c. 101, s. 32, this corporation was included with other unions in a district for auditing, and an auditor was appointed. At the first audit, notice of which was given to the corporation, and they were required to attend with the half-year's accounts, they refused to attend; and the auditor thereupon applied for and obtained a mandamus requiring them to render their accounts, and to their return thereto there was a demurrer and joinder. Two questions were raised: First, whether the Poor Law Commissioners had power to include Bristol in a district for auditing, under stat. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 32; and the Court held that they had. That section authorizes the Commissioners to unite unions and parishes into such districts; and the stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 109 (which is incorporated into stat. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101), provides that the word "parish" shall include every city maintaining its own poor, and the word "union" any number of parishes incorporated for the maintenance of the poor by any local Act. Secondly, whether the power was duly exercised, it being objected that the order of the Commissioners made the city part of a district for auditing, not only their accounts relating to the poor, but those relating to the other subjects above mentioned. But the Court held that the order showed plainly that they were combined with the other unions only in respect to the relief and maintenance of the poor, and the audit must be limited to that. The Court also intimated that the proper mode of disputing the order of the Commissioners was by certiorari. A writ of error was brought upon this judgment, but it was affirmed. 13 Q. B. 414; 19 Law J. 116, m. R. v. The Governors and Directors of the Poor of St. Andrew, Holborn-above-Bars, and St. George the Martyr, 6 Q. B. 78; 8 J. P. 391. A Parish in an Audit District bound to account to the Auditor, although by a Local Act they are bound to account, and have accounted to Auditors appointed under the Act. By a local Act, 6 G. 4, that part of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn-above-Bars, and the parish of St. George the Martyr, were formed into a district under governors and directors, for the management of the poor. In March 1836, however, the Poor Law Commissioners, by their order, formed that district, together with the liberty of Saffron Hill, Hatton Garden, Ely Rents and Ely Place, into a poor law union, named the Holborn Union; and by another order in July, 1836, they formed this Holborn Union, the Brentford Union, the Staines Union, and the Uxbridge Union, into a district for the auditing of the accounts of the different unions, &c., and an auditor was appointed. But by the above local Act, auditors were also appointed for the district of Holborn-above-Bars and St. George's, to whom the governors and directors of that district accounted; but they refused to account to the auditor for the above district, except merely by furnishing an account of the sums paid by them to the guardians of the Holborn Union for the relief of the poor. A rate which they had made produced £6246, out of which they paid the guardians £3680, reserving the remainder for the payment of the police rate, the county rate, &c., and reserving a large sum for law expenses, of which they refused to render any account to the auditor of the district. Upon a mandamus issuing requiring them to account, and a return thereto, and a special case stated for the opinion of the Court, the Court held:-1. That the governors and directors, besides accounting to their own auditors, were also bound to account to the auditor appointed under the order of the Poor Law Commissioners; and-2. That they were bound to account to him for the whole sum received by them under the poor rate, not only for the sums applied for the relief of the poor, but also for the sums reserved for police rate, county rate, law expenses, &c. R. v. The Great Western Railway Company (in the matter of the Burnham Rates), 13 Q. B. 327; 18 Law J. 145, m.; 13 J. P. 198. An Attorney may be Auditor of a District, and may Audit the Payments made to him for his Bills of Costs. A solicitor was appointed auditor of a district, in which the parish of Burnham was comprised. He and his partner were the solicitors for Burnham, the auditor not interfering in the parish business, the whole being transacted by the partner, but both shared the profits arising from it. Part of the accounts to be audited comprised the solicitors' bill for business to be done; and the auditor being unwilling to audit that part of the accounts which comprised his bill, applied to the Poor Law Commissioners for leave to get the auditor of an adjoining district to audit it; but the Commissioners answered that he could not delegate his duties to another, although he might get another person to assist him; the greater part of the accounts, therefore, were audited by another person, as assistant to the auditor, and the remainder by the auditor himself. Part of the accounts comprised the costs of two appeals. The Great Western Railway Company, (part of whose railway ran through the parish of Burnham, and they were rated for it,) were the appellants, and they appealed on the ground that the declaration required by stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96, to be at the foot of the rates was omitted. The overseers wished to abandon the rates, but they were advised that they could not do so, but instead of it they got a ratepayer to bring a friendly appeal, and the rates were quashed, and the sessions ordered new rates to be made instead of them, which was done accordingly. The orders of sessions in these two appeals were removed by certiorari at the instance of the Great Western Railway Company, who moved to quash them, against which the overseers showed cause; and on the other hand the overseers, by the advice of counsel, obtained a rule to quash part of the certiorari. The latter was, however, discharged with costs, and the rule to quash the order of sessions made absolute. The costs in both cases being allowed by the auditor, the Great Western Railway Company applied for and obtained a certiorari to bring up the accounts audited, with the allowances and disallowances of the auditor, and his reasons for them. It was objected that the auditor, so far as referred to the bills of himself and partner, was an interested party, and therefore, his audit void. And secondly, the overseers got two friendly appeals to be made by a ratepayer, carried them on at the expense of the parish, and charged the parish with the expense of them. As to the first objection, the Court held that the attorney, having been duly appointed auditor, and having accepted the office, could not decline any of its duties; his election by those who knew his interest, proved their confidence in his integrity. Besides, there was no objection made to the amount of his bill. The Court, however, said that they did not express any approbation of such an appointment, though it was said to be commonly made; on the contrary, they thought the parish solicitor would do well to decline the office. As to the other objection, the Court held, that although want of success in legal proceedings, was not a sufficient reason for disallowing the costs of them, yet in this case the expenditure was incurred for improper purposes: the overseers ought not to have defended the appeals: the friendly appeals ought not to have been brought; and the motion to quash part of the certiorari ought not to have been made; and the advice of counsel, or the sanction of the vestry, could not alter the nature of the thing done. The Court accordingly disallowed these costs; but as the overseers acted without an ill intention, and the proceedings of the company had been harassing, the Court refused the latter their costs of the rule. They also refused the auditor his costs of the proceeding. R. v. Street and others, 18 Q. B. 682; 22 Lan J. 29, m.; 16 J. P. 359. It is not necessary for Overseers to have the previous sanction of the Vestry to their defending an Appeal against a Rate. The auditor of a district, in auditing the accounts of the overseers of a parish in the district, disallowed the sum of £73, the cost of an appeal which they had to pay. This being removed by certiorari, it appeared that a dispute existed between the parish and a railway company as to the sum at which the company ought to be rated. At a vestry of the parish it was resolved to rate them at the sum of £2708. Afterwards, at another vestry meeting, it was resolved to reduce this amount to £2000, and if the company would not assent to that, the overseers were directed to take such proceedings as were necessary to enforce it. The overseers, however, went out of office, but the succeeding overseers rated the company at the latter amount, against which the company appealed; and the overseers, without summoning a vestry to ascertain whether the appeal should be litigated, defended the appeal. The result was that the rate was reduced to £300, subject to a case for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. The case, however, was not proceeded with, the parties compromising the matter by agreeing that the rate should stand at 4507. In contesting this rate the overseers expended £73 as above mentioned, and the auditor disallowed this sum on two grounds: first, that the overseers, before incurring these expenses, ought to have summoned a vestry, to have their sanction to their doing so; and secondly, that they ought to have summoned a vestry to have their opinion as to the advisability of proceeding with the special case. But the Court held that this sum ought to have been allowed to the overseers: it was not necessary for them to obtain the previous sanction of the vestry to their defending the appeal; there is no law to that effect and the overseers having entered into a compromise, by which they gained a very considerable augmentation of the rate for their parish, instead of proceeding with the special case, was no wanton abandonment of the rate. R. v. Hunt, 6 E. & B. 408.; S. C. nom. R. v. Napton, 25 Lan J. 296 qb.; 20 J. P. 581. The Auditor's disallowance of the Payment of an Attorney's Bill, not previously taxed, is final. Among the items in overseers' accounts, presented for audit, was a payment of £26 18s. 9d., the amount of an attorney's bill; the bill had not been taxed, and the auditor disallowed it. On application for a certiorari to remove the disallowance into the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court held that it did not lie; the stat. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 39, which gives the clerk of the peace authority to tax such a bill, on the application either of the parish officers or the attorney, adds that "if any such bill be not taxed before it is presented to the auditor, the auditor's decision on the reasonableness as well as the legality of the charges shall be final." R. v. Read et al., 13 Q. B. 524; 18 Law J. 145, m.; Payment of an Attorney's Bill by Overseers, to be allowed by Auditor, in what Cases. In August 1846 the overseers of Cheltenham paid the taxed bills of their attorney, amounting to £422 9s. 2d., and charged it in their accounts. The sum of £262 8s. 3d. of this amount |