The Queen against The Inhabitants of Fordham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 November 1839 |
| Date | 13 November 1839 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 341
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 3 P. & D. 95; 9 L. J. M. C. 3; 4 Jur. 218; Adopted, Ainsworth v. Creeke, 1868, L. R. 4 C. P. 485.
'if if-At /7----J" 11 AB. fcE.T3. THE QUEEN V. FORDHAM 341 [73] the queen against the inhabitants of fordham. Saturday, November 9th, and Wednesday, November 13th, 1839. The words of atat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96, 8. 2, declaring that a rate " shall be of no force and validity," apply only where the declaration at the foot of the form is not signed by the parish officers; not where tbe particulars prescribed in the earlier part of the section are deviated from. A rate is bad which is made for a period for which a rate has already been made and not quashed. On motion to quash documents brought up by eertiorari, the Court will not entertain the objection, that the documents appear by the return to have been described in the writ. [S. C. 3 P. & D. 95; 9 L. J. M. C. 3 ; 4 Jur. 218 ; Adopted, Ainsworth v. Creeke, 1868, L. R. 4 C. P. 485,] On appeal against two rates for the necessary relief of the poor of the parish of Fordhanj, in the county of Cambridge, the one made and allowed July 3d, 1838, the other, August 21st, 1838, the sessions, on preliminary objections, quashed both rates, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case (a)1. On 3d July, 1838, the first-mentioned rate was made and allowed by the magistrates, duly published, and afterwards partially collected. In this rate the properties rated were not numbered according to the schedule annexed to the Act 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96 ; but the numbers were for the most part wholly omitted, or else attached to the names of the occupiers instead of the properties. The columns intended for the number of votes were left entirely in blank. The names of many persons were inserted without any sums being carried out against them in the assessment. In many cases the column which should contain the name of the occupier was left entirely in blank, without even the word "ditto "under the name immediately preceding the blank; and the column which should contain the arrears due or ex-[74]-cused was improperly left in blank. The appellants and others having refused to pay the sums for which they were therein rated, summonses were obtained against them, August 7th, 1838. The parties summoned appeared before the magistrates, August 14th, and three warrants of distress were granted, but not acted upon by the respondents, in consequence of their solicitor afterwards considering the rate bad and void. The parish officers of Fordham, considering the rate of July 3d a nullity, on the 21st August ensuing made another rate. That rate had various defects on the face of it also. No entry was made under the head (a)z of " Amount not recoverable, or legally excused." These objections on the face of the rate of August 21st were not stated in the notice of appeal against that rate, but were incidentally noticed by the Court; and no point was made by the respondents that the notice did not raise them. It appeared, likewise, that the rate of August 21st was for the same period as that of July 3d -r the notice on the church door of the August rate stating it to be the first rate. The Court held that the rate of July 3d was informal, but that it could not be abandoned and treated as a nullity by the parish officers of Fordham, after the steps they had taken to enforce it, without an application to the sessions to quash it. With respect to the rate of 21st August, the Court held that, the rate of July 3d being in above decision was cited at the Bar; and Lord Denraan C.J. said, " We thought there that the parties applying for a mandamus might, as commissioners of sewers, or as conservators of the level, enforce the doing of the repairs, and, therefore, that they had the remedy in their own hands." See Rex v. Jeyes, 3 A. & E. 416 ; Rex v. The Commissioners of the Thames and his Navigation, 5 A. & E. 804, and p. 811, note (b); Rex v. Payn, 6 A. & E. 392 ; Regina v. The Eastern Counties Railway Company, 10 A. fe E. 530. (a)1 The introductory part of the case stated the proceeding at sessions as follows :- "The Court intimating to the appellant's counsel that it would be better to postpone the consideration of the fairness and equality of the rates till the preliminary objections had been disposed of, called on the respondents' counsel to answer those objections, and, after hearing him, quashed both the rates with costs, without examining the fairness or equality of the assessments, subject," &c. The notice of appeal, and the rates, were annexed to the case. (a)2 See pp. 76, 77, post. 342 THE QUEEN 1). FORDHAM 11 AD. ft E. 78. existence and uncollected, that of 21st August was a concurrent rate and illegal, besides which objection it was bad on the ground of informality. If this Court should be of opinion that the Court of Quarter Sessions were right in quashing both rates on the [75] facts above stated appearing, then the judgment of the sessions was to be confirmed. If this Court should be of opinion that the sessions were wrong, on the facts above stated, in quashing the rate of 3d July, but were right in quashing the rate of 21st August, then the order of sessions as to the rate of 3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v Gosset, Gosset v Howard
...case, Cro. Car. 470; Anon., 1 Ventr. 59 ; Rex v. Tenant, 2 Ld. liay. 1423; Barons v. Lusambe, 3 A. & E. 589, 594; Regina v. Fordham, 11 A. & E. 73; Regina v. Oundle, 3 Q. B. 353, note (a); stats. 7 & 8 Viet. c. 101, 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 12 ; Megina v. St. Anne, Westminster, 8 Q. B. 561, 566 ;......
-
Donegal County Council v McCrossan
...decree given in the County Court should be reversed, and the civil bill dismissed. (1) Before Dodd and Gordon JJ. (1) 2 Cowp. 550. (2) 11 Ad. & E. 73. (3) 5 E. & B. (1) 2 W. Bl. 1329. (2) 2 I. C. L. 630. (1) 30 L. R. Ir. 160, at p. 164. (2) [1917] 2 I. R. 86, at p. 92. (3) 2 B. & C. 713. (1......
-
Le Feuvre against Miller
...by Sibbald v. Roderick (11 A. & E. 38), proceeded on this express provision : and, upon the same principle, in Begina v. Fordham (11 A. & E. 73), where the Court had to construe the Parochial Assessment Act, 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96, s. 2, which in express terms enacts that every poor rate shall c......
-
The Queen against The Worksop Local Board of Health
...estimate f] The Board might be indicted for a conspiracy to evade the statute. [The Court referred to Big, v. The Inhabitants of Fordham (11 A. & E. 73).] A contract entered into by the Local Board under sect. 85 is not invalid because a previous estimate by a sarveyor, as required by that ......