1852.

DWYER

v.

COLLINS.

production at the trial is sufficient. We are not able to find a trace of the reason suggested on the part of the plaintiff, until it is mentioned by Mr. Starkie, in his book on Evidence, and afterwards by Mr. Taylor, in his. There is no satisfactory authority which appears to us to support such a position. If this be the principle on which notice to produce is required, it is a solitary instance, we believe, in the law, prior to the New Rules, of its being necessary for one party to give notice of the evidence which the other means to adduce against him. If this be the true reason, the measure of the reasonable length of notice would not be the time necessary to procure the document, a comparatively simple inquiry, but the time necessary to procure evidence to explain or support it, a very complicated one, depending on the nature of the plaintiff's case, and the document itself and its bearing on the cause; and in practice such matters have never been inquired into, but only the time, with reference to the custody of the document, and the residence and convenience of the party to whom notice has been given, and the like. We think the plaintiff's alleged principle is not the true one on which notice to produce is required, but that it is merely to give a sufficient opportunity to the opposite party to produce it, and thereby to secure, if he pleases, the best evidence of the contents; and a request to produce immediately is quite sufficient for that purpose, if it be in court. With this view the opinion of our Brother Alderson accords, as reported in Lawrence v. Clark (a). There is no case in support of the plaintiff's position, except that of Cook v. Hearn, above referred to, which we think, for the reasons given before, quite insufficient; and a case of Exall v. Partridge, said to have been quoted by the late Lord Abinger when at the bar, mentioned in the report of Doe d. Wartney v. Grey (b), but not reported else

where, in which Lord Kenyon is said to have told the at-
torney that he need not produce the instrument, which
had a subscribing witness, unless he had notice in time to
enable him to produce the attesting witness. There is
probably a mistake in this, as the party requiring the do-
cument would have been bound, if it were produced, to
call the subscribing witness, unless in the excepted case
where the party producing it claimed title under it. This
case cannot be relied upon. In the case of Doe v. Grey it-
self, it did not appear that the attorney had received the
notice to produce, which the night before was served upon
his wife, or had the lease itself in court on the trial.
does that fact appear in either of the cases of Read v. Gam-
ble and Lawrence v. Clark, before referred to;-the expres-
sion, that the counsel refused to produce, is not equiva-
lent, and the fact is not so proved. We think that the
rule must be discharged; and it would be some scandal to
the administration of the law if the plaintiff's objection
had prevailed.

Nor

Rule discharged.

1852.

DWYER

v.

COLLINS.

1852.

April 28.

Three houses, situated beyond the actual wall

of a county gaol, but within its precincts, were appropriated to the occupation of the

governor and of

two of the war

ders of the gaol,

respectively, and they inhabited these houses solely as

THE JUSTICES OF BEDFORDSHIRE and C. FORSTER, J. PARSONS, and J. FERRIS, Appellants, v. THE CHURCH WARDENS AND OVERSEERS OF THE PARISH OF ST. PAUL, BEDFORD, Respondents.

THIS was a special case, stated for the opinion of this Court, under the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45, with the consent of the parties, under an order of Martin, B.

It was an appeal against a rate and assessment for the relief of the poor of the parish of St. Paul, in the borough of Bedford, in the county of Bedford, and for other purposes, made the 5th of May, 1851, after the rate of 6d. in the pound.

Against this assessment the appellants duly gave notice solely as of appeal, on the following grounds, viz.:—

officers of the

gaol. The

house of the

governor had

That each of the houses in the rate mentioned, for which an internal com- the said C. Forster, J. Parsons, and J. Ferris are respect

munication with

the gaol, but

the other houses

had no commu

nication with it, except by means of the principal entrance of the gaol:-Held, that the occupier of each of these houses was exempt from liability to be assessed to the poor rate, on the ground that the houses were virtually

part and parcel

of the gaol.

ively rated as occupiers, is parcel of the gaol of the county of Bedford. That each of the said parties inhabits the house, as occupier of which he is rated in the rate, solely as an officer of the said gaol, and in compliance with certain regulations relating thereto, theretofore adopted and certified according to law for the management thereof, and is not further or otherwise an occupier of the house so by him inhabited as aforesaid. That the gaol and houses respectively were not, and are not, liable to be rated or assessed in or by the said rate.

Forster was at the time of making the rate the go

On the hearing of a special case in an appeal stated for the opinion of one of the superior Courts, under the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45, s. 11, the counsel for the party in support of the rate is entitled to begin.

Upon such hearing, the Court refused to hear more than one counsel upon either side.

vernor, and Parsons and Ferris were the warders, of the gaol and house of correction of the said county. The parish of St. Paul is situated within the borough of Bedford, which has a recorder, and to which a separate commission and a separate court of quarter sessions of the peace have been granted; and the jurisdiction of the justices of the borough is independent and exclusive of that of the justices of the said county; and the appointment of the overseers in the appeal, by whom the said rate was made, was by the justices of the borough only, and not by the justices of the county.

Previously to the year 1848, the governor had his dwelling-house, and the officers of the gaol had their apartments, within the gaol. In the year 1848 the gaol was rebuilt, in conformity with plans submitted to and approved by her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department; and under his express direction, the houses now occupied by the governor and the warders were then purposely so constructed as not to adjoin any portion of the gaol or house of correction in which prisoners are confined. Those portions of the gaol and house of correction in which prisoners are confined stand on an area surrounded, except as shewn on the plan to the case annexed, by a high wall, which is at some distance in every part from the buildings within. The house occupied by the governor, and in respect of which he was rated, was at the left-hand side of the prison gateway, and the front door, which is the ordinary entrance, opens on the public street, and the house is on the outside of the wall. The wall and the back wall of the house are in the same line, and the house projects forwards from such line, with its side walls at right angles to it. The house communicates, by an outlet through the back wall, with the

area.

The house, in pursuance of the directions of the Secretary of State, was originally built without any outlet through the back wall, or otherwise from within it, into

1852.

JUSTICES OF
BEDS., App.

V.

ST. PAUL, BED-
FORD, Resp.

the area; and the outlet had some time subsequently been made by direction of the justices appellants, at the special request of Forster, to facilitate his access to the area and the buildings within the same; and until that time there was not any means of access to the area and buildings within it, except through the public entrance.

The two houses in respect of which Parsons and Ferris were rated, stand on the right-hand side of the prison gateway. They had one common outer door in front, which opened on the public street, in like manner as in the house occupied by Forster. Though at the time of making the rate they were internally two distinct houses, in external appearance they are one house, precisely corresponding with the house on the left-hand side of the prison gateway, in respect of which Forster is rated. They are situate, in reference to the wall, in precisely the same way as the house of Forster, except that they still continue to be, as originally built, without any outlet through the back wall, or otherwise, from within the houses or either of them into the area.

At the time of the making of the rate, Forster was in the exclusive occupation and enjoyment of the said house in respect of which he is rated, with his wife, family, and servants. And Parsons and Ferris were also in the exclusive occupation and enjoyment of the two other houses, in respect of which they were rated, with their respective wives and families; and each of the said houses is, to all external appearance, a private house opening in front upon the public street. The space in the angle between the firstmentioned wall at its extreme left, and the extreme left of the house occupied by Forster, is enclosed by a low wall. The space between the left-hand side of the prison entrance and the extreme right of the house occupied by Forster is enclosed by a low wall. And two similar spaces on either side of the houses occupied by Parsons and Ferris respectively are in like manner enclosed by a low wall.