1788-11-20 (static/transcriptions/1788/11/079.jpg)

Not a reasonable excuse generally. 1Ld Raymd 498.

To this he answered, if the mayor, &c allow the excuse, the city will be bound for ever, and if they refuse to admit a reasonable excuse it is not final, because it may be controverted in an action brought for the penalty. And (by him) this act of common council ought to be expounded according to the statute 23 Hen. 8 cap 5 concerning the commiossion of sewers; where though they are impowered to proceed according to their discretions, yet their discretion ought to be grounded upon reason and law. 5 Co 108. Rooke’s case. 1Ld Raymd 500.

[double line]

In 12 Mod 269 SC the same point is reported to have been determined on the same grounds. In the same case, as reported by Carthew 480 & in 5 Mod 538, the power or liberty of making a reasonable excuse to be allowed by the Ld Mayor & Aldermen is not expressed to be in the By law; but in both those books the opinion of K. B. is reported to be that, if they should refuse a reasonable excuse, the party is not bound by such refusal, but may give it in evidence on an Action brot for the forfeiture. In 5 Mod it is said he may either plead it, or give it in Evidence. Having considd this case and the case of comrs of Sewers, 5 Rep 100, I am clearly of opinion that a man who is assessed by Comrs of Police beyond wh the ordance permits or perhaps, beyond the rate at which others are taxed, see 5 Rep 100 may give it in evidence in Supr Cot on an action for the forfeiture; but then I think that he ought to have offered proof of that fact to the Comrs if they called upon him to

[sideways]

A Note. What I have said of inequality in the Tax, must be understood of such great & manifest inequality as can only (after proof of it offerd to the comrs) have been continued through partially or some unjustifiable motive.