View report page

214
dismissed the summons on the ground that it had not been proved in
evidence that the judgement of a Court of Competent Jurisdiction had
been obtained against the owner prior to the proceedings against the
occupier.
SALISBURY MEWS.
The Magistrate after hearing the evidence in this case, held as a
fact, that as Salisbury Mews had only one entrance, and was built
over on only two sides of the mews, there being no entrance from
the mews to the premises on the other side, but simply a blank wall,
it was not in fact a new street within the meaning of the Act, and
dismissed the summons.
EFFIE MEWS.
The Magistrate held in this case that Effie Mews was not a new
street within the meaning of the Act, there being no evidence of user
on the part of the public, and accordingly dismissed the summons.
FILMER ROAD.
These summonses were issued to recover the estimated cost of
paving Filmer Road, which included a portion of the roadway
opposite 6 to 10 011 plan. It was argued that the late District Board
of Works had already taken to this portion of the road, and that
having done so, the Vestry were not entitled to charge for the portion
in question. After hearing the evidence the Magistrate made no order.
The Vestry appealed on this decision before the Lord Chief
Justice and Mr. Justice Cave, when they dismissed the special case,
holding that a Vestry having once taken to a new street, or part of a
new street, were afterwards bound to maintain the whole of the new
street and any addition thereto longitudinally.
GREYHOUND ROAD, SEC. V.
It was argued in this case that Greyhound Road was not a new
street. Evidence was given as to the widening that had taken place,
and the erection of new buildings. The Magistrate after having
viewed Greyhound Road, decided that it was a new street, and made
the orders for the amounts claimed accordingly.
I remain, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
W. SYKES.