The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-11-22 00:00:00

THE ROAD DISPUTE IN BRETTELL LANE.

At a special sessiens, held at Brierley Hill,
on Monday last, before Messrs. J. Kiteley, E.
Morton, and R. Woodwaxd, Richard Worrell sum-
moned the survoyors of Brierley Hill, Bromley,
Wordsley, Quarry Bank, and Brockmoor to show
cause whh they did not repair and maintain a cer-
tain road 412 yards long and 29 feet wide, situate
between Mouse Brook Entry and Hawbush Farm
Road, mud alleged by the prosecution to be in the
parish of Kingewinford.
The road has been in a bad state of repair for
some considerable time past, and as none of the
local authorities will admit their liability to re-
pair and maintain the road, some of the inhabit-
ants started an agitation which has resulted in the
present proceedings. Each of the several sur-
veyors deny that the road in question is in his
district.

Mr. Young (instructod by Mr. Addison), ap-
peared to support the sututnons; Mr. Underhill
(instructed by Messrs. Houifray and Holberton),
appeared for the Brierley Hill Local Board; Mr.
Bosauquet (instructed by Mr. Chilow), app..?ared
for 11=lcmoor • M. U-Asy a ',neared for Words
lei; and Mr. Preeoott for Mr. David I's7nuL

1, .4

The proceedings were taken under the Highway
Act, 1835, and Mr. Young said he understood cer-
tain proeeedings were taken some weeks back
under the 58th section (6 and 6 William IV., cap.
50), but after taking advice of counsel, it was
thought the action could not be sustained. He
should proceed under the 94th sectien, and, if
necessary, the 95th also, and if he carried his
point an ;indictment would have to be found
against the defendants, and the case would go
before a tribunal which should decide who was
actually responsible for the repairs of this road.
The 94th section went on to say that at the special
I sessions" the justices are to appoint some compe-
tent person who shall view the road and report
thereon, or the justices could, if they liked, visit.
the road themselves.
Mr. Underhill urged that the summonses were
altogether bad. The parish of Kingswinford had
been divided into different districts, having differ-
ent Local Boards and Highway Boards. In fact,
the parish had been sub-divided into districts but
his friend had classed them altogether in the sum-
mons.
Mr. Young I have nothing to do with the
parish being sub-dived.
Mr. Underhill: That was his friend's conten-
tion, but in order to proceed properly he must
fix ualin some Board or Surveyor. His friend had
no right to say that originally the whole formed
one parish of Kingswinford, and the defendants
must fight it out and say which of them was
liable. If there was any liability, it was not for
the defendants to show which of them was liable'.
The section said, t• The surveyor of the parish
shall be summoned;' but there was no snrveyor of
the parish. There were surveyors for some parts
I of the parish.
I Mr. Young repeated that the parish having been
, broken up into divisions, must not affect the in-
terests of the public. •
Mr. Homf ray differed entirely from Mr. Young's
interpretation of the clause, and raised a similar
objection to that taken by Mr. Underhill.
The Bench asked Mr. Young to show them the
boundary Ii eof the parish on a map producel,
and after inspecting it.
Mr.Kiteley said : Which parish does the 412
yards in question belong ?
Mr. Youef; They all dispute it.
Mr. Kiteley : You appear here to uphold the
summons, a 4we call upon you to show which
district this land is in.
Mr. Young Ido not know, and Ido not care.
The parish at large is liable for the repairs.
Mr. Young then argued at great length that
the Magistrates were bound to direct :a bill of in-
dictment to be filed at the Assizes against the de-
fendants, because they denied their liability.
The law did not allow the Magistrates to settle
it.
In reply to the Bench, all the legal gentlemen
engaged by the defendants denied that the road
was in the parish of Kingsninford.
James Gitting,s, assistaut-overseer, was the
first witness called, and he said he knew the piece
of land in question. from Mouse Brook Entry to
Hawbush Farm. Kingswinford parish adjoined
the boundary on the right-hand side of the road
from Brierley Hill, and Amblecote on the other.
Did not know what parish the footpath was in.
Cross-examined by Mr. Prescott: I am 31 years
old. Have known the road froth 10 to 15 yea's.
The road ceased to be a turnpike-road about 2
years. Cannot say that a public meeting has been
held, called to adopt the road.
Mr. Prescott contended that a public meeting
should have been called to adopt the road.
Mr. Merridith was the next witness called, but
was objected to on the ground that he was a our-

veyor.
Benjamin Cooper said : I am an agent, and live
at Brett4ll Lane. I have known the road in ques-
tion for more than 50 years. It has been used as
a highway to Stourbridge. The right-hand side
was always in the parish of Kingswinford. I
lived there for 10 years, and paip poor and high-
way rates to the parish of Kingswinford. I lived
on the other side for many years. Cannot say the
exact boundary.
Richard Worral said he knew the road in dis-
pute. It was about 500 yards long. On the 28th
of July the road was in a bad state, and he helped
to repair it. One side of the road was in good
order. The road was used as a public road.
William Whittaker, car proprietor, said he knew
Robert Drake, who acted as surveyor for Brock-
moor; William Merridith, Wallheath ; David
Parsons, Bromley; Josiah Beckley, Brierley ;
and John Fletcher, Quarry Bank; all surveyors in
the parish of Kingswinford.
0. cross .7 ami-mtion, witness admitted that
there was no surveyor for the whole parish of
Kingswie.lr:', but only for the different districts:
William Hinton, collector of highway rates for
Bromley eistrict, said that David Pareons was the
surveyor for Bromley.
Mr. Bosanquet, in addressing the Bench on be-
half of Brockmoor district, concluded that it had
been proved th..t both sides of the road were out
of repair, and, that being the case, the proper
course would have been to institute proceedings
under the 58th section of the Act. He further
urged that, inasmuch as the proceeding having
been previously taken by a man of substance, but
now by a man who was in effect a pauper, the
Bench ought to dismiss the information.
Mr. Homfray followed in a similar strain, and
the Bench then retired for consultation.
After an absence of about half-an-hour, they re-
turned into Court, and said they had decided to
nominate a surveyor to inspect the road, and re-
port upon it. The case, therefore, would be ad-
journed till that day three weeks. The surveyor
they would nominate would be Mr. Wooldridge,
of Stourbridge.
The case lasted about six hours.