a workshop insufficiently ventilated, which are the other things included with smoke-causing furnaces and chimneys in the definition of nuisances in sect. 19 of that Act. That section enacts that "the word 'nuisances,' under the Nuisance Removal Acts, shall include" the further matters there mentioned, but it does not necessarily mean that all the provisions concerning what were nuisances before should apply to these further nuisances. The only words upon which the appellants can base their exemption from being included in any manufactory or trade process whatsoever, are those in section 14, "this part of this Act shall be construed as one with the said Acts."

Manisty in reply.

BLACKBURN, J.-This case lies in a small compass, but the point raised is not easy to decide. In my opinion Mr. Manisty is right, and we cannot apply the power given to justices to convict for a smoke nuisance to manufactories of the produce of ores and minerals. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121 has by sect. 8 included in the definition of nuisances some new matters, none of which by sect. 44 were to extend to mines or the manufactory of ores and minerals. The remedy for a nuisance was given by sect. 12, by which justices might make an order of abatement. The words of the 44th section are, in my opinion, such as to render it impossible to say that, as the legislation concerning nuisances then stood, there could be any order of abatement affecting the manufactory of the produce of ores and minerals. 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, was intended to meet and prevent many other nuisances besides those previously dealt with, amongst them, unnecessary smoke from any manufactory or trade process whatsoever. That Act by itself would, without doubt, meet the case before us, but unfortunately, by sect. 14, it is enacted that the Act shall be construed as one with two earlier Acts; in one of these, the Nuisances Removal Act 1865, sect. 8, there is a list of matters which "nuisances are defined to include. Similarly, in sect. 19 of the Act of 1866 "Nuisances are defined to include other matters. Construing these two Acts together, as required, we must read "Nuisances" to include the whole of the matters in both these sections; and sect. 44, which was passed originally to affect only the first list must, upon construing the acts as one, be read to affect all nuisances. I entirely agree with what has been said on behalf of the respondent's view, that it is obviously absurd to apply this exemption with respect to mines, smelting, and the manufacturing of the produce of ores and minerals, to the nuisances created by the Act of 1866. I cannot think that the Legislature could have meant it, but as they have to my mind clearly said it, we can only leave them to mend it. I think these Acts have failed to give justices jurisdiction over nuisances arising in the cases described in sect. 44 of the Act of 1855.

MELLOR, J.-I am of the same opinion. The effect of the Act of 1866 is, I think, only to extend the application of the earlier Acts to other nuisances than those before provided for, and it in no sense repeals the exemptions which before existed.

LUSH, J.-I am sorry to differ from the judgment of the majority, but it does not appear to me that the Legislature obliges us to put a construction upon these Acts which is different from their obvious intention. The nuisances provided for in

[Q. B.

the Act of 1855 are few in number, and by sect. 44 mines and manufactories of minerals are exempted from the special remedies enacted for those nuisances. It seems to me, however, that the exemption may well be limited to the nuisances there described, and it need not be read to apply to another class of nuisances which had not then been created.

BLACKBURN, J.-This is far too doubtful a case to carry costs.

Judgment for appellants. Attorneys for appellants, Emmets, Watson, and Emmet, for J. R. Ingram, Halifax. Attorneys for respondent, Chester and Urquhart, for Clough and Son, Huddersfield.

Thursday, May 9, 1872.

GASLIGHT AND COKE COMPANY v. VESTRY OF ST. GEORGE, HANOVER-SQUARE,

Construction of statute-Incorporation of inconsis tent provisions-23 & 24 Vict. c. 125-31 & 32 Vict. c. cvi.-31 & 32 Vict. c. cxxv.

The plaintiffs were one of the gas companies included in the Metropolis Gas Act 1860, and under sect. 36 they had elected to adopt its provisions. In 1868 The City of London Gas Act and the Gaslight and Coke Company's Act, two local Acts, received the Royal assent on the same day. By the former of these two Acts certain provisions in the Act of 1860, concerning the purity and illuminating power of gas, were repealed, and others were enacted in their stead. By the latter of these tiro Acts, which was an Act promoted by the plaintiffs, it was enacted that the plaintiffs' company should be and continue subject to the powers and provi sions of the Metropolis Gas Act 1860, as if this Act were not passed, so far as the same were not varied by this Act; and that nothing in this At contained should exempt the plaintiffs' company or their gasworks from the provisions of the Metro polis Gas Act 1860. It was also enacted that if the former of these two local Acts should poss into a law in that session, then the plainti company and their undertaking should be subjet to the provisions of the City of London Gas Act. Held, in an action to recover the price of gas supplied to the defendants, the amount of which depended upon whether the plaintiffs were bound by the provisions of the Metropolis Gas Act 1860, repealed by the City of London Gas Act 1868, that the plaintiffs were, by the terms of their Act of 1868, subject to all restrictions imposed upon them for the benefit of the public, by both the Metropolis Gas Act 1860, and the City of London Gas Act 1868. The Gaslight and Coke Company, hereinafter called the company, sued the vestry of the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, hereinafter called the vestry, for gas supplied for lighting the public lamps within the said parish, and for maintaining, cleaning, and keeping in repair the said lamps, and upon accounts stated; and claimed 21607. 58. 11d.

The vestry paid into court 17871. 1s. 7d., and denied their liability to pay the residue, upon which issue was joined.

The cause came on to be tried before Mellor, J.. and a special jury, on the 13th Feb. 1871, and a verdict was recorded for the plaintiffs for 3731. 48. 4d., being the balance of the claim above

Q. B.]

the payment into court, subject to the opinion of the said court of Queen's Bench upon a special case, to be stated in the event of any disagreement by the parties or either of them, by Henry Manisty, Esq., Q.C., and subject also to a reduction of the amount of the verdict to be named by the said Henry Manisty, in the event of the court being of opinion that the defendants have a right to any reduction whatever. The company were re-incorporated by the Gaslight and Coke Company's Act 1868, s. 5.

The parish of St. George, Hanover-square (which is without the limits of the City of London and the liberties thereof) has been supplied with gas by the company ever since 1810, when it was first incorporated by Royal Charter; and the vestry which was formerly governed by a private Act of 7 Geo. 4, is now subject to and incorporated by the Metropolis Local Management Act 1855.

The claim by the company in this action against the vestry is in respect of 1162 public or street lamps, and four private lamps or jets used in their office for the six months from the 1st Jan to 30th June 1870. The pleadings were annexed to and formed part of this case. The account delivered before action is as follows:

From Dec. 31, 1869, to 31st March, 1870.

The particulars in the action stated that the gas supplied to 938 lamps and the 4 jets was of the description called cannel gas, and the gas supplied to 224 lamps was of the description called common gas. That the amount claimed for the cannel gas, including the lighting, cleansing, and repairing of the lamps, is £1763 13s. 7d.; and the amount claimed in respect of common gas, including the lighting, cleansing, and repairing of the lamps, is £396 12s. 4d.

Since the particulars were delivered it has been ascertained that the actual number of lamps supplied with cannel gas is 942, and the number supplied with common gas is 220.

Cannel gas of an illuminating power of 23 candles was supplied to 942 lamps consuming 24ft. per hour, and common gas of an illuminating power of sixteen candles was supplied to 220 lamps consuming 4ft. per hour. The four private lamps or jets in the stoneyard of the Vestry were supplied with cannel gas of the like illuminating power as aforesaid, consuming 3ft. per hour but no question arises in respect of the four lamps or jets.

Upon an estimate of the yearly consumption of cannel gas by each lamp consuming 2ft. per hour, and of the yearly cost of repairs, &c., the company charged £3 14s. 4d. per lamp per year. Upon a similar estimate for common gas consumed at 4ft. per hour, and the repairs, the charge would be £3 198. 8d. per lamp per year. But as the company could not supply cannel gas to all the lamps, those which consumed common gas were

[Q. B.

also supplied at £3 14s. 4d., including repairs, per lamp per year, being a reduction in favour of the vestry.

The gas mains are the property of, and are laid down by and are under the control of the company, and the company have full power to lay down and carry their cannel gas mains under and along such parts of the parish. But the public have no power to require, nor is the company under any statutory obligation to lay, mains for the supply of a particular kind of gas. The company under the provisions of the Gas-Light and Coke Company's Act 1868, can discontinue the manufacture and supply of cannel gas altogether upon giving three months' notice thereof.

In certain parts of the parish there were and are no cannel gas mains, of which fact the vestry had notice, and knew that cannel gas could not be supplied in those parts of the parish, and it was agreed in the year 1857 between the company and the vestry, that in those parts burners should be used which consumed 5ft. per hour of common gas, which is equal to 24ft. per hour of cannel gas of the illuminating power of fifteen candles, and that a uniform charge per lamp should be made to the vestry for an uniform illuminating power throughout the parish.

Up to the year 1861, the plaintiffs had supplied the defendants with gas upon the terms of a written contract between them.

By the Metropolis Gas Act 1860 (22 & 23 Vict. c. 125), s. 4:

The words 'common gas' shall mean gas of an illuminating power, hereinafter defined of not less than twelve candles. The words 'cannel gas' shall mean gas of an illuminating power hereinafter defined of not less than twenty candles.

By sect. 25:

The quality of the common gas supplied by any gas company shall be, with respect to its illuminating power, at a distance as near as may be of 1000 yards from the works, such as to produce from an Argand burner, having fifteen holes, and a 7in. chimney, consuming 5 cubic feet of gas an hour, a light equal in intensity to the light produced by not less than twelve sperm candles of six to the pound, each burning 120 grains an hour; and the quality of cannel gas supplied by any gas company shall, with respect to its illuminating power at the distance aforesaid, be such as to produce from a batswing or fishtail burner, consuming 5ft. of gas per hour, a light equal in intensity to twenty such sperm candles; and each such gas shall, with respect to its purity, be so far free from ammonia and sulphuretted hydrogen, that it shall not discolour either turmeric paper, or paper imbued with acetate or carbonate of lead, when those tests are exposed to a current of gas issuing for one minute under a pressure of five-tenths of an inch of water, and shall not contain more than twenty grains of sulphur in any form in 100 cubic feet of gas.

By sect. 26 a penalty of 501. by summary conviction is imposed upon a gas company for supplying gas of less illuminating power or of less purity than according to this Act it ought to be.

By sect. 27:

Every local authority taking any supply of gas according to this Act, shall provide all proper and sufficient apparatus, machinery, and instruments, for testing the illuminating power and purity of the gas, and from time to time shall appoint, and out of any funds applicable by them for their local purposes may pay, a chemical examiner of gas engineer, or other competent person, to be an examiner for the purposes of this Act; and every gas company shall within six months after the passing of this Act, cause to be erected in some convenient place, as near as may be to 1000 yards from their works an experimental meter, furnished with a suitable burner, capable of consuming 5 cubic feet of gas per hour, with

Q. B.]

other necessary apparatus for testing the illuminating power of the gas.

By sect. 28:

The examiner . . . when and so often as is necessary, or as he is so directed by the local authority appointing him, shall examine the illuminating power and the purity of the gas applied, and shall present to the local authority, so often as they require, a report stating the number of examinations on which the report is founded, and the maximum, minimum, and average illuminating power and purity, or the illuminating power and purity from day to day, or at longer intervals, of the gas supplied during the whole period to which the report relates, with such other information and remarks thereon as may be deemed necessary.

By sect. 36:

All contracts made or existing before the 1st Jan. 1860, between any of the gas companies included in this Act, and any local authority, for or relating to the supply of gas, shall terminate on the 1st Feb. 1862, and thereafter the provisions of this Act in all particulars shall apply to such company; provided that from the time of the passing of this Act until the said 1st Feb. 1862, the provisions of this Act relating to price, purity, and illuminating power of gas shall not apply to any such company, unless such company shall elect to adopt them.

The company did elect to adopt the provisions of the said Act, as to price, purity, and illuminating power, and continued to supply the vestry with gas for the public lamps in the same manner as previously, and upon terms agreed upon by letters between them; the vestry paid to the company the amount due upon these terms without remonstrance until Jan. 1870.

On the 13th July 1868, two Acts of Parliament received the Royal assent, viz., The Gaslight and Coke Company's Act, and the City of London Gas Act.

By the City of London Gas Act 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. cxxv.), s. 2, "this Act shall be read as one with the Act of 1860."

The gas referees shall from time to time ascertain with what degree of purity each company can reasonably be required to make and supply gas continuously, without occasioning a nuisance to the neighbourhood in which the works are situate, and shall thereupon prescribe and certify the maximum amount of impurity in each form with which gas supplied by the company shall be allowed to be charged, and the time from which the allowance thereof shall be enforced as against each company, regard being had to the necessity for any alteration of works by a company consequent on any such certifi cate.

[Q. B.

certify what testing places, and what apparatus therein for testing the illuminating power and purity of gas, shall be provided by each company.

By sect. 44 the Corporation shall appoint a gas examiner for each of these testing places.

By sects. 46 to 52 the gas examiners shall test daily the illuminating power and purity of gas supplied by the company, and report to the Corporation, the chief gas examiner, and the company.

By sects. 53, and 54, the gas (except cannel gas) supplied by each company, shall be of an illuminating power of not less than sixteen candles, and the maximum price chargeable by any company shall be at the rate of 3s. 9d. 1000 cubic feet.

per

If on any day the gas supplied by a company from any station is of less purity than it ought to be under this Act, the company shall forfeit a sum of 501. for each station in respect of which they are so in default.

On the 15th Dec. 1869, the company addressed the following letter, in the form of a printed circular, by their secretary to the vestry :Chartered Gas Company, Chief Office, Horseferry-road, Westminster, S.W., 15th Dec. 1869.

Sir, I am instructed to inform you that, in pursuance of the City of London Gas Act 1868, the illuminating power of the common gas supplied by this company will on and after the 1st Jan. next, be increased to sixteen candles, and the price will at the same time be reduced to 3s. 9d. per 1000 cubic feet. The illuminating power of the cannel gas will, on and after the same day, and in pursuance of the same Act, be increased to twenty-three candles, and the price will be reduced to 5s. 5d. per 1000 cubic feet. Your obedient servant, JOHN O. PHILLIPS, Secretary.

The cannel gas supplied to the vestry was of the illuminating power of twenty-three candles, and the price named in the said letter was according to the requirements of the said 56th section of the City of London Gas Act 1868.

By the Gaslight and Coke Company's Act 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. cvi.), s. 8:

The company shall be and continue subject to the powers and provisions of the Metropolis Gas Act 1860, and of any Act passed, or hereafter to be passed, for amending the same, and entitled to the powers and privileges of those Acts, as if this Act were not passed, so far as the same are not varied by this Act.

By sect. 109:

If the Bill, the short title of which, when passed, is intended to be "The City of London Gas Act" (in this Act referred to as the City Gas Act), now pending, pass into a law in the present session, then the company and their undertaking shall be subject to the provisions of the City Gas Act without, as well as within, the City of Lon don and the liberties thereof, and such Act shall extend to the whole undertaking of the company; and for the purposes of the City Gas Act, in relation to the undertaking of the company beyond the limits of the City of London and the liberties thereof, the Metropolitan Board of Works shall have all the same rights, powers, authori

Q. B.]

ties, and obligations, as are given to or imposed upon the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city of London in the City Gas Act, as fully as if that board had been named in such Act instead of the said mayor, aldermen, and commons, so far as relates to the part of the undertaking of the company beyond the limits of the city.

By sect. 110:

Nothing in this Act contained shall exempt the company or their gasworks from the provisions of the Metropolis Gas Act 1860, or the Act for Regulating Measures used in Sales of Gas, as amended by subsequent Acts, or any other general Act already or hereafter passed, in the present or any future session of Parliament, for regu lating gas companies in the metropolis, or for regulating the supply or sale of gas in the metropolis, and applicable to the company, or from any future revision and alteration by Parliament of the gas rents and meter rents by this Act authorised.

The company contend that their whole undertaking is now subject to the provisions of the City of London Gas Act 1868 as to illuminating power, price, and purity of the gas, and not to the provisions of the Metropolis Gas Act 1860, which, so far as the company are concerned, is repealed in those respects as well as to the mode of testing. The vestry contend that the provisions of the Metropolis Gas Act 1860 are, so far as the company are concerned with and as affects the said supply of gas to the said 1162 lamps, unrepealed and in full force.

In pursuance of the provisions of the City of London Gas Act 1868, the Board of Trade has appointed gas referees and fixed testing places where the gas has been daily tested, and the gas examiners have daily furnished the Board of Trade, the chief gas examiner, and the company, with the previous day's testings.

All the gas supplied to the vestry has been duly tested accordingly at 17, Arundel-street, Haymarket, and daily reports of illuminating power and purity have been furnished by the gas examiner.

From these reports it appears that the gas supplied during the said six months by the company to the vestry was above the illuminating power and purity required by the Acts of 1868, except on two occasions-viz., 4th May and 15th June when the common gas was 15'6 and 15.9 instead of 16 candles; and on the 17th Jan. and 11th June, when the cannel gas was 22:5 and 21.1 instead of 23 candles.

The gas referees have not up to the present time certified the number of grains of sulphur beyond which the gas shall not be allowed to be charged.

In reply to an application by the company for payment by the vestry of the quarter's account for gas to March 1870, the following letter and copy of a resolution were sent to the company on the 5th May 1870:

St. George, Hanover-square Board Room, Mount-street, London, W., May 5th, 1870. Dear Sir, I beg to forward you the copy of resolution agreed to to-day, when your company's account to Ladyday last for lighting street lamps was laid before the vestry of this parish. Will you please lay the same before the directors of your company ?-I remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully,

J. H. SMITH, Vestry Clerk.

T. Busk, Esq., Secretary,
Chartered Gas Company.

[Copy resolution referred to in letter.] "At a meeting of the vestry duly assembled on Thursday, 5th May 1870, present the Rev. H. Howarth, B.D., rector, in the chair, &c., &c., resolved unanimously That the account of the Chartered Gas Company to

[Q. B.

Lady-day last be disputed, on the two-fold ground that the common gas is not of the quality specified in the circular of the gas company of Dec. 1869; and that the cannel gas as represented is not such, but gas made from a mixture of inferior coal.'-Extract from the Minutes. J. H. SMITH, Vestry Clerk."

The vestry did not before action brought make any complaint whatever of the purity or quality of the gas being supplied in the said half-year other than by the said letter of the 5th May 1870. They now complain that the company did not during the said six months supply the said lamps with such gas as they were bound to supply, and contend that on the facts stated they are not liable, if at all, beyond the amount paid into court.

The question for the opinion of the court is whether the provisions of the Metropolis Gas Act 1860 are in force and binding on the company as respects the supply of gas to the said 1162 lamps.

If the court decide the question in the affirmative, the verdict entered for the plaintiffs is to be vacated, and a verdict entered for the defendants with costs; or to stand for the plaintiffs with costs for such amount as the said Henry Manisty shall find to be due, or as the said Henry Manisty shall direct.

Otherwise the verdict is to stand, with costs subject to such reduction in the amount thereof as the said Henry Manisty shall direct, provided that the court are of opinion the defendants are entitled to any reduction."

Pollock, Q. C. (with him Besley) argued for the plaintiffs.-The effect of the two Acts of 1868 is to make the illuminating power the test of the gas to be supplied; this does away, therefore, with the test of purity imposed by the Act of 1860, except so far as that matter rests in the discretion of the gas examiners and referees appointed by the City of London Gas Act 1868. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs are still subject to the purity test of 1860, as well as to the illuminating test, and the examination of the Board of Trade officers, as instituted by the City of London Gas Act 1868. On that point the two Acts are inconsistent, for the earlier one makes twelve candles the standard of light, and the later makes sixteen candles the standard. [BLACKBURN, J.-The plaintiffs were the promoters of the second Act of 1868; and the meaning of the Legislature, to be derived from sects. 109 and 110, may be this: We are content to oblige you by putting you under all the restrictions of the City of London Gas Act 1868, but we will not set you free from the other Act of 1860. You must be bound by the earlier Act; but if the referees find that you can procure a greater purity than that Act requires, you shall also be subject to their discretion." MELLOR, J.-The gas consumers would then have the benefit of both Acts.] That would be a very hard construction upon the plaintiffs, for if they had not adopted the provisions of the City Gas Act they would have been bound under the Act of 1860 to provide only threefourths of the illumination now required. [BLACKBURN, J.-When the plaintiffs were promoting their private Act in 1868, they asked a great many boons from the Legislature. The committees may have said, "We will grant you this Act, but we will attach a condition to it, namely, that all those further restrictions for the benefit of the public which the City of London Gas Act contains shall apply to you, although the clauses in that Act which would relieve you from the restrictions of

Q. B.]

the earlier Act shall not apply. You shall be subject to both Acts so far as the public can derive any benefit from them." Has not the Legislature expressed this in sections 109 and 110 of the plaintiffs' private Act of 1868 ?] If the Act of 1860 is to be read with this private Act, other persons besides the plaintiffs would be affected by it. Sect. 27 of the Metropolis Gas Act provides that every local authority taking any supply of gas shall provide all proper and sufficient apparatus for testing the illuminating power and purity of the gas, and may appoint a chemical examiner, and shall also erect an experimental meter. By the City of London Gas Act these matters are all to be cared for by the Board of Trade; and in consequence there would be a double testing process going on unnecessarily at the same time.-BLACKBURN, J.-The Legislature may possibly have so ntended. I do not find that to be a difficulty.] There is not one word in the findings of fact contained in the case, to support the resolution of the vestry passed on the 5th May 1870, and the gas referees have not yet made any certificate. [BLACKBURN, J.-If we decide that the Gas Act of 1860 still applies, it will be for Mr. Manisty to ascertain whether there is to be any deduction from the plaintiffs' claim; and if the amount of deduction is such that the money paid into court is sufficient to cover the amount due to the company, I apprehend that there will be a verdict for the defendants. We have solely to inquire whether the Act of 1860 is still in force and then leave Mr. Manisty to apply our decision according to the circumstances.] By sect. 26 of the Metropolis Act a most stringent power is created against a gas company, by which it may forfeit 501. upon a summary conviction, if the gas be of less illuminating power or purity than prescribed by that Act; and by the City Gas Act, sects. 73 and 74, this same gas company is subject to further provisions of forfeiture. [BLACKBURN, J.— And why not? The Legislature has furnished an additional protection to the public in return for the advantages which have been granted to the company. There are two conditions imposed: the first is by sect. 109, that the plaintiffs are to be subject to anything provided for the benefit of the public in the Act passed at the same time; the second is by sect. 110, that the plaintiffs are not to be exempted from any provisions for the benefit of the public contained in the Act of 1860. This is confirmed by sect. 8 of the plaintiff's private Act 1868.] The 110th section must refer only to those provisions of the Metropolitan Gas Act 1860 which are not repealed by the City Gas Act 1868. [LUSH, J.—Then that section would be unnecessary.] Sections to this effect are often inserted in Acts of Parliament with no other object than greater caution.

Streeten for the defendants.--If the court decide this question in the affirmative, the verdict entered for the plaintiff is to be vacated, and a verdict is to be entered for the defendants with costs. [BLACKBURN, J.-No, we adopt the other alternative, and the case must go back to Mr. Manisty. If it is proved (which does not seem to have been found as a fact) that the gas was impure, he will say how much deduction shall be made, and if that deduction covers all the amount in dispute, then the verdict will be for the defendants; otherwise it will be for the plaintiffs, for such sum as he thinks fit. It would be a monstrous injustice, and a very hard bargain for the company, that if there

[Ex.

were a single gallon of gas deficient in quality, or a grain of ammonia beyond the purity prescribed, they were to forfeit the whole.]

BLACKBURN, J.-We decide that the Act of 1860 does apply to this company, and that this case must go back to the arbitrator, to be dealt with as he thinks right.

MELLOR and LUSH, JJ. concurred.

Attorneys for plaintiffs, Curtis and Bedford. Attorneys for defendants, Capron, Dalton, and Hitchins.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Reported by T. W. SAUNDERS and H. LEIGH, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law.

Monday, April 22, 1872.

(Before KELLY, C.B., and MARTIN, BRAMWELL, and CLEASBY, BB.)

WHITECHURCH AND OTHERS v. THE EAST LONDON RAILWAY COMPANY.

Poor rate-Railway company-Rating of lands taken under compulsory powers-Liability of company to make good deficiency in rate-East London Railway Act 1865 (28 Vict. c. 7, s. 128). The defendants, under the powers given them by their special Act, had taken certain lands for the purpose of constructing various railways, one of which passed through the parish of which the plaintiffs are overseers.

66

Under sect. 128 of their Act (28 Vict. c. li, corresponding to sect. 133 of the L. C. C. Art 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18), the defendants are linie to make good the deficiency in the rates of any parish in which they shall have taken rateable property for the purposes of their railway, “unt? the railway or the works thereof are completed and assessed, or liable to be assessed to such rates." Held (dissentiente Martin, B.), by Kelly, C.B., and Bramwell and Cleasby, BB. (distinguishing Reg. v. The Metropolitan District Railway Company, L. Rep. 6 Q. B. 608; 40 L. J. 113, M. Č.), that su liability ceased as soon as such portion of the railway and works thereof as was situated in the plaintiffs' parish was completed and opened for traffic, and had thereby become rateable property. Per Martin, B., contra, Reg. v. The Metropolitan District Railway Company, in the Q. B. is directly in point and governs the present case. THIS was a special case stated for the opinion of the court by consent of the parties. The facts, as set forth in the special case, were as follows:

The plaintiffs are the Churchwardens and

Overseers of the Poor in the Parish of St. Mary, Rotherhithe, and the defendants are the East London Railway Company, incorporated by the East London Railway Act, 1865.

The company are possessed of some lands for the purposes of their Act. The lands taken in the parishes of Deptford and Rotherhithe have been appropriated to and form a completed railway, and the land taken by the company in other parishes is being used for the purpose of constructing the incompleted portions of the unfinished railways authorised by the Act. Clause of the East London Railway Act 1865 (28 Vict. c. li.). specifies the railways which the company were anthorised to make, and which said railways, when complete, are to be called the East London Railway, referred to in the said Act. They are therein described as Railways No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4,