View report page

73
broker employed by Mr. Camp, one of the rate collectors, to execute
levies of distress when necessary. The grounds of the action were that
the plaintiff was not the legal occupier of the house (5, Ashbrook Road)
in respect of which the rates were due, and further that the warrant
itself was invalid by reason of the broker's name not having been
inserted therein. As the latter point was one of moment to the Vestry
the Solicitor was instructed to defend the action in which the plaintiff
was non-suited.
Elliott (Churchwarden) v. The Vestry.
It will have been seen by the last annual report that the Vestry had requested
the senior Churchwarden to invite tenders for taking down the wall
surrounding the Chapel-of-Ease grounds and erecting iron railings in lieu
thereof. In February, 1890, Mr. Churchwarden Elliott requested the
Vestry to advance £500 for the purpose but this the Vestry refused to
do. The Vestry's action was no doubt prompted by various motives, but
prominent among them was the idea that such an expenditure would be
illegal as involving a contravention of the Church Rates Abolition Act,
the freehold of the Chapel-of-Ease being vested in the Vicar.
Mr. Elliott, however, relying upon his powers under the Burials Act
Amendment Act, 1855 (18 and 19 Vic., c. 128) and the responsibility
thereby cast upon him as Churchwarden for the proper maintenance
of the Chapel-of-Ease ground, proceeded with the work, and in July,
1890, after having again requested the Vestry to advance the money
in vain, took proceedings to enforce what he considered to be his legal
rights. A rule nisi having been obtained against the Vestry to
show cause why a peremptory mandamus should not issue to compel
the payment of the said sum of £500, it was argued before Baron
Pollock and Mr. Justice A. L. Smith on July 10th, the plaintiff beingrepresented
by the Attorney-General and Mr. McCall, and the Vestry
by Mr. Henn Collins, Q.C., and Mr. V. Austen. Without entering upon
the numerous legal points raised on behalf of the Vestry it is sufficient
here to say that the Court overruled them and directed the Vestry to
pay the money, being evidently much impressed by the provisions of
the Burial Act of 1855 before referred to. This unfortunate dispute
cost the Vestry £127 10s. 0d., exclusive of the untaxed costs of the senior
Churchwardens, particulars of which will be found in his account annexed.