1860. The QUEEN V. those cases was it decided that fraud may not invalidate a transfer of land equally as one of goods, where the SADDLERS' parties can be put in statu quo by simply avoiding the Company. transaction, and the election to avoid it is made by the party defrauded within a reasonable time after the discovery of the fraud, and before a right has been created in any third party. And, in whatever manner the question thus stated ought to be decided, there is a wide difference between a conveyance of land which by the policy of the law must be vested in some one, and the creation of a personal right incapable of transfer, such as the office of Assistant. A much closer analogy is found in the case of judgments and other proceedings in Courts of justice, obtained by fraud upon the Court. These might be treated as void in a collateral proceeding without any writ of deceit, where that process existed, and without any application to the Court to set them aside. Instances of this will be found, as to a fine, in Fermor's Case (a); as to a judgment, in Philipson v. Lord Egremont (b); and as to a decree, in Earl of Bandon v. Becher (c). We are therefore of opinion that the objection as to the effect of the admittance is not open to the prosecutor ; and in so deciding we act upon the plain principle that "it is not reasonable that one should take advantage of his own wrong, and if the law should give him such power the law would be the cause and occasion of wrong" (d). We have thus disposed of all the questions affecting the merits of the case; and it only remains for us to (a) 3 Rep. 77 a. (b) 6 Q. B. 587. direct how the verdict should be entered upon the issues in point of form. 1860. The QUEEN V. SADDLERS' It is right here to notice that the special verdict is drawn in the old form, with much unnecessary prolixity, Company. instead of in a simple and more compendious form, after finding the facts, stating that the jury are ignorant how, upon such facts, the issues ought to be found; praying the advice of the Court; and stating that they find according to its judgment: or, if it be desired to narrow the question for the opinion of the Court, the form adopted in Mowatt v. Lord Londesborough (a) may be resorted to. We impute no blame to the gentlemen who prepared the special verdict in the present form, for which there are no doubt numerous precedents; but we trust that in future a shorter form will be adopted in practice. As to the first plea, the substantial part of it must, according to our judgment, be found for the defendants. The traverse as to the charter being insufficiently set out in the mandamus ought to be treated as a distinct issue in denial of the charter alleged, and found for the prosecutor. So ought the traverse as to the prosecutor having been duly elected, because, upon these pleadings, the issue as to the election is simply whether it was done in point of form; the due qualification of the prosecutor being the subject of distinct averment in the mandamus, return and plea. We must for this purpose treat the issue as divisible, for the second Common Law Procedure Act puts the pleadings in mandamus, after the return, upon the same footing as those in an ordinary action. As to the residue of the first plea, the judgment of Lord Wensleydale in Lush v. Russell (b) (a) 4 E. & B. 1. (b) 5 Exch. 203. 1860. is conclusive to shew that, in our view of the substantial The QUEEN question, the finding must be for the defendants. V. SADDLERS' As to the second plea, it is either sustainable, in point of law, on the ground that the averment, that the prosecutor was an Assistant, and entitled to attend the meeting of 20th December, is an implied traverse of that part of the return which we have held to be an answer to the mandamus; and, as that averment is disproved, the plea fails; or, if that averment is not to be so construed, the plea is insufficient in point of law, and then, in order to entitle the prosecutor to a verdict thereupon, it was necessary to prove all the averments. In either view, the verdict upon that issue must be for the defendants. The result is, that we reverse the judgment of the Queen's Bench and give judgment for the defendants. Judgment reversed. The judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench was affirmed, and that of the Exchequer Chamber was reversed, in the House of Lords, on 28th July, 1863. 1860. June 6th. June 9th. The Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of ST. Wednesday, CASE ASE stated by a Metropolitan Police Magistrate, By The Meunder stat. 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. On 17th February, 1858, the said overseers, the appellants, were summoned to appear on 24th February, 1858, before the magistrate, at the Police Court, Arbour Square, in the county of Middlesex, and within the Metropolitan Police District: For that the Board of Works for the Whitechapel district, by an order under their seal, bearing date 2nd March, 1857, directed to Henry Grant Baker and Charles McLachlan, did require them, as the over tropolis Management Act, 1855, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120. s. 158., every metropolitan is, by order under its seal, District Board to require the overseers of the several parishes in the district to levy and pay Board the over to the sums which defraying the expenses of the execution of the Act; distinguishing, in such order, the sums required for sewerage expenses from those required for other expenses under the Act. By sect. 159, if it appears to the Board that all or part of the expenses for defraying which the order is made have been incurred for the special benefit of part, or not for the equal benefit of the whole, of the district, the order may direct the sums, or part of them, required to be levied, to be levied in the part of the district specially benefited, or may exempt any part of the district from the levy, or require a less rate to be levied thereon, as the circumstances may require; and if in the judgment of the Board an entire parish is entitled to exemption, no order need be made on such parish. Held, that the effect of the Act is to substitute districts for the parishes of which they are composed, for all purposes of management, taxation and expenditure; not for purposes of management only. That the rates leviable in the component parishes under the orders of a District Board, are raised for the benefit of the whole district, though apportioned between the parishes. That, primâ facie, the rates ought to be apportioned between the parishes according to their respective rateable value, and not according to the outlay in them respectively; subject to allowances, at the discretion of the Board, in cases falling within sect. 159. That an order of a District Board on a parish, distinguishing between the sums required for sewerage and for other expenses, is good under sect. 158, and is final, if made by the Board after an impartial exercise of the discretion given to it by sect. 159; the decision of the Board, so arrived at, as to the amount proper to be required from a parish, being, even if erroneous, conclusive. 1860. seers of the parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate, in the Overseers of county of Middlesex, to levy and pay over to the treasurer v. WHITE CHAPEL Board of Works. the days and by the instalments therein mentioned. And for that default had been made in payment of the said several sums in manner directed by such order. The said complaint was made under the provisions of stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120. [The case then set out a copy of the order of 2nd March, 1857; which contained a notice that the sum of 1417. Os. 3d., part of the said sum of 5647. 1s., was required for defraying expenses of constructing, altering, maintaining and cleansing the sewers, or otherwise connected with sewerage within the said district; and that the sum of 4231. Os. 9d., the remaining part of the said sum of 5644. 1s., was required for defraying other expenses of the execution of the said Act within the said district. The order also contained the following note. "The overseers, having levied the amount of the above order in the manner directed by the 161st section of stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120., are required by the same section to pay to the treasurer of the Board, or otherwise as in such order directed, the amount mentioned in the order, within the time or respective times specified for that purpose, and the excess, if any, which may have been levied beyond such amount; which excess shall be placed to the credit of the parish or part in which the same has been levied."] It was proved before the magistrate that the said order had been made in conformity with certain resolutions passed by the said Board of Works on 4th August, 1856, 23rd February, 1857, and 2nd March, 1857. Considerable discussion had, from time to time, taken place, at the said Board of Works, as to the principle to be adopted in |