Newspaper Transcripts
Some Selected Reports from The Windsor and Eton Express
30th January 1836
Institutions in Windsor
During the week the annual general meeting of three Institutions have been held, viz, the Savings Bank, the Dispensary, and the National Schools, and we are glad to find that their means of benefiting the classes for whom they were intended are most satisfactory. We beg
particular attention to the Advertisements detailing the progress of those institutions, especially to the reports of the Committee of the Dispensary and the National Schools.
Windsor And Eton Public Subscription Library
On Tuesday evening the third annual meeting of the subscribers to this Institution took place, Mr.Lewis, Vice President, in the chair. The report to the Committee, we are sorry to say, was of a very gloomy character. The Committee had been unable from want of funds to add a single book or publication to the Library, and they were burdened with a debt which,
though small, was progressively increasing. Nor, indeed, was any prospect held out of improvement. The inconvenience of their present premises was assigned as one probably cause of preventing an additional number of subscribers, which the Committee had hoped to be able to overcome by procuring a piece
of ground on which to erect a building, but they were frustrated in that object, and now in the present state of the finances it was a question whether they should think any more of such a project, and they recommended improvements to be made in their present premises.
The Committee recommended as one means of getting out of debt to increase the amount paid by subscribers, and the discontinuance of such publications as were the least interesting. They also recommended a voluntary subscription. The attempt to benefit the Institution by lectures had also failed in consequence of the expenses attending them.
The Committee lamented these things, which placed this Institution so far below other towns even of minor importance in the neighbourhood. A resolution to increase the amount paid by subscribers was proposed and negatived, but a voluntary subscription was set on foot which we hope will soon enable the
Institution , not only to pay the debt it has incurred, but to extend its benefits more largely than hitherto. A Committee was appointed to find more suitable premises either in Windsor or Eton. The usual routine of business having been gone through the meeting separated,
On Monday one of the carriages of the Royal Artillery , and a small detachment of that Regiment commanded by Serjeant Gillies, arrived at Windsor, with a portion of a porphyry column, which had just been landed at Portsmouth, from Upper Egypt, conveyed round to
Woolwich, and thence to Windsor, for his Majesty. On its arrival at the Castle, no person in the establishment had any orders respecting it, and the detachment that brought it deposited it in the Quadrangle.
The case of Batcheldor v, Hodges, the late Assistant Overseer of Windsor, came on for discussion in the Court of Kings Bench a few days ago, in the shape of a demurrer to the defendants pleas. It will be recollected that the action was for a penalty under the statute, for having refused to allow the plaintiff to inspect the rate books.
The defendant pleaded, 1st, the general issue, 2nd, that as the rate was not a subsisting one, the plaintiff was not entitled to inspect it, and two other pleas denied the right to inspect, as the rate had not been appealed against. After hearing Counsel, the Court expressed their opinion that the demurrer must be allowed, and consequently judgement was given for the plaintiff.
Appeals Against the Assessed Taxes
On Monday a number of appeals against surcharges for the Assessed Taxes were heard before Wm.Legh, Esq., Mayor and R.Blunt,Esq., Justice, sitting as Commissioners.
Dr.Fergusson complained that he had been charged for a groom which he had not got. His carriage [�] at livery , and he paid a man half-a-crown per week to clean it as he kept no groom.
Mr.Hyde, the Surveyor of taxes, said that was in fact keeping a groom, and that instead of �[.] for an occasional servant, which Dr.Fergusson had been charged, it should have been the high duty of �1 19s.
Dr.Fergusson said that the same man that he employed, was also similarly employed by other gentlemen.
Mr.Hyde said that made no difference. Every person employing him was liable to pay, even if twenty did.
Dr.Fergusson observed that such a man would be most in[..]tive in the state[?].
The charge was then confirmed.
Mr.Hewitt [��.] charge for a groom. He stated that he kept [��] a better situation, and he employed him in looking after his horse and cart, and going out with goods. The boy was under 18 years of age, and he conceived was not liable to be taxed.
Mr.Hyde stated that the Act of Parliament allowed a person to employ a boy in that manner, who was under 18 years of age and belonged to the parish, provided that he was so returned in the schedule. In that case the boy was exempted from the tax. He asked Mr.Hewitt if he had claimed that exemption in the return.
Mr.Hewitt said he had not.
Mr.Hyde assured the Magistrates that he had had positive instructions from the Board in London to allow exemptions as to young men under 18 years of age, and having a legal settlement in the parish, provided those exemptions were claimed in the returns. His instructions also were not to allow those exemptions unless they were claimed in the returns, which was not done in this case, and therefore it could not be allowed.
Mr.Hewitt said it was from ignorance alone that he did not claim the exemption.
Mr.Hyde assured the Magistrates that he would not press a case without he was obliged to do so.
The Mayor said he had never found any thing else in Mr.Hyde.
The charge was confirmed.
Messrs. Ramsbottom and Co., appealed against a surcharge for a horse and gig, and also for two working horses. Mr.Gutteridge attended for the firm. As the Mayor was a partner in the firm, Mr.Blunt said there ought to be another Commissioner present. However, the Mayor thought it could be soon settled without the necessity of a postponement.
It appeared that Mr.Snelling, who is in Messrs. Ramsbottom's employ in London was charged for a horse and gig, but Mr.S had made a return to the office in London that the horse and gig belonged to Messrs. Ramsbottom, and consequently instructions were sent by the Board to Mr.Hyde to charge the firm.
The Mayor said certainly the horse and gig were Mr.Snelling's own property, but he could not say but they were partly used by Mr.Snelling in the service of the firm.
The question then arose whether the appeal should be allowed, in which case Mr.Snelling would be liable to a heavy penalty for making a false return, or whether the charge should remain, leaving it to Messrs. Ramsbottom and Co., to deduct the amount of tax from Mr.Snelling. The latter course was preferred by the Mayor, and the charge was confirmed.
As to the surcharge, with respect to the number of dray horses,
Mr.Gutteridge stated that the firm had but 18 instead of 20 that had been charged, and the appeal, in that respect, was allowed.
Mr.Saunders complained of being surcharged the tax on a horse. He had been charged for two horses, but although he had two, he only turned a brood mare out and then got another, so that he only had one at a time.
Mr.Hyde referred to the Act which said "kept or used." Mr.Saunders had kept both horses the whole of the year, and had used one a portion of the year and the other the other portion, so that he was liable for both. Mr.Hyde added that the Judges had decided that if a person bought a horse when he only had it one day it turned lame and he bought another, he was liable for both.
The Mayor said it was a hard case, for where both were not used at once, he thought they should be counted as one. He thought that it would be useful to the public to know the law upon these points.
Charge confirmed.
Mr.C.Wethered sen, appealed against the charge of duty on a horse and it appeared that he had none since November 1833, although he had paid the duty for a year and a half afterwards. Appeal allowed.
Mr.Thomas Dash, of the Star and Garter, appealed against several surcharges. The case occupied a considerable time. One cause of appeal was that he was charged for a man he had at Clewer-house - who he contended was to be considered an agricultural servant and not taxable. He stated that the man milked the cows, attended to about four acres of land, and also to the garden, and was paid at weekly wages. He objected that the "Boots" or porter of his inn was taxed.
Mr.Hyde referred to a decision by the Judges in the case of the porter or "Boots" of an inn, in which the Judges had laid down that such a servant was unlike a porter in any other trade, and was chargeable.
Mr.Secker said that decision settled the question as to the porter.
Mr.Hyde said that the gardener was not exempted by the statute.
Mr.Secker. A man must positively be a farm servant to be exempted.
Mr.Hyde said that had been decided by the Judges in June, 1835, where a person who was a labourer at weekly wages worked in the garden, but was also employed in other capacities on 30 acres of land, milking cows, &c. He was also sometimes employed in other persons gardens, which made the case stronger than the present one, and five Judges decided that the person was liable to be taxed.
The charge was confirmed.
The next complaint by Mr.Dash was that he was surcharged a britaka and a fly, and after a lengthened enquiry Mr.Hyde requested him to sign a declaration of such things as he pleased, previously warning him of the consequence of his declaring to what was erroneous viz, a fine of �50 and three months imprisonment.
Mrs.Martha Lillywhite complained of being surcharged for a groom. It appeared that she kept a gig, and sometimes put a horse to it to drive out, but upon those occasions she did not pay post horse duty. An ostler in the yard cleaned the horse and gig.
Mr.Hyde cited a case decided by the Judges, which was similar to the present; an innkeeper kept a horse for his own use, and the ostler who looked after the customers horses also looked after that, and the Judges had held that the ostler was in consequence chargeable as a groom. Mr.H begged to observe to the magistrates that he had not made half the surcharges that came before them that day.
The Legislature had exempted ostlers from the tax if they were kept solely to look after the horses of the customers, but if innkeepers kept horses for their own use, and employed their ostlers to take care of them, it was the same thing as a private person keeping a horse and employing a groom.
The charge was confirmed, but the appeal as to an additional waiter was allowed. Mrs.Lillywhite also appealed against a charge for a gig, but as her son, who appeared for her, said it might have been used after April 1834, the charge was confirmed.
Mr.Thomas Sharratt appealed against a charge for a gig. He stated that between April 1834, and April 1835, he had no gig, nor a cart with a cushion.
Mr.Hyde then said that he must request Mr.Sharratt to be sworn.
Mr.Sharratt was then sworn and repeated that had to cart with a cushion on it.
Mr.Hyde then told Mr.Sharratt he must sign a declaration to that effect, but as he would not take him by surprise, he would state that he had an oath of a respectable individual to the contrary.
The Mayor asked Mr.Hyde how he got possession of such information.
Mr.Hyde of course declined to state it, and requested Mr.Sharratt to sign the declaration.
Mr.Secker advised Mr.Sharatt to consider what he was going to do.
After some further discussion it appeared that the cart was only used for Mr.Sharatt's business.
Mr.Hyde said then it was exempted as being used only for the purpose of his trade, but if it had cushions on Mr.Sharratt would have been liable. The appeal was allowed.
Mr.Bradford appealed against a charge for a gig. It appeared that he had only occasionally hired a gig, and that he paid for its hire as he had it.
Mr.Hyde referred to a decision on a similar case by the Judges. It appeared that Mr.Bradford had hired a gig of a person who had not returned it as lent on hire, and it had been decided in that case the person hiring it was liable to the duty. The duty was payable, and if the owners did not return it in the schedule, the person hiring it must pay.
Mr.Mayor asked if those opinions of the Judges were obtained gratuitously.
Mr.Hyde said they were furnished to the Surveyors of Taxes.
Both the Mayor and Mr.Blunt seemed to think the case of Mr.Bradford's an exceedingly hard one.
Mr.Secker said the Act of Parliament directed the onus probandi to lay on the hirer to show the duty was paid.
The Mayor said the fair presumption was that the duty had been paid by the person letting the gig.
Mr.Hyde said they had no power to act on presumption; if they had what would be said to the case of one man at Bristol, who let out 72 carriages, not one of which had paid the duty.
Mr.Blunt. This only applies to the case where a person had his own horse and hired the gig.
Mr.Hyde. No, because when a person hires a horse and gig he takes a ticket, which is produced at the first turnpike, and then we have a check upon the lender.
The Magistrates decided that although the case was a hard one they could not grant relief.
Mr.Henry Adams appealed against a similar charge, and the decision was the same. He also appealed against the charge for one horse. He had been charged for four, but he had but three, and only one of them used at one time. He, however, said it was possible that he might have had four at one time for one or two months. They were, however, butcher's horses, and used in the business.
Mr.Hyde referred to the Act of Parliament respecting butcher's horses, from which it appeared that a butcher could only keep one at the reduced rate for the purpose of trade, viz 10s 6d., and the second must be at �1 8s 9d. It only provided for two horses. If more than two were kept they were all chargeable with the high duty. Supposing Mr.Adams had four horses, would he swear that the fourth was put by ?
Mr.Adams said he could.
Mr.Hyde said he would then take the 4th at the reduced duty as a brood mare and turned out viz . 10s 6d.
The charge on the whole four horses was confirmed.
Mr.Wm. Adams next appealed against a charge for a horse. He said he bought a horse of Sir Wm.Lumley, for �25, and had had it but two days and sold it for �10 - [laughter] - and he kept but one horse.
He was relieved of the charge.
Mr.Joseph Cripps complained of being surcharged for some dogs, and it appeared they had been dead long ago, he was relieved.
Mr.R.Jenkins appealed against a charge for a gig. He said he never had one. It was his father's , and he had given notice that his father intended to give it up. As however it remained on the premises the charge was confirmed.
Mr.John Harrison complained of being charged for a 4 wheel carriage. It appeared he had only hired the carriage once for his brother to go to Virginia Water. Mr.Hyde got out on cross examination that Mr.Harrison employed a boy under 18 years old, and not belonging to the parish, and said he would give up the tax on the carriage but he must put �1 4s on for a "groom".
Messrs.Thomas and John North appealed against a charge for a sixon[?] horse, and were relieved, as was Mr.W. Wright, who had been surcharged the tax on a dog.
Mr.Wm.Clode, of the New Inn, complained of being surcharged on one form[?] wheel carriage. He stated that he had only four carriages, and one of which conveyed the band, and was at all times used for passengers.
Mr.Hyde said the van had only been charged �2 10s, and he claimed to have that increased to �5 5s., as provided for by the Act to which he referred the magistrates.
Mr.Clode then in examination said he had no riding horse, but he occasionally used one; on those occasions he did not pay post office duty for it. His ostler cleaned it.
Mr.Hyde claimed to have the additions made to Mr.Clode, of the difference between the �8 10s[?] and �5 5s, as also the duties on the riding horse and groom, which the magistrates allowed.
Mr.Hyde said me might also claim for the "boots", but he would not.
Mr.Layton complained of the charge for a groom. He employed a boy under 18 years of age, and a native of the parish, but he had not claimed the exemption as required by the Act, and the charge was confirmed.
Mr.George Hughes also appealed against a surcharge for a groom, but that was under similar circumstances, and the charge was confirmed. In his examination by Mr.Hyde he said he had two horses which he used in his trade of a butcher, but he occasionally drove each of them in a gig.
Mr.Hyde said Mr.Hughes was only charged �1 10s 3d, for the horses, whereas it should be �4 14s 6d., which he (Mr.Hyde) now claimed it to be altered to, which was done.
Mr.William Clark, Mr.John Roberts, and Mr.William Head, were relieved on hearing their appeals.