View report page

190
ment. He wrote an opinion that the Vestry and the
Greenwich Board should simultaneously charge the Owners
on each side of the road east and west but only to attempt
to recover the apportionment in their respective Parishes.
The first apportionment was made on the 20th day of
June, 1883, nearly all the Owners paid the Vestry their
respective apportionments, and all those on the east side
paid the Greenwich Board—excepting Mr. Stotesbury. A
summons to enforce the payment of the apportionment was
taken out by the Greenwich Board of Works. That Board
employed Mr. Besley, and Mr. Stotesbury engaged counsel,
the Magistrate heard the case and took time to consider
his judgment. He ultimately dismissed the summons
without costs, but offered to grant a special case for the
opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. The Magistrate
did not state in what way the Vestry could legally make an
apportionment.
The Vestry and District Board after much correspondence
and negotiations, ultimately acting under the advice of
Counsel determined to apply to the Metropolitan Board of
Works, under the 86th Section, of the Metropolis Management
Act, to make an Order to put the paving, lighting,
watering and repairing under the exclusive management of
this Vestry. The Metropolitan Board of Works made the
order on the 81st day of July, 1885, with knowledge that
the road was a new Street, your Surveyor made his estimate
accordingly, and £615 was charged the Greenwich Board as
their share of the expense. This amount was demanded,
and the Greenwich Board refused to pay, and by the
direction of the Vestry an action was brought against
the Board to recover the amount. The Board then raised