Lower Ward of Lanarkshire Road Trustees v Magistrates of Glasgow
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 1887 |
| Docket Number | No. 167. |
| Date | 08 July 1887 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Mure, Lord Shand, Lord Adam, Lord President.
RoadBridge partly in burgh and partly in county, and accommodating traffic of other placesApportionment of liability for maintenanceManagementRoads and Bridges Act, 1878 (41 and 42 Vict. cap. 51), secs. 37 and 88.
Held (1) that while section 37 of the Roads and Bridges Act imposes the burden of maintaining a bridge, situate in more than one county, or burgh, on each equally, that provision does not apply in cases in which, under the 88th section, the Secretary of State determines that a bridge accommodates the traffic of a county or burgh in which it is not situate, and that in these cases the Secretary of State is empowered by section 88 to determine as he may see fit the proportions in which each county or burgh liable to contribute shall contribute to the expense of maintenance, &c.; and (2) that any county or burgh so contributing to the maintenance of a bridge beyond its limits is entitled to take part in the management of the bridge, and to appoint representatives on the Joint Bridge Committee, appointed under section 39 of the Roads and Bridges Act, 1878.
On the line of the Dalmarnock Road, between Glasgow and Rutherglen, the River Clyde was crossed by a bridge called Dalmarnock Bridge. The northern half of the bridge was locally situate within the burgh of Glasgow, and the southern half in the Lower Ward of Lanarkshire.
Dalmarnock Bridge accommodated in the sense of the 88th section of the Roads and Bridges Act, 1878,* not only the traffic of the Lower
Ward of Lanarkshire and of the city of Glasgow, but also that of the Middle Ward of Lanarkshire and of the burgh of Rutherglen. The city of Glasgow is situated on the north side of the river, and the three other districts on the south. The traffic coming from each district and accommodated by the bridge varied in amount.
The bridge, which was of wood, was in a bad state of repair, and was not of such construction as to be capable of being repaired, but required to be rebuilt.
The Road Trustees of the Lower Ward applied to the Secretary for Scotland, under the 88th section of the Act, to determine that the bridge, in respect of its accommodating other traffic than that of the city of Glasgow and the Lower Ward should be deemed to belong in common to the county or counties and burgh or burghs named in his determination.
In terms of that section commissioners were appointed to institute the local inquiry, and to report.
In the course of the inquiry a difference arose between the parties as to the construction of the Roads and Bridges Act, 1878, and the commissioners, in respect the construction of the statute was a question which fell to be settled by a Court of law, stayed procedure to enable a special case to be submitted to the Court of Session.
A special case was thereafter submitted to the Court, to which the Road Trustees of the Lower Ward of Lanarkshire were the first parties, the Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow the second parties, the Road Trustees of the Middle Ward of Lanarkshire the third parties, and the Magistrates and Town-Council of Rutherglen the fourth parties.
In the case the facts above set forth were admitted, and the opinion and judgment of the Court on the following questions of law was requested:(1) Has the Secretary of State power under the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878, to determine, if he sees fit, that Dalmarnock Bridge shall be deemed to belong in common to the county of the Lower Ward of Lanark, the city of Glasgow, the county of the Middle Ward of Lanark, and the burgh of Rutherglen, and to apportion among them in his determination, in such way as he thinks right, the expense of managing, maintaining, repairing, and, if need be, rebuilding said bridge? or, Has the Secretary of State power to determine only the proportions of said expense to be borne by the third and fourth parties, and does the balance of said expense fall to be borne equally by the first and second parties? (2) In the event of it being determined by the Secretary of State that the county of the Middle Ward of Lanark and the burgh of Rutherglen are bound to contribute to the expense of rebuilding and maintaining Dalmarnock Bridge, are said county and burgh entitled to take part in the management of said bridge and to appoint representatives on the Joint Bridge Committee thereof?
The contentions of parties were thus set forth,The second party maintains that the relative liabilities of the first and second parties for the expense of maintaining, managing, repairing, and, if need be, rebuilding
the bridge, are settled by secs. 11 and 37* of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878, and that such liabilities must remain equal to each other, and that sec. 88 of the said Act makes provision whereby the adjoining county, or other counties or burgh or burghs (other than those whose liability is fixed by the local situation of the bridge), whose traffic is accommodated by the bridge, may be called upon to contribute towards such expense. The second party further maintains that the duty of the said commissioners is confined, and the determination of the Secretary of State is accordingly limited to fixing the contributions to be made by the county of the Middle Ward of Lanark and the burgh of Rutherglen towards such expense, leaving the balance thereof to be defrayed by the first and second parties equally in terms of section 37. (5) On the other hand, the first party maintains that on a sound construction of the statute the Secretary of State falls to declare that Dalmarnock Bridge shall be deemed to belong in common to the whole parties hereto, and to apportion the expenses among them severally in such proportions as may be right, having regard to the extent of the use of said bridge by the respective localities and other similar considerations; and that the commissioners ought to submit a draft determination giving effect to this view. This contention is also maintained by the third and fourth parties hereto, assuming for the purposes of this case their liability to contribute towards its rebuilding and management. (7) A difference has also arisen between the second, third, and fourth parties as to the true construction of the statute with reference to the right of the third and fourth parties to share in the management of the bridge should they be found liable to contribute towards its rebuilding and maintenance. The second party contends that the third and fourth parties have no right to share in said management. The third and fourth parties contend that in such event they have a right to take part in said management, and to appoint representatives on the Joint Bridge Committee, which falls to manage said bridge.
At advising,
Lord Mure.In this special case a question is raised between four different parties or sets of trustees who are subject to the liability of maintaining a bridge over the Clyde at Dalmarnock under the provisions of the Roads and Bridges Act (Scotland), 1878, and those parties are the Road Trustees of the Lower Ward of the county of Lanark as the first party, the Town-Council of Glasgow as the second party, the bridge being situated partly on ground within the bounds of the town of Glasgow, and partly on ground within the bounds of the County Road Trustees of the Lower Ward of Lanarkshire, and the other parties to the case are the County Road Trustees of the Middle Ward of Lanarkshire and the Magistrates and Town-Council of the burgh of Rutherglen,
as parties in the situation of being accommodated for their traffic by that bridge in passing and repassing the Clyde, although no portion of the bridge is built upon their property, and the question is as to the power of the Secretary of State to deal with the claims of those parties in the apportionment of their liability.
Now, there is no question raised here as to the circumstances of the case bringing these parties within the operation of the 88th section of the statute. They are agreed that in the circumstances their respective rights are to be regulated under the provisions of that section. But the town of Glasgow, the second party, maintain that although their liability is to be regulated by the provisions of that section, it is so subject to this qualification, that whatever portion of the expense of maintaining and rebuilding this bridge is laid upon the burgh of Rutherglen, and the trustees of the Middle Ward, the shares of the town of Glasgow and the Lower Ward respectively must be equal, because the 37th section expressly provides that where a bridge is locally situated in the same way as this bridge is, the town and the county respectively shall bear an equal share of the expense of maintaining or rebuilding it, and that that being so, the way in which the liability is to be dealt with under the 88th section is that the Secretary of State shall fix what in the circumstances of the case is a proper amount of contribution to be made by the town of Rutherglen and the Middle Ward of Lanarkshire for the accommodation which is afforded to them by this bridge, and having fixed that, shall then divide equally the balance which remains between the town of Glasgow and the Lower Ward. That is the contention of the town of Glasgow. The Lower Ward of the county and the third and fourth parties,that is, Rutherglen and the Middle Ward,maintain on the other hand that when a bridge comes within the operation of the 88th section of the statute, it is competent for the Secretary of State, in dealing with the application which may be made to him for the fixing of the expense, to fix those proportions in any way that to him may seem just.
Now, the case substantially must be ruled by the 88th section, because there is no provision under the 37th section for burghs in the position of Rutherglen here, or road trustees in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial