Durrant against Boys and Burgis

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date09 February 1796
Date09 February 1796
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 714

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

Durrant against Boys and Burgis

1 N. R. 194. Post, 7 vol. 270.

[580] dtjrrant against boys and burgis. Tuesday, Feb. 9th, 1796. If a person rated to the poor has any objection to the rate, e.g. that it is made for 6 months, he must appeal to the next sessions; and if he do not appeal, he cannot bring trespass against those who distrain on him for non-payment of the rate. [1 N. B. 194. Post, 7 vol. 270.] To trespass for seizing and converting the plaintiff's cattle, the defendants pleaded the general issue. On the trial before the Lord Chief Baron at the last Summer Assizes for Kent, a verdict was entered for the plaintiff for 121. 2s. subject to the opinion of this Court on a case which stated, in substance, as follows : That the plaintiff is the occupier of a farm in Sandhurst. That the defendant Boys is an acting justice of the peace, and the defendant Burgis one of the overseers of Sandhurst. " That it has been usual in Sandhurst to make two assessments in a year for the relief of the poor, (viz.) one soon after Easter and the other soon after Michaelmas, although in some years a third assessment has been made. That the rate in question was made on the 2d of October 1794; and though it does not purport to have been for any particular time, was in truth intended by the overseers, and understood by the justices, to have been intended for six months prospectively." That the plaintiff not having paid tiis rate, Boys and another magistrate granted a warrant of distress against the plaintiff, and Burgis executed it on the 4th of December 1794. And that the plaintiff never appealed against this rate. Adam for the plaintiff. The rate under which the defendants justified, was illegal, it having been made for a longer time than is authorised by the stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2, and consequently the parties acting under it are trespassers. That statute first directs the overseers to raise weekly or otherwise, &c. and afterwards directs them to meet once in every month for the purpose of putting the Act in execution, and of course they have no authority to make a rate for a period of six months. In Traeey v. Talbot (a) Lord Holt said that a person could not be rated for a whole quarter, for poor rates are to be assessed monthly by the statute. In B. v. Littleport(b) Lord Holt said " there ought to be a monthly rate." In the case of The Churchwardens of Eishopsgate v. Beecher (c), where a rate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Tucker against Newman
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 7 d4 Novembro d4 1839
    ...(a) Before Lord Denman C.J., Patteson, Williams, and Coleridge Js. (e) 4 T. R. 368. See Regina, v. Ford/ram, post, pp. 81, 82, 83. (b) 6 T. R. 580. See Weaver v. Price, 3 B. & Ad. 409. (e) See Governors of Bristol Poor v. Wait, 1 A. & E. 264. 328 TUCKER V. NEWMAN 11 AD. 8L E.42. messuage an......
  • The Guardians of The Castlebar Union v The Earl of Lucan. The Guardians of Westport Union v Same
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 20 d6 Janeiro d6 1849
    ...2 Cr. & Dix, C. Cas. 443. Cortis v. The Kent Water Works Company 7 B. & Cress. 330. Bonnell v. BeigtonSC 5 . R. 182. Durrant v. BoysENR 6 T. R. 580. Hutchins v. Chambers 1 Bur. 580. H. T. 1849. Queen'sBeach. THE GUARDIANS OF THE CASTLEBAR UNION v. THE EARL OF LUCAN. THE GUARDIANS OF WESTPOR......
  • Weaver against Price and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 19 d4 Abril d4 1832
    ...for the plaintiff, Wightman now moved for a new trial. The proper remedy was by appeal, and not by the present action, Durrani v. Boys (6 T. R. 580). [Parke J. There the objection to the rate was one which might be taken on appeal. The plaintiff was a parishioner. Here there was no rate aff......
  • TOMB v The Commissioners of Police, Belfast
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 18 d5 Janeiro d5 1839
    ...v. PitmanUNK 2 Moo. & Sc. 745. Rex v. Kent Water-works CompanyENR 7 B. & C, 314, 338. Hutchins v. Chambers 1 Bur. 580. Durant v. BoysENR 6 T. R. 580. LOCAL ASSESSMENTS — 164 CASES IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH, Tuesday 15th, and Friday, 18th January.' LOCAL ASSESSMENTS-CONSTRUCTION OF ACT OF PARLIAM......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT