rule.] That is a rule which gives to every creditor of a joint-stock company 41. per cent. interest on his debt, whatever is the nature of it. That rule is absolutely binding on me unless it has been abrogated. It was signed by the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and three Vice-Chancellors. That is either the rule of the court, or it is not. If it is, it is my duty to follow it; if not, so far as the claim rests on the order, it fails. On the question whether it is or is not the rule of the court it stands thus: It came before Lord Westbury, who signed it, in 1863. That is uot strictly, because the case before him was under the Act of 1856, not the Act of 1862. There are several reports of it, which are in substance the same; his Lordship expressed an extra-judicial opinion which was not called for, expressing some doubt, or rather fear, that the 26th rule was ultra vires the powers of the court and of the Act of 1862. It appears to me that if he thought the 26th rule went beyond the powers of the court, it was incumbent upon him forthwith to have taken steps that it should no longer appear as the rule of the court; and that he ought at once to have consulted with the other judges, and, if not with the judges or appeal court, with two or three others, and therefore that the proper course was to repeal it. That was not done, nor has my attention been directed to any other case in which his attention was called to this rule; therefore it is a mere obiter dictum, and does not amount to a judicial decision. But in a more recent case, which I agree with Mr. Wickens is in substance the same as the present, namely, the Herefordshire Banking Company (supra), this very rule came before Lord Romilly, another of the judges who signed the 26th rule. That was in July 1867, when this dictum of Lord Westbury was drawn to the Master of the Rolls' attention. I think I am right in saying that he treats it not only as a decision, but says he entertains no doubt, because Lord Westbury entertained none, and that it was impossible to get over that judgment, which was very general and well put. I do not know whether Lord Romilly did or did not revise these facts, but how could he treat that as a judgment which was not a judgment and, moreover, very feebly put, the words being "I fear;" no more, though he was a party to the orders of Nov. 1862. If the Lord Chancellor had actually of the concurrent themselves free until interest has been paid. I am bound to say that on this rule interest is payable, and I should deeply regret if on appeal it was abrogated. Interest is therefore payable on the bank notes, cheques, &c., at 4l. per cent. Solicitors: Sharpe, Parker, and Co.; Lewis, Munns Nunn, and Longden. Friday, May 8. STEPHENS V. Louch. Practice-Taking interrogatories off the file-Motion for decree. Where a plaintiff in a suit has filed interrogatories in the usual way, and is desirous of setting down the cause to be heard on motion for decree, the court will take such interrogatories off the file on his own ex parte application. Villiers moved in this case ex parte, on behalf of the plaintiff, for leave to take the interrogatories to the bill off the file. The suit was instituted for the specific performance of an alleged contract to execute a mortgage; the bill being filed on the 7th May 1867, bill, and on the 23rd July interrogatories were filed, on the 17th May the defendants appeared to the an order having been obtained for that purpose on the 16th. Nothing having been done since, and the plaintiffs being anxious that the cause should be set down to be heard on motion for decree, now moved, on the authority of a case not reported, but referred to in Seton on Decrees, last edit. p. 1243. The case was that of Williams v. Allen, M. R. 1861, B. 2119. Pearson, Q. C. (as amicus curia) said, that as he understood the practice, the cause could not be set down on motion for decree as long as, or if, there were interrogatories on the file. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he thought, under these circumstances, the order ought to be made. Solicitors: Raw and Gurney. Monday, June 1. -Liberty to amend. Where a defendant, having fully answered the bill, files a concise statement and interrogatories, and subse quently discovers new and important matter, the court will give him leave to amend such concise statement and interrogatories. decided the point, I should follow his decision im-Practice-15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 19—Concise statement plicitly. Mr. Wickens said that the Master of the Rolls ought not in such a case to be dealt hardly with, and I am sure he has always received the greatest consideration from me. As I said some time since, I had much rather not give an opinion, because the case must necessarily go to the Court of Appeal, and if no one else will, I will bring this order to the attention of the Lord Chancellor. Speed moved on a summons on behalf of the Nothing can be more inconvenient than for an order defendant in this suit, for leave to amend a concise to have cold water thrown upon it in this manner. statement and interrogatories which he had filed Let the question go to the Court of Appeal, not under the 19th section of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, only because my own opinion is diametrically There was a full answer to the bill, and the defenopposed to the idea of the rule being ultra vires, dant had, subsequently to filing his concise stated and not the rule of the court, but because ment and interrogatories, discovered new matter, justice requires that those who trust these which was important to his case at the hearing! companies should be paid interest on their This was a substitute for a cross bill, and there debts for the period during which payment is being nothing restrictive in the practice on the delayed. As a banker is not permitted to receive | subject, the defendant had made an affidavit in supany part of his assets until he has paid 20s. in the port of the ground for his application, and now pound, so in my opinion the shareholders of a joint-submitted that he was entitled to the leave asked. stock company cannot consider themselves free of demand until the debts, with interest, have all been paid. On principle, therefore, I am in favour of the payment of interest, and upon the general rule I am bound to say that interest is payable. The same power should be given as in bankruptcy, and shareholders in a joint-stock company must not consider The chief clerk had decided that leave should be given; but the question was adjourned into court. Cracknall, for the plaintiff, contended that the defendant, having the option of either filing a cross bill or a concise statement, if he took the latter course, must make such statement perfect once for V.C. M.] HAMMOND V. HAMMOND-HILL v. HIBBIT-LONDOn Bank of MeXICO V. HART. [V.C. G. all, and if he did not, was not at liberty to amend | Nov. 1867, the defendant's appearance was entered it. The Act did not substitute a concise statement on the 20th April 1868, and the interrogatories were for a cross-bill, but allowed a defendant the option filed on the 16th April, and served on the 23rd. of adopting one or the other course. The general The motion was made on the authority of orders made no provision for amending concise Stephens v. Louch, ante, p. 552. statements, and there was no power to do so. The VICE-CHANCELLOR.-It is very singular that this question has not before arisen, and that for the sixteen years during which this Act has been in force the point now raised should not have been decided. It is well known that the object of giving to the defendant in a suit the right to make and file a concise statement, requiring interrogatories, was to provide a simple and inexpensive mode of obtaining that discovery which formerly could only be got by a cross bill, because the discovery is alone limited to a defendant who has fully answered the original bill. This remedy, which was given by the Legislature, would fall short of justice if the court, in the case of a defendant having obtained important information subsequently to filing his concise statement and interrogatories, were not at liberty to give him leave to amend them, and so, by the introduction of such new facts, improve the concise statement by such amendment, and found upon it consequential interrogatories. No doubt, on principle, the same power ought to be extended to a defendant who has filed a concise statement to amend it, with the authority of the court, as would have been given for amending a cross bill. If the court had not been armed with this power, some case upon the point would have been found; but, so far from it, the only one cited or relied upon was that referred to in Mr. Morgan's book, of Mertens v. Haigh, 1 J. & H. 231; 3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 368, where Lord Justice (then ViceChancellor) Wood refused, under very special and extraordinary circumstances, to take a concise statement and interrogatories off the file, observing that he should be sorry to lay down any rule. Therefore, that being his opinion, which accords with my own, the court has the complete control in this mode of substituting a concise statement for a cross bill in this respect, and in all others. It is, therefore, quite right that there should be this liberty to the defendant to amend his consise statement in the usual form, it being a statement on which he cannot proceed satisfactorily to a hearing without amending. It is not necessary to say that he has discovered new matter; it is quite sufficient to say that it is important for the purpose of making out his case. I am of opinion that this liberty to amend must be given. The chief clerk having decided in favour of the present applicant, the party at whose instance the matter was adjourned into court must pay the costs of the sum mons. Solicitors: Watkins, Baker, and Baylis; Bristowe. Thursday, June 11. HAMMOND V. HAMMOND. Practice-Setting down cause on motion for decree-Application by plaintiff to take interrogatories off the file. Where a plaintiff has filed interrogatories and wishes to have the cause heard on motion for decree, he will be allowed to take such interrogatories off the file. Graham Hastings moved in this case ex parte, on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit, which was instituted for the usual foreclosure decree, for leave to take the interrogatories off the file, inasmuch as the plaintiff wished to set down the cause to be heard on motion for decree. The bill was filed on the 4th The VICE-CHANCELLOR made the order. Solicitors: Vining and Son. of the half blood of the deceased, suggested that, A. E. Miller, for a defendant who claimed to bein the real estate, a separate account should be kept as his client might establish his claim to participateas to the rents, &c. of such real estate. The VICE-CHANCELLOR granted the usual order for a receiver, with a direction that he should keep separate accounts of the real and personal estates, to be dealt with hereafter as circumstances might require. Order accordingly. Solicitors: Meyrick, Gedge, and Co.; Duncan and Murton. LONDON BANK OF MEXICO v. HART. The present practice is to insert in the order for the examination of witnesses abroad, the names of the special examiners to examine such witnesses instead of issuing a commission. Chas. Hall moved for a commission in this cause to examine certain witnesses at Bogota, in South America, to be directed to four commissioners. The usual affidavit had been made that it was not applied for for the purpose of delay. Eddis stated that although the names and addresses of the proposed commissioners had been handed to his clients, there had not been timefor inquiry into their fitness for the duty; and suggested that, if necessary, some official person at Bogota should be of the commission. The REGISTRAR (Mr. Rogers) on conferring with the Vice-Chancellor, stated that it was not now the practice to issue a commission, there being no written interrogatories necessary, but that the order directing the examination of witnesses abroad had usually inserted in it the names of the parties who were to act as special examiners to take the viva voce examinations of witnesses abroad, and that this mode was a saving of considerable expense. The VICE-CHANCELLOR made the order for the examination of witnesses abroad, inserting the names of the four gentlemen proposed to act as special Q. B.] REG. V. THE HIGHWAY BOARD OF KINGSBRIDGE; ex parte CORNISH. examiners, or any two of them, with the usual other directions. Solicitors: Messrs. Sharpe, Gresham House; Flux, Argles and Co. Common Law Courts. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. Reported by T. W. SAUNDERS and J. SHORTT, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Saturday, May 30. REG. V. THE HIGHWAY BOard of the DISTRICT OF THE SAME; ex parte PITTS. Highways-Expenses incurred in opposing a Bill in A board of waywardens of a highway district have no The board of waywardens of a highway district opposed in Parliament a Bill promoted by the trustees of a turnpike road which ran through fifteen out of the twenty-one parishes of which the district was composed, and the quarter sessions found that such opposition was bona fide and the result beneficial to the district. The board having apportioned the expenses of such opposition amongst the several parishes in the district: Held, that the board had no lawful authority to incur such expenses. These were cases stated upon appeal to the quarter sessions for Devonshire against a certain item of expense charged against each of two parishes in the Kingsbridge highway district. The facts in each case were the same except that in Pitt's case it appeared in paragraph three that the parish was stated as not being one of the fifteen parishes. The sessions gave judgment for the appellants, subject to the following case : [Q. B. of other parishes in the said district, not according to the proportion required by the Highway Act 1864. This court, upon due proof that the conditions contained in the 39th section of the said Act, so far as the same are applicable to this appeal, have been complied with, and upon hearing all parties concerned and their counsel, doth order that the account of the same highway board be rectified by striking out the item of expense, amounting to 10. 16s. 5d. so appealed against, and the same is hereby rectified accordingly, subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench on the following case. The Kingsbridge highway district was formed under the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 61, by a final order made at the Devon Michaelmas Term on the 20th Oct. 1863, and comprises twenty-one parishes, of which Sherford is one. The Kingsbridge and Dartmouth Road Trust was constituted by the 5 Geo. 4, c. 31; that Act was repealed by the 9 Geo. 4, c. 12; the last-mentioned Act was repealed by the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 13, which Act continued in force for thirty-one years, and would have expired in 1865 had it not been continued till the 1st Nov. 1866. The length of turnpike-road comprised in the said trust is 63 miles 3 furlongs and 17 poles, of which 40 miles, 6 furlongs and 31 poles are in fifteen of the twenty-one parishes which now form the Kingsbridge highway district, Sherford being one of these fifteen parishes. Since the year 1856 these fifteen parishes have been compelled to contribute from time to time towards the repairs of these roads. In the year 1864 memorials were addressed to the ratepayers and others in many of the parishes within Secretary of State for the Home Department from the Kingsbridge highway district, setting forth grievances connected with the administration of the Kingsbridge and Dartmouth Road Trust, and praying for redress. At a meeting of the Kingsbridge Highway Board, hereinafter called the board, held at Kingsbridge on the 8th Dec. 1864, twenty waywardens, including the waywarden of Sherford, being present, resolutions were passed condemning the system of repairing the roads in the district by the trustees, and affirming that it was expedient that the powers of the trustees should be transferred to the board. These resolutions were subsequently sent to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In 1866 the board became aware that the trustees of the Kingsbridge and Dartmouth Roads had introduced a Bill, hereinafter called the Bill, into Parliament for, among other objects, the continuance of the trust for twenty-one years. Various resolutions disapproving of the provisions of the Bill were passed by the board; and their chairman, on the 9th Feb. 1866, addressed a letter to the Secretary of State, setting forth the objections of the board to the Bill. Upon an appeal to this court by Samuel Cornish, a ratepayer of the parish of Sherford, one of the parishes comprised in the highway district of Kingsbridge, in this county, from and against a certain item of expense amounting to the sum of 10. 168. 5d., comprised in the amount of 167. 11s. 1d., charged upon the said parish of Sherford, and which last-mentioned sum appears under the head of salaries and common charges in the annual statement showing the receipts and expenditure in respect of the said parish, and the apportionate part of the expenditure chargeable to the said parish in respect of the district fund for the year ending 31st Dec. last, sent by the highway board of the said district, pursuant to the provisions To this letter the Secretary of State replied on of the Highway Act 1864, and which said sum of 12th Feb. 1866, to the following effect: "If the 107. 16s. 5d. is the apportionate part of certain ex-board wish their case to be fully stated they should penditure of the said highway board in respect and on account of a certain opposition instituted by the board in the House of Commons against the passing of a certain Bill for continuing the Kingsbridge and Dartmouth turnpike roads trust, and for other purposes, through the said House of Commons, upon the grounds that the said item of expense has been incurred in respect of a matter upon which the said highway board has and have no authority by law to make any expenditure, and that the amount of the contribution required to be made by the said Farish of Sherford, as charged in the said annual statement, is, when compared with the contribution put in an appearance before the select committee, to whom the Bill will be submitted.” The board petitioned Parliament against the Bill in compliance with the standing orders of the House of Commons. Parliament allowed the locus standi of the board before the select committee to which the Bill was referred, and they were heard on their petition, and very important amendments were made on the Bill. The costs of the opposition of the board to the Bill amounted to 264. 16s. 2d., which sum was apportioned under the Act of the 27 & 28 Vict. Q. B.] REG. V. THE HIGHWAY BOARD OF KINGSBRIDGE; ex parte CORNISH. c. 101, to the several parishes in the Kingsbridge Highway district. Previously to the presentation of the said petition and the incurring the said costs, no notice was ever given to the ratepayers of the said parish of Sherford of the intention of the said board to present such petition, and to incur costs in support of such petition, nor was any vestry or other public meeting of the said ratepayers called for the purpose of approving or disapproving of the presentation of the said petition and incurring of the said costs. The item of expenses charged to the parish of Sherford in respect of the said sum of 2647. 16s. 2d. was 101. 16s. 5d., which sum was comprised in the amount charged upon the said parish under the head of salaries and common charges in the annual statement, showing the receipts and expenditure of the board. The turnpike roads of the Kingsbridge and Dartmouth trust pass through the parish of Sherford. At the hearing of the said appeal at the quarter sessions aforesaid the justices gave judgment for the appellant, but without costs, and found that the opposition of the board to the Bill was bonâ fide, and the result beneficial to the district. The question for the court is, whether the item of expense aforesaid charged to the separate account of the parish of Sherford was incurred in respect of a matter upon which the board had no authority by law to make any expenditure whatever. If the court should be of opinion that such item of expense was so incurred, the judgment of the court of quarter sessions is to be affirmed. If the court should be of the contrary opinion, the judgment of the court of quarter sessions is to be reversed. B. ANDREWS, Chairman. By sect. 32 of the 27 &.28 Vict. c. 101 (Highway Act 1864), it is enacted (inter alia) that The salaries of the officers appointed for each district, and any other expenses incurred by any highway board for the common use or benefit of the several parlshes within such [Q. B. that the result was beneficial to the district. [MELLOR, J.-It may have been very public spirited in the board to have opposed the Bill, but the question is, have they a right to saddle the parishes with the cost?] The district board now supersede the vestry. They are the only competent body to incur such costs. [MELLOR, J.-They certainly had a locus standi in Parliament to oppose the Bill, but they should have obtained the consent of the inhabitants.] The words of the 32nd section of the 27 & 28 Vict. c. 101 are very large, they are "The salaries of the officers appointed for each district, and any other expenses incurred by the highway board for the common use or benefit of the several parishes within such district shall be annually charged to a district fund." [LUSH, J.-That means expenses ejusdem generis with those before mentioned. MELLOR, J. -I cannot see anything which contemplates such an expenditure as this. It is a serious amount, and not to be incurred lightly. LUSH, J.-I can understand the reasonableness of such an expense where it is incurred for the common good of all the parishes; but here it would be of no benefit at all to some parishes; only those parishes through which the turnpike road passes would be affected; as regards the other parishes they would be in no other position than any other parishes in the kingdom.] In Cornish's case the expenditure would be lawful as it is a parish through which the turnpike road runs, and the locomotion in the parish, therefore, would be affected. Under the Municipal Corporation Act (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76), several cases have been decided where a similar expenditure has been sanctioned. [MELLOR, J.-Those were cases affecting the entire borough]. The highway district is a confederation of parishes. [LUSH, J.-Only for administration, not for liability]. In R. v. Heath, 6 Best. & S. 578, the cost of an indictment_by_the board of waywardens was allowed. [LUSH, J.-But it was the cost of a particular parish. MELLOR, J. -In their opposition to the Bill the board should have got a clause inserted charging the costs of the district shall be annually charged to a district fund to be opposition to the highway board.] contributed by and charged upon the several highway Bere appeared in support of the order of sessions. The highway board had no powers to incur any expense in opposing a Bill in Parliament. Their powers are defined by sect. 17 of the Highway Act (25 & 26 Vict. c. 61), namely, to maintain in good repair the highways within their district, perform the same duties, have the same powers, and be liable to the same legal proceedings as the surveyor of the parish had under the old Highway Act; and under the old Act of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, the only costs the surveyor could charge against the parish were those of the management and repair of the roads. [LUSH, J.-Suppose the trustees of a turnpike road were to endeavour to pass an Act casting an additional burthen upon the parishes in respect of their roads?] There might, perhaps, be a power in the vestry to authorise the expenditure of money in opposing it. The 111th section of the old Act gives the inhabitants in vestry a power to agree to defend any indictment, or to appeal against any order, or defend any appeal, and in that case the surveyor might have charged the expenses in his accounts. But in this case, even if the vestry had the power to sanction this expenditure, no such sanction has been obtained. Day (with him J. F. Collier) was here called upon by the court. It is found by the case that the opposition by the board to the Bill was bonâ fide, and MELLOR, J. (a)-I think that the appeals wer correct, and that there should be judgment for the appellants. The items appealed against were, in my opinion, properly disallowed, as not being within the class of expenses contemplated by the statute. It was certainly not within the powers of the old surveyors to incur these costs, and I think not even those of the vestry. The opposition may have been of interest to some particular parishes through which the turnpike road passed, for their liability to repair it in the event of the funds of the trust failing might be affected, but it was not for the common use or benefit of the whole district. justices, I think, were right in their decision. The that the decision of the sessions was right. The (a) COCKBURN, C. J. and BLACKBURN, J. were sitting in the court for Crown Cases Reserved. the parishes in the district. That, however, is not the case here. Judgment of sessions affirmed. Saturday, May 30. REG. v. WATSON. Re AN APPEAL BETWEEN JOSEPH WATSON (appellant) AND THE CHURCHWARDENS, &C., OF THE PARISH OF HESSLE (respondents). Poor rate-Lands liable for tithes and ecclesiastical dues in one parish, and assessable to the poor rate of another parish. There is nothing legally incongruous in the fact that lands may be attached to one parish for tithes and other ecclesiastical liabilities, and be assessable to the poor rate of another parish. W. was assessed to the poor rate for the parish of Hessle in respect of certain lands described as in the township of Tranby. The lands in Tranby have from time immemorial paid tithes to the adjoining parish of Kirk Ella, and the occupiers paid church rates, Easter dues, and all other ecclesiastical dues to Kirk Ella, and never any of these to Hessle, which parish they also adjoined, and the inhabitants were buried as of right in the burialground of Kirk Ella, and as to all ecclesiastical matters such lands in Tranby were uniformly treated and reputed as a part of the parish of Kirk Ella. However, for the last 100 years, and, for anything -appearing to the contrary, before that time, the lands in Tranby have been rated to the relief of the poor of Hessle, and the overseers of the poor of Hessle had acted for Tranby as if it were a part of their dis trict: Held, that upon these facts the appellant was rightly assessed to the poor rate for the parish of Hessle. This was an appeal by the above mentioned -Joseph Watson to the quarter sessions for the east riding of York, held at Beverley on the 2nd Jan, then last past, against a poor rate made by the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Hessle, in the said riding, as hereinafter mentioned, bearing date the 1st Sept. 1865, at which sessions the appeal, being resisted by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Hessle, was ordered to be dismissed, and the rate confirmed, with costs, subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench on the following case, which was settled pursuant to rule of court of the 16th Nov. 1867, whereby the parties were to be at liberty to give fresh ⚫ evidence, and the court to draw inferences of fact. CASE. On the 1st Sept. 1865, a poor rate was made in conformity with the valuation list then in force by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Hessle, in the east riding of the county of York, which rate was thereafter duly allowed and published. In and by the rate the appellant, Joseph Watson, and the respondents, Henry Barkworth, Christopher Leake Kingrose, John Burstall Thompson, and John Percy Clark, are respectively rated for and in respect of lands in their respective Occupations situate in the township or hamlet of Tranby. The following is an extract from the said rate, that is to say: "An assessment for the relief of the poor of the township of Hessle, in the east riding, in the county of York, and for other pur- | poses chargeable thereon according to law, made this 1st day of Sept. in the year of our Lord 1865, after the rate of 10d. in the pound." (Here followed an extract from the poor rate, in which the appelant and four others were assessed in respect of [Q. B. | certain lands and premises situate in "Tranby.") The case then proceeded as follows:-All the property mentioned in the above extract is situate in, and forms part of, the township or hamlet of Tranby, except the 35a. 3r. 2p. named Westfield, and the one rood named Pit-top. Against this rate the appellant duly appealed to the above-mentioned sessions, and the question raised on the said appeal and material for the purposes of this case is, whether the appellant and the four respondents who are rated in the rate as above extracted are liable to be rated therein in respect of their respective occupations of so much of the property therein rated as is locally situate in the said township or hamlet of Tranby, it being contended, on behalf of the appellant that he and they were not legally liable to be rated to, and in respect of, such property in the Ella, in the said east riding of which it was conparish of Hessle, but in the adjacent parish of Kirk tended that Tranby formed a part. The parishes of Hessle and Kirk Ella are both ancient immemorial parishes. Hessie consists, independently of the disputed district of Tranby now in question, of the township of Aulaby and the township of Hessle, the former of which maintains its own poor and highways separately, and has its own overseers and surveyors. The churchwardens and overseers of Hessle make poor rates for the remainder of the parish, and which rates, like the present rate, are commonly called rates for the township of Hessle, but which rates for a considerable time past, as hereinafter mentioned, have included the lands of Tranby. The district of Tranby has commonly been called a township or hamlet, but it has not maintained its own poor or highways separately, and never appointed a constable. It consists of a considerable tract of agricultural land, having on it three or four gentlemen's residences, one of which has a lodge and farmhouse attached to it. It is adjacent to Hessle and also to Kirk Ella, but the residences in Tranby, with one exception, are nearer to the parish church of Hessle than that of Kirk Ella. For about the last one hundred years, and for anything that appears to the contrary before that time, the lands in Tranby have been rated to the relief of the poor of Hessle, exclusive of the township of Aulaby, and the overseers of that part of Hessle parish have acted for Tranby as if it were a part of their district. The earliest rate of which there is evidence is that of the year 1765, and in that and the six succeeding years the ratepayers of Tranby included in the Hessle rates are inserted in a list by themselves, headed "Tranby Tenants," and ending with a summary of the amount under the head "Total Tranby Assessment;" but this practice was not continued after 1772, but all the persons rated both in Hessle and Tranby are included in one general list. The Tranby lands have also, as far back as the memory of living witnesses extends, and for anything that appears to the contrary beyond that time, been rated to the highway rates for Hessle. On the other hand the lands in Tranby from the earliest period were titheable to Kirk Ella, as being situate in that parish, the occupiers were rated to, and paid church rates in that parish, and also Easter dues and all other ecclesiastical dues, and never paid tithes, church rates, or any ecclesiastical dues to Hessle; some of the residents of Tranby had seats in the parish church of Hessle, but not as of right, and some of the bodies of deceased inhabitants of Tranby had been buried in the church or churchyard of Hessle, but this was only under permission, and not as of right, and double fees had been charged, as in the case of strangers. The incumbent of Hessle sometimes married Tranby people when it was wished he should do so, but he married then, |