View report page

156
this part a technical objection was made as to the apportionment,
and the further hearing of the summons was adjourned.
In the course of the learned Magistrate's judgment he
stated that the case had given him an " immense amount of
trouble, and that he had the greatest difficulty in coming to a
conclusion, wavering sometimes on one side and sometimes on
the other." He offered to grant a Special Case for the Court of
Queen's Bench, which, under the advice of counsel, was accepted,
the Vestry being advised that the judgment was erroneous in point
of law, and that they ought to have a judicial decision
upon so important a matter. First, it was contended that the
decision was in the teeth of the resolution, of the Vestry of 1866,
that all "new streets" should be flagged at the expense of the
owners. Secondly, that none of the requirements of the 105th
Section had been complied with—the Vestry had never passed
any Resolution, save that of the Vestry held on 1st April, 1885,
to pave Alleyn park as a " new street" ; no estimate had been
made by the Surveyor; no apportionment had been made
by the Vestry of the expenses of paving the said street, in 1875,
among the owners of the property abutting on the said road;
no street, or part of a street, was named in the Resolution
of 1875; a " new street" had been paved without any
contribution having been made by the owners of the houses
herein, though such contribution is an essential element of the
105th Section. In fact, the Vestry had never, by the Resolution
of 1875, exercised, or even intended to exercise, the powers of
the 105th Section.
Notwithstanding that these essential elements were wanting
before the 105th Section could be held to have been put in force,
the judgment of the Court was given in favour of the Respondent
with costs.
The report of the Vestry Clerk thereon was referred to the
Law and Parliamentary Committee, who, feeling that the Vestry