Wayte and Others against German
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 845
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH
case 117. wayte and others against german. The Spiritual Court shall not be prohibited from inforcing the payment of a parish (a) See the case of Rae v. Sir Thomas Clarges, 3 Mod. 26. Post, 250, where, on a writ of error, it is held actionable to say of an Irish Privy Counsellor, a deputy-lieutenant, and member of Parliament, " he is a Papist." So in How v. Prenire, 2 Ld. Ray. 812, to gay of one who is a justice, a deputy-lieutenant, and a candidate for a seat in Parliament, " He is a Jacobite, and for bringing in the Prince of Walts and Popery to the destroying of the nation." S. C. Salk. 694. S. C. 7 Mod. 107. S. C. 1 Viner Abr. 442. And this judgment was affirmed on writ of error to the House of Lords, 1 Brown. P. C. 97. See also Peake \. Meller, 3 Mod. 103. Fry v. Crane, 8 Mod. 283, and 1 Com. Dig. 8vo 257. 846 MICHAELMAS TEEM, 32 CAR. 2. IN C. B. 2 SHOW. K. B. 142. rate, made by the majority of the parishioners in vestry assembled, although made for the rebuilding and enlarging the nave of the church, although it be suggested that the tax was unreasonable, and the libel only state, that the parishioners were rightly tewed. Prohibition was moved for in the Court of Common Pleas : the church of St. Clement Danes, in Westminster, was ruinous and likely to fall: the Bishop of London gave leave to pluck it down and build a new one. A rate was made accordingly for repairing the body of the church (the steeple standing). They suggest that the rate was for building a new church, and not for repairing an old one; and that the tax was unreasonable, viz. at the rate of ten years to be paid presently, and that they had not leases of their houses for so long a time. The first question was, whether the parish might not be taxed for the rebuilding a new church where the old one stood, though the foundation be somewhat enlarged, the church being made bigger (a). The second question was, whether they could tax at the rate of ten years to be paid presently, when a man has a lease but for one year (b). There was Jefferie's case, 5 Co. 66, cited ; and that when a tenant covenants to repair a house, and pulls it down and builds it up again substantially, if it could not be otherwise repaired, this is no breach, Luttrell's case (c), and Daniel v. Clerk (d). One had an ancient mill which had a watercourse to it, which is diverted; the tenant builds a new mill, following...
To continue reading
Request your trial