The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-05-03 00:00:00

ARE "PASSAGES" STREETS?

The case of "Souch o the East London Railway Com-
pany" has been heard before Vice-ch, ncellor Sir R. Malin',
and was a motion on behalf of the E it London Railway
Company to dissolve an Injunction which was granted against
them on the 11.11 of October last by the Vice-Cdancellor, as
Vacation Judge, on the ex parte application of the plalatiff.
Tee plaintiff lithe odner of an oblong block of land, with
16 houses thereon, situate in the parish of St. Paul's, Shod.
well, and bounded on the west by Victoria-street. Be-
tween the houses runs a passage about 6 ft. in width,
called 'Victoria-place, which is a cut de vac opening only
Into Victoria-street. The Eut London Railway Company
are constructing an underground line of railway for
connecting the Surrey and liltddlesex sides of the Thames
by utilizing the existing "Thames Taunt]." The line is
Intended to pass by a tunnel ander Victoria palace and ex
of the plaintiff s houses adjoining, and the company had
given him notice that they required to purl:me the houses
proposed to be interfered with by the railway, but had not
given him any notice to purchase any part of the passage,
which he alleges to be his private property. The company,
however, conteubd that although the passage was a cut de
sac it was a putp.ic way or "Street" within the meaning of
tee Acts relating to railways, and that, therefore, they
were entitled to take it and the a di with it without paying
any conitensation. The plaintiff according filed a bill to
restrain the eon:nary from entering upon, taking, or using
any part of the passage without giving him due notice as
required by the Loads Clauses Consolidation Act, and making
him proper compensation for that part of the passage re-
quired by them, and upon an application made to his Honour
as above-mentioned an Injunction WWI granted in the term,
of the prayer of the bill.

Mr. look, Q(, and Mr. William Fooks appeared for the
company in support of the present m“tion.

Mr. Cotton, Q C.. and Mr. Alfred Bailey, for the plaintiff,
contended that the company had no power to take the soil
under the surface without paying him compensation. It
the passage was a "street,' ail that had been d, dicattd to
the use ot the public was the olltlikea ; the soil under it WWI
still the property of the plaintiff.
The Vice-Chancellor atid that if the plaintiff could make
nut the passage to be private property, he ought to be paid
for it. Ile quite agreed that companies ouaht to be kept within
their strict powers, but he did not think they were nailed
upon to abandon reasonable views of their rights. In this
case the company had become the owners of three houses
on each side of the passage, and they wanted to tunnel
from one side to the other, but the plaintiff resisted
their claim to do Mb, saying that the soil under the sur-
face of the passat e was his. Now, suppose he was right,
and that the company proceeded to tunnel under it.
When the tunnel had been made the surface would be re.
stored, and could any one then say that he bad suffered any
damage? If he was entitled I. compensation at all, he
ought to take a reasonable view of the case. The company
had offered to bring any reasonable sum into court, sod that
the plaintiff had declined. What, then, were his rights? He
had been surprised to hear it argued that • cal-dc sae such
as this was not a street. No one doubted that -• Thavies "
Inn, Ely-place, Stratton-street, Piccadilly, and many other
places in London of the stun e kind, which were only open at
one end, were "streets." This passage had been dedicated
to the public upwards of 20 years, and the public had a per-
fect right to use it as a street. Though carts and car-
riages could not pass up it, Oct it was perfectly open to
foot pastengers Ile had no doubt whatever that this was
• public way, and that the company had as much right to
tunnel under It as under any other public way. As the
plaintiff declined to take a reasonable view of the case,
he should dissolve the injunction and leave hini to assert
his rights in the best way he could.