7, ILEBT STSMET, LONDON, 1893. 
 WOEKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 jl MESSES. BUTTERWORTH, 
 
 HEato ^Bu6Iis'S)«t3 to rt)e figuctn's most lEiKlIcnt JWafestg. 
 
 Hewitt's Corporation Duty. Post 8vo. 6s. clotlu 
 
 Boberts and GoUan's Public Health of London. 8vo. 14s. cloth. 
 
 Tristram and Coote's Contentious and Non-Contentious Probate 
 
 Practice. 11th Edition. 8vo. 32s. cloth. 
 Pritchard's Admiralty Digest. 3rd Edition, in 2 thick vols. 
 
 Royal Svo. 51. cloth. 
 Davis's County Court Practice and Evidence. 6th Edition. Svo. 
 
 21. 5s. cloth. 
 Edwards and Hamilton on the Law of Husband and "Wife. In 
 
 1 vol. Post Svo. 16s. cloth. 
 Clerke and Brett's Conveyancing and Law of Property Acts, and 
 
 other Acts. 3rd Edition. In 1 vol. Post Svo. 12». 65. cloth. 
 
 Scriven on Copyholds. 6th Edition by Archibald Brown. Eoy. Svo. 
 
 30s. cloth. 
 Chadwick's Probate Court Manual. Corrected to 1876. Eoy. Svo. 
 
 12s. cloth. 
 Davis on Registration, Parliamentary and Municipal. 2nd Ed. 
 
 With Supplement to 1880. Post Svo. 15s. cloth. 
 Plumptre's Principli^. of the Law of Simple Contracts. Post Svo. 
 
 8s. cloth. *** A companion volume to Underhill on Torts. 
 
 Denison and Scott's House of Lords Appeal Practice. Svo. 
 
 16s. cloth. 
 Michael and "Will's Law of Gas and Water Supply. 3rd Edition. 
 
 Svo. 30s. cloth. 
 Fisher's Law of Mortgage and other Securities upon Property. 
 
 4th Edition. 1 vol., royal Svo. 11. Vis. dd. cloth. 
 Drewry's Porms of Claims and Defences in the Chancery Division 
 
 of the High Court of Justice. Post Svo. 9s. cloth. 
 Mozley and Whiteley's Concise Law Dictionary. 1 vol. Svo. 
 
 20s. cloti. 
 Polkard's Law of Slander and Libel, founded upon Starkie's 
 
 Treatise. 5th Edition. Eoyal Svo. 2?. 15s. cloth. 
 
 Davis's Labour Laws of 1875. With Introduction and Notes. 
 
 Svo. 12s. cloth. 
 
 Bund's Agricultural Holdings Acts. 2nd Edition. Post Svo. 
 
 125. cloth. 
 Powell's Principles and Practice of the Law of Evidence. 6th 
 
 Edition, by CuTLEB and Caqnet. Post Svo. 21s. cloth. 
 Crump's Law of Marine Insurance and General Average. Eov. Svo 
 
 21s. cloth. ,■ '•, ' 
 
 Collier's Law of Contributories in the Winding-up of Joint-Stock 
 
 Companies. Post Svo. 9s. cloth. 
 De Colyar's Law of Guarantees. Svo. 2nd Edition. 16s."cloth. 
 Bund's Law of Salmon Fisheries, and Supplement, 1876. Post Svo 
 
 16s. cloth. 
 Grant's Law of Bankers and Banking. 4th Ed. with Supplement 
 
 1882. In Svo. 29s. oloth. .. ' 
 
 Probyn's Statutory Porm of Bill of Sale. Post Svo. 8s. cloth. 
 Daly's Club Law. 2nd Edit. Foolscap Svo. 3s. 6d. cloth. 
 Bower's Directors Liability Act, 1890. Post Svo. 9s. cloth. 
 
 Bernard and Brown's Housing of Working Classes Act, 1890. 
 
 Post Svo. 6s. cloth. 
 
Hyde's Bating Appeals, 1888 to 1890. 8vo. 18s. cloth. 
 Stevens' Elements of Mercantile Law. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Byde and Thomas's Local Government Acts, 1888. 33emy 8vo. 
 
 2is. cloth. 
 
 Butterworth's Bailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and Bailway 
 
 Comimssiou Practice. 2nd Edition. Medium 8yo. 18s. Bd. cloth. 
 
 Butterworth's Bailway Commission Practice. Medium Svo. 5s. 
 
 cloth. 
 
 "Anderson's Law of Execution. Svo. 32s. cloth. 
 
 Brown's Copyhold Enfranchisement Acts, 1841—1887. Post 8vo. 
 
 14s. cloth. 
 Mayer's French Code of Commerce, translated. 9s. cloth. 
 
 Saint's Begistration Cases, 1843 to 1891. 2nd Edit. Post 8vo. 
 15s. cloth. 
 
 Saint's Manual of the Law of Begistration. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 cloth. 
 Plood.— The Pitfalls of Testators. Post 8vo. 5s. cloth. 
 Brett's Bankruptcy Act, 1883, with Notes, &c. Post 8vo. 
 
 14s. cloth. 
 Underhill's Law of Trusts and Trustees. 3rd Edition. "With 
 
 Supplement. Post Svo. 18s. cloth. 
 Underhill's Settled Land Acts, 1882-84, with Bules, Forms, &c. 
 
 2nd Edition. In 1 toI. Post Svo. 8s. cloth. 
 Macaskie on Law of Bills of Sale. Post Svo. 8s. cloth. 
 Tudor's Leading Cases on Beal Property, Conveyancing, and 
 
 "VVlUs: with Notes. 3rd Edition. Eoyal 8vo. 2/. 12s. i6a;. cloth ^ 
 Bedman's Law of Arbitrations and Awards. S^d Edition. Svo. 
 
 18s. cloth. 
 Hunt's Law of Frauds and Bills of Sale. Post Svo. 9s. cloth. 
 Seaborne's Law of Vendors and Purchasers of Beal Property. 
 
 3rd Edition. Post Svo. 12s. 6ii. cloth. 
 Fawcett's Law of Landlord and Tenant. Svo. 14s. cloth. 
 
 Hunt's Law of Boundaries, Fences and Foreshores. Srd Edition. 
 
 14s. cloth. 
 Shelford's Law of Joint Stock Companies. 2nd Edition. By 
 
 D. PiTCAiEN- and F. L. Latham, Esqra. Svo. 21s. cloth. 
 Shelford's Law of Bailways. 4th Edition. By W. C. Glen, Esq. 
 
 2 vols. Eoyal Svo. 63s. cloth. 
 Bainbridge_Js Law of Mines and Minerals. 4th Ed. By A. Brown. 
 
 Svo. 45sr cloth. 
 Ingrain's Law of Compensation for Lands, Houses, &c. 2nd Ed. 
 
 By J. J". Elmes. Post Svo. 12s. cloth. 
 Clifford and Stephens's Practice of the Court of Beferees. 2 vols. 
 
 Eoyal Svo. 70s. cloth. 
 Cliffoed and Eiokaeds' continuation of the same contains the Sessions 1S73 to 
 
 1881. Eoyal Svo. Vol. I., Part I., 31s. 6d.: Part II., 15s. Vol. II., Part I., 12s. ed.; 
 
 Part II., 12s. 6d:; Part III., 12s. 6d.; Part IV., los. Vol. III., Part I., 15s.; 
 
 Part II., 15s. ; Part III., 15s.; Part IV., los. ^ 
 BioKAEDS and Michael in continuation of above. Vol. I., Part I., 12s. 6d. ; 
 
 Part n., 9s. ; Part III., 15s. ; Part IV., 10s. 6d. 
 KiOKAEDS and Saundees in contiauation of above. Vol. I., Part I., 18s.; Part 
 
 II., 10s. 6^. 
 Sir B. Phillimore's Commentaries on International Law. Third 
 
 Edition. Vol. I., 24s. cloth. Vol. II., 26s. cloth. Vol. III., 36s. cloth. 
 
 Vol. IV., 36s. cloth. 
 Trower's Church Building Acts, and New Parishes Acts, con- 
 tinued to 1S74. Post Svo. 9s. cloth. 
 Wigram's Extrinsic Evidence in Aid of the Interpretation of 
 
 Wills. 4th Edition. Svo. lis. cloth. 
 Dowell's Income Tax Acts. Srd Edition> Svo. 12s. 6d. cloth. 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017810155 
 
J' U^ ^/ ^'^ 
 
 KD9075.R99 1893'""""-"'"'^ 
 " Wmi°!,i™tS.?ffi«?li?.!]|e?':<l before th 
 
 3 1924 017 810 155 
 
 EYDE'S 
 
 EEPOETS m RiTIM APPEALS 
 
 1891-1893. 
 
ov 
 
 EATING APPEALS 
 
 HEABD BErOEE THE 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL, THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION, 
 
 THE LONDON QTJAETEE SESSIONS 
 
 AND 
 
 THE HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 n USING THE YEARS 
 
 1891—1898. 
 
 BY 
 
 WALTER C. RYDE, M.A. 
 
 Of the Inner Temple^ BarrUter'at-Law. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 BTJTTEEWORTHS, 7, FLEET STEEBT, 
 •Eato ^uilia^tra to X%t egu«n'a moat txcellcnt JWajcatp. 
 
 DUBLIN : HODaES, FIGGIS & CO., GEAFTON STREET. 
 
 CALCUTTA- THACKER, SPINK & CO. MELBOURNE: G. ROBERTSON & CO. 
 
 MANCHESTER: MEREDITH, RAY & LITTLER. 
 
 EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK; BELL & BRADFUTE. 
 
 1893. 
 
/^ 70 ^^ 
 
 LOUDON : 
 PEINTED BY 0. F. EOWOBTH, OEEAT NEW STEEET, PETTEE LANE, E.G. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 This Volume is a continuation of the " Reports 
 of Rating Appeals, 1886—1890," already pub- 
 lished. The Editor's aim has been to give a 
 complete series of reports of all Rating Appeals 
 heard before the Court of Appeal and the Queen's 
 Bench Division (whether such appeals related to 
 property within or without the metropolis), and of 
 the cases heard before the London Quarter Sessions 
 during the last three years ; together with a report 
 of the decisions recently given by the House of 
 Lords with reference to the rating of the sewers 
 and sewage works vested in the London County 
 Council. It is probably true that no case having 
 as far-reaching consequences has been decided 
 by any Court since the House of Lords decided 
 the Mersey Docks Cases in 1865. The principles 
 now laid down by the House of Lords will 
 govern the rating of all property occupied for 
 "public purposes" and vested in municipal cor- 
 porations and other local authorities, whether 
 that property consist of sewage works, gas or 
 water works, schools, libraries, town halls, baths, 
 workhouses, or any buildings or offices used for 
 the purposes of Local Grovernment. Practically 
 the whole of the modern Case Law dealing with 
 the rating of such property will be found in this 
 Volume and the " Reports of Rating Appeals, 
 1886—1890." 
 
 This Volume is complete in itself, but it has 
 
VI PREFACE, 
 
 been thought unnecessarj to reprint the Statutes 
 which, with the Orders made by the London 
 Quarter Sessions, were inchided in the Appendix 
 to the earlier volume. 
 
 The number of appeals entered in 1891 against 
 the metropolitan valuation lists, was far greater 
 than the number entered in any year since the 
 passing of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 
 The hereditaments to which the appeals related 
 included gasworks and mains, docks, railways 
 and railway stations, wharves, warehouses, manu- 
 factories of every description, a county lunatic 
 asylum, poor-law schools, public baths, artizans' 
 dwellings, volunteers' drill-halls, the Grrosvenor 
 Gallery, and the Agricultural Hall. 
 
 The hereditaments dealt with in the appeals 
 decided by the Queen's Bench Division and the 
 Court of Appeal during the last three years, and 
 reported in this Volume, have also been of the 
 most heterogeneous description, including indus- 
 trial schools, police officers' quarters, tithes, 
 volunteers' drill-halls, canals, tunnels for drain- 
 ing mines, advertisement hoardings, the gas mains 
 of a municipal corporation, docks and railways, 
 in addition to the sewers and sewage works, 
 which were also the subject of the decisions of the 
 House of Lords already mentioned. 
 
 It will be found that (even among the cases 
 decided by the London Quarter Sessions) by far 
 the greater number of the cases in this Volume 
 deal with principles of rating, which apply 
 equally within or without the metropolis. In 
 some of the cases decided by the London Quarter 
 Sessions, where the hereditaments to be valued 
 
PEEFACE. Vll 
 
 were of a peculiar character, or where questions 
 of law or of principle were raised, it has been 
 thought desirable to give a report, even though 
 the decision of the Court turned mainly on 
 questions of fact. From the reports of such 
 cases, a lawyer or a valuer will at least learn 
 what points will, or may, be raised in similar 
 appeals ; and he will be able to gather arguments, 
 if he cannot cite authority, in support of the 
 propositions which he wishes to establish. 
 
 The Editor has endeavoured, in reporting 
 some of the cases at Quarter Sessions, to indicate, 
 in a note, the inference which may be drawn as 
 to the principle adopted, but not expressed, by 
 the Court. For the correctness of that inference, 
 and for the notes generally, the Editor alone is 
 responsible. 
 
 To the names of the cases cited are added the 
 dates of the decisions (a matter of great import- 
 ance in rating law), and in the Table of Cases 
 Cited will be found a reference to the con- 
 temporary reports. 
 
 It is perhaps too much to expect, or even to 
 hope, that this Volume, which contains a mass of 
 figures, will be absolutely free from errors. The 
 Editor has found in his previous Volume mistakes 
 which may be counted on the fingers of one 
 hand. If this Volume prove to be as accurate, 
 it will be in great measure due to the assistance 
 courteously given by both lawyers and witnesses 
 in many of the cases reported. 
 
 W. C. R. 
 
 1, BUICK COUET, TeJU'LE, 
 
 6th November, 1893. 
 
( viii ) 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 — ♦ — 
 
 PAGE 
 PREFACE V 
 
 Cases Ebported ix 
 
 Table of Cases Cited xiv 
 
 EEPOETS OF EATING APPEALS 
 Peom 1891 TO 1893. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 Appeals heard befoee the London Quaetee Sessions. .1 — 258 
 
 Part II. 
 
 Appeals heaed befoee the Queen's Bench Division, 
 
 the Couet of Appeal, and the House of Loeds. .259 — 438 
 
 INDEX 445 
 
CONTENTS. IX 
 
 CASES REPORTED. 
 
 — ♦ — ; 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Agricultural HaU Co. v. IsHngton 125 
 
 BloomBtury : London, County Council v 38, 72 
 
 Boneall and Barrow v. City of London Union 70 
 
 Braby v. Greenwich Union 54 
 
 CaUingham v. St. Lute's, Chelsea 69 
 
 Cantlon v. Holborn Union 30 
 
 Carmarthen (Justices of) : Eeg. v. (Q. B. D. and C. A.) 334 
 
 ChappeU v. Overseers of St. Botolph (Q. B. D.) 286 
 
 V. St. George's Union 65 
 
 Charrington v. Mile End Old Town 14 
 
 Chelmsford Union : Showers v. (Q. B. D. and C. A.). . . . 259 
 Chester-le-Street : Durham County Council v. (Q. B. D.) 267 
 
 City of London Union : BonsaH and Barrow v 70 
 
 Fraser v 248 
 
 Gas Light and Coke Co. v 204 
 
 Great Eastern Ey. v 148 
 
 London and Northwestern Ey. «. 229 
 
 London Hydraulic Power Co. v . . 138 
 
 South Eastern Ey. v 41 
 
 Doncaster Union : Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln- 
 shire Ey. «. (Q. B. D. and C. A.) 318 
 
 Durham Coxmty Council v. Chester-le-Street (Q. B. D.). . 267 
 
 Edwards v. St. Olave's Union (Q. B. D.) 293 
 
 Erith (Overseers of) : London County Council v. (C. A. 
 
 and H. L.) 382, 384 
 
 Eraser v. City of London Union 248 
 
 Friend v. Eulham Union 251 ' 
 
 Fulham Union : Friend v 251 
 
 London County Council v 151 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 PA.OE 
 
 Gas Light and Coie Co. v. City of London Union 204 
 
 V. Hackney Union 253 
 
 '■ V. "Westminster Union 256 
 
 Great Eastern Eailway v. City of London Union 148 
 
 Greenwich. Union : Braby v 54 
 
 London County Council v.. 98 
 
 South Metropolitan Gas Co. v 56 
 
 Hackney Union : Gas Light and Coke Co. v 253 
 
 Halkyn Dist. Mines Drainage Co. v. Holywell Union 
 
 (Q. B. D.) 338 
 
 Holborn Union : Cantlon v 30 
 
 Improved Industrial Dwellings Co. t).. . 49 
 
 Pearson v 152 
 
 (Q. B. D.) 303 
 
 Holywell Union : Halkyn Dist. Mines Drainage Co. v. 
 (Q. B. D.) 338 
 
 Hull Docks Co. V. Soulcoates Union (Q. B. D.) 348 
 
 Improved Industrial Dwellings Co. v. Holborn Union . . 49 
 
 V. St. Luke's, Chelsea 21 
 
 Islington : Ex parte Vestry of 238 
 
 Eoyal Agricultural Hall Co. i; 125 
 
 Lafone v. St. Olave's Union 34 
 
 Lambeth (St. Mary) : Saunders v 1 
 
 Lewisham Union : London County Council v 104 
 
 Meroia v 113 
 
 Lindsay v. St. George's Union 18 
 
 London and India Docks v. Stepney Union, Poplar Union, 
 
 and St. George in the East I53 
 
 London and North Western Ey. v. City of London 
 
 Union 229 
 
 London, Chatham, and Dover Ey. v. St. Saviour's Union 112 
 
 London County Council v. Bloomsbury 38 72 
 
 ■ «• Erith (C. A. and H. L.) . .382, 384 
 
 V. Eulham Union 151 
 
CONTENTS, xi 
 
 PAOB 
 
 London County Council v. Greenwich Union 98 
 
 V. Lewisham Union 1 04 
 
 V. Marylebone 242 
 
 Eeg. V. (Q. B. D. and 0. A.). . . . 360 
 V. St. George's Union (C. A. and 
 
 H. L.) 382, 403 
 
 V. "West Ham Union (0. A. and 
 
 H. L.) 382, 388 
 
 V. Woolwich Union 126 
 
 (0. A. & H. L.). .382, 403 
 
 London Hydraulic Power Co. v. City of London Union . . 138 
 
 London (Justices of) : Eeg. v. (Q. B. D. and 0. A.) 360 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Ey. v. Doncaster 
 Union (Q. B. D. and 0. A.) 318 
 
 Marylehone : London County Council v 242 
 
 Mercia v. Lewisham Union 113 
 
 Middle Class Dwellings Co. v. St. George's Union 61 
 
 Middlesex County Lunatic Asylum (Visitors of) v. 
 
 "Wandsworth and Clapham Union 115 
 
 MUe End Old Town : Charrington v 14 
 
 Ormskirk Union : Mayor, &c. of Southport v. (Q. B. D.). . 355 
 
 : V. (C. A.) 438 
 
 Pearson v. Holhorn Union . . . , 152 
 
 V. (Q. B. D.) 303 
 
 Poplar Union : London and India Docks v 163 
 
 Eeg. V. Justices of Carmarthen (Q. B. D. and C. A.). . . . 334 
 
 V. Justices of London, and London County Council 
 
 (Q. B. D. and C. A.) 360 
 
 276 
 
 316 
 
 279 
 
 125 
 
 ■ V. St. Mary Abbotts (C. A.) 
 
 V. Simmons (Q. B. D.) , . . . . 
 
 V. Woolwich Union (Q. B. D.) 
 
 Eoyal Agricultural Hall Co. v. Islington 
 
 Eoyal Masonic Institution v. Wandsworth and Clapham 
 
 Union 
 
XU CONTENTS. 
 
 PACtB 
 
 St. Botolph (Overseers of) : CliappeU v. (Q. B. D.) .... 286 
 
 St. George in the East : London and India Docks v 153 
 
 St. George's Union : Chappell v 65 
 
 Lindsay v 18 
 
 London County Council (0. A. and 
 
 H. L.) 382, 403 
 
 Middle Class Dwellings Co. v 61 
 
 St. Leonard's, Shoreditch : Waterlow and Sons v 28 
 
 St. Luke's, Chelsea : Callingham v 69 
 
 Improved Industrial Dwellings Co. v. 21 
 
 St. Mary Abbotts : Eeg. v 276 
 
 St. Olave's Union : Edwards t). (Q. B. D.) 293 
 
 Lafone v 34 
 
 St. Pancras (Vestry of) v. Assessment Committee of St. 
 
 Pancras 233 
 
 St. Saviour's Union : London, Chatham, and Dover Ey. v. 112 
 
 SUverlock v 67 
 
 South Eastern Ey. v 226 
 
 "Wood V 51 
 
 Woodwell V , 97 
 
 "Wordsworth v 13 
 
 Saunders v. St. Mary, Lambeth 1 
 
 Sculcoates Union : HuU. Docks Co. v. (Q. B. D.) 348 
 
 Showers v. Chelmsford Union (Q. B. D. and C. A.) .... 259 
 
 Silverlock v. St. Saviour's Union 67 
 
 Simmons : Eeg. v. (U. B. D.) 316 
 
 South Eastern Ey. v. City of London Union 41 
 
 V. St. Saviour's Union 226 
 
 South Metropolitan Gas Co. v. Greenwich Union 56 
 
 Southport (Mayor, &o. of) v. Ormskirk Union (Q. B. D.) 355 
 
 «• (C. A.). . . . -438 
 
 Stepney Union : London and India Docks v 153 
 
 "Wandsworth and Clapham Union : Ex parte 93 
 
CONTENTS. Xlll 
 
 PAQE 
 
 Wandsworth and Clapham Union : Eoyal Masonic Insti- 
 tution V 8 
 
 Visitors of Middle- 
 sex County Lunatic 
 
 Asylum v 115 
 
 '■ Westminster Unions. 31 
 
 Waterlow and Sons v. St. Leonard's, Shoreditcli 28 
 
 West Ham Union : London County Council v. (C. A. and 
 
 H. L.) 382, 388 
 
 Westminster Union : Gas Light and Coke Co. v 256 
 
 V. Wandsworth and Clapham Union 31 
 
 Wood V. St. Saviour's Union 51 
 
 Woodwell V. St. Saviour's Union 97 
 
 Woolwich Union : Ex parte 95 
 
 London County Council v 126 
 
 (C. A. & H. L.). .382, 403 
 
 Eeg. t). (Q. B. D.) 279 
 
 Wordsworth v. St. Saviour's Union 13 
 
C xiv ) 
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Abney Park Cemetery Co. : see R. v. 59, 146 
 
 Adaiuson : see R. v. 79, 84, 87, 88 
 
 Agricultural Hall Co. v. St. Mary's, Islington, Hyde's Bat. App. 
 
 (1886-90) 193, 272 21, 125 
 
 Aire & Oalder Navigation: see R. v. [1829] 325, 327, 329, 346 
 
 : see R. v. [1832] 325, 328 
 
 Alderbury Union : see Clarke v. 19, 20, 69, 71, 399, 400 
 
 Aldershot Gas Works Case : see R. v. Stevens 360 
 
 AldrioK : Diss Urtan Sanitary Authority v. 98 
 
 Allan V. Liverpool [1874], L. R. 9 Q. B. 180 ; 43 L. J. M. C. 69 ; 
 
 30 L. T. N. S. 93 ; 22 W. B. 330 357, 358 
 
 Allchurcli V. Hendon Union, [1891] 2 Q. B. 436; 64 L. T. 473; 
 
 65 L. T. 450 ; 61 L. J. M. C. 27 7 
 
 Allen : see Wallace v. 374 
 
 Altrinoham Union v. Cheshire Lines Committee [1885], 15 Q. B. D. 
 
 597 , 161, 165, 166, 168, 170 
 
 Amherst (Lord) v. Lord Somers [1788], 2 T. B. 372 ; 1 B. B. 497. . 307 
 Att.-Gren. ■!). Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Association 
 
 [1875], L. B. 10 Ex. 305 ; [1876], 1 Ex. D. 469 ; 45 L. J. Ex. 
 
 886 ; 35 L. T. 224 S 
 
 Badger v. S. Yorkshire By. [1858], 28 L. J. Q. B. 118; 7 W. B. 
 
 130 ; 32 L. T. 207 325, 327, 328, 330, 332, 333 
 
 Baylis, Bradley v. 3,5 
 
 Belton : see B. v. 368 
 
 Berkshire Justices : see Coomher v. 263, 266, 270, 307 
 
 Bevan «). London Portland Cement Co., [1892] W. N. 151 345 
 
 Birkdale (Overseers of) : see Tunnicliffe v. 102, 163, 271, 272 
 
 Birkenhead ; see Mersey Docks v. 164 354 
 
 Birmingham (Churchwardens of) : see Smith v. 25 26 
 
 Bishopwearmouth : see Laing v. 145 igo 191 
 
 Bloomsbury : see School Board for London v. 122 
 
 Blyth : see Bowman v. 3g8 
 
 Boldero : see B. v. 302 
 
 Booth : see Beilly v. 345 
 
 . V. St. Martin, Worcester [1884], 48 J. P. 441 17 
 
 Bowley : see Chelsea Waterworks Co. v. 326 329 
 
TABLE OP CASES CITED. XV 
 
 PAQE 
 
 Bowman v. Blyth [1856], 7 E. & B. 26 ; 26 L. J. M. 0. 67 ; 28 L. T. 
 
 159 ; 29 L. T. 312 368 
 
 Bradford : see K. v. 309, 310 
 
 Bradley v. Baylis [1881], 8 Q. B. D. 195 35 
 
 : see Gamett v. 399 
 
 Bradshaw : see E. ■;;. 317 
 
 Bristol (Governors of Poor of) v. Wait [1836], 5 A. & E. 1 : 6 L. J. 
 
 M. C. 113 428 
 
 Bristow : see Cory v. 327 
 
 British Eqmtable Assurance Co. v. City of London Union, Ryde's 
 
 Eat. App. (1886-90) 229 .- 252 
 
 Bruce v. "Willis [1840], 11 A. & E. 463 ; 9 L. J. M. C. 43 . . 326, 328—331, 
 
 333 
 Burt, Boulton & Haywood ■». Eotherhitlie [1876], Met. Eat. App. 
 
 182 63 
 
 Burton-upon-Trent (Mayor, &c. of) v. Burton-upon-Trent Union 
 
 [1889], 24 Q. B. D. 197; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 314 ; 59 
 
 L. J. M. C. 1 ; 62 L. T. 412 ; 38 W. E. 181 .... Ill, 118, 129, 131, 
 136, 168, 272, 384, 387, 388, 391, 393, 395, 
 396, 398, 406, 412, 415, 417, 419, 425, 429 
 
 Caldow V. Pixell [1877], 2 C. P. D. 662 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 541 ; 36 L. T. 
 
 469 ; 25 W. E. 773 366 
 
 Charlton : see Coverdale v. 327 
 
 Cheetham (Overseers of) : see Lancashire JJ. v. 272 
 
 Chelsea Waterworks Co. v. Bowley [1851], 17 Q. B. 358 326, 329 
 
 Cheshire Lines Committee: see Altrincham Union v. . .161, 165, 166, 
 
 168, 170 
 
 Chorlton Union : see E. ■n. 47 
 
 : see Overseers of Chorlton-upon-Medlock v. . . 107, 
 
 109 
 Chorlton-upon-Medlock (Overseers of) v. Guardians of Chorlton 
 Union [1882], 51 L.'J. Q. B. 458; 47 
 
 L. T. 96 107, 109 
 
 : see Tates v. 316 
 
 : see Owens College v. . . 108, 110, 111, 118, 
 
 123, 430—432 
 
 Christopherson : see E. v. 300 
 
 City of London Union : see British Equitable Assurance Co. v. . 252 
 
 ■ : see Esdaile v. . .30, 232, 298, 299, 300, 302 
 
 : see Eouse v. 7 
 
 Clarke v. Alderbury Union [1880], 6 Q. B. D. 139 ; 50 L. J. M. 0. 
 
 33; 29 W. E.334 19, 20,69, 71,399,400 
 
 Clayton : see Yorkshire Eire and Life Insurance Co. v. 5 
 
 Coomber ■<;. Berkshire JJ. [1883], 9 App. Cas. 61 ; 32 W. E. 525; 
 
 53 L.J. Q. B. 239; 50 L. T. 405 263, 266, 270, 307 
 
 Cory V. Bristow [1877], 2 App. Cas. 262 ; 25 W. E. 383 ; 46 L. J. 
 
 M. 0.273; 36 L. T. 595 327 
 
 V. Greenwich [1872], L. E. 7 C. P. 499; 41 L. J. M. 0. 142; 
 
 27 L. X. N. S. 160 327 
 
XVI TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 PACJB 
 
 Coverdale v. Charltoii[1878], i Q,. B. D. 104 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 128 ; 
 
 40 L. T. 88 ; 27 W . R. 257 
 
 327 
 
 DewsbxtryWaterworksBoardw. Penistone tTnion [1886], 17Q. B.D. 
 
 384 ; 34 W. E. 622 ; 55 L. J. M. C. 121 ; 64 L. T. 592 119 
 
 Diss Urban Sanitary Authority v. Aldrioh [1877], 2 Q. B. D. 179, 
 
 285 ^^ 
 
 Dudin V. St. Olaye's Union, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 202, . . .251, 252 
 
 East and West India Docks v. Poplar Union [1884], 13 Q. B. D. 
 364 ; Met. Rat. App. 355 ; 53 L. J. M. C. 97 ; 51 L. T. 97. . . . 16, 
 ^'^ 252, 264, 367 
 
 East Dean : see Guest v. '^"^ 
 
 East London Waterworks Company v. St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, 
 
 Ryde's Rat. App. (1886-90) 156. 220 
 
 : see R. ii. 439 
 
 Edinburgh (University of) : see G-reig v. 392 
 
 Esdaile v. City of London Union, Ryde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 105 ; 
 
 19 Q. B.D. 431: 56 L. J. M. C. 60, 149 ; 57 L. T. 749. .30, 232, 298, 
 
 299, 300, 302 
 
 Everton : see Liverpool Gas Co. v. 336, 337 
 
 Ksherton Angar : see E. v. 19, 20, 69, 71, 399, 400 
 
 Eletton : see R. v. 165 
 
 Foster v. Great Western Ry. [1882], 8 Q. B. D. 515 ; SOW. R. 398; 
 
 51L. J. Q. B. 233; 46 L. T. 74 402 
 
 Eourth City Mutual Building Society v. West Ham, [1892] 1 Q. B. 
 
 661 ; 61 L. J. M. C. 128 317 
 
 Fowler : see Metropolitan Ry. Co. v. 326, 344, 345, 439 
 
 Fulham Union v. St. Mary Abbotts, Ryde's Rat. App. (1886-90) 86 ; 
 
 17 Q. B. D. 394 ; 35 W. R. 12. .74, 77, 79, 85, 88, 89, 245, 282, 285 
 FuUer : see R. t). 265, 307 
 
 Gambler v. Overseers of Lydford [1854], 3 E. & B. 346 ; 23 L. J. 
 
 M. C. 69 263, 264, 270, 309, 310, 315 
 
 Gamett ii. Bradley [1878], 3 App. Cas. 944 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 186 ; 39 
 
 L. T. N. S. 261 ; 26 W. R. 698 399 
 
 Goldfinch : see HoUis v. 327 
 
 Goodcluld : see R. v. 198, 298 
 
 Grand Junction Ry. Co. : see E. v. 219 
 
 Grant v. Oxford Local Board [1868], L. E. 4 Q. B. 9 ; 38 L. J. 
 
 M. C. 39 ; 17 W. E. 76 ; 19 L. T. N. S. 378 327 
 
 Great Hambleton : see E. v. 300 
 
 Great Northern, &o. Committee v. Inett [1877], 2 Q. B. D. 284 ; 46 
 
 L. J. M. C. 237; 25 W. E. 584 98 
 
 Great Northern Ey. Co. ». Holbom Union [1877], Met. Rat. App. 
 
 210 231 
 
 Great Western Ey. : see Foster v. 402 
 
TABLE OP CASES CITED. XVU 
 
 FAOE 
 
 Green-wioh : see Cory v. 327 
 
 Greenwich Union : see Pimlico Tramway Co. v. 326 
 
 Greig v. University of Edinburgh [1868], L. R. 1 So. Ap. 348 .... 392 
 Guest v. East Dean [1872], L. E. 7 Q. B. 334 ; 41 L. J. M. 0. 129 ; 
 
 26 L. T. N. S. 422 ; 20 W. R. 332 407 
 
 Hackney Union: see L. & N. W. Ry. Co. ». 231,233 
 
 Hackney Tithe Case : «ee R. ». GoodchUd 198, 298 
 
 Hare v. Overseers of Putney [1881], 7 Q. B. D. 223 ; 50 L. J. M. C. 
 
 81 ; 45 L. T. 337 ; 29 W. R. 721 271, 392 
 
 Hendon Union : AJlchurch v. 7 
 
 Holbom Union : see Great Northern Ry. Co. v. 231 
 
 : see Nicholson v. 271 
 
 : see Saunders & Shepherd v. 54 
 
 HoUis ». Goldfinch [1823], 1 B. & C. 205 327 
 
 Hull Dock Co. ; see R. i-. , 164, 348, 349, 353, 354, 355 
 
 Hurdis : see R. v. 309 
 
 Inett : see Great Northern, &o. Committee v. 98 
 
 Ingall : see R. v. 48, 116, 362, 365, 366, 368, 370, 381 
 
 Islington : see London Street Tramways Co. v. 61, 126 
 
 : see Midland Ry. Co. v. 163, 165, 214 
 
 : see Royal Agricultural HaU Co. ». 21, 125 
 
 : see School Board for London v. 11, 122, 123, 135 
 
 Jay : see R. v. ■ • 
 
 Jones V. Mersey Docks [1866], 11 H. L. C. 443 ; 35 L. J. M. C. 1 ; 
 
 -T W. R. "" rrl -KT o „,„ 
 
 307 
 
 20 C. B. N. S. 56 ; 13 W. R. 1069 ; 12 L. T. N. S. 643 . . 101, 102,. 
 167, 198, 199, 200, 270, 272, 307, 308, 392, 411, 420 
 
 Kensington : see St. Mary Abbotts. 
 
 Kittow V. Liskeard Union [1874], L. R. 10 Q. B. 7 ; 44 L. J. 
 M. 0. 23 162 
 
 Lafone v. St. Olave's Union [1881], Met. Rat. App. 278 34, 70 
 
 Laing v. Biahopwearmouth [1878], 3 Q. B. D. 299 ; 47 L. J. M. C. 
 
 41; 37L.T. 781; 26 W. R. 351 145,190, 191 
 
 Lambeth : see London & S. W. Ry. Co. v. 1*9 
 
 seeSmith». 290,357 
 
 Lancashire JJ. v. Overseers of Cheetham [1867], L. R. 3 Q. B. 14 ; 
 
 37L. J. M. C. 12; 16W.R. 124; 8B. &S.548.. 272 
 
 „. Stretford [1858], E. B. & E. 225 ; 27 L. J. M. 0. 
 
 209 lOO, 102, 263 
 
 Lancashire Telephone Co. v. Manchester Overseers [1884], 14 Q. B. D. 
 
 267 ; 33 W. R. 203 ; 51 L. T. 160 ; 53 L. J. M. C. 195 . .326 327, 
 
XVili TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 PAHE 
 
 Lee: se^-R.v. 143,190,219 
 
 Leicester : see E. v. "°° 
 
 Liskeard Union : see Kittow v. ^°^ 
 
 Liverpool : see Allan v. ^" ' j *^° 
 
 : see Mersey Docks v. [1873] 1-33 
 
 : see Mersey Docks ». [1872] 163, 172, 353 
 
 Liverpool Gas Co. v. Everton [1871], L. R. 6 C. P. 414 ; 40 L. J. 
 
 M. 0. 104 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 813 ; 19 W. R. 412 336, 337 
 
 Llaneilian : see Mersey Docks v. 392, 425, 427 
 
 London : see City of London Union. 
 
 L. & N. W. Kv. Co. V. Hackney Union, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) . 
 
 ■^ 136..... : 231,233 
 
 . : see E. v. 133, 198 
 
 V. St. Leonard's, Shoreditoli [1879], Met. Eat. 
 
 App. 229 231 
 
 ». [1882], Met. Eat. 
 
 App. 333 231 
 
 Loudon and Provincial Temperance HaJls Co. v. St. Saviour's Union, 
 
 Eyde's Eat. App. (188B-90) 95 21, 69 
 
 L. & S. W. Ey. Co. V. Lambeth [1870], Met. Eat. App. 62 149 
 
 London County Council v. "Wandsworth and Clapham Union, Eyde's 
 
 Eat. App. (1886-90) 220 , 99, 103 
 
 London (Lord Mayor of) : see E. «<. [1790] 326 
 
 : see'R.v. [1887] 317 
 
 London Portland Cement Co. : see Bevan v. 345 
 
 Loudon Street Tramways Co. -u. Islington, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886- 
 
 90) 147 61, 126 
 
 Longbenton (Overseers of) : see Tyne Boiler "Works Co. v. 142, 
 
 145, 146, 147, 190, 
 
 191, 220 
 
 Lydford : see Gambler v. 263, 264, 270, 309, 310, 315 
 
 Macharg v. Stoke-upon-Trent [1884], 48 J. P. 775 263 
 
 Maokay v. Strand Union, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 163 19 
 
 Maoqueen : see E. n. 278 
 
 Manchester (Overseers of) : see Lancashire Telephone Co. v. . . 326, 
 
 327, 329, 346 
 Martin v. "West Derby Union [1883], 11 Q. B. D. 145; 52 L. J. M. C. 
 
 66 ; 31 "W. E. 489 102, 263, 265, 266, 309, 310, 315 
 
 Matthews : see Old "Windsor v. 101 
 
 Mersey and Irwell Navigation : see R. v. 325, 327, 329, 346 
 
 Mersey Docks v. Birkenhead [1873], L. E. 8 Q. B. 445 ; 21 W. R. 
 
 913 ; 42 L. J. M. 0. 141 164, 354 
 
 : see Jones v. [1865], 11 H. L. C. 443 •. 101, 167, 
 
 198, 199, 200, 270, 272, 307, 308, 392, 411, 420 
 
 V. Liverpool [1872], L. R. 7 Q. B. 643; 41 L. J. M. C. 
 
 161 ; 20 W. R. 827 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 868 . . 163, 172, 
 
 353 
 
TABLE OF CASES CITED. xix 
 
 PAQB 
 
 Mersey Docks v. Liverpool [1873], L. R. 9 Q. B. 84 ; 43 L. J. M. C. 
 
 33 ; 22 W. R. 184 133 
 
 V. Llaneilian [1884], 14 Q. B. D. 770 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 49; 52L. T. 118; 33 W. R. 97 392,425,427 
 
 Metropolitan Board of Works : see R. v. . . 129, 391, 398, 407, 411, 
 
 418, 419, 420, 433, 434 
 
 V. West Ham [1870], L. R. 6 Q. B. 
 
 193; 40 L. J. M. C. 30 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 490 ; 19 W. R. 246. . . . 128, 
 129, 387, 391, 406, 407, 415, 417, 419, 422 
 Metropolitan Ry. Co. v. Towler, [1892] 1 Q. B. 165 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 193 ; 65 L. T. 772 ; 40 "W. R. 306 ; [1893] A. C. 416 . . 326, 344, 345, 439 
 
 Meyer : see R. v. 400 
 
 Middlesex JJ. : see R. ■!>. 251 
 
 Midland Ry. Co. e. St. Mary, Islington, Ryde's Rat. App. (1886-90) 
 
 139 163, 165, 214 
 
 V. St. Pancras, Ryde's Rat. App. (1886-90) 121 . . 69, 
 
 70, 71, 219 
 
 Mile End Old Town : see R. „. 131 
 
 MilL's Estate, In re [1886], 34 Ch. D. 24 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 60; 55 L. T. 
 
 465; 35 W. R. 65 399, 400, 401, 402, 403 
 
 Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Association : see Att. - 
 
 Gen. v. 5 
 
 Nicholson ». Holbom Union [1886], 18 Q. B. D. 161 ; 55 L. T. 775 ; 
 
 35 W. R. 230 ; 56 L. J. M. C. 54 271 
 
 North Staffordshire Ry. Co. : see R. v. , 143, 190 
 
 Old Windsor ». Matthews [1777], Cald. 1 101 
 
 Owens CoUege v. Chorlton-upon-Medlock [1887], 18 Q. B. D. 403 ; 
 
 Ryde's Rat. App. (1886-90) 256 ; 35 W. R. 236 ; S6 L. J. M. C. 
 
 29;56L. T. 373 108,110,111,118,123,430,431,432 
 
 Oxford Local Board : see Grant v. 327 
 
 Padwick : R. v. 98 
 
 Paris & New York Telegraph Co. v. Penzance [1884], 12 Q. B. D. 
 
 652 ; 53 L. J. M. C. Ib9 ; 50 L. T. 790 ; 32 W. R. 859 357 
 
 Parlby: seeR.v. 399,400,403 
 
 Penistone Union : see Dewsbury Waterworks Board v. 119 
 
 Penzance : see Paris & New York Telegraph Co. v. 357 
 
 Pickin : see Rann v. 300 
 
 PimHco Tramway Co. v. Greenwich Union [1873], L. R. 9 Q. B. 9 ; 
 
 43 L. J. M. C. 29 ; 22 W. R. 87 326 
 
 Pixell : see Caldow v. 366 
 
 Ponsonby : see R. v. ■ 309 
 
 Poplar Union : see East & West India Docks v. . . 16, 252, 254, 367 
 
 Putney (Overseers of) : see Hare v. 271, 392 
 
 ■ 62 
 
XX TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
 
 PAdB 
 
 E. V. Ahney Park Cemetery Co. [1873], L. E. 8 Q. B. 515 ; 42 L. J. 
 
 M. C. 124; 29 L. T. N. S. 174 59,146 
 
 — V. Adamson [1876], 1 Q. B. D. 201 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 46 ; 33 L. T. 
 
 N. S. 840; 24W. E. 250 79,84,87,88 
 
 — r. Aire & Calder Navigation [1829], 9 B. & C. 820. .325, 327, 329, 346 
 _ ^. [1832], 3 B. & Ad. 139 325, 328 
 
 — 4'. Belton [1848], 11 Q. B. 379 368 
 
 — J). Boldero[1825], 4B. &C. 467 302 
 
 — V. Bradford [1815], 4 M. & S. 317 309, 310 
 
 — v. Bradshaw [I860], 29 L. J. M. C. 176 ; 2 EU. & EU. 836 317 
 
 — V. Chorlton Union [1872], L. E. 8 Q. B. 5 ; 42 L. J. M. C. 34 . . 47 
 
 — V. Christopherson [1885], 16 Q. B. D. 7 ; 55 L. J. M. C. 1 ; 53 
 
 L. T. 804 ; 34 W. R. 86 300 
 
 — V. East London "Waterworks Co. [1852], 18 Q. B. 705 439 
 
 — V. Fisherton Angar [1880], 6 Q. B. D. 139 ; 50 L. J. M. C. 33 ; 
 
 29W. E. 334 19, 20, 69, 71, 399, 400 
 
 — V. Eletton [1861], 30 L. J. M. C. 89 ; 3 B. & E. 4^0 165 
 
 — v. EuUer [1855], 8 B. & B. 365, u 265, 307 
 
 — V. GoodohOd [1858], E. B. & E. 1 ; 27 L. J. M. C. 233 .... 198, 298 
 
 — V. Grand Junction Ey. Co. [1844], 4 Q. B. IS ; 13 L. J. M. C. 94 219 
 
 — V. Great Hambleton [1834], 1 A. & E. 145 300 
 
 — V. Hull Dock Co. [1852], 18 Q. B. 325; 21L. J.M. C. 153.. 164, 348, 
 
 349, 353—355 
 
 — V. Hurdis [1789], 1 E. E. 765 ; 3 T. E. 497 309 
 
 — V. Ingall [1876], 2 Q. B. D. 199 ; Met. Eat. App. 176 ; 46 L. J. 
 
 M.C. 113; 35 L. T. 552 ; 25 W. E. 57.. 48, 115, 362, 365, 366, 368, 
 
 370, 381 
 
 — V. Jay [1857], 8 E. & B. 469 307 
 
 — V. Lee [1866], L. E. 1 Q. B. 241 ; 35 L. J. M. C. 105 ; 14 W. E. 
 
 311 ; 13 L. T. N. S. 704 143, 190, 219 
 
 — V. Leicester [1827], 7 B. & C. 6 366 
 
 — V. London & North Western Ey. [1874], L. E. 9 Q. B. 134 ; 43 
 
 L.J. M.C. 81 133, 198 
 
 — V. Lord Mayor of London [1790], 4 T. E. 21 326 
 
 — ». [1887], 57 L. T. 491 317 
 
 — V. Maoqueen [1861], 9 C. B. N. S. 793 278 
 
 — V. MerseyandIrwellNavigation[1829],9B.&G.95..325, 327,329,346 
 
 — V. Metropolitan Board of "Works [1868], L. E. 4 Q. B. 15 ■ 38 L J 
 
 M. C. 24 129, 391, 398, 407, 411, 418, 419, 420, 433, 434 
 
 — V. Meyer [1875], 1 Q. B. D. 173 400 
 
 — V. Middlesex JJ. [1872], L. E. 7 Q. B. 653 ; 20 "W. E. 774 .... 251 
 
 — v. Mile End Old Town [1847], 10 Q. B. 208 ; 16 L. J. M. C. 184.. 131 
 
 — V. Nortli Staffordshire Ey. Co. [1860], 3 E. & E. 392; 30 L J 
 
 M. C. 68 ; 9 "W. E. 235 ; 3 L. T. N. S. 554 143, 190 
 
 — V. Padwick [1858], 27 L. J. M. C. 113 ; 30 L. T. 255 ; 6 "W E 
 
 224 ; 98 
 
 — 1). Pai-lhy[1889], W.N. 190 399^ 400,403 
 
 — V. Ponsonby [1842], 3 Q. B. 14 ; 11 L. J. M. C. 65 309 
 
TABLE OF CASES CITED. XXI 
 
 PAOE 
 
 R. V. Poplar Union [1884], 13 Q. B. D. 364 ; Met. Eat. App. 365 ; 
 
 53 E. J. M. C. 20, 97 ; 61 L. T. 97 16, 262, 254, 367 
 
 — V. Ehymney Ey. Co. [1869], L. R. 4 Q. B. 276 ; 10 B. & S. 198 : 
 
 38L. J. M. C. 75; 17W. R. 530 166 
 
 — V. Roohester [1857], 7 E. & B. 910 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 46, 434 .... 366 
 
 — V. St. George's Union [1871], L. E. 7 Q. B. 90 ; Met. Rat. App. 
 
 82; 41 L.J. M. C. 30; 26 L. T. N. S. 696; 20 W. R. 179 ..3, 4, 5 
 
 — V. St. Giles', York [1832], 3 B. & Ad. 679 168 
 
 — ». St. Martin's, Leicester [1867], L. R. 2 Q. B. 493; 8 B. & S. 
 
 536 ; 36 L. J. M. C. 99 ; 16 W. R. 1036 263 
 
 — V. School Board for London [1886], 17 Q. B. D. 738 ; Ryde's Rat. 
 
 App. (1886-90) 235 ; 34 W. R. 583 ; 66 L. J. M. 33, 169. .10, 11, 12, 
 
 103, 107, 109, 111, 118, 119, 123, 124, 129, 131, 272, 393, 394, 
 
 396, 398, 406, 407, 409, 412, 422, 424, 425, 426, 427, 429 
 
 — V. Sheffield Gas Co. [1863], 32 L. J. M. C. 169 ; 4 B. & S. 135. .219, 
 
 435, 436 
 
 — V. Sherford [1867], L. R. 2 Q. B. 503 ; 8 B. & S. 596 ; 36 L. J. 
 
 M. C. 113 198, 199 
 
 — V. Southampton Dock Co. [1851], 14 Q. B. 587 ; 20 L. J. M. C. 
 
 156 . ; 190, 219, 222 
 
 — V. South Staffordshire Waterworks Co. [1885], 16 Q. B. D. 359 ; 
 
 55 L. J. M. G. 88 ; 54 L. T. 782 ; 34 W. R. 242 124, 131 
 
 — V. Stevens [1865], 12 L. T. N. S. 491 360 
 
 — V. Stewart [1857], 8 E. & B. 360 ; 27 L. J. M. C. 81 . , . . 266, 307, 309 
 
 — V. Terrott [1803], 3 East, 606 ; 7 R. R. 502 309 
 
 — V. Thomas [1829], 9 B. & C. 114 326, 327, 329, 346 
 
 — V. Toms [1780], 1 Doug. 401 300, 302 
 
 — V. Verrall [1876], 1 Q. B. D. 9; 45 L. J. M. C. 29 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 
 
 379 ; 24 W. R. 139 19 
 
 — V. West Derby [1875], L. R. 10 Q. B. 283 ; 44 L. J. M. C. 98 ; 
 
 32 L. T. N. S. 400 271 
 
 — V. West Middlesex Waterworks Co. [1859], 1 E. & E. 716 ; 28 
 
 L. J. M. C. 136 200, 435 
 
 — V. West Riding of Yorkshire [1833], 4 B. & Ad. 685 337 
 
 — V. WiUiamson [1890], 59 L. J. Q. B. 493 278 
 
 — v. Woking [1835], 4 A. & E. 40 ; 5 L. J. M. C. 17 188 
 
 Ra:^ V. PioMn [1782], Cald. 196 300 
 
 ReiUy v. Booth [1890], 44 Ch. D. 12; 62 L. T. 378 ; 38 W. R. 484. . 345 
 
 Rhymney Ry. Co. : see R. v. 166 
 
 Roads V. Trumpington [1870], L. R. 6 Q. B. 56 ; 40 L. J. M. C. 35 ; 
 
 23 L. T. N. S. 821 326 
 
 Rochester : see R. v. 366 
 
 Rolls V. St. George's, Southwark [1880], 14 Ch. D. 785 ; 43 L. T. 
 
 140 ; 28 W. R. 366, 867 327 
 
 Eotherhithe (St. Mary) : Burt, Boultou and Haywood v. 63 
 
 Eouse V. City of London Union, Ryde's Rat. App. (1886-90) 124 . . 7 
 Royal Agricultural Hall Co. v. IsKngton, Ryde's Rat. App. (1886-90) 
 
 193, 272 21, 125 
 
Xxii TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 St. Asaph: see Talargoch Lead Mining Co. v. 345, 346 
 
 St. George's, Sonthwark : see KoUs v. 327 
 
 St. George's Union : see E. v. 
 
 St. Giles-in-the-Fielda and St. George, Bloomsbury : see School 
 
 Board for London v. ■'^^ 
 
 St. Giles, York ; see K. v. , 168 
 
 St. John, Hackney : see Hackney. 
 
 St. Leonard, Shoreditoh ; see Shoreditoh. 
 
 St. Mary Abbotts : see Fulham Union v. .... 74, 77, 79, 85, 88, 89, 
 
 245, 282, 285 
 
 : see Wyndham v. 123 
 
 St. Mary, Islington : see Islington. 
 
 St. Mary, Lambetb : see Lambetb. 
 
 St. Mary, Rotberhitlie : see Eotberhitbe. 
 
 St. Olave's (Overseers of) v. Assessment Committee of St. Olave's 
 
 Union [1881], Met. Rat. App. 287 74, 245 
 
 St. Olaye's Union : see Dudin v. 251, 252 
 
 see Lafone ». [1881], Met. Rat. App. 278. .34, 70 
 
 see Overseers of St. Olave's v. ■ • 74, 245 
 
 V. St. Saviour's Union, Eyde's Rat. App. (1886- 
 
 90)176 245 
 
 : see South Metropolitan Gas Co. v. 61, 126 
 
 : see Voss v. [1881], Met. Rat. App. 253 35, 
 
 36, 54 
 
 t. Banoras : see Midland Ry. Co. v. 69, 70, 71, 219 
 
 V. School Board for London, Eyde's Rat. App. (1886-90). 
 
 169 124 
 
 - : see 'Willing v. 290 
 
 St. Saviour's Union : see London and Brovincial Temperance Halls 
 
 Co. V. 21, 69 
 
 : see St. Olave's Union v 245 
 
 Saunders and Shepherd v. Holbom Union [1881], Met. Eat. App. 
 
 245 64 
 
 School Board for London v. Islington [1885], Met. Eat. App. 393 . . 11, 
 
 122, 123, 135 
 
 V. St. Giles and St. George, Bloomsbury 
 
 [1876], Met. Eat. App. 155 122 
 
 ■ V. St. Leonard, Shoreditoh [1885], Met. Eat. 
 
 App. 385 11 
 
 : see E. v. . . 10, 11, 12, 103, 107, 109, 111, 
 
 118, 119, 123, 124, 129, 131, 272, 393, 394, 396, 
 398, 406, 407, 409, 412, 422, 424, 425—427, 429 
 
 : see St. Banoras v 124 
 
 Sheffield Gas Co. : see E. v. 219, 435 
 
 Sherford : seeB,. o 198, 199 
 
 Shoreditoh (St. Leonard) : see E. London Waterworks Co. -u. . . 220 
 
 . : see L. & N. "W. Ey. v. [1879] 231 
 
 [1882] 231 
 
TABLE OF CASES CITED. xxiii 
 
 PAQE 
 
 Shoreditch (St. Leonard) ; see School Board for Loudon v. ■ ■ .... H 
 
 Smith. V. Birmingham Churchwardens [1889], 22 Q. B. D. 703 ; 
 
 Eyde's Rat. App. (1886-90) 297 25, 26 
 
 V. Lambeth Assessment Committee [1882], 10 Q. B. D. 327 ; 52 
 
 L. J. M. C. 1; 48L. T. 67; 31 W. fi. 31 290, 357 
 
 Somera (Lord) : see Lord Amherst v. 307 
 
 Southampton Dock Co. : seeTl. v 190, 219, 222 
 
 South Metropolitan Gaa Co. v. St. Olave's [1881], Met. Rat. App. 
 305 61, 126 
 
 South StafFordshire Waterworks Co. : see E. v. 124, 131 
 
 South Yorkshire Ry. : see Badger v. . . 325, 327, 328, 330, 332, 333 
 
 Stevens : see E. v. 360 
 
 Stewart : see R. v. ■ 265, 307, 309 
 
 Stoke-upon-Trent : see Macharg v. 263 
 
 Strand Union : see Mackay v. 19 
 
 Stretford : see Lancashire Justices v. 100, 102, 263 
 
 Talargoch Lead Mining Co. v. St. Asaph [1868], L. R. 3 Q. B. 478; 
 9 B. & S. 210 ; 37 L. J. M. C. 149 ; 18 L. T. N. S. 711 ; 16 
 
 "W. R. 860 345, 346 
 
 Terrott : see'R. v. 309 
 
 Thomas : see E. v. 325, 327, 329, 346 
 
 Toms : see E. v. 300, 302 
 
 Trumpington : see Eoads v. 326 
 
 TunniolifEe v. Overseers of Birkdale [1888], 20 Q. B. D. 450 ; Ryde's 
 
 Rat. App. (1886-90) 286 ; 59 L. T. 190 ; 36 "W. E. 360 . .102, 163, 
 
 271, 272 
 Tyne BoUer "Works Co. v. Overseers of Longhenton [1886], 18 Q. B. 
 D. 81 ; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 241 ; 55 L. T. 825 ; 55 
 L. J. M. C. 130 ; 35 W. R. 110 . . . . 142, 145, 146, 147, 190, 191, 220 
 
 TJnited Telephone Co. ; see Wandsworth Board of Works v. . . 327 
 
 Verrall : see R. v. 19 
 
 Voss V. St. Olave's Union [1881], Met. Rat. App. 253 35, 36, 54 
 
 Wait : see Governors of Bristol Poor v. 428 
 
 WaUaoe v. AJlen [1875], L. R. 10 C. P. 607 ; 32 L. T. N. S. 830 ; 
 
 23 W. E. 703 374 
 
 Wandsworth and Clapham Union : London County Council v. . 99, 
 
 103 
 Wandsworth Board of Works v. United Telephone Co. [1884], 13 Q. 
 
 B. D. 904 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 449 ; 51 L. T. 148 ; 32 W. E. 776 . . 327 
 West Bromwich School Board v. Overseers of West Bromwich [1884], 
 
 13 Q. B. D. 929 ; 53 L. J. M. C. 67, 153 ; 32 W. E. 866 . . 271, 426 
 
 West Derby Union : see Martin v. . , 102, 263, 265, 266, 309, 310, 315 
 
 : see R. v. 271 
 
 West Ham : see Fourth City Mutual Building Society v. 317 
 
XXIV TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
 
 PAOE 
 
 West Ham : see Metropolitan Board of Works v. .... 128, 129, 387, 
 
 391, 406, 407, 416, 417, 419, 422 
 
 West Middlesex Waterworks Co. : see E. v. 200, 436, 436 
 
 Westminster Chambers Case : see E. «. St. George's Union 3, 4, 5 
 
 West Eiding of TorksMre : see E. «. 337 
 
 Williamson : see E. v. 278 
 
 Willing V. St. Pancras [1877], Met. Eat. App. 188 ; 2 Q. B. D. 581 ; 
 
 46 L. J. M. C. 243 ; 37 L. T. 126 ; 25 W. E. 827 290 
 
 Willis : see Bruce v. 326, 328—331, 333 
 
 Woking : see E. v. 188 
 
 Worcester (St. Martin's) : see Booth ». , 17 
 
 Wyndham v. St. Mary Abbotts, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 97 ... . 123 
 
 Yates V. Chorlton-upon-Medlock [1883], 48 L. T. N. S. 872 316 
 
 Torkshire Fire and Life Insurance Co. v. Clayton [1881], 6 Q. B. D. 
 
 657; 60 L.J. Q. B. 471; 44L. T. 302 ; 29 W. E. 539 5 
 
 Abbreviations used in the Eepoets. 
 
 Met. Eat. App. for " Eeports of Metropolitan Eating Appeals," 4th 
 edition (1886) by the present Editor. 
 
 Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) for " Eeports of Eating Appeals, heard 
 before the Queen's Bench Division, the Conrt of Appeal, Assess- 
 ment Sessions, and London Quarter Sessions " (1890), by the 
 present Editor. 
 
 E. E. for " Eevised Eeports," edited by Sir Frederick PoUook. 
 
Parti. 
 
 CASES 
 
 HEAED BT THE 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS, 
 
 1891—1893. 
 
 Saunders v. St. Mary, Lambeth. 1891- 
 
 Fel. 4, 6, 11. 
 
 HoiMse let in separate Tenements or Flats — Separate Occupation — 
 Bateahle Hereditament — Valuation (Metropolis) Amendment Act, 
 1884 (47 Vict. c. 5) — -Practice — Amendment of Case — Costs. 
 
 The appellant was the owner of seventy houses, each having one 
 front door opening upon the street. Neither the landlord nor any 
 person employed or appointed hy him slept or resided in any of the 
 houses. Each house consisted of two fiats, or tenements, one above 
 the other, each flat being complete in itself, and let to a separate 
 tenant, but there was no door separating the upper and lower flats. 
 Each tenant had a key of the street door, and the landlord had none. 
 The passage was used in common by the tenants of both flats, the 
 staircase only by the tenant of the upper flat. 
 
 Held, that each flat was a separate rateable hereditament. 
 
 The appellant, not having stated sufficient particulars in his case, 
 leave was given to him to amend, for which purpose an adjourn- 
 ment was necessary. The appeal having been allowed, the respon- 
 dents were ordered to pay the general costs of the appeal, and the 
 appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the adjournment. 
 
 Appeal, imder the Valuation (Metropolis) Amendment 
 Act, 1884, s. 2, ty the owner of about seventy dwelling- 
 houses, situated in Crimsworth Eoad, Q-oldsboro Eoad, 
 
I LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891- and Thorpark Eoad, in the parisli of Lambeth. The 
 
 Saundees appellant contended that each house should be rated in 
 
 St Maet ^^^ P^^*^ ^^ separate rateable hereditaments, and not (as in 
 
 Lambeth, the Valuation List appealed against) as one hereditament. 
 
 In the notice of appeal the following description of the 
 
 houses was set out : — " Each hereditament comprises two 
 
 tenements or flats — ^upper and lower — which are let to 
 
 different tenants Each of these flats has three 
 
 rooms, and scullery, w.c, drying-ground, dust-shoot, and 
 other conveniences, so that the tenant of the upper flat has 
 no occasion or right to go on the lower flat (or vice versa) 
 for any accommodation, although, of course (as in many 
 other larger buildings let and assessed in flats or chambers), 
 the two flats in each hou^e have only one common front 
 door and passage on the ground floor for access from the 
 street." 
 
 It was also proved that (except in the case of two bouses) 
 each flat was separately let at about 7s. or 7s. 6d. per week, 
 the landlord doing all the repairs, and paying all rates and 
 taxes. There was no written agreement. Each tenant 
 had a separate key of the front door, and the landlord had 
 none, and in no case did the landlord, or any servant of 
 bis, reside in any part of the premises, so that, in case both 
 tenants were out, neither the landlord nor his servants could 
 obtain admission. In the agreements with the tenants it 
 was said to be understood, but apparently was not expressly 
 provided, that the staircase belonged to the upper flat, and 
 was let to the tenant of that flat. There was no door at 
 the foot of the staircase to prevent the tenant of the lower 
 flat from going up. At the front door there was no separate 
 bell or knocker for the two flats ; and it was the custom for 
 persons to knock twice for the upper floor, and once for the 
 lower ; and the tenants of the two flats answered the door 
 accordingly. The cleaning of the passage was left to the 
 tenants to arrange between themselves. There was a 
 common dust-bin at the back of each bouse, the dust from 
 the upper flat being thrown into it down a shoot. To 
 
jLONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 S 
 
 empty the dust-bin it was necessary in some cases to pass 
 through, the lower flat, entering by the front door from the 
 street. 
 
 Castle, Q.C. {Stewart with him) for the appellant: 
 The amounts at which the several houses are rated are not 
 disputed ; they are all severally rated at sums above 20/., 
 and the appellant claims to have each house divided into 
 two hereditaments, the effect of which will be to reduce 
 the assessment in every case to less than 201., which is the 
 limit . fixed by s. 3 of the Poor Rate Assessment and 
 Collection Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c. 41), with regard to 
 property situate in the metropolis. The appellant will 
 then be entitled to claim a commission under that Act 
 on payment of the rates in place of the occupier. The 
 facts of this case bring it withia the decision in the 
 Westminster Chambers Case {R. v. 8t. George's Union 
 [1871], L. E. 7 Q. B. 90; Met. Eating App., pp.. 82—84), 
 where the Queen's Bench held 117 different sets of 
 chambers in Victoria Street to be separate rateable here- 
 ditaments. Cockbum, C. J., said : " The criterion which 
 has been adopted ia such cases, and which is, perhaps, the 
 most convenient, and the only one, is, whether the landlord 
 retaias the control of the outer door, and has shown by 
 his retaining the control of the outer door that he has the 
 control of the whole of the premises." In that case the 
 outer door was under the control of a porter appointed by 
 the landlord and residing on the premises, and this fact 
 was relied on, as showing that the landlord retained the 
 control of the outer door. It was, however, found as a 
 fact that the porter acted as the servant of the tenants, 
 and his control was, therefore, held to be theirs. There is 
 not even this fact in the present ease on which the respon- 
 dents can rely ; and, therefore, d fortiori the flats must be 
 held to be separate rateable hereditaments. The same test 
 (as to the control of the outer door) was adopted by the 
 Court of Appeal in Bradley v. Baylis [1881], 8 Q. B. D, 
 
 b2 
 
 1891. 
 
 Saundbbs 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Maet, 
 Lambeth. 
 
LOtJDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 .1891. 
 
 Sattndees 
 
 V- 
 Sx. MA£T, 
 JiAMBETH, 
 
 195, in distinguisMng between lodgers and occupying 
 tenants, for the purposes of Parliamentary franchise. 
 Jessel, M. E. (Tb. at p. 219), said: "Where the landlord 
 lets out the whole of the house into separate apartments 
 and lets out each floor separately, so as to demise the 
 passages, reserving simply to each inmate of the upper 
 floors the right of ingress and egress over the lower 
 passages, but parts entirely with the whole legal owner- 
 ship, for the term demised, and retains no control over the 
 house, there, in my opinion, the inmates are occupying 
 tenants, and are capable of being rated as such." All the 
 conditions required by this definition are fulfilled in the 
 present case ; and the description given by Jessel, M. E., 
 is called by hiin " an extreme ease " ; i. e., removed as far 
 as possible from the ease of a lodger. 
 
 The facts were proved by Mr. W. Gr. Field, who collected 
 the appellant's rents, and the respondents called no 
 witnesses. 
 
 Poland, Q.O. {Biron with him) for the respondents : 
 Each case of this kind is to be decided on the special facts, 
 and the facts of this ease are very different from those of 
 B. v. St. George's Union [1871], L. E. 7 Q. B. 90. Here 
 there is a mere parol agreement for a weekly tenancy, 
 similar to that of an ordinary lodger; iu B. v. St. George's 
 Union there was a written agreement equivalent to a lease 
 for a term, the parties to the contract being therein called 
 " lessor " and " lessee " respectively. In the present case 
 the upper flat is not more distiact from the lower than are 
 the upper floors of every house in London from the lower. 
 It is true that each flat is complete in itself, but that is a 
 mere matter of convenient arrangement, and there is no 
 structural severance. Each room opens directly on the 
 staircase or passage, and there is only one outer door 
 shutting out the public from both sets of rooms alike, as in 
 the case of aU ordinary houses. In B. v. St. George's 
 Union, each set of rooms had an outer door, like the 
 various sets of chambers in the Inns of Court, and so was 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS, 
 struoturally severed from tlie common staircase used by 1891. 
 
 the tenants on all the floors. If it be suggested in the pre- Sattobees 
 sent case that the two flats in each house are separate rate- „ ij; 
 able hereditaments because separately let to different tenants, Lambeth. 
 it is a sufficient answer to say that, by parity of reasoning, 
 every room let to a lodger is a separate hereditament dis- 
 tinct from the rest of the house. Moreover, in the case 
 of two of the houses, both flats are let to one and the same 
 tenant ; as to these two, therefore, the respondents must 
 succeed. The question in this appeal has to be decided 
 vnth reference to the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, 
 and 43 Eliz. c. 2, whereas Bradley v. Baylis ([1881], 8 
 Q,. B. D. 195) was decided on the Parliamentary and 
 Municipal Eegistration Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 26), 
 s. 5, and the Representation of the People Act, 1867 
 (30 & 31 Yict. e. 102). It may well be that questions as to 
 occupation may be answered differently as to different 
 statutes, and of this the Westminster Chambers Case is a 
 good illustration. For whereas the chambers were held 
 to be for the purposes of poor rate, 117 distinct heredita- 
 ments (see L. E. 7 Q,. B. 90 [1871]), the same chambers 
 were held to be, for the purpose of inhabited house duty, 
 only seven dwelling-houses (see L. E. 10 Ex. 305 [1875] ; 
 affirmed [1876], 1 Ex. D. 469, Met. Eating App. 84). 
 [He also cited The Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Co. 
 V. Clayton [1881], 6 Q. B. D. 557, decided with regard to 
 inhabited house duty.] 
 
 Castle, Q.O., in reply: Occupation is the sole test of 
 rateabihty under 43 Eliz. c. 2, and the same test is 
 applied under the Eepresentation of the People Act, 1867, 
 as was expressly decided in Bradley v. Baylis [1881], 8 
 Q,. B. D. 195. Under these two statutes, therefore, the 
 question is the same, and therefore the decision in Bradley 
 V. Baylis governs this appeal. The question with regard to 
 the inhabited house duty, it is admitted, may be different. 
 In the present case the entry in the Valuation List must 
 
1891. 
 
 Sauhdebs 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Mabt, 
 
 IjAMBETH. 
 
 LONDON QtJAETEE SESSIONSi 
 
 be wrong, whatever be the decision of the Court; for 
 although each house is assessed in one sum, as one rateable 
 hereditament, the names of both tenants are entered as 
 occupiers. If the house is one hereditament, they must be 
 lodgers merely. 
 
 [In the course of the argument it was pointed out that 
 the appellant's case did not specify the exact form of entry 
 which he desired to be made in the valuation list ; nor did it 
 state in what proportions the total assessment on each house 
 was to be divided between the two flats ; and it was further 
 pointed out that no evidence of the separate values of the 
 two flats had been given. The respondents were ready to 
 assent to any .apportionment of value if the Court should 
 decide each flat to be separately rateable. The case was 
 adjourned to enable the appellant to amend his ease, and 
 to make the necessary apportionment of value. These 
 points were material only to the decision with regard to 
 costs.] 
 
 Cur. adv. vult. 
 
 1891. 
 Feb. 11. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, G.C.) read the follow- 
 ing judgment: We have considered the facts brought 
 before us on this appeal and the cases cited in support of 
 the arguments on both sides. There are in each of these 
 several houses two floors, or residential flats as they are 
 called, which have been constructed for distinct and 
 separate occupation, each having its separate domestic 
 conveniences, and they are separately let to diEEerent 
 tenants. The assessment has been made of each house 
 as one hereditament, and Mr. Poland, on behalf of the 
 assessment committee, has contended that these residential 
 flats are not separate tenements, because there is a door 
 shutting off the passage on the ground floor from the 
 street — ^the passage being common to both tenants— and 
 because there is no door separating this passage from the 
 staircase leading to the upper floor. This staircase, how- 
 
LONDON QtJAETEB SESSIONS. 
 
 ever, is let exclusively to the tenant of the upper floor, 
 and each tenant has a latch key to the street door. These 
 may he facts to be noted in the application of the Eevenue 
 Acts and with reference to the Parliamentary franchise, 
 hut we fail to see that they substantially afEect the occu- 
 pation, which for aU practical purposes is distinct. The 
 appellant is the non-resident owner who has contracted to 
 pay the rates, and he claims to be rated under the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Amendment Act, 1884. We are 
 of opinion that he is entitled to have these flats separately 
 assessed for rating purposes. Our judgment is, therefore, 
 for the appellant, but the questions involved are important, 
 and if desired we wiU state a case for the opinion of the 
 High Court (a). 
 
 Polaiid, for the respondents,, asked for a case, which was 
 granted. 
 
 1891. 
 
 Satihdees 
 
 St. Maet, 
 Lambeth. 
 
 Sir P. H. 
 Edlin, Q.O. 
 
 Castle asked for the appellant's costs. 
 
 Sir P. H. Edlin : You are entitled to some costs. But 
 the appellant's case almost embarrassed the Court, and had 
 to be amended, and an adjournment was rendered neces- 
 sary. The respondents are to have the costs of the day on 
 which the appeal was mentioned again. The appellants 
 are to have the general costs of the appeal, and of to-day ; 
 but not the costs of amending their case. 
 
 Appeal allowed. 
 
 (a) No distinction is made in the judgment witli regard to the two 
 houses in which the flats, though capable of separate occupation, were not 
 in fact let to separate tenants, the two flats in each house being occupied 
 by, and let to one person. With the decision in the above case, compare 
 Rouse V. City of London Union, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 124. The 
 decision reported above seems to be confirmed by the decision of the Court 
 of Appeal in Allchwch v. Sendon Union, [1891] 2 Q. B. 436. 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. The Trustees of the Eoyal Masonic Institution for 
 — ^-^—^ — G-iRLs V. The Wandsworth and Clapham Union. 
 
 School for Daughters of Freemasons— Absence of Profits— Structural 
 Value of Buildings — Cost— Bate of Interest thereon — Practice- 
 Buildings in course of construction. 
 
 The appellants were assessed at 2,600L gross and 2,1002. rateable 
 value, in respect of land and soliools for the education of the 
 daughters of freemasons. At the date of the hearing of the 
 objection before the assessment committee, certain new bmLdings 
 were being erected on the land occupied by the appellants, which 
 were expected to be in occupation before the list would come into 
 force. By consent, the assessment committee in deciding on the 
 objection took into account the new buildings, and increased the 
 assessment to 3,7202. gross and 3,1002. rateable value. On the 
 hearing of the appeal, the Court, at the request of the appellants 
 and with the consent of the respondents, also took the new buildings 
 into account. The buildings, which had been erected at various 
 times, had cost altogether 71,0002.; and the land (together with some 
 buildings thereon) had been purchased at various times for 18,3412. 
 The schools were carried on as a charitable institution, no charges 
 being made. 
 
 The Court reduced the assessment to 3,3002. gross and 2,7502. 
 rateable value, but made no order as to costs, because the ap- 
 pellants had claimed a much larger reduction than was allowed. 
 
 Semhle, that the Court had jurisdiction to determine the gross 
 and rateable values of the new buildings which were not occupied 
 at the date of the objection before the assessment committee. 
 
 Semhle, in the case of a charitable institution, where profit is not 
 the object of the occupation, the Court wUl, in order to arrive at the 
 rateable value, take some lower percentages than four per cent, on 
 the value of the land and five per cent, on the structural value of 
 the buildings. 
 
 The hereditaments, the suhject of this appeal, consisted 
 of the schools and the land occupied therewith, known as 
 the "Eoyal Masonic Institution for Girls," situated at 
 St. John's Hill, Battersea Eise. 
 
 The overseers had assessed the property, as it existed in 
 May, 1890, at 2,500/. gross and 2,100/. rateahle value. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 9 
 
 At the date of the hearing of the objection before the ^891. 
 assessment committee, certain new buildings (forming Eoyai, 
 additions to the existing schools, and erected on land i^tiXion 
 forming part of the grounds already occupied by the ^ok Giels 
 appellants) were being erected, but were expected by the Wanbswoeth 
 appellants to be completed and ready for occupation before -^d Clapham 
 April 6th, 1891, on which date the valuation list would come 
 into force under sect. 43 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 
 1869. In order to avoid the necessity of a second objection 
 and appeal against a supplemental list, the assessment 
 committee (with the consent of the appellants), at the 
 hearing of the objection took into account the new build- 
 ings, and decided on the question of value as if those 
 buildings were already completed and in occupation. The 
 assessment on the whole property was fixed at 3,720/. gross 
 and 3,100/. rateable value. Against this decision the 
 appellants appealed, claiming a reduction to 1,800/. gross 
 and 1,500/. rateable ; or, alternatively (if the new build- 
 ings were not to be taken into account), to 1,500/. gross 
 and 1,250/. rateable value. The appellants had given to 
 the overseers notice that at the hearing of the appeal they 
 intended to ask the Court to fix the value of the whole 
 property, including the new buildings. 
 
 The objects of the institution were "to maintain, clothe, 
 and educate the daughters of Freemasons." No payment 
 was made by the parents or guardians of the girls, and 
 the institution was supported entirely by voluntary con- 
 tributions. The total area of land occupied was 4 acres, 
 2 roods, 20 perches, and it had been acquired by the 
 appellants from time to time in small portions, at a cost 
 of 18,341/. (which, however, included the price of some 
 houses already standing) . The buildings already occupied, 
 or in course of construction, were erected at various times, 
 at a total cost (including the cost of alteration and recon- 
 struction) of 71,000/. Of this sum about 30,000/. was 
 derived from the subscriptions at a festival held, in 1888, 
 to commemorate the centenary of the institution. , 
 
10 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 ^^^^' The following contention was set out in the appellants' 
 
 EoTAi case : — 
 Institution " The appellants will contend that, inasmuch as no profit 
 FOB GiBLs £g^ Qp (ja,n be, made by carrying on the institution, the 
 ■Wanbswoeth rateable value is not to be arrived at by calculating such a 
 ■"""-[JntoiT^" percentage on the structural value of the buildings and 
 land as would be required by a person investing money in 
 land and buildings for the sake of making a profit there- 
 from." 
 
 Poland, Q.C. {Walter C Ryde with him), for the appel- 
 lants. It is admitted that, since the decision of R. v. 
 School Board for London [1886], 17 Q. B. D. 738 ; Eyde's 
 Eat. App. (1886 — 90), 235, in cases where no profit is 
 made by the occupation, the capital value of land and 
 buildings may be looked at as evidence of rateable value : 
 the Court must not, however, look at the actual cost where, 
 as in the present case, it is above the true value. The 
 appellants have been obliged to purchase the land piece- 
 meal, and in many instances have been compelled to pay 
 exorbitant prices. The cost of erecting these buildings is 
 also above the structural value. The appellants desire the 
 value of the whole property (including the new buildings) 
 to be fixed by the Court on the hearing of this appeal. 
 [To this proposal the respondents assented, and the Court 
 proceeded with the hearing of the appeal accordingly. 1 
 
 The following evidence was given on behalf of the 
 appellants : — 
 
 Mr. H. A. Himt, who had been the surveyor of the 
 institution and who had superintended the erection of the 
 buildings, proved the facts. In one instance the appel- 
 lants had been compelled to pay 6,500^. for a piece of land 
 which, with the house standing on it, was actually let at 
 100^. a year only. He estimated the value (as a bare site) 
 of the land, now occupied by the appellants, at 13,120^. ; 
 he thought the premises were suitable only for an institu- 
 tion such as the appellants', and that for such an institu- 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 11 
 
 tion 1,800/. a year was the utmost rent that could be 1891. 
 obtained. il^ 
 
 EOTAI, 
 
 Mr. Edward Eyde said that the buildings having been Masonio 
 erected at about fourteen different times had cost more toeGiels 
 than their present structural value. For 50,000/. pre- tt "• 
 mises equally suitable as a school, but further from aot) Clapham 
 London, could be provided. If the buildings were removed ^^°^' 
 the value of the land in the market would be, in his 
 opinion, about 14,000/. He estimated the gross value 
 of the premises, in their present condition at 1,800/., and 
 the rateable value at 1,500/. ; these figures he arrived at 
 by going, through the buildings in detail, and putting a 
 separate price on each part. 
 
 Gr. E. Lyon {Eark with him) for the respondents : In 
 the present case, as in R. v. School Board for London 
 [1886], 17 Q. B. D. 738 ; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—90) 
 235, the cost of land and buildings is the only possible 
 basis for estimating rateable value. On the appellants' own 
 figures the appeal fails ; taking 4 per cent, on the cost of 
 the land (18,341/.), together with 5per cent, on the cost of 
 the buildings (71,000/.), a rateable value of 4,284/. is 
 arrived at. And even if it be assumed that there is 
 excessive ornamentation of the building, or any unneces- 
 sary expense, and 5 per cent, be taken on 55,000/. only 
 as the present structural value of the buildings, a rateable 
 value of 3,484/. is arrived at. The Assessment Sessions 
 took 4 per cent, on the land and 5 per cent, on the 
 buildings, as representing the rateable values when the 
 School Board Case was before them (Met. Eating Appeals, 
 pp. 385, 399, et vide p. 155). 
 
 The following evidence was given for the respondents : — 
 Mr. Spencer Ohadwick estimated the fee simple value 
 of the land at 4,000/. an acre, but for the purpose of this 
 appeal put it at 3,000/. Taking four per cent, on the 
 value of four and a half acres, added to five per cent, on 
 67,474/. (the structural value of the buildings), he arrived 
 
12 LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. at a rateable value of 3,413/., and, adding one-fifth thereto, 
 EoTAi, a gross value of 4,095/. 
 
 Masonic ]y^_ j{, T^ Hedlev, who had made the valuation adopted 
 
 Institution . 
 
 FOE GiBLs by the assessment committee, valued the land at 3,750/. 
 
 Wandswobth ^^ ^<^^®> °^ 1^^^- P^^ ^°^® P®^ annum. He estimated the 
 AND CtAPHAM structuTal value of the bmldiags at 59,370/. ; but, in order 
 to make an allowance for anything that might be regarded 
 as excessive ornamentation, he took five per cent, on 
 55,000/. only, with the ground rent, as the rateable value, 
 which he calculated at 3,444/. Adding one-fifth thereto, 
 he arrived at a gross value of 4,133/. 
 
 Mr. H. Holloway, a builder, estimated the structural 
 value of the bmldings at 62,868/. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) in the course of 
 the hearing pointed out that in the present case the buildings 
 had not aU been erected, as they stood, for their present 
 purpose, nor had they been erected at one time, and that 
 the appellants, in buying some portions of the land, had 
 practically no discretion. The facts were therefore, in 
 these respects, different from those in M. v. School Board 
 for London {uhi supra) . 
 
 The appeal was allowed, the assessment being reduced 
 from 3,720/. gross and 3,100/. rateable value to 3,300/. 
 gross and 2,750/. rateable. This was to include the new 
 buildings (above referred to), which were not completed at 
 the date of the decision of the assessment committee {a). 
 
 (a) Although the Court did not explain the ground of their decision, 
 it is ohvious that (if they acted on the evidence as to structural value of 
 buildings and value of land) they adopted some lower percentage than 
 five per cent, on the value of the buildings added to four per cent, on that 
 of the land, -which was contended for by the respondents. If the 
 structural value of the buildings be taken at 55,O0OZ. (the lowest figures 
 adopted by the respondents), and the land be put at 14,000?. (the highest 
 figures supported by the appellants' evidence), and four per cent, be 
 taken on both alike, a rateable value of 2,760?. is arrived at. If the 
 value of the land be put at 13,500?. (the figures adopted by Mr. Chad- 
 wick), and that of the buildings at 65,000?., and four per cent, be 
 taken on both, the rateable value would be 2,740?. ; or if Mr. Chadwick's 
 figures be corrected for- the land, so as to show the value of. the exaci 
 
tONDON QUAETER sessions; 
 
 The Chairman said that, having regard to the fact that 
 the appellants in their case had claimed a much larger 
 reduction than had been allowed, the Court would make 
 no order as to costs. 
 
 13 
 
 1891. 
 
 EoTAIi 
 
 Masonic 
 Institution 
 
 rOE GlKLS 
 V. 
 
 Wanbs'woeth 
 
 AND ClAFHAU 
 
 Union. 
 
 Wordsworth v. St. Saviour's Union. 
 
 Practice — Petition entered after January 14f/t — Costa. 
 
 Leave was given to an appellant to enter an appeal after January 
 14th., on payment to the respondents of the costs of the application 
 to tbe Court for such leave. 
 
 Lowe for the appellant asked for leave to enter a petition 
 of appeal from a decision of Special Sessions. 
 
 The petition of appeal had in fact been lodged after 
 January 14th, the date fixed by Ord. V. (1890), and was 
 so entered in the printed list of appeals dated January 23. 
 The exact date when the petition was lodged did not 
 appear. 
 
 Lyon opposed the appHeation, except on the terms that 
 the respondents should have their costs of the application. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : The applica- 
 tion is a necessary one, and the respondents are entitled to 
 
 costs («). 
 
 Appeal entered. 
 
 area occupied by the appellants, the rateable value -would be 2,755?. ; 
 the rateable value as fixed by the Court being 2,1501. 
 
 There is another method of calculation which gives the exact result 
 arrived at by the Ooiurt, viz., to put the buildings at 55,000?. and the land 
 at 18,34U., which was the exact sum paid by the appellants for the 
 laud (including, in the case of one or two portions, a house standing 
 thereon), and to take four percent, on the value of the buildings (2,200/.) 
 with 3 per cent, on the cost of the land (550?.), making a total of 2,760/. 
 - (a) At the same Sessions, similar appHcations were made in other 
 appeals, and granted on the same terms. 
 
 1891. 
 Feb. 3. 
 
H LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. Charrington v. The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town. 
 Feb. 12. 
 Mission Hall — Premises exclusively appropriated to Public Meligioua 
 
 Worship— Absence of Profits— Z & 4 Will. 4, c. 30. 
 
 By 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 30, certain exemptions from rateability are 
 created in respect of premises appropriated to public religioiis 
 ■worship. 
 
 The Great Assembly HaU (Mile End Eoad) was btiilt for the 
 purposes of the Tower Hamlets Mission, and was duly certified for 
 public religious worship. The appellant, who was rated as the 
 occupier, received no rents, and derived no profit or advantage from 
 the occupation. The Court found, on the facts, that the HaU was 
 not "exclusively appropriated to public religious worship." 
 
 Held, that the building was not exempt from rateability under 
 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 30, although the appellant received no rents and 
 derived no profit or advantage from the occupation. 
 
 Appeal against an assessment of 500^. gross and 417^. 
 rateable value, in respect of the " Great Assembly Hall," 
 Mile End Road, which was used for the purposes of, or in 
 connection with the Tower Hamlets Mission. 
 
 The appellant claimed that the hall was exempt fi-om 
 rateability under 3 & 4 WiU. 4, c. 30, which enacts as 
 follows : — 
 
 " 1. Erom and after the 1st day of October, 1833, no 
 person or persons shall be rated or shall be liable to be 
 rated, or to pay to any church or poor rates or cesses, for 
 or in respect of any churches, district churches, chapels, 
 meeting-houses, or premises, or such part thereof as shall 
 be exclusively appropriated to public religious worship, and 
 which (other than churches, district churches, and episcopal 
 chapels of the Established Church) shall be duly certified 
 for the performance of such religious worship according to 
 the provision of any Act or Acts now in force : provided 
 always, that no person or persons shall be hereby exempted 
 from any such rates or cesses for or in respect of any parts 
 of such churches, district churches, chapels, meeting-houses, 
 or other premises which are not so exclusively appropriated, 
 and from which parts not so exclusively appropriated such 
 
Old Town. 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 15. 
 
 person or persons shall receive any rent or rents, or shall 1891. 
 derive profit or advantage. Chaebinqtoh 
 
 " 2. Provided always, and be it enacted, that no person „ *• 
 or persons shall he Kahle to any such rates or cesses because Mile End 
 the said churches, district churches, chapels, meeting-houses, 
 or other premises, or any vestry rooms belonging thereto, 
 or any part thereof, may be used for Sunday or infant 
 schools, or for the charitable education of the poor." 
 
 Alex. Glen for the appellant : — The hall is, on the facts, 
 exempt under the statute. The land was bought by the 
 appellant, and the hall with other buildings was erected 
 for the purposes of the Tower Hamlets Mission. The 
 whole property is vested in trustees upon trust to permit it 
 to be occupied for " the worship of Grod, the preaching of 
 the Holy Gospel, the holding of Bible classes, for discussions 
 on matters of religion, and for the use of any means for 
 the diffusion of G-ospel truth, &c." [Sir P. H. Edlin :— 
 If the deed provides for exclusive appropriation to religious 
 worship, and the actual user is for other purposes, surely 
 the property is not exempt.] The main and substantial 
 occupation is for purposes of religious worship ; no profit 
 or advantage accrues to the appellant from the Great 
 Assembly Hall, which is duly certified for such worship («). 
 There are, adjoining the hall, a coffee-palace for the sale 
 of non-intoxicant diinks; and also a book-stall, where 
 books, papers, &c. are sold. These buUdiugs are separately 
 rated, and their rateability is not disputed. The proviso 
 in s. 1 of 3 & 4 Wni. 4, c. 30, shows that the Act con- 
 templates the exemption of buildings, every part of which 
 may not in strictness be "exclusively appropriated to 
 public religious worship;" but if no profits be made, the 
 exemption still attaches. If the Court is of opinion that 
 the hall is not exempt altogether from rateability, the appel- 
 lant contends that the assessment should be reduced (b). 
 
 (a) The learned counsel waa apparently referring to 52 Geo. 3, o. 155, 
 s. 2, as amended by 18 & 19 Vict. c. 81. 
 
 lb) The question of amount, though raised in appellant's case, was, in 
 the result, not further discussed. 
 
16 
 
 LONDON QUARTEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. Mr. F. N. Charrington, the appellant, proved that the 
 
 Chaebinqton land and buildings (excluding the organ) had cost 20,000/. 
 Hamlet OP ^^® Great Assembly Hall was used exclusively as a 
 Mile End Mission Hall, but not altogether, in the ordinary accepta- 
 tion of the words, for purposes of public religious worship. 
 For instance, in the previous winter, about 700/. had been 
 distributed, in the hall, in relief of distress. This the 
 witness regarded as analogous to the distribution of loaves 
 in some of the City Churches. There were, in the hall, 
 religious services (in the strict sense of the words) held on 
 five nights in the week. During the winter there were, 
 on Saturday nights, sacred concerts ; there were also occa- 
 sionally lectures, with dissolving views showing scenes in 
 different parts of the world, Mr. H. M. Stanley's " Travels 
 in Darkest Africa," &c., temperance lectures, and lectures 
 which, as a rule, might be said to have a moral. The 
 appellant had never in any year received any profit or 
 personal advantage from the hall. It had been let for meet- 
 ings to religious organisations or societies having the welfare 
 of the people as their object. It appeared that the overseers 
 had in 1890, on the ground that charges were made for 
 admission, entered the hall in a provisional list ; but this 
 list was withdrawn (no doubt on the principle laid down 
 in the East and West India Bock Case [1884], 13 Q. B. D. 
 364; Met. Eating App. 355). The appellant had given 
 instructions, since the withdrawal of the provisional list, 
 that no money should be taken at the doors ; no money 
 had been so taken, nor had the hall been let to any 
 society. On one occasion it had been lent gratuitously to 
 the organist for a performance of Sullivan's " Grolden 
 Legend," on December 6th, -1890. On the handbills 
 advertising that performance it was stated that the concert 
 was a subscription concert, tickets being issued to sub- 
 scribers, and that there would be a limited number of free 
 tickets, the holders of which would be expected to contri- 
 bute to " a silver collection " made in the hall. The appel- 
 lant explained that he imagined that if no money were 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 17 
 
 taken at the doors the building would he exempt ; that he 1891. 
 had not been informed of the taking of " a silver collection " n TrtupT MgTmr" 
 in the building, and was not responsible for it; and '"■ 
 
 that when he was informed he protested strongly against Mile Ehd 
 it. It appeared further that the hall had been used O^^Toto. 
 on August 21st, 1890, for a meeting of barge-builders, 
 presided over by Mr. Tom Mann ; and, again, on Sep- 
 tember 9th for a similar meeting. On September 2nd 
 a meeting of " dockers " for the purpose of assisting 
 Australian " dockers " was held in the hall. On Novem- 
 ber 15th, 1890, there was an entertainment by the 
 "Eoyal Hold-fast Handbell Eingers," This was a 
 temperance entertainment, but on the tickets of admission 
 was printed: "Please contribute to the collection in aid of the 
 funds of the Mile End Old Town Batepayers' Association." 
 
 Houghton, for the respondents, was not called upon to 
 argue, but referred to the decision of the Recorder of 
 Worcester (Mr. Bosanquet, Q.O.), in Booth v. Overseers of 
 St. Martin, Worcester, and the Assessment Committee of the 
 Worcester Union [1884], 48 J. P. 441, as to the rateability 
 of certain premises occupied by the " Salvation Army." 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.O.) : On the ap- 
 pellant's own evidence it is clear that this haU is not 
 exclusively used for public religious worship. The latter 
 part of the section [proviso?] does not cut down the 
 previous enactment. The overseers have clearly dealt 
 leniently with this property. The appeal must be 
 dismissed with costs. 
 
 Appeal dismissed. 
 
18 LONDON QUARTEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. Sir Coutts Lindsay, Bart. v. St. George s Union. 
 
 Feb. 13. 
 
 Grosvenor Gallery— Profits— Evidence of Bateahle Value— Practice— 
 
 Costs. 
 The Grosvenor Gallery and the premises connected therewith 
 were assessed at 2,93YZ. rateable value. If the rateable value was 
 to be ascertained by reference solely to the profits actuaUy made, 
 the assessment would be merely nominal ; if it was to be ascertained 
 by comparison with the rental values of similar property in the 
 neighbourhood, the assessment appealed against could be supported. 
 Seld, that the appeal must be dismissed. 
 
 Semhle, where the respondents succeed on the substantial ques- 
 tions raised by the appeal, they may be entitled to costs, although 
 the appeal is successful on minor technical points. 
 
 Quoere, in what class in Sched. III. to the Valuation (Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869, ought a picture gallery to be entered ? 
 
 The hereditament the sutject of this appeal consisted of 
 the Grosvenor Gallery and the premises connected there- 
 with, which occupied three houses, Nos. 135, 136, and 137, 
 New Bond Street. 
 
 The premises were rated as one hereditament at 3,525/. 
 gross and 2,937/. rateable value ; but they were used for 
 four diSerent purposes, the accounts connected with each 
 being separately kept, viz. : — (1) the Gtrosvenor Gallery ; 
 (2) the Grosvenor Club and Eestaurant; (3) the Grosvenor 
 Library ; and (4) the Gallery Club. 
 
 The appeal calls for a report only upon the question of 
 the principle of valuation to be adopted. The arguments 
 and evidence relating solely to the question of amount are 
 therefore omitted. 
 
 a. Boyle for the appellant : A reduction to 2,000/. gross, 
 and 1,500/. rateable value is claimed. The description of the 
 premises in the valuation list is merely " Picture Gallery, 
 &c." ; the appellant claims the addition of words such as 
 " Eestaurant, Club, and Library." [To this counsel for 
 the respondents raised no objection.] Further, the "name 
 or situation of property" should be stated as Nos. 135, 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 19 
 
 136, and 137, New Bond Street, and not merely as 1891. 
 No. 135, New Bond Street, as at present. Further, the Lj^g^^ 
 list does not state the class in Sched. III. of the Yaluation "• 
 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869, in which the property stands, '^'uoton™^ 
 The appellant claims to be put in Class 11. The gallery 
 has not heen a successful concern, and the club and 
 restaurant have been started merely to promote the success 
 of the gallery. In the ease of property which is occupied, 
 as this is, for a peculiar purpose, and which is not of a kind 
 that is often in the market, the actual business done and 
 the profits made, are the proper means of arriving at rate- 
 able value. In Clarke v. Alderhury Union [1880], 6 
 Q. B. D. 139, which related to the refreshment room at 
 the Salisbury Railway Station, evidence of actual receipts 
 and expenditure was held to be admissible. Similar 
 evidence was held to be admissible in B. v. Verrall [1875], 
 1 Q. B. D. 9, which related to the racecourse at Croydon. 
 The cost of the buildings is not evidence. (See Mackay v. 
 8trand Union, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890) 163, where 
 the Assessment Sessions rejected evidence as to the cost of 
 Oovent Garden Theatre and the Floral Hall.) 
 
 Evidence was given to show that if rateable value were 
 to be calculated on the basis of the actual receipts and 
 expenditure, it should be reduced to nothing, or to a merely 
 nominal sum. One witness, however, admitted that a 
 tenant might be found to pay 2,000/. a-year on lease 
 (apparently on the assumption that he was not to be 
 restricted to the existing mode of user). 
 
 Poland, Q.C. [Danckwerts with him), for the respondents : 
 The contention of the appellants, that a picture gallery is 
 to be rated on the profits made, involves the conclusion 
 that a theatre is to be rated at varying sums, according to 
 the success of the piece played. The cases cited are dis- 
 tinguishable on the facts. In R. v. Verrall [1875], 
 1 Q. B. D. 9, it was suggested that land used as a raoe- 
 
 c2 
 
20 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. course miglit be valued as mere agricultural land, and an 
 l^j^sAY attempt was made to exclude from consideration the 
 »• , additional value arising from the user as a racecourse. 
 '^'xfmoN^ " Moreover, it vi^as decided that the profits made were not 
 the ratio decidendi, but " elements for the consideration of 
 the justices in arriving at the rateable value." In Clai-Jce 
 V. Alderbury Union [1880], 6 Q. B. D. 139, the only 
 possible object of occupation was to make a profit ; and 
 the amount of profit actually made was the only possible 
 test of the value of the occupation. A refreshment room 
 at a railway station is not comparable with the premises 
 in the present case, which are nothing more than three 
 houses in New Bond Street, with inter-communication. 
 Clubs and galleries of this kind are in practice often let. 
 These premises are not different from an ordinary house, 
 and should, therefore, be put in Class 6 of Sched. III. to 
 the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 
 
 Evidence was given on behalf of the respondents to 
 show that, by comparison with the rental values of similar 
 premises in the immediate neighbourhood, the heredita- 
 ments in question might be expected to command a rent, 
 on lease, of 3,500^. Some of the witnesses, however, 
 stated that alterations of the premises would be necessary 
 before they could be so let. 
 
 E. Boyle in reply; I do not claim an assessment at 
 nothing because no profit is made ; but the rateable value 
 must be calculated with regard to the specific business 
 carried on. The premises are to be rated as they are 
 now, and not as they hereafter may be. The appeal 
 must in any event succeed as to the description of the 
 property. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q. C.) : The objections 
 as to misdescription are purely technical. "We do not fail 
 to observe the use that is sought to be made of the mis- 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 21 
 
 takes of the assessment committee. The appeal is dis- ^gg^ 
 missed with costs (a). 
 
 LiNDaAT 
 
 1). 
 No express decision was given as to the Class in which St. Geobqe's 
 
 the property ought to have been entered. 
 
 The Improved Industrial Dvs^ellings Company v. The 1891. 
 Assessment Committee of St. Luke's, Chelsea. " ' ' 
 
 Artizans' Dwellings — Annual Value — Weekly Bent — Payment in 
 addition to Bent — Practice — Costs. 
 
 Tlie appellants were the owners of 162 tenements, consisting of 
 artizans' dwellings erected in large blocks, each tenement being a 
 separate rateable hereditament, and let on a weekly tenancy. 
 Each tenant paid, in addition to his "rent," ia the ordinary sense, 
 a sum of Qd. a week towards the " general expenses of the estate," 
 which included, inter alia, the cost of lighting the approaches and 
 staircases, and of maintaining lamps, cleaning cisterns and drains ; 
 the rents of gas-meters ; the wages of a porter ; and the cost of 
 sundries for cleaning, as brooms, disinfectants, &o. On hearing 
 the appellants' objection, the assessment committee considered that 
 the payment of the Qd. a week by each tenant constituted a part of 
 his rent, and, estimating the annual value of each tenement on 
 this basis, overruled the appellants' objection. The respondents 
 relied on the same principle ia their case stated in the appeal, but 
 did not therein contend that, whether the principle were right or 
 not, the appellants were not over-assessed. 
 
 Held, that it was open to the respondents to contend that the 
 appellants were not over-assessed, and to give evidence of the value 
 of the tenements apart from the actual rent paid. 
 
 Whether the payment of Gd. a week must be regarded as a part 
 of the rent, quoere. 
 
 The question whether the annual value of property let on a 
 
 (a) With this case compare Lmdon and Provincial Temperance Sails Co. 
 V. St. Saviour's Union, Eyde's Rat. App. (1886 — 1890) 95, and Boyal 
 AgricwUwral Sail Co. v. St. Mary's, Islington, lb. 193, in -wMoh eases the 
 actual profits were made the basis of calculating the rateable value. It 
 must, however, be observed that in each of those cases the object of the 
 occupation was to make profits ; whereas, in the case reported above, no 
 evidence was given to show that the appeUant's object, so far as the 
 picture gallery was concerned, was to make a profit. 
 
22 LONDON OUAKTEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. weekly tenancy is equivalent to flfty-two times tlie weekly rent, 
 
 ■- — considered. 
 
 iMPEO-raD ^j^g Court, in dismissing the appeal, gave the respondents the 
 
 DwELLiNOS costs, although the ground of the decision was different from that 
 
 Co. acted on by the respondents in hearing the appellants' obj ection, and 
 
 St Luke's although the point decided was not raised in the respondents' case. 
 
 CeBIiBEA. 
 
 The appellants were rated as owners of a large numter 
 of hereditaments known as Marlborough Buildings, 
 "Walton Street, Chelsea, which were thus described in 
 their case : — 
 
 " 3. Marlborough Buildings are erected on private land, 
 enclosed by gates and fences in fourteen blocks, and con- 
 tain 162 separate tenement dwellings for the working 
 classes, each of which is completely isolated from the 
 others for all purposes of separate habitation, and open 
 upon some one of several external staircases, each of which 
 is for the common use of the occupiers of tenements open- 
 ing on the same, and those having business with them, and 
 which staircases, the appellants contend, are so many ver- 
 tical streets, essential as approaches to the said tenements, 
 but by no means parcel of the same. 
 
 "4. The dwellings are let at weekly rents. Applica- 
 tions by intending tenants are made on a printed form in 
 the following terms : — 
 
 " ' To the Directors of the Improved Industrial 
 Dwellings Co., Limited. 
 " ' I desire to become a weekly tenant of a set of 
 
 rooms, being No. , on the floor of , at 
 
 at rent of s. d. per week, as from the 
 
 next, and on taking possession I will in every respect 
 comply with your conditions of occupation as printed 
 on the other side hereof. I will also pay a sum of 
 6d. per week towards the general expenses of the 
 estate, which said sum I hereby authorize you to 
 collect and recover, in the same manner as the rent of 
 the dwelling is collected and recoverable.' 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 23 
 
 "5. The general expenses of the estate referred to are 1891. 
 estimated to amount to — 
 
 Impeoved 
 
 U /1\ "m „ Til- 1 InDTISTEIAIi 
 
 (i; J^or gas tor lightmg approaches, staircases, £ D-vraLLuraa 
 yards, &c. 90 Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 " (2) Maintaining lamps and fittings, cleaning cis- Si. Luke's, 
 
 terns, flushing and disinfecting drains and soil Chelsea. 
 
 pipes, &c. -- 52 
 
 " (3), Meter rents, and 5 per cent, interest on cost of 
 
 gas mains, fittings, &o. - - - - - 10 
 
 " (4) Porter's wages, and house, and gas, &c. - 92 
 
 " (5) Maintenance and labour on gardens and en- 
 closures ------ -10 
 
 " (6) Sundries for cleaning, as drain-machines, 
 
 brooms, brushes, disinfectants, &c. - - 5 
 
 £259 
 
 "These general expenses of the estate are necessary to 
 maintain the hereditaments in a state to command the 
 rent, and are in addition and not applicable to the accus- 
 tomed charges for the maintenance of house property 
 other than tenements built in blocks, but would be ex- 
 penses necessarily incurred in the maintenance of such 
 property if the same was approached only by a private 
 road not under parochial control, but maintained by the 
 owner of the same for the benefit of his tenants, and those 
 resorting to the same on business with them. The appel- 
 lants contend that their property, which is the subject 
 of this appeal, is undistinguishable from property thus 
 situated, and is in fact so situated. 
 
 " 6. The sum of &d. per week, in the form of application 
 mentioned, contributed by the tenants of the said dwel- 
 lings, when the whole of the same (that is, the 162 
 dwellings contained in the fourteen blocks as aforesaid) 
 are occupied, would amount to a sum of 210/. 12s. ; and 
 this sum is subject to a reduction when any one or more 
 of the dwellings are unlet, or through defaulters, or other 
 
24 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. casualties, so that the contributions do not cover the 
 Impboved expenses of outgoings on account of the said general 
 Inbubthiai. expenses of the estate." 
 
 DWELLINOS 
 
 Co. 
 
 J- , Poterf, Q.O. (5ew» with him), for the appellants: Por 
 
 Cheisba. ' the purposes of this appeal, it will be sufficient to take one 
 of the tenements as a test case, each tenement being a 
 separate rateable hereditament. The respondents have 
 arrived at the gross and rateable value of each hereditament 
 by applying to the weekly rents the scale contained in a 
 circular issued by the London County Council to the 
 several ratiag authorities in the Metropolis. The scale 
 itself is erroneous, and moreover, the sums to which it has 
 been applied are wrong. In par. 4 of the respondents' 
 case it is said that, " The assessment committee, in 
 arriving at the values of the hereditaments, took into 
 consideration the sum of 6d. a week [«. e., the sum men- 
 tioned in the appellants' case, supra], and added it to the 
 amounts returned as rent by the appellants, and the 
 respondents contend that this amount was properly con- 
 sidered by them in arriving at the true value of the pre- 
 mises." This payment is not really rent, since it is paid 
 in part for expenses entirely external to the hereditament, 
 and in part for services which otherwise each tenant would 
 perform for himself. It includes, inier alia, the cost of 
 gas on the staircases, and so far is analogous to a 
 lighting rate. The cleansing of cisterns and disinfecting 
 of drains would in ordinary cases be paid for by the 
 tenant. The efEect of the arrangement is that, instead of 
 the several tenants doing the work, the landlord employs 
 one person to do it for the tenants, and that one person is 
 paid out of the contributions of the several tenants. The 
 payment, not being really rent, does not become so because 
 it is collected and recoverable in the same manner as rent. 
 It is obvious that the scale has been applied to the aggre- 
 gate sums paid by the tenant, including the 6d. a week ; 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 25 
 
 because in the test case, where the tenement is let at 10s. 
 a week, if the extra Qd. for " general expenses of the 
 estate " he added, and the scale he applied, the result will 
 he an annual gross value of 19/., which is the sum stated 
 in the valuation list. If the scale be applied to a weekly 
 rent of 10s., the result vdll be a gross annual value of 18/., 
 which is the amount contended for by the appellants in 
 their case. If the Qd. a week is not part of the rent, the 
 scale has been applied to the wrong figures ; in any event, 
 it is erroneous in assuming that the annual value is equi- 
 valent to fifty-two times the weekly rent. In the table 
 appended the " amount per annum," corresponding to a 
 weekly rent of 10s. 6d., is 271. 6s., or exactly fifty-two 
 times the weekly rent. If from this amount the only 
 deductions permitted are in respect of rates and taxes and 
 water-rate, it is obvious that no allowance is made for the 
 possibility that each tenement may remain empty for one 
 or more weeks in the year. Even if another tenant be 
 found at once to take the place of an outgoing tenant, 
 there must be some delay and loss of rent while the tene- 
 ment is being cleaned. It is manifest that a landlord 
 would accept as an annual rent a less sum than the aggre- 
 gate of the weekly rents. It is true that in Smith v. The 
 Ghurchicardem of Birmingham, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 
 297, the recorder of Birmingham found as a fact that the 
 annual rent of certain property let on weekly tenancies 
 was equivalent to fifty-two times the weekly rent ; but, as 
 was pointed out by WiUs, J. {lb. at p. 305), that was a 
 finding of fact about which the High Court could not 
 express an opinion either one way or the other. Such a 
 finding is not binding on this Court, and it is submitted 
 that it is unreasonable. It is not open to the respondents 
 now to abandon the ground on which they acted in reject- 
 ing the appellants' objection, and on which they rely in 
 par. 4 of their case (as above set out) ; they cannot there- 
 fore be heard to say that, even though the Qd. a week be 
 wrongly treated as rent, and though the scale itself be 
 
 1891. 
 
 Impeoved 
 
 Industeial 
 
 dwellinos 
 
 Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Luke's, 
 Chelsea. 
 
26 
 
 LOKDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 Impeo'ved 
 
 InDUSTEIAIi . 
 DwELLDfaS 
 
 Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Litke's, 
 Chelsea. 
 
 wrong, yet the gross and rateable values stated in the 
 valuation lists are not too high. 
 
 In the course of the argument, the Chairman (Sir 
 P. H. Bdliu) remarked that the Court could not look at the 
 circular of the London County Council for any purpose. 
 
 JFl Marshall for the respondents : The circular and the 
 scale contaiued therein may have heen referred to by the 
 respondents, but the question for this Court is one of fact, 
 viz., whether the several tenements are over-assessed in the 
 valuation list. It may be admitted that the scale is of no 
 authority. Whether the Qd. be included or not as part of 
 the rent, the assessment appealed against can be supported. 
 Taking the test ease, and excluding the Qd. a week, the 
 actual sums payable by the appellants in rates and taxes 
 and water rate (calculated on the present rateable value as 
 stated in the Kst), will leave, when deducted from the 
 aggregate of the weekly rents, a sum less than the gross 
 value stated ia the Hst. [The details which were given 
 by the learned counsel are not material for the purpose of 
 this report.] The list can therefore be supported, ex- 
 cluding the Qd. a week. If it be true, as the appellants 
 contend in par. 5 of their case {supra, p. 23), that the 
 " general expenses of the estate are necessary to maintaia 
 the hereditaments in a state to command the rent," then 
 the 6d may be added to the rent and again subtracted 
 therefrom, leaving the same result. It is submitted that 
 the payment is rent, and nothing but rent. Again, as 
 was pointed out iu Smith v. Churchwardens of Birming- 
 ham, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90), at p. 307, a weekly 
 payment of a few shillings a week is iu one respect 
 worth more than a payment of fifty-two times that 
 amount at the end of the year, because the landlord does 
 not have to wait so long for his money. Whether in 
 each case it is so is a question of fact. The respondents 
 are prepared to give evidence that the hereditaments in 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 27 
 
 question are in fact worth the gross and rateable values i89i. 
 
 stated in the list. ~~: 
 
 Impkoved 
 
 Ihdtjsteiaii 
 
 Poland, Q.C., in reply : The respondents are now de- Dwellinqs 
 
 parting from the questions of law raised in their case. It ^/ 
 
 is not open to them to say that the appellants, who in fact ^^- Lttke's, 
 
 let these tenements at certain rents, might charge other 
 
 higher rents if they chose to do so. Such a contention is 
 
 analogous to an inquiry as to the probable receipts of a 
 
 gas company, if prices other than the actual prices were 
 
 charged. To demand higher rents would alter the character 
 
 of the tenants, and the property mu^t be rated rebus sio 
 
 stantibus. 
 
 Sir P. H. Edlin : The respondents' case may have mis- 
 led the appellants, but I think the Court must look at aU 
 the facts. 
 
 Evidence was then given on both sides as to the true 
 value of the hereditaments in question. The details of the 
 evidence are immaterial for the purposes of this report. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : It is not 
 necessary for the respondents to rely on the proposition 
 now said by the appellants to be erroneous. It would be 
 a difiBcult question to determine whether the payment of 
 6«f. a week for " the general expenses of the estate " must 
 be regarded as part of the rent, but upon this it is not 
 necessary for us to express an opinion. I said more than 
 once in the course of the argument that possibly we might 
 have to divide this payment, and to hold that part of it 
 was a payment of rent and that part was a payment of the 
 expenses borne in ordinary cases by the tenant. But we 
 still have to determine the general issue whether the pro- 
 perty has been over-assessed. Even if it be said that the 
 respondents have avoided this issue in their case, stiU 
 Mr. Poland admitted that the general question was before 
 the Court. We are of opinion that the appellants have 
 
28 
 
 1891. 
 
 Improved 
 
 Indtjstbiai. 
 
 D-WELiiuas 
 
 Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Luke's, 
 Chelsea.. 
 
 LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 failed to satisfy us that there has heen an over-assessment. 
 It must, however, he distinctly understood that we do not 
 endorse the contention of the respondents that the payment 
 of the Qd. a week forms part of the rent. The appeal is 
 dismissed, with the usual result as to costs {a). 
 
 1891. 
 Feb. 19. 
 
 Waterlow & Sons, Limited v. The Assessment Com- 
 mittee OF St. Leonakd's, Shoreditch. 
 
 Practice — Powers of Quarter Sessions — Increase of Gross Value — Order 
 by Consent — Costs — Review of Taxation, 
 
 In an appeal, in wHcli a reduction of gross and rateable value 
 was claimed by tbe appellants, an order was made, by consent, tbat 
 tbe gross value entered ia the valuation list should be increased, it 
 having been wrongly stated in consequence of an inaccurate return, 
 made by the appellants as to the rent. 
 
 Whether, in an appeal claimiag a reduction of the assessment. 
 Quarter Sessions have power to increase the gross value stated in 
 the Hst, quaere. 
 
 On motions for a review of taxation of costs, the onus is on those 
 who seek to disturb the taxation. 
 
 Appeal against an assessment of 5,400/. gross and 
 4,600/. rateable value in respect of premises used as 
 stationery works. 
 
 Polaiid, Q..0. {Seven with him), for the appellants: In 
 the appellants' case, a reduction of both the gross and 
 rateable values is claimed: for the purposes of to-day, 
 
 (a) The appellants in this case were prepared with evidence on the 
 general question of value. Had it been necessary to have an adjourn- 
 ment, in order to enable them to procure evidence on this question, which 
 was not raised by the respondents in their case, it may perhaps be 
 doubted whether the Court would have made the same order as to costs. 
 It must be noted that the decision of the assessment committee was 
 affirmed by the Quarter Sessions on grounds entirely diiierent from those 
 acted on at the hearing of the appellants' objection. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 29 
 
 however, the appellants are ready to accept the gross value 
 stated in the list. The premises should he either in Class 8 
 or Class 11 of Schedule 3 to the Yaluation (Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869 ; and a deduction of one-third should be made 
 from the gross value. 
 
 F. M. White, Q.C. {John Montefiore with him), for the 
 respondents : The values stated in the list were so stated 
 in consequence of a return made on behalf of the appel- 
 lants, in which it was said that they paid " annually," 
 without a lease, a rent of 4,000^., whereas it is now ad- 
 mitted that the premises are held under a lease for twenty- 
 one years, at a rent of 6,260^ There may be some 
 explanation of this discrepancy, which, if unexplained, 
 amounts to fraud. Even if it be assumed that the Court 
 cannot alter the gross value stated in the list, the respon- 
 dents are entitled to contend that the rateable value 
 appealed agaiust is not above the true rateable value. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : Even if the 
 Court cannot alter the gross value on this appeal, are the 
 appellants entitled to rely in argument on figures fixed 
 wrongly in consequence of the inaccuracy of their own 
 return? (a). 
 
 By consent, the gross value was ordered to be increased 
 to 6,000^., the rateable value remaining unaltered at 4,500/. : 
 the respondents to have their costs. 
 
 Appeal dismissed. 
 
 1891. 
 
 "Wateelow 
 AND Sons 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Leo- 
 nard's, 
 Shoeeditoh. 
 
 A motion was made for a review of taxation of costs. 
 
 John Montefiore for the respondents : The clerk of the 
 Court has allowed on taxation two fees of 63/. and 43/. 
 respectively, paid to two surveyors who valued the site ; 
 
 (a) See also Wood v. St. Smiowr'a Union, infra, p. 51, and the cases 
 cited ia the note, p. 53. 
 
 1891. 
 
 May 7. 
 
30 
 
 1891. 
 
 Wateklow 
 Ain) Sons 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Leo- 
 
 naed's, 
 
 Shobesitch. 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 but has disallowed altogether the fee paid to a third witness, 
 who was specially retained to value the machinery, worth 
 35,000J. The questions raised at the hearing, were 
 
 (1) whether the premises were a "manufactory," and 
 
 (2) what were the expenses of repairs of the machinery. 
 TJnder the circumstances the retainer of a third witness 
 was reasonable. The surveyors took the value of the 
 machinery from the witness whose fee is disallowed. 
 
 Beven for the appellants : Questions of amount are to be 
 left to the discretion of the taxing officer; and in the 
 present case he has rightly exercised it. 
 
 The Chaieman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q,.C.) : In applications 
 of this kind the onus is on the party seeking to disturb the 
 taxation ; and here no sufficient grounds have been shown. 
 It is said that two witnesses were called as to the value of 
 the site, but their evidence related also to the machinery. 
 If so, part of the fees allowed to those two witnesses is attri- 
 butable to the third witness, whose figures they took («). 
 
 Motion dismissed wiih costs. 
 
 1891. 
 Fel. 19. 
 
 Cantlon v. Holboen Union. 
 
 Volunteer Storehouse — Exemption from Rateability — Occupation of the 
 
 Crown. 
 
 [It has been thought unnecessary to report this case, 
 which related to a volunteer storehouse, drill-hall, &c., in 
 consequence of the subsequent decision of the Q,ueen's 
 Bench Division in Pearson v. Solborn Union (reported 
 infra, p. 303), with regard to similar premises.] 
 
 (a) This decision follows the rule acted upon ty tke Assessment Sessions 
 in Msdaile v. City of London Union, Byde's Eat. App. (1886-90), at p. 111. 
 
LONDON QUAETEK SESSIONS. 31 
 
 The Gtuardians of the Westminster Union v. The J'l^^o 
 Assessment Committee of the Wandsworth and '■ — - 
 
 Clapham Union. 
 
 Poor Law Schools — Occupation by Public Body for Statutory Pur- 
 poses — Measure of Rateable Value — Bate of Interest on Value of 
 Land and Buildings. 
 
 The appellants, in the performance of statutory duties, had ac- 
 quired land, with buildings thereon occupied as schools, at a total 
 cost of 14,0002. Since the date of the erection of the buildings, 
 the cost of building had increased ; and siace the date when the 
 land was purchased for the erection of schools by the appellants' 
 predecessors in title, the value of the land had increased. The 
 respondents estimated the value of the land at 10,5002., and the 
 structural value of the buildings at 12,3902. The appellants were 
 able to borrow 3aioney under statutory powers at about 3 per cent. 
 
 The premises were assessed at 1,080Z. gross, and 9002. rateable 
 value. 
 
 Meld, that the assessment must be confirmed. 
 
 Semble, in estimating the rateable value, the Court adopted some 
 higher percentages than 3 per cent, and 4 per cent, on the values 
 of land and buildings respectively, notwithstanding the fact that 
 the appellants were able to borrow money at 3 per cent.- 
 
 Appeal from special sessions relating to the Industrial 
 Scliool, St. James's Eoad, Wandsworth. 
 
 The overseers had assessed the premises at 1,200/. gross 
 and 1,000/. rateable value : the assessment committee had 
 made a reduction to 1,080/. gross and 900/. rateable ; and 
 the special sessions had confirmed this decision. The 
 appellants claimed a reduction to 540/. gross and 450/. 
 rateable value. 
 
 The premises were situated in the parish of St. Mary, 
 Battersea. In 1851 the governors and directors of the 
 poor of the parish of St. James, Westminster (being then 
 a parish not in union), bought twenty-one acres of land 
 (including the land in question) at 3o/. an acre, and 
 erected thereon the schools at a cost of 6,300/. In 1868, 
 the parish of St. James having become part of the West- 
 minster Union, the land and buildings were let by the 
 
32 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. governors of the poor of the parish to the Union, at a rent 
 
 "Westminstee fixed hj the Local Grovernment Board at 500/. In 1871, 
 
 Union fourteen of the twenty-one acres of land were sold for 
 
 ■Wjlndswokth huilding purposes at the price of 1,000/. an acre, and the 
 
 ^^TJn^^^^^^ other seven acres of land, with the- school buildings thereon, 
 
 were sold to the guardians of the Westminster Union (the 
 
 present appellants) for the sum of 10,500/. In 1872, the 
 
 appellants expended a further sum of 3,500/. in additional 
 
 buildings, and it was admitted by the witnesses for the 
 
 appellants that siace 1851 the cost of building had increased 
 
 25 per cent. It was also admitted that the land, if it were 
 
 cleared, would be worth, at the date of the appeal, 900/. or 
 
 1,000/. an acre as building land ; and another witness 
 
 proved that small plots of land in the neighbourhood had 
 
 been sold at a higher rate. 
 
 The schools were maintained by the appellants in per- 
 formance of their duties under the poor law, and in their 
 existing condition would be of no value for other purposes. 
 About five acres of the land were uncovered, and used as 
 gardens or playground. 
 
 F. Stroud for the appellants : The land and buildings 
 together have cost the appellants 14,000/. Inasmuch as 
 they can borrow money at about 3 per cent., the Court 
 should take 3 per cent, on the actual cost of land and 
 buildings as representing the rateable value. 
 
 G. E. Lyon {Earle with him) for the respondents : The 
 assessment appealed against can be supported on the 
 appellants' own evidence. If 25 per cent, be added to the 
 original cost of the buildings, viz., 6,300/., and to this 
 sum be added the cost of the additional buildings, -viz., 
 3,500/., a total cost of 11,370/. for buildings alone is arrived 
 at. Taking 5 per cent, on this sum, together with 4 per 
 cent, on the present value of the land (seven acres at 1,000/. 
 an acre), a rateable value of 848/. is shown, as compared 
 with 900/. in the valuation list. Taking the higher 
 
I.ONDON QUAKTEE SESSIONS. 
 
 33 
 
 evidence as to the value of the lands, the assessment appealed 1891. 
 against is more than supported. :;;;; 
 
 TTI'J • ■■■■■■»«, WeSTMINSTEB 
 
 iiividence was given on behalf of the respondents that 'Union 
 the value of the land was 1,500/. or 1,600/. an acre {i.e. Wandstoeth 
 for seven acres 10,500/. and 11,200/. respectively) ; and -^"^ .Clapham 
 the structural value of the buildings was estimated by 
 different witnesses at from 12,568/. to 12,995/. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.O.) : Yarious tests 
 of rateable value have been suggested, but we have to 
 decide the practical question whether these schools have 
 been over-assessed. In our opinion the appellants have 
 failed to show that they have been ; and we come to this 
 conclusion without thereby implyiag that we adopt any 
 particular criterion of rateable value {a). This appeal is 
 dismissed with costs. 
 
 Appeal dismissed. 
 
 [a] Althougli the Court expressly avoided laying down any principle, 
 it may be inferred that they did not adopt the same criterion as in London 
 County Council t. Woolwich Union, infra, p. 126. There the Court took 
 3 per cent, on the value of the land, together with 4 per cent, on the 
 value of the buildings, as the rateable value. It wOl be found that in the 
 present case, these percentages, when apphedto the lowest values given in 
 evidence on behalf of the respondents, give a rateable value of 817^. as 
 against the assessment of 900/. which was confirmed by the Court. It 
 follows, a fortiori, that the percentages, if applied to the appellants' 
 evidence, would not support that assessment. The value of both land and 
 buildings being in dispute, it seems impossible to say more than that the ■ 
 Court adopted some higher percentage than 3 per cent, and 4 per cent, on 
 the values of land and buildings respectively, in estimating the rateable 
 value. 
 
 It may be noticed that the above decision leaves the question still open, 
 whether, in estimating the rateable value of land covered with buildings 
 suited only for the purposes of the actual occupier, the present value of 
 the land for any purpases, or the actual cost to the existing occupier, is 
 the better evidence of rateable value. 
 
34 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. Lafone V. St. Olave's Union. 
 
 Fel. 27. 
 
 Wharf— Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869, Schedule III. — Case for 
 Opinion of Queen^s Bench Division — Practice. 
 
 A wharf on the banks of the Thames is to be put in Class 5 in 
 Schedule III. to the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 
 
 Voss T. St. Olave's Union [1881], Eyde's Met. Eat. App. 253, 
 followed. 
 
 The Sessions refused a case upon the question whether a wharf is 
 to be put in Class 5, or not, on the ground that it was a question 
 of fact. 
 
 Semhle, where one of the parties to an appeal at Quarter Sessions 
 intends to ask for a case upon a question of law, he should, by his 
 evidence, enable the Court to state alternative findings, and should 
 give the other party to the appeal an opportunity of contesting the 
 facts which are to be relied on in stating the case. 
 
 The gross value of a hereditament must be ascertained on the 
 assumption that the landlord bears the cost of repairs ; and there- 
 fore, in such calculation, it is immaterial whether the actual cost of 
 repairs is greater or less than the maximum reduction from the 
 gross value permitted, in the case of the particular hereditament, 
 under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, Schedule TIT, 
 
 Appeal relating to Butler's Wharf, Shad Thames, in 
 the Parish of St. John, Horselydown. The assessment 
 was fixed by the overseers at 10,680/. gross and 8,900/. 
 rateable value, but reduced by the assessment committee 
 to 9,707/. gross and 8,090/. rateable. 
 
 (An appeal relating to the same hereditament, heard by 
 the assessment sessions, ia 1881, is reported Met. Eat. 
 App. 278, where the history of the wharf and the previous 
 ratings are stated.) 
 
 Philbrick, Q,.C. {Alex. Glen with him) for the appellant : 
 Butler's Wbarf being situated on the banks of the Thames, 
 . is not like an ordinary warehouse. The overseers and the 
 assessment committee put the wharf in Class 5 of 
 Schedule 3 to the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, as 
 being within the description "buildings without land 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 35: 
 
 wMcli are not liable to inliabited house duty and' are of a 
 gross value of 40/. or upwards." The premises should be 
 put into Class 11, which includes "rateable hereditaments 
 not included in any of the foregoiag classes." The over- 
 seers and the assessment committee allowed a deduction 
 of one-sixth from the gross value, being the maximum 
 deduction under Class 5. The appellant is prepared to 
 show that the actual cost of repairs, &c. is greater than the 
 deduction allowed. 
 
 1891. 
 
 Lafone 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Olave's 
 Union. 
 
 Poland, Q.C. {Horace Avory with him) for the respon- 
 dents, objected : The question as to the class in which this 
 hereditament should be placed is governed by Voss v. 
 Si. Olave's Union [1881], Met. Eatiag App. 253, where 
 the assessment sessions held that Tenning's "Wharf (which 
 is exactly similar to the wharf the subject of the present 
 appeal), was rightly placed in Class 5. That decision was 
 right, and has moreover been acted upon in rating wharves 
 ever since 1881 : to overrule it now in favour of the appel- 
 lant would be unfair to other wharfingers. [Sir P. H. 
 Edlin : May it not be argued, even if we put the property 
 in Class 5, that the hypothetical tenant would (by reason 
 of his having so small a deduction from the gross value) be 
 prepared to give a smaller rent in consequence ?] No : 
 because the gross value must be arrived at first. By s. 4 
 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, the term " gross 
 value means the annual rent which a tenant might reason- 
 ably be expected, taking one year with another, to pay for 
 an hereditament, if the tenant undertook to pay all usual 
 tenant's rates and taxes, and tithe commutation rentcharge, 
 if any, and if the landlord undertook to bear the cost of the 
 repairs and insurance, and the other expenses, if any, neces- 
 sary to maintain the hereditament in a state to command 
 the rent." This definition assumes that the landlord bears 
 the cost of repairs, &c., and the gross value cannot there- 
 fore be affected by the question whether the deductions 
 
 d2 
 
36 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 Lapoxb 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Olave's 
 Union. 
 
 therefrom permitted by Schedule 3 are greater or less than" 
 the actual cost of repairs. 
 
 The Court decided to foUow the decision in Voss v. 
 SL' Olave's Union [1881], Met. Eat. App. 253, as to the 
 
 class. 
 
 The appeal was then heard at considerahle length, and 
 on the question of value was dismissed. 
 
 In the course of the hearing it was suggested (but not 
 seriously pressed) that, upon the facts, Butler's Wharf 
 partook more of the nature of a manufactory than did the 
 wharf to which Voss' Case related. It appeared, however, 
 that the machinery at Butler's Wharf comprised little 
 beyond the engines for generating the electric light, the 
 hydraulic lifts and cranes ; some machinery connected with 
 repacking tea in chests, and some hydraulic machinery for 
 cutting tin plates. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : We are of 
 opinion that this appeal fails. The appellant might have 
 stood in a better position if, in order to arrive at the rate- 
 able value, the statute enabled us to deduct the actual costs 
 for the maintenange and repair from the gross value. But 
 it does not ; we have to ascertain the gross value upon the 
 assumption that those costs fall upon the landlord, and the 
 allowance or deduction in respect thereof must not exceed 
 the maximum prescribed by the third Schedule to the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, that is to say, the 
 maximum prescribed for the class under which the pro- 
 perty falls. Thus, the allowance — iu this case one-sixth 
 only — falls short of the actual expenditure. As to the 
 class, we adhere to the opinion expressed in Voss v. Si. 
 Olave's Union [1891], Met. Eat. App. 253. 
 
 1891. 
 June 20. 
 
 PMlbrick, Q.C, for the appellants, asked for a case for 
 the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division upon the 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 question wlietlier the wharf should he put in Class 5 or 
 Class 11. He admitted that he had not asked for alterna- 
 tive findings, but submitted that the cost of the repairs 
 had not been disputed. 
 
 Poland, Q.C., for the respondents : The Court haying 
 ruled that the hereditament must be entered in Class 5, 
 in which class a deduction of one-sixth only could be 
 allowed, the respondents were not interested in contesting 
 the exact cost of the repairs. To grant a case now would 
 involve a re-opening of the entire appeal. Moreover, the 
 appellant has attended the taxation of costs without protest. 
 The question as to the proper class is a question of fact 
 rather than of law, and therefore the High Court would 
 not entertain the case. 
 
 Philhrick, Q.C., in reply : The construction to be put 
 upon the schedule to an Act of Parliament must be a 
 question of law. If necessary, to avoid the difficulty as to 
 the absence of alternative findings of value, the appellant 
 is content to ask for a case raising the mere question of 
 law, whether a wharf is to be entered in Class 5. 
 
 The Chaikman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q-C.) : We are all of 
 opinion that a case ought not to be granted. The question 
 raised is almost a question of fact, and we have great doubt 
 whether the High Court would have the power or the 
 inclination to deal with it. Moreover, in the absence of 
 alternative findings, the High Court would not entertain a 
 -case which did not enable them to deliver a final judgment. 
 
 87 
 
 1891. 
 
 IiAFONB 
 V. 
 
 St. Olave's' 
 Union. 
 
 Appeal dismissed; case refused. 
 
38 LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. The London County Council v. St. Giles' in the 
 
 -^^^' ^^' PiELDs AND St. George's, Bloomsburt. 
 
 Practice — Appeal against Totals — Inspection of Beturns made by 
 Ratepayers — Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869, as. 31, 55, 56, 69. 
 
 By sect. 69 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, "Any rate- 
 payer ... in tlie metropolis may, at all reasonable times, witliout 
 payment, inspect and take copies of and extracts from all valuation 
 lists and documents wHcli, in pursuance of this Act, are under the 
 control of the clerk of the managers of the metropolitan asylum 
 district, or of the clerk of the assessment sessions." 
 
 Held, that the Court could not under this section order inspection 
 of documents under the control of the clerk of an assessment com- 
 mittee, as though the -word "sessions" had been inserted in the 
 statute by mistake for the word " committee." 
 
 By sect. 31, the sessions "may order any .... clerk of assess- 
 ment committee .... to produce any documents relating to rates 
 or taxes "■which the sessions may "consider necessary for deter- 
 mining an appeal." 
 
 Held, that this section applied only to production at the hearing, 
 and not to inspection before the hearing, of an appeal. 
 
 Whether the returns made by ratepayers under sect. 55 are 
 "documents relating to rates'' -within the meaning of sect. 31, 
 gumre. 
 
 Semlle, where one party to an appeal refuses to allow inspection 
 of documents in his possession, and on the hearing of the appeal an 
 adjournment is rendered necessary by such refusal, the Court may 
 order such party to pay the costs of the adjournment, although the 
 right of inspection be not given under the express words of the 
 statute. 
 
 Motion on behalf of the appellants, in an appeal against 
 totals, for leave to inspect the returns made by the rate- 
 payers in the respondents' parishes under sect. 55 of the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 
 
 Horace Awry for the appellants : By sect. 56 of the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, "the return [made 
 under sect. 55 as to the rent, &c. paid by the occupier] 
 shall be delivered to the overseers of each parish, and 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 89 
 
 togfetlier witL. the valuation list shall be sent by them to 1891. 
 the surveyor of taxes, and by the surveyor of taxes to the London 
 assessment committee." Inspection of the returns is County 
 claimed by the appellants as ratepayers under sect. 69, ^. 
 
 "which enacts that " Any ratepayer, overseer, clerk of an Bloombbuby. 
 assessment committee, or surveyor of taxes in the metro- 
 polis, may, at all reasonable times, without payment, 
 inspect and take copies of and extracts from all valuation 
 lists and documents which, in pursuance of this Act, are 
 under the control of the clerk of the managers of the 
 metropolitan asylum district, or of the clerk of the assess- 
 ment sessions." It is submitted the last words quoted 
 should be " assessment committee," as is pointed out in a 
 note in Seal's "Practice at Assessment Sessions," at p. 177. 
 There are no documents in the hands of the clerk of the 
 assessment sessions (now the London Quarter Sessions : 51 & 
 52 Yict. c. 41, s. 42 (10)) which a ratepayer could possibly 
 wish to see ; the Court must, therefore, make the slight altera- 
 tion suggested, in order to give some meaning to the words. 
 In any event, the Court can order inspection under 
 sect. 31, which provides that " the justices in assessment 
 sessions [now the London Quarter Sessions] may order 
 any . . . clerk of assessment committee ... to produce 
 any documents relating to rates or taxes which such 
 justices may consider necessary for determining an appeal." 
 The returns " relate to rates " within the meaning of this 
 section, because they are the materials on which rates are 
 made. [Sir P. H. Edlin : Are not the returns rather the 
 materials for making out the Hsts, on which rates are 
 afterwards made ?] If the returns do not " relate to 
 rates," then the clerk of an assessment committee has in 
 his possession no documents which relate to rates. 
 
 Buekmaster for the respondents : There is no mistake in 
 the words of sect. 69, and even if there be, this Court 
 cannot substitute one word for another, unless the language 
 used is utterly meaningless. It is sufficient to show that 
 
40 
 
 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 County 
 cotjnoii; 
 
 V. 
 
 Bloomsbiiet. 
 
 there are some documents under the control of the Clerk of 
 the Sessions, of which inspection might he desired. The 
 Clerk has under his control the rules made hy the Courtj 
 the recognizances entered into by appellants, the petitions, 
 and the cases stated on appeal; and a ratepayer might 
 very well wish to inspect all or some of these. Conse- 
 quently, the Court cannot alter the express words of the 
 statute. Moreover, hy the second clause of sect. 69, it is 
 provided that "Any surveyor. of taxes and any guardian, 
 and any overseer in a union, without payment, and any 
 ratepayer in a union on payment of a fee not exceeding 
 one shilling, may at any reasonahle time inspect and take 
 copies of and extracts from any valuation lists, notices of 
 objection, returns, and other documents in the possession 
 or under the control of the assessment committee of that 
 union." The returns, of which inspection is now sought, 
 are mentioned by name in this second clause, and it is 
 submitted the first clause does not apply to them. For if 
 it does, then the first clause gives to any ratepayer in the 
 Metropolis, without payment, inspection of the same docu- 
 ments of which inspection is given by the second clause to 
 a ratepayer in the particular union on payment of a fee of one 
 shilling. The. appellants cannot rely on the second clause 
 of sect. 69, because they are not ratepayers in the respon- 
 dents' parishes. 
 
 [Sir P. H. Edmn : Section 31 applies only to production 
 at the hearing, and not to inspection before the hearing, 
 of an appeal.] 
 
 Horace Avory in reply: If it be held that sect. 31 appKes 
 only to production at the hearing, the effect will be that 
 the examinations of the returns must be deferred tiU the 
 hearing, when an adjournment will be necessary after the 
 appeal is called on. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : It seems not 
 unreasonable that the appellants should see the returns. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 41. 
 
 If it be suggested that the inspection may subject the 1891. 
 respondents to unnecessary expense, that can be considered -l^^^ 
 in dealing with the costs. No obstacles should be thrown County 
 in the way of the appellants. The Court makes no order v. 
 
 upon this motion, and all questions of costs are reserved. Bioomsbtot. 
 If, at the hearing, an adjournment be necessary to enable 
 the appellants to inspect these returns, the Court can deal 
 with the costs of that adjournment (a). 
 
 Motion dismissed. 
 
 The South Eastern Railway Compakt v. The Assess- 1891. 
 MENT Committee of the City of London Union. ^'' 
 
 Practice — Times for Proceedings — Alteration of Valuation List after 
 Re-deposit — Union Assessment Committee Ad, 1862 (25 cfc 26 
 Vict. c. 103), ss. 20, 2\— Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 42. 
 
 Tie assessment committee revised a valuation list and ordered 
 it to be re-deposited, -without making any alteration in tlie appel- 
 lants' assessm.ent as fixed by tlie overseers. Subsequently to such 
 re-deposit, and after the expiry of the statutory time prescribed for 
 the final approval of the list, the assessment committee increased 
 the appellants' assessment, without objection thereto being made 
 by any person. 
 
 Held, that the delay in making the alteration did not render it a 
 nullity, as the provisions as to time contained in sect. 42 of the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, were directory and not im- 
 perative. 
 
 R. V. Ingall [1876], 2 Q. B. D. 199; Met. Eat. App. 176, 
 folio-wed. 
 
 Held, further, that the assessment committee had power, under 
 sect. 21 of the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, to make an 
 alteration in an assessment after the re-deposit of the list, even 
 though no objection were made to such assessment. 
 
 Appeal relating to so much of the Cannon Street Station 
 as is within the parish of Allhallows the Great, ia the City 
 of London Union. 
 
 (a) The further proceedings in connection with this appeal are reported 
 infra, p. 72. 
 
42 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. The appeal came first before the Court upon a pre- 
 
 S E. Rt. liminary question raised by the appellants as to the 
 
 "■ Talidity of the list, arising out of the following facts : — 
 
 London In 1890 the Overseers duly deposited a list in which the 
 
 Union. appellants were assessed at 9,600/. gross and 8,000/. rate- 
 able value. The list was transmitted to the assessment 
 committee, and, after revision, was re-deposited by them 
 on July 25th, without any increase of the appellants' 
 assessment. The assessment committee sat for the hearing 
 of objections to the alterations made in the list, and on 
 August 20th, 1890, again re-deposited the list, without 
 any increase being made in the appellants' assessment. 
 
 On the list being produced in Court, it appeared that in 
 the columns headed respectively " Gross Yalue as finally 
 determined by Assessment Committee" and "Rateable 
 Yalue as finally determined by Assessment Committee," 
 the figures stating the gross and rateable values as fixed 
 by the overseers were repeated ; and it was stated that this 
 entry was made after the first and before the second re- 
 deposit ; and it was suggested that the entry was a mere 
 clerical error on the part of the clerk to the assessment 
 committee, inasmuch as the committee had resolved to 
 appoint a paid valuer to revise the assessments of the 
 appellants and other large companies. On September 10th 
 notice of the intention to appoint a valuer was sent to 
 each of the guardians of the union, pursuant to sect. 16 of 
 the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862 ; and on Sep- 
 tember 30th Mr. W. Barnett, having been appointed, wrote 
 to the appellants for certain information, part of which was 
 given ; permission to view the premises was also asked and 
 given. On October 24th Mr. Barnett wrote for further 
 information ; and on November 1st the appellants replied 
 that the information asked for was not known, and that, 
 if known, it would be of no assistance. On November 
 5th the assessment committee passed a resolution to 
 increase the appellants' assessment to 21,000/. gross and 
 17,500/. rateable value, the alteration being carried out by 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 43 
 
 drawing a line through the figures abeady standing in the 1891. 
 columns above specially mentioned, and by writing the g j, -g^^ 
 increased figures above them respectively. On November «'• 
 
 14th the committee wrote to the appellants asking them London 
 to waive the statutory notices, and to accept a short notice Union. 
 of the meeting for hearing of objections to the alterations. 
 On December 3rd the appellants wrote refusing to accept 
 such notice. On December 17th the assessment committee 
 ordered the list to be again re-deposited, and on December 
 20th it was sent back to the overseers for that purpose. 
 On December 30th the appellants gave notice of objection 
 to the alteration; and on December 31st the assessment 
 committee gave notice of intention to revise the list, and 
 to sit for the hearing of the appellants' objection on 
 January 8th, 1891, on which day the appellants appeared 
 to make objection under protest, and they were on that 
 day told what the decision of the assessment committee 
 would be. On January 19th the committee finally ap- 
 proved the list, leaving the appellants' assessment at 
 21,000/. gross and 17,500/. rateable value, as fixed by 
 Mr. Barnett. The notice of appeal to Quarter Sessions 
 was dated January 14th, 1891. 
 
 The Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, by sects. 
 20 and 21, enacts as follows : — 
 
 " 20. The committee may, whether any objection be or 
 be not made to any such valuation list, and either before 
 or after any meeting for hearing objections, make such 
 alterations in the valuation of any hereditaments included 
 in any valuation list, and insert therein any rateable here- 
 ditament omitted therefrom, and make such corrections in 
 names, descriptions, and particulars in any valuation list, 
 and upon such information, as to them may seem suffi- 
 cient, and may, with the consent of the guardians as 
 aforesaid, appoint or employ a person to survey and value 
 the rateable hereditaments comprised in any such valua- 
 tion list, or any of them, or omitted therefrom, or may 
 take such other means as they may think necessary for 
 
44- LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS.. 
 
 1891. ascertaining the correctness thereof, and when the com- 
 
 S. E. Ry. mittee have heard and determined all such ohjections as 
 
 *• aforesaid, and have made such alterations, insertions, and 
 
 London corrections in any valuation list as to them may seem 
 
 Union. proper, they shall approve the same under the hands of 
 
 three members of the committee present at the meeting at 
 
 which the same is approved, with the date of such approval. 
 
 "21. Where the committee mate any alteration in the 
 valuation of any hereditaments included in, or insert therein 
 any rateable hereditament omitted from, any such valua- 
 tion list, they shall cause such valuation Hst, with such 
 alteration or insertion, to be deposited for inspection in 
 manner hereinbefore provided concerning the valuation 
 Hst made by or delivered to the overseers, and shall cause 
 the like notice to be given of such deposit as is required in 
 the case of a valuation list so made or delivered as afore- 
 said, and shall appoint a day, not less than seven days nor 
 more than fourteen days from the re-deposit of such 
 valuation list, for the hearing of any objections to the 
 valuation list as so altered ; and when the committee have 
 heard and determined any such objections, or have made 
 such further alterations, insertions and corrections in such 
 valuation list, they shall approve the same in manner 
 hereinbefore provided." 
 
 The Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 7, provides 
 that " after the valuation list is signed by the overseers, 
 the same proceedings shall be had as are directed by sects. 
 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, of the Union Assessment Com- 
 mittee Act, 1862, subject to the alterations made by this 
 Act." The following are the material sub-sections of 
 sect. 42 of the Act of 1869, prescribing " times for pro- 
 ceedings " : — 
 
 " (4.) The assessment committee shall revise the valua- 
 tion list before the first of October in the same year, and 
 before the same day, but not less than sixteen days after 
 the transmission of the list to them by the overseers, shall 
 hold a meeting for hearing objections to such list. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 43' 
 
 " (5.) The assessment committee shall give notice of 1891. 
 
 a meeting for hearing ohjeotions to a list not less than g j. ^^^ 
 
 sixteen days before such meetinar. "- 
 
 City op 
 " (7.) The assessment committee shall send the valua- London 
 
 tion list to be re-deposited within three days after it is t^niojt. 
 
 approved by them, and shall appoint a day, not less than 
 
 fourteen nor more than twenty-eight days after such 
 
 re-deposit, for hearing objections to the alterations, of 
 
 which objections seven days' notice shall be given by the 
 
 objector. 
 
 " (8.) The assessment committee shall finally approve 
 and send the valuation list to the overseers, and the clerk 
 of the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District, 
 before the first of November in the same year. 
 
 " (9.) Notices of appeal to Special Sessions shall be 
 given on or before the twenty-first of November in the 
 same year. 
 
 " (10.) The justices may hold the special sessions at any 
 time after the thirtieth of November in the same year, 
 which will enable them to determine all appeals before the 
 ensuing first of January." 
 
 Sir Edward Clarke, S.Gr., and E. Page, for the ap- 
 pellants (ff) : The alterations in the list are invalid on two 
 grounds; (1) because the times prescribed by sect. 42 of 
 the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, have been disre- 
 garded (6) ; and (2) because, after approving and re- 
 depositing the list, the assessment committee have no power 
 to make alterations, except in deciding on objections to 
 alterations already made. As to the second point, the 
 assessment committee, after re-depositiug the list, were 
 functi officio, and had no power to make any alteration as 
 
 (a) Two counsel on each side were heard "by special leave of the 
 Court," the usual practice at London Quarter Sessions being to hear 
 "one counsel only for each party," see 0. 13 (1890). 
 
 (b) The arguments upon this point are omitted, the question being 
 fully discussed before the Court of Appeal and the Queen's Bench, in 
 S. T. Justices of Zondon, infra, p. 360. 
 
46. LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1S91. to the appellants' assessment. The respondents ia. their 
 S. B. Ry. °^^ °^s^ allege that the list was re-deposited without an 
 
 „ ^- alteration of the appellants' assessment, and that the valuer 
 
 City op , ..-^ 
 
 London Was not appointed until after the re-deposit. [Sir P. H. 
 
 Union. Edlin : The list as it stands shows figures which have 
 heen erased and figures which it is said are wrongly- 
 entered. If we hold that there is no valid list for this 
 parish, could we not make an order under sect. 35 of the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, which provides that 
 " if it appears to the sessions on any appeal that there is 
 no approved valuation list for some parish, they may 
 appoint some proper person to make a valuation list?"] 
 In the present case there is a valid list, for the erasure of 
 the old figures, and the substitution of the new, are one 
 act. If the new figures are a nuUity, the erasure is a 
 nullity, and the old figures stand. By sect. 21 of the 
 Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862 {supra, p. 44), 
 power is given to object, after re-deposit, to alterations 
 already made, and the committee must deal with such 
 objections, but there is no power to make alterations as to 
 assessments not objected to. Moreover, the provisions as 
 to time, contained in sect. 42 of the Valuation (Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869, contemplate one re-deposit only, and the logical 
 result of the respondents' contention must be that there is 
 power to repeat alterations and re-deposits as often as the 
 committee think fit. 
 
 Poland, Q.O., and B. Cunningham Qlen, for the re- 
 spondents : The appeal must be tried on the merits. It 
 is admitted that the statutory times have been exceeded, 
 but the valuation list is in the statutory form, and (apart 
 from the question of time) purports to be a valid list. The 
 assessment committee have express power imder sect. 21 of 
 the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, supra, p. 44, 
 to make "further alterations " after re-depositing the list ; 
 and we do not shrink from saying that they may make 
 alterations again and again, provided that after every 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 47 
 
 alteration they re-deposit the list, and give notice to every 1891. 
 
 ratepayer whose assessment is increased. In H. v. Chorlton g. e. Ry. 
 
 Union [1872], L. E. 8 Q. B. 5, it was held that altera- ^ *• 
 
 . . . City OF 
 
 tion. Without re-deposit and notice to the ratepayer, was bad. London 
 
 Here the appellants had notice of the alteration, and their Union. 
 objection thereto has been heard : they have therefore not 
 lost their right to appeal under s. 32 of the Valuation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869. After revising the Ust as to other 
 properties, the assessment committee adjourned the con- 
 sideration of the appellants' assessment. The copying of 
 the overseers' figures was a clerical error on the part of the 
 clerk to the assessment committee, and was no act of the com- 
 mittee. There was no signature of the list by the committee 
 until January 19, when the list was finally approved. 
 
 Sir Edward Clarke in reply : The Committee, by s. 20 
 of the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, are directed 
 to " approve the list under the hands of three members," 
 after hearing the first set of objections. If, therefore, they 
 did not sign the list until January 19, that is a breach of 
 duty on their part, of which they cannot now take advan- 
 tage. The words " further alterations " in s. 21 of the 
 same Act {supra, p. 44), must be read as meaning alte- 
 rations incidental to, or consequent on, the decision on 
 objections made after re-deposit. It is an unnatural 
 interpretation of this section to say that it gives the 
 committee power to make alterations over and over again. 
 
 The Chaibman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : We should be 
 sorry to say anything which might lead persons charged 
 with executive duties under the Valuation (MetropoHs) 
 Act to regard the respective times prescribed for certain 
 proceedings as not requiring a strict observance. In this 
 case there has not been such observance, and the questions 
 that have been argued before us to-day are the natural 
 consequence. It appears that the hereditaments to be 
 assessed are so peculiarly situated, and of such a nature, 
 
48 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. that tlie committee engaged a valuer specially for the 
 
 S. E. Et. purpose of valuing them, and it was found impossible to 
 
 V- complete the estimate within the time prescribed by 
 
 City of , . . 
 
 London sect. 42 for the revision of the list. Now, the appellants' 
 
 XTnion. ■vvere cognizant of this ; indeed, both before and after the 
 Sir P. H. day prescribed for " final " approval, at the request of the 
 ^°' ■ committee, they furnished information to assist the valuer. 
 It further appears that before arriving at a definite con- 
 clusion as to the values — that is to say, before making any 
 alteration in the overseers' list, which had been re-deposited 
 — the committee invited the attendance of the appellants' 
 agents, with a view to a full and, we may presume, a fair 
 consideration of the matter. The appellants did not avail 
 themselves of this opportunity, and the committee having 
 determined upon their assessment, appointed the 8th day 
 of January for hearing any objection thereto. Then the 
 appellants attended before them, and having protested 
 against the proceedings of the committee subsecLuent to the 
 re-deposit as illegal and ultra vires, were heard in support 
 of their objections to the substituted amounts ; and they 
 have now contended that the altered figures and the erasure 
 of the original amounts entered should be treated as a 
 nullity, and that the latter amounts should stand unaltered 
 in the valuation hst. We think it was a mistake on the 
 part of the committee to allow the original valuation figures 
 to remain in the list when re-deposited, and that it had 
 been better to make a special entry with regard to this 
 particular property to the effect that its assessment was still 
 under consideration by the committee ; but we are bound 
 by the decision of the Queen's Bench in B. v. Ingall 
 [1876], 2 a B. D. 199; Met. Eat. App. 176, that the 
 times at which the several acts should be done are directory 
 and not imperative. Indeed, in no essential respect can the 
 present ease be distinguished from that one. Here there 
 is the anomaly of the valuation list being finally approved 
 five days after the last day for giving notice of appeal to 
 this Court, s. 42 (12) ; but in B. v. Ingall the list was not 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 finally approved until seven days after that day, and here 
 the appellants, having had notice on the 8th of January of 
 the amounts at which they stood assessed, gave due notice 
 of the present appeal. We are of opinion, therefore, that 
 we cannot regard the alteration in the assessment as a 
 nullity, hut must deal with this appeal on its actual 
 merits (a). 
 
 Objection to valuation list overruled. 
 
 49 
 
 1891. 
 
 S. E. Rt. 
 
 V. 
 
 City 03? 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 Sir P. H. 
 Edlin, Q.C. 
 
 The Improved Industrial Dwellings Co. v. The 
 HoLBORN Union. 
 
 1891. 
 March 4. 
 
 Artizans' Dwellings — Deduction from Total of Weehly Bents — In- 
 equalify of Assessment — Notice of Appeal to Persons alleged to be 
 under-assessed. 
 
 The appellants, wlio were rated as the owners of a large number 
 of artizans' dwellings, let to weekly tenants, appealed on tlie ground 
 that in assessing the owners of other property, in the same parish, 
 let to weekly tenants, a larger deduction from the total of the weekly 
 rents had been allowed than was made in assessing the appellants. 
 At the hearing of the appeal, the appellants were unable to show 
 that they were themselves over-assessed ; they had given no notice 
 of the appeal to the persons alleged to be under-assessed, nor did 
 they contend that the assessment of such persons should be altered. 
 
 Held, that the appeal must be dismissed. 
 
 Appeal hy the owners of tenement huildings, or artizans' 
 dwellings, known as Oohden Buildings, King's Cross Road, 
 and Oompton Buildings, Goswell Eoad, forming in all 341 
 separate and distinct houses structurally severed, but built 
 in twenty-eight blocks. 
 
 (a) The hearing' of the appeal upon the merits was begun on Augfust let, 
 1892, when a ootapromise was agreed upon. It will be noticed that this 
 date was more than a year after the expiry of the statutory time pre- 
 scribed by the Valuation (MetropoUs) Act, 1869, s. 42 (13) ; see £. v. 
 Justices of London, infra, p. 360. 
 
 K. E 
 
50 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 Improved 
 IndustbiaIi 
 dwellinqs 
 
 V. 
 HOLBOEN 
 
 Union-. 
 
 The appellants in paragraph 4 of their case stated that 
 "at a meeting of the Holborn Union Assessment Com- 
 mittee on or about January 1st, 1890, and previously to 
 the preparation of the valuation list, for the purpose ' of 
 securing one uniform basis of rafting property throughout 
 this Union,' it was {infer alia) resolved ' that 40 per cent, 
 be deducted from the total of rents received instead of 
 33 per cent, as allowed by the present scale' (a) in arriving 
 at the gross estimated rental of premises let at weekly 
 rents between 3s. and 15s. (with the exception of artizans' 
 and model dwellings, which are to be excluded from the 
 operation of this resolution)." 
 
 The appellants further alleged that the effect of the said 
 resolution was that a deduction of not more than 24 per 
 cent, was made from the total of the weekly payments 
 made by the tenants of the appellants' property, whereas 
 the owners of property included within the operation of the 
 resolution were allowed a deduction of 40 per cent. The 
 appellants in their case contended — 
 
 (1) That the exclusion of the appellants' property from 
 the benefit of the said resolution is illegal. 
 
 (2) That they are entitled to be included ia the terms 
 of the said resolution and to have their assessment altered 
 accordingly. 
 
 (3) That the diSerence between the assessment of the 
 appellants' property and that of the other weekly properties 
 is excessive, and that the assessment of the appellants should 
 be reduced. 
 
 Poland, Q.C. {Seven with him), for the appellants : Apart 
 from the question of inequality, I am not in a position to 
 show, on the facts, that the appellants' property is over^ 
 assessed : but a great injustice will be done them r£ they 
 are assessed at the true value, and aU other owners of 
 
 (a) The scale here referred to seems to mean either a special scale 
 adopted by the respondents in their own practice, or the scale adopted by 
 the conference of Metropolitan rating authorities. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 similar property at less tlian the true value. The large 
 number of such owners has made it impossible for the 
 appellants to give them notice of this appeal, and it is not 
 sought to alter the assessments of such owners. Before the 
 passing of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, when an 
 appeal, on the ground of such inequality as exists in the 
 present case, could have been brought against a particular 
 rate, and not against the valuation list, the Court would 
 have quashed the rate. It must be admitted, however, that 
 the Court have no power under the Valuation (Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869, to quash the valuation list. 
 
 51 
 
 1891. 
 
 Impeoted 
 Industeial 
 dwellinos 
 
 V. 
 HOISOEN 
 
 Union. 
 
 Besky appeared for the respondents but was not called 
 upon. 
 
 Appeal dismissed. 
 
 Wood v. St. Saviour's Union. 
 
 Manufactory — Deduction from Gross Va:lue — Valuation {Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869, Sched. III. — Practice — Power of Quarter Sessions to 
 raise Gross Value — Costs. 
 
 Premises used partly as a manufactory, and partly as a wareliouse, 
 should be entered in Class 11 of Sched. III. to tlie Valuation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 
 
 Semble, in an appeal claiming a reduction of the assessment, the 
 Quarter Sessions have no power to raise the gross value stated in 
 the Ust. 
 
 Where an appellant succeeded in obtaining an alteration of the 
 class in which his property was entered, but failed to obtain a 
 reduction of the assessment, the Quarter Sessions allowed the appeal 
 without costs. 
 
 1891. 
 March 4. 
 
 Appeal against an assessment of 1,800^. gross, and 
 1,500/. rateable value, in respect of property described in 
 the valuation list as " offices, warehouses, &c." The appel- 
 lants in their case claimed a reduction of both the gross 
 and the rateable value ; at the hearing of the appeal, they 
 
 e2 
 
52 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891; accepted tte gross value as stated in tlie list, but claimed a 
 ^^ooD larger deduction therefrom to arrive at thB rateable value. 
 
 V. 
 
 Union. Alex. Glen for the appellants: The property has been 
 
 put ia Class 5 of Sched. III. to the Valuation (Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869 ; " Buildings without land which are not liable 
 to inhabited house duty, and are of a gross value of 40/. and 
 upwards." It is contended that it should be put in Class 8 
 ("mUls and manufactories"), and that the fuU deduction 
 of one-third, permitted in that class, should be made from 
 the gross value. The appellants are wholesale manufactur- 
 ing grocers, and the principal article manufactured on the 
 premises is jam. It is admitted that the manufacture of 
 jam on a small scale will not convert a dwelling-house into 
 a manufactory : the question is one of degree. There is no 
 statutory definition of the term " manufactory ;" a defini- 
 tion of a " factory " is given in s. 93 of the Factory and 
 Workshop Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Yict. c. 16), which would 
 include the premises now in question. It may be said that 
 part of the premises is used merely for warehousing goods ; 
 but in every manufactory there must be space to store the 
 goods manufactured until they can be sold. 
 
 The following facts were proved by the appellants' 
 witnesses : — The main building consisted of five floors and 
 a basement, and two additional floors of one room each in 
 a tower. There was an engine and boiler-house separated 
 by a yard from the main building, but within the same 
 curtilage. The power was conveyed into the basement 
 and thence by means of vertical shafting to the top floor 
 of the main building. There were in the top floor of the 
 tower two coffee roasters worked by bands; and there 
 were in the basement and in two other floors of the main 
 building, machinery, pans, coppers, and appliances for the 
 preparing of fruit and manufacture of jam; for the 
 grinding of coffee and pepper, and the cutting of sugar. 
 Although the greater part of the fruit for the manufacture 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 53 
 
 of jam came in July and August, yet as great part was 1891. 
 half-boiled and stored for some months, the final processes wood 
 of manufacture were going on all the year rounds The "• 
 
 premises were also used for the storage, hulking, and Uoton. 
 re-packing of tea, and for the re-packing of confectionery 
 imported from the continent. About 100 persons (three- 
 fourths of that number being women) were employed on the 
 premises. There were lifts and cranes worked by steam 
 throughout the premises. The appellants conducted the 
 clerical departments of their business there. 
 
 It appeared that the land had cost 12,000/., the buildings 
 about 22,000/., and the machinery (including the cranes, 
 lifts, and the pans, &o., used for boiling fruit) 4,000/. 
 
 G. E. Lyon {G. Elliott with him) for the respondents : 
 The appeal raises two distinct questions ; (1) whether the 
 premises ought to be entered in Class 8 or Class 5, and 
 (2) whether, if they are put in Class 8, the full deduction 
 of one-third should be made from the gross. A building 
 does not become a " maniifactory " by reason of the 
 addition of a few pieces of machinery ; nor need the full 
 deduction be made in the case of every manufactory. In 
 making out the valuation list, great part of the machinery 
 (which is now said to make the premises a "manufactory") 
 was not taken into account. The appellants claim a large 
 deduction because of the cost of repairing the machinery ; 
 had that machinery been taken into account, the gross 
 value would have been higher. [Sir P. H. Edlin : I do 
 not think we have power to raise the gross value («).] 
 The premises are, as to the greater part, used as a ware- 
 house ; and cranes and lifts would be found in any 
 warehouse of such a size. The respondents have taken 
 the thirty horse-power engine, with the shafting and all 
 that would be included under " motive power," at 3/. per 
 
 (ffi) See also Waterlow v. St. Lemard''s, SJioreditch, supra, p. 28 ; Middle 
 Class Dwellings Co. t. St. George's Union; Chappell v. St. George's Union; 
 and Silverheie v. St. Saviour's Union, infra, pp. 61, 65, 67, 
 
54 
 
 1891. 
 
 Wood 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Satioub's 
 Union. 
 
 LONDON QUAETEK SESSIONS. 
 
 horse-power as enhancing the value of the premises. On 
 the facts proved, sufficient deduction from the gross has 
 heen made. 
 
 No evidence was given on hehalf of the respondents. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.O.) : We think 
 that the premises as a whole are not strictly within the 
 term " manufactory," nor are they strictly a warehouse. 
 They are of a composite character, and should he put in 
 Class 11 of Schedule III. to the Valuation (Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869, which contains " hereditaments not included in 
 ■ any" (which means in anyone) "of the foregoing classes." 
 It would he against the appellants' own evidence to put 
 these premises in Class 8. The valuation list is to he 
 altered as to the class, but the assessment wiU stand. The 
 appellants were entitled to come here upon the question 
 as to the class, hut they have abandoned certain issues. 
 There wiU be no order as to costs (a). 
 
 Appeal allowed. 
 
 1891. 
 March 6. 
 
 Frederick Braby & Company, Limited v. Greenwich 
 
 Union. 
 
 Manufactory — Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869, Sched. III. — 
 Practice — Costs. 
 
 The appellants -were iron liarge builders and workers in galvanized 
 iron and zinc ; the premises ia wliioh. they carried on their business 
 had a wharf frontage of 380 feet, and about haK of the area was 
 occupied by iron buildings containing machinery, the open space 
 being used for building iron barges. 
 
 (a) For an instance of premises held by the Assessment Sessions to 
 constitute a "manufactory," see Saunders ^ Shepherd v. Bolborn Union, 
 Eyde's Met. Eat. ^App. 245 ; and compare Voss v. St. OlaveU Union, 
 ih. p. 253 ; Lafone \. St. Olave's Union, supra, p. 34. See, also, Middle 
 Class Dwellings Co. v. St. George's Union, infra, p. 61 ; Chappell v. St. 
 George's Union, infra, p. 65 ; and Silverlock v. Si. Saviour's, infra, p. 67. 
 
liONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 55 
 
 . Held, that the premises were a " manufactory," and must be put 1S91. 
 
 in Class 8 of Sched. III. to the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. ■- 
 
 Where the appellants obtained a much smaller reduction of their 
 
 assessment than they had claimed, the Sessions gave them two- G-besnwioh 
 
 thirds of their costs. Union. 
 
 Appeal against an assessment of 600?. gross and 450*. 
 rateable value, in respect of premises described in the 
 valuation list as " Wharf, buildings, &o., No. 157, Grove 
 Road." The appellants contended that the premises were 
 a " manufactory," and should therefore be entered in Class 
 8 of Sched. III. to the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 
 ("mills and manufactories"), mth a deduction of one- 
 third from the gross value, and that the assessment should 
 be reduced to 505Z. gross and 337/. rateable. 
 
 The appellants were iron barge builders and galvanized 
 iron and zinc workers, and occupied the premises (which 
 had a frontage of 380 feet to the Grand Surrey Canal, and 
 were known as the Victoria Wharf) for the purposes of 
 their business. The area of land was one acre and three- 
 quarters, of which about one-third or one-half was uncovered. 
 The open space was used for the manufacture of iron 
 barges, and the buildings, nearly all of which were of 
 galvanized iron, contained machinery which was thus 
 described in the appellants' case : — thirty horse-power 
 engine and boiler, and shafting; a roUer bending machine, 
 an angle iron bending machine, and two other bending 
 machines; twopunching and shearing machines; a multiple 
 punching press ; two other punching presses ; an Italianiz- 
 ing machine ; a riveting machine ; two saw benches ; two 
 drilling machines ; a planing machine ; a lever press ; two 
 hand cranes, steam pump, and certain other small machines. 
 
 The appellants did not carry on the business of wharf- 
 ingers, and the only goods stored on the premises were 
 those manufactured by the appellants. 
 
 [The arguments and evidence upon the questions of 
 value are omitted, .being immaterial for the purposes of 
 this report.] 
 
56 
 
 LONDON QUAETEK SESSIONS. 
 
 -1891. E. Boyle for the appellants : Although, as the appellants 
 
 Beaby & Co. f-re a limited company, they pay no taxes upon the gross 
 value, yet, under s. 4 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 
 1869, the gross value must be first ascertained and the 
 proper deductions made therefrom in order to arrive at the 
 rateable value. 
 
 Gekebwich 
 Union. 
 
 Besley {A. S. Bodkin with him) for the respondents : 
 The premises are of a composite character, being in part, 
 at any rate, a wharf; they should be entered in Class 11 
 of Sched. III. ("Hereditaments not included in any of 
 the foregoing Classes"). 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : The property 
 must be put into Class 8, and the description must be 
 altered by substituting the word "manufactory" for 
 " wharf." The assessment will be reduced to 550/. gross 
 and 385^. rateable value, thus allowing a deduction of 30 
 per cent, from the gross. The appellants have asked for a 
 greater deduction than they have obtained, consequently 
 they are to have only two-thirds of their costs. 
 
 Appeal allowed. 
 
 1891. 
 March 12. 
 
 The South Metropolitan Gas Co. v. The Greenwich 
 Union. 
 
 Oas Company — Accounts— For wJmt Year to he taken— Practice- 
 Appearance ly Assessment Committee— Union Assessment Com- 
 mittee Amendment Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 39), s. 2. 
 
 The overseers, on or before June 1st, 1890, didy made and depo- 
 sited a quinquennial valuation list, wHch was duly revised by the 
 . assessment committee. On the hearing of the appeal, in March, 
 1891, the appellants (a gas company) tendered in evidence a calcu- 
 lation of rateable value based on their accounts for 1889, and an 
 alternative calculation based on the accounts for 1890. 
 Held, that the alternative calculation, being based in part on 
 
LONDON QUAETEK SESSIONS. 
 
 57 
 
 events subsequent to the decision of the assessment committee, 
 ■was not admissible ; but, semble, that it was open to the appellants 
 to give evidence of facts happening after the decision of the assess- 
 ment committee, in order to show what the hj-pothetical tenant 
 might, at the date of the decision, have foreseen. 
 
 Admitted by both parties to an appeal, that an assessment com- 
 mittee, when appearing as respondents, must appear in the name of 
 the guardians, and not in their own name. 
 
 ISff 
 
 South 
 
 MBTEOEOtl- 
 
 TAM Gas Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Geeenwioh 
 Union. 
 
 Appeals relating to tlie works, and the mains (botli 
 directly and indirectly productive) belonging to the 
 appellants, situated in several parishes. 
 
 Poland, Q.C. {J. Meics and Walter C. Ryde with him) 
 for the appellants, raised a preliminary question : In the 
 respondents' case, the assessment committee purport to 
 appear as respondents in their own names. But by sect. 2 
 of the Union Assessment Committee Amendment Act, 
 1861, "The assessment committee may, with the consent 
 of the guardians of " the " union, after notice shall have 
 been sent to every guardian, appear as respondents " to an 
 appeal, " hut in the name of the guardians of such union." 
 This section applies to the Metropolis (see s. 1 of the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 18()9), and it is the only 
 section enabling an assessment committee to appear as 
 respondents. If therefore they claim to appear, they 
 must do so in the name of the guardians and not in their 
 own name. 
 
 Sir Edward Clarice, S.Gr., for the respondents : The 
 assessment committee appear with the consent, and in the 
 name of, the guardians. 
 
 Poland, Q.C, for the appellants: The quinquennial list, 
 against which this appeal is brought, is directed to be made 
 out before June 1st, 1890. For by s. 42 (1) of the Valua- 
 tion (Metropolis) Act, 1869, " The overseers shall make 
 and deposit the [first] valuation list before the first of 
 
§8 
 
 ;london quaktee sessions. 
 
 1891. 
 
 South 
 Meteopoli- 
 TAu Gas Co. 
 
 V. 
 GrEEENWICH 
 
 Union. 
 
 June in the first year after the passing of this Act " : and 
 laj s. 46, a new valuation list is to be made in every fifth 
 year. Consequently, when the overseers made out the list 
 now under appeal, the last published accounts of the appel- 
 lants were those up to December, 1889. By the time the 
 assessment committee came to revise the list (in the 
 autumn of 189(.'), the accounts up to June, 1890, were 
 available, and now the accounts up to December, 1890, 
 have been published. The appellants propose to lay first 
 before the Court calculations based on the accounts of 
 18H9, and secondly, calculations based on the accounts of 
 1890. The listv^ill fix the assessment on which the appel- 
 lant win pay "l-ates as from April 6, 1891. [Sir P. H. 
 Edlin : Then this Court might find that the decision of 
 the assessment committee was right at the time it was 
 given, and yet find that it wrongly stated the value on 
 April 6, 1891.] Yes; the question for this Court is, what 
 is the value for the year commenciug April, 1891 ? In 
 answering that question, it is unreasonable, if not absurd, 
 that the Court should ignore the latest facts. The Court 
 have to find what " a tenant might reasonably be expected 
 to pay " for the property : see the definition of " gross 
 value " in s. 4 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 18B9. 
 [Sir P. H. Edlin : Is not the question rather, what a 
 tenant might reasonably have been expected to pay at the 
 date of the decision by the assessment committee ?] 
 
 Sir Edwnrd Clarke, S.G-. {F. M. White, Q.C., and 
 C. W. Williams with him) for the respondents: The 
 calculations of rateable value cannot be based on the 
 accounts of 1890. This appeal is brought under sect. 32 
 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, which provides 
 that " any ratepayer . . . who may feel aggrieved by any 
 decision of the assessment committee on an objection made 
 before them to which he was a party . . . may appeal 
 against such decision " to the sessions. This Court there- 
 fore have to decide merely whether the decision, by which 
 
liONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 69 
 
 the appellants "feel aggrieved," was right when it was 
 given. Moreover, the assessment committee, when once 
 they have given their decision, cannot afterwards modify 
 it in consequence of subsequent events. Nor, if those 
 events increase the value of the appellants' property, 
 ean this Court raise their assessment. Consequently, if 
 those events diminish the value of the property, the appel- 
 lants ought not to he allowed to claim a reduction of their 
 assessment on that account. In R. v. Ahney Park Cemetery 
 Co. [1873], L. E., 8 Q. B. 515, Blackhurn J. said, " no 
 injustice will be done if the company are rated in every 
 year according to the value which a hypothetical tenant 
 would give for the occupation in the preceding year, and 
 according to this rule the company's receipts in one year 
 will govern the rateable value of the cemetery in the next." 
 There is a further objection to the use of the accounts of 
 1890 as the basis of the calculation : by 0. 7 (1890), " on or 
 before the 1st February next following the entry of an 
 appeal to quarter sessions, the appellant shall state his case, 
 and the facts to be proved, and the points of law (if any) 
 to be argued in support of the case." The present appel- 
 lants, after stating a " summary of the calculations, based 
 on the accounts for the year 1889 " in paragraph 14 of 
 their case, say— "The appellants are unable within the 
 time fixed by the orders of the Court for stating this ease, 
 to furnish the corresponding calculations based on the 
 accounts of the company for the year 1890, but at the hear- 
 ing of the appeal, evidence will be given, if possible, showing 
 ■the calculations based respectively on the accounts for the 
 years 1889 and 1890, in order to enable the Court to give 
 their decision on this appeal, on the latest and fullest 
 evidence of value." In effect therefore the appellants are 
 claiming to use accounts which were not even in their own 
 possession at the time when they entered their appeal. 
 
 1891. 
 
 South 
 Meteopoli- 
 TAH Gas Oo. 
 
 V. 
 
 Geeenwich 
 Uniost. 
 
 Poland, Q.C., in reply : The decision of the assessment 
 committee is a different thing from the grounds of that 
 
60 LONDON QUAKTEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. decision. The decision was tased on an expectation of 
 
 South events then in the future. The hypothetical tenant must 
 
 Meteopoij- \yQ assumed to have correctly foreseen and to have taken 
 
 TAN G-AS Co. , ^ ' 1 ' p 
 
 V. into consideration the events which m fact have happened. 
 
 ^uIion''^ It is idle to speculate upon what a tenant might have 
 expected, when the surer evidence of actual fact is ohtain- 
 able. [Six P. H. Edlin : The appellants can claim to 
 be put in a supplemental Hst, in consequence of the subse- 
 quent events, and can come here again next year.] Yes ; 
 but meanwhile they will have been paying rates on an 
 excessive assessment. Suppose the appellants, when they 
 put the accounts of 1889 before the assessment committee, 
 state that they anticipate a worse result to be shown by 
 the accounts of 1890 : if those accounts, when subsequently 
 made out, in fact bear out the anticipation, this Court 
 ought to see them. It may, in ordinary cases, be fair to 
 rate a company in one year, by looking at the accounts of 
 the preceding year ; but the circumstances in the present 
 case are peculiar. There was a great strike among the 
 company's workmen, which culminated in December, 
 1889, and cost the company 62,500/. In addition, there 
 was a rise in the market price of coal, which was not fully 
 felt by the appellants in 1889, in consequence of their 
 having several outstanding contracts at lower prices. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : The appel- 
 lants may be able to get what they want by cross-exami- 
 nation, and so to use events affecting the company, which 
 happened after the decision of the assessment committee. 
 They may say that all these events ought to have been in 
 the mind of every weU-rnformed hypothetical tenant 
 But I think they are going too far when they claim a 
 legal right to use the actual figures appearing in accounts 
 subsequently published, and to base the calculations of 
 rateable value thereon {a). 
 
 (a) With this decision compare Agricultural Ball Co. v. St. Mary, 
 Islington, infra, p. 125; Gaslight and Coke Co. y. City of London Union, 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 61 
 
 [The hearing on the merits was proceeded with, and 
 ultimately a compromise was agreed upon between the 
 parties.] 
 
 1891. 
 
 The Middle Class Dwellings Company, Limited ». 
 St. Gteorge's Union. 
 
 Wharf— Manufaciory — Valuation {Metropolis:) Act, 1869, Sched. III., 
 Classes 5, 6, 8 and 11 — Practice— Appeal against rateable value 
 only — Costs. 
 
 Tte appellants' premises consisted of land, having a wliarf 
 frontage to the Thames, with stahles and buildings containing 
 machinery used for the manufacture and storage of timber and 
 other building materials. 
 
 Held, that the premises must be put in class 11 of Sched. III. to 
 the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 
 
 Semhle, in an appeal which does not question the gross value, 
 the respondents, although they do not seek to raise the gross value, 
 may give evidence showing that the gross value stated in the 
 valuation list is too low, in order to show that the rateable value 
 therein stated is not too high. 
 
 Where the appellants obtained an alteration of the class in which 
 their property was entered in the valuation list, but failed to obtain 
 a reduction of their assessment, the sessions ordered them to pay 
 two-thirds of the respondents' costs. 
 
 Appeal relating to an assessment of 700/. gross, and 
 584/. rateable value, in respect of property which was 
 described in the valuation list as " wharf, offices, stables 
 and premises," and was therein entered in class 5 of 
 Sched. III. to the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, 
 which includes " buildings without land which are not 
 liable to inhabited house duty, and are of a gross value of 
 40/. and upwards." 
 
 The appellants did not dispute the gross value, but 
 
 infra, p. 204 ; Zondon and India Lochs loint Committee v. Foplar Union, 
 infra, p. 153 ; South Metropolitan Gas Co. v. St. Olave's, Met. Rat. App. 
 305 ; London Street Tramways Co. v. Islington, Ryde's Rat. App. (1886- 
 90) 147 ; and London Mydraulie Power Co. v. City of London Union, infra, 
 p. 138. 
 
 South 
 Metbopoli- 
 TAN Gas Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 g-eeenwioh 
 Union. 
 
 1891. 
 March 16. 
 
62 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. claimed a reduction of the rateaWe value to SIS/., and 
 
 Middle Class further contended that the property should be entered in 
 
 Dwellings class 8 ("mills and manufactories"), or alternatively ia 
 
 V.' class 11, which contains "hereditaments not included in 
 
 ^''1^0^'''' ^^7 °* *^® foregoing classes." 
 
 The premises were known as Pimlico Wharf, Grosvenor 
 Eoad, and had a frontage to the Thames ; they were not 
 entirely covered hy buildings. 
 
 The other material facts were thus stated in the appel- 
 lants' case : — 
 
 " 5. The appellants are an incorporated company esta- 
 blished for the purpose of providing healthy and comfort- 
 able dwellings for aU classes other than the labouring 
 classes. They have built and are still building large 
 blocks of buildings for such purpose ia various parts of 
 the Metropolis, and for the purposes of their busiuess have 
 purchased the property now in question, which consists 
 of (i.) a large workshop consisting of a basement and two 
 floors ; (ii.) a timber store and boiler house ; (iii.) stables 
 with loft and shed ; (iv.) a house only used as stores and 
 offices ; (v.) a wharf with crane attached. 
 
 "6. The company fitted up and use their workshop for 
 the purpose of sawing timber and manufacturiag the doors, 
 window frames, and sashes, and joinery of various kinds 
 used ia their business and otherwise, of which they require 
 large quantities. 
 
 " 7. The workshop contains several large and heavy 
 machines, such as timber saw-frames, general joiners' cross- 
 cut and circular saw benches, planing and moulding 
 machines. AH these machines are on the ground floor 
 and are worked by means of a main shafting situated in 
 the basement, and driven by a horizontal 20 horse-power 
 steam engine, also situated in the same building. The 
 boiler supplying the steam is 25 horse-power and is con- 
 tained in a small buildiag adjoining. The appellants 
 regularly employ ia the said workshop a number of 
 joiners and carpenters. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 63 
 
 "8. The other buildings are employed for landing and 1891. 
 storing timber to be used in connection with the manu- Middle Class 
 f aoture of the articles aforesaid, and for offices in connection Dwellinqs 
 with such manufacture, and for landing other goods." 
 
 Poland, Q.C. {F. C. Gore with him) for the appellants : 
 The hereditament, which is the subject of this appeal, is 
 very similar to the premises in question in Burt, Boulton 8f 
 Hayicood v. St. Mary, Rotherhithe (Met. Eat. App. 182), 
 which " consisted of a wharf abutting on the Thames, and 
 of land upon which there were a saw-mill and machinery, 
 creosoting works, sheds and tramways. They were used 
 for sawing and creosoting timber and railway sleepers, and 
 for landing and storing such timber and sleepers." It was 
 there contended that the property should be put in Class 8, 
 and a deduction of one-third should be made from the 
 gross : and this deduction was allowed by the Assessment 
 Sessions. 
 
 F. M. White, Q.C, and Danchcerts for the respon- 
 dents (a) : The premises are similar to an ordinary builder's 
 yard, with a little machinery added: they come most 
 naturally within Class 6 (" land with buildings not houses.") 
 The main purpose to which premises are applied must 
 determine the class in which they are to be put ; and in 
 order to put the property in Class 8, the Court must find 
 as a fact that the principal object of the occupation is to 
 use the premises as a mill or manufactory. The Court 
 must ask whether the workshops are ancillary to the wharf, 
 or the wharf to the workshops. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q,.C.) : We think the 
 premises ought to be put in Class 11. 
 
 (a) Two counsel were heard by special leave of the Court, under Ord. 13 
 (1890). 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Geoboe's 
 Union. 
 
64 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. The appeal was then heard upon the question of value. 
 
 Middle Class Evidence was given for the appellants by Mr. W. H. B. 
 
 DwELLiNos Castle, who estimated the rateable value at 518/., making 
 
 V. his calculation entirely independent of the gross value 
 
 ^^■^wN^^'^ stated in the list. Mr. E. Vigers made a valuation on the 
 
 assumption that 700/., the gross value stated in the list, 
 
 was correct, and he deducted therefrom the estimated 
 
 average cost of repairs, leaving a rateable value of 518/. 
 
 In cross-examination, F. M. White, Q,.0., asked questions 
 with the view of showing that the gross value stated in the 
 valuation list was too low. 
 
 Poland, Q.C., objected : By s. 34 of the Valuation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 18(59, " the sessions may confirm or alter 
 the valuation list, so far as it is questioned hy ihe appeal, in 
 such manner as they think just, but shall not make any 
 alteration in contravention of this Act." In the present 
 appeal, the gross value is not questioned, and must there- 
 fore be assumed to be correct ; and, on this assumption, 
 the Court must decide whether a sufficient deduction has 
 been made from the gross to find the rateable value. 
 
 F. M. White, Q.O. : The Court has power to consider aU 
 issues raised by the appeal, and one issue is whether the 
 rateable value stated in the list is above the true rateable 
 value. The respondents do not seek to alter the gross 
 value, nor is it contended that the Court have power to raise 
 it. If the rateable value is correctly stated it cannot be 
 fair to other ratepayers to alter it because the gross value 
 is too low. 
 
 The CouKT allowed the questions objected to to be 
 put (a). 
 
 (a) See also Chappell v. St. Georges Union, infra, p. 65 ; Silverkck v. 
 St. Saviour's Union, infra, p. 67 ; and TFood v. St. Saviour's Union, supra, 
 p. 51. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 65^ 
 
 For the respondents, Mr. E. W. Hedley estimated the 1891. 
 rateable value at •960^. ; to this he added 110^. (which he middle Class 
 put as the average cost of repairs) in order to arrive at the Dwellinqs 
 gross value, having arrived at the rateahle value first. „.' 
 
 Mr. Spencer Chadwick estimated the rateable value at ^'^xSion™'^ 
 988/., and said that a deduction of ten per cent, on the 
 gross value {i. e., about 109/.) would be sufficient for 
 repairs. [It will be noticed that both the witnesses called 
 by the respondents estimated the rateable value at a sum 
 higher than the gross value stated in the Hst]. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. EdHn, Q.C.) : This appeal 
 substantially fails. "We direct the word " land " to be 
 added after " wharf " in the description of the property 
 in the list: and the class is to be altered to Class 11. But 
 the rateable value must stand unaltered. The appeal is 
 dismissed, but as the appellants have succeeded upon the 
 question of the class, we order them to pay only two-thirds 
 of the respondents' costs. 
 
 Appeal dismissed. 
 
 Chappell v. St. George's Union. 1891. 
 
 July 10. 
 
 Appeal as to BateaUe Value only — Deduction from Gross— Juris- 
 
 diction of Sessions. 
 
 Where the appellant did not dispute tie gross value, but claimed 
 a larger deduction therefrom in order to arrive at the rateable value, 
 the sessions admitted evidence as to the gross value, in order to 
 show that the appellant was not over-rated. 
 
 Appeal relating to a wharf, with workshops, stabling, 
 sheds, and builder's yard, known as 112, Grosvenor Eoad. 
 
 The premises were very similar to those described in 
 Middle Class Dwellings Co. v. St. George's Union, supra, 
 p. 61, and, on the authority of that case, the respondents 
 were ready to consent to an order that the premises should 
 
 R. F 
 
66, LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. be put in Class 11 of Sched. III. to the Valuation (Metro- 
 Chapp£ll polis) Act, 1869. The question of the class was, accord- 
 Si. Geoege's ™^^y' ^°^ seriously disputed. 
 
 Union. The Overseers had assessed the premises at 1,000/. gross 
 
 and 834/. rateable value; and the assessment committee 
 had increased the assessment to 1,200/. gross and 1,000/. 
 rateable. The appellant did not dispute the gross value, 
 but claimed a deduction of one-third therefrom in order to 
 arrive at the rateable. 
 
 Akx. Glen for the appellant : The respondents in their 
 ease allege that the gross value stated in the valuation list 
 is too low. The Court have no jurisdiction to inquire into 
 anything except the question of class, and the amount of 
 the deductions from the gross value. By sect. 4 of the 
 Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, "the term rateable value 
 means the gross value after deducting therefrom the pro- 
 bable annual average cost of the repairs, insurance, &c." 
 The assessment committee had two questions to decide — 
 (1) what was the gross value ; (2) what was the proper 
 deduction therefrom to find the rateable value. The second 
 decision is independent of the first, and it is this one only 
 which is now disputed. 
 
 Poland, Q.C. {Dancktcerts -with, him) for the respondents: 
 In Middle Class Dwellings Co. v. Si. George's Union, supra, 
 p. 61, the entire question of value was allowed to be con- 
 sidered. [They did not contend that the sessions had 
 power to raise the gross value]. 
 
 The CouKT held that evidence might be given as to the 
 gross value, iu order to show that the appellant was not 
 over-rated; and in the cross-examination of the appellant's^ 
 first witness, it appeared that in the return (as to rent, «S;c.) 
 made by the appellant to the overseers under sect. 55 of 
 the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, it was stated that 
 the appellant paid a rent of 650/. under lease, and no 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. ^7) 
 
 mention was naade of the fact that a premium of 5,000^. 1891. 
 had been paid. Chappell 
 
 'u. 
 
 Alex. Glen: If the Court are entitled to go into the ^'^■y^Z^^'^' 
 question, what is the true gross value, I cannot say on this 
 evidence that the rateable value is too high. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : In the face of 
 the fact that the payment of the premiunx was suppressed, 
 how can the appellant ask to tie the Court down to th^ 
 question of the amount of deduction from the gross value? 
 The appellant's own evidence satisfies us as to the rateable 
 value of the premises ; he has failed to show that he is 
 over-rated. 
 
 Glen asked for a case for the opinion of the Queen's 
 Bench Division. 
 
 Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C. : We refuse a case. The ques- 
 tion is not a novel one. 
 
 Appeal dismissed : case refused. 
 
 SlLVEELOCK V. St. SaVIOTJe's UnION. 1^91. 
 
 October 28. 
 
 Deductions from Gross Value — Machinery. 
 
 In an appeal in ■which, the gross value stated in the valuation list 
 ■was not disputed, the respondents contended that some of the 
 repairs, for ■which a deduction from the gross value ■was claimed by 
 the appellants, were repairs to machinery -which might have been, 
 but -was not in fact, rated. 
 
 Eeld, that in calculating the deduction from the gross value, it 
 must be assumed that all that ■was rateable had been rated. 
 
 Appeal against an assessment of 1,400^. gross and 1,150/. 
 rateable value in respect of premises containing printers' 
 and lithographers' machinery and plant. The overseers 
 
 f2 
 
68' LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. and the assessment committee had put the property in 
 
 SiLVEELooK Class 8 of Sehed. III. to the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 
 
 ■'•• , 1869 ("Mills and Manufactories"), but had not allowed 
 
 '^'umonT^^ the full deduction of one-third permitted iu that Class; 
 
 it was not suggested that the prtoiises were not rightly 
 
 put in Class 8, and the appellants did not dispute the gross 
 
 value stated in the list. 
 
 Poland, Q.O. {R. Cunningha?n Glen with him) for the 
 appellants: The actual cost of repairs, insurance, &c., 
 exceeds the allowance of one-third of the gross value ; the 
 maximum should therefore be deducted in this case. 
 
 G. E. Lyon {G. Elliott with him) for the respondents : 
 The deduction claimed by the appellants represents, ia 
 part, the cost of repairing machinery which has not been 
 taken into account in calculating the rateable value of the 
 premises. The appellants have, therefore, escaped from 
 being rated in respect of the machinery, the repairs of 
 which it is now sought to deduct from the gross value. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. EdHn, Q.C.) : Even though 
 
 the respondents have omitted some of the machinery, still 
 
 the Court must allow a deduction for the repairs of what 
 
 is omitted. We must assume that all that is rateable has 
 
 ' been rated. 
 
 Evidence as to the cost of the repairs was given upon 
 this basis, and the Court found that the proper amount 
 was 440^., and reduced the rateable value to 960/., giving 
 the appellants their costs (a). Appeal allowed. 
 
 [a] Withi this ease compare Middle Class Dwellings Co. t. St, Georgis 
 Vnion, supra, p. 61, and OhappellY. St. George's Union, supra, p. 65. 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 Callingham v. St. Luke's, Chelsea. 1891. 
 
 March 16. 
 
 Hotel — Profits — Admissibility of Evidence. ~ 
 
 , The appellant, whose premises had been formerly used as a 
 puhlic-hoTise, and had recently been converted into an hotel, 
 tendered evidence of the business actually done by himself. 
 
 Held, that the evidence was admissible, even if it were not the 
 sole criterion of value. 
 
 Appeal against an assessment of 700/. gross and 584/. 
 rateable value, in respect of the Cadogan Hotel, No. 75, 
 Sloane Street. 
 
 Alex. Glen for tlie appellant : The premises are held 
 under lease, granted in 1885, and assigned to the appel- 
 lant in 1887, at a rent of 500/., a small premium having 
 heen also paid. They were formerly occupied as a public- 
 house, but the appellant having obtained the new lease, 
 has altered the premises into an hotel, the alterations 
 having been completed in May, 1890. His business is, 
 therefore, only recently established, and neither the rent 
 nor the structural value of the buildings can be good 
 evidence of the present value of the premises. The appel- 
 lant's accounts showing the actual business done are the 
 best evidence. If the lease of the premises and the business 
 were offered for sale the accounts would be the first thing 
 an intending purchaser would call for. In Midland Ey. 
 Co. V. St. Pancras, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890), 121, 
 the assessment sessions admitted evidence of the actual 
 business done at the St. Pancras Station Hotel. In Clarke 
 ,Y. Alderhunj Union [1880], 6 Q. B. D. 139, the Queen's 
 Bench Division held that the earnings of the refreshment 
 room at Salisbury Station were admissible evidence. In 
 London and Provincial Temperance Halls Co. v. St. Saviour's, 
 .Eyde's Eat. App. (1886 — 1890), 95, the assessment ses- 
 sions admitted evidence of the actual profits made by 
 letting a public hall for meetings and entertainments. In 
 
f70 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. all cases where no better test of value can be found, tbe 
 Oallingham evidence of actual profits is admissible. 
 
 Chelsea. ' F. Marshall for the respondents : This hotel is not of an 
 exceptional character, and evidence of profits is inad- 
 missible. In Midland By. Co. v. St. Pancras no objection 
 was taken as to the admissibility of the evidence. In 
 Lafone v. St. Olave's Union, Met. Eat. App. 278, evidence 
 of business actually done at Butler's Wharf, on the banks 
 of the Thames, was rejected by the assessment sessions. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edhn, Q.C.) : The cases of 
 gasworks and waterworks are very different from this one ; 
 but even if we do not decide on the accounts alone, I think 
 we may look at them in the present case (a). 
 
 The Court then heard the appeal on the question of 
 value, and dismissed it vdthout calling on the respondents. 
 
 1891. BONSALL AND BaRROW V. CiTT OF LoNDON TJnIGN. 
 
 June 19. 
 
 notel — Takings — Admissibility of Evidence. 
 
 Wtere an hotel liad been carried on for some years before the 
 bearing of the ajipeal, the sessions held that evidence of the actual 
 takings of the occupier was inadmissible. 
 
 Midland By. Co. v. St. Pancras, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90), 121, 
 distinguished. 
 
 Appeal relating to the Castle and Falcon Hotel, 
 Aldersgate Street. 
 
 The case calls for a report only upon a point raised as 
 to the admissibility of certain evidence. 
 
 The appellants had carried on the hotel for six years, 
 
 (a) See the next case. 
 
. LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 ;71 
 
 having bought the lease granted in 1858. One of the 
 expert witnesses for the appellants was asked what the 
 actual takings of the appellants in their husiness had been.. 
 Counsel for the respondents objected to the evidence. 
 
 E. Page for the appellants : The amount of the takings 
 is some evidence as to the value of the premises as an hotel, 
 though no doubt the Court are not bound to act upon it. 
 In Midland Ry. Co. v. 8t. Pancras, Eyde's Eat. App. 
 (1886-90), 121, the rateable value of the St. Pancras 
 Station Hotel was calculated solely on evidence of actual 
 profits. 
 
 Poland, Q.C. (-B. Cmmingham Glen with him), for the 
 respondents: An hotel which forms part of a railway 
 station is of an exceptional character; the evidence was 
 admitted because such an hotel is not ordinarily in the 
 market to be let. On the same ground, evidence as to the 
 profits of the refreshment room at Salisbury Railway 
 Station was admitted in Clarke v. Alderbury Union [1880], 
 6 Q,. B. D. 139. [He also referred to Callingham v. 
 St. Luke^s, Chelsea, supra, p. 69.] 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : Tou may ask 
 the witness whether he has, in forming his opinion, ascer- 
 tained the amount of the actual takings, &c., but I do not 
 think you can go further. We have never admitted evi- 
 . dence of this kind in cases like the present. To do so 
 would open up questions as to the management. 
 
 1891. 
 
 j bonsall & 
 Eaeeotv 
 
 V. 
 ClITOI' 
 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 The appeal was heard on other evidence, and dismissed. 
 
172 . LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. London County Council v. St. Giles-in-the-Fields - 
 
 March 20. 
 
 AND St. Gteobge's, Bloomsbuet. 
 
 Appeal against Totals — Compromise — Alteration of Details — 
 Mandamus, 
 
 On an appeal against totals, the parties agreed, by way of com- 
 promise, that certain additions should be made to the totals entered 
 
 ■ in the valuation list. It had been alleged by the appellants that 
 • certain hereditaments (specified in their case) were under-assessed, 
 
 and that certain other specified hereditam.ents were entirely omitted 
 from the list ; but in the agreement for a compromise, no specific 
 amounts were set down as attributable to under-assessments or 
 omissions. On an application for judgment in accordance with the 
 agreement, the quarter sessions refused to make the suggested 
 alterations in the valuation Ust, unless evidence were given showing 
 the details in respect of which the agreed additions were to be 
 made. 
 
 Held, by the Queen's Bench Division, that in so refusing, the 
 sessions had wrongly declined jurisdiction, and that a mandamus 
 to hear and determine the appeal according to law must issue. 
 
 On an appeal against totals, the details in the valuation list, 
 
 ■ making up those totals, cannot be altered. 
 
 . Fulham Union v. St. Mary Ahhotts, Eyde's Eat. App.- (1886-90), 
 86; 17 Q. B. D. 394, followed. 
 
 Appeal against totals (a).. 
 
 . The totals entered in the valuation list for St. Griles-ia- 
 the-Fields were 267,333^. gross, and 222,831/. rateable. 
 
 .The appellants in their case contended that these figures 
 were too low to the extent of 11,345/. gross, and 9,445/. 
 rateable, and the parties had agreed, by way of com- 
 promise, to an addition of 6,240/. gross, and 5,208/. rate- 
 able', to the existing totals. 
 
 A compromise, involving a much smaller addition, had 
 been agreed upon as to St. George's, Bloomsbury. For 
 the purposes of this report, it is not necessary to state the 
 figures relating to that parish. 
 
 (a) For earlier proceedings in this appeal, vide supra, p. 38. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. ^3 
 
 . S. E. Awry for the appellants : The Court are asked to 1891. 
 
 •make the alterations in the totals, in accordance with the ^gj^jj^j^ 
 
 terms agreed upon, by substituting the figures as altered County 
 - ,1 ... „ o o Coiraoiii 
 
 tor the existing ngures. p. 
 
 Bloomsbtjet. 
 
 Buckmaster for the respondents consented to the appli- 
 cation. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : Ought we not 
 -to see a statement showing in respect of what hereditaments 
 the alterations in the totals are to be made ? The assess- 
 ment committee now admit that certain hereditaments are 
 under-assessed ; and, to be consistent, they ought at the 
 next quinquennial valuation to increase those assessments. 
 The ratepayers whose property is included in the list of 
 hereditaments objected to by the appellants ought to know 
 in respect of what matters the increase in the totals has 
 been agreed upon. Even though we cannot alter the 
 separate assessments, I think the particulars as to those 
 assessments are material, and that we ought to have them. 
 
 The motion was ordered to stand over, that the particulars 
 might be furnished. 
 
 The application was renewed. 1891. 
 
 March 26. 
 
 S. E. Avory for the appellants: If the Court think 
 -proper, the form of the proposed alteration in the valuation 
 ■list may be amended by stating the addition to be made to 
 the existing totals, which need not then be erased. It is 
 -impossible to give the particulars asked for by the Court 
 on the last occasion. The agreed additions are the result 
 ^of a compromise. If the appeal be left to come on for 
 hearing in the ordinary course, the appellants will simply 
 ^tender in evidence the respondents' offer to compromise, 
 which is made unreservedly, and, not without prejudice. 
 
;74 
 
 .LONDON QUAKTER SESSIONS. 
 
 ,1891. 
 
 London 
 
 County 
 
 Council 
 
 ,v. 
 
 Bloomsbuet. 
 
 -No other evidence will be given, and the Court. must 
 decide upon the evidence before it. [Sir P. H. Edlin : 
 You have based your appeal on the particular instances 
 set out in the case. J The same course was pursued in 
 Fiilham Union v. Sf. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, Ryde's 
 .Eat. App. (1886—1890), 86. In that case, Mathew, J., 
 drew attention {lb. p. 91) to the arithmetical absurdity of 
 altering the totals, and leaving the separate items un- 
 touched : he said, " It may be that the legislature thought 
 the inaccuracy referred to so unimportant that no special 
 provision was made to correct it." 
 
 Buckmaster for the respondents in support of the appH- 
 eation : The anomaly caused by an alteration of the totals 
 ■was seen, and disregarded, in 1881, by the assessment 
 sessions, ia Overseers of St. Olave v. Assessment Committee 
 of St. Olave' s Union, Eyde's Met. Eat. App. 287. 
 
 1891. 
 Ajiril 4. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, a.O.) read the fol- 
 lowing judgment : In this case we have refused to alter 
 the totals in the valuation list in the manner required by 
 the litigant parties, and the appellants having stated that 
 we are bound to do so, and declared their intention of 
 applying for a mandamus, we have thought it desirable to 
 state more fully our reasons for that refusal. It should 
 have been unnecessary to remind the parties that we are 
 sitting here in a Court of Appeal to perform judicial 
 functions, not as clerks to adopt without question agree- 
 ments, in obedience to their behest. We can well under- 
 stand that in the adjustment of many differences it might 
 be more convenient to the parties to disregard detail and 
 particular errors, and agree upon an alteration of values in 
 bulk ; but when there has been a joinder of issue as to 
 each particular error alleged, it is difiB.oult to see how that 
 could be accepted as a judicial decision. In assessment 
 appeals at the suit of private individuals or public com- 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 75 
 
 parties, it frequently happens that, tefore the hearing, 1891. 
 mutual concessions are made, and the parties agree together 7 
 as to what are the proper values, &c. In such cases the County 
 Court gives effect to the mutual agreement by a simple oy^oiL 
 correction of the figures, and it may be also of the Bloomsbuet. 
 " description " or " class " in the valuation list ; and it is sirP. h. 
 obvious that the entire entry, as so corrected, presents a •^'^^» ^■^• 
 complete adjudication. The ease now before us is of an 
 entirely different character. The appellants are a public 
 body authorized to levy rates and require contributions 
 payable out of rates, and they have presented a petition to 
 this Court complaining of the valuation by the assessment 
 committee of the united parishes of St. Griles-in-the-Fields 
 and St. George's, Bloomsbury; and in the particulars 
 furnished in the " case " accompanying their petition, they 
 have set forth the several hereditaments which they allege 
 are «mc^er-assessed, and also certain other properties which 
 they allege are not assessed, that is to say, which have been 
 altogether omitted from the valuation list. The former 
 are fifty-three in number, and comprise premises of various 
 kinds — shops, Meux's Brewery, Novelty Theatre, hall, 
 public-houses, baths, of&ces, &c. In respect of each of 
 these distinct properties, the appellants present their own 
 valuation. Then, with regard to the properties noi assessed 
 (twenty-eight in number), separate valuations have also 
 been made by the appellants. Therefore upon this appeal, 
 if we look only at the several assessments specified, irre- 
 spective of the proper deduction to be made from gross 
 value in order to fix the rateable value, eighty-one distinct 
 issues are raised. The respondent committee assert their 
 ability to answer the appellants' case in detail, and 
 to support their own valuations, and they allege also 
 that the appellants have not furnished figures. In point 
 of fact the appellants had furnished figures, showing, with 
 regard to each property respectively, the required altera- 
 tions in, or additions to, the list. What has transpired 
 since the respective cases were lodged we know not, but 
 
76 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1S91. when the appeal first came on for hearing we were asked 
 ]^g^j,Qjj to determine it by simply erasing the present totals in the 
 CouNTT valuation list, and suhstituting therefor other figures, which 
 ». would involve an addition in St. Giles's Parish of 6,240/., 
 
 BLooMSBTOy. to tije total gross, and 5,208/. to the total rateable value ; 
 Sir P. H. and in St. George's an addition of 350/. to the gross and 
 ' ^" ■ 292/. to the rateable value — without making any entry in 
 the valuation list that would show in respect of which 
 properties, whether as to those zmc^er-assessed or those noi 
 assessed — nor, if referable to the former only, in respect of 
 which of the present assessed values — these additions to the 
 totals are made. This we declined to do. Such an erasure 
 of the arithmetically correct totals and substitution of other 
 figures would present a manifest incongruity on the face 
 of the valuation list. It is now desired that we should 
 simply subjoin an additional amount — the one agreed upon 
 — for "gross" and "rateable" respectively, and write 
 thereunder the desired new totals " as agreed." It seems 
 to us that this also would be insufiicient and not less un- 
 satisfactory. The statute empowers the Court to confirm 
 or alter the valuation list, so far as it is questioned by the 
 appeal, in such manner as we think just [see s. 34 of 
 -the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869] ; and we do not 
 think that the mere inscription of one total for another, 
 thus avoiding all reference to the questions raised under 
 both heads, would meet the just requirements of this case. 
 ■In short, we cannot accept the agreement, in the form 
 in which it is here presented, as in itself a proper 
 one, or as sufficiently precise and explicit to enable us 
 to determine the questions raised upon this appeal. There 
 .being several similar appeals awaiting trial, it may be 
 as well that I should add a few words. It is not to be 
 inferred that ia every case such as this we should 
 require the several corrections, constituting the total of the 
 alterations agreed upon between the parties, to be specified 
 with distinct reference to the particular assessments 
 impugned ; although if an agreement be arrived at after 
 
Bloomsbtjbt; 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 77,' 
 
 due consideration of each alleged error, there ought 1891. 
 
 not to be any difficulty in furnishing that information : London 
 
 and when non-assessments as -well as under-assessments County 
 I'lf -I. T • 1 • • Council 
 
 are complained of — as m this case — the simple insertion 
 
 of one additional sum, possibly intended to relate in part 
 to both, but not shown to be referable to either, would be ^ir P- H. 
 the less defensible. If the Court abstained from exercising > ■ ■ 
 
 judgment and dispensed with supervision, the parties 
 might agree upon deductions for repairs and insurance in 
 excess of the maximum allowed by the statute ; and 
 practically in no appeal against totals would it be necessary 
 for the appellants to specify particular errors or omissions ; 
 a general impeachment of the total of the values in a 
 parish would suffice to effectuate an agreement for an 
 unexplained addition to it. The case of Fulham Union v. 
 St. Mary Abbotts, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890), 86, 
 cited by the appellants' counsel, has no bearing upon what 
 we have here to consider ; nor is the objection to the 
 entry prescribed for us in this case answered by pointing 
 out that the alteration of the totals would not affect the 
 ratepayers whose assessments were impugned. It would 
 not, apart from the rest. It would, I presume, subject the 
 ratepayers as a body to a heavier poundage to meet the 
 increase in the parochial contribution arising from the 
 unappropriated addition to the total in the valuation list. 
 Inequality in assessments is a ground of appeal, and were 
 it only in view of future valuations, intermediate or 
 quinquennial, every ratepayer may justly claim to be 
 informed what are the properties in his parish which the 
 assessment committee publicly admitted were either 
 under-estimated or altogether omitted. The pleadiags 
 filed in this Court are not open for inspection by rate- 
 payers ; nor, were this otherwise, would those in the 
 present case throw any light on the proposed alteration in 
 the totals. Mr. Avory was not correct in saying that it 
 had become the duty of the County Council to " revise " 
 the list, that is the statutory duty of the assessment 
 
78- 
 
 . queen's bench division. 
 
 1891. 
 
 LoNDOlf 
 
 County 
 
 CoTJNOIIi 
 V. 
 
 Bloomseuet. 
 
 Sir P. H. 
 Edlin, Q.C. 
 
 committee : but, of course, the larger the parish totals 
 constituting the Metropolitan valuations upon which 
 contribution has to be levied pro rata for general county 
 purposes, the smaller would be the nominal rate upon the 
 whole required to produce it : and in this practical effect 
 of an increase in the valuations may be seen the im- 
 portance attached to these appeals. Every assessment 
 committee in the county, nay more, every ratepayer in the 
 Metropolis, might have appealed to this Court upon the 
 same grounds as the present appellants have done, and it 
 may be that but for this proceeding on the part of the 
 County Council, others would have undertaken the task. 
 Hence the greater reason that the judgment should be 
 intelligible to all persons interested, and be directly 
 pertinent to the issues raised. 
 
 The appellants obtained a rule nisi callLug upon the 
 justices for the county of London to show cause why a 
 mandamus should not issue directing them to make the 
 alterations in the list agreed upon between the parties. 
 
 1891. 
 April 26. 
 
 Poland, Q,.C. (C. A. Russell yn&\. him) showed cause: 
 This is, in efEect, an application for a mandamus to give 
 judgment in a particular way : no such mandamus can be 
 granted. There has been no absolute refusal to hear and 
 determine, but merely a refusal to give judgment in a 
 particular way in the absence of certain particulars which 
 the justices held they were entitled to have. That ruling 
 is a judicial decision, which, even if it be erroneous, the 
 Queen's Bench Division cannot overrule by means of a 
 mandamus. By s. 34 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 
 1869, the sessions "may confirm or alter the valuation Hst, 
 so far as it is questioned by the appeal, in such manner as 
 they think just, but shall not make any alteration in con- 
 travention of this Act " : and by s. 52 " the deductions to 
 be made from the gross value shall not exceed the amounta 
 
queen's bench division, 79^' 
 
 in the Third Schedule." It is very possible that improper 1891. 
 deductions from the gross value may have heen agreed li^^^ 
 upon between the parties : and the justices were entitled County 
 to know whether they were asked to sanction " an alteration v. 
 
 in contravention of the Act." Bloomsbuet. 
 
 F. M. White, Q.C, and H. E. Amry in support of the 
 rule : It is not disputed that a mandamus to decide in a 
 particular way cannot be issued ; but if a judicial officer 
 refuses to exercise his jurisdiction, or imposes upon his 
 adjudication a condition which is outside the law, a man- 
 damus will be granted. In B. v. Adamson [1875], 1 Q,. 
 B. D. at p. 205, Cockburn, C. J., said : " Nothing can be' 
 clearer than that this Court [the Queen's Bench Division] 
 has, in the absence of express statutory provision, no ap- 
 pellate jurisdiction to review the decision of magistrates 
 who have once heard a case and decided it in a matter 
 within their jurisdiction. If I could see my way to the, 
 conclusion that the magistrates have considered the evi- 
 dence and given a decision upon it, I should certainly say 
 that the Court could not act upon the matter further, or 
 send the case back to the magistrates : but . . I cannot 
 resist the conclusion that the magistrates must have acted 
 upon a consideration of something extraneous and extra- 
 judicial which ought not to have affected their decision, 
 and which, it seems to me, was the same as declining juris- 
 diction." The judgment of the learned chairman shows 
 that the sessions in this case were influenced by considera- 
 tions which ought not to have affected their decision. For 
 in Fulham Union v. St. Mary Abbotts, Hyde's Eat. App. 
 (1886 — 1890) 86, it was held that an appeal against totals, 
 does not affect the individual assessments : and s. 52 of the 
 Yaluation (MetropoHs) Act, 1869, which regulates the 
 deductions from gross value, applies only to individual 
 assessments. It was not suggested, in fact, that any illegal 
 deduction had been made. It is not contended that the 
 sessions are bound to register every settlement that the 
 
80" 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 liS91. 
 
 London 
 
 County 
 
 cotjnoil 
 
 ■I). 
 
 Bloomsbuet. 
 
 parties may agree to. The sessions may have a right to 
 ask for the details, but if (as in the present case) it is im- 
 possihle to give them, the totals must be altered mthout 
 them. In the judgment, the "issues raised" in the appel- 
 lants' and respondents' cases are spoken of: there is a 
 joinder of issue as to the totals, but not as to the details. 
 The sessions thought the proposed alteration unjust, because 
 it did not refer to the details ; but it would be more unfair' 
 to give than to conceal the under-assessment of & particular 
 ratepayer. 
 
 In the course of the argument it was suggested to the 
 appellants and accepted by them, that the proper form of 
 the rule should be for a "mandamus to hear and determiue 
 according to law." 
 
 A. L. Smith, J. (a) : This is an application on the part 
 of the London County Council for a writ of mandamus to 
 Sir Peter Edlin to hear and determine according to law an 
 appeal lodged by the London County Council against two 
 parishes whose names have been stated in this case. 
 
 I wish to say the judgment I am about to pronounce is 
 only applicable to the facts of this case, and not to gene- 
 ralities at all, because the circumstances here are peculiar, 
 and the position which has been taken up by the learned 
 judge is also, I think, unique. I am not speaking from a 
 very long experience, but in the experience I have had, 
 except in one case, I never knew of a judge refusing to 
 enter judgment come to by a valid agreement between the 
 parties, and by valid agreement I mean acquiesced in by 
 clients and coimsel. 
 
 Now the facts of this case arise in this way. The 
 
 (ff) The judgmenta of the two judges in the Queen's Bench Division 
 are taken from the shorthand notes of the proceedings, ■which agree wi|li 
 the notes taken independently by the editor, in proving that the jadg-j 
 ments as pronounced contain inaccuracies, due either to amisoonoeptibn of 
 the facts or to unintentional lapsus li/ngucB, 
 
queen's bench division. 81 
 
 London County Council otjected to the under-valuation of 1891. 
 
 the two parishes, the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields and looton 
 
 the parish of St. George's, Bloomsbury, and I only take Cotjntt 
 
 c , XI, n • J.I.- Council 
 
 one ngure because there are many ngures m this case «,. 
 
 which -will emphasise or accentuate the point which I wish ^^o pmsbu by. 
 
 to discuss, and that is this — the gross rateable value of the A. L.Smith, J. 
 
 parish of St. GiLes-in-the-Fields was 267,333/. ; the London 
 
 County Council said that was too little, and it was too 
 
 little by 11,345/. That was the dispute at the quarter 
 
 sessions before Sir Peter Edlin. The other side said, Tou 
 
 are wrong in saying that that is too low by 11,345/. I 
 
 need not go into the other figures, because they are all of 
 
 the same gross rateable value ; the same principle applies 
 
 to each. They wanted to have decided by Sir Peter Edlin 
 
 and the magistrates assembled whether the London County 
 
 Council was right in putting up the gross rateable value 
 
 of this parish over and above 267,333/. to the amount of 
 
 11,345/. more, and the case went down there, and when 
 
 the case got down there, the learned counsel being present. 
 
 Sir Peter Edlin was informed that the parties had come to 
 
 an agreement, and that they had agreed that, instead of 
 
 the amount being put up to the extent of 11,345/., the 
 
 proper simi by which the gross rateable value should be 
 
 increased was by the sum of 6,240/. That agreement must 
 
 be taken to have been an absolutely vaHd agreement 
 
 between the litigants, the parish and the London County 
 
 Council, and entered into with the assent of both, and 
 
 adopted by the learned counsel for both on each side. 
 
 There is no suggestion that that is not the true amount 
 
 which should be added to 267,333/. Those facts must be 
 
 taken to have been before Sir Peter Edlin. Sir Peter 
 
 Edlin said he would not accept that, and the real reason 
 
 he gave, as appears from the most careful judgment which 
 
 he has given is, that he would not alter the total from 
 
 11,345/. to 6,240/., because he wanted to alter the details 
 
 showing how that total was arrived at, and he refused to 
 
 K. G 
 
82 queen's bench division. 
 
 1891. adjudicate upon the evidence or the consent given before 
 
 London ^1™- 
 
 County JiJow the question is, whether or not Sir Peter Edlin 
 
 UOUNOIL , ■*■ • , . T 
 
 V. was right, or I should say rather, the question is, whether 
 
 LooMSBUBT. ^j, ^^^^ ^j^-g Qq^jj.^ Qa,n prooecd by way of mandamus to 
 A.L.Sinitli,J. Sir Peter Edlin. That is the difficulty in the case. If I 
 were asked whether he did that which most people would 
 do under the circumstances or what nearly everybody 
 would do under the circumstances, I should be bound to 
 say no ; but the question is, whether this Court has juris- 
 diction by way of mandamus over the justices. It is 
 familiar law that Sir Peter Edlin being a judicial officer 
 no mandamus will go to direct him to perform a judicial 
 act in a certain way. That is familiar knowledge ; no one 
 doubts it, and, indeed, Mr. Meadows White does not 
 dispute it, and the only way, it seems to me, in which a 
 prerogative writ can go from this Court to a justice 
 exercising judicial functions, is to command him to hear 
 and determine according to law, and if he has heard and 
 determined according to law, although he may have 
 unreasonably- determined according to law, this Court 
 cannot issue a mandamus directing him to hear and 
 determine. The question is, has he heard and determined 
 according to law. The section under which this juris- 
 diction arises is s. 34 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 
 1869. I wish to point out, before I come to s. 34, that by 
 s. 32 and anterior sections, all that Sir Peter Edlin and 
 his co-magistrates had to do in determining this point, 
 was as to the totals of the valuation list. He had, sitting 
 there, nothing to do as regards determining between any 
 person and the ratepayers, the amount of the details of 
 the ratepayers' valuation, although it is quite true, that if 
 this case had been fought before him, it would have been 
 necessary to have gone into details as to the amount, 
 in order to determine which party was right. But it was 
 only qu& total that he was called upon to adjudicate. The 
 34th section says : " The justices in special sessions and in 
 
queen's bench division. 83 
 
 assessment sessions respectively, shall, in open Court, hear 1891. 
 and determine all appeals brought before them in such l^^J^^^^ 
 order as they may respectively from time to time appoint." County 
 What is the meaning of that ? It seems to me that the v. 
 
 proper reading of that section is, that the justices in Bloomsbuey. 
 special sessions and in assessment sessions shall in open A.L.Smitli.J. 
 Court hear and determine, that is, hear and determine 
 according to law. It does not mean hear and determine 
 not according to law, but hear and determine according to 
 law. 
 
 Now, what is hearing and determining according to 
 law ? I will put the case which I mentioned during the 
 argument. The case comes into Court; one witness is 
 called on each side, and, as has been put by my learned 
 brother Charles, one witness called by the appellant says 
 the right figure is 6,000^., and the other side says, " I will 
 put my witness in the box, and he says 6,000/., and that 
 is all the evidence I am going to put before you." Now, 
 what is hearing and determining according to law upon 
 that state of facts ? It seems to me that upon the hearing 
 they determine that the amount shall be 6,000/. and 
 nothing less, because that is the sole evidence which the 
 judge has before him — mind you, always assuming that 
 that is applicable to the present case I am discussing, and 
 always assuming that there is no suggestion that that is 
 not the right sum that should be adjudicated in the case. 
 Those are the premises I found my decision upon in this 
 case. Can it make any difference that before these two 
 witnesses are called into the box, the learned counsel come 
 into Court and say : " My lord, the parties have seen each 
 other with their witnesses, and agree that 6,000/. is the proper 
 amount"? It seems to me, there being nothing to im- 
 peach the sum arrived at by the learned counsel with the 
 consent of their respective clients, that to hear and deter- 
 mine according to law would be to hear and determine 
 that 6,000/. shall be entered as the total. It will be 
 understood that I have not got my figures right, because 
 
 g2 
 
84 queen's bench division. 
 
 1891. they are a great deal more than 6,000^. and 11,000^. Then 
 London ^^^ section goes on and says the Court may adjourn the 
 County hearing, and so on, which we need not deal with. Now, 
 "T™^ what may they do ? The Court may confirm or alter the 
 Bloomseuby. yai^ation list so far as it is questioned by the appeal. 
 A. L. Smith, J. What is "questioned by the appeal"? The total and 
 nothing else is questioned by the appeal from beginning 
 to end. Therefore, they may alter the totals ; they may 
 confirm or alter the valuation list as far as it is questioned 
 by the appeal. I should think that " may " must there 
 be read " must." I should say that it means that they 
 may confirm or alter the valuation list so far as it is in 
 relation to the appeal in such manner as they think just, 
 "but shall not make any alteration in contravention of 
 this Act." There is no suggestion in this case that Sir 
 Peter Edlin was asked to make any alteration iu contra- 
 vention of this Act. 
 
 Then as to the concluding words, " And any alteration 
 shall be made by the justice acting as chairman of the 
 sessions in that Est, and the said justice shaU. place his 
 initials against such alteration." It seems to me that 
 what was said by my Lord Field in the case of B. v. 
 Adamson [1875], 1 Q. B. D. at p. 207, is very apposite to 
 the point I have in hand. That was a case in which a 
 summons was taken out before justices for conspiracy 
 against A., B. and C, and evidence was given, and the jus- 
 tices would not grant the summons although under Jervis' 
 Act, or the Summary Jurisdiction Act, they may grant a 
 summons if they think fit. That means, of course, accord- 
 ing as the evidence shall dictate. The justices here held 
 their hand. When it came before the Court of Queen's 
 Bench, before Chief Justice Oockbum, Mr. Justice Black- 
 burn and Mr. Justice Field, the evidence I may say almost 
 conclusively proved that a conspiracy had taken place, and 
 the learned judges came to the conclusion that the justices 
 could not have exercised their discretion on the evidence 
 before them, but must have taken into consideration some- 
 
queen's bench division. 85 
 
 thing wliioli they had no right to take into consideration, 1891. 
 
 or otherwise they must have granted the summons. This is lonbon 
 
 how Lord Field sums it up: — "What the justices have to con- County 
 
 sider is, whether there was prima facie evidence of a criminal v. 
 
 offence which, in their judgment, calls upon the alleged ^^°°'^™™^- 
 
 offender to answer. If they think that there is such primd A.L.Smith.J. 
 
 facie evidence, it is their duty to issue summonses. Now 
 
 if the justices had said ' We don't believe the evidence,' or 
 
 given any other reasonable ground for refusing to grant 
 
 what was asked for, we should not interfere." I agree 
 
 with that. We certainly should not interfere if any such 
 
 suggestion had been made in this case. " But I have come 
 
 to the conclusion that they acted as they did, not because 
 
 they disbelieved the evidence, but from a consideration 
 
 apart from the facts which they ought not to have taken 
 
 into account." Now, reading Sir Peter Edlin's judgment 
 
 which he has sent to this Court, it seems to me that he is 
 
 not in a position to alter the details of the valuation list, 
 
 which in my judgment he had no power to do. 
 
 The case of FiMam Union v. St. Mary Abbotts, Eyde's 
 Eat. App. (1886-90) 86 ; 17 Q. B. D. 394, to which I 
 was a party, went into what was requisite to be inquired 
 into, the totals alone being altered. My brother Mathew 
 pointed out there, and I have no doubt correctly, that in 
 examining into totals you have nothing to do as to alter- 
 ing valuations ; but, of course, he also said in that case, if 
 the question of totals is fought out you must go into details 
 for the purpose of seeing whether the total is right. But 
 it seems to me that Sir Peter Edlin says, I will not enter 
 judgment according to the sole evidence which I have before 
 me, that is, that 6,240/. is right, because I am of opinion 
 that the details ought to be altered by me so as to make 
 up the grand total at the bottom when the 11,345/. is 
 altered to 6,240/. 
 
 It. seems to me that there was a wrong decision in this 
 case. I think the rule should be made absolute to hear 
 and determine according to law. 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 County 
 
 COUNOII. 
 
 V. 
 
 BLOOMSBUilT. 
 
 Charles, J. 
 
 Charles, J. : I am of the same opinion. 
 
 It is necessary, in order to arrive at a correct decision in 
 this case, thoroughly to appreciate what it was "that was 
 the subject-matter of the appeal to the general assessment 
 sessions. Now it is ■ an appeal against the total of the 
 value of a particular parish, namely, St. Griles-in-the-Fields, 
 and it was an appeal brought in pursuance of the thirty- 
 second section of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, 
 which enables, among other persons, any body of persons 
 authorized by law to appeal if that body of persons feels 
 aggrieved by reason of the totals in the parish being too 
 high' or too low. In this case the London County Council 
 appealed by virtue of the provisions of that section. It 
 thereupon became the judicial duty of the assessment 
 sessions in open Court to hear and determine that appeal 
 when it was brought before them, and upon the hearing 
 and determining of it to confirm or alter the valuation list 
 so far as it was questioned by the appeal in such a manner 
 as they might think just ; but they are not to make any 
 alteration in contravention of this Act. When the appeal 
 came before the assessment sessions upon the 20th March 
 the justices were informed that the parties had arrived at 
 an agreement, and thereupon the learned chairman of the 
 sessions asked for the particulars in detail of the alteration 
 which had resulted in a fresh total gross value of the parish, 
 the original gross value having been 11,345/., the parties 
 had agreed that the true (my learned brother has empha- 
 sized this, and I desire to emphasize it too) that the true 
 gross value of the parish was 6,240/. Then said the chair- 
 man, give me details of the way in which you get at that 
 6,240/., because otherwise this singular result would follow 
 — the total wiU be altered from 11,345/. to 6,240/., and yet 
 if the details are looked at it will be seen directly that 
 there is a manifest incongruity, and the details bring out 
 the old figures instead of the new and agreed figures. It 
 was then pointed out by Mr. Avory that, although he 
 would do his best, in all probability the task which was 
 
queen's bench division. 87 
 
 proposed was an impossibility. However, there was an 1891. 
 
 adjournment to see what could be done, and on the 26th London 
 
 March Mr. Avory informed the learned chairman it had County 
 ... Council 
 
 been found mipossible to give the exact figures of the -o. 
 
 alterations in detail. At first one did not quite see why it ^^°°''™^°'^- 
 was impossible, because a rule of three sum would have Charles, J. 
 enabled it to be done. It by no means follows that because 
 the gross total is 6,240/. that each and every heredita- 
 ment, both those omitted and those under-assessed, are 
 in the same proportion. It is highly improbable that 
 that would have been the case, and therefore it was 
 found impossible to give the learned chairman the in- 
 formation which he required, and thereupon the judge 
 declined to enter the judgment in the appeal and declined 
 to act upon the powers given to him by s. 34 of the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, by placing his initials 
 against the altered Kst. Why did he do so ? If I may 
 be allowed to say so, in the very clear judgment with 
 which he has been good enough to favour us, he tells us 
 exactly why he declined to do so. He says : " I declined 
 to make any alteration because I considered that the 
 justices had a right to the information with reference to 
 the details of the list. Such an erasure of the arithmetically 
 correct total and substitution* of other figures would present 
 a manifest incongruity on the face of the valuation list." 
 Further, he says he thinks the details themselves ought to 
 be altered as well as the totals, and he thinks so for, 
 amongst other reasons, because he is of opinion that the 
 ratepayers may justly claim to be informed what are the 
 properties in the parish which the assessment committee 
 has under-assessed, or, if they have omitted any properties, 
 what are the properties which the assessment committee 
 has altogether omitted. With great deference to him, I 
 think that was a reason which he was not justified in 
 giving, and I think, therefore, to adopt the language of 
 Lord Field in R. v. Adammi [1875], 1 Q,. B. D. 201, that 
 in this case he has refrained from making the necessary 
 
88 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 London 
 County 
 
 COUNCII. 
 
 i>. 
 Bloomsbuet. 
 
 1891. alterations in tlie list and placing his initials against the 
 necessary alterations from a consideration apart from the 
 facts which he, or rather, which he and the other justices 
 ought not to have taken into account. If that be so, the case 
 really, if authority is wanted, is governed by the case of B. v. 
 Charles, J. Adamson. Although he is a judicial officer, inasmuch as 
 he has refrained from determining the case for reasons 
 which he ought not to have taken into account, he becomes 
 liable to a mandamus to hear and determine according to 
 law. That the reason was a mistaken one is, I think, 
 apparent from the case, to which reference was made, of 
 Fulham Union v. St. Mary Abbotts, Eyde's Rat. App. 
 (1886-&0), 86; 17 Q. B. D. 394. In that case the 
 learned judges (one of whom was my learned brother) 
 held that the thirty-third section of the Valuation (Metro- 
 polis) Act, 1869, did not apply to a case where the subject 
 matter of the appeal was the total value and not the value 
 of the hereditaments considered separately: Mr. Justice 
 Mathew in giving judgment points out that the result of 
 their holding may be that a manifest incongruity may 
 appear on the list. He says: "It was argued for the 
 respondents that if the totals were altered without altering 
 the assessment of particular hereditaments in the valuation » 
 list the absurd consequence 'would follow that the total 
 value found to be correct by the assessment sessions would 
 differ from the total values arrived at by adding up the 
 particular assessments in the valuation list. But the 
 result of increasing the total values, leaving the particular 
 assessments untouched, would only be to increase the sum 
 to be contributed by the parish, and to compel the parish 
 authorities to make higher rates." " It may be," says the 
 learned judge, "that the legislature thought the inaccuracy 
 referred to so unimportant that no special provision was 
 made to correct it." It appears to me that it would be a 
 strange thing if the general assessment sessions could 
 alter the details that make up the general total upon such 
 an appeal as the present, an appeal to which the ratepayers 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 ■89 
 
 are no parties, and an appeal to which, according to this 
 decision in the case of Fulham Union v. St. Mary Abbotts 
 they could not properly have been made parties. 
 
 I think, therefore, that the learned chairman has given 
 a wrong and ineffective reason for the course which he has 
 adopted. 
 
 I do not desire to add anything to what my learned 
 brother has said on the question of what is a proper 
 hearing and determination according to law. I agree 
 with what he has said on that matter. I think, inasmuch 
 as a wrong reason was given, that being the only reason 
 relied upon by the chairman, that we ought to make this 
 rule absolute to hear and determine according to law. 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 CoTJNiy 
 
 Council 
 
 V. 
 
 Bloomseuet. 
 Charles, J. 
 
 A. L. Smith, J. : The rule will go in the form that they 
 
 are to hear and determine the appeal according to law. 
 
 We say nothing else. 
 
 Huie absolute. 
 
 The appeal came before the quarter sessions, to be 
 heard and determined, in obedience to the mandamus. 
 
 F. M. White, Q.C. {E. E. Amry with him), for the 
 appellants : It is for this Court to determine what the 
 precise form of the entry in the valuation list shall be. 
 
 The following evidence was given for the appellants : — 
 Mr. E. C. Davies (of the Solicitor's Department at the 
 London County Council) said he was in charge of the case. 
 Mr. Harper, the Council's valuer, was authorized to make 
 a proposal to the parishes. The vestry passed a resolu- 
 tion, which was discussed by the Local Government and 
 Taxation Committee of the County Council. The proposal 
 was an addition in a lump sum, with no exact figures 
 relating to separate hereditaments, and no apportionment 
 to omissions from the valuation Hst, and to under-assess- 
 
 1891. 
 
 May 7. 
 
90 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 County 
 Council 
 
 V. 
 
 Bloomsbtot. 
 
 ments respectively. The witness was unable to make 
 any apportionment. 
 
 Mr. Spencer Chadwick said he had heen instructed 
 to assist the County Council's valuer : he considered the 
 compromise reasonable. In his own calculations, he 
 divided the proposed additions in St Giles-in-the-Fields 
 thus: under-assessments, S,640^. gross and 3,040^. rateable; 
 omissions, 2,600/. gross and 2,168/. rateable ; making in 
 all an addition of 6,240/. gross and 5,208/. rateable, which 
 was the settlement agreed upon. He was unable to say 
 in what way the respondents arrived at the figures. 
 
 Buchnaster for the respondents consented to the pro- 
 posed additions, but called no evidence. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin) : In this case we have 
 the great advantage of being instructed by the judgments 
 of a Divisional Court as to the legal obligation upon us 
 with regard to the agreement to which the litigant parties 
 respectively have come, and it is of course our duty to act 
 in accordance with those judgments ; but I trust I may be 
 pardoned for pointing out that the learned judges would 
 seem to have entirely misapprehended the grounds upon 
 which our decision upon the motion before us proceeded. I 
 have here the shorthand- writer's notes: and it appears 
 therefrom that Mr. Justice A. L. Smith said that I would 
 not alter the total from 11,345/. to 6,240/. because I 
 " wanted to alter the details shewing how that total was 
 arrived at." And again, further on, the same learned judge 
 ascribes to me that I said I would not alter the totals, 
 "because I was of opinion that the details ought to be 
 ' altered ' so as to make up the grand total at ,the bottom, 
 when the 11,345 is altered to 6,240." So also Mr. Justice 
 Charles is stated to have said " the chairman thinks the 
 details themselves ought to be altered as well as the totals." 
 I should observe that some similar opinion to this was 
 sought to be attributed to me by counsel in this Court, 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 91 
 
 and I distinctly repudiated it. I then pointed out how 1891. 
 entirely opposed it was to what I was then declaring to be i,osi,ois 
 the opinion of this Court. I regret exceedingly therefore County 
 that it should have been attributed to me in the High „' 
 
 Court ; and the more so that in my written judgment I Bio omsbu by. 
 sought to guard against so manifest a misreading of the Sir P. H. 
 appeal before us. It clearly appears from my judgment ' 
 
 that upon an appeal such as this an alteration in the 
 totals would not affect the individual ratepayers whose 
 assessments -had been impugned, otherwise than as members 
 of the general body of the ratepayers. Now, if the " details" 
 were " altered" (as it was assumed I required), — that is to 
 say, if the impugned assessments (as now appearing in the 
 valuation list) were altered, the respective ratepayers would 
 assuredly be thereby affected apart from the rest, each to the 
 extent of the addition made to his assessment — a palpable and 
 monstrous injustice, inasmuch as they are not individually 
 parties to the appeal. I must, therefore, in justice to 
 myself be permitted to repudiate such a notion. Moreover, 
 with great respect to that most learned judge, Mr. Justice 
 A. L. Smith, I crave leave to refer to a further misconcep- 
 tion in the above literal quotation from his judgment. 
 The question before us was not, as would appear therefrom, 
 as to altering the total from 11,345^. to 6,240^., — those 
 extracted figures, in point of fact, merely showing the 
 diSerence between the original contention by the appel- 
 lants and their present view, with regard to the proper 
 addition to be made to the actual total in the valuation list. 
 The fact that the appellants had reduced their demand for an 
 addition to the total was quite immaterial to the question 
 before us, so that here again there was unfortunately a 
 misapprehension of what this Court required. Totals, be 
 it understood, are the last figures in a valuation list ; the 
 "details" are the separate previously entered assessments 
 constituting those totals — the respective amounts on which 
 the rates are levied ; and it never was the purpose of this 
 Court to alter those details, or to alter any details appearing 
 
92 LONDON QUAKTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. in the list. The assessment against each occupier's name 
 LoHBON would stand precisely as it does. But something more 
 County than a mere naked addition to the totals would quite con- 
 V. sist therewith. We certainly did think, and I deemed it 
 
 Blo omsbt jbt. jig^jt tQ ga,y^ tliat where «o»-assessments as well as under 
 Sir P. H. assessments were complained of, the amount sought to he 
 ^'^' ' added at the foot of the valuation list should he allocated 
 under the particular head or heads applicable ; and we 
 further thought — erroneously, I regret to say, — that inas- 
 much as the statute empowers this Court to alter or confirm 
 the valuation list, so far as it is questioned hy the appeal, 
 in such manner as it may think just, we might reasonably 
 and justifiably ask the litigant parties for these particulars. 
 I should not have ventured to make these observations but 
 for the misconceptions to which I have referred. I may 
 add that the legal obligation upon this Court to enter with- 
 out question absolutely unexplained additions to the totals 
 in the valuation lists is a matter closely affecting every 
 ratepayer in the metropolis. It is an indisputable fact 
 that by the operation of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 
 London has been assessed for house duty, &c., on a much 
 higher basis than the country generally, and so has had to 
 contribute disproportionately to imperial taxation. We 
 have before us an appeal requiring the addition of nearly 
 a quarter of a million sterling to the total in the valuation 
 list of a union — indeed there are several other appeals for 
 a similar purpose, and it is open to every individual rate- 
 payer in the metropolis to send us such appeals : and if 
 this be the obligation upon the Court, there is nothing to 
 prevent such an addition, or a much larger addition, to 
 parish liabilities being made by agreement between the 
 litigants — as the easiest method of solving differences and 
 terminating litigation. At the same time I must express 
 regret for the error into which I fell in drawing a distinc- 
 tion between the present agreement and one that might be 
 made between A. and B., private suitors, in respect of 
 some purely personal ■ dispute. The entirely unexplained 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 93 
 
 new total will be entered in otedience to what I understand 
 to he the command of the High Court, adjudicating what 
 would be " just " in this case ; but we regret to say, with 
 no sub-division of the amount in the manner indicated by 
 the evidence of Mr. Chadwick. 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 County 
 Council 
 
 V. 
 
 Bloomseuey. 
 
 Sir P. H. 
 Edlin, Q.O. 
 
 Ex PARTE The Wandsworth and Clapham Union. 
 
 Totals — Alteration of Individual Assessments. 
 
 Whether the totals in the Taluation list can be altered in con- 
 sequence of decisions on appeals relating to individual assessments, 
 and if so, by whom must the alterations be made, qumre. 
 
 Where no appeal against totals had been entered, and appeals 
 relating to individual assessments were still pending, the sessions 
 refused to make any alteration in the totals to correspond with 
 alterations already made on appeals relating to individual assess- 
 ments. 
 
 Application ex parte for an alteration of the totals in 
 the valuation Hst, in consequence of the alterations of 
 several items making up those totals, on appeals relating 
 to individual hereditaments. 
 
 G. E. Lyon in support of the application : Several 
 appeals relating to individual hereditaments in the 
 Wandsworth and Clapham Union have been already 
 decided by this Court, involving large reductions of gross 
 and rateable values. Consequently, the totals originally 
 entered in the valuation list are now too high by a large 
 amount. Notwithstanding this, the London County 
 Council claim the right to levy a rate based upon the 
 incorrect totals, and refuse to recognize any alteration in 
 the total in consequence of an alteration in the items, 
 alleging that an alteration of the total is valid only when 
 initialled by the chairman of quarter sessions under s. 34 
 of the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, which provides 
 that " The clerk of the assessment committee, or some 
 
 1891. 
 
 March 20. 
 
94 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. deputy allowed by the assessment committee, shall attend 
 Ex PAETE ^^^ Court witli the valuation list to which the appeal 
 Wandswobth relates, and any alteration shaU be made by the justice 
 Union. acting as chairman of the sessions in that Hst, and the said 
 justice shall place his initials against such alteration." 
 There are other appeals relating to individual assessments 
 in the union still pending. There is no appeal entered 
 against the totals in the valuation lists for the several 
 parishes. [Sir P. H. Edlin : Has not the alteration of 
 the totals been hitherto regarded as the duty of the 
 assessment committee ?] Before the creation of the 
 London County Council, the duties connected with the 
 printing, &e., of the totals, were performed by the clerk 
 of the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District; and 
 it was the invariable practice of the clerk of the managers 
 to make alterations from time to time in the totals to 
 correspond with the alterations of individual assessments, 
 on notice being given them of such alterations, and rates 
 were always levied on the totals as so altered. In 1871 
 {i.e., at the first session held after the passing of the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869), the assessment sessions 
 made an order, on the application of the parish of 
 St. Andrew's, Holbom, for an alteration of the totals iu 
 consequence of alterations made on appeals as to individual 
 assessments : see Met. Eat. App. 30. 
 
 The CouET refused to make any order upon this 
 application (a). 
 
 (a) See the next case, and tlie decision of tke Queen's Bench Division 
 in S. T. Guardians of Woolwich Union, infra, p. 279. See also Vestry of 
 St. Pancras v. Assessment Committee of St. Pancraa, infra, p. 233. The 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 41, is as foUows : "Notice of every 
 alteration in the valuation list, "which alteration is made in consequence 
 of any decision on any appeal to the special sessions, assessment sessions, 
 or a superior Court, shall, as soon as possible, he sent iu 'writing by the 
 clerk of the assessment committee to the overseers and surveyor of taxes 
 of the parish and district respectively to "which the list which is so altered 
 relates, and such alteration shaU be entered by the clerk of the assess- 
 ment committee and by the overseers on the duplicates respeotivdy 
 deposited "with them. 
 
 " Notice of every alteration in the total of the gross and rateable value 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 Ex PARTE The Assessment Committee of the 1891. 
 
 Woolwich Union. "^""^ ^^- 
 
 Totals — Alteration of Individual Assessments. 
 
 Where no appeal against totals liad been entered, tlie sessions 
 refused to make any alteration in tlie totals to correspond with, 
 alterations already made on appeals relating to individual assess- 
 ments, even in the case of a parish in which all appeals, which 
 had been entered in respect of individual assessments, had been 
 finally determined. 
 
 Application made hj the assessment committee of the 
 Woolwich TJnion, that the totals in the valuation lists for 
 the several parishes in the union might be altered, in con- 
 sequence of alterations made on appeals relating to 
 individual assessments in those lists, so as to make the 
 totals arithmetically correct : and that the initials of the 
 chairman of quarter sessions might be placed against such 
 alterations, in accordance with s. 34 of the Valuation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 
 
 No appeal against the totals of the several parishes had 
 been entered. 
 
 It was stated that notice of this application had been 
 given to the London County CouncU, but they did not 
 appear to oppose or support it. 
 
 Sinclair Cox in support of the motion : There are four 
 parishes in the Woolwich Union, and in three of them all 
 appeals relating to individual assessments have been decided. 
 
 of any valuation list, wliioh alteration is made in consequence of any 
 decision on any appeal to the assessment sessions or a superior Court, 
 shall, as soon as possible, be sent in writing by the clerk of the assess- 
 ment committee to the clerk of the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum 
 District, and the clerk of such managers shall send in writing such 
 altered total to every person and body of persons who has power to levy 
 or make any rate or assessment or require any contribution based on 
 such total." 
 
 There seems to be a difficulty in reconciling the first clause of this 
 section, which directs the alteration of the two duplicates of the valuation 
 list by the assessment committee and overseers respectively, with s. 34 
 (set out above), which directs the alteration of one duplicate by the 
 chairman of the sessions. 
 
96 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. In one parisli (Woolwich) there is an appeal still pending : 
 ~ Ex PARTE ^6^ London County Council t. Woolwich Union, infra, p. 126. 
 WooiwioH [Sir p. H. Edlin : How many times are we to alter the 
 totals? As often as we alter any of the details?] The 
 clerk of the assessment committee has made the necessary 
 alterations in the totals (in consequence of the alteration 
 of the details), as directed by s. 41 of the Valuation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869 [the section is set out in a note, 
 supra p. 94]. The alteration of the figures in the dupli- 
 cate copies of the valuation list is a merely ministerial 
 duty. The London County Council refuse to recognize 
 any alterations against which the initials of the chairman 
 of quarter sessions are not placed, in manner directed by 
 s. 34 : and they further say that there is no power to alter 
 totals except on an appeal against totals. No notice of 
 appeal against totals has been given in any parish in the 
 Woolwich Union [Sir P. H. Edlin: By s. 34 of the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, "if from accident or 
 mistake due notice of appeal has not been given, or if an 
 additional notice of appeal appears to be required," the 
 sessions " may, if they think it just, order notice of appeal 
 to be given "]. A successful appellant does not obtaia the 
 full benefit of the reduction granted imless the totals are 
 altered in accordance with the alteration of his individual 
 assessment ; and if an appeal against totals is necessary 
 before the totals can be altered, then every appellant must 
 add an appeal agaiast totals to his appeal against his own 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. EdHn, Q.C.) : I do not think 
 you are rectus in cur id in present. Before I make any 
 order on this matter, I should desire to hear what the 
 London County Council say, and I think they ought to 
 instruct counsel to appear. 
 
 Motion dismissed (a). 
 
 (a) For tte decision of tte Queen's Bench Division upon the queation 
 here raised, see £. v. Guardians of Woolwich Union, infra, p. 279. See 
 also Ex parte JFandsworth and Clapham Union, supra, p. 93 ; and Yestry 
 of St. Fancras v. Assessment Committee of St. Pancras, infra, p. 233. 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 97 
 
 WooDWELL V. St. Saviouk's Union. 1891. 
 
 March 20. 
 
 Practice — Objection before Assessment Committee — Condition precedent 
 
 to Appeal. 
 
 By s. 32 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, "Any rate- 
 payer .... -who may feel aggrieved by any decision of the assess- 
 ment committee, on an objection made before tbem to ■wbioli be 
 ■was a party .... may appeal " to the quarter sessions. 
 
 Held, that the making of an objection before the assessment 
 committee was a condition precedent to the right of appeal under 
 this clause : but that, although the sessions had no jurisdiction to 
 hear the appeal, they had jurisdiction to give the respondents their 
 costs. 
 
 Appeal decided on a preliminary otjection. 
 
 G. E. Lyon {O. Elliott with him), for the respondents: 
 This is an appeal hy a ratepayer, and therefore he must be 
 ahle to show that he is " aggrieved by a decision of the 
 assessment committee on an objection made before them 
 to which he was a party " : see s. 32 of the Valuation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869. The making of an objection 
 before the assessment committee is a condition precedent 
 to the right of appeal. There has been no such objection 
 by the appellant. The respondents' case raises the point 
 now taken. 
 
 Besley for the appellant : An objection to the assessment 
 was made before the overseers by mistake, the appellant 
 supposing that he was appearing before the assessment 
 committee. An adjournment is asked for to enable the 
 appellant now to make an objection before the assessment 
 committee. The appellant is willing to pay the costs of 
 the day. 
 
 The Chaieman (Sir P. H. Ediin, Q.O.) : We cannot 
 hear the appeal, and it is dismissed with costs. It has 
 been held that quarter sessions may have power to make 
 
 K. H 
 
9& 
 
 LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. an order for costs, even though they have no jurisdiction 
 WooDWEii to hear an appeal on the merits {a). 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Satioue's 
 
 XJnioit. 
 
 -♦- 
 
 1891. London County Council v, Q-reenwich TTnion. 
 
 May 7. 
 
 Lodge on Blachheaih — Occupation hy Gounty Council for Puhlic 
 Purposes — Exemption from Bateability. 
 
 By the Plumstead Common Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Viot. c. clxv.), the 
 MetropoUtaii Board of Works (in -wiiom. the control of Blactheatli 
 was already vested by statute) -were empowered " to erect and main- 
 tain . . upon Blackheatli . . a suitable lodge for the accom- 
 modation of any officer appointed by them, to preserve order upon 
 the Heath, and for its protection." 
 
 By the Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 40 (8) 
 the London County Council became in law the successors of the 
 Metropolitan Board of Works. 
 
 Under the Act of 1878, a lodge was erected and a keeper was ap- 
 pointed to reside there, who was paid by the appellants, a sum of 
 four shillings per week being deducted from his wages for rent of 
 the lodge, which was rated at ZOl. gross and 241. rateable value. 
 The appellants did all the repairs. The total average annual ex- 
 penditure on the maintenance of Blackheath was about 1001. 
 
 By a local Act (9 Greo. 4, c. xliii.) the owners of houses let at a rent 
 payable at periods shorter than quarterly are to be deemed the 
 occupiers, and are to be rated for the same. 
 
 Held, that as the lodge was occupied solely for the purpose of 
 keeping order on Blackheath, the appellants were not liable to be 
 rated in respect thereof. 
 
 Appeal against an assessment of 30/. gross and 2il. 
 rateahle, in respect of the lodge occupied hy the head-keeper 
 of Blackheath, whose duty it was to keep order on the 
 common. The lodge was vested in the London County 
 Council, as the successors of the Metropolitan Board of 
 
 [a) The learned Chairman was apparently referring to R. v. Padwiclc 
 [1858], 27 L. J. M. 0. 113, which was decided on 12 & 13 Viot. o. 46, 
 Bs. 5, 6. Compare also Great Northern, %c. Committee v. Inett [1877], 2 
 Q. B. D. 284 ; and Diss Urban Sanitary Authority t. AUrich, Ji. pp. 179, 
 286. 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. '99' 
 
 Works (under s. 40 of the Local G-overnment Act, 1888), 1891. 
 and a rent of four shillings a week was deducted from the jq q q 
 wages paid to the head keeper hy the County Council. "• 
 
 The lodge contained no more than the necessary accommo- Union. 
 dation for the keeper and his family. The repairs were 
 done by the London County Council, and were included 
 in the general accounts of the maintenance of the common, 
 which amounted on the average to about 700^. a year. 
 No objection was taken to the amount of the assessment. 
 
 H. E. Avory for the appellants : The lodge is not rate- 
 able, and the present case is concluded by London County 
 Council V. Wandsworth and Clapham Union, Eyde's Eat. 
 App. (1886—1890) 220, where the London Quarter Ses- 
 sions held that the lake in Battersea Park was not rateable, 
 although the County CouncO. were in receipt of an annual 
 payment of 275?., made in consideration of the exclusive 
 privilege of letting out boats on the lake for hire. Black- 
 heath is a common within the metropolitan police district, 
 and as such is governed by the Metropolitan Commons 
 Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 122) ; see s. 4. By s. 6, " A 
 scheme for the establishment of local management with a 
 view to the expenditure of money on the drainage, level- 
 ling, and improvement of a metropolitan common, and to 
 the making of bye-laws and regulations for the prevention 
 of nuisances, and the preservation of order thereon, may 
 be made under this Act " : by s. 8 the Inclosure Commis- 
 sioners may prepare a draft scheme, which, by s. 22, is to 
 be confirmed by parliament. A scheme relating to Black- 
 heath was prepared under this Act, and was confirmed by 
 the Metropolitan Commons Supplemental Act, 1871 (34 & 
 35 Yict. c. Ivii.). 
 
 The Plumstead Common Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Yict. 
 c. cxlv.), in the preamble recites {inter alia) that "Black- 
 heath is now under the control of the Board " («. e., the 
 Metropolitan Board of "Works), and that " it is expedient 
 that the Board should have power to erect a lodge on 
 
 h2 
 
100 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. Blackheath for the accommodation of any officer employed 
 L. c. C. t)y them for preserving order amongst persons frequenting 
 ^ •"• the heath, and for its protection : " and " that the ohiects 
 
 Union. aforesaid cannot be attained without the authority of 
 parliament;" and, by sect. 22, "The Board may erect 
 and maintain, upon such part of Blackheath as may be 
 agreed upon between them and the lord of the manor, or 
 as, in case of difference, shall be settled by the Secretary 
 of State, a suitable lodge for the accommodation of any 
 officer appointed by them to preserve order upon the 
 heath, and for its protection." The lodge now in ques- 
 tion has been erected under these powers, and is part of 
 the common for which the appellants cannot be rated. 
 The head-keeper is a constable, and holds a warrant, and 
 it is his duty to arrest persons infringing the bye-laws. 
 The lodge is occupied, therefore, solely for the discharge 
 of the public duty, cast upon the appellants, of keeping 
 order on the common ; the lodge cannot, for rating pur- 
 poses, be severed from the common ; and even if it can, 
 there is no beneficial occupation. 
 
 This case is governed by Lancashire Justices v. Overseers 
 ofStretford [1858], E. B. & E. 225 ; 27 L. J. M. C. 209: 
 in that case county justices provided, for a police dis- 
 trict of their county, buildings which consisted of pre- 
 mises used exclusively for the police offices, cells, and 
 rooms for the residence and accommodation of the police 
 sergeant and constables, who resided there (one of them 
 with his wife), and had a deduction made from their 
 wages in respect of the rent, but they enjoyed no accom- 
 modation more than was necessary for their convenient 
 occupation in their official capacity, and for the purposes 
 for which they were placed there. It was held that the 
 buildings were occupied exclusively for public purposes, and 
 the justices were not rateable in respect thereof. In the 
 present case, if the Court hold that there is a rateable 
 occupation, it is submitted that the lodge-keeper, and not 
 the County Council, is the occupier. 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSION?, * " .</ 101 
 
 E. U. Sullen for the respondents : As to the"*iust-^nt 1891. 
 taken for the appellants, the owners and not the occupiers lTc^c 
 of the lodge are rateable, because by a local Act (9 Geo. 4, «"• 
 
 c. xliii. s. 26), " The owner or owners, landlord or land- Ukiok. 
 lords, of any house, building, land, tenement or heredita- 
 ment within the said parish [of Greenwich], the rent or 
 yearly value of which house, &c., shall not exceed 15/., or 
 which, whatever the yearly rent or value may be, shall be 
 let to weekly or monthly tenants, and which house or 
 building shall be let furnished, or in lodgings or separate 
 apartments, or which house, building, land, tenement, or 
 hereditament shall be let at a rent which shall become or 
 be made payable at periods shorter than quarterly, shall 
 be deemed to be the occupier of such house, &c., and shall 
 and may be rated for the same accordingly." As to the 
 general question, the exemption from rateabihty which 
 attaches to police stations and buildings occupied for 
 similar purposes, is the exemption of the Crown, and this 
 exemption cannot be claimed by the London County 
 Council. In Old Windsor v. Matthews [1777], Cald. p. 1, 
 the keeper, appointed by the ranger of Windsor Park, was 
 held rateable for a lodge and two acres of land which he 
 occupied, on the ground that where a servant of the Crown 
 becomes beneficially possessed of property, he is rateable 
 for it as occupier, and it is immaterial whether he pays for 
 it by rent or by services. In the present case, the occu- 
 pation of the lodge by the head-keeper is beneficial to him, 
 and therefore the appellants, by virtue of the local Act, 
 are rateable as owners in respect of that beneficial occu- 
 pation. [Sir P. H. Edlin : The appellants do not rely 
 on the exemption of the Crown, but upon the fact that the 
 property is used exclusively for public purposes.] Except 
 where the occupation is by those who are servants, or 
 quasi-servants, of the Crown, user for public purposes is 
 no ground of exemption, since the decision in the Mersey 
 Docks Gases [1865], 11 H. L. C. 443. Lord Cranworth 
 said [lb. at p. 508) : " The Crown not being named, is 
 not bound by the Act [43 Eliz. c. 2]. It follows, there- 
 
102 
 
 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 1891. fore, that lands or liouses occupied by the Orown or by 
 
 L. 0. 0. servants of the Crown for the purposes of the Crown are 
 
 _, "• not liable to be rated, and I conceive that it ' is from a 
 
 Geeenwich . ' 
 
 Union. confusion between property occupied for public purposes, 
 
 and property occupied by servants of the Crown, that i;his 
 mistake has arisen. This principle exempts from rates 
 not only royal palaces, but also the offices of the Secre- 
 taries of State, the Horse Guards, the Post Office, and 
 many similar buildings. On the same ground, police 
 courts, county courts, and even county buildings occupied 
 as lodgings at the assizes for the judges have been held 
 exempt. These decisions, however, have all gone on the 
 ground, more or less sound, that these might all be treated 
 as buildings occupied by servants of the Crown, and for 
 the Crown, extending in some instances the shield of the 
 Crown to what might more fitly be described as the pubho 
 government of the country." The principle laid down in 
 Lancashire Justices v. Overseers of Strefford [1858], E. B. 
 & E. 225, is no longer law since the Mersey Bocks Cases. 
 In Durham County Council v. Chester-le- Street, [1891] 1 
 Q. B. 330; infra, p. 267, it was held that a county council 
 are rateable in respect of an industrial school, established 
 by justices under the Industrial Schools Acts, 1866 and 
 1872, and vested in the county council under the Local 
 Government Act, 1888. Day, J., said {infra, p. 275) : 
 " There is no ground whatever for saying that the county 
 council are the servants of the Crown." In Showers v. 
 Chelmsford Union, [1891] 1 Q. B. 339 ; infra, p. 259, 
 the residences provided for the chief constable and other 
 officers of the police force of the county of Essex (the rent 
 of his premises being deducted from the pay of each 
 officer), were held rateable. That case followed Martin v. 
 West Derby Union [1883], 11 Q. B. D. 145. In Tunni- 
 cliffe V. Overseers o/^!VM(?/e,Eyde'sEat. App. (1886—90), 
 286, the Court of Appeal held that the managers of a 
 reformatory school do not occupy the school as servants of 
 the Crown, and are therefore liable to be rated in respect 
 thereof. It was there pointed out that the exemption 
 
V. 
 
 Gbtsenwioh 
 
 LONDON QUAE'TER SESSIONS. 103 
 
 attaolies only wliere, if any person were rated, the Crown 1891. 
 would haye to pay the rate. The exemption arises from l 0. 0. 
 the iaahOity to make the Crown pay. [Sir P. H. Edlin : 
 In the cases cited, there were land and buildings which "union! 
 would otherwise have been rated, apart from the actual 
 occupation at the time ; here the soil is vested ia the lord 
 of the manor, subject to the right of the public to roam 
 over it ; and, but for the special Acts, this lodge could not 
 have been built.] The exemption cannot extend to all 
 buildings used for public purposes, because a school board 
 has been held rateable : see R. v. School Board for London, 
 Eyde's Eat. App. (1886— 90), 235 ; 17 Q. B. D. 738. The 
 present case is distinguishable from London County Coun- 
 cil V. Wandsworth and Clapham Union, Eyde's Eat. App. 
 (1886 — 90), 220, for there the lake was included in and 
 formed part of Battersea Park, which was an inclosed 
 area ; here the lodge forms no part of the open and un- 
 iaolosed common. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. EdHn, Q.C.) : The Court is 
 against you, Mr. Bullen ; but if, after consideration, you 
 think it worth while, we will grant you a case for the 
 opinion of the Queen's Bench Division. On a careful 
 review of all the circumstances, we think that this lodge 
 is within the exemption, because it is occupied by a person 
 whose exclusive duty it is, under the statutes, to look after, 
 and keep order on, the common. We come to this con- 
 clusion quite apart from the question whether it is possible 
 to sever the occupation of the house from the general 
 expenses incurred in connection with the common. Not- 
 withstanding the local Act (9 Geo. 4, c. xliii.), we do not 
 think the County Council can be regarded as in beneficial 
 occupation of the lodge. We must erase the entry from 
 
 the valuation list (a). 
 
 Appeal allowed. 
 
 (a) No applioation was made by the respondents for a case for the 
 opinion of the Queen's Bench Division. 
 
104 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. London County Council v. The Lewisham Union 
 — Assessment Committee and the Commissioners of 
 
 Public Baths and Wash-houses foe the Parish of 
 Lewisham. 
 
 Public Baths — Occupation in Discharge of Statutory Duty — Absence 
 of Profit — Bate of Interest on Cost. 
 
 The Commissioners of Public Baths and Wash-houses for the 
 Parish of Lewisham, in the discharge of statutory duties, bought 
 land and erected thereon buildings to be used as public baths, at a 
 total cost of about 13,000?. The baths were assessed at 1251. rate- 
 able value. They -were carried on at a loss. Some of the charges 
 which could be made for the use of them were restricted by statute. 
 The respondents' witness stated that a tenant who was free from the 
 statutory restrictions could not be found to give more than 2ldl. a 
 year under a lease ; the appellants' witness thought that such a 
 tenant would give 500?. a year. 
 
 Held, that the rateable value must be increased to 2151. 
 
 The commissioners were able to borrow from the London County 
 Council at 3J per cent. 
 
 Whether, in taking cost of the land and buildings as evidence of 
 rateable value, it was permissible to calculate any higher interest 
 thereon than 3^ per cent., quoere. 
 
 Semhle, in estimating the rateable value of public baths the 
 sessions disregarded the cost of land and buildings. 
 
 Appeal relating to the public baths, Dartmouth Eoad, 
 in the parish of Lewisham, by the London County Council, 
 as ratepayers in respect of the fire brigade station and 
 other premises in the same parish. 
 
 The overseers assessed the premises at 60/. gross and 50/. 
 rateable value ; on objection being made by the London 
 County Council, the assessment committee raised the assess- 
 ment to 150/. gross and 125/. rateable value. Against 
 this decision the County Council appealed, contending for 
 a further increase to 654/. gross and 545/. rateable value. 
 
 The material sections of the Public Baths and Wash- 
 houses Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 74), are as follows :— 
 
 By s. 5, a resolution for the adoption of the Act in a 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 105 
 
 particular parish, may be passed at a specially convened 1891. 
 vestry meeting; and by s. 6, the vestry may appoint ^ c. C. 
 commissioners for carrying the Act into execution. '"■ 
 
 By s. 16, the expenses of executing the Act are to be Assessment 
 paid out of the poor rate ; and by s. 17, the overseers are ^^^^co^- 
 to levy, as part of the poor rate, such sums as the vestry misbionees 
 deem necessary to pay the expenses. Baths ajst, 
 
 By s. 18, any balance (after 'repayment of moneys Wash-houses, 
 borrowed) of money raised for defraying expenses, and of 
 income arising from the baths, is to be paid to the overseers 
 in aid of the poor rate. 
 
 By s. 24, the commissioners " may from time to time 
 contract for the purchasing or renting of any lands neces- 
 sary for the purposes of this Act " ; and by s. 27, they 
 may " contract for the purchase or lease of any baths and 
 wash-houses already or hereafter to be built and pro- 
 vided." 
 
 By s. 31 the commissioners (with the approval of the 
 vestry, and of the Treasury) "may from time to time make 
 sale and dispose of any lands vested .... in the com- 
 missioners for the purposes of this Act, and apply the 
 proceeds in or towards the purchase of other lands better 
 adapted for such purposes, and may, with the like approval, 
 exchange any lands so vested, and either with or without 
 paying or receiving any money for equality of exchange, 
 for any other lands better adapted for such purposes, . . . 
 and the commissioners may convey the lands so sold or 
 exchanged accordingly." 
 
 By s. 32, " Whenever any public baths or wash-houses 
 or open bathing-places which shall have been for seven 
 years or upwards established under the authority of this 
 Act shall be determiued by the vestry in accordance with 
 a previous recommendation of the commissioners, to be 
 unnecessary or too expensive to be kept up, the commis- 
 sioners (with the approval of the Treasury) may sell the 
 same for the best price that can reasonably be obtained for 
 the same, and the .... commissioners shall convey the 
 
J-Oe LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. same accordingly .... and the net proceeds of sucli sale 
 L. c. C. shall he paid to the credit of " the poor rate. 
 , *"■ By s. 7 of 10 & 11 Vict. c. 61, charges for the use of 
 
 Assessment haths, wash-houses, and open bathing places may not 
 Airo^'aiM:- exceed the rates mentioned in the schedule to that Act. 
 MissioNEEs By s. 5 of the Baths and "Wash-houses Act, 1878 (41 & 
 Baths AND 42 Yict. c. 14), the commissioners have power to close a 
 Wash-houses, swimmins: bath for a limited period in the winter months, 
 and "may establish therein a gymnasium or such other 
 means of healthful recreation as they shall think fit, or 
 may during such period allow any swimming bath to be 
 used as an empty building for such purposes of healthful 
 recreation or exercise as they shaU think fit during such 
 period as aforesaid, and may at any time allow any 
 portion of the public baths not required by the commis- 
 sioners to be used for holding vestry meetings or other 
 parochial purposes; provided always that no svranming 
 bath when closed may be used for music or dancing." 
 
 By s. 4 of the Act of 1878, charges may be made for 
 the use of covered swimming baths, not exceeding the 
 rates specified in the schedule to the Act ; and, by s. 8, 
 the commissioners may " make such reasonable charges for 
 the use of the gymnasium or other means of recreation 
 established under this Act, or for the use of any covered 
 swimming bath as an empty room, as they shall think fit." 
 The baths, the subject of this appeal, were established 
 in 1885, and the respondents in their case alleged that the 
 receipts (on the average of five years ending March 25, 1890) 
 had been inadequate to pay the expenses, apart from the 
 interest on the mortgage debt, and that the commissioners 
 had received large contributions from the rates to meet 
 the deficit in respect of the expenses, and of the interest 
 on the mortgage debt. The respondents contended that 
 since the establishment of the baths in 1885, " it would 
 have been impossible for a tenant occupying them, with 
 the restrictions as to charges imposed by s. 7 of 10 & 11 
 Yict. 0. 61, to have made any profit whatsoever " : and 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 107 
 
 they further contended that the assessment fixed by the 1891. 
 
 assessment committee " either represents or is in excess of i7~c~C 
 the annual rent "which a tenant from year to year, even if *• 
 
 unfettered as to user and unrestricted as to charges would assessment 
 
 give if the premises were in the market " (a). Committee 
 
 ° ^ _ _ * ' AMD THE COM- 
 
 In the accounts of the commissioners, the " land and missionees 
 structure " were put down as having cost 13,801/. It was BAinrAND 
 not suggested that there had been any needless or extra- "Wash-houses, 
 vagant outlay, or that equally suitable premises could 
 have been erected on a cheaper site. 
 
 JE[. E. Avory for the appellants : As ratepayers in respect 
 of the fire brigade station in this parish, the London 
 County Council asked for, and obtained, a gross value 
 calculated at 4 per cent, and 6 per cent, respectively, on 
 the cost of land and buildings. They now ask that the 
 gross value of these baths should be calculated on the same 
 principle. The absence of profit is immaterial, since R. v. 
 School Board for London, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890), 
 235 ; 17 Q. B. D. 738. The baths are used ia the winter 
 months for concerts, &c. ; as to this user, the commissioners 
 are under no restriction as to charges. 
 
 The followiag evidence was given for the appellants : — 
 Mr. Spencer Ohadwick said there was half an acre of land 
 which was said to have cost 607/. : taking 4 per cent, on 
 this sum and adding it to 5 per cent, on the estimated 
 cost of the buildiags (12,185/.), he arrived at a total of 
 633/., which he put as the gross value ; although he sub- 
 mitted that, according to the practice of the Court, this 
 sum should have been taken as the rateable value. From 
 the gross the witness deducted one-sixth, leaving a rateable 
 value of 528/. The buildings were constructed for, and 
 were suitable to, the purposes for which they were used. 
 
 [a] It will te found tiat this latter contention of the respondents is 
 based on the rule laid down by the Queen's Bench Division in dealing 
 with [inter alia) baths and wash-houses, in Overseers of Chorllon-ttpon- 
 Medlook v. Gua/rdians of Charlton Union [1882], 51 L. J. Q. B. 458. 
 
108 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS, 
 
 1891. A tenant who was under no restriction as to charges for 
 
 lTcTo the use as baths and for concerts, could he found to give 
 
 "■ 5001. a year for these premises. The witness said that 
 
 Assessment haths were actually carried on, in London, at a profit, 
 
 ComiiTTEE -^j^ charffcs as low as those made in the Lewisham 
 
 AITD THE UOM- o 
 
 MissioNEEs baths. 
 
 Baths mmd ^r. Andrew Young, the valuer of the London County 
 Wash-hotjses, Council, valued the premises at 659^. gross, and 550/. rate- 
 able value, applying the same percentages which Mr. Ohad- 
 wick adopted, to almost identical figures. The witness 
 stated that the commissioners could borrow money from 
 the London County Council at 3| per cent. 
 
 Evidence as to the principle acted upon by the assess- 
 ment committee in valuing other premises was tendered, 
 but was objected to by the respondents and disallowed. 
 
 Poland, Q.C. (T. T. Paine with him), for the respondents: 
 It is not contended that the baths must be rated as if the 
 appellants were prohibited from making a profit. There 
 is no restriction on the charges which may be made, while 
 the baths are used for the purposes permitted by the Baths 
 and Wash-houses Act, 1878 ; but although the baths have 
 been used for those purposes, there is stiU de facto a loss. 
 Had there been a large profit, no doubt the assessment 
 would have been based on that profit. The commissioners 
 are bound to carry on the baths for seven years ; and 
 though at the end of that time they can close the baths, 
 they cannot do so till then : see s. 32 of 9 & 10 Yict. c. 74 
 {supra, p. 105). The commissioners must, therefore, be 
 excluded from consideration as possible hypothetical 
 tenants, for they are in the same position as the appellants 
 in Owens College v. Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Eyde's Eat. 
 App. (1886—1890) 256: Lord Esher, M.E., there said (at 
 p. 265) : " We must bear in mind that the appellants are 
 a corporation created by statute, and have, therefore, only 
 the powers given them by statute. It seems to me that, 
 looking at the provisions of the statutes, it is a necessary 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 109 
 
 implication tliat the appellants cannot become tenants of 1891. 
 those premises, of -which, by statute, they are made the l. C. C. 
 owners, and which they cannot sell, let, or dispose of. It «'■ 
 
 seems to me that the appellants cannot be taken into Assessment 
 
 account as possible hypothetical tenants ; because it is im- <^°"^t™^ 
 
 '^ •' ^ ' AKD THE UOM- 
 
 possible to ask what persons would give as tenants, when missionees 
 ex hypothesi they cannot be tenants." And Bowen, L.J., ^^ths'Iot 
 said {lb., at p. 266) : " The land and buildings in question 'V^h-houses, 
 have been purchased by the appellants, and are vested in 
 them. I do not think we need consider whether they 
 originally had power to rent a site ; they have, in fact, 
 bought one, and can neither sell it nor let it, but must 
 continue to occupy it for their statutory purposes. . . . 
 They must be excluded from a list of persons willing to 
 give a rent, because, as matters now stand, they cannot 
 ever become tenants of the site of these buildings. . . . 
 We must, therefore, consider what other possible tenants 
 would give for these premises ; and we must assume that 
 those tenants are fettered by the same restrictions as are 
 imposed upon the appellants by the Acts of Parliament." 
 The last sentence cited is inconsistent with the principle 
 adopted by the Queen's Bench Division in Overseers of 
 Chorlton-upon-Medlocli v. Guardians of Chorlton Union 
 [1882], 51 L. J. Q. B. 458 ; it was there held that in 
 rating baths and laundries, board schools, and other build- 
 ings of a like character, the true measure of rateable value 
 was " the rent which a tenant, unfettered as to user, and 
 unrestricted as to charges, would give if the premises were 
 in the market." No tenant of the Lewisham Baths, taking 
 them as fettered by the Acts relating thereto, could make 
 a profit. In R. v. School Board for London, Hyde's Rat. 
 App. (1886—1890) 235 ; 17 a B. D. 738, it was held 
 that interest on cost of construction was evidence only, and 
 not the conclusive criterion of rateable value : and when 
 that case was before the Queen's Bench Division, it was 
 said that " interest on cost is a rough test undoubtedly. 
 It is a test in some cases, but it is not a test in others " : 
 
110' LOiroON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. vide per Cave, J., 55 L. J. M. C. at p. 37. In the present 
 
 T Q f, case, assuming that cost is eyidence of rateable value, it 
 
 «• cannot he right to take 4 per cent, on the price of the land 
 
 AssEssMEXT a^nd 5 per cent, on the cost of the buildings, when the com- 
 
 CoMMnrreE migsioners can borrow money from the London County 
 
 MISSI0NEE3 Council at 3 J per cent. (a). They would not, therefore, 
 
 Riim^ pay to a contractor any higher percentage than 3^ per 
 
 Wash-hotjses, cent, on the total cost. 
 
 EwisHAM. rpj^^ clerk to the commissioners having proved that the 
 accounts showed a loss, the respondents called one surveyor 
 only, Mr. W. J. Dyer, who stated that if the baths were in 
 the market, without any statutory restriction as to charges, 
 a tenant could not be found to give more than 275/. a year 
 under a lease. 
 
 S. E. Avm-y for the appellants, in reply : The Owens 
 College Case, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890) 256, has no 
 application : that decision rested entirely on the provisions 
 of the special Acts, which prohibited the then appellants 
 from ever being tenants of their freehold property: 
 in the present case, by s. 24 of 9 & 10 Yict. c. 74 (set out 
 supra, p. 105), the commissioners may " contract for the 
 purchasing or renting of any lands necessary " ; by s. 27, 
 they may purchase or lease existing baths, &c. ; and, by 
 s. 31, they may "from time to time make sale and dispose 
 of any lands " ; and, by s. 2, " lands" means " lands, tene- 
 ments, and hereditaments, of whatsoever nature or tenure." 
 The fact that the commissioners have in fact bought this 
 site is immaterial ; if they might (had they chosen) have 
 
 (a) It seems to have escaped the attention of counsel and of the Court 
 that the suggestion here made is not strictly accnrate. The appellants' 
 ■witnesses took 4 per cent, on the cost of the land, added to S per cent, on 
 the cost of the buildings, as representiiig the gross Talae, and made a 
 deduction of one-sixth on the ivhole in order to arrive at the rateable 
 value, which was, therefore, equivalent to 3|^ per cent, on the cost of the 
 land, plus 4J on the cost of the buildings. It is obvious that whatever 
 rate of interest the commissioners had to pay on money borrowed for the 
 construction of the baths, they would have to pay, in addition, the annual 
 cost of repairs : the interest, therefore, represents rateable and not gross 
 value. 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. lit 
 
 Ijeooine tenants : see the explanation of the Owens College 1891. 
 Case, in the Mayor, Sfc. of Burton-upon- Trent v. Burton- ^ C. C. 
 upon-Trent Union, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890), at ^^ ^-^^^ 
 pp. 319, 324. A statutory duty to keep open these haths Assessment 
 is laid upon the commissioners, similar to the statutory ^°j^™™ . 
 duty to keep open a school in R. v. School Board for missionebs 
 London, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890), 235, and that BTTmiND 
 case governs this. If it was worth while to spend ahout Wash-houses, 
 
 ^^ ... . IjEWISHAM. 
 
 13,000^., that fact is some evidence of value to the commis- 
 sioners. The witnesses on both sides agree that a private 
 person could he found as a tenant, and the respondents' 
 own witness says that such a tenant would give 275^. a 
 year. Perhaps the commissioners would give much more 
 than that, and they, being the actual odoupiers, must be 
 taken into account as possible hypothetical tenants. 
 
 The Chairman- (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.G.) : Considering 
 the relative position of the parties to this appeal, we think 
 that further litigation is to be deprecated. We think that 
 there should be an increase, but not so large as the appel- 
 lants have contended for. We raise the assessment to 330/. 
 gross and 275/. rateable value ; there will be no order as to 
 costs {a). 
 
 Appeal allowed. 
 
 (a) It seems (from an examination of the figures) that the sessions dis- 
 regarded interest on the cost of land and buildings. The question as to 
 the rate of interest "was raised again in London County Council y. Woolwich 
 Union, infra, p. 126; and of . TTeslminster Union v. Wandsworth and Clap- 
 ham Union, supra, p. 31. 
 
 It should be noticed that the Owens College Case, cited in the argument 
 of the case above reported, has since been overruled by the House of 
 Lords : vide infra, p. 382. 
 
112 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. London, Chatham and Dovek Eailwat Compaitt v, 
 
 '^""^ ^°- St. Saviour's Union. 
 
 Practice — Appoirdmenf of Valtier — Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869, 
 
 s. 36. 
 It ia for the sessions, and not for the parties to the appeal, to 
 nominate the valuer appointed under s. 36 of the Valuation (Metro- 
 polis) Act, 1869. 
 
 Application by consent of the parties in three appeals 
 which were to be heard together for the appointment of a 
 valuer under s. 36 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, 
 which provides that, " If any of the parties to the appeal 
 apply to the justices in [quarter] sessions to direct a 
 valuation of any hereditament with respect to which any 
 appeal may be made, and if such applicant or applicants 
 give such security as the Court think proper, to pay the 
 costs of the valuation, the Court may, in their discretion, 
 appoint some proper person to make such valuation." 
 
 Freeman for the appellants : The Court are asked to select 
 a valuer from those whose names are now submitted to the 
 Court. 
 
 Fullarton, Q,.C., for the respondents : It is also asked 
 that the parties have leave to appear before the valuer by 
 counsel, and to call witnesses. It may be that costs would 
 not be allowed unless this were included in the order of the 
 Court. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : It is better to 
 leave the appointment to the Court. We should communi- 
 cate with the parties before making it. A valuer appointed 
 under s. 36 is not like an arbitrator, the nominee of the 
 parties. 
 
 The order asked for (as to the appearance before the 
 valuer, &c.) was directed to be drawn up, with a recital that 
 it was made " by the consent of the parties to the appeal " ; 
 and it was further ordered that the parties should joia in 
 giving security for 500/, for the costs of the three appeals. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 113 
 
 Mercia V. Lewisham Union. 1891. 
 
 June 18. 
 
 Praclice—Time — Abandonment of Appeal— Costs — Notice of Intention — ^ 
 
 to appear as Respondents. 
 
 An appeal to quarter sessions was entered after January 14, the 
 date fixed by 0. 5, 1890. On January 24 the appellant gave to the 
 respondents notice of the abandonment of the appeal. The respon- 
 dents gave to the appellant no notice of their intention to appear as 
 respondents. On March 26 the appeal -was struck out without 
 notice to the respondents. On June 18 the respondents moved for 
 a reinstatement of the appeal, and for an order giving them their 
 costs down to the date of abandonment. 
 
 Held, that the respondents were entitled to the costs asked for, 
 but that the motion should be, in addition, for an order that the 
 appeal be entered. 
 
 Motion for an order "that the appeal herein which has 
 been struck out by mistake be reinstated, and that the 
 costs incurred by the respondents in the matter of the said 
 appeal down to the withdrawal thereof, and the costs of 
 and incidental to the motion, be paid by the appellant to 
 the respondents." 
 
 The question arose out of the following facts ; the appeal 
 was entered after January 14, 1891, and was entered at the 
 foot of the printed list of appeals issued by the Clerk of the 
 Court, under the heading " Petitions lodged after the 14th 
 January." The appellant did not enter into recognizances 
 or make any deposit by way of security for costs ; and on 
 January 24, 1891, gave notice of abandonment of the 
 appeal to the respondents and to the Clerk of the Court. 
 On March 26 the appeal was said to have been struck 
 out (a) ; but this was done without notice to the respon- 
 dents. 
 
 By 0. 2, 1890, on an appeal to quarter sessions the appel- 
 lant " shall within seven days after giving notice of appeal 
 
 . (a) The Editor finds in his notes no report of any such order being 
 made in open Court on the application of either of the parties to the 
 appeal. 
 
 R. 1 
 
114 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 Meecia 
 
 V. 
 
 Lewishah 
 Union. 
 
 enter into recognizances .... conditioned for the due pro- 
 secution of the appeal, and for the payment of any costs 
 ordered to be paid by the appellant." 
 
 By 0. 3, 1890, where recognizances have not been 
 entered into, " the Court may, if it sees fit so to do, waive 
 all or any of such recognizances, and proceed to hear the 
 appeal notwithstanding such omission." 
 
 By 0. 5, 1890, "Appeals to quarter sessions shall be 
 entered by petition, to be lodged in duplicate with the 
 clerk of the Court on or before the 14th January, &c." 
 
 By 0. 6, 1890, " In an appeal to quarter sessions the 
 person or persons claiming to appear as respondents shall 
 give notice in writing of his or their intention so to 
 appear . . . and such notice shall be delivered to the clerk 
 of the Court, and served on the appellant within fourteen 
 days after the time limited by 0. 5 for the entry of the 
 appeal, and the person or persons omitting to give such 
 notice shall not be heard unless by special leave of the 
 Court, until he or they shall have given such notice or 
 complied with such terms as the Court may think fit to 
 direct or impose." 
 
 T. T. Paine for the respondents, in support of the 
 motion : The respondents are entitled to costs bonoL fide 
 incurred in preparing their case down to the date of notice 
 of abandonment of the appeal. The respondents had no 
 notice that the appeal was about to be struck out. 
 
 Mirams for the appellant : The costs asked for were 
 incurred prematurely. The respondents did not give the 
 appellant notice that they intended to appear, as required 
 by 0. 6, 1890. 
 
 T. T. Paine in reply : The respondents omitted to give 
 notice, because, before the expiry of the fourteen days 
 allowed for the purpose, they received the appellant's notice 
 of abandonment. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.O.) : I thint the 
 respondents are entitled to the costs incurred by them in 
 good faith, down to the notice of abandonment ; but there 
 has been no motion to enter the appeal. Mr. Paine 
 should amend his motion by asking that for the purpose 
 of that motion the appeal may be entered, so as to make 
 himself rectus in curia. The appellant must pay the costs 
 asked for, including the costs of this motion. The question 
 of amount ■wiU be settled on taxation (a). 
 
 115 
 
 1891. 
 
 Mekoia 
 
 V. 
 
 Lewisham 
 Union. 
 
 The Committee of Visitors of the Middlesex County isqi. 
 Lunatic- Asylum at Wandsworth v. The Wands- 0<^toier 21. 
 
 WORTH AND ClAPHAM UnION. 
 
 Lunatic Asylum — Hypothetical Tenant — Owner m Occupation — Power 
 to rent Premises — Bateahle Value — Interest on Value of Lands and 
 Buildings — Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 5), ss. 261, 263. 
 
 The appellants were the owners and occupiers of lands and build- 
 ings used for a lunatic asylum. By statute it was their duty to 
 provide an asylum, and they had power for that purpose either to 
 purchase lands and buildings, or to take a lease thereof for any term 
 not less than sixty years. 
 
 Held, that inasmuch as the appellants had power to be tenants of 
 
 (a) A technical objection to the order above reported has been suggested 
 to the Editor, and may be stated as follows : — That the entry of the appeal 
 (not being within the time Umited by the statute and the orders made 
 thereunder) was, until the Court granted an extension of time, a nullity ; 
 that, consequently, at the date of the notice of abandonment, the appeal 
 was not before the Court at all ; and that an appeal cannot be brought 
 before the Court without the consent of the appeUant. 
 
 In answer to this objection it is submitted that the decision of the 
 Queen's Bench Division in R. v. Ingall [1876], Met. Rat. App. 176; 
 2 Q,. B. D. 199, shows that the provisions of the Valuation (Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869, as to time, are directory and not imperative; that the provi- 
 sions as to time contained in the Orders of the Quarter Sessions made 
 under s. 27 of the Act of 1869 cannot be more binding than the provisions 
 of the Act itself ; and that, consequently, the entry of an appeal too late 
 is an irregularity merely, and not a nullity. It may, perhaps, be further 
 suggested that an appellant is estopped from saying that his own act 
 (viz., the entry of the appeal) is a nullity; or, at any rate, that he is 
 estopped after electing to treat that act as valid ; and that the giving of 
 a notice of abandonment implies such an election, inasmuch as if the 
 entry be a uuUity, abandonment is not necessary, or even possible. 
 
 i2 
 
116 LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. an asylum, they must be taken into consideration as possible tenants 
 
 ~l ~~ thereof. 
 
 Middlesex ^- '^- ^'^^°°^ ^"'"''^ Z*"" London, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890), 
 
 CoOTTY 235 ; 17 Q. B. D. 738, foUowed. 
 
 LuNAno Owens College v. Overseers of Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Eyde's Eat. 
 
 AsTiuM ^pp^ (1886—1890), 256; 18 Q,. B. D. 403, distinguished. 
 
 Waitdswoeth The sessions, in estimating the rateable yalue of a county lunatic 
 
 AOT) Clapham: asylum, receiyed evidence of the capital yalue of the land and 
 Union. , ., .. 
 
 buildings. 
 
 Qiicere, what is the proper percentage on the yalue of land and 
 buildings, to be taken as the rateable yalue, when they are occupied 
 for public purposes by a public body who are able to borrow money 
 at an exceptionally low rate of interest. 
 
 Semhle, the sessions, in calculating rateable yalue, took a lower 
 rate of interest on the yalue of the buildings than 5 per cent. 
 
 Appeal against an assessment of 11,000/. gross and 
 9,167/. rateable, in respect of the "asylum, lodge, and 
 outbuildings " at Wandsworth. 
 
 The provisions relating to the purchase of lands and 
 buildings for the purposes of a county lunatic asylum are 
 contained in Part IX., ss. 238 — 266 of the Lunacy Act, 
 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 5). 
 
 By s. 238, every local authority (which term includes, 
 inter alia, a county council), "shall provide and maintain 
 an asylum or asylums for the accommodation of pauper 
 lunatics " ; and, by s. 239, " a local authority shall exercise 
 the powers conferred by this Act for providing asylum 
 accommodation by a visiting committee." 
 
 By s. 261 (1), "a visiting committee, instead of pur- 
 chasing any land or buildings which they are authorized 
 to purchase, may take a lease thereof for any term not less 
 than sixty years, at such rent and subject to such covenants 
 as the committee think fit." 
 
 (2) " A visiting committee, with the sanction of each 
 local authority for whom they are authorized to act, may 
 hire or take on lease from year to year, or for any term of 
 years, at such rent and subject to such covenants as they 
 think fit, any land or buildings for the employment of the 
 
LONDON QUAKTEE SESSIONS. 117 
 
 patients in the asylum, or for the temporary accommodation 1891. 
 of any pauper lunatics for whom the accommodation in the visitobs of 
 asylum is inadequate." Middlesex 
 
 By s. 263, " lands and buildings already or to he here- Lunatio 
 after purchased or acquired for the purposes of any asylum, Asylum 
 and any additional huilding erected or to he erected thereon, Wandsworth 
 shall, while used for those purposes, be assessed to county, ^\^^^^ 
 parochial, district, and other rates made after the commence- 
 ment of this Act, on the same basis and to the same extent 
 as other lands and buildings in the same parish, township, 
 or district." 
 
 [Although not material to this case, it may be con- 
 venient to state the repealed enactments relating to the 
 rating of county lunatic asylums. 
 
 By 16 & 17 Yict. c. 97, s. 35, "No lands or buildings 
 already or to he hereafter purchased or acquired, under the 
 provisions of any former Act or this Act, for the purposes 
 of any asylum (with or without any additional building 
 erected or to be erected thereon) , shall, while used for such 
 purposes, be assessed to any county, parochial, or other 
 local rates at a higher value or more unproved rent than 
 the value or rent at which the same were assessed at the 
 time of such purchase or acquisition." 
 
 This section was repealed by s. 94 of the Lunacy Acts 
 Amendment Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 41), which Act, 
 by s. 69, annulled the partial exemption of county lunatio 
 asylums ; that section was, however, repealed by s. 342 of 
 the Lunacy Act, 1890, and was re-enacted in almost 
 identical terms in s. 263 of that Act, which is set out 
 above.] 
 
 The question of law as to the principle of rating to be 
 applied to an asylum was first argued. 
 
 Poland, Q.C, and DancJcwerts for the appellants : It is 
 admitted that the asylum is rateable, but at a nominal sum 
 only. By s. 261 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, the appellants 
 have power to take a lease, but for a term of not less than 
 
118 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. sixty years ; they cannot consequently he sucli a tenant as 
 ViarroEs of is contemplated ty the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 
 MmDLESEx fpj^e case is therefore governed hy Otvem College v. Over- 
 LuNATio seers of Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Ryde's Rat. App. (1886 — 
 Asylum jggQ^ 256 ; 18 Q. B. D. 403, in which it was held that 
 ■Wandswoeth persons who are prevented hy statute from becoming 
 Union. tenants must he excluded from consideration as possible 
 tenants {a). The present appellants are so prevented; for 
 the power given by sub-s. (2) of s. 261 to " hire or take on 
 lease from year to year " for certain limited or temporary 
 purposes, amounts to an express prohibition, when read 
 with sub-s. (1), to take land from year to year for the 
 purpose of building an asylum. The question is one of 
 evidence rather than one of legal principle; the appellants 
 cannot by statute give any rent, and therefore evidence of 
 the rent which they would give is inadmissible. The 
 decision in the Owens College Case followed the rule laid 
 down by Lord Esher, M.R., in B. v. School Board for 
 London, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890) 2(35 ; 17 Q. B. D. 
 738. " No doubt you might exclude from consideration 
 anyone who by statute could never become a tenant." By 
 s. 263 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, land used for an asylum 
 is to be assessed " on the same basis and to the same extent 
 as other lands, &c." It is submitted that to rate an asylum 
 at a nominal sum is no departure from the ordinary prin- 
 ciples of rating. In ordinary eases the question is, what is 
 the rent which a tenant from year to year, with a reason- 
 able expectation of continuance, would give. In answer- 
 ing that question the Court must exclude from conside- 
 ration as possible competitors those who cannot by law 
 become competitors. . In Mat/or, 8fc. of Burton-upon- 
 Trent v. Burton-upon- Trent Union, Eyde's Eat. App. 
 (1886 — 1890), 314, the distinction was made that the 
 corporation could be tenants of .the sewage farm in ques- 
 tion. Turther, the premises must be valued as they are, 
 
 (a) The Owens College Case has now been overraled by the House of 
 Lords ; vide infra, p. 382. 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 119 
 
 under the existing circumstances. Per Lord Esher, M.E., 1891. 
 in Dewshury Waterworks Board v. Penistone Union [1886], vishoes oi? 
 17 Q. B. D. at p. 387, " Where land is occupied by a local Middltssex 
 authority for puhlio purposes, the land is to be assessed to Ltjnatm 
 the poor rate at the rent which a tenant would pay, if Asylum 
 subject to the same restrictions as are imposed, and entitled ■Wandbwoeth 
 to the same advantages as are conferred upon the local ^'^x^'^?™^ 
 authority." 
 
 G. JE. Lyon and G. Elliott for the respondents were not 
 called upon to argue. 
 
 The Chairman- (Sir P. H. Edlin) : The Lunacy Act, 
 1890, efEectually disposes of the point raised as to the 
 exclusion of the committee of visitors from consideration 
 as possible hypothetical tenants. This case is governed 
 by R. V. School Board for London, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886 
 —1890), 235 ; 17 Q. B. D. 738, and we must regard the 
 actual occupiers as possible tenants. We must then con- 
 sider all the circumstances affecting the appellants. The 
 restriction against taking a lease for less than sixty years 
 does not apply to the present case, because the appellants 
 are owners : their lands must, therefore, be valued on the 
 same basis as other lands and tenements. We have no 
 doubb that the committee are to be included among the 
 possible hypothetical tenants. 
 
 The hearing was then proceeded with, upon the facts 
 and the questions of value. 
 
 The appellants occupied about 122 acres of land in all, 
 of which about 96 acres were used as a farm, and were 
 separately rated at 236/. gross and 224/. rateable value. 
 There was also a superintendent's house and garden 
 separately rated at 150/. gross and 125/. rateable. 
 
 The asylum buildings were begun in 1841, and had 
 since been added to, from time to time, as occasion 
 required. At the date of the appeal they contained 
 accommodation for 1,068 patients. 
 
120 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. The asylum, up to 1888, belonged to the county of 
 
 VisiTOEs OP Surrey, and in the adjustments of property rendered 
 
 Middlesex necessary by the Local Grovernment Act, 1888, and the 
 
 LtriTATio creation of the county of London, was transferred first to 
 
 AsYiuM ^jjg London County Council and then to the Middlesex 
 
 Wandswobth County Council. 
 
 Union. -1* was assumed throughout the hearing thatthe Middlesex 
 
 County Council were able to borrow money at 3 per cent, 
 interest. 
 
 The following evidence was given for the appellants : — 
 Mr. Spencer Chadwick said the average cost of providing 
 asylum accommodation (including land), calculated on 
 seventeen asylums, was 128/. per patient. The witness 
 said that, excluding land, an asylum could be erected with 
 aU. modern improvements, and therefore better and more 
 economical in cost of maintenance than the present asylum, 
 for 120/. a head. This would come to a capital outlay of 
 128,160/. on buildings. He put the land (about twenty- 
 six acres) at 200/. an acre, which was its value for rating 
 purposes. It had been bought originally for 150/. an 
 acre, and a county authority would not have bought this 
 site if they had to pay the price of building land, which 
 would be as much as 600/. or 700/. an acre. On the total 
 capital value for land and buildings thus arrived at, 
 Mr. Chadwick took 3 per cent, (or 4,001/.) as the rateable 
 value, on the ground that the County Council would not 
 pay a higher percentage than this, inasmuch as they could 
 borrow money at 3 per cent., or even less. 
 
 Mr. Edward Eyde estimated the cost of erecting a 
 county asylum at 133/. per patient, which figures he 
 arrived at thus: — each patient would require on the 
 average 1,000 cubic feet for sleeping room, and the Kke 
 space for a living room ; to allow for the attendance, he 
 multiplied by two, thus getting a total of 4,000 cubic feet 
 for each patient. Buildings of the character required 
 could be erected for eightpehce per cubic foot, including 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 121. 
 
 land, and the capital cost for eacli patient would tlius be 1891. 
 133/., which, at 3 per cent., gave a rateable value of 4/. per Vishoes of 
 patient. An asylum with accommodation for 1,068 patients Middlesex 
 should, therefore, he worth 4,272/. rateable value. Some- Lunatic 
 thing must be deducted from this in the present case, on Astlum 
 the ground that the asylum had been built piecemeal, and WiNDswoEiH 
 
 , 1 » , . , AND ClAPHAM 
 
 was, thereiore, less convenient. Union. 
 
 Evidence was tendered as to the amount set down as the 
 value of the asylum in the apportionment of property made 
 under the Local Grovernment Act, 1888, between the 
 London and Middlesex County Councils. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : Should we not 
 have to look at all the other amounts in the calculation ? 
 Both councils may have put too high a value on their own 
 property which they were about to transfer. It would be 
 a very fallacious criterion. 
 
 The following evidence was given for the respondents : — 
 Mr. Charles Barker valued the land occupied by the 
 asylum proper (which he put at twenty-eight acres) at 750/. 
 an acre, making a capital value of 21,000/. The capital 
 value of the buildings he put at 188,840/. ; and taking 
 4 per cent, on the value of the land, and 5 per cent, on 
 that of the buildings, he arrived at a rateable value of 
 10,282/., and a gross value of 12,300/. The witness said 
 that building land in the neighbourhood was worth 1,000/. 
 an acre. 
 
 Sir P. H. Edlin : We should take a long time to come 
 to the conclusion that a public body, wanting land for an 
 asylum, would go where they would have to pay 1,000/. 
 an acre. 
 
 Mr. Barker said that he valued as building land the land 
 actually covered with buildings, and the gardens, &c. con- 
 nected therewith. It appeared that he had, by mistake, 
 
122 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. included the superintendent's house and garden, which were 
 ViBiTOEs oi' separately rated : the assessment thereon was to be deducted 
 Middlesex from his valuation. 
 
 (JOUUTY 
 
 Ltjnatio Mr. E. W. Hedley valued twenty-eight acres of land at 
 
 AsTLUM /j<gQ^_ (taking the area from Mr. B'arker) ; and the structural 
 Wabdswoeth value of the buildings at 181,557/. Taking 4 per cent, on 
 UmoK. t^s value of the land, added to 5 per cent, on that of the 
 buildings, as the rateable value, and adding thereto one- 
 fifth, his estimate was 11,900/. gross and 9,917/. rateable 
 value. 
 
 Mr. R. M. Hiscocks, the assistant to the district surveyor 
 of Wandsworth, valued the land (twenty-eight acres) at 
 1,000/. an acre, and the structural value of the buildings 
 at 198,068/. Taking the same percentages as the previous 
 witnesses, he arrived at a gross value of 13,227/., and a 
 rateable value of 11,023/. 
 
 G. E. Lyon for the respondents : Where the value of 
 land and the structural value of buildings is in point at 
 all, in calculating rateable value the ordinary percentage 
 must be taken, as representing what rent a landlord would 
 require. [Sir P. H. Eultn : Structural value is not the 
 basis of calculating rateable value ; it is only a criterion, 
 to be used or not, according to the circumstances of each 
 case.] It is not sought to put it as higher evidence than 
 rent paid under a lease. The Middlesex County Council 
 are not bound to put an asylum on this particular site, but 
 they must provide asylum accommodation. Had they done 
 so by buying land and building a new asylum, the cost of 
 land and buildings would have been some criterion of 
 rateable value. As to the rate of interest: in School 
 Board for London v. St. Mary, Islington [1886], Met. Eat. 
 App. 393, 4 per cent, on the value of the land, and 5 per 
 cent, on that of the buildings, were taken by the Court ; 
 (see p. 399) ; and the same, or even higher, percentages 
 were taken in School Board for London v. St. Giles-in-the- 
 Fields and St. George, Bloomsbury [1876], 2b., at p. 155. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 123 
 
 The decision of the sessions upon this point was adopted 1891. 
 by the Court of Appeal ; see It. v. School Board for Lon- Visitors op 
 don, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890), 235; 17 Q. B. D. ^^oXT 
 738 ; although the School Board can, and do, borrow Ltjnatio 
 large sums at lower rates of interest. In the Owens sylum 
 College Case, Eyde's Eat. App. (Ib86— 1890), at p. 266, Wandsworth 
 it was said by Bowen, Li.J ., " it there are persons who are Union. 
 bound by statute or otherwise to perform certain duties, 
 and who may reasonably be expected to rent the premises 
 to be rated, it is right that they should be taken into 
 account as competing with other possible tenants." In 
 the present case, any of the local authorities mentioned 
 in the Lunacy Act, 1890, would be willing to take this 
 asylum ; therefore they must be taken into account as 
 possible competitors. As to the value of the land : every 
 asylum must necessarily have, for the accommodation of the 
 patients, exercising grounds and gardens for their re- 
 creation. These must be within the curtilage; and all 
 land that is covered by buildings, or is within the curtilage, 
 must be rated as building land. In Wi/ndham v. St. Mary 
 Abbotts, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890), 97, it was con- 
 tended that a cricket- ground adjoining a college was not 
 part of the curtilage, and therefore was not to be rated on 
 its value as building land, but the assessment sessions 
 overruled the contention. 
 
 Poland, Q.C., in reply: It is assumed that the appellants 
 are rightly considered as possible tenants ; the question 
 therefore is, what rent would those tenants give? In 
 School Board for London v. St. Mary, Islington [1885], 
 Met. Eat. App., at p. 398, it was argued on behalf of the 
 respondents, that a school board must build their schools 
 in a crowded neighbourhood ; there is no such necessity in 
 the case of an asylum. All that is wanted is convenience 
 of access, where travelling expenses wiU be small. Build- 
 ing land, as such, is not necessary. As to the percentage 
 to be taken, that is a question of fact, not the subject of 
 
124 LONDON QUAKTEK SESSIONS. 
 
 1891; appeal from the sessions : the Court of Appeal, therefore, 
 ViaiTOKs OF could not, and, in fact, did not, deal with the decision of 
 Middlesex ^j^g sessions on this point in B. V. School Board for London, 
 LunItk Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890), 235. In St. Pancras v. 
 Asylum g^j^^^^ Board for London [1886], lb., at p. 169, the assess- 
 ■Wajstdswoeth ment sessions took SJ per cent, on the value of the land, 
 Union. and 4| per cent, on the cost of the buildings. In R. v. 
 South Staffordshire Waterworks Co. [1885], 16 Q. B. D. 
 359, where the works were larger than the existing re- 
 quirements of the company, 3 per cent, on structural value 
 was taken to arrive at rateable value. Cost of buildings 
 and value of land must be treated only as elements in the 
 calculation of rateable value ; the Court are not asked, nor 
 is it possible, to fix a definite percentage, and so lay down 
 a hard and fast rule. It is unreasonable to suppose that a 
 county council would pay a rent equivalent to 4 per cent, 
 and 5 per cent, on the value of land and buildings respec- 
 tively, when they can borrow money for the purchase of 
 such land and buildings at 3 per cent. The respondents 
 put this asylum in Class 5 of Schedule III. to the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 : — " Buildiiigs without 
 land which are not liable to inhabited house duty, and are 
 of a gross value of 40^. or upwards :" it is submitted that 
 it should have been put in Class 11 : — "Rateable heredita- 
 ments not included in any of the foregoing classes." 
 [This point was not contested by the respondents.] 
 
 The Chaikman (Sir P. H. Edlin) : We reduce the 
 assessment to 8,333^. gross and 6,250^. rateable value, and 
 give the appellants their costs. "We put the property in 
 Class 11, and have deducted one-third from the gross 
 value {a). 
 
 Appeal allowed. 
 
 [a) The Court gave no indioation of the ■way in which they arrived at 
 the figures. It seems, however, clear that they took some lower rate of 
 interest than 5 per cent, on the value of the buildings, if the value of 
 land and buildings was dealt with separately. Por the lowest separate 
 estimate for buildings alone {viz., 128,160?.), at 6 per cent., gives a 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 125 
 
 EoYAL Agricultural Hall Co. v. St. Mary, Islington. 1891- 
 
 October 28. 
 
 Agricultural Hall — Accounts — For what Tear to he taken. 
 
 Qucere, ■wtether tlie accounts of a company publislied after the 
 revision of a list by the assessment committee, and after the entry 
 of the appeal, can be looked at, except by consent of the parties. 
 
 Appeal against an assessment of 5,675^. gross and 
 4,563/. rateable value, in the quinquennial list, made in 
 
 1890, in respect of the Eoyal Agricultural Hall. 
 
 The previous decisions relating to the rating of this 
 hereditament are reported, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886 — 1 890), 
 193, 272. 
 
 Castle, Qi.C. {Walter C. Ryde with him), for the appel- 
 lants : It is proposed to hase the calculations of rateable 
 value on an average of three years' accounts. 
 
 Poland, Q,.C. {J. V. Austin with him), for the respon- 
 dents: The accounts for the year ending January 31st, 
 
 1891, should be looked at, and will show an increase in 
 rateable value. 
 
 [It will be noticed that the accounts, which the respon- 
 dents sought to refer to, related to a period not merely 
 subsequent to the decision of the assessment committee, but 
 subsequent also to the entry of the appeal.] 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin) : Can we bring in 
 these accounts without the consent of the appellants ? The 
 respondents can show that the business fluctuates. 
 
 rateable value of 6,408Z., or a higher sum for bviildings alone than that 
 fixed by the Court for the whole hereditament. If the twenty-six acres 
 of land be taken at 700?. an acre (the value put by one of the appellants' 
 witnesses as building land), and the buildings be put at 140,000/., 3 per 
 cent, on land, plus 4 per cent, on buildings, gives a rateable value of 
 6,146?., as against 6,250/. fixed by the Court. These percentages were 
 expressly taken by the Court in ioMifore County Council v. Woolwich Union, 
 infra, p. 126. It is obvious that if for either land or buildings the 
 higher capital values estimated by the respondents' witnesses are taken, 
 the percentages above mentioned must be reduced. 
 
1-26 
 
 1891. 
 
 LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 Castle, Q,.0. : The appellants do not object to the 
 
 AsKicuL- proposal, provided that any rise in value that may be 
 
 TTOAL Hall g]iown is not used over again as a ground for making a 
 
 V. provisional list. 
 
 St. Maet, 
 
 Sir P. H. Edlin : We eould state in our judgment that 
 we had looked at the accounts up to January 31st, 1891. 
 
 Ultimately, the question of value was settled by a com- 
 promise upon the following terms : — The assessment to be 
 reduced to 5,500^. gross and 4,000Z. rateable value; no 
 order as to costs : upon the understanding that this arrange- 
 ment was to last for the quinquennial period, in the absence 
 of any very exceptional circumstances {a). 
 
 Appeal allowed. 
 
 1891. 
 
 Nov. 23, 24, 
 
 26, 27. 
 
 The London County Council v. The Assessment Com- 
 mittee OF the Woolwich Union. 
 
 Sewage Works — Hypothetical Tenant — Occupation hy Public Body for 
 Public Purposes — Structural Cost — Structural Value — Bate of 
 Interest on Value of Land and Buildings. 
 
 Th.6 Metropolitan Board of Works, in discharge of statutory 
 duties, acquired lands and erected works, buildings, &c., thereon, 
 for the purpose of dealing with the sewage of the Metropolis. For 
 some years the sewage was discharged into the Thames ia a crude 
 state, whereby the river became polluted : to remedy the pollution, 
 the sewage was subjected to chemical treatment, whereby the solid 
 matter in suspension was precipitated, and the effluent was purified 
 before being discharged into the river. In consequence of the 
 adoption of the new system of treatment, parts of the works already 
 constructed became unnecessaay. In the original construction of 
 the works, the foundations had been carried down to a greater 
 
 [a) A similar question as to aooounts was raised in South Metropolitan 
 Gas Co. V. Cfreenwich Union, supra, p. 56 ; London Sydraulic Powei- Co. v. 
 City of London Union, infra, p. 138; Gas Light and Coke Go. v. City of 
 London Union, infra, p. 204 ; London and India, Docks Joint Committee v. 
 Foplar Union, infra, p. 153. See also South Metropolitan Gas Co. v. St. 
 Olave\, Met. Eat. App. 305 ; and London Street Tramways Co. T. Islington, 
 Eyde's Bat. App. (1886-90) 147. 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. |27 
 
 L. 0. C. 
 
 depth, and at a greater cost, than -would otherwise have heen 1891. 
 necessary, — (1) in consequence of the support required for parts of 
 the -works -which under the new system of treatment -were unneces- 
 sary ; and (2) in consequence of the unsuitahle character of the soil. 'Woolwioh 
 The -works -were, under the Local Government Act, 1888, vested in Union. 
 the appellants, to -whom the statutory duties of the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works -were transferred. 
 
 Held, that in calculating the rateable value of the -works, the 
 appellants must be taken into account as possible hypothetical 
 tenants. 
 
 Mayor, &c. of Burton-upon- Trent v. Burton-upon- Trent Union, 
 Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90), 314; 24 Q. B. D. 197 ; and B. v. School 
 Board for London, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90), 235 ; 17 Q. B. D. 
 738, foUo-wed. 
 
 Metropolitan Board of WorJes v. Overseers of West Sam [1870], 
 L. E. 6 Q. B. 193, not followed. 
 
 Held, further, that in calculating the rateable value of the -works, 
 the costs of those parts -which, under the new system of ta^eating the 
 sewage, -were unnecessary, together -with the cost of the additional 
 foundations required for those parts, must not be taken into account. 
 
 B. V. Mile End Old Town [1847], 10 ft. B. 208 ; 16 L. J. M. 0. 
 184, foUo-wed. 
 
 Held, ho-wever, that the cost of the additional foundations rendered 
 necessary by the unsuitable character of the soil must be taken into 
 account in calculating the rateable value. 
 
 The respondents contended that the rateable value of the se-wage 
 ■works should be calculated at 4 per cent, on the value of the land, 
 added to 5 per cent, on the value of the buildings. The appellants 
 contended that, as they -were able to borro-w money at the rate of 
 less than 3 per cent., the rateable value of the -works should not 
 exceed 3 per cent, on the value of land and buildings. 
 
 Held, that if the appellants -were regarded as possible hypothetical 
 tenants, both they and the hypothetical landlord must be assumed 
 to have regard, in fixing the rent, to the appellants' power to borro-w 
 money at less than 3 per cent, in order to provide themselves -with 
 equally suitable premises elsewhere. 
 
 Semhle, the question of the proper percentage on the value of land 
 and buildings is a question of fact for the sessions to decide. 
 
 In this case the Court calculated the rateable value of the se-wage 
 ■works at 3 per cent, on the value of the land, added to 4 per cent. 
 on the value of the buildings. 
 
 This appeal related to the se-wage -works kno-wn as the 
 Northern Outfall "Works, situated on the hanks of the 
 
128 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. Thames in the parish of Woolwich, and used in connection 
 L. c. 0. with the metropolitan system of sewers ; but no part of 
 ™^ *■ the sewers themselves had been assessed. The property 
 
 Union. was vested in the appellants, as the successors in law of the 
 Metropolitan Board of Works, under the Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. e. 41), s. 40 (8), and was 
 described in the valuation list as " machinery, works and 
 buildings, reservoir, settling chambers, iron water station 
 house, coaling station, &c.," " land," and " deodorizing 
 works." Prior to the year 1890, the property had been 
 assessed at the nominal sums of 229^. gross and 201/. rate- 
 able value. The overseers in 1890 increased the assessment 
 to 2,419/. gross and 1,843/. rateable value; and the assess- 
 ment committee made a further increase to 31,878/. gross 
 and 25,646/. rateable value, but after hearing the appel- 
 lants' objection reduced these sums to 28,000/. gross and 
 23,000/. rateable value. 
 
 The appellants in paragraph 6 of their case, claimed a 
 reduction to 1,000/. gross and 667/. rateable value. Para- 
 graphs 9 and 10 of their case were as follows : — 
 
 9. The principle of assessment relied on and adopted by 
 the appellants with regard to the gross and rateable values 
 of the said Outfall Works is that laid down in the case of 
 The Metropolitan Board of Works v. Overseers of West Ham 
 [1870], L. E. 6 a B. 193: "That they are to be rated 
 at the value for which the same would let to a hypothetical 
 tenant from year to year, supposing they were not used 
 for the purpose of the main drainage scheme, but were 
 entirely disconnected therefrom and applied to any other 
 use or purpose for which they could be made available by 
 a tenant thereof." 
 
 10. The appellants will also contend that even if they be 
 taken into account as possible hypothetical yearly tenants, 
 the gross estimated value of the said hereditaments should 
 be reduced to 8,000/., and the rateable value to 5,334/. 
 
 Paragraph 12 of the respondents' case was as follows : — 
 " The respondents contend that it is not necessary to 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 129 
 
 rateability that the premises as actually occupied and 1891. 
 utilized, should yield or he capahle of yielding a eommer- l. C. c. 
 cial profit, and that it is sufficient if they could be let and „ *■ 
 ■would command a rent from any possible hypothetical yearly Union. 
 tenant, and that the appellants ought to be taken into 
 account as possible hypothetical tenants. The respondents 
 further contend that if the said premises belonged to a 
 private owner, he would let and the appellants would hire 
 them at a yearly rent sufficiently high, under the statutory 
 conditions, to support the sums for which the respondents 
 contend." 
 
 Poland, Q.C. {S. E. Avory with him), for the appellants : 
 The present case is governed by Metropolitan Board of 
 Works V. Overseers of West Ham [1870], L. E. 6 Q. B. 
 193, which followed R. v. Metropolitan Board of Works 
 [1868], L. E. 4 Q. B. 15. The Court of Appeal in 
 Mayor, S(c. of Burton-upon- Trent v. Burton-upon- Trent 
 Union [1889], 24 Q. B. D. 197; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886 
 — 1890), 314, expressly refrained from overruling those 
 decisions, although Lopes, L. J., thought them inconsistent 
 with R. V. School Board for London [1886], 17 Q. B. D. 
 738 ; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890), 235. 
 
 [It is thought unnecessary to report more fully the 
 arguments, having regard to the decisions of the Court of 
 Appeal and the House of Lords : vide infra, p. 403.] 
 
 The Court did not call upon counsel for the respon- 
 dents, upon the preliminary point of law. 
 
 The Chaikman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : On this pre- 
 liminary question of law which has been raised, we think this 
 case is governed by the now well-recognized principle on 
 which the Burton-upon- Trent Case and the London Sc/iool 
 Board Case were decided in the Court of Appeal. We 
 say, further, that we are of opinion that if the London 
 
 R. K 
 
130 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. County Council were not the owners of these works, they 
 L. C. c. would be willing to pay rent for them, and, therefore, they 
 must be taken into account as hypothetical tenants. 
 
 V. 
 
 woolwioh 
 Unioit. 
 
 The Court granted a case for the opinion of the Queen's 
 Bench Division upon this point («). 
 
 Poland, Q..C., then proceeded to state the facts of the 
 , case : The works occupy about fifty- three acres of land. 
 Prior to the year 1886 the sewage was brought down to 
 the works and discharged into the river, in a crude state, 
 only when the tide was ebbing. When the tide was 
 running up the sewage was kept in a covered reservoir. 
 The effect of this system having been found to be the 
 deposit of large quantities of solid sewage matter in the 
 upper parts of the river, in 1886 a new system was intro- 
 duced, and the works were very materially altered in con- 
 sequence. Some of the alterations are not yet completed. 
 Under the new system, the sewage is chemically treated 
 by processes which cause the solid matters in suspension 
 to be precipitated, and the effluent is consequently purified 
 and is discharged into the river at all states of the tide. 
 The precipitated matter, which is called sludge, is put on 
 board vessels belonging to the appellants, carried out 
 beyond the Nore, and dropped into the sea. The effect of 
 the adoption of the new system of treatment is that many 
 additions have been necessarily made to the works, and 
 that many parts of the already existing works have been 
 rendered useless. For instance, the covering to the reser- 
 voir is no longer necessary, the sewage being now purified, 
 so that if kept in the reservoir it does not create a nuisance. 
 The cost of the covering, and of the additional foundations 
 to support that covering, has thus been thrown away. 
 Other parts of the works are actually disused, and some 
 
 (a) The proceedings in the Queen's Bencli Division and the Court of 
 Appeal are reported infra, p. 403. The decision of the quarter sessions 
 was ultimately affirmed by the decision of the House of Lords in other 
 appeals ; vide infra, p. 414. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 131 
 
 parts, althougli used tecause they exist, are no longer 1891. 
 necessary; and, if the works were to be reconstructed, these l. c. c. 
 parts would be omitted. The facts of the present case „^ "• 
 
 _ ... WOOLWIOH 
 
 are therefore distinguishable from those of the Burton- Union. 
 upon- Trent Case, in which it was found as a fact (24 
 Q. B. D. at pp. 198, 199 ; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890) 
 at pp. 315, 317) that " the appellants would not be able to 
 carry out their statutory duties as to the disposal of sewage 
 at any other place at a smaller expense." One may apply 
 to the present case the remarks of Lord Denman, C. J., in 
 B. V. Mile End Old Town [18i7], 10 Q. B. at p. 218; 16 
 L. J. M. C. 184 : — " The company contend that the divi- 
 sion [of rateable value among several districts] should be 
 according to the amount of fixed capital in each district. 
 But the rule of law, laid down by Act of Parliament, for 
 ascertaining the rateable value of any subject refers to an 
 estimate of the rent it should yield. The outlay of capital 
 might furnish no such criterion, since it may have been 
 injudiciously expended, and what was costly may have 
 become worthless by subsequent changes." So, too. Cave, J., 
 when R. v. School Board for London was before the Queen's 
 Bench Division, pointed out (65 L. J. M. C. at p. 37) that 
 interest on cost " is a rough test undoubtedly. It is a test 
 in some cases, but it is not a test in others." [Sir P. H. 
 Edlin : In is!, v. South Staffordshire Waterworks Co. [1885], 
 16 Q. B. D. 359, where the whole of the appellants' works 
 were in use, but were in excess of the existing requirements 
 of the company, and were created for, and adapted to, an 
 increased supply in future years, it was held that the whole 
 of the works being used, the whole of the capital expendi- 
 ture must be taken into account, and not merely so much 
 as would have sufficed to provide the existing supply.] 
 In that case the greater part of the property was necessary 
 for the water supply, which the appellants then had to 
 give ; and it was held that the appellants being in actual 
 occupation of the whole, must be rated for it as a whole ; 
 but that, in dealing with the part indirectly productive of 
 
 k2 
 
132 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. profit, the hypothetical tenant could not he supposed to 
 
 L. c. C. give a rent higher than that calculated upon the necessities 
 
 ™ "• of his then business, and, consequently, that it was reason- 
 
 Union. able to take a very low percentage on the structural value 
 
 of that indirect souxce of profit. 
 
 Again, in the present case, owing to the peculiar character 
 of the sub-soil, the foundations of aU the structures erected 
 at these works had to be carried down to a much greater 
 depth than would have been necessary if the ground had 
 been suitable for building purposes. The additional cost 
 of these foundations would fall upon the hypothetical land- 
 lord ; and it would be wholly immaterial to the hypotheti- 
 cal tenant what the cost of construction had been. He 
 would look solely at the capacity of the works ia their 
 present state. The actual cost of the works (exclusive of 
 land) has amounted to 647,623/., but the appellants will 
 show that the works required for the purpose of treating 
 the sewage as it is treated now, could be provided for the 
 sum of 340,444/., provided the structures were erected on 
 land suitable for the foundations required. The appellants 
 estimate the value of the land occupied by these works at 
 15,900/., fifty-three acres at 300/. an acre. [This figure 
 was ultimately accepted by the respondents.] Next as to 
 the percentage on the capital value : The appellants can 
 borrow money on the security of the rates at 21. V7s. M. 
 per cent. ; if, therefore, the appellants are to be taken into 
 account as possible hypothetical tenants, it is obvious 
 (inasmuch as they are the only possible tenants of these 
 works) that they would never agree to give to the hypotheti- 
 cal landlord a rent equivalent to 4 per cent, on the value of 
 the land plus 5 per cent, on the value of the buildings. 
 The appellants would sooner buy land and erect the neces- 
 sary buildings for themselves by means of borrowed money. 
 It is submitted that 3 per cent, on both land and buildings 
 is a sufficient sum to fix as the rateable value. 
 
 The appellants gave evidence of fact, the greater part of 
 which is, for the purposes of this report, immaterial. The 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 133 
 
 cost of the additional foundations was proved to have been 1891. 
 87,140/.; of this sum 65,906/. was caused by the unsuitable l. 0. 0. 
 nature of the ground, and the residue was attributable to ™. *'• 
 the additional foundations necessary to support the cover- Union. 
 ings of the reservoir, &c., which were said to be now useless. 
 According to the appellants' evidence, although 340,444/. 
 would be sufficient to provide works of the same capacity 
 on a suitable site, yet it would not be sufficient outlay if the 
 works were to be erected on the site occupied by the exist- 
 ing works, owing to the unsuitable character of the ground. 
 It was further proved that certain works, though used at 
 the date when the appellants stated their case, had, before 
 the hearing of the appeal, become disused on the completion 
 of a weir, which was, when the case was stated, in course 
 of construction. 
 
 The respondents called no witnesses. 
 
 Sir P. H. Edlin in the course of the hearing said : The 
 question as to the proper percentage on the value of land 
 and buildings to be taken as representing the rateable value 
 is, in every case, a question of fact for this Court. 
 
 Poland, Q.O. for the appellants: In rating hereditaments 
 which are not in practice let, the Court must apply the 
 principle laid dovm by Blackburn, J., in Mersey Docks v. 
 Liverpool [1873], L. E. 9 Q. B. at p. 96 : "The facts and 
 circumstances which would be taken into consideration by 
 those who, in the case of a real tenancy, do, in the higgling 
 of the market, fix the rent, are to be taken into considera- 
 tion, and on a view of all those the net annual value of the 
 occupation is to be determined." This rule was repeated 
 by Blackburn, J., in R. v. London and North Western Ry. 
 Co. [1874], L. E. 9 Q. B. at p. 144 : " In letting a thing 
 from year to year the rent would be regulated by two 
 matters : on the one hand, by the benefit the tenant would 
 be likely to derive from the occupation, because he would 
 
,134 
 
 I.ONDON QUARTER SESSIONS, 
 
 1891. not give more than that ; on the other hand, by the nature 
 L. 0. C. of the property, such as its local situation, or how many 
 WooLwioH Persons there are who could supply him with an equally 
 .Union. eligible thing, and be w illin g to let it to him." In the 
 present case, therefore, the appellants cannot be supposed 
 to be willing to give more as rent than the sum for which 
 they could supply themselves with equally efficient works. 
 Even if it be admitted that the cost of the additional 
 foundations (viz., 65,906/.), rendered necessary by the 
 unsuitable nature of the ground, must be taken into 
 account, and added to 340,444/., making a total of 
 406,350/. for the buildings and structures, and for the 
 whole (including 15,900/. for land) a total value of 
 422,250/., the rateable value should not be more than 
 3 per cent, on this amount, or 12,667/.; whereas the works 
 are entered in the valuation list at 28,000/. gross and 
 23,000/. rateable value. 
 
 Littler, Q.C. {Sinclair Cox with him), for the respon- 
 dents : The appellants, by printing and circulating the 
 resolutions passed by the representatives of the metro- 
 politan assessment committees, have signified their ap- 
 proval thereof. Those resolutions provide that "Public 
 buUdiugs on which no private profit accrues (includ- 
 ing workhouses, vestry halls, public libraries, schools, 
 baths, wash-houses, and hospitals) (a), should be assessed 
 at a gross value calculated at 4 per cent, on the present 
 value of the land, and 5 per cent, on the value of the 
 buildings erected thereon." These resolutions have been 
 acted upon before the assessment committees in many 
 cases. It is not consistent for the appellants to ask that 
 a lower percentage should be taken in their own case. 
 Different public bodies can borrow at different rates of 
 
 (a) For an instance of an appeal relating to schools, see Westminster 
 Union v. Wandnworth and Olaphmn Union^ supra, p. 31 ; and for an appeal 
 relating to publio baths, see London County Oouncil v. Lewisham Union, 
 supra, p. 104. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 135 
 
 interest; but this fact cannot affect the value of the 1891. 
 
 hereditaments they occupy. The effect of having regard iTgTg. 
 
 to the different rates of interest would be to create srross „, '"• 
 
 Woolwich 
 inequalities. Agaiu, the Gas Light and Coke Co. (whose Union. 
 
 appeals were recently before the Court, infra, p. 204), will 
 
 be rated in respect of their works in this parish and the 
 
 neighbouring parish of Barking, on a rateable value 
 
 calculated at 4 per cent, on the value of the land, and 5 
 
 per cent, on the value of the buildings. It is manifestly 
 
 unfair that the appellants should be rated in respect of 
 
 their works, on a rateable value calculated at a lower 
 
 percentage. [Sir P. H. Edlin : The Gas "Works are 
 
 an undertaking occupied for the sake of profit.] It is 
 
 said that the appellants are the only possible tenants of 
 
 these hereditaments ; but the same thing is true of all 
 
 similar premises, e.g., of the schools occupied by the 
 
 School Board for London, or even of a railway station 
 
 occupied by the London and North Western Railway. 
 
 In the latter case, as the actual tenants have the only 
 
 possible means of access, if they closed the station, it 
 
 would be impossible (without the authority of a new Act 
 
 of Parliament) for any tenant of the station to be found. 
 
 If so, why should the Railway Company be rated (as they 
 
 are) at more than 3 per cent, on the value of land and 
 
 buildings, unless the appellants' contention is wrong. 
 
 The number of possible hypothetical tenants cannot in 
 
 law alter the amount of rateable value. An occupier 
 
 cannot, on the ground that he is the only possible tenant, 
 
 claim to be assessed at an amount less than the true 
 
 rateable value. The respondents rely on the arguments 
 
 which prevailed before the assessment sessions in The School 
 
 Board for London v. St. Mary, Idington [1885] Met. Rat. 
 
 App., pp. 396, 397, where it was said, that " Never, before 
 
 this or any other Court, had it been contended that 
 
 property in the hands of an occupier, for whose purposes 
 
 it Vas particularly suited, should be rated at less than the 
 
 full annual value to him, because, if it were in the market, 
 
136 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. and the present occupier did not compete, tlie property 
 L. c. c. would command a mere nominal rent." 
 
 V. 
 
 Woolwich 
 Union. The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) read the follow- 
 
 ing judgment : The preliminary question upon which the 
 parties are at issue in this appeal — whether the Northern 
 OutfaU Works and machinery at Woolwich, being ad- 
 juncts to the system of Metropolitan sewers, are rateable — 
 appears to us to be governed by the now well-established 
 principle upon which the Burton-upon- Trent Case, Hyde's 
 Eat. App. (1886—90) 314 ; 24 Q,. B. D. 197, was decided 
 by the Court of Appeal. As to this ground of appeal 
 therefore, our judgment is against the appellants, and it 
 becomes necessary to determine what is the rateable value 
 of these extensive works. Several questions have been 
 raised in the course of the inquiry with regard to the 
 proper basis for this calculation. A considerable portion 
 of the original buildings, including the stone grips, and 
 the coverings of the large reservoir, and the precipitation 
 channels, are in our opinion entirely unnecessary for the 
 purposes of the works, as they have been altered and 
 adapted to meet the requirements of the present methods 
 for the chemical treatment and disposal of the sewage, 
 and it is obvious, therefore, that the total actual cost of 
 the works is no criterion of their present lettable value. 
 There must be due allowances for such now useless por- 
 tions, but we cannot follow the appellants in their further 
 contention that deduction should be made for the cost of 
 the exceptional foundations necessitated by the peculiar 
 nature of the soil, and their value to the occupying tenant 
 estimated as if they had been laid in ordinary ground, for 
 the reason, as it was argued on their behalf, that if a site 
 for the works had now to be provided, a less expensive one 
 in this respect would be chosen. The appellants are 
 owners, as well as occupiers, but we have to hypothesize 
 a landlord as well as a tenant, and to assess the lettable 
 value in situ, as and where it stands. On the other hand. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 137 
 
 and for the reason already stated, there should he due 1891. 
 
 allowance for so much of the excavations and structural l. C. C. 
 
 foundations as would have been superfluous for the „, "• 
 
 . . -"^ . . , Woolwich 
 
 works requisite under the new system — in short, in this, Union. 
 as in all cases, it is the actual lettable value that we have sirP~H 
 to find. EdHn/Q.C. . 
 
 Another question, and one of the first importance, affect- 
 ing as it may very materially the amount of the assessment 
 and consequent liability of the appellants, is the proper 
 percentage of interest on the landlord's capital invested, . 
 that is to say, on the value of the land and the structural . 
 value of the buildings. As a general rule the allowance 
 has been 4 per cent, for the land and 5 per cent, for the 
 buildings, not excepting buildings erected by public bodies 
 for public or parochial purposes ; and in dealing with the 
 present appeal we must not be deemed to have expressed 
 views opposed to those which have prevailed heretofore 
 upon this question. These hereditaments are absolutely 
 unique, and they are of exceptional magnitude. The 
 appellants, as we have said, have to be taken into account 
 as hypothetical tenants, but as a matter of fact they are 
 the only possible tenants. To be logically consistent we 
 must carry the hypothesis further, or we disregard the test 
 prescribed by the statute. In bargaining with the hypo- 
 thetical landlord, the appellants would assuredly have 
 regard to what would be the resulting annual expense 
 they would incur if they purchased land and erected 
 equally serviceable buildings for themselves ; and by force 
 of the peculiar circumstances, the landlord also would be 
 obliged to take note of this element in the calculation. In 
 the present case we think that the rate of interest to be 
 allowed on the value of the land should be 3 per cent., and 
 on the buildings 4 per cent. ; and that the total of these 
 percentages should be taken as the rateable value. 
 
 We find the gross value to be 20,667/., and the rateable 
 value to be 17,139/. We make no present order as to the 
 costs of this appeal, and it will be understood that the 
 
138 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. substitution of the new weir for the precipitation culverts, 
 
 L. C. C. &c., is not to he the subject of any supplemental valuation 
 
 "Woolwich ^^^*- 
 Union. Appeal allowed ; case stated [a). 
 
 Sir p. H. 
 Edlin, Q.C. 
 
 1891. London Hydraulic Power Co. v. City of London 
 
 Nov. 25, and TJnion 
 
 2>ec.]8,19,21. 
 
 ' Hydraulic Power — Machinery — Tenants' Capital — Accounts — For 
 
 whit Year to he taken. 
 
 Hhe appellants, by a Special Act, were authorized to supply- 
 motive power ty hydraulic pressure, and to let lor hire macMnery 
 for the purpose of supplying sucli power : 
 
 Held, that in ascertaining the rateable value of the pipes used for 
 the supply of such motive power, the receipts from the letting of 
 machinery to customers on whose premises it was used, and the 
 cost of repairing such machinery, could not be brought into account; 
 and that the value of such machinery could not be regarded as part 
 of the tenant's capital which the hypothetical tenant of the appel- 
 lants' premises would have to provide. 
 
 On an appeal, heard in 1891, against a valuation list made by the 
 overseers, and revised by the assessment committee in 1890, it 
 appeared that the appellants' receipts were rising very rapidly. 
 The respondents tendered evidence based on the accounts for the 
 year ending 31st December, 1890 : 
 
 Held, that although the accounts related to matters subsequent to 
 the decision of the assessment committee, the sessions could look 
 at them : but that they must have regard to the general result, 
 rather than the precise figures. 
 
 The proper items to be included in making up the hypothetical 
 tenant's capital, and the rate of interest to be allowed thereon, 
 considered. 
 
 These appeals against the assessments of the appellants 
 in the several parishes in the City of London Union 
 
 (a) The proceedings on the case stated for the opinion of the Queen's 
 Bench Division, and on appeal therefrom in the Court of Appeal, are 
 reported infra, p. 403. 
 
LONDON QUAKTEE SESSIONS. 
 
 139 
 
 were heard togetlier. The assessments appealed against 
 amounted in the aggregate to 5,000/. gross and 4,161/. 
 rateable value. 
 
 Littler, Q.C {H. E. ^wry with him), for the appellants: 
 The company was incorporated by the name of " The 
 Wharves and Warehouses Steam Power and Hydraulic 
 Pressure Company," under their Act of 1871 (34 & 35 
 Viot. c. cxxi) ; and by the London Hydraulic Power Act, 
 1884 (47 & 48 Yiot. c. Ixxii.), the present name of the 
 company was substituted. By s. 38 of the Act of 1871, 
 the company may, " within their district, supply motive 
 power by hydraulic pressure to any person or persons, or 
 company, and erect, and let for hire, and may work any 
 cranes, machines, engines, or other apparatus for the pur- 
 pose of supplying such motive power, upon such terms 
 (pecuniary or otherwise), and subject to such conditions as 
 may be agreed upon between the company and the person 
 or persons, or company to whom the same is so let ; and any 
 such cranes, machines, engines, or other apparatus of the 
 company shall not be subject to distress for rent of the 
 premises where the same are used, or to be attached or 
 taken in execution imder any process in any Court of law 
 or equity, or any other legal proceedings against any per- 
 son or persons, or company, other than the company." 
 
 The pipes, the subject of the present appeal, are used 
 for the supply of motive power by means of hydraulic 
 pressure. Some of the machinery to which this motive 
 power is supplied is the property of the customers of the 
 company : in other cases, it belongs to the company, the 
 customers paying a yearly rent for the use. The machinery 
 (which consists of cranes, lifts, &c.) is fixed, but only in the 
 same way in which a gas-meter is fixed, and may be easily 
 removed. The appellants have brought into account all 
 sums received for the hire, or repair of the machinery, and 
 it must be regarded as representing part of the hypothetical 
 tenant's capital, on which interest must be allowed, just as 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 
 Htdeaulio 
 
 POWBB Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 City of 
 London 
 Union. 
 
140 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 Htdeaitlic 
 PowEE Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 City of 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 the value of gas-meters is included in tlie tenants' capital 
 in valuing a gasworks. The appellants claim interest on 
 aU tenants' capital at 17J per cent. 
 
 The following evidence was given for the appellants. 
 
 Mr. Corbet WoodaU, the consulting engineer of the 
 appellants, made a valuation (based on the accounts of the 
 year 1889), of which the following is a summary : — 
 
 Gross receipts for power, meter rents, and 
 
 hire of machinery ----- £25,513 
 Working expenses . - - £9,861 
 Rates and taxes - - - - 1,572 
 
 11,433 
 
 Net] 
 Occupiers' share : 
 Tenants' capital— 
 ■^ of £11,433, the expenses 
 as above - - - - 
 
 receipts - 
 £4,764 
 
 Meters and consuTners' ma- 
 chinery - - - - 
 Stores, including coal - 
 
 13,041 
 3,893 
 
 Furniture, &c. - - . 
 
 350 
 
 Bank balance - - - 
 
 500 
 
 Say £22,500. £22,548 
 
 Interest at 17^ per cent, on £22,500 
 
 Gross value - . . 
 Statutable deductions - 
 
 Total rateable value 
 Deduct rateable value of stations - 
 
 Rateable value of mains - 
 
 £14,080 
 
 £3,937 
 
 £10,143 
 4,424 
 
 £5,719 
 2,599 
 
 £3,120 
 
 Rateable value of mains and sta- 
 tion in City of London Union - £1,717 
 
 The witness included in the gross receipts (1) sums 
 received by the company for the hire of machinery supphed 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 141 
 
 by them to their customers, including machinery supplied 
 on the hire-purchase system ; and (2) sums received by 
 the company for the repair of such machinery, the wages 
 and expenses connected with such repair being included in 
 the working expenses. In making up the tenants' capital, 
 Mr. "Woodall allowed five-twelfths of the total annual 
 expenditure of the company, on the ground that the 
 hypothetical tenant must be prepared to meet this expen- 
 diture before earning any income. The company made 
 out their bills once a quarter, and the witness said that in 
 this respect their position was analogous to that of a gas 
 company [see, for instance, Gas Light 8f Coke Co. v. City 
 of London Union, infra, p. 204, where similar allowances 
 were claimed]. Tor the purpose of supplying the customers 
 of the company with machinery to which the motive power 
 was to be applied, the company kept in stock some machinery 
 the value of which, together with the machinery in use, on 
 hire or on hire-purchase, was taken at 7,215/., and was in- 
 cluded with the meters under the head of "meters and 
 consumers' machinery, 13,041/." The meters were taken 
 by Mr. Woodall at cost price. 
 
 Mr. William Eve made a valuation (which followed 
 generally the same lines as Mr. Woodall's) showing a 
 rateable value, for mains and station in the City of London 
 Union, of 1,922/. The following are the material points of 
 difference : Mr. Eve omitted from the working expenses 
 the sum of 636/. for " repairs to works and plant," which 
 were included by Mr. Woodall at this point. This affected 
 the tenants' capital which Mr. Eve calculated thus : — 
 
 Three-eighths of expenses (less repairs and £ 
 
 rates), viz., 9,225/. 3,459 
 
 Eates for three months . - - . 422 
 
 Meters and consumers' machinery - - - 13,041 
 
 Stores (tenants' only) and coal . - - 3,893 
 
 Furniture, &c. - - - - - 350 
 
 Bank balance 500 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 Hydeatjlio 
 PowEE Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 City op 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 Say 21,000/. 
 
 £21,665 
 
142 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 
 HYLEiULIO 
 
 PowEE Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 City of 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 The third, fourth, and fifth items in this list were taken 
 from Mr. Woodall's evidence. Mr. Eve allowed interest 
 at 17J per cent, on tenants' capital, saying that he had 
 allowed for railways 16 per cent., and for a gas company 
 15 per cent, {vide infra, p. 212). He thought that 17| per 
 cent, was not too much in the present case, because the 
 appellants incurred great risks, and had no monopoly. 
 
 It was admitted on hehalf of the appellants that their 
 business was increasing very rapidly. 
 
 Balfour Browne, 0-0. {Poland, Q,.C., and R. Cunningham 
 Okn with him), for the respondents : The first question to 
 be decided is on what year's accounts the calculations are 
 to be based ; it cannot be right to fix an assessment which 
 is to last for five years from April 6, 1891, solely upon the 
 basis of the accounts for the year 1889. The hypothetical 
 tenant would look at the accounts for 1890. Next, in 
 making up the tenants' capital, the sum of 7,215/. for con- 
 sumers' machinery must be struck out altogether. The 
 appellants are really carrying on two businesses, (1) that 
 of supplying hydraulic power, and (2) that of letting out 
 machinery to which that power can be applied. The two 
 businesses are distinct, and it is a mere accident that they 
 are carried on by the same persons ; the respondents do 
 not seek to bring into account' any of the profits arising 
 from the hire, sale, or repair of the consumers' machinery. 
 That machinery, which consists of Hfts, cranes, &c. must be 
 regarded as part of the building in which it is placed, and 
 the value of it must be taken into account in valuing that 
 building. In Tyne Boiler Works Co. v. Overseers of Long- 
 benton, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890) 241 ; 18 Q. B. D. 
 81, it was held that machinery, which is on the premises to 
 be rated for the purpose of making, and which does make, 
 those premises fit for the purposes for which they are used, 
 must be taken into account in estimating the rateable value 
 of such premises. That test would clearly include the 
 machinery here in question. The test formerly applied 
 was whether the machinery would pass by a demise of the 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 143 
 
 rated premises : see R. v. Lee [1866], L. E. 1 Q. B. 241. 
 Cranes and lifts would clearly so pass. The present value 
 of the meters, and not their original cost, must be taken, 
 as was expressly decided in B. v. North Staffordshire Ry. 
 Co. [1860], 3 E. & E. 392. The allowance of three- 
 eighths of the working expenses as part of the tenants' 
 capital is not disputed ; but the amount of those expenses 
 is contested. 
 
 The following is a summary of the evidence given for 
 tbe respondents, the points of difference which related 
 merely to questions of amount being disregarded : — 
 
 All the witnesses for the respondents bad prepared alterna- 
 tive valuations based on the accounts for 1890, showing, in 
 every case, a much higber rateable value than that shown 
 on the accounts of 1889. To avoid multiplication of 
 figures, tbe alternative valuations are not dealt with in. 
 this report. 
 
 Mr. W. H. B. Castle made a calculation showing a rate- 
 able value for station and mains in the City of London 
 Union of 3,847^. He deducted from the gross receipts 
 tbe receipts in respect of machinery on hire, and from the 
 expenses, the cost of repairs to consumers' machinery. He 
 allowed as the tenants' share 10 per cent, on the gross 
 receipts instead of a percentage on a hypothetical tenant's 
 capital, on tbe ground that 17| per cent, on the tenants' 
 capital necessary in the present case would be insufiicient 
 to remunerate tbe hypothetical tenant. The witness ex- 
 plained that had he calculated a tenant's capital in the 
 usual way, be would have allowed five-twelfths of the 
 annual expenditure; the value of the meters he would 
 have put at, say, 25 per cent, less than the cost price ; 
 the other items claimed he would have allowed, and 
 be considered that 17^ per cent, on the total was a fair, 
 allowance. 
 
 Mr. C. A. Lang proved a valuation showing a rateable 
 value of 4,130/. in the City of London Union. This witness 
 also struck out tbe receipts and expenditure relating to 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 Hydeaxtlio 
 Power Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 City of 
 London 
 Union. 
 
144 
 
 LONDON QUAETEK SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 Hydeaitlio 
 PowEE Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 City op 
 London 
 UNIO^f. 
 
 consumers' machinery. He calculated the tenants' capital 
 thus : — 
 
 Three-eighths of annual expenses (excluding £ 
 rates, but including repairs to works and 
 
 plant) 3,062 
 
 Meters — at 33 per cent, less than cost price - 3,884 
 Stores, furniture and coal - - - -1,000 
 
 Balance at bank ------ 500 
 
 Eates in advance ------ 600 
 
 Say 9,000^. at 15 per cent. £8,946 
 
 Mr. Walter Barnett's valuation agreed in principle with 
 Mr. Lang's. 
 
 Balfour Browne, Q.C., for the respondents: The accounts 
 for 1889 and 1890 must be compared, and the Court are 
 not asked to have regard exclusively to the accounts of 
 1890, though they furnish the best evidence of what rent 
 a tenant for five years would give. [Sir P. H. Edlin: 
 This appeal is brought against a valuation made at a time 
 when the facts recorded in the accounts of 1890 had not 
 occurred, and perhaps were not foreseen. If you say the 
 appellants' accounts show a steady rise, you may be forti- 
 fied in your statement by events happening after the 
 decision of the assessment committee. I doubt whether 
 you can use, as direct evidence, the accounts of a subse- 
 quent period. Ton must refer rather to the general 
 result, than to the precise figures.] That is aU the 
 respondents contend for. Taking a mean between the 
 two years 1889 and 1890, the assessment appealed against 
 is supported, i£ the consumers' machinery is struck out of 
 the tenants' capital, and the value of the meters is depre- 
 ciated. 
 
 Littler, Q.C., in reply : Whatever be the decision of the 
 Court as to the inclusion of the value of the machinery as 
 part of the tenants' capital, the repairs of the machinery 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 145 
 
 must be included in the working expenses, since they are 
 necessary to earn the general receipts of the company. 
 [Sir P. H. Edlin : The value of the machinery, and the 
 cost of repairing it, have heen taken into account, in assessing 
 the premises on which the machinery is placed.] There 
 has been no decision that hired machinery must be taken 
 into account in rating the premises containing it. Pro- 
 perty which is hired would not pass under a demise of the 
 premises, and the mere fact that it is hired prevents the 
 possibility of its being so attached as to become rateable. 
 In the Tyne Boiler TForJcs Case, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886 
 —1890) 262, Lord Esher, M.E., cites the description of 
 rateable machinery given by Lush, J., in E. v. Lee [1866], 
 L. E. 1 Q. B. at p. 257, " AU these things are fixed and 
 so far annexed as to be intended to be permanent, and as 
 really necessary for the use of the premises as gasworks." 
 And iu Laing v. Orerseers of Bishopimarmouth [1878], 3 
 Q. B. D. 299, this description was used : " The whole of 
 the machinery in question, though some of it may be 
 capable of being removed without injury to itself or the 
 freehold, is essentially necessary to the shipbuilding 
 business, to which the appellants' premises are devoted, 
 and must be taken to be intended to remain permanently 
 attached to them so long as those premises are applied to 
 their present purpose." These descriptions do not apply 
 to the machinery in the present case ; for some of it con- 
 sists of cranes, which form part of a builder's plant used in 
 erecting houses, which are not intended to become in any 
 sense part of the freehold on which they are used, and 
 which are removed as soon as the house is finished and 
 becomes a rateable hereditament. The mere fact that 
 machinery is hired renders it a contradiction in terms to 
 say that such machinery is " necessary " to the user of the 
 premises. The lifts in the customers' warehouses are not 
 " necessary," because every warehouse has a staircase as 
 weU. [Sir P. H. Edlin : By parity of reasoning it may 
 be argued that the staircases are not " necessary," because 
 
 R. L 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 
 HlDBATniO 
 
 POWEE Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 City of 
 London 
 Union. 
 
146 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 HyDEAtrLio 
 Power Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 City of 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 there are lifts.] In the Tyne Boiler Works Case {uhi supra), 
 the word " fit " is used, but that is equivalent to " neces- 
 sary." There is no reason for making a depreciation on 
 the cost price of the meters in the case of a new company. 
 MoreoTer, the new meters actually in use are worth more 
 than their cost price ; for if a new tenant took over the 
 appellants' undertaking and refused to take these meters, 
 he would have to pay the price of new meters, plus the 
 cost of fixing them. As to the rate of interest on tenants' 
 capital, 17i per cent, is not too high, seeing that this is a 
 new undertaking ; a successful competitor may arise, and 
 if so, the appellants' mains will be absolutely useless. 
 The appellants have no monopoly for the supply of motive 
 power, nor have they any district allotted them within 
 which they have even a monopoly of the supply of 
 hydraulic power. In the case of a gas or water company, 
 parliament never sanctions the creation of a- rival supply 
 within the same district. The appellants are content that 
 the Court should look at the accounts of 1890, not as 
 absolutely determining the rateable value, but as a means, 
 and only as a means, of answering the question, what rent 
 a tenant would give. There is no injustice in decidiag 
 this appeal on the accounts of 1889, because, as was pointed 
 out by Blackburn, J., in R. v. Abney Park Cemetery Co. 
 [1873], L. E. 8 Q,. B. at p. 520, "the receipts in one year 
 will govern the rateable value in the next." Too much 
 importance must not be attached to the accounts of 1890, 
 because it may be that the overseers wlU. rely on the 
 increase in that year as a reason for making a supple- 
 mental list («). 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. EdUn) : We have given a 
 considerable amount of time to the hearing of this appeal, 
 and in the course of prolonged arguments we have been 
 
 (a) The question as to the proper year to be looked at was also con- 
 sidered in South Meiropolitcm Gas Go. v. Greenwich Union, mpra, p. 56 ; 
 Gas Light and Coke Co. v. City of London Union, infra, p. 204 ; Agrioultwral 
 Sail Co. v. St. Mary, Islington, stipra, p. 125. 
 
LONDOlf QITARTEE SESSIONS. 
 
 147 
 
 struck with the endeavour made by the appellants to 
 include in their valuation the cost of " consumers' machi- 
 nery " and the receipts derived from the letting on hire of 
 machinery furnished by the company, and which is attached 
 in some way to the consumers' premises; and in connection 
 with this endeavour we have also to notice the allowances 
 claimed by them for repairing such hired machinery a-s 
 well as the machinery of which consumers have become 
 the actual owners by purchase from the company. The 
 questions here arising are of obvious importance in the 
 calculation of the tenants' or occupiers' share of the working 
 expenses, and of the amount of capital requisite for carry- 
 ing on the undertaking ; but, as I took occasion to remark 
 in the course of the argument, if we are to deal with them 
 consistently with the principles, governing the inclusion of 
 machinery on the premises, in estimating the rateable 
 value, there should have been more precise evidence than 
 is here before us. Both parties, however, having invited 
 our opinion, I may say that the rule as it was laid down 
 in The Tyne Boiler Works Co. v. Overseers of Longbenton 
 [Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890), 241 ; 18 Q. B. D. 81], 
 following a series of previous decisions on the subject, is 
 plainly applicable here. It is admitted that in every one 
 of these cases the machinery or other apparatus is attached 
 in some way to the premises, and it is used for the pur- 
 poses of trade ; and if the premises respectively are assess- 
 able according to the value, as thus enhanced, the 
 authorities are clear that it is absolutely immaterial to 
 consider whether the machinery be real or personal pro- 
 perty, or whether it be liable or not to seizure under a 
 fi.fa., or to distress for rent. The customer in these cases 
 must have machinery or plant of some kind, to which the 
 motive power has to be applied, and the inspection of such 
 machinery may from time to time be desirable in the 
 interests of the company supplying the power ; but it is 
 an obvious nan sequitur to say that the cost and repair of 
 such machinery constitute part of the expenditure on the 
 
 l2 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 Htdbaulio 
 PCWEK Co. 
 
 V. 
 CiTT OF 
 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 Sir P. H. 
 Edlin, Q.O. 
 
148 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 London 
 Htdeatjlio 
 Power Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 City ob 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 Sir P. H. 
 Edlm, Q.C. 
 
 rateable hereditament in the appellants' occupation, or — 
 to put it in other words, to show the practical effect of this 
 contention — that for rating purposes it is to be deemed a 
 constituent part of that which we have here to assess. 
 There have been wide differences also on the present 
 appeal as to what would be the proper allowances on 
 tenant's capital, and for the statutable deductions; but 
 the conclusion at which we have arrived renders it un- 
 necessary to express our opinion on these points. I may 
 say that I have carefully collated the several valuations, 
 and had it been necessary I would have stated what I 
 conceive would be the proper figures for a just and equit- 
 able basis for assessment ; but it is not necessary. It is 
 sufficient to say that, in our opinion, the respondents' 
 figures are not excessive. We, therefore, dismiss this 
 appeal, with costs to the respondent uilion. 
 
 Appeal dismissed. 
 
 1891. Great Eastern Eailway Company v. City of London 
 i)ec.23,a«^ TJnion. 
 
 1892. 
 Aug. 2. 
 
 Railway Terminus — Running Lines within Station — Principle of 
 Valuation. 
 
 In vaMng a railway terminus, so much, of tte lines running into 
 it as is witliin the station proper up to the buffer stops must be 
 treated as part of the running lines, to which a proportion of the 
 earnings per train mile must be attributed. 
 
 London and South Western Ey. Go. v. Lambeth [1870], Met. 
 Eating App. at p. 62, not followed. 
 
 Appeal against an assessment of 42,000^. gross and 
 36,000/. rateable value (in the valuation list for the parish 
 of St. Botolph Without, Bishopsgate), in respect of " the 
 enclosed Liverpool Street Station and offices of the Great 
 Eastern Railway Company, and so much of the permanent 
 
LONDON QUAETEK SESSIONS. 
 
 149 
 
 railway and other tuildings and connections northwards 
 as lie within the parish houndarj." 
 
 The appeal, which was decided mainly on questions of 
 fact, calls for a report upon one point of principle only. 
 
 In the examination of Mr. Eobert Yigers, the first 
 witness called for the appellants, it appeared that he had 
 not allocated any portion of the direct earnings of the com- 
 pany per train mile to so much of the running lines as was 
 within the terminal station proper. In arriving at the 
 value of the station, the witness had valued the entire area 
 of land occupied (excluding the approach roads), and the 
 platforms, at different prices per square yard; and all 
 rails had been treated as sidings (whether platforms 
 extended alongside of them or not) and had been valued 
 at a uniform price per yard. It appeared that some of the 
 platforms in the station were so long, that two trains could, 
 and in fact often did, stand opposite one platform at the 
 same time. On some of the lines trains remained standing 
 all night. 
 
 1892. 
 
 G-BEAT 
 
 Easteen 
 Eailwat 
 
 V. 
 CiTT OP 
 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 Littler, Q.C. ( W. Graham and E. Page with him), for the 
 appellants : The method of valuation adopted by the 
 witness is right, and it follows the decision given in 1870 
 by the assessment sessions in London and South Western 
 B,y. Co. V. Lamheth, Eyde's Met. Rat. App. at p. 62. In 
 that case, which related to "Waterloo Station, " the several 
 lines had been measured from the respective buffer-stops 
 at the extreme ends of the platforms ;" but the sessions 
 held that " so much of these lines as were situated within 
 the terminal station at Waterloo were a part of that station, 
 and should not be measured as lines of railway." It is 
 submitted that the running line must be regarded as ter- 
 minating at the external ends of the platforms, which are 
 a mere receiving house for passengers. If the lines within 
 the station are to be treated as running lines, they must 
 be subtracted from the area of the station, and the value 
 of the platforms must be ascertained on the assumption 
 
150 
 
 LONDON QTTAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Geeat 
 Eastbbn 
 Railway 
 
 V. 
 
 City op 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 that they have no line alongside of them. In any event 
 it cannot be right to calculate the mileage by measuring 
 up to the bufier-stops, because many of the trains do not 
 run in so far. 
 
 Balfour Brmone, Q,.G. {Poland, Q.O. and R. Cunningham 
 Glen with him), for the respondents : Some portion of the 
 earnings per train mile must be allocated to the lines 
 within the station. The lines opposite the platforms must 
 be regarded as being at the same time part of the station 
 and part of the running line. It is admitted that there 
 may be a doubt as to that part of the line opposite the 
 platform where the train comes to a stand. In a roadside 
 station it is impossible to use the lines as standing places 
 for trains, as is done in this terminal station. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q,.0.) : I am not going 
 to hold that the Court is bound by a decision given more 
 than twenty years ago. At present we will reserve the 
 question as to how the lines within the station are to be 
 valued. 
 
 Ultimately the appeal was allowed, and in the course of 
 the judgment the following remarks upon the poiat referred 
 to were made by 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. EdHn, Q.C.) : With regard 
 to the rule of mileage measurement within the station, we 
 are of opinion that the buffers, wherever placed, must be 
 deemed to mark the actual termini of the respective 
 running lines. 
 
 Appeal allowed. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 151 
 
 London County Council v. Fulham Union. 1892. 
 
 Feb. 8 
 
 Practice — Time — Notice of Intention to appear as Respondents — Costs. 
 
 Where tlie respondents failed to give notice of their intention to 
 appear as respondents at quarter sessions, -witHn tlie time limited 
 by O. ^, 1890, the sessions granted leave to appear on payment to 
 the appellants of the costs of the motion for such leave. 
 
 Motion for leave to appear as respondents in an appeal 
 against the total in the supplemental list made in 1891, 
 for the parish of Hammersmith in the Fulham union. 
 
 E. Boyle for the respondents in support of the motion : 
 The respondents are entitled to appear, but the time for 
 appearance has inadvertently heen allowed to expire. 
 
 Walter C. Ryde for the appellants : By 0. 6, 1890, 
 "persons claiming to appear as respondents shall give 
 notice in writing of their intention so to appear, . . . and 
 such notice shall be ... . served on the appellant within 
 fourteen days after the time limited by Order 6 for the 
 entry of the appeal [/. e., within fourteen days after 
 January 14th], and the persons omitting to give such 
 notice shall not be heard unless by special leave of the 
 Court, until they shall have given such notice or complied 
 with such terms as the Court may think fit to direct or 
 impose." The appellants do not resist the present motion, 
 but are entitled to the costs. 
 
 The Court gave leave, upon payment of the costs 
 asked fpr. 
 
152 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. Peaeson V. HoLBOKN TJnion. 
 May 5. 
 Fractice — Special Case — Appointment of Valuer. 
 
 Where, after notice of appeal to quarter sessions, an order had 
 been made, by consent and by order of a judge of the High. Court, 
 for the statement of the facts in the form of a special case, under 
 the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 40, and the parties, being 
 unable to agree upon the facts, applied to the sessions for the 
 appointment of a valuer imder s. 36. 
 
 Held, that, before the sessions could m.ake the appointment, the 
 parties must apply to the High Court for a discharge of the order 
 for the statement of the case. 
 
 In this appeal, which related to a volunteer store-house 
 and drOl hall, a ease had been ordered to be stated under 
 s. 40 of the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, -which enacts 
 that, " at any time after notice given of appeal under this 
 Act to the [quarter] sessions, it shall be lawful for the 
 parties by consent and by order of any judge of one of the 
 superior Courts of common law at Westminster to state the 
 facts of the case in the form of a special case for the 
 opinion of any of those Courts, &c." 
 
 The assessment appealed against was contained in the 
 quinquennial list made ia 1890. 
 
 JE. Boyle, for the appellant : It has been found impossible 
 for the parties to agree upon the facts to be stated in the 
 special case, and the sessions are asked to appoint a valuer 
 under s. 36 of the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 
 
 E. Cunningham Glen, for the respondents, consented to 
 the application. 
 
 It appeared that the order of the judge for the statement 
 of the special case had not been discharged. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, U.O.) : Unless the 
 order of the High Court has been discharged, I think we 
 should be usurping jurisdiction if we were to deal with the 
 
LONDON QUAHTEE SESSIONS. 153 
 
 appeal. This application nnist stand over to enable the 1892. 
 parties to apply to the High Court for a discharge of the -p^^^^^^ 
 order for the statement of the special case (a). v. 
 
 HOLBOEN 
 
 Union. 
 
 The London and India Docks Joint Committee v. 1891. 
 The Stepney Union, The Poplak Union, and '^''\^92^^'' 
 
 St. GEORaE's-IN-THE-BAST. Feb. 8, 9, 11, 
 
 12, 13, 15, 
 
 Bocks — Worhing Union hetween two Companies — Occupation — Statu- 19, 20, 29, 
 tory Division of Profits — Measure of Raieahle Value — Parochial ■™°'™"' 4, 29, 
 Principle — Accounts — For what Year to he taken — Deductions — Amil 2 
 Directors' Fees — Superannuation Allowances — Tenants' Capital — June 27 
 Dredging Plant — Prime Cost or Present Value — Warehouses July 11. 
 occupied by Dock Company — Indirectly Productive Property. 
 
 Two dock companies, who had previously heen in competition 
 with each other, by an agreement embodied ia a special Act, formed 
 a "working union " for the " working, maintenance, and manage- 
 ment of the undertakings of the two companies by a joint com- 
 mittee," who, by the provisions of the Act, were to divide the net 
 profits of the working union between the two companies in oertaia 
 specified proportions. The actual earnings of the several parts of 
 the undertakings under the control of the joint committee were not 
 in the same proportion as the statutory division of net profits. 
 
 Held, that the effect of the special Act was to make the joint 
 committee, instead of the two companies, the occupiers. 
 
 Held also, that the statutory division of profits must be taken as 
 the controUing criterion in estimatiag the rateable value of the pro- 
 perty of the two companies inter se ; but that, in apportioning the 
 rateable value to the several parts of the property of each company, 
 the parochial principle must be followed. 
 
 Semble, the question upon what year's accounts the calculations 
 of rateable value are to be based, is a question of fact to be deter- 
 mined according to the special circumstances of each case. 
 
 One of the two companies had, before the formation of the "work- 
 ing union," entered into contracts whereby certain shipovmers were 
 
 (a) The decision of the Queen's Bench Division upon the merits of this 
 appeal is reported infra, p. 303. 
 
154 
 
 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 London aitd 
 India Docks 
 
 V. 
 
 Stepney AKD 
 P0PI.AS 
 Unions. 
 
 allowed large rebates in. consideratioii of their bringing tbeir ships 
 to the docks of that company. These contracts remained in force 
 after the creation of the " -working union,'' and under s. 48 of the 
 special Act, the joint committee were to deduct, half-yearly, out of 
 the share of net profits of the company which had entered into the 
 contract, the amount of the rebates, and carry the sum deducted to 
 the revenue of the joint committee for the next half-year. 
 
 The same company were, before the formation of the " working 
 union," the lessees of certain warehouses, and were also liable to 
 make certain payments under a guarantee given to a railway com- 
 pany; and under ss. 47 and 62 of the special Act creating the "work- 
 ing union'' the rent of the warehouses and the payments under the 
 guarantee were charged to that company alone. 
 
 Sdd, that in calculating the rateable value of the Docks belong- 
 ing to the said company, no deduction from the net profits could be 
 claimed on account of the deductions so made by the joint committee 
 under any of these sections of the special Act. 
 
 Pees were paid to members of the joint committee as part of the 
 expenses of the " working union," and other fees were paid to the 
 directors of each of the companies forming the union, out of the 
 share of net prqfits appropriated to that company. 
 
 Held, that the former fees might be allowed as deductions from 
 gross receipts, but that fees paid to the directors of the separate 
 companies must be disallowed. 
 
 Before the formation of the "working union," each of the two 
 companies had granted superannuation allowances to old servants ; 
 after the formation of the "working union," the joint committee 
 granted other superannuation allowances. In the accounts kept 
 since the formation of the " working union," the former allowances 
 were paid by the separate company which had granted them ; the 
 latter allowances were paid by the joint committee as part of the 
 expenses of the " working union." 
 
 Held, that the latter allowances might be claimed as a deduction 
 from gross receipts, but not the former. 
 
 Tjx calculating the necessary tenants' capital, the appellants 
 claimed to take into account the value of certain dredgers and 
 moveable plant used in dredging the docks. 
 
 Held, that as dredging was necessary, the whole expense of 
 dredging could be deducted from the gross receipts, but that it 
 formed part of the "other expenses necessary to maintain the 
 hereditament in a state to command the rent," mentioned in the 
 definition of gross value in s. 4 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 
 1869 ; and consequently that the cost of dredging was a landlord's 
 
LONDON QUAETEK SESSIONS. 155 
 
 expense, and the value of the dredging plant was not part of the 1891. 
 tenants' capital. 
 
 Held also, that in calculating the amount of tenants' capital, the ij^jj^ Books 
 present value, and not the prime cost, of the tenants' plant must he ». 
 
 taken. Stepney aud 
 
 The character of the machinery to he regarded as landlord's, or XJkionb. 
 as tenants' plant, considered. 
 
 The appellants occupied hoth docks and -warehouses, which were 
 separately rated. 
 
 The respondents contended that, in rating the docks, the profits 
 earned in the warehouses should he taken into account, and that 
 the warehouses should he regarded as indirectly productive of value 
 to the docks. 
 
 Held, that the warehouses must be separately valued, and that 
 the profits earned there could not he brought into account in 
 valuing the docks. 
 
 These appeals relating to docks occupied by the appel- 
 lants, and situated in several parishes, were heard 
 together. 
 
 In and before the year 1888, there were two dock 
 companies competing with each other, viz., the London 
 and St. Katharine Docks Company (hereinafter called the 
 London Company) and the Bast and West India Docks 
 Company (hereinafter called the India Company). The 
 London Company were the owners and occupiers of the 
 London Dock, the St. Katharine Dock, the Yictoria 
 Dock, the Albert Dock, and certain warehouses in Cutler 
 Street. The India Company were the occupiers and (save 
 as hereinafter mentioned) the owners of the East and 
 West India Docks, the Tilbury Docks, and certain ware- 
 houses. By the London and St. Katharine and East and 
 West India Docks Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. cxliii.), 
 a "working union " was created, to commence on January 
 1st, 1889. By ss. 10 and 11, the " London and India 
 Docks Joint Committee " was incorporated, ten of its 
 members representing and being nominated by the 
 London Company, and the remaining seven repre- 
 senting and being nominated by the India Com- 
 pany. By s, 2, the expression "working union" was 
 
156 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. defined as meaning " the working, maintenance, and man- 
 LoNDON AND agement of the undertakings of the two companies by the 
 ImiA Docks ^^^^ committee." 
 
 Stepney and By s. 31, " From and after the commencement of the 
 Unions. working union, all the powers and authorities, rights and 
 privileges, immunities and exemptions, duties and obliga- 
 tions vested in, enjoyed by, or attaching to the two com- 
 panies respectively or either of them, or their respective 
 directors, or any committee of them, in relation to the 
 following matters, shall be, and the same as from that 
 time are hereby (subject to the provisions of this Act) 
 transferred to and vested in or imposed on the joint 
 committee, and (subject to the provisions of this Act) the 
 special Acts and all contracts and agreements relating to 
 or affecting the two companies respectively shall be read 
 and have effect as if, in relation to the following matters, 
 the joint committee had been named therein or bound 
 thereby, instead of the two companies respectively (that is 
 to say) : — 
 
 " (1.) The working, maintenance, and management of 
 the undertakings of the two companies ; 
 
 " (2.) The fixing, collecting, receiving, and enforcing 
 payment of tolls, rates, and charges ; 
 
 " (3.) The appointment, remuneration (including super- 
 annuation and other allowances), dismissal and retirement 
 of ofiicers and servants, except such officers and servants 
 as either of the two companies or their directors may 
 require for transacting the business of the company as 
 regards internal regulation and administration, and any 
 powers and duties of either company not by this Act 
 transferred to the joint committee ; 
 
 " (4.) The execution and providing of works by the two 
 companies ; 
 
 ".(5.) The supply of working plant and rolling stock; 
 and 
 
 " (6.) All or any matters incidental to any of the matters 
 above mentioned. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 157 
 
 " Provided that nothing in this section shall he deemed to 1891. 
 extend the provisions of any special Act or Acts relating London and 
 to either of the two companies, or their undertaking to the ^^^ Eooks 
 other of the two companies, or their undertaking." Stepney and 
 
 By s. 34, " All oflacers, clerks, and servants who, at the Anions. 
 commencement of the working union, are in the employ- 
 ment of either of the two companies, shall thereupon 
 become officers, clerks and servants of the joint committee, 
 with the same rights and subject to the same obligations 
 and incidents in respect of such employment as nearly as 
 may be as they would have had or been subject to in their 
 capacities of officers, clerks, and servants of the respective 
 companies, and shall so contiaue unless and until the joint 
 committee remove them from such employment or alter 
 the terms of their employment, which it is hereby declared 
 the joint committee may, in their uncontrolled discretion, 
 do at the like times, in the like manner, and subject to the 
 like terms and conditions (if any), at, in, and subject to 
 which the respective company might have done so, and the 
 respective sureties of those officers, clerks and servants 
 shall contiaue liable as if they had become bound in rela- 
 tion to any employment commenced under the joint 
 committee." 
 
 By s. 39, " Subject to the provisions of this Act, from 
 and after the commencement of the working union, actions, 
 indictments, and proceedings, which, if a company (instead 
 of the joint committee) had been by this Act authorized to 
 work, manage, and maintain the undertakings of the two 
 companies might have been brought or prosecuted by or 
 against that company, may be brought or prosecuted by or 
 against the joint committee, and not otherwise; but nothing 
 iu this Act shall make the joint committee liable for any 
 act done or default committed by either of the two com- 
 panies before or after the commencement of the working 
 union." 
 
 By s. 40, " From and after the commencement of the 
 working union, the joint committee shall alone have power 
 
158 LOOTJON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. to enter into any contract, or incur or undertake any obli- 
 LoNDON AND gatiou for, or in connection with, or in respect of the Joint 
 India J)ooKs undertaking or the working union, and no obligation or 
 Stbpnet and duty or liability whatsoever shall attach to either company 
 Unions. ^^ respect of any such contract or obligation entered into 
 by the joint committee, or in respect of any act or default 
 of any officer or servant or agent employed or taken over 
 by the joint committee, and all liabilities or losses or 
 damages suffered or incurred or payable by the joint 
 committee in consequence or by reason of anything done 
 or omitted to be done, by them as such committee or of 
 anything done or omitted to be done by any officer, 
 servant, or agent acting for them shall be paid or retained 
 by the joint committee out of the moneys coming to their 
 hands as the earnings or on account of the two under- 
 takings or either o'f them. 
 
 By s. 41, " All working plant, working and rolling 
 stock, implements, gear, tools, and all other things em- 
 ployed or necessary for the current daily working of the 
 undertakings of the two companies respectively under the 
 working union shall be transferred to, and are hereby 
 vested in, the joint committee for the purpose of carrying 
 on the working union ; and all unissued stores of either of 
 the two companies shall be taken by the joint committee 
 at cost price and the amount found to be due to that com- 
 pany shall be paid by the joint committee or credited by 
 them in account to that company." 
 
 By s. 42, " Subject to the provisions of this Act, the 
 joint committee shall, out of the moneys for the time being 
 in their hands, provide for the working and establishment 
 and other proper ordinary expenses of the working union, 
 including the cost of maintenance, repair, and renewal of 
 works, buildings, appliances, machinery, rails, plant, and 
 roUing stock, and including also the remuneration of the 
 members of the joint committee and of the standing arbi- 
 trator, and pay the passenger traffic duty and all tithes, 
 tithe rentoharge, county, metropolitan, parochial, and other 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 159 
 
 rates and assessments whatsoever chargeaUe to the two 1891' 
 companies in respect of their several undertakings, and London and 
 subject nevertheless, as hereinafter provided, shall divide ^^^^ ■''°''™ 
 the balance remaining in their hands half-yearly between Stepney and 
 the two companies in the proportions of 69 per centum to Unions. 
 the London Company, and 31 per centum to the East and 
 West India Company, and shall pay to them their respec- 
 tive proportions accordingly." [The remaining clauses of 
 s. 42 are, for the purposes of this report, immaterial.] 
 
 The appeals related to the East and West India Docks 
 (the property of the India Company) in the parishes of 
 All Saints, Poplar, and Bromley St. Leonard's in the 
 Poplar Union ; and to so much of the London Dock (the 
 property of the London Company), as is situated in the 
 parishes of St. Paul, ShadweU, and St. John, Wapping 
 (both of which parishes form part of the Stepney Union), 
 and in the parish of St. George's-in-the-Bast. 
 
 The appeals came first before the Court on the following 
 preliminary questions of law formulated by the appel- 
 lants : — 
 
 1. Whether, having regard to the provisions of the 
 London and St. Katharine's and East and West India 
 Docks Act, 1888, the appellants, the London and India 
 Docks Joint Committee or the London and St. Katharine's 
 Docks Co. and the East and West India Docks Co. respec- 
 tively, should be named in the several valuation lists as the 
 occupiers of the hereditaments belonging to those two 
 companies respectively. 
 
 2. Whether the statutory division of profits prescribed 
 by the said Act is to be taken into account as a controlling 
 element in ascertaining for rating purposes the value of 
 the various properties of the said dock companies respec- 
 tively. 
 
 3. If question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, 
 upon what principle are the 69 per cent, and 31 per 
 cent, respectively of profits to be apportioned amongst the 
 various properties which go to make up the several under- 
 
160 
 
 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 loneon and 
 India Docks 
 
 V. 
 
 Stepney and 
 
 POPLAB 
 
 Unions. 
 
 takings of the London and St. Katharine's Docks Co. and 
 the East and West India Docks Co. respectively. 
 
 [Other questions were also raised, but were either left un- 
 answered or were answered at a later stage, after further 
 argument.] 
 
 1891. 
 July 28, 29. 
 
 Balfour Broicne, Q,.C. {FuUarton, Q.C., KenelmBighy, 
 and Reginald Broivn with him), for the appellants : First, 
 the Court should substitute the name of the company to 
 which each dock belongs, for the name of the joint 
 committee, who are entered in the valuation lists as the 
 occupiers of each dock (a). The joint committee are in 
 effect managing each dock on behalf of the company to 
 which it belongs. If necessary, the Court can add to the 
 description of the occupiers in the valuation list, words, 
 such as " representing the two companies," or " the 
 company." The object of making the joint committees 
 the occupiers, is to exclude from consideration part of the 
 working expenses, which ought to form a deduction in the 
 calculation of rateable value. Secondly, the statutory 
 division of profits prescribed by the Act of 1888 is to be 
 taken into account as a controlling element in ascertaining 
 for rating purposes the value of the various properties of 
 the two companies. The effect of the Act has been that 
 some of the traffic has left the East and West India 
 Docks, and has gone to docks which are the property of 
 the London Company. The payment of 31 per cent, of 
 the profits of the entire undertaking to the India Company, 
 gives a greater proportion of profit to the docks of that 
 company than they in fact earn. It is immaterial to the 
 hypothetical tenant of the East and West India Docks, in 
 what part of the undertaking the profit may be earned, if 
 
 {a) This point was not mentioned in the appellants' notices of appeal, 
 nor did it appear to have been raised at the hearing of the objections 
 before the assessment committees. The respondents, however, agreed in 
 asking for a decision on the point by the sessions. 
 
LONDON QUAETEB SESSIONS. 161 
 
 31 per cent, of the whole is guaranteed to him. If the 31 1891. 
 
 per cent, represents a larger sum than the actual earnings, London and 
 
 the hypothetical tenant would give a rent larger than that ^^^^'^ •'^°°'^^ 
 
 warranted hy the actual earnings. The East and West Stepney and 
 
 India Docks are struck, not, as has been said in other unions. 
 
 cases, with sterility, but with fertility. The division of 
 
 profits is not a private arrangement, but is created by 
 
 statute, and must be taken as binding on any hypothetical 
 
 tenant. The contention on behalf of the Stepney Union 
 
 and the parish of St. Greorge-in-the-East (in which the 
 
 London Dock is situate), that the statutory division of 
 
 profits is to be ignored, and the actual traffic and earnings 
 
 are to be looked at, is inconsistent with itself ; for the Act 
 
 of 1888, which creates the division of profits, itself brings 
 
 additional traflic to the London Docks. If the Act were 
 
 repealed, part of the traffic would go back to the East and 
 
 West India Docks. If the statutory division of profits is 
 
 to be ignored, the Court must inquire what would be the 
 
 earnings of each dock apart from the Act, and without the 
 
 existence of the working union which the Act creates. 
 
 The hypothetical tenant of the London Dock would look 
 
 not merely at the actual traffic, but at the provisions of 
 
 the Act which creates that traffic. The London Dock is 
 
 now, for rating purposes, in a position very like that of 
 
 the line of railway in AUrincham Union v. Cheshire Lines 
 
 Committee [1885], 15 Q.. B. D. 597. There the special 
 
 Act which authorized the making of a railway by the 
 
 predecessors in title of the Cheshire Lines Committee, 
 
 provided that the London and North Western Eailway 
 
 Company should have the right to run their traffic over a 
 
 part of the line, on payment of a fixed annual rent to the 
 
 Cheshire Lines Committee! The rent was much less than 
 
 the actual value of the traffic passed over that part of the 
 
 line by the London and North Western Company, and it 
 
 was held that the Cheshire Lines Committee could not be 
 
 rated for poor rate in respect of that traffic at a higher 
 
 sum than the fixed rent. The only difference between 
 
162 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. that case and the present is, that there the rent was a 
 
 London and fixed annual sum, here it is a fixed proportion of a varying 
 
 India. Docks g^^j^^ Thirdly, assuming that the second point raised by 
 
 Stepney AND the appellants is answered in their favour, the 69 per 
 
 vZ^. cent, and the 31 per cent, of the profits of the joiut 
 
 undertaking must be apportioned among the various 
 
 properties, making up the separate undertakings of the 
 
 London Company and the India Company respectively, 
 
 in proportion to the receipts and expenditure in each 
 
 parish. 
 
 Poland, Q.C. {J. M. Stone with him), for the Stepney 
 Union, in which part of the London Dock is situated: 
 As to the first poiut ; the effect of the Act of 1888 is to 
 make the joiut committee, and not tiie separate companies, 
 the occupiers of the docks. The Act (by s. 31) vests in 
 them the working, maintenance, and management of the 
 undertakings of the two companies ; the fixing, &c. of tolls, 
 rates and charges; and the appointment, payment, and 
 dismissal of officers and servants. These powers involve 
 the occupation of the hereditaments. It is true that, by 
 s. 51, " the Joint committee shall not have power to make 
 or incur any expenditure or liability on capital account 
 except with the previous assent of the boards of directors 
 of the two companies, but subject thereto any capital 
 required for enlargements of, or additions to, the imder- 
 taking of either of the two companies shall, tmless other- 
 wise agreed between the two companies, be provided by 
 the company owning the property to be enlarged or added 
 to." This provision is not inconsistent with an occupation 
 by the joint committee, because the owner, and not the 
 occupier, would be the person to make additions to the 
 freehold. Under 43 Eliz. c. 2, the person who is de, facto 
 in possession is liable to poor rates. In the present case, 
 the two companies cannot interfere in any way with the 
 occupation of the property. In Kittow v. Liskeard Union 
 [1874], L. E. 10 Q, B. 7, it was assumed that the persons 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 163 
 
 rated, had only a licence ito dig for minerals, and otherwise 1891. 
 use the land in question, but the Court held that as those London and 
 persons had de facto been permitted to erect buildings, to -"^"^^ 'Doims 
 fix machinery, and to make roads, they were rightly rated. Stepney and 
 In Midland By. Co. v. St. Mary, Islington, Eyde's Eat. x;°^q^. 
 App. (1886 — ^^90), 139, under the terms of a special Act, 
 the Great Eastern and Midland Companies were to main- 
 tain, manage, work, and use a railway belonging to the 
 Tottenham and Hampstead Jn. Ey. Co. ; to control the 
 traffic, to appoint the necessary staff, and to pay to the 
 Tottenham and Hampstead Co. a percentage of the fares 
 and tolls : it was held by the assessment sessions that the 
 Midland and Great Eastern Companies were the occupiers. 
 In Tunnicliffe t. Birkdale Overseers, Eyde's Eat. App. 
 (1886—90), 286, the Court of Appeal had to consider 
 whether the managers of a reformatory school were the 
 occupiers of that school ; and in holding that they were. 
 Lord Esher, M.E., said (at p. 293) " The school is instituted 
 by the managers or by persons behind them. The managers 
 appoint and dismiss the persons in actual occupation. 
 Those persons are therefore the servants of the managers, 
 who are the occupiers by their servants." And Fry, L.J., 
 said [lb. at p. 294) " Who are the appellants who are 
 charged with occupation ? They are the committee of 
 management appointed by benevolent persons who have 
 combined to form a fund, and carry on this institution." 
 Save that in the case of the docks the management is for 
 commercial, and not for benevolent purposes, the joint 
 committee come within the language used by the Court of 
 Appeal. Secondly, the statutory division of the profits 
 of the whole undertaking in the hands of the joint 
 committee does not affect the rateable value, and the 
 ordinary principle must be applied. The docks here are 
 quite distinct from each other, and the facts are like those 
 in Mersey Bocks and Harbour Board v. Overseers of Ldverpool 
 [1872], L. E. 7 Q. B. 643. There the appellants were 
 owners and occupiers of docks in different parishes on both 
 
 m2 
 
■164- LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. sides of the Mersey, -whie]! docks were by statute to 
 London AUD constitute One estate under one management. Certain 
 India Docks rates were charged to vessels entering any one of the docks ; 
 Stepney ans and a vessel, having paid for entering one of the docks. 
 Unions could use any of the docks of the same class on either side 
 of the river, or of a higher class, by paying the difference. 
 The docks on the Liverpool side were much more frequented 
 than the docks on the Birkenhead side ; and it was held 
 that in rating the docks on the Liverpool side they were 
 not to be treated as one system with those on the Birken- 
 head side, but that the earnings and outgoings of each set 
 of docks must be kept distinct, and the Liverpool docks 
 rated according to the net earnings on that side. The 
 Court distinguished B. v. Hull Dock Co. [1852], 18 Q. B. 
 325, on the facts. In that case an assessment on the acre- 
 age principle was held right on the ground that it was 
 unavoidable, it being impossible to appropriate the net 
 earnings to each parish. No such difSoulty arises here, 
 and, as was said by Blackburn, J. (L. E. 7 Q,. B. at 
 p. 651), " We must follow the parochial principle wherever 
 it is possible." In the later case of Mersey Bocks and 
 Sarhour Board v. Overseers of Birkenhead [1873], L. E. 8 
 U. B. 445, the rating of certain warehouses, &c. occupied 
 with the docks, but capable of separate beneficial occupa- 
 tion, was considered. The working of the docks and ware- 
 houses together produced no profit : it was held that the 
 warehouses were rateable notwithstanding, and that they 
 ought to be rated at the value as enhanced by reason of 
 their proximity to the docks. These cases show that, 
 wherever it is possible, each part of a property such as 
 this must be separately valued. The true value of each 
 part according to its earning power must be ascertained. 
 The division into 69 and 31 per cent, merely represented 
 the supposed relative value at the date of the agreement 
 which was embodied in the Act of 1888. If it is to control 
 the rating now, it must do so for all time, even though 
 more and more of the profits may be earned in the London 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 ■16^ 
 
 ■Company's property, and even though it be found con- 1^91. 
 venient to shut up the India Company's docks. To rate London and 
 an unused dock on the basis of 31 per cent, of the profits ^-^^^0°^ 
 earned by another dock would be an absurdity. Again, Stepney and 
 to make the statutory division of the net profits of the Unions. 
 whole undertaking the basis of calculation involves a disre- 
 gard of any special item in the working expenses. Suppose, 
 for instance, the cost of dredgiag in the India Company's 
 docks is high in proportion to the cost in the London Com- 
 pany's docks, the extra expenditure will be spread over the 
 whole undertaking if the net profits of the whole are 
 looked at. The principle of Altrincham Union v. Cheshire- 
 Lines Committee [1885], 15 Q,. B. D. 597, does not apply 
 to the present case ; for there the payment was made to the 
 occupier, and it was held that, inasmuch as the occupier 
 could not get more (in respect of part of the occupation) 
 than a fixed annual sum, he could not be rated for more 
 than that sum. In the present case, if (as the respondents 
 contend) the joint committee are the occupiers of these 
 docks, the payment of the 31 per cent, to the India Com- 
 pany is a payment not to, but bi/ the occupiers. There is, 
 therefore, no limit put by statute upon the earnings of the 
 occupiers, who may make as much as they can by their 
 occupation. [Sir P. H. Edlin : If the India Company's 
 docks earned 90 per cent, of the whole, they must be con- 
 tent with 31 per cent. J Yes, but they receive that qud 
 landlords. The distinction between a payment to, and a 
 payment by, the occupier was pointed out in Midland Ry. 
 Co. V. St, Mary, Islington, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—1890) 
 at p. 143, in which case the assessment sessions held that 
 (under circumstances somewhat like those of the present 
 case) the assessment was to be based on the profits earned 
 in each parish. In B. v. Fktton [1861], 30 L. J. M. C. 
 89 ; 3 E. & B. 450, the occupiers had sub-let a portion of 
 a railway station for a fixed annual payment ; and it was 
 held that this payment, although greater than the actual 
 value of the station, was rightly taken into account in 
 
,166 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 ,1891. .rating tlie occupiers. There, too, as in the Altriiicham 
 iiONDON AND Case, the payment was made to the occupiers. In R. v. 
 .India Docks ji]iyr,nney By. Co. [1869], L. E. 4 Q. B. 276, the raHway 
 Stepney and company were the occupiers of certain wharves, and, hy 
 UNioNa. agreement with the owners, certain dues paid by the 
 owners or consignees of goods were paid direct to the 
 owners of the wharves ; it was held that the railway com- 
 pany were liable to be assessed in respect of the full rate- 
 able value of the premises, including the wharfage dues, 
 without regard to the amount of benefit which they them- 
 selves derived from the occupation. The Court there 
 pointed out " the fallacy of confounding the rateable value 
 of the property occupied with the remunerative value to the 
 particular occupier "; and said, " The wharfage dues arise 
 from the use of the land of which the appellants are the 
 sole occupiers, and would, but for the arrangement between 
 them and the [owners], greatly enhance the remunerative 
 value to them. That arrangement may be improvident 
 as regards their own interest, but does not render- the 
 wharves themselves of less value." 
 
 F. M. White, Q,.C. {A. M. Bremner with him), for the 
 Poplar Union, in which the East and West India Docks 
 are situated: First, it is submitted that the joint committee 
 are the occupiers, and that the respondents' arguments just 
 stated on this point are correct. Secondly, it is submitted 
 that the statutory distribution of profits is the controlling 
 criterion in estimating the rateable value, and that ap- 
 pellants' argument on this point is correct. The joint 
 committee, although the occupiers, may be regarded as 
 managing on behalf of the two constituent companies. 
 Consequently, the division of net profits into 69 and 31 
 per cent, is equivalent to the payment of those percentages 
 to the occupiers of the docks. The present case is, there- 
 fore, withia the principle of AUrincham Union v. Cheshire 
 Lines Committee [1885], 15 Q. B. D.. 597. In B. v. 
 Bhijmneij By. Co. [1869], L. E. 4Q. B. 276, the payment 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 167 
 
 of the dues to the owners was the effect of an agreement 1891- 
 binding only on the parties thereto; in the present case the London and 
 division of the net profits is by statute, which is binding on ^™^^ ^°°^ 
 every possible hypothetical tenant. Thirdly, the subdivi- Stepney and 
 sion among the several parishes of the rateable value of the Unions. 
 India Company's property, calculated on the 31 per cent, 
 of profits paid to them, should be, according to the parochial 
 principle, with reference to the earnings in each parish. 
 
 Littler, Q.O. {Alex. Glen with him), for the parish of 
 St. Q-eorge-in-the-East, in which part of the London 
 Dock is situated : First, the joint committee are the occu- 
 piers for the reasons already given on behalf of other 
 respondents. Secondly, the statutory division of net 
 profits may be one of many criteria of value, but it is not 
 the absolute and sole criterion. The question of value is 
 a question of fact. The Act of 1888 has taken the occu- 
 pation away from the two companies, and has prohibited 
 them from again becoming occupiers. It is impossible that 
 a distribution to persons who are not, and cannot be, occu- 
 piers, should be the measure of the value of the occupation 
 of each part. The joiut committee are tenants of the 
 whole, and what they have earned is to be divided among 
 two landlords in a specified proportion. This provision is 
 analogous to an arrangement whereby one railway com- 
 pany buys the line of another, on payment of specified 
 sums to the holders of preference and ordinary shares. A 
 greater proportion of profits has been attributed to the 
 East and West India Docks in order to buy off competition. 
 The principle on which this ease must be decided is laid 
 down by Lord Chelmsford in Jones v. Mersey Bocks [1865], 
 36 L. J. M. C. at p. 30 ; 11 H. L. C. at p. 519 : " The 
 taxation is to be on every occupier according to the abUity 
 of the parish. The productive occupation of the several 
 occupiers within the parish make up its aggregate ability. 
 If an occupier derives no benefit of any description from 
 his occupation, it forms no part of the general ability of 
 
168 LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 • 1891. the parish; but if it is productive (although not profitatle), 
 London and there is nothing in the Act [43 Eliz. c. 2] which requires 
 IraiiA DooKB i-j^Q overseers to follow the produce in its subsequent appli- 
 Stepnet and cation. The receipt of it constitutes the visible ability of 
 Unions ^^^ occupier." As was said by Lord Tenterden in JR. v. 
 St. Giles', York [1832], 3 B. & Ad. 579 : ," li any profit 
 be made, the application of it when made is immaterial as 
 to the question of rateability." The efEect of the appel- 
 lants' contention in the present case is to transfer part of 
 the " visible ability " of the parish of St. George-in-the- 
 East, in respect of the London Dock, to the Poplar Union 
 where the East and West India Docks are situated. Sup- 
 pose that the joint committee, for economy of working, 
 shut up the East and "West India Docks; there would then 
 be nothing to rate iu the Poplar Union, and the payment 
 to the owners of the disused docks would be similar to the 
 payment of the ground rent of an empty house. In the 
 AUrincham Union v. Cheshire Lines Committee [1885], 15 
 Q. B. D. 597, the occupier bound himself not to receive 
 more, in respect of part of the occupation, than a specified 
 sum ; in the present case, the occupiers, in respect of the 
 London company's property, are getting more than the 
 fixed annual payment every year. There is nothing to 
 prevent the letting of one dock {e. g.,to a company of 
 shipowners) if it be for the joint benefit of the whole 
 undertaking ; and in that case the assessment will be based 
 on the actual earning power. A distinction must be drawn 
 between a statutory restriction, which is a fetter attaching 
 to the property itself, and a restriction which is a fetter 
 attaching to the occupier for the time being: per Sir R. B, 
 Webster, A.-G., arguendo, in the JBurton-upon- Trent Case, 
 Eyde's Rat. App. [1886—1890], at p. 321. In the present 
 case, the statute fetters only the particular occupier, and 
 does not restrict the profits. If the joint committee wanted 
 to become the tenants of the London Docks, they would 
 not be influenced by the statutory distribution of the pro- 
 fits, The statutory bargain ought not to affect the parishes, 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 169 
 
 ■who had no locus standi to oppose the hill which emhodied 1891. 
 it. The arrangement is like a partnership contract, where London and 
 a husiness is carried on in premises belonging to one I™"- Docks 
 partner. [Sir P. H. Edlin : Assume a hypothetical Stepney and 
 tenant of the property of the London company; is it unions. 
 possible to conceive that he would give more than a rent 
 calculated on the 69 per cent, of profits?] It is not neces- 
 sary to assume the same person as the hypothetical tenant 
 of both sets of docts ; unless this assumption be made, it 
 is obvious that a tenant would give the full value for the 
 London Docks, although his landlord might be obliged to 
 hand over part of the rent to the India Company. A 
 tenant would not give a less rent on that account. 
 
 Lastly, the Court is asked to say what year's accounts 
 shall be made the basis of calculation. The overseers in 
 making the valuation list appealed against took the accounts 
 for the year 1889. In The Gas Light and Coke Co. v. City 
 of London Union, infra, p. 204, this Court took the accounts 
 for the year ending June, 1890. 
 
 Sir P. H. Edlin : For convenience sake we made that 
 order in those appeals, but it was clearly understood that 
 we did not concede that as of right to the parties asking 
 for it. It was done for convenience, because the parties 
 were threatened with an appeal the next year and 
 a supplemental list unless the accounts were so taken. 
 But non constat that the same reasons exist in the present 
 case. 
 
 [Ultimately all parties to the appeals took the accounts 
 for the year 1889, notwithstanding the fact that a very 
 serious strike occurred in that year. The question was 
 also considered in South Metropolitan Gas Co. v. Greenwich 
 Union, supra, p. 56 ; Eoi/al Agricultural Hall Co. v. Lsling- 
 ton, supra, p. 125; London Hydraulic Power Co. v. City of 
 London Union, supra, p. 138.] 
 
ilT'O LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. Balfour Browne, Q.C, for the appellants, in reply : If 
 
 London and ^^^ joint committee are regarded as the tenants, there is 
 India Docks nothing to rate, because they have to hand over, not 
 Stepney and merely the landlord's rent, but the whole of the net profits 
 PoPLAB ^Q ^j^g ^^Q companies. The tenancy is, therefore, abso- 
 lutely struck with sterility, and the hypothetical tenant 
 must be put in the same position as the actual occupier. 
 Secondly, as to the division of profits, in ordinary cases 
 rateable value is ascertained by deducting working ex- 
 penses from the gross receipts, and dividing the remainder 
 among the several parishes interested. In the present 
 case, part of this process is ah-eady done by the statute. 
 If injustice be the result, it is the effect of the statute, 
 which is binding on the hypothetical tenant and on the 
 parishes. Even if it be only a private Act, that is im- 
 material, as was decided in AUrhicJiam Union v. Cheshire 
 Lines Committee [1885], 15 Q. B. D. 597. The statutory 
 division must either be the controlling criterion of value, 
 or it is entirely irrelevant. If the Court look merely at 
 the actual earnings of each dock, they may be doiag 
 injustice, because, under the Act of 1888, it is immaterial 
 into which dock the joint committee send the traffic, 
 whereas, while competition lasted, each dock was using the 
 utmost of its earning power. Consequently, the parochial 
 principle cannot fairly be applied to the present case, 
 because the traffic is not regulated by the conditions of 
 free competition. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q-C.) : With regard 
 to numbers one and two of the appellants' questions, I do 
 not propose to go into aU the points that have been argued 
 before us. The cases as stated by the respective parties, 
 and the questions thereupon submitted for our considera- 
 tion, present many opposite views, and not inconsiderable 
 difficulties; but we find that the contentions originate 
 for the most part in the desire influencing both sides, 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 171 
 
 thougli for contrary reasons, to enforce or reject the pro- 1891. 
 
 Stepney and 
 
 POPLAB 
 
 Unions. 
 
 Sir P. H. 
 Edlin, Q.C. 
 
 visions of the Act of 1888, according to the advantage London and 
 possibly derivable from foUowing the one course or the Ii'MADooKa 
 other. 
 
 On the one hand, the joint committee, the actual per- 
 sons rated, seek to introduce their constituent companies as 
 joint occupiers with themselves, in order, as it would seem, 
 to obtaia credit for certain expenses incurred by them 
 alike respectively, and which do not enter into the general 
 account. On the other hand, Mr. Poland, for the Stepney 
 Union, and Mr. Littler, for St. Greorge-in-the-East, insist 
 that the joint committee only are the legal occupiers under 
 the Act, but deny that the statutory apportionment of the 
 profits which immutably defines and limits their respective 
 rights, and by which each company is tied and bound, is 
 the criterion of the rateable value in respect of either 
 undertaking, and contend that the whole account of the 
 receipts and expenditure must be open for the purpose of 
 dealing with every part of the hereditaments on the 
 parochial principle. 
 
 We find it impossible to adopt either of the views here 
 presented by the parties opposed. With regard to the 
 question of occupation, we are of opinion that the joint 
 committee must be deemed to be the legal occupiers, and 
 are therefore properly entered in this valuation list as the 
 persons to be rated in respect of the entire undertakings. 
 
 With regard to the apportionment of net profits (I state 
 this as our answer for the present to the first and second 
 questions in the appellants' list), we are of opinion that 
 the statutory percentage, the statutory apportionment, 
 should be deemed to be the controlling criterion, and we 
 should propose to deal with all these appeals accordingly. 
 But the question is one, undoubtedly, of considerable 
 difiiculty, and of great importance, and if it should be the 
 wish of Mr. Poland and of Mr. Littler that we should state 
 a ease for the opinion of the High Court upon these points, 
 we should consider it our duty to do so. In that case, and 
 
172 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 London and 
 India Docks 
 
 V. 
 
 Stepney and 
 
 POPLAB 
 
 Uniojis. 
 
 Sir P. H. 
 Edlin, Q.C. 
 
 having heard the expression of their opinion with regard 
 to such a case to he stated for the purpose of appeal, it 
 would be our duty to have the accounts stated in the 
 alternative to meet either view as the High Court may 
 decide : because the High Court will not entertain an 
 interlocutory question of law. 
 
 As to the other questions, some of them admit neither 
 of affirmative nor negative answers without material quali- 
 fications. The answer to the appellants' third question is 
 that the valuation of the various properties which go to 
 make up the several undertakings of the London and 
 India companies respectively should be done on the proper 
 parochial principle, as in the Mersey Books Case [1872], 
 L. E. 7 a B. 643. 
 
 1892. 
 
 February 8, 
 
 9, 11, 12, 13, 
 
 15, 19, 20, 
 
 29; 
 
 March 4, 29, 
 
 30, 31 ; 
 
 Ajpril 2. 
 
 The appeals were afterwards heard upon the facts. 
 The assessments appealed against, in respect of the 
 several properties, were as follows : — 
 London Dock — 
 
 St. Greorge-in-the-East - 
 Stepney Union — 
 St. John, "Wapping 
 St. Paul, Shadwell - 
 East and "West India Docks — 
 Poplar Union — 
 All Saints, Poplar 
 Bromley St. Leonard's 
 
 Rateable Value. 
 
 £36,000 
 
 14,917 
 9,375 
 
 52,000 
 4,333 
 
 Balfour Browne, Q.C. {FuUarton, Q.C, Kenelm Bighy, 
 and Reginald Brown with him), for the appellants: The 
 decision of the Court (that the statutory division of net 
 receipts is to be the " controlling criterion " in calculating 
 the rateable value) is accepted ; but that division has not 
 completed the calculation, and has left certain deductions 
 still to be made. The Act of 1888 has put the two com- 
 panies and the joint committee in a position which is 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 173 
 
 analogous to that of landlord and tenant, but tlie object of 1892. 
 the Act was to put a stop to competition and not to define London and 
 what are the landlord's and tenant's duties, as they must ^^^"^ ^°°^ 
 be distinguished for rating purposes. The Act has there- Stepney and 
 fore arbitrarily divided the duties of landlord and tenant, unions. 
 and has, for convenience of arrangement, directed the 
 landlord to perform some of the tenant's duties. An 
 expense which the statute has put upon the landlord may 
 still be ground for a claim for deduction on the part of 
 the hypothetical tenant. Suppose, for example, a railway 
 were let on the terms that the landlord should supply the 
 tenant with locomotives, the locomotive expenses would still 
 form a deduction which the hypothetical tenant could 
 claim. In the present case the Act has put (or has been 
 construed by aU. parties as putting) upon the separate 
 companies the payment of superannuation allowances made 
 to persons who had already retired before the passing of 
 the Act. The payment of such allowances is an economical 
 thing for a tenant to contract to do, because it enables him 
 to employ servants at first at a lower rate of wages, and of 
 this lower rate the parishes have already had the benefit 
 in the past in the reduced expenditure on account of wages. 
 Had these appeals come before the Court in the year 
 before the passing of the Act of 1888, the payment of the 
 superannuation allowances by each company must have 
 been admitted as a proper deduction from the receipts. 
 .The Act has combined the two companies, and, for con- 
 venience, has directed that each company shall pay its own 
 superannuated officers ; but this arrangement cannot affect 
 the true character of the payments, which are merely 
 wages in another form. Consequently the payments are a 
 proper deduction from the percentages of profits paid to 
 the two companies respectively. Again, the statutory 
 percentages represent the profits earned by all the pro- 
 perties of each company, some of which are separately 
 assessed, and are not the subject of appeal ; a deduction 
 must be made under this head from the profits paid over 
 
174 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS, 
 
 1892. by the joint committee to each company. [The respon- 
 LoNDow AND dents did not dispute the making of some deduction or 
 India Docks apportionment, but the amount of the deduction was con- 
 Stepnetand tested]. Again, with regard to expenses {e.g., dredging) 
 Unions which are home hy the joint committee, the actual ex- 
 penditure of each year is deducted in order to ascertain 
 the amount of net profits to be divided in that year ; but 
 for rating purposes the value of the docks must be taken 
 " one year with another." Consequently, the average ex- 
 penditure must be taken, and the proper method is to add 
 to the net profits the amount actually expended and to 
 deduct the average annual expenditure. The particular 
 item of dredging varies very much, and the general 
 expenses of maintenance have been kept far below the 
 average, in consequence of the diminution of dock receipts 
 in recent years. 
 
 The following questions relate specially to the East and 
 West India Docks : The Act of 1888, by s. 47, enacts as 
 follows : " All rent payable from time to time in respect 
 of the warehouses and premiss connected therewith, situ- 
 ated in the Commercial Eoad, in the coijnty of Middlesex, 
 and now leased to or in the occupation of the" India Com- 
 pany, "shall, as between the two companies (notwith- 
 standing that such warehouses and premises are part of 
 the undertaking of the " India Company, " and, as such, 
 subject to the working union), be and remain payable 
 by" the India Company "alone, and shall he deducted 
 by the joint committee from any moneys payable by them 
 to" the India Company "under the provisions of this Act. 
 All tithes, tithe rentcharge, rates, taxes, premiums of 
 insurance, and other outgoings whatsoever in respect of 
 the said warehouses and premises mentioned in this sec- 
 tion, shall be paid and borne by the joint committee, who 
 shall maintaia the same in good order and condition." 
 
 By s. 48 of the Act of 1888, " Each of the two compa- 
 nies may and, if and so far as required by the other of them, 
 shall use their best endeavours to obtain the annulling or 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 175' 
 
 the modification to tlie satisfaction of the other of the two 1892. 
 companies, of all or any contracts or agreements which London and 
 may be in force at the commencement of the working India Docks 
 union, (1) for or with reference to the use of their docks Stepney and 
 or property or any part or parts thereof by any other xJnions. 
 company or companies, or any person or persons, upon 
 special terms." . , . "If either company fail, within 
 six months after the passing of this Act, in obtaining the 
 annulling or modification as aforesaid of any such contract 
 or agreement," ..." they shall thereafter pay half- 
 yearly to the funds of the joint undertaking, in the first 
 case (1) such a sum as shall represent the difference 
 between the actual rates paid by the companies or persons 
 the contracts with whom have not been so annulled or 
 modified, and the current rates authorized by the joint 
 committee for the time being." .... "The joint 
 committee shall deduct half-yearly such sum out of the 
 share of the net profits of the company liable to pay such 
 sum, and shall carry any sum so deducted to the credit of 
 revenue in their next half-yearly balance sheet." This 
 section was drawn with reference to the following facts : 
 Before the creation of the working union, the India Com- 
 pany, as owners of the Tilbury Docks, had entered into 
 contracts with shipowners, whereby, in order to attract 
 trafiic into the Tilbury Docks, large rebates from the dock' 
 dues were to be allowed in respect of all ships entering 
 those docks. Some of these contracts are still in force, 
 and large deductions have been made, under s. 48, from 
 the 31 per cent, of net profits which would otherwise have 
 been payable to the India Company. Ey agreement 
 between the two companies, for convenience in book- 
 keeping, the deductions have not been made strictly in the 
 form prescribed by the Act, but have been calculated as 
 follows : In making out the corpus divisible between the two 
 companies, it has been assumed that the full dues, without 
 any rebate, have been received ; then 69 per cent, of this 
 corpus has been credited to the London Company, and 
 
176 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. 31 per cent., after deducting the actual rebates allowed, 
 
 London and has been credited to the India Company (a). 
 
 IndiaDocks By g_ 62 of the Act of 1888, after reciting certain 
 
 Stepney and agreements between the India Company and the London, 
 
 Unions. Tilbury and Southend Ey. Co., whereby a -minimum 
 
 trafiSc was guaranteed to the railway company, it is 
 
 enacted that " the said agreements shall, as from the date 
 
 of the commencement of the working union, become and 
 
 be binding on the joint committee, and full force and 
 
 effect shall be given thereto, the said agreements being 
 
 read and having effect as if the joint committee had been 
 
 named therein instead of " the India Company, " subject 
 
 to the modifications of the said respective agreements, 
 
 which are set out in Part V. of the schedule to this Act, 
 
 and which shall be of as fuU force and validity as if the 
 
 same had been enacted under this Act " (b). 
 
 It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the 
 deductions under the several sections referred to must be 
 made, because s. 42 [vide supra, p. 158] directs the joint 
 committee to divide the net profits in the proportions of 
 69 and 31 per cent., " subject nevertheless as hereinafter pro- 
 vided." To make the deductions is, consequently, not to 
 neglect but to carry, out the statutory division. 
 
 The effect of the several deductions, and the allowance 
 of interest at 17^ per cent, on the necessary tenants' capital 
 
 (a) No eTidence-wasgiven to explain why the Act was not literally obeyed. 
 It will be found, if the methods are tested, that they do not give identical 
 results. The appeals were argued throughout as though the deductions 
 made under s. 48 were ejusdem generis with the other deductions. It is sub- 
 mitted that this view is not correct ; the other deductions amounted to a 
 specific appropriation of the profits when earned; the deductions under 
 s. 48 amounted to a correction of the accounts in respect of profits which 
 had not heen earned. In the form in which the Joint committee made the 
 division, the 69 per cent, credited to the London Company was not 69 per 
 cent, of the actual earnings, but 69 per cent, of a, fictitious sum, con- 
 sisting in part of moneys which never came into the coffers of either the 
 joint committee or the India Company. 
 
 (J) By Part V. of the Schedule, ' ' All moneys payable to the railway 
 company" .... " shall be paid by the joint committee as part of 
 the working expenses of the working union." It seems to have been 
 assumed at the hearing of the appeal, (1) that moneys paid under s. 62 
 were debited by the joint committee solely to the India Company ; and 
 (2) that they were rightly so debited. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 177 
 
 is to show that the rateahle value of the East and West 1892. 
 India Docks is a minus quantity. This may very well be, London and 
 even though the docks be carried on at a profit. [Sir P. ^""^ ^°'=^^ 
 H. Edlin : Tou say these docks have no rateable value, or Stepney and 
 in other words, that no hypothetical tenant could be found UMiosra. 
 to take them. Can you consistently claim a deduction 
 from the net profits in respect of the hypothetical tenant's 
 share ?] Tes, because no hypothetical tenant would take 
 the docks, unless, after calculating these deductions in his 
 own mind, he found that he would be able to pay a rent. 
 In the present case, the working expenses and the interest 
 on the hypothetical tenant's capital, without any profit 
 thereon, eat up all the receipts. Moreover, although 
 interest is being paid on debentures, no dividends are 
 being paid to the shareholders. 
 
 The following evidence was given on behalf of the 
 appellants : — 
 
 Mr. Robert Yigers made the following valuation of the 
 London Dock, based upon the accounts of 1889, " as con- 
 trolled by the Working Union Act of 1888 " :— 
 
 London Dock share of total net receipts paid 
 over by the joint committee to the London 
 company ...... £70,443 
 
 Add proportion of maintenance, rates and 
 taxes, losses and claims - - . - 26,260 
 
 Deduct, separate expenses of 
 
 London Company - £6,648 
 
 Land tax, tithes, &c. - 2,543 
 
 Eent of dock house - 389 
 
 Dredging - - - 2,328 
 
 96,703 
 
 11,908 
 84,795 
 
 Less rates and taxes (6s. in £ upon an assess- 
 ment of 16,478/.) 4,943 
 
 £79,852 
 
 K. N 
 
178 LONDON QITAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 - 1892. Brought forward - £79,852 
 
 London and Occupiers' share ------ 23,328 
 
 India Docks ^ 
 
 „ "• 56,524 
 
 Stepney and _ ' 
 
 PoPLAB Eiepairs and renewals of chattels - - - 4,379 
 
 Unions. 
 
 Gross value - - 52,145 
 Repairs, renewals, and insurance - - - 35,667 
 
 Eateahle value - - £16,478 
 
 Mr. Yigers arrived at the first figures in his calculation 
 (viz., 70,443^.) thus : the whole of the profits payahle to 
 the London Company by the joint conunittee under s. 42 
 [vide mpra, p. 158] were 290,295/. From this Mr. Vigers 
 deducted in respect of properties separately assessed, 16,728/. 
 The remainder, 273,567/., Mr. Yigers apportioned among 
 the several docks belonging to the London Company, and 
 the Cutler Street warehouses, in . proportion to the net 
 profits appearing, according to the books of the company, 
 to have been earned in each part of their undertaking. 
 [The respondents denied that the books supported this 
 apportionment as between the various docks, and also 
 claimed to treat the profits made in the warehouses in an 
 entirely different way, vide infra, pp. 186, 187, 193.] - Mr. 
 Yigers made the addition in respect of maintenance, &c., on 
 the ground above stated {supra, p. 174), and arrived at the 
 sum of 26,260/. by applying to the total amount expended 
 by the Joint committee under this head, the same propor- 
 tions as were used to arrive at the share of the net profits 
 attributable to the London Company. [The principle of 
 apportionment was not disputed, but the necessity of 
 making an addition of the expenses in this way was 
 denied by the respondents.] The " separate expenses of 
 the London Company^ 6,648/." were arrived at by taking a 
 proportion (the accuracy of which was not disputed) of the 
 whole of the company's separate expenses : the respondents, 
 however, contended that no deduction could be made in 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS, 179- 
 
 respect of these expenses whioli comprised the following 1892. 
 
 items : London and 
 
 India. Doozs 
 
 Salaries £1,016 »• 
 
 Management and office expenses - - - 3,808 PopiIb™ 
 
 Superaimuation allowances - - - - 15,504 Unions. 
 
 Law charges 838 
 
 Incidental charges 310 
 
 £21,476 
 
 The respondents contended that these charges were to 
 he treated as home hy the landlord of the hypothetical 
 tenant. It was admitted that none of them appeared in 
 the accounts of the joint committee ; and where the same 
 persons, for example, were directors of the separate com- 
 pany, and also memhers of the joint committee, they 
 received distract fees in each capacity, and the fees received 
 as members of the joint committee were included in the 
 working expenses of the joint committee. [As to the 
 superannuation allowances, see further, pp. 183, 189. J 
 
 Mr. Vigers calculated his charge of 2,328^. for dredging 
 hy taking the average expenses for five years (1885 — 1889), 
 the actual expenses in those years being respectively 3,947^., 
 1,856^., 1,229/., 3,377/., 1,202/. 
 
 Mr. Yigers allowed, for the occupiers' share, interest at 
 17 J per cent, on a tenant's capital, made up as follows : — 
 
 Valuation of chattels, as per engineer - - £47,030 
 
 Stores (as per accountant), half-year's average - 3,538 
 
 Customers' overdrawn deposit accounts - - 5,524 
 
 Balance at bankers 8,000 
 
 Three months' wages and expenses - - 66,223 
 
 Eates and taxes, say ----- 3,000 
 
 £133,315 
 
 The third item was thus explained : the customers of the 
 appellants were called upon to make deposits in advance, 
 
 n2 
 
180 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. whicli were placed to their credit, and they were then 
 
 London and debited with the various dock charges as they hecame due. 
 
 iNDii^DooKs j^ appeared that, notwithstanding these deposits, there was, 
 
 Stepney and on the average, at the end of every month a debt of 23,000^. 
 
 Tnions. ^^^ to the joint committee, the proportion of this sum 
 
 attributable to the London Dock alone being 5,5241. 
 
 Mr. Yigers contended that as the joint committee were 
 
 always out of pocket, they must be regarded as finding 
 
 capital to the extent of the deficit. 
 
 The other items in Mr. Yigers' calculation were taken 
 from the engineers' or accountant's evidence. 
 
 Mr. Yigers also proved an alternative valuation of the 
 London Dock, "based upon the accounts of 1889, irre- 
 spective of the Working Dnion Act of 1888," showiag a 
 rateable value of 28,269/. 
 
 The foUowiag is a summary of Mr. Yigers' calculation 
 of the East and West India Docks, "based upon the 
 accounts of 1889, as controlled by the Working Union 
 Actof 1888":— 
 
 East and West India Dock share of total net 
 receipts paid over by the joint committee to 
 the India Company £48,885 
 
 Add proportion of maintenance; rates and 
 
 taxes ; losses and claims - - - - 28,409 
 
 £77,294 
 
 Deduct separate expenses of India 
 
 Company - - - £10,000 
 Land tax and tithes - - 87 
 
 Dredging - - - - 10,959 
 Eent of dock house - - 421 
 
 21,467 
 
 £55,827 
 Less rates and taxes upon an assessment of 
 £ 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 181 
 
 Brought forward - - - £ 1892. 
 
 Occupiers' share - • 39,602 Loudon and 
 
 India Docks 
 
 Stepney and 
 
 Eepairs and renewals of chattels - - - 16,993 Poplab 
 
 Ghross value - - £ 
 Eepairs, insurance, and renewals of heredita- 
 ments 51,389 
 
 Unions. 
 
 Rateable value - -£ 
 
 Mr. Vigors arrived at the first figures (48,885/.) in his 
 calculation thus : the 31 per cent, of net profits payable to 
 the India Company under s. 42 in the year 1889 was 
 130,423/. The deduction made (as in the case of the 
 London Dock) in respect of property separately assessed 
 was 7,515/., leaving a sum of 122,908/., 'from which 
 Mr. Tigers made the following further deductions : — 
 
 Eent paid under s. 47 [vide supra, p. 174] - £17,800 
 . Rebates charged against the India Company 
 
 under s. 48 ^vide supra, p. 174] - - 22,062 
 
 Payments to London, Tilbury and Southend 
 Railway Company under s. 62 [vide supra, 
 p. 176] 4,199 
 
 £44,061 
 
 [Each of these three deductions was disputed by the 
 respondents.] 
 
 Mr. Yigers having thus arrived at a sum of 78,847/., 
 representing the net profits of the whole of the property 
 of the India Company, apportioned it thus : — 
 
 East and West India Docks - 62 per cent. = £48,885 
 Tilbury Docks - - - 17 per cent. = 13,404 
 Commercial Road Warehouses - 21 per cent. = 16,558 
 
 £78,847 
 
 This apportionment was made by deducting from the 
 gross receipts earned in the several parts of the India 
 
182 LONDON QUAETEK SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. Company's property certain items of expenditure in 
 
 London AND e^'Ct part, in order to compare the proportionate net 
 
 , India DooKa profits earned in each part. It was contended hy Mr. 
 
 , Stepney and Vigors (and denied by the respondents) that the failure to 
 
 Uoton^ take into account the whok of the expenses made no 
 
 difference to the relative proportion of net profits to he 
 
 attributed to each part. 
 
 The addition for " maintenance, rates and taxes, losses 
 and claims " was made for the same reason as in the case 
 of the London Dock, and the actual amount was arrived 
 at on the same principles mutatis mutaiidis (see pp. 174, 
 178.) 
 
 [The respondents disputed the necessity of any addition 
 Tinder this head : vide infra, pp. 185, 189.] 
 
 The separate expenses of the India Company comprised 
 items of a similar character to those of the London 
 Company {vide supra, p. 178), and the amounts were 
 calculated on the same principles as in the former case. 
 
 The dredging expenses were calculated on an average of 
 five years (1881—1885), the amounts being 7,266^., 9,891/., 
 12,073/., 12,556/., 13,009/. Mr. Vigors took these years 
 because, in 1886, 1887, and 1888, the accounts of the 
 India Company did not divide the dredging expenses of 
 the Tilbury Docks from the Bast and West India Docks. 
 It was, however, admitted at a later stage of the hearing 
 that the average taken by Mr. Vigors was considerably too 
 high. 
 
 For the occupiers' share, Mr. Vigors allowed interest at 
 17| per cent, on a tenants' capital of 226,300/., which was 
 made up on the same principles as in the case of the 
 London Dock {vide supra, p. 179), save that, inasmuch as 
 the entire calculation brought out the rateable value at a 
 minus quantity, Mr. Vigors included nothing under the 
 head of " Eates and Taxes " in making up the tenants' 
 capital. The repairs and renewals, &c. of chattels, and of 
 the hereditament, were taken by Mr. Vigors from the 
 engineers' and accountant's evidence. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. '183 
 
 A question arose, on Mr. Vigers' evidence, wlietlier the 1892. 
 cost of dredging must be regarded as part of the hypo- London ahd 
 thetieal tenant's working expenses, or as part of the land- ^^^^^ °°™ 
 lord's " expenses necessary to maintain the hereditament Stepney and 
 in a state to command the rent " to he deducted from the Unions. 
 gross value under s. 4of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 
 It was admitted that the expenses of dredging (apart from 
 the question of amount) must he deducted from the gross 
 profits at some stage in the calculation ; and it was further 
 admitted that it was immaterial whether the deduction 
 was made as Mr. Vigers had made it, or as part of the 
 statutory deductions from the gross value. But, in making 
 up the tenants' capital, Mr. Vigers had included the steam- 
 dredgers as part of the tenants' plant, and had included 
 the wages and expenses of dredging in the " three months' 
 wages and expenses," for which the hypothetical tenant 
 must provide capital. [The arguments upon the point are 
 set out infra, pp. 189, 200.] 
 
 The appellants called two engineers, Mr. F. E. Duckham 
 and Mr. Robert Carr, to prove the amount of repairs and 
 the value of the tenants' plant ; both witnesses valued all 
 plant at cost price, but admitted that 20 or 25 per cent, 
 depreciation must be allowed to arrive at present value. 
 The appellants' accountant, Mr. Hornblower, proved the 
 figures furnished to Mr. Vigers. 
 
 Poland, Q..0., for the Stepney Union : Superannuation 
 allowances which are in the nature of deferred pay may 
 properly be deducted. But, although the accounts of 1889 
 deal with the first year's working under the joint com- 
 mittee, and although 6,677/. is charged for superannuation 
 allowances in the accounts of the committee, Mr. Vigers 
 seeks to deduct a further sum (under the head of "Separate 
 Expenses") in respect of allowances granted before the 
 creation of the joint committee. This is a matter which 
 does not concern the present tenant. It is obvious that, 
 
Unions. 
 
 -184 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. on the amalgamation of the two companies, some of the 
 
 London and then existing ofiBcers were no longer required. 
 iNDiA^DocM j-rpj^g j,ggt Qf tj^g argument, which dealt almost entirely 
 
 Stepney and with questions of amount, is omitted.] 
 
 POPLAE 
 
 Mr. Edward Eyde, who was called on hehalf of the 
 parishes in which the London Dock was situated, made a 
 valuation on the assumption that the joint committee were 
 the tenants of the two systems of docks. He accepted the 
 decision of the Court that the statutory division of profits 
 was to be the " controlling criterion " of rateable value, 
 but regarded that division as affecting only the apportion- 
 ment of the rateable value of the entire undertaking 
 worked by the joint committee, and considered that it was 
 no reason for departing from the ordinary method of 
 ascertaining the rateable value of the entire undertaking. 
 The following is a summary of his valuation : — 
 
 Gross receipts £1,604,422 
 
 Working expenses - - £1,038,937 
 Eates and taxes at 5s. in 
 the £ on an assessment 
 of 322,767/. - - 80,692 
 
 1,119,629 
 
 Net receipts - 484,793 
 Occupiers' share — 
 
 Interest at 17| per cent, on a tenant's 
 capital of 420,000/. - - - - 73,500 
 
 Grross value 411,293 
 
 Maintenance, renewals, and insurance - 88,526 
 
 Eateable value - £322,767 
 
 In this calculation, Mr. Eyde included the receipts and 
 expenditure of all docks and warehouses in the hands of 
 the joint committee, but did not include rents received by 
 the committee in respect of certain properties which were 
 separately assessed. With the exception of the item for 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 185 
 
 rates and taxes, all the other figures in his valuation were 1892. 
 taken from the accounts of the joint committee. He London and 
 estimated the amount of tenants' capital thus : Sect. 49 of ^^^J^o°^ 
 the special Act of 1888 provides as follows: — "Whereas Stepney and 
 the two companies respectively have provided workiug Unions. 
 capital out of moneys from time to time coming to their 
 hands on account of past earnings, but under the pro- 
 visions of this Act all moneys earned by each company 
 prior to the commencement of the working union are 
 vested in and belong to the respective company: there- 
 fore, in order to provide working capital for the purposes 
 of the working union, the joint committee may from time 
 to time borrow on the security of the revenue of the joint 
 undertaking any sum or sums of money not exceeding in 
 the whole 300,000?.," at interest, &o. Mr. Eyde estimated 
 that the old plant in use at the creation of the joiat com- 
 mittee, and transferred to them, was worth 150,000/. : he 
 then assumed that the committee had exercised their 
 power to borrow the full amount of 300,000/. (although in 
 fact not more than 250,000/. had been borrowed) ; he also 
 assumed. that part (say 30,000/.) of the sum borrowed 
 would be used to replace old plant, and thus arrived at a 
 total of 420,000/. The stores were taken over under 
 s. 41, set out on p. 158, supra; it appeared that no 
 valuation of these stores was ever made. In dealing with 
 the working expenses and the maintenance, Mr. Eyde had 
 taken the actual figures in the accounts for 1889, and not 
 an average, on the ground that if the percentage of 
 the actual profits paid to the London Company in a 
 particular year were made the " controlling criterion " in 
 estimating the rateable value, it would be inconsistent not 
 to take the actual expenditure of that year. Having 
 ascertained the rateable value of the whole of the joint 
 committee's property to be 322,767/., Mr. Eyde regarded 
 69 per cent, of that amount (or 222,709/.) as representing 
 the rateable value of the London Company's property 
 (i. e., the London, the St. Katharine's, the Victoria, and 
 
186 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. the Albert Docks, and the Cutler Street warehouses). The 
 London and "witness next proceeded to calculate the rateable value of 
 India Dooza ^.j^g London and the St. Katharine's Docks and the Cutler 
 Stepney and Street warehouses together, on the "parochial earnings 
 Unions. principle," i.e., he deducted from the total gross receipts 
 in respect of the last-mentioned properties, the total 
 working expenses in respect of the same ; and, making an 
 exactly similar calculation in the case of this part of the 
 London Company's property as he did in the case of the 
 entire undertaking in the hands of the joint committee 
 {vide supra, p. 184), he arrived at a rateable value of 
 152,41 6J. for that part. Making a third calculation in a 
 similar way, he showed a rateable value of 108,326^. for 
 the Victoria and Albert Dock together ; thus making the 
 aggregate value of the two parts of the London Company's 
 property 260,742/. But as he had shown that 69 per 
 cent, of the rateable value of the whole undertaking in the 
 hands of the joint committee amounted only to 222,709/., 
 he contended that the rateable value of each of the two 
 parts of the London Company's property should be reduced 
 proportionately, giving the following result : — 
 
 Eateable value, taking the statutory division 
 of profits as the " controlling criterion " : — 
 
 London Dock, St. Katharine's Dock, and 
 
 Cutler Street warehouses - - - - £130,184 
 
 Victoria Dock and Albert Dock - - - 92,525 
 
 £222,709 
 
 From the total of 222,709/., Mr. Eyde deducted 9,619/., 
 being the assessments of the Cutler Street warehouses 
 entered in the valuation list, and not appealed against; 
 leaving for the four docks belonging to the London 
 Company 213,090/. This sum he divided among the 
 same four docks in proportion to the gross receipts in each 
 dock, the share attributable to the London Dock being 
 72,292/. Deducting therefrom the actual assessment on 
 that part of the dock which was in the parish of St, 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 181 
 
 Botolph Without, there remained 71,853^. to be divided 1892. 
 
 among the parishes in which appeals were entered (in London ahb 
 
 proportions upon which the appellants and the several I^^^I'ockb 
 
 respondents had agreed) as follows : — Stepnet and 
 
 Poplar 
 
 St. George-in-the-East - ' - - - £42,752 
 
 St. John, Wapping 17,245 
 
 St. Paul, Shadwell 11,856 
 
 Unions. 
 
 £71,853 
 
 Mr. Eyde explained that he thus dealt with the Cutler 
 Street warehouses : he had, in the first place, included all 
 the receipts earned there among the gross receipts of the 
 joint committee, because he regarded the earnings in the 
 warehouses as essentially connected with the occupation of 
 the docks. He argued that it would be wrong to rate the 
 warehouses with reference to profits made there, because a 
 warehouse could only be rated on the rental value of similar 
 buildings. He had, therefore, treated the warehouses in 
 the same way as the works of a gas company are treated, 
 and had deducted the amount of the actual assessments 
 thereof from the total rateable value of the whole under- 
 taking. 
 
 F. M. White, Q.C. {A. M. Bremner with him), for the 
 Poplar Union : The Court are asked to find the rateable 
 value of the East and West India Docks in one sum, as 
 the two parishes ia the Poplar Union, in which the docks 
 are situated, have agreed with the appellants as to the 
 apportionment of the rateable value. 
 
 The following are the points to be noticed in Mr. Vigors' 
 calculations : — the deduction for property separately rated 
 is admitted, but the deductions for payments under ss. 47, 
 48, and 62 [vide supra, p. 181] are disputed. The effect of 
 s. 47 [set out above, p. 174] is that, as between the two com- 
 panies, the India Company pays the rent of the Commercial 
 Eoad warehouses. The payment is made after the net 
 
188 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. profits are ascertained and divided under s. 42 {vide supra, 
 London and p- 158), and it is a payment whicli would not form part of 
 India Docks ^^^ burden faUing on the hypothetical tenant.' The rent 
 Stepney and of the rateable hereditament is not to he deducted in ascer- 
 Unions. taining the value of the rateable hereditament. Again, 
 the title of the hypothetical tenant's landlord is immaterial, 
 whether it be freehold or leasehold : in ascertaining the 
 rateable value of a house, no deduction from the annual 
 rack rent can be claimed for the ground rent. In H. v. 
 Woking [1835], 4 A. & E. 40, it was held that in rating 
 a canal no deduction could be claimed for payments made 
 to certain proprietors of land nor to miHowners for loss of 
 water. Lord Denman said {lb. at p. 51) : These pay- 
 ments "are in truth nothing more than rent-charges: they 
 do not affect the value of the occupation or the rent which 
 a tenant would give, but only show amongst whom and in 
 what proportion the rent or profits are to be divided." In 
 the present case the two companies are in the position of 
 partners, one of whom brings in leasehold premises, while 
 the other brings in freeholds to carry on the partnership 
 business. To put the partners on an equal footing, the 
 rent of the leasehold is paid by the partner briaging it in ; 
 but such a payment does not affect the annual value of the 
 property to the hypothetical tenant. Suppose, instead of 
 takiag a lease, the premises had been bought and the 
 buildings erected with borrowed money; the interest 
 thereon could not be deducted in ascertaining the rateable 
 value. It is true that by s. 47 the payment of the rent is 
 to be made by the hand of the joint committee ; but that 
 provision is inserted to insure that the rent shall be paid, 
 and that the landlord may not enter for non-payment and 
 so prejudice the partnership business. Next, as to rebates 
 under s. 48 [the section is set out above, at p. 174, where 
 the method of keeping the accounts is stated] : these also 
 are landlord's and not tenant's expenses. Under s. 48 the 
 India Company might have annulled the contracts for 
 allowance of rebates; had they succeeded in doing so, 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 189 
 
 e. g., in consideration of the payment of a lump sum to the 1892. 
 shipowners, the present claim for deduction could not have London and 
 arisen, nor could any claim for deduction on account of the ^^^^'^ ^ocks 
 consideration money have heen allowed. But even if it Stepney and 
 be admitted that these expenses are tenant's expenses, unions. 
 then they are expenses falling on the tenant of Tilbury 
 Docks. It is admitted by the appellants that the contracts 
 for rebate were made in order to attract traffic to Tilbury ; 
 whenever it is possible, as it clearly is here, expenses should 
 be localized, and charged to that hereditament in respect 
 of which they are incurred. The payment under s. 62 is 
 similar to the other deductions claimed. The appellants 
 have had a benefit from the deductions claimed here, in 
 that Tilbury Docks (which earn so little in consequence of 
 the contracts for rebates) are, on that account, rated only at 
 1,158/., though they occupy 220 acres of land and 70 acres of 
 water. For superannuation allowances, 6,667/. is allowed 
 in the accounts of the joint committee, of which it appears 
 that 4,100/. is paid to officers whose retirement had reference 
 to the working union. It may not be proper to throw all 
 the allowances previously granted on the separate com- 
 panies ; the true principle is to allow an average, and for 
 this the payment made by the joint committee is sufficient. 
 The deduction claimed by Mr. Tigers for land tax (supra, 
 p. 180) cannot be supported ; it is a landlord's tax. [Sir 
 P. H. Edlin : You need not cite authority for that.] 
 Dredging is a landlord's duty, and the value of the dredg- 
 ing plant cannot be included in making up the tenants' 
 capital, because the plant must be supposed to belong to the 
 hypothetical landlord, and to be provided out of the rent. 
 [Sir P. H. Edlin : We think that dredging is a landlord's 
 charge. J As to the amount for dredging and for repairs 
 generally, Mr. Tigers claims an additional sum beyond 
 the actual expenditure ; but under s. 42 (supra, p. 158) 
 it must be assumed that the joint committee have done all 
 that is necessary. [Sir P. H. Edlin : "Would the hypo- 
 thetical tenant look exclusively at the expenditure of one 
 
190 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. year ?] If the receipts and net profits of a particular year 
 London and are made the basis of calcidation, the expenditure of that 
 India J)ocKs ygg^j, ^^ repairs, &c., must be regarded. The joint com- 
 Stepnet and mittee seem, from the accounts, not to have expended or 
 Unions. ^^^ aside any renewal fund, though they should have done 
 so ; and the respondents are willing to allow a deduction 
 under this head. As to the tenants' capital [see Mr. Vigers' 
 evidence, supra, pp. 179, 182], the chattels are taken at 
 cost price ; it has been expressly decided that they must 
 be taken at their present value in R. v. North Staffordshire 
 Ey. Co. [1860], 3 Ell. & EU. 392. The appeUants' wit- 
 nesses admitted that the deduction for depreciation would- 
 be 25 per cent., but the respondents wOl contend that it 
 should be 33 per cent. Further, it is submitted that too 
 much is included under the head of chattels. Anything 
 that is part of the rateable hereditament cannot be part of 
 the tenants' capital. In R. v. Southampton Dock Co. 
 [1851], 14 Q. B. 587, it was held that buildings are "to 
 be assessed according to their existing value as combined 
 with the machinery " attached to them for the purposes of 
 trade, " without considering whether the machinery be real 
 or personal property, or whether it be liable or not to dis- 
 tress, or seizure under a, fieri facias, or whether it would go 
 to the heir or executor, or at the expiration of a lease, to 
 the landlord or tenant." This decision was followed iu 
 R. V. Lee [1866], L. E. 1 Q. B. 241 ; in Laing v. Bishop- 
 wearmouth [1878], 3 Q.. B. D. 299 ; and lastly, in Tyne 
 Boiler Works v. Overseers of Longbenton, Hyde's Eat. App. 
 (1886—1890) 241 ; 18 Q. B. D. 81 : in the latter case it 
 was expressly decided that fixture or attachment to the 
 freehold is not necessary to make a thing rateable. But 
 here Mr. Yigers iucludes amongst the tenants' property 
 machinery which is described by himself as "fixed." The 
 hydraulic cranes which are moveable are necessarily con- 
 nected with the fixed pipes before they can be used. They 
 are constructed to move along a pipe let into the ground, 
 and in the pipe there are set at intervals valves with which 
 
LONDON QITAKTEE SESSIONS. 191 
 
 tlie cranes can be connected. The movement is for change 1892. 
 
 of user, not for use while in motion. In Laing v. Bishop- London and 
 
 wearmouth, 3 Q. B. D. at p. 302, amongst the machinery I™'^ I>°°™ 
 
 included as part of the rateable hereditament, was "a Stbpnetand 
 
 traversing crane carried on a pair of wrought-iron girders." unions. 
 
 In the present case the vats and the " vault carvings " 
 
 [described infra, p. 194] are clearly part of the rateable 
 
 hereditament; and they "make the premises fit as premises 
 
 for the purpose for which they are used," and so are within 
 
 the rule laid down in the Tyne Boikr Works Case {uK 
 
 supra). The vaults would be unfit for use without the 
 
 vault' carvings. Stores kept for the purpose of repairing 
 
 the hereditament are landlord's stores (a) . The overdraft 
 
 on the customers' deposit account must be struck out 
 
 altogether {vide supra, p. 179) ; the deposits go to reduce 
 
 the necessity for the allowance of three months' expenses 
 
 as part of the tenants' capital ; for that allowance is made 
 
 on the assumption that the dock companies have to give 
 
 three months' credit to their customers. It is admitted 
 
 that rates and taxes must be regarded as part of the 
 
 annual expenditure, and that on the amount of the rates 
 
 and taxes for one quarter, the same rate of interest is to be 
 
 allowed as on the rest of the tenants' capital. 
 
 Mr. William Eve, on behalf of the Poplar Union, made 
 the following valuation of the East and West India Docks, 
 based on the accounts of 1889, as controlled by the Special 
 Act of 1888 (6) :— 
 
 31 per cent, of net profits - - - - £130,423 
 Add, for property and income tax and in- 
 terest on mortgage debentures, 31 per 
 cent, on 7,260/., abeady deducted - 2,251 
 
 Carried forward - - - £132,674 
 
 {a) Compare tlie arguments upon this point in Gas Light and Coke Co. 
 V. Citt/ of London Union, infra, pp. 219, 222, 223. 
 
 (4) This valuation must be compared with Mr. Vigera' valuation of the 
 same docks, sujpra, p. 180. -" 
 
192 
 
 LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. 
 
 London and 
 India Doces 
 
 ». 
 Stepney and 
 
 POPLAE 
 
 Unions. 
 
 Brouglit forward - - - 
 Eates payatle on the assessments 
 
 appealed against . . - £18,163 
 
 Eates actually paid in 1889 - 13,637 
 
 31 per cent, of rents separately assessed 
 
 31 per cent, of rent paid for Fenchurcli Street 
 warehouses 
 
 Renewal of tenants' plant - - £1,500 
 Tenants' share: 
 
 17 per cent, on £126,000 = 21,420 
 
 Landlord's renewal fund - - 8,500 
 
 £132,674 
 
 4,526 
 
 128,148 
 9,005 
 
 119,143 
 
 1,774 
 
 Indirectly productive portion : 
 
 Commercial Eoad warehouses, &c. - 
 
 120,917 
 
 31,420 
 
 £89,497 
 
 9,946 
 
 Eateahle value of Tilbury and East and West 
 
 India Docks ------ £79,551 
 
 The rateable values stated in the respective valuation 
 lists were : — 
 
 Tilbury Docks - . - 
 East and West India Docks - 
 
 £1,158 
 56,333 
 
 £57,491 
 
 Mr. Eve, in calculating the net receipts, disallowed the 
 charge for interest on mortgage debentures, because those 
 were created for the purpose of providing working capital 
 (vide supra, p. 185) ; if, therefore, the interest thereon 
 was to be treated as a deduction, Mr. Eve claimed to 
 deduct the amount raised by debentures from the tenants' 
 capital, and he pointed out that whereas 4 per cent, only 
 
LONDON QUAETEK SESSIONS. 193 
 
 was paid on tlie debentures, lie had allowed 17 per cent, as 1892. 
 tenant's profit on the whole of the tenant's capital. Mr. London and 
 Eve disaUowed the deduction in respect of the rent of the Ini>ia Doom 
 Fenehuroh Street warehouses, on the ground that they Stepney aiid 
 were no longer occupied loj the appellants, and that the Unions. 
 rent would not have to be paid again. He treated the 
 warehouses as indirectly productive of profit. 
 
 Mr. Eve calculated the amount of the tenant's capital 
 necessary to carry on the East and West India Docks 
 thus : — 
 
 Tenant's plant : 
 
 Value taken by Mr. Tigers- - - - £152,630 
 
 Deduct for items which enhance 
 the value of the rateable here- 
 ditament, viz., lathes and saws 
 fixed, hydraulic cranes, 38 
 travellers, 17 vats (8 fitted 
 with agitators), vault carvings £26,993 
 
 Deduct items relating to land- 
 lord's repairs : 
 
 Dredgers and mud barges- 14,600 
 
 Deduct for one refrigerating 
 hulk not required under new 
 administration by joint com- 
 mittee - - - - 5,625 
 
 47,218 
 
 105,412 
 Deduct, to obtain present value, 33| per 
 
 cent. - - 35,137 
 
 £70,275 
 Stores, as taken by Mr. Vigers £6,196 
 Deduct for landlord's stores, 
 
 sayi - - - - 1,549 
 
 4,647 
 
 Balance at bankers 6,000 
 
 Carried forward- - - £80,922 
 
194 
 
 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS, 
 
 1892. 
 
 liONBON AHD 
 
 Ihdia Docks 
 
 V. 
 
 Stepney and 
 
 POPLAB 
 
 Unions. 
 
 Brought forward - 
 One year's working expenses - £204,189 
 Deduct for : 
 
 Dredging (landlord's 
 expense) - £10,959 
 
 Separate expenses 10,069 
 
 21,028 
 
 £80,922 
 
 One-quarter of £183,161 = 45,790 
 
 Rates and taxes : 
 
 Say J of £18,163, the amount payatle on 
 assessments appealed against - - - 
 
 4,540 
 
 Deduct for deposit accounts and special 
 deposits : 
 
 Proportion attributable to East and West 
 India Docks (divided according to re- 
 ceipts of the several docks) of £64,950, 
 the total amount in December, 1889, 
 sayi 
 
 £131,252 
 
 10,825 
 £120,427 
 
 As to the items included under " tenant's plant " : 
 Mr. Eve said the hydraulic cranes ran on rails laid at a 
 gauge of 4 feet 8J inches, and could not travel beyond the 
 limits of the rails. The vats were similar to the large vats 
 used by brewers, which were always taken into account in 
 rating a brewery (these vats varied in size from 200 to 
 6,000 gallons, and some of them contained machinery, 
 worked by "steam agitators," for blending spirits). The 
 " vault carvings " consisted of pieces of iron, 7 feet or 8 feet 
 long, which were in most cases let into the ground about 
 6 inches and projected above the surface of the ground 
 1 inch : they were laid in the vaults to an exact gauge, 
 lite a tramway, and the tops were about 6 inches wide. 
 On them casks were rolled. [The appellants ultimately 
 abandoned the contention that the " vault carvings " could 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 195- 
 
 be treated as part of tlie tenant's plant.] Mr. Eve con- i892. 
 sidered that the allowance for depreciation of tenant's London asd 
 plant of 33-^ per cent, on cost price was insufEeient if, as ^^^^^ Dooks 
 the appellants' witnesses contended, the necessary sinking Stepnet and 
 funds were far greater than the actual expenditure. The unions. 
 rate of interest on tenant's capital ought, the witness 
 considered, to diminish or increase, according as the 
 occupier had a more or less strict monopoly : and it could 
 not he determined by a rule of thumb. With regard to 
 the apportionment of the 31 per cent, of net profits paid to 
 the India Company, as between the Tilbury Docks and the 
 East and West India Docks, Mr. Eve considered that, 
 although the Tilbury Docks were carried on at a loss, yet 
 they would stUL have a competitive value if they were in 
 the hands of a rival company ; he admitted, therefore, that 
 some part of the 31 per cent, should be attributed to the 
 Tilbtixy Docks, but could not specify what part. He 
 pointed out that his valuation of 79,551/., as compared 
 with the actual assessment amounting to 57,491/., gave 
 a margin of 22,061/., to represent the price which 
 might be paid to get rid of the opposition of the Tilbury 
 Docks. 
 
 Mr. William Marshall made the following valuation of 
 the East and West India Docks, based on the profits of 
 1889, as controlled by the Special Act of 1888 :— 
 
 Profits earned by East and West India Docks, £ 
 
 and warehouses ----- 130,423 
 Deduct 31 per cent, of properties separately 
 
 9,665 
 
 120,758 
 
 Add rates paid on East and West India 
 
 Docks in 1889 13,637 
 
 Net profits, plus rates, divisible between land- 
 lord and tenant - - - - £134,395 
 o2 
 
196; 
 
 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. 
 
 London and 
 India Docks 
 
 V. 
 
 Btepney and 
 
 POPT.ATt 
 TJUIONS. 
 
 Brouglit forward - 
 Tenant's share : — 
 
 ITJ per cent, on working capital 
 of £137,000- - - - £23,975 
 
 Sinking fund for renewal of 
 
 tenant's plant - - - 1,520 
 
 £134,395- 
 
 25,495 
 
 Gross value, plus rates ----- 108,900 
 Deduct landlord's renewal fund - £9,500 
 Extra repairs and dredg- 
 ing: - - - - 4,375 
 
 13,875 
 
 Eateable value, plus rates - - - - 
 Deduct rates calculated on assessments ap- 
 pealed against . . . - - 
 
 95,025 
 18,163 
 
 Eateable value of East and West India Docks 
 
 and warehouses ----- 76,862 
 Deduct rateable value of warehouses (a) - 11,178 
 
 Eateable value of East and West India Docks £65,684 
 
 In this calculation, Mr. Marshall regarded the whole of 
 the 31 per cent, of net profits paid to the India Company 
 as attributable to the East and West India Docks and 
 warehouses, and nothing as belonging to the Tilbury 
 Docks, which were carried on at a loss. He admitted, 
 however, that the actual assessment at Tilbury, which was 
 put at a nomiaal sum of 1,158/., might properly be 
 deducted. He had at one time advised an increase of the 
 assessment of the Tilbury Docks to 10,000/. ; but the ap- 
 pellants having objected thereto, and having shown that 
 the docks were carried on at a loss, he had advised the 
 assessment committee to grant a reduction to 1,158/. He 
 regarded the warehouses as indirectly productive of profit. 
 
 (a) The difEeience in the amounts deducted by Mr. "Eve and Mr. Mar- 
 shall respectively, as the rateable value of the warehouses, is due to their 
 having teken the actual assessments thereon at different times. 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 197 
 
 Mr. Marshall calculated the tenant's capital for the 
 East and West India Docks thus : — 
 
 Total expenses in those docks, including 
 rates 
 
 Deduct maintenance - - - - 
 
 Three months' expenses, to meet all outgoings 
 
 Deduct for proportion of average amount 
 
 of deposits ia hand, attributable to these 
 
 docks 
 
 Cash required by tenant to meet outgoings - 
 
 Present value of tenant's plant and working 
 gear ------- 
 
 Stores in hand, as per appellants' 
 
 evidence £6,196 
 
 Deduct for landlord's stores, 
 
 say one-fourth - - - 1,549 
 
 £217,471 
 17,500 
 
 £199,971 
 £49,993 
 
 11,941 
 
 Balance at bankers for contingencies - 
 
 Deduct for dredging plant, and one dis- 
 used refrigerating hulk . - - 
 
 Add tenant's capital for working warehouses 
 
 1892. 
 
 London and 
 India Docks 
 
 V. 
 
 Stepnbt and 
 
 POPUJB 
 
 Unions. 
 
 £38,052 
 83,768 
 
 4,647 
 6,000 
 
 £131,457 
 14,708 
 
 £116,749 
 18,912 
 
 Total capital for East and West India Docks 
 
 and Warehouses ----- £136,661 
 Say £137,000 to allow for rates on increased assessments. 
 
 In calculating the present value of the tenant's plant, 
 Mr. Marshall deducted one-third from the prime cost. 
 He also excluded the fixed machinery, the cranes, vats, 
 and "vault carvings" above referred to {supra, p. 194). 
 The buildings were specially prepared to receive the 
 machinery ; the warehouses containing the vats would not 
 .'be rum warehouses without the vats ; and the cranes and 
 
■198 
 
 LONDON QUABTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892- vault carvings were essential to the user of the premises. 
 
 XoNDONAMD All of thsse would therefore be taken into account in 
 
 India Doczs yai^jiug ^he premises on which they stood. The witness 
 
 Stepney and admitted that he had hitherto always treated the dredging 
 
 TJOTom plant as helongiag to the tenant, and had deducted it ia 
 
 the present case in obedience to the directions of counsel. 
 
 F. M. White, Q.C, for the Poplar Union (in which the 
 East and West India Docks are situated) : As to the 
 apportionment of value to the Tilbury Docks. They are 
 a losing concern ; it may be (as in R. v. London ^ North 
 Western Rail. Co. [1874], L. E., 9 Q. B. 134), that com- 
 petition would induce a tenant to pay a rent higher than 
 the profits would warrant, and so a losing concern may 
 have a rateable value ; but this can only be where com- 
 petition is possible, and iu the present case the special Act 
 of 1888 has put an end to competition. The appellants 
 cannot consistently claim that in this appeal there shall be 
 attributed to the TUbury Docks a higher rateable value 
 than that which has been fixed on their own objection at 
 Tilbury. As to the deductions claimed to be made from 
 the net profits paid to the India Company {vide supra, 
 p. 181) : a close analogy is found iu R. v. Sherford [1867], 
 L. E. 2 Q,. B. 503, in which it was held that in rating a 
 tithe-rentcharge, no deduction could be allowed in respect 
 of the salary of a curate whose services were necessary in 
 addition to those of the incumbent himself ; and it was 
 shown that the principle of Jones v. Mersey Bocks [1865], 
 11 H. L. C. 443, is, that all property capable of beneficial 
 occupation is to be assessed, irrespectively of the amount 
 of remunerative value to the particular occupier ; and that 
 this principle was inconsistent with the Bachiey Case 
 [1858], E. B. & E. 1, in which a deduction for the salary 
 of a curate was allowed ; and Mellor, J., pointed out 
 (L. E. 2 Q,. B., at p. 511) that "the fallacy consists in 
 confounding the rateable value to the poor rate with the 
 remunerative value to the incumbent." In the present 
 
Unions, 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 199 
 
 case, the statute does not, by these deductions, diminish 1892. 
 the profits, hut merely appropriates them in a particular London and 
 way when made. ^^^^ ^°°'^s 
 
 Stepney and 
 Litikr, Q.C, for St. George -in -the -East (in which f^°J^^ 
 part of the London Dock is situated) : The argument on 
 behalf of the Poplar Union, based on E. v. Skerford 
 [1867], L. E. 2 Q. B. 503, and Jones v. Merseij Docks 
 [1865], 11 H. L. 0. 443, tends to show that the rating of 
 the several docks, in the present appeals, should be decided 
 on the parochial principle, and not with reference to the 
 distribution of profits, when made, between the two dock 
 companies. 
 
 Balfour Browne, Q.C., for the appellants in reply : It 
 cannot be right to allow as deductions just those payments 
 which are made by the joint committee : because, if, by 
 arrangement, the Act of 1888 had directed that the repairs 
 of each dock should be borne by the company to which it 
 belonged, it would follow that the cost of repairs cotild not 
 be deducted from the receipts. Such a result would be in- 
 consistent with the definition of "rateable value." The 
 superannuation allowances paid by each company were 
 proper deductions before 1888, and are therefore proper 
 when the joint committee take over the management. 
 [Sir P. H. Edlin : We cannot regard the joint committee 
 as taking over the same going concern formerly in the 
 hands of the two companies. The Act of 1888 has made 
 one occupation instead of two.] It is admitted that in 
 dealing with directors' fees, the mere distribution of divi- 
 dends may be regarded as the landlord's duty ; and, as a 
 principle, fees paid in respect of such distribution are not 
 proper deductions (a). But here the directors of the 
 separate companies do perform some duties connected with 
 the management of the docks; e.^., the payment of the 
 
 (ffl) This point was also discussed in Gas Light and Coke Co. v. City of 
 London Union, infra, p. 222. 
 
200' 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. superannuation allowances. Dredging is not merely neees- 
 LoNDONANB saTj in order to maintain the hereditament: it is also 
 Inbia Docks necessary in order to keep the docks open from day to day. 
 Stephet and In rating a railway, the ordinary daily repairs to keep the 
 TJotons. hereditament in working order {e.g., the mending a 
 broken fish-plate), are always included in the tenant's 
 working expenses. If the occupier of a dock did not 
 dredge, ships could not come in, and no dues would he 
 earned: whereas the landlord's rent is safe whether the 
 ships can get in or not. Dredging the mud ia the dock is 
 analogous to sweeping out the ruhbish which is dropped on 
 the floors of the warehouses adjoining those docks: and 
 both are the duties of the tenant. In Jones y. Mersey 
 Bocks [1865], 11 H. L. C. 443, the docks were carried on 
 by a Board, not for the sake of profit : and the decision was 
 that, although the net receipts were by statute devoted to 
 certain specific purposes, the docks were rateable. In the 
 present case rateabUity is admitted, and the question is 
 whether deduction directed by the statute which controls 
 the working, affects the rateable value. The rebates paid 
 in respect of Tilbury Docks [mde supra, p. 175] are made 
 in many instances under contracts which biad the ship- 
 owners to bring their ships to those docks: it cannot be 
 right to take into account the benefits arising under such 
 contracts, and at the same time to exclude the burdens 
 which form the consideration therefor. As to the items to 
 be included in tenant's plant, in making up the tenant's 
 capital : the portable and travelling cranes run upon rails, 
 but are no more fixed to the freehold than is a locomotive 
 engine which can run from London to Liverpool. Both 
 the cranes and the locomotive are strictly limited by the 
 extent of the rails. It was said that a hydraulic crane can 
 only be used when attached to the freehold, and therefore 
 must be regarded as part of it : the same thing might be said 
 of a fire-engine. As to the method of valuing the ware- 
 houses: ia R. V. West Middlesex Waterworks Co. [1859], 
 1 E. & E. 716, the stations and dead mains of the company 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. ^01 
 
 were said to te indirectly productive of value, because ttey 1892. 
 earned nothing and no one would pay a rent for them: London Ain> 
 but persons are willing to pay a rent for warehouses, though -"^^ Docks 
 they have no connection with docks. In the present SiBPUBTiND 
 case it might as well be said that the docks were indirectly unions. 
 productive of profit to the warehouses. The profits made 
 in the warehouses can be, and ought to be, separated from 
 the dock earnings. The docks and warehouses are in a 
 position analogous to that of a ferry worked with a railway. 
 
 Cur. adv. vult. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.O.) : There is a 1892. 
 
 question of law upon which the appellants may ask me to 1 
 
 state a case, arising out of the previous obligations of the 
 several docks, before the passing of the Act of 1888. It 
 was contended that the obligations which they had pre- 
 viously incurred are of such a nature, that having regard 
 to the Act of Parliament, we ought to take them into 
 consideration in assessing the rateable value. I have 
 come to the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled 
 to any deductions in respect of those obligations, and that 
 it would be contrary to the Parochial Assessment Act for 
 us to make any allowance whatsoever in respect thereof. 
 This is the conclusion which I have arrived at, adverse to 
 the appellants. The obligations are very large, but it 
 seems to me to be absolutely inconsistent with what we 
 have to consider under the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 
 1869, to take them into consideration at aU. No doubt 
 there has been what may be called a speculative rivalry 
 between these several companies, and (although the phrase 
 does not sound very polite), I was about to say, each 
 being desirous of putting an end to the existence of the 
 others, for the purpose of doing so, one company made 
 contracts with various shipowners, extending over long 
 periods of time, for the purpose of inducing them to bring 
 their ships into this or that dock, and binding themselves 
 
202 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 Ifi92. not to take them into their opponents' docks. All that 
 
 London and might have teen done fairly in view of the state of affairs 
 
 India Docks existing at that time ; hut the very object of the Act of 
 
 Stefnet and Parliament was to put an end to that ruinous competition ; 
 
 TJnio^ ^^^ ^"^ ^^J ^^^^ ^^^ expense to which the companies were 
 
 . thereby subjected, and which may have resulted in con- 
 
 Edlin, Q.C. tinning obligations upon them, should now be taken into 
 consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the lettable 
 value at the present time, seems to me to be altogether 
 inconsistent with the plain intention of the Yaluation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869. With regard to those items 
 being elements in the account, my judgment will be 
 adverse to the appellants. Another question was as to 
 the appellants beiag entitled to bring into the account of 
 profit and loss the retiring allowances which had been 
 agreed upon prior to the establishment of the committee ; 
 and the question arose as to whether retiring allowances 
 made under an agreement made since the establishment of 
 the committee, had to be taken into consideration. As to 
 the former, for the reasons in a great measure which I 
 have already stated with reference to the other question, 
 our judgment would be adverse to the appellants. With 
 regard to the latter portion of such allowances, it seems to 
 me that they may have been reasonably agreed upon in 
 view of the economical carrying on of the working of the 
 business ; and as to those, I think the appellants would be 
 entitled to have them brought into the account. Our 
 judgment would therefore be as to that portion of the 
 allowances in favour of the appellants. 
 
 With regard to the dredging, I think the appellants are 
 entitled to the whole cost of the dredging. There appears 
 to have been some confusion as to whether these should be 
 regarded as landlord's or tenant's expenses, but I do not 
 think that any such distinction can be usefully pointed to 
 in this case. They appear to me to come under the 
 definition of "other expenses," distinct from repairs — other 
 expenses which the tenant is entitled to have deducted 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 203 
 
 from tlie gross value in arriving at the rateable value. 1892. 
 "Ultimately, unless the dredging were done, the accumu- London and 
 lation of silt and mud would destroy the hereditament Ii^i^I^ooks 
 altogether. It is a reasonahle expense, that from time to Stepney and 
 time dredging should take place for the purpose of pre- Unions 
 
 venting such destructive accumulation, and therefore as to . 
 
 the dredging, I think the appellants are entitled to have Edlin, Q.C. 
 •the whole cost allowed. 
 
 As to the warehouses, I am clearly of opinion that they 
 must be separately and distinctly the subject of valuation, 
 and that therefore they are not properly an item to be 
 brought into this account. 
 
 The decisions upon these several points of law wiU 
 possibly necessitate some alteration in the figures, but upon 
 the accounts so far as I am able to compare the figures with 
 the results upon the several questions as to which I have 
 expressed my opinion, I have come to the conclusion that 
 the appellants will take nothing by these appeals. 
 
 The case was adjourned to enable the parties to apply 1892. 
 these decisions to the figures, and after the adjournment y • 
 
 the Court were again asked for a further decision on certain 
 questions of principle. The appellants also asked for a 
 case for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin) : I am wilKng to have 
 a ease stated upon the question as to the allowance of a 
 deduction, for rebates paid under the so-called improvident 
 contracts, under s. 48 of the Act of 1888 [vide supra, 
 p. 174]. I do not feel inclined to grant a case as to the 
 question arising under s. 47 : and we do not allow any 
 deduction for payments made under ss. 47 and 62. These 
 are payments made under obligations created before the 
 passing of the Act of 1888. As to the directors' fees : we 
 do not think that the fees paid to the directors of the 
 two separate companies should be brought into account : 
 
204 
 
 LONDON QITAKTBE SESSIONS. 
 
 POPLAE 
 
 Unions. 
 
 Sir P. H. 
 EdUn, Q.C. 
 
 1892. but we have allowed as a deduction all the fees paid to the 
 London AXD directors for managing under the joint committee. We 
 India DooKa digaUow the fees paid after the 69 and 31 per cent, of the 
 Stepney AND profits are appropriated [vide supra, -p. 179]. We do not 
 think it necessary for us to work out the amount of the 
 tenant's capital, and if we think the respondents are within 
 the mark, we shall not go into all the questions raised : as 
 to the chattels forming part of the tenant's capital, we think 
 their present value, and not their prime cost, must be 
 taken. 
 
 [The exact amounts of the several assessments questioned 
 in these appeals were ultimately determined by the learned 
 chairman sitting in camera.] 
 
 1891. 
 May 25; 
 July 30, 31 ; 
 Aug. 1, 7; 
 Oct. 15, 16; 
 Nov. 5, 6, 7, 
 9, 12, 13, 14, 
 18; 
 Dec. 23. 
 
 1892. 
 Feh. 8, 19, 
 26; 
 
 Marchl2,14., 
 23 ' 
 Mv. 1, 30. 
 
 Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Assessment Committees of the 
 City of London and other Unions. 
 
 Oas Company — Accounts — For what Tear to he taken — Tenanfa 
 Capital — Percentage on — Landlord's and Tenant's Charges — 
 Parliamentary Expenses — Directors' Fees — Working Fxpenses — 
 Superannuation Allowances — Directly and Indirectly Productive 
 Mains. 
 
 Tlie overseers, on or before June 1st, 1890, duly made and depo- 
 sited a qtiinquennial valuation Hst, -whioli was revised by tbe 
 assessment committee. On tbe commencement of the hearing of 
 the appeal in March, 1891, the appellants tendered in evidence a 
 calculation of rateable value based on their accounts for 1889. 
 
 Held, that the calculation should have been based on the accounts 
 for the year ending June 30th, 1890, inasmuch as those accounts 
 might have been used by the assessment committee in revising the 
 list : but that it was open to the appellants to refer to receipts and 
 expenditure subsequent to June 30th, 1890, as showing an ascend- 
 ing or descending scale. 
 
 Apportionment of costs of appeals relating to the mains of a gas 
 company extending through several parishes made where the ap- 
 pellants succeed in some parishes and fail in others. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 205 
 
 Tlie following questions discussed : — 1891. 
 
 (1) What is tie proper rate of interest on tenant's capital ? ~ ~ ~ 
 
 (2) "WTiether repairs to the rateable hereditament can be regarded co^b Co. 
 as a charge f aUing on the hypothetical tenant ? -d. 
 
 (3) Whether directors' fees, or the expenses of promoting or OiTTOf 
 opposing bills in Parliament can be so regarded ? Union. 
 
 (4) Whether superannuation aUowances paid to oflO^cers retired in 
 consequence of the amalgamation of several companies can be 
 treated as part of the working expenses ? 
 
 (5) On what principle are directly and indirectly productive mains 
 to be distinguished ? 
 
 (6) Whether an unexpected increase in expenditure causing a 
 diminution of profits made up by drawing upon a reserve fund can 
 be regarded as chargeable against the fund represented by the 
 allowance of 2 J per cent, interest on tenant's capital for "risks 
 and casualties"? 
 
 Appeals relating to gasworks, mains, and pipes, extend- 
 ing through 128 parishes, of which 106 were situated 
 within the City of London Union. 
 
 The several respondents appeared separately, and in 
 many instances by separate counsel and solicitors, hut the 
 appeals were heard together. 
 
 Littler, Q,.0., for the appellants: The first question is, 1891. 
 what year's accounts are to he the basis of calculation ? y ^^' 
 
 The accounts are made out half-yearly, to June 30th and 
 December 31st, and are published withia three weeks of 
 those dates. The valuation list was made by the overseers 
 on or before June 1st, 1890, and was revised by the assess- 
 ment committee in the autumn of that year : see Valuation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 42. The appellants have based 
 their calculations on the accounts for the year ending 
 December, 1889, which were the last figures before the 
 overseers. [Sir P. H. Edlin : The assessment committee 
 could have used the accounts up to June, 1890]. The 
 appellants have followed the rule laid down by this Court 
 in South Metropolitan Gas Co. v. Greenwich, supra, p. 56. 
 There were strikes during the year 1889. 
 
206 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. Sir E. Clarke, S.-G., for the City of London Union: 
 
 Gas Lioht & The appellants have already given notice of a claim to he 
 
 Coke Co. entered in a supplemental Ust. The respondents have 
 
 City op hased their calculations on the accounts for 1889, but they 
 
 Union? admit that neither the assessment committee nor this 
 
 Court are absolutely bound by those accounts. They 
 
 do not object to suggestions of probable increase of 
 
 expenditure. 
 
 The Chaieman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : The Court 
 desire to see the accounts up to June, 1890. The hearing 
 is adjourned to enable the appellants to re-state their 
 case {a). 
 
 1891. These appeals afterwards came before the Court on more 
 
 AMqust i 7 • ^'^^ twenty days, and the decision ultimately depended 
 
 Oct. 15, 16; maiuly on questions of fact. It is therefore thought un- 
 
 9 "12 13 14 iiscessary to report the cases fuUy, but, having regard to 
 
 18. the number of questions of principle raised and considered, 
 
 it has been thought that a summary of the valuations of 
 
 some of the witnesses, and of the arguments of counsel, 
 
 may be useful. 
 
 JJiUler, Q.C. {Castle, Q.C., and Barnkwerts with him), in 
 opening the case for the appellants, gave statistics of 
 receipts and expenditure for a period subsequent to the 
 year ending June 30, 1890 (which year was throughout 
 the proceedings, for convenience, called "the account year"). 
 
 The Chaiemak (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : If the calcula- 
 tions are based on the accounts for the year ending June 
 30, 1890, 1 do not think we can consider the later figures, 
 except in so far as they show an ascending or descending 
 scale. 
 
 (a) Cf . the cases cited in. the note, supra, p. 60 : and see especially 
 p. 169. 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 207 
 
 The following evidenoe was given for the appellants : — 1891. 
 
 Mr. J. W. Field, the accountant of the company, proved 
 the following valuation, hased on the figures of the 
 "account year" (ending June 30, 1890). 
 
 £2,273,180 
 53,575 
 
 Eeceipts from sale of gas (less bad debts) 
 Eental of meters . . . - 
 
 Gas Liqhi & 
 Coke Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 City of 
 London 
 Union'. 
 
 Rental of stoves 
 Sale of residuals 
 Miscellaneous receipts 
 
 Expenditure : 
 
 Coals (at 13/2-78 per ton) 
 Salaries (manufactory) 
 Wages (carbonizing) - 
 Purification . . - 
 
 Repairs of works and plant - 
 Salaries and wages (distribu- 
 tion) . - - - 
 Repairs of maius (including 
 cost of replacing small mains 
 by larger ones) 
 Meter and stove repairs (in- 
 cluding sums written ofE for 
 depreciation) - - - 
 
 Public lamp charges 
 Management . - - 
 Parliamentary and law charges 
 Public officers' expenses 
 Annuities - - - - 
 
 8,216 
 
 ' 841,754 
 
 1,574 
 
 £3,178,299 
 
 - £1,255,816 
 20,068 
 
 331,568 
 63,419 
 
 - 276,762 
 
 47,906 
 
 52,185 
 
 67,615 
 31,399 
 61,093 
 9,690 
 4,517 
 18,346 
 
 2,239,884 
 
 Net receipts - £938,415 
 Interest on tenant's capital (17J per cent, on 
 
 1,705,577/.) - 
 
 Carried forward 
 
 298,477 
 £639,938 
 
Union. 
 
 20S; LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS, 
 
 1891. Brougtt forward - £639,938 
 
 Gas Lioht & Deduct a further sum for re- 
 CokbOo. newals (difference between 
 
 CiOTOF actual expenditure and aver- 
 
 LoNDON age) £122,796 
 
 Insurance at 10s. per cent, on 
 value of buildings - - 18,787 
 
 141,583 
 
 Eateable value of whole (plus rates) - £498,355 
 Rateable value (plus rates) of indirectly 
 productive portion - - - - 355,325 
 
 £143,030 
 Eates, at 5s. 2d. in the pound - - - 29,363 
 
 Eateable value of living mains - - £113,667 
 
 These calculations took no notice of the fact that the 
 price of common gas (on the north side of the Thames) 
 was increased by the appellants as from June 30, 1890, 
 from 2s. 6^. to 2s. 9d. per 1,000 feet. The actual expen- 
 diture for coal was put down in the working expenses, 
 but in making up the tenant's capital, the stock of coal 
 was put down at a higher price, in consequence of the 
 increase since the end of the " account year." 
 
 The item of 18,346^. for annuities included 4,9211. paid 
 to officers compulsorily retired under Board of Trade 
 schemes of amalgamation. 
 
 Mr. Field made up his tenant's capital thus : — 
 
 Cash balance £50,000 
 
 Stock of coal (450,000 tons at 14s. 6d.) - 326,250 
 
 Stock of coke 12,500 
 
 Stock of tar and ammoniaeal liquor, &c. - 80,000 
 Sundry stores : — Firebricks, clay -retorts, 
 iron, steel, sundry castings, meters, stoves, 
 
 timber, bricks, horses, &c. - - - 157,439 
 
 Carried forward £626,189 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 209 
 
 Brought forward 
 
 Tools and chattels 
 
 Meters ----.-. 
 Stoves (after deducting depreciation) 
 Pive-twelfths of net expenditure 
 Eates for the half-year, say 
 
 £626,189 
 
 - 170,801 
 
 - 275,826 
 53,665 
 
 - 529,096 
 50,000 
 
 £1,705,577 
 
 1891. 
 
 Gas Liohi ( 
 Coke Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 City of 
 Loudon 
 Union. 
 
 The last item hut one was explained as the amount 
 which a tenant would have to incur in carrying on the 
 husiness hefore he would get in any part of his gas rates 
 from his customers, allowance being made for moneys he 
 would receive during the period for supplemental gas 
 accounts, and for sales of coke and other residual products. 
 Mr. Field, in arriving at this amount, deducted 65,000/. 
 from the annual working expenses as representing the 
 repairs properly chargeable not to the hypothetical tenant, 
 but to the landlord. 
 
 The following is a summary of the valuation made by 
 Mr. H. E. Jones, the engineer of the Commercial Gras 
 Company. 
 
 Eeceipts - £3,198,577 
 
 Expenditure (including bad debts and rates 
 
 and taxes) 2,416,962 
 
 Balance agreeing with published accounts - 
 If valuation is to be restricted solely to precise 
 
 figures of " account year," then deduct 
 Additional expenditure for wear and tear - 
 
 Tenants' share : 
 
 17i per cent, on 1,755,374/, - 
 
 Landlord's gross share - 
 Eenewals and insurance - - - - 
 
 Landlord's net, subject to correction for rates 
 
 K. 
 
 £781,615 
 
 47,433 
 
 734,182 
 307,190 
 
 426,992 
 99,427 
 
 327,565 
 p 
 
210 LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. Brought forward - £327,565 
 
 Gas Liqht & Rates paid in account year - £155,864 
 
 CozjsCo. Eates payable on assessment of 
 
 City OP 384,182/. - - - - 99,247 
 
 London 
 
 Union. Difference 66,617 
 
 Rateable value of wbole - 384,182 
 Rateable value of indirectly productive works 282,370 
 
 Rateable value of mains - £101,812 
 
 But to find proper average annual value from 
 1890 to 1895, proceeding from same net 
 balance (June, 1890) ... - 781,615 
 
 Correct for further changes : — 
 Add for increase of 3d. per 1,000 feet iu 
 
 price of gas 209,812 
 
 Deduct: 991,427 
 
 Additional expenditure for 
 
 wear and tear - - £47,433 
 Increase in wages - - 27,857 
 Increase iu net cost of coal - 91,295 
 
 166,685 
 
 Corrected net receipts - 824,842 
 Tenants' share : — 
 
 17i per cent, on 1,783,968/. - - - 312,194 
 
 Landlord's share gross - 512,648 
 Renewals and iasuranee - - . . 99,427 
 
 Landlord's sharesubject to correction for rates 413,221 
 Rates paid in account year - £155,864 
 Rates payable on 452,253/. - 116,832 
 
 39,032 
 
 Rateable value of whole - 452,253 
 Indirectly productive works - . - 282,370 
 
 Rateable value of mains - £169,883 
 
1,789,228 
 Deduct undue stocks, ammonia and tar - 33,854 
 
 £1,755,374 
 
 The effect of taking the extra stock of coal at a price on 
 the average of five years, was to increase it to 266,966/., 
 making a total of 1,783,968/., the sum taken as the tenants' 
 capital in the second part of Mr. Jones' calculation. 
 
 In order to distinguish between directly and indirectly 
 productive mains, Mr. Jones adopted a principle which (he 
 admitted) was new and peculiar to himself. He took as 
 a figure, founded on his own experience, the sum of 19/. 
 as the value of the mains necessary to supply in any one 
 parish 1,000,000 cubic feet of gas per annum. He then 
 calculated the structural value of all mains in each parish, 
 and subtracted therefrom a sum. equal to 19/. per million 
 feet of gas supplied in that parish in the year, and the 
 balance, if any, he regarded as the value of the indirectly 
 productive mains in that parish: see further upon this 
 point, infra, p. 216. 
 
 Mr. Corbet Woodall also gave evidence on behalf of the 
 appellants. 
 
 p2 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 211 
 
 Mr. H. E. Jones made up his tenants' capital thus : — 1891. 
 
 (1.) Included in fixed expenditure account of capital, ' GI-as Light & 
 
 Meters .... £275,826 ^T.*^"* 
 
 Stoves 53,665 Ciwof 
 
 Tools and chattels- - - 170,801 Union. 
 
 £500,292 
 
 (2.) Floatiag capital as per balance sheet. 
 
 Bankers - ,. . . £96,378 
 Stocks and stores - - - 330,091 
 Book debts, gas and simdries due 625,095 
 
 1,051,564 
 
 1,551,856 
 Add extra stock of coal necessary at ad- 
 vanced price 237,372 
 
212 LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. Sir E. Clarke, S.-Gr., Poland, Q,.0., and B. Cunningham 
 
 Gas Light & Glen for the City of London Union. 
 
 ORE Co. rpj^g following is a summary of the evidence given for 
 
 CiTT OF the respondents : — 
 
 London 
 
 Union. Mr. William Eve's valuation : 
 
 Eeceipts from gas meter and stove rentals, 
 residuals, &c. £3,198,577 
 
 Expenditure (including repairs and rates and 
 taxes) - 2,382,432 
 
 Net receipts - - - £816,145 
 Add extra receipts for increased price of gas 21 1 ,384 
 
 1,027,529 
 Deduct extra net cost of coal - - - 91,295 
 
 936,234 
 Tenants' share (15 per cent, on a tenant's 
 
 capital of 1,000,000/.) - - - - 150,000 
 
 786,234 
 Eenewals and insurance - - - - 23,500 
 
 Landlord's share (subject to correction for 
 rates) £762,734 
 
 New rates payahle on 765,328/. 
 {i.e., if assessments appealed 
 against are confirmed) - ' - £197,710 
 
 Hates actually paid in "account 
 year" 155,864 
 
 41,846 
 
 Total rateable value - - £720,888 
 Deduct indirectly productive works- - 220,000 
 
 Rateable value of directly productive 
 portion 500,888 
 
 Estimated receipt arising from further in- 
 crease of 3d per 1,000 cubic ft. in price 
 
 . of gas which would have been made had 
 not the company had funds in hand to 
 enable them to pay maximum dividends - 211,384 
 
 £712,272 
 
2,317,863 
 
 Deduct repairs to works, mains and pipes, 
 
 and stoves 324,199 
 
 £1,993,664 
 
 Three months' expenses (| of 1,993,664^.) - 747,624 
 Deduct receipts from residuals during 
 
 three months 315,658 
 
 Carried forward - - ' £431,966 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 213 
 
 Mr. Eve's differed from Mr. Jones' calculations {mde 1891. 
 supra, p. 209) upon one or two questions of amount, and a^g Liqht & 
 upon the following questions of principle. Mr. Eve dis- ^°™ ^°- 
 allowed part of the expenses of " stove fixing and repairs" Citt of 
 as being properly chargeable to capital, the expenses xJoton? 
 having been incurred in order to develop a new business. 
 Mr. Eve disallowed part of the expenses for management, 
 on the ground that they included salaries paid to officers 
 who superintended the extension of works, which was a 
 matter chargeable to the landlord's capital account and not 
 part of the hypothetical tenant's duties. Mr. Eve dis- 
 allowed the whole of the parliamentary charges for a 
 similar reason. Mr. Eve disallowed part of the sum 
 charged for superannuation in respect of officers whose 
 services were rendered unnecessary by the amalgamation 
 of companies, and he made a further deduction on the 
 following ground : that superannuation allowances, which 
 are in the nature of deferred pay, should be calculated 
 upon an average of years, and deductions should be made 
 in the early years of a company's existence, even though 
 no superannuation allowances were in fact paid ; that con- 
 sequently a new company should be allowed more and an 
 old company (such as the appellants') less than the actual 
 payments. Mr. Eve made up his tenants' capital thus: — 
 
 Total working expenses - - - - £2,382,432 
 Deduct rates and taxes {vide infra) - - 155,864 
 
 2,226,568 
 Add extra net cost of coal - . - 91,295 
 
214 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 
 
 G-AS LlQHI & 
 
 CokbOo. 
 
 V. 
 
 Cm OF 
 London 
 TJhion. 
 
 Add : Brought forward - 
 
 £431,966 
 
 Coals in stock, equal to four 
 
 weeks' 
 
 
 consiiTTiption - - - 
 
 - 
 
 103,432 
 
 Coke ... - 
 
 - 
 
 12,500 
 
 Tar and other products 
 
 - 
 
 80,000 
 
 Stores (tenants' only) 
 
 - 
 
 40,000 
 
 Loose plant . - - 
 
 - 
 
 80,000 
 
 Bates for three months 
 
 - 
 
 50,000 
 
 Meters (prime cost, less 33 per 
 
 cent.) - 
 
 245,179 
 
 £1,043,077 
 
 Mr. Eve struck out the claim for "cash at bankers," 
 pointing out that the company in fact held ahout 28,000?. 
 as deposits hy customer! to whom they paid 5 per cent. 
 He also struck out the item of 53,665?. for stoves, on the 
 ground that they constituted, when fixed, a part of the 
 rateable hereditament, and were therefore comparable to a 
 kitchen range. 
 
 Reference was made to Midland Ry. Co. v. Islington, 
 Eyde's Rat. App. (1886-90) 139, in which case the assess- 
 ment sessions had allowed interest on tenant's capital, at 
 17^ per cent., in accordance with the practice of that Court. 
 
 Sir P. H. Edlin : That case was not tried before me : 
 shortly after the decision I conferred with the then chair- 
 man (Sir W. Hardman), and we did not regard the 17| 
 per cent, as an immutable hard and fast line: I have 
 thought that the time would come when we should have 
 to reconsider it. 
 
 The evidence of Mr. W. A. M. Valon, President of the 
 Incorporated Gas Institute (who had in conjunction with 
 Mr. Eve prepared the valuation above set out), related 
 mainly to questions of fact. He considered that the 
 hypothetical tenant of the appellants' gasworks must 
 always have in hand a stock of coals equal to about 5J 
 weeks' consumption. Mr. Valon, in making up the 
 tenant's capital, excluded all stores required for the repairs 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 215 
 
 of the rateable hereditament, on the ground that these 1891. 
 
 must he regarded as the property of the hypothetical gab Lioht & 
 
 landlord. He admitted that many repairs must be done '^°™ *-'''• 
 
 immediately, and by the tenant in occupation, who would Cinr op 
 
 have to provide the stores. Union? 
 Mr. Edward Eyde made the following valuation : — 
 
 Gross receipts from sale of gas, meter and 
 
 stove rentals (less bad debts) - - - £2,546,201 
 
 Working expenses — 
 
 Coal, purifying materials, 
 
 &c. - - - - £1,435,926 
 Less residual products - 869,894 
 
 Net cost of coal and purify- 
 ing materials - - 566,032 
 Salaries, wages, &e. (in- 
 cluding repairs and re- 
 newals of meters and 
 stoves) - - - 553,040 
 Repairs of chattels and 
 apparatus (other than 
 those of rateable here- 
 ditament) - - - 100,000 
 
 Eates and taxes at 6s.2d. 
 
 on 662,182/. - - 171,064 
 
 1,390,136 
 
 Net receipts - - £1,156,065 
 Occupiers' share (interest at 17J per cent. 
 
 on a tenant's capital of 1,350,000/.) - 236,250 
 
 Gfxoss value - - 919,815 
 Eepairs and renewals of rateable heredita- 
 ments and insurance . - - - 257,633 
 
 Eateable value - - £662,182 
 
 In arriving at the gross receipts, Mr. Eyde made an 
 addition of Sd. per 1,000 cubic feet to the actual receipts, 
 to correspond with the increase in the price of gas as from 
 
216 LONDON QUAETEK SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. June 30th, 1890, the termination of the " account year." 
 
 GrAs Light & Mr. E.yde allowed the whole of the directors' fees, but 
 
 • CoeeCo. struck out the annuities paid to officers who retired on 
 
 CiTT OP the amalgamation of several companies. Mr. Eyde also 
 
 •U^N? struck out part of the actual expenditure on stove fitting, 
 
 repairs, and renewals. He made up the tenant's capital 
 
 thus : — 
 
 Five months' working expenses - - - £939,221 
 Deduct f of five months' receipts from sale 
 
 of residuals (869,894 X ^^ X |) - 226,535 
 
 712,686 
 
 Meters and stoves 318,400 
 
 Six weeks' stock of coal and purifying 
 
 materials 165,684 
 
 Cash at hank, tools and implements, spare 
 
 pipes, &c., say 153,230 
 
 £1,350,000 
 
 In arriving at the sum of 939,221^. for the working 
 expenses, Mr. Eyde struck out the directors' and auditors' 
 fees, hut included all the other items (including rates and 
 taxes) which he had inserted in the body of his calcidation, 
 and made no deduction from the cost of coal, in respect of 
 the sale of residuals. 
 
 In arriving at the rateable value of the indirectly pro- 
 ductive works (amounting to 250,000/.), Mr. Eyde had 
 taken the actual assessments (not appealed against) stand- 
 ing in the valuation lists wherever a separate entry appeared. 
 He also treated all mains with a diameter of 24 inches and 
 upwards as unproductive. This part of the witness's valua- 
 tion was ultimately adopted by the Court {a). 
 
 [a) The witnesses on either side adopted different distinctions hetween 
 the directly and indirectly productive mains, but most of them admitted 
 that the distinction was a merely arbitrary one. Mr. Woodall took mains 
 of 36-ia. diameter and upwards as indirectly productive ; Mr. Marshall 
 'took such mains as were not tapped by house pipes ; other witnesses took 
 mains of 14-in. diameter and upwards. See also p. 211, supra. 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 217 
 
 Mr. W. Marshall's valuation may be suniinarized. thus : 1891. 
 
 Eeoeipts from gas, meter and stove rentals Gas Lioht & 
 
 and residuals - - - - -£3,198,576 Coke Co. 
 
 Expenditure, including coals, salaries and City ov 
 
 wages, rates and taxes, &o. - - - 2,398,819 y°^^^f 
 
 Net receipts - 799,757 
 Deduct for necessary corrections: wear 
 
 and tear 3,085 
 
 796,672 
 
 Add abnormal expenditure in 1889-90 
 before price of gas could be increased to 
 meet it 259,377 
 
 Total amount appropriated by company in 
 
 1889-90 under their statutory powers - 1,056,049 
 
 Add rates and taxes actually paid in 1889- 
 90 to be deducted afterwards in each 
 parish 155,864 
 
 Total amount appropriated by company, 
 
 plus rates and taxes - - - - 1,211,913 
 
 Tenants' share (17 J per cent, on 1,300,000^. 
 plus 5 per cent, on consumers' deposits 
 —28,300/.) 228,915 
 
 982,998 
 Renewals and insurance - - - 59,130 
 
 Eateable value, plus rates - £923,868 
 
 Mr. Marshall excluded from the working expenses the 
 parliamentary charges, and certain rents, which he re- 
 garded as being similar to ground rents for which no 
 deduction can be claimed. The item of 3,085/. deducted 
 for wear and tear represents the difference between the 
 actual expenditure on repairs, &c., and the average expen- 
 diture. The item of 259,377/. for " abnormal expenditure " 
 was explained in this way : had it not been for the sudden 
 rise in the cost of coal, labour, and materials, the company 
 
218 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. would have earned enough to pay their dividends, interest 
 
 Gas Liani & ^^ debentures, &c. : viz., 1,056,063^., which sum was paid 
 
 Coke Co. Jj^ p^rt out of the reserve fund. Mr. Marshall contended 
 
 City op that the abnormal expenditure must therefore be eliminated 
 
 Uoton' ^^^ debited against the fund for " risks and casualties " 
 
 created by the allowance of 2f per cent, on the tenants' 
 
 working capital, even if there were no reserve and insurance 
 
 funds to debit it against. Mr. Marshall submitted that 
 
 the tenant could not claim the allowance of 2 J per cent. 
 
 for risks and casualties in every year, plus the actual 
 
 expenditure in the year in which the casualty occurred. 
 
 And in answer to a suggestion that a hypothetical tenant 
 
 for a year would not take over the reserve fund, he said 
 
 that the same thing was true of a sinking fund for 
 
 renewals. 
 
 Mr. Marshall made up his tenants' capital thus : — 
 
 Total working expenses - 
 
 - £2,389,009 
 
 Deduct : 
 
 ' 
 
 Cost of coal 
 
 £ 1,255,316 
 
 Landlord's renewals 
 
 
 (estimated at •§• of 
 
 
 total cost of repairs 
 
 
 and renewals) 
 
 110,677 
 
 
 1,365,993 
 
 Tenants' working expenses, excluding coal 1,023,016 
 
 I of 1,023,016?. 383,631 
 
 Add for coals, 1,000,000 tons at 13s. 8d. - 662,500 
 
 Labour on residual products - - - 13,500 
 
 Deduct: cash from residuals 
 
 October 1 to January 15 £286,355 
 Consumers' deposits - - 28,300 
 Payments for gas between 
 
 October 1 and January 15 100,000 
 
 1,059,631 
 
 414,655 
 
 Carried forward - - . £644,976 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 319 
 
 Brought forward - - £644,976 
 
 Stores in hand - - - 193,764 
 
 Tools, meters and stoves - - 403,392 
 
 Fixed halanee for contingencies - 50,000 
 
 £1,292,132 
 Total working capital required by tenant entering at 
 Michaelmas, 1889, say 1,300,000^. 
 
 Mr. "W. E. Chester, Mr. E. W. Hedley, Mr. W. G. Cook 
 and Mr. W. S. Cross also gave evidence for several 
 respondents. 
 
 1891. 
 
 Gas Light & 
 Coke Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 City OF 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 Poland, Q.C, for the Marylehone Assessment Committee 
 and other respondents : The determination of the rate of 
 interest on tenant's capital is a question of fact : per 
 Blackhurn, J., R. v. Sheffield Gas Co. [1863], 32 L. J. 
 M. C. 169. It is admitted that for some years 17| per 
 cent, has been taken in general practice. In older cases 
 even higher rates were taken : in R. v. Southampton Bock 
 Co. [1851], 14 Q. B. 587, 25 per cent. ; in R. v. Grand 
 Junction Ry. Co. [1844], 4 Q. B. 18, 20 per cent. ; and in 
 R. V. Sheffield Gas Co., ubi supra, 20 per cent, was allowed. 
 In Midland Ry. Co. v. St. Pancras, Eyde's Eat. App. 
 (1886-90) 121, before the assessment sessions, 12| per 
 cent, was taken in rating the St. Pancras Station Hotel. 
 The rate of interest must vary according to the subject 
 matter to be rated. As to the composition of the tenant's 
 capital, the appellants have wrongly included all the land- 
 lord's tools, stores, and appliances. It was suggested that 
 if a main is broken by a steam roller the tenant must 
 repair it without waiting for the landlord. That is ad- 
 mitted, but he does it as the agent of the landlord, and at 
 his expense, and the landlord pays for it out of the rent. 
 New retorts, ready to be fixed, were wrongly included in 
 tenants' stores. The retort, when fixed, becomes part of 
 the rateable hereditament: see R. v. Lee [1866], L. E. 
 
220 LONDON QUAKTEK SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. 1 Q,. B. 241 ; and before it is fixed may be compared to a 
 
 Gas Light & stack of bricks ready to be built into a wall, or to the store 
 
 Coke Co. gf gg^^^j ^q form part of the filter beds of waterworks, held 
 
 City OF by the assessment sessions to iorm part of the rateable 
 
 Uoton' hereditament: see East London Waterworks Co. v. St. 
 
 Leonard's, Shoreditch, Eyde's Rat. App. (1886-90) 155. 
 
 These cases are confirmed by the Tyne Boiler Works Case, 
 
 ibid. 241. 
 
 As to the working expenses, parliamentary charges for 
 obtaining further powers and laying fresh mains cannot be 
 a yearly tenant's expenses ; nor would such a tenant seek 
 protection from steam rollers for his pipes, he would 
 demand a reduction of rent unless the landlord sought 
 protection from parliament. No evidence has been given 
 to show that any parliamentary charges are tenant's ex- 
 penses. As to superannuation allowances, those which are 
 of the nature of deferred pay are not disputed, but where, 
 as in the present case, several companies are amalgamated, 
 or bought up, and ofiBcers of the old companies have to be 
 compensated, allowances so made may be regarded as part 
 of the purchase money, which might well have been paid 
 in a lump sum and with which the present annual tenant 
 is not concerned («). 
 
 FuUarton, Q,.0., for St. Saviour's Union: Superannuation 
 allowances can only be regarded as part of working ex- 
 penses, in so far as they can afPect wages, and payments made 
 to persons who, ex hypothesi, never were officers of the 
 present appellants, cannot be deducted. The principle of 
 Mr. William Marshall's valuation {supra, p. 217) is correct ; 
 we are now dealing with a statutory tenant, with all the 
 btirdens and privileges of protection ; he is something more 
 than the mere hypothetical tenant. The tenant for a year 
 who earns in that year more than he can legally appro- 
 priate in dividends, if he goes out, cannot take the sum 
 
 («) See a decision upon this point in London and India Docks v. Stepmy 
 Union, supra, p. 153. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 221 
 
 represented by undivided profits, or reserve fund ; it does 1891. 
 not belong to him, because he has never earned it by sell- qas Liqht & 
 ing gas at that price under the statutory sliding scale, OokbCo. 
 which wiU enable him to take it. Profits do not become City of 
 the property of the tenant until they are legally divisible. union' 
 Even if this contention be unsound, the fund created by 
 the 2| per cent, allowed for risks and casualties must cover 
 the loss in this year. The suggestion that a tenant for 
 one year would not be entitled to the accumulations of that 
 allowance in past years is a fallacy ; the allowance must 
 be treated as analogous to a premium for fire insurance. 
 As to tbe percentage on tenant's capital, 17J per cent, has 
 been treated as the maximum for the most risky business ; 
 tbe appellants are subject to no extraordinary risks ; 
 breaches of contract by persons employed by them are 
 punishable under the Conspiracy and Protection of Pro- 
 perty Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Yict. e. 86), s. 4 ; and all trades 
 are subject to strikes. 
 
 F. Marshall, for St. Luke's, Chelsea : As to the tenant's 
 capital, Mr. Jones adopts a principle peculiar to himself 
 [vide supra, p. 211) ; be takes {inter alia) from the com- 
 pany's accounts 625,000/. as book-debts owing to the com- 
 pany at Christmas, 1889 ; but he ignores the fact that that 
 sum includes the tenant's profits, which clearly do not 
 form part of the capital which the tenant would have to 
 find. 
 
 Sir E. Clarke, S.-G., for the City of London Union and 
 otber respondents: The Court has to determine not so 
 much what is the proper percentage on tenant's capital, 
 and what is the amount of that capital, as what is the 
 proper allowance for a tenant who would provide the 
 capital necessary to carry on the appellants' works. It 
 may be that if the capital be cut down to the lowest 
 possible amount, 15 per cent., added to 2J per cent, for 
 risks, would not be too much ; but if the capital be not so 
 
222 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. limited, that percentage, when applied to a larger capital, 
 Gas Liqht & would be a ridicidous allowance. It is admitted that 17J 
 Coke Co. pgp jjg^^_ j^^g j^gg^ ^]jg traditional allowance, but there has 
 Cirr OF never been laid down any rule that the Court are bound 
 Uoton^ to deal with all cases alike. As to the working expenses : 
 something must be deducted from salaries paid to officers, 
 who work for both the landlord and the tenant. It may- 
 be difficult to say how much less would be paid to them, 
 if they worked for the hypothetical tenant alone, but some 
 apportionment must be made. The distraction between 
 the hypothetical tenant and the landlord afEects the ques- 
 tion of the repairs and the stores. It is impossible to 
 draw a hard and fast line of distinction ; it is merely a 
 question of book-keeping. It has been suggested that the 
 Court must assume a contract by the tenant to do the 
 repairs, and to find the necessary materials ; and that the 
 tenant must have the necessary capital. No such assump- 
 tion can be made, because the landlord is, in the present 
 case, on the spot ready to do the repairs, and has the 
 necessary stores in hand. 
 
 Littler, Q,.C., for the appellants, in reply : The expendi- 
 ture on stoves ought to be allowed in full, even though it be 
 greater than the receipts therefrom : in R. v. Southampton 
 Dock Co. [1851], 14 Q. B. 687, a deduction was allowed 
 for the expenses of a steam tug, which was in itself a 
 source of loss. In the same case, too, directors' fees were 
 allowed in full, and they should be allowed in this case. 
 The owner of the hereditament would not want directors ; 
 he might be an individual. The superannuation allowances 
 (to officers who have retired on the amalgamation of the 
 various companies) are part of the means which enable the 
 present tenant to earn the profits on which he is rated. 
 As to the claim to rate the appellants in respect of sums 
 drawn from the reserve fund : this fund has already been 
 rated in each year as it was earned ; further, a hypothetical 
 tenant on conung in would not have it either in fact or in 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 223 
 
 law. If the London County Council were authorized to 1891. 
 take over the appellants' works, they would not take the 0.^3 Light & 
 reserve fund. It cannot he right to give the accumulations ^°™ *-'°- 
 of many years to the tenant of one year. The fund Citto]? 
 belongs to the company, who (as the respondents have xJoto™ 
 insisted) are both landlord and tenant. Again, the 2^ per 
 cent, for risks and casualties is not like a sinking fund ; 
 it is a reward given in each year for taking the risks of 
 that year ; and it is as much exhausted in each year as a 
 premium paid for fire insurance. As to the method of 
 dealing with repairs to the rateable hereditament : even if 
 they are supposed to be done by the landlord, it is not 
 necessary to assume that he would be in the trade. He 
 would employ a contractor, who would want a profit : 
 hence it is not unreasonable that the tenant should deduct, 
 not merely the cost price of repairs, but 17| per cent, 
 interest on his outlay on the necessary stores and tools in 
 hand for those repairs. It is submitted that no increase 
 in the price of gas, which might be, but which has not in 
 fact been made by the appellants, can be taken into 
 account. When that increase is made, a supplemental 
 list can be brought in {a). 
 
 Cur. adv. vult. 
 
 Motion on behaK of the assessment committee of 1891. 
 St. Mary Abbotts (one of the respondents), for leave to ^' ' 
 
 put in evidence on behalf of the respondents, one of the 
 printed notices issued by the appellants, bearing date 
 December, 1891. 
 
 The f oUowiug is a copy of the notice : — 
 
 " The directors hereby give notice that from the date of 
 recording meter indices for the current quarter, the price 
 of common gas wiU be 3s. Id. per 1,000 cubic feet." 
 
 "December, 1891." 
 
 (a) Vide infra, p. 253. 
 
224 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1891. B. Soughton in. su-p^ort oi the motion: The respondents 
 
 Gas Lisht & desire that the Court should not act merely on an estimate 
 
 Coke Co. pf probable increase in the price of gas, and , that the 
 
 City of necessity of a supplemental list may be avoided {a). 
 London 
 
 Union. 
 
 Littler, Q,.C., for the appellants : This is an application 
 to give evidence of a fact happeniag since judgment was 
 reserved. 
 
 The motion was dismissed with costs. 
 
 1892. In the judgment of the Court, no decision was given 
 
 March 12 ' ^V^^ ^^® questions of principle referred to in the argu- 
 
 14, 23; ments; it is therefore thought unnecessary to report it. 
 
 Nov. 1, 30. rpij^g effect of the judgment was to find that the appellants 
 
 were under- assessed in some parishes, and over-assessed in 
 
 others ; and this became material upon the question of 
 
 costs, especially as to the City of London Union, as to 
 
 which the following judgment was deKvered by 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : The position 
 of the City of London Union with regard to the claims for 
 costs is peculiar, and has led to much discussion. There 
 are 114 parishes ia this union, and as to the valuations in 
 five of them the appellants raised no objection. The other 
 parishes were represented by the same solicitor and the 
 same counsel, and with the consent of the appellants all 
 the assessments in these parishes were dealt with as form- 
 ing the subject of one appeal, and it was agreed that the 
 subdivision of the total amount assignable to the union 
 should be adjusted afterwards. The sum total of the 
 rateable values assigned to this union is 56,696^. ; but the 
 assessments by the respondent committee amounted only 
 to 51,817/., and the appellants required that that sum 
 
 (a) Vide infra, p. 253. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 225 
 
 Bhould be reduced by 34,251/., that is to say, that the 
 proper rateable value should be fixed at 17,566/. Now it 
 was seemingly upon the understanding aforesaid that in 
 their tabular statement of the particulars required by the 
 Court for consideriug the question of costs, the appellants 
 presented only the sums total above mentioned, thus not 
 dealing with the parishes separately, but ia union. But it 
 appearing from the parochial apportionment that they are 
 entitled to a certain reduction in as many as sixty-eight of 
 the parishes, although upon the whole they are shown to 
 have been largely under-assessed in this union, the appel- 
 lants afterwards produced a sub- divisional table as the basis 
 of a claim by them to as many distinct orders for costs 
 against those sixty-eight parishes. It will be observed 
 that, for the reason stated, the appellants avoid the pay- 
 ment of rates on the several amounts in which they are 
 under-assessed in the forty-one other parishes, and in- 
 asmuch as those under-assessments exceed by nearly 
 5,000/. the reductions allowed in the other parishes, which 
 amount only to 10,617/., the appellants, while benefiting 
 from those reductions, are exempt from rateability in 
 respect of upwards of 15,000/. assigned rateable value in 
 this union. Upon the actual result we make an order that 
 the appellants pay so much of the general costs of the 
 assessment committee as represents the proportion between 
 the rateable value in the parishes in which no reduction 
 will be made and the total rateable value assigned to the 
 union ; and, save as afterwards appears, we make no order 
 with regard to the general costs relating to the other 
 parishes in this union. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Gas Lioht & 
 Coke Co. 
 
 V. 
 OiTT OP 
 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 [The effect of the judgment as to other respondents 
 was as follows : — The respondents who were entirely suc- 
 cessful were to have the whole of their costs : in the case 
 of some respondents no order as to costs was made: as 
 against the unsuccessful respondents, it was ordered that 
 the appellants should recover the whole of their general 
 
 B. a 
 
226, LONDON QUAETBR SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. 13111 of costs (excluding the special charges attributahle to 
 
 GAsLioHTfe parishes in which the appellants failed), notwithstanding 
 
 Oo^ Co. ^-^^ £g^p^ ^^^^ ^yg general biU of costs was, in part, incurred 
 
 City of Jjj respect of appeals in which the appellants failed. It 
 
 Union. was further ordered that the appellants' general bill of 
 
 costs should be divided among the several parishes ordered 
 
 to pay, in proportion to the reduction in rateable value 
 
 granted by the Court.] 
 
 1892. South Eastekn Eailway Company v. St. Saviour's 
 
 July 21. TT 
 
 f Union. 
 
 Practice — Costs — Valuer appointed ly Sessions. 
 
 Wliere costs axe incurred in one appeal for preparing a valuation 
 whicli is useful in other appeals, such costs should be apportioned. 
 
 "Where, by the report of a valuer appointed under s. 36 of the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, a considerable reduction ia the 
 assessment appealed agaiust was made, but the rateable value vas 
 found to be about hall-way between the contentions of the appel- 
 lants and respondents, the quarter sessions gave the appellants 
 their costs up to the appointment of the valuer, and gave them the 
 costs of the motion for judgment in accordance with his report, 
 but gave no costs of the proceedings before the valuer. 
 
 Two appeals had been entered in respect of the portions 
 of the appellants' line, lying respectively in the parishes 
 of Christ Church and St. Saviour, both in the St. Saviour's 
 Union ; in these and in other appeals relating to other 
 parts of the line lying in different parishes, Mr. Staveley 
 Hill, Qi.C, had been appointed as valuer by the sessions 
 under s. 36 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. He 
 had made his report, and appHoation was now made for 
 judgment in accordance therewith, and for costs, in both 
 appeals in the St. Saviour's Union, 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 227 
 
 Littler, Q..0. {E. Boyle with him), for the appellants : In 1892. 
 the parish of Christ Church, the assessment, hefore the s. B. Ey. 
 making of the quinquennial list in 1890, stood at 2,890Z. si. Satioub's 
 rateable value; the assessment committee raised it to Union. 
 3,528^. ; the appellants claimed a reduction to 2,721^., and 
 the valuer has reduced it to 2,814^., i.e., he has granted a 
 reduction instead of an increase of the former assessment. 
 The appellants ask for costs. 
 
 Balfour Browne, Q.C. : The rateable value of a line of 
 railway depends mainly on the gross receipts. The respon- 
 dents knew that the receipts over the whole of the appel- 
 lants' system had increased, and assumed that there had 
 been a corresponding increase in the particular parish; 
 this assumption is now shown to be wrong. The appel- 
 lants refused to furnish the respondents with receipts in 
 this parish until the appearance before the valuer. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C), after consulting 
 with the learned valuer, said: The appellants having 
 obtained so substantial a reduction are entitled to costs 
 generally, subject to this qualification : in this case it 
 would be necessary to prepare a valuation relating to the 
 entire hereditament, which could be utilized in similar 
 appeals in other parishes. As to that portion of the bill 
 of costs which relates to such information, the costs are to 
 be divided between the several parishes, and the respon- 
 dents in this appeal are to pay only their proportion. 
 That is to say, supposing there are two parishes, in one of 
 which the rateable value is 100/. only, while in the other 
 it is 400/., the costs are to be divided in the proportion of 
 one-fifth and four-fifths. The valuer's charges are to be 
 borne by the parties in equal moieties (a). 
 
 Application was next made for judgment, and for costs, 
 in the appeal relating to St. Saviour's parish. 
 
 (a) Cf. Gas Light ^ Coke Co. v. Westmmster Union, infra, p. 256. 
 
 q2 
 
228- LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. LUtler, Q.C., for the appellants : In the list of 1885, the 
 
 s. B. et. assessment stood at 11,500/. rateable value ; in 1890 the 
 St. SiviouE'8 overseers made no alteration, but the assessment committee 
 ■Union. raised the assessment to 16,107/. The appellants in their 
 case claimed a reduction to 12,000/., and gave evidence ia 
 support of a reduction to 12,658/. The valuer has made a 
 reduction to 14,209/. [Sir P. H. Edlin : Then the appel- 
 lants' contention was nearer the result than the respon- 
 dents' by 347/.] But for the appeal the appellants would 
 have had to pay rates for five years on an assessment 
 which was too high by 1,898/. This is a sufficient reduc- 
 tion to entitle them to costs. 
 
 Balfour Browne, Q.C, for the respondents: Had the 
 figures stated ia the appellants' case been adopted, they 
 would have escaped rating to the extent of 2,209/. The 
 main question contested before the valuer was as to the 
 method of calculating the receipts on the lines in the 
 parish, which included the triangle formed by the line 
 running direct from London Bridge to Charing Cross, and 
 the lines running iuto, and out of. Cannon Street Station. 
 The respondents contended that 88 per cent, of the traffic 
 to Charing Cross went by the longer route, and 12 per cent. 
 by the shorter. The appellants contended that half went 
 each way. The valuer found that 75 per cent, went via 
 Cannon Street. This finding shows that the respondents 
 were more nearly right in principle. 
 
 Iditkr, Q.G., in reply: The increase from 11,500/. to 
 16,107/. made an appeal inevitable. 
 
 The OHAiKMAif (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.): We think 
 that the appellants should have their costs up to the 
 appointment of the valuer ; each party must bear their 
 own costs of the proceedings before him. The appellants 
 are entitled to the costs of this application. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 229 
 
 London & North Western Ey. Co. v. City of London ^^92. 
 
 Union. July 21, 22.. 
 
 Warehouse — Goods Depot — Principle of Bating — Practice — Costs. 
 
 Premises connected with, a, goods depot, comprising wareliouses, 
 in part of wlucli sidings are laid communicatiag-witli a railway, are 
 to be rated not merely as warehouses, hut as an adjunct of the 
 railway ; and the proper basis of valuation is the annual value of 
 the land and a percentage on the structural value of the buildings. 
 
 Where the sessions decided against the appellants on the main 
 question of principle raised by the appeal, but made a small reduc- 
 tion in the assessment appealed against, the appellants were ordered 
 to pay the respondents' costs. 
 
 Appeal against an assessment of 4,000^. gross and 3,334^. 
 rateable value, in respect of property situated in the parish 
 of St. Botolph, Aldgate, and described in the valuation 
 list as " warehouse and goods station." 
 
 Btmeky Sill, Q.O. {E. Page with him), for the appel- ' 
 lants : The premises are occupied as warehouses, and must 
 be valued as such, having regard to the rental value of 
 similar warehouses, which are let at rents calculated on 
 the square (of 100 sq. feet) of floor space. 
 
 The premises were described in evidence thus: they 
 occupied an area of between 30,000 and 31,000 sq. feet, 
 having a frontage of 25 feet to Aldgate, from which street 
 there was a carriage-way leading into a paved yard, giving 
 access to the appellants' warehouses, both yard and ware- 
 houses forming part of the premises to be rated. The 
 boundary of the parish of St. Botolph, Aldgate, ran 
 through the appellants' property ; and some or all of the 
 parts outside the parish were admittedly used as a goods 
 depot, known as the Haydon Square Depot, and forming 
 the termiaus of a branch line of railway which was occu- 
 pied by the appellants, and gave access to the whole of the 
 appellants' system. On the first floor of part of the ware- 
 houses within the parish there were sidings communicating 
 
230 iONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. with the branch. No locomotive engines ever ran on these 
 
 l.&n.w.Et. sidings, hut loaded trucks were drawn along them with 
 
 City of ropes by means of hydraulic power. Some parts of the 
 
 TJoton^ warehouses within the parish were let to tenants, but the 
 
 appellants did all repairs and paid rates and taxes ; it was 
 
 not disputed that the appellants were rightly rated as 
 
 occupiers. 
 
 The appellants called as witnesses to give evidence of 
 value Mr. T. Dinwiddy, Mr. 0. Dunch, and Mr. W. Eyan, 
 whose valuations (amounting to about 2,012/. gross and 
 1,677/. rateable value) were based on the letting value of 
 the floor-space of the several warehouses ; the prices per 
 square of 100 feet beiug considerably above the rents 
 actually paid by the tenants of the several parts let. 
 Mr. Dinwiddy also made an alternative valuation, based 
 on structural value of buildings and ground rent; he valued 
 the entire area of land at threepence per foot per annum, 
 making a total ground rent of 377/., to which he added 4 
 per cent, on the estimated structural value of the buildings 
 (35,000/.), thus arriving at a rateable value for land and 
 buildings of 1,777/. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.O.) on the first day 
 of the hearing said : " The question seems to be whether 
 this warehouse is an ordinary warehouse, or whether, by 
 means of the rails and sidiugs, it is made an adjunct of 
 the railway." 
 
 No direct evidence was given to show whether all, or 
 what part, of the goods stored in the warehouse were 
 carried over the appellants' railway, nor to show the terms 
 on which the several parts let to tenants were held^ 
 
 Poland, Q..0. [Balfour Browne, Q.C., and R. Cunningham 
 Glen with him), for the respondents: The question is 
 whether the proper method of valuation of such premises 
 as are now before the Court, is (1) by an estimate of the 
 
LOKDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 231 
 
 letting value of the floor space ; or (2) by calculating a 1892. 
 
 percentage on the structural value of the buildings and l.&kt.w.Et. 
 
 adding thereto a ground rent. By the former method, the q^^ ^^ 
 
 valuation rests solely on the statement of the witnesses, Lonbon 
 ■^ Union. 
 
 and cannot be checked. The latter method must be applied 
 
 to these premises, which are in fact part of a railway station. 
 In the appellants' published time-table, there appears 
 under the heading " London Groods Stations " the follow- 
 ing entry : " Haydon Square, Minories. — For general traffic, 
 with extensive warehouses for Irish and American provi- 
 sions : bonded warehouses for tobacco and cigars, and 
 bonded cellars for whiskey, wines, and spirits." The 
 warehouses are evidently part of the goods station, and 
 must be valued by reference to structural value of build- 
 ings and ground rent of land. In L. 8f N. W. Ry. v. St. 
 Lemiard's, Shoreditch [1879], Met. Eat. App. 229, which 
 related to a warehouse at Broad Street Station, both sides 
 adopted this method of valuation. In a previous case, 
 Great Northern Ry. v. Holborn Union [1877], Ih. at p. 210, 
 relating to a goods warehouse at Farringdon Eoad, con- 
 nected by sidings with the Metropolitan Eailway, the 
 assessment sessions rejected the valuations based on the 
 rental value of the floor space. In L. §• N. W. Ry. v. 8t. 
 Leonard's, Shoreditch [1882], lb. at p. 333, which related 
 to a " Goods yard with rails, sidings, turn-tables, and 
 appliances," the Court upheld a valuation based on " the 
 value of the lands, and the cost of construction." Again, 
 m L. Sf N. W. Ry. v. Sachney Union, Eyde's Eat. 
 App. (1886-90) 136, the assessment sessions decided that 
 a goods depot, though not directly communicating with a 
 railway, and partly let to tenants, is to be rated on the 
 same principle as an ordinary railway station. 
 
 The respondents called Mr. W. Bamett, Mr. 0. A. Lang, 
 and Mr. W. H. B. Castle, who estimated the value of the 
 land at Is. 6d per square foot, and added thereto 5 per 
 cent, on the structural value of the buildings (estimated at 
 37,402^. and upwards) to arrive at the rateable value. 
 
232 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. The ■witnesses did not agree in the area of land taken, and 
 l.&n.w.Rt. the lowest valuation amounted to 4,5731. gross, and 3,811/. 
 
 CiTT OF rateable value. 
 
 LoHBON Jt appeared that some of the respondents' witnesses were 
 
 not aware that in the parish of St. Botolph, Aldgate, there 
 was a " tithe," payable by the occupiers, amounting at the 
 date of the appeal to about 2s. in the £ on the value of 
 land and buildings («). 
 
 Poland, Q.O., for the respondents : It has been the 
 universal practice to take 4 per cent, and 5 per cent, on 
 the value of land and buildings respectively, as repre- 
 senting the rateable value. The only exception was 
 London County Council v. Woolwich Union, supra, p. 126, 
 where, in consequence of the power of the County Council 
 to borrow at a lower rate, this Court took 3 per cent, and 
 4 per cent, on the values of land and buildings respectively. 
 
 Staveley Hill, Q,.0., in reply : So much of the premises 
 as are used for the storage (as distinguished from the 
 loading and tmloading) of goods, must be treated as a 
 warehouse. [Sir P. H. Edlin : There are facilities here 
 for the transmission of goods by railway ; there is no evi- 
 dence to show whether those facilities are utilized or not. 
 It is for the appellants to prove that they are not.J The 
 existence of the sidings is not sufficient reason for treating 
 these premises as different from ordinary warehouses, for, 
 in Lancashire and Yorkshire, nearly all warehouses, 
 factories, and other works have siding accommodation, 
 but are nevertheless valued at their ordinary rental value. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : The values, 
 as they appear in the Hst, must be reduced from 4,000/. 
 gross and 3,334/. rateable, to 3,680/. gross and 3,067/. 
 rateable. The point now raised has been before the Court 
 
 (a) The Hstory of this "tithe " will he f oimd in the report of Esdaile v. 
 City of London Union, Ryde's Rat. App. (1886-90) 105. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 233 
 
 in other cases, and we have more than once expressed onr 1892. 
 
 opinion that hereditaments such as these are not to be L. &n.w.Et. 
 
 valued merely as warehouses, when they are immediately citt of 
 
 adj oining a railway, with all the facilities given by a railway. UNxoNf 
 
 We adhere to the opinion as to the principle of rating stated '^tt 
 
 in the cases which have been cited. As that was the main Edlin, Q.6. 
 question at issue in this appeal, we order the appellants to 
 pay the respondents' costs, notwithstanding the reduction 
 
 made in the assessment (J). 
 
 Appeal allowed. 
 
 The Yestry of St. Pangeas v. The Assessment xT-'^^^f ' 
 Committee of St. Pancras. —^ 
 
 Totals — Alteration of, in Consequence of Alterations of Individual 
 Assessments — Additional Notice of Appeal — Times for Pro- 
 ceedings — Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869, ss. 34, 42. 
 
 The assessment committee of St. Pancras duly revised tlie quin- 
 quennial list for tliat parish in October, 1890, and entered therein 
 the totals. In December, 1890, the Midland Eailway Company 
 appealed against, and obtained a reduction of, their individual 
 assessment at special sessions, under s. 20 of the Valuation (Metro- 
 polis) Act, 1869. On January 14, 1891, the vestry gave notice of 
 appeal to quarter sessions against totals, and in February, 1891, 
 obtained an order on their appeal for the alteration of the totals, to 
 correspond with the alteration made on the appeal to special 
 sessions. 
 
 Subsequently to the alteration of the totals, further reductions of 
 iudividual assessments were made on appeals to quarter sessions, 
 and in July, 1891, other appeals to quarter sessions against iadi- 
 vidual assessments were still pending. 
 
 On July 17, 1891, notwithstanding the expiry of the time fixed 
 by s. 42 (12) of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, the quarter 
 sessions gave the vestry leave to serve an additional notice of 
 appeal, in enlargement of the notice of January 14, 1891. 
 
 (S) With this order as to costs, compare Z. ^ N. W. My. v. Hackney 
 Union, Hyde's Eat. App. (1886-90), p. 136. 
 
234 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Vestkt of 
 St. Pangeas 
 
 V. 
 
 A. C. OF 
 St. Panoeab. 
 
 Th.6 last of tte appeals to quarter sessions against individual 
 assessments in tlie quinquennial list made in 1890 was not deter- 
 mined untn. Nov. Ist, 1892. Large reductions of the individual 
 assessments appealed against were made on these appeals. 
 
 Held, on the appeal against totals, that the totals must he altered 
 so as to correspond with the alterations made in the individual 
 assessments on appeals to special sessions and quarter sessions. 
 
 Ex parte Woolwich Union, supra, p. 95, and B. v. Woolwich 
 Union, infra, p. 2Y9, distinguished. 
 
 Held, also, that on such an appeal against totals it was not 
 necessary to give the London County Council notice. 
 
 Semble, neither the clerk of the assessment committee nor the 
 clerk of the London County Council have power to make any alte- 
 ration in totals to correspond with the alterations of individual 
 assessments on appeals to quarter sessions. 
 
 Quaere, what is the effect of an alteration of the totals in the 
 quinquennial list, on the supplemental lists (made before such 
 alteration) which have incorporated the totals as originally deter- 
 mined by the quinquennial list ? 
 
 Appeal against totals. 
 
 The following are the facts appearing in the joiat case 
 stated by the appellants and respondents : — 
 
 In the quinquennial valuation list for the parish of 
 St. Pancras, made in 1890 by the vestry (acting as over- 
 seers under 59 Gleo. 3, c. xxxix.), and revised by the 
 assessment committee, the totals were entered as 1,931,815/. 
 gross and 1,615,915/. rateable value respectively. In the 
 addition, by an arithmetical error, the total rateable value 
 was made too low by 9/. 
 
 The Midland Railway Company appealed to special 
 sessions, and, by consent, the special sessions, on December 3, 
 1890, altered the company's assessment, increasing the 
 gross value by 7,049/., and reducing the rateable value by 
 6,222/. 
 
 On January 14, 1891, the vestry gave notice of appeal 
 agaiast totals, asking for an alteration corresponding 
 with the alteration of the Midland Eailway Company's 
 assessment, and correcting the arithmetical error in the 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 235 
 
 total rateable value (a), and on February 3, 1891, an order 1892. 
 was made by consent, on this appeal, for the alteration of Vbstey of 
 the totals in the manner asked for. ^''- ^^"^^ 
 
 In February, 1891, orders were made in appeals against „ ^■'^- °^ 
 the assessments of two other railway companies, involving 
 in each case considerable reductions in both gross and 
 rateable values. The totals (not having been altered in 
 consequence of the alterations made on these two last- 
 mentioned appeals) no longer represented the total of the 
 several assessments in the list. 
 
 In July, 1891, other appeals agaiast individual assess- 
 ments in the quinquennial list were still pending (6), and 
 it was foreseen that if on the hearing of such appeals those 
 assessments were reduced, the totals would become still 
 further inaccurate; and on July 17, 1891, the overseers 
 obtained from the court of quarter sessions leave to serve 
 an additional notice of appeal against totals, in enlarge- 
 ment of the notice of January 14, 1891, under s. 84 of the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, claiming an alteration 
 of the totals to correspond with the alterations of individual 
 assessments already made, or which might thereafter be 
 made, in the pending appeals. The additional notice of 
 appeal was served on March 17, 1892. 
 
 The last of the appeals against individual assessments in 
 the quinquennial valuation list made in 1890 was not 
 determined until November 1, 1892, and considerable 
 reductions of the individual assessments were made in 
 these appeals. 
 
 The vestry, with the consent of the assessment committee, 
 asked for an alteration of the totals in the quinquennial 
 valuation list, so as to make such totals correct and equiva- 
 
 («) By another mistake, the alterations asked for in the notice of appeal 
 and ordered to be made were themselyes inaccurate. It is not, howerer, 
 necessary to take any further notice of the inaoouracy, on which nothing 
 turned. 
 
 (i) Owing to the large numher of appeals entered in. 1891, the time 
 prescribed by s. 42 (13) of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, for the 
 hearing was insufficient ; vi4e infra, p. 360, 
 
236 
 
 LONDON QUARTEK SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Vestey of 
 St. Pangeas 
 
 V. 
 A. C. OF 
 
 St. Panoeas. 
 
 lent to the aggregate amounts of the gross and rateaWe 
 values of the several hereditaments entered in the said list. 
 
 The alterations in the totals necessary to correspond with 
 the alterations made by the quarter sessions in the indi- 
 vidual assessments appealed against (together with the 
 alteration made in the Midland Railway Company's assess- 
 ment at special sessions, and the correction of the arithmetical 
 error in the total rateable values above referred to), were 
 to reduce the total gross value by the sum of 18,867/., and 
 to reduce the total rateable value by 25,662/. 
 
 It was contended that unless these alterations were made 
 the parish of St. Pancras would be liable to contribute a 
 sum in excess of the fair and just proportion which ought 
 to be charged upon the parish in respect of all rates, 
 assessments and contributions calculated upon the total 
 rateable value of the parish (c) during the whole of the 
 quinquennial period commencing April 6, 1891, and it 
 was estimated that such excess would amount, in each of 
 the five years of such period, to about 3,000/. 
 
 Poland, Q.O., for the appellants : Both parties to the 
 appeal assent to the alteration asked for, which is mani- 
 festly necessary in order that justice may be done. No 
 notice of this appeal has been given to the London County 
 Council; they are not one of the persons or bodies of 
 persons mentioned in s. 33 of the Yaluation (Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869, to whom notice of appeal is to be given. No 
 doubt the County Council are interested in the amount of 
 the total, but they are not more interested in it than other 
 public bodies whose contributions are charged thereon. 
 [Sir P. H. Edlin : I can see nothing in R. v. Woolwich 
 Union, infra, p. 279, which is against your present position.] 
 The practice before 1888, where alterations of individual 
 assessments were made by assessment sessions, was for the 
 clerk of the assessment committee to make the correspond- 
 
 (c) It was stated in argument that no rates or charges of any kind were 
 calculated upon the total gross value, so that any inaoonracy therein 
 would have no practical result. 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 237 
 
 ing alterations in the totals entered in the list. It is not 1892, 
 
 contended that he had any legal right to do so in the face of vestet of 
 
 the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 18«9, s. 34 {a). The clerk ^- ^^^"^^ 
 
 of the London County Council, who is now substituted for „ '^v,^' °^ 
 ■' ' . St. Pangeas. 
 
 the clerk of the managers of the metropolitan asylums 
 district, refuses to recognize the practice adopted before the 
 passing of the Local G-overnment Act, 1888. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin) : I have no doubt that 
 we ought to acquiesce in the alterations which have been 
 agreed upon by the parties. The only question is whether 
 any special entry in the valuation list is necessary. 
 
 Walter C. Ryde for the respondents : A simple alteration 
 of the totals in the quinquennial list will be sufficient. But 
 it appears that the original totals entered in the quinquen- 
 nial list of 1890 are brought forward in the supplemental 
 Hsts of 1891 and 1892 ; and contributions in 1892 have 
 already been calculated on the first of those supplemental 
 lists. It seems doubtful whether the alteration of the 
 quinquennial list only will operate upon the supplemental 
 lists : see ss. 44 and 46 of the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 
 1869. 
 
 Sir P. H. Edlin : We will give leave to amend the 
 joint case, and will adjourn the hearing for the parties to 
 consider whether they will add a paragraph claiming an 
 alteration of the supplemental lists. 
 
 The hearing was accordingly adjourned. 
 
 Poland, Q.C, for the appellants : The parties have 1892. 
 
 • • NovGTtibcv 2 
 agreed not to ask the Court to make any alteration in the '- 
 
 supplemental lists, and to ask merely for an alteration of 
 
 the quinquennial Hst. 
 
 [a] In the affidavit filed on tie appKoation for leave to serve the addi- 
 tional notice of appeal against totals, it was stated that the practice before 
 1888 was for the clerk of the managers of the metropolitan asylums 
 district, on receipt of notice of the alterations made by the clerk of the 
 assessment committee, to make corresponding alterations in the printed 
 totals, and aU contributions, &c., seem to have been calculated on the 
 totals as so altered. 
 
238 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Vestet op 
 St. Paitceas 
 
 V. 
 
 A. C. OP 
 
 St. Faitoeas. 
 
 Walter C. Eyde, for the respondents, assented. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : This appeal 
 comes before us by consent. It may be said hereafter, if 
 our order is questioned in the High Court, that one side 
 only was here. The High Court will not, of course, take 
 the same notice of a consent order as they woidd of an 
 order which had been disputed. 
 
 The alterations in the totals, asked for in the joint case, 
 were afterwards made and initialled by the chairman (a). 
 
 Appeal allowed. 
 
 1892. 
 November 2. 
 
 Ex PAETE YeSTRY OF St. MaRT, ISLINGTON. 
 
 Totals — Alteration of, in consequence of Alterations of Individtml 
 Assessments — Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869, ss. 20, 32, 34, 41. 
 
 The assessment committee duly revised a quinquemiial Taluation 
 list for the parisli of St. Mary, Islington, and inserted therein the 
 totals. Appeals against individual assessments were afterwards 
 heard at quarter sessions, and reductions made amounting in the 
 aggregate to 26,858Z. gross and 27, 72'??. rateable value. The vestry, 
 without entering an appeal against totals, moved the quarter ses- 
 sions for an alteration of the totals, so as to make them correspond 
 with the sum of the several assessments. 
 
 Held, that the sessions had no power to alter the totals except 
 upon an appeal against totals. 
 
 S. V. Woolwich Union, infra, p. 279, and Sx parte Guardians of 
 Woolwich, supra, p. 95, followed. 
 
 Motion that the totals entered in the quinquennial 
 valuation list might be altered so as to make them corre- 
 
 (a) See the next case, and compare Sx parte Wandsworth ^ Clapham 
 Union, supra, p. 93 ; Mx parte Woolwich Union, supra, p. 95 ; E. v. Wool- 
 wich Union, infra, p. 279. 
 
 The form of appeal adopted in the case above reported was followed 
 in several subsequent appeals against the totals entered in the quinquen^ 
 nial valuation list made in the same year for other parishes ; save that in 
 the subsequent appeals notice was given to the London County Council, 
 who appeared, but did not oppose the making of the alteration asked for, 
 
LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 239 
 
 spond with the sum of the values of the several heredita- 
 ments entered in the list, and that the chairman of quarter 
 sessions might place his initials against such alteration. 
 
 In the quinquennial valuation list for St. Mary, Isling- 
 ton, as fixed hy the assessment committee in 1890, the 
 total gross value was 2,025,631^., and the total rateahle 
 value was 1,686,385/. Appeals to quarter sessions agaiust 
 individual assessments were entered in 1891, and various 
 reductions were made on such appeals, amounting in the 
 aggregate to 26,858/. gross and 27,727/. rateable. Owing 
 to the large number of appeals entered in 1891, the last of 
 such appeals relating to the parish of St. Mary, Islington, 
 was not determined until March 23, 1892, when an appeal 
 by the Gas Light and Coke Company {supra, p. 204) was 
 allowed, and a reduction of 25,617/. was made in the 
 assessment of that company in this valuation list. 
 
 The assessment committee had given to the clerk of the 
 London County Council notice, under sect. 41 of the Yalua- 
 tion (Metropolis) Act, 1869, of the alterations made by the 
 quarter sessions on the appeals above mentioned, but the 
 clerk of the County Council had refused to make any altera- 
 tion in the total, on the ground that alterations of in- 
 dividual assessments on appeals against such assessments 
 did not affect the totals originally determined by the 
 assessment committee ; the County Council further con- 
 tended that they were entitled to issue their precept for 
 county rate upon the total as originally fixed without 
 alteration. 
 
 The vestry of St. Mary, Islington, thereupon gave to 
 the London County Council notice of this motion. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Ex PAETE 
 
 Vestet op 
 St. Maet, 
 Islington. 
 
 a. Cunningham Glen in support of the motion : The loss 
 to the parish, if the desired alterations are not made in the 
 totals, Avill, by the end of the quinquennial period, amount 
 to about 20,000/. [Sir P. H. Edlin : The question is 
 whether we have jurisdiction to make these alterations. 
 Did we not say in the Woohoich Union Case {supra, p. 95) 
 
240 
 
 LONDON QUAKTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Ex PAKTE 
 
 Vestey op 
 St. Maet, 
 IsLmaroN. 
 
 that we had not, and did not the Queen's Bench Division 
 {infra, p. 279) uphold that decision ?] There are dicta in 
 that case which are against this application, but they were 
 not necessary for the decision of that case, and are not 
 binding on this Court. The Queen's Bench Division de- 
 cided merely that the precept must be based on the totals 
 untU they were altered ; and the judges overlooked the 
 fact that it was unnecessary for them to decide what powers 
 of alteration the quarter sessions had. The provision in 
 s. 20 that an alteration of an individual hereditament by 
 justices in special sessions " shall not, of itself, in any way 
 alter the totals," implies that an alteration at quarter ses- 
 sions would, of itself, alter the totals. By s. 41, notice of 
 every alteration in the total " in consequence of any decision 
 on any appeal to the [quarter] sessions, is to be sent, &c. ; " 
 this includes an alteration in the total in consequence of 
 the alteration of an individual assessment. The words are 
 not " alteration in the total made bi/ the decision on any 
 appeal." The alteratioii under this section is distinct from 
 the alteration made by the chairman under s. 34. The 
 judgments in the Woolwich Union Case {infra, p. 279) seem 
 to show that the Queen's Bench Division did not rightly 
 apprehend the facts. Wills, J. (at p. 284), says that there 
 are appeals by individuals against individual assessments, 
 and by parishes or unions against totals ; whereas s. 32 of 
 the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, expressly provides 
 that " any ratepayer in the metropolis " may appeal against 
 totals. Again, in that case, the judges seem to have 
 thought that the balance of convenience was against the 
 existence of the power to alter totals ; in the present case 
 the balance of convenience is the other way. 
 
 IT. E. Avory for the London County Council was not 
 called upon to argue. 
 
 The Ohaieman (Sir P. H. Edlin) : We are not insensible 
 of the hardship and injustice, involving direct pecuniary 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 241 
 
 loss to tlie ratepayers of a parish, wHcli may be caused by 1892. 
 the decision of tbe Queen's Benob Division in the Woolwich bx pabtb 
 Union Case, with reference to tbe power of tbis Court to J^^mI^ 
 alter tbe total in a valuation list. We concur in all tbat Islinoton. 
 bas been said by Mr. Grlen as to tbe desirability of tbis Sir V. H. 
 Court baving tbe power to direct tbe alteration necessary ™' ^' ' 
 to make tbe figures of tbe inscribed total consistent witb 
 tbe actual sum of tbe several assessments constituting tbe 
 total, and wbicb, it may be said, can only properly consti- 
 tute tbe total wben regard is bad to tbe alterations made 
 by this Court in the valuation list upon appeals against 
 specific assessments. But in the very case referred to, 
 this Court had held tbat it bad no power to make such 
 correction except upon appeal against tbe impugned total 
 brought before it by one or other of tbe bodies or persons 
 to whom tbe right to bring such appeal is given by tbe 
 statute ; and the Queen's Bench upheld our decision. 
 Whatever reason we might have for tbioking tbat tbe 
 questions raised in tbe Woolwich Union Case are deserving 
 of reconsideration, and that a higher Court of Appeal 
 might put a diEEerent construction on tbe Act, it is too 
 much to ask us to disagree with that decision which is 
 directly in point, in respect of the present application, and 
 of course binding upon us. Moreover, with regard to tbe 
 alleged injustice and hardship, much may be said on the 
 other side. The resolve on tbe part of a public body like 
 tbe County Council to exercise their right of appeal may be 
 governed by the actual totals appearing in the valuation 
 list as finally settled and deposited by the assessment com- 
 mittee ; and it may be said tbat a subsequent alteration of 
 the total by reason of ex post facto judgments in appeals to 
 which they were not parties, might injuriously affect that 
 right when they have not themselves appealed against the 
 totals. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary tbat we should guard ourselves 
 against being supposed to express any opinion as to the 
 duty or powers of the County Council under the County 
 
242 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Ex PAETE 
 
 Vestet of 
 St. Mabt, 
 islihoton. 
 
 Sir P. H. 
 EdUn, Q.C. 
 
 Rate Act, read in conjunction witli the Valuation (Metro- 
 polis) Act, 1869, and the Local Government Act, 1888, to 
 frame its precept to the parish of Islington, in accordance 
 with the actual sum total of the several assessments as 
 they appear in the list. It may be that they are under a 
 statutory obligation to do so. 
 
 We dismiss this motion with costs, without prejudice to 
 the powers of the vestry of IsUngton to bring this matter 
 
 before us in any other way. 
 
 Motion dismissed (a). 
 
 1892. 
 Decemher 12. 
 
 The London County Council v. The Assessment 
 Committee of St. Maeylebonb. 
 
 Practice — Appeal against Totals — Alterations on Appeals against 
 Individual Assessments — Set off — Valuation [Metropolis) Act, 
 1869, s. 20. 
 
 On an appeal against totals in a qmnqneniiial valuation list, the 
 appellants contended tliat tte totals were too low ; the respondents 
 claimed the right to set ofl against any increase which might he 
 shown to be necessary, reductions made by quarter sessions and by 
 special sessions, on appeals against individual assessments in the 
 same list. 
 
 Held, that the respondents were entitled to set off the reductions 
 made on the appeals to quarter sessions. 
 
 St. Olave's Union v. St. Saviour's Union, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886- 
 90) 176, distinguished. 
 
 Whether the respondents were entitled to set off the reductions 
 made on appeals to special sessions, qucere. 
 
 Statement of the practice adopted upon the hearing of an appeal 
 against totals. 
 
 Appeal against totals. 
 
 The appellants alleged that over 3,000 hereditaments in 
 
 (a) Subsequently the vestry ohtained leave to serve a notice of appeal 
 against totals, and the procedure adopted in Vestry of St. Fancras r. 
 Assessment Committee of St. Fancras, supra, p. 233, was followed, save that 
 in the Islington Case notice of the appeal was given to the London County 
 Council, who appeared, hut did not oppose the making of the alteration 
 agked for. 
 
•LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 243 
 
 the parish of St. Marylebone were under-assessed in the 1892. 
 quinquennial valuation list as finally approved by the l. o. c. 
 assessment committee in 1890. The appeal was not maetlebonb. 
 finally determined by the Court, and it is only necessary 
 to report the arguments and the decision upon a question of 
 law, which arose in the course of the proceedings, out of 
 the following facts : — 
 
 Eight appeals to special sessions were entered against 
 the assessment of individual hereditaments in the quin- 
 quennial valuation list : these appeals were heard in Decem- 
 ber, 1890, and resulted in a reduction of the gross and 
 rateable values appealed against, amoimting in the aggre- 
 gate to 342/. and 286/. respectively. 
 
 Three appeals to quarter sessions were also entered 
 against individual assessments in the same list (a) : the 
 appeals were heard in 1891 and 1892, the times prescribed 
 by s. 42 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, being 
 exceeded owing to the number of appeals entered against 
 the quinquennial list of 1890. Eeductions were made in 
 each case, amounting in all to a reduction of the gross 
 values by 6,037/., and of the rateable values by 4,781/. 
 
 A question was raised on the hearing of the appeal 
 against totals, whether it was open to the assessment com- 
 mittee, upon the hearing of that appeal, to set off the 
 reductions above referred to against any increase which 
 the London County Council might prove to be necessary 
 in respect of the under-assessment of other hereditaments. 
 The Court directed that this question should be determined 
 before the hearing of the appeal was further proceeded 
 with. 
 
 Poland, Q,.C. {A. H. Bodkin with him), for the respon- 
 dents: The set-off ought to be allowed. The notice of 
 appeal alleges that the totals in the valuation list are too 
 low ; the respondents contend that they are correct. That 
 
 («) One of tKese appeals was brough.t by the Gas Light and Coke Co., 
 vide supra, p. 204. 
 
 r2 
 
244 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. is ihe only issue before the Court on this appeal. The 
 L. c. 0. Court have therefore to inquire what are the true totals of 
 Maet^one. ^^^ gross and rateable values of the several hereditaments 
 in the list. It -would be absurd and inequitable, in that 
 inquiry, not to look at the alterations made by this Court 
 and by the special sessions in the assessments of some of 
 those hereditaments. 
 
 F. M. White, Q.C. {S. E. Awry with him), for the 
 appellants : The set-off ought not to be allowed on this 
 appeal. It is a mere accident that the hearing of this 
 appeal has been delayed until after the decision of the 
 most important of the appeals relating to individual here- 
 ditaments, viz., that by the Gas Light and Coke Co. 
 {vide supra, p. 204), in which judgment was given in 
 February, 1892. Had the appeal agaiost totals been 
 decided iu March, 1891, the decision in the Cas Com- 
 pany's appeal could not have affected it. The assessment 
 committee are estopped from saying that the assessments 
 fixed by themselves are wrong, and the decisions of this 
 Court on appeals against those assessments are binding 
 only on the parties to such appeals ; they are res inter alios 
 actce. Such decisions do not affect the totals, which can 
 be altered only on an appeal against totals : see R. v. 
 Guardians of Woolmch Union, infra, p. 279 ; [1891] 2 
 Q. B. 712. If necessary, another appeal must be entered, 
 as was done in Vestry of St. Pancras v. Assessment Com- 
 mittee of St. Pancras, supra, p. 233. [Sir P. H. Edlin : 
 The respondents seek, not to alter the totals in consequence 
 of the alterations as to details, but to set off the reductions 
 against any claim that the appellants may establish for an 
 addition.] The set-off now claimed is not mentioned in 
 the respondents' case, and this appeal must be determined 
 by the state of things existing at the date when it was 
 entered, and then the assessment committee would have 
 been estopped from disputing the accuracy of their own 
 list, as was held in St. Olave's Union v. St. Saviour's 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 245 
 
 Union, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 176; compare also 1892. 
 Overseers of Si. Olave v. Assessment Committee of St. Olave, l. c. c. 
 Met. Rat. App. 287, 290. In any event, the respondents maetlebonb. 
 are not entitled to set ofE the effect of a decision at special 
 sessions, because by s.'20 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 
 1869, such a decision " shall not of itself in any way alter 
 the totals of the gross or rateable value of the list as settled 
 by the assessment committee, but may form a reason for an 
 appeal against such totals to the assessment sessions and 
 superior Court as hereinafter mentioned." [Sir P. H. 
 Edlin : I should prefer that we should confine our judg- 
 ment to the decisions of this Court, if the respondents are 
 prepared so to limit the question.] 
 
 Poland, Q.C., in reply : The amount of the reductions 
 made at special sessions is so small that the respon- 
 dents are content to withdraw them from consideration, 
 without, however, admitting that they are not legally 
 entitled to bring them into account. In B. v. Guardians 
 of Woolwich Union, infra, p. 279, the Queen's Bench held 
 only that until a total was properly altered, it was binding; 
 and that it could be so altered only on an appeal against 
 totals. That decision was merely a corollary from Fulham 
 Union v. St. Marij Abbotts, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 86, 
 in which it was held that an appeal against totals did not 
 affect individual assessments. Here, however, an appeal 
 against totals has been entered, and therefore B. v. 
 Guardians of Woolwich Union does not apply. The quarter 
 sessions have power to "alter or confirm the valuation 
 Hst, so far as it is questioned by the appeal, in such 
 manner as they think just " ; see s. 34 of the Valuation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869. The total is questioned, and 
 therefore the Court have power to alter or confirm it as 
 they think just. 
 
 The Chaieman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : We have 
 thought it desirable that the questions arising upon the 
 
246 
 
 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1892. 
 
 L. C. C. 
 
 V. 
 MAETI.EBONE. 
 
 Sir P. H. 
 Edlin, Q.O. 
 
 claim of the respondents to set off the amount of certain 
 reductions made by this Court in assessed values against 
 any increase affecting the total which we might adjudge 
 upon this appeal, should be argued and decided before the 
 trial of the case proceeded - further. We are clearly of 
 opinion that the respondents are entitled to have these 
 reductions taken iato account in determining the proper 
 total. They are, strictly speaking, the result of judg- 
 ments affecting the issue raised in this appeal, namely, the 
 sufficiency of the total, what is the true total ; and it would 
 be contrary to every principle of equity and every principle 
 governing the levying of contributory rates to exclude them 
 from consideration. True, the appellants were not parties 
 to the appeals which resulted in these reductions, nor were 
 they entitled to be heard upon the particular questions 
 raised in those apppeals; but when they framed their 
 schedule for increases, they had cognizance that there were 
 rated occupiers in the parish appealing to us upon the 
 ground of excessive assessment. The appellants complain 
 that certaia specified properties have been under-valued, 
 and that the total consequently is insufficient, and I 
 apprehend that the assessment committee could not be 
 allowed to array against these cases other assessments — 
 against which there has been no appeal — upon the ground 
 that the values assigned are too high ; but their position is 
 otherwise where there has been an appeal, and this Court 
 has determined that the assessments should be reduced. 
 The corrections consequent on the judgments in such cases 
 have to be made in the valuation lists and initialled by the 
 chairman. If the sum shown in the totals inscribed had 
 been inaccurately calculated and the County Council had 
 in consequence appealed, it would have to be corrected and 
 made to accord with the sum total of the figures actually 
 appearing against each hereditament. The injustice of 
 excluding from consideration these reductions in the 
 original list is so manifest that an Ulustrative example is 
 scarcely needed. We may find one in the parish of 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 247 
 
 Islington (the assessment committee of whicli was before 1892. 
 us tHs morning), where the excessive rating of the Gas l. c. C. 
 Light and Coke Company's mains and pipes was reduced jjiEYLEBONB. 
 by upwards of 25,000/. A 5 per cent, rate upon this sum "^tt 
 for the quinquennial period would amount to 6,250/., that Edlin, Q.6. 
 is to say, to so much more than the proper contribution of 
 the parish to the county rate, if the total were not corrected 
 so as to make it accordant with the actual assessment. 
 Mr. White admits that upon an appeal made specially for 
 the purpose, we should have to reduce the total by the 
 amount of these reductions ; and therefore the objection to 
 their being calculated upon the present appeal is purely 
 technical. There is the argument ab inoonvenienti, and the 
 avoidance of circuity of proceeding. The presentment of 
 this appeal may result in making a second correction 
 unnecessary. 
 
 We shall allow the set-ofi, and as the figures are not 
 disputed, we may take the amount as it has been stated 
 by the respondents, viz., a reduction in the gross value of 
 6,037/., and in the rateable value of 4,781/. The costs of 
 this day, so far as it has been devoted to the argument of 
 this question, will be reserved (a). 
 
 (a) It may be convenient to add a note as to the practice and procedure 
 adopted on the hearing of this appeal. The appellants, in a schedule to 
 their case, set out a list of 3,289 assessments, alleged to he too low, with 
 columns showing the gross and rateable values as appearing in the valua- 
 tion list, and the gross and rateable values as contended by the appellants. 
 This schedule was subsequently divided into seven sub-schedules, in 
 which the assessments were grouped so as to collect together those to 
 -which the same, or similar, contentions applied. The first sub-schedule, 
 for example, contained "oases in which the original occupiers' returns, 
 made in pursuance of ss. 65 and 57 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 
 1869, showed with other evidence that the assessments in the valuation 
 list were too low." As to this sub-schedule, the appellants subpcenaed 
 the occupiers to produce their leases, &c., and also gave expert evidence 
 as to a large number of hereditaments. The respondents' evidence was 
 to have been reserved until the appellants' evidence upon all the alleged 
 cases of under assessment had been given, but the hearing was suspended 
 in order to enable the parties, if possible, to agree to a settlement before 
 the appellants' evidence was completed. On the production of the leases 
 the amount of rent actually paid in some instances would primd facie 
 have warranted (according to the appellants' contention) an increase 
 larger than that claimed ia the appellants' ease. They were, however, 
 content to abide by the increase originally claimed. The hearing ex- 
 tended from January 11, 1892, to January 18, 1893, and occupied the 
 whole or part of about twenty days. 
 
248 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1893. Fkasek V. City op London Union. 
 
 Jc€ UTitQ/flf 13 
 
 ! Sv/pplemental List — Alteration during preceding Twelve Months — 
 
 Quinquennial List— Alteration of Assessment — -Failure to give 
 Notice to Oceupiei — Validity of List — Valuation {Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869, ss. 9, 46. 
 
 The assessment committee, on revising the quinquennial list 
 made in 1890, increased the appellant's assessment, but the notice 
 of such increase required by Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 9, 
 was not received by the appellant until the end of January, 1891. 
 On November 20, 1891, no alteration in value having taken place, 
 the overseers entered the appellant in a provisional Ust, reducing 
 his assessment by 3^. In revising the supplemental list made in 
 1892, the assessment committee did not strike out the appellant's 
 name, but restored the assessment fixed by them in revising the 
 quinquennial list, on the ground that (as the appellant admitted) 
 no alteration in value had taken place during the preceding twelve 
 months, as required by Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 46. 
 
 Held thai no alteration in value having taken place during- the 
 preceding twelve months, the entry in the supplemental list must 
 be struck out. 
 
 ^Mcere whether the appellant, not having had notice of the altera- 
 tion of his assessment in the quinquennial Ust, was bound by it. 
 
 Appeal against a supplemental list made in 1892. 
 
 In the quinquennial list made in 1890, the overseers 
 assessed the appellant in respect of No. 10, Vine St. at 
 401. gross and 34^. rateable ; and the assessment committee 
 altered the figures to 60^. gross and 60^. rateable. Notice 
 of this alteration was sent out on October 29, 1890, but 
 (as the Court found on the evidence) was not received by 
 the appellant imtil the last week in January, 1891. [By 
 s. 42 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, the assess- 
 ment committee should have finally approved the quin- 
 quennial list before November 1st, 1890, and notice of 
 appeal to quarter sessions should have been given before 
 January 14, 1891. By s. 9, where the assessment com- 
 mittee make such an alteration as was made in this case, 
 " the overseers shall, immediately after the re-deposit of 
 the list, serve on the occupier a notice of the gross and 
 rateable value inserted in the valuation Hst."] 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 249 
 
 On February 9, 1891, tlie appellant gave to the assess- 
 ment committee, the overseers, and the surveyor of taxes, 
 notice of objection to the assessment, but nothing further 
 was done in piirsuance of this notice. When the first rate 
 was made upon the quinquennial Hst, the appellant refused 
 to pay. A distress warrant was applied for, and the 
 magistrates held that they had no jurisdiction to inquire 
 into the validity of the valuation list, and must enforce the 
 rate. The appellant accordingly paid under protest. On 
 November 20, 1891, the overseers entered the appellant in 
 a provisional list, reducing the rateable value of his premises 
 by 3^., although, as was admitted by all parties, there had 
 been no alteration in value in the course of the current 
 year. The appellant was also entered in the supplemental 
 list made in 1892, but the assessment committee restored 
 the amounts as fixed by them in revising the quinquennial 
 list, on the ground that no alteration in value had taken 
 place. 
 
 By the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 46, " In 
 each of the first four years of [the quinquennial] period, a 
 supplemental list shall, if necessary, be made out . . . and 
 shall show aU the alterations which have taken place during 
 the preceding twelve months, but shall contain only the 
 hereditaments affected by such alterations." 
 
 By s. 47, " If in the course of any year the value of any 
 hereditament is increased by the addition thereto or the 
 erection thereon of any building, or is from any cause in- 
 creased or reduced in value [sic'], the following provisions 
 shall have effect." Then follow provisions for making a 
 provisional list which, by sub-s. (8), " shall continue in 
 force until the first list (supplemental or other) which is 
 subsequently made comes into force." 
 
 A. D. Lawrie for the appellant: The appellant could 
 not appeal against the increase in the quinquennial Hst, 
 because he did not receive notice in time ; nor against the 
 supplemental list made in 1891, because he was not 
 
 1893. 
 
 Pbabeb 
 
 V, 
 
 City of 
 London 
 Union. 
 
250 
 
 LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Fbaseb 
 
 V. 
 
 City of 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 included therein. He cannot be entered in the supple- 
 mental list made in 1892, because no alteration has "taken 
 place during the preceding twelve months " as required by 
 the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 46. 
 
 i2. Cunningham Glen for the respondents : The validity 
 of the quinquennial list cannot be questioned ; for by the 
 Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 45, "the valuation 
 list for the time being in force shall be deemed to have 
 been duly made in accordance with this Act." The assess- 
 ment committee entered the appellant in the supplemental 
 list of 1892, to give him an opportunity of appealing 
 against the amount of his assessment. It was their duty, 
 moreover, to enter him in a supplemental list, inasmuch as 
 he had been put in a provisional list. As there had been 
 no alteration in value within the twelve months, the over- 
 seers were wrong in reducing the appellant's assessment, 
 and the assessment committee were right in restoring the 
 figures appearing in the quinquennial list. The right of 
 appeal is given by the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, 
 s. 32, to a person " aggrieved by any decision of the assess- 
 ment committee." The decision in the present case is 
 right in law. If the appellant does not seek to go into 
 the question of amount, and insists on striking out his 
 name from the supplemental list, the only result will be 
 that he will have to pay rates on the same assessment, as 
 it appears in the quinquennial Hst. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : This is as clear 
 a case as was ever brought before the Court. It was dis- 
 covered, after the application for a distress warrant, that a 
 blunder had been committed. No entry was made in the 
 list of 1891, and another list was made in 1892. Why 
 should the overseers reduce the amoimt of the assessment ? 
 They had no right to alter the figures at all. There was 
 no reason at all for an entry in the supplemental Ust, 
 because there had been no alteration in value. The inser- 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 tion in the list of 1892 may have been in good faith, but 
 was entirely unauthorized and illegal. It must be erased 
 altogether. We do not touch the quinquennial list ; that 
 list will stand, but I do not say a word as to its being 
 valid (a). 
 
 Appeal allotved tvith costs. 
 
 251 
 
 1893. 
 
 Feaseb 
 
 V. 
 
 City OF 
 London 
 Union. 
 
 Friend v. Fulham Union Assessment Committee. 
 
 Practice — Provisional List — Omission from Supplemental List — Time 
 for appealing. 
 
 The appellant's property ■was entered in a quinquennial valuation 
 list made in 1890. It was also entered in a provisional list made in 
 1892, but was omitted from a supplemental list made later in 1892. 
 The appellant made an objection against the provisional list, but 
 not against the supplemental list, and on January 14, 1893, gave 
 notice of appeal against the quinquennial list of 1890. 
 
 Held, that the appeal was brought too late. 
 
 Appeal decided on a preliminary objection arising out 
 of the following facts : 
 
 The assessments now appealed against were entered in 
 the quinquennial valuation list made in 1890. In 1892, 
 the property was put by the overseers in a provisional list 
 under s. 47 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, and the 
 appellant duly made objection to that list before the assess- 
 ment committee. Subsequently in 1892 a supplemental 
 list was made, from which the assessments entered in the 
 provisional list were omitted. The appellant made no 
 objection to the supplemental list before the assessment 
 committee, and on January 14th, 1893, gave notice of appeal 
 
 1893. 
 March 17. 
 
 {a) As to the effect of the qumquennial list, compare H. v. Middlesex 
 Justices [1872], L. R. 7 Q. B. 653. It seeme to have been assumed in 
 the ease above reported, that the provisional list would not continue in 
 force after the commencement of the operation of the supplemental list. 
 As to this point, compare Dudin v. St. Olnve's Union, Ryde's Rat. App. 
 (1886-90) 202, and the remarks thereon, li. pp. 33, 34. 
 
252 
 
 1893. 
 
 Feiend 
 
 •Fttt. ttatm- 
 Union. 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 against the assessments appearing in the quinquennial list 
 made in 1890. 
 
 Macmorran for the respondents took the preliminary 
 objection that the appeal was brought too late. 
 
 Boicen Rowlands for the appellant : If necessary I ask 
 the Court to extend the time for appealing against the 
 quinquennial list of 1890. Up to 1892, it was the practice, 
 if property was entered in a provisional list, to put it into 
 the next supplemental list subsequently made. If this 
 course had been followed in the present case the appellant 
 could have appealed against the supplemental list, but the 
 overseers, acting in obedience to a direction of the county 
 council, omitted the appellant. It seems to have been a 
 mistake to appeal against the quinquennial list ; the appeal 
 should have been against the supplemental list. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin) : The appellant in his 
 own case says this is an appeal against the quinquennial 
 list. He is therefore out of Court on his own statement. 
 The appeal must be dismissed with costs (a). 
 
 Ohjection allowed. 
 
 [a) It is sutmitted that the appellant's proper course was to object to 
 the "omission" of his assessment from the supplemental list, under 
 8. 11, which by s. 46 (3) is applied to a supplemental list : and against the 
 decision on such an objection he could have appealed under s. 32 : this 
 was done in JEast and West India Docks Co. v. Poplar Union, Met. Eating 
 App. 356 : 13 Q. B. D. 36i ; in Sudin v. St. Olave's Union, Eyde's 
 Hat. App. (1886-90) 202 ; and in British Equitable Assurance Co. v. City 
 of London Union, lb. p. 229. 
 
 It is also submitted that, inasmuch as no objection to the supplemental 
 list had been made before the assessment committee, it was hardly possible 
 for the quarter sessions, in Friend t. Fulham Union, to order a fresh notice 
 of appeal to be given under s. 34 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 : 
 since the appellant could not have brought herself within s. 32 of that 
 Act, as ' ' being aggrieved by a decision of the assessment committee on an 
 objection made before them." 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 253 
 
 Q-AS Light and Coke Company v. Hackney Union. 1893, 
 
 March 28. 
 
 Supplemental List — Oas Qom/pany — Increase in Price of Gas — 
 
 Alteration in Bateahle Value — Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, 
 
 s. 46. 
 
 The appellants (a gas company) appealed against the quinquennial 
 list made in 1890, and obtained a reduction oi their assessment. 
 They subsequently increased the price of gas from 2s. 9d. to 3s. Id. 
 per 1,000 feet, as from December 31st, 1891. The respondents 
 increased the appellants' assessment, and entered them in a supple- 
 mental list made in 1892. On appeal to quarter sessions, it was 
 shown that in the parish in question the appellants' receipts had 
 increased, and that the quantity of gas sold, and the cost of making 
 gas per 1,000 feet, had decreased within the twelve months prior to 
 the making of the supplemental list. 
 
 Held, that as the Court had before it, upon the hearing of the 
 appeal against the quinquennial list, the statutory power of the 
 appellants to raise the price of gas, no sufficient "alteration" 
 within the meaning of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 46, 
 had been shown to warrant the m.aking of a supplemental list. 
 
 Appeals against supplemental lists made in 1892 for 
 tlie parishes of St. Jolm, Hackney, and Stoke Newington 
 in the Hackney Union. There had been appeals by the 
 same appellants against the quinquennial lists made in 
 1890 for the same parishes, vide supra, p. 204. In both 
 parishes the effect of the judgment was to reduce the 
 assessment appealed against. 
 
 Up to June 30th, 1890, the appellants charged 2s. 6d. 
 per 1,000 feet of gas; from that date it was raised to 
 2s. 9d., and was again raised from December 31st, 1891, 
 to 3s. Id. 
 
 Littler, Q.C. {Banckwerts with him), for the appellants: 
 To necessitate a supplemental list, there must be not 
 merely an increase, but an unexpected increase within the 
 last twelve months in the value of the appellants' property. 
 There has been no alteration in the mains, but merely in 
 the profits of the company since the quinquennial list 
 
2o4 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 1893. came into operation. [Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C. : The value 
 
 GASL10HT& fixed by the judgment of this Court is prima facie correct 
 
 ™ Co. -mitQ ti^g contrary is shown ; the burden of proof is on the 
 
 Hackney respondents.] 
 
 Balfour Browne, Q,.C. {Walter C. Ryde with him), for 
 the respondents : It is admitted that the respondents must 
 show an increase in. lettable value. In the appeal agaiust 
 the quinquennial list, this Court could not iu law, and did 
 not in fact, take iuto account a rise in price beyond 2s. ^d. 
 Mr. Eve attempted to do so {^de supra, p. 212), and his 
 valuation made on this basis would have supported the 
 assessments appealed against, whereas the Court held that 
 they were too high. Moreover the appellants themselves 
 contended {vide supra, p. 223) that the Court could not on 
 that appeal take into account a future rise in price, on the 
 ground that when it took place a supplemental list could 
 be made. Moreover, on the same appeal, after argument 
 but before judgment, evidence was tendered of the iacrease 
 in price as from December, 1891, and was rejected by the 
 Court : vide supra, p. 223. The respondents can show that 
 the appellants' receipts have risen, and their expenses have 
 fallen within the last twelve months. No doubt the Court 
 on the former appeal had before them the power of the 
 appellants to raise the price ; that was not enough, because 
 a rise in price may, by reason of competition, result ia a 
 loss to the company. The Court has now before it two 
 new ascertained facts; (1) that the price has been increased 
 above 2s. 9d., and (2) that the increase has resulted in 
 increased profits. It is not necessary for the making of a 
 supplemental list that there should be an alteration of the 
 hereditament itself : in Hast and West India Docks Co. v. 
 Foplar Union [1884], Met. Eat. App. 355; 13 Q. B. D. 
 364, the docks remained of the same capacity, but a 
 diminution of the number of ships was held sufficient. 
 
 Mr. William Eve was called by the respondents and 
 tendered in evidence a calculation similar in form to that 
 
LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 25S 
 
 set out above, p. 212, but based upon the altered receipts 1893. 
 and expenditure. This evidence was objected to by the Gab Light & 
 appellants, and was rejected by the Court. ^°^ ^°- 
 
 Mr. Eve then showed that, in the parish of St. John, Hacknbt 
 Hackney, the actual receipts for the year ending June 30th, 
 1891, were 130,980^., and for the year ending June, 1892, 
 were 138,093^. In the same two years respectively, the 
 quantity of gas sold in the same parish was 903,049,000 
 feet and 899,065,000 feet. In the same two years, the 
 average cost of gas to the company was 24'549c?., and 
 24'253d respectively. Consequently, the company had 
 sold a smaller quantity of gas in the second year, manu- 
 factured at a smaller cost per 1,000 feet, and had yet 
 earned increased receipts. There had been a fall in the 
 cost of coal. Mi. Eve regarded these facts as showing a 
 most decided increase in rateable value. [It is unnecessary 
 to state the figures relating to Stoke Newington.] 
 
 The appellants were not called upon to support their 
 appeals. 
 
 The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C.) : These appeals 
 must be allowed. It is not necessary to go into the figures 
 put before us by Mr. Eve, showing the business of the 
 company since the case was last before us. It appears to 
 us that Mr. Balfour Browne passes by the substantial 
 question in this case. The first question is whether there 
 has been any substantial alteration within the 12 months. 
 Mr. Balfour Browne confuses an alteration in the property 
 itself with an alteration in the method of management. 
 Mr. Eve admits that the powers now acted upon existed 
 at the time of our former decision : and it cannot be denied 
 that all those powers would then have to be considered. If 
 it could be said that the Court were v^rong before, there 
 would be a possible ground for an alteration. The question 
 before us is, whether there has been such an alteration as to 
 force us to make a re- valuation ; the respondents cannot ask 
 us to do so, without asking us to take into account again 
 
256 
 
 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 
 
 Coke Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 Haoknet 
 Union. 
 
 Sir P. H. 
 EdliQ, Q.C. 
 
 1893. all the circumstances afEecting the appellants' property 
 Gas Light & throughout their entire system. This would amount to 
 an entire evasion of the principle of the Valuation (Metro- 
 polis) Act, 1869, that there should he a re-valuation only 
 once in 5 years except in the case of a material increase 
 or decrease -within the last 12 months. If the company 
 had sought to show that their profits had fallen, the 
 respondents would no douht have said, all this was taken 
 into account at the quinquennial valuation. There has 
 heen no alteration in the property itself, but only a dif- 
 ferent system of management ; and I have no hesitation 
 in saying that this attempt to re-open the valuation has 
 signally failed, there heing no substantial alteration. The 
 appeals vrill be allowed with costs, and the entries in the 
 supplemental lists will be erased. 
 
 Appeals allowed. 
 
 1893. 
 June 30. 
 
 Gas Light and Coke Company v. Westminstek Union. 
 
 Appeals relating to several Parishes — Apportionment of Costs — 
 Surveyor's Fees. 
 
 The Gas LigM and Coke Co. appealed against the assessment of 
 their mains in a large number of parishes. The appeals were heard 
 together. The Westminster Union retained a surveyor, who was 
 afterwards retained to make a valuation for Chelsea and Islington. 
 The appeals as to Westminster and Chelsea were dismissed with 
 costs, the appeal as to Islington was allowed with costs. In taxing 
 the costs of the Westminster Union, the taxing officer found what 
 was a reasonable fee for the services rendered by the surveyor to 
 the three parishes together, and divided it in proportion to rateable 
 value. 
 
 Held, that the principle of apportionment was right. 
 
 Motion for review of taxation of costs in one of the 
 numerous appeals by the Gas Light and Coke Co., which 
 were heard together, vide- supra, p. 204. 
 
LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 257 
 
 The Westminster Union retained a surveyor to make a 1893. 
 valuation of the appellants' property. The same surveyor gas Lioht & 
 was subsequently retained by the assessment committee of *^°^^. ^°' 
 
 Chelsea and IsHnsrton to make a valuation. The three 'w^estminstee 
 
 ° Union. 
 
 appeals were heard together, and the effect of the judg- 
 ment was that the appeals in Chelsea and the "Westminster 
 Union were dismissed with costs, and the appeal in Islington 
 was allowed with costs. The Westminster Union paid to 
 their surveyor 472^. for his services, and it was not 
 suggested that this was an excessive amount. On taxa- 
 tion, the taxing officer took into account the fact that the 
 same surveyor was retained in three parishes, and con- 
 sidering that the maiu question in all the appeals was to 
 determine the rateable value of the appellants' property as 
 a whole, found that 613^. was a reasonable sum to be paid 
 to the surveyor for his services to the three parishes 
 together, and divided that sum among the three parishes 
 in proportion to the rateable value of the appellants' pro- 
 perty in each parish. The effect of this was to reduce the 
 fee allowed in the case of the Westminster Union to 165^. 
 
 Balfour Browne, Q.C., in support of the motion: The 
 effect of the principle adopted is that if a parish retain an 
 experienced surveyor who is likely to be retained by other 
 parishes, it is almost certain that they will fail to recover 
 a portion of their costs bond fide incurred. 
 
 Banckwerts, for the appellants : The ' parishes should 
 have combiaed to retain one surveyor. The taxing officer 
 rightly considered that all the appeals raised but one issue. 
 
 Balfour Browne, Q.O., in reply : It was found impossible 
 to combine with other parishes. So much of the surveyor's 
 fee as is attributed to the Islington appeal will not be 
 borne by the appellants at all, as they receive costs in that 
 appeal. 
 
258 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 
 
 1893. The Chairman (Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.O.) : We are clearly 
 
 Gas Light & of opinion that the taxing master acted on the right prin- 
 
 °"^^ °" ciple, and I have no hesitation in saying that, on the facts 
 
 ^Tniot™^ laid before him, he would have failed in his duty if he had 
 
 not taken notice of the fact that the same surveyor was 
 
 Sir PH.. ■ 
 
 Edlin Q.O. retained in several appeals. Nothing has been shown to 
 warrant our interfering with a proper exercise of his 
 discretion. 
 
 Motion dismissed. 
 
mating ^ppealsJ. 
 
 Part 11. 
 
 CASES 
 
 HEAED BT THE 
 
 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION, 
 
 ET THE 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL, 
 
 AMD BY THE 
 
 HOUSE OF LORDS, 
 
 1891—1893. 
 
 Showers v. Assessment Committee of Chelmsfori) o. A. 
 
 Union. — 
 
 1890. 
 
 Police Station — Residence of Police Officers- — Ratealility. laoi 
 
 The oMef constable and other police officers of the county of Jcin. 1 2. 
 Essex resided in parts of a block of buildings belonging to the 
 county. The premises occupied three sides of a square, and the 
 front door of each residence opened into one centre court. The 
 whole was surrounded by a wall, and the buildings were under one 
 roof. Besides the officers' residences, the buildings comprised 
 certain stores for police clothing, &c., which were not rated ; but 
 there were no cells for prisoners. The whole of the premises were 
 used solely for the purposes of the police of the county, the chief 
 constable being required to reside there. Each officer paid rent 
 for the premises in which he resided, such rent being deducted from 
 his pay. 
 
 Held, upon the facts, that the premises were not a police station, 
 
 s2 
 
260 COUET OF APPEAL. 
 
 1890. and did not constitute a single building used as a wtole for public 
 
 I '~ purposes so as to be exempt from rateabUity ; and tbat each of tbe 
 
 ^. ofEicers bad a separate beneficial occupation of bis residence in 
 
 Chelmsfoed respect of ■whicb be was rateable. 
 Union. 
 
 Case stated for the opinion of tlie Queen's Bench 
 Division under 12 & 13 Yict. c. 45, s. 11. 
 
 The followiag are the material facts stated in the case : 
 The appellants are the chief constable of the county of 
 Essex, the deputy chief constable, a superiatendent of 
 police, and a sergeant of police, all of whom resided in 
 buildings called Springfield Court, in the parish of 
 Springfield in Essex. In the rate appealed agaiast, the 
 several appellants were entered as occupiers of " house and 
 garden " or " house " ; and in the column headed " name 
 of owner," the " county of Essex " was entered. The 
 appellants objected to the rate on the ground that the 
 premises were not rateable, as they were part of a county 
 police station, and occupied solely for the purposes of the 
 Crown. The assessment committee confirmed the assess- 
 ment, and this case was stated. 
 
 The constabulary force for the county of Essex was 
 appointed under 2 & 3 Yict. c. 93, and the county was 
 divided into police districts, and station houses and strong 
 rooms were provided under 3 & 4 Yict. c. 88. The parish 
 of Springfield is situated within one of these police 
 districts, and Springfield Court is about a mile from the 
 county town and borough of Chelmsford, being in fact the 
 headquarters of the Essex constabulary. There are not 
 now any police cells used for the reception and detention 
 of prisoners at Springfield Court, but the county police 
 make use of a portion of the ground floor of the Shire 
 Hall in Chelmsford, which is county property, as a police 
 oflBce. This, however, is not provided with sleeping accom- 
 modation, being nothing more than a space partitioned 
 off and supplied with desk and office fittings. The cells 
 for the detention of prisoners whilst in the custody of the 
 police are also in the Shire Hall. The office and cells are 
 
COURT OP APPEAL. 
 
 261 
 
 used both hj day and night. There are no other premises 
 in the Chelmsford Union used for police purposes than 
 those hefore mentioned. 
 
 The whole of the premises called Springfield Ooui-t 
 belonged formerly to the justices of the peace for the 
 county of Essex, but are now, under the provisions of the 
 Local Grovernment Act, 1888, vested in a joint committee 
 consisting of an equal number of county justices and county 
 councillors. The whole of the premises are used exclusively 
 for the purposes of the poKce, and consist of the chief 
 constable's house, containing dining-room, drawing-room, 
 morning-room, library, bedrooms, kitchen, with stables, 
 coach-house, the usual offices, and a garden : of the deputy 
 chief constable's house, containing dining-room, drawing- 
 room, bedrooms, kitchen, and the usual offices, and a 
 garden : of a superintendent's quarters, containing a 
 sitting-room, living-room, bedrooms, and kitchen; of a 
 •sergeant's quarters, containing sitting-room, kitchen, bed- 
 room, and scullery ; and also of clerks' offices, store-rooms 
 for police clothing, &c., parade-room, stables, coach-house, 
 and other outbuildings. The chief constable, the deputy 
 chief constable, and the two other officers, and the wives 
 and children of those who are married, live and sleep at 
 Springfield Court. The premises occupy three sides of a 
 square, and open into one centre court, and have gardens 
 adjoining. The whole building is under one roof, the front 
 doors from all the separate quarters opening into the court. 
 The whole of the premises and grounds are enclosed by a 
 large brick wall, so that they can only be entered by the 
 main gate, or through the back way to the stable yard. 
 All the premises are used solely by the police force for the 
 purposes of the county constabulary, the chief constable being 
 bound to reside there as a condition of his appointment. 
 Nothing more is provided than is necessary for the proper 
 accommodation of the several officers, taking their respec- 
 'tive ranks in life into consideration. Only the portions of 
 
 1890. 
 
 Showees 
 
 V. 
 
 Chklmsfoed 
 Union. 
 
262 COURT OP APPEAL, 
 
 1890. the premises in ■whicli the chief constable and the other 
 
 Showees three officers before mentioned reside are rated. Each 
 
 "• officer pays a rack-rent for the premises occupied by him, 
 
 .CHELMSrOEB . . . 
 
 Union. such rent being deducted from his pay, and the deduction 
 is applied in aid of the police rate. 
 
 If the premises are rated, the rate "wiU be paid out of the 
 police rate. In consequence of the exemption claimed, 
 Springfield Court has never contributed anything to the 
 poor and other rates, except a rent of 101. per annum for 
 a supply of water. 
 
 [Before the coming into operation of the Local Grovern- 
 ment Act, 1888, a grant was made by the Treasury in aid 
 of the police rate, if the police were reported by a gOTem- 
 ment inspector to be in a state of efficiency. 
 
 Ths effect of the Local Government Act, 1888, ss. 24 
 and 25, is that the grant in aid is abolished, and the pro- 
 ceeds of the local taxation licences, &c., are now given to 
 the county in lieu of grants out of the Exchequer in aid 
 of local rates which were formerly made ; but if the 
 government inspector reports that the county police have 
 not been properly maintained, the county forfeits to the 
 Exchequer, out of the proceeds of those licences, a sum 
 equivalent to the grant which would have been made 
 under the old system.] 
 
 The question for the opinion of the Court was whether 
 the appellants or any of them were liable to be rated in 
 respect of their occupation of the said premises. 
 
 Q. B. D. Channell, Q..G. {Woollett with him), for the appellants : 
 
 ^~P The result of the decided cases is that a police station 
 
 Nov. 4. occupied by the county for police purposes is not rateable ; 
 but that if the county have not room for their officers and 
 hire rooms or houses outside the police station, such rooms 
 or houses are rateable. The question is, "Within which 
 category do the appellants come ? The premises are the 
 headquarters of the county constabulary. If the premises 
 
jDOUET OP APPEAL. 263 
 
 ■as a 'whole belong to tlie county, and are used for county 1890. 
 purposes, the Court wiU not hold that particular rooms on Showees 
 the premises occupied by the police officers are rateable. „ *'• 
 The officers here have an occupation subordmate to that of Umo^. 
 the county ; they are rather in the position of lodgers than 
 of householders. The occupation of the Crown (to which 
 exemption from rateability is attached) is equiyalent to 
 occupation for the public government of the coimtry. 
 The present case is exactly like Lancashii'e Justices v. Over- 
 seers of Stretford [1858], E. B. & E. 225, where the 
 county justices provided buildings, and let parts to police 
 officers at a rent deducted from their wages, yet the whole 
 was held exempt. [Lawrance, J. : Is not this case like 
 Gambler v. Overseers of Lydford [1854], 3 E. & B. 346 ?] 
 In that case premises outside the precincts of a prison, 
 such as the residence of the chaplain, &o., were held not 
 exempt ; but here all the buildings make one non-rateable 
 integer, viz., the headquarters of the county police. [Bay, 
 J. : This is rather a nondescript building, not an integral 
 part of the police station.] In Macharg v. Stoke-upon- 
 Trent [1884], 48 J. P. 775, it was held that a police 
 officer was rateable in respect of a residence provided for 
 him out of the county rate, but that was because it was 
 a cottage two miles from the police station. In Martin v. 
 West Derly [1883], 11 Q. B. D. 145, a police super- 
 intendent's house was held rateable, because it formed no 
 part of the police station. [He also cited Coomber v. 
 Justices of Berkshire [1883], 9 App. Cas. 61 ; B. v. St. 
 Martins, Leicester [1867], L. E. 2 Q. B. 493.] 
 
 W. S. Grubbe and W. B. Duffield, for the respondents, 
 were not heard. 
 
 Day, J. : The question in this case is very similar to 
 that raised in Durham County Council v. Chester-le- Street, 
 infra, p. 267. I must not be supposed to dissent from 
 the cases which have been cited to us. I agree that if 
 
264 €OUET OF APPEALi 
 
 1890. a building, as an integral whole, is exempt as being 
 
 Showees occupied by the Crown, the persons who occupy parts of 
 
 *• the premises as servants of the Grown are not liable to be 
 
 Union. rated. But here we have property which to a large 
 J. J extent consists of buildings separately occupied by persons 
 connected with the police, who reside there for convenience 
 to themselves, and for the performance of their police 
 duties. No doubt it is convenient that police officers 
 should live near their work, and that they should live 
 together. But here the rateability of Springfield Court as 
 a whole is the very question in dispute, and the greater 
 part of the premises are occupied by the officers' houses. 
 Possibly small parts, such as the stables, the parade ground, 
 and the stores for police clothing, are exempt. But these 
 parts do not constitute an integral whole which is exempt 
 from rating ; they are merely parts of one building, the 
 rateability of which as a whole is in question. The cases 
 cited do not apply. The question here is whether build- 
 ings occupied by police officers for the residence of them- 
 selves and their families, and for which they pay rent, are 
 not rateable ? I do not think that the fact that one waU 
 goes round the whole of the houses, parade ground, and 
 stables, can make them exempt. If the houses were out- 
 side the wall, it has been decided that they would not be 
 rateable. No doubt police officers live there, but these 
 premises are not a police station where officers are stationed 
 for the performance of police duties, and they are therefore 
 not within the exemption. 
 
 Lawbancb, J. : I am of the same opinion. I think this 
 case is governed by Gamhier v. Overseers of Lydford [1854], 
 3 B. & B. 346. I also think that it makes no difference 
 that the building is now vested, under the Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1888, in the joint committee of the justices and 
 county councillors, instead of in the justices alone. We 
 give judgment for the respondents. 
 
COURT OP APPEAL. -265 
 
 The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. 0. A. 
 
 Channell, Q.O., and Woollett, for the appellants, cited, in January 12. 
 addition to the cases cited in the Court below, B. v. Stew- Showees 
 art [1857], 8 E. & B. 360 ; and R. t. Fuller [1855], 8 E. „ "• 
 
 D T. r,nl^ CHELMBrOED 
 
 & 13. Abo, n. Uhion. 
 
 Grubbe and Buffield, for the respondents, were not called 
 upon. 
 
 Lord EsHEE, M.E. : The question in this case is really 
 a question of fact ; and I have no doubt upon the facts 
 stated that the appellants are rateable. It has been argued 
 that they are servants or lodgers, but it is obvious that 
 they are occupying tenants. It has been said that they 
 occupy parts of a building which is as a whole used for 
 public purposes, so that the occupation of the whole must 
 be deemed to be the occupation of the Crown. In my 
 opinion, Springfield Court is not one building; each of 
 the appellants occupies his residence as a separate tene- 
 ment. And, further, even if Springfield Court be one 
 building, it is not a police station, and I doubt whether it 
 can be said to be used for public purposes. In Martin v. 
 West Derby Union [1883], 11 Q. B. D. 145, it was held 
 that buildings occupied by public servants, outside a 
 building used for public purposes, were rateable. Lord 
 Coleridge there pointed out that where there are public 
 buildings, like a prison, all occupied together, not by 
 any iadividual personally, but by some public body as 
 representing the Crown, who hold the whole as the Crown's 
 buUding, or for the purpose of the government of the 
 country, the Court will not look at whether a particular 
 room or set of rooms is occupied so as to give a benefit to 
 the persons who occupy, but if such room or rooms form 
 an integral part of a whole which in itself is not rateable, 
 the persons who so occupy are not rateable. The facts of 
 the present case do not bring the appellants within this 
 
^266 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 .1891. exemption, and they are in beneficial occupation of sepa- 
 Showees rate tenements, and therefore liable to be rated. 
 
 V. 
 
 Chelmsfoed 
 Union. Bowen, L.J. : I am of the same opinion. The appel- 
 
 lants are rated as the beneficial occupiers of certain tene- 
 ments forming part of a block of buildings. It has been 
 said on behalf of the appellants that they are not occupiers 
 at all, but that the premises form part of one large build- 
 ing used as a police station, and occupied in its entirety 
 by the county ; and therefore that the Court will not look 
 closely to see whether any part is occupied for the benefit 
 of any particular person. In my opinion, upon the facts 
 stated, Springfield Court is not one single building occu- 
 pied by the county, but consists of several distinct tene- 
 ments occupied by separate persons. But assuming that 
 there is a beneficial occupation of these separate tenements, 
 there remains the question whether the occupation is for 
 public purposes, so as to come within the exemption stated 
 by Lord "Watson in Coomber\. Justices of Berkshire [1883], 
 9 App. Cas. 61, following the rule laid down in Jones v. 
 Mersey Docks [1865], 11 H. L. C. 443, that is to say, an 
 occupation ascribable to a bare trust for purposes required 
 and created by the government of the country. It seems 
 to me that the appellants' occupation does not come withia 
 this exemption ; they occupy for their own purposes, and 
 not for the purposes of the government of the country. 
 It was argued, on the authority of Martin v. West Berhy 
 Union [1883], 11 Q. B. D. 145, that when once a building 
 is shown to be used as a whole for public purposes, the 
 Court will not consider whether there is a beneficial occu- 
 pation of a particular part of that building. But here 
 there is no one building used as a whole for public pur- 
 poses. Moreover, Martin v. West Berhy Union did not 
 decide that everything within the curtilage of a building 
 used for public purposes is exempt from ratiag. There 
 may be a beneficial occupation for private purposes of part 
 withia a public building. 
 
COURT OF APPEAX. 267 
 
 Fry, L.J. : I am of the same opinion. The building 1891, 
 
 here is not used as a whole for public purposes. It Showebs 
 contains a series of private dwellings occupied by the "• 
 
 appellants. Union. 
 
 Appeal dismissed. 
 
 Durham County Council v. Assessment Committee of q,. b. D. 
 Ohester-le-Street. 
 
 Certified Industrial School — Bateability — Occupation for the Purposes 
 of the Grown — County Council — Industrial Schools Acts, 1866, 
 18*72 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 118; 35 & 36 Vict. c. 21)— Local Govern- 
 ment Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vid. v. 41). 
 
 A county council is rateable in respect of a certified industrial 
 boIlooI established by justices under the Industrial Schools Acts, 
 1866 and 1872, and vested in the county council under the Local 
 Government Act, 1888. 
 
 Special case stated by consent, and by order of 
 Lawrance, J. (under 12 & 13 Yict. c. 45, s. 11), after 
 notice of appeal against an assessment of 98^. gross and 
 921. rateable value, in respect of property described as 
 " Land, School, and Hind's house," and used for the pur- 
 poses of an industrial school. 
 
 The material facts stated in the case are as follows : — ■ 
 7. " In 1881 the court of quarter sessions for the 
 county of Durham, professing to act as the prison authority 
 for the county, resolved to establish a county industrial 
 school under the Industrial Schools Acts, and submitted to 
 the Home Secretary the plans of a farm, partly freehold 
 and partly copyhold (being the farm mentioned in the 
 assessment), which they proposed to purchase for the pur- 
 pose. The Home Secretary signified his approval of the 
 intended purchase, and by indenture and surrender, both 
 dated July 6, 1883, the farm was conveyed to the clerk of 
 the peace for the county of Durham, and his successors iu 
 
 1890. 
 Nov. 3, 
 
268 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1890. 
 
 DUEHAM 
 
 COUNTT 
 
 Council 
 
 V. 
 
 Chestee-ib- 
 Steebt. 
 
 office, upon trust for the purposes of the Industrial Schools 
 Acts, 1866 and 1872. The indenture recited the purchase 
 of the farm by quarter sessions as the prison authority, 
 and the approval of the Home Secretary as before stated." 
 
 8. " The purchase money of the farm, and the cost of 
 the buildings, were paid out of moneys borrowed by the 
 county justices under the Prisons Authorities Act, 1874, on 
 the security of the county rate." 
 
 9. [A certificate of fitness for reception of children was 
 given by the Home Secretary under s. 7 of the Industrial 
 Schools Act, 1866, on June 29, 1885. The school was 
 opened on July 2, 1885, and had since continued as a 
 certified industrial school.] 
 
 10. " In addition to officers' apartments, the school com- 
 prises accommodation for 150 boys, including a cottage 
 hospital and workshops in which they are taught trades 
 .... by schoolmasters who form part of the regular staff. 
 There is also a hind's house in which a farm bailiff resides, 
 under whose direction the boys are employed in tilling the 
 farm. The farm and the buildings above mentioned are of 
 areasonable size having regard to the purposes forwhiohthey 
 are required, and afiord no accommodation further than such 
 as is essential for the proper employment and education of 
 the boys. The revenue of the school consists (1) of grants 
 in aid paid by the government under the Industrial Schools 
 Acts ; (2) of payments in respect of boys committed to the 
 school, but not at the cost of the county ; and (3) of the 
 proceeds of the boys' work and of the sale of the surplus 
 produce of the farm, the bulk of which produce is, however, 
 consumed in the school. These sums together have not 
 been in any year sufficient to defray the expenses of the 
 school, and a considerable sum has been raised annually out 
 of the county rates to meet the deficiency." 
 
 11. "Until April 1st, 1889, the school was under the 
 management of the quarter sessions, but on that day the 
 Local Government Act, 1888, came into operation, by sect. 
 3 (vii) of which all business done by quarter sessions or any 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 269 
 
 of its committees in respect of the establishment and main- 
 tenance of,, and the contribution to industrial schools was 
 transferred to the county council. Since the last-mentioned 
 day, it has been assumed, as between the county council and 
 quarter sessions, that the efEect of the Act is to transfer the 
 management also of the school to the county council, and 
 the school has in fact been managed by the county council ; 
 but there has been no fresh appointment of a superintendent, 
 although some changes have been made among the minor 
 officers. The usual deficiency was made up last year, as 
 heretofore, out of the county rate." 
 
 " The questions for the opinion of the Court are : — 
 
 " (1) Are the above-mentioned premises liable to be rated 
 to the poor rate ? 
 
 " (2) Is the county council in occupation of the said 
 premises ? 
 
 " (3) Is the county council in such occupation of the said 
 premises as to render the county council liable to be rated ? 
 
 " (4) If yes, is the rateable value properly entered in the 
 said rate ? " 
 
 By the Prison Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 126), s. 5, as 
 respects any prison belonging to any county having a 
 separate court of quarter sessions, the justices in quarter 
 sessions assembled are the prison authority for the 
 purposes of that Act ; and, by s. 8, all expenses incurred 
 in carrying into effect the provisions of that Act shall be 
 defrayed out of the county rate. 
 
 By the Prison Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 21), s. 4, all 
 expenses incurred in respect of the maintenance of prisons 
 shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament. 
 
 By the Industrial Schools Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. 
 c. 118), s. 4, the term "prison authority" has the same 
 meaning as in the Prison Act, 1865 ; by ss. 6 and 7 of the 
 Act of 1866, an inspector of prisons is to be appointed by 
 the Secretary of State as Inspector of Eeformatory and 
 Industrial Schools, and on his report the Secretary of State 
 may certify an industrial school to be fit for the reception 
 
 1890. 
 
 DUEHAM 
 
 County 
 Council, 
 
 V. 
 
 Chestek-le- 
 Steeet. 
 
270 
 
 QUEERS BENCH DIVISION. 
 
 1890. 
 
 DUEHAM 
 
 CotTNTT 
 
 COUNOIL 
 
 V. 
 
 Chesteb-le- 
 Stbeet. 
 
 of children. By ss. 12 and 13, a prison authority may 
 contribute towards the maintenance, alteration, establish- 
 ment, &c. of an industrial school, subject (in certain cases) 
 to the approval of the Secretary of State. By ss. 44 and 
 45, the Secretary of State may withdraw, or the managers 
 of the school may resign, a certificate. By s. 50, expenses 
 incurred by a prison authority in carrying into effect the 
 provisions of the Industrial Schools Act, 1865, shall be 
 deemed expenses incurred by that authority in carryiag 
 into effect the provisions of the Prison Act, 1865. 
 
 By the Eeformatory and Industrial Schools Acts Amend- 
 ment Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Yict. c. 21), s. 7, the prison authority 
 are themselves authorized to undertake anything towards 
 which they were authorized by s. 12 of the Act of 1866 
 to contribute. 
 
 The following Acts and sections were also referred to 
 in the case or in the arguments : — the Prisons Authorities 
 Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Yict. c. 47), and the Industrial Schools 
 Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 118), ss. 10, 11, 29, and 32—34. 
 
 Lawson Walton, Q,.0. {Simey with him), for the appel- 
 lants : The industrial school is not rateable. It was 
 established by the county justices acting as a "prison 
 authority " : see ss. 4, 12 of the Industrial Schools Act, 
 1866, and the Prison Act, 1865, s. 5 {supra, p. 269). 
 Children are sent to it by order of justices, are detained 
 in it against their will, and it is an offence to escape from 
 it : see ss. 14, 32—34 of the Industrial Schools Act, 1866. 
 The school is, in effect, a prison, and a prison is not rate- 
 able: see Gambier Y. Overseers of Lydfm-d [1854], 3 B. & 
 B. 346. " Where property is occupied for the purposes of 
 the government of the country, including under that head 
 the police and the administration of justice, no one is rate- 
 able in respect of such occupation " : see Jones v. Mersey 
 Docks [1865], 11 H. L. 0. at p. 464. In Coomher v. Berk- 
 shire Justices [1883], 9 App. Cas. 61, it was held that 
 assize courts and a county police station were exempt from 
 
queen's bench division. 271- 
 
 ineome tax (and, therefore, also from poor rate). In iVest 1890. 
 Bromwich School Board v. Overseers of West Bromwich Dtjeham 
 [1884], 13 Q. B. D. 929, the Board were held rateable in Countx 
 respect of schools of which they were the owners, solely on v. 
 
 the ground that they had power to let them under s. 22 of ^sikeet^''* 
 the Elementary Education Act, 1870, the principle being 
 that although while the schools were in the hands of the 
 Board there could be no profit, and therefore no beneficial 
 occupation, yet the power to let made it possible to obtain 
 a hypothetical tenant. Bridges (where the tolls have been 
 abolished) have been held not rateable, because it is im- 
 possible to suppose a tenant : Sare v. Overseers of Putney 
 [1881], 7 a B. D. 223. In Nicholson v. Solborn Union 
 [1886], 18 Q. B. D. 161, the Middlesex Sessions House at 
 Clerkenwell was held exempt, on the ground that it was 
 occupied for purposes coimected with the general govern- 
 ment of the country. In R. v. West Derby [1875], L. E. 10 
 Q. B. 283, an industrial school, and in Tunnicliffe v. Overseers 
 of Birkdale, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 286, a reformatory 
 school, were held rateable because they were established by 
 private enterprise and maintained by private funds, which 
 is not the case here. The justices were not a corporation 
 and could not be rated as occupiers; and the transfer, -under 
 the Local Grovernment Act, 1888, of the liability of the 
 justices to the county council cannot increase it. [Day, J. : 
 Is not this objection to rateabiUty an objection which ap- 
 plies personally to the justices ? If so, it would disappear 
 on the transfer to the county council, and an immunity 
 which protected the justices would not protect the county 
 eouncn.] 
 
 R. 8. Wright {R. Cunninglmm Glen with him) for the 
 respondents : This industrial school is capable of beneficial 
 occupation, and is in no sense " struck with sterility." The 
 county council are not bound to carry it on as a school for 
 aU time ; they are authorized by the Industrial Schools 
 Acts to cease to occupy it, and if the Home Secretary's 
 
272 
 
 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. 
 
 1890. 
 
 DUEHAM 
 
 County 
 Council 
 
 V. 
 
 Chestee-le- 
 Steeet. 
 
 certificate is withlield, they must do so. In R. v. School 
 Board for London, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) at p. 237; 
 17 Q. B. D. at p. 740, Lord Esher, M. E., thus states the 
 reason for holding a board school rateable : — '' The pro- 
 perty might be, in the hands of somebody, a profitable 
 property; it has not been rendered unprofitable by statute, 
 and, therefore, cannot be said to be struck with sterility " : 
 see also Mayor, 8fc. of Burton-upon-Trent \. Burton-upon- 
 Trent Union, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 314 ; 24 Q. B. 
 D. 197. In Jones v. Mersey Docks [1865], 11 H. L. C. 443, 
 the statutes prohibited the docks from being applied to any 
 other purpose ; here the county council can dispose of the 
 farm. Justices can be, and have been, rated, even though 
 they may not be a corporation : see Lancashire Justices v. 
 Overseers of Cheetham [1867], L. E. 3 Q,. B. 14. Judges' 
 lodgings are exempt, as being in the occupation of the 
 Crown ; if they are let and used for other purposes, they 
 become rateable. The important question in this case is, 
 whether the school is occupied by the Crown. There is a 
 clear distinction betweeen reformatory schools which are 
 in effect prisons, and industrial schools which are generally 
 established by private persons, and are no part of the prison 
 system. Boys sent to a reformatory school are, in the 
 statute, called " offenders," and have been convicted of an 
 " offence punishable with penal servitude or imprison- 
 ment " (a) : see 29 & 30 Vict. c. 117, s. 14 : whereas boys 
 may be sent to an industrial school who have been found 
 merely begging or receiving alms, or wandering and not 
 having any home, or destitute, being orphans: see the 
 Industrial Schools Act, 1865 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 118), s. 14, 
 Moreover, under s. 26 of the same Act, the managers of an 
 industrial school may permit a child sent there to lodge at 
 the dwelling of his parent. A school board can contribute 
 to, or may establish and maintain, an industrial school (see 
 
 (a) The majority of the Court of Appeal in Tunnicliffe v. Overseers of 
 Birkdale, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 286, doubted whether a reformatory 
 school ought to be regarded as a prison. 
 
queen's bench division. 273 
 
 the Elementary Education Act, 1870, ss. 27, 28). Sucli 1890. 
 a school is not part of the prison system, but part of the Dubham 
 educational system of the country. Poor law schools are County 
 always rated. The position is different since the passing v. 
 
 of the Local Grovernment Act, 1888 ; before that Act, one ^steeet?^" 
 and the same body of persons performed duties of two dis- 
 tinct kinds, which are now severed ; the justices now 
 administer justice in the name of the Crown, while the 
 county council are concerned only with " administrative 
 business," and have nothing to do with the service of the 
 Crown. 
 
 Lawson Walton, Q.C, in reply: The effect of the last 
 arguments on behalf of the respondents is that aU police 
 stations, assize courts, and other county buildings which 
 have always been held exempt, are now rateable by reason 
 of the transfer to the coimty council. The object with 
 which industrial schools are founded is to carry out the 
 duties of the Government in the prevention of crime. 
 
 Day, J. : The question raised in this case is whether an 
 industrial school vested in the county council of Durham 
 is rateable. The history of the school is shortly this : it 
 was established by justices, and duly certified by the 
 Home Secretary ; it was carried on by the justices until 
 the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, when the 
 building and the control of it were transferred to the 
 county coimcil. The question is, whether the county 
 council are rateable in respect of this school. PriwA facie, 
 all property of which a beneficial occupation is possible, is 
 rateable. The Crown is not liable to any burdens unless it 
 is expressly named in the Act of Parliament creating them. 
 It is not named in the Acts relating to rates, and, there- 
 fore, is not rateable in respect of property which it occupies. 
 Property occupied for public purposes by the principal 
 officers of the Crown — for example, the post office occupied 
 by the Postmaster- General — has been held to be exempt. 
 
 K. T 
 
274 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1890. 
 
 "Dttr tta-m- 
 
 CotraiY 
 Council 
 
 V. 
 
 Chestee-lb- 
 Steeet. 
 
 Day, J. 
 
 There is another class of huildings which have been held 
 to be exempt : viz., buildings occupied quasi by the Crown 
 for public purposes, and by public officials, such as assize 
 courts and county courts, in which justice is administered 
 in the name of the Crown, and prisons. And it has been 
 said that industrial schools come within this class. In my 
 opinion an industrial school is not a prison, and it cannot 
 seriously be contended that it is. It is said that it exists 
 solely for the public benefit ; but that is no ground for 
 exemption. A great deal of property in the country is 
 used solely for the public benefit, but it is still rateable. 
 It is further said that this school was founded, and for 
 some time controlled and managed by the magistrates, by 
 means of public money. To my mind it does not matter 
 whether it was founded with public or private money. 
 All industrial schools are (I believe) indebted to public 
 money to some extent for their maintenance, if not for 
 their establishment. It has already been decided that 
 industrial schools supported by private subscriptions are 
 rateable. And there is no distinction with regard to 
 questions as to rateability between schools paid for by 
 private persons, with private money, and schools founded 
 with public money and controlled by magistrates. 
 
 This school, therefore, cannot be brought within any of 
 the recognized exemptions. It is said, however, that 
 certain passages to be found in Judgments dealing with 
 private schools do not apply to the circumstances of this 
 school, and therefore that it is exempt. But judges are 
 not bound to travel beyond the facts of the particular case 
 before them ; the grounds of the decision may have been 
 good enough for that case, and it is not always necessary 
 or convenient to go through all possible circumstances ; 
 because, ia previous decisions, schools were held rateable 
 on the ground that they were founded by private persons 
 with private money, it does not follow that, therefore, 
 schools founded by public bodies with private money would 
 be not rateable. 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 275 
 
 I give no opinion upon the question whether this school 
 ■was rateahle in the hands of the justices. The school is 
 now in the hands of the county council ; > and there is no 
 ground whatever for saying that the county council are 
 the servants of the Crown ; nor, in my opinion, for saying 
 that the justices were, as managers of this industrial school, 
 servants of the Crown. They acted as managers, not 
 because they were servants of the Crown, hut hecause they 
 were the persons named in the Acts of Parliament. Courts 
 and other huildings which are used hy justices when dis- 
 charging their judicial duties as justices of the peace are 
 in a very difierent category. With regard to some pur- 
 poses no doubt the justices may be considered the servants 
 of the Crown. But I see no reason for holding this school 
 exempt while it is in the hands of the county council. 
 
 A further point was argued, viz., that this school has 
 been " struck with sterility." In my opinion it cannot be 
 said to be struck with sterility. The county council can 
 give it up if they think it useless ; and, if given up, it 
 could be sold. I can conceive a hypothetical tenant of 
 this school. It may be that the existence of the school, as 
 such, depends upon the licence of the Home Secretary. 
 If the licence were withdrawn, the county council must 
 use the school as best they could. I see no reason why a 
 hypothetical tenant of this school should not be invented 
 for the purpose of ascertaining the rent which he would be 
 willing to pay for the occupation of it. 
 
 Laweance, J. : I am of the same opinion. This case 
 is like the case of the reformatory school, and but for the 
 fact that it was founded by justices, this school would have 
 been in the same position as the reformatory school. This 
 school does not come within any of the exemptions which 
 have been referred to. It is not the property of the Crown, 
 nor is it occupied by the Crown ; and, whatever may have 
 been the position of the justices, the school is not now 
 occupied by the servants of the Crown. And if it were 
 
 t2 
 
 1890. 
 
 DXTBHAM 
 
 County 
 cottnoil 
 
 V. 
 
 Chester- LE- 
 Steeet. 
 
 Day, J. 
 
276 queen's bench division. 
 
 1890. necessary to decide wHether the magistrates, when they 
 Dotham were in occupation, were rateable, I should not hesitate 
 
 CotoS. ^° ®^y^ ^^^* ^^^y^ ^®^® ' ^°^' ^^ ^y opinion, the mere acci- 
 V. dent that this school was under the management of justices 
 
 Stbeet. " ^^^ iiot of private persons is immaterial. As to the argu- 
 ment that the justices could not let this school, I think 
 they had power to sell it ; and I can see no distinction 
 between being able to sell and being able to let it. The 
 questions asked us must be answered iu the aflSrmatiTe. 
 
 Judgment /or respondents. 
 
 Lawrance, J. 
 
 0. A. E. V. Assessment Committee of St. Maey Abbotts. 
 
 1891. Practice — Ohjection "before Assessment Committee — Appearance hy an 
 Felruary 2. Agent— Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. 
 
 u. 103), s. 19. 
 
 A ratepayer -who has given notice of an objection to a valuation 
 list, is not bound to appear in person before the assessment com- 
 mittee in support of such objection, but may appear by an agent. 
 
 A RULE nisi had been obtained on behalf of Mr. Preston, 
 a ratepayer in the parish of St. Mary Abbotts, for a 
 mandamus commanding the assessment committee to hear 
 and determine an objection to a valuation list by 
 Mr. Preston, and to hear his agent and witnesses. 
 
 Mr. Preston had not appeared personally in support of 
 his objection, but had instructed Mr. H. Fuller, who was 
 a surveyor, to appear on his behalf before the assessment 
 committee. Mr. Fuller appeared and claimed to argue 
 and to give evidence on behalf of Mr. Preston, but the 
 assessment committee refused to hear him, on the ground 
 that their practice was to hear only the objector in person, 
 a member of his family or household, or a solicitor or 
 counsel. In an affidavit made by the vestry clerk it was 
 
COUET OF APPEAL. 277 
 
 stated that it was inoonvenieiit that the same person should 1891. 
 be both advocate and witness. E. 
 
 The Queen's Bench Division (Pollock, B., and Charles, _ ^ 
 J.), made the rule absolute for a mandamus: see [1891] Abbotts. 
 1 a. B. 379. 
 
 The assessment committee appealed to the Court of 
 Appeal. 
 
 J. V. Austin {Henn Collins, Q.C., with him), for the 
 assessment committee : Under s. 19 of the Union Assess- 
 ment Committee Act, 1862, the assessment committee must 
 hold meetings, and may " at any such meetings hear and 
 determine objections [to a valuation hst], or may from 
 time to time adjourn any such meetings, and adjourn or 
 postpone the hearing or further hearing and determination 
 of any such objections, and may, where they think fit, 
 direct notice of any such objections to be given by the 
 overseers, or by the persons objecting to third parties, 
 before the further hearing thereof; but the committee 
 shall not be required to hold a meeting for hearing objec- 
 tions . . . unless notice in writing - . . has been given to 
 the committee ; and where a meeting is holden for hearing 
 objections, the committee shall not hear any objection . . . 
 unless notice of such objection have been given to the com- 
 mittee and to the overseers ; and where the ground of such 
 objection is unfairness or incorrectness in the valuation of 
 any hereditament of any person other than the person 
 objecting, or the omission of such hereditament, also to 
 such other person by the person objecting, except where 
 the overseers by themselves or any other person on their 
 behalf, and in the case aforesaid such other person as 
 aforesaid, by himself or any other person on his behalf, 
 consent to the hearing of such objection." The power 
 given by this section to the overseers and to other persons 
 to appear by an agent in certain specified circumstances 
 impliedly negatives the right to appear by an agent in 
 other cases. The section confers upon the committee 
 
278 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 1891. judicial or quasi-judicial functions ; and the committee is 
 E. in a sense a Court. In ss. 19 and 32 of the Yaluation 
 
 g ^ (Metropolis) Act, 1869, an appeal to special sessions and 
 
 ABBoiia. quarter sessions respectively is given to a person "aggrieved 
 by any decision of the assessment committee." The com- 
 mittee must therefore have the power to make reasonable 
 rules for regulating its own proceedings. In B. v. William- 
 son [1890], 59 L. J. Q. B. 493, it was held that the chief 
 gas examiner of the metropolitan district has a discretion 
 as to whether he will or wUl not hear counsel upon an 
 appeal to him under the Gas Companies Act, 1880, s. 12. 
 [Lord EsHER, M.R. : I doubt whether I agree with that 
 decision : I have a strong opinion at present that it was 
 wrong.] [Fey, L.J. : In that case it was held that an 
 officer of the company, a skilled person, was the right 
 person to appear ; if so, it shows that a surveyor would be 
 the most suitable person to appear before an assessment 
 committee.] In B. v. Macqueen [1861], 9 C. B. N. S. 793, 
 it was held that it was competent to arbitrators imder the 
 Friendly Societies Act to decline to hear counsel. [Lord 
 EsHEK, M.E. : To decline to hear counsel, but not to 
 decline to hear an agent.] 
 
 Philhrick, Q.C., and Alex. Glen for the respondents were 
 not heard. 
 
 Lord EsHEB, M.E. : It has been argued that the assess- 
 ment committee are a Court or tribunal, and that they 
 exercise judicial functions. They are, in fact, a number 
 of vestrymen who are appointed by statute to hear objec- 
 tions to a valuation list, and to decide upon such objections. 
 I do not think they can be called a Court or a tribunal exer- 
 cising judicial functions. The question before us is, whether 
 they have a right to say that an objector may not appoint 
 any agent he chooses to appear in support of his objection 
 to the valuation list. In my opinion there is nothing in 
 law authorizing them to limit the common law right of 
 
COURT OP APPEAL. 
 
 279 
 
 objectors to act through an agent. The committee have 
 no discretion to decide whether they will hear an agent or 
 not. It has been argudd that it is inconvenient to hear an 
 agent if he is also a witness ; we are not called npon to 
 decide that paiat. But I cannot see how the committee 
 have a greater right to refuse to hear persons as witnesses 
 than they have to refuse to hear persons as agents. The 
 appeal must be dismissed. 
 
 1891. 
 
 R. 
 
 V. 
 
 Si. Maet 
 Abbotts. 
 
 Lord Eslier, 
 M.E. 
 
 BowEN, L.J. : I am of the same opinion. 
 
 Pet, L.J. : I agree. The assessment committee have 
 no power to limit the common law right of persons entitled 
 to make objections to the valuation list, to appear in 
 support of that objection by an agent. 
 
 Appeal dismissed. 
 
 E. V. Guardians of Woolwich Union. 
 
 Alteration of Totals in Valuation List — Appeals against Individual 
 Assessments — Valuation {Metropolis) Ad, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. . 
 c. 67), ss. 32, 34, 41, 44. 
 
 Aiter tie valuation lists for the several parishes in the Woolwioh 
 Union had been finally approved by the assessment committee, 
 several appeals to quarter sessions were entered against the assess- 
 ments of individual hereditaments comprised in such lists. The 
 sessions reduced some of those assessments, and the chairman duly 
 placed his initials against the alteration thereof, but refused to make 
 any corresponding alterations of the totals stated in such list. 
 
 Held, by the Queen's Bench Division, that on an appeal against 
 the assessment of an individual hereditament, the sessions had no 
 power to make any alteration in the totals, which could be altered 
 only on an appeal against totals, and, until so altered, were not 
 affected by alterations o"f individual assessments. 
 
 EuLE nisi calling upon the Gruardians of the Woolwich 
 Union to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not 
 
 a B. D. 
 
 1891. 
 July 23. 
 
280 queen's bench division. 
 
 1891. issue commanding them out of moneys in their hands 
 E. applied by law to that purpose, to pay or to raise in 
 Gttaedian manner provided by law, and pay to the treasurer of the 
 "WooLwioH County of London appointed to receive the same, the sum 
 '"°"' of 5,889^. 13s. 8d., being the moneys appoint^ and required 
 to be paid on or before June 12, 1891, by a certain pre- 
 cept issued and sealed as on May 15, 1891, and addressed 
 to the said guardians, in accordance with the requirements 
 contained in the said precept. 
 
 Some of the hereditaments comprised in the quinquennial 
 valuation lists made in 1890 for the parishes in the 
 Woolwich Union had been the subject of appeals to the 
 London Quarter Sessions. Most of these appeals had been 
 determined before the issue of the precept by the London 
 County Council; in several appeals the sessions had reduced 
 the separate valuations of the hereditaments, the subject 
 of the appeals, and the chairman had duly placed his 
 initials against the several alterations of the separate 
 assessments under s. 34 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 
 1869, but had made no corresponding alteration of the 
 totals appearing in the valuation lists. 
 
 No appeal against^the totals in the valuation lists for 
 any of the parishes in the Woolwich Union had been 
 entered. 
 
 An ex parte application was made to the London 
 Quarter Sessions, on behalf of the guardians, that the 
 chairman should place his initials against the correspond- 
 ing alteration of the totals, but the chairman had refused 
 to do so {vide supra, p. 95). 
 
 The clerk of the assessment committee of the Woolwich 
 Union had also given to the clerk of the London County 
 Council notice (purporting to be notice under s. 41 of the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869) of the alterations made 
 by the sessions in the separate assessments, and had called 
 upon him to make the corresponding alterations in the totals. 
 
 The London County Council refused to recognize the 
 validity of any alteration in the totals imless it were made 
 
queen's bench division. 281 
 
 and initialled by tlie chairman of the London Quarter 1891- 
 Sessions, in manner directed hj s. 34 of the Yaluation r. 
 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869, on an appeal against totals ; and Qjjj^^^^g oj, 
 they contended that the totals as fixed by the assessment Wool-wioh 
 committee under s. 14 of the same Act must be the basis 
 of the precept issued by them, notwithstanding the altera- 
 tions of the separate assessments. 
 
 One appeal against an individual assessment in the 
 quinquennial valuation list for one of the parishes in the 
 Woolwich Union was at the date of the precept, and of 
 these proceedings, still pending ; see London County Council 
 V. Woolwich Union, supra, )j. 126. 
 
 Bosanquet, Q.C. [Cutter with him), showed cause: — 
 Before the passing of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 
 1869, a separate valuation of each parish as a whole, 
 independently of the poor rate valuation, was made by the 
 justices in quarter sessions for the purpose of the county 
 rate (a). Under the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, 
 s. 14, the valuation of the whole parish is made the sum of 
 the items. More than half of the local rates are levied by 
 central bodies, such as the London County Council, and 
 are calculated upon the totals ; it is, therefore, important 
 that they should be correct. Under s. 34, in an appeal 
 against an individual assessment, the sessions may " alter 
 the valuation list so far as it is questioned by the appeal." 
 In such an appeal the valuation list is questioned as to one 
 item only, and therefore the sessions have, in such an appeal, 
 no power to alter the totals. But by s. 41, "notice of 
 every alteration in the total . . . which alteration is made 
 in consequence of any decision on any appeal to the ses- 
 sions," shall be sent by the clerk of the assessment com- 
 mittee to the clerk of the London County Council. An 
 arithmetical alteration in the totals, resulting from an 
 alteration of the items, is such an alteration as is referred 
 to in that section. [Wills, J. : I should have thought 
 
 {a) See 15 & 16 Vict. ^. 81, ss. 2—16 ; 29 & 30 Vict. o. 78, s. 1. 
 
Union. 
 
 282 queen's bench bivision. 
 
 1891. that an arithmetical alteration was within s. 41, but then 
 E. s. 34 applies, and no one but the chairman at sessions can 
 
 Gtjaedians op ^^^^ ^^^ alteration.] The alteration of the totals is 
 Woolwich merely arithmetical ; s. 34 applies to alterations requiring 
 judicial decision. In s. 20, which relates to appeals to 
 special sessions, it is expressly provided that the alteration 
 of the assessment of an individual hereditament " shall not 
 of itself in any way alter the totals . . . but may form a 
 reason for an appeal against totals." There is no such 
 provision in the sections relating to appeals to quarter 
 sessions. It is implied, therefore, that an alteration of the 
 items at quarter sessions may of itself mYohe an alteration 
 of the totals. The result of the appeal now pending 
 {London County Council v. Woolwich Union, supra, p. 126) 
 may be to reduce the rateable value of the parish of 
 Woolwich by more than 20,000/. Moreover, an appeal 
 against totals, on the ground of alterations on appeals 
 against individual assessments is impossible ; for the over- 
 seers and the assessment committee cannot appeal on the 
 ground that the totals, which they themselves have fixed, 
 will be reduced because they are wrong; and notice of 
 appeal against totals must be given before January 14th : 
 see s. 42 (12) ; and the notice of appeal agaiast an 
 individual assessment need not be given before the same 
 date. [Wills, J. : Might not the parish authorities 
 give a notice of appeal, ex majori cautela ?'] That is im- 
 possible, because the notice of appeal must specify the 
 correction which the appellant desires to have made in the 
 valuation list : see s. 33. It cannot have been the intention 
 of the Act that the assessment committee, who have fixed 
 the total, should appeal against that total, unless something 
 has occurred to alter it. [He also cited Fulham Union v. 
 St. Mary Abbotts, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 86; 17 
 Q. B. D. 394.] 
 
 F. M. White, Q.C, and H. E. Avory were not called 
 upon to support the rule. 
 
queen's bench division. 283 
 
 Denman, J. : I am not surprised that difficulties should 1891- 
 have arisen as to the extent to which the valuation list is, E. 
 
 as between several parishes or unions, conclusive or not. (j-^^juji^g oj, 
 Our attention has heen called to all the sections which are Woolwich 
 
 material to the question before us, and I am of opinion ' 
 
 that the contention of the county council is right, and that Denman, J. 
 there is no power to treat the valuation list, as between the 
 several parishes, as otherwise than conclusive. The precept 
 which the county council seek to enforce, is a precept 
 requiring payment of the proportion of the assessment 
 made upon the respondents in. accordance with the valua- 
 tion list. The parties objecting say that, because altera- 
 tions of some individual assessments have been made, this, 
 as a mere matter of arithmetic, causes an alteration of the 
 total. The alteration required is to deduct 126/. from the 
 227,000/., which is the total stated in the list. The county 
 council answers that it is not competent to the respondents 
 to say that the valuation list is incorrect. In my opinion 
 the intention of the Act was that the valuation list, unless 
 altered in the specific way prescribed, which has not been 
 done here, should be conclusive. The reasons given by the 
 coimty council in their letter to the respondents are correct ; 
 they say, " there can be no doubt that the chairman has no 
 power or duty to alter totals except upon an appeal against 
 totals. The chairman has abeady decided {mpra, p. 95) 
 that he cannot alter and initial totals which are merely 
 altered to correspond with the new arithmetical total 
 arrived at after alteration of individual assessments." In 
 my opinion the scheme of the Act was that the totals 
 should remain as stated in the valuation list, and that there 
 is no power to alter them, unless certain things have been 
 done which have not been done in this case. The provi- 
 sions of s. 44 show that this was the intention of the 
 legislature, because if there has been any over-payment, 
 it provides a mode of re-payment or allowance, after an 
 appeal has been heard, and an assessment has been 
 reduced. But there is nothing in the Act showing that 
 
284 queen's bench division. 
 
 1891. the valuation list should, as between several unions and 
 
 E. parishes, be regarded as otherwise than conclusive. There 
 
 r, '"' is a strong: indication of the intention of the legislature in 
 
 Gttaedians OF ^ 1 i. I. • T • 1 1 
 
 Woolwich s. 47, which provides that no alteration of individual 
 "^°^ ' assessments under that section shall " affect the value on 
 Demnan, J. which any rate is made, which is made on the totals of the 
 gross or rateable value." 
 I am of opinion that this precept must be enforced. 
 
 Wills, J. : I am of the same opinion. When the 
 various sections of the Act are considered, the scheme of 
 the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, becomes a clear and 
 reasonable one. When the overseers of the several parishes 
 have presented their lists to the assessment committee, and 
 the assessment committee have revised the lists, then the 
 gross and rateable values of the individual hereditaments in 
 each parish are to be added up and the totals are to be 
 ascertained. When once these totals have been ascertained, 
 then that which has hitherto been a mere arithmetical 
 result assumes a new form and is incapable of alteration, 
 except in the way pointed out by the Act, viz., an appeal 
 against totals. The Act provides two schemes for appeal- 
 ing — appeals by individuals against individual assessments, 
 and appeals by parishes or unions against the totals. If it 
 be shown on an appeal against totals that the totals are 
 wrong, then they can be altered ; and this is the only way 
 in which they can be altered. After the total has been 
 once ascertained, it ceases to be the sum of the details if it 
 is altered on an appeal against totals. An appeal is given 
 to individuals against individual assessments, and to parishes 
 against the totals of parishes. The only provision for an 
 alteration in the list is, that it must be made by the chair- 
 man of Quarter Sessions; and, in my opinion, the chairman 
 has taken the right view {supra, p. 95) in refusing, upon ap- 
 peals against individual assessments, to make the resulting 
 alterations in the totals. The totals, when once ascertained, 
 become a new point of departure ; they are not necessarily 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 285 
 
 tlie arithmetical exponent of the sum of the individual 
 assessments. And it would be extremely inconvenient if 
 every alteration of an individual assessment involved an 
 alteration of the total. It is true that the result may not 
 he mathematical correctness as to the assessment of the 
 various parishes among themselves. But such a perfection 
 is unattainable and impracticable, and rating is a practical 
 thing. Moreover, the alterations in several lists will pretty 
 much correct one another, and probably the valuation lists 
 of all the parishes will be reduced in the same proportion. 
 Practically, therefore, the same result will be arrived at as 
 that now claimed on behalf of the respondents. I see no 
 reason of justice or convenience for departing from the 
 plain provisions of the Act, that, when once the list is made 
 out, the chairman of Quarter Sessions alone can alter it, 
 and he only in those respects in which it is questioned by 
 the appeal. And I think it is clear that an appeal agaiast 
 individual assessments cannot affect the totals. I think 
 our decision in this case is supported by Fulham Union v. 
 St. Mary Abbotts, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 86 ; 17 Q. 
 B. D. 394. In that case there was an appeal by one parish 
 against the totals of another parish, on the ground that 
 several individual hereditaments had been under- valued ; 
 and it was held that the alteration of the totals could not 
 affect the individual assessments. The result was that the 
 totals were altered, but there was no process by which to 
 effect the converse of the arithmetical operation which, it 
 is said, ought to be done in this case. In that case, there- 
 fore, the totals must have failed to be equivalent to the 
 sum of the individual assessments. Here, where the in- 
 dividual assessments have been corrected, there is no more 
 reason for making a corresponding alteration in the totals 
 than there was in that case for making an alteration of the 
 individual assessments, after making an alteration in the 
 totals. That ease, therefore, though not exactly in point, 
 throws considerable light upon the subject. This mandamus 
 must go. Utile absolute. 
 
 1891. 
 
 E. 
 
 V. 
 GrUAEmAUS OP 
 
 "Woolwich 
 Union. 
 
 Wills, J. 
 
386 queen's bench division. 
 
 Q- B. D. Chappell v. Ovekseeks of St. Botolph. 
 
 1891. Advertising Stations — Hoardings on Public Street — Occupier — Adver- 
 OrfoSer 29. ^^^^^g Stations {Eating) Act, 1889 (52 & 63 Vict. c. 27), ss. 3, 4, 5. 
 
 For the purpose of erecting new buildings on land vested in tlie 
 Postmaster-General, tlie Commissioners of Sewers gave a licence for 
 tlie erection of a hoarding standing on tlie public streets. A builder 
 contracted to erect tbe buildings ; by tie terms of his contract he 
 was bound, during the continuance of the work, to maintain the 
 existing hoarding, which was (when no longer needed) to be removed 
 and become his property ; and he had power to use the hoarding for 
 advertising purposes. The builder let the use of the hoarding for 
 advertising purposes to advertising contractors. 
 
 Held, that the hoarding was erected on land " not otherwise oc- 
 cupied" within, the meaning of s. 3 of the Advertising Stations 
 (Eating) Act, 1889, that the builder was the person who had per- 
 mitted the land to be " used for the exhibition of advertisements" 
 within the sam^e section, and that he was, therefore, to be deemed 
 to be ia beneficial occupation of such land, and was rateable in 
 respect thereof. 
 
 Case stated by two justices of the city of London under 
 20 & 21 Yict. c. 43, and 42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, upon an ap- 
 plication made by the respondents to insert the name of the 
 appellant under s. 72 of the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 
 1869 (a), in a poor rate in respect of certain advertising 
 stations. 
 
 The following facts appeared in the case : — 
 The hoardings or advertising stations (in respect of which 
 it was sought to rate the appellant), with the gantries sup- 
 porting them, stood entirely in the public streets, which were 
 repairable by the inhabitants at large, and were vested in 
 the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London. The 
 hoardings, &c., were erected in front of the site of certain 
 buildings, vested in the Postmaster-Greneral (which were 
 
 (a) By 8. 72, "Whenever the name of any person UaUe to be rated 
 ... is omitted from any rate . . . the overseers may, after giving 
 notice, &c. apply to any two justices, who may hear the case in lite 
 manner as in the case of summary proceedings, and insert the name so 
 omitted . . . and every such insertiou shall operate as if it had been part 
 of the original rate." 
 
queen's bench division. 287 
 
 to he pulled down), for the erection of new buildings as an 1891. 
 extension of the General Post Office ; the hoardings were Chappell 
 erected for the purposes of the new buildings, and for the ovEEaEEKs os 
 protection of the traffic in the streets. The posts of the St. Boiolph. 
 gantries supporting the hoardings stood on planks, and 
 were fixed thereto by iron dogs and dowels. The planks 
 • rested upon the surface of the paving and public footway ; 
 and no portion of the structure was embedded in the soil 
 or fixed to the paving or public footway, but was kept in 
 position by its own weight. 
 
 The hoardings ia question were not erected by the appel- 
 lant, but, after their erection, the appellant, who was a 
 builder, on September 11th, 1890, entered into a contract 
 with the Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings 
 for the erection of the new buildings on the Post Office 
 land. The contract contained the following provisions : — 
 
 "The builder [i.e., the appellant] shall maintain the 
 existing hoarding, alter and otherwise deal with the same 
 as may be necessary from time to time for the convenience 
 
 of the works or the protection of the public When no 
 
 longer needed the hoarding is to become the property of the 
 builder. The hoarding may be used for advertising purposes 
 to a height not exceeding 12 feet, and the advertisements 
 must not be of a pictorial character, and must be subject to 
 the control of the architect. Prom the commencement to 
 the completion of every part of the work the same and all 
 ^materials and things upon the site shall be the property of 
 the Commissioners [of Works]." 
 
 The appellant, on August 21st, 1890, paid to the 
 Chamberlain of London the sum of 10?., and the Commis- 
 sioners of Sewers then issued their licence to the Commis- 
 sioners of Works for the erection of the hoardings. No 
 other licence had been issued in respect of the hoardings, 
 and no conditions had been made as to their use for adver- 
 tisements under s. 5 of the Advertising Stations (Eating) 
 Act, 1889. 
 
 By an agreement dated September 11th, 1890, the 
 
288 queen's bench division. 
 
 1891. appellant let to W. Hill & Co., advertising contractors, the 
 Chappell use of the said hoardings for afiSxing posters and other 
 OvEESEEEsop ^dvertisements thereto, suhject to certain conditions, for 
 St. Boiolph. the sum of 60^. per month for the period that such hoard- 
 ings should remain ia position." 
 
 The Postmaster-General had not been rated in the 
 ordinary way in respect of the Post-Offioe land, but had 
 always paid to the overseers a contribution in lieu of rates. 
 
 The respondents contended (a) that the hoardings in 
 question were on land not otherwise occupied within the 
 meaning of s. 3 of the Advertising Stations (Eatiag) Act, 
 1889; (b) that the appellant was the person permitting 
 them to be used for the exhibition of advertisements; 
 (c) that therefore he was liable to be rated under that 
 section. 
 
 The appellant contended (a) that advertising hoardings 
 were not made rateable under the said Advertising Stations 
 (Rating) Act, 1889, but the lands whereon the same are 
 erected ; (b) that the word " land " in s. 3 of the said Act 
 did not include a street ; (c) that if the word land in s. 3 
 of the said Act were held to include the street, the land 
 whereon the said hoardings were erected was otherwise 
 occupied within the meaning of s. 3 of the said last-named 
 Act than merely for the exhibition of advertisements or for 
 the erection of such hoardings or other structures used for 
 the exhibition of advertisements ; (d) that the portions of 
 the street adjoining the post-ofEce land on which the said 
 hoardings were erected in law was part of the post-office 
 land of which the said appellant was not the rateable 
 occupier ; (e) that the appellant was not the owner of the 
 post-office land or the person permitting such land to be 
 used for the exhibition of advertisements or for the 
 erection of the said hoardings within the meaning of s. 3 
 of the said Act. 
 
 The justices over-ruled the appellant's contentions, 
 holding that the streets on which the hoardings and sup- 
 ports were erected were " lands not otherwise occupied " 
 
queen's bench division. '289 
 
 witMn the meaning of s. 3 of the Act, and ordered the 1891. 
 name of the appellant to he inserted in the rate. Chaiteli, 
 
 The question for the opinion of the Court was whether, „ "■ 
 on the facts stated, the appellant s name was rightly St. Botolph. 
 inserted in the rate. 
 
 The Advertising Stations (Rating) Act, 1889 (52 & 53 
 Vict. c. 27), enacts as follows : — 
 
 Sect. 3. Where any land is used temporarily or 
 permanently for the exhihition of advertisements, or for 
 the erecting of any hoarding, frame, post, wall, or struc- 
 ture, used for the exhibition of advertisements, hut not 
 otherwise occupied, the person who shall permit the same 
 to be so used, or (if he cannot be ascertained) the owner 
 thereof, shall be deemed to be in beneficial occupation of 
 such land or part thereof, and shall be rateable in respect 
 thereof to the relief of the poor and to all local rates, 
 according to the value of such use as aforesaid. 
 
 Sect. 4. Where any land or hereditament occupied for 
 other purposes, and rateable in respect thereof to the relief 
 of the poor and local rates, is used temporarily or per- 
 manently for the exhibition of advertisements, or for the 
 erection thereon, or attachment thereto, of any hoarding, 
 frame, post, wall, or structure, used for the exhibition of 
 advertisements, the gross and rateable value of such land 
 or hereditament shall be so estimated as to include the 
 increased value from such use as aforesaid. 
 
 Sect. 5. Where, imder any power vested in them by 
 any local or general Act, any corporation, board, vestry, 
 urban, sanitary, or other authority, shall grant a licence 
 for the temporary erection of any hoard, gantry, scaffold, 
 or other structure, upon or over any part of any public 
 highway .... such corporation, board, vestry, sanitary 
 or other authority, may include in such licence a condition 
 or conditions prohibiting the affixing of any advertisement 
 to any such hoard, gantry, scaffold, or other structure, or 
 sanctioning the affixing of advertisements thereto, upon 
 payment of such sum and on such conditions as the 
 
 K. V 
 
290 queen's bench division. 
 
 1891. corporation, toard, vestry, sanitary, or other authority 
 Ohappell granting the licence, may determine, 
 
 V, 
 
 OVBESEEHS OP 
 
 St. Boiolph. Philbrich, Q.C. {Alex. Olen with him), for the appellant: 
 The word " land " in s. 3 of the Act of 1889 must be read 
 as meaning land capable of beneficial occupation, and in 
 respect of which a person could be rateable. The hoardings 
 here stand on the public streets, which are incapable of 
 beneficial occupation. It may be admitted that the streets 
 are not occupied : but even if the streets are " land not 
 otherwise occupied " within s. 3, the wrong person has been 
 rated. Assuming that the appellant may be said to per- 
 mit the hoarding to be used for advertisements, he is not 
 liable, for the liability under s. 3 is upon the person who 
 permits the land to be so used, i.e., in this case upon the 
 Postmaster- General, who cannot be rated, because the 
 Crown, not being named in the statute, is not bound by 
 it. [Mathew, J. : The man who permits the hoarding 
 to be used for advertisements, permits the land which up- 
 holds the hoarding to be so used. And even if the Post- 
 master-General may be said to permit the user in one sense, 
 that does not prevent the appellant from being the person 
 who permits the user, within the meaning of s. 3.] The 
 soil of the street adjoining the Post Office land is vested ia 
 the Postmaster-General, subject to the right of the public 
 to pass over the surface. If the Postmaster-General is not 
 rateable, then the liability rests on the Commissioners of 
 Sewers who gave the licence to erect the hoarding. With- 
 out their leave, the user of the street for this purpose would 
 be unlawful, and therefore they are the persons who 
 permit the user. [He also cited Willing v. Assessment 
 Committee of St. Pancras [1877], Met. Eat. App. 188; 
 2 Q. B. D. 581 ; Smith v. Lambeth Assessment Committee 
 [1882], 10 Q. B. D. 327.] 
 
 Jelf, Q.C., and Fillan, for the respondents, were not 
 called upon. 
 
queen's bench division. 29l 
 
 Mathew, J. : Tlie decision of the magistrates was right. 1891; 
 I have failed to see the difficulties suggested, and the Chappeu, 
 language of the section appears to me to be perfectly plain. „ "■ 
 
 —^ . . .. OVEESEERS OF 
 
 The Act deals with two descriptions of property ; (1) land Si. Botolph. 
 already occupied for other purposes, and rated in respect J^Iathew J 
 thereof : and (2) land " not otherwise occupied." These 
 are dealt with in s. 4 and s. 3 respectively. Therefore 
 s. 3 may be read in this way — " where any land is used for 
 advertisements, and is not otherwise occupied, the person 
 who shall permit the same to be so used;" not, as Mr. 
 Philbrick suggests, the person who puts the hoarding 
 there, but " the person who permits the same to be so used 
 shall be deemed to be in beneficial occupation of such land, 
 and shall be rated in respect of it," the object of the section 
 clearly being to create a beneficial occupier for the purposes 
 of the Act, and to make that rateable which was not rate- 
 able before. 
 
 The position of the appellant here is perfectly clear : he 
 has this hoarding and the land on which it stands, and 
 that land is land "not otherwise occupied;" and he permits 
 the hoarding to be used for the purposes of advertisement, 
 that is, he lets the spaces to different advertisers, and 
 under the terms of the Act it seems to me clear that he is 
 to be deemed to be in beneficial occupation and rateable 
 accordingly. 
 
 But it has been argued that we ought to look at the 
 appellant's title, and see whether we cannot make the 
 Postmaster-Greneral, or the Commissioners of Sewers, the 
 persons rateable under this section ; and our attention has 
 been called to the circumstances under which the appellant 
 acquired the right to use these hoardings. The hoardings 
 were erected before the appellant was permitted to use 
 them ; a contract was entered into between him and the 
 Postmaster- General, for and on behalf of her Majesty, 
 that the hoarding should be continued during the con- 
 struction of certain buildings for which the appellant has 
 contracted. At the end of the time the hoarding must be 
 
 tj2 
 
292 queen's bench division. 
 
 1891- riBmoved, and the materials are to be the property of the 
 Chappell appellant. There was also a contract that he might let 
 OvEEBEEEsoE ^^^ ^^^^ °^ ^^^ spaoes on the hoarding for advertising 
 St. Botolph. purposes if he thought fit to do so. It appears, further, 
 Mathew J. ^^^^ ^^ would have been impossible to have put this 
 hoarding in the street without the permission of the Com- 
 missioners of Sewers, and for this reason we have been 
 asked to cast the burden of this section either on them or 
 on the Postmaster- General. It seems to me quite absurd 
 to say that the Commissioners can in any sense be 
 regarded as permitting this land to be used for the pur- 
 pose of advertisements. They have given their licence for 
 the hoarding to be put on the street, and have nothing 
 further to do with it. That the Postmaster- Greneral, 
 acting in his corporate capacity as representative of the 
 Crown, would not be assessable, is quite clear ; nor does 
 he come within the description, used in s. 3, of the person 
 who permits land to be used for the exhibition of adver- 
 tisements. The appellant is the person who actually 
 permits these hoardings to be used ; he had the authority 
 of the Postmaster-Greneral so to use them if he thought fit, 
 and having that authority he permitted them to be so 
 used, and therefore he clearly comes within the words of 
 the section. 
 
 A. L. Smith, J. : I think the justices have arrived at a 
 right conclusion. I will state my view, as I understand 
 this is the first case that has come up for decision under 
 this Act. The preamble of the Act says : " Whereas 
 difficulties have arisen in relation to the assessment to 
 poor and other rates of land used for exhibition of adver- 
 tisements, and it is expedient to remove the same." That 
 preamble is only narrating what is common knowledge in 
 the Law Courts. In dealing with the difficulties, ss. 3 
 and 4 apply to two different classes of land used for 
 the purpose of advertisements; s. 3 deals with the case 
 of land not occupied, and therefore not rateable, upoa 
 which hoardings have been erected ; and s. 4 
 
queen's bench division. 293 
 
 ■witli the case of land occupied, and therefore rateatle. 1891. 
 That being the salient difference between the two sections, "chaepeuT" 
 then the legislature have enacted upon whom the rate is „ '"■ 
 
 „ ,, . ., .. T n n OTEESEEES OP 
 
 to tali m the respective cases, in s. o, the person permit- St. Botolph. 
 ting the unoccupied — the non-rateable — land to be used for j^ ^ Smith J 
 advertisements, shall be deemed to be the beneficial occu- 
 pier so as to make him rateable. In the other case, under 
 s. 4, where there is already a beneficial occupier of land, 
 which is consequently rateable, then that man's liability 
 is to remain as before, but where in addition a hoarding 
 is put up, the gross and rateable value are to be increased 
 so as to include the enhanced value arising from such use 
 of the land. 
 
 It has been argued that this land, where the hoardings 
 are erected, was part of the street; if so, it was unoccupied, 
 and consequently not rateable, and so comes within s. 3. 
 
 If it is within s. 3, who is the person rateable ? In my 
 judgment the person who permitted the user of the land 
 for the purpose of advertising is the person who has let 
 the land with the hoardings for the purpose of advertise- 
 ments, and that is the appellant. He is therefore rate- 
 able (a). 
 
 Appeal dismissed. 
 
 Edwards v. St. Olave's Union. q. b. D 
 
 Tithes, or Payments in lieu of Tithes — Bateability, 1892. 
 
 June 15. 
 The provision for the support of the rector of St. Olave's 
 
 Southwark, before the year 1817, had been from time immemorial 
 
 certain ancient pecuniary payments or sums of money payable by 
 
 the occupiers of houses aud owners of estates. By 57 Geo. 3, 
 
 c. vii., passed in 1817, which recites that the said provision for the 
 
 rector was insufficient, the annual sum of 600?. was directed to be 
 
 paid to the rector by trustees, out of rates to be levied for the 
 
 (a) It does not seem to have been suggested that Messrs. Hill & Co., 
 the advertising contractors, ought to have been rated instead of the 
 lappeUaut. 
 
294 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Edwaeds 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Olate's 
 Uhion. 
 
 purpose, and was to te "paid, taken, and received, in lieu and in 
 full recompense and satisfaction of and for all tithes, and com- 
 positions or payments for tithes, and Easter oflerings.'' 
 
 There was evidence that before and after the passing of the Act 
 of 1817 the rector had in fact been rated in respect of the payments 
 made to him. 
 
 Eeld, that the rector was not rateable in respect of the payment 
 of 600L per annum made to him. under the Act. 
 
 Held, also, that the rateability of the payments made under the 
 Act must depend upon the true construction of the Act creating 
 the payments, and not upon the question whether those payments 
 had or had not been in fact rated. 
 
 Special case stated by consent and by order of a judge 
 under s. 40 of the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 
 
 The following are the facts stated in the case, so far as 
 is material to this report : — 
 
 1. The parish and rectory of St. Olave, South wart, in 
 the county of London, are an ancient parish and rectory, 
 and the provision for the support of the rector for the time 
 being was, until the passing of 57 Geo. 3, c. vii., and from 
 time immemorial had been, certain ancient pecuniary 
 payments or sums of money payable by the occupiers of 
 houses and owners of estates in the parish. In 1762 a 
 bill was filed in the Court of Exchequer by Hughes, the 
 then rector, to enforce payment by the defendant Dame 
 Humble, the owner of an estate in the said parish, of 
 certain of these customary payments. [Copies of the 
 decrees in the action were set out in the appendix to the 
 case ; and it appeared therefrom that the defendant con- 
 tended, and the plaintiff denied, that the occupiers of the 
 houses on the estate were liable for the said payments, 
 which were called " tyths " in the operative words of the 
 decree. The Court gave judgment for the plaintiff.] 
 
 2. Such of the old poor-rate books of the parish as are 
 in existence cover a period, with some gaps, which com- 
 mences in the year 1709. [For several years from 1709 
 to 1729, the rector was assessed ; but it does not appear 
 whether in respect of his " tithes " or his house. For 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 295 
 
 several years from 1737 to 1760, the rector's house was 
 entered in the books, but no assessment was made thereon. J 
 In the snbseq[uent part of the eighteenth century, the 
 names of the successive rectors appear in the rate books ; 
 but they were not assessed at any amount. In the year 
 1719, the Eev. Dr. Boulter, the then rector, was rated on 
 an assessment of 30/. in .respect of a " scavengers' rate," 
 the amount of the rate being sixpence in the pound. In ' 
 1740, another scavengers' rate was made, but the rector's 
 name does not appear in the book. In the rate book for 
 August 5, 1798, the rector is assessed "for his rectory, 
 parsonage, house, and tithes," at "the yearly rent" of 
 200/. The same entry occurs in the rate books for 1799, 
 1808, 1810, 1812, 1814, and 1815. The rate books for 
 the years 1800 to 1807, 1809, 1811, and 1813, have not 
 been found. 
 
 3. The rate books for January, 1816, and January, 
 1817, contain the following assessment : — 
 
 
 Lands, Tenements, &c. 
 
 Person Assessed. 
 
 The Yearly Eent. 
 
 The Assessment. 
 
 TheEector - 
 
 £ s. d. 
 200 
 
 £ B. d. 
 
 15 
 
 4. On March 17, 1817, the statute 57 Geo. 3, c. vii., 
 received the royal assent. 
 
 The following are the sections which are material in the 
 present case : — 
 
 Sect. 1. Whereas the parish of St. Olave is an ancient 
 parish and rectory. . . . And whereas the provision for the 
 support of the rector for the time being of the said parish 
 is, and from time immemorial hath been, certain ancient 
 pecuniary payments in money for and in lieu of tithes, the 
 greater part of which consist of a certain sum paid for each 
 house by the tenant or occupier thereof, and others of the 
 
 .1892. 
 Edwaeds 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Olave's 
 Uhion. 
 
296 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Edwaeds 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Olate's 
 Union. 
 
 said payments are divers sums in gross paid lay divers 
 owners of several entire estates within the said parish, 
 together with Easter offerings, amounting in the whole to 
 the annual sum of 230/. or thereabouts, and surpKce fees 
 which are of uncertain amount. And whereas the said 
 provision is insufficient for the suitable support and main- 
 tenance of the said rector, and it is therefore expedient 
 that better provision should be made for the support and 
 maintenance of the said rector in lieu of all tithes, moduses, 
 compositions for tithes, Easter offerings and oblations, and 
 all other claims whatsoever (exclusive of surplice fees). . . . 
 The rector and churchwardens and overseers of the poor of 
 the said parish of St. Olave, Southwark, for the time beiag, 
 and their successors to be appointed as hereinafter men- 
 tioned, shall be and they are hereby appointed trustees for 
 carrying this Act into execution. 
 
 Sect. 8. Eor the purpose of making an adequate pro- 
 vision for the rector of the said parish for the time being, 
 the annual sum of 600/. shall, from and immediately after 
 the passing of this Act, be paid under the provisions of 
 this Act to the rector and his successors by four equal 
 quarterly payments, and such payments shall be made out 
 of the rates to be assessed and raised as hereinafter men- 
 tioned, and shall be paid, taken, and received in lieu and 
 in fuU recompense and satisfaction of and for all tithes and 
 compositions or payments for tithes and Easter ofEerings, 
 and for all obventions and oblations due or payable to such 
 rector. 
 
 Sect. 27. It shall be lawful for the said trustees, and 
 they are hereby authorized and required once in every 
 year, or oftener if they shall think proper, by writing 
 under their hands, from time to time to make an assess- 
 ment or assessment rate or rates upon all and every person 
 and persons who do or shall inhabit, hold, use, occupy, 
 possess or enjoy any land, ground, messuage, house, shop, 
 wharf, warehouse, vault, coach-house, stable, cellar, build- 
 ing, yard, garden, tenement or hereditament within the 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 297 
 
 said parish for any term or time not exceeding one year, 
 upon each or any one such rate or assessment in any sum 
 of money not exceeding ninepence in the pound by the 
 year of or upon the annual rent or value of such lands, 
 &o., at which the same respectively shall be assessed to the 
 poor rate, and to order or direct the collector or collectors 
 to be appointed in pursuance of this Act to demand, col- 
 lect and receive from the occupiers of such lands, &c., such 
 rates and sums of money as shall be so assessed or rated 
 as aforesaid either by yearly or half-yearly payments, all 
 which rates and assessments so to be made and collected 
 are hereby vested in the said trustees and their successors, 
 and the said rates and assessments shall commence upon or 
 take place from such day or time as the said trustees shall 
 direct or appoint, and such rates and sums of money shall be 
 applied for the purposes of this Act (that is to say) in the 
 first place in defraying the costs, &c. of obtaining this Act, 
 and in the next place in payment of the several sums here- 
 inbefore directed to be paid to the said rector for the time 
 being and his successors, and of all incidental expenses 
 attending the execution of this Act. 
 
 Sect. 28. [All money assessed as aforesaid to be paid to 
 the collector appointed under the Act, and by him to the 
 trustees], and the said trustees are hereby required to pay 
 thereout to the rector for the time beiag the said sum of 
 600^. in manner hereinbefore mentioned, and the surplus 
 or remainder of the moneys so collected and paid shall be 
 by the said trustees forthwith paid to the overseers of the 
 poor of the said parish for the time being and applied in 
 aid of the poor rates. 
 
 In this statute there is no provision exempting the rector 
 from rates. 
 
 5. The first of the rates (hereinafter called the rector's 
 rates) made under and in pursuance of this statute was 
 made in April, 1817, and the rector's rates have been 
 regularly made and levied ever since. The stipend of 
 600^. per annum has been regularly paid to the rector by 
 
 1892. 
 
 Edwabds 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Olavb's 
 Uhion. 
 
?98 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Edwaees 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Olave's 
 Union. 
 
 the trustees out of the proceeds of the rate without any 
 deductions, and the halance of the proceeds of the rate, after 
 payment of the said stipend and expenses, have heen handed 
 over to the overseers in aid of the poor rate. 
 
 6. The trustees have never been rated in respect of the 
 proceeds of the rector's rate. 
 
 7. In the poor rate book for July, 1817, the rector was 
 assessed " for his stipend in lieu of tithes " at " the yearly 
 rent " of 210/. The rector was similarly assessed for his 
 stipend in lieu of tithes, in the year immediately following, 
 the "yearly rent" being entered either at 210/. or 200/. 
 until April, 1821, when it was reduced to 100/., at which 
 he was rated until January 3rd, 1822 {a). For some years 
 after this date, though the " yearly rent " in respect of 
 stipend in lieu of tithes was still entered at 100/., the rector 
 was not rated in respect thereof. From 1841 to 1844 (in- 
 clusive), the rector's name still appears in the poor rate 
 book in respect of " his stipend in lieu of tithe," but no 
 " yearly rent " or " assessment " appears therein. In the 
 rate book of January 1st, 1845, the rector is rated in 
 respect of " his stipend in lieu of tithes " at 600/. gross 
 estimated rental and 400/. rateable value. [The same 
 rating continued tOl 1875, and from 1875 until the ap- 
 pointment of the appellant, the figures were entered at 
 550/. gross and 367/. rateable value.] 
 
 8. In 1736, by 6 Geo., 2, c. 11, the parish of St. John, 
 Horselydown, was taken out of the parish of St. Olave's, 
 Southwark, and formed into a separate parish. By that 
 Act a sum of 3,500/. was appropriated out of the coal 
 duties towards the building of the church, the rectory 
 house, laying out the churchyard, &c., and in addition a 
 sum of 60/. per annum was directed to be paid by the 
 churchwardens of St. John's unto the rector, " without any 
 
 (a) No explanation was given in argument of the assessment at lOOZ. a 
 year in respect of a yearly stipend of 600Z., regularly paid. It is sug- 
 gested that the overseers may have allowed a deduction in respect of a 
 curate's salary: of. E. v. Goodohild [1858], E. B. & B. 1 : 27 L. J. M. 0. 
 233. 
 
queen's bench division. 299 
 
 deduction or abatement for or on aooount of any taxes or 1892. 
 impositions by parliament or otherwise howsoever;" and it Edwabds 
 ■was further enacted that the provisions thereby made were „ q"' , 
 " in lieu of all moduses, tithes, and Easter ofPerings, and Union. 
 other demands whatsoever except surplice fees, &c." 
 
 9. In 1827, by 7 & 8 Geo. 4, o. 23, s. 2, further provision 
 was made for the maintenance of the rector of St. John's, 
 exempt from all taxes, rates, and assessments ; and by s. 8, 
 it was enacted that thereafter all tithes, and payments in 
 lieu of tithes, &c., which the rector might otherwise have had 
 by law should cease ; and s. 9 provided that the different 
 provision then made should be received and accepted in 
 lieu of all tithes, compositions for tithes, or payments for 
 tithes, &c., due to the rector. 
 
 10. The appellant was instituted into the rectory of 
 St. Olave's on December 31st, 1890. 
 
 11. [In the supplemental list, made in May, 1891, the 
 appellant was assessed iu respect of " his stipend in lieu of 
 tithes, rectory of St. Olave," at 120^. gross and 100/. rate- 
 able value.] 
 
 The appellant, on his objection before the assessment 
 committee, and on the appeal, contended that the stipend 
 was not rateable, and that the whole entry in the valuation 
 list should be struck out. No question was raised as to the 
 amount. 
 
 Channell, Q.C. {A. B. Kempe with him), for the appel- 
 lant : Under 43 Eliz. c. 2, the parson is rateable in respect 
 of his tithes, and where payments are made in Heu of such 
 tithes they are themselves rateable. But in Esdaile v. 
 City of London Union, Eyde's Eat. App. (188b-90) 105 ; 
 19 Q,. B. D. 431, the Court of Appeal held that certain 
 ancient payments, made in the city of London, though 
 called "tithes," were not tithes, and were not rateable; 
 and that, therefore, statutory payments substituted for 
 them were not rateable. The payments made to the 
 present appellant are of the same character. It is true 
 
300 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Ed-wabes 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Olave's 
 
 UlIlON. 
 
 that s. 51 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, pro- 
 vides that " the overseers shall not include in the valuation 
 list any hereditaments (except tithes or payments in lieu 
 of tithes) which are charged according to rule 2 in s. 60 of 
 the Income Tax Act (5 & 6 Vict. c. 35), but shall include 
 tithes and payments in lieu of tithes and every heredita- 
 ment in their parish." This provision must be construed 
 as applying only to rateable tithes. In Esdaile^s Case, the 
 so-called "tithes" had never been rated; in the present 
 case they have been only occasionally rated. In R. v. 
 Christopherson [1885], 16 Q. B. D. 7, the Court of Appeal 
 held that a rate (similar to that now in question) payable 
 to a rector under a local Act, not being in lieu of tithes, 
 was not rateable. Questions as to the rateability of the 
 vicar's rate in Coventry were raised in R. v. Toms [1780], 
 1 Dougl. 401 ; and Rami v. Picldn [1782], Cald. 196. 
 In the present case the decree set out in the appendix to 
 the special case decided that, as between Dame Elizabeth 
 Humble and her tenants, she was liable for the " tithes." 
 The mere fact that the payments are called "tithes" is im- 
 material. The burden of proof is on the respondents to 
 show that these "tithes" are rateable. The usage, as 
 shown by the rate-books, is not sufficient to prove that 
 they were rated, still less that they were rateable. 
 [Weight, J. : The evidence of the rate-books can be con- 
 sidered up to 1817 ; the construction of 57 Geo. 3, c. vii., 
 which created the present payments, is for the Court.] 
 Assuming some person to be rateable, the trustees in 
 whom the rate is vested, and not the appellant, are rate- 
 able. [He also cited R. v. Great Sambleton [1834], 1 A. 
 & E. 145 ; Eagle on Tithes (ed. 1830), vol. 1, p. 420.] 
 
 W. Graham for the respondents : If the payment made 
 to the rector is made in lieu of rateable tithes, it is admit- 
 tedly rateable ; if so, it can make no difference that the 
 payment is made through the intervention of trustees. 
 The trustees cannot be rateable, because they do not 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 301 
 
 receive tlie sum collected "in lieu of tithes." The question 
 is not whether the tithe payer is discharged, but whether 
 the parson is now receiving something in lieu of the tithes 
 which he formerly received. Next, the tithes formerly 
 paid were rateable. They were, in fact, rated in several 
 years, including 1816 and 1817, immediately before the 
 passing of 57 Greo. 3, o. vii. It is remarkable, if the pay- 
 ments were intended to be exempt, that no express clause 
 was inserted in the Act to contradict the then existing 
 practice. Moreover, a previous Act, 6 Geo. 2, c. 11 (affect- 
 ing the parish of St. Olave's Southwark), contains the 
 express exemption omitted from 67 Geo. 3, c. vii. It 
 must be assumed that the omission was intentional. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Ed-wabds 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Olave's 
 Union. 
 
 Wright, J. : In my opinion it has not been made out 
 that this annual payment of 600/., or any part thereof, is 
 rateable ; nor is it shown that the sum received before the 
 passing of the Act of 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. vii.) was rateable. 
 The evidence of actual rating is really confined to the 
 period from 1798 to 1817, and in my opinion the evidence 
 that the rector was rated during that period is insufficient. 
 The ordy other evidence is the decree in the action of 
 Sughes v. Humble, set out in the appendix. The bill of 
 complaint, no doubt, speaks of the payments as " tithes," 
 but it also shows that the plaintiff denied that they were 
 tithes in the strict sense. The dispute in the case seems to 
 have been whether the payments were tithes proper, pay- 
 able by the occupier, or were payable by the owner. The 
 Court held that they were of the latter kind ; and it is 
 obvious that, had they been tithes, the proceedings would 
 have been wrong, tithes being recoverable by distress, and 
 not by action against the owner of the land. The Act of 
 1817 speaks of the " ancient payments in money for and 
 in lieu of tithes," and this is in fact the strongest evidence 
 there is m. support of the contention that they were rate- 
 able ; but in my opinion it is not enough. The Act of 
 1817 makes the case against the rateability of the new 
 
303 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Edwaeds 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Olave's 
 Unioit. 
 
 Wright, J. 
 
 payments mucli stronger. The Act makes a tetter and 
 different provision for the rector, instead of, and not in 
 exact suhstitution for, the old payments. The payments 
 under the Act are entirely new payments, and are not 
 subject to the same burdens as the old. It is true that the 
 Act, in s. 8, says that the new payments shall be paid, 
 taken, and received in lieu and in fuU recompense and 
 satisfaction of and for all tithes, &c." ; but this merely 
 means that the rector should not in future be entitled to 
 the old tithes as well as the new payments. I think our 
 decision, that these payments are not rateable, is warranted 
 by Esdaile v. City of London Union, Ryde's Eat. App. 
 (1886-90) 105 ; 19 Q. B. D. 431. 
 
 Collins, J. : I am of the same opinion. It is admitted 
 that, unless the original payments were " tithes " in the 
 strict sense, the new payments are not rateable. The onus 
 rests upon those who seek to impose the rate, and in my 
 opinion it is not discharged. There is absolutely nothing 
 in the rate books before 1798, and the evidence as to 
 actual rating is limited to the period from 1798 to 1817 : 
 this evidence is not conclusive to show that all or any 
 of the old payments were in fact rated. The decree in 
 Hughes v. Humble, set out in the appendix to the case, 
 carries the matter no further, because the parties evidently 
 did not admit that the payments were strictly " tithes." 
 They seem to me to have been much more like the pay- 
 ments described in H. v. Toms [1780], 1 Dougl. 401, and 
 were probably voluntary payments by the parishioners. 
 This being the inference up to 1817, the Act 57 Geo. 3, 
 c. vii., shows what the parties at that time thought. The 
 Act makes no such substitution for tithes as in R. v. 
 Boldero [1825], 4 B. & C. 467; in that case an Inelosure 
 Act extinguished the tithes, and enacted that in lieu of 
 them the commissioners should award to the rector a 
 certain annual rent equal in value to certain proportions 
 of the rents of the lands in the parish. And it was held 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 303 
 
 that the rector was liahle to be rated in respect of this 
 annual rent, the Act not having expressly exempted it. 
 Where a .fixed sum is substituted for tithes which were 
 themselves rated, it is easy to see why the sum so substi- 
 tuted should be put upon the same footing. But in the 
 present case, the Act recites that the provision for the 
 support of the rector had been certain ancient pecuniary 
 payments, and that they were insufficient, and that it was 
 expedient that better provision should be made. The sum 
 of 600/. was not fixed, because that was the amount of the 
 " tithes," but the scheme of the Act was to maintain the 
 rector adequately, and not merely to quantify the sum 
 to be received for tithes. Suppose the amount of the old 
 tithes had been only 10/., it could not be said that 600/. 
 was in substitution for those tithes. In my opinion, there 
 is no alternative between holding the whole or none of the 
 600/. to be in substitution for the old "tithes." The 
 intention of the Act is to make a general provision to the 
 rector outside tithes, and that the 600/. should be paid as 
 a stipend, and not in substitution for tithes. 
 
 Appeal allowed. 
 
 1892. 
 
 Edwaeds 
 
 V. 
 
 St. Olave's 
 Union. 
 
 Collins, J. 
 
 Peakson V. HoLBOEN TJnion Assessment Committee. Q. B. D. 
 
 Exemption — Volunteer Corps— ^Occupation ly Servants of the Crown 
 for Crown Purposes — Storehouse— Volunteer Act, 1863 (26 <Ss 27 
 Vict. c. 65), s. 26. 
 
 Premises occupied by a volunteer corps for the purposes of the 
 corps, and reasonably necessary for the service of the corps, are 
 exempt from rates, as being occupied by the servants of the Crown 
 for the purposes of the Crown. 
 
 Jones V. Mersey Docks (1865), 11 H. L. 0. 443, followed. 
 
 By s. 26 of the Volunteer Act, 1863, a store-house for arms and 
 ammunition of a volunteer corps is exempt from rates. 
 
 Held, that the exemption extended to the rooms reasonably 
 necessary for the accommodation of three non-commissioned oflS.oer8 
 
 1893. 
 February 9. 
 
304 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Peaeson 
 
 V. 
 HOLBOEN 
 
 Union. 
 
 who were required by tlie military authorities to reside upon tlie 
 ' premises lor tlie safe keeping of tlie stores. 
 
 Case stated by consent and by order of a judge, under 
 s. 40 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 (a). 
 
 The questions raised by the case related to the rateability 
 of certain premises in Leonard Street, used as a store- 
 house, drill hall, &c., by the 2nd Middlesex Artillery 
 Volunteers. The appellants contended that the whole 
 were exempt from rateability — 
 
 (a) as store-houses within s. 26 of the Volunteer Act, 
 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 65). 
 
 (b) as being in the occupation of the Crown for the 
 purposes of the Crown. 
 
 The Volunteer Act, 1863, s. 26, enacts as follows : — 
 " The commanding ofiBcer of a volunteer corps or ad- 
 ministrative regiment, receiving any arms, ammunition, or 
 other stores supplied at the public expense, or by subscrip- 
 tion, shall, subject to the approval of the lieutenant of the 
 county to which the corps belongs, or in which the head- 
 quarters of the administrative regiment are situate (as the 
 case may be), appoint a proper storehouse for the deposit- 
 ing and safe keeping of such arms, ammunition, or stores. 
 Every such storehouse shall be free from all county, paro- 
 chial or other local rates or assessments." 
 
 The appellant was assessed in respect of so much of the 
 premises as the respondents alleged were not occupied as 
 a storehouse within the meaning of s. 26, at 336^. gross 
 and 280/. rateable value. 
 
 The facts were found in the case as follows : — 
 4. The appellant is the commanding officer of the 
 2nd Middlesex Artillery Volunteers, and as such is the 
 lessee of the premises, the subject-matter of this assess- 
 ment, under a lease for twenty years at 400/. a year. The 
 2nd Middlesex Artillery Volunteer Corps consists of 634 
 
 (a) The parties being unable to agree upon the facts, the case was 
 stated in the form submitted to the Court by au arbitrator : vide supra, 
 p. 152. 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 305 
 
 officers and men. It is one of the volunteer corps of the 
 Eastern Division of the Eoyal Artillery, and for discipline 
 and command is included in the Home District, being 
 subject to the orders of the Major-General commanding 
 such district. 
 
 5. The premises in question have four floors, with a gun- 
 shed, and drill-haE. at the back extending to the roof. 
 
 6. The primary purpose of the premises is that of a 
 storehouse for the guns, arms, and ammunition of the 
 corps. These comprise eight guns ; viz. five 64-pounders, 
 one 40-pounder, and two 12-pounders ; also 530 stand of 
 arms with corresponding ammunition, all the property of 
 the Crown. There are also kept on the premises the 
 uniforms of 350 men. The said premises have been duly 
 certified as a storehouse by the authorities, pursuant to 
 s. 26 of 26 & 27 Yict. c. 65. The premises also serve the 
 purposes of a place of meeting for drill, military instruc- 
 tion, &c. 
 
 7. Three non-commissioned officers and their families 
 reside permanently upon the premises. The guns, stores, 
 ammunition, &c., are in the safe keeping, care and charge 
 of such officers. The military authorities insist, as a con- 
 dition to the supply of the guns, and the granting of the 
 certificate aforesaid, upon the presence of three such non- 
 commissioned officers. I find that the presence of the said 
 officers is reasonably necessary for the purpose of such 
 safe keeping, care, and charge. 
 
 8. It is admitted by the respondents that for the pur- 
 pose of a storehouse withia the meaning of s. 26, portions 
 of the said premises are necessary and proper. I find as a 
 fact that for the purposes of such storehouse the whole of 
 the said premises, except the following, are necessary and 
 proper : that is to say, except : 
 
 On the first floor, the officers' mess-room, the officers' 
 ante-room, the canteen, the sergeants' room, the men's 
 mess-room : 
 
 On the third floor, two rooms [each about 14ft. by 10ft.]. 
 
 E. X 
 
 1893. 
 
 Peaeson 
 
 V, 
 HOLBOBN 
 
 Union. 
 
306 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. The said excepted parts, though suitable and proper for 
 
 Peajjson the purposes of the corps, are not storehouses within the 
 HorBOEN meauing of s. 26. 
 
 Union. 9. It has been agreed between the parties to this case 
 
 that the value of the whole premises is 410/. gross, and 
 341/. 13s. 4d. rateable value. I find that the value of the 
 portions of the said premises mentioned in paragraph 8, 
 and which are not storehouses within the meaning of s. 26, 
 is as follows : on the first floor 751. 15s. gross, and 63/. 2s. 6d. 
 rateable value : on the third floor, 41. 13s. Id. gross, and 
 3/. 7s. 7d. rateable. 
 
 10. The whole of the said premises are used solely for 
 the purposes of the corps. The appellant, Lieutenant- 
 Colonel Pearson, has no use or occupation of the premises 
 other than as colonel commanding the said corps, and in 
 discharge of his duties as such. With the exception of the 
 three non-commissoned officers in paragraph 7 mentioned, 
 the officers and men of the corps have no use or occupation 
 of the premises other than in their capacity of artUlery 
 volunteers. 
 
 11. Of the three non-commissioned officers who reside 
 permanently upon the said premises, two are upon the 
 establishment of the regular army, and receive their pay 
 through one of her Majesty's paymasters stationed at 
 Hounslow. The third non-commissioned officer resident 
 upon the premises is not now upon the establishment of 
 the regular army, but is a volunteer, having retired from 
 the army upon a pension. 
 
 12. The rent of the said premises is paid from the 
 general fund of the corps, which fund is formed ia part 
 from the government grant (about 1,710/. per annum), in 
 part by volimtary subscriptions (about 200/. per annum). 
 
 The questions for the opinion of the Court are : — 
 
 1. Whether the whole of the said premises are exempt 
 from rates. 
 
 2. Whether the portions of the said premises necessary 
 and proper for storehouses alone, are exempt from rates. 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 307 
 
 Poland, Q.O. {E. Boyle ^i^ him), for the Appellant: 
 First, the whole of the premises are exempt under the 
 Volunteer Act, 1863, s. 26 ; for those parts which are not 
 strictly within the term "storehouse," are necessary for the 
 proper use of the premises as a storehouse. Secondly, the 
 whole of the premises are exempt, as being occupied by the 
 servants of the Crown for the purposes of the Crown. The 
 exemption conferred by the Yolunteer Act, 1863, was un- 
 necessary, because the premises were already exempt on the 
 principle laid down in Jones \. Mersey Bocks [1865], 11 H. 
 L. 0. 443. Blackburn, J., delivering the opinion of the 
 majority of the judges, said {lb., at pp. 463, 464) : " The 
 Crown, not being named in the statute of Elizabeth, is not 
 bound by it; and consequently, the overseers cannot impose 
 a rate on the sovereign in respect of lands occupied by her 
 Majesty, nor on those occupied by her servants for her 
 Majesty. The exemption depends entirely on the occupier, 
 and not on the title to the property. The tenants of Crown 
 property paying rent for it are rateable like all other occu- 
 piers On the other hand, where a lease of private 
 
 property is taken in the name of a subject, but the occupa- 
 tion is by the sovereign or her servants on her behalf, the 
 occupation being that of her Majesty, no rate can be 
 imposed : see Lord Amherst v. Lord Somers [1788], 2 T. E. 
 372 ; 1 E. E. 497. An officer residing on property which 
 is exempt upon this principle, is entitled to reasonable 
 accommodation for himself and his fanuly, but is rateable 
 for any excess above what is reasonably necessary : see 
 E. V. Steurirt [1857], 8 E. & B. 360 ; and E. v. Fuller 
 [1855], 8 E. & B. 365, n. In Coomber v. Berkshire J J. 
 [1883], 9 App. Cas. 61, the exemption was held to extend 
 to assize courts and a police station. In E. v. Jay [1857]; 
 8 E. & B. 469, a building erected for the custody of arms 
 and stores of militia, was held to be " employed for her 
 Majesty's use and service," and, therefore, within the ex- 
 emption created by s. 6 of the Metropolitan Building Act, 
 1855 (18 & 19 Yiet. o. 122). It is impossible to put 
 
 x2 
 
 1893. 
 
 Peabson 
 
 V. 
 HOLBOEN 
 
 XJkiok. 
 
308 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. 
 
 FeA£30N 
 
 V. 
 HOLBOEN 
 
 Union. 
 
 volunteer^ and militia in different categories. It is an 
 over -refinement to distinguish the rooms on the first and 
 third floors, mentioned in paragraph 8 of the case, as being 
 occupied differently from the rest of the building, which is 
 one entire rateable hereditament. The finding that the 
 appellant has no occupation other than as colonel of the 
 corps disposes of the suggestion that he has any excess of 
 accommodation beyond what is reasonably necessary. The 
 expenses are paid almost entirely out of the government 
 grant, which will be relieved, pro tanto, by an exemption 
 from parochial rates. The rates, if paid, would be paid 
 in part, at least, out of the funds of the Crown. 
 
 Bosaiiquet, Q..C. {R. Cunningham G*/ew with him), for the 
 respondents : In Jones v. Mersey Bocks [1865], 11 H. L. 
 C. 443, the decision was in favour of the rateability of the 
 docks, and it was not necessary to lay down the exact limits 
 of exemption, because the docks were clearly not within 
 them. The position of the volunteers is different from that 
 of the regular forces and the militia ; the Mutiny Act ex- 
 tends to the permanent staff of the volunteers only " when 
 they are on actual military service " : see s. 23 of the 
 Yolunteer Act, 1863. [Collins, J. : Are not the militia 
 subject to the Mutiny Act for a part only of the year ?] 
 The militia occupy property provided out of the public funds ; 
 the volunteers subscribe part of their funds, and the pro- 
 perty is the property of the corps, vested in the command- 
 ing officer, and is distinguishable from the guns, which are 
 the property of the Crown : see ss. 24, 25. The property 
 is used for the purposes of the corps, not for the purposes 
 of the Crown, and may be devoted to such purposes as the 
 members of the corps determine. [Collins, J. : If the 
 artillery at "Woolwich give a ball in their mess-room, does 
 that make it rateable ?] No residence is required of the 
 volunteers as is required in the case of militia. The pro- 
 perty here is not the property of the Crown, and if it is 
 capable of occupation for the private enjoyment of the 
 
queen's bench division. 309 
 
 members of the corps, it is immaterial whether it is in fact 1893. 
 so used. In Gambier v. Overseers of Lydford [1854], 3 Pbaeson 
 E. & B. 346 ; 23 L. J. M. 0. 69, it was held that a prison -^^^^^^ 
 was not rateahle, hut that the coach-house and stable, occu- TJoton. 
 pied by the governor, but not necessary for the discharge 
 of his duties, and a canteen, for the sale of beer to the 
 prison officers, from which no profit was made, were rate- 
 able. A canteen may be let, and might be let in the 
 present case ; it is therefore rateable. In R. v. Bradford 
 [1815], 4 M. & S. 317, a canteen was rated. It is not 
 necessary to contend that mess-rooms in barracks are rate- 
 able. Soldiers are under orders, and have, in law, no 
 individual occupation of their own, whereas volunteers are 
 free agents. In B. v. Terrott [1803], 3 East, 506; 7 E. 
 E. 502, a commanding officer, who had distinct apartments 
 in barracks assigned to him, was held rateable, as having 
 a beneficial enjoyment beyond Ms necessary accommodation 
 as an officer for the purpose of public service. [Collins, J. : 
 Mu^t we not take that case as qualified by B. v. Stewart 
 [1857], 8 E. & B. 360, to the extent that the station in 
 life of the occupier may be taken into account ?] In B. v. 
 Ponsonby [1842], 3 Q,. B. 14, the occupiers, by permission 
 of the Crown, of apartments in Hampton Court were held 
 rateable, and Williams, J. (at p. 30), speaks of B. v. Terrott 
 as " a case never questioned." In Martin v. West Derby 
 Union [1883], 11 Q,. B. D. 145, the quarters of a police 
 superintendent, a quarter of a mile from the police station, 
 were held rateable ; and the Court followed the rule laid 
 down in Gambier v. Overseers of Lydford [1854], 3 E. & B. 
 346, viz., that residences within the prison precincts were 
 not rateable, and residences outside were rateable. Cole- 
 ridge, C. J., calls this (11 Q,. B. D. at p. 151) a " plain and 
 intelligible rule," but does not state the principle of the 
 distinction. [Collins, J. : I cannot, myself, see the 
 distinction ; and Lord Campbell, in Gambier v. Overseers of 
 Lydford, allows that it is a "subtle distinction."] In B. v. 
 Eurdis [1789], 3 T. E. 497; 1 E. E. 765, the master- 
 
•310 QUEEN^S BEKCH TtlVISION. 
 
 1893. gunner was held rateable in respect of the hattery-Honse 
 Peaeson at Seaford, on the ground that the sessions had found that 
 HoLBOEN ^® ^^ *^® occupier ; and Lord Kenyon said : " Soldiers, 
 Union. indeed, cannot be said to be the occupiers of their barracks, 
 
 in the legal signification of the word; they are no more 
 
 than mere servants." 
 
 Poland, Q.O., in reply: The occupation is the occupation 
 of the appellant, and in his official capacity. The members 
 of the corps may use the premises, but they are not the 
 occupiers. Exemption depends upon the question, who is 
 the occupier? In Gamhier v. Overseers of Lydfm'd [1854], 
 3 B. & B. at p. 351, it was expressly found that the 
 canteen was "occupied by one Samuel Piper"; he was 
 therefore rateable. In B. y. Bradford [1815], 4 M. & S. 
 317, the canteen was demised to a tenant who paid a large 
 rent for it. In Martin v. West Derby Union [1883], 11 
 Q,. B. D. 146, the appellant provided the furniture for the 
 house rated, and so occupied it by himself and by his 
 furniture. 
 
 Lawrance, J. : The question we have to decide is 
 whether parts of certaiu premises are rateable or not. It 
 appears that by far the greater part is used for a storehouse 
 provided under s. 26 of the Yolunteer Act, 1863 : for the 
 arbitrator has found that the rateable value of the whole 
 is 341/., while the value of the excepted portion is only 
 66/. Therefore by far the greater part is comprisfed ia 
 the storehouse, as to which there is no dispute. The 
 excepted portions consist of the officers' mess-room, and 
 ante-room, the canteen, the sergeants' room, the men's 
 mess-room, and two small rooms on the third floor. As 
 to these, the question depends on what is the real position 
 occupied by the volunteers. Are they the servants of the 
 Crown ? Or are they merely a number of private persons 
 banded together for a particular purpose ? On looking at 
 the statute it seems to me clear that they are the servants 
 
queen's bench division. 311 
 
 of the Crown. By s. 2 of the Volunteer Act, 1863, " It 1893. 
 shall he lawful for Her Majesty to accept the services of Peabson 
 any persons desiring to be formed into a volunteer corps." holboen 
 By s. 3, a permanent staff is appointed hy the Crown, and Union. 
 by s. 4, the officers are to be approved by Her Majesty, Lawrauoe J. 
 and to hold commissions. By s. 12, " Her Majesty may 
 disband or discontinue the services of any volunteer corps 
 whenever it seems to Her Majesty expedient to do so." 
 It is clear that though volunteers are not paid, their 
 services are offered to and accepted by the Crown. It is 
 objected that the volunteers are not on actual military 
 service ; it is not intended that they should be, except in 
 certain circumstances ; but by s. 17, in case of actual or 
 apprehended invasion of any part of the United Kingdom, 
 the volunteers may be called out for actual military 
 service. They are therefore in very much the same 
 position as the militia, who may be embodied in " case of 
 imminent national danger " (see 45 & 46 Yict. c. 49, 
 s. 18). The property of the corps is vested by s. 25 in 
 the commanding officer, and by s. 26 he may appoint a 
 storehouse, which, subject to the approval of the lieutenant 
 of the county, may be used as such. The Secretary of 
 State can, as has been done in this case, insist on the 
 presence of three resident non-commissioned officers upon 
 the premises to be certified ; and it is found in the case 
 that their presence is reasonably necessary for the safe- 
 keeping of the stores. It is also found that the whole of 
 the premises are used for the purposes of the corps. It 
 has been argued that the excepted portions of the premises 
 are in excess of the accommodation required for the per- 
 formance of public duties, and therefore that they are 
 rateable on the authority of the cases which have been 
 cited. But these premises are not within the principle of 
 those cases; for looking at the volunteers as the servants 
 of the Crown, it appears that the premises are used in the 
 same way, and for the same purposes, as if they were 
 Crown property, and they are occupied by persons who 
 
312 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Peabson 
 
 V. 
 
 Hdlbobn 
 Union. 
 
 Lawrance, J. 
 
 are in the position of servants. The excepted portions of 
 the premises do not come within the exemption given hy 
 s. 26 of the Volunteer Act, 1863, hut are vdthin the 
 general rule that premises occupied by the servants of the 
 Crown for the purposes of the Crown, are exempt from 
 rating. 
 
 Collins, J. : I am of the same opinion. The question 
 in this case is whether a building erected and used as a 
 storehouse under s. 26 of the Volunteer Act, 1863, is 
 rateable. Two grounds were put forward by the appel- 
 lant why it was not : — (1) that it came within the exception 
 given by s. 26 ; and (2) that by the general law the build- 
 ings are under the circumstances of their occupation exempt. 
 I think the appellant's contention is sound. I am not sure 
 that the whole may not come within the exemption given 
 by s. 26 to a " storehouse " ; but whether it does or does 
 not, I thint the whole comes within the general exemption. 
 It is found in the case, that the premises (which means the 
 whole of the premises), have been duly certified as a store- 
 house under s. 26. The whole being so certified, j?nmd 
 facie the whole comes within the statutory exemption. It 
 was open to the respondents to show that part of the 
 premises was not in fact occupied as a storehouse. But in 
 order to make it rateable, they would have to show that the 
 part was not occupied for any purpose connected with the 
 occupation of the storehouse; and further, that it was 
 beneficially occupied. The facts as to the occupation are 
 found by the arbitrator, and I am not siire that I am pre- 
 cluded from saying that the whole is occupied as a storehouse. 
 The case says " the premises also serve the purposes of a 
 place of meeting for drill, military instruction, &o." That 
 looks as though that part was not used as a storehouse ; but 
 further on, in paragraph 8, the arbitrator seems to treat the 
 whole as a storehouse, with certain exceptions (viz., the 
 officers' room, the canteen, &c.), which do not include the 
 places used for drill or military instruction, so that the 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 313: 
 
 drill hall would seem to be part of the storehouse. The 
 question therefore arises, whether the parts excepted are 
 outside the exception intended to he given by the statute 
 to " storehouses." The arbitrator has found that the rooms 
 mentioned as excepted parts in paragraph 8 " are not store- 
 houses within the meaning of s. 26." It was not contended 
 that they were. But if, in order to have a " storehouse," 
 it is necessary to have three non-commissioned ofBcers 
 resident on the premises, their bedrooms would come as 
 clearly within the exception as the rooms in which the 
 stores were actually kept. It is found that the military 
 authorities insist on the presence of these three non-com- 
 missioned officers ; that carries with it the right to reason- 
 able accommodation for such persons properly incident to 
 their station in life. A large part of the excepted rooms 
 comes within that exemption. It is true that the officers' 
 mess-room and the ante-room are not within this, but it is 
 not clear, and it is not found as a fact that it is unreason- 
 able that the officers should have these rooms for the 
 purposes of the store. But whether this is right or wrong, 
 and even if these excepted parts are outside the designation 
 of a " storehouse," I stUl think that, on the findings, the 
 premises are within the exemption of property occupied 
 for the purposes of the Crown. This depends upon the 
 question whether the volunteers are the servants of the 
 Crown. It is clear on the authorities that the regular 
 forces and the militia are servants of the Crown : then 
 are volunteers in the same category, so as to admit of an 
 occupation for volunteer purposes being deemed to be an 
 occupation for military purposes ? If so, that occupation 
 is exempt. This depends .on two questions: — (1) whether 
 on the construction of the Volunteer Act, 1863, we can 
 come to the conclusion that the volunteers are in the same 
 category as the regular army ; and (2) whether the occu- 
 pation in this particular case is referable to the proper 
 discharge of military duties by the volunteers. On turn- 
 ing to the Act, I find that, by s. 2, " it shall be lawful for 
 
 1893. 
 
 Peaeson 
 
 V. 
 HOLBOKN 
 
 Union. 
 Oollms, J. 
 
314 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. her Majesty to accept the services of any persons desiring 
 Peaeson to be formed into a volunteer corps, and offering their 
 „ "• services." It is clear, therefore, that a volunteer corps 
 
 HOLBOEN . ' _ . '• 
 
 Union. cannot he constituted by private persons, and that it rests, 
 ColJins" J ^°^ ^^® ultimate sanction, on the acceptance by the Crown. 
 The Crown, under s. 4, approves the appointment of the 
 officers, and, through the lieutenant of the county, grants 
 them their commission (a). By s. 11, her Majesty by 
 Order iu Council may declare what is requisite to entitle a 
 volunteer to be deemed efficient; by s. 12, her Majesty 
 may disband or discontinue the services of any volunteer 
 corps ; and by s. 16, a Secretary of State may make regu- 
 lations for the general government and discipline of the 
 volunteer force. Section 6 and the schedule to the Act 
 gives the form of oath to be taken by officers and volun- 
 teers : — (" I, A. B., do swear . . . that I will faithfully serve 
 her Majesty in Great Britaia for the defence of the same, 
 &e., according to the conditions of my service.") Section 22 
 contains provisions as to the discipline of the permanent staff 
 when not on actual military service. It is true that until 
 the volunteers are called out, the general body are not, 
 though the permanent staff are, under the Mutiny Act. 
 But, when called out, they are, by s. 23, all puti upon the 
 same footing as the regular army. The affirmative answer 
 to the first question is therefore made out : as the soldier is 
 the servant of the Crown, so also is the volunteer : and 
 
 (a) The Court seem not to have noticed that by the Regulation of the 
 Forces Act, 1871(34 & 35 Vict. c. 86), s. 6, " AU jurisdiction, powers, 
 &c. over, of, or in relation to (inter alia) the volunteers, vested in or 
 exerciseable by the Hentenants of counties shall revert to Her Majesty, 
 and shall be exerciseable by Her Majesty through her Secretary of 
 State : " and " all officers in the volunteers . . . shall hold commissions 
 from Her Majesty, and such commissions shall be prepared, authenti- 
 cated and issued in the manner in which commissions of officers in Her 
 Majesty's land forces are prepared, authenticated and issued, according 
 to any law or custom for the time being in force." The Statute Law 
 Revision Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 66), repeals s. 4 of the Volunteer 
 Act, 1863. 
 
 The judgment, in form, therefore, is based ia part upon a repealed 
 section ; but it is submitted that the effect of the substituted enactment 
 strengthens the argument of the learned judge, in that it places the 
 volunteers and the regular army more clearly within the same category. 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 315 
 
 occupation for volunteer purposes is occupation for military 
 purposes. As to the second question : it is found that "the 
 "whole of the premises are used solely for the purposes of 
 the corps, and the appellant has no use or occupation of the 
 premises other than as colonel commanding the said corps, 
 and in discharge of his duties as such." That finding cuts 
 at the root of the argument based on the authorities cited 
 on hehalf of the respondents, because it narrows down the 
 occupation to an occupation which is necessary to the dis- 
 charge of military duties, and therefore negatives any 
 beneficial occupation. There is no controversy as to any 
 principles of law, and it is not necessary to go through all 
 the authorities. It is clear law that Crown property may 
 be rateable if it be not occupied for Crown purposes : that 
 occupation and not ownership determines the question of 
 exemption ; and that property which is not vested in the 
 Crown may be exempt if it is occupied for the purposes of 
 the Crown. There have been a number of eases in which 
 the question is whether the facts of the particular case 
 bring it within one of these general principles. A canteen 
 within a prison was held rateable (in Gamhier v. Overseers 
 ofLydford [1854], 3 E. & B. 346), because it was the sub- 
 ject of beneficial occupation. A police oflBcer's house 
 without the precincts of the station was held rateable, in 
 Martin v. West Derby Union [1883], 11 Q,. B. D. 145. 
 There the principle was conceded : once given a building 
 which can be described as one, any occupation of that (if 
 the building as a whole be occupied for the purposes of the 
 Crown), is exempt. But a distinction was drawn, that if 
 once you get outside the ambit of such a building, then the 
 question of immunity is tried by another standard. Here 
 all the premises are within the ambit of one house. 
 
 I am clearly of opinion that we must answer the first 
 question asked us in the afiBrmative, and hold the whole of 
 the premises exempt. 
 
 Appeal allowed. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Peaeson 
 
 V. 
 HOLEOEN 
 TjNIOlf. 
 
 Collins, J. 
 
316 queen's bench division. 
 
 Q. B. D. E. V. Simmons and Another. 
 
 1893. Caretaker entered in Bate Booh — Application for Distress Warrant — 
 
 ^' Jurisdiction of Justices — Conclusiveness of Bate Booh. 
 
 Tlie caretaker of a dweUing-liouse -was entered as occupier in. tlie 
 rate book. He did not appeal against the rate, but upon tbe appli- 
 cation for a distress warrant, on non-payment of rates, tendered 
 e-vidence to show that he resided in the house as caretaker only. 
 The justices held that the entry in the rate book was conclusive, 
 and that they had no jurisdiction to inquire whether the person 
 summoned was or was not the occupier. 
 
 Held, that the rate book was not conclusive, and that the justices 
 were bound to hear the evidence tendered. 
 
 B. v. BradsTiaw [1860], 29 L. J. M. 0. 176, distinguished. 
 
 Rule nisi, under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44, s. 5, calling upon 
 two justices of the county of London to show cause why 
 they should not hear and determine a summons for a 
 distress warrant for non-payment of poor rates. 
 
 On an application for a distress warrant against L. J. 
 Parry for non-payment of poor rates in respect of a 
 dwelling-house, evidence was tendered on behalf of Parry 
 to show that he resided in the house as a caretaker only. 
 It was objected on behalf of the overseers that Parry's 
 name appeared in the rate book as occupier, that he had 
 not appealed against the rate, and that therefore the rate 
 book was conclusive. The justices held that as Parry's 
 name was on the rate book, they had no jurisdiction to 
 consider the question of occupation, and made the order 
 asked for. 
 
 This rule was then obtained on behalf of Parry, notice 
 being given to the overseers. 
 
 Edmundson, for the overseers, showed cause : The ques- 
 tion whether a person, claiming to be merely a caretaker, 
 is rateable, is matter of appeal to Quarter Sessions against 
 the rate: see Yatcn v. Chorlton-upon-Medlock [1883], 48 
 L. T. N. S. 872. If Parry had not been in. occupation at 
 
queen's bench division. 317 
 
 all, no doubt he could have disputed his liability on the 1893. 
 hearing of the summons for a distress warrant. In R. v, e. 
 
 Bradshaw [1860], 29 L. J. M. 0. 176, the head-note says: ^^^^^^ 
 "As soon as the person summoned is shown to be in the 
 visible occupation of the property rated within the parish, 
 the Justices are bound to issue a warrant of distress, and 
 cannot go into the question of whether or not the occupa- 
 tion be beneficial, which is matter only for the quarter 
 sessions on appeal." Parry was admittedly in visible occu- 
 pation, and therefore the justices were bound to issue the 
 warrant. [Vaughan Williams, J.: The word "visible," 
 in the sense in which you use it, is not warranted by the 
 judgments in R. v. Bradshaw. There the person rated 
 was an executor who had left an old servant of the testator 
 in the testator's house, and did not himself live there. 
 Hill, J., says (29 L. J. M. C. at p. 179) : "Occupation in 
 fact is admitted, therefore the magistrates had jurisdic- 
 tion."] 
 
 J. S. Williams in support of the rule : The question of 
 occupation was in this case the very point in dispute before 
 the justices, and R. v. Bradshaw has therefore no application. 
 In Fourth City Mutual Building Society v. West Sam, [1892] 
 1 Q,. B. 661, a mandamus to state a case was issued to justices 
 sitting to hear a summons for a distress warrant, which 
 implies that the magistrates can inquire who is the occu- 
 pier. A case was also stated in R. v. Lord Mayor of 
 Lmidm [1887], 57 L. T. N. S. 491 (a). 
 
 Vaughan Williams, J. : A mandamus must go direct- 
 ing the justices to hear and determine the question 
 whether Parry is in fact in occupation. It has been said 
 that an admission that he was in occupation has been 
 made by Parry in the affidavits on which this rule was 
 
 («) The attention of the Court was not called to the fact that the case 
 •was stated in S,. v. LorcL Mayor of London upon the very point now being 
 argued. 
 
318 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. 
 
 •0. 
 
 SmMONS. 
 
 Vaughan 
 Willianis, J. 
 
 Obtained. If it te so, it is immaterial, because that ad- 
 mission was not before the justices. They were told that 
 he wished to raise the question, and they answered that 
 they could not entertain it, because the rate book was 
 conclusive. I think they were wrong, and that they were 
 bound to hear the evidence. When the case comes back 
 to the justices, if they are satisfied that Parry is in fact a 
 mere servant, they ought to find (i) that he is not ia occu- 
 pation ; and (ii) that his master is. 
 
 Bruce, J. : It is clear that the rate book was not con- 
 clusive, and that the question of occupation was a question 
 of fact for the justices. When they hear the evidence, if 
 any difficulty arises, they can state a special case for this 
 Court. 
 
 J. S. Williams asked that the rule might be made 
 absolute with costs against the overseers, as they had 
 taken the objection before the justices, and appeared to 
 show cause against the rule. 
 
 Williams, J. : The rule will be made absolute with 
 costs against the overseers : they ought to pay them. 
 
 Rule absolute. 
 
 0. A. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Ey. Co. v. 
 Assessment Committee of Doncaster Union. 
 
 7-7 -.'i, ' Power to make a River navigaile — Towing Path — Easement — Occupa- 
 tion, 
 
 A company (the appellants' predecessors in title) were by statute 
 authorized to make the river Dun navigable, and for that purpose 
 to clear, scour, open, enlarge, straighten, or deepen the river, and 
 to appoint and set out towing paths : and the navigation was 
 declared free for all persons on payment of certain rates or tolls. 
 The appellants (or their predecessors) made and kept the river 
 
COURT OP APPEAL. 319 
 
 navigable, and kept tte towing paths in repair, raising tlie level 1893. 
 ttereof in certain places : but tbey did not act as carriers for hire ^ „ .j _ 
 on the river. 
 
 V. 
 
 Held by the Queen's Bench. Division, on the authority of B. v. DoNOiSTEs 
 Mersej/ and Irwell Navigation [1829], 9 B. & 0. 95 ; B. v. Thomas Union. 
 [1829], 9 B. & 0. 114 ; and B. v. Aire and Calder Navigation [1829], 
 9 B. & 0. 820, that the appellants were not rateable in respect of 
 the natural river bed, because they were not occupiers, and had 
 merely an easement : but that they were rateable in respect of the 
 towing path. 
 
 But held by the Court of Appeal, reversing the decision of the 
 Queen's Bench Division as to the towing path, that the appellants 
 were not rateable either in respect of the natural river bed, or of 
 the towing path. 
 
 Badger v. S. Yorkshire By. [1858], 28 L. J. Q. B. 118, foUowed. 
 
 Bruce v. Willia [1840], 11 A. & E. 463, distinguished. 
 
 Special case stated by consent and by order of Wrigbt, J. 
 tinder 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45, s. 11, after notice of appeal to 
 the quarter sessions of the West Biding of Yorkshire 
 against rates made for ten parishes in the Doncaster 
 Union. 
 
 The special case, so far as is material, is as follows : — 
 1. By statute 12 Greo. 1, c. xxxviii., s. 1, the company 
 of cutlers in HaUamshire were empowered to make the 
 river Dun navigable for boats of twenty tons burthen from 
 Holmstile iu the parish of Doncaster to the westward 
 extremity of the township of Tinsley in the said West 
 Biding, and for that purpose to clear, scour, open, enlarge, 
 straighten or deepen the said river Dun, or any goits, 
 drains or sluices out of the same, and to dig or cut the 
 banks of the said river Dun, and to make any new cuts or 
 trenches or passages for water in, upon, or through the 
 lands adjoining or near unto the said river Dun as should 
 be necessary and proper for the navigation of such vessels 
 as aforesaid, and also to cut, remove, and take away all 
 trees, beds of gravel, sand or mud, quarries of stone, or 
 any other impediment whatsoever which might anyways 
 hinder navigation either in sailing, halrag, towing or draw- 
 ing boats and vessels with men or horses, or otherwise upon 
 
320 COUET OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893. the said river Dun, or upon any cuts or dams out of the 
 
 M.S.&L.Et. same, or any new cuts, trenches or passages so from time 
 
 _ "• to time to be made on any lands thereto adioininsr, and to 
 
 DONCASTEE ■' . , . . 
 
 Uhion. huild, erect, set up and make in, over, or on the said river 
 and lands adjoining or near to the same, or over the said 
 new cuts, trenches or passages, so many bridges, sluices, 
 locks, weirs, pens for water, tanks, dams, wharfs, ware- 
 houses, quays, landing-places, weigh-beams, cranes, and 
 other works, ways and privileges as shoxild be necessary 
 and convenient upon and near the said river or cuts, and 
 when proper and convenient to alter, repair and amend the 
 same, and to have, make and use necessary ways, passages 
 and other conveniences for the carrying and conveying 
 any goods, wares, merchandizes and other things in, upon, 
 to and from the said river, wharfs, landing-places, passages, 
 trenches or cuts, and for carrying and conveying all 
 manner of stone, brick, timber, gravel, earth, lime, and 
 materials for perfecting and completing the said works and 
 navigation, and for altering, repairing and amending the 
 same, and (amongst other powers) to pull down, alter or 
 demolish any miU, weir, or other obstructions in, upon or 
 contiguous to the said river, cuts or passages which might 
 obstruct or hinder the navigation thereof, and to appoint 
 and set out towing-paths, banks and ways for towing, 
 haling and drawing boats and vessels passing in and upon 
 the said river and cuts, and from time to time and at aU 
 times thereafter to do all other things necessary for making, 
 maintaining, continuing and perfecting the navigable 
 passages of the said river and cuts, doing as little damage 
 as might be, and first giving satisfaction to the owners of 
 such miUs, weirs, lands, tenements or hereditaments as 
 might be pulled down, removed, or otherwise made use of 
 for the purposes aforesaid, or that in anywise might be 
 prejudiced or damaged by the effecting and contiauing or 
 maintaining the said navigation. 
 
 2. By the 26th section of the same Act, the said navi- 
 gation was declared to be free for all persons upon payment 
 
COURT OF APPEAL. 321 
 
 of the rates and duties authorized to be taken by the Act ; 1893. 
 and by the 27th section it was provided that the owners of m.S.&L.Kt, 
 the adjoining lands might use pleasure boats on the navi- j, "• 
 gation without payment, and might exercise rights of Union. 
 fishing and fowling thereon. 
 
 3. By 13 Greo. 1, c. xx., s. 1, the corporation of Don- 
 caster were empowered to make the said river Dun navig- 
 able from Holmstile aforesaid to Wilsick House, and to 
 maintain it in a navigable condition. The powers conferred 
 on the corporation of Doncaster by this Act are substantially 
 the same as those given to the company of cutlers in 
 Hallamshire by the Act 12 Geo. 1, c. xxxviii. Sect. 29 
 of the later Act empowers the corporation of Doncaster to 
 purchase lands for the purpose of making towing-paths. 
 
 4. By 6 Geo. 2, c. ix., the company of proprietors of the 
 navigation of the river Dun was incorporated, and the 
 respective property rights and privileges of the company 
 of cutlers in Hallamshire, and of the corporation of Don- 
 caster, in the navigation of the river Dun, became vested in 
 such new company, who, by s. 3, were empowered to pur- 
 chase and hold lands for the purposes of the navigation. 
 By s. 9, power was given to the company to make bye- 
 laws for the good government of the undertaking. 
 
 5. By 1 & 2 Geo. 4, e. xlvi., further powers were given 
 to the company of proprietors of the navigation of the 
 river Dun, and (among others) to make a certain new cut 
 and (s. 3) a moveable weir. By s. 38, the new cut and weir 
 were to be deemed part of the navigation. By ss. 27 and 
 28, provision was made for fencing off the towing-paths on 
 the side of the cuts and canals made by virtue of the Act 
 now in recital from the lands adjoining thereto; and by 
 s. 38, the proprietors were empowered to fix mooring posts 
 in convenient places for guiding and mooring vessels. 
 
 6. By 7 Geo. 4, c. xcvii., s. 1, the company were em- 
 powered to make further improvements in the navigation ; 
 and by s. 29, any new cuts thereby authorized to be made 
 were to be deemed part of the navigation. 
 
 R. Y 
 
322 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893. t. By 10 & 11 Vict. e. ccxci., the Soutk Yorkshire, 
 
 M.S.&L.Ry. Doncaster and Groole Eailway was authorized to be made, 
 „ "• and the railway company thereby incorporated were em- 
 
 Union. powered to purchase (amongst other things) the under- 
 taking of the river Dun navigation. By s. 60 of this Act 
 it was enacted that the river Dun navigation, and all cuts, 
 reservoirs, aqueducts, feeders, water tanks, basins, pens, 
 dams, embankments, weirs, locks, sluices, culverts, drains, 
 soughs, tunnels, arches, sewers, bridges, fences, gates, ways, 
 roads, railroads, towing-paths, landing-places, docks, quays, 
 wharfs, houses, warehouses, toll-houses and other buildings, 
 cranes, weighing machines, engines and other works to the 
 same navigation, cuts, branches and communications re- 
 spectively belonging, and the ground and soil thereof 
 respectively, and of every other the lands, rents, and 
 hereditaments, easements and appurtenances whatsoever, 
 of or to which the said navigation company, by virtue of 
 their Acts, or by any other means whatsoever, were seized, 
 possessed of or entitled fo at law or in equity, should 
 belong, and the same were thereby vested in the company 
 thereby incorporated. By ss. 68 and 69, all the rights 
 and powers of the navigation company were extended to 
 the railway company thereby incorporated. 
 
 By s. 93, the railway company were required to keep 
 the navigation open and in good working order and con- 
 dition for the use of all persons desirous to use and navi- 
 gate the same. By s. 95, the company were to give no 
 undue preference in respect of any persons, vessels, or 
 goods, and by s. 96, they were authorized to receive the 
 tolls mentioned in the schedule to the Act. Such tolls 
 consisted of so much per ton per mile in respect of different 
 classes of goods passing along the river Dun navigation. 
 
 8. By the operation of 27 & 28 Yict. c. Ixxvii. and 37 & 
 38 Vict. c. cxxxi., the undertaking of the South Yorkshire 
 Eailway, including the river Dun navigation and aU the 
 rights, powers, and privileges in connection therewith of 
 the South Yorkshire Railway Company (formerly the 
 
COURT OF APPEAL. 323 
 
 South Yorkshire, Doncaster and Q-oole Eailway Oom- 1893. 
 pany), were transferred to and became vested in the m.S.&L.Et. 
 appellants, the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire ^^ "• 
 Eailway Company. The expression "undertaking," as Union. 
 defined by these Acts, includes all navigations and canals, 
 and the lands, tenements, and hereditaments, stations, 
 wharves, towing-paths, and warehouses, belonging to the 
 South Yorkshire Eailway Company. 
 
 9. The appellants (under the provisions of the said Acts 
 or some of them) from time to time dredge, cleanse, and 
 keep open the waterway of the said navigation, and repair 
 and keep in good working condition the several cuts, 
 channels, and locks connected therewith. They also keep 
 in repair the river banks supporting the towing-paths, and 
 mend the towing-paths with gravel or stones to a depth, 
 in some cases, of eight or nine inches. In some parts of 
 the navigation mooring-posts have been placed on the 
 banks of the river and of the artificial cuts which are used 
 to divert or guide vessels into the several cuts or locks and 
 also as mooring-posts. 
 
 10. Where the towing-paths adjoin the appellants' own 
 lands they are generally fenced off from such lands, and 
 where they adjoin the lands of other persons they are 
 (except in one or two instances) unfenced, and such per- 
 sons use them for hauling their own barges (in cases where 
 they possess any), for watering their cattle, and ,for other 
 purposes. The public, when so minded, use the towing- 
 paths as common highways without interference. At one 
 point the appellants have placed a door on the towing- 
 path which they keep locked at night and on Sundays. 
 This has been done at the request of an adjoining pro- 
 prietor, who complained of the damage done by trespassers. 
 The appellants have occasionally prosecuted persons for 
 breaches of the bye-laws made under the powers of the 
 said Acts. 
 
 11. The appellants are not carriers for hire on the said 
 
 y2 
 
324 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893.- navigation. They have no boats or barges, except sucli as 
 
 M.S.&L.Et. are iised for keeping the navigation open and in good 
 
 ^ *• repair. They have no wharves on that part of the navi- 
 
 Union. gation which is the subject of the present appeal, and they 
 
 do not supply horse or other power for hauling the vessels 
 
 using the navigation. The only charges which they make 
 
 against the public in return for keeping the navigation 
 
 open and in good repair are the tonnage dues which they 
 
 are authorized to receive under their Acts. 
 
 12. When the wind is favourable the vessels using the 
 navigation are frequently propelled by sails only. On all 
 other occasions they are hauled by horses or men on the 
 towing-path. 
 
 13. Part of the said navigation consists of the said river 
 Dun flowing in its natural course and from time to time 
 dredged and improved as aforesaid, and the remaining 
 part consists of artificial channels, cuts, and locks made 
 under the powers of the various Acts of Parliament. 
 There is a continuous towing-path both along the natural 
 river course and the artificial cuts and channels. At one 
 point on the river the appellants have purchased and are the 
 owners of a mill with a weir extending across the whole 
 bed of the river. 
 
 15. The appellants admit that they are liable to be rated 
 to the relief of the poor in respect of all artificial cuts, 
 channels, canals, locks, and other works forming part of or 
 used in connection with the said navigation in each town- 
 ship in which such artificial cuts, channels, canals, locks, 
 and other works are respectively situated, including the 
 towing-paths along such artificial works. They contend, 
 Jhowever, that they ought not to be rated in respect of the 
 natural river course or the towing-path on the banks 
 thereof, inasmuch as they have only an easement and 
 right of way in and over such natural river course and 
 towing-path, and have no such exclusive possession of 
 them, either as owners or occupiers, as will render them 
 liable to be rated in respect thereof. 
 
COURT OF APPEAL. 32& 
 
 In support of their said contention they rely upon the 1893. 
 following eases :— M.S.&L.Et. 
 
 E. V. Merseij and Invell Navigation [1829], 9 B. & 0. _ '^^ 
 95 ; R. T. Thomas [1829], 9 B. & 0. 114 ; B. v. Aire and Um^™ 
 Calder Navigation [1829], 9 B. & C. 820 ; B. v. Aire and 
 Calder Navigation [1832], 3 B. & Ad. 139 ; Badger v. 
 South Yorkshire Railway and Biver Dun Navigation Co. 
 [1858], 28 L. J. Q. B. 118. 
 
 16. The respondents contend that the appellants are liable 
 to he rated both in respect of the natural river course and 
 of the towing-path on the banks thereof, or, at any rate, 
 in respect of the towing-path. They contend that the 
 words of the 60th section of 10 & 11 Vict. c. ecxci. (set 
 out in paragraph 7) distinguish the present case from those 
 in the authorities relied upon by the appellants, and, if 
 not, they affirm that those authorities cannot be regarded 
 at the present time as good law. They say that, upon the 
 facts above stated, the appellants have such an occupation 
 of the natural river course, and the towing-patli on the 
 banks thereof, as will support the rate. They further con- 
 tend that if the appellants are held to be in occupation of 
 the said towing-path only it wiU be immaterial, so far as 
 the amount of the rate is concerned ; for in that case the 
 river course must be considered as an accessory to and 
 enhanciag the rateable value of the towing-path. They 
 further contend that, even assuming that the appellants 
 are not liable to be rated in respect of the natural river 
 course and the towing-path on the banks thereof, stUl the 
 total amount of the rate in those townships where there 
 are both natural river bed and artificial canals and other 
 works, ought not to be reduced, for in that case the rate- 
 able value of the artificial canals, locks, cuts, and channels 
 would be enhanced to an equal amount by the user ia 
 connection therewith of the natural river course and 
 towing-path, without which they woidd be practically 
 worthless. 
 
326 COUET OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893. In support of tlie said contentions they rely upon the 
 
 M. S. & L. Rt. following cases : — 
 _ "• R. V. Mayor of London [1790], 4 T. E. 21 ; Bruce v. 
 
 Umon. Willis [1840], 11 A. & B. 463; Chelsea Waterworks v. 
 Bowley [1851], 17 Q. B. 358; Roads v. Trumpington [1870], 
 L. E. 6 Q. B. 56 ; Pimlico Tramway Co. v. Greenwich Union 
 [1873], L. E. 9 Q. B. 9 ; Metropolitan Rail. Co. v. i?bw&r, 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 165. 
 The questions for the opinion of the Court are : — • 
 
 1. Axe the appellants liahle to he rated to the relief of 
 the poor in respect of their occupation of the natural river 
 course and the towing-path on the banks thereof in the 
 several townships respectively or in respect of either, and, 
 if so, of which of them ? 
 
 2. If the appellants are not liable to be rated in respect 
 of their occupation of such natural river course and towiQg- 
 path or either of them, ought the existing rates to stand, 
 or should they be reduced, and, if so, upon what principle ? 
 
 The judgment of the court of quarter sessions is to be 
 entered in accordance with the opinion of the Court upon 
 the questions. 
 
 Q. B. D. Smyly, Q.C. (C. M. Atkinson and F. Dewif with him), for 
 r~ the appellants : The appellants have a right to dredge only 
 
 June 5, 6. for the purpose of protecting the navigation ; they could 
 not (e. g.) dredge in order to make a profit by the sale of 
 gravel. A mere easement has never been held rateable. 
 [Collins, J. : In Lancashire Telephone Co. v. Manchester 
 Overseers [1884], 14 Q,. B. D. 267, the company were held 
 rateable in respect of the right to fix a post or spike on the 
 top of a house.] Because they had an exclusive occupation 
 of part of the house, and had an attachment to the soil. 
 In four parishes the appellants are rated only in respect of 
 the natural river bed ; in six parishes they are rated in 
 respect of both artificial canal and natural river bed ; and 
 assuming that this Court holds that they are not rateable 
 in respect of the natural river bed (or of the tovdng-path 
 
COURT OP APPEAL. 
 
 327 
 
 on its banks), the rates in the four parishes will he quashed ^893. 
 in toto, and in the other parishes should (it is submitted) M.S.&L.Et. 
 be reduced in proportion to the mileage of the old river, doncastkb 
 No other principle of apportionment is possible. [The Ukion. 
 following cases were cited in addition to those mentioned 
 in the special case : Sollis v. Goldfinch [1823], 1 B. & 0. 
 205 ; Cory v. Bristow [1877], 2 App. Cas. 262 ; Cory v. 
 Greenwich [1872], L. E. 7 0. P. 499 ; Grant v. Oxford 
 Local Board [1868], L. E. 4 Q. B. 9.] 
 
 Balfoiir Broicne, Q.O. {F. Marshall with him), for the 
 respondents : The decisions in rating cases have been pro- 
 gressive, and it cannot now be said that an easement is not 
 rateable. The logical result of Lancashire Telephone Co. v. 
 Manchester Overseers [1884], 14 Q. B. D. 267, is, that a 
 wire which passes over land m a parish is rateable there, 
 even though it be attached to land only in another parish. 
 It may be that attachment is necessary, but it need not be 
 attachment in the same parish. Decisions that telephone 
 wires and tramways are rateable must be taken to have 
 overruled R. v. Mersey and Ir well Navigation [1829], 9 B. & 
 C. 95, and B. v. Thomas [1829], 9 B. & 0. 114; B. v. 
 Aire and Calder Navigation [1829], 9 B. & 0. 820. It is 
 true that in Badger v. South Torhshire By. Co. [1858], 28 
 L. J. Q. B. 118, which dealt with the appellants' prede- 
 cessors in title, it was held that they had not the fee in the 
 towing-paths now in question, and had only an easement ; 
 but that was an action of ejectment, and the question 
 whether the defendants were in occupation and so rateable 
 was wholly irrelevant. By 10 & 11 Yict. o. ccxoi. (set out 
 in par. 7 of the special case, supra, p. 322), the towing-paths, 
 &c. were "vested" in the company. The word "vest" im- 
 plies exclusive occupation : see Coverdale\. Charlton [1878], 
 4 Q,. B. D. 104 ; Bolls v. St. George's, Southwark [1880], 
 14 Oh. D. 785 ; Wandsworth Board of Works v. United 
 Telephone Co. [1884], 13 Q. B. D. 904. Even if the 
 natural bed of the river be not in the occupation of the 
 
S28 COURT OP APPEAL. 
 
 1893. appellants, if they are rateaUe in respect of the towing- 
 
 M.S.&L.Et. path, that must be rated at its value as enhanced hj rea- 
 
 DoNOABTEE ^'^^ °-^ ^^® proximitj of the non-rateahle watercourse. 
 
 Union. [Colltns, J. : The rate is made upon two subject-matters, 
 
 viz., the river bed and the towing-path ; if we hold that 
 
 one of the two is not rateable, surely we cannot go further, 
 
 and inquire whether the assessment committee might not 
 
 arrive at the same result by a different method.] 
 
 Smyly, Q.C, in reply : It is admitted that the question 
 here is one of occupation, not of ownership. Badger v. 
 South Yorkshire Ry. Co. [1868], 28 L. J. Q. B. 118, was 
 an action of ejectment, and the plaintiffs, who succeeded, 
 had to show not merely that the defendants had not the 
 fee, but that they themselves had (as against the prede- 
 cessors in title to the present appellants) the right to 
 immediate possession ; this right is wholly inconsistent 
 with any exclusive occupation by the defendants. In 
 Bruce v. Willis [1840], 11 Ad. & E. 463, the special Acts, 
 in effect, made the Navigation Company purchasers of the 
 land. Lord Denman, O.J., said (at p. 480), "The company 
 take the land entirely to their own purposes." The sug- 
 gestion that if the appellants are not rateable in respect of 
 the river bed, they are rateable in respect of the towing- 
 path at the same amount, is met by B. v. Aire and Calder 
 Navigation [1832], 3 B. & Ad. 139, in which the Navi- 
 gation (who were not rateable in respect of the river) were 
 held not rateable in respect of a dam which upheld the 
 water of the river and rendered it navigable. 
 
 Laweance, J. : The questions asked us are stated at the 
 end of the special case. We have already intimated that 
 the Court does not desire to do more than answer the first 
 question, and that we refuse to answer the second, follow- 
 ing the general rule in cases such as this. The first 
 question, so far as it relates to the occupation of the 
 natural river bed, we answer in the negative, on the 
 authority of the eases cited for the appellants in the 
 
Lawranoe, J. 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL. 32& 
 
 special ease, viz., B. v. Mersey and Irwell Navigation 1893. 
 (1829), 9 B. & C. 95 ; R. v. Thomas (1829), 9 B. & 0. m.S.&L.Ey.- 
 114; and R. y. Aire and Cakler Navigation (1829), 9 , ■"• 
 
 XJONCABTEE 
 
 B. & C. 820. "We think, as to this point, we are concluded Uniost. 
 by authority, and whether those cases are reeoncileable 
 with late decisions or not, we are bound by them until 
 they are overruled. But for those cases, I should myself 
 have been strongly of opinion that the appellants were in 
 exclusive occupation of the old river bed ; but, in the face 
 of those cases, it is impossible for us to hold that. It 
 seems to me that they cannot be reconciled with the 
 decisions as to telephone wires and water pipes : Lan- 
 cashire Telephone Co. v. Manchester Overseers [1884], 14 
 Q. B. D. 267; Chelsea Waterworks Co. v. Bou-ley [1851], 
 17 Q,. B. 358. The first question, so far as it relates 
 to the towing-path, we answer in the affirmative, on the 
 authority of Bruce v. Willis [1840], 11 A. & E. 463, which 
 is to my mind undistinguishable. There the company 
 had power to make new cuts and make the old river 
 navigable ; and, by a subsequent Act, the company were 
 authorized to make a towing-path for horses. Compen- 
 sation was to be made and to be settled by a jury. The 
 company paid the money, but no conveyance was executed ; 
 it was held that the company were rateable. In the 
 present case it is clear that whatever land was wanted for 
 a towing-path, either by the side of the old river, or of the 
 new cuts, that the proprietors of the navigation had power 
 to take on making satisfaction. They had (as was the 
 case also in Bruce v. Willis) the exclusive possession of the 
 towing-path, subject to certain trifling rights of the land- 
 owners. There is no doubt here that the land occupied 
 by the towing-path, to whomsoever it belonged, could be 
 generally used only by the proprietors of the navigation, 
 and that the landowners could use it only for certain 
 limited and specified purposes. So, too, water-pipes may 
 be rateable, although the public may have some rights of 
 user with regard to them. 
 
33Q COUET OP APPEAL, 
 
 1893. Collins, J. : I am of the same opinion. A great part 
 
 M.S.&L.Et. of tlie argument that has heen addressed to us would have 
 
 _ '"■ been better fitted for the Court of Appeal. Tor, I think, 
 
 DONOASTEB . . . 
 
 Union. we are bound by authority on both points raised by the 
 ColBnT J. -^^^ question. As to the natural river bed, in my opinion 
 the cases cited in paragraph 15 of the special case, are 
 distinct authorities that a canalized river, in conditions 
 substantially identical with those which are found in the 
 present case, is not rateable. No doubt has been thrown 
 upon those decisions by any subsequently decided case, 
 and it is therefore not for us to consider the principle of 
 those decisions. As to the river, therefore, we are con- 
 cluded by authority ; and as to the towing-path, we are 
 bound by Bruce v. Willis [1840], 11 A. & E. 463, which, 
 for all practical purposes, is on all fours with this case. 
 Mr. Smyly distinguished the special Acts, but, as to the 
 point decided, they are not different from the Acts now 
 before us. For there the question was not whether the 
 person rated had the fee simple, but whether he had 
 exclusive occupation. A ratepayer may or may not have 
 the fee. I do not find any sound distinction between the 
 user of the towing-path in the two cases. To create 
 rateabnity, there need not be absolutely exclusive occupa- 
 tion for all purposes; it is enough if it be exclusive for 
 one. In Badger v. South Yorkshire By. [1858], 28 L. J. 
 Q. B. 118, it was held that the company had not acquired 
 the fee of the towing-paths, but "Williams, J. (who had 
 also previously decided Bruce v. Willis), at the close of 
 his judgment said, " Generally speaking, in the absence of 
 express words, the Courts are not inclined to infer that a 
 statute of this kind gives more than such a use of the 
 soil as is necessary for the purposes of the navigation." 
 This was said after an examination of the conditions 
 found in Bruce v. Willis, in which the Bath Navigation 
 were held rateable in respect of their towing-paths; 
 it shows, therefore, that if a person has such a use 
 of the towing-paths as is sufficient; for the purpose^ of 
 
COURT OP APPEAL, 331 
 
 navigation,, that brings him witlun Bruce v. Willis, and 1893. 
 he is rateable. m.S.&L.Ry. 
 
 The second question, for the reasons abeadv ffiven by ^ *■ 
 Lawrance, J., I think we are not called upon to answer. Union. 
 
 Appeal alloiced. Collins, J. 
 
 The assessment committee appealed against this decision 0. A. 
 so far as it related to the natural river bed, and there was ^^3 
 a cross appeal by the railway company as to the towing- July 17. 
 paths. 
 
 The arguments were the same as in the Court below. 
 
 Balfour Browne, Q.C., and F. Marshall, Q.O., for the 
 assessment committee; Sir R. E. Webster, Q,.0., Smyly, 
 U.O., and C. M. Atkinson, for the railway company. 
 
 Lord EsHEK, M.E. : In my opinion the first appeal fails. 
 It is clear that no property in the natural bed of the river 
 passed under any of the Acts to the company or any of 
 their predecessors ; and that no possession of any part of 
 the bed of the river passed. The Acts gave only powers 
 to dredge, to remove impediments to navigation, and to 
 charge toUs ; in efEect, for the valuable work done by the 
 company, they were to be paid by tolls, but no property in 
 or possession of the bed of the river was given to the com- 
 pany ; and if we are asked whether the company are rate- 
 able in respect of the river bed, we say no. It has been 
 contended that in respect of parts of the river bed they 
 may be rated, because, for example, they are in possession 
 of part of the bed by means of posts. If the occupation 
 by a post is valuable, they may be rated for that occupa- 
 tion ; but we are not asked any question as to this point 
 in the special case. Then as to the towing-path: — we 
 have nothing to do with the towing-paths by the side of 
 the new cuts, as to which the Acts say the company may 
 purchase land and make the cuts and the towing-path. 
 
332 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893. There the company are the owners of the land over which 
 
 V. 
 
 donoastee 
 Union. 
 
 Iiord Esher, 
 M.E. 
 
 M.S.&L. Et. the water flows, and on which the towing-paths are made; 
 the owner is in occupation of his own land. But as to the 
 towing-paths by the side of the natural river — the only 
 statute which we need consider is 12 Geo. 1, o. xxxviii., 
 s. 1, and the proper construction of that section is not for 
 us to determine, because we are bound by a decision of 
 the Exchequer Chamber in Badger v. South Yorkshire Ry. 
 [1858], 28 L. J. Q. B. ll8. The Court in that case had 
 to interpret the very section now before us, and they held, 
 as the reason of their decision — the terms of the section 
 leaving it doubtful whether exclusive possession had been 
 given — that the Act gave a mere easement and not exclusive 
 possession. It is part of the general law of rating that a 
 man cannot be rated for a mere easement which does not 
 amount to exclusive possession. We are therefore against 
 the assessment committee on the first point ; and the second 
 appeal must be allowed. I think the Com-t below did not 
 give full weight to Badger v. South Yorkshire Ry. 
 
 Kay, L.J. : I am requested by Bowen, L. J., to say that 
 he agrees with our judgment (a). On the first point I 
 think the Court below were altogether right; there is 
 nothing in the Acts to vest the bed of the river in the 
 company, or to give them exclusive occupation. It is 
 therefore not possible to treat them as being rateable. As 
 to the towing-paths by the side of the natural river, in 
 my opinion Badger v. South Yorkshire Ry. [1858], 28 
 L. J. Q,. B. 118, completely decides the point. There is 
 nothing in the Acts obliging the proprietors of the navi- 
 gation to purchase land for towing-paths, and I have no 
 doubt that in fact paths already existed by the side of the 
 old bed ; there is at most an obligation to keep such paths 
 in repair. The company were not bound to purchase, but 
 were to make satisfaction for the use of land at the rate of 
 
 (a) At the conclusion of the arguments, Bowen, L. J., left the Court. 
 
COURT OF APPEAL. 333 
 
 twenty-five years' puroliase, wliioh does not mean that they 1893. 
 were to purchase the land. I find nothing in the Acts m.S.&L. Et. 
 ohliging the company to purchase, or giving them exclusive „ '"• 
 possession of these towing-paths ; and, apart from Badger XJnion. 
 V. South Yorkshire Ry., I should have come to the same Kay L.J. 
 conclusion. There is a marked distinction between the 
 towing-paths by the side of the natural river, and those by 
 the side of the new cuts. In the latter case the land must 
 be bought, and when bought must be fenced. It was 
 sought to make a distinction between parts of the towing- 
 paths made by the side of the old river under different Acts; 
 but no such distinction is made in the special case, and 
 there is no suggestion that any land was in fact bought. 
 It is contended that, under 13 Geo. 1, c. xx., s. 29, power 
 was given to purchase lands for making towing-paths; but 
 it is not shown that any land was in fact purchased. The 
 Acts by themselves do not vest any land in the company 
 without a conveyance, and therefore the distinction between 
 this case and Bruce v. Willis [1840], 11 A. & E. 463, is 
 as broad as can be. Under the Acts relating to that case 
 the land did vest, and no conveyance was wanted. 
 
 No attempt is made in the special case to distinguish the 
 towing-paths made under the different Acts, and therefore 
 they must all be treated as in one category. On the 
 authority of Badger v. South Yorkshire Ry. [1858], 28 
 L. J. Q. B. 118, we must hold that the company had 
 a mere easement over these towing-paths, and therefore 
 they are not liable to be rated in respect of them. 
 
 First appeal dismissed ; cross-appeal allowed. 
 
834 COUET OF APPEAL. 
 
 0. A. E. V. Justices or Oarmakthen. 
 
 1S93. Notice of Appeal — Next pradicahle Sessions — Union Assessment Com- 
 
 June 9, 19. ^^-^^^^ Amendment Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 39), s. 1— 17 Geo. 2, 
 
 c. 38, d. 4. 
 
 An assessment committee on March 9, 1893, heard and deter- 
 mined an objection under s. 1 of the Union Assessment Committee 
 Amendment Act, 1864, against the assessment of a railway in South 
 Wales, which belonged to a, railway company having an office in 
 the neighbourhood, but was worked under the control of W., who 
 resided in Edinburgh. The directors of the company met on 
 March 10, communicated with W., and instructed their solicitor to 
 take counsel's opinion upon the grounds of appeal. The opinion 
 was received on March 17. On March 22, notice of appeal to the 
 quarter sessions, to be held on April 7, was given. On April 7, 
 the appellants (in pursuance of notice given to the assessment 
 committee on the day before) applied to the sessions to enter and 
 respite the appeal. On objection by the assessment committee, the 
 sessions dismissed the appeal on the ground that the giving of 
 twenty-one days' notice of appeal, as directed by s. 1 of the Union 
 Assessment Committee Amendment Act, 1864, was a condition 
 precedent to the right of appeal. 
 
 Held, by the Queen's Bench Division and the Court of Appeal, 
 that under the special circumstances of the case the sessions held 
 on April 7 were not the next practicable sessions, and that a man- 
 damus must issue to hear and determine the appeal. 
 
 Liverpool &as Go. v. Everton [1871], L. E. 6 C. P. 414, distin- 
 guished. 
 
 What is the proper way of reckoning the twenty-one days' notice 
 required by s. 1 of the Union Assessment Committee Amendment 
 Act, 1864, guwre. 
 
 Rule nisi calling upon the justices of Carmartlien to 
 show cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding 
 them to hear and determine appeals against poor rates for 
 two parishes in the Llanelly Union. 
 
 The Llanelly and Mynydd Mawr Eailway Company 
 duly gave to the assessment committee of the Llanelly 
 Union notice of objection to the assessment of their pro- 
 perty in two parishes. The assessment committee fixed 
 September 8th, 1892, for the hearing of the objection, but 
 
COURT OF APPEAL. 335 
 
 adjournnieiits having taken place at the request of the 1893. 
 appellants, the objection was not heard and determined jj. 
 
 until March 9th, 1893, when the assessment committee '"■ 
 
 dismissed it. The next quarter sessions were held on Caemaethen. 
 April 7th ; and the appellants, on March 22, gave notice 
 of appeal to that sessions. On April 6th, the appellants 
 informed the solicitor of the assessment committee by 
 telegram that an application would be made on the fol- 
 lowing day at quarter sessions to enter and respite the 
 appeal, and asked the assessment committee to consent to 
 the application, which they refused to do. On April 7th, 
 objections were taken at quarter sessions by the assess- 
 ment committee (1) that the giving of twenty-one days' 
 notice, in accordance with the Union Assessment Committee 
 Amendment Act, 1864, s. 1, was a condition precedent to 
 the bringing of the appeal; and (2) that the standing 
 orders of the sessions (requiring three days' notice of an 
 application to enter and respite an appeal) had not been 
 complied with. The justices upheld the objection on both 
 grounds, and dismissed the appeal. 
 
 The appellants then obtained this rule, on affidavits 
 which stated that the appellants' directors met and con- 
 sidered the decision of the assessment committee on 
 March 10 ; that the line of railway was worked by a 
 Mr. Waddell, who resided in Edinburgh, and with whom 
 the directors wished to communicate; and that the directors 
 took counsel's opinion as to the grounds of appeal, which 
 opinion did not reach their soKoitor until March 17. 
 
 F. Marshall for the assessment committee showed cause : q. b. D. 
 By 17 Geo. 2, c. 38, s. 4, the appeal was given to " the next — • 
 
 general or quarter sessions " on giving reasonable notice to j^ne 9. 
 the churchwardens and overseers, and by 12 & 13 Vict, 
 c. 45, s. 1, fourteen days' notice must be given to the same 
 persons. But by the Union Assessment Committee Amend- 
 ment Act, 1864, s. 1, " before any appeal shall be heard by 
 any .... quarter sessions against a poor rate .... the 
 
336 COUKT OF JLPPEAL. 
 
 1893. appellant shall give twenty-one days' notice in -writing 
 
 R. previous to the .... quarter sessions to which such 
 
 - "■ appeal is made of the intention to appeal, and the grounds 
 
 Justices of f'^ • ;> mi • i 
 
 Caemaethen. thereof, to the assessment committee. This makes the 
 
 giving of the notice a condition precedent to the right of 
 appeal. The appellants could only appeal to the next 
 sessions, which means the next practicable sessions (though 
 the word is not in any statute), i.e., in this case to 
 the sessions held on April 7th. The last day for giving 
 the prescrihed notice to the assessment committee was 
 therefore March 16th (a), and this gave the appellants 
 seven days to consider whether they would appeal. In 
 Liverpool Gas Co. v. Uverton [1871], L. E. 6 0. P. 414, 
 six days was held sufficient. [Collins, J. : In that case, 
 Montague Smith, J., based his decision on the absence of 
 any " special circumstances." Are there not " special 
 circumstances " in this case ?] The appellants were them- 
 selves to blame in not foreseeing that the decision of the 
 assessment committee might be against them ; they should 
 have taken counsel's opinion beforehand. If the Court are 
 of opinion that the sessions of April 7th was not the next 
 practicable sessions, the question whether the absence of 
 notice to the assessment committee was a fatal objection 
 does not arise. 
 
 Abel Thomas, Q.C., and Benson, were not called upon to 
 support the rule. 
 
 MATHEV\r, J. : The justices have in this case deprived 
 themselves of jurisdiction by an unwarranted conclusion of 
 fact, viz., that the appellants had a reasonable time in 
 which to comply with the statutory requirements as to 
 notice. The facts upon which the justices decided were 
 peculiar. The appellants were objecting to a considerable 
 increase of their assessments. This was a matter upon 
 
 (a) The case -was argued on this assumption in the Queen's Bench 
 Division, but not in the Court of Appeal. 
 
COURT OF APPEAL. 337 
 
 whioli they might well wish to take counsel's opinion. 1893. 
 
 They had an office in the locality, but wished to commu- n. 
 
 nicate with Mr. Waddell who was in Edinhurffh. The -^ "■ 
 
 . ° Justices oi' 
 
 directors informed him of the decision of the assessment Caemarthen. 
 committee, and took counsel's opinion, which reached them jiathew J. 
 on the day after the last day for giving to the assess- 
 ment committee notice of appeal to the April sessions. 
 Therefore the appellants, acting in a reasonable way, could 
 not possibly have given the necessary twenty-one days' 
 notice for those sessions. "We were much pressed with 
 Liverpool Gas Co. v. Everton [1871], L. E. 6 C. P. 414. 
 But in that case, it was held that the question " what is 
 the next practicable session" is a question of fact to be 
 decided on the particular circumstances of each case. 
 Upon the abstract question whether six days mai/ be 
 enough to enable an appellant to consider whether he will 
 appeal, it was held that it may. The rule in this case 
 must be made absolute, with costs against the assessment 
 committee. 
 
 Collins, J., concurred. 
 
 Mule alsolute. 
 
 The assessment committee appealed to the Court of C. A. 
 Appeal. ^-^ 
 
 F. Marshall for the assessment committee : It was inad- 
 vertently assumed in the Court below that March 16th was 
 the last day for giving notice of appeal, but s. 1 of the 
 Union Assessment Committee Act, 1864, requires the 
 appellant to give "twenty-one days' notice in writing 
 previous to the quarter sessions to which the appeal is to 
 be made." The sessions being held on April 7th, notice 
 given on March 17th would be in time: B. v. West 
 Riding of Yorkshire [1833], 4 B. & Ad. 685. [The rest 
 of the argument may be omitted.] 
 
 June 19. 
 
338 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893. Abel Thomas, Q.C, and Benson for the railway company 
 
 K submitted that March 16th was the last day for giving 
 
 T "• notice of appeal, but were not called upon to argue. 
 
 JUSTIOES OP rx ' J. o 
 
 Caemaethen. 
 
 The Court (Lord Esher, M.E., Bowen and Kay, L. JJ.) 
 held that the question what were the next practicable 
 sessions was a question of fact ; that, in the present case, 
 assuming that a notice given, on March 17th would have 
 been in time, the sessions held on April 7th were not 
 under the circumstances the next practicable sessions. 
 
 Appeal dismissed. 
 
 Q,. B. D. The Halkyn District Mines Drainage Company v. 
 j~ The Assessment Committee of the Holywell 
 
 June9,10,l2. TJniON. 
 
 Occupation or Easement — Watercourse — Tunnel — Drainage of Lead 
 
 Mine. 
 
 The appellants, under a special Act, had power to make tunnels, 
 and to repair, widen, and divert existing tunnels, and an open 
 wateroourse, for the drainage of certain mines, which were worked 
 by persons other than the appellants. The tunnels were in places 
 inclosed in iron tubhing about five feet high, and in other places 
 were bricked over. The appellants deepened the open watercourse, 
 and built up the sides of it. No express conveyance or demise of 
 land to the appellants was made, and the occupiers of the mines 
 were entitled to use the tunnels provided they caused no obstruction 
 to the drainage works. The appellants were entitled to certain 
 royalties for every ton of minerals raised from the mines drained 
 by means of the tunnels. 
 
 Held, that the appellants had more than a mere right of passage 
 or access, and that their works amoimted to exclusive occupation 
 of the tunnels and watercourse, and that they were therefore rate- 
 able in respect of such occupation. 
 
 Talargoch Mining Co. v. St. Asaph Union [1868], L. E. 3 Q. B. 
 478, followed. 
 
 Special case stated by the quarter sessions for the 
 county of Flint on appeals against rates made in respect 
 
queen's bench division. 339 
 
 of drainage works situate respectively in the parishes of 1893. 
 Halkin and Northop. HalkynDist. 
 
 The quarter sessions confirmed the rates, subject to a ^ Mines 
 case, stating the following facts : — v. ' 
 
 4. In and prior to 1818, the predecessor in title of the '^y^^^ 
 present Duke of Westminster was the owner of a large 
 mineral estate in the parishes of Halkyn and Northop, and 
 
 for the purpose of draining the mines thereon he com- 
 menced driving an adit level or underground tunnel, called 
 the Halkyn deep level, to convey by gravitation the water 
 from such mines into an artificial open cut or watercourse 
 which he constructed at the mouth of such timnel, and 
 which communicated with and discharged into the Nant-y- 
 Flint brook, a natural watercourse fiowing into the sea. The 
 driving of the said tunnel was subsequently continued by 
 the Halkyn Deep Level Mining Co. for the drainage and 
 development of some of the mines in the said mineral 
 estate which had been leased to them, and, up to the date 
 of the appellant company's formation, it had been driven 
 by either the mine owner or mine occupiers, and had been 
 solely used by the mine occupiers as part of their mining 
 works for draining their mines. 
 
 5. By the Halkyn District Mines Drainage Act of 1875 
 (88 Vict. c. Iviii.) [after reciting that the mines in the 
 Halkyn district were fiooded, and that any effective scheme 
 for the drainage of the mines would be for the common 
 benefit of all owners and occupiers of such mines, and that 
 it had been found impracticable to obtain their co-opera- 
 tion, &C.J, it was enacted that the Duke of Westminster 
 and certain other persons therein named, all or most of 
 whom were interested as owners or occupiers of the said 
 flooded mines, should be incorporated by the name of the 
 Halkyn District Mines Drainage Company. 
 
 6. By the said Act (s. 4), " subject to the provisions of 
 this Act, the company may make, form, lay down, work, 
 use and maintain the tunnels or adit levels hereinafter 
 described . . . with all proper shafts, works, and conve- 
 
 z2 
 
340 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 Mines 
 DEAiNAaE Co 
 
 V. 
 
 Holywell 
 Union. 
 
 1893. niences connected therewith, and may enter upon, take 
 Halkyn Dist. and use, or at their option may purchase and take an ease- 
 ment in, through, over or under, or right of using such of 
 the lands delineated, &c., as may be required for that 
 purpose." 
 
 7. By s. 7, " subject to the provisions and for the pur- 
 poses of this Act, the company may purchase, lease or 
 otherwise acquire by compulsion or agreement, 
 
 "(1.) The said tunnel or level called or known as 'the 
 Halkyn Deep Level,' now in the occupation of the Halkyn 
 Deep Level Mining Co. ... or an easement in, through 
 or over, or right of drainage through, or other right of 
 using the same. 
 
 " (2.) The existing open cut or watercourse, fifty-two 
 yards or thereabouts in length, which commences at the 
 mouth of the said Halkyn Deep Level and runs into the 
 Nant-y-Flint brook ... or an easement in, through, or 
 over, or right of drainage through, or other right of using 
 the same." 
 
 8. By s. 8, " In the event of the company acquiring the 
 said Halkyn Deep Level and the said existing open cut or 
 watercourse, or any such easement or right as aforesaid, 
 they may from time to time cleanse, repair, scour, deepen, 
 widen, straighten, alter, enlarge, divert, and improve the 
 same, or either of them, when and to such extent as may 
 be necessary for the purposes of the company's undertaking." 
 
 10. By s. 12, the company may from time to time, for 
 the extension of the said tunnels or adit levels or any of 
 them, by agreement acquire, either by purchase or by way 
 of lease, hire, exchange, or otherwise, any land or any 
 estate, term, or interest therein, or any easement, power, or 
 privilege in, through, under, or over the same, and may 
 from time to time sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise dispose 
 of all lands, easements, powers, or privileges so acquired by 
 them and not wanted for the said purposes. 
 
 13. By s. 38, the appellants were authorized to take 
 from every occupier of a mine, certain royalties in respect 
 
queen's bench division. 341 
 
 of each ton of minerals raised or got from such mine, "pro- 1893. 
 
 vided always that no occupier shall be liable to pay such Haletn Dist. 
 
 royalties unless and until the mine of such occupier has ^^ Mines 
 
 '' , ^ _ Deainaqb Co. 
 
 been drained by means of the works constructed or acquired v. 
 
 by the company. . . ^ ^ Union. 
 
 15. By s. 42, "the occupier of every mine is hereby 
 authorized and required to pay the amount of the royalties 
 authorized to be levied by the company, and to deduct so 
 much of the same as is specified in Sched. C. [viz., five 
 shillings for every ton of lead raised] out of any rent or 
 royalty due to the owner of such mine [and every occupier 
 making such payment shall be acquitted and discharged 
 pro tanto, &c.J." 
 
 16. By a deed dated December 14, 1882, . . . the Duke 
 of Westminster granted to the company {inter alia) : — ■ 
 
 (i.) All such easements in and through, and right of 
 drainage through, and other and exclusive rights of using 
 (but subject, and except, and reserving as thereinafter 
 mentioned) the Halkyn Deep Level as might be necessary 
 or convenient for the purposes of the said Act, or of the 
 said company's undertaking, with power from time to time 
 to uphold, maintain, cleanse, repair, scour, deepen, widen, 
 straighten, alter, enlarge, divert, and improve the said level 
 when and to such extent as might be necessary or convenient 
 for the purposes of the said Act, or the said undertaking. 
 
 (ii.) All such easements in, and over, and right of 
 drainage through, or by means of, and other and exclusive 
 rights of using (subject, &o. as thereinafter mentioned), 
 the open cut or watercourse . . . and the banks and beds 
 thereof, as might be necessary or convenient for the pur- 
 poses of the said Act or undertaking, with similar powers 
 from time to time to maintain, repair, enlarge, divert, and 
 improve. 
 
 (iii.) [Power to make tunnels, works, &c.j. 
 
 Except and reserving unto the Duke and his lessees "all 
 lead, lead ore, and blende which, in making or extending 
 the said tunnels or works, should be found or gotten. 
 
342 queen's bench diyision. 
 
 1893. "And also except and reserving unto the Duke, his lessees, 
 
 Halkyn Dist. and others by him or them authorized to use the Haltyn 
 
 Mines Deep Level and the tunnels to he made as aforesaid for 
 Deainage Co. ^ , 
 
 V. searching for and working the mines and beds of lead, lead 
 
 Union^^ ore, and blende which could conveniently be sought for, 
 obtained, and gotten by communications with, or otherwise 
 by means of the said Halkyn Deep Level and tunnels, and 
 for removing through, or by means of the said Deep Level 
 and tunnels and any shafts, &o. in use by the said company, 
 all lead, lead ore, and blende which might be so gotten, and 
 all debris convenient to be removed. . . 
 
 " Provided always, and it was thereby agreed and 
 declared, that the rights under the exceptions and reser- 
 vations thereinbefore contained should not be used or 
 exercised so as to obstruct, hinder, delay, or interfere with 
 the prosecution by the said company of any works or 
 operations of the said company, under the authority of the 
 said deed, or for the purposes of the said Act, or of the 
 said company's undertaking, or to the damage, injury, or 
 'prejudice of the said levels, tunnels and shafts, or any other 
 works of the said company, or so as to obstruct or interfere 
 with the free flow of water." 
 
 18. . . . The appellant company deepened the said open 
 cut . . . and they built up the sides thereof to prevent the 
 loose ground of the hill-side from slipping into it, and they 
 
 substantially and permanently repaired the tunnel 
 
 In carrying out the said works, they placed in the said 
 tunnel a quantity of iron tubbing of oval shape, about five 
 feet high, and as to part thereof, arched the same over with 
 firebricks, and in other ways supported the roof thereof. 
 
 19. [Part of the tunnel is used only for the flow of water. 
 Along part of it, the Halkyn Mining Company have laid 
 a tramway above the water-level under the powers reserved 
 by the deed, and use the same for hauling materials and 
 the passage of their workmen. In this part, the same 
 mining company have also placed air-pipes, used for venti- 
 lation and working rock-drills, and they also exercise their 
 
queen's bench division. 343 
 
 powers of working for and getting ores by mining opera- 1893. 
 
 tions through the roof and sides of the tunnel, and have, Halkyn Dist. 
 
 under the oontrol of the appellants, exerciged their right of -^ '^^^^^^ 
 
 getting lead from the roof of the tunnel while the tunnel v. 
 
 _ V ■ J ■ • 1 Holywell 
 
 was being driven.] Union. 
 
 23. [The appellants from time to time repair the tunnels 
 and the supports of the roof thereof.] 
 
 24. The appellants have spent in constructing and 
 repairing tunnels, and in widening and repairing shafts, 
 35,450J. 
 
 25. The water passing along the said tunnels proceeds 
 solely from the mines, and it flows through the tunnels by 
 gravitation. 
 
 28. The appellant company have not purchased or other- 
 wise acquired any right to the soil of any part of the said 
 tunnels, levels, open cut or shafts, and have no rights 
 therein or thereto, save such as are conferred by the said 
 Act of Parliament and the said deed. They make no 
 payments to any one in respect of such rights in the shape 
 of rent or otherwise, and they receive no moneys in respect 
 thereof, save the sums to which they are entitled under the 
 Act of Parliament. 
 
 30. . . . The appellant company for many years 
 paid no dividend ; in 1890 a dividend of 14 per cent, was 
 paid, and, in 1891, a dividend of 10 per cent., and the 
 average dividend paid from the formation of the company 
 to the present year is at the rate of 3 J per cent. 
 
 No question of amount was raised, the only point in 
 dispute being whether the appellants were rateable or not. 
 
 Bosanquet, Q.C, and F. Marshall for the appellants: 
 The appellants have not the exclusive use of the tunnel 
 and watercourse, and are not rateable. They have merely 
 an incorporeal right. The land or soil has not been 
 purchased, and is not vested in the appellants under the 
 grant. Ownership draws with it the occupation, unless 
 the occupation is by some means vested in a person other 
 
344 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. than the owner. 
 
 Mines 
 Dbainage Co, 
 
 V. 
 
 holtwell 
 Uhion. 
 
 At one time the duke (or his predecessor) 
 Haxktn Dist. was both owner and occupier ; the mining lease vested the 
 occupation in the mining company, and it is vested in that 
 company still. The only user by the appellants is the act 
 of permitting water to flow down the tunnel ; that user 
 does not amount to occupation, and the fact that it is an 
 exclusive user carries the matter no further. The appel- 
 lants have no property in the water, and the tunnel is 
 therefore distinguishable from the pipes belonging to a 
 gas or water company. In Metropolitan Ry. Co. v. Fowler, 
 [1892] 1 Q. B. 165, the Court of Appeal held that a 
 tunnel under a public street containing an undergroxmd 
 railway was a hereditament, and liable to land tax ; but 
 in that ease the railway company had the exclusive occu- 
 pation of the tunnel, their rails permanently occupied the 
 bed of it, and the walls consisted of brickwork four or five 
 feet thick. In the present case the mining company use 
 the tunnel for their own purposes ; they may cut through 
 the side to work ore at a distance from the tunnel, and 
 there are no such walls, as in Metropolitan Ry. Co. v. 
 Fowler. [Collins, J. : Is that material ? Suppose the 
 railway tunnel had been cut through rock, needing no 
 brickwork, would it have made any difference ?] The 
 payments made to the appellants are not measured by the 
 amount of water which flows through the tunnel. The 
 meritorious cause is the having drained the mines. Sup- 
 pose no water flowed, the royalty would still be payable to 
 the appellants. 
 
 Balfour Browne, Q.C. {E. S. Lloyd with him), for the 
 respondents: The use of the word "easement" in the 
 special Act and the deed is immaterial if more than an 
 easement is created. The power to alter, straighten, and 
 divert the tunnel involves more than a mere easement. The 
 tunnel is like the artificial channels made in rendering a 
 river navigable, and not like the natural river bed : see 
 the decision of the Queen's Bench Division in Manchester, 
 
queen's bench division. 345 
 
 Sheffield <§r LincolmUre By. v. Doncaster Union, supra, 1893. 
 p. 318. It was there held that exclusive occupation for Halktn DistI 
 one purpose is sufficient to create rateability; and the Mines 
 appellants have such an occupation. This case is governed v. 
 
 by Metropolitan By. Co. v. Foicler, [1892] 1 Q. B. 165. ^^^^^ 
 The railway company had power to " appropriate and use" 
 the subsoil, but not the land ; they wanted, as do the 
 present appellants, the space which the subsoil occupied, 
 and not the subsoil. If the appellants have merely 
 an easement, the reservation of the land, &c. to the duke 
 is unnecessary. The exercise of the mining lessee's rights 
 is made subject to the user as a tunnel. In Sevan v. 
 London Portland Cement Co., [1892] W. N. p. 151, the 
 owner of chalk pits made a tunnel twelve feet wide and 
 twelve feet high, running for lOO yards under a highway; 
 it was bricked at each end and for part of its length, and 
 was used to carry chalk in trucks on rails. It was held 
 that the tunnel was not an easement but a hereditament. 
 In Talargoch Lead Mining Co. v. Guardians of 8t. Asaph 
 [1868], L. E. 3 Q. B. 478, the appellants, for the purpose 
 of working machinery connected with a lead mine, diverted 
 a stream, paying for the occupation of land by the water- 
 course, which was partly open, partly tunnelled, and for 
 about 350 yards in pipes ; at that date a lead mine was 
 not rateable, but the appellants were held rateable in 
 respect of the watercourse. Beilly v. Booth [1890], 44 
 Ch. D. 12, shows that there may be ownership of space, as 
 well as of soil. 
 
 Collins, J. : I have been asked to give judgment first 
 in this case. The question which we have to decide is 
 purely one of fact, for there is no dispute upon any point 
 of law, and it is admitted that in order to create rateability 
 there must be shown to be exclusive occupation. The 
 whole question in this case, therefore, is whether or not 
 there is exclusive occupation of a hereditament. I am of 
 opinion that exclusive occupation of the tunnel and cutting 
 in question by the appellants has been shown. When one 
 
346 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Halkyn Dist. 
 
 Mines 
 Dbainaoe Co. 
 
 D. 
 HoLTrWELL 
 
 Union. 
 Collins, J. 
 
 looks at the deed — the grant, the exceptions, and the re- 
 servations — it is beyond all question that more than a 
 mere right of passage or access has been conferred upon 
 the appellants. Where you have a mere right of passage 
 not involving occupation — not involving the permanent 
 user of land — then it is not rateable ; but where you have 
 an exclusive right which permits and obliges permanent 
 occupation, then it becomes rateable. Here the grantees 
 of the right have the duty and power of making tunnels, 
 of repairing, widening, and diverting them, for the pur- 
 pose of draining the mines. They have chosen their own 
 methods of doing the work : for some part of the length, 
 the tunnel consists in effect of a metal tube ; this clearly 
 amounts to a physical occupation of the soil, which is rate- 
 able. In other parts they have used brickwork. In my 
 opinion, they have in these works given conclusive evidence 
 that the rights given to them involved an occupation of 
 the soil. On principle and on common sense, this is 
 enough to decide this case. But the case cited by Mr. 
 Balfour Browne (Talargoch Mining Co. v. 8t. Asaph Union 
 [1868], L. E. 3 Q. B. 478), that an artificial watercourse, 
 partly open and partly covered, is rateable, is conclusive as 
 to the open watercourse. And where one finds another 
 part of the subject-matter, used in a very similar way, by 
 making an artificial watercourse, either by bricks or tubes, 
 the whole may be treated as standing in the same cate- 
 gory, and subject to the same user, and this affords 
 evidence, practically conclusive, of a right to occupy, 
 carried out by occupation through the whole subject- 
 matter. It is therefore abundantly clear that here there 
 is sufficient exclusive occupation, enough to render the 
 appellants rateable. 
 
 The cases most pressed upon us were those relating to 
 the rating of canals — B. v. Mersey and Irwell Navigation, 
 9 B. & C. 95; B. v. Thomas, 9 B. & C. 114; B. v. Aire 
 and Colder Navigation, 9 B. & C. 820. But those cases 
 stand on a footing of their own, and are entirely distin- 
 guishable from this case. The question there was whether 
 
queen's bench division. 347 
 
 that part of a canalized river which consisted of the ancient 1893. 
 river bed, as distinguished from that, part of the canal halmn Dist. 
 proper which consisted of new cuttings, was rateable, and Mines 
 the companies were held not rateable in respect of the old v. 
 
 river bed, on the ground that they had merely rights and Hol-ywell 
 duties connected with land covered by water which was a -; — 
 public highway. It was held that their rights, which ° ^' ' 
 were measured by statute, did not amount to more than a 
 mere easement. But where you have a right, which to a 
 considerable extent consists of an easement, coupled with 
 a right of exclusive occupation, though only for limited 
 purposes, then rateability attaches. Take, for example, 
 the case of tramways in a street, the public have the user 
 of the rails by passing over them, but they are occupied 
 by the company for special purposes with special exclusive 
 rights, and are therefore rateable. So, too, in the case 
 decided as to telephone wires, both here and in the Court 
 of Appeal — Lancashire Telephone Co. v. Overseers of Man- 
 chester, 13 Q. B. D. 700 ; 14 Q. B. D. 267— the wires 
 were attached to chimneys by permission of the occupiers of 
 the houses. The chimneys for general purposes were occu- 
 pied by the occupiers of the houses, but the Telephone Com- 
 pany had an exclusive right to an occupation for a particular 
 purpose. It was held that though the general occupation 
 was in the occupier of the houses, there was an occupation, 
 exclusive for certain limited purposes, in the Telephone 
 Company, and that consequently they were rateable. No 
 case has been cited for the appellants which is not clearly 
 distinguishable from this case, and in my opinion the line 
 has been passed which distinguishes a mere easement or 
 right of passage or access from the dominion over and 
 occupation of the soil. The appellants are therefore 
 rateable. 
 
 Mathew, J. : I am of the same opinion and for the 
 same reasons. Appeal dismissed with costs (a). 
 
 (a) An appeal against this decision was entered, but had not been 
 heard at the time of going to press. 
 
348 queen's bench division. 
 
 Q,. B. D. Hull Docks Company v. The Guardians of the 
 
 r~ ScuLcoATEs Union. 
 
 lOuO, 
 
 "^ ' ' DocJcs — Parochial Earnings and Acreage Principles — Wharfage Dues 
 
 — Railways — Absence of Tolls. 
 
 Tlie Hull Docks Company were tlie owners of several docks made 
 at different times under difPerent Acts of Parliament. Some of tke 
 docks communicated with, each other; and they extended into several 
 parishes. Every vessel paid a single toll, and she was entitled to 
 go into any of the docks to discharge cargo, and to load in the same 
 or any other dock. The tolls varied according to the port from 
 which or for which the vessel sailed, and not according to the dock 
 which she entered. Some of the docks were, in practice, appro- 
 priated to vessels engaged in a particular trade. 
 
 Held, that the rateable value of the docks which communicated 
 with each other must be divided in proportion to the acreage of the 
 water area of each dock ; but that the docks which did not so com- 
 municate must be separately rated. 
 
 B. V. Hull Docks Go. [1852], 18 Q. B. 325, distinguished. 
 
 The appellants charged wharfage dues for goods landed at wharves, 
 or loaded from the wharves on boai'd ship. 
 
 Semble, such wharfage dues are analogous to warehouse rents, 
 and must be taken into account in rating the wharf where they are 
 earned. 
 
 On the appellants' property were certain railways, in respect of 
 which the appellants were prohibited by statute from charging tolls. 
 The North Eastern Ey. Co. used the railways as a means of access 
 to the docks, but refused to pay the appellants more than 3501. per 
 annum, payable under a special contract for the construction of 
 part of the railways. It was found as a fact that a tenant could 
 be found who would pay more than 3501. a year for the railways if 
 the appellants could legally exact such a rent. 
 
 Held, that in rating the appellants the railways could not be 
 assessed at more than they produced to the appellants. 
 
 Special case stated hj an arbitrator, to whom had been 
 referred appeals to the quarter sessions for the borough of 
 Kingston-upon-HuU relating to rates made for four 
 parishes in the Sculcoates Union, viz., Sculcoates, New- 
 ington, Drypool, and Grarrison Side. 
 
 In E. V. Eull Bodes Co. [1852], 18 Q. B. 325, it was 
 
queen's bench division. 
 
 349 
 
 held that iu rating certain docks at Kingston-upon-HuU 
 (viz., the Queen's Dock (then called the Old Dock), the 
 Humber Dock, the Junction Dock, the Railway Dock, and 
 the Yictoria Dock), the assessment was to be based not 
 upon the actual receipts in each parish, but in proportion 
 to the acreage of water area in each parish ; that an assess- 
 ment on the acreage principle was in the circumstances 
 unavoidable, but that an assessment on the basis of 
 parochial earnings was preferable where the nature of the 
 case permitted it. 
 
 The present appeals related {inter alia) to the Queen's 
 Dock, the Yictoria Dock and the St. Andrew's Dock ; the 
 last-mentioned dock had, together with other docks, been 
 built since 1852, the date of the decision in R. v. Rull 
 Docks Co. The main question to be decided in these 
 appeals was, whether the whole of the docks at Kingston- 
 upon-HuU were to be assessed upon the principle adopted 
 in that ease. 
 
 The following are the material facts stated by the 
 arbitrator in the special case : — 
 
 10. The Queen's Dock, Prince's Dock, Humber Dock, 
 and Railway Dock, communicate directly with each other, 
 and with the river Humber, and also, by means of crossing 
 the river Hull, with the Drypool Basin and the Victoria 
 Dock. The Albert Dock and the Sir William Wright 
 Dock communicate with each other, but with no other 
 dock, save by means of vessels from the said docks passing 
 out into the river Humber. The St. Andrew's Dock 
 communicates with none of the other docks except by way 
 of the river Humber. 
 
 11. The St. Andrew's Dock is used almost exclusively 
 for fishing vessels. A platform has been erected on the 
 north side with special fittings and conveniences for the 
 unloading, &c., of fish, with offices, &c 
 
 12. At the Yictoria Dock the trade is almost entirely in 
 timber, for which special facilities have been provided. 
 , . . . There is scarcely any timber export trade. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Hull Docks 
 Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 sculcoateb 
 Union. 
 
Union-. 
 
 350 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. 13. The Queen's Dock, so far as it lies in Sculeoates 
 
 Hull Dooks parish, is also mainly a timber dock. 
 
 *-'°- 14. The tonnage rates or dock dues payable on vessels 
 
 SC3ULC0ATES usuig the company's docks are charged in the following 
 way. A ship enteriag any dock and there discharging, pays 
 dock dues upon her net registered tonnage, according to 
 the port from which she comes, and a ship loading at any 
 dock pays dock dues upon her registered tonnage, accord- 
 ing to the port for which she clears ; but no ship has to 
 pay dues for both the outward and inward voyage, and 
 each vessel therefore pays only the higher of the two sets 
 of dues, whether outgoiag or incoming, for which she is 
 liable. 
 
 16. The dues are all collected at the Custom House. 
 The payment of one set of dock dues entitles a vessel to 
 the use of any of the docks, though for reasons of con- 
 venience to both the shipowners and the dock company, 
 particular docks are in practice used by particular trades. 
 A fishing vessel, for instance, which in the ordinary course 
 would go to St. Andrew's Dock, could, if her owner or 
 master thought fit, go to the Albert Dock, and would pay 
 precisely the same dock dues as if it went to St. Andrew's 
 Dock. 
 
 16. The removal of vessels from one dock to another, 
 while staying ia port, takes place chiefly when, having 
 discharged a cargo of one description, they proceed to 
 another dock for the purpose of loading a cargo of a 
 different kind. Yessels bringing timber to the Yictoria 
 or Queen's Dock, for instance, frequently take back coal, 
 and go to the Albert or some other dock to load. . 
 
 17. A record is kept of aU the vessels entering the 
 docks, and of the particular docks in which they respec- 
 tively discharge and load, from which the appellants were 
 able to compile lists of the vessels discharging and loading 
 in each of the three docks in the respondent parishes, and, 
 with comparatively few exceptions, to say in what parts of 
 those docks parochially they were so discharged or loaded. 
 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. 
 
 851 
 
 [The appellants, before the arbitrator, prepared separate 1893. 
 
 accounts for each parish ; they credited the dock dues to Hull DooKa 
 the dock in which each vessel discharged; or where a '^°- 
 vessel discharged in one dock, and loaded elsewhere, one- Soulcoates 
 half of the dues was credited to such dock. Wharfage ^^°'^' 
 
 dues {i.e., the charge made for goods landed on or loaded 
 from wharves) were credited to the parish in which the 
 wharf was situated. Some of the expenditure was divided 
 by the appellants in proportion to the gross receipts in 
 each parish, and some was debited to the particular parish 
 in which it was incurred.] 
 
 33. [The respondents before the arbitrator, calculated 
 first the rateable value of the entire estate of the appellants, 
 and deducted therefrom] the rateable value of all the 
 warehouses, dock oiEces, graving docks, sheds, yards, and 
 cattle depot on the appellants' estate, as being indirectly 
 productive, taking the remainder as representing the 
 rateable value of the docks only, and this remainder they 
 allocated to each parish in proportion to the water area of 
 the docks and basins in that parish. 
 
 35. On various parts of the Hull Dock estate are a 
 number of railway and tramway lines belonging wholly 
 or jointly to the appellants, which have been used by the 
 North Eastern Railway Company for several years, and 
 continue to be so used for the passing of traffic between 
 the docks and their railway system. The North Eastern 
 is the only railway system having access to the docks. 
 For such uses the North Eastern Railway Company paid 
 the appellants 6,000/. a year in each of the five years 
 ending December, 1890. In the year 1891, although the 
 user continued the same as before, they only paid 350/., 
 which was paid for the use of certain lines laid under 
 special agreement, wholly in the parish of Garrison Side, 
 and which sum of 350/. has been included in the appel- 
 lants' receipts for arriving at the rateable value of the 
 appellants' property in that parish. In the Parliamentary 
 Session of 1892, and again ia 1893, a bill was introduced 
 
Union. 
 
 352 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. by the North Eastern Railway Company for the purchase 
 Htjll Docks of the whole undertaking of the appellants. 
 
 ^°- [Contentions by appellants and respondents that their 
 
 ScTTLcoATEa Tespective methods of calculating rateable value were 
 correct.] 
 
 38. It was further contended for the respondents that 
 the rent which a tenant might be reasonably expected to 
 give for the whole of the railway and tramway lines used 
 by the North Eastern Ey. Co. in the respondent parishes 
 ought to be taken into consideration in determining the 
 rateable value of the appellants' property therein ; having 
 regard to the fact that the said company paid a rent for 
 the same until the end of the year 1890, and discontinued 
 such payment only when introducing a bill for amalgama- 
 tion into Parliament ; and further, because the appellants 
 have to bear the expense of repairing and maintaining the 
 said lines, which expense is one of the outgoings included 
 in the valuation of the appellants' property for rating 
 purposes. 
 
 39. For the appellants it was contended that such rent 
 ought to be excluded from consideration in determiniug 
 such rateable value save as to the 350/. which the North 
 Eastern Co. still pay, because, by s. 53 of 24 & 25 Yict. 
 c. Ixxix., no tolls are to be taken by the appellants for the 
 use of the lines, and because no rent was, in fact, paid in 
 the year immediately preceding the making of the rates 
 which are the subject of appeal, or have been paid since 
 December, 1890. 
 
 40. With reference to this contention, I find, as a fact, 
 that the North Eastern Ry. Co., or some other tenant, 
 could be found who would pay a rent for the said lines 
 beyond the said 350/. a year, if such rent can be legally 
 exacted by the appellants in view of the section referred to. 
 
 [The arbitrator found alternative findings of value : — 
 (1) assuming that the respondents' contentions were cor- 
 rect, whether they were right or wrong as to the rateable 
 value of the railways and tram Knes ; (2) assuming that 
 
•QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. 
 
 353 
 
 the appellants' contentions were correct altogether ; and 
 (3) assuming that they were correct except as to the rail- 
 ways and tram lines.] 
 
 Bosanquet, Q.C. {Marchant with him), for the appellants : 
 Wharfage dues were not considered in B. v. Sull Bocks 
 Co. [1852], 18 Q,. B. 325, and it is impossible to deal with 
 them on the acreage principle of apportionment. In 
 Mersey Docks v. Overseers of Liverpool [1872], L. E. 
 7 Q,. B. 643, it was held that the docks on both sides of 
 the river Mersey, which by statute constituted one estate 
 under one management, could not be treated as one system 
 of docks, but that the earnings and outgoings of each set 
 must be kept distinct, although a vessel having paid certain 
 rates could use any of the docks on either side. And 
 Cockburn, C.J., said (B). at p. 650) : — " The acreage 
 system is an objectionable one, and only to be resorted to 
 in case of necessity." There is no necessity in the present 
 case, as the accounts for each dock are kept sufficiently 
 .distinct. As to the railways: — it seems that under the 
 statutes the railway company cannot be compelled to pay 
 the 5,000/. a year. All the indirect benefit received by the 
 appellants is already rated in their receipts from the docks. 
 It cannot be right to rate them there in respect of the in- 
 direct profits, and in respect of the railways on account of 
 ■toUs which, by statute, they may not charge. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Hull Docks 
 Co. 
 
 v. 
 
 sctjlooates 
 
 Union. 
 
 Balfour Browne, Q.C, and B,. C. Glen, for the respondents : 
 Wharfage dues are earned by carrying goods from ships 
 to the land or vice versd : to earn the dues water is as neces- 
 sary as land. Some goods are discharged into lighters, 
 and the wharfage dues are charged where the goods are 
 landed, which may be in another dock. It cannot be right 
 to allocate the dues to the wharf alone ; for it may be that 
 the front of the wharf is the boundary of a parish, in 
 which case the parish in which the ship lies will get 
 nothing. These dues are like terminals, which in rail- 
 
 B. 
 
 A A 
 
354 
 
 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Hull Docks 
 Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 sculcoates 
 Union. 
 
 •way rating are always spread over tlie -whole line. 
 [Mathew, J. : Surely the wharfage dues are closely 
 analogous to warehouse rents ?] "Warehouses must be 
 separately rated, because they are. capable of separate 
 beneficial occupation {Mersey Bocks v. Birkenhead [1873], 
 L. E. 8 Q. B. 445) : but if the wharves were separately 
 occupied, the wharfinger not having the occupation of the 
 docks would not be able to secure the existing traffic, and 
 non constat that he would earn the wharfage dues now 
 received. The experience of the past would be no criterion 
 of the future. [Wright, J. : The decision in R. v. Hull 
 Bocks Co. is based on the fact that all the docks communi- 
 cated with each other, and were in efEeet one dock and 
 used as one concern. The new docks do not communicate 
 with each other, and one is now appropriated to one trade, 
 and one to another.] The principle of that decision 
 applied to the Yictoria Dock, which could then (and can 
 still) be entered from the other docks only by crossing the 
 river Hull ; and to enter the new docks, ships must go out 
 into the Humber. This difference must be immaterial. 
 In Mersey Bocks v. Liverpool [1872], L. E. 7 Q,. B. 643, 
 it was assumed that the two sets of docks constituted two 
 separate rateable hereditaments. 
 
 [In the course of the argument it was pointed out that 
 the findings as to value were not sufficient if the Court 
 should be of opinion that none of the contentions put for- 
 ward by the parties were correct.] 
 
 Mathew, J. : In this case we are clearly of opinion 
 that the rate is bad, and that the case must go back to the 
 arbitrator. The principle of R. v. Hull Bocks Co. [1852], 
 18 Q. B. 325, applies to all the docks which were dealt 
 with in that case. But the Victoria Dock was not then 
 completed, and its present position is said to be distinguish- 
 able. The arbitrator should take into account the special 
 circumstances. Two other docks created since 1852 [viz., 
 the Albert Dock and the Sir William Wright Dock], are 
 
QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION. 
 
 'Sr55 
 
 in communication with each other, and to them the principle 1893. 
 of R. V. HuUBocks Co. must be applied. The St. Andrew's 
 Dock must be assessed separately. The railway cannot be 
 assessed for more than it produces to the appellants. With 
 these directions, the case must be remitted generally to the 
 arbitrator, who will deal with the costs of this application. Mathew, J. 
 
 Hull Dooica 
 Co. 
 
 V. 
 
 sotilcoates 
 ■Union. 
 
 Wright, J., concurred. 
 
 Case remitted id). 
 
 Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Southport v. 
 
 Ormskirk Union. 
 Oas Pipes — Use of, for the Supply of Gas — Occupation or Easement. 
 
 The borough, of Southport adjoined the township of Birkdale. 
 The corporation of Southport ■were the owners of gasworks situated 
 in the borough, and the local board of Birkdale were the owners of 
 gas pipes and mains within the township ; and by a local Act the 
 local board were given the exclusive right of laying pipes, &c. 
 within their township, and were bound for ever to keep the existing 
 and future pipes, &c. in good repair and condition, and to aflord 
 the use thereof to the corporation of Southport for the supply of 
 gas within the township of Birkdale in consideration of certain 
 payments. 
 
 Held, that the local board of Birkdale, and not the corporation of 
 Southport, were the occupiers of the pipes, &c. within the township 
 of Birkdale. 
 
 Appeal relating to the assessment of certain gas mains 
 and pipes which were the property of, and had been laid 
 down by, the local board for the township of Birkdale, 
 and were situated withia the said township, in the Orms- 
 kirk Union. 
 
 The borough of Southport adjoins the township of 
 Birkdale, and the gasworks wMch supply the mains and 
 pipes in question are situated in the borough of Southport, 
 and are the property of the corporation of that borough. 
 
 {a) An appeal against this decision was entered, but had not been 
 heard at the time of going to press. 
 
 A a2 
 
 Q. B. D. 
 
 1893. 
 
 July 10. 
 
356 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. The Southport Improvement Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. 
 
 Mayoe, &o. c. cxl.), 8. 43, enacts as follows : — 
 orSouTHPOBT ..rpj^g j^^^j ^^g^^^ |-f^j. ^j^g township of Birkdale] shaU 
 
 Ohmskiek Jiave the exclusive -ngki, except as hereinafter provided {a), 
 of laying gas mains and pipes within the township, and 
 shall for ever hereafter keep their present and future gas 
 mains and the public lamps ia the township in good repair 
 and condition, and shall afford the corporation [of South- 
 port] the use of the same for the supply of gas for puhlic 
 and private purposes within the township, and in con- 
 sideration thereof the corporation shall pay to the local 
 board 4|c?. for every 1,000 cubic feet of gas supplied by 
 the corporation to private consumers within the township ; 
 and in consideration of the power conferred by this Act 
 upon the corporation to supply gas within the township, 
 the corporation shall also pay to the local board 3grf. for 
 every 1,000 cubic feet of gas supplied by the corporation 
 within the township to private consumers, such respective 
 payments to be made quarterly." 
 
 The appellants contended that they were not in occupa- 
 tion of the mains and pipes, and were therefore not 
 rateable. 
 
 J. F. Leese, Q.C. {8. T. Erans with him), for the appel- 
 lants : The Southport Improvement Act, 1871, s. 3, incor- 
 porates the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847: "provided that 
 clauses 6 — 12 of that Act shall be put in force within the 
 township of Birkdale by the Birkdale Local Board only, 
 and not by the corporation, and the word ' undertakers ' in 
 clauses 6 — 12, and 19 — ^29 shall, so far as such clauses 
 affect the township of Birkdale, apply to and mean the 
 
 (a) The words ia italics seem to refer to s. 46, by wUch, if the maiiis 
 in the townsMp of Birkdale become insufficient for the supply of gas in 
 the districts beyond the township, power is given to the corporation of 
 Southport, at their own expense, and subject to the inspection, &c. of the 
 local board of Birkdale, to replace the mains by larger and sufBoient 
 mains, which new mains are to become the property of, and to be repaired 
 by, the local boaxd. Nothing in the arguments, however, turned on 
 this provision. 
 
/queen's BENCH DIVISIOJT. 357 
 
 Birkdale Local Board and not the Corporation." By 1893. 
 ss. 6 — 12 of the Act of 1847 the " undertakers " have matoe, &o. 
 power to lay down and alter pipes, and are liable to a °^ Southpoet 
 penalty for delay in reinstating streets, &o. ; and by Oemskiek 
 ss. 19 — 29 persons damaging the pipes, &c. are liable to 
 ■ pay a penalty to the " undertakers," who are themselves 
 liable to a penalty for allowing gas to escape and pollute 
 ,any water supply. These are all incidents of occupation. 
 [Cave, J. : Or of ownership.] If gas were superseded by 
 electricity the appellants' right would be gone. [Cave, J. : 
 The right would remain, though it might be of no value.] 
 The Act of 1871 does not give the exclusive use to the 
 corporation, and if the pipes were in an embankment 
 above ground, the surface might be used, for example, for 
 the exhibition of advertisements. [Cave, J. : The pipes 
 being xmderground, the only possible use is to pass gas 
 along them.J In Smith v. Lambeth Assessment Committee 
 [1882], 10 Q. B. D. 327, exclusive enjoyment (as dis- 
 tinguished from exclusive possession) of the book-stalls at 
 Waterloo Station was held not sufficient to make Messrs. 
 W. H. Smith & Son rateable. In Paris (^ JVew York 
 Tekgraph Co. v. Penzance [1884], 12 Q. B. D. 552, where 
 the Postmaster- General appropriated special wires to the 
 sole use of a company, the Postmaster-General, and not the 
 company, was held to be the occupier. [Wright, J. : In 
 Allan V. Liverpool [1874], L. E. 9 Q. B. 180, it was said 
 that the person rateable is the person who could bring an 
 -action if a trespass to the hereditament were committed.] 
 
 A. T. Lawrence for the respondents: The corporation 
 have a profitable occupation by supplying gas through a 
 particular space enveloped in an iron pipe. If the gas were a 
 solid, there would clearly be an occupation by the corpora- 
 tion. In Smith v. Lambeth, the railway company had 
 power to move the book-stall to suit their convenience, 
 and Messrs. Smith & Son had no access at night when the 
 .station was locked up. The present appellants are in a 
 
358 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. position analogous to that of a tenant of a house, whose 
 
 Mayoe, &o. landlord does the repairs. Beyond doing repairs, the 
 
 ofSoothpoet i^jpg^i i^Q^j,^ pg^^ ^Q nothing with the pipes. The otject 
 
 Obmskiek and meaning of the existence of the pipes is the supply of 
 
 gas, which is solely vested in the corporation, and their 
 
 user is distinguishable from that of an ordinary trading 
 
 company only by the fact that the local hoard do the 
 
 repairs. In Allan v. Liverpool [1874], L. E. 9 Q,. B. 180, 
 
 the sheds in question were held not to he " let " because 
 
 the Mersey Docks Board had the right to put other goods 
 
 in them. All phrases must be construed with reference 
 
 to the subject-matter to be rated, and to " afford the use " 
 
 of underground pipes "for the supply of gas" is equivalent 
 
 to giving the entire occupation. 
 
 J. F. Leese, Q.C., in reply: The subject-matter of 
 rating is not gas, but the pipes. The words "for ever" in 
 s. 43 of the Act of 1871, if it applies to the words " shall 
 afford the use," either give the ownership in fee or an 
 easement, because no lease " for ever " is possible in law. 
 
 Cur. adv. viili. 
 
 1893. Cave, J. : The question in this case is whether the 
 
 •^ '• corporation of Southport are rateable in respect of an 
 alleged occupation by them of certain pipes used to supply 
 gas to the township of Birkdale, under s. 43 of the South- 
 port Improvement Act, 1871. On that section the ques- 
 tion arises, whether the corporation are the occupiers or 
 not. Now, it is obvious that the local board of Birkdale 
 are the owners of the pipes ; they have the exclusive right 
 of laying them down, and they have to keep them in 
 repair. Prima facie, as owners they are entitled to the 
 occupation ; they may, of course, part with the occupation 
 for a limited time, and the question arises whether, under 
 the Act of 1871, the owners have parted with the occu- 
 pation, so as to make the corporation the occupiers. A 
 
Cave, J. 
 
 queen's bench division. 359 
 
 numter of cases were cited to us, and one has to be on 1893. 
 
 one's guard against allowing too much weight to the matob, &o. 
 
 cases, and too little weight to the principle underlying the °^ Southpoki 
 
 cases. P>7'md/aCTe, the owner is the occupier, though the Oemkiek 
 
 owner may divest himself of his occupation. He who has 
 
 both ownership and occupation possesses all rights over 
 
 the property. If the owner lets it, he divests himself of 
 
 some rights for a certain time ; if he grants a right of 
 
 way, he divests himself of certain limited rights. The 
 
 cases turn upon this distinction, that where a person who 
 
 is both owner and occupier grants to another certain 
 
 limited rights, reserving to himself all other rights, he 
 
 retains the occupation, but where he grants his rights 
 
 generally, though but for a limited time, and reserves to 
 
 himself only some of those rights, then he ceases to be the 
 
 occupier. Suppose I grant to one man a right of way, 
 
 and to another a right of watercourse, in neither case do 
 
 I cease to be the occupier, because the persons to whom 
 
 I make the grants are grantees of certain limited rights 
 
 only. But if I grant all my general rights, reserving to 
 
 myself only the right to enter at reasonable times to see 
 
 the state of repair, then I part with the occupation. The 
 
 recognition of this principle reduces the cases to order, 
 
 and makes them easily intelligible. Now let us apply the 
 
 principle to this case: The local board of Birkdale are 
 
 the owners of these pipes, and they have, or rather, the 
 
 Act of 1871 has, granted to the corporation of Southport 
 
 the use of the pipes for the supply of gas, but has not 
 
 given the use of the pipes to the corporation generally. 
 
 All that is taken from the local board is the use of the 
 
 pipes for the supply of gas. The question is rendered 
 
 more diflScult in this case, because the use of the pipes for 
 
 the supply of gas \s prima facie the only use contemplated. 
 
 But when a man takes in cattle, he may take in as many 
 
 as the land will feed, and no other use of the land may be 
 
 contemplated, yet the person taking in the cattle remains 
 
 the occupier. The rights of the corporation are strictly 
 
360 queen's bench division. 
 
 1893. limited to the use of the pipes for the delivery of gas ; the 
 
 Matoe, &o. local board are bound to do all repairs, and they may alter 
 
 OF SoTJTHPOET ^j^g directiou and position of the pipes, if they are found 
 
 Oemskiek to be too near the surface. No definite portion of land is 
 
 " vested in the corporation, whose rights are strictly limited 
 
 Cave, J. g^jj^ defined, and therefore, in my opinion, the corporation 
 are not the occupiers. 
 
 Weight, J. : I am of the same opinion. In cases of 
 this kind, the substance of the thing must be looked at. 
 In the Aldershot Gas Worhs Case (see JR. v. Stevem [1865], 
 12 L. T. N. S. 491), although the contract with the Crown, 
 under which the gas was made, expressly provided that it 
 was not to be a lease, but was to be a licence only, the 
 persons licensed were, notwithstanding, held to be the 
 occupiers. In the present case, the local board of Birk- 
 dale have taken the greatest pains to prevent a foreign 
 body from being occupiers of these pipes. The local board 
 are the only persons who could maintain an action for 
 trespass, and they have to do all the repairs to the pipes. 
 
 Appeal allowed {a). 
 
 Q. B. D. E. V. The Justices of London and the London County 
 
 Council. 
 
 1893. 
 Maxj 15, 16. 
 
 Prohibition — Times for Proceedings — Directory or Imperative — Appeal 
 against Totals — Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869, ss. 20, 32, 
 42 {\Z)— Practice— Costs. 
 
 The London County Council, in January, 1891, duly entered an 
 appeal to the London Quarter Sessions against the totals for the 
 parish of St. George, Hanover Square, on the ground that over 
 3,000 hereditaments in that parish were under-valued. Owing to 
 the large number of appeals entered at the same sessions, it was 
 
 [a) This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal: vide infra, 
 p. 438, 
 
COURT OF APPEAL. 361 
 
 impossible for the Court to hear all of them before March 31, 1891, 1893. 
 
 the time fixed by the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. The 
 
 respondents moved for a prohibition against further proceeding „.' 
 
 with the appeal after that day. Jtjbtices of 
 
 Held, by the Court of Appeal, reversing the decision of the Queen's L. C. C. 
 Bench Division, that the provisions of the Valuation (Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869, s. 42 (13), as to time, were imperative in the sense that 
 they bound the justices to sit in the prescribed time; but not 
 so as to take away the right of appeal from persons who had entered 
 their appeal in time, if a hearing in the prescribed time was 
 impossible, and that no prohibition could be granted on this 
 ground. 
 
 Held further by the Court of Appeal, affirming the decision of 
 the Queen's Bench Division, that the jurisdiction of the London 
 Quarter Sessions and of the assessment sessions was in this respect 
 identical. 
 
 ■ But held by the Court of Appeal, that the London County Council 
 could not appeal against the totals on the ground of under- valua- 
 tion of individual hereditaments, except by way of appeal from 
 special sessions. 
 
 Semhle, per Kay, L.J., the London County Council cannot be 
 " aggrieved " by the totals of a particular parish within s. 32 of the 
 Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 
 
 Held, by the Queen's Bench Division, that on making a rule for 
 a prohibition absolute the Court has power to give costs. 
 
 Wallace v. Allen [1875], L. E. 10 C. P. 60Y, foUowed. 
 
 EuLE nisi calling upon the justices for the county of 
 London and the London County Council to show cause 
 "why a writ of prohitition should not issue against further 
 proceeding with the hearing of an appeal ty the London 
 County Council against the totals for the parish of 
 St. George, Hanover Square, in the quinquennial valua- 
 tion list made in 1890. 
 
 The appellants contended that over 3,000 hereditaments 
 in the parish of St. Greorge, Hanover Square, were 
 under-assessed, and claimed an increase of the totals from 
 2,200,486/. gross and 1,841,761/. rateable to 2,460,562/. 
 gross and 2,041,895/. rateable. 
 
 Notice of appeal was duly given on January 14, 1891, 
 but owing to the number of appeals entered against the 
 
362 
 
 COUET OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893. quinquennial lists made in 1890, this appeal could not. 
 
 E. possibly be heard before March 31, 1891, the date pre- 
 
 Jtjsticeb op scribed by the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 42 (13) ; 
 
 ^T^o^'c.™ ^^^ °* *^® ^^^ appeals entered only 125 were disposed of 
 
 before that date. 
 
 On January 26, 1893, the appeal was set down for 
 argument before the London Quarter Sessions upon the 
 preliminary question whether the jurisdiction of that Court 
 to hear the appeal had expired on March 31, 1891. The 
 quarter sessions held, on the authority of H. v. Ingall 
 [1876], 2 Q. B. D. 199 ; Met. Eat. App. 176, that the 
 statutory provisions as to time were directory only, and 
 not imperative, and that the sessions had jurisdiction to 
 hear the appeal after the expiry of the prescribed time, 
 and formally fixed February 13, 1893, for the hearing. 
 The respondents then obtained this rule upon the following 
 grounds : — 
 
 (1.) That the jurisdiction of the quarter sessions to hear 
 the appeal had expired on March 31, 1891. 
 
 (2.) That the appellants, the London County Council, 
 were not " aggrieved " by reason of the totals being too 
 low within the meaning of s. 32 of the Yaluation (Metro- 
 polis) Act, 1869. 
 
 (3.) That an appeal against totals, on the ground that 
 individual assessments are too low, will not He. 
 
 The Queen's Bench Division expressed no opinion upon 
 the second and third questions, and the arguments thereon 
 are omitted. 
 
 The following are the material sections of the Yaluation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869 :— 
 
 26. . . . The court of general assessment sessions may 
 adjourn from time to time as may be necessary for the 
 performance of their duties under this Act. . . . They 
 shall, with respect to the attendance and examination of 
 witnesses, to the taking of evidence, to the keeping of 
 order in Court, to contempt of Court, to the enforcement 
 of their orders, and to aU matters necessary for the exe- 
 
COURT OF APPEAL. 363 
 
 oution of their duties under this Act, have the same juris- 1893. 
 diction and powers, and he in the same position, as a court e. 
 
 of quarter sessions, and, subject to the express provisions justices of 
 of this Act, shall conduct their proceedings, be convened, Lo^m" and 
 and be in the same position, as near as may be, as if they 
 were a court of quarter sessions. 
 
 34. The justices in special sessions and in assessment 
 sessions . . . may adjourn the hearing from time to time 
 and to any day not later than the day before which all 
 appeals to them are required by this Act to be heard ; and 
 in the case of assessment sessions for the purpose of obtain- 
 ing the decision of any superior Ooi&t to any day necessary 
 for that purpose. . . . 
 
 35. If it appears to the justices in assessment sessions 
 on any appeal that there is no approved valuation list for 
 some parish, they may appoint some proper person ... to 
 make a valuation list. 
 
 36. If any of the parties to the appeal apply to the 
 justices in assessment sessions to direct a valuation of any 
 hereditament with respect to which any appeal may be 
 made . . . the Court may, in their discretion, appoint 
 some proper person to make such valuation. 
 
 37. "Where the Court appoint a person to make a valua- 
 tion list, or a valuation, they may fix some subsequent day, 
 either before or after the day before which all appeals are 
 required by this Act to be heard, for receiving such valua- 
 tion list or valuation, and may adjourn the hearing to that 
 day. 
 
 42. With respect to the times within which proceedings 
 under this Act and the Acts incorporated herewith are to 
 be done, the following provisions shall have effect, (that is 
 to say,) . . . 
 
 (12.) Notices of appeals to assessment sessions shall be 
 given on or before the fourteenth of January. 
 
 (13.) The justices may hold the assessment sessions at 
 any time after the first of February in the same year, 
 which will enable them to determine all appeals (except 
 
364 COUET OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893. where a valuation list or valuation is ordered) before' the 
 
 B. ensuing thirty-first of March. 
 
 Justices op 43. The valuation list, as approved by the assessment 
 
 l'0:^osASB committee, and, if altered on any appeal under this Act to 
 
 any sessions or a superior Court, as so altered, shall come 
 
 into force at the beginning of the year (commencing on 
 
 ihe sixth of April) succeeding that in which it is made, 
 
 and shall last for five years, subject to any alterations 
 
 that may be made by any supplemental or provisional list 
 
 as hereiaafter mentioned. 
 
 44. Notwithstanding any appeal under this Act which 
 may be pending at the commencement of the year, the 
 valuation list shall come into force unaltered, and every 
 assessment, contribution, rate, and tax, in respect of which 
 the valuation list is conclusive, shall be made, required, 
 levied, and paid in accordance with such valuation list ; 
 and where, iu consequence of the decision on any appeal 
 under this Act to assessment sessions or a superior court, 
 an alteration in such valuation list is made which alters the 
 amount of the assessment, contribution, rate, or tax levied 
 thereunder, the difference, if too much has been paid, shall 
 be repaid or allowed, and if too little, shall be deemed 
 to be arrears of the assessment, contribution, rate, or tax 
 (except so far as any penalty is incurred on account of 
 arrears), and shall be paid and recovered accordingly. 
 
 The Local Government Act, 1888, s. 42 (10), provides 
 as follows : — 
 
 The quarter sessions for the county of London shall be 
 substituted for the general assessment sessions xmder the 
 Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, and have all the Juris- 
 diction vested in those sessions, and shall exercise the same 
 within the same area. Upon the hearing of any appeals 
 in relation to property in the city of London, such two 
 members of the court of quarter sessions of the city of 
 London as may be appointed by that court for the pur- 
 pose shall be entitled to attend and sit as members of the 
 quarter sessions for the county of London. 
 
COUET OP APPEAL, 365 
 
 F. M. White, Q.O., and R. E. Amnj, for the London 1893. 
 County Council, showed cause : First, as to time ; the E. 
 
 principle of R. v. Ingall [1876], 2 Q. B. D. 199 ; Met. Eat. jirsTroBs os 
 App. 176, applies. . In that case it was held that delay in ^°™of c.'"' 
 making, transmitting, and approving a valuation list did 
 not make the list a nullity, and that the provisions of 
 suh-sects. (1), (2), and (8) of s. 42 were directory and not 
 imperative. The reasoning of the decision applies equally 
 to suh-s. (13) of s. 42, which prescribes the time for the 
 holding of the sessions. It is true that, under the Valuation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 24, the justices to form the 
 court of assessment sessions were appointed annually, so 
 that, if appeals were heard after the expiration of the 
 year, they might come before different justices ; but any 
 difficulty on this ground is now met by the transfer to the 
 London Quarter Sessions under the Local G-overnment Act, 
 1888, s. 42 (10). That section repeals great part of the 
 Act of 1869 as to the constitution of the Court, and, 
 inasmuch as the court of quarter sessions has infinitely 
 more work than the assessment sessions (which had no 
 criminal jurisdiction) the provisions as to time cannot be 
 intended to apply any longer. Further, the words of 
 s. 42 (13) of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, are not 
 even in form imperative ; they direct the justices to make 
 arrangements for hearing within the prescribed time, but 
 they do not forbid from sitting in any event after that 
 time. It cannot have been intended that, if the justices 
 made a mistake in calculating the time necessary for 
 hearing the appeals, some of the appellants should lose 
 their right of appeal. Sect. 44 provides for the case of all 
 outstanding appeals, and there is nothing to limit the 
 provisions of the section to cases in which a valuation list 
 or valuation has been ordered under s. 37, or in which a 
 -special case has been stated under s. 40. The whole object 
 of the provisions as to time in s. 42 is to ensure that the 
 appellant shall have an opportunity of appealing against 
 the list; and to hold that sub-s. (13) is imperative will 
 
366 COURT OP APPEAL. 
 
 1893. deprive the appellant of his right of appeal, and so defeat 
 E. the very object of the section. Where a statute directs a 
 
 Justices op pubhc duty to be performed, subject to certain provisions 
 London AUD ^^ ^q ^j^q manner of performance, those provisions are 
 directory only ; but where a statute confers a private right 
 subject to provisions, those provisions are imperative : see 
 Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, ed. of 1875, 
 pp. 330—340. In E. v. Rochester [1857], 7 B. & B. 910 ; 
 27 L. J. Q,. B. 45, 434, it was held that the provisions of 
 the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835 (5 & 6 WiU. 4, c. 76), 
 as to the time for revision of the burgess' list, were 
 directory (a). In R. v. Leicester [1827], 7 B. & 0. 6, it 
 was held that the provisions of 54 Greo. 3, c. 84, as to the 
 time for holding quarter sessions, were directory only, 
 mainly on the ground that there was in the statute an 
 absence of negative words. The same may be said of the 
 Valuation (MetropoHs) Act, 1869. R. v. Ingall [1876], 
 2 Q. B. D. 199 ; Met. Eat. App. 176, was followed ia 
 Caldow V. Pixell [1877], 2 C. P. D. 562. 
 
 Poland, Q.C., and Danckwerts, ifys the assessment com- 
 mittee of St. George, Hanover Square, in support of the 
 rule : The question whether the provisions are directory 
 or imperative must be determined by balancing the 
 inconvenience which will be caused by adopting either 
 construction. The appellants claim to add 200,000/. to 
 the total rateable value of St. George's parish, as entered 
 in the list which came iato force on April 6, 1891 : if the 
 hearing is now proceeded with, and the appellants succeed, 
 the arrears for several years will have to be made good in 
 one lump sum by the ratepayers of one year (say 1895 or 
 1896), who will not be the same persons as the ratepayers 
 
 («) This deoision was afBrmed by the maiority of the judges in the Ex- 
 chequer Chamber: see E. B. & E. 1024. The dissentient judges based 
 their deoision, in part, on the ground that a mandamus to revise the list, 
 if issued, would be directed to a newly-elected mayor, who was not in 
 office when the duty of revision should have been performed in the first 
 instance. 
 
COURT OP APPEAL. 367 
 
 who have escaped their just proportion in previous years. 1893. 
 It is a general principle of local taxation that the rate- e. 
 
 payers of the year should bear the burdens of the year : justices of 
 compare the Poor Law (Payment of Debts) Act, 1859 London and 
 (22 & 23 Yiet. c. 49), s. 1, which directs that parish 
 debts shall be paid within three months after the expira- 
 tion of each half-year. Under the Valuation (Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869, s. 24, members of the court of assessment 
 sessions were to be appointed annually, and to hold office 
 for twelve months only from November Ist. They re- 
 mained in office after March 31 only for the purpose of 
 dealing with cases under ss. 36, 37 {supra, p. 363), where 
 a valuation or valuation list had been ordered, or where a 
 case had been stated under s. 40. By s. 43, the valuation 
 list is to come into force on April 6th, and by the Local 
 Government Act, 1888, ss. 73, 74, the local financial year 
 is to begin on April 1st, and at the beginning of each 
 year the annual budget of the county council is to be 
 prepared. By sect. 46 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 
 1869, a supplemental list is to be made before the end of 
 each subsequent year, and this list must be made on the 
 assumption that the list in force at the commencement of 
 the year was correct : see East and West India Docks v. 
 Poplar Union [1884], 13 U. B. D. 364 ; Met. Eat. App. 
 355. But if the present appeal be allowed to proceed, 
 there will be a dislocation of the whole scheme of revision 
 of valuation lists. One supplemental list has already been 
 made, and several may have come into force before this 
 appeal can be determined. The result would be a dis- 
 turbance of every rate calculated on the total since April 6, 
 1891. Further, by s. 34, the justices " may adjourn the 
 hearing from time to time, and to any day not later than the 
 day before which all appeals to them are required by this Act to 
 be heard, and in the case of assessment sessions, for the pur- 
 pose of obtaining the decision of any superior Coiu't to 
 any day necessary for that purpose." If "negative 
 • words " are necessary to render an enactment imperative, 
 
'368 COUET OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893. tins section supplies them. Moreover, this section was 
 R. not before the Court in B. t. Ingall [1876], 2 Q. B. D. 
 
 Justices OF 199 5 ^^t. Eat. App. 176, which dealt only with the 
 London AND eaxHer proceedings ; and in the report iu 46 L. J. M. 0. 
 at p. 116, Lush, J., is reported to have said : " It is con- 
 templated clearly that aU these stages are gone through in 
 time for tl^e justices to hold the sessions, and determine 
 all appeals before March 31, the new year beginning on 
 April 6." The judgment was based on the ground that 
 the right of appeal was not lost, because the appeal could 
 be heard in time. That case, therefore, is in favour of the 
 present applicants for a prohibition. Words not so precise 
 as in the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, were held to 
 be imperative in B. v. Belton [1848], 11 Q. B. 379 ; and 
 Boivman v. Blyth [1866], 7 E. & B. 26. The exception 
 in s. 42 (13) of cases in which a valuation list or a valua- 
 tion is ordered, is unnecessary if the provisions as to time 
 in that sub-section and s. 34 are not imperative. The 
 provision in s. 44 that the valuation list shall come into 
 force " noticithstanding any appeal which may be pending" at 
 the commencement of the year, is satisfied by a reference 
 to the excepted cases in s. 42 (13). Sect. 44 also contains 
 special provision for appeals to a superior Court. AH 
 .these provisions imply that the statute intended that no 
 ordinary appeals should be undetermined at the beginning 
 of the new financial year. 
 
 Cur. adv. vult. 
 
 1893. The judgment of the Court (Charles and Vaughan 
 
 June 17. 
 
 Williams, JJ.) was delivered by Charles, J. : — 
 
 " In this case the assessment committee of the St. Greorge's 
 Union sought to prohibit the county of London sessions 
 from further proceeding in the matter of an appeal by the 
 London County Council against the valuation list of the 
 parish of St. George, Hanover Square, made and de- 
 , posited in accordance with the Metropolis Valuation Act, 
 
COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 369 
 
 1869, by the overseers of that parish on or ahout May 31, 
 
 1890, and finally settled by the assessment committee on 
 or about October 29, 1890. The respondents in the appeal 
 ■were the assessment committee and the surveyor of taxes 
 of the district comprising the parish, but he did not appear. 
 Notice of appeal was given by the London County Council 
 on January 14, 1891, against the valuation list, on the 
 ground that the totals of the rateable and gross values in 
 the parish were too low. Cases were lodged by the county 
 council and the assessment committee in accordance with 
 the practice of the quarter sessions on or before February 1, 
 
 1891, but the appeal, owing to the pressure of business in 
 the Court, did not come on to be heard before March 31, 
 1891. The main contention of the applicants was that on 
 that day the jurisdiction of the Court to hear appeals came 
 to an end by effluxion of time, and whether this contention 
 be well founded or not depends entirely on the construction 
 which ought to be placed on the Yaluation (Metropolis) 
 Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 67). The jurisdiction formerly 
 exercised under that statute by the assessment sessions has, 
 it is true, been transferred by the Local Government Act, 
 1888, to the county of London sessions ; but they exercise 
 it imder the same conditions as those under which it was 
 formerly exercised by the assessment sessions. By s. 32 
 of the Act of 1869 an appeal against the valuation lists of 
 the various parishes is given to a Court of general assess- 
 ment sessions to (amongst other persons) any ratepayer in 
 the metropolis and any body of persons authorized by law 
 to levy rates or require contributions payable out of rates 
 if they or he feel aggrieved, by reason (1) of the total of 
 the gross value of any parish being too high or too low ; 
 (2) of the total of the rateable value of any parish being 
 too high or too low; or (3) of there being no approved 
 valuation list for some parish. Sect. 24 enacts that the 
 Court shall consist of three justices for Middlesex and two 
 each for Surrey, Kent, and the City of London, and that 
 "the said justices shall be appointed in the month of 
 
 1893. 
 
 E. 
 
 V. 
 
 Justices of 
 
 London and 
 
 L. C. C. 
 
 Charles, J. 
 
 R. 
 
 B B 
 
37.0 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893. 
 E. 
 
 V. 
 
 Jttstioes of 
 
 London ahd 
 
 L. C. C. 
 
 Charles, J. 
 
 October in every year, or at such other time as may be 
 from time to time fixed by the appointing body. They 
 shall hold office for twelve months, beginning on November 1, 
 and any casual vacancy may be filled up by the appointing 
 body." By s. 26 the Court is given power to adjourn from 
 time to time as may be necessary for the performance of 
 their duties under the Act, and it is provided that they 
 should conduct their proceedings, be convened, and be in 
 the same position as near as might be as if they were a 
 Court of quarter sessions. The justices in assessment 
 sessions had, by s. 35, power to appoint a person to make 
 a valuation list where none has been made by the parish 
 authorities and approved. By s. 36 they could on an 
 appeal direct a valuation to be made of any particular 
 hereditament, and by s. 37 it was enacted that " where 
 the Court appoint a person to make a valuation list or a 
 valuation they may fix some subsequent day either before 
 or after the day before which all appeals are ;required by 
 this Act to be heard for receiving such valuation list or 
 valuation, and may adjourn the hearing to that day." 
 By s. 40 an appeal on questions of law is given to the 
 superior Court. Sect. 42 enacts, " With respect to the 
 times within which proceedings under this Act and the 
 Acts incorporated herewith are to be done the following pro- 
 visions shall have effect — that is to say, (13) the justices 
 may hold the assessment sessions at any time after Feb- 
 ruary 1, which will enable them to determine all appeals 
 (except where a valuation list or valuation is ordered) 
 before the ensuing March 31." Other sub-sections appoint 
 dates for the making and deposit of the valuation list, for 
 its transmission to the assessment committee and final ap- 
 proval by them. These last-mentioned provisions were 
 held iu R. v. Ingall [1876], 2 Q. B. D. 199, to be directory 
 only, but there is nothing in the judgment delivered by 
 Mellor and Lush, JJ., to indicate that they considered all 
 the other sub-sections directory also. On the contrary, we 
 gather from the language used, especially by Lush, J., 
 
COURT OP APPEAL. 
 
 3tl 
 
 that the Court was of opinion that whilst the particular 
 dates mentioned in the Act for the deposit, transmission, 
 and final approval of the list need not be absolutely ad- 
 hered to, the whole of the year's appeals must be disposed 
 of before Maroh 31 in each year. There is certainly 
 nothing in this decision to compel us to hold that sub-s. (13) 
 is directory as well as sub-ss. (1), (2), and (8), with which 
 the Court was there dealing ; and, although we find in the 
 introductory words of the section a general statement ap- 
 plicable to all the sub-sections — the proceedings are to be 
 done within the times prescribed — it appears to us by no 
 means to follow that in each sub-section the words used 
 must necessarily be construed in the same manner. We 
 must inquire whether in each particular case the words are 
 directory or imperative, and, in order to determine the 
 question, must have regard to the general scheme and 
 other sections of the statute. Now, the scheme of the 
 statute seems to us clearly to point to the valuation list 
 being finally fixed before the commencement of each finan- 
 cial year («. e., before April 6), except in the two cases where 
 a new valuation list or valuation is ordered, or where a case 
 has been stated for the opinion of the superior Court. 
 Sect. 43 enacts that " the valuation list as approved by the 
 assessment committee, and if altered on any appeal under 
 this Act to any sessions or a superior Court as so altered, 
 shall come into force at the beginning of the year (com- 
 mencing on April 6) succeeding that in which it is made, 
 and shall last for five years, subject to any alterations that 
 may be made by any supplemental or provisional list as 
 hereinafter mentioned." A supplemental list is to be made 
 in each of the first four years of the quinquennial period, 
 the first of such periods beginning on April 6, 1871, show- 
 ing the alterations which have taken place in the previous 
 twelve months, and in each of the last four years the valua- 
 tion list is to be the original list, together with the new sup- 
 plemental list (s. 46). A provisional list is provided for by 
 s. 47 to meet the cases of hereditaments reduced or increased 
 
 bb2 
 
 1893. 
 
 E. 
 
 V. 
 
 Justices op 
 
 London and 
 
 L. 0. 0. 
 
 Charles, J. 
 
372 
 
 COURT OP APPEAL. 
 
 1893. 
 E. 
 
 V. 
 
 Justices of 
 
 London and 
 
 L. C. C. 
 
 Charles, J. 
 
 in value during the course of any year, and when made is 
 to be deemed to form part of the valuation list then in 
 force. By s. 45 the valuation list is made conclusive 
 evidence of the gross and rateable value of the heredita- 
 ments included therein for a large number of rates besides 
 the poor-rate, and also for taxes levied under the house 
 tax and income tax Acts. It would be highly incon- 
 venient, in our opinion, having regard to these enactments, 
 to read sub-s. 13 of s. 42 otherwise than as imperative. 
 Unless March 31 in each year is regarded as an absolute . 
 limit, an appeal such as that now in question might be 
 heard at any time during the quinquennial period, and 
 even after its expiration, with the possible result of inflict- 
 ing grave injustice by imposing on the general body of 
 ratepayers of one year the burden of another, a result in 
 direct contravention to the general principle of rating law, 
 that the burdens of each year should be borne by the rate- 
 payers in that year, a principle which forbids a retrospec- 
 tive rate unless specially provided for. And the hearing 
 might in such a case, for example, as the present, be almost 
 indefinitely protracted; for the county council, in sup- 
 port of their contention that the parish total is too low, 
 have challenged upwards of 3,000 individual assessments, 
 all of which the parish propose to defend. The duration 
 of such an inquiry it is impossible to predict, but it is 
 certain that it would be of great length, and the valuation 
 list of the parish would thus remain for months, if not 
 years, in an indeterminate condition. Other sections of 
 the Act, as weE as the terms of sub-s. 13 of s. 42 itself, 
 lead to the same conclusion. Thus the power to adjourn 
 the hearing of an appeal given by s. 34 is expressly 
 limited " to any day not later than the day before which 
 all appeals to them are required by this Act to be heard." 
 The same phrase is used in s. 37 above referred to, whereby 
 the Court is set free from the time restriction with regard 
 to receiving a specially prepared valuation list. Sect. 44, 
 indeed, contemplates the possibility of an appeal being 
 
COURT OP APPEAL. 
 
 373 
 
 pending at tlie commencement of a financial year, and 
 provides that, notwithstanding the pendency of such an 
 appeal, the valuation list shall come iato force unaltered. 
 But though the words are general they are satisfied by 
 reference to the two cases mentioned in ss. 37 and 40, 
 where there has been a re-valuation ordered, or where an 
 appeal has been made to a superior Court. We may add 
 that the exception introduced into sub-s. 13 of s. 42 is 
 meaningless unless the other words of the sub-section are 
 held to be imperative. It was strongly urged upon us that 
 to adopt this construction will deprive the parties aggrieved 
 of the right of appeal given to them by the Act, and it 
 cannot be denied that our decision will lead to that result. 
 But we must consider the balance of convenience, and 
 weigh against the detriment which may or must arise to 
 individuals, the serious inconvenience and injustice to the 
 ratepayers, which a contrary holding would entail. The 
 question whether the Legislature intends a provision to be 
 imperative or directory must depend in each case on the 
 scope and object of the enactment, and, having regard to 
 the general scheme of the statute and to its express pro- 
 visions, we have no doubt the Legislature intended, and 
 has sufficiently expressed its intention, that no appeal 
 (with the specified exceptions) should be heard after 
 March 31 in each year. Many decisions on other Acts 
 were referred to, but they furnish us with little, if any, 
 assistance, and do not affect the conclusion at which we 
 have arrived. Two other points were raised by the appli- 
 cants. They contended that the county council, in their 
 capacity of a " body of persons authorized by law to levy 
 rates or require contributions payable out of rates in the 
 metropolis," had sustained no appealable grievance by 
 reason of the total of the gross and rateable value of a 
 particular parish beiug too high or too low. In any case 
 their precept for contribution would be satisfied. On the 
 other hand, it was argued that the grievance might be 
 appealable though not pecuniary, and that imdue in- 
 
 1893. 
 
 E. 
 
 V. 
 
 Justices of 
 
 London and 
 
 L. C. C. 
 
 Charles, J. 
 
374 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893. 
 
 E. 
 
 1). 
 
 jFSTIOEa OP 
 
 London and 
 L. C. C. 
 
 Charles, J. 
 
 equality of assessment was in itself a statutory grievance 
 of which the county council could complain. Further, it 
 was contended by the applicants that on an appeal against 
 totals the individual assessments cannot be challenged, but 
 that matters of principle only can be raised, such, for 
 example, as a deduction from gross value in excess of the 
 maximum allowed by the Act. (See s. 52, and schedule 3.) 
 To this it was replied that there is nothing in s. 32 to limit 
 the appeal, and that the most effective way of challenging 
 a total is to challenge the constituents of which it is com- 
 posed. Both these matters are of wide importance, but in 
 the view we take of the question of time it is unnecessary 
 to pronounce any opiaion upon them. For the reasons we 
 have given we think that the jurisdiction of the Court "to 
 hear this appeal came to an end on March 31, 1891, and 
 therefore make this rule absolute. 
 
 The question of costs was reserved for further argument. 
 
 1893. Avonj, for the county council, submitted that the Court 
 
 •^""^ ^"' had no power to give costs. 
 
 The Court held that they were bound by Wallace v. 
 Allen [1875], L. E. 10 C. P. 607, to hold that they had 
 power. 
 
 Rule absolute with costs. 
 
 The London County Council appealed to the Court of 
 Appeal. 
 
 C. A. Bosanqiiet, Q.C., and H. E. Avory, for the appellants; 
 
 1893. 
 
 July 31; Sir E. Clarke, Q.G., Poland, Q.O., &nd Danclcwerts, for 
 
 "^"^ ' St. Greorge's, Hanover Square. 
 
 [The arguments upon the first ground {vide supra, p. 362) 
 upon which the prohibition was moved for, were the same 
 
COURT OF APPEAL. 375 
 
 as in the Court belo-w. The arguments upon the second 1893, 
 point are omitted, as the Court of Appeal gave no judgment n. 
 
 upon them. The third point was not referred to hy counsel jotti^oes op 
 
 for the appellants, and was mentioned merely and not London and 
 argued hy counsel for the respondents.] 
 
 Cur. adv. vult. 
 
 Lord Esher, M.E. : — In this case, the London County 1893. 
 Council had appealed from the assessment committee of "^"^^ ^^' 
 St. George's, Hanover Square, against the totals in the 
 list for the parish as being too low, on the ground that a 
 large numher of hereditaments were not fairly assessed. 
 It is necessary to consider what the appeal is, and agaiast 
 what it is ; and then to go through some of the sections of 
 the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. The Divisional 
 Court has prohibited the Sessions from further proceeding 
 with the appeal on the ground that the matter has not 
 been finished by March 30th, 1891. By the Yaluation 
 (Metropolis) Act, 1869, ss. 6 and 11, the overseers are to 
 make the Hst, and if any one objects to a wrong valuation 
 of any hereditament, objections may be made before the 
 assessment committee who, by s. 14, shall revise the 
 valuation list within the time mentioned in the Act, and, 
 when the list is finally approved, shall cause the totals to 
 be ascertained and inserted in the list. The values of the 
 several hereditaments are to be added together to make up 
 the totals for each parish. So far the persons who have 
 had to act are the overseers and the assessment committee, 
 but s. 17 brings in a new person, the clerk of the managers 
 of the metropolitan asylums district (now represented by 
 the clerk of the London County Council) who is to cause 
 the totals to be printed. He is to take the two totals, of 
 gross and rateable value, for each parish, to form new 
 totals ; to add all the valuation lists together and print the 
 result. By s. 18, special sessions are to be held at the 
 time mentioned in the Act for hearing appeals against the 
 
376 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893. valuation lists approved by the assessment committees, and 
 
 E. s. 19 says who may appeal, in language which would not 
 
 Jottictb op include the County Council. By s. 20, the special sessions 
 
 London Am « gj^g,!! not hear any appeal touching any part or alter any 
 
 part of the valuation list except the part relating to the 
 
 M.E. ' ■^S'liie of an hereditament ; and a decision of such justices, 
 and an alteration by them of the value of an hereditament 
 in the valuation list of any parish, shall affect only the 
 rights of the ratepayers of such parish among themselves, 
 and shall not of itself in any way alter the totals of the 
 gross or rateable value of such list as settled by the 
 assessment committee, but may form a reason for an 
 appeal against such totals to the assessment sessions and 
 superior Court as hereinafter mentioned." By s. 23, the 
 Court against whom the prohibition is asked for, is con- 
 stituted : and s. 26 gives the Court a power of adjournment 
 — not a power of adjournment at large — but " from time 
 to time as may be necessary for the performance of their 
 duties imder this Act, and (for the purpose of giving 
 judgment only) from place to place in the metropolis." 
 For some other things, not including the power of ad- 
 journment, the Court is made like a Court of quarter 
 sessions. By s. 32, the person who may appeal against 
 the assessment committee is a person aggrieved by a 
 decision on an objection made before them to which he 
 was a party ; but a person may appeal from a decision of 
 special sessions whether he was a party or not. By the 
 latter part of s. 32, " any assessment committee in the 
 metropolis, &c any overseers .... any rate- 
 payer .... and any body of persons authorized by law 
 to levy rates or require contributions payable out of 
 rates in the metropolis .... may appeal to the assess- 
 ment sessions if they or he feel aggrieved by reason" 
 of the total of any parish being too high or too low. 
 There is no other right of appeal against totals. [His 
 lordship then read s. 34, and s. 42 (10), (13), set out 
 above at p. 363.] Sub-s. (13) is an enactment as to the 
 
COUET OF APPEAL. 
 
 377 
 
 time and a description of the time when the sessions 
 may he held. It was impossible to put in a date at 
 which the last sessions were to be held ; they cannot be 
 held before February 1st, and the limit of the period at 
 the other end is a descriptive one. Looking at those 
 words which are under a general heading (" Times for 
 Proceedings"), and which are descriptive of time when 
 the justices may hold the sessions ; and looking at the 
 object of the provisions as to time (vLz., that the list, which 
 is to govern several taxes as well as rates, should be com- 
 pleted before March 31st) ; it seems to me that it cannot 
 be said that the words are directory merely ; I think they 
 are imperative, and that a limit of time has been impera- 
 tively enacted by statute. But against whom is it so enacted ? 
 The justices are the persons to administer the law ; and if 
 the parties who appeal obey the statute, and enter their 
 appeals at a time which would enable the Court to hear 
 them ; and if the only reason why they are not heard in 
 time is that by some accident or misfortune of the Court, 
 the Court is unable to do so : is it to be said that by the 
 inability of the Court, and by no default of the parties, 
 the right of appeal is lost ? This extraordinary glut of 
 business could not be obviated or calculated upon. I think 
 the enactment must be so read as not to be made absurd, 
 and if the parties have obeyed the Act, by entering their 
 appeals in time to enable the Court to hear them, the 
 inability of the Court ought not to be brought into play 
 as agaiast the parties who have put down their appeals in 
 time. The question then arises whether this appeal could 
 be heard in the prescribed time. Long, complicated, and 
 enormous as it is, we cannot say that it could not possibly 
 be heard in the time ; and if it is prevented from being 
 heard only by the difficulties of the Court, that is no 
 ground for a prohibition. But what is the nature of the 
 appeal? It seems to me to pretend one thing and to 
 be another. It is said to be an appeal against totals. 
 If it is really so, how can a total be wrong ? It can be 
 
 1893. 
 
 E. 
 
 V. 
 
 justioes of 
 
 London and 
 
 L. C. 0. 
 
 Lord Esher, 
 M.E. 
 
378 
 
 COURT OP APPEAL. 
 
 1893. 
 
 E. 
 
 V. 
 JtrSTIOES OP 
 
 London and 
 L. C. C. 
 
 Lord Esher, 
 M.R. 
 
 wrong as mere aritlimetic, or it may be wrong if one 
 parish is left out altogether. But this appeal would he 
 lost the moment it was launched. It is not suggested that 
 the valuation list of any parish is left out. The appellants 
 ohjeot not to the totals as totals, hut on the ground that 
 individual hereditaments are under-assessed. It is clear, 
 beyond all doubt, that this appeal is not against totals, but 
 is based on the ground of the wrong assessment of indi- 
 vidual hereditaments. That appeal should be brought to 
 special sessions; and then, after a decision by special 
 sessions, an appeal may be brought to assessment sessions. 
 A person may appeal from special sessions, whether he 
 was a party to that decision or not: see s. 32. The 
 County Council have tried to avoid the necessity of an 
 appeal to special sessions, to which appeal they could not 
 be parties, and they try to bring before the assessment 
 sessions a question which neither the London County 
 Council, nor anybody else, could take there. If anybody 
 else could, that would not be a case for prohibition ; but if 
 no one could appeal, the assessment sessions have no 
 jurisdiction to hear any such appeal. This is really an 
 appeal against the valuation of individual hereditaments, 
 and it is not one which the London County Council have 
 a right to bring ; no one could bring such an appeal as 
 this, and there is no jurisdiction to hear it, whether 
 brought by the County Council or any one else. I 
 have only gone into the question as to time in order to 
 assist the sessions, and in order to aid parties to other 
 appeals, who have done everything they can, and whose 
 cases were not heard merely by the inability of the Court. 
 This prohibition must go. 
 
 BowEN, L. J. : The first ground on which this prohibi- 
 tion was asked for (as to time) affects other persons 
 besides the London County Council; the other grounds 
 affect the London County Council only. It is obvious 
 that the first ground has far-reaching consequences, and it 
 
COURT OP APPEAL. 379 
 
 becomes necessary to consider tlie sections •whicli limit the 1893. 
 times for sittings. The quarter sessions, which replaces e. 
 
 the assessment sessions, inherit only the jurisdiction which justices of 
 belonged to the assessment sessions. We may, therefore, London and 
 
 go back to the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. That 
 
 Act prescribes limits of times ; the sessions are to sit after °^^°' 
 February 1st, and are not iatended to sit after March 31st. 
 That period was intended to suffice. Now, are these 
 sections which prescribe the termini, merely counsels of 
 perfection, so that, if things are not done in the prescribed 
 time, it does not much matter ? Or, to take the other ex- 
 treme view, do they mean that the limit of time is rigid, and 
 goes to jurisdiction, so that at midnight on March 31st, 
 the Court expires, and all subsequent proceedings are 
 caram non judice ? In my opinion the truth lies between 
 the two, and there is no such exact division of Acts into 
 directory and imperative Acts, as to be a categorical divi- 
 sion which exhausts all cases. The best rule, in fact, the 
 only rule, for the construction of a statute is to try to find 
 out what the Act means. Now it is certain that time is 
 of the essence of the Act. It is necessary that appeals 
 shoidd not be entered before a given date, and it is essential 
 for the purposes of rating and taxation that March 31st 
 should be the Hmit of the sittings. It makes a great 
 difference whether the prescribed termini are observed or 
 not. As regards the sessions and their action, the sections 
 are imperative : they bind the wiQ of the sessions. But 
 it is a general rule that if there are two possible interpre- 
 tations to be put upon a statute, one ought not to adopt 
 that interpretation which leads to injustice. Here is a 
 broad system of metropolitan rating: ministerial officers 
 are to put values upon the several hereditaments. In a 
 free country it is the very essence of such a system that 
 there shotdd be an appeal from those officers. If it were 
 not so this would be no country to live in. Then the Act 
 says the Court shall sit to hear appeals between February 
 Ist and March 31st. Is it conceivable that a person 
 
Bowen, L.J. 
 
 380 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893. grossly under-rated is to lose his right of appeal on 
 E. March Slst merely because the fatal hour has struck, and 
 
 Jttstices of t^3,t he is to be relegated to the tender mercies of the 
 London AND parish ofBcers ? Eeason and good sense drive one to say 
 no. The language of the Act was no doubt intended to 
 be imperative as regards the voluntary action of the Court. 
 But suppose a persistent advocate in one appeal : he might 
 destroy the right of appeal given to other persons if the 
 jurisdiction of the Court must end on March 31st. Though 
 the Court are bound to fix dates for sitting, so as, if possible, 
 to finish all appeals, and though the parties are bound to 
 lodge their appeals in proper time, yet, if by the act or 
 default of the Court, the time is passed, the sessions are 
 still clothed with authority to do justice which, if not done 
 by them, cannot be done at all. There is nothing in the 
 sections to contradict this view; there are no negative 
 words, and the affirmative words support it. Public inte- 
 rest compels us to adopt it, and if this were the only 
 ground this prohibition must fail. 
 
 But this appeal, though artfully framed as an appeal 
 against totals, is in reality an attempt to revise the valuation 
 list. That such an appeal should be presented in the 
 absence of the parties rated, is manifestly unjust. To 
 present such an appeal, with such an effect, is not to 
 appeal against totals, but against the valuation of indivi- 
 dual hereditaments. It has been suggested that this is 
 merely one of the grounds for bringing the appeal. But 
 it cannot truly be said that this appeal is anything else 
 but an appeal against individual hereditaments. In my 
 opinion the prohibition must go. 
 
 Kay, L.J. : The first question to be determined is 
 whether s. 42 (13) of the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, 
 is directory or imperative. The object of the Act, as stated 
 in the preamble, is "to provide for a common basis of 
 value for the purposes of government and local taxation, 
 and to promote uniformity in the assessment of rateable 
 
COURT OF APPEAL. 381 
 
 property in the metropolis." [After referring to the 1893. 
 several sections already mentioned, his Lordship con- e. 
 
 tinned] : By s. 32 a right of appeal is given to " any justices of 
 hody of persons authorized by law to levy rates, &c.," but London and 
 
 only against totals, and not against the valuation of 
 
 separate hereditaments ; nor can an appeal against totals ^^' 
 be brought on the ground that individual hereditaments 
 are improperly valued, except by way of appeal against a 
 decision of special sessions. As to s. 42 (13), it is to be 
 observed that there is only an incidental mention of the 
 day, March 31st. Similar language is used with regard 
 to the sitting of special sessions in s. 42 (10). Therefore, 
 if one sub-section is imperative, they both are. If they 
 are, the more inaccurate a list is, the greater will be the 
 number of appeals, probably, brought against "it, and the 
 less will be the chance that they will all be heard. I can- 
 not think that the section intended to produce such a 
 result. In s. 44 it is contemplated that appeals may be 
 pending at the end of the year. It is said that this pro- 
 vision is satisfied by a reference to cases in which an 
 appeal to a superior Court is pending, or in which a valua- 
 tion list or valuation is ordered. But I cannot see why 
 s. 44 should be limited to such cases. In my opinion the 
 provisions of s. 42 (10) and (13) are directory only in 
 circumstances such as have arisen here, and appeals which 
 cannot be heard in time may legally be heard afterwards. 
 This view is consistent with B. v. Ingall [1876], 2 Ci. B. D. 
 199 ; Met. Eat. App. 176. 
 
 The next question is whether this appeal is a proper 
 one. It is difficult to see that the London County Council 
 are " aggrieved " by the totals. They are " aggrieved " if 
 the thing complained of could in any way affect them. 
 Now, as I understand, the County Council's budget is 
 framed on aU the totals. But if this appeal succeeded it 
 would not affect the County Council, and would only give 
 relief to the other parishes. But suppose that the County 
 Council can be aggrieved. Having regard to s. 20, 
 
382 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 1893. the objection now taken to the totals is not open to the 
 
 R^ County Council until after a decision of special sessions. 
 
 JusiroEsoF I* ^8 impossible to suppose that the County Council 
 
 London AM) pan obtain an alteration behind the back of the par- 
 
 "— ^ ' ticular occupier. An alteration of the totals for such 
 
 Kay> LJ- a, reason -would be an " alteration in contravention of 
 
 this Act," which is forbidden by s. 34. There must be a 
 
 prohibition against further proceeding with the appeal on 
 
 this ground, and this appeal must be dismissed. 
 
 Per Curiam. — The question whether the Court below 
 
 had jurisdiction to give costs must stand over for further 
 
 argument {a). 
 
 Appeal dismissed. 
 
 H. L. 
 
 1892. 
 
 May 16, 21, 
 
 24; 
 
 Dec. 16. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Feb. 23, 27, 
 
 28; 
 
 March 2, 3 ; 
 
 May 30 ; 
 
 Sept. 8. 
 
 London County Council ii. Oveeseers of Erith. 
 London County Council v. West Ham Union. 
 London County Council v. WooLVficH Union. 
 London County Council v. St. George's Union. 
 
 Sewers — Sewage Works — Pumping Station — Ahsence of Frojit — Bene- 
 ficial Occupation — Hypothetical Tenant — Fractice — Costs— Juris- 
 diction under Judicature Acts. 
 
 The appellants, as tlie successors of tlie Metropolitan Board of 
 Works, were the owners and occupiers of certain sewers, sewage 
 works, and a pumping station connected therewith, which were 
 suitahle and necessary to enable the appellants to discharge their 
 statutory duties. The sewers, sewage works, and pumping station, 
 while used as part of the Metropolitan sewage system, were in- 
 capable of yielding a profit. The sewers were constructed in an 
 embankment raised upon land which had previously been rated. 
 
 Held, by the Court of Appeal, that the appellants could not, 
 under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 150, and 21 & 22 Vict. c. 104, s. 3, 
 be tenants of the sewers, sewage works, or pumping station, and 
 
 (a) The question had not been argued at the date of going to press. 
 
HOUSE OF LOEDS. 
 
 383 
 
 therefore cotild not be taken into account, for the purposes of rating, 
 as possible hypothetical tenants. 
 
 Held, also, by the Court of Appeal, that assuming that the 
 , appellants had power to become tenants of the sewers, their occu- 
 pation could not be beneficial, and was therefore not rateable. 
 
 But held, by the House of Lords, reversing the decision of the 
 Court of Appeal, that, even assuming the appellants to be prevented 
 by statute from becoming tenants of property vested in them, they 
 must be taken into account, for the purpose of rating, as possible 
 hypothetical tenants. 
 
 Owens College v. Overseers of Ohorlton-upon-Medloch [1887], 18 
 Q. B. D. 403; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 256, overruled. 
 
 Held, also, by the House of Lords, that aU property of which the 
 occupation is valuable, though it yields no pecuniary profit to the 
 occupier, is rateable, and therefore that the appellants were rate- 
 able in respect of the sewage works and pumping station. 
 
 B, -7. School Board for London [1886], 17 Q. B. D. Y38; Eyde's 
 Eat. App. (1886-90) 235; audi Mayor, &c. of Burfon-upon- Trent y. 
 Burton-upon-Trent Unimi [1889], 24 Q. B. D. 197; Eyde's Eat. 
 App. (1886-90) 314, approved. 
 Jones V. Mersey Docks [1865], 11 H. L. 0. 443, followed. 
 Mersey Docks y. Overseers of Llaneilian [1884], 14 Q,. B. D. 770 
 (upon one point) overruled. 
 
 Held, also, by the House of Lords, that sewers constructed in an 
 embankment above ground, on land previously rated, were distin- 
 guishable from underground sewers, and that the appellants were 
 rateable in respect of sewers constructed in such an embankment. 
 
 Metropolitan Board of Works v. West Sam [1870], L. E. 6 Q. B. 
 193 (upon this point), overruled. 
 
 B. V. Metropolitan Board of Works [1868], L. E. 4 Q,. B. 15, ques- 
 tioned, as to the non-rateabihty of underground sewers. 
 
 Whether underground sewers are rateable or not, the House of 
 Lords win be very slow to interfere with the exemption which has 
 been allowed by a long course of practice, supported by decisions 
 not of recent date. 
 
 An appeal to quarter sessions was dismissed, subject to a special 
 case ; the Queen's Bench Division dismissed the appeal, and afiirmed 
 the decision of quarter sessions. The Court of Appeal allowed the 
 appeal, as to some of the questions raised therein. 
 
 Held, by the Court of Appeal, that they had no jurisdiction to 
 order the respondents to pay the costs of the successful appeal, on 
 the ground that they would have had no such jurisdiction before 
 the Judicature Acts, and that those Acts and the rules made there- 
 under did not give any new jurisdiction to award costs. 
 
 1892. 
 
 L. C. 0. 
 
 V. 
 
 Eeith. 
 
 - West Ham. 
 
 - woolwjch. 
 St. Geoeoe's 
 
 ■CJniojst. 
 
384 HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 1892. R. V. Parlby, W. N. [1889], 190; and In re Mills' Estate [188B], 
 
 34 Oh. D. 24, foUowed. 
 
 TOP 
 
 ' v'. ' E. V. Fisherton Angar [1880], 6 Q. B. D. 139, not followed. 
 
 Eeith. 
 
 — ■Woolwioh' These appeals related to sewers or sewage works, all 
 
 - St. Geoegis's Tested in the appellants, and may be reported together. 
 
 NICK, rpj^g following summary of the decisions, with the dates, 
 may make the proceedings more intelligible : 
 
 London County Council v. Overseers of Erith, relating to 
 sewage works only, which were admitted by the appellants 
 on the authority of the Burton-upon- Trent Case, Eyde's 
 Eat. App. (1886-90) 314, to be rateable ; decision of the 
 Court of Appeal to that effect, without argument, given 
 on May 16, 1892. 
 
 London County Council v. West Earn, relating to both 
 sewers and sewage works ; appeal abandoned, as to the latter, 
 on the authority of the Erith Case ; decision by the Court 
 of Appeal that the sewers were not rateable (on a ground 
 equally applicable to sewage works) given on May 21, 
 1892. 
 
 London County Council v. Woolwich Union, and London 
 County Council v. St. George's Union, both relating to 
 sewage works; decision of the Court of Appeal, on the 
 authority of the West Ham Case, that the sewage works 
 were not rateable, given on December 16, 1892. 
 
 Appeals to the House of Lords were entered in the Erith, 
 West Ham, and St. George's Union Cases, and are reported 
 infra, p. 413 (a). 
 
 C. A. London County Council v. Overseers of Erith. 
 
 1892. Appeal from a decision of the Queen's Bench Division 
 
 "^ ^^' on a special case stated by the Kent quarter sessions, on an 
 
 appeal relating to certain sewage works in the parish of 
 
 Erith. 
 
 («) An appeal was entered by the 'Woolwioli ITmon, tut at the time of 
 going to press had not been heard. It seems, however, clear that the 
 decision of the House of Lords in the other oases would govern the Wool- 
 wich Union Case. 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 385 
 
 The special case was as follows : 1892. 
 
 1. The London County Council (the appellants) are the l. c. c. 
 
 governing body of the administrative county of London, eeith. 
 
 and are, by virtue of the provisions of 51 & 52 Vict. c. 41, —West Ham. 
 
 the successors to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and - "Woolwich. 
 , -^ . - St. G-EOEaE's 
 
 are the present owners of the outfall works, pumping Union. 
 
 station and appurtenances, the subject-matter of this eeithCasb. 
 
 appeal. The appellants have to discharge all the duties 
 
 of the Metropolitan Board of Works in reference to the 
 
 drainage of the Metropolis. 
 
 2. The parish of Erith is situate in the county of Kent, 
 and outside the jurisdiction of the appellants. 
 
 3. Pursuant to powers and duties contained in the 
 various Acts passed for the better government and drain- 
 age of the metropolis, and known as the Metropolis 
 Management Acts, 1855, 1858, and 1862, the Metro- 
 politan Board of Works designed and constructed a system 
 of drainage for the metropolitan area. Under the said 
 system sewers and pumping stations were constructed by 
 means whereof the sewage for that part of the metropolitan 
 area which is situated south of the Thames is conveyed to 
 Crossness, which is situate in the parish of Erith, and on 
 the banks of the river Thames. 
 
 4. In order to enable the sewage so conveyed to Cross- 
 ness to be discharged into the river Thames, the Metro- 
 politan Board of Works purchased 37 acres, 2 roods of 
 land on the bank of the river Thames, and on such land 
 constructed the outfall works, pumping station and appur- 
 tenances, which have been rated to the said poor rate. 
 
 5. In order to enable the sewage to be raised from the 
 sewers in which it had been conveyed to Crossness to a 
 level sufficiently high to enable the sewage to be discharged 
 into the river Thames, it was necessary to construct a 
 pumping station with all the necessary machinery to pump 
 the said sewage into a large reservoir. After the said 
 sewage has been pumped in the said reservoir, sixteen 
 million gallons per day are chemically treated, and the 
 
 R. CO 
 
386' HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 1892. sludge is separated from the effluent water. The sludge, 
 L. c. 0. after teing removed from the said reservoir, is taken in 
 Emth. steam vessels and discharged beyond the mouth of the 
 
 — West Ham. Thames into the Barrow Deep, whilst the effluent water is 
 
 — Woolwich, (jigoj^are'ed from the said reservoirs into the river Thames, 
 
 -ST.GEOEfiE'S ° „ , ,. I.J1 ■ J- 
 
 Union. and four-fifths, or the greater portion oi the sewage, is ois- 
 Ebith Case, charged in a crude state. 
 
 6. The said machinery, works, and pumping station were 
 specially designed and constructed for the work which they 
 have to do in connection with the metropolitan main 
 drainage system, of which they form an essential integral 
 part. 
 
 7. The said land, pumping station, and works were and 
 are suitable and necessary to enable the appellants to dis- 
 charge their statutable duty under the said Acts, and to 
 dispose of the sewage, and are held, occupied, and used by 
 the appellants in the manner and solely for the purposes 
 herein set forth. 
 
 8. It is impossible to work the said outfall works except 
 at a loss, and the land and pumping station, whilst used as 
 part of the sewage system, are incapable of yielding a 
 profit. 
 
 9. By the provisions of 18 & 19 Yict. c. 120, s. 150, and 
 21 & 22 Vict. c. 104, s. 3, the metropolitan board were 
 and the appellants are now authorized either to purchase 
 or to take on lease land for the purposes therein mentioned, 
 and they have power by 18 & 19 Yict. c. 120, s. 154, to 
 dispose by sale of the property so acquired. 
 
 10. It is agreed that if the land, outfaU works, and 
 pumping station in question were not in the possession of 
 the appellants but in the hands of a private owner, and 
 connected with the metropoKtan sewage system to be let 
 to the appellants as tenants, they would be willing to pay a 
 yearly rent for the same, for the purposes of being used as 
 part of and in connection with the metropolitan sewage 
 system, sufficient to support the gross and net rateable 
 value as fixed by the quarter sessions as hereinbefore 
 
HOUSE OP LORDS. 
 
 38r 
 
 L. C. C. 
 
 V. 
 
 Eeith. 
 
 - West Ham. 
 
 - Woolwich. 
 St. Geoeoe's 
 
 Union. 
 
 mentioned, but that except for the purposes of the metro- 1892. 
 
 politan sewage system, and if the said works and premises 
 
 were disconnected therefrom and in the hands of a tenant, 
 
 applied to any other use or purpose they might be available 
 
 for, the rateable yalue of the land and premises would be 
 
 2,6781. gross and 2,143/. net rateable value, and prior to 
 
 the making of the present rate the appellants had been eeith Case. 
 
 assessed for many years ia respect of the said works and 
 
 premises on such last-mentioned figures. 
 
 11. The appellants contend that the said works, pumping 
 station, and premises, being only capable of beneficial occu- 
 pation if used for other than the said sewage purposes, 
 should be rated at the value for which the same would let 
 to a hypothetical tenant from year to year, supposing the 
 said works, pumping station, and premises were not used 
 as part of the said sewage system, but were entirely dis- 
 connected therefrom, and applied to any other use or 
 purpose for which they could be made available, and that 
 the appellants should be rated according to the rule laid 
 down by the Court of Queen's Bench in Metropolitan Board 
 of Works V. West Ham [1870], L. E. 6 Q. B. 193. 
 
 12. The respondents contend that as the appellants 
 would have been willing to pay a rent for the said works, 
 pumping station, and premises, if they had not been the 
 owners, they must be taken into account as hypothetical 
 tenants from year to year in order to ascertain the rateable 
 value of the said premises, and that the rule as laid down 
 in the Burton-upon- Trent Corporation v. The Burton-upon- 
 Trent Union [1889], 24 Q. B. D. 197; Eyde's Eat. App. 
 (1886-90) 314, governs this case. 
 
 If the Court should be of opinion that the contention of 
 the appellants is correct, then the order of quarter sessions 
 is to be quashed. If the Court should be of opinion that 
 the contention of the respondents is correct, then the order 
 of quarter sessions is to be confirmed. 
 
 H. E. Avory, for the appellants. 
 cc2 
 
388 HOUSE OF LOEDS. 
 
 1892. FuUarton, Q.O., for the respondents. 
 
 L. c. c. It was admitted (as had been done in the Queen's Bench 
 
 Eeith. Division) that the case was governed by Mayor, 8(c. of 
 — "West Ham. Burton-upon- Trent \. Burton-upon- Trent Union [1889], 24 
 7g^°°™^ Q. B. D. 197; Ryde's Rat. App. (1886-90) 314, and the 
 
 Union. appeal was dismissed without argument. 
 
 The London County Council appealed to the House of 
 Lords, and the appeal is reported infra, p. 413. 
 
 0. A. London County Council v. West Ham Union. 
 
 1892. Special case stated by the quarter sessions for the county 
 
 y ' of Essex, on an appeal relating to sewers and a pumping 
 station, &c. connected therewith. 
 
 The appellants were assessed in respect of (1) "pumping 
 station, land and premises, house, lodge, and cottages " in 
 the parish of West Ham, at 6,227/. gross, and 4,982/. rate- 
 able, value ; and (2) sewers in the same parish, described in 
 the rate as "Outfall Mains," at 13,781/. gross, and 11,026/. 
 rateable, value. 
 
 The quarter sessions confirmed the rate as to both assess- 
 ments, subject to a special case ; and the Queen's Bench 
 Division confirmed this decision, the appellants (in effect) 
 admitting that the questions raised were covered by autho- 
 rities binding on the Queen's Bench Division. 
 
 The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. 
 
 The special case was as follows : — 
 
 1. The London County Council (the appellants) are the 
 governing body of the administrative county of London, 
 and are, by virtue of the provisions of [The Local Grovern- 
 ment Act, 1888] 51 & 52 Yict. c. 41, the successors to the 
 Metropolitan Board of Works, and are the present owners 
 of the outfall mains or sewers, pumping station, and other 
 premises, the subject-matter of this appeal. The appellants 
 have to discharge all the duties of the Metropolitan Board 
 of Works in reference to the drainage of the metropolis. 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 389 
 
 2. Pursuant to powers and duties contained in the various 
 Acts passed for the better government and drainage of the 
 metropolis, and known as the Metropolis Management Acts, 
 1855, 1858, and 1862, the Metropolitan Board of Works ■ 
 designed and constructed a system of drainage for the 
 metropolitan area. Under the said system, sewers and 
 the pumping station in question, known as the Abbey 
 Mills Pumping Station, were constructed, by means of 
 which the sewage is lifted from a lower to a higher level 
 for the purpose of being conveyed by what is called the 
 Northern Outfall Sewer to the Barking Outfall Works and 
 then discharged into the river Thames. 
 
 3. In order to enable the sewage from that part of the 
 metropolitan area which is drained by the Northern Low 
 Level Sewer to be raised to a higher level for the purpose 
 of being discharged into the river Thames, it was neces- 
 sary to construct a pumping station with the necessary 
 machinery, and for this purpose the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works purchased about 7^ acres of land in the said parish 
 and constructed thereon the pumping station in question, 
 with all the necessary machinery and works. So much of 
 the said outfall mains or sewers as are situated in the said 
 parish are constructed in an embankment upon land pur- 
 chased by the said Metropolitan Board of Works for such 
 purpose, and occupying in all about 37 acres. 
 
 4. The said sewers, machinery, works, and pumping 
 station were specially designed and constructed for the 
 work which they have to do in connection with, and for 
 the purposes of, the metropolitan main drainage system, of 
 which they form an essential integral part. 
 
 5. The said lands, sewers, pumping station, and works 
 were and are suitable and necessary to enable the appel- 
 lants to discharge their statutable duties under the said 
 Acts and to dispose of the sewage, and are held, occupied, 
 and used by the appellants in the manner and solely for 
 the purposes herein set forth. 
 
 6. The said lands, sewers, pumping station, and works, 
 
 1892. 
 
 L. C. C. 
 
 V. 
 
 Eeith. 
 
 - West Ham. 
 
 - Woolwich. 
 St. Geoeqe's 
 
 Union. 
 
 Wbst Ham 
 Case. 
 
390 HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 1892. whilst used as part of the metropolitan sewage system, are 
 L. c. c. incapable of yielding a profit, and cannot be worked except 
 
 Eeith. 
 
 at a loss. 
 
 Case. 
 
 — West Ham. 7. By the provisions of 18 & 19 Yict. c. 120, s. 150, and 
 
 - WoowicH. 21 & 22 Yict. 0. 104, s. 3, the Metropolitan Board of Works 
 -St. Geoeqe's ii • t i. i. 
 
 Union. were, and the appellants are, now authorized to purchase 
 
 ■WebtHam or take on lease land for the purposes therein mentioned, 
 and they are empowered by 18 & 19 Yict. c. 120, s. 154, 
 to dispose by sale of the property so acquired. 
 
 8. It is agreed that if the land, sewers, pumping station, 
 and works in question were not in the possession of the 
 appellants but in the hands of a private owner, and con- 
 nected with the metropolitan sewage system, to be let to 
 the appellants as tenants, they would be willing to pay a 
 yearly rent for the same for the purpose of being used as 
 part of, and in connection with, the metropolitan sewage 
 system, sufficient to support the gross and rateable values 
 of the said hereditaments as determined by the quarter 
 sessions as hereinbefore mentioned ; and it was found as a 
 fact by the said quarter sessions that, except for the pur- 
 poses of the metropolitan sewage system, and if the said 
 land, pumping station, and works were disconnected there- 
 from, and in the hands of a tenant applied to any other 
 use or purpose for which they might be available, the gross 
 estimated rental of the said land, pumping station, and 
 works (exclusive of sewers) was 3,125^. and the rateable 
 value 2,500^. 
 
 9. The appellants contend that the said sewers and em- 
 bankment ought not to be included in the rating, on the 
 ground that they are not capable of a beneficial occupation, 
 and in support of this contention they rely, among other 
 things, upon the provisions of s. 45 of the West Ham 
 Corporation (Improvements) Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. 
 c. clxxix.), and further, they contend that so much of their 
 property as is liable to be rated to the relief of the poor 
 should be rated at the value for which the same would let 
 to a hypothetical tenant from year to year, supposing it 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 391 
 
 was not used for the purpose of the metropolitan sewage 1892. 
 system, hut was entirely disconnected therefrom and applied l. o. c. 
 to any other use or purpose for which it could be made -EniTu 
 available by a tenant thereof, according to the rule laid — west Ham. 
 
 — "Woolwich. 
 
 ■ St. Geobge's 
 Union. 
 
 down in Metropolitan Board of Works v. West Ham Union 
 [1870], L. E. 6 Q. B. 193. 
 
 10. The respondents contend that it is not necessary to 
 rateability that the premises, as actually occupied and 
 utilised, should yield or be capable of yielding a com- 
 mercial profit, but that it is sufiicient if they could be let, 
 and would command a rent from any possible hypothetical 
 tenant from year to year; that the appellants ought to be 
 taken into account as one of the possible hypothetical 
 tenants from year to year ; that the rule as laid down in the 
 Burton-upon- Trent Corporation v. Burton-upon-Trent Union 
 [1889], 24 Q,. B. D. 197, governs this case, and that the 
 present rate is right. 
 
 If the Court should be of opinion that the contention of 
 the appellants is correct, then the order of quarter sessions 
 is to be quashed. 
 
 If the Court should be of opinion that the contention of 
 the respondents is correct, then the order of the quarter 
 sessions is to be confirmed. 
 
 West Ham 
 Case. 
 
 H. E. Avory for the appellants: As to the pumping 
 station and works, it is admitted that decisions binding on 
 this Court are against the appellants, and it is not pro- 
 posed to argue the question. But as to the sewers, it is 
 submitted that the appellants are not rateable. In B. v. 
 Metropolitan Board of Works \\%io'i\ L. E. 4 a B. 15, 
 it was held that a pumping station and works were rate- 
 able, but that certain underground sewers in the parish of 
 Greenwich were not. This decision was followed in 
 Metropolitan Board of Works v. West Ham [1870], L. E. 
 6 Q,. B. 193, which related to the very sewers and pump- 
 ing station the subject of the present appeal. The Queen's 
 Bench held the pumping station rateable, and the sewers 
 
393 HOUSE OP LOEDS. 
 
 1892. not rateaUe. It was sought to distinguisli the case from 
 L. c. c. the previous decision as to the sewers on the ground that 
 Eeoth. t^iey were carried in an embankment and not under- 
 — West Ham. ground, as in Greenwich, but the Court held there was no 
 -Woolwich, distinction. In Save V. Overseers of Putney [1881], 7 
 Union. Q. B. D. 223, it was held that the Metropolitan Board of 
 West Ham Works were not rateable in respect of Putney Bridge, 
 Case. which had been transferred to them under an Act of Par- 
 liament, which abolished the tolls, and enacted that the 
 bridge should be maintained by the board, the justices of 
 Surrey paying an annual sum to the board in discharge of 
 the Kability of that county to maintain the bridge. In 
 Mersey Docks and Marbour Board v. Overseers of Llaneilian 
 [1884], 14 Q. B. D. 770, it was held that a lighthouse, in 
 respect of which the board received toUs, which were not 
 higher than were necessary to meet the expenditure, was 
 not rateable, on the ground that it was incapable of profit- 
 able occupation. In Mersey Docks and Sarbour Board v. 
 Jones [1865], 11 H. L. 0. 443, the board had been held 
 rateable in respect of their docks. That case negatived 
 the assumption that the receipt of profit by the actual occu- 
 piers was necessary to create rateability, but the Lord 
 Chancellor (Lord Westbury) prefaces his judgment by 
 saying (at p. 501) : " Occupation, to be rateable, must be 
 of property yielding or capable of yielding a net annual 
 value, that is to say, a clear rent over and above the pro- 
 bable average annual cost of the repairs, insurance, and 
 other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the heredita- 
 ment in a state to command such rent." In Greig v. 
 University of Edinburgh [1868], L. E. 1 Sc. Ap. 348, the 
 university buildings were held, by the House of Lords, to 
 be rateable, but that was because certain matriculation 
 fees, &c. were received. And Lord "Westbury said (at 
 p. 355) : " It may possibly be held, that if property is 
 occupied by persons for a purpose yielding no value at all, 
 and they are absolutely prohibited from using it in any 
 manner that would be productive of value, it may, I say, 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 393 
 
 possibly be held that there is no rateable value in that 
 property." In Mayor, 6fc. of Burton-upon- Trent v. Burton- 
 upon-Trent Union, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 314; 24 
 Q. B. D. 197, it was held that a sewage farm was rateable, 
 and that decision is admitted to be conclusive against the 
 present appellants, in this Court, as to the pumping sta- 
 tion, but it is no authority for saying that a sewer is 
 capable of beneficial occupation. To hold that it is, the 
 long series of cases above cited (showing that an actual or 
 potential beneficial occupation is necessary) must be over- 
 ruled. In R. V. School Board for London, Hyde's" Eat. 
 App. (1886-90) 235 ; 17 U. B. D. 7;i8, it was held, no 
 doubt, that the school board were rateable in respect of 
 their schools, although no profit was in fact made ; but the 
 schools were not in themselves incapable of beneficial occu- 
 pation, as is a sewer. [Fey, L.J. : I cannot say that a 
 sewer can be said to be of no value. I would take a sewer 
 myself, if I could get rid of the sewage from my house in 
 no other way. Lord Eshee, M.E. : May we not imagine 
 some person laying out sewers, for the purpose of letting 
 them to the London County Council?] By s. 150 of the 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Yict. c. 120), 
 the Metropolitan Board of Works [now the London 
 County Council] are authorized "to purchase or to take 
 on lease for such term as they might think fit, any land, 
 or any right or easement in or over any land which they 
 may deem necessary or expedient for the formation or 
 protection of any works which they are authorized to exe- 
 cute under this Act," &c. It is submitted, that though 
 this section authorizes the appellants to become tenants of 
 land necessary for the formation of sewers, it does not 
 authorize them to become tenants of sewers already formed. 
 Lastly, the appellants will rely, if necessary, on the provi- 
 sions of the West Ham Corporation (Improvements) Act, 
 1888 (a). 
 
 [a] By s. 45 of the "West Ham Corporation (Improvements) Act, 1888 
 (referred to in par. 9 of the Special Case), "the upper surface of the 
 
 1892. 
 
 L. C. G. 
 
 V. 
 
 Eeith. 
 
 - "West Ham. 
 
 - "wool-wich. 
 St. Q-EOEdE's 
 
 "Union. 
 
 West Ham 
 Case. 
 
394 HOUSE OP LORDS. 
 
 1892. H. T. Beid, Q.C., and John Montefiore, for the overseers 
 
 L. c. G. of "West Ham : The objection that no profit is made out 
 
 EBras °^ ^^^ sewers is met by B. v. School Board for London, 
 
 -West Hah. Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 235; 17 Q. B. D. 738. 
 
 - Woolwich. r^Qj,^ BsHEE, M.E. : The difficulty here is that we have to 
 
 - St. Geobob's . 
 
 Union. find a tenant ; you cannot get an ordinary person to pay a 
 
 WestHam ^s^t because he can make no profit; and though the 
 Case. London County Council might be expected to give a rent, 
 they cannot (it is said) legally become tenants.] The 
 County Council are authorized to become tenants by 
 s. 150 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, for the' 
 term " land " must include a sewer placed in, and forming 
 part of the land. The rate is imposed upon land. Suppose 
 the County Council desired to purchase a particular piece 
 of land; it could not be contended that their statutory 
 power to purchase did not apply because that particular 
 piece of land contained a sewer. The powers to purchase 
 and to take a lease are co-extensive, being given by the 
 same words ; consequently the County Council have power 
 to take a lease of land containing a sewer already made ; 
 and there is no distinction between a lease for ninety-nine 
 years and for one year. 
 
 Lord EsHEK, M.E. : The only question on which we 
 have to decide is, whether sewers are rateable. For the 
 purposes of to-day the question as to the sewage works has 
 been withdrawn, and it must be taken that the decision of 
 the Court below as to the works is not to be interfered with 
 
 outfall sewer (exoludmg the slopes thereof . . . . ) shall, subject to the 
 provisions of this part of this Act, he open during the following hours 
 [specified ia the Act] for free and uninterrupted use by the public for 
 foot traffic . . . . , and the Metropolitan Board of Works shall (subject 
 to the provisions, &c.) allow such free and uninterrupted use, &c." The 
 section provides for restrictions and regulations of the use, by means of 
 bye-laws, &c., and by sub-s. (10) provides that "the soil and works of 
 the outfall sewer shall remain vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works, 
 and as between the corporation [of West Ham] and the MetropoHtau 
 Board of Works, all right to any valuable use therein shall be reserved 
 to and remain Vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works, provided that 
 such use is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act." 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 395 
 
 by us. The question as to tlie sewers is whether the 
 London County Council are rateable. Now the Council 
 is a body invented by Act of Parliament, with certain 
 powers and liabilities. Being so invented, its only powers 
 and liabilities are those given by Act of Parliament, either 
 expressly or by necessary implication. It has the power 
 of making sewers, and when they are made, it has certain 
 powers and liabilities in connection with them. The 
 liability is to use and to keep the sewers in such a state 
 that they can carry off the sewage of London. The power 
 of the Council, as to sewers, is to cause a rate to be made 
 for the necessary expenses. It is obvious that the powers 
 are limited thus, being only such as are necessary to enable 
 the Council to do their duty. Have the County Council 
 power to take a lease of sewers ? That depends upon the 
 statute, which enables them to purchase or to take on lease 
 for such term as they may think fit any land which they 
 may deem necessary or expedient " for the formation or 
 protection " of sewers. There is no express power to take 
 a lease of sewers, or to pay rent for sewers already made, but 
 only to lease land for the purpose of forming or of protect- 
 ing sewers. Is it a necessary inference that the Council 
 should have power to take a lease of sewers ? The terms 
 of a lease might put upon the landlord the power and duty 
 to repair ; and one would expect that the Council would 
 not be allowed to do less than to make the sewers, and to 
 keep them imder their sole control. In my opinion it is 
 clear that under the Act of Parliament the Council have 
 no power to take sewers on lease. It is not necessary for 
 us to consider whether the Council have power to purchase 
 land if they found a sewer already made thereon. It is 
 said that the decision in May 01; 8fc. of Burton-iipon- Trent 
 V. Burton-upon- Trent Union, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 
 314 ; 24 Q,. B. D. 197, governs this case ; but that decision 
 goes no further than this, that, in arriving at the rateable 
 value, you must take into account the actual occupiers ; 
 therefore, if the London County Council can be tenants of 
 
 1892. 
 
 L. C. C. 
 
 V. 
 
 Beith. 
 
 — West Ham. 
 
 — W00X.WIOH. 
 
 — St.Geoeqe's 
 
 Union. 
 
 West Ham 
 Case. 
 
 Lord Esher, 
 M.E. 
 
396 
 
 HOUSE OF LOEDS. 
 
 1892. these sewers, and such tenants as are contemplated by the 
 
 1. C. 0. rating Acts, they must be taken into account. No person 
 
 Emth. ^^^ the London County Council could be the hypothetical 
 
 - We8t Ham. tenant in this case, because he would have to take the 
 
 -Woolwich, gg^grs subiect to the restrictions of the Act of Parliament, 
 
 TTnion. that no greater charge shall be made for the use of the 
 
 sewers than is necessary for their maintenance. Then, 
 
 according to all the cases, no person can be assumed to be 
 
 the tenant who could make nothing by his tenancy. Can 
 
 you regard the London County Council as the possible 
 
 hypothetical tenant ? No ; because in the first place they 
 
 cannot legally be tenants at all ; and, secondly, because 
 
 they cannot be the sort of hypothetical tenant required, 
 
 because they can make nothing by their occupation. I do 
 
 not think the Burton Case was intended to, or does in fact, 
 
 overrule the earlier cases on this point, and I do not think 
 
 it governs this case. We allow this appeal on the only 
 
 question proposed to us, viz., as to the sewers. 
 
 West Ham 
 Case. 
 
 Lord Bsher, 
 M.K. 
 
 Pry, L.J. : I am of the same opinion. Three questions 
 have to be answered in order to determine rateabihty : 
 
 (1) Is there an occupier of the premises to be rated ? 
 
 (2) Is there a reasonable expectation of letting them from 
 year to year? and (3) Is there a reasonable expectation 
 of so letting them at a rent of the kind prescribed by the 
 Parochial Assessment Act ? In R. v. School Board for 
 London, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 235; 17 Q. B. D. 738, 
 Lord Esher, M.E., said : " The mode of finding out the value 
 is laid down in the Act, and it is to ascertain the rent which 
 a tenant (not the tenant), taking one year with another, 
 might reasonably be expected to pay; it is also implied 
 that where the owner occupies, he is to be considered as if 
 he were a tenant. The directions given by the Act are 
 equivalent to saying that one must look at all possible 
 tenants, and the phraseology does not exclude an owner 
 who himself occupies the premises. Therefore, an owner 
 in occupation of the premises is not excluded from con- 
 
HOUSE OP LORDS. 
 
 397 
 
 sideration as a possible tenant. Now the School Board 
 can be tenant of premises. If by the terms of any statute 
 it could not legally be tenant it would be excluded from 
 the calculation. It is said that the School Board ought to 
 be excluded because it can never obtain any beneficial 
 interest from its tenancy ; but it can be a tenant : it has 
 a duty to perform which may induce or force it to become 
 a tenant. It follows, therefore, that it would be wrong to 
 exclude the School Board from the list of possible hypo- 
 thetical tenants, whether it is in the position of owner or 
 in that of occupier." I agreed with that judgment when 
 it was delivered, and I agree with it now. In the present 
 case, therefore, we must inquire whether the London 
 County Council can be a tenant ; and, if it can, whether 
 it is withiu the description of a possible hypothetical 
 tenant. In my opinion the County Council cannot be 
 tenants; they have only power under s. 150 of the 
 Metropolis Management Act, 1855, to buy or take on 
 lease " any land which they may deem necessary or ex- 
 pedient for the formation or protection of any works which 
 they are authorized to execute." The works are the main 
 drainage system, and they are not authorized to buy or 
 take on lease works already made. The object of the Act 
 was to constitute a responsible body, with the duty of 
 making the system of drainage. It was not intended that 
 they should buy old works, and, therefore, prima facie, 
 they could not become tenants. But it has been argued 
 that sewers are "land" vdthin the meaning of this section. 
 Assume, then, that the County Council have legally the 
 power to take a lease of land. The finding in par. 8 
 of the special case assumes that the sewers are already 
 connected with the metropolitan sewage system, and 
 states that the London County Council would take the 
 sewers after their formation for the purposes of user ; but 
 there is no finding iu the special case that the County 
 Council would take the premises from year to year for the 
 purposes of the formation of the sewage system. There- 
 
 1892. 
 
 L. 0. C. 
 
 V. 
 
 Eeith. 
 West Ham. 
 - wool-wioh. 
 St. Geobob's 
 Union. 
 
 WestHak 
 Case. 
 
 Fry, L.J. 
 
398 HOUSE OP LORDS. 
 
 1892. fore, the Ooimty Council are within the description given 
 L. c. c. in -K. V. School Board for London ; they are persons who 
 EsmH. cannot legally be tenants. 
 
 — West Ham. 
 
 — Woolwich. Lopes, L.J. : There has heen no argument as to the 
 
 Union. ^ pumping-station and works, and the only question we have 
 WestIiam: ^° decide is as to the sewers. In order that they may be 
 Case. rateable, we must hold that the London County Council 
 can be possible tenants. Under the Metropolis Manage- 
 ment Act, 1855, I think they cannot, because the Act 
 authorizes them only to buy or lease land for the forma- 
 tion or protection of their works, and it is obvious that it 
 was not intended that the County Council should be 
 tenants of sewers ready made. But, assuming that they 
 can be, I should have thought, but for R. v. School Board 
 for London, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 235 ; 17 Q. B. D. 
 738, that the London Coimty Council under statutory 
 restrictions are not the kind of hypothetical tenant con- 
 templated by the rating Acts. I think those Acts con- 
 templated an ordinary tenant, and not a person who was 
 bound to become tenant at a loss ; and I said so in the 
 Burton Case, Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 314; 24 Q. B. 
 D. 197. In that case I do not think we intended to over- 
 rule R. V. Metropolitan Board of Works [1868], L. E. 4 
 Q,. B. 15, in which the Court said: "As regards the 
 sewers, we are of opinion that they are not rateable, on the 
 short ground that they are not at present the subject of a 
 beneficial occupation. . . . Their occupation yields no 
 profit to the board as occupiers, either actual or potential." 
 
 The Court reserved the question of costs for further 
 consideration. 
 
 1892. -R. T. Reid, Q.O., for the respondents : Before 1879, in 
 
 ^"•y ^^- appeals by way of special case from quarter sessions, the 
 
 order of the sessions was brought up by certiorari, and 
 
 recognizances were necessary. [See 5 Greo, 2, c. 19, s. 2.] 
 
HOUSE OP LOEDS. 
 
 399 
 
 Consequently, an appellant from quarter sessions, if un- 
 successful, paid costs under the recognizances ; but, if 
 successful, received none, the Court of Queen's Bench 
 having no statutory power (apart from the recognizances) 
 to give costs. By the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 
 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49), s. 40, the writ of certiorari is no 
 longer required. In R. v. Msherton Angar [1880], 6 Q. 
 B. D. 139, it was held that proceedings on a case stated by 
 sessions on an appeal against a poor rate, were " civil pro- 
 ceedings on the Crown side " within Ord. LXII., r. 2, and 
 that therefore costs were in the discretion of the Court 
 under Ord. LY. of the Eules of 1880. [See, now, Ord. 
 LXY. of the Eules of 1888.] But in Re Mills' Estate 
 [1886], 34 Ch. D. 24, the Court of Appeal held that the 
 Judicature Acts and Eules do not enable the Court or a 
 judge to order costs to be paid by persons who, before 
 those Acts came into operation, could not have been ordered 
 to pay them, the effect and intention of the Acts and Eules 
 being not to give any new jurisdiction to award costs, but 
 merely to regulate the mode in which costs are to be dealt 
 with in cases where the Court antecedently had jurisdiction 
 to award costs. This decision was followed in R. v. Parlby, 
 W. N. 1889, p. 190, which was a decision on a case stated 
 by justices. It is admitted that every Court has inherent 
 jurisdiction to give costs against the party invoking the 
 jurisdiction of the Court ; but, apart from statute, there is 
 no power to give costs to the party invoking the jurisdic- 
 tion. The power to give costs in a Court of common law 
 depends upon statute only : Garnett v. Bradley [1878], 3 
 App. Cas. at p. 962. By s. 5 of 53 & 54 Yict. c. 44 (com- 
 monly called Finlay's Act), "Subject to the Supreme Court 
 of Judicature Acts and the rules of Court made thereunder, 
 and to the express provisions of any statute, whether passed 
 before or after the commencement of this Act, the costs of 
 and incident to all proceedings in the Supreme Court, in- 
 cluding the administration of estates and trusts, shall be 
 ia the discretion of the Court or judge, and the Court or 
 
 1892. 
 
 L. c. 0. 
 
 V. 
 
 Eeith. 
 
 — West Ham. 
 
 — woolwioh. 
 
 — St.Geoeqe's 
 
 Union. 
 
 West Ham 
 Case. 
 
400 HOUSE OF LOEDS. 
 
 1892. judge shall have full power to determine by whom and to 
 L. c. 0. what extent such costs are to be paid." But by s. 4, 
 EittTH. " Nothing in this Act shall alter the practice ... in pro- 
 West Ham. ceedings on the Crown side of the Queen's Bench Division." 
 The present appellants entered into recognizances. 
 
 — Woolwich, 
 
 - St. Geoeoe's 
 
 Union. 
 
 West Ham S. E. Avory for the appellants: E-ecognizances under 
 Case. ^.j^g ^^ practice were merely the machinery for the recovery 
 of costs, and must not be confounded with the jurisdiction 
 to order costs to be paid. R. v. Fisherton Aiigar [1880], 
 6 Q.. B. D. 139, is precisely in point, and, as appears from 
 E. V. Parlby, W. N. 1889, p. 190, was frequently acted 
 upon before the decision in Re Mills' Estate [1886], 34 
 Ch. D. 24, which case dealt with the costs of proceedings 
 outside the Supreme Court under the Lands Clauses Con- 
 solidation Acts. That case has, therefore, no application 
 to the present question. The main object of 53 & 54 Vict, 
 c. 44 being to deal with proceedings in applications for 
 new trials, it was intended by s. 4 to prevent, e.g.,aL motion 
 for a new trial of an indictment against a corporation 
 being taken to the Court of Appeal. It was not intended 
 that the application of s. 5 should be restricted by s. 4. 
 [Fry, L.J. : There were formerly particular Acts, dealing 
 with costs in certain special proceedings, which have been 
 swept away by the Judicature Acts, and s. 5 was put in to 
 get rid of any question as to the power to give costs.] 
 Unless s. 5 has the general application contended for, it 
 is useless. [Fey, L.J. : It gets rid of the doubt whether 
 Ord. LXV. had the effect of a statute.] In R. v. Meyer 
 [1875], 1 Q. B. D. 173, a rule for a certiorari to bring up 
 an order of sessions was made absolute with costs against 
 the justices. [Lord Eshee, M.E. : The costs seem to have 
 been given by way of punishment for misconduct, and the 
 question of jurisdiction was not argued. Moreover, in a 
 note (at p. 178) it is stated that " the granting of costs 
 when a rule is made absolute for a certiorari is contrary to 
 the usual practice."] 
 
HOUSE OF LOEDS. 
 
 401 
 
 Eeference was also made to Corner's Cro-wn Practice 
 (see pp. 78, 79), and the Crown Office Eules, 1886, Form 19 
 (" Eeoognizance on Special Case on Order of Sessions "). 
 
 Lord EsHER, M.Ei. : This is a proceeding on the Crown 
 side of the Queen's Bench Division ; and, before the Judi- 
 cature Acts were passed, a practice arose with regard to 
 costs, owing to the inability of the Queen's Bench to deal 
 with the costs in such a ease as this. I accept the doctrine 
 that at common law there was no power in the Common 
 Law Courts to deal with costs, and that the whole of the 
 power of those Courts to deal with costs depends upon 
 statute. Power to deal with costs had been given in many 
 other cases, but not in cases like this. 
 
 Then came the Judicature Acts, and the orders made 
 thereunder. The Court had to construe Ord. LXY., r. 1, 
 upon this very point in the case of In re Mills' Estate 
 [1886], 34 Ch. D. 24, and the Court of Appeal decided 
 that the order did not give any jurisdiction over costs 
 where none existed before : that it merely altered the 
 practice where the jurisdiction existed before, but that it 
 did not enlarge the jurisdiction. Doubts, however, existed 
 in some minds as to the efPect of Ord. LXV., r. 1, and the 
 legislature, by 53 & 54 Vict. c. 44, put the matter beyond 
 a doubt in a section which gives a statutory rule to the 
 same effect as the order. It seems to me obvious that the 
 legislature in 1890, when they passed the Act, knew of the 
 limitation which had been put by the Courts upon the 
 general words of Ord. LXY., and they adopted that limi- 
 tation by using the general words of the Order in s. 5, but 
 taking out of those general words the matters mentioned in 
 s. 4. The true construction is that s. 5 is a general enact- 
 ment, and s. 4 has the effect of a proviso on the general 
 words used in s. 5. 
 
 The question, therefore, is whether this case comes within 
 the words of s. 4, which says that " nothing in this Act 
 shall alter the practice .... in proceedings on the 
 
 1892. 
 
 L. C. C. 
 
 V. 
 
 Beith. 
 
 — "West Ham. 
 
 — woolvioh. 
 
 — SlGeokge's 
 
 Union. 
 
 "West Ham 
 Case. 
 
40S 
 
 HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 1892. Crown side of the Queen's Bencti Division." The words 
 
 L. c. G. "nothing in this Act" cover s. 5. It has been argued 
 
 Eb™. that the words refer to the preceding sections only : hut 
 
 -WkstHam. that would be to read in the word "hereinbefore." It 
 
 would be to add words to the section, which we cannot do. 
 
 Union. As I have already said, this is a proceeding on the Crown 
 
 West Ham side of the Queen's Bench Division, and therefore the 
 
 practice in this case has not been altered by the Act of 
 
 — Woolwich. 
 
 - St. Geoboe's 
 
 Case. 
 
 Lord Esher, 1890 
 M.R. 
 
 It has been said that s. 5 ought to be read in its fullest 
 import unless there is something in the context to limit it. 
 That is true; but there is something in the context to 
 limit it, viz., s. 4. We have, therefore, no power to deal 
 with costs in such a proceeding as this. 
 
 Fey, L.J. : I am of the same opinion. And I wish 
 only to state my view with regard to the effect of the Act of 
 1890. Both in Foster v. Great Western Si/. Co. [1882], 8 
 Q. B. D. 615, and in In re Mills' Estate [1886], 34 Ch. D. 
 24, the same rule of construction was laid down : viz., that 
 the effect of Ord. LXY. r. 1, was not to enlarge the juris- 
 diction over costs, but to indicate the mode in which 
 jurisdiction was to be exercised. I am inclined to think 
 that the effect of s. 5 of the Act of 1890 is to give juris- 
 diction over costs in many cases; and that the general 
 words of s. 5 were intended to give jurisdiction if necessary. 
 It may be that the rule laid down in In re Mills' Estate 
 wDl not hereafter be generally applicable. I think that 
 the appellants would have succeeded in the present case 
 but for the provisions of s. 4, which exclude these pro- 
 ceedings from the operation of the Act of 1890. 
 
 Lopes, L.J. : In former times, a case like this would 
 have been brought up by certiorari, which is now no 
 longer necessary. But the case is in the same position as 
 if it had been brought up by certiorari. If it had been 
 brought up by certiorari there would have been no inherent 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 ie3 
 
 L. C. 0. 
 
 V. 
 
 Eeith. 
 
 - "West Ham. 
 
 - woolwioh. 
 St. Geoeqe's 
 
 Unioit. 
 
 West Ham 
 Case. 
 
 or original jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the costs. 1892. 
 The only jurisdiction they could have would be under a 
 statute or under the recognizances. There is no juris- 
 diction under any statute : therefore the only jurisdiction 
 to deal with costs would he under the recognizances. But 
 the recognizances apply only if the order is affirmed; 
 where the order is quashed there are no costs. This was 
 the position before the Judicature Acts, and the Judicature 
 Acts introduced no change. I agree with the statement of Lopes, L.J, 
 the law on this point in the note by Master Mellor, adopted 
 by Huddleston, B., in M. v. Farlbt/, W. N. 1889, p. 190. 
 I also agree with what was said by Cotton, L.J., in In re 
 Mills' Estate, 34 Ch. D. at p. 38 : " The object of the 
 [Judicature] Acts was not to give new jurisdiction. The 
 true construction of Ord. LXV. is that it was only intended 
 to regulate the way in which costs were to be dealt with 
 when power was given to the Court, or independently of 
 Act of Parliament, the Court had power to deal with costs." 
 It appears, therefore, that the passing of the Judicature 
 Acts has made no change in this respect. And if it be 
 necessary to fortify this view, it Seems to me that it is 
 strongly fortified by s. 4 of the Act of 1890. The result, 
 therefore, is that, the order having been quashed, this 
 Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the costs at quarter 
 sessions, nor in the Divisional Court, nor here. 
 
 Appeal allowed: application for costs refused (ci). 
 
 London County Council v. Woolwich Union. 
 London County Council v. St. Gteoege's Union. 
 
 Appeal by the London County Council from a decision 
 of the Queen's Bench Division affirming a decision of the 
 London Quarter Sessions (reported supra, p. 126). 
 
 0, A. 
 
 1892. 
 December 16. 
 
 (a) The respondents appealed to the House of Lords : vide infra, p. 413. 
 dd2 
 
404 HOUSE OP LOEDS. 
 
 1892. The following are the material paragraphs of the special 
 
 L. c. c. case in the "Woolwich appeal : — 
 EbIth. 1- The London County Council, the appellants, are 
 
 — West Ham. the governing body of the administrative county of 
 
 - Woolwich. London, and are hy virtue of the provisions of 51 & 52 
 
 TTnion. Yict. c. 41, the successors to the Metropolitan Board of 
 
 Woolwich Works, and are the present owners of the deodorizing and 
 
 St. (^oeqb's o^tf3,ll works, machinery, land and buildings, the subject- 
 
 • Cases. matter of this appeal. The appellants have to discharge 
 
 all the duties of the Metropolitan Board of Works in 
 
 reference to the drainage of the metropolis. 
 
 2. Pursuant to powers and duties contained in the 
 various Acts passed for the better government and drainage 
 of the metropolis, and known as the Metropolitan Manage- 
 ment Acts, 1855, 1858, and 1862, the Metropolitan Board 
 of Works and the appellants designed and constructed a 
 system of drainage and of treatment of sewage for the 
 metropolitan area. Such system is hereinafter referred to 
 as " the metropolitan system." Under the said system the 
 land in question was purchased by the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works ; and the necessary works, buildiags and machinery, 
 have since been constructed thereon by the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works and by the appellants for the purpose of 
 storing, deodorizing, and otherwise treating the sewage 
 drained from the whole of the metropolitan area north of 
 the Thames, which averages from 96 to 126 millions of 
 gallons daily. 
 
 3. The said works, buildings and machinery, were 
 specially designed and constructed for the work which 
 they have to do in connection with, and for the purposes 
 of, the metropolitan system, of which they form an 
 essential part. 
 
 4. The said land, works, buildiags and machinery, 
 were and are suitable and necessary to enable the appel- 
 lants to discharge their statutory duties imder the said 
 Acts, and for the advantage of the inhabitants of the 
 metropolis to treat and dispose of the sewage, and are 
 
HOUSE OF LOEBS. 405 
 
 held, occupied, and used hj the appellants in the manner 1892. 
 and solely for the purposes herein set forth ; and the l. C. c. 
 appellants are entitled to levy rates upon the whole Earan. 
 metropolitan area, including the parish of "Woolwich, to — West Ham. 
 enable them to occupy and use the said land, works, — Woolwioh. 
 
 1. -n mi 1 -St.GeOEQE'S 
 
 Duildmgs and machinery as aforesaid. The sewage to be Union. 
 treated is brought to the said premises from places outside woolwioh 
 the parish of "Woolwich, and, by reason of the high level gj_ geoege's 
 of the sewers bringing the same, the drainage of the parish Ca8bs. 
 of "Woolwich north of the Thames is not admitted into the 
 said metropolitan system. 
 
 5. The appellants do not derive any pecuniary profit 
 from the said hereditaments, and the works are maintained 
 by the appellants under the provisions of the above- 
 mentioned Acts. 
 
 6. By the provisions of 18 & 19 Yict. c. 120, s. 150, 
 and 21 & 22 Yict. c. 104, s. 3, and the Acts amending the 
 same, the Metropolitan Board of "Works were, and the 
 appellants are now, authorized to purchase, or take on 
 lease or otherwise, land for the purposes therein mentioned; 
 and they are empowered by 18 & 19 Yict. c. 120, s. 154, 
 to dispose by sale or otherwise of the property so acquired. 
 
 7. The quarter sessions found as a fact that the appel- 
 lants were practically the only possible tenants of the said 
 premises, so long as they remained part of the said metro- 
 politan system, and that if the said premises belonged to a 
 private owner, he would let, and the appellants would hire, 
 them for the purpose of being used in connection with and 
 as part of the said metropolitan system, at a yearly rent 
 sufficiently high to support the gross and rateable values of 
 20,567/. and 17,139/. respectively. 
 
 8. The quarter sessions further found as a fact that if 
 the said premises were not used in connection with and as 
 part of the said metropolitan system, but were entirely 
 disconnected therefrom, and applied to any other use or 
 purpose for which they could be made available, the gross 
 Talue thereof was 1,200/. and the rateable value 1,000/. 
 
406 
 
 HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 1892. 9. [Contention hj appellants that the premises should 
 
 L. c. c. be assessed according to the rule laid down in Metropolitan 
 
 Emth. ^oard of Works v. West Ham [1870], L. E. 6 Q. B. 193.] 
 
 — WestILui. 10. [Contention by respondents that the case was 
 
 ~s7ge™b governed by B. v. ScJiool Board for London [1886], 17 
 
 \^^ Q. B. D. 738 ; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 235 ; and Mayor, 
 
 "WooL-wicH ^c. of Burton-upon- Trent y. Burton-upon-Trent Union 
 
 St. Game's [18^9], 24 Q. B. D. 197 ; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 314. 
 
 Cases. 
 
 The second case (relating to the St. Greorge's Union) 
 raised the same question of law as the Woolwich Case, and 
 was an appeal from a decision of the Queen's Bench Divi- 
 sion, affirming a decision of the London Quarter Sessions 
 on an appeal relating to land, buildings, pumping-station, 
 and machinery used in connection with the main drainage 
 system of the metropolis, and vested in and occupied by 
 the appellants as the successors of the Metropolitan Board 
 of "Works. 
 
 The assessment appealed against amounted to 5,858/. 
 gross, and 3,994/. rateable value. The quarter sessions 
 found that if the London County Council were not the 
 owners they would be willing to pay a yearly rent for the 
 premises used, as they were, in fact, used, sufficient to support 
 the assessment appealed against. They further found that 
 if the premises were not used in connection with the main 
 drainage system, but were disconnected therefrom, and in 
 the hands of a tenant who applied them to any other use or 
 purpose for which they might be made available, and the 
 appellants were not taken into consideration as possible 
 tenants, then the gross value would be 1,577/., and the 
 rateable value 1,318/. The quarter sessions held that the 
 case was governed by R. v. School Board for London, 
 [1886], 17 Q. B. D. 738; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 
 235 ; and Mayor, ^p. of Burton-upon-Trent v. Burton-upon- 
 Trent Union, [1889], 24 Q. B. D. 197 ; Eyde's Eat. App. 
 (1886-90) 314. 
 
 [It is not necessary to set out the special case which 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 407 
 
 followed almost verlDatiin {mutatis mutandis) the special 1892. 
 case in tlie appeal relating to Woolwicli.] L. c. c. 
 
 V. 
 
 Eeith. 
 — West Ham. 
 
 S. E. Amry {Walter C. Ryde with him) for the appel- 7s7°°™a 
 
 lants : This case is governed by the decision in the West Union. 
 
 Ham Case {supra, p. 388) that the London County Council woolwioh 
 
 could not legally he tenants, and had no heneficial occupa- gj_ (^(^qe's 
 
 tion of the sewers. The reasons for that decision apply Cases. 
 equally to the sewage works the suhject of these appeals. 
 [He was then stopped.] 
 
 Littler, Q.C., and Sinclair Cox, for the Woolwich Union : 
 The present case is governed hy the decision of this Court 
 in the Erith Case {vide supra, p. 384). [Lord Esher, M.E. : 
 That was not a decision by this Court, and amounts merely 
 to an admission by counsel that the works were rateable.] 
 This case is governed by R. v. School Board for London, 
 Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 236 ; 17 Q. B. D. 738. The 
 London County Coimcil could be the hypothetical tenants 
 of these sewage works. The Metropolitan Board might 
 have taken a lease under 21 & 22 Vict. e. 104, ss. 3, 23, 
 which Act was not cited in the West Ham Case before this 
 Court {supra, p. 388). The only question raised by the 
 special ease is, at which of the two amounts are the appel- 
 lants to be rated : rateability is not disputed. Sewage 
 works and sewers are in a different category : see R. v. 
 Metropolitan Board of Works [1868], L. E. 4 Q. B. 15 ; 
 and Metropolitan Board of Worlcs v. West Ham [1870], 
 L. E. 6 Q. B. 193. 
 
 F. M. White, Q.C, and Banckicerts, for the St. George's 
 Union : The rateability of a pumping station only — not of 
 sewers — is iu question in this case. Assuming that sewers 
 are not rateable, then the case is governed by Guest y. East 
 Bean [1872], L. E. 7 Q,. B. 334, in which buUdings and 
 machinery, &c. (though occupied in connection with a 
 
St. Geoeqb's 
 
 408 HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 1892. non-rateable subject-matter, viz., an iron mine) were held 
 L. c. c. rateable. Eurtber, even if the County Council bave no 
 
 EmTH power to be tenants of these premises under tbe Metro- 
 — West Ham. pohtan Aots, tbat power is given them by tbe Local 
 -Woolwich. Government Act, 1888, s. 40 (8), (9), and s. 65. This 
 
 Union. Act also was not cited in tbe West Ham Case, supra, p. 388. 
 
 Woolwich 
 o^oTj's Lord EsHER, M.E. : These appeals are governed by the 
 decision of this Court in the West Sam Case, supra, p. 388. 
 That case raised the question of the rateability of sewers 
 forming part of the metropolitan main drainage system, 
 which was made and carried on under ss. 135 and 150 of 
 the Metropolis Management Act, 1855. The question we 
 then had to decide was whether the sewers were rateable, 
 and we held they were not by reason of those sections. 
 Sect. 150 enacts that "it shall be lawful for the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works to purchase or to take on lease, for such 
 term as they may think fit, any land, or any right or ease- 
 ment in or over any land which they may deem necessary 
 or expedient for the formation or protection of any works 
 which they are authorized to execute under this Act, &c." 
 That section does not apply expressly to the drainage 
 system at all, which is dealt with in s. 135. By s. 150 tbe 
 Board were authorized to purchase or take on lease land 
 for the formation or protection of any works authorized ; 
 and by s. 135, the Board " shall make such sewers and 
 works as they may think necessary for preventing all or 
 any part of the sewage within the metropolis from flowing 
 or passing into the river Thames in or near the metropolis, 
 and shall cause such sewers and works to be completed on 
 or before December 31, 1860, and shall also make all such 
 other sewers and works, and such diversions or alterations of 
 any existing sewers or works vested in them under this 
 Act as they may from time to time think necessary for the 
 effectual sewerage and drainage of the metropolis." We 
 held, whether rightly or wrongly, that when once the 
 Board had purchased the land and put tbe sewers in it, 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 409 
 
 the sewers, and tte land occupied by those sewers, were not 1892. 
 rateable. The Board could not, after becoming owners, l. c. 0. 
 let the land to tenants; they were bound to make the eemh. 
 sewers and to continue to use them for the purposes of the — West Ham. 
 sewage system. Therefore there could be no hypothetical — "Woolwich. 
 tenant other than the Board ; for no one else could take the ijnion. 
 premises which the Board themselves were bound to use wool-wioh 
 and to keep in order for the sewage. The only question then gj_ &^oeqe's 
 was, could the Board themselves be the "hypothetical Cases. 
 tenant " within the meaning of B. v. School Board for Lord Esher, 
 London, 17 Q. B. D. 738 ; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) ^•^• 
 235. All the difficulty in these cases is due to the intro- 
 duction of the "hypothetical tenant." In R. v. School 
 Board for London, we said that the owner himself might be 
 the hypothetical tenant, if he could legally be a tenant and 
 pay a rent; and we held that the school board could 
 legally be a tenant. But in the West Ham Case {supra, 
 p. 388), we held that the owners, the London County 
 Council, could not be the hypothetical tenants of their 
 sewers. "We considered that s. 135 of the Metropohs 
 Management Act, 1855, was inconsistent with their being 
 tenants ; for if one supposed a lease of the sewers it would 
 be necessary to suppose that the landlord would have a 
 power of re-entry if the rent were not paid; and this 
 would be absolutely contrary to the duty of the County 
 Council to provide for the sewerage of London. We held 
 that the sewers were not rateable ; we were asked to leave 
 the sewage works out of consideration, and we left them 
 for another occasion, and that occasion has now arisen. 
 The pumping station is an iudispensable part of the main 
 drainage system, and it is included among the " works " 
 mentioned in ss. 135 and 160 of the Act of 1855. Now 
 B. 135 puts sewers and " works " on precisely the same 
 footing. And if, for reasons based on that section, we 
 held that sewers were not rateable, we must come to the 
 same conclusion with regard to the " works " to which the 
 same section applies. On the Act of 1855, if it stood alone, 
 
410 HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 1892, -we must say that our reasoning applies equally to sewers 
 L. c. c. and works. 
 EsraH. -"^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^® ought to difEer from our decision 
 
 — West Ham. in the West Sam Case, because of certain Acts which were 
 
 — Woolwich, existing at the time of that decision, hut were not then 
 
 — St. George s 
 
 TJnion. called to our attention. This is a somewhat startling 
 
 Woolwich proposition. The first of the Acts referred to is the 
 St. Geohoe's Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1858 (21 & 22 
 Cases. Yict. c. 104). By s. 3, " the powers of taking land given 
 Lord Ester, by 18 & 19 Yict. c. 120, and all other powers in such Act 
 • relating to sewage works, shall extend and he applicable 
 as well to works for deodorizing sewage as to all other 
 works under this Act, and all such works shall be deemed 
 works for the sewerage or drainage of the Metropolis." 
 The efEect of that section is that the board may purchase 
 or take a lease of lands for the purpose of deodorizing 
 sewage; but it does not add in the least to the powers con- 
 ferred by ss. 135 and 150 of the Act of 1866. Then s. 23 of 
 the Act of 1868 was referred to ; it provides for the deodori- 
 zation of sewage pending the completion of the purification 
 of the Thames, but it does not in the least alter the powers 
 of taking land. Then it was said that the Local Grovern- 
 ment Act, 1888, increases the powers of the County Coun- 
 cil: by s. 40 (8), the powers and duties of the Metropolitan 
 Board are transferred to the London County Coimcil. If 
 they are transferred, they must be the same powers and 
 duties which attached to the Metropolitan Board. If so, 
 the powers of the London County Council to lease land 
 are the same powers as were given by s. 150 of the Act of 
 1855. Then s. 40 (9) of the Local Government Act, 1888, 
 applies to the London County Council (inter alia) s. 65 of 
 that Act, which enacts that " a county council may, for 
 the purpose of any of their powers and duties, .... 
 acquire, purchase, or take on lease, or exchange, any lands, 
 or any easements or rights over or in land." Amongst 
 the powers and duties of the London County Council is 
 the power and duty of dealing with the drainage of the 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 411 
 
 M.E. 
 
 Metropolis according to the provisions of the former Acts. 1892. 
 
 Neither of these sections in any way alters the position of l. c. C. 
 
 the London County Council, with regard to the drainage beith. 
 
 system, from that of the Metropolitan Board of Works. —West Ham. 
 
 Therefore, none of the Acts referred to alter the construe- — 'Woolwich. 
 
 tion or application of the Act of 1855. On that Act we Union. 
 
 decided in the West Mam Case, and I do not see how we woolwioh 
 
 can depart from our decision in that case, even if it be g^ g^kge's 
 
 inconsistent with earlier decisions. If our decision differs Cases. 
 
 from the opinion of Lush, J., in H. v. Metropolitan Hoard Lord Esher, 
 of Works [1868], L. E. 4 Q. B. 15, we are bound by our 
 own decision in the Court of Appeal. In my opinion, 
 both these appeals must be allowed. 
 
 Lopes, L.J. : In my opinion, these "works" are not rate- 
 able. No valid distinction can, in my opinion, be drawn 
 between these " works " and the sewers which we had to 
 deal with in the West Sam Case (supra, p. 388) . I think 
 that they stand upon precisely the same footing, and that 
 the same reasoning which we applied to the sewers is 
 applicable also to these works. 
 
 It has been urged that Acts subsequent to the Metro- 
 polis Management Act, 1855, were not brought to our 
 notice in the West Sam Case, and, if they had been, 
 would have changed our decision. They have now been 
 brought before us, and I am certain that they would not 
 have altered the view I took in the West Ham Case, nor 
 do they alter my view that these appeals are governed by 
 that case. 
 
 I wish to say something upon the law of rating gene- 
 rally, as I understand that these cases are to be taken to 
 the House of Lords. I am rather glad to hear that they 
 are, for, in my opinion, some of the decisions on the law 
 of rating are conflicting. The governing case is Jones v. 
 Mersey Bocks [1865], 11 H. L. 0. 443, in which it was 
 held that every description of property is rateable, provided 
 it be capable of beneficial occupation. But fori?, v. School 
 
412 
 
 HOUSE OF LOEDS. 
 
 1892. Board for London [1886], 17 Q. B. D. 738 ; Eyde's Eat. 
 
 L. c. 0. App. (1886-90) 235, I should have doubted whether an 
 
 Eecth. occupier under statutory restrictions, who suffers and must 
 
 — West Ham. suffer a loss by his occupation, is the kind of hypothetical 
 
 — WooLwicTH. tenant contemplated by the Parochial Assessment Act. 
 ■* St Gteoege's 
 
 Union. I should have thought that the Act contemplated an 
 
 ■WooOTioH ordinary tenant, whose occupation might possibly be bene- 
 
 St Geoeqe's fif'i^l) ^ii<i ^o^* o^i^ 'w^° '^^s bound to occupy at a loss (a). 
 
 Cases. J should have thought that a possible beneficial occupation 
 
 Lopes, L.J. was necessary in order to render any hereditament rateable. 
 
 Kay, L.J. : This is the first rating case in which I have 
 taken any part, and I wish to state the reasons why I con- 
 cur in the decision. The West Mam Case (supra, p. 388), 
 came before the Master of the Rolls, and Fry and Lopes, 
 L.JJ. The Master of the Eolls and Lopes, L. J., have 
 just stated their Adew of that decision, which was this : 
 that although the Metropolitan Board of "Works and the 
 London County Council had power to take land on lease 
 for the purpose of making sev^ers and other drainage 
 works, they had no power to take on lease sewers and 
 works which had been already made. In that case the 
 sewers in question had been made by the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works: see par. 2 of the special ease, supra, 
 p. 889. The question of the rateability of the sewage 
 works was not before the Court in that ease, and they had 
 only to deal with sewers. Those sewers which were con- 
 structed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and trans- 
 ferred to the London County Council, were sewers of 
 which neither of those bodies could take a lease. They 
 could have taken a lease of land and constructed sewers in 
 it, but they could not take a lease of sewers already con- 
 structed. Therefore, they could not be tenants at all, and 
 
 (a) Compare the remarks of the same learned judge to the same efPeot 
 in Mm/or, ^c. of Burton-upon- Trent v. Surton-upon- Trent Union, Hyde's 
 Eat. App. (1886-90) at p. 326. 
 
HOUSE OF LOEDS. 
 
 413 
 
 could not be regarded as hypothetical tenants. I cannot 
 see why that reasoning should not apply equally to the 
 works before us in this case. It seems to me that neither 
 the Metropolitan Board nor the London County Council 
 could take a lease of these works when constructed. I 
 give no opioion upon this point, except that this case 
 comes within the decision in the West Ham Case {supra, 
 p. 388) ; and the reason of that decision seems to me to 
 apply equally to both cases. 
 
 There is another question, no doubt (to which Lopes, L. J., 
 has referred), whether this kind of property, of which the 
 London County Council can have no beneficial possession, 
 can be rated. On that point I reserve my opinion, as it 
 does not arise here. It seems to me that all property 
 which has, or may have, an annual value, is prima facie 
 within the rating Acts, not according to the value which 
 it actually has, but according to the value which it may 
 have. [Lopes, L.J. : I meant that.] I prefer to rest my 
 judgment upon the ground already given, that the decision 
 in the West Sam Case applies to this case. These appeals 
 must be allowed. 
 
 Walter C. Ryde, for the appellants, asked for costs. 
 
 The Court held (following the West Sam Case, supra, 
 p. 398) that they had no power to give costs. 
 
 1892. 
 
 L. C. C. 
 
 V. 
 
 Emth. 
 
 — West Ham. 
 
 — woolwioh. 
 
 — SlGeoboe's 
 Union. 
 
 Woolwich 
 
 AND 
 
 St. Geoeoe's 
 Cases. 
 
 Kay, L.J. 
 
 London County Council v. Overseers of Erith. 
 London County Council v. West Ham Union. 
 London County Council v. St. George's Union. 
 
 In the Erith Case the London County Council appealed, 
 and in the West Sam Case and the 8t. George^s Union 
 Case the respondents appealed to the House of Lords {a). 
 
 H. L. 
 
 1893. 
 Feb. 23, 27, 
 
 28; 
 
 March 2, 3 ; 
 
 May 30. 
 
 {a) As to the Woolwich Union Case, see note {a), supra, p. 384. 
 
414 HOUSE OP LOKDS. 
 
 1893. Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., Bosanquei, Q.C., and S. E. Awry, 
 
 L. c. c. for the London County Council in all the eases. 
 
 V. 
 
 — "WestHam Balfour Browne, Q,.C., Fullarton, Qr.C, and Morton Smith, 
 
 - St. Geoege's for the overseers of Erith. 
 
 Union. 
 
 Sir B. E. Webster, Q.C, B. T. Beid, Q.C., and John 
 Montefiore, for the West Ham Union. 
 
 F. M. WIdte, Q,.C., and Banckwerts, for the St. George's 
 Union. 
 
 [In the arguments nothing material was added to the 
 arguments and the reasons given for the judgments in 
 the Courts helow. 
 
 [At the opening of the Erith Case it was pointed out that 
 the special case did not raise the question of rateahility ; 
 but, by consent, the point was argued in all the appeals.] 
 
 The House took time for consideration. 
 
 H. L. The Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell) : The London 
 
 1893 County Council, by whom the first of these appeals is pre- 
 Septemler 8. sented, are the successors of the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works, and are owners of the outfall works, pumping 
 station, and appurtenances, the rating of which is in 
 question. The sewage south of the Thames is conveyed 
 to Crossness, in the parish of Erith, and for the purpose of 
 discharging it into the Thames the Metropolitan Board of 
 Works purchased 37 acres of land and constructed upon it 
 these outfall works, pumping station, and appurtenances. 
 It was agreed (paragraph 10 of special case) " that if the 
 land, outfall works, and pumping station in question were 
 not in the possession of the appellants but in the hands of 
 a private owner, and connected with the metropolitan 
 sewage system, to be let to the appellants as tenants, they 
 would be willing to pay a yearly rent for the same for the 
 
HOUSE OP LOEDS. 
 
 41^ 
 
 purpose of being used as part of, and in connection with, 1893. 
 the metropolitan sewage system, sufficient to support the l. c. c. 
 gross and net rateable value as fixed by the quarter ebkh 
 sessions, as hereinbefore mentioned, but that except for the — West Ham. 
 purposes of the metropolitan sewage system, and if the ' ^'^^^"n™'^ 
 
 said works and premises were disconnected therefrom and, 
 
 in the hands of a tenant, applied to any other use or " l.C. 
 purpose they might be available for, the rateable value of 
 the land and premises would be 2,678^. gross, and 2,143/. 
 net rateable, value." The appellants contend : — " That the 
 said works, pumping station, and premises being only 
 capable of beneficial occupation if used for other than the 
 said sewage purposes should be rated at the value for which 
 the same would let to a hypothetical tenant from year to 
 year, supposing the said works, pumping station, and 
 premises were not used as part of the said sewage system, 
 but were entirely disconnected therefrom and applied to 
 any other use or purpose for which they could be made 
 available, and that the appellants should be rated accord- 
 ing to the rule laid down by the Court of Queen's Bench 
 m Metropolitan Board of Works v. West Sam [1870], L. E. 
 6 Q. B. 193." The respondents contended :— " That as 
 the appellants would have been willing to pay a rent for 
 the said works, pumping station, and premises if they had 
 not been the owners, they must be taken into account as 
 hypothetical tenants from year to year in order to ascertain 
 the rateable value of the said premises, and that the rule as 
 laid down in The Burton-upon- Trent Corporation v. Burton- 
 upon-Trent Union, 24 Q. B. D. 197; Eyde's Eat. App. 
 (1886-90) 314, governs this case." The Queen's Bench 
 Division gave judgment for the respondents, and this 
 decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. No 
 reasons were given in either Court, as the case was 
 regarded as governed by the decision of the Court of 
 Appeal in The Burton-upon- Trent Corporation v. Burton- 
 upon-Trent Union. In the case of The Churchwardens aiid 
 Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of West Sam v. Thi3 
 
416 HOUSE OP LORDS. 
 
 1893. London County Council, wliioli is also before your lordsMps 
 
 L. c. c. for judgment, the question was whether the London 
 
 EraiH. County Council were liable to be rated, and, if so, on what 
 
 — West Ham. basis in respect of a portion of the main sewers and of the 
 
 ■ ^''tSon'!^'^ pumping station situate in the parish of West .Ham. So 
 
 much of the outfall mains or sewers as are in that parish 
 
 LX!. are constructed in an embankment on land purchased 
 by the Metropolitan Board of Works, comprising about 
 37 acres. It was agreed that if the lands, sewers, 
 pumping station, and works were in the hands of a 
 private person, to be let to the appellants as tenants, 
 they would be willing to pay a sum sufficient to sup- 
 port the gross and rateable value, as determined by the 
 quarter sessions ; and that if the land, pumping station, 
 and works were disconnected from the Metropolitan 
 sewage system, and, in the hands of a tenant, applied to 
 any other use or purpose, the gross estimated rental of the 
 land, pumping station, and works (exclusive of sewers) 
 was 3,125/., and the rateable value 2,500/. The Divi- 
 sional Court of Queen's Bench affirmed the order of the 
 quarter sessions, but the Court of Appeal took a different 
 view. The only question determined by the Court of 
 Appeal was whether the sewers were rateable ; whether 
 the other works were rateable or not was withdrawn from 
 their consideration. The Master of the Rolls thought the 
 sewers were not rateable, because, unless it were the 
 London County Council, no tenant could be found who 
 would give any rent for them, and that the London 
 County Council could not be the hypothetical tenant for 
 two reasons : first, because they had no power to take the 
 sewers on lease ; and, secondly, because they must occupy 
 them subject t9 the restriction that they could make 
 nothing by them. Fry, L.J., thought, that in order that 
 a hereditament should be rateable, three conditions must 
 be fulfilled. First, there must be an occupier ; secondly, 
 a reasonable expectation of letting from year to year to a 
 tenant ; thirdly, a reasonable expectation of so letting at a 
 
HOUSE OP LORDS. 417 
 
 rent of the kind prescribed by the statute of WlU. 4. He 1893. 
 came to the conclusion that there was no suggestion of l. c. 0. 
 any other hypothetical tenant than the London County eemh. 
 Council, and that they were not persons who could be —West Ham. 
 deemed hypothetical tenants, inasmuch as they could not " ^'^^qn?^'® 
 become tenants of sewers. Lopes, LJ., said that if it had - — 
 not been for the School Board Case (to which I will refer ' l.c. 
 presently), he should have thought that, being occupiers 
 under such statutory restrictions as those by which they 
 are affected, and bearing in mind the fact that they must 
 suffer a loss from their occupation, the London County 
 Council were not the kind of hypothetical tenant contem- 
 plated by the statute. In the case of The Assessment 
 Committee of St. George's Union t. London County 
 Council, which also stands for judgment in your lord- 
 ships' house, the question raised by the special case was 
 precisely the same as that raised in the Erith Case. It 
 was found as a fact that if the London County Council 
 had not been the owners of the lands, works, buildings, 
 pumping station and machinery, they would have been 
 willing to pay a rent for them sufficient to support the 
 gross and net rateable value appearing in the valuation 
 list. It was further found that if the lands, &c. were 
 disconnected from the main drainage system and in the 
 hands of a tenant who applied them to any other use or 
 purpose for which they might be available, the gross value 
 of the premises would be 1,5771., and the rateable value 
 1,318/. The London County Council contended, before the 
 quarter sessions, that they ought to be rated at this lower 
 value, according to the rule laid down by the Court of 
 Queen's Bench in Metropolitan Board of Works v. West 
 Earn [1870], L. E. 6 Q. B. 193. The respondents con- 
 tended that the assessment should be at the higher value. 
 The Queen's Bench Division followed the Erith Case, which 
 they considered identical in its facts, and upheld the higher 
 assessment. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision. 
 They held that the case was governed by the West Ham 
 
 K. EE 
 
41-8 HOUSE OF LOKDS. 
 
 1893. Case, decided hj them, the effect of which I have Just 
 L 0. c. stated. In their view no distinction could be drawn 
 EE^Tti between the rateability of sewers and that of lands and 
 
 — West Hak. pumping-stations, which were part of the sewerage system ; 
 
 - St.Geobgb's tjja^t if ti^e one subject were liot rateable it followed that 
 
 Union. ■" ^. . ,. 
 
 the other was not rateable either. I can see no distmction 
 
 Ld. HerscheU -^^^^^^^ ^^g f^^ts of the Erith Case and those of the 
 St. George's Case ; they appear to me to be identical. The 
 judgments of the Court of Appeal in the two cases are, 
 therefore, in direct conflict. The former case was, as I 
 have said, not argued, because it was supposed to be 
 governed by the decision in the Burton-upon- Trent Case 
 [1889], 24 a B. D. 197; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 
 314. The distinction drawn between the Burton-upon- 
 Trent Case, which was argued, and the St. George's Case — 
 and, as far as I can see, the only possible distinction — was 
 that whilst the Court held that in the Burton-upon- Trent 
 Case the sewerage authority could have become tenants of 
 the land and pumping-stations which they owned, it was 
 not, in the opinion of the Court, within the power of the 
 London County Council to become tenants of the land and 
 pumping-station which belonged to them. I shall have 
 presently to consider the validity of this distinction, but 
 before doing so it will be convenient to caU attention to 
 the decision arrived at by the Court of Queen's Bench in 
 1868 upon a statement of facts identical with that which 
 came before the Court of Appeal in the Erith and St. 
 George's Cases. I refer to the case of JR. v. Metropolitan 
 Board of Works, L. E. 4 Q. B. 15. Two points were raised 
 in that case : first, whether the main sewers of the Metro- 
 politan Board of Works were rateable ; and, secondly, 
 whether a pumping-station and other premises belonging 
 to them were rateable. The Court of Queen's Bench 
 (consisting of Cockburn, C.J., and Lush, Hannen, and 
 Hayes, JJ.) held that the sewers were not rateable. With 
 regard to the pumping-station the Court came to a different 
 conclusion. They held that it was rateable, inasmuch as 
 
Ld. Hersohell 
 
 HOUSE OF LORDS. 419 
 
 it had an occupation value. " The Board " (said the learned 1893. 
 judge, who delivered the judgment of the Court) " must l. c. c. 
 have rented such premises, if they had not become owners eeoth. 
 of them, and a tenant might easily be found to take them — West Ham. 
 if the Board were able and willing to let them. A dis- " ^'"'■^^^^'^ 
 tinction was attempted to be drawn in favour of pumping 
 apparatus, as being a necessary adjunct to the sewers, and ""' ii.c! 
 it was contended that as the sewers are not rateable this 
 adjunct must be exempted as being part of a non-rateable 
 subject. But we cannot accede to this view. The machi- 
 nery stands on land which is valuable for occupation, and 
 which would undoubtedly be rateable in the hands of any 
 other occupier ; and its rateable quality cannot be affected 
 by the particular use to which it is applied by the Board." 
 It may be that the actual judgment in the St. George's Case 
 {supra, p. 408) is not at variance with the judgment of the 
 Court of Queen's Bench in the case of R. v. Metropolitan 
 Board of Works [1868], L. E. 4 Q. B. 15. The former case 
 was so framed that if the Court were of opinion that the 
 then appellants ought to be rated according to the rule laid 
 down by the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of Metro- 
 politan Board of Works v. West Ham [1870], L. E. 6 
 Q. B. 193 (to which I shall have presently, to advert), 
 and that the decision of the court of quarter sessions, hold- 
 ing that the London County Council were to be taken into 
 account as possible hypothetical tenants, and that the case 
 was governed by the principles laid down in the Burton- 
 upon- Trent Case, was erroneous in law, the order of the 
 quarter sessions was to be quashed. The judgment in the 
 8t. George's Case merely quashed the order of quarter ses- 
 sions ; it was therefore right, even though the pumping 
 station were rateable, unless it were, according to the con- 
 tention of the parish, rateable on the basis that the London 
 County Council were to be taken into account as possible 
 hypothetical tenants. But the Court of Appeal distinctly 
 rested their judgment on the ground that the pumping 
 station was not rateable any more than the sewers, and 
 
 E E 2 
 
420 HOUSE OF LOEDS. 
 
 1893. that no distinction could be drawn between the two cases, 
 
 L. c. c. whilst the Court of Queen's Bench, in R. v. Metropolitan 
 
 Ei^TH. -So«»-^ of Works [1868], L. E. 4 Q,. B. 15, no less emphati- 
 
 — West Ham. oally drew such a distinction and held the pumping station 
 
 ■ ^'^^X':'^'' to be rateable and the sewers not. The Court of Appeal 
 
 did not canvass the reasons adduced in the judgment of 
 
 ' L?C." ^ the Court of Queen's Bench, in R. v. Metropolitan Board 
 of Works for differentiating the two cases. The Master of 
 the EoUs said that he was not in the least persuaded that 
 the view taken by the Court of Appeal differed from the 
 view which Lush, J., took. The other learned judges 
 made no reference to the Queen's Bench judgment. I 
 have said enough to show that the question of the rate- 
 ability of these pumping stations is at present in a most 
 unsatisfactory condition. I purpose confining myself in 
 the first instance to the question of the rateability of these 
 pumping stations, and to a consideration, if they be rate- 
 able, of the proper mode of assessing them, reserving for 
 discussion at a later period the case of the sewers. The 
 decision of this House in Jones -v. Mersey Bocks [1865], 11 
 H. L. 443, marks an epoch in the law of rating. Many 
 of the earlier decisions are tainted with this vice, that they 
 proceed upon the supposition that lands held for public 
 purposes are on that account not rateable. The doctrine is 
 now exploded, your lordships' House having distinctly de- 
 termined that the circumstance that land is held by a public 
 body for public purposes does not affect its rateability. 
 Much reliance was placed in the argument at the bar in the 
 present cases on the language used by Blackburn, J., in de- 
 livering the opinion of the judges in the Mersey Bocks Case. 
 The learned judge said (11 H. L. C. at p. 462) : " It is clear 
 that there can be no valid rate unless the occupation be 
 such as to be of value ; and if the words ' beneficial occu- 
 pation ' are to be understood as merely signifying that the 
 occupation is of value (which is obviously the sense in 
 which the phrase is used in many of the cases cited at the 
 bar), it is clear that a beneficial occupation is essential as 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. '421 
 
 the foundation of the rate." The learned judge, in my 1893. 
 opinion, did not and could not have meant that it is essen- lTcTo 
 tial to rateahility that a particular occupier of the land can ebTth 
 make a pecuniary profit by the use to which he is putting — Webt Ham. 
 it. It is, I think, rateable whenever its occupation is of ' ^'^'rS^o^'*^'^ 
 
 value. At the time when the Metropolitan Board of 
 
 Works purchased in the parish of Brith 37 acres of land for ' l.o. 
 the purposes of their works, the land was, of course, rateable. 
 That it ceased to be so as soon as the Metropolitan Board 
 of Works became the owners can scarcely be contended. 
 For the purpose of discharging a duty imposed upon them 
 by law, they found it expedient to erect certain buildings 
 upon the land, and to connect them with sewers in other 
 lands belonging to them. I am unable to see how this 
 could produce the result that premises previously rateable 
 ceased to be so. It is found as a fact, as I have already 
 stated, that if the works were disconnected from the 
 Metropolitan sewage system, and in the hands of a tenant 
 applied to any other purpose for which they might be 
 available, their net rateable value would be 2,143^. Sup- 
 pose some other system of sewage were adopted, and the 
 pumping station were no longer applied to its present use, 
 I do not think it could be doubted that the London County 
 Council would be rateable in respect of it, and that its 
 rateable value would be at least the sum thus fixed. If 
 BO, I cannot think that it is exempt from rateabiUty, at 
 the present time, on account of the particular use to which 
 it is put by the owner, a use which it is clear might be 
 abandoned at any time if it were thought expedient to do 
 so. No obligation was imposed upon the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works, and none is imposed on the London 
 County CouncU, of maintaining in existence any particular 
 sewage work. So far, I have dealt only with the question 
 of rateahility ; upon what principle the assessment ought 
 to be made, and what considerations are proper to be taken 
 into account, are questions which, to my mind, are 
 involved in much greater difficulty. In the case of 
 
422 HOUSE OF LOEDS. 
 
 1893. Metropolitan Board of Works v. West Sam, L. E. 6 Q.. B. 
 L. c. c. 193, which came before the Court of Queen's Bench in 
 ^ *• 1870,- the question was raised on what principle the Metro- 
 
 - WestHak. politan Board of "Works were to be assessed m respect o± 
 -ST.GEOEOE-a a, pumping station. It was held that they were to be 
 — ' assessed upon the basis of the rent which would be paid 
 Xa. HersoheU ^^ ^ hypothetical tenant from year to year, supposing the 
 pumping station were not used for the purpose of main 
 drainage, but was entirely disconnected therefrom, and 
 applied to any other use or purpose for which it could be 
 made available by a tenant. It was admitted by the 
 learned counsel who appeared in that case for the respon- 
 dents, that the Metropolitan Board of "Works were rate- 
 able upon the basis adopted by the Court. Before the 
 quarter sessions, the parish had contended that the proper 
 principle to apply in rating property was to treat it as if 
 belonging to and constructed by a private owner, and in 
 his hands to be let to the board as yearly tenants ; but this 
 contention appears to have been abandoned before the 
 Court of Queen's Bench. The suggestion that a public 
 body who, in discharge of the duties imposed on them by 
 law, have become the owners of land and buildings thereon 
 might be themselves taken into account as possible tenants, 
 was, so far as I am aware, first insisted on in the case of 
 JR. V. School Board for London [1886], 17 Q. B. D. 738:; 
 Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 235. The Court of Appeal 
 held that, in determining what was the rateable value of 
 a school board building, the school board might be re- 
 garded as possible tenants, and what they would have 
 been willing, had they not been owners, to have paid as 
 rent for the premises might be taken into consideration. 
 The arguments urged at your lordships' bar in the present 
 ease render it necessary to review this decision, and to de- 
 termine whether it was sound in point of law. The rule 
 which is to govern the assessment of premises to the poor 
 rate was laid down by the legislature in 6 & 7 Will. 4, 
 c. 96, s. 1, which provides that, " No rate for the relief of 
 
Ld. Herscliell 
 
 HOUSE OF LORDS. 428 
 
 the poor should be allowed or be of any force wMch should 1893. 
 not be made upon an estimate of the net annual value of l. 0. 0. 
 the hereditaments rated thereunto ; that is to say, of the eemh 
 rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to — West Ham. 
 let from year to year, free of all usual tenants' rates ' ^'^t^qn?^'^ 
 and taxes, and tithe commutation rent-charge, if any, 
 and deducting therefrom the probable average annual """' Lro? 
 cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if 
 any, necessary to maintain them in a state to command 
 such rent." In the Act to provide for uniformity in 
 the assessment of rateable property in the Metropolis 
 (32 & 33 Yiet. c. 67), the term " gross value " is defined 
 as " the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be 
 expected, taking one year with another, to pay for an 
 hereditament if the tenant undertook to pay all usual 
 tenant's rates and taxes, and tithe commutation rent- 
 charge, if any, and if the landlord undertook to bear the 
 cost of the repairs and insurance and the other expenses, 
 if any, necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state 
 to command that rent." The term " rateable value " is 
 defined as meaning " the gross value after deducting there- 
 from the probable annual average cost of the repairs, insur- 
 ance, and other expenses as aforesaid." So far as the 
 question to be determined in this case is concerned, I do 
 not think the terms of the later Act are important. "The 
 annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected, 
 taking one year with another, to pay for an hereditament" 
 is the same thing as " the rent at which the same might 
 reasonably be expected to let from year to year." It has 
 never been doubted that the rent which is actually being 
 paid by the occupier does not necessarily indicate what is 
 the rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected to 
 pay, or that an owner who is in occupation, and who may 
 not be willing to let on any terms, is none the less rateable. 
 The tenant described by the statute has always been spoken 
 of by the Court as " the hypothetical tenant." "Whether 
 the premises are in the occupation of the owner or not, the 
 question to be answered is, Supposing they were vacant 
 
■^24 HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 1893. and to let, what rent might reasonably he expected to he 
 L. c. c. ohtained for them ? So far there can, T think, he no dif- 
 EmiH. ference of opinion. But then arises the question. Is the 
 
 — West Ham. owner to he regarded as one of the possible tenants in con- 
 
 - ^"'uoton^^'^ sidering what rent might reasonably be expected ? Bearing 
 
 in mind what was the object of the legislature in prescrib- 
 
 ' L^C? ^ ing this test of annual value, I cannot myself entertain 
 any doubt that the owner ought to be thus taken into 
 account. I entirely concur in the decision arrived at by 
 the Court of Appeal in the case of B. v. School Board for 
 London [1886], Eyde's Eat. App. (1886—90), 235. I 
 think the circumstances of that case when examined 
 are cogent to support the view which there obtained 
 acceptance. If the School Board were to hire buildings 
 for the purpose of establishing a school, it could not be 
 contested that these buildings would be rateable, and that 
 the rent which the School Board paid would be a most im- 
 portant element in determining the sum at which they were 
 to be assessed. If, instead of hiring school buildings, they 
 erect upon land similarly situate like buildings, or if they 
 were to buy the reversion of the buildings they hired, and 
 so become the owners, why in either of these cases should 
 the assessment be different ? The premises are to them in 
 all these cases of the same value, and their occupation is 
 equally beneficial ; why should the sum at which they are 
 to be assessed to the relief of the poor differ? Again, sup- 
 pose premises of occupation value for agricultural purposes 
 were to be adapted by the owner for use in connection with 
 the manufacture of some article under a patent process, 
 which he alone was licensed to use ; and that in their then 
 condition no person would be willing to take them, would 
 the premises cease to be rateable or be assessable only at a 
 nominal sum, although they might be much more valuable 
 to the owner and their occupation much more beneficial 
 than if they had remained fit for agriculture and in a con- 
 dition to be readily let for that purpose ? I cannot think 
 so. These are illustrations. Many others might be adduced 
 pointing in the same direction, and to my mind conclusively 
 
HOUSE OP LORDS. • 425 
 
 showing that the ohjeot of the legislature, in enacting the 1893. 
 provisions of the statute of Will. 4, to which I have jTgTg. 
 referred, would be defeated if the question what the owner debits 
 would have given if the premises had been to let and he — "West Ham. 
 had been free to take them were discarded from considera- " ^'^'■^I°J^^'^ 
 
 tion. The decision arrived at in the School Board Case 
 
 was followed in the Burton-iipon- Trent Case [1889], 24 ' l.c. ' 
 U. B. D. 197 ; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 314, which re- 
 lated to a pumping station in connection with a sewage 
 farm. In the case of Mersey Bocks and Harhour Board v. 
 Overseers of Llaneilian [1884], 14 Q. B. D. 770, which was 
 earlier than either of these cases, language was used by some 
 of the learned judges which it is not easy to reconcile 
 with the decision in the Biirton-upon- Trent Case, and, in- 
 deed, I am not sure that the decisions in the two cases 
 are altogether consistent. In Mersey Docks v. Llaneilian 
 the question to be decided was the rateability of the Mersey 
 Docks and Harbour Board, and the principle upon which 
 they were to be assessed in respect of a lighthouse, tele- 
 graph station, buildings, and lands within the parish of 
 Llaneilian. By the Mersey Docks Acts certain light- 
 houses theretofore erected, and also a system of telegraphs 
 established for the information and benefit of shipping 
 entering the port of Liverpool, became vested in the 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, to be maintained and 
 worked by them. The lighthouse in question was one of 
 those which had been previously maintained by the trustees 
 of the Liverpool Docks, and the lease of which for a term 
 expiring in 1863 became vested in the appellants on their 
 incorporation. The appellants afterwards purchased the 
 freehold of the site of the lighthouse and some adjoining 
 land, and spent a considerable sum in structural improve- 
 ments of the lighthouse. The Master of the EoUs came to 
 the conclusion, as a matter of fact, that under the statutes 
 regulating the matter the conservancy receipts applicable 
 to the maintenance of the lighthouses could never exceed 
 the conservancy expenditure, and he came, as a conse- 
 quence, to the -conclusion that the hypothetical tenant 
 
426 , HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 1893. must rent tliem siitject to the Acts of Parliament, and 
 
 lTcTo that therefore it would be a profitless occupation, inasmuch 
 
 Eemh ^® °° person who received the earnings could make any 
 
 — West Ham. profit therefrom. He therefore thought the lighthouse had 
 
 ■ St-Geokse's no beneficial value, and that there could be no beneficial 
 Union. ' 
 occupation. " That occupation was," he said, " to repeat 
 
 ■ j^Q^ ^ the phrase we used a short time ago, struck with sterility 
 by the Acts of Parliament." The phrase to which the 
 Master of the Polls referred was made use of in the case 
 of West Srommch School Board v. Overseers of West 
 Bromwich [1884], 13 Q. B. D. 929. In that case the 
 question of the rateability of a school board in respect of 
 a public elementary school belonging to them was raised 
 for the first time. Expressions were used by some of the 
 learned judges which do not seem to me to be quite in 
 harmony with the views arrived at on more mature con- 
 sideration of the matter in the case of B. v. School Board 
 for London [1886], 17 Q. P. D. 738 ; Eyde's Eat. App. 
 (1886 — 90), 235. There is, however, no conflict between 
 the two decisions, inasmuch as the school board was held 
 rateable. Bowen, L.J., said (13 U. B. D., at p. 942) : — 
 "I wiU assume that in the hands of the school board 
 it is not capable of being beneficially occupied ; but we 
 must consider whether it is capable of being beneficially 
 occupied in the hands of any other person. If land is by 
 law struck with sterility when in any and everybody's 
 hands, so that no profit can be derived from the occupation 
 of it, it cannot be rated to the relief of the poor. But if 
 the school-house is not used by this school board for any 
 profitable purpose, it by no means follows that the site of 
 it must be sterile in every other person's hands." Now, 
 if land is " struck with sterility in any and everybody's 
 hands," whether by law or by its inherent condition, so 
 that its occupation is, and would be, of no value to any 
 one, I should quite agree that it cannot be rated to the 
 relief of the poor. But I must demur to the view that 
 the question whether profit (by which I understand is 
 meant pecuniary profit) can be derived from the occupa- 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 427 
 
 tion by tlie oocupier is a criterion wliich determines 1893. 
 whether the premises are rateable, and at what amount l. c. o. 
 they should he assessed, and I do not think that a build- EraiH 
 ing in the hands of a school board is incapable of being — West Ham. 
 beneficially occupied by them, and is not so occupied " ^'^V^j."^™'^ 
 
 because they are prohibited from deriving pecuniary 
 
 profit from its use. Fry, L.J., in the case of JR. v. ' l^o!° ^ 
 School Board for London (17 Q. E. D., at p. 742), said: — 
 " The term ' sterility ' has been introduced into the cases 
 because, as a general rule, a profit is produced, but it does 
 not by any means follow that because there is no profit 
 there is no value. There could be no better illustration 
 of this than in the present case." I think the learned 
 judge here points to the true test — whether the occupation 
 be such as to be of value. This is the language used by 
 Lord Blackburn, and I have already said that the pos- 
 sibility of making a pecuniary profit is not in my opinion 
 the test whether the occupation is of value. As the case 
 of Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Llaneilian [1884], 
 14 Q,. B. D. 770, was much relied on by the counsel for 
 the London County Council, I feel bound to say that I 
 cannot agree with the view there adopted — that, because 
 no pecuniary profit could be derived from the conservancy 
 dues to which the board were entitled in respect of their 
 lighthouse, its occupation was not a beneficial occupation, 
 and had no pecuniary value, or that it was in any sense 
 which could exempt it from rateability "struck with 
 sterility." It appears that the lighthouse had at one time 
 actually been held by the board as tenants. During that 
 period its rateability could hardly be in question. Did 
 the board become less rateable or assessable on any different 
 basis because they ceased to be tenants and became the 
 owners? The lighthouse, as it appears to me, was of 
 value to the dock board, inasmuch as it assisted to protect 
 from danger vessels which might use their docks and pay 
 them dock dues. I think some confusion has arisen from 
 regarding the term "beneficial occupation" as meaning 
 
428 HOUSE OF LOEDS. 
 
 1893. the same thing as an occupation by whicli a profit could 
 L. 0. c. be earned. As was pointed out by the Court of Queen's 
 j;^^;^^ Bench in Governors of Bristol Poor t. Wait [1836], 5 A. 
 
 — West Ham. & E. 1, this is not its meaning when used as a test of 
 
 - ^y^^^'^ rateability. The governors of the poor of Bristol had 
 
 taken certain property outside the limits of their city for 
 
 ^^' L^C."^^'^ tlie purpose of putting out their poor, either simply to 
 lodge them or to employ them at their discretion. In 
 holding the governors rateable, Lord Denman, C.J., in 
 delivering the considered judgment of the Court of Queen's 
 Bench, said : " The absence of ' beneficial occupation ' was 
 also much insisted upon, and it was contended that that is 
 the true criterion to ascertain whether property be rateable 
 or not. It is not to be denied but that this phrase 
 'beneficial occupation' has been in frequent use, and, 
 generally speaking, it serves tolerably well to convey 
 rather a popular notion than to give a certain rule for 
 deciding the question of rateability in every instance. 
 Because, if by beneficial be meant profitable, or anything 
 like it, the expression is obviously fallacious." There is 
 no doubt a certain class of cases in which the amount of 
 profit which can be earned by the occupation of a here- 
 ditament is very material in ascertaining the sum at which 
 it should be assessed. In the case of gasworks, waterworks, 
 and other industrial undertakings, where a hereditament 
 is enhanced in value by its connection with a profit-bearing 
 undertaking, the profits earned and the share of those 
 profits attributable to any particular hereditament have to 
 be taken into account, and in such cases as these any 
 restrictions which the law has imposed upon the profit- 
 earning capacity of the undertaking must, of course, be 
 considered. But I do not think this class of cases affords 
 any guide to the assessment of such hereditaments as those 
 with regard to which your lordships have now to lay down 
 the proper principle of rating. Owing to a statement 
 made in the course of the argument at the bar, I wish, in 
 order to avoid possible misconception, to add a few words 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 439/ 
 
 as to the metliod which ought to be followed when it is 1893. 
 manifest that an owner would be willing to pay a higher l. c. c. 
 rent than could be obtained from any other tenant. It was EraiH. 
 said that a practice prevails of taking 5 per cent, on the cost -^ West Ham. 
 in the case of buildings as a basis for arriving at the rental. " ^'^t^on?*'* 
 Such a rule of thumb may be all very well where the - — 
 premises would be likely to find competing tenants, but is " l.O. 
 not by any means necessarily applicable where it is thought 
 that the owner would be likely to give a higher rental than 
 any one else. It would often be obvious that he would 
 never be willing to pay the rent arrived at in such a 
 fashion, inasmuch as it would be more advantageous for 
 him to become the owner. There are many other circum- 
 stances, too, which may affect the answer to the question 
 what the owner of premises would have been willing to 
 give if instead of becoming the owner he had become 
 the tenant of them. In all cases of the description of 
 which I am speaking, the whole of the circumstances and 
 conditions under which the owner has become the occupier 
 must be taken into consideration, and no higher rent must 
 be fixed as the basis of assessment than that which it is 
 believed the owner would really be willing to pay for the 
 occupation of the premises. Having given my reasons for 
 thinking that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the 
 Burton-upon-Trent Case [1889], 24 Q. B. D. 197; Eyde's 
 Eat. App. (1886-90) 314, was correct, and that the 
 principles there laid down are in accordance with the 
 law, I turn now to the point which it was thought 
 differentiated the St. George's Case from the Burton-upon- 
 Trent Case — namely, that neither the Metropolitan Board 
 of Works nor the London County Council could, under 
 the statutes which gave them their powers, have become 
 tenants of the pumping stations, of which they were 
 and are the owners. The point was first glanced at in 
 the judgment of the Master of the Eolls in E. v. 
 School Board for London (17 Q,. B. D. at p. 740). 
 "If," said the learned judge, "by the terms of any 
 statute, it" (the school board) " could not legally be tenant 
 
Ld. Hersohell 
 
 430 HOUSE OF LOEDS. 
 
 1893. it would be excluded from the calculation." The view 
 L. c. c. thus suggested was adopted by the Court of Appeal as 
 Emth. the ground of their decision in the case of Owens 
 ^ West Ham. Colkge V. Overseers of Chorlton-upon-Medlock [1887], 
 ' ^^tSon^^'" 18 Q. B, D. 403 ; Eyde's Eat. App. (1886-90) 256. The 
 appellants were the governors of Owens College. The 
 1,^67""" property rated consisted of land purchased by them for 
 the college and college buildings erected and provided by 
 them under the Owens College Act, 1870. The governors 
 were empowered to acquire and hold land as a site for the 
 college, and other land not exceeding 200 acres. They 
 were also empowered to grant leases of the lands vested in 
 them, except the site of the college. The college could not 
 be carried on as a collegiate institution at a profit in a 
 commercial sense. The lands had been purchased at an 
 expense of 25,000^. and upwards, and the buildings had 
 cost more than 125,000^. The respondents had assessed the 
 governors of the college at a rateable value of 3,285/. The 
 case stated found that, if let for any purposes to which (with- 
 out considerable structural alterations) they were capable of 
 being turned, they would not let for more than 1,300/. per 
 annum gross rental. Upon the basis of a rateable value 
 thus arrived at, the college authorities were willing to be 
 assessed. The Master of the EoUs said that if the college 
 could be considered as possible tenants that valuation would 
 be wrong. The test for the determination of the case 
 seemed to him to be whether they could legally be tenants 
 of the site for the purposes of the Act ; " for if they could 
 not," said the learned judge, " can it be right to say that 
 what they would give for rent should be taken into 
 account." After giving his reasons for thinking that the 
 site which the governors were authorized to take was what 
 they were to acquire as owners in fee simple, the learned 
 judge proceeded : " If so, it appears to me to follow that 
 they ought not to be taken into consideration as hypo- 
 thetical tenants ; can it be supposed that the governors 
 are seeking to become tenants of a site when the Act of 
 Parliament says they cannot be tenants ? It seems to me 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 4Sl 
 
 that the proposition involves the' answer to it." The other 1893. 
 learned judges concurred ia this view. Bowen, L.J., l. c. 0. 
 said : " It seems to me that they ought to be excluded bbi'th. 
 from the class of persons who might reasonably be ex- —West Ham. 
 pected to give rent for the premises, because they cannot, " ^'^xSion™'^ 
 
 as matters stand, ever become tenant of the premises for 
 
 the purposes of a site for the college ; a fetter is already ' l.c. 
 imposed upon them, and they can never now hold the 
 premises, except as owners in fee simple." Fry, L.J., 
 said : " It seems to me that the result is that the land is 
 dedicated for ever as the site of a building for the college, 
 and that the appellants are incapable of hiring that land 
 for the purposes of the college, and therefore that the 
 contention is well founded that, being prohibited from 
 hiring the land, they cannot be taken into consideration 
 as possible tenants." My lords, I have stated fully the 
 reasons which led the learned judges to the conclusion 
 that the governors of Owens College were to be left out of 
 account as possible tenants when determining the annual 
 value of the premises occupied by them, and I have most 
 carefully considered these reasons with all the respect 
 which is justly due to the views of the learned judges 
 who concurred in them; but I am unable to share the 
 opinion which they expressed. The conclusion arrived at 
 is in its result sufficiently startling. Two public bodies 
 might have erected buildings similar in all respects upon 
 lands similar in situation, and of equal value ; and these 
 buildings might be occupied in the same way and applied 
 to the same purposes ; and yet, if one of these bodies had 
 power, under the statute constituting it, to hire such 
 bmldings, and the other had no such power, the rateable 
 value of the buildings might, and almost certainly would, 
 be different ; that is to say, the buildings would have a 
 different annual value, for the words in the statute of 
 Win. 4, which follow the expression "annual value," 
 only provide a means of arriving at what is the annual 
 value of the premises. Why should the annual or the 
 
433 HOUSE OP LOKDS. 
 
 1893; rateatle value of the premises for the purposes of the poor 
 L. c. c. law depend upon the statutory power of the owner to take 
 j;g^,jjj them supposing he had not heen the owner? I am unable 
 — West Ham. to discover any satisfactory reason for this difference, and 
 ■ ^^^^0^°^'^ none seems to me to he suggested hy the judgments in the 
 — Oicens College Case. I do not think the distinction drawn 
 L.c. can he confined to premises belonging to and occupied by 
 public bodies for public purposes. A private individual 
 might receive money under an obligation to erect with it 
 a building upon a particular site, to be occupied by him 
 during his lifetime, and with a prohibition against letting 
 to anyone else. If the principle adopted in the Oicens 
 College Case he a sound one, such an owner would, I pre- 
 sume, he equally excluded from consideration. No attempt 
 was made to show that it was reasonable or just that the 
 distinction drawn in that case should affect the rateability 
 cf premises, or their assessment to the poor rate ; it appears 
 to have been thought a necessary consequence of the appli- 
 cation to such a case of the rule for the assessment of pro- 
 perty laid down by the statute of WUl. 4. No doubt, if 
 this were so, the conclusion reached was a right one, how- 
 ever unsatisfactory or even unjust it might be, that the 
 rateability or assessment of premises iu other respects 
 similar, and occupied for similar purposes, should depend 
 upon whether the owner could have taken the premises 
 which he occupied as tenant, or was only enabled to 
 become the owner of them. But having regard to the 
 language used in the statute, and the construction which 
 has been put upon it, I do not myself feel the diffi- 
 culty by which the Court of Appeal seem to have 
 been pressed. An owner who is in occupation of pre- 
 mises can, of course, never reasonably be expected to 
 take them, as tenant from year to year — he cannot 
 become tenant to himself. Yet it has been held that 
 the rent which, if the property were in other hands, 
 he would be willing to pay, may be taken into ac- 
 count when inquiriag what is its annual value — that 
 
Ld. Herschell 
 
 HOUSE OP LORDS. 40^^ 
 
 is, at what sum it might reasonahly be expected to let from 1893. 
 year to year. If the hypothesis he admissible that the l. c. c. 
 owner might himself be amongst the possible tenants, jjjj^-jjj 
 although, as a matter of fact, he could not be so, it seems — West Ham. 
 to me no more Tiolent hypothesis to conceive him as ' ^'^^^°^^'^ 
 amongst the possible tenants, even although he may be 
 subject to certain legal restrictions which would prevent ' l.c. 
 his becoming so. And, having regard to the scope and 
 object of the enactment in the statute of Will. 4, I can see 
 no sufficient reason why if in the one case he may be re- 
 garded as the hypothetical tenant he may not equally be 
 so regarded in the other. It seems to me that a contrary 
 conclusion ought not to be arrived at unless the provisions 
 of the statute inexorably require it. For these reasons I 
 am of opinion that the judgment in the St. George's Case 
 cannot be supported, even on the assumption that the 
 Court of Appeal rightly held that the London County 
 Council were only empowered to become the owners, and 
 could not, in fact, have become the tenants of the pumping 
 stations in question. It follows that, in my opinion, the 
 judgment in the case of London County Council v. Overseers 
 of Erith ought to be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed 
 with costs ; whilst in the case of The Assessment Committee 
 of St. George's Union v. London County Council the judg- 
 ment must be reversed, with the usual consequence as 
 to costs. I now turn to the separate case of the rateability 
 of the main outfall sewers in the parish of "West Ham. 
 But before dealing with the particular facts relating to the 
 main sewers in that parish, I desire to consider the case 
 generally of the main sewers formerly vested in the 
 Metropolitan Board of Works, and now in the London 
 County Council. It was held, as I have said, that the 
 sewers were not rateable. The ground of the decision was 
 thus put by Lush, J. (L. E. 4 Q. B. at p. 26), who de- 
 livered the judgment of the Court : " We are of opinion 
 that they are not rateable, on the short ground that they are 
 
434 HOUSE OF LOEDS, 
 
 1893. not at present the subject of a beneficial occupation. No 
 
 L. c. c. payment is made to the Board for the use of them ; the 
 
 Bemh. ^^*^^ which they are empowered to levy are for the expense 
 
 — West Ham. of construction and maintenance, and nothing more. Their 
 
 " ^^tSot™'^ occupation yields no profit to the Board, as occupiers, either 
 
 actual or potential." The effect of this decision was not 
 
 L.C. to establish an exemption of property which down to that 
 time had been rated. By section 135 of 18 & 19 Yict. 
 c. 120, the main sewers then vested in the Commissioners 
 of Sewers of the City of London and in the Metropolitan 
 Commissioners of Sewers were vested in the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works, and there was at the same time conferred 
 on them the power to construct other sewage works to pre- 
 vent the sewage within the metropolis passing into the 
 river Thames near the metropolis. The case stated by the 
 court of quarter sessions in R. v. Metropolitan Board of 
 Works [1868], L. E. 4 Q,. B. 15, found, as a fact, that 
 neither the late Commissioners of Sewers nor the Metro- 
 politan Board of Works had ever been rated to the relief 
 of the poor in respect of the sewers. It appears, therefore, 
 that for a very long period both before and since the 
 decision in It. v. Metropolitan Board of Works, this par- 
 ticular subject has not been treated as rateable. I cannot 
 regard as altogether satisfactory, in view of the fuller con- 
 sideration which has since been given to the matter, the 
 grounds upon which the Court of Queen's Bench rested 
 the non-rateability of these sewers ; the judgment seems 
 to assume that there can only be a beneficial occupation 
 where it is such as to yield a profit to the public body 
 occupying the premises. I have already said that, in 
 my opinion, the true test is whether the occupation is of 
 value, and not whether it is one by which pecuniary profit 
 can be made. But it would undoubtedly be a serious 
 matter that a hereditament which has for so long a 
 period been deemed free from rateability, should now, 
 for the first time, be subjected to it. And there is this 
 peculiarity about the particular subject with which I am 
 
HOUSE OF LORDS. 435 
 
 dealing, — until the sewer was made, no rateable subject- 1893. 
 matter existed where the sewer now is. If its use as a l. c. c. 
 sewer were abandoned, its rateability would cease ; for it jjecth. 
 is obvious that no person would be willing to take it at — "West Ham. 
 any rent. It is not like the case of land previously " ^''^X!'''^ 
 
 rateable which has been adapted to purposes different 
 
 from those for which it was previously employed, and ' l.O. 
 whose rateable character would not on that account be 
 affected. I cannot pretend that the law of rating is at 
 present in a satisfactory condition, or that, by the appli- 
 cation of well-settled principles, the rateability of public 
 bodies in respect of property such as that with which your 
 lordships are dealing, can be rested upon a sound and 
 consistent basis. In the case of Sheffield United Gas- 
 light Co. V. Overseers of Sheffield [1863], 4 B. & S. 135, 
 Blackburn, J., after quoting the observation of Wightman, 
 J., in the case of R. v. West Middlesex Waterworlcs Co. 
 [1859], 1 E. & E. 716, that there appeared so much difiB- 
 culty in satisfactorily applying the parochial principle of 
 rating by estimating the rent which a tenant would give 
 for the subject-matter in such a case as that before him, 
 as practically to amount nearly, if not entirely, to an 
 impossibility of doing so satisfactorily; and after stating 
 that the whole subject-matter appeared to be involved in 
 so much difficulty and uncertainty that the Court had 
 taken much time in considering whether they could not 
 place the rules as to the rating of these companies on more 
 intelligible and satisfactory principles, capable of uniform 
 application, added: — "We have not, however, succeeded 
 in laying down a rule which would be consistent with the 
 existing legislation and decisions on the subject, and would 
 at the same time be capable of being satisfactorily worked ; 
 and we are strongly impressed with the importance of not 
 unsettling the law as established by past decisions, where 
 we cannot lay down a rule which is not open to exception. 
 On the whole, therefore, we feel that our only course, 
 
 F F 2 
 
436 HOUSE OP LOEDS. 
 
 1893. until the Legislature shall thini: fit to interfere, is t 
 
 L. c. c. adhere to the case of R. v. West Middlesex Waterworks Co. 
 
 Ee'Jth. ^y lords, I entirely concur with the learned judge i 
 
 — West Ham. deeming it inexpedient to interfere in such a matter i 
 
 - ^"^^X?^'^ t^is with a long course of practice supported by decisior 
 
 H — h ^^^^ ^^^ ^°*^ *^^ ^^^y recent date. Therefore, even if 
 L.o. ■ be not possible to rest upon grounds altogether satisfactor 
 the exemption of these sewers, yet the case being as I hav 
 said a very peculiar one, I could not advise your lordshij 
 to depart from a practice which has prevailed for a ver 
 long period, and which has been sanctioned by judicis 
 authority. So far, I have referred to the case of sewei 
 under land, the surface of which was occupied by othf 
 persons, and in ordinary course assessed to the poor rati 
 But the particular case of the outfall sewer in "West Hai 
 is an exceptional one ; that sewer is not constructed undei 
 ground. Thirty-seven acres of land were purchased b 
 the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purpose of thi 
 portion of the outfall sewer. The land so purchased ha 
 down to the time of its purchase been assessed to the poc 
 rate. The sewer is carried in an earthen and concret 
 embankment erected upon the land at an average heigl 
 of twenty-one feet above the general surface of the Ian 
 adjoining. The work thus constructed, therefore, difEere 
 from the mere creation of a sewer below the surface ( 
 land which continued afterwards, as before, liable to assesi 
 ment, but was an adaptation, to the purposes of the Boar( 
 of land already occupied and rated. I confess I see tl 
 utmost difficulty in distinguishing such an erection as th 
 upon the surface of land from any other erection special] 
 suitable for the purposes of a particular occupier, but whic 
 might render it of less value for occupation by othi 
 persons not requiring it for that special purpose. And 
 in general owners who occupy land in order to discharj 
 a duty imposed on them by statute may be regarded i 
 amongst the hypothetical tenants, I cannot find any soui 
 
HOUSE OF LOEDS. 437 
 
 basis on whicli to rest a distinction in favour of the 1893. 
 
 Metropolitan Board of Works or tlieir successors, the l. 0. c. 
 
 London County Council, in respect of this particular use of beW. 
 
 the land which they own. It was, I am aware, held by the — West Hah. 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench in the year 1870 {Metropolitan " ^"^union™'" 
 
 Board of Works v. West Sam, L. E.. 6 Q. B. 193) .that there — ■ 
 
 was no distinction, for rating purposes, between a sewer ' l.c. 
 
 underground and one carried upon an embankment ; but I 
 
 have already stated to your lordships the only ground on 
 
 which the exemption of the sewers generally can, in my 
 
 judgment, be rested, and I have pointed out the distinction 
 
 which exists between an underground sewer and an 
 
 adaptation of land already rateable to a particular purpose. 
 
 Lush, J., stated that the rateable quality of land was 
 
 not to be determined by what it once was, or by what it 
 
 might thereafter become, but by what it was at the time 
 
 the rate was made. I quite agree with this ; but if it be 
 
 the law that the owner of a hereditament may be regarded 
 
 as amongst the hypothetical tenants, that rule would seem 
 
 as applicable to the particular erection, whose rateability 
 
 is the matter in question, as to any other. For these 
 
 reasons, I am of opinion that even if the sewers are in 
 
 general exempt from rateability the particular sewer work 
 
 in the parish of West Ham cannot be so treated, and that 
 
 the judgment of the Court of Appeal must therefore be 
 
 reversed, and the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division 
 
 restored, and I move your lordships accordingly. 
 
 Lord Watson : My lords,'[at the close of the argument 
 upon these appeals, all your lordships were of one mind as 
 to their disposal. I have very carefully considered, and I 
 entirely concur in, the reasons for the judgment, which 
 have been so fully and clearly expressed by my noble and 
 learned friend the Lord Chancellor. 
 
 Lord AsHBOUKNE : My lords, I concur. I only had an 
 
438 
 
 HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 1893. 
 
 L. C. C. 
 
 ». 
 
 Ebith. 
 — West Ham. 
 ■ St. Geoegb's 
 
 Union. 
 
 opportunity of sitting ia the first case, and therefore my 
 opinion is confined to that. 
 
 Lord Macnaghten and Lord Morris also concurred. 
 
 In the Erith Case, judgment of the Court of Appeal 
 affirmed, and appeal dismissed with costs. 
 
 In the West Ham Case, judgment of the Court of 
 Appeal reversed, and judgment of the Queen's 
 Bench Division restored, the respondents to pay 
 the costs here and below. 
 
 In the St. George's Union Case, judgment of the 
 Court of Appeal reversed, the respondents to pay 
 the costs here and below. 
 
 C. A. 
 
 1893. 
 November 4. 
 
 Mayok, Aldermen and Burgesses of Southport v. 
 Ormskirk TJnion. 
 
 Oas Pipes — Use of, for the Supply of Oas — Occupation or Easement. 
 
 The borougi of Southport adjoined the township of Birkdale. 
 The corporation of Southport were the owners of gas works situated 
 in the borough, and the local board of Birkdale were the owners of 
 gas pipes and mains within the township, and by a local Act the 
 local board were given the exclusive right of laying pipes, &c. 
 witbin their township, and were bound for ever to keep the existing 
 and future pipes, &c. in good repair and condition, and to aflord 
 the use thereof to the corporation of Southport for the supply of 
 gas within the township of Birkdale in consideration of certain 
 payments. 
 
 Held, by the Court of Appeal, afiB.rming the decision of the 
 Queen's Bench Division, that the corporation of Southport had an 
 easement only, and were not the occupiers of the pipes, &c. within 
 the township of Birkdale. 
 
COURT OF APPEAL. 439 
 
 ■ Appeal from a decision of the Queen's Bench Division. Mayoe, &o. 
 reported supra, p. 355 (a). 
 
 Poland, Q.O., and A. T. Lawrence, for the Ormskirk 
 Union. [The only addition to the arguments in the Court 
 helow was the citation of R. v. East London Waterworks 
 Co. [1852], 18 Q. B. 705, and Metropolitan Ry. Co. v. 
 Fowler, [1893] A. 0. 416, decided since the decision in the 
 Queen's Bench Division.] 
 
 J. F. Lease, Q.C., and S. T. Evam, for the Corporation 
 of Southport, were not called upon to argue. 
 
 Lord EsHER, M.E. : In my opiaion this is as clear a 
 case as possible. Here we have the local board of 
 Birkdale with power to lay down mains for the supply of 
 gas ; the local board are the sole judges of how that shall 
 be done, and in what position ia the streets. When the 
 pipes are laid down, are not the local board the statutory 
 owners? If so, and if they have laid them down and 
 have not given up their rights, are they not both owners 
 and occupiers? This is like the old cases of the water 
 companies who had power to lay down pipes ; they were 
 owners of the pipes, and it was held that by the pipes 
 they occupied land. Now the Birkdale Local Board were 
 in the same position, and unless they have given up that 
 position they are probably rateable, on which point, how- 
 ever, I express no opinion. In practice, it appears that 
 the corporation of Southport have undertaken the work of 
 making connections with the service pipes. I doubt 
 whether that is authorized by the Act, and whether the 
 local board of Birkdale might not say to the corporation, 
 you shall do it only under our inspection ; if, for instance, 
 the corporation did the work in a way which made it more 
 
 («) This appeal was heard while this hook was passing through the 
 press, and too late to admit of a report being appended to the report of 
 the proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division, supra, p. 355. 
 
 Obmskiek 
 Union. 
 
440 COURT OF APPEAL. 
 
 Matoe, &o. difficult to keep the pipes in repair. The local board have 
 
 OF SO-DTHPOST „ , . . , . • j_l • J. I-' 
 
 V. the power of laying mams and pipes in tneir townsmp 
 
 Union. generally, and not in any particular part of their township. 
 LordErfier ^^^^ ^^^^ ^'^^ "^^^^ ^^ keeping the mains ia repair ; so 
 M.B. ' far, therefore, they must be in possession. They have 
 parted with their rights only to this extent, that they have 
 a parliamentary obligation " to afford the corporation the 
 use of the mains for the supply of gas for public and 
 private purposes within the township." With this excep- 
 tion they have kept everything, and they have not given 
 up the occupation. In my opinion, the judgment of the 
 Court below was perfectly right. 
 
 Kay, L.J. : I am of the same opinion. It is impossible 
 to maintain that persons having merely the exclusive use 
 have more than a mere easement. The corporation have 
 not taken anything more than this from the owners of 
 these mains. The case is exactly like the case of an owner 
 of land granting to another person the exclusive right of 
 sending sewage through a drain in that land. Or it is 
 like the case of a man who has a wire used for the trans- 
 mission of electricity, and who grants to another the 
 exclusive right of using the wire for such transmission. 
 It is impossible to say that, in either case, the grantee 
 would occupy land. In my opinion, the Court below were 
 qxdte right, and the corporation have nothing more than a 
 mere easement in the exclusive use of the pipes. 
 
 Appeal dismissed. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 ACCOUNTS, for -what year to be basis of calculation, 56, 125, 138, 153, 
 169, 204. 
 
 ACEEAGE PEINOrPLE, application of, to rating of HuU Docks, 348. 
 
 ADVERTISING STATION, rating of, 286. 
 
 AGEIOHLTUEAL HALL, appeal relating to, 125. 
 
 ALTEEATION after revision of quinquennial list, but before appeal, 
 may be ground for supplemental list, 60. Sed cf. 223, 253. 
 
 APPEAL AGAINST TOTALS. See also Totaxs. 
 inspection of occupiers' returns on, 38. 
 powers of quarter sessions on compromise of, 72 — 93. 
 leave to serve additional notice of, after alteration of individual 
 
 assessments, 233 — 238. 
 the assessment committee are entitled to set ofi reductions made 
 by quarter sessions on appeals relating to individual assess- 
 ments, 242. 
 wbether tbey may set off alterations by special sessions, gumre, 
 242. 
 alteration of totals on, 93, 95, 279. 
 
 ■will not lie on ground of under- valuation of individual heredita- 
 ments, 361. 
 
 APPEAL TO QDAETEE SESSIONS. See also Costs; Peactice; 
 Qtjaeter Sessions. 
 objection before assessment committee a condition precedent to, 97. 
 entry of, after January 14,.,. 13. 
 
 notice of, to persons alleged to be under-assessed, 49 — 51. 
 appearance by assessment committee on, 57. 
 costs of, where no jurisdiction to hear on the merits, 97. 
 abandonment of, before respondents have appeared, 113. 
 notice of intention to appear as respondents on, 151. 
 time prescribed for hearing, in what sense imperative, 360. 
 what are next practicable sessions, 334. 
 
 AETIZAN8' DWELLINGS, 
 
 calculation of annual value of, from weekly rents, 24 — 26, 49—51. 
 what additional payments by tenants of, can be regarded as part 
 of rent, 21. 
 
442 INDEX. 
 
 ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE, 
 
 may alter valuation list after re-deposit, though, no objection be 
 
 made, 41 — 49. 
 appearance by, on appeal to quarter sessions, 57. 
 objection before, is a condition precedent to appeal to quarter 
 sessions, 97. 
 may be made by an agent, 276. 
 to give notice of alteration of assessment to occupier, 248. 
 
 ASSESSMENT SESSIONS, jurisdiction of, transferred to London 
 Quarter Sessions, 361. 
 
 ASYLUM, 
 
 appeal relating to, 115 — 124. 
 
 must be put in Class 11 of Schedule III. to V. M. A. 1869,... 124. 
 
 BATHS AND WASH-HOUSES, appeal relating to, 104. 
 
 BENEFICIAL OCCUPATION, 
 
 not possible, in case of keeper's lodge on Blaokheath, 98. 
 distinguished from occupation creating pecuniary profit to occu- 
 pier, 420 et seq. 
 
 BLACBHEATH, appeal relating to keeper's lodge at, 98. 
 
 BUILDINGS, 
 
 cost of, when erected at various times, 12. 
 
 valuation of, when unfinished at date of making list, 8. 
 
 interest on value of, when used for poor law schools, 31. 
 
 when used for lunatic asylum, 115. 
 
 when used for sewage works, 126—137, 429. 
 
 apparently disregarded in rating baths and 
 wash-houses, 104. 
 distinction between structural value and actual cost of, 130 — -137. 
 connected with a railway goods depot, 229. 
 
 BUTLBE'S WHAEF, appeal relating to, 34. 
 
 CANAL, occupation of, where natural river made navigable, 318. 
 
 CAEETAKEE, 
 
 of volunteer storehouse exempt, 303. 
 
 may dispute liability, on appKcation for distress warrant, 316. 
 
 CASE EOE OPINION OE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION, 
 
 refused, upon question whether wharves are to be put in Class 5 
 
 34. 
 alternative findings to be stated in, 37. 
 appointment of valuer to find facts in, 152. 
 
 CASE STATED AT QUAETEE SESSIONS, 
 amendment of, 1. 
 respondents allowed to rely on point not taken in, 27, 28. 
 
INDEX. 443 
 
 CHAIRMAN OF QUAHTEE SESSIONS, power of, to alter totals, 
 93, 95, 279. 
 
 CLASS 5 OP SCHEDULE in. TO V. M. A. 1869, includes a wiarf, 
 34. 
 
 CLASS 8 OP SCHEDULE IH. TO V. M. A. 1869, 
 includes premises used for building iron barges, 54. 
 
 containing printer's and lithographer's ma- 
 chinery, 68. 
 
 CLASS 11 OF SCHEDULE IH. TO V. M. A. 1869, 
 
 includes premises used partly as manufactory, partly as a ware- 
 house, 51. 
 partly as a manufactory, partly as a 
 wharf, 61, 66. 
 includes a county lunatic asylum, 124. 
 
 COST (OF LAND AND BUILDINGS). Bee also Stbtjctueai 
 Valtje. 
 where buildings erected at various times, 10, 12. 
 distinguished from structural value, 130 — 137. 
 
 COSTS. See also Taxation of Costs. 
 
 of amending case at quarter sessions, 1. 
 
 of application to enter appeal to quarter sessions after January 14. . . 
 
 13. 
 
 of adjournment rendered necessary by refusal to give inspection of 
 
 documents, 38. 
 of appeal to quarter sessions, given to respondents, where appellant 
 succeeds only on minor technical point, 18, 51. 
 given to respondents, where appellant fails on main 
 question of principle, but obtains a small reduction, 
 229. 
 given to respondents where they succeed even on a point 
 
 not taken in their case, 28. 
 not given to appellant, where he succeeds on one point 
 
 only, 54. 
 not given to appellants where a much larger reduction is 
 claimed than is allowed, 8. 
 or not given in full, 56. 
 not given in full to appellants who obtain reduction but 
 
 fail on question of principle, 226 — 228. 
 not given in full to respondents, where appellant succeeds 
 on one point only, 61. 
 of motion for leave to appear as respondents at quarter sessions, 
 
 151. 
 of abandoned appeal, 113. • ■ j- .• , i. , 
 
 maybe given, though sessions have no jurisdiction to hear appeal 
 
 on the merits, 97. . » ,, , ■ ,k 
 
 questions of amount are in the discretion of the taxing ofacer, 
 
 28, 256. . . , . , 
 
 apportionment of, on appeals as to gas mams in several parishes, 
 224—226, 256—258. 
 
444 INDEX. 
 
 COSHS—contintied. 
 
 apportionment of, on appeals as to line of railway in several 
 
 parishes, 226—228. 
 of proceedings before a valuer appointed by quarter sessions, 226 
 
 —228. 
 of proceedings on case stated by quarter sessions, 383, 398 — 403, 
 
 413. 
 
 COUNSEL, two counsel heard at London quarter sessions under special, 
 circumstances, 45, 63. 
 
 COUNTY COUNCIL, rateable in respect of an industrial school, 267. 
 
 See also LONDON COTJNTT COTJNOIL. 
 
 COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUM, appeal relating to, 115. 
 
 CEANES (HYDRAULIC), when moveable, whether part of rateable 
 hereditament, 190, 194, 200. 
 
 OEOWN, EXEMPTION OP, 
 
 does not extend to residences of police officers, 259. 
 
 nor to industrial school vested in county council, 267. 
 extends to premises occupied for purposes of volunteer corps, 303. 
 
 DEDUCTION FEOM GEOSS VALUE, 
 where less than actual cost of repairs, 34. 
 
 how ascertained, when rateable machinery has not been rated, 
 53, 67. 
 
 DEDUCTIONS FEOM GEOSS EECEIPTS in respect of statutory 
 paj'ments by joint committee managing docks of two com- 
 panies, 174—176, 187—189, 201, 203. 
 
 DEPOT for goods in connection with railway, 229. 
 
 DIEBOTOES' FEES, 
 
 allowed as deductions where paid for managing and working 
 
 docks, 179, 199, 203. 
 in case of a gas company, 222. 
 
 DISTEESS WAEEANT, jurisdiction of justices on application for, 316. 
 
 DOCES, 
 
 appeals relating to, 153 — 204, 348. 
 
 occupation of, where managed by joint committee of two companies, 
 
 _ 155—172. 
 directors' fees paid to joint committee for managing, 179, 199, 203. 
 superannuation allowances paid by joint committee or two com- 
 panies, 173, 179, 183, 189, 199, 202. 
 dredging expenses in, whether landlord's or tenant's charge, 183, 
 189, 200, 202. 
 average taken of, 174, 179, 182. 
 rating of warehouses occupied with, 178, 186, 187, 193, 201, 203. 
 application of acreage principle to rating of, at Hull, 348. 
 rating of wharfage dues earned in, 348. 
 rating of railways connected with, 348. 
 
INDEX, 445 
 
 DEAINAGE OP MINES, occupation of tunnel for, 338. 
 
 DEEDGING OF NATUEAL EIYEE does not amount to occupation, 
 331. 
 
 DEILL HALLS, occupied by volunteers, not rateable, 303. 
 
 EASEMENT, 
 
 how distinguislLed from occupation, 359, 360. 
 
 power to make river navigable and set out towing patbsj 318. 
 
 power to make tunnel for drainage of mines, 338. 
 
 use of gas mains for supply of gas, 355, 438. 
 
 EEITH SEWAGE WOEKS, appeal relating to, 384, 413. 
 
 EXCLTJSIVB OCCUPATION, 
 
 of towing-path, and canalized river, 318, 331 — 333. 
 of timnel and watercourse for draining mines, 338. 
 of gas pipes and mains, 355, 438. 
 
 EXEMPTION. See also Crowi.', Exemption op. 
 
 of premises appropriated to public religious worship, 14. 
 
 of lodge occupied by keeper for keeping order on Blackheath, 98. 
 
 of payments in lieu of tithes, 293. 
 
 of volunteers' storehouses, 30, 303. 
 
 FIEE BEIGADE station, rating of, 107. 
 PLATS held to be separate rateable hereditaments, 1. 
 FEEEMASONS, rating of school for daughters of, 8. 
 
 GAS COMPANY, 
 
 what year's accounts to be basis for calculating rateable value, 56, 
 
 169, 204. 
 increase in price of gas affecting rateable value, 208, 210, 212, 215, 
 
 217 2^3 253. 
 interest on tenant's capital of, 207, 209, 212, 214, 215, 217, 219, 
 
 221 223. 
 directors' fees, how chargeable, 213, 216, 222. 
 parliamentary expenses, how chargeable, 207, 213, 217, 220. 
 superannuation allowances paid to officers of, 208, 213, 216, 220, 
 
 222. 
 distinction between directly and indirectly productive mains of, 
 
 211, 216. 
 abnormal expenditure of, how dealt with, 212, 217, 218, 220, 222, 
 
 223. 
 apportionment of costs of appeals as to works and mains in several 
 
 parishes, 224—226, 256—258. 
 
 GAS MAINS, use of, whether occupation or easement, 355, 438. 
 
446 INDEX. 
 
 GOODS DEPOT OF EAILWAY COMPANY, on what principle to 
 be rated, 229. 
 
 GEOSS VALUE. See also Deduction from Gross Valub. 
 increase of, by consent, on appeal to quarter sessions, 28. 
 
 witlic&t consent, not possible, 53, 64, 66. 
 how ascertained, when statutory deduction is less than actual cost 
 
 of repairs, 34. 
 evidence as to true ^oss value may be given by respondents, 
 though gross value is not questioned by the appeal, 61, 65. 
 
 GEOSYENOE GALLEEY, appeal relating to, 18. 
 
 GUAEDIANS, appearance by assessment committee in name of, 57. 
 
 HALL. See also AQaiotrLTTJBAL TTatx. 
 for public religious worship, 14. 
 
 HEEEDITAMBNT, flat held to be separate, 1. 
 
 HOAEDINGS EOE ADYEETISEMENTS, rating of, 286. 
 
 HOTEL, 
 
 evidence of actual profits admitted, where business newly estab- 
 lished, 69. 
 rejected, in the case of an old busi- 
 ness, 70. 
 
 HULL DOCKS, appeal relating to, 348. 
 
 HYDEAULIC CEANES, when moveable, whether part of rateable 
 hereditament, 190, 194, 200. 
 
 HYDEAULIC POWEE, ratiag of pipes for supply of, 138. 
 
 HYPOTHETICAL TENANT, 
 
 of public baths and wash-houses, 104. 
 of county lunatic asylum, 115. 
 of sewers and sewage works, 126, 382 — 438. 
 of docks managed by joint committee of two companies, 155 — 172. 
 what superannuation allowances are chargeable against, 173, 
 179, 183, 189, 199, 202. 
 of gasworks, whether chargeable with repairs of rateable heredita- 
 ment, 219, 222, 223. 
 whether chargeable with directors' fees, 213, 216, 222. 
 whether chargeable with parliamentary expenses, 
 
 207, 213, 217, 220. 
 
 whether chargeable with superannuation allowances, 
 
 208, 213, 216, 220, 222. 
 
 whether entitled to reserve fund, 217, 218, 220, 222, 
 223. 
 occupier in aU cases to be regarded as possible hypothetical tenant, 
 429'-433. 
 
INDEX. 447 
 
 INDIEEOTLT PRODUCTIVE MAINS of gas company, iow dis- 
 tinguished, 211, 216. 
 
 INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL, held to be rateable, 267. 
 
 INSPECTION of ratepayers' returns on appeal against totals, 38. 
 
 INTEREST ON VALUE OF LAND AND BUILDINGS, 
 
 general remarks of Lord Hersohell as to ratiag of pubHo bodies, 
 
 429. 
 what rate taken, in rating charitable institution, 8. 
 in rating poor law schools, 31. 
 in rating public baths and wash-houses, 104. 
 in rating county lunatic asylum, 115. 
 in rating sewage works, 126 — 137. 
 the proper basis for valuing goods depot of railway, 229. 
 
 JUSTICES, iurisdiction of, on application for distress warrant, 316. 
 
 LAND, 
 
 interest on value of, in rating charitable institution, 8. 
 
 in rating sewage works, 126 — 137, 429. 
 
 in rating poor-law schools, 31. 
 
 in rating public baths, 104. 
 
 in rating county lunatic asylum, 115. 
 whether present value or actual cost of, to be taken ? 33. 
 interest on value of, when used as goods dep6t, 229. 
 occupation of, by hoardings for advertisements, 286. 
 
 LIGHTHOUSES, remarks of Lord Herschell as to rating of, 425, 427. 
 
 LIST. See Supplemental List ; Provisional List ; QTmrQUEifNiAL 
 List; Valuation List. 
 
 LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL, 
 
 appeals by, against totals, 38, 72, 242, 360. 
 
 rating of fire brigade station occupied by, 107. 
 
 appeal by, in respect of sewage works at Woolwich, 126, 403. 
 
 in respect of lodge on Blackheath, 98. 
 notice to, of appeal against totals, whether necessary, 236, 238, 
 
 242. 
 whether they can be aggrieved by totals, qucere, 381. 
 
 LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. See also Quaetee Sessions; 
 Appeal to Quaeter Sessions. 
 time for sittings of, in what sense imperative, 360. 
 exercise same jurisdiction as assessment sessions, 361. 
 
 LUNATIC ASTLUM, 
 
 appeal relating to, 115. „ ,, . , 
 
 liist be put in Class 11 of Sched. HI. to V. M. A. 1869,... 124. 
 
448 INDEX. 
 
 MACHINEBT, 
 
 what is necessary to constitute a "manufactory," 51, 52, 54 — 56, 
 
 61—63, 67. 
 deduction from gross value for repairs of, 53, 67. 
 on premises of customers of hydraulic power company, 138 — 148. 
 to be taken into account in calculating tenant's capital for working 
 
 docks, 190, 193, 194, 197, 200, 204. 
 
 MANAGERS OP MBTEOPOLITAN ASYLUMS DISTRICT, 
 practice of clerk of, as to alterations of totals, 94, 237. 
 
 MANDAMUS, when issued to quarter sessions, to hear and determine 
 appeal, 80—89. 
 
 MANUFACTORY, 
 
 Butler's Wharf admitted not to be, 36. 
 
 premises used for manufacture and storage of jam held not to 
 
 be, 51. 
 includes premises used for manufactiu'e of iron barges 54. 
 
 premises containing priuters' and lithographers' ma- 
 chinery, 67. 
 
 MASONIC INSTITUTION FOE GIRLS, rating of, 8. 
 
 MIDDLESEX COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUM, appeal relating to, 
 115. 
 
 MINE, occupation of tunnel for draining, 338. 
 
 MISSION HALL, rateable if not exclusively appropriated to public 
 religious worship, 14. 
 
 NOTICE, 
 
 of appeal to persons alleged to be under-assessed, 49. 
 
 to clerk of London County Council of alterations in totals, 93 — 96. 
 
 to London County Council of appeals against totals, 236, 237, 
 
 et cf. 95, 239. 
 of increased assessment, effect of failure to give, 248 — 251. 
 of appeal to next practicable sessions, 334. 
 what is meant by twenty-one days' notice, 336, 337. 
 
 OBJECTION BEFORE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE, 
 a condition precedent to appeal to quarter sessions, 97. 
 may be made by an agent, 276. 
 
 OCCUPATION, 
 
 how distinguished from easement, 359, 360. 
 
 of police officers' quarters, 259 — 267. 
 
 by servants of the Crown, 275, 311, 313—315. 
 
 of canalized river and towing-path, 318. 
 
 of tunnel for drainage of mines, 338. 
 
 of gas mains for supply of gas, 355, 438. 
 
 may be disputed on application for distress warrant, 316. 
 
INDEX. 449 
 
 OCCUPIEE, 
 
 rating of owner instead of, under local Act, 101. 
 
 of docks managed by joint committee of two companies, 155—172. 
 
 oiadvertismg stations, 286. 
 
 failure to giye notice of alteration of assessment to, 248, 251. 
 
 OWENS COLLEGE CASE, 
 
 application of, to rating of public baths, 108, 109. 
 
 to rating of county lunatic asylum, 115. 
 overruled by House of Lords, 382, 430 et aeq. 
 
 OWNEE, 
 
 appeal by, -witli respect to seventy houses, 1. 
 rating of, under local Act, 101. 
 
 EXPENSES of gas company, whether charge- 
 able against hypothetical tenant, 207, 213, 217, 220. 
 
 PAEOCHIAL PEINOrPLE, 
 
 how far applicable to docks belonging to two companies and worked 
 
 hy joint committee, 155 — 172. 
 application of, to HuU Docks, 348. 
 
 PICTITEE GALLEEY, appeal relating to, 18. 
 
 POLICE, residences of ofllcers of, held rateable, 259. 
 
 POOE LAW SCHOOLS, rating of, 31. 
 
 PEACTICE. See also Costs. 
 
 amendment of case at quarter sessions, 1. 
 
 entry of appeal to London quarter sessions after January 14,... 13. 
 
 increase of gross value by quarter sessions, 28, 51, 61, 65. 
 
 on stating case for opinion of Queen's Bench Division, 34, 152. 
 
 power of quarter sessions to order inspection of documents, 38. 
 
 notice of appeal to persons alleged to be under-assessed, 49 — 51. 
 
 two counsel heard at London quarter sessions under special cir- 
 cumstances, 45, 63. 
 
 appearance by assessment committee on appeal to quarter sessions, 
 57. 
 
 alteration of totals, on alteration of individual assessments, 93 — 96, 
 279. 
 
 objection before assessment committee, a condition precedent to 
 appeal to quarter sessions, 97. 
 
 appointment of valuer by quarter sessions, 112. 
 
 abandonment of appeal before respondents have appeared, 113. 
 
 appearance by respondents at London quarter sessions, 151. 
 
 time for hearing appeals at London quarter sessions, 360. 
 
 appeal against totals, right of respondents to set off, 242. 
 practice adopted on, 247. 
 
 appeal to next practicable sessions, 334. 
 
 PEISONS, groimd of exemption of, 274. 
 
 B. G G 
 
450 INDEX. 
 
 PEOFIT, 
 
 absence of, in case of charitable institution, 8. 
 
 in case of public baths and wash-bonses, 104. 
 in case of mission hall, 14. 
 
 in rating sewers and sewage works, 126, 382 — 438. 
 evidence of, in rating a picture gallery, 18. 
 
 in rating hotels, 69, 70. 
 actual profit made is measure of rateable value of railway, 348. _ 
 distinction between pecuniary profit to occupier and beneficial 
 occupation, 420 et seq. 
 
 PEOHIBITIO>r against London County Council's appeals against 
 totals, 360—382. 
 
 PEOYISIOXAi LIST, effect of foUowing supplemental list on, 249, 
 251. 
 
 PUBLIC-HOUSB. See Hotel. 
 
 PUBLIC PUEPOSES, 
 
 occupation by London County Council of lodge on Blackheaih, for, 
 
 98. 
 occupation of public baths for, 104 — 111. 
 occupation of sewers and sewage works for, 126, 382 — 438. 
 what interest on cost of buildings to be taken as rateable value, 
 
 429. 
 occupation of police officers' quarters for, 259. 
 exemption of buildings occupied for, 274, 275. 
 
 PUBLIC EELIGIOUS WOESHIP, exemption of premises used for, 
 
 14. 
 
 PUMPING STATIOX FOE SETVAGE, held by the House of Lords 
 to be rateable, 413 et seq. 
 
 QUAETEE SESSIONS. See aho Appeai to Qtjaeteb Sessions; 
 
 Lo^-Box QuAitTEE Sessions. 
 powers of, on compromise of appeal against totals, 72 — 93. 
 when mandamus to hear and determine appeal will be issued to, 
 
 80—89. 
 may have jurisdiction to give costs, though none to hear appeal on 
 
 the merits, 97. 
 appointment of valuer by, 112, 152. 
 alteration of totals by, 93, 95, 279. 
 
 time prescribed for sittings of, in what sense imperatiye, 360. 
 appeal to next practicable sessions, 334. 
 
 QUINQUElSrNIAL LIST, time for appealing from, 251. 
 
 EAILWAT, 
 
 apportionment of costs of appeals as to line in several parishes, 
 
 226—228. 
 goods depot connected with, how to be rated, 229. 
 rating of, when occupied in connection with docks, 348. 
 
INDEX. 451 
 
 EAILWAT STATION, lines -witMii, tip to bufeer-stops, treated as 
 part of running lines, 148. 
 
 EATEABILITY of payments in lieu of tittes, lio-w affected by actual 
 payment of rates thereon, 294. 
 
 EATEABLE VALUE. See Deduction feom Ghoss Vaiub. 
 
 EECEIPTS, 
 
 of what year to be basis for calculating rateable value, 56, 125, 
 
 138, 153, 169, 204. 
 evidence of, in rating an hotel, wben admissible, 69, YO. 
 
 EE-DEPOSIT, alteration of valuation list after, 41—49. 
 
 EELIGIOTJS WOESHIP, exemption of premises used for, 14. 
 
 EENT, 
 
 •what payments are part of, in case of artizans' dwellings, 21. 
 calculation of annual value from weekly rents, 24 — 26, 49 — 51. 
 
 EEPAIES, 
 
 wbere cost of, is greater than statutory deduction, how gross value 
 
 must be ascertained, 34. 
 deduction for, where rateable machinery has not been rated, 
 
 53, 67. 
 
 EESPONDENT, 
 
 notice of intention to appear as, 151. 
 abandonment of appeal before appearance by, 113. 
 
 EETUEN BY EATEPATEE AS TO EENT, 
 
 effect of inaccuracy in, upon appeal to quarter sessions, 29, 66, 67. 
 inspection of, on appeal against totals, 38. 
 
 EIVEE, occupation of, when made navigable, 318. 
 
 SCHEDULE III. OF VALUATION (METEOPOLIS) ACT, 1869. 
 
 See also CLASS 5, CLASS 8, &o. 
 in what class should a picture gallery be entered ? 18. 
 wharves must be put in Class 5... 34. 
 premises partly a manufactory, partly a warehouse, in Class 11... 
 
 51 ; see also 61, 66. 
 a county lunatic asyliun put in Class 11... 124. 
 
 SCHOOL, 
 
 for daughters of freemasons, rating of, 8. 
 belonging to guardians under poor law, 31. 
 industrial or reformatory, not exempt, 267, 271. 
 
 SEPAEATE OCCUPATION of flats, 1. 
 
 SESSIONS. See Appeal to Quaeter Sessions ; London Quaktee 
 Sessions ; Uxtaetee Sessions. 
 gg2 
 
452 INDEX. 
 
 SEWAGE WOEKS, 
 
 appeal relating to, at Woolwicli, 126, 403. 
 
 at West Ham, 388. 
 
 at Erith, 384. 
 decision of tie House of Lords as to rating of, 414. 
 
 SEWBES, 
 
 when constructed in embankment above ground, beld by the 
 
 House of Lords to be rateable, 433 et seq. 
 ■whether rateable when underground, quaere, 434, 435. 
 
 STATION. See Eatlwat Station; Adveetisinu Station. 
 
 STEEILITT, 
 
 of premises used as industrial school, 2Y5. 
 
 to be distinguished from absence of pecuniary profit to occupier, 
 426 bt seq. 
 
 STEUCTUEAL VALUE, 
 
 rate of interest on, in rating charitable institution, 8. 
 
 in rating poor law schools, 31. 
 
 in ratuig county lunatic asylum, 115. 
 
 in rating sewage works, 126, 429. 
 apparently disregarded, in rating public baths, 104. 
 distinguished from actual cost, 130 — 137. 
 of buildings connected with a railway goods depot, 229. 
 
 SUPEEANNUATION ALLOWANCES, 
 
 in case of docks managed by a joint committee of two companies, 
 
 173, 179, 183, 189, 199, 202. 
 in case of gas companies which have amalgamated, 208, 213, 216, 
 
 220, 222. 
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL LIST, 
 
 may be claimed on alterations after revision of quinquennial list, 
 but before hearing of appeal against that list, 60 ; sed cf. 223, 
 253. 
 
 can be made only in case of alteration in preceding twelve months, 
 248. 
 
 efleot of omission from, where property entered in previous pro- 
 visional list, 251, 252. 
 
 whether possible in the case of a gas company who have altered 
 the price of gas since the quinquennial list, 253 — 256. 
 
 SUETETOE'S FEES, apportionment of, where services applicable to 
 several appeals, 256. 
 
 TAXATION OF COSTS AT OUAETEE SESSIONS, 
 the burden of proof is on the applicant for review, 28. 
 apportionment of costs applicable to several appeals, 256. 
 
INDEX. 453 
 
 TENANT'S CAPITAL, 
 
 interest on, 140, 142, 144, 207, 209, 212, 214, 215, 217, 219, 221, 
 
 223. 
 of the London Hydraulic Power Company, 140, 141, 143—148. 
 in rating docks, -whether dredging plant is to be included, 183, 189, 
 200, 202. 
 what machinery is to be taken into account, 190, 
 193, 194, 197, 200, 204. 
 present value, and not prime cost of chattels, must be taken, 183, 
 
 190, 193, 195, 197, 204. 
 of gas company, 208, 211, 213, 216, 218. 
 
 whether stores for repairs of hereditament can be taken into 
 account, 219, 222, 223. 
 
 TIME, 
 
 prescribed for revision of list is directory only, 41 — 49. 
 for appearance by respondent, 151. 
 
 where appeal abandoned, 113. 
 forbearing appeals at quarter sessions, insufficient in 1891. ..235, 
 
 243, 360. 
 prescribed for hearing appeals, in what sense imperative, 360. 
 mode of reckoning twenty-one days' notice of appeal, 336, 337. 
 
 TITHES, rateability of payments in lieu of, 293. 
 
 TOTALS. See also Appeal against Totals. 
 
 alteration of, in consequence of alterations of individual assess- 
 ments, 93—96. 
 can be made only on appeals against totals, 233, 238, 
 279. 
 whether London County Council can be aggrieved by, 381. 
 
 TOWING- PATH, occupation of, by side of na-ngable river, 318. 
 
 TUNNEL, occupation of, for draining mines, 338. 
 
 UNFINISHED BUILDINGS valued by consent, in making quin- 
 quennial list, 8. 
 
 VALUATION LIST. See also Peovisional List; QuiNQ-CTEinsnAL 
 
 List ; Supplemental List. 
 not rendered void by delay in revising, 41—49. 
 may be altered by assessment committee after re-deposit, though 
 
 no objection be made, 41 — 49. 
 
 VALUATION (METEOPOLIS) ACT, 1869, 
 sect. 4. (definitions), 56, 66. 
 
 6. (making of valuation lists), 375. 
 
 7. (re-nsion of valuation Usts), 44. 
 
 9. (notice to occupier of alteration of assessment), 248. 
 11. (objection before assessment committee), 252, 375. 
 14. (revision of list by assessment committee), 281, 375. 
 17. (printing and distribution of totals), 375. 
 
454 INDEX, 
 
 VAIUATION (METEOPOLIS) ACT, 1869— continued. 
 sect. 18. (holding of special sessions), 315. 
 
 19. (appeals to special sessions), 376. 
 
 20. (jurisdiction of special sessions), 240, 245, 282, 376, 381. 
 
 23. (general assessment sessions), 376. 
 
 24. (appointment of members of assessment sessions), 365, 
 
 367, 369. 
 26. (powers of assessment sessions), 370, 376. 
 
 31. (production of documents), 39, 40. 
 
 32. (appeals to quarter sessions), 47, 58, 82, 86, 97, 240, 250, 
 
 252, 369, 374, 376, 378, 381. 
 
 33. (notice of appeal to quarter sessions), 88, 236, 282. 
 
 34. (hearing of appeals), 64, 76, 82, 87, 93, 96, 96, 235, 237, 
 
 240, 245, 252, 280—282, 367, 368, 372, 376, 382. 
 
 35. (order by sessions for makmg list), 46, 370. 
 
 36. (appointment of yaluer by quarter sessions), 112, 152, 
 
 367, 370. 
 
 37. (adjournment to receive valuation list, or valuation), 365, 
 
 367, 370, 372, 373. 
 
 40. fspecial case), 152, 365, 367, 370, 373. 
 
 41 . (notice of alteration of list), 94, 96, 239, 240, 280. 
 
 42. (times for proceedings), 44—48, 248, 365 et seq., 376 et seq. 
 
 sub-sect. (1) (deposit of list), 67, 366. 
 (4) prevision of Hst), 44. 
 
 (5) (objections to hst), 45. 
 
 (7) (re-deposit of list), 45. 
 
 (8) (final approval of list), 45, 365. 
 
 (9) ^notice of appeal to special sessions), 45. 
 (10) (time for holding special sessions), 45, 365. 
 
 (12) (notice of appeal to quarter sessions), 48, 
 
 233, 282. 
 
 (13) (holding of quarter sessions), 49, 235, 243, 
 
 365 et seq., 376 etseq. 
 
 43. ^duration of valuation Hst), 367, 371. 
 
 44. (levy of rate notwithstanding appeal), 237, 283, 365, 368, 
 
 372, 381. 
 
 45. (valuation Hst to be conclusive), 250, 372. 
 
 46. (revision of list), 68, 237, 249, 250, 252, 253, 367, 371. 
 
 47. (provisional Hst), 249, 284, 371. 
 
 52. (deductions from gross value), 78, 79, 374. 
 
 65. (returns to be made by occupiers), 38, 66, 247. 
 
 66. (forms of returns), 38. 
 
 57. fassessment committee may require returns), 247. 
 69. (inspection of documents), 39, 40. 
 Schedule in., Class 5... 20, 34—37, 52. 
 
 Class 6... 63. 
 
 Class 8... 29, 36, 52—56, 62, 63, 68. 
 
 Class 11. ..19, 29, 35—37, 61, 54, 56, 61, 63, 66, 124. 
 
 VAITJEE, 
 
 must be nominated by quarter sessions, not by the parties, 112. 
 appomtment of, to find facts in case for Queen's Bench Division, 
 lu2. 
 
 costs of proceedings before, 226—228. 
 
INDEX. 455 
 
 VATS, whetlier part of rateable hereditament, 191, 194, 197. 
 
 VAULT CARVINGrS ia floors of wareliouses, not part of tenant's plant, 
 191, 194, 197. 
 
 VOLUNTEEE STOEEHOUSES, exemption of, 30, 303. 
 
 WAEEHOUSE, 
 
 ■when combined with manufactory, to be entered in Class 11...51. 
 when belonging to dock company, must be separately rated, 178, 
 
 186, 187, 193, 201, 203. 
 rating of, when connected with railway, 229. 
 
 WASHHOUSBS AND BATHS, appeal relating to, 104. 
 
 ■WATEEOOTJESE, occupation of, for draining mines, 338. 
 
 WEEKLY TENANTS, calculation of annual value from rents paid 
 by, 24—26, 49—51. 
 
 WEST HIM SEWEES AND SEWAGE WOEKS, appeal relating 
 to, 388, 413. 
 
 WHARF, 
 
 must be put in Class 5 of Schedule III. to V. M. A. 1869... 34. 
 with machinery for building iron barges, put in Class 8. ..54. 
 but must be put in Class 11, if the premises include stabling and 
 machinery, 61, 66. 
 
 WHAEFAGE DUES, when earned in docks, how to be rated, 348. 
 
 WOOLWICH SEWAGE WOEKS, appeal relating to, 126, 403. 
 
 YEAE, accounts for what year to be basis of calculation of rateable 
 value, 56, 125, 138, 153, 169, 204. 
 
LONDON ; 
 FEINTED BY C. F. EOWOBTH, GBEAT HEW STEEET, FETTBB LAITI} E.C. 
 

 or EEOBNT 
 
 LAW WOEKS 
 
 PUBUSHBD BY 
 
 Messrs. BUTTERWORTH, 
 
 Safe "^salulim mh f wWis^m 
 
 TO THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 
 
 AND TO 
 
 H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES. 
 
 " Tfoie for the Laws of England [if I shall speak my opinion of them without 
 "partiality either to my pi-ofesaion or eowntry), for the matter and nature of them, 
 " I hold them wise, just and nwderate laws: they give to God, they giAie to Ccesar, 
 " they give to the subject what appertai/neth. It is true they are as mixt as our 
 " language, compounded of British, Saxon, Danish, Norman customs. And surely 
 " as our language is thereby so mueh the richer, so our laws are likewise by that 
 " mixture the more complete." — Loed Bacon. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 7, FLEET 8TEEET, E.G. 
 
 1893. 
 
^ndex to §Hhloqtte. 
 
 Action at Law. 
 
 
 Boyle 
 
 .. 10 
 
 Admiralty Practice. 
 
 
 Coote 
 
 .. 22 
 
 Z>!sres«— Pritohard 
 
 .. 7 
 
 Agricultural Holdings 
 Acts. 
 
 Bund 
 
 .. 25 
 
 Alabama Case. 
 
 
 O'Dowd 
 
 .. 28 
 
 Aliens. 
 
 
 Cutler 
 
 .. 27 
 
 Appeal Practice. 
 
 
 Souae of Lords. 
 
 
 Denison & Soott 
 
 .. 10 
 
 Arbitration and Award. 
 
 Eedman 
 
 .. 16 
 
 Articled Clerks' 
 
 
 Handy Book. 
 
 
 Mosely 
 
 ., 8 
 
 Banks and Banking. 
 
 
 Grant 
 
 .. 16 
 
 Barbados, Laws of . 
 
 .. 28 
 
 Bar Education. 
 
 
 Smith 
 
 .. 27 
 
 Bills of Sale. 
 
 
 Hunt 
 
 . 18 
 
 SCacaskie 
 
 . 27 
 
 Probyn 
 
 . 20 
 
 Blockade. 
 
 
 Deane 
 
 . 29 
 
 boundaries. 
 
 
 Hunt 
 
 . 18 
 
 Burgesses' Manual. 
 
 
 Gachea 
 
 . 26 
 
 Carriers. 
 
 
 Powell 
 
 . 17 
 
 Chamber Practice. 
 
 
 Common Lavj. 
 
 
 Parkinaon 
 
 . 28 
 
 Chancery. 
 
 
 Claims arid De/enaes. 
 
 
 Drewry 
 
 . 11 
 
 Procedure. 
 
 
 TJnderhiU 
 
 9 
 
 Church and State. 
 
 
 Hale 
 
 31 
 
 Church Building 
 
 
 Laws. 
 
 
 Trower 
 
 26 
 
 Church Seats. 
 
 
 Heales 
 
 26 
 
 Claims and Defences. 
 
 
 Chancert/. 
 
 
 Drewry 
 
 11 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Club Law. 
 
 Daly 24 
 
 Commentaries 
 
 Stephen's Blaokstone 6 
 PhiUimore's, Inter- 
 national 20 
 
 Commercial Law. 
 
 Stevens 12 
 
 Common Law Action. 
 
 Boyle 10 
 
 Common LawPleading. 
 
 Williams 25 
 
 Common Law Practice. 
 
 Lush 22 
 
 Companies. 
 
 Shelford 16 
 
 Compensation for Land. 
 
 Ingram 16 
 
 Confession. 
 
 Badeley 31 
 
 Consistory Court, 
 London. 
 
 Judgments, Tristram 30 
 
 HulesandEegulationa 30 
 
 Constitutioual History. 
 
 Fulton 12 
 
 Contraband of War. 
 
 Moseley 29 
 
 Contracts. 
 
 Plumptre ' 8 
 
 Contributories. 
 
 Collier 23 
 
 ConTeyancing. 
 
 Lewis 19 
 
 House 19 
 
 Tudor 6 
 
 Conveyancing and Pro- 
 perty Acts, &c. 
 Clerke and Brett ... 11 
 Conveyancing Drafts- 
 man. 
 Kelly 19 
 
 Co-operative Societies. 
 Brabrook 26 
 
 Copyholds. 
 
 Brown 7 
 
 Scriven 13 
 
 Corporation Duty. 
 
 Hewitt 22 
 
 Costs. 
 
 Gray 29 
 
 County Court Practice. 
 
 Davis 15 
 
 Criminal Law Con- 
 solidation Acts. 
 
 Davis 22 
 
 Debtors' Estates. 
 
 Pye 23 
 
 jns. 
 
 Lawsou 21 
 
 Dictionary. 
 
 PAUE 
 
 Mozley & Whiteley 
 
 .. 6 
 
 Digest (Admiralty). 
 
 
 Pritohard ... 
 
 .. 7 
 
 Directors Liability Act, 
 
 1890. 
 
 
 Bower 
 
 .. 13 
 
 Domestic Servants. 
 
 
 Baylis 
 
 . 21 
 
 Drainage of Land. 
 
 
 Wilson 
 
 .. 28 
 
 Ecclesiastical Courts 
 
 
 Coote 
 
 .. 31 
 
 Ecclesiastical Law 30, 31 
 
 Employers' Liability 
 Act. 
 Euegg 
 
 
 . 27 
 
 England, Laws of. 
 
 
 Blaokstone ... 
 
 . 6 
 
 Stephen 
 
 . 6 
 
 English Law. 
 
 
 Francillon 
 
 . 28 
 
 Nasmith 
 
 . 23 
 
 Epping Forest. 
 
 
 Fisher 
 
 . 7 
 
 Equity. 
 
 
 Drewry 
 
 . 28 
 
 Roberts 
 
 . 18 
 
 Trower 
 
 . 11 
 
 Underbill 
 
 . 9 
 
 Equity in relation to 
 
 
 Law. 
 
 
 Chute 
 
 . 18 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 
 Powell : 
 
 12 
 
 Execution, Law of. 
 
 
 Anderson 
 
 21 
 
 Fences. 
 
 
 Hunt 
 
 18 
 
 Fishery Laws. 
 
 
 Oke 
 
 14 
 
 Foreshores. 
 
 
 Hunt 
 
 18 
 
 O'Dowd 
 
 28 
 
 Form of the Law. 
 
 
 Holland 
 
 26 
 
 Frauds. 
 
 
 Hunt 
 
 18 
 
 Freedom of Land. 
 
 
 Underbill 
 
 21 
 
 French Code of Com- 
 
 
 merce. 
 
 
 Mayer 
 
 6 
 
 Game Laws. 
 
 
 Oke 
 
 14 
 
 Gaming. 
 
 
 Daly 
 
 32 
 
 Edwards 
 
 30 
 
 Gas Supply. 
 
 
 Michael and Will ... 
 
 17 
 
INDEX TO CATALOGUE. 
 
 FAOE 
 
 General Average. 
 
 Cramp 17 
 
 Gorham Case. 
 
 Koore 31 
 
 Guarantees. 
 
 De Oolyar 22 
 
 Guernsey Laws. 
 
 Bowditoh 29 
 
 House of Lords. 
 
 Appeals, 
 Denison and Scott... 10 
 
 Housing of Working 
 Classes Act. 
 
 Bernard & Bro-wn ... 6 
 Husband and Wife. 
 
 Edwards & Hamilton 20 
 Income Tax La-ws. 
 
 DoweU 25 
 
 Indian Civil Service. 
 
 Cutler 28 
 
 Indian Penal Code. 
 
 Cutler 23 
 
 International Law. 
 
 Hamel 28 
 
 Phillimore 20 
 
 Jersey Laws. 
 
 Bowditoh 29 
 
 Joint Stock Companies. 
 
 Bower 13 
 
 Shelf ord 16 
 
 Judicature Acts. 
 
 Bedford 23 
 
 Labour Laws. 
 
 Davis 15 
 
 Landed Property. 
 
 Ohart of. 
 reame 29 
 
 Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 Fawcett 17 
 
 Land (Freedom of) 
 
 Underbill 21 
 
 Land Settlement of 
 England. 
 
 Bund 29 
 
 Law Dictionary. 
 
 Mozley & "WMteley ... 6 
 Law Exam. Joum. 
 Leading Cases. 
 
 Tudor e 
 
 Legacy Duties. 
 
 Shelf ord 27 
 
 Libel. 
 
 Poltard n 
 
 Licensing Laws. 
 
 Oke 14 
 
 Local Govemnaeut. 
 
 Eyde& Thomas ... 9 
 Lord Lyndburst. 
 
 Gibson 29 
 
 Lords CbanoeUors. 
 
 Hardy so 
 
 Magisterial EormuHst. 
 
 Oke 14 
 
 Magisterial Synopsis. 
 
 Oke 14 
 
 Marine Insurance. 
 
 Crump 17 
 
 24 
 
 Married Women's 
 Property Acts. 
 
 Edwards & Hamilton 20 
 Masters and Servants. 
 
 Baylis 21 
 
 Master and Workmen. 
 
 Davis 15 
 
 Lovesy 29 
 
 Euegg 27 
 
 Mayor's Court Practice. 
 Glyn, Probyn & Jack- 
 son 20 
 
 Mercantile Law. 
 
 Stevens 12 
 
 Mines and Minerals. 
 Bainbridge 13 
 
 Mortgages. 
 
 Ksher 7 
 
 Municipal Registration. 
 Davis ... .' 13 
 
 Naturalization. 
 
 Cutler 27 
 
 Negligence. 
 
 Saunders 15 
 
 Parliamentary Eegis- 
 tration. 
 
 Davis 13 
 
 Saint 5 
 
 Partition. 
 
 Lawrence 25 
 
 Partnership. 
 
 Dixon 17 
 
 Tudor so 
 
 Patents. 
 
 Higgins 17 
 
 Lawson 21 
 
 Waggett 18 
 
 Peerage Case. 
 
 LeMarchant 28 
 
 Pews. 
 
 HeaJea 26 
 
 Pitfalls of Testators. 
 
 Hood 15 
 
 Pleader's Guide. 
 
 Anstey 30 
 
 Pleading. 
 
 Williams 25 
 
 Private Bill Legislation. 
 
 Clifford 6 
 
 Probate and Divorce. 
 
 Bedford 23 
 
 Probate Bonds. 
 
 Chadwiok 10 
 
 Probate Duties. 
 
 Shelford 27 
 
 Probate Practice. 
 
 Tristram and Coote... 10 
 
 PubKo Health (London! 
 
 Act. ' 
 
 Boberts & Gollaa ... 6 
 Public Meeting. 
 
 Bla«g 7 
 
 Railways. 
 
 Butfcerworth 25 
 
 Shelford 16 
 
 Rating Appeals. 
 
 Eyde 9 
 
 PAOE 
 
 Real Property. 
 
 Tudor 6 
 
 Real Property Act, 
 1881. 
 Gierke and Brett ... 11 
 
 Referees' Court Cases. 
 Clifford & Kckards... 21 
 Clifford & Stephen ... 21 
 Bickards&Hicbael... 21 
 Bickards&Saunders 21,32 
 
 Ritualism. 
 
 Kamel 31 
 
 Roman Law. 
 
 Cteius 24 
 
 Justinian 24 
 
 Ortolan 12 
 
 Tomldna 24 
 
 .5w(£3ryo/— Nasmith ... 24 
 
 Sale, Bills of. 
 
 Ma^askie 27 
 
 Salmon Fisheries. 
 
 Bund 15 
 
 Settled Land Acts, 1882-4 
 
 Underbill 8 
 
 SherijEE. 
 
 Anderson 24 
 
 Shorthand. 
 
 Gnmey 15 
 
 Slander. 
 
 Folkard 11 
 
 Solieitors' Bookkeeping. 
 
 Coombs 19 
 
 Statutes (Leading). 
 
 Bedford 23 
 
 Stock Exchange. 
 
 Keyser 29 
 
 Succession Duty. 
 
 Shelford 27 
 
 Support and Subsidence. 
 
 Stephen 27 
 
 Testators. 
 
 Hood 15 
 
 Torts. 
 
 Underhill 9 
 
 Town Councillors' 
 Manual. 
 
 Gaches 26 
 
 Trade Marks. 
 
 Lawson 21 
 
 Treaties. 
 
 Hertslet ... 20,32 
 Treaties and Taiiflfs. 
 
 Hertslet 20 
 
 Trusts and Trustees. 
 
 Underbill 9 
 
 Vendors & Purchasers. 
 
 Seaborne 7 
 
 Water Supply. 
 
 Michael feWai ... 17 
 Wife and Husband. 
 
 Edwards & Hamilton 20 
 Wills. 
 
 Plood 15 
 
 Wigram ... .]j is 
 Workmg Classes 
 
 (Housing of) Act. 
 ^^ Bernard & Brown ... 6 
 Wrongs. 
 
 Underhill ,.. _^_ g 
 
MESSES. BUTTEEWOETH, 1, FLEET STEEET, B.C. 5 
 
 Stephen's New Commentaries.— 11th Edition. 
 
 In i vols. 8to. il. is. cloth. 
 
 Mr. SEEJEANT STEPHEN'S NEW COMMENTAEIES on 
 
 the LAWS OF ENGLAND, partly founded on Blaokstone. By His Honour 
 
 Judge Stephen. The Eleventh Edition. 1890 
 
 *** The Work selected for the Intermediate Bxaminationa for Solicitors 
 
 for 1893 and 189i. 
 
 " Our old familiar friend, Stephen's many senses a wonderful and a useful 
 Commentaries on the Laws of England, book, containing, as it does, something 
 comes to us in a handsome blue binding, on nearly everything. The preparation 
 in its tenth edition. The Editor is of this edition has, we are informed in the 
 Mr. Archibald Brown, and, when we preface, been entrusted to that laborious 
 remember the amount of excellent work compiler and editor of law books, Mr. 
 this gentleman has done in the literature Archibald Brown, though, for some rea- 
 of the law, his name is a guarantee that son, his name does not appear on the 
 nothing has been omitted which was title-page. Mr. Brown has had great 
 necessary to insert to bring Stephen down experience in this way, and we are in- 
 to the date of publication. We should clined to beUeve his statement that he 
 have to repeat Mr. Brown's preface if we has paid sedulous attention to the wants 
 detailed the additions and amendments both of the profession and of students." 
 which he has made. All that we need do — Zato Student's Journal. 
 is to assure the Profession that, having " In the edition now before us, we are 
 
 examined these volumes, we find them all very glad to find that much more atten- 
 that could be desired, without any appre- tioh has been paid to recent statute law, 
 oiable increase in bulk — a really great rules of court, &c. ; indeed, the work is 
 consideration, having regard to the enor- now well up to date, and no better book 
 mous growth of statute and case law." — can be placed in the hands of a student 
 Law Times. at an early stage of his legal caleer. We 
 
 " This, well-known work being just think great thanks are due to the learned 
 now the established subject for' study editor, the publishers, and printer for the 
 for the Solicitors' Intermediate Exami- production of a book covering a great 
 nation, tends, of course, to its more deal of ground, well up to date, beauti- 
 speedy sale. Besides, it is indeed in fully printed and bound." — Zaw Notes. 
 
 Mayer's French Code of Commerce. 
 
 Post 8vo. 9s. cloth. 
 
 THE FEENCH CODE OE COMMEECE, as revised to tte 
 
 end of 1886, and an Appendix containing later Statutes in connection therewith, 
 
 rendered into English, with Explanatory Notes and Copious Index. By Sylvain 
 
 Matee, B.A., Ph.D., of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1887 
 
 Clifford's Private Bill Legislation. 
 
 In 2 vols. 8vo. %l. 15s. cloth. 
 
 A HISTOET OE PEIVATE BILL LEGISLATION. By 
 Feedeeick Cutfoed, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1885-1887 
 
 \* May be had separately, Vol. I. 20s.; Vol. II. 35«. cloth. 
 
 Saint on Registration. 
 
 In 1 vol. Post 8vo. 10s. U. cloth. 
 VOTEES AND THEIE EEGISTEATION : comprising tlie 
 Bepresentation of the People Act, 1884 ; and the Begistration, Bedistribution 
 of Seats, and Medical Belief Disqualification Bemoval Acts, 1885. With Notes 
 and Index. By J. J. Heath Saint, Esq., B.A., of the Inner Temple, Bar- 
 rister-at-Law. ™,-.^^" 1885 
 
 Saint's Registration Cases.-2nd Edition. With Supplenient. 
 
 ° In 1 vol., post 8vo., 15s. cloth. 
 
 A DIGEST OE PAELIAMENTAEY AND MUNICIPAL 
 BEGISTBATION CASES. Containing an Abstract of the Cases Decided 
 on Aweal from the Decisions of Bevising Barristers during the Period com- 
 mencing 1843 and ending 1886. Second Edition. With Supplement to 1891 
 By John James Heath Saint, Esq., B.A., of the Inner T^ple and Midland 
 circuit, Barrister-at-Law, Eeoorder of Leicester, Author of Samt's Manual of 
 Begistration." ^^^^ 
 
LAW WOEKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Tudor's Leading Cases on Eeal Property, &c.— 3rd Ed. 
 
 In one thick volume, royal 8vo. 21. lis. Gd. cloth. 
 
 A SELECTION OF LEADING CASES ON THE LAW 
 EELATING TO EEAL PEOPEETT, Conveyanoing, and the Construction 
 of Wills and Deeds ; with Notes. Third Edition. By Owen Davies Tudob, 
 Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Author of "A Selection of 
 Leading Cases in Equity." 1879 
 
 " The second edition is now tefore us, " This and the other yolimies of Mr. 
 
 and we are able to say that the same ex- Tudor are almost a law lihrary in them- 
 
 tensive knowledge and the same laborious selves, and we are satisfied thatthestudent 
 
 industry as have been exhibited by Mr. would learn more law from the careful 
 
 Tudor on former occasions characterize reading of them than he would acquire 
 
 this later production of his legal author- from double the time given to the elabo- 
 
 ship; and it is enough at this moment to rate treatises which Teamed professors 
 
 reiterate an opinion that Mr. Tudor has recommend the student to peruse, with 
 
 well maintained the high legal reputation entire forgetf illness that time and brains 
 
 which his standard works have achieved are limited, and that to do what they 
 
 in all countries where the English Ian- advise would be the work of a life. No 
 
 guage is spoken, and the decisions of our law library should be without this most 
 
 Courts are quoted." — Law Magazine and useful book." — Law Times on 2ud edit. 
 Review on 2nd edit. 
 
 Roberts and GoUan's Public Health of London. 
 
 Just published, in 1 vol., 8vo., 14s. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW EELATING TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OF 
 LONDON: being the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, fully Annotated, 
 with Eef erenoes to all the Cases bearing on its Construction ; together ynSa. an 
 Explanatory Chapter and other Enactments and Orders relating thereto. By 
 James Eobeets, M.A., LL.B., and H. C. Gollan, M.A., Esquires, Barristers- 
 at-Law. 1891 
 
 Bernard and Morgan-Brown's Housing of the 
 Working Classes Act, 1890. 
 
 Just published, in 1 vol., post 8vo., 6«. cloth. 
 
 THE HOUSING OF THE WOEEING CLASSES ACT, 1890 
 (53 & 54 Vict. 0. 70) ; with Notes and Litroduction, the Forms prescribed nnder 
 the Act, and all existing Enactments upon the Subject, Table of Cases, aiid 
 Index. By W. C. Beenaed, Esq., M.A., LL.B., and H. Moeqan-Beowit, 
 Es(l., LL.B., Barristers- at-Law. 1891 
 
 Mozley and Whiteley's Concise Law Dictionary. 
 
 In 1 vol. 8vo. 20s. cloth, 25s. brown calf. 
 
 A CONCISE LAW DICTIONAEY, containing Short and Simple 
 Definitions of the Terms used in the Law. By Hebbebi Newmaij M0Z1.ET, M.A., 
 Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, and of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., and Geoeqb 
 Ceispe Whitelet, M.A.Cantab., of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barristers-at-Law. 
 
 1876 
 
MESSES. BUTTEEWOETH, 7, ELEET STEEET, E.G. 7 
 
 Brown's Copyhold EDfranchisement Acts. 
 
 Just published, in 1 vol., post 8to., 14s. cloth. 
 THE LAW AND PEAOTICE ON ENPEAN0HI8EMENTS 
 AND COMMUTATIONS under the Copyhold Acts, 1841^1887, and other 
 Acts, and at Common Law ; with Forms, Practical Directions, and Annota- 
 tions to the Copyhold Acts. By Abohibaid Bbown, of the Middle Temple, 
 Barrister-at-Law, Editor of " Scriveu on Copyholds," &o. 1888 
 
 Pritchard's Admiralty Digest.— 3rd Edition, 
 
 Now ready, in 2 thick vols., royal Svo., 51, cloth. 
 
 PEITOHAED'S DIGEST OE ADMIEALTY AND MAEITIME 
 LAW. Third Edition, hy Jaheb 0. Haunen, of the Inner Temple, Barrister- 
 at-Law, and W. Taen Peitohaed ; including Cases on Average, Carriage of 
 Goods, and Marine Insurance, by J. P. Aspinall and Goebon Smith, Barristers- 
 at-Law, and W. BENNiua Peitohaed, SoUoitor; with Notes of Cases on Erench 
 and other Foreign Law, by Alqkenon Jones, French Advocate, and other 
 Foreign Jurists. 1887 
 
 Fisher's Law of Mortgage.— 4th Edition. 
 
 1 vol. royal 8vo. 21. 12s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW OF MOETGAGE AND OTHEE SECUEITIES 
 UPON PEOPEETT. By 'WiiiiAM: Kiohabd Fishee, of Liacohi's Inn, Esq., 
 
 Barrister-at-Law. Fourth Edition. 1884 
 
 " This work has built up for itself, in of daily requirement among solicitors. 
 
 the experienced opinion of the profession. To all such we can confidently recommend 
 
 a very high reputation for carefulness, Mr. Fisher' s work, which will, moreover, 
 
 accuracy and lucidity. This reputation prove most useful reading for the student, 
 
 is f uUy maintained in the present edition. both as a storehouse of information and 
 
 The law of securities upon property is an iatellectual exercise." Law Magazine. 
 
 confessedly intricate, and probably, as "His work has long been knovm as the 
 
 the author justly observes, embraces a standard work on the law of mortgages, 
 
 greater variety of learning than any other and he has now published his third 
 
 single branch of the English law. At the edition. The object and scope of his 
 
 same time an accurate knowledge of it is work is probably familiar to most of our 
 
 essential to every practisingbamster, and readers.' ' — Law Journal. 
 
 Fisher.— The Forest of Essex. 
 
 Just published, in 1 vol., crown 4to., \l. 15». roxburgh binding. 
 
 THE EOEEST OE ESSEX: its History, Laws, Administration, 
 
 and Ancient Customs, and the WUd Deer which Hved in it ; vdth Maps and 
 
 other Illustrations. By "Wiu:jam Eiohakd Fishee, of Lincoln's Inn, Barnsfer- 
 
 at-Law, Author of " The Law of Mortgage and other Securities upon Property. 
 
 1887 
 
 Seaborne's Law of Vendors & Purchasers.— 3rd Ed. 
 
 In 1 vol. post 8vo., 12*. &d. cloth. 
 A CONCISE MANUAL OF THE LAW OF YENDOES 
 AND PUECHASEBS OF EEAL PEOPEETT. By Hbhey Seaboene, 
 Solicitor. Third Edition. 1*'** 
 
 Blagg on Public Meeting. 
 
 Just published, in post 8vo., 3«. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW OF PUBLIC MEETING.— By J. W. Blaqg, Esq., 
 of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 1^88 
 
LAW WOEKS PUBLISHED BT 
 
 Plumptre on Contracts. 
 
 fost 8vo., 8«. cloth. 
 
 A SUMMAliY of the PEINCIPLES of the LAW of SIMPLE 
 CONTEACTS. By Clatoe C. M. Pltoiptbe, of the Middle Temple, 
 Esq., Bamster-at-Law. (Middle Temple Common Law Scholar, Hilary- 
 Term, 1877.) 1879 
 
 "In our last volume we tad occasion generally, 
 to mention with approbation two works " In Part II. we have the constituent 
 
 by Mr. Arthur trnderliiU, ' A Summary parts of a simple contract, the consent of 
 
 of the Law of Torts,' and ' A Concise 
 Manual of the Law relating to Trusts 
 and Trustees ;' the first of these had 
 reached a second edition, and in its pre- 
 paration the author of the present work 
 was associated with Mr. tlnderhill. In 
 thepreparation of thishook Mr. Plumptre 
 has adopted the lines laid down by Mr. 
 Underhil; by means of short rules and 
 sub-rules he presents a summary of the 
 leading principles relating to the law of 
 simple contracts, with the decisions of 
 the Courts by which they are illustrated. 
 Part I. deals with the parties to a simple 
 contract, and treats of those persons ex- 
 empted from the performance of their 
 contracts by reason of incapacity, such 
 as infants, married women, lunatics, 
 drunkards, convicts and bankrupts. 
 Chapter 4 is devoted to contracts by cor- 
 porations and by agents, and the follow- 
 ing chapter to parfiiers and partnerships 
 
 the partie^ the consideration, the pro- 
 mise, contracts illegal at common law 
 and by statute, and fraudulent con- 
 tracts. 
 
 " Part III. gives rules for making a 
 simple contract, and treats of contracts 
 within the 4th and 17th sections of the 
 Statute of Frauds ; Statutes of Limita- 
 tion ; the discharge of the obligation im- 
 posed by the contract by performance ; 
 by mutual agreement; by accord and 
 satisfaction ; and by operation of law ; 
 oral evidence and written contracts ; 
 damages ; and contracts made abroad. 
 
 " Ine book contains upwards of one 
 himdred rules, all ably illustrated by 
 cases, and a very full and well-compiled 
 index facilitates reference. It is more 
 particularly addressed to students, but 
 practitioners of both branches of the legal 
 profession will find it a useful and trust- 
 worthy guide." — Justice of the Teace. 
 
 Mosely's Articled Clerks' Handy-Book. By Bedford. 
 
 1 vol. post 8vo., 8s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 MOSELY'S PEACTICAL HANDY-BOOK OP ELEMENTARY 
 
 LAW, designed for the Use of Articled Clerks, with a Course of Study, and 
 Hints on Beading for the Intermediate and Knal Examinations. Second 
 Edition. By Edwaed Hekslowe BEDroED, Solicitor. 1878 
 
 "This book cannot be too strongly 
 recommended to every one who contem- 
 plates becoming a solicitor." — Zaw JEx- 
 Himination Journal. 
 
 " Mr. E. H. Bedford, indefatigable in 
 his labours on behalf of the articled clerk, 
 has supervised a new edition of Mosely's 
 Handy Book of Elementary Law. It will 
 
 certainly not be the fault of either Author 
 or Editor if the years spent under articles 
 are not well spent, and it the work re- 
 quired to lay a sound foundation of legal 
 knowledge is not done with that ' know- 
 ledge ' of which they so emphatically de- 
 clare the necessity." — Zaw Magazine. 
 
 Underhiirs Settled Land Acts.— 2nd Edition. 
 
 In 1 vol., post 8vo., 8«. cloth. 
 
 THE SETTLED LAND ACTS, 1882 & 1884, and the Eules of 
 1882, -with an Introduction and Notes, and Concise Precedents of Convey- 
 ancing and Chancery Documents. By A. Ukdeehlll, M.A., LL.D., of 
 LincoLa's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Assisted hy E. H. Deaue, B.A., of 
 Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 2nd Edition. 1884 
 
 "^It^is hardly^ necessary for us to sa;^ various sections of the statute are sup 
 
 that the present publication is marked 
 bythe careful treatment and general ex- 
 cellence which have distinguished Mr. 
 TJnderhiU's work on Torts, and his other 
 works which we have from time to time 
 reviewed in the pages of this Journal." — 
 Zaw ZxatHinativii Jovrnat. 
 
 "Mr. Underhill's treatment of the Act, 
 therefore, is, as might have been expected, 
 clear and perspicuous. The notes to the 
 
 ported, where necessary, by references 
 to decided cases and standard authorities ; 
 but we are glad to see that he has not 
 encumbered them with a profusion of 
 technical details and collateral points 
 which may sometimes serve as a guide to 
 the practitioner, but rarely obviate the 
 necessity of further search at the fountain 
 head. The type is especially good, and 
 there is an excellent index." — The Field. 
 
MESSES. BUTTEEWOETH, 7, FLEET STEEET, E.G. 9 
 
 Ryde's Rating Appeals. 
 
 In 1 vol., demy 8vo., 18s. cloth. 
 
 EEPOETS or EATING APPEALS heard during 1886—1890 
 before the Queea's Bench DiTislon and Court of Appeal and the Assessment 
 Sessions and London Quarter Sessions, -with a Digest of the Practice, and 
 Appendix of Statutes, &o. By Waitee C. Rtdb, M.A., of the Inner Temple, 
 Barrister-at-La-w. 1890 
 
 Ryde & Thomas' Local Government Act. 
 
 In 1 Vol., 8vo., 24s. cloth. 
 
 THE LOCAL GOVEENMENT ACT, THE COUNTY ELECTOES 
 ACT, 1888, THE MXTNICIPAL CORPOEATIONS ACT, 1882, with full 
 Explanatory Notes and an Introduction; an Appendix containing the Acts 
 incorporated therewith, and a Copious Index. By "Waitee C. I^TtBB, M.A., of 
 the Inner Temple, and E. Lewis Thomas, M.A., LL.M., of Lincoln's Inn and 
 the Midland Cu^cuit, Barristers-at-Law. 1888 
 
 Underhill's Guide to Equity. 
 
 In 1 Vol., post 8vo., 9s. doth. 
 
 A CONCISE GUIDE TO MODEEN EQUITY. Being a Course 
 of Nine Lectures delivered at the Incorporated Law Society during the Tear 
 1885 ; Bevised and Enlarged. By A. Undebhill, M.A., LL.D., of Lincoln's 
 Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1885 
 
 UnderhiU's Chancery Procedure. 
 
 In 1 vol. post 8vo., 10s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 A PEACTICAL and CONCISE MANUAL of the PEOCEDUEB 
 of the CHANCEEY DIVISION of the HiaH COURT of JUSTICE, both in 
 Actions and Matters. By Aethue Undebhili,, LL.D., of Lincoln's Inn, 
 Barrister-at-Law, author of " A Concise Treatise on the Law of Private Trusts 
 and Trustees," " A Summary of the Law of Torts," &o. 1881 
 
 Underhill's Law of Trusts and Trustees.— 3rd Edit. 
 
 WITH STJPPXEMENT. 
 
 1 vol. post 8vo., ,18s. cloth. 
 
 A CONCISE MANUAL of the LAW relating to PEIVATE 
 
 TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. By Abthue Undebhill, M.A., of Lincoln's 
 
 Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Third edition. With Supplement containing the 
 
 Trustee Act 1888. ^889 
 
 *JK* The Supplement may he had separately, 2s. sewed. 
 
 " His task was indeed one of great named volume, performed a similar task 
 difficulty, dealing, as he has done, with a in relation to the ' Law of Trusts. ' In 
 subject BO complex; but he has achieved seventy^-six articles he has summanised 
 it with ability and success. To those the prmciples of the ' Law of Trusts' as 
 who are themselves destined to expe- diatmotly and accurately as the subject 
 rience what a famous law reformer called will admit, and has supplemented the 
 <the pleasures derived from the condi- articles with illustrations. He has chosen 
 tion of trustee,' this clearly written a branch of the law which appears one 
 manual will be no slight boon."— /mA of the most difficult to deal vfith m this 
 Law Times. yia.y."—I.aw Journal. 
 
 "Mr. Underbill has, in the above- 
 
 Underhill's Law of Torts.— 5th Edition. 
 
 In 1 vol. post 8vo., 10s. cloth. 
 A SUMMAEY OE THE LAW OE TOETS, ob WEONGS 
 INDEPENDENT OP CONTRACT. Fifth Edition. By A. Undebhill, 
 M.A., LL.D., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1889 
 
10 LAW WOEKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Tristram and Coote's Probate Practice, 
 nth Edition. 
 
 Jii8t published, in 1 vol. 8to., 32s. eloth. 
 
 COOTE'S COMMON FOEM PEACTICE AND TEISTEAM'S 
 CONTENTIOUS PEACTICE, and Practice on Motions and Summonses of the 
 High Court of Justice in granting Probates or Administrations. Eleventh 
 Edition. By Thomas HuroHiNSOif Tbisieak, Q.O., D.C.L. 1891 
 
 " The above is another name fonvhat eminently practical and useful work on 
 is commonly known to the profession as Probate Practice of some 500 odd pages 
 Coote's Probate Practice, a work about of text and 300 pages of forms. Although 
 as indispensable ia a solicitor's office as the work is entitled 'Tristram & Coote's 
 any book of practice that is known to ' Contentious and Non- Contentious Prac- 
 . us. Solicitors know that the difficulties tice,' in the arrangement of the book the 
 in the way of satisfying the different practice is reversed, Mr. Coote's Non- 
 clerks at Somerset House are frequently Contentious Practice properly coming 
 
 great, and there is nothing so likely to first. We make no pretence to have read 
 
 tend to simplicity of practice as Mr. through the whole of the book, but we 
 
 Coote's book." — Law Times. have tested it in various places on points 
 
 " The present edition is in reality a with which we are familiar or on points 
 
 new edition of two separate works com- on which we seek information. We are 
 
 bined. It consists of 'Coote's Non- pleased to find that in most oases our 
 
 Contentious' and 'Tristram's Couten- searches have been satisfactory." — Zatf 
 
 tious' Probate Practice, two familiar Notes. 
 
 books to aU probate practitioners. These " We heartily recommend the work to 
 
 two works have now been combined by practitioners."— i;«M> Student's Journal. 
 Mr. Tristram, and the result is an 
 
 Chadwick's Probate Court Manual, corrected to 1876. 
 
 Royal Svo. 12*. cloth. 
 
 EXAMPLES OE ADMINISTEATION BONDS FOE THE 
 COURT OF PROBATE ; exhibiting the Principle of various Grants of Admi- 
 nistration and the correct Mode of preparing the Bonds in respect thereof • also 
 Directions for preparing the Oaths, arranged for practical utility. With Extracts 
 from the Statutes; also various Forms of Affirmation prescribed by Acts of 
 Parliament, and a Prefatory as well as a Supplemental Notice, bringing the 
 work down to 1876. By Samubl Chadwiok, of Her Majesty's Court of Probate. 
 
 Boyle's Precis of an Action at Common Law. 
 
 In Svo., 5». cloth. 
 
 PEECIS of an ACTION at COMMON LAW, showing at a 
 Glance the Procedure under the Judicature Acts and Rules in an Action in the 
 Queen's Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of 
 Justice. Bt Hebbeet E. Boyle, SoUoitor. X881 
 
 Denison and Scott's House of Lords Practice. 
 
 8vo. 16«. doth. 
 
 APPEALS TO THE HOUSE OE LOEDS: Procedure and 
 
 Practice relative to English, Scotch and Irish Appeals ; with the Appellate 
 Jurisdiction Act, 1876 ; the Standing Orders of the House ; Directions to 
 Agents ; Forms, and Tables of Costs. Edited, with Notes, References, and a 
 full Index, foimmg a complete Book of Practice under the new AppeUate 
 System, by Chaeies Maesh Denison and Chables Heipeeson Soott of the 
 Middle Temple, Esqs., Barristers-at-Law. 1879 
 
MESSES. BUTTERWOETH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.O. 11 
 
 Gierke & Brett's Conveyancing Acts.— 3rd Edit. 
 
 Post 8vo.,, lis. ed. cloth. 
 
 • THtevGONVEYAJStCING ACTS, THE VENDOR AND' PUE- 
 CH'ASER ACT, THE SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION ACT, and the 
 Greneral Order made thereunder ; -with Notes and an Introduction. By Aitbeet 
 St. John Cleeke, B.A., and Thomas Beett, LL.B., B.A., both of the Middle 
 Teipple, E8.ciuires, Banjstprs-at-Law. Third Edition. 1889 
 
 " This little 'book is one of the most lapse of several years, a new edition of 
 
 useful -works on the Conveyancing Acts, this excellent work. We can commend 
 
 and with students, perhaps, the most the hook as an extremely handy and 
 
 popular." — Jurist,' August, 1889. oompleteeditionof theAots." — Solicitors' 
 
 "The third edition of Messrs. Gierke Jomnal, July 27, 1889. 
 
 j& Brett's work on the Conveyancing Act "We do not think the student could 
 
 will deservedly maintain the high repu- have a better work to assist him in his 
 
 tation gained by the former editions. study of these all-important Acts, and 
 
 The psaes.are well psted up to .dates" — we most heartily commend the work to 
 
 La/w Times, July 27, 1889. our readers' attention." — Law Sttidents' 
 
 - ""We are glad to welcome, after the Journal, August, 1889. 
 
 Folkard on Slander and Libel.— 5tli Edition. 
 
 Just published, in 1 thick volume, royal 8vo., 65s. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW OE SLANDEE AND LIBEL (founded upon the 
 Treatise of the late Thomas StarHe, Esq., Q.C.), including the Procedure, 
 Pleading, and Evidence, Civil and Criminal, with Forms and Precedents : also 
 Contempts of Court, Criminal Information, &c., and an Appendix of Statutes. 
 Fifth Edition, by Heney CoiiEHAH-FoLKAED, of Lincoln's Inn- and the Western 
 Circuit, Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of Bath. ■ 1891 
 
 Drewry's Forms of Claims & Defences in Chancery. 
 
 Post 8vo. 9«. cloth. 
 
 FOEMS OE CLAIMS AHD DEFENCES IN THE C0UET8 
 OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION of the HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. 
 With Notes ooritaiiiing ah Outline of the Law relating to each of the subjects 
 treated, and an Appendix of Forms of Endorsement on the Writ of Summons. 
 By C. Stewaet Dee-wet, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Author 
 of a Treatise on Injunctions and of Reports of Cases in Equity, temp. Kindersley, 
 V.-C, and other works. ^^ 1876 
 
 Trower's Prevalence of Equity. 
 
 8vo. 5«. cloth. 
 A MANUAL OE THE PEEVALENCE OF EQUITY under 
 Section 25 of the Judicature Act, 1873, amended by the Judicature Act, 1875. 
 By Chaeles Feancis Teowee, Esq., M. A., of the InnerTemple, Barrister-at-Law, 
 late Fellow of Exeter College, and Vinerian Law Scholar, Oxford ; Author of 
 "The Law of Debtor and Creditor," "The Law of the Building of Churches 
 aliid Di-visions of Parishes/' &o. _ ... . IS/e 
 
 e2 
 
12 LAW WOEKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Stevens's Elements of Mercantile Law. 
 
 In 1 vol., post 8vo., 10s. 6cl. cloth, 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF MEECANTILE LAW. By T, M. 
 
 Stevens, M.A., B.C.L., Barrister-at-Law. 1890 
 
 Ortolan's Roman Law, translated ij Prichard & Nasmitli, 
 
 Svo. 28«. cloth. 
 
 THE HI8T0ET OE ROMAN LAW, from the Text of Ortolan's 
 Histoire de la L6gislatioii Romaine et GrenSraliaation. du Droit (Edition of 1870). 
 Translated, with the Author's permission, and Supplemented by a Ohronome- 
 trioal Chart of Eoman History. By Iltddus T. Fbioeasd, Esq., E.S.S., and 
 Dated Nabmith, LL.B., Barristers-at-Law. 1871 
 
 Fulton's Manual of Constitutional History. 
 
 Post 8vo. 7«. 6d. cloth. 
 
 A MANUAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOET, founded 
 upon the Works of Hallam, Creasy, May and Broom, comprising all the 
 fundamental Principles and the leading cases in Constitutional Law. By 
 FoBBBSi Pui/coN, LL.B., B.A., University of London, and of the Middle 
 Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 187S 
 
 Powell on Evidence.— 6tli Edition. By Cutler. 
 
 This day is published, in 1 vol., post 8vo., 21s. cloth. 
 
 POWELL'S PEINOIPLES AND PEACTICE OF THE LAW 
 OF EVIDENCE. Sixth Edition. By J. Cuilee, B.A., Professor of English 
 Law and Jurisprudence at King's College, London, and C. E. Cagmet, B.A., 
 Barrlsters-at-Law. 1892 
 
 "The plan adopted is, we thiiiTf, an Acts. The authors give in an appendix 
 admirable one for a concise, handy book the Indian Evidence Acts, with some 
 on the subject. The Indian code of Indian decisions thereupon, and occa- 
 evidence given at the end of the book sionaUy notice these acts in the text. On 
 deserves to be read by every student, the whole we think this is a good edition 
 whether going to India or not. The of a good book. It brings down the 
 present form of Powell on Evidence is a cases, to the latest date, and is con- 
 handy, well-printed and carefully pre- structed upon a model which we should 
 pared edition of a book of deserved re- like to see more generally adopted." 
 putation and authority." — Law Journal. — Solicitors' Jowniu. 
 
 " The plan of the book is to give " There is hardly any branch of the 
 
 pretty frequently, and, as far as we can law of greater interest and importance, 
 
 discover, in almost eveiy chapter, a not onfy to the profession, but to the 
 
 ' rule ' of general application, and then public at large, than the law of evidence, 
 
 to group the cases round it. These rules We are, therefore, all the more inclined 
 
 or axioms are printed in a distinctive to welcome the appearance of the Fourth 
 
 type. The work has been pruned and Edition of this valuable work," — Imu) 
 
 remodelled by the light of the Judicature Examination Jowmal. 
 
" " • 
 
 MESSES. BTJTTEEWOETH, 7, FLEET STBEET, E.G. 13 
 
 Bower's Directors Liability Act, 1890, &c. 
 
 Just published, in 1 vol., post 8to., 9s. clpth. 
 
 THE piEECTOES LIABILITY ACT, 1890,, and other Statu- 
 tory Provisions relating to Prospectuses of Public Companies, including the 
 Common Law : with Notes and Copious Index. By &eoeqb Spbnoee Bowee, 
 B.A., of the Liner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1890 
 
 f» 
 
 Scriven on Copyholds.— 6tli Edition, by Brown. 
 
 In 1 vol. roy. 8vo. 30s. cloth. 
 
 A TEEATISE on the LAW of COPYHOLDS and of the OTHBE 
 TENURES (Customary and Freehold) of LANDS within MANORS, with the 
 LAW of MANORS and MANORIAL CUSTOMS generally, and the RULES 
 of EVIDENCE applicable thereto, including the LAW of COMMONS or 
 WASTE LANDS, and also the JURISDICTION of the various MANORIAL 
 COURTS. By John Soeiven. The Sixth Edition, thoroughly revised, re- 
 arranged and brought down to the present time, by Aeohibaid Bbown, Esq., 
 of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, B.C.L., &c.. Editor of "Bainbridge 
 on the Law of Mines." 1882 
 
 Bainbridge's Law of Mines and Minerals.— 4tli Edit. 
 
 1 vol. roy. 8vo. 4:5s. cloth. 
 
 A TEEATISE on the LAW OF MINES AND MINEEALS. 
 
 By WiLiaAir BAnrBErDOE, Esq., E.G-.S., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 
 Fourth Edition. By Abohibaij) Beown, M.A., Ediu. and Oxon, of the Middle 
 Temple, Barrister-at-Law. This work has been wholly re-oast, and in the 
 greater part re-written. It contains, also, several chapters of entirely new 
 matter, which have obtained at the present day great mining importance. 1878 
 
 "Much of the old work has been re- Index facilitates the reference to the oon- 
 vfritten, and there is much in this edition tents of the volume, 
 that is entirely new. ITie whole of the ' ' The oases cited are brought down to a 
 
 law relating to mines and minerals is very recent date. The work undertaken 
 treated in an exhaustive manner. As by Mr. Brown was an arduous one, and 
 coming more particularly Trithin our he has satisfactorily performed it." — 
 own peculiar province, we may notice Justice of Feace on ith edit. 
 Chapter XII., which deals with criminal "Thisworkmustbe already familiar to 
 
 offences relatingto mines; Chapter XIII., all readers whose practice brings them in 
 as to the statutory regulation and inspec- any manner in connection with mines or 
 tion of mines; and Chapter XV., which mining, and they well know its value, 
 contains the law relating to the rating We can only say of this new edition that 
 of mines and quarries, comprising the it is in all respects worthy of its pre- 
 liability of cod and other mines and decessors."— isw Times on ird edit. 
 quarries to the poor and other rates— "It would be entirely superfluous to 
 
 The tenancy— Improvements to be in- attempt a general revievv of a work which 
 eluded— Allowances and deductions to has for so long a period occupied the 
 be made— Rateable value, and all other position of the standard work on this 
 matters necessary to make this portion important subject. Those only who, by 
 of the work most valuable to those con- the nature of their practice, have learned 
 cemed in the rating of such property. to lean upon Mr. Bambndge as on a 
 
 "The appendix contains a valuable solid staff, can appreciate the dSep re- 
 collection of conveyancing forms— Local search, the admirable metiiod, and the 
 Customs— A Glossary of English Mining maceful style of this model treatise. — 
 Terms, and a full and well arranged L<m Journal on ird edit. 
 
 Davis on Registration.— 2nd Ed., witb Supplement. 
 
 1 vol. post 8vo. 15s. cloth. 
 THE LAW OE EEGISTEATION, PAELIAMENTAEY AND 
 MUNICIPAL, with aU the Statutes and Cases. With a Supplement including 
 the Cases decided on Appeal on the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration 
 Act, 1878. By James Edwaed Davis, Esq., Bamster-at-Law. 1880 
 
 : • #^* xhe Supplement may he had separately, price 2s. 6d. sewed. 
 
14 LAW WOEKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Oke'& Magisterial Synopsis.— 14th Edition. 
 
 Just published, in 2 vols. 8vo. , 58«. cloth. 
 
 THE MAGISTEELUj SYNOPSIS: a Practical Guide for 
 Magistrates, their Clerks, Solicitors, and Constables ; comprising Summary 
 Convictions and Indictable Offences, with their Penalties, Punishments, Pro- 
 cedure, &c., aJphabetically and tahularly arranged : with a Copious Index. 
 Fom-teenth Edition. By Haeet Lushhigtoit Stephen, Barrister-at-La-w. 
 
 "The best criticism of a law book is The work is then for the most part 
 that it is useful, and that the profession arranged alphabetically and tahularly. 
 has made use of twelve editions of a Merely as a means of finding the nature 
 work and requires a thirteenth is very of offences and of discovering under what 
 high commendation of a venture in legal statute they are punishable, the work is 
 literature. Mr. Oke's work is too well an invaluable one. But the Synopsis 
 known to require description ; too much contains a good deal more information, 
 valued to require criticism. Indeed, a In the same table the reader can at once 
 Synopsis like this cannot properly he re- see within what time the information 
 viewed. Its value can be ascertained by must he laid, the number of justices to 
 those who have had frequent recourse to convict, the penalty, &c., and modes of 
 it in the course of practice. The plan of enforcing obedience. The amount of 
 tie book is familiar to most readers. It independent research which is thus saved 
 is, like the subject-matter of the juris- to practitioners and justices is immense, 
 diction of magistrates, divided into two and the value of the work is in the direct 
 parts — one dealing with summary convic- ratio to the amount of labour l^usren- 
 tions, the other with indictable offences. dered unnecessary." — Times. 
 
 Oke's Magisterial Formulist.— 7tli Edition. 
 
 Just published, in 1 vol., 8vo. 3o». cloth. 
 
 THE MAGI8TEEIAL FOEMTJLIST : being a Complete Col- 
 lection of Forms and Precedents for practical use in all Cases out of Quarter 
 Sessions, and in Parochial matters, by Magistrates, their Clerks, Attomies and 
 Constables. Sexenth Edition. ByHAiiETLTJBHiKoioirSTEPHEH,BaTri8ter-at-Law. 
 
 Oke's Fishery Laws.— 2nd Edit., with Supplement 
 to 1884, by Bund. 
 
 Post 8vo. 6i. cloth. 
 
 A HANDY BOOK of the PISHEEY LAWS: containing the Law 
 as to Fibheries, Private and Public, in the Inland "Waters of England and Wales, 
 and the Freshwater Fisheries Preservation Act, 1878, with the Acts, Decisions, 
 Notes, and Foims. 2nd Edit. WithSupplementcontainingthe Actof 1884. By 
 J. W. Willis Ednd, M.A., LL.B., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 1884 
 
 Oke's Game Laws.— 3rd Edition, by Bund. 
 
 Post 8vo. 16s. cloth. 
 
 A HANDY BOOK of the GAME LAWS: containing the 
 whole Law as to Game Licences and Certificates, Gun Licences, Poaching 
 Prevention, Trespass, Rabbits, Deer, Bogs, Birds and Poisoned Grain, Sea 
 Birds, Wild Birds and Wild Fowl, and the Eating of Game throughout the 
 United Kingdom, with the Acts, Decisions, Notes and Forms. 3rd Edit., with 
 Supplement containing the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, and the Ground Game 
 Act, 1880. By J. W. Wilijb Etoto, M.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. 1881 
 *,* The Supplement may be had separately, 2«. 6d. seued. 
 
 Oke's Licensing Laws.— 2nd Edition. 
 
 Post 8vo. 10«. cloth. 
 THE LAWS as to LICENSING INNS, &c. : containing the 
 Licensing Acts, 1872 and 1874, and the other Acts in force as to Alehouses, 
 Beer-houses, Wine and Refreshment-houses, Shops, &c., where Intoxicating 
 Liquors are sold, and Billiard and Occalsional Licences, with Explanatory Notes 
 the authorized Forms of Licences, Tables of Offences, &o. Second Edition! 
 By W. C. Glen, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. I874 
 
MESSES. BUTTERWOETH, 7, ELEET STEEET, E.G. 15 
 
 Flood on Making Wills. 
 
 In 1 vol. post 8vo. 5«. cloth. 
 
 THE PITFALLS OP TESTAT0E8. A few Hints about the 
 Makmg of Wills. By John 0. H. Flood, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister- 
 at-Law, 1884 
 
 Bund's Law of Salmon Fisheries, corrected to 1876. 
 
 Post 8vo. 16«. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW EELATING TO THE SALMON FISHEEIES 
 OP ENaiiAND AJSTD "WALES, as amended hy the Sahnon Fishery Act, 1873, 
 moorpoiating the Bye-laws, Statutes and Cases to November, 1876. By J. W. 
 Wniis Bmro, M.A., LL.B., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Vice- 
 Chaiiman Severn Fiahery Board. 
 
 The Supplement, embodying the Legislation, Bye-laws and Cases to November, 
 1876, may be had separately. Price Is. sewed. 
 
 Gurney's Shorthand.— ISth Edition. 
 
 In 1 vol. post 8vo. 3s. cloth. 
 
 A TEXT BOOK of the GUENET SYSTEM of SHOETHAND. 
 Eighteenth Edition. Edited by W. B. Gtjbnet & Sons, Shorthand Writers to 
 the Houses of Parliament. 1884 
 
 Davis's Practice of the County Courts.— 6th Edit. 
 
 In 1 thick vol. , demy 8 vo. , price 45s. 
 
 THE PEACTICE OP THE COUNTY C0IJET8.— By James 
 Edwaed Davis, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. The Sixth Edition 
 (including the New County Court Kiiles, and the New ConsoUdated Bank- 
 ruptcy Rules) edited by S. M. Khodes, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 1887 
 
 Davis's Labour Laws of 1875. 
 
 8vo. Us. cloth. 
 
 THE LABOTJE LAWS OP 1875, with Introduction and Notes. 
 
 ' i^ J. E. Davis, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and late Pohoe 
 
 itfagistrate for Sheffield. 1875 
 
 Saunders' Law of Negligence. 
 
 One vol. post 8vo. 9s. cloth. 
 A TEEATISE on the LAW APPLICABLE to NEGLIGENCE. 
 By Thomas W. Saundbes, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of Bath. 1871 
 
 Ingram's Law of Compensation.— 2nd Edit, by Elmes. 
 
 Post Svo. 12«. cloth. 
 
 COMPENSATION TO LAND AND HOUSE OWNEES: 
 being a Treatise on the Law of the Compensation for Interests in Lands, &o. 
 payable by Railway and other PubUo Companies ; -with, an Appendix of Forms and 
 Statutes. By Thomas Dumbae Inoeam, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq. , Barrister-at-Law. 
 Second Edition. Bv J. J. Elmbs, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 1869 
 
16 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Shelford's Companies,— 2nd Edit. By Pitcaim «fc Latham. 
 
 8vo. 21s. cloth. 
 SHELFOED'S LAW OP JOINT STOCK COMPANIES; 
 
 contaimng a Digest of the Case Law on that Subject ; the Companies Acts, 1862, 
 1867, and other Acts relating to Joint Stock Companies; the Orders made under 
 those Acts to regulate Proceedings in the Court of Chancery and County Courts, 
 and Notes of all Cases interpreting the above Acts and Orders. Second Edition, 
 much enlarged, and bringing the Statutes and Cases down to the date of publi- 
 cation. By Dattd Pitoaien, M.A., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and 
 of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law ; and Feancis Law Latham, B.A., Oxon, 
 of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Author of "A Treatise on the Law of 
 Window Lights." 1870 
 
 Shelford's Law of Railways.— 4th Edition by Glen. 
 
 In 2 thick vols, royal 8vo. 63s. cloth ; 75». calf. 
 
 SHELEOED'S LAW OE EAILWAYS ; containing the whole of 
 the Statute Law for the Regulation of Railways in England, Sootla,nd and 
 Ireland : with copious Notes of Decided Cases upon the Statutes, Introduction 
 to the Law of Railways, and Appendix of OfScial Documents. Fourth Edition. 
 By WttiT.tam Cttnhinbham Glen, Barrister-at-Law, Author of the "Law of 
 Highways," " Law of Public Health and Local Govemment," &c. 1869 
 
 Grant's Bankers and Banking Companies.— 4th Ed. 
 
 In 1 vol. 8vo. 29s. cloth. 
 
 GEANT'S TEEATI8E ON THE LAW EELATING TO 
 BANKERS AND BANKING COMPANIES. With an Appendix containing 
 the most important Statutes in force relating thereto. Fourth Edition. With 
 Supplement contaimng the BiUs of Exchange and BiUs of Sales Acts,. 1882. 
 By C. C. M. Plotcpteb, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 
 *»* The Supplement may be had separately, price 3s. sewed. 
 
 Redman's Law of Arbitrations and Awards. 
 2nd Edition. 
 
 In 8vo. 18s. cloth. 
 
 A CONCISE TEEATI8E on the LAW of AEBITEATIONS 
 
 and AWARDS, with an Appendix of Precedents and Statutes. By Joseph 
 Hawoeth Redmak, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Bairister-at-Law. Second 
 Edition. 1884 
 
ii-fry i, I t ) injngrj. » . ii JIi|i|J(| gli Ufl l JU 
 
 MESSES. BTTTTEEWOETH, 7, FLEET STEEET, B.C. 17 
 
 Crump's Marine Insurance and General Average. 
 
 Eoyal 8to. 21». cloth, 26». calf. 
 
 THE PEINOIPLES of the LAW EELATING TO MAEINE 
 iNSUHAlfCE and GENERAL AVERAGE in England and America, with 
 occasional references to French and German Law. By jSkdbeio Ootavius Obttmp, 
 of the Middle Temple, Esq., Bairister-at-Law. 1876 
 
 Powell's Law of Inland Carriers.— 2nd Edition. 
 
 Svo. 14». cloth. 
 
 THE LAW OF LSTLAND CAEEIEES, especially as regulated 
 bifthe Bailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854. ByEniiOTiD PowelIi, Esq., of 
 Lincoln College, Oxon, M.A., and of the Western Circuit, Barrister-at-Law, 
 Author of "I^ciples and Practice of the Law of ETidenoe." Second Edition, 
 almost re-written. 1861 
 
 Higgins's Digest of Patent Cases. 
 
 8vo. 10*. cloth, net. 
 
 A DIGEST OE THE EEPOETED CASES relating to the Law 
 and Practice of LETTERS PATENT EOR INVENTIONS, decided from the 
 passing of the Statute of Monopolies to the present time. By Clement Hiooms, 
 M.A., E.C.S., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1875 
 
 Michael and Will's Gas and Water.— 3rd Edition. 
 
 Demy Svo. price 30«. 
 
 THE LAW EELATING TO GAS AND WATEE: comprising 
 the Rights and Duties as well of Local Authorities as of Private Companies 
 in regard thereto, and including all Legislation to the close of the last Session 
 of Parliament. ByW. H. Michael, Q.C, and J. SniBBsa Will, Q.C. Third 
 Edition. By M. J. Michael, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1884 
 
 Fawcett's Law of Landlord and Tenant. 
 
 Svo. 14». cloth. 
 
 A COMPENDIUM of the LAW of LANDLOED and TENANT. 
 Bt William Mitchell Eawobtt, of Lincoln's Lm, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 
 ' 1871 
 
 Dixon's Law of Partnership. 
 
 One vol., Svo. 22«. cloth. 
 
 A TEEATISE ON THE LAW OP PAETNEESHIP. 
 By Joseph Dixoif, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Editor of "Lush's 
 Common Law Practice." 1866 
 
18 LAW WOBES PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Hunt on Frauds and Bills of Sale. 
 
 Post 8vo. 9*. oloth. 
 
 THE LAW relating to FEAUDULENT CONTETANCES, 
 under the Statutes of Elizabeth and the Bankrupt Acts : with Remarlffl on the 
 Law relating to Bills of Sale. By Aethtte Joseph Hunt, of the Inner Temple, 
 Esq^., Barrister-at-Law, Author of "The Law relating to Boundaries, Fences and 
 Foreshores." 1872 
 
 , Hunt's Boundaries and Fences.— 3rd Edition. 
 
 In 1 vol., post 8vo., lis. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW of BOUNDAEIES and FENCES in relation to the 
 Sea-shore and Sea-hed; Public and Private Hivers and Lakes; Mines and 
 Private Properties generally ; Hallways, Highways and other Ways and Koads, 
 Canals and Waterworks ; Parishes and Counties ; Inclosures, &c., together with 
 the Eules of Evidence and the Remedies applicable thereto, and including the 
 Law of Party- Walls and Party- Structures, both generally andwithin the Metro- 
 polis. By Abthue Joseph Htjkt, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 
 3rd Edit. By Aeohieald Beown, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 Chute's Equity in Relation to Common Law. 
 
 Post 8vo. 9s. cloth, 
 . EQUITY UNDEE THE JUDICATUEE ACT, oe THE 
 KELATION OP EQUITY TO COMMON LAW: with an Appendix con- 
 taining the High Court of Judicature Act, 1873, and the Schedule of Rules. 
 By ChaIiOnee William Chtjte, Barrister-at-Law; PeUow of Magdalen College, 
 Oxford. 1874 
 
 Roberts's Principles of Equity.— 3rd Edition. 
 
 8vo. 18s. cloth. 
 
 THE PEINCIPLES OF EQUITY as administered in the 
 Supreme Court of Judicature and other Courts of Equitable Jurisdiction. By 
 Thomas Aeohieald Bobebis, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 
 Third Edition. 1877 
 
 Wigram on Extrinsic Evidence as to Wills. — 4tli Ed. 
 
 8vo. 11*. cloth. 
 
 AN EXAMINATION OF THE EULES OF LAW respecting 
 the Admission of EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE in Aid of the INTERPRETATION 
 OP WILLS. By the Right Hon, Sir James Wiseam, Knt. The Fourth 
 Edition, prepared for the press with the sanction of the learned Author, by 
 Knox Wiqbam, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1868 
 
 Waggett on Patents. 
 
 In 1 vol., 8vo., 7«. cloth- 
 THE LAW AND PEACTICE RELATING TO THE PEO- 
 LONGATION OF THE TERM OF LETTERS PATENT FOR INVFN- 
 TIONS, with full Table of Cases and Synopsis of Colonial and Foreign Laws, 
 &c. By J. F. Wagoeit, M.A., Oxon., of Lincoln's Inn, Banister-at-Law. 
 
 1887 
 
■ ...-.— ^ - i. Mg -.--rir - ^T,^ 
 
 MESSES. BUTTEB.WOETH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.G. 19 
 
 Rouse's Conveyancer— Srd Edit, with Supplement, 
 
 Two vols. 8vo., 30s. cloth, 38«. oalf. 
 THE PRACTICAL COISTVETAKCER, giving, in a mode 
 oombinmg faoUity of reference with general utility, upwards of Four Hundred 
 "Precedents of Conveyances, Mortgages and Leases, Settlements, and Misoel- 
 laneo.ns Forms, with (pot in previous editions) the Law and numerous Outline 
 Forms and Clauses of Wills and Abstracts of Statutes affecting Real Property, 
 Conveyancing Memoranda, &o. By Rolla Roitsh, Esq., of the Middle Temple, 
 Banister-at-Law, Author of "The Practical Man," &o. Third Edition, greatly 
 enlarged. With a Supplement, giving Abstracts of the Statutory Provisions 
 affecting the Practice in Conveyancing ; and the requisite Alterations in Forms, 
 with some New Forms ; and including a full Abstract in numbered Clauses of 
 the Stamp Act, 1870. 1871 
 
 -The Supplement separately, price \a. 6d. sewed. 
 
 Lewis's Introduction to Conveyancing. 
 
 8vo. 18j. cloth. 
 PEINCIPLES OF CONVETAJSrCING explained and illustrated 
 by Concise Precedents ; with an Appendix on the effect of the Transfer of Land 
 Act in modifying and shortening Conveyances. By Hubeet Lewis, B. A.,, late 
 Scholar of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at- 
 Law. 1863 
 
 Kelly's Conveyancing Draftsman.— 2nd Edition. 
 
 Post 8vo., 12s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 THE DRAFTSMAN : containing a Collection of Concise Prece- 
 dents and Forms in Conveyancing; with Introductory Observations and 
 Practical Notes. 2nd Edition. By James Hbnbt Kelly. 1881 
 
 "A collection of concise forms and xeaAiae."— Justice of the Fe(^e. 
 precedents in conveyancing which has "This edition is a considerable enlarge- 
 
 the advantage of being iS a portable ment of, and we may add, a substantial 
 form and yit containSg most of the improvement on the first edation^ The 
 forms which are likely to be required in forms of 'notices' are vrell drawn, and 
 ordinary practice. Prifixedto theforms there are several of the ' m^ceUaneou^^^ 
 are short mtroduotory practical observa- forms which are aptly Belected."-Jw 
 tions, which^are sure to repay a careful Journal. 
 
 Coombs' Manual of Solicitors' Bookkeeping, 
 
 8vo. 10s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 A MANUAL of SOLICITORS' BOOKKEEPING: comprising 
 
 Practical Exemplifications of a Concise and Simple Plan of Double Entry, with 
 
 Forms of Account and other Books relating to Bills, Cash, &c., showmg their 
 
 Operation, giving Instructions forZKeeping, Posting and Bala,ncmg them, and 
 
 rLctions for Drawing Costs, adapted to a large or smaU, sole or partnership 
 
 business. By W. B. Coombs, Law Accountant and Costs Draftsman. 1868 
 
 * * The various Account Books descnhed in the above System, «**/»"»' »/«;f"/ 
 
 * are copyright, may he had from the Publishers at the prues stated m the worh, 
 
 page 274. 
 
20 LAW WOEKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Probyn's Statutory Form of a Bill of Sale. 
 
 Post 8vo., 3s. cloth. 
 
 STATUTOET FOEM OF A BILL OF SALE, with FOEMS 
 OF, AND KULES FOB, DRAWING SAME, also a Digest of alltheEeported 
 Cases. By L. PEOBiir, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Bairister-at-Law. 1888 
 
 Glyn, Jackson and Probyn's Mayor's Court Practice. 
 
 In 1 vol., 8to., 15s. cloth. 
 
 THE JUEI8DICTI0N AND PEACTICE OF THE MATOE'S 
 COITET, together with Appendices of Forms, and of the Statutes specially re- 
 lating to the Court. By L. E. Gxtn and L. Peobtn, of the Middle Temple, 
 Esquires, Barristers-at-Law, and Feakk S. Jaczbon, Esq., Barrister-at-Lav 
 (Deputy Registrar of the Court). 1888 
 
 Edwards and Hamilton's Law of Husband and Wife. 
 
 In 1 vol., post 8vo., 16s. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW OF HUSBAND AJSTD WIFE : •with geparate 
 Chapters upon Marriage Settlements, and the Married Women's Property Act, 
 1882. By John William Edwaeds and William Feedeeick Hamh/ion, LL.D., 
 Esquires, of the Middle Temple, Banisters-at-Law. 1883 
 
 Pbillimore's Commentaries on International Law. 
 
 TmED Edition, Vol. I., 8vo. 24s. cloth; Vol. II., 26s. doth ; 
 Vol. III., 36s. cloth ; Vol. IV., 36s. cloth. 
 
 COMMENTAEIES ON INTEENATIONAL LAW. 
 By the Right Hon. Sir Robebt Phillimoee, Knt., Member of H.M.'sMost Hon. 
 Privy Council, and Judge of the High Court of Admiralty of England. Com- 
 plete ia i Vols. 8vo. 1879—1889 
 
 Hertslet's Commercial Treaties. 
 
 18 vols. 8vo. 261. 10s. boards. 
 
 HEETSLET'S TEEA.T1ES of Commerce, Na-yigation, Slave 
 Trade, Post Office Communications, Copyright, &c., at present subsisting 
 between Great Britain and Foreign Powers. Compiled from Authentic Docu- 
 ments by Sir Edwaed Hebtslet, K.C.B., Librarian and Keeper of the Papers 
 of the Foreign Office. 
 *^* Vol. 1, price 12s.; Vol. 2, price 12s.; Vol. 3, price 18s.; Vol. 4, price 18s.; 
 
 Vol. 5, price 20s.; Vol. 6, price 25s.; Vol. 7, prtce 30s.; Vol. 8, price 30«.; 
 
 Vol. 9, price SOs.; Vol. W, price SOs.; Vol. 11, price SOs.; Vol.12, price iOs.; 
 
 Vol. 13, price i2s.; Vol. li, price i2s.; Vol. lb, price i2s.; Vol.16, price 2ba.; 
 
 Vol. 17, price 42s. ; Vol. IS, price 42s. cloth, may he had separately to complete 
 
 sets. Vol. 16 contains an Imex of Subjects to the first Fifteen Volumes. 
 
 Hertslet's Treaties on Trade and Tariffs. 
 
 In royal 8vo. 
 
 TEEATEES and TAEIFFS regulating the Trade between Great 
 Britain and Foreign Nations, and Extracts of the Treaties between Foreign 
 Powers, containing "Most Favoured Nation" Clauses awhcable to Great 
 Britain in force on the 1st January, 1876. By Sir Edwaed Heetslet, K.C.B. 
 Librarian and Keeper of the Papers of the Foreign Office. Part 1.— Austria 
 Is. 6d. cloth. Part II. — Turkey, 15s. cloth. Part III.— 7i!«^, 15s. cloth! 
 Part rV. — China, 10s. cloth. Part V. — Spain, 11. Is. cloth. Part VI. — Japan 
 lbs. cloth. Part YIL.— Persia, 10s. cloth. ' 
 
MESSES. BUTTEEWOETH, 7, FLEET STBBET, E.G. 21 
 
 Lawson on Patents, &c.— 2ncl Edition. 
 
 In one vol. demy 8to., 26s. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW AND PEACTICE UNDEE THE PATENTS, 
 DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS ACTS, 1883 to 1888, with the Practice in 
 Actions for Infringement of Patent, and an Appendix of Orders and Forms. 
 By WiiiiAM: NdETON Lawson, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, 
 Recorder of Richmond. 1889 
 
 UnderhiU's "Freedom of Land."— 2nd Edition. 
 
 Demy 8vo., price Is. 
 
 "EEEEDOM OF LAND," and WHAT IT IMPLIES. By 
 Abthtib TJhdeehiiil, LL.D., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, Author of 
 "A Treatise on the Law of Private Trusts," "A Manual of Chancery 
 Procedure," &c. &o. Second edition. 1882 
 
 Baylis's Law of Domestic Servants.— By Monokton. 
 
 FoTjETH Edihon. Foolscap 8vo. 2s. cloth. 
 
 THE EIGHTS, DUTIES and EELATIONS OP DOMESTIC 
 SERVANTS and their MASTERS and MISTRESSES. With a Short Account 
 of the Servants' Institutions, &c. and their Advantages. By T. Henet Batlis, 
 M.A.,'of Brasenose- CoIleg:e, ■ Oxford, Barrister-at-Law of the Inner Temple. 
 Fourth Edition, with considerable Additions, by Edwaed P. Monokton, Esq., 
 B. A., of Trinity College, Cambridge, Barrister-at-Law of the Inner Temple. 1873 
 
 Clifford & Stephens's Practice of Eeferees Court, 1873. 
 
 Two vols, royal 8vo. 31. 10s. cloth. 
 
 THE PEACTICE of the COUET of EEPEEEES on PEIVATE 
 BILLS in PARLIAMENT, with Reports of Cases as to the loeus standi of 
 Petitioners during the Sessions 1867-68-69-70-71 and 72. By Febdbeioz 
 OiiiFTOBD and Peubsoee S. Stephens, Barristers-at-Law. 
 
 In continuation of the above. 
 Royal 8vo. Vol. I. Part I. price 31s. 6<f. ; Part II. 15s. sewed: Vol. II. 
 Part' I. 12s. U. ; Part II. 12s. 6rf. ; Part III. 12s. U. ; Part IV. 15s. : 
 Vol. III. Part I. 15s. ; Part II. 15s. ; Part III. 15s. ; Part IV. 15s. 
 
 CASES DECIDED DUEING THE SESSIONS 1873, 1874, 1875, 
 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883 and 1884. By Fbedebiok 
 CijFFOBD and A. G-. Rickabds, Barristers-at-Law. 
 
 In continuation of above, 
 
 Vol. I. Part I. price 12s. 6<?. sewed ; Part II., 9s. ; Part III., 15s. ; 
 Part IV., 10s. 6<f. 
 
 CASES DECIDED DUEING THE SESSIONS 1885,1886, 1887, 
 1888 and 1889, By A. G. Riokaeds and M. J. Miohabi, Barristers-at-Law. 
 
 In continuation of above. 
 Royal 8vo. Vol. I. Part I. 18s. sewed ; Part II. 10s. 6<f. sewed. 
 CASES DECIDED DUEING THE SESSIONS 1890, 1891 and 
 1892. By A. G. Riokaeds and R. 0. Satoibbes, Barristers-at-Law. 
 
22 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Hewitt's Corporation Duty. 
 
 Just Published, in 1 vol. post 8vo. 6*. cloth. 
 
 A TEEATI8B ON THE LAW EELATING TO COEPO- 
 KATION DITTY; or, The Duty on the Income of the Property of Bodies 
 Corporate and Uninoorporate. With especial reference to Claims for Exemption ; 
 -with Inland Ilev6nue Forms and Report of Leading Case as to Exemption, &o. 
 'By Thomas Hewitt, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1892 
 
 Mr. Justice Lush's Common Law Practice. 
 3rd Edition by Dixon. 
 
 Two vols. 8vo. 46s. cloth. 
 
 LUSH'S PEACTICE OE THE SUPEEIOE COUETS 
 
 OF COMMON LAW AT WESTMINSTER, in Actions and Proceedings over 
 whioh they have a Common Jurisdiction: with Introductory Treatises respecting' 
 Parties to Actions ; Attomies and Town Agents, their QuaUfioations, Eights, 
 Duties, Privileges and Disabihtifis; the Mode of Suingj whether in Person or by 
 Attorney in Porm^ Pauperis, &o. &o. &o. ; and an Appendix, containing the 
 Authorized Tables of Costs and Pees,"Porm8 of Proceedings and W^ts of Execution. 
 Third Edition. ByJoSBPHDrsoN, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1865 
 
 Coote's Admiralty Practice.— 2nd Edition. 
 
 8vo. 16s. cloth. 
 
 THE PEACTICE of the HIGH COUET OE ADMIEALTY 
 
 OF ENGrLAND : also the Practice of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's 
 Most Honorable Privy Council in Admiralty Appeals, with Forms and BiUs of 
 Costs. By Hbnet Chaeles Cootb, F.S.A., one of the Examiners.of the High 
 Coort of Admiralty, Author of "The Practice of the Court of Probate," &6. 
 Second Edition, almost entirely re- written, with a Supplement giving the Comity 
 Courts Jurisdiction and practice in Admiralty, the Act of 1868, Rules,. Orders, &o. 
 
 1869 
 *!,* This work contains every Common Form in me by the Fraetitioner in Adtniralty, 
 
 as well as every description of Bill of Costs in that Court, a feature possessed by 
 
 no other work on the Practice in Admiralty. 
 
 Davis's Criminal Law Consolidation Acts. 
 
 12mo. 10s. clotji. 
 
 THE NEW CEIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACTS, 
 
 1861; with an Introduction and practical Notes, illustrated by a copious 
 reference to Cases decided by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Together vidth 
 alphabetical Tables of Offences, as well those punishable upon Summary 
 Conviction as upon Indictment, and including the OfEenoes under the New 
 Bankruptcy Act, so arranged as to present at one view the paorticular Offence, 
 the Old or New Statute ujou whioh it is founded, and the Limits of Punishment; 
 and a fiiU Index. By James Edwaed Davis, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1861 
 
 De Colyar's Law of Guarantees.— 2nd Edition. 
 
 In 1 vol. 8vo. 16s. cloth. 
 
 A TEEATISE ON THE LAW OF GUAEANTEE8 AND 
 OF PRINOIPAL AND SURETY. By Henet A, de Coltab, of the Middle 
 Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 2ud Edition. 1885 
 
MESSES. BUTTERWOETH, 1, FLEET STEEET, E.G. 23 
 
 Bedford's Pinal Guide to Probate and Divorce. 
 2nd Edition. 
 
 One vol. post 8vo. 6«. cloth. 
 THE FINAL EXAMINATION GUIDE TO THE LAW 
 OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE: containing a Digest of Einal Examination 
 Questions, with the Answers. Second Edition. By E. H. Bedfobd, Solioitor, 
 Temple, Author of the "Final Examination Gruide to the Practice of the Supreme 
 Court of Judicature," &o. &o. ' 1882 
 
 Bedford's Final Guide to Judicature Acts, 1873-5. 
 
 One vol. 8to. Is. 6d. cloth. 
 
 THE EINAL EXAMINATION GUIDE TO THE PEAOTICE 
 OF THE StrPRJSME COURT OP JUDICATURE : containing a Digest of 
 the Final Examination Questions, with many new ones, with Answers under the 
 Supreme Court of Judicature Acts. By Edwabd Henslowe Bbdfoed, Solicitor, 
 Editor of the "Preliminary," " Intermediate," and " Final," &o. &o. 1875 
 
 By the same Author, on a Sheet, 1*. i 
 
 A TABLE OE THE LEADING STATUTES for the INTEE- 
 MEDIATE and FINAL EXAMINATIONS in Law, Eq.mty and Conveyancing. 
 
 Collier's Law of Contributories. 
 
 Post Svo. 9a. cloth. 
 
 A TEEATISE ON THE LAW OF C0NTEIBUT0EIE8 in 
 
 the Winding-up of Joint Stock Companies. By Robbet .CouiiBB, of the Inner 
 Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1875 
 
 Pye on Claims to Debtors' Estates. 
 
 Post Svo. 3s. 6ii. cloth. 
 
 NOTES ON THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS TO THE PEO- 
 PERTT OF A DEBTOR. By Henet John Ptb, of the Inner Temple, Esq., 
 Bamster-at-Law. 1880 
 
 Nasmith's Institutes of English Law. 
 
 4 vols, post Svo. 30*. cloth. 
 
 THE INSTITUTES OF ENGLISH LAW.— Part 1, EngHsh 
 
 Public Law. Part 2, English Private Law (in 2 vols.). Part 3, Evidence and 
 
 the Measure of Damages. By David Nasmtth, LL.B., of the Middle Temple, 
 
 Barrister-at-Law, Author of the Chronometrioal Chart of the History of 
 
 England, &q. , 1873—1879 
 
 *»* The ahove may ie had separately to complete sets at the foUowinff prices : — 
 
 Fart 1, 10s. cloth. Fart 2, 20*. cloth. Part 3, 10s. cloth. 
 
 Cutler and GriflBn's Indian Criminal Law. 
 
 Svo. 6s. cloth. 
 
 AN ANALYSIS of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (mcluding 
 the Indian Penal Code Amendment Act, 1870), with Notes, By John Cutlbb, 
 B.A. of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, and Edmund Fotube GuntTN, B.A., 
 of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. - - . ; . . . ^ i87i- 
 
24 LAW WOEKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Anderson's Law of Execution. 
 
 This day is published, demy 8to. 32«. cloth. 
 A TEEATISE on the LAW OF EXECUTION in the High 
 Court and Inferior Courts ; including the Powers, Duties, and LiabiJities of the 
 Sheriff, the High Bailiff, the Bishop, and other Executive Officers. By T. Kbeb 
 Andeeson, LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 Daly's Club Law— Second Edition. 
 
 Just published, foolscap 8vo. 3«. 6d. cloth. 
 CLUB LAW AND THE LAW OE UNEEGISTEEED 
 FRIENDLY SOCIETIES: a Handbook of the Eights and LiabiUties of 
 OfBoers and Members of Clubs, and other Unregistered Societies, inter se, and 
 as regards Strangers ; Procedure in Actions by or against ; Gambling; Drinking ; 
 Leatoig Cases, &o. By Domhhok Dai,t, of the Inner Temple and Midland 
 Circuit, Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. 
 
 The Law Examination Journal. 
 
 Edited by Hebbeet Newmam Mozlet, M.A., 
 Fellow of King's Collegfe, Cambridge; and of Lincoln's Inii, Esq., Bamstei>at-Law. 
 
 Vol. I. Michaelmas, 1869, to Hilary, 1873. 16s. cloth. 
 II. Easter, 1873, to Trinity, 1876. ISs. cloth. 
 
 III. Michaelmas, 1876, to Michaelmas, 1880. 18s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 IV. Hilary, 1881, to Hilary, 1885. 18s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Nasmith's History of Roman Law. 
 
 Just published, in 1 vol. demy 8vo. 25s. doth. 
 OUTLINE OF EOMAN HISTOEY, from Eomxdus to Justinian 
 (including translation of the Twelve Tables — ^the Institutes of Gaius and the 
 Institutes of Justinian), with special reference to the Growth, Development, 
 and Decay of Eoman Jurisprudence. With Map and Chart. By Daved 
 Kassqih, Q.C, LL.B. 1890 
 
 Gaius's Roman Law, by Tomkins and Lemon. 
 
 Complete in 1 vol. Svo. 27s. cloth extra. 
 
 THE 00MMENTAEIE8 of GAIUS on the EOMAN LAW : 
 
 ■B ith an English Translation and Annotations. By Fbkdeeiok J. Tomkins, Esq., 
 M.A., D.C.L., and WiLtiAM GBOEaB Lemon, Esq., LL.B., Barristers-at-Law, 
 of Lincoln's Inn. 1869 
 
 Tomkins' Institutes of Roman Law. 
 
 . Part I. royal Svo. (to be completed in Three Parts) 12s. cloth. 
 
 THE INSTITUTES OF THE EOMAN LAW. Pabt I. The 
 
 Sources of the Eoman Law and its external H i story to the decline of the 
 
 Eastern and Western Empires. By Febdbbiok J. Tomkiks, M.A., D.C.L., 
 
 Barrist6r-at-Law, of Lincoln's Bm. 1867 
 
MESSES. BUTTBEWOETH, 7, FLEET STEEET, B.O. 25 
 
 Butterworth on Railway Rates and Traffic— 
 2nd Edition. 
 
 In 1 vol., medium 8vo., price 18s. 6il. cloth. 
 
 A TEEATI8E ON THE LAW EELATING TO BATES AND 
 TRAPPIC ON RAILWAYS AND CANALS, and the Practice of the Rail- 
 way and Canal Commission. By A. Kate Butteewobth, LL.E., of the Great 
 Western RailTyay, Solicitor, assisted hy C. E. Ellis, B.A., of the Inner Temple, 
 Barrister-at-Law. 1889 
 
 Butterwortli's Railway Commissioners' Practice. 
 
 Medium 8to., price &s. limp cloth. 
 THE PRACTICE OP THE EAILWAY AND CANAL COM- 
 MISSION : being the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854—1888, and the 
 Rules of Procedure, with Notes and Index, and a Compendium of the Practice. 
 By A. Kate Butteewobth, LL.B. 1889 
 
 Dowell's Income Tax Laws.— 3rd Edition, 
 
 8vo. 12s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 THE INCOME TAX LAWS at present in force in the United 
 
 Kingdom, mth Practical Notes, Appendices and a copious Index. By Stephen 
 
 DowELL, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Assistant Solicitor of Inland Revenue. 3rd 
 
 Edition. 1890 
 
 Bund's Agricultural Holdings Acts.— 2nd Edit. 
 
 Post 8vo., 12s. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW OF COMPENSATION POE UNEXHAUSTED 
 AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS, as amended by the Agricultural 
 Holdings (England and Scotland) Acts, 1883 ; with the Statutes and Porms. 
 By J. W. Willis Btthd, M.A., LL.B., of Lincohi's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, 
 Author of "The Law relating to Salmon Pisheries in England and Wales," &c. 
 2nd Edition. ^ 1883 
 
 Williams's Common Law Pleading and Practice. 
 
 8vo. 12s. cloth. 
 
 An INTEODUOTION to PRACTICE and PLEADING in tlie 
 SUPERIOR COURTS of LAW, embracing an outline of the whole proceedings 
 in an Action at Law, on Motion, and at Judges' Chambers ; together with the 
 Rules of Pleading and Practice, and Forms of all the principal Proceedings. By 
 Watkin Williams, Esq., M.P., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1857 
 
 Lawrence on Partition. 
 
 8vo. 8s. cloth. 
 
 THE C0MPUL80EY SALE OF EEAL ESTATE under the 
 POWERS of the PARTITION ACT, 1868. As Amended by the Partition 
 Act 1876. By Philip Henbt Lawbence, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister- 
 at-Law. 1*^^ 
 
26 LAW WOEKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Trower's Churcli Building Laws. 
 
 Post 8to. 9s. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW OF THE BUILDING OF CHUECHES, PAE- 
 
 SONAGES, and SCHOOLS, and of the Division of Parishes and Places. By 
 Charles Peaucis Tbq-wde, M.A., of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-La-w, 
 late Fello-w of Exeter College, Oxford, and late Secretary of Presentations to 
 Lord Chancellor Westhury. . 1874 
 
 Brabrook's Co-operative and Provident Societies. 
 
 12mo. 6s. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW relating to INDUSTEIAL and PEOVIDENT 
 SOCIETIES, including the Winding-up Clauses, with a Practical Introduction, 
 Notes, and Model Pules, to whioh are added the Law of Prance on the same 
 subject, and Remarks on Trades Unions. By Edwaed W. Bbaebook, P.S.A., 
 of Liuoohi's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Assistant Registrar of Priendly 
 Societies in England. 1869 
 
 Gaclies' Town Councillors and Burgesses Manual. 
 
 Post 8vo. 7». cloth. 
 
 THE TOWN COUNCILLOES and BUEaESSES MANUAL, 
 a Popular Digest of Municipal and Sanitary Law, with information as to 
 Charters of Incorporation, and a CoUeotion of useful Forms especially adapted 
 for newly Incorporated Boroughs. By Louis Gaohbb, LL.M., B.A., of the 
 Inner Temple, Esq., Bairister-at-Law. 1875 
 
 Holland on the Form of the Law. 
 
 8vo. Is. 6d. cloth. 
 
 ESSAYS upon the FOEM of the LAW. By Thomas Eeskote 
 Hollakd, M.A., Pellow of Exeter CoUege, and Chiohele Professor of Inter- 
 national Law in the University of Oxford, and of Lincoln's Inn, Bairister-at- 
 Law. 1870 
 
 Heales's History and Law of Pews. 
 
 2 vols. 8vo. 16«. cloth. 
 
 THE HISTOEY and LAW OF CHUEGH SEATS or PEWS. 
 By Alteed Heales, P.S.A., Proctor in Doctors' Commons. 1872 
 
MESSES. BUTTEEWOETH, 7, FLEET STEEET, E.O. 27 
 
 Stephen's Law of Support and Subsidence. 
 
 Just published, in one Vol., post 8vo., 5«. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW OP SUPPOET AND SUBSIDENCE. By Haekt 
 LuSHiNQTON Stephen, LL.B., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1890 
 
 Maeaskie's Law of Bills of Sale. 
 
 One Vol., post Svo., 8s. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW EELATING TO BILLS OP SALE, with Notes 
 upon Fraudulent Assignments and Preferences, and the Doctrine of Reputed 
 Ownership in Bankruptcy ; and an Appendix of Statutes, Precedents, and 
 Forms. By Stuaut Maoaskxe, of Gray's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 1882 
 
 Ruegg's Employers' Liability Act. 2nd Edit. 
 
 This day is published, in 1 Vol., post Svo., 7«. 6d. cloth. 
 
 THE EMPLOYEES' LIABILITY ACT, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. 
 
 c. 42). With Statutes afieoting same, and Forms. Second Edition. By Alssed 
 
 Eenby Rueqq, of the Middle Temple and Western Circuit, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 2nd Edit. 1892 
 
 Shelford's Succession, Probate and Legacy Duties. 
 2nd Edition. 
 
 12mo. 164. cloth. 
 
 THE LAW EELATING TO THE PEOBATE, LEGACY 
 and SUCCESSION DUTIES in ENGLAND, IRELAND and SCOTLAND, 
 including aU the Statutes and the Decisions on those Subjects : with Forms and 
 Of&cial Regulations. By Leonaed Shelfoed, Esq., of the Middle Temple, 
 Barrister-at-Law. The Second Edition, with many Alterations and Additions. 
 
 1861 
 
 Smith's Bar Education. 
 
 8to. 9». cloth. 
 A HISTOEY of EDUCATION for tlie ENGLISH BAE, with 
 SUGGESTIONS as to SUBJECTS and METHODS of STUDT. By Phiup 
 Anstib Smith, Esq., M.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. I860 
 
 Cutler's Law of Naturalization. 
 
 12mo. 3». Gd. cloth. 
 THE LAW OP NATUEALIZATION ; as Amended by the 
 Acts of 1870. By John Cdtleb, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, 
 Editor of " Powell's Law of Eyidence," &o. 1871 
 
28 LAW WOEEB PUBLISHED BY 
 
 A Handy Book for tlie Common Law Judges' Chambers. By 
 Geo. H. Pabzinson, Chamber Clerk to the Hon. Mr. JustioeByles. 12ino. 7». cloth. 
 
 1861 
 
 A Concise Treatise on the Principles of Equity Pleading ; with 
 
 Precedents. By C. Stewaet Deewbt, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Baorrister-at- 
 La-w. 12mo. 6«. cloth. 1858 
 
 Drainage of Land : How to procure Outfalls by New Drains, or 
 
 the Improvement of Existing Drains, in the Lands of an adjoining Owner, under 
 thePowerscontainedinPart III. of theAct 24 & 25 Vict. c. 133; with an Explana- 
 tion of theProyisions, and Suggestions for the Gruidance of Land Owners, Occupiers. 
 Land Agents and Surveyors. By J. William "Wilson, SoUcitor. 8vo. Is. sewed. 
 
 The Law and Pacts of the Alabama Case, with reference to the 
 G-eneva Arbitration. By James O'Dowx), Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Svo. 2«. sewed. 
 
 Foreshores. B.eport of Case, The dueen at the Prosecution of 
 
 Williams v. Nicholson, for removing Shingle from the Foreshore at Withemsea. 
 Heard at the Police Court, Htdl, 31st May, 1870. 8vo. \s. sewed. 
 
 Indian Civil Service Examinations. On reporting Cases for the 
 
 Periodical Examinations by Selected Candidates for the Civil Service of India : 
 Being a Lecture dehvered on Wednesday, June 12th, 1867, at King's College, 
 London. By John Cutlee, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, Professor 
 of English Law and Jurisprudence and Professor of Indian Jurisprudence at 
 King's College, London. 8vo. Is. sewed. 
 
 Hamel's International Law, in connexion with Mtinicipal 
 
 Statutes relating to the Commerce, Bights and Liabilities of the Subjects of 
 Neutral States pending Foreign War ; considered with reference to the Case of 
 the Alexandi-a, seized under the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act. By 
 Felix Haeqeave Hamel, Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. 3s. boards. 1863 
 
 Prancillon's Lectures, Elementary and Familiar, on English Law. 
 
 FiEST and Seoonb Seeies. By James Feanoillon, Esq., County Court Judge. 
 2 vols. 8vo. 8s. each, cloth. I860 — 1861 
 
 The Laws of Barbados. Royal 8vo. 21s. cloth. 
 
 . Le Marchant's Beport of Proceedings of the House of Lords 
 
 on the Claims to the Barony of Gardner, with an Appendix of Cases illustrative 
 of the Law of Legitimacy. By Sir Denis Le Maeohaut, of Lincoln's Inn, 
 Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 18s. boards. 1828 
 
MESSES. BUTTEKWOETH, 7, FLEET STEEET, E.G. 29 
 
 Gray's Treatise on the Law of Costs in Actions and other Pro- 
 ceedings ia the Courts of Common La-w at Westminster. By John Gbat, Esq., 
 of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-La-w. 8yo. 21s. cloth. 1853 
 
 A SEemoir of Lord Ljmdliurst. By "William Sidney Gibson, Esq., 
 K.A., F.S.A., Barrister-at-La\f, of Lincoln's Inn. Second Edition, enlarged. 
 Svo. 2s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 The Ancient Land Settlement of England. A Lecture delivered 
 at tJniversity College, London, October 17th, 1871. By J. W. Wiuas Bxnsn), 
 M.A., Professor of Constitutional Law and History. 8to. Is. sewed. 
 
 Bowditch's Treatise on the History, Revenue Laws, and Govern- 
 ment of the Isles of Jersey and Guernsey, to which is added the recent Acts as 
 to Smuggling, Customs and Trade of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, 
 Forms, Costs, &o. By J. Bowditoh, Solicitor. Svo. 3s. 6d. sewed. 
 
 Moseley's Law of Contraband of War; comprising all the 
 
 American and English Authorities on the Sahject. By Joseph Moselet, Esq., 
 B.C.L., Barrister-at-Law. Post 8to. 6s. cloth. 1861 
 
 Dr. Deane's Law of Blockade, as contained in the Judgments 
 of Dr. Lushington and the Cases on Blockade decided during 1854. By J. P. 
 Deahe, D.C.L., Advocate in Doctors' Commons. 8vo. 10s. cloth. 1855 
 
 Lovesy's Law of Arbitration between Blasters and Workmen, 
 
 as founded upon the Councils of Conciliation Act of 1867, the Masters and 
 ■Workmen Act, and other Acts, with an Introduction and Notes. By C. W. 
 LovEBT, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, now one of Her Majesty's Judges, British 
 Guiana. 12mo. is. cloth. 1867 
 
 The Law relating to Transactions on the Stock Exchange. By 
 
 Hbnbt Eetsek, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 8s. cloth. 1850 
 
 A Legigraphical Chart of Landed Property in England from the 
 
 time of the Saxons to the present JEra. By Chaeles Feabne, Esq., Barrister- 
 at-Law. On a large sheet, 6s. coloured. 
 
30 LAWWOEKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 A Treatise on the Law of Gaming, Horse-Kacing, and Wagers. 
 
 By Feedbeio Ebwaees, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12nio. 5s. cloth. 1839 
 
 Anstey's Pleader's Gruide ; a Didactic Poem, in Two Parts. The 
 
 Eighth Edition. 12iiio. 7«. hoards. 1826 
 
 Hardy's Catalogue of Lords Chancellors, Keepers of the Great 
 
 Seal, and Principal Of&cers of the High Court of Chancery. By Thomas 
 DuPFUB Habdt, Principal Keeper of Records. Royal 8vo. 20s. cloth. (Only 
 250 copies printed.) 1843 
 
 Pothier's Treatise on the Contract of Partnership; with the 
 
 Civil Code and Code of Commerce relating to the Suhject, in the same Order. 
 Translated from the !French. By 0. D. TnroE, Esq., Banister. 8vo. 5s. cloth. 
 
 1864 
 
 @ccte;sia$tical aato* 
 
 TRISTRAM'S CONSISTORY JUDGMENTS. 
 
 This day is published, in 1 ml., rnyal 8ot., 18s. ehth. 
 
 The Principal Judgments Delivered in the Consistory Courts of 
 
 London, Hereford, Ripon, and Wakefield, and in the Commissary Court of 
 Canterbury, 1872 to 1890. By Chau-celioe Tbistsam, Q.C, D.C.L. 1893 
 
 Rules and Regulations to be observed in all Causes, Suits and 
 
 Proceedings instituted in the Consistory Court of London from and after the 
 26th June, 1877. By Order of the Judge. Royal 8vo. Is. sewed. 
 
MESSES. BUTTEEWOETH, 7, ELEET STEEET, E.O. 31 
 
 lEcrtCgiaiStical %dibi— continued. 
 
 Tb.e Case of the Bev. G-. C. Gorhani against the Bishop of 
 
 Exeter, aa heard and determined by the Judicial Conmiittee of the Privy Coimoil 
 on appeal from the Arches Court of Canterbury. By Ed'wabd E. Moobe, Esq., 
 M.A., Barrister-at-La-w, Author of Moore's "Privy OounoU Reports." Eoyal 
 8vo. 8s. cloth. 1852 
 
 Archdeacon Hale's Essay on the Union between Church and 
 State, and the Establishment by Law of the Protestant Reformed Religion in 
 England, Ireland, and Scotland. By W. H. Haie, M.A., Archdeacon of 
 London. 8to. Is. sewed. 
 
 The Judgment of the Privy Council on Appeal in the Case of 
 
 Hebbert v. Purchas. Edited by Edwaed Bttllook, of the Inner Temple, 
 Barrister-at-Law, Reporter in Privy Council for the Law Journal Reports. 
 Royal 8vo. 2s. 6d. sewed. 
 
 Burder v. Heath. Judgment delivered on November 2, 1861, by 
 the Right Honorable Stbphbn LirsHiNcraoN, D.C.L., Dean of the Arches. EoUo 
 Is. sewed. 
 
 The Case of Long v. Bishop of Cape Town, embracing the 
 
 opinions of the Judges of Colonial Court hitherto unpublished, together with 
 the decision of the Rivy Council, and Preliminary Observations by the Editor. 
 Royal 8vo. 6s. sewed. 
 
 The Judgment of the Dean of the Arches, also the Judgment of 
 the PRIVY COUNCIL, in LiddeU (clerk), and Home and others against 
 Westerton, and LiddeU (clerk) and Park and Evans against Beal. Edited by 
 A. F. Batfoed, LL.D. ; and with an elaborate analytical Index to the whole of 
 the Judgments in these Cases. Royal 8vo. 3s. 6d. sewed. 
 
 The Law of the Building of Churches, Parsonages and Schools, 
 
 and of the Division of Parishes and Places — continued to 1874. By Chaelbs 
 Eeanois Teowbb, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. 9s. cloth. 
 
 The History and Law of Church Seats or Pews. By .Aefbbd 
 Hbalbs, E.S.A., Proctor in Doctors' Commons. 2 vols. 8vo. 16s. cloth. 
 
 Hamel's Law of Ritualism in the United Church of England and 
 Ireland. With Practical Suggestions for Amendment of the Law, and a Form 
 of BUI for that purpose. By E. Haeoave Hamel, Esq., of the Inner Temple, 
 Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. Is. sewed. 
 
 The Judgment delivered by the Bight Honble. Sir Kobert 
 PhUlimOTe, D.C.L., Official Principal of the Court of Arches, in the Cases of 
 Martin v. Mackonochie and Flamank v. Simpson. Edited by 'WAi/rEB Gr. F. 
 Phellimoeb, B.A., of the Middle Temple, FeUow of AU Souls OoUege, and 
 Vinerian Scholar, Oxford. Royal 8vo. 2s. 6d. sewed. 
 
 Judgment delivered by the Bight Hon. Lord Cairns on behalf of 
 the Judicial Committee of the Privy CouncU in the case of Martin v. Mackonochie. 
 Edited by W. Eenst BEOWNXNa, Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. Is. Sd. sewed. 
 
 The Privilege of Beligious Confessions in English Courts of 
 Justice considered in a Letter to a Friend. By Edwabd Badeibt, Esq., M.A., 
 Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 2s. sewed. 
 
 The Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts, with Forms and 
 
 Tables of Costs. By H. C. Cootb, F.S.A., Proctor in Doctors' Commons, &c. 
 Bvo. 28s. boards. 
 
 The Lord's Table : its true Bubrical Position. The Purchas 
 Judgment, not reliable. The Power of the Laity and Churchwardens to prevent 
 Romanizing. Suggestions to the Laity and Parishes for the due ordering of the 
 Table at Communion Time. The Rubrical Position of the Celebrant. By H. F. 
 Nappbe, Solicitor. 8vo. Is. sewed. 
 
P^fo Moths Kwi ^tb (&hjtwm m $xi$KvsAxm. 
 
 Hertslet's Treaties. Vol. XIX. In 1 vol. Svq, 
 
 Kickards and Saunders' Beferees Keports. Vol. I., Fart III. 
 
 . Imprinted at London, 
 
 nvmber Seuen in Flete strete within Temple harre, 
 
 whylom the signe of the Hande and starre, 
 
 and the Hovse where liued Richard Tottel, 
 
 in the seueral Reigns of 
 Khg. Edw. VI. and of the qvenes Marye and Elizabeth. 
 
 1553—1893. 
 
#11% (©Itc'g JWagiiSttrial WioxU* 
 
 Oke's Magisterial Synopsis ; a Practical Guide for Magis- 
 trates, their Clerks, Solicitors, and Constables; comprising Summary Convictiona 
 and Indictable Ofienoes, with their Penalties, Punishments, Procedure, &c., 
 alphabetically and tabularly arranged : with a Copious Index. Fowteenth jEdition. 
 By H. L. Stephen, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. In 2 vols. 8vo. 58s. cloth. 
 
 Oke's Magisterial Fornmlist ; being a complete Collection 
 
 of Forms and Precedents for practical use in all Cases out of Quarter Sessions, and 
 in Parochial Matters, by Magistrates, their Clerks, Solicitors and Constables. 
 Seventh Edition. By H. Ij. Stei'hen, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 35«. cloth. 
 
 Oke's Handy Book of th.e Game Laisrs ; containing the 
 
 whole Law as to Game Licences and Certificates, Grun Licences, Poaching Preven- 
 tion, Trespass, Rabbits, Deer, Dogs, Birds, and Poisoned Grain, Sea Birds, Wild 
 Birds and Wild Powl, and the Eating of Game throughout the United Kingdom. 
 Systematically arranged, with the Acts, Decisions, Notes and Eorms. Tliird 
 Edition, with Supplement to 1881. By J. W. Willis Bund, M.A., LL.B., 
 Barrister-at-Law, Author of "The Law relating to Salmon Fisheries "in 
 England and Wales," &o. Post 8vo. 16«. cloth. 
 
 %* The Supplement may be had separately, price 2s. 6d., sewed. 
 
 " A boot on tlie Game !Law8, brought up to the present time, and including the recent Acts 
 ^th regard to "Wild Powl, &c. was much needed, and Mr. Willis Bund has most opportunely 
 supplied the want by bringing out a revised and enlarged edition of the very useful Handy Book 
 of which the late Mr. Oke was the Author." — The Field. 
 
 Oke's Handy Book of the Fishery Laws ; containing 
 
 the Law as to Fisheries, Private and Public, in the Inland Waters of England 
 and Wales, and the Freshwater Fisheries Preservation Act, 1878. Systema- 
 tically arranged, with the Acts, Decisions, Notes and Forms. By Geoeob C. 
 Oke, author of " The Magisterial Synopsis" and "Formulist," "The Laws of 
 Turnpike Roads," &e., &c. Second Edition, with Supplement to 1884. By 
 J. W. Willis Bttot), M.A., LL.B., of Lincolii's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, Chair- 
 man of the Severn Fishery Board. In One Vol. Post 8vo. 6s. cloth. 
 
 Oke's La-ws as to Licensing Inns, «&c. 1874; containing 
 
 the Licensing Acts of 1872 and 1874, and the other Acts in force as to Ale-houses, 
 Beer-houses, Wine and Refreshment-houses, Shops, &c. where Intoxicating 
 Liquors are sold, and Billiard and Occasional Licences. Systematically arranged, 
 with Explanatory Notes, the authorized Forms of Licences, Tables of Offences, 
 Index, &o. By Geoeob C. Okb, late Chief Clerk to the Lord Mayor of London. 
 Second Edition, with aU the Cases decided to the present time. By W. CoiraiNGHAM 
 Glen, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. 10s. cloth. 
 
 " The arraagement in chapters adopted by Mr. Oke seems to us better than the plan pursued 
 by the authors of the rival work." — Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 " Mr. Oke has brought out by far the best edition of the act." — Law Times. 
 
 " "We are sure that lawyers who have Ucensing cases and magistrates who have to administer 
 the new act -will be very glad to hear that Mr. Oke has published a treatise on the sulbj^ct." — 
 Law Journal. 
 
Tristram's Consistory Judgments. Royal 8vo.1 18s. cloth. 
 
 Nasmith's Roman History (Romulus to Justinian). Witli Trans- 
 lation of The Twelve Tables, G-aiua and Justinian. 8vo. 25s. cloth. 
 
 TInderh.ill's Concise Guide to Equity. In One Vol. PostSvo. 9s. cloth. 
 
 Powell's Principles and Practice of the Law of Evidence. Sixth 
 Edition. ' By Cutleb and Caqnet. Post 8vo. 21s. cloth. 
 
 Mr. Serjeant Stephen's New Comm.entaries. By His Honoue JtrDoa 
 SlEPKEN. Eleventh Edition. 4 vols. 8to. il. is. cloth. 
 
 *j(* This -work is set for the Intermediate Examinations for Solicitors 
 for 1893 and 1894. 
 
 Clifford's Private Bill Legislation. 2 vols. 11. ISs. cloth. 
 
 Tudor's Leading Cases on Real Property, Conveyancing and 
 
 Wills : with Notes. 3rd Edition. Eoyal 8vo. 21. 12s. U. cloth. 
 
 Plumptre's Principles, of the Law of Simple Contracts. Post 8vo. . 
 8s. cloth. •,* A companion volume to TJnderhill on Torts. 
 
 Mozley and Whiteley's Concise Law Dictionary. 8vo. 20s. 
 
 "Law students desirous of * cramming* will find it acceptable." — Law Times. 
 
 XTnderhill's Practical and Concise Manual of Chancery 
 Procedure. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 TJnderhill's Law of Torts, or Wrongs Independent of Contract. 
 
 Fifth Edition. Post 8vo. 10s. cloth. 
 
 XTnderhill's Law of Trusts and Trustees. Third Edition. With 
 Supplement. Post 8vo. 18s. cloth. 
 
 *^* Supplement may he had separately 2s. sewed. 
 
 Seahorne's Manual of the Law of "Vendors and Purchasers. 
 Third Edition. Post 8vo. 125. e,d. cloth. 
 
 Kelly's Conveyancing Draftsman. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 12s. Qd. 
 cloth. 
 
 Roberts' Principles of Equity: a First Book on Equity Juris- 
 prudence. Third Edition. 8vo. 18s. cloth. 
 
 Mosely's Articled Clerks' Handy-Book. Second Edition. By 
 E. H. Bedfobd. Post 8vo. 8j. &d. cloth. 
 
 Bedford's Final Examination Guide to the Judicature Acts, 
 
 1873 and 1875. Questions and Answers. 8vo. 7s. 6ii. cloth. 
 
 Bedford's Final Examination Guide to the Law of Probate 
 and Divorce. Questions and Answers. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 6s. cloth. 
 
 Lewis's Principles of Conveyancing. 8vo. 18s. cloth. 
 
 Cutler and Griffin's Analysis of Indian Penal Code. 8vo. 6«. 
 
 Nasmith's Institutes of English Law. 4 vols, post 8vo. 30$. cloth. 
 
 M. Ortolan's History of Roman" Law, translated by I. T. Pbiohabd 
 and D. Nabmith, Barristers-at-Law. Svo. 28s. cloth. 
 
 Fulton's Constitutional History. Post 8vo. 7s. &d. cloth. 
 
 Lawson on Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. Second Edition. 
 8vo. 26s. cloth. 
 Glyn, Probyn & Jackson's Mayor's Court Practice. 8vo. ifls. cloth. 
 
 Blagg on Public Meetings. Post 8vo. Ss. cloth. 
 
 Stephen's Law of Support and Subsidence. Post 8vo. 5s. cloth.