View report page

80
provided at any railway station. It was argued before me by Mr. Glen,
on behalf of the Metropolitan Railway Company, who are the real
Defendants to the Summons, that as under their original Act of 1874
they had power given them by Parliament to make, inter alia, stations,
and to provide all necessary conveniences for the working of their
railway, they are not affected by any Act which is inconsistent with such
powers, which he contended was so in this case. On behalf of the
Borough Council, Mr. Courthope Munroe argued that although originally
created under a special Act of Parliament, all general Acts apply to any
buildings erected by them, unless specially excepted by statute, or are so
inconsistent as to make it clearly the intention of the Legislature that
they should not apply. No doubt the Building Act (London), 1894, in
many parts expressly excepts the application of such parts to railways,
but under the Acts of Parliament under which these summonses are
taken, there is no such general exception in favour of the Railway
Company. The only exception that is to be found is under Section 45
of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. The cases of the London
County Council v. Wandsworth and Putney Gas Company, the London and
Blackwall Railway Campany v. Lewisham District Board of Works, the
City and South London Railway v. London County Council, the Uckfield
Rural District Council v. Crowborough District Water Campamy, were
relied upon by both sides, and generally I think there was an agreement
that the general Acts apply to buildings erected under special Acts
unless they are inconsistent, or so inconsistent with the provisions of the
general Acts as would lead to the opposite inference. I think you will
agree that that was the line adopted. I referred to the London County
Council v. London School Board, where the latter body purchased certain
lands for the erection of a school, and in laying out part as a playground
unfenced, came within twenty feet of the centre of a highway, where
the Court supported a decision of mine, that as the special Act gave
power to use the ground for a school they were entitled to place the
fence where it was, notwithstanding that it was contrary to Sections 4
and 6 of the Metropolis Management and Building Acts Amendment
Act. I should like to deal with the facts of this case before I allude to
another case. I am not going to allude to those authorities very fully,
because we had them thrashed out on the last occasion. I think that
was really the point, that unless they are so inconsistent as not to apply,