|
Burnley Express
Saturday 25 February 1882
The Briercliffe Highways
The long vexed question of the Highways appears to have been at last brought to a conclusion by an appeal which was heard at the Preston Intermediate Sessions on Wednesday, and in which John Rawsthorne was the appellant, and Benjamin Stanworth the respondent. The facts are briefly as follow:- The appellant is a farmer at Shuttleworth Pasture, near Briercliffe, and his farm was assessed to a highway rate made on the 16th November, 1881, upon the annual value of £110, at 6d. in the pound, the amount of the assessment being £2 15s. Rawsthorne objected to pay the rate, and gave notice of appeal to the last Quarter Sessions at PReston, from which the matter was adjourned to the present Intermediate Sessions. The grounds of appeal were: (1) Because the rate had not been made, published, and allowed according to the law; (2) Because there was no such parish as Briercliffe; (3) Because Briercliffe had never been nominated a highway parish; (4) Because the rate did not set forth the period for which it was estimated; (5) Because the rate or assessment was allowed in respect of expenses incurred before the appointment of Stanworth as surveyor, and covered by a former rate; (6) Because Stanworth had not been duly appointed Surveyor; (7) Because the rate made on the 26th February, 1881, was still in force, and therefore concurrent was the rate made on the 16th November, 1881; and (8) Because the appellant was legally exempted from all liability to repair highways, save a certain part of the highway leading from Colne to Halifax ratione tenuroe. The principal ground of appeal appears to have been the last, which raised the question as to whether Rawsthorne had repaired the road adjoining his farm, and was exempt from contribution to the rates for the repair of other highways of the parish. Briercliffe is part of the township of Briercliffe-with-Extwistle, but for highway purposes it was proved that the two places, Briercliffe and Extwistle, had always been separate, and had repaired their own highways, and appointed separate surveyors. Stanworth, the respondant, was called for the purpose of showing the rate, and was also examined as to the manner in which the highways of the township of Briercliffe had been repaired. After this, Rawsthorne, the appellant, John Catlow, William Duerden, John Nuttall, and John Rhodes were called on behalf of the appellant, to prove exemption claimed by the appellant from liability, and the repair of the highway, which, however, they failed to do, as it appeared that both Rawsthorne and the other witnesses called had in fact been rated, and had paid to the highway rates for Briercliffe since 1869. After a long discussion, the Court ruled that the rate was a good one, and that the evidence given on behalf of the appellant was not enough to satisfy them that the roads had been repaired ratione tenuroe; that the roads, as a fact, were not so repaired and dismissed the appeal with costs. -Mr. Blair (instructed by Messrs. Robinson and Robinson, solicitors, Keighley) appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Shee (instructed by Mr. T. Nowell, solicitor, Burnley) was for the respondent.
_________________
Mel
Searching for lost relatives? Win the Lottery!
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
