Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

66

1

"the water rate payable in respect thereof. Any owner or occupier wishing to have water from the waterworks "brought into his premises is empowered by the Act of "1847, upon paying or tendering the portion of water "rate in respect of such premises, by that or the special "Act directed to be paid in advance, to open the ground "(having first obtained the consent of the owners and "occupiers thereof) between the pipes of the company and "his premises, and lay any leaden or other pipes from "such premises, to communicate with the pipes of the "undertakers. The connection of the service "pipes with the company's pipes must be made under the "superintendence of their surveyor, and two days' notice "of the hour and day when such connection is to be "made, must be given to the company.

66

[ocr errors]

Any

person who either has laid down service pipes, or has "become the proprietor of them, is entitled to remove the "same at any time after giving six days' notice in writing "to the company; and he must make compensation to the company for any injury or damage to their pipes or "works caused by such removal. For the purpose, whether of laying or of removing such service "pipes, any owner or occupier is entitled to open or break up so much of the pavement of any street as shall be "between the pipes of the company and his house, build

66

[ocr errors]

same premises, tendering to the company the current quarter's rate, and the estimated expense of restoring the communication, but the company refused to supply the water until the arrears due from the former tenant were paid. A magistrate having convicted the company under sect. 43 of the Act for such refusal, it was held that, although the company were not warranted in refusing to supply water to the incoming tenant until the arrears due to them as above stated were paid, they could not be made liable to the penalties imposed by sect. 43 until he himself had restored the communication

C.

[ocr errors]

with their main pipes; Sheffield Waterworks Co. v. Wilkinson, 4 C. P. D. 411. See, too, Purnell v. Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co., 10 C. B., N. S. 576; Weale v. W. Middlesex Waterworks Co., 1 J. & W. 358; West Middlesex Waterworks Co. v. Suerkrop, 4 C. & P. 87; Cardiff (Mayor of) v. Cardiff Waterworks Co., 5 Jur., N. S. 953; Bateman v. Ashton-under-Lyne, 27 L. J., Ex. Ch. 458; 3 H. & N. 323. 1 Sect. 3 of 10 & 11 Vict. c. 17 defines "water-rate" as " any rent, reward, or payment to be made to "the undertakers for a supply of "water." See Sheffield Waterworks Co. v. Wilkinson, supra.

[ocr errors]

Y

"ing, or premises, or any sewer or drain therein," but doing as little damage as possible. The owners of all dwelling houses, or parts of dwelling houses, occupied as separate tenements, where the annual value does not exceed 107., are liable to the payment of the water rates, instead of the occupiers thereof.1

Parts of towns and districts not supplied with water are empowered to demand a supply from companies under the Act of 1847, if they comply with certain regulations; and a penalty is imposed on the company on their neglect or refusal to supply. The undertakers are bound to keep a supply of water for public purposes, such as fire plugs, cleansing sewers, drains, &c., and for supplying public pumps. They are also authorized to provide a supply for trade and other purposes; and special regulations are made for the case where companies are employed to supply by meter. The Act of 1847 entitles them to the payment of water rates by those requiring a supply of water; but it also strictly limits their profits. By both the Water Works Clauses Acts, the waste of water is prohibited by strict provisions. The undertakers are required to keep a copy of their special Act at their office, and to deposit another with the clerk of the peace or sheriff clerk as aforesaid, for the inspection of all persons interested therein.3

[blocks in formation]

thus created should from time to time take measures to prevent the occurrence of any inconvenience or injury which the effecting such purpose may occasion, not only in the original execution of the necessary works, but at recurring intervals.

Thus, where a company incorporated for supplying mill-owners on the Bann were empowered to make a reservoir, and to send the water, when necessary, down. a special channel, and also to enter on the lands of different streams, and to scour the channels, it was held, that they were responsible for damage caused by an overflow arising from their neglecting to keep the special channels scoured,

Such are a few of the main provisions relating to companies having parliamentary powers. We go on to notice more briefly—

(2) Companies having no parliamentary powers.-Where Companies

since they were bound under the Act to see that the due execution of their works should not be injurious to the lands on the banks of the channel; Geddis v. Bann Reservoir, 3 App. Cas. 430. See ante, p. 266.

So, too, it is incumbent (under the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, sect. 31) on a water company intending to break up roads to communicate beforehand the plan to the road authority, and this is sufficient to enable the road authority to judge whether it requires any modification, and it rests with the water company, in case of its disapproval, to apply for the determination of two justices before proceeding to commence operations; Edgemore Highway Board v. Colne Valley Water Co., 46 L. J., Ch. 889.

With regard to questions of compensation for injuries to land which may arise with reference to the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, a company would appear to be bound by the terms of their agreement, even though they fail to carry them out in entirety. On this point Stone v. Corporation of Yeovil (2 C. P. D. 99) is instructive. There the defendants, a water company, were empowered by an Act incorporating the Lands and Waterworks Clauses Acts to take, use and divert certain streams, and, amongst others, that of the plaintiff, a mill-owner. Defendants gave plaintiff notice of their intention to take all the stream, but actually took half only. To a statement of claim by the plaintiff for 9397. permanent damages awarded to him by a surveyor for the abstraction of the whole stream, the defendants demurred, on the ground that they had no power to agree to make compensation for all the stream, but only for such damage as was done from time to time. It was

held, however (affirming the decision in the Common Pleas Division), that they had such power, and that, having given notice of an intention to purchase the whole, they were bound to make compensation at once for all the interest of the mill in the stream. It was further held that, if the case was to be considered as one of injuriously affecting property, the statement showed a good agreement by a limited owner for permanent injury under sects. 9 and 68. In cases of disputes regarding the payment of rates, sect. 68 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, provides that the question of annual value is to be determined by two justices.

[ocr errors]

This provision would appear to override anything to the contrary in any private Act incorporating it. Sect. 46 of the New River Act, which incorporates the Waterworks Clauses Act, enacted "that nothing in this Act, or any Act incorporated therewith, is to "prevent the company from recovering any sum not exceeding "501., due as water rates, &c., by an action as provided.' But it was held in The New River Co. v. Mather (L. R., 10 C. P. 442), that where a bona fide dispute as to value arises, the company, before they can sue, must obtain a decision of justices.

66

Closely connected with the duty incumbent on companies to prevent injury, noticed above (Geddis v. Bann Reservoir, 3 App. C. 430), is the question of responsibility for mischief caused through negligence.

In an action against a water company for so managing their pipes that they burst, and, water escaping, injured the plaintiff's premises, it was shown that there was an extraordinary frost, and that the turncock had examined the

having no

parliamentary such bodies undertake to supply water it is to be noted powers. that they lay their pipes in streets and public ways at

plug, and packed it with straw and ice on the 29th November: it was doubtful, however, whether he had looked at it after. It burst on the 29th December. Held, that there was some evidence of negligence to go to the jury; Steggles v. New River Co., 13 W. R. 413.

In Harrison v. South Western Rail. Co. (10 Jur., N. S. 992) the defendants were charged with the duty of repairing a drain, the outlet of which was in a channel under the management of commissioners bound to keep it clear, and of certain dimensions. Owing to an extraordinary rainfall, the drain burst, and it was held that defendants were liable, although there was an obligation on others which they did not perform; Pollock, C. B., observing, inter alia, that "there was nothing in the matter "of so extraordinary a character "" as that the defendants were not "bound to anticipate it. The "storm, though unusual and "extraordinary in a sense, yet as

happening once a year, or in a "few years, was not unusual. "This is not a case of a sudden "wrong done by others in stop

[ocr errors]

ping the outlet. It is a per"manent long-continuing state of "things which it was the duty of "defendants to guard against."

In order to meet the charge of negligence, a plea must be express and not too general. Thus where damages were claimed by a plaintiff from the East London Waterworks Company for neglect in supplying him with water, they being bound, under sect. 79 of their Act, to supply water by measure at the request of owners of premises for purposes other than those in respect of which rates were paid, it was pleaded by the company:

1st. That the fire-plug in the main pipe was open to put out a fire.

2nd. That they were prevented by an unavoidable accident.

It was held on demurrer that the first plea was a good answer, but the second was bad, as too general; Campbell v. East London Waterworks, 26 L. T., N. S. 475.

Where, however, a water company have observed the directions in their Act of Parliament in laying down their pipes, they are not liable for an escape of water not caused by their own negligence, and the fact that their precautions were not sufficient in an exceptional circumstance (as, for instance, a winter of extreme cold, such as no man could have foreseen), will not render them so; Blyth v. Birmingham Water Co., 11 Ex. 781. As to vis major, see ante, p. 138 et seq.

Again, no action at common law lies against the owner of land by a person who has strayed from the public highway, and fallen into a reservoir or any excavation near to but not substantially adjoining it; Hardcastle v. South York Rail. Co., 4 H. & N. 67.

A company claiming a statutory power to take land compulsorily is bound to prove distinctly from the Act of Parliament the existence of the power, and where there is a doubt, the landowner is to have the benefit of it. When, as is often the case, a special Act incorporates a general Act, it is to the special Act that reference must be made in order to ascertain the contract between the land-owner and the company. A water company incorporated by a special Act incorporating the Lands and Waterworks Clauses Acts deposited plans showing their intention to make a tunnel through the plaintiff's land forty-five feet below the surface. They also claimed to hold the land permanently for other purposes, namely, to erect steam engines and sink wells. Held, per Lord Westbury, L. C., they were not entitled to do so; Simpson v. South Staffordshire Waterworks, 11 Jur., Ñ. S. 453; 34 L. J., Ch. 380.

It may be convenient to note

their peril, being liable to an indictment or action for damages, joined with a claim for an injunction at the instance of any individual whenever they break up or obstruct a highway. They have also no power to acquire lands and water, or to levy tolls or charge rates or rents, save by agreement.1

Both projected companies and those already existing1 can, however, by means of The Gas and Water Facilities Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 70),2 obtain certain powers for supplying water.

Sect. 3 provides that the Act may apply where powers are required "to construct or to maintain and continue water"works and works connected therewith, or to supply "water in any district within which there is not an "existing company, corporation, body of commissioners, "or person empowered by Act of Parliament to construct "such works and to supply water" (sub-sect. 2). By subsect. 3 additional capital can be raised for any of these purposes, and under sub-sect. 4, "two or more companies or persons duly authorized to supply gas or water in any district, or in adjoining districts," may "enter into "agreements jointly to furnish such supply, or to amalgamate their undertakings." Lastly, by sub-sect. 5,

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

here that the principle that a grantor knowing the purposes for which his conveyance is accepted cannot derogate therefrom, applies to a compulsory sale by Act of Parliament; but that such principle does not apply to an accidental state of circumstances, such as the flooded state of a mine at the time of the conveyances; N. E. Rail. Co. v. Elliot, 6 Jur., N. S. 817; 10 H. L. Cas. 333.

It would appear that a water company has no right to interfere with the sale of water for a profit so supplied by them to a township, where the agreement merely stated that the company should supply not more than 75,000 gallons, nor less than 25,000, and the township took more than 25,000 gallons,

and sold the surplus; Halifax v. Soothill, 31 L. T., N. S. 6.

It has been decided that a water company has no claim to compensation for interest in land under sect. 68 of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, because their pipes are laid under such land; New River Co. v. Midland Rail. Co., 36 L. T., N. S. 539. See, too, Ward v. Wolverhampton Waterworks Co., 41 L. J., Ch. 308; Clowes v. Staffordshire Potteries Waterworks Co. 27 L. T., N. S. 521.

[ocr errors][merged small]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »