Lewsly against Budd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 87 E.R. 523
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER.
case 27. lewsly against budd. If a statute direct the streets within the bills of mortality to be paved at the expence of all the inhabitants, not only those inhabitants who live in the streets which are paved, but those whose houses stand on the adjoining roads, not paved but within the parish, shall equally contribute to such expence.-S. C. 1 Salk. 356. S. C. Skin. 643. S. C. Holt, 506. Holt, Chief Justice. This case stands for the resolution of the Court. It is on two orders grounded on the Statute 2 Will. & Mary, c. 8, s. 8 and 9, for Scavengers Rates for Cleansing the Streets of Newington. One order states that all the inhabitants shall contribute to it; the other states, that only those that live on the pavement shall contribute: and the question is, which of them is good ? We are of opinion, that all the inhabitants shall contribute ; for though it may be thought hard that they shall pay any thing towards the pavement who do not live on it, yet the words of the statute are so strong that it lays the charge on all the inhabitants without distinction ; and where the statute does not distinguish, we have no power to do it. Now in Newington there is a street that is paved and a great part of the town that (a) But now by 4 & 5 Ann. c. 16, s. 25, in order to prevent the great vexation of suing out defective writs of error, it is enacted, " that upon quashing any writ of error for variance from the original record, or other defect, the defendants in such error shall recover, against the plaintiff issuing out such writ, his costs as he should have had if the judgment had been affirmed, and to be recovered in the same manner." (a) By 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 11, s. 2, " if judgment shall be given for the defendant in any action, and the plaintiff shall sue a writ of error, and the judgment shall be affirmed, or the writ of error discontinued, or the plaintiff become nonsuit therein, the defendant in error shall have judgment to recover his costs." See 3 Com. Dig. " Costs." (B.). (a) But see Syms v. Tyms, 1 Show. 98, and Rottenhoffer v. Lenthall, 1 Show. 141, that in this case " a writ of error depending " cannot be pleaded in abatement; but the Court will, according to the circumstances...
To continue reading
Request your trial