If l/^t/J FLEET STREET, LONDON, 1890. ' oC,0 N ' WORKS PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. BFTTERWOETH, Xato ^gubltsljets to tjic figuetn'g moat ■ffixwIUnt iWaftstp. Tristram and Coote's Contentious and Non-Contentious Probate Practice. 10th Edition. 8to. 11. lis. cloth. Pritchard's Admiralty Digest. 3rd Edition, in 2 thick vols. Eoyal 8vo. bl. cloth. Davis's County Court Practice and Evidence, 6tli Edition. 8vo. 21. 5s. cloth. Edwards and Hamilton on the Law of Husband and Wife. In 1 vol. Post Svo. 16». cloth. Clerke and Brett's Conveyancing and Law of Property Acts, and other Acts. 3rd Edition. In 1 vol. Post 8vo. 12«. %d. cloth. Scriven on Copyholds. 6th Edition by Archibald Brown. Eoy. Svo. 30«. 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 Principles of the Law of Simple Contracts. Post 8vo. 8s. cloth. •,• A companion volume to Underbill on Torts. Sir T. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 9th Edition, Svo. 21. 8s. cloth. Denison and Scott's House of Lords Appeal Practice. Svo. 16s. cloth. Michael and Will's Law of Oas and Water Supply. 3rd Edition, 8vo. 30s. cloth. Fisher's Law of Mortgage and other Securities upon Property, ' 4th Edition. 1 vol., royal Svo. 21. 12s. 6d. cloth. Drewry's Forms 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. cloth. Folkard's Law of Slander and Libel, founded upon Starkie's Treatise. Sth Edition. Eoyal Svo. cloth. [In the Tress. Davis's Labour Laws of 1875. With Introduction and Notes. Svo. 12s. cloth. Bund's Agricultural Holdings Acts, 2nd Edition, Post Svo, 12s. cloth. Powell's Principles and Practice of the Law of Evidence, 5th Edition, by Cutler and Griffin. Post Svo. 20s, cloth. Higgins's Digest of Cases on the Law and Practice of Letters Patent for Inventions. Svo. 10s. net, cloth. Crump's Law of Marine Insurance and General Average, Boy, 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. cloth. Probyn's Statutory Form of Bill of Sale. Post Svo, 3s. cloth. Daly's Club Law< 2nd Edit. Foolscap Svo, 8s. 6d. cloth. Stevens' Elements of Mercantile Law. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. cloth. Kyde and Thomas's Local Government Acts, 1888. Demy 8vo. 24«. cloth. Butterworth's Railway and Canal TraflSc Act, 1888, and Railway Commission Practice. 2iid Edition. Medium 8to. 18«. &d, cloth. Butterworth's Railway Commission Practice. Medium 8vo. 5s, cloth. Anderson's Law of Execution. 8vo. 32b. cloth. Brown's Copyhold Enfranchisement Acts, 1841—1887. Post 8vo. 14s. cloth. Mayer's French Code of Commerce, translated. 9s. cloth. Saint's .Registration Cases, 1843 to 1886. 2nd Edit. Post 8vo. 12s. dMi. Saint's Manual of the Law of Registration. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. cloth. Bowell's Income Tax Laws. 2nd Edition. 8vo. 10s. cloth, Flood.— The Pitfalls of Testators. Post 8vo. 5s. cloth. Brett's Bankruptcy Act, 1883, with Notes, &o. Post 8vo. 14s. cloth. TJnderhiU's Law of Trusts and Trustees. 3rd Edition. "With Supplement. Post 8vo. 18s. cloth. XTnderhill's Settled Land Acts, 1882-84, with Rules, Forms, &c. 2nd Edition. In 1 vol. Post Svo. 8s. cloth. Macaskie on Law of Bills of Sale. Post Svo. 8s. cloth. Tudor's Leading Cases on Real Property, Conveyancing, and Wills: with Notes. 3rd Edition. Royal 8vo. 2i. 12s. 6. (C. A.) 297 British Equitable Assurance Co. v. City of London Union 229 Burton-upon-Trent (Mayor, &o. of)«'.Burton-upon-TrentUnion(C.A.) 314 Chorlton-upon-Medlook, Owens College v. (C. A.) 256 City of London Union, British Equitable Assurance Co. v 229 , , Corporation of City of London v 130 X CONTENTS. Names of Cases Reported — continued. PAGE City of London Union, EBdaile v 105 , Rouse V. 124 • , Stock Exchange v 81 Corporation of City of London v. City of London Union 130 Crowther- Smith v. New Forest Union (C. A.) ,311 Delay, St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey v 119 Dudin ». St. Olave's Union 202 East London Ey. Joint Committee v. Grreenwioh Union 210 East London Waterworks Co. v. St. Leonard's, Shoreditch 155 Esdaile v. City of London Union 105 Eulham Union, London and N. W. EaU. Co. « 179 V. St. Mary Abhotts, Kensington 86 Great Northern Eail. Co. v. St. Mary, Islington 189 Greenwich Union, E. London Ey. Joint Committee v 210 Hackney Union, L. and N. W. EaU. Co. « 136 Hayes v. Holbom Union 199 Hoare, Wilson & Co. -v. St. Olare's Union 209 Hodge & Sons v. Poplar Union (Q. B. D.) 284 Holbom Union, Hayes v 199 , New Eiver Co. v 104 London and N. W. Eail. Co. v. Fulham Union 179 V. Hackney Union 136 London and Provincial Temperance Halls Co. v. St. SaTiour's Union 95 London and St. Katharine Docks Co. v. Stepney Union 162 London and South Western EaU. Co. v. St. Mary, Lambeth 183 Loudon County Council v. Wandsworth and Clapham Union 220 London Street Tramways Co. v. St. Mary, Islington 147 Longbenton (Overseers of), Tyne Boiler Works Co. «. (C. A ) 241 Mackay v. Strand Union 163 Midland EaU. Co. v. St. Mary, Islington 139 V. St. Pancras ; , 121 MUls V. St. Olave's Union ^ 84 New Forest Union, Crowther-Smith v. (C. A.) 311 New Eiver Co. v. Holbom Union IO4 Owens CoUege v. Chorlton-upon-Medlock (C. A.) 256 Oyler v. George's Union igg Pendleton (Overseers of), Taylor & Co. v. (Q. B. D.) 276 Poplar Union, Hodge & Sons v. (Q. B. D.) 284 • , Eickett-Smith & Co. v 150 Eeg. 11. Assessment Sessions (Q. B. D.) 268 V. St. Mary, Islington (Q. B. D.) 272 V. School Board for London (C. A.) 235 Eickett, Smith & Co. v. Poplar Union I50 Eouse V. City of London Union I24 CONTENTS. XI Names of Cases Beported — continued. PAGE St. George's TJnion, Bean and Chapter of "Westminster 167 Marqnis de Santurce v 207 Overseers of St. George's v 100 Oylerj) 198 — ; Westminster School u , . 161 St. Leonard, Shoreditoh, E. London Waterworks Co. v 155 St. Lnke, Chelsea, West London Extension Rail. Co. v 82 St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, Overseers of St. George's v. 100 St. Mary Abhotts, Kensiagton, Fulham Union v 86 '■ Wyndham v 97 St. Mary, Islington, Agricultural Hall Co. « 193 ■ Great Northern Rail. Co. v 189 • London Street Tramvfays Co. « 147 Midland Rail. Co. •» 139 Reg. i-. (Q. B. D.) 272 St. Mary, Lamheth, L. & S. W. Rail. Co. f 183 St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, v. St. Olave's Union 119 - — ■ V. St. Savioxir's Union 178 St. Olave's Union, Dudiu v 202 Hoare, Wilson & Co. i; 209 Mills V 84 Overseers of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, v. 119 - — ~ V. St. Saviour's Union 176 — . Taylor v 116 St. Pancras, Midland Rail. Co. o , 121 ■!!. School Board for London 169 St. Saviour's Union, London and Provincial Temperance Halls Co. v. 95 — St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, v 178 • — St. Olave's Union v 176 Santurce (Marquis de) v. St. George's Union 207 School Board for London, Reg. *. (C. A.) 235 ■ Vestry of St. Pancras v 169 Siemens Brothers v. Woolwich Union 101 Smith V. Churchwardens, &c. of Birmingham (C. A.) 297 Stepney Union, London and St. Katharine Docks v 162 Stock Exchange v. City of London Union 81 Strand Union, Mackay v 163 Taylor i>. St. Olave's Union 116 Taylor & Co. v. Overseers of Pendleton (Q. B. D.) 276 Tunnicliffe v. Overseers of Birkdale (C. A.) 286 Tyne Boiler Works Co. *. Overseers of Longbenton (0. A.) 241 Wandsworth and Clapham Union, London County CouncU v 220 Wednesbury (Overseers of), Williams ». (Q. B. D.) 327 West London Extension Ry. v. St. Luke, Chelsea 82 Xll CONTENTS. Names of Cases Reported — continued. •' PAOB Westminster (Dean and Chapter of) v. St. George's Union 167 School V. St. George's Union 161 Williams v. Overseers of Wednestury (Q. B. D.) - *" ' Woolwich Union, Siemens Brothers v 1"! Wyndham v. St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington 97 APPENDIX. The Parochial Assessmest Act, 1836 335 The TJifiOJr Assessment Committee Act, 1862 339 The Uniois' Assessment Committee Amexdment Act, 1864 353 The Yaltjation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 357 The Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1875 . . 389 The Valuation (Metropolis) Amendment Act, 1884. . . . 391 The Orders of the County of London Quarter Sessions 392 List of the Unions and Parishes not in Union to which the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, extends 397 INDEX 401 ( xiii ) TABLE OF CASES CITED. PAQE Abney Park Cemetery Co. : see R. v. -. 148, 213 Agricultural Hall Co. v. St. Mary, Islington, infra, p. 193 38, 39 Aizlewood : see Roberts v. 200 Alderbury Union : see Clark v. 95, 199 All Saints, Wigan : see E.. v. 14 Altrincham Union v. Cheshire" Lines Committee, 15 Q. B. D. 597 . . 142, 143, 262 Amherst v. Somers, 2 T. R. 372 288, 2S9 Att.-Gen. v. Homer, 11 App. Cas. 66; 55 L. J., Q. B. 193; 54L. T. 281 ; 34 W. R. 641 331 Aylesbury ; see Roberts v. 331 Ball V. St. James and St. John, Clerkenwell, Met. Rating App. 249 21, 71 Battersea (The Inhabitants of) v. West Ham, 5 Mod. 396 269 Bedford (Duke of) v. St. Paul's, Covent Garden, Met. Rating App. 313; 45L. T., N. S. 616; 30 W. R. 411 77 Bellamy v. St. Olave's Union, Met. Rating App. 401 . . 42, 70, 125, 200 Berkshire JJ. : see Coomber v. 133, 287, 289, 292 Birkdale Overseers : see Tunnicliffie v. 135 Birkenhead (Overseers of) : see Mersey Dock and Harbour Board II. 225, 226 Birmingham (Mayor, &c. of) : see Smith v. 307 and Staffordshire Gas Co. . see R. v. 244, 250 Bishopwearmouth : see Laing v. 158, 160, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 252 Bodmin : see Spear ». • 329 Bradford (Overseers) : see Sheppard v. , 288, 293, 295, 296 Bradley : see Gamett v. 53 Brentford Union : see N. & S. W. June. RaU. v. 147, 192, 210, 214,218,307 Bristow : tee Cory v. , 280, 283 British Equitable Insurance Co. v. City of London Union, infra, p. 229 35, 44, 73 Brookbank v. Whitehaven June. Rail. Co., 7 H. & N. 834; 31 L. J., Ex. 349 61 Brown v. SeweU, 16 Ch. D. 517 ; 29 W. R. 295 112 Buokmaster : see L. & N. W. Rail. Co. v. ■ 153, 329 Bumeley v. Overseers of Methley, 28 L. J., M. C. 152 8 XIV TABLE OF CASES CITED. PAQB Butcher v. Pooler, 24 Ch. D. 273 ; 52 L. J., Ch. 930 ; 49 L. T. 573 ; 32 W. R. 305 63 Bate (Earl of) v. Grindall, 1 T. E. 338 ; affirmed, 2 H. Bl. 265. .225, 226 Oarlyon : see E. v. 112 Carmarthen JJ. : see B. v. *6 Castleton : see Staley v. ,. 208 Chadwiok : see Ormerod v. 8 Chambres v. Jones, 19 L. J., Ex. 239 ; 5 Ex. 229 65 Chantrell : see R. v. 75 Chapman v. Milvain, 5 Ex. 61 61 Chard Union v. Giffiaxd, Fox & Co. (unreported) 255 Charlton : see Coverdale v. 32 Cheetham (Overseers of) : see Lancashire JJ. v. 225, 289 Ohertsey Union : see Holhom Union v. 79 Cheshire Lines Committee ; see Altrincham Union v. . . 142, 143, 262 Chidley v. West Ham, 32 L. T. 486 247, 253, 255 Chorlton : see R. v. 17 Chorlton-on-Medlock (Overseers of) v. Guardians of Chorlton Union, 51 L. J., Q. B. 458 ; 47 L. T. 96 237 : see Owens College v. 319 et seq. Christopherson : see R. v. 1 12, 114 City of Loudon Union : see British Equitable Insurance Co. v. . . 35, 44, .73 : see St. Botolph Without, Bishopsgate, V. 110 Clarke v. Alderbury Union, 6 Q. B. D. 139 ; 50 L. J., M. C. 33. .95, 199 Climie v. Wood, L. E. 4 Ex. 328 ; 20 L. T. 1012 ; 38 L. J., Ex. 223. 246 Cookfield : see E. v. , 181 CocMng : see Brown v. 74 Coleman : see West Middlesex Waterworks Co. v. 85 Coomber v. Berkshire JJ., 9 App. Cas. 61 ; 32 W. R. 625 ; 53 L. J., Q. B. 239 ; 50 L. T. 405 133, 287, 289, 292 Cory V. Bristow, 2 App. Cas. 262 ; 25 W. E. 383 ; 46 L. J., M. C. 273 ; 36 L. T. 595 280, 283 Coverdale v. Charlton, 4 Q. B. D. 104 ; 48 L. J., Q. B. 128 ; 40 L. T. 88 ; 27 W. E. 257 32 Dayman : see E. v. 74 Denbighshire JJ. : see E. v. 68 Dewsbury and Heckmondwike Waterworks ». Penistone Union, 16 Q. B. D. 585 ; 17 Q. B. D. 384 ; 34 W. E. 622 ; 55 L. J., M. C. 121 ; 54 L. T. 592 237 D'Eyncourt ». Gregory, L. E. 3 Eq. 382 ; 36 L. J., Ch. 107 247 Dicks V. Yates, 18 Ch. D. 77 ; 43 L. T. 470 ; 29 W. E. 135 63 Dorking : see S. E. Rail. Co. v. 142, 143 Droitwich Union v. Worcester (Corporation of), 2 Ex. D. 49 ; 25 W. R. 336 ; 46 L. J., M. C. 241 ; 36 L. T. 186 321 Dudin V. St. Olave's Union, infra, p. 202 33, 38, 39 Dyott ; see E. v. 9 TABLE OF CASES CITED. XV PASE Earby's Case (Sir Anthony), 2 Bulstrode, 354 243 East & West India Docks v. Poplar Union, 13 Q. B. D. 364 ; Met. Eating App. p. 355 ; 63 L. J., M. C. 97 ; 51 L. T. 97 . . 21, 24, 36, 37, 39, 71, 185, 190, 194, 196, 203, 204, 231, 274, 275 East Dean : see Guest v. 321, 322 East London Rail. Joint Committee v. Greenwicli Union, infra, p. 210 147 East London "Waterworks v. St. Leonard's, Shoreditoh, infra, p. 155.. 168 East : see Longman v. , 53 Eastwood : seeHeUaweU v. ■ 248, 250 Edinburgh (University of) : see Greig ». 133, 262, 295 Electric Telegraph Co. v. Salford, 11 Ex. 181; 24L. J-.M. C. 146.. 281, 283 Elston V. Eose, L. E. 4 Q. B. 4 ; 38 L. J., Q. B. 6 ; 19 L. T. 280 ; 17W. E. 52 74 EsdaUe v. Payne, 52 L. T., N. S. 630 ; 64 L. T. 706 108, 110, 112 Essex (Justices of) : see E. v. 69, 83 Evertou : see Liverpool Gas Co. v. 73, 74 Fisherton Angar, Clarke v. — — : s«« Clarke v. Alderbury Union . .96, 199 Fladbury : see E. ». 46, 270, 271 Flettou : see E. v. 141, 143, 213 (Overseers of, Ex parte), 2 E. & E. 712 65 Foreman, Ex parte, 18 Q. B. D. 393 ; 66 L. J., Q. B. 161 ; 35'W.E. 370 52 Foster v. G. W. E., 8 Q. B. D. 515 ; 30 W. E. 398 ; 51 L. J., Q. B. 233; 46L. T. 74 63 Fulham Assessment Committee v. WeUs, 20 Q. B. D. 749 ; 59 L. T. 103 ; 36 W. E. 868 4, 23, 27, 36, 232 Fulham Union, L. & N. W. E. v., infra, p. 179 168, 271 V. St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, infra, p. 86 ; 17 Q. B. D. 394; 35W. E. 12 60, 61,65, 73, 173 Gambler v. Lydford (Overseers of), 3 E. & B. 346 ; 23 L. J., M. C. 69 289 Gamett v. Bradley, 3 App. Cas. 944 ; 48 L. J., Ex. 186 ; 39 L. T. 261 ; 26 W. E. 898 53 General Assessment Sessions : see E. v. 168 Giffard, Fox & Co. v. Chard Union, unreported 255 G. E. E. V. Haughley, L. R. 1 Q. B. 666 ; 35 L. J., M. C. 229.. 140, 143 G. W. E. V. Melksham, 34 J. P. 692 246 : see Foster v. 63 : see E. v. 68 Greenwich Union : see East London Eail. Joint Committee v. .. 147 : see Hill ». 58 Gregory : see D'Eynoourt v. 247 Greig V. Edinburgh (University of), L. E. 1 H. L. Sc. 350 . .133, 262, 296 Grindall : see Earl of Bute v. 226, 226 XVI TABLE OF CASES CITED. PAQE Guest V. East Dean, L. R. 7 Q. B. 334 ; 41 L. J., M. C. 129 ; 26 L. T. 422; 20 W. R. 332 321, 322 : see R. v. .244, 250 Halstead : see R. v. 245, 254 Handsley : see R. v. 31 Hare v. Putney (Overseers of), 7 Q. B. D.'223 ; 50 L. J., M. 0. 81 ; 45 L. T. 337 ; 29 W. R. 721 221 Harter v. Salford, 34 L. J., M. C. 206 ; 13 W. R. 861 208 Harvey ; see Reed v. 52 Haslam : see R. v. 245, 249, 251, 252, 264 Haughley ; see G. E. R. f . 140, 143 Hayes v. Holbom Union, infra, p. 199 42 Heaton : see R. v. — ^ — 313 Hellawell v. Eastwood, 6 Ex. 295 ; 20 L. J., Ex. 154 248, 250 Hellier ; see R. v. 65 Herford : see R. v. • 73 Hills V. Greenwich Union, Met. Rating App. 293 58 Hodge & Sons v. Poplar Union, infra, p. 284 182 Hogg : see R. i/. 244, 254 Holbom Union v. Chertsey Union, 15 Q. B. D. 76 ; 33 W. R. 698. . 79 : see Hayes v. 42 ■ : see Nicholson v. 135, 288 V. School Board for London, Met. Rating App. 373.. 98 Home : see Lowndes ». , 112 Homer : see Att.-Gen. v. , 331 Huntley : see R. v. 65 Hursley Union : see Rawlenoe v. ■ 16 Hutohinson : see Rawnsley v. 269, 271 Hyam v. St. Panoras, Met. Rating App. 364 73 IngaU : see R. v. 6, 11, 14, 47, 59, 70, 71, 182, 200, 209, 232 Inspector of the Poor : see Leith Harbour (Commrs. of) v. 289 International Marine Hydropathic Co., In re, 28 Ch. D 470 • 33 W.R.587 :... 165 IrtUingborough : see L. & N. W. R. v. 217 Joddrell : see R. v. 1 j2 Jones : see Chambres v. gg ■ i;. Mersey Docks, 11 H.L. C. 443. . . .132, 212, 221, 225, 287,289, 290 ei self. V. Williams, 11 Ad. & EU. 175 94 Kent JJ. . see R. v. 55 Kesteven : see R. v. . , , i^t TABLE OF CASES CITED. XVll PAGE Ladbury, Mx parte, 17 Ch. D. at p. 534 ; 45 L. T. 6 52 Lafone v. St. Olave's Union, Met. Eating App. 278 198 Laing v. Bishopswearmouth, 3 Q. B. D. 299 ; 47 L. J., M. C. 41 ; 37 L. T. 781 ; 26 "W. K. 351 .... 159, 160, 243, 244, 245, 247, 248, 252 Lanoasliire (Justices of) v. SheHord, E. B. & E. 225 132 Lanoashire JJ. : see R. v. , 68, 172 ■ V. Cheetham (Overseers of), L. E,. 3 Q. B. 14 ; 37 L. J., M. 0. 12 ; 16 W. R. 124 225, 289 LanoasMre, &o. Telephone Co. v. Manchester, 14 Q. B. D. 267 ; 32 W. R. 922 ; 33 W. R. 203 ; 63 L. J., M. C. 195 ; 51 L. T. 160..281, 283 Landrook v. Metropolitan District R^., W. N. (1886) 195 32 Lee : see R. v. 157, 158, 159, 243, 245, 247, 250, 251, 253 . Leicester (Deputies of Freemen of) : see R. ■v. 74 Leicestershire JJ. : see E. v. 45, 181 Leicester Waterworks Co. v. Nuttall, 4 Q. B. D. 18 ; 48 L. J., M. C. 41 ; 39 L. T. 624 ; 27 W. E. 364 61, 65 Leith : see R. v. 247 Leith Harbour (Commissioners of) v. Inspector of the Poor, L. R. 1 H. L. So. Ap. 17 289 Lincolnshire County Court (Judge of) : see E. v. 74 Liverpool Exchange (Proprietors of) : see E. v. 245 Gas Co. V. Everton, L. E. 6 C. P. 245, 414 ; 40 L. J., M. C. 104 ; 23 L. T. 813 ; 19 W. E. 412 73, 74 (Mayor, &c. of) : see's,, v 54 Llaneilian (Overseers of ) : ««« Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v. 321, 323 Llantrissant : see R. v. 140, 142, 143 London (Mayor of) : see R. v. 31 L. B. &S. C. E: see-R.v. 77, 148, 149 L. & N. W. R. V. Buokmaster, L. R. 10 Q. B. 70, 444 ; 24 W. E. 16 ; 33 L. T. 329 ; 44 L. J., M. C. 180 .... 153, 329 . V. Fulham Union, infra, p. 179 168, 271 V. Irthlingborongh, 35 L. T. 327 217 : see-&.v. 142, 212 V. St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, Met. Eating App. 340.. 112 L. & S. W. E. V. St. Mary, Lambeth, infra, p. 183 38 Longbenton (Overseers of) : see Tyne Boiler "Works Co. v. 104 Longman J-. East, 3 C. P. D. at p. 156 ; 47 L. J., C. P. 211 ; 26 "^^. E. 183 53 Lowndes v. Home, 2 Wm. Bl. 1252 112 Lurasdaine : see'R. v 244 Lydford (Overseers of) : see Gambier v. 289 Maiden : see E. v. ^ Manchester: see Lancashire, &c., Telephone Co. v. 281, 283 Marsham : see E. v. 20, 118 Marton-cum-Grafton, E. n ' ' Melksham : see Gt. W. RaU. Co. v. 246 XVlll TABLE OP CASES CITED. PAOB Mersey D. and Harbour Board v. Birkenhead, L. R. 8 Q,. B. 445 ; 21W. R. 913;42L.J.,M.C. 141. .225, 226 1^ V. LlaneiUan, 14 Q. B. D. 770 ; 54 L.J.,Q.B.49; 51L.T.62; 33 W. R. 97 321,323 Mersey Docks : see Jones v. 132, 212, 221, 225, 287, 289, 290, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296 Methley (Overseers of) : see Bumeley v. 8 Metropolitan Board of "Works : see R. v. 318, 320, 322 . V. West Ham, L. R. 6 Q. B. 193 ; 40 L. J.,M. 0. 30 ; 23 L. T. 490 ; 19 W. R. 246 . . 174, 236, 318 et seq. Metropolitan District Rail. : see Landrock v. 32 Middlesex JJ. ; see R. v. 9 Midland Rail. «-. St. Pancras, Met. Rating App. 268, 331 121 V. "Withingtou (Local Board of), 11 Q. B. D. 788 ; 52 L. J., Q. B. 689 ; 49 L. T. 489 94 MiUs' Estate, In re, 34 Ch. D. 24 ; 56 L. J., Ch. 60 ; 55 L. T. 465 ; 36 W. R. 65 53 V, St. Olave's Union, infra, p. 85 63 Milne : see Walmsley v. 250 Milton-next-Gravesend : see WatMns v. 280 Milvain, Chapman t>., 5 Ex. 61 61 Moreley : see R. v. 73 Morrish : see R. v. 154 National Aims and Ajnmunition Co., In re, 28 Ch. D. 474; 33 W. R. 585 ; 54 L. J., Ch. 673 ; 52 L. T. 237 , 165 New River Co. v. St. Mary, Islington, Met. Rating App. 223 ; 4 Q. B. D. 309 ; 48 L. J., M. C. 123 ; 40 L. T. 322 ; 27 W. R. 785 36, 38, 39, 191, 274, 276 Nicholson v. Holborn Union, 18 Q. B. D. 161 ; 55 L. T. 775 ; 35 W. R. 230; 56L. J., M. C. -54 135,288 N. & S. W. Jane. Rail. Co. v. Brentford Union, 18 Q. B. D. 740 ; 35 W. R. 640 ; 56 L. J., M. C. 101 ; 60 L. T. 274 ; 13 App. Cas. 592 147, 192, 210, 214, 218, 307 . North Aylesford Union : see R. v. 199 North Staffordshire Rail. Co. ; see R. k. 168, 160 Nunneley : see R. v. 74 NuttaU ; see Leicester Waterworks Co. d. 61,65 Ormerod v. Chadwick, 16 M. & W. 367 8 Owens College ». Chorlton-on-Medlock, infra, p. 256 : 18 Q. B D 403 ; 35 W. R. 236 ; 56 L. J., M. C. 29 ; 56 L. T. 373 ... 319 e't seq. Patterson : see Rlckards v. 94 Pawlett : see R. v. 53 55 Payne : see EsdaUe v. 108, 110, 112 Penistone Union : see Dewsbury and Heckmondwike Waterworks «>■ 237 Peterborough (Corporation of) v. Overseers of Thurlby, 8 Q. B. D.,586 79 «. Overseers of Wilsthorpe,12Q.B.D 1- 53 L. J., M. 0. 33 ; 50 L. T. 189 ; 32 W. R. 548 .' 79 TABLE OF CASES CITED. XIX PAGE Pledge : see Sandgate Local Board v. 31 Pooler : see Butcher v. 63 Poplar Union : see East & West India Docks v. . .21, 24, 36, 37, 39, 71, 185, 190, 194, 196, 203, 204, 231, 274, 276 ; see Hodge & Sons v. 182 : see IngaUv. . . 6, 11, 14, 47, 59, 70, 71, 182, 200, 209, 232 Price : see E. v. 31 Putney (Overseers of) : see Hare v. 221 Rawlence v. Guardians of Hursley Union, 3 Ex. D. 44 ; 37 L. T. 503 ; 47 L. J., M. C. 31 ' 16, 66 E,awusley v. Hutchinson, L. R. 6 Q. B. 305 ; 40 L. J., M. C. 97..269, 271 Reed v. Harvey, 5 Q. B. D. 184 ; 49 L. J., Q. B. 295 ; 42 L. T. 511 ; 28 W. R. 423 52 Regent's Canal Co. ». St. Panoras, Met. Rating App. 190 ; 3 Q. B. D. 73; 47L. J., M. C. 37; 37 L. T. 637 ; 26 W. R. 281 7 Riokards v. Patterson, 8 M. & W. 313 ; 10 L. J., Ex. 272 , 94 Roberts v. Aizle-wood, 5 Times L. R. 181 200 — V. Aylesbury, 1 E. & B. 423 331 Rose : see Elston v. 74 Royal Agricultural Hall Co. v. St. Mary, Islington,* i«/ra, p. 272, 19 Q. B. D. 529 ; 35 W. R. 664 27, 28, 191, 196 R. V. Abney Park Cemetery Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 515 ; 42 L. J., M. C. 124 ; 29 L. T. 174 148, 213 — J). All Saints, Wigan, 1 App. Cas. 611 ; 25 W. R. 128 ; 35 L. T. 381 14 — V. Birmingham and Stafeordshire Gas Co., '6 A. & E. 634 244, 250 — V. Oarlyon, 3 T. R. 385 112 — V. Carmarthen JJ., 4 B. & Aid. at p. 293 46 — V. Chantrell, L. R. 10 Q. B. 587 ; 44 L. J., M. C. 94 ; 23 W. R. 707 76 ' — V. Chorlton Union, L. R. 8 Q. B. 5 ; 42 L. J., M. C. 34 17 — V. Christopherson, 16 Q. B. D. 7 ; 55 L. J., M. C. 1 ; 63 L. T. 804 ; 34 W. R. 86 ...112, 114 — V. Cockfield, 2 Salk. 477 181 — V. Dayman, 7 E. & B. 672 74 — V. Denbighshire, 15 Q. B. D. 451 ; 33 W. R. 784 68 — V. Dyott, 9 Q. B. D. 47 ; 51 L. J., M. C. 104 ; 30 W. E. 799 . . 9 — V. Essex (Justices of), 46 J. P. 724 69, 83 — V. Eladbury, 10 Ad. & E. 706 45, 270, 271 — V. Eletton, 30 L. J., M. C. 89 ; 3 E. & E. 450 141, 143, 213 — V. General Assessment Sessions, infra, p. 268 168 — V. G. W. R., L. R. 4 Q. B. 323 ; 20 L. T. 481 ; 38 L. J., M. C. 89 68 — V. Guest, 7 A. &E.;951 244, 250 — V. Halstead, 32 J. P. 118 246, 254 — V Handsley, 7 Q. B. D. 398 31 — V. Haslam, 17 Q. B. 220 245, 249, 251, 262, 254 — V. Heaton, 20 J. P. 37 313 52 XX TABLE OF CASES CITED. fAOE R. ». Hellier, 17 Q, B. 229 ^^ — «>. Herford, 3 E. & E. 116 73 — V. Hogg, 1 T. R. 721 244, 2S4 — V. Huntley, 3 E. & B. 172 65 — V. Ingall, Met. Eating App. 176 ; 2 Q. B. D. 199 ; 46 L. J., M. C. 113; 35L. T. 652; 25W. E. 57..6, 11, 14,47, 59,70,71,182, ' 200, 209, 232 — V. JoddreU, 1 B. & Ad. 403 112 — V. Kent JJ., L. E. 8 Q. B. 305 ; 42 L. J., M. C. 112 55 — 1). Kesteven, 3 Q. B. 810 77 — w. Lancashire JX, 43 L. J., M. C. 116; 22 "W. E. 647 68, 172 — V. Lee, L. E. 1 Q. B. 241 ; 35 L. J., M. C. 105 ; 14 W. R. 311 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 704, . . . 157, 158, 159, 243, 245, 247, 250, 251, 253 — V. Leicester (Deputies of Ereemen of), 15 Q. B. 671 74 — V. Leicestershire JJ., 1 M. & S. 442 45 — V. Leith, 1 E. & B. 121 ; 21 L. J., M. C. 119 247 — V. Lincolnshire County Court (Judge of), 20 Q. B. D. 167 ; 57 L. J., Q. B. 136 ; 68 ii. T. 54 ; 36 W. R. 174 74 — V. Liverpool Exchange (Proprietors of), 1 A. & E. 465 245 — V. Llantrissant, L. R. 4 Q. B. 354 ; 10 B. & S. 328 ; 38 L. J., M. 0. 93 140, 142, 143 — v.ls.k N. "W. R., L. R. 9 Q. B. 134 ; 43 L. J., M. C. 81. .142, 143, 212 — V. L. B. & S. C. R., 15 Q. B. 313 ; 20 L. J., M. C. 124 . . 77, 148, 149 — V. Lumsdaine, 10 A. & E. 157 244 — V. Maiden, L. R. 4 Q. B. 326 ; 38 L. J., M. C. 125 8 — V. Marsham, 50 L. T., N. S. 142 ; 32 W. R. 167 20, 118 — V. Marton-cum-Grafton, 10 Q. B. 971 ■. 77 — V. Mayor, &c. of Liverpool, 18 Q. B.,D. 510 ; 56 L. J., Q. B. 413 ; 56 L. T. 314 ; 35 W. R. 476 64 — V. Mayor of London, 57 L. T. 491 31 — V. Metropolitan Board of Works, L. R. 4 Q. B. 15 ; 38 L. J., M. C. 24 318, 320, 322 — i;. Middlesex JJ.,L.R. 7 Q. B. 653 ; 20 W. R. 774 9 — V. Moreley, 2 Burr. 1040 73 — V. MoiTish, 32 L. J., M. C. 245 ; 11 W. R. 960 ; 8 L. T., N. S. 697 , 154 — V. North Aylesford Union, 37 J. P. 148 199 — V. North StaflEordshire Rail. Co., 30 L. J., M. C. 68 158, 160, 250 — v. Nimneley, E. B. & E. 852 74 — V. Pawlett, L. R. 8 Q. B. 491 ; 42 L. J., M. C. 157 ; 29 L. T. 390 53, 55 — V. Poplar TTnion, 13 Q. B. D. 364 ; Met. Eating App. 347 ; 53 L.J.jM. 0.20,97; 49 L. T. 363 ; 32 W. E. 321. .21, 24, 36, 37, 39, 71, 185, 190, 194, 196, 203, 204, 231, 274, 276 — V. Price, 5 Q. B. D. 300 ; 49 L. J., M. 0. 49 ; 42 L. T. 439 ; 28 W. E. 615 31 — V. St. George's TJnion, L. E. 7 Q. B. 90 ; 41 L. J., M. C. 30 ; 25 L. T. 696 ; 20 W. E. 179 127 ■ — V. St. Mary, Bermondsey, 14 Q. B. D. 351 ; 54 L. J., M. 0. 68 ; 33W. R. 414 24, 26, 28, 29, 39, 274 TABLE OP CASES CITED. XXI FAQE R. V. St. Mary, Islington, infra, p. 272 ; 19 Q. B. D. 529 ; 35 "W. E. 664 27, 28, 191,196 — V. St. Nicholas, Gloucester, 1 T. E. 723, n • 244 — V. St. Panoras, Met. Eating App. 120, 188 ; 2 Q. B. D. 581 ; 46 L. J., M. C. 243 ; 37 L. T. 126 ; 25 W. R. 827 279, 280 — V. Savin, 6 Q. B. D. 309 ; 29 W. E. 638 75, 114 — V. School Board for London, infra, p. 235 ; 17 Q. B. D. 738 ; 34 "W. E. 583 ; 55 L. J., M. C. 33, 169 ... . 98, 99, 103, 170, 261, 262, 263, 265, 318, 319, 321 et seq. — V. Shaw, 12 Q. B. 419 ; 17 L. J., M. C. 137 112 — V. Shepherd, 1 Q. B. 170 ; 10 L. J., M. C. 44 288 — V. Southampton Dock Co., 14 Q.B. 587; 20 L. J., M. C. 155.. 77, 245, 249, 250 — V. South Staffordshire Waterworks Co., 16 Q. B. D. 359 ; 55 L. J., M. C. 88 ; 54 L. T. 782 ; 34 W. E. 242 237 — D. Surrey JJ., 1 M. & S. 481 181 — V. Sussex JJ., 15 East, 206 64 — V. Sutton Coldfield, L. R. 9 Q. B. 153 ; 43 L. J., M. C. 57 ; 29 L. T. 840 ; 22 "W. E. 324 76, 78, 89, 129 — V. Toms, 1 Doug. 401 112 — ». VerraU, 1 Q. B. D. 9 ; 45 L. J., M. C. 29 ; 33 L. T. 379 ; 24 W. E. 139 '. . 199 — V. "Walsall, 3 Q. B. D. 471 ; 38 L. T. 665 ; 26 W. E. 705 ;■ 4 App. Cas. 30 ; 48 L. J. , Q. B. 65 ; 39 L. T. 453 ; 27 W. E. 189. . . 72, 75, 78 — V. West Derhy, 44 L. J., M. C. 98 ; 32 Li T. 400 ; L. E. 10 Q. B. 283 288, 292, 293, 296 — V. Westhoughton, 5 Q. B. D. 300 77 — V. West Middlesex Waterworks Co., 28 L. J., M. C. 135 ; 1 E. & E. 716 237 — V. White, 4 T. R. 771 54, 244 — V. Wiltshire JJ., 4 Q. B. D. 326 68 St. Andrews, Holbom, ». St. Clement Danes, 2 Salt. 494, 606 181, 269 St. Botolph Without, Bishopsgate, v. City of London Union, Met. Rating App. 236 110 St. Clement Danes : see St. Andrews, Holhom v. ., 181, 269 St. Gabriel, Fenohurch v. WilKams, 16 Q. B. D. 649 ; 56 L. J., M. C. 14 ; 54 L. T. 270 ; 34 W. E. 266 8 St. George's Union : see E. v. 127 St. Giles and St. George, Bloomsbury : see School Board for London V. ■ 99 St. James and St. John, ClerkenweU : see BaU v. 21, 71 St. Leonard's, Shoreditch : see East London Waterworks v. . . 168 : : see L. and N. W. E. v. 112 : see School Board for London v. 98, 103, 170 St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington : see Fulham Union v. . . 60, 61, 66, 73, 173 St. Mary, Bermondsey : see E. v. 24, 26, 28, 29, 39, 274 XXll TABLE OF CASES CITED. EAGB St. Mary, Islington : see Agricultural Hall Co. v. 38, 39 : see New River Co. v. . . 36, 38, 39, 191, 274, 275 : s«eE. «,. 27,28, 191, 196 : see School Board for London v. . .98, 103, 174 St. Mary, Lambeth : see L. and S. W. E. v. 38 : see Smith v. 152, 154, 280, 329 St. Mary, Eotherhithe, Surrey Oommeroial Bock Co. v. (unre- ported) 28, 30 St. Nicholas, Gloucester : see R. v. 244 St. Olave's : see South Metropolitan Gas Co. d. 149, 197 St- Olave's, Southwark (Overseers, &o. of), v. Assessment Committee of St. Olave's Union, Met. Eating App. 287 89, 177 St. Olave's Union : see BeUamy v. 42, 70, 125, 200 : see Dudin v, 33, 38, 39 : see Lafone v. 198 ^ : see Mills v. ^ 63 St. Pancras : see Hyam ti. 73 : see Midland EaU. v. 121 •■ : see E. v. 279, 280 : see Regent's Canal Co. v. 7 St. Paul's, Covent Garden : see Duke of Bedford v. 77 St. Thomas's Hospital v. Stratton, L. R. 7 H. L. 477 ; 45 L. J., M. C. 23 ; 23 W. R. 882 262 Salford : see Electric Telegraph Co. ■!>. 281, 283 : see Harter v. 208 Salford Union : see Shaw, Ashtou & Thorpe v. 281, 282, 283 Sandgate Local Board v. Pledge, 14 Q. B. D. 730; 33 W. E. 565; 52 L. T. 546 31 Savin : see R. v. 75, 114 School Board for London v. Holbom Union (1885), Met. Rating App. 373 98 : see R. v . . 98, 99, 103, 170, 261, 262, 263, 265, 318 et seq. V. St. Giles & St. George, Bloomsbury, Met. Rating App. 155 99 V. St. Leonard's, Shoreditch (1885), Met. Rating App. 385 98, 103, 170 V. St. Mary, IsUngton (1885), Met. Rating App. 393 > 103, 174 SeweU : see Brown v. 105, 112 Shaw, Ashton & Thorpe v. Salford Union, unreported; noted 51 J. P. 73 281, 282, 283 Shaw : see E. v. 112 Shelford, Lancashire (Justices of) v., E. B. & E. 225 132 Shepherd : see R. ». 288 Sheppard v. Bradford Overseers, 16 C. B., N. S. 369 ; 33 L. J., M. C. 182 ; 10 L. T., N. S. 421 288, 293, 296, 296 Smith V. Mayor, &c. of Birmingham, 11 Q. B. D. 195; 31 W. R. 788; 52'L. J., M. C. 81; 49L. T. 25 307 TABLE OP CASES CITED. XXlll PAOE Smith V. St. Mary, Lambeth, 10 Q. B. D. 327 ; 52 L. J., M. C. 1 ; 48 L. T. 67 ; affiiming 9 Q. B. D. 585 ; 51 L. J., M. C. 106 ; 31 W. R. 31 152, 154, 280, 329 Soijaers : see Amherst v. 288, 289 Southampton Book Co. ; see E.. v. 77, 245, 249, 260 South Eastern Bail. v. Dorkiitg, 3 E. & B. 491 ; 23 L. J., M. C. 84 . . 142, 144 South Metropolitan Gas Co. v. St. Olave's, Met. Rating App. 305 . . 149, 197 South Staffordshire Waterworks Co. : see R. v. 237 Spear «. Bodmin, 49 L. J., M. C. 69 329 Staley v. Castleton, 33 L. J., M. C. 178 ; 5 B. & S. 505 208 Stamper v. Sunderland (Overseers of), L. R. 3 C. P. 388 ; 37 L. J., M. C. 137 128 Stratton : see St. Thomas's Hospital v. 262 Surrey Commercial Dock Co. v. St. Mary, Eotherhithe, unreported . . 28, 30 Surrey JJ. : see R. v. , , . , 181 Sussex JJ. ; see R. ■!>. ■ • 54 Sutton Coldfield : see R. v. -— 76, 78, 89, 129 Thurlby (Overseers of) : see Corporation of Peterborough v. . . 79 Toms : see R. ». 112 Tunnioliffe v. Birkdale Overseers, infra, p. 286, 20 Q. B. D. 450 ; 69 L. T. 190 ; 36 W. R. 360 135 Tyne Boiler Works Co. v. Longbentou (Overseers of), infra, p. 241, 54 L. T. 612 ; 55 L. J., M. C. 130 ; 34 W. R. 531 104, 161 United Telephone Co. : see Wandsworth Board of Works v. 32 Verrall : see R. v. .199 Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B., N. S. 115 ; 29 L. J., C. P. 97 250 WalsaU : see R. v. 72, 75, 78 Wandsworth Board of Works v. United Telephone Co., 13 Q. B. D. 904 ; 53 L. J., Q. B. 449 ; 51 L. T. 148 ; 32 W. R. 776 32 WatMns V. Milton-next-Gravesend, L. R. 3 Q. B. 350 ; 37 L. J., M. C. 73 ; 18 L. T., N. S. 601 ; 16 W. R. 1059 280 Watson, KipUng & Co., In re, 23 Ch. D. 500 ; 52 L. J., Ch. 473 ; 49 L. T. 115 ; 31 W. R. 574 165 Wells : see Fulham Assessment Committee v. ... .4, 23, 27, 36, 232 West Bromwioh School Board v. Overseers of West Bromwich, 1 3 Q. B. D. 929 ; 53 L. J., M. C. 67, 153 ; 32 W. R. 866 237, 322 West Derby : see R. v. 288, 292, 293, 296 West Ham : see Chidley v. 247, 253, 255 : see Metrop. Board of Works v. . . 174, 236, 318, 319, 320, 322, 323, 324 : see The Inhabitants of Battersea ». 269 Westhoughton : see R. v. 77 West Middlesex Waterworks Co. ; see. R. v. 237 V. Coleman, 14 Q. B. D. 629 ; 54 L. J., M. C. 70 ; 52 L. T. 578 ; 33 W. R. 649 85 XXIV TABLE OF CASES CITED, FAGhE White: seeR.v. ^ 54,244 WMtehaven Jnnotion Bail. Co. : see Brookbank v. 61 Wigan (All Saints) : see K. ». 14 Willey (m parte). In re WrigM, 23 Ch. D. 118 ; 52 L. J., Ch. 546 ; 48 L. T. 380; 31 W. K. 653 52 Williams, Jones «., 11 Ad. & EU. 175 94 : see St. Gabriel, Fenohurch v. 8 Wilathorpe (Overseers of) : see Corporation of Peterborougb ». . 79 Wiltshire JJ. ; see K. v. 68 Withington (Local Board of) : see Midland Eail. Co. v. 94 Wood : see Climie v. 246 Worcester (Corporation of) ». Droitwioh Union, 2 Ex. D. 49 ; 46 L. J., M. C. 241 ; 36 L. T. 186 ; 25 W. R. 336 321 Tates : see Dicks v. 63 ABBEEVIATIONS USED IN DIGEST OF PEACTICE. Met. Eating App. for "Reports of Metropolitan Rating Appeals,'' ' ith edition (1885), by the present Editor. XT. A. C. A. 1862, for Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862. U. A. C. A. 1864, /or Union Assessment Committee Amendment Act, 1864. V. M. A. 1869, /or Valuatim [Metropolis) Act, 1869. "V. M. A. A. 1884, for Valuation [Metropolis) Amendment Act, 1884. Page 167, last" Page 165, line 7, for Ma EEEATA. uEaJ;%|^Bnr)ea(?L. E., 1 Q. B. ^ional ^^iS & 'u Ud In iu IntmunU u n al 5^ 9l^ating ^^^eal^* DIGEST OF THE PEACTICE UNDEE THE YALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869. The Object and Scope of the Act.'] — The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, deals with practice and with practice only. It imposes no new rates ; it creates no new liability to existing rates. It does, it is true, substitute new definitions of Grross and Rateable Value (by which the quantum of liability is measured) for the earlier definitions of Gross Estimated Rental and Net Annual Value respectiYely. But the new definitions are almost verbally identical with those for which they are substituted ; and if there be any cases in which one set of definitions would give a measure of value different from that which would be arrived at by the use of the other, those cases have not yet been discovered. By s. 3 of the V. M. A. 1869 {infra, p. 357), the Act ex- tends "only to unions and parishes not in union, which are for the time being either wholly, or for the greater part in value thereof, respectively situate within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works appointed imder the Metropolis Management Act, 1855 : " and by s. 4 of the V. M. A. 1869 (infra, p. 357), the term " metropolis " means the unions and parishes to which the Act extends. Under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, s. 250, the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works extended to B. Og B 2 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. the " metropolis," which iacluded the City of London and the parishes and places mentioned in Soheds. A., B., and 0. to that Act. In the Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 100, the same term "metropolis" receives (in effect) the same definition; and hy s. 40 (1) of the same Act, the metropolis is made an administrative county by the name of " the administrative county of London ; " and by s. 40 (8) the London County Council are made in law the successors of the Metropolitan Board of Works ; and, further, by s. 78, it is (in effect) enacted that a reference in earlier Acts to the Metro- politan Board of Works is to be construed as if it referred to the London County Council. The combined effect of the various enactments, therefore, is, that the V. M. A. 1869, ex- tends to an area almost identical with that subject to the jurisdiction of the London County Council {a). A list of the parishes and unions included is set out infra, p. 397. The V. M. A. 1869, by s. 1, incorporates the U. A. C. A. 1862, and the TJ. A. C. A. 1864, so far as is consistent with the tenor of the later Act ; but (by s. 77 of Y. M. A. 1869) several important sections of the earlier Acts are re- pealed, so far as they relate to the metropolis. The Acts referred to are set out in chronological order infra, pp. 335 et seq.,the repealed sections of the earlier Acts being printed in italics. Valuation Lists of three kinds.] — The V. M. A. 1869, pro- vides (in ss. 46 and 47) for the making of Valuation Lists of three kinds : — (1.) A new Valuation List is to be made in every fifth (a) The County of London excludes, and the Administrative County of London includes, the City of London : see the Local Government Act, 1888, s. 40 (1) and (2). The distinction ia important -with reference to the' juris- diction of the London Quarter Sessions on appeals imder the V. M. A 1869 • vide infra, p. 43. THE VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869. 3 year, u e. in the years 1870, 1875, 1880, 1885, and so on. (For convenience this list is commonly dis- tinguished as a Quinquennial List, though that term is not used in the Act.) (2.) A Supplemental List is to be made (if necessary) in each of the first four years following the making of a Quinquennial List, and must show " all the alterations which have taken place during the pre- ceding twelve months in any of the matters stated in the Yaluation List," but must " contain only the hereditaments affected by such alterations." (3.) A Provisional List is to be made " if in the course of any year the value of any hereditament is increased by the addition thereto or erection thereon of any building, or is from any cause increased or reduced in value." (As to the question, what are the circumstances rendering a Supplemental or Provisional List necessary, vide infra, pp. 34 et seq.) Eoughly speaking, the operation of a Quinquennial List is, therefore, limited to and cannot exceed five years ; while a Supplemental List cannot continue in force later than the making of the next Quinquennial List, and a Provisional List lasts for part of a year. (It will be seen that as to Provisional Lists this statement may require some modifica- tion : mde infra, p. 33.) The V. M. A. 1869, for the most part adopts the plan of laying down rules for the making of a Valuation List in the year immediately after the passing of the Act ; and, by reference back to these rules, provides for the making of a new [Quinquennial] List in every fifth year ; and of a Supple- mental List (if necessary) in each of the four years following the making of a Quinquennial List : see, for instance, ss. 6 — 17, and ss. 42, 43. It will be found, however, that this method b2 4 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. of drafting has not teen very consistently adhered to : see, for instance, ss. 18 and 24. A Quinquennial List passes through three stages in the course of its making and revision, which may be roughly summarised as follows : — (1.) The list is made out by the Overseers of every parish within the metropolis, contaiaing all the rateable hereditaments within such parish. (2.) The list is revised by the Assessment Committee of the union to which the parish belongs. (3.) Appeals may be brought from the decision of an Assessment Committee either (a) to the London Quarter Sessions, or (b) to the Special Sessions held by the justices in every petty sessional division in the metropolis, and on appeal therefrom to the London Quarter Sessions. A Supplemental List, so far as relates to the hereditaments which it contains (or ought to contain.), is subject to the same process of revision as a Quinquennial List, and may also be the subject of appeals. Therefore, as to hereditaments in- cluded, the procedure prescribed for Quinquennial Lists is repeated every year in making Supplemental Lists : see V. M. A. 1869, s. 46 (3), infra, p. 373. A Provisional List differs from a Quinquennial and a Supplemental List in the procedure for making it, and in its effect : see s. 47, infra, p. 374, and see also p. 22. It must be specially noticed that there is no appeal either to Special Sessions or to Quarter Sessions against a Provisional List : Fulham Assessment Committee v. Wells, 20 Q. B. D. 749, et vide infra, p. 23. THE MAKING AND REVISION OF VALUATION LISTS. The Making and Revision of Valuation Lists. Inasmuch as the proceedings connected with the making of lists by Overseers, and the revision thereof by Assessment Committees, are involved in chronological order, it will he convenient to consider them , together. It must be borne in mind that these proceedings do not apply to Provisional Lists, but that they do apply to Supplemental Lists (so far as relates to the hereditaments included therein). Overseers and Assessment Comtnitiees.^ — Several of the paxishes in the metropolis are governed by Local Acts : but by Y. M. A. 1869, s. 4, infra, p. 358, "the term ' Overseers' includes any person or body of persons performing the duty of Overseers so far as regards the assessment, &c. of rates for the relief of the poor." Provision is made for the appoint- ment, where there are no Overseers, of some person to perform their duties : Y. M. A. 1869, s. 59 (4), infra, p. 379. In the case of parishes included in a union, the Assessment Committee are appointed under TJ. A. C. A. 1862, s. 2, infra, p. 340, by the guardians of the union ; in other cases, either the Assessment Committee are appointed by the guardians of the parish or the vestry, under Y. M. A. 1869, s. 5, infra, p. 359 ; or the Assessment Committee of any adjoining parish are to act, under Y. M. A. 1869, s. 59, infra, p. 378 : the latter section is very obscurely drawn, and is in terms wide enough to include cases already provided for under s. 5 ; it seems, however, to have been intended to apply to places, such as the Inns of Court, in which there are neither guardians nor vestry. The term " Eatepayer," by Y. M. A. 1869, s. 4, infra, p. 358, means " every person who is liable to any rate or tax, in respect of property entered in any Yaluation List ; " and b DIGEST OF PEACTICE, the term is in effect further extended by the V. M. A. A. 1884, s. 2, infra, p. 391, which repeals s. 70 of V. M. A. 1869, and instead thereof enacts that " Where the owner or lessee of any hereditament is liable to be assessed for any rate or tax in. the place of the occupier or tenant, or does in fact pay any such rate or tax ia his place nnder any contract or arrangement with him, such owner or lessee shall, for the purposes of this Act and the Acts incorporated therewith, be deemed to be the occupier of such hereditament, and the person referred to as the ratepayer in ss. 19 and 32" of V. M. A. 1869. Times for Proceedings^] — For the various proceedings in making and revising a Valuation list times are prescribed by V. M. A. 1869, s. 42, infra, p. 370 ; but it has been held by the Queen's Bench Division in R. v. Ingall (Met. Eating App. 177 ; 2 Q. B. D. 199) that the provisions of that section are directory and not imperative, and therefore that delay in making, depositing, &c., the Valuation List within the times prescribed does not make it a nullity. In the case cited the appellant by reason of the delay was deprived of his right of appeal to Special Sessions, and it was suggested by Lush, J., that, had he been wholly deprived of his right of appeal, he had probably a remedy by action against those who had failed to perform a public duty. It must be noticed that the term year means the twelve months commencing with April 6th and ending with April 5th : see V. M. A. 1869, s. 4, infra, p. 358. Making and Deposit of Valuation ListJ] — In every fifth year {i.e. in 1870, 1875, 1880, and so on) the Overseers of every parish must before June 1st make, sign, and deposit a new Valuation list (V. M. A. 1869, ss. 6, 42, and 46 (1) ) in the form given in Sched. 2 {infra, p. 384), which must contain THE MAKING AND REVISION OF VALUATION LISTS. 7 every hereditament in the parish' (subject to the exceptions mentioned in V. M. A. 1869, s. 51, infra, p. 377). Every hereditament must be entered in accordance with the classes mentioned in Sohed. 3 [infra, p. 385), so that the deductions to be made in ascertaining the rateable value may be calculated in accordance with that schedule, and the deduc- tions may not exceed the amounts therein specified: V. M. A. 1869, ss. 51, 52, infra, p. 377. It was at one time thought that the maximum deduction should be allowed in every case, but the Assessment Sessions have held otherwise in many cases : see Met. Eating App. pp. 236, 246, et cf. p. 87, infra, where the contrary seems to have been assumed, by one of the parties at least; and p. 178, infra, where the same assump- tion was made by the Court and not contested by the parties. As to the entry of Grovernment property in the list, see TJ. A. 0. A. 1862, s. 30, infra, p. 348 ; and see also [as to the making up of the totals] infra, p. 19, and Met. Rating App. 25, 283. The terms Gross Yalue, and Rateable Value (defined in V. M. A. 1869, s. 4, infra, p. 358), are substituted for Gross Estimated Rental and Net Annual Value respectively (defined by TJ. A. 0. A. 1862, s. 15, infra, p. 343, and the Parochial Assessment Act, 1836, s. 1, infra, p. 335), the sections of the earlier Acts being repealed as to the metropolis by V. M. A. 1869, s. 77. Notwithstanding these definitions, a special saving for ex- emptions and exceptional principles of valuation is contained in s. 54, infra, p. 377. Some hereditaments may therefore have to be valued on peculiar principles, under special Acts or otherwise, e.g., canals (see Regent's Canal Co. v. St. Pancras, Met. Rating App. 190 ; 3 Q. B. D. 73), lands, &c., acquired by the Postmaster- General for the purposes of the Telegraph Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 110), which by s. 22 of that Act are to be assessed at sums 8 DIGEST OP PEACTICE. not exceeding the rateable value at wMcli suoli lands, &o., were properly assessed or assessable at tbe time of such acquisition ; and this section applies notwithstanding that all use of such lands for telegraphic purposes has ceased : see Overseers of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch v. Williams, 16 Q. B. D. 649. In the case of the Foundling Hospital, it was held that the gross and rateable value, as defined by Y. M. A. 1869, s. 4, must be entered in the list, and that the Overseers must in making the rates give the hospital the advantage of the privilege to which it was entitled : see Met. Rating App. 28 ; L. E., 7 Q. B. 83. Houses ready for occupation but not occupied should be iuserted in the Hst: see R. v. Maiden, L. R., 4 Q. B. 326. The Valuation List must be made out in duplicate, and one copy must be sent by the Overseers to the Surveyor of Taxes, who may alter the gross value of any hereditament if he thinks it wrongly stated ; and must transmit his copy of the list to the Assessment Committee within 28 days after he has received it. The overseers must deposit the other copy of the list in the place in the parish in which rate books are deposited or kept : see Y. M. A. 1869, ss. 6-8, and U. A. 0. A. 1862, s. 17, infra, pp. 360, 343. Public Notice of Deposit.'] — On the Sunday next following the deposit, the Overseers must give pubKc notice thereof, in the same manner as in the case of a poor-rate allowed by justices (Y. M. A. 1869, s. 7 ; IF. A. 0. A. 1862, s. 17, infra, pp. 360 and 343) ; that is to say, the notice must be reduced into writing, and must, previously to the commencement of divine service, either in the morning or the evening, be affixed on or near to the principal door of every church and chapel of the established church within the parish : see 17 Geo. 2 e. 3, s. 1 ; 1 Yict. e. 45, s. 2 ; Burneley v. Overseers of Methley, 28 L. J. M. C. 152 ; Ormerod v. Chadmck, 16 M. & "W. 367. Apparently, the legislature intended that the notice of deposit THE MAKING AND REVISION OP VALUATION LISTS. 9 should he given on tlie Sunday next following tlie deposit, and the two following Sundays, hut the language used is not very appropriate to this particular notice : see V. M. A. 1869, s. 66, infm, p. 381 ; et vide ss. 1 and 7. By 45 & 46 Vict. e. 20, s. 4 (passed in consequence of E. V. Si/ott, 9 Qr. B. D. 47), "In a parish in which there is no church or chapel of the parish, a poor rate shaE he deemed to have been duly published if, within fourteen days after the making of the rate, notice thereof has been given by affixing such notice in some public and conspicuous place or situation ■ in the parish." It seems that notice of deposit of a valuation list published in such a manner would be sufficient, if the circumstances supposed ever arose in the metropolis. Notice to Occupier, when necessary.'] — When the Overseers insert in the Valuation List some hereditament not previ- ously assessed, or raise the gross or rateable value of some hereditament above the value stated in the list for the time being in force, they must, immediately after the deposit of the list, serve on the occupier of such hereditament a notice of the gross and rateable value inserted in the Valuation List (V. M. A. 1869, s. 9 (1), infra, p. 360) ; and it has been doubted whether the Valuation List is binding on those who have no notice under this section : mde per Blackburn, J., R. v. Justices of Middlesex, L. E. 7 Q. B. 653 ; but compare also s. 45, infra, p. 372. As to the method of serving notices by post, &c., see s. 65, infra, p. 380. It is not clear how the owner of unoccupied property, rated for the first time or assessed at a higher amount, is protected. He is not to be deemed the occupier under the V. M. A. A. 1884, s. 2, infra, p. 391, because he is not " liable to be assessed for any rate or tax, &c.," as required by that section. It seems, therefore, that every owner of property which is unoccupied at the time of the deposit of a Quinquennial or Supplemental 10 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. List must search the list, under V. M. A. 1869, s. 67, infra, p. 381, in order to, protect his property against an excessive assessment ; otherwise he may find his chance of finding a tenant prejudiced. Special provision is made for notice to he given by Over- seers to railway, telegraph, canal, gas, and water companies named m. a list, and not having any office or place of business ia the parish : see U. A. 0. A. 1864, s. 5, infi~a, p. 355. The notice of the deposit published by Overseers must state the times at which, and the mode in which, objections are to be made : V. M. A. 1869, s. 10, infra, p. 360. And the Overseers must transmit the Valuation List to the Assess- ment Committee not sooner than fourteen, and not later than seventeen, days after notice («. e., apparently public notice) is given of the deposit : Y. M. A. 1869, s. 42 (2), infra, p. 370. Inspection of Valuation List.'] — By 17 Greo. 2, c. 3, s. 2, every inhabitant of a parish is entitled, on payment of one shilliag, to inspect a poor-rate, and the Overseers must [make and] give copies on payment at the rate of sixpence for every twenty-four names. By 6 & 7 Will. 4, e. 96, s. 5, infra, p. 337, every person rated may inspect and take copies of a rate {i. e. copies of his own making) without paying anythiug for the same. This section practically renders the earlier enact- ment obsolete ; but note that the later Act applies not to aU. inhabitants, but to persons rated only. By TJ. A. C. A. 1862, s. 17, infra, p. 343, the right of inspecting, copying, &c., a poor-rate is extended to Valuation Lists : and see also V.M. A. 1869, s. 67, infra, p. 381. Proceedings in case of default of Overseers.] — If the Over- seers of any parish fail to transmit to the Assessment Com- mittee such a list as is required by V. M. A. 1869 the Assessment Committee must appoint some person to make THE MAKING AND REVISION OF VALUATION LISTS. 11 one, -with such remuneration as they think fit ; the expenses are to be paid by the guardians and charged to the parish iu default : V. M. A. 1869, s. 13, infra, p. 361. If the Assess- ment Committee fail to appoint such a person, the case will fall under V. M. A. 1869, s. 35, infra, p. 367, which directs that if it appear to the [Quarter] Sessions on any appeal that there is no approved Valuation List for any parish, they may appoint some person (with such remuneration as they may appoint) to make a list, the cost of such list to be borne by the Assessment Committee. Difficulties as to the times prescribed by V. M. A. 1869, s. 42, may arise in the case of lists made under s. 13. The principle laid down in B. v. Ingall, Met. Eating App. 176 ; 2 Q. B. D. 199 (viz. that the provisions as to time are direc- tory and not imperative) applies : vide supra, p. 6. And, moreover, it is clear that a Hst properly made under s. 13 cannot be ipso facto void for non-observanoe of the prescribed times, because a list under s. 13 can only be made when the statutory times have been already disregarded, and the statute cannot be supposed to direct the making of a list which must ex hypothesi be a nullity. But no iudication is given by s. 13 to show how soon the Assessment Committee must, or how late they may make a list. Suppose, for instance, they directed the making of a list under s. 13, which was com- pleted the day before the Quarter Sessions began their sittings. Apparently the proper course in such a case would be for the Quarter Sessions to make an order for a Valuation List under s. 35, and then they would be able to give direc- tions as to the deposit, &c. of such list under the same section, and to fix some subsequent day (under s. 37, infra, p. 368) either before or after the day before which all appeals are required to be heard for receiving such Valuation List. 12 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. Objections before Assessment Committees. By whom to be made.]—'Yh.e, persons who may object are specified in very otsoure language in TJ. A. C. A. 1862, s. 18, infra, p. 344, and V. M. A. 1869, ss. 11, 12, infra, p. 361. The effect of the three sections (read together) seems to he that the right of objection is given to any overseer or over- seers of any parish in any union, who thinis that such parish is aggrieved by the Yaluation List of any parish within such union; and to any person who feels himself aggrieved by reason of the unfairness or racorrectness of the valuation of any hereditament, or by reason of the insertion or incorrect- ness of any matter in the Yaluation List, or by reason of the omission of any matter therefrom, or by reason of such a list as is required by V. M. A. 1869, not having been trans- mitted by the Overseers to the Assessment Committee. A surveyor of taxes and any ratepayer has the same right of objecting to any list which relates to his district or parish, as is given to any person by Y. M. A. 1869, and the Acts incorporated therewith. Objection by a Surveyor of Taxes.\ — If the Surveyor of Taxes gives notice of objection, the amount specified by him as the gross value of any hereditament must be inserted in the list, unless it is proved to the Assessment Committee that such amount ought not to be so inserted: Y. M. A. 1869, s. 53, infra, p. 377. In addition to this power of objecting, the Surveyor of Taxes has also power of altering the gross value under Y. M. A. 1869, s. 8, infra, p. 360 ; and there seems to be no provision for notice to be given to a ratepayer of an alteration under that section. But the omission is supplied (in extreme cases at any rate) by notice of the alteration of the rateable value, under s. 9 (2), infra, p. 360, when the Assessment Committee have made the necessary alteration in order to comply with the scale of deductions allowed under Y. M. A. 1869, Sch. 3, infra, p. 385. OBJECTIONS BEFOKE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES. 13 Objections ly an Ovmer.] — The Poor Eate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c. 41), s. 13, gives the owner of any hereditament, for the rates of which he has become liable, the same right of appeal against a Valuation List as if he were an occupier ; and therefore impliedly gives to such an owner the right of making an objection, which is the first step towards an appeal. It seems clear also that under the TJ. A. C. A. 1862, s. 18, infra, p. 344, the owner of unoccupied property, which is to be let, has the right of making objections, although when the property is let that right may be given to the occupier. Notice of Objection.] — As to the method of serving notices, see V. M. A. 1869, s. 65, infra, p. 380. Notice speciEying the grounds of objection, and the correction desired, must be given to the Assessment Committee and to the Overseers of the parish ; and, where the ground of any objection is unfair- ness or incorrectness in the valuation of any hereditament in respect of which any person, other than the person objecting, is liable to be rated, or the omission of such hereditament, then on such other person : see U. A. C. A. 1862, s. 18, and V. M. A. 1869, s. 11, infra, pp. 344, 361. There is nothing in the Acts rendering it necessary to give notice of objection to the Surveyor of Taxes. Time for giving Notice of Objection.] — Notice of objection by any person other than the Surveyor of Taxes and the Overseers must be given before the expiration of twenty-five days after the list is deposited (not twenty-five days after notice of the deposit is published) : V. M. A. 1869, s. 42 (3), infra, p. 370. Notice of objection by a Surveyor of Taxes and by Overseers must be given not less than seven days before the meeting at which objections to such list will be heard : Y. M. A. 1869, s. 42 (6), infra, p. 370. It has been a very common practice for Assessment Com- 14 DIGEST OF PEACTICE. mittees to hear objections of which notice has been given too late. If the Committee" hear and determine upon an objec- tion, they cannot, on appeal against their decision, be heard to say that the notice of objection was too late, and therefore their own decision was a nullity : vide infra, p. 209 ; but they are not bound to hear an objection of which notice was given too late. If they refuse, it seems that the objector would not be a person " aggrieved by a decision of the Assessment Committee on an objection made before them " within V. M. A. 1869, s. 32, infra, p. 366, and therefore could not appeal to Quarter Sessions : see further as to the conditions prece- dent to an appeal to Quarter Sessions, infra, p. 68 ; and as to appeals to Special Sessions, infra, p. 41. It also seems clear that the objector could not, under the circumstances supposed, obtain a mandamus to compel the hearing of his objection ; and that, if it could, the Court would not grant to a person, himself iu default, a writ which is discretionary, and not a writ of right : see R. v. All Saints, Wigan, 1 App. Cas. 611. An absolute discretion to hear an objection, or not, in the absence of proper notice, is given to the Assessment Committee by TJ. A. C. A. 1862, s. 19, infra, p. 344; but that section applies only where the Overseers or other persons entitled to notice waive the objection. It may be doubted whether the effect of B. v. Ingall (Met. Eating App. 176 ; 2 Q. B. D. 199), combined with this section, is that the consent of Over- seers is not necessary when the Assessment Committee deter- mine to hear an objection of which notice is given too late. The Searing of Objections.]— The Assessment Committee must revise the list before October 1st, and must hold such meetings as they think necessary for hearing objections, before that day, but not less than sixteen days after the transmission of the list to them by the Overseers ; and must give notice to the Overseers of the several parishes of a OBJECTIONS BEFORE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES. 15 meeting for hearing objections not less than sixteen days hefore snch meeting : see U. A. 0. A. 1862, s. 19, infra, p. 344, amended by Y. M. A. 1869, s. 42 (4) and (6), infra, p. 370. The Overseers are to publish the notice in the same manner in ■which notice of a rate is required to be given : U. A. 0. A. 1862, s. 19, infra, p. 344 ; see also Y. M. A. 1869, s. 66, infra, p. 381 ; et vide sv{pra, p. 8. It is a very common, if not universal, practice in the metropolis for Assessment Committees to give private notice to individuals of the day on which their objections will be considered ; but there is nothing in the Acts requiring this to be done, though the practice is undoubtedly convenient. Where no notice of objection has been given, if the parties entitled to notice consent, the Assessment Committee may, if they see fit, hear the objection : TJ. A. C. A. 1862, s. 19, infra, p. 344. It seems clear that not only may the committee refuse to hear, but that, unless the want of notice be waived, they have no jurisdiction to hear objections. Powers of the Assessment Committee on Revision of Lists,] — The Assessment Committee, whether objections be or be not made, may make alterations, insert hereditaments omitted, and make such corrections upon such information as may seem to them sufficient. They may also, with the consent of the guardians (obtained in manner pointed out by U. A. 0. A. 1862, s. 16, infra, p. 343), employ a person to survey and value any hereditaments : TJ. A. C. A. 1862, s. 20, infra, p. 345 ; see also Y. M. A. 1869, s. 61, infra, p. 379. Where the Assessment Committee, with the consent of the guardians, order a valuation to be made of all the rateable hereditaments of any parish, power is given to apply to the Poor Law Board (now the Local Government Board: see 34 & 35 Yiet. c. 70, s. 2) for an order enabling the requisite amount to be borrowed : U. A. C. A. 1864, s. 8, in/ra, p. 355, 16 DIGEST OF PEACTICE, When a valuation is ordered to be made of hereditaments in respect of which notice of objection has been given, the proper course seems to be to make a formal objection, and then to adjourn the further hearing of the objection until after the making of the valuation; otherwise the objector may find his objection to be out of time. Where a valuer is appointed by an Assessment Committee, he must make his valuation in writing showing the particulars of the several hereditaments comprised therein, and the valua- tion is to be open to inspection : U. A. C. A. 1864, s. 4, infra, p. 354. Notwithstanding the use of the word "particulars" in this section, it has been held that the valuation required is not a field valuation, but one giving the collective value of the hereditaments of each occupier : Rawlence v. Guardians of Sursley Union (3 Ex. D. 44). If, thereforie, the Assessment Committee desire a valuation in detail, the contract of employment of the surveyor must specifically require it. There is no express provision in TJ. A. C. A. 1862, s. 20, giving the valuer appointed by the Assessment Committee the power to enter on the hereditaments, as is given in the case of a valuer appointed by Quarter Sessions under Y. M. A. 1869, s. 38, infra, p. 368 : and see also s. 13, infra, p. 361. Whether the power to enter is implied in the power to make a valuation may be doubted; but a ratepayer who refuses the valuer permission to enter, and afterwards ap- peals, runs great risk of being deprived of costs, even though successful, if the Quarter Sessions act upon the practice followed in the Assessment Sessions. Approval and re-deposit of List.'] — When aU objections have been heard and determined, the list must be approved under the hands of three members of the committee : U. A. C. A. 1862, s. 20, infra, p. 345. Where the committee make any alteration in the valuation of any hereditaments, or insert OBJECTIONS BEFOEE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES. ■ 17 ^ny hereditament omitted from the list, they must, within three days after it has been approved, send the list to be re- deposited by the overseers, and must appoint a day, not less than fourteen nor more than twenty-eight days after such re- deposit, for hearing objections to. the alterations : U. A. 0. A. 1862, s. Sil, infra, p. 345, as amended by V.'M. A. 1869, s. 42 (7), infra, p. 370. If a list as altered is not re-deposited it is invalid : R. v. Chorlton Union, L. E. 8 Q,. B. 6. The overseers must give public notice of the re-deposit, similar to the notice required of the deposit of the list {vide supra, p. 8), which notice must state the times and the mode in which objections are to be made : TJ. A. 0. A. 1862, s. 21, infra, p. 345 ; Y. M. A. 1869, s. 10, infra, p. 360. And where the committee (otherwise than in deter- mining an objection) alter a list, by inserting some heredita- ment omitted, or by raising the gross or rateable value of some hereditament comprised therein, the overseers must, immediately after the re-deposit of the list, serve on the occu- pier of such hereditament a notice of the gross and rateable value inserted in the list : V.M. A. 1869, s. 9 (2), infra, p. 360. Objections after re-deposit to Alterations.^ — Objection, of which seven days' notice must be given (Y. M. A. 1869, s. 42 (7), infra, p. 370), may be made to the alterations ; which notice must, it seems, be given to the same persons as in the case of objections to the list as originally made (supra, p. 13) ; and the notice must, it seems, specify the correction which the objector desires : see Y. M. A. 1869, s. 11, infra, p. 361. The Assessment Committee must hear the objections to the alterations, and may, it seems, make further alterations, &c. relating to hereditaments not the subject of former objec- tions or alterations: see IT. A. 0. A. 1862, s. 21, infra, p. 345 ; but note that there is a mistake in the language R. c 18 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. used, wMch, as it stands, is tuigraminatical. The provision for making further alterations at this stage creates a difficulty, because such alterations may affect persons who have not heen heard, and who cannot make objection to the list, since there is no provision for a second xe-deposit, or for making a fresh series of objections. Therefore, apart from the ques- tion of time, if the making of an objection be a condition precedent to the right of appeal {vide infra, p. 68), a rate- payer whose assessment is raised at this stage would seem to be absolutely without remedy, and would be bound for five years by an assessment to which he has had no opportunity of objecting. Final Approval of Valuation List.'] — ^After determining aU objections, and making such alterations, &c. as may seem proper, the Assessment Committee must finally approve the list : U. A. 0. A. 1862, ss. 20, 21, infra, p. 346. When they have finally approved the list, and (apparently) before they have signified their approval in writing, they must cause the two last columns in the list (stating the gross and rateable value as finally determined by the committee) to be filled up, and the totals of those columns to be ascertained and inserted in the list : compare Y. M. A. 1869, s. 14, infra, p. 361, with the note Appended to Sched. II. Pt. 1, infra, p. 384. Three members of the committee, present at the meeting at which the list is finally approved, must sign the declaration of approval and the certificate contained in V. M. A. 1869, Sched II. Pt. 1 : see s. 14, infra, p. 361 ; see also TJ. A. 0. A. 1862, ss. 20, 21, infra, p. 345. One duplicate of the list so certified must be sent to the Clerk of the London County Council, and the other duplicate to the overseers of thp parish to which it relates : V. M. A. 1869, s. 14, infra, p. 361 ; and Local Grovemment Act, 1888, s. 44. All this must be done before November 1 : s. 42 (8), infra, p. 370. OBJECTIONS BEFORE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES. 19 As to the future custody of one duplicate of the list, and the printing and distrihution of the totals of gross and rate- able values of lists in the metropolis, see V. M. A. 1869, ss. 16, 17, 42 (11) ; and 38 & 39 Yict. c. 33, infra, p. 389 ; and see also Local Grovemment Act, 1888, s. 44, which transfers to the Clerk of the County Council of London the duties of the Clerk to the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylums District. The overseers, on receiving their duplicate of the Valuation List, must immediately deposit it in the place in which the rate books of the parish are kept, and must publish notice of the deposit, and of the time and mode of making appeals, and of the grounds on which an appeal is allowed to be made : V. M. A. 1869, s. 15, infra, p. 362. By s. 66, infra, p. 381, the notice must be published on the Sunday next following the receipt of the list, and the two following Sundays, in the manner in which notice of a rate is required to be published : as to which, vide supra, p. 8. Effect of Valuation List. The Valuation List, as approved by the Assessment Com- mittee, and if altered on appeal, as so altered, comes into force at the beginning of the year (commencing on April 6th) succeeding that in which it was made. If it be a Quinquen- nial List, it lasts for five years; subject to any alterations that may be made by Supplemental or Provisional Lists ; if it be a Supplemental List, it lasts, subject to the like alterations, until the next Quinquennial List is made : V. M. A. 1869, ss. 43, 46, infra, pp. 371, 373. Provision is, however, made for apportionment in the case of a hereditament becoming rateable in parts not separately rated in the list, without the necessity of making a Supplemental List : U. A. C. A. 1862, s. 28, infra, p. 347. Notwithstanding any appeal which may be pending at the c2 20 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. commencement of the year, the Valuation List comes into force unaltered, and rates, &c. are to he paid upon it ; and if, in consequence of a decision on an' appeal, an alteration is made in the list, and it he found that too much or too little has heen paid, the difference must he repaid or allowed to the ratepayer, or may be recovered from him, as the ease may he: s. 44, infra, p. 371. And it seems that it is not possible to suspend the operation of the last-mentioned section, so that rates may be paid on a previously- existing valuation, even by agreement between the ratepayer and the persons entitled to demand the rate. For in a case ia which, on an appeal agaiQst an increased valuation, it was agreed between the Assessment Committee and the ratepayer that a special ease should be stated for the opinion of the High Court of Justice, and that untO. that case had been decided the rates should be paid upon the basis of the old valuation, it was held by the Queen's Bench Division, and by the Court of Appeal, that such an agreement could not bind the overseers, who were no parties to it ; and that, even if the Assessment Committee could be taken as representing the overseers, they could not make an agreement in- the very teeth of the Act of Parlia- ment : R. V. Marsham, 50 L. T. N. S. 142 ; 32 W. E. 157. Consequently, it was held that a mandamus had been rightly granted, on the application of the overseers, to compel the magistrates to issue a distress warrant for the recovery of the rates, calculated on the basis of the new Valuation List under appeal. By V. M. A. 1869, s. 45^ infra, p. 372, " the Valuation List for the time being in force shall be deemed to have been duly made in accordance with this Act and the Acts incor- porated therewith." It is difficult to decide what is the precise effect of these words. On the one hand, they can hardly mean that every list purporting to be " the Valuation List " shall be deemed to have been duly made, because such EFFECT OF VALUATION LIST- 21 a construction would open the door to wilful disregard of the procedure prescribed hy the Act. Moreover, the words " shall he deemed," &o., are apparently contrasted with the words " shall be conclusive evidence." It may, perhaps, be thought that the object of the section is to throw the burden of proof on those who dispute the validity of the Ust, and that the words, therefore, are equivalent to *' Omnia prcesumantur rite esse acta." By V. M. A. 1869, s. 45, infra, p. 372, the Valuation List is made conclusive evidence of the fact that all hereditaments required to be inserted therein have been so inserted. There- fore, if by accident any hereditament is omitted from the Quinquennial List, it will escape from rateability for five years ; and it will not be permissible " to enter it in any Supplemental List, siuce that list must be made out on the assumption that the list in force at the commencement of each year is correct, and only such alterations as have taken place, during the last twelve months can be entered in a Supplemental List : see The East and West India Dock Case, Met. Eating App. 347. It seems that the Valuation List is conclusive even where there is manifestly a clerical error, since the provisions of V. M. A. 1869, s. 7J , infra, p. 382, extend to clerical errors in a rate only. Therefore, if in deciding on an objection the Assessment Committee, by mis- take, alter the wrong entry iu the list, or make a wrong alteration, the only remedy is by way of appeal : see Ball v. St. James and St. John, Clerkenwell, Met. Eating App. 249. What Bates are governed hy the Valuation List.'] — The Valuation List is made conclusive evidence of value for the purpose of the rates, &c., mentioned in V. M. A. 1869, s. 45, infra, p. 372. It is also, in effect, conclusive evidence of value for the purpose of water-rate : for by the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 17) s. 68, water-rates " shall be 22 DIGEST OF PKACXICE. payable according to the annual value of the tenement sup- plied with water, and if any dispute arise as to such value, the same shall be determined by two justices." And by the Water-Eate Definition Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. o. 34), s. 1, " the words ' the annual value of the tenement supplied with water in s. 68 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847,' shall, within the unions and parishes to which the Valuation of Property (Metropolis) Act, 1869 [sic'] extends, mean the rateable value as settled from time to time by the local authority as duly constituted : Provided that where the water- rate is chargeable on the annual value of a part only of any hereditament entered in the Valuation List, such annual value shall be a fairly apportioned part of the rateable value of the whole tenement, ascertained as aforesaid, the apportionment in case of dispute to be determined in manner provided by the said section." And, by s. 2, " The "Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, and this Act, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be con- strued together as one Act, and the provisions of this Act shall to that extent be held to repeal and supersede such of the provisions of that Act as are inconsistent with this Act." Provisional Lists. Procedure.] — Eeserving for the present the question — what are the conditions precedent to the making of a Provisional List (which wUl be considered infra, p. 34) — ^we may notice the difference, in procedure and effect, between a Provisional List and a Quinquennial (or Supplemental) List. The pro- cedure with regard to Provisional Lists is contained in V. M. A. 1869, s. 47 infra, p. 374. The main points of dif- ference are as follows : a Provisional List maybe made at any time in the course of any year, and none of the times prescribed by s. 42, infra, p. 370, are applicable : it continues in operation only until the first list (supplemental or other), which is subse- PEOVISIONAL LISTS. 23 quently made, comes into force ; if when the next revision of the Valuation List takes place, the list, as approved and altered on appeal, contains a smaller value for the hereditament com- prised ia a Provisional List than the value stated in such Provisional List, the amount of rate or tax which has heen overpaid in consequence of the larger value having heen stated shall be repaid or allowed : see V. M. A. 1869, s. 47 (8) and (10) , infra, p. 375. Moreover, though a Provisional List is subject to a revision by the Assessment Committee, no appeal lies from their decision thereon : see Assessment Committee of Fulham Union v. Wells, 20 Q,. B. D. 749, which case confirmed the view previously acted upon by the Assessment Sessions : see Met. Eating App. pp. xli., 210, 227, 339. In the case referred to, the Court had to decide only whether an appeal lay to Special Sessions, but the reasoning is (it is submitted) equally applic- able to the right of appeal to Assessment Sessions (now the London Quarter Sessions : vide infra, p. 43). Por by V. M. A. 1869, ss. 6 and 42 (1), infra, pp. 360, 370, provision is made for the makiug of a Valuation List in the first year after the passing of the Act. Objections to the same list may be made and heard by the Assessment Com- mittee under ss. 11, 14, and 42 (3)— (8). The right of appeal to Assessment Sessions against the same list is given by s. 32, infra, p. 366, to 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." In s. 46 provisions are to be found for the making of Supple- mental and New \i. e.. Quinquennial] Lists ; and by s. 46 (4), infra, p. 373, " A Supplemental List and a new Valuation List shall come into force .... subject to the same conditions as the Valuation List made in the first year after the passing of the Act." These conditions include the ratepayer's right of objection and of appeal; and by these words, and (it is submitted) by these words alone, is a right of appeal given 24 DIGEST OP PRACTICE. against all Supplemental and Quinquennial Lists made sub- sequently to the making of the first list authorized by the Act ; but there is nothing corresponding with these ■words to be found in s. 47 which deals with a Provisional List. More- over, by s. 47 (8), infra, p. 375, it is implied that there can be no appeal pending, so as to delay the operation of a Pro- visional List, and the provision in s. 47 (10) for repayment in ease of over-assessment is obviously intended to prevent the want of a right of appeal from working injustice. For these reasons it is confidently submitted that there is no ap- peal, either to Special Sessions or to Quarter Sessions, against a Provisional List, and that the dicta of Manisty, JT. (11 Q. B. D. at p. 732), and of Hawkins, J. (14 Q. B. D. at p. 356), suggesting the contrary view, cannot be supported. Repayment or Allowance of Excess where Provisional List is made.'] — The provision for repayment contained in V. M. A. 1869, s. 47 (10), infra, p. 375, was intended to prevent hard- ship, as above stated ; but it may be doubted whether that intention has been successfully carried out. Assume a hypo- thetical case arising as follows :— On May 31st,1890, a Quin- quennial List is deposited in which a company are assessed, as in a previous list, at 5,0001. rateable value (say in respect of a railway terminus and lines, gas works, or a dock). At that date extensive works are in progress, although the addi- tions will still leave the property one rateable hereditament, and by June 30th, 1890, a Provisional List is made, the actual value of the additional works being 1,000/. rateable value; but owing to a mistaken view of the Overseers the additional property is entered in the Provisional List at 5,000/., making 10,000/. in aU. The list is confirmed by the Assessment Committee. By December 31st, 1890, a second Provisional List becomes necessary. The new property is worth 1,000/. rateable value, and is rightly entered at that PEOVISIONAL LISTS. 25 amount in the second Provisional List, which is confirmed hy the Assessment Committee, the company heing thus assessed at 11,000;. in all. By May 31st, 1891, when the next Supplemental List is made, a third addition, representing 4,000^. rateable value, has heen made (the extension of the company's property heing thereby completed), and the Over- seers increase the assessment to 15,000^. ; but the Assessment Committee, on lookiug at the now complete hereditament, reduce the assessment to 11,000/. rateable value. That figure is entered in the Supplemental List, which is deposited on May 31st, 1891, and will come into force on April 6th, 1892. Assuming that the Assessment Committee are right, the company cannot appeal against the Supplemental List with any hope of success; and inasmuch as (according to the assumption) the property is properly rated as one heredita- ment, the details of the separate valuations wlU not appear in the Supplemental List. That list does not " contain a smaller value for the hereditament comprised in " the Provisional Lists made respectively on June 30th, 1890, and December 31st, 1890, and therefore the provisions for repayment under s. 47 (10), infra, p. 375, wUl not apply. The company, therefore, will be without redress, although they will have been paying rates from June 30th, 1890, until May 31st, 1891, on an assessment which is' (on the hypothesis made) too high by 4,000/. It has been suggested that, in order to meet this difficulty, a Supplemental List, which incorporates and (as it were) gathers up several preceding Provisional Lists, ought to show a« separate valuation for the parts of the hereditament which have been separately valued. But it must be noticed that there is but a slight foundation in the Act on which to base this contention ; the only requirement being that the Supple- mental List " shall show all the alterations which have taken place during the preceding twelve months in any of the 26 DIGEST OF PKACTICE. matters stated in the Valuation List." Morever, assuming it to be possible in fact, and permissible in law, to enter in the Supplemental List a detailed valuation, in which the value is apportioned to the several additions respectively entered in the several Provisional Lists, it must be noticed that on appeal it would be necessary to ask the Court to decide (in effect) not one question of value, but several, in respect of one rateable hereditament. Whether the Court would be willing to undertake such a task ; whether, if imwilling, they could be compelled by mandamus to do so, may be doubted. Itefusal of Overseen to make Provisional List.'] — ^A further difficulty arises with regard to s. 47 (10), infra, p. 375, in that it applies only when a Provisional List is made, and not when the Overseers and the Assessment Committee refuse to make one. It has been held {B. v. St. Mary, Bermondaey, 14 Q/. B. D. 351) that where the Overseers refuse to make a Provisional List, on the ground that there has been no alteration in rateable value, a mandamus will not be granted to compel them to make one. It is difficult to be certain of the grounds of this decision. The judges seem to have relied on the introductory words of s. 47, and to have held that those words gave the Overseers jurisdiction to decide the question of fact, whether there had been any reduction in value or not, and that their decision on that point was conclusive. Grove, J., said (14 Q. B. D., at p. 354), " Supposing we grant this mandamus, what are the Overseers to do ? If the value is not changed how can they return an answer to this mandamus, except by saying, ' We have not sent a Provisional List because we can make no Provisional List, the value being unchanged.' I think, if this rule were made absolute, that would be a good return to it." And Hawkins, J. said {Ibid., at p. 356), " It is to my mind as clear as possible, that the Overseers are not bound to send in a Provisional List i£ PROVISIONAL LISTS. 27 they come to the conclusion that there is no alteration in the value of the property which is assessed, hut that i£ they decline to do so, and if the person who requires them to send in the ProYisional List still insists upon it that he is right, he may require that the Assessment Committee shall call upon some other person to make the valuation, and if that is done and the person who made the requisition is not satisfied, he may appeal, precisely in the same manner that he might if the list was made hy the Overseers. I am satisfied that there is no obligation on the Overseers to send in a list which they know and feel to he fictitious and false." Now, here it seems to have heen assumed, without argument, that there exists a right of appeal agaiust a Provisional List, an assumption which has siuce been contradicted (impliedly, if not expressly) hy Assessment Committee of Fulham Union v. Wells, 20 Q. B. D. 749; vide supra, p. 23. If, therefore, the refusal of the mandamus be based on the view that the decision of the Overseers (viz., that no alteration existed in fact) was con- clusive, it would seem to follow that where the Overseers so decide, and the Assessment Committee confirm that decision, no mandamus could issue directing the Assessment Committee to appoiat a person to make a Provisional List. In another case, however, where the Overseers refused to make a Pro- visional List, on the ground that a mere alteration in value was insufficient, and that the applicants must show a struc- tural alteration in the hereditament itself, to bring themselves within V. M. A. 1869, s. 47, and the Assessment Committee refused, for the same reason, to appoint a person under s. 47 (2), a mandamus was granted directing the Assessment Committee to appoint such person : B. v. St. Mary, Islington, m/m, p. 272 ; 19 Q. B. D. 529. The two cases are not (it is submitted) in conflict with one another, if the proper construction of s. 47 is as follows : — The Overseers have jurisdiction to consider the question of 28 DIGEST OF PRACTICE, fact, whether the value of the hereditament in question has been increased or reduced ; and their finding on this question of fact cannot be reviewed by the Queen's Bench Division : if, however, the Overseers decide upon any question of law {e.g., whether any given alteration comes within s. 47), that decision can be overruled by the Queen's Bench Division. Whether, if the Overseers refuse to make a Provisional List, the decision of the question of fact rests with the Assessment Committee, or with the person to be appointed by them, seems doubtful. In B. v. St. Mary, Islington, infra, p. 272, the fact that there had been an alteration in value was admitted, and therefore it was unnecessary to consider by whom the question of fact (if disputed) should be determined. In this case, however, it must be noticed that Lord Coleridge suggested that it was still open to the person appointed to make a Provisional List to find that there had been no alteration in value. It may be noticed that the refusal of the mandamus in R. v. St. Mary, Bermondsey (14 Q,. B. D. 351), was not based on the ground that the power of the Assessment Committee to review the action of the Overseers afforded an alternative procedure, more convenient than mandamus. It is true that Hawkins, J., further held that there was no evidence before the Queen's Bench Division of any diminution in value withia the meaning of s. 47, but he gave this as a second, and not as the only, reason for his decision : and moreover. Grove, J., did not refer to the point at all. It is therefore hardly possible to argue that the mandamus was refused not because the Overseers thought that there had been no alteration, but because no alteration existed in fact. The case of B. v. St. Mary, Bermoiidsey , was considered by Lord Coleridge, L. C. J., and Lord Bsher, M. E., sitting as a Divisional Court in the Queen's Bench Division on March 21st, 1890, in Surrey .Commercial Dock Co. v. St. Mary, Botherhithe, in which case, in order to facilitate an appeal, a PROVISIONAL LISTS, 29 formal judgment was given neither affirming nor dissenting from B. V. Si. Mary, Bermondsey : see the " Times," March 22, 1890 {a). In order to avoid the responsihility of causing an applica- tion to be made for a mandamus, in one or two instances Overseers have adopted the plan of sending in as a Provisional List a mere copy of the list already in force. Such a prac- tice, cannot, it is submitted, be supported. The provisions of s. 47 apply only on the conditions therein specified ; i. e., " if in the course of a year the value of a hereditament is increased or reduced ;" and a Provisional List which itself negatives the conditions on which alone a Provisional List can legally be made, is, on the face of it, a nullity : et vide per Grove, J., (a) The case came before the Court of Appeal on June 23, 1890, when that Court held that they had no jurisdiction oyer the case in the form in which it appeared hefore them. Although no decision was given on the merits, the following note of the proceedings may be useful : — On Decem- ber 8th, 1887, the Dock Company served on the Overseers a requisition under v. M. A. 1869, s. 47 (1). The Overseers on February 20, 1888, determined that the property ought to be placed in a Provisional List, and on March 15 made what purported to be a Provisional List, but was in fact a copy of the existing valuation. On objection being made, the Assessment Committee appointed a valuer, who, after some delay, made a Provisional List, showing a reduced valuation, dated July 26, 1888. Meantime, rates had been demanded by the Overseers, and paid, on the former valuation ; and on payment of a subsequent rate, made in October, being demanded, the Dock Company, without issuing a writ, obtained a rule nisi for an injunction to restrain the Overseers from enforcing the payment of rates on the higher assessment. On the argument of the rule, the Queen's Bench Division, doubting whether it was proper to proceed by way of injunction without a writ having been issued, ordered that a special case should be stated embody- ing aU the facts. On the argument of the special case, formal judgment was given for the Overseers, as above stated. No writ was, however, issued and the Court of Appeal held that, no writ having been issued, there was no proceeding in the Queen's Bench Division on which any appeal could be brought before them, and they directed that if a writ were issued, and the Queen's Bench Division were to give judgment ia accordance with their previous decision (care being taken not to ask for that judgment " by con- sent"), the Court of Appeal might then be able to consider the special case. No decision had been given up to the date of going to press. 30 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. 14 Q,. B. D. at p. 353: In other cases, with the like object, Overseers have made a Provisional List, showing a merely- nominal alteration. Such a course is, it seems, perfectly- legal ; hut whether the practice of granting reductions, how- ever slight, may not have the effect of multiplying requisitions for a Provisional List under s. 47 (1) may he doubted. Bate from which a Provisional List is to operate.] — By V. M. A. 1869, s. 47 (8), infra, p. 375, a provisional list signed as aforesaid \_i.e., by the clerk] shall have operation from the date of the service by the Clerk of the Assessment Committee of a copy of the list and notice on the occupier. This must, it seems, refer to the ser-viee of the copy of the list, and of the notice of the day fixed for hearing objections, mentioned in s. 47 (3), iiifra, p. 374. After the decision of the Assess- ment Committee on an objection, or after the expiry of the time for making objections (s. 47 (7) ), the list -vnll be signed and will relate back or "have operation" from an earlier date. If this be borne in mind, it is difficult to construe strictly s. 47 (9), which enacts that "upon a Provisional List coming into operation, the Overseers shall make such entries in the rate book for the then current poor rate as -will bring the same into conformity -with such list, and shall also enter therein the date at which such Hst is to come into operation." It seems almost impossible to make a distinction between the time from which a list is to " have operation," and the time at which it "comes into operation;" but as the list -will not be signed till more than fourteen days at least (see s. 47 (3), infra, p. 374) after the day from which it is to " have opera- tion," and perhaps will not be signed till much later, it is impossible to construe the opening words of s. 47 (9) as meaning "immediately upon a list coming into operation." In the interval, however, a fate may have been made, and (as in The Surrey Commercial Lock Case, referred to above) a distress warrant may have been applied for. It may be PROVISIONAL LISTS. 31 doubted whetlier in sucli a case, a magistrate could, by means of an adjournment, in effect refuse to grant a distress war- rant until tbe Provisional List bad been considered by the Assessment Committee ; for in sueb matters the magistrate acts ministerially and not judicially : see R. y. Handsley, 7 Q. B. D. 398. It seems, however, that the magistrate (if he doubted whether a distress warrant ought, under the circum- stances, to issue) might state a case for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1884, notwithstanding the provision in s. 10 of that Act, that " nothing in this Act shall alter the procedure for the recovery of, or any remedy for, the non-payment of any poor rate : " see B. v. Mayor of London, 57 L. T. 491 : but see also R. v. Price, 5 Q,. B. D. 300 ; and compare Sandgate Local Board v. Pledge, 14 Q. B. D. 730. It must be noticed also that, since the decision of the cases cited, s. 7 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1884, has been repealed by s. 41 of the Interpretation Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. e. d3), which Act, however, by s. 13 (ll),re-enacts, in almost identical terms, the repealed definition of " Court of Summary Jurisdiction." Ohjectiom against a Provisional List.'] — Express provision is made by Y. M. A. 1869, s. 47 (4), infra, p. 375, for objections ; and by s. 47 (6) the Committee are to hear and determine on an objection iu the same manner as if it were an objection to a Valuation List. If they reduce the assess- ment objected to, and meanwhile a rate has been made and paid on the assessment fixed by the Overseers, it seems doubtful whether the provisions of s. 47 (10) for repayment apply ; and if they do not it is difiBcult to determine whether the ratepayer is entitled to any » allowance when the next payment of rates is demanded. It may perhaps be thought that, until the Assessment Committee have given a decision (assuming that the Overseers by making a Provisional List 32 DIGEST OF PKACTICE. have admitted the fact of alteration, however slight the altera- tion may be), a rate based upon such a Provisional List could not be enforced. It seems, however, that if the Provisional List is not in operation, the previously existing Quinquennial or Supplemental List inust remain in force, and, if so, the rate must be based upon it : see V. M. A. 1869, s. 7-3, and the declaration contained in Sched. 4, infra, pp. 3H2, 386. Entry of New Hereditaments in a Provisional List.'] — A difiBculty, which seems to have hitherto escaped notice, arises with regard to the entry of new property in a Provisional List, which can be made only when " the value of any here- ditament is increased -by the addition thereto or the erection thereon of any building, or is from any cause increased or reduced in value." By V. M. A. 1869, s. 4, infra, p. 358, "The term 'hereditament' means [not, includes,] any lands, tenements, hereditaments, and property which are liable to any rate or tax," &c. Without pausing to consider whether unoccupied building land is " liable to any rate or tax," we may say at once that a puhhc highway is not so liable,, and it is therefore not a " hereditament." If this be so, is it permissible to enter in a Provisional List a new line of tram- way laid down over, or the pipes .of a gas or water company laid down under, a pubHc highway, if neither the rails nor the pipes constitute an addition to an existing system ? It seems that the same considerations may not apply, to a tram- way occupying part of the surface of the street (which under s. 96 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, vests in the local authority) as apply to pipes occupying part of the sub- soil (which may or may not belong to the frontagers on either side of the street) : see Gomrdale v. Charlton, 4 Q. B. D. 104; Wandsworth Board of Works v. United Telephone Co., 13 Q. B. D. 904; et vide Landrock v. Metropolitan District Ry., W. N. (1886) 195. No doubt a rateable hereditament coming into PEOVISIONAL LISTS. 33 existence in tlie course of a year can be entered in the next Supplemental List, but it does seem (to say the least) doubtful ■whether it can be entered in a Provisional List if it does not consist of an addition to, or an erection on, an existing rateable hereditament. Duration of a Provisional List.'] — It might at first sight seem that a Provisional List could in no case remain in operation for more than a year ; but it is submitted that this view is not correct. A Provisional List comes into operation as from the date of service of a copy thereof on the occupier, and continues in force until the first list (supplemental or other) ivhich is subsequently made comes into force: see s. 47 (8), infra, p. 375. Suppose a Quinquennial List made in the ordinary course and deposited on May 31st, 1890. A house is subsequently pulled down and rebuilt, and entered in a Provisional List dating from November 30th, 1890. By s. 42 (8), infra, p. 370, the Assessment Committee should have finally approved the Quin- quennial List before this date ; consequently, the house as rebuilt cannot appear in such list. The first Supplemental List should be deposited by May 31st, 1891, and will come into operation on April 6th, 1892 : see s. 46 (4), infra, ■p. 373, and the definition of the term " year " in s. 4, infra, p. 358. In the ease supposed, therefore, the Provisional List would continue in operation from November 30th, 1890, till April 6th, 1892. A case in which the effect of a Provisional List (made after the deposit of a Quinquennial List, but before it began to operate) was considered, will be found at p. 116, infra. A curious point arose, but was not decided, in Dudin v. St. Olave^s Union, infra, p. 202, as to the duration of a Pro- visional List. In that case a Provisional List was made showing a reduced value for a particular hereditament : when, however, the next Supplemental List was made that heredita- ment was omitted therefrom. It was assumed by both parties R. B 34 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. to the appeal, that when the Supplemental List came into operation, the Provisional List would cease to be valid ; and that, consequently, the rating would be governed by the assessment appearing in the Quinquennial List previously in force, no alteration being shown in the Supplemental List. It may be doubted whether the assumption made by the parties was correct. It is true that by the Y. M. A. 1869, s. 47 (8), infra, p. 375, a Provisional List continues in force " until the first list (supplemental or other) which is subse- quently made comes into force." In the ease referred to, had there been no alterations affecting other hereditaments in the same parish, the overseers would have made no Supplemental List in the year in question; the Provisional List would then, it seems, have continued in operation. If the making of a Supplemental List containing only hereditaments other than that entered in the Provisional List makes any difference, the result is, that the amount at which one hereditament is assessed is made to depend on the question whether the assessment of another has been altered. This seems, however, to be the necessary result, unless the words of Y. M. A. 1869, s. 47 (8), are to be read as meaning that a Provisional List is to con- tinue in force until the first list which is subsequently made, containing the hereditaments entered in the Provisional List, comes into force. Supplemental and Provisional Lists. The Conditions Precedent.'] — It will be noticed that neither of the three Lists which may be made under Y. M. A. 1869, exactly corresponds to the Supplemental List provided for by TJ. A. C. A. 1862, s. 25, infra, p. 346, which section is re- pealed as to the metropolis by Y. M. A. 1869, s. 77, infra, p. 383. The language used with regard to Supplemental SUPPLEMENTAL AND PROVISIONAL LISTS. 35 Lists in the Act of 1862 has been adopted (in part) in s. 47 of V. M. A. 1869, which relates to Provisional Lists. Yery considerable doubt has been raised by the fact that the language of Y. M. A. 1869, s. 46, differs from that of s. 47 : and it seems that circumstances might arise to which one section — but not both — would apply. Whether the draftsman of the Act had a clear intention in his mind may be doubted, when the meaningless tautology in the first clause of s. 47, infra, p. 374, is noticed. Under s. 47, to necessitate a Provisional List, there must be an increase or reduction in value ; but under s. 46 a Supplemental List may be made if there be an " alteration in any of the matters stated in the Valuation List." Does this mean that, if (for example) the owner of a row of houses let to yearly tenants sells his property, it is necessary to make a Supplemental List con- tainiag " the hereditaments affected by the alterations " ? And if so, is it open to the occupiers of such hereditaments to appeal against such a Supplemental List, and demand a reduction of their assessment, although the name of the owner is the only " matter stated in the Yaluation List " which has been altered ? It is believed that no appeal against a Supplemental List has ever been entered under such conditions ; but it is not easy to say how the right of appeal could be disputed, although such a right might involve a revision of a Quinquennial List, as to questions of amount, once iu every year. It has been decided that it is not necessary, before property can be entered ia a Supplemental List at the end of the year in which an alteration takes place, that it should first be entered in a Provisional List made at the time of the altera- tion : see British Equitable Assurance Co. v. City of London Union, infra, p. 229. It may be noticed that a decision to the contrary would have involved the assumption that the scope of s. 46 was no wider than that of s. 47. It may also d2 36 DIGEST OP PRACTICE. be noticed that tlie only authority cited in support of the respondents' contention in the case referred to was a dictum of Manisty, J. {vide infra, p. 231), which laid down two propositions : (1) that no appeal lay to Assessment Sessions against an omission from a Supplemental List ; (2) that an appeal lay under s. 47. The former proposition was negatived by the decision of the Court of Appeal, when the same case {East and West India Book Co. v. Poplar Union) came before them : see Met. Eatiag App. 356 ; 13 Q. B. D. 364 ; and the latter proposition was (impliedly, if not expressly) contra- dicted by Fulham Union v. Welk, 20 Q,. B. D. 749 ; vide supra, p. 23. But, putting aside the question whether the reduction or increase in value mentioned in s. 47 is equivalent to the " alteration " referred to ia s. 46, we may first deal with the question — What is a sufficient "alteration " requiring a Sup- plemental List ? It was at one time thought that ss. 46 and 47 dealt with the same subject-matter, and should, therefore, receive the same construction as U. A. 0. A. 1862, s. 25, infra, p. 346 (see Met. Eating App. 117, 220) ; and that, consequently, a Supplemental List can be made only when there has been a structural alteration of the hereditament itself. But in Netc River Co. v. St. Mary, Islington (4 Q. B. D. 309 ; Met. Eating App. 223, decided in 1879), Cockburn, C. J., held that the rateable value was one of the matters stated in the Valuation List ; and that where there were " substantial alterations " in value a Supplemental List ought to be made, although no structural alterations had been made in the hereditament. It must be noticed, however, that the learned judge, after referring to the in- justice that might arise from " extraordinary and unlooked for circumstances," said : — " It is only where substantial alterations have taken place, which really do make all the difference to the individual who is to be assessed, on the one SUPPLEMENTAL AND PEOVISIONAL LISTS. 37 hand, or to the parish which is to have the benefit of the tax on the other, that an inquiry should be directed. In 1883, in £!ast and West India Bock Co. v. Poplar Union (Met. Eating App. 347 ; 11 Q. B. D. 721 ; 13 Q. B. D. 364), the appellants claimed to be entered in a Supplemental List, on the ground, not of structural alteration, but of diminution in value, in consequence of a smaller number of ships coming to the docks ; and in support of their appeal tendered in evidence their books, showing the business during several years (from 1875 to 1882, a period covered by two quinquennial valua- tions) ; and they contended (1) that the evidence was admis- sible, and showed an alteration sufficient to necessitate the making of a Supplemental List ; and (2) that such an alte- ration being established, the property ought to be re-valued de novo, without regard to the valuation appearing in the existing Quinquennial List. The Court of Appeal held that the books, showing that there was a continual falling off in receipts, were admissible as evidence of an alteration in rateable value, and that the sessions must consider whether an alteration in rate- able value vdthia the twelve months preceding the making of the Supplemental List was established, but that, if it were established, the rateable value in the Supplemental List must be ascertained by assuming that the Yaluation List in force at the beginning of the preceding twelve months was correct at that time, and by making such an alteration as would show the alteration in rateable value during the same twelve months. The effect of this decision, therefore, is that while the alteration must occur within the last twelve months, facts occurring long before that time may be used as evidence of an alteration within the limited period. The extreme diffi- culty which is foimd, in practice, in following strictly the principle laid down by the Court of Appeal in The East and West India Bock Case, may be seen by comparing with it 38 DIGEST OF PRA.CTICE. Budin V. ;S^. Olave's Union, infra, p. 202 ; L. ^ S. W. Bail- way V. St. Mary, Lambeth, infra, p. 183 ; Agricultural Hall Co. V. St. Mary, Islington, infra, p. 193. It must be noticed that the " year " begins on April 6th, by Y. M. A. 1869, s. 4, infra, p. 358 ; and it seems now to be established that the twelve months, within which an altera- tion necessitating a Supplemental List must occur, must be reckoned from the same day : vide infra, pp. 183, 203 ; et cf. p. 212. It has been frequently argued that the decisions that a mere alteration in value is sufficient to warrant the making of a Supplemental List, have, in effect, repealed the provisions of Y. M. A. 1869, rendering the Quinquennial List binding for a period of five years. With reference to these arguments, the following suggestions may be made. In The New River Case, Cockburn, C J., expressly stated that only " sub- stantial alterations" could be taken into account: see Met. Eating App. at p. 227 ; 4 Q. B. D. at p. 313. Again, a decision of the sessions, fixing the rateable value at a given sum, is not (in one sense) a finding of an existing fact, but a statement of what a tenant may reasonably be expected to pay, taking one year with another : see the definition of "rateable value " in Y. M. A. 1869, s. 4, infra, p. 358. If, therefore, in making out a Supplemental list, facts are proved which did not exist, and could not have been foreseen, and therefore were not taken into account in forming the " reasonable expectation " of the hypothetical tenant's rent, those facts, " icith the light shed upon them" by other facts which were previously taken into account, may amount to evidence of an alteration of rateable value within the last twelve months : vide per Bowen, L. J., Met. Eating App. at p. 359 ; 13 Q. B. D. at p. 371. If, however, no such new facts are shown, it seems to be difficult to contend that the same rise — or fall — in value is not being taken into account SUPPXiEMENTAL AND PROVISIONAL LISTS. 39 twice over. See, for instance, the argument on behalf of the appellants in the New River Case, 4 Q. B. D. at p. 312 ; and on behalf of the respondents, in Royal Agricultural Sail Co. V. St. Mary, Islington, at p. 196, infra; and in Dudin v. 8t. Olave^s Union, at p. 206. In order to render a Provisional List necessary or per- missible, the value of the hereditament must have changed during the course of the current year {per Hawkins, J., in R. T. St. Mary, Bermondsey, at p. 357) ; and note that the "year" begins with April 6th: see V. M. A. 1869, s. 4, infra, p. 358. The decision in the East and West India Dock Case (Met. Eating App. 347; 13 Q. B. D. 364) seems necessarily to involve this proposition, because otherwise a Provisional List niight be made which would include an in- crease or reduction, which could not be included in the next Supplemental List. By s. 47 {infra, p. 374) Provisional Lists are to be made " 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." [The last two words must apparently be rejected as mere surplusage.] It seems clear that the words "from any cause" are not confined to causes ejusdem generis with the erection of a building : see R. v. St. Mary, Islington, infra, p. 272 ; 19 Q. B. D. 529 : et vide per Grrove, J., in the East and West India Dock Case, Met. Eating App. at p. 353; 11 Q. B. D. at p. 730. A sub- stantial alteration in profits seems to be sufficient : see R. v. St. Mary, Islington, infra, p. 272, and R. v. New River Co., Met. Eating App. 223; 4aB.D.309. F^em^jm, pp. 26—28, as to the question who is to determine whether any increase or reduction in value has occurred. Refusal of Overseers to make a Supplemental List.'] — The questions which arise as to the refusal to make a Provisional list {vide supra, p. 26 et seq.) do not apply to the making 40 DIGEST OF PRACTICE, of a Supplemental list, owing to there being a right of appeal against such a list. If a ratepayer alleges that there has been an " alteration " in the value of his property, and the Overseers either make no Supplemental List at all in the year in question, or make one and refuse to enter therein the property affected by the alleged alteration, the ratepayer may make an objection before the Assessment Committee, under V. M. A. 1869, ss. 11 and 46 (3), infra, pp. 361, 373, as being a person who feels himself aggrieved " by reason of the omission of a matter " (viz., the valuation of his own property) from the Supplemental List, "or by reason of such a Valua- tion List as is required by the Act not having been transmitted by the Overseers to the Assessment Committee." If the Assessment Committee disallow the objection, a right of appeal is given by V. M. A. 1869, s. 32, infra, p. 366, to the Assessment Sessions (now the London Quarter Sessions : vide infra, p. 43). It seems clear that the ratepayer could, not, in the case supposed, appeal to the Special Sessions under V. M. A. 1869, s. 19, infra, p. 362. Appeals. To what Court.'] — Appeals may be brought against Quin- quennial Lists, and also (as to hereditaments, which are or which ought to be included therein) against Supplemental Lists ; but there is no right of appeal against a Provisional List : vide supra, p. 23. By the Y. M. A. 1869, in certain cases (which are dis- tinguished below, p. 50), a right of appeal is given from the decision of the Assessment Committee to Special Sessions (see s. 19, infra, p. 362), and from Special Sessions to the General Assessment Sessions (now the County of London Quarter Sessions : vide infra, p. 43) ; and there is also a right of appeal, in all cases in which there is any right of appeal, direct to the London Quarter Sessions from the decision of the Assessment Committee : see V. M. A. 1869, APPEALS TO SPECIAL SESSIONS. 41 s. 32, infra, p. 366. In no case is it necessary, and in only a limited number of cases is it even optional, for an appellant to go first to the Special Sessions. Special Sessions.'] — The justices in every petty sessional division in the Metropolis, must hold a Special Sessions for hearing appeals at any time after November 30th in each year, which will enable them to determine all appeals before the ensuing January 1st : V. M. A. 1869, ss. 18 and 42 (10), infra, pp. 362, 370. Notice in writing of such appeals must have been given before November 21st (s. 42 (9)), stating the correction desired, to the persons specified in s. 33, infra, p. 366. As to the mode of serving notices, see Y. M. A. 1869, s. 65, infra, p. 380. Within seven days after giving notice of appeal, the recognizances required by 0. 1 (1890), infra, p. 392, must be entered into. Appeals may be brought by " any ratepayer, and any Overseers of a parish, so far as respects the Valuation List of such parish, and any Surveyor of Taxes, so far as respects the Valuation List of any parish in the petty sessional division, if he or they feel aggrieved by any decision of the Assessment Committee on an objection made with respect to the unfairness or incorrectness of the valuation of any hereditament included in such list, but not otherwise" : see V. M. A. 1869, s. 19, infra, p. 362. The consent of the vestry to an appeal by Overseers to Special Sessions seems unnecessary : compare s. 32, infra, p. 366. The making of an objection, as a condition precedent to the right of appeal, is considered below, p. 68. The Special Sessions cannot hear any appeal touching any matter with respect to which notice of appeal to Quarter Sessions has been served; nor can they hear any appeal touching any part, or alter any part, of the Valuation List except the part relating to the value of a hereditament ; and any alteration of the value of any hereditament wiU affect 42 DIGEST OF PEACTICE. only the rights of the ratepayers of the parish among them- selves, without altering the totals of the gross and rateable value of the parish ; the alteration of the totals being left to the Quarter Sessions : V. M. A. 1869, s. 20, infra, p. 363. How much the right of appeal to Special Sessions is restricted, is further considered infra, p. 50. The costs of an appeal to Special Sessions are in the dis- cretion of the justices, and may be awarded by them to be paid by such parties to the appeal, and in such proportions as they think just: V. M, A. 1869, s. 39, infra, p. 368. As to the payment of costs by an Assessment Committee, by Over- seers, or by a Surveyor of Taxes, see TJ. A. 0. A. 1864, s. 3, infra, p. 354 ; Y. M. A. 1869, ss. 48, 62, infra, pp. 376, 379 ; and see also, p. 64. A person who has appealed to the Special Sessions, and whose appeal has been heard, cannot afterwards come before the Quarter Sessions by way of appeal from the decision of the Assessment Committee, but must appeal from the deci- sion of the Special Sessions: Bellatny v. St. Olave^s Union, Met. Rating App. 401. And if the Special Sessions refuse to hear the appeal, it seems that the proper course is to apply to the Queen's Bench Division for a mandamus, directing them to hear the appeal, and not to appeal from such refusal to the Quarter Sessions ; for before there can be an appeal, there must be some decision from which to appeal: Hayes v. Holborn Union, infra, p. 199. But whether this rule applies when the refusal of the Special Sessions is well founded, quwre. The powers of the Special Sessions are set out in V. M. A. 1869, s. 21, infra, p. 363. Assessment Sessions and Quarter Sessi&)is.'] — The Court of General Assessment Sessions was created by V. M. A. 1869, B. 23, infra, p. 363, and, by s. 24, consisted of the Assistant Judge, and two justices for each of the counties of Middlesex, APPEALS TO QUARTEK SESSIONS, 43 Surrey and Kent, and for the City of London ; and the jurisdiction of the Court extended to the metropolis, as de- fined by V. M. A. 1869, s. 4, vide supra, p. 1. But no-w- hy the Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 42 (10), it is enacted as foUows : — " The quarter sessions for the county of London shall be substituted for the general assessment sessions under the Valuation (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 Q.uaxter Sessions of the city of London as may be appointed by that Court for the purpose, shaE be entitled to attend and sit as members of the quarter sessions for the county of London." The introduction of the last clause of this sub-section is brought about thus : — The Administrative County of London includes, and the county of London- excludes, the City of Lon- don : see Local Grovemment Act, 1888, s. 40 (1), (2) ; and the London Quarter Sessions consists of justices for the County of London. Therefore, inasmuch as the Assessment Sessions had jurisdiction over the City of London, the London Quarter Sessions -will, for the purpose of appeals under V. M. A. 1869, have jurisdiction over the City of London, but for no other purposes ; unless "the mayor, commonalty, and citizens assent to jurisdiction being conferred" -within the City, on the London Quarter Sessions : see Local Grovemment Act, 1888, s. 40 (3). The effect of the last clause of the sub-section above set out, is thus to make the constitution of the London Quarter Sessions -when hearing appeals relating to property within the City, similar to that of the Greneral Assessment Sessions under V. M. A. 1869. It seems clear that although the justices for the City of London are " entitled to attend, and sit " upon the hearing 44 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. of appeals in relation to property in the City of London, their attendance is not necessary in order to give the London Quarter Sessions jurisdiction over such appeals ; and this view appears to have been taken by the Court in British Equitable Assurance Co. v. City of London Union, infra, p. 229, when the practice to be adopted iu relation to such appeals was considered. By Y. M. A. 1869, s. 26, infra, p. 364, the Assessment Sessions, 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 all matters necessary for the execution of their duties, have the same jurisdiction and powers, and are to be in the same position as a Court of Quarter Sessions ; and, " subject to the express provisions of this Act, shall conduct their proceedings, be convened and be in the same position, as near as may be, as if they were a Court of Quarter Sessions." No difficulty is created by the transfer from the Assess- ment Sessions to the London Quarter Sessions in those cases where the enactments relating to the two courts are con- sistent; but it is not easy to determine the effect of that transfer where the enactments are inconsistent. It would, no doubt, be safer to assume that the London Quarter Ses- sions can exercise, with regard to appeals under V. M. A. 1869, that jurisdiction only, subject to the same conditions and restrictions, which was exercised by the Assessment Ses- sions. The introductory words of the Local G-ovemment Act, 1888, s. 42 (10), cited above, p. 43, must not, however, be forgotten ; and it may perhaps be thought that the effect of the section is to substitute the London Quarter Sessions as constituted by the Act of 1888, for the Assessment Sessions as constituted by the Act of 1869, in such a way that all provisions of the earlier Act which relate to the constitution of the Court deciding appeals thereunder, are repealed wher- ever they are inconsistent with the Act of 1888 : whereas APPEALS TO QUARTER SESSIONS. 45 all provisions relating to jurisdiction over those appeals re- main in force. Whether the suggested distinction between the constitution of the Court on the one hand, and its juris- diction on the other, can be sustained upon every possible question which may arise in practice remains to be seen. It is perhaps to be regretted that the summary procedure provided by the Local Government Act, 1888, s. 29, for determination of questions as to the transfer of powers, &c. under that Act to a County Council or joint committee, does not extend to questions as to transfer of powers to a Court of Quarter Sessions. It will be sufficient, perhaps, for the pur- poses of this chapter, to indicate, without attempting to answer, questions of difficulty which may arise. Chairman and Quorum of Court.'] — By Y. M. A. 1869, s. 26, infra, p. 364, the justices in Assessment Sessions may from time to time appoint one of their own number to act as their chairman, who shall have a second or casting vote. By the Local Government Act, 1888, ss. 100, 109, and 117 (5), the assistant judge of the Middlesex Sessions, who held office at the day appointed for the commencement of the Act, is made the first chairman of the Quarter Sessions of the County of London. Whether this, in effect, amounts to a repeal of the power given to the Assessment Sessions to appoint their own chairman is not clear. At the Assessment Sessions the assistant judge did not always act as chairman. WTiether the chairman, acting as chairman ex officio, by virtue of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1888, has the power of giving a casting vote, conferred on a chairman elected under Y. M. A. 1869, may be doubted. It seems clear that, apart from any statutory provision, a chairman of Quarter Sessions has no casting vote : see R. v. Fladbury, 10 Ad. & B. 706 ; R. v. Leicestershire J J., 1 M. & S. 442. And by the Local Government Act, 1888, s. 40 (2), " subject to the 46 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. provisions of this Act, all enactments, laws and usages with respect to . . . Quarter Sessions shall, so far as circumstances admit, apply to the County of London." By Y. M. A. 1869, s. 26, infra, p. 364, the justices in Assessment Sessions may from time to time determine on their quorum, so that it be not less than three. On one occasion {vide infra, p. 130) the Assessment Sessions refused to hear an appeal, even by consent of the parties, when only two justices were present. It seems that Quarter Sessions may be held before two justices : pide per Abbott, 0. J., R. V. Justices of Carmarthen, 4 B. & Aid. at p. 293. Whether the substitution of the London Quarter Sessions for the Assessment Sessions has the effect of repealing the enactment as to the quorum of the Court in V. M. A. 1869, s. 26, may be doubted. A similar difficulty is created by the Local Grovern- ment Act, 1888, s. 42 (5), which enables the London Quarter Sessions to be held before a paid chairman or deputy chair- man alone ; but it seems that this enactment wiR not come into force during the time that the " existing assistant judge" holds office: compare s. 42 (1) with.s. 117 (5) of the Act of 1888. It may be suggested that all difficulties as to the number of justices required to form a quorum, as to the power of the chairman to give a easting vote, or to sit alone, are questions not of jurisdiction, but of the constitution of the Court ; for on these points the question is, " who may decide " ? rather than "what may be decided"? If, therefore, the distinc- tion suggested above can be sustained, it seems to follow that the provisions of Y. M. A. 1869, will (upon these points) be superseded by those of the Local Government Act, 1888. Time and Place for holding Sessions.] — By Y. M. A. 1869 s. 26, infra, p. 364, the Assessment Sessions " may adjourn from time to time, as may be necessary for the performance APPEALS TO QUARTER SESSIONS. 47 of their duties under this Act, and (for the purpose of giving judgment only) from place to place in the metropolis." As to time : hj V. M. A. 1869, s. 42 (13), infra, p. 371, the justices may hold the Assessment Sessions at any time after the 1st February which will enable them to determine all appeals (except where a Yaluation List or valuation is ordered) before the ensuing 31st March. It seems clear that the legislature intended that appeals should be heard by the London Quarter Sessions within the same limits of time, but note that the times prescribed by s. 42 are directory, and not imperative : see JR. v. Ingall, Met. Rating App. 177 ; 2 Q.. B. D. 199 ; cited above, at p. 6. As to place : by V. M. A. 1869, 8. 29, infra, p. 365, the Assessment Sessions shall from time to time appoiat the place in the metropolis where the appeals relating to each parish in the metropolis are to be heard, and may, if they think fit, divide the metropolis into districts, and appoint one or more places for every such district. This power, it is believed, was never exercised. The London Quarter Sessions, iu 1890, heard an appeal, relating to property in the City of London, at the Guildhall : vide infra, p. 229. Whether the London Quarter Sessions could adjourn the hearing of an appeal from place to place (otherwise than for the purpose of giving judgment), in the face of Y. M. A. 1869, s. 26, may be doubted. By the Local Government Act, 1888,8.42(7), "the London County Council may from time to time submit to a Secretary of State a scheme for regulating the holding of Courts of Quarter Sessions in London, either in one place or at different places, and in the latter case either at the same time or at different times . . . and such scheme, when approved by a Secretary of State, shall be published in the 'London Gazette,' and thereupon shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act " ib). ^ (b) At tte time of going to press a scheme made under this section was under the consideration of the London County Council. 48 DIGEST OF PRACTICE, By s. 116 (a) of the same Act, until tlie making of sucli a Beheme, " Courts of Quarter Sessions for appeals and other business shall be held at the places in London at which sessions are usually held at present, or at such of the said places as the County Council may from time to time appoint ; and Courts of Quarter Sessions for the said purposes shall be respectively held at the same times, as nearly as may be, at each such place as heretofore." And see further, s. 116 (d) of the Local Grovemment Act, 1888, as to proceedings pending when that Act came into operation. Who may Appeal, and on lohat Grounds.] — The right of appeal is specified in Y. M. A. 1869, s. 32, which is as follows : — " Any ratepayer and any surveyor of taxes, and any Overseer, with the consent of the vestry of his parish, who may feel aggrieved by any decision of the Assessment Committee on an objection made before them to which he was a party, or by any decision of Special Sessions, whether he teas a party or not, may appeal against such decision to the Assessment Sessions. " Any Assessment Committee in the metropolis, or in the county in which the parish to which the appeal relates is situate, any Overseers in the metropolis or such county, with the consent of the vestry of their parish, any ratepayer in the metropolis or such county, and any body of persons authorised by law to levy rates or to require contributions payable out of rates in the metropolis or such county, may appeal to the Assessment Sessions, if they or he feel aggrieved by reason — " (1) Of the total of the gross value of any parish being too high or too Imo; " (2) Of the total of tlie rateable value of any parish being too high or too low ; m' " (3) Of there being no approved Valuation lAst for some parish." APPEALS TO QUARTER SESSIONS. 49 Who is a Ratepayer.]— Qj V. M. A. 1869, s. 4, infra, p. 358, the term " ratepayer " means every person who is liable to any rate or tax in respect of property entered in any Valuation List. An appeal may, therefore, be brought by an owner or lessee who pays, or is liable to pay, rates : see 47 & 48 Vict. c. 5, s. 2, infra, p. 391 ; and see also s. 13 of the Poor Eate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, giving the " owner " the same right of appeal as the occupier : and note that by s. 20 of that Act " the word owner shall mean any person receiving or claiming the rent of the hereditament for his own use, or receiving the same for the use of any corpora- tion aggregate, or of any public company, or of any landlord or lessee who shall be a minor, a married woman, or insane, or for the use of any person for whom he is acting as agent. By 47 & 48 Viet. c. 5, s. 8, infra, p. 392, one appeal may be brought in respect of several hereditaments of which the ap- pellant is or is deemed to be the occupier or ratepayer. For an instance of such an appeal, see p. 167. County.'] — Before the year 1888, the metropolitan parishes (other than those in the City of London) formed parts of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent respectively. But now, by the Local Grovemment Act, 1888, s. 40 (1), "the metropolis shall .... be an administrative county for the purposes of this Act, by the name of the administrative county of London : " and by e. 40 (2), " such portion of the adminis- trative county of London as forms part of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent [i.e., the metropolis, outside the City of London], shall ... be severed from those counties, and form a separate county for all non-administrative pur- poses by the name of the county of London." And by s. 95 (2), "where any enactment, &c., refers to the county of Middlesex, Surrey, or Kent, such enactment, &c., shall be construed to apply to the same area to which it would have R. ^ 50 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. applied if this Act had. not passed, except where such appli- cation is inconsistent with this Act, or where the object of such enactment, &c., requires that it shall be construed to apply to the county of London." It is difficult to determine whether the effect of these sections is to alter the right of appeal given by Y. M. A. 1869, s. 32, to any Assessment Committee or Overseers " in. the county in which the parish to which the appeal relates is situate." It may be noticed that by Y. M. A. 1869, s. 45, infra, p. 372, the Yaluation List has effect for the purposes of {inter alia) the metropolitan police rate, which is levied , over an area larger than the metropolis : so that the parishes outside the metropolis, but within the m.etropolitan police district, would have an interest in the Yaluation List for parishes within the metropolis. Appeal against Totals.] — The right of appeal given by Y. M. A. 1869, s. 32, is extended by 38 & 39 Yict. c. 33 ; vide infra, p. 389. Appeals- to Quarter Sessions and to Special Sessions com- pared.'] — The right of appeal to the London Quarter Sessions (substituted for Assessment Sessions, as stated above, p. 43), is far wider than the right of appeal to Special Sessions, given by Y. M. A. 1869, ss. 19 and 20, infra, p. 362. In the first place, an appeal lies from the Special Sessions to the Quarter Sessions: next, notice of an appeal direct to the Quarter Sessions prevents the hearing by the Special Sessions of an appeal touching the same matter : see s. 20. A ratepayer, an Overseer, or a Surveyor of Taxes may appeal to the Quarter Sessions from any decision of the Assessment Committee on an objection made before them to which he was a party (see s. 32) : but to the Special Sessions only from a decision " on an objection made with respect to the unfairness or incorrectness of the valuation of a hereditament." APPEALS TO QUARTER SESSIONS. 51 Special Sessions, therefore, cannot hear appeals which raise such questions as the following: — Whether some heredita- ment has been omitted from or wrongly inserted in the valuation list : Whether the owner or occupier is rateable : Whether the true occupier has been rated. Further, the appeals of Overseers to Special Sessions under s. 19 are limited to those which relate to the "Valuation List of their own parish ; but appeals to the Quarter Sessions under s. 32 have no such limitation. (It must be noticed, however, that the consent of the vestry is necessary to an appeal by Overseers to Quarter Sessions under s. 32 ; whereas no such consent (as it seems) is necessary in the case of appeals under s. 19). Lastly, by the latter part of s. 32, the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions is given to various persons, and bodies of persons, who have no locus standi at Special Sessions : and the totals iu the Valuation List, which may be the subject of appeals to Quarter Sessions under s. 82, cannot be, even in- directly, affected by or altered in consequence of the decisions of Special Sessions with regard to the separate items which make up those totals : see s. 20. Orders as to Proceedings and Recognizances.] — By Y. M. A. 1869, s. 27, infra, p. 365, the Assessment Sessions might, with the approval of a Secretary of State, make orders from time to time for the purpose of regulating the proceedings on appeals to them, and for determining the recognizances (if any) to be entered into by appellants in the case of appeals either to Special Sessions or to the Assessment Sessions. The Orders now in force were made by the London Quarter Sessions {vide infra, p. 392), and the regulations contained in them are embodied in this chapter. These Orders consolidate (with some amendments) the Orders made by the Assessment Sessions : where any alteration is of importance, attention is drawn to it. e2 62 Digest of peactice. Whether the Orders are ultra vires.'] — If any question should ever arise as to the validity of the Orders made by the London Quarter Sessions, the authorities here cited may he useful as illustrations, and as illustrations only, of the principle to be discovered. By the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 78, power was given to make rules " for the effectual execution of the Act, and of the objects thereof, and the regulation of the practice and proce- dure of petitions," &c., and any rules so made were to be "deemed to be within the powers conferred by the Act," and to be "of the same force as if they were enacted in the body of the Act." Notwithstanding this clause, it was held that if a rule were made, inconsistent with the enactment of the statute itself, it must be regarded as ultra vires {Reed v. Harvey, 5 Q,. B. D. 184 : et vide per Jessel, M. E. ; Ex parte Ladbury, 17 Ch. D. at p. 534 : and Ex parte Willey, In re Wright, 23 Ch. D. at p. 126. So, too, by the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 127, the Lord Chancellor has power to make rules " for carrying into effect the objects of the Act;" and such rules, after being laid before Parliament, are to " have effect as if enacted by the Act." And by s. 104 (2) (d) of the same Act, " No appeal shall be entertained except in conformity with general rules" in force at the time. The Court of Appeal {Ex parte Foreman, 18 Q. B. D. 393) held that r. Ill (2), which provides (in effect) that no appeal shall be brought where the amount involved does not exceed 50/., except by leave of the Court (thereby taking away an absolute right of appeal), was within the powers given by s. 104 (2) (d) ; per Bowen, L. J., "that sub-section goes beyond the ordinary power to make rules regulating the exercise of a right given by the Act, and clothes the Lord Chancellor with an authority to touch the right of appeal itself " (18 Q.B. D. at p. 401). And, per Fry, L. J., " It was perfectly vdthin the power of the framers of the rules, if they had been acting merely under s. 127 to make a rule regulating APPEALS TO QUARTEE SESSIONS. 53 the time within which an appeal must be presented. I think, however, that s. 104 (2) (d) is not limited to that, hut that it enables the Lord Chancellor to place a fetter on the right of appeal itself " (18 Q. B. D. at p. 402). Eules which are contained in a schedule to an Act of Par- liament form part of that Act, and have all the force of a statutory enactment {per Brett, L. J., Longman v. East, 3 C. P. D. at p. 156), and may even repeal a previous statute if it be inconsistent with such rules : Garnett v. Bradley (3 App. Cas. 944)'. But there is a distinction between rules which are merely judicial and framed under the authority of a statute, and rules which form part of a statute. (See note by "Watkin Williams, J., 13 Q. B. D. at p. 612 ; et vide per Brett, M. E., 29 Ch. D. at p. 87. See also In re Mills' Estate, 34 Ch. D. 24.) The rules made under Y. M. A. 1869, s. 27, belong to the former class, and, therefore, if they do more than " regulate proceedings " and " determine recognizances" as prescribed by that section, they are to that extent ultra vires, and void. No doubt it is not always easy to draw the line between the regulation of proceedings and the touching of the right of appeal. It is suggested, however, that an Order for regu- lating proceedings, which imposed a fetter on the rights of one appellant that it might give greater freedom to the many, would be held valid. (See also infra, p. 65.) It seems that the power to make Orders given by V. M. A. 1869, s. 27, infra, p. 365, must be greater than that which every Court of Quarter Sessions possesses of regulating its own practice (see B. v. Pawlett, L. E. 8 Q.. B. 491) ; for if this were not so, the section (or part of it) would be mere surplusage. It must, however, be noticed that the words used are not so wide as those above referred to in s. 104 (2) (d) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 ; and, therefore, it is not safe to assume that the Orders of the Quarter Sessiops can " touch 54 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. the right of appeal itself." For an instance in which it was held by the Queen's Bench Division that a power to make " rules and regulations concerning practice and costs " had heen not used, hut abused, see B. v. Mayor, ^e. of Liverpool, 18 Q. B. D. 510. Notice of Appeal.'] — Notice in writing, specifying the cor- rection desired, must be served on or before January 14th next after the list is finally approved — (1) On the clerk of the Assessment Committee which ap- proved the hst, and (unless the appeal relates only to the rateable value of any hereditament) on the Surveyor of Taxes of the district. (2) Where the appeal relates to the unfairness or incor- rectness of the valuation of, or the omission of, or the incor- rectness of, any matter stated in respect to a hereditament occupied by any person other than the appellant, then on such person. (3) If an Assessment Committee or a Surveyor of Taxes is the appellant, then also on the Overseers of the Parish to which the appeal relates. (See V. M. A. 1869, ss. 33 and 42 (12), infra, pp. 366, 371. As to the mode of serving notices, see V. M. A. 1869, s. 65, infra, p. 380.) It seems that where the owner pays, or is liable to pay, rates, he and not the occupier is entitled to notice, under 47 & 48 Yiot. c. 5, s. 2, infra, p. 391. And under s. 3 of the same Act, in an appeal by an owner the notice of appeal may include several hereditaments. It seems, however, that that section fails to provide for the case of an appeal against the assessment of several hereditaments by a person other than the owner, on the ground that they are underrated. It may be doubted, however, whether, apart from this section, one appeal might not be brought against the rating of several hereditaments: see R. v. White (4 T. E. 771) ; B. v. Jmtices APPEALS TO QUAKTEE SESSIONS. 55 of Sussex (15 Bast, 206) ; and note that the decision in the last-mentioned case was suhsequent to the passing of 41 Greo. 3, c. 23, which, by s. 1, authorized the Quarter Sessions to amend a rate as to persons other than the appellant. The Act contains no provision for notice to be given to the Overseers of a parish in an appeal against totals by the Overseers of another parish. The Quarter Sessions have, however, power to order notice of appeal to be given under Y. M. A. 1869, s. 34, infra, p. 367. An instance of such an appeal may be found, Met. Eating App. at p. 283. Notice of appeal signed by the appellant's solicitor is suffi- cient: see R. V. Kent, J J., L. E. 8 Q. B. 305,- and 41 Greo. 3, 0. 23, s. 4. "Whether, in the case of appeals by a company, the signature of a secretary is (apart from any statutory provision) sufficient, may be doubted. Entry of the Appeal.'] — Appeals are entered by petition, lodged in duplicate with the clerk of the Court on or before the 14th January next following the final approval of the list by the Assessment Committee : see 0. 5 (1890), iifra, p. 393. By the same day, notice of appeal must be given : vide supra, p. 54. It may be doubted, whether 0. 5 (1890) will not be held ultra vires, if the question is ever raised by an application to the Queen's Bench Division for a mandamus or otherwise. (The question of the validity of the Orders generally is con- sidered above, p. 52.) In B. v. Fau!lett(L. E. 8 Q. B. 491), it was held that though a Court of Quarter Sessions has power to regulate its own practice, yet the rules laid down must not be unreasonable, nor may they impose an additional condition to the appeal which the statute has not imposed ; and a rule that appeals must be entered three clear days before the first day of sessions was held bad. At first sight this case would seem a strong authority 56 DIGEST OF PRACTICE, against the validity of 0. 5 (1890), which requires an appeal to be entered eighteen clear days hefore the first day when the London Quarter Sessions can sit to hear that appeal: see V. M. A. 1869, s. 42 (13), infra, p. 371. The following reasons for holding the Order valid are, however, it is sub- mitted, not without weight. The Orders of the London Quarter Sessions are made under statutory powers, which powers are (it seems) greater than (apart from the statute) the Court possesses. Moreover, the entry of an appeal is one of the " proceedings on appeals " which by the express terms of Y. M. A. 1869, s. 27, the Court have power to regulate. Again, in the case of appeals under V. M. A. 1869, the Court cannot enter and adjourn the hearing of an appeal indefinitely, but are directed to hold their ses- sions between the 1st February and the 31st March : see ss. 34 and 42 (13) ; infra, pp. 367, 371. In order to do this, it may be necessary to make arrangements, not merely for the attendance of justices, but for the use of buildings ; and the control of such buildings, under the Local G-ovem- ment Act, 1888, ss. 3 (iv) and 30 (3), by the Standing Joint Committee, and not by the Quarter Sessions alone, does not render these arrangements more simple now than formerly. Further, assuming that the proceedings have been regular, the list appealed against must have been deposited before November 1st. The appellant will therefore have ample time, before January 14th, to determine whether to appeal or not ; and, moreover, the date fixed for the entry of the appeal under 0. 5 (1890), is that fixed by the statute itself for giving notice of appeal : see V. M. A. 1869, s. 42 (12), infra, p. 371. Whether it be true or not, that in giving the Quarter Sessions power to " regulate proceedings," power has been given to impose a condition in addition to those required by the statute, in considering whether 0. 5 (1890) is reasonable as a rule of practice, the conditions under which APPEALS TO QUARTEE SESSIONS. 57 and the times within which the statute allows appeals to be brought must not be forgotten. Recognizances and Security for Costs.] — Except in the case of appeals by an Assessment Committee, by Overseers, or by a Surveyor of Taxes, the appellant must, within seven days after giving notice of appeal (a), enter into recognizances (with two sureties), or make a deposit in the London and Westminster Bank by way of security for costs ; the mini- mum amoTint in either case being 60/. : see 0. 2 and 4 (1890), infra, p. 393. The Orders do not expressly give the appellant the option of entering into recognizances or making a deposit ; in fact, the terms of 0. 3 (1890), infra, p. 393, seem to imply, that unless some " reasonable cause " to the contrary be shown, recognizances ought to be entered into. By the same Order, however, the Court have power to hear an appeal without recognizances, or to adjourn the hearing until they have been entered into or security be given. Whether recognizances constitute a condition precedent to the hearing of an appeal may be doubted : uide infra, p. 68. It is believed that since the passing of V. M. A. 1869, the Court have never refused to hear an appeal on the ground that recognizances have not been entered into. Notices to he given by Respondents. ]-^A\l persons claiming to appear as respondents must give notice in writing of their intention so to appear, within fourteen days after January 14th, to the clerk of the Court and the appellant. The notice must state whether they intend to appear alone or as joint respondents with any other persons. See 0. 6 (1890), infi-a, p. 393. The interpretation given to the expression " person (a) Note that the seven days' run not from the last day for giving notice, hut from the day when notice is actually given. 58 DIGEST or PEACTICE, or persons" in that Order must be noticed, and will be under- stood by reference to Y. M. A. 1869, s. 32, infra, p. 366 ; and Y. M. A. A. 1884, s. 2, infra, p. 391. Cases stated by Appellants and Respondents.'] — On or before February 1st the appellant must state bis case and the facts to be proved, and the points of law (if any) to be argued in support of the case, and must deliver to the clerk of the Court fifteen copies thereof, and must serve one copy on each re- spondent; each respondent must also state bis case in like manner, and deliver fifteen copies to the clerk of the Court and one to the appellant: 0. 7' (1890), infra, p. 394; and see as to the form, paper, &c., of the cases, 0. 12 (1890). No cases, however, need be stated where the total rateable value appealed against does not exceed 300^. : 0. 7 (1890), infra, p. 394. These cases take the place of the pleadings in an action, or are "by way of giving particulars." ( Vide per A. L. Smith, J., infra, p. 93.) It must be noticed, however, that the respon- dent may have to state his case without seeiug the appellant's case. It was the practice before the Assessment Sessions to allow considerable freedom of amendment. In one case, however (decided in 1871), the respondents were not allowed to rely on a point not taken in their ease : see Met. Eating App. 62. In many cases, however, where the appellant has asked at the hearing for a larger reduction than that claimed in his case, the Court, whether by accident or design, and without expressly deciding the point, have allowed only the deduction claimed in the case : see, for iastance, infra, p. 121 ; and compare Hills v. Oreenmch Union, Met. Eating App. 293. What should be stated in the case was considered by the Court : infra, pp. 82, 104 ; and compare also p. 139. Time for holding Sessions.] — The justices must hold their sessions at any time after February 1st, which will enable APPEALS TO QUARTER SESSIONS. 59 them to determine all appeals before the enBuing Slst March: V. M. A. 1869, s. 42 (13), infra, p. 371. But for the pur- pose of ohtaining the decision of any superior Court, they may adjourn to any day necessary for that purpose : see s. 34, infra, p. 367. And where they appoint a person to make a Valuation List (for a parish), or a valuation of any hereditament, under ss. 35, 36, infra, p. 368, they may fix some subsequent day, either before or after March 31st, for receiving such Yaluation List or valuation, and may adjourn the hearing to that day : see s. 37, infra, p. 368. An instance of the hearing of an appeal four years after it had been entered will be found below, p. 210. It must be noticed that notwithstand- ing such adjournments, the Valuation List, as approved by the Assessment Committee, comes into force on April 6th next following such approval, subject to the conditions as to repayment, &c., imposed by V. M. A. 1869, s. 44 : see pp. 20, 371. It seems that the provisions of V. M. A. 1869, as to time for holding the sessions, are directory and not imperative : see R. V. Ingall, Met. Eat. App. 177 ; 2 Q. B. D. 199, cited above, p. 6. It is not clear what ought to be or could be done, in the event of a decision by Quarter Sessions long after the presciibed time, if (for instance) the Overseers of a parish had taken no part in an appeal, and disputed the jurisdiction of the sessions. Appearance by an Assessment Committee^] — Power was first given to an Assessment Committee to appear as respondents to an appeal by U. A. C. A. 1864, s. 2, infra, p. 354, which enables the Committee, " with the consent of the guardians, after notice shall have been sent to every guardian, to appear as respondents to such appeal [i.e., an appeal either to Special or Quarter Sessions], but in the name of the guardians," &c. And by V. M. A. 1869, s. 62, infra, p. 379, an Assessment 60 DIGEST OF PRA.CTICE. Committee " may giye security [for the costs of a valuation], and may appear on any appeal by their clerk." The meaning of this section is not clear, and considerable difficulty was felt in dealing with it, ia the arguments as to the recovery of costs against an Assessment Committee in Fulham Union v. St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, at p. 93, infra. Three possible meanings of the latter part of the sentence quoted were sug- gested : — (1) that the proceedings on appeals may be in the name of the clerk (a) : or (2) that the clerk shall have the right of audience at Special or Quarter Sessions : or (3) that the clerk, though not a solicitor, may act as such on behalf of the Assessment Committee. In the case referred to, it was stated, in general terms, that the Assessment Committee had appeared " by their clerk," but no explanation was given of the sense ia which the words were used. It may be noticed that in Y. M. A. 1869, s. 62, infra, p. 379, the same sentence which provides that the Assessment Committee may appear by their clerk, enacts that they shall indemnify him against costs, &c. : and the connection of the two clauses may be thought to show that the object of the section was to authorize proceedings in the name of the clerk, so as to render bim personally liable for costs, &c. It has not been the practice for appeals to be entered, in the published lists issued by the authority of the Court of Assessment Sessions or Quarter Sessions, in the name of the clerk of an Assessment Committee ; nor has it been the practice so to entitle the cases stated by appellants and respondents (b). It certainly has not been the practice for clerks of Assessment Committees to be heard in open Court at those sessions: and by 0. 10 (1890), infra, p. 394, (o) If this construction be correct, the provision is similar to the Tarions enactments enabling companies, &o., to sue and he sued in the name of a puhUc officer : see for instance, 7 Geo. 4, e. 46, s. 9. (4) The writer is, of course, stating merely his own experience. APPEALS TO QUARTER SESSIONS. 61 even on consent motions, such clerks cannot he heard : compare also p. 100, infra. (Whether, ii the statute has given a right of audience, the Orders of the Court can take it away, may, how- ever, be douhted: vide supra, p. 52.) It is submitted that inasmuch as an Assessment Committee had already, under U. A. C. A. 1864, s. 2, infra, p. 354, the right to appear in the name of the guardians, the provision in Y. M. A. 1869, s. 62, infra, p. 379, that they may appear by their clerk, does not mean that if they appear as respondents, they must appear by their clerk : in other words, the Act of 1869 gives an alternative method of procedure, and does not repeal the former enactment : compare Brockbank v. Whitehaven Junction Eailway Co., 7 H. & N. 834 ; 31 L. J., Ex. 349, with Chapman V. Milvain, 5 Ex. 61. It is submitted that the earlier part of the sentence above cited from Y. M. A. 1869, s. 62, means that an Assessment Committee may give security " by their clerk," and may also appear by him. Unless this construction be adopted, it seems difficult to understand the need of the indemnity to be given to the clerk " against all moneys, losses, and costs paid or in- curred by him in consequence of such security or appearance." Apart, however, from the power to appear " by their clerk " (whatever may be the effect of the words) , it seems clear that an Assessment Committee may appear " in the name of the guardians," but not in their own names, under IT. A. C. A. 1864, s. 2, infra, p. 354. No doubt it has been a very common, if not a universal, practice for an Assessment Committee so to appear at the Assessment Sessions and the London Quarter Sessions, as well as at other sessions throughout the country. But no practice, however convenient, can repeal an Act of Parliament ; and that the practice may involve considerable difficulties as to the recovery of costs may be seen by reference, to Fulham Union v. St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, infra, p. 86 ; and Leicester Waterworks Co. v. Nuttall, 4 Q-. B. D. 18. 62 DIGEST OF PEACTICE. Practice at the Searing.] — The practice of hearing counsel only was (it is believed) never departed from at the Assess- ment Sessions, and this practice has been acted upon at the London Quarter Sessions, and is (impliedly) adopted by 0. 10 (1890), infra, p. 894, which ,provides that " consents shall be signified by counsel in open Court." One counsel only for each party to an appeal can be heard, unless by special leave of the Court: see 0. 13 (1890), infra, p. 395, which adopts the practice of the Assessment Sessions : see Met. Eating App. 251, 457. Counsel for the appellant begins, except when a Surveyor of Taxes is the appellant, in which case the counsel for the respondent begins : see 0. 14 (18^0), infra, p. 395 ; and compare V. M. A. 1869, s. 53, infra, p. 377, which throws the burden of proof upon the respondent in an appeal by a Surveyor of Taxes. The clerk of the Assessment Committee or his deputy must attend the Court with the Yaluation List to which the appeal relates, and any alteration therein must be made by the justice acting as chairman of the sessions, who must place his initials against such alteration : V. M. A. 1869, s. 34, infra, p. 367. This provision should not be forgotten in the case of appeals which are settled by consent ; for without such an alteration it seems that an order made on appeal might be of no effect : compare Y. M. A. 1869, ss. 43, 45, infra, pp. 371, 372, and the declaration in Sched. 4, infra, p. 386, which is to be added to the rate. No order can be made affecting the gross value of a here- ditament until proof has been given, orally or by affidavit, that notice of appeal has been served upon the Surveyor of Taxes : 0. 11 (1890). It is suggested that the more conve- venient practice would be to require such notice to be proved before the hearing of an appeal. It has not hitherto been the practice, in appeals under Y. M. A. 1869, to eaU upon the appellant to prove service of APPEALS TO QUARTER SESSIONS. 63 notice upon the Assessment Committee before proceeding with the hearing. Costs.] — The costs of an appeal are in the discretion of the Court, and may be awarded to be paid by such parties to the appeal and in such proportions as the Court think just : V. M. A. 1869, s. 39, infra, p. 368. The discretion thus given enables the Court (as it seems) to direct a successful appellant to pay the respondents' costs ; but it seems doubtful whether an order could be made that the respondents should pay the costs of an appellant who wholly failed : compare Dicks v. Yates (18 Ch. D. 76) (de- cided on the rules under the Judicature Act, 1875), with Foster v. Great Western Bail. Co. (8 Q. B. D. 515) (decided on the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, s. 28) ; but see also the remarks on that case in Butcher y. Fooler (24 Ch. D. 273). It may seem, at first sight, that in Mills v. St. Olave's Union {infra, p. 84), the Assessment Sessions did give costs to an appellant who had " wholly failed " ; but if that deci- sion is compared with the cases above cited, it will be seen that the facts and the reasons acted upon are very different. In Dicks v. Tales (18 Ch. D. at p. 85), James, L. J., in pointing out the "essential difference" between a plaintiff and a defendant, said, " The defendant is dragged into Court, and cannot be made liable to pay the whole costs of the action if the plaintiff had no title to bring him there." But in Mills V. St. Olave's Union {infra, p. 84), the order was made against the respondents, because (in the opinion of the Assessment Sessions) their wrongful conduct had driven the appellant into Court. So, too, in Foster v. G. W. Bail. Co. (8 Q. B. D. 515), the railway company were in a position analogous to that of a defendant in an action, or a respondent to an appeal, and it was held that the Railway Commissioners (although costs were in their discretion) had no jurisdiction 6i DIGEST OP PRACTICE. to give costs against tlie eompany who were successful on every issue "on account of some negledti before the litigation began " : vide per Brett, L. J. (8 Q. B, D. at p. 519). (The decision as to costs must, of course, depend on the facts of each particular case, hut an attempt is made in the Index to show on what principles the Court has hitherto acted.) By U. A. C. A. 1864, s. 3, infra, p. 355, costs incurred hy an Assessment Committee in consequence of hecoming re- spondents to an appeal, or of having received notice thereof, as well as any costs ordered to be paid to the appellants, are to he paid hy the guardians, and charged to the common fund of the union, unless the Court directs that such costs, or any part thereof, shall be charged to the parish the rate of which is appealed against. It seems clear that this section alone would not provide for costs incurred by an Assessment Committee as appellants ; as to which see V. M. A. 1869, s. 48, infra, p. 376, which section deals also with the costs of Overseers and Surveyors of Taxes ; and see also U. A. C. A. 1862, s. 38, infra, p. 351. By Y. M. A. 1869, s. 62, infra, p. 379, an Assessment Committee may give security for the costs of a valuation ordered on an appeal. (The effect of the latter part of this section is considered above, at p. 59.) There is nothing to show how such security is to be given by an Assessment Committee, nor how any indemnity to their clerk can be given by them. The Assessment Committee have no funds, nor any authority to make a rate to raise funds. Recovery o/ Cosfe.J— By Y. M. A. 1869, s. 39, w/^, p. 368, costs ordered by Assessment Sessions to be paid may be recovered as i£ they had been awarded by a Court of Quarter Sessions. The substitution of the London Quarter Sessions for the Assessment Sessions, under the Local Government Act, 1888, s. 42 (10) {vide supra, p. 43), has therefore made APPEALS TO QUARTER SESSIONS. 65 no change in tliis respect. Costs awarded by Quarter Sessions may be recovered under 11 & 12. Yict. c. 43, s. 27, as applied by 12 & 13 Yict. c. 45j;s. 5 ; and see also 12 & 13 Yict. o. 45, s. 18. Wliere costs are ordered to be paid by Overseers or guardians (inasmuch as •" distress and imprisonment under 11 & 12 Yict. c. 43, s. 27, seem- hardly appropriate), the proper course seems to be to proceed under 12 & 13 Yict. c. 45, s. 18 ; and after removing the order of the Sessions into the Queen's Bench Division (on an ex parte appKcation in Chambers), to apply for a mandamus directing such Overseers, &c., to pay the sum named in the order, and if necessary to make a rate for the purpose. The following cases may be referred to : Chambres v. Jones, 19 L. J., Ex. 239 ; 5 Ex. 229 ; Ex parte The Overseers of FMton, 2 E. & E. 712 ; R. v. Hellier, 17 Q. B. 229 ; R. v. Huntley, 3 E. & B. 172 ; see also 11 & 12 Yict. c. 91, ss. 1, 2 ; and 22 & 23 Yict. c. 49, ss. 1, 4. Where the proceedings on an appeal have been in the name of an Assessment Committee, it is diflBcult to say what is the proper course for the recovery of costs against them. The question was considered, but no decision was given, in Fulham Union v. St. Mary Abbotts, infra, p. 93, where the authorities cited will be found. An action will not lie against an Assessment Committee to recover the costs of an appeal : Leicester Waterworks Co. v. Nuttall, 4 Q. B. D. 18. Order for a Valuation List, Sfc.} — ^If it appear to the Court on an appeal that there is no approved Yaluation List for some parish, they may appoint some proper person to make such a list, which is to be deposited, &c. in such manner as the Court may direct, following as near as may be the provi- sions as to the original list. The costs of making such a list are to be borne by the Assessment Committee who failed to approve the list : see Y. M. A. 1869, s. 35, infra, p. 367 ; et vide supra, p. 11. The Act apparently allows the right of E. J? 66 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. objection before an Assessment Committee and of appeal to Quarter Sessions against such a list. There is no time, limited by the Act, within which such appeals must be brought : see ss. 37 and 42 (13), infra, pp. 368, 371. By y. M. A. 1869, s. 36, infra, p. 368, if any of the parties to an appeal apply to the Court to direct a valuation of any here- ditament with respect to which any appeal may be made, and give security for the costs of such valuation, , the Court may " ill their discretion " appoint some proper person to make such valuation. It was at one time the practice at the Assessment Sessions to make an order for a valuation only on the appli- cation of both parties to the appeal, but this practice was subsequently departed from : mde infra, pp. 155, 162. The Court have a discretion, but it is believed that the order has never been refused on the application of both parties. By V. M. A. 1869, s. 38, infra, p. 368, the person appointed must make his valuation in writing, signed by him, showing the particulars of the hereditaments comprised therein and the amounts at which he has valued the same respectively. The section is taken almost verbatim, from the U. A. 0. A. 1864, s. 4, infra, p. 354, on which it has been held that the valuation required is not a field-valuation but one giving the collective value of the hereditaments of each occupier: Rawhnce V. Guardians of Hursley Union, 3 Ex. D. 44. Reference to Arbitration.'] — It was at one time supposed that the Assessment Sessions had power to order a reference, and such an order was frequently made ; but in, and sub- sequent to, the year 1881 the Court acted upon the view that they had no jurisdiction to make such an order (see, for instance, Met. Eating App. pp. 257, 268, 348), and the omission from the Orders of 1890, infra, p. 392, of 0. 8 (1870) (see Met. Eating App. p. 457), which assumed that the Court had power to refer a matter to arbitration, seems to be a further confirmation of this view. Instead of an arbitrator APPEALS TO QUARTER SESSIONS. 67 a valuer was appointed under V. M. A. 1869, s. 36, who reported to the Court. In practice, however, the parties have frequently, if not invariably, appeared before the valuer as if he were an arbitrator. The parties could, of course, agree to abide by the decision of the valuer, and by consent could give him power to deal with the costs. In form, on the report being made, the Court made an order adopting the report, and then disposed of the question of costs : see, for instance, pp. 179, 268, infra. Apparently (apart from any question as to consent by the parties) the Court might refuse to adopt the report of the valuer, inasmuch as that report is, in form, merely evidence for^the guidance of the Court. There is, however, a further question, viz., whether, assum- ing that the Assessment Sessions had not the power to order a reference, the powers of the London Quarter Sessions do not include that power. It is submitted that they do not, for the following reasons: — There is no express enactment in V. M. A. 1869, giving the Assessment Sessions the jurisdic- tion in question ; but s. 26, infra, p. 364, enacts that those sessions, with respect to certain specified matters (not necessary to be noted), and " to all matters necessary for the execution of their duties under this Act, shall have the same jurisdiction and powers and be in the same position as a Court of Quarter Sessions." The Assessment Session seems to have acted on the view that a reference to arbitration was not " necessary for the execution of their duties " imder the Act of 1869. Moreover, the second clause of V. M. A. 1869, s. 40, infra, p. 368, which is taken almost verbatim from 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45, s. 11, becomes mere surplusage and whoUy unnecessary if the Assessment Sessions have all the powers of Quarter Sessions. It seems, therefore, that the adoption of 12 & 13 Vict. 0. 45, s. 11, impliedly excludes the powers conferred by the two following sections, which relate to arbitration. Then f2 68 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. . by the Local Government Act, 1888, s. 42 (10), the London Quarter Sessions "shall be substituted for the Assessment Sessions under V. M. A. 1869, and have all the jurisdiction vested in those sessions, and shall exercise the same within the same area." Whatever may be the effect of the first words here cited, it is submitted that, as to questions of juris- diction, they are controlled by those which immediately follow ; and, therefore, as to appeals imder V. M. A. 1869, the London Quarter Sessions have exactly the same jurisdic- tion as was formerly vested in the Assessment Sessions. If, therefore, the Assessment Sessions could not order a reference to arbitration, neither (it is submitted) can the London Quarter Sessions. The Conditions Precedent to an Appeal.'] — In the following remarks, it is proposed to exclude from consideration appeals from Special Sessions and appeals against totals under the latter part of V. M. A. 1869, s. 32, infra, p. 366, and to consider chiefly the more common form of appeal relating to the value of a particular hereditament. The cases which decide that notice of objection to an Assess- ment Committee is (by reason of U. A. C. A. 1864, s. 1, infra, p. 354) a condition precedent to an appeal, are not authorities directly in point, inasmuch as that section is repealed (as to the metropolis) by V. M. A. 1869, s. 77, infra, p. 383. These decisions may, however, be looked at, as dealing with an enactment in pari materia : see, for instance, S. v. Gt. Western Rail, L. E. 4 Q. B. 323; R. v. Denbighshire, J J., 15 Q. B. D. 451 ; R. V. Lancashire, J J., 43 L. J. M. 0. 116 ; and R. v. Wiltshire, J J., 4 Q. B. D. 326. There is an important diEEerence in- the language of the two sections of V. M. A. 1869, giving the right of appeal to Special Sessions and Quarter Sessions respectively. In s. 19, infra, p. 362, the right of appeal to Special Sessions is given APPEALS TO QUAETEK SESSIONS. 69 to a ratepayer, overseers, &c., "if he or they feel aggrieved by any decision of the Assessment Committee on an ohjection made with respect to unfairness, &c." In s. 32, infra, p. 366, the right of appeal to Assessment Sessions [now the London Quarter Sessions] is given to any ratepayer, &c. " who may feel aggrieved by any decision of the Assessment Committee, on an objection made before them- to which he was a party, &c." Under either section, it seems to be necessary that an appellant should be aggrieved by a decision of the Assessment Committee ; but only s. 32 requires that the objection should be made " before them." It may, perhaps, be considered that these words imply the making of an objection viva voce, in the presence of the committee ; if so, a person who had sent a written statement of his objection to the committee, would not be able to appeal direct to Quarter Sessions under s. 32, although possibly he might be able to appeal to Special Sessions under s. 19, and thence to Quarter Sessions. It must be noticed, however, that by V. M. A. 1869, s. 11, infra, p. 361, objections may be made " before the Assess- ment Committee," and the Act speaks of the objections being " heard " : see, for iastance, s. 42 (5) — (7), irfra, p. 370 ; and compare U. A. C. A. 1862, ss. 19—21, infra, p. 344. If therefore the Act does not contemplate or permit the making of an objection iu writing, it may be doubted whether the omission in V. M. A. 1869, s. 19, of the words " before them" makes any difference. There is, perhaps, a distinction between giving notice in writing of an objection, and making an objection ; but although the question has been twice raised, it has not been decided whether a written notice of objection is sufficient to entitle the objector to appeal : see Met. Eating App. 364 ; and infra, p. 229. It has been held in R. v. Justices of Essex, 46 J. P. 724, that under TJ. A. C. A. 1864, s. 1, infra, p. 354, it is sufficient to give notice of, and formally to make, an objection without 70 DIGEST OF PRACTICE. tendering evidence in support of that objection. The section referred to is repealed as to the metropolis by V. M. A. 1869, s. 77, infra, p. 383 ; but there seems to be nothing in s. 11 of the later Act, which deals with objections, requiring anything more than was formerly necessary. If from accident or mistake due notice of appeal has not been giren, or if an additional notice of appeal appears to be required, the Court may at the hearing, if they think just, order notice of appeal to be given : Y. M. A. 1869, s. 34, infra, p. 367. For an instance in which the Court was wil^ Hng to exercise this discretion, see Bellamy v. St. Olave's Union, Met. Eating App. 401. From this it is clear that the giving notice of appeal ia proper time is not a condition precedent to appealing: and see also R. v. Tngall, Met. Eating App. 177; 2 U. B. D. 199, in which it was held that the provisions of s. 42, infra, p. 370, as to time, were directory, and not imperative. Appeals have in practice frequently been heard where the petitions were not entered within the time required by 0. 3 (1870) : see now 0. 5 (1890), infra, p. 393. In most cases, however, the appeal has been heard by consent, and in one case the Court reminded the appellant that the hearing was a matter of favour : see Met. Eatiug App. at p. 210. (The question whether 0. 6 (1890) is within the powers conferred by Y. M. A. 1869, s. 27, is considered supra, p. 55.) Effect of delay, 8fc., on right of Appeal.^ — Having regard to S. V. Ingall (referred to above), it is difficult to see how a ratepayer is to obtain any relief from the Quarter Sessions when (owing to delay in making or revising the Yaluation List, or a failure to give notice of an altered assessment) he does not know at what sum he is rated until after the con- clusion of the sittings of the Court. Assuming that the de- cision referred to would enable the sessions to sit at any time APPEALS TO QUARTER SESSIONS. 71 for the ptirpose of hearing an appeal, the Court might be unwilling or even unable to sit. It may be, as was suggested by Lush, J., in B. v. Ingall (Met. Eating App. at p. 179 ; 2 Q. B. D. at p. 208), that a remedy by action exists for the benefit of a person iujured by a failure to perform a public duty. But, apart from the difficulty of proving who was in default, the value of such a remedy depends in great measure on the means of the defendant to the action. Moreover, in the case of the loss of a notice sent by post (a mode of service per- mitted by V. M. A. 1869, s. 65, infra, p. 380), other difficulties would have to be met by the plaintiff. The Valuation List, once settled, becomes conclusive evidence of value, and the rate must be in accordance with it (see V. M. A. 1869, s. 45, and the declaration in Sched. 4, infra, pp. 372, 386), and such list must remain in force imtil the next quinquennial valuation ; and even if it should happen that the hereditament in ques- tion were, in consequence of alterations, to appear in a Sup- plemental List, this would not enable the ratepayer to call for a new valuation to correct a mistake, since the Supple- mental 'List must be made out on the assumption that the previous Yaluation List was correct at the commencement of the twelve months preceding the making of the Supplemental List : see the JSasi and West India Dock Case, Met. Eating App. pp. 358 ei seg. The same remarks apply to the danger of a clerical error being made in a Yaluation List. Provision is made by V. M. A. 1869, s. 71, infra, p. 382, for errors in a rate ; but the Act provides no means for correcting such errors in a Valuation List. A mistake has been made by an Assessment Committee in deciding on an objection, to correct which an appeal was necessary (see Ball v. St. James and 8t. John, Clerhenwell, Met. Eating App. 249) ; and a mistake might easily be made in altering the list on appeal at Quarter Sessions. 72 DIGEST OP PRACTICE. Appeakfrom Quarter Sessions to the Queen's Bench Division and the Court of Appeal.l — ^It is proposed very briefly to notice this subject, which is almost outside the scope of this chapter. By V. M. A. 1869, s. 40, infra, p. 368, the same proceeding may be had by special case and certiorari or otherwise, for questioning any decision of the justices iu Assessment Sessions, as may be had for questioning any decision of the justices in General or Quarter Sessions, provided that every such certiorari be sued out within three months after the decision is given. The substitution of the London Quarter Sessions for the Assessment Sessions by the Local Grovemment Act, 1888, s. 42 (10), can make no difference ia this respect. It seems that there is no appeal strictly so called from Quarter Sessions to the Queen's Bench Division, upon a question either of law or of fact : vide per BramweU, L. J., 3 Q. B. D. at p. 464. But this rule applies only to a decision of the justices in cases within their jurisdiction. The Court of Queen's Bench — now the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice — has " authority to bring before it by writ of certiorari, save where the writ is taken away by statutory enactment or charter, the proceedings of any court of inferior jurisdiction, with a view to quash such proceedings. But this applies only where there is some defect of jurisdic- tion, or informality or defect apparent on the face of the proceedings : " per Cockburn, C. J., R. v. Walsall, 3 Q. B. D. at pp. 471, 472. If the justices, having jurisdiction, decline to exercise it, the Queen's Bench Division will, by mandamus, compel the justices to proceed : if they assume a jurisdiction where they have none, or where the proceedings are on the face of them irregular, the Queen's Bench Division, on the matter being brought before it by certiorari, will quash the proceedings as a nullity. But the writ of certiwari does not enable the Queen's Bench Division to try the merits of the question, but merely to see whether the limited jurisdic- APPEALS TO QUARTER SESSIONS. 73 tion of the Court below has been exceeded : vide per Cockbum, C. J., 3 Q. B. D. at p. 472, citing B. v. Moreley, 2 Burr. 1040. The Queen's Bench Division have also power to issue a writ of prohibition in order to prevent a Court of Quarter Sessions from exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction : JR. v. Serford, 3 E. & E. 115 ; Liverpool Gas Co. v. Everton, L. E. 6 C. P. 245, 414 ; and see also Fulham Union v. 8t. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, infra, p. 86, where application was made for a writ of prohibition against the Assessment Sessions. It may seem that this power of the Queen's Bench Division to issue a writ of certiorari or of prohibition does practically, though not technically, give a right of appeal against a deci- sion of Quarter Sessions on a question of law ; but even this can only be said where the question is. Have the justices jurisdiction in the present case? Examples of the points which might be decided in this way may be found in Hyam v. St. Pancras (Met. Eating App. 364) ; and British Equitable Assurance Co. v. City of London Union, infra, p. 229 ; in both of which cases the point to be decided was whether the appel- lant was a ratepayer " aggrieved by a decision of the Assess- ment Committee on an objection made before them to which he was a party," within the meaning of Y. M. A. 1869, s. 32. If the appellant did not come within the terms of the section, the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal ; so that the question to be decided really was, " Have the justices juris- diction?" although the answer depended upon the simple issue, whether an objection had been made before the Assess- ment Committee. In considering questions of jurisdiction, the power of the Queen's Bench Division to review the decision of the Court below is not unlimited. It is submitted that the rule to be collected from the cases is as follows :— Where there is a con- flict of testimony as to facts, and the Court below find certain 74 DIGEST OP PRACTICE. facts which give or do not give jurisdictioii, the Queen's Bench Division will not interfere except upon very strong grounds, even though they think the finding of fact erroneous. The Court below cannot give itself jurisdiction by decidiug without evidence, or refuse to go into evidence ; but where the question has been decided on evidence, the Queen's Bench Division cannot review that decision as though it were a ver- dict of a jury. Moreover, the Court below cannot give itself jurisdiction, where it has none, by applying a wrong rule of law to facts which are proved or admitted ; nor apparently can it do so by coming to a wrong conclusion of fact necessary to give jurisdiction, on facts proved or admitted. And where the question of jurisdiction is a pure question of law, on the construction of a document, or on facts proved or admitted, the Queen's Bench Division can always review the decision of the Court below : see Liverpool Gas Co. v. Everton, L. E,. 6 C. P. 414; Ekton v. Rose, L. E. 4 Q. B. 4; Brown v. Cocking, L. E. 3 Q. B. 672 ; R. v. Nunneley, E. B. & B. 852 ; R. V. Judge of Lincolnshire County Court, 20 Q. B. D. 167; R.T. Deputies of Freemen of Leicester, 15 Q. B. 671; but see also R. v. Dayman, 7 E. & B. 672. Whether on a motion for a prohibition or a mandamus, the jurisdiction of the Queen's Bench Division to review the decision of the Court below is the same, see Liverpool Gas Co. v. Everton, ubi supra. Special Case.l — By the terms of the commission of the peace, justices at Quarter Sessions are empowered and required, if a case of difficulty arises, to obtain the opinion of a judge of the High Court. The ancient practice seems to have been to adjourn the sessions to the assizes, and then to decide the question of difiBculty in the presence of a judge of assize. In modern times the practice has been to decide the appeal at the sessions conditionally, subject to the opinion of the judges APPEALS TO QUAETEE SESiSIONS. 75 upon a question of law stated in a special case. But the question whether a ease is one of difficulty or not is to be determined by the sessions, and not by the parties. (See B. V. Chmtrell (L. E. 10 Q. B. 587), where the history of the practice and the technical eifeot of the proceedings was considered.) " It is entirely at the discretion of the sessions whether to grant a case or not. Even though the appeal should be one in which, in the proper exercise of their dis- cretion, they ought undoubtedly to grant a case, in order that their judgment maybe reviewed, if they refuse to do so, there are no means of eompelling them :" vide per Cookburn, C. J., R. V. Overseers of Wakall (3 Q. B. D. at p. 473) ; and note that the reversal by the House of Lords of the decision there given seems to leave untouched the authority of this part of the judgment : see 4 App. Cas. 30 ; and, in particular, the judgment of Lord Cairns, at p. 40. The practical effect of these proceedings is that there is a right of appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench— now the Queen's Bench Division — from the decision of justices in Quarter Sessions on a point of law, provided the justices give leave to appeal. In form, the justices give their decision subject to the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division on the facts found in the special case. An appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Queen's Bench Division on a special ease {B. v. Overseers of Walsall, 4 App. Cas. 30), and leave to appeal is not neces- sary {B. V. Savin, 6 Q. B. D. 309). The anomalous result of this is that the justices in Quarter Sessions can prevent their decision from being reviewed, while, on the same point of law, the judges of the High Court of Justice cannot. The Form of the Special Case.] — There seems to be some doubt as to the practice with regard to the statement of more than one question in the special case, and, though no express 76 DIGEST OF PEACTICE. decision has been given, the judges in the Queen's Bench Division seem to have considered, iu one or two cases, that they must either affirm, or annul, in toto, the order of Quarter Sessions ; and that as they can only answer a question upon a poiat which finally disposes of the appeal, they cannot consider a special case which asks several questions, and directs that the judgment of the sessions is to he altered according to the answers of the Queen's Bench Division on the several questions respectively. One curious result of this view is that if an appellant at Quarter Sessions claims a re- duction of his assessment on (say) four grounds, as to two of which he is right, and as to two he is wrong, if only one ques- tion is to be asked in a special case, he may possibly have to bring two fruitless appeals to Quarter Sessions before he can raise a point on which he is right, and even in his third appeal he cannot obtain all the reduction to which he is entitled. The inconvenience of such a practice, when applied to a system in which the decision on an appeal fixes the rating for five years, is manifest. It is submitted that some confusion has been caused by the use of the ambiguous word " final." Apart from the ques- tion whether an order is subject to appeal, an order of the Queen's Bench Division has been said to be not " final " in two classes of cases. (1.) When after the decision something has remained to be done hy the Quarter Sessions : (2.) When after the decision on one point a second de- cision on a second point has to be given by the Queen's Bench Division. It is submitted that the earlier decisions of the Queen's Bench, up to and including the decision in JR. v. Sutton Coldfield (L. E. 9 Q. B. 153), used the word "final" with reference to the former class of cases. In the case referred to, Blackburn, J., said {ib. at p. 155), " Such cases have never APPEALS TO QTTAETER SESSIONS. 77 been heard, except on a certiorari to bring up an order of sessions whicb, if unreversed, would finaUy decide the appeal. There have been instances in which an attempt has been made indirectly to obtain the opinion of this Court on a pre- liminary point by making an order in form disposing of the appeal finally; but subject to a case in which it was directed that in the event of the Court deciding in a particular way the case should be remitted to be reheard by the sessions." Again, in B. v. Kestemi (3 Q. B. 810), Lord Denman said, " The Queen's Bench will not decide merely for the purpose of putting the inferior Court in motion." It is clear from the passages here cited, and is still more clear from the full report, that in these cases ^the distinction made was between a final decision and a decision on a preliminary point, and not between a final decision on one point, con- clusive of the whole issue raised, and a decision on several points. (In further confirmation of this view, see R. v. Westhoughton, 5 Q. B. 300 ; R. v. Marton-cum- Grafton, 10 Q. B. 971.) It is difficult to see how (in the face of the authorities cited below) it can be contended that the Queen's Bench will not consider a case raising several questions asked, either alternatively or separately, on the ground that it cannot on such a case give a decision which will finally dispose of the appeal. In Duke of Bedford v. 8t. Paul's, Covent Garden (Met. Eating App. 313 ; 45 L. T. N. S. 616), three questions were raised in the special case stated by the Assessment Sessions. In R. v. L. B. 8f S. C. Ry. (15 Q. B. 313), four questions were asked; and in R. v. Southampton Bock Co. (14 Q. B. 587), five questions were asked in the special ease. The last-mentioned case came again before the Queen's Bench on a question as to costs (see 17 Q. B. 83), when the fact that several questions were raised on the special case was pointedly drawn to the attention of the Court. It is remarkable, if the 78 DIGEST OP PRACTICE, practice of asking several questions in one case were so tin- usual or improper, that no mention is made of the fact in the judgments, the argument, or even in a note by the reporter. It is also to be noticed that in 1843, in B. v. 8ioke-upon- Trent (5 Q,. B. 308), where the case stated that if the Queen's Bench thought that the justices ought to have admitted certain evidence, the appeal was to go back to be reheard, in refusing so to deal with a special case Lord Denman said, " The sessions, ia stating the case, should have added a pro- visional finding in the event of our decision being one way or the other." It is submitted that, if a provisional finding or (where there are several questions) findings are stated in the case, there is no necessity for a further hearing at the sessions, and the Queen's Bench Division can therefore deal with such a case, which " finally decides " the appeal in the sense in which Blackburn, J., used those words in R. v. Sutton Coldfield, L. E. 9 Q,. B. 153. It is also submitted that the view here suggested receives confirmation from the judg- ments of Lord Cairns and Lord Penzance in R. v. Overseers of Wakall, 4 App. Gas. at pp. 41 and 45. Case stated ly Order of a Judge."] — For obtaining the decision of the Queen's Bench Division on points of law, another procedure (which resembles, but is not quite the same as an appeal from a decision of the Sessions) is provided by Y. M. A. 1869, s. 40, infra, p. 368, which in effect enacts that at any time after notice of appeal it shall be lawful for the parties by consent, and by order, of a judge of the Queen's Bench Division, to state the facts of a case in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division, and to agree that a judgment in conformity with the decision of that Court, and for such costs as that Court may adjudge, may be entered on the application of either party at the meeting of the sessions next or next but one after such decision APPEALS TO QUARTER SESSIONS. 79 has been giveh ; and suoli judgment may be entered accord- ingly, and shall be of the same effect in aU. respects as if it had been given by the sessions upon an appeal duly brought before them and adjourned ; and the justices must, if neces- sary, hold a sessions or an adjourned sessions for the purpose. This clause is substantially to the same effect as s. 11 of 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45, which applies mutatis mutandis to Quarter Sessions. On this section it has been held that the case stated must contain a statement of the agreement of the parties that judgment in conformity with the decision of the Court may be entered at Quarter Sessions in the manner provided by the section : Corporation of Peter- borough V. Overseers of Thurlhy, 8 Q. B. D. 586. An appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Queen's Bench Division on a case stated under this section [Corporation of Peterborough v. Overseers of Wikthorpe, 12 Q. B. D. 1), and leave to appeal is not necessary: Guao-dians of Holborn Union v. Guardians of Chertsey Union, 15 Q. B. D. 76. Part I. HEABD BEFOEE THE GENERAL ASSESSMENT SESSIONS AND THE COUNTY OP LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. The Trustees and Managers of the Stock Exchange, London v. The Assessment Committee of the City OF London Union. Stock Exchange — -Structural Value. The trustees and managers of the London Stock Exchange produced eyidence to show that the rent of their .property, if let for offices, would be less than the assessment appealed against. The respondents showed that the actual ground rent, added to five per cent, on the structural value of the buildings, amounted to a larger rateable value than that appealed against. Held, that the assessment must be confirmed. - This appeal related to the rating of part of the new buildings recently erected hy the appellants, in the parish of St. Bennet Fink, forming the eastern addition to the Stock Exchange. The overseers had assessed that part of the buildings, the subject of the present appeal, which domprised the space covered by the dome, and the offices having a frontage to Throgmorton Street, at 9,650^. gross and 8,042/. rateable value. The assessment committee increased the rating to 14,650/. gross and 12,209/. rateable, but, on objection being made, reduced it to 12,000/. gross and 10,000/. rateable. R. G 1886. Feb. 8. 82 ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 1886. Stock ExCHiNGE, London V. Cut OF London Union. Mr. Edward Clarke, Qr.C, and Mr. Beslei/ appeared for the appellants, and called several -witnesses, wliose evidence was practically identical with the assessment originally fixed by the overseers. They relied on the rent which the several portions of the buildings would command, if let as offices or for purposes other than those of the Stock Ex- change. Mr. Littler, Q.O., and Mr. Poland, for the respondents: The amount which the land and buildings cost the ap- pellants is the best evidence of rateable value. Under a lease for eighty years from the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners, the appellants hold this and other land, and the proportion of the actual ground rent attributable to the land, the subject of this appeal, is estimated at 7,283/. ; the buildings cost 86,780/., and even assuming that a large sum — say 22,000/. — should be deducted from this in respect of extravagant outlay in decoration, yet 5 per cent, on the remaining sum of 64,780/., added to the ground rent, shows a rateable value of more than 10,000/. The Court dismissed the appeal, with costs. 1886. Fei. 8. The West London Extension Eailvstay i>. The Assess- ment Committee of St. Luke, Chelsea. Practice — Case to be stated hy Appellant — Order 5 (1870). The appellants, a railway comptoy, in their case stated the amount of reduction claimed, but did not state the method by which the claim was arrived at. On a motion by the respondents to strike out the appeal, the Court adjourned the hearing, and directed that the appellants should give fuller information to the respondents. Me. Poland, on behalf of the respondents, moved that this appeal should be struck out, on the ground that ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 83 the appellants had not complied with 0. 5 (1870), which 1886. requires the appellant " on or before the 1st February webt London to state his case, and the facts to be proved "(«)• In ^^I^^ay the present appeal, the appellants' case merely repeats g^ ^ -^^ what was already in the notice of appeal : it states that Chelsea.' objection has been made before the assessment committee; what is the amount of the appellants' claim; and that they will endeavour to prove that claim. The object of the order is to enable each party to know the position of the other paxty, and how the figures were arrived at. Sir a. E. Webster, Q.O., for the appellants : The Court have no jurisdiction to make the order asked for. The object of 0. 5 (1870) is to inform each party what figures he will have to meet, as the figures stated in the case may differ from those stated in the notice of appeal. More- over, the order must be limited to ordinary cases, and cannot be applied to appeals relating to railways, iu which the traffic returns, &c., are never made out till the hear- ing. The principle of the decision in the "West Ham Case, iR. V. Justices o/Esseie (46 J. P. 724), is applicable. More- over the respondents' case contains no more information than the appellants'. Mr. Poland, in reply : The appellants have not furnished the respondents with the amount of the gross receipts in the parish. Till this information is given, it is impos- sible for the respondents to state their case more fully. The Court adjourned the hearing till March 1st, and directed each party to furnish the other with fuller information. (a) See now O. 7 (1890), infra, p. 394; which is, so far as is material to this case, in identical terms. g2 84 ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 1886 Mills i>. The Assessment Committee of St. Olave's ^«^- ^- Union. Public-house — Premium paid for Lease — OosU. The premium paid by tlie lessee of a public-h.0Tise must be taken into account in estimating the rateable value. What proportion of the premium is to be attributed to goodwill, qucere. The Court, in dismissing the appeal, condemned the assessment committee in costs, because they had not heard the appellant in support of his objection before them. This appeal related to the rating of the " Jolly Grardeners " public-house in. the Eiotherhithe New Road. The appellant held the premises under a lease for fifty years from September 29th, 1882, at a rental of 130/. j but this lease included a shop which was under-let by the appellant at a rent of 261. per annum (the landlord doing the repairs and paying rates and taxes), and was separately rated at 18/. gross and 151. rateable value. The appellant paid a premium of 9,300/. on November 20th, 1882, when he acquired the lease, but this sum included the value of the goodwill and the fixtures, the value of the latter being estimated at from 400/. to 600/. The'public-house had been rated in the previously exist- ing valuation list at 144/. gross and 120/. rateable value ;: and the overseers, in making the new list in 1885, had increased the assessment to 280/. gross and 234/. rateable value. The appellant didy gave notice of objection, and attended with his solicitor before the assessment com- mittee and produced his books, which showed a considerable falling off in business done by him since November, 1882. The assessment committee, without examining the appel- 4SSESSMENT SESSIONS. 85. lant's books, or fully hearing Mm or his solicitor, desired him to withdraw ; and on the suggestion of the Surveyor of Taxes, who was present at the meeting, raised the assessment to 300/. gross and 250/. rateable value (under s. 20 of the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, infra, p. 345). The case, so far as relates to the question of value, does not call for any report. It should he noticed that both parties agreed that the premium paid by the appellant for the lease must be taken into account in estimating the rateable value. It was contended, on behalf of the appellant, that two-thirds of the premium, and on behalf of the respondents that one-half only, represented the value of the goodwill of the business. Mr. Forrest Fulton appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Tindal Atkinson for the respondents. The appellant proved the facts above stated, and evidence was given as to the value of the premises. 1886. Mills V. St. Olave'i TTnion. In giving judgment, the Chairman (Sir "William Habd- man) said, " The assessment is confirmed, but as we think that the assessment committee ought to have heard the objection, we condemn them in costs" (a). [(ffi) In West Middlesex Waterworks Co. v. Coleman, 14 Q. B. D. 529, it ■was held that in estimating the "annual yalue" of a pubMc-honse for the purpose of determining a water-rate, the existence of a licence, and the payment of a premium hy the lessee, were to be taken into account.] 86 ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 1886. The Assessment Committee of the Fulham Union v. ^^- ^- The Assessment Committee of St. Mart Abbotts, Kensington. •> Appeal against Totals in Valuaiion List — Notice to Individual Bate- payers — Valvation {Metropolis) Act, 1869, sects. 32 and 33 — Practice in stating Case for Opinion of Queen's Sench Division — Prohibition — Costs — Recovery of, against an Assessment Com- mittee, In an appeal against the total gross and rateable values appearing in the valuation list for the respondents' parish, the appellants alleged by their case that the gross values of several specified here- ditaments as stated in the list were too low ; and that the rateable values of several specifiedhereditaments were too low; the appellants did not claim any alteration of the rating of such specifiedheredita- ments, and had not given the occupiers thereof notice of the appeal. Held, by the Assessment Sessions, and by the Queen's Bench Division, that the appeal, being against totals only, did not " rela.te to the unfairness or incorrectness of the valuation " of the several specified hereditaments, and that notice to the occupiers of those hereditaments was not necessary under e. 33 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. The Queen's Bench Division will not entertain a case stated on an- order of sessions that does not finally dispose of the appeal ; but where the question raised goes to the jurisdiction of the sessions to hear the appeal, the decision of the Queen's Bench Division may be obtained by an apphcation for a prohibition. What is the proper procedure for recovery of costs from an assessment committee considered. This was an appeal on the ground that the totals of the gross and rateable values for the respondents' parish were too low. By their notice of appeal the appellants claimed an alteration of the totals appearing in the valuation list (viz., 2,154,278/. gross and 1,806,599/. rateable value) to 2,225,242/. gross and 1,868,096/. rateable value. By their case the appellants claimed a greater increase to 2,332,996/. gross and 1,958,425/. rateable; or to such further or other sums as the Court might determine to be the true total ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 87 gross and rateable values ; and in a schedule to their case 1886. the appellants set out a list of 605 hereditaments sepa- Fulham rately rated, showing the amounts at which those heredita- '^^°^ ments were respectively valued in the valuation list, and j^^^7 the amounts which the appellants contended were the true EENsraaroN. gross and rateable values. The appellants by their case contended, as to one group of hereditaments contained in the schedide (consisting of the premises of railway, water- works, and gas companies), that insufficient allowance had been made for increase in value since the making of the quinquennial list in 1880 ; as to other groups (comprising schools, workhouses, infirmaries, the Kensington Town Hall and Vestry Hall, a fire brigade station, the Maryle- bone Infirmary, and other public buildings), that insuffi- cient and almost nominal values had been put upon the several hereditaments in the valuation lists ; as to other groups, that the respondents had not taken into considera- tion special circumstances enhancing the values of the several hereditaments ; and generally, as to all the here- ditaments mentioned in the' schedule, that the maximum deductions allowed by the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, for repairs, insurance, &&., had been made in the valuation list without regard to the special circumstances of the several cases. The appellants had given no notice of this appeal to the owners or occupiers of the several hereditaments which were alleged to be, respectively, under-rated ; and a motion was now made that the appeal should be struck out of the list. Sir Henry James, Q,.C., for the respondents, in support of the motion : Notice should have been given to the several owners and occupiers, pursuant to s. 33 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, which enacts as follows: " Notice in writing of every appeal .... must be served .... on the following person's": .... when the appeal relates to the unfairness or indirectness of the valuation of, or to the omission of an hereditament occupied by any person other than the appellant, or to the incorrectness of any matter stated in the list with respect to any such OS ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 1886. hereditament, then on such person." This section in FotHAM express terms applies to the present appeal, and the objec- «. tion is sTihstantial and not merely technical, for the re- ■ AbbotS^ spondents wish that the ratepayers, whose assessments are Kensinoton. attacked, should he brought before the Court to defend those assessments. He asked the Court to grant him a case on the point whether notice to the several ratepayers was necessary in the present appeal. Sir E. E. Webster, U.C. (Mr. Poland and Mr. B. C. Okn were with him), for the appellants, opposed the application : The total of the gross or rateable value of a parish is entirely iadependent of the assessments of individuals. Under this appeal the appellants do not ask for — nor can the Court order — an alteration of the separate assessments appearing in the valuation list. There are two classes of appeals which can be brought to this Court under the Valuation (Metro- polis) Act, 1869. The first class is provided for by the first clause of s. 32, and the appellant in such cases must be aggrieved either (1) " 6y a decision of the assessment com- mittee, on an objection made before them to which he was a party" or (2) " by a decision of special sessions, whether he was a party or not." Objections before an assessment com- mittee are provided for by s. 11, and relate to unfair- ness, &e. in the details ; and appeals to special sessions are provided for by ss. 19 and 20, and can be brought " ivith respect to the unfairness or incorrectness of the valuation of any hereditament included in the list, but not otherwise." Moreover, by s. 20, a decision of special sessions " shall not of itself in any way alter the totals of the gross or rateable value of the list, but may form a reason for an appeal against such totals to the assessment sessions and Superior Court, as hereinafter mentioned." The second class of appeals which may be brought to this Court are provided for by the latter part of s. 32, and include the present case. Appeals of this second class differ from appeals of the former class, both in their objects, — inasmuch as they relate to the totals and not to the details of the valuation list, — and also in pro- cedure — inasmuch as no objection before an assessment ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 89 Committee is necessary or possible in the second class of 1886. appeals. The legislature have thus created appeals of two Fuiham classes, and have marked the distinction between the two «,. by enacting, in the words of s. 20, cited above, that no ^b^t™^ decision in an appeal of one kind shall have the efEeot of a Kensington. decision in an appeal of the other kind. The notice, which the respondents allege to be necessary under s. 33 in the present case, need only be given in appeals of the first class, brought under the first clause of s. 32. Nor is this notice rendered necessary by the allegations as to the rating of the separate hereditaments in the appellants' case. The notice of appeal states the object of the appeal: the case, which is stated under 0. 5 (1870), sets forth, in addition, the evidence to be given in support of the appellants' contention, in order that the respondents may know on what grounds the Court will be asked to make their order («). The object of the appeal is not the same thing as the ground for bringing it. Moreover, the very point raised in this case has been already decided by this Court in the appellants' favour. {Overseers of St. Olave's, Southwark v. Assessment Committee of St. •■'Ohve's Union, Met. Batiug App. 287.) The High Court of Justice wiU not entertain a speciS,l case stated on an order which does not finally dispose of the appeal {R. v. Sutton Coldfield, L. E., 9 Q. B. 153), and therefore on the point now in issue it is useless for this Court to state a case as asked by the respondents. Mr. Poland, who appeared alone for the appellants in another appeal in which the same point was raised as in this motion, was heard in support of the same contention : Suppose the officials of any parish agree to take an equal proportion — say 20 per cent. — off the value of every separate hereditament within their parish (a practice which was very common before the passing of the Parochial Assessment Act, 1836, 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96), so that the total appearing iu the list would be less by 20 per cent, than the true total — it follows, from the contention now made (a) See now 0. 7 (1890), infra, p. 394. 90 ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 1886. FtTLTTAW Union V. St. Mabt Abbotts, Ebnsinqton. by the respondents, that in such a case, in order to correct the list, although the rights of the several ratepayers, inter se, would be in no way prejudiced, it would be necessary to give notice to, and to bring before the Court, every ratepayer in the parish, which would result, in the present case, in about 30,000 respondents'being represented in this Court by counsel, an absurdity which could never have been intended by the legislature. Sir Henry James in reply : The language of s. 33 is more general than that of s. 32. The present appeal is brought under s. 32, because the appellants felt " aggrieved hy reason of the total of the gross value being too high, &c.," but the notice must be given (under s. 33) " when the appeal relates to the unfairness of the valuation of an hereditament." The appellants in this appeal ask the Court to find a specified gross and rateable value of a specified hereditament — as, for instance, the Marylebone Infirmary — and to increase the total by the increase to be made in that gross and rateable value. How can it be said that the appeal does not " relate to " the value of that here- ditament ? In order to get rid of the technical difficulty of obtaining the decision of the High Court of Justice on a special case stated on a preliminary point, the respondents are willing to ask for a decision against themselves on the present application, and a formal order fixing a day for the hearing of the appeal ; they will then be able to apply to the Queen's Bench Division for a prohibition, on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the Sir William Haedman (the Chairman) said that the Court were unanimous in refusing the application ; and an order was made fixing February 23rd for the hearing of the appeal. The respondents thereupon obtained in the Queen's Bench Division a rule calling upon the justices of the General Assessment Sessions to show cause why a writ ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 91 BHould not issue to proMbit them from furtlier proceeding 1886. upon the hearing of the appeal ; but after taking time to Fitlham consider, the Court, Mathew and A. L. Smith, JJ., on ^. March 15, 1886, discharged the rule, affirming the decision ^^^^^f of the assessment sessions. (17 Q. B. D. 394.) The same KENsmoTON. arguments were used as in the Court below. In giving judgment, Mathew, J., said : " Sect. 20 [of the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869] clearly indi- cates that the legislature intended to draw a line between the rights of individuals to appeal against the assess- ment of particular hereditaments and the rights of unions or parishes to appeal against totals. . . . Upon an examination of the difierent sections [i.e., ss. 32, 33, 34, and 41], I am of opinion that the appellants' argimient is well founded. I think that the Act provides one set of rules, applying where the appeal is by an individual in respect of the unfair or incorrect valuation of particular hereditaments within ss. 11 and 19, and another set of rules, which apply where the appeal is in respect of the total values appearing in the valuation list. I think that the provision in s. 33, requiring notice of appeal to be given to the occupier of the hereditament, applies to appeals under ss. 11 and 19, and not to appeals against totals. It was argued for the respondents that if the totals were altered, without altering the assessment of particular here- ditaments 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 Hst. 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 that the legislature thought the inaccuracy referred to so unimportant that no special provision was made to correct it. However this may be, I am of opinion that the intention of the legislature in s. 33 is perfectly 92 ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 1886. FULHAM Union plain. If the contention be right that, where the objection is to totals, notice of appeal must be served upon every occupier of an hereditament whose assessment in the valua- a^bS^ tion list is objected to, the notices might have to be served Kensington, upon some thousands of , ratepayers with the object of bringing them before the Court, and practically the matter could not be. dealt with. ... It is said that this appeal is within the very words of s. 33, because it is an appeal which 'relates to the unfairness or incorrectness of the valuation of an hereditament occupied by a person other than the appellant.' So in a sense it does, but not in the sense which the section iatended. The subject-matter of this appeal was not the valuation of each hereditament specified in the case, but the total values appearing ia the valuation list. The intention of s. 33 was, in my opinion, to require that notice of appeal should be given to the occupiers of particular hereditaments only in cases of appeals by individuals under ss. 11 and 19." A. L. Smith, J., concurred, and in the course of his judg- ment said, " There are several classes of appeals provided by the Act. ... In my judgment the provision in sect. 33, relied on by the respondents, does not apply to an appeal by parish against parish. It is said that though the appel- lants' objection is only in respect of the total values appear- ing in the valuation list of the respondent parish, all the occupiers of the hereditaments specified in the case must be made respondents, and copies of the case served upon them under Eule 5 of the Orders of 1870. It is true that as a matter of evidence the appellants before the assessment sessions have to say that the assessments of the particular hereditaments were too low in order to get the total value appearing in the valuation list of the respondent parish increased. But what, as distinguished from the necessary evidence, is the subject-matter of the appeal ? The subject- matter is the total values. That is the only matter on which the appeal is grounded. I am of opinion that this ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. &3 appeal does not 'relate to the unfairness or incorrectness of the valuation of an hereditament' within the true meaning of s. 33. The case stated here is only by way of giving particulars." The further hearing of the appeal by the assessment sessions was rendered unnecessary, as the respondents sub- mitted to an increase of the rateable value by 33,000/., and by consent an order was made on March 29, 1886, directing the assessment committee of the respondents' parish to pay the appellants' costs as between solicitor and client. Sub- sequently, considerable difficulties arose in enforciag the payment of these costs, the vestry of St. Mary Abbotts objecting on technical grounds, and also on the ground that the costs claimed were excessive. The order of the assess- ment sessions (which was not drawn up till March 24, 1887) was that the assessment committee (not the vestry) should pay the costs ; and this order was, on July 26, 1887, made a rule of the High Court. The assessment committee had appeared before the assessment sessions by their clerk. The appellants issued a writ against the vestry ; but subsequently obtained a rule nisi, calling upon the vestry to show cause why an order should not be made against them {the vestry) for payment of the costs directed to be paid by the order of the assessment sessions. Cause was shown against the rule, on April 10th, 1888, before Cave and A. L. Smith, JJ., by Mr. Lumley Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Muir Mackenzie; and Sir R. E. Webster, A. Gr., Mr. Poland, and Mr. A. Glen appeared in support of the rule. Although the Court gave no decision, it may be convenient to state that the conten- tions made in showing cause agaiust the rule were as fol- lows : (1) That, inasmuch as the assessment committee had appeared at the assessment sessions by their clerk, the pro- ceedings should have been against him, or at any rate against the assessment committee, and not against the vestry, who were no party to the appeal at any stage. (2) That the proper remedy was by mandamus directing 1886. Fttlham Union V. St. Maey Abbotts, Kensinoton. 94 ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 1886. PULHAM TTnion V. St. Maet Abbotts, EJENSINCKrOK. the vestry to make a rate for the purpose of payment ; or (3) that the appellants shoiild have brought an action against the vestry. It was also pointed out that, owing to the lapse of time, the vestry, the assessment committee, and the individual ratepayers in the parish of St. Mary Abbotts were no longer the same persons as at the date of the order of the assessment sessions. In the course of the argument the following statutes and cases were referred to :— 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, s. 27 ; 12 & 13 Yict. c. 45, ss. 5, 18 ; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 18 ; the Union Assessment Com- mittee Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 103), s. 38 ; the Union Assessment Committee Amendment Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 39), s. 3 ; the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, ss. 1, 5, 23, 26, 32, 33, 39, 48, 62 ; the Metropolis Manage- ment Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 158; the Metro- polis Management Amendment Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict, c. 102), s. 106, which requires notice of action, &c. to be given to a vestry; the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Viet. c. 55), s. 259 ; 7 & 8 Vict c. 101, s. 68 ; Jones v. Williams, 11 Ad. & EIL 175 ; Rickards v. Patterson, 8 M. & W. 313 ; 10 L. J., Ex. 272 ; Midland Raihcay v. Local Board of WitUngton, 11 Q. B. D. 788. After considerable argument, the vestry of St. Mary Abbotts ofiEered to pay the costs mentioned in the order of the assessment sessions, in consideration that no other costs were asked for, and all proceedings were to be stayed. The appellants accepted this offer, and accordingly the Court gave no decision as to the proper procedure for recovery of costs under such circumstances. ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 95 The London and Provincial Tempekance Halls Com- 1886. PANY, Limited v. The Assessment Committee of '- — - St. Saviour's Union. Hall for Pullic Meetings — Structural Value — Profits — Admissibility of Evidence. A hall was 'built by a company mainly for meetings held to promote the cause of temperance, and for other public meetings and entertainments. Many of the shareholders -were not interested in the cause of temiperance. Held, that evidence of the profits made by the company in letting the hall for meetings was admissible. Semhle, that such profits are a better test of rateable Talue than the structural value of the building and the ground rent. Clarke v. Alderbury Union (6 Q. B. D. 139; 50 L. J., M. 0. 33), followed. This was an appeal against an assessment of 360/. gross and 300/. rateable value on the South Metropolitan Tem- perance HaU, Blackfriars Eoad. The appellants claimed a reduction to 185/. gross and 155/. rateable value. Mr. William Eve, for the appellants, valued the haU at 178/. gross and 143/. rateable value, and based his evidence on the balance-sheet of the company for the year ending December 31st, 1884. Mr. W. Graham, for the respondents, objected that evidence of actual profits made was inadmissible; but Mr. Besley relied on Clark v. Alderbury Union (6 Q,. B. D. 139 ; 50 L. J., M. 0. 33), and said that any tenant, before taking such a property as the one in question, would require to see the balance-sheet; and the Court admitted the evidence. [With this decision may be com- pared Oyler v. St. George's Union, infra, p. 198, and Boyal Agricultural Hall Oo. v. 8t. Mary's Islington, infra, p. 193.] Mr. Eve, in cross-examination, said that if the haU had been occupied by a society who, from philanthropic or 96 ASSESSMENT SESSIONS'. 1886. other motives, made no profit, he should have adopted London htd another basis for his valuation. He had not taken into TEMPEEiNOB account the structural value of the building. HAiis Co. -^j. JqJjj^ Mann, the chairman of the company, proved St. Satioto's the accuracy of the accounts. He admitted that the divi- dend in 1884 was 5 per cent. ; whereas, in 1885, it was 6 per cent. This dividend was derived from rents received from a temperance society and others for the use of the hall for public meetings and entertainments, and also from rents paid for offices and shops which formed part of the building but were separately rated. The company was promoted on ordinary commercial principles, and many of the shareholders took no interest in the cause of temperance. Mr. J. H. Swann, the architect of the building, proved that the total expenditure amounted to 7,000/., of which about 3,476/. was to be allotted to the hall itself, the rest being due to the parts which were separately rated. He explained that the hall constituted the first floor of the • building, and his estimate of cost included the whole cost of the roof, but excluded all consideration of the founda- tions or of the ground floor, the latter being separately rated. For the respondents, Mr. J. F. Field (of the firm of Field & Sons), valued the haU at 346/. gross, and 289/., rateable value. Ha estimated the ground rent at 47/., and added thereto six per cent, on the estimated structural value of the whole of the buildings, putting this as the gross value. From the figures thus obtained, he deducted the aggregate assessments of the parts separately rated. Mr. J. E. Cassell (of the firm of Fuller, Horsey, Sons & Cassell), had adopted the same principle as the last witness, and valued the haU at 344/. gross and 287/. rate- able value. It appeared that the assessment committee, in fixing the assessment appealed against, had by mistake included, a shop forming part of the building, which was separately ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 97 rated at 39/. gross and Sll. rateable Talue, so that the original assessment oould not be supported. The Court reduced the assessment to 210/. gross and 175/. rateable value, and gave the appellants their costs {b). 1886; London and Pkotinciai. txmpebaitoe Halls Co. V. St. SAViOTja'B Union. Wyndham v. Thb Assessment Committee of St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington. College for Education of Sons of Roman Catholic Gentlemen — Ahsence of Profits — Principle of Bating Buildings with large Area of Land held therewith. Tie appellant was assessed at 1,600?. gross and 1,340?. rateable value, in respect of the buildings and recreation ground of a college founded for the education of the sons of Boman Catholic gentlemen. The buildings had cost 16,200?., and the land, which was about 9f acres in extent, had cost 16,363?. No profit was in- tended to be, or was in fact, made. The appellant admitted that so much of the land as formed the curtilage, was to be rated at its value as building land, but contended that the residue, being used only as a recreation ground, and not as building land, ought not to be rated as building land. Held, on the cost of land and buildings being admitted, that the assessment must be confirmed. The appellant was the superior of St. Charles' College, St. Charles' Square, Kensal Green, and had been rated, being the nominal occupier of the premises, at 1,600/. gross and 1,340/. rateable value. The college was founded for the education of the sons of Roman Catholic gentle- men, and was not intended to be carried on for the sake of profit, and there had been, in fact, no profits made. There (4) It seems that in arri-ring at their decision, the Court did Dot attach much importance to the structural cost of the building ; inasmuch as, without allowing anything for ground-rent, five per cent, on the sum expended (according to the appellant's own witness) on the hall itself, would give a rateable value almost identical with that fixed hy the Court. B. H 1886. Feb. 11. 93 ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 1886. were in the college about seventy-fite scholars and six ■Wtnbham masters. The building had been erected at a cost of St. Mabt 16,200/., and occupied about an acre of land, and there Kensinoton "^6^® about 9f acres, at present used as a playground, held ■with it. The cost of the land was 16,363/. Mr. F. M. WJiite, Q.C., and Mr. E. M. Daniel for the appellant : The true principle of rating a college such, as this, and the land held with it, is to take a percentage on the cost of the buildings, with a ground rent as building . " land, for so much of the land — say one or three acres— as in the opinion of the Court constitutes the curtilage of the building, and is absolutely necessary to its occupation as a college ; and to assess the rest of the land at the rent which it would command, not as building land, but as open, uncovered land, having regard to the neighbourhood in which it is situated. Taking 6 per cent, on the cost of the buildings (16,200/.), and three acres of land at a ground rent of 51/. an acre (which rent is .based on the actual price paid for the land), a gross value of 1,125/. for the buildings and curtilage is arrived at. To this must be added a rent of 5/. or 6/. per acre for the uncovered land. Mr. Poland (Mr. E. J. Castle with him) interposed to explain the principle of valuation contended for by the respondents : The premises have been specially provided for the purpose of their present occupation, for which a large recreation ground is absolutely necessary. The land bought by the college actually cost 16,363/., and we are prepared to show that it is now worth about 19,500/. The property constitutes one rateable hereditament, and in rating it the same principle should be followed as in the School Board Cases heard before this Court in 1885 (Met. Eating App., pp. 373, 385, 393), the decisions in which oases have been aflSrmed by the Queen's Bench Division (L. E., 17 Q. B. D. 738, infra, p. 235). If the Court decide now to take 4 per cent, on the value of the land, and 6 per cent, on that of the buildiugs, in order to ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 99 arrive at the rateable value, as had heen done in the cases 1886. cited (see Met. Rating App., pp. 990 and 399 ; see also Wtneham p. 155), the assessment would stand at 1,800/. gross and st. Mabt 1,500/. rateahle value, figures higher than those now ap- kenhnqton. pealed against. The fact that no profit is made by the owners of the college was shown by the judgment of Cave, J. (34 W. E. 583), to be immaterial. Mr. F. M. White in reply : We propose to call witnesses to show what quantity of land must be taken as necessary and appurtenant to the buildings. The present appeal is to be distinguished from the School Board Cases, because the occupiers are not, as the School Board were, bound to occupy the premises ; moreover, the School Board occupied only a small playgroimd — a mere curtilage ; and it is obvious that the same principle cannot apply to an area of ten acres. The cricket-ground must be rated at the amount for which it would let as a cricket-ground, not as building land. If the respondent's contention were cor- rect, it would be equally correct to rate a large park sur- rounding a mansion at the rent which the land would command as building land. Moreover, we are prepared to call evidence to show that the land surrounding the college has depreciated in value. If the principle laid down in the School Board Cases, above referred to, be adopted at all, it should be limited to so much of the land as is properly appurtenant to the building. At the conclusion of Mr. White's speech, Sir W. Hardman, the Chairman of the Court, said that the Court saw no reason to interfere with 'the assessment. It was evident to the Court that no facts were in dispute, and therefore there was no need of evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs. ' After the decision had been given, Mr. F. M. White, at a later hour on the same day, tendered the evidence of -Mr . Wyndham and other witnesses. He said he had h2 100 1886. Wthdham V. St. Mabt Abbotts, EENSmeKTON. ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. thought that the Court had intended that the question of principle should be discussed first, and that evidence should he heard afterwards. He did not know that the Court were about to decide the appeal at once. Mr. Poland said, that i£ the appellant intended to apply to the Queen's Bench for a mandamus directing the evidence to be received by this Court, he would prefer that the witnesses should be examined at once. Sir W. Habdman said : The case is decided, and we cannot re-open it. Mr. F. M. White consented to a taxation of costs out of session, without prejudice to any right that he might have to apply for a mandamus. 1886. Feh. 11. The Vestry and Overseers op St. George's, Hanover Square v. The Assessment Committee of St. George's Union, and the Yestry and Overseers OF St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster. Practice — Appearance by Gounsel, The Court refused to hear a vestry clerk appearing for the vestry for the purpose of consenting to an alteration in the valuation list. This was an appeal against the totals appearing in the valuation list for the parish of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, from which the Inventions Exhibition had been omitted. The assessment had been agreed at 20,595/. gross and 16,978/. rateable value; and it was admitted by all parties to the appeal that the correction asked for should be made. Mr. Poland appeared for the vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square. He said that the clerk of the vestry for St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, produced ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 101 -the list, and tliat lie claimed the right of every "suitor to' 1886. appear in person for the purpose of consenting to the TheOvbb- alteration. ^^Z!'' V. The Court ruled that a vestry clerk was not a suitor in ^'vmw^'^ the ordinary sense, and that he must be represented hy counsel. The vestry clerk thereupon instructed Mr. Bedey, who appeared for the committee of the Inventions Exhihition, to appear and consent on behalf of the vestry (c). Siemens Brothers and Co., Limited v. The Assessment 1886. Committee or the "Woolwich Union. ! 1 Manufactory of Telegraph Cables — Maximum Deduction from Gross Value — Bateahility of heavy Iron Tanks not fixed to the Soil. A deduction of one-third from tlie gross value of the whole of a manufactory may be allowed, though each separate part of the hereditament, taken by itself, may not warrant such a deduction. When the assessment committee, on the hearing of an objection, reduce an assessment, they cannot afterwards, on the hearing of an appeal by the occupier, claim, to have the original assessment restored. Mr. U. Clarke, Q.C, and Mr. Lyon appeared for the appellants, and Mr. Poland and Mr. A. Glen for the respondents. The premises the subject of this appeal comprised six acres of land in the parish of "Woolwich, having a frontage of 495 feet to the Eiver Thames, and buildings specially constructed for the manufacture of submarine and other telegraph cables. The premises had been assessed in the previous quin- quennial list at 4,6521. gross and 3,101^. rateable value. {o) See now 0. 10 (1890), infra, p. 394. Union. 102 ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 1886. In making the new list the overseers had fixed the assess- SiEMENs ment at 5,850/. gross and 3,750/. rateable value. The WoowioK assessment committee, in revising the list, had increased it to 8,059/. gross and 5,50u/. rateable value, hut on objection being made before them had altered the figures to 6,750/. gross and 4,600/. rateable value, against which this appeal was brought, the appellants claiming a reduction to 4,200/. gross and 2,800/. rateable value. A question of importance was raised, but not decided, as to the rateability of eighteen iron tanks which were used for the storage of telegraph cables after they had been manufactured. These tanks were made of iron plates bolted together ; they weighed from fifteen to twenty tons each, and were about twenty feet deep and thirty feet in diameter. When in use they were fiJled with water, and the cables were coiled in the tanks by machinery. The tanks stood in sheds which were built up over them, and it was impossible to remove the tanks from the sheds without either pulling down part of the walls or taking the tanks to pieces. They rested, however, by their own weight on a bed of concrete level with the natural surface of the ground, were in no way connected with the shed or with the machinery used, as above mentioned, for coiling the telegraph cables, and were so far from being fixtures that, at an overflow of the tide, tanks such as these had been known to float. They were compared by the witnesses on the one side to a vat in a brewery, and by the witnesses on the other to gasholders in gasworks, the only difference being that they were inverted. Mr. Edward Eyde and Mr. Spencer Chadwick, who were called as witnesses on behalf of the appellants, made valuations which were practically identical with the reduced assessment claimed by the appellants in their case, viz., 4,200/. gross and 2,800/. rateable value. They arrived at their figures by estimating varying prices per square of fioor space, and relied especially on the fact that there was now more competition and less demand for ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 103 telegrapli cables than at the time when the buildings were constructed, and that the value of land on the Thames had materially decreased since the last quinquennial valuation. Mr. Thomas Dinwiddy, Mr. J. ~W. Morris, and Mr. W. S. Cross, were called on iDehalf of the respondents, and their valuations were all equal to, or slightly higher than, the figures originally fixed by the assessment com- mittee, viz., 8,059/. gross, and 5,50u/. rateable value. These witnesses based their calculation on the structural value of the buildings, which they estimated at about 85,000/. or 90,000/. They admitted that 1,790/., the actual ground rent paid by the appellants for the land which had been acquired by them from time to time to meet the re- quirements of their business, was about 50 per cent, in excess of the true value. The respondents in their case claimed to have the valua- tion in the list restored to the amounts originally fixed by them, but Mr. Poland admitted that he was bound by the . reduction granted by the assessment committee. He also abandoned the contention of the respondents' witnesses that a deduction of one-third ought not to be made from the offices and other buildings which could not be described as " manufactories." The property was, he admitted, one rateable hereditament, and therefore the appellants were entitled to claim a deduction of one-third from the gross value of the whole. Mr. Poland said, that if the appellants relied on the fact that the premises would be of little value for any purposes other than their actual occupation, as diminishing their rateable value, they were in effect excluding the existing tenant from consideration as the hypothetical tenant, or as competing with the hypothetical tenant ; — a principle which had been overruled in the School Board Cases in 1885, both in this Court (Met. Eating App., pp. 385, 393) and iu the Queen's Bench Division {vide infra, p. 235). Mr. Clarke replied that he did not exclude the existing occupier from consideration, but the Court must not lose 1886. Siemens V. woolwioh TJhion. 104 1886. SlEUEKS V. WOOL^IOH Union. ASSESSMENT SESSIONS,. sight of the fact that, if the premises were let for any other purposes, a great deal of the expenditure on buildings and machinery would he utterly lost, and this consideration would materially affect the amount of rent which a tenant would be willing to give. The Court allowed the appeal without costs, and re- duced the assessment to 6,000/. gross and 4,000/. rateable value. No definite decision was given on the question of the rateability of the iron tanks, and neither side asked for a case upon the point. It seems clear that such tanlss would come within the rule subsequently laid down by the Court of Appeal in Tyne Boiler Works Co. v. Overseers of Long- benton {vide infra, p. 241), and would therefore have to be " taken into account in ascertaining the rateable value of the premises " on which they were placed. 1886. Feb. 12. The Governob and Company of the New River v. The Assessment Committee of the Holborn Union. Practice — Particulars to he stated in Appellants' Case. A water company must give, in the case filed in Court, their actual receipts in. the past ; and an estimate of the future gross receipts is insuf&cient. Mr. JE. J. Castle, on behalf of the respondents, applied for an order that the appellants should furnish the respondents with the amounts of the actual receipts of the appellants' company. In the appellants' cases, in this and four other appeals, there appeared an estimate only of the gross receipts, it being alleged that, in consequence of the passing of the Water Eate Definition Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Yict. ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 105 e. 34), there would be, in the future, a considerable reduc- 1886. tion from the actual receipts of the company. New Eivbe Mr. Poland, on hehaK of the appellants, opposed the *^°' application. Holboen Union. The CoTJKT made the order asked for, and gave the respondents the costs of this application. 1886. ESDAILE AND AnOTHEK, V. ThE ASSESSMENT OoMMlTTEE OF THE City of London Union. ■^«*- i^ and May 10. Tithes, or Payments in lieu of Tithes — Bateahility of — Practice — Costs — — Application to Review Taxation. By wtue of an ancient custom, existing time out of mind, the rector of a parish in the city of London was entitled to receive from householders within the parish payments varying according to the rent of their houses, on every Sunday throughout the year, and on certain Saints' days. Disputes having arisen as to the numher of days on -which these sums were payahle, an Act of Parliament (37 Hen. 8,'c. 12) defined the amounts and the number of pay- ments, which were throughout the Act called tithes. The London (City) Tithes (St. Botolph Without, Aldgate) Act, 1881, abolished the tithes, and substituted a fixed annual payment by the church- wardens, who were to collect the amount by assessing the rate- payers of the parish. The appellants were the legal representatives of the lay rector. Held, that the annual payments by the churchwardens were not tithes or payments in lieu of tithes, and were not rateable. The Court gave the appellants the costs of the appeal. The clerk of the Court on taxation disallowed part of the fees paid to the appellants' counsel, and disallowed altogether the costs of procuring evidence that rates had never been paid in respect of the tithes, the subject of the appeal. On an application to review the taxation, the Court refused to interfere with the decision of the taxing-master. Brown v. Sewell (16 Ch. D. 517) followed. "When an application to review taxation of costs ought to be made, quaere. The question raised by this appeal was whether certain payments which resembled, or were in Ueu of, tithes were 106 ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 1886. rateable :. the appellants representing the lay impro- BsDAn-E priator of the payments or tithes payable in respect of Crreop property in the parish of St. Botolph Without, Aldgate. 'Vm^ Sir E. E. Webster, Q.C. (Mr. Sidney Wool/ with him), for the appellants : It appears from- an examination of the rate-books of the parish of St. Botolph Without, Aldgate, for a long period of years, that no rates have ever been paid in respect of the payments in question; and this, though not conclusive, is strong evidence that they are not rateable. It is contended that the payments are neither tithes, nor payments in lieu of tithes: if they are, it is admitted that they are rateable. The history of the origin of the payments in question is thus stated at p. 101 of Calthrop's Reports (published in 1655) : — " It appeareth by the Records of London, that Niger, Bishop of London, 13 H. 3, made a constitution in con- firmation of an ancient custom formerly used time out of minde, that provision should be made for the ministers of London in this manner, ~ that is to say, that he which payeth the rent of twenty shillings for his house wherein he dwelt, should offer every Sunday and every Apostles day, whereof the evening was fasted, one half-peny : and he that paid but ten shillings rent yearly, should offer but one farthing; and aU this amounted unto but according to the proportion of 2sh. Qd. per pound: for there were fifty-two Sundayes and but eight Apostles dayes, the vigils of which were fasted. And if it chanced that one of the Apostles dayes fell upon a Sunday, then there was but one half-peny or farthing paid : so that sometime it fell out to be lesse by some little then 2sh. 6d. per pound." This payment continued " untiU 13 K. Ric. 2, when Thomas Arundell, Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, made an explanation of the constitution made by Niger, and thrust upon the citizens of London two and twenty other Saints dayes then were meant by the constitution made by Niger, whereby the offerings now amounted unto the stimme of Ssh. 5d. per pound; against which explanation there being ASSESSMENT SESSIONS. 107 some reluetation by the citizens of London, Pope Innocent 1886. in 5 H. 4, granted his hull, whereby the former explana- esdatlb tion was confirmed." In spite of this, and a later bull of citt of Pope Nicholas in 3 1 Hen. 6, the citizens " still wrestled with ^^°^ the clergy, and would not condescend unto the payment of the said elevenpence by the year, obtruded upon them by the addition of the two and twenty Saints days." The dispute was finally settled by an Act of Parliament (37 Hen. 8, c. l. ■^nbClapham at p. 233) : " In the first place, looMng at the statute which puts Putney Bridge into the possession of the Metropolitan Board of Works, it seems to me that they were never occupiers at all. They are no more occupiers of the bridge than the owner of a street is the occupier of a street after it has been dedicated to the public. It seems to me that the Metropolitan Board of Works have no power to do anything to or on the bridge, except keep it up for the benefit of the public. . . . But supposing that the Board might be said to be occupiers in one sense, still it is neces- sary, in order that they should be rateable, that the occu- pation should be a beneficial one. I take it that the test is, that there is no beneficial occupation if by law no benefit can possibly arise to the occupiers. If it is merely by his own volition that he is not receiving a benefit which by law he might receive, then there is that which is called a potential beneficial occupation ; but where by law no benefit can arise to him, then, although there is an occupation, it is not in poor law a beneficial occupation." The position of the Metropolitan Board of Works in that case is exactly parallel to that of the London County Council in the present case. The respondents, moreover, cannot sever the lake from the park, of which it forms part : they cannot contend that the lake is rateable, while admitting that the park is unrateable. Moreover, the appellants propose to show that the expenses of maintaining the lake exceed the annual sum received ; and, d fortiori, that the expenses of the whole park enormously exceed that sum. Mr. Gr. F. Barnes (of the architect's department of the London County Council) proved the facts. The lake in question was fifteen acres in extent, the park being 198 acres. The lake was artificial, and was supplied with water from the Thames, through a culvert constructed in 1888, LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 223 at a cost of 1,190^. ; at the same time the lake was cleaned 1890. out at a cost of 4,457/. The witness estimated that it would the London he necessary to clean out the lake once in every ten years, cootoh, and that such cleaning out would cost 2,000/. every time it ^ *■ was done. The water, when admitted from the Thames, and Olapham was very turbid, and mud was deposited in the lake in large quantities. In addition to the cost of cleaning (put at 200/. per annum), the following expenses were necessary for maintaining the lake in a fit state for hoating : — Wages of one man to regulate supply of water through culvert, say 50/. per anntim ; one man to clean the surface of the water (on which a scum formed owing to the deposit of mud), 62/. ; average repairs of the culvert, say 25/., making a total of 337/., which was larger than the sum received by the council (viz., 275/.). Being asked whether all these expenses would not necessarily be incurred, even ii no boating were allowed on the lake, the witness answered, that the council would no doubt have to keep the lake in a sanitary and ornamental condition, and that the expenses would be practically the same in such a case as at present. It was also proved that, in 1888, there was from three feet to four feet six inches of mud in some parts of the lake, and that in some places the mud was above the surface of the water when the cleaning was begun ; and Mr. Spencer Chadwiok was also called to prove the reasonableness of the estimated cost; but, as will be seen, a great deal of this evidence became eventually of little importance. Mr. E. W. Hedley was called by the respondents, and his valuation was as follows : — Money received from Messrs. Day & Son Deduct rates, &c., at 5s. 3^d. on 190/. . Expense of repairs, &c., specially con- nected with boating Eepaixs of landing-stage Rateable value 150 £275 25 10 85 . £190 224 LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 1890. He ignored bathing, fishing, and the rearing of water- TheLonbon fowl, and, in Ms opinion, a tenant could be found for the Coxraron. ^^^ ^^0 would give 200/. as rent, and pay his own rates Wahdswoeth ^^^ taxes. He gave no opinion as to the cost of cleaning, or AND C t . apham the other expenses claimed, and said that those expenses must be iQcurred whether money were received for the exclusive right of letting out boats or not. In cross-examination he admitted that there was no cheaper or better way of obtaining a supply of water than by a culvert connecting with the Thames, and that if the expenses claimed by the appellants were not laid out on the lake, it would not com- mand a rent for boating. He considered that, for the purpose of expenditure, the lake might be regarded as part of the park, but that, for the purpose of rating, it might be regarded as separate. Mr. Lyon (Mr. Hark with him) for the respondents; The London County Council receive a profit, and that profit is rateable. Before the present agreement with Messrs. Day & Son, there were boats upon the lake, though no payment was made for the right to put them there ; yet the Metropolitan Board of Works kept the lake as clean as it is now kept. This shows that the expenses put forward as deductions by the appellants are expenses incurred to maintain the lake as part of the park, and not to earn the annual sum now received by the County Council. Under the London Parks and Works Act, 1887, s. 2, the County Council are bound to keep open, manage, and maiutain the park for the use of the pubKc, and they would be disobeying that Act if they were to allow the lake to become a nuisance to the public usiug the park. They have therefore an option as to the receipt of money for the right to let boats, but they have no option as to the proper maintenance and repair of the lake. That the sum now received by the County Council goes in reduction of the rates levied by them is immaterial ; for when once a profit is received by an occupier, the ultimate destination of that profit cannot affect rateability, LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 225, as was expressly decided in the Mersey Dock Cases (11 H. 1890. L. 0. 443). In Lancashire J J. v. Overseers of Cheetham the London (L. E. 3 Q. B. 14), county justices were held rateable in coraS, respect of a sum of 600/. paid hy the corporation of the -^iigBg^oETH city of Manchester for the accommodation provided in the and Clapham Assize Courts for the city quarter sessions, and the city Court of record ; and Cockburn, C. J., said, " Whatever the object of the occupation may be, yet, if profit be made, the premises are liable to be rated in respect of such profit." Again, in Mersey Bocks and Harbour Board v. Overseers of Birkenhead (L. E.. 8 Q,. B. 445), the appel- lants were occupiers of docks and warehouses, and the working expenses of the whole exceeded the income ; yet it was held that the warehouses might be rated separately from the docks, and at an enhanced value, by reason of the proxi-mity of the docks. From the cases cited it follows that, in the present case, the lake, though physically forming part of the park, can be considered, for the purpose of rating, as severed. It being severed, an annual sum is received by the County Council in respect of it. For this annual sum the County Council are liable to be rated, though the park as a whole is exempt, iu the same way as in Earl of Bute v. Grindall (1 T. E. 338; affirmed 2 H. Bl. 265), the ranger of Eichmond Park was held rateable in respect of profits accruing to hi-m from part of a royal park. Sir P. Edlin said that the Court did not ask for argu- ment on the question whether the expenses of maintenance could be attributed to the park alone, and could be re- garded as severable from the payment made to the County Council for the use of the lake: on this point the re- spondents failed. Mr. Horace Awry, for the appellants, in reply : The lake is not a rateable hereditament, because it cannot be let to any tenant. For by s. 2 of the London Parks and E. Q 226 LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 1890. "Worts Act, 1887, the park must be kept open and. The London managed hj the Metropolitan ]goard of "Works (now the CovNciL London County Council), for the use of the public; the Wandswoeth ^o^^ty Council cannot therefore delegate the manage- AioD Claphajh ment of the lake, which is iaeluded in and forms part of the park, to any person ; and, consequently, no person can legally become the tenant of the lake. The public, rather than the County Council, are the occupiers of the park ; but, even if it be admitted that the County Council are the occupiers, they have no beneficial occupation, siaee the expenses swallow up the receipts. Moreover, to rate the County Council in respect of the sum which they receive for the privilege of letting out boats for hire, is equivalent to rating a person in respect of tolls paid for the privilege of selling goods in a market ; and tolls have been held not rateable. As to the cases cited, in Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Overseers of Birkenhead (L. R. 8 Q. B. 445), there was an admission in the special case that the warehouses were " respectively capable of separate beneficial occupation, apart from the proximity to and connection with the docks, &c." And in Earl of Bute v. GrindiiU {ubi supra), the decision was based on the ground that the ranger, and not the King, was the occupier of the land in question. In the present case it is impossible to sever the occupation of the lake from that of the park, and the attempt to do so is absolutely unsupported by authority or precedent. Marrh 31st, Sir P. Edijn delivered the written Judgment of the ! Court, as follows : — The subject of this appeal, described in the supplemental valuation list as " land covered with water, known as lake, Battersea Park," forms part of Battersea Park, which was transferred by the London Parks Act, 1887, to the Metro- politan Board of "Works. This park was previously Crown property, and, as such, exempt from rateability. It is now vested in the London County Council, and the Act requires LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 227 that it shall be kept open, managed, maintained, and re- 1890- paired for the use of the public, and that the costs of such The London • OOTINTY" maintenance, &c., shall be paid out of the consolidated counoil rate. "We look in vain in this case for the criterion of -waniiswoeth rateable value. The primary question — what would be ■^^nion^'^ the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected to give, taking one year with another, — can have no application to a park held as this is for the use of the public, under statutory trusts and conditions which pre- clude any exclusive beneficial occupation. But the respon- dents contend that, inasmuch as the Council are in receipt annually of 2751., under a contract for the placing of boats upon the lake, and the letting them out for hire, the lake is a source of revenue and profit, and has thus become rateable as a separate and distinct hereditament. Now it is material to observe that this agreement does not affect the actual occupation in any respect. The words "tenancy " and " rent " are scarcely appropriate ; but the intention is plain ; the Messrs. Day are licensees only, not occupiers, or they would be rateable. We must look at the sub- stance of the thing. It would be a breach of trust — an infringement of the Act — if the Council were to make this or any other part of the park serviceable for purposes not consistent with the use and full enjoyment of it by the public at large ; but it cannot be said that it is incumbent upon them to provide boats, and the labour of boatmen, free of charge. There is nothing in the agreement that would diminish public right under the Act. Regulation and control there must be for the general convenience of visitors, and it is, of course, entirely in the discretion of the managers to permit boats, brought for private use only, to be left on the banks, or moored to the landing stage. As to the relative cost of repairs and maintenance — if the questions raised were reduced to that — the claim of the overseers is in our opinion answered. Occupation, to be rateable, must be of property actually yielding, or capable 'of yielding, a net annual value. It has been proved «2 228 LONDON QtlARTEE SESSIONS. 1890. that the sum received under the agreement is applied The London ^^ aid of the rate, that is to say, towards maintaining CoraoiL ^^® entire park, and that it falls short of the average ^ i>- annual costs of repairins- the hanks, and cleaning out and VV ANDSWOBTH ... i i n i -op 1 AND Clapham mamtaimng the lake ; so that if, for arguments sake, we assume liahility, there would he no net rateahle value. Were the halance the other way, there would stiU remain the question — a very material one with regard to deductions for repair — whether the lake can he severed for separate valuation and assessment. Preceding this, moreover, upon either hypothesis, there is the fundamental question, whether the receipt of income under the agreement has the effect of rendering the land suhjeet to the poor rate. These are questions of law, and our finding of the facts makes it imnecessary to decide them. Practically, while diminishing the puhlic hurden, this agreement operates to provide means for a fuller use and enjoyment of thfe lake hy the puhlic than it would otherwise have; and we have failed to discover authority for the proposition that it has so affected the tenure of the property as to prevent the application of the principle upon which parks and gardens, open for the use of the public, and maintained under parliamentary powers at the public expense, are exempt from rateability. For the reasons stated, we are of opinion that this assessment cannot be sustained, and that the appeal should he allowed. The respondents must pay the costs. The CouKT ordered the whole of the entry appearing in the valuation Kst to be struck out. LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. 229 March 12. The British Equitable Assurance Company v. The 1890. Assessment Committee of the City of London m^^^i, ^o. TJnion, and the Overseers of St. Martin Yintry. Practice — Ohjection lefore Assessment Committee — Times for Proceed- ings — Provisional List — Supplemental List — Omission from — " Tear" — Valuation [Metropolis) Act, 1869, ss. 32, 42 (5), 46, 47 — Appeal relating to Property in the City of London. On February 13tli, 1889, the appellants entered into occupation of newly-built offices, and, on February 2'7tli, tbe assessment com- mittee directed tbe overseers to enter the appellants in a provisional list, ■wMoh. was not, however, made till April 18th, 1889. On July '25th, 1889, the overseers made a supplemental list, from which the appellants were omitted. This omission was confirmed by the assessment committee, on the ground that the appellants had been first inserted in a provisional list, made after the termination of the year to which the supplemental list referred. Held, that the appellants were entitled to be entered in a supplemental list. The appellants gave due notice of objection to a list, and the assessment committee gave to the overseers notice of a meeting for hearing objections, which notice was not sufficient to satisfy s. 42 (5) of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. The appellants did not appear at the meeting. Subsequently, the assessment committee wrote to the appellants that their objections "were considered by the committee, and they could not comply with" their "request." On appeal to the sessions, the assessment committee took the preliminary objection that the appellants were not " aggrieved by a decision of the assessment committee on an objection made before them," within the meaning of s. 32 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, and had no right of appeal. Held, that the appellants were entitled to appeal. Appeal with respect to property in the city of London. On the case coming on for hearing, at the Sessions House, Clerkenwell, the Chairman (Sir P. Bdlin) referred to the Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 42 (10), which provides that: "Upon the hearing of any appeals ia relation to property in the city of London, such two members of the Court of Quarter Sessions of the 230 LONDON QUAKTEE SESSIONS. 1890. Beetish Eoin^'ABLE ASSITB. Co. V. CiTTOP London Union. city of London, as may be appointed by that Court for the purpose, shall be entitled to attend and sit as members of the quarter sessions for the county of London." This appeal related to property in the city, and the Chairman pointed out that, though the quarter sessions for the city had appointed two justices for the purpose of sitting, and though these two justices had had notice of the date of the commencement of the sessions, they had had no notice of the date when appeals relating to the city would be heard, and, consequently, were not now present. The Court adjourned tUl March I2th, to enable the justices to have due notice and to be present. On that day the Court sat at the Gruildhall, to hear appeals relating to property in the city. This appeal related to the appellants' newly-built offices in Queen Street Place, and Upper Thames Street. The overseers had entered the property in a provisional list, dated April 18th, 1889, at 2,000/. gross and 1,667/. rate- able value. On May 8th, 1889, the assessment committee altered that valuation to 4,000/. gross and 1,334/. rateable. On July 25th, 1889, a supplemental list was made by the overseers, but from this list the appellants were entirely omitted, apparently on the groimd that, the property having first appeared in a provisional list, made after April 6th, 1889, the supplemental list of 1889 was to date from that day, and to show all " alterations " occurring in the year be/ore that day, and so ought not to include property rated for the first time after that day. This appeal was brought against the omission from the supple- mental list. Mr. F. M. White, Q.C. (Mr. R. Cunningham Glen with him), for the assessment committee, took two preliminary objections. The appellants' only right of appeal is given by s. 32 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 ; they must, therefore, be " aggrieved by a decision of the assess- ment committee, on an objection made before them." But here no objection has been made, the appellants fail- LONDON QUAKTER SESSIONS. 231 ing to appear before the committee on the day fixed by them for hearing objections. It is true that the appellants gave notice that they would object ; but notice of objection given to the committee, is not the same thing as the making of an objection bpfore the committee. The Act of 1869 meant the objection to be a reality, and not a merely formal proceeding ; and to hold that the mere giving a notice is sufficient, will enable every appellant hereafter to avoid making an objection. If the appellants mean to allege that the assessment committee refused to hear their objec- tion, the answer is, that the proper course in such a ca?e is to apply for a mandamus directing them to hear. Secondly, if the appellants wished to be entered in the supplemental list for 1 ^89, their proper course was to make a requisi- tion, under s. 47 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, for the making of a provisional list, which, in due course, would have been incorporated in a supplemental list. The only way of getting property into a supplemental Hst, is by means of first entering it in a provisional list ; and ss. 46 and 47 must be read together. It is admitted that this point has never been contested before ; the only dictum on the point is to be found in the judgment of Manisty, J., in the East and West India Dock Case (see Met. Eating App. at p. 364 ; 11 Q. B. D. &i p. 732) : " I think that, in bringing this appeal [against an omission from a supplemental list] under s. 46, the appeal has been mis- conceived in point of form, and that it is, in substance, a proceeding under s. 47. An appeal may be brought against the supplemental Hst, but, strange to say, the form in which the present appeal came before the sessions was an objection to an omission from the supplemental list, for which there is no appeal provided." Mr. Poland, Q.C. (Mr. Slade Butler with him), for the appellants : The preliminary objections are answered by the facts. On February 13th, 1889, the premises were com- plete, and the appellants began to move in their furniture. From that moment they became rateable. On March 19th 1890. Beitish EQTTITABI/K ASSUE. Co. V. CiTT 01? London Union. 232 LONDON QUARTEK SESSIONS. 1890. Bbitish EaUITABLE ASSUB. Co. V. City of London Union. everything was ready for carrying on all business ; and on March 21st the registered office of the company was changed to these premises. These facts the overseers knew, or had the means of knowing. Moreover, on February 27th, 1889, as appears from an entry in their minute book, the assessment committee ordered" their clerk to issue the necessary notices to the overseers to prepare and send a provisional list relating to the premises in question. The overseers should have made the list within a reasonable time, say a week, but did not do so till April 18th ; and on April 23rd the appellants received notice of their assess- ment. On May 8th the assessment committee doubled the figures, and on May 10th gave notice thereof to the appel- lants. It is now said that because the overseers were guilty of delay in making the provisional list, the appel- lants, who were guilty of no delay, are to lose their right to be entered in a supplemental Hst. Consequently, the appellants must pay rates from April, 1889, until April 6th, 1891 (when the quinquennial list will come into operation), upon an assessment which they allege to be double the value of their property ; and for this they are to have no remedy, since no appeal lies against a provisional Hst : see Fulham Assessment Committee v. Wells, 20 Q. B. D. 749. Apart from this manifest injustice, there is a further answer : viz., that the delay of the overseers is im- material, since the dates prescribed by the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, have been held to be directory merely : R. v. Ingall (Met. Eating App. 176 ; 2 Q,. B. D. 199). And even if the overseers had wholly failed to make a list, the Court could order one to be made under s. 35 of the Yaluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. The contention that property can only be inserted in a supple- mental Hst, which has already appeared in a provisional list, involves an absurd conclusion. For, suppose an alteration took place at so short an interval before April 6th that it was impossible for the overseers to make out a provisional list before the end of the " year ; " the rate- LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 233 payer could not then be entered in the next or any subse- quent supplemental Hst. Next, as to the objection that the appellants did not appear before the assessment committee. On August, 18th, 1889, the appellants gave notice of their objection to the supplemental list to the assessment com- mittee and to the overseers. On September 2nd the assess- ment committee gave notice to the overseers of a meeting to be held on September 11th, but no notice was given to the appellants by the committee or by the overseers. The notice given does not comply with s. 42 (5) of the Valua- tion (Metropolis) Act, 1869, infra, p. 370, which requires notice of a meeting for heariag objections to a list to be given " not less than sixteen days before such meeting." It is admitted that no one appeared for the appellants before the assessment committee ; but it does not lie in the mouth of those who were guUty of irregularity in giving notice of the meeting to take the objection. Moreover, on September 17th [i.e., before a meeting could properly have been held in pursuance of notice given on September 2nd) the assessment committee wrote to the appellants, saying, " Tour objections were considered by the assessment com- mittee on September 11th, when they resolved that they could not comply with your request." It is clear that the assessment committee considered, and decided against, the appellants' objection, on the ground that the alteration shown by the provisional list was too late ; yet they now allege that no objection was made. [He was then stopped by the Court.] Mr. F. M. White in reply : On the facts stated, the con- tention that there has been no objection before the assess- ment committee must be abandoned. If, however, it be true that the appellants were in actual occupation in February, 1889, that fact strengthens the argument upon iiie other objection that the appellants' proper course was to make a requisition for a provisional list. Mr. Tickell for the overseers : The appellants unneces- sarily served us with notice of the appeal, and are liable for 1890. Beimsh EatriiABiiE AssuB. Co. V. City as London Union. 234 LONDON QUAETBE SESSIONS. 1890. Bbitish BamTABLE ASSUE. Co, V, City of London Uhion. the costs of appearing ; but as the overseers seem to have been guilty of irregularitj- in making out the lists, I do not ask for costs. The Chairman (Sir P. Edlin, Q.C.) : The Court are unanimous in overruling the objections. The first point, viz., that there had been no objection, is now abandoned. It would be most unjust to deprive the appellants of their right to appeal. It is clear that the assessment committee considered the objection, and came to the conclusion that the appellants' property ought not to be entered in the supplemental list. We think that was a decision, and a wrong decision. The second objection also fails: the question is an important and difficult one, and the statute is not clear. The confusion may have arisen from not observing that, under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 18b9, the " year," which it would be more convenient to call the statutory twelve months, begins on April 6th. It is clear that in the present case the appellants were entitled to be entered in a provisional list, and were also entitled to be entered in the supplemental list made in 1889. The appeal was not considered on the merits, as to the figures, the respondents consenting to an entry in the sup- plemental list, showing 1,800^. gross and 1,500/. rateable value : the appellants to have their costs. 235 Part 11. HEABD BY THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION AND BT THE COTJET OF APPEAL IN THE YEAES 1886-1890. The Queen v. The School Board for London. igge. May 14 and School Board for London — Batealle Value of Schools — -Hypothetical 17. Tenant — Cost of Land and Buildings — Contractor's Test. In estimating the rateable value of schools occupied by a School Board, -who can make no profit by its occupation, the School Board itself must be taken into acooujit as a possible tenant, and the rate- able value is the rent which the School Board might reasonably be expected to pay. Semhle, the cost of land and buildings, and the rent which the School Board would have had to pay a contractor, had he been employed to provide schools, may be looked at as evidence of rate- able value. Appeal by the School Board for London from a de- cision of Cave and Wills, JJ., given on December 21st, 1885, in favour of the assessment committee of St. Leo- nard's, Shoreditch, on a special case stated by the assess- ment sessions. (The hearing before the assessment sessions is" reported, Met. Rating App. 385.) The appeal related to the schools, care-taker's house, and play-ground in St. John's Eoad, Hoxton, held by the 236 COURT OF APPEAL. 1886. Boaxd under the Elementary Education Acts. The schools, TheQttekn &c., had been rated at 1,380/. gross and 1,150/. rateable School BoAED value. The buildings had cost the Board 16,576/., and FOBLomoN. tj^g i^^^ 11,513/., exclusive of 928/. paid for legal ex- penses. The assessment sessions reduced the assessment to 1,320/. gross and 1,100/. rateable value, but held that the School Board for London were to be regarded as in the position of hypothetical tenants ■within the principle of the rating statutes ; they further said, that in arriving at their decision they had regarded the cost, but had not dealt with that cost as the sole criterion of value. On the application of the School Board the assessment sessions stated a case for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Di- vision, who decided in favour of the assessment committee. The School Board appealed. Mr. A. Charles, Q.C., and Mr. Marriott, Q.C. (Mr. Sam with them) , for the appellants : The actual cost of land and buildings ought to be whoUy excluded from consideration, and is not even evidence of value ; and the rent which the School Board would have had to pay, had these schools been constructed for them by a contractor, ought also to be disregarded. The School Board ought not to be con- sidered as competing in the market for the occupation of these schools ; and even if they are looked upon as possible tenants, the rent which they would be willing to give is no criterion of rateable value. The true test is the rent which any tenant, other than the School Board, would give for the premises. The School Board cannot, either in fact or in law, make a profit, and the premises are there- fore in their hands struck with sterility. The principle is rightly laid down in Metropolitan Board of Works v. West Ham (L. E.. 6 Q,. B. 193) ; there the question was, on what principle the pumping- station and works connected with the sewers should be rated; and the Court adopted the contention of the appellants, viz., that they should be rated " at the value for which the same would let to a hypothetical tenant from year to year supposing they COUET OP APPEAL. 237 were not used for the purpose of the main drainage 1886. scheme, but were entirely disconnected therefrom, and the Queen applied to any other use or purpose for which they could schoolBoakd be made available by a tenant thereof." ^o^ London. Mr. Jelf, Q.C., and Mr. E. J. Castle, for the assessment committee: All so-called "tests" of rateable value are merely means of arriviag at the existing value to the existing occupier. Rateable value is defined, by s. 4 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, as the rent which (under certain conditions) a tenant may reasonably be expected to pay. [Fry, L. J. : The test is the reasonable expectation ; generally, profit is merely the ground of that expectation.] Profit may be considered only when the object of the occupation is to make profit, not when (as here) it is to perform a pubUo duty. Consideration of the cost of land and buildings, or of the price which a con- tractor would charge for providing the premises, is equiva- lent to looking at the same question from a different point of view. The sessions regarded these figures as evidence, not as the conclusive guide. [They also cited B,. v. West Middlesex Watemorks Co., 28 L. J., M. 0. 135 ; R. v. South Staffordshire Waterworks Co., 16 Q. B. D. 359 ; Dewsbury and Seckmondwike Waterworks v. Penistone Union, 16 Q. B. D. 585 ; 17 Q. B. D. 384 ; Overseers of Chorlton-on-Med- lock V. Guardians of Charlton Union, 51 L. J., Q,. B. 458 ; West Bromwich School Board v. Overseers of West Bromwich, 13 a B. D. 929.] Lord Eshek, M. E. : The main and real question to be decided in this appeal is, whether, in calculating the gross and rateable value of the schools in question, the School Board itself ought to be taken into account as one of the' possible hypothetical tenants from year to year. It was at first suggested, but not seriously pressed, that the School Board are not rateable at aU. The property might be, in the hands of somebody, a profitable property ; it has not been rendered unprofitable by statute, and therefore cannot 238 COURT OF APPEAL. 1886. te said to be " struck with sterility." The School Board, The QmtBir therefore, can be rated in respect of it. The question for School BoAUD US now to answer is, how are we to ascertain the rateable FOE London, yalue ? We are not to ask what would be a fair rent to be paid by the actual occupier, nor what is the rent actually paid. The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 4, lays down the mode : we are to ask what is the rent which a tenant — (not the tenant) — might reasonably be expected to pay. We must, therefore, look at all possible hypo- thetical tenants ; and no possible tenant is to be excluded from consideration. The actual tenant in occupation is not to be excluded. Therefore the owner of property, if in occupation, is not to be excluded from consideration as a possible tenant. Now the School Board may be a tenant of premises. No doubt you might exclude from con- sideration any one who, by statute, could never become a tenant (a). It is said, however, that the School Board have no beneficial interest in the property, and therefore ought to be excluded from consideration. But they have a statutory duty to perform which may induce them, and even in other circumstances force them, to become tenants. Therefore it is wrong to exclude a School Board, or the School Board in actual occupation, from consideration as one of the possible hypothetical yearly tenants. But the case says that the sessions decided in favour of the re- spondents, and followed the methods suggested by them as fair tests. If it be suggested that the " contractor's test," as it is called, should be acted upon so as to include a commercial profit to be made by the contractor, it is very difficult for us to follow that contention. I think, how- ever, that it may be right to use the " contractor's test" as evidence ; but I decline to give a final opinion as to the correctness of this test. It seems to me that the sessions were right in that they took into consideration the rent (a) See Owens College v. Overseers of Chorlton-upon-Medloek, infra. p. 256. > J > COUKT OF APPEAL. 239 •wMcli a landlord could get from any tenant, including the 1886. School Board. the Qotsen V. School Boaed BowEN, L. J. : The only question for us to decide is, ™" London. whether the School Board for London is to be excluded from the class of possible hypothetical tenants. To answer this question we must turn to the Act of Parliament. In 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96, s. 1, and s. 4 of the Valuation (Me- tropolis) Act, 1869, we find no mention of the " hypo- thetical tenant." But the rateable value is defined as " the rent at which the hereditaments might reasonably be expected to let, from year to year," &c. That means to somebody who wants to hire them (6). In this considera- tion, why should we exclude the School Board for London ? Tou might reasonably expect that the schools in question would let to a School Board ; then why should you ex- clude from consideration the one tenant who wants the premises ? It is said that you should do so because the School Board can make no profit by their occupation. But it does not matter whether profit be made or not if the School Board want the schools. If they do, they will take them, and wOl pay rent for them. If a barren rock would let for 100/. a year, though it would produce neither corn nor grass, it would produce rent ; and therefore would not be sterile. Again, it is said that the School Board are restricted in the mode of user of this property. But that is immaterial, if the School Board are driven by necessity and by their duty to compete with other tenants. With regard to the other contentions which have been made, I refuse to give any opinion. I am satisfied that (b) The learned judge failed to observe that s. 1 of 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96, is repealed, iu to far as it relates to the Metropolis, by the Valua- tion (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 77, and Sched. V., infra, p. B83 ; and a new definition of rateable value is substituted in s. 4. This appeal related to the Metropolis, and therefore the new definition only should have been referred to. , The construction adopted is no doubt equally applicable to either section ; and it has therefore been thought desirable to give the actual words used in delivering judgment, although, in form, they were not strictly applicable to the case before the Court. 24Q COURT OF APPEAL. 1886. the sessions included the School Board as one of the pos- thb Queen sible hypothetical tenants, and that is enough. V. School Boaed FOB London. ji^^, L. J. : The difficulty in this case has-been created by looking not at the Act itself, but at the decisions thereon. The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, s. 4, defines " gross value," as " the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected, taking one year with ano- ther, to pay, <&c." In this definition " a tenant" means " any tenant," and the question is, what would any tenant pay to any landlord. The term " hypothetical tenant" is equivalent to the phrase "a tenant" as used in that sec- tion. No answer has been given to the question why the tenant should not be considered as a tenant. It has been said that the School Board are to be excluded from con- sideration because they make no profit out of their occu- pation. If that be a good reason, a man who occupies a dwelling-house for his own comfort is to be excluded from consideration. The term " sterility " has been used in cases where no profit is made, because there is generally in such cases no ground for the payment of rent. But the term is only applicable when the object of the occupation is to make profit. The Act of Parliament does not deal with the object, or motive, of the tenant; it only asks whether there is a reasonable expectation of finding a tenant, who will take the premises from any motive. It has been further said that the sessions relied on other tests, some of which are inaccurate. As to these I express no opinion. It seems to me that the sessions adopted the right mode, in taking into consideration the School Board as a possible hypothetical tenant. Appeal dismissed. COURT OF APPEAL. 241 Tyne Boilkr Wokks Co. v. Ovebseers of Longbenton 1886. AND THE Assessment Committee of the Tynemouth ■3o_ Union. Machinery attached to or connected with Premises — Fixtures — Non- Bateability of Personal Property. In estimating the rateable value of premises on which machinery is used, machinery -which is on the premises for the purpose of making, and which does make, those premises fit as premises for the particular purpose for which they are used, ought to be taken into account in estimating the rateable value of such premises. Case stated by the quarter sessions for the county of Northumberland. The appellants were rated in respect of premises in the parish of Longbenton, described in the rate appealed against as " boiler- works — land ;" at 690/. gross and 501/. net rateable value. The questions raised by the case related to various pieces of machinery upon the said pre- mises. The appellants were assignees of a lease for seventy-five years from 1864 ; and the whole of the machinery had been erected by the appellants or the original lessees, and not by the lessors. The machinery in question comprised {inter alia) an engiue fixed by iron screw .bolts to masonry foundations ; a boiler set on a brick seating in a shed out- side the main building, the steam being conveyed from it to the main engine through iron pipes passing through a wall of the main building ; shafting and machinery used by the appellants for the purpose of making boilers, &c. Portions of the machinery and plant were not attached either to the soil or buildings, but rested by their own weight on the groimd, or on cement or stone foundations specially prepared for them. Some of the shafting was supported by brackets, fixed to the walls by screw bolts. 242 COURT OF APPEAL. 1886. There were also moveable smithy fires, to which air was Tyne Boilee supplied by blast pipes running underground from the WoBKs Co. ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^g^ ^^ ^l^g machinery was fixed in the foUow- IonobTnton^ ing manner :— -A foundation of stone, timber, or concrete was prepared for each machine ; into this foundation bolts were let, and fastened by lead or cement. The machine was hoisted by a crane over the foundation, and lowered, so that the holes pierced in the bed-plate of the machine slid over the bolts in the foundation, and a nut was then screwed on the top of each bolt to steady the machine. "When a machine had to be removed, the nuts were un- screwed and the machine hoisted up. The following paragraphs were contained in the case : — 10. All the machinery and plant were required for the purpose of boiler making, and were arranged and adapted for use upon the appellants' premises, for manufacturing and setting up boilers ; but, except as appeared in the case, there was not any intention on the part of the appel- lants- of making such machinery and plant part of the soil or hereditaments, or of permanently annexing them thereto. The machiaes and plant could be and were taken down and removed when required for repairs, re-arrangement, &c., without injury to themselves or structural damage to the hereditaments. The object of the attachment of the machines was to steady them in working. 15. The mode in which the rateable value of the- pre- mises was arrived at, was by ascertaining the gross esti- mated rental which a tenant from year to year might rea- sonably be expected to be willing to give for the use of them (inclusive of the machinery and plant), and by making the statutory deductions from such rental. 16. The appellants contended that the machinery and plant were not any of them part of the freehold or here- ditament, but were chattels^ and that they were not, nor were any of them, rateable, or to be taken into considera- tion as enhancing the rateable value of the hereditaments. The respondents contended that the machinery and plant COURT OF APPEAL. 243 were necessary to the beneficial occupation of the premises 1886. as hoiler works, that being the business to which they were ttne Boiler appropriated, and that they ought to be taten into con- "^°"^ <^°- sideration as enhancins" the rateable value of the premises Otbeseees ov to which they were attached. 17. The quarter sessions considered that the case of Laing v. Overseers of Bishopwearmouth (3 Q,. B. D. 299) was conclusive, and held that the machinery and plant had been rightly taken into consideration in estimating the rateable value of the premises. The question for the opinion of the Court was whether the decision of the quarter sessions was correct or incorrect; and, if incor- rect, in respect of what items, matters, or principles. The Queen's Bench Division, mainly on the authority of Laing v. Bishopwearmouth (3 Q. B. D. 299), and R. v. Lee (L. E. 1 Q,. B. 241), affirmed the decision of the quarter sessions. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. Sir Horace Bavey, Q.O., and Mr. R. T. Reid, Q.C. (Mr. Cyril Bodd with them) , for the appellants : Machinery, which is neither fixed to the freehold so as to become part of it, nor landlord's or tenant's fixtures, is not rateable at all. It may be said that the sessions decided in the present case not that the machinery was rateable, but that it ought to be taken into consideration in estimating the rateable value of the premises ; but the Court must inquire care- fully what is meant by taking the machinery into conside- ration. The sessions, in fact, found the annual value of the land, and the annual value of the machinery, and added the two together. They brought in the whole of the value of the machinery as " enhancing " the value of the premises ; consequently, in effect, they made the whole of the machinery rateable. If the whole of the value of the machinery is not to be added, there is no principle on which to determine what part of that value can be added to the value of the premises ; such an addition amounts pro tanio to rating the machinery itself. Under 43 Eliz. b2 244 COUBT OF APPEAL. 1886. c. 2, all property, whether real or personal, was liable to Tyite Boileb he rated, although, in practice, personal property was very o^ o. (jf^Qj^ jjQ^ rated. • By the Parochial Assessment Act, 1836, LoNffiBmraoN^ s. 1, every rate was to he based on the net annual value of the several " hereditaments " rated thereunto. The use of the word "hereditaments" might be thought to imply the exemption of personal property ; but it was held, in E. V. Lumsdaine (10 A. & B. 157), decided in 1839, that that Act had not introduced any new principle of rating ; that, consequently, personal property having been made rateable under 43 Eliz. c. 2, still remained so. The Act of 1836 may, therefore, be regarded as having no effect on the practice as to rating personal property, but as in- troducing a new method of valuing real property. In 1840, by 3 & 4 Vict. e. 89, personal property was made exempt from rateability. The effect of the rate appealed against, and of the cases on which it was based, amounts to a repeal of that exemption. Neither in the Parochial Assessment Act, 1836, nor in 3 & 4 Vict. c. 89, is there any mention of " enhanced value " by reason of personal property. In arriving at the net annual value, therefore, the Court can only look at the "hereditaments" themselves, and must not take into consideration anything that is not part of those " hereditaments." If in Laing v. Overseers of Bishop- wearmouth (3 Q. B. D. 299) the word " attached " could be taken as meaning " forming part of the freehold," the appellants could accept the principle of that case. Cases decided before the passing of 3 & 4 Vict. e. 89, are not conclusive now, because it was then immaterial whether the articles in question did or did not form part of the "hereditament" : see R. v. Sogg (1 T. E. 721), decided in 1787; R. v. St. Nicholas, Gloucester (I T. E. 723, n.), decided in 1783 ; R. v. Birmingham and StaffordsMre Gas Co. (6 A. & E. 634), decided in 1887; and R. v. Guest (7 A. & E. 951), decided in 1838. Even ships had been held rateable in the parish to which they belonged : R. V. White, 4 T. E. 771 ; following Sir Anthony Earhy's COURT OF APPEAL. 245 Case, 2 Bulstrode, 354. The theory that real property 1886. could (since the passing of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 89) be rated at a ttne Boileb higher sum, as heing " enhanced in value " by reason of '^°^f^ ^°- the personal property upon it, was first propounded in lonobenton^ H. V. Saslam (17 Q. B. 220), which case professed to follow R. V. Proprietors of Liverpool Exchange (1 A. & E. 465), and B. v. Southampton Bock Co. (14 Q,. B. 587). [LiNDLEY, L. J. : Without the lead chambers, in R. v. Saslam, the premises would not have been works for the manufacture of sulphuric acid at aU. — Lord Eshee, M. E. : In the present case, no tenant would take the premises as " boUer-works " if all the machinery were taken away.] The same objection would apply to R. v. Halstead (32 J. P. 118), where the Queen's Bench held the machinery used in a silk factory not rateable, although without such machinery the premises would not have been a silk factory. The true rule is that laid down in R. v. Lee (L. R. 1 Q,. B. 241), viz., that what has so far become a part of the free- hold that it would pass by a demise of the freehold, must be taken into account. In Laing v. Bishopwearmouth (3 Q. B. D. 299), the effect of the earlier cases was misunder- stood. The question. What is part of the premises ? may be answered by the same test as the question, What is a chattel ? By a demise, there would pass to the hypothe- tical tenant all landlord's fixtures, tenant's fixtures, and trade fixtures, and such goodwill as was necessarily at- tached to the premises. The statute directs that an estimate shall be made of the " hereditaments " ; there is no warrant for adding the words "inclusive of the machinery and plant " (as is stated' in paragraph 15 of the case here), unless that machinery and plant form part of the "hereditament." Had the machinery been, in fact, part of the building, it would have been valued exactly as it has been ; it is, therefore, idle to say that the machinery has not been made rateable. Assume a demise of a public picture gallery with the pictures therein. It could not be contended that the pictures were rateable ; 246 COURT OF APPEAL. 1886. yet without pictures no one would take the gallery as a TyneBoilee picture gallery. [They also referred to Climie v. Wood, WoBKs Co. L R. 4 Ex. 328 ; Gt. W. By. Co. v. Melksham, 34 Oteeseees oe J P gg2 1 Sir R. E. Webster, A.-G., and Mr. W. Graham (Mr. Sans Hainilton with them), for the resjfondents : Great part of the machinery which has heen described as mere chattels is, as appears from the case, fixed to the walls ; but no reliance is placed on the actual mode of fixing. Each piece of machinery is an integral part of the whole ; and all of it is necessary to the user of the premises as " boiler works." As long as the premises are fitted (say, for example) with a crane, the presence of that crane must be taken into accoxmt in valuing the premises. If the machinery is placed ia connection with the premi'ses, and intended to remain there so long as the premises are used for their present purpose, then that machinery is to be taken into account in estimating the rateable value of the premises, even though it be not physically " attached " by bolts or the like. This rule is the effect of all the cases, and covers the machinery in the present case : for the sessions have found that " all the machinery and plant were required for the purpose of boiler making, and were arranged and adapted for use upon the premises for manu- facturing and setting up boilers." The mode of user in connection with the premises, and not the mode of fixing upon, or attachment to, the premises is the real criterion. It is not disputed that the machinery is not in itself rate- able, but the question is, whether it ought to be taken into account. That is the question raised by the case, and is the only question which this Court can decide. Eor the sessions must decide to what extent the premises are enhanced in value. The contention on the other side is equivalent to saying that the sessions must value these " boiler works " as if the machinery in question did not exist. But the proper course is to value the heredita- ments not as mere land, and a shell of brickwork, but as COUET OF APPEAL. 247 buildings in their actual condition as they are at present, 1886. and to inquire what a tenant would give for them : in the ttne Boilbb same way as land must be valued not as bare land, but as ^°^_^ ^°" land enhanced in value by the mode of its occupation. Otebsbebsoi? inis IS the prmciple of Laing v. Overseers of Bishopwear- mouth (3 Q,. B. D. 299), and the cases on which that decision was based. It is the same principle as that laid down by Lush, J., in B. v. Lee (L. E. 1 Q,. B. at p. 257) : " The premises to be rated are to be taken as they are, with all their fittings and appliances, by which the owner has adapted them to a particular use, and which would pass as a part of the premises by a demise of them to a tenant." Bearing this in mind, it is clear that " attach- ment," in the sense of attachment by screws or bolts, is not conclusive. A heavy cistern resting by its weight would have to be taken into account if it increased the value of the premises. Nor is it necessary that the attach- ment should be permanent. The character of the particular things must, in every case, indicate whether they have become part of the premises : they must have ceased to be used as chattels in order to do so. In Chidley v. West Sam (32 L. T. 486) the question was whether the things in question were in themselves rateable, not whether they could be taken into account as enhancing the value of the premises. [They also cited R. v. Leith, 1 B. & B. 121 ; JD'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. E. 3 Eq. 382.] Sir Horace Bavey in reply : The decision of the sessions can only be supported by R. v. Lee if, instead of " here- ditaments," the Court substitute " boiler works," and thereupon proceed to estimate the i^teable value of such " boiler works." This evades the whole question : because, admittedly, the machinery is part of the " works," and the only dispute is whether it is part of the "hereditaments," so that it would pass by a demise of the hereditaments. The fact that the hypothetical tenant of the " heredita- ments " would also become the tenant of the machinery may, no doubt, be taken into account ; but the sessions 248 COURT OF APPEAL. 1886. have gone far beyond this. [He also referred to Hellawell ttne Boiler V. Eastwood, 6 Ex. 295.] WOEKS Co. V. OvBBSEEEs OF ^pp^ EsHEE, M. E. = The first thins: we have to see is, LONOBENTON. . r ■what is the precise question asked us in the case ; and all that we can do is to answer the question and no other. The contentions raised by the parties are contained in paragraph 16 of the case. It seems to have been admitted that different pieces of machinery were not, as chattels, rateable ; but the sessions decided that it was right that machinery, though not rateable in itself, ought to be taken into account. The question raised was this — Ought one or all of the various pieces of machinery to be taken into consideration at aU ? and the question was not — How and on what principle ought they to be valued? The case was stated in order to test the principle laid down in Laing v. Overseers of Bishopwearmouth (3 Q,. B. D. 299) ; that this is so, has been made clear from the argument in this Court. The appellants wish to impugn the decision in that case ; and, inasmuch as in that case the judges intended only to apply the principle of the previous cases, if they did not, in so applying it, extend it, it follows that the appellants must now assail the earlier decisions on which Laing v. Overseers of Bishopwearmouth was based. The difficulties which had arisen in ratiag personal property, and the questions which had been raised as to its rateability, were set at rest by 3 & 4 Yict. c. 89, which enacts that it shall not be lawful to tax any inhabitant of any parish, &c., as such inhabitant, in respect of his ability derived from the profits of stock-in-trade or any other property. The exemption of personal property, which had previously been allowed by custom, was thus authorized by statute. But that Act did not deal with the method of arriving at the value of hereditaments; consequently, all the cases which were decided, before the passing of the Act, with regard to the method of getting at the rateable value of real property, as such, remain untouched by it. COURT OF APPEAL. 249 We ougM, therefore, to look through all the earlier cases 1886. with regard to the rating of real property to see if we can ttite BoubT extract from them some general rule. Now, I helieve ^°^^^°- that, throughout all the cases, the same rule — the same Oveeseee3 of ° . . n . 1 LONOBENTON. under-lymg pnnoiple — was m the mmd of the judges, although, owing to the difference of the subject-matter to which that rule had to be applied, it was expressed in dif- ferent forms and in different language. In M. v. JSashm (17 Q,. B. 220), questions were asked as to certain lead chambers (each weighing seyeral tons) used for the manufacture of sulphuric acid, and Patteson, J. , in delivering the considered judgment of the Court, said, " We do not think it neces- sary in this case to determiae whether the chambers erected on the appellant's premises are or are not annexed to the freehold, which is rather a question of fact for the Court of Quarter Sessions to find than for us to decide ; because we are of opinion that, according to the principle laid down in the various cases on this subject, the rateable value of the premises is undoubtedly increased by the use of those chambers." . ..." It is plain from the facts stated that they are used as part of the fixed machinery of the works attached to the other buildings for the purpose of being so used, and necessarily so attached in the use of them, although capable perhaps of being removed without injury to the other buildiags." In this case, I think it is plain, though PAxaESON, J., used the word " attached," that he did not think it necessary that the chambers should be physi- cally attached to the freehold. Again, in R. v. Southampton Dock Co. (14 Q. B. 587), Lord Campbell said, "The appellants contended that their cranes, steam engines, and other like ponderous machinery, although attached to the freehold, ought to be treated as stock-in-trade and part of the capital which a tenant would have to invest in the business, so as to diminish instead of increasing the rateable value of the property of the company. The sessions did find as a fact that these fixtures, worth 6,450/. to an incoming tenant, although attached to the freehold, are 250 COUBT OF APPEAL. 1886. capaUe of teing detached from the freehold as easily and TtnbBoilee with as little injiiry to it as other fixtiires put up for the J,. ■ purposes of the trade of the tenant, and usually valued as LoNOB^KTON^ between incoming and outgoing tenant. But this is a rate upon buildings to which machinery is attached for the pur- poses of trade ; and it has been solemnly deeidedthat such real property ought to be assessed according to its existing value as combined Avith the machinery, without considering whether the machinery be real or personal property, or whether it would be liable or not to distress or seizure under & fieri facias, or whether it would go to the heir or executor, or at the expiration of a lease to the landlord or tenant." The learned judge then referred to R. v. Birmingham and Staffordshire Gas Light Co. (6 A. & E. 634), and R. v. Ouest (7 A. & E. 951), as laying down the rule which the Court were then adopting. Here, again, in speaking of the machinery which was to be taken into account as enhancing the value of the freehold, the words " attached to the free- hold" were used, but I do not think it was meant that physical attachment was necessary. In R. v. Lee (L. Ep. 1 Q. B. 241) the previous cases were reviewed at length. Blackburn, J., cited WalmsUy v. Milne (7 C. B., N. S. 115 ; 29 L. J., 0. P. 97) ; R. v. Southampton Dock Co. (14 Q. B. 587), and R. v. North Staffordshire Rail. Co. (30 L. J., M. C. 68), and treated all these cases as laying down the same rule as Hellawell v. Eastwood (6 Ex. 295). He referred to the rules laid down for the guidance of the sessions in R. v. North Staffordshire Rail. Co. as follows : " The articles may be divided into three classes: first, things moveable, such as office and station furniture." It is clear these are not to be included. " Secondly, things so attached to the freehold as to become part of it." It is clear, on the principle of all the cases, that no deduction is to be made for them, and they are to be considered as part of what is let. " Thirdly, things which, though capable of being removed, were yet so far attached as that they were intended to remain permanently COURT OF APPEAL. 251 connected with the railway or the premises used with it, ' 1886. and to remain permanent appendages to it, as essential to tyneBoileb its working." That phrase, as it appears to me, contains ^°^^^ '^°- the same idea as is stated in the case of Hellawell v. Oteeseeesop ■n n J J • -1 • • n LONGBENTOK. Eastwood, where the test is said to be, citing from the year-book, whether the thing be fixed pour un profit del inheritance; and again, as in the case of Walmsley V. Milne, where it was said the question was, whether the articles were annexed for the better enjoyment of the estate. The idea throughout is the same — if the things are annexed, though but slightly, with a view to the enhancement of the inheritance and the permanent improvement of it, they may be considered as part of it for which a hypothetical tenant would be considered rate- able. Now applying that rule to the present case, though I was inclined at first to take an opposite view as to some of these articles, they are all, with the exception of the meters, attached to the premises, although but slightly ; nevertheless, I think it is clear they all are in fact attached to the premises, and equally clear they all are in fact attached to the premises with the view of enhancing the benefit of the premises, so as to come within the principle laid down in the cases I have mentioned." Now here, Blackburn, J., in citing the earlier cases, regards the words, " attached, so as to remain permanently connected," and "permanent appendages," which are different from those used in other cases, as still conveying the same idea. It is true that he himself uses the words " attached, although but slightly ;" but it must be remem- bered that in the case before him, he had to deal only with things which were in fact attached j and his language must be considered with reference to the particular facts. If we suppose that he meant that physical attachment to the freehold was necessary, we must ask ourselves, did he mean to overrule the principle laid down by Patteson, J., in JR. v. Saslam. I cannot think that he did. Again, in the same case {R. v. Lee, L. E. 1 Q. B. at p. 257), S5^ COURT OF APPEAL. 1886. Lush, J., said : " I apprehend tliat the premises to be Ttne Boilee rated are to be taken as they are, with all their fittings J,. ■ and appliances by which the owner has adapted them to a LoNmmmjN^ particular use, and which would pass as a part of the premises by a demise of them to a tenant. That seems to me to express what, in other words, has been expressed in the cases referred to by the other members of the Court." He does not here use the word " attached," or any words referring to attachment by screws or bolts ; but further on he says, " AH 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 gas works." Now here, I think, when he uses the word fixed, he does not use it ia the sense that the things were fixed so as to become part of the freehold ; nor do I think that he meant to hold that it was necessary that the things should be fixed, and so to differ from the rule laid down by Patteson, J., in JR. v. Haslani. Now come to Laing v. Overseers of Bishop- icearmouth (3 Q. B. D. 299). There the Court considered the old cases, and evidently did not intend to overrule them, but thought they were adopting the principle to be foimd in them. Cockburn, C. J., said : — " Applying the rule established by these decisions to the present case, it appears to us that the whole of the machinery in question, though some of it may be capable of being removed without injury to itself or to the freehold, is essentially necessary to the shipbuilding business to which the ap- pellant's 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." Now in this sentence does the word " attached " mean physically attached by being bolted, screwed, or fastened ? If it does, then the rule laid down by Patteson, J., in B. V. Saslam (17 Q. B. 220), that it was unnecessary to determine whether the lead chambers were " annexed to the freehold," was wrong ; and, moreover, a piece of machinery weighing several tons, which could not be, and COURT OP APPEAL. 253 ■was intended never to be, lifted, ought not to be taken 1886, into account, but, by tbe mere addition of two screws, tynbBoilek would have to be taken into account. I do not therefore ^°^^^ °- think that the Court in that case meant by the word Oteeseeesof _ >' LONGEENTON. " attached," to decide that physical fastening or attach- ment should be the criterion ; if it were, it would follow that, even though the fastening were unnecessary, it would determine the question. In the rule which I propose to lay down, I may not succeed in expressing the true prin- ciple with absolute accuracy, but I believe it to express in other words the rule to be deduced from all the cases. I purposely leave out all words such as " attached " or " fixed ;" and I believe the true rule to be that things which are on the premises to be rated, which are there for the purpose of making, and which do make, those premises, fit, as premises, for the particular purpose for which they are used, ought to be taken into account in ascertaining the rateable value of such premises. It is not all things which are 'on the premises, but only such things as are within the description I have given, that are to be taken into account. And it seems to me that when once things are brought within this category, they would as a matter of law pass by a demise of the premises, as between land- lord and tenant, unless they were in express terms ex- cluded. Consequently, I think that the test laid down by Lush, J., in R. v. Lee (L. R. 1 Q. B. 241), is the same as that contained in the rule which I have stated. Apply this rule to the present case, even assuming that some of the machinery which we have to consider is not " attached," in the sense of being fastened to the premises, I think it aU comes within the category which I have defined, and, therefore, it ought all to be taken into ac- count in estimating the rateable value of the premises. How they are to be considered by the valuer in taking them into account is a question not for this Court, but for the sessions. "With regard to the case of Chidky v. West Ham (32 L. T. 486), I do not say the decision of the Court was 254 COURT OF APPEAX. 1886. wrong, but I cannot understand how — if the right questions Tynb Boiler were asked the Court in the case — the things which there V. ' had to be considered, ought not to be taken into account. LOTGBEmoN! I '^''• be deemed to be the gross value stated in such list : And in construing the Income Tax Act and any acts con- 5 & 6 Vict, tinning or amending that act, with respect to Schedules A. "• 36i &<=. and B. thereof, annual value shall be deemed to mean the gross value stated in such list. Revision of Valuation List. 46. Every valuation list shall be revised in manner directed Mode of by this act, and such revision in every period of five years atira^t^^'^" (the first of such periods beginning with the sixth of AprU, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one) shall be con- ducted as follows : — (1.) In each of the first four years of such period a supple- mental list shall, if necessary, be made out in the same form as the valuation list, and shall show all the alterations which have taken place during the preceding twelve months in any of the matters stated in the valuation list, but shall contain only the hereditaments affected by such alterations. If no alteration has taken place which makes a supple- mental list necessary, the overseers shall send a certificate to that effect to the assessment comroittee in place of such list, which certificate may be in the form contained in the second schedule to this act : (2.) In the fifth year of every such period the overseers shall make a new valuation Kst. (3.) The same regulations shall be observed and the same proceedings shall be had in the case of a supple- mental list and a new valuation list as are directed by this act and the acts incorporated herewith in the case of the valuation list made in the first year after the passing of this act : (4.) A supplemental list and a new valuation list shall come into force at the beginning of the year suc- ceeding that in which they are respectively made, in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as the valuation Hst made in the first year after the passing of this act : (5.) In each of the last four years of such period the valua- tion list which was in force on the day before the ^'^4 THE VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869. coTnTnencement of each such, year, together with and as altered by the supplemental list, if any, which comes into force at the commencement of such year, shall be the valuation list which is in force during that year: (6) A new valuation list when it comes into force shall supersede the valuation list which was in force during the fifth year of such period. Pro-rision for 47^ jf jn the course of any year the value of any heredita- house built ment 18 mcreased by the addition thereto or erection thereon between the of any building, or is from any cause increased or reduced in *™%^h value, the following provisions shall have effect : valuation list i^) ^^^ overseers of the parish in which such hereditament is made. is situate may, and on the written requisition of the assessment committee or of any ratepayer of the union or of the surveyor of taxes for the district shaU, send to the assessment committee a provisional list containing the gross and rateable value as so in- creased or reduced of such hereditament : (2) A copy of the requisition shall be sent by the person ma^ng it to the clerk of the assessment committee, and if within fourteen days after the requisition has been served on the overseers they mate default in sending such provisional list he shaU forthwith sum- mon the assessment committee, and the assessment committee shall appoint a person to make such provisional list, in the same manner as is in this act provided in the case of the overseers failing to trans- mit a valuation list : (3) On the receipt of the list the clerk of the assessment committee shaU serve on the surveyor of taxes for the district a copy of the list, and shall serve on the occupier of any hereditament to which the list relates a copy of so much thereof as relates to that heredita- ment. Every copy shall be accompanied by a notice specifying a day, being not less than fourteen days after the date of the service of the notice on or before which any objection to the provisional list may be made, and stating the mode in which an objection is to be made. Such copy and notice shall be served in the same way as notices by an assessment com- mittee are served : (4) An objection may be made to any such provisional list by the said occupier, and by the surveyor of taxes, or by either of them, by notice thereof in writing being served on the clerk of the assessment com- mittee, on the overseers, on the surveyor of taxes, THE VALUATION (mETEOPOLIS) ACT, 1869. 375 and on the occupier, or on sucli of them as the case may require : (5) The clerk of the assessment committee, on the receipt of the notice of any objection, shall forthwith sum- mon a meeting of the committee, and give notice of the time and place of such meeting to the overseers, to the surveyor of taxes, and the occupier : (6) The committee shall hear and determine on the objection in the same manner as if it were an objection to a valuation list, and may make such order as they think just : (7) If no objection is made, then on the expiration of the time for making objections, or if an objection is made then as soon as the assessment committee have determined on the objection, the assessment committee shall cause a copy to be made of the pro- visional list, with any alteration made in it by the committee, and shall return the list and the copy thereof, after being dated and signed by their clerk, to the overseers : (8) A provisional list, signed as aforesaid, shall have operation from the date of the service by the clerk of the assessment committee of a copy of the list and notice on the occupier, and shall continue in force until the first list (supplemental or other) which is subsequently made comes into force : (9) Upon a provisional list coming into operation the over- seers shall make such entries in the rate book for the then current poor rate as wiU bring the same into conformity with such list, and shall also enter therein the date at which such list is to come into operation, and shall charge the occupier of such hereditament with a proper proportion of such current poor rate, regard being had to the time which has elapsed between the making of such rate and the said date and to the rateable value stated in such provisional list, and such occupier shall be considered as actually rated for such sum from the said date, and be liable to pay the same, and the same may be enforced accordingly : (10) A provisional list during the time that it is in force shall be deemed to form part of the valuation list for the time being in force, and shall (so far as is neces- sary) be substituted for so much of that valuation list as relates to the same hereditament, and every rate and tax in respect of which the valuation list is conclusive, which are respectively made or charged after the provisional list comes into force, and the 876 THE VALUATION (mETEOPOLIs) ACT, 1869.; proportion of the current rate charged as before provided in this section shall be levied accordingly ; but if when the next revision of the valuation list takes place the list as approved and altered on appeal contains a smaller value for the hereditament com- prised in a provisional list than the value stated in such provisional Ust,.the amount of rate or tax which has been overpaid in consequence of the larger value having been stated shall be repaid or allowed. (11) Nothing in this section shall affect the value on which any rate is made or sum is assessed or contribution re- quired which is made, assessed, or required on the totals of the gross or rateable value of parishes or Costs oi appeal, &c. Inland revenue may make allow- ances for expenses of act. Expenses. Expenses. 48. The costs of an appeal awarded against or incurred by any assessment committee or overseers shall be deemed to be expenses incurred under this act and the acts incorporated herewith, and shall be raised and paid accordingly. Any costs or expenses awarded against or incurred by any surveyor of taxes shall be defrayed in the same manner as expenses are directed to be defrayed by the acts relating to the taxes in respect of which the valuation list is made con- clusive. 49. The commissioners of inland revenue may make such allowances as they think fit for remunerating any person employed by them in the execution of this act, and for the discharge of any costs or expenses incurred by him. 50. The expenses of the assessment sessions and such remuneration as the poor law board (a) may from time to time allow to the clerk of the managers of the metropolitan asylum district (5), the clerk of the assessment sessions, and persons appointed to assist the assessment sessions as provided by this act, and such costs and expenses incurred by such clerks and persons under this act as the poor law board may allow, after such audit as the poor law board may direct, shall be paid by the receiver of the metropolitan common poor fund out of any moneys for the time being in his hands, and shall be paid at such times and in such manner and upon such precept of the poor law board as the poor law board may from (a) Now the Local Gtovemment Board : see 34 & 35 Vict. o. 70, s. 2. (*) Now the clerk of the London County Oonncil: see the Local Government Act, 1888, s. 44. THE VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869. 377 time to time prescribe, and the poor law board may require contributions for the purpose of raising such remuneration, expenses, and costs. Rules for formation of Valuation List. 51. The valuation list shall be made out in the form given Form and in the second schedule to this act. contents of The overseers shall not include in such valuation list any ™ "^ ^°^ ^ ' hereditaments (except tithes or payment in lieu of tithes) ■which are charged according to rule two in section sixty of the Income Tax Act, but shaU include tithes and payments in 5 & 6 Vict, lieu of tithes and every ; hereditament in their parish, and «• 35. shall enter every hereditament in the valuation list in accord- ance with the classes mentioned in the third schedule to this act, so that the deductions to be made in ascertaining the rateable value may be calculated in accordance with that schedule. 52. The percentage or rate of deductions to be made from Deductions the gross value in calculating the rateable value for the pur- ^°^ rateable poses of this act shall not exceed the amounts in the third ^^ ^^' schedule to this act, so far as the same are applicable. 53. When a surveyor of taxes gives notice of objection or Amount of of appeal, the amount specified in the notice as being in his gross value judgment the gross value of any hereditament referred to in tErsurveyor the notice shall be inserted in the valuation list by the assess- of taxes to ment committee, special sessions, or assessment sessions, Reinserted, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the assessment com- proved, mittee, special sessions, or assessment sessions, that such amount ought not to be so inserted. 54. Nothing contained in this act or the acts incorporated Sa-rins of ex- herewith shall affect any exemption or deduction from or emptions and allowance out of any rate or tax whatever, or any privilege p^ciples^of of or provision for being rated or taxed on any exceptional valuation, principle of valuation. Returns. 55. In the first year after the passing of this act, and in Occupier every subsequent year in which a new valuation list is made, t° ™ate or in the month of March preceding any such year, every '■^*™^- person who is liable to be charged with any rate or tax in respect of which the valuation list is made conclusive shall, when required, make to the overseers of his parish such state- ment or return as a person chargeable under the Income Tax Act and the acts amending the same is bound to make (c). {c) As to returns by owners, see 47 & 48 Vict. o. 5, s. 2, infra, p. 391. 378 THE VALUATION (mETEOPOLIs) ACT, 1869. returns to overseers who are to serve them. Surveyor of 56. For th.e purpose of securing the proper making of such. notoTanF'^ returns, the surveyor of taxes shall in the month of February forms for preceding send to the overseers of each parish in his district a sufficient number of printed forms and notices, and the over- seers, within a month after the receipt thereof, shall serve a notice and form on every person in their parish required by this act to make a return ; and every person required by this act to make a return shall make it within twenty-one days after the service of a notice and form on him. The forms and notices shall be such as are prescribed by the Income Tax Act or the acts amending the same, or as the commissioners of her majesty's treasury may from time to time prescribe, and any such form duly filled up and signed shall be deemed to be a sufficient return. The return shall be delivered to the overseers of each parish, and together with the valuation list shall be sent by them to the surveyor of taxes, and by the surveyor of taxes to the assessment committee. Assessment committee may require returns from owner and occupier. 57. An assessment committee may, by order, require any person who is the owner or occupier or reputed owner or occu- pier of any hereditament in their union to send them a return in writing of all or any of the following things ; viz., of the rent receivable or payable by him (as the case may be) for such hereditament, and of the person entitled to any tithe rentcharge charged on such hereditament, and of the amount of the same, and of the several persons by whom any tithe rentcharge is paid to him, and of the amounts paid by each such person, and of any other particulars respecting such hereditament as are required for the due execution of this act and the acts incorporated herewith. And every such owner or occupier shall obey such order within fourteen days after the service thereof on him. Penalty for no or false returns. Provision for cases where no guardians and where no overseers. 58. If any person wilfully refuses or neglects to make any return lawfully required under this act within the times re- spectively limited by this act in that behalf, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding five pounds. If any person wilfully makes or causes to be made a false return, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds. Miscellaneous. 59. With respect to any parish which is not included in any union of parishes, and in which there is no board of guardians, the following provisions shall have effect : — (1) The assessment committee of the adjoining union shall act as the assessment committee of that parish, and. THE VALUATION (meTEOPOLIs) ACT, 1869. 379 where there is more than one such adjoining union the poor law board shall determine the assessment committee which is to act for such parish : (2) Every such parish shall, for the purposes of this act and the acts incorporated herewith, hut not for any other purpose, be deemed to be within the union of the assessment committee which acts for it : (3) The masters of the bench, treasurer, governors, or other body of persons in such parish, may, at the time appointed for the election of an assessment com- mittee, appoint a person to be a member of such assessment committee in addition to the number elected under this act and the acts incorporated herewith : (4) Where there are no overseers the assessment com- mittee shall appoint some person to perform the duties of the overseers under this act and the acts incorporated herewith, and may award him such remuneration as they think fit ; and the person so appointed shall perform those duties, and shall, for that purpose, have all the powers of overseers : (5) A proportionate share of the expenses of the assess- ment committee under this act and the acts incor- porated herewith, and any remuneration paid to or expenses incurred by the person appointed by them under this or any other section to make a valuation list, shall be charged on such parish, and the sums so charged shall be paid by the masters of the bench, treasurer, governor, or other body of persons ; and sections sixty-six, sixty-seven, and sixty-eight of the Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867, shall apply to such sums in the same manner as if the assessment com- mittee and their clerk were the poor law board and the receiver mentioned in those sections. are the over- seers. 60. Where the vestry or the guardians of any parish per- Provision form the duties of overseers with respect to a valuation list ^^^^J^^^ under this act the list shall be signed by the vestry clerk or the clerk of the guardians. 61. The guardians may, upon the application of the assess- Guardians ment committee, after notice sent in the manner required by may appoint the principal act, appoint some competent person to assist the to asaist^he "^ committee in the valuation of the hereditaments in the union assessment for such period as they see fit, at a salary or other settled committee. remuneration, to be paid out of the common fund. 62. Every assessment committee, with the consent of the Assessment guardians, and every overseer, with the consent of the vestry committee ° and overseers 380 THE VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869. may give security for costs of valuation. of his parisli, may, for the purposes of any application for a valuation on any appeal, give security for paying the costs of such valuation. An assessment committee may give such security and may appear on any appeal by their clerk, and shall indemnify the said clerk against all moneys, losses, and costs paid or incurred by him in consequence of such security or appearance. TTse of public room for appeals, &c. 63. Any room maintained out of the proceeds of any rate levied wholly or partly in the metropolis may (with the con- sent of the person or body corporate having the control of it) be used for hearing appeals, and for other purposes of this act. Evidence of valuation list, &c. 64. A valuation list may be proved by the production of a duplicate or copy of such list purporting to be certified to be a duplicate or a true copy by the clerk of the assessment com- mittee that approved it, and such certificate shall state that the alterations (if any) made in the list in consequence of the decision on any appeal under this act have been correctly made in the duplicate or copy so produced, and the clerk on application shall furnish a copy to any overseers on payment of a sum not exceeding the rate of three shillings for every hundred entries numbered separately. A provisional list may be proved by the production of a duplicate or copy thereof purporting to be certified to be a true copy by the derk of the committee who signed it. Service of notices, &c. by post, &c. 65. All orders and notices under this act and the acts in- corporated herewith shall be in writing or print, or partly in writing and partly in print, and if made or given by an assessment committee shall be sufficiently authenticated if signed by their clerk ; and all orders, notices, and documents required by the same acts to be served on or sent to any person or body of persons corporate or unincorporate may be either delivered to such person or the clerk of such body, or left at the usual place of abode of such person or clerk, or at the office of such clerk or body, or (it such abode or office cannot on reasonable inquiry be discovered) at the premises to which the order, notice, or document relates. They may also be served and sent by post, by a prepaid letter, addressed to such person, or to the office of such body or to their clerk, and if sent by post, shall be deemed to have been served and received respectively at the time when the letter containing the same would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, and in proving such service or sending it shall be sufficient to prove that the letter containing the notice was properly addressed and prepaid and put into the post. THE VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869.' 381 66. Any notice required by this act to be published by the PuWioation Qverseers shall, on the Sunday next following the receipt of o^^geera ^^ such notice, or the document to which the notice refers, and the two following Sundays, be published by them in the manner in which notice of a rate allowed by justices is required to be published. 67. Where any documents are required by this act to be inspection, deposited in the same place in a parish in which rate boots &o. of doou- are kept, every ratepayer shaU. be at liberty to inspect and ^^'d \rith°' take copies of or extracts from such documents at any reason- rate books, able time, without fee or charge. 68. The duplicate of the valuation list, approved by the Valuation lists assessment committee, and sent to the overseers, as directed to ^^ equiva- by this act, the notices of alterations made on any appeal wtg^of**^ under this act, and any provisional list, shall for all purposes be parish, deemed to be part of the rate books of the parish, and shall be produced by the overseers before the justices upon any application for allowance of rates, and on any appeal under this or any other act, and on any other occasion if so required, on which they are bound to produce such rate books, and any overseer who fails to produce such list in accordance with the provisions of this section shaU. be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds. The duplicate of the valuation list returned to the assess- ment committee by the clerk of the managers of the metropolitan asylum district, and other documents in the possession of the assessment committee in pursuance of this act, shall be kept at the board room or other convenient place from time to time appointed by the guardians of the same union, but shall be deemed to be in the possession of the assessment committee, and shall be produced by their clerk to the district auditor whenever required by him. 69. Any ratepayer, overseer, clerk of an assessment com- Ratepayer, mittee, or surveyor of taxes in the metropolis may, at all ^°' ^^, reasonable times, without payment, inspect and take copies ments, &c. of and extracts from all valuation lists and documents which ™ hands of in pursuance of this act are under the control of the clerk of °'®'^^ °* the managers of the metropolitan asylum district, or of the assessment clerk of the assessment sessions. committee. 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 (to be carried to the common fund), may at any reasonable time inspect and take copies of and extracts from any valuation Hsts, notices of 382 THE VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869. Amendment of error in rate by two justices. Omissions from the rate. Form of rate and de- claration. objection, returns, and other documents in the possession or under the control of the assessment committee of that union. Any clerk of an assessment committee in the metropolis may inspect and take extracts from any valuation lists in the possession or under the control of the assessment committee of any other union in the metropolis. Any person -who hinders a ratepayer, overseer, clerk of an assessment committee, or surveyor of taxes from so inspecting or taking copies of or extracts from any valuation list or docu- ment, or demands where not authorized hy this act a fee for allowing him so to do, shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for each offence. 70. [Eepealed, by 47 & 48 Vict. c. 5, infra, p. 391. J 71. Any person who feels aggrieved by reason of any clerical or arithmetical error in a rate in the metropolis may apply to two justices of the peace or a magistrate sitting at any police court in the metropolitan police district, who, after the applicant has given such notice to the overseers who made the rate and such persons as such justices or magistrates think just, may hear the case in like manner as in the case of ■ summary proceedings, and amend the rate so far as respects . such error. 7S. "Whenever the name of any person liable to be rated at the time the rate is made is omitted from any rate in the metropolis, or if any person is described in any such rate by a wrong name, the overseers may, after giving to such person seven clear days notice of their intention, apply to any two justices or any police magistrate as aforesaid, who may hear the case in like manner as in the ease of summary proceed- ings, and insert the name so omitted, or correct the name so wrongly entered, and every such insertion and correction shall operate as if it had been part of the original rate : provided that any person whose name is so inserted or corrected in any such rate may appeal against the same at the general quarter sessions of the peace which is holden next after such inser- tion or correction, in like manner as he might have appealed against the rate. 73. Every poor rate made in the metropolis after the fifth of April one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one shall contain the particulars specified in the fourth sehediile to this act, together with such other particulars as the poor law board may from time to time by order direct, and the overseer shall sign the form of declaration which is given in that schedule before the rate is allowed by the justices. And the justices shall not allow any rate at the foot of which the said declara- tion has not been added and signed. THE VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869. 383 Any overseer -who wilfully omits to make tlie said declara- tion or makes the same falsely shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds. 74. The entry of the proceedings of the assessment com- Amendment mittee at any meeting, and of the names of the members who yjil^^fog attend that meeting, may be signed by the chairman of the g. n'. " ' next meeting of the committee, and every entry and minute purporting to be so signed shall be received in evidence in the same manner as if such entry or minute had been signed by the chairman of the meeting at which the proceedings took place, and the members were present. 75. Nothing in this act shall in any way alter or affect the Saving of mode of valuing or taxing any hereditament which is not vXrproperty included in any valuation list, or which is chargeable accord- not inoluded ing to the profits and not according to the gross value, or the i? a Taluation mode of charging the occupiers of land subject to a tithe rent- charge in respect of such tithe rentcharge. 76. "Where for the purposes of the acts relating to the Separate duty on inhabited houses, or to the duties charged under to^^esfor Schedule B. of the Income Tax Act, or to the sale of excise- purposes of able liquors, it is necessary to make a separate valuation of house duty, any hereditament by reason of its not being separately valued ^™ LiceSms in any valuation list, the value of such hereditament shall be Acts. ascertained in the same manner as if this act had not passed. Repeal of Acts. 77. The enactments specified in the fifth schedule to this act, Eepeal of Acta and so much of any other acts, whether public or local and herein de- personal, as authorizes any valuation of hereditaments to be ^''"^^'^• made for the purposes of any rate or tax in respect of which the valuation list is by this act made conclusive, are hereby repealed, where they relate only to the metropolis absolutely, and in other cases so far as they relate to the metropolis : . provided — 1 . That the provisions of the acts so repealed shall remain in force until the provision or provisions substituted for them by this act shall respectively come into operation : 2. That this repeal shall not affect the validity or invalidity of anything done or suffered under any of the said pro- visions while they remain in force, or any right or title acquired or accrued under any of the said provisions while they remain in force, or any remedy or proceeding in respect thereof [a). (») The wordB in- s. 77 which are printed in italics, and the fifth Schedule [infra, p. 386), " except as to the repeal of so much of any act 384 THE Valuation (metropolis) act, 1869. FlBST SOHEDTTLB. Date of act. Short title used in this a«t. 10 Geo. 4, 0. 44. The Metropolitan Police Act. 5 & 6 Vict. 0. 35. The Income Tax Act. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 36. The House Tax Act. 15 & 16 Viot. c. 81. The County Kate Act. Second Schedule. Part I. Valuation list for \the parish or place for whieh the list is madel in the metropolitan union of [or not being in union] in the county of i.. IE ■Ss Sft 3 committee of the E. E. ) union. Note. — The two last of the above columns (for gross and rateable value as determined by assessment committee) must be fiUed up, and the totals of those columns must be added up after the objections to the alterations have (if any) been heard, and before the list is finally approved; as applies the provisions thereby repealed of 25 & 25 Viot. c. 102," are repealed by the Statute Law Bevision Act, 1883. In order to show the course of legislation it has been thought desirable to set out the whole Schedule. The repeal of a repealing enactment does not revive the en- actment previously repealed : see 52 & 53 Vict. u. 63, s, 11, reproducing 1S& 14 Viot. 0. 21, 8.5. THE VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869. 385, PartlL [Sees. 46(1).]' Form of Certificate where no supplemental list is sent. "We, the overseers of tlie parish, of , do hereby certify that no alteration has taken place in the matters stated in the valuation list of this parish which renders a supplemental list necessary. A. B. \ Overseers of the parish C. D. 1 of Thibd Sohbeule. [See ss 51, 52.] Showing the several classes into which the hereditaments inserted in a valuation list under this Act are to he divided. „ . ^ „ MaxuQum rate of deductdous. Class 1 . Houses and buildings, or either of them, without per cent, or land other than gardens where the gross proportion, value is under 202 25 or Jth. ,, 2. Houses and buildings without land other than gardens and pleasure grounds valued there- with for the purpose of inhabited house duty where the gross value is 20?. and under 40?. 20 or -Jth. , , 3. Houses and buildings without land other than gardens and pleasure grounds valued there- with for the purpose of inhabited house duty where the gross value is iOl. or upwards . . 16f or Jth. ,, 4. Buildings without land which are not liable to inhabited house duty and are of a gross value of 202. and under 401 20 or ^th. ,, 5. BuUdings without land which are not liable to inhabited house duty and are of a gross value of 402. or upwards . . . . ^ 16§ or Jth. ,, 6. Land with buildings not houses 10 or -^th. ,, 7. Land without buildings 5 or^th. ,, 8. Mills and manufactories 33J or Jrd. „ 9. Tithes, tithe commutation rentcharge, and other payments in lieu of tithe ,, 10. Railways, canals, docks, tolls, waterworks and. gasworks ,, 11. Rateable hereditaments not included in any of the foregoing classes To be determined in each case ac- cording to the circumstances and the general principles of law. The maximum rate of deductions prescribed in this schedule shall not apply to houses or buildings let out in separate tenements, but the rate of deductions in such cases shall be determined as in classes 9, 10, and 11. E. C C 386 THE VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869. [See s. 73.] Fotjbth Schedule. ^orm of Sate. Kate for the relief of the poor of the parish of in the union, and for other purposes chargeable thereon, according to law made this day of in the year of our Lord 18 , after the rate of in the pound, which is estimated to meet all the expenses for the ahove purposes -which will be incurred before the of next. No. Kameof occupier. Name of owner. Description of property rated. Name or situation of property. Bateable value. Bate at in the pound. Declaration to be added to the Sate. We, the undersigned, do hereby declare that one of us, or some person on our behalf, has exaniined and compared the several particulars in the respective columns of the above rate with the valuation list made under the authority of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, and now in force in this parish {or township), and the several hereditaments are, to the best of our belief, rated according to the value appearing in such valuation list, and do declare that the total of the above rate amounts to pounds shillings and pence. ^^^^^^^ I Churchwardens. ► Overseers. [See s. 77.] IVth Sohedt7i;b. 43 G-eo. 3, u. 161. — An Act for repealing the several duties under the management of the commissioners for tiie affairs -of taxes, and granting new duties in lieu thereof ; for granting new duties in certain cases therein mentioned ; for repealing the duties of excise on licenoes, and on carriages oonsfa^cted by coachmakers, and granting new duties thereon under the management of the said com- missioners for the afifairs of taxes, and also new duties on persons selling carriages by auction or on coromissiou. In part, namely, — So much as relates to the mode of ascertaining the value of houses with respect to the value of which the valuation list is conclnsive. 48 Geo. 3, u. 55.— An Act for repealing the duties of assessed taxes, and granting new duties in Kea thereof, and certain additional duties to be consolidated therewith ; and also for repealing the stamp duties on game certificates, and granting new duties in lieu thereof, to be placed under the management of the commissioners for the affairs of taxes. In part, namely,— So much as relates to the mode of ascertaining the value of houses with respect to the value of which the valuation list is conclusive. THE VALUATION (mETEOPOLIS) ACT, 1869. 57 Geo. 3, o. 25. — An Act to explain and amend an act made in the forty-eighth year of his present majesty for repealing the duties of assessed taxes, and granting new duties in lieu thereof; and to exempt such d-weUing-houses as may be employed for the sole pur- pose of trade, or of lodging goods, wares, or merchandize, from the duties charged hy the said act. In part, namely, — So much as relates to the mode of ascertaining the value of houses with respect to the value of which the valuation list is conclusive. 10 Geo. 4, 0. 44. — An Act for improving the police in and near the me- tropolis. In part, namely, — So much of sections thirty and thirty-two as relates to the asoertaioing the value of any hereditameuts with respect to the value of which the valuation list is made conclusive. 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96. — An Act to regulate parochial assessments. In part, namely, — Sections one, two, six, seven and nine. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35. — An Act for granting to her majesty duties on profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices until the sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and forty-five (in this act called the Income Tax Act). In part, namely, — Section sixty. No. I. No. II. par. 1, 3. No. IV. par. 2, 4. No. V. (so far as respects the deductions allowed by this act) . Section sixty-three. No. X. par. 1, 2, 3, 4. Sections sixty-four, sixty-five, sixty-six, sixty-seven, sixty-eight, seventy-eight, eighty-one, eighty-two, eighty-seven, and any other part which relates to the ascertaining of the value of lands, tene- ments, and hereditaments with respect to the value of which the valuation list is made conclusive. 14 & 15 Vict. i>. 36. — An Act to repeal the duties payable on dwelling houses according to the number of windows or lights, and to grant in lieu thereof other duties on inhabited houses according to their annual value (in this act called the House Tax Act). In part, namely, — So much as relates to the mode of ascertaining the value of houses with respect to the value of which the valuation list is conclusive. 15 & 16 Vict. o. 81. — An Act to consolidate and amend the statutes relating to the assessment and collection of county rates in England and Wales (in this act called the County Kate Act). In part, namely, — So much of sections one to twenty, both inclu- sive, as relates to the preparation of a basis or standard of county rate for any part of the metropolis, and sections forty to forty-three, both inclusive. 16 & 17 Vict. c. 34. — An Act for granting to her majesty duties on profits arising from property, professions, trades, and of&ces. In part, namely, — Sections thirty-two and forty-seven, and so much of the rest of the act as relates to the mode of ascertaining the value of any hereditaments with respect to the value of which the valuation list is conclusive. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120. — An Act for the better local management of the metropolis (Metropolis Management Act, 1856). In part, namely,' — So much of sections one hundred and seventy- five and one hundred and seventy-nine as relates to ascertaining the value of any hereditament with respect to the value of which the valuation list is conclusive. cc2 388 THE VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869. 20 & 21 Vict. 0. 64.— An Act for raising a sum of money for bnilding and improving stations of tlie metropolitan police, and to amend the acts Gonoerning the metropolitan police. In part, namely, — Sections eleren and twelve. 21 & 22 Vict. c. 33. — An Act for the hetter management of county rates. In part, namely, — Section one. 25 & 26 Vict. c. 102. — An Act to amend the Metropolis Local Management Acts (the Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1862). In part, namely, — So much of sections six, seven, and thirteen as authorizes or relates to the ascertaining the value of any hereditament with respect to the value of which the valuation list is conclusive, and so much of any act as applies the provisions herehy repealed. 25 & 26 Vict. 0. 103.— The Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862. In part, namely, — Sections three, fourteen, fifteen, the following words in section seventeen, " and a copy of such valuation list shall be forthvrith delivered to the board of guardians," sections twenty- two, twenty- three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty- six, twenty- seven, section twenty-eight down to " schedule hereunto annexed," sections twenty-nine, thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty- four, thirty-five, thirty-six, thirty-nine, forty-one, forty-two, forty- three, and forty-five. 27 & 28 Vict. c. 39. — The Union Assessment Committee Amendment Act, 1864. In part, namely, — Sections one, nine, and eleven. 29 & 30 Vict. c. 64. — An Act to amend the laws relating to the inland revenue. In part, namely, — Section seventeen, so far as it relates to the value of property. 29 & 30 Vict. c. 78.— The County Rate Act, 1866. In part, namely, — Section one. 31 & 32 Vict. c. 122.— The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1868. In part, namely, — Sections thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two, and thirty-eight. Manner of charging cer- tain properties, &c. Ecclesiastical dues. EuLE 2 or Sect. 60 ob^ Income Tax Act (5 & 6 Vict. c. 35) {a). No. II. — Rules for estimating the lands, tenements, hereditaments, or heritages herein m,entioned which are not to be charged according to the preceding general rule. The annual value of aU the properties hereinafter described shall be understood to be the fuU amount for one year, or the average amount for one year, of the profits received therefrom within the respective times herein limited (i). (2.) Of all dues and money payments in right of the church or by endowment, or in lieu of tithes (not being tithes arising from lands), and of all teinds in Scotland, on the like average (6). («) See V. M. A., 1869, s. 51, supra, p. 377. (A) Paragraphs 1 and 3 are repealed by V. M. A., 1869, s. 77. EULE 2 OF SECT. 60 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1842. 389 (4.) Of manors and other royalties, including aU dues Manors. and other services, or other casual profits (not teing rents or other annual payments reserved or charged), on an average of the seven preceding years, to be charged on the lord of such manor or royalty, or person renting the same. (5.) Of all fines received in consideration of any demise Pines. of lands or tenements (not heing parcel of a manor or royalty demisable by the custom thereof) on the amount so received within the year preceding, by or on account of the party : provided that in case the party chargeable shall prove, to the satis- faction of the commissioners for general purposes in the district, that such fines, or any part thereof, have been applied as productive capital, on which a profit has arisen or will arise otherwise charge- able under this act, for the year in which the assessment shaU be made, it shall be lawful for the said commissioners to discharge the amount so applied from the profits liable to assessment under this rule. (6.) Of all other profits arising from lands, tenements. Other profits hereditaments, or heritages not in the actual pos- *'^°™ lands, session or occupation of the party to be charged, and not before enumerated, on a fair and just average of such number of years as the said com- missioners shall, on the statement of the party to be charged, judge proper (except such profits as may be liable to deduction in pursuance of the ninth or tenth rule in No. IV. hereinafter men-, tioned), to be charged on the receivers of such profits, or the persons entitled thereto. THE METEOPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1875. 38 & 39 Vict. c. 33. An Act to amend the Metropolis Management Acts. [29th June, 1875.] Whereas by section one hundred and sixty-three of the Metropolis Management Act, 1865, it is provided that any sewers rate raised under that act shall, as regards all land used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground only, or as wood- land, orchard, market garden, hop, herb, flower, fruit, or nursery ground, be assessed and levied in the proportion of one-fourth part only of the net annual value of such land ; 390 THE METEOPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMEND. ACT, 1875. And whereas by section one hundred and sixty-four of the same act it is also provided that where any property was, at the time of the issuing of the first commission under the act of the eleventh and twelfth years of her majesty, chapter one hundred and twelve, entitled to exemption from or to any reduction or allowance in respect of the sewers rate, such exemption, reduction, or allowance shall be observed and allowed in levying any sewers rate under that act : And whereas by virtue of the said recited act, and the acts amending the same, the metropolitan board of works do assess the several parts of the metropolis according to the basis on which the printed totals of the valuation lists sent out by the clerk of the managers of the metropolitan asylum district under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, are made, and issue their precepts for sums of money which, by reason of the recited exemptions, cannot be levied upon some of the property included in such assessment, or can only be levied at one fourth of the amount included in such assessment, whereby the parts of the metropolis wherein such exemptions exist are compelled to make a rate at an increased amount in order to meet such precepts : Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parlia- ment assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows : Metropolitan toard of works to make abatement on assessment of parts of metro- polis contain- mg property exempt from sewers rate. 1. From and after the sixth day of April one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six the metropolitan board of works, in every assessment made by them upon such parts of the metropolis as contain property wholly or partially exempt from sewers rate, and in the precepts issued for obtaining payment of the sums so assessed, shall make an allowance or abatement equal to the reduction or exemption which, under the one hundred and sixty-third and one hundred and sixty- fourth sections of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, is required to be made in levying any rate for the purpose of meeting such precepts. Totals of value 2. The overseers and assessment committees acting under exem°rtobe° *^® Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, shall cause the totals of fMCTted L ^ t^s gross and rateable value of the property so whoUy or valuation lists, partially exempt from sewers rate, and the extent of such exemption, to be ascertained and inserted in the valuation lists which wiU come into force on the sixth day of April one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, and in every valua- tion list which shall thereafter be made by them. THE METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMEND. ACT, 1875. 391 3. Th.e said lists shall he sent by the assessment committees Totals to he before the first day of November in each year to the clerk of P^^t^d. the managers of the metropolitan asylum district, who shall print and send the said totals and extent of exemptions, with the other totals of gross and rateable value required to be printed and sent by the seventeenth section of the said Valua- tion (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 4. Any unfairness or incorrectness in the said totals and Appeal in extent of exemptions may be appealed against in the manner "^^^ °* unfair- provided for appealing against totals of gross or rateable "^^^' *^°' value under section thirty-two of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. VALUATION (METEOPOLIS) AMENDMENT ACT, 1884. 47 & 48 Vict. c. 5. An Act to amend the Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869, ly giving greater facilities for appeal to owners and lessees of houses paying rates and taxes in the place of the occupiers. [28th March, 1884.] Whereas the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, does not 32 & 33 Vict, sufficiently provide for objections to and appeals against <=• ^7. valuation lists in the case of owners and lessees who by con- tract or arrangement pay tenants rates and taxes, more especially when such houses are subdivided into tenements separately rated as hereditaments in such valuation lists : Be it enacted by the queen's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and tem- poral, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same (as follows) : 1, This act may be cited as the Valuation (Metropolis) Short title and Amendment Act, 1884, and shall be read and construed as construction, one act with the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 (hereinafter called the principal act). 2. Section seventy of the principal act is hereby repealed, Enabling and in lieu thereof it is enacted as follows : "Where the owner owners and or lessee of any hereditament is liable to be assessed for any appeal, rate or tax in the place of the occupier or tenant, or does in fact pay any such rate or tax in his place under any contract 392 THE VALUATION (METROPOLIS) AMEND. ACT, 1884. One notice or objection may include one or more separately assessed nere- ditaments. or arrangement with Wm, such owner or lessee shall for the purposes of this act and the acts incorporated therewith be deemed to be the occupier of such hereditament, and the person referred to as the ratepayer in sections nineteen and thirty-two of the principal act, and the person who is to make to the overseers of his parish the statement or return referred to in the fifty-fifth section of the principal act. Provided that any form of return, order, notice, or docu- ment required to be given to or served on the occupier under the principal act shall, except where the owner or leasee is liable to be assessed to or to pay any rate or tax in the place of the occupier, be deemed to be sufficiently given or served, notwithstanding this act, if addressed to such occupier and left on the premises to which the return, order, notice, or document relates. 3. Where any occupier or ratepayer, or any owner or lessee deemed to be an occupier or ratepayer within the meaning of section two of this act, shall object to the valuation list in respect of any hereditaments, whether consisting of a house or houses subdivided into tenements separately assessed as hereditaments or of separate houses or tenements not so sub- divided, it shall be lawful for him to include in any one notice made in pursuance of section thirty-three of the principal act or otherwise, or in any one objection, appeal, or other pro- ceeding under the principal act and the acts incorporated therewith, the whole or any one or more of the hereditaments separately assessed and comprised in one valuation list of which he is or is deemed to be the occupier or ratepayer. OEDEES OF THE COUNTY OE LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. The Vaitjation (Metbopolis) Act, 1869. Orders regulating the Proceedings on Appeals under the above Act, and determining the recognizances to he entered into hy Appellants. Appellants to !• On an appeal to special sessions from the decision of an specM sessions assessment committee, the appellant and one surety shall, reooybiSc°e8. '"'ithin seven days after giving notice of appeal, enter into recognisances m the sum of 201. each, before a justice of the peace for the county conditioned for the due prosecution of the appeal, and for the payment of any costs ordered by the special sessions to be paid by the appellant. This order shall not apply to an assessment committee, to overseers, or to surveyors of taxes. ORDERS OF THE LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. 393 2. On an appeal to quarter sessions from the decision either Appellants to of an assessment committee or special sessions, the appellant q^uarter ses- and two sureties shall, -within seven days after giving notice i^to^j-eoog'-^'^ of appeal, enter into recognizances before a justice of the peace nizauces. for the county, conditioned for the due prosecution of the appeal, and for the payment of any costs ordered by the quarter sessions to be paid by the appellant, and the amount of such recognizances shall be determined by such justice, having regard to the nature of the appeal, so that the amount be not less than 50?. This order shall not apply to an assessment committee, to overseers or to surveyors of taxes. 3. In any case in which it shall appear to the quarter Power for sessions that, for some reasonable cause, the recognizances, court to waive directed by Orders Nos. 1 and 2 to be entered into by appeUants recognizances. and their sureties, or any of them, have been omitted to be entered into in conformity with the order, 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. Or the court may, if it think fit so to do, order such security to be given or entered into as to the court may seem just, and may, if necessary for the purpose of such order being complied with, postpone the hearing of such appeal until such time, and upon such terms and conditions, as to costs or otherwise, as the court shall think fit. 4. In any case in which it shall be desired by an appellant Money may be to make a deposit of money in substitution, or in part substitu- deposited m tion, for the recognizances required by Orders Nos. 1 and 2, the nizances. money so to be deposited shall be paid by him into the London and Westminster Bank to a joint account in. the names of the chairman of the court and of the clerk of the court, and the receipt given by the bank for such payment shall be deposited with the clerk of the court, and shall be filed by him in proof of such payment, and such deposit shaU. not, in any case, be less than 601. 5. Appeals to quarter sessions shall be entered by petition. Appeals to be to be lodged in duplicate with the clerk of the court, on or entered by before the 14th January next following the final approval of ^ ^°^' the valuation list, or the supplemental list, as the case may be, by the assessment committee. 6. In an appeal to quarter sessions, the person or persons Respondents at claiming to appear as respondents, shall give notice in writing quarter ses- of his or their intention so to appear, and shall state in the notiraof mten- notice whether he, or they, intend to appear separately, or as tion to appear. 394 OEDERS OF THE LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. joint respondents with any other person or persons ; 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 Order No. 6 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. The expression "person or persons" in this order shall extend to and include a ratepayer, an occupier, a surveyor of taxes, an assessment committee, overseers, and any body of persons authorized by law to levy rates or req[uire contribu- tions payable out of rates. sions to state cases. Appellants and 7. On, Or before, the 1st February next following the entry quarter ses^ ^* of an appeal to quarter sessions, the appellant shall state his Sons to state case and the facts to be "proved, and the points of law (if any) to be argued in support of the case, and shall deliver to the clerk of the court fifteen copies thereof for the use of the court, and shall serve one copy on each respondent ; and, in like manner, each respondent shall, on or before the same day, state his case and the facts to be proved, and the points of law (if any) to be argued in support of the case, and shall deliver, in like manner, fifteen copies thereof for the use of the court, and shall serve one copy on the appellant. Provided that this order shall not apply to an appeal in which the total rateable value appealed against does not exceed 300^. Notices of motion. 8. Notices of motion shall be served two clear days before the court is moved, unless by special leave of the court, and a copy of the notice shall be delivered to the clerk of the court. Consent motions. 9. Consent motions may be made at any time, notwith- standing that the appeals to which they relate are not in the daily cause list. By counsel. 10. Consents shall be signified by counsel in open court. Orders affect- 11- No order shall be made afEecting the gross value of a hereditament until proof has been given, orally or by affidavit, that notice of appeal has been served upon the surveyor of taxes. mg gross value. Paper and printing. 12. The appellant's and respondent's cases, shall be litho- graphed or printed on judicature paper, bookwise, or on white paper of the same size, and shall be endorsed long- OEDEES OF THE LONDON QUAETEE SESSIONS. 395 ways ; and the petition of appeal and aR other documents (except the appellant's and respondent's cases) supplied for the use of the court, or required to be delivered to the clerk of the court, shall be written, lithographed or printed as aforesaid. 13. One counsel only for each party to the appeal shall be One coimsel heard unless by special leave of the court. heard° ^^ 14. The counsel for the appellant shaU. begin, except when Counsel for a surveyor of taxes is the appellant, in which case the counsel ^V?^^^^ ^ for the respondents shall begin. In cases in which there shall be more than one respondent claiming to appear sepa- rately, their counsel shall be heard in the order determined by the court at the time. 15. The costs, ordered by the court to be paid by any of Costs to be the parties to the appeal, shall be taxed, in the usual manner, taxed. by the clerk of the court before the order is settled. 16. The solicitors of the parties shall attend the clerk of Solicitors to the court, on settKner any order of the court, at a time to be ^tf™"! °^ „,,,'. o J ' settling order fixed by hun. of court. 17. The provisions of section 65 of the act with respect to Service of the service of orders and notices under the act shall apply to documents. all documents required to be served under these orders. 18. Such of the expressions in these orders as are the same Interpretation, as those used in the act, shall respectively bear the interpre- tation given to them by the act. P. H. EDLIN, Chairman. 31st March, 1890. Approved. HENET MATTHEWS, One of her Majesty's Principal /Secretaries of State. WniTEHAii, 16th April, 1890. 396 OEDEES OF THE LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. COUNTY OF LONDON QUAETER SESSIONS. The Vaiitation (Meieopolis) Act, 1869. Table of Fees to he paid to Glerhs of Special Sessions. d: For drawing notice of Special Sessions or of any adjournment thereof 5 For preparing and forwarding by post to eaoi justice residing and acting within the division and to the Overseers of each parish within the division a duplicate of such notice, Is. 6d. each, the total amount heing divided proportionately among the parishes comprised in the division, and the proportion due from each parish to he paid by the Overseers Fee to be paid by each appellant at the time of entering his ap- peal (inclusive of hearing, witnesses and adjudication) 10 6 For the order on appeal to Assessment Sessions 6 For recognizances by appellant and two sureties 6 Notices to sureties and appellant (each) 1 For taxation of costs and order thereon when required 10 P. H. EDLIN, Chairman. 31st March, 1890. Approved. HENRY MATTHEWS, One of Ser Majesty's Whitbhaui, Principal Secretaries of State. 16th April, 1890. COUNTY OF LONDON QUARTER SESSIONS. The Valitation (Mbteopous) Act, 1869. Table of Fees to be paid to the Glerlc of the Court. i. d. Entering appeal 5 o Hearing fee 13 4 Drawing a;nd recording every order of court 5 If exceeding five folios, at per folio 1 Copy order of court 2 6 If exceeding five folios, at per folio - . , O 4 Drawing special case, at per folio 1 Attending chairman settling case, for every hour's attendance.. . . 10 Copy of the case as settled, at per folio 4 Attending chairman for signature 10 Taxation of costs, Is. for every 21. or fraction of 21. of the amount of the bUl as taxed. Each subpoena g o Filing each affidavit 2 6 Printed list of appeals, each copy 1 Printed orders and tables of fees, each copy 1 P. H. EDLIN, 31st March, 1890. Approved. HENRY MATTHEWS, One of Ser Majesty's Whitehaii,, Principal Secretaries of State. 16th AprU, 1890. "^ ( 397 ) List of Unions and Parishes not in Union to which the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, extends. Bethnal Green, St. Matthew. Camlierwell, St. Giles. Chelsea, St. Luke. Hampstead, St. John. Islington, St. Mary. Kensington, St. Mary Abhotts. Lambetli, St. Mary. Mile-End Old Town (Hamlet). Faddington, St. Mary. Shoreditch, St. Leonard. St. Uaryleboue. St, Fancras. St. Oeorge's-in-the-East. St. Oiles-in-the-Flelds and St. George's, Bloomsbury. * Lincoln's Inn. St. George's TTnion : — St. George, Hanover Square. St. Margaret and St. John, West- minster. tiClose of the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster. Fulham Union : — Futham. Hammersmith. Greenwich Union : — Greenwich. St. Paul, Deptford. St. Nicholas, Deptford. Hackney XTnion : — St. John, Hackney. St. Mary, Stoke Newington. Holborn Union : — St. Andrew-above-Bars, and St. George-the-Martyr. Fumival's Inn (that part in the county of London). Furnival's Inn (that part iu the city of London) . St. Sepulchre, Middlesex. SaSron Hill, Hatton Garden, and Ely Rents. Staple Inn. St. James and St. John, Clerkenwell. St. Luke, Middlesex. J Charterhouse. § Gray's Inn. Lewisham Union ; — Lee. Eltham. Lewisham. Mottingham. Foplar Union : — St. Mary Stratford, Bow. AH Saints, Poplar. St. Leonard, Bromley. * Lincoln's Inn forms no part of the united parishes of St. Giles-iu-the-Melds and St. George, Bloomsbury, although the Assessment Committee of those parishes acts for Lincoln's Inn, under s. 59 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. t Ihe Close of the Collegiate Church of St. Feter, Westminster, was added to the St. George's Union by order of the Local Government Board, dated 14th September, 187-5. J Charterhouse was added to the Holborn Union by order of the Local Government Board, dated 10th March, 1877. § Gray's Inn forms no part of the Holborn Union, although the Assessment Com- •mittee of that Union acts for Gray's Inn, under s. 59 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 398 LIST OF UNIONS AND PAEISHES NOT IN UNION. St. Wave's TTnion ; — St. Thomaa, Souihwark. St. Mary Magdalen, Bennondsey. St. Clave, Southwark. St. Jolm, Horselydown, Southwark. St. Mary, Kotherhitlie. St. Saviour's ITnion : — Christ Church. St. George-the-Martyr. St. Saviour's, Southwark. St. Mary, Newiugton. Stepney Union : — St. Paul, ShadweU. Hamlet of BatolifE. St. Anne, liiinehouse. St. John, Wapping. Strand TTnion : — St. Martin-in-the-Fielda. St. Paul, Covent Garden. Precinct of the Savoy. St. Mary-le-Strand. St. Clement Danes. Liberty of the RoUs. Wandsworth and Clapham ITnion : — Clapham. Tooting Graveney. Streatham. Battersea, St. Mary. Wandsworth. Putney. Westminster Union : — St. Anne, "Westminster. St. James', "Westminster. Whitechapel ITnion : — Precinct of Old Tower, "Without. Holy Triuity, Minories. Liberty of Old ArtilLery Ground. Hamlet of Mile End, New Town. St. Mary, Whitechapel. Liberty of Norton Folgate. St. Botolph (Without) Aldgate. Precinct of St. Katharine. Christ Church. Woolwich TTnion : — Charlton. Kidbrooke. Woolwich. Plnmstead. City of London ITnion : — 1. St. Alban, Wood Street. 2. AllhaUows, Barking. 3. AJlhaUowB, Bread Street. 4. AllhaUows, Honey Lane. 5. AllhaUows, Lombard Street. 6. AllhaUows, London WaU. 7. AllhaUows, Staining. 8. Allliallows-the-Great. 9. AllhaUowB-the-Less. 10. St. Alphage, London WaU. 11. St. Andrew, Holbom. 12. St. Andrew, Hnbbard. 13. St. Andrew, Undershaft. 14. St. Andrew by the Wardrobe. 15. St. Anne and Agnes. 16. St. Ann, Blackfriars. 17. St. AnthoUn. 18. St. Augustine. 19. Barnard's Inn. 20. St. Bartholomew by the Ex- change. 21. St. Bartholomew-the-Great. 22. St. Baitholomew-the-Less. 23. St. Benet Fink. 24. St. Benet, Gracechurch Street. 25. St. Benet, Paul's Wharf. . 26. St. Benet, Sherehog. 27. St. Botolph, Aldersgate. 28. St. Botolph, Aldgate. 29. St. Botolph, BUUngsgate. 30. St. Botolph, Biahopsgate. 31. St. Bride. 32. BiideweU Precinct. 33. St. Clement, Eastcheap. 34. Christohurch, Newgate Street. 35. St. Christopher-le-Stocks. 36. St. Dionis, Backchurch. 37. St. Dunstan-in-the-East. 38. St. Dunstan-ia-the-West. 39. St. Edmund the King and Martyr. 40. St. Ethelbui-ga. LIST OF UNIONS AND PAEISHES NOT IN UNION. 399 City of London Union {continued) : — 41. St. Faith under St. Paul's. 42. St. G-abriel, Fenchuroh. 43. St. George, Botolph. Lane. 44. St. Griles "Without, Cripplegate. 45. St. Gregory by St. Paul. 46. St. Helen, Bisliopsgate. 47. St. James, Duke's Place. 48. St. James, Garliok Hythe. 49. St. John the Baptist, Walbrook. 50. St. John the Evangelist. 51. St. John Zachary. 52. St. Katharine Coleman. 63. St. Katharine Cree Church. 54. St. Lawrence, Jewry. 55. St. Lawrence, Pouutney. 56. St. Leonard, Eastoheap. 57. St. Leonard, Foster Lane. 58. St. Magnus the Martyr. 59. St. Margaret, Lothbury. 60. St. Margaret Moses. 61. St. Margaret, New Fish Street. 62. St. Margaret Pattens. 63. St. Martin, Ludgate. 64. St. Martin, Orgars. 65. St. Martin, Outwich. 66. St. Martin, Pomroy. 67. St. Martin, Vintry. 68. St. Mary, Abohurch. 69. St. Mary, Aldermaubury. 70. St. Mary, Aldermary. , 71. St. Mary, Bothaw. 72. St. Mary-le-Bow. 73. St. Mary, Coleohurch. 74. St. Mary-at-HiU. 75. St. Mary Magdalen, Milk Street. 76. St. Mary Magdalen, Old Fish St. 77. St. Mary, Mouuthaw. 78. St. Mary, Somerset. 79. St. Mary, Staining. 80. St. Mary, Woolchurch Haw. 81. St. Mary, Woohioth. 82. St. Matthew, Friday Street. 83. St. Michael, Bassishaw. 84. St. Michael, CornhiU. 85. St. Michael, Crooked Lane. 86. St. Michael, Queenhithe. 87. St. Miohael-le-Quem. 88. St. Michael, Paternoster Royal. 89. St. Michael, "Wood Street. 90. St. Mildred, Bread Street. 91. St. MUdred, Poultry. 92. St. Nicholas Aeons. 93. St. Nicholas, Cole Abbey. 94. St. Nicholas Olave. 95. St. Olave, Hart Street. 96. St. Olave, Jewry. 97. St. Olave, Silver Street. 98. St. Panoras, Soper Lane. 99. St. Peter, CornhUl. 100. St. Peter, Paul's "Wharf. 101. St. Peter-le-Poor. 102. St. Peter, "Westcheap. 103. Serjeant's Inn, Fleet Street. 104. St. Sepulchre. 105. St. Stephen, Coleman Street. 106. St. Stephen, "Walbrook. 107. St. Swithin, London Stone. 108. Thavies Inn. 109. St. Thomas Apostle. 110. Holy Trinity the Less. 111. St. Vedast, Foster Lane. 112. "Whitefriars Precinct. ♦Middle Temple. * Inner Temple. * Middle Temple and Inner Temple form no part of the City of London Union, although the Assessment Committee of that Union acts for these places, under s. 59 of the "V"aluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. INDEX, ACCOUNTS, for what year, to be used in appeal by tramway company, 147. in appeal as to Agricultural Hall, 193, 197. ADMINTSTEATIVE COUNTY OF LONDON, area of, includes the City of London, 2, n., 43. ADTEETISING STATIONS, decision of Queen's Bench. Division as to rating of (1887), 276. provisions of Advertising Stations (Eating) Act, 1889 . . 283. AGEICULTUEAL HALL, appeal relating to (1888), 193. diminution in profits of, without structural alteration, sufficient alteration to require a supplemental list, 193. and also a provisional list, 39, 272. ALTEEATION, what is sufficient to call for a supplemental list, 35, 193, 202. for a provisional list, 39, 272. APPEAL AGAINST TOTALS. See Totals, Appeal against. APPEAL TO QUAETEE SESSIONS. &e oZso Aebitbation ; Cbe- TioKAEi ; Costs ; Mandamus ; Peactice ; QrABTEE Sessions. against quinquennial or supplemental lists, 4. not against provisional lists, 4, 23. efiect of valuation list while appeal pending, 19. conditions precedent to, 68. f rounds of appeal, 48. y ratepayer, or owner paying rates, 49. compared with appeals to special sessions, 50. notice of, 54. entry of, by petition, 55. recognizances, and security for costs of, 56. notice of intention to appear as respondent to, 57. case to be stated by parties to, 68. time for hearing of, 58. notice of time to be given, 19, 365. K. DD 402 INDEX. APPEAL TO QUAETEE SESSIONS— continued. appearance on, by assessment committees, 59. costs of, 63. costs of, when unopposed, 120. recovery of costs of, 64. appointment of valuer on, 66, effect on, of delay in making list, 70. against clerical errors in list, 71. notices of motion on, 394. consent motions, 394. APPEALS TO SPECIAL SESSIONS, against what lists, 4, 23. notice of, 41. who may bring, 41. costs of, 42. compared with appeals to quarter sessions, 50. notice of times for hearing, 363. AEBITEATION, assessment sessions had not power to order, 66. nor, it seems, have London Quarter Sessions, 67. AETIZANS' DWELLINGS, how annual value to be calculated from weekly rents, 297. ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE, revision of valuation lists by, 4. appointment of, 5, 340, 378. valuation lists to be sent to, by overseers, 10. powers of, on default of overseers, 10. objections before, by whom to be made, 12. notice to, of objections, 13. hearing of objections by, 14. are boxmd by reduction granted by themselves on hearing ob- jection, 103. if they hear an objection, of which notice was given too late, an appeal may be brought, 209. and, if they allege that they have considered an objection, semble, they are estopped on an appeal from aHegmg the contrary, 229. powers of, in revision of Hsts, 15. approval of list by, 16, 18. to hear objections to alterations, 17. mandamus to, to appoint person to make provisional list, 27, 272. objections before, against provisional list, 31. appearance of, on appeals, 59. liability of, for costs, 64. recovery of costs against, 65, 93. books of, to be open to inspection, 342. may require returns of overseers, 342. clerk of, to attend court on hearing of appeals, 367. appoiatment of valuer to assist, 379. entry of proceedings of, in books, 341, 383, INDEX. 403 ASSESSMENT SESSIONS, substitution of London. Quarter Sessions for, 43. eflect of substitution, 44. quorum, of, 45. time and place for holding, 46, 58. rigM of appeal to, 48. no appeal to, agaiast provisional list, 4, 23. powers of, to make orders, 51. were any of the orders ultra vires ? 62, 55. appearance of assessment committees at, 59. appearance at, by counsel only, 62, 100, 394. chairman of, had casting vote, 121. could vary their own decision during the same session, 168, 179, 268. provided the same justices who made the original order con- stituted the OoTirt which varied that order, 179, 268. within what time application to vary an order must be made, considered, 181. ASSISTANT JUDGE becomes chairman of the London Quarter Sessions, 45. BATTEE8BA PAEK, appeal relating to lake in, 220. BENEFICIAL OCCUPATION, what amounts to, in the case of a dwelling-house in charge of a caretaker, 207. cannot exist, where the costs of maintenance exhaust all the incomings, 228. of buildiug land, which is unlet, impossible, 311. BUILDING LAND, rating of, when occupied as recreation ground for a coUege, 97. when not let, 311. CANAL, entry of, in valuation list, 7. CAEETAKEE, occupation by, if it amounts to beneficial occupation, is rateable, 207. CASE EOE OPINION OE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION, practice as to statement of, 75, 129. appeal to Court of Appeal on, 75. stated by order of a judge, 78. CASE STATED IN QUAETEE SESSIONS, time for stating, 58. eflect of, 58. on appeal as to line of railway, what it should contain, 82 : see also 144. on appeal by water company, must state actual receipts, not an estimate, 104. whether any, need be stated by respondents who do not oppose appeal, 120. semble, no greater reduction than that claimed in, will be given, 121: see also 146. dd2 404 INDEX, CASTING VOTE, given by ohairman of assessment sessions, 121. whether chairman of London Quarter Sessions can give ? 45. CEEXIOEAEI to remove order of quarter sessions, 72. CHAIRMAN, casting vote given by, 121. powers of chairman of London Quarter Sessions, 45. CITY OF LONDON, hearing of appeals, since 1888, as to property within, 43, 229. CITY POLICE STATION held not rateable, 130. CLERICAL ERRORS, correction of, in rate, or list, 21, 71, 382. CLERK, appearance of assessment committee by, 59. appointment of, by assessment committee, 341. remuneration of, by assessment committee, 351. of assessment committee to attend Court on hearing of appeals, 367. COAL MERCHANT'S DEPOT, rating of, 150. COLLECTION OE WEEKLY RENTS, cost of, not a necessary deduction, 297. COMMON FUND, computation of contributions to, 348. COMPANY, appeal by liquidator of, 163. dividends paid by, used as evidence of alteration in rateable value, 195. CONSENT, settlement of appeal by, 394. CONTRACTOR, rent which would be payable to, held evidence of value, in case of School Board for London, 235. CONTREBUTIVE VALUE, not taken into account in rating railway hotel, 121. nor in rating a line of railway, 139 : but see also 210. COST (OF LAND AND BUILDINGS). See also STBUCTimALVAi,irE. evidence of rateable value, of coUege for education of Roman Catholics, 97. what percentage on, taken as evidence of rateable value, 98. of Covent Garden Theatre, not admitted as evidence, 166. held by the Court of Appeal to be evidence of rateable value in case of School Board for London, 235. what percentage taken as evidence by assessment sessions, 169. not evidence of rateable value in Owens CoUege Case, 256. INDEX. 405 COSTS, of appeals to special sesBious, 42. of appeals to quarter sessions, 63. recovery of, 64, 93. taxation of, by derk of the court, 393. of unsuccessful appeal, ordered to be paid by respondents, 84. of successful appeal not given, where much smaller reduction than that claimed is allowed, 104, 188. of application for further particulars iu appellant's case, 104. application to review taxation of. 111. of appeal by overseers against reduction granted by assessment oommittee, 119. given to appellants, on appeal decided by casting vote of chairman, 121. given to appellant who was successful on one out of several points raised, 124. given, though point decided is raised for the first time, 135. given to respondents, where appellant obtains a reduction, but fails on question of principle, 138. apportionment of, where several appeals are heard together, 160. where one appeal brought iu respect of several hereditaments, 167, 179. not given to overseers, who appeal against totals, where the assess- ment committee bring a similar appeal, 178. not given, on successful appeal from special sessions, 163. power of quarter sessions to vary an order as to, during same session, 268. power of subsequent sessions to make order as to costs, 284. COnNSEL, appearance by, at assessment sessions, 60, 62, 100, 394. COUNTY, effect of Local Government Act, 1888, on meaning of, 49. COUNTY OF LONDON, extent of, 2, n. COUET OF APPEAL, appeal to, on case stated by quarter sessions, 75, 79. COVENT GAEDEN THEATEE, rating of, 163. CKOWN, EXEMPTION OF, includes a City police station, 130. but does not exempt a reformatory school, 286. the ground of the exemption explained in the Court of Appeal, 289 et seq. CUETILAGE, rating of, where large area of building land occupied, 97. DEDUCTION FEOM GEOSS VALUE, scale in Schedule in., 52, 385. maximum not to be allowed in every case, 7. maximum allowed, though not warranted by each separate part of hereditament, 101. 406 INDEX. DEDUCTION PEOM GEOSS YALVE—cmtinued. if maximum is exceeded in individual iastances, appeal may be brought against totals, 176. on such an appeal, it is not permissible to set off cases in wHch maximum is not exceeded, 176. DEPOSIT OP VALUATION LIST, public notice of, bow given, 8. notice of, to occupier, wben necessary, 9. to companies, in certain cases, 10. effect of want of notice, 9. after alterations, re-deposit of list necessary, 16. notice of re-deposit, 17. notice of final deposit, 19. DWELLINGr-HOUSE, tbougb not used as residence, may be rateable as a dwelling-house if occupation be beneficial, 207. EAST AND "WEST INDIA DOCK CASE, difficulties in appUcation of, 185, 194, 202. EXCLUSIVE OCCUPATION, of part of highway, for holding market, 327. EXEMPTION. See also Cbown, Exemption of. of canals, 7. of property acquired by Postmaster-General under Telegraph Act, 1868.. 7. of Foundling Hospital, 8. FEES, payable on appeals, 365, 396. FLOEAL HALL, rating of, 163. FOUNDLING HOSPITAL, exemption of, not to be noticed in valua- tion list, 8. GOODS DEPOT OF EAILWAY COMPANY, to be rated on same principle as an ordinary station, 136. GOODWILL OP PUBLIC-HOUSE, how dealt with, in estimating rateable value, 84. GOVEENMENT PEOPEETY, entry of, in valuation list, 135, 348. GEOSS VALUE. See also Deduction eeom Geoss Value definition of, in V. M. A. 1869 ..1,7, 358. notice of appeal as to, must be given to surveyor of taxes, 394. GUAEDLANS, appointment of assessment committee by, 6, 340, 379. recovery of costs against, 64, 65, INDEX. 407 HALL. See also Agbicultubai, Hail. for public meetings, rating of, 95. HEEEDETAMENT, definition of, 358. ratiag of, in parts, when not separately valued in Ust, 19. what constitutes a separate rateable hereditament considered, 124. sand ia filter-beds of ■waterworks is part of rateable hereditament, 155. HIGrMWAY, exclusive occupation of part of, for a market, 327. HOARDINGS FOE ADYEETISEMENTS, decision of Queen's Bench Division as to rating of (1887), 276. provisions of Advertising Stations (Eating) Act, 1889, as to, 283. HYPOTHETICAL TENANT, of buildings occupied by School Board for Londop., 169. in estimating the rent payable by, the actual occupier must be taken into account, 235, 314. unless he is not, and is unable, by reason of a statute or otherwise, to be a tenant, 256. it is not enough that the occupier should be in fact the owner, 314, 319. must be assumed to be in actual occupation of property, and not to be landlord of weekly tenants, 297. LESSEE, may appeal in certain cases, 6, 391. LICENCE OF PUBLIC HOUSE, must be taken into account in estimating rateable value, 85, n. LIQUID ATOE OF COMPANY, may be bound by assessment against which he does not appeal, 165. LIST. See Stjpplementai, List; Peovisional List; QxJiNairEif- NiAL List ; Vaitjation List. LODGrlNGr HOUSE, profits made admitted as evidence of rateable value of, 198. LONDON (CITY OF). See City of London. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL, jurisdiction of, over area to which V. M. A. 1869, extends, 2. duties of clerk of, as to valuation lists, 18, 19, 369—371, 376, 390. not rateable in respect of rent received for exclusive right to let boats in Battersea Park, 220. 408 INDEX. LONDON aUAETEE SESSIONS. See also Assessmhst Sessions; QuAETER Sessions. substituted for assessment sessions, 43. powers of chainnan of, 45. quorum of, 46. time and place for holding, 46. powers of, as to arbitration, 61. LONDON SCHOOL BOAED. See School Boakd foe London. MAOHINEET, rating of, 101. rule as to rating, in Tyne Boiler Works case, 241. MANAGEES OF METEOPOLITAN ASYLUMS DISTEIOT, duties of clerk of, transferred to clerk of London County Council, 18, 19. MANDAMUS, to assessment committee to make provisional list, granted, 272. to overseers to make provisional list, not granted, 26. to quarter sessions to hear appeals, 72. MANUPACTOEY, of telegraph cables, appeal relating to, 101. maximum deduction from gross value of, allowed, though not warranted by each separate paxt of hereditament, 101. MAP, power of assessment committee to order, 336, 356. MAEEET TOLLS, receiver of, can be rated if taken in respect of user of soU, 327. METEOPOLIS, definition of, in V. M. A. 1869, s. 4 . . 1. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS HOUSE, held by Queen's Bench Division to be not rateable, 135. NOTICE, general provision as to service of, by post, &c., 380, 395. of deposit of valuation list, how given, 8. of assessment to be given by overseers to companies, 10. to occupiers of deposit, when necessary, 9. of re-deposit of valuation list, 16. to occupier of alteration by assessment committee, 17. of objection to valuation list, 13. to alterations, 17. before assessment committee, when given too late, may still be basis of appeal, if. the committee in fact hear the objection, 209. of final deposit of valuation list, 19. eflect of failure to give notice of list, 70. of appeal to special sessions, 41. to quarter sessions, 54. may be directed by Court, 70. INDEX. 409 JHOTlGE—conUnued. of time for holding special sessions, 363. quarter sessions, 365, 371. of alteration in list, on appeal, 369. of motion at quarter sessions, 394. of appeal against totals need not be given to occupiers, 86. OBJECTION BEFORE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE, by wbom to be made, 12. by surveyor of taxes, 12. notice of, to wbom and when to be given, 13. failure to give, 13 — 15. meetings for hearing objection, 14. objections after re-deposit of list, to alterations, 17. •whether a condition precedent to an appeal, 68, 199. whether to be made viva voce or in -writing, 69. what evidence need be given on making of, 70. if not properly heard, committee may have to pay costs of an appeal on which they succeed, 84. reduction granted on, binds assessment committee, 103. where notice of, is given too late, if the objection is iu fact heard, an appeal may be brought, 209. where an assessment committee hear, or say that they have heard, an objection, semhle, on an appeal they are estopped from alleging that there has been no objection, 209, 229. OCCUPATION, valuation list not conclusive as to, 128, 130. to create rateability, there must be exclusive occupation, and exclusive enjoyment is not enough, 150. of dweUing-house, may be beneficial, though only a caretaker reside therein, 207. by means of advertising stations or hoardings, 276, 283, n. of building-land which is to let, 311. of soil on which market is held may be rateable though inter- mittent, 327. OCOUPIEE, notice to, of deposit of valuation list, 9. of re-deposit, 17. who is, in the case of a railway leased iu perpetuity, 139, 147, n. who is, in the case of a lake iu a public park, where the local authority have granted to a private person the exclusive right of letting out boats for hire, 220. OEDEES MADE BY LONDON QIJAETEE SESSIONS. See p. 392. power to make orders, 51. are the orders ultra vires ? 52, 55. what must be stated in case (under 0. 7 (1890) ) in appeal as to line of railway, 82. 410 INDEX, OYERSEBES, makiBg of valuation lists by, 4. who included under tlie term " overseers," 5. deposit of valuation lists by, 8. to ^ve public notice of deposit, 8. notice to occupier, in what cases, 9. to give special notice to companief of deposit of Ust, 10. to transmit valuation lists to assessment committee, 10. to give public notice of re-deposit, 17. notice to occupier, in what cases, 17. to give public notice of final deposit, 19. mandamus to, to make provisional list not granted, 26. duties of, after approval of provisional list, 30. requisition upon, to make provisional Ust, 26, 374. need not give notice of objection before appealing against reduc- tion granted by assessment committee to ratepayer, 169. no consent necessary to appeal by vestry, wbere they act as over- seers, 169. not entitled to costs of appeal against totals where the assessment committee appeal against the same totals, 178. oosts of, when unnecessarily made parties to an appeal, 233. OWENS COLLEG-B, decision of Court of Appeal as to rating of, 256. OWiraiE, appeal by, 49, 391. PAEISH, list of parishes and unions to which V. M. A. 1869, extends, 397. PARK, appeal relating to lake in Battersea Park, 220. PARTS, rating of part of hereditament not separately valued in list, 19, 347. PETITION OF APPEAL, time for entering, 55. in appeal by vestry need not be under seal, 169. POLICE STATION, held not rateable, 130. PRACTICE. See also Costs. case stated on appeal as to line of railway, 82. water company's mains, 104. respondents to an appeal against a line of railway must furnish appellants with figures which will be contended for, 139. on appeal against totals, what notices to be given, 86. case for opinion of Queen's Bench Division not to be stated on a preliminary point, 75, 86. prohibition to assessment sessions, application for, 90. appearance of assessment committee by their clerk, 93. recovery of costs from assessment committee, 93. appearance by counsel only at assessment sessions, 62, 100. INDEX. 411 FRACnCE— continued. agreenient between assessment committee and ratepayer as to payment of rates on figures different from those appearing in Kst, 116. appeal by overseers against reduction granted by assessment committee, 119. chairman of assessment sessions might give casting vote, 45, 121. whether chairman of London Quarter Sessions has a casting vote considered, 43, 45. semble, no greater reduction than that claimed in case will be aUowed, 121, 146. appeal cannot be heard if quorum of justices not present, 130. appointment of valuer, without consent of both parties to appeal, 155, 162. one appeal may be brought in respect of several hereditaments, 161, 167. appeal as to totals cannot be combined with appeal as to separate hereditaments, 169. petition of appeal by vestry need not be under seal, 169. notice of motion at quarter sessions, 394. power of sessions to vary their own order, 168, 179, 268. power of subsequent sessions to make order as to costs of appeal, 284. after appeal to special sessions, appellant cannot go to quarter sessions by way of appeal from decision of assessment com- mittee, 199. semble, even though the special sessions refuse to hear the appeal, 199. hearing of appeal adjourned over four years after original entry, 210. hearing of appeals, since 1888, as to property within the City of London, 229. mandamus to assessment committee to make provisional list, 272. PEEMIUM PAID FOB, LEASE, must be taken into account, 84. PEISON, a reformatory school is not a prison, and is rateable, 286. PEOEITS, made in letting a haU for public meetings, admitted as evidence, 96. absence of, immaterial, in rating Eoman Catholic college, 97. of railway hotel, admitted as evidence, 122. made by liquidator carrying on Covent Grarden Theatre, admitted as evidence, 163. made at Agriciiltural HaU, used as evidence of alteration of rate- able value, 193. made ia registered lodging house, admitted as evidence of rateable value, 198. absence of, held by Court of Appeal to be immaterial, in case of school board, 235. in case of Burton Sewage Farm, 314. PEOHIBITION, to assessment sessions, 91. to quarter sessions, 73. 412 INDEX. PROVISIONAL LIST, no appeal against, 4, 23. conditions precedent to tte making of, 34. alteration ia value, without structural alteration, is sufficient to require making of, 272. different from other lists, 22. repayment or allowance of excess after making of, 24. refusal of overseers to make, 26. of assessment committee to make, 27, 272. is not a mere copy of existing list, 29. commencement of operation of, 30. objections against, 31. recovery of rates based on, 31. efiect of, before approval by assessment committee, 31. entry of new bereditaments in, 32. duration of, 33. effect of, as to hereditaments not entered in next supplemental list, 33, 202. effect of, when made after approval of quinquennial list, but be- fore it comes into operation, 116. entry in, not necessary preliminary to entry in supplemental list, 229. PUBLIC-HOUSE, premium paid for lease of, must be taken into account, 84. PUMPING STATION FOE SEWAGE, in estimating rateable value of, actual occupiers considered as possible tenants, 314. UUAETEE SESSIONS. See also Appeals to Quaetee Sessions. appeal to, against quinquennial or supplemental lists, 4. none against provisional list, 4, 23. power of, to refer appeal to arbitration, 66 — 68. can vary their own order, during the same session, 168, 179, 268. provided the justices who make the original order constitute the Court which varies that order, 179, 268. powers of Queen's Bench Division over, 72. QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION, appeal to, from quarter sessions, 72 — 79. appeal from, to Court of Appeal, 75, 79. QUINQUENNIAL LIST, in what years to be made, 3. duration of, in operation, 3. dates from April 6th, and not from day of actual deposit, 183, 203, 212. effect of provisional list on, when made between June 1st and April 5th, 116. effect of, as to property included in provisional Ust, but omitted from subsequent supplemental list, 202. INDEX. 413 aUOEUM OF SESSIONS, of assessment sessions and London Quarter Sessions, 45. assessment sessions refused to hear appeal, unless quorum of justices were present, 130. EAILWAT, what must be stated in case, in appeal relating to a line, 82. a goods depot is to be rated like an ordinary station, 136. who is occupier of Une leased under statutory powers, 139. rent paid by the occupiers under a lease in perpetuity is not the true measure of rateable value, 139. but it may be evidence of rateable value, 210. contributive value not taken into account, in estimating rateable value of a line, 139 : but see also 210. additional expenses caused by matters outside the parish in question may be taken into account, 139. rating of coal dep6t and sidings connected with, 150. appeal against supplemental Ust, where alterations extended over several years, 183. increased structural value of Une, without increase of profits, does' not involve increase of rateable value, 189i rating of line held under lease in perpetuity, 210. in rating a line in a particular parish, profits earned outside that parish may be taken into account, 210 : but see also 139. EAILWAY HOTEL, appeal relating to, 121. BAELWAT STATIONS, APPEALS AFEECTING, London and North Western Eailway Company's goods depot, 136. "Waterloo (1887), 183. BATE, correction of clerical errors in, 21, 382. power to inspect and take copies of, 10, 337. form of, outside the metropolis, 339, 343, 353. form of, within the metropolis, 382, 386. omissions from, and corrections in, 382. RATEABLE VALUE. See also Dedttction teom Geoss Vaitje. definition ia V. M. A. 1869, 1, 7, 358. BATEPAYEE, who is meant by and included under the term, 5, 49. EECEIPTS, on appeal as to line of railway must be stated in case, 82 : see also 146. actual figures, not an estimate, must be stated in case by water company, 104. of what year, to be used in appeal by tramway company, 147. in appeal as to Agricultural Hall, 193. BE-DEPOSIT. See Deposit of Valttatioit List. EEFOEMATOEY SCHOOL, held by Court of Appeal to be rateable, 286. 414 INDEX. EBNT, of Stock BxcliarLge, not a measure of rateable value, 81. not the true measure of the value of a railway company's goods depot, 139. nor of a line of railway leased in perpetuity, 136. but the rent under such a lease may be evidence of rateable value, 210. receipt of, by London County Council, for exclusive right to let boats for hire in Battersea Park, does not (semhle) make the Council rateable, 220. EESPONDBNT, notice of intention to appear as, 67. case to be stated by, 58. EETUENS, may be required of overseers by assessment conunittee, 342. to be made by owner or occupier, 377, 378. ST. CHAELES OOLLEaE, rating of, 97. ST. PANGEAS STATION HOTEL, rating of, 121. SAND, in filter-beds of waterworks, is part of rateable heredita- ment, 155. SCHEDULE III. OF VAi:iITA.TION (METEOPOLIS) ACT, 1869, maximum deductions specified in, not necessarily allowed, 7. SCHOOL, rating of houses, &c. occupied by Westminster School, 161. SCHOOL BOAED EOE LONDON, appeal by, to assessment sessions (in 1886), 169. to Q. B. D. and Court of Appeal (in 1886), 235. SEAL, not necessary for petition of appeal by vestry, 169. agreement for tenancy requiring seal, may make tenant rateable, though without seal, 281. SESSIONS. See Assessment Sessions ; London Utjaetee Sessions ; OrABTEB Sessions ; Special Sessions. SESSIONS HOUSE, at ClerkenweU; held by Q. B. D. to be not rate- able, 135. SEWAGE-EAEM, in estimating rateable value of, actual occupiers to be considered as possible tenants, 314. SOLICITOES, not heard at assessment sessions, or quarter sessions, 62, 394. petition of appeal by vestry may be signed by, 169. INDEX. 415 SPECIAL CASE. See Case toe Opinion of Qtceen's Bench Divi- sion. SPECIAL SESSIONS, appeal to, against quinquennial or supplemental lists, 4. none against provisional lists, 4, 23. time for holding, 41. notice of appeal to, 41. jurisdiction of, 41, 42, 50. costs of appeal at, 42. notice of tnae for holding, 19, 363. costs of appeal from, not given to successful appellant, 163. appeal from refusal of, to hear appeal, 199. after appeal to special sessions, appellant caimot go to quarter sessions by way of appeal from, decision of assessment com- mittee, 199. objection before the assessment committee is a condition precedent to the right of appeal, 68, 199. STALLAGE, rateabiHty of, in hands of person entitled thereto, 327. STATION. (See Eauwat Station; Adveetising Station. STEEILITY, meaning of the term discussed, 239, 240. STOCK EXCHANaE, rating of, 81. STEUCTUBAL VALITE, as evidence of value of Stock Exchange, 81. of hall built for public meetings, 95. of Covent Garden Theatre, 166. of schools occupied by School Board for London held by the assessment sessions to be evidence of rateable value, 169. and, by the Court of Appeal, to be evidence only, and not the test of rateable value, 235. rate of percentage taken, in case of School Board for London, 169. increase of, does not necessarily involve increased rateable value of line of railway, 189. SUPPLEMENTAL LIST, in what years to be made, 3. what it must contain, 3. how long to continue in force, 3. to what Court appeals against, may be brought, 4. to be made and deposited by overseers before June 1st, 5, 6. dates from April 6th, and not from day of actual deposit, 183, 203, 212. form of entry in, considered, 183. form of, where there have been several provisional lists, 25. it is not necessary that property should be first entered in a pro- visional list, before being entered in a supplemental list, 229. effect of, where hereditaments are omitted which were included in provisional list, 33. conditions precedent to the making of, 34. refusal of overseers to make, 39. 416 INDEX. SITPPLEMENTAL USH— continued. not necessary, where hereditament becomes rateable in parts, 19, 347. what may be entered in, where additions and alterations of a railway station extend over several years, 183. what is a sufiBcient alteration to call for the making of, 34, 193. difficulties in showing the alteration during the last twelve months, 37, 195, 202. appeal against omission of wharf from, 202. SUEVEYOB, OP TAXES, copy of list to be sent to, 8. objection by, against valuation list, 12. recovery of costs against, 64, 65. notice of appeal aflecting gross value must be given to, 394. TAXATION OE COSTS, application to review, at assessment ses- sions, 111. TBLEGEAPH ACT, 1868, exemption of property acquired by Post- m^aster-general under, 7. TENANCY, what amounts to a mere licence to enter, and what to rateable occu- pation, 276. agreement for, for seven years, though not under seal, may make tenant rateable, 276. TENANT'S CAPITAL, rate of interest on, in rating railway hotel, 121. in rating a line of railway, the proper rate is 17 J per cent., 139. sand in filter-beds of waterworks does not represent part of, 155. THEATEE, rating of Covent Garden, 163. TIME, the times prescribed by V. M. A. 1869, s. 42, are directory only, 6, 209. for making valuation list, on default of overseers, 1 1 . TITHES, rateabiUty of, ia City of London, 105. TOLLS, are rateable if received in respect of occupation of the soil, 330. TOTALS, APPEAL AGAINST, cannot be heard at special sessions, 42. may be heard at quarter sessions, 48, 50, 390. notice of, need not be given to occupiers alleged to be imder -rated, 86. cannot be combined with appeal as to separate hereditaments, 169. may be brought on ground that maximum deductions from gross value has been in many instances exceeded, 176. INDEX. 417 TOTALS IN VALUATION LIST, to be entered by assessment committee, 18, 390. to be printed by clerk of London Ooimty Council, 19, 390. TOTTENHAM AND HAMPSTEAD JUNCTION RAILWAY, appeal relating to, 139. TRAMWAY, receipts of wliat year to be used in appeal as to, 147. TYNB BOILEE WORKS, decision of Court of Appeal as to rating of, 241. UNION, list of parisbes and unions to whicb V. M. A. 1869 extends, 397. UNOCCUPIED HOUSES, must be entered in valuation lists, 8. no notice of rating of, to owner, 9. VALUATION LISTS. See also Pboyisional List ; QuiNQUENifiAL List ; Supplemental List. three kinds of, may be made, 2. summary of procedure in making, 4. times for proceedings as to, 6. form of, outside metropolis, 343, 353. within the laetropolis, 384. unoccupied houses must be entered in, 8. copy of, to be sent to surveyor of taxes, 8. deposit of, by overseers, 8. public notice of deposit, how given, 8. notice of deposit of, to occupier in certain cases, 9. to certain companies, 10. right to inspect and take copies of, 10. failure of overseers to transmit list to assessment committee, 10. must be re-deposited after alterations, 16. approval of, by assessment committee, 16, 18. effect of, when approved, 19 — 22. clerical errors in, how corrected, 21. order for making of, on appeal, 65. can agreement between assessment committee and ratepayer vary the effect of, 20, 118. effect of alterations in, on persons not parties to an appeal, and not entered in the list, 128, 130, 154. VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869, sect. 1. (incorporation of earlier Acts), 2, 9, 94. 3. (extent of Act), 1. 4. (definitions), 1, 5—8, 32, 33, 38, 39, 43, 49, 110, 159, 203, 237—240. 5. (appointment of assessment committee), 5, 94. 6. (making of list), 6, 8, 23. 7. (proceedings as to list), 8, 9. K. E E 418 INDEX. VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869— conUnued. sect. 8. ^duplicate of list), 8, 12. 9. (notice to occupier of alteration), 9, 12. 10. (notice of deposit), 10, 17. 11. (olDJection before assessment committee), 12, 17, 23, 40, 69, 70, 88, 91, 92. 12. (inspection of Hst), 12. 13. (failure of overseers to make Ust), 11. 14. (revision and approval of list), 18, 23, 117. 15. (deposit of duplicate of list), 19. 16. (custody of list), 19. 17. (printing of totals), 19. 18. (holding of special sessions), 41. 19. (appeal to special sessions), 6, 40, 41, 50, 51, 68, 69, 88, 91, 92, 199. 20. (jurisdiction of special sessions), 42, 50, 88, 89, 91, 125. 21. (powers of special sessions), 42. 23. (holding of assessment sessions), 42, 94. 24. (members of court of assessment sessions), 42. 26. (chairman, quorum, &o., of assessment sessions), 45 — 47, 67, 94, 124, 130, 181, 269. 27. (power to make orders), 51, 53, 66, 70. 29. (places for hearing appeals), 47. 32. (appeal to quarter sessions), 6, 14, 23, 40, 41, 48, 50, 31, 57, 68, 69, 73, 88—90, 94, 171, 172, 176, 230. 33. (notice of appeal), 41, 54, 87, 89—94. 34. (hearing of appeals), 55, 56, 62, 70, 182. 35. (order by sessions for making Ust), 11, 59, 66, 232. 36. (order by sessions for valuation), 59, 66, 67, 155, 162, 269. 37. (adjournment to receive valuation), 11, 59, 66, 182. 38. (valuation to be in writing), 16, 66. 39. (costs of appeals), 42, 63, 64, 94. 40. (appeal from quarter sessions), 67, 72, 78. 42. (times for proceedings), 6, 11, 22, 70. sub-sect. (1) (deposit of list), 6, 23. (2) (transmission to assessment committee), 10. (3) (notice of objection), 13, 209. (4J (revision of ust), 15, 200. (5) (notice of meetmgs), 15, 233. (6) (notice of objection by overseers, &c.), 13. (7) (re-deposit of list), 17. (8) (final approval of list), 18, 33, 117. (9) (notice of appeal to special sessions), 41 , 200. (10) (holding of special sessions), 41, 200. (11) (sending out printed totals), 19. (12) (notice of appeal to quarter sessions), 54, 56. (13) (holding of quarter sessions), 47, 55, 56, 58, 66, 181. (14) (notice of sitting of quarter sessions), 371. 43. (duration of valuation list), 19, 62, 119. 44. (effect of list pending appeal), 20, 59, 118. 45. (list to be conclusive for certain purposes), 9, 20, 21, 50, 62, 71, 129, 130, 187. INDEX. 419 VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869— continued. sect. 46. (revision of Hst), 2, 4, 6, 19, 23, 33, 35, 36, 40, 117—119, 148, 184, 206, 231, 275. 47. (provisional lists), 2, 4, 22, 36, 39, 119, 193, 202, 203, 231, 272—275. 48. fcosts of appeals, &c.), 42, 64, 94. 61. (oontents of list), 7, 177. 52. (deductions from gross value), 7, 177. 53. (objections by surveyor of taxes), 12, 62. 54. (saving of exemptions), 7. 59. (appointment of assessment committee), 5. 61. (appointment of valuer by guardians), 15. 62. (security for costs, &c.), 42, 59—61, 64, 94. 65. (service of notices), 9, 13, 41, 54, 71. 66. (publication of notices), 9, 15, 19. 67. (inspection of documents), 10. 70. (rating of owner), 6, 128. 71. (correction of errors in rate), 21, 71. 73. (form of declaration and rate), 32. 77. (repeal), 2, 7, 34, 68, 70, 172, 239. Schedule II. (form of valuation list), 6, 18. m. (deductions from gross value), 7, 12, 177. rv. (form of rate), 32, 62, 71. VALUEE, appointment of, to assist assessment committee, 379. by assessment committee on revision of lists, 10, 15. by quarter sessions, 66. on application of one party only, 155, 162. powers of, when appointed by assessment committee, 16. VESTEY, appointment of assessment committee by, 5. petition of appeal by, need not be under seal, 169. where they act as overseers, need not give a formal consent to their own appeal, 169. VESTEY OLEEK, not heard at assessment sessions, 100. VOIDS, deductions in respect of, need not necessarily be made from aggregate of weekly rentals, 297. WAEEHOUSE, rating of, when the several floors are let separately, 124. WATBELOO STATION, appeal relating to (in 1887), 183. WATEE-EATE, levied on rateable value appearing in valuation Hst, 21. deduction in respect of, must be made from actual rent, 297. 420 INDEX. WATBEWOEKS, sand in filter-beds of, forms part of rateable hereditament, loo. WEEKLY TENANTS, what are the necessary deductions from the aggregate of rents payable by, 297. WESTMINSTEE SCHOOL, rating of houses, &o., occupied by, 161. WHAEE, appeals relating to, 202, 209. YEAE, definition of, in V. M. A. 1869. . 358. to be calculated -from AprU. 6th, and not from deposit of quin- quennial or supplemental list, 183, 203, 212. in what years quinqueniiial and supplemental lists are made, 3. receipts for what year to be used in appeal by tramway company, 147. FEINTED BY 0. F. KOWOETH, GEEAT NEW STBEET, FETTEE LANE, E.C. Cata:l00iu OF BEOENT LAW WOEKS PtTBLISHBD BY Messes. BUTTERWORTH, TO THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY AND TO H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES. " Now for the Laws of England {if I shall speak my opinion of tliem without "partiality either to my profession or country), for the matter and nature of them, " I hold them wise, just and moderate laws: they give to God, they give to Cmsar, " they give to the subject what appertaineth. 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 much the richer, so our laws are likewise by that " mixture the more complete." — ^Loed Bacon. LONDON : 7, FLEET STREET, E.G. 1890. ^ndex to ^aidaqm. FAQB Action at Law. Boyle 10 Kerr 28 Admiralty Practice. Coote 22 Digest — ^Fritchaxd ... 7 AdvoTTSons. MirehouBe 31 Agricultural Holdings Acta. Bund 25 Alabama Case. O'Dowd 28 Aliens. Cutler 27 Appeal Practice. House of Lords. Denison & Scott ... 10 Arbitration and Award. Bedman 16 Articled Clerks' Handy Book. Mosely 8 Attachment. Brandon 27 Bankruptcy. Brett 16 BuHey &Bund ... 26 limklater 29 Banks and Banking. Grant 16 Barbados, Laws of . . 28 Bar Education. Smitli . 27 Bills of Sale. Hunt . 18 Macaskie . 27 Probyu . 20 Blockade. Deane . 29 Boundaries. Hunt . 18 Burgesses' Manual. Gaches . 28 Carriers. PoweU . 17 Chamber Practice. Cominon Law. . 28 Chancery. Claims and Defences. Drewry . 11 Froeedure. XJnderhill ... . 9 Church and State. Hale . 31 Church Building Laws. Trower . 26 Church Seats. Eeales . 26 PAOX Claims and Defences. Ohancery. Drewry 11 Club Law. Daly 24 Commentaries Stephen's Blackstone 5 PhilliTn ore's, Inter- national 20 Commercial Law. Caiitty 30 Stevens 12 Common Law Action. Boyle 10 Common Law Pleading. Williams 25 Common Law Practice. Lush 22 Companies. Shelf ord 16 Compensation for Land. ligram 15 Confession. Badeley 31 Consistory Court, London. EulesandReg^ations 31 Cohstitutioual History. Pulton 12 Contraband of War. Moseley 29 Contracts. Plumptre 8 Contributories. CoUler 23 Conveyancing. Barry 19 Crabb 22,33 Lewis 19 Bouse 19 Tudor 6 Conveyancing and Pro- perty Acts, &c. Gierke and Brett ... 11 Conveyancing Drafts- man. Kelly ... 19 Co-operative Societies. Brabrook 26 Copyholds. Brown 7 Sdiven 13 Corporation Duty. Hewitt 32 Costs. Gray 29 County Court Practice. Davis 16 Criminal Law Con- solidation Acts. Davis 22 Debtors' Estates. >A&E lYe . 23 Designs. Lawson . 21 Dictionary. Mozley & Whiteley . . 6 Digest (Admiralty). Pritohard ... . 7 Domestic Servants. Baylis 21 Drainage of Land. Wilson . 28 Ecclesiastical Courts. Coote . 31 Eoolesiastioal Law . . 31 England, Laws of. Blaokstone ... . 5 Stephen . 6 English Law. Frahcillon . 28 Nasmith . 23 Epping Eorest. Ksher . 7 Equity. Drewry . 28 Hunter . 29 Roberts . 18 Trower . 11 TJnderhill . 9 Equity in relation to Law. Chute . 18 Evidence. PoweU . 12 Execution, Law of. Anderson 24 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. UnderhiU 21 French Code of Com- merce. Mayer 5 Game Laws. Oke 14 Gaming. Daly 32 Edwards 30 Gas Supply. Michael and Will .. 17 Gavelkind. Eobinson 30 a2 INDEX TO OATAIOGUB. PAGE Q-eneral Average. Crump 17 Grorham Case. Moore 31 Guarantees. DeColyar 22 Gruemsey Laws. Bowditch 29 House of Lords. Appeals. Denlson and Scott... 10 Husband and Wife. Edwards & Eamilton 20 Income Tax Laws. Dowell 25 Lidian CiTJl Service. Cfutler 28 Indian Penal Code. Cutler 23 International Law. Hamel 28 PhiUimore 20 Jersey Laws. Bowditoh 29 Joint Stock Companies. Shelf ord 16 Judicature Acts. Bedford 23 Latour Laws. Davis 15 Landed Property. Ohwrt of. Feame 30 Landlord and Tenant, rawoett 17 Land (Ereedom of) UnderhiU 21 Land Settlement of England. Bund ... -. 29 Law Dictionary. Mozley & WMteley ... 6 Law Exam. Joum. ... 24 Leading Cases. Tudor 6 Legacy Duties. Shelf ord 27 Libel. Folkard 11 Licensing Laws. Oke U Local GoTemment. Ryde & Thomas ... 9 Lord LyndhuTst. Gibson 29 Lord Mayor's Court. Brandon 27 Lords Chancellors. Hardy 80 ' Magisterial Formulist. Oke 14 PAGE Magisterial Synopsis. Oke 14 Marine Insurance. Crump 17 Married Women's Property Acts. Edwards & Hamilton 20 Mozley 17 Masters and Servants. Baylis 21 Master and Workmen. Davis 15 Lovesy 29 Mayor's Court Practice. Glyn, Prohyn & Jack- son 20 Mercantile Accoimts. Pulling 29 Mercantile Law. Stevens 12 Mines and Minerals. Bainbridge 13 Mortgages. Fisher 7 Municipal Begistration. Davis 13 Naturalization. Cutler 27 Negligence. Saunders 16 Parliamentary Practice. May 6 Parliamentary Regis- tration. Davis 13 Saint 5 Partition. Lawrence 25 Partnership. Dixon 17 Tudor 30 Patents. Higgins 17 Lawson 21 Norman 29 Waggett 18 Peerage Case. LeMarchant 28 Pews. Heales 26 Pitfalls of Testators. Flood 15 Pleader's Guide. Anstey 30 Pleading. "Williams 25 Private Bill Legislation. Clifford 5 Probate and Divorce. Bedford 23 Probate Bonds. Chadwick 10 Probate Duties. Shelford 27 Probate Practice. Tristram and Coote ... 10 Public Meeting. Blagg 7 PAGE BaUways. Butterworth 25 Shelford 16 Heal Property. Tudor 6 Eeal Property Act, 1881. Gierke and Brett ... 11 Referees' Court Cases. Clifford & Biokards... 21 Clifford & Stephen ... 21 Bickards&Michael 21,32 ' Ritualism. Hamel 31 Roman Law. Gaius 24 Justinian 24 Ortolan 12 Tomkins 24 Sm(£w^o/— Nasmith ... 24 Sale, Bills of. Macaskie 27 Salmon Fisheries. Bund 15 Settled Land Acts,1882-4 Underbill 8 Sherifi. Anderson 24 Sewell 30 Shorthand. Giimey 15 Slander. Folkard 11 Solicitors' Bookkeeping. Coombs 19 Statutes (Leading). Bedford 23 Stock Exchange. Keyser 30 Succession Duty. Shelford 27 Summary Convictions. Paley 13 Testators. Flood 15 Torts. tTuderhill 9 Town Councillors' Manual. Gachea 26 Trade Marks. Lawson 21 Treaties. Eertslet ... 20,32 Treaties and Tariffs. Hertslet 20 Trusts and Trustees. Underbill 9 Vendors & Purchasers. Seaborne 7 Water Supply. Michael & Will ... 17 Wife and Husband. Edwards & Hamilton 20 Wills. Flood 15 Wigram ... ]]] ig Wrongs. Underbill g MESSES. BUTTEEWOETH, 7, FLEET STEEET, E.G. 5 Stephen's New Commentaries.— lOtli Edition. In i vols. 8vo. il. is. cloth. Mr. SEEJEANT STEPHEN'S NEW COMMENTAEIES on the LAWS OF ENQLAND, partly founded on Blaokstoue. By His Honour Judge Stephen. The Tenth Edition. 1886 *»* The Work selected for the Intermediate Examinations for Solicitors for 1890. "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 hiudin^, on nearljf 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 hterature 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 pubHoation. We should clined to believe 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 — Law Student' s Journal. is to assure the Profession that, having " In the edition now before us, we are examined these volumes, we find them ail very glad to find that much more atten- that could be desired, withput any appro- tion has been paid to recent statute law, oiable increase in bulk — a really great rules of court, cSkc. ; 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 La/w Times. at an early stage of his legal career. 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' Inteimediate 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." — Law Notes. Mayer's Freneli Code of Commerce. Post 8vo. 9«. cloth. THE FEENCH CODE OF COMMEECB, 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 Stlvain Matee, B.A., Ph.D., of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1887 Clifford's Private Bill Legislation. In 2 vols. 8vo. 11. \hs. cloth. A HISTOEY OF PEIVATE BILL LEGISLATION. By Feedbeiok Clotobd, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1885-1887 *j,* MoAj be had separately. Vol. I. 20s.; Vol. II. 35s. cloth. Saint on Registration. In 1 vol. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. cloth. VOTEES AND THEIE EEGISTEATION : comprising the Representation of the People Act, 1884 ; and the Eegistration, Eedistribution of Seats, and Medical EeUef Disqualification Eemoval 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. In 1 vol., post 8vo., 12s. cloth. A DIGEST OF PAELIAMENTAEY AND MUNICIPAL EEGISTEATION CASES. Containing an Abstract of the Cases Decided on Appeal from the Decisions of Eevising Barristers during the Period com- menomg 1843 and ending 1886. Second Edition. By John James Heath Saint, Esq., B.A., of the Inner Temple and Midland Circuit, Barrister-at-Law, Eeoorder of' Leicester, Author of " Saint's Manual of Eegistration." 1887 LAW WOEKS PUBLISHED BY Tudor's Leading Cases on Eeal Property, &c.— 3rd Ed. In one thick volume, royal 8vo. 21. 12s. 6d. cloth. A SELECTION OE LEADING OASES ON THE LAW RELATINa TO EEAL PEOPERTT, Conveyanoiag, and the Construction of Wills and Deeds ; with Notes. Third Edition. By Owen Davles Tuioe, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Author of "A Selection of Leading Cases in Equity.' " The second edition is now hefore us, and we are ahle to say that the same ex- tensive knowledge and the same laborious industry as have heen exhibited by Mr. Tudor on former occasions characterize this later ;productiou of his legal author- ship ; and it is enough at this moment to reiterate an opkiion that Mr. Tudor has well maintained the high legal reputation which his standard works have achieved in all countries where the English lan- guage is spoken, and the decisions of our Courts are quoted." — Zaw Magazine and Meview on 2nd edit. " To Mr. Tudor's treatment of all these subjects, so complicated and so varied, we accord our entire commendation. There are no omissions of any important cases relative to the various branches of the law comprised in the work, nor are there 1879 any omissions or defects in his statement of the law itself applicable to the cases discussed by him. We cordially recom- mend the work to the practitioner and the student alike, but especially to the former. ' ' — Solicitors' Journal on 2nd edit. " This and the other volumes of Mr. Tudor are almost a law library in them- selves, andweare satisfied thatthe student would learn more law from the carefiil reading of them than he would acquire from double the time given to the elabo- rate treatises which learned professors recommend the student to peruse, with entire f orgetfulness that time and brains are limited, and that to do what they advise would be the work of a life. No law library shoiild be without this most useful book." — Law Times on 2nd edit. May's Parliamentary Practice.— 9tli Edition. In 1 vol., demy 8vo., 21. 8s. cloth. A TEEATI8E on the LAW, PEIVILEGES, PEOCEEDINGS and USAGE OP PARLIAMENT. By Sir Thomas Eeskine Mat, K.C.B., D.C.L., Clerk of the House of Commons, and Bencher of the Middle Temple. Ninth Edition, Revised and Enlarged. 1883 Contents: Book I. Constitution, Powers and Privileges of Parliament. Book II. Practice ajnd Proceedings in Parliament. Book III. The Manner of Passing Private BiUs, with the Standing Orders in both Houses, and the most recent Precedents. "A work, which has risen from the position of a text-book into that of an authority, would seem to a considerable extent to have passed out of the range of criticism. It is quite unnecessary to point out the excellent arrangement, ac- curacy and completeness which long ago rendered Sir T. B. May's treatise the standard work on the law of Parliament. Not only are points of Parliamentary law discussed or decided since the pubU- oation of the last edition duly noticed in their places, but the matter thus added is well digested, tersely presented and carefully mterwoven with the text." — Solicitors' Jownal. " Fifty pages of new matter have been added by Sir Thomas May in his seventh edition, thus comprising every alteration in the law and practice of Parliament, and all material precedents relating to public and private business since the " publication of the sixth edition. We need make no comment upon the value of the work. It is an accepted authority and is imdeniably the law of Parliament. It has been brought up to tiie latest date, and should be in the hands of every one engaged in ParUamentary life, whether asalawyerorasasenator." — Law Times. Mozley and Whiteley's Concise Law Dictionary. In 1 vol. 8vo. 20s. cloth, 26*. brovm calf. A CONCISE LAW DICTIONARY, containing Short and Simple Definitions of the Terms used in the Law. By Heebebt Newmait Mozlet M. A. PeUow of King's College, Cambridge, and of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., and Geoeqb Ceispb Whiteley, M.A. Cantab., of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barristers-at-Law. 1876 MESSES. BTJTTEEWOETH, 7, FLEET STEEET, E.G. 7 Brown's Copyhold Enfranchisement Acts. Just published, in 1 vol., post 8to., 14s. cloth. THE LAW AND PEACTICE ON ENPEANCHI8EMENTS 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 Aeohibau) Bkown, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Editor of " Soriven on Copyholds," &o. 1888 Pritchard's Admiralty Digest.— 3rd Edition. Now ready, in 2 thick vols., royal 8vo., 61. cloth. PEITOHAED'S DIGEST OE ADMIEALTY AND MAEITIME LAW. Third Edition, by James C. Hahnen, of the Inner Temple, Barrister- at-Law, and W. Taen Peitohabd ; including Oases on Average, Carriage of Goods, and Marine Insurance, by J. P. Aspttjatt, and Goedoit Smith, Barristers- at-Law, and W. Bbnnino Pkitchabd, Solicitor; with Notes of Cases on French and other Foreign Law, by Axoeknon Jones, French Advocate, and other Foreign Jurists. 1887 Fisher's Law of Mortgage.— 4th Edition. 1 vol. royal 8vo. 21. 12». 6d. cloth. THE LAW OF MOETGAGB AND OTHEE 8E0UEITIE8 UPON PROPEETT. By "WiiitiAM Eiohaed Fishee, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Fourth Edition. 1884 "This work has hmltup for itself, in of daily requirement among eolieitors. 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 provemoatusefulreadingforthestudent, is fully maintained in the present edition. both as a storehouse of mformation and The law of securities upon property is an intellectual exercise." Law Magazine. confessedly intricate, and probably, as "His work has long been known as the the author justly observes, embraces a standard work on the law of mortgages, greater variety of learning thaji any other and he has now published his third single branch of the Bnghsh 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., 11. 15«. roxburgh binding. THE E0EE8T OE ESSEX: its History, Laws, Administration, and Ancient Customs, and the Wild Deer which lived in it ; with Maps and other Illustrations. Sy Wiujam Eiohaed Fishee, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister- 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». 6d. cloth. A CONCISE MANUAL OE THE LAW OF VEND0E8 AND PUBCHASEES OF EEAL PEOPEETY. By Heney Seaboene, Solicitor. Third Edition. 1884 Blagg on Public Meeting. Just published, in post 8vo., 3s. cloth. THE LAW OE PUBLIC MEETING.— By J. W. Blagg, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 1888 s LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY Plumptre on Contracts. Post 8vo., 8s. cloth. A SUMMAET of the PEINOIPLES of the LAW of SIMPLE CONTEACTS. By Clatjde 0. M. Plumptee, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (Middle Temple Common Law Scholar, Hilary- Term, 1877.) 1879 " In our last volume we had occasion generally, to mention with approbation two works " In Part II. we have the constituent by Mr. Arthur TJnderhill, ' 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 Eissociated with Mr. Underbill. In the preparation of thisbook Mr. Plumptre has adopted the lines laid down by Mr. Underbill; 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- mg ,chapter to partners and partnerships the parties, 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 4tli 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. " The book contains upwards of one hundred 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 Fence. Mosely's Articled Clerks' Handy-Book. By Bedford. 1 vol. post 8vo., 8«. dd. cloth. MOSELY'S PEACTICAL HANDT-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 Henslowe Bedfoed, Solicitor. 1878 'This book cannot be too strongly certainly not be the fault of either Author recommended to every one who contem- plates becoming a solicitor."— Xawi Ex- amination 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 or Editor if the years spent under articles are not well spent, and if 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." — Law Magazine. Underbill's Settled Land Acts.— 2nd Edition. In 1 vol., post 8vo., is. 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. Undekhill, M.A., LL.D., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Assisted by E. H. Deane, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 2nd Edition. 1884 It is hardly necessary for us to say various sections of the statute are snp' that the present publication is marked by the careful treatment and general ex- cellence which have distinguished Mr. Underbill's work on Torts, and his other works which we have from time to time reviewed in the pages of this Journal." — Lam Bxaminatton Journal. ' ' Mr. Underbill's treatment of the Act, therefore, is, as might have been expected, clear ajid 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 witii 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.O. 9 Ryde & Thomas' Local Government Act. In 1 Vol., 8vo., 24s. cloth. THE LOCAL GOVEENMENT ACT, THE COUNTY ELECT0E8 ACT, 1888, THE MXJNICIPAL CORPOEATIONS ACT, 1882, with full Explanatory Notes and an Introduction; an Appendix containing the Acta incorporated therewith, and a Copious Index. By "Waltee 0. Hyde, M.A., of the Inner Temple, and E. Lewis Thomas, M.A., LL.M., of Liaoobi's Inn and the Midland Circuit, Barristers-at-Law. 1888 UnderhiU's Guide to Equity. In 1 Vol., post 8vo., 9«. cloth. A CONCISE GUIDE TO MODEEN EQUITY. Being a Course of Nine Lectures delivered at the Incorporated Law Society during the Tear 1885 ; Revised and Enlarged. By A. Unbeehlli., M.A., LL.D., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1883 UnderhiU's Chancery Procedure. In 1 vol. post 8vo., 10s. 6d. cloth. A PEACTICAL and CONCISE MANUAL of the PEOCEDUEE of the CHANCERY DIVISION of the HIGH COURT of JUSTICE, both in Actions and Matters. By Aethue Undbehile, 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 Underhiirs Law of Trusts and Trustees.— 3rd Edit. WITH SUPPLEMENT. 1 vol. post 8vo., 18s. cloth. A CONCISE MANUAL of the LAW relating to PEIVATE TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. By Aetsub Undekhii,!,, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Third edition. With Supplement containing the Trustee Act, 1888. 1889 *ji,* The Supplement may be had separately, 2s. sewed. " His task was indeed one of great named volume, performed a similar task difficulty, dealing, as he has done, vritha in relation to the ' Law of Trusts.' In suhjeot so complex ; but he has achieved seventy-six articles he has summarized it with ability and success. To those the principles of the 'Law of Trusts' as who are themselves destined to expe- distinctly and accurately as the subject rience what a famous law reformer called will admit, and has supplemented the ' the pleasures derived from the oondi- 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." — Irish of the most difficult to deal with in this Late Times. way." — Zaw Journal. "Mr. IJnderhill has, in the above- UnderhiU's Law of Torts.— 5th Edition. In 1 vol. post 8vo., 10s. cloth. A SUMMARY OE THE LAW OE TOETS, on WEONGS INDEPENDENT OF CONTRACT. Fifth Edition. By A. Undeehili, M.A., LL.D., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. , 1889 " He has set forth the elements of the and comments as are necessary in ex- law with clearness and accuracy. The planation. In the present edition, the Uttle work of Mr. Underbill is inexpen- first chapter — which treats of vrrongs sive; and may be generally relied on." — purely ex delicto— has been completely Lwu) Times. re-written, and new chapters upon in- " This work appears fairly to deserve junctions, negligence and fraud have the success which it has attained. The been added, and the whole has been care- plan of it is to arrange the law under a f uUy corrected and revised. We can series of " rules" in large type, and to confidently recommend the book to stn- print beneath each "rule" such cases dents." — Law Journal. 10 . LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY Tristram and Coote's Probate Practice. 10th Edition. In 1 vol. 8vo. 11. 12s. cloth. COOTE'S COMMON FOEM PEACTICE AND TEISTEAM'S CONTENTIOUS PRACTICE, and Practice on Motions and Summonses of the High Court of Justice in granting Probates or Administrations. Tenth Edition. By Thomas Htjtohinson Teisteam, Q.C, D.C.L. The Common Form portion revised by T. Piokeeing Clabke, formerly Proctor in Doctors' Commons, and one of the Principal Clerks of Seal in the Probaie Registry. 1888 " The above is another name for what 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 in a solicitor's office as the work is entitled 'Tristram & Coote's any hook 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 frejjuently 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 famiuaT 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 cases our Contentious' and 'Tristram's Conten- searches have been satisfactory." — Maw tious' Probate Practice, two famihar Notes. books to all probate practitioners. These " We heartily recommend the work to two works have now been combined by practitioners." — Zav> Student's Jou/rnal. Mr. Tristram, and the result is an Ciiadwick's Probate Court Manual, corrected to 1876. Royal 8vo. 12«. cloth. EXAMPLES OE ADMINISTEATION BONDS FOR THE COURT OP 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 AfSnnation prescribed by Acts of Parliament, and a Prefatory as well as a Supplemental Notice, bringing the work down to 1876. By Saitobl Ohad-wiok, of Her Majesty's Court of Probate. Boyle's Precis of an Action at Common Law. In 8vo., 5». cloth. PEE0I8 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. By Hebbeet E. BoTtB, Solicitor. 1881 Denison and Scott's House of Lords Practice. 8vo. 16«. cloth. APPEALS TO THE HOUSE OF LOEDS : Proeediire 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 fuU Index, forming a complete Book of Practice under the new Appellate System, by Charles Maesh Deitisoit and Chables Hekdebson Sooit of the Middle Temple, Esqs., Barristera-at-Law. Igyg MESSES. BUTTEEWOETH, 7, FLEET STEEET, E.G. 11 Gierke & Brett's Conveyanoing Acts.— Srd Edit. Just published, post 8vo., 12«. 6d. cloth. THE CONVEYANCING ACTS, THE VENDOE AND PUE- CHASBR ACT, THE SOLICITORS' REMUNERATION ACT, and the General Order made thereunder ; with Notes and an Introduction. By Attbeet St. John Cleeke, B.A., and Thomas Bkbtt, LL.B., B.A., both of the Middle Temple, Esquires, Barristers-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 Conveyanoing Acts, this excellent work. We can commend and with students, perhaps, the most the hook as an extremely handy and popular." — Jurist, August, 1889. complete edition of the Acts." — Solicitors' " The third edition of Messrs. Gierke Journal, July 27, 1889. & Brett's work on the Conveyanomg Act "We do not think the student could vrill 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 cases are well noted up to date." — we most heartily conunend the work to law Times, July 27, 1889. our readers' attention." — Law Students' " We are glad to welcome, after the Journal, August, 1889. Folkard on Slander and Libel.— 5tli Edition. One thick volume, royal 8vo. THE LAW OF SLANDEE AND LIBEL (founded on StarMe's Treatise), including the Pleading' and Evidence, Civil and Criminal, adapted to the present Procedure: also Malicious Prosecutions and Contempt of Court. By Henet C. Folkaed, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Kfth Edition. [J« the Press Drewry's Forms of Claims & Defences in Chancery. Post 8vo. 9». cloth. POEMS OF CLAIMS AND DEFENCES IN THE COTJETS OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION of the HIOH COURT OF JUSTICE. With Notes containing an 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. Stewart Deewbt, 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 OF THE PEEVALENCE OF EQUITY under Section 25 of the Judicature Act, 1873, amended by the Judicature Act, 1875. By Chaeleb 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 and Divisions of Parishes," &o. 1876 b2 12 LAW WOEKS PUBLISHED BT Stevens's Elements of Mercantile Law. Just published, in 1 vol., post 8to., 10s. 6d. cloth. THE ELEMENTS OF MEECANTILE LAW. By T. M. Stevens, M.A., B.C.L., Barrister-at-Law. 1890 Ortolan's Roman Law, translated by.Prictard & Nasmith. 8to. 28«. cloth. THE HISTOET OF EOMAN LAW, from iJie Text of Ortolan's Histoire de la Legislation Eomaine et Gr^ueralisation du Droit (Edition of 1870) . Translated, -with the Author's permission, and Supplemented by a Chronome- trical Chart of Eoman History. By ItnjDus T. Fsiobasd, Esq., E.S.S., and Davii) Nasmith, LL.B., Barristers-at-La-w. 1871 Fulton's Manual of Constitutional History. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. cloth. A MANUAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOET, founded upon the Works of Hallam, Creasy, May and Broom, compiisingf all the fundamental Principles and the leading oases ia Constitution5i.l Law. By PoEEEST Pulton, LL.B., B.A., University of London, and of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1875 Powell on Evidence.— 5tli Edit. By Cutler & Griflln. 1 vol. post 8vo. 20s. cloth. POWELL'S PEINCIPLES AND PEACTIOE OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. Kfth Edition. By J. Cotlee, B.A., Professor of English La-w and Jurisprudence, and Professor of Indian Jurisprudence at King's College, London, and B. F. Geikfin, B.A., Barristers-at-Law. 1885 "The plan adopted is, we think, 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 sionally notice these acta 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' Jojirnal. " The plan of the book is to give "There is hardly any branch of the pretty freq^uently, and, as far as we can law of greater interest and importance joover, m almost every chapter, a not only to the profession, but to the ' rule ' of general application, and then pu blic 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." Law remodelled by the light of the Judicature Mxamination Jowrnal. MESSRS. BUTTEEWOETH, 7, FLEET STEEET, E.O. 13 Scriven on Copyholds.— 6tli Edition, by Brown. In 1 vol. roy. 8vo. 30*. cloth. A TEEATISE on the LAW of COPYHOLDS and of the OTHEE 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 f arious MANORIAL COLTRTS. By John Soeiven. The Sixth Edition, thoroughly revised, re- arranged and brought down to the present time, by Aeohibald Bkown, Esq. , of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, B.C.L., &o., Editor of "Bainbridge on the Law of Mines." 1882 Bainbridge's Law of Mines and Minerals.— 4th Edit. 1 vol. roy. 8vo. 45*. cloth. A TEEATISE on the LAW OP MINES AND MINEEALS. By WrLLiAM Badtbeidoe, Esq., F.G-.S., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Fourth Edition. By Aeohibau) Bboww, M.A., Edin. and Oxon, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. This work has been wholly re-cast, 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 con- written, and there is much in this edition tents of the volume, that is entirely new. The whole of the "The cases 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 within 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 brmgs 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 coal and other mines and decessors." — Law Times on Zrd edit. quarries to the poor and other rates — ■ "It would be entirely superfluous to The tenancy — ^Improvements to be in- attempt a general review 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 miportant subject. Those only who, by of the work most valuable to those con- the nature of tiieir practice, have learned cemed in the rating of such property. to lean upon Mr. Bainbridge as on a " The appendix contains a valuable solid staff, can appreciate the deep re- collection of conveyancing forms — ^Local search, the admirable method, and the Customs — ^A Glossary of English Mining OTaceful style of this model treatise." — Terms, and a full and well arranged Lmo Joitrnal on 3rd edit. Paley's Summary Convictions.— 6th Edition. In 1 vol. 8vo. 24«. cloth. THE LAW and PEACTICE of SUMMARY CONVICTIONS under the SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACTS, 1848 and 1879, including proceedings preliminary and subsequent to Convictions, and the responsibility of Convicting Magistrates and their OfEcers: with Forms. Sixth Edition. By Waltee H. Maonahaea, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 1879 Davis on Registration.— 2nd Ed., with Supplement. 1 vol. post 8vo. 15*. cloth. THE LAW OP EEGISTEATION, PAELIAMENTAEY AND MUNICIPAL, with all the Statutes and Cases. With a Supplement including the Cases decided on Appeal on the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. By Jaubs Edwaed Davis, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1880 *j* The Supplement may be had separately, price 2s. 6d. sewed. 14 LAW WOEKS PUBLISHED BY Oke's Magisterial Synopsis.— 13tli Edition. Id 2 thick vols. 8vo. 63s. cloth, 71s. half caK, 73«. calf. A PEACTICAL GUIDE for MAGI8TEATBS, their CLERKS, SOLICITOES and CONSTABLES ; comprisiiig Summary Convictions and Lidiotahle Offences, with their Penalties, Punishments, Procedure, &c., alpha- betically and tahularly arranged. 13th Edit. By Thomas W. Satotdebs, Esq., late Recorder of Bath, and now one of the Metropolitan Police Magistrates. 1881 " The best criticism of a law book is The work is then for the most part that it is useful, and that the profession arrangedi alphabetically and tabvdarly. 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 die 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 be re- see within what time the information viewed. Its value can be ascertained by must be 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 the 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 thus ren- tions, the other with indictable offences. dered unnecessary." — Times. Oke's Magisterial Pormulist. — 6tli Edition. 8vo. 38s. cloth ; 42,s. haU calf ; 43s. caU . BEING a complete COLLECTION of EOEMS AND PEE- CEDENTS for practical use in all Cases out of Quarter Sessions, and in Parochial matters, by Magistrates, their Clerks, Solicitors and Constables. Sixth Edition. By Thomas W. Saunbeeb, Esq., late Recorder of Bath, and now one of the Metropolitan Police Magistrates. 1881 Oke's Fishery Laws.— 2nd Edit., with Supplement to 1884, by Bund. Post 8vo. 6s. cloth. A HANDY BOOK of the EI8HEET 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, with the Acts, Decisions, Notes, and Forms. 2nd Edit. WithSupplementcontainingthe Actof 1884. By J. W. Wims Bund, 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, Babbits, Deer, Dogs, Birds and Poisoned Grain, Sea Birds, Wild Birds and WUd 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. WttLis Buin), M.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. 1881 *»* The Supplement moAj he had separately, 2s. &d. sewed. Oke's Licensing Laws.— 2nd Edition. Post 8vo. 10s. 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 Eefreshment-houses, Shops, &c., where Intoxicating Liquors are sold, and Billiard and Occasional Licences, wiiii Explanatory Notes, the authorized Forms of Licences, Tables of Offences, &o. Second Edition. By W. 0. GI.EN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1874 MESSES. BUTTEEWOETH, 7, FLEET STEEET, E.G. 15 Flood on Making Wills. In 1 vol. post 8to. 5s. cloth. THE PITFALLS OF TESTAT0E8. A few Hints about the Making of Wills. By John C. H. Flood, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister- at-Law. 1884 Bund's Law of Salmon Fisheries, corrected to 1876. Post 8vo. 16s. cloth. THE LAW EELATING TO THE SALMON EISHEEIE8 OF ENGIiAKD AND "WALES, as amended by the Salmon Fishery Act, 1873, incorporating the Bye-laws, Statutes and Cases to November, 1876. By J. W. Wiiiia Bund, M.A., LL.B., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Vice- Chairman Severn Fishery Board. The Supplement, embodying the Legislation, Bye-laws and Oases 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 8H0ETHAND. Eighteenth Edition. Edited by W. B. Guenet & Sons, Shorthand Writers to the Houses of Parliament. 1884 Davis's Practice of the County Courts.— 6th Edit. Just published, in 1 thick vol., demy 8vo., price 4Ss. THE PEACTIOB OF THE COUNTY C0UET8.— By James Edwaed Davis, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. The Sixth Edition (including the New County Court Rules, and the New Consolidated Bank- ruptcy Rules) edited by S. M. Rhodes, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Davis's Labour Laws of 1875. 8vo. 12s. cloth. THE LABOUR LAWS OF 1875, -with Introduction and Notes. By J. E. Davis, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and late Police Magistrate for ShefBeld. 1875 Saunders' Law of Negligence. One vol. post 8vo. 9s. cloth. A TEEATISE on the LAW APPLICABLE to NEGLIGENCE. By Thoihas W. Sattnuees, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of Bath. 1871 Ingram's Law of Compensation— 2nd Edit, hy Elmes. Post 8vo. 12s. 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 Public Companies ; with an Appendix of Forms and Statutes. By Thomas Dunbae Inoeam, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Bamster-at-Law. Second Edition. By J. J. Euhes, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1869 16 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY Brett's Bankruptcy Act, 1883. In 1 vol. post 8vo. lis. cloth. THE BANEHUPTOT ACT, 1883; with an Introductory Chapter, Notes, Index, &o. And SUPPLEMENT oontamiiig a Table showing the parts of the Act and Rules which are to be read together ; a Summary of the points of importance contained in the Rules, and the Table of Fees of the 28th December, 1883. By Thomas Bbett, LL.B., Lond. Univ., B.A., Exhibitioner in Real Property and Equity, and Holder of the Krst Certificate of Honour, Michaelmas, 1869, and Joint Editor of " Clerke and Brett's Conveyancing Acts." *»* Supplement only, Is. &d. Shelford's Compaiiies.— 2nd Edit. By Pitcaim Robeets, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Third Edition. 1877 Wigram on Extrinsic Evidence as to Wills.— 4tli Ed. 8vo. lis. cloth. AN EXAMINATION OF THE EULES OF LAW respecting the Admission of EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE in Aid of the INTERPRETATION OE WILLS. By the Right Hon. Sir James Wioeam, Knt. The Fourth Edition, prepared for the press with the sanction of the learned Author, by Ksox WiOBAM, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1868 Waggett on Patents. In 1 vol., 8vo., 7». cloth. THE LAW AND PEACTICE EELATING TO THE PEO- LONGATION OP THE TERM OE LETTERS PATENT FOR INVEN- TIONS, with fuU Table of Oases and Synopsis of Colonial and Foreign Laws &c. By J. F. Waboett, M.A., Oxon., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 1887 MESSES. BUTTEEWOETH, 7, FLEET STEEET, E.O. 19 Rouse's Conveyancer.— Srd Edit, with Supplement. Two vols. 8vo., 30s. oloth, 38s. oalf. THE PEACTIOAL OONVEYANCEE, giving, in a mode oombimng facility of reference -Witt general utiHty, upwards of Four Hundred ■precedents of Conveyances, Mortgages and Leases, Settlements, and Miscel- laneous Forms, with (not in previous editions) the Law and numerous OutHue Forms and Clauses of Wilis and Abstracts of Statutes afieoting Real Property, Conveyancing Memoranda, &o. By EoLii Eotjsb, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Author of "The Practical Man," &o. Third Edition, greatly enlarged. With a Supplement, giving Abstracts of the Statutory Provisions afleoting 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 StTPPiBMENT separately, price Is. 6rf. sewed. Lewis's Introduction to Conveyancing. 8vo. 18s. cloth. PEINCIPLES OP CONVEYANCING explained and iUustrated 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 Barry's Practice of Conveyancing. 8vo. 18s. cloth. A TEEATISE ON THE PEACTICE OP CONVEYANCING. By W. WsiiTAKEE Babby, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, late Holder of the Studentship of the Inns of Court, and Author of "A Treatise on the Statutory Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery." 1865 Kelly's Conveyancing Draftsman.— 2nd Edition. Post 8vo., 12s. 6A£EE Siiwell, Esq., D.C.L., Barrigter-at-La'vr. 8to. 21*. boards. 1842 The Law relating to Transactions on the Stock Exchange. By Heney Ketseb, Esq., Barri^ter-at-Law. 12nio. 8s. cloth. 1850 A Legigraphical Chart of Landed Property in England from the time of the Saxons to the present Mia. By Chables Peaene, Esq., Barrister- at-Law. On a large sheet, 6s. coloured. The Common Law of Kent; or the Customs of Gavelkind. With an Appendix concerning Borough English. By T. Eobinson, Esq. Thted Edition, with Notes and References to modem Authorities, by John Wilson, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. IBs. boards. 1822 A Treatise on the Law of Gaming, Eorse-Kacing, and Wagers. By Peedeeio Edvaeds, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 8«. cloth. 1839 A Treatise on the Law of Commerce and manufactures, and the Contracts relating thereto ; with an Appendix of Treaties, Statutes, and Pre- cedents. By Joseph Chittt, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 4 vols, royal. 8vo. £6 : 6s. boards. 1824 Anstey's Pleader's Guide ; a Didactic Poem, in Two Parts. The Eighth Edition. 12mo. 7s. boards. 1826 Hardy's Catalogue of Lords Chancellors, Keepers of the Great Seal, and Principal Of&cers of the High Court of Chancery. By Thomas DuPFUs Haedt, Principal Keeper of Records. Royal 8vo. 20s. cloth. (Only 260 copies printed.) 1843 Pothier's Treatise on the Contract of Partnership; with the Civil Code and Code of Commerce relating to the Subject, in the same Order. Translated from the French. By 0. D. Tudoe, Esq., Barrister. 8vo. 5s. cloth. 1854 MESSES. BUTTEEWOETH, 7, FLEET STEEET, E.O. 31 iEales?ias!tical ILato* Rules and Regulations to be observed in all Causes, Suits and Proceedings instituted in the Consistory Court of London from and after 26th June, 1877. {By Order of the Judge.) Royal 8vo., Is. sewed. The Case of the Rev. Gf-. C. Gorham against the Bishop of Exeter, as heard and detemm'ned by the Judicial Committee of the Privy OounoU on appeal from the Arches Court of Canterbury. By Edwaed E. Moobb, Esq., M.A., Barrister-at-Law, Author of Moore's " Privy Council Reports." Royal 8vo. 8s. cloth. 1852 Archdeacon Hale's Essay on the Union between Church and State, and the Establishment by Law of the Protestant Reformed ReUgiou in England, Ireland, and Scotland. By W. H. Hat.tc, M.A., Archdeacon of London. 8vo. Is. sewed. The Judgment of the Privy Council on Appeal in the Case of Hebbert v. Purohaa. Edited by Edwaed Btjilooz, of the tmer Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Reporter in Privy Council for the Law Journal Reports. Royal 8vo. 2s. Qd. sewed. Buxder v. Heath. Judgment delivered on November 2, 1861, by the Right Honorable Stephen Ltjshin(iton, D.C.L., Dean of the Arches. Eolio 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 PWvy 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 LiddeE (clerk), and Home and others against Westerton, and Liddell (clerk) and Park and Evans against Beal. Edited by A. F. Baytoed, LL.D. ; and with an elaborate analytical Index to the whole of the Judgments in these Cases. Royal 8vo. 3». 6d. sewed. The Law of the Building of Churches, Parsonages and Schools, and of the Division of Parishes and Places — continued to 1874. By Chables Feancis Teowee, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. 9«. cloth. The History and Law of Church Seats or Pews. By Alpbkd Heales, E.S.A., Proctor in Doctors' Commons. 2 vols. 8vo. 16s. cloth. Hamel's Law of Ritualism in the XTnited Church of England and Ireland. With Practical Suggestions for Amendment of the Law, and a Form of Bin for that purpose. By F. Haeoavb Hamel, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. Is. sewed. The Judgment delivered by the Right Honble. Sir Robert PhiUimore, D.C.L., Official Principal of the Court of Arches, in the Cases of Martin v. Mackonochie and Flamank v. Simpson. Edited by Waltee Gt. E. Phellimoee, B.A., of the Middle Temple, Fellow of All Souls College, and Vtnerian Scholar, Oxford. Royal 8vo. 2s. 6d. sewed. Judgment delivered by the Right Hon. Lord Cairns on behalf of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Martin v. Mackonochie. Edited by W. Eenst BBOWNrae, Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. Is. 6d. sewed. The Privilege of Religious Confessions in English Courts of Justice considered in a Letter to a Friend. By Edwaed Badblet, Esq., M.A., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 2s. sewed. The Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts, with Forms and Tables of Costs. By H. 0. Coote, F.S.A., Proctor iu Doctors' Commons, &c. 8vo. 28s. boards. A Practical Treatise on the Law of Advowsons. By J. Miebhouse, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 14s. boards. The Lord's Table : its true Rubrical 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. Nappee, SoUoitor. 8vo. Is. sewed. Hewitt's Corporation Duty. In 1 vol. post 8to. Folkard's Slander and Libel. Fifth Edition. In 1 vol. roy. 8to. Crabb's Conveyancing. Sixth. Edition. By "Wn.T.iAW Woodhgtjse FisHEE, Esq. In 2 vols, royal 8vo. Hertslet's Treaties. Vol. XVII. In 1 vol. 8vo. Bickards' Referees Reports. Vol. I., Part IV. Imprinted at London, nvmber Seuen in Flete strete within Temple barre, whylom the signe of the Hande and starre, and the Hovse where liued Richard Tottel, in the seueral Reigns of Kng. Edw. VI. and of the queues Marye and Elizabeth. IRlClMRD'i-fTOTTEL I 1553—1890. JWr* (Site's iWiagiiBitnial mov'k&* Oke's Magisterial Synopsis ; a Practical Guide for Magis- trates, their Clerks, Solicitors, and Constables ; comprising Summary Comdctions and Indictable OflEences, -with tteir Pena,lties, Punishments, Procedure, &c., alphaietiealh/ amd tabularly arranged : with a Copious Index. Thirteenth Edition. By Thomas W. SAuSfDESs, Esq., late Eecorder of Bathj and now one of the Metropolitan Polioe Magistrates. In 2 vols. 8to. 32. 3s. cloth ; Zl. Igs. calf. Oke's Magisterial Formulist ; being a complete Collection of Forms and Precedents'f or practical use in all Cases out of Quarter Sessions, and in Parochial Matters, by Magistrates, their Clerks, Solicitors and Constables. Sixth Edition, enlarged and improved._ By Thomas W. SAtramiBS, Esq., late Recorder of Bath, and now one of the Metropolitan Police Magistrates. 8vo. 38s. cloth. 42s. half-oaH. 43s. calf. " In selecting Mr. Saunders to f oUow in the steps of Mr. Oke, the publishers exercised -wise discretion, and we congratulate both author and publishers upon the complete and very excellent manner in which this edition has been prepared and is now presented to the profession/* — Law Times. " " . Oke's Han4y Book of the Game La-ws ; containing the whole Law as to Game Licences and Certificates, Gun Licences, Poaching Preven- tion, Trespass, Rabbits, Deer, Dogs, Birds, and Poisoned Grain, Sea Birds, WUd Birds and Wild Fowl, and the Rating of Game throughout the United Kingdom. Systematically arranged, with "the- Acts, Decisions, Notes and Forms. ■- Third 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," &c. Post 8vo. 16s. cloth. *j(* The Supplement may he had separately^ price is. 6d., sewed. " A hook on the Game Laws, brought up. to the present time, and including the recent Acts with regard to Wild Fowl, &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."^^2%fi Meld. Oke's Handy Book of the Fishery Law^s ; containing the Law as to Fisheries, Private and Public, in the Inland Waters of England and "^ales, and the Freshwater Fisheries Preservation Act, 187S. Systema- tically arranged, with'the Acts, Decisions, Notes and Forms. «By Geoeqe C. Oke, author of "The Magisterial Synopsis"' and "Formulist," "The Laws of Turnpike Roads," &c., &o. Second Edition, with Supplement to -1884. By J. W. Willis Bund, M.A;, LL.B., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, -Chair- man of the Severn Fishery Board. In One Vol. Post 8vo. 6s. cloth. Oke's Laws 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 Bflliard and Oooasional Licences. Systematically arranged, with Explanatory Notes, the authorized Forms of Licences, Tables of Offences, Index, &c. By Geoeqe C. Oze, late Chief Clerk to the Lord Mayor of London. Second Edition, with aU the Cases decided to the present time. By w. Cunninghab: Glbn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. 10s. cloth. " The arrangement in chapters adopted by Mr. Oke seems to us better than the plan puisued by the authors of the rival work." — Solicitors' Journal. " Mr. Oke has brought out byifar the best edition o£.th&act."— iaw Times. " "We are sure that lawyers who have licensing cases and magistrates who have to administer the new act will be vei-y glad to hear tjiat Mr. Oke has published a treatise on the subject."^ Law Journal. Nasmith's Roman History (Romulus to Justinian). With Trans- lation of The Twelve Tables, Q-aius and Justinian. 8to. 25s. cloth. XTnaerliiU's Concise Guide to Equity. In One Vol. PostSvo. 9s. cloth. Powell's Principles and Practice of the Iiaw of Evidence. Fifth Edition. By Cutlbb and G-biffin. Post 8vo. 20s. cloth. Mr. Serjeant Stephen's New Commentaries. By His Honoub Judge Stephen. Tenth Edition. 4 vols. 8vo. il. is. cloth. *ji,* This work is set for the Intermediate Examination for Solicitors ■for 1890. Clifford's Private Bill Legislation. 2 vols. 11. 15s. cloth. Tudor's Leading Cases on Real Property, Conveyancing and Wills : with Notes. 3rd Edition. Eoyal 8vo. 21. 12s. M. cloth. Plumptre's Principles of the Law o:^ Simple Contracts. Post 8vo. 8s. cloth. »,* A companion volume to Uiid«^hill on Torts. Mozley and Whiteley's Concise Law Dixstionary. 8vo. 20». "Ijaw students desirous of ' cramming* will find it acceptable." — Law Times. Underhill's Practical and Concise Manual of Chancery Procedure. Post 8vo. 10s. dd. cloth. Xrnderhill's Law of Torts, or Wrongs Independent-^pf Contract. Fifth Edition. Post 8vo. 10s. cloth. Underhill's Law of Trusts and Trustees. Third Edition..,^ With Supplement. Post 8vo. 18s. cloth. *js* Supplement may be had separately 2s. sewed. Seaborne's Manual of the Law of Vendors and Purchasers. Third Edition. Post 8vo. 12s. &d. cloth. Kelly's Conveyancing Draftsman. Second Edition. Post 8to. 12s. 6rf. cloth. Roberta' Principles of Equity: a First Book on Equity Juris- prudenoe.- Third Edition. 8vo. 18s. cloth. Mosely's Articled Clerks' Handy-Book. Second Edition. By E. H. Bedfobd. Post 8vo. 8s. Qd: cloth. .Bedford's Pinal Examination Guide to the Judicature Acts, 1873 and 1875. Questions and Answers. 8vo. 7». 6(i. cloth. Bedford's Final Examination Guide to the Law of Probate and Divoro?. Questions and Answers. Sesond Edition. Post 8vo. 6s. cloth. Bedford's Table of Leading Statutes for the Intermediate and Final Examination in Law, Equity and Conveyancing. Is. on a Sheet. 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. 30s. cloth. M. Ortolan's History of Roman Law, translated by I. T. Pbichaed and D. Nasidth, Barristers-at-Law. 3vo. 28s. cloth. Fulton's Constitutional History. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. cloth. Lawson on Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. Second Edition. 8vo. 26s. cloth. Glyn, Probyn & Jackson's Mayor's Court Practice. 8vo. 15s. cloth. Blagg on Public Meetings. Post 8vo. 3s. cloth.