Lord DENMAN C. J.-It is desirable that there should be a uniform rule upon this point in all the Courts. 1841. Ross v. The following judgment of the Court, after conference with the judges of the Common Pleas and Exchequer, was delivered at the sittings in banc after this term (May 10) by Lord DENMAN C. J.-This was an action on the case for au injury to the reversionary interest of the plaintiff. The defendant has pleaded not guilty, and three other pleas traversing the material allegations in the introductory part of the declaration. He now seeks to add to the plea of not guilty the words "by statute" in the margin, with the view of setting up a defence under the Building Act, which has a clause enabling the defendant to do so under the general issue, and he seeks also to retain his other pleas. The plaintiff opposes this, on the ground that not guilty "by statute" of itself puts in issue all the allegations in the declaration. An ingenious and very plausible argument was urged for the defendant, founded on a supposed double effect of the general issue, the one at common law, by which it puts in issue all the allegations of the declaration, the other by statute, which enabled the defendant to give his special defence in evidence under it, and it was contended that the proviso in 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 1, preserved only the latter effect, and that the new rules had destroyed the former. The contrary was held by the Court of Exchequer in the case of Fisher v. Thames Junction Railway Company (a), which was an action by a reversioner, and is directly in point. The same language was held by that Court in other cases. In conformity with that decision we think ourselves bound to hold that the plea of the general issue, wherever the provisions of any act of parliament apply to it, is wholly (a) 5 Dowl. P. C. 773. 1841. Ross v. CLIFTON. unaffected by the new rules, and must have the same operation as it had before they were made. This rule may be made absolute for the insertion of the words "by statute" in the margin of the plea upon payment of costs, and striking out all the pleas excepting that of not guilty. Rule absolute, on the Defendant electing to strike out his special pleas. Warren, in the Trinity term following, having declined to avail himself of the rule on the above terms, obtained a rule nisi for adding to the pleas, as they originally stood, three special pleas, containing his defences under the Building Act, which rule, after cause shewn by Shee Serjt. and M. Chambers, was made absolute in the same term (a). (a) In Bartholomew v. Carter the they had authority to require the words "by statute" to be annexed to the statutable general issue. The QUEEN v. The BRISTOL DOCK COMPANY. By 43 Geo. 3, ON appeal to the Bristol Quarter Sessions for April, 1839, against a rate, made the 8th November, 1838, for c. clx. (an act for im proving the port of Bristol), a dock company was formed, with power to convert a portion of a navigable river within the city into a floating harbour, and to make a new course for the river, and a bason to form a passage from the new course into the floating harbour, and to execute divers other works. The port is entered in the Bristol Channel, and nearly thirty miles from the parish in which the bason is situate. By sect. 74 certain dues were payable to the Company for every ship entering the port, which dues, after defraying the expenses of repairing the bason and other works, were to be divided among the shareholders of the Company. By sect. 64, reciting that the lands which the Company were authorised to take for the execution of the above works, would, during the time the said intended works were carrying on, and for many years afterwards, be rendered unproductive and be incapable of being rated in aid of the land and parochial taxes, the Company were made chargeable from the time of their taking possession of such lands, with all such land and parochial taxes as the same lands were then or might thereafter be subject to. Held, that no portion of the dues payable by ships on entering the port was a profit arising from the bason, and that the bason was rateable to the relief of the poor as ordinary land, and not in respect of such dues. the relief of the poor of the parish of Clifton, whereby the Bristol Dock Company were assessed, as occupiers, for Cumberland bason, entrances thereto, quay walls, wharfs, locks, and dock gates, at a rental of 1350l., in the sum of 54l., it was agreed that the Company should be taken to have rateable property in the said parish to the amount of 300l., and that the rate should be reduced from 54l. to 157., subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench upon a case. The case was stated for the purpose of raising the question whether the Dock Company were rateable, as above mentioned, in respect of certain tolls payable to them by vessels entering the port of Bristol, and was to the following effect: By 43 Geo. 3, c. cxl. s. 1, reciting that vessels lying at the quays in the port of Bristol were, by the reflux of the tide, left dry twice in every twenty-four hours, whereby favourable winds were often lost, and vessels lying in the port could not be removed out of danger in case of fire; and in case of fire among the houses in the city of Bristol, great loss might be experienced from want of water; and that these inconveniences might be remedied by cutting a new course for the river Avon, on the Somersetshire side, in the line and in the manner therein described, by erecting two dams across the old course of the Avon, with a lock in positions therein mentioned in Somerset and Bristol, and by making an entrance bason (the bason above mentioned as Cumberland bason) and locks in Rownham meads, in the parish of Clifton, and an entrance bason (hereinafter called Bathurst bason) and locks at Trim Mills, between the then present and intended course of the Avon, and also by executing divers other works therein described; and reciting that 250,000l. had been subscribed as a joint stock; a company of proprietors of the works thereby authorised was constituted, to be called "The Bristol Dock Company." By sect. 20, the sum of 250,000l., so subscribed, was 1841. The QUEEN v. The BRISTOL COMPANY. 1841. The QUEEN v. The BRISTOL declared to be insufficient, and the Company were enabled to borrow 50,0007. By sect. 30, the Company were required to cut the new course for the river, and to make the dams and basous COMPANY. above mentioned, so as to dam up a certain portion of the old course of the river running through the city of Bristol, and convert it into a floating harbour, from which the spring tides should be excluded, and made to flow through the new course of the river, and by means of the said two basons to afford a passage for shipping from the said new course to the floating harbour. They were also, by various other sections, required to make various other works, such as cuts, drains, locks, bridges, and a towing path, in other parts of the port and in other parishes. By sect. 39, they were required to deepen the beds of the rivers Avon and Froome in such parts thereof as might be necessary for the accommodation of the trade of the port of Bristol. By sect. 64, after reciting that by the making and using the entrance bason, new course of the river, and other works, certain lands in Clifton, Bedminster, Brislington, Keynsham, St. Philip, and St. George, which at that time were rated to and paid the land and parochial taxes in the same parishes, would, during the time the said intended works and alterations were carrying on, and for many years after, be rendered unproductive and incapable of being rated in aid of the said land and parochial taxes, by which means a greater burthen must be laid on other lands in the same parishes, it was enacted that the appellants should become chargeable from the time of their entering into and taking possession of such lands, tenements, hereditaments, and premises, with all such land and parochial taxes as the same lands and premises then were or might thereafter be subject to, and that the fund of the Company should become liable to pay such land and parochial taxes then charged, or thereafter to be charged, on the same land and premises during the execution of the works, and for ever thereafter. 1840. The QUEEN v. The BRISTOL Dock By sect. 74 it was enacted, that from the expiration of twelve calendar months after the works thereby authorised should have been begun, there should be payable and paid COMPANY. to the Company, for every ship or vessel entering into the port of Bristol, except barges or other vessels passing to or from the Bath river navigation, and not discharging any part of their cargoes at the quays at Bristol, the several rates and duties thereinafter particularly rated and described, to be applied by them for the purposes of the act; and (by sect. 75) for all goods, merchandizes, &c. whatsoever, imported from parts beyond seas, but not brought coastwise or by inland navigation into the port of Bristol (except certain articles of provisions), the several rates and duties particularly specified in the schedule to the said act. By sect. 25, the surplus fund, after discharging the interest of money borrowed, and the expenses of repairing and preserving the cuts, drains, locks, bridges, towing paths, and other works, was to be divided annually among the subscribers, not exceeding 8 per cent. per annum. By a return made in Trinity term, in the 10th Geo. 1, to a commission issued out of the Exchequer on the 15th February preceding, in pursuance of the 14 Car. 2, c. 11, it appeared that the limits of the port were assigned to be from the westward most parts of the Flat and Steep Holmes (two islands), up the course of the channel eastward, to Aust, in the county of Gloucester, and from the said Holmes southward across the channel to a place called Uphill, which was included, and from thence along the coast or shore eastward, in the counties of Somerset and Gloucester, to Aust aforesaid, and also from a place called the Holes Mouth, in Kingroad, up the river Avon, to the said city of Bristol, together with the several Pills lying upon the said river. Under the powers vested in them, the Company, in 1804, purchased and took possession of land in the parish of |