The Queen v Train and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1862 |
| Date | 01 January 1862 |
| Court | Assizes |
English Reports Citation: 176 E.R. 11
Nisi Prius
S. C. 2 B & S. 640. Referred to, Attorney-General v. Cambrulge Consummers' Gas Co L. R. 6 Eq. 282; Bradburn v. Morrus, 3 Ch D. 812, Truro Council (1903), 2 Ch. 638.
3F. &P. 22. THE QUEEN V. TRAIN 11 [22] Kingston, Surrey, Spring Assizes, 1862, coram Erie, C. J the queen v. train and others. laying down on a highway of iron flanges, as a tramway, may be a nuisance, if it obstructs to a substantial degree the ordinary use of the highway, in any part of it, by horses and carnages. Whether it does so, is a question for the jury. That it causes accidents, and by fear of such accidents deters persons from using the highway, is evidence that it is a nuisance, however rarely the accidents may occur ; semble, that questions of law may be reserved on an indictment. Entering into a contract with a public corporate body, to do the work which is the alleged nuisance, is evidence both as against the contractor and the members of such public body, at all events, coupled with evidence of his presence during the progress of the work, and then signing resolutions in favour of the contract, semble, that questions of law may be reserved on an indictment for an obstruction to a highway, with leave to enter a verdict of guilty (as it is a proceeding substantially civil), and, at all events, the entry of the verdict may be suspended until the next assizes, subject to points of law And qucere, whether there may not be, in such case, a bill of exceptions.) [S. C. 2 B & S. 640. Eeferred to, Attorney-General v. Cambridge Consumers' Gas Co , L. R. 6 Eq. 282 ; Bradburn v. Morris, 3 Ch D. 812, Harvey v. Truro Council (1903), 2 Ch. 638.] Indictment against one Tram, and his foreman Hathaway, and also certain persons members of the vestry of St. Mary's, Lambeth, for obstructing a part of the highway, leading from Westminster Bridge towards Kennington. There were several counts, one of which laid the charge to be, that the highway was made dangerous to the passengers with horses and carriages The indictment was really against Mr. Train, for laying down his iron tramways in the roadway. M. Chambers, Hawkins, and Joyce were for the prosecution Bovill, Knapp, and C. Pollock were for the defendant Train Lush, Ballantine, Serjt., and Garth were for the other defendants In November, 1860, a committee of the vestry recommended the vestry to adopt Mr. Train's proposal to lay down this tramway. The vestry having adopted the report and resolved to sanction the tramway, on the 13th of March, 1861, a contract was entered into between the vestry and Mr. Train, by which he was to complete the laying down of the tramway within three months, and he indemnified them against all indictments or actions for laying it down, and also against the expenses of removing and replacing it if he should be required so to do The tramway was completed in September, 1861, and the trams began to run. In November, 1861, this indictment was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roe v Sheffield City Council
... ... Court of Appeal Roe v She±eld City Council and others [ 2003 ] EWCACiv 1 2002 Nov 12 , 13 , 14 ; Pill, Sedley and Hale LJJ 2003 Jan 17 Highway Ñ ... , Ex p Coughlan [ 2001 ]Q B 213 ;[ 2000 ] 2 WLR 622 ;[ 2000 ] 3 All ER 850 ,C A R v Train ( 1862 ) 3 F&F 22 R (S) v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [ 2002 ] EWCA Civ 1275 ;[ ... ...