The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-03-31 00:00:00

NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY.

REFUSAL TO PAY CHURCH RATES.--RAMSDOTTOM V.
DUCKWORTH AND OTHERS.

Mr. Martin and Mr. Segar appeared for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowley for the defendant.
Mr. KNOWLES stated the facts of the case. The plain-
tiff was a farmer living in the township of Shuttleworth,
in the parish of Bury, but also living in the chapelry of
Edenfield. One of the defendants was chapel-warden,
and in the exercise of his office it became his duty to en-
force a rate, out of which the present proceedings arose.
The chapelry of Edenfield was in the parish of Bury, but
for ecclesiastical purposes it was independent of it. It was
a porochial chapelry, having its own chapel, and they. fore
administering the rites of christening and burial, which
his lordship was aware distinguished a parochial chapel
from a chapel of ease. It had always been a custom to
impose a rate for the repair of the chapel, &c. The rate,
however, was generally very low. The defendant Duck-
worth was appointed chapel-warden in March, 1844, and
in September of that year he gave due notice of a meeting
to impose a rate, which meeting took place accordingly.
The plaintiff's proportion of the rate was Is. 7d. This he
refused to pay, alleging as his only reason that he was a
dissenter;—and his cow had been seized, but afterwards
returned to him, and the question was whether the defen-
dant was at all justified in taking it.

Evidence of the facts having been given,
Mr. Martin then urged a number of legal objections.
The principal one was, that in the information and sum-
mons, the money was stated to be due to John Atkin and
Lawrence Duckworth, chapel-wardens of the chapelry of
Edenfield, whereas, John Atkin was not at the time one
of the wardens; and in the avowry and order the name of
Duckworth alone appeared.
His Lordship noted the objections to allow of their con-
sideration in another court.
Mr. Martin then proceeded to address the jury on be-
half of the plaintiff. The statute required that before a
rate could he imposed, certain steps should be taken, and
before it was justifiable to issue an order, it was necessary
that the party should refuse or neglect to pay the rate ;
and he submitted that the refusal should be made to
some person authorised to receive it, which he contended
had not been so in the present case.
The learned Judge then summed up, and stated that
the only question at present to decide was whether there
was reasonable ground to suppose that the order had been
duly served, and that there had been a neglect or refusal
to pay.

The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff, finding the order had been duly served—damages is.

ALLEGED BREACH OF AGREEMENT.

WILLIAMSON:V. BAXTER.—This was an action to re-
cover compensation for the breach of an agreement,
whereby the defendant, who is a reed manufacturer, in
Manchester, agreed to sell for £3BO a piece of land, with
the premises. steam-engine, &c., thereon erected, in
Allen-street, Manchester, to the plaintiff, who is a bobbin
turner, in Ancoat's-street. The case of the plaintiff was
that the defendant had authorised Mr. James Smith,
house and land agent, to sell the premises in question,
and that Mr. Smith, in virtue of this authority, entered
into a written agreement to sell the premises to Mr. Wil-
liamson, who, in consequence of this agreement, paid £lO
deposit; that defendant approved of the sale, but subse-
quently refused to transfer the property to plaintiff, and
sold it to another party. The plaintiff, therefore, sought
to recover the £lO deposit, and some compensation for
the loss of his bargain. The jury found for the defen-
dant.