penses), to be called a lighting rate; and a separate rate in respect of each sum ordered to be levied for defraying

in Masters v. Scroggs, supra, a large amount of property, which has heretofore been included in the sewers rate of the metropolis, will escape liability; but not so if the slender amount of benefit which was derived in Soady v. Wilson, supra, is sufficient to render property rateable, as very few localities under the management of the vestries and district boards of the metropolis are wholly unprovided with surface-drainage. As on appeal the quarter sessions are to consider whether the rate bears a due proportion to the benefit derived, it may be that differential ratings of house property may be introduced in parishes, a consequence which would be attended with many inconveniences. The former Westminster commissioners rated all houses abutting on a public road, the surface of which drained into any of their sewers. See further note (m) to sect. 164, post.

All objections against a rate good on the face of it (except for such defects as make the rate a nullity, as where a person is rated in respect of land not in his occupation; Milward v. Cuffin, 2 W. Bl. 1330; and see observations of Crompton, J., in Luton Local Board of Health v. Davies, 29 L. J. (N. S.) M.C. 173), must be taken by way of appeal; Empson v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 25 J. P. 677; Churchwardens of Birmingham v. Shaw, 10 Q. B. 868; 18 L. J. (N. S.) M. Č. 89; Luton Local Board of Health v. Davies, supra, even where the rate was made, not by the overseers but by individuals appointed by the metropolitan board, under sect. 68, on the default of a district board; Empson v. Metropolitan Board of Works, supra. Therefore an objection that the property derives no benefit; R. v. Newman, 29 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 117, or that the rate was made for an illegal purpose under Public Health Act, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63; Luton Local Board of Health v. Davies, supra, can only be taken on appeal. To render property rateable there must be an occupier. See Neave v. Wrather, 3 G. & Dav. 221; but special provisions on this subject are contained in many local Acts. A tenement in the King's dockyard, which derived benefit from the sewers occupied by a government officer who paid no rate, was held liable to be rated; Netherton v. Ward, 3 B. & A. 2; but not property in the personal occupation of the sovereign, as Kensington Palace; Attorney-General v. Donaldson, 10 M. & W. 117. Arrears of poor rates may be levied by others than the immediate successors of those who made the rate; Overseers of East Dean v. Everett, 25 J. P. 565. A magistrate has no jurisdiction on the hearing of a complaint for nonpayment of a sewer rate, to state a case under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. Reg. v. Newman, supra.

other expenses of executing this Act, to be called a general rate; and shall make such respective rates of such amount in the pound on the annual value of the property rateable as will in their judgment, having regard to all circumstances, be sufficient to raise the sums specified in such order; and such rates shall be levied on the persons and in respect of the property by law rateable to the relief of the poor in the respective parishes (h), and shall be assessed upon the net annual value of such property ascertained by the rate for the time being for the relief of the poor (i); and the said overseers shall, for the purpose of levying such rates, proceed in the same manner, and have the same powers, remedies, and privileges, as for levying money for the relief of the poor; and all such rates shall be allowed in the same manner, and be subject to all the same provisions in relation to appeal and to excusing persons from payment on account of poverty and otherwise, as the rate for the relief of the poor in the same parish; and such overseers shall pay (k) to the treasurer of the vestry or board, or otherwise as in such order directed, the amount mentioned in the order, within the time or respective times specified for that purpose, and the excess, if any, which may have

(h) This directs the vestry to guide itself by the rate for the relief of the poor in each parish, and no property should be separately assessed or exempt unless it be so within the poor rate for the parish.; R. v. Great Western Railway Company, 28 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 59. But see Howell v. London Dock Company, 27 L. J. M. C. 177, and note (e), p. 121, ante. There is no express direction in the section as to publication, but the general words of the enactment subjecting the rates made under it to all the incidents of the poor rate, would no doubt be held to require publication. Many of the local Acts existing in parishes contain special provisions as to publication.

(i) See provisions of Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 103, as to valuation lists of rateable hereditaments and exception in sect. 29 of that Act.

(k) See sect. 14 of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 102, post, enforcing payment and accounting by overseers, and annexing penalties in case of default, and as to appointment of paid collectors

斷

been levied beyond such amount, which excess shall be placed to the credit of the parish or part in which the same has been levied; and the said overseers shall at the time of making any such payment deliver with the money a note in writing signed by them, specifying the amount so paid, which note shall be kept as a voucher for the receipt of that particular amount; and the receipt of the treasurer of the vestry or board, or of any proper officer or person of or belonging to any bank into which such money is so paid, specifying the amount paid to him by the overseers, shall be a sufficient discharge to the overseers for such amount.

ings and void spaces now

cept churches

continue

CLXII. Provided always, that all such hospitals, Public buildpublic schools, and other public buildings, dead walls, and void spaces of ground as are now by law rateable rateable (exto any rate for the costs and charges of paving or re- and burial pairing the pavements within any parochial or other grounds) to district, either separately or jointly with any other object rateable (7). or objects, (except only places of religious worship, and burial grounds, or places which have been used for burial grounds, and are not used for any other purpose,) shall be rateable under this Act to the like extent and for the like objects or purposes as they may now be rated, and the rates to be made in respect of such objects or purposes shall be payable by the persons now liable to pay the same, and be recoverable in like manner, as any rate to which such buildings and spaces of ground are now rateable as aforesaid in respect of the like objects or purposes.

rated to the

CLXIII. Provided also, that any sewers rate raised Land to be under this Act shall, as regards all land used as arable, sewers rate meadow, or pasture ground only, or as woodland, orchard, at one fourth market garden, hop, herb, flower, fruit, or nursery

(7) See the 187th section of the City Sewers Act, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 163, as to rating property of this description in the city of London.

part of

its annual value. (1)

Existing ex

emptions in respect of sewers rate

to be allowed.

ground, be assessed and levied in the proportion of one fourth part only of the net annual value of such land.

CLXIV. Provided also, that where any property was at the time of the issuing of the first commission under the said Act of the eleventh and twelfth years of Her Majesty, chapter one hundred and twelve, entitled to exemption (m) from or to any reduction or allowance

(1) This proviso is taken from the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 64, s. 1," An Act to continue and amend the Metropolitan Sewers Act, 1848," and was not contained in the original Metropolitan Sewers Act, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 112. The provision was based on the 88th section of the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63. (Public Health Act.)

(m) In considering the application of this provision it is necessary to refer to the proviso to the 76th section of the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 112, to the effect that where any property was by law, or by the practice of the existing commission or commissioners of sewers, entitled to exemption, wholly or partially, from or to any reduction or allowance in respect of the sewers rate, the commissioners should in making the district sewers rate observe and allow such exemption, reduction, or allowance. The title to exemption, wholly or partially, was by law or by the practice of the existing commissioners. The exemptions from sewers rates existing by the general law are stated by Callis, pp. 222, 223. The records of the former commissions present a few examples of property, which by reason of the obligation of the owners to do works of repair, cleansing, &c., were exempted from the ordinary levies. In March, 1850, a rate of the metropolitan commissioners of sewers was successfully appealed against by an inhabitant of High-street, Poplar, on the ground that he, in common with the other owners and occupiers of messuages and lands in that locality, had by reason of their tenure been bound to cleanse and scour the Poplar ditch, and by the court minutes of the Poplar commission it appears that in the case of Horne v. Farmer, tried before Lord Tenterden in the year 1826, the jury found that such an exemption existed. Exemptions on similar grounds appear to have prevailed under the Greenwich commission. Under some of the former commissions tithes were either wholly exempted or rated at a lower rate, but there appears to have been no general practice totally to exempt them. The rule, as laid down by Callis, is, that tithes were not liable to be rated in the hands of a spiritual person, except by a custom, pp. 129, 132; and see Serj. Woolrych, Law of Sewers, 2nd ed. p. 88. But

in respect of the sewers rate, such exemption, reduction,

in Wood's Inst. p. 176, it is said that, "Tithes are at this day chargeable with all payments imposed by Act of parliament, if they are not excepted." The metropolitan commission of sewers were advised by three eminent counsel, two of whom have since become judges of the superior courts, that the spiritual owner of tithe rectorial or vicarial was liable to be rated under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 112, s, 76, except only where and so far as by the practice of the then existing commissions he was entitled to exemption, reduction, or allowance. The practice with regard to rating tithes varied under the several commissions. The Greenwich commissioners were advised by Lord Abinger, when at the bar, that tithes were rateable to the sewers rates under that commission, and they were so rated. The cases of R. v. Lamb and R. v. Goodchild, 27 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 237, 251, are only authorities to show that tithes were not rateable in the parish of Hackney, because it had been the practice of the commission within which that parish was situate to omit them from their rates. But they go no further. The question still remains, whether tithe commutation rent charge will be held rateable in those districts in which it was formerly the practice to rate them. It was customary under some of the commissions to rate land in a less proportion than houses and buildings; and the practice varied under the different commissions as to the rating of the mains and pipes of water and gas companies. In some instances they were rated on the full rental, in others on a reduced amount, and in others not at all. It is presumed that where total exemption from rateability attached to this species of property in a district, the right of exemption still continues. In a recent case, on appeal to the Middlesex sessions by a water company against a sewer rate made by the parish of Hackney, on their mains and pipes, the sessions reduced the rate to one half, holding that the company were only benefited to that extent in respect of the property in question; but as it was the practice wholly to exempt this description of property from sewers rates under the Tower Hamlets commission, within the limits of which that parish was situate, it would seem that the company were not rateable at all. Cases of the foregoing nature, in which the property entitled to exemption or reduction can readily be ascertained by a reference to the rate books, do not present much difficulty. But numerous and important questions may arise as to what property may be entitled to any reduction or allowance in respect of sewers rates, on the ground that it has no communication with the public sewers, and therefore is not benefited.