Mr. Walter Rooksby, of Rushden, was summoned by the surveyor highways for rate of £11.2s.2d. Mr. Rooksby said he objected to the rate because nothing had been done to the road, although the herbage had been let for £30 a-year for two years; besides he had a claim for carting. Mr. Linnett, who appeared for Mr. Fisher, the surveyor, said he was willing to make any proper allowance, and the magistrates having decided that the absence of any outlay upon the road did not warrant the non-payment of the rate, the parties retired to a room below to arrange matters. The bench was engaged in the next case when a shout from below was heard of “Police! Police!” Off flew the police down the stairs, and away rushed the public in the court to the windows, expecting to see some gallant Turpin, escaped from custody, bounding down the Northampton road. Presently Mr. Linnett made his re-appearance, breathless and excited, and informed the bench that Mr. Rooksby had made a grab at his purse, and, for aught he knew, had got some of his money. Mr. Wilkins said the charge was a serious one and directed Mr. Rooksby to some up. Mr. Rooksby came up accordingly, and Mr. Wilkins repeated to him the grave charge which was made against him. Mr. Rooksby admitted that he had made a grab at the purse, but it was his own money that was in it. He had given Mr. Linnett two £5 notes and two sovereigns in payment of the rate, but he had refused to give him a receipt, and so he endeavoured to get his money away back again.—Mr. Wilkins. It was in his purse?—Mr. Rooksby. Yes, but it was my money.—Mr. Wilkins. Not at all. You had paid it to him. If he refused to give you a receipt you had your remedy against him.—Mr. Linnett said he laid down £2.17s.6d. for so many days’ work at 7s. per day, and he believed he had got it. He denied that he refused a proper receipt.—Mr. Rooksby said Mr. Linnett had laughed at him and set him at defiance. Mr. Wilkins now set himself diligently to work to ascertain how the money account stood between the parties. There was evidently a good deal of ill-feeling between them, and the worthy magistrate had some difficulty in disentangling the threads. It appeared that Mr. Linnett ought to have returned Mr. Rooksby 11s.8d. change out of the £10, and, according to his own showing, he had given him but 8s. On the other hand, Mr. Rooksby protested that he had only received a 5s. piece and fourpenny-bit. One of the polce stated that he saw a 5s.-piece and some silver, but he did not seem sure that he saw the half-crown and sixpence which Mr. Linnett supposed he had givenin addition. At length it was decided that Mr. Lonnett should make up the 11s.8d., and give a receipt for the full amount of the rate, and settle Mr. Rooksby’s claim afterwards. Once more the matter was thought to be disposed of, but Mr. Rooksby presented himself yet a third time with an objection to the surveyor’s accounts. The accounts had been already passed, but Mr. Linnett offered no objection to their being re-opened. Mr. Rooksby stated that the herbage had for two years been let at £30 per annum and he did not find one farthing of it accounted for in the surveyor’s accounts.—Mr. Wilkins asked whether the award required the money in question to be applied to the repair of the roads. It was variously disposed of in different parishes. In Raunds it was provided by the act that the pasturage should be let annually, and the proceeds paid over for the repair of the roads. In Ringstead, on the contrary, the pasturage belongs to the proprietors, and if they allow the parish to let it, the proceeds may, by the consent of the former, be applied in a variety of ways. What was the case in Rushden he did not know.—Mr. Linnett stated that he had received £16 and £5, of which he had paid £10 into the road account last year, £5 for sparrow killing, and £2 to have a man taught shoemaking.—Mr. Wilkins said if the money was awarded to the repair of the roads Mr. Rooksby’s objection was perfectly right, and the surveyor was liable for any part of it which he had otherwise appropriated. He wished to know under what authority the pasturage was let.—Mr. Linnett said he was not able to answer the question. He had done as his predecessors had done.—Mr. Burnham said he should not like to speak with certainty out of book, but he had an impression that the act gave pasturage to the proprietors.—Mr. Linnett said he had seen the award, and it certainly did declare the pasturage to belong to the proprietors.—Mr. Wilkins said that of course settled the matter. There were many small expenses, such as for killing sparrows and vermin, which used to be paid out of the Church Rate. When that was declared illegal they used to be charged to the Poor’s Rate. When the law struck them out of that, parishes were put to their wits’ end, and it was in some cases agreed among the proprietors that the pasturage should be let, and the proceeds appropriated by the parish, with their permission, to the purposes in question. There, however, was an end to Mr. Rooksby’s objection.—Mr. Rooksby said there were two or three other little issues to which he objected. The carting was done in some instances by the gret, and some few favourites had it by the day.—Mr. Wilkins said he could not enter in those matters. If Mr. Rooksby gave notice to the surveyor he would be bound to divide the cartage among the occupiers in proportion to their assessments.
And here, so far as the Bench was concerned, the matter terminated. But Mr. Rooksby and Mr. Linnett wnet away threatening to do battle on other plains.—Mr. Rooksby insisting upon a claim of £7.10s., for carting, which Mr. Linnett was for cutting down to £2.17s.6d., and Mr. Linnett claiming £2.15s. of Mr. Rooksby’s for pasturage, and a sovereign, which he alleged Mr. Rooksby had possessed himself of in the “grab” at the purse.
|
