The Sun.
London, England, 1834-10-23 00:00:00

sion (the case having been partially heard in the first in-
stance, and postponed by Mr. Broderip) that three claim-
ants appeared for the rewards—De\ erell, the headborough
and engine-keeper of Shadwell ; Shirley, who fills the
same situation in Ratcliffe ; and Dodd, the present com-
plainant. Shirley claimed the rewards for the first and
second engines, which he alleged to have brought com-
plete, with all necessary apparatus, but was prevented
working them by the malice of the firemen, who as fast as
he screwed the hose unscrewed it, an assertion which was
' borne out by the churchwardens, an overseer, and other
gentlemen.
The firemen, on the other side, said that the Ratcliff en-
gines were not complete, that an attempt was made to work
the larger one, but it failed, and that the hand-engine never
went to work at all.

It was clearly proved that the Globe engine brought to
the spot by Deverell (whose activity and good conduct was
admitted by all) first got to work.
Dodd swore that his engine played second on the fire.
Mr. BALLANTINE, believing the Ratcliff engines incom-
plete, put them out of Court, with directions to the
Churchwardens to make further inquiries as to their effici-
ency, and ordered the reward for the second engine to be
given to Dodd ; at the same time remarking that he could
not give the first engine reward to Deverell, wh3 really
deserved it ; because he was not the engine-keeper of the
Hamlet.

The churchwardens refused to pay the money to Dodd,
who forthwith procured a summons against Mr. Ratcliff to
show cause why he withheld the reward ; but on the hear-
ing Mr. Ballantine seemed to be of opinion that his powers
ceased when he gave his " approbation and consent" for the
payment of the reward, and that if the churchwardens
would not do so he could not make them.

Subsequently, Mr. Humphreys applied for the, informa•
tion against the churchwardens for refusing to pay the re-
ward, and contended that they were liable to a penalty of
101. for refusing to do so, and that the Magistrates had
power to enforce it.
The information was granted, and now came on to be
heard. The information having been read,
Mr. Humphreys said he appeared for the prosecution,
which was one of great public importance, and he could not
foresee what objection could be urged against the payment
of the reward which his client had been thought deserving
of. The Learned Solicitor then related the facts as above
detailed.
Mr. Wells contended before the case was entered into
that the Magistrates had no jurisdiction, and that in order-
ing the reward they had exceeded their powers ; conse-
quently, the information must fall. The Act under which
it was laid was the 14th Geo. 111., cap. 78,commonly called
the Buildinc, Act ; and the 76th section gave to the church-
wardens, and where there was no church the overseers of
the hamlet, the power of granting a reward to the first engine
brought to any fire in a sum not exceeding 20s. ; and to the
third, 10s. ; but in order to prevent the poor rates being
burdened with the payments of large sums the 76th section
enacted that no such rewards should be paid to any turncock,
fireman, or engine-keeper until the consent and application
of one or more Justice of the Peace residing within such
parish, precinct, or place, where such fire happens,' and if
there be no Resident Magistrates, of the Justice or Justices
next adjoining shall be obtained. According to the terms
of the Act th Churchwarden alone had the power to order
the reward, and the fireman, instead of applying to the Ma-
gistrate in the first instance, should have applied to Mr.
Ratcliff, and afterwards have waited on Mr. Ballantine for
his consent and approbation. He had done the very reverse
in this case, and the Magistrate in his opinion had acted
illegally. If the Churchwarden had granted the reward in
the first instance, the firemen should have waited on the re-
sident Magistrates, and there was one in the Hamlet, not
upon the police Justices.
Mr. BALLANTINE said that certain Acts of Parliament
gave the police Magistrates a concurrent jurisdiction in such
cases. He found that the mode of levy was pointed out
in the 76th clause, which imposed a penalty of 101. on
Churchwardens in default of not doing certain things, such
as providing and keeping two serviceable engines ; and on
the termination of the 76th clause, he found that in default
of making payments of rewards to engine-keepers, &c.,
such reward to be recovered by distress and sale of the
goods and chattels in the same manner as the penalty and
forfeiture of 101.
Mr. Wells.—But our objection is that you have no power
to order the reward.
Mr. COMBE—DO you mean to say there is no remedy to
enforce the payment ? Mr. Wells—No, not by informa-
tion. The solicitor then contended at great length that the
act vested the authority in the churchwardens, and not in
the magistrate.
Mr. Humphreys replied, and said this was the first time
since the passing of the act that the authority of the
magistrate had been disputed. When a fire broke out it
had always been the custom for the engine-keepers to pro-
ceed before the magistrate, who examined them upon oath,
and gave them a certificate of his consent and approbation,
which the party took to the churchwardens, and was paid
the reward without further trouble. That he considered
to be the:common-sense meaning of the Act. It never could
have been the intention of the Legislature to consult
the churchwardens, the very party who was liable to the
payment.
Mr. BALLANTINE agreed with the view taken by 11Ir.
Humphreys. The Act said the party claiming the reward
should make oath. The bench had the power of adminis-
tering the oath, but the churchwarden had not. The law
declared firemen entitled to certain rewards when they used
proper diligence. Was the churchwarden to turn round
and say he would not pay it ? •
Mr. Wells said that no person was so fit as the church-
warden who resided in the parish where a fire broke out to
judge of the quantum of services rewarded when he could
not examine on oath. The magistrate was as likely to be
present at a fire as a churchwarden or overseer. The pa-
rochial authorities thought they could inquire in the neigh-
bourhood as to the expedition of the firemen.
Mr. COMBE asked Mr. Wells how he meant to answer
the assertion that it had been the invariable practice for
the magistrates to give their consent before application was
made to the Churchwardens and that the sum fixed by the
Justices had been invariably paid? The Chief Clerk, who
had been in the office twenty-five years, did not remember
a single instance of the magistrate's power being doubted
before.
Mr. BALLANTINE—In my experience of fourteen years
there has been no instance of the reward being refused on
the approbation of the magistrates.
Mr. Wells said the parochial authorities had more than
:once used their discretion in paying less than the magistrate
had certified for, and it was not because the Justices had
;been usurping a power which did not belong to them for
five years that they were to continue so to do. The
'Churchwarden would not have raised the point now if he
:had not very great doubts that the man was entitled to
claim the second engine reward. The Act was clear
enough. It said the Magistrate was to restrain the Church-
warden from giving too much, but not to make the order
upon
Mr. COMBE—For what purpose does the Act empower
,the Magistrates to interfere if he has not the power of
,making the reward and enforcing the payment ?
Mr. Wells—To prevent the Churchwardens giving the
'larger sum in every case.
Mr. Humphreys said a fire might break out in the
Churchwarden's house, and how could an application be
then made to him ? The power contended for on the
other side would reduce the Magistrates to mere cyphers.
Mr. BALLANTINE—It must be under a controlling power,
and that power is given to us.
Mr. Wells—Suppose, for instance, the Churchwarden
was to say the fireman should have fifteen shillings, and the
Magistrate was to say he should only have five shillings,
the Churchwarden could give the larger sum. The Magis-
trate can reduce but not refuse.
Mr. BALLANTINE—Why that illustration will tell
against you—not for you.
Mr. BALLANTINE and Mr. COMBE then gave their opi-
nions at length, and believing, notwithstanding the wording
of the two clauses, that the obvious intention of the Legis-
lature was to give them the power, and not the Church-
wardens, over-ruled the objections made by Mr. Wells, and
said they would go into the case.
Mr. Ratcliff then pleaded Not Guilty.
After hearing witnesses on both sides, the MAGISTRATE
adjudged Mr. Ratcliff to pay the sum of 20s. as a reward,
and the costs to Dodd, he having failed to comply with the
consent and approbation of the Magistrates, and in default
for a distress warrant to be levied on his goods and chat-
tels. The Magistrates at the same time observed, that the
question ought to be settled as soon as possible. As a pe-
riod of 65 years had elapsed without calling the authority
of the Magistrates into question, it was too late to begin now.
Mr. Ratcliff said he was not the only parochial officer
determined to try the question, for it was well known that
firemen often galloped their engines through the streets
after a slight fire was extinguished, for the purpose of ob-
taining the reward.
Mr. BALLANTINE said the galloping complained of was
often the means of saving much valuable property. The
fire in question was only second in importance to the late
national' calamity at the Houses of Lords and Commons,
and there had been all this cavilling about the payment of
a few shillings. The firemen were a meritorious and in-
trepid body of men. He had never known an instance of
their filching anything at fires, when a good deal of pro-
perty was placed in their charge. If ever there was an un-
generous opposition to the reward of a meritorious act, this

was one.
Mr. Humphreys—For their rank in life, there is not a
more respectable body of men in the empire than the firemen.
Mr. COMBE bore testimony to the general good conduct
of the firemen, and said they had often been entrusted with
the most valuable property, while their intrepidity was ex