A.D. 1875. Where a local improvement Act enacted that the provisions of the Towns Police Clauses Act as to hackney carriages should be extended to all stage-coaches, omnibuses, and carriages of every description plying for hire within the borough; and the 38th section of the Towns Police Clauses Act containing a proviso exempting stage-coaches from the necessity of a license from the local authority, it was held that such proviso was incorporated into and overrode the local Act, and that omnibuses required no license from the local authority. Cousins v. Stockbridge, 30 J. P. 166. Licensing drivers. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, ss. 46, 49.- Drivers of hackney carriages are not to act without a license, for which a fee of 18. is to be paid; and if any person does so act without being licensed, or whilst his license is suspended, or if he lend or part with his license except to the proprietor of the carriage; or if the proprietor employ any person who has not obtained a license, or whose license is suspended, such person or proprietor is liable to a penalty not exceeding 208. for each offence. The license of the driver is to be delivered to the proprietor of the hackney carriage, who is to retain it whilst the driver remains in his employ; and in case of complainst against the driver, to produce it to the justices, who are to make an indorsement upon it, stating the nature of the offence of which they convicted the driver, and the penalty they inflicted. Proprietors offending in this respect are liable for every offence to a penalty not exceeding 408. The proprietor of a hackney carriage, when the driver quits his service, must return to him his license, if he has not been guilty of any misconduct; but if otherwise, the proprietor, after notice to him, is to summon the driver before a justice to answer the complaint, who may award compensation to the driver in case he find that the license has been improperly withheld. The proprietor of a metropolitan stage-carriage has no right to deteriorate the value of a license of a conductor in his employment, which had been duly obtained by the conductor under the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 86, s. 8, by writing across it words injurious to the character of the conductor, even though the writing may be true. Rogers v. Macnamara, Weekly Reporter, 1853, p. 19. Revocation of license. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, s. 50.-In the case of a second conviction for any offence, the Local Board, if they deem it right so to do, may revoke the license of any proprietor or driver of a hackney carriage. Fares. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, s. 51.-The number of persons to be carried in each hackney carriage must be painted in words at length on a plate, and publicly exhibited on the outside of the carriage; and persons failing in this respect, or refusing to carry the prescribed or any less number of persons, or refusing to drive to any place within the prescribed distance, are liable to a penalty not exceeding 408. Exacting more than the fare agreed upon also subjects the offender to a like penalty; agreements to pay more than the legal fare are not binding, and the sum paid beyond the proper fare may be recovered back, and the driver is liable to a penalty not exceeding 408. for exacting more than the proper fare, in default of payment of which he may be committed to prison for any time not exceeding one month, unless the excess of fare and penalty be sooner paid. If an agreement be made to carry persons in a hackney carriage for a discretionary distance, and for an agreed sum, the proprietor or driver is liable to a penalty not exceeding 408. if the distance travelled be less than that to which the persons were entitled to be carried. Fares. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, ss. 57, 58.-Drivers required to wait by the hirer of the carriage may demand a deposit, to be accounted for when the hiring is at an end, under a penalty not exceeding 40s. for refusing to wait or to account for the deposit; and persons taking larger than the legal fare are liable to a like penalty, and to refund the amount of the overcharge with costs. The evidence of the person aggrieved is admissible in proof of the offence. Other regulations. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, s. 59.-Further penalties are provided in the case of persons being permitted to ride in hackney carriages without the consent of the hirer; for suffering other than the authorized person to act as driver; on drivers for misbehaviour; for leaving hackney carriages unattended at places of public resort, and for improperly standing with a carriage, refusing to give way, obstructing any other driver, or depriving him of his fare. Hurt or damage occasioned by the driver to be compensated for by the proprietor, to the extent of £5, on the order of a justice, which the proprietor may recover from the driver. Liability of proprietor of licensed carriage. The following decision upon the liability of the proprietor of a hackney carriage may be cited in this place:-By arrangement between the registered proprietor and the licensed driver of a hackney carriage, plying for hire under the provisions of the 1 & 2 Wm. IV. c. 22, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 86, the driver paid 148. 6d. each morning for the uncontrolled use of the carriage and two horses during the day, and the fares earned each day belonged to the driver. The horses were fed at the expense of the proprietor, and his name appeared upon a plate on the carriage, as required by 1 & 2 Wm. IV. c. 22, s. 20. A loss having been occasioned to a person hiling the carriage, from a breach of contract by the driver safely and securely to carry, it was held that, under the circumstances, and looking to the provisions of the above statutes, the driver was to be considered as the servant or agent of the proprietor of the carriage, with authority to enter into contracts for the employment of the carriage, and that the proprietor was therefore liable for the loss occasioned by breach of contract. Powles v. Hider, 6 El. & Bl. 207; 25 L. J. Q. B. 331; 2 Jur. (N. s.) 472. How as regards the public. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, ss. 65, 67.-As regards the public, they are liable, on the order of a justice, to make compensation to drivers for loss of time in attending to answer complaints not substantiated, or on refusal to pay on demand the proper fare, to have it enforced against them with costs as a penalty; and to a penalty not exceeding £5 for wilfully damaging hackney carriages. Bye-law with respect to carriages and drivers. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, s. 68. -The Local Board may make bye-laws for regulating hackney carriages in the following respects :-the conduct of the proprietors and drivers, their badges, and hours for plying for hire; the display on the carriage of the number of license; the number of persons to be carried in each, the display of the number so to be carried on the carriage; the number of horses to be used for each; check-strings, and the furnishing of the carriages; the stands where they are to ply for hire; the fares to be taken; and the recovery of property left in the carriages. Stands for carriages.-Where a Local Board made a bye-law under a local improvement Act, that the several places in the district where painted boards shall from time to time be placed by the Local Board of Health to distinguish them as stands shall be stands for such number of carriages," &c., the bye-law so made was held to be valid; and it was further held that it was not necessary that the exact position of the stands should be set out in the bye-law. Reg v. Bennet, 4 H. & N. 127; 32 L. T. 299; Reg v. Kenyon, ib. The cases in which it was so decided also establish that the jurisdiction of the Local Board extends to the sands of the sea-shore between high and low watermark. See, however, Reg. v. Musson, and 31 & 32 Vict. c. 122, s. 27, ante, pp. 3, 4. A.D. 1875. 172. Any urban authority may license the proprietors Urban authodrivers and conductors of horses ponies mules or asses rity may make standing for hire within the district in like manner and bye-laws for licensing with the like incidents and consequences as in the case of horses, boats, proprietors and drivers of hackney carriages, and may &c. for hire. make bye-laws for regulating stands and fixing rates of LG. Am., s. hire, and as to the qualification of such drivers and conductors, and for securing their good and orderly conduct while in charge. Any urban authority may also license the proprietors of pleasure boats and vessels, and the boatmen or other 25. A.D. 1875. persons in charge thereof, and may make bye-laws for regulating the numbering and naming of such boats and vessels, and the number of persons to be carried therein, and the mooring places for the same, and for fixing rates of hire, and the qualification of such boatmen or other persons in charge, and for securing their good and orderly conduct while in charge. It will be observed that this enactment now extends to the qualification of drivers, conductors, and boatmen, and the names of boats, the number of persons to be carried in them, and their mooring places; see the Introduction, ante, p. lix. PART V. GENERAL PROVISIONS. CONTRACTS. A.D. 1875, . authorities to contract. 173. Any local authority may enter into any contracts Power of local necessary for carrying this Act into execution. 174. With respect to contracts made by an authority under this Act, the following regulations shall Provisions as be observed; (namely,) urban P.H., s. 85. to contracts by urban autho (1.) Every contract made by an urban authority where- rity. of the value or amount exceeds fifty pounds P.H., s. 85. shall be in writing and sealed with the common seal of such authority: (2.) Every such contract shall specify the work materials (3.) Before contracting for the execution of any works M A.D. 1875. require and take sufficient security for the due performance of the same: (5.) Every contract entered into by an urban authority in conformity with the provisions of this section and duly executed by the other parties thereto, shall be binding on the authority by whom the same is executed and their successors and on all other parties thereto and their executors administrators successors or assigns to all intents and purposes: Provided that an urban authority may compound with any contractor or other person in respect of any penalty incurred by reason of the nonperformance of any contract entered into as aforesaid, whether such penalty is mentioned in any such contract, or in any bond or otherwise for such sums of money or other recompense as to such authority may seem proper. See the Introduction, ante, p. lix. The above proviso in sub-section 3 is only directory, and therefore the authority will be liable for a breach of the contract entered into for the performance of the works, though the estimate and the report from the surveyor be not obtained. Nowell v. Worcester, 9 Exch. 457, see post, p. 164. Contracts with members of Local Boards.-Members of Local Boards vacate their office by entering into contracts with the Board; see post, 318; but the contract nevertheless remains in force. In a case where a paving commissioner had sent in a tender, which was accepted by his co-commissioners, and the Act imposed a penalty on any commissioner engaging in a contract, the Court refused to issue a mandamus to the commissioners commanding them to advertise for fresh tenders, since it did not appear that the contract itself was void. Rex v. St. Margaret's, Westminster, Paving Commissioners, 1 Jur. 104. If a contract be made for the superintendence of the execution of works to be completed within a certain time, and the works, from any cause, be not completed within the specified time, no claim for any payment beyond that stipulated for can be supported; therefore on a contract by a Local Board of Health to employ the plaintiff, an engineer, about certain works, and pay him £500 during two years, he undertaking to do his best to complete the works within that period, it was held that the Local Board were not liable for refusing to allow him to carry on the works beyond that time, even though the delay was caused by their fault or default, they paying him the whole £500. And as to extras, per Martin, B., "the Board could not bind themselves without deed; and the very mischief to be guarded against is such charges for extras." Rutledge v. Farnham, 2 F. & F. 406. It would be proper that a specification of works annexed to a contract should also be signed by the members of the Local Board; but the omission to do so would not vitiate the contract, or release the sureties of the contractor. Russell v. Tricket, 13 L. T. (N.s.) 280. With regard to the contracts of Local Boards of Health, as well as all other corporations, it is to be observed that the rule of law is that a corporation can only bind itself by deed (see Comyns' Digest, tit. "Franchise" (F) 12, 13, and the authorities there referred to); but exceptions to this rule have been established, as in the case of corporations created for the purpose of carrying on trading speculations: where the nature of their constitution has been such as to render the drawing of bills or the making of particular kinds of contracts necessary for the purposes of the corporation. In those cases the Courts hold that they would imply in those who are, according to the provisions of the charter or Act of Parliament, carrying on the |