View report page

8
necessarily built on the street itself as in the case where, owing to
the building line being set back from the street, they can be built
on the owner's own land. The more limited construction is, wo
think, inconsistent with the language used. The building owner
is in our opinion thereby authorised to make the projection to the
limited extent allowed, whatever be the position of the building
line. It gives him a statutory right, in case the building lino
coincides with the boundary of his land, to extend his shop front
into the street beyond it and does not operate merely to remove
the statutory prohibition against transgressing the building lino
on his own land. So far, therefore, as shop fronts are concerned
it sanctions an encroachment on the footway to the extent of ten
inches, and exempts the building owner from the obligation of
removing the projections under section 119 of 18 and 19 Victoria
chapter 120.
We may add that one of the cases referred to in the judgment
of Mr. Justice Denman and Mr. Justiee Hawkins, Goldstraw r
Duckworth, 5, Queen's Bench Division, page 275, furnishes an
illustration of similar legislation in Liverpool. No doubt the
public convenience is to a small extent interfered with by the
construction, which we regard as the correct one, but the words of
the statute do not seem susceptible of any less extensive signification,
they authorise in or upon unambiguous terms the doing
of something which in one particular case is inconsistent with the
continued existence of the public right. To that extent, therofore,
the public right is abrogated by the section.
Upon this ground we think that no proceedings can bo successfully
taken against the Appellant under section 119 of tho
Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855. I should state that
this is the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Mathew, Mr. Justice Cave, Mr. Justice A. L. Smith, and mysolf.
Appeal allowed with costs.