View report page

188
that might remain, after deducting all incidental costs and
charges, should be returned to the Owners rateably, i.e., in
shares proportionate to the amounts of their final apportionment.
In his opinion it made no difference, for this purpose,
that no work has in fact been done in front of some
portion of the land. All the Owners in the street are
benefited by the paving of the street, and no Owner could,
in his opinion, bring any action against the Vestry on the
ground that too small a sum has been returned to him.
The Vestry acted on this opinion, and apportioned the
difference on the Owners on the amount paid by them. Mr.
Stotesbury had paid under the order of the magistrate, the
sum of £548 3s. 8d. for his contribution towards the paving
expenses of the road, the apportionment of which included
land and two houses abutting the approaches, and also the
frontages of 22 houses. Mr. Stotesbury s share to be repaid
to him was £152 10s., which was duly tendered to him,
and declined. The Solicitor to Mr. Stotesbury then
served the Statutory Notice upon the Vestry of an intention
to commence an action.
The Finance and Law and Parliamentary Committee
reported to the Vestry, and on the motion of Mr. Wallace,
a Special Committee was appointed to consider Mr. Stotesbury's
claim. For the information and guidance of the
Committee the Vestry Clerk submitted the following
statement:—
STATEMENT.
The 105th Section of the Metropolis Management Act
empowers the Vestry to pave the " carriageway and footpaths
" of any street or any part thereof, and it enacts that