View report page

40
by virtue of the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897. The overseers and
their successors, the Council, while willing to make liberal allowances,
having regard to the charitable nature of the Institution,
could not agree to its total exemption from rating, and contended
that the main object of the Institution was to form a home for the
children.
The Court held that the Patriotic Commissioners had failed
to make out their case and judgment was given for the Council,
with costs.
Rastell Avenue Paving. 31.—In July, 1901, the Council decided to pave Rastell
Avenue upon which a portion of Tooting Bee
Common abuts at the cost of the owners of property
abutting thereon and (following the decision in the case of
"Fulham Vestry v. Minter") a charge of £319: 9: 9 was made
upon the London County Council in respect of the Common. The
County Council disputed their liability and a summons was
issued against them and an order for payment made by the
magistrate in December, 1901. The County Council appealed
against the order of the Magistrate and the appeal was heard in
the Divisional Court (the Lord Chief Justice: Darling and
Channell, J.J.) on the 23rd April, 1902, when the order of the
magistrate was upheld. Against this decision the County
Council appealed. The appeal was heard on the 31st March.
1903, by Williams, Stirling, and Mathew, L.J.J., and judgment
was given in favour of the County Council. As the matter was an
important one and affected local authorities generally the Council
asked the other Metropolitan Borough Councils whether in the
event of this Council appealing to the House of Lords they would
be willing to contribute towards the cost thereof. None of the
Borough Councils being willing to contribute the appeal was not
proceeded with. The apportionment made in July, 1901, was
accordingly revoked and a fresh apportionment made in July,
1903, under which the whole cost of paving the road was charged
upon the owners of the remaining houses and land abutting upon
Rastell Avenue.
In view of the burden cast upon the owners of houses and
premises upon which parks or open spaces held for the recreation
of the public also abut, as decided in the case of Rastell Avenue,
the Council passed the following resolution on the subject, viz.:—