Sixthly, Pro

perty, where to

be rated.

A company's bridge standing

in two parishes is rateable in both,

although the tolls

are received in one only.

the persons licensed to navigate any vessel upon the river, are required to pay to the receivers appointed by the proprietors of the navigation, a certain riverage for every ton of goods navigated on the same. The navigation extends from Guildford, in Surrey, to the river Thames, through several parishes, and among others the parish of Woking, and many tons of goods annually pass through that parish, to and fro, in vessels using the navigation to different places of destination; but the goods annually landed within the parish do not yield riverage to the amount in respect of which the defendants are assessed. The question for the opinion of the Court was, whether the proprietors of the navigation were rateable, except upon the amount of the riverage arising from the goods landed within the parish. If they were not rateable beyond that amount, then the rate is to be amended, by reducing it to ; otherwise to stand at its present amount. Monro, against the order of sessions, being called upon by the Court, stated that he was prepared to have argued that the proprietors ought to have been assessed only in respect of the amount of the riverage arising from goods landed within this parish, on the ground that they could only be rated for their tolls at the places where they became due; and he referred to the opinion of Lord Ellenborough in Rex v. Sculcoates, 12 East, 45, ante, p. 113, and the other authorities cited in Rex v. Palmer. He admitted, however, that, according to the principle laid down in the preceding case, the proprietors were liable to be rated in Woking in respect of the profits of their land, situate within that parish; and if so, that the riverage payable on goods landed there would not be the correct measure of those profits. Order of sessions

confirmed.

The Hammersmith suspension bridge is at one end in the county of Middlesex, and the other in the county of Surrey. It was erected by a company, and the surplus receipts are divided among the shareholders. The gate at which the tolls are received is on the Middlesex side, and the company paid to the poor rates on that side; but upon being assessed on the other side, where no tolls were taken, they appealed, and the sessions granted a case. It was contended, that as the tolls of a sluice or lock upon a navigable river had been held to be rateable only in the parish where such sluice, &c., was situated, and the tolls received, the same rule must be followed in this case. The Court, however, was of opinion, that as the company were beneficial occupiers, upon both sides of the river, it was immaterial at what part of the bridge the tolls were taken; and they were clearly liable to be assessed to the parish in the county of Surrey, as well as in the county of Middlesex. Rex v. Barnes, Steer's Par. L. 620.

(Seventhly)-Of the Proportion in which the Rate shall be made. Seventhly, Pro- The Court of King's Bench has at all times manifested an indisposition portion, or to interfere with the relative proportions in which rates are made upon difamount of rate. ferent persons, or different kinds of property, that being the more immediate province of the magistrates in sessions. The following rules, however, may be deduced from the decisions on this subject:-1st, That the rate must be regulated by the improved value of the property; 2nd, that although the rent reserved cannot be always relied on, yet the annual sum at which the property would let for is the fair criterion of its value; 3rdly, that one species of property may be fairly assessed in a different proportion of its rent, from the proportion in which another is assessed in the same rate; and 4thly, that the Court will presume a rate is equal, unless it appear to the contrary.

The Court will

not presume a rate unequal, although houses

In Rex v. Brograve, 4 Burr. 2491; 1 Bott, 112; 1 Nol. P. L. 221, 237 ; it was moved to set aside an order of sessions confirming a rate in which houses and lands were rated differently. But by the Court: Here is no and lands are not apparent inequality, and we are not to presume it. There may be reason to

rated alike.

make a difference between lands and houses. For there are several charges incident to houses which do not fall upon lands, to lessen their yearly value.

Rex v. Sillis, Cald. 522. If the proportions in which real and personal

property are assessed be apparently unequal; (viz. one-half of the realty and one-fortieth of the interest of the personalty at 4 per cent.) the Court will quash such poor rate.

Rex v. Butler & al., Cald. 93; 1 Bott, 114; 1 Nol. P. L. 298. It was objected against a rate made by the parish officers of Swannage alias Sandwich, and confirmed by the sessions, that no difference was made in assessing tenements and farms consisting of land, and cottages or dwellinghouses; whereas the clear income of the former was at 1d. in the pound, to three farthings in the pound of the latter; and that it had been the custom to rate them nearly in that proportion until the year 1778, when, at a public vestry, both lands and houses were rated at 1d. in the pound, and the same way of rating hath since continued.-By Ld. Mansfield, C. J. The question before the court is, does the rate upon the face of it appear to be equal or unequal? Unless it is manifestly unequal, the Court will presume it equal. Circumstances may vary the value of different estates; and if this plainly appear, then what is said in Rex v. Brograve applies: but you take advantage of an obiter saying of the court in that case, when the true legal ground of the authority is decisive against you. Rate affirmed.

Rer v. Sandwich alias Swannage, Cald. 105; 1 Bott, 115; 1 Nol. P. L. 236, 298. A poor rate was made charging tenements and farms at 1d. in the pound, and cottages and dwelling-houses at three farthings in the pound. The sessions on appeal quash the rate and state the following case: that from the year 1735 to the year 1776 a constant distinction had been observed; houses having been rated at a less proportion to their rents than the lands were; that in this parish the lands were burthened with no particular charges, but both were equally subject to the usual repairs and taxes generally incident to each respectively. In support of the rate; it was urged that it had been made in consequence of what seemed to be the opinion of the Court in the last case. And also, that the rate ought not to have been altogether quashed, but amended by adding to the sums assessed upon the houses. It was answered, that in this parish nine-tenths of the burthen of the poor arose from the houses; and that the rate could not be amended, as the objection went to every name in the rate.-By Ld. Mansfield, C. J. The Court has certainly laid down no general rule as to the mode of assessing houses and lands. They could not either one way or the other. The proportion must ever depend upon local circumstances; and, if nine-tenths of the burthen arise from the houses, such circumstances were sufficient to influence the sessions in adjusting that proportion. The objection unavoidably goes to the whole rate, for it is throughout made by a rule and proportion which the justices thought unequal, and therefore they could do nothing but quash the whole.

And in Rex v. T. Mast, 6 T. R. 154; 1 Bott, 211; 1 Nol. P. L. 200, 224, 225, which was upon the appeal of T. Mast against a poor rate for the parish of St. Neot's, in which the appellant was rated at the full annual value of his estate at that time; and W. Fowler was rated at 291. per annum, but the real annual value in consequence of improvements was 175l.; he occupied, besides, other lands and property in the parish, for which he was rated after the same manner. There was also one Gorham who was rated in the same way. This rate upon appeal was confirmed at the Huntingdon sessions.-Ld. Kenyon, C. J. The assessment for the relief of the poor should be so contrived, that each inhabitant should contribute in proportion to his ability, which is to be ascertained by his possessions in the parish. Every inhabitant ought to be rated according to the present value of his estate, whether it continue of the same value as when he purchased it, or whether the estate be rendered more valuable by the improvements which he has made upon it. If a person chose to keep his property in money, and the fact of his possessing it be clearly proved, he is rateable for that: but if he prefer using it in the amelioration of an estate or other property, he is rateable for the same in another shape. In whatever way the owner makes his estate more valuable, he is liable to contribute to the relief of the poor in proportion to that improved estate; and whatever be the proportion of rating in a parish, whether to the full value or otherwise, the rate must be

Seventhly, Proportion, &c.

Unless a rate be

manifestly unequal, the court will presume it equal.

The Court of K. B. can lay down for the proportion to be observed in rating.

no general rule

A person must be

rated according to the improved

value of his property.

Seventhly, Proportion, &c.

Rent not a cer

tain criterion of value.

But property is

it would let for without reference to the sum ex

ing it profitable.

equally made on all persons; there cannot be one medium of rating for one class of persons, and another for another class. Now here it appears that the appellant was rated at the full annual value of every thing that he possessed, while other inhabitants were not rated at a third of their estates. With regard to the discretion of the justices; if indeed they had confirmed this rate generally, without disclosing to us the grounds on which they proceeded, we could not have quashed the rate, because the inequality does not appear upon the face of it: but they have disclosed those grounds; and, on the case as stated, it is impossible not to say that they have made a mistake. This rate appears so defective throughout, that it cannot be amended.-Ashhurst and Grose, Js. of the same opinion. Order of sessions quashed.

Also in Rex v. Skingle, 7 T. R. 549; 1 Bott, 218; 1 Nol. P. L. 225; on an appeal against a poor rate, the ground of the appeal was, that William Hill and John Bull were under-rated, the lands in their occupation being now of a greater annual value than the rent reserved by the lease, and the rate was made according to the rent: but the Court were of opinion that the case was too clear for argument, and that the rate ought to be regulated according to the improved value.

Rex v. Attwood and others, 6 B. & C. 277. The appellant, Attwood, was rateable at what proprietor and occupier of a coal mine, upon which he had expended 10,0007. in planting the mine and setting it to work. It had been at work one year and a quarter, and the value of the whole coals raised did not exceed 5000l. pended in render- The full value of the annual produce, after deducting expences of working, amounted to 428l. 9s., at which sum it was rated. The other appellants were rated upon the annual sums paid by them for royalties. It was contended in argument, that Attwood should not be rated at all till the monies expended by him in planting the mine were repaid, as till then the mine could not be said to be productive. For it is difficult to find any difference between a mine that has not become productive, and one that has ceased to be so; and in the latter case it has been held that a mine is not rateable; see Rex v. Bedworth, 8 East, 387.

Abbott, C. J. We are all of opinion, that the owner and occupier of a coal mine should be rated at such sum as it would let for and no more. As to the other points, the first was, that the rate should not be imposed upon the coal produced, because that was part of the realty. It is the first time that such a proposition has ever been submitted, although many coal mines in various parts of the country have constantly been rated, and the argument in support of it is wholly untenable. The legislature has expressly made coal mines rateable, and they must be rated for what they produce, viz. the coals. Slate quarries and brick earth are also exhausted in a few years, but nevertheless the rate is always imposed upon that which is produced. The other argument was, that the rate could not be imposed until the expences of planting the mine had been recouped. But I cannot discover any distinction between expences incurred in bringing a mine to a productive state, and in building a house. The attempt to distinguish them is perfectly novel; and if a house is to be rated as soon as built and occupied, it must follow that a coal mine is rateable as soon as it is set at work and produces coals, although it may happen that the expence of sinking it may never be recovered. If the tenant of a mine expends money in making it more productive, that is the same as expending money in improving a farm or a house, in which cases the tenant is rateable for the improved value.Order of sessions amended as to the rate upon Attwood, and confirmed as to the residue of the rate.

Rex v. The Trustees of the Duke of Bridgwater, 9 B. & C. 68. In this case the defendants were rated in proportion to the full amount of the gross receipts as owners as well as occupiers of land taken for the canal, towing paths, warehouses, wharfs, &c.; whereas the occupiers of farms and premises in the same parish were rated only in proportion to the rent paid by them respectively. Bayley, J., in delivering the judgment of the court, said, "The same principle of rating must be adopted whether the party be owner and occupier, or occupier only. I lay out of consideration the fact of the

portion, &c.

trustees being carriers, because their occupation only is to be considered. Seventhly, ProThe profits of carrying goods are the profits of their trade. The tonnage is the profit of the land occupied by them. The principle of our decision in this case is, that the same rule is to be applied to all occupiers, and that the rent or sum at which the land will let, is the criterion of the value of the occupation.

Rex v. Lord Granville, 9 B. & C. 188. The defendant was lessee and occupier of a coal mine or colliery, upon which he had erected steam engines and other machinery for the profitable working of the mine. In one year he paid royalty to his landlord for a mine rent upon the coals raised, the sum of 8021. 8s., which sum was a fair mine rent for a tenant to pay upon the quantity of coals raised in that year. The machinery with which the mines were worked, and without which there could be no coal raised, and no mine rent, was assessed at 1877. 10s., in addition to the above sum, making together 9897. 18s. ; and it was calculated that this latter sum would be a fair rent for the whole colliery and machinery, if let to a sub-tenant. Upon the case being argued before the Court of King's Bench, it was contended that, although an owner and occupier may be rateable for the improved value, a mere tenant who has a short term, and has expended large sums to make the colliery profitable, is not to be so rated, at least till the capital thus laid out is repaid by the profits. Besides, he is in fact rated for the machinery in the increased mine rent which is produced by it; and, therefore, the sum of 1871. 10s. ought at least to be struck out of the

assessment.

Bayley, J. I have no doubt that the defendant ought to be rated for his engines and railway. Whether the sessions have made proper deductions we are not to decide. The only point for our consideration is, whether the defendant ought to be rated for the engines and railway. If the owner had occupied the mine, he would have been liable to be rated according to the improved value of the property; and where the owner of a mine fixes an engine, or otherwise, by expenditure of his capital, raises the value of his property, he will be rateable for the value of the property so improved by his expenditure. If it be leased to a tenant who is to incur the same expenditure of erecting an engine, the owner will receive a less royalty; but as a greater quantity of coal will be raised, the tenant will be thereby remunerated for his expenditure, and I think the tenant, being the occupier, is liable to be rated for such improved value. The order of sessions must, therefore, be confirmed.

Littledale, J. It is immaterial, with reference to rateability, whether the landlord or tenant erect an engine or lay down a railway. The bargain between the landlord and tenant may be varied on that account, but the occupier of the property is rateable in respect of its improved annual value.

Parke, J. The question left to us is, whether the defendant be liable to be rated for improvements? I think he clearly is. It is found by the sessions that the value of the property is raised by the improvements from 8021. 8. to 9891. 18s. Whether the amount of the rate is precisely what it ought to be, it is not for us to determine. The sessions seem to have estimated the value according to the sum at which it would let to an undertenant. That, perhaps, may not be the correct principle on which such property ought to be rated. The annual value is part only of the annual rent: some portion of that rent should be considered applicable to repairing and replacing the engines. In Rex v. Tomlinson, post, 128, this distinction was taken. The only question for us, however, is, whether it be right in principle to rate the lessee, in respect of an annual value increased by reason of improvements made by himself? I think he was properly rated for the improved value. Order of sessions confirmed.

In Rex v. The Oxford Canal Co., 4 B. & C. 74; 6 D. & R. 86; 3 D. & Ryl. Mag. Ca. 56, S. C.; the same principle of rating was directed to be observed with respect to the canal tolls,-Abbott, C. J., saying, “As to the amount, it appears that other lands are rated according to the amount which would be obtained by letting them at a rent: this company, therefore, must be rated according to the same rule."

Rex v. Tomlinson, 9 B. & C. 163. Upon an appeal against a rate made

The machinery is rateable in addirent as constituting the improved the whole would let for the entire sum assessed.

tion to the mine

annual value, if

Seventhly, Proportion, &c.

A poor rate made

upon two-thirds

of the net rent of

lands, and one

half the net rents of colleries, is not

manifestly unequal, and may be a fair and equal mode of rating.

for the relief of the poor of the parish of Stoke-upon-Trent, in the county of Stafford, the justices at sessions amended the rate, subject to the opinion of this Court, upon the following case :-In the above rate, which was made upon a recent survey and valuation of the rateable property in the parish of Stoke-upon-Trent, the occupiers of farms, lands, and tithes, and also of market tolls, throughout the said parish, were assessed in respect of such property respectively upon two-thirds of their estimated net yearly rent, payable to the landlord and the occupiers of houses, potworks, and every other description of building; and also the occupiers of collieries and coal mines were assessed in respect of such property respectively upon only one-half of their estimated net yearly rent or royalty, payable to the landlord. In the same rate the lessees of certain water-works were assessed in respect of their water-works and water-pipes within the parish upon only one-half of their estimated yearly rental value; but the rate was amended by the Court as to them, by assessing them upon two-thirds of such rental value, being in the same proportion as in the case of land. The question for the consideration of this Court was, whether, as the occupiers of farms, lands, tithes, tolls, and water-works throughout the said parish, are assessed upon two-thirds of their estimated net yearly rent, payable to the landlord, the occupiers of collieries and coal mines ought not to be rated, in the like proportion, upon two-thirds of the estimated net yearly mine rent or royalty paid to the landlord, instead of one-half, as charged in the said rate?

Bayley, J. The question in this case was, Whether a rate was upon an unequal, and consequently an unjust principle. It estimated the value of all property according to the net yearly rent; but it fixed the rate according to two-thirds of the rent in the case of lands, &c., whilst it fixed it according to one-half only in the case of houses and collieries: and whether this made the rate necessarily unequal, was the question. It was not disputed but that the sessions were in general the proper judges of value; but it was insisted, that if they fixed the proportions by a wrong rule, this Court might and ought to interfere. And if the proportions have been fixed by a rule which we can pronounce to be wrong, we are of opinion our interference is requisite. Can we, then, pronounce the rule acted upon in this case to be wrong? It was almost admitted that there might properly be a distinction in the proportions between houses and land, though it was urged there could not be one between land and collieries; but when the consequences of this admission were seen, the admission was withdrawn. We are, however, of opinion that there may properly be a difference in the proportion of the annual rent upon which houses and lands are to be rated, it belonging to the sessions to fix the precise proportion. We also think, that houses and collieries may be classed together.

The rate is to be made on the occupier according to the annual profit or value which the subject of occupation produces; and it makes no difference in the amount of the rate, whether the occupier be tenant or owner. In the case of houses, the annual profit or value is always a part only of the annual rent paid to the landlord. Some portion of that rent ought to be set apart to form a fund for repairing or rebuilding, when necessary; in other words, to maintain, or reproduce the subject of occupation, a much less part, if any, of the annual rent of land is wanted for either of those purposes, and the whole in some cases, or nearly the whole in others, is annual profit or value. This difference is mentioned by Lord Mansfield in Rex v. Brograve. In the case of collieries, also, a part of the annual rent must be appropriated to repair and replace the works and engines, and in that respect they are in the same situation with houses. The sessions were, therefore, warranted in making a difference in the proportion of rating, with reference to annual rent, between houses and collieries on the one hand, and land on the other; and it is impossible for us to say that the proportion which they have fixed is not the right one. It was urged, in the argument, that the sessions have fixed the rate according to unequal proportions of the net rent, and it was contended, that by the words "net rent," was meant the clear annual rent, after every deduction, including, therefore, the part to be set aside for repairs and reproduction of the subject of the rate, and, consequently, that the rate was unequal. But we cannot attribute any such meaning to these