Company paid the entire sum into Court, under the 69th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act; this sum was apportioned, and the value of the land to which a good title could be made was stated by affidavit. The vendors then presented a petition, praying that the sum apportioned to them might be carried over to a separate account, and that the dividends might be paid to the tenant for life. The Court ordered the sum apportioned as the value of that part of the land to which a good title could be made to be carried over to the account of the petitioners, and the dividends to be paid to them, the principal not to be paid out without notice to the Railway Company. Re Perkes, &c. -Ch. 605 3. A tenant for life agreed to sell land to a Railway Company. There was delay in paying the money into Court, and further delay in investigating the title, and in the investment of the sum deposited. The vendor, by letter, stated that he should require interest at 5l. per cent. on the purchase-money until the completion of the purchase :— Held, that the vendor was entitled to interest up to the date of the investment of the purchase-money. Ex parte Lord Hardwicke-Ch. 919 4. By an agreement, entered into between a tenant for life of certain settled estates and a Railway Company, it was agreed that the purchase-money should remain in the hands of Messrs. G., bankers, at the risk of the Company, until the completion of the purchase, when the same should be paid over to the parties respectively entitled to the same, or be paid into the Court of Chancery, as the case might be ; and that the Company should pay interest on the said purchase money, at 5l. per cent., up to and inclusive of the day on which the said purchase should be completed. The solicitors forwarded the engrossment of the conveyance to the vendor, and paid the money into Court, to the account of the Company's Act, but no petition was presented for investment. The vendor sent in his charges and a calculation of interest up to the day on which the money was paid into Court; and two years afterwards sent in another account, with a calculation of interest up to that date. The Company disputed the right of the vendor to interest subsequently to the payment of the purchase-money into Court :-Held, that, according to the true construction of the agreement, evidenced by the conduct of the parties, the completion of the purchase must be the payment into Court of the purchasemoney by the purchasers. Lewis v. The South Wales R. Co.-Ch. 923 RAILWAYS CLAUSES CON SOLIDATION ACT. 1. The Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, s. 68, "That a Railway Company shall make and maintain sufficient fences for separating the land taken by the railway from the adjoining lands not taken, and protecting such land from trespass or the cattle of the owners or occupiers thereof from straying thereout by reason of the railway," extends to the making and maintaining a fence between the railway land and a highway running alongside of it. But when cattle are straying on the highway and not lawfully passing along it, the owner of them Y Y Y 2 cannot maintain an action against the Company for injury occurring to them from their getting on the railway, through a defect in the fence between it and the highway, as the owner in such case is not, in law, an occupier of the highway, and there is no obligation to maintain the fence as against him, either by this statute or at common law. The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire R. C., Apps.; Wallis, Resp., 709 2. Under the 13th and 15th sections of the 8 Vict. c. 20, where a tunnel is marked on the deposited plans of a railway, there can be no deviation within the limits of deviation, unless the landowner consent; but the tunnel must be made at the spot indicated and if the Company deviate where they ought not, no special duty is imposed upon them to make a tunnel on the deviated line. Little v. The Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford R. Co., 280 RATING. 1. The R. Railway Company, under the powers of their Act, leased their line, which joined the S. E. Railway, to the S. E. Railway Company, at a certain rent, for 1000 years; and the S. E. Company became, under the lease, the occupiers of the line, working it in connection with their own railway. The R. Company was afterwards incorporated with the S. E. Company by Act of Parliament, under which the amalgamated Company was to pay to the shareholders of the R. Company annuities equivalent to and in lieu of the above rent; and the R. line then became part of the S. E. line. On an ap peal against two poor-rates, assessed upon the S. E. Company as occupiers of so much of the R. line as passed through the parish of D.,—the one made during the existence of the lease, and the other after the amal gamation :-Held, that the rent in the one case, and the annuities in the other, were not to be taken as the sole or conclusive criterion of the rateable value. The R. line brought a great deal of additional traffic to the main line of the S. E. Company, and that Company derived benefit from the R. line as a feeder to the main line in respect of traffic conveyed upon that line. The R. line, if in the market, might be an object of competition between the S. E. Company and other Railway Companies; the traffic on the main lines of which would be increased by the possession and control of the R. line. Held, by Lord Campbell, C. J., Coleridge, J., and Crompton, J. (Erle, J., dissenting), that these were matters giving additional value to the occupation of the R. line in the parish of D., which, though lying in other parishes, ought to be taken into account in rating the line in that parish. Held, by Erle, J., that the earnings in other parishes, though increased by the occupation of the R. line in the parish of D., ought to be rated in those other parishes, and not in D. The South Eastern R. Co., Apps.; The Churchwardens, &c., of Dorking, Resps. 877 2. The appellants being empowered to make a branch line from their railway to join the E. Railway, an agreement was entered into by the Companies (confirmed by Act of Parliament), by which it was mutually agreed, that the appellants should complete the branch (which was likely to prove beneficial to the E. Company); and that, whenever, after the opening of the branch, the net earnings of the appellants' whole line should not be sufficient to pay a dividend of 8. per cent. per annum on their share capital, the E. Company should pay to the appellants such a sum (not to exceed 50007.) as would be sufficient to make up that dividend. There were stipulations for the interchange of traffic. The agreement to be in force for ninety-nine years from the opening of the branch. The branch was accordingly completed by the appellants, and worked by them at a loss; and, in a certain year, the net earnings of the whole line of the appellants falling short of a dividend of 31. per cent., the E. Company paid 3705. under the agreement to make up that dividend. On an appeal against a poor-rate assessed on the appellants in respect of their occupation of a portion of the branch railway Held, by Coleridge, J., and Erle, J., (Lord Campbell, C. J., dissenting), that this payment of 37051. ought not to be taken into account in ascertaining the rateable value of the appellants' railways. The Newmarket R. Co., Apps.; The Churchwardens, &c. of St. Andrew the Less, Cambridge, Resps., 858 3. A Company was incorporated by Act of Parliament, and empowered to establish and maintain a ferry over the public tidal and navigable river Tyne; to take lands and erect ferry houses and landing places on either side of the river, and to receive certain tolls for the passage of the ferry. The landing places on either side were in the parishes of North and South Shields respectively; but the ferry boats, when working, were always afloat and in the parish of N.; and they varied their course in crossing according to the state of the tide &c. The tolls (which were the only profit derived by the Company from the ferry and landing places) were collected at the South Shields landing place. The Company having been assessed to the poor rates in the parish of South Shields " as occupiers of a ferry, landing, and tolls," at one-half the entire net profit of the tolls; on appeal from that rate-Held, first, that the tolls could not be directly rated as landed property from their connection with the landing places, nor indirectly by laying the rate on the landing places and treating the half of the entire net proceeds of the tolls as the direct profit of each landing place; and that, therefore, the rate could not be supported. Secondly That, in rating the landing places, the tolls should not be entirely excluded from consideration; but that the landing places should be rated as land rendered more valuable by being available for the purposes of earning the tolls. Held, also, that the mileage principle was not applicable, so as to assess a portion of the profits on the two landing places according to the proportion which their dimensions bore to the length of the transit over the river. Reg. v. The North and South Shields Ferry Co., 849 4. The Hull Dock Company are the owners and occupiers of several docks and basins (constructed under various Acts of Parliament), which communicated with each other, but are situate in several parishes. By the various statutes, the Company is empowered to charge certain tonnage duties on every ship entering or going out of the harbour, basin, or dock within the port of Hull, or unlading or lading any of its cargo within the port, to be paid on the entrance of the ship inwards or on its clearance outwards. The same duties are payable into whatever dock the ship enters, and whether it use only one or more of the separate docks or basins; such duties becoming payable as soon as the ship enters any one of the docks :-Held, that, in assessing the Company to the poor-rates, the entire rateable value of the whole of the docks should be ascertained, and then divided among the several parishes within which the docks, &c. are situate, in proportion to the area of the docks in each parish. Reg. v. The Dock Co. at Kingston-upon-Hull, 836 5. The Great Western Railway Company were assessed to a poorrate in respect of their occupation of two and a half miles of railway in the respondent parish, which two and a half miles were part of a line of twenty-five miles, constituting what was originally intended as an entire line (The Berks and Hants Railway), but which was constructed at the cost of and is now owned and worked by the Great Western Railway Company, being by Act of Parliament incorporated therewith. A certain number of engines and carriages are appropriated to it, and a certain number of officers and servants are employed exclusively on that branch. No separate accounts of receipts and expenditure of this branch are kept, but they are included in the general half yearly revenue accounts. It could be worked as a separate railway, but this would require a larger moveable stock and a greater expenditure than the Company now actually employ on it. The actual expenses of the Company are not in the proportion with the actual gross receipts, either on the branch or throughout the entire line, nor are either of such gross receipts or expenses at one uniform rate per mile throughout the entire railway. In order to give the net rateable value of the whole line, the Company, in addition to allowances for annual repairs of rails and framework and of moveable stock, claimed to be allowed for ultimate renewal and reproduction. They did not annually set aside any sum to form a distinct fund for this reproduction, but they retained out of their annual revenue a reserve fund for all contingencies, including these items: -Held, that they were entitled to such allowance. To ascertain the net rateable value of the two and a half miles, the deductions from the total gross revenue are to be apportioned on the parochial principle. The expenses incurred in earning the gross receipts on the two and a half miles are to be ascertained, and then the charges, parochial or otherwise, that they are liable to; and the same process is to be gone through with regard to the two and a half miles, as would be if the whole line were in one parish. But this principle does not preclude a consideration of charges wherever arising locally, which are necessary for keeping the subject of assessment at the value which is made the measure of that assessment; and wherever such charges apply equally to every mile of a railway, the mileage principle may be adopted. The Company, in order to ascertain the net rateable value of the two and a half miles, separated the branch from the trunk line, except as to a small portion of the general expense of the entire railway, and then divided the expenses of the branch on the mileage principle:Held, that, though the Company were not necessarily wrong in this last particular, on the facts of this case they could not so separate the trunk from the branch, the one being absorbed in the other. The respondents, in order to determine the rateable value of the two and a half miles, ascertained the rateable value of the whole railway, minus the stations; they ascertained the gross actual annual receipts of the Company in respect of each mile in their parish, and they assessed the Company in respect of the two and a half miles in the ratio which such annual receipts bore to the gross annual receipts of the Company in respect of the entire of the Great Western Railway trunk and branches, the rateable value of a mile of railway in the respondent parish being calculated in the same proportion to the rateable value of the whole line, exclusive of stations, as the gross actual annual receipts in respect of such mile bore to the total of such actual annual receipts of the Company :-Held, that the actual expenses of the Company not being in the proportion of the actual gross receipts, either on the branch or throughout the entire line, and such gross receipts and expenses not being at one uniform rate per mile throughout the entire line, this mode of assessment was wrong. The Queen v. The Great Western R. 130 Co., RENT. See ACTION, 2, 3. REVERSIONER. The plaintiff was lord of the manor of certain copyhold land. A., the copyholder, demised the land to B., who cut a private canal through it, under circumstances from which the consent of A. must be inferred. An Act of Parliament was passed for converting the private canal into a public one; and the power of making that part of it which passed through the lord's lands was given to the lord, and he was invested with the usual powers for that purpose, and amongst others that of compensating the copyholders. No compensation was paid to the persons entitled in remainder to the demised lands. After the expiration of the lease, the reversioners brought their action of ejectment, and were declared entitled to recover the land occupied by the canal. The lord then filed his bill in equity to stay proceedings at law, and to compel the reversioners to convey to the lord on being paid compensation for their interest, if entitled to any, and to prevent any interference with the uses of the canal by the public:-Held, that the Court would restrain the reversioners from obtaining possession of the canal and interfering with the traffic, but declared them entitled to compensation in respect of their interest, such compensation to be estimated according to the value of the surrounding land at the time the reversion fell in. That the reversioners were not entitled to any additional value on the ground of severance or local advantage. No costs. The Duke of Beaufort v. Patrick-Ch. 906 ROAD, SUBSTITUTED. A Railway Company, in the progress of their works, were about to cut through a turnpike road, and to substitute another road, which, in the opinion of the Court, was not so convenient for passengers and carriages as the road interfered with, or as nearly so as might be. The Court granted an injunction to restrain the Company from crossing, breaking up, cutting through, or in anywise interfering with the turnpike road until a sufficient road, within the terms of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, had been provided. The Att.-Gen. v. The London and South-Western R. Co.-Ch. SHAREHOLDERS. See ABANDONMENT. CALLS, 1, 3. PARLIAMENT. PLEADING. 624 The plaintiff was the holder of original shares in a Railway Company. By Act of Parliament, new half shares were created, in respect |