View report page

137
land. The Magistrate made an order for the apportioned amount,,
together with £3 3s. costs. Application was made to the Magistrate
to state a Case for the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench,,
which was granted.
The Appeal was heard in the High Court of Justice, (Queen's
Bench Division) before Mr. Justice Wills and Mr. Justice
Grantham, sitting as a Divisionional Court. For the Appellant
(Mr. Stotesbury), Mr. G. Lyon, Mr. Laing with him, for the
Respondents (the Yestry) Mr. J. Y. Austin. Mr. Lyon in opening
the case for the Appellant, argued that the Vestry could
not apportion the expenses between the owners of land in the
same street at different rates, and cited "Nesbitt v. Greenwich"
(L.R. 10 Q.B.), "Wright v. Ingle" (L.R. 16 Q.B. 468) "Whitchurch
v. Fulham" (L.R. 1 Q.B. 241), "London School Board v.
Yestry of St. Mary, Islington'' (Q.B.D. 65.)
Mr. Austin fo the Yestry,cited the case of "Chelsea v. Evans "
(34 J.P. 23) and other cases.
The Court held that the apportionment must be supported..
The earlier Act had not provided for any apportionment, or for
any means of recovering the individual sums due for paving
expenses. But under the 77th Section of the later Act 25 and
26 Vict., Cap. 102, the power of apportioning the total cost
among the owners of lands and houses was thrown on the Vestry,
though it did not contain any definite principle upon which they
were to Act. The governing element of the Section was that
the Vestry were the tribunal who were to decide how these costs
were to be apportioned, and therefore neither the principle, nor the
want of principle upon which the Vestry acted, could be inquired
into by the Magistrate. The only principle that the Vestry
had to follow, was that they were to act upon what they thought
to be really just and fair. The case cited for the Vestry was very
much in point. The power given in the section to rate lands at