The Commissioners of The Township of Kingstown v The Blackrock Township Commissioners
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 13 January 1876 |
Date | 13 January 1876 |
Court | Court of Chancery (Ireland) |
Chancery.
Attorney-General v. Leeds CorporationELR L. R. 5 Ch. App. 583.
Attorney-General v. Colney Hatch Lunatic AsylumELR L. R. 4 Ch. App. 146, 160.
Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Improvement CommissionersELR L. R. 1 Eq. 169; 1 Ch. App. 349.
Hayward v. LowndesENR 4 Drew. 454.
Grand Junction Canal Company v. ShugarELR L. R. 6 Ch. App. 483.
The North Union Railway Company v. The Bolton and Preston Railway CompanyUNK 3 Rail Cas.355.
London and North-Western Railway Company v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyELR L. R. 4 Eq. 174.
Clowes v. Staffordshire Potteries Waterworks CompanyELR L. R. 8 Ch. App. 142.
Mulville v. Fallon I. R. 6 Eq. 464.
Attorney-General v. Sheffield Gas Consumers CompanyENR 3 De G. M. & G. 323.
Attorney-General v. Leeds CorporationELR L. R. 5 Ch. App. 583, 594.
Attorney-General v. Colney Hatch Lunatic AsylumELR L. R. 4 Ch. App. 146, 155.
Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Improvement CommissionersELR L. R. 1 Ch. App. 349, 554.
Attorney-General v. GeeELR L. R. 10 Eq. 131.
Attorney-General v. Council of Borough of BirminghamENR 4 K. & J. 528, 540.
Attorney-Gneral v. Cockermouth Local BoardELR L. R. 18 Eq. 172, 179.
Attorney v. Colney Hatch Lunatic AsylumELR L. R. 4 Ch. App. 149 (note).
Nuneaton Local Board v. General Sewage CompanyELR L. R. 20 Eq. 127, 133.
The North Union Railway Company v. The Bolton and Preston Railway CompanyUNK 3 Rail. Cas. 345.
London and N.-W. Railway Co. v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co.ELR L. R. 4 Eq. 174.
Goodson v. RichardsonELR L. R. 9 Ch. App. 221.
Mulville v. Fallon I. R. 6 Eq. 458.
Frewin v. Lewis 4 M. & C. 249, 254.
Oldaker v. HuntENR 6 De G. M. & G. 376.
The Attorney-General v. The Council of the Borough of BirminghamENR 4 K. & J. 528.
Spokes v. Banbury Board of HealthELR L. R. 1 Eq. 42, 48.
Goldsmid v. The Tunbridge Wells Improvement CommissionersELR L. R. 1 Ch. App. 349, 352.
Attorney-General v. Colney Hatch Lunatic AsylumELR L. R. 4 Ch. App. 146, 155.
The Attorney-General v. The Luton Local Board of Health 2 Jur. (N. S.) 180.
Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells CommissionersELR L. R. 1 Eq. 161; on App. 1 Ch. App. 352.
Crossley and Sons (Limited) v. LightowlerELR L. R. 2 Ch. App. 478, 481.
Hayward v. Lowndes 28 L. J. Ch. App. 400.
Sutton v. The Mayor and Aldermen of Norwich 27 L. J. Ch. App. 739.
Re Bradby 4 Ell. & Bl. 1014.
Reg. v. The Burslem Local Board of Health 1 Ell. & Ell. 1077.
London and North-Western Railway Co. v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co.ELR L. R. 4 Eq. 174, 178.
Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Improvement CommissionersELR L. R. 1 Ch. App. 354.
Attorney-General v. Mid-Kent Railway CompanyELR L. R. 3 Ch. App. 100, 104.
Goodson v. RichardsonELR L. R. 9 Ch. App. 221.
Frewin v. Lewis 4 M. & C. 249, 254.
Oldaker v. HuntENR 6 De G. M. & G. 376, 389.
Attorney-General v. Mid-Kent Railway Co.ELR L. R. 3 Ch. App. 103.
Attorney-General v. Colney Hatch Lunatic AsylumELR L. R. 4 Ch. App. 153.
Grand Junction Canal Company v. ShugarELR L. R. 6 Ch. App. 483, 488.
Earl of Derby v. Bury Improvement CommissionersELR L. R. 3 Exch. 131.
Haywood v. LowndesENR 4 Drew. 457.
Attorney-General v. Colney Hatch Lunatic AsylumELR L. R. 4 Ch. App. 148.
Attorney-General v. Cockermouth Local BoardELR L. R. 18 Eq. 172.
Attorney-General v. Mayor, & c., of Kingston-on-Thames 11 Jur. (N. S.) 591; 13 W. R. 888.
The London and North-Western Railway Company v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyELR L. R. 4 Eq. 178.
The North Union Railway Company v. The Bolton and Preston Railway CompanyUNK 3 Rail. Cas. 355.
Goodson v. RichardsonELR L. R. 9 Ch. App. 223.
Sewage — Subjacent district — Invasion of sewers — Pollution of stream — Creation of nuisance — Prescription — Bill without sanction of Attorney-General — Equitable remedy — Injunction — 10 & 11 Vict. c. 34, s. 22 — 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, ss. 45, 46 — 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 22 — 21 & 22 Vict. c. 98, s. 30 — 24 & 25 Vict. c. 61, s. 4 — 37 & 38 Vict. c. 93, s. 25.
160 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. V. C. Court. orders, and yet the word " such" is applied to support as well as 1876. education, and I must, therefore, go back further to see what it is In re referable to. Then, I find what appears to me a gift for the sup LEE s TRUSTS. port and education of the legatee, irrespective of the profession or calling in life which he might adopt. I am therefore of opinion that I cannot hold this to be a geneÂÂÂral legacy of £500 for this young lad, but I am bound to give him as liberal an education as his position in life requires, and I shall take care that such part of the sum as may be necessary shall be applied for his maintenance and education. Solicitor for the Petitioner : Mr. Gunning. Solicitor for James Neil : Mr. Mooney. Solicitor for the Trustees of Whitefriar-street Chapel: Mr. A. O' Hagan. Chancery. THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KINGS 1875. TOWN v. THE BLACKROCK TOWNSHIP COMMIS Feb. 17-19. SIONERS. April 16, 17. Dec. 7, 9. Sewage-Subjacent district-Invasion of sewers-Pollution of stream-Creation of nuisance-Prescription-Bill without sanction of Attorney-General 1876. Equitable remedy-Injunction-10 (5. 11 Vict. c. 34, s. 22-11 (5. 12 Vict. Jan. 13. c. 63, ss. 45, 46-18 (5. 19 Vict. c. 121, s. 22-21 4. 22 Vict. c. 98, s. 30ÂÂÂ24 4.25 Vict. c. 61, s. 4-37 (5- 38 Viet. e. 93, s. 25. In 1873 the Commissioners of the township of B., who were incorporated by a local Act, laid sewage pipes along or in the bed of a stream which ran through their district into the contiguous and subjacent one of the Commissioners of the township of K., where, partly covered as a sewer and partly open in its course, it eventually joined a public main sewer which communicated with the sea. The K. Commissioners were also incorporated by a local Act, with which was to be read " The Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854," embodying so much of "The Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847" (10 & 11 Vict. c. 34) as related to the making and maintaining of sewers. The B. Commissioners had for many years previous to 1873 used the open stream within their own district for sewage purposes, and the pipes so laid down by them were, against the will of the K. Commissioners, made to communicate, at a point on the latter's side of the common township boundary, with private sewage pipes which disÂÂÂcharged into the stream within the K. district, and so also ultimately into the main sewer. The K. Commissioners having filed a bill shortly before the pass VOL. X.] EQUITY SERIES. 161 ing of " The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1874" (37 & 38 Viet. c. 93) to Chancery. restrain the discharge of the B. sewage into their district or sewers:- 1875. Held (1) That, as the suit was not solely connected with the preservation of T. Comm. the public health or the suppression of a public nuisance, it was properly insti tuted by bill, and the Attorney-General's sanction was unnecessary ; B. T. COMRS. (2) That under s. 22 of the Act of 1847 the main sewer, and the covered. portions of the stream within the K. district, were vested in the Plaintiffs; (3) That the general claim of the Defendants to use the sewers and. the stream within the Plaintiffs' district could not be sustained by prescription, which would only give such a right in the case of houses erected more than twenty years, and should then be asserted by their individual owners ; and that the claim was not justified by s. 22 of " The Nuisances Removal Act for England, 1855" (18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, extended to Ireland by ss. 14 and 57 of "The Sanitary Act, 1866"), nor by ss. 45 and. 46 of " The Public Health Act, 1848" (11 & 12 Viet. c. 63),Ins enlarged. by s. 30 of " The Local Government Act, 1858" (21 & 22 Vict. c. 98), and s. 4 of "The Local Government Act (1858) Amendment Act, 1861" (24 & 25 Vict. c. 61, which four last-mentioned sections were extended to Ireland by s. 4 of " The Sewage Utilization' Act, 1865"), when. interpreted by the provisions of s. 25 of " The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1874" (37 & 38 Vict. c. 93) ; and (4) That (on the law and facts together) the Plaintiffs' remedy was properly sought in a Court of Equity, but that the perpetual injunction to be awarded them should be confined to restraining a discharge of the Defendants' sewage into the Plaintiffs' sewers, and should not be put into force for six months, or such further period as should be allowed, to 'enable the Defendants to make other provisions for the disposal of their sewage. BILL filed the 6th June, 1874, praying that the P00314*, their servants, &c., might be perpetually restrained from eontinning to discharge the sewage of the Blael:roek township into the disÂÂÂtrict and. sewers of the Plaintiffs ; and for the usual consequential, additional, and. alternative relief. The bill stated that by the 32 & 33 Viet., c. 133 (loc.) thereinÂÂÂafter called the Act of 1869, under which the Plaintiffs had been elected, and by which the Commissioners of the township .of Kingstown were incorporated., it was among other things enacted. that " The Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854," so far as}it was not inconsistent with the Act of 1869, and the latter Act should. be construed together, and read as one Act. By the Act of 1854, it was enacted that the boundaries of any township subject to the Act should be determined and set out and approved of 'by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and notified and published in the THE IRISH REPORTS. [L Chancery. "Dublin. Gazette," and that so much of " The Towns Improvement 1875. Clauses Act, 1847," as related to the making and maintaining of IC. T. COMRS. public sewers should be incorporated with the said Act of 1854 By the Act of 1847 it was enacted that all public sewers T.V60MRS. (a. 34). and drains within the limits of " the special Act" (which expression, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial