History
Sheffield Flood
Court of the Inundation Commission
The Water Company applied to Parliament for increased powers, so that they could give compensation to the sufferers. The Bill of the Water Company passed successfully through Parliament, and received the royal assent on July 29th, 1864
22 November, 1864
THE SHEFFIELD INUNDATION SUBCRIPTION - A case of great interest to all who joined in the national subscription for the relief of the distress at Sheffield was decided in the Court of the Inundation Commission in Sheffield yesterday. Our readers will recollect that in the course of a few weeks after the disaster a subscription amounting to £50,000. was raised in the county, and that sum was placed at the control of a committee, of whom the Mayor of Sheffield was chairman, and the sufferers were relieved by 11 district committees, who disbursed many thousands of pounds in relieving the distress arising from the inundation. At that time the liability of the Water Company, under the famous Holmfirth clause in their Act of 1853, to make good all damage caused by the giving way of their works was fully admitted, but their ability to meet the enormous demand was not so clear. The Relief Committee therefore, took promissory from some of the sufferers for the amounts they advanced, and in large numbers of other cases they got persons to sign deeds, assigning the whole of their interest as against the Water Company to the Mayor, in consideration of the sums advanced. When the company obtained their Act a question arose as to whether they were liable to pay to these sufferers the amounts which they had received from the Relief Committee, and the case was argued at great length before the Commissioners by Mr. Manisty, Q.C., for the Mayor, and Mr. Pickering, Q.C., for the Water Company. Mr. Manisty, on the part of the Mayor, who sought to recover the amounts he had advanced to the sufferers, argued that the Commissioners had nothing to do with the Relief Committee, and that their judgement as to compensation must go entirely irrespective of the obligations into which the claimants had entered with the Relief Committee. On the other hand, Mr. Pickering sought to show that the company and the public were in the respective positions of assurer and assured; that the contract between them was a contract of indemnity, and that if the assured had once been recouped, no matter if by the hand of charity or otherwise, they could not claim against the company, and he quoted the case of Mr. Pitt's debts, where Government stepped in after his death and paid his debts, and the courts thereupon held that creditors who had insured his life for the satisfaction of their debts could not recover from the insurance offices. It was stated that the Mayor had abandoned all claim in cases where the amounts allowed were below £10. The case excited great interest, as it was understood that in the event of the Mayor recovering the sums advanced they would be added to the ample surplus in hand, and returned pro rata to the subscribers, if the latter desire it. We ought to state here that in the course of Mr. Manistry's argument it was shown that the question of the liability of the company had been raised in Leeds and other towns, when subscriptions were asked, and the public were explicitly informed that promissory notes and other securities were being taken from the recipients of the fund in order to keep alive the claim against the Water Company. Upon the faith of that assurance large numbers subscribed. A crowded court assembled yesterday to hear the judgement, which was delivered by Mr. W. Overend, Q.C., chief commissioner. He said, - We are of opinion that in all cases the persons with whom the Commissioners have to deal are the sufferers by the inundation. They are the only claimants whom we can recognise and no arrangement between them and third parties can dispense with the necessity of their appearing as the only claimants for compensation. The Mayor, therefore, not being a sufferer, has no locus stand before us, except that he has sent in a claim as agent for and in behalf of some sufferers. The sufferers, however, even in the latter case, will be the person in whose favour our order will be made. With reference to the question whether the claimants title to compensation is extinguished or diminished by reason of their received money either by way of gift or loan from the Relief Committee, we are of opinion that any payment or loan by such committee to such sufferers does not affect their right to ask for full compensation from us to the same extent as if no such gift or loan had been made. It is no part of our province to decide whether the money awarded by us to the claimants is afterwards wholly or in part, according to the circumstances, to be paid over to the Mayor. We purposely, therefore, avoid pronouncing our opinion on that question, although it is quite apparent that in the event of the deed or promissory notes which have been executed by some sufferers being valid securities, the parties who have given such securities may, on recovering compensation from the Water Company, be liable over the amounts contained in those securities to the Mayor. We wish at the same time to state that, by abstaining from giving any such decision, we hope that it will not be inferred that we desire to throw the slightest doubt upon their validity. The Court then adjourned for a fortnight, and will then meet again to hear the arguments in the great trade cases in which questions of consequential damage are involved. We may add that while the company's witnesses in Parliament estimated the total damage at about £350,000., the claims sent in amount to £455,000. The claims for property amount to £378,166.; for loss of life, £46,221. (238 persons were drowned); and for bodily injury, £21,776. Continued »
«Return