ACTIONS AGAINST TITHE COMMISSIONERS. 401 



was the 'boundary inior to the time when the award was made {ll>.) ; and 

 see 7i(?a; v. St. Mary, Bury St. Edmunds. A dispute as to the title to 

 tithes between the rector and the yicar is not "a difference whereby 

 tlie making of the award is hindered " under G & 7 Will. IV., c. 71, 

 s. 45, and which the commissioners are bound to decide before making 

 their award ; and an award of a rent-charqe in lieu of certain tithes to 

 which it states that the rector is entitled, does not conclusively vest the 

 title to those tithes in the rector, and the vicar may notwithstanding 

 try his right to the substituted rent-charge {Reg. v. Titlie Commissioners). 

 Where on a hearing before the Assistant Tithe Commissioner, appointed 

 to ascertain the amount of a commutation rent-charge, under statute 6 

 & 7 Will. lY. c. 71, a landowner denied the right of B., an alleged 

 tithe-owner, to rectorial tithe of his lands, asserting that they were 

 tithe free, and the Assistant Tithe Commissioner decided that B. was 

 owner of the rectory, and as rector entitled to the said tithe — it was 

 held by the Court of Queen's Bench, on a feigned issue under section 

 4C, that the landowner could not deny that the lands were subject to 

 the payment of tithe to B. for the purpose of raising the question as 

 between B. and a third party (Edwards v. Banbury). 



As to actions against Tithe Commissioners, &c., under 6 & 7 Will. IV. 

 c. 71, s. 94, see AcJcland v. Buller. By the Tithe Commutation Act, 6 

 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71, s. 46, any person claiming an interest in lands or 

 tithes who shall be dissatisfied with any decision of the commissioners 

 (deciding upon an amount above £20) may, within three months after 

 notice to him of the decision, bring an action by feigned issue to dispute 

 the decision. AVhere, in proceedings before a Tithe Commissioner 

 under 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71, s. 45, several moduses are set up in res]3ect 

 of distinct farms, and the annual value of the payment to be made 

 in respect of each farm is less than £20, his decision is final under 

 section 46, notwithstanding the whole is in the hands of the same 

 proprietor, and the aggregate yearly value exceeds £20 {Tomlinson, 

 clerk, V. Burgliey). 



The yearly value of the payment to be made under the award by the 

 individual ap^pellant must exceed £20, to entitle Iiim to appeal {Flanders 

 V. Bunbury and Matthews v. Leapingwell). And semble, that in esti- 

 mating such value he is not entitled to take into account lands held by 

 him as. tenant in common with another person who is no party to the 

 appeal {ib). The " payment to be made or withholden according to 

 such decision," is the difference between the modus claimed aud the 

 asserted value of the tithes in kind, payable under the award {ib.) 

 Reputation is not admissible evidence of a farm modus {Pritchett v. 

 Honeybourne). And in an action by a rector for tithes, where the 



