KD9075.R99'l885"™'""-"'™'>' " llBlnWlS!ll«SK!!,,!;,^.f ■* "^fo'e the Cour Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017810171 METROPOLITAN RATING APPEALS. EEPOETS OF APPEALS HEAED BEFORE THE COURT OP GENERAL ASSESSMENT SESSIONS, Fkom the year 1871 to 1885. BY EDWAED EYDE AND ARTHUR LYON RYDE. THE FOUETH EDITION BROUGHT DOWN TO THE PRESENT DATE, WITH AN INTRODUCTIOH TO THE VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869, AND AN APPENDIX. BY WALTER C. RYDE, OF THE INNBK lEDIFLE, EAKBISTEE-AT-LAW. LONDON : CROSBY LOCKWOOD AND CO., 7, STATIONERS' HALL COUKX, LUDGATE HILL 1885. /3 70 ^1. PBEFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. This Edition attempts to fulfil the undertaking, given in the Preface to the Third Edition, that the Appeals heard in later years by the Court of General Assessment Sessions would be duly reported. The opportunity has also been taken of making some improvements in the book. The value of a volume of Law Eeports depends maiuly on facility of reference. Remembering this, the present Editor has taken some pains to render the Index of Subjects fuller and more -syste- matic. The Cases Reported have been removed from the Index, and placed in a separate Table at the beginning of the book. The Table of Cases Cited contains all the cases mentioned in the Reports or in the Introduction, with a reference, in every instance, to the authorities. The addition of this reference is, it is thought, a great and necessary improvement. The Introduction to the VI Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, has been entirely re-written, and contains a reference, it is believed, to all the reported cases dealing with the con- struction of that Act. Other useful additions to the book will be found in the Appendix, which contains the Union Assessment Committee Acts of 1862 and 1864, the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, the Orders of the Court of Assessment Sessions, and a list of the parishes to which the Act of 1869 extends. The form of the Reports has been influenced by the constitution and practice of the Court of General Assessment Sessions. Where an elabo- rate judgment is given by the judges who determine a case, the arguments of counsel may often be left to be gathered from the judgment, which alone is of importance. But where the effect of the decision of the Court is given in a few words by the Chairman, it becomes necessary to set out the arguments at length. Again, the subject-matter of tlie Appeals reported in this volume is such, that the Court vu have to decide, not so often a simple question of principle, as a mixed question of law and fact. Consequently it is generally necessary to state tHe circumstances in some detail, since to omit them would in some cases render the report, not merely useless, but misleading. The Editor has endeavoured to render the Report of every Appeal absolutely accurate, and he hopes he has succeeded. 1, Brick Court, Temple, May 1885. CONTENTS. PAGE Table of Cases Eeported -.-... xi Table of Cases Cited ...... xxiii Introduction to the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 - xxix Heports of Appeals heard by the Court of General Assessment Sessions — 1871- ... .... 20 1873 85 1873 94 1874. - 100 1875- 117 1876 - - . 136 1877- . 208 1878 317 1879 328 1880- - - 231 1881 233 1883 333 1883 339 1884 364 1885 368 APPENDIX. PAGH The Union Assessment Committee Act, 1863 . - 407 The Union Assessment Committee Amendment Act, 1864 - 431 The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 - . - 435 Orders of the Court of General Assessment Sessions 456 List of Unions and Parishes not in union, to which the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, extends 461 Index - 465 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED. n Cameron v. Mersey Docks • . ■ Castleton ; Staley v. - Caswell ; E. V. - Chadwiok ; Ormerod v. • - • Chantrell ; E. t;. - Chorlton Union; Overseers of Chorltoni;. Chorlton Union ; E. ». City of London Union ; Tidmarsh v. • Clark V. Alderbury Union Clive V. Overseers of Foy . . . Croydon Bace-course Case . . - Cumberland Wharf Case ... Dodd; E. 1) Droitwioh Union ; Corporation of Wor- cester V, - - • Dyott; n.v. 11 H.L.C. 443 199 , 392, 393 33 L.J.M.C. 178 . 19a L.E. 7 Q.B. 328 . 321 16 M. & W. 367 . ■ xxxiv L.E. 10 Q.B. 587 . Ivii 51 L.J.Q.B. 458 . 380, 397 L.E. 8 Q.B. 5 - . - TXTTvil infra p. 32 - - 3ia^ 6Q.B.D. 139; 50 L.J.M.C. 33 282 39 J.P. 774 - - . . 159- see E. V. Verrall. infra p. 147 . • ■ - 255, 256. D. L.E. 1 Q.B. 16 • • - 24». 2Ex. D. 49 - - 198, 287, 378 379, 392. 9 Q.B.D. 47 - • . . . xxxiv XXIV Table of Cases Cited. E. liast; Longman ». Jiast and West India Dock Company V. Poplar Union East Dean ; Guest v. - East London Railway u. Whiteohnroh Jidinburgh (University of) ; Greig v. Elston V. Rose - Ummett ; Duke of Bedford v. lEverton ; Liverpool Gas Company v. PAGB 3 C.P.D. at p. 156 - . xlviii 11Q.B.D.721:13Q.B.D 364:1 xliii,xliv,lv, .; 370,372,375 infra p. 347 L.B. 7 Q.B. 334 198 L.E. 7 H,L. 81 98 L.E. 1 H.L. So. 348 199 L.E. 4 Q.B. 4 Ivii 3 B. & Aid. 366 - 323 L.R. 6 C.P. 414 - Ivii Tlettou ; E. 1). - Fordham ; Mitchell v. Poy (Overseers of) ; Clive v. - 30 L.J.M.O. 89 - 6 B. & C. 274 - 39J.P. 774 . 397 238 159 •Gamett v. Bradley ... Olamorgansliire Navigation ; E. v. . 22 L.J.M.C. 9 North Aylesford Union ; E. d. - .37 J.P. 148 - Nuttall ; Leicester Waterworks Co. v. . 4 Q.B.D. 18 321 2ti0 Ormerod v. Cbadwiok- 0. 16 M. & W. 367 XXVI Table of Cases Cited, Pawlett ; B. V. - ■ . • Platform Wharf Case - Poplar Union; East and West India Dock Company v. - - ■ Prince v. Lewis ..... PAGE L.E. 8 Q.B. 491 ... ■ ^ infra p. 150 - • ^57 \n Q.B.D. 721; 13 Q.B.D. ) xliii, xHv, Iv, I 364; iB/rap. 347 - J370, 872, 375 5B. &C. 363 . . - - 32* E. u. Bell - E. V. Bradford - K. V. Caswell B. V. Chantrell - E. V. Chorlton Union E. V. Dodd - E. V. Dyott E. u. Fletton E. V. G-lamorganshire Navigation E. V. Grand Junction Eailway E. V. Great Western Eailway E. V. Ingall & PhiUips E. V. Lancashire (Justices of) B V. Maiden E. V. Marsham - E. 17. Metropolitan District Eailway E. V. Middlesex Justices E. V. Mile End Old Town - E. 6 M. & S. 221 4 M. & S. 317 L.E. 7 Q.B. 328 L.E. 10 Q.B. 587 L.R. 8 Q.B. 5 L.E. 1 Q.B. 16 9 Q.B.D. 47 - 30 L.J.M.C. 89 3 E. & E. 186 ; 29 L.J.M.C. 238 4 Q.B. 18 ; 13 L.J.M.C. 94 - L.E. 4 Q.B. 323 2 Q.B.D. 199; infra p. 177 1 43 L.J.M.C. 116 - L.E. 4 Q.B. 326 - 50 L.T.N.S. 142 : 32 W.E. 157 L.E. 6 Q.B. 698 L.E. 7 Q.B. 653 10 Q.B. 208 ; 16 L.J.M.C. 184 E. V. North and South Shields Ferry } „„ j T M f n Company - - - - J E. V. North Aylesford Union . - 37 J.P. 148 - E. V. Pawlett - - . - L.E. 8 Q.B. 491 E. 1). Ehymney Eailway . . - L.E. 4 Q.B. 276 E. u. St. George's Union . . - L.E. 7 Q.B. 90 E. V. St. Luke's Hospital ... 2 Burr. 1053 - E. *. St. Mary Abbott's, Kensington - 12 A. & E. 824 E. V. St. Mary, Bermondsey - - 14 Q.B.D. .851 E.?;. Savin- - . - 6 Q.B.D. 309 E. V. Southampton Dock . . - 20 L.J.M.C. 155 K. V. VerraU 1 Q.B.D. 9 . 821, 323 273, 321 321 Ivii xxxvii 243 xxxiv 397 78 397 Uv xxxii, XXXV, Uv, Iv, 255, 256 liv - 27, 23» xl . 50, 99 - xxxiv f 73, 158, tl98, 392 321 280 im 392 84, 247 393 81 xlii, xliv Ivii 81, 108 198, 280 xli, Tdbh of Cases Cited. xxvu E. J). WalsaU .... B. V. West ICddlesex Waterworks Co. Eawlence v. Hnrsley Union Beed v. Harrey Ehymney Railway ; R. d. - Boads V. Overseers of Trumpington Bose ; Elston v. - Eotherhithe, St. Mary ; Groves v. PAOB 3 Q.B.D. 457 ; 4 App. Cas. 30 Ivii 28 L.J.M.C. 135 - . 71, 398 3Ex. D.44 - m 5 Q.B.D. 184 ... - xlviii L.E. 4Q.B. 276 - 392 L.E. 6 Q.B. 56 . . - 277 L.E. 4Q.B. 4 Ivii infra p. 147 .... 255, 256 s. St. Andrew's, Holbom; Mayor of London v. - St. George's, Hanover Square ; Metro- politan Board of Works D.- St. George's Union ; E. v. ■ St. GUes and St. George ; School Board for London v. St, Lake's Hospital ; B. v. - St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington ; B. v. - St. Olave's Union ; Bellamy v. - St. Paneras ; Hyam v. St. Sepulchre's ; Mayor of London v. St. Thomas's Hospital ; Stratton v. Savin ; B. w. - - - School Board for London o. Mile End Old Town School Board for London v. St. Giles and St. George - . - . Southampton Dock Company ; B. v. Staley v. Castleton ... Stepney Union ; Anderson & Ludlam v. Stratton v. St. Thomas's Hospital ■ r L.R. 2 C.P. 574 - 60 infra -p. 162 . 386 L.B. 7 Q.B. 90 84, 247 infra p. 155 - 399 2 Burr. 1053 393 12 A. & E. 824 . . . - 81 infra p. 401 - xlvi, bii infra p. 364 . - liv, Ivi L.E. 7 Q.B. 883 - 321, 329 L.R. 7 H.L. 477 . 199, 397 6 Q.B.D. 309 Ivii infra p. 122 - 287, 381, 882 infra p. 155 - 399 20 L.J.M.C. 155 . - 81, 108 33 L.J.M.C. 178 - 198 infra p. 139 - 256 L.R. 7 H.L. 477 . 199, 897 T. Tidmarsh v. City of London Union - infra p. 32 - Trumpington ; Boads v. • - - L.E. 6 Q.B. 56 312: 277 Verrall ; E. ». . V. 1 Q.B.D. 9 198, 280 xxviii Tahk of Oases Cited. w. nam Walsall ; R. « 3 Q.B.D. 457 ; 4 App. Cas. 30 - Ivii West Bromwieh School Board v. Over- f 13 Q.B.D. 929 ; 1 „ „ „„_ „aa 392 40O seers of West Bromwieh t 53 L.J.M.C. 153 J . > > • West Ham ; Metropolitan Board of ] ^^^ g q^_ 193 . . . 386, 387 Works V. - . I . . . . West Middlesex Waterworks Company ; 1„„ J. J jj„ -gg _ _ _ ^j 398 E. n. - - - ./■■■■ Whitechurch ; East London Eailway v. L.R. 7 H.L. 81 - - - - 98 Woolwich Union ; Greenwich v, • - infra p. 25 - ... 284 Worcester v. Droitwich Union . . 2 Ex. D. 49 . - 198, 287, 378, 379, 392 •g-g1T INTRODUCTION TO THE VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869. (32 & 33 Vict., c. 67.) This Act was passed to provide for a common basis of value for the purposes of government and local taxation, and to promote uniformity in the assessment of rateable property in the Metropolis. It extends only to unions and parishes not in union which are for the time being either wholly or for the greater part in value thereof respectively within the jurisdic- tion of the Metropolitan Board of Works, appointed under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855. (See Section 3. A list of the unions and parishes to which the Act extends will be found in the Appendix, — infra p. 461). The Act (by Sect. 1) incorporates (so far as is consistent with it) the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1869, and the Union Assessment Committee Amendment A.ct, 1864.; although it repeals (by Sect. 77) several import int sections in both those Acts, so far as they relate to the Metropolis, and some of the terms used in those Acts are used in a somewhat different sense in the Act of 1869. Unless the definitions of Gross and Rateable Value (Sect. 4) can be regarded as such, no new principles of law are contained in the Act, which deals entirely with questions of procedure, and to a consideration of these questions the following introductory remarks will be limited. The machinery provided by the Act for carrying out its objects may be roughly divided into three parts : — XS.X (1) The making of Valuation Lists by the Overseers of each parish within the district to which the Act extends, con- taining all the rateable hereditaments within such parish. (2) Eevision by the Assessment Committee of each union of all Valuation Lists affecting the parishes in such union. (3) Appeals to Special Sessions or to the Court of General Assessment Sessions from decisions of an Assessment Com- mittee. It will be seen that the scheme of the Act so far is the same as that of the older Acts ; the following provisions for the making of Valuation Lists introduce a new system. The Act contains provisions for the making of Valuation Lists of three kinds : — (i) A new Valuation List is to be made in every fifth year ; i.e., in the years 1870, 1875, 1880, 1886, and so on. (For convenience this List is generally distinguished as a Quinquennial List, though not so called in the Act.) (ii) A Supplemental List is to be made (if necessary) in each of the first four years succeeding that in which a new Valuation List is made, and must "show all the alterations which have taken place during the preceding twelve months in any of the matters stated in the Valuation List," but must " contain only the hereditaments affected by such alterations." (iii) A Provisional List must be made " if in the course of any year the value of any hereditament is increased by the addition thereto, or the erection thereon of any building, or is from any cause-increased or reduced in value." The operation of a Quinquennial List is thus limited to five years : — of a Supplemental List to one year, or until the making of the next Quinquennial List : — of a Provisional List to part of a year. (See Sects. 46 and 47.) The Act adopts the method of laying down rules for the making of one Valuation List in the year immediately follow- ing the passing of the Act, and then directs that a new Valua- tion List, shall be made in every fifth year (i.e. in the year 1875, 1880, 1885. and so on) ; ^nd that a Supplemental List shall, if necessary, be made in each of the four years following the making of a new Valuation List. (Sect. 46, Sub- sects. 1 and 3.) And Sect. 46, Sub-sect. 3 directs that " the same regulations shaU be observed, and the same pro- XXXI *' ceedings had in the case of a Supplemental List, and a new ■" Valuation List," as in the case of the Valuation List made in the first year after the passing of the Act. Therefore the proceedings directed by the Act for the making of the Valua- tion List must be repeated every fifth year, and also (so far only as regards those hereditaments affected by alterations) in •every year. As to what is an "alteration" which renders a Supple- mental List necessary, vide infra p. xlii. The Provisional List directed by Sect. 47, differs from a Quinquennial and a Supplemental List, both as to procedure and effect (vide infra p. xli). THE MAKING OF VALUATION LISTS BY OVEE- SEEES, AND THE EEVISION THEEEOF BY AN ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE. As the proceedings relating to these two matters are so involved in chronological order, it may be convenient to con- sider them together. The provisions of the Act which relate to them are not very systematically arranged, and must be looked for im.der the following heads : — " Assessment Com- mittee " (Sect. 5) : — " Making of Valuation Lists " (Sects. 6 — 17): — "Times for Proceedings " (Sect. 43,Sub-sects.l— 8):— ^'Effect of Valuation List" (Sects. 43— 45) :— " Eevision ot Valuation List " (Sects. 46 and 47) : — " Eules for formation of Valuation List "(Sects. 51— 54);— "Eeturns"(Sects. 56—58):— ^' Miscellaneous " (Sects. 59—76). These provisions relate both to a Quinquennial List, and -to a Supplemental List where one is rendered necessary by -alterations in any of the matters stated in the Valuation List; in which case they apply of course only to the hereditaments contained in the Supplemental List. As to the persons on whom duties are imposed or rights -conferred ; the provisions of Sect. 2 of the Union Assessment •Committee Act, 1862, for the appointment of an Assessment Committee by the Board of Guardians of each union, are jsupplemented by provisions contained in Sects. 5 and 59 of zzzu the Act of 1869, relating to parishes not included in any union. Sect. 59, the terms of which are in themselves wide enough to include all parishes not in union, only relates to those of such parishes where there is no Vestry. In every such case the Assessment Committee of the adjoining union is to act as the Assessment Committee of that parish, and where there is more than one such adjoining union, the Poor Law Board must decide which Committee is to act. For the purposes of the Act such parish is to be deemed within the union of the Assessment Committee which acts for it. And where, in any such parish there are no Overseers, the Assess- ment Committee must appoint some person, who will have all the powers of Overseers, to perform their duties. Sect. 5 contains provision for the appointment of the Assessment Committee in any parish not included in any union, but in which there is a Vestry, the appointing body being the Board of GuardianSj or, where there is none, the Vestry. Where the owner of any hereditament is liable to be assessed, or to pay any rate or tax in place of the occupier, such owner for the purposes of the Act is to be deemed to be the occupier (Sect. 70). Before entering upon a consideration of the machinery provided by the Act for making and depositing the Valuation List, and for the revision by the Assessment Committee, for which various specified times are prescribed by Section 42, it should be remarked that in the case of R. v. Ingall (2 Q.B.D. 199 ; infra p. 177), it was held by the Queen's Bench Divisioa that delay in making, depositing, transmitting, and approving the List within the times prescribed did not make it a nullity, as the provisions of Sect. 42 were directory, and not im- perative. In the case cited, it was suggested by the Coui't that a remedy by action probably existed for the benefit of a person injured, because there had been a failure to perform a. public duty. In every fifth year (i.e., in the years 1870, 1875, 1880, 1885, and so on) the Overseers of every parish must, before- the 1st June, make, sign, and deposit a new Valuation List (Sects. 6, 42, and 46), which must contain every heredita- ment in their parish, including tithes, and payments in liea thereof, subject to the exceptions mentioned in Sect 51. XXXlll The List must be made out in the form given in the second Schedule to the Act, and every hereditament must be entered in accordance with the classes mentioned in the third Schedule, so that the deductions to be made from the Gross Value, in ascertaining the Kateable Value, may be properly calculated,, and such deductions may not exceed the percentage set out in the third Schedule (Sects. 51, 62). It was at one tima thought that the Legislature intended that the maximum deduction should in every case be allowed {infra p. S2), but the Court of Assessment Sessions have lately held otherwisa in many cases. (See, for example, pp. 936, 946). The uncertainty introduced by the Parochial Assessment Act, 1836 (6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 96, Sect. 1), and perpetuated by the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, Sect. 15, as- to the meaning of Gross Estimated Rental and Net Annual Value, is got rid of by the Act of 1869, which substitutes " Gross Value " and " Rateable Value," and gives an intelli- gible interpretation to those terms in Section 4, as follows : — " The term ' Gross Value ' means the annual rent, which a tenant might reasonably be expected, taking one year with another, to pay for an hereditament, if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes, and tithe commuta tion rentcharge, if any, and if the landlord undertook to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance, and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state to- command that rent. " The term ' Rateable Value ' means the Gross Value, after deducting therefrom the probable annual average cost of the- repairs, insurance, and other expenses as aforesaid." The Valuation List must be made in duplicate, and on& copy is to be sent to the surveyor of taxes, who must alter the gross value of any hereditament, if in his opinion it is wrongly stated; and must transmit his copy of the List to the Assess-^ ment Committee within 38 days after he has received it (Sect. 8). The Overseers must deposit the other copy of the List in the place in their parish in which rate-books are deposited or kept (Sect. 7, which refers to Sect. 17, of the- Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862) ; the latter Section directs that public notice be given of the deposit, on the Sunday next following the deposit, in the same manner as in. XXXIV the case of a poor-rate allowed by Justices : that is to say, the notice must be reduced into writing, and must, previouslj' to the commencement of divine service, be affixed on or near to the principal door of every church and chapel of the Estab- lished Church within the parish (See 17 Geo. II., c. 3, s. 1; 1 Vict, c. 45, s. 2; Ormerod \. Chadwick, 16 M. & W. 367). The notice so given must state the' times at which, and the mode in which objections are to be made to the List (Sect. 10 of the Act of 1869). And Sect. 66 directs that " any notice j-equired by this Act to be published by the Overseers shall, on the Sunday next following the receipt of the notice, or the document to which the notice refers, and the two following Sundays, be published by them"- in the manner above stated. Probably this Section was intended to apply to the notice of deposit ; but that notice was required by Sect. 17 of the Act of 1863 ; and neither the making, signing, nor deposit of a List are very aptly described by the terms used in Sect. 66 : — " the receipt of a notice, or the document to which the notice refers." By 45 & 46 Vict., c. 30, s. 4 (passed in consequence of R. V. Dyott, 9 Q.B.D. 47), "in a parish in which there is no church or chapel of the parish, a rate shall be deemed to have been duly published if, within fourteen days after the making of the rate, notice thereof has been given by affixing such notice in some public and conspicuous place or situation in the parish." It seems that such a publication would be suf- ficient publication of a notice of deposit, if there should be no church or chapel in a parish in the Metropolis. Where the Overseers insert in the Valuation List some hereditament not previously assessed, or raise the Gross or Eateable Value of some hereditament above the value stated in the Valuation List for the time being in force, they must, immediately after the deposit of the List, serve on the occupier of such hereditament a notice of the Gross and Eateable Value inserted in the Valuation List (Sect. 9, Sub-sect. 1 of the Act of 1869). It has been doubted, but not decided, whether a valuation is binding on those who have had no notice under this Section. {Vide per Blackburn, J.; R. v. Justices of Middlesex, L.R. 7 Q.B. 653.) The Overseers must transmit the List to the Assessment XXXV Committee not sooner than fourteen, and not later than seventeen days after notice (which means public notice) is ^iven of the deposit (Sect. 42, Sub-sect. 3). If the Overseers of any parish fail to transmit such a List «s is required by the Act, the Assessment Committee must appoint some person to make one (Sect. 13). -The person so appointed has for the purposes of that Section the same powers ■and duties as Overseers, and the remuneration allowed him by the Committee must be paid by the Guardians, and charged io the parish in default (16.) If the Assessment Committee fail to appoint such a person, they would seem to bring them- selves within Sect. 35, which directs that if it appear to the -Justices in Assessment Sessions on any appeal that there is no approved Valuation List for any parish, they may appoint «ome person (with such remuneration as they may appoint) to make a List. Such person has the same powers and duties as ■Overseers. The costs of making such a List must be paid, not by the particular parish, but by the Assessment Com- mittee who failed to approve the List. Any difficulty in cases arising under Sect. 13, as to the times prescribed by the Act, and any question arising there- from as to the validity of the List, would seem to be met by the decision in R. v. Ingall (3 Q.B.D. 199 ; infra p. 177). In the case of a Valuation List made under Sect. 36, it is provided by that Section that such Valuation List "shall be deposited and otherwise made known to the persons interested in such manner as the Court may direct, but in manner as near as may be as is provided in the Act with respect to the List originally made." Whether this amounts to an express provision rendering the List valid, within whatever time it may be made, is not very ■clear ; but, apart from the rule of construction laid down in the case above cited, it seems manifest that the validity of a Valuation List made under either Sect. 13 or Sect. 35, cannot be affected by the non-observanee of the provisions as to time. Por a List under either of those Sections can only be made when the provisions as to time have been already disregarded ; and to assume that the neglect of them can render invalid a List made under either Section, is to assume that the Statute directs a List to be made, which must be, ex hypothesi, a nullity. (As to the extension of time for hearing Appeals, when ^a XXXVl Valuation I.iist is ordered under Sect. 35, see Sect. 37. There is no provision for any such extension of time, in the ease of a Valuation List made under Sect 13 : see also p. liv.) The persons having the right to object, before the Assess- ment Committee, to the Valuation List, are specified in Sect. 18 of the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862 (which stands imrepealed), and Sect. 11 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, the language of the older Act being adopted in the new- Act, with certain alterations, which are, for the most part, merely verbal. The effect of the two Sections (i-ead together) seems to be that the right of objection is given to any Overseer or Overseers of any parish in any union who thinks that such parish is aggrieved by the Valuation List of any parish within such union : — and to any person who feels himself aggrieved by reason of the unfairness or incorrectness of the valuation of any hereditament, or by reason of the insertion or incor- rectness of any matter in the Valuation List, or by reason of the omission of any matter therefrom, or by reason of such a Valuation List as is required by the Act of 1869, not having been transmitted by the Overseers to the Assessment Com- mittee. Section 19 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, ex- pressly gives (inter alia) to a Surveyor of Taxes, the same right of objecting to any Valuation List which relates to his district, as is given to any person by that Act and the Acts incorporated therewith. Notice of objection specifying the correction desii-ed by the- objector, and the grounds of the objection must be given ta the Assessment Committee, to the Overseers, and, where the ground of the objection is unfairness or incorrectness in the valuation of any hereditament in respect of which any person, other than the person objecting, is liable to be rated, or the omission of such hereditament, then also to such other person (Sect. 18 of the Act of 1862, and Sect. 11 of the- Act of 1869). Notice of objection by any person other than the Surveyor of Taxes and the Overseers, must be given before- the expiration of twenty-five days from the deposit (not from the date of the public notice thereof) : notice of objection by the Surveyor of Taxes or by the Overseers must be given not less than seven days before the meeting at which the xxxvu objections to the List will be heard by the Assessment Com- mittee (Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, Sect. 43, Sub-sects. 8 and 6). The Assessment Committee must revise the Valuation List before the 1st October, and before that date must hold a meeting for hearing objections, of which meeting sixteen days' notice must be given to the Overseers (Sect. 42, Sub- sects. 4 and 5). The latter Sub-section in effect repeals the clause of Sect. 19 of the Union Assessment Committee, 1862, requiring twenty-eight days' notice of the meeting. The rest of that Section however remains in force, and requires the Overseers to give public notice of the meeting of the Com- mittee, in the manner iu which notice of a rate allowed by Justices is required to be given (as to which see above p. xxxiv. : and see Sect. 66 of the Act of 1869, which was probably intended to apply to this notice). Section 19 of the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, also con- tains provisions for hearing objections by consent where ■due notice has not been given. Even where no objec- tion is made to the List, the Committee have power to alter the valuations therein, to insert any hereditament omitted, and to make such other corrections as may seem proper. When this has been done, and all objections have been heard, the List must be approved under the hands of three members of the Committee (Sect. 20 of the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862). Where the Committee alter any valuation in the List, or insert any hereditament omitted from it, they must send the List to be redeposited, within three days after it is approved by them, and must appoint a day not less than fourteen nor more than twenty- eight days after such re-deposit for hearing objections to the alterations (Sect. 21 of the Act of 1862, as altered by Sect. 42, Sub-sect. 7 of the Act of 1869). If the List as altered is not redeposited, it is invalid (B. v. Chorlton Union, L.R. 8 Q.B. 6), and no assessment can be based upon it. The Overseers must give public notice of the re-deposit, similar to the notice required of the deposit of the List (supra p. xxxiv.), and - the notice must also state the times at which, and the mode in which, objections are to be made (Sect. 21 of the Act of 1862: Sect. 10 of the Act of 1869). Where the Assess- XXXVIU ment Committee have altered the Valuation List hy inserting therein some hereditament, or by raising the Gross or Rateable Value of some hereditament comprised therein, the Overseers must, immediately after the re-deposit of the List, serve on the occupier of such hereditament, a notice of the Gross and Rateable Value thereof inserted in the Valuation List (Valua- tion (Metropolis) Act, 1869, Sect. 9, Sub-sect. S). This notice need not be given to the occupier, when the alteration is made in determining an objection (lb.), because in that case (assum- ing that the proceedings have been regular) the occupier must have already had notice, that the rating of his property was about to be questioned, and has possibly appeared before the Assessment Committee. The objector must give seven days' notice of objection to the alterations (Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, Sect). 42, Sub-sect. 7), which notice must, it seems, be given to the persons entitled to notice in the case of objec- tions to the List as originally made, though there is ne express provision in the Acts to that effect. It also seems that the notice of objection should specify the correction desired (V. M. Act, 1869, Sect. 11). The Assessment Committee must hear the objections, and may, it seems, make further alterations, corrections, and inser- tions relating to hereditaments not the subject of former objections (Union Assessment Committee Act, 1869, Sect. 21). The provisions of this Section for making further altera- tions in the Iiist at this stage create a difficulty. For although Sect. 9, Sub-sect. 2 of the Act of 1869, requir- ing notice of the alteration or insertion to be given to the occupier, seems to apply, yet the occupier may not receive the notice till after November 1st, and by Sect 42, Sub- sect. 8, the Assessment Committee must finally approve the List before that date, and therefore the occupier cannot make any objection within the time limited by the Act. And it seems that it is a condition precedent to the right of appeal to the Special Sessions, or to the Assessment Sessions, that the Appellant should have made an objection before the Assess- ment Committee (Sects. 19 and 32 : — infra p. 247 : compare also p. 364); so that it is very doubtful whether either of those Courts has jurisdiction to hear an appeal, or to give any relief even by consent, and the occupier may be bound for five years XXXIX ty a valuation to which he has never had an opportunity of objecting. (See also infra p. liv.) After hearing and determining all objections, aud making such alterations, insertions, and corrections as may seem proper, the Assessment Committee must finally approve the List. When they have finally approved the List, and apparently before they have signified their approval in writ- ing, they must cause the two last columns in the List (which state the Gross and Rateable Value as finally determined by the Assessment Committee) to be filled up, and the totals of those columns must be ascertained and inserted in the List. (See Note to Schedule II. Pt. 1, which is not quite consistent with Section 14.) The declaration of approval and certificate of compliance with the Act contained in Schedule II. Pt. 1, must then be signed by three members of the Assessmeat Committee present at the meeting at which the List is finally approved. One duplicate of the List so certified must be sent to the Clerk of the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District, and the other duplicate to the Overseers of the parish to which it relates (Sect. 14). All this must be done before November 1st (Sect. 43, Sub-sect. 8). The Overseers, on receiving the duplicate of the Valuation List, must immediately deposit it in the place in which the rate-books of the parish are kept, and must publish notice of the deposit and of the time and mode of making appeals, and of the grounds on which an appeal is allowed by the Act to be made (Sect. 15). This notice must be published on the Sunday next following the receipt of the List, and the twa following Sundays, in the manner in which notice of a rate allowed by Justices is required to be published (Sect. 66; vide supra p. xxxiv.). The Valuation List, as approved by the Assessment Com- mittee, and if altered on any appeal, as altered, comes into force on the 6th April in the year following that in which it is made. If it be a Quinquennial List, it lasts for five years, subject to any alterations that may be made by any Supple- mental or Provisional List ; if it be a Supplemental List, it lasts, subject to the like alterations, until the next Quin- quennial List is made (Sects. 43 and 46). Notwithstanding any appeal which may be pending at the xl commencement of the year, the Valnation List comes into force unaltered, and rates are to be paid upon it ; and, if in ■consequence of any subsequent decision of the Assessment Sessions or a superior Court, it be found that too much or too little has been paid, the difference must be repaid to the ratepayer, or may be recovered from him, as the case may be tenements, or hereditaments 29 *' were rated and assessed in 1739, and shall not *' at any time hereafter, so long as they shall " continue in the possession of the said Corpo- " ration, he rated or assessed at any higher value, " notwithstanding any improvement which shall *' be hereafter made by the said Corporation, by *' erecting houses or buildings, or by converting " any buildings, &c., into such Hospital." In 1739 the lands held with the Hospital were rated at £275 gross and ^234 net; and the Hospital has been rated at that assessment to all rates, except paving rates, made under 34 Geo. ni, c. 96. In 1794 the paving Act was passed, and the Hospital was to be rated under that Act, at such annual sum or value as should be equal to three- fifths of the value of the several houses abutting on Guildford Street, from Millman Street to Lans- down Place, and such other streets as should immediately adjoin the boundary walls or fences of the Hospital. The Assessment under that Act was £1,244. From and after the passing of the Metropolis Local Management Act, down to the present time, the Hospital ceased to be rated under the paving Act, and up to April 1867 it was assessed to all rates at £234 gross and £234 rateable. Since that time at £275 gross and £234 rateable value. The Assessment Committee having confirmed the Valuation List, in which the true gross value 30 of the said property was stated to be £1,900, and the RATEABLE VALUE £1,592, the Governors of the Hospital appealed, and contended that the sum of £275 GEoss and £234 rateable should alone be inserted in the Valuation List, or if any larger sum should be inserted, that it should be accom- panied with such special instructions to the parish officers as would prevent them from making rates on any larger sum. The Court confirmed the Valuation List, sub- ject to a case. The judgment by the Court of Queen's Bench was given on November 8th, 1871, in effect, that as -by the 54th section of "The Valuation (Me- tropolis) Act, 1869," all privileges as to rating are preserved, all the Acts must be taken together. The Valuation List must be made out according to the Act of Parliament, and that can only be done by entering the true gross and rateable values. But where a rate is to be made upon the Hospital, the officers must take care to make it according to the exemptions and privileges in the Statutes of George II., and George III. (L.E. 7 Q.B. 83). 4. Concerning the alterations of the Totals of the Valuation List in a Parish, in consequence of alterations made on Appeals. The Parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn, applied to the Court for an order, that the totals of the 31 Valuation List of that parish might be altered in consequence of alterations made on appeal. The Assessment Committee op the City of London Union consented, and the Surveyor of Taxes did not appear. The Coubt after much discussion made the order, and notice was directed to be given to the Clerk to the Metropolitan Asylum Board. 5. Conceimng the time within which the Valua- tion Lists were to have ■ been made and approved. Mr. OscAE Frauenknecht, a printer, carrying on business as Kronheim & Co., in Shoe Lane, and having also premises in Eobin Hood Court, objected that everything done by the Assessment Committee of the City of London Union had been done too late to satisfy the provisions of the Act of Parhament. The Valuation List was not ap- proved until the 30th of November, although it should have been so by the 1st November. Mr. Littler argued for the Appellant that the Act could not be directory only, but must be mandatory also, and asked that the List might be quashed, Mr. Poland, on behalf of the Assessment Committee, argued that, although the Committee might be liable to penalties for disobeying the Act, their delay did not necessitate the quashing of the List, especially as the delay had arisen in conse- quence of the want of time for the completion of 82 the List before the 30th November. He cited a case in which the Couet of Queen's Bench had held that words in an Act of Parliament requiring that certain Justices should hold their Quarter Sessions in a certain time were directory merely, and that the proceedings were legal, notwith- standing the Justices held their Sessions after the prescribed time. The Court decided not to stop the appeal on this point, but to grant a case for the Court above, if required. The same point was raised in the appeal of EoBEET Leighton and others against the Assess- ment Committee op the City of London Union, and a case was also granted in this instance. Nothing has been heard of the cases so granted, and, it is probable, therefore, that the matter has been allowed to drop. 6. Concerning the Notice to be given to the Bate- payer whose Assessment is increased by the Committee. Three Appellants (named Tidmarsh, Lamp- leugh, and Chefpins) complained that the As- sessment Committee op the City of London Union had in each of their cases increased the assessment without giving them notice, as required bv the Act. 33 Mr. Littler, on behalf of Mr. Tidmarsh, stated that the property had been assessed by the Over- seers at £85 GROSS value and £70 rateable value. The Committee raised these assessments to £90 and £75. To this increase the Appellant did not object; but, on the re-deposit of the List, the •Committee farther increased the figures to £180 GROSS and £150 rateable, giving no notice to the Appellant, who, consequently, lost all chance of appeal. Mr. Littler also appeared for Mr. Lampleugh, and Mr. Poland for Mr. Cheffins, in similar •cases. Mr, Besley, for the Assessment Committee, admitted the facts, but explained that they arose in consequence of great stress of business. The Court feared that they had no jurisdic- iion ; but, ultimately, the assessments were by consent reduced to the amounts at which they were originally fixed by the Committee. The Court gave the Appellants costs. Note. — ^It was suggested in Court that, if the above-mentioned settlement had not been arrived at, the remedy would have been by mandamus, and by action against the Clerk of the Assessment ■Committee. 7. As to Notices of Appeal which have been by mistake omitted to be given. In the case of Messrs. Chowne & Olives 34 versus The Overseers of St. Margaret and St, John, Westminster, notice of appeal had been omitted by mistake ; and tbe Court, on the appH- cation of Mr. Streetten, ordered one to be given^ under the 34th section of the Act. The case was subsequently settled by consent, the Valuation. List being reduced. In the case of Messrs. Trollops, (reported^ under another heading,) the appeal was allowed,, and the rate ultimately reduced by consent. In the case of Messrs. Farrer & Ouvry versus St. Giles'-in-the-Fields, the appeal was allowed to proceed by consent, although, owing ta the iUness of Mr. Farrer, the Appellants had not appeared before the Assessment Committee. The case was ultimately settled by consent, and. the Kespondents were allowed taxed costs. As TO Objections respecting the Yalue of the Property. 8. Concerning the question, whether the cost of a Property is, in any way, the measure of its Eateahle Value. The Corporation for Middle -Class Edu- cation appealed against the decision of the Holborn Union Assessment Committee, in 35 respect of the assessment of £1,500 gboss and £1,250 RATEABLE VALUE upon the Middle-Class School building and playground in Cowper Street, Finsbury. Mr. Poland, in opening the case for the Appel- lants, stated that the building in question was suitable for the education of 1,000 boys. The Assessment Committee had based their assess- ment upon a calculation of 3 per cent, interest upon the cost of the land, and 5 per cent, upon the cost of the buildings ; and had considered the cost of the land to have been that which was paid for it, including the buildings which for- merly occupied the site. The sum charged for the boys was £4 4s. per annum each. If a larger charge were made, the number of 1,000 boys could not be obtained in that locahty. The present working expenses ex- ceeded the income ; but a tenant might be able to reduce those expenses. Nevertheless, it was ob- vious that no such rent as £1,500 per annum could be paid for it as a school. He instanced the case of the Charing Cross Hotel, which the Mid- dlesex Sessions had rated at a high sum because the trade was such as would enable a tenant to pay a high rent ; and the case of the Cannon Street Hotel, which the Kecorder of London had rated at a nominal sum because the trade was small, and only a low rent could be paid. He called Mr. Francis Vigors to prove that, taking 36 the RATEABLE VALUE of a Drug Mill fronting the same street as the Schools as a basis for the value of the building, and a timber-yard in the locaHty as a basis for the value of the play-ground, the valuation of the Schools in question would be as follows, viz. : — Building £314 Land 662 Geoss value £976 Deductions, one-sixth .... 162 Eateable value £814 Mr. Clifton was called to prove that he had valued the property at £750 rateable value j and he considered that to be the highest rent which the place would fetch in the market for any purpose. He stated that the building measured 7,344 superficial feet; that it contained 30,000 superficial feet of floor space, and that the play- ground measured 37,200 superficial feet. He valued the building at .... £600 The play-ground at 300 Gross value £900 Deductions, one sixth .... 150 Rateable value £750 Mr. Eyde proved that he had valued the pro- 37 perty as he had found it — a school-house and play- ground — with due regard to the locaUty, but without any reference to what the premises might be worth for some purpose other than that to which it was now appHed. Taking the gross receipts at £4,200, and de- ducting reasonable working expenses and a mode- rate tenant's property, he estimated the gross VALUE at £300 and the rateable value at £250. The case for the Eespondents was that the land had cost £25,000, and the building, which . was erected in 1868, £15,000. The rent of the land they estimated at 3 per cent. on its cost, or £750 And of the building at 5 per cent 750 Gross value £1,500 Deductions, one-sixth .... 250 Net value £1,250 The Court directed the List to be altered, by reducing the gross value to £1,080, and the rateable value to £900. They made no order as to costs. No satisfactory conclusion can be drawn from this ease ; for, as was stated by the Counsel for the Respondents, one of the Appellants' witnesses 38 gave evidence up to £814. Practically, the evi- dence was higher than that; because, if Mr. Chfton's value of the huUditig be taken at £600, and Mr. Vigers' value of the land at £662, a gross VALUE of £1,262 is produced, from which, by deducting a sixth, a rateable value of about £1,050 is arrived at. One thing only is obvious — the Court did not make cost the measure of RATEABLE VALUE. Mr. Edward Theodore Hay, a barge-huilder and lighterman, occupying premises in St. Mary,, Eotherhithe, appealed against the decision of the Assessment Committee of the St. Olave's Union, SouTHWARK, in respect of an assessment of £150 gross and £126 rateable value. The premises possessed a frontage of 76 feet upon the river Thames and a similar frontage on Eotherhithe Street, with a depth of 70 feet. For upwards of 10 years, they had been assessed at £80 gross and £68 RATEABLE. Part of the premises was freehold and part leasehold, held at £40 a year. A sum of £800 had been spent upon the leasehold premises, in taking down buildings which formerly occupied the land and in adapting the premises for the uses to which they are at present appHed, Evidence was called to prove that the gross VALUE of the property did not exceed £100 per annum. 39 The Eespondents' case was that, in respect of the leasehold property, 7 per cent, upon the out- lay of JESOO should be added to the £4Q rent, making ^696 ; and that the freehold, being nearly as large as the leasehold, must be worth £50 or £60. The Court reduced the assessment to ^6105 «Ross VALUE and £88 rateable value, and gave the Appellant his costs. It is to be observed upon this decision that an outlay upon property, in ■ pulling down one set of buildings and substituting another, does not neces- sarily increase the rateable value of the pro- perty. The land, with the substituted buildings, may not be more valuable for the purposes for which they can be used than it was with the buildings which were pulled down. The New Kiver Company appealed against the decision of the Assessment Committee of the Hackney Union, in respect of the value of pro- perty in the parish of Stoke Newington. The the other under the surface, — ^the one being a nuisance to every one, with the exception of those who ride in the carriages, the other being a benefit to the whole community. A very important and difficult question was. 87 raised by the appeal of the Eegenx's Canal Com- pany and that of the Wandsworth and Putney Gas Company. The question involved was whether, when a rateable hereditament has been included in any original Valuation List, and valued therein, any addition to it, or deduction from it, or alteration in it, involves an entire re-valuation of such here- ditament for the Supplemental or Provisional Valuation List, as the case may be, or whether only the piece added to or the piece removed from it is to be valued. In the Eegent's Canal Case, the Company had pulled down some houses, and had added the sites to the property which they previously pos- sessed. In the Stepney Union they were to be rated on the same scale as other open land in the parish, and the Company were very dissatisfied with the assessment of their property as fixed by the Valuation List. They, therefore, sought to get the whole property re-valued, in consequence of the slight addition which had taken place. The Assessment Committee, on the other hand, contended that, notwithstanding they had carried the whole hereditament into the Supplemental Valuation List, the Assessment Sessions were pre- cluded from doing more than valuing the addition, and increasing the original assessment to the extent of that value. The Court took this view of the matter, but 88 granted a case, — ^the question of value standing over. The Wandswoeth and Putney Gas Com- pany's Case, in the Parish of Wandsworth, although involving the same priuciple, was, never- theless, the reverse of the preceding case. In this case, the Assessment Committee op the Wandswoeth and Clapham Union, being dissatis- fied with the Valuation List in the Parish of Wandsworth, so far as it related to the AppeUants' property, sought to take advantage of the fact that in the year the Company had built new offices, and had renewed some of the buildings and plant of the Gas Works. The CouET decided that they could only in- crease the assessment to the extent of the value of the new offices ; but granted a case, as in the other appeal. Mr. Eyde, who acted for the Company, subse- quently compromised the case with Mr. Lee, who acted for the Parish, so that no decision of the Court of Queen's Bench wiU be taken. The Managers of the Metiiopolitan Asylum DiSTEicT appealed against the^ decision of the Assessment Committee op the Hackney Union, in respect of their Asylum at Homerton ; and also against the decision of the Assessment Com- mittee OP THE Paeish of St. Maey, Lambeth, in respect of the assessment of the Fever Hos- 89 pital and Small-pox Hospital, at Stockwell. The Valuation List was reduced by consent in each case, — ^the Asylum to ^3,000 gboss value and J£2,500 RATEABLE VALUE, the Hospitals to £1,709 ■GEoss VALUE and Jglj297 rateable value. An appeal by the Maequis of Salisbuey against the decision of the Assessment Committee OP St. Geoege's, Hanovee Squaee, in respect of his new mansion, was settled by consent, the Valuation List being reduced to aGl,610 geoss, and jC1,341 rateable value. Mr. Thomas Chatee, in an appeal against the decision of the Assessment Committee op THE Westminstee Union, did not appear. This finished the business of the Sessions. Notwithstanding that the general business of the Sessions had been disposed of, the Couet sat by special appointment on the 22nd July, 1872, for the purpose of hearing an appeal by the 90 Treasurer and Governors of St. Thomas's Hospital, against the decision of the Assessment Committek of the Parish of St. Mary, Lambeth, in respect of the Hospital and Buildings in that Parish. The Members of the Court who were present were Sir WiUiam Bodkin, Chairman ; Sir Thomas Tilson, Henry Pownall, Esq., Captain Eobertson, E.N., and Alderman Finnis. Mr. Field, Q.C., and Mr. Poland (instructed by Messrs. Cookson, Wainewright, and Pennington) appeared for the Governors of the Hospital ; and Mr. Horace Lloyd, Q.C., and Mr. F. Meadows White (instructed by Mr. Koffey) appeared for the Assessment Committee. At the time the original Valuation List was made, in the year 1870, the hospital was un- finished. It was, however, completed very shortly ' afterwards, and opened as a hospital, and the parish inserted it in a Provisional List, valuing it at £20,722 gross, and ^617,580 net value. There being no appeal against a Provisional List, the Governors had to wait until the valuation was carried from the Provisional to the Sup- plemental List on the 1st June, 1872. They then took the proper steps to get their appeal heard, and in the ordinary way it would have come before the Court of Assessment Sessions in 1873. But the assessment being a large one, an arrangement was made by consent on all sides that it should be specially heard on the 22nd 91 July, 1872, and it came accordingly before the Court on that day. The Governors, as one ground of appeal, claimed that they were not liable to be rated, and both parties consented that upon this point a case should be stated for the decision of the Superior Court. Upon the question of value, the Governors contended that the geoss estimated rental should be ^6,000 and the rateable value j65,000. Mr. Eyde's valuation being as foUows : — Hospital (600 beds at ^8).... ^64,800 Treasurer's house 150 Offices 150 Four houses for medical officers 400 Four residences for porters 100 Medical school 400 Gross VALUE £6,000 Deduct one-sixth for insu- rance, repairs, and re- newals 1,000 (Class 3, Valuation Metro- pohs Act) Rateable value £5,000 This valuation was supported by Mr. Henry 92 Currey, Architect to the Hospital, and by Mr. Edward Norton Clifton. For the Assessment Committee it was argued that the rent which a possible tenant might pay ■was an altogether faUacious test, and that the true test was the structural vahie of the property. The hospital authorities, by sinking their capital in purchasiag the site and ereetiug the buildings, were to be considered as payiug a rent equal ia amount to the interest on the capital they had sunk, and in consequence the only questions were the amount at which the outlay on the buUdiags was to be fixed for the purpose of rating, and the rate of interest on that amount which should be charged. To support this view, Mr. Lloyd called Mr. Castle, Mr. Lee, Mr. Marsh Nelson, Architect to the Eoyal Free Hospital, and Mr. Vigers. All these gentlemen concurred in their views as to the structural value being the true basis for esti- mating the rateable value (although differing to some extent in the values they put upon the hos- pital property), some of them even putting it at a lower figure than the Assessment Committee. At the conclusion of the arguments and evi- dence on both sides, the members of the Court retired to consider their decision. On their return. Sir W. H. Bodkin said that they had given this important question their best consideration. 93 dealing with it, of course, on tbe materials placed before them by the parties themselves, and they had come to the conclusion to alter the rateable value in the Valuation List from j£17,580 to £10,900. Looking also to this being almost the first case of its kind, they thought that each partj'- must bear his own costs. SUPPLEMENT^ No. 3. CONCERNING THE CASES BEFORE THE COUET OF GENEKAL ASSESSMENT SESSIONS IN THE YEAR 1878. The great case of St. Thomas's Hospital having been heard by consent in the summer of 1872, instead of taking its turn in the spring of 1873, the business of the General Assessment Sessions in the year 1873, the third year of its existence, was altogether unimportant ; but some of the cases which had been carried to the Court of Queen's Bench had been argued, with the fol- lowing results : — In the case of Keg. v. Abney Park Cemetery Company (L. R. 8 Q. B. 515), which arose out of an appeal reported at page 81 ante, the question in dispute was, how the rateable value of the Cemetery was to be ascertained. The Assessment Committee had taken as a test of the rateable value the rent which was actually got from the 1)5 land to be rated during the preceding year ; that is to say, they had taken into consideration the money received in the previous year for the sale of graves, and had presumed that what was got in the previous year might be reasonably expected to accrue in the succeeding year. It was not dis- puted that the Cemetery Company were the actual occupiers of the whole Cemetery ; but it was con- tended on the part of the Company that, in forming an estimate of what the rent would be likely to be, the purchase -money paid for plots of ground sold in perpetuity should not be taken into consideration. It was further contended that, if such purchase -money were to be taken into ac- count, it was at all events to be averaged over a period of years. The CouET OF Assessment Sessions had con- firmed the rate subject to this case, and the Court of Queen's Bench also decided that the rate was correct. Mr. Justice Blackburn, in delivering the judg- ment of the Court, stated (1) that the occupation of the Cemetery remained in the Company, not- withstanding the conveyance of the fee simple of the grave to the purchaser for the purposes of burial subject to the Company's rules and regu- lations, and that the rate is made upon the occupier. (2) That the Parochial Assessment Act requires that the rent to be ascertained should be that which a tenant might be expected to pay 96 from year to year, and not for a term of years. The duty of the overseers is to get at the probable annual value for the following year ; and there ia no better way of doing this than by seeing what ■was the annual value during the past year. If there are any peculiar circumstances which affect the case, and should cause an alteration in the ordinary mode of assessment, it is for the Appel- lants to show the existence of such circumstances^ Mr. Justice Quaia, in effect, said that to leave- out of consideration the purchase-money paid for plots of land sold in perpetuity would be to leave out, if not the whole, certainly the largest part,, of the Company's annual income. Mr. Justice Archibald said that he agreed with his learned brothers that the test of annual value is the amount which is actually made last year. It has already been contended that, in this- judgment, the Judges have laid it down as a rule of law that the rateable value of such a pro- perty as a cemetery, a gasworks, a waterworks, or a railway should be absolutely governed by the ascertained value of the property during the pre- ceding year. But this view overlooks Justice- Blackburn's qualification, that, if there are any pecuhar circumstances which affect the case, and. should cause an alteration, it is for the AppeUants- to point them out. In this particular case, none such had been shown to exist. 97 In the case of the Pimlico Teamwat Com- pany V. THE Assessment Committee of the •Geeenwich Union (L. R. 9 Q. B. 9), judgment was given on the 19th November, 1873, The appeal to the Couet of Geneeal Assessment Sessions was made against a Supplemental Valuation List for that part of the parish of St. Paul's, Deptford, which is within the county of Surrey. In delivering judgment, Justice Blackburn said, The Tramway Company are the occupiers of the property, under the statute of Elizabeth. They have the occupation of that portion of the load on which their Tramways are laid down, and are clearly liable to be rated in respect of that occupation enhanced in value by their power of carrying on a passenger traffic in their carriages ; just as in the case of Gas and Water Companies, who lay down their main pipes in the road, and carry them along beneath its surface. Justice Lush said : I am of the same opinion. The Act of Parliament enables the promoters to appropriate to their own purposes a certain portion of the public road necessary for the conveyance of their carriages along the road. A portion of the soil-is occupied. The promoters are not the less occupiers because the public have a right to pass over the surface of their rails. Justice Quain said : The rails remain the pro- perty of the Tramway Company, and I think the 98 Company is clearly rateable in respect of the occu- pation of the soil by them. Referring to the Railway Cases cited on pages 48, 49, 50, and 51 ante, it may be useful here to report a decision of the House of Lords in the cas& of the East London Railway Company and White- church. The appeal to the House of Lords was from a judgment of the Exchequer Chamber. The Court of Queen's Bench had decided in favour of the Railway Company, but the Exchequer Chamber had reversed the judgment. The East London Railway through the parisk of St. Mary, Rotherhithe, had been completed, and was being worked by the Brighton Company. But aU the lines of Railway authorized by the Company's Acts had not been completed. The Respondents, as the Churchwardens and Overseers of Rotherhithe, had brought an action against the Company to recover the sum of J£310, being the deficiency in the rates on lands taken by the Company under the powers of the Act. The Company admitted their liabiUty to make good the deficiency during the construction of their Works, but contended that, as soon as the Railway in any particular parish is completed, so that it can be assessed, although it is a portion of a larger hne, the whole of which has not been com- pleted, the time is at an end during which the old assessment is to continue. 99 Lord Chancellor Cairns, Lord Chelmsford, Lord Hatherley, Lord O'Hagan, and Lord Sel- borne, all concurred in a judgment that the Company are not liable to make good the defi- ciency in the former rates, after the Railway is completed and capable of being rated as a Railway. This decision is in accordance with that of the General Assessment Sessions, in the case re- ported on page 48 ante, and overrules the case of Reg. V. the Metropolitan District Eaihvay Company also referred to in that page. It is, however, in accordance with what has been the practice for some years, and seems, moreover, to have common sense and justice combined in it. SUPPLEMENT No. 3. CONCERNING THE CASES BEFOEE THE COUET OF GENERAL ASSESSMENT SESSIONS IN THE YEAR 1874. The business of the fourth Session, in 1874, was very important, as the principle upon which Tramways should be rated came for the first time before this or any other Court, and occupied a very large share of its attention. Moreover, the Court decided a principle which will probably have a material influence on their proceedings hereafter. The case of the New River Company was also important, inasmuch as the principal question in- volved in it was whether, in the event of an addition being made to a rateable hereditament during the five years between the making of new Valuation Lists, the whole of the hereditament should be revalued, or only the additional portion of it, and the value of such additional portion added to the original valuation. The case was 101 treated in a very able manner by tlie Hon. Alfred Thesiger, and every argument that could be ad- duced upon the subject was brought under the attention of the Court, who nevertheless adhered to their original decision that the " addition " only should be valued, and such value added to the original valuation. Mr. Thesiger attached much importance to the fact that additional land had been obtained and new mains and service pipes had been laid, the receipts of the Company had been increased, anH every part of the here- ditament had been enhanced in value. The few remaining cases involved no question of principle ; and, with the exception of that of Gaestin and the Parish op St. Marylebone, they may all be said to have been practically settled by agreement. The unimportant cases were as follows : — Egbert Cooper Lee, Bevan and Others, appealed against the decision of the Assessment Committee op the City op London Union, in respect of valuations in the parishes of All Hallows, Lom- bard Street, and St. Edmund the King Martyr. The assessment in the former case was reduced, by consent, from J62,500 to £1,500 gross, and from ^62,084 to Jl,250 net. And in the latter, from ^4,500 to £3,500 gross; and from £3,750 to £2,917 net. 102 Philip Heney Lawebncb, Esq., appealed against the decision of the Assessment Committee OF THE Wandswoeth AND Clapham Union, in re- spect of the valuation of his house in Wimbledon Park. The Assessment Committee had consulted Mr. Eyde on the appeal, and he had reported that the house was very cheap to Mr. Lawrence at the sum at which the Committee had rated him, having regard to the money he had expended in erecting it ; but inasmuch as it was a very special one, and if empty might remain unoccupied for some time, he recommended a compromise at ^325, if that could be arrived at. In the end, the rating was reduced, by consent, from £420 to £390 gross value, and from £350 to £325 RATEABLE VALUE. William Octavius Gaestin, a Job Master, appealed against the decision of the Assessment Committee of the Parish of St. Marylebone, in respect of his premises, Nos. 28 and 28a, King Street, Baker Street, which, by reason of their having to be rebuilt, were entered in the Supple- mental Valuation List, in 1873, as £700 gross and £584 rateable. On an appeal to the Assessment Committee in October, no evidence was taken, but the valuation was reduced to £600 geoss and £500 rateable ; and the Appellant asked the Court op Assessment Sessions to reduce it to £500 gross and £420 rateable. 103 Mr. Besley appeared for the Appellant, and Mr. Poland for the Eespondenta. Numerous witnesses were called, including Job Masters and Valuers, to speak upon the ratk- -ABLE VALUE of such property, and, in the end, the ■GROSS VALUE was fixed at JC676, and the rateable VALUE at £480. The hearing of the Tramway Cases was fixed, by arrangement, for the 1st May, 1874, and the Court sat on that day. On March 6th, from which the Court had adjourned, Leycester Penrhyn, Esq., was in the Chair ; but, on May 1st, the successor to the late Sir William Bodkin, the newly-appointed Assistant-Judge, P. H. Edlin, lEsq., Q.C., presided. It was arranged that, as all the other appeals in respect of Tramways would be more or less governed by the result of the first case, the appeal of the London Tramways Company, in respect of Tramways in the Parish of Lambeth, should be first proceeded with ; and this case occupied the attention of the Court on the 1st, 2nd, and 29th of May, the 20th and 22nd June, and judgment "was given on the 6th July. Mr. William Field, Q.C., Mr. Poland, and Mr. Besley were Counsel for the Appellants. Mr. JBarrow and Mr. F. Meadows White were for the Bespondents. The assessment involved in the appeal against 104 the decision of the Assessment Committee of the Pakish of St. Mary, Lambeth, was a sum of ^6,290 GEOss VALUE, and £5,890 rateable value, in a Supplemental List, made on the lines of Tramway belonging to the Company in that parish. The Appellants contended that these lines had,, in fact, no bate able value. The valuation, prepared by Mr. Eyde, and finally relied on by the Company, was as follows : — Gross Eeceipts for the year ending 30tli June, 1873 ie41,00(> Working Expenses— Horse Expenses £17,409 Other Expenses 13,466 Horse and Car Eenewals 1,739 Bates and Taxes (nominal) 50 32,664 Net Eeceipts due to Tramway and Stations £8,336 Eateable Value of Stations 1,538 Net Eeceipts due to Tramway £6,798^ Occupier's Share — Interest, 5 per cent 945 Trade Profits 1 15 per) „ ooa Eisks and Casualties J cent. ) ' 3,781 Gross Value £3,017 Eepairs and Eenewals of Tramway 3,312 Rateable Value Nil The entire system of the Company extended 105 into eight parishes, and embraced a number of distinct routes. The portion in the parish com- prised one entire route and parts of five other routes. The earnings of each separate route could be ascertained; but the parochial earnings on each route could' only be estimated. Mr. Kyde had felt himself bound by " The Parochial Earnings principle " as applied to Railways, and had allotted to the Parish of Lambeth the earnings which, upon that principle, he conceived to belong to it. For instance, he had assumed that a route which commenced in Lambeth and ended in Clapham earned more money per mile near Westminster Bridge than it did near Clap- ham ; and that another route, commencing in Lambeth and terminating in Greenwich, earned more money in the former parish than in the latter. It was difficult to apply the principle ; but Justice Coleridge said, in giving judgment in the three Railway Cases in 1851 which established the principle, that it was "clear that the difficulties in applying it, or even the practical imperfection which circumstances may occasion in applying it, are not to influence a decision." Of course no other principle could be appKed, without depriving some parishes of what they should receive, and giving to others what they should not have. The Parish contended for the mileage system^ pure and simple, and in an " amended case," stated pursuant to an order of the Assessment 106 Sessions dated 6th March, 1874, put forward the following valuation : — Estimate of the Eateable Value of the Tramway situate in the Parish of St. Mary, Lambeth, in the county of Surrey, based upon the Eevenue Accounts of the Company for the year ended June 30th, 1873. ' Gboss Receipts earned over the entire system of 174 miles ^6109,892 Tenants' Wobking Expenses incurred over the entire system, including Bent of Stabling not owned by the Company 81,067 Net Eeceipts to be divided between Landlord and Tenant, the latter coming first £28,895 Tenants' Shabe 5,285 £23,540 Statutable Deductions 2,409 £31,131 Deduct Estimated Rateable Value of Land, &c., belonging to the Company, and not rented by them 1,272 Total Rateable Value of 17 J miles of Tramway, including Rates, -which must be deducted ac- cording to what they amount to in each Parish £19,859 Gboss Receipts from Passenger Traffic earned over the entire system £109,006 Gross Receipts from Passenger Traffic earned in the Parish £39,606 107 Passenger Eeoeipte earned Passenger Receipts Rateable Value oi Rateable Value in over the entire System. earned in the Parish, the entire System. the Parish. As £109,006 : £39,606 : : £19,859 : £7,215. Rateable Value in the Parish £7,315 Less Rates, at 4s. A^d. in the £ — As 24s. U,d. : 4s. iid. : : £7,215 : £1,295 Ratrable Value in Parish £5,920 For Gross add one- sixtli g^*-; Gross Rental in Parish £6,90'/ Amounts appealed against: — Gross £6,290. Net £5,890. The decision of the Court upon this point was, that the separate earnings of each distinct route should be divided between the parishes in proportion to the hneal mileage of such route in each parish. In the case of one piece of Tram- way serving, as it frequently does for a short distance, two or more routes, the Parish in which such user occurs would not merely get an earning proportioned to the actual length of Tramway in the Parish, but in proportion to the mileage on each distinct service route ; that is to say, the proportion which the length of the route in the Parish bears to the total length of the route. The earnings in Lambeth were thus fixed at i;39,256. With regard to the General Expenses, the Court adopted the apportionment of them pro- posed by the Appellants, and calculated them in proportion to the number of car miles run in each 108 Parish. They made an exception, however, of the horse expenses, assuming that such expenses ad- mitted of a more exact allocation, and that sepa- rate accounts had been kept of each separate route ; and, under this impression, they directed that the same rule should preivail for dividing these expenses as for apportioning the receipts — viz., to allocate to each parish the same proportion of the horse expenses on each route as the length of the route in the parish bears to the total length of each route. In fact, the Compa-ny did keep separate accounts of each route ; but they made up {heir accounts with reference to car miles, having no other means of allocation, and there- fore, in practice, the horse expenses may be taken on car miles in common with the General Ex- penses. The Court did not allow in fuU the Directors' and Auditors' fees which the Appellants had claimed under the authority of the Southampton Dock Case, nor did they allow in full the law costs as claimed. They adopted the view taken by the Appellants that a Tramway horse would only last four years ; but, with respect to the car renewals, they found the life of a car to be fourteen years instead of seven. This latter finding may, per- haps, be brought up for review at some future sitting, as the actual life of the cars had not been sufficiently determined by experience. The evi- dence showed that the wear and tear of a tram 109 car is very great, and has no parallel in any pri- vate carriage. Its use is not only daily, but ex- tends to many hours in each day ; moreover, it is subjected to very rough usage. Touching the deduction in respect of gross value of the several stations, car sheds, and stables, the Court esti- mated their value at a specified sum, and, instead of dividing such sum as the Appellants had done, following the practice in Railway cases, the Court divided it in proportion to car miles. During the hearing of the appeal, the Court had expressed an opinion that the gross value of the stations should be taken to be the aggregate sum at which they were actually assessed, and not the sum at which they ought to be assessed ; but there is nothing in the judgment to warrant an assump- tion that they came to that decision at last. They allowed for trade profits, and risks and casualties, 12 J per cent., in addition to 5 per cent, interest on the tenants' capital, which they distributed among the parishes in proportion to car miles. They found, lastly, that the expense of repairing and renewing the Tramioay was J6350 per mile, including therein the expense of all such works for the paving and repair of the street which the provisions of the Act of Parliament require should be done by the Company. With regard to these last-mentioned repairs, the Court found as a fact that they are essential to the maintenance and efficiency of the system. This special findiag 110 appears to have reference to an objection much urged by Mr. Barrow that such repairs should not be allowed. The Court then directed that the assessment upon the Appellants in the Supplemental Valuation List of the Eespon dents' Parish be amended by- altering the GKoss VALUE from £6,290 to £4,141, and the bateable value from £5,890 to £1,823. As to the costs of the appeal, no order was made, so that each party was left to pay its own costs. Mr. Barrow asked for a case upon the point as to whether the repairs of the road, in accordance with the Act of Parliament, is a proper deduction ; but the Court declined to give it, on the ground that they had expressly found as a fact that the repairs are necessary. The other appeals were further adjourned, to give the parties time to consider and apply the judgment. The Court sat by adjournment on November 7th, 1874, for the purpose of hearing the remain- ing Tramway Appeals. The Magistrates present were P. H. Edhn, Esq., Q.C. (Assistant Judge), Leycester Penrhyn, Esq., W. Hardman, Esq., Henry PownaU, Esq., J. E. Eyley, Esq., Captain Eobertson, E.N., and Alderman Finnis. Ill The case of the London Teamways Company, Appellants, and Greenwich Union, Kespondents (Parish of Deptford), was first proceeded with. As Deptford Parish is in two counties, the in- quiry really involved two appeals. The parties had agreed upon figures ; the effect of the judg- ment on the question of receipts had enabled the Assessment Committee to increase the assessment in Kent from £60 to £400 net, and in Surrey from £90 to £728. The Company did not contest the accuracy of the figures, but objected to the application for costs made by Mr. Field, who in this case appeared with Mr. BuUen for the Re- spondents. Mr. Poland, who, with Mr. Besley, appeared for the Company, urged that, as the decision in the appeal was the result of the apphcation of a new principle, his clients ought not to pay costs. The Court ordered that the Eespondents should have their costs. The London Tramways Company v. the Wandsworth and Clapham Union was a case in which the decision of the Court in Lambeth gave to the property of the Company in the Parish of Clapham a greater rateable value. The Company abandoned their appeal, and the Court made an order that they should pay the costs of the Parish. 112 Mr. Poland and Mr. Besley were for the Appellants, and Mr. BuUen for the Respondents. The London Tramways Company and the Assessment Committee op St. Saviour's Union, Parishes of St. Mary, Newington, and St. Oeorge the Martyr, Southwark. In these cases the new figures worked out at less sums than the Parishes had assessed the Company at, and the Court was of opinion that there ought to be BO costs allowed on either side. Mr. Poland and Mr. Besley appeared for the Appellants in these cases, and Mr. Bullen for the Eespondents. The North Metropolitan Tramways Company, Appellants, v. the Assessment Committee of the Stepney Union, Respondents. Mr. Poland, in this case, applied for costs on behaK of the Respondents. Mr. Besley appeared for the Ap- pellants. The appeals in the Parish of Limehouse and the Hamlet of Ratcliff had been abandoned by the Company. The Court allowed the costs. The North Metropolitan Tramways Com- pany, Appellants, v. the Assessment Committee OF St. Mary, Islington, Eespondents. Mr. W. Field, Q.C., and Mr. Besley were Counsel for the Appellants, and the Hon. Alfred 113 Thesiger, Q.C., with Mr. Poland, for the Eespon- dents. Each party had endeavoured to apply the judgment in the Lambeth Case, and were agreed upon several of the figures, but differences had arisen between them upon some of the details. The following was Mr. Byde's valuation for the Appellants : — Gross Eeceipts for the year 1873 £45,478 Working Expenses — Horse Expenses £21,526 Other Expenses 14,061 Car Eenewals 423 Bates and Taxes, 3s. 3d. in the £, on £3,735 607 36,617 Net Receipts due to Tramway and Stations £8,861 Eateablb Value of Stations 612 Net Eeceipts due to Tramway only £8,219 Occupiers' Share thereof — Interest, 5 per cent 646 Trade Profit, Eisks and Casualties, 12^ per cent 1,364 1,910 Gross Value £6,309 Eepairs and Eenewals ofWay 2,574 Eateable Value £3,735 The item of gross receipts was admitted by the Parish ; also the amount of horse expenses and car renewals. 114 The general expenses were stated by tlie Parish to be ^11,901, instead of ^614,061. The RATEABLE VALUE of stations was called by the Parish ^502, instead of ^6642 ; The occu- pier's share ^61,768, instead of ^1,910; the repairs and renewals of way £2,424, instead of £2,574. The difference in the general expenses arose from the mode of dealing with several items of detail — viz., a sum of £1,763 received for advertisements on the cars of the Company, and £60 rent for offices received from the Dublin Tramway Com- pany. The Parish also contended that the amount of car repairs wages, and materials should be £1,500 instead of £4,888 ; that £900 only should be allowed for law costs, instead of £1,797 ; and that the sum of £830 for directors' and auditors' fees should be struck out altogether. The Com- pany contended that the profit obtained from the advertising was an ordinary profit in trade, not arising out of the rateable hereditament at aU; but, even if rateable, then they contended that the rent which a tenant would give for this privi- lege of advertising was not the sum that he would receive, but only so much as would remain of it after he had been satisfied by the allowance of a reasonable profit. The cars belonged to the hypo- thetical tenant of the Tramway, who would not have them disfigured by advertisements unless he could derive a benefit ; this benefit he would not get if he had tc hand over to his landlord as 115 additional rent all that he received from the advertisements. The Court decided on this head that the ^ross receipts should be increased by these two sums of £1,763 and £60, or, what amounted to the same thing, that they should be deducted from general expenses, applying to Islington the share of them due to that parish. As to the expenses of car repairs, they increased the £4,888 to £5,088, in- stead of reducing it to £1,500. As to the law charges, they saw no reason why the total of £1,797 should not stand, as a reasonable deduction. They reduced the allowance to the directors from £830 to £600. They reduced the value of stations below the sum asked by the Parish. They thought the claim to add £3,000 to tenants' capital for cash at bankers could not alto- gether be maintained, and they fixed this item at J2,000. " These corrections," said the Assistant-Judge, " win alter the rateable value, and reduce it, but not to the extent contended for by the Appellants. The appeal will be allowed to this modified extent, and the calculations necessary for the alterations required should, if the parties can agree, for con- venience, be made upon the basis of Mr. Eyde's valuation, which will be increased accordingly." The Court made no order as to costs. The following was Mr. Ryde's valuation, when it had been so altered : — 116 Receipts , £46,47* Working Expenses — Horse Hire £31,596 Other Expenses , 13,497 Car Kenewals 423 Bates and Taxes, 3s. 3d. in the £, on £4,436 721 36,16r Net Eeceipts due to Tramway and Stations £9,311 Value of Stations 43» Net Eeceipts due to Tramway only £8,873 Occupiers' Share 1,863 Gross Value £7,010 Eepairs and Eenewals 2,574 KateaWe Value £4,438 This concluded the business of the Generai* Assessment Sessions for the year 1874. SUPPLEMENT No. 4. CONCEENING THE CASES BEFOEE THE COUET OF GENEEAL ASSESSMENT SESSIONS IN THE YEAR 1875. The Court held its first sitting on 13tli February. Present : P. H. Edlin, Esq., Q.C., Assistant-Judge ; Leycester Penrhyn, Esq., Henry Pownall, Esq., Captain Eobertson, T. M. Eyley, Esq., Mr. Alderman Finnis, Mr. Alderman Besley, and William Hardman, Esq. Edward John Anderson and Jeffert Wil- xiAM LuDLAM appealed against the decision of the Assessment Committee of the Stepney Union (Parish of Shadwell). The Appellants are occupiers of a wharf at Shadwell known as the Metropolitan Wharf. In ihe Valuation List of 1870, this wharf was assessed &t j61,600. In 1873 the Eespondents inserted the property in a Supplemental Valuation List at 563,000. The real question tried in the case was, whether 118 the Eespondents have power, under " The Valu- ation Metropolis Act, 1869," to alter a Valuation. List by means of a Supplemental List in regard to an hereditament which has not been physically altered since the making of the List ? Mr. Meadows White argued, for the Eespon- dents, that the 47th section of the Act gave power to the Assessment Committee to vary the rate- able VALUE of an hereditament between the making of the Valuation List in 1870 and the making of the new Valuation List in 1875, if from any cause the hereditament is increased in value. He admitted that there had been no structural alteration or addition to the warehouse, but he contended that the value of the property had been improved partly in consequence of the clearing away of wharf property by the Thames Embank- ment, and partly by improving the access to the river frontage property at ShadweU. Without calling on Mr. Poland to reply on behalf of the Appellants, the Assistant Judge said that it would require very strong reasons ta be shown to induce the Court to interpret the Act inconsistently with the obvious intention of the Legislature, that once in five years only should the valuation of property be disturbed, in cases where no additions had been made to it. Moreover, in this case, a new List would have to be made at once in ordinary course. The appeal was allowed, with costs. 119 The London Tramways Company and tlie Assessment Committee op the Union of St. Saviour's, Southwark. This case, being governed by the Lamheth Case, and that of St. Mary, Islington, the rateable value of the Tramway was reduced by consent to £100, and no order was made as to costs. Mr. Besley was counsel for the Appellants, and Mr. Bullen for the Respondents. North Metropolitan Tramway Company and St. Leonard's, Shoreditch. This was a similar case. The valuation was settled by agreement at J6896 GROSS VALUE and JE500 rateable value, each party paying its own costs. Mr. Besley appeared for the Appellants, Mr. Castle for the Eespondents. J. T. Keenb v. the Assessment Committee of THE Parish op St. Matthew, Bethnal Green. This was a case in which Mr. Poland, for the Re- spondents, admitted that the Appellant must succeed, as, since the decision in the recent case of London and North Western Railway Company v. Buckmaster, there was no doubt that Appel[■^nt was improperly rated. The appeal was theref^ ^ allowed, with coats. 120 James Willing and the Assessment Com- mittee OP the Parish op St. Pancbas. Mr. F. Meadows White was* Counsel for the Appellant, and Mr. Poland and Mr. Castle for the Kespondents. This case, or rather cases — for there were a number of distinct assessments — commenced on the 13th February, and occupied the attention of the Court throughout the 26th and 27th Feb- ruary. The real question involved in all the cases was, whether the Appellant, as a Contractor for Advertising, was rateable, in respect of advertis- ing hoardings, in cases where he had no distinct occupation of the land. Mr. Eyde was called on behalf of the Appellants, and he described Brown's Dairy as a good house, in the occupation of third parties. There were advertisements on the front of the house, and on premises in the rear. These premises were for- merly used as Stables, but were then in the occu- pation of a Mr. Bridgman, an Architect, as work- shops. Mr. Willing had no right to enter the premises, nor to make any other use of them than that of an Advertiser. Some of the bills were pasted on the face of the wall ; others on a wooden framework, carried six feet above the waU. The reason why this frame was erected w-as that the bUls did not stick to the wall on account of the wet, and so the boards were erected. There were wooden stays to the boards, which were attached 121 to the interior of the premises ; but these were only erected to insure the public safety. The appeal was allowed. In another ease the premises consisted of a piece of building land. Two Builders had taken the land in succession for building purposes. Advertising boards had been fastened to the fence, but were steadied from behind by scaffold poles. Judgment was given for the Kespondents, but the €ouET was not unanimous, and granted a case. There were a number of other cases, in many of which the walls and parapets of bridges were the subject of the right to the easement. Mr. Meadows White's contention in all of them was, that Mr. Willing had merely a license or easement, and not an assignment of any specific plot of land. Mr. Poland contended on behalf of the Kespon- dents that the enjoyment of any profitable here- ditament was hable to be rated to the Poor Bate under the Statute of Elizabeth. He urged that the occupation of Mr. WiUing was quite as great as that of Gas and Water Companies by their pipes, or as telegraph wires in the ground or the air. The Court allowed the appeals in twelve cases out of the fourteen. In the thirteenth case the appeal was partially successful, and in the four- teenth, although the judgment was for the Eespon- dent, a case was granted. 122 The School Boabd foe London and the Assessment Committee op the Hamlet op Mile- End Old Town, 18th March, 1875. The Magistrates present were P. H. Edlin, Esq., Q.C., in the Chair, Henry Pownall, Esq., Leycester Penrhyn, Esq., Alderman Besley, Captain Robert- son, E.N., and H. M. Kemshed, Esq. The Hon. Alfred Thesiger (with whom was Mr, Meadows White) opened the case for the Appellants. He stated the appeal was brought against four schools, in Essex Street, Hackney ; Johnson Street, Stepney ; Gloucester Street, WMtechapel ; and St. Paul's Eoad, Bow Common, The assessment sought to be reduced was £1,636, which the Board said should be £879. The Board had been compelled to place these schools in the midst of a dense population, because they were there most required. It had to pay for the sites not only the value of the land, but the value also of the houses on the land, which they had been compelled to remove. They had had to com- pensate lessees and occupiers; to buy up many trades ; and in every case to pay, on account of the compulsory purchase, 10 per cent, beyond the ■value of the property. He argued that it was fallacious to attempt to rate such a property at any percentage on its cost, and contended that the proper method was to ascertain what rent a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay, having re- gard to the profits which he could make and the 123 benefits he could derive from the occupation by filling the schools with the same class of pupils as now resorted to them. He called Mr. Eyde to prove this part of the case, when Mr. Barrow, who appeared for the Respondents, interposed. He said the question seemed rather to be one of prin- ciple than of figures, and asked to be heard on that point before the evidence was called. The Court concurred, and Mr. Barrow pro- ceeded to argue that the true test of eateablb VALUE was what rent the Board would have been prepared to pay if, instead of building the schools themselves, they had hired them of third parties. He said this could only be ascertained by consi- dering what had been the actual outlay, and what would be the fair interest on such outlay. The CouET decided that the School Board must be regarded as a hypothetical tenant, and that there could be no better criterion of the rent which they might be reasonably expected to give, if these buildings, being appropriate for their purpose, were in the market, than by taking the actual outlay for the land and buildings and allowing a fair percentage upon that outlay. Assuming that the figures were correctly stated, the CouET confirmed the assessment. Mr. Thesiger said, as the matter was of great importance, he must ask for a case. The Chair- man said the Magistrates were all agreed that he should have a case. 124 A country mansion, rated on this principle, or an unprofitable branch Railway, would produce much higher rates than it hitherto has done. It seems, at first sight, to be estimating the rent which a landlord might be reasonably expected to require, rather than the rent which a tenant might be expected to pay. There is however just this difference between Board Schools and other pro- perties viz. : that the Board are bound by statute to carry on their business in specific locaUties, and therefore, are bound to pay the rent demanded of them, whereas a tenant of ordinary property would only pay such a rent as he could afford. The Chairman stated that, having determined the principle, if Mr. Thesiger had any evidence to offer on the facts of the case, the Coubt was pre- pared to hear him. He thought they ought to take into consideration any excessive amount which the School Board had incurred in obtaining possession of the lani under circumstances over which they had no control. Mr. Thesiger said it would be better to leave the matter as it stood, pending the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. Three other appeals in the Hackney Union, and the St. Savioub's, Southwabk, Union, were then dismissed, with costs, subject to a case in the .Court of Queen's Bench. The School Board have not thought fit to incur 125 any furtlaer expense in the matter, and no case has been carried to the Court above. Job Copeman appealed against the decision of the A.SSESSMENT Committee of the Parish op St. Mary, Islington, in respect of the " Mother Red Cap" Public House, in the Holloway Road. There has been a public house on the same site for the last 100 years ; but in 1873 the old house was puUed down and rebuilt. It was then let to Mr. Gordon at a rent of £120 per annum, in consideration of a premium of £3,600. He carried on the business till 5th March, 1874, when the lease, with 49 years unexpired, was assigned to the present Appellant at the same rent, but on payment of a higher premium, viz., £4,970. The assessment appealed against was £240' GROSS and £200 rateable value. The Appellant contended for a gross value of £120, and a rateable value of £100. The contention of the Appellant was that the premium paid was entirely for " goodwill," and so not rateable. The Respondents urged that some of it was in the nature of " Rent paid in advance " for the hereditament. The previous occupant had been rated at £240» The Court held that this was a proper assess- ment, and dismissed the appeal, with costs. SUPPLEMENT No. 5. CONCERNING THE CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF GENERAL ASSESSMENT SESSIONS IN THE YEAR 1876. The year 1875 having been the year within "which " New Valuation Lists " as directed by the Act had to be made, the appeals in 1876 were more numerous than those in any year siace 1871. Those in respect of which Petitions of Appeal were lodged within the period prescribed by the Act, that is to say before the 14th January, 1876, were 101 in number, and 11 other cases were lodged after the 14th January, bringing the total up to 112. The following is a complete list of them — Appet.t.ants, Valuation List Appealed Against. 1 Loadon Leather Warehouse Company 2 Marylebone Cricket Club 5 Nelson Dock Company 4 Woolwich Equitable Gas Com- pany 6 Brace Beveridge Todd and another 6 Fhcenix Gas light and Coke Company Bermondsey St. Marylebone St. Mary, Rotherhithe Woolwich St. Olave, Southwark St, Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey 127 Apfbllamts. Valuation List Appealed Aqainbt. 7 Thomas Gee and another ■ (Messrs. B.YouBg & Company ) 8 Corporation of the Hall of Arts and Soiences.Kensington (5ore 9 Henry Fisher 10 Great Northern Eailway Com- pany 11 Midland Eailway Company 13 Grand Junction Water Works Company 13 Edward John Anderson and another 14 Charles Wild and another (Peters HaU and Company) 15 Brandram Brothers and Com- pany 16 Same 17 Surrey Commercial Dock Com- pany 18 East and West India Dock Company 19 Same 20 Same 31 Same 22 Same 23 Thomas Groves and Sons 24 Same 25 Augustus Charles Scovell and others 26 Same 27 Same 28 Nathaniel C. Tuely 29 Sir Thomas Gabriel, Bart. 30 Chelsea Water Works Company 31 Viscountess CUfden 33 Eobert Jackson Bates 33 Vestry and Overseers of St. George, Hanover Square 34 Regent's Canal Company St. Mary Magdalen, Southwark St. Margaret and St. John the Evangelist, Westminster St. Giles, Camberwell St. Pancras Same St. George, Hanover Square St. Paul, ShadweU St. Martin-in-the-Fields Eotherhithe (Assessment No. 1663) Same (Assessment No. 3739) St. Mary, Eotherhithe St. Katherine,Coleman Street (City) St. Olave, Hart Street (Do ) St. Katherine, Free Church (Do.) Bromley St. Leonard All Saints, Poplar St. Mary, Eotherhithe (Cumberland Wharf) Same (Platform Wharf) St. Olave (Topping's Wharf) Same (Cotton's and Depot Wharf ) Same (Symon's Wharf) Wandsworth Same St. George, Hanover Square Putney St. Mary, Newington St. George, Hanover Square (Against a decision in Special Ses- sionsupon an appeal by SirDudley Coutts Maijoribanks, Bart.) St. Pancras 128 •APPBlliNTS. YaIiTTAtion List Afpeai.bd Aoainbt. 35 James Phillips 36 Edwin Ellis St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey Same 37 John Barrow and Son • Same 38 Samuel Barrow and Brother Same 39 Woolwich Equitahle Gas Com- pany 40 Overseers of Plum stead Plumstead "Woolwich 41 Governors and Directors of St. John, Horselydown 42 Henry Arthur Dubois 43 School Board for London St. John, Horselyclown Lambeth St. John, Hackney 44 Same St. Giles-in-the-Fields and St. George, Bloomsbury 45 Metropolitan Board of Works 46 South Eastern Bailway Company 47 Same 48 Same 49 Same 50 Same 51 Same 52 London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company 53 London and North Western Railway Company 54 Same 55 Same 56 Alfred Hooper Nevill 57 Corporation of London 58 69 Same Same 60 London, Chatham, and Dover Eailway Company 61 Same 63 Same 63 Same 64 Travers Barton Wire and others (James Harby and Company) 65 Prockter and Bevington St. George, Hanover Square St. Mary, Bermondsey Lee Eltham Woolwich St. Martin-in-the-Fields Plumstead St. Paul, Deptford St. Panoras St. John, Hampstead St. Leonard, Shoreditch St. Olave, Southwark St. Mary, Islington (Queen Anne's Buildings) Same (Metropolitan Cattle Market) Same (CityArmsLodging- Houses, Cattle Market) Clapham St. Mary, Battersea St. George, Hanover Square St. Giles, Camberwell Bromley St. Leonard St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey 129 66 John Blott and anothei 67 Overseers of All Saints, Poplar 68 Incorporated Law Society 69 North London Bailway Company 70 Same 71 Same 72 Same 73 Same 74 Beginald More Bray 75 Hibbert Newton 76 Surrey Consumers'Gas Company 77 Same 78 Same 79 Same 80 Gas Products Utilization Com- pany 81 London Tramways Company 83 Same 83 Same 84 Same 85 Same 86 Same 87 Nathaniel John Fenner and another 88 Pontifex and Wood 89 IngaU and Phillips 90 Hedley and Company 91 Northumberland Graving Docks Company 92 Thomas Carter and another 93 Samuel Cutler and Sons 94 Charles Powis and Company 95 J. and B. Wright 96 Binks Brothers 97 Hodge and Sons 98 Johnson 98 John Stewart 100 William Henry Briant 101 George Burney Valuation List Appealed aoainst. St. Leonard, Bromley AH Saints, Poplar (East and West India Dock Company) Liberty of the EoUs All Saints, Poplar St Mary, Stratford, Bow Bromley St. Leonard St. Mary, Islington St. Leonard, Sboreditch Tooting St. George the Martyr, Southwark St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey St. Mary, Eotherhithe (Works and Mains) Same (Timothy's Wharf) ?ame (King'sMillsWharf) Bromley St. Leonard Greenwich Greenwich (Stabling, Sheds, &c.) St. George the Martyr, Surrey Lambeth Parish of Clapham St. Mary, Newingtou All Saints, Poplar All Saints, Poplar Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Some Same Same Same 130 In the/olhwing Cases the Petitions of Appeal were lodged after the Uth of January. APPELLANTS. Valuation List Appealed Aoajsbt, 102 wmiam Whale St. Mary, Eotherhithe 103 Guardians of Lewisham Lewisham 104 Burt, Boulton, and Haywood St. Mary, Eotherhithe 105 Barclay, Oray, and Laurences Same 106 Matthew James Shaw Wandsworth 107 Overseers of Lambeth r.fl.Tnbeth 108 Grosvenor Club for Workmen St. George, Hanover Square 109 Overseers of St. Olave St. Olave 110 Overseers of St. Thomas, St. Thomas, Southwark Southwark 111 Metropolitan Railway Company St. Stephen, Coleman Street (Cily) 118 Arthur Pott and others St. Saviour, Southwark The Court met for the first time, in 1876, on the 7th of February. The Assistant Judge, Mr. P. H. Edhn, Q.C., was in the chair and there were also present Edward Leycester Penrhyn, Esq., WilHam Hardman, Esq., Chairman of the Surrey Sessions, and other Justices. The Court was much crowded during the day, as all the Appellants and Kespondents by them- selves, their Counsel, or their Solicitors, were required to be in attendance. The whole of the hst was gone through for the purpose of ascertaining how many cases would be fought out, and how many could be settled, and it resulted in the following settlements being arrived at: — 131 Gross VAiiUE. Rateabij; Value. No. in List. Appealed Settled Appealed Settled against. at. against. at. £ £ £ £ 1 681 606. 610 520 3 1.500 1,100 1,250 917 4 1,550 1.550 1,240 1,115 5 1,200 630 1,050 525 9 180 140 160 117 13 appeal abandoned — — ' 14 373 180 310 160 18 withdrawn -^ — — 19 withdrawn — — — 20 withdrawn — — — 39 gross unaltered 110 75 41 gross unaltered 1,910 1,176 49 withdrawn — — — 56 350 180 292 150 57 abandoned — — — 58 appeal abandoned — — 59 appeal abandoned — — 68 6,000 4,800 5,000 4,000 87 withdrawn — — — 90 withdrawn — — — 91 withdrawn — — — 109 5,399 4,899 4,535 4,301 110 3,530 3,088 2,933 3,573 111 2,045 700 1,711 584 The Court decided that those cases which ■were not lodged before the 14th January should not be dealt with until those cases were disposed of which were lodged in due time. Permission was given to enter a case not on the Official Printed List, on the ground that there was no difference between it and any of those cases which were entered after the 14th January. The 132 Appellant was Thomas Henry Bbiggs, and tlie decision appealed against was that of the Assess- ment Committee op St. Geobge and St. Giles. The CouET then proceeded to hear the appeals^ The first contested case was No. 3 on the list. Mr. Meadows White appeared as Counsel for the Appellants, and Mr. WUls for the Eespondents^ The case was one of no pubUc interest, and in the result the gboss value was reduced from ^61,506 to £1,100, and the rateable from M1,25S- to d6940, each party to pay his own costs. The CouBT decided to sit continuously for a. week. Case No. 7 on the hst involved the question whether a Glue Manufactory should be placed in Class 8, and be entitled to a deduction of one- third for insurance, repairs, and renewals. Mr. Saunders appeared for the Appellants,, Mr. WiUs and Mr. Grantham for the Respondents. Messrs. Gee & Sewell, successors to Messrs. B. Young and Co., Glue, Patent Size, and Neat's^ Foot Oil Manufacturers, and Hidepiece Merchants,, occupying premises 2J acres in extent, with scattered buildings thereon, were first assessed in. the old Hst in 1870 at J6615 gboss value, and M51B bateable value. In the new Valuation List of 1875 they were assessed at £1,201 gross value, and £1,068 rateable. Upon objection, the Assessment Committee confirmed the gross value,. 133 Ijut reduced the bateable from ^1,068 to ^965. The appeal to the Assessment Sessions was against this decision. The buildings consisted of counting house, smith's shop, cooperage, stables, glue boihng shed, detached drying sheds, press room, wheel- wright's shop, &c. The plant comprised vats for cooling, boilers, steam engine, &c. The premises were held on two leases at low rentals. After evidence of value had been gone into, it was arranged that the gboss value should be jeduced from jei,201 to ^900. Mr. WiUs then argued that in this case the maximum deduction of 83^ per cent, should not be made, because a great deal of the land — three- fifths of the whole — ^is not covered with buildings, and therefore not subject to contingencies of lepairs and insurance. Mr. Saunders argued that it was necessary to have space and room for the business, and that as a manufactory they were entitled to the 33J per cent, deduction. The CouBT decided that the deduction should be one -third, and allowed the Appellants their <30StS. ]No. 8. — The Royal Albeet Hall, Kensington GOBB. Mr. Poland and Mr. Beasley were Counsel for 134 the Appellants, Mr. Meadows White and Mr. Castle for the Kespondents. Mr. Poland's first contention was, that the- building is not Eateable, because the Charter under which the Corporation of the Hall of Arts, and Sciences is constituted shows that the Building is to be used exclusively for purposes of Science and Art. The next question was, whether it should be rated as one or many hereditaments. In the Valuation List, as first made, each stall was rated at £5 gross and M 10s. bateablb, and each box was separately rated. But the Assessment Committee, by agree- ment with the Appellants, substituted an assess- ment upon the Corporation of £12,000 gross and £10,800 RATEABLE VALUE. The Court decided unanimously that the building is rateable, and that it should be as- sessed in one sum. Mr. Wentworth Cole, Manager of the Hall,, proved that from the opening in 1871 to the end of 1875 there had been a loss of £2,627, the expenses having been £35,603, and the receipts £33,076. More than £200,000 was spent upon the building, and the land, held for 999 years at Is. ground rent, was said to be worth £60,000 or £70,000. Mr. Kyde gave evidence for the Appellants^ 135 that in his judgment a tenant could not be found for the Hall, but that he had advised the Corpora- tion to- submit to a rating of £1,500 gross and £1,250 RATEABLE VALUE. Mr. Eobert Vigers for the Eespondent valued the property as under : — Gross Bateablk Valub. Valuis. £ £ 43 Boxes at£50 3,150 1,935 90 „ at£35 3,S50 9,035 1,363 StaUs at JB5 6,810 6,139 Other parts of the Property 790 711 £13,000 £10,800 Or, £300,000 Building at 4 per cent £8,000 £60,000 Land at 4 per cent 3,400 £10,400 In Cross-examination, Mr. Vigers admitted that he did not think a tenant could be found to pay £10,400. He thought he would advise a tenant to pay £6,000. Mr. Galsworthy was called to prove that he had sold the Alhambra, the Globe, the Gaiety (when a Music Hall), and Her Majesty's Theatre. He thought he might get a tenant for the Albert Hall at £5,000 a-year rent. The Court reduced the Assessment — The GROSS VALUE from £12,000 to £5,000. The rate- able VALUE from £10,800 to £4,160. 136 9th February, 1876. No. IO.^The Great Nobthbrn Kailway Company, V. The St. Pangeas Union Assessment Committee. Mr. F. Meadows White and Mr. Oppenlieiin were Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. Barrow and Mr. Castle for the Kespondents. The assessment appealed against was £39,580 GROSS, and ^633,654 rateable talue, made up as foUows : — GR08B. BATEABLB. Main and Suburban Lines of Kailway ... JE5,715 £4,050 King's Cross Stations 11,925 10,360 Maiden Lane Goods Station 21,940 19,254 £39,580 £83,654 The Old Assessment of the Property had been — Line and Buildings £22,000 Potato Market 1,500 Branch to Gas Works 300 £23,800 Houses in Euston Boad and Wes- ton Place £636 Houses on the Drakefield Estate 2,577 3,21S £27,013 A large number of the houses included in the assessment of £3,218 had been puUed down to improve the station approaches, without adding any equivalent annual value to the Station, so that the old assessment on the property remaining may be assumed at £25,000 in round figures. 137 "When before the Assessment Committee, the Committee offered to reduce the rateable value from £33,654 to jE30,712, on condition that the Company should abandon the appeal. This offer the Directors were advised not to accept. Mr. White, for the Appellants, contended that the old valuation of J625,000 should have been diminished rather than increased. At the time it was made the Midland traffic all came into the Great Northern Station at King's Cross ; but now the Midland have a line and terminal station of their own. A great deal of City traffic had been diverted from King's Cross to Farringdon Street to a station recently erected there, and separately and highly assessed. He asked the Court to consider whether £7,000 for King's Cross Station, £12,000 for Maiden Lane, and £4,000 for the Railway, making a total of £23,000, was not a sufficient assessment. Mr. Dymant, the Assistant Accountant, proved the diversion of the Midland traffic since the making of the last valuation ; also the diversion of traffic from King's Cross via a new branch from Pinsbury Park to Broad Street, and the diversion of goods traffic to Farringdon Street. Mr. Eyde proved the former assessments, the houses which have been pulled down for station improvements, and the meetings with the Assess- ment Committee. He gave his valuation as under: — 138 Gross. Batjeable. King's Cross Station £9,000 £7,000 Maiden Lane Station 17,000 12,000 Lines of Railway 5,715 4,050 £31,715 £93,050 Mr. Charles Stephenson proved that he had seen Mr. Eyde's Keport and viewed the property, and that he concurred in thinking ^623, 050 the RATEABLE VALUE. On behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Henry James Castle proved that he valued : — The Lines of Eailway at £4,050 The King's Cross Station at 10,350 Maiden Lane Station at 20,588 £34,988 and in cross-examination by Mr. White, he said he thought a tenant would give £34,988 for the property as rent. The decision of the Court was : — GBOSS. IU.TEABLE. Eailways £5,715 £4,050 Stations 29,000 23,300 £34,715 £37,250 no order being made for costs. The Court gave no indication of the manner in which they arrived at the result. Mr. Eyde assigned a rental value to each portion of the property includiog the site on which it was situated. He took buildings generally by the " square " of 100 feet superficial ; platforms by the square yard ; and sidings by the lineal yard. 139 Mr. Castle estimated the structural value of everything, and assumed the rateable value to be a percentage upon that structural value, plus a GROUND rent. No. 11. — The Midland Railway Company v, St. Pancras. Mr. Ledgard appeared for the Appellants, Mr. Barrow for the Respondents. This appeal had reference to the St. Pancras Hotel only. An arrangement was made in the case that the valuation as made should stand, but that it should inclijde new buildings in course of erection. No. 13. — Anderson and Ludlam v. The Assess- ment Committee of the Stepney Union. The Hon. Alfred Thesiger and Mr. Meadows "White were Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. Edward Clarke and Mr. Poynter for the Respondents. The Appellants were wharfingers and ware- housemen, and occupiers of warehouses in Wappiag WaU. The assessments appealed against were as foUows : — 140 OBOSS TAI^UE. lUTEABLB TALUB. 1 2 3 4 5 MetroT)olitan Wharf £ 3,081 513 205 417 103 £ 2,568 428 171 348 85 Warehouse F No. 14, 15, 16, 17, Wapping Wall, Nortli side Nos. 21 and 22, Wapping Wall, North side No. 23, Wapping Wall £4,319 £3,600 Mr. Edward Eyde proved the following valua- tion : — OROBB VALUB, RA.TEABLX TILUE. £ 1. Metbopolitan Whabf, comprising a Ware- house, partly Four stories and partly Six stories in height above the Vaults in the Basement, with a Frontage of about 140 feet to Wapping Wall, and 150 feet to the Eiver Thames, a mean depth of about 135 feet, 1,110 squares of floor space at 40s 2,220 2. Metbopolitan Wharf, 78, 79, 80, Wap- ping Wall, is a Warehouse, partly Three and partly Two stories in height above the Cellars, which extend only under parts of the Building, whi^'h has a Frontage of 77 feet to Wapping Wall, and 73 feet to the River Thames, with a mean depth of 103 feet, 200 squares of floor space at 40*. 3. Warehouse 14, 15, 16, 17, Wapping Wall North side ; Two stories high above the Cellars, has a Frontage to Wapping Wall of 73 feet, and to Coleman Street of 77 feet, with a mean depth of 100 feet, 204 squares of floor space at 20s 204 1,850 400 333 170 Carried forward £2,824 £2»353 141 Brought forward £2,824 £2,353 4. Wabehouse, 21, and 22, Wapping Wall, Northside, is Five Stories high above the Cellars, has a Frontage of 80 feet to Wapping Wall, and the same Frontage to Coleman Street, with a mean depth of 45 feet, 192 squares of floor space at20x 192 160 5. The Offices, No. 23, Wapping Wall, Four Floors in height, suitable for the business, but much depreciated in value by Fish Curing Works and Mitchell's Soap Works, on the opposite side of Coleman Street 60 50 £3,076 £2,563 Mr. Kobert Vigers agreed with the mode of valuing such property by the square, and thought that £2 a square for the water-side property, and £1 for the other property, was a fair price. He put the offices at J06O. Mr. Charles Stephenson, who had valued for Wapping Improvements and Metropolitan Board of Works in the locality, supported the valuation of the other witnesses. On behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Charles Dunch, Surveyor to the Local Board, was examined by Mr. Clarke. His valuation was as follows : — 1. — Metkopolitan Wharf — 1,117 Squares of Floors, including Staircases, at 64s. U £3,025 Add for 149 feet of Frontage at 20s 149 Eateable Value £3,174 142 Brought forward ^3,174 Eepairs 216 Insurance 60 Gross Value £3,470 Or, 1,015,391 cubic feet in Building, deducting the thickness of Floors at 3s. 4,d. per foot cube £3,173 Add Frontage as before 149 Rateable Value £3,321 Eepairs 216 Insurance 80 Gross Value £3,617 Or, a third method — 19,391 feet of Land at 9d. a foot f 727 Add Frontage 149 Annual Value of Land dE876 Buildings. — Estimated Structural Cost, £36,725 ... 7 per cent, thereon 3,570 Eateable Value £3,446 Eepairs 216 Insurance 80 Gross Value £3,742 He had reported to the Assessment Committee that £3,600 gross, and J63,000 eateable were the proper values. Warehouse. — 14, 15, 16, & 17, Wapping WaU — Eateable Value on 193,384 cubic feet, at j^-of apenny £219 Insurance 9 Eepairs ; 12 Gross Value £240 143 Or, Eateable Value on 203 Squares of Floor Space, at 23s ^232 Insurance 9 Bepairs 13 Gross Value £253 Wabehouse. — ^Nos. 21 & 22, Wapping Wall — £ateable Value on 19S Squares, at 23s. £224 Insurance 13 Hepairs 25 Gross Value £262 Offices. — ^Value of Land, 1,326 feet at Sd £1\ Cost of Building £1,540, at 7 per cent 108 Eateable Value £119 Insurance 1 Bepairs 7 Gross Value £127 In the case of the other warehouse, Mr. Dunch's valuation was the amount of the assess- ment, which he had not understood the Appellants to dispute. The following is therefore a summary of his valuation : — £ £ Metropolitan Wharf 3,600 3,000 No. 14, &c., Wapping Wall 253 232 Nos. 21 & 22, Wapping Wall 262 224 Offices 127 119 No. 78, &c., Wapping Wall 513 428 £4,755 £4,003 144 Mr, John Whichcord was called as a witness. He valued Metropolitan Wharf as under : — 19,391 feet of Land at 9d £727 Kiver Frontage 14* Cost of Building £36,725 at 7 per cent 2,570 Bepairs and Insurance £3,446 273 Gross Value £3,71» He called the Gross Value of this one Wharf £3,719 And the Bateable S.IOO' The Court reduced the rates as follows : — Gkoss. Bateable. 1 2 3 4 5 From £3,081 to £2,640 513 „ 600 205 „ 200 417 „ 192 103 „ 75 From £2,568 to £2,200 428 „ 417 171 „ 167 348 „ 160 » 85 „ 63 £4,319 to £3,607 £3,600 to £3,007 And gave the Appellants their costs. No. 17. — SuEREY Commercial Dock Company «. The Parish of St. Mary, Rothebhitbe. Mr. F. Meadows White and Mr. Poland were Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. Wills for the Respondents. 145 The Docks are situated partly in the Parish of Deptford, but chiefly in Rotherhithe. The Deptford assessment was not objected to. The valuation appealed against was £64,461 OEoss VALUE, and ^£48,356 bateable. In 1867 the property was rated at £42,580, but in 1870 the valuation was reduced to £37,061 RATEABLE VALUE. Now buUdiugs Were subse- quently erected, and the valuation was increased to £38,525. The business carried on is chiefly in the timber trade and in grain, and in 1873 and 1874 the trade was bad. Both sides agreed upon the mode of making the valuation, but difi'ered as to the accounts upon which the calculations should be based. The Company contended that the item of gboss BECEiPTS for the purposes of the valuation should be an average of 3 or 5 years. The Eespondents contended for the last year's receipts. The average for 6 years, 1870 to 1874 inclusive, was £210,765, for 3 years, 1872, 1873, and 1874, it was £222,152, and the gross receipts of 3 874 were £252,585. The receipts for each of the five years were as follows : — 1870 ^6309,570 1871 307,853 1873 205,669 1873 ■ 233,161 1874 253,181 146 This was the main question in the case, and it was argued at considerable length. Mr. White urged that a tenant would take into account a. fluctuation of the receipts ; moreover, it was said that 1874 was a very exceptional year, the ex- tremely high price of coal having caused a large and exceptional importation of wood. Mr. Wills contended that the rise being pro- gressive proves that the trade is an increasing one, and therefore the last year's receipts should be taken to represent its present value. He contended that the figures given by Mr. White were erroneous or misleading, and supphed the following figures to prove that the business had been steadily increasing, for, although in the year 1874 the tonnage was a little under that of 1873, the net receipts were higher : — Tons. Gross Tonnage— 1870 747,899 of all Goods. 1871 777,487 1872 830,467 1873 869,243 1874 857,603 Net Earnings— 1870 £71,587 1871 75,120 1879 ' 76,881 1873 89,448 1874 91,981 The Court decided this point by directing that the average of the three years, 1872-1873 and 1874, should be taken, but the Chairman stated that they did so only under peculiar circum- 147 stances, and therefore did not intend to make it a precedent. Upon this decision, the parties came to an agreement upon the whole case. The GROSS VALUE was reduced from £60,461 to £50,000. The rateable value was reduced from £48,346 to £40,000. Each side to pay its own costs. During the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Wills objected, on the part of the Eespondents, to the appeal proceeding, on the ground that the notice of appeal did not specify the reduction which the Appellants desired to have made in the assess- ment. Mr. Poland expressed his surprise at the objection beiag taken after the appeal had opened, and, after much discussion, the Court decided to hear the appeal. No. 23. — Thomas Groves & Sons v. St. Mary, EOTHERHITHE. {Cumberland Wharf.) Mr. Saunders for the Appellants. Mr. Wills for the Eespondents. A material point in this case was the Class in which the property should stand in the valuation. The Appellants contended that it should be in Class 11. The Eespondents had put it in Class 5. 148 The premises comprised a wharf, granary, and premises, having 120 feet- frontage to the river, and a depth of 68 feet. The valuation of the Overseers had heen re- duced by the Assessment Committee from £613 to £514: GROSS vAiiUE, and from £490 to £391 rateable value. Mr. Thomas Groves, one of the Appellants, proved that he had occupied the premises 25 years : that until 4 years ago he paid £220 rent, landlord doing repairs and insuring. The land- lord then put the premises in repair, and the rent was raised to £300, tenant paying £15 insur- ance. The Tenant had spent £230 in putting up an engine. Mr. George Legg, Surveyor, valued the pro- perty as under : — Premises 130 ft. by 44 ft. = 5,380 ft., 3 Stories in height. Premises 120 ft. by 34 ft. ^ 2,880 ft., 4 Stories in height Cost would he about f 5,000. Values 53 squares of Building at 50s.* £132 Values 39 squares next river, at 60s. •}■ 87 Land , Engine and Shafting Carried forward £319 120 SO £359 c. d. ♦Ground Floor 20 FirstFloor 17 6 Second Floor 12 6 50 fGronnd Floor 20 FirstFloor 17 Second Floor 12 Third Floor 10 A 6 6 60 149 Brouglit forward f359 Bepairs and Insurance 44 Gross Value £403 Less 25 per cent 101 Eateable Yalue £302 Mr. George Trist concurred with Mr. Legg. Mr. Charles Stephenson valued : — 82 squares, next river, at £3 £247 153 squares, back of river, at £1 153 Gross Value £400 The Kespondents' case was — That the actual rent was an easy one, and the premises were most convenient for a wharfinger. Mr. John Wornham Penfold valued : — 270 squares of floor space at £9 £540 Engine • 5 Gross Value £545 30 squares 4 stories high = 120 squares. 50 squares 3 stories high = 150 squares. 270 squares. In the end, the assessment was reduced by- consent to £450 GROSS VALUE, £337 bateable VALUE. Appellants to have MIO costs. 150 No. 24. — Thomas Geoves and Sons v. St. Mary, ROTHEBHITHE. (Platform Wharf.) In this case the premises were described as " Stores, Granaries, Wharf, and Premises." The Assessment Committee had reduced the valuation of the Overseers — The Geoss Value from ^62,441 to £3,040 Rateable Value from £2,034 to £1,634 The Appellants (who were the same as in the last case) were not satisfied with the decision of the Committee, and appealed against it. They contended for a gross assessment of £1,233, and a rateable of J6986. The premises, which consisted of (1) a five-storey granary, (2) brick-built engine and boiler house, (3) building over gateway, (4) staircase, (5) three- storey granary, (6) sack shed, (7) a one-storey, granary, (8) staircase, and (9) five-storey granary, were said to be very inconvenient. They had a frontage of 62 feet only for a depth of 850. Only one barge could unload at a time, and Eotherhithe Street intervened between the premises and the river. The property was held on lease for 21 years from 1861, but the business had been carried on since 1852. The rent, including two small separate payments of £10 each, was £1,100 per annum. The lessee was restricted to use the 151 Mildings as granaries only. The father of the Appellants had been owner of the premises until his death. Trustees were Lessors at the time of the appeal. The landlords paid insurance at the rate of | per cent, on £20,000 amounting to £75 and partially repaired. There was great loss of labour in consequence of the property standing end on to the river, and across the street. The in- surance on the goods was f per cent, on £90,000. ''The rate of insurance was heavy because the buUdings are ia large blocks. The engine was 25-horse-power, and the shaft- ing extended across Eotherhithe Street. There were also trams across the street. Mr. George Legg, Mr. Charles Stephenson, a,nd Mr. George Trist were called as witnesses to "value. These valuations amounted to about £1,233 GBOss as under : — Wharf £100 Land-side Property 940 Machinery 85 Land 108 £1,233 There were 1,254 squares of floor space. The highest price per square put by Mr. Stephenson was 21s. and the lowest 15s. On behalf of the Kespondents, Mr. Wills dis- credited the lease as evidence of value, and the ■Chairman intimated that the Court did not regard the lease at all. 152 The following was the valuation of Mr. John Wornham Penfold : — River frontage, 69 feet at 30/- £9* Eeturn frontage, 90 feet at 10/- 4& 98 square yards of building at 40/- S& Office S Eiver-side portion of property £209 Land-side portion, 1,363 sq. at 26/6 1,791 Engine, 19-horse-power, at 40/- 24 Two Boilers 3& Cranes and Tramway 20 Gross Value £2,073 Deduct ^ Insurance and Repairs 345 Rateable Value £l,72a Mr. Snooke, who as Architect built the property, and Mr. Gale confirmed Mr. Penfold's evidence. The Court reduced the assessment from £2,040 to £1,284 GROSS VALUE, and from £1,634 to £1,070 RATEABLE VALUE, and gave the Appellants their costs. No. 32. — Robert Jackson Bates v. St. Mary, Newington. Mr. Poland appeared for the Appellant, Mr. Barrow for the Eespondents. Objection having been taken to the Class in ■which the property was put, it was urged by the Eespondents that no objection on that ground 163 could be taken, because it was not taken before the Assessment Committee. Moreover it was urged that the notice given to the Committee did not set forth the deduction which the Claimants desired to have made. The Court decided to hear the case, and observed that they could not narrow their juris- diction to such an extent. The Appellants' premises were No. 84, Eodney Eoad, in the Parish of St. Mary, Newington. They consisted of a range of buildings, principally sheds one storey in height, but there was one warehouse which had two floors, and there was also a store room over the counting house. There was a steam engine and three boilers, and carding and other machines, driven by steam power, fixed upon the premises in which the whole process of the manufacture of wadding was carried on. The buildings were old, and required considerable ex- penditure to keep them in repair. The premises were held, with other property, under two leases, at a total rent of J6306 15s. — ^the sum of £3,300 having been paid for the surrender of old leases. The GROSS VALUE iu the List was £300, and the RATEABLE £250. The Appellants contended that £246 was the GROSS VALUE, and that being a manufactory they should have been put in Class 8, and that a deduction of one-third should have been made 154 from the gross value in arriving at the rateable VALUE. In the Valuation List of 1870, the premises were stated at J6180 gross value, and £135 rate- able VALUE. Mr. Horsey and Mr. Eyde were called in support of the Appellant's case. Their valuations were as under : — Mr. Horsey— Gross f246. Eateable £164. Mr. Eyde —Gross £225. Eateable £150. For the Bespondents, Mr. Field and Mr. Robert Vigers were called. They valued the property as under : — Mr. Field- Buildings £78 Offices 16 Shafting 9 Land at IJci. per foot 109 Fixed Machinery 50 Eateable Talue £261. Kepairs and Insurance 42 Gross Value £303 Mr. Vigers — Land at IJd. per foot £130 Buildings £1,700, at 6 per cent 100 Engine and Boilers 60 Eateable Value £290 Repairs and Insurance 60 Gross Value £340 The Court reduced the Assessment to £246 GROSS value, and £164 rateable value — ^thus 155 deciding that the premises, as a manufactory, should he placed in Class 8. No. 35. — James Phillips v. St. Mary, Magdalen, Bermondsey. In this case the Overseers had assessed the property at J6190 rateable. The Assessment Committee had raised it to £B50. It was settled by consent at £240 gross value and £200 rateable value. The Hon. Alfred Thesiger was Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Wills for the Eespondents. No. 44. — School Board for London v. St. Gilbs- IN-THE-FlELDS AND St. GeORGB, BlOOMSBURY. The Hon. Alfred Thesiger was for the Appel- lants, and Mr. Poland for the Eespondents. The Schools in Tower Street were rated at £1,000 GROSS and £834 net. The cost of building, £9,092, was not disputed, but the value of the land, extending to an area of 8,050 feet, was contested. The School Board contended that the annual -value of the 8,050 feet of land was 6d. per foot, and that its fee-simple value was £4,500, which, added to £9,092, the cost of the building, made 156 the total fee -simple value of the property, from their point of view, £13,592. Upon that estimate the following valuation was made, viz.: — Eateable Yalue £13,592 at 4 per cent £544 Insurance and Eepairs (Jth of the Gross or Jth of the Net) 108 - Gross Value £652 They contended, moreover, that the ahove was a liberal estimate, and suggested that they might have been justified in substituting 3^ for 4 per cent., on account of their ability to borrow money at that rate. It was admitted that the land had actually cost the School Board very much more than £4,500, but it was explained that the land was covered with houses which have been pulled down, and that the money paid not only included the value of such houses but also the compensations which were paid to the occupiers. The contention on behalf of the Assessment Committee was that the land isworth£6,750 instead of £4,500, and that the rateable value of the hereditament should be 5 per cent, on its fee- simple value, and not 4 per cent. The Court considered that the Respondents had put a fair valuation upon the property and confirmed the assessment with costs against the School Board. 157 No. 43. — School Board for London v. St. John, Hacknet. After the decision in the last case had been given, this case -was withdra-wn. No. 33. — The Vestry and Overseers op St. George, Hanover Square, v. The Assess- ment Committee of St. George, Hanover Square — against a decision in Special Ses- sions, upon an Appeal by Sir Dudley Coutts Marjoribanks, Bart. Mr. Poland was Counsel for the Overseers — Mr. Castle with him: and Mr. Lopes for Sir DudlEy^Mr. Norman Bazalgette with him. In this special case, the facts were as follows : — The Overseers had valued the property at £2,000 GROSS and £1,667 rateable value. The Assessment Committee had confirmed that valuation. An appeal was made to the Special Sessions, and in the notices given the correction asked for was £1,920 gross and £1,600 rateable. Mr. Lopes appeared for the Appellant, before the Special Sessions, with witnesses, but the Assessment Committee was not represented. The 158 Sessions reduced the assessment to £1,500 gross and £1,250 rateable value. The appeal was against this decision. Technical objection was taken as to the power of the Sessions to alter the assessment below the correction required by Sir Dudley in his notice. The Court decided that the Special Sessions in not confining themselves to the correction asked for, and reducing the valuation below that sum, exceeded their jurisdiction, and they considered that the Appellant must confine himself to the correction he origiaally asked for. The house, which is handsomely built of red bricks, with stone dressings, is held at a ground rent of £350 for a term of 99 years from 1869. The property has a frontage of 157 feet to Park Lane, and 72 feet to Upper Brook Street. The house is stated to have cost a very large sum of money, but Mr. Lopes refused to furnish the amount. He objected to structural cost, and quoted the well-known words of Lord Denman, in the case of The Queen v. Overseers of Mile End, Old Town, that " the rule of law laid down by " Act of Parliament, for ascertaining the rateable " VALUE of any subject refers to an estimate of the " rent it should yield. The outlay of capital " might furnish no such criterion, since it may " have been injudiciously expended, and what was " costly may have become worthless by subsequent " changes." 159 Mr. Poland proposed to show what rent a tenant might be reasonably expected to pay for this house, not exactly a tenant from year to year, but a tenant who would not be likely to be dis- turbed for a term of years ; such a tenant as Chief Justice Cockburn referred to in the case of Clive v. Overseers of Foy. Mr. F. Galsworthy proved that — The main house stands on 4,800 feet super- ficial. The ground extends to an area of upwards of 12,000 feet. The height of the house is 100 feet. There is a detached billiard room con- nected with the house by a covered way. The entirety is " simply perfect." He estimated the cost of the build- ing at £50,000 And put the land at 30,000 £80,000 Put the letting value at £2,500 per annum, or £2,000 rent and £5,000 premium for a lease. Cross-examined — Had let a house in Grosvenor Square at £950 rent, with a premium of 4,000 guineas for a term of five years only. That house had stabling, this has not. Chesterfield House is larger and covers twice as much land. 160 Was not aware that the Duke of Abercbm rented it at £2,000 furnished. Mr. Charles Allen proved — ■ That he valued the house at £2,500 to £3,000 a year. That he let Kingston House, Eensiugton Eoad, to Baron KothschUd at £3,500 per annum. Mr. Thomas E. Berry proved — That he valued the house at £3,000 a year, the tenant doing repairs. That he knew that £3,000 a year was paid for a house iu Grosvenor Place. Mr. John HoweU, House Agent, proved — That he valued the house at £2,500, tenant doing repairs. That he valued the land in fee at £12,000 and the house at £48,000, together £60,000. That the decorations, which were splendid, might have cost £10,000. Mr. James Beal, of Kegent Street, proved — That property had increased in value at the West End during the past five years. That houses of this kind are not often let, but are sold. Mr. Lopes addressed the Court on behalf of the Eespondent. He objected to taking struc- tural value as a criterion, but dealing with the 161 evidence of the last witnesses, he made the foiiowing estimate : — Total value of the Property ; ;. ^660,000 Deduct Land £12,000 Decorations 10,000 — — - 29,000 JB38,000 38,000 at 4 per cent. £1,520 Ground Rent S50 Total Gross Value £1,870 Sir Dudley Coutts Marjoribanks, the Eespon- dent in this appeal, proved — That he occupied two houses, which pre- viously stood on the site of the present house from 1853 to 1867. That he then had standing for 6 carriages and stabling for 13 horses. That he was then rated at £440 and £260 for the two houses. That he had no stabUng with the new house, because he was restricted by the covenants of his lease. In cross-examination, Sir Dudley admitted that the ground rent of £350 was low, in conside- ration of his large outlay. That the builder's contract was £38,000, but the total cost was £55,000. That the embeUishments may have been about £10,000, but they were mixed up with the upholsterer's bill; 162 Mr. Lofts, of Mount Street, proved— That the duty of maintaining the decorations would decrease the letting value of tlje house. That it would be difficult to obtain a tenant at more than £1,500 a year rent. Mr. Grogan proved — That he would advise the owner of the house to take £1,500 a year rent for 7 years, or £2,000 on a 21 years' lease. Mr. Eushworth proved — That the bate able value was £1,600. That he had never heard of large properties of this sort being let. The Court were of opinion that the Overseers did not overvalue the property, and reinstated their assessment of £2,000 gross and £1,667 RATEABLE VALUE. They gave to the Appellants, the Overseers, their costs. No. 45. — ^Metropolitah Board op Wobks v. St. George, Hanover Square. Mr. Philbrick and Mr. Biron were Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. Poland and Mr. Castle for the Eespondents. The hereditament was the Western Pumping Station at PimUco. The assessment appealed against was £5,495. 163 The sum at which the Appellants desired to be lated was ^540, The property comprised an area of land about 4 acres in extent, engine house, engines and pumps for lifting sewage, an engineer's residence, and some cottages for workmen. For the Appellants it was contended that the 3)umps are only useful for purposes which are not rateable, and that they are only rateable in respect of such beneficial use as could be made of them for some other purpose. The Board was not to be regarded as a hypothetical tenant because ihey made no profit out of the occupation of this Pumping Station. The Respondents contended for a different principle. They assumed the Board as in the market looking out for such premises, for which they must have paid a rent, if they had not become the owners. Mr. F. J. BramweU, C.E., F.R.S., proved— That the four principal engines were absolutely unfitted for any other purpose. That the auxiliary engine in a separate house, and the boilers of the principal engines, with a little modification, might be used for some other purpose. That the auxiliary engine might have cost £2,000, and each boiler £400. Two Boilers, at per annum £60 Auxiliary Engine, at per annum 150 £200 164 Mr. Robert Vigers valued the property as Tinder : — 8|f Acres of Land not occupied £700 Large Engine-house, at £2 per square 108 Boiler-house, £1 per square 39 Superintendent's House 60 Auxiliary Engine-house and Boiler-house 40 Workshop^ £3 per squaie 32 Stores, £2 per square 23 Four Workmen's Cottages 2& Settling Pond 50 Machinery 190 £1,262 There is a tramway, in a subway, from the works to the river, used only for the purposes of landing coals for the pumping station. On behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Poland con- tended that the premises were to be rated as a store for the machinery which they contained, with an access to the river. Mr. Castle valued the property as under : — Four Engines, at £3 per horse-power £1 ,080 Auxiliary Engine, 130-horse-power, at 30s 180 Two Boilers , 50 Land 720 Buildings 626 Wharf and Subway 200^ Superintendent's House 60 Four Cottages loa Chimney Shaft 20 Settling Pond 100 Eateable Value £3,126 Insurance and Bepairs 625 Gross Value £3,751 165 Mr. William Cross, Surveyor to the Duke of ^Bedford, valued as follows : — 3a. 3b. 8p. of Land, at £180 £719 Buildings (S per cent on estimated cost) ,.... 913 Wharfage (including £30 for Tramways and Turntables) 200 Chimney Shaft 30 Settling Pond 100 Dwelling Houses 160 Engines 960 Waterway 8 Eateable Value £3,090 Bepairs 618 Gross Vain* £3,708 The Court placed the property in Class 6, and xeduced the valuation from £5,494 to £1,576 geoss VALUE, and from £4,395 to £1,420 rateable value, and gave Appellants their costs. ^0. 55. — London and North Western Eailway Company v. St. Leonard, Shoeeditch. Mr. Staveley Hill was for the Appellants, and -the Hon. Alfred Thesiger and Mr. Castle for the Bespondents. The hereditaments were a portion of the high- level station in Broad Street, in the City of London; the goods sidings on the same level; a portion of the goods station on the low level, l)eneath the passenger station and beneath the 166 goods sidings, and connected therewith by means of hydraulic lifts. The passenger station stands on a sub-struc- ture of brick arches ; it is covered with an iron roof, partly slated and partly glazed, supported by outside walls and internal iron columns. It ia fitted with stone platforms. The Appellants assumed that aU the lines of railway, as such, ceased at the boundary of this Parish, and aU the lines within the Parish were sidings in the station, the Parish boundary being at the end of the station. The goods station on the lower level com- prised portions of eleven arches under the passenger station, fitted with raised platforms, and used as loading and unloading sheds : portions, of two arches next to Sun Street, used as stables : portions of two arches occupied as ale stores and small stable : part of two arches used as a stable : parts of three arches used for engines, boilers, &c. : the covered goods shed situated beneath the goods sidings on the upper level : the open goods yard : two-storey brick and slated offices, &c., &c. The Appellants contended that, as the passenger and goods stations in this assessment could only be approached and worked together by means of hydraulic lifts or hoists at great expense, they did not possess so great a rateable value as though they were situated side by side on the low 167 level, notwithstanding that their structural cost was much greater as they are than it would have been had they been placed on the same level. The Kespondents, on the other hand, con- tended that they were entitled to charge interest on the total money expended on the buildings and land. Mr. Staveley Hill, for the Appellants, stated that the matter was brought before the Middlesex Sessions ia 1871, was heard for two days, and that afterwards the Magistrates, including Mr. Edlin's predecessor, Sir Wm. Bodkin, went to view. The result of that appeal was to fix the rate- able VALUE at £5,500, and since that time the only addition which had been made to the station was a small office. Mr. Eyde valued the station as foUows : — Gross. Rateable. Passenger Station JE2,478 £1,705 Goods Station 4,317 3,577 JE6,695 ^£5,382 He was engaged on the appeal in 1870, and made a valuation then. Mr. Edward Norton Clifton's valuation of the station practically confirmed that of Mr. Ryde. Mr. Thesiger, for the Respondents, contended that structural cost, though not necessarily a measure of bateable value, should nevertheless be borne in mind, and that although a station of two floors increased the cost of' construction, it 168 saved purchase of land. He urged that, if a Station had existed in that situation before the Company built this one, the owner of it would have had no difficulty in letting it to the London and North Western or the Midland Kailway Company at a rental equivalent to remunerative interest upon its cost. Mr. Edwin Fox proved that the value of the site was as follows : — 77,200 feet on Eldon Street at Is. 9d £6,755 77,200 feet on Sun Street at Is. 3d 4,826 50,498 feet on Sun Street, Skinner Street, and Long Alley, at Is 2,524 Jei4,104 Mr. Henry James Castle proved the following valuation : — Block in Liverpool Street — £ Land 156,600 feet super at Is. 6rf 11,745 Buildings, ^6107,875 at 5 per cent 5,393 Sun Street and Skinner Street — Land, 40,560 feet super at Is 2,028 Buildings, £21,299 at 5 per cent 1,064 High Level — Land, charged as ahove Buildings, £24,000 at 5 per cent 1,200 £21,430 Add for additions since 1870 250 £21,680 The Court reduced the assessment to £12,480 GROSS, and £9,984 rateable value, and gave the Appellants costs. 169 No. 73. — The North London Railway Company V. Parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch. Mr. Meadows White appeared for the Appel- . lants, the Hon. Alfred Thesiger for the Respon- dents. The following were the items on the Valuation List appealed against, viz. : — Haggerston Station Line of Eailway 35,000 Land, Station, Buildings, and Appurtenances Shoreditch Station GroBB Rental. Kate of Deduction per cent. BatesUe Value. £ 458 S5f 340 ,000 8-9 33,000 63 14-3 53 720 14 618 £36,340 £38,011 Mr. Edward Ryde had valued the property as follows, viz. : — OSOIS. BlTIiBLB. The Railway at £16,188 £13,816 Haggerston Station... 336 880 Shoreditch Station ... 356 300 The following was Mr. Ryde's valuation of the line of Railway : — & £ Gross Eeceipts — For the year ending Slst December, 1874 63,134 Working Expenses — Locomotive— 197,653 Miles at 13-89i. 11,489 Carriage and Waggon — 197,663 Miles at U 2,471 Carried forward £13,910 £68,134 170 £ £ Brought forward ... 13,910 62,134 Miscellaneous — 20 per cent, on ^669,134 13,497 Government Duty — 3f per cent, on des,8061 3,177 Bates and Taxes — 5s. in the £ on an Assessment of £13,816 3,4S4 31,968 Net Beceipts due to Line and Stations 30,166 Bateable Value of Stations — 5 per cent, on £63,134 3,106 Net Beceipts due to Line of Eailway 97,060 Occupier's Share — Interest 5 per cent, on £69,134 3,106 Trade Profit 10 „ „ 6,918 Bisks and Casualties 3^ „ „ 1,553 10,872 Crross Estimated Bental of Line 16,188 Deductions — Maintenance and Be- newal of Way ... 197,653 x £-012 9,372 Bateable Value of Line £13,816 The receipts were proved by Mr. Tiniins, the Chief Audit Clerk; the locomotive expenses by- Mr. Parks, the Superintendent, who also proved the value of the rolling stock. Mr. Bonny proved the following valuation : — SboIB. RlTIiBLE. Shoreditch Station £500 £417 Haggerston 400 336 Line of Bailway 14,861 171 Mr. Charles Stephenson valued — Shoreditch Station at £355 JE296 Haggerston , 336 280 and agreed with Mr. Ryde on the valuation of the line. Ultimately the assessment upon the Eailway was reduced by consent — The GBOsa value from £35,000 to £19,900. The EATEABi^ „ £32,000 to £16,000. Each party were to pay their own costs — the Appellants undertaking to raise no objection to the new Great Northern Alexandra Park traffic, just commenced, being put into a Supplemental Valuation List. No. 80. — GrAS Products Utilization Company V. The Parish of Bromley St. Leonard. Mr. Meadows White was Counsel for the Appel- lants, Mr. Atkinson for the Respondents. The rateable hereditament is a manufactory situated on the banks of the Limehouse Cut. The property had been assessed at £1,346 gross and £897 rateable. The Assessment Committee employed Mr. Horsey and Mr. Wilson to assist them in the valuation. The estimate of these gentlemen was £1,209 GROSS value and £841 net. The Assessment Committee were disappointed at this valuation, and made no use of it, but 172 put the property at the former assessment, viz., £1,346 GROSS and £897 rateable. On the 13th January, 1876, the Overseers gave notice that they would object to the assessment as fixed by the Assessment Committee, whereupon the Assessment Committee altered the Valuation List to £1,941 GROSS value and £1,294 rateable VALUE. Mr. Thomas Horsey was called by the Appel- lants. He proved that the hereditaments are chemical works. That he had valued the property for assessment three times. That in conjunction with Mr. Wilson he valued it at £1,364 gross and £910 rateable value. He considered the property as coming under Class 8. He admitted that he advised the Assessment Committee that the gross value was £1,209 and the rateable £841 J but that valuation had been made by his son, and he had since revised it. There were 18 acid chambers, the whole of which he had valued. If the five which were not used were pulled down it would reduce his valua- tion to £1,284 GROSS and £856 rateable. The 320 feet of water frontage he put at lQ.s. a foot. He should have put this frontage at 20s. a foot had there not been more frontage than was necessary. Mr. Wilson concurred with Mr. Horsey. Mr. Vigers valued the property at £1,328 GROSS, £886 rateable. 173 The buildings were old. He valued the Water Line of Frontage only at ;£80 And a acres of Land at 100 £180 Mr. Barnard valued the property at £1,338 GROSS and £892 rateable ; but reduced it to £1,222 GROSS and £814 rateable on account of the five acid chambers not in working order. On behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Morris valued the property as under : — 300 feet of Water Frontage at 15s. ... JE225 Land in the rear, about 3 acres ... ... 75 Total Land JB300 Buildings 534 Total Land and Buildings without Plant £834 gross. £606 EATEABLE. He accepted the Appellants' valuation of £890 for the plant. Mr. Harston valued the property for the Over- seers at £909 GROSS and £606 rateable without the plant. The decision of the Court was that the valua- tion should be reduced from £1,941 gross to £1,284, and from £1,294 rateable to £856 : the Appellants to have their costs. The Court expressed an opinion that the Eespondents' case did not furnish sufficient information, and one of the Magistrates said it was an impertinence to the Court. 174 No. 88. — PONTIPEX AND WoOD V. AlL SaINTS, POPLAE. In this case, Mr. Edward Clarke appeared for the Appellants ; the Hon. Alfred Thesiger, Mr. Atkinson, and Mr. Harrison for the Assessment Committee ; Mr. Holl for the Overseers. It was unsuccessfully contended that Mr. Holl had no right to appear. The property had heen originally assessed in 1870 at £1,053 eateable value. The Overseers had made a new valuation amounting to £3,093 gross and £2,062 rateable value. The Assessment Committee had valued it at £2,804 GROSS and £1,869 rateable value. Messrs. Horsey and Wilson (who were caUea in by the Committee after the Valuation List had been confirmed) valued the property at £2,166 GROSS and £1,444 rateable. 1 1 £ case resolved itself into three parts — ^viz., land, ouildings, and machinery — and ultimately it was agreed, subject to a case as regards the machinery, that the valuation should be reduced from £2,804 gross to £2,311, and from £1,869 rateable to £1,541. The gross value of the machinery in dispute, and which was included in the £2,311, was £511. The question of costs having been left to the 175 CouKT, the Respondents were ordered to pay them. No. 97. — Hodge & Sons v. Axl Saints, Poplar. The assessment appealed against was £617 gross and £412 rateable value. The Appellants claimed to be rated at £480 GROSS and £320 rateable. In the GROSS value the Appellants included £137 for machinery and fixed plant, and in the rateable value £92. The Eespondents included in their gross value a sum of £209 for machinery. The assessment was confirmed, subject, to a case as regards the machinery, but in no event was the assessment upon the machinery to be lower than the Appellants' own valuation of £137. Costs to abide the event. No. 93.— Samuel Cutler & Sons v. All Saints, Poplar. In this case a gross value of £570, including £130 for machinery, with a rateable value of £380, was confirmed by consent, subject to a case as to the machinery. 176 No. 89. — Ingall & Phillips v. All Saints, Poplar. In this case the rateable hereditament con- prised a wharf, called Mellish's Wharf, buildings, and sheds on the river side, used for the storing of oil and turpentine. The assessment was £550 gross value, the property was put in Class 5, and a deduction of one-sixth therefrom made the ratkable value £460. Mr. Edward Clarke for the Appellants claimed a deduction of one-third, the buildings being very old and requiring heavy repairs, and the insurance being charged at the rate of one guinea per cent. The Hon. Alfred Thesiger for the Eespondents contended that there was nothing to take the property out of Class 5, and that no evidence as to the actual amount of insurance and repairs was admissible. The Court decided against the latter objection, and it was proved that the insurance amounted to £96 per annum and the repairs to £100. In the course of the case the lease was pro- duced, and as it appeared, from the rent reserved, that the gross value not objected to by the Appellants was much too low, the Court dismissed the appeal with the following order as to costs, viz. : — 177 If the case were taken to the Court above, and a decision obtained in favour of the Assessment Committee, they were to have their costs ; if in favour of the Appellants, each party were to pay their own costs of this hearing. The case was taken to the Court above upon an objection which had been overruled by the Assessment Sessions, and the judgment upon it is an important one. The case set forth the following particulars : — 1. The Valuation List was not deposited by the Overseers until the 27th September, 1875, instead of the 1st June, as it should have been. 2. The List was transmitted to the Assessment Committee on the 18th October. 3. The Assessment Committee did not hold a Meeting to hear the Appellants' objections until the 7th December. They then reduced the valu- ation from £666 gross value to £550, and from £556 RATEABLE to £460. 4. The Assessment Committee approved the Valuation List as altered by them upon the 4th January, 1876, and sent the List to be re-deposited on the 7th January, 1876. 5. The List was finally approved by the Com- mittee on the 21st January, 1876, 6. The Appellants duly gave notice of Appeal on the 14th January, 1876. The question for the opinion of the Court was, ■whether the Valuation List was null and void by 178 reason of its not having been made and deposited, and finally approved and signed within the times hmited by the Valuation (Metropohs) Act, 1869. Mr. Edward Clarke, instructed by Messrs. J. & M. Pontifex, argued the case for the Appellants, Mr. H. Tindal Atkinson and Mr. W. EngUsh Harrison, instructed by Messrs. Baker & Naime, for the Eespondents. Mr. Justice Mellor, in dehveriag judgment, said that his mind had fluctuated a great deal in the course of the argument, but he felt bound to hold that the sections of the Act were directory and not imperative. No doubt a Valuation List ought to have been mad^ and deposited, and approved at the times fixed by the 42nd Section of the Act, but it would be going extreme lengths to hold that the List which was finally approved upon the 21st January, 1876, was incapable of coming into . effect. The decision of the Assess- ment Sessions was right, and must be affirmed. Mr. Justice Lush said that he was of the same opinion : — "Every matter connected with the Valua- " tion List must be transacted before 31st March, " for the List comes into force upon the 6th April. " It is, therefore, very important that every step " should be taken withia the prescribed time, but " as provision is made in the Act for preparing " Valuation Lists where there has been an omission " to make them according to the requirements of " the Act, it shows that the Legislature contem- *i 179 *' plated the possibility of a List not being pre- " pared in due time. In construing tbe Act, we *' must strike a balance between the inconvenience *' of holding the List to be null and void, and the " risk of allowing injury to be done by the delay in making the List ; the former seems to me to ^' be the greater evil, and, therefore, in my opinion, " we ought to hold the List to be valid. If no ^' means of redress were allowed to a person who *' is, by reason of delay, wholly deprived of the "right of Appeal, that would, no doubt, be a ■•' hardship, and amount to a defect in the Act; *' but, in a case of this kind, a remedy by action *' probably exists for the benefit of a person *' injured because there has been a failure to *' perform a pubHc duty. But, however that may *' be, I think that the decision of the Assessment *' Sessions was right, and must be affirmed." No. 92. — Messrs. Caeteb & Co. v. All Saints, POPLAB. Mr. Edward Clarke was Counsel for the Ap- pellants, and Mr. HoU for the Eespondents. The Assessment appealed against was £1,125 GEOSS, £750 RATEABLE. The Appellants claimed to be rated at £735 GROSS, £490 RATEABLE. Mr. Thomas Horsey, who had been employed 180 by the Assessment Committee, had valued the property as under, viz. : — An old Dry Dock, 343 feet long, at £3 per foot £686 Small Buildings 60 Fixtures of the value of JE160 11 Gross Value 757 Deductions under Class 5, |tli 126 Bateable Value £631 The width of the dock was 47 feet — the area^ of land 1^ acre. Mr. William Eve said the property was a dry dock, intersected by a public footpath, which cut the property into two halves: he valued it as- follows : — 171 feet Frontage, at 10s £85 7,000 yards of Land, at 4 penses. Mr. William Adams, Locomotive Superinten- dent of the London and South Western Kailway, gave similar evidence. Mr. Eichard Price WiUiams also gave evidence that, in his opinion, based on a very elaborate calculation, the charges per train-mile allowed by Mr. Ryde were in every instance very low. Mr. John Henry Skelton, Assistant Accountant, Mr. Abiezer Rowe, Eating Clerk, Mr. Thomas Nesbit, Accountant in the Locomotive and Carriage Department, Mr. William Howy, Locomotive Li- spector at Ashford, gave formal proof of the figures on behah" of the Appellants, and Mr. A. L. Eyde proved the calculations on the new basis after the discovery of thfe mistake above referred to. For the Respondents, Mr. Melntyre protested against the manner in which the Appellants had concealed information necessary for rating their property, and asked the Court to look with sus- picion on aU figures furnished by the Appellants' books, which had already been proved to be wrong in one important instance. With regard to the additional cost for Maintenance and Eenewal of Way caused by the tunnel, he submitted that the true principle was to spread over the whole system all charges connected with the structure of the 301 tunnel itself, but to allot to the particular Parish the charge of maiutaining the lines ■which ran through the tunnel ; he asked the Ooubt to grant him a Case for the decision of the Queen's Bench Division if they should be against him on this point, which, apparently, the Court were inclined to do, but in the event the question was not con- tested. Mr. WilUam Marshall was called by the Ee- spondents. He divided the 86,611 train-miles run in the Parish into their copiponent parts (Mr. Kyde having taken goods and passenger traffic to- gether). He estimated the Locomotive Expenses for the 81,036 passenger train-miles at 9^d., and for the 5,575 goods train-miles at Is., making a total of £3,487. He separated the Carriage Ex- penses from the Wagon Expenses, taking the former at 2'35d. per passenger train-mile and the latter at S'QAd. per goods train-mile. All the above were taken at the average over the whole system. The Bates and Taxes he took at 5s. Id., being the rate for the year 1880. The allowance in respect of stations was now taken by him at 5 per cent., though in advising the Eespondents in drawing up their Case he had allowed 6 per cent. ; and, instead of the sum of £1,833 for Maintenance and Renewal of Way, he now adopted the figures of the Respondents' other witnesses. 302 The result of his evidence appears thus : — Gross Receipts £24,647 WoBKiNG Expenses — Locomotive Expenses (Passenger)... £3,S08 (Goods) ... S79 Carriage Expenses 793 Wagon Expenses 91 Miscellaneous 4,744 Government Duty 716 Rates and Taxes (at 5s. Id.) 1,703 11,534 JE13,lia Gross Estimated Rental of Stations 1,232 £11,881 Occupiers' Share 4,313 Gross Value of Line £7,568 Maintenance and Renewal of Way ... 1,46 & Eateable Value of Line £6,102 He arrived at the value of the three stations in the Parish by taking 5 per cent, on the struc- tural value, together with a ground-rent, as the RATEABLE VALUE, and adding ^ of that sum to find the GBOss VALUE. His figures were — Geoss. Rateable. Greenwich £490 £392 Maze Hill 329 263 Westcombe Park .... 200 160 Mr. James Grant Fraser was called to prove 303 the charge of £1,466 for Maintenance and Renewal of Way. The train-mileage he considered to be no criterion, so far as labour was concerned, the expenses of which were higher in proportion where the train-mileage was low, and lower where the train-mileage was high. He arrived at his esti- mate for labour by walking over the line, seeing the gangs, counting them, and inquiring the wages, the number of men in the gang, and the length of line allotted to them. He estimated the life of the steel rails at 15 years. The expense of repairing the structure of the tunnel, as distinct from the lines running through it, was spread over the whole system. With regard to the stations, he had accepted Mr. Marshall's figures for the ground-rents, and, adopting the same prin- ciple for arriving at the rateable value, his totals were in each case practically identical. Mr. James Edward MacConnell confirmed Mr. Marshall's figures as to the Working Expenses of the Eailway and Mr. Eraser's figures for the Main- tenance and Eenewal of Way, and Mr. Thomas Dinwiddy gave confirmatory evidence as to the estimated ground-rents of the land occupied by the Stations. In delivering judgment, the Court said they adopted the charge of lO^d. per train-mile for Locomotive Expenses, B^d. per train -mile for Car- riage and Wagon Expenses, and 6d. per train- 304 mile for Maintenance and Eenewal of Way. They considered that Kates and Taxes should be calcu- lated at 5s. 7d., and not at 6s. 3d., but otherwise the Appellants' figures were unaltered— the result being a gross value of J67,258 and a rateable VALUE of j65,093. No alteration was made in the assessment of the Greenwich or the Westcombe Park Station, but the gross value of Maze TTill Station was reduced to ^212 and the rateable value to J159. The Court directed that both parties should bear their own costs. The Overseers op St. Alphage, Greenwich, v. The South Eastern Railway. (March 25th, 1881.) ' This appeal related to the same hne and stations as the previous case, and was governed by the decision therein. Mr. Grain, for the Appellants, asked that his clients might not be visited with more than nominal costs, and as Mr. Edward Clarke, who appeared for the Company, did not oppose, the Court dismissed the appeal, with costs to the Eespondents, not to exceed £50. 305 The South Metropolitan Gas Company v. The Assessment Committee of the St. Olave's Union. {March 9th, 1881.) Mr. E. E. Webster, Q.C., and Mr. H. D. Greene appeared for the Appellants, and Mr. Poland and Mr. E. Vaughan WiUiams for the Eespondents. This appeal related to that part of the Appel- lants' property which was situated in the Parish of Bermondsey, and consisted entirely of produc- tive works, rated at j68,200 geoss and £7,400 BATE ABLE. As the hearing proceeded, it became apparent from the cross-examination of Mr. Edward Eyde, the first witness, that the Appel- lants had adopted the receipts and expenses of the year 1879, and the Eespondents desired to use those of 1880, as the basis of their respective calculations. The Court, considering that the amalgamation of Companies (explained below) rendered the expenses of 1879 no true test of the expenditure in the future (although the decision of the Assessment Committee now under revision had necessarily been based on those figures), ordered an adjournment, and directed that the Appellants should restate their case on the figures relating to 1880. 306 The hearing was resumed on March 25th, when it appeared that previously to the year 187^ there had been three Companies, viz., the South Metropohtan, the Surrey Consumers', and the Phoenix G-as Company ; that the two former had been amalgamated as from July 1st, 1879, and that the latter had been amalgamated with the other two, as from July 1st, 1880 ; the South Metropohtan Gas Company giving their name throughout to the joint undertaking. The Surrey Consumers' Company had charged previously to the amalgamation 3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet of gas, and the Phoenix Company 3s. 4d. per 1,000 feet ; but, upon amalgamation, the price charged to the customers of the several Companies was reduced to 3s. per 1,000 feet, which had been the charge previously made by the South Metropolitan Gas Company. A further reduction from 3s. to 2s. lOd. was afterwards made by the joint Com- pany, taking effect from January 1st, 1881. Mr. Edward Kyde, for the Appellants, made the following valuation : — Gross Keoeipts — From Private Consumers and Public Lamps . £509,381 Meter Eents ., 11,411 £520,792 Less Bad Debts 3,843 Carried forward £616,949 307 Brought forward £516,949 Working Expenses — Coals £259,130 Limefor Purifieation 10,387 £269,417 Less Eesidual Products — Coke and Breeze, Tar and Ammonia ... 177,420 Net Cost of Coal and Lime £91,997 Wages 56,048 Salaries 30,079 Collectors' Commissions 9,086 Office and Licideutal Expenses 4,791 Law Charges 2,987 Directors' Fees 3,700 Auditors' Fees 592 Eepairing, Eenewing, Inspecting, and Testing Meters 9,609 Lighting, Cleaning, and Eenewing Public Lamps 11,076 Eates and Taxes (4s. in the £, on anAssessment of £98,350) ... 19,670 239,635 Net Eeceipts £277,314 Occupiers' Share — Literest, 5 per cent, on Tenants' Capital, £375,000 18,750 Trade Profits, 10 per cent 37,500 Eisks and Casualties, 2|- per cent. 9,375 65,625 Gross Value £211,689 Statutbable Deductions — Eepairs and Eenewals, calculated according to the Average Cost of Eepairing and Eenewing all the London Works, per 1,000 feet of Gas sold (3,546,132, at T-id.) 109,339 Insurance, i per cent, on £800,000 4,000 113,339 Eateable Value of Whole Property £98,350 308 Estimated Eateable Value of Unproductive Part (6 per cent, on Structural Value, £976,320) £48,816 Eateable Value of Productive Part (equal to about 9J per cent on £530,792) £49,534 £98,350 Eateable Value of Productive Part in Parish of Bermondsey £3,280 The Gross Keceipts ^6509,381, were arrived at by making a deduction of ~ from such of the actual receipts as were derived from gas sold at .3s. 4d. per 1,000 feet, to correspond with the re- duction from 3s, M. to 2s. lOd., the price charged in 1881 ; and by making a deduction of i from such of the actual receipts as were derived from gas sold at 3s., for a like reason. Mr. Eyde supported this deduction on the ground that iu a district which is filled up, further consumption for general purposes is practically impossible ; that if the Net Eeceipts were to be maiutained at their ibrmer figure, the working expenses, to earn the same sum, while charging a lower price, must be materially increased ; and that he had not claimed to deduct any larger sum for working expenses, as he was entitled to do if the same Gross Keceipts were to be earned. The position was strongly contested by Mr, E. Vaughan Williams ia cross- examination, who contended (as he was bound to do) that the Net Eeceipts would be kept at their present figure ; but neither the witness, the coimsel, nor the members of the Court seem to 309 have realised that, if the bateable value of the hereditament was to be maintained, this was not enough, inasmuch as, to produce a larger quantity of gas, a greater Tenant's Capital would be neces- sary, so that with the same Net Eeceipts, the RATEABLE VALUE would be less. The question was further compHcated by the fact that the Appellants were traders under statutory regulations, whereby they were compelled to lower their prices, if they wished to declare a dividend among the Share- holders beyond certain Hmits, so that a further reduction might take place if the profits were largely increased. The Court, however, refused to accept the principle that any reduction should be made from the actual Gross Eeceipts in conse- quence of the reduction in price. The next figure in Mr. Ryde's valuation that provoked much discussion was the sum put down as Tenant's Capital, which was arrived at as follows : — Coals ^6359,130 Lime 10,987 Wages 56,048 Salaries 30,079 Collectors' Commission 9,086 OflBceandlncidentalExpenses 4,791 Law 3,987 Meter Expenses 9,609 Public Lamps 11,076 Eates and Taxes, say 90,000 £413,093 ^^ = 179,192 Cash at Bankers, say 5,978 Coals (i of ^6359,130) 33,391 Sundry Stores, Tools, and Implements,. 30,000 Meters 134,609 £375,000 310 The above figures for coals, &c., were the actual sums expended per annum in respect of the several items, and Mr. Eyde considered that, inasmuch as the Appellants would have to carry on business for three months before making any charge, and would then not be able to coUect their money immediately, the hypothetical tenant must have at least ^ of the annual expenditure to start with, especially as in the winter months the pro- duction is very much greater than the average throughout the year, and he must have sufficient capital to meet the greatest demand made at any one time. It wiU be noticed that Mr. Ryde made no deduction from the cost of coal in respect of the sale of residual products, on the ground that, though the Appellants might sell for ready money in some cases, yet they must take time to manu- facture these products, and might not be able at once to turn them into money. The further charge for coals was made on the ground that a tenant ought always to have in stock at least f of his total annual consumption to guard against strikes of workmen, and especially against bad weather in the winter, which would at the same moment increase the consumption and diminish the supply. Mr. Ryde called attention to the anomaly of allotting only 5 per cent, on the estimated struc- tural value as the rateable value of the Unpro- ductive Part, whereby a sum equal to nearly 10 311 per cent, on structural value was left as the BATBABLE VALUE of the Productive Part. He made this division, however, in deference to the established practice. Mr. Alfred Penny, gas engineer, also gave evidence on behalf of the Appellants. He fol- lowed Mr. Eyde's valuation in many respects, adopting the principle of making a deduction from the actual Gross Receipts in respect of the re- duction in price. In consequence of some remarks made by the Couet, he reduced the sum charged for Directors' Fees from ^3,700 to £2,987, and he struck out Meter Eents and Eepairs, &c., from either side of the account. His figures may be briefly summarised as follows : — Gkoss Eecbipts £509,381 Working Expenses and Bad Debts ... 336,384 Net Eecetpts ^6383,997 Occupieb's Shabe — 17J per cent, on £400,000, Tenant's Capital 70,000 Gross Value £213,997 Eepairs, Eenewal, and Insurance 113,339 Eateable Value of Wiole Property £100,658 Eatbable Value of Unproductive Part (5 per cent, on Structural Value, £976,330) .' £48,816 Eateable Value of Productive Part (equal to 10*19 per cent, on £506,381) 51,842 Rateable Valde of Productive Part in Parisli of Bermondsey 3,519 This Witness said that, in estimating the 312 necessary Tenant's Capital, any consideration of the average monthly expenditure was misleading, and that ^ of the annual expenditure was not reaUy sufficient, because nearly as much gas was manufactured in three winter months alone as in the other nine months of the year. This Witness also proved a structural valuation of the whole of the Appellants' property at £976,320, and Mr. Corbet Woodall, M.I.C.E., concurred in this esti- mate ; but, before his evidence had been fuUy taken, a settlement was arrived at, the bateable VALUE of the Appellants' property in the Parish bemg reduced from ^67,400 to £5,800. Neither party asked for costs. Ex parte The London Gaslight Company. (June 22nd, 1881.) Mr. Besley stated that his clients, the London Gashght Company, had received notice of an in- creased valuation of £150 bateable, in respect of property in the Westminster Union ; but that ia the List, when redeposited, the property was assessed at £250 bateable, of which the Company had no notice until they received a demand-note from the Collector. He referred to the cases of Tidmarsh, Lampleugh, and Cheffins v. The Assess- ment Committee of the City of London (supra p. 32J,. and asked leave to insert a motion in the List, which was granted. 313 The Duee op Bedford v. The Overseers of St. Paul's, Covent Garden. (March 15th, 1881.) Mr. Grantham, Q.C., and Mr. Goldney appeared for the Appellant, and Mr. HoU, Q.C., and Mr. E. J. Castle for the Kespondents. This appeal raised the question of the rate- ability of the sums received by the Duke of Bed- ford under the name of "tolls" in respect of Covent Garden Market. The facts and the ques- tions of law appear most clearly from the Case, which was ultimately stated by this Court for the opinion of the Qmen's Bench Division; the first twelve paragraphs being as follows : — "1. The Appellant is the owner of the freehold of Covent Garden Market, and also of the streets that give access to it, viz., King Street, James Street, Kussell Street, Tavistock Street, South- ampton Street, and Henrietta Street. 2. The right to hold a market in Covent Garden for the buying and selling of fruit, flowers, roots, and herbs, was granted under Letters Patent in the year 1661 by His late Majesty King Charles II. to William, Earl of Bedford, the predecessor in title of the Appellant, and an Act was passed in 1818 (53 Geo. III. c. Ixxi) for further regulating Covent Garden Market, and another Act in 1828 314 (9 Geo. IV. c, cxiii) for the improvement and regu- lation of the said market. By such Charter and the said Acts of ParHament, the right to take and receive various tolls, as therein specified, was granted to the predecessors of the Appellant. 3. From the date of such Letters Patent down to the present time, the Appellant and his prede- cessors in title, or their lessees, have held such market, and received the market tolls, as in such Charter and Acts are specified. 4. Up to the time of the passing of the Act 53 Geo. III. c. Ixxi, the toll on produce brought into the market had been payable by the purchaser, but, in consequence of its inconvenience, this practice was abolished by the 5th section of the said Act, and the tolls were then made payable by the seller, as in such section mentioned. 5. Although the market is open and business transacted in it upon every day in the week except Sunday, the principal market days are Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Upon the mornings, however, of most week-days the entire space up to the edges of the foot pavements in front of the houses that surround the market, is filled by carts and wagons bringing produce to the market, and the streets leading to the market are also occupied by them. 6. The area of the market is defined by the Letters Patent, and extends to the fronts of the houses and buildings on each side, including the 315 foot pavement and roadways. For the purpose of defining tlie portions of the roadways to be respectively repaired by the Appellant and the Parish authorities, a line or course of pitching stones is laid in the carriage way about 20 feet from the footway. This line or course is known as the Outer Denter Stone, and the space between it and the pavement is kept in repair by the Parish authorities, whUe the Appellant repairs the road- way upon the inner side of the said Outer Denter Stone. This arrangement was made between the Duke and the Parish authorities in consequence of the user by the public of the whole of the said roadway round the market for general traffic, when not occupied by market wagons or carts, although on every morning and on market days the whole of the roadway is used for the purposes of the market. 7. Previously to the passing of the said Act of Geo. IV. the market was conducted in the open air. The present buildings were erected, and the original open area broken up under the provisions of that Act, and in accordance with the plan annexed to it, and for the reasons therein men- tioned. 8. Immediately after the passing of the said Act the present buildings were erected in sub- stantially the same manner as they exist at pre- sent. The roof, however, over the long market was not erected until 1875. The central avenue 316 is mainly devoted to shops, which are used for the purpose of exposing fruit, flowers, and vegetables, and selling them by retail. Besides the shops, there are other rooms or buildin'gs used principally as counting-houses by the salesmen hereinafter referred to, and there are cellars which are occupied as store-rooms. 9. All the shops, counting-houses, buildings, cellars, and houses in the market are let on weekly tenancies, the Appellant keeping all the buildings in repair, and paying all rates, taxes, and out- goings, and the Appellant admits his liability to be rated for all such rents so received, after de- ducting necessary expenses and outgoings. 10. It was agreed between the Eespondents and the Appellant that the year 1879 afforded a fair criterion of the receipts and expenditure in the market, and that the rate should be assessed on such sums as the Couet should determine to be rateable on the basis of the receipts and expendi- ture of that year. 11. In the year 1879 the Appellant received from the market for rents and tolls together the sum of £17,805, against which the expenses of the market for the sanie period amounted to £8,346. 12. Out of the sum of £17,805, £8,747 was for rent, and the balance of J69,058 was for market tolls, in respect of which the Appellant claimed that he was not hable to be rated. He also alleged that £8,500 out of the sum of £8,346 expended in 317 the market, in the last paragraph, mentioned, was attributable to the rent, and the balance of £4,846 to the market tolls, and that such sum of £3,500 should be deducted from the sum of ^8,747 re- ceived from rents to arrive at a sum on which he was liable to be rated." The sections of the Statute (9 Geo. IV. c. cxiii), so far as they are material, are as follows : — Sec. 7. " Those parts [of the market] mafked *' in the plan with the letter B shall be divided ■" into Stands, which Stands shall be called ' The " Casual Cart Stands,' and shall be exclu- ■" sively appropriated to the reception of wagons *' and carts in which fruit, flowers, &c., shall be *' brought to the said market for sale, and for the *' exposing to sale and selling such fruit, flowers, *' &c., on the Stand to which the same shall be *' brought, subject to such tolls or sums of money *' as are in the Schedule to this Act in that behalf " mentioned; and the growers of fruit, flowers, " &c., shaU be deemed to be the persons having *' the preferable right to resort to such Stands *' under the provisions of this Act. " Those parts of the said market which are " marked in the said plan with the letter shall be " divided into Stands, which Stands shall be called *' 'The Yearly Cart Stands,' and shall be ex- " clusively appropriated to the reception of wagons " and carts of or belonging to growers of fruit, *' flowers, &c., and to the exposing to sale and 318 " selling the fruit, flowers, &c., grown or reared by " sucli growers, and be let by the said Duke, his " heirs, &c., by the year, or for any shorter period, " at such yearly or other rents and subject to such *' toUs or sums of money as are in the Schedule " to this Act in that behaK mentioned ; and the " person to whom any such Stand shall be let " shall be deemed to be the holder thereof, " and the person having the preferable right to " resort thereto under the provisions of this " Act." Section 7 also contained similar provisions for the appropriation of specific parts of the market for " Potato Stands," " The Fruit Market," " The Yearly Pitching Stands," " The Flower Stands," Footpaths, and Gangways. Section 21, after directing the levy of aU such tolls, as were then customary, until the alteration of the market as authorised by the Act, empowers the Duke, his heirs, &c., after the alteration has taken place, " to demand and take of and " from every person who shall hold, use, or occupy " any Stand the rent or sum of money mentioned " or specified with respect to such Stand in the " Schedule to this Act, and of and from every " peegon who shall place, pitch, expose for sale, " or sell within the said market any fruit, flowers, " vegetables, roots, or herbs on each and every " day on which the same shall be so placed, " pitched, exposed for sale, or sold, the toUs or 319 " sums of money mentioned or specified in the " said Schedule." The Schedule is entitled " A Schedule of the " Rents, Tolls, and Sums of Money to be payable " and paid in the several parts of Covent Garden " Market hereinafter mentioned." The material parts of the Schedule are as follows : — " In the Stands to be called ' The Casual Cart " Stands ' — For every wagon containing carrots, " whether such wagon shall be brought or placed " on any of such Stands or the contents thereof " shall be placed, pitched, or exposed for sale or " sold on any of such Stands, a toU of one shil- " ling and sixpence." " For each Stand on which any person shall " place, pitch, expose for sale, or sell any fruit, " flowers, &c., such person not being the actual " grower thereof, nor the person by, for, or to " whom the same shall be brought by wagon or " cart to the said market, a rent or sum of one " shilling per day." After provisions for the payment of rent for "The Yearly Cart Stands" and of "The Potato Stands," the Schedule continued as follows : — " In the parts of the market to be called • The " Fruit Market ' — For cherries, a toll of on©»half- " penny per sieve, and so on in proportion for any " greater or less quantity." Then followed provisions for tolls on other kinds of fruit, and for rent to be paid for the use 820 of Stands. It should be noticed that no such words as " placed, pitched, exposed for sale, or sold " in the Fruit Marhet " follow the description of the fruit on which the toll is payable, and it was suggested in argument that, in spite of the heading prefixed to this part of the Schedule, the omission of such words might be material. In the Court of General Assessment Ses- sions, Mr. HoU, on behalf of the Kespondents, admitted that, in order to render toUs rateable, there must be an occupation and user of the soil of the market; and argued that, inasmuch as the Statute 9 Geo. IV. c. cxiii, appropriated particular parts of the market to particular purposes, there was such an occupation and user of the soil in this particular case. The fact that the Statute used the word "rent" in respect of those sums which the Appellant admitted to be rateable, while the other payments were called " toUs," was, he con- tended, of no importance, and the payment of toU was merely payment of rent in another form. He ■urged that there was no difference between the occupation of the soil in the " Yearly Cart Stands," and in the " Casual Cart Stands "; that the aggre- gate amount of the payments made daily for each wagon that occupied a space in the " Casual Cart Stands " could not on any sound principle be dis- tinguished from the payment made yearly for the like occupation of a like space in the " Yearly Cart Stands," which latter sum was admittedly rateable. 321 He pointed out this further anomaly involved by the Appellant's contention, that, under the Schedule to the Act last cited, if a grower of produce brought it for sale in the " Casual Cart Stands," he paid a toll of Is. 6d. per wagon (which toll the Appellant contended was not rateable), whereas if any person other than the grower brought the Uke goods for sale, he paid a rent of Is. per diem for each wagon placed in the same " Casual Cart Stands," (which latter payment the Appellant admitted to be rate- able). With regard to the tolls payable in respect of fruit, Mr. Holl admitted that there might be some doubt, inasmuch as if the meaning of the Schedule to the Act was that the tolls were to be payable in respect of fruit placed on stalls in the " Fruit Market," which were appropriated and let to yearly tenants, then he would contend that the tolls were clearly rateable ; but if the Schedule directed a toll without reference to the placing of the fruit on particular stalls, he admitted that the rateabiUty of such a toll was questionable. In the course of his argument, he referred to the following cases : — Eeg. V. Caswell (L.E. 7 Q.B. 328), The Mayor of London v. St. Sepulchre's {II. p. 333), Rex v. Bell (5 M. & S. 221). He also cited Bex v. Bradford (4 M. & S. 317), generally known as the Canteen Case, and the Court ^referred to Eeg. v. North and South Shields Ferry Company (22 L.J. M.C. 9), sug- gesting that the Kespondents, in addition to their . 322 contention, that there was such an occupation or user of the soil as to render the tolls rateable, might also rely on the principle that the tolls ought not to be wholly excluded from considera- tion, and that the hereditament should be regarded as enhanced in value by reason of the right to tolls which was attached to it. For the Appellant, Mr. Grantham argued that nothing that was paid in the shape of toU under the Act was rateable ; that in the direction that certain tolls should be paid for every wagon or cart which should be admitted to the "Cart Stands," the word "wagon " or " cart" was not a measure of the space occupied, but a measure of capacity, a measure of the quantity of goods sold in the market, which by the necessities of increased trading had been substituted for the old " round," or basket, which the market-women had carried on their heads. Under the Charter of Charles II., the Duke had levied a toU on the smaller measure : under the Act he levied the same toll on the larger. The method of. calculation was altered, but not the character of the toll. Nor had the division of the market area made any change, save that, instead of one market, there were now several, dedicated to the sale of the several kinds of produce. A particular piece of land must be assigned to a par- ticular person, who must have an occupation which excludes other persons, in order that the payment which he makes may be the subject of rating. If 323 the temporary occupation by a wagon was such that the tolls now paid were rateable, so too the occupation by a woman carrying a basket would have rendered the toll taken under the Charter rateable ; but such a conclusion was directly con- trary to the principle of Rex v. Bell (5 M. & S. 221), and all the cases which have followed that. The soU was already in the possession of the Duke when Charles II. granted the Charter, so that the ownership of the soil and the franchise were dis- tinct. The toll on potatoes was levied wherever they were sold, and, in fact, the sale of potatoes was not confined to the potato market. He also contended that there was no such anomaly as that suggested by Mr. HoU with regard to the rent paid by non-growers of produce sold in the " Casual Cart Stands," inasmuch as that rent was in addition to, and not in substitution for, the toU payable by growers. In addition to the cases mentioned, he referred to Prince v. Lewis (5 B. & C. 363), and The Duke of Bedford v. Emmett (3 B. & Aid. 366). No facts were disputed, and the following para- graphs, which form the remainder of the Case stated by the Court of General Assessment Sessions, for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division, show the conclusions arrived at by the Court and the proceedings consequent thereon : — 13. After hearing the evidence of the Steward "to the Appellant, and after hearing the arguments of counsel for him and for the Eespondents, the 324 Court gave an interlocutory judgment, holding' that the tolls in question, with the exception here- inafter stated, were rateable, as it considered that they were levied directly in connection with the enjoyment of an apportioned share or stand in the' market-place, and that for aU practical intents and purposes they constituted part of the price paid for the use of such space. With regard to the tolls payable in that part of the market-place called the Fruit Market, the Couet held that, as there was nothing in the language of the schedule relating to them to connect them necessarily with any stand or stall in the market-place, and as it was provided that the rent payable by the holder of the stand was to be in addition to the toUs pre- viously prescribed, therefore these toUs were dis- tinguishable from the others, and had no corporeal quality, and were not rateable. It was then agreed that Mr. Petheram, Q.C.,. should determine the sums on which the assess- ments were to be made in accordance with the in- terlocutory judgment, and the alternative figures- upon which the assessments were to be made in case that judgment should not be upheld, and that a Case was then to be stated by the Court of Ses- sions, in accordance with these figures, for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division. Mr. Petheram, Q.C., then proceeded to hear evidence for the purpose aforesaid, and afterwards, made the following Eeport : — 325 " The total yearly income received by the Ap- pellant from Covent Garden Market amounts to the eum of ^17,448 7s. lOd., and that such sum is made up of the foUowing : — "(1) Sums paid and received for rent by the name of rent for all the shops and offices in the market, the potato stands, the yearly cart stands, the yearly pitching stands, the cellars, and the flower stands, amountiag to a£8,572 7s. 6d. " (2) Sums paid and received for wagons and <3arts iri the stands, called the casual cart stands, amountiag to £154. "(3) Sums received from carts and wagons which, for want of room, cannot be brought into the casual cart stands, and are placed in the un- occupied part of the market, but which pay at the same rate as those which are placed in the casual cart stands, £846. "Note. — This last item is inserted by the consent of the Appellant, iu order that the question whether these tolls are rateable may be raised in the Queen's Bench. "(4) Sums received for toUs according to the potato schedule for potatoes placed, pitched, exposed for sale, or sold, by persons in stands, of which such persons are not the holders, £574. " (5) Sums received as tolls, according to the fruit schedule, for produce sold in the market by persons who rent shops or offices in the fruit 326 market, and whose rent is included in item No. (1), Je3,707 8s. Id. " (6) Sums received on sales according to the schedules for produce sold in the market by per- sons who rent nothiag in it, but who use the shelter and convenience of the market-houses for the purposes of their trade, a63,594 lis. 9d. "At the request of the Appellant and Kespon- dents, I have heard evidence of the amount of the expenditure of the Appellant with reference te Covent Garden Market, and I find that such ex- penditure amounts to the sum of ^5,000, and I further find that of such sum, the sum of jC2,000 is applicable to the rental of d68,572 7s. M. being; item (1) of this report, and the remaining sum of ^3,000 to the toUs mentioned in the remaining items thereof. " A proportionate part of the said sum of ^5,000 is to be deducted from the amount of rent and toUs which are ultimately decided to be rateable, and, in addition thereto, a sum of £750 for tenants'^ allowances, and 4s. in the pound upon the total amount of the eateable value of the property. In arriving at the amount at which the property is to be rated a sum for statuteables will also have to be taken into account, which it is agreed should be 20 per cent, on the bate able value." 14. The CouET of Sessions made an order in accordance with these findings, subject to the decision of the Queen's Bench Division upon the 827 Case to be stated as to the rateability of these tolls. 15. The Appellant has appealed against the said judgment, on the ground that the whole of the sums received for toUs according to the report of Mr. Petheram should be exempt from rating, and the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division is desired on the following point, viz. : Are any, and if so which, of the toUs of the market Uable to be rated ? (a) If the Court should be of opinion that the whole of the tolls are liable to be rated, including the sum of £846 disallowed by the Court of Ses- sions, then the judgment of that Court is to be amended so far as may be necessary to include the said sum in estimating the gross and net rate- able VALUES of the market. (b) If the Court should be of opinion that only the tolls found to be rateable by the Court of Sessions are rateable, then the judgment of that Court to be confirmed. (c) If the Court should be of opinion that either none or only part of the tolls are liable to be rated, then the judgment of the Court of Sessions is to be amended in accordance with such opinion." The case was argued in the Queen's Bench Division on December 8th and 12th, 1881, the same Counsel appearing on both sides. The arguments were wholly or mainly repetitions of 328 those used in the Coubt below, as may be seen from the report of the case f45 L.T.N.S. 616 ; 30 W.E. 411). The Judges in the Queeh's Bench Division held that all the tolls received by the Appellant were rateable, and though at first they doubted whether, on the evidence before them, they were justified in so finding with regard to the sum of ^846 mentioned in Mr. Petheram's report, as stated above (p. 325), yet, as it appeared there might be some difficulty in sending the case back for further evidence, they eventually, with hesi- tation (dubitante Grove, J.), decided that the toUs making up that sum, which were received in respect of the unappropriated part of the market, were liable to be rated. Grove, J., after stating the facts, and referring to the Statute (9 Geo. IV. c. cxiii) which autho- rised the alteration of the market, said : — "As " these parts (of the market) are specifically " appropriated in the Act, and tolls are payable " by different classes of persons for their use, are " the tolls not liable to be rated ? I am of opinion " that they are, and that the value of the ground " in the hands of the Duke has been enhanced by " this appropriation If goods are simply " brought into a general market, in which no " specific place is appropriated to particular goods, " then the toU levied is in the nature of a fran- " chise toll, and though, of course, the persons 329 ** who bring them do make a certain use of th« *' soil, it is not such a use as that the toll is con- *' sidered to arise from the occupation of the soil, " and, therefore, it is not rateable. That is ■" decided in The Mayor of London v. St. Sepulchre *' (L. K. 7 Q. B. 333) But in every case *' where a specific place is attributed to the sale of *' particular goods, there the toll is in the nature " of stallage, though no stall be in fact erected, *' and it is rateable What we have to con- *' sider in this case is the difference between a " payment in the nature of stallage, and a toU in *' respect of the right to enter a market. I am *' not acquainted with any case which contravenes " the rule that, although a person may enter a " market, and may move about with his baskets, " or even with a donkey, which may do injury to " the soil, yet, if no defined place is marked out *' to which that person is to go, the toU taken is *' only a market toll, but, if a fixed and defined " place is marked out then the toll is in the *' nature of stallage Whether a stall or *' particular space is assigned to a single person, *' or whether an area is assigned to a number of " holders, they get the benefit of the assignment " of this area, and the tolls they pay are liable to " be rated." Lopes, J., in giving judgment to the same effect, said : — " After the Act of Geo. IV. divided f the market. Section 21 converted the tolls into 330 tolls payable for the use of some definite portion " of the soil. If so, they are stallage tolls, and " are rateable." Bowen, J., said : — " Are these tolls in question " payable in respect of the sale or purchase of " goods brought into the market ; or are they, " whether called rent or not, for some use of the " soil which the vendors enjoy over the rest of •' the public ? The true test is — has a man any " occupation beyond what the general public has ? " . . . . The Act of Geo. IV. no longer leaves " the tolls as they were. As soon as the market " is divided, then the Statute creates toUs no " longer payable in respect^ of mere entry or sale " within the market, but in respect of a sale " within a definite portion of the market." Excepting the remark made by Grove, J., to- wards the close of his judgment, nothing was said by any of the Judges as to the distinction between the assignment of a particular place to a single person, and the assignment to a class of persons. In one sense, the creation of every market involves the assignment of a particular defined place to a class of persons ; and if Mr. Grantham's argu- ment, used in the Court below, was sound, the Act of Geo. IV., in substituting several defined markets for one mixed market, did not alter the nature of the tolls. On February 28th, 1882, the case came again before the Court op General Assessment Sbs- 331 SIGNS, the only question being, what was the proper alteration to be made in the figures, in consequence of the decision of the High Court thatfr the toUs represented by the sum of ^846 mentioned in Mr. Petheram's report (supra p. 325), were rateable. Mr. Holl, Q.O. (who appeared with Mr. E. J. Castle for the Kespondents), asked the Court to increase the figures from £11,250 gross and =£9,375 RATEABLE (which werc fixed by the judgment of this Court) to ^612,000 gross and £10,000 rate- able (the sums originally fixed by the Assessment Committee). Mr, Grantham, Q,C. (who with Mr. Goldney, appeared for the Appellant), objected that greater deductions ought to have been made (in respect of Eates and Taxes and other expenses). Ulti- mately, it was agreed that the gross value should stand at £12,000 and the rateable at £9,800. The business of the Court in 1881 was con- cluded by two applications for the alteration of the figures in the Valuation List, in accordance with the report of Mr. G-eorge Pownall, who had been appointed by the Court to make a valuation in the cases of The London and South Western Railway Conipany v. The Wandsworth and Clapham Union (ante p. 257), and The Midland Railway Company v. 332 St. Pancras {ante p. 268).. In each ease the Appel- lants had succeeded in obtaining a reduction, and were allowed their costs. The Court, after hear- ing the evidence of Mr. PownaU as to the advan- tage he had found in. having a. shorthand writer, directed that the costs should include the costs of the shorthand notes of the evidence given before Mr. Pownall. SUPPLEMENT No. 11. CONCEKNING THE CASES BEFOEE THE COURT OF GENERAL ASSESSMENT SESSIONS IN THE YEAR 1883. The London and North Western Railway Company v. The Assessment Committee of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch. (February 28th, 1882.) Mr. Lumley Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Sutton appeared for the Appellants, and Mr. Grantham, Q.C., and Mr. E. J. Castle for the Respondents. This was an appeal against an assessment of £2,200 GROSS, £2,000 RATEABLE, on land described in the Supplemental Valuation List as " Goods Yard, with Rails, Sidings, Turh- " Tables, and appliances." The Respondents in their Case stated that the assessment objected to had been based on " the value of the lands, and 334 the cost of construction " — i.e., presumably, the fee-simple value of the lands, and the cost of laying down the rails, sidings, &e., and of erecting a waU which surrounded the yard. The Appel- lants asked for a reduction to £600 GROSS, £500 EATBABLB, and contended that the principle adopted by the Respondents was wrong, inasmuch as the fee- simple value of land for building purposes was no criterion of the annual value of the land, while uncovered and used as a yard, and that the only true test of the value for rating purposes was the value of the actual user and occupation enjoyed by the Appellants. It appeared that the property was divided into two parts by Primrose Street. The two pieces of land amounted to about 5,500 and 500 square yards respectively. The hne of Railway in the occupation of the Appellants, which forms a boundary of the yard on one side, is carried on a high brick viaduct, and trucks are lowered by hydraulic machinery from the level of the line of Railway, at a point about 400 yards distant from the land in question, to the lower level, and are then brought along sidings, and by means of level crossings over Skinner Street and Primrose Street into the Appellants' yard. The arches forming the viaduct above-mentioned are, with one excep- 335 tion, outside the Parish boundary ; they were, at the time of making the Supplemental List, let to various tenants, who had access across the Appel- lants* yard to the several arches occupied by them. One of the arches was being fitted up in order to be used as stabling by the Appellants, and the builder engaged in the work occupied part of the yard with his building materials and plant. Other small parts of the land were let to various tenants for the storage of buUding materials at a rent of 2s. 6d. a yard, the Appellants paying thereout the rates and taxes. The Appellants had erected a high wall round the larger portion of the land. Mr. Edward Eyde and Mr. J. W. Penfold were called as witnesses on behalf of the Company, and proved the facts above set out. Mr. Eyde stated that, having regard to the nature of the occupation at present existing, the land should be assessed, as an adjunct to the Eailway belonging to the Appellants, at £600 gboss and £500 rateable VALUE. It might be let as vacant land to a builder or a timber-merchant, but could not in any case command a higher rental. In cross-examination, he said that at some future time the yard might become more valuable to the Appellants as a goods-depot, but that when he visited it he saw no goods there. In answer to a suggestion that 8d. per foot super, was not an excessive rental for building land in this situation in the City of London, he said that for some building purposes 8d. per foot would be 336 too low, for others too high, a rent. That his estir- mate disregarded the large amount of frontage possessed by this land, because, for the purposes of a goods-depot, back land was equally suitable ; that if the land was used for building, the wall,, the expense of which was included under the " cost of construction " as the basis of the Eespon- dents' valuation, must be taken down. Mr. J. W. Penfold estimated the land at £700 GROSS and £600 rateable, and suggested that the land in its present condition might be let as stand- ing for carts or cabs. Being asked as to the value of the land for building purposes, he said that those parts which had frontage were worth a ground-rent of 8d. per foot super., but that about half the area Would be left as back land of very small value. Mr. Grantham, for the Eespondents, said that, in cases like the present one, the only way of valuing the land was to take it in connection with the whole system of the Railway. That it might be said of the platforms of a station or the road- ways forming the approach to it, that they have a small letting value, with as much justice as of this yard. That the evidence given on behalf of the Appellants rested on the opinion of the wit- nesses, and amounted to mere arbitrary state- ments. That the Court could more confidently rely on facts, such as the price paid by the Com- pany for the laud, and the sums expended in con- 337 strueting sidings, &e., on it ; that these figures Tvould famish the Couet with a better criterion of the value of the land to the Appellants than the opinions of skilled witnesses. Mr. Samuel Walker, Surveyor, of 22, Moorgate Street, was the first witness called by the Eespon- dents, and said that the land was worth, as build- ing land, a ground-rent of 9d. per foot super., the fee-simple being worth 20 years' purchase. Part of the land was acquired by the Appellants by means of an exchange with the Metropolitan Board of Works, and part of it was bought at a price of ^1 per foot, representing a ground-rent of Is. This evidence was admitted, in spite of an objection by Mr. Sutton on behalf of the Appel- lants, who urged that, as the land was not used for building purposes, its value as building land was immaterial. The Court, however, held that ' it was necessary to know what the land was worth for building purposes. Mr. Charles Bryant, a builder who had taken land in the immediate neighbourhood, said he would give 8d. per foot ground-rent for the whole of the property in question ; but he admitted, in cross-examination, that he would expect to take it at a peppercorn for the first year or two. Mr. Enoch Walker said the land was used by the Appellants for the deposit of aU kinds of heavy goods. 338 In addressing the Court on behalf of the Ap- pellants, Mr. Sutton relied on the well-established principle that it is open to every man to use and occupy his property in any manner he chooses, and that he is to be rated with regard to the actual user and occupation of the property. He pointed out thattheEespondentsclaimedto take the value of the land as building land, and then to add something in respect of the cost of paving, laying down sidings, &c., which prevented the land from being used as building land. The evidence given on behalf of the Respondents on these points wa& not admissible, and as the question was entirely one of principle, he asked for a Case. The evi- dence of Mr. Ryde and Mr. Penfold had not been contradicted, inasmuch as the Respondents' wit- nesses based their evidence on a principle which was, he submitted, a wrong one. The CouET dismissed the appeal, with costs, and refused to grant a Case on the question of principle, the Chairman saying that the practice of the Court had always been to get all the evidence it could with reference to the value, and that in this case the decision had not been in- fluenced by the evidence given with regard to the value per square foot. SUPPLEMENT No. 13. CONCERNING THE OASES BKFORE THE COUET OF GENEKAL ASSESSMENT SESSIONS IN THE YEAR 1883. Waterlow Brothers and Layton v. The Parish OF St. Mary, Somerset. {February 13th, 1883.) An application was made on behalf of the Eespondents for leave to deliver their Case, which had not yet been done. Mr. Poland, for the Appellants, opposed the appHcation. The Appellants, since they had given notice of appeal, had discovered that there was no appeal against a Provisional List, to which they had objected, and now asked the Court to make no order on the appeal, and claimed their right to abandon it. The Court ordered the appeal to be struck out of the list, and refused to give the Eespond- ents the costs of this application. 340 Ijondon and Nobth Western Railway v. The Assessment Committee of St. Leonard's, Shorbditch. {February 13th, 1883.) Mr. Grantham, Q.C., for the Eespondents, made an application to the Court to review the taxation of costs in this case, which was heard in 1882 (ante p. 838). The taxing-master had only allowed for a professional witness one guiaea per diem for attendance in Court, and ten guineas for qualifying. It appeared that the allowance of one guinea per diem was in accordance with the scale aUdwed in the High Court of Justice ; and the Court (without calling on Mr. Grain, who ap- peared for the Appellants) refused the application, and, with some doubt as to the power to do so, gave the Appellants the costs of this application. Louis Marino Casella v. The Assessment Com- mittee OP St. John, Hampstead. (February ISth, 1883.) Mr. E. J. Castle appeared for the Appellant, and Mr. Poland and Mr. H. D. Greene for the Eespondents. This appeal related to the assessment of a private dwelling-house known as "Beauchene," 341 Fitz Jolin's Avenue, which had been built by the Appellant for his own occupation. The house stands on a plot of building land having a frontage to Fitz John's Avenue of 164 feet ; and the Appel- lant had bought a second plot, which had a frontage of 284 feet to Maresfield Gardens, and which im- mediately adjoined the rear of the first plot, and had thrown the second plot into his garden. The total area amounted to about IJ acres, and the price paid by the Appellant for the land amounted to J7,000, while the house had cost ^611,770. The total sum spent by the Appellant amounted to ^620,525, which included ^6140 for some small greenhouses, and J6715 for their erection, and also J6900 for moving earth, &c., in the garden, part of which was rendered useless by an alteration of plans. The Appellant went into occupation in November 1881, and the property was assessed in a Provisional List at J6800 gross and £680 rate- able ; in the Supplemental List it was put down at JE650 GEOss and ^6542 rateable; and, on objection being made before them, the Assessment Com- mittee further reduced the assessment to £600 gross and £600 rateable, which were the figures now appealed against. Mr. Charles W. Millar, surveyor, was called for the Appellant, and said that in the case of a house built as this was, to suit the fancy of a particular man, the letting value was out of all proportion to the outlay ; that houses of this size 342 can be sold, but, as a rule, are not let at aU, and that the outside rent would be between £450 and £500 (putting this apparently as the gboss value); that any person who could afford to pay so high a rent would certainly expect to have stabling. The witness believed that if the Appellant were to sell the property he would get his money back ; bat it was pointed out that this did not include the expenditure which had been rendered useless by reason of the alterations. Mr. P. D. Tuckett valued the house at £500 GEOss and £450 rateable, which latter sum was the extreme rent a lessee would give, if he under- took the repairs. He said that the house was, after all, only a house standing on a building plot, the large garden being perfectly bare and flat ; that the Appellant could not hope to get his money back if he sold the property, which would fetch, if part of it were severed and treated as building land, from £10,000 to £15,000. Mr. Walter Prickett (of the firm of Prickett, Venables, & Co.) valued the house at £500 gross and £420 rateable. Mr. Richard Kemp considered that the want of stabling was a serious drawback; that it would be difficult to find a tenant who took the same fancy to the house as the Appellant had done, and put the rental value, on a repairing lease, at £450. The Respondents called Mr. Edward Tewson, 343 who considered the property should be assessed at a RATEABLE VALUE of £700. As the house had heen so well built, the cost of the repairs during the period which this valuation would cover would "be extremely small. Being cross-examined as to "the comparative rents of this and other houses in the same road, he said that 4 per cent, on the value of the additional land thrown into the garden, -valued as building land, would represent an addi- tional rental value of ^240 ; that the property would command this increased rental, because there was, in addition to the advantage of a large .garden, access to the road in the rear ; that an occupier who wanted so much land in such a position must pay for it. He thought that the Appellant would not realise, if he sold the property, as much as had been spent on it, but said there ivas no excessive fancifal decoration. Mr. Edwin Fox estimated the gross value at j£700, and agreed with Mr. Tewson in thinking that the cost of repairs would be small. In cross- examination, he said that his estimate, if based merely on structural value, would have been jaigher. Taking 5 per cent, on £10,000 (which was really below the actual cost) as representing the annual value of the house; putting the 164 feet of frontage in Fitz John's Avenue at £1 per foot, and the 284 feet of frontage in Maresfield Gardens at 10s., the total annual value thus arrived at v^ould be £806. He thought that the Appellant, 344 if he sold the property, would realise withia j62,00O of his outlay. Mr. Lowe, who had made the original valuation for the Overseers when the property was put in the Provisional List, estimated it at J6698 GROsa and J582 eateable. In cross-examiuation, h& stated that he had advised the Overseers to rate the property at ^800 gboss and J6680 rateable, but explained that his former valuation was based, on the structural value. Mr. Eobert Vigers estimated tlie geoss value at £700, and deducted ^ to find the rateable. Mr. Castle, on behalf of the Appellant, pro- tested against the practice of taking 5 per cent.^ on the value of the additional plot of ground, as building land, and putting that as the eateable value of the land, whQe used as a garden. An occupier of garden ground, which might be turned into building land, was to be rated merely in respect of the value of the occupation of the land as garden. The CouET allowed the appeal, with costs, and said that, having regard to the nature of the pro- perty, the maximum deduction ought not in this case to be allowed, and therefore fixed the geoss^ VALUE all £500, and the rateable value at £450. 345 Walteb Lazenby v. The Assessment Committee OP THE LeWISHAM UnION. (February IBth, 1883.) Mr. R. E. Webster, Q.O., and Mr. Sylvester appeared for the Appellant, and Mr. Poland and Mr. E. J. Castle for the Eespondents. This was an appeal against an assessment of J751 GROSS and j6685 eateable value on a private dwelling-house which had been built by the Appel- lant for his own occupation. The house stood on 2^ acres of land, held at a ground-rent of £140 per annum, and originally intended to form several building plots. Neither side based their calcula- tion on the structural value of the house, and the appeal resolved into a mere question of value. Mr. Edward Tewson was called by the Appel- lant, and valued the house at £500 gross and £417 rateable. He described it as one evidently built for occupation by a large family, and having reception-rooms rather small and low in propor- tion to its size. He considered that the unusual expenditure in servants' offices, &c., would not increase the letting value. The house contained a biUiard-room, and there was stabling for five horses, and coach-houses for four carriages. Mr. Alex. R. Stenning thought that it would be difficult to get a rent as high as that estimated 346 by Mr. Tewson. He proved that the house was built close to the boundary of the land, and that there were houses on either side within a few feet; that the house was within half a mUe of the Crystal Palace, and that there was very good railway accommodation ; but persons who could afford to pay a rent of £500 would often prefer to be further out in the country, where they could have more land, Mr. George Legg considered that the house should not be assessed at more than £450 gross and £375 rateable. There were no rentals in the neighbourhood which would justify the assess- ment put upon this house by the Eespondents. The Eespondents called Mr. E. H. Bousfield, who estimated the gross value at £840. He described the house as well buUt and convenient. He admitted that he knew of no house in the neighbourhood which was let at £500 per annum ; there was no house like this one near it. Mr. Wilham Eve estimated the gross value at £850 and the rateable value at £709. Mr. E. J. Beaton, a member of the Assessment Committee, said his valuation was £750 gross and £625 rateable, and that the Eespondents had acted on his estimate. He considered that the stables alone were worth £120 per annum. Mr. C. W. Thompson, surveyor, thought that the house could be let on lease for £750 per annum, the tenant doing the repairs. 347 The Court allowed the appeal, with costs, and reduced the assessment to £630 gross and £526 RATEABLE VALUE. The East and West India Dock Company v. The Assessment Committee op the Poplar Union. (February 23rd, 1883.) Sir Hardinge Giffard, Q.C, Mr. Marriott, Q.C, and Mr. Kenelm Digby appeared for the Appellants; the Solicitor-General (Sir Farrer Herschel, Q.C), Mr. Holl, Q.C, and Mr. FuUarton, for the Eespon- dents. There were in point of form two appeals relating respectively to the property of the Appellants in the two parishes of AU Saints, Poplar, and St. Leonard, Bromley, but they were taken together, as involving identical questions. The Court were asked to decide the following questions : — (1) "Whether certain evidence tendered to the Assessment Committee, or any and what part thereof was relevant and admissible ? (2j If any was relevant and admissible, whether such relevant and admissible evidence tendered, if proved, was sufficient to establish an alteration within the meaning of Section 46 ? (3) Whether, assuming an alteration within 348 the twelve months established, the Company were therefore entitled to have the present actual value ascertained and inserted in the Supplemental List, or only to have the values standing in the Valuation List reduced, by the amount of the alteration in value, if any, occurring within the preceding twelve months, and to have such altered values inserted in the Supplemental List ? It had been agreed between the parties, that (assuming the first two points to be decided in favour of the Appellants) the Court should be asked to appoint a valuer under Section 36 to decide the question of the amount of the assessment of the Appellants' property. The Appellants objected to the omission of their property from the Supplemental Valuation List, relying on the words of Section 46, Subsection 1, the material parts of which are as follows : — " In each of the first four years of [the quin- " quennial] period a Supplemental List shah, if " necessary, be made out in the same form as the " Valuation List, and shall show all the alterations " which have taken place during the preceding twelve " months in any of the matters stated in the Valuation " List, but shall contain only the hereditaments " affected by such alterations." Sir H. Giffard, for the Appellants, argued that the RATEABLE VALUE of their property was a " matter stated in the Valuation List," and that, therefore, the alteration in it should be shown. He 349 admitted that only a substantial alteration would justify an infringement of tlie principle of quin- quennial valuations which was adopted by the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. He referred to the judgment of Cockbum, 0. J., in the case of Eeg. V. The New Biver Company (L. E. 4 Q. B. D. p. 309, supra p. 226), and contended that the alteration need not necessarily be an alteration in the structural condition of the rateable heredita- ment itself (as, for example, the erection or demo- lition of a house on land already rated), but that it was open to the Appellants to show that, by an alteration of the circumstances (in the widest sense of the term) affecting their property, it had been materially reduced in value ; the alteration consisting in the fact that certain steamers no longer came to the Appellants' docks, as they had formerly done. Before the Assessment Com- mittee, the Appellants had tendered evidence of the business done and the profits made by them as owners of docks — not merely in the preceding twelve months, but also during several years, from 1875 onwards to 1882 — ^thereby opening up a period covered by two quinquennial valuations. This Sir H. Giffard contended he had a right to do, because, although he could not use those facts as evidence that the former decisions were wrong, he was entitled to use them as evidence of the actual RATEABLE VALUE at the time of the present appeal, as showing that the reduction in rateable 350 TALUE was not a mere passing wave of depression. He further contended that, if, by construction, the word " substantial" must be read into Section 46, so as to prevent a ratepayer from relying in each year on a trifling alteration, when once an alter- ation had occurred sufficient to entitle him to come to the Court, he must be allowed to show the aggregate of the several trifling alterations which, by construction and not by the strict words of the section, he had been prevented from show- ing as they occurred. It was suggested that the Appellants might find the provisions in Section 47 in their favour. This section provides for the making of a Provisional List, " if in the course " of any year the value of any hereditament is " increased by the addition thereto or the erection " thereon of any building, or is from any cause " increased or reduced in value." Eeferring to this section, Sir H. Giffard argued that the ejusdem generis rule of construction did not apply to the words above printed in itahcs, and called attention to the fact that this section took the place of Section 25 of the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, and that the material alteration in lan- guage could only have been used in order to convey an alteration in meaning. For the Eespondents, the Solicitor-General contended that, if the Appellants were allowed to appeal in respect of such an " alteration " of their property as was suggested, it would be open to 351 every ratepayer to show that the user of a rate- able hereditament had become less valuable during the continuance of a quinquennial period, and that the principle of valuation established by the Statute would be gone entirely ; that the ordinary rule of construction must apply to Section 47; that, even if the Appellants had any right to appeal against a Supplemental List, the only evidence admissible was that which would show a diminution in value, by reason of "alterations which have taken place during the preceding twelve months" ; and that at any rate it was not open to the Appellants to go behind the last quinquennial valuation. The Court gave judgment in favour of the Appellants on all points, and held — (1) That the whole of the evidence tendered to the Assessment Committee was relevant and admissible. (2) That such evidence was sufficient to esta- bhsh an alteration within the meaning of Section 46 (following the decision of the Queen's Bench Division in Beg. v. The New Biver Company, L. E. 4 Q. B. D. 309 ; supra p. 225). (B) That the Appellants were entitled to have the hereditaments valued at their present actual value, and such value entered in the Supplemental List. They also gave the Appellants their costs. A Case was stated by the Court in order to obtain the decision of the High Court of Justice on 352 the points raised. The same Counsel appeared for both parties on July 19th and 23rd, 1883, and practically the same arguments were used, as may be seen from the Law Eeports (11 Q. B. D. 721). It will be njoticed that for the Eespondents it was contended that the case of Eeg. v. New River Com- pany (4 Q. B. D. 309, supra p. 228) was not in point, as that was a case of structural alteration. The judgments of Grove and Manisty, JJ., were in favour of the Respondents (the Assessment Committee) on all points, and deserve careful con- sideration, as several propositions were laid down which are at variance with principles generally accepted in the Coubt below. Grove, J., said : — " The question turns upon the *' construction of two sections of the Act. Possibly, " indeed, only Section^47 applies to this particular " case, for Section 46 applies to a Supplemental " List, which, as far as I can gather from the Act, *' it is not obligatory to make out upon the appU- *' cation of any ratepayer of the Union, whereas " Section 47 seems to apply to a List which it is *• obligatory to make out on the apphcation of the *' party affected ; that point, however, has not been " argued, and does not seem to be material to the " present case." After deciding that, although the words were wider than those in Section 25 of the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, the ejusdem generis rule of construction must apply to Section 47, he pointed out that by Section 46, 353 Subsection 1, the Supplemental List was to show, not the " real value to a tenant com?wrmi?)Ms annis," but " the alterations which have taken place during the preceding twelve months " j the meaning of the section being that all previous assessments were binding and conclusive, otherwise a quin- quennial valuation would be little more than a matter of form. To succeed under Sections 46 and 47, the Appellants must show a diminution in value caused by a change of circumstances since the last quinquennial valuation. He continued : — *' "What circumstances may be sufficient it is un- " necessary for me to consider. I do not think *' they are confined to alterations ejusdem generis *' with structural alterations, such as an addition " to, or an erection of a building on, the heredita- *' ments ; but how far they may extend it would " be impossible to say. Each case must depend *' upon itself, .... I think that a mere " diminution of profits, though admissible and " relevant, is not sufficient. That might be a " mere accidental fluctuation in the business . , . " and therefore insufficient to show a permanent " alteration within the only period during which, " in my opinion, the alteration must take place — " that is, within the twelve months preceding the " making of the Supplemental List." Manisty, J., giving judgment to the same effect, said : — " I think that in bringing this " appeal under Section 46 the appeal has been 354 *' misconceived in point of form, and that it is in " substance a proceeding under Section 47. An " appeal may be brought against the Supplemental " List, but, strange to say, the form in which the " present appeal came before the Sessions was an " objection to an omission from the Supplemental " List, for which there is no appeal provided. . » " . . . . The Sessions are bound, whether the •' proceedings be under Section 46 or Section 47^ " to see what the alteration, if any, was in the " preceding twelve months, and to determine the " consequence of such alteration upon the letting " value of the property." The remarks of the learned Judge with refer- ence to the right of appeal under Sections 46 and 47 were not necessary to the decision of the case, and probably need not be taken as overruling a principle which has long been accepted as correct in the Court of Genbeal Assessment Sessions. Under Section 47 no appeal, it is submitted, is given at all, but by Section 46, Subsection 4, *' A Supplemental List and a new Valuation List " shall come into force at the beginning of the " year succeeding that in which they are respect- " ively made, in the same manner and subject ta *' the same conditions as the Valuation List made •' in the first year after the passing of the Act." Surely these conditions include the right of a ratepayer to object before the Assessment Com- mittee given by Section 11, and the right to 355 appeal given by Section 32. By Section 11, objections may be made by a person aggrieved " by reason of the omission of any matter" from the Valuation List — a description which exactly appHes to the Appellants in this case. On October 23rd, 1883, Mr. Kenelm Digby, on behalf of the Appellants, obtained a further adjournment of the hearing of the appeal by the Court of General Assessment Sessions. He stated that, since the Judicature Act, an appeal from this Court lay not merely to the Queen's Bench Division but to the Court of Appeal, and even to the House of Lords; and that, in conse- quence of a suggestion made in the course of the argument in the Queen's Bench Division, the Appellants were about to appeal, and an adjourn- ment was asked for under the powers given by Section 34, in order that the decision of the Court of Appeal might be obtained. The Court adjourned the further hearing sine die, and, in consequence of a question put by Mr. Fullarton, who appeared for the Eespondents, drdered that the costs in the Court below should follow the ultimate event. The appeal from the decision of the Queen's Bench Division was heard ia the Court of Appeal on May 26th, 27th, and 28th, 1884, before Brett, M. K., and Bowen and Fry, L. JJ. (L. K. 13 Q. B. D. 364). It should be noticed that Counsel for the Assessment Committee did not again con- 356 tend that the New River Case (supra p. 223) was really a case of structural alteration of the here- ditament, nor did they attempt to support the decision of the Queen's Bench Division hy reference to Section 47. In fact, the question whether the evidence (if admissible) would prove an " alteration " within the meaning of Section 46 was not argued before the Court of Appeal at all, and thus there re- mained but two questions to be answered : — (1) Whether the evidence tendered was re- levant, admissible, and sufficient as prima facie evidence of an alteration ia eateable value. (2) "Whether the true eateable value, or only the alteration during the last twelve months was to be ascertained. The Court of Appeal were unanimous in thiakiug that the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division was wrong as to the admissibihty and sufficiency of the evidence tendered by the Dock Company; but the majority of the Court of Appeal (Fry, L. J,, dissenting) agreed with the Court below ia holding that it was not open to the Dock Company to show what was the true bateable value at the time when the Supplemental List was made. Brett, M. E., said : — " It is clear to me that *' unless the Company can show that, by reason " of something which has happened within the " year preceding their application, the eateable 357 " VALUE of their clocks has altered, the valuation " in the Quinquennial List must stand whether it " was right or wrong at the time when it was " fixed If they prove that there " was a less amount of tonnage coming into these " docks during the last preceding year, and that " that was not accidental, but was a regular de- " creasing of the business coming to their docks, " I cannot but think that that would be prima "facie evidence of a diminution in the business of " the Company during the last preceding year " which was not accidental. It may be explained " or rebutted by evidence to show that it does not " really affect the bate able value of the docks. " No one would say that a mere temporary falling "off in the receipts would affect the eateable " VALUE But if there were evidence " which seemed to show a regular falling off in " the receipts, it would not be reasonable to sup- " pose that a yearly tenant would give the same " rent for the property, taking one year with " another. Therefore I think that the Divisional " Court was right in holding that the evidence " tendered was admissible and relevant, but I ** differ from that Court, when it is said that,- " though admissible, it did not afford prima fade " evidence of an alteration within the year. I " think it did. If so, the Sessions Court ought " to be allowed to consider that evidence, and by " that and any other admissible evidence which 358 " may be oflfered, ascertain whether there has '■ been anything which has caused an alteration " within the year of the bateablb value of the " docks It has been argued that if " an alteration during the year has been proved, " which is, as it is said, a condition precedent to " having a Supplemental List, then the moment " that condition precedent has been fulfilled, the " whole inquiry as to what is the rateable " value of the hereditaments is to be begun de " novo If that be true, the Solicitor- " General pointed out very considerable difl&culties, " which, as it seemed to me, would arise, since it " would then be in the power of anyone to force " an appeal against the existing List, after the " time had elapsed for appealing, because by " making some alteration in his hereditament, or " by reason of some alteration in it occurring, he " could then reopen the whole matter. So that, " although his hereditament had been increased " in value, by what had so occurred in the year, " yet by reason of the former valuation having " been erroneous, the bateablb value in the " Supplemental List might be less than it was in " the former List. 1 cannot think that the Act of •' Parliament ought to be so construed as to pro- " duce that result. The meaning of the Act is, I " think, that the existing valuation unappealed " against should be taken to be correct, and that " what you have to do is, treating the existing 359 ■*' List as correct, to see whether what has occurred *' since has altered that which was the eateable " VALUE before. The rateable value in the Sup- ^' plemental List is to be ascertained by assuming " that the value in the List then in force is correct *' at the commencement of the year, and by adding " to, or taking from, such value the addition or " diminution, as the case may be, arising from " the alteration during the year. When the " alteration has been thus ascertained, the value " as altered is to be entered in the Supplemental *' List." " We must therefore vary the order of the ■" Divisional Court by sending the case back to *' the Sessions, in order that they may hear evi- " dence, and, if upon that evidence they can *' aflBrm the proposition that there has been an " alteration, they must then make a Supplemental " List, and enter the altered value in such List *' accordingly." Bowen, L. J., in the course of his judgment, said : — " The fact of there being less tonnage " coming into the docks, with the hght shed " upon it by there being a previous continuous " fall in former years, amounts to some evidence " that during the last year the rateable value ^' of the docks was not what it was before. We *' do not decide that there has been any alteration *' of the RATEABLE VALUE, but Only that there is *' prima faci^ evidence of such alteration, and that 360 "it is for the Sessions to see whether, upon a con- " sideration of all the facts as may be brought " before them, there is anything to modify such ^^ prima facie evidence The Quinquennial " List is a substantial part and basis of the Act. " The value is to be fixed every five years ; but a " machinery is provided for readjusting it when " necessary, but only upon certain conditions and " within certain limits. The Quinquennial List " was to be a reality The Act (in Section " 46) does not say that you are to get upon the " Supplemental List the real actual eateable " VALUE, but that the List shall show the altera- " tions, and Umited by this, that they must be " alterations which have taken place during the " preceding twelve months. It is true that what " is in the Supplemental List is not a notice that " there has been an alteration, but a figure which " represents the alteration. This figure, however,. " does not show an alteration unless it bears some " relation to such alteration. To my mind, the " words of the section mean this (though I do " not say so confidently, for I think they are very " obscure), that the Supplemental List must show " the figure to which the rateable value should " be altered, so as to show the alteration that has " occurred during the preceding twelve months. " Therefore, it must be assumed that the existing " List was correct at the commencement of the " twelve months ; and what has to be done ia 361 " only to make such alteration as will show the *' alteration in the rateable value during this " Hmited period A difficulty was pressed " upon us with reference to Section 36. It was " said that, in arranging the Supplemental List, " the Act requires you to follow all the regulations " and proceedings which are directed to be taken " in the case of the original Valuation List, and, " as Section 36 enables the Justices in Assess- " MENT Sessions to direct a valuation of the " hereditaments on the apphcation of any of the " parties to the appeal, so it follows that, in " making up the Supplemental List, there is the " same power of directing a valuation to be made " out. I do not feel pressed by that argument, " because I do not think it is clear, in the first " place, that Section 36 is intended to be ineor- " porated therewith by Section 46, Subsection 3, " for the purpose of a Supplemental List ; nor, " next, do I think it clear that the Sessions might " not have power under Section 46 to direct the " principle and way under which the valuation " should be made." Fry, L. J., who agreed with the rest of the CouBT as to the admissibility of the evidence tendered, differed from them as to the question in what way the Sessions were to proceed. In giving judgment, he said : — " The 46th Section con- " tains machinery for ascertaining the rateable " value, but none for ascertaining the alteration 362 " itself. .... The effect of Section 46, " Subsection 3, appears to me to be to introduce " all the provisions with regard to appeals in the " case of a valuation, one of which, namely, " Section 36, empowers the Court to direct a " valuation of the hereditament, with respect to " which there may be an appeal. That appears " to me to be the only direction which the Act " gives as to the mode of ascertaining the valua^ " tion in the Supplemental List, and I repeat that " there is no provision in the Act for ascertaining •' the alteration itself. It is said " that it will be competent to a person who con- " siders that he has been overrated by the Quin- " quennial List to make an addition to his property, *' and by means of that alteration obtain a reduc- " tion in the rateable value. I am not sure of " that, because I am inclined to think that he " would fail in proving an alteration in value as " required by the Act ; but, supposing it to be so, " it would be at least a highly improbable case, *' and extreme cases are not safe guides in the " construction of a statute." The effect of the judgment of the Court of Appeal therefore was that the case was remitted for further hearing to the Assessment Sessions, or rather to Sir H. A. Hunt, the person appointed by them under Section 36 to make a valuation. Some evidence was given before him, but he was not called upon to give a decision, as a compromise 363 Tvas agreed upon, whereby the property of the Dock Company was to appear in the Supplemental List, with a reduction of the former gross and EATEABLE VALUES ; and the agreement was to be without prejudice to either party at any future lime. The Court of Appeal, in remitting the case, had directed that the Assessment Sessions should decide the question of costs ; but, by the terms of the compromise, both parties were to bear their own costs SUPPLEMENT No. 13. CONCERNING THE CASES BEFOEB THE COURT OF GENERAL ASSESSMENT SESSIONS IN THE TEAE 1884. Benjamin Htam v. The St. Pangeas Assessment Committee. {February 12th, 1884.) Mr. Philbrick, Q.C., appeared for tlie Appel- lant, and Mr. Poland and Mr. E. J. Castle for the Respondents. The other appeals in the list having been settled by consent or abandoned, this one only remained, and was decided on a preliminary objection arising out of the following facts. The Assessment Committee appointed the 14th of September, 1883, for hearing objections against the Supplemental List, and gave due notice to the Appellant, whose solicitor wrote a letter, dated the 12th of September, to the Clerk to the Assessment Committee, asking for au- 365 adjournment on the ground that the principal wit- nesses were out of town. At the meeting of the Committee on September 14th, no one appeared on behalf of the Appellant, and the hearing was adjourned. On September 20th the Clerk to the Committee wrote to the Appellant's solicitor, informing him that the hearing would probably be fixed for September 28th ; and on September 25th formal notice of this date was sent. On receipt of this notice the Appellant's sohcitor, on September 26th, wrote asking for a further ad- journment to October 5th, to enable him to instruct counsel and procure the attendance of his wit- nesses. It should be noticed that by Section 42, Subsection 4, of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, the Assessment Committee must conclude their revision before the 1st of October. The meeting took place on September 28th, and the following entry was made by the Clerk iu the Minute Book : — " Mr. Hyam not having attended " to support his objection, no alteration be made " in the Valuation List." It was, however, ad- mitted that a clerk of the Appellant's solicitor did attend the meeting. According to his evidence, he was called before the Committee, and asked for a further adjournment ; he then was asked to leave the room while the Committee dehberated, and, on being readmitted, was told by the Chairman that the Committee had fully considered the matter, and that counsel and aU the witnesses 366 that the Appellant could call would not make them alter their opinion that the assessment was very feir. The Clerk of the Assessment Committee gave a somewhat di£ferent account of what hap- pened. He said that the person who appeared ta ask for an adjournment was asked if he could ga into the case, and said he could not ; and this ■witness also denied having heard any such state- ment as that attributed to the Chairman of the Committee. There was no further meeting of the Committee, and the Supplemental List was duly settled before the 1st of October. After stating these facts, Mr. Poland submitted that the only right of appeal to this Court was given by Section 32 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, and was definitely limited bythat section: that the Appellant was not a person " aggrieved hf " a decision of the Assessment Committee, on an " objection made before them," within the meaning of that section ; that it was a condition precedent to the right of appeal that the Appellant should have made an objection before the Assessment Committee within the time prescribed by the Act (Sections 11 and 42). He urged that, if the pre- sent appeal was heard, the result would be that Appellants would in future merely send a written notice of objection to Assessment Committees, and would never appear before them, and that such an appUcation for an adjournment as waa made in the present case could not be taken 367 as equivalent to "an objection made before" the Committee, For the Appellant, Mr. Philbrick submitted that, practically, there had been a decision of the Assessment Committee within the meaning of the section ; that the facts were all before them ; and that it would have been an idle form for the Appel- lant to ask to be heard, after the Committee had made up their minds. After hearing evidence of the facts above stated, the Court overruled the objection, and determined to hear the appeal; being of opinion that the Committee had arrived at a decision, and that the Appellant had a bond fide intention of appealing from the first. Had they thought that the Appel- lant was only carrying on a sham proceeding in order to avoid appearing before the Committee they might have come to a different conclusion. Mr. Poland and Mr. Castle having stated that they were not prepared, and had no instructions, to resist the appeal on its merits, the Coubt re- duced the assessment as asked for by the Appel- lant, without hearing any evidence, and allowed the appeal, but without costs. 368 SUPPLEMENT No. 14=. CONCEENING THE CASES BEFOBE THE COUKT OF GENERAL ASSESSMENT SESSIONS IN THE YEAR 1885. Stephen Augustus Ealli v. William Chichesteb AND THE Assessment Committee op the Wands- worth AND Olapham Union. (February 19th, 1885.) Mr. Poland appeared for tlie Appellant, and Mr. F. Meadows White, Q.C., and Mr. E. J. Castle for the Assessment Committee. Mr. Chichester did not appear. The facts out of which this appeal arose were as follows : — In 1875 the Appellant became tenant of a meadow at a rent of J104, and of a piece of kitchen garden at a rent of ^25. These figures "Were stated in the returns made (under Sections 55 ^^56 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869) by t&e Appellant. The meadow and garden, though Held under different tenancies, and not even adjoining one another, appeared in the Valuation List for--4875 under one entry, the 369 Appellant being rated in respect of " Land " at JE129 GROSS and ^123 rateable value.. There was no appeal against this List. In 1880 the Appellant, being still in occupation of both pre- mises, made the same return of the rent which he paid: the entry in the Valuation List w&s nnaltered., and again there was no appeal. At Christmas 1881 the Appellant ceased to occupy the garden, but owing to inadvertence no alteration was made in the Valuation List, and the Appellant continued to pay rates on the old assessment until July 18th, 1883, when the mistake was discovered, and, at the request of the Appellant, the Overseers inserted his name in a Provisional List, assessing him at £104 gross, and £99 rateable value, in respect of " Land." It will be noticed that the Appellant was too late to have his name inserted in a Supplemental List for 1883. The entry in the Provisional List appeared unaltered in the Supple- mental List for 1884, and the Appellant duly appealed against that valuation, and by his appeal also asked that the assessment of Mr. Chichester (who was rated in respect of meadow land similar to that of the Appellant) might be raised from an assessment at the rate of £4 10s. an acre to £5 ; and the Appellant claimed to have the assessment of his own meadow (which was about eight acres in extent) reduced from £104 to £40; i.e., from £13 to £5 an acre. There was no evidence to show, nor was it stated 370 by counsel on either side, whether any alteration had taken place in Mr. Chichester's property, " during the preceding twelve months " within the meaning of Section 46. Mr. Poland stated that the Appellant had objected to the assessment of Mr. Chichester's property merely in order to show the unfairness of his own assessment ; as, however, Mr. Chichester had not appeared, and had, in fact, given the Appellant notice that he did not intend to appear ; and as the Assessment Committee stated in their Case that they did not appear to object to the alteration of Mr. Chichester's assessment, Mr. Poland claimed that the appeal should be allowed, as against Mr. Chichester, to the extent claimed in the Appellant's Case. Mr. Meadows White took the preliminary objection that the alleged " alteration " had not taken place during the twelve months preceding May 31st, 1884, the date of the Supplemental List against which this appeal was brought ; and that, therefore, the Appellant had, as decided in the East and West India Dock Case (supra p. 347), no locus standi under Section 46, Sub-section 1. That the Appellant was himself to blame in not giving notice of the alteration to the Overseers, so that he could not take advantage of their failure to alter the List; and that it must have been obvious to the Appellant that the Overseers had added together the two rents mentioned in his 371 leturn, in order to arrive at the assessment appearing in the List; and that he must have known that he was rated for both meadow and garden under the head of " Land." Mr. Meadows White farther objected that the Appellant was not entitled to go into the value of the meadow, and urged that, if the Appellant had auy right of appeal, the only question to be decided was whether, assuming the old assessment to be correct, the alteration in the occupation had j-educed the value by more than £25. Mr. Poland admitted that the Appellant must be taken to have had notice how his assessment was arrived at, but urged that the Assessment Committee could not now be heard to say that the ^' alteration " had not taken place during the preceding twelve months, inasmuch as they had allowed the Appellant's name to be inserted in a Supplemental List, which could only be done if the alteration had taken place during that time. The CouET declined to decide on the pre- liminary objection, until they had heard the case on the merits. The Appellant called Mr. Charles Barker, surveyor to the Overseers of the Parish of Lam- beth, who said that Mr. Chichester's land was of more value than the Appellant's meadow, which could not be worth more than £6 an acre. In cross-examination he said that, assuming £129 to be the value of both meadow and garden together. 372 hj taking away the garden, the value was reduced in proportion to the area taken away ; the garden was about a ninth of the whole area, whereas the reduction of £25 was much more than a ninth of the value. Mr. Robert Vigers also valued the meadow ai £6 an acre ; but he also admitted, in cross- examination, that the ^625 per annum fally repre- sented the value of the garden. The Court, without calling on the Eespondents,. following the decision in the East and West India Dock Case {supra p. 347), dismissed the appeal^ with costs. The judgment of the Couet was expressed iit general terms, but it is presumed that the appeal was dismissed as regards the rating of the Eespondent Chichester, as well as of the Appellant, In the result, no decision was therefore giveu as to the preliminary objection. It is perhaps worth while to consider what would have been the Appellant's position if the Assessment Committee had struck the entry relating to the Appellant's property out of the Supplemental List, and on appeal to the Assessment Sessions had taken the objection that by the express terms of Section 46 a " Supplemental List " . . . shall contain only the hereditaments- " affected by . . . alterations which have taken. " place during the preceding twelve months "; and that here there was no such alteration. The 373 Assessment Committee could not be prejudiced or •estopped by any act of tbe Overseers, and Mr, Poland's argument would not apply. It seems as though the Assessment Sessions would have had no alternative but to dismiss the appeal ; and the 4-Ppellant would have been liable to pay rates on property of which he was not the occupier until the next Quinquennial Assessment, The amount in question was small, but the same mistake might occur where the amount was large, and another instance would be furnished of the inconvenience -which may be brought about by the absolute duality of the Valuation List. The School Board foe London v. The Assess- ment Committee of the Holboen Union, (Febniary 19th and 20th, 1885,) Mr, Marriott, Q.C, and Mr, Ram appeared for ■the Appellants, and Mr. Poland and Mr. FuUar- ton for the Respondents. The School Board for London appealed to the Assessment Sessions against the decision of three Assessment Committees, but as the same points of law were raised in the three appeals, it was at first arranged that they should be taken together. It was found, however, that the first appeal, which differed somewhat from the others, involved other 374 considerations, which induced the parties to consent to a settlement. Although no decision of the Court was given on any of the points raised on this appeal, it will be convenient ta state the arguments, as they apphed (so far at. least as the Appellants were concerned) to the three appeals, and were so considered by the Court in deciding the last two, which wiU be found reported below at p. 385 et seg. In the first appeal the material facts were as foUows : — Prior to 1883 the Appellants occupied certain land and buildings, formerly known as 4, 5, and 6, Prince's Street, in the united Parishes of St. Andrew above Bars and St. George the Martyr. These premises were used as Public Elementary Schools, and were specially planned and built for that purpose. They were assessed in the Quinquennial Valuation List, made in the year 1880, at £1,000 gross, and ^6834 rateable value. These values were in fact the estimate made and submitted to the Overseers by the Appellants themselves, in the year 1877, and were assented to by the Overseers, and entered in the Valuation List. They were not altered or objected to, up to the year 1883. In that year the Appellants^ haviQg entered into the occupation of additional land and buildings, puUed down the buildings^ and enlarged and altered the schools already belonging to them. The efifect of the enlarge- 375 ments and alterations was, as the Eespondents admitted, to create one rateable hereditament, in which it was impossible to separate, for the purposes of valuation, the old from the new part. The whole of the land was acquired by the Appellants at one time at a cost of JC19,013, in addition to J4,331 for legal expenses ; the cost of the buildings erected in 1876 was £6,909, and of the buildings erected in 1882, j67,151. In conse- quence of the alterations, the premises were entered in a Provisional List, dated the 5th July, 1883, being assessed at £1,560 gross and £1,300 KATE ABLE VALUE. This was objected to by the Appellants, but the Assessment Committee con- firmed the valuation. In the Supplemental List, dated the 31st May, 1884, the premises were assessed at the same values, and it was against this valuation that the present appeal was brought, the Appellants asking for a reduction to £200 GROSS and £166 rateable value. For the Appellants, Mr. Marriott argued that inasmuch as the old and new parts of the heredita- ment could not be separately valued, but formed one indivisible hereditament, and as the Respon- dents had put one valuation on the whole, and had not assigned in the List a separate value to the new part, the case was not within the principle laid down in the East and West India Dock Case (supra p. 347), and it was open to the Appellants to show what was the true rateable 376 VALUE of their hereditament. The Appellants could only appeal against the List, and what appeared on the face of it. There was nothing to show that the valuation of the old part had not been increased. As to this, Mr. Poland admitted that the whole hereditament must be valued, but contended that this valuation must proceed on the principle that the valuation appearing in the Quinquennial List was correct, and that the only question to be decided in this appeal was, Has the value of the premises been increased, or reduced, and to what extent, by the alterations during the last twelve months ? Mr. Marriott then stated the points raised by Appellants in their Case : — (1) That the School Board had no beneficial occupation, and was therefore not rateable. (2) That the School Board was not to be regarded as a hypothetical tenant. (3) That the amount expended by the School Board in acquiring the land and erecting the buildings ought not to be taken into consideration in estimating the rateable value. The first, he admitted, must be abandoned in any court below the House of Lords, in con- sequence of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of The West Bromwich School Board v. The Overseers of West Bromwich (13 Q.B.D. 929 ; 53 L.J. M.C. 153). 377 The second point was most important as it affected not merely the valuation questioned by this appeal, but the valuation of all Public Elementary Schools in London and throughout the country. Referring to the West Bromwich Case Mr. Marriott pointed out, that although the only question there to be decided was whether a PubUe Elementary School was rateable, Brett, M. R., and Bowen, L. J., had, in giving reasons for holding that it was rateable, indicated how the rateable value was to be arrived at. Brett, M. R., in that case said (13 Q.B.D. at p. 941) :— " When *' can a person be rated in respect of property ? ■" He can only be rated as having a beneficial *' interest. "When has property a beneficial value? ■" When a hypothetical tenant can be found to pay *' rent for the land. The question is whether the ■" owner can himself obtain a tenant who will pay *' rent. Would the property fetch money in the *' market if the owner wished to let it? If he *' could let it only on terms that would give no *' benefit, no one would occupy. But if the hypo- *' thetical tenant could obtain benefit, but for his "" own purpose did not choose to do so, the pre- •" mises might be said to have a potential value. ** ... As to property which the School Board ^' rent; could the owner find a tenant who would ^' pay him any rent? That depends on the benefit ^' to be derived from the occupation. In the *' present case the property might be let to a 378 " person who would pay rent, because the School " Board themselves pay rent. It is said that the " building has no beneficial value to the School " Board. That is not the test. The question is " whether the owner could find a hypothetical " tenant to pay rent. It is clear he could. Then "as to the land of which the School Board " are owners. If they could use it only in a way " which would not produce to them an income " beyond the expenses, in their hands it would " have no beneficial value ; if they had no power " to let it, they could have no tenant, and if a' " tenant can have no power to use it in any pro- " fitable way, the hypothetical tenant will have no " valuable occupation. That was the principle of " the Corporation of Worcester v. Droitwich Assess- *' ment Committee. ... In this case there is a " power to lease (Elementary Education Act, " 1870, Section 22). That being so, the School " Board, being owners, could obtain a hypo- " thetical tenant, and the land is rateable." And Bowen, L. J., in giving judgment to the same effect said (13 Q.B.D. at p. 942) :— " The first point " to be determined is whether the school-house is " capable of a beneficial occupation. I will " assume that in the hands of the School Board, " it is not capable of being beneficially occupied ; •' but we must consider whether it is capable " of being beneficially occupied in the hands «' of any other person. If land is by law 379 " struck with sterility when in any and every " body's hands, so that no profit can be derived " from the occupation of it, it cannot be rated to " the reUef of the poor. But if the school-house " is not used by this School Board for any profit- " able purpose, it by no means follows that the " site of it must be sterile in every other person's ** hands. . . . The land is now held for the " purposes of the School Board ; but the School " Board may shift from their premises, and then " the land belonging to them might be occupied " by a new occupier, either as tenant or as pur- " chaser under the Board ; could he be discharged " from liability to be rated ? I think that he could "not; for his occupation would be beneficial." And Fry, L. J., agreed with the other mem- bers of the Court of Appeal, and gave similar reasons. It had been already laid down in the Corpora- tion of Worcester v. Droitwich Assessment Com- mittee (2 Ex.D. 49), that a restriction imposed by law on the user of a hereditament, involved a corresponding limitation of the eateablk value. Here the School Board were restricted by law from making any profit ; therefore, at first sight, it seemed that the School Board should be rated at nothing. But the Droitwich Case was dis- tinguished firom the West Bromwich Case, on the ground that the School Board had the power to lease their property. The principle of the older 380 case was not over-ruled, and as explained by the judgments in the West Bromwich Case amounted to this : that property absolutely incapable of bene- ficial occupation, or " struck with sterility " is not rateable : but, if capable of beneficial occupation in the hands of persons other than the pl:esent occupiers, then rateable: the measure of rate- ability being the potential value which the land would have in the hands of those other occupiers. If the School Board were bound to occupy their schools for ever, then no beneficial occupation, therefore no bate- able VALUE. But, said the Court of Appeal, the School Board may let their schools to a hypo- thetical tenant : — therefore the schools are rate- able. What is the rateable value ? The rent which that hypothetical tenant would give. The School Board could not let to themselves ; there- fore it followed that the School Board could not be regarded as the hypothetical tenant, or as competing with the hypothetical tenant. Again in Overseers of Chorlton-upon-Medlock v. Guardians of Charlton Union (51 L.J.Q.B. 458), the Court had to decide on what principle public baths, laundries, and board-schools should be rated, and the following methods were sug- gested :— 1. The annual interest actually paid on the money borrowed, and expended in the purchase or erection. 381 2. The annual rent wljich a contractor would require if he erected the premises as they stood, for the purposes for which they were used. 3. The amount of rent which a tenant, unfettered as to user and unrestricted as to charges, would give if the premises were in the market. 4. The annual profit which the Corporation or the School Board makes or can make. Of these four methods, the Court in that case held that the third was the true one ; and it was on this basis, that the Appellants in the present case claimed to be rated ; and they were prepared to show that if the premises, the subject of the appeals, were in the market no tenant would give a rent in any way approaching the sums appearing in the Valuation List. As to the third point raised by the Appellants, viz., that the amount actually expended by the School Board ought not to be taken into account, Mr. Marriott pointed out that the property had been acquired by the Appellants in several pieces, each the subject of several interests, for which they had to make compensation, and in addition to pay the usual 10 per cent, on account of com- pulsory purchase ; that the sum paid was there- fore far higher than the real value of the land. If the Court decided against him on this point, and adhered to the decision given in the School Board for London \. Mile-End Old Town {supra p. 382 122) he asked them to grant a case, as they had done then. In the course of the argument it was pointed out by the Cotjbt that in the West Bromwich Case, although the expenses had in every year exceeded the receipts, the School Board were rated at " sub- stantial sums," which implied that the measure of EATEABLE VALUE could not be the rent which a tenant, other than the School Board, would give for the premises, in order to carry on a school with a view to making a profit. And with regard to the School Board for London v. Mile-End Old Town (supra p. 122) the Assistant- Judge explained that the decision must be taken as relating only to that particular case, with aU its special circumstances ; that the Court then regarded the expenditure by the School Board as a modus probandi, not as the ratio decidendi; as an indication, and not as an absolute test of rateable value. As to this point also, Mr. Poland admitted that he could not contend that the usual percent- age should be calculated on that part of the ex- penditure which represented compensation for trade claims, or any of the extra costs to which a purchaser und'er compulsory powers was put. The first witness called on behalf of the Appellants was Mr. Edward Ryde, who said that the property would be extremely difficult to let. The most likely tenant would be a schoolmaster, who would, however, be unable, taking into con- 383 sideration the situation of the schools and the number of pupils he could get at a higher rate, to pay more than £150 a year rent, which would represent the gross value. The building could be used as a common lodging-house, or for the purposes of cabinet-makers, bookbinders, or similar trades. The land, if cleared, would probably be worth as much for letting purposes as the land and buildings as they stood. In cross-examination, Mr. Poland put the following question : — " If a builder had bought this land " and had built this school, knowing that the " School Board would want a school in the neigh- " bourhood, and in the hope that they would take *' it; and thereupon the School Board were " wUHng to take the school ; and if you were " called in to decide, as between a willing land- *' lord and a willing tenant, what would be a fair " rent, what sum would you fix ? " To this Mr. Ryde answered that, inasmuch as the landlord would be in possession of a property which would not let to any other tenant at a higher rent than £150 a year ; and inasmuch as the School Board, if they did not take it, would have to expend a large sum of money to provide themselves with other pre- mises, he would spHt the difference between £150 a year and the interest on the money which the School Board would otherwise have to borrow. Mr. E. N. Chfton valued the premises for pur- poses other than a school at £450 gross and 384 ^375 EATEABLE VALUE; taking 115 squares of available floor space in the school itself at £3 a square, and putting the caretaker's house at £S(y a, year (rateable value). He thought the property, could be let for many small trades at this rent. As a school, he did not think it would let at all, as no school that was carried on there by private individuals would earn enough to cover the working expenses. On being^ asked by Mr. Poland the same question that had been put to the last witness, Mr. Clifton said that he should not fix a higher rent than. ^375 rateable value. He had not considered how much the building would cost. Mr. C. K. Bedells also considered that the premises would not let at all as a school. The present expenses were seven times as great as the fees : to raise the fees would be to reduce the number of pupils. For trades such as tailoring, bookbind- ing, &c., which did not necessitate cart-tratiic, the premises might be let, each room separately, at an aggregate rent of £330 a year : ^f let as a whole, on lease, to a tenant who would underlet the separate rooms, he would expect a deduction of one-fourth from that rent, to guard against the loss arising from some of the rooms standing empty j this would leave only a rental of £250. He estimated that the land if cleared would command a ground-rent of 8d. per foot superficial ; which,, taking the area at 14,863 feet, amounted to £495. 385 He considered that if all the buildings had been liuilt at one time they would not have cost more than ^610,000. At this point Mr. Poland explained that the Assessment Committee had based their calcula- tions on the returns made by the School Board a,s to the cost of land and buildings, and had taken ■B, percentage thereon: as, however, it appeared that the sum stated as cost of land, included sums paid for compensation to previous owners and ■occupiers; and that the sum put down for build- ings represented structural cost, and not structural Talue, he consented to a reduction of the assess- ment from ^1,560 gross and ^61,300 rateable to £1,400 GROSS and £1,167 rateable, both parties to pay their own costs. It was further agreed that this arrangement was to be without prejudice to any contention to be raised by either party at the next Quinquennial Assessment. The School Board for London v. The Assess- ment Committee of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch. {February 20th, 1885.) Mr. Marriott, Q.C., and Mr. Eam appeared for the Appellants, and Mr. E. J. Castle for the Eespondents. -i — - The arguments on behalf of the Appellants in the previous case were taken as referring also to 386 this case, which raised the same question as to the principle on which board schools are to be rated. In addition to the authorities already cited, Mr. Marriott referred to The Metropolitan Board of Works V. West Ham (L.E. 6 Q.B. 193), in which case the rateability of certain sewers and a pump- ing-station was questioned. The Appellants there- contended (lb. p. 196) " that the sewers and " embankments ought not to be included in the " rating; and that so much of their property as " was liable to be rated to the relief of the poor " should be rated at the value for which the same " would let to a hypothetical tenant from year to year^ " supposing they were not used for the~ purpose ofthe- " main drainage scheme, but were entirely disconnected " therefrom, and applied to any other use or purpose "for which they could be made available by a tenant " thereof." The words here printed in Italics were adopted as expressing the true principle by all the- Judges in the case cited : and it was this principle that he now contended for, on behalf of the School Board. In that case the Metropolitan Board of Works were expressly excluded from consideration either as the hypothetical tenant, or as competing; with the hypothetical tenant. (He might also have cited The Metropolitan Board of Works y. St. George, Hanover Square; supra p. 162, where the Assessment Sessions seem to have acted on the same principle.) The Assistant-Judge, however, suggested that 387 the West Ham Case was distinguishable from the present case on the ground that the property of the Metropolitan Board of Works consisted of two parts : — one part, the sewers, being held to be not rateable ; the other part, the pumping- station, being held to be rateable ; that the Court only decided that the two parts must be considered as entirely severed ; that the rateable part must be assumed to be in the occupation of a tenant who would not (as the Metropolitan Board of Works did) occupy in conjunction therewith the unrate- able part ; and that this supposed severance was necessary in order to prevent the rateable part from having an increased value put upon it by reason of its connection with the unrateable part. In the case of the School Board there was nothing to correspond to the sewers ; no unrateable part which could increase the value of that which was rateable ; and therefore it was not necessary to imagine an occupation other than that of the School Board, The schools, the subject of this appeal, were situated in St. John's Road, and were rated at ^1,380 GROSS and ^61,150 rateable value. They had been recently erected at a cost of £16,576 for the buildings alone; the land having been acquired by the School Board at a cost of £11,513, exclusive of J928 paid for legal expenses. Mr. E. N. Clifton was the first witness on behalf of the Appellants : he considered that it 388 would be impossible for a private person to carry on a school on the premises so as to make a profit. For trade purposes, he put the available floor-space (amounting to 234 squares) at £2 a square (for which rent a tenant would expect to have ia addi- tion the use of the playground for storing materials, &c.). The caretaker's residence he put at £32 per annum : thus arriving at an assessment of J6600 gross and £500 rateable VALUE for the whole. He estimated the value of the land at £200 per annum, which at 20 years' purchase showed a fee-simple value of £4,000. He knew that the School Board had given £11,513 for the land assessed (with the old buUdings upon it), and that a strip of land had been sold to the parish for the purpose of widening a street at the price of 7s. 9d. per foot superficial, which was the price which the School Board had had to pay for the land (with the old buildiags). His own figures worked out a price of about 3s. per foot superficial ; the difference was caused by the fact that the Board bought buUdiugs as weU as land, and bought under compulsory powers. Being asked by the Court what rent the School Board would be willing to give for the property, assuming it were in the market, and they were in search of premises affording this accommodation ; he said that as the land was worth, in his opinion, £4,000, and the buildings had cost about £16,000, and as the School Board could borrow money at 389 3^ per cent, interest, they would be willing to give about £700 a ytar. Mr. A. Young who had acted as the surveyor of the School Board, when they acquired the land for the schools in question, said that, in making the calculations which had been the basis of the agreements made as to the amount of purchase- money to be paid by the Board to the different owners, he attributed £6,700 (out of £11,513) to the land as distinguished from the buildings. The Eev. C. W. Arnold (formerly head-master of the Boyal Naval School, New Cross) said that, from his experience as a schoolmaster in public schools, grammar schools, and private schools, he felt sure that no private person could give more than £128 per annum for the premises. Other evidence to a similar effect was given by persons having experience hi keeping schools. Mr. Edward Eyde said that £300 was the maximum rent which would be given for the premises as a school : that for trade purposes £360 a year might be given for the whole, including the caretaker's residence. He esti- mated the fee-simple value of the land alone at £4,000. On behalf of the Eespondents, Mr. George Brinsley, surveyor and auctioneer, was called. He thought that the land would command a ground-rent of ^400 a year. The land and build- ings in their present state, for purposes other than 390 those of the School Board, should be assessed at £813 GEOSs and ^678 bateable value. Mr. Samuel Walker, surveyor, valued the land as worth a ground-rent of 3d. per foot superficial : this would represent a fee-simple value of 5s. ; whereas the land had actually cost the School Board 7s. 9d. per foot. His estimate gave a total ground-rent of £350, which, added to 5 per cent. on the cost of the buildings, showed a bateable VALUE of £1,178 and' a gross value of £1,400. If the property were let for purposes other than those of the School Board, the rent would be a bad return on the outlay : but he thought it would let at £2 10s. geoss, £2 rateable value, per square. This did not include the 15,000 feet t>f bare land now used as a playground, which he thought would let at 3d. per foot. This gave a total GBoss value of £772, and a total bateable VALUE of £669. As the land was let separately he did not deduct 20 per cent, from the geoss VALUE of the whole. Mr. Enoch Walker, Vestry Clerk of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, said that the parish would give £200 a year for the playground, in order to use it as a stone-yard. He explained the basis of the valuation made by the Respondents: — the value of the land (as distinguished from the cost) was taken at £9,500, and the value of the build- ings was taken at £15,500 (the actual cost being £16,576): 4 per cent, on the land, added to 6 per 391 <3ent. on the buildings, was taken as the rateable TALUE^ . - Mr. Castle, in addressing the Court, said that ihe contention on behalf of the Appellants was based on a confusion between the profitable occupation of a hereditament and the accommoda- tion afforded by it. The rent of a shop or a public-house was regulated by the profit that could be made by the occupier out of his occupa- iion ; the rent of a private dwelling-house, by the accommodation which it afforded. A private dwelling-house was never a source of profit, but of •expense ; and the logical result of the Appellants' contention was that such a house was to be rated, not at the rent which the occupier would be ready io give for the accommodation, but ' at the rent "which would be given by a man who wanted to make a profit out of his occupation. Further, if it was a sound principle to measure the rateability of the property of the School Board by the rent which persons other than a School Board would .give, it must be appUed to all cases. Therefore, a railway station (which the railway company were prohibited by statute from making a source of profit) should be rated, not as an adjunct of a rail- way or in the occupation of a railway company, but at the rent which a tenant other than a railway company would give in order to occupy it for purposes for which it was never intended and for which it was utterly unsuited. This reductio 392 ad absurdum proved that the principle was wrong- Again, it should be applied (if correct) to the rating of gas or water mains ; but a very different principle had been laid down in R. v. Mile-End Old. Town (10 Q.B. 208 ; 16 L.J.M.C. 184). The present appeal was an attempt to apply the case of Worcester v. Droitwich Union (2 Ex.D. 49) to the School Board, and was occasioned by certain dicta in the judgments of the Court of Appeal in the West Bromwich Case (IS Q.B.D. 929); but it must be remembered that, in the case just cited, the only question before the Court was- whether the School Board were rateable : the Appellants in that case did not argue the question of amount, or of the principle of rating, although it was open to them to do so on the Case stated by the Court of Quarter Sessions {ib. p. 931). The present Appellants had failed to see the distinc- tion between " sterility" of the hereditament and "sterility" of the particular occupier. It had. been held in R. v. Rhymney Railway (L.E. 4 Q.B. 276) that " an occupier is liable to be rated in " respect of the full rateable value of the premises " in his occupation, without regard to the precise " amount of benefit which he himself derives from " such occupation." And the same principle had been previously laid down in the Mersey Dock Cases: (11 H.L.C. 443). Here the School Board wera occupiers, and therefore were to be rated at thfe^ full beneficial value of the accommodation which. 393 the hereditament gave. That the statute distri- buted the beneficial value of that accommodation among the children educated in the school, was no ground of exemption from rateability. To hold that it was such a ground of exemption, would be to revert to the old fallacy of Lord Mansfield in B. V. St. Luke's Hospital (2 Burr. 1,053), which had been swept away by the Mersey Dock Gases {ubi supra). Mr. Marriott did not reply to Mr. Castle's argument until the conclusion of the next case, and the Court reserved their judgment. The School Board for London v. St. Mary, Islington. (February ^Ith, 1885.) Mr. Marriott, Q.C., and Mr. Kam appeared for the Appellants, and Mr. Poland for the Respon- dents. The arguments on behalf of the Appellants in the Holborn Case {supra p. 373) were taken as refer- ring also to this case. This was an appeal against an assessment of £850 GROSS and £709 rateable value. The schools in question were situated on a piece of land about two-thirds of an acre in extent, which had a frontage of 32 feet only to St. Matthias Eoad. The buildings had been recently erected at 394 a cost of £12,385, and the sum paid for land {including the buildings formerly standing upon it, the 10 per cent, for compulsory purchase, and the legal expenses) amounted to £4,897. The Appellants called Mr. Edward Kyde, who thought that the premises would not let for any purpose at a higher rent than they would command as a school, which would be about £200. If the premises were in the market, the School Board would be able to take them at a rent very httle higher than the value to other people, because the landlord would have great difficulty in finding a tenant at all, and he could not get a better tenant than the School Board. If the land were cleared it would be worth £200 a year ground- rent. Mr. E. N. Clifton thought that no private schoolmaster could pay a rent for the premises. For business purposes, the school itself (156 squares of floor-space at £1 10s.) was worth £234 RATEABLE ; and the caretaker's house, £45. In cross-examination Mr. Poland repeated the question which he had put in the first case {supra p. 383); Mr. Clifton answered, that inasmuch as the School Board could borrow money at 3 J per cent., a fair rent for them to pay would be 3^ per cent, on the cost of the buildings (£12,385), and 3J per cent, on the value of the land (£2,675); this would give a EATEABLE VALUE of £527. Mr. Andrew Young, surveyor to the School 395 Board, proved that of the £4,897 paid by the School Board in acquiring the land, only £2,675 was attributable to the land itself. The School Board had recently agreed to purchase (not under compulsory powers) some vacant land close to these premises, having an area of 10,000 feet, for £1,000; which was at a higher rate per foot than they had paid for the premises which were the subject of this appeal. Mr. C. K. BedeUs thought the premises would not let at all as a school, but might be let for the purposes of light trades at £175 a year, and prob- ably the whole would not be permanently let. The Kespondents called Mr. William Marshall, who said that he had measured up the buildings, and had arrived at a structural value of £12,100. Taking the area of the land as 3,547 square yards, lie valued it at 16s. 8d. per yard, which gave a total of £2,956 as the fee-simple value of the land. Putting 5 per cent, on the buildings, and 4 per cent, on the land, his valuation amounted to £868 GROSS and £723 rateable value. He agreed with the Appellants' witnesses in thinking that no private person would take the premises as a school ; he thought for trade purposes they would certainly let, but could not say at what rent. Alterations in the buildings would probably be necessary. Mr. Poland, in addressing the Court on the question of law, said it was necessary merely to 396 consider the first principles of the law of rating. The statute of Elizabeth had directed that rate* should be raised ' ' according to the ability of the parish : " under that statute property was always, rated according to its value in the hands of the occupier, the property being taken rebus sic stantibus. No new principle of valuation was. introduced by the Parochial Assessment Act, by the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, or by the Valuation (MetropoUs) Act, 1869. Never, before this or any other Court, had it been contended that property in the hands of an occupier for whose purposes it was particularly suited should be rated at less than the fuU annual value to him, because if it were in the market, and the present occupier did not compete, the property would command a mere nominal rent. Yet this was the Appellants' contention. If the principle contejided for were accepted, it would lead to absurd results. For instance, if a patentee were to take premises, and to fit them up with machinery, forming part of the rateable heredita- ment, at the cost of thousands of pounds, for the purpose of manufacturing articles under his patent, though the premises were of immense value to him> yet, inasmuch as no other person could use them, they must (according to the Appellants' contention) be rated at the nominal rent which they would com- mand as a furniture-store. Other instances might be cited; such as chapels, literary institutions. 397 county and municipal buildings. When the St. Thomas's Hospital Case (L.E. 7 H.L. 477) was "taken up to the House of Lords, this principle was not suggested. If authority against the Appellants' contention were wanted, he referred to R. v. Grand Junction Railway Company (4 Q.B. 18 ; 13 L. J.M.C. 94) in which Lord Denman said : — " Though the sup- ^' position of a tenancy is to be made, yet what the ■" incidents of the tenancy must be, as to actual ■*' terms and allowances, must be determined for the ■" purpose of fixing the amount of the rate by the *' actual state of things, /br this supposition of a *' tenancy is only a mode of ascertaining the ** existing value of the occupation to the existing ^' occupier." In R. v. Fletton (30 L.J.M.C. 89) Coekburn, C. J., said, " The true principle accord- ^' ing to which the value of the occupation to ■" the hypothetical tenant contemplated by the *' Parochial Assessment Act is to be estimated, is *' to assume the continuance of those circum- *' stances which constitute the value to the *' existing occupier, unless it be made to appear •" that those circumstances are about to undergo *' a change." In the case of The Overseers of Chorlton - upon - Medlock v. Charlton Union (51 L. J.Q.B. 458), cited by Mr. Marriott (supra p. 380), the Court, while adopting the third method suggested in the Case, had not excluded altogether from consideration, under particular circumstances, 398 the second method of arriving at the bateable VALUE. The Appellants in the present case con- tended that the cost of the land and buildings- was in no way to be taken inio account. It was •■ admitted that the school was well built, and the money was prudently spent upon it ; so that the cost of the buildings was here, though not in all cases, practically the same as their value. In the case of those classes of property which are seldom or never let, if the fee-simple value of the property were to be entirely disregarded, the Court would, be reduced to rating by guess ; since, ex hypothesis the letting value was never ascertained by the- ordinary process of supply and demand. This was the reason for the principle laid down in R. v. West Middlesex Waterworks Company (28 L.J.M.C 135), where Wightman, J., iu deciding how the- indirectly producing apparatus of waterworks should be rated, said : — " The Company must h& " assumed to pay adequate remuneration to a " contractor for land and fixed capital vested " therein, &c." As to the rate of interest, sug- gested by Mr. Clifton, and the capital sum on. which it was to be calculated, Mr. Poland con- tended that if the special faciUties of the School Board, in borrowing money at a low rate of interest, were taken into account, the peculiar disadvantages which they were under ought also- to be taken into account. They must build their schools in a crowded neighbourhood : therefore: 399 they would almost certainly be driven to use com- pulsory powers, and settle questions of disputed compensation. In deciding what rent they would give for the property, assuming it to be built for them, they would calculate all the sums which they would have to pay to secure other premises, whether by way of purchase-money for land, com- pensation for injury to trade, or legal expenses ; and it was on the total outlay that they would have to pay 3^ per cent. Nor was he now con- tending for a new principle, since the School Board had before this Court raised the same point in 1876 (supra p. 155) ; and, though each case must be decided on' its own merits, it was noticeable that the decision of the Court in that case allowed a higher rate of interest than that for which he was now contending, as the Respondents in the present case had only put 4 per cent, on the land, and 5 per cent, on the buildings. In giving judgment in the two appeals the Assistant- Judge said : — " We adhere to the " opinion we have expressed in other cases in " which the School Board for London were " Appellants, that they are to be regarded as in " the position of hypothetical tenants within the " principle of the rating statutes." In the St. Leonard's Shoreditch Case tJie assess- ment was reduced from £1,380 gross and £1,150 RATEABLE to £1,320 GROSS and £1,100 RATEABLE in the Islington Case the assessment was confirmed. 400 In .both cases the Appellants were to pay the Eespondents their costs. Mr. Marriott said that, as the Court had intimated that they would gAnt him a Case on the points of law, he should ask that the first question might be whether the School Board were rateable at all, as he wished to dispute the decisioii in the West Bromwich Case (13 Q.B.D. 929). The Assistant- Judge, however, said that they could not grant a Case on a point which had already been decided by the High Court of Justice, and by the Court of Appeal. Mr. Marriott then asked for a Case on the following points : — (1) That the School Board ought not to be regarded as the hypothetical tenant. (2) That if the School Board be regarded as the hypothetical tenant, the rent which would be given by them would be no test of rateable value, because they are restricted from any beneficial occupation. (3) That the outlay on land and buildings ought in no way to be taken into account in arriving at the rateable value. The Assistant-Judge said that it was obvious, from the decision of the Court, that they had regarded the cost of the buildings to the School Board : they had not, however, dealt with that cost as the sole criterion of value. If the Court granted a Case on the third point they ought to 401 find alternative figures, based on the exclusion of the evidence of outlay. In the Holbom Case there was a difficulty in doing this, as the Kespondents had only offered evidence on the oniB basis, and therefore the parties should come to some agreement as to the alternative figures j otherwise the Case might have to be sent back from the High Court to the Assessment Sessions. On a subsequent day (March 2nd, 1885), the Court decided to grant a Case which substantially raised all the points on which a decision was desired by the Appellants. William C. B. Bellamy v. The 'Assessment Committee of St. Olave's Union. {March 2nd, 1885.) Mr. Edward Clarke, Q.C., and Mr. R. Vaughan "Williams appeared for the Appellant, and Mr. Fullarton and Mr. E. Cunningham Glen for the Eespondents. This appeal raised a novel and important question of procedure. The Appellant had been assessed at £1,390 GBOSS and £1,139 rateable ; and he had appealed to the Special Sessions claiming a reduction of the assessment to £575 gross and £460 rateable. The Special Sessions confirmed the assessment, and 402 the Appellant now came to the Assessment Sessions, not by way of appeal from the decision of the Special Sessions, but as being aggrieved by the decision of the Assessment Committee. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Appellant had no right of appeal in that form. They further objected that the alleged alteration in the hereditament, the subject of the assessment, had not " taken place during the preceding twelve months," so that the Appellant was not entitled, under Section 46, Sub-section 1, to have his property entered in the Supplemental List ; but they also admitted in their Case that if the Appellant was so entitled the property should be assessed at £834 rateable. As to the preliminary objection, Mr. Fullarton argued that the Appellant had the option of going either to the Special Sessions or direct to the Assessment Sessions : having exercised that option he must follow the course laid down by the Act, and appeal from the decision of the Special Sessions. The object of the Appellant was mani- fest, as he now raised a different contention, to be supported by different evidence, from that raised before the Special Sessions. If the course pursued were right in this case, it must be so in all cases. The result would be that there would be a conflict of decisions between two Courts of competent jurisdiction ; and that the decision of an inferior Court without being appealed against. 403 would be over-ruled by the decision of a superior Court. Mr. Clark answered, that though the alteration asked for by the Appellant was now different, the principle of his contention was the same : that the Special Sessions had not altered the figures stated in the Valuation List, so that there was no decision which could conflict with the decison of this Coubt, and that by Section 19 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, " the right to appeal to Special Sessions " shall not deprive a person of any other right of " appeal conferred on him hy this Act." The CouET, however, held that the Special Sessions had in effect adopted the figures stated in the Valuation List, and so had given a decision ; that the question of the jurisdiction of this Court could not be affected by the result of the decision of the Special Sessions; and that the proper course for the Appellant would have been to appeal from the Special Sessions. They thought, however, that as the Eespondents had not been prejudiced, and as the Appellant had been misled by a wrong statement as to the practice, supposed to have been given by the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex, the appeal ought to be amended. Any further question was avoided by a settle- ment, whereby the assessment was reduced to J61,000 GBOss and £834 eatbable, the Appellant consenting to pay the costs. It is submitted that the construction of Section 404 19 contended for by the Appellant requires the words "the exercise of the right to appeal to Special Sessions, &c." It should also be noticed that Section 20 enacts that "the Justices in " Special Sessions under this Act shall not hear *' any appeal touching any matter with respect to " which notice of appeal to the General Assess- " ment Sessions has been served." It would be singular if the Act contemplated and permitted, under one set of circumstances, a conflict of decisions which it expressly prohibited under another. APPENDIX. CONTENTS. FISB The Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862 • • * . 407 The Union Assessment Committee Amendment Act, 1864 . . 421 The Taluation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 425 Orders of the Court of General Assesament Sessions . . . 456 list of Unions and Parishes not in union, to which the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, extends 461 Index 465 407 THE UNION ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE ACT, 1862. 25 & 26 Vict., c. 103. IThe Sections and parts of Sections printed in Italics are repealed by B. 77 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, " where they relate only to the Metropolis absolutely, and in other cases so far as' they relate to the Metropolis."] An Act to amend the Law relating to ParocMal Assessments in England. [7th August, 1862.] ADHERE AS it is expedient that more effectual Provision should be made for securing uniform and correct Valua- tions of Parishes in the Unions of England : Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice iind Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Com- mons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, as follows : 1. The Words used in this Act shall be construed in like laterpieto. Manner as the Words contained in the Act Fourth and Fifth ""'*' ■of King William the -Fourth, Chapter Seventy-six, and the Word " Committee " shall signify the Assessment Committee ■provided for by this Act ; and this Act shall be termed " The Union Assessment Committee Act, 1863." 2. The Board of Guardians of every Union, formed under Appotatmeiit -the Act Fourth and Fifth Years of King William the Fourth, ^.^^r Chapter Seventy-six, shall, as soon as convenient after the S'T'^rfl. passing of this Act and in every subsequent Year, at their Gnwdia] First Meeting after the annual Election of Guardians, appoint &om among themselves any Number not less than Six nor more than Twelve to be a Committee, consisting partly of «x-officio and partly of elected Guardians, to be called the Assessment Committee of the Union, for the Investigation :and Supervision of the Valuations to be made as herein- after mentioned within such Union, and for the Performance of such said Acts and Duties as herein-after mentioned: Provided always, that One Third at least of such Committee shall consist of ex-officio Guardians, in case there shall be an 408 The Union Assessment Gommittee Act, 1862. Where Vnion hat the same Boimde at Borough Names of Aeaesemeni Committee to be treme* Kitted to Town Council, uhovmy typpoint additional Jlembere. adequate Number of such ex-officio Guardians ; but in case an adequate Number of such ex-officio Guardians shall not exist, then the Number so deficient shall be made up of elected Guardians. 3. Where any Union shall heme the same Bounds as a Muni' cipal Borough, the Clerk to the Guardians of such Union shall, upon the Appointment of the Assessment Committee, if directed by the said Oua/rdians to do so, transmit in Writing the Names of the Persons so appointed to the Town Council of such Borough, and such Council may thereupon, if they think fit, appoint from themselves a certain Number, not exceeding the Number appointed by the Board of Guardians, who shall, until they respectively cease to be Members of the Town Council or decline to act, forth- with form Part of the Assessment Committee for such Union, and the said Council may from Time to Time supply any Vacaneiei in the Number of Persons appointed by them. • NMie'ot'to''" *• -^^ *^® Guardians shall neglect or be prevented from appoint. making such Appointment at the Meeting above specified, the Poor Law Board shall by their Order appoint some other Day on which the Guardians shall make such Appointment ^Scifs!" 5- If *iiy ex-officio or elected Guardian being a Member of the Committee cease to be Guardian, or resign his Seat at such Committee, or die, or become incapable of acting as such Member, the Board of Guardians shall with all convenient Speed appoint an ex-officio or elected Guardian, as the Case may be, to supply the Vacancy. mS^® 6- During any Vacancy in any Assessment Committee th& may act other or continuing Members of such Committee may act, and cmSIb. "" shall have the same Powers and Jurisdiction as if no such Vacancy had happened. com^ttee's 7. The Authority of the Committee appointed for any Authority. Union under this Act shall extend over every Parish comprised in such Union. S^f'whlfto 8. The Committee shall hold their First Meeting at th& be hoideu. Board Eoom of the Union on a Day to be fixed by the Board of Guardians, and the subsequent Meetings of the Committee shall be holden at such Times and at such Place and upon such Notice and Kequisition as they shall from Time to Time appoint ; and any Guardian of the Union may be present at any Meeting of the Committee, but shall not be entitled to take part in the Proceedings thereof. MeS* 9- -^ -A-cts, Orders, Matters, and Things by this Act authorized or directed to be made or done by the Committee may be made or done by the major Part of the Members of' The Union Assessment Committee Ant, 1862. 409 such Committee who shall be present at a Meeting, the whole Number present together at such Meeting not being less than Three, and not less in any Case than One Third of the whole Number of which such Committee consists ; and when upon any Question there shall be an Equality of Votes the presiding Chairman shall have a Second or Casting Vote. 10. The Committee shall employ the Clerk or Assistant Oommittee Clerk of the Board of Guardians as their Clerk, with such ST/p^*'"' Eemuneration for his Services as the Poor Law Board shall ''•"''• sanction. 11. The Committee shaU. cause a Minute of their proceed- 3?rooeeainga ings, and of the Names of the Members who attend each i^ Booisao* Meeting, to he duly made from Time to Time in Books to be "«»"*• provided for that Purpose, which shall be kept by their Clerk, under their Superintendence, and every such Entry shall be signed by the presiding Chairman of the Assessment Committee present at the Meeting at which the Proceeding took place ; and such Entry, purporting to be so signed, shall be received smJ Entries as Evidence in all Courts, and before all Judges, Justices, and " °''°°' others, without Proof of such Meeting having been duly convened or held, or of the Persons attending such Meeting having been or being Members of the Committee, or of the Signatures of the Members, all of which Facts shall be pre- sumed until the contrary be proved ; and all such Books shall Books to b» at all seasonable Times be open to the Inspection of every JJ|pjoaon_ Person rated to the Belief of the Poor in any Parish or Place in the Union, without any Fee being demanded for such Inspection ; and all such Persons shall be entitled at all seasonable Times to take Copies or Extracts from the said Books, without paying any Fee for the same; and if, on Eequest made for that Purpose, the Clerk of the Committee refuse to permit any such Person to inspect any such Books, or to take Copies or Extracts therefrom, as aforesaid, such Clerk shall for every such Offence be liable to a Penalty not exceeding Five Pounds, upon a summary Conviction for the same before Two Justices of the Peace. 12. The Board of Guardians shall in the month of April Proceedings in every Year report the Proceedings of their Assessment ^Seeato Committee to the Poor Law Board. ^^ reported. 13. The Committee by their Order may from Time to committee r*i. rf-. ^^ -I 1 may reguir& Time require the Overseers, Assistant Overseers, Constables, Ketuma Assessors, Collectors, and any other Persons having the ^er8,*4o!'; Custody of any Books of Assessment of any Taxes or Bates, Parliamentary or Parochial, or of the Valuations of any Parish, or having the Collection or Management of any such Taxes or Bates, to make Eetm'ns in Writing to the Committee, at such Times and Places as they may appoint, of all such Particulars 410 The Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862. require , Frodaotion of Bates, ■dx.i and examine Peraons attending Overseers to jtrepare Valuation LUtt, as they may direct in relation to such Taxes, Bates, or Valua- tions, or any Property included therein, so far as relates to the Union for which they act, and may require the Persons having the Custody of any such Books as aforesaid to make and transmit to the Committee Copies of or Extracts from such Books, or to permit such Copies or Extracts to he made by such Persons as the Committee may, in that Behalf direct; and may from Time to Time require any Persons having the Custody of any such Books, or the Collection or Management of any such Taxes or Bates as aforesaid, to attend before them at a Time and Place to be mentioned in the Order in this Behalf and to produce all parochial and public brioie tb°em Books of Assessment, Bates, Bate Books, Valuations, Appor- tionments, Tithe and other Maps, Plans, Surveys, and other public Documents in their Custody or Power, and may examine all Persons who shall attend before them : Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall authorize the Productioa of Valuations or Assessments which by any Provision of Law at present are not suffered to be made public. 14. Subject to any Order as herein-after referred to which may be made by the Committee, the Overseers of each Parish in the Union shall within Three Calendar Months after the Appoint- ment of such Committee, make a Idst of all the rateable Here- ditaments in such Parish, with the annual Value thereof respec- tively, in so much of the Form shown in the Schedule annexed to the Act Sixth and Seventh William the Fourth, Chapter Ninety-six, as is set out in the Schedule to this Act ; and unless su^h Overseers think that the Valuation then last acted upon in assessing the Rate for the Belief of the Poor correctly shows the full annual rateable Value of all such Hereditaments, they shall revise such Valuation, and such Overseers shall sign every lAst so made by them as aforesaid, and such List shall he styled " The Valuation List." 15. The gross estimated Rental for the Purpose of the Schedule to this Act shall be the Rent at which the Hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from Year to Year, free of all usual Tenants Rates and Tasces, and Tithe Commutation Rentcharge, if any: Provided that nothing herein contained shall repeat or interfere with the Provisions contained in the First Section of the said Act (Six and Seven William the Fourth, Chapter Ninety-Six,) defining the net annual Value of the Hereditaments to be rated. S™*Mge 16. The Committee by their Order may from Time to SSJ^g " '" Time enlarge the Time within which the First Valuation Lists Valuation Under this Act shall be made by the Overseers of all or any of may^^™" the Parishes in the Union, and for ensurmg a uniform and Directjona correct Valuation of every Parish in the Union may direct that Definition of gross -estimated Rental. The Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862. 411 aay existing Valuation of the rateable Hereditaments in any oomseminc Parish be revised, in whole or in part, or a new Valuation of ^"yJ^J such Hereditaments be made by the Overseers, or the Com- Hon Liat», mittee may, with the Consent of the Board of Guardians of ^Johli' the Union, after Notice shall have been sent to every Guar- ?^"??J[" dian thereof, in any Case appoint some Person for either of Buoe. the Purposes aforesaid, and may direct such Person to make and sign the Valuation List instead of the Overseers, and every Valuation List so made and signed shall be delivered by such Person to the Overseers of the Parish to which the same relates. 17. The Valuation List for each Parish, made and signed y???^'jL by the Overseers, or delivered to them, as herein-before pro- a«po'sitea vided, shall be deposited by the Overseers in the Place in such ^^J'!^^ Parish in which Kate Books are deposited or kept, and a Copp afterw^as of such Valuation List shall be forthwith delivered to the Board S^Tcomr of Guardians, and the Overseers shall give public Notice of ""***«• tiie Deposit of such List on the Sunday next following the Deposit of such List, and such Notice'shall be given in the same Manner, and all Persons assessed or liable to be assessed to the Eelief of the' Poor of such Parish shall have the like Bight of inspecting, and of demanding and taking Copies of and Extracts from such List, as in the Case of a Poor Rate allowed by the Justices, and the Overseers shall, at the Ex- piration of Fourteen Days from the Time of the Notice given of the Deposit of such List, transmit the same to the Com- mittee, and any Overseer or other Ratepayer within the Union shall have the Right of inspecting and taking Copies of and Extracts from any of the Lists so transmitted. 18. Any Overseer or Overseers of any Parish in any OMeefiomi Union who shall have Reason to think that such Parish is Sat. "" aggrieved by the Valuation List of any Parish within such Union, or any Person who may feel himself aggrieved by any Valuation List on the Ground of Unfairness or Incorrectness in the Valuation of any Hereditaments included therein, or on the Gronnd of the Omission of any rateable Heredita- ment from such List, may at any Time after the Deposit as aforesaid of such List, and before the Expiration of Twenty-eight Days after the Notice of the Deposit as aforesaid, give to the Committee and to the Over- seers a Notice in Writing of his Objection, specifying the Grounds thereof, and where the Ground of any Objection shall be Unfairness or Incorrectness in the Valuation of any Here- ditament in respect of which any Person, other than the Person objecting, is liable to be rated, or the Omission of such Hereditament, also give Notice in Writing of such Objection, and of the Ground ttiereof, to such other Person. 412 The Union Assessment Gommittee Act, 1862. OommittM to hold Maetmga toltear Objeotiom. 19. The Committee shall hold such Meetings as they may think necessary for hearing Objections to the Valuation Lists, and shall, Twenty-eight Days at least before holding every Meeting for hearing Objections to Valuation Lists, other than Meetings by Adjournment, cause Notice of such Meeting to be given to the Overseers of the several Parishes to which such Lists relate, and such Overseers shall, on the Sunday next following the Eeceipt of such Notice, publish the same in the Manner in which Notice of a Eate allowed by Justices is by Law required to be given, and the Committee may at any such Meeting hear and determine such Objections, or may from Time to Time adjourn any such Meeting, and adjourn or postpone the Hearing or further Hearing and Determi- nation of any such Objections, and may, where they think fit, direct Notice of any such Objections to be given by the Over- seers or by the Persons objecting to Third Parties before the further Hearing thereof; but the Committee shall not be required to hold a Meeting for hearing Objections to the Valuation List of any Parish, unless such Notice in Writing as herein-before mentioned of some Objection or Objections thereto have been given to the Committee ; and where a Meet- ing is holden for hearing Objections to the Valuation List of any Parish, the Committee shall not hear any Objection to such Valuation List unless such Notice as aforesaid of such Objection have, been given to the Committee and to the Over- seers ; and where the Ground of such Objection is Unfairness or Incorrectness in the Valuation of -any Hereditament of any other Person than the Person objecting, or the Omission of such Hereditament, also to such other Person by the Person objecting, except where the Overseers, by themselves or any other Person on their Behalf, and in the Case aforesaid such other Person as aforesaid, by himself or any other Person on his Behalf, consent to the Hearing of such Objection, and in such Case the Committee may, if they see fit, hear the same ; and where the Committee see fit to hear the same they shall act in relation thereto in like Manner as if Notice of such Objection had been duly given. Board may diiect fnrthar Talnation and correct Talniitioii l^uta, and wben cor- i«ctedto 20. The Committee may, whether any Objection be or be not made to any such Valuation List, and either before or after any Meeting for hearing Objections, make such Alterations in the Valuation of any Hereditaments included in any Valuation List, and insert therein any rateable Hereditament omitted msproTetto -therefrom, and make such Corrections in Names, Descriptions, and Particulars in any Valuation List, and upon such Informa- tion, as to them may seem sufficient, and may, with the Consent of the Guardians as aforesaid, appoint or employ a Person to survey and value the rateable Hereditaments com- prised in any such \'aluation List or any of them, or omitted The Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862. 413 therefrom, or may take such other Means as they may think necessary for ascertaining the Correctness thereof, and when the Committee have heard and determined all such Objections as aforesaid, and have made such Alterations, Insertions, and Corrections in any Valuation List as to them may seem proper, they shall approve the same under the Hands of Three Members of the Committee present at the Meeting at which the same is approved, with the Date of such Approval. 21. Where the Committee make any Alteration in the vainaKon Valuation of any Hereditaments included in, or insert therein Ja^Jdtoba any rateable Hereditament omitted from, any such Valuation «iopo8i««a. List, they shall cause such Valuation List, with such Alteration or Insertion, to be deposited for Inspection in manner herein- before provided concerning the Valuation List made by or delivered to the Overseers, and shall cause the like Notice to be given of such Deposit as is required in the Case of a Valuation List so made or delivered as aforesaid, and shall appoint a Day, not less than Seven Days nor more than Four- teen Days from the Re-deposit of such Valuation List, for the Hearing of any Objections to the Valuation List as so altered; and when the Committee have heard and determined any such Objections, or have made such Airther Alterations, Insertions, and Corrections in such Valuation List, they shall approve the same in manner herein-before provided. 22. In case any Batepayer shall under the eadstmg Law appeal if on Appaa to the Special Sessions or Quarter Sessions against any Rate made tmmded the for the Belief of the Poor in any Parish, and the Besult of such ??!?2f sT Appeal shall be to amend the Bate appealed against, the Assessment altered. Committee shall alter the Valuation List of the said Parish in conformity with the decision so made. 23. Every Valuation List, when approved by the Committee, Cuttody, shall be delivered to the Overseers of the Parish to which the same vaiaatum relates, and shall be preserved at the like Place and in the like ^* "f*^ Custody, and be subject to the like Besort thereto, and be delivered over from Time to Time in like Manner, as the Books are wherein Rates and Assessments for the Belief of the Poor for the same Parish are entered, and shall be produced by the Overseers before the Justices, upon Application, for the Allowance of Bates, and at the Special or General or Quarter Sessions when amy Appeal is to be heard, and also at such Times and Places as the Committee may from Tims to Time direct. 24. Every Valuation lAst approved by the Committee, and WhattimU delivered to the Overseers of the Parish to which the same relates, vaUatiaa shall, with and subject to the Alterations and Additions for the y*^ •" Time being made therein or thereto by any Supplemental Valuation Lists so approved and ■ delivered, be the Valuation List in force in 414 The Union Assessment Qommittee Act, 1862. Overteeri to prepare muppU- mnentoA Taluation £illf in ca»e o/Jiddiiions to or Jltera- Ootain the rateable Property of the Parith. Committee may from Time to Time direct new Vahiw- tian and new or su/p- plemental Valuation List. This Act as to Valuation hist first directed to he made to apply to new awi supple- mental FaEuafton iMts. After a Valuation Idstie approved no Sate to be dUowed vnles9 made ueeording to *uehList. such Parish, except in thm Case of any Parish, as is herein-after referred to, in which the Poor Bate, or Assessment for the Poor Rate, is made under the authority Of a Local Act, until a new Valuation List in substitution for the same be approved and deli- vered in like Manner. 25. When and so often as any Property not included in the Valuation List in force'in any Parish becomes rateable, or where, by reason of any Alteration in the -Occupation of any Property included in such L/ist, such Property becomes liable to be rated in Parts not mentioned in such List, as rateable Hereditaments and separately valued therein, and when and so often as it shall appear to the Overseers that any rateable Property included in such lAst has been increased or reduced in Value since the Valuation thereof, whether by Building, Destruction of Building, or other Alteration in the Condition thereof or otherwise, the Overseers of the Parish in each of the Cases aforesaid shall, as soon as conve- niently may be, make a supplemental Valuation List' showing the annual rateable Valu^e according to the Judgment of the Overseers of the Property so become . rateable, or of the Parts so become liable to be rated separately, or of the Property so increased or reduced in value, as the Case may be. ' 26. The Committee by their Order may from Time to' Time, where they see fit, upon the application of any Person aggrieved by the Valuation List in force in any Parish, or where they them- selves think the same expedient, direct a new Valuation of all or any 'of the rateable Hereditaments in' such Parish, and a new Valuation List in substitution for such Valuation List as aforesaid, or a supplemental List in substitution for any Part thereof or in addition thereto, to be made by the Overseers, or the Committee may, with such Consent as aforesaid, appoint a Person for such Purposes ; and the Committee may, in directing such new Valuation and the making up of such new or supplemental Valuation List, give and make all such or the like Directions and Provisions' in relation thereto as they are authorized under this Act to give and make in relation to the Valuations and Valuation Lists first directed and authorized to be made under the Act. ■ 27. All the Provisions of this Act in relation to Signature, Deposit, Objections, Approval, and otherwise concerning the Valuation List first directed and authorized to be made under this Act of the rateable Hereditaments in any Parish shall be applicable to every new or supplemental Valuation List to be made under this Act. 28. In every Parish where a Valuation List under this Act has been approved and delivered to the Overseers, no Rate for the Relief of the Poor, or other Rate which by Law is required to be based upon the Poor Rate, shall be of any Force, unless the Here- ditaments included in such Rate, except as hereinafter provided The Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862. 415 he rated according to the annual rateable Valtte thereof appea/ring in the Valyation List in force in such Parish ; and instead of the Declaration required by the Second Section of the said Statute of the Sixth and Seventh Years of William the Fourth, Chapter Ninety-six, the Overseers shall, before the Rate shall be allowed by th^ Justices, sign a Declaration according to the Form set forth in the Schedule hereunto annexed : Provided always, that where by reason of any Alteration in the Occupation of any Property included in such List such Property has become liable to be rated in Parts not mentioned in such List as rateable Here- ditaments, and separately rated therein, such Parts may, where a supplemental Valuation List showing the annual rateable Value of such Parts has not been approved and delivered as herein-before required, and whether such List has or has -not been made, be rated according to such Amounts as shall be fair apportion Parts of the annual rateable Value appearing in such Valuation List in force as aforesaid of the Heredita- ments out of which such Parts have been constituted. 29. The Provisions of Section Twenty-eight shall not apply to Provuim any Poor Bate made by any Vestry, Trustees, Guardians, CommiS'-^^^^^H^i sioners, Overseers, or other Persons authorized by any Local Act ^o*'- to make the Rate for the Relief of the Poor in any Parish, or the Assessment on which such Rate is made. 30. When the Assessment Committee for any Union shall in com. have approved Valuation Lists for all the Parishes comprised Amount of within such Union, the Guardians of such Union, in comput- °°^^^ t„ ing the Amount of Contribution to the Common Fund for common the several Parishes, shall thenceforth take the annual rateable ^4}''° Value of the Property in such Parishes respectively from the ™''''''','^ . ^ Valuation Lists for the Time being lastly approved of for such taken from' Parishes respectively, any Statute to the contrary notwithstan- vriuSl ding : Provided that in case any Parish comprised in any Lists. Union shall receive, any Sum of Money as a Contribution in aid of the Poor Eate of such Parish, for or in respect of Government Property within such Parish and used for public Purposes, the annual Value of such Property according to the Estimate (if any) of such Value on which the Amount of the Sum of Money so received is computed, or, if there be no such Estimate, then the annua] Value of such Property, estimated in the Mode provided by the Act Sixth and Seventh William the Fourth, Chapter Ninety-six, for making an Estimate of the annual rateable Value of Property liable to be rated to Eates for the Belief of the Poor, shall be included by the Overseer or Overseers in the Valuation List of such Parish, and shall be added to the annual rateable Value of the Property in such Parish in computing the Amount of Contribution to the Common Fund for the several Parishes in such Union. 416 The Union Assessment Qommittee Act, 1862. Copy of TamoAUm hitU to he •deponted in Board Room. Appeal against Valuation 31. The Committee shall cause a Copy of the Valuation last for the Time in force for every Parish in the Union to he made and deposited at the Board Boom or other convenient Place to he appointed by the Board of Guardians in the Custody of the Clerk, which Copy shall be open at seasonable Times to the Inspection of any of the Guardians of the Union, and of any Overseer of any Parish within the Union, without Charge, and of any Batepayer within the Union on Payment of Or^e Shilling, such Fee to be carried to the Account of the Common Fund. 32. If the Overseer or Overseers of any Parish in any Union shall have Beason to think that such Parish is aggrieved by the Valuation List of any Parish within such Union, whether it be on the Ground that the rateable Hereditaments comprised in the Valuation List of such Parish are valued at Sums beyond the annual rateable Value thereof, or on the Ground that the rate- able Hereditaments comprised in the Valuation lAst of some other Parish in such Union are valued at Sums less than the annual rateable Value thereof, it shall be lawful for such Overseer or Overseers, with the Consent of a Vestry summoned for the Purpose of considering the Expediency of giving suoh Consent, to appeal to the Quarter Sessions for the County or Borough in which the greatest number of Parishes belonging to the Union is situate, or, in case the Number of Parishes in any Two or more such Juris- dictions is equal to the Quarter Sessions for the County or Borough having Jurisdiction over the Parish in which the Workhouse of the Union is situate, at the Sessions to be holden after the Expi- ration of a Month after the Allowance of and Deposit of such Valuation List as qforesmd, against such Valuation List of the Parish which shall appear to he over-valued or under-valued ; and if in any Case any such Overseer or Overseers appeal against the Valuation List of any other Parish on the Ground that the rate- able Hereditaments in such List are valued at less than the annual rateable Value thereof, such Overseer or Overseers shall give Four- teen clear Days' Notice in Writing previous to the First Day of the said Quarter Sessions at which the Appeal is to be made of the Intention to appeal, and the Gfrounds thereof, to the Overseers of the Poor of such Parish, and to the Guardians of the Union com- prising such Parish ; and if any Overseer or Overseers of any Parish appeal against the Valuation List of such Parish on the Ground that the rateable Hereditaments in such List are valued beyond the annual rateable Vahie thereof, such Overseer or Over- seers shall give Fourteen Days' Notice in Writing previous to the Quarter Sessions at which the Appeal is to be made of the Intention to appeal, and the Gfrounds thereof, to the Guardians of the Union in which such Parish is situate, the said Court shall be empowered to hear and determine such Appeal, and either confirm such Valua- tion List, or correct such Irregularities or Inaccuracies as shall be proved to exist therein, as to them may appear fair and just ; but The Union Assessment Gommitte^Act, 1862. 417 no such Valuation List shall upon such Appeal be quashed or de- stroyed in regard to any other Parish unless the Court deem it necessary to proceed to the making of an entire new Valuation List as herein-after provided. 33. It shall be lawful for the Court of Quarter Sessions upon Hearing i«'!''°n- 11. Objections may be made before the assessment ^"Xioh committee by any person authorised by this Act and the persons may Acts incorporated herewith to object who feelshimself aggrieved asleBsmeuT" by reason of the unfairness or incorrectness of the valuation committee. of any hereditament, or by reason of the insertion or incor- rectness of any matter in the valuation list, or by reason of the omission of any matter therefrom, or by reason of such a valuation list as is required by this Act not having been transmitted by the overseers to the assessment committee. The notice of objection shall specify the correction which the objector desires to be made. 12. A surveyor of taxes, and any ratepayer in the parish, f^'J^l°' shall have the same right of inspecting, copying, taking may inspect, extracts from, and objecting to any valuation list which relates oSjTdt^to to his district or parish as is given to any person by this Act valuation and the Acts incorporated herewith. 13. If the overseers of any parish fail to transmit such a " ^o™"'^ valuation list as is required by this Act, the assessment com- transmit list, mittee shall appoint some person to make a valuation list, and to™reoint may allow such person such remuneration in addition to his « p?"™ expenses as they think fit ; and all expenses incurred by the assessment committee in pursuance of this section shall be paid by the guardians, and charged by them to such parish. The person so appointed shall have for the purposes of this section the same powers and duties as overseers, and the valuation list so made shall be dealt with in the like manner as if it had been duly made and transmitted by the overseers. 14. The assessment committee, within the time in this u^^'bT Act mentioned, shall revise the valuation list in accordance "™!*' with this Act and the Acts incorporated herewith. When and sent to they have finally approved such valuation list, they shall cause l^^^"'""- the totals of the gross and rateable value in such list to be ascertained and inserted in the list, and three members of the committee present at the meeting at which the list is finally approved shall sign at the foot thereof such declaration of approval and certificate of compliance with this Act as is con- tained in Part One of the second schedule to this Act. One duplicate, so certified, shall be sent to the clerk of the managers of the metropolitan asylum district, and the other duplicate to the overseers of the parish to which it relates. 15. The overseers of the parish, on receiving the duplicate Deposit oj of the valuation list so sent to them by the assessment com- o^usUn mittee, shall immediately deposit it in the place in which the ea»i> pafi»i>- IcaXe books of the parish are kept, and shall publish notice of 430 The Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869. Deposit of list at office of the managers of metrO' politan asylain dietriat. Printing and distribution of totals of groBB and rateable Talae in Talaation liBt. Buch deposit, and of the time and mode of mailing appeals, and of the grounds on which an appeal is allowed hy this Act to be made. 16. The certified valuation list so sent to the clerk of the managers of the metropolitan asylum district by the assess- ment committee shall be deposited at the office of such managers, and within the time in this Act mentioned shall be returned by such clerk to the same assessment committee. 17. The clerk of the managers of the meti'opolitan asylum district shall, within the time in this Act mentioned, cause the totals of the gross and rateable values of all the valuation lists to be printed, and a printed copy of all such totals to be sent to every assessment committee, and the overseers of every parish in the metropolis and in every county in which any parish to which any of such totals relate is situate, to the clerks of the peace for every such county, to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the Corporation of the City of London, the Metropolitan Board of Works, every district board in the metropolis, and the Poor Law Board. Every assessment committee, overseer, and ratepayer within the metropolis and every such county shall respectively be en- titled to have printed copies of such totals on payment of one penny for each copy of all the said totals. Appeals. — Special Sessions. Holding of ig_ In every petty sessional division in the metropolis the session to justiccs of the peace acting in and for such division shall in hear appeals. gygj.y yg^j, ^t the time mentioned in this Act, hold a special sessions for hearing appeals under this Act against the valua- tion lists of the several parishes within such division. 19. Any ratepayer and any overseers of a parish, so far as respects the valuation list of such parish, and any surveyor of taxes, so far as respects the valuation list of any parish in the petty sessional division, may, if he or they feel aggrieved by any decision of the assessment committee on an objection made with respect to the unfairness or incorrectness of the valuation of any hereditament included in such list, but not otherwise, appeal against such decision to the special sessions. The right to appeal to special sessions shall not deprive a person of any other right of appeal conferred on him by this Act. 20. The justices in special sessions under this Act shall not hear any appeal touching any matter with respect to which notice of appeal to the general assessment sessions has been served in manner prescribed by this Act, and shall not hear any appeal touching any part or alter any part of the valuation list except the part relating to the value of an hereditament ; Persons entitled to appeal to special sesBionfl. Extent of jurisdiction of special The Valmiim {Metropolis) Act, 1869, 431 and a decision of such justices and an alteration by them of the value of an hereditament in the valuation list of any parish shall affect only the rights of the ratepayers of such parish among themselves, and shall not of itself in any way alter the totals of the gross or rateable value of such list as settled by the assessment committee, but may form a reason for an appeal against such totals to the assessment sessions and superior court as herein-after mentioned. 21. The justices in special sessions under this Act may Powers of adjourn their court from time to time, as may be necessary for aSmioM. the performance of their duties under this Act. They shall have with respect to the attendance and examination of wit- nesses, the taking of evidence, the keeping order in court, the enforcing their orders, and all matters necessary for the execution of their duties under this Act, the same powers and jurisdiction as if they were assembled in petty sessions. 22. The justices in special sessions shall send a written noUoo by notice of the time and place at which they will hold a special IfoBionB of sessions for the purpose of hearing appeals with respect to any **S? "' parish to the overseers of such parish, who shall publish it as " soon as it is received by them. Appeals. — Assessment Sessions. 23. For the purpose of hearing appeals under this Act Oonrt of against any valuation list in the metropolis, the justices of the l™eT8ment peace appointed as herein-after mentioned shall at the time 8«»8'™»- mentioned in this Act assemble and hold a court of general assessment sessions (in this Act referred to as the assessment sessions). 24. The justices who are to form the court of general ^^'^}' assessment sessions shall be appointed annually as follows : members 1. Three justices of the peace of the county of Middle- assesament sex (of whom the assistant judge of the court of the =»="™=- sessions of the peace of the said county shall be one) shall be appointed by the court of general quarter sessions or general sessions of the peace for the county of Middlesex : 3. Two justices of the peace of the county of Surrey shall be appointed by the court of general or quarter sessions of the peace for the county of Surrey : 3. Two justices of the peace of the county of Kent shall be appointed by the court of general sessions for the county of Kent : 4 Two justices of the peace of the city of London shall be appointed by the court of the mayor and aldermen of the city of London in the inner chamber. 432 The Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869. OCBoerB of general aaseSBment seBBionB. Otaairman, quorum, and powers of general Orders as to proceedings and recog- nizances on appeals. Fees on appeals under Act. The said justices shall be appointed in the month of October in every year, or at such other time as may be from time to time fixed by the appointing body. They shall hold office for twelve months beginning on the first of November, and any casual vacancy may be filled up by the appointing body. 25. The justices in assessment sessions may from time to time appoint, with the consent of the Poor Law Board, a clerk, and other persons to assist them in the performance of their duties under this Act, and may assign him or them such re- muneration and such duties as the Poor Law Board may approve. 26. The justices in assessment sessions may from time to time appoint one of their own number to act as their chairman, who shall have a second or casting vote, and they may irom time to time determine on their quorum so that it be not less than three. The court of general assessment sessions may adjourn from time to time, as may be necessary for the performance of their duties under this Act, and (for the purpose of giving judgment only) from place to place in the metropolis. They shall with respect to the attendance and examination of wit- nesses, to the taking of evidence, to the keeping of order in court, to contempt of court, to the enforcement of their orders, and to all matters necessary for the execution of their duties under this Act, have the same jurisdiction and powers and be in the same position as a court of quarter sessions ; and, subject to the express provisions of this Act, shall conduct their proceedings, be convened, and be in the same position, as near as may be, as if they were a court of quarter sessions. 27. The justices in assessment sessions may, with the approval of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, make orders from time to time for the purpose of regulating the proceedings on appeals to them under this Act, and for determining the recognizances (if any) to be entered into by appellants in the case of appeals either to special sessions or to the assessment sessions. 28. The justices in assessment sessions may make a table of the fees which in their opinion should be paid to the clerks of special sessions and to the clerk of assessment sessions in the case of appeals under this Act, and shall lay such table before one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State in the same manner as the justices at quarter sessions may make and lay before such Secretary of State a table of fees, and all the provisions of section thu-ty of the Act of the session of the eleventh and twelfth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter forty-three, (which section relates to a table of fees and to the prohibition of clerks taking other fees,) shall apply in the case The Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869. 433 of a table of fees made, and the business done by the said clerks under this Act. All fees paid in the case of appeals to the assessment sessions shall be paid to the account of the receiver of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and shall be so paid and taken and accounted for in such manner as the Poor Law Board may from time to time by order prescribe. 29. The justices in assessment sessions shall from time to piaoes tor time appoint the place in the metropolis where the appeals ^^£1. relating to each parish in the metropolis are to be heard, and may, if they think fit, divide the metropolis into districts for the purpose of appeals, and appoint one or more places for every such district. 30. The justices in assessment sessions shall cause public PnbUonoUoe notice to be given of the several times at which they will sit at hoiaSig ° the several places appointed for the hearing of appeals ; such "?"'" *° •■* notice may be given under the hand of their clerk, aaid shall be given by advertisement in some newspaper circulating generally in the metropolis, and by sending a copy of such notice to every surveyor of taxes in the metropolis, to every assessment committee which would have a right to appeal at such court, and to the overseers of every parish to which any appeal relates, and to all parties to the appeal. The overseers shall publish the notice as soon as it is re- ceived by them. 31. The justices in assessment sessions may order any sammons clerk to the Commissioners of Taxes, any surveyor of taxes, offlMraTs clerk of assessment committee, overseer, assistant overseer, witneaeeB. or like officer in the metropolis to produce any documents relating to rates or taxes which such justices may consider necessary for determining an appeal, and do not relate to profits of trade or of concerns in the nature of trade. Any person who refuses, after tender of a reasonable sum for his expenses, to obey any order under this section shall be liable (on summary conviction before the justices in assessment sessions or any other two justices) to a penalty not exceeding five pounds. 32. Any ratepayer and any surveyor of taxes, and any PersonB overseer, with the consent of the vestry of his parish, who may appeluo" feel aggrieved by any decision of the assessment committee, on MsesBment an objection made before them to which he was a party, or by any decision of special sessions, whether he was a party or not, may appeal against such decision to the assessment sessions. Any assessment committee in the metropolis, or in the county in which the parish to which the appeal relates is situate, any overseers in the metropolis or such county, with the consent of the vestry of their parish, any ratepayer in the 434 The Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869. NoUoe of appeal to Bpeoialor asBesBment BBBsionB. SeBliODB to hear and determine appeals, and alter list acoordingly. metropolis or such county, and any body of persons authorised by law to levy rates or require contributions payable out of rates in the metropolis or such county, may appeal to the assessment sessions, if they or he feel aggrieved by reason — (1) of the total of the gross value of any parish being too high or too low ; (2) of the total of the rateable value of any parish being too high or too low ; or (3) of there being no approved valuation list for some parish. Proceedings on Appeals. 33. Notice in writing of every appeal, whether to special sessions or the assessment sessions, specifying the correction which the appellant desires to have made in the valuation list, must be served, within the time in this Act mentioned, on the following persons ; namely, in all cases on the surveyor of taxes of the district to which the appeal relates, and on the clerk of the assessment committee which approved the list wholly or partly questioned by the appeal ; when the appeal relates to the unfairness or incorrectness of the valuation of, or to the omission of an here- ditament occupied by any person other than the appellant, or to the incorrectness of any matter stated in the list with respect to any such hereditament, then on such person ; if an assessment committee or a surveyor of taxes is the appellant, then also on the overseers of the parish to which the appeal relates : Provided that it shaU not be necessary to serve any notice of appeal on the surveyor of taxes in any case in which the appeal relates only to the rateable value of any hereditament. The clerk of the assessment committee, on receiving notice of an appeal, shall forthwith serve notice thereof on the clerk of the special sessions or of the assessment sessions, as the case may require. 34. The justices in special sessions and in assessment sessions respectively shall, in open court, hear and determine all appeals brought before them in such order as they may respectively from time to time appoint. They may adjourn the hearing from time to time, and to any day not later than the day before which all appeals to them are required by this Act to be heard ; and in the case of assessment sessions for the purpose of obtaining the decision of any superior court to any day necessary for that purpose; and if from accident or mistake due notice of appeal has not been given, or if The Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869. 435 an additional notice of appeal appears to be required, they may, if they think it just, order notice of appeal to be given. They may confirm or alter the valuation list, so far as it is questioned by the appeal, in such manner as they think just, but shall not make any alteration in contravention of this Act. The clerk of the assessment committee, or some deputy allowed by the assessment committee, shall attend the court ■with the valuation list to which the appeal relates, and any alteration shall be made by the justice acting as chairman of the sessions in that list, and the said justice shall place his initials against such alteration. 35. If it appears to the justices in assessment sessions on Maidng oi any appeal that there is no approved valuation list for some usiwheie parish, they may appoint some proper person (with such »™« remuneration as they may appoint) to make a valuation list. ''''*''°" ' Such persons shall have for that purpose the same powers and duties as overseers. The valuation list so made shall be deposited and other- wise made known to the persons interested in such manner as the court may direct, but in manner as near as may be as is provided in this Act with respect to the list originally made. The costs of making such valuation list shall be paid by the assessment committee who failed to approve the list, and shall be deemed part of their expenses under the principal Act. 36. If any of the parties to the appeal apply to the justices Assenment in assessment sessions to direct a valuation of any heredita- may'"™ ment with respect to which any appeal may "be made, and if 'wu^uon such applicant or applicants give such security as the court appeaiforder think proper to pay the costs of the valuation, the court may, '"•""i"''- in their discretion, appoint some proper person to make such valuation. 37. Where the court appoint a person to make a valuation Adjonm- list or a valuation, they may fix some subsequent day, either ™ehre before or after the day before which all appeals are required JJ*^*""" by this Act to be heard, for receiving such valuation list or vaination. valuation, and may adjourn the hearing to that day. 38. The person so appointed to make a valuation shall VainaUon to make his valuation in writing signed by him, showing the JeMon*"""' particulars of the hereditaments comprised therein, and the "^"^^ '," amounts at which he has valued the same respectively. to enter. Such person may at all reasonable times, with or without assistants, enter upon any of the hereditaments directed to be valued, and may do thereon all acts necessary for completing the valuation. 436 The Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869, Costs ol appeal. Appeal from deailion of asseBSment sessions on points of law. Notice of alteration of list to be sent to oveiseerg. 39. The costs of any appeal, including the costs of any such valuation as aforesaid, shall be in the discretion of the justices in special or assessment sessions (as the case may be), and shall be awarded by them to be paid by such parties to the appeal, and in such proportions, as they think just. Costs (including the costs of making a valuation) so ordered to be paid may be recovered as if they had been awarded by a court of quarter sessions, and when ordered to be paid by parties other than a ratepayer shall be paid as in this Act mentioned. 40. The same proceedings may be had by special case and certiorari or otherwise, for questioning any decision of the justices in assessment sessions, as may be had for questioning any decision of the justices in general or quarter sessions, provided that every such certiorari shall be sued out within three months a,fter the decision is given. At any time after notice given of appeal under this Act to the assessment sessions, it shall be lawful for the parties, by consent and by order of any judge of one of the superior courts of common law at Westminster, to state the facts of the case in the form of a special case for the opinion of any of those courts, and to agree that a judgment in conformity with the decision of that court, and for such costs as that court may adjudge, may be entered on the application of either party at the meeting of the justices in assessment sessions next or next but one after such decision has been given, and such judgment may be entered accordingly, and shall be of the same effect in all respects as if the same had been given by the assessment sessions upon an appeal duly brought before them and adjourned ; and the justices shall, if necessary, hold a sessions or an adjourned sessions for this purpose. Notice in writing of the decision of any superior court in pursuance of this section shall be served by the clerk of the assessment sessions on the assessment committee which ap- proved the list questioned on the appeal to such court 41. Notice of every alteration in the valuation list, which alteration is made in consequence of any decision on any appeal to the special sessions, assessment sessions, or a superior court, shall, as soon as possible, be sent in writing by the clerk of the assessment committee to the overseers and sur- veyor of taxes of the parish and district respectively to which the list which is so altered relates, and such alteration shall be entered by the clerk of the assessment committee and by the overseers on the duplicates respectively deposited with them. Notice of every alteration in the total of the gross and rateable value of any valuation list, which alteration is made in consequence of any decision on any appeal to the assessment The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. 437 sessions or a, superior court, shall as soon as possible be sent in writing by the clerk of the assessment committee to the clerk of the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District, and the clerk of such managers shall send in writing such altered total to every person and body of persons who has power to levy or make any rate or assessment or require any contribution based on such total. Times for Proceedings, 42. With respect to the times within which proceedings ^^^'^^j'^ under this Act and the Acts incorporated herewith are to be oeeainga in done, the following provisions shall have effect ; that is to say, 5i^j,n (1) The overseers shall make and deposit the valuation JJs^^J" *" *« list before the first of June in the Qrst year after the passing of this Act : (2) The overseers shall transmit the valuation list to the assessment committee not sooner than fourteen and not later than seventeen days after notice is given of the deposit of such list : (3) Notice of any objection by any person other than the surveyor of taxes and the overseers shall be given before the expiration .of twenty-five days after the list is deposited : (4) The assessment committee shall revise the valuation list before the first of October in the same year, and before the same day, but not less than sixteen days after the transmission of the list to them by the overseers, shall hold a meeting for hearing objections to such list : (5) The assessment committee shall give notice of a meeting for hearing objections to a list not less than sixteen days before such meeting : (6) Notice of objection with respect to any list by the surveyor of taxes and by the overseers shall be given not less than seven days before the meeting at which objections to such list will be heard by tiie assess- ment committee : (7) The assessment committee shall send the valuation list to be re-deposited within three days after it is approved by them, and shall appoint a day not less than fourteen nor more than twenty-eight days after such re-deposit for hearing objections to the altera- tions, of which objections seven days notice shall be given by the objector : (8) The assessment committee shall finally approve and send the valuation list to the overseers, and the clerk of the managers of the metropolitan asylum 438 The Valuation {Metropolis) Ad, 186d. dista-ict, before the first of November in the same year; (9) Notices of appeal to special sessions shall be given on or before the twenty-first of November in the same year : (10) The justices may hold the special sessions at any time after the thirtieth of November in the same year, which will enable them to determine all appeals before the ensuing first of January : (11) The clerk of the said managers shall send out the printed totals before the first of December in the same year, and shall retm-n the valuation list to the assessment committee not sooner than fourteen nor later than twenty-one days after the totals are sent out: (12) Notices of appeals to assessment sessions shall be given on or before the fourteenth of January in the same year : (13) The justices may hold the assessment sessions at any time after the first of February in the same year, which will enable them to determine all appeals (except where a valuation list or valuation is ordered) before the ensuing thirty-first of March : (14) Notice of the times at which the assessment sessions will be held at each place shall be given by the clerk ten days at least before the first court is held. Effect of Valuation lAst. Dniationoi 43. The Valuation list as approved by the assessment TOination committee, and, if altered on any appeal under this Act to any sessions or a superior court, as so altered, shall come into force at the begianing of the year (commencing on the sixth of April) succeeding that in which it is made, and shall last for five years, subject to any alterations that may be made by any supplemental or provisional list as herein-after mentioned. Rate to be 44. Notwithstanding any appeal under this Act which may m™»tmaiiig be pending at the commencement of the year, the valuation appeal. Jig); gi^aH come into force unaltered, and every assessment, contribution, rate, and tax iu respect of which the valuation list is conclusive shall be made, required, levied, and paid in accordance with such valuation list ; and where in consequence of the decision on any appeal under this Act to assessment sessions or a superior court an alteration in such valuation list is made which alters the amount of the assessment, con- tribution, rate, or tax levied thereunder, the difference, if too much has been paid, shall be repaid or allowed, and if too little, shall be deemed to be arrears of the assessment, con- ^he Valuation {Metropolis) Act, 1869. 439 tribution, rate, or tax (except so far as any penalty is incurred on account of arrears), and shall be paid and recovered accordingly. 45. The valuation list for the time being in force shall be Jjj^"™ deemed to have been duly made in accordance with this Act oonoioBiTo and the Acts incorporated herewith, and shall for all or any J5 mS"' of the purposes in this section mentioned be conclusive evi- rates, taxes, dence of the gross value and of the rateable value of the Saaons. several hereditaments included therein, and of the fact that all hereditaments required to be inserted therein have been so inserted ; that is to say, (1) For the purpose of any of the following rates which are made during the year that the list is in force, namely, the county rate, the metropolitan police rate, the church rate, the highway rate, the poor rate, the police, sewers, consolidated and other rates in the city of London, the sewers, lighting, general, and other rates levied by order of district boards or vestries, the main drainage improvement and other rates, and sums assessed on any part of the metro- polis by the Metropolitan Board of Works, assess- ments for contributions under the Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867, and every other rate, assessment, and contribution levied, made, and required in the metropolis on the basis of value : (3) For the purpose of any of the following taxes which become chargeable during the year that the list is in force ; namely, (a) The tax on houses levied under the House i4&iBVict, Tax Act and the Acts therein incorporated "• ^' *"■ or referred to : (6) Any tax assessed in pursuance of the Income b ft 6 vict.. Tax Act, and any Acts continuing or amending "• ^' *"• the same, on any lands, tenements, and here- ditaments, in all cases where the tax is charged on the gross value, and not on profits : (3) For the purpose of determining, so far as it is appli- cable, the value of any hereditament included there- in for the purposes of the Acts relating to the sale of exciseable liquors, to the qualification of a juror, to the qualification of a vestryman, and an auditor of accounts under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, and to the qualification of a guardian and of a manager under the " Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834," or the " Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867," at any time at which such value is required to be ascer- tained: 440 The Valmtion {Metropolis) Act, 1869. 10 Goo. 4, And in construing the Metropolitan Police Act and the "■ **■ Acts amending the same, the last valuation for the time being acted upon in assessing the county rate shall be deemed to mean the valuation list for the time being in force : o^M^&I'°'" ^^ ^ construing the County Eate Act and Acts referring to the valuation, estimate, basis, or standard for the county rate, the valuation, estimate, basis, or standard shall be deemed to be the rateable value stated in such list : 0*36^17'°'"' ^^ ^ construing the House Tax Act and the Acts therein incorporated or referred to, the full and just yearly rent shaU be deemed to be the gross value stated in such list : 5&6Vi■ j,™gjy' in England and Wales (in this Act called the County Bate Act) - J •'' So much of sections one to twenty, both inclusive, as relates to the preparation of a basis or standard of county rate for any part of the metropolis and sections forty to forty-three both inclusive. 16 & 17 Vict c. 34. — ^An Act for granting to Her Majesty duties \ on profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices . ( Sections thirty-two and forty-seven, and so much of the rest of the Act as relates to the mode of ascertaining the value of any hereditaments with respect to the value of which the valuation list is conclusive. 18 & 19 Vict. 0. 180. — An Act for the better local management 1 of the metropolis (Metropolis Management Act, 18S5) - - - J So much of sections one hundred and seventy-five and one hundred and seventy-nine as relates to ascertaining the value of any hereditament with respect to the value of which the valuation list is conclusive. 20 & 21 Vict. u. 64. — An Act for raising a sum of money for building and improving stations of the-metropolitan police, and to amend the Acts concerning the metropohtan police Sections eleven and twelve. 21 & 22 Vict. c. 38 — An Act for the better management of) in part, county rates J namely ,- Section one. 25 & 26 Viot. c. 102. — An Act to amend the Metropolis Local 1 . . Management Acts (The Metropolis Management Amendment Act, |- i,™giy'_ 1862) --------- ' ~ J So much of sections six, seven, and thirteen as authorises or relates to the ascertaining the value of any hereditament with respect to the value of which the valuation Ust is con- clusive, and so much of any Act as applies the provisions hereby repealed. in part, namely, — iu part, namely,- in part, namely,- 25 & 26 Vict. c. 103. — The Union Assessment Committee 1 Act, 1862 - - . - - . . - ; Sections three, fourteen, fifteen, the following words in section seventeen, " and a copy of such valuation Ust shall be forth- with delivered to the board of guardians," sections twenty- two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven, section twenty-eight down to " schedule here- unto annexed," sections twenty-nine, thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty-four, thirty-five, thirty-six, thirty-nine, forty-one, forty-two, forty-three, and forty-five. 87 & 88 Vict. e. 39. — The Union Assessment Committee Amend- 1 ment Act, 1864 - - - - J Sections one, nine, and eleven. 29 & 30 Vict. c. 64.— An Act to amend the laws relating to the 1 Inland Eevenue - J Section seventeen, so far as it relates to the value of property. 29 & 30 Vict. c. 78.— The County Bate Act, 1866 - - - | Section one. 81 & 32 Vict. c. 122.— The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1868 SectiouB thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two, and thirty-eight. in part, namely,- in part, namely,- in part, namely ,- in part, namely ,- in part, namely,- 456 OEDEES OF THE 23rd JUNE, 1870, PROCEEDINGS AND RECOGNIZANCES ON APPEALS MADE BY THE JUSTICES IN ASSESSMENT SESSIONS, Under Section 27 of the Valuation {Metropolis) Ad, 1869. 1. On every appeal to the Special Sessions from the de- cision of an Assessment Committee, the Appellants and one surety shall within seven days after giving the notice of appeal required hy the said Act, enter into recognizances in the sum of £20 each, before a justice of the peace acting in and for the Division where the hereditaments, the subject of the appeal, may be situate, conditioned for the due prosecution of the appeal and for the payment of the costs that may be ordered by the Court of Special Sessions to be paid by the Appellant, except that this Order shall not apply to any Assessment Committee, to any Overseers, or to any Surveyor of Taxes. 2. On every appeal to the Assessment Sessions from the decision either of an Assessment Committee, or a Special Sessions, the Appellant and two sureties shall, within seven days after giving the notice of appeal required by the said Act, enter into recognizances before two Justices of the Peace, acting in and for the Division where the hereditaments, the subject of the appeal, may be situate, conditioned for the due prosecution of the appeal, and the payment of the costs that may be ordered by the Court of Assessment Sessions to be paid by the Appellant, and the amount of such recog- nizances shall be determined by such Justices, having regard to the nature of the appeal, and so that the amount be not less than j650, except that this Order shall not apply to any Assess- ment Committee, or any Overseers, or to any Surveyor of Taxes. 3. All appeals to the Assessment Sessions shall be entered by Petition, to be lodged with the Clerk to the Assessment Sessions, on or before the 14th January next following the final approval of the Valuation List or the Supplemental List, as the case may be, by the Assessment Committee. Orders of 2'6rd June, 1870. 457 4. In every case of appeal, the person or persons who shall be entitled by virtue of the said Act to appear as Eespon- dents to such appeal, and shall desire so to do, shall give notice in writing of their intention so to appear, and shall therein state whether he or they intend to appear separately, or as joint Respondents with any other person or persons, and such notice must be served on the Clerk of Assessment Ses- sions, and on the 'Appellant before the expiration of fourteen days after the entry of the appeal, and the person or persons omitting to give such notice shall not be entitled to be heard unless by special leave of the Court, and then only upon such terms as the Court may think fit to impose. The expression "person or persons" in this Order shall extend to and include any ratepayer, any occupier, any Surveyor of Taxes, any Assessment Committee, any Overseers, and any body of persons authorized by law to levy rates or require contributions payable out of rates. 5. On or before the 1st February next following the entry of any appeal, the Appellant shall state his case, and the facts to be proved, and the points of law (if any) to be argued in support thereof in writing, and shall serve on the Clerk to the Assessment Sessions nine copies thereof for the use of the Court, and one copy on each of the Respondents : and in like maimer each of the Respondents shall, on or before the same day, state his case and the facts to be proved, and the points of law (if any) to be argued in support thereof in writing, and shall serve in like manner nine copies thereof for the use of the Court, and one copy on the Appellant. 6. One Counsel only for each party to the appeal shaU. be heard by the Court. 7. The Counsel for the Appellant shall in every case begin, except when a Surveyor of Taxes is the Appellant, in which case the Counsel for the Respondents shall begin. In all cases in which there shall be more than one Respondent, and they shall be entitled to appear separately, their Counsel shall be heard in the order determined by the Court at the time. 8. In case the Court shall determine to refer the investi- gation of any matter, the subject of any appeal, to any person, the parties to the appeal may attend before such person, and be heard by their Counsel, or by their Solicitors, and such person shall report the result of his investigation to the Court. The costs of and incidental to such investigation shall be in the discretion of the Court. 9. The costs ordered by the Court to be paid by any of the parties to the appeal shall be taxed in the usual manner by the Clerk of the Assessment Sessions. 458 Orders of 23rd June, 1870. 10. The Solicitors of the parties shall attend the Clerk of the Assessment Sessions on the drawing up of any Order of the Court, at a time to be fixed by him. 11. Such of the expressions in these Orders as are the same as those used in the said Act, shall respectively bear the interpretation given them by the said Act. W. H. BODKIN, Chairman. (Approved) H. A. BEUCB. Whitehall, 18th August, 1870. m OKDER OF THE 23rd JANUARY, 1871. In every case in which it shall appear to the Court that, for some reasonable cause, the recognizances directed by the Order of the Court of the 23rd June, 1870, numbered 3, to be entered into by Appellants and their sureties, or any of them, have been omitted to be entered into in conformity with the said Order, and that some sufficient security for the pay- ment of any costs that may be awarded to be paid by the Appellant has been given in substitution or part substitution for the same recognizances, the Court may, if it sees fit so to do, waive all or any of such recognizances, and proceed to hear the appeal notwithstanding such omission. And if in any case it shall appear to the Court that such substituted security as hereinbefore-mentioned shall not be sufficient, the Court may, if it shall think fit so to do, order such increased or additional security to be given or entered into as to the Court may seem just, and may, if necessary for the purpose of such Order being complied with, postpone the hearing of such appeal until such time and upon such terms and conditions as to costs or otherwise as the Court shall think fit. W. H. BODKIN, Chairman. (Approved) H. A. BKUCE. Whitehall, 1st February, 1871. 460 OKDEE OF THE 30th OCTOBER, 1876. In every case in which it shall be desired by any Appellant to make a deposit of money in substitution or part substitution of the recognizances required by the Order of the Court of the S3rd day of June, 1870, numbered 2, such sum of money shall be paid by him into the London and Westminster Eank to the account of the Court of General Assessment Sessions, and the receipt given by the Bank for such payment shall be deposited with the Clerk of the Court, and be filed by him in proof of such payment, and such deposit shall in no case amount to less ^an £60. By the Court, EDWAED WM. BEAL, Clerk to the Court, (Approved) Whitehall, S3nd November, 1876, BiGHABD ASSHETON CbOSS. 461 LIST OF UNIONS AND PAEISHES NOT IN UNION The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, extends. Bethnal Green, St, Matthew. Camberwell, St. Giles. Chelsea, St. Luke. Hampatead, St. John. Islington, St. Mary. Kensington, St. Mary Abbotts. Lambeth, St. Mary. Marylebone, St. Mile End Old Town (Hamlet). Paddington, St. Mary. Shoreditch, St. Leonard. St. Pancras. St. George's-in-the-East. St. Giles-in-the-Fields and St. George's, Bloomsbury. 'Lincoln's Inn. St. George's Union — St. George, Hanover Square. St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster. ^Olose of the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster. Fulham Union — Fulham. Hammersmith. Greenwich Union^ Greenwich. St. Paul, Deptford— That part in the County of Kent. That part in the County of Surrey. St. Nicholas, Deptford. Hackney Union — St. John, Hackney. Stoke Newington. Holborn Union — St. Andrew above Bars and St. George the Martyr. Furnival's Inn (that part in the County of Middlesex). Furnival's Inn (that part in the City of London). * Lincoln's Inn fonus no part of the united parishes of St. Oiles-in-the-Fields and St. George, Bloomsbury, although the Assessment Committee of those parishes acts for liucoln's Inn, under Sec. 69 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. f The Close of the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, has been added to the St. George's Union by order of the Local Government Board, dated 14th September, 1S7S. 462 List of Unions and Parishes. Holbom Union {continued) — St. Sepulchre, Middlesex. Saflfron Hill, Hatton Garden, and Ely Bents. Staple Inn. St James and St. John, Clerkenwell. St. Lake, Middlesex. ♦Charterhouse, f Gray's Inn. Lewisham Union — Lee. Mottingham. Eltham. Lewisham. Poplar Union — St. Mary Stratford, Bow. All Saints, Poplar. Bromley St. Leonard. St. Olave's Union — St. Thomas, Southwark. St Mary Magdalen, Bermond- sey, St Olave, Southwark. St John, Horselydown, South- wark. St Mary, Eotherhithe. St Saviour's Union — Christ Church. St George the Martyr. St Saviour's, Southwark. St. Mary, Newington. * Charterhouse has been added to the Holbom Union by order of the Local GoTerument Board, dated 10th March, 1877. t Gray's Inn forms no part of the Holbom Union, although the Assessment Committee of that Union acts for Gray's Inn, ander Section 69 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. Stepney Union — St Paul, Shadwell. Hamlet of Batcliff St Anne, Limehouse. St John, Wapping. Strand Union — St Martin-in-the-Fields. St Paul, Covent Garden. Precinct of the Savoy. St Mary-le-Strand. St. Clement Danes. Liberty of the Bolls. Wandsworth &Clapham Union — Glapham. Tooting Graveney. Streatham. Battersea, St Mary. Wandsworth. Putney. Westminster Union — St Anne, Westminster. St James, Westminster. Whitechapel Union — Precinctof01dTower,Withoat Holy Trinity, Minories. Liberty of Old Artillery Ground. Hamlet of Mile End, New Town. St Mary, Whitechapel. Liberty of Norton Folgate. St. Botolph (Without) Aldgate. List of Unions and Parishes, 463 Whitechapel Union (continued) — Precinct of St. Katharine. Christ Church. Woolwich Union — Charlton. Kidbrooke. Woolwich. Plumstead. City of London Union — 1 St. Alban, Wood Street. 2 Allhallows, Barking. 3 Allhallows, Bread Street. 4 Allhallows, Honey Lane. 5 Allhallows,LombardStreet. 6 Allhallows, London Wall. 7 Allhallows, Staining. 8 Allhallows-the-Great. 9 AllhaUows-the-Less. 10 St. Alphage, London Wall. 11 St. Andrew, Holborn. 12 St. Andrew, Hubbard. 13 St. Andrew, Undershaft. 14 St. Andrew by the Ward- robe. 15 St. Anne and Agnes. 16 St. Anne, Blackfriars. 17 St. Antholin. 18 St. Augustin. 19 Barnard's Inn. 20 St. Bartholomew by the Exchange. 21 St. Bartholomew the Great. 82 St. Bartholomew the Less. 33 St. Bennet Fink. 24 St. Bennet,, Gracechurch Street. City of London Union (con- tinued) — 25 St. Bennet, Paul's Wharf. 26 St. Bennet, Sherehog. 27 St. Botolph, Aldersgate. 28 St. Botolph, Aldgate. 29 St. Botolph, Billingsgate. 30 St. Botolph, Bishopsgate. 31 St. Bride, Fleet Street. 32 Bridewell Precinct. 33 St. Clement, Eastcheap. 34 Christchurch, Newgate Street. 33 St, Christopher-le-Stock. 36 St, Dionis, Backchurch, 37 St. Dunstan-in-the-East. 38 St. Dunstan-in-the-West. 89 St, Edmund the King. 40 St. Ethelburga. 41 St, Faith under St, Paul's. 42 St. Gabriel, 43 St. George. 44 St. Giles, Cripplegate. 45 St. Gregory by St. Paul. 46 St. Helen, Bishopsgate. 47 St. James, Duke's Place, 48 St. James, Garlick Hythe. 49 St. John the Baptist. 50 St. John the Evangelist. 51 St. John Zachai-y, 62 St. Katharine Coleman. 53 St. Katharine Cree Church. 54 St. Lawrence, Jewry. 55 St. Lawrence, Pountney. 56 St. Leonai'd, Eastcheap. 57 St. Leonard, Foster Lane. 58 St. Magnus-the-Martyr. 464 List of Unions and Parishes. City of London Union (con- 69 St. Margaret, Lothbury. 60 St. Margaret Moses. 61 St. Margaret, New Fish St. 62 St. Margaret Pattens. 63 St. Martin, Ludgate. 64 St. Martin, Orgars. 65 St. Martin, Outwich. 66 St. Martin, Pomeroy. 67 St. Martin, Vintry. 68 St Mary, Abchurch. 69 St. Mary, Aldermanbury. 70 St. Mary, Aldermary, 71 St. Mary, Bothaw. 73 St. Mary-le-Bow. 73 St. Mary, Colechurch. 74 St. Mary-at-Hill. 76 St. Mary-Magdalen, Milk Street. 76 St. Mary-Magdalen, Old Fish Street 77 St Mary, Mounthaw. 78 St Mary, Somerset 79 St Mary, Staining. 80 St Mary, Woolchurch Haw. 81 St Mary, Woolnoth. 83 St Matthew. 83 St Michael, Bassishaw. 84 St Michael, Cornhill. 85 St Michael, Crooked Lane. City of London Union (con- tinued) — 86 St Michael, Queenhithe. 87 St Michael-le-Quem. 88 St Michael, Paternoster Eoyal. 89 St Michael, Wood Street 90 St. Mildred, Bread Street 91 St. Mildred, Poultry. 93 St Nicholas Aeons. 93 St. Nicholas, Cole Abbey, 94 St Nicholas Olave. 95 St Olave, Hart Street. 96 St. Olave, Old Jewry. 97 St Olave, Silver Street. 98 St. Pancras, Soper Lane. 99 St Peter, Cornhill. 100 St Peter, Paul's Wharf. 101 St Peter-le-Poor. 103 St Peter, Westcheap. 103 Sergeant's Inn. 104 St Sepulchre. 105 St, Stephen, Coleman St 106 St. Stephen, Walbrook. 107 St. Swithin. 108 Thavies Inn. 109 St. Thomas Apostle. 110 Holy Trinity-the-Less. 111 St Vedast, Foster Lane. 113 Whitefriars, Precinct *The Middle Temple. *The Inner Temple. * The Middle Temple and Inner Temple form no part of the City of London Union, although the Aesesament Committee of that Union acts for these places under Section 59 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. ' 465 INDEX. ADVEETISEMENTS— In tramcars; taken into acconnt in estimating rateable value of tramway, 114, 115. On hoardings ; held, by Queen's Bench Division, to be not rateable, 120, 188. ALBEET HALL— Eating of, 85, 133. APPEAL (OOUET OP)— Appeal to, from decision of Queen's Bench Division on Case stated by Assessment Sessions, lies even without leave, Ivii, 355. APPEAL (AGAINST VALUATION LIST)— Notice of time and mode of making, to be given by Overseers, zxxiz. APPEALS TO SPECIAL SESSIONS— By whom to he made, xlvi, xlvii. On what grounds, xlv, xlvii, xlviii. Is objection before Assessment Committee a condition precedent to right of appeal?, liii, Uv, 34, 41, 152, 248, 364. Notice of, to whom to he given, xlix. Within what time, xlv. Eecognizances to be entered into, xlv, 456. Within what time, appeals to be heard, xlv. Costs of, are in discretion of Court, xlvi. Belief cannot be granted by Court beyond that claimed by Appellant in his notice, 157. APPEALS TO GENEEAL ASSESSMENT SESSIONS— By whom, and on what grounds, xlvii. May be, from Special Sessions, xlvii. Or direct from decision of Assessment Committee, xlvii. But not if Appellant has already appealed to Special Ses- sions, 401. Is objection before Assessment Committee a condition precedent to right of appeal ?, liii, liv, 34, 41, 152, 2'48, 364. Notice of, to whom and when to be given, xlix. 466 Index. APPEALS TO GENEEAL ASSESSMENT. SESSIONS— (!0»«inM« GREENWICH STATION— Appeal affecting (1881), 296. GROSS ESTIMATED RENTAL— The term Gross Value substituted for, in the Act of 1869, xxziii. GROSS VALUE— Definition of, by Sect. 4 of Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, xxxiii. For what rates and taxes it is the basis, xli. Must be inserted in Valuation List, though the hereditament be- exempt irom rates, 26. Where the hereditament is partially exempt itom rates, the trufr gross value must be inserted, 30. See also Deductions fbou Gboss Value. HAGGEESTON STATION— Appeal affecting (1876), 169. Index. 473 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE— See Queen's Bench DiviaioH. HOSPITAL (ST. THOMAS'S)— Eating of, 89, 197. Bateability of, established in House of Lords, 199. HYDRAULIC POWER— Brought on to rateable hereditament, but created elsewhere, not rateable, 276. INCREASED ASSESSMENT— Notice of, to occupier, when necessary, xsziv, xxxviii. INTERPRETATION OP TERMS— By Sect. 4 of Act of 1869, 425, 426. JEWELLERY, MANUFACTORY OF— To be put in Class 8, 245. KING'S COLLEGE— Bating of, 285. KING'S CROSS STATION— Bating of, in. 1876, 136. Bating of, in 1881, 269. LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1845— Section 133 (Rating of uncompleted Railway), 48, 98. LEARNED SOCIETIES, EXEMPTION OF— Geological Society held exempt from rating, but gross value of their property allowed to remain in the List, 24. LIST — See VAinATioN Lists. LOCOMOTIVE EXPENSES— See Railways. LONDON SCHOOL BOARD— See School Boaed foe London. MACHINERY— Rating of, not to be increased in respect of motive power created out- side the rateable hereditament, 276. MAIDEN LANE GOODS STATION— Rating of, in 1876, 136. Rating of, in 1S81, 269. MAINS — See Watebwoeks. 474 Index. MAINTENANCE AND RENEWAL OF WAY— See Eailwam. MANUFACTOEIES AND MILLS— To be put in ClasB 8 in Schednle 3, 452. See also CiiAss 8 in Schedule 3. MAZE HILL EAILWAY STATION— Bating of, in 1881, 296. MOTIVE POWEBr- Created outside rateable hereditament, but applied to machinery within it, does not affect rating, 276. NET ANNUAL VALUE— The term Eateable Value substituted for, in the Act of 1869, zxziii. NEW TEIAL— Application for, refused, 263. NOTICE— Of deposit of List, how to be publishedrixxiv. When necessary to be given to occupier, xxxiv. Effect of want of notice, xxxiv. Of objection to List before Assessment Committee, xxxvi. When none given, objection maybe heard by consent, xxxvii. Omissions in, not necessarily fatal, 52, 152. Of meeting of Assessment Committee, to hear objections, xxxvii. Of re-deposit of List, to be published, xxxvii. To occupier, when necessary, xxxviU. When none given, what remedy, 38. Of objection to alterations in List, xxxviii. Of deposit of List, after final approval by Assessment Committee, xxxix. Of time and mode of making appeals against List, xxxix. Of appeal to Special Sessions, when to be given, xlv. To whom to be given, xlix. Of appeal to Assessment Sessions, when and to whom to be given, xlix. Failure to give, not fatal to appeal, Uii, 24, 34, Objections to omissions in notice of appeal, should, it seems, be taken at once, 147. Of intention to appear as Eespondents, xlix. OBJECTION BEFOEE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE— See Assess- UENi Committee. Index. 475 OCCUPIER— When entitled to notice of deposit of liBt, zxxiv. Effect of want of notice, xxxiv. Is entitled to notice of objection, affecting the rating of the heredita- ment ia his occupation, xxxvi. When entitled to notice of re-deposit of List, xxxviii. What remedy he has, when no notice is given, 33. If he has not appeared before the Assessment Committee, he cannot, it seems, be substituted for the owner as Appellant, 248. If not a party to an appeal, can his name be put on the List?, 278. Who is, when line of railway belonging to one Company is worked by another, 48. Who is, when sidings laid down on land belonging to one Company, are worked only in connection with the lines of another, 275. OEDEKS OF ASSESSMENT SESSIONS— Made under Sect. 27, for regulating proceedings, 456 et sej. Are these Orders ultra vires ? xlviii, hii. Order 6 may be relaxed under special circumstances, 251. OVEKSEEES— Must make Valuation Lists for their own Parish, xxxii. Must deposit List, and give public notice, xxxiii. Must give notice to occupier in certain cases, xxxiv. Must send copy of List to Surveyor of Taxes, xxxiii. Must transmit List to Assessment Committee, xxxv. Effect of failure to do so, xxxv. May object before Assessment Committee to List of another Parish, xxxvi. Must give public notice of meeting of Assessment Committee, xxxvii. And of re-deposit of List, xxxvii. Must give notice of alterations in List to occupier, xxxviii. Must deposit List when finally approved, xxxix. Must publish notice as to time and mode of appeal, xxxix. Must make Provisional List, on requisition, xlii. But not if they think that none is necessary, xliL May, with consent of the vestry of their Parish, appeal to Assessment Sessions, xlvii. If they obtain leave to appear on an appeal, to which the Assessment Committee of their Union is a party, they may be ordered to pay costs, though not parties to the appeal, 283. And compare 285. In what cases they are entitled to notice of appeals, xlix. OWNER— To be deemed the occupier when liable to be assessed, xxxii. Has no locm standi on an appeal, unless he compounds with Over- seers for rates, 247. When wrongly rated instead of occupier, may appeal against Supple- mental List, even though he was similarly rated in Quinquennial List and did not appeal, 213. 476 Index. PARISHES— List of, to which Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, extends, 461. PAROCHIAL EARNINGS— Of Railways, 62. Of Tramways, 105. PART OF HEREDITAMENT— If unoccupied, the rate must still be made on the whole, if it forms one rateable hereditament, 80. But if part is not, and cannot be, used, the Court will, it seems, exclude that part &om the estimate of the rateable value, 171.173. PETITION OF APPEAL— Within what time to be entered, 456. Time for entering, not imperative, 131, 183, But see also liii, 210. PRODUCTIVE MAINS— Of Gasworks, 310. Of Waterworks, 70, PROFITS— Whether evidence of, is admissible, in order to show rateable value, 280. Where it is admissible, over how many years the evidence may extend ; see the East and West India Dock Case, 347 et seq. And see also 145. PROVISIONAL LIST— Difference of, from other Lists, xli. Whether there is any right of appeal against, zli See also 90, 210, 227, 339, 354. Overseers must make, on requisition, xlii. But not if they think that none is necessary, zlii. When necessary, xlii et seq. Is it necessary, whenever Supplemental List is necessary, xliii. May be made without structural alteration of hereditament, xliv, 353. PUBLIC HOUSE— Rating of, where rent may be attributed partly to goodwill, 46. Where premium may be regarded as rent paid in advance, 125, 240. Premium cannot be entirely disregarded in estimating rateable value, 295. Whether it ought to be put in Supplemental List, because a neir Railway Station has been opened in the neighbourhood, 219. Index, 477 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION— Will grant certiorari, if AssesBment Sessions exceed, or refuse to exercise, their jurisdiction, Ivi. But CEmnot compel Assessment Sessions to state a Case, Ivii. Appeal lies &om decision of, on case stated by, Assessment Sessions, to Court of Appeal, without leave, Ivii. And apparently to House of Lords, Ivii, 356. Special Case for opinion of, may be stated by consent of parties, before hearing of appeal by Assessment Sessions, Iviii, 291. QUINQUENNIAL LISTS— In what years to be made, xxx. FrovisionB relating to the making of, vtvi et teq. See also Valttaiion Lists. RAILWAYS- Bating of incomplete lines, A8, 98. Calculation of train-mileage must exclude that part of line which is within a^ terminal station, 62. Locomotive Expenses, 57, 68, 297-304. Carriage and Wagon Expenses may be calculated on carriage-mile- age, 64. Or on train-mileage, 298. Renewal and depreciation of rolling-stock, 57. . Miscellaneous Expenses, on what traffic, highest, 63. Rates and Taxes of what year, should be taken as basis of calculation of rateable value, 298-304. Bisks and Casualties, 55, 57. Maintenance and Renewal of Way, whether to be calculated on carriage-mileage, or engine -mileage, 59. But see also 297-304. Extra expenses for, where line is in tunnel; how they should be allotted, 300 et seq. Tenant's Capital taken as equal to one year's gross receipts, 54, 297. How it may be estimated otherwise, 64. Parochial Earnings, 62. Stations : 5 per cent, on gross receipts taken as equal to rateable value of, 54. But see also 298. Where cost of construction of station is taken as a test of rateable value, what rate of interest to be taken as basis, 9. See also 267, 273. Structural value of Waterloo Station, how far a measure of rateable value, 64, 259 et seq. Structural value ; how far it has been taken as a measure in other cases, 165, 267, 269 et seq. 478 Index. BAILWAYS— coneintMf?. Structural value of a goods warehouse taken as a measure of rateabla value, 210. Of a, goods yard and sidings, apparently taken as a. mgaRure, 333. Gross value of Stations: deduction of J from, allowed, 268, 804. deduction of | from, allowed, 138, 168, 263, 264, 268, 274. deduction of J from, allowed, 259-263. BAILWAY STATIONS, APPEALS AFFECTING— Bricklayers' Arms (1876), 207. (1881), 263. Broad Street (1876), 168. Charing Cross (1881), 264. Greenwich (1881), 296. Haggerston (1876), 169. King's Cross (1876), 136. (1881), 269. Maiden Lane (1876), 136. (1881), 269. Maze Hill (1881), 296. Shoreditch (1876), 169. Spa Eoad (1881), 265. VauxhaU (1871)," 60. (1881), 258. Waterloo (1871), 60. (1881), 258. Westoomte Park (1881), 296. See also Bailways. EATEABLE VALUE— Definition of, by Sect. 4 of Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, xxxiii. For what Bates and Taxes it is the basis, xli. Where the hereditament is partially exempt from rates, the tra» rateable value must be inserted in the List, 30. See also Dbduoiions fbom Gboss Valde. BECEIPTS— Whether evidence of, is admissible, in order to show rateable value of hereditament, 280. Where evidence of, is admissible, over how many years it may ex- tend ; see the East and West India Dock case, 347 et seq. And see also 145. KECOGNIZANCES, TO BE ENTEEED INTO BY APPELLANTS— On appeals to Special Sessions, 456. On appeals to Assessment Sessions, xlix, 456, KE-DEPOSIT— See Deposit op Valuation List. Index. 479 BEFEESHMENT EOOM— Bating of, at Waterloo Station, 261. Bating of, at King's Cross, 272. bent- How far a measure of rateable value, 41-48, 150, 181, 183. BESPONDENTS— Must give notice to Clerk of Assessment Sessions, of intention to appear, xlix, 457. Must state their case, on appeals to Assessment Sessions, 1, 457. See also A:pfealb to Assessueni Sessions, Costs, Notice, ST. THOMAS' HOSPITAL— Bating of, 90, 197. SCALE FOR COMPUTING ANNUAL VALUE FROM WEEKLY BENTS— Union using one, is bound by it, 242. SCHEDULE 3 OP VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869— Prescribing deductions to be made from gross value, 452. See also Class 5, &o., in Schedule 8 ; Deductions fbou GeOSS VAIiUB. SCHOOLS, RATING OP— Belonging to School Board for London, 122, 155, 373, 385, 898. King's College, 285. Middle Class School, 34. St. Michael's Free Mission Schools, 204. Held not exempt as a Sunday or Ragged School, 204. SCHOOL BOARD FOR LONDON— Must be regarded as hypothetical tenant, 399. Outlay of, on buildings and land acquired under compulsory powers, is not sole criterion, but is evidence of rateable value, 400. SEWERS— Bating of pumping-station connected with, 162. SHOEEDITCH RAILWAY STATION— Appeal aflfecting (1876), 169. SPA ROAD RAILWAY STATION— Appeal affecting (1881), 265. SPECIAL CASE— See Case fob Opinion of Qdebbn's Bench Division. 480 Index. SPECIAL SESSIONS— Appeals to— See Appeals to Special Sessions. Appeals from — See Appeals to Assessueni Sessions. STATIONS— See Eailway Stations. STRUCTURAL COST— See Cost ; Steuotubal Valtjb. STRUCTURAL VALUE— Of Waterloo Station, how far a measure of rateable value, 64, 258. Of Broad Street Station, how far a measure, 165. Of King's Cross Station, how far a measure, 269. Of St. Thomas' Hospital, how far a measure, 91, 197. Of buildings used as a Club for Workmen, how far a measure, 196. Of unproductive mains of waterworks, taken as the measure of rate- able value, 70. So also, of the unproductive part of gasworks, 310. Of a warehouse, held a good test even where the original design has not been completed, 210. Of a brewery, when badly designed, how far a measure of rateable value, 233. Of a private dwelling-house, not a good measure, 340 et seq. What rate of interest on, should be taken as rateable value, 89, 196, 235, 273, 294. See also Cost. SUPPLEMENTAL LIST— As to procedure, resembles a Quinquennial Valuation last, xxx, xxzi. May be the subject of appeals, xli, 354. What is an alteration rendering one necessary, xlii et seq. Formerly held that structural alteration of the hereditament was necessary, 118, 220. But Supplemental List was once allowed by consent to contain Railway, without alteration, in consequence of increased traffic,171. Afterwards held that structural alteration was not necessary, 223 et seq.; 347 et seq. What may be used as evidence of a sufficient alteration, 357. The alteration must have taken place, during the last twelve months, 356. Whether it is sufficient if the alteration has been discovered, but has not taken place during the twelve months ?, 368 et seq. The eflfect of the alteration^ and not the true value of the heredita- ment, must be shown in a Supplemental List, 353, 358, 371, 372. Where an addition has been made to a hereditament, the addition and not the whole hereditament must be valued, 87, 88, 100, 228. But compare 375, 376. If a hereditament, for which the owner has been wrongly rated instead of the occupier, is placed in a Supplemental list, the owner may dispute his liability, though he failed to appeal against the Quinquennial List, 213. Index. 481 SURVEYOR OP TAXES— Valuation List must be transmitted to, zxxiii. May alter gross value in List, xxziii. May object to List before Assessment Committee, xxxvi. May appeal to Special Sessions, xlvi. And to Assessment Sessions, xlvii. His estimate of gross value to be accepted until disproved, 1. Notice of appeal must be given to, wben gross value is questioned, zliz. Service of notice on, must be proved at hearing of appeal, li. TENANT'S CAPITAIi— See Railways. TIME— Prescribed by Act of 1869, for making and depositing List, directory not imperative, xxxii, 177. For making and depositing List under Sects. 13 and 35, xxxv. Fixed by Order III., for entry of appeals, often exceeded, liii, 131,. 182. Have the Court exceeded their jurisdiction in making this Order ?, lui. For hearing appeals, 1, liv, It. TITHES— Payments in lieu of, if created unrateable, not to appear in Valuation List, 236. TOLLS— To be rateable, must arise out of ocupation and user of the soil, 824. Same principle afiSrmed in Queen's Bench Division, 328. Taken in Covent Garden Market, held rateable, 813 et seq. TOTALS IN VALUATION LIST— Two to appear, in certain caseB,,25, 26, 283. Compare also the Foundling Hospital Case, 28. Payment in lieu of tithes, when created unrateable, not to be included in, 236. Alteration of, without altering the several items which make up the totals, 288. TRAMWAYS— Held rateable, 97. Parochial earnings principle, as applied to, 105. Horse expenses, how allotted, 108. Directors' and Auditors' fees not allowed in full, as ground of deduction, 108, 114. Stations and stables, what deduction to be made in respect of, 109. 482 Index. TEAMW AYS— continued. Bepaira and renewals, 109, 110. Advertisements in cars to be taken into account in estimating rateable value, 114. Bent of offices let, to be talsen into account, 114, Whether deduction should be made in respect of tenant's profit, where none is earned, 201. UNFINISHED GASWOBKS— Bightly omitted from list, 27. UNION ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE ACT, 1862— S. 17 (Notice of deposit of List), xxxiii, xxxiv. S. 21 (Alteration of list by Assessment Oommittee), xxzviii. S. 25 (Making of Supplemental Lists), xliii, 350, 852. See also the Act in eatenso, at p. 407 et seq. UNION ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE AMENDMENT ACT, 1864— S. 1 (Notice to Assessment Committee of objection to List), liv. See also the Act in externa, at p. 421 et seq- UNOCCUPIED PAET OF HEEEDITAMENT— Is rateable, if the whole is one single hereditament, which is occupied, 80. But see also 171. UNPEODUCTIVE PAET— Of waterworks, how to be rated, 70. Of gasworks, rated in like manner, 310. UNEATEABLE PEOPEETY— Not to appear in Valuation List, if it can never become rateable, 236. But it must appear, if it is merely for the time unrated, 25. UNUSED PAET OF HEEEDITAMENT— If incapable of being used, need not, it seems, be taken into account, in estimating rateable value of the whole, 171. But see also 80. VALUATION— Of a hereditament, under Sect. 86, may be ordered by Assessment Sessions, li, lii. For instances of such a valuation, see 257, 268, 348. Costs of shorthand notes of evidence given before person appointed to make valuation, allowed by Court, 331. Index. 483 VALUATION LISTS— Three kiMg of, xxx. When, and by whom to be made, xxx. Provisions as to making of, xxxi et seq. Must be deposited before June 1st, xxxii. Public notice of deposit of, xxxiv. ' Notice to occupier, when necessary, xxxiv. Transmission of, to Surveyor of Taxes, xxxiii. To Assessment Committee, xxxv. Effect of failure of Overseers to transmit a List, xxxv. Objections to, before Assessment Committee, by whom to be made, xxxvi. • Must be revised before October 1st, xxxvii. May be altered by Assessment Committee, where no objection is made, xxxvii. If altered, to be re-deposited, xxxvii. Objections against alterations in, xxxviii. Must be finally approved before November 1st, xxxix. Totals to be entered in, xxxix. See also Totaxs in Valuation List. Must be deposited after final approval, xxxix. Operation of, pending appeals, xxxix, xl. Efiect of, xl. Validity of, not impaired by delay in making, approving, &o., xxxii, 177. Where there is no appeal against, in consequence of delay in making, whether there is any remedy, xxxii, xxxviii, liv. Alterations in, without notice to occupier ; what course is open to him, 32, 312. Clerical errors in, how rectified, 249. See also Iv. May be ordered to be made by Assessment Sessions, under Sect. 35, U. Time for making and depositing List so ordered, xxxv, li. See also AfPEAiiS to Sfec:at. Sessions, Appeals to Oenebal Assessment Sessions, Assessment Com- mittee, Pbovisional List, Supplemental List. VALUATION (METKOPOLIS) ACT, 1869— S. 4 (Interpretation of Terms), xxxiii, 289. S. 5 (Election of Assessment Committee), xxxi, xxxii. S. 9, J5ub-B. 1 (Notice to occupier of insertion of hereditament in List), xxxiv. S. 9, sub-B. 2 (Notice to occupier of alterations in List), 32. S. 13 (Failure of Overseers to make a List), xxxv. S. 19 (Persons entitled to appeal to Special Sessions), xlvi, xlvii, 403, 404. S. 20 (Jmisdiction of Special Sessions), xlv, xlvii, 404. S. 26 (Jurisdiction of Assessment Sessions), 252. 484 Inaex. VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869— continued. S. 27 (Orders of Assessment Sessions regulating proceedings), xlviii, liii. S. 32 (Persons entitled to appeal to Assessment Sessions), 248, 366. S. 32, sub-s. 2 (Appeal against the total rateable value of a parish), 288. S. 34 (Omission to give due notice of appeal), Uii, 248. S. 35 (Valuation List ordered by Assessment Sessions to be made), XXXV, li, 289. S. 36 (Valuation ordered by Assessment Sessions), li, lii, 257,258,268. S. 38 (Valuation ordered by Assessment Sessions, to be in writing, &c.), lii. . S. 39 (Costs of appeal and valuation), lii. S. 40 ( Appeal from Assessment Sessions on points of law), Iv-lviii, 291. S 42 (Times for proceedings), xxxii, Iv, 177. S. 42, sub-s. 8 (Time for approval of List by Assessment Committee),. xxxviii, 31. S. 44 (Effect of Valuation List pending appeal), xl. S. 46, sub-s. 1 (Making of Supplemental Lists), xliii, xliv, 118, 219, 225, 226, 347 et seq., 370, 372. S. 46, sub-s. 4 (Quinquennial and Supplemental List subject to the same conditions), 354. S. 47 (Provisional Lists), xH-xliv, 118, 347, et seq. S. 51 (Hereditaments included in Viiluation List), 239, 283. S. 54 (Exemptions from rating), 30. S. 66 (Publication of notices by Overseers), xxxiv, xxxvii. S. 71 (Correction of clerical errors), Iv, 250. VAUXHALL STATION— Appeal affecting (1871), 60. (1881), 258 VESTEY— Appointment of Assessment Committee by, in certain cases, xxxii. WADDING MANUFACTORY— To be in Class 8 of Schedule 3, 152. WAREHOUSE— When connected with mill, whether entitled to deduction of 33 per cent, from Gross Value, 23. WATERLOO STATION— Appeal affecting (1871), 60. (1881), 358. WATERWORKS— Rating of, 69-75. Productive and Unproductive parts of, how to be rated, 70-73. Index. 485 WESTCOMBE PARK STATION— Appeal affecting (1881), 296. WESTMINSTER CHAMBERS— Rating of, 82, 247. ■WHARVES— Deduction of ^ made from Grosa Value, 38, 139, 150. Deduction of more than | allowed in one case, 147. But in that case, the property appeared, in the rate-books, as being in Class 5, 256. Evidence of actual cost of repairs admitted, in spite of objection that wharves must be in Class 5, 176. Final decision that wharves must be put in Class 5, 253. See also 278. Where the hereditament is partly wharf, partly dock, it should be put in Class 11, 292. When wharf connected with a saw-mill, deduction of more than J allowed, 182. Evidence of actual profits made is inadmissible, in order to show rateable value, 280. Formerly held that they should not be inserted in Supplemental List, where no structural alterations have been made, 117. But this principle has since been over-ruled, 223, 347 et seq. WHARVES, LIST OF APPEALS AFFECTING— Butler's Wharf, 278. Cumberland -. 147. Durrand's -, 182. Fenning's Magniac's MeUish's — , 263. — , 292. — , 176. Metropolitan Platform —,117, 139. — , 150. WITNESSES— What Costs allowed by Court in respect of, 340. LONDON : PHIPPS AND CONNOR, PRINTEHS, I3 AND I4, TOTHILL STREET, WESTMINSTER.