Blunt and Another against Harwood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1838 |
| Date | 12 June 1838 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 969
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. & P. 557; 7 L. J. M. C. 107; 2 Jur. 617. Reasoning applied, R. v. Powell, 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 407. Referred to, Mackonochie v. Penzance, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 445.
[610] blunt and another against harvvood. Tuesday, June 12th, 1838. At a vestry meeting, certain plans were produced for improving the parish church, and were referred to a committee. At a subsequent vestry their report, recom- (0)1 4 A. & E. 413. See Empson v. Fairfax, ante, p. 296. ()2 Lord Deuman C.J., Littledale, Patteson, and Williams J. K. B. xli.-31* 970 BLUNT V. HARWOOD 8 AB. ft B. 611. mending an enlargement, was received and adopted, and a resolution passed for borrowing money on the parish rates, under stats. 58 G. 3, c. 45, and 59 6. 3, e. 134, to carry the plans into execution. The notice of holding the latter vestry, published in pursuance of stat. 58 G-. 3, c. 69, s. 1, stated the purpose of it to be "to receive a report from the church committee, and to adopt such measures as may appear necessary for carrying that report into execution." Held, that this was a sufficient notice of the intention to propose borrowing money on the church-rates for the purpose of executing the plans. Quaare, whether it would have been sufficient to give notice of a vestry meeting, " to receive the report of the committee appointed to consider the plans produced to the vestry meeting held on," &c. (the first-mentioned vestry), " for affording additional accommodation to the parishioners desirous of attending divine worship in the said parish church." A party being libelled in the Spiritual Court for non-payment of a rate made in pursuance of the above resolution, objected to the libel because it stated the notice to have been given in the form last above-mentioned, and he obtained a rule nisi for a prohibition. Afterwards the notice really given, which was in the form first above-mentioned, and had been lost, was discovered, and was submitted to this Court in shewing cause, with an affidavit that, by the practice of the Ecclesiastical Court (in the opinion of the deponent, a proctor), leave would be given to amend the libel by an additional article setting out the real notice. Held that the rule nisi for a prohibition might be enlarged, to give opportunity for such amendment. [S. C. 3 N. & P. 557 ; 7 L. J. M. C. 107 ; 2 Jur. 617. Reasoning applied, R. v. Powell, 1873, L. E. 8 Q. B. 407. Referred to, Mackonochie v. Penzance, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 445.] A rule waa obtained in last Easter term, calling upon the above-named plaintiffs and Sir Herbert Jeniier, the official principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury, to shew cause why a prohibition should not issue to prohibit the said Court from further proceeding in the suit between the plaintiffs and Harwood. The affidavit in support of the rule stated the material parts of the libel and additional articles thereto filed in the Arches Court in the said suit. The libel was filed by the plaintiffs, as churchwardens, for non-payment of a rate made to repair the parish church of Streatham, and to repay certain portions of a principal sum of 33001., borrowed under stats. 58 G. 3, c. 45, and 59 G. 3, c. 134, and interest on a part of that sum. The libel alleged that the 33001. was borrowed in 1830, in pursuance of resolutions passed at a vestry-meeting of the parish of Streatham on 2d August 1830; that a committee had been appointed at a previous vestry, holden March 17th, 1830, to con-[611]-sider a plan then produced to the vestry, and report whether it would be expedient to adopt that or any other plan for affording additional accommodation to the parishioners in the church : that the committee, at the vestry of August 2d, presented a report recommending an enlargement of the church at an expense not exceeding 33001., agreeably to certain plans; and the vestry, at that meeting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veley and Another against Burder
...be correct or not, it turned on a question of merely temporal cognizance, namely, the construction of an Inclosure Act. Blunt v. Harwood (8 A. & E. 610), turned wholly ou the Church Building Acts; arid no point was raised as to the jurisdiction of this Court to interpose. Sir John Campbell ......
-
White v Steele and Another
...v. T/ie (J/uircliioanlems of tit. Mary, Lambeth, a B. & Ad. 651, T/ut King v. Uurnley, 5 Ad. & H. 10, 6 M. & M. 333, Blwd v. Harwood, 8 Ad. & E. 610, 3 N. & P. 577, fiwitur v. l-'eley, (-2 Ad. & E. 233, 4 P. & D. 452, Veley v. Uurder, 12 Ad. & E. 265, 4 P. & D. 475, llicluinis v. tiyhe, 3 Q......
-
The Queen against Willim and Cross, Chapelwardens of Bilston in Staffordshire
...notice here ought to receive the same reasonable construction which was given to a similar but a less explicit one in Blunt v. Harwood (8 A. & E. 610). The money applicable to the discharge of this debt is found to be in the hands of the chapelwardens; and, if it cannot be so applied under ......