Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page

Ystrad Bridget Utigation,

News
Cite
Share

Ystrad Bridget Utigation, A Rhondda District Council's Appeal. The Lord Chancellor, Lords Halsbury, Ashbourne and Macnaghten, resumed in the House of Lords on Thursday last the further consideration of the appeal of the Rhondda Urban District Council v. the TaS Vale Railway Company, the question having relation to the widening of a. bridge carrying a, public road over the Rhondda branch of the TaN Vale Railway near Ystrad. The appellants state they are entitled to require the .respondents. to widen the bridge from 18 to 25 feet. In the exer- cise of their powers, the respondents diverted or stopped up the old Ton road and constructed a, new road leading outt of the main road, and carried it first over the river Rhondda by a bridge, and then over the line of the branch raihvay by another bridge, and thence into the line of the old Ton road. The railway bridge, which was 18ft. wide between the fences, complied with the provisions of the Act of 1836, but did not comply with the provisions of the Railway Clause Act, 1845. Mr Justice Phillimore had held that the Railway Company were bound, under the Act of 1845, to widen the bridge proper. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision. Mr. Levett, K.O., for the respondents, now argued that upon a true construc- tion of the Railway Clauses Act, 1845, a bridge did not include the approaches, and that the river bridge was not part of the railway bridge. The Lord Chancellor gave judgment on the nrat question. He thought Section 50 of the Act of 1845 applied and that the width must be 25 feet wide. No doubt the case had been involved in a coil of argument relating, not merely to the clauses, but to successive interpreta- tions put upon them by various judges, who had considered them, and so verbal controversy had bred verbal controversy. The real question was whether the pro- visions of Section 69 of the Act of 1836 were inconsistent with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act of 1845. He thought the provisions were consistent. L Halsbury, ÅshJbloutrlleri and Macnaghten concurred. Mr. Upjohn then proceeded to argue the second question whether the appell- ants could also require the respondents to widen the approaches to the railway bridge and also the bridge carrying the road over the Rhondda river, either as part of the railway bridge or as part of the approaches. The further hearing was adjourned. a.

-Shots for GoaL

Advertising

[No title]

Advertising

Advertising

Pruacutiai jissurance--copipaiip,…

Treorchy Electors . Awakening.

Advertising

Sports of the Week.

-Shots for GoaL