Bow Bridge (1871)

Post date: Mar 18, 2013 3:34:23 PM

Extract from Maidstone Telegraph 25 March 1871

HIGHWAY BOARD. Monday.

—Present— Messrs Peppercorne (chairman), Cole, Foreman, Sharman, Warde, Usher, Hubble, Woollett, White, Homewood, Wheeler, and Wells, and the Hon. Rev. Sir F. J. Stapleton, Bart., ex-officio.

The minutes the last meeting having been read, the Chairman stated that the committee appointed to obtain evidence with reference to who was liable to repair the approaches of Bow Bridge, met on Thursday week, but there was not, sufficient evidence before them to justify them coming to any conclusion. The bridge itself was much out of repair, and the committee, under these circumstances thought the better plan was to write to the Clerk of the Peace, and inform him of the state of the bridge, as they thought it was a county bridge. Mr Norton read the following reply from the Clerk of the Peace upon the matter :

"Dear Sir,—ln reply to your letter of the 11th inst., I beg to say that I do not understand that Bow Bridge, Wateringbury, is a county bridge. As far I can gather from the statutes the Medway Navigation Company, and the probabilities of the case, the bridge was erected bv the Company, when they deepened the river, and rendered it no longer fordable. It seems be one of the conveniences for the purpose of the navigation (the company not being entitled to stop up a public highway) which the company, by their acts, are bound to keep in repair. It is said that the Railway Company altered the bridge and the approaches. How far the railway acts authorised such proceeding, or what liability they cast on the Railway Company I cannot tell. But I can hardly suppose that they relieved the Medway Company from their former liability. It is not suggested that they cast the liability on the county. I will, if your Board informs me that they wish it, lay your letter before the justices at the next meeting of the Court of Annual General Sessions, but I shall advise the Court, if they consult me, that it not their duty to interfere in the matter, or to send the county surveyor to inspect the bridge. It seems to me more reasonable that the Malling Highway Board, whose duty it is to see that the highways in their district are kept in good repair, should take the necessary steps in the case of this bridge, now reported to be dangerous, to find out who are the parties liable to repair it, and to prosecute them for the non-repair by indictment at the Quarter Sessions if milder measures are unavailing.

I am, yours faithfully,

F. Russell, Clerk to the Peace for Kent.

W. South Norton, Esq.

Clerk to the Malling Highway Board,

Town Malling. Maidstone March 15th, 1871."

The following letter from the Clerk to the Medway Navigation Company was also read:—

" Dear Sir,—l brought your letter of the 20th ult., before our Board yesterday and am directed, in reply,to say that,they feel that no obligation to repair the disputed portion of the bridge rests with them. You will find on enquiry that the road over which such portion of bridge extends, was, before the construction of the railway, repaired by the parish, who, instead of the company, "appear to have permitted" the alteration, without any agreement with the railway company —at least we assume this to be in the absence any such agreement.

I am, dear sir, yours faithfully,

Wm. Gorham.

W. S. Norton, Esq.

Tonbridge, 18th March, 1871."

Some conversation followed the reading of these letters, and ultimately it was decided to consult the vestry of Nettlestead, which parish the bridge is situated, as to whether they would rather repair the bridge, or bear the expense of compelling the Railway Company to do so.