Midland "Red" and Corporation in Bus Litigation
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
JUDGMENT was delivered by Mr. Justice Bennett, in the Chancery Division, on December 21, in an action in which the Attorney-General on behalf of the Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co., Ltd., sought to restrain Leicester Corporation from purchasing from Mr.. .1, H. Hutton, for . £12,902, the bus services now being run by him between 'Leicester and• Newtown Linford. The company, which ran • a service over the same route, claimed a declaration that the proposed purchase by the corporation was beyond its powers, and an injunction to restrain it from carrying out the scheme. It also claimed a declaration that the corporation was not entitled to apply any part of its reserve funds in the purchase and, an injunction to restrain it from doing so.
Mr. Justice Bennett decided that the corporation had powers to enter into the aireement, but must decide to make the payment out of the general rate. Therefore, the plaintiff was not
• .entitled to a declaration that the pro
posed purchase was ultra vires. The corporation had resolved to discharge the liability out of the reserve fund on its bus undertaking. It was argued that the scheme would assist its existing services, but no evidence was given to prove that it would, and the corporation had failed to establish any ground for using the reserve funds.
It was argued that it would be to the benefit of the citizens to be able to travel to and from Bradgate Park in buses belonging to the corporation, but services to the Park were already provided by the company and by Mr.' Hutton and it was impossible to think that it was to the benefit of the citizens that theythouttl spend over 211,000 in order that some of them might be conveyed in corporation buses.
Therefore he (the Judge) would declare that the corporation was not entitled to apply the reserve hinds of any of its undertakings to the proposed purchase of the service and he would give liberty for an application
for an injunction. As the plaintiff had lost its principal claim it must pay half the costs of the -defendant.