existence of the lease, then the assessment was to be confirmed. If the Court should be of a different opinion, then the matter was to go back to the Quarter Sessions, or an arbitrator to be appointed by counsel on both sides, to determine the proper amount of assessment, in conformity with the opinion of the Court upon the second and third questions; and the rate was to be amended accordingly. If the Court should be of opinion, that, as regards the lastmentioned assessment, either the rent reserved under the said lease (notwithstanding such rent had ceased before the making of such last-mentioned assessment), or the annuity payable under the said last-mentioned Act of Parliament, was the proper criterion of the rateable value, then the same was to stand confirmed. If the Court should be of a different opinion, then the same course was to be taken as with respect to the first rate. Pashley (with him Bros) (June 8, 1853) for the respondents, cited on the first point Rex v. Parrot (a), Reg. v. Vange (b), and Reg. v. The Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway Company (c); on the second and third points Rex v. The New River Company (d), Reg. v. The Grand Junction Railway Company (e), Reg. v. The Cambridge Gas Company (f), Rex v. The Brighton Gas Company (g), Reg. v. Mile End Old Town (h), and Reg. v. The Great Western Railway Company, (Tilehurst case) (i). [Crompton, J., referred to Reg. v. The North and South Shields Ferry Company (k).] Willes for the appellants.—All that is found in the case 1854. THE SOUTH WARDENS &c. 1854. EASTERN RAILWAY CO. Apps.; is, that the rent or annuity of 41,000l. is given for the THE SOUTH branch, and this and no other criterion has been used to ascertain the rateable value; which is clearly erroneous. On the second and third points he cited Reg. v. The WARDENS &c. London and South Western Railway Company (a), and Reg. v. The Great Western Railway Company (b). THE CHURCH OF DORKING, Resps. Cur. adv. vult. The Judges delivered (Feb. 18th, 1854) their judgments seriatim. CROMPTON, J.-The first question is, whether the two assessments in question are proper; and it is stated that they are to be regarded as proper, and are to be confirmed, if the rent as to the first rate, or the rent or annuity as to the second, is the proper criterion of the rateable value. I understand by the question, as explained by this statement, that we are to say whether, in our judgment, these assessments were properly made by taking the rent, before the statute of amalgamation, or the rent or annuity, after that Act, as the sole criterion from which the assessment is to be made; and I am of opinion that it can by no means be so considered. Even as to the first rate, where the smaller line has not become a portion of the other, the rent can only be taken as matter of evidence of the rateable value, or of the rent at which it might be expected to be let under the Parochial Assessments Act, 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96; and all the circumstances under which that rent may at first have been given, or which may have subsequently affected the value of the portion of the line, must be taken into account, so as to see what would be the rent that might be expected to be got from it at the time when the assessment is made. Under neither of the rates can the rent or annuity be taken to be the sole criterion from which the assessable value can be arithmetically deduced. (a) 1 Q. B. 558; ante, Vol. 2, p. 629. (b) 6 Q. B. 179; ante, Vol. 4, p. 28. I therefore answer the first question, as explained by the subsequent matter, by saying, that in my opinion these assessments are not to be confirmed. Secondly, I think that, in strictness, the value of the branch, as a feeder, is to be taken into account in ascertaining the rateable value. It is profit derived from the occupation of the land; and it seems to me impossible to say that the value to the persons willing to take the line, or the rent likely to be got from them, would not be increased by the advantage of this line to, and from its being a feeder of, the larger railway. The value of the land in the parish is increased and enhanced by its being useful as increasing the profit that may be made in another place; and I think that the rateable value within the parish may clearly be enhanced by matters in another parish. It is true, that in the mode of taking the account of the earnings in the parish, and of the deductions to be made, according to the mode mentioned in the recent cases of Reg. v. The Great Western Railway Company (a), no item is mentioned for the value in respect of being a feeder to the main line; and it may be difficult, and often not worth while, to introduce this new element into the account; but, on principle, the rateable value, according to the rule in the Parochial Assessments Act, 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96, seems to me affected by the value of the line in the particular parish as a feeder of the main line. I answer the second question, therefore, in the negative. And, as I suppose that the third question refers to the value of the branch line as a feeder, no other peculiar value than as a feeder being suggested, the third question seems, in effect, another way of putting the second; and I answer it in the affirmative: that the respondents are entitled, in making their assessment, to take into consideration the value as a feeder to the main line. (a) 6 Q. B. 179; ante, Vol. 4, p. 28; 15 Q. B. 379, 1085; ante, p. 130. 1854. THE SOUTH WARDENS &C. 1854. THE SOUTH Apps.; THE CHURCH WARDENS &c. OF DORKING, ERLE, J.-In this case I consider the material facts to be, that one rate was made while the Reading and Reigate RAILWAY CO. Railway was under lease, and the other after it was amalgamated with the South Eastern Railway; and the material questions to be, what is the principle for ascertaining the rateable value of the portion of the line in the parish of Dorking for each rate: the parish contending that the rent of 41,000l. paid at the time of the first rate, and the annuity of 41,000l. paid since the amalgamation, should be taken as the rateable value of the whole line, to be apportioned among the different parishes; the railway contending that the net earnings of the portion of the line in the parish should be taken as the rateable value. As the rate since the amalgamation is the most important, being the guide for future rates, I take that first. By the amalgamation, the Reading and Reigate line, which was a feeder, has become part of the South Eastern line, as much as if it formed part of the original construction; so that now either all is line or all is feeder, the amalgamation in this case being in no respect distinguishable from the amalgamation of the Newbury and Hungerford line with the Great Western: Reg. v. The Great Western Railway Company (a). There the principle for rating a railway, by taking the net profit of the whole line as the rateable value of the whole, and by apportioning that rateable value among the parishes in proportion to the net earnings in each parish, was sanctioned and acted on. This principle was decided to be correct, after long consideration, in Reg. v. The London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company, Reg. v. The South Eastern Railway Company, and Reg. v. The Midland Railway Company (b); and I extract the principle as expressed in each of those In Reg. v. The London, Brighton, and South cases. (a) 15 Q. B. 379, 1085; ante, p. 130. (b) 15 Q. B. 313, 344, 353; ante, Vol. 6, pp. 440, 459, 464. 1854. THE SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY Co. Apps.; WARDENS, &c. Resps. Coast Railway Company (a), the parish of Croydon claimed a right to rate the railway on the principle of parochial earnings —that is, at such a sum as a solvent tenant would pay as annual rent for the stations and portion of the railway THE CHURCHwithin the parish, regard being had to the net revenue earned in the parish; and this principle was affirmed by the Court. In Reg. v. The South Eastern Railway Company (b), the parish of Westbere claimed to rate the Company for a portion of the branch to Ramsgate on the mileage principle of dividing the rateable value of the trunk and branches according to the distance in each parish. It was found that the traffic upon the main or trunk line was greater than upon any of the branches. The Company contended for the principle of parochial earnings, viz. that they ought to be rated at such sum as a tenant might be expected to give as annual rent for that portion of the branch railway situate within the parish of Westbere, regard being had to the portion of profit earned by the portion of the railway within that parish, such rent being ascertained by taking the gross annual receipts from the portion of the railway situate in Westbere, such gross receipts being ascertained by taking a proportion of the fare paid by every passenger who has during the year been carried by the Company over any portion of the line in Westbere, such proportion bearing the same ratio to the whole sum paid by such passenger for the whole distance travelled by him, as the distance in Westbere bears to the whole distance travelled by him; and calculating goods on the same principle; and taking from such earnings the deductions allowed by the Parochial Assessments Act, 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96;—and it was held, that this principle of estimating the gross profits was correct, and that deductions were to be on the parochial principle also. It is said, in argument, "Here there is a parish including only a portion of a branch line, upon which it is expressly found that the profits (a) 15 Q. B. 313; ante, Vol. 6, (b) 15 Q. B. 344; ante, Vol. 6, p. 440. p. 459. |