The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDO.N, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 5, 1866.

waited another year or two before coming to terms
with the London, Chatham, and Dover. Even if
this undertaking began seriously to stint the traffic
and aggravate the working expenses, it is not the
less certain that an enormous outlay had been in-
curred by the South-Eastern upon metropolitan and
Kentish extensions, and that terms were concluded
with the rival network before the utility of those
extensions had been tested as a means of dealing
more effectively with the competition offered. The
result is this :—Eight or ten years since the South-
Eastern was a prosperous company, with a brilliant
future. Ever since it has been taking upon its back
burdens grievous to be borne, while it has now ap-
peared as a kind of ally of the very undertaking which
it has been endeavouring to crush. This is generally
the case with foolish railway contentions ; after end-
less wranglings in committee-rooms, and frantic
struggles out of doors,kompeting companies become
loving friends, and make a submissive public pro-
vide, in heavy rates and fares, an interest of some
kind upon their lavish and unnecessary expenditure.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

some empty waggons in the goods yard ; but, for-
tunately, it was not necessary to carry this plan
out. The prompt action of Gilchrist and Baty was
most commendable, and they are certainly entitled
to the thanks of the directors for what they did.—
Newcastle Chronicle.

The Metropolitan Building Act,

Mr. Rigby, builder, appeared before Mr. Knox,
at the Marlborough-street Police-court, to answer a
summons taken out by Mr. Kendall, district sur-
veyor, for not complying with certain requirements
of the Metropolitan Building Act in the rebuilding
of Saville-house, Leicester-square.
Mr. Raymond, instructed by the solicitor of the
Metropolitan Board of Works, appeared to support
the summons and Mr. Sleigh was for the defen-
dant.

After hearing the arguments of counsel,
Mr. Knox said— Saville-house was burnt down on
Feb. 20, 1865, and of the bUilding after the fire
there remained the two party or west and east walls,
partially damaged by the action of the fire, the front
or south wall tuwards Leicester-square, and the
northern walls of the building, also to a considerable
extent injured by the fire; indeed, the north wall
of the front building was wellnigh wholly destroyed.
The roof and floors were gone, and for all practical
nurposes connected with the discussion of the sum-
mons it may be said broadly that the interior of the
building was destroyed by the fire. Of Saville-
house nothing remained but the dilapidated shell.
With this exception, Saville-house was left by the
fire a mere heap of ruin. Now, the law is, that
" wherever any one building has been taken down
to an extent exceeding one-half of such building,
such half to be measured in cubic feet, the rebuilding
thereof shall be deemed to be the erection of a new
building, and every portion of such old building that
is not in conformity with the regulations of this act
shall be forthwith taken down." These are the very
words of the act ; but though the terms used by the
Legislature would appear at first sight to be clear
and explicit enough, yet, as it has turned out, almost
every phrase has become the subject of keen and
anxious discussion. The most important questions
raised are three in number :-1. What is a building
for the purpose of the act; 2. What extension, if
any, should be given to the term used in the act of
"pulled down ;" 3. How should we proceed in order
to measure the contents of a building in cubical feet.
Other minor points have been raised, but upon the
conclusion I may arrive at under the three heads
just named my decision must turn. First, then,
what is a building ? Is it a shell—the four outer
walls ; or is it these with the addition of the floors
and roof ; or is it all these, and whatever else is
contained within these six limits? I see no reason
for any variance between the conclusions of com-
mon sense and usage and the conclusions at which
I must arrive, after a careful perusal of this
statute, as to the intentions of the Legisla-
ture. As far as may be, I would let the statute
interpret itself wherever we are left to seek the
intentions of the Legislature, without help from the
preliminary definitions. In the present case, how-
ever, definitions do help usin an indirect way. I find
among them that "the area of every building shall
be deemed to be the superficies of a horizontal sec-
tion of such building, made at the point of its
greatest surface, including the external walls and
such portion of the party walls as belong to the
building." Here, then, the external walls and party
walls are spoken of by the framers of the act in such
a way as must preclude the idea that they looked
upon the shell of the building and the building as
identical. It may, perhaps, at this point be best to
add that I have not considered it necessary to go at
any length into the discussion as to the attached
buildings, inasmuch as, though the point were found
for the defendant, it would not better his case. I
should, however, add that on personal inspection the
attached buildings did not exceed the height of the
ground flooring, and, therefore, cannot be taken
into acccount in increase of the cubical contents.
Next, when can a building be said to be pulled
down? Is it necessary, as contended by the learned
counsel for the defendant, that the meaning must
be confined to occasions where a building has been
pulled down by the hands of workmen acting under
competent direction and of set purpose ? or does it
mean if a building is levelledwith the ground by the
act of God, as by lightning ? or, as with Saville-
house, if destroyed by fire ? or even if it should fall
to the ground by sheer decay, that then it should not
be re-erected in conformity with the provisions of
the act ? Surely such an absurdity could never have
been intended, as that if a ruinous building should
tumble down because it was ruinous that it should
be sufficient to restore it to the condition in which

it was the moment before it fell. I have little of my
own to add to what was urged by the learned coun-
sel for the complainant on this point. I do not con-
sider the act under review as a penal act, although
it contains penalties. It is an act intended for the
protection of the public out of regard for existing in-
terests, it does not, save as far as the provisions for
" dangerous structures" are concerned, interfere
with old buildings ; but, when they are once down,
it enacts they shall be re-erected in conformity with
the provisions of the act. It is a statute that should
be read liberally for the public protection. Such, I
feel sure, was the meaning of the Legislature, and
although the term used might have been more com-
prehensive, it is, I think, sufficient to justify the
view that when an old building is once down any
re-erection snould be considered as within the mean-
ing of the section of the act now under review. Sa-
ville-house, then, is a building—an old building—
which has been " pulled down" within the meaning
of the act. I now come to the third point, which is
as to how the cubical contents of a building should

be measured. I should have thought this plain
enough, according to the calculation of height,
length, and breadth in the usual way. I cannot but

say that, as it seems to me, a good deal of somewhat

perverse ingenuity has been employed in making
that obscure which is sufficiently clear. lam not

here to inquire into the methods of calculation

employed by professional men, save in so far as I
ask myself if they or any of them carry out the in-
tentions of the Legislature. If they do this lam sa-
tisfied. If not, I reject them. I say that what
must be calculated is not the solid contents of the
containing limit, less the roof and floor, but that it
must include the space contained within these limits.
Take advantage of the shell as an instrument of cal-
culation, it is little more. The methods propounded
by the district surveyor, and Mr. Nelson, the archi-
tect of the building, appear to me equally faulty,
inasmuch as both of them ignore the proportions of
the building contained within the walls, as floors,
roofs, staircases, &c. The district surveyor has, I
think, withdrawn his calculation as based on a faulty
method, and he has done well. Of Mr. Nelson's

plan it is sufficient to say that its result is a reductio
ad absurdum. That gentleman appears to have
proved to his own satisfaction that half of Saville-

house is standing. I can only say I was there last

week, and I saw several large portions of the build-

ing represented by walls in aru-inous condition. One

portion of a party wall had received a new facing,
__ .

but I cannot say I had any very robust confidence
as to what lay beneath. The fire must have
acted very partially indeed if it treated three of
the walls in so unhandsome a way and left the

fourth in a sound condition. But to return to the

more immediate subject. The method propounded
by Mr. Reeves, the Surveyor to the Metropolitan
Commissioners of Police, has this advantage, that it

actually takes account of the cubical contents of the
building, and does so in a satisfactory and scientific
way, which cannot, as I think, be impeached. If,
then, I am right in the view that the term " build-
ing" in the act means the " entire building," and
not merely the shell, it is obvious that, upon Mr.
Reeves's method, very considerably more than half
the building is gone. Saville-house must be recon-

strutted according to the conditions imposed by the

Act of Parliament, and every portion of such build-

ing which is not in conformity with the provision of
the Act now under review must be taken down.

Judgment must, then, go for the district surveyor,
which will be in the form of an order to comply
with the requisitions of the summons in the usual

Mr. Sleigh said he would take a case under the
106th section.

Mr. Knox—You are at liberty to do so, provided
the points raised are purely points of law. The only
point before me is as to the meaning of the words
" taken down." The builder will, of course, give
security for costs, and an undertaking to desist in
the meantime from all works the subject of discus-
sion in the present summons.