The Queen against Fouch and Watling
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 November 1841 |
| Date | 17 November 1841 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 121
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 1 G. & D. 585; 11 L. J. M. C. 1.
the queen against fouoh and watling. Wednesday, November 17th, 1841. Where overseers have made a rate which is appealed against, they are not at all events entitled to charge the coats of such appeal in their account with the parish. For, although they cannot abandon such rate so as to determine its existence, they need not incur expense in contesting an appeal, if the rate be indefensible. And, where overseers had contested such an appeal at sessions and failed, and had charged the costs in their account, which costs were disallowed by the justices in Special Sessions holden under stat. 50 G. 3, c. 49, s. 1, and the Quarter Sessions on appeal confirmed their order, Held, that the Special Sessions had a discretionary authority to disallow the costs, and acted rightly ; and the order of Quarter Sessions was confirmed, though the account had been passed at the quarterly audit under stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 47, and approved by a majority at a vestry meeting. [S. C. 1 G. & D. 585; 11 L. J. M. C. 1.] On appeal, by John Fouch and Edmund Watling, against an order of four justices in Petty Sessions, disallowing the sum of 851. 8s. 8d., claimed by Fouch and Watling in their annual account as overseers of the parish of Warfield, Berks, the Quarter Sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on a special case, the material parts of which are as follows. [309] In 1836 a surveyor, appointed for the purpose by the guardians of the Easthampstead Union, in which Warfield was situate, made an assessment of the rateable property in the parish, under stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96. The vestry being dissatisfied with the assessment and unable to obtain such alteration of it as they deemed sufficient, the now appellants, as overseers, made a new assessment on their own responsibility, and exhibited it to the rate-payers, none of whom objected. i 99 ** THE QUEEN V. TOUCH 2Q,B.S10. September 1838 the appellants made a rate according to the new assessment. This n! ^ aPpe*led "gainst at Petty Sessions, on the ground of inequality and incorrect-V?n 01 iVo in- The Fefcty Sessions amended the rate in several particulars, giving ji. ua. ed. costs, payable by the overseers, to the parties appealing. The rTnnn,r? /H SUm f 85'' ^ M" was the ainoullt of exPe"ses incurred by the ffe TllOTin itSmT appel'auts) '" the appeal at Petfcy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
P v Bridgecorp Ltd ((in Receivership) and (in Liquidation))
... ... 1 Bridgecorp Limited claimed judgment against the appellant for a debt due under a deed of settlement of 21 September ... ...