were constituted Commissioners; but they contended that as Commissioners they were not rateable. The Court, however, held that they were rateable. Although Commissioners, yet for this purpose they must be treated as individuals, who for their own benefit have obtained authority from Parliament to purchase land in Kentmere, which they use to obtain a better supply of water for their mills. And they are properly rated for it in Kentmere, where the land lies, although none of the mills supplied with water were situate in that township, but were in other townships lower down upon the stream. Order of sessions quashed, and rate confirmed. 6. POOR RATE. (Valuable Erections.) R. v. Hammersmith Bridge Company, 15 Q. B. 369; Bridges, when and how rateable. A company, under a local Act, erected a suspension bridge over the river Thames, and made approaches to it, and tolls were receivable for passing it. One half of the bridge was in the parish of Hammersmith, the other half in the parish of Barnes; but the length of the approach in Barnes was 5320 yards, that in Hammersmith 678; the tolls were received on the Hammersmith side only. Upon an appeal by the company against a rate made by Hammersmith, the sessions found that £720 was the total amount of the rateable value at which the company should be rated in both parishes, such value being based on the amount of tolls received, after making all lawful deductions and allowances, among which was the cost of maintaining the approaches above mentioned. By the Hammersmith rate the company were rated at £475, which the sessions reduced to £360, the moiety of £720, the rateable value on both sides; but the question they submitted for the opinion of the Court was, how the total amount of the net rateable value should be divided between the two parishes. For the appellants, it was argued that the proper mode of rating was to charge the company in each parish in proportion to the space occupied by them in each; in which case the rateable value on the Hammersmith side should be reduced to £110. But the Court held that as the rate was for the bridge, which was the direct source of the rateable value in both parishes, the passage over the river being that which was paid, and as one half of the bridge was in Hammersmith and the other in Barnes, the company should be rated on an equal rateable value, £360, in each parish, to which sums the sessions had reduced the rate. The Court added, that this judgment had no reference to any question as to the rateability of the approaches. Order of sessions confirmed. R. v. Haslam and Howarth, 17 Q. B. 220; 15 J. P. 642. Chemical Works, how rateable. Haslam and Howarth were assessed for "chemical works, lands, tenements, erections and buildings;" among which were certain chambers for the manufacture of sulphuric acid, and the works were rated at a higher rate by reason of these chambers, namely, at £227 178.; but if rated exclusive of these chambers, the rate would be £162 11s. 5d. only. Being rated on £227 178. Haslam and Howarth appealed; and the sessions confirmed the rate, subject to a case, which stated-that these chambers were placed upon the land in the open air, not in any way inclosed in or covered by any building or erection; they occupy large spaces of ground, their length being from 40 to 60 feet, their width 15, and their height 13; each chamber is a very large vessel of sheet lead, weighing several tons, and comprises two parts, the lower part being a dish about 12 inches deep, in which the acid is deposited, and the upper part shuts down on the lower, and receives the vapour. The mode of erecting each chamber is thus: four walls, forming an oblong, are built, some sunk into the ground, others erected on the surface, and the inside is filled with sand, on which the chamber rests; a sill, composed of four strong beams, runs along the top of the walls, in some cases laid in mortar, in others not, and on the sills is fixed a framework, which encompasses the chamber, and is used for its support, and the chamber is attached to this framework by leaden rivets. At each end of the chamber, for the purpose of conveying the gases and vapours into and out of it, was a pipe, entering the chamber by a circular hole, and the lead of the chamber is then beaten round it, and it is rendered vapour tight by a luting; the other end of the pipe is fixed to buildings which are part of the freehold. Steam is also conveyed into each chamber by a pipe, one end of which is fixed to the steamboiler, the other to the framework round the chambers, by leaden rivets. This pipe may be removed, without injury to the freehold, by unfastening the rivets; the other pipes may be removed, without injury to the freehold, by withdrawing the pieces of pipe of which they are composed; and if these pipes were withdrawn, the chamber would then rest on the ground by its mere weight, and might be removed without injury to the freehold. The sessions being of opinion that the chambers were attached to the freehold, though not affixed thereto, confirmed the rate, subject to a case. After argument, the Court said that it was not necessary for them to determine whether these chambers were affixed to the freehold, that being merely a question of fact. But they held that as the rateable value of the premises was increased by the chambers, as they were used as part of the fixed machinery of the works, attached to the other buildings for the purpose of being so used, although capable perhaps of being removed without injury to the freehold, the appellants, if they were to let their premises, would obtain a higher rent for them as they stand, with the chambers upon them, than if the chambers were removed; and they were therefore rightly rated for their premises, rendered additionally valuable by these chambers. Order of sessions confirmed. R. v. St. Giles's, Camberwell, 14 Q. B. 571; 19 LawJ. 122, m.; 14 J. P. 448. Cemetery, how rateable. The London Cemetery Company were rated in the parish of St. Giles, Camberwell, for their cemetery at Nunhead, Surrey, against which rate they appealed. They were in fact proprietors, under a local Act, of two cemeteries, this one in Surrey, and another in Middlesex; they had directors who managed the whole concern, and auditors for auditing the accounts, to both of whom they paid salaries. They were rated according to the Parochial Assessment Act, with the usual deductions; they were allowed the wages to the gatekeeper, watchman, gardeners and labourers, coals, candles, postages, &c.; parochial rates and taxes, gravel, grave-boards, &c.; salary to chaplain and superintendent, and fees to incumbent, commission to undertakers, and repair of windows, &c.; and the expenses in respect of the catacombs, vaults, graves, and interments-amounting altogether to £1628. And, subject to these deductions, they were charged on their revenue by the sale of catacombs and graves, by common interments, interment fees and extra charges, £2536, leaving a balance as rateable value, of £908. But they contended that half the amount of the salaries they paid to their directors and auditors, and the expenses of an office they had in London, where the directors transacted the company's business, the salary of an office clerk, repairs, coals, gas, &c., amounting to £912 148. (£456), should also be deducted; that they should be allowed also 10 per cent. on £2536 (£253), as tenant's profits; and these being deducted would leave the rateable value £199 only. The sessions allowed the salaries to the directors and auditors, and such proportion of the general expenses as the gross revenue of Nunhead bore to the gross revenue of both cemeteries, amounting to £278, and they allowed the 10 per cent. tenant's profits, £253, which being deducted from the £908 above mentioned, left a rateable value of £377, and they amended the rate accordingly. They stated a case, however, for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. The Court held that the company were not entitled to a deduction of the general expenses (£912 14s.), including payment to the directors and auditors; those expenses were quite collateral to the occupation of the land, and in fact had nothing to do with it; they were modes of expending the revenue when derived, but formed no part of the means necessary to acquire it. The payment of salaries to the directors, auditors, and secretary, was clearly an expenditure of profits for the general benefit and purposes of the company as such, and the Court thought that it ought not to be allowed. Rate to be increased accordingly. 7. POOR RATE. (Buildings for Public Purposes.) R. v. Ponsonby, et al., 3 Q. B. 14; 1 Gale & D. 713; 11 Law J. 65, m.; 6 J. P. 266. Persons having private Apartments in a Royal Palace, in which the Hampton Court Palace was built by Cardinal Wolsey, who presented it to Henry VIII., and it has ever since constituted part of the royal demesnes appurtenant to the Crown of England; and up to the reign of George II. was the occasional residence of the Sovereign; but since that time it has ceased to be a place of the actual residence of the Crown. The palace contains a suite of rooms called the state apartments, containing a collection of paintings, the property of the Crown, to which the public are permitted to have access, and persons are appointed by the Crown to show them. A guard of honour is always on duty at the palace; divine service is performed there by a chaplain paid by the Crown; the palace is kept in repair by the Crown, and the produce of the gardens applied to Her Majesty's use. There are several other apartments which are in the occupation of private individuals, gratuitously, who occupy them by virtue of a written grant or warrant from the Lord Chamberlain, but not as being appurtenant or annexed to any office under the Crown; these consist of spacious drawing rooms, dining rooms, bed rooms, servants' rooms, &c., suitable for the residence of persons of distinction, having considerable household establishments; they were put in repair by the Crown upon the parties first entering them, but afterwards they were furnished and kept in repair by the occupiers themselves. Lady Emily Ponsonby and others being rated to the poor for the apartments they |