The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-14 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.--(THIS DAY,

THE KING v THE COMMISSIONERS OF RYE HARBOUR.
Mr. POLLOCK showed cause against a rule which had
been obtained by Sir James Scarlett, calling on the defen-
dants to show cause why a mandamus should not issue,
directing them to pay certain bills of costs due to Mr.
Samuel Miller, an attorney. The applic ition was founded
upon the Rye Harbour Improvement Act, (Ist William
IV.) which, after giving the power to the Commissioners to
collect certain rates, stated the mode in which the fund so
raised was to be applied. It was upon the2Bth clause, autho-
rizing the appropriation of this fund, that the present ap-
plication was made. It provided for the payment of cer-
tain specified charges, and then stated, " after the dis-
charge of those last mentioned sums, then in payment and
discharge of all charges and expenses incurred previous to
the passing of this Act, in protecting and enforcing the
rights of the said harbour." The meaning of those wordswas
certainly very ambiguous, and might probably apply to some
costs and charges of an unusual character; whether they
warranted Mr. Miller in making his present claim or not,
depended upon the construction the Court put upon
them. The Learned Counsel, however, contended that
Mr. Miller was not entitled to make any such claim._
Mr. Miller had detailed the following circumstances in
the
that
t inhabitants,
had
relative
his affidavit said that great disputes had taken
place
the t Commissionersosvn ,a nd
and
sluicet e
in
been employed by the inhabitants at various public
betweento a the
meetings to prosecute suits in equity, which termi-
nated in decrees of the Lord Chancellor to repair
the sluice. He had also been employed at a public
meeting to oppose a Bill brought into Parliament at the
instance of the Commissioners, for improving the harbour
of Rye, and that he successfully opposed it, in con-
sequence of which, another Bill (the one upon which
he founded this claim) was introduced and passed.
He also stated that the words read by the Learned Coun-
sel, in the 28th section, were introduced by him for the
express purpose, as stated by him to the attorney on the
opposite side, of enabling him to obtain the payment of
his costs. His bill for the proceedings in equity was
5061. 17s. 7d., and for opposing the bill in Parliament
7541. 7s. 4d., making 1,261/. 4s. lid. His demand for
obtaining the new bill was 4881., but about that there
was no dispute. In answer to this charge it was sworn by
several persons that Mr. Miller proceeded with the suits
in equity without the authority of the Commissioners,
who were the only persons having the charge of repair-
ing the harbour at Rye ; and that with respect to the de-
mand for opposing the Bill in Parliament, Mr. Miller
was employed by certain inhabitants of the town, at a
public meeting, upon his stating that it would not cost
above sixty pounds,—that he would take all re-
sponsibility upon himself, if it should exceed 100/.
and that a public subscription was entered into
to defray the expense. The Learned Counsel submitted
that as Mr. Miller was not employed by any authorized
person to proceed in equity, and that as he had agreed to
oppose the Bill in Parliament for 1001., which was to be
defrayed by public subscription, he was not entitled to
claim such extraordinary expenses under the very vague
terms of the Act of Parliament.
Mr. FOLLETT followed on the same

Sir J. SCARLETT and Mr. CAMPBELL appeared for
Mr. MILLER, but the Court considered it unnecessary to
hear them.

Lord TENTERDEN was of opinion that the costs. of en-
forcing a decree of Equity and of opposing the Bill in Par-
liament, were charges and expenses within the meaning of
the Act. It was obvious that those expenses were incurred
in what was called " enforcing the rights of the harbour."
If it had been necessary to limit the authority of proceed-
ing to the Commissioners, those words would have sufficed
to state so ; but those words were not there. There was
great reason to believe that the Legislature thought the
Commissioners of the Harbour had not acted very fully
for the rights of the harbour ; for, by the new Act, it was
provided that the majority of the Commissioners should be
persons interested in the trade of the town. Besides other per-
sons, all the traders, were interested in enforcing the rights
of the harbour besides the commissioners, and it appeared
that Mr. Miller had been employed at a meeting of the
inhabitants to oppose the bill in Parliament. As to the
subscription to defray the costs of the opposition, and the
promise that they should not exceed 1001., the fair inter-
pretation of the words used could only be, that the opposi-
tion should not cost the meeting more than 1001. What-
ever money was subscribed of course would have to be de-
ducted from the bill of costs. As to the costs of enforcing
the decree, they
were incurred to compel the Commissioners to execute
were strictly within the Act, because they
certain works for the benefit of the harbour.
The other Judges concurring, the rule for a mandamus
was made absolute.