being in fact made of it, and that profit passing in the first instance through the hands of the trustees, I see no doubt but they are rateable for it. Order and rate confirmed.

Fourthly, On whom to be made.

pant.

Rex v. Commissioners of the Navigation of Salter's Load Sluice to Stan- There must be a ground Sluice, 4 T. R. 730; 1 Bott, 201; 1 Nol. P. L. 189. The defendants beneficial occuwere assessed for the tolls of a sluice, which rate was confirmed at the sessions. It appeared that the tolls were directed by the act of parliament passed for the supporting of the sluice, "to be applied for the several purposes of the said act, and for no other whatever."-Per Lord Kenyon, Ĉ. J. It is not sufficient to point out property within the parish, but there must also be some beneficial occupant or occupants. Corporations may unquestionably be rated. Here there is property which is the subject of a rate, but there is no occupier of it. Rate quashed.

Rex v. Inhabitants of Liverpool, 7 B. & C. 61. The trustees of the docks and harbour of Liverpool were empowered, by statute, to take certain rates and duties from ships resorting there, and the statute also provided that those rates should be applied to paying off the debt incurred in making the docks, &c., and to keeping them in repair; and that then the rates should be lowered, reserving sufficient to keep the docks, &c., in repair, management, &c. The parish of Liverpool rated the trustees to the poor, for the docks, offices, &c., against which they appealed; and the sessions, thinking them not liable, struck out the assessment subject to a case. After argument-Lord Tenterden, C. J. I am of opinion that the order of sessions must be confirmed. It seems to me that there is no solid ground for the distinction which has been taken as to those parts of the property rated, which are rented by the dock company; for, if there be no beneficial occupation, it can make no difference whether the occupier be the owner or not. As to the main question, the case of Rex v. the Commissioners of Salter's Load Sluice (see 4 Î. R. 730, supra), is decisive. There the tolls were, by act of parliament, directed to be applied" to the purposes of the act, and to and for no other use or purpose whatsoever." The statute under which the dock rates in question are levied, does not indeed contain an express direction that the rates shall be applied to the purposes specified, and no other; but it directs that certain burdens shall be discharged, and that then the rates shall be lowered; and, therefore, any application of those rates to other purposes not specified, would be a direct violation of the statute. Nothing of that kind is suggested, and, therefore, there is not, in reality, any difference between this case and the former. The principle of not rating property of which no person has a beneficial occupation, is not confined to canals or docks, or property of that nature. A quaker's meeting-house, if the pews are not let, is not rateable, as was decided in Rex v. Woodward, 5 T. R. 79, and the same would be applicable to a chapel with the rites of the Church of England, or to a dissenting meeting-house. On the other hand, it was held in Rex v. Agar, 14 East, 256, that when the pews of such a meeting-house were let, the trustees were rateable in respect of the rents, although not received to their own use, but for the benefit of the minister. Here the trustees were not occupiers in the ordinary sense of the word, and no profit was received for the use of any person. It is said that the docks were made by the corporation of Liverpool in order to improve their private property; if such an effect is produced, that property will be rateable for the improved value.-Bayley and Littledale, Js. concurred. Order of sessions confirmed.

Rex v. the Trustees of the River Weaver Navigation, 7 B. & C. 70. Upon an appeal against a rate made by the overseers of the poor of the township of Moulton, in the county of Chester, upon the trustees of the river Weaver Navigation, the sessions confirmed the rate subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case. By an act of parliament passed 7 Geo. I. entitled "An Act for making the river Weaver navigable from Frodsham Bridge to Winsford Bridge in the county of Chester," it was enacted, "That from and after the said work shall be finished, and all the charges thereof, &c., fully paid, that then the clear produce of the rates and duties shall, from time to time, be employed for and towards amending and repairing the public bridges within the county of Chester, and such other public charges upon

Dock dues, if expended, pursuant to the act, entirely in making and keeping the docks, &c. in rerateable.

pair, are not

O

When the surplus tolls of a navigation were directed by sta

tute to be expended in repairing public bridges and highways, it was held that they were not rateable

to the poor.

Fourthly, On whom to be made.

the county, and in such manner as the justices of the peace at the Michaelmas quarter sessions shall yearly order, direct, and appoint." And after reciting that the roads leading to the river would be much injured by the increased traffic upon them, it was also provided, that so much of the rates as the justices might think fit should be expended in repairing those roads, and that, if any surplus remained, it should be expended in repairing such other highways in the county, as the justices in sessions should appoint. By the 33 Geo. II. further provisions as to the navigation were made, but it directed that the surplus duties, after payment of the expences of the navigation, should be applied to such public purposes as before mentioned.

The tonnage rates and duties upon the Weaver are not charged by the mile, but one shilling per ton is charged upon the whole line of river; and a vessel navigating the whole, or any part of the length of the said navigation, is subject to the same charge. This tonnage is paid quarterly at the River Weaver Navigation office at Northwich, which is a distinct township from Moulton. The annual accounts up to the 5th of April, in each year, are regularly audited by the clerk of the peace, and filed at the Michaelmas quarter sessions, when the balance, arising from the rates and duties, in the hands of the treasurer, over and above the necessary charges and expences for the maintenance and support of the navigation, is directed by the magistrates there assembled, to be paid; and the same is invariably paid to the county treasurer, to be applied for the general purposes of the county, according to the acts of parliament, and to none others. The township of Moulton rated the trustees as follows:

Lessee of tolls of

The amount at which the trustees are assessed in the said rate, provided they are rateable at all, is correct.-In the course of the argument, Bayley, J., said, "We think that as there is not any clause in the statutes set out, which vests the soil of the river Weaver in the trustees, they cannot be rateable to the relief of the poor in respect of the tolls.

It was then suggested that the trustees were rated in several parishes through which the river Weaver runs, and that in some of them they might be considered as the occupiers of land; it was therefore important to have the opinion of the Court, as to their liability to be rated under such circumstances. Upon this point, the Court deferred their judgment until the case of Rex v. Inh. of Liverpool (ante, 59) had been decided; upon which occasion, Bayley, J., said,-The principle of this decision is applicable to the case of Rex v. the Trustees of the River Weaver Navigation. There the surplus tolls remaining over and above the expences of supporting the navigation were to be applied to the repairing and maintaining of bridges and highways. Those were public purposes, and as no part of the monies received could be applied to private purposes, those monies were not rateable in the hands of the trustees. The order confirming the rate must therefore be quashed upon this ground, as well as that which was mentioned by the Court at the time of the argument.-Order of sessions quashed.

Rex v. Eyre, 12 East, 416; 1 Nol. P. L. 127. The defendant appealed public bridge not against a poor's rate, wherein he was assessed as "lessee of the tolls of the Key Bridge" at Tewkesbury, at 350l. per annum. The sessions confirmed

rateable as such

per se.

the rate upon the general principle, as they stated, that the rent, bonâ fide paid by the occupier, is the best criterion by which to judge of the value of

Fourthly, On

whom to be made.

the property, but subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following Case: By 48 Geo. III. c. 62, trustees are appointed for rebuilding the Key Bridge across the Avon in Tewkesbury, and for making convenient roads thereto. It enacts, that out of the first monies arising by the tolls to be collected, by virtue of the act, or out of the first money which should be borrowed upon the credit thereof, the trustees shall pay the expences of passing the act; and repay sums advanced thereon with interest; and also all expences of the plans and estimates of the bridge; " and that after payment thereof, all the money which should come to their hands for the purposes of the act, should be applied in erecting the turnpikes or toll-houses, and to other purposes relating entirely to the bridge and its avenues, and in defraying all the necessary charges of the act, &c., &c., and to or for no other use, intent, or purpose whatsoever."-"That as soon as the several purposes of the act should be carried into execution, and the principal and interest borrowed and secured thereon should be repaid, all the tolls thereby imposed should absolutely cease, and the new bridge and the approaches leading thereto should thereafter be repaired by such persons as were by law liable to repair the same." The trustees being empowered to lease the tolls, have leased the same to the appellant at the annual rent of 350l. It was not proved that the appellant made any profit on the said tolls, nor that such tolls left any residue after the payment of the said yearly rent of 3501.; on the contrary, it is believed, that the present lessee has a most unprofitable taking, and that he will not even clear his present rent. The Court, after observing upon the loose and imperfect manner in which the case was drawn up, in case. not stating either that the lessee was the occupier of any toll-house or dwelling-house within the parish, which was the proper subject-matter of a rate, or that he was an inhabitant of the parish in the sense which had been lately (a) put by the Court on that word in the 43 Eliz. c. 2, and in not finding the fact, whether the lessee did receive any profit to himself from the tolls beyond the rent which was applicable to publie purposes, but merely stating that it was believed that he did not, were inclined to have sent the case back to the sessions to be re-stated in a more perfect manner. But in opposition to the rate, it being suggested that it would not answer any purpose to send the case back, all the facts having been stated which were capable of proof on the part of those who supported the rate, and that the only question meant to be raised by them was, Whether the tolls of a public bridge were rateable in the hands of a lessee?-Lord Ellenborough, C. J., said, That as the Tolls per se not Court had so recently decided that tolls per se were not rateable, and that as the rateable. appellant was rated merely as lessee of the tolls, and for nothing else which might have given them a corporeal quality, and locality within the parish, such as for a sluice or the like; and that as it did not appear that he was an inhabitant of the parish, or made any profit of the tolls, there was nothing stated in the case to raise any question. And though it should turn out to he the fact (which was suggested from the bar) that there was a toll-house attached to the bridge where the appellant dwelt, yet as the sending the case back to the sessions to be re-stated would probably only lead to their inserting as a fact what at present they only stated as matter of belief, that the lessee derived no profit to himself from the tolls, it was better for all parties to quash this rate, and if at any future time the parish thought they could make out a better case against the lessee, they might rate him again. Per Curiam, Order of sessions confirming the rate, quashed.

Rex v. Woodward and another, 5 T. R. 79. A question arose upon the rate- Occupancy by a ability of the trustees of a quaker's meeting house; amongst other circum- servant. stances, it appeared that one small room was occupied by the door-keeper, who attended the door when necessary, and kept the house clean, for which he had a small salary. The trustees did not receive any rent; none of the benches were let, nor any pecuniary advantage made thereof. The Court held that there was no rateable occupier.

See also Rex v. Sculcoates, to the same point, post, p. 112.

v. Armstrong and others, 2 Stark, C. N. P. 543; 1 Nol. P.L. 178.

(a) Rex v. Nicholson, 12 East, 330, post, 114; William v. Jones and Hughes, id. 346; post, 117.

Fourthly, On whom to be made.

One who occupies a house as surveyor to the

river Lee, under

the trustees of that river, held

This was an action of trespass brought to try the question, Whether the plaintiff was liable to be rated to the poor's rate in respect of his occupation of a house? The house in question was occupied by the plaintiff under the trustees of the navigation of the river Lee, having been appointed their surveyor; and it was situate on the river Lee, about half way between London navigation of the and Hertford. It had been built out of the tolls arising from the navigation of the river, and the plaintiff occupied it for the purpose of superintending the business of the trustees. By the provisions of the act of parliament which regulated the tolls to be taken on this river, it was expressly directed that the tolls arising from the navigation should not be subject to the poor's rates. It was contended, that as the plaintiff was the servant of the trustees, who had no beneficial interest in the navigation of the river or in the tolls, he was to be considered as the servant of the public, and as exempted from the poor's rate: if the trustees had not built the house they must have paid for one out of the rates and duties collected on the river.-Abbott, terest, but act for C. J., was of opinion, that the plaintiff was rateable in respect of this house. If he had received a salary out of the tolls, and had rented another house, he would clearly have been liable to be rated for it. Verdict for the defendants.

to be liable for poor's rates, although by act of parliament the tolls, &c. are exempted from being rated, and although the

trustees have no beneficial in

the public.

Fifthly, What property is rateable.

The words of 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1, are, "by taxations of every inhabitant, parson, vicar, and other, and of every occupier of lands," &c. A rate on a foreign ambassador, or any of his privileged suite, cannot be levied by distress, 7 Anne, c. 12; but the goods of an unprivileged person may be taken. Novello v. Toogood, 1 B. & C. 554; 2 D. & R. 833; 1 D. & R. Mag. Ca. 441.

(Fifthly)-What Property is Rateable.

1. Land, Houses, &c., are, p. 62.

2. Stock in trade is, p. 63.

3. Household Furniture, Money, and Funded Property, not rateable, p. 67.

4. Salaries, and Wages of Labour, &c., are not, p. 68.

5. Tithes are, p. 68.

6. Manors, and their profits, are, p. 70.

7. Mines, p. 71.

8. Woods, p. 80.

9. Commons, Way-leqves, Rights of Pasture, &c., p. 83.

10. Extra Profits from Land, p. 89.

11. Of increased value of Land, &c., and herein, of Docks, Navigation, Tolls, &c., p. 95.

1. Land, Houses, &c. (a)

The first kind of real property named in the 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1, (ante, p. 44), to be taxed to the relief of the poor, is "land and houses."

"All things which are real and in yearly revenue must be taxed to the poor." Resol. of the judges of assize in 1633. Dalt. F. 235.

"Land hath in its legal significations an indefinite extent, upwards as well as downwards. Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad cælum, is the maxim of the law, upwards; and downwards, whatever is in a direct line between the surface of any land and the centre of the earth, belongs to the owner of the surface. The word land' includes not only the face of the earth, but every thing under it or over it.”—2 Bla. Com. 18.

(a) Lands, houses, &c. The occupiers of lands, whether for pleasure or for the ordinary purposes of cultivation, and the occupiers of houses, &c., are liable to be rated by reason of their occupancy, whether they derive any real profit from the Occupancy or not. Rex v. Hull Dock Company, 5 M. & S. 594; The King v. Attwood, 6 B. & C. 297. And if the annual value of the land or house be enhanced by any collateral circumstances,

as by a mineral spring being upon the
land, (Rex v. Miller, Cowp. 619; 1
Bott, 155), by a spring of plain water
being upon it (Rex v. New River Com-
pany, 1 M. & S. 503; Bott, cont. 96),
by a dock being erected upon
it (Rer v.
Hull Dock Company, 1 T. R. 219; 1
Bott, 171), by water-works being erected
upon it (Atkins v. Davis, Cald. 315;
Rex v. Mayor, &c. of Bath, 14 East, 609;
Bott, Cont. 91); or by the main pipes

2. Stock in Trade.

Fifthly, What property is rateable.

Personal estate.

The Court of King's Bench, yielding to the difficulties attending the matter in practice, have been averse from deciding the general question, 2. Stock in Trade. whether, or how far, personal estate is liable to be rated to the poor; but have determined the several cases upon their own particular circumstances, or quashed the rates for defects in point of form. But it is settled that a person is rateable for his stock in trade of which he makes a profit within the parish, per Lord Ellenborough, C. J., in Rex v. Macdonald, 12 East, 324, and this, whether there be a custom in the parish to that effect or not. Rex v. Hill, Cowp. 613; Rex v. Ambleside, 16 East, 380, post, 67; and see the following cases.