Reports of New Magistrates' Cases Argued and Determined in All the Courts of Common Law at Westminster V. 5

5 Adam Bittleston, et al., Reports of New Magistrates' Cases Argued and Determined in All the Courts of Common Law at Westminster 1 (1850)

handle is hein.elrpre/nmagcca0005 and id is 1 raw text is: ,9AGISTRATES' COURTS
AND
Pat*(al rate (a0es,
ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN ALL THE
COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
November 18 and 19, 1850.
JONES V. JOHNSON,
bpkoin-Borough rate-Retrospective rate- Warrant
to distrain-Jurisdiction of borough justices.
Thxayor and councillors of a borough made a rate at a
seeitg of the town council, to which meeting the public
were not admitted, but there were present reporters for
te public press. The rate was made partly and prin-
dpally to meet certain legal expenses that had been
aurred.
A., ose of the parties assessed, having made default in
pement of the rate, a warrant was issued under the
orporate seal and signed by B. the mayor. The war-
reOt did not aver that the justices were acting within
their jurisdiction, by stating that they were acting in and
for the borough, but it had a venue in the margin. The
oods of A. were, taken under the warrant, and after-
ard replevied. The defendant in replevin avowed
Setting forth the warrant, 4-c. Replication, de injuria
and a special verdict wasfound.
1st. That though in general a retrospective rate is
kd yet that the fact of such legal expenses being in-
eded, did not make the rate retrospective within the
meaning of. that rule of law.
b That borough justices may make a rate at an or-
4ary meeting of the town council, and that they are
sobrgaired, like county justices, to mahe their rates at
1 tablit meeting.
W.That the venue in the margin of the warrant showed
silk sacient certainty that the magistrates were acting
Sadfor the borough without a special averment to
figt elect.
as an action of replevin for taking certain
4 -hThat Lichfield is an ancient borough, having
corporate. That the council made a rate, and that
were seized under a warrant in pursuance
fou-2de injuridi.
YOL. V.

There was a special verdict finding the following facts:
The plaintiff at the time of the making of the rate by
the council, was one of the overseers of the poor of the
parish of St. Mary, in the borough of Lichfield-the
defendants justices of the peace for the said borough-
that borough being included in the Schedule A. of the
5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76 (the Municipal Corporations Act),
and the borough fund not being sufficient for the pur-
poses mentioned in that statute on the 19th July, 1847,
a meeting of the council of the borough was held
according to sections 69 and 92 of that act, which meet-
ing was not, however, a public meeting, the members of
the town council and the reporters of the press only being
allowed to be present; the meeting had not been adver-
tized in any newspaper, there being no newspaper pub-
lished at Lichfield; at such meeting the council made
the rate in question, carried resolutions, and entered the
minutes of the proceedings, under the corporate seal of
the borough, duly signed by the mayor; Henry. Hitchins
was appointed collector of the rates to act as overseer,
&c., and J. W. Profitt, treasurer, directed forthwith to
make a demand in writing on behalf of the said council,
from the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the
respective sums thereby assessed and taxed upon such
parish, &c., the said churchwardens and overseers being
thereby required to levy and pay to the said treasurer the
said sums so assessed and taxed upon such parish, &c.,
within 100 days after demand made, and in case of
default such treasurer to levy the same by distress of the
goods of the said churchwardens and overseers. A written
estimate of expenditure and assets was made at that
meeting; the proportions of the rate were according to
the fair annual value of the rateable property, and dn the
said 19th July a precept or warrant signed by the mayor
and sealed with the corporate seal issued to Mr. Profitt,
to demand and collect the proportions therementioned.
Mr. Profitt, accordingly on the 29th July, duly served a
written notice requiring that within 100 days payment
be made to him out of the poor rates; the plaintiff in-
spected the rate and gave notice of appeal to the then
next sessions, when, upon hearing the appeal, the recorder
confirmed the rate; afterwards the plaintiff paid three
several instalments on account of the rate, leaving a
balance due on the 30th March, 1848, when he went out
of office and ceased to be such overseer; a successor was
appointed on the 1ith July, 1848, after the expiration of
the 100 days, and after the plaintiff had ceased to be.
a

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

What Is HeinOnline?

Purchase Access

Contact Us

Log In

NEED HELP?

CONTACT US

Get started

Subscribe to our Newsletter