Attorney General v The Sheffield Gas Consumers Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 August 1852 |
| Date | 06 August 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 43 E.R. 119
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES
S. C. 22 L. J. Ch. 811; 17 Jur. 677; 1 W. R. 185. See Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Co., 1856, 57, 7 De G. M. & G. 461; Sutton v. South-Eastern Railway Company, 1865, L. R. 1 Ex 39; Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Commissioners, 1866, L. R. 1 Ch. 354; Lillywhite v. Trimmer, 1867, 36 L. J. Ch. 530, Cooke v. Forbes, 1867, L. R. 5 Eq. 173; Attorney-General v. Cambridge Consumers Gas Company, 1868, L. R. 6 Eq. 295; L. R. 4 Ch. 78; Attorney-General v. Lonsdale, 1868, L. R. 7 Eq. 386; Attorney-General v. Gee, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 137; Attorney-General v. Mayor of Basingstoke, 1876, 45 L. J. Ch. 729; Smith v. Midland Railway Company, 1877, 37 L. T. 227; Preston Corporation v. Fullwood Local Board, 1885, 53 L. T. 722, Reinhardt v. Mentasti, 1889, 42 Ch. D. 688.
[304] attorney-general . the sheffield gas consumers company. Before the Lords Justices Sir J. L. Knight Bruce and Lord Cranworth. August 6, 1852. Before the Lords Justices Sir J. L. Knight Bruce and Sir G. Turner. Jan. 12, Feb. 1, 1853. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Cranworth and the Lords Justices Sir J. L. Knight Bruce and Sir G. Turner. Feb. 8, 16, 1853. [S. C. 22 L. J. Ch. 811; 17 Jur. 677; 1 W. E. 185. See Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Co., 1856, 57, 7 De G. M. & G. 461 ; Sutton v. Smith-Eastern Railway Company, 1865, L. R. 1 Ex. 39; Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Commissioners, 1866, L. R. 1 Ch. 354; Lillywhtiev. Trimmer, 1867, 36 L. J. Ch. 530, Cooke v. Forbes, 1867, L. R. 5 Eq. 173; Attorney-General v. Cambridge Consumers Gas Company, 1868, L. R. 6 Eq. 295 ; L. R. 4 Ch. 78 ; Attorney-General v. Lonsdale, 1868, L. R. 7 Eq. 386 ; Attorney-General v. Gee, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 137 : Attorney-General v. Mayor of Basingstoke, 1876, 45 L. J. Ch. 729 ; Smith v. Midland Railway Company, 1877, 37 L. T. 227 ; Preston Cmyoration v. Fullwood Local Board, 1885, 53 L. T. 722, Reinhardt v. Mentasti, 1889, 42 Ch. D. 68a] The disturbance of the pavement in a town by an unincorporated gas company, for the purpose of laying down gas-pipes, Held, by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice Turner (dissentiente Lord Justice Knight Bruce), not to be such a nuisance as to be a sufficient ground for an injunction, either upon a bill or upon an information. Principles upon which the Court proceeds in restraining nuisances with regard to their extent and frequency. Laches may be a defence to an application for an injunction by way of information as well as upon a bill. Effect of a protest in negativing laches. Although the motives with which a suit is instituted are not generally to be regarded, they are not wholly immaterial when the complaint is of an alleged public injury. The views of the majority of the inhabitants of a town, and of their governing body, are not without weight on such questions as the above. It is not enough to ahew a nuisance to constitute a case for an injunction ; but if it is a continuing nuisance the Court will not refuse an injunction because the actual damage arising from it is slight. This was a suit by information and bill, and it now came on upon a motion by way of appeal from the decision of Vice-Chancellor Turner, refusing to grant an injunction which had been applied for by the relators and Plaintiffs, the United Gaslight Company at Sheffield, to restrain the Defendants from laying down any gas mains, pipes, or works, in or under the streets or highways in the borough of Sheffield, and from breaking up or disturbing for that purpose any road or highway, or from doing any other act whereby the passage of Her Majesty's subjects along such highways or any of them might be obstructed or rendered less safe or convenient, or whereby the gas mains, pipes, and works of the Plaintiffs might be interfered with. The facts of the case as detailed in the Vice-Chancellor's judgment were as follows : - There were formerly two gas companies in Sheffield, each company being incorporated under an Act of Par-[305]-liament, and each Act of Parliament gives power to break up the pavements with special provisions for compensation in respect of the damages occasioned by that proceeding. And the Act of the second company 120 ATT.-GEN. V. SHEFFIELD GAS CONSUMERS COMPANY 3 DE O. M. & 0. SOT. provided for the pavements not being broken up except on notice to the first company. There is also a water company in Sheffield, with similar provisions respecting the breaking up of the pavements, and compensation for the damages occasioned by it. In the year 1844 an Act of Parliament passed, by which the two gas companies in Sheffield were united into one called the United Gas Company, who were the Plaintiffs in the present suit. In addition to the Special Acts as to these two gas companies, the General Act of Parliament (10 & 11 Viet. c. 15), applicable to all gas companies obtaining Parliamentary powers, contains special provisions as to breaking up the pavements, repairing and restoring them. In the autumn of 1851, the Defendants' company, the Sheffield Gaa Consumers Company, was projected. Soon afterwards a clerk of the Plaintiffs, the United Gas Company, took occasion publicly to state that the highway board had no authority to permit the Defendants to break up the pavements. The Defendants on this published a handbill, in which they insisted that the highway board had such authority. The United Company thereupon, on the 28th of November 1851, published a counter handbill, stating that the Defendants, if they did proceed to break up the pavements, would be liable to indictment, and to the interference of this Court by injunction. The Defendants, however, [306] went on with their company, and on the 10th of February 1852, the company was completely registered. The deed of the company was registered on the 13th of March 1852. On the 22d of March 1852, the Plaintiffs obtained a copy of it. The deed purported to confer powers on the directors of the Sheffield Gas Consumers Company to indemnify the authorities against any indictments, actions or suits, which might be consequent on the proceedings of the company. On the 6th of April 1852, the directors of the Gas Consumers Company made a report, by which they stated that they had authority from the parish boards to break up the pavements, and that the surveyors of the highways were favourable to the objects of the company. In this state of circumstance, on the 17th of April 1852, a bill was filed by the United Gas Company against the Gas Consumers Company, for an injunction similar to the injunction which was asked by the present information and bill. A motion was made for an injunction accordingly before Vice-Chancellor Turner, on the 24th of May 1852, and was refused. On the llth of June 1852 the Plaintiffs gave notice to the surveyors of the highways not to sanction the breaking up of the pavements. There are several boards and surveyors of highways in Sheffield; some of these boards returned answers to the notices, others of them returned no answers. The answers which were returned were not satisfactory. In this state of circumstances, on the 16th of July 1852, the present information and bill was filed. The case made by the information and bill was, that the Defendants, the Gas Consumers Company, had no legal authority to break up the pavements; that pro-[307]-ceedings on their part would be attended with great injury to the highways, from the laying down of the pipes, and from the continually recurring necessity of taking up the pavements for the purpose of remedying any defects which there might be in the mains or pipes which might be laid by the company. Mr. Rolt and Mr. Amphlett, in support of the appeal. There is no doubt of the jurisdiction of the Court to restrain a nuisance, and that this is a nuisance of a lasting kind and one likely to be of constant recurrence is equally clear. It is therefore a proper subject for an injunction. If there was a legal question of any difficulty, the Court might withhold its interference until the decision of a Court of law had been obtained in an action or otherwise. But no one can for a moment doubt that what has been done, and what is necessarily in contemplation, amount to a nuisance, which must be the subject of an indictment. The decision of a Court of law would therefore be useless. With regard to private injury, it must be observed that the Plaintiffs are, by their Act of Parliament, obliged to keep the streets in repair, and that this obligation will be rendered much more burthensome by the constant operations of the Defendants. Moreover, it is impossible for two parallel lines of gas pipes, and the operations requisite for each of them, to exist without interfering materially with each other; and it would be very hard upon the Plaintiffs, who, in order to obtain 3DBO.Kfte.MI. ATT.-GEN. V. SHEFFIELD GAS CONSTJMEBS COMPANY 121 liberty to interfere with public convenience, were obliged to submit to many Parliamentary- restrictions and obligations, if these rights which they obtained upon such terms were to be interfered with by a company who had submitted to no terms at all, but are formed upon the principle of systematically violating the law. With regard to the delay which the [308] Vice-Chancellor considered fatal to the Plaintiffs' and relators1 case, the Plaintiffs gave the notice on the llth of June to the surveyors of the district, that they objected to the Defendants.' proceedings. It is mere mockery to say that the Defendants did not know of these notices. If they have entered into any contracts, they have done so with the knowledge that the Plaintiffs were about to act on the Vice-ChanceUor's suggestion made when the injunction was applied for upon the bill, before the filing of the information. That bill was dismissed on the 26th of July. Twelve days afterwards the information was filed. Moreover, time is not so important in the case of a public as in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd
... ... 4 The Defendant Company was incorporated in 1929 but apparently carried on its activities on a somewhat modest scale for ... ...
-
Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers
...question of appearance by counsel, the Attorney-General and not the relators remains totally in control of the suit. 44 Attorney-General v. Sheffield Gas Consumers Co. (1853) 3 De G. M. & G. 304, is invoked for this passage: "Although the name of the Attorney-General is used, it is quite cl......
-
Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers
...indicate the fictional character of proceedings of this type. Sometimes, in other cases, it is overt. For example, Attorney-General v. Sheffield Gas Consumers Coy. 1855 5 De G M & G 304, which seems to have been a relator action, in which the real plaintiff was a rival gas company, where Lo......
- Musical Performers' Protection Association Ltd v British International Pictures Ltd