among the persons entitled to the cattle gaits on them, and there was no right of free warren in the manor; and it was held that the saving clause preserved to the lord of the manor his right of hunting and shooting over the lands allotted, whether his right before the Act was as owner or as lord of the manor merely. [He referred to the judgments of Wightman J., pp. 342-3, Willes J., p. 344, and Lord Campbell C., p. 344-6.] In Bruce v. Helliwell (a) the local inclosure Act reserved to the lord of the manor, in which was no right of free chase or free warren, liberty of hawking, hunting, coursing, fishing, and fowling within and throughout the township and the manor; and it was held that those words did not reserve or create a right of hawking, &c., throughout the township and manor, which would be a territorial right, but merely preserved the seigniorial right of hawking, &c., if any such existed at the time of the passing of the Act. [Cockburn C. J. The word "liberty" does not mean anything exclusive. Blackburn J. The right to be exercised over the manor must be seigniorial. My brother Martin, at the end of his judgment, p. 620, points out that "in the West Riding of Yorkshire an idea prevails that lords of manors have a right and liberty of hawking, hunting, coursing, fishing and fowling, analogous to that of free warren or free chase. But that notion," he adds, "is erroneous. They have no such right, and these words, no doubt, were inserted to preserve any right of the description of free warren or chase if it existed."] Suppose the owners of the stints, that is, of the undivided shares of the moor, have a right to participate in the money paid for the licences to shoot over the moor, it is rateable under The Union Assess(a) 5 H. & N. CO9. 1866. Overseers of and WALKER FIELD V. Overseers of 1866. Overseers of FIELD V. Overseers of ment Committee Act, 1862, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 103. ss. 14. 15. The rateable value does not depend on the accidental circumstance whether the landowner lets the shooting or not; The Overseers of Sunderland, appts., The Guardians of the Sunderland Union, respts. (a), per Erle C. J. Edward James was not called upon to reply. COCKBURN C. J. I am of opinion that this right of shooting is not a matter in respect of which the lords in trust of the manor are liable to be assessed. The right of shooting over land is one of the incidents of the ownership of the soil, and so long as the soil of the wastes was in the lords of the manor they had the right of shooting over them. By the proceedings under the order confirmed by the Annual Inclosure Act in 1857, the wastes of the manor became vested in the freeholders, who had previous rights of common over them in the nature of stints in proportion to the value of their property, and a certain number of these stints were awarded to the lords of the manor in respect of their territorial rights, but with the express reservation that the right of shooting should not be affected by the inclosure. I consider this as a statutory conveyance of the soil of the 361 stints to the lords of the manor, and of the soil of the other stints to the freeholders as tenants in common; but the right of shooting did not follow the conveyance of the soil. It is impossible to contend that each of the stint owners has the right of sporting over the moor in common with the lord, for that would nullify the reservation of "the right of all manner of game upon the said lands:" it would materially change and lessen the nature and (a) 18 C. B. N. S. 532. 560. degree of the enjoyment of that right by the lords. Mr. Manisty contended that the reservation was inserted ex abundanti cautelâ to guard against the claim of the Bishop of Durham to seigniorial rights, and to protect against such claim any right of free warren or other franchise which had been enjoyed by the lords. But I do not think it was so intended, nor can I so read it. In local inclosure Acts, by which rights of common over wastes are converted into rights of ownership in the soil, a portion of the wastes being allotted to the lord of the manor, it is almost universal practice to reserve the right of shooting to the lord severed from the ownership of the soil; such a reservation is recognised in the General Inclosure Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118. s. 116., and this is the proper construction of the reservation in question. If the soil of the wastes had remained in the lords of the manor together with the right of taking the game over them, and they had exercised that right themselves or let it, the right would have been taken into consideration in assessing the land to the poor enhancing the value of the occupation of the land by the lords or their tenant; but the effect of the reservation in this case is to leave the right where it was before, and being then in the lords of the manor as owners of the soil it remains in them, having become an incorporeal hereditament in gross, as it would do in the hands of an ordinary freeholder who conveyed the ownership of the soil subject to such a reservation as that in question. If many such rights, the severance of which from the soil diminishes its rateable value, exist, it may be expedient that the Legislature should interfere and make them rateable, but it is not for us to do so. rate as 1866. Overseers of and WALKER FIELD v. Overseers of 1866. HILTON and WALKER FIELD Overseers of BOWES. BLACKBURN J. In order to make a person rateable Overseers of to the poor rate, he must occupy a subject-matter proper to be rated. The rateable value of the subjectmatter may, however, be enhanced by other matters not in themselves rateable, provided they are in some way connected with the occupation. The question is, whether this right of shooting, worth about 7001. a year, is so connected with the occupation of a rateable subject that it would enhance the value of the occupation. This raises the other question, whether the right remains attached to the moor, or has been severed from it and so become a right in gross. If the right was still attached to the land, and the trustees let it separated from the rest of the property, that would raise questions which do not arise here. For the effect of the order, confirmed by the Annual Inclosure Act in 1857, was to sever the right of shooting from the ownership of the soil. The trustees, as owners of the soil of the wastes of the manor, had the right of shooting; the inclosure converted the rights of common of the freeholders into ownership of the soil, they becoming stint owners, and the lords were to have a certain number of the stints. Then stat. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 118. s. 116. enacts that "the right of soil of and in all land which shall be converted into regulated pastures shall, . . . . be vested in the persons who under the directions and determinations of such award shall be the owners of the stints or rights of pasture therein, in proportion to the shares or aliquot parts which such stints shall be thereby declared liable to of any rate under this Act, as tenants in common." Under these words the stint owners become tenants in common of the soil, and as such would have the right of shooting. But the section says that the soil shall vest "subject to the right of the lord of the manor to all or any of the mines, &c., where the same shall be reserved to him under this Act, and to the other rights given or reserved by this Act and the award in the matter of such inclosure." This brings us back to the order to see whether by it the right of shooting is given or reserved to the lord. The words are, "that the right and interest in all mines, &c. under the lands to be enclosed, and also the right of all manner of game upon the said lands, be not in any way affected or interfered with by this inclosure," which, so far as they go, express an intention that the right to the minerals and the game should remain vested as before; "and that all persons entitled to such mines, &c. and game have the same rights of entry and other rights as heretofore used and enjoyed." It is necessary to give effect to these words; they contemplate persons with then existing rights, and cannot be construed as creating new rights, but only as reserving such as already existed. No rule is laid down by the cases cited, except that the Court is so far as possible to find out the intention of the saving clause; and the words here indicate that the right to the mines and game should remain in the persons who at the present time enjoy them, though by a different title, for I agree with Mr. Manisty that they do not enjoy them as lords of the manor. Some of the stint owners are rateable for the occupation of the stinted land; but there is no reason for saying that, because a stint owner is also a cestui que trust and derives part of the benefit received by his trustees, who hold the right of shooting in gross, the value of his stinted pasture is enhanced; for a hypothetical tenant would not take the right under a demise B. & s. VOL. VII. R 1866. Overseers of and WALKERFIELD V. Overseers of |