The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-23 00:00:00

IN RE ANDERSON AND BILL.

Mr. CROWDER moved for a rule to show cause
why the sum of 2,6831. 2s. 6d. should not be paid to
Mr. H. James, and why Anderson and Hill should
not deliver to Mr. James a bill of their costs and
charges on account of a certain trust fund, and why
they should not answer the matters in certain
affidavits. The parties in question had acted
as attorneys under a trust deed, by which
a lady was entitled to a large sum of
money which was to be invested to her benefit. One
of the trustees to this deed had died, and the other was
anxious to discontinue his trusteeship, and appli-
cation was made to Mr. James and another party to
become trustees. To this the parties consented, and
executed the necessary deeds. Money was after-
wards paid into the hands of certain bankers to the
credit of the new trustees, who at various periods
signed cheques, upon the representation of Anderson
and Hill that the money was required to be placed
out on certain mortgages.
bankrupt, and it was then discovered that these
dif-
ferent securities were Hill subsequently became
prepared in favour of Hill,
who had assigned all of them to his creditors. Some
deeds had been made in favour of the trustees, but they
had been executed on unstamped paper, although the
stamps. had been charged for in Anderson and Hill's
bill of costs. Anderson had declared he knew nothing
of the affair, and that James had better prove under
the estate of Hill. This last had been examined, and
admitted the receipt of the sums, which he said he had
received on account of a debt of 1,900/. due to him
from Anderson.
His LORDSHIP was of opinion that a rule to pay
over the money only should be taken, abandoning the
answering of the matters in the affidavits.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Jan. 22.

TEM 11/VAINTREB CIIIIRCII-RATE CASE.-GOSLING

v. YBLET.

The following is a fuller report of Lord Chief Jus
tice Wilde's judgment in this case than appeared in
our paper of yesterday :
Lord Chief Justice WILDE was also of opinion that
the judgment should be reversed. The record stated
that the vestry was held in obedience to the monition
of the spiritual court to make a rate for the repairs of
the church and other expenses for the decent celebra-
tion of divine service ; that a rate of 2s. in the pound
was proposed ; that the vicar inquired whether any
other amendment was proposed as to the amount of
the rate, to which no affirmative answer was returned.
It did not state that any negative was given, but it
did state that no other question was put to the meet-
ing. The record further itated that the majority of
voters having refused the necessary funds, the church-
wardens made the rate in question, and it was further
alleged that the amount proposed to be raised could
only be obtained by a rate of 2s. in the
pound. He thought the record sufficiently showed
that the rate was not put to the majority
in any manner ; whilst, on the•other hand, it was
impossible to discover from it whether the rate was
made by any majority whatever. Supposing the po-
sition, that the majority refusing to make the
rate were to be considered as absent, was correct,
and that the minority made a rate, still he ap-
prehended that the rate could only be made by their
vote on a question submitted to them. The question
arose then on the record, whether the rate was made
by a legal majority of parishioners in vestry assem-
bied. The second question to be considered was
whether those who made the rate were competent to
do so, and whether, in doing so, they conformed to
the law. In making a proper rate it was necessary
to have regard to certain circu:nstances, such as the
estimate of the repairs, and the propriety of some rate,
the periods when it was to be paid, and the amount ;
but none of those points were brought under the con-
sideration of the vestry. It was undoubted law that
no pecuniary burden could be imposed on any subject
except by established legal authority. The only legal
authority to impose a church-rate was a majority of