Le Nevr against The Vestry of the Hamlet of Mile of Mile End Old Town
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 1858 |
| Date | 23 February 1858 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 120 E.R. 392
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
le nevh against the vestry of the hamlet of mile end old town. Tuesday, February 23d, 1858. Plaintiff occupied a house standing in a continuous line of houses, in a district within the provisions of the Metropolis Local Management Act (19 & 20 Viet. c. 120). Immediately in front of these houses was a paved public footway, fifteen feet wide, then a space thirty three feet wide, then a public carriage way fifty feet wide, then an intermediate space fifty eight feet wide, then a paved public footway ten or twelve feet wide, immediately in front of another continuous line of houses facing the first mentioned line. The intermediate spaces between the footways and the carriage road had always been made use of by the owners of the houses opposite in such manner as suited their respective occupations : in some instances they had erected permanent structures ; and plaintiff, whose house was a public house, had, before the Act came into operation, placed in the part opposite to his houae a permanent horse-trough ; and the carts of his customers stood on that space while the drivers and horses were resting; he had alao put there moveable seats, and in summer a moveable shed, and had fixed sockets which were let into the ground. The footway was always left clear. Plaintiff paid the owner of the soil for permission to use the intermediate apace. The public passed over the intermediate space as of right, subject to the above described user of it by the owners of the houses. Persons wishing to get from the footway to the carriage road did so without objection, picking their way where the space was not obstructed. The vestry elected under the Act having removed the plaintiff's shed and seats as obstructions, within sect. 120 : held that the section did not justify them:-1. Because the intermediate space was not part of a street within the meaning of the Act.-2. Because the shed 8 EL. &BL.1065. LE NEVE V. THE VESTRY OF MILE END OLD TOWN 393 and seats were not projections or obstructions against or in front of any house within the meaning of the Act. [S. C. 27 L. J. Q. B. 208 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 660 ; 6 W. R. 338. Considered and approved, M'Intosh v. Romford Local Board, 1889, 61 L. T. 188.] The declaration charged that defendants broke and entered certain land of plaintiff, being in front of a certain tavern or dwelling house of the plaintiff, called The Earl Grey, situate in the Mile End Road, in the parish of Stepney, in Middlesex, and pulled down and destroyed a certain shed of the plaintiff, then erected there, and certain seats arid forms then also fixed and being in and upon the said land, and the materials thereof carried away and converted and disposed thereof to their [1055] own use, whereby plaintiffs not only lost the said sheds &c. (damage). Pleas. 1. Not guilty. 2. As to the breaking and entering, that the laud was not plaintiff's. 5. Except as to so much of the declaration as charges defendants with converting the materials therein mentioned to their own use, that, before and at the time of the committing of the acts herein pleaded to, the hamlet of Mile End Old Town was a district within the provisions of an Act of Parliament &c. (18 & 19 Viet. c. 120, " For the better local management of the Metropolis "); and defendants were the vestry elected pursuant to the said Act, and duly empowered to act in the execution of the same for the district of the hamlet of Mile End Old Town. That plaintiff's land, in which &c., was, at the time of the committing of the acts herein pleaded to, a street in the hamlet of Mile End Old Town, within the true intent and meaning, and subject to the provisions, of the said Act: that the said shed, seats and forms were an obstruction which had been placed in the said street in front of the plaintiff's house before the commencement of the said Act, and were an annoyance in consequence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gruhn v M Pupkewitz & Sons (Pty) Ltd
...gevel word. Kyk Meek se saak op bl. 156B; Edward se saak op bl. 304F; Eisenberg's v O.F.S. Textile Distributors (Pty.) Ltd., 1949 (3) SA op bl. 1054; Mowschenson & Mowschenson v Mercantile Acceptance Corporation of SA E Ltd., 1959 (3) SA op bl. 366E - F; Terry's Motors Ltd. v Seeck, 1962 (2......
-
Van den Berg v OVS Landbou Ingenieurs (Edms) Bpk
...sodanige bevel op die stukke nie toestaan nie. In die verband het GREENBERG, R.A., in sy uitspraak in Nienaber v Stuckey, 1946 A.A. 1049 op bl. 1054, gesê: H '. . . appellant must satisfy the Court on the admitted or undisputed facts by the same balance of probabilities as is required in ev......
-
Cooper v Walker
...which they have a right to. S 'hey referred to stat. 18 & 19 Viet. c. 120, s. 98, and cited Le Neve v. The Vestry of il& End- Old Town (8 E. & B. 1054), on sects. 119 and 120 of the same statute, Wellbetoted on Highways, 440, Jams v. Dean (3 Bing. 447. S. C. 11 B. Moo. 392), Elwood v. Bullo......
-
Gruhn v M Pupkewitz & Sons (Pty) Ltd
...gevel word. Kyk Meek se saak op bl. 156B; Edward se saak op bl. 304F; Eisenberg's v O.F.S. Textile Distributors (Pty.) Ltd., 1949 (3) SA op bl. 1054; Mowschenson & Mowschenson v Mercantile Acceptance Corporation of SA E Ltd., 1959 (3) SA op bl. 366E - F; Terry's Motors Ltd. v Seeck, 1962 (2......