The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-05-24 00:00:00

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.

larations they
difficulties in in Mr. I from recovering for the

In the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court
of Justice, on Monday, before Mr. Justice Field
without a jury, the action, "The Gas Light and
Coke Company v. St. Mary Abbott's, Kensington," was
concluded. _ _

The arguments in this case occup!ed the attentioh
of his lordship for the whole of last week, and the
question raised was one of some general importance,
viz., whether the defendants were entitled to use for
the repair of the roads steam rollers which injured the
plaintiffs' mains. Part of the functions exercised by
the defendants were those of surveyors of roads, and
they used two steam rollers of ten and fifteen tons
weight. The plaintiffs complained that the use of these
rollers had damaged their mains in a number of in-
stances, and they asked that there should be an injunc-
tion to restrain the defendants from using any steam
or other roller in such a way as to damage, fracture,
or injure the pipes of the plaintiffs.
Mr. Justice Field now gave judgment. He went
at length through the various Acts of Parliament
which bore upon the case, and he also referred to a
number of decided cases. He said that both parties
to the suit had co-relative duties and rights. The
plaintiffs must lay their mains with due regard to the
fact that the place had to be maintained as a street ;
they must also have regard to the pipes of the water
company, and they must in the third place have
regard to the necessary levels at which their pipes
must be, in order to secure a free and uninterrupted
current of gas passing through. The Legislature had
wisely not prescribed any depth at which gas
mains should be laid in the earth, because this
must be regulated by circumstances, and the pipes
in question, it was said, were laid in the ordinary and
usual way. It also appeared upon evidence that no
accident to gas mains would have happened under the
ordinary mode of laying the mains previous to 1872,
when steam rolllers first came into use. He thought
that nothing had occurred to restrict the plaintiffs
from recovering for the damage that had been done.
A good deal of evidence had been given as to the use
of steam rollers for the repair of roads, but he could
not say that these rollers were so absolutely necessary
and desirable that he could find any authority for
saying that the defendants might by their use damage
the property of the plaintiffs without paying compen-
sation. He came therefore to the conclusion that
the injury unwittingly inflicted by the defendants
upon the plaintiffs' property was one in respect of
which—this not in reference to all the instances
complained of —they were entitled to recover against
the defendants. The result was that judgment would
be entered for the plaintiffs for an amount of damages
to be agreed upon. Then came the important ques-
tion what injunction the plaintiffs were entitled to.
He thought that the defendants should be restrained
from using the 15-ton roller; but he could not say
whether a 10, 6, or 5-ton roller would do injury or
not, and that question must be for the defendants.
The injunction which he directed would be in
the terms of the clause to restrain the defendants
from using any steam or other rollers in such a
way as to fracture, damage, or injure the plaintiffs'
mains.

Judgment for the plaintiffs for £5 damages and
costs.

Arrangements were made to afford an oliportunity
for appealing againot tho decistou. -