R v Occupiers of St. Luke's Hospital
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 1760 |
| Date | 07 November 1760 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 97 E.R. 703
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, West Bromwich School Board v. Overseers of West Bromwich, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 934.
[1053] michaelmas term, 1 geo. III. B. E. 1760./9 bex versus occupiers of st. luke's hospital. Friday, 7th Nov. St. Luke's Hospital for Lunatics not rateable to the poor. [Eef erred to, West Brormoich School Board v. Overseers of West Bromioich, 1884, 13 Q. B. D. 934.] On Monday 29th January 1759, Mr. Williams moved to quash an order made by the justices of peace for the county of Middlesex, at their Quarter Sessions at Hicks's Hall, confirming an assessment or rate for the relief of the poor, made upon one Joseph Mansfield, and charging him as occupier of St. Luke's Hospital ; being of opinion, upon consideration of the circumstances therein set forth, " that the said * Note - The whole Court there agreed, (and the officers had certified,) " that the delivery of the 'declaration was irregular, as being delivered in vacation time;" but all the Court, except Mr. Justice Wright, thought "that the defendant had, by craving oyer of the bond, waved this irregularity;" and upon that foot discharged the rule to shew cause why there should not issue a supersedeas. [See also 8 Durn. 643.] 704 rex v. st. luke's hospital 2 burr. iom, Joseph Mansfield is the occupier of the said hospital:" whereas in fact, he was (as Mr. Williams alledged) only a servant there. He cited 2 Strange, 745, Hex v. Inhabitants of St. Thomas's in Southwark; where a preacher at a meeting-house was holden not to be rateable as an occupier. : A rule was thereupon made to shew cause. And on Tuesday 8th May 1759, Mr. Gould moved to make that rule absolute; insisting upon two objections* to the validity of the rate; viz. 1st. "That this man is only a servant: and therefore could not be rated as occupier." 2d. "That this hospital is not rateable at all." Mr. Norton, (who was for the rate,) agreed that, strictly speaking, it could not be well supported " that a servant was rateable as occupier:" but he offered to defend it upon the merits; viz. " whether this new-erected charitable hospital for lunatics be or be not rateable." And if the other side would not agree to that, he said he must object to the certiorari, as having irregularly issued; viz. not till after the six months were expired ; (it being more than nine months from 2d of February to Michaelmas term). [1054] And accordingly, a rule was then made to shew cause " why the certiorari should not be quashed." But afterwards, On Wednesday 16th May 1759, it was ordered, by consent of counsel on both sides "that the orders returned with the certiorari in the cause of The King against Joseph Mansfield (who then stood charged as occupier of this hospital) should be sent back to be re-stated." * In consequence of which rule by consent, the following re-stated order was afterwards sent up, as the return to the said writ: viz. A complaint and appeal being made unto this Court, against a certain article contained in the rate or assessment made on the 19th day of July in the year of our Lord 1757, for relief of the poor of the parish of St. Luke in the said county, which article is as follows, viz.-" The occupiers of a messuage or tenement and premises called St. Luke's Hospital for Lunatics : rent 801. rate 21. 13s. 4d." By which article, the said messuage called St. Luke's Hospital for Lunatics is valued after the rate of 801. by the year, and assessed (accordingly) to pay 21. 13s, 4d. by the quarter of a year ; and this Court having fully heard and examined the said complaint and appeal, it appears in evidence unto this Court, that by indenture made the 21st day of November, in the year of our Lord 1750, between the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of the City of London of the one part, and James Sperling of Mincing-Lane, in the parish of St. Dunstan, in the East, London, merchant, Henry Bankes of the parish St. Mary Hill, citizen and grocer of London, Richard Speed, of Old Fish-Street, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, London, druggist, Thomas Light, of Mincing-Lane aforesaid, in the said parish of St. Dunstan in the East, merchant, and William Prowting of Tower-Street, in the said parish of St. Dunstan in the East, apothecary, of the other part, the said mayor, commonalty, and citizens, as well for and in consideration of the sum of 1001. of lawful money of Great Britain already paid to Sir John Bosworth Knt. Chamberlain of London, to and for the public uses of the said mayor, commonalty and citizens, as also for and in consideration that they the said James Sperling, Henry Bankes, Richard Speed, Thomas Light and William Prowting, should and would build or convert the premises in the said indenture mentioned or some part thereof into an hospital for lunatics : and for and in consideration of the rents and covenants in the said indenture contained on the part and behalf of the said James Sterling, H. B. R. S. T. L. and W. P. their executors, administrators and assigns to be paid and performed, and for divers other good causes and considerations, them the said mayor and commonalty and citizens especially mov-[1055]-ing, did, pursuant to an order of the Court of Common Council made the 15th day of November then next preceding, demise, grant and to farm let unto the said J. S. H. B. R, S., T. L. and W. P. their executors, administrators and assigns, all that piece or parcel of ground, with the buildings thereupon erected, situate and being on Windmill-Hill, in the parish of St. Luke in the county of Middlesex, containing from west to east, on the south side fronting the Upper Moorfields, 180 feet of assize (little [* See Bott. 289. T. Jones, 187. Skin. 27. 4 Bur. 2014, 2439. Hen. Black. 68. 5 Burn. 589. 6 Burn. 333. 3 Bosanq. 132. 1 East, 588. 5 East, 459. 4 Burn. 26, 732.] * Note-The re-stated order was under the like caption (verbatim) with the old one. a BUBS. 1098. HEX V. ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL 705 more or less,) and from south to north on the east side, 178 feet of assize (little more of leas,) and from east to west on the north side, 165 feet of assize (little more or leas,) and, from north to south on the west side, 180 feet two inches of assize (little more or less,) and abutting on the way leading to St. Agnes le Glair: all which said premises were formerly devised, by two separate leases, to Philip Whiteman and John Davis, and do more fully appear by a scheme or draft thereof, with a scale made to the same, unto the said indenture annexed : to have and to hold the said piece or parcel of ground, with the appurtenances, unto the said J. S. H. B. E. S. T. L. and W...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Neill v Commissioner of Valuation; Council of Alexandra College v Same
...(6) 2 E. & B., at p. 275. (7) 9 A. C. 61. (1) [1745] Burr, S. C. 244. (2) [1795] 6 T. R. 332. (3) 1 H. & B. 442. (4) 12 I. L. R. 331. (5) 2 Burr, 1053. (1) 16 Q. B. D. 379. (1) I. R. 2 C. L., p. 585. (2) [1910] A. C. 7. (3) [1891] A. C. 531. (4) [1892] 2 Q. B. 152. (1) I. R. 2 C. L. 577. (2......
-
In Cork Corporation v Commissioner of Valuation
...14 East. 256. (3) 7 B. & C. 70 (note). (4) 7 B. & C. 61. (5) 5 A. & E. 1. (1) 4 T. R. 730. (2) 7 B. & C. 61. (3) 7 B. & C. 70 (note). (4) 2 Burr. 1053. (5) 11 H. L. C. (6) 6 Q. B. 787. (7) 13 Q. B. 116. (8) 15 Q. B. 1012. (9) 5 A. & E. 1. (10) 9 A. & E. 435. (1) 11 H. L. C. 443. (2) 9 A. & ......
-
Decision Nº RA 480 1993. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 22-02-2000
...275 EG 255 Fir Mill Ltd v Royton UDC and Jones (VO) (1960) 7 RRC 171 Midland Bank v Lanham (VO) [1978] RA 1 R v St Luke’s Hospital (1760) 2 Burr 1053; 97 ER 703 R v Gardner (1774) 1 Cowp 79; 98 ER 977 Kempe v Spence (1779) 2 Black W 1244; 96 ER 733 R v Mast (1795) 6 TR 154; 101 ER 485 R v L......
-
Williams (Valuation Officer) v Scottish and Newcastle Retail Ltd and Another
...decisions of the court or the Lands Tribunal, starting with the observations of Lord Mansfield in R v Occupiers of St Luke's Hospital (1760) 2 Burr 1053, 1064. It does not evince disrespect or ingratitude to say that this court has derived little direct assistance from most of the authoriti......