Page: 11↓
[Dean of Guild Court at Paisley.
A proposed street of 60 feet in width from the bottom of which there would be egress by a lane 20 feet wide to another street, does not terminate in a cul de sac.
The Paisley Police and Public Health Act 1901 (1 Edw. VII, c. cciv), sec. 20; enacts—“In every case where an application is made to the Dean of Guild Court for authority to form and lay out any new street, the Court shall have power, if in the circumstances of the case they think it proper and expedient to do so, to impose all or any of the following conditions, viz.—(1) That the street shall not terminate in a cul de sac… .”
On 29th January 1909 Thomas Stevenson, builder, Paisley, presented a petition to the Dean of Guild, Paisley, for warrant to form (1) a street 60 feet wide running from Clark Street through his ground to a point about 59 yards from an existing street known as Greenhill Road, and (2) a lane 20 feet wide connecting the proposed street with Greenhill Road.
The application was opposed by James Lee, Master of Works for the burgh of Paisley, who pleaded that the warrant craved should be refused in respect that the proposed street ended in a cul de sac.
On 24th March 1909 the Dean of Guild sustained the respondent's contention and refused to grant a warrant.
The petitioner appealed, and argued that he was entitled to the warrant craved, as the street in question would not end in a cul de sac. The considerations based on public expediency now urged by the respondent were not hujus loci, as they were not raised by the pleadings.
Argued for respondent—The Dean of Guild was right. A street in order to be a street in the sense of the Act must be of a minimum width of 50 feet—Paisley Police and Public Health Act 1901 (1 Ed. VII, c. cciv), sec. 16. The proposed street qua street ended in a cul de sac. It was not enough that there would be an exit from the bottom of the street. It was for the public advantage that the whole of the street should be of the minimum width prescribed by the Act.
Page: 12↓
Now, I confess that I am quite unable to agree with the Dean of Guild in his construction of that clause. Cul de sac is a metaphorical phase of the French language, but it has been shown to us that it has been recognised as an English term by English dictionaries, and it is a matter of common knowledge that it is familiar in the ordinary use of language as if it were English. We may therefore construe the words for ourselves, and I suppose that cul de sac in reference to a street means in English exactly what it means in French. It is a street which has only one issue. It is what is called in older English a blind alley. Now, I am of opinion very clearly that, whether it be inconvenient or not, a street 60 feet wide ending in a lane 20 feet wide, which again communicates with a public street, is not a cul de sac or a blind alley. It is a thoroughfare, because it has an issue in Clark Street at one end and in Greenhill Road at the other.
Whether it is convenient or inconvenient for the traffic of that part of Paisley that a street of this kind should be made without its being continued of one uniform width from one end to the other is a totally different question. It is a question with which we have nothing to do, and, so far as I see upon record, it is a question which was not raised in the Dean of Guild Court at all. The only question raised on the record between the parties is whether this is or is not an infringement of the statutory prohibition which the Paisley Police and Public Health Act of 1901 contains against forming a street which ends in a cul de sac. The respondent's plea-in-law is—“As the proposed new street ends in a cul de sac, warrant for lining ought not to be granted and the final interlocutor of the Dean of Guild Court is that “… in respect that the petitioner has failed so to amend his plan as to prevent the proposed new street ending in a cul de sac, sustain the respondent's plea-in-law.” The whole judgment, therefore, proceeds upon what appears upon the face of the plans of the petitioner's proposal, and upon the construction which the Dean of Guild puts upon that particular clause in the Act of Parliament.
I am accordingly of opinion that we ought to recal the interlocutor appealed against, and remit to the Dean of Guild to repel the plea-in-law for the respondent James Lee and to proceed. I think we ought to remit to the Dean of Guild to proceed as shall be just rather than decide for ourselves that the lining should be immediately granted, because we do not know what questions in which either the objector or the public may be interested may or may not arise before the Dean of Guild. We should interfere as little as possible with the procedure of the Dean of Guild Court, and the best way in which we can do that is to pronounce the interlocutor I have suggested.
The
Page: 13↓
The Court sustained the appeal, recalled the interlocutor of the Dean of Guild, and remitted to him to repel the plea-in-law for the respondent James Lee and to proceed as should be just, and decerned.
Counsel for Petitioner (Appellant) — Morison, K.C.— Hon. W. Watson. Agents— Webster, Will, & Company, S.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent— Blackburn, K.C.— Scott Brown. Agent— F. J. Martin, W.S.