receipts of a tramway company will include, as a Chap. III. rule, the following items, or some of them :

(i) The gross sum earned by the company by the exercise of their statutory powers as carriers upon their system.

(ii) Any sums or other consideration received by them in respect of running powers granted by them over their system or any part of it. This will apply whether the consideration be a toll (e), or a fixed sum (ƒ), or the grant of reciprocal running powers (g).

(iii) Terminal charges, if any. These are to be regarded as part of the general earnings of the line, and not as earnings of the stations where the services are rendered (h). But if such terminal charges include charges for cartage and delivery, these must be deducted before the terminals are added to the gross receipts (i).

(iv) Rents or other payments received in respect of the user of buildings, offices, &c. belonging to the company (k).

(v) Any other receipts which can be said to arise

out of the rateable hereditaments, and not to
be, like cartage and delivery above, made
independently of the hereditaments. Such
receipts would be, for instance, receipts from
advertisements, in respect of which the com-
pany is now rateable by Advertising Stations.
(Rating) Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 27).

(e) R. v. St. Pancras Vestry (1863), 3 B. & S. 810; 32 L. J. M. C. 146.
(f) R. v. Fletton Overseers (1861), 3 E. & E. 450; 30 L. J. M. C. 89.
(g) R. v. London, Brighton & South Coast Railway Co. (1851), 15 Q. B.
313; 20 L. J. M. C. 124; Great Western Railway Co. v. Badgworth Over-
seers (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 251; 36 L. J. M. C. 33.

(h) R. v. Eastern Counties Railway Co. (1863), 4 B. & S. 58; 32 L. J. M. C. 174.

(i) Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway Co. v. Caistor Union (1874), 2 Nev. & Mac. 53.

(k) North Metropolitan Tramways Co. v. St. Mary, Islington (1871), Ryde's Met. Rat. App. 112 (Q. S.).

F

Chap. III.

In North Metropolitan Tramways Co. v. St. Mary, Islington (kk), the Court ordered the company's receipts from advertisements exhibited in their cars to be added to the gross receipts.

(b) Deductions.

(a) Absolute Deductions-that is to say, deductions which have to be made in any event, whether the tramway and its appurtenances are situated in one parish or in several parishes.

(i) The cost of the maintenance and repair of the lines, roadway, works, fixed machinery, &c. Repairs are specifically mentioned in the Rating Acts cited above, and include everything necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state to command the estimated rent.

In London Tramways Co., Ltd. v. Lambeth (1) this cost was fixed by the Court at 350l. per mile, and it appears that this sum included all the repairs which the company were bound to carry out by statute, both to the tramway track itself and to the eighteen inches on either side thereof (m). The Court found as a fact that all these repairs, including those of the eighteen inches, were essential to the maintenance and efficiency of the system. This, it is submitted, is reasonable, since the support of the rails necessitates some sort of paving outside the track as well as upon it; and eighteen inches presumably was fixed by the Legislature, because it was thought that that extent of paving was about sufficient to secure the rails and to enable the track to merge conveniently with the existing surface of the road. The paving of this eighteen inches should not, it is suggested, be regarded as in the nature of a payment by way of consideration for the franchise granted

(kk) (1874), Ryde's Met. Rat. App. 112 (Q. S.).

(7) (1874), 31 L. T. 319; Ryde's Met. Rat. App. 103 (Q. S.).
(m) See Tramways Act, 1870, s. 28.

to the promoters. If it were such, it ought not to be Chap. III. deducted. (See post, p. 72.)

(ii) The depreciation of lines, fixed machinery, and other works (n). The company will be entitled to deduct the probable annual average amount of such depreciation, although they do not in fact set aside a fund to meet it (o).

(iii) Cost of maintenance of rolling stock, track machinery, horses, and any other moveable property which are essential to the business, but do not form part of the rateable heredita

ment.

(iv) Depreciation of the chattels last mentioned (p).
In London Tramways Co., Ltd. v. Lambeth, ub.
sup., the life of a tramway horse was taken
to be four years, and that of a horse-car
fourteen years.
The method of calculation
must depend upon the facts of each case (q),
especially the method of traction and the
nature of the traffic (»).

(v) Working expenses in the strict sense, that is to
say, wages, fuel, machine expenditure of all
kinds, forage, lighting, office expenses,
stationery, &c.

(vi) Rent (including the cost of repairs) paid by the company for premises leased by them for the purposes of their undertaking, and rent paid for the use of rolling stock. The former seems to have been deducted in Lon

(n) R. v. Great Western Railway Co. (1852), 15 Q. B. 379, 1085; 21 L. J. M. C. 84.

(0) R. v. London, Brighton & South Coast Railway Co. (1851), 15 Q. B. 313, 366; 20 L. J. M. C. 124, 146.

(p) R. v. Great Western Railway Co. (1852), 15 Q. B. 379, 1085; 21 L. J. M. C. 84.

(1) Great Eastern Railway Co. v. Haughley Overseers (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 666; 35 L. J. M. C. 229.

(r) See also Melbourne Corporation v. Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co., Ltd. (1894), 20 Vict. L. R. 36, 45-6.

Chap. III.

don Tramways Co., Ltd. v. Lambeth, ub. sup.,
and it seems reasonable that it should be,
though this has been questioned. As to the
latter compare R. (Cork and Muskerry Light
Railway Co., Ltd.) v. Co. Cork Treasurer (s),
and In re Cornwall Minerals Railway Co. (t).
(vii) Tolls or other sums paid by the company
other companies for the carriage of through
passengers, such tolls or sums forming, of
course, part of the fares imposed by the
company upon such passengers (u).

(viii) Directors' and auditors' fees (x).
(ix) Law charges, costs, and expenses (y).

to

An

average sum was permitted to be taken in Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co., Ltd. v. Fitzroy Corporation (z).

(x) Rates and taxes and tithe commutation rentcharge, if any. Specified as deductions in the Rating Acts above, p. 59.

(xi) Insurance. Specified as a deduction in the Rating Acts.

(xii) A sum in respect of risks, accidents and casualties, and compensation for the same (a). A sum of 12 per cent. on the tenant's capital outlay was allowed in London Tramways Co., Ltd. v. Lambeth, ub. sup., under this head and

(8) (1889), 24 L. R. I. 415.

(t) (1882), 48 L. T. 41 (C. A.).

(u) R. v. St. Pancras Vestry (1863), 3 B. & S. 810; 32 L. J. M. C. 146. (x) R. v. Southampton Dock Co. (1851), 14 Q. B. 587; 20 L. J. M. C. 155; London Tramways Co., Ltd. v. Lambeth, ub. sup.; North Metropolitan Tramways Co. v. St. Mary, Islington (1874), Ryde's Met. Rat. App. 112 (Q. S.); Melbourne Corporation v. Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co., Ltd., ub. sup.

(y) London Tramways Co., Ltd. v. Lambeth, ub. sup.; and see R. (Dublin and Blessington Steam Tramway Co.) v. Co. Dublin Grand Jury and Finance Committee (1892), 32 L. R. I. 644 (C. A.).

(z) (1899), 25 Vict. L. R. 5.

(a) See R. (Cork and Muskerry Light Railway Co., Ltd.) v. Co. Cork Treasurer (1889), 24 L. R. I. 415; and In re Tralee and Dingle Light Railway Co., [1894] 2 I. R. 115.

for tenant's profits combined, but London Chap. III.
Tramways Co., Ltd. v. Lambeth (b) shows that
21 per cent. only of this was attributable to
the present head. In Melbourne Corporation
v. Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co., Ltd.,
ub. sup.,per cent. was allowed, but this
represented payments which had been actu-
ally made, and not an estimate.
In respect
of systems where the Workmen's Compensa-
tion Act, 1897 (c) applies in all cases of acci-
dent, and not merely to works of construction
or repair (d), it would seem that the per-
centage ought to be increased.

(xiii) Tenant's profits.

It is clear that the profit a tenant might reasonably expect to earn must be deducted from the gross receipts before we can discover what rent he would be willing to pay; 10 per cent. on the tenant's capital outlay is the amount usually deducted under this head (e). In allowing the same percentage in Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co., Ltd. v. Fitzroy Corporation (f), the Board said: "In valuing a property of this kind there comes in another element of uncertainty which does not usually exist in the case of houses and land, namely, that of profit. Nobody would take the occupation and use of a tramway except for the single purpose of making profit. difficulty, however, has been met by the somewhat inexact and rough, but essentially just, method of making an allowance for the supposed profits of the supposed tenant." It will be deducted even in a parish where it is not earned (g). But, where a rail

(b) (1876), Ryde's Met. Rat. App. 199 (Q. S.).

(c) 60 & 61 Vict. c. 37.

(d) See Tramways Act, 1870, s. 55, note (h), post, p. 255.
(e) London Tramways Co., Ltd. v. Lambeth (1874), ub. sup.
(f) [1901] A. C. 153, 170; 70 L. J. P. C. 1, 7.

(9) London Tramways Co., Ltd. v. Lambeth (1876), ub. sup.

This