The King agaist The Trustees of The Norwich and Watton Road
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1836 |
| Date | 09 November 1836 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 1278
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
(S. C. 1. N. & P. 32; 2 H. & W. 385; 6 L. J. K. B. 41.)
the king against the trustees of the norwich and watton road. Wednesday, November 9th, 1836. The trustees of a turnpike road, under a local Act, claiming to take certain premises on paying compensation to the parties interested, served a notice on a party, containing an offer of a sum as compensation for his undivided third part in a term in the premises, with a warning that, in default of his acceptance, a jury would be summoned to assess compensation. They afterwards served him with a second notice, directed to him and several other parties interested in the premises, that, in pursuance of the local Act and stat. 3 G. 4, c. 126, a jury would be sworn to assess the sums to be paid to the parties for their respective interests. Notices similar to the first were served on the other parties named in the second notice. The jury were summoned, and sworn to assess the sums to be paid to the parties for their respective estates, but found only the grosa value of the premises; and the inquisition stated that the jury found that sum to be the value to be paid to the parties for their estates, "according to their respective proportions therein," without apportioning it. It appeared by affidavit that some of the parties were bare trustees. 1. Held, that the inquisition might be brought up by certiorari, being a proceeding under the local Act and stat. 3 G. 4, c. 126, s. 85 ; sect. 145 of that Act, which takes away certiorari, being repealed by stat. 4 G. 4, c. 95, s. 86; and stat. 4 G. 4, c. 95, a. 87, taking away certiorari in cases only of proceedings under st. 4 G. 4, c. 95. 2. That the inquisition was bad for not apportioning the value among the parties interested. 3. That the objection to the inquisition might be taken before any order was made to pay the money ; and the Court ordered it to be brought up by certiorari, though no order had been made. 4, The inquisition did not set out that the several parties had been served with notices to treat, but the fact appeared by affidavit. Serable, that for this defect alao the inquisition was bad, as not shewing a foundation for the jurisdiction. [S. C. 1 N. & P. 32; 2 H. & W. 385; 6 L. J. K. B. 41.] Austin had obtained a rule, in Michaelmas term 1835, calling upon the trustees acting in execution of stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. xv. (local and personal, [564] public), " for more effectually repairing the road from the City of Norwich to the windmill in tha town of Watton in the county of Norfolk, and for making a new branch of road to communicate therewith," and of stat. 3 G. 4, c. 126 (Turnpike Road Amendment Act), to shew cause why a certiorari should not issue to remove an inquisition taken before three of the said trustees and a jury impanelled by the City of Norwich, to (a) Patteson and Williams Js. had left the Court. 8 JU . &B.BW. THE KINO V, TRUSTEES OF NORWICH AND WATTON HD. 1279 inquire into and assess (compensation in respect of certain promises, as after mentioned) ; and also the several notices given by or on behalf of the said trustees of their intention to take, pull down, and remove the said premises, and of the satisfaction and recompence offered by them for the same ; and all things touching the said inquisition. By sect. 8 of stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. xv., the trustees are empowered to make a new line of road, and to take, pull down, or remove, and take and use, any dwelling-houses, &c., set forth in the schedule annexed to the Act, on making satisfaction for the same to the owners and other persons interested therein, or for the damage which such owners or persons may sustain. The premises mentioned in the rule were set forth in the schedule; where, under the column headed "Absolute Owners," the description was, "Corporation of the City of Norwich;" and, under the column headed "Reputed Owners," the description was, "Elizabeth Strickland and Sarah Rogeraon, as joint lessees of the Corporation of the City of Norwich." By the affidavits in support of the rule it appeared that a third part of a terra in the premises, held under the Mayor, Sheriffs, City, and Commonalty of the City of Norwich, had been, by indenture of 14th December 1832, assigned to Blyth, Wiseman, and Gridley, upon certain [565] trusts, and that T. W. Rogeraon had become (since the death of Sarah Kogerson)the party beneficially interested under the indenture. On the 12th of August 1835, a notice was left at Rogerson's house, directed to him solely, signed by three trustees and the clerk to the trustees, and dated the 28th of July 1835, stating that, at a meeting of the trustees, they had determined to take, pull down, and remove, for the purposes of stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. xv., all that plasterer's shop, &c. (the premises in the rule), situate, &c., late in the occupation, &c., and set .forth in the schedule, &c., and had ordered and agreed that 401. should be offered to him, " as the satisfaction and recompence to be made to you for all that the one equal undivided third part or share of and in the said shops," &c., "for the residue now to come and unexpired of a certain term of eighty years therein, and which said term was granted and created by an indenture bearing date on or about the 20th of June 1785, and made or expressed to be made between the Mayor, Sheriffs, Citizens, and Commonalty of the City of Norwich of the one part," &c.: " and the said trustees do hereby offer you the sum of 401. as the value of, or in recompence and satisfaction for, the part or share, term, estate, right, interest, and property aforesaid." The notice then required Rogerson to shew his title " to the said part or share for the now residue of the said term of eighty years," in case he accepted the offer; and gave notice that if, for thirty days after the delivery thereof, he neglected or refused to treat, or did not agree, or was prevented from treating by absence, the trustees " will cause the value, satisfaction, and recorapence, to be [566] given to you for the part or share, term, estate, right, interest, and property aforesaid, to be inquired into and assessed by a jury, pursuant to the statute in such case," &o. On the 18th of October 1835, a notice was left at Rogerson's house, directed to Elizabeth Strickland, Rogerson, Blyth, Wiseman, and Gridley, signed by three trustees and the clerk to the trustees, dated 13th of October 1835, stating that the undersigned three trustees under stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. xv., present at a meeting of the trustees, "give each and every of you " notice that, in pursuance of the said Act, and of stat. 3 G. 4, c. 126, or one of them, a jury will be sworn at a place and time therein named, "to inquire into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd
...(1821) 4 B & Ald 519 at 521 [ 106 ER 1027 at 1028]; R v The Trustees of the Norwich and Watton Road (1836) 5 Ad & E 563 at 579–580 [ 111 ER 1278 at 1284]; Symonds v Dimsdale (1848) 2 Ex 533 at 537 [ 154 ER 603 at 604–605]; R v Brier (1850) 14 QB 568 at 571 [ 117 ER 219 at 220]; R v The Inha......
-
Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd
...(1821) 4 B & Ald 519 at 521 [ 106 ER 1027 at 1028]; R v The Trustees of the Norwich and Watton Road (1836) 5 Ad & E 563 at 579–580 [ 111 ER 1278 at 1284]; Symonds v Dimsdale (1848) 2 Ex 533 at 537 [ 154 ER 603 at 604–605]; R v Brier (1850) 14 QB 568 at 571 [ 117 ER 219 at 220]; R v The Inh......
-
R (McEvoy) v Corporation of Dublin
...B. 893. Rex v. Mayor of Warwick 8 Q. B. 926. Attorney-General v. Mayor of WiganENR Kay, 268. The King v. The Trustees of the Norwich Road 5 A. & E. 563. The King v. The Justices of FlintshireENR 5 B. & Al. 761. Harrison v. StickneyENR 2 H. L. C. 108. Jones v. JohnsonENR 7 Ex. 456-7. Attorne......
-
Taylor against Clemson and Vaughan
...upon which, if at all, it is necessary to state such iacts in the inquisition. In Rex v. The Trustees of the Norwich and Walton Road (5 A. & E. 563, 579), Patteson J., referring to an objection that the inquisition did not shew notice to treat, said : " Whether the notice ought to appear on......