The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

COURT OF QUEETV'S BENCH, Nov. 18.

NEAVE C. 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 Chel-
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
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 891.
ss. 6d., payment of which had Wen refused, and
therefore the goods in question had been distrained.
Mr. WATSON, on the part of the Commissioners of
Chelsea Hospital, stated that the chapels and wards
had been rated at 841. 10s. 6d., on a rental of 3,381/.,
and the lands to 4/. 155., on a rental of 5701., making
a total of 89/. ss. 6d. This portion of the Hospital
had never before been assessed to the sewers-rate.
It was now assessed as being in the occupation of
Mr. Heele, a gentleman who had no occupation in it
whatever.

Lord DEN3IAN said that the case seemed to him
very similar to the case of Tracy and Taylor, which
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. Kelly
(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 the
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 was
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, he
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 ex-
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 the
Sovereign, and in the use of Netherton and Warne, 4;
I3arnewall 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 or
not. With regard to the second point that Mr. Hall
had no occupation, and therefore was not the proper
person to be assessed, he (Mr. Kelly) contended
that it was perfectly immaterial, if the lands were
liable, who was the person assessed. The object of
the assessment was, in the event of payment being re-
fused, to enable the Commissioners to enter upon the
land liable to the rate, and to seize any chattel they
might find thereon, and sell it for payment of the
rate. It was, therefore, immaterial who was as-
sessed. The Commissioners might if they had
chosen have assessed one of the pensioners, and on
his refusal to pay the rate have entered and seized.
The Learned Gentleman cited several cases in sup-
port of this position of his argument. It was admit-
ted that the lands were benefited, therefore they were
liable to be rated. There was no exception in favour
of Crown lands ; being liable, it was utterly immate-
rial who was the person assessed. In fact, it was not
necessary to name any one, and therefore he submit-
ted that the Court must give its judgment in favour
of the defendant's plea.
Mr. WATSON, on the other side, contended that the
assessment was not good, inasmuch as it was not an
assessment upon the lands or tenements, but upon
Mr. Hall ; and inasmuch as Mr. Hall was not in the
occupation of the lands and tenements, he was the
wrong person to be assessed, and therefore the assess-
ment was void altogether. If he (Mr. Watson), hav-
ing no connection whatever with Pembroke Dockyard,
were to be assessed to a sewers-rate for that dockyard,
and were to traverse, and the Commissioners were to
find that he had been properly assessed, would that be
contended that therefore they would have a right to
enter that dockyard and distrain, without the Com-
missioners of that dockyard having had any opportu-
nity of disputing the assessment, or any knowledge of
the rate having been made ? The present case was
like the one he had put. The Commissioners had
assessed Mr. Hall, who had no occupation, and there-
fore the rate was void. If the law intended that the
land, not the persons, should be assessed by the Com-
missioners of Sewer*, what necessity was there for
them to have recourse to the poor-rates ? Clearly
only to ascertain the persons to be assessed. Upon
the terms of the statutes of Sewers, he submitted that
the sewers-rate was clearly only assessable upon per-
sons as occupiers s,f land. The Learned Counsel
having quoted several authorities in support of this
opinion, submitted that the Court must give judgment
for the plaintiff. The Learned Gentleman having
concluded his argument,
The Couesr took time to consider its judgment.
ROSE C. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.
_ _

Mr. KELLY stated that as there appeared to be no
chance of the parties coming to an arrangement in
this case, he was :desirous of knowi►ig whether their
Lordships were of opinion that there ought to be a
rule for a new trial.

Lord DENMAN—We think there ought.
Rule granted.

COOKE V. PEARSON.

The plaintiff in this case had invented an improved
German shutter for carriages, for which he had taken
out a patent, and he had sued defendant for an
infringement of that patent. The action had been
tried, and the Jury had returned a special verdict, so
as to have the opinion of the Court on the point as to
whether the title of the patent was too large. The
title of the patent was for certain improvements in
carriages. It was contended on the one side, that as
the invention was applicable to a small portion
of a small number of carriages only, and not to
carriages generally, the title was too large, and
the patent, therefore, void; and on the other that
the title was not too large, that there was no
case that could be quoted on the other side, and that,
therefore, the patent was good.
The Attorney-General argued the case for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Erie for the defendant.

The COURT took time to consider its judgment.

BAIL COURT, 11Tov. 18.

IN_ THE MATTER OF CAPT. ARCIIIBALD DOUGLAS.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, addressing. the Court,
said,--I understand, my Lord, that Captain Douglas
is in attendance before your Lordship under a habeas
corpus, and I have to pray that he may be charged
withhe m
a3th, the information
comintt
ea t
filo theed against
custody
in order that
u lceas
ps
thae should give
i n Douglas b
ai bail.
having
pleaded not
indictment for extortion, under whichhegut guilty to the
was
charged,
h
Mr. CHAMBERS said that he appeared on e
Captain Douglas, to make an application the -
alf
of
same
substance as that made by the Attorney Gera
However that point need not be discussed at present.ne.
But with regard to the amount off` bail, the penalty
sought to be recovered here in shape of a
sum alleged to have been taken, according to
the expressions of the statute, " by way of gift,.,
and which amounted to 12,8001. He did not
however, think it would be absolutely essential to give
bail to the amount of the penalty sought to be re-
covered. The statute, it was true, required sufficient
security to answer and pay all forfeitures and penal-
ties, if the party, should be convicted. There was
a precedent for such a course in the case of the King
v. Stephens and Agnew, reported in sth East. In
that case the penalty sought to be recovered was to
the same amount, but the course adopted was to refer
it to the Attorney-General to say what amount of
bail he would require, and he referred it to the Court
of Directors, to receive instructions from them, and
the bail required in that case was 10,0001.
The ATToam.rr-GENERAL---That was matter of
arrangement.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—I find there is a case in
which a person of the name of Holland was prosecuted
for a similar offence, in the time of Lord Kenyon, and
after hearing Mr. Erskine the Court ordered bail for
the lowest amount of penalty mentioned in that infor-
mation, namely, 20,0001. and two sureties in 10,0001
each.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAI,--That was under the
old statute.

Mr. CRAMBERS—Perhaps, then, the better course
would be to allow the case to stand over till the Court
of Directors are communicated with, and it be ascer-
tained from them whether they will require the whole
amount, or will be satisfied with less.
Mr. Justice PA.Trzso.N—l see no objection to that
course.

The ATTORNEY-GIINERAL—I have no objection,
my Lord. lam sure the Court of Directors will af-
ford every convenience to a person in Capt. Douglas's
situation ; but I think your Lordship would be bound
to take the highest sum. In the case of Stephens and
Agnew the fine was 5,0001., and imprisonment for
two years besideq, or the forfeiture of 12,8001., the
sum received as a gift. I think my Learned Friend
will rather create an impediment by referring the
matter from your Lordship. I think your Lordship
must require bail to the full amount.
Mr. Justice PATTESON----14r.• Chambers need not
apply to have this gentleman bailed at the present
moment ; he would then be committed to the custody
of the Marshal, and an application to bail him out
could be made at any other time.. In the meantime
application may be made to the Court of Directors.
Mr. Chambers having concurred in the suggestion
of the 'Learned Judge, Capt. :Douglas withdrew in
the custody of the public died.