The King against The Justices of Staffordshire

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date11 January 1837
Date11 January 1837
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 1001

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

The King against The Justices of Staffordshire

S. C. 6 N. & M. 477; 2 H. & W. 48.

the king against the justices of staffordshire. Saturday, April 23d, 1836. A party appealing against an order of justices for payment of a church rate, under stat. 53 G. 3, c. 127, s. 7, need not give notice of appeal to the justices making the order ; it is sufficient to give it to the churchwardens. And, if such notice to the justices were necessary, service of it upon one of the justices would suffice. [S. C. 6 N. & M. 477 ; 2 H. & W. 48.] Thomas Stonor Simpkiss was summoned before two justices, pursuant to stat. 53 G. 3, c. 127, s. 7, for nonpayment of a church-rate; and an order was made upon him to pay. He gave notice to the two justices, and to the churchwardens, that he should, at the next (April) Quarter Sessions for Staffordshire, move [843] to enter and respite the appeal, which was accordingly done. Previously to the ensuing (June) Quarter Sessions, he gave notice of trying the appeal to the then churchwardens, and to one only of the magistrates who had made the order. The sessions refused to hear the appeal, on the ground that notice of trial had not been given according to the practice of the sessions, having been served on one only of the two justices. A rule nisi was afterwards obtained for a mandamus to the justices of the county to enter continuances, and hear the appeal. In opposition to the rule, a clerk in the office of the clerk of the peace deposed that, during the last sixteen years, it had been the practice of the sessions, when appeals were to be tried against convictions or orders of justices out of sessions, except orders of removal, to require that notice of appeal should be served on each justice making the order or conviction ; and he referred to the printed rules of the sessions as to notices; which, however, contained no direction as to the persons upon whom notices should be served. Whateley now shewed cause. If the rule of practice, as sworn to, be reasonable, the Court will support it. It may be important that the justices should both have an opportunity of defending their own order. But if both are not entitled to notice, neither is. Supposing that one justice had left the country, the notice might be given to him, purposely omitting the other. [Littledale J. If half a dozen signed, must there be notice to all ?] The argument must go that length : but it is not the practice for such a number to sign orders. [844] Wightman, contra. There is no occasion to serve the magistrates at all, if notice be given to the churchwardens, who are the real parties. At all events both magistrates need not be served. (He was stopped by the Court.) Lord Denman C.J. The appellant has entitled himself to the writ. The sessions have no right to introduce a new condition of appeal, which is not in the Act of Parliament. And, if notice to the justices were necessary, service on one would be sufficient. It has been so held under other statutes which require the giving of notice to justices. Littledale J. concurred. K. B. xl.-32* 1002 MORRIS V. DIXON 4 AD. ft E. 845. Patteson J. The statute 53 G. 3, c. 127, s. 7, only says that the party aggrieved by the order of two or more justices may appeal: nothing is said of notice. Coleridge J. The two justices act together on a joint authority (a); notice to one would be sufficient. Kule absolute.

English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 33

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH

The King against The Justices of Staffordshire

S. C. 1 N. & P. 260l; 6 L. J. M. C. 65. Adopted, Mutter v. Eastern and Midlands Railway, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 106.

the king against the justices of staffordshire. Wednesday, January llth 1837. To a mandamus, calling on the justices and clerk of the peace of a county to allow rate-payers an inspection of certain orders of sessions, concerning the expenditure of the county rate, and all accounts, &c., relating to such orders, ib was returned that inspection of the orders had been given, but that the accounts were those of the treasurer and high constable, which had been passed at sessions, and deposited with the clerk of the peace, according to stat. 12 G. 2, c. 29, s. 8; and that an abstract thereof had been published, according to stat. 55 G. 3, c. 51, s. 18; wherefore the inspection of such accounts had been refused. Held, a good return ; for that 1. Parties claiming merely as rate-payers have no right, by the above statutes, to inspect such accounts when passed and deposited. 2. Supposing the accounts, when so passed and deposited, to be public documents, the rate-payers have not such an interest in the contents as entitles them, independently of the statutes, to demand an inspection. [S. G. 1 N. & P. 260; 6 L. J. M. C. 65. Adopted, Mutter v. Eastern and Midlands Railway, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 106.] Mandamus, tested May 13th, 1835, directed to the justices and clerk of the peace-of the county of Stafford. The writ recited that, since December 31st, 1831, divers rates or assessments had been made by the said justices, on the several townships and parishes of [85] that county lying within their commission, under the statutes. in that case, &c, and large sums levied by virtue of such rates ; that divers orders had been made by the justices, or some of them, for the expenditure of such rates; and that several orders of sessions had been made thereon and relating thereto: and that, indictments or presentments having been made of Strynes and Beamhurst Bridges, certain orders of sessions were thereupon made by the said justices, or some of them, for taking down and rebuilding the same, and for payment of divers large sums in respect thereof and relating thereto : and that divers bills of costs for business alleged to be done for the said county, and divers accounts of disburse-menta made by the said clerk of the peace, which were respectively comprised in tha annual accounts of the said county for the year 1833, amounting, &c., were, by two certain orders of sessions made by the said justices, or some of them, on January 2d and April 10th, in the year 3 W. 4, respectively allowed and directed to be paid by the treasurer of the said county : and that divers applications had been made to the said justices and clerk of the peace, by and on behalf of divers inhabitants of the township of M. W., in, &c., being one of the townships within the said county contributory to the said rates, to permit the said inhabitants, being rated or contributory to the said rates, or their attorney, " to inspect and take copies of the said rates or assessments, and the orders made for the expenditure thereof, and the several orders of sessions made thereon, and all accounts, proceedings, and documents relating thereto, and of the said indictments or presentments of Strynes and Beamhurst Bridges, and of the orders of sessions for tak-ittg down and rfrbuHding the same, and for payment of any sum or sums of money in respect thereof or of either of them, with [86] the accounts relating thereto, and also of such several bills of costs and K. B. XLI.-2 34 THE KING V. THE JUBTIOBS OF STAFFORDSHIRE 6 AD. * E. 87. disbursements " of the said clerk of the peace; which said rates, &c. (referring to the several documents just mentioned), still remain in the custody or power of the said justices and clerk of the peace, or some of them, but that they had refuged to allow such inspection or taking of copies, "to the great damage and prejudice of the inhabitants of the said township, being rated," &c. The writ, therefore, commanded them, or tuch of them in whose custody or power the same might be, to permit and suffer the said rate-payers of M. W., and Abraham Flint, their attorney, to inspect and take copies of all the said rates or assessments made by the said justices since December 31st, 1831, and of all orders made for the expenditure thereof, and of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Ex parte Briggs
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court
    • 5 May 1859
    ...in Rex v. Ths Vestrymen of St. Marylebone (5 A. & E. 268), and may be considered as overruled by Bex v. The Justices of Staffordshire (6 A. & E. 84) and Regina v. Harrison (9 Q. B. 794). Mellor and Wills, contra. The applicant's affidavit shews sufficient grounds for a mandamus. [Lord Campb......
  • The Queen against The Justices of the West Riding of Yorkshire. (Longwood against Halifax.)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 28 January 1842
    ...The ultimate refusal to entertain the appeal in the present case was wholly unwarranted. In Bex v. The Justices of Staffordshire (4 A. & E. 842), Lord Denman C.J. lays it down that " the sessions have no right to introduce a new condition of appeal, which is not in the Act of Parliament." A......
  • Quinn v Property Registration Authority of Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 27 July 2017
    ...Authority [2016] IEHC 212 (Unreported, High Court, Abbott J., 11 April 2016). R. v. Justices of Staffordshire (1837) 6 Ad. & E. 84; 112 E.R. 33. Shannon Regional Fisheries Board v. An Bord Pleanála [1994] 3 I.R. 449. Practice and procedure — Inspection of public documents — Land Registry — ......
  • Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Manitoba, (1986) 39 Man.R.(2d) 161 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • 31 January 1986
    ...of Leicester (1825), 4 B. & C. 891; 107 E.R. 1290, consd. [para. 6]. The King v. Justices of Staffordshire (1836), 6 A. & E. 84; 112 E.R. 33, refd to. [para. McPherson v. McPherson, [1936] A.C. 177 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 7]. Rex v. Guardians of Great Faringdon (1829), 9 B. & C.......
  • 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