whomsoever " [Q. B. means only any other person of the like | general election, on the 1st Nov., four councillors were to be elected, upon which occasion there was a contest, and ultimately a Mr. Bates was declared to be elected as one of the candidates (the lowest of the four) who had the greatest number of votes-a Mr. Custance being the next highest. At the time of the election it was said that Mr. Bates was disqualified, and upon this point the affidavit used upon this motion stated that he was not duly rated, &c., "and not living and never having been a householder within the said borough or within seven miles thereof, which latter fact was generally and notoriously known in and throughout the said borough at and before the said HILL, J.-I am of the same opinion. The question nomination of the said Robert Bates." Proceedings is whether the words "any other persons whom were afterwards taken by quo warranto against Mr. soever" must be construed according to their plain and Bates, whereupon he resigned his office. Mr. Custance grammatical meaning, or are to be restrained to mean thereupon claimed the seat, but the town council only those persons mentioned in the 5th section? And declined on full consideration I think the words are to be con- fresh election, upon which Mr. Bester was elected. to admit him, and they proceeded to a strued according to their natural meaning. The rule [CROMPTON, J. in such cases is, that the intention of the Legislature strong that it was notoriously known that Mr. Are your affidavits sufficiently must be gathered from the object it had in view. The Bates was disqualified? object here is very plain. Seeing then what was the was generally and notoriously known in and You only say that it object of the Legislature, it is of importance that all throughout the said borough. the requirements of the Act should be construed with general statement.] This is a very The defendant will not be reference to that object. One of the duties imposed by precluded by the granting of this application. There is the 5th section is that of giving the date of the last another objection. By the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 47, valuation and the name of the surveyor. Now it was it is enacted that if any extraordinary vacancy shall clearly the intention of the Act to give the committee a be occasioned in the office of councillor, the burgesses power to refer to the surveyor, but if the limitation is entitled to vote shall on a day to be fixed by the mayor put upon the words that is contended for, the of such borough (such day not to be later than ten committee would have no power to have the days after such vacancy) elect from the persons qualisurveyor who made the survey before them. Then fied to be councillors another burgess to supply such the 7th section gives power not only to have before vacancy. And by the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 79, s. 11, it is them the overseers, constables, assessors and col-enacted that "if any extraordinary vacancy shall haplectors, but 66 any other persons whomsoever." pen in the office of councillor, the election to supply There is no power for the committee to call for any such vacancy shall take place not later than ten days document, except such as has reference to the value of after notice shall have been given to the mayor or the property. Now it may be said that this power is town-clerk by any two burgesses, anything to the coninquisitorial, and so it may be; but there is nothing trary notwithstanding." In the present case the election unfair in giving the committee a power to make this had not taken place within ten days after the vacancy, inquiry. Looking at the whole Act of Parliament, I though it had taken place within ten days after notice see nothing unfair, unjust, or improper, in holding that having been given by two burgesses. The 47th section the words used are applicable to this person, and I of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, is not repealed by the 11th therefore think that the magistrates came to an erro-section of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 79, and both sections neous determination. (a) Case to go back to the justices. Wednesday, Jan. 16. When a party seeks to invalidate an election upon the tion 66 Where a party has been elected a town-councillor of a municipal borough, and he resigns his office, the election to supply his place is well held, if it takes place within ten days after notice is given of the vacancy by two burgesses, as provided for by sect. 11 of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 79. Lush, Q. C. (Newton with him) moved for a rule calling upon a Mr. Bester to show cause by what right he exercised the office of town-councillor of the borough of Godmanchester. It appeared that at the last (a) Cockburn. C.J. was in the court for Crown Case Reserved, and Wightman, J. was at chambers. may therefore stand together, and as the town-clerk this case. Lush's affidavit is insufficient. In order to sustain his Rule refused. (a) Cockburn, C.J. had left the court; Wightman, J. had gone to chambers. Q. B.] REG. MOURILYAN AND ANOTHER-EVERETT v. GRAPES. REG. v. MOURILYAN AND ANOTHER. The Metropolitan Building Act—18 & 19 Vict. c. 122, $8. 3, 69, 72, 73-Expenses relative to a dangerous structure-From whom recoverable. Where a chapel was leased by A. B. to C. D. for twenty-one years, and expenses were incurred by the commissioners under sect. 73 of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 122 (the Metropolitan. Building Act), such ex [Q. B. c. 76, s. 90. penses were held to be recoverable from C. D., who A bye-law, made by a town council, under the pro was the owner as designated by sect. 3, and not from A. B. This was a case stated for the opinion of the court upon an order made by a metropolitan police magistrate upon the defendants as owners of a dangerous structure, for the payment of the sum of 36l. 98. 8d., the expense incurred by the commissioners under the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 122, s. 173 (the Metropolitan Building Act) in respect of such dangerous struc ture. By sect. 69 the commissioners may cause a survey to be made of a dangerous structure, and by sect. 71 the surveyor is to give a certificate, and if he finds the structure to be dangerous, the commissioners are, by sect. 72, to require the owner or occupier to take down, secure, or repair the same. By sect. 73, if the owner or occupier fails to comply with the notice, the commissioners may (after certain proceedings) cause such structure to be taken down, &c., "and all expenses incurred by the said commissioners in respect of any dangerous structure by virtue of the second part of this Act shall be paid by the owner of such structure, but without prejudice to his right to recover the same from any lessee or other person liable to the expenses of repairs." By the interpretation clause, sect. 3, it is enacted that the word owner" shall apply to every person in possession or receipt, either of the whole, or of any part of the rents or profits, of any land or tenement, or in the occupation of such land or tenement, other than as a tenant from year, to year, or for any less term, or as a tenant at will. The premises in question consisted of a chapel at Bermondsey, called Bethesda Chapel, used for divine service only on Sundays, of which property the defendants were the freeholders, but who had leased the same for twenty-one years to a Mr. Neil, and the question was, whether the defendants were the parties upon whom the order should be made, or the said Mr. Neil. Ellis appeared in support of the order, and Manisty, Q. C. (Coxon with him) contra. COCKBURN, C. J.-I am of opinion that the order of the magistrate was wrong, on the ground that the appellants were not the owners of the chapel, and consequently not liable to bear these expenses. It all turns upon the construction to be put upon the 72nd and 73rd sections; these provide that, when premises are in a certain state, then the proper parties shall cause the same to be shored up, and notice is to be given to the owner or occupier to take down, secure, or repair the same. The 73rd section goes on to provide how an order of justices is to be obtained requiring the owner or occupier to secure, &c. the premises; then, if this is not complied with, the commissioners may do it themselves and recover the expenses from the owner. Now the owner is the party primarily liable, and upon his default the occupier is liable. In this case the appellants are the lessors of premises to a person of the name of Neil, and he is lessee for a term of twenty-one years. It is plain that Mr. Neil being the lessee of the tenement, he is the owner of it. But it is said he is not liable because he is not in the occupation of it. The tenement is a chapel used on Sundays, and on other days it is shut up. The occupation must be taken subject to the nature of the premises. He is an occupier with a visions of sect. 90 of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76 (Municipal Corporation Act), imposed a fine upon every person "who shall keep, or suffer to be kept, any swine within the said borough from the 1st day of May to the 31st day of October inclusive in any year:" Held, that such a bye-law is bad. This was a case stated under the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, upon a conviction by justices, for an offence against a bye-law made by the town council of Newport, Isle of Wight. The case stated that on the 12th Dec. 1859 the town council of the borough of Newport, in the Isle of Wight, under the powers conferred by the Act 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 90, made a bye-law, of which the following is a copy: "Every person who shall keep, or suffer to be kept, any swine within the said borough from the 1st day of May to the 31st day of October inclusive in any year, shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of 5s., and the further sum of 2s. 6d. for every day the same shall continue." This bye-law was duly allowed pursuant to the statute. The appellant William James Everett, who is a butcher and a pork butcher, residing and carrying on business in the said borough of Newport, was summoned upon the information and complaint of the respondent George Grapes, the superintendent of police for the said borough, for having on the 5th June 1860 kept certain swine within the said borough, in breach of the said bye-law. The summons came on for hearing on the 18th June 1860, and it was proved that on the day named in the summons the appellant had in his slaughter-house within the borough a large sow, and ten small pigs about three weeks old, and that he had also in the slaughter-house at the same time a large hog, the latter of which he said he was going to slaughter, but it was not proved that the keeping of the said swine was a nuisance, or that they were kept on any other day than the said 5th June. The appellant's attorney contended that the bye-law in question was not for the regulation merely, but was in restraint of trade, and was therefore illegal; and further, that the said town council had exceeded their authority in making it, as by the 90th section of the said Act they were only authorised to make such bye-laws as to them should seem meet for the prevention and suppression of all such nuisances as were not already punishable in a summary manner by virtue of any Act in force throughout such borough, whereas the bye-law in question prohibited the keeping of swine absolutely, irrespective of the question of whether they were kept in such manner as to be a nuisance. The justices were of opinion that the said bye-law having been made with all the formalities prescribed by the 90th section of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, and not having been disallowed by her Majesty in Council, they were bound to enforce it without reference to the question as to whether it was reasonable or unreasonable; but assuming they could entertain that question, they considered that the bye-law was a regulation," " and not a "restraint" of trade, and was therefore valid. They therefore convicted the appellant of the said offence, and adjudged him to pay a penalty of five shillings. 66 Q. B.] SPENCER V. THE NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY. By sect. 90 of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, it is enacted, "That it shall be lawful for the council of any borough to make such bye-laws as to them shall seem meet for the good rule and government of the borough, and for the prevention and suppression of all such nuisances as are not already punishable in a summary manner by virtue of any Act in force throughout such borough, and to appoint by such bye-laws such fines as they shall deem necessary for the prevention and suppression of such offences," &c. Bere appeared in support of the conviction, and contended that the bye-law was valid. [CROMPTON, J. -Bye-laws of this kind always have the qualification 66 so as to be a nuisance." WIGHTMAN, J.-Here the bye-law is generally against the keeping of pigs.] Dowdeswell, for the appellant, was not called upon. The COURT thought the bye-law bad.(a) Judgment for the appellant. Railway-Assessment to poor-rate. The percentage amount to be allowed on the capital and tenants' profits, is to be calculated on the rolling stock of a railway company, with reference to the value which an incoming tenant would give for it at the time when the rate is made, and not with reference to its cost price to the company. A railway company is entitled to a deduction in respect of capital invested in moveable things, such as office and station furniture, but not in respect of things so attached to the freehold as to become part of it. Things capable of being removed, but so far attached The deduction to be allowed in respect of stations, Upon appeals by the North Staffordshire Railway Company against two rates made for the relief of the poor of the township of Rushton Spencer, in the county of Stafford, the following case was by consent and by order of Hill, J., stated for the opinion of this court, under 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45. The North Staffordshire Railway passes through the township of Rushton Spencer, for a distance of 104 chains, and in respect of this portion of their line of railway, and the stations, buildings and sidings within the said township, the appellants are assessed in each of the said rates upon a net rateable value of 2197. The appellants and respondents are agreed to take as the gross earnings in the said township of Rushton Spencer for one year the sum of 17617. [Q. B. earnings in ascertaining the net rateable value of the said line in the said township. The appellants and respondents differ as to certain other items of deduction, hereinafter mentioned. The rolling stock of the company, which includes all the locomotive engines, tenders, passenger carriages, horse-boxes, carriage - trucks, luggage-vans, goods, cattle and mineral waggons, and all other of every kind for the conveyance of persons, cattle, animals, goods, wares, minerals, merchandise, or other articles, matters, or things whatsoever on the railway cost the sum of 356,8431, and for the purposes of this case it admitted that this was a fair price at the time the articles constituting the railway stock were purchased, and also that similar articles would at the time of levying the rate have cost as much. In addition to this stock the company has been obliged to provide, at a cost of 52,950l., turn-tables, cranes, weighing-machines, stationary steam-engines, lathes, electric telegraph and apparatus office and some of the weighing-machines are affixed to the freestation, furniture and gas works. The turn-tables and sunk in the land. hold by means of an iron hand inserted in a large stone The lathes and steam-engines are connected with the buildings in which they are placed by means of iron bolts. The electric telegraph consists, first, of posts driven into the ground; second, of wires passed through the sockets of such posts, but which wires may be disconnected from the posts without injury or displacing them; thirdly, of the electrifying machines, which are in no way affixed to the freehold. The gasworks consist partly of buildings and partly of gasometers, and the other usual plant for making gas, and of the pipes for conveying the same from the works to the railway-stations; other weighing machines, which are all used for the purposes of the traffic office and station furniture are unconnected with the the line, and the freehold. on the it may be admitted to be the fact, that it has been The company allege, and for the purposes of this case found necessary, in carrying on the traffic and business of the railway, that the company should have in hand at command a sum of money by way of floating capital, for the purpose of providing surplus stores, dents on the line or other emergency, and partly in such as rails, sleepers, &c., to be used in case of accipaying the wages of porters, pointsmen and other servants of the company, and in the current expenses of the line, which are for the most part paid weekly, or at other short periods. The traffic over the whole of the company's line of railway is worked under a contract, which contract it has been agreed shall form part of this case. The total amount of deductions made by the company from the contractors at the time when the rates were made in respect of the depreciation of the rolling stock which sum would not be more than sufficient to restore and plant in the hands of the contractors was 71,000%, the said rolling stock and plant to its original value, but which sum it is admitted has not been expended in such restoration. erection of their stations, buildings and sidings the sum The company have also expended in the of 360,000l. The respondents contended that the deduction to be allowed in respect of interest on capital and tenants' profits ought to be ascertained by taking as the capital sum upon which such interest and profits ought to be The total working expenses of the line for one year calculated, the actual or depreciated value of the rolling ending the 30th June 1858, including rates, taxes, stock at the time the rates were made, and that no and Government duty and certain tolls payable to the allowance for interest and tenants' profits should be Midland Railway Company, amounted to 132,290, made in respect of a floating capital. The respondents of which sum it has also been agreed that 9657. is the also contend that the deduction to be allowed in respect fair portion chargeable to the said township of Rush-of the turn-tables, cranes, weighing-machines, stationary ton Spencer, and to be deducted from the said gross steam-engines, lathes, electric telegraph apparatus, gas(a) Cockburn, C.J. was absent from indisposition. works, stations, buildings, and sidings ought to be Q. B.] SPENCER v. THE NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY. ascertained by taking the amount at which they are collectively assessed to the relief of the poor in the several parishes and townships within which the several parishes and townships are severally situated, and dividing the said amount between each parish and township in a certain proportion agreed upon between the said respondents and appellants. The appellants contend that they are entitled to claim, as the proper deduction in respect of interest on capital and tenants' profits, the percentage amount calculated upon the whole amount of the said capital sums of 356,843l., 52,950l. and the floating capital. They also contend that the proper deduction to be allowed in respect of all the stations, buildings and sidings is 6 per cent. per annum (which is a moderate rate of interest for money invested in buildings) upon the original cost of construction, and to take the annual amount so ascertained as the value to be deducted. It is agreed that, with reference to this head of deduction, the original cost of construction of the whole of such stations, buildings and sidings was 360,000l. [Q. B. capital and tenants' profits is to be calculated upon the cost price of the rolling stock, or on the depreciated value which that stock may bear at the time the rate is actually made. We are of opinion that the allowance must be made with reference to the actual and not the original value. The point has already been decided by this court in Reg. v. The Great Western Railway Company, 6 Q. B. 179, in which decision we entirely concur. In addition to the reasons given in the judgment of the court in that case, it may be observed that that is under the Parochial Assessment Act, and tenants' profits on stock must necessarily be calculated with a view to a deduction from the gross earnings, in order to ascertain what a tenant would give for the entire property. Nothing could be more inconvenient than that a different principle should prevail in calculating the profits in the two cases. Now the question, when considered under the Parochial Assessment Act, must be looked at not with reference to railway companies who may have expended in the purchase of stock a much larger sum than the stock would now realise, but with reference to an incoming tenant, and the amount of capital such tenant would have to lay out in the purchase of the rolling stock necessary to carry on the undertaking It is obvious that what it would be worth the while of a person or company about to embark in The questions for the opinion of the court are: First, whether the percentage amount to be allowed for interest on capital and tenants' profits is to be calculated on the capital invested on the rolling stock taken at its cost prices, or upon the de-a commercial undertaking to give as the rent for the preciated value of the rolling stock as estimated at the time when the rates were made, or at any other time. Secondly, whether the appellants are entitled to a deduction for interest on capital and tenants' profits upon the said sum of 52,950. the additional amount of capital invested in turn-tables, cranes, weighingmachines, stationary steam-engines, lathes, electric telegraph and apparatus, office and station furniture and gasworks, or upon any and what portion of such items, and if so, upon the sum originally invested in the said plant, or upon the depreciated value of the same, estimated at the time the rates were made, or at any other time, or how otherwise a deduction, if any, should be made in respect of the last-mentioned plant, or in respect of any part thereof. Thirdly, whether the appellants are entitled to a further deduction for interest and tenants' profits, or either, upon the said floating capital. Fourthly, whether the deduction to be allowed in respect of the stations, buildings and sidings along the line of railway ought to be ascertained by taking the rateable value at which the same are assessed to the relief of the poor only, allowing 6 per cent. upon the original | cost of construction as contended for by the appellants, or how otherwise a deduction should be made in respect of the said stations, buildings and sidings. It is agreed that, upon the decision of the court being given on the said several questions, the proper amount of assessment to the said rates shall (if necessary) be ascertained and settled in conformity with such decision by agreement between the parties, or by an accountant to be appointed by the attorneys on both sides, and the rate amended accordingly. And it is further agreed that judgment confirming or (if necessary) amending the said rates in conformity with such decision, and for such costs as the court shall direct, shall be entered on motion by either party at the sessions for the said county next or next but one after such decision shall have been given. Lush and M'Mahon argued on behalf of the parish. Cases cited:-Reg. v. London, Brighton and South COCKBURN, C. J.-Four questions are propounded in this case for the decision of the court. The first is, whether the percentage amount to be allowed on the [MAG. CAS.] premises in which such undertaking is to be carried on, would depend on the amount to be deducted in addition to repairs and other necessary outgoings from the gross earnings in respect of the profits, and to the capital invested in the concern. But it is plain that a tenant would calculate such profits on the amount of the capital actually required to be invested in the stock, and not upon what may have been the value of the stock at some other time, and to some other person. Now it must be assumed that the stock in its existing condition is sufficiently effective to produce the carnings which, after the necessary deductions, constitute the improved value of the railway; and it cannot reasonably be supposed, if the company were about to give up the undertaking, they would not be content to part with the stock at its actual value, or if they were to do so the incoming tenant could not procure other stock, of an equal efficient character and value, to supply the deficiency. It follows that, in estimating under the statute 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96, what a tenant would pay for, the profits must be calculated on the actual value of the stock. It cannot be supposed that in exempting profits under the 6 Vict. a different principle of calculation was intended to be acted upon. The second question is, whether the company are entitled to a deduction in respect of the capital invested in the various articles therein specified, being things necessary for carrying on the business of the company. The articles to which such a question may have reference may be divided into three classesfirst, things moveable, such as office and station furniture; secondly, things so attached to the freehold as to become part of it; and, thirdly, things which, though capable of being removed, are yet so far attached as that it is intended they shall remain permanently connected with the railway, or the purposes connected with it, as certain permanent appendages to it, and essential to its working. It is clear, in respect of the first class of articles, a reduction should be allowed: it is equally clear that no deduction should be allowed as to the second; as to the third, the question is finally settled by the decision of the court in the case of Reg. v. Southampton Docks, 14 Q.B. 587. The third question, whether the company are entitled to a deduction in respect of the floating capital therein referred to, is one of considerable nicety, and which, as it appears to us, must depend upon whether on the whole capital employed a greater delay occurs in realising the return than is ordinarily incidental to the 20 Q. B.] SMITH. THE CHURCHWARDENS, &C. OF ST. MICHAEL, CAMBRIDGE. [Q. B. The appellant has agreed with Wood that the latter shall live upon the premises, and he pays Wood 67. 10s. yearly, besides allowing him to live rent free and finding him with coals and candles. For this payment and allowance Wood, whose family consists of himself, his wife and daughter, cleans the rooms and lights the fires, and he has the exclusive use of the kitchens and of two of the said rooms on the second floor. The appellant employs an assistant in his office, who also takes in orders under the advertisement hereinafter mentioned, and the appellant is paid by a commission on the stamps sold by him. employment of capital? No doubt the rent which an | pied by a person named Wood and his family, under the imaginary tenant contemplated by the Parochial Assess- circumstances hereinafter stated. ment Act could afford to pay would be the difference between the gross earnings after the necessary deductions and the amount of profits, due reference being had to the nature of the undertaking and the capital invested. Whatever tends to diminish such profits must go pro tanto to diminish the rent. Any delay in realising the profits beyond such as is necessarily incidental to the ordinary employment of capital, may, and it must be presumed they would be, taken fairly into account by the tenant in determining the rateable value. On the other hand, it must be observed that a large proportion of the earnings of a railway company is of a ready-money character. It may well be that when the whole of the capital and the whole of the earnings are taken into account the profits on the whole capital realised in the shares come, in this species of undertaking, under the average of commercial enterprise. If this should be a cause of delay in realising the profit that may arise as the amount of the capital, this may be considered to be compensated by the more than ordinary quick-there appeared the following advertisement:-" Printness of the return. On the whole, we have no means before us of determining the question with reference to this view of the case. All we can do is to point out the principle by which we think it must be determined. As regards the fourth question, we are of opinion that the deduction to be allowed in respect of stations, buildings and sidings must be calculated on the actual value at which they ought to be assessed, and not on the original cost of their construction. Nov. 17 and 26. The appellant is the printer of the Cambridge Independent Press newspaper, published in Cambridge, and carries on a separate and distinct business as a printer, residing in a house on the Market-hill, where the business of printing and publishing the said newspaper is carried on, and where he carries on such private printing business. In the said newspaper, published on the 21st Dec. 1859, and on subsequent days, ing of every description economically, expeditiously and neatly executed, at 11, Market-hill, and Rosecrescent, Cambridge, where all orders will be thankfully received." Similar advertisements appeared in other publications. The No. 8, Rose-crescent, mentioned in the said advertisement. is the house in question. Previously to occupying the said house the appellant occupied and used as an office for the vending of stamps a shop in a house opposite, for which he paid a rent of 147. a year, and no abatement was made in the amount at which the said house was rated on account of such part thereof being so occupied. The said house. The rent of 90%. per annum payable to the appellant under the said agreement is, with the exception of 21. 10s. per annum, exhausted by payments made by the appellant for the following purposes, namely, the said rent of 521. 10s. per annum to the said Charles Claydon, the expenses of coal, firewood and other fuel, gas, wages to a person employed to reside on the premises in order to take care of the same, tenants' repairs, and other incidental expenses. SMITH (appellant) v. THE CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS OF ST. MICHAEL, CAMBRIDGE (re-appellant is rated to the house-duty in respect of the spondents). Poor-rate-Inland Revenue offices-Stamp-office. The appellant agreed to let, and did let, to the Inland Revenue department, for their offices, five rooms of a house in his occupation, it being stipulated that the rent was to be 90l. per annum, this sum to include all expenses, namely, rent, rates, taxes, gas, wood, coals, also providing a trustworthy person to reside on the premises, to keep clean, light fires, and attend to the same. The appellant himself occupied the shop as distributor of stamps for the district: Held, that the premises so let and occupied were not exempt from being assessed to the rates for the relief of the poor. This was a case stated under the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45, s. 11, in the matter of an appeal against a rate for the relief of the poor of the parish of St. Michael in the borough of Cambridge, made the 15th July 1859. The case stated that the appellant is, and at the time of making the said rate was, the tenant of the house, No. 8, Rose-crescent, in the said parish of St. Michael. The rent paid by him to Charles Claydon, the owner of the said house, is 52l. 10s. per annum. A portion of the said house, consisting of five of the principal rooms thereof, is, and at the time of making the said rate was, occupied by the surveyor of her Majesty's taxes, and by the collector of inland revenue, under an agreement set forth in the schedule hereto. Another part of the said house, consisting of one room only, is, and at the time of making the said rate was, occupied by the appellant solely and exclusively, with the exception hereinafter stated, as an office for the vending of stamps by him as distributor of stamps for the Cambridge district, and for the transaction of public business connected with his office of distributor of stamps for the said district. The appellant is rated for the said house in the said rate at the sum of 42l., being the full annual rateable value thereof, after making the deductions required by law. The question for the opinion of this honourable court is, whether the appellant is liable to be rated in the said rate in respect of the said house, or any part thereof. If this honourable court shall be of opinion that the said appellant is liable to be rated in the said rate in respect of the whole of the said house, then the said appeal is to be dismissed, and the said court of quarter sessions shall and may adjudge accordingly, and that the appellant do and shall pay to the respondents their costs of and incidental to the said appeal, including the costs of and incidental to this special case. If this honourable court shall be of opinion that the said appellant is not liable to be rated in the said rate in respect of any part of the said house, then the said appeal is to be allowed, and the said court of quarter sessions shall and may adjudge accordingly, and that the respondents do and shall pay to the appellant his costs of and incidental to the said appeal, including the costs of and incidental to this special case. It this honourable court shall be of opinion that the said appellant is liable to be rated in the said rate in respect of part only of the said house, then the said The remainder of the said house, consisting of two rate is to be amended according to such directions as kitchens and a coal cellar on the basement and three this honourable court may be pleased to give, and the rooms on the second floor, one whereof is used as a said court of quarter sessions shall and may adjudge sitting-room, and the other two as bedrooms, is occu- | accordingly, and that each of the parties to the said |