M. T. 1862. THE QUEEN v. in force during the interval, was duly revised on the 25th of April 1862, and signed by the Assistant Commissioner of Valuations on that day. At that revision, the valuation of the premises was altered into two separate valuations, namely, 14 Wellington-place MAYOR OF at the annual value of £90, and the offices in Upper Queen-street at the annual value of £30. On the 24th of June 1862, the prosecutor caused a notice to be served on the Poor-law Guardians of the Union, claiming to be rated jointly with his partners in respect of the offices which were therein described as a counting-house, No. 2 Upper Queen-street; and caused a tender to be made of the rates then payable in respect thereof. The guardians did not comply with the notice. On the 25th of June 1862, another rate, based on the revised valuation, was struck; and the prosecutor and his partners were therein rated as occupiers of No. 2 Upper Queen-street, at the annual value of £30. The Town-clerk returned the prosecutor's name on the list of persons who were entitled to be enrolled as burgesses for the ensuing year; but that an objection to the retention of the prosecutor's name on the burgess-roll was duly served by one John O'Hanlon. The prosecutor duly served a notice to be enrolled a burgess in respect of the successive occupation of 14 Wellington-place and 2 Upper Queen-street. At the revision of the burgess-roll, the prosecutor, being Mayor of the Borough for the year 1862, declined to preside at the hearing of the objection and claim; and Alderman Ewart, who was elected his locum tenens to hear this particular objection and claim, with the advice of the two Assessors of the borough, disallowed the prosecutor's claim, and, on the 3rd of November 1862, struck his name off the burgess-roll. It further appeared that no taxes remained unpaid in respect of the said premises. The notice served by the prosecutor on the Guardians was this:-"Claim to be rated. Union of Belfast. Pursuant to the "Act of 13 & 14 Vic., c. 69.-I, Charles Lanyon, being occupier, "jointly with two other persons, of a tenement hereinafter de"scribed, which tenement is rated under the Act for the more BELFAST. THE QUEEN V. MAYOR OF M. T. 1862. "effectual Relief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland, at a net annual Queen's Bench "value of £30 and upwards, and is situate in the borough of "Belfast, electoral division of Belfast, in which there was a rate "made for the relief of the destitute poor on the 25th day of June "1861 last, from which rate my name has been omitted as such "occupier of such premises, do hereby give notice to you, the "Guardians of Belfast Union, that I claim to be rated in respect "of such premises, that is to say, as joint-occupier of a counting"house situate at No. 2 Upper Queen-street, in the said borough "and union." "Dated 3rd day of May 1862." "CHARLES LANYON." Upon these facts the Court granted a conditional order, dated the 8th of November 1862, for a writ of mandamus, directed to William Ewart, Alderman, acting as Mayor for the occasion, and to the Mayor for the time being of the borough of Belfast, commanding them, or one of them, to insert the name of him, the said Charles Lanyon, as a burgess on the burgess-roll of and for the St. George's ward of the borough of Belfast; on the grounds that he, the said Charles Lanyon, was and is duly qualified to be a burgess of the said ward; and that possessing the qualifications and having complied with the requirements of the statutory enactments in that behalf, he should have been retained and enrolled on the said burgess-roll, at the revision thereof held on the first and third instant. There were no affidavits filed to oppose the application, except one, which merely raised the point of law. Whiteside, Macdonogh and Harrison, moved to make the conditional order absolute. The Assessors disallowed Mr. Lanyon's claim, on the ground "That, there being no separate rating of "the counting-house during the interval between the 1st of May "1862 and the 25th of June following, there was no legal mode "of ascertaining its value; and that the revised list of the tenement "valuation made under the 15 & 16 Vic., c. 63, could not be "looked at for that purpose." Had they referred to that list, the counting-house would have appeared to be of the value required by the 3 & 4 Vic., c. 108, for it had been described therein as of the annual value of £30. That list was sufficient evidence of the value of the counting-house; for although, under the 15 & 16 Vic., c. 63, s. 27, the use of the list was not, for the purposes of striking a new rate, obligatory on the guardians until thirty-days after its signature, it was binding for all other purposes, and had been in force in Belfast for some months prior to the 25th of April 1862. The whole preamble and scope of the Act show that the revised list is to be looked at for purposes other than the striking of future rates. It was the duty of the guardians to have made out from the revised list, which had been completed under a Public General Act, the value of the counting-house; but their omission to perform that duty cannot prejudice the right of the applicant, who, having fulfilled all the duties necessary to be per formed by him, is secured his municipal franchise by the 3 & Vic., c. 108, s. 33, notwithstanding the neglect of the guardians. That view is borne out by the 6 & 7 Vic., c. 93, s. 27, which does not make the "value" of the premises the test of a party's right. The cases of Wauchob v. Reynolds (a), and In re Quinn (b), cannot rule the present case; because they were decided before the passing of the 15 & 16 Vic., c. 63, which must be read along with the 3 & 4 Vic., c. 108, ss. 30 and 33. The tender of the rates was sufficient: In re Delaney (c). It is not necessary that the premises should continue to be of the full value during the whole period for which they are rated: In re M'Donnell (d). The Acts upon which the question arises must be construed so as to extend the remedy: Murphy v. Leader (e); The King v. Hall (f); The King v. The Inhabitants of Everton (g). An equitable construction must prevail over the letter of the Act: Egston v. Studd (h). M. T. 1862. v. MAYOR OF BELFAST. (a) 1 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 142. (b) 3 Cr. & Dix, 285. (c) 2 Cr. & Dix, 536. (e) 1 Jebb & Bourke, 74. (g) 9 East, 101. (d) 1 Ir. Cir. Cas. 1. (f) 1 B. & Cr. 123. M. T. 1862. THE QUEEN v. MAYOR OF Serjeant Sullivan, E. R. Barry and C. M. Richards, contra. A claimant of the franchise under the 3 & 4 Vic., c. 108, s. 30, must be in fact rated in respect of the premises out of which he claims. Those very premises must appear on the rate-book as rated by themselves, separately and apart from all other premises; for that section requires them to be of a certain yearly value, which is to be ascertained in the mode therein prescribed, "and not otherwise." This prescription has not been repealed by the 15 & 16 Vic., c. 63; and those words, “and not otherwise," cannot be struck out of the section-Miller v. Salomons (a) (per Pollock, C. B.) and Gilman v. Crowly (b)—which must be construed strictly: Phibbs v. Kerans (e). Now, the counting-house, No. 2 Upper Queen-street, did not appear on the rate-book, so as to enable the guardians to ascertain its yearly value; and no person can be rated except in respect of premises which have been separately rated already: Wauchob v. Reynolds (d). The notice of claim indeed stated that the countinghouse was then rated under the Act; but it was only rated as part of a block of premises, from the remainder of which it was not in any way distinguishable, so as to admit of its separate value being ascertained. The notice of claim was also defective in this particular, that it did not call on the guardians to rate the claimant separately in respect to the counting-house. If a burgess, during the year for which he is rated, parts with any portion of the premises in respect of which he is rated in globo, he ipso facto loses his qualification. No doubt he may, on going to new premises, or on parting with a portion of his premises, claim the franchise, by way of successive occupation, under section 30. But then the new premises, or the retained portion of the old premises, must each have been separately rated, so that their yearly value may be capable of ascertainment in the manner pointed out by the statute. If not, guardians may, at any moment, be required to rate premises separately, and so disturb the rating of the whole union. The rate too would become variable during the year, according as the premises had increased or diminished in value. In the present case, if (a) 7 Exch. Rep. 559, 560. (b) 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 557. the Guardians had, as they were required to do, adopted the value M. T. 1862. Queen's Bench given by the revised list, the value must have been raised from £114 to £120 on the block of buildings. How could the Guardians apportion that increase? The 33rd section does not help the applicant, or give any party a right to call on the Guardians to rate him in respect of certain premises not yet separately rated. It assumes that a mistake has been made, in omitting to rate the claimant personally in respect of certain premises, which however have been already rated in such an isolated manner that their yearly value can, by a reference to the rate-book, be separately ascertained. But the Guardians themselves have not any power to rate the premises. They can do no more for a claimant than insert his name, if it has been omitted; and can do even that only when all the other conditions of the statute have been fulfilled. Section 33 makes "it lawful for any person occu"pying any . . . . counting-house... to claim to be rated to the "relief of the poor in respect of such premises respectively." Those words assume that the premises have been already rated. Again, the same section requires the claimant to pay up "the full amount "of the last-made rate then payable in respect of such premises.” If the premises have not been therefore separately rated, how can the Guardians ascertain the amount payable in respect of them? and how can the claimant pay an unascertained sum? The 3 & 4 Vic., c. 108, cannot receive the equitable construction for which the defendant contended: Gray v. Pearson (a); Brandling v. Barrington (b). Counsel also cited Nightingale v. Marshall (c); The Queen v. Savage (d); The Queen v. Ruxton (e). It was not compulsory on the Guardians to adopt the revised valuation list as the basis of a rate until thirty days had elapsed from the date of the signature of the list: 15 & 16 Vic., c. 63, s. 32. That period had not expired when Mr. Lanyon ceased to occupy No. 14 Wellington-place on the 1st of May 1862. THE QUEEN v. MAYOR OF BELFAST. (a) 6 H. of L. Cas. 106. (b) 6 B. & Cr. 475. (c) 2 B. & Cr. 313. (d) 3 Ir. Law Rep. 480. (e) Ibid, 478, note. |