 of the bill substitutes the Railway Commissioners for this arbitrator, and the Railway Commis- sioners are given jurisdiction over all matters in dispute between the two companies in relation to matters formerly decided by the arbitrator. The petitioners submit that as the local authority for the City of London, and as contributors to the works authorised by the Act of 1879, clauses should be inserted in the bill for their protection, and for enabling them in the event of the joint lines committee, which is reconstituted under that name by the bill, or the two companies, or either of them, failing to work their railways in a manner adequate to the requirements of the city traflSo, or failing to affurd sufficient accommodation to passengers arriving at or leaving the City, to make an application to the Railway Commissioners with reference thereto, and also that in the event of either of the two companies making an appli- cation to the Railway Commissioners, the peti- tioners should also have the right to be heard before the Commissioners, if they think it necessary to do so in the interests of the citizens and ratepayers of the City. With regard to our claim to be heard under S. 0. 134, I refer the Court to the cases of the Birmingham Proof House (No. 1) Bill, 1868, on petition of Corpora- tion of Birmingham (1 Clifford & Stephens, 125) ; South-Eastern and London and Brighton and South-Coast Railway Companies Bill, 1868, on petition of Corporation of Hastings, ib. 149. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : The contribution of £300,000 made by the petitioners under the Act of 1879, was in no sense a contribution to the railways authorised by that Act, with which they have nothing to do; but was merely ii contribution to a street improvement, to which the Metropolitan Board of Works also contributed, and which was made at the time the railways authorised by the Act were con. structed. The petitioners have no right to have any voice in the management or working of the railways. As regards the bill itself, it in no way alters their statiis, and merely carries out a domestic arrangement between the two companies. The Chaikman (to Mr. Pope) : We need not trouble you further; the Locus Staendi of the Petitioners is Disallowed. Agent for Petitioners, Goldney. Agents for Bill, Martin Sf Leslie. MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN OF IRELAND RAILWAY BILL. Petition of Great Westdkn Railway Company. 25th April, 1887.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P-, Chairman ; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.G.; and Mr. Bonham-Caeter.) Amalgamation of Irish Railvmys — fetifion of English Railway Company being Owners of Steamboats between England and Ireland — Agreements between Petitioners and Company WorMng BaihvoA/s Proposed to be Amalgamated — Through Booking — Cross Channel Traffic — Petitioners as Guarantors of Dividend to Com- pany working Railway proposed to be Amalga- mated — Working Agreement between other Companies as affecting Petitioners, The bill authorised the amalgamation of the Midland Great Western of Ireland railway company and the Athenry and Ennis. rail- way company. The latter company was at the present time worked under agreement by the Waterford and Limerick company, who also worked a railway called the Athenry and Toam railway, a continuation northwards of the Athenry and Ennis rail- way, and it was in contemplation that they should in addition to, and in connection with those lines, work a railway which had heeu promoted further northwards from Tuam to Claremorris, so that the Waterford company ./! COURT OF^EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. wei'e workiiifr, or would shortly work, a system of railways extending from the port of Waterford in the south of Ireland to the north-west of Ireland. (The bill did not affect the unexpired term of the work- Ui'j; agreetnent between the Waterford company and the Athenry and Ennis com- pany.) The Great Western railway company of England owned, and ran steamboats between Milford and Waterford, and had made agreements, which were still in force, with the Waterford company, by which the latter came under obligations to run a train service over their own railway and the railways they worked in oonneotion with it, to the satisfaction of the Great Western compjiny, in connection with the steamboat service of the latter. The Great Western company objected to the amalgamation proposed by the bill as calculated to divert traffic, which was at present sent south to Waterford (where it was received on board their steamboats), on to the Midland company's system, and so on, to Dublin. As a consequence of this diversion, they further urged, as a ground of locus standi, that if the result of the bill was, as they anticipated, to divert traffic from the Waterford company's system, they would be obliged to make a larger contribution to the revenue of the Waterford company, being guarantors to that company in aid of dividend to the amount of £12,000 annually. The promoters, contra, con- tended that the Great Western company had no agreement, and no concern or privity with the Athenry and Ennis company, but only with the Waterford company, who petitioned, and whose locus was conceded, as was also that of the Athenry and Tuam company ; that the bill did not alter or interfere with the agreements between the Great Western and the Waterford Qompanies, and that the guarantee by the former to the latter was nntonched by the bill; bat, even if affected by it, that was too remote a ground to entitle the petitioners to be heard : Held, that the interests of the petitioners were affected by the proposed amalgamation in such a manner as to entitle them to a general locus standi against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on ihe following grounds : (1) the rights, property, and interests of the petitioners and the interests of the districts accommodated by their railway are not proposed to be, and, indeed, cannot be interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the allegation in the petition with respect to the diversion by the Midland Great Western of Ireland company of traffic, which the petition alleges ought to pass over the Waterford and Limerick railway, do not entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill; (3) the bill, if passed, will not debar the consignors of traffic from using whatever route convenience may dictate ; (4) even assuming the allegations of the petition as to the relations between the petitioners and the Waterford and Limerick railway company to be correct (which, however, the promoters do not admit), they are not such as to entitle the peti- tioners to be heard against the bill ; ( 5) the allegations in the petition in relation to the agreements between the Waterford and Limerick railway company and the Athreny and Bnnia junction railway company, the accuracy of which the promoters do not admit, are not snoh as to entitle the petitioners to be heard before the Committee to whom the bill may be referred, but the Waterford and Limerick railway company, who are also peti- tioners against the bill, and whose locus standi has not been objected to, are the proper parties (if any) to be heard against the bill ; (6) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard against the bill so far as the allegations in the petition relate to the Athetiry and Tuam rail- way company and their undertaking. More- over, the Athenry and Tnam railway company are petitioners against the bill, and their loct^s standi has not been objected to ; (7) the peti- tioners do not allege in their petition that they have any interest to be affected by the bill, which entitles them according to practice to be heard against it. [Jfote. — Much of the argument consisted in references to agreements of a special character, but the case was of interest as one in which, following previous cases, a locus standi was allowed to an English railway company interested in cross.ohannel traffic against a bill for the amalgamation of Irish railway companies. — Ed.] Saunders, Q.O. (for petitionerb) : The Great Western railway company of England own steamers for passengers and goods plying Part III.] midland great western op Ireland railway bill. 179 between Waterford and Milford, in oonoectiou with a serf ioe o£ trains on the Waterford and Limerick railway, with whom they have made agreements, and they claim to be heard on account of the diversion of traffic from their steamships which they allege the bill will cause. They are also guarantors, under an agreement, dated 18th April, 1872, with the Waterford company of a 3 per cent, dividend on that oompmy's ordinary share oipital (up to the sura of £12,000 per annum), and are therefore interested in the amount of traffic passing on to the Waterford railway ; and the Great Western company have a through- booking; system with the Waterford company for all cross-channel traffic. The Waterford company work the Athenry and Ennis rail- way and the Athenry and Tuam railway under an agreement made in 1863, and renewed in 1872. The Waterford company's working agree- ment with the Athenry and Ennis, in so far as the term for working is unexpired, is to be preserved by the bill, but, under the original agreement, such working agreement was to be renewable at the end of the term therein speci- fied for ten years longer, and so on at future periods, if either party desired it, so that, gjud Waterford company, it was a working agreement in perpetuity. That option of renewal will be tnken away by the bill. Then, under the agree- ment of the 18th April, 1872, the Waterford company are to provide an efficient service of trains over their own line and any other rail- ways or branches, leased or worked by them in connection with their own railway, with a view to forwarding traffic to the steamers worked by the Great Western company between Waterford and Milford to the reasonable satisfaction of the Great Western company ; and they are not to carry goods traffic on those trains without the leave of the Great Western company, who, on their part, are to provide a, suitable steamboat service during six days in the week. A railway is now being promoted from Tuam to Clare- morris, with reference to which the grand juries of the counties of Galway and Mayo have passed presentments guaranteeing the dividends on the capital required for its construction on condition that it should he worked by the Waterford company. That condition will, of course, be complied with, and the Waterford company will work it in connection with the Athenry and Ennis, and Athenry and Tuam rail- ways, and the railway when constructed would have contributed additional traffic taour steamers at Waterford. The amalgamation proposed by the bill will break through this continuity of working by the Waterford company, and enable the Midland and Great Western company, instead of allowing the west of Irdland traffic to have the choice of routes now open to it, to divert traffic, which at the present time finds its way over the Waterford company's system to our line of steamers, on to their own railway to Dublin; in fact, the amalgamation proposed by the bill will enable the promoters to obtain for themselves a monopoly of traffic in the west of Ireland. {Qreat Northern Railway [Ireland) Bill, 18i9, on petition of Belfast Centrul, ^c, Railway Companies, 2 Clifford & Eiokards, 172 ; Qreat Western and Monmouthshire, ^c, Canal Com- panies Bill, 1880, on petition of Midland Railway Company, ib., 243 ; Easterri and Midlands Rail- way Amalgamation Bill, 1882, on petition of Midland and Great Northern Railway Companies, 3 Clifford & Rickards, 145; Preshwater, Yar- mouth, and Newport Railway Bill, 1883, ih., 278 ; and as to guarantee of dividend Liverpoil Water Bill, 1887, on petition of Great Western Railway Company, supra, p. 167.) Pemher, Q.C. (for promoters) : The agree- ments between the Waterford company and the Great Western company are not interfered with by the bill, and with the working agree- ments between the Waterford company and the Athenry and Ennis and the Athenry and Tuam companies the Great Western have nothing to do, and are in no way privy to them ;. moreover, the locus standi of all those three companies against the bill is conceded. Mr. Ohandos-Leioh: I am somewhat im- pressed by the paragraph in the petition relat- ing to the guarantee by the' Great Western company of the dividend given by the Great Western company to the Waterford , company with regard to 'the dividend on the latter com- pany's capital. Pemher .- The arrangement proposed by the bill is a contingency which the Great Western company should have considered when they gave that guarantee. At any rate, that guarantee gives the Great Western company too remote an interest to be heard against this bill. (North-Eastern Railway Bill, 1887, on petition of Gorporation of Hull, infra, p. 181.) The Chairman: The Petitioners are Allowed. a general Locus Standi. Agent for Petitioners, Mains. Agents for Bill, Martin Sc Leslie. 180 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) Liversidge and Sons ; (2) Thomas Motley Wkddall; and (3) Moses LOMAS. 17th March, 1887.— (Be/ore Mr. Pabker, H/.P., Chninnan;. Mr. SiiiRESs Will, M.P. ; Sir Gi^oiiUE ttusSELL, M.P. ; The Hon. B. Chandos. Leigh, Q.C; and Mr. Bonham-Caeteb.) Raihuay Bridge, Substitution of New, fur Existing — Wharfingers —Right of Way —Tramway along Private Road — Petitioners as Lessees — Agree- ment between Lessors and Promoters for Presercing Right of Way — Covenants in Leases. The bill, by sub-seo. 4 of clause 4, authorised the construction of railway No. 4, and incidentally thereto the removal of an existing bridge over the river Ouse, and the construction of a new bridge close to and in substitution for the existing bridge. The petitioners were wharfingers in occu- pation of wharves on the river Ouse close to the existing bridge, and a tramway had been constructed along a private road passing through their premises, and leading to the goods station and wharves of the North-Eastern railway company. The tramway passed under the shore end of the existing railway bridge, and there was a lift in the bridge to enable a tramcar to cross under the line. The plans for the proposed new bridge showed -that it crossed the petitioners' tramway at a level which would prevent the passage of a oar along the tramway, and it was not proposed to provide a lift in the new bridge so as to preserve the petitioners' communication with the goods station of the promoters by means of the tramway, as in the case of the old bridge. The petitioners were tenants of the Hon. Edward Petre, who had in 1836 withdrawn his opposition to the company's bill for the ooustruotion of the existing bridge, on coming to an agreement with the company, one condition of which was that the communication between his wharves and the goods station of the company should be maintained " in the manner most convenient to both parties." The existing tramway was accordingly constructed, and the petitioners had used it ever since becoming Mr. Petre's tenants in 1810, and their leases expressly conferred upon them the right of using the tramway. They claimed to be heard to protect their existing means of com- munication with the goods station of the promoters by the use of the tramway, and incidentally they asked to be heard against clause 13 of the bill, which extinguished " all rights of way over or along the several roads, footpaths, or other highways, which shall under the provisions of this Act be stopped up," &o. It was objected by the promoters that the bill did not affect the agreement between the company and Mr. Petre, and that as to clause 15^ that only related to public rights of way : Held, however, that the parties were entitled to be heard against sub-sec. 4 of clause 4, and clause 15, so far as it related to the- right of way affected by railway No. 4, and so much of the preamble as related thereto. The loms standi of the petitioners (1, 2, and 3} was objected to on the following grounds i (1) the only property liable to be taken under the powers of the bill in which the petitioners have or in their petition allege that they have, any estate, right, or interest is the road and tramway referred to in paragraph 4 of their respective petitions and therein alleged to belong to them with others ; (2) if the road referred to is that numbered 6 on the deposited plans in the parish of Selby the promoters deny that any part of the said road belongs to the petitioners, or that they have any such estate, right, or interest therein as to entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (3) even if the petitioners have, as alleged in their petition, any right or interest in the said road or tram- way the promoters deny that they wilHn anyway affect or interfere with any such right or interest under the powers of the bill ; (4) if the road referred to is that numbered 2 in the deposited plans in the parish of Selby the promoters allege that the petitioners have no interest > therein in any way differing from that of the other ratepayers and inhabitants of the district, who are represented by the local board of Selby. The local board have petitioned against the bill and their locus standi is not objected to ; (5) the promoters deny that the petitioners Part III.] NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. 181 are entitled to any right of user of the tram- way referred to in paragraph 4 of tlieir petitions, or of the roadway numbered 2 in the deposited plana in the parish of Selby, or that they have any suoh estate, right, or interest in such road- way or tramway as to entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (6) the petition does not contain any allegation upon which, according to practice, the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill. Fitagerald (for petitioners) : The petitioners severally object to the bill on the same grounds and to the same portion of the bill, viz., sub-section 4 of clause 4, which authorises railway No. 4. The company propose to divert the railway where it crosses the Ouse at Selby, and make a new bridge across the Ouse in place of the existing bridge. The petitioners are wharfingers on the Ouse at this point, and they have a tramway which runs from their yards under the existing line into the goods station of the North-Bastern company on the other side of the existing bridge. That bridge has a lift which, when opened, enables a loaded truck to pass along the tramway under the railway. The deposited plans show that the new bridge will not have any each lift, and will cross the tramway at such a low level as to prevent its being worked. The efiect of the bill, therefore, will be to deprive the petitioners of their existing tramway communication with the goods station belonging to the promoters. Their existing tramway communication they owe to the fact, that when this railway was proposed to be made, the Hon. Edward Petre was the owner of all these wharves, and an arrangement was come to between him and the railway company by which he withdrew his opposition to the bill, under which the existing bridge was made, on condition that he should be given a com. munication between these wharves and the goods station, which was to be made and main- tained by the railway company. The petitioners all derive their title through Mr. Petre, and their conveyances expressly reserve to them the right to use this tramway. The agreement between the railway company and Mr. Petre contains the following words; "It is further agreed that a communication should be made and maintained by the railway company between the wharves and across the said intended rail- way to the staiths or jettye of the Leeds and Selby railway in such manner as may be found most convenient for both parties." In pur- suance of that agreement the tramway wad made, and since its construction the owners and oooupiers of these wharves have exercised an uninterrupted user of the tramway. Bidder, Q.O. (for prompters) : I admit that the conveyances give to the petitioners what- ever rights Mr. Petre had under his agreement with the company, but that agreement says nothing about working a tramway along the communication between these wharves and the goods station, and the bill gives the promoters no power to stop up that communication. Fitagerald ; It will have the effect of pre- venting our working the tramway, which we have done for the last 40 years. The Chaibman : Clause 15 of the bill gives the promoters power to stop up " all rights of way over or along any of the roads, footpaths, or other highways . . . which shall under the provisions of this Act be stopped up." Would not that include private rights of way ? Bidder : Even if it did, the bill does not relieve the company from the covenants con- tained in their agreement with Mr. Petre, or interfere with the conditions contained in his leases to his tenants. Mr. Shikess Will : The petitioners contend that the effect of the works authorised by the bill will be inconsistent with those covenants, and they appear to have no right to demand accommodation works because they are not owners. Bidder ■ I concede the petitioners a right to be heard to preserve the agreement. Fitzgerald : The petitioners ought not to be limited to saving the agreement. They have acquired rights by a user of 40 years. (The parties subsequently agreed that the order of the Court-should be as follows : " Locus standi of "W. Liversidge & Sons, Thomas M, Weddall, and Moses Lomas disallowed, except as regards sub-section 4 of clause 4 and clause 1 5 so far as it relates to right of way affected by railway No. 4, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto.") Locus Standi Allowed accordingly. Agents for Petitioners, Baxter Sf Go. Petition of (4) Cokporation of Hull. Railway Convpamj A seelcing Powers of Compul- sory Purchase over Railway of Covipany B — Agreement between Municipal Corporation and Company B against Transfer of Undertalcing , in order to preserve Competition hetioeen Com- panies A and B — Alleged virtual Breach of Agreement by Bill — Opposition of Company B to Bill — Corporation as Shareholders — Repre- sentation. The facts of this case, so far as they related to the petition against the bill by the cor- 182 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. poration of Hull, were peculiar. The promoters, the North-Eastern railway com- pany, took power by the bill, to couBtrnot a railway (No. 5 on the depi'sited plans), which was identical with a railway. No. 5 C, authorised by the Hull, Barnelej, and West Riding Junction Railway and Docks Act, 1880, and also took oompnlsory powers of purchase over the lands upon which that railway, No. 5 C, had been already con- structed by the Hull company, involving compulsory powers over the railway itself. That railway (No. 5 C) was a continuation of the Hull company's railway down to the Alexandra docks, and, as originally designed and authorised by Parliament under the Act of 1880, it formed a junction with the North-Eastern company's railway. The Hull company, however, although they had constructed Railway No. 5 C, had not put iu the junctions with the North-Eastern company's railway, in order to avoid com» petition by the North-Eastern company for traffic from the docks, and the object of the present bill was to empower the pro- moters, the North-Eastern railway com- pany, to acquire the existing railway. No. 5, constructed by the Hull company and then to put in the junctions with their own line. The North-Eastern company also took running powers by the bill over the Hull company's railway between Hull and the docks. The corporation of Hull had in 1880, prior to the Hull company obtaining their bill, made an agreement with the Hull ■company by which they undertook to take £100,000 in shares of the company, and to give them every facility for constructing their railway, on conditisn that the com- pany should retain in their own hands the absolute control of the railway, and should not at any time " sell, lease, or transfer the ir.anagement of it, or enter into any joint purse ai'rangement with any other com- pany," or apply to Parliament for power to do so " without the consent in writing of the corporation,'' Railway No. 5 C was jiart of the Hull company's railwnys, and the petitioners complained that the bill involved a breach of the agreement between themselves and the Hull company, and would put an end to the independence of the Hull company and the competition, which' it had been the object of the corpora- tion to foster under that" agreement. Contra, it was urged by the promoters that thoy (the North-Eastern company) were not parties to the said agreement, and that the Hull company were not consenting parties to the transfer of the railway (No. 5 C) to the North-Eastern company, but were strenuously opposing it, so that they were doing nothing propria motu to help the bill, but altogether the contrai y. The promoters also argued that the corporation being shareholders of the Hull company were represented by that company, whose lams standi was conceded. Under these circumstances the Court disallowed the locus standi of the petitioners. (A limited locus standi was conceded to the corporation as the road authority in respect of interference by one of the railways pro- posed by the bill with one of their streets.) The locns standi of (4) the corporation of Hull was objected to on the following grounds s (1) the only property of the petitioners, which they allege in their petition will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill is the public highway referred to iu paragraph 5 of the petition ; (2) the promoters deny that the bill confers upon them any power to take or interfere with the said road. The railway No, 5 referred to in the petition is, as therein stated, identical with the Hull com- pany's railway No. 5 0, referred to in the paragraph 12 of the petition, which has already been constructed over the said high, way, and the bill does not confer upon the company any new powers with reference thereto which would entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill in respect thereof j (3) the notice served on the petitioners by the promoters was served as a matter of precaution only, and not as an admission of any right or claim of the petitioners to be heard in respect thereof; (4) the promoters deny that the town under the local management of the petitioners or the inhabitants thereof are injuriously affected by the bill within the meanin" of S. 0. 134 ; (5) the provisions of the bill as to running powers over the railways of the Hull, Part III.l NORTH-EASTEEN RAILWAY BILL. 183 Barnsley, and West Riding junction railway and dock company (in the petition and herein- after called the Hull company), referred to in paragraphs 3 and 14 of the petition, do not in any way affect the petitioners or their district, or the inhabitants thereof, so as to entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill in respect thereof. The said provisions affect only the Hull company, who have petitioned against the bill, and whose locris standi is not objected' to ; (6) the terms of the agreement between the petitioners and the Hull company referred to in paragraphs 9, '10, 11, 14, and 18 of the petition are not proposed to be in any way affected or interfered with by the bill, and even were it otherwise the promoters are not parties to that agreement, and are not bound thereby, and the existence thereof affords no ground entitling the petitioners to be heard in respect thereof ; (V) the promoters deny that the provisions of the bill are, as alleged in the petition, contrary to the policy of Parlia- ment in sanctioning the Act of 1880, but, on the contrary, they allege that these provisions will give effect to existing legislation, inasmuch as the railway No. 5 is practically the same as the Hull company's railway No. 5 C, already authorised ; (8) the petitioners I'efer in paragraphs 1 5 and 16 of their petition to two other bills which are being promoted in the present session of Parliament by other companies or persons. Nothing, however, which is pro- posed to be done by either of those bills can give the petitioners a right to be heard against the promoters' bill ; (9) the petition does not allege or disclose any grounds upon which according to practice the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill. Saunders, Q.O. (for petitioners) . The cor- poration of Hall claim a locus standi against clause 4 of the bill, which authorises the con- struction of railway No. 5, and against clause 20, which gives the promoters running powers over the railways of the Hull and Barnsley company. The promoters concede the corporation a locus standi against the construction of railway No. 5 in so far as it will interfere with one of the streets of the borough, but the corporation claim a general locus standi on account of the powers contained in clauses 4 and 20. The facts relating to railway No. 5 are peculiar. A railway. No. 5, C, was authorised by the Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill, 1880, which was identical with railway No. 5 of the bill, and the promoters take power by the bill to take oompulsorily land upon which railway No. 5 C, authorised by the Act of 1880, has been already constructed. Under that Act a railway was made down to the Alexandra docks, and there was a branch line authorised, railway No. 5 C, which con- nected the main line of the North- Eastern company running to the other docks in Hull, with the new railway running down to the Alexandra docks, and thus formed a means of communication between the two systems in Hall, and its importance was that it enabled all traffic from the North-Eastern to be taken down to the new docks. Railway No. 5 C has been completed with the exception of con- necting the rails at either end, junctions not having been put in. The bill empowers the North-Eastern company to acquire that railway No. 5 C, and to put in those junctions. This proposal affectsthecorporation under the follow- ing circumstances : Up to 1880 the North-Eastern company were the owners of the only lines of railway running into Hull, but in that year the Hull company promoted a bill in Parliament for the construction of the Hull and Barnsley railway. The corporation being anxious to have a competing railway running to Hull came to an agreement with the Hull company, which agreement is scheduled to the Act of 1880. Uuder that agreement the corporation were to sell lands belonging to them to the Hull com- pany on the terms therein stated, bat the Hull company was to be preserved at all times as an independent and competitive company, and clause 26 of the agreement provides as follows: — "The company shall retain absolutely in their own hands the manage, ment and control of the said railway as an independent means of communication, and shall not, without the consent in writing of the corporation, at any time sell or lease the said railway, or in any way transfer the management or control thereof to, or enter into any joint purse arrangement with any other company, or make any application to Parliament for any such purposes, provided that any such consent shall not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld." And in case of necessity arbitration is provided for. It mast be admitted that if the Hull company were promoting this bill for transferring railway No. 5 to the North- Eastern company we should have a locus standi. Is it not right that we should have a locus standi when the same thing is attempted to be done by another company either with or without the consent of the Hull company ? I may add that part of the agreement of 1880 was that the corporatinn should take £100,000 in shares of the Hull company. The promoters of this bill also take power (by clause 20) to run over and work the whole of the railways of the Hull company situated between the termination of railway No. 5 and the docks of the company. 184 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. 1. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Is thero any bargain between the Hull and the 1-forth-Eastern company that the Hull company should, against the terms of the agreement " KelJ, lease, or transfer the management or cuntrol of the railway ? " Saunders : T do not say there is Fuoh a bargain, bat handing over this railway and the running powers to the North-Bastern company will have the effect of defeating that which it was the object of the agreement to eeeure, namely, an independent communication. The Chairman : Ton would contend that if Parliament gave the North-Bastern company jKiwer to purchase the railway No. 5 C from the Hull company the corporation could not enforce the agreement against the latter com- pany ; and you complain that what your partners could not have done without your consent, somebody is seeking compulsory powers to do against your will ? Saunders : Yes ; and in addition clause 20 will defeat our intention in establishing an independent means of communication with Hull. Bidder, Q.C. (for promoters) : In the first place the North.Eastern company, who are promoting this bill, were not parties to the agreement of 1880 between the Hull company and the corporation; and, in the second place, not only are the Hnll company not promoting this bill, but they have presented a petition against it, and their locits standi is conceded. How, then, can it be said that bill is in violation of the agreement of 1880 p I might, if it were neces- sary, also call the attention of the Court to the fact that, as shareholders in the Hull company, the corporation are represented by the ooaipany, and therefore cannot be heard against the bill according to practice. The Chaieman : The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Martin ^ Leslie. Agents for Bill, Shei'wood Sf Co. NORTH-WESTERN AND BALING RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Gkeat Western Railwav COMPANY. 10th March, 1887. — (Before Mr. Parker, M.F., Chairman; Mr. Shikess Will, M.P.- Sir George Russei.l, if.P. ,- The Hoii.B Cuandos- LUGH, Q.O.; and Kc. BoNHAMrCARIEU.) Local Railway— Wnrh'ng Agreement tvith Through Railway Company — Competition. The railvvay authorised by the bill was a local line, and competitive with that proposed by the tJarrow, Ealing, and Willesden Railway Bill (supra, p. 159), and was also laid out to form a junction with the London and North- Western at Willesden, and the bill gavo similar powers to the promoters to be worked by that company. , The Court Allowed the Petitioners a general locus standi on the ground of competition. Peniber, Q.C, appeared for the Petitioners; BrsJcine Pollock for bill. Agent for Petitioners, Mains. Agents for Bill, Burehell Sf Co. ORKNEY HARBOURS BILL. Petition of The North of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland Steam Navigation Company. 2r>th April, 1887.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Cliairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; Sir Gkorge Russell, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos- Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham.Cabter.) Harbours Improvement — Consolidation of Several Ports under One Harbour Trust — Constitution of Harbour Commission — Petitioners as Large Contributors of Tolls Levied on Shipping — Injurious Affecting — Single Traders as Representatives of Trade Interests — Alleged Preferential Rates — Lerwick Harbour Improve- ments Bill, 1877 (2 Clifeord & Riokards, 25) followed. The bill was one " For consolidating under ore management the harbours and pieis of Kirkwall, Scapa, and Holm, and of Gill, Whitehall (Stronsay), and Kettletoft, in the county of Orkney ; for the amendment of the Acts and Provisional Orders relating to those harbours and piers, and for other purposes." The petitioners were owners of steamboats, trading between the Orkney Islands, and Leith, Aberdeen, and other places in the North of Scotland, but their steamers only actually used Kirkwall liar, hour, to which they contributed about £60 a year in tonnage dues, and Soapa pier, to which they carried Her Majesty's mails, and to which they contributed £200 a year in tonnagedues. Theirships were not regis- tered as belonging to any of the Orknpy ports, but they claimed to be heard as Part 111.1 ORKNEY HARBOURS BILL. 185 traders owning the only steamships trading between Scotland and the Orkneys, and therefore as representing the shipping trade, the only other steamship owners who nsed the harbours being the Orkney steam navi- gation company, who carried on a purely local trade between the different islands. The petitioners relied on the decision in the Lerwiclc Hariour Improvement Bill, 1877 (2 Clifford & Riokards, 25), the allegations of the petition being similar to those of the petition which they had presented against that bill, and the objections to their locus standi being practically identical. They objected to (1) the consolidation of the harbours, and the fnnds in connection with them, on the ground that they contributed largely to Kirkwall and Scapa harbours, which were solvent, but did not use the other four harbours, which were insolvent, and that the harbour commissioners would, under the powers of the bill, be able to appropriate the funds derived from Kirk- wall and Scapa harbours to the other harbours, and so postpone the reduction of rates at Kirkwall and Scapa; (2) to the option given to the commissioners to levy tolls under one of two or three different Acts, and so to levy preferential rates ; (3) to the scheduling of certain agreements to the bill, whereby the Orkney steam naviga- tion company were allowed to compound for shipping rates by payment of an annual sum in a manner amounting to undue preference ; and (4) to the extension of the limits of Scapa harbour, whereby when they stopped there to land mails in a small boat, they would be subjected to harbour dues, which they did not now pay. The promoters objected that the (1) petitioners did not represent trade interests ; (2) that there was nothing in the Kirkwall Harbour Acts to compel a reduction of rales at any future time ; (3) that the option to levy rates at Kirkwall under one of several Acts could not injariously affect the petitioners, as none of those Acts authorised higher rates than those already levied ; (4) as to the preferential ageeement, that there was not a preference because the composiiion. which was part of the purchase money for the pier at Kettletof t owned by the Orkney steam navigation company, was based on the rates levied there. The promoters asked that in any event the petitioners should be limited to being heard against clause 29, which provided for levying tolls under one of several existing Acts : Held, however, that the principles laid down in the Lerwick Harbour BUI must be followed, only that in this case the petitioners were entitled to be heard generally on the allega- tions in their petition. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the foHowing grounds ■ (1) the petitioners do not allege that the bill confers powers to take, or otherwise interfere with any lands, heritages, or other property of the peti- tioners, or in which they are interested ; (2) the petitioners do not allege that they trade to any places in Orkney other than to Kirkwall and Scapa piers, and admit in their petition that they only use those piers, and they are not entitled to be heard to object to the constitution of a body of harbour commissioners for the management of the harbours and piers named in the bill, or on the ground of an alleged possible future competition at ports, to which they do not and have not traded, between the petitioners and the Orkney steam -navigation company, or to object to any of the other purposes of the bill referred to in the pre- amble thereof, or to any of the clauses of the said bill ; (3) inasmuch as the petitioners' ships do not belong to any of the porta and harbours described in the bill, but merely trade to the ports of Kirkwall and Scapa as aforesaid at the petitioners' own pleasure and discretion, the petitioners are not entitled to be heard to object as in the preceding objection mentioned ; (4) the petitioners are a single firm of traders amongst many others to Kirkwall and Scapa, and are not entitled to be heard against the preamble of the bill, or against any of the clauses thereof, as they represent only their individual interests, and not the interests of a class or business. They do not allege iu their petition that they represent, and do not in fact, and are not entitled to represent the general body of shipowners, traders, and freighters to and from any of the ports and harbours in Orkney referred to in the bill ; (5) the peti- tioners are not entitled to be heard against the preamble of the bill, inasmuch as they are not entitled to object to the constitution of a board I 186 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. of harbour commisBioners, or to the vesting in Buoh oommissioners of the harboars, ports, and piers in the county of Orkney aa mentioned in the bill, or to the principle of the bill, or the clauses thereof, or any of them ; (6) the peti- tioners' allegation that any surplus revenue of the harbour at Kirkwall ought, under the Acts of Parliament now existing in relation to, or affect- ing the said harbour to be applied now, or at any future time in reduction of the dues leviable at the said harbour is untrue ; (7) the peti- tioners are not in fact prejudicially affected by the bill, or any of the clauses thereof ; (8) the petitioners do not allege any facts sufficient according to practice to justify their being allowed a locus standi against the bill or any of the clauses thereof referred to in their petition; (9) the promoters will further object that, if the petitioners are a corporate body, the petition ought to have been sealed with their Common Seal. If they are not a- cor- porate body, the persons signing the petition are not entitled to represent and do not repre- sent the petitioning company in Parliament, and the petition does not state that such persons were at any meetinp-, or otherwise, authorised and empowered to sign the petition. Balfour Browne, Q.C. (for pptitioners) ; The bill is " For consolidating under one manage, ment the harbours and piers of Kirkwall and Scapa, and Holm, and of Gill, Whitehall (Stronsay), and Kettletoft, in the county of Orkney, for the amendment of the Acts and Provisional Orders relating to those harbours and piers, and for other purposes." Those six harbours and piers are scattered over the Orkney Islands under separate management, but the bill proposes to put them nnder the management of one set of commissioners. The petitioners have for upwards of 50 years been engaged in ti'ading by steam-vessels between the county of Orkney and Leith, Aberdeen, and other places in the North of Scotland, and they carry the royal mails under contract between Scapa pier in Orkney and Sorabster pier at Thurso. We contribute abouh £600 a year to the tonnage rates levied at Kirkwall harbour and about £200 a year to those levied at Scapa. In the year 1886 we actually paid at these two harbours rates to the amount of £822. Our petition raises four principal objpctions to the bill : (1) we object to the consolidation of the harbours and the funds in connection with them on the ground that we contribute largely to Kirkwall and Scapa harbours, while we are not in a position to use the other four, and we objpct to the money which we pay at Kirkwall aiirl Scapa, both of which are solvent harbours going to benefit the other harbours which we do not use, and which are insolvent; (2) we object to the commissioners, when they are constituted, having the option as provided by the bill of charging dues either nnder the Kirk- wall Harbour Act, 1859, or under the Orkney Piers and Harbour Act, 1872, and thus having the power of giving the preference to other traders as against ourselves ; (3) we object to the agreements scheduled to the bill under which the Orkney steam navigation company are to have the use of the pier at Kettletoft and the stores thereon, as well as the stores at Gill and Whitehall, free of payment, and under which they will be entitled to use all the piers and harbours at Kirkwall, Scapa, Holm, Gill and Whitehall upon payment to the oommissioners of an annual composition in lieu of tonnage rates of £65 12s. We object to these agree- ments as preferential and contrary to the pro- visions of the Piers and Harbour Act, which say that every trader is to be treated equally ; (4) we object to the extension of the limits of Scapa harbour. At present if we anchor oar vessels outside the limits of the harbour as defined by the Board of Trade we need not pay a'ly dues at all, but if the harbour is extended as pro- posed by the bill it will comprise the whole of the upper end of Scapa bay, and the commis- sioners will be enabled to charge dues upon our vessels anchoring in a part of the bay, where at present they pay no dues. At present we land the mails at Scapa in a small boat without going t6 the pier at all, but this we shall not be able to do in future without coming within the jurisdiction pi the harbour master. We also say that the application of the rates levied at Kirkwall harbour to the other and less solvent harbours will have the effect of postponing any reduction in the Kirkwall harbour rates. With regard to the question of our representing the shipping trade at Kirkwall, although our ships are not registered at that port, we contribute nearly the whole of the tonnage rates levied there, and we are the only company trading with steamers to that port, with the exception of a small conjpany called the Orkney steam navirjation company, which only trades between the islands. This cape is governed by the deciBion in the Lerwick Harhour Improve- vienf Bill, 1877 (2 Clifford & Riokards, 25), against which we petition on the same grounds as against this bill, except that our petition against this bill is a more comprehensive one, and relates to preamble as well as clauses. Erxkine Pollock (for promoters) : The main question here is whether the petitioners repre- sent the shipping trade to these ports. The Chairman : Has this company a voice in electing the commissioners ? Would they come Part III.] regent's canal, city, and docks railway bill. 187 within the definition of the term " ship, owners ? " Pollock : Not being shipowners registering their ships at these ports, they have no voice in the election of the commissioners ; but they are single traders trading to two out of the six ports amalgamated by tbe bill. The amount of tonnage dues and dues upon goods at Kirkwall, ia 1883, was £2,016. Tte total receipts for tonnage being £784. Mr. Shikess Will : Inasmnoh as the peti- tioners pay £600 a year in tonnage rates, it is clear that they pay the bulk of the tonnage dues there. Pollock : With regard to the option given to the commissioners by the bill to levy either the rates authorised by the Kirkwall Harbour Act, 1879, or the Orkney Piers and Harbour Act, 1872, the rates are at present levied under the former Act ; but inasmuch as the rates authorised by the latter are in no case higher than those authorised by the former Act, the petitioners cannot be prejudiced by this option. With regard to the agreements which are scheduled to the bill, the so-called preferential agreement applies to Kettletoft pier only, which is the property of the Orkney steam navigation com- pany, and which we purchase of them for a certain amount, and the bill proposes that they should pay a certain sum by way of composi- tion in lien of tonnage rates, but that compo- sition is based upon exactly the same rates as the petitioners themselves pay. As to their claim to a locus standi, because we extend the limits of the harbour of Scapa, if they anchored within those extended limits we should no doubt have the right to charge them, but they are notin the habit of anchoring within those limits and, even if they did, would be in no different position to any other traders in the world. The Chairman : The question seems to be whether the petitioners represent a class. The 13th paragraph of the petition, I think, raises a strong point in stating that the petitioners strongly object to these dues, to which they may be contributors, being used in aid of the purohane of piers and works which they do not use; thus deferring the prospect of getting deferred rates at the harbour where they do trade. Pollock : At any rate the petitioners are only entitled to be heard against so much of the bill as affects Kirkwall. The Chairman : We think the Petitioners are entitled to a general locus standi. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson Sf Co. Agents for Bill, Keeping Sf Gleag. REGENT'S CANAL, CITY, AND DOCKS RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Commissioners os Skwebs (City of London). 4th April, 1887 .—(Before Messrs. Paukkr, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shibbss Will, M.P. ; Sir Georse RuSsbll, M.P.; Mr. Hh-aly, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Ghan.dos- Leigh, Q.C; and Mr. A. BoNHAM-C'ARrau.) Railways — Extension of Time Bill — Local Autho- rity as Landowners — Agreementfbr Purchase of Lands — Payment of Interest on Purchase Money after Specified Time — Notice to Treat- Landowner as Oreditor^Alleged Insolvency of Promoters — Local Authority prevented fronb dealing with Land for Public Purposes — Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Improve, merit Act, 1875— S. 0. 134 f Municipal Authori- ties and Inliabitants of TownsJ . The bill extended the time for the compulsory purchase of lands and completion of works in connection with certain railways autho- rised by the Regent's Canal, &o.. Railway Act, 1882. The petitioners, the Commis- sioners of Sewers, were owners of la^ids in the City of London (which they had acquired for the purposes of the 'Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings Iniprovemeut Act, 1875), and those lands had been scheduled under the above-mentioned Act of 1882, against which they had petitioned. An agreement was, however, come to between the company and the Commissioners while the bill for the Act of 1882 was in progress, and in consequence the Commissioners had withdrawn their opposition to that bill. The agreement provided for the purchase of certain lauds described therein from the Commissioners for £80,598', and the company were to- complete the purchase by the 18th August, 1883, or if they did not so complete, were from that date to pay interest at the rate of 5 per cent, on the amount of purchase money until completion. They had up to the present time been paid none of the purchase money, and they claimed to be heard against the present bill for extension of time on the ground that it would enable the promoters to postpone for I 2 188 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. a still longer period tlie completion of the purchase, and thas prevent the Commis- sioners from dealing with the lands in question for public purposes (viz., the building of artizans' dwellings), which, as the local authority, they contemplated doing. They claimed to be heard (1) as landowners with an agreement for the pur. chase of their lands j (2) as the local authority interested in dealing with that land for public purposes under S. 0. 134i ; and they contended that they had entered into the agreement fully contemplating that it would be carried out within the time limited by the Act of 1882 (viz., five years) for the compulsory purchase of lands, and that in effect the period ought to be regarded as having been imported into the agreement, which was to be read with the Act of 1882. They urged as an addi- tional plea against an extension of time the impecuniosity of the company. Contra, the promoters' counsel contended that the bill did not affect the company's agreement with the Commissioners, which was an enforcable contract, and which had clearly contemplated a possible delay in completing the purchase by providing for the payment of interest on the purchase money after a certain date ; and that the petitioners did not allege or show how their district would be injuriously affected by the bill, and were therefore not entitled to be heard under S. 0. 134 : Held, that the locus standi of the petitioners must be disallowed. The locus standi of the commissioners of sewers was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the city of London, of which the petitioners allege themselves to be the local authority, will not be injuriously affected by the bill, nor does the petition allege that it will be so affected ; (2) the petitioners claim to be heard as the owners of land which they contracted to sell to the promoters, but they are not in that capacity affected by the bill or entitled to be heard against it ; (3) the bill does not interfere with the agreement of 20th March, 1883, mentioned in the petition, or the rights or remedies there- under of the petitioners, and the petitioners are not affected by the proposed extension of time for the compulsory purchase of lands and completion of works, and are not entitled to be heard against the provisions of the bill with reference thereto ; (4) the bill does not contain any provisions affecting the petitioners, nor have the petitioners in fact any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard according to practice. RIgg (for petitioners) : The commissioners of sewers appear here (1) as landowners havinst an agreement for the sale of their lands to the promoters ; (2) as the local authority for the city of London. The promoters took power by the Regent's Canal, City and Docks Railway Act, 1882, to take certain lands belonging to the petitioners, who at first opposed the bill, but during its progress through Parliament entered into an agreement with the promoters (for which the agreementda ted 20th March, 1883, was subsequently substituted) and thereupon withdrew their opposition to the bill. By that agreement the commissioners agreed to sell certain land required by the company for the sum of £80,598, and the company were to complete the parchase by 18th August, 1883, and if they did not complete it by that date they were to pay interest at 5 per cent, until the actual com- pletion of the parchase. The agreement provides, inter alia, that " so soon as the houses fronting on Barbican shall have been acquired by the company, and the land shall have been cleared, the company shall throw into the public way of Barbican so much of the land shown on the said plan as being the site of the widened street is necessary to make the same of the uniform width of 60 feet between the points A and B, and shall, if required by the commissioners, dedicate the same to the use of the public, and the company shall give the necessary notices to treat as required for the purposes of this improvement, and complete the purchases with reasonable diligence." This agreement was entered into by us at the time when the com- pany were promoting a bill which limited the period for the purchase of lands to five years, and the agreement must be taken to have imported that term of years as the utmost limit of time for its fulfilment. The bill extends the time for completing the purchase of lands for a further period of two years, and thus postpones the period within which the commissioners must purchase our lands. This will also postpone the period for carrying out the Barbican improvements, and as to that point we claim to be heard under S.O. 134. As landowners I refer the Court to the London and South-Western Railway Bill, 1886, on petition of John Brett (1 Riokards and Michael, 113), and as the local authority to the London and South.Westem , ^c, Railway Com- Part III.] regent's canal, city, and docks railway bill. 189 panies Bill, 1884, on petition of the Surhiton , hnprovement Commissioners (3 Clifford and Rickards, 422). The very lands over which the company obtained compulsory powers of pur- chase in 1882 were acquired by the commissioners under the ArtizanB, &o., Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875, for the purpose of erecting dwellings under that Act, and the bill will have the effect of postponing, our dealing with them for that purpose. Mr. Healt ; Could you not go to a Court of Equity, and enforce the performance of your agreement ? Rigg : Practically it would be impossible for us to do so, as the company have not raised the capital necessary for the railways they are authorised to make, and are in u, state of impecuniosity. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : The bill does not affect our agreement with the commissioners, and it is clear that the parties contemplated the possibility of the purchase not being completed in 1883, by providing that, in the event of the purchase not being completed by that date, the company should pay to the commissionera interest on the purchase money at the rate of 5 per cent, until the actual completion.. The agree- ment speaks for itself, and the commissioners cannot import into it a condition that the pur- chase should in any event be completed within the period for compulsory purchase fixed by the Act of 1882. Their petition contains no allega- tions that they are injurioasly affected as a local authority by the bill. i The Chairman : The locvs standi of the Peti- tioners is Disallowed. Agent for Petitioners, Prior Goldney. Petition of (2) The School Board of London. Railway — Extension of Time — Conditional Agree- ment with Landowner to Purchase Lands upon Raising Certain Amount of Capital — Absence of Notice to Treat — Effect of Bill on Agreement. The school board of London also opposed the bill, on the ground that it affected an agree- ment which the company had entered into with them in 1882, on condition of their withdrawing their (the School Board's) opposition to the company's bill of 1882. That agreement provided that when the company had raised a certain amount of the capital authorised by the Act, then they would purchase for a stated sum the por. tions of land described in the agreement and it also provided that in that case the company would not exercise compulsory powers of purchase over any other lands belonging to the school board. The peti- tioners had entered into another similar agreement with the company in 1885, and they contended that by the extension of time for compulsory purchase, and com- pletion of works authorised by the bill, the promoters in effect postponed the period for raising the capital, which was the condition precedent to taking the lands of the peti- tioners, and paying for them according to- the terms of the agreement, as it was not to be imagined that the promoters wouldraisa capital for works after their powers of con- structing them had expired. The petitioners had not received notice to treat, and thsre- fore were not, they contended, in the position of creditors, and they claimed to be heard as landowners, who would be prevented by the bill from dealing with- their lands for a longer period than they had contemplated when they entered int» the agreements above referred to. (The agreement of 1882 between the school board and the company was scheduled to the company's Act of that year.) The promoters contended that they pos- sessed no compulsory powers over th& property of the petitioners, and that therefore the extension of time proposed by the bill did not affect them ; but that there was only an agreement to purchase, not within any period of time or upon th& completion of the works, but on raising a certain portion of their capital, and that therefore the condition of the agreement remained untouched by the bill. (Bulce of Beaufort's Petition against Oreat Western Railway Bill, _1818, 2 Clifford & Rickards,. 100, distinguished.) Held, that upon these facta the petitioners- were not entitled to be heard against the bill. The locus standi of the school board for London was objected to on the following groanda : (1) no compulsory powers of pur- 190 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. chasing any laud or property of the petitioners are sought by the bill, nor is any extension of tlie time for the exei-cice of such powers sought with reference to any such land or property ; (2) the bill does not alter or affect in any way the apreements of 1882 and 1885 referred to in the petition, or either of them, or the rights or remedies of the petitioners thereunder, nor will the interest of the petitioners be in any way affected by the bill ; (3) the petitioners having by the aforesaid agreements contracted to part with their land are not entitled to be heard against the proposed extension of time for' the completion of the railways and works ; (4) the bill does not contain any provision affecting the petitioners ; (5) the petition does not allege that the petitioners have, nor have they, in fact, any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard according to practice. Pemiroke Stephens, Q.O. (for petitioners) : When the promoters came to Parliament in 1882 to promote the bill which was passed as the Regent's Canal, City and Docks Railway Bill,l882, an agreement was come to between them and the school board for London which was scheduled to that Act, by which it was agreed (paragraph 2) that the company, as soon as they should have raised a certain portion of the capital required for the undertaking, but not otherwise, should give the board 18 months' previous notice in writing that they would require to take and use for the purposes of their undertaking certain parcels of laud fronting Central-street ; and the agreement goes on to provide that thereupon thp board are to surrender aud convey the said portions of land to the said company, and (paragraph 6) that within three months after raising the specified capital the company are to pay 10 the Board ^20,000 as compensation for interference. Another similar agreement was entered into between the parties in 1885. The portion of capital named in those agreements has never been raised, and no notice has been given to us to sell the lands to the company. We are therefore not in the position of being creditors of the company, and therefore pre- cluded from being heard as landowners against an extension of time bill. The capital to be raised before the powers of these agreem.ents can be put in force, has not been raised, and it is obvious will not be raised, unless ihe period for the compulsory purchase of lauds and the completion of work (the former of which expire next August and the latter in August, 1888), are extended by the bill. It is obvious that the capital will not be raised after the powers for which it is sought have expired, and therefore this bill is in effect, though not in name, a bill for extending the time for raising the capital, and it will therefore extend the time during which the powers of purchase over our lands, conferred by the agreements of 1882 and 1885 upon the company, can be exercised. Not having received notice to treat, and the powers of compulsory purchase having practically expired, we are in the position of landowners whose property is sought to be taken for the first time. (Drayton Junction Railway Bill, 18S7, 1 Clifford and Stephens, 28 ; Bast and West Junction Railway Bill, 1871, 2 Clifford & Stephens, 141; Great Western Railway Bill, 1878, on petition of Duke of Beaufort, 2 Clifford & Rickards, 100; Great Northern Railway (Varibus Powers) Bill, 1885, 1 Rickards & Michael, 27; South-Eastern Railway {Various Powers) Bill, 1885, on petition of Great Northern Railivay Company, S/'c, ib. 61.) Pope, Q.O. (for promoters) : The company have no compulsory powers over lands belonging to the school board. Those lands are included in the agreements of 1882 and 1885, which expressly declare that no other lands of the board shall be taken oompulsorily. Those agreements are untouched by the bill, and if our compulsory powers expired to-morrow, and the conditioos as to raising capital contained in those agreements were complied with, those agreements would b& enforceable against us by that board to-morrow. In the case of the Duke of Beaufort, which has been cited, it was con. tended that the I>uke of Beaufort was in the occupation of land which had passed to the company equitably, but in that case there was no actual agreement enforcible by the Duke, there was no definition of the land to be taken or the price to be paid, whereas there is a complete agreement, which is enforceable at any future time, the moment that the condi- tion of the agreement, viz., the raising of certain capital, is fulfilled. The Chairman (after deliberation) : The locus standi of the Petitioner is Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Qedge, Kirly ^ Milleit. Agents for Bill, Rees ^ Frere. PaKT III. J WALTON-ON-THAMES AND WEYBRIDGE GAS BILL. 191 WALTON-ON-THAMES AND WEYBKIDGE GAS BILL. Petitions of (1) Lowtheb Bkidgek ; (2) Thomas Sidney; (3) Owners, Lessees and Occupiers OP Dwelling-houses within 300 Yards of THE New Gas Lands; and (4) Inhabitants AND Consumers of Gas in the Parishes or Walton.on-Thames and Wexbridge, and the Vestry of the Parish of Walton-on- Thames. 12tli May, ISST. -(Before Mr. Parker. Jlf.P, Chairman; Mr. Shiress Wilt,, M.P.; Mr. COMPTON, M.P.; Mr. Healy, M.P.; The Hon. E. Chandos-'Leioh, Q.O.; and Mr. Bonham- Cakter.) Gas — Kxtension of Limits of Supply — New Worlcs — Additional Capital — Owners, ^c, loithin 300 Yards Limit, Claiming General Locus — S. 0. 15 {Burial Grounds, Gas and Sewage Works, ^c.) — Inhabitants and Consumers — Local Authority not Petitioning — Rural Sani- tary District — Representation — Public Health Act, 1S75, sec. 9 — S. 0. 134 (Municipal Authorities and Inhabitants, Sfc.) — &'. 0. 134a (Local Authorities to have a Locus , Standi againH Lighti7tg and Water Bills). , The bill extended the limits within which the promoters might supply gas, gave them power to take lands for the erection of new gas works, and to raise additional capital, and contained other clauses to which the petitioners objected, e.g., clanaea empowering the company to enter a con- snmer's premises to remedy defects in the gas fittings, to supply fittiogs themselves, and to levy distress in case of non-payment of gas rates. The petitioners (1, 2 and 3) were owners and occupiers of dwelling- houses within 300 yards of the land pro- posed to be taken for the new gas works, and individual consumers of gas ; and the petitioners (4) were inhabitaDts and con. Burners of gas within the exiating district supplied by the company and the vestry of the parish in which it was proposed to acquire the additional lands. All the petitioners claimed to be heard generally on the allegations in their petitions, which practically covered the whole bill, and in- cidentally raised the question of the present price and illuminating power of the com. pany's gas, which however were not altered by the bill. The promoters conceded the petitioners (1, % and 3) a locus standi against the acquisition of lands, the erection of new works thereon, and (after some dis- cussion) against the extension of the limits of supply which rendered the new works necessary, but sought to exclude them from being heard against the raising of additional capital and the other provisions of the bill, and with regard to petitioners (4), the pro- moters sooght to exclude them from being heard altogether. The petitioners (1, 2 and 3) claimed to be heard generally as landowners under S. 0. 15 (Ascot District Gas 'and Water Bill, 1882, 3 Clifford & Riokards, 125, cited), and also as individual corsnmers (South London Gas Bill, 1872, 2 Clifford & Stephens, 220, cited). The petition of (4) inhabitants and gas con- sumers, &o., was signed by 249 oonsuniers of gas, and alleged that the erection of the new gas works would increase the nuisance caused by the existing gas works in Walton. on-Thames, and that the raising of addi- tional capital would have the effect of postponing any reduction in the price of gas within the existing district of supply. The petitioners also complained of the present price and illuminating power of the gas supplied by the company, pointing out that these points were determined by an Act of the company as long ago as 1869; and there were also allegations in the petition complaining of alteration by the bill of the status of the petitioners as regards recovery of gas rents by distress and other matters. The petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the fact that Walton and Wey- bridge formed part of an extensive rural district comprising other important places besides those parishes, and that it could not be expected that under these circum- stances the rural sanitary authority would petition against the bill, and that in any event they would not represent the petitioners as consumers. The promoters contended that the petitioners • (1, 2 and 3) "had no right to be heard 192 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. generally as landowners, or against any part of the bill as individual gas consumers ; and that as to the petition of (4) inhabitants and gas consumers they were represented by the guardians of the union who were the local authority constituted by section 9 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and were not entitled to be heard according to pre- viously decided cases : Held, however, that all the petitioners were entitled to be heard generally. The locus standi of the petitioners (1, 2 and 3) was objected to on similar grounds, namely: (1) the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact, that any land, honse, or other property of or belonging to the petitioners, or in which they are interested, could or might be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill; (2) the allegations of the petitions, in so far as they complain of the promoters' existing gas works, are in effect complaints against past legislation; (3) the petitioners are not entitled to be heard upon the increase of capital pro- posed to be authorised by the bill ; (4) the allegations of the petitions dealing with the price, pressure, and quality of the gas, and other matters, affect consumers only of gas, but the petitions do not allege or show, nor is it the fact, that the petitioners have any such separate interest as consumers in the objects of the bill, distinct and apart from the general body of consumers within the district affected by the bill, as entitles them to a hearing as consumers. lu the case of (1) the petitioner, Lowther Bridger, ■a, further objection was taken, that he had signed another petition against the bill, pur. porting to emanate from certain inhabitants and consumers of gas within the parishes of Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge and from the vestry of the parish of Walton-on-Thames, and that he was entitled to be heard (if at all, which the promoters did not admit) as a con- sumer of gas only upon that petition. The locus standi of the petitioners (4) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) no land, houses, &c., belonging to the petitioners will be taken or interfered with; (2) the peti- tion does not allege, nor is it the fact, that the petitioners are owners, &c., of dwelling-houses situate within 3U0 yards of any lands upon which it is proposed to construct any works for the manufacture of gas, or for the manufacture or couversion of any residaal products, and none of die petitioners are entitled to be heard upon their petition against any powers sought by the bill relating to the construction of such gas and other works; (3) the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact, that it emanates from any public meeting of the inhabitants or con- sumers of gas within the limits referred to in the bill ; (4) the petitioners, as inhabitants and consumers of gas in Walton and Weybridge, have no riglit or interest apart from the general body of inhabitants and gas consumers, either within the said parishes of Walton and Wey- bridge, or within the limits referred to by the bill, and the petitioners being only 249 in number out of a total number of upwards of 14,000 inhabitants within the parishes of Walton and Weybridge, and of a total number of upwards of 29,000 inhabitants within the limits comprised in the bill, do not represent the general body of inhabitants and consumers either within those parishes, or within the limits comprised in the bill ; (5) there are local authorities having jurisdiction within the parishes'of Walton and Weybridge respectively, and they are the proper representatives of the inhabitants at large of those parishes respec- tively, but they have not petitioned against the bill ; (6) the signatures attached to the petition purporting to be those of the chairman and clerk of the vestry of Walton-on-Thames, do not entitle the said vestry to be heard against the bill. No meeting of the vestry duly con- vened for the purpose of authorising the vestry to petition against the bill, or to sanction a peti- tion againt the bill being signed on behalf of the said vestry was held, and there is no allega- tion in the petition entitling the said vestry to be heard according to practice ; (7) there is nothing in the bill to compel the peti- tioners to take gas from the promoters, or to prevent them from manufacturing their own gas ; (8) the said lands upon which it is pro- posed to construct gas woi'ks adjoin the site of the promoters' existing gas works, and the injury, if any, which will be caused by the construction of gas works upon such additional lands will be inappreciable; (9) there is no suflBcient allega. tion in the petition that the town or parish of Walton will be injuriously affected by the bill within the meaning of S. 0. 134; (10) the petitioners complain of past legislation; (11) the petitioners have no right to be heard against the proposed extension of limits nor against the proposed purchase of the gas works of the Oobham and Sunbnry gas companies respec- tively ; (12) the petitioners do not allege nor have they in fact any interest in the objects comprised in clauses 10, 12i 4S and 55 of the bill ; (13) the petitioners do not allege nor have they in fact any interest in any of the objects of the bill which, according to practice, entities them to be heard against it. Part III. J walton-ok-thambs and weybeidge gas bill. 193 ErsUne Pollock (for (1) Lowther Bridger) : The bill is to enable the gaB company to extend their limits of supply, to acquire additional land, to erect and maintain additional works, to raise farther capital, and for other purposes. The petitioner is the owner of a dwelling-house within the 300 yards limit prescribed by S. 0. 15, and claims a general landowner's locus standi in accordance with the decision of the Court in the Ascot District. Gas and Water Bill, 1882 (3 Clifford & Biokards, 125), and other cases. Our locus standi is conceded against clause 8 of the bill authorising the company to erect new gas works, but it cannot be maintained that an owner is only to be heard against the right of the company to erect the works on the land, and not against the power to extend the limits of supply which necessitates their erection, or the raising of additional capital to enable them to do so. We wish to urge before the Committee that no new works are necessary, and that if they are they should be erected in the new district of supply and not in Walton. The petitioner also claims to be heard as a consumer against the proposal to raise additional capital, which will have the effect of postponing any reduction in the price of gas to the present consumers, particularly as the new district to be supplied is sparsely populated, and would be an unprofitable district to supply. The petition also complains of the existing pressure, the illuminating power and price of gas, and also to a power taken by the bill to enter upon the premises of the gas consumer, and require him to remedy the defect, and on his failing to do so to remedy it themselves, which latter provision is specially objectionable as the company also take power to supply fittings themselves. The claim of the petitioner as a con- sumer to be heard upon these points is strengthened by the fact that there is no local authority in Walton to represent him, but only a rural sanitary authority for the large district of which Walton is a part. Individual consumers were heard in the South London Gas Bill, 1872, on petition of M. Dresser-Rogers and others (2 Clifford & Stephens, 220), and against the Basingstoke Gas Bill this session {supra, p. 137). That was a bill for an increase of capital, and dealt with questions of price, pressure, and illuminating power. In this case it is true there is no alteration on those points, but they were settled by the company's Act of 1869, since which time the company has not been before Parliament, and they require re- adjustiug on more modern principles, and, in the absence of the local authority, consumers are the proper parties to be heard upon them. A special objeotiou is taken to the locus standi of the petitioner, as having signed another petition of inhabitants and gas consumers, but there is no reason against his being heard on both peti- tions, according to practice. ff. L. Oripps (parliamentary agent, for (2) Thomas Sidney) : The case of the petitioner is similar to that of (1) Mr. Bridger, except that Mr. Sidney, besides being the owner of a house within the 300 yards limit, also owns a large amouut of building land in the neighbourhood of the proposed works, which will be deteriorated in value by them. Rigg (for (3) owners, &o., of dwelling-houses within 300 yards of the new gas lands, and (4) inhabitants and consumers of gas, &c., and the vestry of the parish of Walton -on- Thames) : The case of petitioners (3) is practi- cally the same as that of petitioners 1 and 3. With regard to the petition of (4) inhabitants and consumers of gas, the petition is signed by 249 inhabitants and gas consumers, who claim to be heard under S. O. 134. These petitioners represent about half 'the gas consumers in Walton and Weybridge, and they allege that the present land and works are amply sufficient for making gas for the present and probable future consumption of Walton and Weybridge. They also allege that the proposal to extend the present ga s works, which are situated near the middle of the town of Walton, will increase the nuisance arising therefrom. The company pro- pose to manufacture residual products as well as gas on these lauds. They also object to the raising of additional capital which will tend to postpone reduction in the price of gas to them, and complain of the present price of the gas, the illuminating power and other provisions of the bill. They cannot be said to be repre- sented in this matter by the rural sanitary authority, whose district comprises other impor- tant places which are not affected by the bill. The Chaieman : I observe that the vestry of Walton have signed the petition, but not the vestry of Weybridge. Bdgg : No vestry meeting was held in Wey- bridge during the time the signatures were being obtained. Besides raising the general question, the petition discusses certain pro- visions in the bill, viz., clauses 37 and 38 relating to the security to be given in the raising of capital, and a clause (55) giving the company power of distress, which are entirely new and aifect the existing statwi of the consumers. The bill also deprives the vestry of Walton of the power to test gas which they have now. 0. A. Oripps (for promoters) -. With regard to the Basingstoke Gas Bill, that was a bill for converting a limited liability company into a statutory company and fixed for the first time h 194 COURT OF REPEpEES. [Vol. I. the price of gas, illnminating power, and ench matters. It is not oorreot to say that there is no local authority in this case, because section 9 of the Public Health Act, 1875, constitntes the gaardians of the Union the local authority of a rural district in the absence of a local authority specially constituted under that Act. In the Dudloj Gas Bill,188\. (3 Clifford & Riokards,40), for raising additional capital, and in the Hyde Gas BUI, 1881 (ih. 68), both the local authority and gas consumers were refused a locus standi. S. 0. 134(1 was passed by Parliament to enable local authorities to be heard on such matters as price and illnminating power, but it makes no mention of inhabitants or consumers. Mr. Shibess Will : Local authorities repre- sent ratepayers and inhabitants for all purposes of municipal government, bat they do not repre- sent them as gas consumers. Oripps : Then as regards the proposed exten- sion of limits, so far as the vestry of Walton are concerned, I refer the Court to the Preston Gas Bill, 1879 (2 Clifford & Rickards, 215), and the Liverpool United Gas Bill, 1880 {ih. 275). Mr. Shikess Will : In that case the corpora, tion of Bootle had no land within 300 yards of the proposed gas works, nor did they claim to represent consumers. Cripps : No. I admit that if the proper local authority representing the inhabitants had appeared against this bill I could not have disputed their locus standi, or that of a, repre- sentative body of consumers, if there had been any alteration in the price of gas. There are only two classes of petitioners who can be heard against a bill of this kind, first, owners of houses within the 300 yards limit, who have a limited locus against the erection of new works ; and, secondly, the local authority alleging that their district will be injuriously affected. The vestry of Walton are not the local authority in this case. I am willing to concede owners of houses within the 300 yards limit of the pro- posed gas works a locus as regards the proposed extension of our limits of supply as well as the power to erect new works, but not as regards raising additional capital or testing the purity of the gas. They are clearly not in the position of landowners whose property is compulsorily taken. The Chairman: The Locus Standi of all the Petitioners is Allowed. Agent for Petitioner (1), Wahnisley. Agents for Petitioner (2), Dijson Sf Co. Agents for Petitioners (3—4), Durnford Sf Co. Agent for Bill, Cooper. END OF REPORTS OF 1887. COURT OF REFEREES IN PARLIAMENT. EEPOKTS FOE THE SESSION 1888. Where a Staiuling Order is quoted or referred to, the nij,viber is tliat of tlie Staiulhig Orders for the Session 1889. BALLINA AND KILLALA EAILWAY AND HARBOUR BILL. Petition of OESs-PAyEKS of the Barony op TiKAWLEY. 13th June, 1888.— (Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. CoMPTON, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.O.; and Mr. Bonham- Carter.) Practice — IS.dension of Time Bill — Locus Standi iij Consent to enquire into iona fides of Bill, and Solvency of Promoting Company. The bill extended the period for the construc- tion of a railway and harbour authorised by the Ballina and KillalU Railway and Harbour Act, 1883, under the provisions of which the barony of Tirawley had entered into a guarantee to pay 5 per cent, on a sum of £40,000 for a period of two years during the construction of the works thereby authorised, and a similar guarantee to pay the same amount for 35 years after the opening of the railway, if and so far as the profits of the company should be insuificient to yield a dividend of 5 per cent, on that amount. The petitioners, a body of 1000 cess-payers in the barony, petitioned against the bill on the ground that it would postpone the period of their liability under the Act of 1883 for two years, and so alter their legal status under that Act — (East and West Junction Bailway Bill, 1871, 2 Clif- ford & Stephens, 141 ; Oreat Western Railway Bill, 1878, un petition of Duke of Beaufort, 2 Clifford & Rickards, lOO ; and London and South-Western Railway Bill, 1886, on petition of John Brett, 1 Rickards & Michael, 113, cited) ; and also as inhabitants of a district which they alleged to be inj uriously affected by the bill under S. 0. 134 (London and South. Western, Src, Railway Companies Bill, 1884, on petition of Sv/rhiton Improvement Cuiii- missioners, 3 Clifford & Rickards, 422, cited.)' The counsel for the promoters contended that there was nothing in the bill to take it out of the ordinary rule applicable to exten- sion of time bills, and that the complaint of the petitioners was really against past legis- lation, their object being to re-open the question as to matters which had been already determined by the Ballina and Killala Riilway, &o.. Act, 1883. After some discussion, however, a Joctts standi was conceded by the promoters, and agreed to by the petitioners to admit the peti- tioners to discuss the iona fides of the present application to Parliament and the financial position of the company, and the following order was accordingly made by the Court: — Locus Standi Disallowed, except for the pur- pose of raising these questions : (1) whether or not the application to Parliament is iona fide, (2) and whether or not this company has made arrangements which afford a reasonable certainty that, if the extension of time be granted; the works authorised by the Act of 1883 will be constructed. Cripps appeared for the Petitioners ; Pem- broke Stephens, Q.C., for the Bill. Agents for Petitioners, Bircham Sf Co. Agents for Bill, Holmes, Anton Sf Greig. BARNSTAPLE WATER BILL. Petition of John Bakeb. 8th March. 1888.— (iJe/oce Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; Mr. CoMPTON, BLP. ; The Hon. E. Chandos- Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Cartee.) Water Supply — Extension of Limits, and Con- struction of New Works — Milloionei- — Jn- hi 196 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. creased Absiraclion of Water — S.O. li {Nulicca when it is proposed to abstract loaierfrom any stream). The bill authorised the promoters to supply water within extended limits, and to oon- strnot new works, including two service reservoirs. The petitioner was the lessee of a mill situated on a stream six miles below the point at which it was diverted by the existing works of the promoters for the supply of one of their reservoirs. There was, however, an overflow of the water so diverted which was re-delivered into the stream three miles above the petitioner's mill, and at the present time Bufliced for its supply. The petitioner con- tended that the construction of the new works and the extension of limits of supply proposed by the bill, would necessitate the abstraction of more water from the stream in question than the promoters at the present time required. Gontra, the promoters contended that they were already empowered to impound all the water of the stream in question without giving any compensation water to the petitioner, whose status would remain un- altered by the bill : HoUl, however, that the amount of injury that would be sustained by the petitioner owing to the proposed extension of limits and the construction of new works, was one to be decided by the Committee on the bill, and that the petitioner was entitled to be heard generally. The iocm standi of the petitioner was objected to on the following grounds : (1) no lands, streams, property, powers, rij^hts or privileges of the petitioner are sought to be taken or interfered with oompulsorily by the bill ; (2) tlio bill does not contain any provisions empowering the promoters to take, use, or abstract the waters of the river Yeo (on which the petitioner's mills, as alleged in paragraph :i cif the petition are situate) or its tributaries, or any provision authorising the taking of any other sireams; (3) the bill only seeks power to make additional works for the utilisation and distribution of the water whijjh the promoters already possess the power to take under the provisions of their Act of 1858 i (4) the works authorised by the bill are in the main iutemled to take the place of those now existing for the supply of water within the limits of supply ; (5) the petition does not allege or disclose any ground npon which, according to practice, the petitioner is entitled to be heard against the bill. Cromwell White (tor petitioners) : The bill authorises the construction of considerable additional works, including two service reservoirs, and an extension of the company s limits of supply. The petitioner is the lessee for a term of 99 years, commencing in 1880, of a valuable mill upon the river Yeo, about six miles below the point where the company at present have their intake. The company are authorised by sec. 21 of the Barnstaple Waterworks Act, 1858, "to collect and divert into the intended reservoir and works .... the waters of the river or stream called the Yeo, and to appropriate the same for the purposes of such intended works (as delineated on the said deposited plans and sections) and supply of water." That section limits the purposes for which the company can impound the river Yeo, and oanuot be construed to mean that the company can divert the Yeo for any purpose. Under those powers the company out a leat or open adit about six miles above our mill, and put down a pipe in continuation of tho leat, leading to one of their reservoirs ; but there is a discharge and overflow just at the point where the leat comes to an end and the umall pipe begins, so that the water that is not wanted for the reservoir and cannot get through the pipe, has always hitherto been re-delivered into the Yeo, about three miles above our mill, in such quantities, except at abnormal seasons, that there has been sufficient water to keep our mill working continuously and prosperously. If the limits of the company's supply are extended and the additional works authorised by the bill are constructed, one of those works being a new conduit for the supply of the extended district just at the termination of the existing leat, at the present point of overflow, they will have no water to come down to our mill, which will bo brought to a standstill. The case for the petitioners a>,niiiist the Lii-erpool UorporaHim Water Bill, 1887, xniim, p. 167, turned upon much the same point. Biddur, Q.C. (fin- promoters) : The powers of supply sought by the corporation of Liverpool in the bill refeiroil to weio of a very unusual character, and altogether different to those con- tained in this bill. It is impossible to distinguish this case from the Wrc.j^ham Water Bill, iS80 (2 ClifEonl & Rickards, 31',)), Part III. J barry dock and railway (railway extension) bill. 197 White : In that ease the petitioners were beyond the 20 miles limit preaoribed by S. 0. 14. Bidder : We can already impound, and in summer do impound all the waters of the river Yeo, under the Barnstaple Waterworks Act, 1858, which contains no provision for the supply of compensation water to the petitioner's mill. Under that Act also we might enlarge any of our works, including the leat in question ; and as regards the proposed works we should not have required any new powers had it not been that they involved taking certain addi. tional lauds. Mr. Chandos.Leigh : I doubt whether there are any instances of compensation clauses being inserted in water bills as far back as 1858. With regard to any power to enlarge works contained in the Company's Act of 1858, that would be limited to the supply of their existing district. The bill extends the limits of that district, besides authorising the com. pany to raise additional capital. The Chairman : In these cases the question of injury to the petitioner must always be one of degree. It is difficult in this case, without going into merits, to ascertain how much this case differs in degree from the Wrexham case i which has been referred to on behalf of the promoters, but, broadly, there is a difference of 20 miles or upwards as against 6 miles. The Court, therefore, are of opinion that the locus standi ought to be allowed in this case so as to enable the petitioner to go before the Com- mittee, who can, of course, go further than we can into the question of degree. The locus standi will be an unlimited one. Locus standi Allowed accordingly. Agents for Petitioner, Churchy Rendell 8f Co. Agents for Bill, Torr Sr Co. BAEEY DOCK AND RAILWAYS (FURTHER POWERS) BILL. Petition of (1) The Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Company; (2) The Taff Vale Railway Company ; (3) The Mabqdess op Bute and Earl of Domfeibs, and the Trustees of the Will of the late Mar. quess of Bute ; and {i) The fiuTE Docks Company. I8th April, 1888.— (Se/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Sfc, Sfc, S'c.) The bill empowered the promoters to acquire 330 acres of laud, which the petitioners alleged were intended for the construction of a new dock, but the bill as deposited conferred no powers upon the promoters to construct new do'cks. All the petitioners complained of com- petition which would arise from the bill, but the Court Disallowed the locus standi in the case of all of them, with the exception of the TafE Vale railway company, who were given a limited locus standi in respect of running powers, which were taken over their railway by the bill, under S. 0. 133. The case was of no value as a precedent. Frere (parliamentary agent) appeared for petitioners (1) ; Pope, Q.C., for petitioners (2) ; Bidder, Q.C., for petitioners (3 and 4) ; and Pemher, Q.C., for the bill. Agents for Petitioners (2), Sherwood Sc Co. Agents for Petitioners (3 and 4), Grahames, Cnrrey ^' Spenx. Agents for Bill, Dyson Sf Co. BARRY DOCK AND RAILWAY (RAILWAY EXTENSION) BILL. Petition of (1) The Corporation of Cardiff. 18th April, 1888.— {Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Sir George Russell, Jf.P. ; Mr. CoMPTON, ilf.P. .• and The Hon. E. Chandos. Leigh, Q.C.) Railway Extension — Diversion of Traffic from Harhnur and Docks — Municipal Corporation entitled to Rariour Dues — Alleged Injurious affecting of Town — S. 0. 134 {Municipal Authorities and Inhabitants of Totims) — Im. provement of ISxinting Competition, The bill authorised the construction by the Barry dock and railway company of a short line in extension of their authorised railways to form a junction with the Rhymney railway, over which the bill gave the promoters running powers. The cor- poration of Cardiff claimed to be heard against the bill on the ground that its effect would be to divert coal traffic from the Bute docks at Cardiff, and thus deprive them of tonnage and other dues' at those docks, which dues formed a considerable source of their revenue. They claimed to be heard under S. 0. 134 as the local authority of the town of Cardiff, which 198 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. they alleged would be injuriously affected by the bill. The Court, commenting on the fact that the inhabitants of Cardiff had not taken any action in the matter, and that the bill would merely effect an improvement of existing competition, disallowed the hous ufandi of the petitioners. The locus standi of the petitioners was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) the promoters deny that the petitioners or the in- habitants of the borough will be injuriously affected by the bill in such a manner as to entitle them, according to practice, to be heard against the bill ; (2) as regards the parish road mentioned in paragraph 7 of the petition, the , petitioners do not allege that they have any interest in the road, or that the bill contains any provisions giving power to interfere with the road, or the conduit said to be laid therein, or that any alterations thereof is intended by the promoters of the bill; (3) the promoters deny that the crossing of the proposed railway over the Llanisheu brook and the Nantmaiir stream in any way concerns the petitioners. It is not alleged that these streams, or either of them, belong to the petitioners, or that any part of them may be taken or interfered with under the bill, nor is it shown how any loss or con. taminntion of the waters of these streams can be caused by the bill ; (4 and 5) if the petitioners had alleged and the fact had been (which, how- ever, is not the case) that the bill contained provisions authorising interference with a water main of the petitioners, such an allegation would have conferred no right upon the peti- tioners, according to practice, to be heard generally against the bill, or further than against such provisions. Pemlroke Stephens, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The object of the bill is to empower the pro- moters to construct a line from a point near St. Fagans on their main line, now in course of construction, to form a junction with tho rail- way of the Rhymney railway company at a point just above Llanishen, and to give the promoters running powers over the Rhymney railway. The corporation of Cardiff claim to be heard on two grounds; (1) interference with the water, works and water supply of the town ; (2) inter- fere(ice with the general interests of the town so as to constitute an injurious affecting within the meaning of 8. 0. 134. Pemher, Q.C. (for proifloters) i I concede the Incus standi' of the corporation with regard to interference with their waterworks. Stephens -. With regard to the claim of the corporation to be heard under S. 0. 1.34, thoy are the local authority of the borough of Cardiff, and they allege that the borongh and its in. habitants are injuriously affected by the bill. Cardiff is the largest town and chief port of Wales, and ships about three-fourths of the coal export of South Wales and Monmouthshire. If the railway proposed by the bill is conslructed, and a junction made with the Rhymney rtfilway, much of the export and import trade will be diverted to the Barry docks. The running powers conferred upon the company by tho bill extend over every part of the Rhymney railway, north of Llanishen ; so that the Barry dnoks company will have the power of bringing the traffic, which has hitherto been brought by the Rhymney railway to Cardiff for shipmfnt, to the Barry docks, which are the rival port to Cardiff. This diversion of traffic and the pro- portionate falling off in shipping at the port of Cardiff will materially affect the reveniie of the corporation, because upon eviry ship of over 50 tons that comes into the Bute docks at Cardiff the corporation at the present moment receives 5a., and a proportionate amount on vessels of less burthen. That, in tho case of a town of this enormous coal trade, represents a, substantial money interest. In addition to the loss of tonnage revenue, we shall also snlTer a lo&s of water revenue, because we supply water to ships frequenting the docks, and derive a considerable profit from the supply. Moreover, the bill will alfect the value of the docks at Cardiff, and everything that affects the value of property iu the docks themselves affects the town, because the rates npoii the docks amount to something like one-fifth of the rates of the corporation. This will lead to an increase of rates on other property, and in this way the bill will cause a direct money loss to the inhabitants of the town. The Chairman : Can you refer us to any authority where a corporation having similar interest was allowed to be heard f Stephens : I do not know of any exactly similar case, but 1 refer the Court to the London andSouth-Westn-n nailway (Various I'auwrs) Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford & Riokards, 306), as showing the rights of a corporation interested in harbour dues to be heard against a railway bill affecting their port. Tho corporation are practically the harbour authority at Cardiff, as, besides the tonnage and water rates they receive, they have to keep the fairway, and to buoy and guard the channel to the docks. The provisions of the bill ought to be discussed in the interests of the trade and inhabitants of Cardiff, and the corporation as the local authority are the proper parties to discuss them, Part III.J CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE BILL. 199 The Chairman : In this case it does not appear that the inhabitants have taken any action in moving the corporation to petition. Pemler (in reply) : The proper parties to be heard in this case are the Taff Tale railway company, who are in competition with us, and whose locvs standi is conceded. At the most, the bill will improve existing competition, the principle of which was settled in 1884, because traflSo will be able to come down from any of the numerous small railways in South Wales to the Barry dock by our authorised line as soon as it is opened. In any case the corporation are not the proper parties to be heard. If the locus standi of the corporation of Cardiff is admitted in this case, there is scarcely a port in Bngland which conld not claim to be heard. The corporation of Cardiff are not a harbour board in the same sense that the corporation of Southampton w^ere in the case of the London and South-Western Railway, Company's Bill, which has been referred to. The corporation of Cardiff have a small pecuniary interest in the shipping at the docks, but are only a harbour board for certain administrative purposes. The Chaikman : We hold that this is only an improvement of existing competition, and disallow the locus of the corporation generally, but grant them a limited locus standi as regards interference with their waterworks. Locus standi of Corporation of Cardiff Disallowed, except in so far as the waterworks, conduit, and streams mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition are affected by the con- struction of the proposed railway, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for the Petitioners, Andrew ^ Co. Petition of (2) The Taff Tale Railway Com- PANT; and (3) The Bute Docks Company. Both the, petitioners (2 and S) claimed to be heard on the ground of competition. The promoters conceded the locus standi of the Taff Tale Railway Company, which was accordingly Allotoed by the Court. The locus standi of the Bute Docks Company was, after argument. Disallowed by the Court. Neither case was of any special interest or of value as a precedent. Pope, Q.C., appeared for Petitioners (2) ; Petnbroke Stephens, Q.C., for Petitioners (3) ; and Pemier, Q.C., for the Bill. Agents for Petitioners {2 and 3), Orahames, Currey Sf Spens. Agents for Bill, Dyson Sc Co, BUTE DOCKS (CARDIFF) BILL. Petitions of (1) The Great Western Railway Company; and (2) The Pontypridd, Caer- PHiLLY and Newport Railway Company. 30th April, 188S.— {Before Mr. Pabkek, M.P., Chavi'man; Sir George Russell, M.P. ; Mr. CoMPTON, M.P. ; and The Hon. E. Chandob- Leigh, Q.C.) In this case the promoters conceded, and the petitioners respectively accepted, a locus standi limited as follows ; The locus standi of the Great Western is Disallowed, except as against clauses 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 26 of the bill, in so far as they relate to any railways, &c., belonging to, or leased to, or used by the petitioners, or held or leased or worked by the Rhymney railway company and the petitioners joincly, and so much of the preamble as relates to such several matters. The locus standi of the Pontypridd, Caerphilly, and Newport railway company is Disallowed, except against clauses 18, 19, and 20 of the bill, in so far as the same relate to any railways, &c., belonging to, or leased to, or used by the petitioners, and so much of the preamble a^ ' relates thereto. Agent for Petitioners (1), Maims. Agent for Petitioners (2), Bell. Agents for Bill, Orahames, Currey ^ Spens. CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE BILL. Petition of The Society of Merchant Tentubebs OF Bristol and Others. ' 8th March, 1888.— (Be/ore Mr. Pabkee, M-P-, Chairman ; Mr. Shibess Will, M.P. ; Mr. CoMPTON, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-LeiQH, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Caeteb.) Practice— S. 0. 132 and 131 {In what cases Shareholders to he Heard)— S.O. 132 {Dissent- ing Shareholders to be Heard) — Dissent by Proxy — Restriction on Traffic Across Bridge — Consequential Damage to Building Estate — Locus Standi under S. 0. 131 and 132, general or Limited — S. 0. 62 {Meetings of Proprietors in the case of certain Bills, ^c.) The bill imposed restrictions upon the use of u. suspension bridge by vehicular and other traffic, and penalties for the violation of those restrictions, thereby in effect repeal- 200 COUKT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. ing a section of u, former Act giving the public the unrestricted use of the bridge upon payment of certain tolls. The peti- tioners were (1) an association of laerohants holding shares in the bridge company ; (2) a number of other shareholders ; (3) persons who were in the habit of using the bridge without being subject to any re- strictions similar to those proposed; and (4) shareholders in a building estate adjoining the bridge on one side of the river, who com- plained that the development of the estate would be interfered with by the restrictions proposed by the bill. Petitioners (1), (2) and (3) were in several cases shareholders in the bridge company, and claimed to be heard as dissenting shareholders under S. 0. 132. An objection was taken on behalf of the promoters that with two or three exceptions the petitioners had not personally attended the meeting of the company held in accordance with S. 0. 62 to consider the bill but had voted by proxy, which could not be taken to be covered by S. 0. 132, but this objection was overruled. Counsel for the promoters then conceded the locus standi of those petitioners who had dissented at the meeting either per- sonally or by proxy, but objected to peti- tioners (4) being heard as to any conse- quential damage to their building estate arising out of the restrictions imposed by the bill, and asked that the petitioners should be limited to the question of injury to the company's undertaking, i.e., the bridge. The Court intimated that in their opinion the petitioners would only be entitled to raise the question of injury to the company's undertaking before the Committee on the bill, and undertook to inform the Com- mittee of their views on this point, but upon counsel for the petitioners intimating that he would be content to raise any questions he might think fit upon the case of the petitioners (1, 2, 3), and would withdraw his claim to be heard upon petition (4), the Court allowed the locu.'< standi of the petitioners (1, 2, and 3) under S. 0. 132 without other limitation. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the bill has been submitted to the proprietors of the Clifton Suspension Bridge company (who are promoters of the bill) at a sp'ecial meeting of that company summoned in pur- suance of S. 0. 62 of the House of Commons, and has been approved at that meeting as required by that Order ; (2) such of the peti- tioners as claim to be heard as shareholders of the company have not nor has any of them any interests distinct from the general interests of the company and are not entitled as share- holders to be heard against the bill ; (3) none of the petitioners except Henry Napier Abbot and the Society of Merchant Venturers allege that they did by themselves or himself, or by any person authorised to act for him or them, at the said meeting or at any meeting called in pursuance of S. 0. 62 or any otlier S. 0., dissent from the resolution approving of the said bill, nor is it the fact that any of such petitioners, except as aforesaid, did so dissent ; (4) the promoters deny that Arthur Baker and Henry Willoughby Beloo were, or that either of them was, duly ap- pointed the proxies or proxy of the society of Merchant Venturers to vote at the meeting held in pursuance of S. 0. 62 ; (5) the promoters deny that the society of Merchant Venturers did duly appoint the said Arthur Baker and Henry Willoughby Beloe, or either of them, as their proxies or proxy, to vote at the said meeting; (6) the promoters allege that the instrument or document whereby the Society of Merchant Venturers affected to appoint the said Arthur Baker and Henry Willoughby Beloe, or one of them, as their proxies or proxy, to vote at the special meeting of the company, held in pursuance of S. O. G2, was void ; (7) the petitioners, so far as they claim as members of the public using, or entitled to use the bridge, do not allege that they will be subjected to any new or increased tolls ; (8) the petitioners are not entitled, on the ground that they are persons using, or entitled to use, the bridge, to he heard against a provision for regulating the pace of vehicles or horses passing over the bridge ; (9) the petitioners do not allege that they, or any of them, ride or drive any waggon, oart, or carriage, or any horse or beast of burthen, wither without any waggon, &o., along the said bridge or any part thereof, and it is only a person so riding or driving, and who will drive at other than a walking pace, who will be subjected to the pro- visions of clause 3 of the bill ; (10) the pro. meters deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, and 16 of the petition, but Paet III.] CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE BILL. 201 even if true, they do not disclose any ground which entitles the petitioners, or any of them, to he heard against the bill ; (11) the promoters deny the allegation in paragraph 13 of the peti- tion, but even if true, so far as the allegation IS made by or relates to those of the petitioners who are shareholders, the promoters allege that it would affect all the shareholders alike, and the shareholders have approved the bill in manner required by the S. 0. ; (12) the pro. motors, as to the allegation in paragraph 15 of the petition, without admitting any part of it, expressly deny that the estate therein men- tioned will be injuriously affected, or that the value of the property therein mentioned will be depreciated by the provisions of the bill ; bat even if it were so the Society of Merchant Venturers and Henry Napier Abbot are not, nor are either of them, entitled as shareholders in the company or body, to whom the said estate is alleged to belong, to be heard agaiust the bill ; (13) the Society of Merchant Venturers and Henry Napier Abbot are not, nor are either of them, entitled to represent the company or general body of shareholders to whom the said estate referred to in paragraph 15 of the petition belongs; (14) the bridge is a public highway under the jurisdiction of the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the city and county of Bristol and the Long Ashton highway board, and neither of those authorities, although served with a copy of the bill, raise any objection thereto ; (15, 16) the petitioners have not any greater interest in the bill than any other member of the public, and their petition does not disclose, nor have they any interest, which entitles them according to practice to be heard against any of the provisions thereof. Balfour Browne, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The petitioners are (1) the Society of Merchant Venturers of ^^ Bristol ; (2) certain shareholders in the Clifton Suspension Bridge ; (3) certain persons who use the bridge ; and (4) certain persons who are shareholders in a building estate close to one end of the bridge. Clause 3 of the bill imposes serious restrictions upon the use of the bridge by enacting as follows : — " Every person who, being the driver of any waggon, cart or carriage, or the rider or driver of any horse or beast of burthen with or without any waggon, cart, or carriage, shall pass along the bridge or any part thereof, between a boundary stone to be placed at a distance of 40 feet from the outside of each toll-gate, at other than a walking pace, shall be deemed to commit an offence, and shall be liable for each offence to a penalty not exceeding 40s., to be recovered summarily, and if the peisoh who commits the offence canuot be found, the owner of the said waggon, cart, carriage, horse or beast of burthen, shall be liable to the said penalty, to be recovered in like manner.'' By section 52 of the Act of 1861 (under which the company were incorporated and authorised to complete the bridge and to levy tolls for the use thereof) it is enacted that " all persons with or without horses, beasts and carriages, shall have free liberty vipon payment of the tolls by that Act granted to pass over the Clifton Suspension bridge without any interrnption whatsoever,'' so that practically what is proposed by the bill is to repeal that section. (1) The Society of Merchant Ven- turers of Bristol by their members, and (2) the other undersigned petitioners, who are share- holders of the company, hold together 254 fully paid-up shares in the Suspension Bridge com- pany, and at present use the bridge in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1861, and the individuals who form class 3 of the petitioners also are entitled to and use the bridge subject to those provisions. The petitioners (4) are shareholders in a large estate called the Leigh Woods estate, close to the bridge, on the further side from Bristol, and they strongly object to clause 3 of the bill as imposing a restriction upon the use of the bridge calculated to pre- vent the development of that estate. With regard to the claim of those petitioners who dissented at the Wharncliffe meeting of the company to be heard under S. O. 132, the petition alleges that the Society of Merchant Venturers, holders of 50 shares, Mr. A. Baker, holder of 20 shares, and Mr. H. W. Beloe, holder of 20 shares, dissented at the meeting, the two latter by proxy. Pembrohe Stephens, Q.C. (for promoters) : I concede that those who attended at the meeting and personally dissented are entitled to be heard. Browne : The S. 0. 182 does not say that in order to entitle them to be heard they must attend "personally." The S. 0. is absolutely obligatory upon j;he Court to admit dissentient shareholders. Some of the petitioners voted by proxy, as in the case of Messrs. Baker and Beloe, for whom Mr. H. Napier Abbot held u, proxy. With regard to objection (3) that the proxy which was given by the Merchant Venturers to Mr. H. Napier Abbot was void, if it was void (which I deny), it ought to have been so held at the meeting ; that is a question which the Court will not entertain on the prin- ciple omnia, presumuntur rite acta esse. Stephens : Tf the Merchant Venturers wanted to oppose, they ought to have dissented under their common seal. Mr. Chandos-Leigh ; That point is not raised in the objections, 202 COUET OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. Browne : Under the cironmstances I need not argue the other points about the petitioners who use the bridge, or trouble the Court further about petitioners (4), because if the Merchant Venturers are allowed a locus standi they, being in a sense a public body, will represent the users of the bridge, although I should prefer petitioners (4) to be left in. Mr. Chandos-Lf.igh : Mr. Napier Abbot and the others, whose locus standi will be allowed, will be able "to argue against clause 3 and against everything within the four corners of the petition. Stephens (in reply) : These, petitioners if they nrp allowed a locus standi should only be allowed the locus standi which S. 0. 132 gives them, i.e., a locus standi to oppose the bill as dissen- tient shareholders of the company. They are not entitled to be heard in respect of the alleged injury to the Leigh Woods estate for instance. Mr. Chandos. Leigh : Do you suggest that the petitioners should not be allowed to call people from the Leigh Woods estate as their witnesses in support of the contention that clause 3 will damage the traffic on the bridge, that is to say, that if that clause was passed, people would not use it to the same extent that they do now. Stephens : The issues are distinct, and I submit that the petitioners would not be entitled to call evidence to show not what effect the delay would have upon the revenues of the bridge, but upon the rents of the Leigh Woods estate. Browne : I submit that according to S. 0. 132 the Court have no power to limit the locus standi. Mr. Shiress Will : Mr. Stephens's argument is that a dissentient shareholder should not be allowed to raise before the Committee the question of consequential damage to the Leigh Woods estate. Would it not still be open to the petitioners who were given a, locus standi to say the bill will seriously injui'e the bridge company if clause 3 remains in the bill, because it will prevent people using it with that freedom with which they have been accustomed to use it, and will therefore prevent the development of the Leigh Woods estate, which if developed would produce a large revenue to the bridge company. Stephens : I agree that sp far as regards the non-development of the estate upon the revenues of the bridge company the petitioners will be entitled to give evidence, but not in so far as injury to the estate itself is concerned. A dissenting shareholder is only entitled to be heard under S. 0. 132^ on account of anything that affects the company. Mr. Chandos-Lbigh : S. 0. 132 must be read with S. 0. 131, and those two Standing Orders taken together to my mind clearly point ont that the locus standi to be given under those Orders must be as a dissenting shareholder so far as the proposals of the bill affect the company, but when the dissenting shareholder got before the Committee, I do not see how, practically, he could be prevented from calling witness after witness from Leigh Woods to, say that the estate there would be damaged residentially and depreciated for building purposes provided clause 3 was inserted in the bill. ' Stephens : I ask for a locus standi under S. 0. 132. What that means would be discussed when we went before the Committee. The Chairman : I am afraid when the parties were before the Committee there might be a dispute between them as to the extent of the locus standi. Mr. Ciiandos-Leigh : I will undertake to see that the idea of the Referees is expressed before the Committee. The Chairman : The locus .'standi of the first six of the Petitioners on the list is Allowed under S. 0. 132. Agents for Petitioners, Tnlwurdin i^' Har- greaves. Agents for Bill, Dyson tV' Co. EASTERN AND MIDLANDS RAILWAY (EXTENSIONS) BILL. Petition of The Great Ea.stern Railway Company. 14th March, 1888.— (Be/ore Mi: Parker, M.P., Ohairman; ^c, Sfc, !^c^ The main question raised by the petitioners vpas that of competition, although the pro- moters further objected that the allegations in the petition principally referred to the Eastern aiid Midlands Raihoay (Further Power.t) Bill (q. v. infra). The petitioners also claimed to be heard as landowners on account of interference with a railway of which they were the joint o\^^lers. The Court Allnnrd the locus standi of the Petitioners generally. The case was of no value as a precedent. Femher,Q,.C., appeared for the petitioners; Jeune, Q.C., for the Bill. Agent for Petitioners, Fearn. Agents for Bill, Dyson ^ Co. Part III.] great western railway (No. 1) bill. 203 eastern and midlands railway (further powers) bill. Petition of The Great Eastern Railway Company. 22nd March, 188S.— (Before Mr. Pabkeb, M.P., Ohairman ; '^c, ^c, ^c.) The petition raised the same point as that against the preceding (Extensions) bill, the two bills being inter-dependent, but the petitioners did not in this case claim to be heard as land- owners. The Conrt held that the bill would at most increase existing competition, and Disallmoed the locus standi of the Petitioners. The case was of no valne as a precedent. The same coansel and agents appeared as in the precediug case. EDINBURGH AND LBITH CORPORA- TIONS GAS BILL. Petition of Gas Consumers, Ratepayers, and Owners and Occopiers of Property in Leith and Edinburgh. 27th June, 1888.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman ; Sfc, Sfc, ^c.) No person appeared on behalf of the Peti- tioners, whose locxis staiidi was accordingly Disallowed. Agent for Bill, Beveridge. ' GLENP ALLOC H RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Great Northern and North- eastern Railway Companies. 8th March, 1888.— (Be/oce Mr. Parker, M.F., Ohairman ; Sfo., Sfc, ^c.) In this case the objections to the locus standi of the Petitioners were withdrawn, and the locus standi accordingly Allowed. Pope, Q.C., appeared for Petitioners. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson Sf Co. Agents for Bill, Livesey Sf Co. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL. Petitions of (1) The Corporation op Cardiff ; (2) The Corporation of Newport ; (3) The Newport Waterworks Company ; and (4) The Bristol Waterworks Company. 30th March, 1888.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P.; Sir George Russell, M.P. ; Mr. Compton, U.P. ;, The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Carter.) Water Pumped from Railway Tunnel — Power to Railway Company to Supply in Bulk — Peti- tions nf Neighhourincf Local Authorities and Water Companies — Competition — Puhliv Health Act, 1875, sec. 52. The Great Western railway company took power by a clause (38) of the bill to sell in bulk water pumped from their works at the Severn tunnel. Clause 38 was as follows : — " The company on the one hand, and any corporation, local board of health, urban or rural sanitary authority, or any other local authority, and the commissioners of any lOFels or sewers, and any other com- panies, bodies or persons jointly or severally on the other hand, may enter into and carry into effect contracts and agreements for the supply of water in bulk or other- wise from any pumping station, springs, reservoirs, shafts, pipes, or other work con- nected or communicating with the Severn tunnel, and may vary, suspend, or rescind any such contracts or arrangements, and may enter into and carry into effect other contracts and arrangements in lieu thereof or in addition thereto, and any such cor- poration, board, authority, commissioners, company, bodies, or persons aforesaid, may supply the water so obtained in such manner, for such purposes, within such limits, and on such terms as they may think fit, and all such authorities, boards, com- missioners, companies, bodies and persons may apply for the purpose of any such contract, supply, or arrangement, any funds or monies which they have raised or may raise under any Act of Parliament or otherwise." The petitioners were the cor- 204 COUBT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. porations of two boroughs, and two water companies already supplying water under parliamentary powers within their districts, situated at. distances of from 2 to 24 miles from the Severn tunnel. They objected to clause 3$ of the bill on the ground of competition, pointing out that under the powers conferred upon them by the bill, the promoters would be enabled to compete with them for the supply of water under particularly favourable cir- cumstances, as they could carry the water pipes alongside of their railway and deliver it to any of the works into which they had sidings. They also called the attention of the Court to the wide scope of clause 38, which would enable any local authority or other person to take the water from the promoters and supply it within their respective districts without being subject to the restrictions imposed by section 52 of the Public Health Act, 1875. Cnntra, the promoters contended that the object and purport of the clause was merely to enable them as a railway company with limited powers to sell water by agreement to the same extent that any private person would be able to do without statntory powers; that the bill could not be said to constitute them in ^ny sense a water company, as it conferred no powers upon them to construct works, distribute water, or charge water rates ; and that the bill could not be con- strued as repealing section 52 of the Public Health Act, 187S, inasmuch as it would leave the parties, with whom they (the pro- moters) would contract for the supply of water in bulk, subject to its restrictions : Held, however, that all the petitioners were entitled to be heard against clause 38 and so much of the preamble as related thereto. The locus standi of (1) the corporation of Cardiff was objected to on the following grounds : — (1) It is not alleged in the petition, nor is it the fact that any lands or property of the petitioners will or can bo taken under the lirovisions of the bill ; (2) the promoters do not object to the right of the petitioners to be heard upon their petition in respect of matters referred to therein, except so far as it relates to the objection of the petitioners stated in paragraph 13 of the petition to clause 38 of the bill, whereby the promoters seek power with respect to the water pumped from their station and works at the Severn Tunnel ; (3) the pro- moters deny that the bill will have any such effect as stated in the ]3th paragraph of the petition, or that the bill in any way relates to the water supply of the petitioners' district, which is many miles away from the Severn Tunnel and from the promoters' said station and works ; (4) the petition discloses no ground for a hearing against clause 38, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. The locus standi of (2) the corporation of New- port (Monmouthshire) was objected to on the following grounds: — (1) the only clause of the bill to which the petitioners object in their petition is the 38th clause, under which the promoters seek power to enter into contracts for the supply of water from their works at the Severn Tunnel ; but the petitioners are in no way affected by the provisions of 'that clause so as to entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (2) even if the statements contained in para- graph 4 of the ]ietition are aecnrnte, which the promoters do not admit, they do not show, nor is it the fact, that the petitioners havo any such interest in the subject matter of the bill, or that their 'district is so injuriously affected thereby as to entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (3) the bill is not a bill relating to the water supply of the petitioners' district within the meaning of S. (). 134a of the House of Commons ; (4) the agreement with the Newport waterworks company referred to in paragraph 4 of the petition has not yet been confirmed by Parliament, and the existing water supply of the said district is not at present in the hands or under the control of the petitioners, and even if such supply were afBeoted by the bill (which the promoters deny) the petitioners are not the proper parties to be heard in respect thereof ; the Newport waterworks company have also petitioned against the bill, and ever, assuming that either that company or the petitioners are affected by the bill, it is contrary to the practice of Parliament that parties having the same interest should be heard separately against the bill ; (5) the promoters deny that the bill will have any such effect as stated in paragraphs r, and 6 of the jietition, and they do not admit the accuracy of the ' statements con- tained in paragraph (6) as to the object of the said clause j but, even if it were otherwise, those paragraphs disclose no grounds upon which, according to the practice of Parliament, the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill," The locus standi of (3) the Newport, Part III.] geeat western railway (No. 1) bill. 205 Waterworks company was objected to on the following grounds ; " (1) The only clause of the bill to which the petitioners object in their petition is clause 38, under which the promoters seek power to enter into contracts for the supply of water from their works at the Severn tunnel, but the petitioners are in no way affected by the provisions of that clause ; (2) the promoters deny that the bill will have any such effect as stated in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the petition, and that the bill will, or can in any way repeal or override the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, or of the Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) Act, 1872 ; (3) the promoters do not admit the accuracy of the statements contained in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the petition, as to the objects of the said clause, but even were they accurate, they disclose no grounds entitling the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (4) it appears from a bill being promoted in the present session by the petitioners and the corporation of Newport, under the came or short title of the Newport {Monmouthshire) Corporation Water Bill, that it is proposed to transfer the undertaking of the petitioners to the corporation. The cor- poration have also petitioned against the bill, and the promoters contend that if either of the said petitioners were affected by the bill, (which they wholly deny), their interests are identical, and it would be contrary to the practice of Parliament to allow both the peti- tioners and the corporation to be heard against the bill." The locus staiidi of the Bristol Waterworks com. pany was objected to on the following grounds : (1) It is not alleged in the petition, nor is it the fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners will or can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) the clause of the bill against which the petition is mainly directed is clause 38, under which the promoters seek power to enter into contracts for the supply of water from their works at the Severn Tunnel, but the petitioners are in no way affected by the pro- visions of that clause so as to entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (3) the promoters deny that the said clause 38 will have any such effect as stated in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the petition, or that, the bill will or can in any way repeal or override any of the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875 ; (4) the promoters deny that one of the objects of the said clause is to enable the water of the tunnel springs to be introduced into the city of Bristol or its neighbourhood so as to compete with the petitioners. The district of the petitioners is many miles from the pumping station of the promoters at Sudbrook, which is on the Mon- mouthshire side of the Bristol Channel, and also a number of miles from the pumping station on the Bristol side of the channel, which station is very small, and the water pumped there impregnated with salt and other minerals, and the promoters could not, without further powers, which the bill does not give them, lay pipes along their railway so as to convey water to Bristol ; (5) the promotion of a bill in the last session of Parliament by third parties cannot affect the question whether the peti- tioners are entitled to be heard against the bill of the promoters in the present session, and even if the statements contained in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the petition were true, they disclose no grounds entitling the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (6) the petitioners deny that the said clause affords any such inducement or will have any such effect as alleged in paragraph 16 of the petition, or that the provisions of the Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) Act, 1872, will or can in any way be evaded or over- ridden under the said clauses ; (7) the allega- tions in paragraph 9 that the railway and works referred to in paragraph 18 of the petition will interfere with the mains, pipes, and water apparatus of the petitioners and with the service pipes of their customers, do not entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill, because the petitioners have only an easement to lay such mains and pipes, and are not the authority in whom the control of the public roads is vested. The petitioners do not specify any of their mains and pipes, which are to be interfered with under the provisions of the bill, and they are sufficiently protected by the general Acts incorporated with the bill against any interference with their mains aud pipes ; (8) the petition discloses no ground for a hearing according to practice. Pemhroke Stephens, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The only point in the petition on which any question will arise is the power taken by the company to sell the water which they get out of the Severn Tunnel. Clause 38 of the bill provides ; " The company on the one hand, and any corporation, local board of health, urban or rural sanitaiy authority, or any other local authority, and the commissioners of any levels or sewers, and any other companies, bodies, or persons jointly or severally oq the other hand, may enter into and carry into effect contracts and agreements for the supply of water in bulk or otherwise from any pumping station, springs, reservoir, shafts, pipes, or other work con- nected or communicating with the Severn Tunnel, and may vary, suspend, or rescind any such contracts or arrangements, and may enter into aud carry into effect other contracts and 206 COURT OF REFIlRIlIiS. [Vol. I. arrangements in lieu thereof, and any such corporation, board, authority, commissioners, company, bodies, or persons aforesaid, may sui:)ply the water so obtained in such manner, for such purposes, within such limits, and on such terms as they may think fit, and all such authorities, boards, commissioners, companies, bodies, and persons, may apply for the purpose of any such contract, supply or arrangement, any funds or moneys which they have raised or may raise under any Act of Parliament or otherwise.*' It is true since the bill was deposited the Great Western company have written a letter saying that they propose to modify that clause in certain respects. We have just as much objection to the altered clause as to the original clause. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : It would be a good thing if the Referees could always have the " fllled-up bill" before them instea4 of the bill as deposited. Last year in a gas case there were petitions against price and illumi- nating power, and there was nothing about price and nothing about illuminating jiower in the bill as deposited, but in the filled-up bill the authorities both in the other House and in this insisted upon clauses dealing with those two matters being inserted, and the petitioners got a locus standi. Stephens : I entirely go with the suggestion, as it is idle to get a locus standi against clauses that do not appear in the filled up bill, but we are bound by the existing rule. Mr. Chandos-Leigh ; Would this clause as it stands bring the Great Western company under the general Water Act ? Does the bill incor- porate it ? Saunders, Q.C. (for promoters) : No. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : You wish to become a quasi water company without putting your company under the Waterworks Act. Saunders : No, we only propose to take power to supply in bulk, not to distribute the water. Stephens : There is no restriction as to what the other parties, with whom they may agree, may do. In our petition we say with regard to clause 38, " As jjroprietors of the Cardiff water works undertaking, iu connection with which they have incurred heavy responsibility under the authority of Parliament, your petitioners object to clause '38 of the bill on the ground that, if passed iuto law, the effect would be to enable the company to supply water within your petitioners' limits of supply, which have been sanctioned by Parliament, and thus com- pete with and injure your petitioners and their undertaking." The Chairman : They say they arc many miles distant from you. Stephens : That would raise a question of merits. They have tapped certain underground waters in the tunnel, which they now get rid of by pumping into the stream, but they would like to make that water a source of revenue. .The question is whether that is not such a dis- turbance of the existing status as to entitle those, whose duty and business it is to supply water, and who have obtained statutory powers,' to a locus. The Chairman : The principal question you have to deal with is whether this is in your district. Stephens : Bristol is 15 miles from the tunnel, Newport 12i, and Cardiff about 24. The line of the Great Western runs to each of these places. There would be no question of inter- ference with public roads, and it simply depends on the will of the Great Western whether the pipe conveying the water shall be conducted along their railway and lands to any town they touch. The Chairman : Is the gradient a, possible gradient ? Stephens ; I am informed there is no physical difficulty. Our present source of supply is 32 miles off. Mr. Shirbss Will : The ground on which you ask for a locus is competition ? Stephens : Yes. Mr. Shibess Will : In order to make that out you must tell us what is going to happen to your district if the clause stands as deposited ; then you may draw our attention to what they may do under the clause as altered. Of course you must bear in mind that the bill gives no parliamentary powers of supply inside the Cardiff limits. Stephens : At the present moment every district in England is within the district of some sanitary authority, and that sanitary authority is armed with full powers to agree for a supply of water with the waterworks com- pany within its district. Mr. Shibess Will : Your suggestion is that within the Cardiff limits there are a number of sanitary authorities who, under the powers of the Public Health Act 1875, would be authorized to outer into agreements if this bill were to pass, but is not the power uudcr the Act of 1875 qualified by the words in section 52 of the Act, " so long as any such company are able and willing to supply water ? " Stephens : Clause 38 of the bill contains no such restriction, and does not refer to that section, and whoever dealt with the Great Western company would be able, under clause 38 (because this clause provides the machinery to Part III.] great westerK railway (No. 1) bill. 207 do it), not only to deal with the Great Western company, hut to make and carry oat arrange- ments for taking the water, and expending money in doing so. Moreover, local limits are fixed hy clause 38, which therefore must be taken to operate generally and in every district. Sir George Russell : Their power to enter into agreements seems to be like their power to sell water, wholesale. Stephens : Yes. Here is a scheme brought forward for the incorporation of companies " anywhere and everywhere for the Great Western company to deal with for the sujDply of this water wholesale. What is to hinder them selling water all along tte line, just as Manchester is authorized to do from their pipes at Thirlmere ? Taking powers to supply only in bulk will not help them : {Batleij Corporation Water Bill, 1871, 2 Clifiord & Stephens, 95). They can sell to any " body, corpora, tion or person," and, therefore, they will have power to agree and carry out that agreement in Cardiff. Every corporation undertaking water supply, in laying out its scheme, has regard to the sanitary and domestic requirements of the town and the supply required for trade purposes, and the rates of the town are burthened or lightened according to the profitable sale which the corporation may succeed in making to the manufacturers. Cardiff requires large quantities of water for manufacturing purposes. If any colliery or large works were to make a bargain with the Great Western company, that source of revenue is absolutely lost to the corporation notwith- standing they came to Parliament and got their Act on the faith (amongst other things) of having to supply those very works. The Chairman : If they only took power to supply their water to the existing water authority in each place that would suit you very well, I suppose ? Stephens : That does not follow. It might disturb our present arrangements. All these outside sources of supply are capable of being used as levers upon the water authority. Balfour Browne, Q.C. (for (2) the corporation of Newport, and (3) the Newport water works company) ; The position of the petitioners is somewhat peculiar, because there is a bargain being carried into effect now between the company and the corporation for the sale and purchase of the works, but as yet the works have not been transferred. The bill for the transfer has passed one House .and is now in the other. Our position is stronger than that of the last petitioners, as the pumping station is within two miles of our limits of supply. In this case, however, distance has not much to do with the question, as the Great Western company has already a system laid out, by which it can supply everybody. An ordinary company, coming for leave to supply in bulk, would have to get the permission of the local authority to break up the streets and roads, but the Great Western com- pany has a line running through all our districts, with sidings into all the gTeat works, and, as the clause stands, has a right to supply all persons and companies. It could lay mains through our districts along its own lines and into any works, which we at present supply. Although it is a supply in bulk, according to all precedents we are entitled to a locus standi ; {Southioark and Vaumhall Water Bill, 1880, 2 Clifford & Eickards, 307). Pope, Q.C. (for (4) the Bristol waterworks company) : The Bristol waterworks company are a statutory company clothed with the right and duty of supplying water within their area of supply. The only question that can arise is whether the clause against which we petition would enable the Great Western company (not- withstanding the protection to our company by the Act of 1875) to agree with local authorities for the supply, or themselves to supply water within our district, because if that would or might be the effect of tl^e clause, ess concessis a locus standi should be given to the Bristol waterworks company. Mr. Chandos-Leioh : You want to get before the Committee clearly to define the scope and meaning of clause 38 f Pope : Or to get it struck out of the bill. Last year there was promoted by people in Bristol a Bristol Water Consumers Bill to supply water within the area which at present is confided to the Bristol Waterworks com- pany. That bill was based upon an agree- ment with the Great Western company to bring this very water into Bristol, and opposed on the ground that the protection which Parliament always afforded to a, company in possession should be maintained, so long as that company was doing its duty, and the bill was thrown out. Saunders, Q.C. (in i-eply) ; I will deal with the general question first, because if my argu- ment is right that clause 38 could not have the effect of injuring any one of these petitioners, then the case for the whole of them fails. The object is simply to enable the Great Western company to do that which but for this power they could not, as a railway company incor- porated for a special purpose, do. Suppose it was not a statutory company asking for this power, but an individual landowner, who had a large quantity of surplus water which he wished to get rid of. Subject to the provisions of the 208 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. Pnblic Health Act, 1875, and any Acts restrain- ing a person or body, with whom he wished to enter into an agreement for a supply of water, from entering into such agreement, he could agree with anybody for the use of that water. Some rural sanitary authority in the district of supply of, say, Newport, might seek a supply from him, and the question would arise, could they enter into a valid agreement for taking the water P By sec. 52 of the Public Health Act that rural sanitary authority could not enter into a valid contract so long as the corporation of Newport or the Newport Water company were able and willing to supply water. The same restriction will apply to a local authority seeking to enter into an agregment with the Great Western for the use of this water. If the Great Western railway were as free as that landowner would be, they need not have come to Parlia- ment ; but they are a company formed for a limited purpose of making a railway from one point to another, and they cannot put up an hotel, or supply water, or do anything outside the ordinary duties of a railway company with- out parliamentary powers. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : You are coming now for parliamentary powers to supply water ; and to exempt yourselves from the operation of the Waterworks Clauses Act ? Semnders : No ; the bill does not exempt us from any general Acts, but does not incorporate any, because we do not take power to supply the water ourselves. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : In a bill of the London and North-Western company, which I have recently hiid before me, the company seek the same power, and in the clause which gives them the power I find this proviso : " Provided the company shall not by virtue of the powers hereby conferred upon them be deemed to be a company empowered by Act of Parliament to supply within the meaning of the Gas and Water- works Facilities Act." Saunders : The " Waterworks Clauses Act " is of universal application, and would apply to any company unless a special provision to the contrary is put into the bill. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Suppose the landowner came for statutory power ? Saunders : That would be a different thing. Mr. Ghandos-Lejgh : You are a railway com- pany, and, by means of the facilities you get in passing the mains under your lines you seek to become a waterworks company. Saunders ; The meaning of this clause was only to enable us, though a railway company, to sell water. If any rural sanitary authority wanted us to sell, we should not have to plead that we wore unable to enter into a binding agreement with them because we are a railway company. We have no power to construct works by this Act. The Ohaikman : Could you, if you got this bill, construct a water tower so as to supply places at a higher level ? Saunders : We should require land, and should have to come to Parliament for powers to take it. It would be impossible for us to supply water at Newport or Cardiff by mains along the i-ailway ; other works would be required, for which we should require parliamentary powers. Sir George Russell : This bill enables the Great Western to sell water to anybody any- where. Saunders : The protection is in this fact, that there is an Act of Parliament restraining local authorities from entering into such contracts. A private bill like this would not repeal the restrictions of the Public Health Act. The Baltey and Southward and Vaumkall cases are distinguishable, as there is a district intervening between our supply pipe and Newport, Cardiff, and Bristol. The Chairman : A Locus Standi is Allowed to all the Petitioners against clause 38 and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners (1) — Andrew 8f Co. „ „ (2) — Rees Sf ¥ren-e. „ „ (3— 4)— Di/soTC ^ Co. Agents for Bill — Sherwood Sj" Co. KENSINGTON SQUARE IMPROVEMENTS BILL. Petition of William Benson and Habby Norton Rose. 19th March, 1888.— (Be/ore Ur. Parkeb, U.F., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P.; Sir George Russell, U.P. ; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) Street Improvement — Demolition of Rouse Pro- perty — Adjoining Owner and Occupier— Lateral Support — Amenity — Injurious Affecting — Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 Vict., c. 18), s. 68— Metropolitan Building Act, 1855 (18 ^ 19 Vict., c. 122), Part III. The bill gave the promoters power to carry out certain street improvements, for the pur- poses of which thoy took compulsory powers of purchase over the house adjoin- Part III.] Kensington square improvements bill. 209 ing that of which the petitioners were respeotively the owner and lessee. The petitioners claimed to be heard in respect of the loss of lateral support and probable structural injury to their house, and also on account of the deterioration in its value for residential purposes in the event of the promoters erecting unsightly works on the adjoining site. It was pointed out that the promoters were only doing what it was already in the power of the adjoining owner to do without statutory powers, and that the petitioners were protected by Part III. of the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855 : Held, that the petitioners were not entitled to a locus standi against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact, that any land, house or property of the petitioners, or either of them, will be or cam be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) the fact that the promoters seek power to acquire a house adjoining that, of which the petitioners allege that they are lessee and owner respectively, gives the petitioners no right to be heard against the bill, even if the allega- tions in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition were weU founded, which the promoters do not admit ; (3) the bill does not contain any provision affecting the petitioners ; (4) the petition does not show that the petitioners have, nor have they, in fact, any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as, according to practice, entitles them to be heard against it. Cripps (for petitioners) : The point in this case is a simple one, but it does not appear to have ever been decided. The object of the bill is to effect certain street improvements in the neighbourhood of Kensington-square, to purchase property compulsorily for the pur- pose, to make some new streets, and to stop np certain existing streets. One of the petitioners owns, and the other occupies, a house which is not actually proposed to be taken for the pur. poses of the works, but which is next door to one ever which the promoters seek compulsory powers. By this house being pulled down considerable annoyance and inconvenience may be caused to the petitioners. Mr. Chandos-Lbigh : You have had no notice ? Oripps : No, we are not scheduled ; the limits are obviously drawn in such a manner as to exclude the house belonging to the peti- tioners. The petition alleges, paragraph (3) : " ^7 clause 5 it is proposed to empower the undertakers to stop up and discontinue for public use the streets, roads, and places mentioned in that clause which comprise James-street, Kensington - mews, James . place, and other yards, passages, roadways and places. (4) Powers are also sought for the undertakers to stop up the cairriage ways or footways of streets, to make junctions with existing streets, and to alter the levels of streets, to put up palissides, bars, posts, and other erections in streets, and to remove, alter, or interfere with sewers and drains. (5) Tour petitioner Con. stantine William Benson is the lessee of a house, No. 18, Kensington-square, and your petitioner Harry Norton Rose is the owner of the said house.- The said house immediately adjoins the house numbered 17 in the said square, which is within the limits marked on the deposited plans, and may be taken under the powers of the bill. (6) Your petitioners submit that the said house in which they are interested as aforesaid might be damaged and depreciated by the exercise of the powers sought by the bill under which the adjoining houses might be removed and palled down, and the wall of the said house of your petitioners impaired and left exposed in an unsightly con- dition. (7) Your petitioners also object that, under the powers sought by the bill, build- ings of an objectionable character might be erected at the side of and near to the said house on the ground behind thehouees in the said square now used as gardens, whereby the character of the said square would be altered and the property of your petitioners depre- ciated." No doubt the adjoining owner has a legal right to . pull down his house if he chooses, so long as he effectually shores up and secures the adjoining house, but in this case pulling down the adjoining house must affect the amenity and residential value of the peti- tioners' house. I cannot iind any reported case upon this point, and no doubt there are cases which show that the mere injurious affecting of property, no part of which s taken, does not give a right of locus standi in a case where the owner of that property would have a legal remedy under section 68 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845. The Chaikman : You would have a legal remedy in respect of structural injury to your house. Cripps : No doubt we should, where the structural injury did not arise in consequence of works done by virtue of statutory powers, but it is very doiibtf ul if we should in a case like this. 210 COURT OP EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. Mr. Shibess Will : Not long since we had a case where a railway company scheduled land ap to the centre of the road, intending thereby no doubt to take only the land belonging to owners on one side of the road. There was no locus standi allowed there to proprietors on the other side of the road. Bees (parliamentary agent, for promoters) : The claim of the petitioners cannot be supported by precedent. They are amply protected by Part III. of the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855. The Chaibman (to Eees) : We need not trouble you further. The Locus Stamdi of the Petitioners is Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Dyson ^ Co. Agents for Bill, Bees Sf Frere. LANARKSHIRE AND AYRSHIRE RAIL- WAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL. Petition of William Stephen John Pulton. 27th June, 1888.— (Be/o»-e Mr. Pabkeb, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shibess Will, M.P. ; Mr. CoMPTON, M.P. ; Mr. Healy, M.P. ; and the Son. E. Ohandos-Lbigh, Q.O.) Practice — Petition of Claimant to Estates — Court will not Entertain Question of Title. The petitioner, who appeared in person, claimed to be the rightful heir in tail to the Egliuton estates in Scotland, and petitioned against the bill on the ground that it took com- pulsory powers over lands forming part of the Egliuton estates, through which it was proposed to construct a railway. The Court, following its usual practice, declined to enter into the question of the petitioner's title to the estates in question, and Disallowed his locus standi. Agents for Bill, Martin ^ Leslie. LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL. Petitions of (1) Oveeseeks ot the Poor and SUEVBYOB OF HIGHWAYS OF SkERTON ; (2) Overseers of the Poor and Sdbveyob op Highways of Scotfoeth ; (3) Ovebseers op THE Poor and Surveyor of Highways of Bulk. 13th April, 18881— (Be/ore Mr, Parker, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shibess Will, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Cartee.) intension of Borough — Overseers of the Poor and Surveyor of Highway of Included Townships — Right of, to Petition on Behalf of Inhabitants — Appointment of Petitioners at Vestry Meeting to Act for Inhabitants — Rural Sanitary Authority— Public Health Act, 1875 (38 and 39 Vict., c. 55, sec. 2)— Practice— HowFar Body of Petitioners Can Delegate Authority to Petition —Reg. V. White, L.B. 14 Q.B.D. 358 cited^- 8. 0. 134 {Municipal Authorities and Inhabi- tants of Towns) — S. 0. 134a {Local Authorities to have a Locus Standi against Lighting and Water Bills). The bUl proposed to extend the limits of the borough of Lancaster so as to include portions of certain townships at present outside the borough. The petitions were signed by the overseers of the poor and the surveyors of highways of certain townships proposed to be included in the borough. The petitioners had not appended to their signatures to the petitions a statement that they signed the petition on behalf of the inhabitants of the townships, but it appeared that they had done so from the statements contained in the petitions themselves. It also appeared from the petitions that in the case of each of the townships a public meeting of the inhabitants in vestry had been held, and that it had been resolved that petitions should be presented against the bill, and that in each case the overseers of the poor and surveyor of highways had been deputed to petition against the bill on behalf of the inhabitants. The petitions alleged that the inhabitants of the respec- tive districts would be subjected to new and increased taxation if incorporated within the borough of Lancaster, and they objected to the new sanitary regulations under which they would be placed. On behalf of the promoters it was contended that the petitioners were neither the local authority or the inhabitants " of a town or district alleged to be injuriously affected by a bill," and that therefore they could not be heard under S. 0. 134, or as to water supply or lighting under S. O. 134a ; that the townships being part of a rural sanitary district they were represented by the Part III.] LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL. 211 board of guardians of the poor of the •Lancaster Union, who were the local authority constituted by the Public Health Act, 1875 ; and that the inhabitants of the respective townships could not delegate their power to sign the petitions to the petitioners according to the practice of the Court. It appeared that the district of the rural sanitary authority included a number of other places not affected by the bill, and that in any event the rural sanitary authority could not charge the expenses of the opposition upon the rates in the same manner as the overseers of the poor could {Beg. V. White, L.R. 14 Q.B.D. 358 cited) : Held, that it was competent for the inhabitants at the vestry meeting to depute the peti- tioners to sign the petitions on«their behalf ; and that in each case the petitioners, as representing the inhabitants, were affected by the provisions of the bill in such a manner as to entitle them to be heard against it. The locus standi of the petitioners (1, 2, 3) was objected to on similar grounds, viz. ; (1) the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact, that any land, house, property, right, or inte- rest of the petitioners or any of them will or can be taken, used or interfered with under the powers of the bill; (2) the rights and interests of the petitioners are represented (as admitted in the petition) by the rural sanitary authority of the Lancaster Union, and" the petitioners do not allege that they have any rights or interests distinct from those repre- sented by such authority, and the petitioners do not represent, and do not allege that they represent, the owners or ratepayers of the said township or the inhabitants thereof within the meaning of S. 0. 134 ; (3) the petition does not allege, and it is not the fact that the petitioners have any special interest in the subject-matter of the bill apart from the owners or ratepayers of the said township which entitles them to be hed,rd according to practice; (4) the petitioners do not allege that the petition is signed by them or any of them on behalf of the owners or inhabitants of the said townships ; (5) the petition does not appear to have been signed at any properly-convened public meeting of the owners or inhabitants of the said township ; (6) the petition does not show the number of persons present at the meeting of ratepayers referred to in the petition, nor the number voting in favour of an opposition to the bill, nor the rateable value of their property, and no means are afforded by the petition of testing the statements in the petition with regard to those matters ; (7) the petition does not allege or show that the petitioners or any of them are owners of land or houses within the said township or that they are ratepayers or inhabit- ants within the township, but if they are, they are not as individual ratepayers or inhabitants entitled, according to practice, to be heard against the bill ; (8) the matters referred to in the paragraphs of the petitions relating to markets do not entitle the petitioners to be heard on those parts of the bill to which those paragraphs refer ; (9) the bill does not allege or show that the petitioners have any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard against it according to practice. Pope, Q.C. (for overseers of the poor and surveyor of highways of (1) Skerton, and (2) Scotforth) : The same question arises in the case of both of the petitioners for whom I appear, and the same arguments apply. The bill seeks to extend the municipal boundaries of the borough of Lancaster, so as to include portions of the townships of Skerton and Scot- forth. Clause 17 of the bill enacts that, " From and after the commencement of this Act, the extended borough shall constitute a separate and distinct township, under the name of the township of Lancaster, for all purposes connected with the relief of the poor, the mak- ing and collecting of all local rates, taxes, im. positions, and assessments, and for all other civil, lay, and parochial purposes whatsoever, and the respective parts of the added area shall for all such purposes cease to belong to the respective townships in which they are now included, and the overseers and other officers thereof respectively shall, except as by this Act otherwise expressly provided, cease to exer- cise any rights and duties in the added area." The result of the bill will be to impose upon the ratepayers and inhabitants of the added district new liabilities to which they are not at present subject, and it must be observed that clause 17 abolishes theoffice of the overseers of the poor and surveyors of highways in the added district. They do not however petition on their own account, but as the delegates of the inhabitants, who in the case of both these townships held a vestry meeting, at which they appointed the petitioners, in one case unani- mously, in the other case by a large majority of the meeting after a poll to sign a petition on their behalf against the bill. The case of Beg. M 2 212 COURT OF REFEEEES. [Vol. I. T. White, L.R. 14 Q.B.D. 358, decides that where authonsedbv a vestry meeting, the overseers are no^ent^ed to oppose a private bill, but to charge the expenses of the opposition upon the rates. The Chairman : Do yon say that the rural sanitary authority could not do so ? Pope : Certainly ; they have no power to charge any rate for the expenses of any oppo- sition in Parliament. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : A rnral sanitary autho- rity could not, but an urban sanitary authority could, under the Borough Funds Act. Pope: Again, a rural sanitary authority represents a very much larger district, and is not interested in the same way. Mr. Shikess Will : Have the rural sanitary authority control of the roads ? " Pope : No ; we have the control of our own roads. We allege that our townships are of a rural character, and quite unsuited for incor- poration in a municipal borough. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : The petition relates partly to water supply. Are you a local authority of any district so as to bring you within S. 0. 134a ? Pope : We are the overseers of the township and, not only officially, but by actual vote in this matter represent the inhabitants, and we have a contract with the corporation of Lan- caster with reference to both water supply and lighting. The question has been already decided, that with reference to bills of this kind the inhabitants of a district in vestry assembled have a distinct interest from the gniardians of the poor who are the rural sanitary authority. (NewcasUe-under-Lyme, ^c, Bill, 18t7, 2 Clifford & Riokards, 47.) Pember, Q.C. (for promoters) : I have the contract as to lighting before me, but I produce the contract as to water referred to by my learned friend, and it is between the corpora- tion and the guardians of the poor of the union, who are the rural sanitary authority of the district in which both these townships are situated, by virtue of section 9 of the Public Health Act, 1875. The petitioners are not the local authority or inhabitants " of any town or district alleged to be injuriously affected by a bill," so as to bring them .within Standing Orders 134 or 134a. Mr. Shiress Will : It must be borne in mind that the rural sanitary authority are not authorised to tax anybody to oppose a bill. Can it therefore be held that nobody but the rural sanitary authority can be heard in these cases p Pember : The inhabitants might have peti- tioned under S. 0. 134, but they cannot delegate their power to do so. The petitioners are mere officials of the vestry. The case of Reg. V. White was distinguishable from this case as the bill dealt with the overseers nominatim. Moreover it was only decided that in that par- ticular case the overseers were justified in their action. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : In this case the inhabi- tants met and appointed as their representatives persons who happened to be overseers. Surely they represent them ad hoc. Pope : The decision went further than that, and said that the overseers would have the right to take any action to protect the rights entrusted to them. The Chairman: Who are thelightingauthority for these townships P Pope ; The inhabitants in vestry are the local authority for lighting the district, and they appoint lighting inspectors under 3 & 4 Will. I"V., chap. 90. The Chaikman : That is important as bringing the inhabitants within S. O. 134a. Pember : At any rate the petitioners are only officers of the vestry and are not a local authority within the meaning of the S. 0. The Chairman : Parliament evidently intends that the inhabitants of a district shall be heard against a bill of this kind, and the question is how are they to be heard. The contention is that they have not taken the right means to be heard in this case. The means taken in this case were that a vestry meeting was called in due form, and then by unanimous resolution of the meeting in one case, and after a poll in the other, they appoint certain persons who are also the overseers to oppose this bill, which they have accordingly done. It is triUe that they have not said that they sign for the inhabitants, but it appears upon the face of the petition that it is for the inhabitants that they have signed it. Pember : The Court has not yet gone the length of allowing such delegation. The Chairman ; Do you contend that the inhabitants could not delegate their authority to anybody p Pern her : Yes ; according to your decision the petition should have been signed by such a substantial number of the inhabitants as would justify the Court in holding that it was the petition of the inhabitants. As a matter of ' fact there is no evidence to show how many persons attended these vestry meetings. Pope : A vestry meeting is the only means which the parish has of expressing its will in a legal form. Pember : In any event the petitioners are only entitled to be heard against that part of the bill which affects theii- paiiicular township. Part III.] LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL. 213 , The Chairman : They are not entitled to be heard for one another, but- they onght to be heard upon their petitions with reference to the new sanitary provisions contained in the bill. The order of the Court will be, Locus Standi of the Petitioners Allowed. Pemier ; After the decision of the Court, I will not contest the locus standi of the overseers of the poor of Bulk. Locus Standi of Petitioners 1, 2, 3, Allowed. Agents for Petitioners (1, 2), Lewin, Gregory and Anderson, Agents for Petitioners (3), Simson, Wdkeford, and Go. Petition of (4) The Lancaster Wagon Com- pany, Limited. Extension of Borough — Owners and Ratepayers — Single Traders Complaining of Increased Taxation — Practice — Petition should Allege Ownership and Injury to Petitioners as Owners. A petition was also presented against the bill by the owners of extensive works which would be included vrithin the borough as proposed to be extended by the bill. They alleged that their works were rated at more than half the whole rateable value of the portion of the township of Bulk proposed to be included in the borongh of Lancaster, and they complained that the effect of the bill would be to subject them to the pay- ment of largely increased rates. The Court, after commenting on the absence of distinct allegations in the petition that the petitioners were owners of the works in question, and that their pr6perty would be decreased in value by the increased rates to which it would be subjected by the bill, allowed the locus standi of the petitioners. The locus standi of the petitioners (4) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege nor show, nor is it a fact, that any land, house, property, right or interest of the petitioners, or any of them, will, or can be taken, used or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the rights and interests of. the petitioners are represented by the rural sanitary authority of the Lancaster Union, and the petitioners do not allege that they have any rights or interests distinct from those represented by such authority, and the petitioners do not represent and do not allege that they represent the owners or inhabitants of the said township within the meaning of S. 0. 134 ; (3) the petitioning company is only a single ratepayer in the said township, and is not entitled to be hoard according to practice, and the petition does not allege any special injury to distinguish their case from that of the other ratepayers of the said township ; (4, 5) the petition does not allege, and it is not the fact, that the petitioners have any special interest in the subject-matter or provisions of the bill which entitles thena to be heard according to practice. Holden (parliamentary agent for peti- tioners) : The Lancaster wagon company are the largest owners of property in Bulk paying rates on not less tharn one-third of the whole rateable value of the township, and on more than one-half of the rateable value of the portion proposed to be included in the borongh of Lancaster. Pemier, Q.C. (for promoters) : The peti- tioners do not allege that they are the owners of their works, which is necessary to entitle them to be heard as owners. Holden: Paragraph 2 of the petition says, " The bill proposes to authorise the corpora, tion of Lancaster to extend the boundaries of the existing borough so as to comprise that part of the township of Bulk in which are situated the valuable and extensive works of your petitioners." That is an allegation of ownership. We then allege that we are assessed at the value of jEl,600, which is more than one-half of the rateable value, amounting to £3,000, of the portion of Bulk sought to be annexed by the corporation. The total rating of Bulk for all purposes is Is. in the £, while the total rating of Lancaster amounts to 3s. in' the £, and we allege that we shall be injuriously affected by being made subject to the rates and accumulated debts of Lancaster without deriving any benefit therefrom. In the case of the Pontefract Borough Extension Bill, 1876 (1 Clifford & Eickards, 183), Mr. Rickards says, " If a landowner is going to be subjected to taxation, which he has never paid before, the effect of which will be to make his land less valuable, that gives him a definite ground upon which he can claim a locus standi." Pember : The petition only refers to the position of the petitioners as ratepayers, and not as owners. As ratepayers- the petitioners are represented by the overseers, whose locus standi has been admitted. 214 COUBT OF EEFEEEES. [Vol, I. Holden : The inference from paragraph 2 of our petition is that it will make our works less valuable, because we state that the rates in Lancaster are three times the present rates of our township. Thp Chairman : The Court think that the allegation of ownership in the petition ought to have been more distinct, and they also think that the allegation that injury would accrue to the wagon company as owners, and, not only as ratepayers, should have been more distinct. Nevertheless, under all the circum- stances of the case, they Allmo the Locus Standi of the Petitioners. Agents for Petitioners (4), Simson, Wakeford and Go. Agents for Bill, Tahourdin If Hargreaves. LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Corporation op Bootle- CTIM-LlNACRE. 13th June, 1888.— {Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. CoMPTON, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham- Carter.) Transfer of Power to Construct Railways — Local Authority — Exemption of Eailioays from Watch Bate wnder Previous Acts — Amendment of Provisions as to Lease of Bailways — Alleged Alteration in Status of Petitioners — Communi- cations Across Railway, Claim of Petitioners to he hea/rd as to — Complaint against Past Legislation — S.O. 134 (Municipal Authorities and Inhalitants of Toions) . The bill transferred the power to construct certain railways, conferred upon the Mersey docks and harbour board by pre- vious Acts, to a company incorporated by the bill, and granted the company a lease of the undertaking for 999 years, subject to certain conditions as to its previous determination by the Mersey board. The petitioners were a corporation through whose borough a portion of the railways were to be constructed. The railways as authorised to be constructed by the Mersey board had been exempted (subject to certain conditions) from any watch rata levied by the petitioners, and the petitioners asked to be heard on the grounds ; (1) that this exemption ought not to extend to the railways when constructed by the company incorporated by the bill ; (2) generally, as to the change in the relative positions of themselves and the Mersey board by the transfer of the power to construct the railways, and the alteration in the duration and conditions of the lease of the railways when constructed to the company ; and (3) as the local authority of their borough, in order to obtain the insertion of a clause providing better communications under the railways to the banks of the Mersey. The Court held as to grounds (1 and 2) that the bill did not materially alter the position of the petitioners ; and that as to ground (3) the complaint of the petitioners was against existing legislation ; and that their locus standi must be accordingly disallowed. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) no lands, rights, powers, privileges or property of the petitioners will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the promoters deny that the petitioners represent the inhabi-^ tants of the said borough for all public purposes, and they also deny that the said borough and the inhabitants thereof will be injuriously affected by the bill ; (3) the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Overhead Railways) Act, 1887, clearly contemplated the transfer to a company to be incorporated by special Act of Parliament of the rights, powers, and privileges of the Mersey docks and harbour board with reference to the working and maintenance of the authorised railways, and the object of the bill is to carry out in a more complete form the original intention of Parliament in this respect and in regard to which the petitioners are in no way interested or affected ; (4) if, notwithstand- ing the above, your honourable Court should be of opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be heard, the locus standi should be expressly limited to clauses 23, 24, and 26 of the bill ; (5) the rating question raised by paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the petition are complaints in respect of past legislation, with regard to which the petitioners are not entitled to be heard ; (6) the promoters deny that the public have any rights of way or user in regard to the docks and promenade mentioned in paragraph 13 of the petition, but that such rights as they have are secured and defined by sec. 11 of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Taet ill. J LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL. 215 (0 verlieacl Railways) Act, 1882, and which rights it is not proposed in any way to lessen or injuriously affent ; (7) paragraphs 14 and 15 deal with matters beyond the scope of the bill, and in respect of which the petitioners are not entitled to be heard ; (8) the petition discloses no ground on which according to practice the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill. Balfour Browne, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The bill provides for the transfer of the powers con- ferred upon the Mersey docks and harbour board for the construction of overhead railways by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Overhead Railways) Act, 1882 and 1887, to the promoters. The petitioners are the urban sanitary authority of Bootle-cum-Liuacre, and part of the railways, the power to construct which is transferred by the bill, are within their borough. The first point to which I draw the attention of the Court is that by sec. 8 of the Bootle-cnm-Linacre (Borough Boundary) Act, 1873, it is provided that " If, and as long as the lands, docks, and works which, for the time being belong to, or ax-e under the manage- ment of the Mersey docks and harbour board, and which are within the township of Bootle, continue ,to be watched by the corporation of Liverpool, or by the Mersey docks and harbour board, then, and so long, a watch rate shall not be levied by the corporation of Bootle on any part of those lands or works." The bill transfers the powers of the Mersey board with reference to these railways to a new company; but it does so by m.eaus of a lease for 999 years, so that, technically, the ownership of them remains with the Mersey board, and that section wonld still apply to exempt these railways from a watch rate in the hands of the new company. I claim to be heard to ask that that exemption shall not apply to the railways in the hands of the new company. I also contend that the bill alters the relative position of the parties, the Mersey board and the corporation of Bootle, under the Acts of 1882 and 1887, because it makes the transfer a transfer on lease for 999 years, whereas the power of leasing these railways conferred upon the Mersey board by their Act of 1882 was for periods of 21 years, which was extended by the Act of 1887 to periods of 60 years. At any rate the bill re-enacts the powers relating to these railways, and therefore we are entitled to be heard, as we were against the original bill {Birmingham Corporation [Consolidation) Bill, 1883, dictum of Sir P. S. Reilly, 3 Clifford & Rickards, 260). It must be borne in mind that under the Acts of 1882 and 1887, the Mersey board was to con- struct the railways and then to leasethem, but under the bill the railways will be constructed by the company, and remain their property for 999 years. There is a third point upon which we ask to be heard. When the original bill for the construction of these railways was before Parliament, certain openings to allow people to pass under the railway to a promenade along the banks of the Mersey were provided for, which were to be open from sunrise to sunset. We, as the local authority of Bootle, now ask that these openings should be open night and day. On this point we ask to be heard under S. 0. 134. Pemher, Q.C. (for promoters) : With regard to the exemption from a watch rate conferred in respect of these railways by sect. 8 of the Bootle-cum-Linacre (Borough Boundary) Act, 1873, that section provides that as long as the lands and works withiu the borough of Bootle belong to, or remain under the management of the Mersey board, and are watched by the board or by the corporation of Liverpool, so long shall they be exempt from a, watch rate at the hands of the corporation of Bootle. These overhead railways will continue to be watched by the Mersey board just as much after the bill passes, as the site of them is now watched by the board, and if and when it is no longer so watched the exemption will cease. As regards the alteration in the position of the parties by the proposed lease of 999 years, that lease is under the bill terminable at the option of Mersey board at the end of 26 years, and at the end of every subsequent period of seven years, and moreover, it is under the Act of 1887 practically perpetual, because by sect. 20 of that Act it is provided that these railways are . to be leased for periods of 60 years, renewable at the option of the board at the end of each successive period of ' 60 years, so that in both oases it is practically a lease in perpetuity, and the bill does not make any alteration in it, in that respect- Then as regards the third point raised on behalf of the petitioners, viz., access to the banks of the Mersey nnder this railway, the bill makes no alterations in the conditions of that access, nor deals with it in any way, and moreover the bill contains a clause saving the rights of the corporation and the complaint of the petitioners is against past legislation. The Chairman : The Court is of opinion that the petitioners have not shown that they are injuriously affected by the bill in such a way as in the discretion of the Court to entitle them to a locus stcvnM. Locus Stamdi Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Sherwood If Co. Agents for Bill, Sharps, Parleer, Fritchard Sf Sharpe. 21(5 COURT OF EEFERBES. [Vol. I. LONDON AND NORTH-WESTEEN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) The Manchestek Ship Canal Company ; and (2) the Meksey Docks and Hardous Board. 13th April, 1888.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman, ^c, ^c, ^c.) Interference with Estuary of River— Owners of Ship Canal and Docks — Oonset-vancy Board, Private Interests how far Represented hy. The bill authorised the promoters to oonstruot a new dock near their existing docks at Garston, on the northern side of the estuary of the rirer Mersey, with a new entrance thereto, by means of certain cuts or channels, described in the bill as cuts or channels Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners (1) claimed to be hear,d against the construction of these works as owners of a ship canal com. mencing by a cutting on the opposite or southern side of the estuaryof the river Mersey, and ter- minating in Manchester ; and also against the construction of a bridge, proposed by clause 21 of the bill, across the river Irwell, as likely to interfere with the navigation of the Irwell in which they were interested as owners of the Mersey and Irwell navigation nudertak^ing. Petitioners (2) claimed to be heard as owners of docks on the Mersey, though at some distance lower down the river than the works proposed by the bill, and supported their claim to be heard by stating that they were nnder statutory obli- gations to cleanse and deepen the river within the port of Liverpool, in snccession to the cor- poratiou of Liverpool. Both petitioners alleged that the effect of the construction of the cuts Nos. 1 and 2 proposed by the bill would be to cause the bed of the river to silt np, and thus interfei'e with the present deep water channel. It was objected on behalf of the promoters that the proper persons (if any) to petition against the alleged interference with the channel of the river were the Commissioners for the Conservancy of the Mersey. {Manchester Ship Canal Bill, 1885, on petition of Miss Watt, 1 Rickards & Michael, 46 ; and Rhondda and Swansea Hay Railwwy Bill, 1893, 3 Clifford and Rickards, 380, cited.) After some discussion, the Court allowed a limited locxis standi to both the petitioners, as to which they made the following Order: Z/OCM.S Standi of the Manchester Ship Canal 3ompany Disallowed, except as regards the proposed cuts, or channels Nos. 1 and 2, lescribed in clause 15 of the bill, and the sub- sidiary works incidental thereto, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto; and also except as regards sub-section 9 of clause 21 of the bill (relating to the bridge over the Irwell), and so much of the preamble as relates thereto : Locus Standi of the Mersey docks and harbour board Disallowed, except as regards the proposed cuts or channels Nos. 1 and 2, described in clause 15 of the bill, and the subsidiary works incidental thereto, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Pember, Q.C., appeared for petitioners (1) ; Rees, parliamentary agent, for petitioners (2) ; and Pope, Q.C., for the bill. , [The facts and arguments were of a special character, and the case was of no value as a precedent, except as illustrating the principle that the conservators of a river do not represent private interests for all purposes connected with the navigation. — Ed.] Agents for Petitioners (1), Dyson 8f Co. Agents for Petitioners (2), Rees 8/' Frere. Agents for Bill, Sherwood ^ Co. LONDON AND ST. KATHBRINE DOCKS AND BAST AND WEST INDIA DOCKS BILL. Petition of Messrs. Kirk and Randall. 9th May, 1888.— (Be/ore Mr. Pabkek, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; Mr. CoMPiON, M.P.; Mr. Healy, M.P.; The Hon. B. Chandos-Leigh, g.O.; and Mr. Bonham- Cartbr.) Establishment of Working Union between Doclc Companies — Joinz Committee — Alleged Trans- fer of Property to— Petitioners Claiming to be Creditors of one Convpany— Diminution in Value of Security— Arbitration between Parties— Lis pendens — Railways Companies Act, 1867 (30 ^ 31 Vict., V. 127), s. 4. Practice— Bill Deposited in Blanlc— Petition Treated by Court as Against Amended Bill- Standing Orders Committee. The bill provided for the establishment of a, working union between two dock com- panies, to be carried out by a joint committee, who were invested by the bill with all the powers, duties and obligations of the two companies, with full power to manage the two undertakings as one. The bill preserved existing debts due to or from Part III. J london and st. katherine docks, etc., bill. 217 the two companies respectively ae well as riglits of action and other legal proceedings. It did not transfer the property of the com- panies generally to the joint committee, with the exception of rolling and working stock and unissued stores, but it gave them full powers (clause 39) with reference to " the fixing, collecting, receiving and enforc- ing payment of tolls, rates, and charges," besides conferring upon them various powers of borrowing money on the security of the revenues of the joint undertaking, and applying money to the repair of the docks and other works belonging to the two companies. The petitioners were a firm of contractors who had contracted with one of the two dock companies to construct large docks, and had already partly executed the works. A disagreement as to the meaning of the contract, however, had arisen between them and the dock company, and the matter in dispute had been referred to the standing arbitrator named in the contract deed. The petitioners had claimed before the arbitrator a large sum in respect of works already executed and as damages for breach of contract, and the arbitrator was at the present time considering his award. In the meantime an application had been made to the Court of Chancery by a creditor of the dock company for the appointment of a receiver and manager of the under- taking, and the Court had made an order for their appointment as prayed for. The petitioners urged that the effect of the bill would be to* supersede the receiver appointed by the Court of Chancery, in respect of whom they would have had a right of appealing to the Court, by the joint committee, to whom the bill trans- ferred property and money belonging to the dock company, which it would have been in the power of the petitioners to seize and attach in satisfaction of judg- ment, and that thereby the biU prejudiced their position as persons about to be adjudged creditors of the company by the award of the arbitrator. The promoters contended that the petitioners were not at present in the position of creditors of the company ; and that, even if they were, the bill did not prejudice their position, as it transferred to the joint com- mittee no property belonging to the dock companywith the exception of rolling stock, which was protected from being taken in execution by sec. 4 of the Railways Com- panies Acts, 1867, and working stock and stores, as to which the promoters conceded a limited locus standi to the petitioners. The Court, having regard to the probable result of the arbitration, allowed the locus standi of the petitioners against those clauses of the bill, which might affect their position as creditors. In this case many of the clauses of the bill, as originally deposited, were in blank, and the petitioners had not deposited a petition against it until it was filled up for Com- mittee, which course they had been allowed to adopt by leave of the Standing Orders Committee. Under these oircamstanoes the Court, in considering the locus standi of the petitioners, and contrary to its settled practice, dealt with the amended, instead of the original bill, but at the same time expressed its intention of adhering to its usual practice in ordinary cases. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the bill in no way alters or affects the position of the petitioners, or of parties claiming to be, or who may be creditors of the company. The recital in the preamble of the bill as to the capital of the Bast and West India dock company, to which the petitioners object, does not affect the petitioners or the arbitration to which they refer, or any award or awards which may be made thereunder ; (2) it is provided by the bill that any actions, indictments, and proceedings by or against either of the two companies pending at the commencement of the working union may be continued against either of the compainies, as if the Act had not been passed, and any action or proceedings of the petitioners against the Bast and West India dock company will therefore not be affected by the bill ; (3) it is not sought by the bill to authorise the Bast and West India dock company to raise further money, or to alter or vary the priority of any existing debentures or mortgages, or to authorise the said company to make any arrangements or 218 COURT OF RErEREES. [Vol. I. to give validity to any arrangements that may have been made affecting any claims or rights of the petitioners or other parties ; (4) the petitioners do not show that they will be affected, nor will they, in fact, be affected by the working union nnder the powers of the bill, and they have no interest in the terms or conditions upon which such working union may be carried into effect J (5) the bill contains no provision affecting the petitioners j (6) the petition does not show that the petitioners have, nor have they, in fact, any such interest in the objects or provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard against it. [In this case the bill before the Referees was not the bill as deposited, but an amended bill, against which the Standing Orders Committee had given the petitioners leave to petition.] Ershine PoUoch (for petitioners) ; The position of the petitioners, with ~ reference to the amended bill which is before the Court, is that the original bill was deposited in the private bill office to a large extent in blank, so as to be in time to be proceeded with during this session, and the petitioners were advised by their parliamentary agent that it could not be proceeded with on account of its form. Then the bill ' was filled up and amended, and the petitioners obtained leave from the Standing Orders Committee to petition against it in its amended form. The Chaibman : Our practice has always been to deal with the bill as deposited, but the Court are of opinion that it would be unreasonable to do so where by leave of the Standing Orders Committee a petition is presented against an amended bill, but we do not want it to be understood that petitioners can always be heard against an amended bill or this precedent to be interpreted too widely. Polloclc: The bill is entitled "A bill to authorise a working union of the undertakingB of the London and Saint Katherine docks company, and the East and West India dock company," and it provides that the two under- takings shall be worked as one by a, joint com- mittee constituted by the bill. The petition of Messrs. Kirk & Randall against the bill is presented under the following circumstances : The petitioners are contractors, and in July, 1882, entered into a contract with the Bast and West India dock company for the construction of the new docks at Tilbury, and works in connection therewith, which the East and West India dock company were authorised to construct by a Dock Extension Act obtained by them in 1882. It is against the East and West India dock company alone, in so far as they are affected by the practical amalgamation of the two under- ta,kings proposed by the bill, that the petitioners claim to be heard. Up to July, 1884, the peti- tioners had received from the Bast and West India dock company, whom I will simply call "the company," a sum amounting to about £309,000 for works executed, but in that month the company purporting to act in accordance with the terms of the contract between them and the petitioners, turned the petitioners and their workmen off the works, and seized their plant and materials. Previously to this, Sir Frederick Bramwell, the arbitrator appointed under the contract between the parties, had sat to decide differences in relation to the contract, and since July, 1884, he has sat 18i days, and is now considering and will shortly make his award. The petitioners claim that a sum of over £300,000 should be found due to them for works executed, and in addition that damages should be given them for being wrong- fully turned off the works, making their total claim over £500,000. Their rights as creditors have already been recognised to some extent in the Courts of law, on the occasion of the appointment of a manager and receiver of the company by Mr. Justice Chitty on 2nd March, 1888, on a petition being presented for the appointment of a manager and receiver of the company under the Railway Companies' Act, 1867, by a judgment creditor of the company for £5,000. The Court made the order as prayed for, and in addition made the petitioners respondents to the petition. Witli regard to the position of the petitioners with reference to this bill. If they were creditors with a sealed judgment, their position would be com- paratively secare, bat they are creditors waiting for an award, that is to say, creditors for unliquidated damages. If the affairs of the company remained in the hands of the receiver appointed by the Court of Chancery, the petitioners could go before the Court and dispute the decision of the receiver, but clause 29 of the bill provides that the joint committee shall take over the powers of the two companies with respect, inter alia, to " the fixing, collecting, receiving, and enforcing payment of tolls, rates and charges;" so that the joint committee are by the bill appointed statutory receivers of the company, and would therefore supersede the receiver already appointed by the Court of Chancery. Besides dealing with the revenue of the company, the bill transfers their property, or some of it, to the joint committee, and thereby deprives us of the power to seize it to satisfy the judgment which we anticipate in our favour as the result of the proceedings before the arbitrator. Clause 39 of the bill provides that, " all working plant, PaET III.] LONDON TRAMWAYS (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. 219 working and rolling stock, implements, gear, tools, and all other things employed or necessary for the onrrent daily working of the undertakings of the two companies respectively under the working union shall he transferred to, and are hereby vested in, the joint committee ;" and also " all unissued stores of the two companies." Then clause 40 empowers the joint committee to expend moneys for the time being in their hands as the working body and managers of the working union, which moneys would have been otherwise liable to be attached by us. Then clause 41 shows another way in which these moneys, which would otherwise be attachable, could be dealt with by the joint committee in case of seizure of the company's property under legal process. Mr. Healy: Would the real property, the land and warehouses, be liable to be seized for your debts ? Folloch : We should try to seize them under a writ of elegit. Then clause 4 3 provides that until superfluous lands are sold, the rents and profits shall be paid into the hands of the joint committee. Then we object to clause 47, which gives the joint committee power to raise working capital by borrowing on the security of the revenues of the joint under- takings, and to apply sums which would otherwise be in the hands of the company to satisfy the interest on the sum to be raised, thereby diminishing our security as creditors of the company. Lastly, clause 51 enables the joint committee to divert the profits of either company for the purpose of remedying defects in their docks, dredging, &c., and that also would afiect our position as cre- ditors. The petitioners claim to be heard against the object of the biU, viz., the estab- lishment of a working union between the two companies, that is to say, they claim a general locus standi. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : The bill no doubt transfers the powers, rights and autho- rities of the two companies to the joint com- mittee, but it also expressly preserves their respective liabilities and obligations, and by clauses 37 and 38 provides that the Act shall not affect any action, right, or cause of action, indictments, or proceedings by or against either company. Moreover, it does not transfer any of the property belonging to either company to the joint committee, with the exception of the rolling and working stock and unissued stores referred to in clause 39. With regard to rolling stock that is protected from being taken in execution by sec. 4 of the Railways Com- panies Act, 1867, and I concede the petitioners a right to be heard in respect of the transfer to the joint committee of the working stock belonging to the docks, and the unissued stores. The petitioners are not entitled to be heard against the clause for raising working capital according to the practice of the Court, nor are they affected by any of the other clauses referred to in the argument for the petitioners. The Chairman ; In the case of the Banhury and Cheltenham Direct Railway Bill, 1879, 2 Clifford and Rickards, 137, where a railway company sought power to raise further capital in the form of debenture stock, the petitioners who were the legal representatives of executive creditors were allowed a locus standi. Pope : The circumstances were different. At the most, even if an award were given in favour of the petitioners, which it has not yet been, they would be only creditors with power to issue execution. They have not got it. The Chaikman : We must look to the prac- tical interest of the petitioners in these cases, and I think, in considering whether we should give them a locus standi, we should be a good deal influenced if we believed there was likely to be a judgment in favour of the petitioners. The decision of the Court is that the petitioners are not entitled to a general locus standi, but against those clauses of the bill that may affect their position as creditors. After some dis- cussion the Court made the following order : Locus Standi of Petitioners Disallowed except clauses 39, 41, 42, 47 and 51 in the fiUed-up bill as proposed to be submitted to the committee. Agent for Petitioners, Dyson Sf Go. Agents for Bill, Bees ^ Frere. LONDON TRAMWAYS (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. Petition of Fbontagers. 30th April, 1888.— (Be/ore Mr. Pabker, M.P., Chairman; Sfc, Sfc, ^c.) In this case the promoters objected to the locus standi of certain persons signing the petition, as not being frontagers along the line of the proposed, tramways. An agreement was however come to between the parties to withdraw certain names from the petition, and the Court made the following order : Locus Standi of persons signing the petition of frontagers Disallowed, except of such of the petitioners as are frontagers and except such as is given under S. O. 135. Agents for Petitioners, Eanley JjT Co. Agents for Bill, Bees ^ Frere.. 220 COURT OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD AND LIN. COLNSHIRE RAILWAY (NEW RilL- WATS) BILL, Petition of The Lancashire and Tobkshiee Railway Company. 13th April, 188S.— (Before Mr. Paeker, M.P., Chairman; BIr. Shirkss Will, M.P. ; The Hon. B. Chando3-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham.Caeter.) Railways— Competition, Neio or Improved — New Railway in hands of Company already can-ying same Traffic by Running Powers over other Railways. The bill (inter alia) authorised the oonstmc- tion by the promoters of a railway between the railway of the Cheshire lines committee at Aintree and the Liverpool Southport and Preston Junction railway near Southport, laid out so as to run parallel with the existing Southport and Cheshire lines extension railway between those points. The promoters at present had no railway of their own between Liverpool and Southport, but carried traffic between those places by running over other railways including those of the Cheshire lines committee, of which they were joint owners- The promoters con- tended that they ,were already in keen competi- tion with the petitioners for traffic between Liver- pool and Southport, and that the bill meiely improved that competition. The Court, however, held that the construction by the promoters of the railway proposed by the bill was more than an improvement of existing competition and Allowed the Locus Standi of the Petitioners. [The arguments consisted mainly of refer- ences to the map of the district, and to local circumstances connected with the traffic between Liverpool and Southport — Ed.] Pope, Q.C, appeared for the Petitioners ; Worsley Taylor for the Bill. Agents for Petitioners, Sherwood Sf Co. Agents for Bill, TTj/atf Sf Co. MERSEY RAILWAY (NO. 1) BILL. Petitions of (1) The Great Western and the London and Noeth-Western Railway Com- panies; and (2) The Corporation of Birkenhead. , 3rd July, 1S8S.— (Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shieess Will, M.P.; Mr. Healy, M.P.; and The Hon. B. Chandos- Leigh, Q.C.) Practice — Two Bills Promoted by same Company in same Session — Claim of Petitioners, whose Locus Conceded Against one Bill, to be Heard Against both Bills as being Inter-dependent. The facts in connection with this case were of a somewhat peculiar character. The Mersey railway company were promoting in this Session two bills, Nos. 1 and 2. The present bill (No. 1) by clause 16 empowered the promoters to raise a sum of £200,000 in the form of debenture stock, to be called " Mersey Railway Redeemable First De- benture Stock,'' which, with the interest thereon, was by clause 17 to rank " in priority over all mortgages, debentures, stocks, and preference stock and shares, and the interest and dividends thereon, already granted, created, or issued, or authorised to be granted, created, or issued by the company." The bill also provided for the extinction of the company's unexercised powers of borrowing money amounting to £318,000, but authorised them to create a similar amount of another class of stock, to be called " B. Debenture Stock." Bill No. 2 provided for the abandonment by the company of an extension line in which the petitioning railway companies were interested, and the rescission of an agreement entered into between the peti- tioners and the Mersey railway company, and contained in a schedule to the Mersey Railway Act, 1887. The locus standi of the petitioners was conceded against bill No. 2, but they claimed to be heard also against bill No. 1, on the ground that the two bills formed parts of one and the same scheme, inasmuch as the provisions as to capital in bill No. I rendered it impossible for the Part 111] MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. ^21 promoters to carry out the agreement which was rescinded by bill No. 2. Contra, the promoters urged that the object of bill No. 1 was to improve their financial condition, and in no way a&eoted the position of the petitioners, whose present remedy for the non-fulfilment of the agreement was at law, and who would be heard against its rescission by bill No. 2. The Court held that the status of the petitioners was unafEected by the present bill; the two bills being independent of and distinct from one another, and disallowed the locus standi of the petitioners. The facts and arguments in connection with this case were of a special character, and turned upon the construction of the provisions of the two bills (Nos. 1 and 2) above referred to, and of the agreement scheduled to the Mersey Rayway Act, 1887 ; but the decision of the Court was of interest as illustrating the principle upon which petitioners are heard against bills intro- duced into Parliament simultaneously, and containing provisions affecting one another. [See Hull Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway, f^aharltiuU and North-Western Junction Railway Bills, 1887 {supra, p. 160) , and Barry Docks and Railway {Further Powers) and (Rail- way Extension) Bills, 1888 (supra, p. 197.) — Ed.] Pope, Q.C., appeared for Petitioners ; Bidder, Q.C., for Bill. In the case of Petitioners (2), the Corporation of Birkenhead, a landowner's Locus Standi was conceded to the petitioners by the promoters, and Allowed by the Court accordingly. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C., appeared for Peti- tioners. Agent for Petitioners (1), Mason. Agents for Petitioners (2), Sherwood ^ Go. Agent for Bill, Bell. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. Petition of The Southwakk and Tauxhall Waibh Company. Uth March, 1888.— (Before Mr. Pakkee, M.P., Chairmam, ; Sfc, ^c, ^c.) Park Bill (infra, p. 229), a limited locus standA was conceded to the petitioners against clauses 6, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the bill. Gripps appeared for the Bill. Agents for Petitioners, Wyatt Sf Go. Agents for Bill, Dyson Sf Co. MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Corporation op Bootle-cum. LiNACRB. 19th March, 1888.— (Be/ore Mr. Pakkee, M.P., Chairman; Sir George Russell, Af.P. ; Mr. Shieess Wile, M.P. ; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.G.) Consiruction of Railway through Borough — Municipal Corporation as Road Authority — Clause in previous Act for Construction of Bridges ' over Roads — Interference with said Roads by Works proposed by Bill — Roads only Designed not Constructed — Practice — How far Petitioners entitled to be heard as to CloMse inserted in Previous Act for Protection of other Petitioners — Public Health Act, 1875 (38 Sr 39 Vict, cap. 55), ss. 13, 144— S. 0. 134 (Municipal Authorities and Inhabi- tants of Towns). In this case an arrangement was come to by which, following the decision in the Vauxhall The bill proposed {inter alia) the oonatructiou of a short railway situate wholly within the borongh of the petitioners, and forming a junction with a line authorised by the Midland Railway (Additional Powers) Act, 1880, as amended by the Midland Railway (Additional Powers) Act, 1881. The cor- poration of B. had petitioned against the bills of 1880 and 1881, in which some provisions as to bridges were inserted at the instance of a landowner, through whose building estate the line was to be made, with a view to carrying certain roads, which he contem- plated making, over the railway as then proposed to be constructed. These pro. visions were approved and adopted at the time by the corporation, who desired to have proper communications established between the different portions of their borough. The corporation in their petition against the present bill alleged that under the Public Health Act, 1875 (ss. 13, 144) the 222 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. managetneut and control of the streets and sewers in tlie borough were vested in them. They alleged that the borough was rapidly increasing in population, and that it was o£ the utmost importance for the future development of the borough, that there should be free communication from one part of the town to the other. The proposed railway was laid out so as to cross two roads in process of construction upon the building estate above referred to within the borough limits, and the, bill contained no provisions for bridges to carry these roads over the proposed railway, which would have the effect of rendering the bridges provided for by the company's Act of 1881 useless. The corporation also alleged that the proposed railway would interfere with the sewers under their control, for the protection of which a special provision (sec. 9) had been inserted in the com. pany's Act of 1880 at the instance of the corporation. It was contended by the promoters that the provision as to bridges was inserted in the company's Act of 1881 at the instance of the owner of the building estate and for his protection ; and that the roads not being in existence were not under the control of the petitioners, and that the owner of the estate might never make them. As regards the sewers the promoters contended that the proposed railway could not interfere with them, and that any sewers already put in by the landowner, in anticipation of roads being formed, were his private property. It appeared however that the provisions con. tained in the company's Act of 1881 as to the construction of the bridges, although inserted at the landowner's instance and for the benefit of his estate, were general in their terms and binding upon the com- pany, and would enure to the benefit of the corporation, and the Court under these circumstances allowed the petitioners a locus standi against the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) it is not alleged in the petition, nor is it the fact. that any lands or property of the petitioners can be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill, or that the borough or district under the local management of the petitioners, or the inhabitants thereof, are injuriously affected by the bill j (2) the pro- moters deny that any streets or roads belonging to or under the control of the petitioners, or that the sewerage and drainage of the borough, will be interfered with or affected by the bill ; (3) the statements contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the petition, even if true, which the promoters deny, disclose no ground entitling the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (4) the roads and bridges referred to in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the petition, even where the same have been completed, are not the property of or under the control of the petitioners so as to entitle them to be heard against the bill in respect thereof; (5) the promoters deny that there will be any such serious interference with property as stated in paragraph 11 of the petition, and, even if it were so, the promoters deny that there will be any loss of rates against which the petitioners are not sufficiently protected by the General Acts incorporated with the bill; (6) the petition discloses no ground upon which the petitioners are entitled to be heard according to practice. Pembroke Stephens, Q.O. (for petitioners) ; The bill (inter alia) proposes to authorize the construction of a short line to connect the already authorized and constructed Beetle goods branch railway of the company with the works of the Liverpool Gas company. The Bootle goods branch railway was authorized by two Acts, the Midland Railway (Additional Powers) Acb, 1880, as amended by the Midland Railway (Additional Powers) Act, 1881, the latter of which authorized a deviation from the lino laid oat in 1880. There are certain bridges crossing this line, and it is to the two bridges nearest the Leeds and Liverpool canal that this petition relates. In the Acts of 1880 and 1881 clauses were inserted as the result of the opposition of the petitioners, in conjuno. tion with others, for protecting the local authority with regard to roads and sewers, and binding the railway company to construct and for ever maintain, among others, the two bridges in question, which the company have already constructed. Bidder (for promoters) : Those clauses were inserted by arrangement with Lord Derby, the landowner. Stephens: The landowner had his interest, and the local authority had also their interest in the matter, because the railway cut the district Past III.] MIDLAND EAILWAY BILL. 223 in two. The corporation and the local authority petitioned in 1880 and 1881. Some of the clauses were special clauses for Lord Derby's protection, and some were general, of which we availed ourselves j and there was one clause inserted in both Acts, 1889 and 1881, with regard to streets and roads for our special pro- tection, and in both Acts the company came under conditions with regard to these bridges. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Does Lord Derby petition against this bill ? Bidder : We have arranged with him. Mr. Shikess Will : Tou ask to be heard as the road authority under sec. 144 of the Public Health Act, 1875 ? Stephens : Yes. Mx. SutKESs Will : Are those roads vested in in you as surveyors of highways ? Stephens : Not yet, because one of them has not been constructed, and the other is in course of construction. I claim to be heard as the road authority, and also under S. 0. 134 as the corporation of the district, which will be injuriously affected by the bill. Sec. 6 of the Act of 1881, the marginal note to which is " Provisions as to construction of Bootle goods branch devia- tion," provides, " In the construction of the Bootle goods branch, the following provisions shall be observed and have effect : (Sub-sec. 5) The following bridges shall, simultaneously with the construction of the Bootle goods branch and the deviation, be constructed by the company, and they shall hereafter be maintained by them, in both cases at their own expense, at the points ineasured on the deposited plans from the commencement of the deviation here- inafter specified, or at some other point within 100 yards of the same respectively, to be named by the agent for the time being of the Earl of Derby," &o. Then certain bridges are named, among which are these two bridges in question. Bidder : Who put that clause in ? We say it was put in at the instance of Lord Derby. Stephens : Both parties were in Parliament petitioning, having the same common interest. That clause was perfectly satisfactory to us. Sir George Russell : Was it at the instance of the petitioners or of Lord Derby the clause was inserted ? Stephens : I am informed that the clause before it was adopted and inserted in the bill, was submitted to the corporation by the pro- moters, and was considered by them. The Chairman : Tour clients were aware of what was being done, and were parties to it ? Stephens : Yes. The bridges were to be put up in the place most convenient to Lord Derby, but the corporation asked that a mode of com- munication from one side of the railway to the other should be afforded, and that was carried out by means of these bridges. Mr. Shiress Will : Roads not yet formed are not vested in the road authority, but you say your case is stranger because it being proposed in 1880 and 1881 to make a railway through this district, where roads would probably have to be made in a short time. Parliament inserted certain provisions for the purpose of insuring the making of those roads in the public interest. The public, as it were, has got a title deed to have those roads made. Stephens : If means of access across the rail- way had not been secured, we should have gone on objecting to the bill. There is no provisfon in the present bill for carrying these roads over the proposed railway, which will be on such a level as to make it impossible to use the bridge provided by Parliament in 1881. We are also interested in respect of the sewers, under sec. 13 of the Public Health Act, 1875. In the case of one of the roads, a sewer has been laid for nearly its whole length. Although that sewer was made by Lord Derby, the plan of it was necessarily laid before our borough surveyor, to see that it fitted in with our general drainage scheme, and the surveyor has guided himself in other works he has done by reference to the deviation and levels of this particular sewer. The Chairuan: At whose expense has the sewer been laid ? Stephens .; Lord Derby's. Large owners prefer to execute their own works, and then hand them over to the town. Under the provisions of the Pttblio Health Acts, 1875, sec. 13, all existing and future sewers within the district of the local authority are vested in us. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : As I understand the bridges exist, but there is no road. Stephens : There are no continuous roads at present, but in one case it is partly constructed. Bidder : Lord Derby could fix the position of the bridge, and if he had chosen to say he did not want them, we need not have made them. The Chairman : I do not read the clause that way. Stephens : It is an obligation of the company they could only get out of by coming for Parlia- mentary power. The roads have been made up to a certain point, and things have been done, and arrangements have taken place in the borough generally, on the faith of the legisla. tion of 1880 and 1881. Bidder (in reply) ; This is a claim by a local authority, to dictate how a landowner may deal with his own property. If we were interfering with an existing road across a highway, or even a private road, if constructed, and under their jurisdiction, I agree they would have grounds ^24 COtrilT OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. for asking to be heard, but it is admitted that where onr line is laid down there is no road whatever. There is a, road in contemplation, and it may be upon paper, which Lord Derby may make or not as he pleases, but the corporation of Bootle have no jurisdiction Over that land. We have settled with Lord Derby in what way onr railway shall cross his land, and what provision shall be made for con- tinuing his intended roads. There is no case in which the Court have ever allowed a municipal authority to be heard in respect, not of existing roads, but intended roads. We are not touching the existing bridges. The Chaikman : You are making them Bidder : They are useless until Lord Derby chooses to make the roads which he never 'may make. I have made an arrangement with Lord Derby, and the corporation wants to interfere with it and dictate something different. The Chairman : Do you take the land of any- one else except Lord Derby ? Bidder : Yes ; the canal company. The Chairman : Do yon argue that it it were not for the canal company you would not have required to come to Parliament at all. Yon and Lord Derby might have arranged it between you ? Bidder : Yes, and never said a word to any. body. Section 6 of the Act of 1881 was settled with Lord Derby, and on the face of it is a clause for his protection. Sub-section 9 of that section says : "The whole of the above-mentioned works for the protection and accommodation of the estate of the Earl of Derby shall be carried out, constructed and finished to the satisfaction of his engineer." Then section 7 of the Act of 1881 makes it clear what the interest of the corporation in section 6 is, because after extend- ing section 9 of the Act of 1880 (Provision for the protection of the corporation of Bootle-cnm- Linacre) to the works connected with the devia. tion authorised by the Act of 1881 it provides : " All works authorised or required under the last preceding section of this Act shall, so far as they relate to the breaking-up or crossing of any streets or highways or to any sewers or drains within the borough of Bootle-oum- Linacre, be constructed and carried out under the superintendence and to the reasonable satis- faction of the surveyor for the time being of the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of that borough," It defines the works which they are to have any right to control, or to insist upon the construction of, viz., all works so far as they relate to the breaking-up or crossing of streets, or sewers, or drains. The railway proposed by highway, or interfere with any sewer under the jurisdiction of the corporation, and therefore, expressly, the corporation are excluded from any voice in connection with these matters. With regard to the claim to be heard in respect of sewers, the proposed railway is 19 feet above the ground and cannot interfere with sewers below the ground. But any sewer put in by Lord Derby, in anticipation of the time when he constructs the road, is his private property and forms no part of the system of drainage of the borough. The Chairman : We have found the point a somewhat difficult one to decide, but we think upon the whole that the corporation, who believe themselves to have an interest in the existing legislation, are entitled to a locus stcmdi to protect that interest. Bidder : It will of course be u, locus limited to this particular railway. The Chairman ; On so short a railway I do not think we could limit the locus standi. Locus Standi of Petitioners Allowed generally. Agents for Petitioners, Sharpe ^ Go. > Agents for Bill, Sherwood Sf Co. MILFORD DOCKS BILL. Petition of The Milfokd Haven Dock and Railway Company and The Trustites oe The National Provident Institution. 8th March, 1888.— (Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; ^c, ^c, ^c.) After some discussion, it was agreed that the Milford Haven dock and railway company should not have a locus standi, and that the trustees of the National Provident Institution (holders of A. debenture stock) should have a locus staiidi, limited to sub.seo. 2 of sec. 6, with the understanding that if it should turn out, upon investigation before the Committee, that there were any other clauses which would operate to the prejudice of the holders of A. debenture stock, they should should not be shut out from raising objections to such clauses before the Committee. Locus Standi of Milford Haven Dock and Railway Company Disallowed. Locus Standi of Trustees of National Pro. vident Institution Disallowed, except as regards sub-sec. 2 of sec. 6. Fiizc/eraJi appeared for Petitioners ; PopSjQ.C, for Bill. Agents for Petitioners, Jordan ^ Son. Part III. J piee and harbour orders, etc., bill. 225 PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONPIUMA- TION (No. 1) BILL (CURRAN PIER (LARNE HARBOUR) ORDER). Petition of The Poktpatriok and Wigtown. SHIRK Joint Committee. 14th May, 1888.— (Be/ore Mr. Pabkesr, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; Mr. Healy, M.P. ; and The Hon. B. Chandos- Leigh, Q.C.) Harbour Bates, Increase of — Steamioat Coinpany — Steamboats a Linh in Chain of through Communication between England and Ireland — Railway Company ivith Through Rates — leaders — Shareholders — Bepresentain,on. The promoters took power by the bill to abolish the existing rates and impose a new scale of rates, which were contained in a schedule to the bill, at their pier in the harbour of Lame, in Ireland. The peti- tioners were the joint committee com- posed of representatives of English rail- way companies, who had in 1885, under the authority of an Act of Parliament (the Wigtownshire and Portpatrick (Sale and Transfer) Railways Act, 1885) acquired an Irish railway, called the Portpatrick railway, which latter railway company had subscribed to and were shareholders in a steamboat company carrying cross-channel traffic between Stranraer on the Scotch coast, and Lame. The Portpatrick railway company had been empowered by Act of Parliament themselves to own and run, or hire (or make arrangements for so doing with other companies) steamers between England and Ireland (including the route in question) , and the petitioners had by the Act of 1885 acquired all the powers of the Portpatrick railway company, and therefore claimed to be their successors and repre- sentatives for the purposes of petitioning against the present bill in respect of Larne harbour; and they claimed to be heard both on account of their rights derived from an Act obtained by the Portpatrick railway company (the Portpatrick Railway (Steamboats) Act, 1864) and the Act of 1885, above referred to, and as traders. Contra, it was contended that the peti- tioners, as representing the Portpatrick company, had merely taken over the power vested in that company of owning or hiring steamboats, and had no statutory rights of trading to Larne; that they were not themselves traders to Larne, the Stranraer and Larne steamboat com. pany, who did not petition, being the real traders to Lame, and representing the peti'. tioners as shareholders in their company : Held, that the interest of the petitioners in the objects and provisions of the bill was not such as to entitle them to be heard against it. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners appear to base their claim to be heard on the fact that they are shareholders in a company, which (as they contend) may be affected by the bill, and the petitioners are represented by that company ; (2) that company are not, and do not allege that they are injuriously affected by the bill in any manner which entitles them to be heard on petition against it; (3) the petition does not disclose any ground, nor is there in fact any ground, on which the petitioners according to practice are entitled to be heard against the bill. Sutton {(or petitioners) : In 1885 four railway, companies, the Glasgow and South- Western, the Caledonian, the Midland, and the London and North-Western companies, acquired two rail- ways known as the Portpatrick railway and the Wigtownshire railway. The object of those companies in acquiring those railways, as shown by the recitals in the preamble to the Act, which transferred them, viz., the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Railways (Sale and Transfer) Act, 1885, was for the purpose of maintaining a through communication between different centres in England and Ireland by means of the links formed by the Portpatrick and Wigtown- shire railways. Amongst other recitals are the following : " And whereas the Larne and Stranraer steamboat company (limited) was formed in the year 1871 for the purpose of running steamboats between Stranraer and Larne, and the Portpatrick company contributed £10,000 to the capital of that company, and now hold stock to that amount, and the Portpatrick company also advanced by way of loans to the steamboat company, , £11,970 10s., which remains a debt owing by the steamboat company to the Portpatrick company." " And whereas 226 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. the railway of the Portpatriok company forms a communication between the systems of the London and North-Weatern, the Midland, the Caledonian, and the Glasgow and South- Western railway companies (hereinafter called the four companies), and that part of the West Coast of Scotland which lies nearest to the North of Ireland." Then the Act itself transfers all the powers of the Portpatriok and Wigtownshire companies to a joint committee constituted of two directors of each of the fonr railway companies, so that the joint committee represents the Portpatrick company in respect of the steam- boat powers which are the subject of this petition. By sec. 1 of the Portpatriok Rail- way (Steamboats) Act, 1864, it is provided " that the company " {i.e., the Portpatriok company) " may from time to time bnild or buy or hire, and may use, maintain and work or enter into arrangements for using, maintaining or working steam-vessels for the purpose of carrying on a convenient and efficient communication , by means thereof between the ports of Portpatriok and Donaghadee and also between the port of Stranraer and the ports of Donaghadee, Belfast, and_ Larne respectively, or either of them, and may take tolls in respect of such steam-vessels, and the provisions of the Railways Clauses Act, 1863 (Part IV.), with respect to steam-vessels shall be incorporated with this Act, and subject to the other provisions of this Act, and of any agreement made thereunder, such vessels so built, bought, or hired, shall (unless otherwise agreed) be deemed to be part of the Portpatriok railway within the meaning and for the purposes of any Act authorising contracts or arrangements between the company and any other company or companies." The joint committee 'have not found it necessary up to the present time to establish an independent line of steamers, but they have availed themselves of the powers given to them by subsidising the existing Larne and Stranraer line of steamers. The promoters in this case take power under the bill to do two things : to cancel all the existing harbour rates at Larne on the Irish side of the Channel, and to make new ones. The schedule of the bill, if it is passed, will throw upon those using the port of Larne, and every ton of goods landed at that port a further additional burden. At the present time the joint committee, having found that the traffic passing through these districts from England to Ireland will not bear the maximum rates upon the English side, have come to an arrange- ment to commute the rates for an annual sum of £350 a year, but that will be ineffectual if the rates at Larne are raised as proposed by the bill. Mr. Shiress Will : Do yon claim a locus standi under an Act of Parliament, or because you are a trader ? Sutton : In both respects. By the Portpatriok Railway (Steamboats) Act, 1864, Parliament has actually authorised our predecessors, and there- fore ourselves, to trade to this port of Larne. Mr. Shiress Will ; That Act does nothing more than give the railway company power to run steamboats. It puts you in the same posi- tion as individual traders, but it does not give you any statutory interest in the port of Larne. Sutton ; We not only have power to run steamers to and from the port of Larne, but we have it for a purpose sanctioned by Parlia- ment, viz., "for the purpose of carrying on a convenient and efficient communication by means thereof." And the- Lame and Stranraer steam- boats form a link in the chain of communication between England and Ireland in respect of which we have through rates. Mr. Shiress Will : You claim as traders to the port of Larne, whereas you are not traders to that port. The steamboat company, of which you are shareholders as joint-owners of the Portpatriok railway, are traders to Larne, and probably would have been allowed a locus standi, if they had claimed one, but they do not petition. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Virtually you have no control over the management of the steamboat company, except as shareholders. Sutton : Practically we are traders to Larne, and send a large amount of goods there. The Chairman: If the tolls at Larne were too high, could you not carry your traffic vid Belfast ? Sutton : No doubt we could, but that would cause a considerable dislocation of the traffic of the four companies. The Chairman: The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Disallowed. Oripps (for promoters) was not called upon to reply. Agent for Petitioners, Mason. Agents for Bill, Dyson ^ Co. Part III.] SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. 227 KHYMNBT RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) The Alexandra (Newport AND South Wales) Docks and Railway Company, and The Newport (Alexandra) Dock Company, Limited ; and (2) The Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport Railway Company. 18th April, 18^— {Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman ; SfK., Sfc, ^c.) The petitioners (1) claimed to be heard on the ground of competition, but the Court, following the decision in the Cardiff and Monmouthshire Vallfys Railway Bill, 1884 (3 Clifford^ Rickards, 378), Disallowed the Locus Standi. In the case of the petitioners (2), the pro. motors conceded a general locus standi to the petitioners as landowners. Locus Standi Allowed accordingly. Pope, Q.C, appeared for petitioners (1) ; Boupas, Q.C, for the Bill. Agent for Petitioners (1) and (2), Bell. Agents for Bill, Wyatt ^ Co. SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Vestry of the Parish of Lambeth. 13th April, 1888.— (Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; Mr. Bonham-Carter ; and The Hon. B. Chandos- Leigh, Q.C.) Acq^uisition of Land for Construction of Rail- way Works — Demolition of Houses — Appre- hended Depreciation in Value of Residential Property Adjoining Proposed Works — Diminu- tion of Rates — Vestry as Rating Authority — Quantum of Injury — Lands Clauses Act, 1845 (8 Vict., c. 18), s. 133— S. 0., 134 {Municipal Authorities and Inhahitants of Towns). Clause 12 of the bill authorised the promoters to acquire certain lands and 35 houses in the parish, of which the petitioners were the rating authority, and to appropriate the sites so acquired for the purpose of enlarging and extending their stations and sldii^g accommodation, and for roads and approaches, and for other purposes con- nected with their undertaking. There was no evidence of the rateable value of the houses, but it was admitted to be small, while the total rateable value of the parish was stated by the vestry olerk to be over £1,000,000. The Court held that the diminution in rates apprehended by the petitioners was not sufficient to entitle theui to be heard. (London and North-Westem Railway Bill, 1887, on petition of Vestry of 8t. John's, Hampstead, supra, p. 173, cited and fol- lowed.) The locun standi of the petitioners was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege or show, nor is it the fact, that any land, house, street, road, thorough, ■fare, sewer, drain, or other property belongijig to or vested in the petitioners or in or over which they have any right or interest will or may be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners do not allege, nor is it the fact that any of their rights, powers, duties, jurisdictions, or privileges are or may be affected by the bill ; (3) the petitioners have no such interest in the powers sought by clause 12 of the bill, and referred to in their petition, as entitles them to be heard ; (4) the petition discloses no ground, which according to practice entitles the petitioners to be heard against the bill. Ledga/rd, Q.C. (for the petitioners) : The peti- tion alleges, inter alia, " That the bill by clause 12 proposes to authorise the company in addi- tion to the other lands, which they are by the bill authorised to acquire, from time to time to enter upon, take, use, and appropriate for the purpose of enlarging and extending their stations and siding accommodation, and for roads and approaches, and for other purposes of and connected with their undertaking, the lands, houses, and buildings hereinafter described or referred to, delineated on the deposited plans, and described in the deposited books of reference relating thereto, namely (i) lands in the parish of St. Mary, Lambeth, situated between the river Thames and the Belvedere-road, and adjoining the company's railway, belonging or reputed to belong to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, and in the occupation of Messrs. Eastwood and Co., Limited." Then follows a further description of lands in the parish of Lambeth, which the com. pany proposes to take, and houses which they propose to take and pull down for the purposes of their works. We ask to be heard to claim N 2 228 COURT OF EEFERBES. [Vol. I. compensation for loss of rates in respect of those lands and houses, at any rate while the works are in progress. I ask yon to exercise your discretion under S. 0. 134. I distinguish the case of the Qheshire Lines Committee Bill, 1881 (3 Clifford & Rickards, 29) from this case, beoanse in that case the petitioners complained of interference with sewers, and probable decrease in rateable value owing to depreciation, but there was no specific allegation of absolnte injury, and it was not alleged that there would be an absolute demolition of property at present rateable. The Chairman : You say in your petition that certain valuable rateable and rated property within the parish of Lambeth will be injuriously affected, and in great part destroyed. You mean, I suppose, that it will be as a matter of fact destroyed. Ledgard : Yes. The case of the South-Eastern Railvay (New Lines and WideningsJ Bill, 1882 (3 Clifford & Eiokards, 213), is in my favour. I only want to be heard against clause 12. The Chaikman : I see in the case to which you have jast referred, Mr. Worsley Taylor argued that the Lands Clauses Acts made provi- sion for any deficiency of rates that might occur during construction. Ledgard : Sec. 133 of the Lands Clauses Act, which deals with the question, applies to the poor's rate only. In the Metropolitati, ^c., Raihvay Companies Bill, 1879, on petition of the Committee of the Parish of St. Dunstan's, &o. (2 Clifford & Eiokards, 201), the petitioners were a committee constituted under a local Act as trustees of the chnrch in a Metropolitan parish as recipients of the rates levied therein. They opposed the bill on the ground of the loss of rateable value, which the parish would suffer through the taking down of honses, and the increased burdens thereby cast on the remain- ing ratepayers. The Court held they were entitled to a locus standi against the clauses, which would authorise the compulsory taking of property within the parish. The Chaikman: In that case I see a large quantity of houses were to be pulled down. Ledgard : That would be merits. The Chairman : Before giving a locus standi to a local authority on the ground that the bill would destroy valuable rating property, we should require it to be shown that the amount of property to be destroyed was something substantial. Ledgard .- The bill shows that. The South ion- don Market Bill, 1882, on the petition of the Vestry of St. Mary, Newington (3 Clifford & Rickards, 223), is in my favour. Clauses such as I seek havo Piequently been inserted in bills of this description, e.g., Charing Cross Railway Act, 1859; Londpn, Chatham and Dover Railway Act, 1863 ; London and South-Western Rail- way (Various Powers) Act, 1877; London and South. Western Railway Act, 1882 ; London and Sonth-Western Railway (Various Powers) Act, 1883; South- Western Railway Act, 1886. The Chairman : Your object is to have pro- tection or compensation clauses ? Ledgard : Yes. Worsley Taylor (for promoters) ; In the pre- cedents referred to by my learned friend, the clauses may have been inserted to get rid of opposition. If they were put in by consent it proves nothing. On the other hand, in the South- Eastern Railway Bill, 1882, wliere the question was fought out, the Committee refased to insert a siniilar clause when asked for by the vestry of Lambeth and other vestries. The material allegation in the petition is that, by the enlarge- ment of the stations and siding accommodation, certain rateable property within the parish of St. Mary, Lambeth, will be destroyed. These houses are not the property nor under the con- trol of the petitioners, and the owners coup "■■ to our pulling them down. The Chairman : It is necessary that tj. petitioners should show primd facie that the property to be destroyed is something sub- stantial. Worsley Taylor: There are thirty-five hduses taken worth, say, £20 a year each, that would be £700 rental value, out of the total rental value of St. Mary, Lambeth, one of the largest Metro, politan parishes. In the London and North- western Railway Bill, 1887 {petition of Vestry of St. John's, Hampstead, [supra, p. 173]), the Court decided that the number of houses to be pulled down was so small as not to entitle the peti- tioners to a locus standi. In that case there were sixteen houses of the rateable value of £1,116. The total, therePore, would be more than in this case. We only take an insignificant number of these properties. The Chairman: In the Metropolitan, ^c, Railway Companies Bill (2 Clifford & Eiokards, 20), it was stated that the promoters would destroy property rated at £12,000 to £15,000 a year. Ledgard: The question of degree is for the Committee. Here it is a question of principle. Mr. Shieess Will: If only a single house were taken the Referees in the exercise of their discretion would not allow yon a locus standi ; if such a number of houses were demolished as to make the diminution of rates an important matter to yon, then the Referees would probably, in the exercise of their discretion under the Standing Order, give yon a locus standi. We Part III.] VAUXHALL PARK BILL. 229 want to see whether this is a trivial injury, so far as the rates are oonoerned, or whether it is substantial. Are you prepared to correct the figures Mr. Worsley Taylor has given us ? Ledgard .- I did not know that the question of degree would be raised, and have no one here to give the annual rental of the houses which would be destroyed. Unless the facts are disputed, for the purposes of Zooms standi the allegations in the petition are taken to be true. Worsley Taylor : In these cases of discretion it is for the petitioners to show that they have a substantial interest. Mr. Chandos-Leigh (to Mr. Smith, vestry clerk) : What is the rateable value of Lambeth ? Smith : Over £1,000,000. The Chairman: The Court are of opinion that the injury alleged is not sufficiently substantial for them to exercise their discretion in giving a, locus standi, following the precedent of last year. Locus Standi Disallowed. Agent for Petitioners, if. X Smith. Agents for Bill, Cooper S/" Mortimer. VAUXHALL PARK BILL. Petition of The SonrHWARK anc Vauxhail Water Company. 14th March, 1888.— (Before Mr. Paekesr, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C; and Mr. Bonham-Caetek.) Public Park — Transfer of private Lands to Metro- politan Board or Vestry — Water Company — Mains laid in " Streets " and " Public Places " — Rights of Water Company over Lands affected by Bill not Altered — Waterioorks Clauses Act, 184,1 (10 & 11 Vict., c. 17) sec. 3 (Inter- pretation Clause), sees. 28 — 34, and sec. 75. The bill was entitled "A bill to authorise the acquisition of the Lawn and Carrouu house, Lambeth, and its utilization for public purposes,'' and it proposed to empower the Metropolitan board of works and the vestry of Lambeth, or either of them, to purchase the above lands, and for either of those two bodies, whichever of them might purchase the lands, to keep the said lands for the purposes of a public park, garden, recreation ground or open space. The petitioners under ss. 28 — 34 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, had absolute power of breaking up streets (which by the interpretation clause (sec. 3 of that Act) included " public passage or place ") and they alleged that they had had great diffi- culty in obtaining the permission of the Metropolitan board to lay their pipes across other open spaces, which had been similarly dedicated to the public in accordance with previous Acts of Parliament, and had had to submit to onerous terms. They asked that the proposed park might be deemed to be included within the meaning of the interpretation clause (sec. 8) of the Water- works Clauses Act, 1847, as a " public place :" Held, that as the lands in question were at present pijivate property, over which the petitioners had no rights, the existing rights of the petitioners were in no way affected or altered by the bill, and they were not entitled to be heard against the transfer of the land to public bodies as proposed by the bill. The locus standi of the Southwark and Vaux- hail water company was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege that they have any right, title to, or interest in the lands mentioned in the petition, which entitles them to be heard against the provisions of the bill relating thereto ; (2) the first 9 paragraphs in the petition contain state- ments, which the petitioners do not deny ; (3) paragraph 10 is vague and does not show in what way any right, property, or^ interest of the petitioners are prejudicially affected ; (4) as regards the allegations in paragraphs 11, 12, and 13, if the petitioners refer to clauses 8 and 9 of the bill, they have no right to be heard against them in their capacity of a, single ratepayer, in which capacity they are "represented." The petitioners do not appear to allege that they object to these clauses ; (5) the petitioners have no right to be heard in support of the contention suggested in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the petition. It is not alleged and it is not the fact that they have any existing rights on or over the lands the subject of the bill, which will be in any way altered or affected by the bill ; (6) the nature of the signatures or seals to the petition for the bill cannot affect the question of locus standi, except that if it had been sealed, as the petitiouers suggest, they would not have 230 COURT OF BEPEREES. [Vol. I. thereby gained any better right to be heard against the bill ; (7) the petition does not diaoloae any ground on which the petitioners, according to practice, are entitled to be heard upon their petition against the bill. Baggallay (for petitioners) : The point raised is one which has not yet been decided by the Court. Under the Water Works Clauses Act, 1847, sec. 28 — 34, water companies have the absolute power of breaking up " streets " in order to lay their pipes, subject to certain condi- tions as to the superintendence of the local authorities. The term "street" under the interpretation clause of the Act includes ■' Any square, court, or alley, highway, lane, road, thoroughfare, or public passage or place within the limits of the special Act.'' The movement in favour of open spaces for the publ ic began many years subsequent to the Act of 1847, and of late years the Southwark and Tauxhall company have had great difiBcnlty iu laying their mains or pipes across these open spaces. Tlie park authorities deny that these come within the interpretation clause. To establish our right at law would involve us in frequent litigation. We therefore desire to go before the Committee to get Parliament to aay that under a state of things, which were not contemplated when the Act of 1847 was passed, it is reasonable and right that these open spaces should be public places within the interpretation clause. Mr. Shiress Will : How are yon situated with regard to the London parks ? Baggallay ; They are nearly all Crown property. The Chaibman : If you were allowed to go before the Committee, what would yon ask them to do ? Baggallay : To put in a clause declaring that this open space should be deemed to be a " public place" within the meaning of the inter- pretation clause in the Waterworks Clauses Act, which might save us a great deal of litigation with the local authority. The Chaikman : You would ask them to do a little legislation to save you a great deal of litigation. Baggallay .- The Committee on police and sanitary regulations frequently make modifica- tions of .the general law. Almost all water bills promoted by a local authority propose to e,xempt the local authority from the operation of sec. 127 of the Lands Clauses Act, and from sec. 75 of the Waterworks Clauses Act relating to profits. Mr. Shibess Will ; A case in which pro- meters ask to be exempted from some parti- cular clause in a public Act is hardly a parallel case to this. Here the nromnters nro nnf. ao»V_ ing to override the public law, but yon, the petitioners, come and say, if this bill were to pass, then according to the law we should only be able to lay our pipes in this open space with the consent of the parties in whom the open space would be vested. Baggallay : If I convinced the Committee there were special circumstances, they would have power to alter the public law in my favour. The Chairman : lajthis Vauxhall park going to include any land or streets where at present, yon have any right to lay your pipes ? Baggallay : No ; except so far as we have a right to lay our pipes under a, private road before it is dedicated to the public. Mr. Shiress Will : You want to lay down your pipes everywhere you please in this open space, whether the owners like it or not. If you had showed in your petition any special reason why you, as a member of the public, ought not to be subject to the ordinary public law, yon might have had a good case for a locus standi. Baggallay : A water company occupies a peculiar position. We say, " Your petitioners have had great difficulty in other cases in obtaining the permission of the Metropolitan board to lay pipes across other open spaces sanctioned by previous Acts of Parliament, and have had to submit to very onerous terms where such permission has been granted." Mr. Shieess Will : So has every water company. Non constat that the permission was not very properly refused. This is a matter which the water companies, as a body, might well take up. Cripps (for promoters) : My learned friend's argument is not on the question of locus standi, but one directed against certain provisions of the Waterworks Act. He has not shown that he has any rights in any land the subject of the bill. He seeks to create a new right, which he does not at present possess. There is nothing in the bill to alter the status of the lands in question or the rights of the Southwark and Vauxhall company. The bill is a simple transfer and conveyance of the land which, for the purposes of the Waterworks Act, would be as much private land as it was before. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of the Petitioners must be Disallotoed. Agents for Petitioners, Wyatt ^ Co. Agents for Bill, Dyson ^ Co. Part III.] wrexham, mold and oonnah's quay railway bill. 231 WREXHAM, MOLD AND OONNAH'S QUAY RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (I) Traders, Collihry Owners, AND Others on or Usino the BuoKLBif Railway. 8th March, 1S88.— [Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Ohairmdn; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P.; Mr. CoMPTON, M.P. ; The Hon. B. Ohandos- Leigh, Q.O.; and Mr. Bonham-Oaeteb.) Kailways — Abandoivment of Authorised- and Substitution of New Line — Rate — Traders having obtained Protective Clauses in Pre- vious Act — Power to Railway Compamj to Charge Wharfage, ^c, Dues—S. 0. 133a (Chambers of Commerce, ^c, matj be lieard in Relation to Rates and Fares). The bill aathorised the promoters (who were the lessors of a certain railway called the Buckley railway) to abandon certain rail- ways authorised to be constructed by an Act obtained by them in 1882, and to construct certain new railways upon which they were authorised by clause 24 to charge certain rates already charged upon their existing railways (including the Buckley railway) ; and clause 26 of the bill empowered the pro- moters to charge certain rates for wharfage at Oonnah's Quay, and for other services which they might render in connection there- with. The petitioners were traders, who used the Buckley railway, and they claimed to be heard against the rates proposed by clause 24 to be charged upon the new railways on account of their having obtained the insertion of clauses of a pro- tective character in the Act, which had authorised the construction by the promoters of similar branch railways in 1882. They also claimed to be heard against clause 26 (wharfage, &c., rates) of the bill, and against clauses 39 and 40 of the bill, giving the promoters power to appoint a harbour- master, &o., with jurisdiction over the wharves, &o., at Oonnah's Quay. The pro- moters contended that the petitioners had no right to be heard against clause 24, inasmuch as the bill provided for the abandonment of the portion of railway in peferenoe to which the petitioners had obtained beneficiary clauses in the Act of 1882 ; and that as to clause 26 of the bill, it was optional with the petitioners whether they should avail themselves of the services of the company at their wharves, in respect of which that clause authorised the company to make charges : Held, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard against clauses 24 and 26, bat not against the other clauses of the bill referred to in their petition. The locus standi of (1) the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it the fact, that any lands, houses, or other property belonging to the petitioners, or any of them, will or can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners are not, nor do they allege that they are, the local or other authority having the management of any town or district, or the inhabitants of any town or district, alleged to be injuriously affected by the bill ; (3) the petitioners do not represent any class of traders, freighters, or others, who, according to practice, are entitled to be heard against the bill with respect to the railways and works proposed to be authorised by the bill, or any other matter therein ; (4) the petitioners do not, nor do they allege, that they represent any particular trade or interest in the district to which the bill relates, neither do they allege that the trade or business in which they are engaged will be injuriously affected by the rates and fares proposed to be authorised by the bill or otherwise ; (5) the petitioners do not allege any ground in their petition, nor have they any interest which entitles them to be heard on their petition against auy of the pro- visions of the bill, according to practice. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for petitioners (1) ) : The bill authorises the construction of new railways, the abandonment of certain short portions of railway, and the alteration of rates. By clause 24, it is provided that, " subject to the provisions in this Act contained, the company maj demand and receive for and in respect of the railways Nos. 1 and 2, by this Act autho- rised, the same tolls, rates, and charges as they are now empowered to receive in respect of their railway, under and by vii'tue of the Act of 1862," i.e., the Wrexham, Mold, and Oonnah's Quay Railway Act, 1862, " and all tbe clauses and provisions relating to tolls and charges in that Act shall apply to those railways, and for and in respect of the railways Nos. 3, 4, and 6, 232 COURT OF BEFERBES. [Vol. I. bj this Act authorised the same tolls, rates, and charges as they are empowered to receive under and in respect of the Buckley railway by virtae of the Act of 1860 (i.e., the Buckley Railway Act, 1860), and the Buckley Railway (Additional Powers) Act, 1866, and all the clauses and provisions relating to tolls and charges for the use of the railways contained in those Acts, shall apply to railways Nos. 3, 4, and 5, authorised by this Act." Therefore, shortly, for the purposes of the proposed new lines, what are called the Buckley tolls, authorised by the Buckley Railway Act, 1860, are taken as the standard. By clause 26 of the bill it is provided that "The company, in addition to any other tolls, rates, or charges which they can lawfully demand and recover, may demand and recover for the warehousing and wharfage of goods, and use of sidings, or for any other extraordinary services performed by them, not incidental to the business or duty of a carrier, such reason- able sum or sums as they may think fit ; but nothing herein contained shall extend or apply toooal,cannel, culm, slack, coke, or oiuder traffic, where such traffic is delivered into the yards or sidings owned or rented by the consignors or consignee, but where such coal, cannel, culm, slack, coke, or cinder traffic is loaded or un- loaded, or wharf ed upon sidings or yards belong- ing to and in the occupation of the company, the company may charge a sum for the use of such siding or yard, not exceeding threei pence per ton in respect thereof, and if the said traffic shall remain on the said siding or yard for a longer period than four days (Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day, and Bank Holiday excepted) the company may charge a farther reasonable sum in respect thereof." So the new railways are put in the same position as the old as regards existing tolls on their system — "And in addition to any tolls, rates or charges which they would so be entitled to demand, they may demand such reasonable sum or sums as they may think fit for warehousing, wharfage, and use of sidings." Then clause 39 gives them this power, " For the purposes of their harbour, docks, and quays, and wharves on the river Dee, the company may from time to time nominate and appoint a harbour master, meters, weighers, and other officers, and may make and enforce the observance of bye-laws with respect to the regulation and management of their docks, quays, and wharves, and the vessels and persons resorting thereto, or mooring thereat, and the conduct of the traffic thereat and therein." And clause 40 defines the limits of the harbour master's jurisdiction. Those being in brief the prominent clauses of the bill. I wili nrncepd tn slinvp \\r\-m i-ha^tr «lWoo^- us. In 1860, a short local line, six or eight miles long, called the Buckley railway, was authorised from a point called Connah's Quay, through what was called the Buckley district to Buckley. The Buckley railway was duly constructed, and in the year 1862 it was opened for public traffic. In the same year tbe Wrexham, Mold and Connah's Quay company appeared upon the scene, and they got power by their Act of 1862, among other things, to construct a railway from Wrexham to join the Buckley railway at Buckley. And in 1863 they agreed with the Buckley company to work the Buckley railway. Then in 1873, an Act was passed authorising the transfer and lease of the Buckley railway to the Wrexham, Mold and Connah's Quay company for a thousand years. In 1882 the Wrexham company became more ambitious, and came to Parliament with various lines in various directions, and important saving clauses were then introduced. Now these saving clauses are not in the present bill, and we ask to have now the same protection which Parlia- ment felt to be necessary in 1882. The petition, after stating the origin of the Buckley railway, alleges (3) " Tour petitioners are the principal traders and colliery owners having works and collieries in the vicinity of the Buckley railway near to Connah's Quay. This is the principal shipping place upon the river Dee, and well adapted for the accommodation of your petitioners' traffic. Under existing legislation they enjoy certain advantages in respect of this traffic, of which they are appre- hensive that they will be deprived if the powers which are sought by the present bill be granted, and for the preservation of which advantages no provision is made, as by the bill it ought to have been.'' By the Wrexham, Mold, &c., Railway Acts, 1873, the Buckley railway passed over into the hands of the Wrexham company, under obligations to do the same for the traffic of the district that the Buckley company had done ; but when, in 1882, the Wrexham company came to Parliament tor power to construct several branch railways, the Buckley company obtaiBed the insertion of the following clause in the Act (sec. 55, sub-6ec. 3), " Nothing in this Act contained shall be deemed directly or indirectly to authorise any alteration of the tolls, rates, and charges demandable under the Buckley Railway Act, 1860, or in anywise to abridge or prejudicially affect any property, rights, privileges, assumption or powers of the Buckley company," " and the present petitioners also obtained the insertion of the following clause for their protection (clause 55) : — " If and whenever any traffic arising on the Buckley Part III.] wrexham, mold and connah's quay railway bill. 233 railway for shipment or otherwise to the docks, wharves, qnays, and landing-places on the lands of the Buckley company at Connah's Qaay, and IS taken on to any of the railways, quays, wharves, or property of the company, then and in every such ease no greater charge shall be made in respect of such traffic than ooald have been made if such traffic had been conveyed and accommodated solely on the railways, docks, wharves, quays, or landing-places of the Buckley company." They omit to give na in their bill the protection we had in 1882, and take power to make additional charges. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Do yon ask for a locus under S. O. 133a, as being a body representing trade or business that would be injuriously afeected ? Stephens : I do not claim a locue stcmdi purely upon that S. 0. The Chairman: You say in the petition, " Your petitioners obtained for their protection the insertion of clause 56." Are the present petitioners the same persons who obtained the insertion of that clause ? Stephens : Yes. The Chaikmak : That would seem to show they had a locus then. Bidder, Q.C. (for promoters) : I admit, if I were altering the tolls of the Buckley railway to the prejudice of those who send traffic over the line, these petitioners are sufficiently impor. tant, according to the practice of the Court, to entitle them to a locus standi. Mr. Shibess Will: Mr. Stephens contends that, for the first time> this company seeks to have power to make charges for extraordi- nary services over the whole system, and, in the next place, he contends that he ought to have in this bill some protection similar to that which substantially the same petitioners obtained in 1882 by clause 56. Stephens ; And my learned friend, in his objections, does not traverse either of those contentions ; he does not deny that Be is going to alter the rates to my prejudice ; he dees not deny that we got these same clauses in the Act of 1882, and that we properly claim them now. Therefore we are here as traders, affected by the increase of tolls, complaining of the alteration of our existing statvs, and this is not traversed. Bidder (in reply) : Clause 55 of the Act of 1882 was not inserted for the benefit of the petitioners, but for the benefit of the Buckley railway company, who are perfectly satisfied, and are not opposing. Clause 56 was inserted in 1882 for the protection of the petitioners, because we then proposed the construction of a new line by which traffic going to the Buckley company's wharves would be carried by h, longer route with a better gradient instead of by a short line with a steep gradient. By the bill we take power to abandon those branch railways, which gave an opportunity for diverting the traffic, and which were the occasion for the protective clause being inserted ; so all this bill does is to make sec. 56 of the Act of 1882 unnecessary. Even if the abandonment is carried out, we do not repeal sec. 56. The Chairman : Is there anything to oblige you to give the Buckley traders as much accommodation upon the Buckley line when you get the alternative line, as you have hitherto' given ? Bidder : By the bill we do not interfere with the Buckley railway at all. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : You are abandoning a small portion of the line authorised by the Act of 1882, and substituting another line for that. Bidder : No. We were authorised in 1882 to make these lines, but the time has expired, and we are reviving onr power as to a portion of those same lines, and we are abandoning the actual line which induced the Buckley company to ask for clause 56 in 1882. Stephens : You are coming with a bill for power to make those lines, but without the 1882 clauses. Bidder : The line of 1882, which we now abandon, was the only line, which could divert traffic from the Buckley railway on to the other railways of the company, as it offered an alternative route, and for that reason sec. 56 was introduced for the protection of the traders, and that clause is law now. As to the claim of the petitioners to be heard aganist clause 26, that is a clause which simply authorises us to make charges for work not incidental to the business or duty of carriers, and it is for separate services, which nobody need accept at our hands unless they choose. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : 'this clause, which is sought to be put into one of your Acts for the first time, is a well-known clause now. It is to enable companies over and above the mateimum charges, to charge a reasonable sum for extraordinar;^ services which they contend are not incidental to the province of carriers. A trader has surely an interest in being heard as to whether a company should have the additional power or not. Bidder : If the Court think that upon this question of the power to charge rates for extraordinary services the petitioners should be heard, I will not prolong the argument further. The Chairman ; The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Disallowed, except against clauses 234 COUKT OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. 24 and 26, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners (1), Martin ^ Leslie. Petition of (2) The Vicab, Churchwardens, overseeks and waywarden of the town- ship of gwekstllt, and ownees and Occupiers of Houses and other Property. Raihuay — 8topping-up of Road Across Level Crossing — Vicar, Churchwardens, Overseers and Waywardens of Parish — Obstruction of Access to Private Property. Snb-aection 7 of clause 5 of the bill empowered the Wrexham, &o., railway company to stop up and discontinue a public road in the township of Gwersyllt, which at present crossed their railway by a level crossing. The petition was signed by seven persons, including the vicar, churchwardens, overseers, and waywarden of the parish of Gwersyllt, and it contained allegations complaining of injury on the ground (1) of public inoon- venience that would be caused by the stopping up of the road in question ; (2) of injury to private houses abutting on the road in qnestion by obstruction of access. The promoters, in their objections to locus standi, objected as to ground (1) that the petitioners were not a local or other authority having the management of the district, or the highway authority, in whom the road proposed to be stopped up was vested ; and as to ground (2) that, with the exception of one petitioner, Edward Evans, the petition did not contain sufficient allegations of ownership or injury to private property to entitle the peti- tioners to be heard according to practice. (Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill, 1881, 3 ClifEord & Rickards, p. 70; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill, 1883, ib. 294; Swnder- land Corporation Bill, 1885, 1 Rickards & Michael, 73, cited.) The Court Disallowed the Locus Standi of all the petitioners with the exception of Edward Evans, upon counsel for the promoters undertaking that a provision should be inserted in clause 5 of the biU com- polling the promoters to continue an existing footbridge over the level crossing in question, and to do everything necessary for the use and enjoyment of it. Poyser (parliamentary agent) appeared for the Petitioners ; Bidder, Q.C., for the Bill. Agents for Bill, Wyatt Sf Co. ENB OF REPORTS OF 1888. COURT Of REFEREES II PARLIAMENT. REPORTS FOR THE SESSION 1889. *t* Wkere a Standing Order is quoted or referred (o, the numier is that of the Standing Orders for the Session 1891. BLACKPOOL RAILWAY BILL. Petition of John Morton and Others. 19th June, 1889.— (Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shiress Will, M.F. ; Mr. CoMPTON, M.P. ; The Hon. B. Chandos-Leigh, Q.O.; and Mr. Bonham-Carter.) In this case the promoters conceded the locus standi of John Morton, but objected to that of the other petitioners, for whom no one appeared when the case came on for hearing. Locus Standi oi 3ohn Morton Allowed ; Locus Standi of the other Petitioners, DisaXlowed, Worsley Taylor appeared for the Promoters of the Bill. Agents for Bill, Lewin, Gregory Sf Anderson. BUTE DOCKS CARDIFF BILL. Petition of (1) The Baeri Docks and Rail- WAY Company; (2) The Pontypridd, Caer- philly AND Newport Railway Company ; and (3) The Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Riilway Company, and the Newport (Alexandri) Dock Cjmpany, Limited. 4th July, 1889. — {Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Ohairman; Mr. Shikess Will, M.P. ; The Hon. B. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Cartee.) Railway and Doch Companies —Proposed Work- ing hy Joint Committee — Division of Receipts — Virtual Amalgaination — Competition — Exist- ing Agreement. The bill confirmed certain agreements between the Bute docks company and the Tafil Vale railway company, which agreements pro- vided for the maintenance and working of the two undertakings by a joint committee, and the division of receipts in definite pro- portions between the two companies. The petitioners were railway and dock com- panies interested in coal and other mineral traffic derived from the same district as that from which the TafE Vale company carried minerals for shipment at the Bute docks. The petitioners alleged that the bill was in reality' an amalgamation bill, and complained that the effect of it would be to enable the TafE Vale and the Bute docks companies to compete with them for this trafBo under different conditions and on more favourable terms than they could at present do. Contra, the promoters con- tended that the arrangement provided for by the bill merely altered the domestic relations between the two companies with- out affecting third parties, and that it was already the interest of the Taff Vale com- pany to consign all their traffic to the Bate docks for shipment. In support of this contention, counsel referred in argument to an agreement already existing between the promoting companies which provided ' ' that the Taff Vale company and their successors shall and will from time to time and at all times during the continuance of the said term" (which was for 250 years) " cause and procure so far as they shall be able, all minerals, merchandise and other goods that shall be conveyed on the TafE Vale railway or any part of it for the purpose of being brought to the sea coast for ship- ment, to be shipped into vessels in the said Bute ship canal " (that is, the west dock), "or in some dock, basin, or cut belonging thereto, to the intent to give the owner and owners thereof, the benefit of o 236 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. the traffic arising in respect of such, minerals." The Court, however, held that the alteration effected by the bill in the relations between the two promoting companies was of snch a character as to alter the conditions upon which they competed with the several petitioners, and allowed the locus standi in the case of each of them. [The arguments, except so far as they had reference to the existing agreement between the Bute docks and the Taff Vale companies, were based upon the geographical features of the mineral district served by the several com- panies, and consisted largely of references to maps of the district, and special local con- ditions.] Pemher, Q.C., appeared for all the Petitioners. Bidder, Q.C., for the Bill. Agents for Petitioners (1), Dyson Sf Co. Agents for Petitioners (2 & 3), W. ^ W. M. Bell. Petition of (4) The Powell Duffkyn Steam Coal Company ; and (5) Freighters on the Tam Vale Railway and Shippers at the Bute Docks. Railway and Dock Companies — Virtual Amalga- mation — Single Traders. The bill was also opposed by a company own- ing and working extensive collieries, who claimed to be heard as single traders on account of the magnitude of the business which they carried on, and as representing a special branch of the coal trade on aoootint of their mixing coal of somewhat different kinds brought from two valleys in the neighbourhood of the Bute docks. They argued that, whereas their coal, which was carried by two different railway companies, the Taff Vale company and the Rhymney company, to the Bute docks, received at the present time equal treatment at the docks, if the docks ceased to be in inde. pendent hands and were virtually amalga- mated, as proposed by the bill, with the Taff Vale company, they could no longer ensure this equal treatment. The pro- moters contended that it would still be the interest of the Bute docks company to receive and ship as large an amount of coal as possible by whatever railway it might be brought to the docks ; and that the petitioners were not entitled to be heard separately as single traders, as although their business was an extensive one, the coal shipped by them at the Bute docks only represented 5 per cent, of the whole amount shipped at the docks : Held, however, that the petitioners were en- titled to be heard against the 'bill. In the case of petitioners (5) the counsel for the promoters, after the decision of the Court upon the preceding case, conceded the locus standi. The locus standi of the petitioners (4) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners are a single firm of traders with access to the docks at Cardiff by the Taff Vale, the Great Western, and the Rhymney railways, and their petition discloses no ground for a hear- ing according to practice ; (2) the bill cannot prejudice the petitioners, who are not entitled to be heard on the general question, whether a railway company should be given the control of docks ; (3 and 4) the bill will not create a monopoly, and the petitioners are not entitled to be heard as to any alleged unfair compe- tition arising out of the bill between the differ- ent railway companies ; (5 and 6) tho petitioners have no such interest in the undertakings of the promoters or either of them as to entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (7) they are not entitled to be heard under S. 0. 133o, which is not applicable to the present case ; (8) they do not represent the trade of the district, nor do they carry on so large a proportion of the trade of the district, as to entitle them to be heard. Cripps (for (4) the Powell Duffryn steam coal company) : The petitioners have very large interests as coal owners and workers both in the Aberdare Valley and the Rhymney Valley. Their output is more than 1,250,000 tons in the year ; they pay £250,000 in wages, £60,000 in railway carriage, and £35,000 in royalties in the year. They are now working ten different collieries, and have seven more on their pro- perty. Besides representing this enormous amount of trade, the petitioners have trade interests of a peculiar and distinct kind. We have interests in both the Aberdare and Rhymney Valleys, and carry on our business by mixing coal brought from those' two valleys. There are no other traders who make this their special business as we do. As regards the Part IV.] Caledonian railway (additional powers) bill. 237 carriage of coal from the AberJare Valley we are depeadent on the TafE Vale Railway, and as regards coal from the Rhymney Valley we are dependent on the Rhymney railway. If the Bnte docks pass into the hands of the TafE Vale company, our coals which are carried to Cardiff by the Rhymney railway, will be at a disad- vantage at the Bnte docks with other coals brought by the TafE Vale company. As traders we are satisfied with the present management of the Bate docks in Independent hands, but if the docks pass under the control of the TafE Vale company, we shall not receive impartial treat- ment at the docks. The Chairman : Do these collieries belong to your company ? Oripps : They are partly freehold and partly leasehold, but are worked exclusively by onr company. Single traders have been frequently heard against bills of a less injurious character to their interests than the present bill. {Gloucester and Berkeley Canal Bill, 1874, 1 Clifford & Rickards, 76 ; Orhney Harbours Bill, 1887, Rickards & Michael, 184.) Bidder, Q.C. (for promoters) : The petitioners complain that the coal carried from their col- lieries to the Bute docks by the Rhymney rail- way will not receive the same treatment at the docks as that carried by the TafE Vale rail- way. That is a point which can be raised by the Rhymney company, but not by a single trader like themselves. Moreover, it will always be the interest of the promoters to get as much coal as they can to the Bute docks at Cardiff. The Chaibman : But to get it if possible over the Taff Vale railway, to which end they might give greater facilities for the shipment of coal brought by that railway. Bidder : As regards the extent of the trade of the petitioners, the figures show that they send for shipment at Cardiff only a little over 5 per cent, of the total amount shipped there. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Allowed. Oripps (for (5) freighters on the Taff Vale railway and shippers at the Bute docks) : The case of these petitioners is an d, fortiori case to that of the last petitioners (4). Bidder, Q.C. (for promoters) : After the de- cision of the Court in the last case, I will con- cede the locus of the petitioners. Locus Standi of Petitioners (4 and 5) Allowed. Agents for Petitioners (4), Rees ^ Frere. Agents for Petitioners (5), Dyson Sf Go. Agents for Bill, Grahames, Ourrey Sc Spens. CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL. Petition of (1) The Goeat Northern and Nokth-Easteun Railway Companies; (2) Glasgow and South. Western Railway Company. 2lst March, 1889.— (Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Comfton, M.P.; Mr. Shikess Will, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Carter.) Railways — Competition — Alternative Routes, vid East and West Coasts of Scotland — Extension Lines — Diversion of Traffic — Running Powers and Traffic Facilities under Previous Acts — Claim for Insertion of Similar Provisions in Bill. lAlloa Railway Bill, 1879, 2 QlifEord& Rickards, 133 ; Alloa, Dumfermline, ^c. Railway Bill, 1883, (3 Clifford & Rickards, 247) ; and Glasgow and North-Western Railway Bill, 1883, ib. 281, cited and followed.^ The bill authorised the construction of certain railways forming junctions with and being (as the promoters admitted) extensions of the Scottish Central railway, which had been amalgamated with the undertaking of the promoters, the Caledonian railway company, by the Caledonian and Scottish Central Railways Amalgamation Act, 1865. The petitioners (1) were two railway companies designated in that Act as the east coast companies, and had by sec. 94 of the Act been given running powers over the Scottish Central line. By a subsequent section of the same Act (sec. 99) it had been provided that "the several facilities, powers, privi leges and provisions by this Act granted, secured and provided as regards east coast traffic, shall extend and apply to any railway in extension of or connected with the Scottish Central line, which shall belong or be leased to the company, either solely or jointly with any other company, in all respects, as if such railway had been part of the Scottish Central line, but the powers of running by this Act granted shall not extend to any such railway." The peti- tioners contended that in the absence of a provision in the bill that the proposed railways were to be considered to be in extension of the Scottish Central line, they o 2 238 COUET OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. were entitled to be heard to obtain the insertion of a provision in the bill to that eiiect. They also asked to go before the committee on the bill to argue that, inas- much as the proposed railways would in fact form a duplication and not merely an extension of the Scottish Central line, they ought to be given the same running powers over them as they had obtained over the original line by the Act of 1865. (Alloa Railway Bill, 1879, 2 Clifford & Kiokards, 133, and Alloa, Dumfermline and Kirkcaldy Railway Bill, 1883, 3 Clifford & Eiokards, 247, cited.) The promoters contended that if, as they admitted, the railways proposed by the bill were extensions of the Scottish Central line, the right of the petitioners to traffic facilities over them under the Act of 1865 was clear, and could be enforced in a court of law, while as to running powers the petitioners were precluded by the same Act from being heard in support of their claim to them : Held, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard to contend that the facilities granted to them by the Act of 1865, should be extended to the proposed railways, but not to ask for running powers. With regard to petitioners (2), the Glasgow and South-Western railway company, the same arguments were used in support of the general principle that they were entitled to be heard to secure a share of traffic passing to and from the north of Scotland over the Caledonian and Scottish Central railways as had been used in the case of (1) the east coast companies, which principle had been established by Parliament in 1 865, and subsequently recognised by the Court of Beferees in the cases above referred to, and in the Glasgow and North-Western Rail- way Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford & Eickards, 281). There was, however, this distinction between the case of these petitioners and that of the east coast companies, that there was no clause in the Caledonian and Scottish Central Eailways Amalgamation Act, 1865, giving the Glasgow and South-Western company running powers over future extensions of the Scottish Central system as in the case of the east coast companies (sec. 99). It was established in argument, however, that the effect of the. bill- would be to shorten the distance between Glasgow and Stirling in the hands of the Caledonian company by the construction of a short loop line, which would be used by that company as the main line from Glasgow to Stirling! and the Court allowed the petitioners a locus standi in similar terms to that granted to the east coast companies. The locus standi of (1) the Great Northern, and North-Eastern railway companies was ob- jected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition does not allege that the bill contains, nor does it, in fact, contain any provisions giving power to take land or other property of which the petitioners are owners, lessees, or occupiers ; (2) the petition does not allege that the bill contains, nor does it, in fact, contain any provisions repealing or altering any of the privileges facilities or powers conferred on the petitioners by the Act of 1865, referred to in the petition ; (3) the petition is founded solely upon certain provisions in favour of the petitioners contained in the Caledonian and Scottish Central Eailways Amalgamation Act, 1865, with respect to traffic to, over and from what was then the Scottish Central railway, and asks merely that those provisions should be ex. pressly extended to certain of the railways pro- posed by the bill ; but it alleges and admits that by that Act those provisions are made applicable likewise to traffic to, over and from any railway in extension of or connected with the Scottish Central railway belonging or leased to the promoters, and that the railways pro- posed by the bill, to which they object, all fall within that category. They are therefore not entitled to be heard to insist on the repe- tition in the present bill of provisions which they admit to be contained in an existing Act ; and which they do not allege to be repealed or altered by the bill ; (4) with regard to the alle- gations contained in paragraph 5 of the petition the promoters submit that railway No. 1 pro- posed by the bill is an extension of the Scottish central railway within the meaning of sec. 99 of the Caledonian and Scottish Central Eail- ways Amalgamation Act, 1865, referred to in the petition, and that it will be in all respects subject to the provisions of that Act, and that the Parliamentary status of the petitioners with respect to extensions of the Scottish Cen- tral railway, is altogether unaffected by the bill ; (5) with regard to paragraph 6 of the petition, the promoters submit that the allega- Part IV.] Caledonian railway (additional powers) bill. 239 tions therein contained with respect to the North British and Edinburgh and Glasgow Railways Amalgamation Act, 1865, are wholly irrelevant, inasmuch as the provisions of that Act are altogether unaffected by the bill, and the pro- moters further submit that with respect to the proposed railway, No. 2, the parliamentary status of the petitioners created by the Cale- donian and Scottish Central Railways Amalga- mation Act, 1865, is altogether unaifected by the bill ; (6) while not admitting the statements in the petition, the promoters maintain that the petitioners do not state any facts or reasons, which according to practice entitle them to be heard against the bill or against any of the clauses or provisions thereof. The locus standi of (2) the Glasgow and South-Western railway company was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petition dees not allege that the bill contains, nor does in fact contain, any provisions giving power to take land or other property of which the petitioners are owners, lessees, or occupiers ; (2) the petition does not allege that the bill contains, nor does it in fact contain, any provisions repealing or alter- ing any of the privileges, facilities or powers conferred on the petitioners by the Act of 1865 referred to in the petition ; (3) the allegation in the petition that the promoters will divert on to or by means of the railways proposed by the bill, traffic which would otherwise be carried on the Scottish Central lines, does not, even if it were admitted, entitle the petitioners to be heard against the bill, as the Scottish Central lines belong to the promoters, and it cannot affect the petitioners whether traffic be carried thereon or on the lines proposed by the bill ; (4) in so far as the petition can be held to be founded on competition it does not allege in what manner the petitioners' powers of competition are affected by the bill ; (5) even if the petition could be held as alleging that the bill affects the petitioners' powers of competition, it does not allege that the bill confers on the promoters any new powers of competition, but merely that it improves their existing powers of competi- tion, which does not entitle them to be heard against it ; (6) while not admitting the statements in the petition, the promoters maintain that the petitioners do not state any facts or reasons, which according to practice entitle them to be heard against the bill, or against any of the clauses or provisions thereof. Pope, Q.C. (for petitioners 1 and 2) ; The question raised by petition (1) is whether powers and rights conferred by the Caledonian and Scottish Central Railways Amalgamation Act, 1865, upon the petitioners, who are therein designated as the east coast companies, with respect to the Scottish Central railway, shall be extended to the railways proposed by the bill, which we say are an extension of the Scottish Central line. The same question has been before the Court on previous occasions, when it has been decided that the companies affected were entitled to be heard in order to secure equal treatment for all traffic between England and Scotland, whether brought by the east or west coast routes. The Chaieman : Do you ask for a general locus standi ? Pope : No ; we do not oppose the construc- tion of the proposed lines. Prior to the Amalgamation Act of 1865 the Scottish Central was a neutral company which derived traffic from the east and west coast companies indis- criminately, but under that Act they became absorbed into the Caledonian railway, and would have had a predominant west coast interest if Parliament had not interfered to protect the east coast companies. Clauses were accordingly inserted in the Act of 1865 (sees. 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93) defiuing strictly the facilities which must be given to east coast traffic. Then by sec. 94, in order to protect them in the exercise of those rights, running powers were given to the east coast companies over the line of the Scottish Central. Then sec. 99 provides that " The several facilities, powers, privileges, and provisions by this Act granted, secured, and provided as regards east coast traffic shall apply or extend to any railway in exten- sion of, cr connected with the Scottish Central line which shall belong to or be leased to the company, either solely or jointly with any other company, in all respects as if such railway had been part of the Scottish Central line ; but the powers of running by this Act granted shall not extend to any such railway." It will, therefore, be for the Committee to decide whether the lines proposed by the bill are, in fact, an extension of the Scottish Central system. Our locus to argue even that point is denied by the promoters. We also ask in our petition to be heard to ask for running powers over the proposed line, notwith- standing the provision at the end of the 99th sec. of the Act of 1865. The scheme of the bill is to duplicate the line betweeu Larbert and Stirling by extending the Denny branch up to Stirling, thus giving the Caledbnian company, as part of their Scottish Central system, an alternative line between Larbert and Stirling, over part of which we have already got running powers. The bill proposes just as much a, duplication of the Scottish Central main line as if the lines were run side by side. The principle involved in this case 240 COUBT OF EEFEEEES. [Vol. I. has been already decided in my favoar. (Alloa Railway Bill, 1879, 2 Clifford & Eickards, 133 ; Alloa, Vumfermline, and Kirkcaldy Railway Bill, 1883, 3 Clifford & Eickards, 247; and Glasgow and NortU-Western Railway Bill, 1883, ib. 281.) The Chairman : You are now asking for a wider locus standi than you obtained in 1883 ? Pope : Tes j and we set out in our petition the reasons why mere traffic facilities will not be sufficient to protect us in respect of the duplicated line, because that line will enable the Caledonian company to divert half of the traffic from the old line over which we have running powers. With regard to facilities over the proposed lines, the bill should contain a provision making it clear that the new lines are to be considered as an extension of the Scottish Central railway, as it does (clause 49) with regard to certain widenings and enlarge- ments at Larbert station. The main arguments applicable to the case of the east coast com- panies apply also to the case of the peti- tioners (2), the Glasgow and South- Western railway company. By the Caledonian and Scottish Central Eailways Amalgamation Act, 1865, sees. 55 to 6G, the petitionere were secured traffic facilities and rnnning powers over ceitaiu portions of the Caledonian railway, and by sec. 66 over the whole of the Scottish Central lines; but there is this distinction between their case and that of the previous petitioners, the east coast companies, that there is no clause in the Act of 1865 providing for traffic facilities in the hands of the petitioners over extensions of the Scottish Central lines, or, on the other hand, excluding them from running powers over those extensions. The principle affirmed by the decision of the Court in the Glasgow and North-Western Railway Bill, 1S83 (3 Clifford and Eickards, 281), is clearly applicable in this case, namely, that the petitioners should be secured a fair share in the uorlh of Scotland traffic as recognised by Parliament in 1865. The bill proposes an extension from the Denny end of the Denny branch to Stirling, and also tlie construction of a little curve, which will join the Kilsyth and Bonnybridge line joititly worked by the Caledonian and the North British companies. A new through route will thus be formed to the north over tlie new line from Glasgow. The interest of the Glasgow and South-Western company is in securing its fair share of the traffic of the north of Scotland to Glasgow. The bill is a proposal of the Caledonian company to shorten the distance between Glasgow and Stirling in the hands of the Caledonian company. The Chairman ; It would probably be ad- mitted that if this small loop were made it would become the main line from Glasgow to Stirling. Pope : That being so, we ought clearly to be heard to contend that these new lines, and especially the proposed curve, should be subject to the obligations with respect to our traffic facilities and running powers that the existing lines were made subject to nnder the Amalgamation Acts of 1865. Pember, Q.C. (for promoters) : The new line from Denny to Stirling is not laid out by the Caledonian company as a through route between Glasgow and Stirling, but as a local line, and although it is true that the new curve will make a, through route between Stirling and Glasgow, the Glasgowand Sonth-Western have, at the pro- sent time, no running powers beyond Kilsyth, and have nothing to do with this curve. Pope: We claim rights over the Kilsyth and Bonnybridge railway by virtue of an agreement with the North British railway company, which gives us running powers over all railways owned, leased, orworkcd by the North British company. Peniher ; The Kilsyth and Bonnybridge rail- way is only owned by the North British jointly with tho Caledonian company. The status of the Glasgow and Snuth-Western com- pany under the Caledonian and Scottish Central Eailways Amalgamation Act, 1865, and the North British and Edinburgh and Glasgow Eailway Companies Amalgamation Act, 1865, is not affected by the bill. Even if it were possible to divert traffic from the peti- tioners' ; railway on to the proposed lines, the petitioners are abundantly protected by sec. 60 of the Caledonian, &c., Amalgamation Act, 1865, which provides that "The company shall give to the Glasgow and South-Western railway company in respect to ' South- Western traffic ' all such facilities as are usual or useful for the convenient working or development of railway traffic, .... and give such facilities as effectually, regularly, and expeditiously as if it were their own proper traffic, or traffic which they were desirous of cultivating to the utmost, and shall not give any preference, priority, or advantage over it to any other traffic." That is the present parliamentary settlement between the parties, and that is unaffected by the bill. With regard to the petition of (1) the East Coast companies, clause '19 of the bill declares that railways 3 and 4 shall bo hold parts of the Scottish Central railway, because they are more properly en- largements than extensions, and the term "enlargement" is not used in sec. 99 of the Caledonian and Scottish Central Eailways Amalgamation Act, 18Go. I admit, however, that the railways proposed by the bill are an Part IV.] Caledonian eailway (steam-vessels) bill. 241 extension of the Scottish Central line, and that therefore the petitioners are entitled under that section to traffic facilities over them, and for the same reason they are clearly not entitled to ask for running powers, because sec. 99 of the Act of 1865 expressly declares they shall not be entitled to running powers OTOr such extensions. With regard to facili- ties, either the proposed lines are an exten- sion of the Scottish Central line or they are not. If they are, the petitioners are entitled to facilities under see. 99 of the Act of 1865, and could enforce them in a Court of law ; if they are not such an extension, they have no 1 ight to claim them. Moreover, the petitioners are specially protected by sec. 98 of the Act of 1865, which provides : " The company shall, for the accommodation of east coast traffic, run and carry forward from Larbert junction to Perth, and from Perth to Larbert JDnotion, a train in conjunction with every train which shall be run or appointed to be run for the accommodation of that traffic " (i.e., east coast traffic) " from London or York to Lar- bert Junction and vice versa, vid Edinburgh," so that if to such a route we were to divert our owu traffic the result would be, that in order to carry east coast tratfic, in accordance with sec. 98, we should have to carry forward as many trains as they wanted over the old route. There has been no alteration in the circnm- sta')ces affecting the east coast companies since the Act of 1865, so as to entitle the petitioners to be heard to ask for running; powers after the express declaration against the grant of such running powers at the end of sec. 99 of that Act. The Chaieman : The Court have decided to grant a Locus Standi to all the Petitioners, not to ask for ruoning powers, but to enable them to contend that the facilities granted by the Act of 1865 should be extended to the rail- ways proposed by the bill. Agents for Petitioners (1), Dyson Sf Co. Agents for Petitioners (2) , Sherivood ^ Co. Agents for Bill, Orahames, Currey Sf Spens. CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (STBAM- TBSSBLS) BILL. Petition of Meschants, Sitipownebs, and Tkadees of and at the Port of Glasgow AND OTHER POKTS ON THE RiVEB AND PlllTH OF Clyde and the West of Scotland. 21st March, 1SS9.— (Before Mr. Paekee, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shibess Will, M.P. ; Mr. CoMPTON, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.G.; and Mr. Bonham-Cakteb.) Railway Company Seeking to Acquire Steam~ Vessels — Shipowners — Competition — Single Traders — S. 0. 15B [KaWiuay Company not to Acquire Canals, Docks, Steam-Vessels, Sfc^] Clause 4 of the bill was as follows : — " The company may build, purchase, hire, pro- vide, charter, employ, and maintain steam and other vessels of any description, and may navigate, work, and use the same, and may therein and thereupon convey pas- sengers, animals, minerals, goods, &c., between the quay or pier at Gourook on the Firth of Clyde, in the county of Renfrew, belonging to the company, and any ports and places on and near the Pirth of Clyde, and the lochs- and arms of the sea connected therewith, and may do all acts that may be necessary to enable them to carry fully into effect the purposes aforesaid." The petitioners com- prised a large number of shipowners on the Clyde, trading to the ports on the Pirth of Clyde, the east coast of Ireland, and elsewhere, and a few traders and ship, brokers interested in the local trade. The promoters conceded the locus standi of such shipowners as were carriers by sea to and fiom the ports on and near the Firth of Clyde, but denied the right of shipowners trading elsewhere to be heard, as well as that of the traders who peti- tioned. The Court, after pointing out the wide scope of the words in clause 4 of the bill, allowed the locus standi of the ship- owners, who traded to and from the ports on the Firth of Clyde and the ports of Belfast and Larne on the coast of Ireland, opposite to the Firth of Clyde, bnt excluded owners of vessels trading to Dublin and to other remote parts, and refused the ship- brokers a locus standi as being too remotely interested in the question, as well as the traders who had petitioned, who were only two in number and could not be regarded as representative of trade interests. The promoters conceded the locus standi of the following petitioners, viz., William Buchanan, Alexander Williamson, Hill & Co., Alexander McLean, Alexander Campbell, the Glasgow and Invorary Steamboat Company, 242 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. DaWd Macbrayne, and the Lochgoil and Loch- long Steamboat Company. The locus standi of the other petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) their petition discloses no case of competition ; (2) the petitioners (except as aforesaid) are not owners of any steam-vessel engaged in the carrying trade on the River and Firth of Clyde between the places which alone the bill seeks power to accommodate ; (3) the petitioners are not interested in the general question of the ex- pediency of railway companies owning and using steamers in such a manner as to entitle them to be heard against the bill, nor ^\■ould the fact thatthey are interested in such general question, if such were the case, entitle them to be so heard ; (-i) the fact that the petitioners are the owners of steam-vessels engaged for the most part elsewhere, or are merchants interested in the carrying trade, does not confer upon them any right to be heard ; (5) the statements con- tained in paragraph 10 of the petition are irrele- vant, and the allegation in paragraph 11 that the petitioners have for years had working arrangements (if such be the case) with the promoters and other railway companies for through booking, confers no right upon the peti- tioners to be heard; (0) the fact that another bill is now before Parliament asking for similar powers to those asked by the promoters, and that the petitioners are petitioning against that bill, does not entitle them to be heard against this bill ; (7 and 8) the petition does not disclose any grounds entitling the petitioners to claim, nor have they in fact any right to claim, to have clauses inserted in the bill for their protection or otherwise, or to be heard against any part of the bill according to the practice of Parliament. Saunders, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The peti- tioners are entitled to be heard on the ground of competition against clause 4 of the bill, which empowers the promoters to own, charter, and work steam and other vessels " between the quay or pier at Gourock on the Firth of Clyde, in the county of Renfrew, belonging to the com- pany, and any ports and places ou and near the Firth of Clyde, and the locks and arms of the sea comected therewith." The clause is so widely drawn that it should be held to admit petitioners to be heard, such as those I represent, who might otherwise be excluded. Then clause 17 is an unusual one, as it authorises the company to charge for the use of their vessels, &c., "such reasonable tolls, rates or charges as they shall think fit." The promoters adtnit the locus standi of eight petitioners, but there are thirty or forty more interested in various ways, some as owners of vessels trading in the Clyde, some trading to places outside the Clyde, and others as merchants and traders interested in this question, who all seek to be heard. Pemher, QC. (for promoters) : I admit the locus standi of all petitioners who are carriers by sea to and from all ports on or near the Clyde. Other persons, who trade between other ports and who are widely opposed to railway companies owning steamers as a general princi- ple, are not entitled to be heard. Competition is the only ground on which the petitioners can claim to be heard, and competition must be confined to the locality affected. Saunders : " Near" the Clyde would comprise such ports as Belfast and Larne, and also Dublin. As regards the bull< of the petitioners, they are entitled to be heard collectively, as if they had signed the petition as an association of steam- ship owners. They represent the trade. S. 0. 156 entitles the petitioners to a specially favour- able consideration at the hands of the Court. The Chairma>i : The Court will take into con- sideration the wording of S. 0. 156, and also the wide manner in which clause 4 of the bill is drawn. Saunders : The petition is also signed by merchants, traders, and shipbrokers connected with and interested in the Clyde trade. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : With regard to traders, there is not much fear of excessive charges. The Board of Trade will regulate them. The promoters would by clause 21 of the bill be subject to the previsions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. The Chairman : The case of shipbrokers can- not be entertained by the Court, and there are only two traders who sign the petition, and therefore they cannot be taken as representa- tive of their class. With regard to shipowners we think that the words " on or near the Clyde" in clause 4 of the bill are so wide and undefined that shipowners trading on the Clyde and to the nearer ports of Ireland, such as Belfast and Larne, should be heard, but not those trad- ing to Dublin or more remote ports elsewhere. Locus Standi of the following Petitioners Allowed, namely : — William Buchanan, Glasgow, Arran and Rothesay steamers. Alexander Williamson, Glasgow, Rothesay and Kyles of Bute steamers. Hill and Company, Millport and Rothesay steamers. Alexander McLean, Glasgow and Rothesay. Alexander Campbell, Wemyss iiay Steamboat Company. Glasgow and Inverary Steamboat Company, M. T. Clark, Manager. Glasgow and Greenock Shipping Company, John Steel. Paet IV.J CAMBRIAN RAILWAY (STEAMBOATs) BILL. 243 David Maobrayne. John McCollane and Company. LoohGoil andLochLong Steamboat Oompa.ny, M. T. Clark, Manager. Agents for Petitioners, Martin Sc Leslie, Agents for Bill, Grahames, Curreij 8j' Spens. CAMBRIAN RAILWAY (STEAMBOATS) BILL. Petition of The Steamship Owners' Asso- ciation, AND OF THE IrISH STEAMSHIP ASSO- CIATION ; AND (2) THE WaTERFORU STEAM- SHIP Company, Limited. 2lst May, 1889.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shibess Will, M.P. ; Sir Geokge Russell, M.P.; and The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C.) Railway Company Proposing to own Steamships — Steamship Company and Steamship doners'' Associations — Competition — Proposal to Trade hetween Different Ports — Through Booking with Railway Companies — S. 0. 156 — \_Raitway Company not to acquire Canals, Docks, Steam- Vessels, ^c.— S. 0. 162 [No Poioers of Pur- chasing, Sec, steam Vessels in Railway Bills.'] The bill authorised the promoters to own and work steamships between certain Welsh ports and the ports and places in Ireland of Wexford, Uosslare, Waterford, Wicklow and Arklow. The' petitioners were two associations of steamship owners and an Irish steamship company trading between Waterford and Bristol and Liyerpool. None of the petitioners owned steamships trading between the Welsh ports named in the bill and the Irish ports to which the promoters asked for powers to work steam- ships, bat the petitioners contended that the promoters would be enabled to compete with them for goods and passenger traffic now carried by their own steamers between the central parts of England and Ireland by means of throngh booking arrangements with English and Irish railway c 'rapanies : Held, following the decision in the Felixstovie Docks and Railway Bill, 1885 (Riokards and Michael, 100), that it was not neces- sary that the bill should confer upon the promoters power to work steamships be- tween the same ports as those . between which the petitioners' vessels traded, and that there was sufficient ground to appre- hend a diversion of traffic from the peti- tioners to entitle them to be heard against the bill on the ground of competition. The locus standi of the petitioners (1 and 2) was objected to on similar grounds, namely : [I) no right of theirs is proposed to be altered by the bill; (2) no competition betvyeen tliem and the company is sought to be established by the bill entitling them to be heard against it ; (3) they do not allege that they trade, neither do they as a fact trade between the ports mentioned in the bill ; (4) the petitions do not distinctly specify the grounds on which the petitioners object to the bill, nor do they dis- close any grounds upon which the petitioners are entitled to be heard according to practice. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C. (for petitioners (1) and (2) ) : Clause 4 of the bill authorises the Cambrian railway company " to build, or buy, or hire, use, maintain, work and let, or enter into arrangements for using, working, lettins, or maintaining steam-vesssls for the purpose of carrying on a convenient and efficient commu- nication by means thereof between the ports and places in North Wales, of Aberdovey, Aberystwith, Portmadoc, and Pwllheli, and the ports and places in Ireland, of Wexford, Ross- lare, Waterford, Wicklow and Arklow," with power to carry "passengers, animals, minerals, merchandise and goods of every description, and to take such tolls and charges in respect thereof as they shall think fit." The two asso- ciations represented by the first petitioners comprise owners of steamships trading between the ports of Bristol, Holyhead, Liverpool, Plymouth and Southampton in England and Wales, and Dublin, Wexford, Water- ford, and C(n-k in Ireland. The Waterford steamship company own steamers trading between Waterford and Bristol and Liverpool, and have a very complete system of through booking with many of the most import- aut railway companies in England, including the London ami North-Western, the Midland, the Lancashiie and Yorkshire, the Great Northern, the Cheshire lines, the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire, and the Great Western and London and South-Wcstern railway companies, as well as in Ireland with the Waterford and Limerick, the Waterford and Central Ireland, and the Waterford, Dungarvan and Lismoro railways, all of which run into Waterford. Under all the circumstances of the case, there is no doubt that the bill will enable the pro- moters to compete for much of the same traffic as is now carried on by the various petitioners. 244 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. In these cases the harden of proof rests entirely upon a railway company to make out a strong case for being granted steamboat powers. The policy of Parliament in respect of such appli- cations is sufficiently indicatiye by S. O.'s 156 and 162. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Do any of the peti- tioners' steamers run from the Welsh ports named in the bill 'i Stephens : No ; for the reason that there is no local traffic from those ports, and no demand for steamers from them. The bill is an attempt to establish new routes, on which to divert traffic from the existing routes, by nieans of railway money, and its object is to develop the traSfic of the Cambrian railway, and not to accommodate traders wishing to send goods by sea. What will be done under this bill if passed ^vill be this. The traffic having been landed, say at Aberdovey, by the steamboats belonging to the Cambrian company, will be taken by the company and by lines in connection with them to Manchester, Liverpool, Crewe, Stafford, Bir- mingham, and all the Midland parts of England. That traffic goes at present by oar steamboats to Liverpool and Bristol. As long- ago as 18G5 the Court gave the steamship Hues' association a locus staT^di against a bill promoted by the same company for a similar purpose as the present bill (Smethurst, 2nd Ed., p. 135). It is not necessary that the ports proposed to be served by the steamers established by the bill should be the same as those between which the petitioners trade, {f^'elixstowe DocJcs and Hail- way Bill, 1835, Rickards & Michael, 100.) Batten (for promoters) : There could be no substantial competition between the Cambrian company's steamboats from the Welsh ports to Ireland, and steamboats from Liverpool, Bristol, and Plymouth. Our line of traffic is defined, and is confined to the ports named in the bill. The petitioners can of course put on steamers between any ports in England and Ireland, but they do not at present trade between any of the ports on tlie Welsh coast named in the bill, and the railway companies, who form part of the competitive route set up by these steamboat owners, are not opposing the bill. The Chaieman : Take the central parts of England, your route would be the shortest way from Waterford. Wr. Chandos-Leigii : The case of the peti- tioners against this bill seems far stronger than that of the petitioners against the Felixstowe Bill, because Hull is L70 miles from Pelixstowe. The question is whether the promoters would carry some of the traffic which the petitioners now carry. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of all the Petitioners is AlloKed. Agents for Petitioners (1 and 2), Orahames, Carrey ^ Spens. Agent for Bill, Sherioood Sf Co. CHELTENHAM IMPROVEMENT BILL. Petition of The Lhckhampton Local Board. 28th March, 1889.— (Be/ore ilr Parker, K.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Wli-t, M.P.; Mr. CoiiPTOK, M.P.; Sir George Russell, af. P. ; The Hon.'E. Chandos-Leigii, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Carter.) Existing Hospital for Infectious Diseases outside Borough — Acqtusition ti/ Municipal Corpora- tion from Trustees — Deed of Endoioment — Transfer of Powers of Trustees to Corporation — Contribution of Public Funds to Hospital — Sanitary Authority Alleging Injury to District — 8. 0. 134 [^Municipal Authorities and Inhabi- tants of Towns']— Public Health Act, 1875, s. 131 — Right of Petitioners to he Heard nt Local Enquiry affected by Procedure by Private Bill [Bolton Improvement Bdl, 1882 (3 Clifford and Richards, 134) cifed]. The bill empowered the trustees of a fever hospital, established under a deed of endowment, to transfer the hospital to the corporation of Cheltenham, and provided for the transfer of all the duties, liabilities, and obligations of the trustees to the cor- poration, and empowered the corporation to exercise the powers of tlie trustees, such powers to be in addition to those already possessed by the corporation nnder the Public Health Act, 1875. The deed of endowment provided for the establisliment of a hospital " to be used as a fever hospital for the benefit of the town of Cheltenham aforesaid, and the neighbourhood thereof," so that the corporation would, by the transfer to it of the powers of the trustees, be enabled to receive persons being in some cases outside their own borough. The petitioners were the urban sanitary authority of a district that did not exist at the time the hospital was buUt, and they complained that the effect of the bill would be to enable the corporation to carry on and if necessary, extend, at the expense of public money, a hospital within their Part IV.] CHELTENHAM IMPROVEMENT BILL. 245 district, which would be injnriously affected by so important a change in the character of what was at present an institntion sapported only by private funds. The counsel for the petitioners referred to the case of the Bolton Improvement Bill, 1882, and the arguments there need on behalf of the petitioners, and as an additional argu- ment pointed out that if the corporation of Cheltenham had proceeded under the Public Health Act, 1875, they (the peti- tioners) would have been entitled to be heard at the local enquiry, which would have been held under that Act, whereas procedure by private bill had deprived them of that right. The Court, after commenting favourably upon this reason for the petitioners being heard, held that they were entitled to the same locus standi as had been given to the peti- tioners against the Bolton Improvement Bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) no lauds, &o., of theirs are taken or interfered with; (2) the promoters have already power under the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, to provide hospitals, which may be in the district of the petitioners, and to remove thereto any persons suffering from infectious diseases. The bill only makes convenient pro- visions for the exercise by the promoters of the powers conferred upon them by the Public Health Act, 1875 ; (3) the Delancey fever hospital was established in the year 1871 upon express trusts "to, be used as a fever hospital for the benefit of the town of Cheltenham aforesaid, and the neighbourhooi thereof, and to furnish the said building or buildings when erected, and to make the same ready for the reception of persons suffering from fever or other infectious diseases." The hospital has been used by the promoters for the above purposes ever since its establishment, and it is so used now ; (4) the complaints made and the apprehensions of injury entertained by the petitioners as set forth iu the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8fch, 9th, and 10th paragraphs of their petitii n do not arise upon and have no application to the provisions of the bill, but are directed against existing legislation, that is to say, the Public Health Act, 1875, and agaiast the trusts upon which the Delancey fever hospital was estab- lished in 1871, but upon neither of these grounds are the petitioners entitled to be heard against the bill ; (5) paragraph 10 of the petition moreover is misconceived as the bill does not piopose to establish a hospital within the pstitioners' district, but merely to sanction a domestic arrangement between the promoters and the trustees of the Jiospital, which has existed in the district of the petitioners for upwards of 17 years ; (6) paragraph 10 of the petition alleges that the petitioners apprehend the creation of a nuisance, but the bill in no way affects the rights or powers of the peti- tioners under the general law in relation to nuisances, nor does it relieve the promoters from any penalty to which apart from the bill they may become liable ; (7) the petitioners do not allege any ground, nor have they any interest, which entitles them to be heard against the bill according to practice. Femhrolce Stephens, Q,.G. (for petitioners) : The petitioners are the urban sanitary authority for Leckhampton. The bill empowers the corpora- tion of Cheltenham to acquire a fever hospital known as the Delancey fever hospital, situated in our urban district. Clause 26 is as follows ; (1) "The trustees of the Delancey fever hospital, established under a deed of endowment, dated the 28tli day of April, 1871, are hereby em- powered to transfer by a deed of conveyance duly stamped to the corporation, the said fever hospital, and all the funds, projierty, rights, powers, duties, and obligations of the said trus- tees under the said deed, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between Ihe said trustees and the corporation ; and the corpora- tion are hereby empowered to accept such transfer, and to manage and carry on the said hospital in the same manner, and with, and subject to the same rights, powers, duties and obligations as the trustees now carry on the same ; and the corporation may also exercise with respect to the said hospital the same powers as in the case of a hospital provided by them under the powers of the Public Health Act, 1875." Sub-section (2) of the clause relieves the trustees of all the duties, liabilities, or obli- gations imposed on them by tlieir trnst, and transfers such duties to the corporation. Clause 27 makes it lawful for the cor23oratiou to con- tribute such capital sums as the Local Govern- ment board may approve to the funds of the fever hospital as lo'ig as it remains in the hands of the trustees, and such annual sum as they may think fit towards the expenses of receiving and maintaining inhabiiants of the borough of Chel- tenham suffering from infectious diseases, and clause 28 authorises the appointment of a joint commi'tee of manngemeut, composed of mem- bers of the council and trustees, while the hospital remains in the hands of the trustees. 246 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. Whether the hospital remains vested in the trustees, or passes into the hands of the asso- ciation, it is in future to be the fever hospital of the borough, and to be supported by the funds of the borough. To take the case arising under clause 26 of the bill first, the corporation are empowered to exercise all the present powers of the trustees, and the deed of endowment provides that the hospital is " to be used as a fever hospital for the benefit of the town of Cheltenham aforesaid, and the neighbourhood thereof." Then the last paragraph of clause 26 provides that " the corporation may also exercise with respect to the said hospital the same powers as in the case of a hospital pro- vided by them under the powers of the Public Health Act, 1875." It is clear, therefore, that the powers of the corporation will not be merely those conferred upon them by the Public Health Act, 1875, but will, in addition, include the present powers of the trustees, which by the deed of endowment, extend not only to the borough of Cheltenham, but also to its neigh, bourhood, which contains a very large popula- tion. Although the hospital is already in use within our district, it was founded seventeen years ago, before the Leokhampton lo cal board was in existence. The whole character of the hospital will be changed when it becomes a great public institution supported by municipal funds. We are entitled as the local authority of a district injuriously affected by the pro- posals of the bill to be heard under S. 0. 134. Mr. SiiiiiEss Will : Supposing this hospital had not existed where it has been erected, was there anything to prevent the Cheltenham cor- poration under sec. 131 of the Public Health Act, 1875, building a hospital there ? Stephens : They might have done so supposing they could get the land and Lhe money to do so, but before they could get the money they would have to get the sanction of the Local Govern- ment board to a loan to pay for the land and the cost of erecting a hospital upon it, and to determine that question the board would have held a local enquiry, before which we should have had a right to be hoard. By coming to Parliament for a private I. ill to acquire this hospital, the corporation deprive us of our right to be heard at a local enquiry, and that in itself entitles us to be heard, so as to bo put in the same position as if the corporation had erected a hospital under the powers conferred on them by the Public Health Act. The Chairman ; How far is the Delancey hospital from Cheltenham ? Stephens : A mile, or a mile and a-half. Mr. SiiitiBss Will : The case of the Bolton Improvement Bill, 1882 (3 Cliiford & Rickards, 134), on the petition of the Bolton rural sanitary authority, appears to be a precedent in your favour, although the argument, which appears to be a sound one, that the fact that the cor- poration were, by comin!» for a private bill, depriving you of a right to be heard before a local enquiry, does not seem to have been used in that case. Stephens : There is another point to be con- sidered, namely, whether, if the corporation of Cheltenham became clothed with the powers of the trustees, they will remain equally liable to be proceeded against for nuisance, as if they had acted only under the Public Health Act, which would not protect them against such proceedings. On general principles, I contend that persons like ourselves who are affected by a change of jurisdiction are entitled to be heard. Hookev (parliamentary agent, for promoters) : The corporation are already authorised by the Public Health Act to establish a hospital, and if they think fit, to build it in the Leok- hampton district. The Chairman : In that case it appears that the local government board would have held a local enquiry at which the petitioners would have been entitled to be heard. Hooker : The Delancey trustees are already authorised by their deed of settlement to nse this hospital for infectious cases " for the benefit of the town of Cheltenham and the inhabitants thereof,'' and the bill does not ex- tend that area, or extend the definition of infectious diseases given in the trust deed. We are in a stronger position than the corpora- tion of Bolton, becanse they proposed to estab- lish a fresh hospital, and we merely propose to carry on a hospital which has been in existence for 17 or 18 years, and which will still be carried on, whether we acquire it or not. The petitioners are therefore complaining of a state of things which already exists. Moreover, the bill merely empowers the corporation to agree for the acquisition of the hospital, and does not contain compulsory powers to purchase. The Chairman ; In this case we have an urban sanitary authority objecting to the bill, as in the Bolton case there was a rural sanitary authority objecting, and wo have the same committee on police and sanitary bills, which is a specially constituted committee for enquiring into all sanitary questions still exi.>jting, as at the time of the Bolton case. We think the case so strongly resembles the Bolton case that the petitioners ought to be heard. Agents for Petitioners, Bell Sf Son. Agents for Bill, Wyatt ^' Co. Part IV.] Glasgow, etc., railway (additional powers) bill. 247 GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTEliN RAIL. WAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL. Petition of (1) Ayk Haubour Tiiustees; (2) MOKT8AGEES OF THE HAKBOUK OF AyR J (3) TBE Pkovost, Magistrates, and Councillors OF THE BUBGH OF AYR. 21st March, 1889.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Ui\ Shiress Will, M.P.; Mr. CoMFTON, M.P.; The Hon. B. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Carter.) Railway Extension — Competing Harbours — Improvement of existing Raihoaij Communica- tion — Diversion of Traffic — Harbour Trustees and Mortgagee.'! of Tolls -Scotch Corporation — ■ Improvement of Existing Competition. The hill authorised the construction of a short railway in the neighbourhood of Ayr and Troon, the effect of which would be to give the Glasgow and South- Western rail- way a, more direct access to the harbour of Troon than they now possessed, inland traffic having at the present time to be sent vi& Ayr and a line of railway running thence along the coast to Troon. The petitioners, who were respectively the Ayr harbour trustees, the mortgagees of the har- bour tolls, and the corporation of Ayr, claimed to be heard on the ground that the bill would have the effect of establishing between the harbour of Troon and their own harbour an effective competition which at present was impossible, owing to the cir- cuitous route by which mineral traffic from the Ayrshire coal-fields had to be conveyed vi& Ayr and the coast railway to Troon : Held, however, thattheeffectof the bill would be merely to improve the existing competition between the harbours of Ayr and Troon, and that the petitioners were not entitled to be heard against it. [^Bairy Dock and Railway {Railway Extension) Bill, 1888 (Rickards and Michael, 197) cited and followed.] The locus standi of the petitioners (1) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners complain that the bill will have the effect of enabling the promoters to abstract and divert traffic from the harbour of Ayr to the port of Troon, and to establish an objection- able competition between those places to the injury of the petitioners ; but even if the effect of the bill would be as above stated (which the promoters do not admit) the competition com- plained of would be merely the improvement of an existing competition, and not therefore such as, according to the practice of Parlia- ment, to entitle the petitioners to be heard ; (:i) the promoters deny that the promotion of the bill is inconsistent with any arrangement between them and the Ayr harbour trustees, or that if the bill were passed it would become the interest or be in the power of the promoters to take away traffic which the harbour of Ayr was intended to accommodate, and even were the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the petition correct, the petitioners are not parties to those arrangements, and are not entitled to be heard on the ground alleged ; (3) the in- terests of the petitioners are not prejudiced or affected by the bill in such a manner as to entitle them to be heard according to practice. The locus standi of the petitioners (2) was ob- jected to on similar grounds to those taken against the locus standi of petitioners (1), and for the following reasons ; " The petitioners are only interested as mortgagees of the harbour of Ayr, and have not the control or management of the harbour, and the only parties (if any) who are entitled to be heard in respect of any alleged injury to, or interference with the harbour, are the Ayr harbour trustees, who have also petitioned against the bill." The locus standi of the petitioners (3) was ob- jected to on similar grounds to those taken against the locus standi of petitioners (1), and for the following reasons : " The petitiouers as a local authority have not the control or manage- ment of the harbour of Ayr, and the only parties (if any) to be heard against the bill in respect of any alleged injury to, or interference with the said harbour, are the Ayr harbour trustees, who have also petitioned against the bill. The burgh of Ayr and its inhabitants are not so pre- judically affected by the bill as to entitle the petitioners to be heard against the same." Pembroke Stephens, Q,.G. (for the Ayr harbour trustees) ; Clause 4 of the bill authorises the Glasgow and South-Western railway company to make and maintain, inter alia, a line of rail- way (No. 1) three miles and seven chains in length, commencing by a junction with one of their railways near Monkton station and termi- nating by a junction with another of their rail- ways near Armbank junction, and two other railways (Nos. 2 and 3) in the immediate neigh, bourhood of Troon. There is at present first a railway to Ayr, and then the coast line to Troon, but besides the additional six miles of railway from Ayr to Troon, there is a back shunt, and in consequence hardly any traffic is sent on at present from Ayr to Troon. The 248 COUET OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. new piece of railway will avoid this back shunt, and carry coals and minerals from the Ayrshire coal-fields direct to Troon in the most conve- nient manner. The petitioners have spent large sums of money and carried out nnmerous experiments at their Ayr harbour under the sanction of Parliament, and they complain that the effect of the bill will be to divert traffic from Ayr to Troon harbour, and create a com- petition between the two harbours which does not at present exist. Troon harbour has this advantage over Ayr harbour for purposes of competition that it is in the bands of a private owner, and has none of the rules and restric- tions imposed upon it by Parliament that Ayr harbour has. The Ayr harbour trustees have expended large sums of money on their harbour on the faith that the promoters would assist them with traffic, and now the Glasgow company are erecting a new route to Troon, and estab- lishing a competition against us, which at present docs not exist. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : At present the additional mileage to Troon, vid Ayr, is not of any real consequence, and if we divert traffic to Troon, we should aacriftco all the expenditure we have incurred with reference to Ayr. Mr. Shibess Will : Is not this an improve- ment of existing competition, as was held to be the case in the Barry Dock and Raihuay (Railway Extension) Bill, 1888 (Rickards & Michael, 197) ? Stephens : In that case the corporation of Cardiff had failed to oppose the original bill, and had allowed their right to be heard to lapse. Against the Swindon, Marlboroucjh, ^c, Railway Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford & Eickards, 348), several jjotitioners, including the Southampton harbour board, were heard on account of diversion of traffic and competition. Mr. Shiress Will : There a new harbour was to be created that might abstract traffic from the petitioners. Here the two harbours already exist, and railway communication already exists. Stephens : The present railway communica- tion between Ayr and Troon is such that it gives rise to no competition between the two harbours. The Southampton harbour board and the cor- poration were both heard against the London and South- Wcxlern Railway (Various Powers) Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford & Riokards, 306), where it was not proposed to construct any new railways. Mr. Shiress Will ; In that case there was a power of transfer of some railways in the Isle of Wight to the London and Soutli- Western company, and the possible creation of a mono- poly in their hands. Horo yon have one rail- way company proposing to improve its existing communication with Troon. Stephens : Tho fact remains that the present railway communication does not admit of com- petition between Ayr and Troon. Mr. Ciiandos.Lbigii : There can be no doubt that there is at the present time some com- petition between the two harbours by means of the existing railway communication. (Rope, Q.C, on behalf of the promoters, agreed to concede the same locus standi to the mort- gagees of the harbour of Ayr as the Court thought the harbour trustees were entitled to.) Stephens (for petitioners (3) ) : The iirovost, magistrates, and coancillora of the burgh of Ayr allege that the General Police and Im- provement (Scotland) Act, 1862, has been adopted in the burgh of Ayr, and by virtue of the Act and the Ayr Burgh Acts, 1873 and 1875, they are the munioiiial authority of the burgh, and represent generally tho inhabitants of the burgh so far as their local and commer- cial interests are concerned. According to the practice of this Court, Scotch corporations have a locus standi when tho petition of tho corpor- ation alleges injury to the common interests of the inhabitants. The Chaiiiman : We need not call upon the counsel for the promoters to reply. The Locus Standi of all the Petitioners is Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners (1, 2, & 3), Qrahames, Cm-rey Sf Spens. Petition of (99 The Caledonian Railway Company. Railways — Neu) Line — Improvement of EMsting Communication — Reciprocal Running Powers and Traffic Facilities between Competing Com. panics under Precious Acts, Extension of, to New Line ■ — Competition — Practice — Public Interest, how far Considered by Court. The bill authorised the construction by the promoters of certain short railways which would render their existing communication with the town and harbour of Troon more direct by cutting off a corner and obviating the necessity of a back shunt. Tho pro- moters and petitioners had both promoted bills in Parliament in 1865, and had agreed to give to one another reciprocal running powers and traffic facilities over certain of their respective railways, including the railways belonging to tho promoters which formed their present access to the town and harbour of Troon, and the petitioners now claimed to have those powers and facilities extended to tho railways pro- PaKT IV.] GLASGOW, ETC., RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL. 249 posed by the bill, which they coLtended would form au alternative route in the hands of the promoters to Troon. The promoters contended that the interchange of rnnning powers effected between the two companies in 1865 was the result of a bargain between them, and that it was not reasonable that they (the promoters) should now be called upon to confer further powers and facilities, which were not con- templated by the bargain come to between the companies in 1865, witljout any con- cession being made by the petitioners in return. The Court, however, pointed out that in deciding such a question Parliament would have regard to the public convenience, and allowed the locus stu ndi of the petitioners against the part of the bill which authorised the construction of the railways in question (Nos. 1, 2, and 3). The petitioners also claimed to be beard against clause 25 of the bill, which repealed certain sections inserted in previous Acts for protecting the rights of a private owner in respect of a waggon way or private railway, which the company had now agreed to purchase. The petitioners contended that the effect of this repeal would be to enable the company themselves to become owners of the private railway, which would become a fresh means of access to Ayr harbour, and that therefore they ought to be heard in order to obtain rnnning powers and facilities over it. It was pointed out on behalf of the promoters that no railway had been constructed on the land, which the pro. meters had now agreed to buy, and that clause 25 only affected the arrangements made between them and the private owner by repealing sections inserted to protect his rights in land which had ceased to belong to him ; and the Court disallowed the locus standi of the petitioners against the clause in question, i.e., clause 25 of the bill. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the rights and powers of the petitioners under tbe several Acts and the arrangement referred to in paragraphs 2 to 6 of the petition are not altered or prejudiced by the bill, and such rights and powers do not confer upon the petitioners any right to be heard against the bill in respect of the new railways referred to in paragraph 7 of the petition or to claim tbe extension of the petitioners' said rights and powers to such new railways ; (2) the promoters deny that the petitioners have any interest in the wagon road or private railway leading from Auchiucrnive to Ayr harbour referred to in paragraph 8 of the petition or in the statutory provisions relating thereto proposed to be repealed, or that such repeal will or can have the effect mentioned in that paragraph, or affords any ground for the claim of the petitioners to the extension of their powers to the said waggon road or private railway ; (3) the promoters deny that the bill is in any sense contrary to, or inconsistent with, existing arrangements as alleged in paragraph 9 of the petition, and they submit that, even although the passing thereof might enable the promoters to compete more favourably with the petitioners which the promoters do not admit, this does not, according to the practice of Parliament, entitle the petitioners to be heard ; (4) the promoters admit that they have running powers over the railways of the North British company, and submit that the proposed railway being merely an improvement in the connections between these railways, and the railways of the petitioners, does not entitle them to be heard against the bill. They deny that the construction of the pro- posed railway No. 4 will enable them to abstract traffic from the petitioners as alleged in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition, or will prejudice or affect the rights or obliga- tions of the petitioners in connection with the Glasgow Central railway, and the statement in paragraph 14 as to the North British railway company (even if true, which the promoters do not admit) affords no ground upon which, according to the practice of Parliament, the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill ; (5) the rights and interests of the petitioners are not so prejudiced or affected by the bill as to entitle them to be heard against the same. Pember, Q.C. (for petitioners) : The peti- tioners claim to be heard against the construc- tion of railways Nos. 1, 2, 3, authorised by clause 4 of the bill, which will form a new route to Troon. In 1865 both the promoters, the Glasgow and South- Western company, and the petitioners, the Caledonian company, pro- moted bills in Parliament, the former for the constrnotion of railways to oomplete"an advan- tageous line of communication between Muirkirk on the east, and the towns and harbours of Ayr and Troon on the west, and the latter for the construction of a railway in extension of their 250 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. Douglas branch from its western termination in Lanarkshire, to Muirkirk, where it joined the promoters' system of raihvays. By arrange- ment between the promoters and the petitioners, running powers and facilities of a very stringent character were, by the Caledonian Railway (Muirkirk Branch) Act, 1865 (sees. 20 to 31 inclusive), conferred on the promoters over your petitioners' railways between Muirkirk on the west, and Edinburgh, Leith and Granton on the east, and all intermediate places, and over the stations, watering places, works and conveniences connected with those railways ; and, on the other hand, reciprocal running powers and facilities, of precisely correspond- ing character were, by the Glasgow and South- Western Railway (Ayrshire Lines) Act, 1865 (sees. 25 to 36 inclusive), conferred on your peti- tioners over the promoters' railways between Muirkirk on the east, and the towns and harbours of Ayr and Troon on the west, and all intermediate l^laoes, by the two routes specified in sec. 25 of that Act, and over the stations, watering places, works, and conveniences connected with those railways. By the Glasgow and South- Western Railway (Ayrshire Lines) Act, 1868, the pro- moters were authorised to make various railways ; and it was by sec. 15 of that Act provided that certain of those railways, with certain of the railways authorised by the South- Western Act of 1865, in so far as not by the said Act of 1866 authorised to be abandoned, should when constructed be held, along with the promoters' existing lines, to form the two routes referred to in sec. 25 of the South-Western Act of 1865. By the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Act, 1878, the promoters obtained power inter alia to make and maintain four lines of railway, called " the Ayr dock lines ; " and by sec. 33 of that Act it was provided that the facilities and running power- conferred upon the petitioners by sees. 25 to 36, both inclusive, of the South-Western Act of 1865, should, for the purposes of the traiBc therein referred to as Caledonian railway traffic, extend to the Ayr dock lines. A great improvement in the railway communication between Muirkirk and Troon is now going to be effected by cutting off the corner, which railway No. 1 authorised by the bill will cut off, and at the same time doing away with an awkward back shunt, and it is plain that it will entirely alter, in the hands of the South" Western company, for the purposes of competition, the route upon Troon from the east. Mr. Shikess Will ; The running powers and facilities conferred upon the Caledonian company by sees. 25 to 36 of the Glasgow and South- Western Railway (Ayrshire Lines) Act, 1865, did not extend to improvements or extensions. Pemher : They extended to the whole route on Troon, as it was then contemplated. The case of the Caledonian Railway (Additional Pomers) Bill, 1873 (1 Clifford & Rickards, 6), is on all fours with this case and entirely in my favour. There is another part of the bill against which we claim to be heard. It is proposed by clause 25 to repeal certain statutory provisions relating to a railway leading from Auchincruive to Ayr harbour, the result of which repeal might be to place in the hands of the promoters an access to the harbour and dock at Ayr, in substitution for, or in addition to, the Ayr dock lines, and to enable them to interfere with the rights over those lines possessed by the peti- tioners ; but the bill contains no provisions for protecting their rights, or for extending the powers of the petitioners over the Ayr dock lines to the said railway from Auchincruive to Ayr harbour. Here is a bit of private line about to become the property of the promoters, and in that case it may became interjected between us and our approach to the docks. As long as the line remained in private hands there could be no reason why its owner should not let us use it as well as the promoters, but as it is about to pass into their hands, it the principle of the Acts of 1865 is to be followed, we ought to have the same approach to Ayr harbour over it that the promoters have, or at any rate, we should be allowed to go before the Committee on the bill to find out what the pro- moters propose to do with it, and, if necessary, to be placed by them on a proper footing with regard to it. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : With regard to the repeal of the provisions contained in the Act of 1865, proposed by clause 25, there were two sections (37 and 38) in that Act for the protection of Mr. Oswald. Sec. 37 provided that we should not take without his consent in writing the land apou which he had the right to construct a certain waggon-way from his collieries to our lines, and sec. 38 provided that whereas he had the right at any time to con- struct this waggon- way, which was to be made along a narrow strip of land passing right through our station, we were to convey his minerals in a certain way at a certain price. No waggon-way has been constructed, or rail laid down, but in order to get rid of the inconvenience of Mr. Oswald having a right to make a waggon-way right through our station, we have bought the land from him, and we propose to repeal the sections which are no longer applicable. It is called a railway in clause 25 in order to follow the terms nsed in the sections which are to be repealed. With regard to railways Nos. 1, 2, and 3 proposed by the PabT IV.] GLASGOW, ETC., EAILWAY (sTEAM-VESSELs) BILL. 251 bill, the running powers conferred by the com- panies' respective Acts of 1865 were not given as the price of any amalgamation, but they were purchased by both parties over one another's railway at a, particular price, and represent a definite quid pro quo given and received by both parties. There was simply an interchange of rnnning powers. The Cale- donian company did not bargain that they were to have a right to go by the best route to Troon, but by the route then authorised by the South- western company's bill. We ought not to be called upon now to give them something more without receiving something more ourselves in exchange. The Chaikman : Parliament looks at these questions from a public point of view, and Parliament might consider whether it would not be desirable for the public convenience that a railway having certain running powers over a certain line should have running powers over an improvement of that line. Pope : It mnst be borne in mind that the existing reciprocal running powers were a matter of bargain between the companies, and were not inserted in the bills of 1865 by Parliament with a, view to the public con. venience. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : I think you diminish the value of what you gave by what you are doing in making a, shorter route for yourself. Pope : No doubt we improve our own means of competition with the Caledonian company, but this Court is not in a position now to judge of the value of the price we paid for our running, powers in 1865. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Disallowed, except as regards Railways Nos. 1, 2, and 3. [^Note. — The petitioners also claimed to be heard on the ground of competition against railway No. 4, which was a short railway about a quarter of a mile in length, situate in the city of Glasgow, and intended to form a junction between the City of Glasgow Union railway and the North British (Bridgeton Cross Extension) railway. It was apparent, however, from the map that at most the proposed railway would improve the existing competition already carried on with the Caledonian company in connection with the City of Glasgow Union railway, and the Locus Standi of the Petitioners was accordingly Disallowed. The case was of no value as a precedent.] Agents for Petitioners, Grahames, Currey Sr GLASGOW AND S0UTH.WB3TERN RAIL- WAY (STEAM-VESSELS) BILL. Petition of Merchants, Shipowners and Traders. 2Ist March, 1889.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shikess Will, Jlf.P.; Mr. CoMPTON, M.P. ; The Hon. B. Ghakdos-Leigh, Q.O. ; and Mr. Bonhah-Carter.) Agents for Bill, Sherwood Sf Go. Bailiuay Company seeking Steamboat Powers — Shipoioners and Traders — Competition — S. 0. 156 [^Railway Company notto Acquire Canals, Doclcs, Steam-Vessels, ^c] — IGaledonian Railway (Steam-Vessels) Bill, 1889 (supra, p. 241) followed.^ The bill, by clause 4, provided as follows : " The company may build, purchase, or hire, and may use, maintain, and work steam-vessels in connection with their railways for the pur- pose of carrying on a convenient and efBoient communication by means thereof, for the con- veyance of passengers, animals, minerals, goods, merchandise, and things of every descriptioTi, to and from ports and places in the River and Firth of Clyde, and the lochs, bays, channels, and inlets connected therewith north of a straight line, drawn between Corsewall Point and the Mull of Cantyre, and may take tolls in respect of such steam-vessels," &c. The petitioners agamst the bill were the same shipowners and traders who presented a peti- tion against the Caledonian Railway (Steam- Vessels) Bill (supra, p. 241). The promoters conceded the lociis standi of the following petitioners against the bill : — William Buchanan, Alexander Williamson, Hill and Co., Alexander McLean, Alexander Campbell, Glasgow and Inverary Steam - Boat Company, David MaoBrayne, Loch Goil and Loch Long Steam- Boat Company. In the case of all the above petitioners, a locus standi had been allowed by the Court against the Caledonian Bill. With regard to the rest of the petitioners against the bill, similar objections, mutatis mutandis, were taken to their locus standi as to that of the peti- tioners against that bill, and the same argu- ments were prayed in aid by the counsel who appeared for the parties. In the result the Court made an order Allowing the Locus Standi of the petitioners enumerated above, with the addition of the Glasgow and Greenock Shipping Company (John Steel), but Disallowing the Locus Standi of G. and I. Burns, whose vessels traded to Belfast, and who had been granted a locus standi against the Caledonian Bill. 252 COURT OF BEFEREES. [Vol. I. Saunders, Q.C., appeared as counsel for the petitioners. Pope, Q.C., for the Bill. Agents for Petitioners, Martin Sc Leslie. Agents for Bill, Sherwood Sf Co. GOLDEN VALLEY EXTENSION RAILWAY BILL. Petition of Owners, Lessees, and Ocoupieks ON Line oi!' Pbofosed Railway. 4th April, 1889.— (Be/ore Mr. Parkek, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Compton, M.P. ; Sir Geoege Russell, If. P.; Bon. S-Chandos-Leigh, Q.C; and Mr. Bonham-Cartee.) Practice — Informality of Oijections to Locus Standi — Non- Appearance on hehalf of Peti- tioners — Misunderstanding between Parties, how far Considered by Court — Locus Standi by Consent as to facts between Parties. In this case the petition against the bill con- tained the following allegation, paragraph 3 : "Your petitioners are respectively owners, lessees, and occupiers of lands, honses, or other property on the lines of the intended railways, or one of them, or within the limits of devia- tion delineated on the plans thereof, whose pro- party, it appears by the said bill and by the plans and sections therein referred to, is in- tended to be, or may be taken, used, or other- wise interfered with for the purposes of the said bill ; and your petitioners object thereto, and to the compulsory powers over their lands and property proposed to be conferred by the bill on the company." The petition was signed by a number of persons whose addresses were appended to their names. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to in the following terms : " The promoters admit the right of such of the petitioners as are owners, lessees, or occupiers of lands which might be taken under the powers of the bill to be heard against it. The promoters deny the right of any persons signing the petition to be heard (except those who are owners, lessees, or occupiers of such lands) as they do not allege that they have, and they have not in fact, any such interest in the subject matter of the bill as entitles them according to the practice of Parliament to be heard on their petition against it." Upon the case being called on for hearing by the Court, Gripps, parliamentary agent, who appeared for the promoters of the bill, in- formed the Court that no appearance had been entered on behalf of the petitioners (although a clerk from Messrs. Martin and Leslie, who had deposited the petition in the private bill office was present in Court) and that to the best of his belief none of the parties who had signed the petition were owners, &o., of land which would be taken for the purpose of the bill, and he asked that in the absence of any appearance on behalf of the petitioners their locus standi should be disallowed. The Court thereupon enquired whether there had been any mis- understanding by which the petitioners had abstained from appearing, on the assumption that the locus standi of some of them at all events would be allowed. This was denied on behalf of the promoters, but the Court pointed out that if the promoters had followed the usual practice in a notice of objections and named the petitioners to whom they objected as not being bona fide owners, &c., of lands required for the works authorised by the bill, the difficulty caused by the ambiguous wording of the notice of objections to locus standi would have been avoided. The agent for the bill thereupon offered to concede a locus standi to such of the petitioners, if any, as were owners, &o., of land which might be taken for the purposes of the bill, and admitted that some of the petitioners might prove to be so, but the Court declined to leave it to the Committee on the bill to decide which of the petitioners were snch owners. In the result, the agent for the bill undertook to furnish a list of names, to be agreed on between the parties of all owners, &o., whose lands were taken by the bill, to the counsel to the Speaker by a date named by the Court (viz., 8th inst.), and an order as to locus standi was made by the Court in the following terms : — Locus Standi of the Petitioners Disallowed, except of such as are owners, lessees, or occupiers of land which may be taken for the purposes of the bill. Agents for Bill, Dyson 8f Co. Agents for Petitioners, Martin Xf Leslie. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Pltmouth and Dartmoor Railway Company. 7th May, 1889. — (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Afr. CoMPTON, M.P. ; Mr. Healy, M.P.; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C., and Mr. Bonham-Carter.) Railway Extension — Junction with Petitioners' Railway— Bailwa y Company as Landowners — Period for Completion of Worlcs and Compulsory Paet IV.] GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. 253 Taking of Lands — Lncus, Guneral or Limited — S. 0. 133 \_Iii what Cases Baihoay Companies to he heard']. Clause 4 of the bill, which was an omiiibas bill, authorised the promoters to construct a, short railway (Ko. 2), commencing by a junction with the railway of the petitioners, and terminating by a j unction with a branch railway of the promoters leading to Sutton harbour, which formed part of the harbour of Plymouth.- The petitioners claimed to be heard not only as to the mode in which this junction was to be carried out, but also aa to the period prescribed by clauses 10 and 23 of the bill for the construction of the railway and the compulsory taking of lands required for it. They also raised by their petition questions as to the rates authorised to be charged by the promoters over the proposed railway, and as to certain other subsidiary matters. No land of the petitioners was actually required to be taken for the purposes of the railway or of the junction, but a landowner's notice had been served upon them in respect of the proposed interference with their railway at the actua,! point of junction. After some discussion the petitioners) on the suggestion of the Court, agreed to confine their claim to be heard to the clause authorising the junction with their railway, and the clauses fixing the period for the construction of works, and the compulsory taking of lands; and the Court allowed the locus standi of the petitioners against these clauses, and so much of the preamble as related thereto. The loeiis standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the promoters admit that it is intended to form a junction between the railway, No. 2, proposed to be authorised by the bill, and the railway of the petitioners ; but it is not alleged in the petition that any lands of the petitioners are intended to be taken, or that they are injuriously affected by the proposed junction, and the promoters deny the right of the petitioners to be heard against any other of the provisions of or powers sought by the bill in respect of the said junction J (2) it is not alleged in the petition nor is it the fact that any competition or interference with competition between the petitioners and the promoters will arise under the bill ; (3) the statements in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the petition, even if well founded (which the promoters do not admit), relate to matters which are in no way afEected by the provisions of or powers contained in the bill, and disclose no grounds entitling the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (4) neglect of the promoters to exercise the facilities referred to in the petition (even supposing the allegations relating thereto to be well founded, which the promoters do not admit), constitutes no ground entitling the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (5) the petitioners have no such interest in tlie proposed railway or in the traffic thereon or in the rates to be authorised for the same as to entitle them to be heard against such rates, or to object to the period sought for the completion of the said railway ; (6) it is not alleged in the petition nor is it the fact that the petitioners are traders or freighters or represent any trade or business injuriously afEected by the rates and fares proposed to be authorised by the bill within the meaning of S. 0. 133a, so as to entitle them to be heard against the bill or any part thereof ; (7) the promoters deny that the bill is directed to the hampering of railway develop- ment in the neighbourhood of Cattewater harbour, or to the depreciation of the value of the petitioner's railways, or that the petitioners have any such interest in the construction of the proposed railway as to entitle them to be heard in support of their requirements set forth in paragraph 10 of the petition ; (8) the petition discloses no grounds entitling the petitioners to be heard against the bill. Batten (for petitioners) : The Great Western company by this bill seek to construct a short railway (No. 2), three furlongs and two chains in length, one end of which railway forms a junction with the railway of the petitioners. This railway. No. 2, the petitioners for certain reasons object to unless made in a certain period, believing that the object is not to make the railway, but to block for five years the Plymouth and Dartmoor railway company from making the same connection themselves. The Chairman: Do you merely want a loc^s upon the question of time ? Batten : Practically I want u, locvs standi on the question of the time in which they shall construct, and with reference to certain other works which have been neglected to be made by them close to the spot. The point raised is this : I am entitled as a landowner according to your most recent decisions to a general locus standi, because the company are going to take my lands. p 2 254 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. The Chairman : Have they served yoa with notice ? Batten : Yes ; they liave served me with notice. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : The question between my learned friend and me is this, whether he is entitled to a general locus standi entitling hiin to raise the questions he seeks to raise, or whether according to the universal prsictice in accordance with the S. 0. he is entitled merely to a locus standi in respect of the junction which we propose. S. 0. 133 says in such circumstances a railway company is to be allowed either a general locus standi or a limited locus standi in the discretion of the Court. Batten : The Court has discussed that question in the Caledonian Railway {Additional Powers) Bill, 1872 (2 Clifford & Stephens, 256), and in the East and West Yorkshire Union Rail- way Bill, 1886 (Rickards & Michael, 98), and the Court has decided that in such a case the company should have a general locus Mr. Healv: What does the bill propose to do ? Pope : The proposal of the bill is to construct a curve between two portions of the Great Western railway at the north, and also a further curve connecting the Great Western system with the petitioners' line at the south. The question between us is, whether giving my learned friend a connection with the Great Western, which he has not got now, is to entitle him to a general locus, or whether it should be confined to the construction of the junction. Batten : We say by this bill you are blocking the district, and that we are entitled to ask Parliament that yon shall be limited to a certain time, either one or two years. The petition alleges that — (paragraph 9) : " Your petitioners also object to the said bill on the grounds that the rates to be charged in respect of the proposed railway are exorbitant, and that the time to be allowed for its completion is unreasonably long. The line itself is less than half a mile in length, and is for all practical purposes a mere siding, for which, according to the practice of the railway clearing-house, no rates or tolls whatever should be charged. The company, however, are not even content with the rates and tolls generally charged in respect of their railways, but are asking an enhanced scale of charges wholly out of date, and based upon a discarded and expensive mode of railway traction. As to the period for the completion of this short piece of line, your petitioners would ask, if the said bill be allowed to pass into law, that the company be required to complete the same within the six months then next ensuing; (10) your petitioners have no wish in any degree to stand in the way of any improvement of the railway facilities of the district which they serve, but, judging by the past, they are forced to view any steps taken by the company with that apparent object as directed to the hamper- ing, not the fostering, of railway development in the neighbourhood of Cattewater harbour, and your petitioners urge that, if the company are permitted to construct their proposed railway they may be put under strict terms to use the same with a regular and efficient service of trains, and that they may be prevented using their powers, as in the past, to depreciate the value of your petitioners' railways, and check the growth and improvement of the neighbourhood served by them.'' Mr. Shikess Will ; In the present case will any land of the petitioning company be aotnally taken, or is what is to be done simply this, that a junction will be effected ? Pope : A junction is made with them, that is all. Mr. Shikess Will : In the East and West Torlcshire case the promoters actually took away a piece of the land of the petitioning company. In the present case, none of the land of the petitioning company is taken away, but if their line is merely to be joined, it may be a ground for our limiting their locus standi. Batten . In this case the point of junction being on a high embankment, they take away part of the slope of the embankment from us for the purpose of supporting their rails to form the junction. If I am to be heard as to the making of the junction, as to the actual spot where the junction shall come, and the way in which that junction shall be made, surely I may be heard upon the time within which the right to make the junction should exist, to say that it shall not exist beyond a given time. The Chaikman : Is there really anything beyond the question of time that you want to be heard on ? Batten : I am willing to limit myself to that question in addition to that involved in the construction of the junction itself. [After some discussion Pope conceded and Batten accepted a locus stanM against so much of clause 4 (the works clause) as authorised the construction of the junction and against the clauses limicing the time for the completion of the railways and for the compulsory purchase of lands.] Locus Standi of Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway Allowed against so much of clause 4 as authorises the construction of a junction with Part IV.] great western, etc., railway companies bill. 255 the Plymoath and Dartmoor Railway, and claases 10 and 23, and so mnoh of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners, Batten, Proffit §' Scott. Agents for Bill, Sherwood Sf Co. GREAT WESTERN AND CORNWALL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. Petition of (1) The Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway Company; and (2) The Incorpo- rated Chamber of Commerce op Plymouth. 28th March, 1889.— (Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Lkigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham- Carter.) Railway Amalgamation — Existing Lease of Rail- way — Joint Committee — Competing Railway Company Interested in Bevelopmenf of Harhour — Through Rates and Facilities — Alleged undue Preference — Railway Comm,ission ers — Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 (51 ^ 52 Vict., c. 25) — Chamber of Commerce Interested in Development of Competing Harlours — S.O. 133a (Chamhers of Commerce, S/'c, may he heard in relation to rates and fares) — Practice. The bill authorised the amalgamation of the Cornwall railway company with the Great Western railway company. The Cornwall railway company was at the present lime leased to the Great Western company for 1000 years, of which a few years only had expired ; and there was a joint committee consisting of eight Great Western and four Cornwall directors, who controlled and regulated matters arising under the lease. The petitioners (1) were the owners of a railway haying direct access to Cattewater harbour, one of four harbours at Plymouth, to another of which, viz., Millbay, the Great Western railway company had direct access, and in the development of which they were largely interested. The petitioners com- plained that if the amalgamation authorised by the bill were carried out, and the joint committee were dissolved, the Great Western company would obtain entire control of the traffic on the Cornwall rail- way, and would be able to divert it to their own harbour at Millbay, instead of a portion of it finding its way to the harbour at Cattewater, in which the peti- tioners were interested. In support of their apprehension on this point, they alleged in their petition that the Great Western com- pany at the present time, by means of cheap through rates and other facilities, did every- thing in their power to attract traffic to their own harbour at Millbay, and refused similar advantages to traffic going to the petitioners' harbour at Cattewater. On behalf of the promoters it was urged (1) that the bill proposed no alteration in existing through rates over the Great Western and Cornwall railways, which were under the terms of the lease fixed, not by the joint committee of the two companies, but by certain associated companies now repre- sented by the Great Western company only, and would continue to be fixed by the Great Western company after the amalga- mation ; and that tlierefore the position of the petitioners would remain unaltered by the bill; (2) that the proper tribunal to deal with the grievances alleged by the petitioners was the Railway Commissioners : Held, that the bill involved no such alteration in the status of the petitioners as to entitle them to be heard against it. A petition was also presented against the bill by the Incorporated Chamber of Commerce of Plymouth, who also alleged that the proposed amalgamation would increase the power of the Great Western company by giving them a virtual monopoly of the traffic of Cornwall and Devon, and wonld enable them to develope their own harbour at Millbay at the expense of the other harbours at Plymouth, and to the injury of the port generally, and of local and general trade. It was pointed out, however, by the Court that the terms of S. 0. 133a, under which the petitioners claimed to be heard, required it to be alleged in the petition that " the trade or busiuess of the district would be injuriously affected by the rates and fares proposed to be authorised by the bill, or by the rates and fares already authorised by Acts relating to the railway under- taking,'' which was not alleged in the peti- 256 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. tion befoi'e the Court, and that the S. 0. in terms prohibited the Referees frooi entertaining any question withia the jaris- dlction of the Railway Commissioners, and thereby rendered it obligatory upon the Conrt to coQstrae the S. 0. in its strict eignifioanoe. Under these oiroumstanoes the Court decided that it could not grant the petitioners a locus standi on their peti- . tion as deposited against the bill. The locus standi of (1) the Plymouth and Dartmoor railway company was objected to on the following grounds : (1) it is not alleged in the petition nor is it the fact that the bill will or can create any competition or interference with competition between the railways of the petitioners and those of the company ; (2) the first seven paragraphs of the petition relate to matters which are irrelevant to, and are in no way affected by the provisions of the bill, but in respect of which the petitioners are fully pro- tected by and have their remedy under the general Uw; (3) the Cornwall railway is now leased to the Great Western railway company for a term of 1000 years, of which only a small part has expired, and the proposed amal. gamation is not such an alteration of the rela- tions between the companies as entitles the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (I) the promoters deny that the bill will have any such effect as stated in paragraph 8 of the petition, or that the petitioners are affected by the bill in any way injuriously or otherwise ; (5) even if the intention of Parliament in 1875, or at any other time was such as is alleged in para- graph 9 of the petition (which the promoters deny), neither that fact nor the other circum- stances set forth in the same paragraph entitle the petitioners to bo heard against the bill ; (6) the petition discloses no grounds upon which according to the practice of Parliament the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill. The lociis standi of (2) the Incorporated Chamber of Commerce of Plymouth was objected to on the following grounds : (1) it is not alleged in the petition, nor is it the fact, that any lands or property of the petitioners will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) even if the petitioners do sufficiently repre- sent the trading or shipping interests of the port of Plymouth within the meaning of S. 0. 133a (which the petitioners do not admit), the petition discloses no grounds upon which, according to the practice of Parliament, or within the purview and intent of the said S. 0., the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill; (3) it isnotalleged in the petition, nor is it the fact, that any trade or business repre- sented by the petitioners will be injuriously affected by the rates and fares proposed to be authorised by the bill, or by the rates and fares already authorised by Acts relating to the rail- way undertaking of the promoters, or to that of the Cornwall railway company proposed to be amalgamated therewith ; (4) paragraph 4 of the petition refers to an Act by which the harbour of Millbay was transferred to the promoters, but the petition does not allege, nor is it the fact, that any rates or fares relating to the railway undertaking of the promoters were authorised by that Act ; (5 and 6) the peti- tioners have no such interest in the under- taking of the promoters or that of the Cornwall railway company, and their petition discloses no such interest, as to entitle them to be heard according to the practice of Parliament. Batten (for (1) the Plymouth and Dartmoor railway company) : The bill is entitled, '-A bill for amalgamating the Cornwall railway company with the Great Western railway company," and the petitioners object to the amalgamation. The petitioners, the Plymouth and Dartmoor railway company, are the owners of a railway communicating with the harbour of Cattewater in Plymouth, the Great Western railway com. pany being the owners of another harbour called Millbay, with which th=iir railway and the Cornwall railway communicate. The Corn- wall railway has been since 1859 leased to the Great Western rail way for 1000 years, and the Great Western company now seek to amalga- mate the Cornwall railway with their own undertaking, and, instead of paying them by results, to exchange debenture stock in the Cornwall railway for debenture stock in the Great Western, and preference stotik in the Cornwall railway for preference stock in the Great Western, and to give the shareholders a certain portion of the receipts. The effect of that will be that the Cornwall board, which at present is an independent board, composed largely of local people, will cease to exist ; and the fixing of local rates and the entire manage- ment of the railway affairs of the district will be in the hands of the directors of the Great Western railway at Paddington, the conse- quence being that the Great Western company, who own the harbour of iMiUbay, will be able to divert the traffic which now comes to the harbour of Cattewater (to which my railway runs) to their harbour of Millbay. They will, in fact, have the entire control of the traffic of the district from Penzance to Exeter. The case is on all fours with that of the Swindon, Marl- Part IV.] great western, etc., railway companies bill. 257 horough, and Andover Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford and Rickaids, 350). The Chairman : Cannot the Great Western company do now that which you say you are apprehensive they will be able to do under this bill? Batten : They do it now only by virtue of the lease. The Chairman : Then it is the change of ownership of which you complain ? Batten : The change of ownership and the change of management, because now the Corn- wall company is an independent company worked and leased by the Great Western company. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : The so-called independent Cornwall railway company has no control except this, that the lease is controlled and regulated by a joint committee consisting of eight Great Western directors and four Cornwall railway directors. Batten : At all events there are four Cornwall railway directors who are able to see that justice is done to the district. Pope : I concede that if two companies are amalgamated, and the amalgamation causes injury to a third company, that third company ought to be heard against the amalgamation ; but I say the Plymouth and Dartmoor company cannot show any injury. My points are these, I say first of all the allegations in the petition being that we refuse equal rates to Millbay and to Cattewater, the power to do that will not be increased or affected by the amalgamation, and farther that it is an evil which, if it exists, has to be remedied by an application to the railway commissioners and not by appearance before Parliament. Batten : The injury that we apprehend to our company is that, whereas our railway runs to Cattewater harbour, one of four harbours in Plymouth, the Great Western company, who are now seeking to amalgamate with the Cornwall company, and who own another of the Plymouth harbours, viz., Millbay, will have the entire control of the traffic east and west, and will bring to their own dock at Millbay the whole of their traffic, some of which now finds its way to us. Mr. Shiress Will : But how will they be able to do that bettor than they do now ? Batten : Because they will have absolute control over the Cornwall railway, whereas at present they have not absolute control. The Cornwall company can now make their own arrangements, they can through book and send traffic to us, which, when the Cornwall company becomes absorbed in the Great Western, the Great Western cojipany will have in their own hands. True, my learned friend says there is a majority of the Great Western on the joint committee, but the fact that there are four local directors on the board does keep them in order and prevents that occurring which will occnr if the Great Western company have the entire control. The Chairman: It is now more the interest of the Cornwall company to favour you than the Great Western ? Batten : It is the interest of the Great Western company to get traffic from each of the points that the Cornwall company is interested in, but when the Cornwall railway becomes part of the Great Western, then the Great Western company will not care whether its Oorniah limb gets its profit, so long as it gets its own profit at the dock at Millbay. Pope : I have been looking in the lease and I find that the joint committee have no power to fix rates ; it is the associated companies, the Great Western, the South Devon, and the Bristol and Exeter (now Great Western) who have power to fix rates. Batten : True. The associated companies may have power to fix rates, but the local directors have a power and influence in seeing that the local traffic is developed for the benefit of the Cornwall company. This is a case in which we could not go before the railway com- missioners. The amalgamated company will not be charging beyond their maximum. Pope : If we give an undue preference to other traffic than yours, or if we are unreason, able, the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict., V. 25), was especially framed to meet such a case. Batten : I do not believe that that Act will meet our case. Our petition states our position clearly. We say (paragraph 4): "The com- pany, however, have for years past done all in their power to oimpel the tradei's and other persons having business at the port of Plymouth to use their harbour at Millbay, by granting preferential rates in favour of their so doing, and by obstructing and impeding in every way the development of Cattewater and the other harbours and quays with which Plymouth is so amply provided ; (5) in every instance the company obliges your petitioners to apply to the railway commissioners, before they will grant through rates for traffic by your petitioners' railway, and the traders who desire to avail themselves of this far shorter and more con. venient route are obliged to go to the expense of carting their goods to the Great Western railway company's station at Millbay, in con- sequence of the inability of your petitioners to quote through rates to stations on the Great 258 COURT OF KEFEREES. [Vol. I. Western railway ; (6) at the present time your petitioners, whose railway at Cattewater is connected with valuable quarries of stone, are unable to obtain through rates for its carriage to the company's stations, and the company will neither carry it themselves at such rates, nor allow the South. Western railway company to do so, although the amount of the through rates, and the share apportioned to the company have never been seriously objected to." Pope : If we are doing all that now, how should we be able to do it more effectually in the future p Batten : If you get possession of the Cornwall railway you will have an enormous area in which you will be able to exercise your arbitrary powers. Mr. Sbiuess Will : It will be the same area, only instead of being leased it will be owned. Mr. Chandos-Leigr : What injury do you show ? 'Batten : That instead of there being a joint committee, four members of which are impartial and represent an independent company, they are taken away, and the management is relegated to a body who have only the interests of the Great Western railway as a whole at heart. Tbe four members of the Cornwall board on the joint committee at present are concerned to treat Cornwall traffic fairly, and to have regard to its due development; but if the Cornwall traffic is in future to be controlled by Great Western interests only, the effect will be that traffic which went to Cattewater will go solely to Millbay. Mr. Shiress Will : Do you say you will have no remedy under the Railway Traffic Act of last year ? Batten : I do not see what remedy I should have. With regard to (2) the petition of the Incorporated Chamberof Commerce of Plymouth their case is very similar to that of the Plymouth and Dartmoor railway company. The petition alleges (paragraph 3) : " That your petitioners are the representatives of the trading and shipping interests of the port of Plymouth, which consists of four several harbours, all inside the breakwater forming part of the port, namely, Millbay, Sntton harbour, Cattewater, and Stone- house pool, all of which are connected by railway with the Great Western, Cornwall, and South- western railwa,y8 ; (4) that the Groat Western railway company under the powers of the South Devon Railway Act, 1874., acquired for the purposes of their undertaking, the before-mentioned harbour of Millbay, and by means of preferential rates and facilities in favour of that harbour, have developed the traffic thereat, but at the same time are depriving the traders and other persons in. terested in the shipping and other businesses and trades of Plymouth of the natural advan. tages afforded by the other harbours, quays, and works to the detriment of many important industries carried on by traders repiesented by your petitioners ; (5) that the proposed amalga- mation will greatly increase the power of the Great Western railway company, to the injury of the traders represented by your petitioners, as the Great Western company will, on the amalgamation, obtain the monopoly of the whole of Cornwall and of a very large part of the county of Devon, and will be able by means of preferential rates to divert a very large portion of the traffic consigned to the port of Plymouth in favour of their own harbour of Millbay from the other harbours within the port, and it is in the interest of the port and of the kingdom generally, that no artificial restrictions by means of rates or otherwise should be imposed upon traders desiring to use any one of the harbours with which this port is provided ; (6) that your petitioners submit that if the proposed amalga- mation be permitted, it shou'd only be so on the terms that there shall at all times of the amalgamation be equal through rates for goods and merchandise consigned to or from any of the stations on the amalgamation railways to or from Stonehouse pool, Sntton harbour, Catte. water, and that the amalgamation company shall afford the same facilities to the traffic from the harbours of Sutton pool, Cattewater, and Stone- house pool, as if the traffic were tratfio arriving at or destined for the amalgamation company's own harbour at Millbay. The petitioners have the same grievance as the Plymouth and Dartmouth company, that grievance being that the Great Western company, who own Millbay, will, if they get entire possession of the Cornwall district, be able to take traffic to Millbay by all those little facilities which are in the power of a railway company to give, and will draw traffic to their own port." Mr. Chandos.Letgh : S. 0. 133a is in these words : " Where a chamber of commerce or agriculture or other similar body suffioiently representing a particular trade or business in any district to which any railway bill relates, ppti. tion against the bill, alleging that such trade or business will be injuriously affected by the rates and fares proposed to be authorised by the bill, or is injuriously affected by the rates and fares already authorised by Acts relating to the railway undertaking, it shall be compe- tent to the Referees on private bills, if they think fit, to admit the petitioners to be heard on such allegation against the bill or any part thereof, or against the rates and farei autho- Part IV.] Liverpool, London, etc., insurance company bill. 259 rised by the said Acts or any of them ; '' and at the end of the oi-dei' you find these words : "Nothing in this order shall authorieo the Referees to entertain any question within tlie jurisdiction of the railway oommisaioners." I think we mast put the strictest interpretation upon that S. 0., and the petitioners must show that their trade or business would be injuriously affected by the rates and fares proposed to be authorised by tlie bill, er by the rates and fares already existing. It there are no rates or fares proposed to be authorised by the bill, and if yon do not complain of the existing rates and fares, how can you claim a locus standi under S. 0. 133a ? There seems to be no allegation directed to existing rates or to rates proposed by the bill anywhere in the petition. The petitioners are complaining of something which they apprehend may happen if the bill is passed, but that does not come under the S, O. They are complaining that the authority that will regulate the rates in future will be less friendly to them. The Chairman : If we take this S. 0. literally, I do not see how wo could give these petitioners a locus standi under it. Batten : I do not see how you could if you take it literally. In the present bill there is no pro- posal to alter rates. What the petitioners are apprehensive of is that there will be a monopoly in the hands of the Great Western company. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : I think we would like to hear Mr. Pope upon the first case. In amal- gamation bills we might be inclined to go alittie further than in other bills, but still injury must be shown. Pope, Q.C. (in reply) : If there was injury, I should not say a word ; but what my learned friend complains of is what is done now. His complaint is you will not give me equal rates for Ca(tewater and Millbay. We do not give them equal through rates, and we do not do so under the powers given us by our lease for 1000 years of the Cornwall line, which makes the Great Western the authority and the interest which fixes those through rates. The amalgamation with the Cornwall company will not give the ■Great Western company any more authority to fix rates than they have got now. Under the lease it is the associated companies (now the Great Western company alone) who fix the rates, and all those rates are fixed in connection with the London and South-Western railway com- pany. My learned friend says " You do not give us equal through rates." We do not, although we do give them through rates. But the amalgnmation will not enable them to get through rates fixed any differently to what they are now fixed at under the lease for 1000 years. They are fixed now by the Great Western com- pany, and they would continue to be fixed by them. Mr. Chandos-Leigh: Mr. Batten's argument was, that if these four gentlemen, who now exercise a sort of moral influence, go, his company would lose their last shred of a chance. Pope: But the four gentlemen have no control over the grievance he is speaking of. If, as in the case of the Metropolitan and the Metropolitan District, the rates were fixed by a joint committee, I would agree that the removal of the independent members upon the committee might be a grievance, but inasmuch as the joint committee do not fix the rates now, and would not hereafter have fixed them, but they have been, and still would be, fixed by the Great Western company, the position of the petitioners will not be altered by the bill. The Chairman : We Disallow the Locus Standi of both Petitioners. Agents for Petitioners (1) and (2), Batten, Profit ^ Scott. Agents for Bill, Sherwood ^ Go. LIVERPOOL AND LONDON AND GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY BILL. Petition of Robert Henderson. 4th July, 1889.— (Be/ore Mr. Paekek, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, W.P.; Ron. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham- Cabter.) Practice — Bill to Amend Constitution of Com- pany — Wharncliffe Meeting — Dissenting Share- holder — 8. 63 [_BiUs,^c.,Empoioering Certain Companies to do Certain Acts to he Approved by Special Besolution of Company^ — S. 0. 132 [^Disseniing Shareholders to be Heard^ — Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills — Report of Compliance with Standing Orders — • Wharncliffe Meeting Held not Necessary — Review of Decision by Court ultra vires — S. 0. 141 [_Committee not to. Enquire into Certain Orders'}. The bill was one for amending the Acts relating to an insurance company, of which the petitioner was a shareholder. A general meeting of the shareholders of the company had been held similar to that prescribed by S. 0. 62 'to £6, and the petitioner had attended the meeting and had dissented al; 260 COUET or EEFEREES. [Vol. I. it as required by S. 0. 132. It appeared, however, that no snoh meeting waa required by the deed of settlement of the com- pany, and the examiner of petitions for private billa to whom the bill had been referred, and to whom the deed of settle- ment had been produced, had decided accordingly, and had reported that the necessary Standing Orders had been com- plied with. The petitioner contended that the facts were in his favour, inasmuch as the WharnoIifEe meeting had been held, and he had dissented at it, and that the company could not now turn ronnd and repudiate their own action in the matter. On behalf of the promoters it was argued that S. 0. 141 (" Committee not to enquire into certain orders ") made it ultra vires for the Court to review the decision of the examiner or to discuss the meaning and effect of the deed of settlement, and that therefore it must be considered that con- structively no Wharnoliffe meeting of the company had been held in compliance with S. 0. 62 to 66, so as to entitle the peti. tioner to be heard under S. 0. 132. It was further pointed out that the petitioner had had an opportunity of appearing before the examiner to discuss the necessity of a Wharncliffe meeting, but had not availed himself of it: Held, that under the circumstances the locus standi of the petitioner must be disallowed. The locus standi of the petitioner was ob- jected to on the following grounds: (I) the bill is promoted by the Liverpool and Loudon and Globe company of which the petitioner is (as he alleges in paragraph 4 of his petition) a, shareholder. The petitioner's interests as such shareholder are not, nor does he allege that they are, distinct from the general interests of the said company, or of the other share- holders thereof. Tte petitioner is not entitled by reason of his being such shareholder as aforesaid to be heard against the bill; (2) the petitioner claims to be entitled to be heard against the bill on the solo ground that he attended a meeting of the company held on tlie 1st March, 1889, and dissented from the bill. But the allegation in the 4th paragraph of his petition that the said meoling was held in pursuance of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons is not true in fact, nor has the holding of any meeting of the company, or the shareholders, or proprietors, or members thereof, been proved befoi-e the examiners of petitions for private bills, or before the examiners of Standing Orders for private bills in the House of Lords, in which the bill originated. No sach meeting was in the case of the said company necessary, and the examiners have so held and reported. The fact that a meeting of the share- holders of the Eaid company, although not required by the Standing Orders, was held, and that the petiti mer at such meeting dissented from the bill, does not entitle the petitioner to be heard against the bill. At the said meeting the bill was appi'oved by a very large majority, both in number and value, of the shareholders of the said company, present in person or by proxy, and the petitioner is bound by such approval. Coward (for petitioner) : The bill is entitled " An Act for extending and amending the Acts relating to the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance company, and for other purposes." The petitioner holds 1,170 shares in the com- pany in his own name, of which he holds 460 in trust, and members of his family own 1,815 shares, the present value of the whole exceeding £120,000. The total capital of the company, which is an unlimited liability company, is about £2,500,000. The bill seeks to convert the company, which is at present a Fire and Life Insurance company, into a Theft, Marine, Guarantee, and Accident Insurance company. This the petitioner objects to. He alleges that " Your petitioner attended the meeting of the company held in pursuance of the Standing Orders of your Honourable House on 1st March, 18S9, and dissented from the bill on behalf of himself and a number of other shareholders." The result of the poll taken at the meeting was to approve the bill by a three-fourth's raajiricy, but the petitioner is entitled to be heard as a dissentient shareholder under S. O.'s 63 and 132. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : In this case the meeting of the company which was held, was not held in compliance with S. 0. 63, as there was no legal necess'ty to hold any such meeting. That fact has already been held proved by the examiner on Standing Orders and, by S. 0. 141, no Commiitee, and for the purpose of locus standi this Court is a Committee, can go behind the decision of the examiner of petitions for private bills. Coward: The facts with regard to the bill promoted by the company this Session are these. The directors found that their trust deed gave them the right to apply to Parliament for an Act for such purposes as these, and they Part IV.] local government, etc., confirmation bill. 261 contended that that relieved them from the Heoeesity of holding a, WharncHffe meeting at all. They then promoted this bill, bat fearing that it was possible they might be wrong in their construction they held ii, WharnolifTe meeting, and sent a notice of that meeting to the petitioner, who went to Liverpool from London and dissented at the meeting. When, however, the bill came before the examiner he came to the conclusion that it was not neces- sary that such a meeting should have been held, and did not require proof of it, but reported compliance with Standing Orders. The peti- tioner was in ignorance of what took place before the examiner, or that it would be denied that there was any necessity for the Wharn- cliSe meeting, and did not go before the examiner and object. Pope, Q.C. : The bill is now before the second House, and we took the same objection to the locus of the petitioner in the House of Lords, so that he might have gone before the examiner in this House. Coward: The Wharnoliffe meeting was held, and the petitioner received notice of it and attended it, and dissented at it. Mr. Shiress Will : The notice may have been given ex dbundanti cautelA. The object of the WharnclifOe meeting is to obtain the con. sent of the shareholders to the bill. Here it seems that no such consent was necessary, and therefore a dissentient shareholder would not have his ordinary right to be heard. Pope, Q.C. {in reply) : By the rale of this House the petiLioner cannot go into the ques- tion of whether the deed of settlement of the company empowers the company to introduce this bill without calling a Wharncliffie meeting. That question was settled by the examiner, and cannot be re-opened here or before a Committee. S. 0. 141 is conclusive on that point. It would have been necessary to prove before the examiner that a WharnolifEe meeting had been held, if he had decided that it was necessary that it should be held, but in this case he did not so hold. The deed of settlement was before the examiner, and he held that the S. 0. as to a Whai-riolifEd meeting was inappli- cable, and that all the S. O.'s applicable to the case had been complied with, and the Court cannot go back upon that. The question before the Court is therefore res judicata, and it would be ultra, vires of the Court to re-open it. The Chairman: Under the circumstances of the case the Locus Standi of the Petitiioner must be Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Wyatt Sf Co. Agents for Bill, Bees ^ Frere. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) (BINGLBY ORDER) CONFIRMATION BILL. Petition of The Corporation op Keighley. 21st May, 1889.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; and The Hon. B. Chandos-Leiqh, Q.O.) Local Board Promotinij Sewerage Scheme — Corporation of Neighbouring Borough^TJrhan Sanitary Authority — Pollution of Hirer Floio. ing Through Borough — S. 0. 131 [Municipal Authorities and Inhabitants of Towns'] — Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876 (39 Sf 40 Vict., c. 75), s.S—Fuhlic Health Act,l815,s. 27. The bill confirmed aProvisional Order empower- ing the local board of Bingley to take certain lands for the construction of sewerage works, which lands were situate on the banks of the river Worth. The corporation of the neighbouring borough of Keighley, which was traversed by the river Worth, the lands taken by the bill being about a mile above the borough boundary, claimed to be heard against the bill under S. 0. 134, as the urban sanitary authority of the borough, which they alleged would be injuriously affected by the proposed works. The corporation especially objected to the pollution of the river Worth, which they were under statutory obligations to cleanse within their borough. The promoters denied that the works in question would affect the purity of the river, and pointed out that the petitioners were specially protected in this respect by section 8 of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876 ; and as to the general nuisance and injury to health alleged by the peti- tioners as likely to be caused to their borough from the construction of the works, they called the attention of the Court to the provision against the creation of a nuisance contained in sec. 27 of the Public Health Act, 1875, which authorised them as a local authority to erect sewerage works. Under these circumstances they contended that the petitioners were fully protected by tlie general law, and were not entitled to be heard against the bill : 262 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. Held, however, that the petitioners were entitled to a locus standi against so much of the order ae related to the acquisition of lands for sewerage purposes. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) it is not the fact that the petitioners are the owners of any land proposed to be acquired by the promoters; (2) the promoters deny that the proposed sewerage works will have an iujarious effect upon the health of the inhabitants of the borough of Keighley. The scheme of the promoters has been made the subject of enquiry, and has been approved by the Local Government board ; (3) the petitioners have no such Interest in the river Worth aa entitles them to be heard against the bill and Order, even if the works done thereunder in any way prejudicially affect the river, which the pro- moters deny ; (4) the petitioners are not owners of any land within the area which will be rated for the works in respect of which the Pi-ovisional Order is sought to be obtained, and the peti. tioners have not alleged nor have they any grounds sufficient to entitle them to be heard as ratepayers ; (5) the petitioners have no interest which entitles them to be heard on the question of the proposed cemetery, nor have they dis- closed any ground to justify them to be heard in any way, according to practice. Pemlrohe Stephens, Q 0. (for petitioners) : This is a Provisional Order brought before Par- liament at the instance of the Bingley harbour sanitary authority, to acquire some ten acres of land for the disposal of sewage. The petitioners are the corporation and urban sanitary authority of Keighley, whose district immediately adjoins the district of the Bingley local board, and in fact forms part of the district fur the drainage of which these lands are proposed to be acquired, Hainworth ward, fur the drainage of which these lands are specially required, being practically a suburb of Keighley, into which tlie populatiou of Keighley has over, flowed. The districts are further connected in this way, that we have gas and water-pipes and also lands within the district of the pro- moters, which will be rated for the purpose of carrying out the sewerage works proposed by the bill. The bill carves the Hainworth ward out of the promoters' larger area, and treats it as a, special drainage area, and we shall be specially rated in respect of our property within the smaller area. Baggallay (for promoters) : The corporation are ratepayers in respect of gas and water-pipes to a rateable value of £85 within the special area, but have no other ownership within it. The rateable value of the Hainworth ward is over £31,000. Stephens : Apart from our right to he heard as ratepayers, we are clearly entitled to be heard under S.O. 134 as the local and sanitary autho- rity of Keighley, alleging that their district will be injuriously affected by the bill. The lands described in Part 2 of the schedule to the Order, and proposed to be taken for the sewerage scheme, are situate on the right bank of the river Worth, above our borough, which is traversed by that river. We allege that the lands proposed to be taken are insufficient for the proper purification of the sewage to be dealt with, and that the sewage will pass into the river in a more or less crude state, and in- juriously affect the health of our borough. No provision is made for dealing with the sewage of the larger or lower portion of Hainworth ward, which adjoins our borough. We intend shortly to apply to Parliament for the extension of our borough, so as to include Hainworth ward, when we could deal with the sewage of the whole ward effectually. We also take objection to the land proposed to be taken for a cemetery, as being unsuitable for the purpose both from its position and soil. The Chairman : With regard to the possible consequent pollution of the river Worth, yon object to it both as regards the river itself and the effect its pollution wonld have on the air and health of the borough. Stephens : Yes ; a statutory obligation has been laid upon the corporation for many years past, of cleansing the bed of the river Worth, into which at present no sewage or effluent from sewage is discharged, and we have pur- chased land at an expenditure of £20,000 at a point lower down the river, for the purpose of taking away and diverting the sewage of our town from the river Worth. The expense of this we are empowered by Act of Parliament to charge upon the general district rate, but the bill will considerably increase the expense and difficulty of carrying out onr duties. The Chvibman: Has there been a local enquiry in this case by a Local Government board inspector p Stephens: Yes. As the sanitary authority we have certain statutory duties in connection with the removal of nuisances, as well as the cleansing of the river, as to which latter especially the bill will increase onr difficulties by putting fresh sewage into it. Mr. SaiRESS "Will : How far is the boundary of the borough from the proposed outfall into the river ? Part IV.] london and noeth-western railway bill. 263 Stephens : Less than a mile ; but the Comt has frequently laid down that injury and not distance determines the right of a petitioner to be heard. Although there is no reported case exactly on all fours with this, that of the Riiile Navigation, Preston Dock and Borough Extension Bill, 1883, on the petition of the Cor- X oration of Southport (3 Clifford &Riokarda,333), shows the length the Referees have gone where the health of a town is endangered by the pro- posals of a bill. Baggallay (in reply) : The lands proposed to be taken for treating sewage are sufficient for the purpose, and no nuisance or injury will arise to the borongh of Keighley. The lands were inspected by the Local Government inspector who held an enquiry before this Order was made, and reported them well adapted for the purpose, and the corporation did not appear at the enquiry and take objection to them. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : That does not affect the right of the petitioners to be heard. The local enquiry is virtually the same as a hearing by the other House. Baggallay : The pollution of the river Worth is the main objection to the Order being confLnued. The Chairman : No doubt ; but the injury to health by pollution of the air is also material, as the land proposed to be taken lies south-west of Keighley, and the prevailing winds are probably from the south-west. Baggallay : With regard to the pollution of the river the petitioners are protected by the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, sec. 8, of which provides that " Every sanitary authority shall, subject to the restrictions in this Act contained, have power to enforce the provisions of this Act in relation to any stream being within or passing through or by any part of their district and for that purpose to institute proceedings in respect of any offence against this Act, which causes .... pollution within their district of any such stream against any other sanitary authority or person, whether such offence is comilnitted within or without the district of the first-named sanitary authority." Then again we are subject as a sanitary autho- rity to the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, under which we are empowered to con- struct sewerage works for our district, and under which we should carry out the works pro- posed by this Order, were it not that we require to take land compulsorily. Sec. 27 of that Act expressly provides that " no nuisance be created in the exercise of any of the powers given by this section." The petitioners there- fore are amply protected by the general law and therefore not entitled to be beard against the bill according to the practice of this Court. The case of the corporation cannot be stronger than the case of a landowner against a similar bill, Birmingham Sewerage Bill, 1872 (2 Clifford and Stephens, 233). Mr. Chandos-Leigh ; That case was decided in 1872, before the Public Health Act, 1875, was passed. Moreover, landowners have been admitted since the passing of S. 0. 15, pre- scribing the limit of 300 yards. It does not follow that because protection or compensation is provided for by the general law, a petitioner is therefore to be barred from being heard against a bill that may injuriously affect him. Baggallay : Here the works will be outside the limit prescribed by S. 0. 15. With regard to land required for the cemetery The Chaikman : That point has not been per- sisted in by the counsel for the petitioners. With regard however to the sewage works referred to in Part II. of the schedule, the Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Alloived. Locus Standi of the Petitioners Disallowed, except as to so much of the Order as relates to the taking of land for sewerage purposes. Agents for Petitioners, Sharpe Sf Oo. Agents for Bill, Wyatt Sr Go. LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.* Petition of (1) The Metropolitan Asylum District. loth May, 1889.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.F., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; Sir George Rvssell, M.P. ; Mr. Hraly, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ,- and Mr. Bonham-Cartbr.) Lands adjoining Hospital — Acquisition hy Rail- way Company — Managers and Trustees of Hospital — Petitioners a Public Body constituted iy the Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867— S. 0. 134 * Note. — The Metropolitan Asylums board subsequently presented a petition against this bill in the House of Lords. The bill was taken before a Committee, presided over by the Earl of CamperdowD, on 2nd July, 1889, and the Committee, after hearing counsel on both sides, allowed the locus standi of the petitioners, and subsequently inserted a clause containing provi- sions for their protection (see London & North Western Railway Act, 1889, 52 & 53 Vict., t. 98, sec. 23). 264 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. (Municipal Authorities and Inhalitants of Towns') — Injurious affecting of Hospital by Noise, Vibration, ^c. — Hammersmith, ij'c, Railway Company v. Brand, L.R. iH.L. 171 — North British Raihoay (No. 2) Bill, 1887 (2 CliSord & Rickards, 54). Clause 13 of the bill authorised the company to acquire compulsorily and nse for the purposes of their undertaking (including "stations, sidings, warehouses, coal wharves, dep6t8, and other accommodation .... mineral goods and cattle traffic") a piece of land, comprising 6 acres, known as the Lillie Bridge grounds, in the parish of Fulham. The petitioners were the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum district incor. porated by the Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867, for the purpose of erecting and maintaining hospitals in the Metropolis for sick and insane persons, with power to issue con- tribution orders for those purposes to the Guardians of the various nnions within the Metropolis. They had erected at consider- able expense a hospital for small-pox and fever cases immediately adjoining the Lillie Bridge grounds, and they alleged that, if the railway company was empowered to acquire and nse these grounds for the objects authorised by the bill, the hospital would become nseless for the purposes to which it was now devoted. They claimed to be heard under the peculiar circum. stances of the case as the owners of property injuriously affected by the bill, and as a public authority specially con- stituted by Act of Parliament to provide and maintain hospitals for the poor inhabitants of the Metropolis, claiming in this capacity a position analogous to that of a local authority under S. 0. 134 : Held, however, that they were not entitled to be heard under S. 0. 184, which clearly defined " a local authority " for the purposes of the Order ; and that as owners and managers of the hospital in question they were not entitled, in accordance with previous decisions of the Court, to a locus standi against the bill. (North British Railway (No. 2) Bill, 1887, on the petition of Oommissiuneis of Police of Partick, Hillbead and Maryhill, 2 Clifford and Rickards, 54, cited and followed.) The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) It is not alleged in the petition, nor is it the fact that any lands or property of the petitioners will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill; (2) it is not alleged in the petition nor is it the fact that the petitioners are the municipal or local authority having the local management of any town or district alleged to be injuriously affected by the bill, so as to entitle them to be heard against the samej (3) the promoters deny that the petitioners represent any ratepayers as alleged in paragraph 7 of the petition, so as to entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (4) the promoters do not admit that the petitioners are not protected by the general law, bat even were the statements to that effect in paragraph 7 of the petition well founded, they disclose no ground upon which according to the practice of Parliament the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill ; (5) the petition discloses no grounds upon which, according to the practice of Parliament, the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill. RicTcards (for petitioners) : The clause of the bill to which we object is clause 13, which is as follows : " Subject to the provisions of this Act, and in addition to the other lands which the company are by this Act authorised to acquire, the company may from time to time enter upon take nse and appropriate for the purpose of extending the stations, sidings, warehouses, coal wharves, depfits, and other accommodation of the company for mineral goods and cattle traffic, and for other purposes connected with their undertaking, the lands hereinafter described or referred to delineated on the deposited plans and described in the deposited books of reference relating thereto (that is to say) in the county of Middlesex. Certain lands in the parish of Fulham known as the Lillie Bridge grounds.'' Our petition thus describes one status, and tbe way in which we shall be affected by the bill : paragraph (3), " Tour petitioners are the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum district, incorporated by the Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867, and are a duly constituted authority for the establishment und maintenance in the Metropolis of asylums for the sick, insane, and other classes of the poor. They are a body corporate with perpetual succession and a Common Seal, and with power, subject to the Orders of the Local Government board to take, hold and dispose of lands and other property for their purposes ; (4) your Part IV.] london and north-western railway bill. 265 petitioners have hospitals for the reoeptiou and treatment of fever and small-pox patients in various diairicts of the Metropolis, one of their largest institutions being known as the Western hospital, situate in the Seagcave-road, Fulham, and being used for the accommodation of those patients. It is adjoining to and bounded on the north side by the LiUie Bridge recreation grounds, which the company propose to take for the purposes mentioned in clause 13 of the bill. (5) your petitioners contend that, if the company are authorised to purchase and take the Lillie Bridge grounds and to construct thereon stations, sidings, warehouses, coal-wharves, depfits for mineral, goods, and cattle traffic, or for any of such purposes, the noise and vibration of the shunting of carriages and waggons and heavy trains, especially at night time, and the noise of the general busiuess proposed to be carried on upon the land songht to be purchased, would be most injurious to the welfare of the sick patients lying in bed suffering from fever or small-pox, and would entirely ruin the institution as a hospital, and render it practically uninhabitable for that purpose ; (6) your petitioners feel assured that if the Lillie Bridge grounds are used for the purposes contemplated by the bill the hospital will have to be closed, at serious loss to the ratepayers, who have already spent nearly sixty-eight thousand pounds in purchasing the land for and building and fitting up the hospital ; (7) your petitioners submit that they are not protected by the general law, and that no compensation thereunder would adequately reimburse or remunerate them if the lands pro- posed to be taken were to be applied for the purposes named in the bill, but that they and the ratepayers represented by your petitioners would entirely lose all the benefit now derived from the hospital upon which the large sum of money before mentioned has been expended ; (8) your petitioners further submit that for these and other reasons the aforesaid powers proposed to be confeiTed on the company ought not to receive the sanction of your honourable House, there being no such public necessity for them as would justify the very great and serious injury to private as well as public rights and interests involved in the exercise of those powers." The laud sought to be acquired by the promoters immediately adjoins onr boundary, and one of the buildings in which we receive patients is close to the boundary. The critical nature of the oases which we treat at this hospital makes quiet of peculiar importance to the patients, but the bill places no restriction on the uses to which the promoters might put this large piece of laud, which is up- wards of six acres in extent. There cannot be any reasonable doubt that the use of this land as a goods depot for mineral and cattle traffic, both by day and night, must injure the value of our hospital for its present purposes. One of the objections to our locus standi is that we are not a "municipal or other local authority" whose district is injuriously affected by the bill within the meaning of S. 0. 134, but we are in an analogus position, because we constituted the hospital authority for the Metropolis by the Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867. Under that Act we can erect hospitals anywhere in the Metro- polis, and can make contribution orders on the guardians of the different unions for the expenses of building and maiotenance. Just as the London School board are the public au- thority of the Metropolis as regards education, so we are the public authority for hospital purposes. Although we are under the general superintendence and control of the Local Government board we are not represented by them, and for general hospital purposes we claim to represent the ratepayers of the Metropolis. Sir Geoege Rdssell : S. 0. 134 clearly defines the authority entitled to be heard under it, and you cannot contend that the petitioners come within the definition. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) : In the case of the North British Railway (No. 2) Bill, 1887, on the petition of the Commissioners of Police of Partiok, &o., the petitioners were local authori. ties as well as trustees of the hospital alleged to be affected, and were therefore much more nearly within S. 0. 134 than the petitioners here. With that variation, for what it is worth, the two cases are precisely on all fours. The local authority, in this case the London County Council, petition against the bill, and object to the acquisition by the company of the Lillie Bridge grounds. Mr. Healy : I fail to see how the petitioners can claim higher rights than a private individual who had built a hospital at his own cost, but rather the contrary. The Chairman : Suppose the present owner of the land put it to the same uses as the railway company propose or agreed to sell it to them without an Act of Parliament, would the peti- tioners have any remedy ? Richards : They would be able to take pro- ceedings for a nuisance, but the bill will legalise the company 's use of the land for the purposes named in the bill, and provided the company is not guilty of negligence in so using it, we should have no right of action against them for injury to our hospital by noise and vi bration . (Hammer- smith and City Railway Company v. Brand, L.R. 4 H.L. 171.) " Injuiiiius affecting " has been 266 COURT OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. in many cases allowed as a ground of locus standi, as e.g. in the case of obstruction of access to premises. Albhough there were special cir- camstances iu the case, I refer the Court to the case of Madame Titiens against the Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Railway Bill, 1871 and 1873, 2 Clifford & Stephens, 189, and 1 Clifford and Riokards, 146. Mr. Shiress Will : The petitioners can, in my opinion, only be regarded as private indi- viduals, not being within S. 0. 134. I have always considered it hard that the practice of the Court should be to exclude persons from being heard on the ground that they are not entitled to compensation, but this case is undoubtedly governed by a long aeries of precedents, and cannot, I think, be distinguished from that of the petitioners against the North British Railway (No. 2) Bill, 1887. The Chaibman ; The precedents are so strong that we need not hear the counsel for the pro- moters. The Locus Standi of the Petitioners must be Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Wyatt ^ Co. Manchester, 2 Clifford & Stephens, 172, cited and distinguished.) Petition of (2) The Wallasei Local Boakd. Footpath Across Lands Scheduled by Railway Company — Bight of Way Extinguished — Petition of Local Board of Adjoining District as Road Authority. Clause 26 of the bill authorised the promoters to take compulsorily certain lands in the parish of Bidston, and clause 19 extin- guished all rights of way over the lands so taken. The petitioners were the Local board of the district of W., which adjoined the parish of B., and they complained that, although no interference with land or rights of way within their own district was authorised by the bill, the effect of taking the land in the adjoining parish of B. and stopping up a footpath across it would be to render valueless as a means of communica- tion a continuation of the same footpath running through their own district : Held, that the petitioners were entitled to be heard with regard to the stopping of the footpath in question. (Lancusldre and Yorkshire Railway (New Works) Bill, 1871, on the petition of the Corporation of The locus standi was objected to on the fol- lowing grounds : (1) it is not alleged in the petition nor is it the fact that any lands or property of the petitioners or any lands or property within the petitioners' district will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill; (2) the promoters deny that the peti- tioners or the residents within their district are in any way affected by the bill so as to entitle them according to the practice of Parliament to be heard on their petition ; (3) the promoters deny that any public ways or footpaths, or any part of any public ways or footpaths within the district of the petitioners or under their manage- ment or control will or can be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill, and the petitioners are not entitled to be heard in respect of proposed or apprehended inter- ference with ways or footpaths outside their district J (4) the petition alleges or discloses no grounds upon which according to the practice of Parliament the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the bill. Balfour Browne, Q.C. (for petitioners) : Clause 19 of the bill extinguishes rights of way in all lands purchased or acquired under the provisions of the bill, and clause 26 empowers the promoters to take certain lands in the town- ship of Bidston-cum-Ford, in the parish of Bidston, and therefore to shut up a footpath which runs across these lands and into the Wallasey district. Pope, Q.C. (for promoters) . None of the land we propose to take is in the Wallasey district nor is the footpath at the point whore we pro- pose to shut it up in that district. Browne : That is true, but the footpath pro- posed to be closed runs from our district into the adjoining parish of Bidston, and it would be useless if it were stopped up at the Wallasey boundary. The Chairman : Is not this a matter for the Bidston people ? Browne ; Not necessarily. They may have many other means of communication. If Bidston itself had come for powers to stop up this footpath between the two districts, we ■ should surely have had a right to be heard as the surveyors of highways iu our district under sec. 141 of the Public Health Act, 1875. Pope : 1 rely upon the decision in the case of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill, 1871, 2 Clifford & Stephens, 172, where the same question arose. In the case of a long road or footpath extending through the districts of Part IV.] london centkal (subway) railway bill. 267 several local boards, there would be no limit to the board who might be heard ajtainst closing it. Mr. Shikess Will ; It seems to me that the reason of the decision in the case cited was that Salford, in whose district the interference with the footpath was actually to be made, was petitioning and would raise the whole question, and that therefore the Court thought it would be superfluous that Manchester should also be heard. The Chairman : We think that the Wallasey Local board are entitled to be heard with regard to the stopping up of this footpath. Locus Standi of Petitioners Allowed against clause 19 so far as it affects the lands proposed to be taken under clause 26, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto. Agents for Petitioners, Sharpe, Parkers, Pritchard ^ Sharpe. Petition of (3) The Wkexham, Mold and Connah's Quay, and Manchestek, Sheffield, and lincolnshike railway companies ; (4) The Wkexham, Mold and Connah's Quay Railway Company ; and (5) The Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshihe Railway Company. Although there were three petitions deposited by the above-named petitioners, they all con- tained similar allegations, and arguments were addressed to the Court only on the case raised by (3) the joint petition deposited by the two companies. In it they complained of the power conferred in clause 26 on the promoters and the Great Western railway company, or either of them, to take compulsorily 130 acres of land belonging to a Mr. Vyner, close to the great float at Birkenhead, the effect of which, the petitioners alleged, would be to cut off their future access to the Birkenhead docks, and to injure their position as promoters of a bill for the transfer to themselves of powers conferred upon the Wirral railway company by an Act of 1885 of constructing a line, which they intended to work in connection with their own railways, and by this means to establish a railway com- munication in their own hands between Birken- head and North Wales. They also contended that the effect of clause 26 would be to transfer to the promoters of the bill certain privileges, including running powers over the Wirral rail- way, which, as before stated, the petitioners themselves were in their own bill seeking powers to construct. The promoters denied that this would be the effect of clause 26 of the bill, and much of the argument turned upon the construction to be put upon the words of that clause, and they pointed out that the petitioners had not scheduled the land in question under their own bill. Another ground of locus was advanced by the petitioners, namely, that the bill would affect an agreement between the Wirral company (the transfer of whose Parliamentary powers to themselves the petitioners were seeking by their own bill to effect), and the Mersey railway company. The Court, however. Disallowed the Locus Standi of the Petitioners in respect of both the above grounds. The circumstances of the case were of such a special character as to render it of no value as a precedent. Agents for Petitioners (3, 4 and 5), Martin and Leslie. Petition of (6) The Chbshiee Lines Committee. The case of these Petitioners was not sup- ported by argument, and their Locus Standi was Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners, Wyatt Sf Oo. Agents for Bill, Sherwood ^ Oo. LOISTDON CENTRAL (SUBWAY) RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) Metropolitan Railway Com. PANY; (2) Metropolitan District Railway Company. 2nd May, 1889.— (Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman ; ^c, Sfe., ^c.) Both the petitioning railway companies claimed a general locus standi on the ground of compe- tition. The only special feature in either case was that the Metropolitan railway company endeavoured to strengthen their case by the fact that they ran omnibuses in connection with their railways to points close to the west end terminus of the proposed railway. In both cases the Locus Standi of the Petitioners was Disallowed. The arguments consisted mainly of references to the map of the district, and the case was of no value as a precedent. Ershine Pollock appeared for Petitioners (1) ; Bidder, Q.C., for Petitioners (2) ; and Littler, Q.O., for the Promoters. Agents for Petitioners (1), Sherwood 8r Oo. Agents for Petitioners (2), Martin Sf Leslie. Agents for Bill, Rees ^ Frere. 268 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. LONDON TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) BILL. Petition of (1) Owners, Lessees ob, Occupiers OP Housics, Shops or Warehouses in Brixton Hill and Streatham Hill and the Neigh- bourhood; (2) E. M. Bell and Others. 14th May, 1889.— {Before Mr. Parker, BI.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P. ; Sir George Russell, M.P.; The Hon. B. Chandos. Leigh, Q.O.; and Mr. Bonham-Cartek.) Tramway Extensions — Owners, Sfc, of Houses, ^c, along Proposed, Line of Tramways — Frontagers — Owners, ^c, not heing Frontagers, Injuriously Affected — Inhabitants — S. 0. 134 (Municipal Authorities and Inhabitants of Towns) — S. 0. 135 {Petitions Against Tram- way Bills) — Limited Locus imder S. 0. 135. The bill authorised the extension of the promoters' existing tramways to Lower Tooting and Streatham. The petitioners claimed to be heard (1) under S. 0. 135 as owners, lessees or occupiers of property abutting on roads along which it was proposed to lay tram- ways ; (2) as owners, &c., of property not actually abutting on the proposed tramways, but alleged to be injariously affected by their construction and use ; (3) as inhabi- tants of a district alleged to be injuriously affected by the bill within the meaning of S. 0. 134. The locus standi of such of the petitioners as were shown to be owners, lessees or occupiers of houses, shops or warehouses in any street along which it was proposed to construct a. tramway within the terms of S. 0. 135 was not disputed, but it was contended that they were the only class entitled to be heard, the injurious affecting of property not abutting on the proposed tramways being no ground for a hearing according to decided cases ; while as to the claim of the petitioners to be heard as (3) inhabitants, it was objected that there was no allegation in the petition that they were so, and that they could not claim to be inhabitants of any defined district, and merely described themselves as residing in the neighbourhood of the pro- posed line of tramways. Upon the map of the district being referred to, it was found that with the exception of some who were frontagers within the meaning of S. 0. 135 the petitioners resided beyond the termini of the proposed tramways, and in all such oases their locus standi was disallowed, with the exception of one petitioner, whose house was a few yards only from one of the termini. The Court also, as in previous oases, limited the locus standi of frontagers to that given by S. 0. 135. The locus standi of the petitioners (1) was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the peti- tion does not allege or show that the petitioners are the inhabitants of any town or district injuriously affected by the bill; (2) the petition does not allege or show, nor is it the fact that any lands, houses, or property of the petitioners or any of them will be or can be taken under the powers of the bill; (3) of the persons signing the petition, no one of those mentioned in the schedule hereto is the owner, lessee or occupier of any house, shop or warehouse in any street through which it is proposed, under the powers of the bill, to construct any tramway, and the promoters object altogether to the right of the petitioners mentioned in the said schedule to be heard against the bill ; (4) the promoters further object to the right of the Lambeth waterworks company to be heard upon the said petition, inasmuch as the said company (who are an incorporated company) have not affixed their common seal to the said petition, nor is the petition signed by any person having proper authority to sign on their behalf ; (5) as regards the persons signing the petition other than those mentioned in the schedule hereto, and the com. pany mentioned in objection No. 4, the promoters admit the right of the petitioners to be heard upon the allegations in the petition that the construction or use of the tramways proposed to be authorised by the bill will injuriously affect them in the use or enjoyment of their premises or in the conduct of their trade or business, but submit that the right of the petitioners to be heard against the bill should be limited to those allegations. (Then followed the schedule, con- taining the names of 214 persons or firms referred to in objection (3).) The locus standi of the petitioners (2) was ob- jected to on the following grounds: (1) the petition does not allege or show, nor is it the fact, that any land, house or property of the petitioners will be or can be taken under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners have no right to be heard against the bill except so far as the petition may be taken to allege that the tramway No. Ic Part IV.] London tramways (extensions) bill. 269 proposed to be authorised by the bill will injuriously afCeot the petitioners in the use or enjoyment of premises of which they are owners, lessees or occupiers, or in the conduct of trade or business of the petitioners, but there is no sufil- cient allegation in the petition that the construc- tion or use of any part of that tramway or any of the tramways proposed to be authorised by the bill will injuriously affect the petitioners in the use or enjoyment of any house or premises of which they are owners, lessees or occupiers, or in the conduct of any trade or business of the petitioners ; (3) the petitioners have no right to be heard in respect of any alleged injury to Dr. Ambrose or Mr. Pnrssord or of the use or enjoyment of any house or shop or premises by auy person or persons other than the petitioners or of any injury to any trade or business not carried on by the petitioners ; (4) the petition does not show that the petitioners have any such interest in the objects and provisions of the bill as entitles them to be heard against it. Cripps, parliamentary agent (for petitioners (1) ) : The bill proposes to authorise the London tramways company to extend their tramway system to Lower Tooting and Streatham. Some of the petitioners, whose locus standi is objected to, are frontagers within the terms of S. 0. 135. Then there is another class of petitioners, for whom I claim a Locus standi, who are not owners, lessees or occupiers of premises in anv street along which it is proposed by the bill to construct a tramway, but who are owners or occupiers of property at Brixton and Streatham Hill, which will be injuriously affected by the construction of the proposed tramways. Then there is a third category under which all the petitioners come, namely, that of inhabitants of a district injuriously affected by the bill, and as such entitled to be heard under S. O. 134. The Chairman : To bring the petitioners under S. 0. 134 you must show that they are inhabitants, which your petition does not allege. Cripps ! The petition (paragraph 4) states that the petitioners are owners, &o., " of houses, shops or warehouses on the roads through which it is proposed to construct the said tramways and the neighbourhood thereof," and paragraph 5 says that " the proposed tramways will cause annoyance and inconvenience to themselves and other persons residing in the district or resorting thereto, and will injuriously affect that district." The Chaikman : The petition ought to have set forth that some of the petitioners were those other persons residing in the district. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : In the North Metro- politan Tramways case (Rickards & llichael, 122) Mr. Horner was heard as having an exceptional interest, although he was not strictly within S. 0. 135 as it was then worded. Cripps : There are exceptional circumstances in this case also. The district through which it is proposed to construct the tramways forms a small portion of the extensive district of which the Wandsworth board of works are the road authority, but the Wandsworth district as a whole is not affected by the bill. I propose to call evidence to show the peculiar position of the neighbourhood affected by the proposals of the bill. Rees, parliamentary agent (for promoters) : The form of the petition does not admit of such evidence. The petition does not allege that this part of the Wandsworth district has different interests to the rest of the district, or that the petitioners are inhabitants within S. 0. 184. The term district must be construed as a district with tangible limits. {Ch-and Junction Oanal Bill, 1879, 2 Clifford & Rickards, 165.) Cripips : This question was raised in the case of the Brentford, Isleworth, Sfc, Tramways Bill, 1879, 071 fhe petition of (3) Frontagers and Others (2 Clifford & Rickards, 142), the same question was discussed, and evidence was heard by the Court. Rees : In that case, the petition distinctly alleged that the petitioners were inhabitants of Brentford, Isleworth, and Twickenham. The Chairman: Speaking for myself, I do not think the precedents bind us to require that the district which is alleged to be in. juriously affected should be a district under local management so long as it is a definite district. The sooner this so-called district is pointed out to us on the map, the sooner we shall be able to form an opinion on the case. Rees : The petition does not come before the Court as a petition of the inhabitants of a district injuriously affected, and I am not now prepared with evidence to show that, if it should be regarded as a petition of inhabitants at all, it is the petition of an insignificant section of the inhabitants of the district, and I object to evidence being given to the con. trary without my having had notice of it. The Chairman : Two questions arise here : first, what is the district to which these allega- tions refer ; and, secondly, do the petitioners sufficiently represent it, and there is, of course, the question whether they have sufficiently alleged it. I think we should see the map, and then, if necessary, we can adjourn the case to give the promoters time to get their evidence ready. A witness was then called, from whose evidence it appeared that those of the peti- Q 2 270 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. tionera who were not frontagers were people residing on the line of road beyond the two termini of the tramway. Farther, tliat Brixton Hill and Streatham Hill were roads and not districts, although in the case of Streatham Hill, the neighbourhood close to the road was called generally Streatham Hill. Mr. Chandos-Leigh ; These people cannot be regarded as inhabitants of a district injarioasly affected, for, as the map shows, they live beyond the termin i of the tramway. As regards owners of property just off the line of tramways, the Court has nerer gone further than in the case of the petition of owners, &o., against the North Metropolitan Tramways Bill, 1886 (Rickards and Michael, 125). Oripps : Mr. G. W. Ryder, although the tramway does not actually pass his house, will . suffer peculiar annoyance from it, as the terminus will only be a few yards from his garden wall, and about 60 yards from his house and the side entrance to it (Tramways P.O. Confirmation (London Street Tramways) Bill, 1874, on the petition of (2) Messrs. Lerew and Randall and others, 1 Clifford and Rickards, 118). The Chairman : I think Mr. Ryder should be granted a Locus Standi. With regard to the other petitioners the Locus Standi is Disallowed, except of such of them as are owners, lessees or occupiers along the roads traversed by the proposed tramways, as required by S. 0. 135. The names will be settled between the parties, and if any difference arises it can be referred to Mr. Bonham-Carter. Rees : The petitioners should in accordance with the practice of the Court be limited to the matters specified in S. 0. 135. Mr. Shieess Will : That seems especially reasonable in this case, having regard to the vague allegations of the petition. Izod, parliamentary agent (for petitioners (2) ) : I appear for the trustees of a valuable estate, comprising several residences abutting on Balham high road, along which it is proposed to lay a tramway. Rees : I do not object to the petitioners being heard, provided their right is limited to that given by S. 0. 135. The Chairman : The Locus Standi of all the Petitioners will be confined to that given by S. 0. 138. Agents for Petitioners (1), Dyson ^ Co. Agents for Petitioners (2), Grundy, Izod and Orundy. Agents for Bill, Rees ^ Frere. MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD AND LIN- COLNSHIRE RAILWAY (STEAMBOATS) BILL. Petition of (1) The Mersey Docks and Haebouk Board ; (2) The Dock Company at Kingston- upoM-HuLL AND Others ; (3) The Corpora- tion OP Hull, Hull Incokposated Chamber 0? Commerce, Merchants, Shipowners, and Traders; (4) Merchants, Steamship Owners AND Traders at the Port of GootE. 2nd May, 1889.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.V. ; Mr. CoMPioN, M.P. ; The Hon. E. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C; and Mr. Bonham-Cabter.) Railway Company as Owners of Docks and Steam- ioats —Extension of Steamboat Powers — Im- provement of Existing Competition — Petition of Dock Companies, Shipowners, Traders and Chamber of Commerce — S. 0. 156, 162 [Rail, way Company not to acquire Canals, Docks, Steam-vessels, 8fc.'\ — 133a [Chambers of Com- merce, Sfc, may be heard in relation to Rates and Fares'}. Practice— Corporate Seal not affixed to Petition of Company — Evidence of Authority to sign Admitted. The promoters were joint owners of a railway running from the west to the east coast of England between Liverpool and Grimsby, at which latter place they were also owners of extensive docks. The bill authorised them to own and ran steamboats between Grimsby and a number of porta in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, and on the Baltic and North sea coasts. The promoters already possessed powers under a, private Act of 1864 to run steamboats to some of the ports in this part of Europe, but the bill widely extended these powers. The petitioners comprised a, dock and harbour board, a dock company, shipowners and traders, and the Hull Chamber of Commerce, whose petition was also signed by the corporation of Hull, who, however, did not persevere in their opposition. The petitions generally alleged competition, loss of dues by diversion of traffic, and injury to trade, and contained allegations that although the promoters already owned steamships which ran from Grimsby to the northern ports of Europe, yet Part IV.] Manchester, etc., railway (steamboats) bjll. 271 the bill so widely extended the steam, boat powers of the promotera by enabling them to trade to poi-ts, to which they were not at present aathorised to run, as to introduce a new element into the competition. The Mersey docks and harbour board contended that the powers conferred upon the pro- moters by the bill would enable them to attract traffic, which at present found its way to their docks at Liverpool, to the east coast, and they in common with all the other petitioners pointed out the unfair com- petition which the promoters, as owners of both docks and railways, would be able to carry on against them by means of through rates, and contended that the promoters would charge unremunerative rates at sea, while they recouped them- selves by an increase of traffic on their railways. Contra, it was urged (1) that this would entitle the petitioners to relief from the railway commission ; (2) that the competition (if anyj arising out of the bill between the promoters as a railway com- pany and owners of docks and traders would not be in pari materia ; (3) that the injury to the latter was in any case too remote to entitle them to be heard, whether they petitioned as individual traders, or through the Hull Chamber of Commerce ; and that (4) as regards the shipowners only those actually trading to ports named in the bill were entitled to be heard : Held (apparently on the ground of remoteness of interest), that the Mersey docks and harbour board were not entitled to be heard ; but that the locus standi of the dock company and Chamber of Commerce of Hull, and of those shipowners at Hull and the neigh, bonring port of Goole on the east coast, who traded to any of the ports named in the bill, must be allowed. It was objected on behalf of the promoters that the seal of two shipping companies, who signed one of the petitions (4), was not affixed to the petition, and that therefore the petition could not be received as that of the two companies. Evidence was, however, admitted to prove that in both cases the petition was signed by the authority of the directors of the com- panies, and the objection was over-ruled. (Caterham Spring Water Bill, 1885, on the petition of William Gilford and the London Union Land Company, Rickards & Michael, 14, cited and followed.) The locus standi of (1) the Mersey docks and harbour board was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it the fact, that any lauds, houses, or other property belonging to them will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners are not, nor do they allege that they are, owners of steam or other vessels trading between Liverpool, Birkenhead, or any other place to the ports or places men- tioned in the bill or elsewhere, but are merely owners of docks at Liverpool and Birkenhead ; (3) the petition does not allege or disclose any such case of competition or interference with competition as would entitle the petitioners to be heard on that ground ; (4) the petitioners do not allege any ground in their petition, nor have they any interest which entitles them to be heard on their petition against any of the pro- visions of the bill consistently with practice. The locus standi of (2) the dock company at Kingaton-upon-Hull and others was objected to on similar grounds, and because " the petition purports to be sigued by, H. T. Kirkin for Bailey and Leetham, but the promoters deny the authority of Mr. Kirkin to sign the petition for Messrs. Bailey and Leetham. The locus standi of (3) the corporation of Hull, the Hull Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, and others was objected to on the following grounds : (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it the fact, that the bill contains any provision for taking or interfering with any property, right, power, or privilege of the petitioners or any of them; (2) the bill does not in any way affect or propose to interfere with the town and county of Kingdton-upon-Hull, and the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of that town and county have no right to be heard against it, either as the municipal and urban sanitary authority, or in any other capacity ; (3) the petitioners, the Hull Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, have no jurisdiction over, or connection with, the town or port of Great Grimsby or the other towns and portj mentioned in the bill, and are not the owners of any steam or other vessels trading therefrom or thereto, and have no right to be heard against the bill on the ground of competition or any other ground ; (4) the other signatories 272 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. to the petition, so far as they are mere merchants or traders at Hull, have no right to be heard against the bill on the ground of competition or any ground stated in the petition according to practice, and those who are steam or other shipowners do not allege, nor is it the faoi, that they have vessels trading between Hull and any of the ports mentioned in the petition, and have no right to be heard on the ground of competition or on any other ground ; (5) the allegations as to the contemplated or possible establishment under the provisions of the bill of a monopoly, to the prejudice of the petitioners if such allegations were well founded (which the promoters deny) are not such as according to practice entitle them to be heard ; (6) the petition does not allege or disclose any such competition or interference with competition as according to practice entitles the petitioners to be heard against the bill ; (7) the petitioners do not allege any ground in their petition, nor have they any interest which entitles them to be heard on their petition, against any of the provisions of the bill consistently with practice. The locus standi of (4) merchants, steamship owners and traders of and at the port of Goole was objected to on the following grounds: (1) the petitioners do not allege in their petition, nor is it the fact, that any lands, houses or other property belonging to the petitioners or either of them, will be taken or interfered with nnder the powers of the bill ; (2) the petitioners, so far as they are merchants or traders at Hull, have no right to be heard against the bill on the ground of competition or any ground stated in the petition according to practice ; (3) the petitioners do not represent the borough or port of Goole and are not entitled to be heard on any alleged competition between that port and the port of Grimsby ; (4) the petition does not show which (if any) of the petitioners are owners of vessels trading from the port of Goole or any other place to any of the ports or places mentioned in the bill, and the promoters deny that any of the petitioners are such owners and entitled to be heard ; (5) the Goole Steam Ship- ping Company (Limited) and the Humber Steam Shipping Company (Limited) have neither ot them sealed the petition, and are not, therefore, entitled to be heard upon it ; (6) the allegations as to the contemplated or possible escablishnieut under the provisions of the bill of a monopoly to the prejudice of the petitioners, if such allegations were well founded (which the pn^iio- ters deny), are not such as according to practice entitle the petitioners to bo heard ; (7) the petitioners do not allege any ground in their petition, nor have they any interest which entitles them to be heard on their petition against any of the provisions of the bill consis- tently with practice. Bidder, Q.C. (for (1) Mersey docks and harbour board) : This is a bill to authorise the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway company to run steam and other vessels between Great Grimsby and certain ports in the Baltic and North seas, and other ports in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. To a certain extent the case of each of the petitioners whose locus standi is disputed is practically the same, viz., that the bill provides a means by which a new competition would be established, and by which traffic would be diverted from the ports in which the petitioners are interested to a port^in which the promoters are interested, viz., Grirasby. This is an unprecedented bill except for a similar Act which was obtained by the railway company in 1861. The Manchester, Sheffield and Lin- colnshire Railway (Steamboats) Act, 1864, authorised the railway company to run steamers from Grimsby to certain ports in the north of Europe which were named in that Act, but which are not the ports named in this bill. Clause 3 of the bill enacts that the promoters " from time to time may build or buy or hire, and may use, maintain and work stearn and other vessels between the town or port of Great Grimsby and the towns or ports of Ghent, Amster- dam, Bremerhaven, in the North sea; Stettin, Dantzig, Riga and Gefle in the Baltic ; Malmo, Gothenburg, Prederickstatt, Christiania, Dram- men, Holmstraud,Arendel,Christiansund, Stavan- ger, Bergen, Drontheim,in Sweden and Norway ; and Esbjerg and Frederiokshavn in Denmark, or some of them, and may take such tolls, rates and charges in respect of such steam and other vessels as they shall think fit." Clause 5 of the bill contemplates their charging a through rate for the whole distance, say from Liverpool or Manchester to St. Petersburg or any of those towns mentioned. They therefore obviously contemplate a through service from any station on their line to any of the places named in the bill. The promoters have a line of their own to Liverpool, as they are one of the constituent members of the "Cheshire Lines committer," which has a line to Liverpool, and each of the constituent members uses that line for its own traffic as its own line., Mr. Chandos-Lkigh : Have the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire company docks at Liverpool in conjunction with the Cheshire line ? Bidder .■ No. All the docks at Liverpool and Birkenhead belong to my clients, with the exception of Garston dock which belongs to the London and North- Western railway company. The petition alleges: "The Mersey docks estate at Liverpool and Birkenhead is vested PaET IV.] MANCHESTER, ETC., RAILWAY (STEAMBOATS) BILL. 273 in yonr petitioners as public trustees for the management thereof for public purposes, in acoordanoe with the provisions of various Acts of Parliament, which preclude your petitioners from deriving any private benefit or profit from the workincr or management of the said estate. There is a considerable competition between your petitioners' docks and the port of Great Grimsby in respect of the import and exports of goods and merchandise from and to the towns and porta mentioned in clause 3 of the bill. Under the Act of 1864, the company had power in respect of providing and using steam and other vessels between Great Grimsby and Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburgh, Flushing, Lubeck, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Revel, Cron- stadt, St. Petersburg, and Konigsbergh. Those existing powers of the company are, as your petitioners are advised and believe, far more extensive than according to the present practice of Parliament would be conceded to a railway company, and your petitioners respectfully submit that there is not only no necessity, but that it would be inexpedient and contrary to public policy that those powers should be extended as proposed by clause 3 of the bill." Those places named in the Act of 1864 are different places to those included in the present bill. The Chaikman : Is it alleged that there is considerable competition as regards all these towns, or that there ia competition taking them collectively ? Bidder : You see what the allegation says, and what we say is not traversed. We repre- sent all the public dock interests in Liverpool, which is the great centre for the distribution of traflSo coming in from the Bast and West Indies and America. Goods from abroad coming to Liverpool are exported from Liverpool to all parts of the world and to a very considerable extent to the Baltic, to the Norwegian and Danish ports to which the Sheffield company propose to run if these powers are granted. Ic is clearly the intention with which this bill is promoted that every ounce of traffic which the Sheffield company can lay hold of in Liverpool or Manchester shall go by their railway to Grimsby and then on their steamers to those ports. It is the purpose of the bill that those steamers shall act as feeders to their railways ; that instead of goods going by a long sea voyage which, under ordinary circumstances would probably be the cheaper route, they shall go direct from Liverpool to Grimsby, and thence by sea by the company's steamers, the traffic being attracted that way by the company being content with a very low sea rate from Grimsby to the ultimate destination. The Chaikman : It would involve two trans- shipments of goods instead of one. Bidder : It would involve one additional tran- shipment at Grimsby of course. I suppose in the case of Liverpool the goods would be put over the side from one vessel into the other vessel, or, if they had been warehoused, they would be brought from the warehouse, in the other case they would be put from the vessel on to the railway truck and transhipped from the railway truck at Grimsby on to the steamboat. That is a mere detail. Obviously the Manches- ter, Sheffield and Lincolnshire company are not alarmed at that extra transhipment, because it is clear what the scope of this bill is. The through rates indicate that to be their object. As I read the decisions, in the case of either a dock authority or otheis in an analogous position, apprehending that the object and scope of the bill is to divert traffic to ports in which they are interested, the Court, if there is any basis for the allegation, has invariably granted a locus standi. {Barry Docks and Railway Bill, 1884, 3 Clifford & Rickards, 374, on the petitions of the Alexandra Docks, ^c, andthe Newport, ^c. Dock Companies ; Freshwater, Yarmouth and Newport Railway Bill, 1883, on the petition of the Southampton Harbour Board, ibid, 278.) The CHAtRMAN : Are you instructed whether much of the traffic is transatlantic traffic, because that might be taken as standing on a different footing from traffic originating in inland towns ? Bidder : I have no right to answer categori- cally. I should imagine that there would be a considerable amount of transatlantic traffic as well as the other, because, for instance, cotton comes over from America in very large ships. Transatlantic traffic to a great extent is carried in vessels of 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, or 5,000 tons. No such vessels ever go up the Baltic. The regular traffic between the Baltic and trans- atlantic parts is in all probability and must be practically for the most part carried, or to a great extent carried on by transhipment at Liverpool or some other port. Littler, Q.C. (for promoters) : I am told no cotton goes up to the Baltic. Bidder : I cannot say positively, but my impression is it must be as I say more or less. I will also refer the Court to the following cases : London and South-Western Various Powers Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford & Rickards, 306) ; Sur. biton, Marlborough, and Andover Railway Bill, 1883, Ibid, 348). Mr. Shiress Will : There is no doubt about the principle. Bidder : I do not think there can be. Littler . I invite my learned friend to show 274 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. any one case in which a dock board has been heard against a proposal on the part of a rail- way company to take steamboat powers. A dock may have been heard against a dock, or a port against a port, but there is no case of a dock company or dock trustees being heard against a bill enabling a railway company to run steamboats. The Chaikman : Mr. Bidder has just referred to the case of a harbour board being heard against railway connections. Littler ; That was because the railway con- nection was to develop a new port : this port, of Grimsby is already in existence. Bidder : Of course the principle of the thing is the apprehended diversion of traffic from the harbour, which the dock or harbour authority represents, by something that is contemplated in the bill. Mr. Littler says that I have not cited a case in which the particular method of diversion is by steam- boats. It may be in one case the completing link of the chain is steamboats, in other cases it may be the steamboats are already there, and what is wanting is a new pier or a spur line down to the pier, or it may be that what is wanted is the power of arranging with a third company to complete the route, but the question is whether the thing you contemplate involves a diversion or a probable diversion of traific from the port in which the dock company or the harbour board or public authority petitioning are interested. That is the principle in the last case I read, the South-Western Bill. The pro- moters took the point that they did not think that the petitioners there were entitled to a, locus standi because there was no power in the bill to run steamboats, admitting that if there had been power to rnn steamboats there would have been no question about it. The argument of the pro- moters there was that as they were not seeking for power to run steamboats and as the steamers were in independent hands the petitioners had no right to be heard. The Chaieman : To my mind there is a great difference between the two parts of yoar case as regards traffic. If you take the case of traffic from inland towns, any port all round the country might be said to be naturally the port for such traffic, but if you take traffic originat- ing in or near Liverpool, it stands to my mind on rather a different footing, because it is traffic going probably a long distance, some of it probably to these Baltic ports. The question is, how would it go from Liverpool to Baltic ports, by sea from Liverpool, or by this new route. Bidder ; I quite agree with that distinction, but if you will follow it out you will see it is rather a distinction of degree than of any- thing else. Take Liverpool traffic proper, traffic originating in Liverpool, there is no question where that would be shipped. Liverpool affords the greatest convenience of any port in the Kingdom, and if traffic arises at Liver- pool and wants to go over sea there is no question that Liverpool is the natural place to ship it. The same thing applies to Manchester, but if yoa go a little further inland, you come to places where the distance to the east diminishes, and the distance to the west coast increases, and after a time, you get to a place where Liverpool is no more interested in the traffic than Grimsby. In the case of trans, atlautic traffic, or traffic coming from Mediter- ranean ports to Liverpool for reshipment to the Ballio, or Denmark, or Norway, or Prussia, obviously Liverpool is the natural place of transhipment. This is a company with a railway from Liverpool to Grimsby, and what it wants to do is to link up with that railway a line of steamers to those parts to which there is a considerable traffic from our port. Can there be a more clear case of competition ? The interests involved in this question as represented by the Mersey dock and harbour board are certainly more important than the interests affected in the Freshwater case, where the traffic that it was alleged might be diverted must have been of a very small character. Mr. Ghandos-Leigh : Ton have not mentioned the last case we decided in which we went rather far. In the case of the Felixstowe Railway and Docks Bill, 1866 (RiakBiVda & Michael, 100), Mr. Shiress-WiU made this remark : " The question is this, suppose the powers of this bill to be granted, would the promoters be able to carry traffic which is at present carried by the petitioners ? " In that case the Great Eastern proposed to take power to run steamboats, and the Steam-Navigation company, whose locus standi was allowed, were 170 miles from Felix, stowe Harbour ; you muse alwiys remember that in these cases we are bound to look at the lG2nd Standing Order, because the railway company are seeking extraordinary powers. The Chaiiiman : That Standing Order seems to show that there was a certain jealousy on the part of the House as to granting these steam- boat powers to railway companies ; there must be special reasons shown for their having the power. Bidder : No doubt the Felixstowe case, which you have drawn my attention to, is one very uiucli on all fours. It is true the petitioners there were carriers, but the other cases show that where a harbour or a port authority are interested as regards their dues, they have the Part IV.] Manchester, etc., railway (steamboats) bill. 275 same interest in opposing as a common carrier complaining of loss of carriage ; they complain of loss of does. Littler (for tlie promoters) : Aa regards this case of the Mersey docks and harbour board, I repeat what I saidj there is no instance in which a dock authority or a dock owner has been heard against a proposal by a railway company to acquire steamboat powers, for the obvious reason that they are different trades, which the two parties are carrying on. The railway company is proposing to carry on the trade of carriers and not the trade of a dock owner. We are simply improving existing com- petition because Grimsby has been authorised for the purpose of competing with every other port in the kingdom to which the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway can run. We are at this moment entitled to carry all the traffic we can to Grimsby, and this bill is only to entitle us to put on steamers and improve the competition for which Grimsby was created. Bidder : Ton have not said in your objections that it is an improvement of existing competi- tion, and are not by the practice of the Court entitled to use that argument. The Chairman : It seems to me the notice of objection is in very general form. I must say, to my mind the customary use of these common forms seems rather objectionable. If these notices of objection are to be of any practical use and advantage they should be more specific. Mr. Ohandos-Leigh : Suppose the Mersey dock and harbour board were owners of steamers, would you admit then that they would liave a locus standi ? Littler : It would then become a question whether those steamers carried anything, and I should ask them to prove what they carried. We are admitting the " steamship owners association " because they represent all the steamship owners of the kingdom. Are all the other ports of the United Kingdom trading to the places we propose to trade to, such as Aberdeen, Bristol, Southampton, or the London dock company to be heard whenever a railway company proposes to start a steamboat line '? Mr. Chandos-Leish : None of the places you have mentioned have a direct communication with the port in question, whereas here the railway in question starts from Liverpool and goes to Grimsby and gives a through rate between those places. Littler: Does that make the smallest differ- ence P In fact the Sheffield railway company have an equally direct communication with London because they have a 50 years' working agreement with th6 Great Northern company. Therefore London would be entitled to be heard against the port of Grimsby if the Mersey docks and harbour board were entitled to be heard. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Have they through rates from London ? Littler : Yes. The Great Northern and Manchester and Sheffield companies make through rates to Grimsby daily, but the through rates are made by an arrangement between the companies. The Barry Lode case was a case where a new company was proposing to make new docks for the avowed purpose of taking away traffic from the Bute docks and from the Alexandra docks. The trade that would be done at the new docks was a trade in coal brought from the same regions aa the coal that was brought to the existing docks. The other cases cited are e^usde'm generis. The Chairman : The words of S. 0. 130 are very wide and comprehensive. It says : " The referees may admit petitioners to be heard on the ground of competition," without saying of what kind. There may be a competition of pecuniary interest. Littler : If it is competition at all, it is increasing the competitive power of Grimsby against Liverpool. Mr. Shikess Will : A mere improvement of competition is not enough, but it is suggested that what might be done under the bill would be to introduce a new class of competition, viz., to carry, via Grimsby, traffic that otherwise would pass through the Mersey. Littler ; That was what Grimsby was created for, to carry by Grimsby whatever could come naturally to Grimsby. An eastern port is the natural place for traffic to the north of Europe to go from. The Act of 1861 enables ns to carry to St. Petersburg, bat not to call at the other places on the route. Bidder : By your bill you take power to go to places which are not on the road to St. Peters- burg. The Chairman : Can yon show that extension of competition includes the extension of it to new places altogether ? Littler : Somebody or other is carrying from our port to those places. It does not matter to the Mersey docks and harbonr board whether the carrying steamer is owned by A. or B. The test is, does the competition exist, and it does exiat in the hands of somebody who cannot make it as effective as it could be made by the facilities we think we should be able to afford. The Felixstowe case decides that a steamboat company, though trading it may be 170 miles away, may be heard against a proposal by a railway company to run steamers to the same ports. We concede a locus to the steamship association, as it will be new competition wit 276 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. them, but the competition already exists as between the two docks. Mr. Shiress Will ■. If you stamp existing competition with a new character, I think it makes a difference. That is what is alleged in paragraph 4. Mr. Ciiakdos-Leigh : Take the case of the London and Brighton Company, that ha7e had power to ran steamboats from Newhaven to Dieppe. Suppose they said we wish to extend that to Boulogne and Calais. Would not the South-Bastern. or the Chatham and Dover be entitled to be heard ? Littler : Yes, as shipowners, but not otherwise. The test is, is it another method of arriving at a result which has been already authorised by Parliament ? Bidder, Q.C. (for (2) the dock company at Kingston-upon-HuU and otters) : The petition, inter alia, aa,ya : "The fares proposed to be charged for passengers are set forth in the Bohednle to the bill, but with respect to goods traffic no schedule of the charges thereof is specified in the bill, but provision is made by the bill that they shall be published, and that in case of through rates the portion attribut- able to the sea and land routes respectively shall be distinguished and speoiSed." It is also provided " that other carriers by sea between the same ports shall be entitled to have their traffic conveyed over the railway between the same common points at the rates so attributed to the railway route." "Tonr petitioners, the dock company at Kingston. npon-Hull, have under various Acts of Parlia- ment constructed the extensive system of docks whereby the trade of the port of Hull has been for many years and still is carried on to and from (among various other countries and towns) the countries and towns before mentioned " (those are the places to which the bill pi'oposes to give the promoters power to run), '' the situation of the said ports forming the shortest and most convenient route between the places and the great indus- trial towns and places in Yorkshire and Lanca- shire and the midland counties," The Chairman : This is a joint petition from the dock company and certain shipowners. Is the locus standi of the shipowners admitted? Littler, Q.C. . If they trade to those places we will admit them as we have the steamship owners' association, if they are not members of that association. The Chairman : I am not sure that I am prepared to admit the principles that their belonging to the association would preolnde them from being heard as petitioners in respect of their own port. Bidder : The shipowners have no particular line of steamers running from Hull to these particular ports. They carry on a shipping trade generally to the Baltic ports. The peti- tion goes on : " The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire company are the owners of ex- tensive docks at Grimsby, and the powers of the bill will enable them to setup anew competition between the port of Grimsby and the port of Hull, and therefore between the docks of the company and the docks of your petitioners, and traffic will be diverted from its present route through your petitioners' dock. In this com- petition your petitioners the dock company will be greatly handicapped." There is the sting of this "bill, the new competition which it creates. It is doing a great deal more than improving existing competition, for it introduces a com- petition of an entirely new character. Leeds and Bradford goods may be sent by rail to Hull or Grimsby, and so far there is competition, and at present at Grimsby the steamship owner has to make a profit out of his business. The rail, way has its business, and the dock has its business. But tliis bill, as regards these new places, gives the railway company, who have an enormous intere,st in getting railway traffic, the means of promoting that traffic by running steamers without profit or even at a loss, on terms which no other shipowner can look at, in order to secure the railway business. It would be a case of improving existing competition if two railway companies had routes between common points, one direct and the other round- about, and the owner of the round-about route came for a direct line. Bat here the Sheffield company have no means of carrying to these places ; all they can do is to carry to O-rimsby, and somebody else has to carry it on. (Man- chester, Sheffield, ani Lincolnshire (New Rail. ways) Bill, 18S8, Rickards & Michael, p. 220.) If they had boats of their own at Grimsby, it would be worth their while to carry the traffic by sea without any profit in order to secure the traffic by railway, and we, as dock- owners, should lose our dues by diversion of traffic. On that I again call attention to the decision in the Swindon, Marlborough, ^c, Railway Bill, 1883 (3 Clifford & Rickards, 348). Now as to the case of (3) the Corporation and Chamber of Commerce and shipowners at Hull. I will not trouble you with regard to the Corporation. The petition of the Chamber of Commerce alleges: "Your petitioners are an association formed in pursuance of the Com- panies Acts, 1862 & 1867, for the purpose, amongst other things, of promoting the trade, commerce, shipping and manufactures of the port of Hull, and of promoting, supporting or opposing Part IV.] Manchester, etc., railway (steamboats) bill. 277 legislation or other measures affecting the aasooiatiou'a interests. Tour other petitioners, whose names are hereunto subscribed, are merchants, steamship owners and traders of or at the borough and port of Kingston-upon-Hnll. They are also the owners of warehouses, mills and manufactories in the said borough. A large and extensiTO trade is carried on between Hull and the towns and ports mentioned in the Bill and other towns in France, Belgium, the Nether- lands, Denmart, Norway, Sweden, Germany and Russia. Owing to its geographical position Hull forms the cheapest and best route between the ports and towns mentioned in the bill and the great consuming and produciog centres in Lancashire, the west of Yorkshire and the mid. land counties. The rights and interests of your several" petitioaerj and the trade and commerce of the port of Hull will be in j uriously affected by the bill, and your petitioners, coUec. tively and separately, object to the before-stated provisions of the bill for the reasons among others in this petition stated. Communication. by means of steam-vessels already exists between the town and port of Great Grimsby and the towns and ports mentioned in the bill or some of them, and the trade by such steam-vessels has to a great extent been carried on in com- petition with the port of Hull. The powers sought by the bill are not necessary for the natural and legitimate trade of the town and port of Grimsby, and such powers would give an undue advantage to the company as owners of such steam- vessels as aforesaid to the pre- judice of your several petitioners and of the port of Hull and also other ports which compete with the port of Grimsby. It is contrary to public policy that a railway company should, under the circamstances of the present case, be allowed to obtain the powers sought by the bill. The trade of the port of Hull with the ports and towns mentioned in the bill is carried on by the enter- prise of private merchants and steamship owners, including many of your petitioners." In the notice of objection that fact is challenged. I am ready to prove the fact that my petitioners go to the ports mentioned. Littler: Yes. We will concede a iocus steitiJi to those who are bond fide steamship owners trading to those ports, but not to provision merchants and canal carriers. Bidder: I say a shipowner carrying on his business at Hull and having vessels trading from Hull to Baltic ports, which vessels go to whatever port they are chartered to, has an equal right to be heard as a man who has a regular line of steamers to the particular port. Littler : Yes. I admit that. Bidder : Then the petition goes on : " And your petitioners respectfully submit that in every case it is for the interests of the public that the competition which is created by private enterprise should be encouraged. Your peti- tioners contend that competition by steam- vessels belonging to railway companies often results in and has for its object the ruin and extinction of the private trader and shipowner, inasmuch as a railway company can in a contest of rates aiford to lose, sums of money which hardly affect the dividends of a, large company, but which if lost by u, private individual would compel him to give up the contest. A railway company, moreover, can recoup the loss which they sustain by their steam-vessels out of the profits derived from the traffic brought by such vessels to their railway. If the powers sought by the bill be granted, the company will probably obtain a complete monopoly of the carrying trade of Grimsby to the ports named in the bill, and as a consequence will be enabled to enter into an unfair competition with your petitioners in respect of traffic which should pro- perly pass through the port of Hull. Moreover, the public would be placed wholly at the mercy of the company who, without fear of competition, could impose such tolls, rates and charges as they might think fit." The bill contains pro- visions with regard to through rates. As regards the Chamber of Commerce the 133a Standing Order is : " Where a Chamber of Commerce or agriculture or other similar body sufficiently representing a particular trade or business in any district to which any railway bill relates, petition against the bill alleging that such trade or business will be injuriously affecte.l by the rates and fares proposed to be authorised by the bill, or is injuriously affected by the rates and fares already authorised by Acts relating to the railway undertaking, it shall be com- petent to the Referees on private bills if they think fit to admit the petitioners to be heard on such allegation against the bill or any part thereof, or against the rates and fares authorised by the said Acts or any of them." Mr. Ohandos-Leigh : "Sufficiently represent- ing a particular trade or business in any district." Suppose you tell us that this Chamber of Com- merce is a, body constituted for the purpose of lookino- after the commercial interests of the town of Hull, then the question for us would be whether we would not admit them under that Standing Order. The Chairman : They are the Hull Chamber of Commerce, I see. Bidder : They allege that they are formed " for the purpose, amongst other things, of pro- moting the trade, commerce, shipping and manufactures of the port of Hull." 278 COURT OF REFEREES. [Vol. I. Bidder, Q 0. (for (4) merchants, steamship owners, and traders of and at the port of Goole) : The petition alleges : "Your petitioners, whose names are hereunto subscribed, are merchants, steamship owners, and traders of or at the borough and port of Goole. They are also the owners of warehouses, mills and manufactories in the said port. The rights and interests of your several petitioners, and the trade and commerce of the port of Goole will be injarionsly affected by the bill, and your petitioners collectively and separately object to the before-stated provisions of the bill for the reasons among others in this petition stated." The petition then states much the same objections as are stated in the other petitions, and the only difference as regards locus standi is that the name of the one place is Goole and the name of the other place is Hull. Littler, Q.C. . We traverse the fact that any one of them uses a steamship that goes to any of those ports that we take power to go to. Bidder ; One or two of them have vessels of their own running to the ports named in the bill, others have not vessels of their own, but they are carrying on trade, which trade will be injured if the trade is taken to another port — they will be injured in the same way as a dock company. Littler : Do you say that any of them are actually trading to those ports p Bidder : There are two I can name. At the present moment the Goole steam shipping company, limited, and the Hnmber steam shipping company, limited, are running to Ghent in their own vessels. Littler .- [ have no objection to these two petitioners being heard on so much of the bill as relates to Ghent. Bidder : I do not consent to be limited. Littler : Then I take the objection that the Goole steam shipping company and the Humber steam shipping company have not sealed the petition. Bidder : I refer the Court to the case of the Caterham Spring Water Bill, 1885, on the petition of William Gilford and the London Union Land Company (Rickards & Michael, 14). As my learned friend puts me to proof with regard to the sealing of the petition, I will call my witnesses. Mr. Lumley Aspinall, examined by Bidder : Q. Are you secretary to the Humber steam shipping company ?—A. Yes. Q. You are the gentleman whose name is attached to the petition ?—A. Yes. Q. And you signed it ? — A. Yes. Q. It was reported to you that petitions had to be signed on the 8th of March ?—A. The 6th or the 8th. Q. Did yon hold a meeting of the company on the 6th of that month p — A. Yes. Q. Was there a resolution passed authorising the petition to be signed ? — A. Yes. Q. And you did sign accordingly ? — A. Yes. Q. Yon have got the minute-book ? — A. Yes. Q. And you can show the resolution if my learned friend desires p — A. Yes. Cross-examined by Littler : Q. You have a seal P — A. Yes. Q. Why did you not attach the seal P — A. We did not think it was necessary. Q. Yon attach the seal to any legal document, do yon not p — A. We did not consider this a legal document. Q. You attach the seal to any legal docu- ment p — A. Yes. Q. It is the usual course in all legal documents to attach the seal ? — A. Yes. Mr. Joseph Mason examined by Bidder : Q. You are the traffic manager of the Goole steam shipping company ? — A. I am. Q. Yon are the gentleman whose name is attached to the petition on their behalf ? — A. I am. Q. Did your board discuss the question of petitioning previously to yonr signing that petition p — A. They did. Q. And did they come to a determination to do so p — A. Yes. Q. Did they instruct yon to sign the petition on behalf of the company ? — A. They did. Q. Did you accordingly sign the petition ? — A. Yes. Q. And did you at the next meeting report to the board that you had done so P — A. Yes. Q. And did the directors approve of your having done so p — A. They did. Cross-examined by Littler . Q. I suppose you, like the other company, seal all legal documents p — A. No ; we do not. Q. You do not seal legal documents ? — A. No. Q. Have you a seal P — A. Yes. Q. What do you use it for ?— 4. For sealing the transfer of shares. Q. Those are legal documents ?—A. Yes; but we sign other documents. I sign contracts. Q. But if you have any document wliich is of legal import, surely you seal it ?—A. We do not seal contracts. Q. 1 understand yon do not, but you seal a lease do you not ? — A. Yes. Q. That is a legal document, and yon seal it with the common seal p — A. Yes. The Chairman: You sign some legal docu- ments but not others ?—A. I sign coal contracts for instance. Littler : You sign contracts in the coarse of trade ? — A. Yes. Part IV.] Manchester, etc., railway (steamboats) bill. 279 Q. Other documents are sealed ?—A. Yes. Bidder .- When yoa accept a bill of exchange you do not seal it ?—A. It is nob in my depart- ment. Mr. Shibess Will : The Joint Stock Com- panies Act provides what may be done without seal. Bidder : Nowhere in the Standing Orders is there any suggestion that a petition must be sealed, so long as it is properly signed by the authorised representative of the company it is enough. This is an endeavour to introduce into the practice of the Court something outside the Standing Orders. Mr. Shiress Will : The foundation of the objection is this : There is a Standing Order which requires that the signature shall be inhibited by the person himself. Now in this case the person is a corporation, and a corpora- tion can only act by seal ; but the Joint Stock Companies Act provides that such companies may do certain things without seal. This is not one of them ; therefore, you have to rely upon that decision in the Oaterham case, which appears to me to be in point and you have given evidence which so far brings you under that decision. Bidder : We are petitioning Parliament, and there is nothing in the Standing Orders which says that a company must authenticate its signature with a seal. I protest against import- ing arguments from the general Act relating to matters of contract into the practice of this House. As the Chairman said in that Gaterham case you do not act as if you were a Court for the recovery of small debts ; you have nothing to do with technical questions of that kind. The Chairman : We require satisfactory evidence that the corporation or the individual has authorised the signature. Bidder : Yes. The Chairman : In default of the seal, we have a precedent for accepting other evidence. Littler ( in reply) : The question is this : Is a company which admits that it seals all legal documents to be allowed to come here without seal ? It would have been easy enough for this gentleman to have sealed the petition. In a very early case, The Liverpool Improvement Bill, 1867 ( 1 Clifford & Stephens, 3), we had to prove that we had no common seal before we could be let in. A lease would be worthless against a company if it was not sealed, and this is worth, less as against this company. Suppose costs were given against the company, how should we recover them? The Goole petitioners do not allege that they trade to any one of these ports. What they say is, "The trade of the port of Goole with the ports and towns mentioned in the bill is carried on by the enterprise of private mer- chants and steamship owners, including many of your petitioners.'' A man may trade with a port and not have a, single ship goiag to it. There is no allegation that they trade as steam- ship owners. The Chairman: I shonld take the allegation to mean that some were private merchants and some steamship owners. Littler ; A man may call himself a steam- ship owner who has only an eighth of a sixty- fourth share in a, small ship. Is such a man to be entitled to be heard because some day or other he might have a charter from Goole to the Baltic ? With regard to the Hull dock company's petition, which is the only one I need seriously discuss, the mayor and corporation have wisely withdrawn. Then with regard to the Chamber of Commerce, how can it be con- tended that on such a matter as this a Chamber of Commerce is entitled to be heard ? They are described as a, body for promoting the trade, commerce, shipping, and manufactures of the port of Hull, and for promoting, support- ing, or opposing legislation or other measures affecting the aforesaid interests. We do not know that there is a single man in the whole of that Chamber of Commerce who is an owner of vessels at all j for anything we know there is not one. People by giving themselves big names cannot give themselves the right to be heard against such bills as this. The Chairman : We might presume that the Chamber of Commerce of such a place as Hull would include representatives of the shipping interests there. Littler : I do not know what the body is. Are you going to give them a locus standi when the steamship owners association will appear p We have conceded a locus standi not only to the steamship owners association but to every one who says he trades to the Baltic. Bidder : Do you say that the steamship owners should be admitted but not the Chamber of Commerce ? Littler ; If they trade to the Baltic, we will admit that they are entitled to be heard ; but I hope they will have the good sense to content themselves with one petition. As regards the Hull dock company, what they say is this : " Your petitioners, the dock company at Kingston-upon-HuU, under various Acts have constructed the extensive system of docks whereby the trade of the port of Hull has been for many years and still is carried on to and from (among various other countries and towns) the countries and towns before mentioned, the situation of the said port forming the shortest and most convenient route between those places and the great industrial 280 COURT or REFEREES. [Vol. I. towns and places in Yorkshire and Lancashire and the midland counties." They are perfectly right ; we perfectly agree that Hull is a most excellent centre, and since Grimsby was made a port, it has doubled its commerce. AU these objections were urged against the Sheffield company as a railway company making docks at Grimsby. It was urged that they would get control of the docks, and getting control of the docks would ruin Hull, but notwithstanding that Parliament gave the SheiBeld company those powers. We are at Grimsby ; we own the docks there, and not only have we not ruined Hull, but it has thriven more since our docks vtere at Grimsby than before. They themselves urged everything that could be urged when we came for powers to make our docks, and we were granted the docks in spite of what they had to say, and this is the natural corollary of the docks. We have spent £3,000,000 there for the very purpose of developing the trade there, and that trade is not developing so rapidly as it ought to do in return for the expenditure. Then they say communication by means of steam - vessels already exists between the town and port of Grimsby, and the towns or ports mentioned in the bill, or some of them, and the trade by such steam - vessels has, to a great extent, been carried on in competition with the port of Hall. They admit the existing competition. Then they say the commerce of Hull is carried on by the enterprise of private merchants and private steamship owners. The private steamship owners are coming to tell their grievance — they will be heard to say all they have to say. - With regard to the argument, that, as a railway company, we should be able to carry traiSo by sea at a loss, because we could recoup ourselves by the additional traffic we should get upon our railways, clause 5 of the bill compels us to publish the two amounts charged by railway and sea separately, and any attempt of the sort could be met by an application to the railway commissioners. The Chairman: The Locus Standi of (1) the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is Disallowed. The Locus Standi of (2) the Dock Company at Kingaton-upon-Hull, and of W. Ransem J. Eobinsou, and Messrs. Bailey and Leetham, who are owners of ships trading to some of the ports named in the bill, is Allowed. With regard to petition (3), the Court under- stands that the Corporation of Hull have with. drawn their opposition, but the Locus Standi of the Hull Chamber of Commerce, and of the following shipowners, who trade to some of the ports nained in the bill, is Allowed, viz. -. W. and C. L. Eingrose ; William Brown, Atkinson & Co., and H. Sammau W. Tulley &Co.; Cammell, Woolf and Haigh ; T. Wilson, Sons and Co. The Locus Standi of (4) the Goole steam shipping company, limited, and the Humber steam shipping company, limited, is Allowed. Agents for Petitioners (1), Bees Sf Frere. Agents for Petitioners (2), Dyson Sj" Co. Agents for Petitioners (3 and 4), Martin and Leslie. Agents for Bill, Wyatt ^ Co. MARTON, SOUTHAM AND STOCKTON TR4.MR0AD BILL. Petition of The Warwickshire County Council. 19th June, 1889.— (Be/ore Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Mr. Shiress Will, M.P.; Mr. CoMPTON, M.P.; and Mr. Bonham-Carter.) Steam Tramways along Main Boads — County Council as Road Authority — Previous Consent to Bill hy Highway Authority and Justices — S. 0. 22 (Consents in Case of Tramway Bills) S. 0. 134 (Municipal Authorities and Inhabi- tants of Towns) — Local Qovernment Act, 1888, sees. 11, 15. The bill authorised the construction of steam tram- ways along certain main roads in the county of Warwick. The connty council petitioned against the bill, claiming to be heard as the authority on whom the duty of maintaining and repairing main roads had been imposed by seo. 11 of the Local Government Act, 1888. They further claimed to be heard to represent the inhabitants of Warwickshire, whom they alleged would be injuriously affected by the bill, by virtue of sec. 15 of the same Act, which they contended placed them in the same position as a municipal authority under S. 0. 134. The promoters objected that the petitioners were bound by the consent given to the bill before its deposit in the House of Lords both by the highway authorities and the justices for the county, who were the pre- decessors of the county council, which did not come into existence until 1st April, 1889, some months after the deposit of the bill, and that they had no right to be heard to represent the inhabitants uuder S. 0. 134 : Part IV.] maeton, southam and stockton tramroad bill. 281 Held, however, without deciding the latter question, that for the purposea of locus standi the county council were not bound by the consent given to the bill by the road authorities and justices, and that their locus standi as the authority at the present time having control of main roads in the county must be allowed. The locus standi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds: (1) the promoters deny that the petitioners are the local authority of any district within which the proposed tramroads will be laid, or that any powers, rights or duties of the local authority of any such district hare been transferred to or are vested in the petitioners, so as to entitle them to be heard upon their petition against the bill, and even were it otherwise the petitioners would be bound by the acts of the local authori- ties whom they have succeeded or whose powers rights or duties have been transferred to or are vested in them, and such local authorities have consented to the bill; (2) the promoters deny that the petitioners are the road authority of any district within which the proposed tram, roads will be laid, or that any powers, rights or duties of the road authority of any such district have been transferred to or are vested in the petitioners, so as to entitle them to be heard on their petition against the bill, and even were it otherwise the petitioners would be bound by the acts of the road authorities whom they have succeeded or whose powers rights or duties have been transferred to or are vested in them, and such road authorities have consented to the bill ; (3) in so far as the petitioners are or may claim to be the successors of or to represent or to exercise the powers of the justices of the peace for the county of Warwick in respect of any property, matters, rights, or interests affected by the bill, the said justices on the 18th February, 1889, intimated their assent to the bill, and the petitioners are bound by such assent ; (4) the petitioners have no rights or interest in the subject matter of the bill dis- tinot from those of the local and road authorities and the said justices, by whose acts they are bound as aforesaid, so as to entitle them to be heard on their petition against the bill; (5) their petition disclpaes no ground for a hearing according to practice. Pope, Q.O. (for petitioners) : Clause 6 of the bill authorises the promoters to construct a tramroad (No. 1) over four miles in length, commencing by a junction with a siding of the London and North-Weatcrn railway at Marten station, passing through the village of Long Itohingtou and terminating in the village of Southam with a branch tramroad (No. 2) to certain lime works. Three furlongs of tram- road. No. 1, will be laid upon the carriage way of main roads, the remainder being laid upon the waste at the side of the roads. The motive power used is to be steam, the gauge is to be the railway gauge of 4 ft. 8i in., and the promoters are expressly empowered to use railway vehicles upon the tramroads. The Warwickshire county council came into existence on 1st April, 1889, in persnance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1888. Sec. 11 of that Act provides that, " (1) Every road in a county which is for the time being a main road within the meaning of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878, inclu- sive of every bridge carrying such road, if repairable by the highway authority, shall after the appointed day be wholly maintained and repaired by the council of the county in which the road is situate, and such council, for the purpose of the maintenance, repair, im- provement, and enlargement of, and other dealings with such road, shall have the same powers and be subject to the same duties as a highway board, and may further exercise any powers vested in the council for the purpose of the maintenance and repair of bridges, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply accordingly ; and the county council shall have the same powers as a highway board for preventing and removing obstructions, and for asserting the right of the public to the use and enjoyment of the roadside wastes ; and the execution of this section shall be a general county purpose, and the costs thereof shall be charged to the general county account ; (2) provided that any urban authority may, within twelve months after the appointed day, or in case of a road in the district of such authority becoming a main road at any subsequent date then within twelve months after that date claim to retain the powers and duties of maintaining and repairing a main road within the district of such authority, and thereupon they shall be entitled to retain the same, and, for the purpose of maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement of, and other dealing with such road shall have the same powers and be subject to the same duties as if such road were an ordinary road vested in them, and the council shall make to such authority an annual payment towards the costs of the maintenance and repair, and reasonable improvement connected with the maintenance and repair of such road." In the present case there is no urban authority to retain the control of the road, and therefore 282 COURT OF EEFEREES. [Vol. I. the contingency contemplated by sub-sec. (2) cannot arise, and the county, council are clearly the road authority having jurisdiction over the roads, which are main roads along which these steam tramways are to be laid. The second ground upon which the county council are entitled to a Zooms standi is as the local authority of a district (in this case the county of Warwick) alleged to be injuriously affected by the bill, under S. 0. 134. Sec. 15 of the Local Govern- ment Act, 1888, is as follows : " The county council of an administrative county shall have the same powers of opposing bills in Parliament and of prosecuting or defending any legal proceedings necessary for the promotion or pro- tection of the interests of the inhabitants of the county as are conferred on the council of a municipal borough by the Act of 35 & 36 Vict., 0. 91, and subject as hereinafter provided, the provisions of that Act shall extend to a county council as if such council were included in the expression "governing body" and the administrative county were the district in the said Act mentioned." Provided that " no consent of owners and ratepayers shall be required for any proceedings under this section. This section shall not empower a county council to promote any bill in Parliament or to incur or charge any expense in relation thereto." That section puts us in the same position as a municipal or other local authority under S. 0. 134, and our petition sufficiently alleges " injurious affecting." On these two grounds we are entitled to a locus standi against the bill. The substantial objec- tion to a locus standi is that onr predecessors, the road authorities and the jastices of the peace at Quarter Sessions have assented to the bill, and that we are bound by that assent. That is rather a question to be considered on merits by the Committee on the bill than by this Court ; but as a matter of fact the duties of the justices as regards these roads was not co-extensive with our duties, but was merely, upon receiving a satisfactory report from their surveyor, to con- tribute half the cost of maintenance of main roads which were repaired by the highway authority. The justices therefore never acted as the highway authority, but were merely contributors to repairs executed by that authority. There again the Act of 1888 vests the entire main- tenance of main roads in county councils, and divests local authorities of all responsibility with respect to them, except in the case of an urban authority, under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 11, which case cannot arise here, and it puts the whole cost of maintenance upon the county councils, so that the latter are not in the same position as the old road authorities. I say that the county councils are not bound by any agree- ment between the promoters and the justices, or former road authorities. Balfour.Browne, Q.G. (for promoters) : This bill comes from the House of Lords, and before it could be introduced into Parliament at all, we had to prove the consent of the local or road authorities for two-thirds of the length of the proposed tram- ways. As a matter of fact, we obtained the consent of all the road authorities ; and on the 18th February last the justices also intimated their assent to the tramways. The Local Government Act, 1888, conferred no new powers upon county councils, but merely trans- ferred powers previously vested as regards roads partly in highway boards and partly in the justices. Both those bodies have assented to the bill, and their combined assents must be taken to cover and include that of their successors, the county council. As to the petitioners' claim to stand in the position of a local authority under S. 0. 134, I do not think the county council can claim to represent the inhabitants at all. The Chaieman : Perhaps yon had better deal first with the petitioners' claim to be heard as the road authority. Browne : I think probably they are the road authority; but, although they may not in strict law be bound by the assent of their predecessors, I ask the Court to hold that for parliamentary purposes they are so bound. The Chaieman : It seems to me that the argu- ments addressed to us on behalf of the promoters are arguments that should rather be addressed to the Committee on the bill than to this Court. There may be a certain amount of moral obli- gation, and a certain claim for continuity of action and so forth ; but I do not see that it is an argument to be addressed to us. The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Alloived. Agents for Petitioners, Beale ^ Co. Agents for Bill, Sherwood &• Co. METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL. Petition of The Great Westeen Railway Company. 7th May, 1889. — (Before Mr. Parker, M.P., Chairman; Sfc, ij-c, Sfc.) In this case a locus standi was conceded by the promoters to the petitioners, limited to so much of clause 16 as related to so much of the railways and stations referred to in the clause as were jointly owned by the Great Western and Part IV.] MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. 283 the Aylesbury and Buokingliam railway com- panies, and so muoH of the preamble as related thereto. Locus Standi Allowed accordingly. Saunders, Q C, appeared for the Petitioners ; Littler, Q.C., for the Bill. Agent for Petitioners, Mains. Agents for Bill, Sherwood §f Go. MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. Petition of (1) The Guakdians of the Pook of THE Glutton Union; and (2) The Gcaedians OF the Pooe of the Shepton Maliet Union. 28th March, 1889.— (Be/ore Mr. Paukeb, M.P., Chairman ; Sir Geoege Russell, M.P. ; Mr. Shikess Will, M.P. ; Mr. Compton, M.P. ; The Hon. B. Chandos-Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham.Gakter.) Raihvay Leased to Two Companies — Proposed Redemption of Fixed Rent hy Issue of Dehen- tures to Shareholders — Alleged Virtual Amal- gamation — Guardians of the Poor — Depreciation of Rateable Value of Railway — Loss of Rates. Clause 39 of the bill provided for the redemption of a inxed rent payable by the promoters and the London and South- Western railway company jointly, as lessees of the Dorset and Somerset railway, by the issue of debenture stock to the shareholders of the latter company. The petitioners were the guardians of the poor of two unions through which the leased railway ran, -and they petitioned to be heard in respect of an apprehended loss of rates under the follow- ing circumstances : — The assessment of the leased railway had recently been raised to a large amount per mile on account of the heavy traffic carried over it as an inde- pendent railway, but the petitioners appre- hended that if the proposal contained in clause 39 of the bill were carried out, the Somerset railway would cease to have a separate existence, and become part of the railways of the companies to whom it was leased, and would have to be rated accord- ingly, in which case the present assessment would be lowered, and a loss of rates to them would follow. The bill contained no provision for vesting the undertal^ing of the Somerset company in the two com- panies, or for dissolving the company, and it was pointed out that in addi- tion to the fixed rent, the two companies were under an obligation imposed by the Somerset and Dorset Railway Leasing Act, 1876, to pay one-tenth of all traffic receipts from the Somersetrailway above the sum of £114,000 to the Somerset company, which arrangement was unafileoted by the bill ; and that the bill in fact only com- muted the fixed rent for an equivalent amount of debenture stock of the two companies to whom the railway was leased, without altering the status of the Somerset company in other respects : Held, that the petitioners were not entitled to a locus standi. The locus standi of the petitioners (1) and (2) was objected to on similar gi-ounds, namely : (!) ifc is not alleged in the petition, nor is it the fact, that any town or district under the local management of the petitioners or the inhabitants thereof are injuriously affected by the bill ; (2) the provisions of the Leasing Act referred to in paragraph 4 of the petition relate to arrange- ments between the Somerset and Dorset railway company, the South-Western railway company, and the promoters, as to the payment of rates by those parties as between themselves, and do not affect any question as to the liability to rates of the Somerset and Dorset railway^; (3) there, assessment referred to in paragraph 5 of the petition was based upon the terms and condi- tions contained in the said Leasing Act, and is not in any way altered or affected by the bill; (4) even assuming that the bill would or could have any such effect as alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition (which the promoters deny) the petitioners are not injuriously or otherwise affected thereby so as to entitle them to be heard against the bill ; (5) the bill in no way affects the ownership or occupation of the Somerset and Dorset railway as alleged iu para- graph 7 of the petition, and even if it did, the petitioners would not on that account be entitled to be heard against the bill ; (6) the petition discloses no grounds upon which according to practice the petitioners are entitled to be heard. Balfour Browne, Q.C. (for petitioners 1 and 2) : The cases of the two petitioners are identical. Clause 39 of the bill provides that " The Com- pany " (that is, the Midland company) "the South-Western company and the Somerset company may from time to time enter into and B 284 COURT OF BEFEREES. [Vol. I. carry into effeot agreements for the redemptioQ of the fixed armiial rent payable to the Somerset company by the company and the South- western company under the provisions of the Somerset and Dorset Railway Leasing Act, 1876, or of any part thereof, by the issue to the Somerset company or the shareholders or debenture holders therein of such amount of debenture stock of the company, and of the So nth -Western company, or either of them as may be agreed upon, and for the purposes of such redemption the company and the South-Western company respectively may create and issue such amounts of deben- tnre stock as may be requisite for giving effect to any snch agreement as aforesaid." In 1875, the Somerset and Dorset railway being then an independent line, an agreement, which was confirmed by the Somerset and Dorset Railway Leasing Act, 1876, was entered into, under which the whole of the Somerset railway, 92 miles in length, was leased for 999 years to the Midland and South-Western railway companies. It is a line the traffic on which is increasing, and it is a most important line to both the companies, as it takes the Midland company to Bonrnemouth and the South, and the South-Western company to the North of England. Until recently this line has been only rated at agricultural value, at about £40 per mile, bat the rating authorities of Glutton and Shepton Mallet recently raised the rating to something like £800 per mile. That increase was appealed against by the companies to the Court of Quarter Sessions, but the Court con- firmed the increase in the rating on the ground that the Somerset railway was an independent line, and not an integral part of the systems of the Midland and South-Western companies, whose railways, as a whole, do not earn nearly so large a profit in proportion to their mileage as the Somerset railway. My argument is that under clause 29 of the bill, the Somerset rail, way will become an integral part of the systems of the two companies, and will be of far less rateable value as such, than it is at the present time as an independent line with a large trafiic, and that the petitioners will thereby lose rates. Mr. Shieess Will : How will the Somerset railway cease to be an independent line, if what is done is merely to give the shareholders in the Somerset railway debenture stock instead of rent? Browne : At present the company has officers and shareholders of its own. The secretary receives the rent and passes it on to the share- holders. Jf the bill passes, the shareholders of the Somerset railway will become debenture- holders in the Midland or South-Western company, and will receive their dividends directly from those companies, and the Somer- set company will cease to have any independent, or indeed any separate existence. That was one of the features of the case of the North and South-West Junction Railway Co. v. Assessment Committee of Brentford Union, L.R. 18 Q.B.D. 740. Saunders, Q.C. (for promoters) : This proposal will not affect a valuable portion of the interest of the company. There is, at present, a, certain amount paid as rent, and when it is £114,000 a year, 10 per cent, of the surplus goes to the Somerset railway shareholders. That will not be aifected, and the shareholders will still receive their 10 per cent., and the company will still exist. The bill does not affect the terms and conditions imposed by the Leasing Act of 1876. The Chairman : Suppose your case exactly resembled that of the South and West Junction railway company, would not that decision give you what you want ; that is to say, that you would have your rates based upon the rent which a tenant, from year to year, would be expected to give ? Browne : I contend that that decision would not operate in our favour, because the Somerset and Dorset railway will cease to have anindepen- dent existence, and will, for this purpose, be amalgamated. The shareholders will, in future, hold Midland and South-Western stock. The Chairman : It would be going very far to hold that a rating authority is entitled to be heard when property changes hands. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : In the case of amalga- matiou bills, S.O. 163 prescribes that certain things shall be done, which have not been done in this case. Is there anything in this bill which alters the leasing arrangement of 1876, except the change of security, whereby shareholders instead of a fixed annual rent are to have debentures ? Browne: It will limit the rent for all time, while the traffic and earning power of the Somerset railway is steadily increasing. Mr. SniREss Will : The clause only deals with one particular thing, that is the fixed annual rent, which is distinguished in the clause from the annual payment arising out of a surplus, to which the shareholders in the Somerset and Dorset railway are entitled in a particular eventuality. The bill, as I under- stand it, does not deal with that payment at all. Browne : Then the petitioners are damnified in another way. At present the rent of this line is £114,000 and one-tenth of the surplus receipts. That surplus is of course liable to increase, and is increasing, bat if the line is Part IV.] MUMBLES RAILWAY AND PIER BILL. 285 bought up by the two companies, that vent cannot be altered, and while the shareholders in the Somerset railway are absolately precluded from getting an increased rent, the rating authorities are at the Fame time, according to decided eases, not allowed to take into con- sideration for assessment anything beyond that fixed rent. The Chaikman: We need not call upon the counsel for the promoters. The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Disallowed. Agents for Petitioners (I and 2), Rolhins, Billing If Co. Agents for Bill, Sherwood ^ Oo. MUMBLES RAILWAY AND PIER BILL. Petition of The Swansea Improvements and Tramways Company. 4th July, 1889.— {Before Mr. Paekbb, M.P., Chairman ; Mr. Shikess Will, M.P. ; The Hon. B. Chandos.Leigh, Q.C. ; and Mr. Bonham-Caeter.) Raihoay — Fro^iosed Junction with and Running Powers over Tramway — Petitioners as Lessees of Tramivay, of lohich Promoters of Bill were Lessors — Terminable Lease — Status of Peti- tioners, how far Altered hy Bill — Interest of Lessors to Terminate Lease if Bill passed — Limited Locus — Practice. The bill authorised the construction of a short railway to form a junction with a tram- road or railway of which the petitioners were lessees, and over which they also possessed running powers irrespective of their lease, similar running powers being proposed to be conferred upon the pro- moters over the tramroad in question by the bill. The petitioners' lease of the tramroad was terminable at the end of two years by notice to be given to them at any time by the lessors, and immediately ter- minable in certain other eventualities, one of which was the construction of a railway to Mambles Head, as was proposed by the bill. The petitioners claimed to 'be heard not only in respect of the formation of the proposed junction with and running powers over the tramroad of which they were lessees, but generally against t,he constrno- tion of the proposed railway, for the reason that the principal promoter of the bill, who was himself the mortgagee and lessee of the tramroad, was also their lessor, having granted a sub-lease of the tramroad to them. They argaed that should the pro- posed railway be authorised it would be his interest to at once give them notice to determine the lease and to work the pro- posed railway and the tramroad himself as one undertaking. Counsel for the promoters stated that it was the lessor's intention to give the petitioners immediate notice to determine the lease, whether the bill was passed or not, and that as the lease was a terminable lease, the position of the parties would not be affected by the bill ; and further contended that a locus standi had never been given to lessees of a tramway, as distinguished from owners, in respect of a proposed j emotion or running powers : Held, that, although the petitioners were not entitled to be heard against the oonatruc- tion of the proposed railway and the bill generally, their interest in the tramroad was such as to entitle them to be heard in respect of the proposed junction with and running powers over it. The locus sta?idi of the petitioners was objected to on the following grounds : (1) no lands orpropsrty of the petitioners can or will be taken or interfered with under the powers of the bill, or by reason of the execution thereof ; (2) the petitioners are, by their Act of 1874, entitled to exercise running powers over the Oystermouth railway or tramroad, but the promoters deny that the petitioners have any such right or interest in any other part of the bill as entitles them to be heard against it ; (3) the petitioners are not the owners or lessees of the Oystermouth railway or tramroad, but have merely certain powers thereon by arrangement with the lessees, and their position with regard to the said railway or tramroad is not altered by anything in the bill ; (4) the petitioners have no right to be heard on any question of junction with the Oystermouth railway or tramroad, and they do not specify in what way the provisions in regard to a junction can effect them, or are not in accordance with the Railway Clauses Act, 1863 ; (5) the running powers over the Oyster- mouth railway or tramroad, under the peti- tio.ners Act of 1874, are in no way affected, and 1. 2 286 COURT OP REFEREES. [Vol. I. the alleged leaee to the petitioners is not made under the powers of that Act or of any sub- sequGut Act or agreement with the owners or parties entitled to Krantaleaso; (6) except as aforesaid, the bill does not contain any provision affecting the petitioners, uor dous the petition show, nor liavo the petitioners, in fact, any such interest iu the objects and proTisiona of the bill as entitles tlunn to bo heard against it. Rigij (fur potiUonHrs) : The bill anthorises the coii,si,rnction of a railway from Lhe Oyster- month railway or tramroad to the Mumbles Head, with a pier in connection with it. "We allege in our petition (paragraph 2) : " By clause 5 of the bill, power is souglit to enable the company proposed to be incorporated by the bill (hereinafter called 'the company ') to con- struct and maintain the railway and pier therein described, and to enter upon, take, and use such of the lands deUnea ted on the deposited plans and described in the deposited Books of Reference as may be required for that purpose The said railway is therein described as a rail- way 1 mile 2 furlongs and 2 chains in length, commencing by a junction with the Oystermonth railway or tramroad at a point lOJ chains or thereabouts measured along that railway in a northerly direction from the booking office at the Oystermouth terminal station, and terminating at the point therein defined; (3) your petitioners were incorporated by tlie Swansea Iraproye- ments and Tramways Act, 187 i, and by sect. 95 of that Act your petitioners were empowered to ran oyer and use the said Oystermouth rail- way, or tramroad, and so much of the Cwm tram- way as is therein described ; and by sect. 96 they were empowered to agree with the owners for the time being of the said Oystermouth rail, road or tramroad, or the persons competent to lease the same for the lease to yonr petitioners of that railwayor tramroad, and,underthe powers of the said Act your petitioners have accepted and now hold a lease of the said railway or tramroad of which about 16 years are unexpired ; (4) under the provisions of the bill, the company seek power to enter upon, take, and use the railway lands and property of your petitioners, and your petitioners object thereto ; (5) by o'auee 54 of the bill it is proposed to confer upon the company, and any company or persons working or using the proposed railway, or any part thereof, by agreement or otherwise, power to run over, workand use the Oystermouth railway or tramroad, including any branches thereof (excepting the Clyue Valley branch), together with the stations and other works and conveniences connected therewith, and by clause 57 it is proposed to empower the com. pany on the one hand and the Swansea and Mumbles railway company, limited, or other the owner or owners, for the lime being, of the Oystermouth railway or tramroad, and their lessees, and the Swansea harbour trustees, or either of them, on the other hand, to enter into trafiSc arrangements with respect to the pro- posed railway and pier; (6) your petitioners strongly object to the proposal to confer com- pulsory running powers on the company over the Oystermouth railway, which is now leased to yonr petitioners as aforesaid, and over which on the expiration or determination of their lease they are entitled to running powers under the said Act of 1874, and your petitioners allege that sach proposed running powers are altogether unnecessary and cannot be exercised without causing serioas loss and injury to your petitioners and interference with the traffic on the said railway or tramroad, and with the exercise of yonr petitioners' rights and powers." We own the tramways from Swansea up to the Oystermouth railway, a tramroad which is used practically as a railway, and of which we are the lessees, and over which we possess running powers irrespectively of our lease. The bill incorporates a company to construct a line from the termination of the Oystermouth tramroad to Mumbles lighthouse, and gives the com- pany power to make a junction with and run over the tramroad, • of which we are lessees. This Oystermouth tramroad, having gone through various vicissitudes, came even, tually into the hands of Sir John Jones Jenkiu and Mr. Capper, and they granted a lease of it to us on the 18th Pebrnary, 1886, for 20 years, of which 16i years are unexpired. Erslcine Pollock (for promoters) : The lease is terminable in two years by notice at any time, or if two of the directors are changed by death or otherwise, or if a railway Ci mpany construct a line to the Mumbles Head. Bigg : We have received no notice to deter- mine, and we are at any rate entitled to protection daring the remainder of our lease. We ought to be heard, not only against the running powers and junction, but against the wholo bill, for this reason, that the principal promoter of the bill is Sir John Jones Jeukin, who is also our lessor, and he is promoting a new railway to join us, in spite of the fact of our lease, and of the money we have spent on this tramroad, and he will, if he gets the bill at onoe, give us notice to terminate the lease in two years, and work the two railways together. The bill, therefore, alters our existing status under the lease, by giving our lessors a motive for determining it. Pollock (in reply) : The petitioners have certainly no general locus to be heard against Part IV.] NEATH HARBOUR BILL. 287 the ooDBtruotion of the proposed railway and pier, nor have they any locus standi with respect to our forming a junction, or taking running powers over a line of which they are only the lessees under a terminable lease. The owners of the Oystermouth tramroad are not opposing this bill. The Oystermouth tramroad having fallen into the hands of mortgagees, the mortgage was transferred to Sir J. Jones Jenkin and Mr. Capper, who also took a lease of it from the owners, and sub-leased it to the petitioners. As to any change in the status of the petitioners, Sir J. Jones Jenkin is ready to prove that notice will be given to determine the lease in two years whether the bill passes or not. The lease has not been confirmed by any Act of Parliament. Mr. Chandos-Leigh : Sir J. Jones Jenkin is one of the promoters of this railway, and he stands in the position of lessor to the petitioners of the Oystermouth tramroad, besides being lessee to the mortgagees of that tramroad. Are the petitioners not entitled to be heard to argue that the fact of his having this connection with the Mumbles company may give him a motive for determining that lease to their prejudice ? Pollock ; I contend that motive is immaterial for purposes of locus standi, where the legal position of the parties is not affected by a bill. Mr. Shibsss Will : If the result of passing the bill would be to give Sir J. Jones Jenkin a motive or interest to determine the lease, I think Parliament may fairly hear all that may be urged against the bill by his tenant. If the railway were constructed, would it not be the interest of Sir J. Jones Jenkin to determine the lease ? Erskine : He will do so in two years' time in any event. The Chaikman : The bill would or might have the effect of determining the lease, and enabling him to use the line before tlie notice, which requires two years to take effect, could operate. The real question appears to be whether the petitioners are entitled to be heard against the construction of the railway. Pollock : If the bill did not propose a junction with the Oystermouth tramroad, and running powers over it, the petitioners could have no locus standi against it, and it is clear that they can have no right to be heard outside those proposals. There is no case in which a locus standi has been given to leasees of a tramway in respect of such powers. Mr. Shikess Will : The petitioners are lessees in possession, and practically owners during their tramroad irrespectively of that lease, the peti- tioners have not exclusive running powers ; in fact the Swansea Improvements and Tramways Act, 1874, expressly provided that the running powers of the petitioners are not to be exercised so as to interfere with those possessed by the Swansea harbour trustees and the London and North-Western railway company. The Chairman : You need not argue the question of the petitioners' claim to be heard against construction further. Pollock : The right parties to be heard as to the junction are the owning company or their mortgagees. Lessees have never been heard in such a case, much leas lessees with a termin. able interest, who cannot be said to stand in the shoes of the owners. The case of the peti. tioners as regards running powers is still weaker. The Chairman : Of course the running powers might interfere with the user of the line for the two years. The fact that there is a lease must not be lost sight of. The Locus Standi of the Petitioners is Disallowed against construction, but Allowed against the proposed junction and running powers. Locus Standi Disallowed, except as against clauses 54, 55, and 56, and so much of the preamble as relates thereto, and so much of clause 5 as relates to the formation of a junction with the Oystermouth railway or tramroad. Agenta for Petitioners, Sherwood Sf Co. Agents for Bill, D. '* Glasgow and South-Wbsteen Railway (Additional Powers) Bill, 1889. Pe«io« 0/ (1) The Ayr Harbour Trustees (2) The Mortgagees of the Harbour of Ayr " (3) The Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of The Burgh of (4) The Caledonian Railway Company ?48 247 247 247 320 INDEX OF CASES. PAGE Glasgow and South Westers Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill, 1889. ^,^ Petition of Mkrciiants, Siiipownees, and Traders Glenfalloch Railway Bill, 1888. „ „ -o .,„.v rmnPAxirs 203 Petition of The Great Northern and North-Basteen Railway Compames ... Golden Valley Extension Railway Bill, 1889. „„„,„„ T?i,rwAY 252 Petition of Owners, Leasees, and Occupiers on Line of Proposed Railway ... Great Eastern Railway Bill, 1887, ^55 Petitio?i 0/ (1) Owners OF B Debenture Stock „ (2) The Vestry of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch Great Northern Railway (Various Powers) Bill, 1885. Petition, o/ The Midland Railway Company Great Northern Railway Bill, 1887. .,„ Petition 0/ The Metropolitan Board OF Works Great Western Railway (No. 1) Bill, 1888. Petition of (1) The Corporation of Cardiff ^"° „ (2) The Corporation of Newport ^"° „ (3) The Newport Waterworks Company ^J^^ „ (4) The Bristol Waterworks Company ■^"'* Great Western Railway Bill, 1889. Petition of The Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway Company ^"^ Gkeai' Western and Cornwall Railway Companies Bill, 1889. PetittoTC 0/ (1) The Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway Company ^5o (2) The Incorporated Chamber of Commerce of Plymouth ... ^55 Greenwich and Millwall Subway Bill, 1885. Petition of The Metropolitan Board of Works Guildford Corporation Water Bill, 1886. Petition of (1) The Woking Water and Gas Company „ (2) Edmund Thomas Leighton and Others 107 Harrow, Ealing, and Willesden Railway Bill, 1887. Petition of (1) The North-Western and Ealing Railway Company 159 „ (2) The Great Western Railway Company 160 Hastings Corporation Bill, 1885. Petition of Inhabitants and Ratepayers of Hastings ... ... 32 HiLLHEAD AND KeLVINSIDE (ANNEXATION TO GlASGOw) BiLL, 1886. Petition of (1) Magistrates and Commissioners of Police of the Burgh of Mahyhill ... ., 108 „ (2) Partick, Billhead, and Maryhill Gas Company, Limited ... 108 „ (3) Committee of Ratepayers of the Burgh of Hilliiead... ... 110 Hull and North-Western Junction Railway Bill, 1887. Petition of (1) The Midland Railway Company 160 ,, (2) Mortgagees and Holders of First Issue of Debkntures of THE Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway AND Dock Company ... ... 162 Hull, Baexsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill, 1887. Petition of The Midland Railway Company 165 Kensington SquAKE Improvement.s Bill, 1888. Petition of William Benson and Hakry Norton Rose 208 King's Cross, Charing Cross, and Waterloo Subway Bill, 1885. Petition of The Metropolitan Railway Company 32 29 .. 106 INDEX OF CASES. 321 Lanarkshire and Ayeshibb Railway Bill, 1885. Petition of (1) The North British Railway Company 34 „ (2) The Glasgow and South-Wkstern Railway Company 34 Lanarkshire and Ayrshire (Additional Powers) Bill, 1888. Petition of William Stephen John Fulton 210 Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill, 1885. Petition of (1) J. W. Cator and Another (Trustees under the Will of THE Late Samuel Cator) 38 „ (2) Pemberton Local Board 38 Lancaster Corporation Bill, 1888. Petition of (1) Overseers of the Poor and Surveyor of Highways of Skerton ... ... ... ... ... ... 210 ,, (2) Overseers of the Poor and Surveyor of Highways of scotforth ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ■.. 210 „ (3) Overseers of the Poor and Surveyor of Highways of Bulk 210 „ (4) The Lancaster Waggon Company, Limited 213 Leeds Coloured Cloth Hall Estate Bill, 1885. Petition of Corporation of Leeds and W. Barker 38 Lincoln Corporation Gas Purchase Bill, 1885. Petition o/ The Great Northern Railway Company 43 Lincolnshire Marshes and East Coast Railway Bill, 1886. Petition of The Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company 112 LiSTOWEL AND BALLYBUNION RAILWAY BiLL, 1885. Petition of The Great Southern and Western Railway Company 43 Liverpool Corporation Bill, 1886. Petition of James Gardner Martin 112 Liverpool Overhead Railway Bill, 1888. Petition o/ The Corporation of Bootle-cum-Linacre •^14 Liverpool Water and Improvement Bill, 1887. PettKon o/ (1) The Severn Commissioners lo7 (2) The Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Company ... lb? (3) The Great Western Railway Company 167 ,] (4) The Corporation of Cheltenham 1^^ ,] (5) The Corporation of Gloucester 167 " (6) The Corporation of Worcester and Bridgenorth 167 (7) The Sharpness New Docks and Gloucester and Birmingham Navigation Company 167 (8) The Conservators of the Severn Fishery District lo7 259 261 Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Bill, 1889. Petitiow. o/ Robert Henderson Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) (Bingley Order) CoNFiiaiATioN Bill, 1889. Pe(iiio» o/ The Corporation OF Keighley London and Blackwall Railway Bill, 1885. PeW-'•* London and North-Wbstern Railway Bill, 18S8. P«H«o«- 0/ (1) The Manchester Ship CANAL Company ^|6 (2) The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board -^J-O 322 INDEX OF CASES. London and Nokth Wkstjsrn Bailway Bill, 1889. Petition of (1) The Metropolitan Asylum District ... ... ... ••■ 263 „ (2) The "Wallasey Local Board ... ■•■ -66 ,, (3) The Wkexham, Mold and Connah's Quay, and MaiNciiestkr, sukfi'ield and lincolnshire railway companies 2fi7 „ (4) The Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Bailway Company 267 „ (5) The Manchester, Sheffield AND Lincolnshire Kailway Company 267 ,, (6) The Cheshire Lines Committee ... ... ... ... ... 267 London and St. Katherine Docks and Bast and West India Docks Bill, 1888. Petition of Messrs. Kirk and Randall 216 London and South-western Railway Bill, 1886. Petition 0/(1) John Brett ... ... ... ... ... 113 ,, (2) Henry Kimber, M.P 115 London Oenteal (Subway) Railway Bill, 1889. Petition of (1) Metropolitan Railway Company . 267 ,, (2) Metropolitan District Railway Company 267 London Riverside Fish Market (Extension op Time) Bill, 1885. Petition o/ Metropolitan Board of Works ... ... ... ... ... ... 43 London Tramways (Various Powers) Bill, 1888. Pc/iUoti o/ Frontagers 219 London Tramways (Extensions! Bill, 1889. Petition of (1) Owners, Lessees or Occupiehs of Houses, Shops or Ware- houses IN BiiiXTO.N Hill and Strbatham Hill, and tus Neighbourhood ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 268 „ (2) B. M. Bell and Others 268 Louth, Mablethorpe, Sutton and Willoughby Railway Bill, 1886. Petition rif The Great Northern Railway Company 117 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Bill, 1886. Petition of John Wilcox and Otheus 117 Manchester, SnEFFtELD and Lincolnshire Railway (New Railways) Bill, 1888. Petition 0/ The Lancashire and York.siiire Raflway Company 220 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railwav (Steamboats) Bill, 1889. Petition of (1) The Meh.sey Docks and Harbour Board 270 ,, (2) The Dock Company at Kincston-upon-Hull and Others ... 270 „ (3) The Corporation of Hull, Hull Incorporated Chamber of Commerce, Merchants, Shipowners, and Traders .. ... 270 „ (4) Merchants, Steamship Owners and Traders at the Tort of GOOLB Manchester Ship Canal Bill, 1885. Petition of (1) Adelaide Wat \9> 270 46 (2) Corporation of Bootlk-cum-Iiinacre ... ..'.' ,,[ [[[ 49 (3) Incorporated Chamber ov Commerce of Liverpool (4) Liverpool Wool Brokers' Association Lancashire Sugar Riokiners' Association... [,, Liverpool Corn Traders' Association 50 50 50 50 7) Association of the LiVEiipooL 1'rovision Trade"! ..'. " ^^0 8) Liverpool Shipowners' Association (9) Liverpool Stkam.siiif Own'eiis' A.ssoruTioN „ (10) Liverpool General Brokers' Association ... '..'. ,', (11) Liverpool Cotton As.sociation .[\ I) (12) American Chamber of Commerce ok Liverpool ..'. ... ,, (13) CiiBaiiiHE Lines Committee ,,, ".' '" 5" „ (14) William and Arthur George Guest ... '.,'. ,,', [[[ 52 Marton, Southam, and Stockton Thamroad Bill, 1889. Petition of TuK Warwicksiiihe County Council oan 50 50 50 50 50 INDEX OF CASES. 823 Meesey Railway Bill, 1885. Petition of (1) P. W. Ddmville and H. D. Davies 52 „ (2) WiKRAL Railway Compaky 54 Mersey Railway Bill, 1886. Petition of Samuel Davies 118 Meksey Railway (No. 1) Bill, 1888. Petition of (1) The Great Western and the London and Nobth -Western Railway Companies 220 „ (2) The CoKpoKATinN oe Birkenhead 220 Meikopolitak Board op Works (Various Powers) Bill, 1888. Petition of Tee Southwark and Tauxhall Water Company 221 Metropolitan District Railway Bill, 1887. Petition of The Commissioners oe Seweks (City or London) 174 Metropolitan Outer Circle Railway Bill, 1885. Petiitom o/ Trustees of Henry Cline... ... 54 Metropolitan Railway Bill, 1885. Petition of (1) Metropolitan District Railway Company 54 ,, (2) London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company 54 Metropolitan Railway Bill, 1889. P«iitio« 0/ The ' Great Western Railway Company ... 282 Midland Great Western of Ireland Railway Bill, 1887. Petition of G'B.EAT Western Railway Company ... ... 177 Midland Railway Bill, 1888. . Petition of Tbs Corporation oe Bootle-oum-Linacre ... ... 221 Midland Railway Bill, 1889. Petition of (1) The Guardians op the Poor oe the Clutton Union ... ... 283 „ (2) The Guardians of the Poor of the Shepton Mallet Union 283 MiLFORD Docks Bill, 1888. Petition of The Milford Haven Dock and Railway Company and the Trustees OF THE National Provident Institution ... 224 Mumbles Railway and Pier Bill, 1889. Petition of The Swansea Improvements and Tramways Company 285 Nbath Harbour Bill, 1889. Peiifiow 0/ The Neath AND Brecon Railway Company 287 Nelson Local Board Bill, 1886. Petition of Vas Lancashire and Cheshire Telephone Exchange Company ... 119 Newport (Monmouthshire) Corporation Bill, 1889. PeHttow o/ Thomas CoLBOENE 288 North-eastern Railway Bill, 1887. PeiitioTC o/ (1) LiVEESiDGE AND Sons 180 „ (2) Thomas Motley Weddall 180 „ (3) Moses Lomas 180 ,, (4) Corporation of Hull 181 North Metropolitan Tramways Bill, 1886. Petition of (1) Robert Horner 122 ,, (2) Certain Persons Signing the Petition of Owners, &c., along the Route of the Proposed Tramways... ... 125 NoRTHWicH Local Board Water Bill, 1885. PeMiion o/ The NoRTHWicH Waterworks Company 57 North-Western and Ealing Railway Bill, 1887. PeiitjoTO o/ The Great Western Railway Company 184 324 INDEX OF CASES. Oldham CoupoKATinK Bill, 1886. Petition of The Local Board foe the Middle Division of Quiokmebb ... 127 Orkney Habuouhs Bill, 1887. Petition of The Nokth of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland Steam Navi- gation Company ... ... ... ... ... ... ••• 184 Padiham and Hapton Local Board Bill, 1889. Petition of jAiiEs DvunAhK ... ... ... ... ... .•■ •■• ••■ ^90 Pier and Harbours Piiovisional Orders (Buckie Harbour Order) Confirmation Bill, 1886. Pe/i(io)i o/ The Cluny Trustees ... ... ... ... ■■■ 129 Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill, 1888 (Cukran Pier (Larne Harbour) Order). Petition of The Portpatriok and Wigtownshire Joint Committee 225 Plymouth Tramways Bill, 1889. Petition of Thomas Bultebl and Percy P. Bultbel ... 293 Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport Railway Bill, 1885. Petition of Tas Ehymney Railway Company 59 Regent's Canal, City, and Docks Railway Bill, 1885. Petition of (1) The Schqol Board for London ... ,.. ... 59 (2) The Vestry of St. Luke's, Middlesex ... ... ... ... 59 Regent's Canal, City, and Docks Railway Bill, 1887. Petition of (1) The Commissioners of Sewers (City of London).,. ... ... 187 (2) The School Board of London 189 Rhymney Railway Bill, 1888. Petition of (1) The Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Company, and the Newport (Alexandra) Dock Company, Limited 227 „ (2) The Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport Railway Company 227 St. Maur Heirlooms (Pictures) Bill, 1882. Petition of The Duke of Somerset ... ■■' ... ... ... 296 South-eastern Railway (Various Powers) Bill, 1885. Petition of (1) Henry A. Deane and William Chubb ... ... ... ... 61 ,, (2) Great Northern Railway Company ... ... ... ... 62 ,, (3) Midland Railway Company 62 „ (4) Great Western Railway. Company 62 „ (5) London Tramways Company 65 „ (6) Vestry of the Parish of St. Olave, Southwaek ... . 66 „ (7) Corporation of Croydon 66 „ (8) Thomas P. Bayley and Others 67 ,, (9) CoKER, Deane and Co., and Others, Owners, &o., under the ''South-eastern Railway Act, 1880" 67 „ (10) Beckenham Local Board ... ... ... ... ... ... 69 „ (11) St. Olave District Board of Works 69 „ (12) Certain Persons signing the Petition of William Barry and Others ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 69 „ (13^ Landowners, &c., in Lewisham 69 „ (14) Lessees and Occupiers of Property in Craven Street, Strand 69 South-Eastekn Railway Bill, 1888. Petition, o/ The Vestry of the Parish of Lambeth 227 INDEX OF CASES. 825 South-eastern Railway Bill, 1889. Petition of (1) The Vestry of the Pabish op Lambeth 297 „ (2) The CHAMBEBtAiN and Jury of the Rochester Oyster Fishery, AND OF THE CoUET OF ADMIRALTY FOB THE JURISDICTION OF THE Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Rochester ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 298 „ (3) The Trustees of the Royal Liver Friendly Society 301 SlALYBRlDGE GAS TRANSFER BiLL, 1885. Petition of (1) The London and North-Western Railway Company ... ... 70 ,, (2) Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company... 70 ,, (3) DcKiNFiELD Local Board 72 Stourbridge Western Railway Bill, 1885. Petition of (1) Company of Proprietors of the Stourbridge Navigation Company ... ... .. 72 „ (2) Company of Proprietors of the Staffordshire and Worcester- shire Canal Company 72 Sunderland Corporation Bill, 1885. Petition of (1) River Wear Commissioners 73 „ (2) L. a. Grkyson and G. Greyson 76 „ (3) Richard L. Pemberton ... ... 76 „ (4) Wearmouth Coal Company 76 „ (5) Sunderland and South Shields Water Company 76 „ (6) John M. Ogden 76 „ (7) Ryhope Coal Company 76 „ (8) George A. Fenwick and Henry T. Fenwick ... 76 ,, (9) north-eastern railway company ... ... 76 „ (10) Samuel Alcock 76 „ (11) Owners and Ratepayers of the Township of Ford, and the Ford School Board ... 77 „ (12) James Hartley and Others 78 Swansea Corporation Bill, 1889. Petition of (1) The School Board for the Parish of Llansamlet Higher, in County of Glamorgan 303 „ (2) The Vicar and Churchwardens 306 Taff Vale Railway Bill, 1885. Petition of Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport Railway Company 78 Tilbury and Gravesend Tunnel Junction Railway (Abandonment) Bill, 1885. Pefitiow o/ Owners, &o 80 ToRqUAY Harbour and District Bill, 1886. Petition of The Western Counties and South Wales Telephone Company, Limited ... ... ... 132 308 TOWCESTER AND B JCKINGHAM RAILWAY BiLL. 1889. Petition of (1) The Great Western Railway Company (2) The Stratford-ui-on-Avon, Towcester and Midland Junction Railway Company **08 Tramways Order Confirmation, No. 3 (Birmingham and Western District Tramways Order) Bill, 1885. Petition of Birmingham Tramways and Omnibus Company, Limited 81 Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2) (Gosport, Alverstoke and Bury Cross Tramways Order) Confirmation Bill, 1889. Petition of The Western Counties and South Wales Telephone Company Tramways Provisional Ouder (No. 1) (Lancassteu and District Tramways Order) Confirmation Bill, 1889. Petition of The Western Counties and South Wales Telephone Company 309 309 326 INDEX OP CASES. Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2) (OnniiAM, Ashton-undbk-Lynh: and Hyde District Tramways Order) Coniirmation Bill, 1889. Petition of The Western Counties and South Wales Telephone Company ... 309 UXBRIDGE AND RiOk'MANSWORTH RAILW.4T BiLL, 1886. Petition of (1) Benjamin Henry Walpole Way ... ... ... 133 ,, (2) Owners, Lessees and Occupiers on the AuTnoRisEn Uxbridge AND RiCKMANSWORTII RAILWAY, AND ON THE LiNE OF DEVIATION Proposed to be Authorised 183 Vauxhall Park Bill, 1888. Petition of The Sodtiiwabk and Vauxhall Water Company 229 Wakefield Corporation Bill, 1885. Petition of (1) Wakei'ield Borough Market Company 81 ,, (2) Owners, Lessees and Occupiers of Mills, Manufactories, Works, and other Premises on Booth Dean Clough and THE River Btburn 83 Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas Bill, 1887. Petition of (I) Lowther Bridger ... ... ... .., ... ... ... 191 „ (2) Thomas Sidney 191 ,, (3) Owners, Lessees, and Occupiers of Dwelling Houses Within 300 Yards op the New Gas Lands 191 1, (4) Inhabitants and Consumers op Gas in the Parishes of Walton- on-Thames AND Weybridge, and the Vestey of the Parish of Walton-on-Thames 191 West Highland Railway Bill, 1889. Petition of (1) The Highland Railway Company... 309 „ (2) The Callander and Oban Railway Company and the Caledonian Railway Company 311 ,, (3) Owners, Lessees, amd Occupiers op Property, and Merchants AND Traders in the Burgh of Helensburgh and Neighbour. hood 313 „ (4) Edward Caied 815 Worcester and Broom Railway Bill, 1889. Petition of (1) The Great Western Railway Company 315 ■•■ „ (2) The Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester and Midland Junction Railway Company 815 Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Railway. Bill, 1888. Petition of (1) Traders, Colliery Owners, and Others on or using the Buckley Railway 231 „ (2) The "Vicar, Churchwardens, Overseers, and Waywarden of THE Township of Gwersyllt and Owners and Occupiers OF Houses and Other Property ... ... 234 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. (TO CASES CONTAINED IN PARTS I., II., III., AND IV. OF THIS VOLUME.) *#* Where a Standing Order is Refeired to in the Index, the numierirtg is that of the Standing Orders for tlie year succeeding that in which th» case was heard. ABANDONMENT {See railway (1), tramway, &o.) ACCESS, raising of level of occupation road opposed by owners of houses, on grotmd of interference with , 19, 117 by water, dredging works in estuary opposed by riparian owner on ground of interference with , 46 by water, extension of pier in estuary opposed by riparian owner on ground of interference with , 92 stopping up of streets opposed by owners on ground of interference with , 112 quantum of injury, how far material on allegation of interference with . 117 loss of to sea-shore, a ground of locus standi against bill for construc- tion of railway along foreshore, 145 AGREEMENT (See also railway), extension of time bill opposed as in breach of under which opposition to former bill withdrawn, 27 by petitioners alleging right under to construct works after time for completion specified in original Act, 83 variation of conditions of , rights of party not injuriously affected by, to oppose, 59 construction of disputed , right of petitioner to locus standi to support, 83, 106, 113 extension of borough boundaries opposed by gas and water company as in breach of , 106 extension of time bill, opposed as in breach of specifying time for taking of land, 113 between lessors and promoters of railway bill for preserving right of way, affected by proposed railway works, 180 AMALGAMATION (See dock, railway (3)). AMENITY (See house, owners, &c.) ARBITRATION, dock company as parties to , opposing bill for amalgamation of docks, 216 ASSOCIATION (See chamber of commerce, docks, railway (3), shipowners, &o.) BILL (See pbaotioe). BOARD (See harbour, local authority, &c.) 328 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. BOROUGH (See also corporation), extension, tramway company within and without borough opposing bill for , on ground of restrictions imposed by bill, 9 seeking insertion of protective clauses from former Acts, in bill for , 23. , market company opposing , on ground of apprehended com- petition, 81 ■ opposed by owners and ratepayers in district to be included, 76, 17, 78, 107, 110, 213, 288 , water company apprehending breachof agreement in restraint of competition, 106 , gas company as involving substitution of new for existing road authority, 108 . overseers of the poor and surveyor of highways, as representing inhabitants, 210 , traders complaining of increased taxation, 213 , school board on ground of diminution of rates, 303 BREACH OF FAITH (See agreement, railway, &C'. BEIDGE (See also railway (8), powers of widening , taken by tramway company, opposed by water company apprehending injury to pipes, 6 future widening of , apprehended interference with, as ground of locus of local authority against railway bill, 69 apportionment of expenses of widening , opposed by local authority as a contributory, 102 railway , over roads in borough, corporation as road authority claiming to be heard as to, 221 BURGH (See borough, local authority). CANAL, competition with and injurious affecting of docks as ground of opposition by corporation to construction of ship-canal, 49 dredging in estuary for purposes of ■ , opposed by owner on ground of interference with water access, 46 competition as ground of opposition by canal company to construction of railway, 72 and railway company promoting extension of time bill, opposed by local authority, 187 shipowners and dookowners, opposing bill for works involving inter- ference with estuary of river, 216 CAPITAL, division of , into separate funds, opposed by owner under agreement with promoters to sell land, 59 subscription of , not complete, how far invalidating notice to treat, 89, 133 agreement to purchase lands on raising specified amount of , aground of locus against extension of time bill, 189 bill for additional , promoted by local board as water authority, opposed by owner apprehending increased rates, 290 CHAMBER OP COMMERCE, representation of , by harbour board, on opposition to scheme competing with harbour, 50 interested in development of competing harbours opposing railway amalga- mation, 255 opposing extension of powers of railway company as to steamboats and docks, 270 COACHES, steamboat company owning , and railway company, competition between, COMMISSIONERS {See harbour, navigation, &c.) COMPANY (See gas, railway, &o.) COMPETITION (See canal, docks, railway, 4c.) INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 329 CONSERVANCY (See also navigation), how far representing private interests in respect of navigation, 216 tolls, mortgagees of, how affected by bill for construction of docks in river exempted from tolls, 301 CONSTRUCTION (See also practice (2) ), private Act incorporating Tramways Act, 1870, how far an Act " altering or amending the same," 9 CONSUMERS (See gas, wateb). CONTRACT (See agreement, railway (2) ). CONTRACTORS, as probable creditors of company nnder award of arbitrator, opposing bill for working union of docks, 216 CORPORATION (See also local authority), representation of staple trade of town claimed by , 38 decrease in rateable value of docks within borough, as ground of loius by , against competing scheme, 49 roads and sewers, interference with claimed as ground of locus by , against railway bill, 66, 67 representation of River Commissioners as ratepayers by , 73 claiming general locus against interference with streets as owners of solum, 154 seeking power by bill to supply water to local authorities and persons withiii twenty miles radius of existing aqueducts, 168 as shareholders in railway company opposing bill for transfer of railway undertaking, 181 interested in harbour and dock rates opposing railway extension, 197 as road authority, claiming to be heard in respect of railway bridges over roads not yet constructed, 221 seeking to acquire hospital for infectious diseases outside borough, opposed by local authority of district, 244 Scotch , opposing improvement of railway communication with competing harbour, 247 opposing sewerage scheme promoted by local authority of neighbouring district, 261 having jurisdiction over river fishery, how far affected by bill for construction of docks, 298 COUNTY COUNCIL (See also local authority), as road authority opposing steam tramway bill assented to by justices and highway board, 280 CREDITOR, impecunious condition of promoters, how far entitling to locus standi against extension of time bill, 133, 187 of dock company, as party to arbitration, opposing bill for establishing working union between dock companies, 216 DEBENTURE, holders, opposing sale of railway on ground of insufficient price, 3 petition of, against bill for conversion of redeemable debentures, 155 transfer of power to construct railway, 162 stock, issue of, in redemption of fixed rent paid by railway companies in respect of leased railway, 283 DEPOSIT MONEY (See peaotioe). DIRECTOR, signature of petition by managing , sufficiency of, 14 DIVIDEND, railway company as guarantors of , to third company, opposmg amalga- mation of company, 177 330 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. DOCK, land acquired by company for purpose of obtaining landowners locus against competing scheme, how far ultra vires, 21 decrease in rateable value of , alleged by corporation as ground of locus against scheme competing with docks, 49 lessor of , entitled to royalties, opposing extension of pier and authority of dock master of competing docks, 92 and harbour rates, municipal corporation interested in, opposing railway extension, 19? owners of , opposing bill for works interfering with estuary of river, 216 companies, bill establishing working union between, opposed by creditors of one company, 216 and railway companies, working agreements between, opposed by railway com- panies, 235 single traders, 236 companies oi^posing extension of powers to railway company owning docks and steamboats, 270 construction of in river by railway company, opposed by Chamberlain and jury of fishery, 298 mortgagees of conservancy tolls, 301 exemption of from tolls, how affecting mortgagees of conservancy tolls, 301 DRAINAGE, DRAINS (See seweeagk). DREDGING, in estuary, opposed by riparian owner on ground of interference with water access, 46 EASEMENT, railway company seeking general locus standi on ground of compulsorj' taking of •, 89, 98 ENGINE, moveable, steam and traction, restrictions as to use of, in borouo-h, opposed by steam tramway company, 9 ESTATE BILL, petitioner not named in, right of, to be heard against, 38 in Commons, Standing Orders of House of Lords, how far applicable to, 296 ESTUARY, dredging in, by ship canal company, opposed by riparian owner apprehending interference with water access, 46 EXAMINER (See praoticr). EXTENSION OP TIME BILL (See also harbours, railway (5) ), landowner opposing , on ground of bill being in breacli of agreement under which opposition to bill for construction withdrawn, 27 revival of powers to take land in , how far treated as new bill, 29 repeal of provisions in promoters former Act by • , Metropolitan board of works seeking locus to obtain, 43 petitioners alleging agreement as to construction of works under oricrinal Act, as ground of locus against , 83 ° FERRY, Metropolitan board of works as promoters of bill for , opposing construc- tion of adjoining snbway on ground of liability to pay compensation, 21) River Commissioners opposing establishment of , by corporation, 73 railway bill opposed by owners of , on ground of competition, 118 FISHERY, interference with , by construction of dock by railway company, alleged by Chamberlain and jury of fishery, 298 FOOTPATH (See also road), closing of , by railway company, opposed by local board of adioinina district, 266 ° INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 331 FEEIGHTERS (See tbaders). FRONTAGERS (See also tbamway), oooapiers of houses in road forming a continuation of urban street oppo- sing construction of tramway as , 8 lessee of market, right of, to locus standi against tramway bill as , 122 corner houses, right of oocapiers of, to Zooms standi against tramway bill as , 125 mews opening on road used for tramway, right of owner of, to locus standi as ,125 owners, &c., of houses abutting on foreshore petitioning as against construction of railway along foreshore, 145 limited locus standi of , agiinst tramway bill, under S.O. 135, 268 right of owner of property not actually fronting on tramway, to be heard as , 268 GAS, railway company alleging insufficiency of protection to their works by Gas Works Clauses Act, 70 transfer of works *o corporation opposed by railway company seeking insertion of clauses for differential rating, 70 extension of borough boundaries opposed by company, as involring sub- stitution of new for existing roarl authority, 108 GUARDIANS OP THE POOR, alleging virtual amalgamation of railways under bill, petitioning in respect of loss of rates, 283 HARBOUR, through rates to , loss of means of enforcing, as ground of opposition to amalgamation of railways, 1 representation by Harbour Commissioners of owners of property within limits of jurisdiction of , 46 of traders on opposition to scheme competing with harbour, 50 •^—^^— of corporation opposing bill on ground of competition with docks, 49 dues, apprehended liability to, as ground of opposition by owners of boats, &c., 129 name of , Prov. Order opposed by competing harbour owner on ground of similarity in, 129 petition of steam navigation company, trading to harbour and paying harbour dues, against consolidation of harbours, 184 municipal corporation interested in harbour rates, against railway extension as diverting traffic, 197 railway companies subsidising steamboats against increase of harbour rates, 225 trustees opposing improvement of existing railway communication with competing harbour, 247 competing railway company interested in , opposing railway amalga- mation, 255 extension of time for construction of , opposed by railway company, 287 commission, alteration in constitution of, opposed by single commissioner, 288 HAULAGE (See tramway). HIGHWAY (See also road, street), surveyor of , appointed by inhabitants to oppose borough extension bill, 210 board and justices, tramway bill approved by, opposed by county council as road authority, 280 HOSPITAL, for infectious diseases outside borough, acquisition of by corporation, opposed by local authority of district, 244 trustees of, opposing acquisition of adjoining lands by railway company, on ground of injurious affecting by vibration, &c., 263 332 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. HOUSES (See aUo owners, Ac), demolition of , opposed by adjoining owner and occupier on ground of loss of lateral support and amenity, 208 , as affecting rates, opposed by vestry, 173, 227, 297 i:i[PEOVEMEXT BILL (See also borough), tramway company opposing •, on ground of restrictions contained in bill, 9 restrictions in , as to new buildings, opposed by owners and occupiers, 73, 78 school board of district to be included opposing -, on ground of transfer of property and jurisdiction, 77 paving, sewering, &c., of new streets, regulations in , as to, opposed by market company as owners, 81 INFECTIOUS DISEASES (See hospital). INHABITANTS, water bill opposed by , on ground of compulsion under Public Health Act to take water, 12 appointment of overseers of poor, &c., by , as committee for opposing borough extension bill, 210 alleging injurious affecting of district, petitioning against tramway bill, 268 opposing construction of railway so as to pass outside town, under S.O. 134, 313 INJURIOUS AFFECTING (See land, owkek, practice, Ac.) JOINT COMMITTEE (See railway ^8) ). JOINT LESSEE (See lkssee). JOINT OWNER AND LESSEE (See owners, &c.) JUNCTION (See railway). JUSTICES, tramway bill assented to by highwav board and , opposed by conntv council, 280 •' LAND (See also owner, &c.), acquisition of , for purpose of opposition, how far entitling owner to iocus, extension of time bill for taking , when powers have expired, how far treated a;s new bill, 29, 8J, 115 second mortgagees in possession, right of, to oppose taking of • 61 compulsory purchase of part only of , provisions for, in railway bill opposed by corporation, P6 easement over -— for construction of bridge over railway, general locus ftandi sought by railway company in respect of, 89, 98 LEASE, lessees of tramway under terminable , opposing formation of junction with and runumg powers over tramway, 285 LESSEE (See also owners, &c.), agreement as to use of lands for railway by two of several joint lessees. opposed by other j. unt lessees as in derogation of lease, 54 of market, opposing construction of tramway as a frontager 122 agreement between lessor and railway company, how' affectino- rio-ht 01 . to oppose bill of railway company, 180 ° INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 333 LESSOR; of dooks, entitled to royalties, opposing extension of authority of officer of competing docks, 92 LEVELS, clause permitting deviation from • shewn on deposited sections, op]30sed by tramway company, 23 alteration of of road, as ground of locus of tramway company against railway bill, 65 LIQUIDATOR, official, of tramway company, opposing construction of competing tramway, 5 LIS PENDENS, parties to, opposing bill for amalgamation of dooks, 216 LOCAL AUTHORITY (See also cokporation), bill for construction of waterworks, promoted by , opposed by competing water company without parliamentary powers, 57 railway bill opposed by , on ground of apprehended interference with future widening of bridge, 69 representation of landowners ai.d ratepayers bj- , in district to be included by borough extension bill, 76, 107, 110 extension of borough boundaries opposed by adjoining apprehending interference with gas supply, 108 telephonic and telegraphic v%ires, restrictions as to use of sought by , opposed by telephone company, 119, 132 invasion of watershed, right of adjoining to locus standi under S.O. 134a in respect of, 127 how far representing gas consumers, 137 railway bill opposed by , on ground of interference with uncompleted road, 172 vestry as , opposing demolition of houses by railway works, on account of diminution of rates, 173, 227, 297 commissioners of sewers (City of London) as opposing bill affecting Metropolitan railway companies, 174 as landowners, with agreement for purchase of lauds, opposing railway bill for extension of time, 187 rural sanitary authority as , how far representing inhabitants, gas con- sumers, owners, and inhabitants opposing gas bill, 191 opposing railway company proposing to supply water in bulk pumped from tunnel, on ground of competition, 203 claiming to be heard against railway bill to obtain communications across railway, 214 vestry and Metropolitan Board as , seeking to acquire land for public park, opposed by water company, 229 opposing acquisition of hospital for infectious diseases in its own district by neighbouring corporation, 244 promoting sewerage scheme opposed by neighbouring corporation, 261 of adjoining district opposing closing of footpath by railway company, 266 supplying water, promoting bill for additional capital, opposed by owner of property rendered liable to increased rates, 290 vestry as , right of, to be heard against railway bill also opposed by London county council in respect of roads, 297 LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (See local authority) , MARKET, repeal of exemption of , from provisions of Metropolis Management Acts, opposed by Metropolitan board of works, 43 extension of borough boundaries opposed by company apprehending competition by corporation, 81 tramway bill opposed by lessee of , as frontager, 122 V 2 334 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. MECHANICAL POWERS {See tfamway). MEMORANDUM OP ASSOCIATION, acquisition of land by company for pur- pose of Disposition how far ulfra vires of , 21 ilERCHANTS {See traders). METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (See local authobity), subway bill opposed by , on ground of apprehended claim by pro- moters for compensation for competition from petitioners' projected ferry, 29 repeal of exemption of fish market from provisions of Metropolis Management Acts, sought by , on opposition to extension of time bill, 43 MILL OWNERS, extension of time for construction of waterworks opposed by , alleging agreement as to construction of works after time specified in original Act, 83 opposing water bill for extension of limits and construction of new works, 195 •MORTGAGEES (See aUo debenture holders), right of second in possession to oppose taking of land, 61 of tolls of navigation commissioners, opposing bill affecting river, ITS of harbour tolls, opposing- bill for improving railway communication with competing harbour, 247 of conservancy tolls, how affected by bill for construction of docks in river exempted from tolls, 301 MUNICIPAL (See borough, corporation). NAVIGATION (See harbour, river), representation by Commissioners, of riparian landowner apprehending injury to estuary, 46. OVERSEERS, of the poor appointed by inhabitants to Oppose borough extension bill, 210 of parish and churchwardens, &c., claiming to represent inhabitants, 306 OWNERS, LESSEES, AND OCCUPIERS, water bill opposed by ■ , on ground of compulsion under Public Health Acts to take water, 12, 14 new taxation, right of individual owner to oppose bill imposing, 14, 73, 78 deviation of railway from line authorised by original Act, opposed by , 19 land acquired for purposes of opposition, how far entitling holder to land- owner's locus, 21 sewerage scheme opposed by , on ground of increased taxation, 26 extension of time bill opposed by , as in breach of agreement under which opposition to former bill withdrawn, 27, 83 riparian , opposing dredging works in estuary, on ground of interference with access by water, 46 repayment of deposit to promoters, provisions in abandonment bill as to, opposed by , 54 inclusion within municipal limits opposed by , 76, 77, 78, 107, 110 213, 288 representation of , in district to be included by borough extension bill, by local authority, 76, 77, 78, 107, 110, 213, 288 sewering and paving of new streets, provisions as to, in improvement bill opposed by , 81 served with notice to treat before capital of promoters subscribed, 89, 133 riparian opposing extension of pier, on ground of apprehended inter- ference with development of property, 92 railway company as , and ordinary landowner, distinction between, 98 new taxation, locus standi of individual to oppose bill imposing, 107 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 335 OWNERS, LESSEES, AND OCGVVIEnS- Continued. improvement bill opposed on ground of depreciation in value of property from proximity of infirmary, by , 112 extension of time bill opposed by , as in breaoh of agreement specifying time for taking of land, 113 joint , railway company as, opposing interference with railway, 139 of houses abutting on foreshore petitioning against construction of railway along foreshore, 145 within 300 yards limit, and consumers, vestry, and inhabitants opposing bill for extension of limits, new works, &o., 191 adjoining , opposing demolition of houses as injuriously affecting amenity of property, 208 railway company claiming general locus standi as , in respect of junction, 252 of property injuriously affected, opposing tramway bill, not being frontagers, 268 • liable to increased rates in case of deficiency of water revenue opposing water bill for additional capital, 290 of private street opposing alleged revival of powers to construct tramway by new company, 293 right of railway company to be heard generally as -, in respect of for- mation of junction and bridge, 311 of property not taken but injuriously affected, opposing construction of railway, 313 PARISH (See guardians of the pooe, vioar). PARK, public, acquisition of land by local authority for, opposed by water company, 229 PETITION (See practice). PIER, extension of opposed by owner apprehending interference with develop- ment of land for dock purposes, 92 PRACTICE, (1) Petition, signature of , by chairman of meeting of inhabitants, sufliciency of, 12 managing director, sufficiency of, 14 approval of , by company subsequent to deposit, validity of, 14 seal of company not afiBxed to -, how affecting Jocits, 14 amalgamation by consent of several petitions in similar interest, 50 sigrature of , addition of word " owner " to, sufficiency of, 77 , by chairman and secretary of committee of ratepayers, sufficiency of, 110 quorum of Scotch trustees, sufficiency of, 129 power of public meeting of ratepayers and inhabitants to authorise indi- viduals to sign against bill, 137 claim to limit locus of petitioners to certain allegations of their , 154 absence of specific allegation of ownership in ■ , 67, 213, 306 where corporate seal not affixed to , evidence of authority to sign admitted, 270 .,,.,, ^ ^ of vioar, churchwardens, &c., claiming to represent inhabitants, but not alleging authority to sign, 306 although containing allegation of ownership not bona fide petition of owners, 306 sufficiency of allegation in as to competition, 32, 159, 315 (2) Miscellaneous, discussion of clauses in first House, what amounts to, 3 private Act, how far an Act amending a public Act, 9 discussion of clauses in first House, locus of petitioners, how affected by, 27 33G INDEX TO SUBJECTS. VRAGTIGE— Continued. maps and plans, nse of, by Coart to explain not supplement allegation of competition, 32 estate bill and private bill, distincLion between, 38, 296 examiner, decision of, not reviewed by Conrt, 52 ambiguity in clause as ground of locvs, 54, 59, G2 decision of Committee on similar question between same parties, how far considered by Conrt, 62 sufficiency of allegation of being injuriously affected, 73 particular object not clause of bill, Iocuk standi against, when allo\ved, 129 how far body of petitioners can delegate authority to petition, 137, 210 special order of the Court for protection of interests of railway company, 142 promoters of competing bill in former house seeking to be heard against apprehended alterations in bill promoted in second house as merely supplementary to their own bill, 147 deposit money, how far an asset of a railway company, 162 right of petitioners to refer in argument to another bill introduced pari passu with and affecting bill under consideration, 160, 165 discretion of Refeiees in extending the time prescribed by Rule I. (S.O. 88) as to procedure for giving notice of objections to locus standi of peti- tioners, upon production of affidavit as to cause of delay, 174 locus standi by consent to inquire into bona fides of bill and solvency of company promoting extension of time bill, 195 dissent by proxy, how far within meaning of S.O. 132, 199 petitioners under S.O. 132 how far entitled to complain of injury to jirivate interests apart from company's undertaking, 199 bill deposited with clauses] in blank, petition against, treated by Court as petition against filled up bill, 216 how far petitioners entitled to be heard as to clause inserted in previous Act for protection of other petitioners, 221 right of petitioners to be heard at local enquiry affected by procedure by private bill, 244 public interest how far considered by Court, 248 misunderstanding between parties resulting in uon. appearance on behalf of petitioners, how far considered by Court, 252 dissenting shareholder at Wharncliffe meeting held unnecessarily claiming to be heard, 259 review of decision of examiner on Standing Orders by Court, ultra cires (S.O. 141), 259 Court will consider how far a bill promoted by a lessor will affect interests of lessees under a terminable lease, 285 S.O. 160-168 (House of Lords) [Proceedings by and in relation to Com- mittees on Estate Bills] how far api)licable to estate bills in Commons, 296 metropolitan vestry entitled to be heard in respect of roads apart from London County Council, 297 school board as educational authority claiming to be heard generally against extension of borough so as to include part of school district, 303 PllEMISES {Seu ownku). feAlLWAY. (1) ABANtJo^■Mli^T. (-2) AuuKEMKNf. (3) Amalgamation. (4) CoAipiai'iTiow. (5) Extension of Time. (6) Katks. (7) Running I'owEiis. (8) Miscellaneous. (1) Abrnnlonwcnt, repayment of deposit to promoters, opposed bv owner under agreement to sell land, 51 petition of railway c()]ni)any benefited by construction ai railway a.'ainst bill, 139 ~ against partial of a railway over which tho petitioners hail running powers under an agreement con- firmed by Parliament, 165 traders with protective clauses in previous Act against abandon. nient of authorised and substitution of new line, 231 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 337 'B.klLWAY— Continued. (2) Agreement, bill sanctioning subscription to promoters' railway by company A., opposed as in breach of by company A. not to support competing scheme, 34 as to nse of lauds, by two joint lessees, opposed by other lessees as iu derogation of rights under lease, 54 opposed by petitioning railway companies on ground of affecting existing agreements between themselves and promoters, 62 power to charge alternative rates opposed by railway company, on ground of loss of benefit of , 78 powers of ■, with third company opposed as enabling third company to compete with petitioners, 87 petition of London school board, as landowners, with conditional to purchase on raising certain capital, against an extension of time bill, 189 local authority as landowners having for purchase of lands, petitioning against extension of time bill, 187 working , between railway and dock companies, opposed by railway and dock companies, 235 as to running powers and traffic facilities, claim to extend to new railways, 237 (3) Amalgamation, through rates, loss of means of enforcing, as ground of opposition to , by Harbour Commissioners, 1 debenture-holders opposing , on ground of injury to security, 3 petition of English railway, company, owners of channel steamers, against of Irish railway companies, 177 virtual , working agreements between dock and railway companies opposed as, by competing companies, 235 • single traders, 236 where railway already leased for 1,000 years, opposed by competing railway company, 255 ■ chamber of com- merce, 255 alleged virtual , by means of redemption of fixed rent by issue of deben- tures, in case of leased railway, 283 (4) Competition, between subway and ferry, 29 underground tramway, construction of, opposed by underground railway company on ground of , 32 subscription to promoters' railway by company A. opposed by petitioners as in breach of agreement by company A. not to support competing scheme, 34 canal, quantum of injury to, how affecting right of company, to oppose com- peting railway, 72 company forming link in chain of through communication, right of, to oppose bill on ground of , 78, 79 improvement of existing , how far amounting to new, 87 independent line, Zooms standi against, sought on ground of formation of through competitive route, 87 steamboat owners opposing grant of steamboat powers to railway company on ground of , 100 between railway and ferry, 118 petition of through railway company apprehending competition by means of working agreement between local and through competing line, 142, 165, 308, 309, 315 steamboat company, being also owners of coaches, but only carrying on a tourist traffic during the summer mouths, against railway bill, 143 promoters of bills for competing railway, where both schemes practicable, 159 new or improved , by new railway proposed to be constructed by company already carrying same traffic by running powers over other railways,_220^ petition of English railway companies against Scotch railway extension in respect of through traffic, 237 between shipowners and railway company seeking to acquire steamboats, 241, 213, 251 338 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. RAILWAY — (4) Competition— Continued. between east and west coast of Scotland routes, by constrnotion of local railway forming junction with and worked by through railway company, 309 (5) Extennion of Tinw, landowner opposing bill for , as in breach of agreement under which opposition to bill for constrnotion withdrawn, 27 railway company as landowner affected opposing bill for , 59 saiBciency of allegation of ownership by petitioners against bill, not under notice to treat, 67 revival of powers for compulsory purchase of land by bill for , right of landowner to oppose, 89 landowner opposing bill for , as in breach of agreement under which opposition to bill for construction withdrawn, 113 landowner under agreement to sell land opposing bill for , on ground of impecuniosity of promoters, 133 bill, opposed by local authority and school board with agreement for purchase of lands, 187, 189 (6) Rates, through rates, loss of means of enforcing, as ground of opposition by Harbour Commissioners to amalgamation of i-ailways, 1 application of similar , to new in substitution of authorised railway, opposed by traders, 231 (7) Runninfi Powers, Metropolitan line, right of petitionuig companies with over, to opijose admission of third company, 62 petition of railway company having over railway affected by bill, 160, 165 over existing railway, claim of company to extend to new railways, 237, 248 over and junction with tramway by railway, opposed by lessees of tram- way, 285 (8) MisccUimeous, deviation, locus sought by owner against work within limits of, under former Act, 19 alleged acquisition of land by dock company for purpose of obtaining land- owners locus, how far bond, fide, 21 stopping up of streets, wording of locus conceded to water company on ground of, 43 joint lease of railway, agreements between two of several joint lessees opfiosed by other lessees as in derogation of lease, 64 division of capital into distinct portions, opposed by owner under agreement to sell land, 50 tramway company opposing widening of railway on ground of physical interference, 65 local authority opposing railway bill, apprehending interference with future widening of bridge, 69 clauses for differential rating sought by railway company on opposition to bill transferring gas works to a corporation, 70 transfer of gas works to corporation opposed on ground of insufficiency of protection to works in Has Works Clauses Act, 70 substitution of dii-ect for circuitous route, how far entitling to locus standi on ground of competition, 87 compulsory accjuisition of casement over railway, general Jocks standi against bill for, sought by railway company, 98 steamboat powers, grant of, to railway company opposed by steamboat owners on ground of competition, 100 petition of railway com|)any as joint owners of railway and lands scheduled to the bill, 139 owners, &c., of property along foreshore against railway bill on ground of interference with access to seashore, 145 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 339 RAILWAY— Continued. petition of debenture holders' against scheme for oonveraion of redeemable debenture stock, 155 promoters of competing railway, both schemes being physically compatible, 159 railway company having runninr/ poioers over an authorised railway, the power to construct which was transferred by the bill to another company, 160, 165 mortgagees and debenture holders against transfer to another railway company of power to construct an authorised extension line, as diminishing the value of their security, 162 • commissioners of sewers as contributors of £300,000 towards new street, against proposal to refer questions in dispute between metropolitan railway companies to the railway com- missioners, 174 wharfingers using tramway along private road against inter- ference with user and right of way, 180 mumcipal corporation as shareholders in and parties to an agree- ment with company A, objecting to compulsory powers of pur- chase by company B over railway of company A, 181 commissioners of sewers as landowners with agreement to pur- chase, against an extension of time bill, 187 subway worked by stationary engines, how far a railway, 151 interference with uncompleted road by railway, opposed by local authority, 172 railway extension opposed by municipal corporation interested in harbour and dock rates, 197 company seeking to supply water pumped from railway tunnel in bulk, opposed by water companies, 203 transfer of power to construct railway, opposed by local authority having granted immunity from Watch-rate to original company, 214 construction of railway through borough opposed by corporation having obtained protective clauses in previous Act as road authority, 221 railway companies subsidising steamboats, petitioning against increase of harbour rates, 225 power to company to charge wharfage, &o., dues opposed by traders, 231 stopping up of road across level crossing opposed by vicar, churchwardens, overseers and waywardens of parish, 234 competition between alternative routes, vicL east and west coasts of Scotland, 237, 309 railway company seeking to acquire steamboats opposed by traders and shipowners, 241, 243, 251 improvement of railway communication with harbour, opposed by trustees of competing harbour, 247 railway company claiming the extension of running powers and traffic facilities to new railway, 248 physical interference with , by bridge and junction, how far entitling company to be heard as landowners, 252, 311 dissolution of joint committee of railway companies proposed to be amalga- mated, how affecting competition, 255 company acquiring lands adjoining hospital opposed by trustees of hospital, 263 company proposing to close footpath, opposed by local authority of neigh- bouring district, 266 company, as owners of docks and steamboats, seeking extension of steam- boat powers, opposed by dock companies, shipowners, &c., 270 alleged virtual amalgamation of railways opposed by guardians of the poor on account of depreciation of rates, 283 proposed junction with and running powers over tramway by railway com- pany, opposed by lessees of tramway, 285 company claiming to represent traders in opposing extension of time for construction of harbour, 287 right of companies owning and working railway under agreement to be heard in respect of physical interference with railway, 311 construction of, so as to pass outside town, opposed by inhabitants, traders, &c., under S.O. 134, 313 EAILWAY COMMISSIONERS, right of appeal to, against undue preference, how affecting loctts standi, 265 34G INDEX 'to subjects. BATES (See also h^kbouk kailway (6), &o.), compulsion under Public Health Act to pay water , inhabitants claim- ing locus against water bill on ground of, 12, 14 decrease in rateable value of docks alleged by corporation as ground of locus against competing scheme, 49 differential rating, insertion of clauses for, in bill transferring gas works to a corporation, sought by railway company, 70 increase of , as ground of opposition by owners and ratepayers to inclusion within municipal area, 76, 77, 78, 107, 110, 213, 288 mortgagees and guarantors of navigation , opposing bill afEecting river, 168 diminution of , by demolition of houses for railway works, opposed by vestry, 173, 227, 297 steamboat company opposing bill for dealing with harbour , alleged to be preferential, 184 Watch , railway company with immunity from, promoting bill to transfer railways, opposed by corporation, 214 increase of harbour , opposed by railway companies subsidising steam- boats, 225 mortgagees of harbour , opposing improvement of railway communica- tion with competing harbour, 247 loss of , by virtual amalgamation of railways, alleged by guardians of the poor, 283 increase of water , on account of additional capital, apprehended by owner of property, 290 mortgagees of conservancy , how affected by construction of dock exempted from tolls, 301 loss of school , by partial inclusion of school district within borough, 303 RATEPAYERS, (See also eorodgh, coeporation), sewerage scheme opposed by , alleging new assessment, 26 representation of , by corporation, 73 ■ rural sanitary authority on opposition to bill including petitioners within borough, 77 extension of borough boundaries opposed by , in district to be included, 76,77,107,110 representation of , by local authority on opposition to bill transferring jurisdiction as to bridges, 102 extension of borough boundaries, opposed by , in district to be included, 107, 110 and consumers of gas, committee of, opposing gas bill, 137 owners and traders as , opposing borough extension bill, 213 REPRESENTATION (See also local authority), of inhabitants by petitioners signing petition at public meeting, sufficiency of, 12 — staple trade of town claimed by corporation, 38 — riparian owner on estuary by conservators, 46 — traders by port and harbour board, 50 — railway company as ratepayers by corporation, 70 — River Commissioners as ratepayers by corporation, 73 — landowners in district to be included in borough by local authority of district, 76 — ratepayers, by local authority, on opposition to bill transferring iurisdiclion as to bridges, 102 — owners, by local authority of district to be included in borough, 76,77, 78,107,110,213,288 — ratepayers and consumers of gas by committee of ten persons, 137 " inhabitants and owners, &c., by rural sanitary authority, 191 — inhabitants, &c., by overseers of poor, &o., 210 railway company as shareholders in steamboat company opposing harbour bill, 225 f J Lf o — single commissioner opposing alteration in constitution of harbour commission, 288 RESIDENTS (See inhabitants). RIPARIAN OWNER (See owner). INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 341 RIGHT OF WAT (See footpath road). RIVER, Commissioners of , opposing establishment oi: ferries by corporation, 73 ; , representation of, by corporation, 73 interference with iJovv of , as ground of opposition by landowner to docl< and harbour bill, 92, 129 water bill affecting , petitions of municipal corporations, navigation, a.nd railway companies, &o., interested in maintaining proper atncunt of water in river, 168 interference with deep water channel of , opposed by dock owners and ship canal company, 216 pollution caused by sewerage scheme of local authority, affecting neigh- bouring corporation, 261 power to dredge , under railway bill for construction of docks, how far affecting river fishery, 298 ROAD (See also street), widening of , by tramway company, opposed by water company appre- hending injury to pipes, 6 part owners of , scheduled in former Act, complaining of increased interference with, 19 interference with , logus claimed on ground of, by corporation against railway bill, 66 alteration of levels of •, claimed as ground of locus by tramway company against railway bill, 65 stopping up of , under improvement bill, opposed by River Com- missioners as owners, 73 authority, substitution of new for existing, opposed by gas company, 108 level of , alteration in, opposed by owners on ground of interference with access to houses, 117 property in solum of , how far transferred by purchase of adjoining properties, 115 corporation claiming general locus against interference with streets, as owners of solum of , 154 not yet taken over by local authority, interference with, by railway works, 172 private , under railway bridge, interference with by railway hill, opposed by traders, 180 railway bridges over not yet constructed, corporation as road authority claiming to be heard as to, 221 stopping np of across level crossing opposed by vicar, churchwardens, overseers and waywardens of parish, 234 authority of adjoining district opposing closing of footpath by railway company, 266 county council as authority, opposing steam tramway bill, assented to by justices and highway board, 280 authority, right of vestry as, to be heard against railway bill also opposed by London county council, 297 SANITARY AUTHORITY (See corporation, local authority). SCHOOL BOARD, as owners under agreement to sell land, opposing division of railway company's capital into separate portions, 59 opposing borough extension bill, 77, 303 of London, as landowners, with conditional agreement to purchase on raising certain capital, opposing an extension of time bill, 189 opposing borough extension so as to include part of school district on ground of loss of rates, 303 existino' loan secured upon whole district of , how affected by partial inclusion of district within borough, 303 SEAL (See Practice (1) ). 342 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. SEWERAGE, tramway company seeking insertion of protoolive clauses in bill for scheme, 23 owners and ratepayers opposing scheme, on ground of liability to now assessment, 26 ship-caual scheme opposed by corporation on ground of interference with ,49 interference with sewers, claimed as ground of locus against railway bill, 6G provisions as to , in improvement bill, opposed by owners alleging lands injuriously affected, 8L scheme promoted by local authority opposed by neighbouring corpora- tion, 261 SHAREHOLDER {See also debenture iioideu), dissenting , equitable claim to locus of, by shareholder to whom no notice of WharnclifEe meeting sent, 52 corporation as , in railway company, opposing bill for transfer of railwaj' undertaking, 181 in steamboat company, railway company as, opposing harbour bill, 225 dissenting at Wharncliffe meeting held unnecessarily, how far entitled to be heard, 259 SHIPOWNERS, opposing bill empowering railway company to acquire steamboats, 241, 243, 251 steam , association of, opposing bill empowering railway company to acquire steamboats, 243 having through booking arrangements with railway companies, opposing railway company seeking to acquire steamboats, 243 opposing extension of powers of railway company as owners of docks and steamboats, 270 STANDING ORDERS, 13 [Notice to frontagers in case of tramways], 8 14 [Notices when it is proposed to abstract water from any stream], 195 15 [Notice to owners, &c., within 300 yards of gas works], 191 22 [Consents in case of tramway bills], 280 ^Meetings and consents of proprietors to bills], 52, 199, 259 .As to practice and procedure of Referees], 174 Petition against bill to specify grounds of objection, and when to be presented], 14, 147 ISO [Competition a ground of locus standi], 143 131 [In what cases shareholders to be heard], 199 132 [Dissenting shareholders to be heard], 52, 199, 259 133 [In what cases railway companies to be heard], 89, 252, 311 133a [Chambers of commerce, &c., to be heard against bills in relation to rates and fares], 50, 231, 255, 270 134 [Municipal authorities and inhabitants of towns], 14, 29, 43, 49, 110, 172, 173, 174, 187, 191, 197, 210, 214, 221, 227, 241, 261, 263, 268, 280, 313 134a [Local authorities to have a locus standi against lighting and water bills], 108, 127, 168, 101, 210 135 [Petitions against tramway bills], 8, 122, 125, 268 [Committee not to enquire into certain orders], 259 Railway companies not to acquire steam-vessels, &o.], 100, 142 241, 242, 243, 251, 270 62-66 88 128, 129 141 156,162 STATUTES (public, cited). Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, (8 Vict,, u. 18), a. 92 ; 66 s. 16 i 133 a. 68 ; 208 s. 133 ; 227 tias Works Clauses Act, 1847, (10 Vict., c. 15) ; 70 Metropolitan Bnilding Act, 1855, (18 & 19 VicL., c. 122) ; 43 Pt. III. ; 208 Tramways Act, 1870, (33 & 34 Vict., c. 78) ss. 26, 30; 6 Regulation of Hallways Act, 1878, (36 & 37 Vict., o. 48) ; 1 Railway ClaiiRos Act, 1863, (2fi & 27 Vict., u. 92) ss. 9-12 (" Junctions ") ■ 89 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 343 STATUTES (public, cited)— Continued. Railways Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict., c-. 33), 151 Railways Clauses Act, 1845 (8 Vict., c. 20), s. 3 (Definition of "Railway"), 162 Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 55), s. 9 ; 191, 210 — s. 61 ; 168 s. 52 ; 203 B. 62 ; 12, 14 part.III.,andss.4,168,169;81 ss. 51 & 52; 57 s. 211; 70 ss. 13, 144; 221 s. 131 ; 244 s. 27; 261 Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Viot., o. 120), s. 96 ; 172, 297 Highways Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Will IV., c. 50), s. 23 ; 172 Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875, (38 & 39 Vict., c. 36) ; 187 Railways Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 127), s. 4; 216 Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict., c. 17), s. 3 (Interpretation Clause), Bs. 28-34, and s. 75, 229 Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, (51 & 52 Vict., c. 25) ; 255 Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, (39 & 40 Vict., u. 75), a. 8 ; 261 Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867, (30 & 31 Vict., c. 6), 263 Local Government Act, 1888, (51 & 52 Vict., c. 41), ss. 11 aud 15 ; 280 Elementary Education Act, 1870, (33 & 34 Vict,, c. 75), ss. 4and 54; 303 STEAM ENGINE (See Engine). STEAMBOAT, powers sought by railway company, opposed by steamship owners and association of owners on ground of competition, 100, 241, 243, 251 railway company as owners of , carrying on competition with through railway, 142 company owning coaches, in competition with railway, during tourist season, 143 company opposing bill for consolidation of harbours under one trust, 184 railway companies subsidising , petition of against increase of harbour rates, 225 railway company as owners of docks, and seeking extension of powers, opposed by dock companies, shipowners, &c., 270 STREET (See also koad), repair of , by corporation, clauses as to, opposed by tramway company, 9 definition of , in S.O. 135, 8 owners claiming locus against improvement bill, on ground of liability for expenses of paving, &c. , 8] stopping up of , by railway company, locus conceded to water company in respect of, 43 paving and sewering of , provisions as to, in improvement bill, opposed by market company, 81 stopping up' of -, opposed by owner apprehending interference with access to property, 112 improvement, local authority as contributors to, opposing railway bill, 174 owners of private , opposing alleged revival of powers to construct tramway by bill, 293 SUBWAY, Metropolitan board of works promoters of bill for ferry, opposing on ground of apprehended claim by promoters for compensation, 29 construction of , opposed by underground railway as ground of compe- tition, 32 worked by stationary engines, how far a railway, 151 petition of tramway and omnibus company against , on ground oE competition, 151 Scotch corporation against bill as owners of solum of streets and of tramways, 154 municipal corporation as owners of tramways opposing bill for , 154 344 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. TELEPHONE, powers taken by local authority to mate bye-laws regulating wires and posta in streets, opposed by company, 119, 132 TOLLS (See rates, railway (6)). TRADERS, agreement by railway company with , alleged as in breach of faith, by competing company, 34 single , right of, to locaa against sale of trade hall, 38 representation of , by harbour board, on opposition to scheme competing with harbour, 50 wharfingers as , opposing bill interfering with right of way under railway bridge, 180 steamboat company as single , opposing bill for consolidation of several harbours under one trust, 184 owners and , as ratepayers opposing borough extension bill, 213 railway companies subsidising steamboats claiming to be heard as , against increase of harbour rates, 225 with protective clauses in previous Act, opposing abandonment of authorised and substitution of new line, 231 single , opposing working agreements between railway and dock com- panies, 236 opposing bill empowering railway company to acquire steamboats, 241, 251 extending powers of railway company as owners of steam- boats and docks, 270 railway comjjauy claiming to represent , in opposing harbour bill, 287 complaining of injury to trade interests by construction of railway so as to pass outside town, 313 TRAFFIC {See railwA', tuamway). TRAMWAY, official liquidator of company opposing construction of competing tramway, as prejudicing sale of company's property, 5 widening of streets and bridge by — — company, opposed by water company apprehending injury to mains, 6 extension of borough boundaries opposed by company in district to be mcluded, 9 sewerage scheme, insertion of protective clause in bill for, sought by company, 23 railway bill opposed by ■ company, on ground of alteration of levels of roads, 65 lessee of market opposing bill for , on account of interference with market, 122 right of occupiers of houses at corner of street to oppose bill as frontagers, 125 mews opening on road to be traversed by , right of owner of, to locus standi as frontager, 125 company as lessees of , petitioning against subway on ground of com- petition, 151 municipal corporation as owners of , opposing subway bill, 154 owners of property injuriously affected, not being frontagers, opposing bill for , 268 steam , opposed by county council as road authority, 280 leasees of , opposing railway bill promoted by lessor for junction with and running powers over tramway, 2y5 alleged revival of power to construct , by new company, opposed by owners of private street, 293 incorporation of new company and transfer of undertaking and powers of old company opposed by owners, &c., 293 TRUSTEES signature of petition by quorum of Scotch , sufficiency of, 129 ULTRA VIRES, alleged acquisition of land by dock company to obtain land- owners locus against pending bill, how far bond fide, 21 INDEX TO SUBJECTS. 345 URINAL, compulsory removal of , provisions for, in improvement bill, opposed by owners of , 81 VESTRY (See local authobity). VIBRATION (See hospital, house, railway (8) ). VICAR, and churchwardens claiming to represent inhabitants of pariah, 306 WATER, mains, apprehended injury to, as ground of loMis against widening of bridge by tramway company, 6 inhabitants and owners opposing extension of limits of company, on ground of compulsion under Public Health Acts to take water, 12, 14 slopping up of streets by railway company, wording of locus conceded to ■ company ngainst, 41 supply of , by local authority opposed by competing company without parliamentary powers, 57 extension of time bill, opposed by petitioners alleging right by agreement to construct ■ works after time specified in original Act, 83 underground , public institation apprehending abstraction of, opposing waterworks bill, 05 extension of borough boundaries opposed by company api^rehending breach of agreement in restra'nt of competition, 106 abstraction of available for petitioners' district, liow far entitling local authority to I cus standi under SO. 134a, 127 petition of local authorities, navigation o )mmissioners, canal company, and ruilway company, as guarantors of tolls, and conservators of fisheries, complaining of undue abstraction of by supply to parties outside limits of supply, 167 extension of purposes not limits of • supply, by supplying in bulk to local authorities, &c., 167 petition of millowner against bill for extension of limits and construc- tion of new works, 195 company opposing bill empowering railway company to supply water pumped from tunnel in bulk, on ground of competition, 203 company opposing bill for acquiring lands for public park, in order to obtain right of laying mains through same, 229 bill for additional capital, promoted by local authority, opposed by owner of property, on account of increased rates, 290 WHARFINGERS, opposing railway bill interfering with right of way under railway bridge, 180 power to railway company to charge wharfage, &c., dues, opposed by traders, 231 WHARNCLIFFB MEETING (See shareholders), shareholder to whom no notice of , sent, claiming equitable right to locus under S.O. 132, 52 held unnecessarily, right of shareholder dissenting at, to be heard against company's bill under S.O. 132, 259 WORKING AGREEMENTS (See railway).