The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-18 00:00:00

L \V INTELLIGENCE.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

HEAVE U. RUTTER.
This was a special case, agreed upon between the
parties, the object of which was to ascertain whether
the chapel wards, and a portion of the land of Chef"
sea Hospital, was liable to the sewers-rate. The
plaintiff, Mr. Richard Neave, was Secretary to the
Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, ,and the defend-
ant, Mr. Rutter, was one of the collectors of the
sewers-rate, in the employ of the Sewers' Commissioners
le of Westminster. The action was one of trespass, and
- the declaration stated that the defendant had entered
Chelsea Hospital, and had taken and seized one seat
from the'Hospital chapel, one table from the common
hall, and one table from one of the sleeping-rooms. .
The plea stated that these buildings had been duly
assessed, and were liable to the sewers-rate of 89i.
;he ss. 6d., payment of which had been refused, and
,1 therefore the goods in question had been distrained.
9 Mr. WATSON on the part of the Commissioners of
e Chelsea Hospital, stated that the chapels and wards
• had been rated at 841. los. 6d., on a rental of 3,3811.,
and the lands to 41. 155., on a rental of 5701., making
a total of 89/. 55. 6d. This portion of the Hospital
had never before been assessed to the sewers-rate.,
It was now assessed as being in the occupation 0!
Mr. Heele, a gentleman who had no occupation in it
whatever.
Lord DENMAN said that the case seemed to MT
very similar to the case of Tracy and Taylor,. whiny`
had.been before the Court the other day ; and as on
that occasion the arguments had been very fully gone
into, the Court would be glad to hear Mr. Keil
(who appeared for the Commissioners of Sewers
offer any arguments to show whether any rate could
be laid on any person other than the occupier of
that
premises ; and also what he had to say to show that
the person rated in the present instance had any
occupation.
Mr. KELLY said that the first point on which it Win;
sought to exempt this portion of Chelsea Hospital
from the payment of sewers-rate was, that it was
Crown property. Now as Chelsea Hospital had
never
been occupied as a Royal Palace, but was held by the
Crown only as trustee for the pensioners who were in
the enjoyment of the benefit of the institution, 111
contended that it was liable to the sewers-rate, and
had been rated in the name of Mr. Heele, the.
Clerk of the Works. By the terms of several
of the statutes of sewers, all lands, without el"
ception, which derived benefit from the sewerage:
were liable to the sewers-rate. No lands were exempt
except those in the actual personal occupation of theA;
Sovereign, and in the use of Netherton and Warne, '
Barnewall and Adolphus, 81, it had been held that
Crown lands were liable to be assessed to the sewers"
rate, whether the Crown had beneficial occupation
not. With regard to the second point that Mr. flair
had no occupation, and therefore was not the Pled
person to be assessed, he (Mr. Kelly) conten
that it was perfectly immaterial, if the lands we'd
liable, who was the person assessed. The object
the assessment was, in the event of payment being he
fused, to enable the Commissioners to enter upon
land liable to the rate, and to seize any chattel ;he%
might find thereon, and sell it for payment °`
rate. It was, therefore, immaterial who was 191
sessed. The Commissioners might if they
on
chosen have assessed one of the pensioners, an ed•
his refusal to pay the rate have entered and Sela
The Learned Gentleman cited several cases in stlYt,
port of this position of his argument. It was admit'
ted that the lands were benefited, therefore they werear J.;
liable to be rated. There was no exception in favete, 't"f
of Crown lands ; being liable, it was utterly inima ot
rial who was the person assessed. In fact, it wos n.t.,.'
necessary to name any one, and therefore he submit"
ted that the Court must give its judgment in fa"
of the defendant's plea.
Mr. 'WATSON, on the other side, contended that th:
assessment was not good, inasmuch as it was not an
assessment upon the lands or tenements, but nr,:e
Mr. Hall ; and inasmuch as Mr. Hall was not in To
occupation of the lands and tenements, he was
wrong person to be assessed, and therefore the ages
s.
ment was void altogether. If he (Mr. Watson),r, hard,
ing no connection whatever with Pembroke Doekla
were to be assessed to a sewers-rate for that dockyard'
and were to traverse, and the Commissioners were
find that he had been properly assessed, would that
contended that therefore they would have a right to
enter that dockyard and distrain, without the et;
missioners of that dockyard having had any 0143°r of
nity of disputing'the assessment, or any knowledge
as ,
the rate having been made ? The present case w
like the • one he had put. The Commissioners had
assessed Mr. Hall, who had no occupation, and there '4,4
fore the rate was void. If the law intended that
land, not the persons, should be assessed by the CI;
missioners of Sewers, what necessity was there 11'y
them to have recourse to the poor-rates ? Cie3l/1
only to ascertain the persons to be assessed. ,v+13133t
the terms of the statutes of Sewers, he submittea,„„,`
the sewers-rate was clearly only assessable upon r
sons as occupiers c,f land. The Learned Coun.s,_
having quoted several authorities in support of tnnii
opinion, submitted that the Court must give judgin,erw
for the plaintiff. The Learned Gentleman hav''''
concluded his argument,
The COURT took time to consider its judgment.
ROSE V. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY. no
Mr. KELLY stated that as there appeared to be
chance of the parties coming to an arrangement
this case, he was !desirous of knowii,g whether the.
Lordships were of opinion that there ought to he 7
rule for a new trial.

Lord DENIIANLWe think there ought.
Rule granted.

AIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
IN THE MATTER OF CAPT. ARCHIBALD DouGLAO:.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, addressing the Cr"
said,—l understand, my Lord, that Captain Dc'a,goui
a. 5
is in attendance before your Lordship under a 1'3'24
corpus, and I have to pray that he may be nharb, t
with the information filed against him, in order 01
he may be committed to the custody of the Marshaif
unless he should give bail., •
Captain Douglas having pleaded not guilty t° ed,
indictment for extortion, under which he was all of
Mr. CHAMBERS said that he appeared on bells" in
Captain Douglas, to make an application the santal.
substance as that made by the Attorney t.
However that point need not be discussed at preseint
But with regard to the amount of bail, the pen.
sought to be recovered here in shape °' ta
sum alleged to have been taken, according'. w
ft;
the expressions of the statute, " by way of gi
not
and which amounted to 12,800/. He did
however, think it would be absolutely essential tog"
bail to the amount of the penaltysought to be
covered. The statute, it was true, required sufficie
security to answer and pay all forfeitures and Penal
:
,
ties for, if the party should be convicted. There wa
a precedent for such a course in the case of the Kilg
v. Stephens and Agnew, reported in sth East. a to
that case the penalty sought to be recovered 10
refer
the same amount, but the course adopted was to of
it to the Attorney-General to say what amount
bail he would require, and he referred it to the enar
of Directors, to receive instructions from them, and
the bail required in that case was 10,0001.
matter °f
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Mat was
arrangement.
Ur. Justice PATTESON—I find there is casea
al
which a person of the name of Holland was proseelneci'
for a similar offence, in the time of Lord Kenyon,°
after hearing Mr. Erskine the Court ordered bail for
the lowest amount of penalty mentioned in that info
mation, namely, 20,0001. and two sureties in 10,00°6
each.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—That was Under the
old statute.
Mr. CHAMBERS—Perhaps, then, the better course
would be to allow the case to stand over
of Directors are communicated with a"e
, and it be r
thew tamed from them whether they will require the I
amount, or will be satisfied with less.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—I see no objection to that
course. till the Cun.r.t.

... tie ATTORNEY-GENERAL-1 have no objection,
my Lord. lam sure the Court of Directors will id-
ford every convenience to a person in Capt. D
ougln'''s,
situation ; but I think your Lordship would be boo
to to take the highest sum. In the case of Stephens and
sum l received
carse
aategifatn.
ilmtpheidnilmcnemn
Agnew the fine was 5,000/, and imprisonment for
two years besides, or the forfeiture of 112,800/., th°
f •flg• the pis 1
mlttell'iro your Lordship mi.
M Lordship. I think your Lordsh ~- ip
must require bail to the full amount. i.l-I;ltir
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Mr. Chambers need nc't ‘ ..iorl
apply to have this gentlem • • I
yt
Learnedy
i• e err
an ballet at the p
resent
moment ; he w ld custody -its:r
ou then be committed to the custo „ ,
of the
Marshal, and an l'c tio to bail him out
could be made at a
thaeprp time.ia nln the meantime ..s.,t,
application may be made
oto theof D. tors.
Court irec
. Mr. Chambers havin concurred in the suggestion
of the Learned Judge, Capt. Douglas
withdrew in
the custody iiirieild ,
~,.),
of the public officer.
IN THE MATTER OF GENERAL ROBERTSON.—AFPLICA,
TION FOR A CRIMINAL INFORMATION. ,
The Ayr ORNEY-GENERAL applied al ~,
for a crimi ,
,tl'
info • •
imation against a gentleman who was making, / ,A
some applications to the Court of Directors of tne
.di
East India Company of a very extraordinary nature. 1:141.
General Robertson, one of the Directors, stated In -.7;:,di
his affidavit that he received, about the 11th of Octo: : .1 „?,
ber, 1841, a letter enclosed in an envelope, addressed . 9;i id
to him at the India-house. It Was dated Hampton.; , _-•!,4.
Sussex, 10th October, and was signed "11. Sharpe]. : -.4',_,,,f
The letter, after apologising to General Robertson ,-o,7i_ ,
for writing on such a subject, stated that he had a •
raro,
• and ~. ,
young friend who was desirous of a cadetship,. ~ 0, A
that as he was himself known to many of the Three- , ~
.r.... 01
tors, he took the liberty of addressing him on the „,41.; 0J
subject. It also stated that he was the son of Lient••,..:lllj,, pi
General Sharpnel, who voted for him (General 11'9;,1-t
bertson), and that he iwas intimately aqua'nteu
with many of the aristocracy, and concholed

410