Local boards to put principal Act into execution. and extend the Public Libraries Act, 1855, hereinafterreferred to as the "principal Act," enacts that every Local Board, under the Public Health Act, 1848, and the Local 33 & 34 Vict. Government Act, 1858, or either of them, is empowered, in like manner as a Board under any Improvement Act, to adopt and carry into execution the principal Act. c. 71, s. I. Interpretation of terms. lb. s. 2. Sect. 15 of recited Act not to apply to rates made by local boards. lb. s. 3. Provision as to borrowing by local boards for purposes of recited Act. Ib. s. 4. Not to apply to certain districts. lb. s. 5. For the purposes aforesaid, the following words in the principal Act shall have the following extended significations; viz., the word "Board" shall mean any such Local Board as aforesaid; the words "Improvement Rate" shall mean the general district rate levied by any such Board; the word "Ratepayers" shall mean all persons assessed to and paying such general district rate; the word "District" shall mean the district in which such Local Board has authority to levy a general district rate; the term "Improvement Act" shall mean the Local Government Act, 1858. So much of section fifteen of the principal Act as refers to the Town Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, shall not apply to rates made by Local Boards under the principal Act; but nothing herein contained shall enable Local Boards to levy or expend for the purposes of the principal Act any greater sum in any year than one penny in the pound. For carrying into execution the principal Act, every such Local Board may borrow upon mortgage of the general district rate or any separate rate to be levied under the principal Act; and such borrowing shall be effected in conformity with the provisions as to borrowing contained in the Local Government Act, 1858, and the Acts incorporated therewith, in lieu of the provisions as to borrowing contained in the principal Act. This Act shall not apply to any district the whole or any part of which is within any municipal borough, or within the jurisdiction of Commissioners under any Improvement Act. 373 PART III. CHAPTER I. DISTRICT FUND AND RATES. § 1. DISTRICT FUND. THE treasurer of the Local Board is to keep a separate account, District fund to be called the "District Fund Account," and the moneys account. carried to such account, under the directions of the Act, shall 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 87. be applied by the Local Board of Health in defraying such of the expenses incurred, or to be incurred by the Local Board in carrying the Act into execution, and not otherwise expressly provided for, as they may think proper. The moneys to be carried to the district fund account are those arising From the re-sale of premises purchased for the purpose of Ib. s. 73. widening, opening, enlarging, or otherwise improving any street, which shall not be wanted for that purpose. From surplus of arrears of highway rates paid by the Local Ib. s. 117. Board to their treasurer. From all penalties or sums recovered on account of any Ib. s. 133. penalty paid over to the treasurer of the Local Board. From all penalties incurred in any corporate borough, and 21 & 22 Vict. made payable to the Local Board of Health by the Public c. 98, s. 67. Health Act, 1848, or any Acts incorporated therewith, or any Act of which the powers are to be executed by a Local Board. From profits made by the Local Board in the sale of house- Ib. s. 32 (1.). refuse, &c., and of all matters collected by the Local Board or contractor in the whole or any part of their district. for the Ib. c. 91, s. 47; under 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, s. 43. 14 & 15 Vict. C. 34, s. 8. The charges to be defrayed out of the district fund are Charges on as stated supra, and also the expenses of and incident to exe- district fund. 14 & 15 Vict. cuting the Common Lodging-houses Act within the district. c. 28, s. (2) of the Local Board, as well as the expenses of carrying into Ib. c. 34, s. 8. execution the Labouring Classes Lodging-houses Act, 1851. General district rate. II & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 87. Expenses charged thereon. Costs of legal and parliamentary proceedings. § 2. GENERAL DISTRICT RATES. The Local Board shall, from time to time, and as often as occasion may require, make and levy, in addition to any other rate, a rate or rates to be called "general district rates," for defraying such expenses as are charged upon that rate by the Act, and such other expenses of executing the Act as are not provided for by any other rate, or defrayed out of the district. fund account. The expenses charged upon the general district rates are the following preliminary inquiries (sect. 11); election expenses (sect. 30); salaries (ss. 37, 40); surveys, etc. (sect. 42); draining ditches, etc. (sect. 58); public conveniences (sect. 57); altering and examining gas-pipes, etc. (ss. 71, 80); compensation for damage (sect. 144); lighting streets, etc. (12 & 13 Vict. c. 94, s. 8); repair of highways (21 & 22 Vict. c. 98, s. 37). Under Public Baths and Wash-houses Acts (21 & 22 Vict. c. 98, s. 47; 29 & 30 Vict. c. 90, s. 43). Under Labouring Classes Lodging-houses Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 34, s. 8). Under the Act to provide Better Dwellings for Artizans and Labourers (31 & 32 Vict. c. 130, s. 31, and Schedule I.). See ante, p. 302. With regard to other expenses which may be properly defrayed out of a general district rate, it has been held that the expenses of a Chancery suit, bonâ fide and necessarily incurred, might properly be defrayed from the produce of the rate; but that the expenses of defraying quo warranto proceedings, incurred in the merely personal affair of individual members of the Local Board, could not lawfully be charged to the ratepayers of the district, and that consequently the rate was bad, as it appeared by the estimate to have been made for the purpose of defraying those costs. The Court also held that the Local Board were not justified in opposing the bill of a Gas and Coke Light Company in Parliament, either by the result or by any anterior prospect of advantage to be gained to the ratepayers, if the opposition had been successful. (1) In delivering judgment, Lord Campbell, C.J., said, "The Act of Parliament is a most beneficial one, but it is liable to great abuse. This is an Act under which there may be great jobbing, and, while it is the duty of the Court to assist Local Boards in carrying out the Act for the public benefit, it is also our duty to guard the ratepayers from a misapplication of the funds. If the expense of opposing bills in Parliament is to be charged upon the rate, it may lead to great abuse. I do not (1) Worksop v. Marris, 28 L, T. 266, say that a case may not arise where it would be a very good Costs of legal thing for the ratepayers that a private bill should be opposed in and parlia Parliament, and for the expenses of which the rate might be mentary proceedings. liable; but it should clearly appear that such opposition is for the benefit of the ratepayers, and above all, it is advisable that the Local Board should, in the first instance, call a meeting of the ratepayers, and have their previous assent to the opposition." See, however, Reg. v. Street (1) on the latter point: Subsequently the person employed in preparing statistics and giving evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons on behalf of the Local Board in opposition to the Gas Company's bill, sued four members of the Local Board who were parties to the resolution authorizing the opposition to the bill, and it was held that they were not liable. (2) On the same point the following cases may be referred to-viz., Brighton v. North, (3) and Attorney-General v. Wigan, (4) which related to proceedings taken in opposition to bills introduced to Parliament by other parties; and Attorney-General v. Norwich, (5) and Attorney-General v. Southampton, (6) which related to bills proposed to be introduced to Parliament by the public authorities of those places. In the first an injunction was granted to restrain a municipal corporation from applying the borough fund towards defraying the expenses of a bill before Parliament for improvements and increased powers, it being alleged that there was no surplus of the borough fund. The Court does not justify applications to Parliament by trustees at the expense of the trust fund in the first instance; but if the Court authorize the application, it will also authorize the payment of the expenses out of the trust fund. In the Southampton case, the Court refused to allow money raised for poor rates under a local Act to be applied in payment of the expenses of a Bill in Parliament, promoted by the guardians, but rejected. It has been held that a Highway Board have no power to incur expenses in opposing a turnpike trust bill in Parliament, even though the bill should affect some of the parishes in the district, and the opposition should be successful (7); and where Commissioners were empowered to do "all acts, matters and things for promoting the health, comfort and convenience of the inhabitants," and for that purpose applied the rates of the Town to the promotion of a bill through Parliament, it was held that the words of the Act did not authorize such expenditure. (8) 29. There are cases, however, in which it seems that the costs of (1) 18 Q. B. 682; 22 L. J. M. C. (2) Bailey v. Cuckson, 32 L. T. 124. (3) 16 L. J. Ch. 255; 2 Phillips, 216. (4) 5 De G. Mac. & G. 52; 18 Jur. 299; 23 L. J. Ch. 429. and parliamentary. proceedings. Costs of legal proceedings in Parliament may be paid out of local rates. (1) A peremptory mandamus went to compel certain Commissioners to make a rate for the purpose of paying the costs of their clerk in opposing a bill in Parliament, which, if it had passed in its then state, would have injuriously affected the lands of the Commissioners. The Court said that it was clear that the proceedings in Parliament were properly taken, and that the Commissioners would not have done their duty if they had allowed the bill to pass as originally intended without opposition. But, the Court added, this decision must not be considered as a precedent that expenses are to be rashly incurred in Parliament, and discharged out of a rate. In the case of Attorney-General v. Wigan, ante, p. 375, Wood, V. C., said, one of the provisions of this Act is for the general government of the whole borough, and for the suppression of all nuisances which are not already punishable. Now it seems to me very strange to say, if it be a corporate duty to prevent nuisances, and to prevent them by bye-laws, yet if an enormous and gigantic nuisance was about to be perpetrated, and the corporation were to take steps by applying to this Court, through the medium of the Attorney-General, for an injunction to restrain such nuisance, that they would not be allowed the costs of such a proceeding: if they (the promoters) were about to abstract 800,000 gallons of water a day from the town, or if there had been a perfectly pure stream used for the purpose of drinking, and they had brought down an enormous mass of foul water which rendered the river perfectly inapplicable for the use of the inhabitants, it seems to me it would be a very strange thing to say, in the case of a continued nuisance of that description, although the corporation are under at least a moral obligation to protect the town from all petty nuisances, yet that they shall not lay out a farthing to prevent a large nuisance like that to all the inhabitants of the borough. It seems to me that a case of that kind would be within the words "all other expenses necessarily incurred for carrying into effect the provisions of the Act," which as Lord Cottenham says, in Attorney-General v. Mayor of Norwich, does not mean mere expenses of meetings, but expenses of duties imposed upon them. But if they would be justified in applying by injunction to restrain the nuisance, they are equally justified in offering their opposition to an Act of Parliament to prevent that nuisance being legalized. Commissioners of Sewers were held entitled to levy a rate for costs bona fide and prudently incurred in opposing a bill likely to injure a level, this being a litigation arising out of their duties. (2) Where there was a resolution of ratepayers to oppose a Gas Company's Bill in Parliament, the Court refused an injunction (1) Reg. v. Norfolk Commissioners of Sewers, 15 Q. B. 549. |