View report page

176
old highway has come within all the conditions of these sections, and is
found to be a New Street, then it can be dealt with under sec. 105, 18 and
19 Vic.—i.e., the carriageway can be apportioned.
It is in consequence of there being so many old roads (and the saving
that would be effected to the ratepayers) that are about to be paved, that
I have directed my attention to the point as to whether the Vestry are
within their legal right in charging for the carriageway in old roads, and,
on the 27th March, 1890, I asked the opinion of the Law and Parliamentary
Committee upon this point, and Mr. Blanco-White replied:
"That, in his opinion, where an old highway became a New Street, it
could be dealt with and paved in the same way as other New Streets."
Although the carriageway of these old roads in the future will be
apportioned, they will be dealt with on their merits—i.e., where a road has
stood the traffic of a main road and is well constructed, it would only
be necessary to apportion for a coating of granite to make good to the new
levels, but, in the case of a country lane, or what may be known as a
"grown road," or where the carriageway has been badly constructed,
such carriageway would require reconstruction.
POLICE COURT CASES.
I have attended the Police Court to give evidence in support of the
summonses that have been issued, the following of which have been
contested.
Whittingstall Road.—Vestry v Gower.
In this case a point was raised as to whether the Vestry could charge
for the relaying of a crossing which the defendant contended was in the
Fulham Road. It was held that the Vestry had power to charge under
the Statute, and orders were made.
King's Road, Section II.
On the 7th of March, I attended in respect of King's Road, Section II,
when it was argued that it was not a New Street. Evidence was given as
to the former condition of the road, and that it had been widened to the
width of 40 feet, and houses recently erected, and that by reason of such
alteration it had become a New Street, whereupon orders were made.
Wandsworth Bridge Road, Sec. II.—Vestry v. Whitaker.
The defendants, in this case, argued that the Vestry, as successors to
the late Fulham District Board of Works, were liable for the making up of
this road, pursuant to the clauses contained in the Wandsworth Bridge
Act, 1864, and (2) That the road was not a New Street within the meaning
of the Act. The first point was decided in favour of the Vestry, but upon
the second point it was held that although it was a highway, the character
of the road had not been so altered by the erection of houses as to make it
a New Street.
STREETS APPORTIONED
first six months.
The following 33 Streets have been apportioned from September, 1889,
to the 25th March, 1890.