In the Court of Exchequer, on Monday, a question of
importance respecting the construction of the Municipal Act was decided. The Council of the Borough of Stamford had imposed a rate for defraying, among other expenses, those of making out lists of voters, and of other preliminary, proceedings for carrying the Municipal Act into operation. A Mr. Reid denied their right to levy a tax for any retrospective pur- poses; and the Court decided, that as the act only authorized the im- position of a rate for "carrying into effect the provisions of the Act," a retrospective rate was illegal. Lord Abinger said- " The hardship upon or inconvenience to sonic particular borough may be very great, hut they were bound to construe the provisions of the Act upon general principles, and without reference to the particular inconvenience to any particular borough. Were it otherwise, there would be one law for one borough and a different one for another. The judgment of the Court, therefore, was in favour of the plaintiff, who must have damages for the loss lie had incurred in resisting payment of this bad rate."
[This "cases omissus" in the Act is a specimen of blundering legis- lation ; and a clause in the Municipal Act Amendment Bill, now in the House of Commons, might supply it. But Sir John Campbell Las declared that to reform the law is a hopeless attempt—the Oppo- sition is so troublesome in 1837.]
Previous page
