View report page

202
Evidence was produced to show that formerly Hurlingham Road was a narrow
lane, but that houses had recently been erected and the road made the full
width of 40 ft., and that the portion of Hurlingham Road not yet 40 ft. wide
did not apply to the part in dispute. It was held that Hurlingham Road,
Section I., had become a new street, and that the Vestry were entitled to pave
it throughout its whole breadth, and orders were made accordingly.
BISCAY ROAD, Section I.
In this case a question arose as to the ownership of a wall marked No. 10 on
plan, against Mr. Bewsher, who called evidence to prove that the wall was not
upon his land. After a very lengthy hearing it was held that Mr. Bewsher was
not the owner of houses or land abutting on Biscay Road. The summons was
accordingly dismissed.
FULHAM PALACE ROAD, Section II.
These summonses were issued to recover the estimated expenses of paving the
above from Biscay Road to the Parish Boundary. It was proved before the
justices that the street being an old highway, repairable by the inhabitants at large,
was widened about sixteen years ago by the late Fulham District Board of
Works, who at that time laid down the pavement on the same side as the "Rifle"
public house, and that ever since the roadway and pavement on that side
have been repaired at the expense of the rates. Further that the pavement on
the other side of the road was laid down by the late Fulham District Board of
Works about nine years ago, and since that time the repairs have been done by
the Board at the expense of the rates. The magistrate therefore held, that the
Board had exercised their powers conferred upon them by statute, and that
following the case of the Vestry of St. Giles, Camberwell, v Hunt, they could
not again put in force their powers to pave the street, and accordingly dismissedthe
summons, but without costs.
CROWN ROAD, Section I.
Crown Road was formerly an old highway, but subsequently became a new
street. Evidence was produced to show that the road was widened about ten
years ago and that houses had been erected during the last eight years. It was
held to be a new street, and orders were made in all the cases.
MUNSTER ROAD, Section I.
This road is a continuation of Crown Road. Similar evidence was given.
It was formerly an old highway, and became a new street by the erection of
new houses. Orders were made.
WANDSWORTH BRIDGE ROAD, Section Ha.
This road was constructed in accordance with the Wandsworth Bridge Act
1864, which declared the road to be a highway, repairable by the Parish. The
defendant argued that as such the Vestry were liable for the repair of same; but
it was still further argued that a highway repairable by the Parish under certain
conditions could become a new street, viz., by the erection of new houses on either
side. Evidence was called as to the erection of the houses. It was held to have
become a new street, and the Vestry were entitled to pave it under the powers
conferred upon them by the Metropolis Local Management Acts, 1855 and 1862
and orders were made accordingly.