The Express.
London, England, 1861-05-09 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURT&

Mr. Clarks Caut,;,—these7reta;;Of the London Ns.
tract Telegraph Company, Cannon-street, City, appeared
before Mr. Ingham, to answer the complaint of the Fulham
Beard of Works, for unlawfully placing certain wired and
other apparatus along Shepherd's-bush and Brook-green-
lane, without the consent in writing of the authorities
having control over the paths.
Mr. J. Bird attended in support of the summons, and
said these proceedings bad been taken in a friendly spirit
by both sides, and the defendant had agreed to leave tt to
his worship to say whether the company had meted tightly
or wrongly, and were willing to abide the deidelos of
the court. The works of the company d been tallied
out under the British Telegraph Company's Act, and it con-
tained a clause to the effect that it shall not be lawful for
any company to suspend wires, &c., in any public
highway without the consent in writing of the
persons having control of the same.
The defendant said the whole question turned on the ewe-
meet in writing. The company had served the board with •
notice of their intention to break open the roads and paths
OD a particular day, and when their surveyor maw the board's
surveyor, be told him it was all right, go a-head, or words
to that effect. In consequeoceSf the hard frost setting in,
their works were suspended, but directly the weather broke,
the men proceeded to put up the poles in the manner once-
plained of. The parish considered they ought to have sent
them a second notice, but their surveyor telling their (the
compan)'s) officer that it was all right, they proceeded with
the works. As a role they obtained the consent in writing
of the authorities, but in this particular case, having the
approval of the surveyor, they looked upon it as being
tantamount to a consent in writing.
Mr. Ingham said there the defendant was wrong, for the
surveyor could not repeal an act of parliament. His worship
then asked Yr. Bird what objection there was to the poles
sod wires.. . .

Mr. itird said they were an eyesore, and were an obetruz.
lion to the footpath, besides being a nuisance.
Mr. Ingham inquired what power there was in the act for
their removal

Mr. Bird said the act did not provide any power to
trove.re-
_ The case would come under the common law.

Mr. Ingham told the defendant that no doubt • violation
of the lrfliad been committed.
. . . .

The defendant Baud had asked the surveyor
for hie written content at the time, he would have given it
to them. _ .

Mr. Ingham said they could not waive an set of parlia-
ment, even if all the notabilities of Hammersmith had met
and told them to go on. They were bound to have had the
consent in writine of the proper persons.
Mr. Bird maid the poles were not only an obstruction but
dangerous. A short time ago the wind blew one of them
down across the road, and an accident would have occurred
to a heavily laden vehicle, if it had not been seen by the
police, who cut the wire and removed it.
Mr. Ingham would suppose a post blew down and knocked
a man on the head end killed bun, the person who erected
it would be liable to be tried for manslaughter, as it was put
up without lawful consent.
The defendant said he was quite aware they had done
wrong in not having the consent in writing, but they thought
it unnecessary after what bed fallen from the surveyor.
Mr. Ingham suggested an arrangement between the par-
ties, which was agreed to.
Mr. Bird asked for a nominal conviction, which Mr. Ing-
ham consented to inflict, and accordingly imposed a fine of
le., and 2s. cede.

The money was paid, and the defendant promised to lay
the matter before the directors, to obtain their consent to
placing the wires under ground inetead of above.