Jones v Johnson and Morgan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 1852 |
| Date | 06 February 1852 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 1026
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER IN ERROR FROM THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
[452] in the exchequer chamber (In Error fiom the Couit of Exchequer ) jones v johnson and morgan Feb 6, 1852 -The council of the borough of Lichfield, previously to making a borough rate, made an estimate under the 5 & 6 Will 4, c. 76, a 92, which estimate contained (amongst others) the two following items -"Compensation to the late town clerk, three years and a half, 1051 14s lOd ; law expenses, 8001 " The first of these items was, as it expressed, an award of compensation to a former town-clerk, who had been dismissed from his situation by the corporation The second item had been included in the estimate to meet the demand of the attorney to the corporation for costs and disbursements The attorney had paid the sum of 4G71 to a paity, to save the corporation from an execution, and this sum was one of the items included in the chaiges as a disbursement At the time the estimate was made, the attoiney had not delivered any signed bill of costs to the coiporatiorr The council afterwards made a borough rate, which included the sums so mentioned m the estimate At a meeting, which was not a public one, the borough council made an order, which directed the overseers of certain parishes withirr the borough to pay the proportions assessed upon their parishes out of the poor rates made and collected, and they also issued a warrant to their treasuier, commanding him, within 100 days from the date thereof, to demand from the overseers the said propoitions The treasurer issued his precept to the overseers, requiting them, within 100 days after the receipt thereof, to pay the proportions out of the poor rates made and collected, or to be made and collected, A warrant was issued by the defendants, 7EX4S3 JONES V. JOHNSON 1027 one of whom was the|Mayor of Lichfield, and both justices of the botough, against an oveiseer who had not paid the pioportion assessed 111 his parish This warrant contained the venue in the margin, and duected a certain sum to be levied by distress of the plaintiff's goods, and provided, that " if, within the space of five days next after such distress by you taken, the sum of &c shall not be paid, then you do sell the said goods, " and concluded thus -" Given under oui hands and seals, and under the corporate seal of the said borough and city T. T (l S ), M B M (l s ), Justices of the said borough and city , Thomas (corporation seal) Johnson, Mayor " The defendant Johnson was not stated in the body of the warrant to be mayor of the borough -Held, on enot, by the Comb of Exchequer Chamber -Fust, that the rate was valid, as a hoiough rate need not be made in public -Secondly, that the items of 1051 and 8001 could not be considered as by-gone expenses, so aa to make the rate retrospective with legard to them, as the questions relating to the first item were undei litigation at the time of the making of the rate , and that, as to the second item, the council were justified in treating such expenses as not actually incurred before the dehvety of the solicitor's bill, and as the rate was good upon the face of it, and the oveiseer (the plaintiff) had not appealed against it, he could not object to it as against the defendants -Thirdly, that the variance between the precept of the treasutei and the warrant of the mayor as to the time of payment was immaterial,, and, at all events, that the plaintiff could not complain of it, as he had theieby a furthei time foi payment given him -Fourthly, that the plaintiff was liable to have his goods seized as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (McEvoy) v Corporation of Dublin
...B. Div. THE QUEEN (JOHN M'EVOY) and THE CORPORATION OF DUBLIN. Woods v. ReedENR 2 M. & W. 777. Jones v. JohnsonENRENR 5 Ex. 862; 7 Ex. 452. Attorney-General v. Corporation of LichfieldENR 11 Beav. 120; 17 L. J. Ch. 472. The King v. The Justices of FlintshireENR 5 B. & Al. 701. Attorney-Gene......
-
Waddington, Elliott, Wilcox, Webster, Sprague and Clarke against The Guardians of the Poor of the City of London Union
...may be wrong, or even criminal: but it cannot affect the question of civil (a) See Bex v. The Chapelwardens of Haworth, 12 East, 556. (b) 7 Exch. 452, in the Exehamber Chamber, affirming the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in Jones v. Johnson, 5 Exch. 862. K. B. xltx.-18* 554 WADDINGTON ......