Biddulph v The Vestry of the Parish of St George, Hanover Square

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date27 May 1863
Date27 May 1863
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 46 E.R. 726

BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.

Biddulph
and
The Vestry of the Parish of St. George, Hanover Square

S. C. 33 L. J. Ch. 411; 8 L. T. 44, 558; 9 Jur. (N. S.), 434, 953; 11 W. R. 524, 739. See Vernon v. Vestry of St. James, Westminster, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 459.

[493] biddulph v. the vestry of the parish of st. george, hanover square. Before the Lords Justices. May 26, 27, 1863. {S. C. 33 L. J. Ch. 411 ; 8 L. T. 44, 558; 9 Jur. (N. S.), 434, 953 ; 11 W. R. 524, 739. See Fernon v. Vestry of St. James, Westminster, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 459.] The intended erection by a vestry professing to act under 18 & 19 Viet. c. 128 of an urinal against the wall of a garden forming one side of a public street, and at a distance of thirty-five yards from the houses, held not to be so plainly ultra vires or so likely to create a nuisance as to afford ground for an interlocutory injunction. This was an appeal from an interlocutory injunction granted by Vice-Chancellor Stuart restraining the above-named Defendants from proceeding with the erection of an urinal. The bill, which was filed by the Plaintiff as the lessee and occupier of No. 35 Grosveuor Place, after referring to the incorporation of the Defendants by the Act for the Better Local Management of the Metropolis,(l) and to [494] the powers in respect of the erection of urinals and like conveniences, conferred upon them by the 88th and 96th [495] sections of the Act, stated that on the 7th of August 1862 the Defendants, in the assumed exercise of the [496] power given them by the Act, amongst other resolutions relating to the erection of urinals, passed a resolution that an urinal with four compartments should be erected in Grosvenor Place, at the retiring angle nearly opposite the end of Chester Street; and a further resolution, referring it to the committee of works to give effect to the foregoing amongst the other resolutions. SLEO.J. &S.W7. BIDDULPH V. ST. GEORGE'S VESTRY 727 The bill then proceeded to describe Grosvenor Place as a public highway within the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, the course or direction of which was from eouth-eaat to north-west, and which had houses on one side only, and was bounded on the other aide by the wall of the gardens attached to Buckingham Palace ; and it stated that the spot selected by the Defendants [497] for the erection of the proposed urinal was adjacent to the said garden wall, and immediately opposite 3G Grosvenor Plaee, and nearly opposite to the Plaintiffs residence, that the houses in Grosvenor Place immediately opposite to the said spot and for a considerable distance fronting either in a north-westerly or south-easterly direction were of an extremely valuable description, and that their residential value was enhanced by the view which they possessed towards the gardens of Buckingham Palace, and that their average rental unfurnished might be stated at about 500 per annum, except the houses known as 1, 2 and 3, Grosvenor Place, which were much larger and more valuable. The bill then proceeded to state to the effect that within a short time after the said resolution of the vestry became known a memorial was addressed to the vestry, signed by or on behalf of almost every owner or occupier of the houses in Grosvenor Place which lay near to the said selected spot, protesting against the execution of the work. The bill proceeded to give the names of the memorialists (eighteen in number), and to state the proceedings taken by the Plaintiff, on hearing of the resoluton of the vestry; and that on the 21st of August 1862 the Plaintiff's solicitor received from the Defendants' surveyor a letter, stating that the committee of works of the vestry had, at their meeting held on the 20th, resolved that a screen wall, twenty-eight feet in length, should be erected to correspond with the wall of Buckingham Gardens, and that the proposed urinal should be placed behind the same. [498] The bill then referred to an ineffectual attempt made to obtain a rescission of the resolution in the vestry, and charged that the urinal would, if erected, be a private nuisance to the Plaintiff and the other owners and occupiers of the houses in Grosvenor Place for some distance north-east and south-west of the said selected spot; that the erection of the screen wall as suggested by the committee of works would increase instead of diminishing the nuisance, because the space behind the screen wall would become a receptable for filth of all kinds, and that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT