View report page

163
The Solicitor General in his argument, more especially
referred to 25 and 2(5 Vic., cap. 120, section 112, which
defined the term "New Street," as applying to "all streets
hereafter to be formed or laid out, and a part of any such
streets, and also all streets, the maintenance of the paving
and roadway whereof had not previously to the passing of
this act been taken into charge and assumed by the highway
authorities, this road was a "New street," although
there had been an old highway, it had been widened and
altered, and new buildings had been erected abutting on
the road. Until recently it had not been "taken in charge"
by the Vestry, having always been repaired by the Crystal
Palace Company.
Mr. Reid, Q.C. contended:— "that the road was not a
'New Street,' being upon the site of an old highway, and
previously to 1853 it had been maintained and taken in
charge by the parish authorities, though since that date
there had been no expenditure by them." Mr. Justice Day:
"Why have your clients repaired it for more than 30 years ?"
Mr. Reid, Q.C.:—"That should not prejudice them if not
legally liable; section 4 of the Crystal Palace Company's
Act provides that the road when widened should be dedicated
to the public.
Mr. Justice Day in his judgment stated:— "I do not
see any prospect of my doubts on this case being removed
by further consideration. These doubts arise from the
unhappy language of the Legislature as to the paving of
New Streets. I think this is a New Street. It has never
been 'taken into charge and assumed' by the Authorities,
and on this short ground I give judgment for the