The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-13 00:00:00

COURT OF SEWERS FOR WEST.
MINSTER, AND PART OF MIDDLESEX.

A Court of Commissioners of Common Sewers was
held in their Court Room, Soho-square. yesterday, at
ten o'clock, whet,- a Jury was sworn to try the traverse
brought ,by the parish officers of St. Luke, Chelsea,
against the presentment of the church to the Sewers'.
rate. . _

Mr. HOGGINS appeared as Counsel for the district in
support of the presentment. The ease was one of the
tmost importance, for if they did not support the pre-
sentment of the former Jury, it would be impossible for
the Commissioners to levy the necessary rate in an
equable manner. By the law all lands were liable to
the Sewers-rate, and, consequently, all churches, hospi-
tals, &c., were rateable ; and it was no answer that they
had never been charged before. By the 23d Henry
VIII., even the Queen's land was made liable to the
Sewers-rate, All lands were made liable, even the land
of the Soveredn, why then should the churches be
exempt ? The church in question ought to pay most
cheerfully, for, but for the sewer of the Commissioners,
the catacombs under the church would be four fect
under water j they actually had a drain from the
tataeomb,s into the sewer ; there could then be no
doubt butt the church benefited by the sewer, and
therefore, was liable to the rate.
After going at considerable length into the Acts of
Pargament regulating the sewers, the Learned Gentleman
calied

Mr. DowLIKG, who had been surveyor to the Com-
mission since 1817. There was a sewer ran before the
church in Rohm-street, Chelsea, maintained by the
Commissioners, into which a drain came from the
church-yard.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bonxis.-d—The sewer in
Robert-street Was not made at the expense of the
Commissioners ; they contributed towards it, and the
residue was paid by the Trustees of the church.
Mr. SIBLEY had va'ued,tfie church in Chelsea ; the
rateable value of the new church, be thought,was 954/. ;
of the old church, now eaHed the chapel, 232/. Bee
of those buildings derived much advantage from the
drainage elf the Commissioners.
Mr. DOWLING, recalled, said the workhouse and the
burial-groui,d in Arthur-street derived much advantage
from the drainage.
Mr. SIBLEY had valued the workhouse at 348/., and
the burial-ground 771. That was the fair rateable
'value.

Mr. BODKIN submitted to the Learned Assessor
(Mr. Ogle) that his Learned Friend has, in fact, made
no case at all—he had offered no evidence at all to
show who were the persons in possession or occupation
of the premises sought to be rated. The 11.?.v. Mr.
Lockwood was ratedifor the New Church ; now it was
well known that he had nothing to do, even spiritually,
with the church for the last four years.
Mr. HOGGISS contended that by the terms of the
traverse the Jury could only try the one fact, whether
the lands upon which the premises in question stood
were liab:e to be rated to the Sewers.rate.
The CHAIRMAN said it was the land that was
assesmxl, and the parties interested were to appear.
The Commissine s had;the power to go upon the land,
and even to sell it if necessary ; therefore he thought
any misdescription of the nameiVould not invalidate the
ate.

Mr. LESLIE denied that it was a tax upon the land
maintained that it was a personal tax.
Mr. WlLLoucurr moved that the traverser be con-
fiDel to the obpctions taken in his traverse.
The motion was seconded by Capt. BAGUE, and
carried by 13 to 5.

tkgin addressed the Jury, contending
that they must (pah the presentment, on the ground of
informality, the occdpier of the property being impro-
perly described. For three hundred years, churches
and public property had been exempted from this rate,
and be trusted that the attempt now made would be
tlefedtect by the intelligence of the Jury. How could
Coy sustain an inquisition which charged a Rev. Gen-
tleman with a rate for a church with which it was not
'proved that he ever was in any way connected. They
were te) decide upon the eviden'ed—none had been of-
fered to charge the Rev. Mr. Lockwood, and they
must discharge him. Then, as to the Old Church,
that was rated in the alternative ; the Commis-
sioners said they would rate eithrir the Rev. Mr.
A. or Mr. B. ; that was so clearly against all
law, that he had no doubt the leaned Asses-
sor would tell them to throw it out of their
consideration. Then as to the workhouse, he was not
so inaguine ; probably it might be liable to the rate ;
but could they, upon such meagre evidence as had
been offered that day, find that any of the masters
named were chargeable for the premises. The onus of
proof lay on the other side. They had failed in giving
any ; and, therefore, he fully anticipated that the ver-
dict would be in his favour.

The AssEseou having summed up the evidence, the
Jury retired ; and after an absence of an hour and a half,
returned into Conti for the purpose of asking the As-
sessor if any church and burial-ground had been pre-
viously assessed, and had paid the assessment ?
The ASSESSOII said that they must decide according
to tile evidence be:oro them, and as there was no evi-
dence to that point, it must he left, in doubt. The
Court could not now call evidence to that poiut, and
therefore they could affird the Jury no information on
the subject.

JummAN —One of the Jury, Sir, 1115 fully made up
his mind not to rate the church.

The ASSESSOR—We cannot hear anything of that
sort.

The Jury then again retired.
The CHAIRMAN, during the absence of the Jury,
said that itihhad been usual heretofore to pay each
Juryman a guinea for his attendance; now he understood
that some Commissioners objected to this payment, and
he did not take the responsibility upon himself without
the consent of the Court.

Mr. LESLIE wished to know by what statute such
payment was authorised.

Mr. ADEY moved that the guinea be paid.
Xt. WHITE seconded it.

Captain BAGUE thought the Under Sheriff should be
asked if the Jury were a Special Jury or a Common
one. If a Special one the guinea ought to be paid, bat
it a Common Jury, certainly it ought not to be paid.
'lie UNDER SHERIFF stated that the Jury was a
Common Jury.

A COMMISSIONER said that for the last forty years
it had been customary to pay the Jury a guinea.
Mr. LESLIE moved as an amendment that it was an
illegal expenditure of the Sewers-rate to pay the Jury-
man one guinea each, and one nut authorised by the
statate. if Any one of the Jury were trying an issue in
a Court of Law, he would receive no more than one
shilling, and that was all he ought to receive here.
Mr. W. BEACH supported the payment of the
guinea, on the ground of long usage.
Mr. ?duLLlss seconded Mr. Leslie's amendment.
lie considered the Court had no power to pay a tra-
veisiie Jury a guinea each.
Mr!„ADEY repled, and the amendment was lost by
19 to 7. The original motion was then carried.
The CHAIRMAN having resumed the chair at half
after four,

Mr. ADEr said he understood that the Jury were
nottely to agree upon the point relating to churches.
Il e "mild put it to the profesfional gentlemen whether
ii weaki not be better to take the verdict upon the
:several points on which they were agreed, and *leave
the question of the church, as that must necessarily come
before a higher tribunal.
A (,) ostittssioNEit said thcv had no official know-
ledge on the subject, and they had better wait until
they hail some communication from the Jury.
The subject was then dropped. At five o'clock,
MuLLINs said that several of the Commis-
li
sioners were already gone, and that soon there would
not be a sufficient number of Commissioners to receive
the verdict ; he therefore proposed that they should enter
law some arrangement so as to keep the Court.
The CHAIRMAN suggested whether they should send
avadinquire if the Jury were likely to wee..
Mr. LESLIE protested against the Jury being inter-
fered with. He hoped, however inconvenient it might
be, these would be six Commissioners found to remain
until the verdict were returned. _

JOHN lIUNSLER gave notice of a motion, that foi
-the future the Sheriff be directed to summon a Sptcial
Jay en all occasions.
The Jury returned into Court at half-after five o'clock,
rind brourait in a verdict that the laud, and not the
building, on which St. Luke's church and the chapel,
with the Old Church stands, is assessable to the Sewers-
rate—that the buildings are net assessable—that the
workhouse, Gloucester-road, Kensington, is assessable—
that the workhouse and burial-ground, Hertford-street,
are assessable to the Sewers-rate-.
The ASSRSBOR—Do yon find that the Rev. J. Lock-
wood was in occupation at the time of this assessment ?
FOREMAN—He was not in occupation, and was not

The ASSEESOR—Do you find that the Rev. Mr.
Kingsly was in occupation, and was liable, at the time
of this presentment ?

• VOREMA N.—lt is the. opinion of the Jury_ that suffi-
cient evidence has not bc.cn produced, to decide whether
Messrs. Rush or Kinzsly er ein occupation at the time.
The ASSESSOR—DJ you find whether Mr. John As-
eau was in occupation o! the burial-ground at the time
of-this presentment ?
FOUL sA'`—lt is the opinion of the Jury that suni_
cleat evidence has not been produced in that case, to
show the occupation of the burial-ground by Mr. A scott.
The A4SESSOR—Do yol find that Mr. John Ascote
was in occupation of th.-! workhouse in Hertford-street ?
FOREMAN—The Jury find he was in occupation.
The ASSESSOR—Do you find that Mr. French was
in occupation of the workhouse in Gloucester-road ?
FOREMAN—We find that he was.
The ASSESSOR—Do you find that the amounts in
the presentssient are correct ?
FoaresaW.—Our verdict must necessarily alter it as
regards the churches ; we return the workhouses ac-
cor(isnt to the presentment.
Tne ASSESSOR—What do von find as the value of
diti land eiv which the New Ch-urch stands?