But most of these are to consider the effect of diction.
14.
4. In case of a single line of tramway the Co are bound to repair the road between the rails and for 15 inches beyond outside the rails.
Rail side:
B. In case of a double line of tramway.
RULE
(1) where there is less than 4 feet between the two lines, they are bound to repair the road between the two lines, between the rails on each line, and for 15 inches beyond the outside the 2 external rails:
(2) where there is more than 4 feet between the two lines, they are bound to repair any two single lines of tramway.
1.4. In the case of a double line, between the rails and for 15 inches inside.
This is the present case.
Just apart and there is a strip down the middle 3ft 5ins wide which the Co are not bound to repair, either by concreting it or otherwise.
I think it is a fair inference that, if the Co are not held to repair this 3ft 5ins strip, they cannot be taken to have constructed it - and the D.P.W. should exercise his powers under Sec 13.
As in respect of a distinct single line of tramway, the 3ft. 5ins strip not coming under this purview matter of construction at all.
This interpretation of the order is supported by the expert opinion collected by Mr Dickinson which shows that to concrete this 3ft 5ins strip would add no additional security or stability to either line of tramway.
Moreover, if the Colonial Govt & DPW are right in this matter, there is no limit to the powers of the latter under sec 13. He might require the whole of a road to be concreted for a single line of tramway as a matter of construction!
I submit that his powers under Sec 13 can be construed to define the extent of the limit.
I should like to put the above argument to the BofT, sending Dickinson's present letter of enquiry also their letter of 24 April and our desp. of July (15156) explaining that the fact that the two lines are to be 6ft. 5ins apart appears to have an important bearing on the question whether the whole space between the two lines should be concreted or not.
J.S.R. 3/8.
I have written separately to Mr Dickinson to ask whether the lines are 6'5" apart throughout the whole length of the tramways or only at certain parts thereof, the rest of the lines being only about 4' apart.
If you agree with my interpretation of the Order, I do not think we need trouble the B. of T again, but should at once instruct Govt as to the Law, I tell him that the DPW must act accordingly; & further that in any case the point referred to in par. 3 of our desp. on this subject, i.e. that the 15158 must be attended to, where the distance is less than 6ft.5 - surface concrete between the lines need be 3 or 6 inches deep & not 14 only.
In Lucas Ju7675 Tape with Mr Risley but I think
lot monst these for consider the affect of diction
14.
4. Dus case of a single line of tramway the Co an bound to repuss the road between In rails & for is inches beyond
outside the rails
rade side:
B. As cass of a doush line of tramway.
ULTE
than 4
(1) where there is
перв
feet bitwan the two lives, they are bound to repair the road between the two lines, between the rails on Each lime, and for is
inches beyond & antride the 2 External rails :
(2) where then is more
Chery
tran
4 feet
feet between the two lines,
if the lines were
are bound to repair any
two single likes of tramway
1.4. in the case of
rads line, bekomen the rails and fry 15 inches within side.
This is the preout
cas.
Jius apart and there is
Getwan the 2
M
The limo auto to 6 fest
strip down the middle lines off sins wide which the Co
are not bound to repair astherby, concuting it or Musounds.
I think it is a fair kezel
inference thrat; if the Co are not hath to repair this 3ft 5im's strip, they cannot be taken to
haos constructed it - and the D.P.W. shị Sxerais his bowers under Ssc 13.
as
in respect of a distinct singh lines of tramway, the 3ft. 5.ins strip not coming under this purview
matter of construction at all.
This interpretation of the orde is supported by the Expert opinion collected by meson Dickenses an
which shows that to concute this
15158
3ft. 5mi strip wt Und
no additional security
or stability to either lime of tramway.
Moreover, if the Colonial you! + DPW are right win tows
Matter
!
with
40
limit to the powers of the letter under sec 13. He might require the whole of a road To fat wide to be concreted for a single him of
Frankowany as a matter of construction !
I submit that his
limited and that ore
powers
14 can
under Sic 13
fr construed to
defoin the extent of the limit.
ar
704
I sho like to put the above arqument to the BofT
sending the Dicken present letter of sofuly
also then lette
the of
24 April
aut
April & our desp. of July (15156)
Explaining that the fact that the two lines are to be
oft. 5 ms apart appears to have an
important bearing
on the question whether the whole space between the time
lives she be concreted or
not.
J.S.R. 3/8.
I have written parately to the
X
Dickinson to ask whether the lines are
annexed
6'5"
.D. witho
apart throughout
hout the whole length of the
ading to
tramways or only
at certain parts thereof,
Ju7675
the rest of the lines being only about 4'
with Me Risley's If you agree
apart.
interpretation of the Ordce,
I do not think
we need trouble the B. of I again, but dud. to this view of the
at once instruct Gov.
as
Law, I tell him that the DPW must act
accordingly; & further that in
any
carl
the point referred to in par. 3 of our desp
on
1. e.
that the 15158 must be attended to,
where the distance is less than 6ft.5- surface concrete between the lines need
-be
3 or 6 inches deep & not 14 only
In Lucas
Ju
Tape with cher Risley but I think
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.