Page images
PDF
EPUB

Fourthly, On whom to be made,

tal, or the poor persons, or the

servants, are not such occupiers as

can be rated.

9 Geo. 4, c. 40, S. 29.

Assessment to

rates for land

taken for lunatic

increased.

nors of the hospital,) were rated to the poor rate in respect of the said buildings and area. By Lord Mansfield, C. J. The poor rate must be charged upon the occupiers. In the case of St. Luke's hospital, and in that of Chelsea hospital, the officers were rateable as occupiers. Here the corporation de facto are not, de facto, the occupiers. The poor are occupiers ; but they are not rateable.

By 9 Geo. IV. c. 40, intituled “An Act to amend the Laws for the Erection and Regulation of County Lunatic Asylums, and more effectually to provide for the care and maintenance of Pauper and Criminal Lunatics in England," s. 29, it is enacted, That in all future rates, taxes, and levies to asylums not to be be made for any parish or place in which any land or ground already purchased or to be purchased under the provisions of this or any former act, for the purposes of any county lunatic asylum, shall be situate, such land or ground, with any buildings to be erected thereon, shall not be assessed to any such rates, taxes, or levies, at a higher value and more improved rent than the same land or ground was at the time of such purchase; nor shall any building or buildings, which under this or any former act has been or shall be erected on such land, be assessed to any house or window tax; any act or acts to the contrary notwithstanding.

A corporate body are occupiers and

inhabitants for the purpose of being rated, and

the master and fellows of a col

lege are therefore rateable as a corporation for what they beneficially occupy.

Rex v. Gardner, Cowp. 79; 1 Bott, 143; 1 Nol. P. L. 178. The master and fellows of Catherine Hall, Cambridge, purchased several houses, and pulled them down, and converted part of the ground on which the said houses had stood, into an area, and planted the same with trees for ornament. The parish assessed them for the same to the poor rate. The questions were, whether the master and fellows, being a body corporate, were liable to be rated, and whether the ground, as it was in its converted state, could be rated?—By Lord Mansfield, C. J. The question is, whether in law a corporation may be considered as occupiers or inhabitants? By the statute of Eliz., all lands and all real property are rateable to the poor; and must have occupiers and inhabitants, in respect of taxation: therefore, if a man have no tenant, and be seised of lands in fee, he is said to occupy them himself, or by his bailiff or agent. No case hath been instanced to shew that a corporation is exempted from this tax; and I can find no authority in law which says they cannot be rated. And the authorities which have been cited tend to prove that corporations are rateable, both as inhabitants and as occupiers: if they are liable in respect of the repairs of bridges and of churches, they are equally so by the statute of Elizabeth in respect of the poor. As to the objection, that this area yields no profit, and therefore ought not to be rated, the answer is, that the value is in the judgment of the assessors; and if the college think themselves over-rated they have their remedy by appeal. Mr. J. Aston. I have no idea but that the corporation may be occupiers; and as to the remedy of levying a duty upon a corporation, the books all agree that it can be levied, though they differ in the mode. Sheppard, in his treatise upon Corporations, says, "If a sum of money be to be levied upon a corporation, it may be levied upon the mayor or chief magistrate, or upon any person being a member of the corporation." But in the case of the city of London concerning the duty of water-bailage (1 Ventr. 351) it is different, and is thus: "Note: it was said that for a duty or charge upon a corporation, every particular member thereof is not liable; but process ought to go in their public capacity." And this is the right law. In the case of Thursfield v. Jones, (Skin. 27,) the corporation were cited, not by their proper names, but in their public capacity; and the Court said, “If the company had neither land nor goods, there was no way to make them appear; but if they stood out, they must lie by the heels in their natural capacity." Therefore the idea that a corporation is not liable to be rated, or amenable by process in respect of a rate, is not well-founded. Besides, by the act of 17 Geo. II. c. 38, the remedy of distress is extended beyond the particular parish into other precincts, and even into other counties. So that their property is answerable, though they cannot personally be punished. The other two justices concurred.

Cortis v. The Kent Water Works' Company, 7 B. & C. 314. By a local

act for the relief of the poor, certain commissioners were enabled to make rates upon all and every person or persons who held, occupied, or possessed land in the parish; it was held that a corporation was liable to be rated, although by a clause, giving an appeal to the quarter sessions to any party aggrieved, such party was bound to enter into a recognizance.

[blocks in formation]

The act of parliament required that, before any action should be brought Demand. to recover any rates, there should be a personal demand of the same, or a demand in writing left at the place of abode of the persons charged, or on the premises charged. Held by Bayley, J., that a demand made at a meeting of the corporate body duly convened was sufficient; and by Littledale, J., a demand fixed on the premises charged under the rate was sufficient.

So in Rex v. John Catt, 6 T. R. 332; 1 Bott, 213; 1 Nol. P. L. 176; it was determined that the master of a free-school appointed by the minister and inhabitants of the parish under a charitable trust, whereby a house, garden, and other property, were assigned for the use and habitation of the master and his family freely without payment of any rent, income, gift, sum of money, or other allowance whatsoever for or out of the same, for the teaching of ten poor boys, of the inhabitants of the parish, was rateable to the poor for his occupation of the same.

The next class of cases in which the question of Beneficial Occupancy arises, consists of those in which there is an occupation for a particular purpose, or by virtue of some office.

A schoolmaster occupying a house and garden belonging to the school is rateable, were held by him as a recompence he being a bene

although they

for teaching, &c.;

ficial occupant.

Royal palaces in

the occupation of the royal family

are not rateable,

cupying house

Old Windsor or Rex v. Mathews, Cald. 1; 1 Bott, 151; 1 Nol. P. L. 178. Samuel Mathews was rated to the poor rate for a keeper's lodge in Windsor Great Park, and two acres of land, which he occupied as one of the keepers of the said park, which rate was confirmed at the sessions. but servants ocAnd by the Court it was determined, that royal palaces, in the occupation of the royal family, are not rateable to the poor; but the servants occupying house and land belonging to the crown, whether they pay for the same by rent or by service, are rateable, ante, 53.

Lord Bute v. Grindall and another, 1 T. R. 338; 1 Bott, 173; 1 Nol. P. L. 174, 179, 194. This cause was tried at the assizes in Surrey, before Gould, J., when the jury found a special verdict, which stated, inter alia, that Lord Bute was duly appointed ranger of New Park, near Richmond, and had granted to him the custody of the houses, lodges, &c., and also the herbage and pannage of the said park: that some part of the park is enclosed land, some part thereof meadow, and some part arable land and sown with corn, rye-grass, and clover, in the ordinary course of husbandry: that the meadow has been always mowed, and the hay thereon made by persons paid by the king, who also found the hay seed; that 66 loads of hay when made have been always carried by the king's waggons into the park for the deer, and the overplus was stacked up for the use of the king's horses, and the ranger's horses, and ate by them, but never any sold: that when the arable land was sown with corn, the ranger found the seed; and when with rye-grass or clover, the king found the seed; and was manured, ploughed, and sown by the king's servants and horses, and reaped by the ranger, and sold for his benefit, and the king had no part; that the straw was used for thatching the hay-ricks, and by the king's cart-horses: that the profits arising to the ranger from the said lands are worth 100l. a-year; but the herbage and pannage of the park have yielded no profit to the ranger. By Lord Mansfield. The question is, whether the plaintiff is rateable at all? Not for how much or in what proportion. It is clear he is not rateable for the herbage and pannage, because they yield no profit; but there is a parcel of land inclosed which he sows, and afterwards reaps the corn from, and the profits arising to the ranger from the said lands amount to 1001. a-year; therefore he is occupier; and quo nomine occupier can make no difference whether by gift or for wages.-Buller, J. It is immaterial what interest the occupier has in the lands, whether he holds as tenant at will or any other tenure: it is not necessary to enquire into the occupier's title.

and land belonging to the crown

are rateable.

A beneficial occupier of the king's gift or for wages, is rateable for the

lands, whether by

same.

Lord Amherst v. Lord Somers and others, 2 T. R. 372; 1 Bott, 184; Stables rented by VOL. IV.

E

Fourthly, On whom to be made.

order of the crown

for the use of a

regiment, are not

rateable, where the lessee himself

does not occupy them on his own

particular account.

A master gunner appointed by the

crown, and stated to be occupier of the king's battery

house, is rateable.

Soldiers are not occupiers in the

legal sense of the word.

Where residence is merely as a servant of the crown, and for public offices only, there the

ratcable.

The rule as to public servants.

1 Nol. P. L. 191. By warrant under the king's sign manual, a lease was entered into by Lord R. Bertie with one A., by which certain buildings were covenanted by A. to be built by him as a riding school, &c., for the use of a troop of the horse guards. Lord Amherst succeeded Lord R. Bertie, and had possession given him of the school, &c., and the buildings were used always for the purposes of the troop, and never in any manner for the private benefit of Lord Amherst. The rent was paid by stoppages from the pay of the troop.-By Ashhurst, J. It is admitted that neither the possessions of the crown, nor of the public, are liable to be rated to the poor; and as this property falls within one or the other of these descriptions, it is not rateable to the poor.-And by Buller, J. In this case the plaintiff did not contract as general lessee, but merely for the benefit of the public, by order of the crown; and he made no use whatever of the stables. Therefore he cannot be considered as the occupier.

Rex v. Hurdis, 3 T. R. 497; 1 Bott, 187; 1 Nol. P. L. 199. The appellant objected to the rate because one Wood, gunner of the king's fort and battery at S. who was a servant to his majesty, and not in his own right the occupier of the dwelling-house thereto belonging, and who therefore ought not to have been charged in the rate, was inserted therein, and charged as the occupier of the battery-house. At the time of making the rate, he was a head or master gunner, and acted as such at the fort or battery of S. The fort and battery-house are the property of the crown, and a master gunner is an officer appointed by the crown, and removable at pleasure. Wood being so employed, occupied the whole of the house, except one room; the furniture belonging to him.-Lord Kenyon, C. J. Í do not feel that my opinion upon this subject militates against any decided case, but I shall determine upon the ground of positive law, as it is laid down in the 43 Eliz. which subjects every occupier of lands, houses, &c., to be rated to the relief of the poor. Now it is expressly stated in the case, that Wood was the occupier of the battery-house; and though perhaps it might have been contended below, that he was not the occupier, in the legal sense of the word, yet the finding of the sessions precludes that question here. It is not, however, a general position, that a servant of the crown occupying a house in respect of his office, is not rateable for it. Soldiers indeed cannot be said to be the occupiers of their barracks, in the legal sense of the word; they are no more than mere servants. Therefore Wood was properly rated. See Rex v. Ronton Abbey, ante, p. 10.

But if soldiers in barracks are supplied with accommodation beyond what is strictly necessary for them, as soldiers, they may become rateable; as appears by Rex v. Terrott, 3 East, 506; 1 Bott, 230; 1 Nol. P. L. 197. The appellant was an artillery officer. He had his quarters at a occupation is not building fitted up at the expence of the crown. There were several apartments beyond what were necessary for the regimental business, and he resided in them with his family; the usual barrack furniture was provided by the crown. He was rated in respect of these apartments.-By Lord Ellenborough, C. J. The principle of the subject is, that if the party have the use of the building, or other subject of the rate, as a mere servant of the crown, or of any public body, or in any other respect for the mere exercise of public duty therein, and have no beneficial occupation of, or emolument resulting from it in any personal and private respect, then he is not rateable. The property of the crown in the beneficial occupation of a subject, whether he be a civil or a military officer of the crown, is equally rateable. But if the use of, or residence upon, the property, be either as the servant of the crown, and for public purposes only, or as a mere public officer or servant, the parties having the use of the property merely for such purposes, are not rateable; because the occupation is throughout that of the public, and of which public occupation the individuals are only the means and instruments. Rate confirmed.

The trustees of a meeting house,

See also Holford v. Copeland, 3 Bos. & Pul. 139; in which the principle of the above decisions is fully discussed and elucidated.

Rex v. Woodward and another, 5 T. R. 79; 1 Bott, 205; 1 Nol. P. L. 182. The trustees of a quaker meeting-house were rated to the poor for

Fourthly, On

whom to be made.

of which no profit

the meeting-house, the basement story of which is divided into many small rooms, one of which is occupied by a person called the door-keeper, whose business it is to attend the house when necessary, and keep the meetinghouse clean, for which he has a small salary. The remaining apartments is made are not are either not occupied, or are appropriated to the use of poor persons rateable. maintained by the quakers. The meeting-house is solely appropriated to religious and charitable purposes. The trustees, the persons rated, do not receive any rent for the same. No pecuniary advantage whatever is made of the meeting-house.

The Court said, it was impossible to support this rate on the trustees, who had no interest in the premises; and that there was no occupier at present, nor any profit made of it.

Analogous to the above cases are the following; viz., Robson v. Hyde, esquire, Cald. 310; 1 Bott, 164; 1 Nol. P. L. 187. In this case it was determined that a private building always used as a chapel, and, by contract, never to be used for any other purpose whatsoever, but not consecrated, is, if a profit be made of it by letting out the pews or otherwise, rateable to the poor. But if it were absolutely given to the public, it might be a strong ground for saying that it was not rateable.

Rex v. Agar and others, 14 East, 256; Bott, Cont. 88; 1 Nol. P. L. 188, 189. In an assessment for the relief of the poor of St. Martin, York, the defendants were thus rated:

"Messrs. Agar and Gibson-Chapel rent, 201.-One month, 15s.-Three months, 21. 58."

Against the assessment, they appealed on the grounds that the methodist chapel, therein mentioned, was not liable to be rated, and that they (the trustees) were not liable to be rated in respect of it, not being the occupiers of it, nor having any beneficial or other interest therein which was legally the subject of a rate. The sessions confirmed the rate, subject to the opinion of the Court, on these following facts:-In 1804, the appellants purchased a piece of ground, upon which, by means of voluntary contributions, they erected the chapel in question. The premises were shortly afterwards conveyed to them, upon trust, that they should let the pews and seats in the chapel under such yearly or other payments as they might think fit, and upon other trusts (as by the deeds appeared more particularly): the consideration for the purchase of the ground, and the expence of erecting the chapel, were raised partly by voluntary donations, and partly by sums borrowed by the appellants. The current expences of the trustees in supporting the chapel during the year 1810, as appeared by the disbursements after mentioned, were 2471. 7s.; and the whole of the pew rents received for that year amounted to 2211. 4s., which were applied towards the discharge of the following expences, viz.

Insurance from fire

To a year's rent and taxes of two dwelling-houses occupied by the two methodist preachers, ending 25th December, 1810. To chapel-cleaners and candle-snuffers.

(There were several items for work about the chapel, as painting,
&c.; also for candles, amounting to 391. 6s., and then the
two following items, viz.)

To one year's quarterage for salary and board allowed to two
methodist preachers for officiating in the York chapel
To Thomas Stodhart, for half a year's salary for conducting the
singing in the chapel, ending 25th December, 1810 .

£. s. d.

2 5 0

70 0 0

20 16 0

110 0 0

500

Making altogether 247 7 0

The point reserved by the sessions was, whether the appellants, under the above circumstances, were liable to contribute to the relief of the poor in respect of the rents or monies so received for the pews, and so applied as above stated. After argument, Lord Ellenborough, C.J., said, the question is, whether the trustees are rateable? In what situation do they stand to

A private build

ing used as a
if a profit be made
of it.

chapel is rateable,

The trustees of a methodist chapel receiving money annually for the

rent of the pevs,

are rateable for the profits made

though in fact

of the building, they expend the whole of what they receive in ments for repairs, &c., and to atten pel, and in paying the salaries of the preachers.

making disburse

dants in the cha

Fourthly, On whom to be made.

the property? In 1804 they purchased the ground on which they afterwards erected the chapel; they are therefore the owners of the property. If they had gratuitously admitted persons into their chapel, and provided preachers for the congregation, without receiving any thing, they would have come within the case of Rex v. Woodward and others, 5 T. R. 79. What similitude then does this bear to Waldo's case, ante, 51, who gratuitously devoted his property to the education and maintenance of paupers, but derived no profit to himself? Here profit is made of the property to the full by the trustees. If it were absolutely necessary that all the sums stated in the account of expences should be expended, it should have been expressly found in the case that they were all necessarily expended in the carrying on the business of the chapel. The trustees may go on increasing their expenditure in this manner as their profits increase. I admit that it is not found that any of the items were fraudulently swelled for the purpose of this question; but it is not enough in these cases to shew that the expences laid out in any particular year, absorbed the profits of that year: for the benefit of such expences may be derived in future years, as is often the case, with improvements of farms, and rateable on that account. Whether these which are stated were necessary expences or not, I cannot take upon me to say from the case, but it should at least have been found that they were all necessary, to produce the render of the rent received. This is not like the cases where persons have been held not to be rateable for property, as not being in the occupation of it; for these appellants are the original proprietors of the land on which they have erected a chapel by voluntary subscription, under no restriction as to the profits to be derived from it, and in the actual receipt of rents, which they have applied in manner stated.— Grose, J. The first question is, whether there is any thing rateable in this case? and here is clearly rateable property; for there is land, and a building which produces profit. How then does this differ from the case of other buildings which produce profit? If this be not rateable on account of the subsequent application of the profits by the trustees to the benefit of others, why should any estate which a man holds in trust be rateable? Then, 2dly, the trustees who receive the profits are the occupiers of the property, and therefore they are liable to be rated for it.-Le Blanc, J. The subjectmatter of this rate is within the stat. 43 Eliz., c. 2, which directs the occupiers of lands and houses to be rated. I agree that this is in substance a rate on the ministers, for if they had let out the pews and received the rents, they would only have received the surplus profit after payment of all the necessary expences of the chapel; but the pews are let out by those who are in effect the trustees for the ministers, for they pay over to them so much as remains after defraying the expences. The trustees, therefore, must be considered as the occupiers, because the property is in them, and they let out the pews, and they are therefore rateable for the profits in the same manner as the ministers themselves would be if these latter let out the pews.-Bayley, J. The property itself is rateable, and the trustees are the proper persons to be rated for it. It is a house, and the stat. of Eliz. says that occupiers of houses are rateable. produces profit, for certain sums are annually paid into the hands of the persons rated by those who rent the pews. Then it is objected, that part of the money so received which is applied to the salaries of the preachers, is referable to them and not to the house; and that if there were no preachers, there would be no pew-rents received: I agree that the money so received is partly referable to the preachers, but a part is also referable to the house itself, in respect to the superior accommodation afforded by it to those who attend the preacher: for such large sums would not be paid to hear them in the open air. There is no hardship in saying that the trustees shall pay the rate, for they will stop in transitu so much as they pay for this purpose; and the ministers are not the proper persons on whom to impose the rate on the building in respect of their salaries. The trustees are not under any obligation to make the payments to the extent stated: they have paid the money in fact; but they were under no obligation to do so at all events. This, therefore, being property which in its nature is rateable, and profit

It

« PreviousContinue »