The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-22 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

Upon the arrival of their Lordships in Court, the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE informed the Bar that a new rule had
been agreed to by the Judges of the several Courts, which
would be read by the Master.—The following rule was
then read :

4T/I WILLIAM IV.

It is ordered that when a defendant is arrested upon an
alias or pluries capias, issued into another county, pur-
suant to the rule of Michaelmas Term, 3d William IV.,
the defendant must put in bail in the county where he was
arrested.

The COURT then proceeded with a put heard cage.

BAIL COURT.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE sat in the Bail Court to hear
motions and to take undefined causes at Nisi Prius.
POOR RATES' ASSESSMENT.—ST. JAMES'S V. THE EARL

OF BURLINGTON.

It will be recollected that a short time since application
was made to Mr. Conant, at Marlborough-street for a
distress warrant against the Earl of Burlington's goods
for nonpayment of the poor's rates due to the parish of
St. James's. It appeared that from complaints in that
parish of the inequality of the assessments a new survey
had been made, the result of which was that
the Noble mansion and grounds of the Earl had been
assessed at a much higher rate than before. Under the
Local Act he appealed to a Petty Sessions, at which Sir
Robert Farquhar and Mr. B. Beaumont presided, and the
new assessment was very considerably reduced. The
parish officers, conceiving that those magistrates had no
power under the Local Act to alter the rate, refused to
recognise the order of those magistrates, and applied to
Marlborough-street for a warrant for the high rate. Coun-
sel were heard on each side, and some doubts being enter-
tained as to the jurisdiction of the magistrate after the
rate
.had been lowered by two preceding magistrates, the
application was refused and the parties were advised to
apply to the Court of King's Bench, in order that the
question might be decided.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, this morning, said he was
instructed to apply to this Court upon the subject. The
Court were, perhaps, aware of the dispute between the
Noble Earl and the parish respecting the poor rates; per-
haps, and it was very probable, the Noble Earl knew
little or nothing respecting it, as he had very probably
left the matter entirely to his agent, and as against that
agent there was no complaint, as there was no doubt that
he was actuated only by a wish to protect his principal's
interest. The parish officers, however, were dissatisfied.
with the decision of the Magistrates before whom the case
was heard, and the only course that was open to them was
an application to this Court. An Act was passed (the
2d Geo. III.) which was a local Act for the regulation of
the parish of St. James, the 16th section of which pro-
vided, that any parishioner who felt himself aggrieved
might apply to the Justices of the Peace within
the district for relief, and if the relief were not
given be was obliged to pay the amount—or after a
distress had been levied for it—however unjust such
amount might be, and then he was at liberty to
appeal to the then next General Quarter Sessions.
Many cases of great hardship had arisen from the opera-
tion of that clause, and the rating in the parish bad been
found to be very disproportioned, the consequence of
which was a dissatisfaction in the parish. It was found
that the mansions of the nobility and the higher classes
did not pay their fair proportion to the rates, and, in
April last, a new survey was made, under which
Burlington House, which was previously rated at
1,0001., was raised to 2,9431. The noble owner
was consequently required to pay a rate according
to that assignment, which was 4411. 9.. His agent re-
fused to accede to that demand, and said he would appeal
to the sessions. The Noble Earl then appealed, not to
the Quarter Sessions, but under the Local Act, to two
Magistrates in petty sessions, who, after viewing the pre-
mises, took upon themselves to reduce the assessment from
2,9431. to 1,6581. ; those Magistrates made no formal order,
but merely made a memorandum of it in a book. An
application was then made by the parish officers to the
Magistrates of Marlborough-street for a warrant of dis-
tress for the higher rate, but it was refused. The Learned
Counsel submitted that the Magistrates in petty sessions
had no power to alter the rate; the Act of Parliament
only authorised them to quash the rate and order a new
one, if it appeared to be improper ; but it gave them no
power to take upon themselves the responsibility of alter-
ing a rate.

lie Loausnir asked what the Learned Counsel's mo-
ion was ?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he would either take a
mandamus against the Magistrates i,f Marlborough-street,
commanding them to grant a warrant of distress for the
higher rate, to which he conceived the parish was entitled,
or he would take a ccrtiorarf, to bring the proctedings
before the Magistrates at Petty Sssions into this Court ;
in the latter case, if the Court should consider oriter of
those Magistrate's') to redu'ce the rate Mega], then the piriih
would be placed in the name situation as if nv, order had
been made. The Magistrates, although required to do so,
had made no formal order, and as to the mere entry in
the book, it was a question whether it was such an order
as could be recognized by the Court. He con-
tended that the Magistrates had exceeded their duty.
It was clear that even the Quarter Sessions had no power
to alter a rate, if the principle on which it was founded be
wrong, and consequently the Magistrates at Petty Sessions
could have no such power.

His LORDSHIP asked, if the nitlndamu,s be granted whe-
ther it would not lead to an action of trespass, and then
put the parties to great expense? If the certiorari be
issued, aid the order Upon it being brought into Court
proved to be illegal and be quashed, then the parties would
be in the same situation as before.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that was what the
parish wanted. If an action of trespass were brought,
the parish would indemnify the Magistrates ; but if the
order be quashed, Lord Burlington would be obliged to
pay the higher rate, for which a warrant would iseue
forthwith.

His Loitnsitte said the best course would be, to take a
certiorari to bring the proceedings before the Magistrates
in Petty Session into this Court, bud, if the order was in-
formal, to quash it. If, however, it be correct, then the
Court could consider what further steps should be taken.
The certiorari was then directed to issue,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

THE ICING V. BOWMAN AND ANOTHER.

Mr. JARVIS applied for a respite of the recognizances
which had been estreated in this case. The defendants
had become bail for a person named Haines, who was
charged with a misdemeanor. The cause was set down
for trial in the King's Bench, but as time failed it was
made a remanet. The defendants had Haines in waiting
from day to day, according to their bond. They were
surprised in a few days after the sittings, by having their
goods seized upon to satisfy the bail bond. The defen-
dants had not paid the fees of setting down the cause as a
remanet, and when they went to the office the day after
term, they found the estreat had issued, and had been
returned to that Court.

The Court gr inted a rule Nisi, to be served upon the
officers of the Crown.

REDDETT V. LUCOCK.

Mr. KELLY' showed cause against a rule obtained by
Mr. Andrews calling upon the plaintiff to show cause
why he should not pay the defendant the costs of the day
for not proceeding to trial. The Learned Gentleman
stated that the action was brought for a breach of promise
of marriage, and was set down for trial at the Spring
Assizes for Suffolk. The plaintiff attended with his
attorney, and V 77.1 prepared to proceed with the cause, but
was informed by the attorney of the defendant that the
defence to be set up would very seriously affect the
character of the plaintiff. As they were taken by
surprise, and were not prepared to rebut such a
defence, they withdrew the record. The cause was again
set down for trial, and was actually tried at the Sum-
mer Assizes, when a verdict was found for the plain-
tiff, with five hundred pounds damages. The costs in
that cause had been taxed, and final judgment signed
upon the 7th of November. He contended that the
defendant was now too late in making such an application,
as it would be exceedingly inconvenient to keep a cause
open for such a length of time.
Mr. ANDaews said though final judgment had been
signed, yet it did not appear that the costs had either
been taxed or paid.
Mr. KELLY said, i❑ the Court of King's Bench the
signing of final judgment was synonymous with the taxing
of costs, and he apprehended the rule was the same there.
The COURT made the rule absolute, on the ground
that the costs, which were parallel costs, were open as
long as the cause was, and that lasted till the execution
was satisfied..