The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-03 00:00:00

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

A Court of Sewers for the City and L•berties of
Westminster was yesterday had at the office of the
Commissioners, Greek.street, Soho, T. L. Donaldson,
Esq., in the Chair. The usual routine business having
been transacted,
Mr. BicKNELL, the Solicitor to Chelsea Hospital,
entered the Court, and said that he bad attended out
of courtesy to the Court, to state to them that he had
taken the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-Gene-
ral as to the liability of the buildings belonging to the
Hospital not hitherto rated to be assessed to S'.twers-
rate, which he would, if the Court pleased, read to them.
The CKAIItMAN expressed the feelings of the Court
on Mr. Bicknell's courteous offer, and stated their de-
sire to hear the case and opinion.
Mr. Bicknell then proceeded to read the case and
opinion, from which it appeared, that according to the
opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-General, Mr.
Hall was not legally liable to be assessed to the
rate for the chapel and buildings of Chelsea Hospital ;
that the second presentment was bad in form and in
substance, and that the payment of it ought to be
resisted.

Mr. BICKNELL said that he would attend whenever
a distress should be levied, in order to try the ques-
tion ; but he gave the Court notice that he should
take a preliminary objection to the presentment, so
that the merits of the case could nut be trial under
the present case.
The CHAIRMAN then called on the Court to consider
as to signing a warrant for levying upon the buildings
not hitherto rated, chapel and wards, and fifty-seven
acres of lind of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea.
Sir G. FARRANT said that after the decl rration of
the Learned Cireotl.,inan, that he could put, and should
put them out of Court, on the ground of
it would be well to review the proceedings to see where
they were vulnerable before they went into Court, and
retrace their steps if necessary.
Mr. GUNTER was not idluenced by the opinion
given by the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and should
certainly hold up his hand for signing the warrant.

'rile CHAIRMAN asked Mr. Bicknell if the Commis-
sioners of the hospital would be willing to take a deci-
sion on the liability of Clielsca Hospital to be r..ted.
Mr. BICKNELL said he should advise the Commis-
sioners of the hospital to take an objection, first to the
form, and next to the merits, in order to give him an
opportunity of showing to another Jury that the hos-
p tal derived no hens fit whatever from the sea ers.
Kuosing• what Mr. Ogle's charge had been, he should
be prepared with evidence on that poia ; he considered
Mr. Ogle's charge not a judicial one, not a legal one.
Mr. MuLLINs thought the charge a highly improper
one.

Mr. LESLIE had pointed out to the Court that they
could not levy except upon the goods of the person
rated, and as Mr. Hall had no property in the hospital
no distress coal be levied tl.ere. Tney had been
misled by Mr. Ogle and Mr. Smith intu the opinion
dust they could levy upon the property without regard
to the persons. He thought the sooner a determina-
tion was come to the better, and that they ought to try
the question immediately.
The CHAIRMAN then put the question, when there
appeared

For issuing the warrant 4
Against it
The CHAIRMAN gave his casting vote for having the
warrant signed.
Mr. Beach, Mr. Locke, Mr. John Gunter, and Mr.
firace, were the four Commissioners who voted for
issiiing the warrant.

The warrant was then signed and given to the offi
eer of the Court for execution.

The COURT then proceeded to consider as to signing
warrants for levying upon the churches and other newly
rated property in the Eastern Division of the West-
minster Sewers.

111 r. GODDIDGE suggested that they should select one
church to try the question.
The CHAIRMAN asked which church they would
choose to proceed against in the event of their deter-
mining, to Issue a warrant ?

Mr. J. GUNTER wished to know whether, in the event
of the churches not paying, the Company could cut off
their connection with the sewers.

Mr. Mew:vs thought it would be well to let the
question sta,id over tint' the question of occupancy
should be determined by the Court of Queen's Bench in
the case of Che's, a Hospital.
Mr. BROUGIITON wished to know what mode of pro-
ceeding was to be adopted with regard to churches
%lieu tiie warrant should be issued. What was the
officer executing the warrant to take ?
Mr. LESLIE said that by the decree the C..mmis-
sioners had ueterniined, if the officers found no goods,
tat they would proceed to demise away the church,
so that they would put up the church to auction he sup-
posrd.—(A ;augii.)
Mr. Buoucirrox still urgt d his question—Did they
intend to take the sacred vestments on the commuhion
'lite, or tue books of the church or of the congre-
gation ?_

- Mr. J. GUNTER thought it was a serious question,
and suggested that a,ier issuing the warrant :t would
be well to consider how they should execute it. He
had not said; as had been represented, that. he would
sign a a arrant unswed by eeclesidstica! censure. He
had said that he would follow up his opinion by signing
the warrant, but that warrant ought not to be exe-
cuLd in such a way as t-d shock publics feelings.
Mr. BRoUGHTON said, in allusion to the opinion of
Dr. Pilimmore, that there was a white sheet hung over
the beads of t..e Commissioners and of the collector, if
they proceeded. It was hard upon the cullzctor, us he
bad no voice in the matter. Toe Court ought to de-
termine how they would execute the warn ant beford
they issued it.

Mr. BouvEarE thought it was ridiculous to issue a
warrant until they had deter Mined what they would do
w:th it. The solicitor was present, and he could ttli
them how they were to act.
Mr. GOODRIDGE hoped the Court would not be
ictimidated from (icing their duty by the bugbear of
ecclesiastical censures, and white sheets. He was
surprised at the present backwardness of many Com-
mist,ionere, who had hitherto been the most forwa; d in
urging on the rating of churches. There was always
plenty of furniture in a vestry-room on which they
could distrain, and which, he believel, was not inter res
sacras.

Mr. A'BECKETT wished to know whether it was
necessary to go upon the property assessed, and whe-
ther they cou!d not take the goods of the churchwarden.
a.. their own house 3.

Mr. SMITH thought they must go on the premises
assessed.

Mr. A'BECKETT had never heard of such a thing as
a distress in a church. If they were right in law, how-
ever, the Court of Qiteen's Bench would interfere to
prote. t them from ecclesiastical censuring by means of
a prohibition. He should like to know in what form it
was proposed to issue the warrant.

Toe SOLICITOR referred to the original opinion given
by him, that a though churches were liable, it would be
impossible to enforce the rate in respect of them, and
to the opinion of Sir AV. Follett and Mr. Ogle. He
was still of opinion that it was impossibl2 t, enforce the
rat,: against churches.
Mr. LESLIE said the whole of this difficulty had
arisen from their be,ng misled by their legal adviser into
the opinion that they could rate property w,thout an
occupier. They could do no such thing. It behoved
the Commissioners, signing these warrants, to ci mider
well whet they were doing, as they would be running
themselves individually into expense ; for they had taken
care to place such matter upon their records as would
cxemrt the public from the expense, and throw it upon
the individmil Commissioners taking [Art in these pro-
cceAmgs. Their defeat teas certain, and the sooner
they were defeated the less embarrassment would be oc-
casioned to the Court.

Mr. BROUGHTON thought the opinion of the solici-
tors as to the Lability of property in contradistinction to
persons to be assessed to sewers' rate, was quite right,
and Mr. Leslie was wronr, and quoted the words of
the St et ut: Hon. VIII. in support of hi, opinion. He
thought churches were not Italia under either the Act
of Hen. VIII. or of Anne, and he could not recommend
any Commissioner to sign a warrant, nor ought they to
send any officer without giving him clear and distinct
instructions. He thought the best plan would be to re-
trace their steps in regard to churches.

Mr. LESLIE contended that the wording of the sta-
tute of Hen. VIII. proved his po,ftion, that persons
were to be rat ei for the land and riot the land itself.
Tile jury returned the parties liable, not the lands liable,
and, therefore, utlss the person were rated, the rate
teas 'Doi. Could they sell the churches if the rate wero
reused? Let the Commissioners re,ollt et that if ti ey
exceeded their commission, they could not be indemni-
fied for any expenses they might incur.
Mr. MuLt.ms agreed with Mr. Leslie that the person
must be rated for his property, and not the property,
without reference to the occupation. lie thought the
churchwardens, having neither I.):'nefici.tl interest, or in-
terest in in the churches, could not be rated. He
should, therefore, move, that no warrant should he issiv:d.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY thought the warrant ought not to
be signed on account of the practical difficulties existing
in the way of executing it. He seconded the motion.
Mr. LESLIE said that at the last Court a similar mo-
tion of Mr. Willoughby's was negatived on the ground
that it would stultify the proceedings of the Court. He
had always understood that the decree was the final
judgment of the Court, and could only be set aside by
the judgment of a superior Court, and the sooner that
judgment was obtained the better. They had not tho
power of reversing thoir own decreer. He should not
vote on the question for the reasons he had frequently
stated.

Mr. GOODRIDGE contended that they ought either to
carry out their decree at once, or abandon the question
entirely.

Mr. BROUGHTON had never heard that after judg-
ment was obtained it was imperative to proceed to exe-
cution. There couli not be a doubt but that they could
refuse to issue the warrants.