View report page

191
the question whether the Metropolitan Board had any
power to make such an Order, and whether the said Order
was valid, and the £615 could be recovered, as it could not
be paid out of the General Hate.
The Court of Queen's Bench decided that Canterbury
Road, being a New Street, the 105th Section was incorporated
by the Order of the Board, and that the Vestry
had now the power to make an apportionment oil both
sides of the road under the said Order of the -Metropolitan
Board of Works, and could recover the paving expenses,
although St. Paul's, Deptford, was not in this Parish.
The Vestry under this decision, at a Meeting held on
the 20th day of July, 1887, made another apportionment
and the houses and land on each aide was assessed. The
demand was made on Mr. Stotesbury, and a summons
was taken out. Mr. Stotesbury took objection to the
apportionment, because a plot of land, at the end of the
road, was not assessed, this piece of land the Canal
Company had agreed to convey to the Metropolitan
Board of Works, to enable them to make the then contemplated
Bridge. The Magistrate on this objection
dismissed the summons without costs. The Vestry then
made another apportionment, assessing the land at £4
lis. 0d., and Mr. Stotesbury's apportionment was reduced
accordingly. The new demand was then made, and payment
being again refused, Mr. Stotesbury was summoned
and an order was made against him for £548 3s. 8d.,
with £3 3s. costs. The defence was that the Vestry
had not assessed the land in a sufficient amount. The
Magistrate held that the Vestry had a discretion which