View report page

153
points were questions of law it was arranged, in order to save
expense, that a Special case should be submitted to the Court of
Queen's Bench for them to determine whether the Order of the
Metropolitan Board was valid. The questions on the special
case were (1) Whether the Order of the Metropolitan
Board was valid, and (2) Whether the sum of £613 was payable
under the facts above stated. If the Court should be of opinion
in the affirmative, then judgment shouid be entered for the
Yestry for £618 and costs of the suit, and if of opinion
in the negative, then judgment should be entered for the
Greewnich Board with costs of suit.
When the Special Case came on for argument Mr. Meadows
White,and Mr. Austin,appeared for the Vestry, and Mr. Charles,
and Mr.Dickens, for the Greenwich Board. After hearing the arguments
the Court held that the word "street" used in the 140th
Sectionof the Metropolis Management Act included "new streets,"
and therefore the Order of the Metropolitan Board was valid; but as
to the second question whether the £618 was recoverable, they
held it was in the power of the Vestry, now the Metropolitan
Board had made an Order placing the exclusive management of
the street in the Vestry, to pags a Resolution under the 105th
Section, and to enforce the payment of the expense on the owners
in Deptford Parish.
This decision was not contemplated by either side, but it
is the just and equitable mode of dealing with the case. The
Greenwich Board felt the difficulty of paying the precept out of
the General rate, when in all cases the law imposes this obligation
of paying the paving of new streets on the owners of the
abutting property, and it enables this Vestry to apportion the
expense on the owners on both sides of the road whether in
Beptford or Camberwell. The Vestry, in conformity with the
judgment of the Court, has apportioned the expense on the
respective owners, and the usual demand for payment has been
served upon them. It is now to be hoped that the owners will