Page images
PDF
EPUB

one notice of

Eleventhly, of joint notice: That the Court determined the notice bad on both grounds, appeal, &c. and upon this confirmed the rate with costs. The notice given was signed

by the six appellants, and stated the causes of appeal : 1st, that several persons (nominatim) were not in any manner rated for the lands, &c., occupied by them ; 2dly, that several persons (nominatim) were rated at much less and not enough in proportion with the appellants for the premises in their occupation. Petwortħ is distant from Horsham, where the appel. lants resided, about eighteen miles. The affidavit of the parish officers opposing the rule stated that in the evening of the 6th of October, after the rate was published in the church, a vestry was held, at which two of the appellants were present, and no application was then made by them to inspect the rate. [Lord Ellenborough, C. J., asked why the parish officers made their rate so close upon the time of the sessions ; it appeared as if they had done it with a view of ousting the parties of their appeal. The Court had decided that morning that the next sessions meant the next practicable sessions at which an effectual appeal could be lodged. If by the late publication of the rate the parties are driven into such a narrow point of time as not to be able to make an effectual appeal at the next sessions ; those must be considered the next when such appeal can be made effec

tually.]. In answer to the objection, that the appellants should not have Several parties given a joint but separate notices, the decision in the case of Rex v. White

, baving a joint 4 T. R. 771, was cited as an authority to show that parties who have several grievance, may join in giving

grounds of complaint may, notwithstanding, join in an appeal against a

poor's rate.—Lord Ellenborough, C. J., said that he thought that case appeal to the which had been much considered, was authority sufficient to support the parish officers.

present appeal ; and the rule for a mandamus was granted.
A

poor rate having been made on the 9th, allowed on the 11th, and published on the 14th, and the sessions commencing the 15th of April : held, on the authority of the above case, that an appeal against the rate, under these circumstances, need not be entered until the sessions next but one after the publication of the rate. Rex v. Hendon, 2 D.R. 249.

Rex v. The Justices of London, 15 East, 632;'1 Bott, 300. An appeal against a poor's rate in London or Middleser must be made as in all other counties, to the next (i. e. next practicable) general quarter sessions; though the 17 Geo. II. c. 38, s. 4, in its terms gives the appeal to the next general or quarter sessions; it appearing from other parts of the act as well as from other acts in pari materia, that those terms are used synonimously

, and though in the two counties named there are four general as well as four

general quarter sessions. The sessions have Rex v. The Justices of Wilts, 8 B. F. C. 380. A rate for the relief of a discretion to hear an appeal

the
poor of the parish of Laycock, in the county of Wilts

, was published on the 16th September, 1827. The quarter sessions were held on the 16th of the sessions

next October at Marlborough, which is sixteen miles from the parish of Layoveka lished when it is the appellant gave no notice of his intention to try his appeal before the Michaelmas sessions, but at that sessions the appeal was entered and ad

. where it is the journed as a matter of course. It appeared, upon afidavits, that it was the journ the hearing usual practice of the Court of Quarter Sessions for the county of Wilts

, in to the next ses. appeals against rates,

to enter the appeal at the sessions next following the appeal is entered, making and publication of the rate, and to adjourn it to the next sessions

as a matter of course. Before the Epiphany sessions, the appellant gave notice of his intention to try his appeal. At the Epiphany sessions, the

that, according to the 17 Geo. II. c. 38, S. 4, the appeal not having been imperative in this

heard at the previous Michaelmas sessions, nor having been adjourned.com proof of want of reasonable notice to the respondents

, or of its being imjurisdiction. The justices at sessions were of that opinion, and refused to practicable for

the appellant to proceed, the justices then assembled had no hear the appeal. A rule nisi for a mandamus commanding the defendants

, at a judgment of the Court was delivered as follows. 4. Lord Tenterden, Č.J. I think that the sound "construction of the act of parliament, 17 Geoche c. 38, s. 4, is, that

the justices are to receive an appeal against a rate at the

entered; but

the appellant is entitled to try then, the statute 17 Geo. 2, c. 38, 8. 4, not being

respect.

subsequent day the

against four rates

next sessions after publishing the same, and that they are then to exercise Eleventhly, Of a discretion whether they will hear and determine it at that sessions, or appeal, &c. respite it to the next. It is impossible to say that the matter must, at all events, be determined at the first sessions. The statute expressly mentions one case where the justices are to adjourn the appeal, and that is, where it shall appear to them that reasonable notice has not been given; but other cases may occur in which it may be fit to adjourn the appeal, even though kasonable notice has been given, as in the case of the unavoidable absence of a material witness. Here, it appears that the practice of the sessions has been to allow appellants to enter their appeals at the sessions next following the publication of the rate, and to adjourn the hearing to the second sessions

But the justices as a matter of course. That being the general practice, I think that the should not ad. appellant in this case, who acted on the faith that such practice would be journ the hear. adhered to, ought not to be deprived of his right of appeal, and therefore inuase a matter of that the rule for a mandamus ought to be made absolute. At the same time, I think it would be more beneficial to the public, and more consistent with the intention of the legislature, if the justices did not adjourn appeals against rates as a matter of course. I think they should endeavour to induce parties to try their appeal at the next practicable sessions after the publishing of the rate.Bayley, J. I am of the same opinion. It was competent for the justices at the first sessions after the publishing of the rate, te refuse to receive the appeal unless there was proof that notice of appeal had been given; but they did receive the appeal. Having received it, it was then competent to them in their discretion to adjoum it, and they did adjourn it. I think the appeal ought to have been heard at the next sessions after that adjournment. Rule absolute.

Rex v. The Justices of Suffolk, 1 B. & A. 640. By a local act the One appeal management of the poor of a town was vested in certain persons, who were

sufficient. empowered to make rates, and an appeal was given to the party aggrieved to the toun sessions against every such rate; and a further appeal, if required, to the county sessions. An appeal against four rates being entered at the The first notice January town sessions, four grounds of appeal were specified in the notice; of appeal must the party, being dissatisfied, made a further appeal to the county sessions, staterade the and two other grounds of appeal were added, the fourth being, that the ground of appeal party was rated in respect of his lands in a higher proportion than all the is, that the appelother inhabitants mentioned in the rate. The Court of K. B. held, 1st, that higher than all one appeal against the four rates was sufficient; 2dly, that it was not neces- the other inhasary to give notice of appeal to all the inhabitants named in the rate ; and,

bitants : Held, 3dly, that the appellant must, at the county sessions, be confined to the every inhabitant original grounds of appeal at the town sessions.

is not necessary. Rex v. Justices of Sussex, 7 T. R. 107; 2 Bott, 965. The appeal may Appeal may be to be made to an adjourned sessions. And, in this case, Lord Kenyon, C. J., an adjourned sesreferred to the case of Rex v. Monks Risborough, (2 Bott, 954), and Rex 5. Hinderclare, (2 Bott, 956).

It is important to observe the directions and provisions of the statutes with respect to notices of appeal, as the neglect of them may constitute a preliminary objection to the sessions hearing the appeal, after all the expence and trouble of bringing the matter to trial has been incurred. Thus, although the rate is bad, if it do not show upon the face of it, in respect of what property the assessment in each instance is made, so that if an individual wishes to appeal on the ground that another is under-rated, Notice of appeal, he may see in respect of what property the rate is imposed, Rex. v. Aire and its contents, and

to whom given(a) Calder Narigation, 2 B. f. C. 713; 4 D. &. R. 253; yet if this objection is not specified in the notice as a cause of appeal, the sessions have no jurisdiction to quash the rate, although the defect appear upon the face of the rate itself. For the act (41 Geo. III. c. 23, s. 4, ante, 141,142) provides that the sessions shall not enquire into any ground of appeal which is not specified in the notice. Rex v. the Inhabitants of Bromyard, 8 B. &. C. 240.

In Rexv. Brooke, 9 B. & C.915, it has likewise been held that where an appeal has been made against a poor rate, on the ground that a person is omitted

that notice to

sions.

(a) See the several forms of notice of appeal, post, 154, and in Appendix.

is not sufficient for the respon

some rateable

Eleventhly, Of who ought to be rated, the justices at sessions cannot hear the appeal, appeal, &c.

unless notice of the appeal, and the ground of it, has been given to the party said to have been improperly omitted.

A week's notice is usually considered reasonable, and will satisfy the statute, unless under peculiar circumstances.

Rex v. Justices of Berkshire, 1 Bott, 284 ; 2 Nol. P. L. 524. If the ground of appeal against a poor rate be, that certain persons are omitted in the rate, the names of those persons should be specified in the notice of appeal.

See also Rex v. Justices of Susser (ante, p. 145.) as to joint and several

notices. Which party shall In Rex v. Newberry, 4 T. R. 475; 1 Bott, 295; 2 Nol. P. L. 510. begin!

Upon an appeal against a poor rate the question was, which party should begin? The Court said, that where the appellant alleges that he has no rateable property within the place, the respondent should first shew that he has some property liable to be rated; for it is impossible for the appellants in the first instance to prove the negative. And J. Heywood, amicus curiæ, said, that in Yorkshire, where more appeals of this kind were lodged than in any other county, when the appellant objected to his being rated at all, it is the practice for the respondents to begin: but if he object to the

quantum of the rate, then the onus lay on him. Where the appel

Rex v. Topham, 12 East, 546; 1 Bott, 298; 1 Nol. P. L. 199. The lant disputes defendant appealed against a poor's rate made for the township of Great before the sessions the quan

Driffield, in the East Riding of the county of York, and the sessions contum of the rate, it firmed the rate, subject to the opinion of the Court of K. B. on the following

case :-The defendant was rated as occupier of property of the annual value dent to show that of 250l., and

he appealed against the rate, giving notice of the grounds of the appellant is his appeal: First, That he had no rateable property in the parish; and in possession of

Secondly, That he had not rateable property to the amount at which he was property within rated. On the part of the respondents it was proved that the appellant was the parish, they in the annual receipt of certain tithe-rents, originating in the Driffield some probable enclosure act, of the annual value of 6s. 8d. It was further proved that ground for the

certain other sums were received by him for tithe-rents, but there was no they charge the

proof of their amount. Here the respondents closed their case, insisting party in the rate. that as they had proved the appellant to be in possession of some rateable

property, it was incumbent on him to prove that in fact he had been overrated. The appellant on the contrary insisted that this composition or rent was not rateable at all. The sessions held that it was rateable. The appellant then contended, that as there was no proof of any specific sum having been paid beyond the 6s. 8d., the rate ought to be amended by inserting that sum instead of the 2501. The sessions held that the proof of overrating lay on the appellant, and confirmed the rate generally. The act referred to was one passed in the 14 Geo. II. c. 11, for dividing and enclosing open fields, &c., in Great and Little Driffield, and for settling certain yearly payments to the prebendary of Driffield, in lieu of tithes, pursuant to an agreement and award made for those purposes; it states, that by an agreement tripartite made between the lord of the manor and owner of several lands, &c., the prebendary of Driffield, and his lessee, to which prebend tithes of corn, grain, hay, wool, and lamb belonged; and the vicar and others named, owners and proprietors of lands, &c., the enclosure of these townships was to be made in the manner therein stated, and that a certain composition in money was to be paid by the landowners to the prebendary for the time being, and his lessee, &c. in lieu of the tithes; and that for fixing and settling the said yearly rents and compositions in lieu of the tithes, all the parties had appointed certain referees, who had awarded to the prebendary of Driffield for the time being and his successors, &c.“ as a yearly rent or composition in lieu of the tithes of corn, grain, and hay therein, the rent or sum of 2671., being after the rate of 1l. 10s. for every oxgang, and in lieu of the tithes of wool and lamb the yearly rent or sum of 301.” &c. The act therefore proceeded to give effect to such agreement and award, and enacted that in lieu and satisfaction of the tithes there should be the said several yearly composition rents or sum of 2671., &c., issuing out of the said enclosed lands, &c., to be paid by the owners and proprietors

must also show

amount at which

nesses.

thereof in certain proportions, to be ascertained by the commissioners; and Eleventhly, Of that if the said annual composition rents should be in arrear, the prebendary

appeal, &c. for the tlme being, &c. might enter and distrain in the particular lands charged, &c. And that in all future rates and levies in the said townships, the said composition rents should be assessed in the same proportion as the other landholders.---Lord Ellenborough, C. J. said,—The question is, Whether a person, who I will suppose for the present is liable to be rated for something beyond the 6s. 8d., can be rated to the amount of 2501., and then left to pare down that assessment upon an appeal to the amount which it ought to be? He might as well have been charged to the extent of 50,0001. It is not stated as a fact in the case that the appellant was in the receipt of the rents and compositions to the amount of 250l. If the sessions have proceeded upon what the Court has said in some cases, that if the party rated bare rateable property in the parish they will not enquire into the quantum of the rate, they have egregiously mistaken the Court. When the question before the sessions is upon the quantum of the rate, the officers making it must show to the justices some probable ground for the amount at which they charge the party in the rate. The mischief of any other rule would be enormous; a small occupier may be rated at once in the round sum of 10001., and left to struggle his way out of that charge as he can.-For the appellant it was observed, that the question made at the sessions was, Whether the appellant should begin by proving his case, that he was over-rated; or whether the parish officers should begin by proving a probable case for rating the appellant at so much? On which Le Blanc, J., said, the Court will have no difficulty in dealing with that naked proposition whenever it should be brought nakedly before them. The case was sent back to sessions.

Per v. Prosser and others, 4 T. R. 17; 2 Nol. P. L. 607. On an Who may be witappeal against a poor rate, because certain persons were omitted to be rated, it was determined that a parishioner who is liable to be rated, but who is not in fact rated, is a competent witness to prove the rateability of appellants.

And by 54 Geo. III. c. 170, s. 9, it is enacted, " that no inhabitant or Inhabitants not person rated or liable to be rated to any rates or cesses of any district, parish, to be incompe: township, or hamlet, or wholly or in part maintained or supported thereby, certain cases on or executing or holding any office thereof or therein, shall before any Court behalf of or or person or persons whatsoever, be deemed and taken to be by reason there against their

parish. of an incompetent witness for or against such district, parish, township, or bamlet, in any matter relating to such rates or cesses, any law, usage, statute, or custom,

to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding.” Meredith v. Gilpin and others, 6 Price, 146. Trespass against an overseer of a parish for breaking plaintiff's close. The close was claimed by the parish under an enclosure act, by which (if they succeeded in the action) the land would be vested in the overseers for the time being, in trust for the parish, in aid of the poor's rates.Holroyd, J., at the Staff. Summ. Ass. 1818, and the Court of Exchequer (absente Richards, c. B.) held, that rated inhabitants were admissible witnesses by virtue of stat. 54 Geo. III. c. 170, s. 9.

By 10 Anne, the city of Norwich, and hamlets and liberties of the same, were incorporated for the purpose of better employing and maintaining the poor thereof; and the guardians thereby appointed were empowered from time to time to ascertain what aggregate sums would be necessary for that purpose, and to ascertain what proportion each parish, &c., should contribute, and then certify the same to the justices, two of whom were to issue their warrant, requiring the proper officers of each parish, &c., to rate and assess the amount on the respective inhabitants; and it was provided, that if any person, parish, &c., should find himself or themselves to be unequally assessed, he or they might appeal at the next sessions held after such assessment made and demanded. And where, under this act, the governors certified that the hamlet of L. ought to pay a certain pronortion of an assessment made upon the whole city, and two justices issued their warrant, requiring the collectors of the hamlet to assess that sum upon the inhabitants, and the hamlet being aggrieved by such assessment: Held, that the churchwardens and overseers might appeal against both the certificate and

be entered in a

Eleventhly, of the warrant thereon, as being an assessment made and demanded, within appeal, &c. the meaning of the appeal clause in the statute. Rex v. Mayor and

Justices of Norwich, 3 D. f. R. 42. Copies of rates to By 17 Geo. II. c. 38, s. 13, it is enacted, that “true and just copies of

all rates and assessments hereafter to be made for the relief of the poor, be book after appeals determined. fairly wrote and entered in a book or books, to be provided for that purpose

by the church wardens and overseers of the poor of every parish, township, or place, who shall take care that such copies be wrote and entered accordingly, within fourteen days after all appeals from such rates are determined, and shall attest the same by putting their names thereto; and all and every such book or books shall be carefully preserved by the church wardens and overseers of the poor for the time being or one of them, in some public or other place, in every such parish, township, or place, whereto all persons assessed or liable to be assessed, may freely resort, and shall be delivered over from time to time to the new and succeeding churchwardens and overseers of the poor as soon as they enter into their said offices, to be preserved as aforesaid, and shall be produced by them at the general or quarter sessions, when any appeal is to be heard or determined.”

1

(Twelfthly)–Of Distraining for the Poor Rate. Twelfthly, Of No action is sustainable for a poor rate, post, 157; 2 Burr. 1152; Underhill distraining, 8c. v. Ellicombe, M'Clel. f. Younge, 456. Rate to be levied

By 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 4, “it shall be lawful, as well for the present as subsequent by distress; and churchuardens and overseers, or any of them, by warrant, from any tuo suck is no goods, then justices of peace as is aforesaid, to levy as well the said sums of money and may follow com- 'all arrearages, of every one that shall refuse to contribute according as they

shall be assessed, by distress and sale of the offenders' goods, as the sums of money or stock which shall be behind upon any account to be made as afore said, rendering to the parties the overplus; and in defect of such distress, it shall be lawful for any such two justices of the peace, to commit him or them to the common gaol of the county, there to remain without bail or mainprize, until payment of the said sum, arrearages and stock; and the said justices of peace or any one of them, to send to the House of Correction, or commm gaol, such as shall not employ themselves to work, being appointed thereunto as aforesaid; and also any such two justices of peace to commit to the said prison every one of the said churchuardens and overseers, which shall refuse to account, there to remain without bail or mainprize, until he hare made a true account, and satisfied and paid so much as upon the said account shall be remaining in his hands.

And by 17 Geo. II. c. 38, s. 7, “ The goods of any person assessed, and refusing to pay, may be levied by warrant of distress, not only in the place for which such assessment was made, but in any other place within the same county or precinct; and if sufficient distress cannot be found within the said county or precinct, on oath made thereof before some justice of any other county or precinct (which oath shall be certified under the hand of such justice on the said warrant), such goods may be levied in such other county or precinct, by virtue of such warrant and certificate; and if any person shall find him or herself aggrieved by such distress as aforesaid, it shall and may be lawful for such person to appeal to the next general or quarter sessions of the peace for the county or precinct where such assess ment was made, and the justices there are hereby required to hear and

finally determine the same.' Distress for poor's By 54 Geo. III. c 170, s. 12, it is enacted, “That the goods and chattels rate, &c., if not to of any person or persons neglecting or refusing to pay any sum or sums of the district, &c., money legally assessed on and due from him, her, or them, in respect of may be made out any rate for the relief of the poor, church, cess, or highway cess, of any of the district.

district, parish, township, or hamlet, for the space of seven days after the same shall have been legally demanded of him, her, or them, shall and may be distrained, not only within such district, parish, township, or hamlet, but also within any other district, parish, township, or hamlet, within the same county, riding, division, or jurisdiction ; and if sufficient distress can

« PreviousContinue »