1834. Nov. 19. [216] [217] REX v. GWYER AND MANLEY. (2 Adol. & Ellis, 216-229; S. C. 4 N. & M. 138; L. J. (N. S.) Overseers of the poor may not charge the parishioners, in their accounts, with the following payments: For making poor rates; For making divisions of the same; For making copy of the same for the collectors; Payments to an accountant for examining, making up, and entering the accounts of the year, and list of defaulters on the rates; Poundage paid for collecting the rates; Although such charges have been authorized by resolutions of vestry. A parishioner appealed against overseers' accounts for the year, containing the above items. Three rates, (referred to by the items,) had been made during the year. The appellant was assessed to the second only, but he was assessed to the rates of the following year, and until the time of the appeal. Some of the above items related to periods not within the time for which the appellant was rated. It did not appear which of the rates was applied to any of the disbursements objected to: Held, that the appeal lay. The ON appeal against the accounts of Henry Wyndham Gwyer and Samuel Manley, as overseers of the poor of the parish of Bedminster in the county of Somerset, at the instance of Richard Lindsey Sutton, the Sessions allowed some of the items, wholly disallowed others, and disallowed some subject to a case. appeal was against two accounts; one, for the period from the 25th of March to the 29th of September, 1832, the other, from the last mentioned day to the 25th of March, 1833. The case was as follows: The appellant was a parishioner of Bedminster, and rated in the second only of three rates made during the year. The first rate was made April 26th, 1832; the second, October 4th, 1832; the third, February 11th, 1833. The appellant was also rated from the 25th of March, 1833, to the time of the appeal. Some of the items objected to in the notice of appeal, and disallowed by the Sessions, were the following: 61. 68. for making the poor-rates in October, 1832, and February, 1833. 51. 58. for making two divisions of the same. 31. 10s. for making a copy of the said rates for the collectors. 12l. 6s. paid to the accountant for examining, making up, and entering the accounts of the year, and the list of defaulters in each of the three rates. 661. 198. 9d. paid poundage for collecting 2,6797. 148. 6d. Two other items of 331. 1s. 3d. and 11. 13s. 6d., for like poundage. The parish of Bedminster is twenty-one miles in circumference, and contains a population of 13,000 persons. The sums collected for the relief of the poor amounted in each year to 8,000l. and upwards. In the year from March, 1832, to March, 1833, there were, as usual, two churchwardens and four overseers. Before this year the parish had an assistant overseer, but there was no evidence of his appointment. The parish had employed an accountant to make up their accounts, and when a new rate was made, the accountant was employed to draw out a list of defaulters, and such list, for the three rates made in this year, occupied 150 folio sheets. In this year the vestry allowed a clerk a salary of 50l. to assist the overseer, but it was no part of his duty as clerk to do any business for which any of the sums above mentioned are charged. The affairs of this parish are managed by a common-law vestry, and, at a vestry duly held on the 2nd of April, 1832, it was resolved "That, in the present embarrassed state of the parish, no assistant overseer or overseers be elected, but that power be given to the present overseers to call in what assistance they may stand in need of." This was signed by the chairman of the meeting, and remained in the book in which the *resolutions of the parish were generally entered, and which each parishioner had power to inspect. Under the authority of this resolution the several sums hereinbefore mentioned were expended by the overseers who required assistance. The sums paid for poundage were paid to collectors for collecting the monies due on the three rates. Besides the general resolution before mentioned, the vestry, duly held on the 9th of September, 1831, came to the resolution following (which was entered in the same book): and one question for the opinion of the Court was, whether this, not having been passed during the overseers' year, was admissible REX v. GWYER. [ *219 ] [221] "Resolved that Mr. in evidence on the present appeal? (1) On the 4th of October, 1832, at a similar vestry, it was resolved, "That a rate of 4s. in the pound be granted to the overseers for the relief of the poor, and that the sum of 4d. in the pound be allowed the overseers for collecting the same." This rate was collected by certain collectors, who received for their labour the before-mentioned sum of 331. 1s. 3d., being *4d. in the pound on monies collected by them upon the said rate. At a meeting of the same vestry, on the 21st of February, 1833, at which the appellant was present, it was "Resolved that Mr. James Blake and Mr. John Hurford be appointed collectors for the third rate for the present year, and that they be respectively paid 6d. in the pound on the amount of their collection, and that the sum be allowed in the present overseers' accounts." The appellant did not sign this resolution. Under the sanction of it, Mr. Blake and Mr. Hurford collected the third rate and received 11. 138. 6d., being the poundage on their respective collections. All the other sums, herein-before mentioned were paid by the overseers to other persons for work bonâ fide done. The charges were reasonable and fair. The question for the opinion of the Court was, whether, under any of these resolutions, or otherwise, the overseers had any authority to include these items in their accounts? LORD DENMAN, Ch. J.: This was an appeal against overseers' accounts from the 25th of March, 1832, to the *25th of March, 1833; and it has been contended that the appellant, not having been a rated parishioner during the whole of that time, cannot object to such part of the accounts as related to the expenditure before that period for which he was rated. I think, however, that he was at liberty to do so, because he had an interest in all the money that came to the hands of the overseers during the periods in question. As the surplus of that money was reduced, the subsequent assessments upon him would probably be greater in proportion, and therefore, if there was an illegal application of the fund, he is not precluded from objecting to it. The question then is, whether the Sessions were right or not in disallowing the items mentioned in the case. Circumstances are stated which go to make it extremely reasonable that they should be allowed; but the question is, whether there be any such power. The items are not distinguishable in principle. Cases may be supposed where, in default of such allowance, a very heavy burden will be thrown upon overseers; but, unless the law provides for such cases, the inconvenience cannot, be avoided. Now I see no difference between refusing the overseer a salary, and refusing the means by which he may employ another person at a salary; if one cannot be granted, neither can the other; and that being so, Rex v. Welch (1), Rex v. The Earl of Ashburnham (2), and Rex v. Glyde (3) are authorities which cannot be got over. The situation of the overseers in this respect is that of all persons upon whom the law casts burdensome duties without remuneration. It is said that a part of this expenditure had been expressly consented to by the parishioners in vestry; but in Rex v. Welch (1) the appointment of an assistant overseer at a salary had been agreed to in the same way. It is impossible to make these proceedings in vestry a contract, to bind the right of any person who chooses to appeal. A vestry cannot bind the parishioners by acts which it is not authorized to do. The (1) 1 Bott, c. 3, s. 4, pl. 346, p. 341, 6th ed. (2) 2 Nol. P. L. c. 35, s. 8, 462, note (4), 4th ed. REX v. GWYER. [224] [ *225] [*226 ] REX 2. GWYER. [ *227 ] respondents do not contend that the overseers in this case have acted in execution of the particular powers given by 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 7. It appears to me that that clause gives the true remedy for the inconvenience now complained of; namely, by appointing assistant overseers in the manner there pointed out (1). It is unfortunate that that was not done here. Upon the whole, I am of opinion that these expenses, however reasonable and necessary, and however they may have been for the benefit of the parish, are not such as the overseers in the execution of their office could bring upon the parishioners; and therefore not such as could be charged in these accounts. TAUNTON, J.: I am of the same opinion. Although the charges may have been reasonable, still, if the Court sees that they were not necessarily connected with the fulfilment by these parties of their office as overseers, they cannot be allowed. In Mr. Wilcock's treatise on "The Laws relating to the Ordering, Relief, and Settlement of the Poor," which, as far as I have seen, is a very useful compendium, the law is thus stated (2): "They" (the overseers)" are entitled to charge in their accounts whatever they have spent for the parish under the direction of any statute, order of justices, or legal process; whatever they have bona fide and legally disbursed in relieving paupers, where it was their duty to relieve, in providing stock for the children of indigent parents and persons having no means of gaining a livelihood, in the disposal of stock for these purposes, for the costs of orders of maintenance or removal, or of an appeal, though decided against them, unless they have been guilty of gross misconduct, or of neglecting to consult the vestry as to the propriety of proceeding in it when there was convenient opportunity, in repaying the legal disbursements of constables, and all other money fairly laid out in the business of the parish." And several instances of charges which the overseers may or may not make, are given, by way of illustration, from cases (1) See now also The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834 (4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76), s. 46, and The District Auditors Act, 1879 (42 Vict. c. 6), s. 4.- (2) P. 281. |