The Sun.
London, England, 1826-05-24 00:00:00

LA,Vvr LNTELLIGE.NCE.

. :

et Ot7RT 'OF CONIMON PLEAS.
.. . 'erfterr v.. roverraa'atern JONES:.
. . . .
;This veal an
,ection .of aesurupsit, brought .by an Attorney to
.recover the turn of 2821. 7e. 7d. for the cost; incurred in de-
fending an indictment againet the Parish of Speldhurst, for not
repairing a toad, celled theLoWer Road, at Tunbridge Web!: - At
a meeting 'orthe pariehioners, held, pursuant to .public notice, on
the. 27,th Aprtl, 1821,- it. Was agreed, that the indictment should.
be defended, and a resolution was accordingly'. drawn up -to that'
effect ;: and also, . that the Surveyees.ef •the Ilighways shotild. be
directed to take the necessary etepe. Several of the parieltionere.
signed these resolutions, among'. whom were the defentlente in
this cause. The 'plaintiff at this time was Vestry Clerk of the
Parish, and the' Surveyors' employed. ,hiM to defend• Use indict-
Inent, Which be accordingly dui; and the prosecutors not baying
el peered on tke trial, it verdict of acquittal was entered. , The
plaintiff, aftermany' fruition applications to the Surveyors and
otter persons, for payMent of hire bill, brought hie action against
the present defendants, who were present at the Vestry Meeting
above alluded to,- aria who, among others, signed the .relolotions.
at 'that Meeting. The defendants pleaded " Nen . assumnsi t.".
At the trial before Alexander (Chief Baron) at ,the lain Maid-
stinlre Assists the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, deranges
':..292/. 7e. 7d. The Jury found alio that there was a releieer of
plaintiff by the vestry resolutions just as Much! as if his name.
had been Mentioned, but that the choice of the attorney was left
to the surveyor's ; and' they also found that' the defendants he-
carne emirtieri to that retainer as -vestrymen, and not.in their in..
divitfual capacities. The Learned Judge .reservea the point for
the Cubit above, by grunting to' the defendants leases to move for
a norneulti ' -
141 r. Sergeant Ti.rner accordingly ohti'ned a rule to show
'Ueuere why the verdict elieultli 'not be get aside and,a, norestrit
entered;' and' Mr."' florgeant Boriatteett.tr (witle. whom.
,erinl
Mr.. Sergeant Wilma) now showed. cause, and contended
that theAlefendiintee were liable ; he• submitted that the.plaintiff
had been' retained lty 'dui trrder of 'vestry, and ;thae though
his name was net' mentioned in the. vestry reaoletionr Yet it was
tuft to the eterveynie to'ernpley hire, and t-hey accordingly did au:.
-that the defendant,' among others' having. taker,.ore thewaelves to,
dire et a given IndividUral'to incur expenses, roust .be liable. It
was
,eSidthet there weds fund.provlded for' the payment of theie
eipencen;. if there werti'mearts,,.the Learned Sergeant,Valitended,
that it was not for the. plaintiff to resort to, those meat.-,, the per-
soir4tilie' .06 hint direktiotie were -hound to see that there '. ere I
fundi. The -plantitf never gave- credit to the fond but to his em.: i
ploycra; and the Juty friund by their-verdict .that the slefendent,
lied Ctstialoyed 'the plaintiff. The 1., earned Sergeant then contended
that, the defendants, even though acting at vestrytnen, wee:reliable,
and that the vestry ve,ointioti was not :inch al excluded their ter.
ponel liability, and fleeted several easel in supper t of his ergnment ;
'aenengothers;:'Eetori such' Bill (5 l;. anti A, 36) ; Brook and
punt, .(MSS. lloriley and Bill, I 13.. 20 -c. ne 101, in ILOte,, ;
and-after distinguieliine tin 4,. present case fmre:thst of Leneh&nter
'end Frewer, (2-Bine. p3l) relied on by tha4ilefen4ente,itibro:te,l
that there was no greurel Whatever fur elistuthing the ettetlictetind
'that the' delentiant.e rule must be Cilecheread,
Mr. Sergeant Wiens also contended that the ddendent4 lied
rendered. tliernielveo liable; by joining' in the resolutions of the
vestry. , ' . .., , _ . . ~ - , t- .
Mr. Sergeant TADDY, in .suppgrt of' tie Mlle, argued that
there. Witte.no contractou the, part of the defern4ot, ElPre44ed Or,
implied,,sod del, retainer of the plaintiff could
j ieei,,,,st citriteintts
impliedltrc.
.e.lerestointion referred to, still the defeCtlanto
dividually, ,end :boil in no way renderedtheinielvie personably
liable. elite defetolante had eiterteii On, vestry r;Nsolution; but a
've'atrk.hr eepublie body kriewrt to the pommel' law, and act 01-
lectllltlY a* a, public . body. (Vent. 367), and 1.14iJr4.1 an eretee
frent,the .veirtey,.- and.not. from ,the. i udiViti tale poniii,lairn F.t; AA;
nritting,efor,,steguntent's valee, that the pleintiff wee einplet;eil in
this instance by the reeelationa of the vestry, the cash 6( Len-
cheiter And Tricker (1 Bing. 201), .stud Ler clseeter 4ntl..frelver
(2 Bing. +f361),• decided.:thst' :by acting a•i ve3tryruen, they did
pot raider themselves, indie4dually. respomilde. Those caves were
not precisely similar to the present one, but this, is "a *eh
stronger one thannithere th.o..defenthints in this case had' in nri.
rte, 7
j, ena,rployed tlie plaintiff. As to the resolutions of the veetry,
'„ihsipidreli such Se' wit!t; tont emplarad by the ticpll4 High:,
'W,4r,-A#llitt).;-8...., lia: -e.-tai..i.) By thaere:pesplo4wie ile
tliTtle.iret7 tuff's:" the; litehevari is 'directed to Lek*. rho. tte4els,hrYii4a, Pi,'
"4/16itteittitivbst diAet-tia tho.vropte POrii9lo.9:-lir*Ol'4 gr,
degn 'thearithdtetnttnflitiEjod it, fienittitlttivi444 .4*.k9;Pri* ttP4
'expences. The vestry resolutions merely direct the Serve-yen to
take the necessary steps. By the Surveyor is the plaintiff em-
ployed, and the plaintiff treats the Surveyor at his debtor, by de-
livering to him Lis bill, headed ~ The Surveyors of the Pariah

of Speldhurst to NV'. Sprott," and by his letter to thedefendantse-
ba the 13th Januery, 1825, which was put. in evidence at the
trial. The learned Serjeant distinguished the present case from'
those which had been quoted by hint learned brothers Bosanquet
and Wilde, and he contended that there was no pretence for
charging the present defendants; that there was no contract on
their part, but if one cella be raised from the resolutions 'of the
vestrr and if it were held that they were liable, from haying
these resolutions, then no respectable remits would ever.
attend vestri.v ; be contended also, that defendants had no means
whatever of reimbursement, and -must sustain the whole burthen
of these coata, and, under-stll the circumstances of 'the case, he
latinititted that the ruhe must be made absolute.
tord Chief Justice Ilearr—l see no occasion to disturb this
case by any of the flintier dechtions ; the cases cited by the plain-
effliave no bearing upon the question. The cases as Commis-
sionert do not etrect this--Connuissionere stand in a •fer
rent situation from, the inbabiutnts of a pariah assembled
in
vestrv: Commis-aim:tent are individuals who 'put themselves
forwertl voluntarily, and have powers to "raise tolls for the
purposes of the acts, and I perfectly approve of all the observations
of the Judges,
~hilt Commissioners ought not to engage in any.
work until they fully ascertain that they have funds out of which
to rehnburae themselves.. The only instance in which dine per-
sona are protected it when ,they are Made a corporate body, but
then this protection arises from -the circumstance of their being
liable only to their corporate capacity. The cited case of Higgins
v. tetiiateoe,' Wait ataainst the trustees under a turnpike act,
and thevjuid the power of reimbursing themselves, but these de-
fendiets have not. So, in Brook e. Guest, the defendant was
one of the churchwardens ; he acted, as a churchwarden; he had
the means of reimbursement, and should have got a rate made.
So, in Lanchester'e case, Lanchester wet sued 'as churchwarden,
and the Cotirt there said, " You werethe churchwarden, you had
the.power vested in you of raising the money by tontribution,
and you ought to have exereittel youe authority; if yell have n
Power you must made use of it." The ease of Eaton and Bell
• was u case ender an inclosure act, and I approve of what Judge
Bayley s'ays iu giving judgment ; I and clearly of that
the Commiasioners are personally liable" are hii words. The
'mdefendanta Must Itaie known their meetly, and should luvie taken
advantage of them ; shoW tne that these defendants can reimbUrse
themselves, and I will admit that that case is precisely in point. Is
this the case of a person voluntarily coming forward,? - Here was a
meeting-of the Inhabitants in vestry, but do they employ the at-
torney? I deny that they do any such, thing,' they merely call
span the surveyors to act ; by the 66th section of the Highway
Act, we fatal " That if the inhabitants of any perish, township,
or place, shall agree et a vestry to defend any indictment or pre-.
sentment preferred against any such
,parish, township, or place, it
shall and may he lawful for'the surveyor of such parish; township,
or place;io c'hitigein -his a.cctitiet.the reasonable expeneee incurred
in' defending such , respective prosecutions ;" :and -the. expenses
are directed to be paid out of the fines, forfeitures, compositions,
payments, and assessments, authorized to be collected and .raised
by %iris.* of this Act; which materially distinguishes this • case
from these quitted. These partici were - uiert:ly the power
ivlsitdi aet. the machine .in moticiu. ' The Jury have
ected ittiPrOperlv they have finned matter 'OfEhtweitidaint:of fact.
' Is wasnot for them to put any construction uptut the words of
the*: resolutions, in my opinion the tinting that Mr. Sprott was
employed by theiaresolutious, is not warranted by tl:e evidence.
The resolutions uterell, call on the surveyors to do -their duty... It
appears to me, that if all that is contended for on the part of the':
plaintiff he true,' persons who attend at meetings pfahis pert, will,
be placed in a.yery cruel situation, and I aloolita;nlieiftei inliebia
tants will attend meetings ;it all, if 'they are Yki, rendered per
smithy liable for , an' repairs in 'the parish, which may -be
-agreed to at such meetirtga., 1 auk to-day en 'inhabitant of
a parish, the nee:tsarist Months I nifty , retire . , a ilittartt
• part of the' country, and am I to be called en 'to pay an
attornies'bill of 2981. for defending an indictment of a parish
in which .11454 no further, 'interest or caritreul. I cannot'. see
how theta persons are liable who attend the meeting in Vestry,
amp; agree to the'reselutien, to defend any more than' the rest of
:the parish who are to, ttontribute their respective shires by, Means
of the rate which the. SurVeyor is empowered to levy. . 'And tuo:.
Cher thing, the office of surveyor is an annual office, at the end
of the year his accounts are settled, and a new •Surveyor is aPe.
painted, but this Attorney allows the parish to remain in igno-,
/ince of 'his bill for three . years ; to he sure the indictment was
pending during that time, and he was ultimately successful _fug
the pariah. it was his duty to have sent in his bill yeartY;lii
order that the Surveyors and the Parish might Lave bad antpPee,
tunny of judging from time to time of the prOtwiety•of incurring,
thew expenses. If application bad been made to the SuOveyor at„
the-eat of.the year, be would have ..charged. his' expenc.ea in his
accounts,' and, those ex petters would here been defrayed by the tines
and assessments; &c. ; or it they were not sufficient, the Surveyor
would have taken care to•have got it rate Made, In order that the
expenceemight be, paid-in a proper proportion by all the inlie-
bitanta of 'the- parish. 'This Attorney was the Vestry, Clerk,
and be ought, 'to have known the law. It would be a very
1 •
emeu and a very unjuat . thing to say, that all these persons who
were present at the Vestry, -and-agreed to the Resolutions were
(liable. -1 dcanot consider Lanchester' and Prewar a• case precisely
similar to this, but. II adhere to my opinion, as there deli-
. vored, that if.a man goes to a Veetry,he has nitintention of he-
coining individually resiaousible, for few would attend a Veetry en-
der such a responsibility,--a respoesthility Which, •if it exulted,
would work great injuetiee, as it would • aubjeet a man who had
but a year in the Parish,: to the same burthette as a Man who
had thousands,- and would confine'to those who . were preeent,at,
the'Metting, a bur then
,Wbieb ought to. be • rateably .diatriletted
among nil the Parisl4ionerin In this case the. Suiyeyer .sho'ula
Lave l►esn called uo, and he would have been 'reitithureed out of
1 the rate. ,
Mr. Justice Pant —I agree with the Chief :hustles that this
is a cute of the greatest impoetence to every inhabitant of u ..pe-
rish.' If this is to be the law, it will beininossible. fur are:Peri-
.shioners to attend. a vestry; but the Act of Parliament has decisreg
alas case, and there is no difficulty in it. The Resolutione are
preciaely whet the Act of Parliament preViotetlyi)f)itai
'Bill may be fair tar any thing I' knotsO to the, contrary, and no
.ground has been suggested.* supposing that it eontaint. any im-
proper charges. The Act of Perliement decides thin, for the 66th.
eectiou gives ittepeeifie remedy. The plsintifT was the vestry
clerk, and he ought to have eleliered:'ltia`.bills de anno in atimunt
tolaiet surveyor, and the surveyor shoUld have 'gone "tai the veatry,
'area a Magistrate, to get hie bill allowed. ..Theasurveyor could
lame included it in' his account. • The shrveyer passes his.account
et the end of the year, and in- the schedule to the Highway. Act is
the oath avltich he takes ; he swears that " the acconntsnow pro-,
is duced and delivered by me, as surveyor orthe highways, for the
" last year, are true to the beet of my knowledge." .I ii man would
attend vaestry_i?he hi to baperionally In the cases qu'oted
are instances of Perions voluntarily accenting an 'office; they there-.
Pure must take on theinselees the responsibility, and they have the
rneansof teiMhureement, His•Lordehip,aben mentioned the dbl.'
tirietions between this case and the Ones cited by'the plaintiff;
alleediesaMeek'ingaillyL,abnucir lisits6L.tred:e4l:exPaitidsteslan.fitils'eyttpd;r:tilntttilleinci.rof
the principles there laid down, that persons bona fide acting ,in
vestry 'liana become indivislaally responsible. , Thelether Judges
conuirred in the Lime opinion; and the Bill was made elavolutea •

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MAY 23.

oLksurrarox tl. THWAITIN.

. .
Aft. Rourxt.t. mound the Court for an order calling on the de-
fendant to put in_ an answer 'within a fortnight to the plaintiff's
ainentledhill. After the bill had beep amended, the defendants,
instestl of an answer, bad put in n mere disclaimer. . 'To thie, ex-
captions were taken hy mistake, and it was referred to the Master
to lark into the answer. The Master reported, that he could not.
look into it, ay rfa anSLVer hid-been put in; but a -nn;re disclaimer.
Exceptions were then taken In the iNfeeter's ttpOri, again by mistake,
which were struck out of the paper. In point of fact, the partied,
not having' answered the artsend,al'bill, might seem in contempt;
ttliiuctre kit thplio
aiir:talffnisy, ionsitoetiolof
relyx p.phlad recourse to the present motion.ying fiii an attachment . against
Mr. Anoo, on the other side, eaid brat rile was a very irre.
gular motion, and he hoped the Court would refuge it with
cons. •
gtoni Gn
rill() Vic 1....(:. AA scrttott said thafte felt he was bound to do so.
te
This wart not :the mode' in which tl, plaintiff could obeaip jar- y,
if he were entitled to any.
Air. lasti
. . .
itlois7chance,llo from, the, sitht.bar, stating tli.it
he wee induced
on this oceason again to complain to the Court of delay.
the. plaintiff, . Olen penman,' addressed the
: A;r. Ao.ka objected to Mr. Plainitington being heard, after. the
motion was disposed'of;
subject of this motion; .'He had -,never attempted
to, speck .1a
;public until he hod been compelled to do' so by the knavery of
Mr. A; gtt'is, client. .' ~: ,' .'
~
..
~, Tht ViOit-tiraNenti.u.n. therero4noeo- genueman that he must
not, lir:4ll.fJtved to nee harsh terms there, . ether wise the Court of
Cliancirryweehi become -1- ''''4ll44 4f'caluiPl°Y. • .--- - .• '
i',:bl{. 41,9„vaington said lin Itod been rot. sax tars .endo.►pil-ii,g ic
i''t in,ighaye, 140'eaiiie-birought.to --a hearing: i_ "flier bill had been
n" Filifig 4-`riftitt the ttnitirersla it laid not, ysit been obtained.
The Viet -CHANCZIL°II °bSerVeds that he could not allow him
to pureue this course. If he had a complaint to make, he must
make it in the regular Way, and give
notice to the other patios,

who would, otherwise, have no means of defending themselves 1
against *hat would ;be urged against them in their absence.
Mr.. Claftsington—l shall narne'no*man but Mr. Agar,,. whciis
presept., . (Laughter.)
The Vicz-CcfaNC;LLOR,—I chnnot hear you.
'Mr. Glessington—Then 1-miist-Submit to ruin and beggary.
The VicE7CHANbEt.LoI—If you have any ground of complaint,
there is a very ready way to justice.
, • Mr. Glassington—lf the way be a read} one I hiete einploYeil
'men etninent in the profession to find. it, out for me,- but without
Success. . • .. _

The Vies-CuexcELLon---Nou are now Only taking a-course
that is of no. use to you, and is unjust towards the Absent.-. If you.
have a complaint to make, let it he made in the regular way.
Mr.-fila.,tsiugton—A man has no liminess bringing a complaint
against Solicitors, for they alwsYs'take care to keep-documents in
their possession to'protect themselees,.and which cannot bs got at
by the party, complaining.
The VICE-CuA7,4cr.n.-or.--Well, Sir, .1 cannot reliet'e von. •
Mr. Glassington—Ll trust that, after enduring six years' delay,
you will nqt censure the if I am irregular.
The Vwx-CHANCELLOK—I do not censure you; but I cannot
reliAie you.
Mr. Glassington then retired;

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY.
LA LtiTINE ANT, OVUM&

Lord growm delivered judgment in this long pending cause,
which was instituted to recover the amount of a bond entered
into by two persons named Slade and Rowe, for .the good
conduct of Mr. J. Teed, Prize Agent at Plymouth. Mr. Teed
bad received the proceeds arising from La Lutine, and four
other French vessels, captured in 1810; but having engaged in
ipeculatiil•ns of various kinds, he became unable to. discharge
the prize demands, and proceedings were instituted against
him by the Treasurer of the Navy; but he procured a seat
in the House of Commons, as Member for-. tirampouud,
and availing himself of his privilege, the proceedings were
staid until the dissolution of Parliament in 1320, when' they
were renewed ; and-in answer to the monition issued against him,
he stated-his absolute incapability of meeting the demand, and
shortly afterwards died. When . proceedings were instituted
in
di% Court to recover from the securities the amount of the bond
entered into by them for 5,0001., they refused -the payment on
the ground that they were not liable to any ' defalcation arising
from Mr. .Tweed's speculations, hut only liable- for his good con-
duct. His Lordehip, however, conceived that they were liable,
and decreed that judgment should be given fur 2,6441. 169;8d.,
the -amount of the deficiency, for which sum proof should be
znade'on the estate of the securities, who became bankrupts since
the institution of the suit. - •