Page images
PDF
EPUB

sioners were vested in the town council; by
section 69. a notice of the time and place of the
intended meetings of the town council was to be
given by fixing the same on or near the door of
the town hall of the borough. In pursuance
of the powers given by the local act, assessors
were appointed at a meeting for the purpose of
making a rate, and at a meeting a precept was
issued to them to make the rate. It was held,
that the notices of these meetings respectively
were properly given by fixing them upon or
near the door of the town-hall, as required by
the Municipal Corporation Act. The Town
Council of Kidderminster v. Croft, 148

over it, and the district board being de facto in
the exercise of that jurisdiction, it was held, on
a complaint by them against persons who bad
treated with them as having jurisdiction, that
the marsh wall was vested in the district board.
Semble—That a house, built with foundations
placed on the surface, without digging out, is
within section 76, which enacts, “that before
beginning to lay or dig out the foundation of
any house seven days' notice shall be given to
the district board." Poplar District Board of
Works v. Knight, 37

distinct rates: exemptions)—Under the Me-
tropolis Local Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19
Vict. c. 120.) s. 161. no rates, except the light-
ing and sewers rate, need be kept distinct from
the general rate. By a local act for the parish
of P. all hereditaments whatever were made
rateable to all the parish rates; but certain
classes of property, such as unoccupied or un-
finished buildings, were to be rated to certain
rates (the poor-rate not being one) on a differ-
ent scale from other property. It was held,
that by the 161st section of the Metropolis
Local Management Act, all property must be
rated to the general rate under that act on the
same scale as to the poor-rate in the parish, with-
out any reference to these distinctions. R. v.
the Great Western Rail. Co., 59

liability to indictment of partner of clerk to
Justices for being interested in a prosecution)--
By section 102. of 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 76, it is pro-
vided that it shall not be lawful for the clerk to
borough Justices, by himself or his partner,
to be directly or indirectly interested or employed
in the prosecution of any offender committed for
trial by the Justices of whom he shall be such
clerk as aforesaid, or any of them, at any court
of gaol delivery or general or Quarter Sessions.
F. was appointed clerk to the Justices of the
borough of N. He was in partnership with P,
who was clerk of the peace for the county in
which N. was situate, and who was entitled to
receive certain fees upon the arraignment and
trial of all prisoners at the Quarter Sessions.
Certain offenders were committed by the Justices
of N. for trial at the General Quarter Sessions
for the county, and upon their arraignment and
trial P. received fees. By arrangement between
F. and P, the former was entitled to receive,
and did receive, one half of the fees so taken by
P. It was held, by Lord Campbell, C.J. and
Erle, J. (Crompton, J. dissentiente), that F. was
liable to be convicted upon an indictment pre-
ferred against him under the 102nd section
above mentioned. R. v. Fox, 157

Power of making poor-rates, in whom
vested. See Poor-rate.
METROPOLITAN BUILDING ACT-recovery of exc-
penses]— The limitation of time for the recovery
of expenses incurred by Commissioners runs
from the demand, not from the completion of
the works. Labalmondiere v. Addison, 25

order to take down and repair buildings] -
An order made by a Justice, under section 73.
of the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855 (18 & 19
Vict. c. 122), requiring the owner of a structure
to take down and repair such structure, ought
to shew upon the face of it that the owner had
been summoned to answer the complaint upon
which the order was issued, and it ought also to
sbew that the Justice making such order adjudi.
cated the complaint to be true. When proceed.
ings are taken before a Justice to recover the
expenses incurred by the Commissioners, in
consequence of the disobedience of such order
by the owner of the structure, it is lawful for
such Justice to consider the validity of the order,
and to hold that it is bad, for the reasons above

mentioned. Labalmondiere v. Frost, 155
MISDEMEANOUR. See Towns Improvement Acts.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION—notices of meetings for
purposes of local paving act]— By a local act,
certain Commissioners were appointed for paving,
&c. the town of K, and they were to carry on
their proceedings at public meetings, of which
notice in writing was to be fixed upon the door
of the parish church. Under section 75. of
5 & 6 Vict. c. 76. the powers of the Commis-

NAVIGABLE RIVER-throwing ballast, rubbish, &c.

out of vessel]-Section 11. of 54 Geo. 3. c. 159.
operates by way of substitution for that part of
the 19 Geo. 2. c. 22, which makes it an offence
to throw out of any vessel, in a navigable river,
ballast, rubbish, &c., 80 as to obstruct the cban-
nel or prejudice the navigation therein; and
therefore a conviction under the earlier statute
for such an offence is bad. The owner of a
vessel may be convicted of such an offence,
though he be not on board at the time the act
is done. Michell v. Brown, 53

[blocks in formation]

NUISANCE - proceedings before Justices, in what

cases] — The proceeding before Justices given
by the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 121. 8. 12, for the re-
moval and prevention of nuisances, is confined
to cases where the cause and effect of such nui.
sances exist within the area of the jurisdiction

irremovable at the time of his death, does not
continue irremovable if she has not herself re.
sided the five years. R. v. Inhabitants of Cud-
ham, 105

of the local authority. Therefore, where I, C.
& Co., brewers at R, poured their refuse into a
river at that place, and the consequential result
of that act was the pollution of the water of the
river at D, and the local authority for D. pro-
ceeded before the Justices for the abatement of
the nuisance, it was held, that as the cause arose
out of the jurisdiction of the local authority, the
Justices had no power to hear and determine
the question. R. v. Cotton, 22

Service of fresh grounds of appeal. See
Appeal.
PAWNBROKER. See Larceny. Penalty.

PENALTY-under Pawnbrokers Act: who entitled

to moiety)—A common informer, who lays an
information against a pawnbroker for an offence
under 39 & 40 Geo. 3. c. 99. is entitled to a
moiety of the penalties imposed by section 27.
Caswell v. Morgan, 208

time for giving notice of appeal: limit of
amount of assessment]— By the 22nd section
of the Nuisances Removal Act, 1855, the local
authority are empowered in certain cases to lay
down a sewer, and to assess every house using
it, to such payment, either immediate or annual
or distributed over a term of years, as they shall
think reasonable, and, after fourteen days' notice
left on the premises so assessed, to levy and
collect the sum and sums so assessed in the
same manner and with the same remedies as
highway rates, and with the same right of
appeal against the amount of assessment re-
served to the person assessed, as by the law in
force for the time being shall be given against
the highway rate : provided that such assess-
ment shall in no case exceed 18. in the pound on
the assessment to the highway rate.' By the
Highway Act, (5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 50.) s. 105, the
right is given to any person aggrieved by any
rate to appeal to the next Quarter Sessions,
first giving to the opposite party notice within
fourteen days after such rate shall have been
made. It was held, first, that the fourteen days
for giving notice of appeal against an assessment
under the former act ran from the service of the
notice of assessment on the premises assessed,
and not from the time when the amount was
fixed by the local authority. Secondly, that
the proviso in the 22nd section limited the an-
nual assessment only to 18. in the pound on the
rateable value as assessed to the highway rate,
but did not prohibit the whole assessment of the
premises in respect of one structure, to be dis-
tributed over several years, from exceeding that
amount. R. v. the Nuisances Removal Commit-
tee of Middleton, 41

under Gaming Houses Act: who entitled to
moiety)—Right of the receiver of the Metro-
politan Police District to moiety of penalty
under the Gaming Houses Act, 17 & 18 Vict.
c. 38. Wray v. Ellis, 45

for keeping unlicensed house for public per-
formance of stage plays. See Theatre.
PERJURY-introductory averment in indictment]—

An indictment for perjury for forging a receipt
alleged that, on the hearing of a cause in a
county court, it became a material question
whether B. had, in the presence of the prisoner,
signed at the foot of a certain bill of account,
purporting to be a bill of account between a cer.
tain firm called “B. & Co." and "J. W." a re-
ceipt for payment of the amount of the said bill.
It was held, the bill of account was sufficiently
specified. R. v. Webster, 200

See Bastardy.

ORDER OF JUSTICES. See Amendment. Metro-

politan Building Act.

ORDER OF REMOVAL-irremovability by five years'

residence)--Imprisonment in England under a
sentence of penal servitude is an imprisonment
within the proviso in 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. s. 1,
and is not a break in a five years' residence. R.
v. Potterhanworth, 56

A residence of five years in an extra-paro-
chial place, part of which residence was before
20 Vict. c. 19. came into operation, does not
confer the status of irremovability; that act
having no retrospective operation. R. v. Inha-
bitants of St. Sepulchre, 187

Under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. s. 1. and 11 & 12
Vict. c. 111. s. 1, a widow, whose husband was

POOR RATE-exemptions: Bradford Library and

Literary Society)–Exemption of the Bradford
Library and Literary Society as a society insti-
tuted for the purposes of science, literature and
the fine arts exclusively; the fact of the use of
the library and its contents being confined to the
subscribers not making their purposes less the
primary object of the society, or preventing it
from coming within the exemption in 6 & 7
Vict. c. 36. s. 31. Contributions are voluntary,
if the obligation to pay be voluntarily incurred;
and the personal benefit derived to contributors
in having the exclusive use of the rooms and the
use of books at their houses, in return for their
subscription, is not such as to take them out of
the meaning of "voluntary contributions" in
the proviso to the above section. R. v. the
Bradford Library and Literary Society, 73

powers of making, vested in new vestry under
Metropolis Local Management Act)—By a local
act, making the bamlet of Spitalfields a distinct
parish, the rector of the church, the church-
wardens and overseers of the poor, and all other
persons possessing certain specified qualifications,
were constituted the vestrymen of the parish.
By another local act power was given to them
to make poor-rates. By 18 & 19 Vict. c 120.

8. 2, the new vestry of certain parishes, including the parish of Spitalfields, was ordered to be elected in a certain specified manner, and the incumbent and church wardens were to constitute part of such vestry, and were to vote therein, in addition to the elected vestrymen; and by section 8. it was enacted, that such vestrymen with such persons as hereinbefore mentioned, shall forthwith be deemed to constitute the vestry of such parish, and shall supersede any existing vestry therein, and exercise the powers and privileges held by such existing Vestry." Under the above provisions a vestry was elected for the parish of Spitalfields, and made poor-rates, the overseers taking no part in making them. It was held, the powers of making poor-rates possessed by the old vestry were transferred to the new vestry, and the rates were lawfully made, the overseers not being entitled to vote. Vaughan v. Im

ray, 78

- deductions in assessing canal passing through several parishes)—In assessing to the poor-rate of a parish a part of a canal which passes through several parishes, in order to ascertain its rateable value, the expense of maintaining locks situate in the parish is not to be deducted from the gross earnings of the canal in the parish, as it is not a local expense and ought to be thrown on the whole line of canal. R. v. the Company of Proprietors of the Coventry Canal, 102

- rateable value of land occupied without right to game)-A tenant occupied land under a parol demise to him from year to year, the right to the game and of entering for the purpose of taking and killing it being reserved to the landlord. The rateable value of the occupation of the land without the right was 111. 58. 8d., and with the right, 261. 198. 8d. The Quarter Sessions hav. ing found the above facts in a case on appeal against a poor-rate, in which the tenant was rated at the higher value, it was held that he was only liable to be rated at the lower value. R. v. Inhabitants of Thurlstone, 106

retrospective: contribution order]—Invalidity of retrospective poor-rate and of contribution order by guardians or overseers in part to pay old debts. Meaning of “extraordinary charges" in Article 81. of the Consolidated Order, 1847, of the Poor Law Board. Waddington v. Guardians of City of London Union, 113

docks ]—Rateability of docks as being occupied beneficially, and not for public purposes. R. v. Churchwardens and Overseers of Chirton, 131

endowment of minister of new district)—By way of endowment of the minister of a new district constituted under the provisions of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 37, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 94, and 19 & 20 Vict. c. 104, the rector of the parish of T. granted to such minister and his successors

one clear yearly rent-charge or sum of 1501., to be payable half-yearly,” &c. "to be for ever issuing and payable out of, and charged upon and being part of all that the rectory," &c. The deed gave a power of entry and distress in case of nonpayment of the money, but the money bad been paid and the power had not been exercised. The parish officers of T. having assessed the minister to the relief of the poor, it was held he was not liable to be assessed. Prend v. the Churchwar. dens and Overseers of the Parish of Tolleshunt Knights, 169

tolls)—Anchorage and beaconage tolls are rateable to the poor-rate in all the parishes in which the port is situate and to which ships paying the toll come, in the proportion of the number of ships coming into each of the parishes respectively. R. v. the Earl of Durham, 232

pier in bed of river: boundary]-In beating the boundaries of the parish of Rotherhithe the authorities proceed along the embankments, wharves, or other shore of the river Thames, while in the adjoining parish of Bermondsey the authorities go along the middle of the river; the parish of Rotherhithe has never done or exercised any parochial act or authority beyond the embankments, &c. It was held, the inference from the above circumstances was, that the parish of Rotherhithe extended to the middle of the river; and that a pier built on piles in the bed of the river, opposite one of the embank. ments, but not connected with it, was rateable to the poor rate of the parish. M'Cannon v. Sinclair, 247

for burial board purposes)—Where a district of a parish is entitled, under section 12. of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 128, though not supporting its own poor, to appoint a separate burial board, the rest of the parish, minus the district, may appoint a burial board; and a poor-rate made and assessed for the purposes of the burial board on such part of the parish is good. Viner v.

Churchwardens and Overseers of Tonbridge, 251 PRACTICE-right to begin]—Where there is a de

murrer to a declaration, and there are also demurrers to the pleas pleaded to that declaration, the plaintiff's counsel begins the argument. The Mayor, &c. of Blackburn v. Parkinson, 7

See Case stated by Justices. PREROGATIVE. See Costs. Turnpike. PREVIOUS CONVICTION—mode of alleging and of

arraigning on}-An indictment charging a felony may allege a previous conviction against the prisoner, either before or after the substan. tive charge. If, to prevent prejudice, the

waterworks ]—Principle of rating buildings and premises of waterworks. R. v. West Middlesex Waterworks, 135

publication]_Sufficiency of publication by affixing notice upon the church-door previously to the evening service. Burneley v. the Overseers of Methley, 152

1848, was applied by the Order in Council to the
township of L, and the Local Improvement Act
adopted the same limits. L. wall on one side
bounded by the sea. The provisions of the local
act shewed that it was intended that the Justices
should have jurisdiction over the shore. It was
held, the sea-shore between high and low water.
mark was within the district, and, consequently,
that the above bye-law was applicable to stands
on the sea-shore. Bennett v. Blackpool Local
Board of Health, and Kenyon v. the Same, 203

Railway-Sending dangerous goods by. See

Conviction.

RAPEdefinition of]—To constitute rape it is not

necessary that the connexion with the woman
should be had against her will; it is sufficient if
it be without her consent. R. v. Fletcher, 85

RATE. See Borough Rate. Poor-Rate. Watch-

ing and Lighting Rate.

prisoner, at the request of his counsel, bas not
been arraigned on the charge for the previous
conviction before the verdict has been given on
the substantive charge, be may afterwards be
arraigned thereon, and the jury may afterwards

inquire respecting it. R. v. Hilton, 28
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-disclosure by agent before

Commissioner in Bankruptcy]-An agent in-
trusted with a bill of lading, without authority
of his principals, and in violation of good faith,
deposited it with bankers for his own benefit,
as a security for advances. He was charged
with this offence before a Magistrate.

The
depositions which were taken in support of the
charge contained ample evidence to support it.
Having become bankrupt, he was taken by his
creditors and examined respecting the subject-
matter of the charge before a Commissioner in
Bankruptcy, and then made a statement in every
respect in accordance with the evidence in the
depositions. He was afterwards indicted on
the same charge. On the trial, his examination
in bankruptcy was offered by him as a defence
as shewing that he had disclosed the act before
a Commissioner in Bankruptcy previous to being
indicted for the offence, and that, therefore, he
was not liable to conviction, by virtue of 5 & 6
Vict. c. 39. 8. 6. This evidence of a disclosure
was held to be admissible under the plea of not
guilty. The majority of the Court were, how.
ever, of opinion, that as the agent only stated
before the Commissioner matter which had been
previously known and previously proved by evi-
dence before the Magistrate, he had not made
any disclosure within the meaning of the act,
and, consequently, was not entitled to protec-
tion. The minority beld, that as the statement
of the agent was obtained on a compulsory exa-
mination, instituted bond fide by the creditors
for their own interest, it was a disclosure before
a Commissioner within the act, notwithstanding
the previous publicity of the matter there in.

quired into. R. v. Skeen, 91
PUBLIC HEALTH ACT—bye-laws regulating stands

for hackney carriages)—By a local improve-
ment act, incorporating “The Public Health
Act, 1848," which, by Order in Council, had
been previously applied to the district, the local
board were empowered from time to time to
make bye-laws for the purpose (inter alia) of
regulating the conduct of the drivers of hackney
carriages and animals plying within the district,
and for fixing the stands of such hackney car.
riages and animals. The local board made a bye.
law that the places in the district where painted
boards should from time to time be placed by
the local board of health to distinguish them as
stands, should be the stands for such number of
carriages, &c. as should be mentioned on such
boards, and prohibiting drivers from placing
their vehicles, &c., or plying for hire elsewhere
than on such stands under a penalty of 408. It
was held, this bye-law was valid, and within the
powers of the local act, and that it was not
necessary to make a bye-law for fixing the posi-
tion of the stands. The Public Health Act,

RECEIVING GOODS SUSPECTED TO BE PURLOINED—

materials in manufacture found in possession of
occupier of warehouse)—By section 10. of 17
Geo. 3. c. 56. it shall be lawful for any two Jus-
tices of the Peace, upon complaint made to them,
upon oath, that there is reason to suspect tbat
purloined or embezzled materials are concealed
in any dwelling-house, outhouse, yard, garden,
or other place or places, by warrant to cause
every such, &c. to be searched; and if any such
materials shall be found therein, to cause the
same and the person or persons in whose house,
&c. the same shall be found to be brought before
any two Justices; and if the said person or
persons shall not give an account, to the satis-
faction of such Justices, how he, she or they
came by the same, then the said person or per.
sons 80 offending shall be deenied or adjudged
guilty of a misdemeanour. E, who carried on
business as a silk dealer and manufacturer, and
as a seller of goods on commission, had a ware-
house upwards of a mile and a balf from his
dwelling-house. The warehouse was used for
business purposes only. In it were found cer.
tain materials of the description mentioned in
the statute, and such materials were suspected
to have been purloined or embezzled. E. failed
to give an account, to the satisfaction of the
Justices before whom he was charged, under the
10th section, of how he came by the same, and
was convicted by the Justices. It was held,
that the warehouse was a "place" within the
meaning of the section, and that the Justices
had jurisdiction to convict. R. v. Edmundson,
213

RECOGNIZANCE-time for entering into, on appeal

from Justices)—On an appeal from the decision
of Justices, under the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. ss. 2,
3, the appellant may enter into the required re-
cognizance at any time during the three days
allowed for applying for a case, and he need not
enter into it simultaneously with making the
application. Chapman v. Robinson, 30

[blocks in formation]

SETTLEMENT BY APPRENTICESHIP-hearsay evi-

dence of search for the indenture]—Hearsay
evidence is sometimes admissible to satisfy the
mind of the Court upon a preliminary inquiry,
although the facts proved would not be evidence
in the cause. Where at the hearing of an
appeal against the removal of a pauper it was
necessary to prove an apprenticeship, and in
order to shew that a proper and reasonable
search had been made for the indenture, it was
proposed to ask witnesses what inquiries they
had made of persons who were supposed to be
likely to have it in their possession, and also
what answers were given to these inquiries, and
the Sessions refused to allow such evidence to
be given, this Court held, that such questions
and answers were receivable to prove that the
search made was reasonable. R. v. Inhabitants
of Braintree, 1

TOLLS. See Poor-Rate. Turnpike.
Towns IMPROVEMENT ACTS houses facing

each other )—By the Manchester Improvement
Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. cxli. s. 29, no street is to be
made of less width than 24 feet; and by section
30. "it shall not be lawful to build within the
borough any houses with their fronts facing
each other which shall be separated from each
other by a space of less than 24 feet wide." This
section held to apply to prohibit the erection in
a street in the borough of two houses at the
same time, with their fronts facing each other,
within the prescribed distance, and not to affect
the erection of buildings not in a street. R. v.
Sidebotham, 189

streets theretofore" paved ] — The word
"theretofore," in section 53. of 10 & 11 Vict.
C. 34, is to be construed in its ordinary gram-
matical sense, and refers to streets which have
at any time been well and sufficiently paved and
flagged, or otherwise made good to the satisfac-
tion of the Commissioners, and not to the state
of such streets at the time of the passing of the
special act, incorporated with the general act.
Ř. v. the Great Western Rail. Co., 246

See Action. Public Health Act.

TRESPASS. See Game.

evidence from which the binding may be in.
ferred)—Upon a question whether G. W. had
acquired a settlement by service as a parish
apprentice to P, it was proved that in 1824 he
and his father were taken by the overseers
before the Justices; that P. and the overseers
were there; that papers were drawn up; that
the Justices asked the father whether he had any
objection to his son being bound apprentice to
P; that G. W. went the next day to P, and
that he remained with him two or three years.
It also appeared from the register-book that one
G. P. W. had, in 1824, been bound apprentice
to P. The Sessions from these facts inferred that
G. W. had been duly bound a parish apprentice
to P, and it was held that they were right in
drawing such inference. R. v. Inhabitants of
Broadhempston, 18

TRUCK ACT-note for payment in goods: juris.

diction of Justices] - An artificer, to whom
wages were due, was paid by his master by
means of a note for the payment in goods, the
master knowing that the payment would be
made in goods, and not in the current coin of
the realm. The agent of the master delivered
goods in obedience to the note, and the master
was convicted before Justices of an offence under
the Truck Act, although the place where the
goods were delivered was not within the juris-
diction of the Justices. Conviction right, as,
under the circumstances, the offence was com-
plete when the note was given. Ashersmith v.
Drury, 5

SEWERS. See Metropolis Local Management

Act.

SHIP AND SHIPPING. See Navigable River.

STATUTE-Construction of. See Misdemeanour.

Public Health Act. Towns Improvement Act.
Watching and Lighting Rate.

SUNDAY TRADING. See Ale and Beerhouse.

TURNPIKE-clergyman's exemption from tolll-A

clergyman acting temporarily as curate of a
parish, with the permission of the bishop, though
without his licence, is within the exemption in
3 Geo. 4. c. 126. s. 32: and the exemption ex-
tends to a turnpike without the parish to which
be was going on parochial duty. Temple v.
Dickinson, 10

THEATRE—penalty for keeping unlicensed house) -

A booth used as a theatre by strolling players, is
not "a house or other place of public resort for
the public performance of stage plays,” within
the meaning of the statute 6 & 7 Vict. c. 68.
8. 2, and the manager and proprietor of such a
booth is not liable to the penalty imposed by
that section for keeping a house or other place
of public resort open for stage plays. Davys v.

Douglas, 193
TIME. See Metropolitan Building Act.
TITHE-Summary proceedings to enforce payment

of an annuity in lieu of tithe. See Church.

taxed cart]—Where a local act provided that
upon the W. turnpike-road certain tolls should
be chargeable, and amongst others, “ for every
horse or other beast drawing any other chaise,
chair or caleche, or any taxed cart, a sum not
exceeding the sum of 3d.," it was held, that a
cart upon which a tax had been imposed and
paid in the previous year, was within the above
enactment, and that no larger toll than 3d.
could be charged for passing through the toll-
gate. Purdy v. Smith, 150

« EelmineJätka »