AWARD BY COMMISSIONERS. 399 



C & 7 Will. IV. c. 71) to fix tJir amount of rent-charge pnyalle in lieu of 

 tithe, and, for that purpose, to decide upon the titheability of lands ; 

 but he has no jurisdiction to decide thereby who is the party entitled 

 to receive the rent-charge {Edwards v. Bunl)iiry). And on a feigned 

 issue under sec. 46, the landowner cannot deny that the lands were 

 subject to the payment of tithe to B., for the purpose of raising tlie 

 question of title, as between B. and a third party {ih.). 



The award to he made hy Tithe Commissioners under 6 & 7 WilL IV. c. 

 71, is for the purpose only of settling disputes between tithe-otvner and 

 land-owner, and not of deciding questions of title between rival claim- 

 ants of tithe. Hence where tithes of agistment were claimed by both 

 rector and vicar, and the latter called upon them to determine such 

 claims before making their award, it was held on a return to a manda- 

 mus that the commissioners were not bound so to determine, the difier- 

 ence not being one within sec. 45, by which the making of the award 

 was hindered ; but they would do rightly in awarding rent-charge for 

 the tithes, including that of agistment, to the parties respectively in 

 possession, leaving them to litigate the title subsequently, as they 

 might do under sect. 72, notwithstanding the award, and that no state- 

 ment appearing as to the receipt of agistment tithe by any party, the 

 commissioners might properly consider the rector as the person in 

 actual possession within sect. 12 {Reg. v. Tithe Commissioners). TJie 

 confirmed atrard, under the Tithe Commutation Acts (6 & 7 Will. IV. 

 c. 71, amended, &c., by 7 117//. IV. and 1 Vid. c. 69 ; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 

 64 ; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 62 ; and 5 & 6 Vict. c. 54), though final as between 

 the tithe-owners and tithe-payers, does not exclude from farther inves- 

 tigation a case between the tithe-owners themselves, in which there 

 was, before the award, a just title to tithes, which by accident and 

 mistake was not brought forward until after the award was made. 

 Thus where by an award made with the concurrence of A., the patron, 

 the whole rent-charge was made payable to B., the rector, A. being at 

 the time entitled to one-half of the corn tithes, but ignorant of his 

 rights, he was held entitled to relief in equity as against B. {Clarice v. 

 Yonge). But where at the time of the making an award of a rent- 

 charge in lieu of certain tithes under the act, a suit in equity was 

 pending for an account of the same tithes, in which the question was as 

 to the title of the claimant to receive the tithes, the Court of Queen's 

 Bench held that the validity of the award was not thereby affected, 

 such suit not being one " touching the right to any tithes," and 

 " whereby the making of the award sliall be hindered," within the 

 meaning of the 45th section of the 6 & 7 Will IV. c. 71 {Sliepherd y. 

 Marquis of Londonderry). 



