1805. The KING versus SIONERS Of life, or until removed for good cause, within a certain district, called a view, and resided there, and were liable to be rated there, and such a jury was summoned to inquire of lands to receive benefit by a sea-wall there erected; such jury being interested, and being also without jurisdiction, their presentment was held absolutely void. The jury presenting must also be sworn in court, and present upon the testimony of witnesses; and where such standing jurymen were only sworn upon entering on their offices, or appointing a new foreman, it was held bad. Neither is the want of jurisdiction waved by traversing their present. ment. The traversing jury must also be of the body of the county. But standing juries may be allowable to assist the view of the commissioners. THIS was a rule to shew cause why the several proceedings of the commissioners returned into this court upon a certiorari should not be quashed.* In the COMMIS- Easter term, 43 Geo. III. a writ of mandamus issued to the commissioners, to make a rate on all persons who SOMERSET. had lands, &c. within the Level of Huntspill, and which might have any disadvantage by the sea there, for want of a sufficient repair of a sufficient sea-wall, or who had any benefit from preventing inundation, for repaying, to the Marquis of Buckingham and others, money expended and paid to R. Symes, collector, beyond their proportions, under a decree of the said commissioners of the 29th of June, 1799. In Hilary term, 1804, an attachment was granted for not making such rate, but not enforced. By precept from the commissioners, the sheriff was commanded to summon the foreman of the several juries of Huntspill, &c. and such foreman was summoned accordingly, by virtue of a precept from the sheriff to the clerk of the commissioners to issue warrants in the sheriff's name. A court of sewers was held the 28th of May, 1804, and a standing jury * The proceedings were very voluminous, consisting of 81 brief sheets. Whereupon 1805. versus the COMMISSIONERS of SOMERSETA for the parish of Huntspill appeared. the chairman charged them to return the persons and lands, in their parish, of the said level, receiving benefit or avoiding damage from the sea-wall; to do this with the assistance of one Chilcott, who had been appointed SEWERS for surveyor by the above decree; to hear evidence as to each person's property, and present a list accordingly, without regard to the necessity of the wall or the sum to be raised, but only to return all persons and lands that had benefit or avoided damage. And the court was adjourned to the 9th of June, at Bridgwater; and after a similar charge, Chilcott being sworn, gave in a list of the persons liable, which he had previously made out, and this was implicitly adopted by the jury, who annexed it to their presentment. In another case of the Pawlett jury, the presentment was delivered ready signed before Chilcott's evidence was closed. Upon which the chairman informed them that they were finding contrary to evidence, but the jury persisted, and the court was adjourned to the 31st day of August, when the example of the Pawlett jury was followed by that of a jury for the parish of Puriton. Whereupon one Jeffrey, one of the persons who claimed to be repaid, traversed the presentments; which came on to be tried afterwards before juries summoned from the body of the county. Evidence was thereupon heard on both sides, and without the chairman summing up, the presentment for Pawlett was affirmed; and nearly the same jury being sworn upon the traverse for Puriton, the same proceedings were had. A precept was then demanded and obtained, for a jury out of the body of the county to make presentments, in order to make a rate; and at a court of sewers at Bridgwater, 20th October, 1805, when the same was to be made, the said jury was dismissed, the court saying, they were advised that they had no right to employ them to make a return of 1805. The KING versus the COMMISSIONERS of SOMERSET. lands in the level; and the standing juries for the several parishes were ordered to be summoned. At a court the 3d of November, the chairman told the jury to make the presentment according to their own and SEWERS for the best information they could collect, and a presentment was delivered for Chilton parish, previously prepared and signed, and the commissioners, saying they could not compel jurors to hear evidence, they (the jurors) refused to hear any. Other juries also refused to hear evidence. The presentment for Shapwick, one of the parishes in which the lands lay, was drawn up and presented in the hand-writing of one Parsons, a commissioner, against whom the attachment was directed; and each of the juries were severally attended and assisted by an attorney. Objections were taken to the presentments not defining the lands or limits of the district sufficiently.. Edward Symes, an attorney for some of the juries, after objections were taken, and it had been recommended by some of the commissioners that some of the jurors should alter some of these presentments in the particulars above-mentioned, refused to do it, and said that they were settled by counsel. On the 23d of November, 1804, sixty traverses of the presentment for Huntspill were entered by Symes and others, as attornies, without producing any authority in writ ing from the owners of lands for whom they appeared, although they were requested so to do, and although objection was taken as to the length of time elapsed. It was suggested also, that traverses were entered on the behalf of some of the jurors themselves who had signed the presentment, namely, for Way, Hawkins, and Board, of Huntspill. An advertisement was published in the Bath Chronicle, in August, to summon a meeting of all the landholders, for the purpose of opposing the rate, and the affidavits suggested that combinations were formed and subscriptions were entered into for that purpose, by a large body of persons so in terested, and that on the 28th of August, 1804, and at other times, meetings were attended' by several of the commissioners who had not acted, but who were apprised of the mandamus. They were also attended by some of the standing jurors, namely, Moore, of Mark, and Card, of Burnham, who joined in the presentment of the 9th of November. This fact was not denied. The expence of such opposition to the rate was agreed to be paid out of the poor rates, and written agreements were signed at a meeting held in July, 1800, to oppose all the proceedings of the commissioners of sewers for enforcing the rate, which agreements were signed by several of the jurors who joined in the presentments for the several parishes. A further agreement was signed on the 3d of September, 1804, by several of the same jurors, to defray the expences incurred by Payne and others, solicitors. The evidence given by Chilcott, on the traverses to the Pawlett jury's presentment, proved that the lands were very extensive, and likely to receive great damage by the equinoctial tides, and that a field of one of the jurors on that presentment was liable to be very much injured. In support of the presentments, it appeared, from the affidavit of the clerk to the commissioners, that the practice has been immemorially, that, when a new commission issues, the commissioners issue their precept to the sheriff to summon juries, which are summoned by the sheriff accordingly, and a foreman is chosen by the commissioners, on appearing at the next court of sewers. That they are composed of persons residing in the neighbourhood of their respective views, as being most competent to the office; and are sworn "diligently to inquire and present all defaults, impediments, and annoyances, of, or by water found within their view. And also all such other matters and things which they, as jury men of such juries, ought to present as long 1805. The KING versus the COMMIS SIONERS of SEWERS for 1805. The KING versus the COMMIS SEWERS for SOMERSET. as they continue in that office, without any conceal, ment." That the juries consist of various numbers, according to the extent of their views, and are in SIONERS of many instances not confined to one parish. That the view of each jury is well known. That they are always composed of persons living within the parishes or districts where the lands in view lie, and continue in office until death, or until discharged by the commissioners for infirmity, or some other good cause, when a new juryman is chosen and sworn in. That being once chosen, it is never usual to reswear the jurymen excepting when a foreman is chosen. That the same practice was pursued, except that the said Huntspill, Pill, and other juries, were resworn, but in other respects the juries followed the same rules as had heretofore been pursued respecting the returning of presentments. When the matter of any presentment hath been disputed, it has been usual for the person disputing the same to traverse the presentment, which traverse being entered, the commissioners of sewers issued their precept to the sheriff of the county, requiring him to summon a jury to try such traverse, and it was accordingly summoned from some other part of the county, avoiding to summon parties interested in the matter in dispute. That such proceedings were followed on the trial of the traverse of the presentments for Pawlett and Puriton, and no instance was ever known of trying a presentment before a court of sewers otherwise. པ Several jurors filed affidavits denying combination, setting out their respective views, and stating that they never knew jurors present any thing out of their views; and that Mills, an eminent engineer, was employed to view the Level of Huntspill, which contained 4000 acres, and he declared, that the lands in the Huntspill view could not be affected by any inundations of the sea, for want of a sea-wall for Hunts |