to examine and cross-examine witnesses, served us on the 5th day of November, 1886, with the following notice : DUNCAN v. TOMS. 1887. PracticeConduct of prosecution by Society for Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsExamination In the matter of an information wherein the undersigned Andrew Duncan was the informant and Robert Toms defendant, heard before and determined by you at Tewkesbury, on the 29th day of October, 1886, I, being aggrieved by your refusal to allow me to conduct my case, or to cross-examine witnesses at the hearing of the said information, and by the determination of the said information without being allowed to conduct my case or to examine or cross-examine witnesses, hereby give you notice, pursuant to the provisions of the 23rd section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, that I desire to question the order made on the said information, on the ground that your refusal to allow me to conduct my case or to examine or cross-examine witnesses at the said hearing is erroneous in point of law, and I hereby apply to you to state and sign a special case setting forth the facts of the of witnesses by case, and the grounds on which the proceedings were questioned by me on the hearing inspectorof the said information, in order that I may obtain the opinion of the Queen's Bench 11 & 12 Vict. Division of the High Court of Justice thereon.-Dated this 4th day of November, 1886. c. 43, ss. 12, 14. ANDREW DUNCAN. And on the same day the appellant, with his solicitor, appeared before us in support of the said application, whereupon we consented to state and sign a case for the opinion of this honourable court, and the appellant and his surety (the chairman of the said society) entered into a recognisance, as required by the statute in that behalf, and we have therefore stated this case for the opinion of the court thereon. 6. The question for the opinion of this honourable court is, whether the appellant had a right to appear on behalf of the said society, and to examine and cross-examine witnesses on the hearing of the said information and complaint. Sect. 14 provides that, if the defendant do not admit the truth of such complaint or information, the justices shall proceed to hear the prosecutor or complainant, and such witnesses as he may examine, and such other evidence as he may adduce, &c. Colam (with Waddy, Q.C.) for the appellant.-The whole law on the subject is contained in two sections of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848. By sect. 12 the prosecutor can conduct his case by counsel or attorney, if he so chooses; and by sect. 14 the prosecutor, who is the informant here, can conduct his own case. [Stopped.] Macmorran for the respondent.-In criminal proceedings the prosecutor has no locus standi, the suit being that of the Crown. This has been held in many cases of indictable offences, some of which are mentioned in the special case, and the same rule applies to criminal proceedings, as distinguished from civil proceedings, before magistrates, unless the statute alters the law in that respect. Reading sects. 12, 14, and 15 together, the construction which should be placed upon them is, that in criminal proceedings a prosecutor can only be heard as a witness, though he has a right to employ counsel or attorney to conduct the prosecution. In Webb v. Catchlove (50 J. P. 795) the court strongly condemned the practice of allowing police officers to act as advocates in courts. Lord COLERIDGE, C.J.-In the general observations made in DUNCAN v. TOMS. 1887. Practice Prevention of of witnesses by c. 43, ss. 12, 14. I Webb v. Catchlove (50 J. P. 795) I should entirely concur. agree that it is a bad practice for a policeman, being a general officer of the law, and one who ought to stand indifferent between the parties, to appear and act as an advocate in courts of justice. I entirely agree, and I entirely concur in the obserConduct of vations made in that case against such a practice; but here we prosecution by have a different case. This is a case stated by justices, under Society for 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, setting out that, in an information laid Cruelty to against the respondent by the appellant, the justices refused to Animals allow the appellant to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and Examination the question is whether they were right in refusing him leave to inspector- examine and cross-examine witnesses in the face of the plain 11&12 Vict. words of the Act of Parliament, which says that they "shall" proceed to hear the prosecutor, &c. I think they are entirely wrong. Sect. 12 provides that "every complainant or informant shall be at liberty to conduct such complaint or information respectively, and to have the witnesses examined and crossexamined by counsel or attorney on his behalf." This means that they shall be at liberty, if they think fit, to employ a counsel or solicitor in their behalf; not that they must do so. sect. 14 provides that "the justices shall proceed to hear the prosecutor or complainant, and such witnesses as he may examine, and such other evidence as he may adduce in support of his information or complaint." This shows that a person who conducts a prosecution may go into the witness-box himself and give evidence. We must answer the question raised in this case in the affirmative, and say that the appellant is entitled to appear and to examine and cross-examine witnesses on the hearing of the information. SMITH, J.-I am of the same opinion. Then Judgment for appellant, with costs. Solicitor for the appellant, A. Leslie, for Ryland and Waghorne, Cheltenham. Solicitor for the respondent, Sweeting. QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. April 19, 20, 21, and June 23, 1887. (Before Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., GROVE, J., POLLOCK, B., and HAWKINS, J.) REG. on the prosecution of THE NATIONAL LIBERAL LAND COMPANY LIMITED V. THE INHABITANTS OF THE COUNTY OF SOUTHAMPTON. (a) Bridge County, liability of, to repair -User and utilityAcquiescence and adoption-Dedication to the public-Statute of Bridges (22 Hen. 8, c. 5). To render the inhabitants of a county liable for the repair of a bridge built by a private individual, and used by the public, mere utility to and user by the public are not conclusive against the county; nor, on the other hand, is it necessary in every case to prove, in addition to such utility and user, any overt act of acquiescence or adoption by the county. It is in each case for the jury to say whether the evidence of utility and user is sufficient, under all the circumstances of the case, to show a dedication to and adoption by the county. In the latter event only will the county be liable to repair the bridge. Decision of Divisional Court (reported in 16 Cox C. C. 117; 55 L. T. Rep. N. S 322) in part dissented from. THIS HIS was a motion to make absolute a rule nisi obtained by the prosecutors for the new trial of an indictment preferred against the inhabitants of the county of Southampton for the non-repair of a bridge built by the prosecutors, the National Liberal Land Company Limited, over the river Itchen. The indictment first came on for trial before Stephen, J., and a special jury, at the Bristol Assizes in February, 1886, when, in answer to a question left to them by the learned judge, the jury found that the bridge in question had been dedicated to the public by the prosecutors, and thereupon a verdict of guilty was entered against the defendants on one of the counts. Upon the other counts of the indictment the defendants were acquitted. On a motion for a new trial, a divisional court (consisting of Wills and Grantham, JJ.) made absolute the rule nisi which had been obtained for a new trial, on the ground that mere dedication to the public of the bridge was not sufficient to make the county liable for its repair, unless there was also evidence of acquiescence by the county in the building and dedication of the bridge. (a) Reported by F. A. CRAILSHEIM, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. REG. v. THE INHABITANTS trial was granted, are fully reported in 16 Cox C. C. 117; 55 L. T. Rep. N. S. 322; 17 Q. B. Div. 424; 55 L. J. 158, M. C. The facts of the case, and the grounds upon which this new On the re-trial of the indictment before Mathew, J., and a COUNTY OF Special jury, at the Bristol Assizes in February, 1887, the jury SOUTHAMPTON. found a verdict of not guilty, and the defendants were acquitted 1887. accordingly. OF THE Acquiescence MATHEW, J. summed up the case to the jury as follows:Indictment for non repair of Gentlemen of the jury, the defendants in this case are the bridge-Liabi- inhabitants of the county of Southampton. That somewhat lity of county- vague and indeterminate description is the one by which the in dedication present defendants are prosecuted, and the prosecutors, whom User and we are now informed are the National Liberal Land Company, utility-22 insist that the inhabitants of the county of Southampton accepted Hen. 8, c. 5. a gift of this bridge from them, the Land Company, with the obligation, from the time they accepted it, to keep that bridge in repair. Now, that is the case which is sought to be made out by the prosecutors against all the inhabitants of the county. The inhabitants of the county say: "We never took upon ourselves any such burden, and you cannot point to any act of any constituted authority, that, under any statute, or by usage, or by any other understanding, could be fairly said to represent us as a body, and you cannot show that we ever accepted of the gift of the bridge, with the consequent liability to keep it in repair." Now, gentlemen, the law upon the subject is certainly left in some degree of uncertainty. The whole law of dedication to a community is a difficult topic to deal with, because it is not easy, when a community does not act through properly constituted representatives, but difficult to prove the assent of every individual, or the assent of such a majority of all the individuals as to lead to the conclusion that the general body agreed; but, at the same time, the wiser and safer course is to put to you, as plain men of business, the question whether you think there has been any such action on the part of the inhabitants of this county as to indicate that they accepted this gift with the consequent burden. Now, gentlemen, what is the history of this property? I can well understand a case being presented to a jury, where, for a long time, the necessity has been felt for constructing a bridge in a particular locality, and where public meetings have been held indicating the necessity for such communication; and where applications have been made to quarter sessions and other public bodies, to aid in the construction of a bridge, and where someone has stepped forward, after objection has been made that the expenditure would be too great, some man of public spirit, and said, "Now I will build a bridge." I can well understand the jury saying, under such circumstances, there was a public demand for it, and if a man of public spirit found the money to build the bridge, that he did that for the public benefit, and the public took it with the understanding that they would undertake the repair of it. In such a case as that I do not say that it would REG. THE OF THE be law, but I can well understand in such a case as that, if the inhabitants after some years had refused to bear their burden, a jury saying, "We are satisfied, after what took place with INHABITANTS reference to the erection of this bridge, that it was to public munificence that they owed the bridge, and it was accepted on behalf of the public on the understanding that the man who found the money to build it should not be under the obligation of The COUNTY OF SOUTHAMPTON. 1887. non-repair of User and utility-22 Hen. 8, c. 5. keeping it for all time in repair." As I say, I can understand Indictment for that, but is this a case of that sort? Now, you have heard the inhabitants of the county twitted with their ingratitude to the bridge-LiabhiNational Liberal Land Company. Here was 17,000l. worth of lity of county iron handed over to this ungrateful county, and the county took in dedication-Acquiescence it, and then, when called upon to lay out a few pounds in painting, it declines to do it. Gentlemen, do you really think that the land company had any regard to the county in the construction of the bridge? It is all very well to bring down an eminent politician, and to have the great man hand over the bridge to the mayor of Southampton. The mayor of Southampton is not one of the present defendants. He is mayor of the town of Southampton, a different county from this. Certain minds of an ingenious character no doubt might be disposed to infer that what was being done was done purely out of public spirit, and from no other motive. But what do we know about it now? We know now why that bridge was built. National Liberal Land Company had bought an estate on the other side of the river. We do not know what they gave for it, but we know what it is worth now. That estate, probably consisting of green fields, being cut off from Southampton, and cut off from the rest of the neighbourhood by that intervening river, the Itchen, the first thing to do, you know, to bring those green fields into the character of a building estate, was to connect them with the town of Southampton, and coax the city across the river into the green fields on the other side of the Itchen. For that reason, and for that reason only, I should think (it is entirely for you) the 17,000l. was paid. That is a good round sum, and the property must have been acquired under favourable circumstances to admit of that expenditure, and you will have very little doubt, I should think, that it was the fact that the bridge was put there that gave that property the value of 300l. an acre, which now they put the property at. Those are the circumstances under which this bridge came into existence, and I asked the learned counsel to point out to me any case in which, a bridge having been built for purely personal objects in the first instance, and where there was nothing more than the fact that the public used it afterwards, it was held that there had been a dedication to and an acceptance by the public; and, although cases were referred to, I am not aware of any clear authority upon that point. Now, gentlemen, that being so, and these being the circumstances under which the bridge came into existence, it is said: "Why did not some one object to what this company was doing, if the inhabitants |