1854.

THE SOUTH

EASTERN

RAILWAY Co.
Apps.;

appellants from the traffic passing through that parish. They are only to be assessed in that parish in respect of property occupied by them in that parish; but its value in the parish may be enhanced by circumstances existing out of the parish. The appellants say truly that they are not OF DORKING, to be rated in this parish for profits made elsewhere. II Resps.

THE CHURCH

WARDENS, &c.

.

ནཱ”
་་

wish implicitly to abide by what is called the parochial
principle" of rating; but upon that principle we must see of
what value the property rated in the parish is to the occu-
piers; and this is not necessarily determined by the pecu-
niary receipts for the use of it within the parish. The rënt
that was paid by the appellants is strong evidence that it
'was of greater value to them than the mere net profit from
traffic upon it. We have an express admission that the
Reading line brings a great deal of additional traffic to the
main line" and that they derive benefit from the Read-
ing line as a feeder to the main line in respect of traffic
conveyed upon that line?" and that the Reading line, if
in the market, might be an object of competition between
the South Eastern Railway Company and other railway
companies, the traffic on the main lines of which would be
increased by the possession and control of the Reading line:"
therefore, plus the net profit derived from the traffic passing
through the parish of Dorking, the appellants do dérivé a
profit from the occupation of the portion of the line in that
parish. But it is said, that in respect of this last profit they
ought only to be assessed in the parishes through which
the main line passes! I am of contrary opinion. & This
profit, although not received for the traffic upon the line in
the parish of Dorking, originates from the occupation by
"the appellants of land in the parish of Dorking; and if they
are assessed in that parish in respect of this profit, in esti-
mating their profits in the parishes through which the main
line passes, there ought to be a deduction in respect of
what is paid for the line which is worked as a feeder to the
main line. This calculation, though difficult, may be made

upon data which are accessible, and is not more difficult than calculations which must be made in railway rating, where stations and inclined planes in one parish affect the traffic in another parish. Adhering to the parochial principle, I inquire of what value the land rated is to the occu

pier. Of this value the rent he is willing to pay for the land affords evidence, and from any profit, which he indirectly makes from it out of the parish part of the rent which he pays for it in the parish is to be regarded as a deduction. At the bar it was hardly denied that this would be the result if the two railways belonged to different Companies, and if the Company whose railway is fed were to pay a regular fixed annual sum to the Company whose railway is the feeder; but I do not see how it should make any difference to the parish of Dorking that both lines are occupied by one Company and are worked as one concern. The advantage derived from the occupation of the portion of the line in that parish is still the same, although the process, by which the amount of that advantage is to be calculated is changed,, I adhere to the rule of rating which I laid down in The Newmarket Railway Company . The Churchwardens and Overseers of St. Andrew-the-Less, Cambridge (a), and which I there attempted to support and illustrate. This, I think, is in entire harmony with our decision in Reg. v. The Great Western Railway Company(b). In many cases the supposed advantage derived by a Railway Company from a portion of a line in a particular parish bringing passengers, and goods to another portion out of the parish may be almost inappreciable, and I would earnestly dissuade parishes from ever making any claim under this head, unless where upon clear evidence the claim can, in point of fact, be established. In answer to the third question, I say that the respondents are not entitled to treat the Reading line as an inte

1854.

EASTERN RAILWAY CO.

gral part of the South Eastern Railway, so as to depart from THE SOUTH the parochial principle; but they are entitled to consider in the assessment the value of the Reading line to the appellants beyond the traffic passing through the parish of Dorking.

Apps.:
THE CHURCH-

WARDENS &c.
OF DORKING,
Resps.

In answer to the first question, I cannot say that the rent under the lease, or the annuity payable under the last Act of Parliament, is necessarily the criterion of the assessable value.

And therefore-according to the arrangement agreed upon between the parties if this should be our opinion→ the matter must go back to the quarter sessions, or to an arbitrator, to determine the proper amount of assessment in conformity with the opinion pronounced by a majority of the Court upon the second and third questions.

The case to be referred back accordingly (a).

(a) In Regina v. The Eastern Counties Railway Company (18th January, 1854), the Court (Lord Campbell, C. J., Coleridge, J., and Wightman, J.), quashed a rate based solely on the rent paid by the appellants as the tenants of

the Royston and Hitchin Railway, on the ground that the rent, though an important element in the calculation, was not the sole criterion of the rateable value of the occupation.

THIS

in respect of an investment

HIS was a petition praying the investment of a sum of Brokerage 9,1037., cash in the Bank, which had been paid in as the purchase monies of lands in settlement, taken by the Ken- of purchase

dal and Westmoreland Railway Company.

bro

A question arose as to the manner in which the kerage, payable in respect of the investment, was to be repaid to the petitioner, the tenant for life under the settle

ment.

Mr. Dickinson suggested that the order should be in such a form as to enable the petitioner to pay the brokerage, and that the Company should repay the amount to her.

Mr. Nalder for the Railway Company.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR having approved the suggestion, the order was drawn up in the following form::

“IT IS ORDERED, that the whole sum of 9,103., cash in the Bank, to the credit of Ex parte the Kendal and Westmoreland Railway Act, 1845, be laid out in the purchase of, &c., without deducting brokerage (the petitioner, by her counsel, undertaking to pay such brokerage), in the name of, &c. And it is ordered that the said Kendal and Westmoreland Railway Company pay unto the petitioner, S. B., the amount of the brokerage on the purchase of the said, &c., to be paid by her as hereinbefore mentioned, and her costs, including therein all reasonable charges and expenses incidental thereto, of the purchase or taking of the lands in the petition men

money in Court, ordered, with consent

of petitioner, to be paid by

her, and to be repaid to her by a Railway Company.

tioned by the said Company, or which have been incurred in consequence thereof, (other than such costs as are by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act otherwise provided for, or as have been previously paid,) and of the investment of the said money in the said Bank Annuities, and of obtaining this order."

July 14th.

BEFORE VICE-CHANCELLOR KINDERSLEYFS 4 it to Hold. 1999 T

T

PEARCE THE WYCOMBE RAILWAY COMPANY I

A landowner THIS was a question of costs, arising out of the following

filed his bill

and applied

for an injune

a Railway

Company from prosecuting

tion to prevent The Wycombe Railway Company, by their Act, 9 & 10 Viet. a. ccxxxvi, with which the Railways, Lands, and Companies Clauses Consolidation Acts, 1845, were incorporated, his land, upon authorised the Company to make and maintain their railway on the line, and upon the lands delineated on their without notice plans, and described in their books of reference (a).

their works on

which they

had entered

and without

consent, and which lay without the

The Company, in the formation of their railway, transgressed the limits of deviation, and entered upon the plainlimits of devi- tiff's land without his consent, and without notice, causing,

ation. On the

motion, it was

hearing of the as he alleged, injury to his dwelling-house and property: The plaintiff thereupon filed his bill, praying an injunction; stand over for and when the motion came on for hearing, both par

ordered to

the decision of

the Board of ties agreed that it should stand over until the question of deviation had been submitted to the Board

Trade. The
Board of

Trade decided
in favour of

the Company. The Court

of Trade, in accordance with the 66th section of the

refused to give the plaintiff the costs of the motion.

The Court can make an order as to the costs of a motion, although the motion may not have included any mention of costs.

(a) The 21st section of the Wycombe Railway Act, 9 & 10 Vict. c. ccxxxvi. was as follows:

"That nothing in this Act contained shall authorise the Company to make any lateral deviation into any lands not

mentioned upon the said plan or being numbered thereon, and not described in the said books of reference, without the consent in writing of the owner and occupier thereof."