The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-18 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Nov. 16.

Sitting; in Banco.-{Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
and Justices Crompton, Mellor, and Shea)
This was Crown piper day.
Till QL11:121 r. PEDLY.B.—CHCBCH BATES.
This case came before the court on certiorari to quash an
order made by the justices of Wellington, Somerset, for the
payment of 21. 15e. church rates, and 4s. 6d. costs. The
appellant was summoned, with others, before the justices
for the non-payment of the church rata made on the 24th
et July, 1863, when Mr. John Bennett, solicitor, of
Serjeantee-inn, attended on their behalf before the magis-
trates, and took the following objections to the rate:—
First, that there was an item of 2641. for the repairs of the
pinnacles of the tower of the said church, whilst there was
a sum of between 501, and 804 in the bands of the church.
wardens, raised by a church rate in November, 1861, fcr
the epair of one of the pinnacles, which had not been ex-
pended, and that consequently the rate was excessive ; and
secondly, that the assessment upon which the rate wee made
was unequal end unfair. The magistrates accordingly held,
after bearing evidence, that the objections to the rata were
bona fide, and dismissed the summonses, on the ground that
the objections were boot fide and they had no jurisdiction,
leaving the parties to the remedy of the ecclesiastical court..
On the 7th of January, 1864, the parties were again sum-
moned before the justices, when the same objections were
taken by Mr. Bennett ; but the magistrate', without oon-
salting their clerk, took an entirely new course, and whilst
treating the objections as bon& fide, decided that the
defendants' professional man bad no power to raise any
objections to the validity of the rate, and that if he wished'
to do it it must be dope by appeal to the garter scallions,
the chairman declaring that it was not fair to throw the
onus of proving the validity of the said rat* on the church-
wardens, sod they accordingly made orders for the pay.
meet of the rate. The affidavits of the churchwardens,
Masan. Berridge and Edwards, stated that at the making
of the rate no objection was taken to the item for the
repairs of the pinnacles, and it was moved, and seconded,
and agreed to, that a rate of 6d. in the pound should be
granted for defraying the expenses of the churchwardeos
for the current year, is shown in the estimate; and at
that meeting two of the defendants were present, and took
part. They also ;stated " that three months and upwards
bad elapsed after the said vestry meeting had been held,
and the said rate granted, before any opposition whatever
had been made to the payment of the said rate, and that
considerably over two-thuds had then or has since been col-
lected and paid over to the collector of the rates of the said
pariah. We say that about this time application was made
to the vicar of the parish to bury and have the church
service performed over the body of an usbaptised child of
pauper parents of the baptist denomination, who were said to
be too poor to pay for the funeral expanses at their usual
place of burying, viz., the baptist burying-yard, and which
the vicar declined to do, and I the said William Berridge
say that vary shortly afterwards, via., on the 13th
November lest, I met William Day Horny, a leading and
influential member of that denomination, who complained
to me of the vim?, conduct in having refined to bury the
said child, and he then informed me that although there I
had been hitherto no opposition to the church-rats, he
feared that I should find there would be opposition is
future, and by reason, as he the said William Day Honey
alleged, of the said vicar refusiog to bury the said pauper
baptist child ; and we the said William 13;:rridge and J.
Edwards say that we verily believe that the opposition
which has since been got up against the said rats has been
in consequence, as alleged by the said William Day Honey,
of such refusal on the part of the vicar to bury such child,
and not by reason of any non-liability on the part of such
objectors to pay the same, or invalidity in law of the said
rate itself." The sum handed over to them by their pre-
decessors was 9/. 18e. 50., and there was no minute in the
vestry book of soy sum of from 50/. to 801., or any other sum
having been obtained by • church rate made in November,
1861, or by any rate for the repair of the pinnacles. The
churchwardens further stated that the rate was made upon
an assessment of the poor rata which had been used for 20
yearn and upwards without ever having been appealed
against on the ground of its being unequal and unfair.
There were other affidavits denying many of the allegations I
contained in those of the opponents of the rate, and the be-'
lief of the justices that the rata bore on it the stamp of lega-
lity, and that the objections were not bona tide.
Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., and Mr. Dowdeswell showed cause
against the rule for quashing the order. He contended
there was no valid objection to the rate. It had been in
force for some months, and • large amount of it had been
collected, and it was not until after the unfortunate cir-
curnstance of the burial of the pauper child that any-
thing was said or urged against its validity. The justices, ,1
with a full knowledge of the circumstances, came to a right
decision in consideling the objections frivolous and
vexatious.

The Lord Chief Justios said that if the validity of a rate
was disputed. and notice was given to the justices, their
juradiction was gone. All they bad to decide was whether
the objections appeared to be hoof fide.
Mr. Dowdeswell, in the course of his argument, referred
to the unfortunate differences in the pariah, and observed
that Mr. Bennett, who conducted the opposition before the
justices, belonged to the Anti-church-rate Protection So.
chtty. (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice asked where that was stated in
theme.
Mr. Dowdeswell said it was not stated.
The Lord Chief Justice—ls he not a professional man
Mr. Dowdeswell—Yes.

The Lord Chief Justice—We only know him u • pro-
fessional man representing and acting for hi climb; as
such before the justices. What we hare to see is whether
the objections raised by him were substantial objections or
not, so as to take away the juriediction of the magistrate*,
and send the supporters of the rate to the ecclesiastical
court.

Without hearing Mr. James Browne, who appeared in
support of the rale for quashing the order,
The Lord Chief Justice said the rule must be made abso-
lute for quashing the order. If a ratepayer disputed the
validity of the rate upon substantial grounds. and gave
notice of such objection to the justice., they were bound by
the statute to forbear giving judgment in the nee*, because
their summary jurisdiction was gone, and that of the eccle-
siastical court attached. The court bed nothing to do
with soy dispute that might arise between parties in a
parish, disturbing the harmony which might have before
existed in a parish and have led to the willing acquiescence
in a rate made for the maintenance of the church. But the
simple question for them to consider was whether the de-
fendant was earnest in stating, through his professional
adviser, when before the magistrates, that he intended to
dispute the validity of the rate, and in giving the magi&
trates notice of it. He could not entertain any reasonable
doubt that the defendant did intend to do so, and to seek
to establish his objections in the ecclesiastical court,
The other learned judges concurred.
Rule absolute to quash the order of payment.
There were four other cases in which a similar judgment
was given, and the rules in each ease were made absolute.

THE POLICE COURTS.
MANSION•HOUSE. _

A reepectably-connected young man, named William
Topham, formerly clerk to Mr. Smith, wine merchant, in
Great Tower-street, was brought up on the charge of
forging and uttering a cheque for 7311., on the Bulk of
London. The prisoner presented the cheque at the
bank, purporting to be signed by Mr. Pulley, at the
Stock Exchange, who had an account at the bank. The
cashier, having suspicion that it was a forgery, inquired
of the prisoner where he got it from. He answered.
from " Mr. Barker, an architect in Parliament-street" Mr. Paley, whose ffices were close by the bank, was
sent for, and be pronounced the cheque to be •
forgery. The prisms, was • stranger to him. Whoa handed
over to the police, he told the officer that Mr. Barker. from
whom he received the cheque, bad offices at No. 52, Parka.'
ment-etreet. No such person, however, was known there.
It transpired that the cheque with which the forgery had
been committed was 'not ocelot Mr. Pulley's, but of Mr.
Smith's, the wine merchant, where be (the prisoner) had
been a clerk, and had been abetracted front his cheque-book,
Mr. Smith also banking at the Bank of London. The pri-
sooer was aNnainted with one of Mr. Pulley's clerks, and
was in the habit of visiting him at Mr. Pulley's office. and
by that means learned when Mr. Pulley banked. When
asked what defence he had to make to the charge. he said
be was not guilty of presenting the cheque with • felonious
intention.

Be wee fully committed to !coward' for trial.
WESTMLNSTER►

Dr. Synnot, of 16, Eatoil:Comics , was summoned for
threatening to horsewhip Mr. Gustavus Ksiog, of 19, West.
bouroe.place,

The complainant stated that be bed been seriously 11l on
different oocasions from August last year, during which
time be had experienced great annoyance from itinerant
orpaa•Riaden opposite his door. He bad been ordered out of