The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-05-15 00:00:00

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.

In tike High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), before
the. Master of the Rolls, the cause of the "Attorney-General
v. Mayor of Leeds" has been heard.—The case is thus re-
ported in The Ti2llCB

This information and action raised an important
question as to the construction of a Local Improve-
ment Act. It was a claim to restrain the defendants,
the Mayor and Corporation of -Leeds, from opening
the Rounda,y-park, at Leeds, in an illegal manner, and
not permitted by the Leeds Improvement Act, 1872.
What the defendants had done was to exclude the
public on the 30th of August last from entering gra-
tuitously, as usual, and to let the same to the Leeds
Swimming Club for a gala, the public being ad-
mitted on payment of 6d. The entrance fees were
paid to -officers of the swimming club, but were subse-
quently divided in certain proportions between the
club and the corporation. The words of section 35 of
the above Act was as follows :

"The corporation may, from time to time, and on such
occasions as they think fit, not exceeding in all ten days in
the year, close any park or place of public use or recreation
on the Roundhay-park eittale, under their control, against
the public, and may on such occasions admit to ally such
park or place the members a any society, or of any public
or private institution, or persons being attendants at or
supported by any public or private institution, or such
other persons as the corporation think fit, and the admission.
of every individual to any such park or place on such occa-
sions may be either with or without payment, as directed by
the corporation."

The Roundhay-park is a place of- public recreation
within the meaning of the Leeds Improvement Act,
1866, and is in general open free to the public. The
contention on the part of the plaintiff was that the
park on the day in question was not in fact closed to
the public, and therefore that the closing did not come
within that allowed by the section. It was submitted
that the section was only intended to apply to mem-
bers of a Foresters' fête for iristance' who might be
admitted with or without payment, but that the words
"such other persons," did not in fact contemplate the
admission of the public on payment.
Mr. Davey, Q.C., and Mr. Chapman Barber ap-
peared for the plaintiff and informant ; Mr. Bagshawe,
Q.C., Mr., Chitty, Q.C., and Mr. Bunting, for the
defendants, were not called upon.
The Master of the Rolls was of opinion that, under
the powers vested in the corporation by the Act of
1866, the public had a right to a free and gratuitous
user of the park, and that it was only under the later
Act that the corporation had the power to exclude
the public. He considered that if the corporation im-
posed a money payment, they did in fact, exclude the
Public; and that under the first part of section 35 they
might have been enjoined if -they had taken a money
payment. The later words allowed certain classes to be
admitted on the days when the public was excluded, and
the section allowed "such other persons as the corpor-
ation should think it," also to be admitted; and those
words in his opinion, were perfectly general and
would include those members of the public paying for
admittance. It Was said that if the defendants let in.
all persons who paid Gd. they in fact let in the public;
but to his mind any special qualification, sucn as
being member of an Odd Fellows Society or the wear-
ing of a chaplet of roses (to reduce it to an absurdity),
or a mcrieY payment would be sufficient to make it an
exclusion of the public. In his opinion the defendants
were plainly authorized by -the Act of Parliament in
in what they had done and the action must be dis-
missed with costs.