View report page

116
The opinion of Counsel was taken as to the liability of
the Vestry, and a Resolution was passed taking to the
Crystal Palace Parade as a new street. The Surveyor estimated
the cost of making up and paving the Parade to be
£5,9*25 Os. 10d., and this sum was apportioned one-half on the
Crystal Palace Company, and one-half on the Owners abutting
the road. The demand for the apportionments having been
made on the owners forthe payment of their respective apportionments,
they refused to pay the estimated expense, and
having regard to the large amount to be recovered, the Vestry
Clerk consulted Counsel as to whether he should proceed
by a summons before a Magistrate, or by an Action in the
Superior Court. Counsel was of opinion that the more
preferable course, having reference to the magnitude of the
claim, would be to proceed by action in the Superior Court
and obtain the opinion of one of Her Majesty's Judges in
respect of the validity of the claim. In the Resolution of
the Vestry of the 21st January, 1891, the Vestry Clerk was
authorised to institute proceedings against the Crystal
Palace Company in the High Court of Justice for the
amount of £2,926 8s. 10d., as a test action as to the liability
of owners to pay the apportionment, or whether the Parade
is a public road repairable by the Parish. In accordance
with such instructions a Writ was issued in the High Court
against the Crystal Palace Company, and it was arranged
before proceeding with the action for the opinion of the
Court, that- it a Special Case could be agreed upon, that
would be the best course in order to try the liability of the
Company for the amount claimed by the Vestry. The
Solicitors to the Company thereupon prepared and submitted
a Special Case, which was altered on behalf of the
Vestry, and many attempts were made to settle the case,