1868 v. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF Metropolitan Board of Works. This sewer is about 7 miles in THE QUEEN length. It commences at the pumping station at Greenwich, where it receives the sewage brought there by the high and low level sewers, and terminates at the river Thames at Erith. The sewage from the low level sewer has to be pumped up from such sewer from a depth of eighteen feet, such sewer being about that depth below the level of the bottom of the outfall sewer. The whole of the sewage of the south side of the Thames passes through the pumping station into this outfall sewer. WORKS. 17. The whole of the property comprised in the assessments is held, occupied, and used by the board in the manner and for the purposes herein set forth, and not otherwise. 18. The late commissioners of sewers never were rated to the relief of the poor in respect of the sewers or works connected therewith, and the Metropolitan Board of Works have never hitherto been rated in respect of the sewers, but they have been rated in the parish of Greenwich for a wharf, engine house, and pumping station connected with the sewers. 19. The appellants have not derived, nor do they derive, any profit or advantage from the drainage and intercepting works, except as herein stated; but the whole are maintained out of the funds raised in pursuance of the acts hereinbefore mentioned, and carried on for the purposes in the acts specified and set forth. 20. By 28 Vict. c. cxxi., which was passed on the 19th of June, 1865, and which is to be taken as forming part of this case, power was given to a company under and subject to the provisions of the act to utilize the sewage collected in the main outfall sewers on the northern side of the Thames, and the benefit of a certain agreement, a copy of which is set out in the schedule of the act, and all the obligations and engagements undertaken were transferred to the company (s. 115); and it was provided, that after certain payments therein specified had been made, the Metropolitan Board of Works should receive a certain share of the net profits of the company, but no money was to be received from the company until the expiration of four years from the passing of the act; and any money thereafter to be received by the board was to be applied generally in aid of the rates of the metropolis. The works authorized by the act are unfinished. There are only about two miles out of 1868 about thirty-six complete, and no profit has hitherto been made by the utilization of the sewage by any one, and no money has been THE QUEEN received from the company by the Metropolitan Board of Works. 21. The sum of 3,000,000l. (the repayment of which has been duly guaranteed by the Treasury) is now due and owing by the appellants for principal moneys borrowed under the acts, and expended on the metropolitan main drainage and intercepting scheme; and no works of the character set forth above have been done, except with the money borrowed under the acts. 22. The respondents contend that the property of the appellants is liable to be rated for the relief of the poor of the parish of Greenwich, and for general purposes within the parish, under s. 20 (1) of 9 Geo. 4, c. xliii. 23. The appellants contend that they do not hold, occupy, or use the houses, buildings, lands, tenements, and hereditaments herein before referred to, so as to be liable to be rated to the relief of the poor under 9 Geo. 4, c. xliii.; and that they do not possess any rateable property within the parish of Greenwich. 25. The Court is to have power to draw any inferences of fact, if they think fit so to do, and to amend the rate. The question for the Court is, whether the Metropolitan Board of Works are rateable to the relief of the poor and to the general rate of the parish of Greenwich in respect of the premises specified in the assessments, or in any of them. Nov. 11. Keane, Q.C., Barrow, and Poland, for the respondents, shewed cause against the rule to quash the order of sessions. There is no statute exempting the defendants from rateability, the case therefore falls within the law as laid down in Jones v. Mersey Docks (2), that wherever there is an actual occupation of land, the land is rateable. The defendants primâ facie occupy the sewer, and the occupation is valuable in the sense that it conveys away the sewage from the houses that drain into it. The appellants represent the occupiers of these houses, the enjoyment of which is rendered more beneficial by the sewage being carried off. They are therefore rateable. In Reg. v. Wallingford (3), the Court, (1) See note, ante p. 16. (2) 11 H. L. C. 443; 35 L. J. (M.C.) 1. (3) 10 Ad. & E. 259. v. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. 1868 following Governors of Bristol Poor v. Wait (1), held that the THE QUEEN guardians of the poor were rateable for a workhouse situate in one v. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. of many parishes which had been formed into a union, although the guardians were trustees for a public purpose, and the moneys in their hands were to be applied to public purposes. It may be said, on the authority of Rex v. Sculcoates (2), where it was sought to rate a drain, that in the present case there is no beneficial occupation; that case, however, must be considered overruled by Jones v. Mersey Docks. (3) It is impossible to distinguish the cases; there the dock trustees were in occupation of the docks for public purposes, and though the whole of the revenue was applied to such purposes, they were held liable to be rated; here the ratepayers contribute a revenue, which is received by a public body for public purposes, and they ought to be rated. In Reg. v. Cooper (4), the Local Board of Health of Hull, who by the Public Health Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 63) were constituted the surveyors of highways, rented and occupied a yard as a place of deposit for stones; they were held rateable, although they derived no actual profit from the occupation; and Crompton, J., during the argument, intimated that the payment of the rate would be included in "the expenses" which were to be provided for by s. 87. The fact that property is wholly dedicated to a public purpose is no ground of exemption from rateability: Greig v. University of Edinburgh. (5) At all events, the pumping engine and the other property are liable to be rated; the land on which they are would, under ordinary circumstances, contribute to the maintenance of the poor, and it does not cease to have a value because these buildings are erected on them. Mellish, Q.C., Raymond, and Biron, for the appellants, in support of the rule. First, with regard to the sewers, the Commissioners of Sewers, whom the Metropolitan Board of Works represent, have existed from the time of Henry VIII., and have never been rated to the relief of the poor. They hold the property for the public, from which no benefit can be derived. They are empowered under a public act to levy a rate of 3d. in the pound for the main (1) 5 Ad. & E. 1. (2) 12 East, 40. (3) 11 H. L. C. 443; 35 L. J. (M.C.) 1. (4) 23 L. J. (M.C.) 183. tenance of the sewers and for the repayment of the money they have borrowed to construct them; but a general taxation of the public is not a profit which is liable to be rated. Occupation of property by itself does not make it rateable, the occupation must be beneficial. If a person cannot at law derive any profit from the land in his occupation, he is not rateable: Mayor of Lincoln v. Holmes Common. (1) Jones v. Mersey Docks (2), has no application to this case. In that case a profit was received by reason of the use of the premises; the tax in the present case is received under a statute, and if the sewers ceased to exist, still the tax would be levied, but if the docks were destroyed the bondholders who had advanced their money on the security of the tolls would lose it, and the rate would cease. This is like the case of a county bridge, which is in possession of the county justices; it is beneficial to the whole county, but no one ever heard that it was liable to be rated to the poor. In Reg. v. Wallingford (3), the ground of the decision is that the property "being beneficially occupied" is subject to the poor-rate; so in Reg. v. Cooper (4) the Local Board of Health occupied the yard as trustees, and used it to deposit materials for the repair of highways; it need not have been appropriated to that purpose any more than any other purpose. In the present case the sewer cannot be used for any other purpose than to convey away the sewage, and that without profit. In Greig v. University of Edinburgh (5), Lord Westbury says: "There may be another ground of non-liability, namely, where the property has no rateable value. . . . For it may possibly be that if property is occupied by persons for a purpose yielding no value at all, and they are absolutely prohibited from using it in any manner that would be productive of value, it may, I say, possibly be held that there is no rateable value in that property; and that in that sense, therefore, it ought not to be assessed to the poor-rate." That is precisely this case. With regard to the pumping engine, it can be applied only to pumping sewage from one level to the other; it is ancillary to the working of the sewers, and is part of the apparatus for conveying away the sewage, and is therefore not rateable. With regard to (1) Law Rep. 2 Q. B. 482. (2) 11 H. L. C. 443; 35 L. J. (M.C.) 1. (3) 10 Ad. & E. 259. (4) 23 L. J. (M.C.) 183. (5) Law Rep. 1 H. L., Sc., at p. 354. 1868 THE QUEEN V. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. 1868 the houses and the other property, they also form part of the THE QUEEN general scheme, and the hypothetical tenant, if he took the property, would take it as a whole. v. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. Cur. adv. vult. Nov. 25. The judgment of the Court (Cockburn, C.J., Lush, Hannen, and Hayes, JJ.) was delivered by LUSH, J. There is nothing in the statute, by which the defendants are constituted, or under which they constructed and now maintain the public sewers, to exempt them from rateability for any rateable property which they occupy; nothing which, either expressly or by implication, prohibits their application of the money in their hands to the payment of parochial rates, and the only question therefore is, whether the property in question is rateable. As regards the sewers, we are of opinion that they are not rateable, on the short ground that they are not at present the subject of a beneficial occupation. No payment is made to the board for the use of them; the rates which they are empowered to levy are for the expense of construction and maintenance, and nothing more. Their occupation yields no profit to the board, as occupiers, either actual or potential. But as regards the other property, in respect of which the board are assessed, we are of opinion that the rate is properly imposed. The wharf and engine-house in Norman Road, and the pumping station, land, wharf, lay-by for barges, tramways, engine houses, and appurtenances, in North Pole Lane, have an occupation value. The board must have rented such premises, if they had not become the owners of them, and a tenant might easily be found to take them if the board were able and willing to let them. A distinction was attempted to be drawn in favour of the pumping apparatus, as being a necessary adjunct to the sewers, and it was contended that as the sewers are not rateable, this adjunct must be exempted as being part of a non-rateable subject. But we cannot accede to this view. The machinery stands on land which is valuable for occupation, and which would, undoubtedly, be rateable in the hands of any other occupier; and its rateable quality cannot be affected by the particular use to which it is applied by the board. |