The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-06-29 00:00:00

A CASE OF INTEREST TO CORPORATE

TOWNS.

In the Court of Error in the Exchequer Chamber, the
cause of 'Anthony v. the Brecon Market company," has
been heard, which case raised a question of son e import-
ance as to the Melts and posers of corporations and
corporate bodies under Local Acts, with reference to the
provisions of the Towns Improvement alld Public Health
Ac!.l:

I he corporation of Brecon, one of the most ancient
in the kingdom, had a right to various tolls for fairs
and markets, and as it was thought desirable that they
should have power to provide slatighter-houses, such
power was given by a local Act. The Corpora-
tion, however, got into difficulties, and became a
grasi deal indebted, and it was thought that the
tolls and profits were not properly collected,
and would be turned more to advantage if they
were all vested in a private body. In 1862, there-
fore, a company was constituted with that object,
called the Brecon M:trket Company which had an
absolute power to set up a market, and also a power,
with the consent of the corporation, testified by the
mayor and town clerk, to erect and let slaughter-
house=, to be erected as near as possible to the cattle
mai ket. The consent was to be given by the Town
Council, and tAined by the town clerk and in 1863, in
pursuance of the Act, after such a consent had been
given, slaughter-him-es were erected by the Market
Company, and one of them was let to Anthony, the
plaintiff, who proceeded to use it. He was interfered
with, however, in the use of it by the Inspector of

Nuisances, who would, of course, have no right
to interfere if the hcuses were duly licensed under the
Towns Improvement Act of 1847, and the Health Act.
But it was denied that they were so licensed by the
Board of Health, which was, in fact, the Corporation
acting by the Town Council, the very same body as had
granted the consent to erect the slaughter-houses. The
plaintiff, the tenant of the slaughter-heuse, sued the
company who had let it to him forhaving let it without
due title to do so. The Court of Exchequer decided in
his favour, on theground that thelecal Act had nothing
to do with sanitary objects, which were the scope of
the Improvement and Health Acts. From that judg-
ment the company appealed.
The case was argued on Tuesday by Mr. Dowdes-
well, Q.C. (with him Mr. Hughes), for the company,
and by Mr. Giffard, Q.C. (with him Mr. J. Bees), for
the plaintiff.
The argument lasted all day, and the Court took
thee to consider their judgment.
Mr. Justice Wiles the following day delivered the
unanimous judgment of the Curt, reversing the judg-
ment of the Court below, and deciding in favour of the
c.enpany, on the ground that the consent given by the
Corporation to the erection of the slaughter houses
under the local Act was in effect a licence of the Cor-
poration, acting as a Board of Health under the
public Acts. The consent of the Corporation
was required under the local Act, bee Inge slaughter-
houses might be nuisances, and the Corporation, as
representing the inhabitants, were interested in their
health. Therefore it was that their consent was re-
quired under the local Act, and this Court could not
follow the Court of Exchequer in that view, which was
the foundation of its judgment, that the provision in
the local Act which required the consent of the Cor-
poration had nothing to do with sanitary objects, for
there was no other object which was answered by
requiring that consent. The object, then, of the
consent required under the local Act was the same
as the licences required under the public Acts to
erect and use slaughter-houses. To suppose that it
was intended that there should be separate licences,
one to erect, and the other to use, was too great
a subtlety. The object, then, of the consent under
the local Act was the same as the licence under
the public Acts, and the effect was the same. The
consent also was granted by the same body as the
licence—that is, the Corporation acting in the Town
Council. This being so, the Court considered that the
consent which had been given here under the local Act
was a licence under the public Acts, and, there-
fore that the slaughter-houses were duly licensed
under the public acts. It might be that, though
legally erected and licensed to be used, they might be
so used as to be converted into nuisances, and, if so,
they would come under other provisions as to the sup•
pression of nuisances. But this was no to be pre-
sumed, and the proper m emeeption was rather the
reverse—that they would be duly and properly used.
The judgment of this Court was that they might be
so used, and were duly liceneed for the purpose, and
that being no the jedgment of the Court of Exchequer
moot be reversed, and the judgment must be entered
for the company.
Mr. Justice Blackburn concurred ; but desired it to
be understood that the Court had not decided a very
important question—whether, when there was any
such public body as this Market Company established
within a corporate town in which the Public Health
and Improvement Acts had been established it would
be under the control of the gcverning bodies established
under those Public Acts, Boards of Health, Local
Government Boards, and the like. This Court only
decided in the present case whether or not the consent
of the Corporation was required, it was really given in
this case, as the consent under the local Act was the
licence under the public Acts.
Mr. Justice Keating said he concurred entirely in
the judgment of Mr. Justice Wiles, both in its reason-
ing and its result.
Mi. Justice Mellor also said lie concurred.
. . _

Mr. Justice Byles had retired from the court.
Mr. Justice Lush and Mr. Justice Brett concurred.
Judgment reversed.