The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-11-28 00:00:00

whole ratf

Mr. Aikin : T have been sitting here since ten o'clock,
an after I had disposed of the usual cases, which were
over much earlier than usual, I took some felony cases
before the dick summons.

Mr. Aspinall : But it so happens that we were summoned
to a particular court, and More a particular magistrate,
who has not attended himself nor has he sent any other
person. It is a very guat inconvenience, besides the loss
of tirn-, and-this but ton frequently happens in this coart.
Mr. M'Gowan, clerk to the health committee, said:. It
is as great an inconvenience to the officers of committee to
he kept there kicking their heels about as it was to the
legal gentlemen. He did not know what to do in the
matter—as no magistrate was present to hear the cases,
and no doubt but that it was an inconvenience to all parties.
Mr. Aspinall: We were summoned for eleven o'clock,
and there was a large number of persons present, and yet no
magistrate was in attendance. He thought that such
arrangement was very bad
Mr.

Aikin : It is very rarely the else that it eccurs in
this court, and whenever it do, there are observations made
about it in the public papers, and a great deal of noise is
created.

Mr. Aspinall: It was the same Yesterday morning.
At a subsequent period Mr. M‘G)vgan said he had under-
stood that a magistrate had been appointed to hear these
specially, but on that day he was engaged in other public
busines4, and could not attend ; therefore, there could be no
blame to the officers of the court.
Mr. -Aikin consented, in the absence of Mr. Charles
Turner, to hear the cases, and thus save the time of the
court.

The court then proceeded to hear the first case, in which
Mr. David Price, of Great Mersey street,was the defendant,
and the health committee of the borough was the complain-
ant summons set forth that the amount of £8 17s lld
w s due for rates on eighteen tenements in Black Diamond
street. Mr. M‘Gowan conducted the case for the health
committee, and Mr. Aspinall, barrister, appeared for the
defendant.

The forwr gentleman, at great length and with conside-
rable minuteness, stated the case to the court, from which it
appeared that the act of parliament on which the claim bad
b'en made, was obtained especially for the purpose of
compelling the owners of cottage property to contribute to
the rates, which, up to the obtaining of that act, they had
not done, and the whole of the expenses had to be borne by
the respectable portion of the community. He next read
and explained the 29th section of the act under which the
present proceedings were taken, and informed the court that
after the rate was made by the council, a notice was sent to
each owner of property, c intaining a digest of the act,which
was to the following effect

Notice to Owntrs olSmill Tenements, and Others.
Composition for Sanatory. li.qhting, and Fire Police Rates

for the Year 1858.
Notice is hereby given, that by virtue of the Liverpool
Sanatory Amendment Act, 1854, the owners of all premises
of which the nett annual value does not exceed te❑ pounds,
will be chargeable with the full amount, of the Sana' ory,
Li?hting, and Fire Police rates assessed upon such premises,
unless they forthwith cumpuund with the Council for the
payment of the same, which they are by the said act autho-
rised to do, upon a reduc,d estimate of one-half of the nett
annual value at which such premises are assessed. And you
are hereby required to enter in`o such composition on or
bofore the 30th day of Jane next, and i❑ default thereof you
will be deemed to have refused to compound for the above
premises, and will thereupon become chargeable with the full
assessment.

With that notice was sent a paper to be filled up
by the owner, showing that he had compounded for
the property referred to in the firAt claim. The de-
fendant had take❑ no notice of these pipers, and in
,Taly a letter was sent to him reminding him that he had
omitted to compound for the property in question, end
giving him until a further date to pay one half of
the assessment, as if they had been compounded for at the
proper time, but stating that if such was not done, he would
be charged on the whole assessment. To this no notice had
been taken ; but in the second week in August, the defend-
ant had called at the office and tendered the amount, as if
he had compounded for the property. Then it was too late,
and the whole amount was demanded, which he had refused
to pay. The defendant and other persons had been before
the health committee, but that body, in order to do justice
to others, had refused to take the amount offered.
After legal argument as to the validity of the rate, which
was subsequently admitted, in order to save the time of the
court, Mr. Aspinall said the two points he should raise was,
had Mr. Price refused to compound with the council for the
rates ; and, if he had so refused, was there any rating of the
owner afterwards, as was required by the act.
Mr. Jones was then called, and he proved the service of
the several notice at the defendant's premises. Mr. Langley
Was also called, and he proved that the defendant had
attended at the office and tendered £4 Bs. lld., which was
refused, as it was only half the amount claimed.
Mr. Aspinall, in addressing the court for the defendant,
denied that his client had ever wished to evade the act,
but had always complied with its requirements. He then
reviewed the principal clauses in the act itself, and pointed
out what he conceived to be its absurdities, and also the
notices, contending that his client had never refused to
compound with the council for the rates.

Mr. Nl'Gowan replied, and, in the course of his remarks,
vindicated the act from the observations that had been
made by Mr. Aspinall, a!?d said that it had been the cause
of making the owners of cottage property—which was the
cause of three-fourths of the expenses—pay £12,000, which,
before its passing, had to be paid Ly the respectable
ratepayers of the borough. He then, with considerable
ability and skill, went on to show that the defendant had,
by his sets, refused to compound for the rates, and was
therefore liable to pay on the whole assessment.
Mr. Aikin, after observing that it was quite clear that the
act did not express what it really was intended—that the
owner had refused, omitted, or neglected to compound—
but had put it as positively having refused, stated that in
his opinion there had been no direct refusal. The commit-
tee had, in the first place, given them seven days, and he had
taken a few more, therefore he could not think there was a
positive refusal, and could not enforce the payment of the
full amount as claimed.

The defendant then tendered the amount, as if he had
compounded, which Mr. MfGowaii refused to take, saying
that he differed from the decision given by the bench.
After some conversation, it was agreed that the other
eases should be postponed for a fortnight, until Mr.
11,1‘Gowan had taken the opinion of the health committee
on the subj et. If the committee intendei to have the
cases heard, he would give the parties notice, or take the
amount as awarded in the last case.

The decision of the magistrate was evidently the cause of
giving much satisfaction to the owners of cottage property,
who left the court in great glee.