The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-12 00:00:00

SCADDING V. LORANT.

This was a writ of etror on a judgment of the Court of
Exchequer Ohamber, by which it had been declared that a
rate for the relief of the poor of the parish of St. Pancras,
ordered at a meeting of the 12th of August to be made, but
the details of which were not completed till another vestry
meeting, held by adjournment on the 14th of September,
was a valid rate. There were several objections to the rate;
but the principal objections were, that the meeting for
levying a rate could not be adjourned, or at all events could
not be adjourned without the notice of the purpose for
which the meeting was to be held being again given ; and
no such notice had been given here ; and further, tht the
form of the avowry was not sufficient, and was not sup-
ported by proof.
Mr. Needham (who was with Mr. Prendergast) was heard
in continuation of his argument on the former day for the de-
fendant in error.
Mr. Peacock (with whom was Mr. Denman), was heard
in reply.
The LORD CHANCYLLOR, after stating the nature of the
action, and the questions raised in it, put three questions to
the Judges. If an authority is given by a statut eto the ma-
jor* of a vestry, there being more than seven vestrymen
present to make a rate, would such rate be unobjectionable in
respect of its validity if the seven persons, or any of them,
were seven vestrymen de facto but not de jure ? Secondly,
by the statute of Geo. 111. authority was given to a vestry to
make a rate for the relief of the poor ; notice of the meeting to
be held for that purpose was to be given on the preceding
Sunday ; and by the same statute it was enacted that notice
shook' be given to each vestryman. At a vestry held on the
utiti of August, it was resolved that a rate should be made,
but as all the forms of the rate could not then be completed,
adpurnmenta were made to several different days, the last
being the 14th September, when the details of the rate were
completed. There was a notice of the purpose of the meeting
of the 12th of August, but the notice of the meeting of
the 14th of September contained no mention of the pur-
pose of making a rate. Supposing the rate to be otherwise
valid, was it invalid byreason of the notice not stating the
purpose for which the meeting assembled ? Thirdly, in
an action of replevin, an avowry alleged that a poor-rate
was made after the passing of a certain statute, and
-before the taking of the plaintiff's goods, and whilst his
goods were liable to be rated—namely, on the 12th of August,
a rate was made. Would each allegation be supported by
proof of the following facts? (The Lord Chancellor here read
a summary of the facts, as already given.) These three
questions embraced all the points, and he moved that they
should be the questions put to the Judges.
The motion was agreed to, and the judges requested time
to consider them.

The Lora) CHIEF BARON, after an absence of about three-
quarters of an hour, returned, and road the opinion of the
Judges.
The LORD CIIANOELLOE and Lord BROUGHA3I entirely
concurred in the opinions of the judges.
Judgment for the defendant in error.
IN COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES.
THE DUNRAVEN PEERAGE.
Mr. S. Rice appeared for the claimant.

The claim of Lord Dunraven to vote for representative
peers was heard and allowed.