Horrocks against The Metropolitan Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 1863 |
| Date | 04 July 1863 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 122 E.R. 477
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 32 L. J. Q. B. 367; 8 L. T. 663; 10 Jur. N. S. 204; 11 W. R. 910. Referred to, Buccieuch v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 1870-72, L. R. 5. Ex. 227; L. R. 5 H. L. 418. For subsequent proceddings see 19 C. B. N. S. 139.
[315] horrocks against the metropolitan railway company. Saturday, July 4th, 1863.-Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, 8 & 9 Viet. c. 18, s. 68. Jurisdiction of jury. Lands, &c., injuriously affected. Compensation.-1. A jury summoned under The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, 8 & 9 Viet. c. 18, s. 68, to assess the compensation due to a claimant for lands, &c., injuriously affected by the works of a public Company, have no jurisdiction to determine whether the lands have been injuriously affected; their jurisdiction is limited to assessing the amount of compensation.-2. The leaseholder of a house, with a forecourt abutting on a road, constructed a building on the forecourt, subsequently to which a railway Company made a trench in the road for the purpose of constructing their railway, in consequence of which the building was deprived of its lateral support from the adjacent land. A claim having been made for compensation, a jury was summoned under The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, 478 HORROCKS V. THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY CO. * B. it 8.316. 8 & 9 Viet. c. 18, s. 68, who found that the sinking of the ground had been cansed by the erection of the new building upon it, and that the lands of the claimant had not been injuriously affected by the works of the Company. Held, that the jury had exceeded their jurisdiction. [S. C. 32 L. J. Q. B. 367 ; 8 L. T. 663 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 204; 11 W. R. 910. Referred to, Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Board of WmUs, 1870-72, L. R. 5 Ex. 227; L. R. 5 H. L. 418. For subsequent proceedings see 19 C. B. N. S. 139.] Francis, in Hilary Term, 1862, obtained a rule nisi for a certiorari to the clerk of the peace^ for the county of Middlesex, to remove into this Court, with a view to quashing them, an inquisition, taken before the sheriff of Middlesex, on the 8th January, 1862, under The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, 8 & 9 Viet. c. 18, 8. 68, touching a claim to compensation made by Joseph Horrocks against The Metropolitan Railway Company in respect of his houses, lands and premises having been injuriously affected by the execution of the works of the Company; together with the verdict and judgment thereon. The claimant Horrocks was possessed of a house, No. 66, Euston Road, in the parish of St. Pancras, in the county of Middlesex, under a lease commencing 25th March, 1859, in front of which was an open forecourt abutting [316] on the road. In a later part of that year he constructed a new building in the forecourt on an excavation dug for the purpose. In 1861, the Metropolitan Railway Company proceeded to execute their works, and for this purpose cut a deep trench along the Euston Road, down to the level of their intended railway; having constructed which, they covered up the trench. In consequence of this the foundation of the new building erected by the claimant sank, and was considerably injured by being deprived of the lateral support which it had previously received from the adjacent land. Under these circumstances, Horrocks preferred a claim for compensation under The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, 8 & 9 Viet. c. 18, s. 68, first, for the injury to the building by its being deprived of its natural support; secondly, for the obstruction of access to his premises by closing up the carriage way in front of them ; thirdly, for interference with the water pipes of his premises, whereby water broke into hia cellar. On the 10th December, 1861, a warrant to the sheriff of Middlesex to hold an inquisition for the purpose of assessing compensation was issued by the Company under the above section. This inquisition was taken on the 8th January, 1862, before the sheriff, with a legal Assessor, who, on the first head of claim, addressed the jury thus. "The question I shall submit to you is, whether you believe that the soil has given way in consequence of the additional weight that has been imposed upon it by the building that has been erected within the last twenty years. If you believe that if there had been no building there at all the soil would have gone down in this manner you will find for the claimant. But if you believe that the soil would not have gone down [317] without the modern building upon it, and if you are of opinion that the building itself produced the settlement, then he has no right to recover for this injury." In answer to this question the jury said, " We are of opinion that if there had been no building by the claimant the ground would not have sunk; we say the sinking has been caused by the erection of the new building on the ground." The Assessor then said that damage meant legal damage, and thare could be no question of such after the above finding of the jury ; that "injuriously affected" in The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 8 & 9 Viet. c. 18, s. 68, means "injuriously affected so as to give a legal right of action." The jury then found that the lands of the claimant had not been injuriously affected by the works of the Company : whereupon the rest of the case was withdrawn from their consideration. The present rule was granted on the ground that the duty of the jury under the statute was limited to assessing the amount of compensation due to the claimant, and consequently that they had exceeded their jurisdiction in determining that his lands had not been injuriously affected by the works of the Company. It was argued in Michaelmas Term, 1862, on the 20th November, before Cockburn C.J., Wightman and Mellor JJ. Horace Lloyd shewed cause.-Here was no excess of jurisdiction on the part of the jury. 4 B. & 8. S18. HORROCKS V. THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY CO. 479 The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, 8 & 9 Viet. c. 18, s. 68, enacts, "If any party shall be entitled to any compensation in respect of any lands, or of any interest, which shall have been taken for or injuriously affected by the execution of the works, and for which the [318] promoters of the undertaking shall not have made satisfaction under the provisions of this or the special Act, or any Act incorporated thefewith, and if the compensation claimed in such case shall exceed the sum of 501., such party may have the same settled either by arbitration or by the verdict of a jury, as he shall think fit; and if such party desire to have the same settled by arbitration, it shall be lawful for him to give notice in writing to the promoters of the undertaking of such his desire, stating in such notice the nature of the interest in such lands in respect of which he claims compensation, and the amount of the compensation so claimed therein; and unless the promoters of the undertaking be willing to pay the amount of compensation so claimed, and shall enter into a written agreement for that purpose within twenty-one days after the receipt of any such notice from any party ao entitled, the same shall be settled by arbitration in the manner herein provided ; or if the party so entitled as aforesaid desire to have such question of compensation settled by jury, it shall be lawful for him to give notice in writing of such his desire to the promoters of the undertaking, stating such particulars as aforesaid, and unless the promoters of the undertaking be willing to pay the amount of compensation so claimed, and enter into a written agreement for that purpose, they shall, within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice, issue their warrant to the sheriff to summon a jury for settling the same in the manner herein provided, and in default thereof they shall be liable to pay to the party so entitled as aforesaid the amount of compensation ao claimed, and the same may be recovered by him, with costs, by action in any of the superior Courts." [319] Sect. 49. "Where such inquiry shall relate to the value of lands to be purchased, and also to compensation claimed for injury done or to be done to the lands held therewith, the jury shall deliver their verdict separately for the sum of money to be paid for the purchase of the lands required for the works, or of any interest therein belonging to the party with whom the question of disputed compensation shall have arisen, or which, under the provisions herein contained, he is enabled to sell or convey, and for the sum of money to be paid by way of compensation for the damage...
To continue reading
Request your trial