BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Edinburgh and District Water Trustees v. Clippens Oil Co., Ltd [1898] UKHL 72 (11 November 1898) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1898/36SLR0072.html Cite as: [1898] UKHL 72, 36 ScotLR 72 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 72↓
(Before the
(Ante, December 17. 1897, 35 S.L.R. 304, and 25 R. 370.)
Subject_Police — Water Supply — Laying Mains on Public Roads — Edinburgh and District Waterworks Act 1898 (61 Vict. c. 24), sec. 23.
The Edinburgh and District Water Trustees appealed against the interlocutors of 10th November and of 17th December 1897 (vide report ut supra). Pending the appeal the Edinburgh and District Waterworks Act 1898 received the Royal Assent.
By section 23 of said Act it is enacted—“ The Trustees may at any time, for the purposes of conveying water from any of the sources of their water supply, whether existing or authorised, or for distributing and supplying water within the limits, districts. or areas, or any part of the same within which the Trustees are authorised to supply, sell, or distribute water, either in bulk or otherwise, and that whether within the limits of the Act or beyond the same, and so far as beyond such limits, with the consent of the road authority, lay down, make, and maintain and use aqueducts, conduits, or lines of pipe through, over, under, along, across, or into any public road or highway, and renew, alter, enlarge, duplicate, and increase the number and size thereof, or extend the same, and stop up temporarily any such public road or highway tor such purposes, providing when possible a proper temporary substitute to the reasonable satisfaction of the road authority before interrupting the traffic on any such road, and making full compensation to all persons injuriously affected by anything done under the provisions of this section.”
In the course of the hearing the Lord Chancellor stated that their Lordships were all of opinion that they would not grant an order to remove the pipes in question, because, however the earlier Acts might be construed (and on this point it was not to be assumed that all their Lordships were agreed) it was not contested that the foregoing section of the Act of 1898 gave the appellants power to lay the pipes.
The following order was ultimately pronounced:—“Of consent recal the interlocutors complained of, except in so far as they find the respondents entitled to the expenses in the Court below, and further find the respondents entitled to the costs of this appeal, and remit the cause to the Court of Session, with a direction to find that in the circumstances it is unnecessary to proceed further therein.”
Page: 73↓
Counsel for the Appellants — The Dean of Faculty (Asher, Q.C., — Cripps, Q.C. Agents — A. & W. Beveridge, for Millar, Robson, & M'Lean, W.S.
Counsel for the Respondents — The Lord Advocate (Graham Murray, Q.C.) — Coward, Q.C. Agent — John Kennedy, for J. Gordon Mason, S.S.C.
