service, to be affixed on or near to the doors of all the churches and chapels within such parish or place. Where this notice was affixed to the door of the church in which alone all rates had been published before the passing of this Act, but there were also two other churches in the same township, where the notice was not affixed; the court held this publication to be insufficient (r). But where a poor rate was published in the united townships of Todmorden and Walsden, by affixing a notice thereof on the principal door of the new church, the church having two; there was also an ancient chapel in the townships, which had fallen into decay, but parish meetings were held, and sometimes christenings and burials were performed there; there was also a school-house in Walsden, where divine service was performed on Mondays: the court held the publication good; the new church was de facto the church of the place, within the meaning of stat. 1 Vict. c. 45, and affixing the notice on the principal door of that, was sufficient; it was not necessary to affix it upon the doors of the chapel or school-house (s). Where a parish was divided into several townships, &c., each supporting its own poor, and a rate for one of the townships, in which the parish church was situate, being published in this manner in the church, was objected to because it had not been published in all the churches and chapels within the other townships, &c.: the court held that it was not necessary; all the statute required was, that the rate should be published in all churches and chapels within that district for which it is made (t). Where a rule was obtained for a mandamus to compel justices of the peace to grant a warrant against a person who refused to pay a poor rate, it was shown for cause that the rate had not been published until the third Sunday after it was allowed, and by the above statute it should have been published on the first Sunday: the court held that the rate was invalid on this ground, and therefore refused the mandamus; it appeared also that the rate had been appealed against, and confirmed: but the court held that it made no difference; the rate was radically defective, and nothing could cure it (u). So, where there was one distress for several poor rates, and it appeared that some of them had not been published on the Sunday next after their allowance: the court held that the rates not published in proper time were altogether nullities, and that the party distrained upon was entitled to recover in replevin, although he had not appealed against those rates (x).

m.

(r) R. v. Whipp, 12 Law J. 64,

(s) Ormerod et al. v. Chadwick et al., 16 Law J. 143, m.

(t) R. v. JJ. of Worcestershire, 12 Ád. & El. 779, 10 Law J. 12, m. (u) R. v. Newcomb, 4 T. R. 368. (x) Sibbald v. Roderick et al., MS. M. 1839, 11 Ad. & El. 38.

For what purposes made.] By stat. 43 El. c. 2, s. 1, the churchwardens and overseers of the poor are required to raise, weekly or otherwise, "a convenient stock of flax, hemp, wool, thread, iron, and other necessary ware or stuff, to set the poor on work; and also competent sums of money for and towards the necessary relief of the lame, impotent, old, blind, and such other among them, being poor and not able to work, and also for the putting out of such children to be apprentices." This is the original rule upon the subject; but the reader will find the particular items of expenditure to which the poor rate may legally be appropriated, very fully enumerated, ante, pp. 110-122; and see pp. 126-131.

For what period.] By stat. 43 El. c. 2, s. 1, we have seen (supra) that the churchwardens are to make the rate "weekly or otherwise." Where a poor rate for Landhurst was made, intended to be for six months, prospectively, but that did not appear upon the face of the rate: the court held that there was no objection to the rate being prospective; and as to its being for six months, even if that appeared upon the face of the rate, it would not of itself make the rate bad; for the stat. 43 El. c. 2, directs the rate to be made "weekly or otherwise," thereby giving a discretion to the justices and overseers as to the time for which the rate should be made (y). On the other hand, a rate must not be retrospective, except merely in the instances provided for by stat. 41 G. 3, c. 23, s. 9, as mentioned ante, p. 112; otherwise it will be bad (z). Also, where, in 1665, a poor rate was made for Audley, and agreed to by the inhabitants; it was afterwards continued without alteration until 1699, when a new rate was made, which however was quashed upon appeal, and then the old rate was ordered to be continued: but the court quashed this old rate, saying that the justices had no right to make a standing rate; the statute requires that the rate should be equal, and to make so, it was necessary to alter it from time to time, as circumstances altered (a).

It must be equal.] The rate must be equal (b); that is to say, all occupiers of land, houses, &c., must be rated according to the same rule, as laid down by stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96, s. 1, mentioned ante, p. 238; and if any person be rated on a comparatively higher scale than is prescribed by that statute he may appeal against the rate; or if any person be rated on

(y) Durrant v. Boys, 6 T. R. 580.

(z) R. v. Goodcheap, 6T. R. 159,

ante, p. 113. R. v. Wavell, Doug. 116.

(a) R. v. Audley, 2 Salk. 526. (b) R. v. Audley, supra.

a lower scale, any of the other parties rated may appeal against the rate on that ground. So, where inhabitants were formerly rated in respect of their stock-in-trade or other personal property, they must all have been rated upon an equal scale, otherwise the rate might in like manner be appealed against. Where, by a rate, lands were charged at one-half the rental, and personal estate at only one-fortieth part of the interest of it, calculated at four per cent.: the court held that it sufficiently appeared upon the face of the rate to be unequal, and quashed it (c). Where the trustees of the Duke of Bridgewater were rated for a canal in the proportion of their gross profits arising from their tolls, less the expenses of collection, repairs, &c. whereas other occupiers of lands in the same township were only rated at what their lands would let for; the court held that all occupiers of land should be rated upon the same principle, namely, at the sum their lands would let for; and that the canal in this instance ought only to be rated upon the sum a tenant would give for it as a rent; they therefore sent the rate back to the sessions to be amended accordingly (d). Where the defendant appealed against a poor rate on the ground that two persons named in it, who held lands in the parish under old leases at very low rents, and who were rated at those rents, were under-rated, and he offered evidence to prove that the lands at the time were of much greater value; but the sessions, being of opinion that as no fines had been paid, the rents stated in the lease were conclusive as to the sums at which the parties ought to be rated, refused the evidence and confirmed the rate, subject to a case: when the case came on for argument, however, the counsel in support of the order of sessions, admitted that it could not be sustained, and it was accordingly quashed (e). So, where the defendant appealed against a rate, because one Fowler was rated only upon the sum of 291., for a house, brewhouse, &c., in the parish, for which he paid that sum annually as a rent, but which were really of the annual value of 1757. in consequence of improvements he had made: the court held the rate bad; all persons should be rated equally, according to the actual value of their property, at the time of making the rate; there cannot be one mode of rating for one person, and another for another; if a man have a small piece of land, which is of little value, and he build a house upon it, he must be rated for it at its improved value (ƒ). Where upon the trial of an appeal against a rate, the sessions adjourned it in order that there might be a valuation of the lands in the parish;

(c) R. v. Lackenham, 1 Bott,105. (d) R. v. Duke of Bridgewater, 9 B. & C. 68.

(e) R. v. Skingle, 7 T. R. 549. (f) R. v. Mast, 6 T. R. 154.

the defendant's lands being situate in a level, were subject to a drainage or sewers rate, to which other lands in the parish were not, and the valuers put the same value upon all, making no allowance for this sewers rate; the sessions confirmed the valuation, subject to the opinion of the court as to whether such allowance should be made: it was now contended that such allowance ought not to be made, because the sewers rate was a tax on the landlord and not on the occupier, and therefore the latter was not entitled to any allowance for it: but the court held that it should have been deducted; it was true that it was a charge on the landlord, but so was the poor rate in effect, for if the tenant had not to pay it, the landlord would get a higher rent for his land (g).

But the court of Queen's Bench will not in general decide upon the inequality of a rate, unless it be manifestly unequal (h). And therefore, where lands and houses were rated in different proportions, the court refused to decide whether the rate were unequal, or to quash it on that account; the different expenses attending houses in comparison with lands, and also local circumstances, may render a lower proportion of rate upon houses, and a higher upon lands, an equal rate; but the court will not decide the point (i) unless the rate appear manifestly to be unequal (k).

Where an application was made for a mandamus to overseers, commanding them to make an equal rate, the court refused it, saying they would grant a mandamus to make a rate if necessary, but not to make an equal rate (1). And in a similar case, the court, in refusing the writ, said that if a rate be unequal, the remedy is by appeal to the sessions, and not by mandamus (m).

Rate, bad in part.] If a man be rated in respect of two properties, at one entire sum, and the rate be bad as to one, it is bad as to both. Thus, where one Brown purchased twothird parts of a manor, and the lead-mines under the same, which mines were then let to a mining company at a rent of 2,4001. a year, the surface being in the occupation of Brown, and the owner of the other third part; Brown died, devising his two-thirds to the defendant in trust: the defendant being rated for this rent, and also in respect of his being owner and

(g) R. v. Adams, 4 B. & Ad. 61. (k) R. v. Aire and Calder Navigation, 2 T. R. 660. R. v. Hardy, Cowp. 579.

(i) R. v. Tomlinson, 9 B. & C. 163. R. v. Butler, Cald. 93. R. v. Sandwich, 2 Doug. 502. R. v. Brograve, 4 Burr. 2491.

(k) See R. v. Lackenham, ante,

p. 244.
(1) R. v. Barnstable, 1 Barnard.
137.

(m) R. v. Canterbury, 4 Burr.
2290.

occupier of the moors and wastes within the manor, appealed: and the court held that the rent was clearly not the subject of a rate; the moors and wastes might or might not be so; but as it was a conjoint rate for two things, one of which was not rateable, it was bad as to both (n). So, where the defendants were rated "for coal and iron mines 701.," and appealed: the court held that they were rateable for their coal-mines, not for their iron-mines; but as the rate was joint for the two, it being bad as to one, it was bad as to both, for the court had no means of ascertaining how much was applicable to the one, how much to the other (o).

(n) R. v. Wellbank, 4 M. & S. 222.

(0) R. v. Cunningham et al., 5 East, 478.