The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-17 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIs DAY.)

TIE QUEEN V. THE RATE-PAYERS OF ST. GEORGE,

HANOVER-SQUARE.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, on Wednesday evening,
opened this case, which he said, was an appeal made by
certain rate-payers of the parish of St. George, Hanover-
square, against a rate for the county of Middlesex, made
on the 27th October, 1836. The appeal was dismissed by
the Magistrates, subject to the opinion of the Court upon
the following case. The case first set out several sections
of the Act 3d Geo. IV., chap. 107, local and personal.
The 6th section enacted—That at every general Quarter
Sessions of .the Peace, for the county of Middlesex, on the'
first day of the Session, the county treasurer should
render an account of all the monies received by him by
virtue of his said office, up to the irst day of the said
Sessions ; that, thereupon, a Committee of Magis-
trates should be appointed as auditors to examine
the accounts, and make a Report to the Sessions on
any adjournment thereof, and that then the Magistrates
were authorised to make a quarterly rate or assessment on
said county as hereinafter mentioned. Sec. 9 prescribed
the mode of making the rate at the Sessions, or any ad-
journment thereof. Sec. 10 provided that in case it did
not appear to the Magistrates at the time of making the
rate that three-fourths or more of the monies received by
the Treasurer on account of the last preceding rate, had
been duly expended, then the order for making any new
rate should contain a proviso that no money should be col-
lected or paid on account of such rate, until three-fourths
of the money received on account of the last preceding
rate should have been duly expended. It was upon the
construction of these three sections that the case arose.
Pursuant to these provisions the county treasurer made up
his aecounts to the Saturday, 15th October, and they were
duly submitted on Monday the 17th, being the first day of
the Sessions to the Magistrates, and from these it appeared
that there remained in the treasurer's hands a general ba-
lance of 12,0171. odd. On the 27th October, being the
adjournment day, called the county day, the Committee
of Magistrates reported that they had audited the trea-
surer's accounts, and examined the vouchers, and found
the balance as above stated. For the purpose of showing
that three-fourths of the money received by him had been
duly expended, the treasurer then exhibited on oath his re-
ceipts and expenditure from the 15th up to the 27th Oct.
(a copy of Which was attached to the case), from which it
it appeared that the general balance in the treasurer's hands
was 5,8241.; that one-fourth of the money received by
the treasurer was 5,4501, and that deducting from the
general balance a sum of 3881. as sundries, which comprised
sums received, but not from the last preceding rate, there
remained a balance of 5,4351. and a fraction ; thus the ex-
penditure was shown to have exceeded three-fourths of the
money received, by 15/. and a fraction. Among the items
deducted was a sum of 1101. on account of rates made in
1834 and 1835, which had remained in arrear. Then fol.,
lowed a statement which appeared to him (the Attorney-
General) conclusive, and which might obviate the necessity
of any lengthened discussion. It appeared in the state-
ment laid before the Justices that more than three-fourths
of the money received by the treasurer on account of the
last preceding rate, had been actually expended, and there-
upon the Justices made a rate of one half-penny in the
pound, and directed that it should be " forthwith eel,
lected."
Lord DENMAN—One of the questions raised is, whether
the rate made is to be taken as having been made on thc
first day of the Session ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied in the allintitive.
The Sessions on appeal found that de facto in their opinion
three-fourths of the last preceding rate had been expended
at the time of making the rate, but what be contended for
was, that they had no jurisdiction at all to inquire into that.
The only question was whether such appeared to be the
case to the Justices who had made the rate. Now it did so
appear to them, and they, in the exercise o,f they discretion,
had made an absolute rate without any suspensive clause,
and he contended that that proceeding on their parts
was conclusive to show that the rate was
good,
and that it was no ground of appeal at a subsequent Sessions
to prove that the Justices who made the rate had come to
a wrong canCIUSIOn. The last day for paying the rate so
made was the sth of November ; but the sum assessed
upon the appellants was not paid lty them till the 3d of
Decen.ber, and that feet was introduced to show that the
appellants were not in the slightest degree prejudiced by
the non-introduction of the suspensive clause as three-fifths
of the entire amount had then been expended: The Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to refer to the several items of
the treasurer's accounts, when

Mr. Justice PATTESON observed that be did not see how
tlie Sessions could refer the accounts to that Court, when,

on the very face of the instrument, they bad decided upon:
them already. Surely that Court was not required to eater
into items of account and the expenditure of 2d: here and
6d. there. It would be equal waste of the public time.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assured the Court that it was
more a question of law than of figures. The first objec-
tion made to the rate was that various sums for repairs and
other expenses pertaining to the County Lunatic Asylum
bad been improperly paid from the general county-rate,
whereas by the provisions of an Act, passed for that pur-
pose, 9th Geo. 4, that expenditure was to be provided
for by a special rate. The second objection was that the
parties ought to have based their rate on the state of the
treasurer's accounts on the first day of the Session ; and
that whenever on the first day of the Session three-fourths
of the last rate had not been expended, as was the case in
the October Sessions, then the proviso should have been in-
serted, restricting the collection of the new rate until the
three-fourths had been expended. In point of fact,
that the Justices should look to the state of
the treasuaer's accounts on the first day of the Sessions
when the accounts were made up, and that although ever
so much had been expended between these two periods.
still that was not to be regarded by the Justices. The
third objection was, that the rate should be based on the
state of the treasurer's accounts on the day on which they
were dated and allowed by the auditors. But even if the
27th was the proper day, on that day three-fourths had not
been expended. With respect to the first objection, the
Sessions was of opinion that the sums paid on account of
the Lunatic Asylum having been paid by order of the
Justices under the provisions of the 9th Geo. IV., c. 43,
had been properly charged upon the county rate ; but
whether they were or were not so properly charged, he
(the Attorney-General) contended that they formed no
ground of appe.l. With respect to the second objection,
the Sessions was of opinion that the rate ought not to be
based upon the state of the accounts on the first
day of the Sessions. The third objection was, that
three-fourths had not been expended when the rule
was made, on the 27th of October, and no suspensory
clause had been introduced, but the Court of Quarter
Sessions was of opinion, that even if such was the
case, froth the state of the treasurer's accounts subsequently,
that clause must have been abrogated on the 10th Nov.,
and consequently, as the rate was not paid by the appel-
lants till subsequently to that date, they had suffered no
inconvenience or injury. The Court therefore dismissed the
appeal, subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen's
Bench, on the facts above stated, and if the Court was of
opinion that the appellants were, under all the circum-
stances, entitled to relief, then that the rate be altered and
amended under the provisions of the 3d Geo. IV., cap. 107,
sec. 16, by changing the date thereof from Oct. 27 to
Nov. 10. Now he (the Attorney-General) submitted that
there was no ground for the appeal. He contended that
even if the justices had erroneously found that more than
three-fourth had been expended, the Sessions had no authority
to open that question, and that it formed no ground of appeal.
It was not urged that the appellants had been overrated,
but simply that the suspensory clause hdd not been intro-
duced, and the proviso on which that point arose, was
contained in section 10 ; but the Justices having found
that three-fourths had been expended, it was not compe-
tent for the Court of Appeal to open the question. The
next point of objection was, that the rate must be based
upon the state of the treasurer's account on the first day
of the Session ; but it was preposterous to say that no
credit was to be given for the sums that might have been
and were expended between the 15th and 27th October.
The Learned Gentleman then referred to the payments
made on account of the Lunatic Asylum, which had been
objected to ; but he contended that, under the provisions
of the 9th George IV., it was imperative upon the treasurer
to pay whatever sums were ordered by the Visiting Jus-
tices. After entering at some length into the several items
of the treasurer's accounts, and pointing out the purposes
for which the several sums had been expended,

The COURT intimated, that it would hear the remaining
arguments of the Learned Counsel on Saturday. ,
At the sitting of the Court this morning, the ATTORNEY
GENERAL resumed his arguments against the appeal, and
after recapitulating the objections urged by him on the
former day against the appellants' case, concluded by sub-
mitting that there was no just ground of objection against
the rate. The Magistrates had granted the case, not from
any doubt they had entertained on the question, but be-
cause they felt that it was an appeal from their own act,
and, therefore, they were reluctant to prevent the parties
from taking the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench
upon the case.

Mr. ADOLPHUS and Mr. PRENDERGAST followed on the
same side.

Mr. BODKIN, for the appellants, observed that the pre-
sent was not a question of a few pounds and shillings on
one side or the other, as was at first apprehended, but in-
volved a great public principle, and when taken in connec-
tion with the circumstances which had given rise to it, must
be looked upon as a question of great importance. The
Act of Parliament under which the appellants proceeded,
had been called for by the very large deficiencies of former
treasurers, arising from their having been allowed to retain
very heavy balances in their hands. The Middlesex Ma-
gistrates had the power of imposing rates to the amount of
70,0001. per annum, and the object of the Act of Parlia-
ment was to impose some restraint upon the appropriation
of these large sums. The position of the appellants was
rather unfortunate, for they had to appeal from the Jus-
tices of Middlesex to the same Justices at Sessions—
the Justices made their own terms, and whether
successful or not the appellants were obliged to pay the
Magistrates' costs as well as their own, and no appeal could
be lodged until all the rates bad been paid. Upon the
decision of their. Lordships it depended whether the re-
strictions imposed by the Act of Parliament would be of
auy use or wholly inoperative. After the statement of the
Learned Attorney, General of the readiness of the Justices
to have their decision reviewed, he was rather surprised to
hear him contend that even if three-fourths of the money
in the treasurer's bands had not been expended, that
formed no good ground of appeal. He would now apply
himself to the objections that had been taken to the rate in
the 'order in which they stood ; and first with respect to
the payment of various sums out of the ordinary county
rate to the County Lunatic Asylum. Now that misappro-
priation, he contended, formed a substantive ground of
appeal, because it was imperative upon the Justices to levy
a special rate for that purpose. Under the former
Act it was optional with the Justices to raise the
money by a special rate, or pay it out of die
ordinary county funds ; but by the Nth see. 9 Geo. IV.,
that option was withdrawn fiat them. The second objec-
tion was, that the account should have been taken as it
stood on the first day of the Session, When that account
was regularly audited and allowed, it formed the regular
statement of the county funds, upon which the rate was to
be based. The Learned Gentleman proceeded to point out
the importance of having these accounts thus audited and
examined, as by that means a check was placed upon the
abuses which formerly prevailed ; but what was there, he
would ask, in the Act of Parliament, which authorised the
Justices to receive any supplemental account from the
treasurer in the course of the Session, and upon that sup-
plemental account to impose a rate ? The Act provided
that copies of the audited account should be posted up, and
sent to the several parishes, and all that arrangement was
for the purpose of exercising a salutary control over these
accounts ; but what check, he would ask, could
there be upon the supplemental account sent in by
the Treasurer ? He contended, that the princi-
ple upon which the rate was based was wrong, inasmuch as
it was founded upon an unaudited supplemental account,
and therefore it must be set aside. Supposing their Lord-
ships were of opinion that these two objections were unte-
nable, and that the Magistrates were authorised to receive
a supplemental account, then he contended that the state-
ment of accounts on which the rate was based was errone•
ous, and that at the titne of making it three-fourths of the
sum received by the treasurer had not been expended.
The Learned Gentleman then entered into a detail of the
various items in the treasurer's accounts, for: the purpose
of establishing that fact, and concluded a very able argu-
ment, of which the above is merely an outline, by submit.
ting that the objections of the appellants were valid, and
that the rate was consequently bad.
Mr. DOANE was beard on the same side.
The CQURT, after conferring for some time together,
ware of opinion that the Justices, in taking the statement
of the accounts at a subsequent period of the Sessions, were
not justified in imposing a rate without the restrictive clause,
and therefore the order for making the rate must be
quashed.