Page images
PDF
EPUB

respect of them by the express words of the stat. 43 El. c. 2, s. 1, already mentioned, ante, p. 146. The person who is in the actual possession of the land, &c., by himself or his servants, is the occupier; and therefore if a man let his land to another, the tenant and not the landlord is the occupier,-with some exceptions, however, which shall be noticed under the next head. But the occupier must have some interest in the land, to be rateable; and therefore it is that the proprietors of a river navigation, who have no interest in the soil of the bed of the river, are not rateable for it (c). So, where the proprietors of certain stone quarries contracted with the Trent and Mersey navigation company, to furnish them with as much stone as they should want, at 7d. per ton, and stipulated that if they should neglect to deliver the quantities required, the company might enter upon the quarries, and take such quantities of stone as they wanted, paying 2d. per ton for it; and the proprietors of the quarries having failed to deliver the stone required, the company entered and continued for more than twenty years to work the quarries and take the stone at 2d. per ton: the company being rated as occupiers of the quarries, the court held, that as they had only a liberty of taking stone from the quarries upon paying for it at so much per ton,-a liberty which the proprietors might have granted to others as well as to them,-they had not such a sole and exclusive occupation of the quarries as would render them rateable for them within the meaning of the statute (d). But where a man rents or owns a house or land, the actual occupation of any portion of it by him will make him rateable for the whole. Aud therefore, where a man hired a house and garden, which had before then been for some time unoccupied, and put them in repair; neither he nor his family ever lodged or slept in the house; he resided elsewhere, but he occasionally came, and for his amusement worked for an hour or two at a turning lathe which he had erected in one of the rooms, and in which he had also a few chairs and a table; he kept corn for a horse in another room, and his gardener kept flowerpots, working tools, &c., in a lumber room; he also allowed a poor man and his wife to reside in the kitchen, but that had no communication with the rest of the house; he had been offered 251. a year for the house, but had refused it: being rated for the house at 241., the sum at which the last tenant had been rated, he appealed, and the sessions being of opinion that he was rateable only for such part as he actually occupied, altered the rate to 57.: but the court held that he was rateable for the whole; for it would be attended with great inconvenience to draw such a line as was here attempted between the

(c) R. v. Weaver Navigation, 7 (d) R. v. The Trent and Mersey B. & C. 70, n. Navigation, 4 B. & C. 57.

occupation of one part of a house and another (e). So, where a surgeon in the militia had a house and shop in Aberystwith, where his wife and daughter lived, and where his business was carried on by an assistant in his absence; in July, 1806, his wife and daughter left the house, having previously had the shop parted off from the other part of the house by laths, so that the assistant had only the shop to occupy; they left the key of the house with a Mrs. Hughes, who during their absence had the garden dug, and occasionally allowed some friends of the surgeon to occupy the house for a month or six weeks at a time; the furniture remained in the house, and it was always ready for the reception of the surgeon and his family, when they chose to return to it; the family did not in fact return until May, 1807; the surgeon being rated for this house for the intermediate time, appealed:-but the court held that he was liable to be rated; he was the occupier all the time; he left his house for a while, but he left a part of it in the occupation of his assistant, who carried on his business in his absence; there was no instance of a man being permitted to carve out the occupation of his house in this way, locking up one room, and then another, but using as much of the house as he found convenient (ƒ). Where, however, the Marquis of Salisbury was rated as the owner and occupier of Ware bridge, where he received certain tolls, and he appealed, on the ground that he had let the tolls to a tenant who was the person to be rated as it appeared that the letting was by parol, and the tolls could only pass by deed, the court held the demise to be a nullity, and the marquis to be rateable for them (g).

Occupation as servant.] We have just observed that if a man occupy land, &c., by himself or his servant, he is rateable in respect of it. The general rule is, that the servant is not rateable for it. And therefore where it appeared that the owner of the lighthouse at Tynemouth was entitled to certain tolls or duties for vessels passing it, and kept a servant there for the purpose of attending to the lights, he himself residing elsewhere: the servant being rated for his occupation of two rooms in the lighthouse, he appealed: and the court held that he was not liable; it was the occupation of the master by his servant, and not of the servant himself (h). So, where a woman was hired by the Philanthropic Society (a society for the care and maintenance of the children of convicts), as matron or mistress of the female children, to be apprenticed to her if required, whom she was to instruct in housewifery, &c., and the work to be done by her and the children was to be the

(e) R. v. St. Mary the Less, Durham, 4 T. R. 477.

(f) R. v. Aberystwith, 10 East, 354.

(g) R. v. Marquis of Salisbury,
8 Ad. & El. 716, 3 Nev. & P. 476.
(h) R. v. Tynemouth, 12 East,
46.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

property of the society; for this purpose she was to have a house free of rent, taxes, &c., she was to have provisions, coals, and candles, and to have wages at the rate of 201. a year as long as she was continued in the employment, the service to be determinable by a month's notice on either side; a house was accordingly provided, she went into it with 30 of the female children whom she took care of and instructed according to her agreement, but the only work the children were employed in, was in making, mending, and washing their own clothes, and those of the boys, who were maintained by the society in another establishment; she had no distinct apartment in the house for herself but a bed-chamber, her family were not allowed to reside with her, and she had no other advantage or emolument from her situation other than what was stipulated for by the agreement when she was hired: being rated to the poor, as occupier of this house, she appealed; and the court held that she was not rateable; she was not the occupier of the house, she could not put in or put out whom she pleased, she could not even allow her own family to reside in it, she was merely the servant of the society, and as such not rateable; as well might it be said that if a gentleman allow his coachman to sleep in his stable, the coachman is therefore rateable for it (i). But if a house be given to a servant to live in, upon such terms that he has and is entitled to the exclusive occupation of it, he will be rateable for it, even although his master by their agreement be bound to pay the rent, taxes, rates, &c., for it. And therefore, where it appeared that the party rated was brewer in a brewery, under an agreement for 1507. a year wages and a house to live in; at first he lived in a house of his employer in the brewery, but becoming unwell he was allowed to take a house at some distance from it, which he did in his own name, and for several years after was assessed to all taxes and rates for it in his own name, but his employer paid the rent and taxes, &c.; against the last poor rate he appealed, upon the ground that his employer was the real occupier of the house and ought to be rated, he himself occupying merely as a servant : but the court held that he was properly rated; he had taken the house in his own name, occupied it exclusively, was therefore assessed for it, and was in law the tenant, notwithstanding his employer paid the rent and taxes (k). So, where the masters and fellows of Catharine Hall, Cambridge, built two houses upon a piece of land, one for their butler and the other for their porter, of which they had the exclusive enjoyment, and took in lodgers and boarders: it was admitted in argument that the butler and porter respectively, and not the college, should be rated for these houses (7).

(i) R. v. Field, 5 T. R. 587. (k) R. v. Wall Lynn, 8 Ad. & El. 379, 3 Nev. & P. 411.

(1) R. v. Gardner, Cowp. 79.

The occupancy must be beneficial.] And the occupancy must be beneficial; that is to say, it must be of property which in its nature is capable of yielding a profit or other benefit to the occupier. It is not necessary, however, that it should yield an actual profit to the occupier: if a gentleman make no profit of his demesne or flower garden, &c., still he is rateable for it; so if a farmer cultivate his farm in such a manner as to make no profit of it, still he is rateable for it. Where the dock company of Hull were rated for their dock, and appealed against the rate, on the ground that they had made no profit of their dock in that year, having expended in the repairing of it more than their dues amounted to: the court held that they were properly rated; it was not stated that the property was not profitable communibus annis; and if deductions were to be made in this way for any extra expense occurring in particular years, it would be infinitely inconvenient, and be open to every species of fraud (m). So, where the occupier of a house and farm in Canvey island, in the county of Essex, was rated for them to the poor, and appealed; and it appeared that the island being formerly covered with the water of the Thames every spring tide, the proprietors gave one-third of the lands to a projector, upon condition of his embanking the island and keeping out the water; he accordingly erected works, which had the effect; but latterly commissioners were appointed for the purpose of maintaining them, and this third of the island was rendered liable to an annual tax to the extent of the yearly value; the house and farm rated was a portion of this third, and the appellant got it for nothing, upon condition of paying this annual tax: it was argued that this tax was an outgoing that ought to be deducted from the rateable value, and if so, he ought not to be rated at all, as this tax was equal to the annual value: but the court held that he was rateable, as this tax was quasi a rent he paid for his farm, and if he had not to pay it he would have to pay a rent equal to it instead of it (n). So, where the lessees of a colliery being rated for it, appealed on the ground that their occupancy of it was not beneficial,that they had worked it for the last three years at a loss; it appeared that they knew it would be a losing adventure when they took it, but their inducement to do so was that a mine of their own adjoined it, and the only, or at least the cheapest, way to get to work it, was by working through this colliery to it: the court held that they were rateable; they were the occupiers, and the property was rateable; and it was no answer to say that they had made an unprofitable bargain with their landlord; the court could not examine into that: it was sufficient to make them liable, that they were the occupiers of

(m) R. v. Hull Dock Company, (n) R. v. Vange, 3 Q. B. 242. 5 M. & S. 394.

rateable property in the parish (o). But where a coal-mine, being exhausted and worked out, was no longer worked, the court held that the occupier was no longer rateable for it, although he still continued to pay rent for it: he was rateable for it according to its annual value at the time the rate was made; and when it became no longer of value, the subjectmatter of the rating was gone (p). So, where commissioners, appointed by an Act of parliament for draining certain lands in the east riding of Yorkshire, finding it necessary to carry off the water by a drain, which should pass through Sculcoates to the river Hull, purchased land for that purpose in Sculcoates, cut the drain, and completed the drainage; the land thus purchased had before been rated to the poor of Sculcoates, and Sculcoates was not benefited by the drainage; the commissioners being rated for this land in Sculcoates, appealed: and the court held that they were not rateable for it; no profit or benefit was derived by them in Sculcoates, either for themselves or others; the benefit was all derived in other parishes by the occupiers of the land drained, and who were taxed in their respective parishes for the improved value of their lands resulting from this drainage; and if this land were charged in Sculcoates, the occupiers of the drained land would be doubly charged with poor rates (q). So in all cases where the profits of land, or of erections upon it, &c., instead of going to the occupier, must by Act of parliament be applied to public purposes only, the occupier is not rateable. As where the profits of a dock were to be applied to the payment of the debt incurred in making it, and to keep it in repair, and when the debt should be paid off, the duties were to be lowered so as to answer the latter purpose only: the court held that the dock company were not rateable for the dock, for they had no beneficial occupancy of it, and no profit was received for the use of any person (r). So, where by Act of parliament the surplus tolls of a river navigation were directed to be laid out in repairing the bridges of the county of Chester, and such other charges upon the county as the justices should direct: the court held that as the surplus tolls were to be applied to public purposes, and could not be made a subject of private profit, the trustees were not rateable in respect of them (s). There are other cases also upon this subject, which shall be noticed when we come to treat of the subject generally in the next section under the head of " Lands, buildings, &c., for public purposes.”

Occupation for part of a year.] If a tenant occupy a

(0) R. v. Parrot et al., 5 T. R. 593.

(p) R. v. Bedworth, 8 East, 387. (q) R. v. Sculcoates, 12 East, 40.

(r) R. v. Liverpool, 7 B. & C. 61.

(8) R. v. Weaver Navigation, 7 B. & C. 70, n.

« EelmineJätka »