« EelmineJätka »
WARDENS AND OVERSEERS
tain persons were appointed, called “The THE QUEEN 0. THE CHURCH1859.
Tyne Improvement Commissioners," who Jan. 26.
were to be the conservators of the port of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and of the River Poor-Rate-Dock—Beneficial Occupa. Tyne. By the 15 Vict. cap.cx. power was tion-Rateability-Public Purposes. given to the Commissioners to make and
maintain piers, landing - places, docks, The Tyne Improvement Commissioners basins, &c., called “The Northumberland were empowered by act of parliament to Docks," and to borrow money upon mortmake and maintain the Northumberland gage of the rates, &c. to be levied under Docks, and to borrow money upon the secu
that act. rity of the rates and dues. The rates and By section 68. it was enacted, that dues were ordered to be applied, first, in the rates and dues to be levied should be payment of the expenses of managing and applied in the first place in the payment maintaining the docks, next in paying the of the expenses of or in any way incident interest of the money borrowed, next in to the making, management and maintecreating a sinking fund for the purpose of nance of the said docks, and the works paying off the money borrowed, and if there connected therewith ; in the second place, were any surplus afterwards, the rates were in payment of the annual interest of the to be lowered to that extent. The Commis- monies borrowed ; and, lastly, in approsioners were also authorized after the pay, priating a sum equal to 2Ạl. per cent upon ment of the expenses above mentioned, and the whole sum borrowed, or such part after the extinction of the debt for money
thereof as should remain due and owing, borrowed, to set apart a sum of money an- and as a sinking fund to be applied in nually to be applied in defraying extraor- paying off the principal money : provided dinary repairs, &c.; and whenever there always, that on and after the expiration of was any surplus, the Commissioners were to five years after such docks and the works lower the rates and dues so as to reduce connected therewith, or any part thereof, them to the annual amount of the expenses
shall have been opened for the reception of the management, maintenance and work- of vessels, if after payment of such costs, ing of the docks. The docks, having been charges and expenses as aforesaid, and the built, were used by the shipping frequenting interest upon the money borrowed or rethe T'yne, and the rates and dues had maining due and owing, and the approamounted to as much as 10,000l. a year:- priating and setting apart such sinking Held, that the Commissioners were liable fund as aforesaid, and before the complete to be rated for their occupation of the docks. payment of the principal of the sum bor
rowed, there shall at any time remain any SPECIAL CASE stated for the opinion of surplus of the aforesaid rates and dues this Court, by consent of the parties to an to be raised in respect of the said docks appeal to the Sessions against a rate for and works, the Commissioners shall from the relief of the poor.
time to time lower the same rates and The case, as far as is material for the dues to the extent of such surplus. purposes of this report, stated that the The 70th section provided, "that after appellants were the River Tyne Improve the payment in the manner aforesaid, and ment Commissioners; that they had ap- extinction of the debt for money so borpealed against a rate made upon them as rowed as aforesaid, and subject to the paythe occupiers of the Northumberland Dock ment of such costs, charges and expenses and premises, upon the grounds, among as aforesaid, the Commissioners shall yearly others, that the said dock and premises and every year set apart and appropriate, were not rateable, and that they the appels with and out of the said rates and dues to lants had no beneficial ownership or occu- arise in respect of the said docks, such a pancy of the said dock and premises, but sum, not exceeding 1,000l. per annum, as that any ownership or occupancy which they shall think fit, and shall accumulate they might have was for public purposes the same at compound interest, until the only. By the 13 & 14 Vict. c. lxiii, cer- sums so set apart and appropriated and
NEW SERIES, XXVIII.-Mag. Cas.
the accumulations thereof, shall amount included in the rates made in that townto the principal sum of 10,0001., and the ship. sums so set apart, appropriated and accu- The question for the Court was, whemulated shall be invested in the purchase ther the appellants were rateable at all in of Exchequer bills or in other government the township of Chirton, in respect of securities, in the name of the Commission- their occupation of the said dock and ers, and the interest thereof shall be held premises under the several acts of parliaand applied by the Commissioners, as cir- ment. cumstances may from time to time require, Pashley (Davison with him), for the in and for the purpose of extraordinary respondents. The Commissioners are repairs of the docks and works connected clearly rateable, as they are the beneficial there with, or other extraordinary expenses occupiers of land, in the township, which incident to the management, improvement is subject to be rated, and which is not or enlargement of the said docks and the occupied solely for public purposes. The works connected therewith, and when and Queen v. the Birkenhead Docks (1) is so soon as the whole of the money so to directly in point, and shews that the Combe borrowed as aforesaid shall have been missioners are liable. paid off and discharged, and the said sum [CROMPTON, J. –The appellants must of 10,000l. shall have been accumulated inake out that their funds are so approin the manner aforesaid, if there shall be priated as to exclude them from the liabiany surplus of the said rates and dues to lity. LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-It is settled be raised in respect of the said docks and law, that although they may be trustees, works after the payment of such expenses they are rateable unless they are forbidof working, management and maintenance den to pay rates.] as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the Com- Yes; that is the effect of the judgment missioners to lower the said rates and in the Birkenhead case above referred to, dues to such an extent as will reduce the where Lord Campbell, C.J., in delivering rates and dues to be thereon levied and the judgment of the Court, said, as follows: raised in respect of the said docks and -"Where no one can be found who may works to the annual amount (as near as be considered the occupier of lands and may be) of the expenses of the manage- houses, the Statute of Elizabeth does not ment, maintenance and working of the extend to them: but where there are occusaid docks and works connected there- piers of land and houses within the meanwith."
ing of that statute, the exemption must By the 20 & 21 Vict. c. lxxi. the Com- rest on some subsequent enactment of the missioners were incorporated under the legislature. We apprehend that this docname of “The Tyne Improvement Com- trine was admitted and acted upon in The missioners.” The Northumberland Dock King v. the Commissioners of Salter's Load was completed under the powers of the Sluice (2), from the marginal note of which, 15 Vict. c. cx, and is used by shipping the exemption on the ground of public frequenting or arriving in the River l'yne. purposes takes its origin; the question The docks, works and premises which are argued at the bar, and to be considered as the subject of the rate are and were at the decided, was, whether the legislature, by time of making the rate in the actual and the local act, intended impliedly to exempt exclusive occupation of the said Com- the tolls from rateability, although Lord missioners under the authorities and for Kenyon, in delivering the judgment of the the purposes of the said acts of parliament Court, uses some expressions about there solely, and the Commissioners have receiv- being no occupier, because the Commised as much as 10,000l. per annum in sioners were merely trustees. The decision respect of rates and dues levied by them can be rested only on the clause in the in respect of the said docks and premises. local act which directed the tolls to be The docks and premises were in the re- applied and disposed of for the several spondent township, and the land upon
(1) 2 E. & B. 148 ; s. c. 21 Law J. Rep. (n.s.) which they were erected and used, had,
M.C, 209. before they were so erected and used, been (2) 4 Term Rep. 730.
uses and purposes of the said act, and to and The Queen v. the Harrogate Commisno other use or purpose
whatsoever.' sioners (6); but it is contended that this The question was, whether this amounted case comes within those decisions. In The to a prohibition to apply the tolls to the Queen v. T'errott (7) it is said, " The prinpayment of poor-rates? The Court adopt- ciple to be collected from all the cases on ed this construction, instead of holding the the subject is, that if the party rated have meaning of the words to be, that the clear the use of the building, or other subject of produce of the tolls, after deducting the the rate, as a mere servant of the Crown expense of collecting them and all the or of any public body, or in any other charges to which the property was liable respect for the mere exercise of public (such as poor-rates), was to be applied duty therein, and have no beneficial occuto these purposes,
We think that the pation of or emolument resulting from it decision in the Liverpool case (3) can in any personal and private respect, then only be supported by similar reasoning." he is not rateable." The appellants are bound by this deci. [Hill, J.--All those cases were dission.
cussed in the Portsmouth cases, The Queen Manisty (A. Liddell with him), for the v. Stewart (8) and others. ] appellants.—The principle which is settled In The Queen v. Shee (9) it was held, by the cases, and which is applicable to that the members of the Royal Academy the present case, is, that where property is had no beneficial occupation apart from vested in a body of trustees for public the purposes of the institution, and might purposes, in which all the subjects of the be considered as the ministers or agents of realm have an interest, and where the the Crown, and were, therefore, not ratefunds to be raised are to be applied exclu- able. In The Queen v. the Harrogate sively to those purposes, with a provision Commissioners the decision was in favour that when they exceed what is necessary of the rateability because there the benefit for those purposes the rates are to be re- was received by only a section of the pubduced, such property is not liable to the lic; but here all the subjects of the realm payment of rates. The appellants are not participate in the benefit. In The Queen beneficial occupiers so as to be rateable, v. Badcock it was said, “ To make rateabifor the docks and premises are held by lity there must be occupation beneficial them solely for public purposes, and the in its nature, that is, of a subject-matter provisions of the acts of parliament under producing a valuable return, though not which they have been made, shew clearly necessarily profitable in any given year on that the Commissioners have no power to a balance struck of profit and loss. When spend the funds in paying rates. The such an occupation is established, the manifest intention was, that no more money occupier is rateable in respect of it, unless should be raised than was necessary for he is merely a trustee for the public, rethe keeping up of the works, for imme- ceiving no individual benefit, except in diately upon there being any surplus the common with and as one of the public. In rates and dues are to be lowered, and there such a case the law does not regard him is no power to raise them to the former as the occupier, but the public whom he level, so that there is a distinction between represents.” That is directly applicable this and the Birkenhead Dock case, which to this case and to this act of parliament. may have been very properly decided upon The Queen v. the Justices of Lancashire the facts which were before the Court. It (10) is also in point. was there said, that it was unnecessary to [LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-That will not examine whether the case of The Queen help you; the occupation was for a public v. Liverpool was affected by The Queen v. Badcock (4), The Queen v. Longwood (5)
(6) 15 Q.B. Rep. 1012; s. c. 20 Law). Rep. (N.s.)
M.C. 25. (3) 7 B. & C. 61 ; s.c. 5 Law J. Rep. M.C. (7) 3 East, 513. 145.
(8) 27 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 81. (4) 6 Q.B. Rep. 787.
(9) 4 Q.B. Rep. 2; s.c. 12 Law J. Rep. (N.9.) (5) 13 Ibid. 116; s. c. 21 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 53.
(10) 27 Law J. Rep. (n.s.) M.C. 209.
purpose connected with the government of only distinction is, that in this case there the country. How do you distinguish the is no express power to restore the rates to public purposes for which these premises their former level, but that does not seem were occupied, and the public purposes to me to impeach the principle upon which for which the Birkenhead Docks were oc- the decision was given ; and acting upon cupied ?]
that case we must give judgment for the It was thought that the Birkenhead respondents. Docks were used for private as well as for WIGHTMAN, J.-I am of the same opinpublic purposes.
ion. We decided The Queen v. the Bir[LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-No; there is kenhead Docks after much consideration, no difference between the two cases, as far and that case is an authority upon the as the purposes for which the docks were present question. The appellants are in used is concerned.]
beneficial occupation of the land upon In that case the proceeds of the rates were which the docks are built, but it is said not exclusively to be applied to restoring that they are not liable to be rated to and maintaining the docks, and there was the relief of the poor because the docks a power to restore the rates to their former
are only built for public purposes. But level if lowered, and there was no obliga- if the purposes for which these docks tion to lower them. The Queen v. Liver. were built were of such a public nature as pool shews that the appellants are not to exempt the occupiers from a liability occupiers in the ordinary sense of the to pay poor-rates, it would have been so word, or in such a way as to be liable to equally in the case of the Birkenhead
Docks. It is not suggested that, after Pashley was not called upon to reply. payment of the poor-rates, there would not
be sufficient funds for keeping the dock in LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-It would be a repair. I see no reason or principle for great hardship upon this parish, if the land holding that the appellants are exempt, which is now occupied by the dock com- and I think that there should be judgment pany were held to be exempt from the for the respondents. payment of poor-rates. Formerly, it was CROMPTON, J.--I am of opinion that rated to the relief of the poor, and if it this case is governed by The Queen v. were now exempt it would occasion great the Birkenhead Docks, and that we could injustice. But we must be guided by the not hold that the appellants are law as interpreted by the cases upon the empt from the liability to pay poor-rates, subject. The appellants' counsel admits that without going contrary to that The Queen v. the Birkenhead Docks was well When it was decided, I certainly enterdecided; and that being so, I am of opinion tained some doubt, which arose in consethat it is not distinguishable from the quence of the decision in The Queen v. present case. The circumstances under Liverpool, a case which caused a good deal which it was decided are the same. It is of astonishment in Westminster Hall. It true that all persons may have their ships was there held, that where all the receipts admitted into the docks upon payment were appropriated to public purposes the of the tolls, but still they are only a trustees were exempt from liability, and particular section of the subjects of the that view was adopted by the legislature. realm who use this privilege, and a That occurred to me in The Queen v. the sum should be exacted from them suf- Birkenhead Docks as raising a difficulty, ficient to pay all the lawful charges. The but we decided that case upon the ground purposes for which these docks were put by my Lord that the docks were used established are not public purposes, such by only one section of the public. Then, as those for which a post-office is erected, it is said, that the clauses in the act exor a place in which military stores are clude the payment of poor-rates, but I deposited, or where anything is done do not think that that is so. The Birkenunder the government of the country, head case goes this length, that where there but they are the same as those for which is a clause enabling the trustees to lower the Birkenhead Docks were built, and the the tolls from time to time, as far as they
can be lowered, it is not sufficient to ex- rived no direct profit whatever in H, and clude the liability to pay poor-rates, un- had no freehold or leasehold interest in the less there be also words appropriating the soil of the highway :-Held, first, that the funds in such a way as to exclude the pay- company was rateable to the poor-rate for ment of such rates.
its mains, being fixed capital vested in land, HILL, J.-I am of the same opinion. the company being in possession of the mains Judgment for the respondents. buried in the soil, and so, de facto, in occu
pation of the space in the soil filled by the
mains for a purpose beneficial to itself. THE QUEEN, on the prosecution Secondly, as to the principle on which 1859.
of THE OVERSEERS OF HAMP- the company was to be rated in H. in reFeb. 25.
TON, 0. THE COMPANY OF PRO- spect of the plant, engine-houses, buildings,
it was to be rated as for so much land and Poor-rate—Principle of Rating Buildings tached, and deriving some additional value
buildings, with fixtures and machinery atand Premises of Waterworks.
from their capacity of being applied to such A waterworks company was empowered purposes as those of a water company : such by act of parliament to construct works and additional value being derived from an inlay down mains and pipes under certain crease of demand beyond supply, according highways, and to supply certain parishes to the principle regulating exchangeable with water; in the parish of H, not being value, and not by reference to receipts one of these parishes, the company erected earned in another parish, beyond assuming engine-houses and other buildings, contain- that they were sufficient to pay all outgoings, ing apparatus for raising water from the including profits on capital. Thames, and laid down a main under the highway, which ran about a mile through H, On appeal against a poor-rate, made on and conveyed the whole of the water sup- the 19th of November 1855, for the parish plied by the company to reservoirs in another of Hampton, in which the appellants, the parish, whence the water was distributed Company of Proprietors of the West by other mains and pipes to the customers Middlesex Waterworks, were assessed as in the several parishes. The company de- follows,
the parties agreed to the following
act, and other places. The parish of Hamp
ton is not named in the act. By this act CASE.
the company were empowered to construct The West Middlesex Waterworks Com- works and lay down mains and pipes pany were incorporated in 1806, by the through and under the several highways, 46 Geo. 3. c. 119. (a copy of which ac- roads, passages, streets, &c. By another companied the case). The objects of the act (50 Geo. 3. c. 132), the company were undertaking were, by constructing water- empowered to supply other parishes and works, making reservoirs, laying pipes, places in London, as therein enumerated; &c., to raise water from the Thames, and and the power, conferred on the company to supply certain places mentioned in the by the previous act, of supplying Other