From this sentence the present appeal was brought. Mr. Roebuck, Q.C., and Mr. Mellor, for the Ap- This sentence cannot stand; the rates are invalid and illegal. First: No proof is given of the liability of the inhabitants of Romford, to the charge of the Hornchurch rates. Romford is a vicarage; and the inhabitants appoint their own parochial officers. In the Statute 26 Geo. III., c. 28, providing for the poor of Romford, it is called, the parish church of Romford. It is clear, therefore, that it is independent of Hornchurch, and that the churchwardens of Hornchurch have no right to impose rates upon the inhabitants of Romford, for the repair of the parish church of Hornchurch. Secondly: No due legal notices were given for holding the vestries, at which the rates in question were made. The 1st Vict., c. 45, provides, that notices be placed on or near the doors of all the churches and chapels in the parish. No satisfactory evidence has been given that these notices were so placed: the rates, therefore, must be quashed. Regina v. Whipp (a), Blunt v. Harwood (b). But, thirdly, The substantial point is, that the rates are partly retrospective, and partly for illegal objects, and, therefore, void. The King v. The Churchwardens of Dursley (c) is conclusive. It singularly resembles the present case. The sum borrowed, and to be repaid by the church-rates, in either case, was the same, namely, for expenses incurred in past years. There, however, it came before the Court of Queen's Bench, by way of an application (a) 10 Law Journal, N. S. 68. (c) 5. Ad. & Ell. 10. VOL. IV. 2 E (b) 8 Ad. & Ell. 610. 1844. PIGGOTT v. BEARBLOCK. 1844. PIGGOTT v. BEARBLOCK. for a mandamus, to compel the Churchwardens to make a rate, which the Court refused, on the ground that such a rate, if made, would be illegal. So in Chesterton v. Farler (a), this Court quashed a rate for being retrospective. Lastly: The rates are excessive, and therefore illegal. Smith & Willis v. Dixon (b), White & Jackson v. Beard (c), Lambert & Simpson v. Weall (d). Dr. Addams for the Respondent. : The first objection, that Hornchurch is not part of the parish of Romford, cannot be supported; it is not the fact but were it so, it is not open to the Appellant to raise it, for it is not pleaded, or alleged, that Romford is a separate parish; the allegation only states that they have distinct parochial jurisdiction, in the appointment of their officers. The objection to the notices for calling the vestries, if tenable, are too late; they ought to have been taken before the rates were confirmed. The same reason applies to the objections to the payments made it is said that they are for past demands, that the rates are, therefore, retrospective, and, as such, bad. If the items complained of, were improper, they ought to have been objected to on the passing of the Churchwardens' accounts; that was the proper period at which to make the objection. The learned Judge below, said he would not give a party refusing to pay eight shillings, an opportunity of ripping up the parish accounts: the mischief and vexation, if such were the law, is obvious. The King v. The Churchwardens of Dursley, relied upon by the Appellant, is not conclusive. The present case is (a) 2 Moore's P. C. Cases, 330. (b) 2 Curt. 268. distinguishable. The question there being, as to the fitness of granting a mandamus, under the particular circumstances of the case; and the refusal of it does not amount to a decision, that a rate for such purpose would be invalid. The sentence appealed from is justly founded, and ought to be maintained. Lord BROUGHAM: Their Lordships do not think it necessary to decide upon the questions raised in the course of the argument, as to the liability of the inhabitants of Romford, as parishioners of Hornchurch, or as to the due publication of any of the notices required by law; for we are of opinion, that we have no option but to reverse the decision of the Court below, upon the more material ground, namely, that the payment out of the rates, of money previously borrowed or expended, makes the rates retrospective, and therefore illegal, and will vitiate such rates. This view dispenses with all consideration or discussion upon the other points. Take the accounts in any way, it appears, that the sums objected to, constitute a sixth of the whole rate. The case of The King v. The Churchwardens of Dursley is conclusive; for, if the mandamus had been granted, it would have been equivalent to a declaration, that the rate in question was good; but the mandamus having been refused, the conclusion is equally clear, that the rate was bad. The Court, in that case, did not make or lay down any new law, but only declared the law as it existed before the Statute 59 Geo III., c. 134, which did not except the operation of the previous known law, that a rate, if retrospective, was bad. Upon this ground, we have come to the conclusion, that we have no option, but to reverse the sentence appealed from, in 1844. PIGGOTT ย. BEARBLOCK. 1844. PIGGOTT v. BEARBLOCK. cluding, of course, that part which condemns the Appellant in the payment of the costs in the Courts below; but, in the circumstances of the case, no costs will be given on either side, either here or in the Court below. By an Order in Council, bearing date the 23rd day of May 1844, it was ordered, "that the Appeal decreed from be reversed, and the principal cause returned; that the said John Bearblock and Richard Harding Newman, ought to be pronounced to have failed in proof of the libel, given in and admitted on their behalf, in the Court below; and that the said Charles Piggott ought to be dismissed from the original citation served upon him, and from all further observance of justice in this cause." 1844. The rejection of a witness, in the course of the hearing of a cause, in the Ecclesi astical Court, THIS suit came before the Court, on the protest of May 17th, the Respondent against the Appellants' right of Appeal; and arose out of a cause, of proving in solemn form of law, the alleged last Will and Testament of John Edwards, of Leamington Priors, in the county of Warwick, bearing date the 2nd day of May 1835, and was depending in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, between the Appellants, as the executors named in the alleged Will, the parties promoting the cause, and the Respondent, as the nephew and one of the of kin of the deceased, against whom the cause was promoted. Allegations having been given in, admitted, and several witnesses examined in support thereof on both sides, the cause was concluded, and next and * Present: The Lord President (Lord Wharncliffe), Lord Brougham, the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, and the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh. of interest, on the ground is not of itself an appealable grievance: the hearing tinuous act, being one conand an Appeal being competent, after sentence, from any compartment of the cause. A party in a cause in the Ecclesiastical Court, in consequence of the rejection by the Court, of a material witness, withdrew himself from the further contest of the cause; the Judge decreed the cause in pain of his contumacy. Held by the Judicial Committee, that such withdrawal was not contumacious, so as to preclude him from his right of Appeal from the sentence. |