A digest of the law relating to public health and local government : with notes of 1073 leading cases, various official documents, precedents of by-laws and regulations, the statutes in full, a table of offences and punishments, ample indexes, &c / by George F. Chambers.
- George Frederick Chambers
- Date:
- 1875
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: A digest of the law relating to public health and local government : with notes of 1073 leading cases, various official documents, precedents of by-laws and regulations, the statutes in full, a table of offences and punishments, ample indexes, &c / by George F. Chambers. Source: Wellcome Collection.
139/556 page 117
![his own judgment. (40 L. J., C. P., 89 : L. E,., 6 C. P., 87 : 24 L. T., 100.) 1864. [81] 8t. George s, Hanover Square, Vestry v. Sparrow. Building Line—Held that it is for the Magistrate to decide whether a structui'e complained of is within the Act—Held also that the Architect's certificate as to the line is not final. (Metropolis.) (33 L. J., M. C, 118: 16 C. B. (n. s.), 209 : 10 L. T., 504.) [See Bauman v. St. Pancras Vestry.^ 1858. [82] Tear v. Freehody. A Building LLrie need not be a strict mathematical line, but a substantially regular line suffices— Old Building defined to be a building the walls of which were carried higher than the footiags—Voting at Meetings. (MetropoUs.) (4 C. B. (n. s.), 228 : [Sear v. Sfc.'] 31 L. T. (o. s.), 131.) 1868. _ [83] Wandsworth B. W. v. Hall. A New Building must be erected within the existing Building Line if erected without consent, and this notwithstanding that the Building Line has not been prescribed—■ A Magistrate may order a Building thus improperly erected to be demolished. (Metropolis.) (^8 L. J., M. C, 69: L. E., 4 C. P., 8s : 19 L. T., 641.) 1874. [84] Wilson V. Cunliffe. Local Act—Building Line—A greengrocer's tray when let down had for 30 years projected beyond the wall of the house—Held that the line of the tray, and not the line of the wall, must be taken as the Budding Line, and that, therefore, there was no encroachment. (29 L. T., 913: 38 J. P., 231.) Buildings, Definition of. 1854- [85] Arnell v. Regents Canal Co. Local Act—Eepair of a Bridge over Canal—A parapet wall held not to be a Building. (23 L. J., C. P., 155: 14 C. B., 564: 23 L. T. (o. s.), 95.) 1863. [86] Ashby V. Woodthorpe. Two adjacent houses with an opening in a party wall held to be one Building for the purposes of the building regulations of the Metropolitan Building Act. (^3 L. J., M. C, 68 : 9 L. T., 409.) 1872. [87] AucMand (Lord) v. Westminster B. W. Local Act— Vacant Ground does not include the site of buildings recently pulled down. (41 L. J., Ch. 732: L. E., 7 Ch. App. 598: 26 L. T., 961.) 1870. _ [88] Bowes V. Law. Meaning of the word Buildings in a covenant not to erect Buildings —Qucere, Is a wall a Building ? (s9 L. J., Ch. 483 : L. E., gEq., 636: 22L. T., 267.) 1873. [89] Hohis V. Bance. By-Laws—Old Stable ptdled down and re-bunt partly on a different site—Held to be a new BuUding —Question of fact. (43 L. J., M. C, 21: L. E., 9 C. P., 30: 29 L. T., 687 : 38 J. P., 56.) 1858. [90] Poplar B. W. v. Knight. A Marsh Wall held to be a Sewer—A house built on the surface of the ground without any excavation is, nevertheless, a BuUding as to which notice must be given. (Metropolis.) (28 L. J., M. C, 37: E. B. & E., 408: 31 L. T. (o. s.), 175.) 1859- [91] Stevens v. Gourley. A large and substantial wooden structiu-e, though erected without footings or masoni-y foundations, held to be a Buildiug. (29 L. J., C. P., I : 7 C. B. (N. S.), 99 : I F. & F., Burials. 1867. [92] Foster v. Dodd. A dead body is under the protection of the public—An indecent disinterment, even by an order of a Secretary of State, is indictable. (^7 L. J., Q. B., 28: L. E., 3 Q. B.,67 : 8 B. & S., 842 : 17 L. T., 614.) 187.^ [93] Greenwood v. Wadsworth. 18 & 19 Vict., c. 128, § 9— The prohibition of Bm-ial Grounds witliin 100 yards of a house applies to all such grounds, whether public or private. (43 L. J., Ch. 78 : L. E., 16 Eq., 288 : 29 L. T., 88 : 38 J. P., 116.) 1840. [94] Reg. V. Stennett. Held that the Overseers of a Parish are not responsible for the bm-ial of a pauper dying in a hospital. (10 L.J., M. C, 40 : [_Reg. V. Stewart^ 12 A. & E., 773: 4 P. & D., 349.) By-Iiaws. (l.) BUILDING. 1872. [95] Adams V. Bromley L. B. Local Government Act 1858, § 34—By-Law as to open space—Dwarf fence held to be an Erection infringing the By-Law. (37 J. P., 662.) 1863. [96] Anderton v. Birlcenhead. By-Laws—Breadth of open space in rear of a building to be everywhere at least the minimum specified. (32 L. J., M. C, 1^7 : [Anderton v. Righy'] 13 C. B. (n. s.), 603.) 1862. ' [97] Brown v. Holyhead L. B. Local Government Act, 1858, § 34—Validity of a By-Law—Pulling down a wall alleged to have been erected in contraven- tion of a By-Law—By-Law held invalid because ultra vires. (32 L. J., Ex., 25 : i H. & C, 601 : 7 L. T., 332.) ^ ^ 1864. [98] Burgess v. Peacock. Local Government Act, 1858, § 34—By-Law designed to apply to buildings erected liefore the constitution of the district, held invalid. (x6 C. B. (n. s.),624: 10 L. T.,617.) 1863. [99] Cooper V. Wandsworth B. W. Statutory right to de- molish on neglect by a Builder to give notice of intention to build—Builder to have an ox^portunity of being heard. (Metropolis.) (^2 L. J., C. P., 185 : 14 C. B. (n. s.), 180 : 8 L. T.,' 278.) 1866. [100] Hattersley v. Burr. (4 H. & C, 523.) [Effect of de- cision set aside by subsequent legislation.] 1873. [loi] Marshall v. Smith. Local Government Act, 1858, § 34—By-Law—Held that a person is not grdlty of a continuing offence because he suffers a party- wall to remain unaltered. (42 L. J., M. C, 108: L. E., 8 C. P., 416: 28 L. T., 538 : 37 J. P., 471-) 1874. [102] Middleshorough Town Council v. Potts. Building By- Laws—Non-compliance with deposited plans— Posts and beams made smaller than shown on plans—Defendant convicted. (Local Gov. Chron., Oct. 31, 1874.) 1865. [103] Pearson v. Ktngston-upon-Hull L. B. H. Local Gov- ernment Act, 1858, § 34—Local Act—Building before plans were approved—Using a building without the consent of the Board— Back-yard or other vacant ground or area. (^^ L. J., M. C, 36 : 3 H. & C, 921 : 13 L. T., 180.) 1864. [104] Reg. V. Carruthers. Eules as to the construction of Public Buildings—Chm-ch exempt. (Metropolis.)](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b20386643_0139.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
