Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

untenable. I agree with the view taken by the Master of the Rolls and Stirling L.J. as to the damages.

C. A.

1904

WATSON

[blocks in formation]

Solicitors for appellants: T. B. & W. Nelson, for Nelson, Eddisons & Lupton, Leeds.

Solicitors for respondents: Clements, Williams & Co., for Brown, Wilkin & Scott, Wakefield.

WORTH.

E. L.

IMPERIAL AND GRAND HOTELS COMPANY,
LIMITED v. CHRISTCHURCH GUARDIANS.

Poor-rate-Appeal - Notice of Objection-Time - Poor Relief Act, 1743 (17 Geo. 2, c. 38), s. 4—Union Assessment Committee Act Amendment Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 39), s. 1.

By the Poor Relief Act, 1743, s. 4, it is enacted that any person aggrieved by any rate may appeal to the next quarter sessions.

The Union Assessment Committee Act Amendment Act, 1864, s. 1, provides that "no person shall be empowered to appeal to any sessions against a poor-rate made in conformity with the valuation list approved of by the assessment committee unless he shall have given notice of objection against the said list and shall have failed to obtain . . . . relief ....; and which objection after notice given at any time. . . . the committee shall hear . . . ."

The appellants during the currency of a rate gave notice of objection against the valuation list, and, having failed to obtain relief from the assessment committee, appealed to the quarter sessions held next after the decision of the committee. Two meetings of the committee and one Court of quarter sessions had been held after the making of the rate and before the notice of objection was given:

Held, that the notice of objection having been given during the currency of the rate, and it not having been proved that the appellants had been guilty of unreasonable delay, the appeal to quarter sessions was in time.

CASE stated by the Recorder of Bournemouth.

At the Court of quarter sessions held in and for the borough of Bournemouth upon January 2, 1904, the Imperial and Grand Hotels Company, Limited, appealed against a rate made

1904 Nov. 3, 18.

1904

IMPERIAL

AND GRAND HOTELS COMPANY

by the overseers of the parish of Bournemouth in the Christchurch Union upon April 21, 1903, the appellants (1) having objected to the valuation list before a meeting of the assessment committee of the respondent union held upon November 12, 1903, and failed to obtain relief thereat as required by s. 1 of the Union Assessment Committee Act Amendment Act, 1864 GUARDIANS. (27 & 28 Vict. c. 39). When the said appeal was called on for hearing, counsel for the respondents objected that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, inasmuch as the appellants had not appealed to the next quarter sessions for the borough as required by s. 4 of the Poor Relief Act, 1743 (17 Geo. 2, c. 38).

CHRIST-
CHURCH

The following admitted facts were relied upon by counsel for the respondents in support of their objection :—

The rate appealed against was made upon April 21, 1903, to provide for expenses to be incurred before March 31, 1904, payable by two equal instalments, the first payable on May 1, 1903, and the second on November, 1, 1903.

The assessment committee of the respondent union held meetings for the purpose of hearing objections to the valuation list, of which due notice was given, upon May 15, August 13, and November 12, 1903.

Courts of quarter sessions were held upon June 27 and October 27, 1903.

The appellants first gave notice of objection to the valuation list on which the rate was based on October 26, 1903, and the said objection was heard by the assessment committee at their meeting held on November 12, 1903.

The appellants on December 5, 1903, gave due notice of appeal to the quarter sessions to be holden on January 2, 1904. The appellants had paid the first instalment of the rate which became payable on May 1, 1903, in the month of August, 1903, before they gave the said notice of objection to the valuation list.

The recorder overruled the objection, being of opinion that in the circumstances above stated the appeal was made to

(1) The terms appellants and respondents are used throughout with

reference to the position of the parties

at sessions.

the next quarter sessions for the borough within the meaning of the Poor Relief Act, 1743, s. 4, and the Union Assessment Committee Act Amendment Act, 1864, s. 1.

Having heard the appeal on the merits upon January 2, 1904, the recorder delivered judgment therein on April 12, 1904, in favour of the appellants, with costs, and ordered that the gross estimated rental of the Imperial Hotel be reduced from 15007. to 13257., and that of the Grand Hotel from 20501. to 15301., but inasmuch as the appellants had not taken steps, as they might have done, to appeal against the rate at an earlier date, the recorder ordered that the alteration of the assessment should only operate in respect of the second instalment of the rate, and refused to order that the excess paid by the appellants in respect of the first instalment should be refunded to them or allowed off the second instalment.

Counsel for the appellants contended that the recorder was bound to order that the excess paid by the appellants in respect of the first instalment should be refunded. The recorder,

however, refused to vary his order.

The questions for the Court were:—

(1.) Whether the recorder was right in holding that the appellants were not out of time in bringing their appeal, and that he had jurisdiction to hear their said appeal.

(2.) If the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, whether the recorder was right in ordering that the alteration made by him in the rate should only apply to the second instalment thereof.

If the answer to the first question were in the negative, the appeal against the rate was to be dismissed and judgment was to be entered for the respondents.

If the answer to the second question were in the affirmative, the order to stand; if in the negative, the order to be varied and the Court was to make such order as the Court should think fit.

Ryde and Francke, for the respondents. Under s. 4 of the Poor Relief Act, 1743, an appeal against a rate must be made to the next quarter sessions after the making of the

1904

IMPERIAL
AND
GRAND
HOTELS
COMPANY

V.

CHRIST-
CHURCH

GUARDIANS.

1904

AND GRAND

rate. That has been construed to mean the next practicable IMPERIAL quarter sessions. Then, by s. 1 of the Union Assessment Committee Act Amendment Act, 1864, it is provided that there shall be no appeal to sessions unless the appellant shall have given notice of objection to the assessment committee and shall have failed to obtain relief. The effect of those two GUARDIANS. Sections read together is that in considering what are the next

HOTELS COMPANY

V.

CHRIST-
CHURCH

practicable sessions regard must be had to the fact that an appellant before coming to quarter sessions has first of all to go before the assessment committee. In the present case a meeting of the committee was held on May 15, and it is not suggested that the appellants could not have given their notice of objection in time for that meeting. If they had done so, the appeal could have been brought to the quarter sessions held on June 27. Those sessions must, therefore, be taken to be the next practicable sessions after the making of the rate. The recorder had, therefore, no jurisdiction to hear the appeal at the January sessions. The appellants will rely on the provision in s. 1 of the Act of 1864, that the notice of objection may be given "at any time," the contention being, it would seem, that the effect of those words is that a rate can, since that Act, be appealed against at any time, even ten years, after it has been made. This is tantamount to saying that the Act of 1864 has repealed so much of s. 4 of the Act of 1743 as enacts that the appeal shall be to the next quarter sessions. That this is not so is abundantly clear from the authorities. The words "at any time" were introduced into s. 1 of the Act of 1864 for a totally different purpose. The assessment committee was brought into existence by the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862. That Act, while leaving unaffected the old right of appeal to sessions, provided for notice of objection to the valuation list to be made to the assessment committee, and the committee, after hearing the objection, was empowered to make alterations and corrections in the list, and the list when approved by the committee remained in force until a new list was made (s. 24). A difficulty arose under the Act, because under s. 18 the notice of objection had to be given within twenty-eight days of the notice of deposit of the list,

1904

IMPERIAL

AND GRAND HOTELS COMPANY

v.

CHRIST

and, if that time had elapsed and the time for appealing to quarter sessions had passed, a person aggrieved had no means of redress, although it might be the case that he was not in occupation of his premises at the time the list was made, and therefore could not have objected to the list or appealed; and as valuation lists were only made at irregular intervals, he might remain for years subject to an erroneous valuation. It GUARDIANS. was solely for the purpose of meeting that difficulty that the Act of 1864 introduced the words "at any time," and thus did away with the necessity for a twenty-eight days' notice of objection.

[The following cases were referred to: Reg. v. Great Western Ry. Co. (1); Reg. v. Biggleswade Union (2); Liverpool Gas Co. v. Everton (3); Reg. v. Wiltshire Justices (4); Reg. v. West Riding Justices. (5)]

Clavell Salter, K.C., and Haydon, for the appellants. The reason why the appeal to quarter sessions under the Poor Relief Act, 1743, had to be brought to the next practicable quarter sessions after the making of the rate was that the Act gave a general right of appeal to every person aggrieved by the rate, and the making of the rate was the grievance of which the appellant complained. The Act of 1862 enabled the assessment committee to give relief in the matter of over-valuation; but with regard to the current rate, the remedy was still by appeal to quarter sessions. Sect. 1 of the Act of 1864 deals with two matters: first, procedure; and, secondly, the right of appeal. The direct right of appeal to sessions is taken away, and notice of objection must in every case be first given to the assessment committee, and the committee is empowered, not only to deal with the question of valuation, but also to give relief against the current rate. If the decision of the committee is in favour of the appellant, there is no necessity for any appeal to the quarter sessions. As there is no right of appeal until there has been a refusal of relief by the committee, the grievance in respect of which the appeal lies is, since the (1) (1874) 38 J. P. 822. (2).(1869) 21 L. T. 494.

(3) (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 414.
(4) (1879) 4Q. B. D. 326.

(5) (1858) E. B. & E. 713.

CHURCH

« PředchozíPokračovat »