網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Baker and those of nine other persons. The names of the parties objected to appeared in the list, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Woodland, William. Yarde Estate, Bridge St. House and premises. Yarde Estate, Bridge St.

*2. The facts in the case of George Baker proved before the *53] revising barrister were as follows:-George Baker occupied as tenant premises within the said borough, in the parish of Taunton St. James, of sufficient value and for a sufficient time to entitle him to a vote for the said borough under the 2 W. 4, c. 45, s. 27, subject to the following question as to his non-payment of rates,

3. During the period of his occupation required by law to entitle him to a vote, a poor-rate for the said parish was made and signed by an overseer of the said parish, and also by the two churchwardens, and by the assistant overseer thereof. The rate was allowed and confirmed at Taunton by two magistrates for the county of Somerset, who in the usual form appended their joint signatures to a certificate of allowance immediately following in the rate-book the signatures of the overseer, assistant overseer, and churchwardens; but, in point of fact, the signatures of the two magistrates to the allowance were obtained on the same day in Taunton, and separately.

4. The rate was duly published the day after it was allowed: and in the said rate George Baker was rated in respect of the premises he occupied; and, on its being demanded, he did not pay and has not paid the said rate. The rate was not appealed against, and the time for appeal has now expired: and the rate has been generally paid.

5. There are four overseers appointed for the said parish. The assistant overseer is appointed under the 59 G. 3, c. 12, s. 7, and his appointment in its material parts is as follows:

"Poor Law. Assistant Overseer. Appointment.

"59 G. 3, c. 12, s. 7; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 61.

"County of Somerset. Whereas, the inhabitants of the parish of Taunton St. James, in the said county of *Somerset, in vestry *54] assembled in the said parish on the 8th day of April last, elected and nominated Walter Chorley Brannan, of Taunton St. James aforesaid, accomptant, to be assistant overseer of the poor of the said parish of Taunton St. James, and did determine that the duties to be by him executed and performed should be, to assist the overseers of the poor of the said parish in the performance of all the duties incident to the office of overseers of the said parish (except the collection of rates), and that his salary for the execution of the said office should

be 107. yearly, to be paid quarterly. Now, we do appoint the said Walter Chorley Brannan to be assistant overseer of the poor of the said parish of Taunton St. James, to execute and perform the duties above referred to, and at the salary fixed as aforesaid.

"Given under the hands and seals," &c.

6. The assistant overseer was also duly appointed collector of rates by the board of guardians.

7. It was contended on behalf of George Baker, that the said rate was void, on the ground that it was not signed by a majority of the parish officers, and that consequently its non-payment by George Baker did not invalidate his right to be retained on the list of voters for the said borough.

8. The revising barrister was of opinion that the rate had been signed by a majority of the parish officers; but that, at all events, having been signed as above described, allowed, and published, it was while unappealed against a rate which must have been paid by George Baker to entitle him to a vote under the 27th section of the Reform Act; and he accordingly expunged his name from the list of

voters.

9. He also expunged from the said list the other nine names above written and, as the facts in each of those cases were the same as those above stated in reference to George Baker, and raised the same point of law, he declared that they should be all consolidated with the principal case.

[*55

10. If his decision in the case of George Baker was right, the list as revised by him was to remain unaltered: but, if it was wrong, then the name of George Baker and the other nine names above written were to be reinstated in the list.

Hannen (with whom was Underdown), for the appellant.-A voter is not disqualified by non-payment of a void rate, which, it is submitted, the rate in question is, it not having been made by "the greater number" of the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish, as required by the 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 3. It appears, that, in the parish of Taunton St. James, there are two churchwardens and four overseers, and that there is also an assistant overseer; and that the rate in question was signed by the two churchwardens and one overseer, and by the assistant overseer. It is submitted that the assistant overseer has no authority to make a rate. The statute authoriz ing the appointment of an assistant overseer is the 59 G. 3, c. 12, s. 7, which provides, amongst other things, that, "every person to be so appointed assistant overseer shall be and he is hereby authorized and empowered to execute all such of the duties of the office of overseer of the poor as shall in the warrant for his appointment be expressed, in like manner and as fully to all intents and purposes as the same may be executed by any ordinary overseer of the poor." That obviously means that he shall act as the deputy or servant of the overseers and that is borne out by the 61st section of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, which enacts that "every assistant overseer appointed or hereafter to be appointed in pursuance of the said Act of 59 G. 3, c. 12, shall, subject to the rules of the poor-law commissioners, obey, in all matters relating to the duties of overseer, all directions of the majority of the overseers of the parish for which he acts." How is it consistent with this

enactment that his vote should override the judgment of three of the four overseers? [BYLES, J.-He relies upon the express words of the 59 G. 3, c. 12, "in like manner and as fully to all intents and purposes as the same may be executed by any ordinary overseer of the poor."] That is the case with every agent: but it never could have been intended to enable the assistant overseer to control the overseers, or to enlarge his own powers in this way. In a note appended to the form of a poor-rate order, in Glen's Poor Law Board Orders, p. 393, it is said, that, "under the 43 Eliz. c. 2, it is necessary that an actual majority of the churchwardens and overseers should sign the rate; and the necessity of their doing so is in no way lessened by there being an assistant overseer appointed to discharge all the duties of an overseer. There is, however, nothing to prevent the assistant overseer signing it; but his signature will have no legal effect." Bennett v. Edwards, 8 B. & C. 702 (E. C. L. R. vol. 15), 1 M. & R. 482 (E. C. L. R. vol. 17), (a) is a distinct authority to show that an assistant overseer is not an overseer for all purposes. If this objection be a valid one, the rate is void: and the non-payment of a void rate does not disqualify a party from being placed upon the register: Fox, app., Davies, resp., 6 C. B. 11, 2 Lutw. Reg. Cas. 97.

Prideaux, for the respondent.-The rate in question is valid. If the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101 had not been passed, the case would have been free from doubt. By the 59 G. 3, c. 12, s. 7, the duties to be performed by the assistant overseer are to be specified in the warrant

under which he is appointed; and the person so *appointed is *57] authorized and empowered to execute all such of the duties of

the office of overseer, "in like manner and as fully to all intents and purposes as the same may be executed by any ordinary overseer of the poor." Here, Brannan was by the terms of the warrant under which he was appointed "to assist the overseers of the poor of the said parish in the performance of all the duties incident to the office of overseers of the said parish, except the collection of rates:" and he was afterwards appointed to perform that duty also. He clearly, therefore, was competent to perform the duty of making a rate. In The Queen v. Watts, 7 Ad. & E. 461 (E. C. L. R. vol. 34), 2 N. & P. 367, where the question was whether an appeal lay against the accounts of an assistant overseer, Lord Denman says: "We see no reason to doubt that an assistant overseer's account may be the subject of an appeal. He is not the servant of the churchwardens and overseers of the parish, but of the vestry, from whom he directly receives his authority; an authority which may indeed be limited by the warrant of appointment, but which does not appear to have been limited in the present case." It is clear, therefore, that, before the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, the assistant overseer was an independent officer, deriving none of his authority from the church wardens and overseers. [BYLES, J. -Could he be displaced without a vote of the vestry?] No: that is expressly provided by the 59 G. 3, c. 12, s. 7. In Points, app., Attwood, resp., 6 C. B. 38 (E. C. L. R. vol. 69), 2 Lutw. Reg. Cas. 117, the service of a notice of objection upon an assistant overseer was held to be a good service within the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 17. Coltman, J., in delivering the judgment of the Court, there says: "On (a) In error, 3 Y. & J. 458,† 6 Bingh 230 (E. C. L. R. vol. 19), 3 M. & P. 749.

the facts stated in this case it must be understood that Cooper had been appointed pursuant to the statute 59 G. 3, c. 12; and, as there

is no limitation of the duties which he is to perform, but the [*58 appointment is general in its terms, he must be taken to have been appointed to perform all the duties of an overseer: for which the case of Skingley v. Surridge, 11 M. & W. 503,† is an authority. Now, such an officer, as was stated by Lord Denman, in delivering the judgment of the Court in The Queen v. Watts, is not the servant of the churchwardens and overseers, but of the vestry, from whom he directly receives his authority. The acts done by him are not, therefore, to be considered as done by him as the agent of the other overseers, but as done by virtue of his own authority derived from the appointment of the vestry." All the arguments urged here would have been equally applicable there. Parke, B., in his judgment in Skingley v. Surridge, assumes that a general appointment would give the party appointed "all the powers and duties of a principal overseer." In Caunter, app., Addams, resp., 15 C. B. N. S. 512 (E. C. L. R. vol. 109), 1 Hopw. & Ph. 60, service of a notice of claim upon an assistant overseer was held a good service under the 30th section of the Reform Act. These authorities clearly show, that, before the passing of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, an assistant overseer was a party deriving independent authority by virtue of his appointment by the vestry and the confirmation thereof by the justices, and was not the servant or agent of the overseers. Then, is the character of that officer in any degree altered by the words of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 61, which require him to obey, in all matters relating to the duties of overseer, all directions of the majority of the overseers? It is submitted that it is not. So material an alteration of his status would not have been made by the Legislature except by plain and express words.

Hannen, in reply.-The only authority which at all presses, is the case of Points, app., Atwood, resp., 6 *C. B. 38, 2 Lutw. Reg. [*59 Cas. 117, where it was held that an assistant overseer was competent to receive a notice which the statute required to be served upon the overseers: but there the difficulty was removed by the provision in the 101st section of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, that the words "overseers" or "overseers of the poor" shall extend to and mean all persons who by virtue of any office or appointment shall execute the duties of overseers of the poor, by whatever name or title such persons may be called, and in whatsoever manner they may be appointed; and that, wherever any notice is by the Act required to be given or sent to the overseers of any parish or township, it shall be sufficient if such notice shall be delivered to any one of such overseers, &c.

ERLE, C. J.-I am of opinion that the decision of the revising barrister in this case, that the claimant was disqualified by reason of the non-payment of the rate in question, was correct. The Legislature has thought fit to make the right to be registered as a voter for a borough to depend upon the party's having paid certain dues,— amongst others, the poor rates,-up to a certain date. It is found as a fact in this case that a poor-rate was made, allowed, and confirmed, and duly published, but was not paid by the voter. Apparently, therefore he is unqualified. The rate so left unpaid was upon the

face of it a valid rate; and it was not appealed against. It purports to be signed by four persons, viz., two churchwardens, one overseer, and an assistant overseer. The parish has two churchwardens, four overseers, and an assistant overseer: four, therefore, would constitute a majority, as required by the 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 3. The voter's excuse for non-payment of the rate, is, that one of the persons who signed the rate, and without whose signature there would not be the required

majority, was not qualified to join *in the making of a rate. I *60] do not intend to express any binding opinion as to whether or not a rate so made is a valid rate. It is laid down by Mr. Glen, in his edition of the Poor Law Board Orders, that an assistant overseer cannot legally join in making a rate. But here the assistant overseer has in point of fact joined: and I must say that there is presumably an authority in him so to do under the 59 G. 3, c. 12, s. 7, which enacts that every person appointed assistant overseer under that Act "shall be and he is thereby authorized and empowered to execute all such of the duties of the office of overseer of the poor as should in the warrant for his appointment be expressed, in like manner and as fully to all intents and purposes as the same might be executed by any ordinary overseer of the poor." We have before us the warrant under which this person was appointed assistant overseer; and that defines the duties to be performed by him to be "all the duties incident to the office of overseers of the said parish, except the collection of rates." Now, the making and signing a rate is one of the duties incident to the office of overseer. It has been contended by Mr. Hannen that the assistant overseer is but the servant of the overseers, bound (under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 61) to obey, in all matters relating to the duties of overseer, all directions of the majority of the overseers of the parish for which he acts, and that he cannot act in the place or in opposition to the will of his masters. I do not, however, think the learned counsel is well justified in that contention. Under the 59 G. 3. c. 12, s. 7, he is appointed, and removable by the vestry: and the Court of Queen's Bench in The Queen v. Watts, 7 Ad. & E. 461 (E. C. L. R. vol. 34), 2 N. & P. 367, distinctly say that "he is not the servant of the churchwardens and overseers of the parish, but of the vestry, from whom he directly derives his authority." There *61] are numerous instances where an assistant overseer is held to be an overseer, and where the acts of the former are held to be the acts of the latter. In many corporations there is a deputy recorder, but he is not in truth the deputy of the recorder, but an independent officer. The statute 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 61, no doubt, directs that the assistant overseer shall, in all matters relating to the duties of overseer, obey all directions of the majority of the overseers of the parish for which he acts. Still his appointment remains as before. That being so, here is a rate which is apparently valid upon the face of it, and which has been allowed by two justices, and duly published. The observations of Maule, J., in giving judgment in Fox, app., Davies, resp., 6 C. B. 11 (E. C. L. R. vol. 73), 2 Lutw. Reg. Cas. 97, are very much to the purpose. "In allowing a rate," he remarks, "the justices are said to act ministerially: The Queen v. The Earl of Yarborough, 12 Ad. & E. 416 (E. C. L. R. vol. 40), 3 P. & D. 491. And probably that is so, in the sense in which the word is used in

[ocr errors]
« 上一頁繼續 »