Cook v Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1876 |
| Year | 1876 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Local Board - Delegation of Powers to a Committee -
Where a board constituted by an Act of Parliament are authorized by it to delegate any of their powers to a committee, the powers so conferred upon the committee must be exercised by them acting in concert; and it is not competent to the committee to apportion amongst themselves the duties so delegated to them; and one of them acting alone, pursuant to such apportionment, cannot justify his acts under the Act of Parliament.
CLAIM. 1. The plaintiff was possessed of two closes of land situate in that portion of Deeping St. Nicholas, in the county of Lincoln, known as the Counter Drain Washes, and bounded by lands of R. Everard towards the east, by the Counter Drain towards the south, and by lands of R. Parr's devisees towards the west, and of a ditch and of two gateways or passages forming the entrance from the road on the bank of the river Glen over the said ditch into the said respective closes, and of certain other lands near to the said ditch, all situate in the parish of Deeping St. Nicholas, in the county of Lincoln.
2. The water passing along the said ditch lawfully passed and was carried by means of culverts or tunnels under the said gateways or passages forming such entrance as aforesaid.
3. At divers times in July, 1875, the defendant wrongfully broke and entered the said closes and the said ditch and passages and gateways respectively, and broke down and dug up and destroyed the said passages and gateways, and the said culverts and tunnels under the same respectively, and dug holes in the said closes and passages and gateways respectively, and removed large quantities of earth and soil therefrom, and damaged and destroyed the same.
4. By means of the premises, large quantities of water were wrongfully caused and permitted to flow and did flow from off certain lands of the defendant and other lands through and along the said ditch into and upon the said closes and the said other lands of the plaintiff, and remained thereon for a long time, and damaged the crops and seeds of the plaintiff then growing thereon, and the plaintiff was deprived of means of access for himself and his cattle to and from the said closes and the said road, and lost the use of the said closes and other lands, and was otherwise damnified.
The plaintiff claimed 220l. damages and such further or other relief, by injunction or otherwise, as the nature of the case might require.
The defence, so far as is material, was as follows:—
5. The Counter Drain Washes is a drainage district duly constituted under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, and the
6. Before the happening of the alleged grievances, or any of them, the defendant had been duly appointed a member of the drainage board of the said district.
7. Such of the acts in the statement of claim complained of as were done by or under the authority of the defendant were so done by him in his capacity of member of the board, and under and by virtue of the authority of the board and of a committee thereof duly constituted, and were within the powers conferred upon the defendant as and being a member of such drainage board, and upon the said drainage board and the said committee thereof, by the Land Drainage Act, 1861, and the
8. Immediately before the happening of the events in the statement of claim complained of a large quantity of rain had fallen, and a certain dyke called the Soak Dyke was full of water, and there was not sufficient outfall for the water therein: thereupon the defendant, as such member of the drainage board as aforesaid, and acting under the authority of the said board and of a committee thereof duly constituted, caused certain culverts or tunnels which had been previously constructed by the said drainage board in order to carry off the water from the said Soak Dyke, to be laid open in order to provide a better outfall for the water from the said Soak Dyke, and otherwise cleaned out and enlarged the said tunnels. Averment, that the acts in this paragraph mentioned were the alleged grievances in the statement of claim complained of, and that the said acts were done by the defendant in such capacity and under such authority as in the last-preceding paragraph mentioned, and were deemed by the defendant to be and were in fact reasonable and proper to be done in order to carry off the flood-water which had accumulated within the said drainage district. Issue thereon.
The cause was tried before Mellor, J., at the last Easter assizes at Lincoln. The district in which the plaintiff's land was situate was by a provisional order of the Inclosure Commissioners made on the 6th of February, 1873, in pursuance of the Land Drainage Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 133), constituted a separate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alan Bradley v Independent Star Newspapers Ltd and Wayne Bradley v Independent Star Newspapers Ltd
...Ltd [1953- 54] Ir Jur Rep 70, Jozwiak v Sadek and others [1954] 1 WLR 275, Du Bost v Beresford (1810) 2 Camp 511 and Cook v Ward (1830) 2 CPD 255 followed - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15), O 36, r 36 and O 58, r 7(2) - Plaintiffs' appeal allowed, retrial ordered (275 & 277/2006 -......
- O’Reilly v The Commissioner of the State Bank of Victoria
-
Premier, Western Cape v Acting Chairperson, Judicial Services Commission
...by Statute to deal with any matter as one body; the action taken would have to be the joint action of all of them (see Cook v. Ward, 2 C.P.D. 255; E Darcy v. Tamar Railway Co., L.R. 3 Exch., p. 158, etc.), for otherwise they would not be acting in accordance with the provisions of the The r......
-
Premier, Western Cape v Acting Chairperson, Judicial Services Commission
...by Statute to deal with any matter as one body; the action taken would have to be the joint action of all of them (see Cook v. Ward, 2 C.P.D. 255; E Darcy v. Tamar Railway Co., L.R. 3 Exch., p. 158, etc.), for otherwise they would not be acting in accordance with the provisions of the The r......