Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-07 00:00:00

Snpyrin

agams
if

—not
if the let
The mag
and dism
HARD SWEARINC
vans, proceeded against a young man named Elias
both natives of Wales, for the support of her child
Pemberton was for the defence, and Mr. Bluck for the girl
The case was proved by the girl and another person, and
by four- letters alleged to have been written to her by the
defendant. He was examined, and swore in the most
solemn way that all said against him was a falsehood, but
the magistrates said they did not believe a word he said,
and made an order far 2s 6d a week. Mr. Pemberton
lodged an appeal to the decision.

i the complaint

I your

woman named Elizabetl

THE HEALTH COMMITTI

E v. WELLS

-47IPORTANT DECISION.
Mr. Mansfield gave the following judgment in this case

on Saturday :
This case was brought before the bench upon the con-
struction of the " Liverpool Bnilding Act." By that act,
sec. 67, it is provided that "No projection of any kind
shall be made in front of any buildinc, over or upon the
pavement of any street, except for shop-fronts or doorways."
The section then proceeds to specify the circumstances
under which cornices and doorways may be advanced from
the building, and deals with like matters, which it is not
now necessary to consider. The act further provides that per-
sons making default may be snmmoned before a magistrate,
and ordered to enter into a recognizance to alter or amend
their buildings within a certain time, so as to bring them
into conformity with the requisitions of the act. It is ad-
mitted by the defendant that he has constructed, at a height
of twenty-two feet from the pavement, in front of a buildinr,
called the George, in Dale-street, a balcony which projectsc
two feet six inches, and it is a question whether this is an
infringement of the act. It is contended on behalf of the
defendant that, though the words of the section be large, it
is impossible to accept them in their full and obvious mean-
ing, as that interpretation would render it impossible to set
up ordinary window-sills, which are not merely ornamental,
but of use, if not necessity, for preventing delapidation ;
and that the real object of the section was to prevent
encroachment upon the pavement, and other prejudice to the
traffic of a street. Now, it certainly may be the case that such
was the object of the clause • but the question is, whether
that object on!), is attained. Now, in interpreting an
Act of Parliament, we are bound to follovi the plain and
obvious meaning of words, unless it leads to an absurdity ;
and, in the present instance, it. is quite possible to suppose
that the Legislature might forbid sills to be constructed and
poised over the pavement while it was in the power of the
owner to avoid an enrroachment, by withdrawing the front
of his building a couple of inches, or some other small dis-
tance, from th public way, and, if this be so, such an
encroachment as that complained of would, a fortiori, be an
infringement of the act. This interpretation of the act
will, no doubt, subject owners of land, bought for building
purposes, to considerabie loss in many parts of the town,
where it is of the greatest importance to them to economise
space, and it is perhaps to be regretted, because it gives
occasion to summonses like the present, by which individuals
may he annoyed, while the public derives no tangible ad-
vantaze from the proceedings, for it is not pretended that the
passenger traffic of Dale-street can be in the slightest
deg,Tee prejudiced by the defendant's balcony, or that the
neighbourhood will be in any way damnified. But whether
the section as it stands expresses the deliberate intention of its
framers, or whether intended for our purpose, it has been so
largely worded as to be applicable to objects not contem-
plated, I am of opinion that the present case falls within its
ions meaning, and that it would be imperativ
to make its order, if the proceedings in th
onforarity with the act. Here, however, a
difficulty occurs, which I think fatal to the order. The
proceedings are in effect highly penal, and I apprehend it
is indispensable to insist upon the utmost regularity. This
has not been observed iu the present instance. The act
a notice to be given to the defendant within ten
se district surveyor, but instead of that officer it
has given the notice in this
It may he said that the defen-
heed in his defence, but that is a matter

on the benc

prescribe
days by
appears
Instance

Le Town-

dant is not p
with wb
All tit]
as prf

1 the bench has nothing to do

appren
iat we have

minister-the law

It has also been con-

tended b'

not, rea:

forty-three does
teems to say,:'and

is necessary in a case like the present. II
never, far safer not to hazard conjecturesanclt ,
refinements of construction as vironh'
of the words.' I take, then.

leObViCHis sem

ward r
section

order ; Li
which 1a

Mr. M
Mansfield

on 'l3 and in sections 67, the clear, straightfo
icr to be the true one. If the case depended.ot
I should feel myself bound to make the
as-section 43 prescribes a condition precedent
t
been fulfilled, I am of opinion the
!lust be refused. present

owan intimated that, notwithstanding Mr.
decision, the Health Committee intended to
itter to a higher court.

ton thought that there should be RomP under
pon the matter, in order to avoid such unneees:

,field said that his opinion was not founded on
but upon the Common sense view of the act.

ctus of the National Flax Company (limited.),
ed, with a proposal capital of £200,000, In

shares 01 zi cuvu.
To SnIPPERS AND EXPORTERS.—A most profitable
article of export, to warm climates especially, are the
Self-cleansing Charcoal Filters, patented by Messrs.
Saunders and Co., of 16, Parker-street, Liverpool—in
fact they arc invatttable wherever there is bad water.
S. and Co. allow a liberal discount on export and whole-
Sale ord. re.