PETERSFIELD.
Agent—Mr. G. DUPLOCK
PETTY SESSIONS.—Tuesday.—Present Hon. J. J. Carnegie (chairman), Sir J. C. Jervoise. Bart., M.P., and J. Waddington, Esq.
— William Ford, of Westmeon, was charged, on the information of P.C. Charles Abraham, with obstructing a certain highway in the parish of Privett by leaving his horse and cart standing for nearly four hours, from 7 to 11 o’clock, while he remained in the Sun, public-house, drinking. Fined 5s. and costs, 5s. 6d.
— This was a special session for bearing poors-rate appeals, of which there were several, but they all fell through on account of informality in the mode of proceeding. The several applicants were:—In Buriton—William Goodeve and James Port; in Petersfieid—Williamn Adams, John Underdown, and James Port; in Steep—Rev. W. H. Hawker; in Sheet—William Goodeve; in Eastmeon—George S. Atkins; and in Liss—John Chase, in the last case Mr. Field (Gosport) appeared for the appellant. Mr. Albery (Midhurst) appeared in each case for the assessment committee, and contended that the magistrates had no jurisdiction inasmuch as no previous conviction had been made to the assessment committee as the statute requires. Mr. Adams, in support of his own case, alleged that he had given the requisite 21 days’ notice to the assessment committee, but they had not held any meeting to consider it. Mr. Albery asked for a copy of the notice referred to, which, on being produced, proved to be a notice against the rate, which he contended the assessment committee had nothing to do with, as this was made not by them but by the overseers. The chairman explained to appellant that all appeals to the assessment committee must be against the assessment list—a distinction which appeared to have been overlooked by the appellant, and which was fatal to the case. All the other cases were dismissed on similar grounds as fast as they were called on, excepting that of Mr. John Chase, for which Mr. Field was engaged, which occupied the bench a considerable time. Mr. Field contended that there were circumstances in this case that took it out of the category to which all the others belonged, inasmuch as his client had actually been before the assessment committee and had obtained partial redress, his assessment being reduced from 150l. to 140l., and therefore it was not necessary that he should go before them again, but he was entitled to seek his remedy at the hands of the Magistrates, otherwise the committee might make some merely nominal reduction, and so compel the parties to apply again and again ad infinitum. Mr.Albery contended that as the appeal to which his learned friend referred was made against the original list, and as no objection had been made to the amended list, the Magistrates had no jurisdiction in this any more than in the other cases. Case dismissed. The Hen. J. J. Carnegie retired during the hearing of this case.