them. Nor can the occupiers of such a mine be rated for a steam-engine erected by them merely for the purpose of drawing the water out of the mine (u); but the occupiers of a coal-mine, having erected a steam-engine for the purpose of working the mine, and thereby improved the annual value, are liable to be rated for such improved annual value (v). The owners of mines, however, are holden to be rateable for the portion of the ore raised, which they receive by agreement from those who work the mines in lead mines, called lot and cope (w); in tin mines, toll tin and farm tin (a); or the like (y); even although they receive, by compromise from the tenants, not the ore itself, but the estimated value of it in money (z): for here is a reservation of part of the thing demised, which operates, not as a render, but as an exception out of the demise (a).

:

R. v. Bilston, 5 B. and C. 851. ii. 1280.

(v) R. v. Lord Granville, 9 B. and C. 188. ii. 1283.

(w) Rowls v. Gells, Cowp. 451. ii. 1272.

(1) R. v. St. Agues, 3 T. R. 480. ii. 1284. R. v. St. Austell, 5 B. & A. 693. ii. 1285.

(3) See R. v. Baptist Mill Company, 1 M. and S. 612. ii. 1286. (z) R. v. St. Austell, 5 B. and A. 693. ii. 1285.

(a) See Co. Litt. 47, a. 142, a.

In the case of coal-mines, the occupiers of them are liable to be rated for them as long as they continue to work them, whether they produce a profit or not (b); but they are not rateable for them before they are worked and productive (c), or after they cease to be worked (d).

(b) R. v. Parrott, 5 T. R. 593. ii. 1203. See R. v. Attwood, 6 B. and C. 277. ii. 1287. K. v. Lord Granville, 9 B. and C. 188. ii. 1283.

(c) Per Lord Ellenborough, C. J. in R. v. Bishop of Rochester, 12 East, 353. ii. 1281.

(d) R. v. Bedworth, 8 East, 387. ii. 1288.

Stone-quarries or lime-works (e), slate-works (ƒ), a potter's clay-pit (g), and the like, however, are not considered in the nature of mines, but as land, rendered additionally productive by a particular mode of working it; and the occupiers are rateable for them as such.

(e) R. v. Alberbury, 1 East, 534. ii. 1241. (f) R. v. Woodland, 2 East, 164. ii. 1242. (g) R. v. Brown, 8 East, 528. ii. 1189.

Of Saleable Underwoods.] Underwoods, though cut and saleable only every twenty-one years, were holden to

be rateable every year (h), in the proportion to the profit which may be made of them when sold. But firs and larches, planted merely for the purpose of sheltering young oak-trees, and cut from time to time as the oaks grew stronger and required more space, and some of them yielding a profit, have been holden (if underwood at all) not to be saleable underwood within the meaning of this statute; the primary object of planting them being, not to derive a profit from them per se by sale, but to protect the young oaks (i). Timber trees are not the subject of a rate, at all; and therefore where beech trees were rated, and it was stated in the special case that beech trees were deemed timber according to the custom of the county in which the trees in question grew, the court held that they could not be rated (k).

(h) R. v. Mirfield, 10 East, 219. ii. 1289.

(i) R. v. Ferrybridge, 1 B. and C. 375. ii. 1290.

(k) R. v. Minchin Hampton, 3 Burr. 1308. ii. 1291.

In the said Parish.] As an inhabitant, a man is liable to be rated according to his apparent ability; that is to say, according to the value of the local and visible personal property he has within the parish, of which he makes profit, but not by reason of any property he may have out of the parish. See ante, p. 64. For a ship, the owner is rateable only in case its place of domicile be within the parish of which he is an inhabitant. See ante, p. 65. As occupier of lands, &c., he is liable to be rated for such as he occupies within the parish, whether he reside in the parish or not (); and, therefore, if he occupy lands in the several parishes of A., B., and C., and reside himself in the parish of D., he is liable to be rated in all the four parishes in A., B., and C., for the lands he occupies in them respectively (m), and in D. as an inhabitant (n). (See the 17th Geo. 2. c. 37. as to waste lands drained and improved) (0). And the same when land is made additionally valuable by erections, &c. upon it. See ante, p. 67. In the case of a lighthouse, the owner or occupier is not rateable as for the tolls merely (p); it can be rated simply as a building, but the owner cannot be rated for (1) Ante, p. 66. (m) See R. v. Etwall, 3 Smith, 15. ii. 1292.

(n) See ante, p. 64.

(0) And see Kemp v. Spence, 2 W. Bl. 1245. ii. 1293.

(P) R. v. Rebowe, 1 Bott, 135. R. v. Tynemouth, 12 East, 46. ii, 1208,

the tolls at all (q). For navigations and canals, the proprietors were formerly holden to be rateable in those parishes only in which the tolls were payable, or the voyages were completed (r); but as to canals, in all the late cases it has been holden, that the proprietors are rateable for them in every parish through which they pass, and in each parish in the proportion of that part within it (8); as to inland navigations, the rule is different: it was ruled, indeed, not only that the proprietors of such a navigation cannot be rated for the whole of their profits, in the parish in which the wharf, where the voyage ended, and the tolls became payable, and were paid, was situate (t); but further, that they should be rated proportionably in each parish through which the navigation passed, in the same manner as canals (u); it is now, however, fully settled, that unless the proprietors be actually owners of the soil of the bed of the river (v), they cannot be rated as occupiers of that at all, having but an easement in it, but their rateability is confined to the new cuts, wears, locks, dams, &c. erected on their own land, for the purposes of the navigation (w). So the proprietors of water-works seem formerly to have been holden rateable in that parish only in which the engine, &c. was situate (a); but now they are holden to be rateable, not only in the parish in which their reservoirs and works are situate, but also in the several parishes through which their main pipes are laid (y). And the same as to gasworks (z). So the proprietors of a dock, situate in

(4) R. v. Coke, 5 B. and C. 797. ii. 1268. R. v. Fowke, 5 B, and C. 814, n. ii. 1269.

(r) R. v. Aire and Calder Navigation, 2T. R. 660. ii. 1297. R. v. the Mayor, &c. of London, 4 T. R. 21. ii. 1238. R. v. Page, 4T. R. 543. ii. 1298. R. v. Stafford and Worcester Canal Navigation, 8 T. R. 340. ii. 1299. Cardington, Cowp. 581. ii. 1266.

R. v.

(8) R. v. Trent and Mersey Navigation, 1 B. and C. 545. ii. 1237. R. v. Oxford Canal Navigation, 4 B. and C. 74. ii. 1300. R. v. Kingswinford, 7 B. and C. 236. ii. 1301. R. v. Oxford Canal Company, 10 B. and C. 163. ii. 1302. See R. v. Lower Mitton, 9 B. and C. 810. ii. 1303. R. v. Grand Junction Canal Company, 1 B. and A. 289. ii. 1247. R. v. Dudley Canal Navigation, 7 D. and R. 466. ii. 1250. R. v. Birmingham Canal Company, 2 B. and A. 570. ii. 1251. R. v. St. Peter the Great, 5 B. & C. 473. ii. 1249. (t) R. v. Milton, 3 B. and A. 112. ii. 1304.

(u) R. v. Palmer, 1 B. and C. 546. ii. 1305.

(v) See R. v. Earl Portmore, I B. and C. 551. ii. 1306.

(w) R. v. Mersey and Irwell Navigation, 9 B. and C. 95. ii. 1307. R. v. Thomas, 9 B. and C. 114. ii. 1308. R. v. Aire and Calder Navigation, 9 B. and C. 820. ii. 1309.

(x) Atkins v. Davis, Cald. 315. 1234.

(y) R. v. the Mayor, &c. of Bath, 14 East, 609. ii. 1235. R. v. Rochdale Waterwork Company, 1 M. and S. 634. ii. 1236.

(z) R. v. Brighton Gas and Coke Company, 5 B and C. 466. ii. 1240.

several parishes, are liable to be rated for it in each parish, in the proportion of the space of it within each parish (a).

(a) See R. v. Hull Dock Company, 1 T. R. 219. ii. 1233.

Note. If a man be rated in respect of two things conjointly, one of which is not rateable, the whole is bad. As, for instance, if a man be rated for an iron and coal mine, (an iron-inine not being rateable) (b), or for rent received by him for a mine, and also as occupier of certain moors, &c., (the rent not being rateable) (c), the rate is bad as to both.

(b) R. v. Cunningham, 5 East, 478. ii. 1279. (c) R. v. Welbank, 4 M. and S. 222. ii. 1202.

Rate in Aid.] If the inhabitants of a parish cannot levy amongst themselves sufficient funds for the maintenance of their poor, two justices may rate other parishes in aid (d).

(d) 43 Eliz. c. 2. s. 3. See 4 Burn. J. 158, &c. 335.

2. That the Rate is unequal.

The Appellant being Over-rated.] The inhabitants and occupiers should be rated according to the ability of each, in a fair proportion, to the extent of personal property of which the former make profit, and of real property which the latter occupy; and if, instead of this, the overseers, in calculating the proportion in which each of the parishioners is rateable, estimate the rateable means of any one parishioner by a different scale from the rest, so as, in effect, to charge him with a higher rate than his neighbours: as if, for instance, the rate be regulated by the rental, and one of the parishioners be charged on a rent of 100%., when in fact he pays only 501.; or when a rate is proportioned to the rent actually paid by the occupiers, and one pays a rack rent, and another a low rent for land, the value of which he has much enhanced by improvements (e); or where the rate is made according to the land-tax, for that would be omitting all those who (e) See R. v. Mast, 6 T. R. 154. ii. 1176. R. v. Skingle, 7 T. R. 549. ii. 1310.

have mere personal property (ƒ): in these, and the like cases, the rate is deemed unequal and bad, and the party over-rated may appeal against it (g). And in estimating the rateable value of land made additionally valuable by buildings, docks, canals, &c., it would be unfair to esti mate it at the amount of the gross profits; but deductions should be made for the ordinary expenses (h), and even for the poor rate itself (¿). The fairest way is to set it down at what a tenant would give for it annually, to rent it, he paying all expenses, rates, &c. (k). But the Court of King's Bench will not presume a rate to be unequal, unless it appear manifestly upon the face of it to be so (1).

(f) R. v. Clerkenwell, Fol. 12. ii. 1311.

(g) See R. v. Barnstable, Fol. 26. ii. 1312. R. v. Weobly, 1 Bott, 101. ii. 1313. Butler v. Cobbet, 11 Mod. 254. ii. 1314. R. v. Canterbury, 4 Burr. 2290. ii. 1315. R. v. Cheshunt, 2 T. R. 623. ii. 1316.

(h) R. v. Oxford Canal Company, 10 B. and C. 163. ii. 1302. See R. v. Hull Dock Company, 5 M. and S. 394. ii. 1230.

(i) R. v. Hull Dock Company, 3 B. and C. 516. ii. 1166.

(k) R. v. Lower Mitton, 9 B. and C. 810. ii. 1303. R. v. Attwood, 6 B. and C. 277. ii. 1287. R. v. Duke of Bridgwater, 9 B. and C. 68. ii 1317. R. v. Oxford Canal Company, 4 B. and C. 74. ii. 1300; and see R. v. Mirfield, 10 East, 218. ii. 1289.

(1) R. v. Brograve, 4 Burr. 2491; 1 Bott, 102. ii. 1264. R. v. Tomlinson, 9 B. and C. 163. ii. 1318. R. v. Butler, Cald. 93. ii. 1319. R. v. Hardy, Cowp. 579. ii. 1320; and see R. v. Sandwich, Cald. 105. ii. 1321. R. v. Lackenham, 1 Bott, 105. ii. 1322.

Where one person removes from premises, and another succeeds him, each shall pay for the time only that he occupied (m).

(m) 17 Geo. 2. c. 88. s. 12.

Other Persons being Under-rated.] If any one parishioner be under-rated, with reference to the rest, it being the same in effect as if the others were overrated, the rate is thereby unequal and bad, and any of the other rated parishioners may appeal against it (n). (n) See R. v. Mast, and R. v. Skingle, supra.

Some Person who ought to be Rated being Omitted.] If any person or persons, who ought to be rated either as an inhabitant or occupier, be omitted in the rate, as this has the effect of throwing a greater burden upon those who are rated than they should fairly be charged with, the