The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-23 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION

SEWERS OF WESTMINSTER AND
PART OF MIDDLESEX.

A Court of Sewers was yesterday held at the Office
of the Commissioners, in Greek-street, Soho, T. L.
Donaldson, Esq., in the chair. The minutes of the
proceedings of the previous Courts having been read, a
long conversation, in which the Chairman, Captain
Bague, Mr. Leslie, the Clerk, and some of the Corn-
sioners took part, as to the manner in which the col-
lectors performed their duties, and as to the best means
to be adopted as a check upon the collectors, so as to
prevent the recurrence of any deficiency, such as that
reported to hale occurred at the late meeting. The
different collectors were in attendance, and reported the
various sums that each had paid in since their last re-
port. Various summonses were ordered to be issued
against defaulters.
An application was made for some distress-warrants,
and in reply to Captain Bague, the Chairman said it
was constantly the practice of this Court to issue war-
rants without putting the applicant on their oath.
Mr. BROUGHTON doubted whether a warrant to
seize a man's goods was a legal warrant, except it was
issued upon the oath of the party applying for it.
The SOLICITOR, on being applied to, said that the
impression on his mind was that an oath was necessary,
but that he would be prepared to give an opinion on the
next Court-day.
Mr. LESLIE gave notice, that on the next Cowl-daY
he should move that the name of every mover and se-
conder of a motion in the Court of Sewers should ap-
pear in the record of their proceedings, and that no
motion should be put from the Chair, except the same
should be reduced to writing, and signed by the mover
and seconder.
On the warrant being handed round,
Mr. LESLIE objected to more than one person being
included in the warrant. He contended there ought to
be a separate warrant against each person.
Mr. BROUGHTON thought the practice would not hold
water, if the matter came to extremities.
It was ultimately agreed to refer the matter to the
Sdlicitor to report upon.
Mr. Rose was then called in and appealed against the
assessment of the chapel in Westgate-street, Pimlico, on
the ground that the assessment was excessive.
The Surveyors, in the,course of the examination of
this case adin:lted that if a piece of ground were occu-
pied by a dii,citting chapel, and a similar piece of ground
occupied by, a church, they should value the chapel at a
higher rate t:;,ta ti:c church, because the one was in-
alienable other might be sold.
Mr. Leach: Ctl'd to this mode, because it was
taring people i i jrilato, which the Court had no right
to (to.

Capt. BAGUE moved that the rate on the premises
should be reduced from 941. to 701.

Mr. LESLIE, on comparing this case with others,
thought that some persons were ill-used in that Court.
die should not take upon himself to propose any altera-
tion, beeause he denied the power of the Court to alter
the, presentment.

WHITE wished to keep the rate at 941.
Mr. STARKE proposed an amendment that it be rated

at 433 L

For the amendment
Against it
The Court then divided on the original motion, when
th.i e appeared—
For the motion .. .
Against it
Majority
_ .

Mr. Avelino, the Vestry Clerk of Paddington, ap-
plod against the rate assessed on St. Mary's Church,
Paddington-green, but would not press on that subject,
but would abide by the decision which might be come
to en the general question as to the liability of churches.
He also appealed against the assessment on the watch-
house and vestry•room, and the alms-house and the na-

tionAl school, oa the rjound of excessive assessment.

Evidence having b,.ien gone into as to the value of these
moectivG properties. it was de*ertnined not to inter-
fere with the presentment of the jury.
Torpey appeared on behalf of Mr. Owen, to ap-
peal against the rate asses_ed on Albert Chapel, in
College-str;:et, Chelsea, on the ground of the chapel
berg rated beyond its value.
Evidence having bebn gone into, the rating was con-
fi rtned.
A. letter wit.s read front the trustees of ltatieliigh
Chapel, complaining of 6,ing over-rated, but no one
was in attend.inee to support the appeal.
A letter front the Marylebone Vestry was read, stating
their willingness to abide by the decision of the Court
o! Law on the question of the liability of churches to
be rated.

Mr. T. DYLit wished to know if, in accord-
ance with the order of the Court, the Solicitor had
conferred with Mr. Butt the Vestry Clerk of St.
George's and St. Giles's, Bloomsbury, with regard to
the special case to be submitted to the Courts of L.:lw.
The Soucyron said that communications had pas3cd
between himself and Mr. Butt, but that there had been

nn elnferetice.
.Ir. T. I)vea said that it ha I been represented
to him that the Vestry Clerks were by no means in-
clined to concur in drawing tin a spacial else.
never expected' they would. Whoever
heard of a number of lawyers agreeing together, to
deprive themselves of business
Mr. I. WHITE moved that the consideration of the
petitions be postponed until the Court had entered
into a consideration cf the causes of the late calamitous
accident, attended with loss of life, at Brentford.
Mr. WILLOUGHEY thought the emergency was not
sufficient fo warrant a departure from the order laid
down on the baldness paper.
Mr. LESLIE thought it was quite disorderly to pro-
pose any amendment of that sort. Mr. White should
wait until the other business of the Court was dis-
posed of.
Mr. ADEY suggested that the Chairman ought not
to put the question.
The CHAIRMAN determined that the proposition of
Mr. White was out of order, and could not be put ;
and the Court proceeded to consider the petitions.
Various persons appeared who had been summoned
for irregular drainage in parts of Chelsea.
The Solicitor for Chelsea Hospital requested a sum-
mons for certain witnesses to be called before the
traverse jury on Friday next.
The request was granted, and the subpoena issued,
The SOLICITOR. reported that Mr. Bicknell had re-
fused to concur with the Court in having a view jury.
The Cannot:lN said he should not, on that account,
forego the view which he considered necessary, and he
shoud, therefore, put the question.
Mr. LESLIE thought it ought to be left to the jury
to ask the view, and what the Court had to do wall
ordering it he could not imagine. The presentmetta
was by the jury, and he could not think why the Court
should interfere in regard to the view.

The CHAIRMAN said that in all similar cases a view
could be demanded by either party, and it appeared ire
hull that the jury could not fairy judge the question
without viewing the premises.
The motion for a view jury was proposed, but not
being seconded it fell to the ground.
The SOLICITOR said that out of respect to the Court;
the Sheriff of Middlesex had applied to know whether
the Court wished for a special or a common jury.
Mr. LESLIE said that application wastheconse—
quence of the ridiculous precept they had signed.
Mr. MyLLINs moved that he be requested to returla
a proper jury.
Mr. LESLIE said they had, under the advice of Mr..
Ogle, summoned ati averse jury under Peel's Act. Hot
contended that was wrong ; the Sheriff could not un—
derstand them, and now wished them to commit them—
selves further. They ought to refer the Sheriff to thee
Act of Henry VIII.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY looked upon this act of the She-
riff as a mere act of courtesy.
The motion of Mr. Mullins wag then put and carried.
Mr. T. DYER was anxious that whatever was done
should be entered on the minutes. They were now
about to enter upon a proceeding, the like o f which
had not occurred for 1.50 years, and therefore it was ex-
tremely important that the Chairman should be vce.ll
advised so as to avoid every thing like irregularity in
the charge. He wished to know whether the assessor
was to attend as Assessor ou the part of the Court, or i
as counsel to the Chairman.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY said the Assessor was only the
Counsel to the Chairman, as the Chairman was the
or6Yan of the Court.

Mr. LESLIE wished to know whether the Com-
missioners were to be gagged, whether be was to be
prevented saying anything, however wrong he might
think what was said by the Chairman or Assessor, be-
cause if such were the case, he should not come.
Could any Commissioner be stopped by Mr. Ogle
Were all the Commissioners to sit like dummies and
not make any observations ?

The CitainatAN said any Commissioner might put
any questions, but that they would be precluded from
making any observations.
Mr. LLSLII never heard any thing more preposte-
rcu:3 than tFat the members of the Court should be
bound by the charge if they dissented from it, and that
they should have no opportunity of expressing their dissent.
E
Mr. AD
Y did not envy the jury, if 1.200 Ccounis-
sioners had all to speak. It was invariably the practice
for the presiding Judge to sum up alone. Unless some
rule were adapted, the Court rm Friday would be a bear-
garden. Thee it;:,l a rule preventing Commissioners
from addre6sii,v,
Mr. 'F. DYER sug. ,Tested that the charge should be
sub"lited t!te C,fernis...ioners befOre being put to the
jury, and ti,3t, tt.ib purpose, a Court be held previ-
ousl2 to Fri:lay. Ile hoped no Commissioner would
ever interrupt Chairman, but still the charge ought
to be submitted to the Court before it should be de-
livered.
Mr. ADEY wished to know how a ehame could be
pr. paned until the evidence were heard.
Th.! Swam-run said the course to he taken would
be that he, as solicitor, sht-m!fl state the ease for the
diszriet aad call his evidence, then the traverse should
do the same, and the issessor or Chairman should sum
up the jury.