1854. SOUTH EASTERN Railway Company V. Overseers of DORKING. Coleridge J. same profits in two parishes. I do not understand how the principle of rating can differ where there is one and the same occupier in two parishes from where there are two or more occupiers. If the occupier be the same, the properties are necessarily different in respect of which he is rated; and for this purpose he must be considered as a distinct person in each parish in which he occupies. In each the overseers will rate him in respect of the property in their parish; and they will estimate its value by what it produces, not merely there, but any where; if the profits of some other land in his occupation in another parish are mixed up with what the land in their parish produces, that ought to be the ground of a deduction from the assessment; and, if not made, the rate may be excessive in amount. It may be impossible to do this with mathematical accuracy; but to do it is the business of the parish officers in the first instance, of the Sessions in the second, but never of this Court. If in the case of the New River the parish officers of Islington should assess the Company, looking only at the total profits received in their parish, and making no separation of, or allowance for, that share which was properly referable to Amwell and rateable there, they would overrate, and an appeal would lie: but this would be no ground for diminishing the rate in Amwell; for the excess in 1slington ought to have been appealed against. If it has been, we must presume redress has been afforded; if it has not, the Company has acquiesced; either way the parish officers of Amwell cannot be affected by the course pursued by those of Islington. How can that case be distinguished from this? The land and the water have a rateable value in Amwell, considered merely as such; 1854. SOUTH EASTERN Railway Company. V. DORKING. but it is small; they contribute, however, with other land and water elsewhere, to produce great profits, which are reaped, as it were, in Islington; and they are rated for the amount of this contribution. In Islington there is also land and water; and there the great mass of the profits Overseers of is ostensibly produced: but the overseers there ought to separate, from the portion on which they are to rate, the Coleridge J. portions which are really earned by the land and water in Amwell and the other parishes intervening. So, here, the land in Dorking has per se a rateable value; but it is said to contribute to produce, with other land in other parishes, great profits at the London terminus of the main line; and the occupier in Dorking has the contribution included in the rate on his land in Dorking; which therefore ought not to contribute to the rate in any other parish. Could the exact amount of that contribution be ascertained easily, not a doubt could exist that such rating was on a fair principle: but the difficulty of ascertaining the amount, surely, can make no difference in the principle. To clear up that difficulty, whatever it may amount to, is not the province of this Court, but of an accountant. Under the circumstances, therefore, it will be necessary in my opinion to send both rates to an arbitrator, to ascertain the proper amount according to the principles I have laid down. Lord Lord CAMPBELL C. J. It seems to be most convenient to begin with the second question submitted to us in this Campbell C. J. case. And I am of opinion that the liability of the appellants, to be assessed to the relief of the poor in the parish of Dorking in respect of the portion of the Reading line in that parish, cannot be confined to the net profit derived E. & B. VOL. III. 2 L 1854. SOUTH EASTERN Railway Company v. DORKING. Lord Campbell C. J. by the appellant from the traffic passing through that parish. They are only to be assessed in that parish in respect of property occupied by them in that parish; but its value in the parish may be enhanced by Overseers of circumstances existing out of the parish. The appellants say truly that they are not to be rated in this parish for profits made elsewhere: I wish implicitly to abide by what is called "the parochial principle" of rating. But, upon that principle, we must see of what value the property rated in the parish is to the occupiers; and this is not necessarily determined by the pecuniary receipts for the use of it within the parish. The rent that was paid by the appellants is strong evidence that it was of greater value to them than the mere net profit from traffic upon it. We have an express admission that the Reading line brings "a great deal of additional traffic to the main line," and that they derive benefit from the Reading line "as a feeder to the main line, in respect of traffic conveyed upon that line;" and that the Reading line, "if in the market, might be an object of competition between The South Eastern Railway Company and other railway companies, the traffic on the main lines of which would be increased by the possession and controul of the Reading, Guildford & Reigate line." Therefore, plus the net profit derived from the traffic passing through the parish of Dorking, the appellants do derive a profit from the occupation of the portion of the line in that parish. But it is said that in respect of this last profit they ought only to be assessed in the parishes through which the main line passes. I am of a contrary opinion. This profit, although not received for the traffic upon the line in the parish of Dorking, originates from the occupation by the appellants of land in the parish of Dorking; and, if they are assessed in that parish in respect of this profit, in estimating their profits in the parishes through which the main line passes there ought to be a deduction in respect of what is paid for the line which is worked as a feeder to the main line. This calculation, though difficult, may be made upon data which are accessible, and is not more difficult than calculations, which must be made in railway rating, where stations and inclined planes in one parish affect the traffic in another parish. Adhering to the parochial principle, I inquire of what value the land rated is to the occupier. Of this value the rent he is willing to pay for the land affords evidence; and, from any profit which he indirectly makes from it out of the parish, part of the rent which he pays for it in the parish is to be regarded as a deduction. At the bar it was hardly denied that this would be the result if the two railways belonged to different companies, and if the company whose railway is fed were to pay a regular fixed annual sum to the company whose railway is the feeder. But I do not see how it should make any difference to the parish of Dorking that both lines are occupied by one company and are worked as one concern. The advantage derived from the occupation of the portion of the line in that parish is still the same, although the process by which the amount of that advantage is to be calculated is changed. I adhere to the rule of rating which I had laid down in The Newmarket Railway Company v. St. Andrews the Less, Cambridge (a), and which I there attempted to support and illustrate. This I think is in entire harmony with our decision in Regina v. Great Western Railway Company (b). In many cases the sup (a) Ante, p. 94. (b) 15 Q. B. 379, 1085. 1854. SOUTH EASTERN Railway Company V. Overseers of DORKING. Lord Campbell C. J. 1854. SOUTH EASTERN Railway Company V. Overseers of DORKING. Lord Campbell C. J. posed advantage derived by a railway company from a portion of a railway in a particular parish bringing passengers and goods to another portion out of the parish may be almost inappreciable; and I would earnestly dissuade parishes from ever making any claim under this head, unless where upon clear evidence the claim can in point of fact be established. In answer to the third question, I say that the respondents are not entitled to treat the Reading line as an integral part of The South Eastern Railway so as to depart from the parochial principle; but they are entitled to consider in the assessment the value of the Reading line to the appellants beyond the traffic passing through the parish of Dorking. In answer to the first question, I cannot say that the rent under the lease or the annuity payable under the last Act of parliament is necessarily the criterion of the assessable value. And therefore, according to the arrangement agreed upon between the parties if this should be our opinion, the matter must go back to the Quarter Sessions, or to an arbitrator, to determine the proper amount of assessment in conformity with the opinion pronounced by a majority of the Court upon the second and third questions. |