able in respect to burials or interments of the dead in the said new chapel or burial ground, would be insufficient to answer the purposes of that act; and then enacted, that it should be lawful for the trustees to make assessments or rates upon all the then present and future tenants and occupiers of any house, buildings, &c. within the parish, according to yearly improved value of the premises, and as the same were ascertained and rated in the poor-rate books of the said parish for the time being, and not exceeding the sum of 2s. 6d. in the pound of the yearly value of such buildings, lands, &c.; and which rates or assessments should be paid quarterly, and the same when received, were thereby vested in the trustees in trust, to be applied by them for the purposes of that act, for and dur ing such time as any of the monies to be borrowed upon the credit of that act should remain due, or any of the annuities to be granted in pursuance or by virtue of that act, should have continuance and no longer. (a) Averment, that before the making of the said several assessments and rates in the avowry mentioned, the said trustees had wrongfully, without any lawful authority, and in excess and abuse of the powers and au (a) Besides the clauses of the act set out in the plea, the following sections were referred to in argument. The seventh section, by which the trustees were authorised to appoint a treasurer, clerk, and collectors, and such other officers and persons as they (the trustees) should think proper, and out of the monies to be received by virtue of the act, to allow and pay such salaries, wages, and allowances to those officers as they (the trustees) should think reasonable. Section 26., by which the trustees were authorised, out of the fees and rates, to pay every year to the minister or curate any sum not less than 150l. Section 30., by which the trustees were authorised, out of the same fund, to pay to the clerk of the chapel for his salary such sum as they should think proper. 1824. RICHTER against HUGHES. 1824. RICHTER against HUGHES. thority given to them by the act, raised by way of annuity, and by borrowing a sum much beyond the said sum of 30,0007., which sum and no more they were by the said act authorised and empowered to raise either by annuities or borrowing, to wit, the sum of 30,1367. by annuities, and the sum of 25007. by borrowing, and exceeding by 26367. the sum they were by the said act empowered to raise as aforesaid; that the said several assessments and rates in the avowry mentioned were made, for, among other purposes, the purpose of paying the said annuities, and the said money so borrowed as aforesaid, and which so exceeded the sum by the said act authorised to be raised as aforesaid, and so wrongfully raised as aforesaid. And that the said rates or assessment in the said avowry mentioned, were not made for the purposes and according to the said act, but were each illegal and void. Replication, that at the time of making the assessments or rates in the avowry mentioned, the fees payable in respect of burials in the chapel and burying-ground were insufficient to answer the purposes of the act; and that divers annuities granted in pursuance of the act then had continuance, and that, at the time of making the rates, it was necessary in order to raise money to carry into effect the purposes of the act, to make an assessment or rate in the manner mentioned in the act of parliament, and the said assessments or rates were respectively made upon the tenants and occupiers, and according to such yearly rent or value as in the act required; and each of the assessments was made, and was upon the face thereof stated to be made by five or more trustees, &c. met in the vestry room, and for certain times therein mentioned mentioned respectively, pursuant to the powers vested in them by the act, without specifying any purpose for which such assessments or rates were so made; and that none of the said assessments or rates were by the title thereof, or otherwise expressed to be made for any such purposes as in the plea mentioned; and that the said rates and assessments were respectively made pursuant to the powers vested in the trustees by the act, and were in fact made for, amongst other purposes, the purpose of paying the annuities so lawfully granted under and by virtue of the said act of parlia ment, and so then continuing. To this replication the plaintiff demurred. Chitty was to have argued in support of the demurrer, but the Court called upon Parke, contra. It is admitted upon these pleadings that the trustees have raised 26361. beyond 30,0007. Now, assuming that it was illegal for them to raise money to be appropriated to the payment of the excess above that sum, still the rate on the face of it was good, and the collector had a right under this act of parliament to take the distress. In cases of this description the question has always been, whether the rate on the face of it appears to have been made for legal or illegal purposes, Rex v. Hardy (a), Rex v. Brograve. (b) If it be for legal purposes the rate has been held to be good, even though the money raised may have been likely to be misapplied. In Rex v. The Mayor and Burgesses of Gloucester (c), the rate 1824. RICHTER against HUGHES (a) Cowp. 579. (b) 4 Burr, 2491. (c) 5 T. R. 346. LI 2 Was 1824. RICHTER against HUGHES. was for more than it ought to have been, for the act under which it was made empowered the making of a rate to reimburse existing overseers their reasonable expences, but the rate was really for raising a sum to reimburse former overseers; the court, however, held themselves bound by what appeared on the face of the rate itself, and decided that it was good. Here, the trustees have the power of making a rate, cessary provided it shall not exceed 2s. 6d. in the pound. But the rate is not rendered bad because there may have been an intention on the part of the trustees to apply a small part of the money raised to illegal purposes. It is admitted upon the pleadings, that the rate was duly made; that the burial fees were insufficient to answer the purposes of the act; that annuities were in existence; and that it was nefor the trustees to raise money by assessments, to carry into effect the purposes of the act; and that the purposes mentioned in the plea were not mentioned in the assessments; it was, therefore, a good rate upon the face of it. Although the trustees have, in fact, raised more money than they were authorised to do, that, according to the authorities, is no objection to the rate itself; but the party, if he objected to the quantum of the rate, ought to have appealed to the quarter sessions. [Bayley J. There is a material distinction between this case and the cases which you have cited. They were the cases of poor-rates. Now, the overseers of the poor are at liberty from time to time to raise prospectively by rates, sufficient sums for the relief of the poor. Those sums cannot be specifically limited; for the overseers cannot, à priori, say how much they shall want for such a purpose. Here, on the other hand, the trustees trustees are authorised by the act, in the first place to raise a definite sum by loan or annuity, and then to raise by rate so much money as will be sufficient to pay either the common or annuity interest upon the sum borrowed, together with such sun as is sufficient to pay the salary of the clergyman.] The sum which the trustees are empowered to borrow is definite and specific, but that which they are authorised to raise by rates is indefinite. By the seventh section they are authorised out of the monies to be received under the act, to pay such salaries, &c. to the treasurer and other officers as they shall think reasonable. The suns are indefinite ; there is no limitation, therefore, to the sums which they are authorised to raise. They are authorised to raise money for a variety of purposes, and those purposes include the interest of a specific sum. Although they have borrowed more than that sum, still the rate has been raised for the purposes of the act, and that is sufficient. The only limitation put upon the rate in the clause empowering the trustees to make it is that it shall not exceed the sum of 2s. 6d. in the pound, BAYLEY J. The question in this case arises upon the validity of a rate made under the provisions of a local act of parliament passed for a specific purpose. That act empowers the trustees to borrow money, and to raise money by rates for certain purposes specified. One of those purposes is to keep down the interest of money borrowed; and they are entitled to raise money either by borrowing or by way of annuity; but their power of borrowing is limited, for the sum borrowed is not to exceed the sum of 30,000l. The act of parliament, therefore, LIS 1824. RICHTER against HUGHES, |