The King against The Company of Proprietors of the Nottingham Old Water Works
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1837 |
| Date | 28 January 1837 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 135
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 N. & P. 480; W. W. & D. 166; 6 L. J. K. B. 89.
[355] thb king against the company of proprietors of the nottingham old water works. Saturday, January 28th, 1837. By an Act, incorporating a company for supplying the town of N. with water, the company were empowered to continue, make, &c., water-works, weirs, and other like works in the parish of L., subject to the restriction after contained, and to enter upon all rivers, lands, &c., specified in the plans and books after mentioned, and to do all other things necessary for making, completing, &c., the water-works. A plan, describing the line of intended works, and the lands through which they were to be carried, and books specifying the owners of the lands, were to remain with the clerk of the peace; and the company were not to deviate from the line described. They were empowered to agree for the purchase of lands, &c. ; and. tenants for life, &c., and owners and occupiers of lands through which the works were to pass, were to receive satisfaction for the value of the lands and the damages sustained in making the works; the amount to be settled, if necessary, by a compensation jury at Quarter Sessions, to be summoned by the company's warrant to the sheriff on certain notice to the company, and not without; and the jury were to assess purchase-money or compensation, and to settle what share should be allowed to any tenant or person having a particular interest. The sessions were to give judgment for the sum awarded ; and the verdict and judgment were to be registered among the records of the Quarter Sessions, and to be deemed records to all intents and purposes. If the verdict should exceed the amount (6)1 3 Bulst. 190, S. C. 1 Rol. R. 409. See Rex v. The Mayor, de. of Abingdon, 2 Salk. 699. (c) Lord Denman C.J. and Littledale J. were absent. (&)2 See the observations of Lord Mansfield, in Bex v. Bankes, 3 Bur. 1454: also Rex v. The Mayor, Bailiffs; and Burgesses of Cambridge, 4 Bur. 2008. 136 THE KING V. NOTTINGHAM OLD WATER WORKS CO. 6 JU . & E. 386. of the company's offer, they were to pay coats, which, if not paid, might be levied on their goods under a justice's warrant; the amount to be ascertained by a justice. A subsequent section directed the assessment of compensation for any damages not before provided for, accruing by reason of the execution of any of the powers in the Act; the sums assessed to be levied as directed with respect to damages before provided for. The company, on payment, tender, &c., of the sums agreed upon or assessed, might enter on the lands, &e., but not before. Certain restrictions were provided, in the case of actions brought for any thing done in pursuance of the statute. The company, by alterations in a weir in L., across a river, raised the water so as to damage a mill in L., of which T. was tenant for life: neither the mill, nor the weir or its site, nor T.'s name, was specified in the books or plan, nor was the weir in the line of works there described ; but that part of the river in which the mill and weir respectively lay was in the plan. 1. Held that a mandamus lay to the company, commanding them to issue their warrant for a jury to assess the damages sustained by T. 2. The jury, summoned in obedience to the mandamus, having assessed a compensation, and the company refusing to pay the same, or the costs, Held, that a mandamus lay to enforce payment of the compensation, though the statute made the verdict and judgment records of the Quarter Sessions. 3. Held, also, that the company, in shewing cause against the rule for a second mandamus, were precluded from contending that the injury sustained by T. was not within the Act, or that all preliminaries necessary to support the first mandamus were not fulfilled. 4. That all formal preliminaries, essential to the verdict, must be presumed to have been fulfilled, in default of affidavit to the contrary. 5. That the jury, having assessed a compensation to T. without noticing the interest of any other person, it was not to be presumed, in the absence of any affidavit, that they had given such compensation for a larger interest than T. really had, or had overlooked any other person's interest. 6. That, if costs were recoverable at all, for the inquisition, &c., they must be levied as prescribed by the Act; and that no mandamus would lie for the payment, though application had been made to a justice for a distress warrant, which he had refused. 7. That a mandamus would not lie for the costs of the former mandamus. [S. C. 1 N. & P. 480 W. W. & D. 166; 6 L. J. K. B. 89.] Sir W. W. Follett, in Easter term, 1835, obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus to the Company of Proprietors of the Nottingham Old Water Works to issue [356] a warrant under their common seal to the sheriff of the county of Nottingham, commanding him to summon and return a jury of twenty-four, &c., to appear before the justices of the peace at the next General Quarter Sessions for the said county, in order that a jury might be then and there empannelled, according to stat. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. Ixxxii. (a), to assess the damages sustained by Sarah [357] Turner in her lands, (a) Stat. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. Ixxxii. (local and personal, public), entitled " An Act for More Effectually Supplying with Water the Inhabitants of the Town and County of the Town of Nottingham, and the Neighbourhood thereof." Sect. 1 recites that the inhabitants of Nottingham, for many years have been supplied with water from the river Len, by means of works constructed at the expense of the proprietors of such works, on ground demised to them for a long term; and it incorporates the proprietors by the name of "The Company of Proprietors of the Nottingham Old Water Works." Sect. 2 empowers the company " to continue, make, complete," &c., " water-works, houses," "reservoirs," "weirs," "pipes," &c., "in and near" "the several parishes or townships of Basford, Lenton," &c., "and from time to time to regulate, conduct, continue," &c., the same, and to discontinue the same, subject to the restriction after contained; and "to go enter and pass in, upon, over, under and through all or any of the rivers, brooks, streams, waters, high ways," &c., "and all other lands and places of or belonging to any person or persons," &c., "mentioned and specified in the plans and booka of reference hereinafter mentioned," (with exceptions not material here,) " and to aet out and ascertain such part or parts thereof aa they the said company shall think necessary and proper for continuing, making," &c. " the said water-works," 6 AD. tc E. 3J7. THE KING V. NOTTINGHAM OLD WATER WORKS CO. 137 tenements, hereditaments, and premises, by reason and in consequence of certain works done and erected by the said company, in the execution of certain of the powers of the said statute. &c,, "and all such other works" "as they shall think necessary for effecting the purposes aforesaid ;" doing as little damage as may be, &c., " and making full satisfaction in manner hereinafter mentioned to the owners or proprietors of, and all persons interested in any lauds tenements or other hereditaments which shall be taken, used," &c., " or injured, for all damages to be by them sustained in or by bhe execution of all or any of the powers hereby granted; and this Act shall be sufficient to indemnify the said company, and their deputies, servants," &c., " for what they or any of them shall do by virtue of the powers hereby granted, subject nevertheless to such provisoes and restrictions " as are after mentioned. Sect. 3 recites that a map or plan, describing the intended reservoirs and line of pipes and other works, and the lands, &c. upon or through which they are made or intended to be carried, together with a book of reference...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Eastern Counties Railway Company
...in argument on either side, or in the judgment. The following caaes were referred to. Bex v. The Nottingham Old Water Works Company (6 A. & E. 355); Thicknesse v. The Lancaster Canal Company (4 M. & W. 472); Bex v. The Commissioners of the Thames and Isis Navigation (5 A. & E. 804); Bell v.......
-
Chamberlain v West End of London Railway
...the value of the land was seriously affected by the interference with a private right. Hex v. The Nottingham Old Water Works Company (6 A. & E. 355), and Bell v. The Hutt and Selby Railway Company (6 M. & W. 699, were decided upon the provisions of the special Acts. In Lawrence v. The Great......
-
The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Sandwich against the Queen
...to go by for setting up their objection on the record; Bradley v. Eyre (n), Rex v. The Company, &c. of the Nottingham Old Water Works (6 A. & E. 355. See p. 373). The town council had exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the claimant held the offices in question ; they assessed compe......
-
The Queen against The Manchester and Leeds Railway Company
...Watton Eoad (5 A. & E. 563), the inquisition was not a record. [Sir F. Pollock referred to Rex v. The Nottingham Old Water Wmks Company (6 A. & E. 355).] There the question was merely whether a mandamus was rendered unnecessary by the verdict and judgment being made records. Next, admitting......