Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mr. Kotwal has relied on the case of Reg, v. Fordham, (1839) 11 Ad. & El. 73. In that case, on July 3, 1838, a rate was made and allowed by the magistrates, duly published, and afterwards partially collected. In this rate the properties rated were not numbered according to the schedule annexed to the stat. 6 & 7 Will. IV, c 96; but the numbers were for the most part wholly omitted, or else attached to the names of the occupiers instead of the properties. The columns intended for the number of votes were left entirely in blank. The names of many persons were inserted without any sums being carried out against them in the assessment. In many cases the column which should contain the name of the occupier was left entirely in blank, without even the word "ditto" under the name immediately preceding the blank; and the column which should contain the arrears due or excused was improperly left in blank. The appellants and others having refused to pay the sums for which they were therein rated, summonses were obtained against them 7-8-1833. The parties summoned appeared before the magistrates 14th August and three warrants of distress were granted, but not acted upon by the respondents, in consequence of their solicitor afterwards considering the rate bad and void. The parish officers of Fordham, considering the rate of 3rd July a nullity, on 21st August ensuing made another rate. That rate had various defects on the face of. it also. No entry was made under the head (c) of "Amount not recoverable, or legally excused." On appeal by the poor of the pariah of Eordham, the sessions, on preliminary objections, queshed both the rates and referred the matter to the Court of Queen's Bench. The Court of Queen's Bench affirmed the first rate and sot aside the order of the sessions by which the first rate was quashed. As the first rate was affirmed, the order of the sessions regarding the quashing of the second rate was confirmed.