Sir Robert Donald.

The Municipal year book and public utilities directory online

. (page 120 of 147)
Online LibrarySir Robert DonaldThe Municipal year book and public utilities directory → online text (page 120 of 147)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


now being constructed.

Workington. — Refuse is spread over
land. Sewage drains into the sea.

Worksop. — Sewage is dealt with on a
sewage farm. The Council pumps the
sewafi'e on to the land*, and it is then dealt
with by the tenant of the farm.

Worsborough. — Refuse conveyed to tips.
Sewage disoosal effected by intermittent
downward nitration on two farms.

Worsley. — Sewage disposed of by means
of tanks and land filtration.

Worthing. — A Heenan and Froude refuse
destructor was erected in 1905 at a cost of
i:5,ti00. Sewage is discharged into the sea.



Wrexham. — The town refuse is destroyed
by a Meldrum four-cell destructor which is
connected with the electricity works, and
^ood results have been obtained. The town
18 sewered throughout and the sewage i&
disposed of by irrigation on a loasenold
farm of 210 acres, 2i miles from the
borough. A scheme for more effectually
dealing with the sewa^ was completed in
1905 under the direction of the oorough
engineer.

Wrotham.— Sewage collected by sewage
cart.

Yarmouth. — Refuse is disposed of in
one of Manlove, Alliott and Co.'s 10-
cell destructors. Sewage is discharged
uu. ebb of the Tare, which is a strong
tidal river.

Yeovil.— Works on the Septic Tank
Company's lines for the disposal of sewage
recently completed at a cost of £32,7'^2.
The installation consists of septic tanks
and contact beds at two levels.

York.— Refuse dealt with in a destructor,
the clinker produced being used for
mortar mixing; the excreta from wet
ashpits is sold. The bulk of the sewage
is disposed of by chemical precipitation,
the remainder being treated by open
septic tanks and continuous filters, but it
is intended to treat all the sewage by the
latter process.



JOINT SEWERAGE AUTHORITIES.

Abbreviations :— 67., Clerk ; Eyig., En^eer ; 8un\, Surveyor ; T.C., Town Council ;
U.D.C., Urban District Council ; B.JD.CL, Rural District Council.

U.D.C., Handsworth U.D.C., King's
Norton and Northfield U.D.C., Perry
Bar U.D.C., Castle Bromwich R.D.C.).—
(Jl.,W. Harris, J.P., 117, Colmore Row,
Birmingham ; Eng., J. D. Watson,
M.In8t.U.E., Tyburn, near Birmingham.
Syaiem of disposal, precinitation in
tanks followed by bacterial treatment
and land irrigation.

Brentwood and Billericay Joint Sewer-
age Committee (Billericay R.D.C.,Brent-
wood U.D.C.).— (7., Charles Edgar
Lewis; Snrv.y A. J. Meeson.

Brighton Intercepting and Outfall
Sewers Board (Brighton T.C. and Hove
T.C.).— 67., H. Mbot Town Clerk,
Brighton; Eng., A. Weller, Borough
Surveyor, Brighton. System of dis-
posal, tidal outfall into the sea at Tels-
combe, four miles east of Brighton.

Burley-in-Wharfedale and Menston
.Toint Sewerage Board (Burley-in-
Wharfedale L'.D.C. and Wharfedale
R.D.C.).-67., A. H. Hopcraft, Otley.
System of disposal, biological treat-
ment by the aid of anaerobic tanks, con-
trollable filters, Ac. b B 2



AccRiNGTON and Church Outfall Sewer-
age Board (Accrington T.C. and Church
U.D.C.).— (.7., R. Sharpies, Solicitor,
14, (Church Street, Accrin^fton ;
Eng., W. J. Newton, Boro' Engineer,
Town Hall, Accrington. System of
disposal, settling tanks and continuous
bacteria beds.

Ardsley, Stanley, and Wakefield Joint
Sewerage Committee (Ardsley, East
and West, U.D.C, Stanley U.D.C,
Wakefield R.D.C). C7., H. Beaumont,
Tetley House, Wakefield; Eng., F.
Massie, M.I.C.E., Tetley House, Wake-
field. System of disposal, open sedi-
mentation tanks and percolating
filters.

Berkhampstbad Joint Sewerage Com-
mittee (Berkhampstead R.D.C. and
Great Berkhampstead U.D.C).— 67., T.
Penny, Berkhampstead; Stirv., E. H.
Adey, Berkhampstead. System of dis-
posal, septic tanks and bacteria beds.

Birmingham, Tame, and Rea District
Drainage Board (City of Birmingham,
Aston Manor T.C, Smethwick T.C,
Sutton Coldfield T.C, Erdington



Digitized by



Google



736



MUNICIPAL YEAR BOOK.



Chelmsford Joint Committee for Dis-
posal of Sewage and Management of
Sewage Farm (Chelmsford T.C. and
Chelmsford R.D.C.).— C/., W. Smith,
Town Clerk, Municipal Offices, Chelms-
ford ; Eng., C. Brown, A.M.I.C.E., Muni-
cipal Offices, Chelmsford. System qf
disposal, broad irrigation and inter-
mittent filtration.
Clayton-le-Moors and Great Harwood
Joint Sewerage Board (Clavton-le-
Moors U.D.C. and Great Harwood
U.D.C.).— 67., B. Haworth, SoHcitor,
Great Harwood. System of disposal,
continuous precipitation, single con
tact, followed by land.

Crook and Auckland Joint Committee
for management of Sewage Farm
(Auckland R.D.C., Crook U.D.C.).—
(Jl. & Eng,, Ed. Wilbum, Tow Law,
Durham.

Darenth Valley Main Sewerage Board
(Dartford R.D.C., Sevenoaks U.D.C,
Sevenoaks R.D.C.).— 67., G. F. Camell,
Solicitor, Sevenoaks; Eng., S. W.
Gibson, Eynsford. System of disposal,
the sewage of the district is admitted to
the sewer of the West Kent Main
Sewerage Board (through the sewer of
the Dartford Urban District Council),
who treat it at their outfall works in
the parish of Dartford.

Haslingden, Rawtenstall, and Bacup
Outfall Sewerage Board (Haslingden
T.C, Rawtenstall T.C, Bacup T.C).—
(7., R. W. Bugler, Solicitor, HasHng-
den; Manager, H. Tathani, Ewood
Hall, Edenfield. System of disposal,
tank precipitation, some chemical pre-
cipitation, artificial and land filtration.

Honley and South Crosland Joint
Sewerage Board (Honley U.D.C and
South Crosland U.D.C.).-CJ., A. J.
Slocombe, Town Hall, Huddersfield.

KiRKHAM and Wesham Joint Sewerage
Committee (Fylde R.D.C and Kirk-
ham U.D.C).— C7., W. J. Dickson,
Station Road, Kirkham. System of
disposal, settling tanks.

Leigh and Atherton Joint Sewerage
Board (Leigh, Lanes., T.C and Attierton
U.D.C).—?/., D. Schofield, Atherton;
^fanager, D. Ledson, Sewage Works,
Leig:h. System of disposal, chemical
I)recipitation, land and artificial filtra-
tion.

LiNTHWAlTE and Golcar Joint Sewerage
Committee (Linthwaite U.D.C. and
Golcar U.D.C^).— 67., A. J. Slocombe,
Town HaU, Huddersfield.

LuDDENDEN FoOT Joint Sewerage Board

(Halifax T.C, Luddenden Foot U.D.C,

Midgley U.D.C, Mvtholmroyd U.D.C).

-CL, W. H. Boocock, Solicitor, Halifax.

System qf disposal, land filtration.



LuDWORTH AND Mellor Joint Sewerage
Board (Glossop Dale U.D.C and Hay-
field R.D.C).-C?., A. Walker, Solicitor,
New Mills; Eng., Edward Garside
Town Hall Chambers, Ashton-under-
Lyne. System of Disposal, bacteria,
beds.

Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare Farms
Management Committee (Merthyr
Tydfil T.C. and Aberdare U.D.C).—
CI, W. R, Harris, Town Hall, Merthyr
Tydfil: Eng., T. F. Harvey, Town
Hall, Merthyr Tydfil. System of dis-
posal, downward intermittent filtration
and broad irrigation.

Portsladb and Southwick Outfall
Sewerage Board (Portalade-by-Sea
U.D.C and Southwick U.D.C.).-67.,
E. H. Kempe, Solicitor, New Shore-
ham; Eng., C. O. Blaber, Haywards
Heath. Sysietn qf disposal, through a
syphon and outfall to sea.

Penybont Main Sewerage Board (Bridg-
end U.D.C and Penybont R.D.C).—
(.7., T. J. Hughes, Solicitor, Bridgend;
Ena.^ M. WilUams, Bridgend. System
of disposal, to low- water mark in tidal
waters of Bristol Channel.

Richmond Main Sewerage Board (Rich-
mond T.C and Barnes U.D.C).— 67.,
J. L. G.Powell, D.L., J.P., Solicitor,
Richmond^ Surrey ; Eng., W. Fainley,
A.M.In8t.C.E., Main Sewerage Works,
Kew Gardens, S.W. System of dis-
posal, chemicalprecipitation.

Shepley and Shelley Joint Sewerage
Board (Shepley U.D.C and SheUey
U.D.C).— 67., A. Hoyle, Shelley.
System qf disposal, bacterial

Stalybridge and Dukinfield Joint
Sewerage Board (Dukinfield T.C. and
Stalybndge T.C).— 67., W. Moss,
F.CA., Ashton-under-LjTie.

Stourbridge Main Drainage Board,
(Stourbridge U.D.C. and Amblecote
U.D.C).— 67., G. Harward, Solicitor,
Stourbridge; Eng., W. Fiddian, Old
Bank Offices, Stourbridge. System of
disposal, farm irrigation.

Stowmarket and East Stow Joint
Sewerage Committee • (Stowmarket
U.D.C. and East Stow R.D.C).— C/.,
P. C G. Hayward, The Old Bank,
Stowmarket; Surv., G. W. Lingwood,
3, Butter Market, Stowmarket. System
of disposal, passed through two con-
tinuous filter beds; it then overflows
into a channel and is taken down a
main carrier and distributed over land,
of which the area is 90 acres. The
sewage is pumped up into the tanks
through 11 in. rising main, passing
through perforated corrupted iron
roof, and thence through 12in. shingle.
The sludge is emptied out of the tanks



Digitized by



Google



ADVBRTISBMENT. 737



DISPOSAL



OF



HOUSE REFUSE

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS SAVED

by using

THE PATENT
LieHTNINO DUST MANIPUUITOR^

which turns unpicked House Refuse intociean Marketabie Manure.

The Refuse, as it leaves the Dust Manipulator, is also ready to
be nixed previous to being pressed Into BRIQUETTES for lighting.



ENORMOUS SAVING IN INITIAL COST OF PLANT.
GREAT ECONOMY IN WORKING EXPENSES.

M'o extensive buildings

M'o Ave

N'o siMLOlce

N'o evil sixiells

M'o deleterious tf»ses

N'o dust

M'o distuvbintf noise

N'o nitfKt mrovk

N'o fux*n»oe mrovli:

N'o WTAste

N'o nuis»noe

'When asking for particulars^ Everybody oonoevned

please apply for Catalogue G* mritK it likes it.



Adopted by the 80UTHWARK BOROUGH COUNCIL, London, S.E.,

who, after a year's working of the Manipulator,

have decided to DOUBLE THE PLANT.

THE PATENT LIGHTNING CRUSHER COMPANY,

Southwapk Engrineeping^ Works,
BOUNDARY LANE, WALWORTH, LONDON, S.E.



Digitized by



Google



738



MUNICIPAL YEAR BOOK.



once a week, trenches being dug for the
Blndge to be emptied into. Tne whole
of the sludge passes down a 4in. oipe
and gravitates to the sludge trencnes.
After the final filtering process by pass-
ing the effluent into the weirs, the
emuent is then dischaiged into the
river about a mile distant from the
farm.

Thornton, Bispham, and Carleton Joint
Sewerage Committee (Thornton U.D.C.,
Bispham-with-Norbreck U.D.C., YyHe
R.D.C.).— 67., R. Bowman, Chartered
Accountant, 26, Briley Street, Black-
pool; Eng,, A. Hindle, M.InstC.E.,
Abin^on Street, Blackpool. System
of disposal f Stone's ejectors and sea
outfall.

Upper Stour Valley Main SewerMre
Boani (Dudley T.C., Halesowen R.D.C.,
Lye and WoUescote U.D.C., Quarry
Bank U.D.C., Rowley Regis U.D.C.).—
rV., G. Green, Solicitor, Cradley Heath ;
Engrs.jE.B. Marten and W.Fiddian,
Stourbridge. System of disposal, mostly
by septic tank treatment and percolating
beds.

Urmston and Flixton Joint Drainage
Committee (Barton-upon-Irwell R.D.U.,
Urmston U.D.C.).— /ani/ 67erA-«,J.W.
Whitworth, Green Lane, Patricroft, and
T. J. Rowland, Solicitor, Urmston.

Western Valleys (Monmouthshire)
Joint Sewerage Board (Abercarn
U.D.C, AbertiUerj' U.D.C, Ebbw Vale
U.D.C, Nantyglo and Blaina U.D.C,
Risca U.D.C, Mynyddislwyn U.D.C,
Tredegar U.D.C, Bedwellty U.D.C).—
CLf T. S. Edwards, Solicitor, Newport



(Mon.); Deputy CI, J. F. Walmsley,
Newport (Mon.}: Eng., J. F. Jupp,
A.MjJi8t.C.E. System of disposal ,
main trunk intercepting sewers, storag-e
tank nearly one mile long, total length
of sewers about 40 miles ; completed atr
end of September, 1906, 28 miles ; total
cost £330^000. Each constituent Council
is preparing a drainage scheme to con-
nect to main trunk sewers.

West Kent Main Sewerage Board
(Beckenham U.D.C, Bromlev T.C.,
Bromley R.D.C, Chislehurst U.D.C,
Dartfoid U.D.C, Foot's Cray U.D C).
— Sec., Henry Foale Priter. Offices of
Board ; Park House, Bromley, Kent.

Weybridqe and Oatlands Joint Sewer-
age Committee (Weybridge U.D.C.
Walton-upon-Thames U.D.C.).— C7., B.
Ellwood, Council Offices, Weybridge;
Eng., S. Crawshaw, Council Offices,
Weybridge. System of disposal.
chemical precipitation and land filtra-
tion.

Wisbech and Walsoken Main Sewerage
Board (Wisbech T.C and Walsoken
U.D.C).— 67., C E. F. Copeman, M.A..
Solicitor, Wisbech; Eng., K. J. S.
Harris, Lynn Road, Wisbech. System
of disposal, land treatment.

YSTRADYFODWG and Pontypridd Main
Sewerage Board (Rhondda U.D.C and
Pontypridd U.D.C).— 67., W. P.
Nicholas, Solicitor, Pont)rpridd ; Insp.,
T. Bowen, " Maesyderwen," Grai^,
Pontypridd . System of d isposal, outfall
mouth of Rumney River, Bristol
Channel.



Digitized by



Google



Section 19.



Allotments.



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



ALLOTMENTS AND SMALL HOLDINGS.

Allotnieot8.~Wliere there is a demand for allotments for the labouring^ class of a
district or parish, and this demand cannot be satisfied on reasonable terms by volun-
tary agreement between the owners of land suitable for the purpose and the applicants,
it is the statutory duty of the local authority — ^that is, the town council, urban district
council, Darish council, or parish meeting, as the case may be — ^to puivhase or hire any
suitable land available for allotments, either within or without tne district or parish
concerned, and to let such land to persons of the labouring class resident in the district
or parish, and desiring to take tne same. The local authority is not empowered
to acquire land for allotments save at such price or rent as, in the opinion of the
authority, may reasonably be expected to be recouped out of the rents to be obt^uned.

Any six registered Parlianientary electors or ratepayers resident in a borough or
urban district, or in a rural parish, may make a representation to the local authority
that the circumstances of the district or parish are such that it is tJie duty of the
authority to take action, and the authority must thereupon take such representation
into consideration.

Further, the Small Holdings and Allotments Actj, 1907, makes it the duty of a
county council to ascertain the extent to which there is a demand for allotments in the
several urban districts (other than boroughs) and rural parishes in the county, or would
be a demand if suitable land were available, and the extent to which it is reasonably
practicable to satisfv any such demand, and for that purpose to co-operate with the
local auliiorities and take such other steps as it thinks necessary. If the Board of
Agriculture^ after holding a local inquiry, is satisfied that the county councils have
faued in this duty, it may transfer the powers of the council under the Allotments
Acts to commissioners appointed under the Act of 1907.

It is advisable, where possible, to make every effort to acquire the necessary land by
agreement with the landlords. Where this is impracticable, however, the local
authority may submit to the Board of Amculture an order giving compulsory powers
of purchase. Such order, when confinn^ by the Board, is final. In the case of parish
councils and parish meetings the application for a compulsory order must be made
through the county council, and only m case of refusal by the 1872


34


257






Swindon


. 1896-1904


SO}


600


6d. and 9d.


221


216


Thomaby-on-Tees


1896


9


86


Hid.


63


58


Teddlngton


1896


7


70


9d.-ls.


37


22


Tettenhall


1897


3


29


l8.3d.-ls.6d.






Tonbridge


1877


15


250


6d. to 9d.


96


81


Tnrton


1896


1


6


X:








TanbridMWelte

Twickenham


. 1892-1900


9f


80


39


23


1897-1906


6


67


Is.


45


114t


Ulvereton


1892


6i


88


9d.


37


36


Uxbridge


1891




44


lOd.


19


25


Wallasey


1896


5


56


38.1|d.


44


55


Wateall


1896


52


486





189


188


Walsoken


1903


H


36


7id.


48


50


Walthamstow


~-




121




30


6


Wallaend


1901


6


95


Is. 3d.


56 .


89 '


Wandaworth


1896


7


72


9d.


42


12


Wanstead


1892


9i


127


8d.


44


9


Ware




6


70


9d.


39




Watford


— .


47


637


8d.


188


146


*Wath-upon-Deame


1895


11


143




38


29t


Wedneflbmy


1900


3


65


2».


15


10


Wellingboroosh


1897


10


133


9d.





.—


Wells-nezt-the-Sea


1891


25


135


4d.


63


60


Wem


1896


5


14


4id.


11


11


WestBridgford


1902


9


77


ls.6d.


100





West Ham


1907


5


47


3jd.








West Hartlepool











2B6


63


Whittlesey


1869


34^


66


"tt-


96


107


Wlllesden


1890


2^


414


211


157


Wimbledon


1866-1906


I7I


193


8d.and9d.


72


257


Wintarton


1896


34


34











•Woolwich


1901


17


183


7d.


60


48


Woroeeter


1895-1897


19


76


7d.-7§d.


66


92


Workington


1896





150





130


122




1897


6


26


4id.








WorthiMf

Tannooth (Great)


1893


19


144


9d.&ls.2d.


86


92


1901


5


13


4d.


13


5


ireovil


1891


8}


87


Is.


86


56


York


1906


4


54


Is.


25


36



• Year 1905-6.



t Includes loan charges.



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



Section 2C.



Digest of Legal Cases.
The Acts of 1907.



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by LjOOQ iC



DIGEST OF LEGAL CASES.

(A Short DIflpest of sono of the Principal Local DocUlons affoctlng Local Oovommont,
not Including tho Poor Law.)

ABBREYIATIONS.

A.O.J Attorney-General ; C.A., Court of Appeal; H.L., House of Lords.



it. 0., Law Reports, Appeal Cases ; Oh.D., Ch., Law Reports, Chancery Division;
J.P., Justice of the Peace Reports ; K.B.D., K.B., Law Reports, Kin^s Bench Division ;
L.G.R., Knight's Local Grovemment Report; L.J.Ch.t Law Journal Reports, Chancery
Division; L.J,G.P., Law Journal Reports, Common Pleas; L.J.Q.B., Law Jounud
Reports, Queen's Bench; L.T., Law Times Reports; QJ3.D., Q.B., Law Reports,
Queen s Bench Division ; T.L.B., Times* Law Reports.

Paob



Aniold V. Poole Corporation 756

Attorney-General v. Batley Corporation ... 751

V. Blackburn Corporation 752

t?. Brecon Corporation 751

t?. Cardiff Corporation 762

r. Cole 763

V. De Winton 761

V. Dorchester Corporation. 764

t\ Hanwell U.D.C 760

r. London County CoDUcil 759

V. Manchester Corporation 770

V. Mersey Railway Company 770

r. North-Eastem ttailway Company 770

r. Nottingham Corporation 764

tr. Pontypridd U.D.C 758

IT. West Riding C.C 757

Barnard Castle U.D.C. v. Wilson 770

Baron V. Portslade U.D.C 768

Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Co. v.

Thornton U.D.C 766

Board of Education v. West Riding C. C. ... 757

Brooks V. Dolby 750

Brooks, Jenkins and Co. v. Tot^nay Corpora-
tion 755

Brown v. Dnnstable Corporation 764

Btu-gess V. Clark 765

Caterham U.D.C. v. Godstone R.D.C 750

Chichester Corporation v. Poster 761

Clarke V. Cuckneld Guardians 756

Colwell V. St. Pancras Borough Council 764

Cowley V. Newmarket Local Board 758

Cox V. Tniscott 756

Devonport Corporation V. Tozer 753

Dublin United Tramways Co. r. Fitzgerald .. 759
Dudley CorporaUon v, Dudley, &c.. Electric
Traction Co 760



East Freemantle Council v. Annols
Evans v, Liverpool Corporation ...



754
766



Finchley Electric Light Co. ». Finchley U.D.C. 759
Foster V. Warblington U.D.C 766

Garlick V. Knottinsley U.D.C 766

Gingell v. Stepney Borough Council •« ... 761
GlosBop r. Heston and Isleworth Local Board 767



Hardaker v. Idle District Council
Harrogate Corporation v. McKay...
Hobart v. Southend Corporation ...
H ubbard v. Bromley R.D.C.

Hunt V.Green

Hunt v. Wimbledon Local Board...

Ilford Gas Co. v. Ilf ord U.D.C. . . .



... 754
... 770
... 765
... 753
... 753
... 756



Jackson v. Wimbledon U.D.C

Kent V. Fittall

Kent C.C. (vide R. v. Wraith)

Kershaw v. Shoreditoh Borough Cmmcll
Kruse 17. Johnson

liawford v. Blllericay R.D.C.



Pagb
.. 769

... 767
... 757
... 763
... 753

756



LiverpoolCorporationv. West Derby Giuirdians 760

Maguire V. Leigh U.D.C

Manchester Carriage Co. v. Swinton and Pen-

dlebury U.D.C

Matthews V. Strachan

Mayo V. Seaton U.D.C

Meroer V. Liverpool, &c.. Railway Co

Metropolitan Asylums' District v, Hilll

Nashr. Finlay

Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mayor) v. Attorney-
General

Newell V. Ormskirk U.D.C

Pritchard v. Bangor Corporation



R. r. Bangor O)rporation ...

V. Beer

V. Brighton Corporation ...

V. Caiion Roberts

V, Dolby

V. Ealing (Mayor)

V. Gaisford

V. Mountford

r. Wraith, ex parte Kent C.C.



766

769
756
763
760
763

753

752
752

. 757

. 758
. 757
. 758
. 751
. 750
. 767
. 756
. 769
. 757



Sheffield Corporation v. Barclay 756

Shoreditoh Borough Council t\ Bull 759

Smith V. Southampton Corporation 767

Stanbnry t;. Exeter Corporation 766

SudburyCorporation v. Empire Electric Light Co.758
Sykes r. Sowerby' U.D.C. 768

Thomas V. Devonport Corporation 750

Thompson V. Eccles Corporation 769

Tynemonth Corporation v. Attorney-General ... 752

Wakefield Light Railways v. Wakefield Cor-

poration 767

Wandsworth Borough Council v. Balnes ... 762
West Hartlepool Corporation v. Durham C.C... 750
Westminster City Council v. Gk>rdon Hotels Cu. 762
Westminster City Ouncil v. London and North-

Westei-n Riiilway 762

Wilmslow U.D.C. r. Sidebottom 768

Wood V. Ealing Tenants, lAA. 768

Wood v. East Ham U.D.C 766

Wood Green U.D.(..t?. Joseph 768

752



, 754 Yabbicom t'. Kicg



Digitized by



Google



750 MUNICIPAL YEAR BOOK.

ADJUSTMENT.

New couoty boron^— Ploanclal adjnstnent.

By a Provisional Order and Confirmation Act the Borough of West Hartlepool mtvls
constituted a county borough under sections 54 and 59 of wie Local Government Act.
1888, and the Order provided that the provisions of that Act relating to the adjustment
of financial relations were to applv. Upon the borough being constituted a county
borough an increased burden was tnrown upon the borough in respect of maintenance
of children in industrial schools and reformatories, the borough ceased to receive contri-
butions from the countj*^ in re8|)ect of the subsidised roadS, and a sum in respect of
fines which was in excess of the tines levied within the borough was lost to the boroug-h-

Held, by the H.L., reversing the C.A., that an arbitrator appointed to adjust the
financial relations between the county and the county borough under section S2 of the
Local Government Act, 1888, had no power to award compensation in respect of such
matters.

West IhtrflejvM Vonyoraiion v. Durham Comitij ('ouncil (1907) A.C. 246; 97 L.T.
114 ; 71 J.P. 385; 5 L.G.R. 854.

N«w urban district— Conpensatlon or adjustment for loss of Income from rates— L.Q. Act,
i888, s. 6a— L. a. Act, 1894* «• 68.

Held, reversing the C.A., that no claim could be validly made under tlie
above enactments for compensation or adjustment in respect of loss to a rural district
by the conversion of a parish therein into an urban district where the contributions
of such imrish to the rural district council's exj^enses exceeded the council's expenditure
in respect of such parish.

Caterham Urban District Council v. Godstone Rural District Council (1904) A.C.
171 ; t)8 J.P. 429; 2 L.G.ll. 596.

ALDERMAN.

See " Elections," " Metropolis."

AUDIT.

Extent of auditor's duty— Elective auditor of Corporation— Remuneration.

The auditor of the accounts of a borough must not onlj'^ ascertain whether each iteni
of the accounts submitted to him is properly vouched for ; he must also ascertain
whether the pavments vouched for are authorised and proper. Any ille^l or improper
paj'ments should be rejwrted to the Council and the burgesses. Elective auditors are
entitled to be remunerated for auditing the accounts of the Town Council acting as an
urban sanitary authority, but not for auditing the borough treasurer's accounts under
the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882.

Thomas v. Deronport Corjyoratwn (1900) 1 Q.B. 16; 81 L.T. 427; 63 J.P. 740 (C.A.).

Repairs to omnibus provided by urban district council for conveyance of coanclliors - dis-

allowance and surcharipe.

The East Ham Urban District Council bought an omnibus for the purpose of con-
veying councillors about the district while i)erforming their ordinary duties. The cost
of sucn omnibus and its accessories was surcharged, but the surcharge was remitted on
appeal by the Local Government Board, with an intimation as to tiie illegality of the
paymente surcharged. Subsequently further payments were made by the Council in
respect of painting and repairs to the omnibus, and surcharged by the district auditor.

Held, that such surcharge was right.

E. V. Dolby (1902) 87 L.T.' 27 ; m J.P. 521.

Disallowance and surchargre— Appeal to L.O.B.— Time for enforcing: certificate off sums



Online LibrarySir Robert DonaldThe Municipal year book and public utilities directory → online text (page 120 of 147)