not rateable to the poor as the occupiers or owners of it (j). The same company had also two dams (their property) across the river, which raised the water of it so as to make it navigable for about half a mile above, and they had a cut or canal and locks to lower the boats into the river below; one-half of one of these dams, and the cut or canal and locks, being in Brotherton, that township again rated the company, not only for their cut or canal and locks, but also for so much of their dams as were within the township, on the ground that the dams alone rendered the river navigable, and were the cause of any profit being derived from the navigation within the township; it was admitted that the company were rateable for the cut or canal and locks: but the court held that they were not rateable for the dam; rating the dam was equivalent to rating the water kept up by it, which was already holden not to be the subject of a rate; and the court treated it as an attempt to evade their former decision (k). Where, however, a company were authorized by a private Act of parliament to make a river navigable, and to make cuts, towing-paths, &c., making compensation to the owners of the lands which might be taken for those purposes; this compensation was to be settled by certain commissioners, who awarded that the company should pay thirty years' purchase for the land so taken, and it was paid accordingly: the court held that this had the effect of vesting the property in the lands so taken, in the company, and that they were accordingly rateable for the cuts and towing-path (7).

Where river navigations are rateable, they are rated in precisely the same manner as canals. Formerly, where the navigation lay within several parishes, the proprietors were deemed to be rateable only in those parishes where the tolls were received, and then in proportion to the tolls received (m). But in the case of river navigations, as in canals, this mode of rating has long been exploded, the rate being, not in respect of the tolls, but of the land covered with water, of which the proprietors are the beneficial occupiers. And, therefore, where the defendant, who was tenant of a river navigation passing through several parishes, was rated in the parish of Bengworth for "river tonnage" in respect of goods carried along the line of navigation, but landed at a wharf locally situate within Bengworth the court held that a rate upon the whole amount of the tonnage dues on goods landed in Bengworth, could not be considered as a rate upon that part of the river locally situate within Bengworth, but as a rate upon the parts of the

(j) R. v. Aire and Calder Navigation, 9 B. & C. 820.

(k) R. v. Aire and Calder Navigation, 3 B. & Ad. 139.

(1) Bruce v. Willes et al., MS. H. 1840, 11 Ad. & El. 463.

(m) R. v. Page, 4 T. R. 543.

river in the different parishes through which the goods were carried, and therefore could not be supported (n). So, where a navigable river was in two parishes, one half of it, to the centre, being in Fornham All Saints, the other in Fornham St. Martin, but the proprietor was rated for the whole of the tolls in Fornham All Saints, where the goods were landed and the tolls paid: the court held that the proprietor should be rated in each parish through which the navigation passed, in proportion to the part of the navigation within that parish, and not rated in one parish for the whole; the old cases on this subject were decided on the principle that tolls were rateable per se, which has since however been ruled otherwise (o). And, on the other hand, where the proprietors of a river navigation, extending through many parishes, were rated in one of them for their tolls, in proportion to the length of the navigation in that parish, and appealed against the rate, on the ground that they ought to be charged only on the amount of their tolls on goods landed in the parish; it was afterwards admitted by their counsel, that since the decision in the above case of R. v. Palmer, this objection could not be supported (p). A navigable river, the soil of which was vested in trustees, passed through the parishes of A., B., and W.; a gross sum per ton was charged on vessels navigating the whole line, and less sums for shorter distances: the court held that the trustees were to be rated to the poor in each parish, with respect to the tolls for the whole line, in the ratio of the length of the river passing through the parish to the length of the whole line, and with respect to the tolls for the shorter distances, in the ratio of the distance passed through the parish to the whole distance passed over; and from the gross receipts of the trustees, the amount of the necessary repairs and expenses must be deducted, and as these were equal along the whole line, a deduction should be made in each parish in the ratio of the length of the navigation passing through it; from the residue also must be deducted ten per cent. as an allowance for tenant's profits; but no allowance was to be made for certain compensations paid by the trustees to individuals along the line (g).

The above mode of rating, however, must be deemed applicable only to those cases where no specific mode is pointed out by the Act of parliament under which the navigation was made or is managed. And therefore where an Act of parliament, establishing a river navigation company, after enabling them to purchase lands, &c., for the purpose of the navigation, enacted that they should thereafter from time to time be rated

(n) R. v. Milton, 3 B. & A. 112. (0) R. v. Susannah Palmer, 1 B. & C. 546.

(p) R. v. Earl Portmore et al., 1 B. &. C. 551.

(q) R. v. Woking, 4 Ad. & E. 40.

and charged to all parochial rates, &c., for their lands, warehouses, &c., " in the same proportions as other lands, grounds, and buildings adjoining to or lying near the same are or shall be rated and charged;" being rated, however, according to the value of their lands as converted to the purposes of the navigation, and not in the same proportion as other lands adjoining, they appealed: and the court held that they should have been rated for their land and buildings, upon a value estimated according to the value of the adjoining land and buildings, and not according to their actual productive value to the company (r).

Water Works.] Water works are liable to be rated to the poor, as being land which is rendered additionally valuable by the works attached to it; and the proprietors are liable to be rated for them, not only in the parish where their reservoir is, but in each parish through which their pipes are laid down. Where it appeared that the New River Company were seised of and occupied a close in Amwell, in which there was a very considerable spring, being one of two sources from which they obtained the water for the supply of the city of Westminster; the land without the spring is of the annual value of 51., but with the spring it is of the value of 3007. a year, and it was upon this latter calculation they were rated: the court held that the company were properly rated; the spring was a part of the land of which the company were owners and occupiers, and both being of the value of 3001. a year, they were rightly rated at that amount (s). And, on the other hand, where the corporation of Bath, being the owners of certain springs of water in Lyndcomb, built reservoirs there, and from thence conducted the water by pipes to Bath, for the supply of the inhabitants, and by Act of parliament they were authorized to break up the streets, &c., for the purpose of laying their pipes; the corporation made a profit of 6007. a year from the rates received from the water, 501. of which were collected in Lyndcomb, and 5501. in Bath; being rated to the poor in Lyndcomb, upon the whole 6007., the corporation appealed: and the court held that, although rateable in Lyndcomb in respect of the land occupied by them for their reservoirs, they were not rateable there for the whole of their profits, because they occupied land in other parishes by their pipes, in which parishes they were also rateable for a portion of their profits (t). A company were incorporated by Act of parliament, for the purpose of supplying Rochdale with water, and were autho

(r) R. v. Chelmer and Blackwater Navigation Company, 2 B. & Ad. 14.

(8) R. v. New River Company,

1 M. & S. 503.

(t) R. v. Mayor of Bath, 14 East, 609.

rized to lay down pipes in the public streets and highways in the township of Spotland for that purpose; and being rated to the poor in respect of these pipes, they appealed: the court held that they could not distinguish this from the above case of R. v. Bath; whether the subject of a rate were a reservoir of so many feet square, or a pipe of so many inches diameter, made no difference (u). And where the works of a water company were situate in several parishes, and consisted partly of works directly productive of profit (as service pipes which deliver the water to the consumers), and partly of works indirectly productive of profit (as buildings, mains, reservoirs, &c., which assist in bringing the water to the service pipes); and the rateable value of the whole, calculated according to the net estimated rental, was 30,8007.: the court held that the proper mode of apportioning the rate in the different parishes was, to assess that portion which was indirectly productive of profit in the ordinary way, by valuing the land and the buildings and the fixtures thereon; this sum being deducted from the whole, the residue should then be apportioned among the parishes where the works directly productive were situate, in the ratio of the rent reasonably to be expected for them, if the parts situate in each parish were let separately: and that this ratio could be correctly ascertained, by the ratio of the net profits derived in each of the several parishes, or even by the gross receipts, if the total of the expenses were common to the whole of the apparatus (v). The Chelsea Water Works Company were rated to the poor for their basin or reservoir, in the Green Park, and the pipes laid down from it through the park and through the streets; they admitted their liability as to the pipes laid down in the streets, but they contended that they were not liable as respected the pipes laid down in the park, because the ranger of the park was already rated for the herbage of the park generally, including the place where the pipes were laid, and if they were also rated, the same land would be twice rated :-and as to the basin or reservoir, it appeared that by a grant of Geo. 1, the crown, on petition of the company that they should be at liberty to use and enjoy the same, and to lay mains, &c., granted to them "all that canal or basin, and all that the old pond in our said park afore described, to be converted into reservoirs, and to be used and enjoyed by the said company as such, and for the purposes aforesaid, for and during the pleasure of us, our heirs and successors," together with leave to break up the ground for the purpose of laying their pipes, &c., subject to certain conditions, one of which was, that the company's works there should be done under the inspection and direction of the ranger; and

(u) R. v. Rochdale Water Works Company, 1 M. & S. 634.

(v) R. v. Mile End Old Town, 16 Law J. 185, m.

the company now contended that the grant had not the effect of giving them the exclusive occupation, and therefore they were not rateable for this basin or reservoir; the grant should be construed with reference to the petition, which it recited, and that merely prayed that the company might be at liberty to use and enjoy it :-as to the pipes in the Green Park, the court held that the company were clearly liable to be rated in respect of them; the ranger was only rated for the herbage, which did not prevent others from being rated for the soil beneath, who had the exclusive use and possession of it :-and as to the basin or reservoir, they were liable to be rated for it, for the same reason: they had, in fact, the exclusive occupation of the land where their reservoir was constructed, and in both cases had the exclusive right in a portion of the soil, though for a limited purpose only, and as to their holding it at will merely, that made no difference, a tenant at will being, until the will is determined, the occupier of the land (y).

And lastly, where by a private Act certain springs in Longwood were to be diverted, and the water conveyed to Huddersfield, for the supply of that place; but as there were mills in Longwood, which claimed the right of being supplied with water from these springs, the commissioners appointed by the Act had a reservoir erected in Longwood, for the purpose of impounding and keeping back a certain portion of the water for the use of the mills, for which, however, the millowners paid nothing; the residue was conducted by pipes to Huddersfield, and supplied to such of the inhabitants as chose to pay a certain water rate for it; for the purpose of purchasing the land, laying down pipes, and erecting the necessary works, the commissioners borrowed money on mortgages of the property, as they were authorized to do by the Act, and the Act stipulated that when the whole of the principal and interest due on the mortgages should be paid off, the water rents should be reduced so that the proceeds should only cover the current expenses; and the water rents had, in fact, been reduced to half their original amount: the commissioners being rated in Longwood for the reservoir, appealed, and upon a case granted for the opinion of the court of Queen's Bench, they insisted that they were not liable to be rated for the water works at all, being works erected for a public purpose, in which they had no interest, and from which they could derive no profit; and as to this reservoir in Longwood, although much money was expended in forming it, it yielded no return whatever: but the court held the commissioners rateable for this reservoir; it was a mistake to say that supplying water to such of the inhabitants of Huddersfield as would pay for it, was such a

(y) R. v. Chelsea Water Works v. Cambridge Gas Company, post, Company, 5 B. & Ad. 156. See R. pp. 178, 179.