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

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

A C curt of Commissioners of Common Sewcrs was
held in their Court Room, Soho-square, yesterday, at
ten o'clock, when, 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 case was one of the
utmost 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 231 Henry
VIII., even the Queen's land was made liable to the
Sewers-rate. All lands were made liable, even the land
of the Sovereign, why then should the churches be
xempt ? 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 feet
under water ; they actually had a drain from the
catacombs into the sewer ; there could then be no
doubt hut the church benefited by the sewer, and
therefore, was liable to the rate.
After going at considerable length into the Acts of
Parliament regulating the sewers, the Learned Gentleman
called
Mr. DOWLING, who bad been surveyor to the Com-
mission since 1817. There was a sewer ran before the
church in Robet t-strcet, Chelsea, maintained by tho.
Commissioners, into which a drain came from the
church-yard.
Cross-examined by Mr. BODKIN.—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 valued the church in Chelsea ; the
rateable value of the new church, he thought,was 934/. ;
of the old church, now called the chapel, 232/. Be, h
of those buildings derived much advantage from the
drainage of the Commissioners.
Mr.. Dowt.txG, racalled, said the workhouse and the
burial-ground in Arthur-street derived much advantage
from the drainage.
Mr. SIBLEY had valued the workhouse at :148/., and
the burial-ground 771. That was the fair rateable
value.

Mr. BODKIN submitted to the Learned Assessor
(Mr. Ogle) that his Learned Friend had, 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 Rev. 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. IlooGlNs 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 liable to be rated to the Sewers rate.
CHAIRNIAN said it was the land that was.
assessed, 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 name would not invalidate the
rate.

Mr. LESLIE denied that it was a tax upon the land
—he maintained that it was a personal tax.
Mr. WlLLoucilar moved that the traverser be con-
fined to the objections taken in his traverse.
The motion was seconded by Capt. BAGUE, and
carried by 15 to 5.
Mr. BODKIN then addressed the Jury, contending
that they must quash the presentment, on the ground of
informality, the occupier of the property being impro-
perly described. For three hundred years, churches
and public property bad been exempted from this rate,
and he trusted that the attempt now made would be
defeated by the intelligence of the Jury. How could
they 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 to decide upon the evidence—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 either the Rev. Mr.
A. or Mr. B. ; that was so clearly against all
law, that he had no doubt the learned Asses-
sor would tell them to throw it out of their
consideration. Then as to the workhouse, he was not I
so sanguine ; 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 AssEssoß haying summed up the evidence, the
Jury retired ; and after an absence of an hour and a half,
returned into Court 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 ASSESSOR said that they must decide according
to the evidence be:ore them, and as there was no evi-
dence to that point, it must be left in doubt. The
Court could not now call evidence to that point, and
therefore they could afford the Jury no information on
the subject.
JUAYMAN-One of the Jury, Sir, has fully made up
his mind not to rate the church.
The ASSESSOR—We caenot bear anything of that
sort.

The Jury then again retired.
The CHAIRMAN' during the absence of the Jury,
said that it had 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 stattte such
payment was authorised.
_ _

Mr. ADEY moved that the guinea be paid.
Me. 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, but
if a Common Jury, certainly it ought not to be paid.
The UNDER SHERIFF stated that the Jury was a
Common Jury.

A COMMISSIONER said that for the last forty years
it bad 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-
men one guinea each, and one not authorised by the
statute. If any one of the Jury were trying an issue in
a Court of Law, he would receive no more than ono
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. MuLt,iss seconded Mr. Leslie's amendment.
He considered the Court had no power to pay a tra-
verse Jury a guinea each.
Mr. ADEY replied, 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. ADEY said be understood that the Jury were
not likely to agree upon the point relating to churches.
He would put it to the professional gentlemen whether
it would not be better to take the verdict upon the
several points on which they were agreed, and to !care
the question of the church, as that must necessarily come
before a higher tribunal.

A ComsussioNtn said they had no official know-
ledge on the subject, and they had better wait until
they had some communication from the Jury.
The subject was then dropped. At five o'clock,
Mr. MULLINS said that several of the Commis-
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
into some arrangement S 3 as to keep the Court.
The CHAIRMAN suggested whether they should send
and inquire if the Jury were likely to agree.
Mr. LESLIE protested against the Jury being inter-
fered with. He hoped, however inconvenient it might
be, there would be six Commissioners found to remain
until the verdict were returned.

S:r JOHN HUNSLER gave notice of a motion, that for
the future the Sheriff be directed to summon a Special
Jury on all occasions.

The Jury returned into Court at half-after five o'clock,
and brought in a verdict that the land, 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 not assessable—that the
workhouse, Gloucester-road, Kensington, is assessable—
that the workhouse and burial-ground, Hertford-street,
arc assessable to the Sewers-rate.
The ASSESSOR—Do you 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
liable.
The ASSEESOR—Do you find that the Rev. Mr.
Kingsly was in occupation, acd was liable, at the time
of this presentment ?
FOREMAN•-•lt is the opinion of the Jury that suffi-
cient evidence has not been produced, to decide whether
Messrs. Rush or Kingsly were in occupation at the time.
The ASSESSOR—Do you find whether Mr. John As-
cott was in occupation of the burial-ground at the time
of this presentment ?
FOREMAN—It is the opinion of the Jury that
.
suffi-
cient evidence has not been produced in that case, to
show the occupation of the burial-ground by Mr. A scott.
The AssEssoa—Do you find that Mr. John Ascots
was in occupation of the workhouse in Hertford -street reet ?
FOREMAN—The Jury find he was in occupation.
The ASSESSOR—Do you find that Mr. I reach was
in occupation ot the workhouse in Gloucester-road ?
e_fiDndu at hfiendwas.
that the amounts in
The
a
FOREMAN—CVO ErsAs
NE
s oW
the presentment are correct ?

- -
FOREMAN-Our verdict must necessarily alter it as
regards the churches ; vie return the workhouses ac-
cording to the presentment.
The MEESBOR—What do you find as the value of
the laud oh which the New Churth ;tab ?