The places than are therein specified, or any places adjacent to the places specified, was repealed. Thus the company is, by express enactment, prohibited from supplying "the parish of Hampton" with water. company, at first, drew their supply of water from the Thames, a little above the present Hammersmith Bridge, by means of a main laid into the river opposite the engine-house. The engine-house and works. were at Hammersmith, and from thence the water was supplied through mains and service-pipes to the district which they served. For the purpose of facilitating this supply the company constructed two reservoirs, one at Kensington and the other at Barrow Hill adjoining to Primrose Hill. The company supplied every parish through which their mains and pipes were laid with water, those parishes being mentioned in one or other of the said acts, and thus derived profit from each parish in which their mains and pipes were laid. With a view to improve the quality of the water supplied by the company they, several years since (about 1827), purchased a large tract of land on the Surrey side of the Thames, on part of which they constructed two large reservoirs, and they then drew their source of supply higher up the Thames, near Barnes Terrace, being at the westernmost end of the western reservoir. In the year 1852 the general question of water supply to the metropolis was raised, and it was then enacted by the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 84, that none of the water companies supplying the metropolis with water should, after a period therein specified, take their supply of water from the Thames within the tidal influence. This naturally led to a re-construction of the works of the West Middlesex Waterworks Company. The company then determined to take their supply of water from the Thames at Hampton (above the town), and to construct at Hampton an enginehouse and other works necessary to draw the water from that source, and then send the water through a main along the high road to their reservoirs at Barnes. To enable the company to construct their new works they obtained an act of parliament, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 159. (a copy of which accompanied the case). On the last-mentioned act of parliament being passed, the company purchased some land at Hampton, on which they have erected engine and boiler houses, in which are two steam-engines, boilers and other apparatus necessary for drawing a supply of water from the Thames, and the company has also laid down a main under the highway, extending from their works at Hampton to the reservoirs at Barnes. This is the conduit main, thirty-six inches in diameter, and the length of it from the works to the boundary of the parish is one mile five furlongs and fifty-six yards. The whole of the water supplied by the company is conveyed. through this main into the company's reservoirs at Barnes; it is then, according to the provisions of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 84, filtered in filter beds, which have been constructed for that purpose adjoining the easternmost of the two reservoirs, and the water so filtered is then drawn into the company's mains at Hammersmith, and thence supplied to the customers. The company derive no direct profit whatever in the parish of Hampton, nor have they any freehold or leasehold interest in the soil of the highway through which their main is laid, but they could not supply the water, so raised, to their customers without using the main in question for its conveyance. The company contend that they are not rateable at all in respect of this main, and that the company's works in Hampton are to be rated as ordinary buildings, without reference to the profit earned by the company; and if the Court should be of opinion that the company are liable to be rated in respect of their main, the company then contend that they are only liable to be rated in respect of the land actually occupied by the main, and not in respect of the profits derivable from the other parishes which they supply. The parish contend that the whole works and main are rateable, and that they are to be rated in reference to the profit derived in the parishes to which the water is conveyed by their agency. The questions for the opinion of the Court were, first, whether the company was rateable for the main; and, secondly, on what principle the company was to be rated, the amount to be settled by arbitration. The case was argued, in Michaelmas Term, 1858, (Nov. 6), by Lush, for the respondents, and Bovill, for the appellants. The following cases were cited: The King v. the New River Company, The Queen v. Mile End Old Town, The Chelsea Waterworks v. Bromley, 17 Q.B. Rep. 358; s. c. 20 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Q.B. 521. The Queen v. Hammersmith Bridge, 15 Q.B. Rep. 369; s. c. 18 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. 85. The Mayor of Liverpool v. West Derby, The King v. Miller, Cowp. 619. WIGHTMAN, J. now delivered the following judgment. In this case the first question is, whether the company are rateable for their mains, which are laid under the surface of the highway, without any freehold or leasehold interest in the soil thereof being vested in the company. We think they are. These mains are fixed capital vested in land. The company is in possession of the mains buried in the soil, and so are de facto in possession of the space in the soil which the mains fill, for a purpose beneficial to itself. The decisions are uniform in holding gas companies to be rateable in respect of their mains, although the occupation of such mains may be de facto merely, and with out any legal or equitable estate in the land where the mains lie, by force of some statute. To the second question, requiring the principle to be stated on which the company is to be rated in respect of the plant, engine-houses, cottages, buildings, wharfs, mains, land and premises," we answer, in the words of The Mile End Old Town case (1), that it is to be rated as for "mere land and buildings with fixtures and machinery attached, and deriving some additional value from their capacity of being applied to such purposes as that of a water company;" and we add, such additional value is derived from an increase of demand beyond supply, according to the principle regulating exchangeable value, and not by reference to receipts earned in another parish, beyond assuming that they are sufficient to pay for all outgoings, including profits on capital. If an apparatus occupied by one occupier, consisting of several parts, lies in one parish, the rate is on the whole and is received by that parish. If such an apparatus lies in several parishes, the occupier is liable for the same amount of rateable value, and no more; but that amount is to be apportioned among the parishes in which it lies; and the question then arises, as in the present case, what is the principle which regulates such apportionment? It is clear that each parish must rate the part that lies within it; such part becomes a separate rateable subject in that parish, and must be rated, according to the Parochial Assessment Act, upon an estimate of the rent which that part would yield after proper deductions. In practice a tenant of the parochial portion of a canal, railway, gasworks, waterworks, or the like, has rarely if ever been known. But an hypothetical tenant must be assumed; and the terms of such a tenancy are not difficult to be conceived, if in the hypothesis some necessary incidents are also assumed to be involved: such as-First, that each part of the apparatus is to continue in joint co-operation: no one tenant of an essential part being able to stop his part; secondly, that the title to the required land is permanent, so that there is no risk of being compelled to move fixed capital; thirdly, that there is land in the required quantity, and capital to be invested therein, and occupants ready to take and work parts yielding profit, as tenants at rack-rent, and parts not yielding profit, as contractors for remuneration provided any greater profit can be obtained than is ordinary in such relations. If a tenancy of (1) See the statement of the case, 10 Q.B. Rep. 210; and 16 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 185. each parochial part be assumed according to this hypothesis, then, although each parish rates separately upon its own estimate of the value of the part lying within it, and the law gives no power of making all the parishes co-operate in rating the several parts lying in each, nevertheless this Court is bound to protect the occupier of such an apparatus from being rated beyond the rateable value of the whole taken together; and it is in reference to this protection that the Court must take into its consideration at once all the separate rates as so many claims upon one given fund, and must apportion that fund, bearing in mind that every addition to the rateable value assigned to one parish must be a subtraction from the rateable value which might be given to some other parish. Supposing, then, the apparatus to be apportioned to several tenants according to the parts in several parishes, the tenants of the parts directly earning net profits in a parish would be rated by that parish for all the profits earned therein: this being the parochial principle of apportionment which has been unanimously upheld hitherto in respect of all canals, railways, water companies, gas companies, and bridges. But the tenants of the parts directly earning no profit would not be liable to be rated in respect of any rent in the ordinary sense, which is profit remaining after all deductions have been taken from the receipts. But as these parts of the apparatus, directly earning nothing, but indirectly conducing to such earnings elsewhere, are assumed to continue in operation, the company, to whose interest such continued operation is essential, must be assumed to pay adequate remuneration to a contractor for land and fixed capital vested therein, together with the labour and skill requisite for the effective continuance of such operation, and this contractor with the company would stand in the relation of occupying tenant to the parish, and the part within the parish would be the rateable subject, and the local rateable value would be such sum as would pay the rent of the land and the profit on fixed capital therein. It is said in The Mile End case that the parts indirectly conducing to produce profit are to be rated as mere land, &c., with some additional value from their capacity of being applied to such purposes as those of a water company. The meaning of those words would be exemplified in this case if it be supposed that the bank of the Thames and the underground of the highways in Hampton were heretofore of no rateable value, but that when a wharf on the bank was required to raise water from the Thames, and when the underground of the highway was required for laying the mains giving transit to such water, the owners of the soil of the bank and of the highway could get some payment for allowing the use of their soil. Thus, land which before produced nothing would produce something, and so have some rateable value, which would be an addition arising solely from its capacity for being used for a water company. Value is derived entirely from the relation of demand to supply, and if a water company comes into competition with a mere agriculturist for land for waterworks, an addition is made to the value of such land by the additional competition. This principle might raise land worth nothing into being worth something, as above supposed, and land worth something into higher value, in the case of a site for a steam-engine with yard and shed and cottages attached, or a site for a reservoir or filtering bed, and the like. Upon the common principles regulating value, it is enhanced in proportion to the scarcity of the thing in demand; so that, if a few levels only were suitable for the required transit, or a few sources of water alone were accessible, the price would be higher. In this sense, the words cited above from The Mile End case are applied to the mains in Hampton in their ordinary meaning, and in the meaning in which they are applied to stations, warehouses, yards, workshops, and the other premises appertaining to railways and canals, rated on the principle of indirectly conducing to the direct earnings of railways and canals. On this principle the company contended that the rateable value of the part of the apparatus in the parish of Hampton is to be ascertained; and we are of opinion that the company is right. The parish contended for a higher rateable value; and it remains to consider on what ground. It was argued that every part of the apparatus was equally essential for the delivery of water from Hampton to the consumers in other parishes, and that therefore the rate should be on the quantity of apparatus in Hampton. The answer is two-fold. In the first place, all the apparatus is not equally essential. The subject of purchase by the consumer is water delivered at the required place. It matters not to him whether the water has passed from the east or the west, or been raised on the spot from a well. Transit of water is not the subject of demand, as in the case of goods or passengers to be conveyed by railways and canals, but the water itself brought to the service-pipe of the consumer, the junction of such pipe with the main being the source of profit. Such delivery is the one indispensable requisite for purchase, whereas the course of transit might be varied in manifold directions, according to convenience, without affecting the value of the water to the consumer. In the next place no definite meaning was and, as it appeared to us, could be given to "quantity of apparatus," for apportionment of rateable value. Quantity must be ascertained by some measure, lineal, superficial, or solid, and if any of these measures were applied to steamengines, reservoirs, filtering-beds, cottages, mains, and the like, and the rate upon the sum total of earnings appropriated accordingly, the sum total would be disposed of upon a principle not more rational than a lottery. The cases relating to apportioning the rateable value on water companies are worth consideration. In The King v. the New River Company, the question was, whether Amwell should rate Chadwell Mead at 5l, or at 300l. The case stated that no profits arose in Amwell; that the land alone without the spring was of the value of 5l., but, if the advantage which the company derive from the use of the spring may by law be included in the rate upon the land, the land and the spring together are of the annual value of 3007. The judgment is for the rate on 300l. This case has been supposed to sanction the notion that the parish of Amwell was entitled to rate land in Amwell, by reference to profits made in Islington or elsewhere. Probably, the parish officers and Sessions NEW SERIES, XXVIII.-MAG. Cas. may have included a reference to those profits in the amount; but the Court entirely ignores any such reference, and takes the question to be, whether the rate is to be on two acres of mere land according to the value of land of that kind in Amwell, or with reference to its value in the occupation of the company with the power of using it for their purposes, and with capital laid out on it making it fit for those purposes. Lord Ellenborough confines his judgment expressly to the local value in Amwell; for he says, "The water has a certain ascertained local value at the fountain head." ... "If it has, it is rateable for that value, irrespective of profits which may or may not be derived elsewhere from distribution through pipes." In The Queen v. the Mayor of Bath (9), the question of apportionment was also approached, but left undecided; there the corporation had collected springs, in the parish of Lyncomb and Widcomb, into reservoirs, and distributed the water there and in Bath, making 50l. profit by the sale of water in that parish, and 550l. in Bath; the parish rated for 600l., claiming the whole profit, because all the water was derived from the fountain head; but the rate was quashed, "because a large portion of the apparatus and the soil in which the pipes are laid, producing eleven-twelfths of the water-rent, is situate in Bath, therefore Lyncomb and Widcomb is wrong in rating for the whole water-rent." The source of the water, not being rateable for all the profits of the supply, the Court decides that the profit from the water ought to be apportioned, but gives no rule for apportioning. In The Queen v. Mile End Old Town, the principle of apportionment above mentioned was adopted. It has been said to be inaccurate in laying the rate for the direct source of profit on the service-pipes, which belong to the consumers, whereas the rate must be on real property in the occupation of the party rated. The principle of the judgment is, that the direct source of profit from water or gas is the delivery of the article to the consumer, and (9) 14 East, 609. T that the instrument of delivery should be rated for the net profits; and if the servicepipe belongs to the consumer, the junction of the service-pipe with the main is in the occupation of the company, and is rateable. Our judgment here is founded on that case; and we have thus endeavoured to apply the principle there laid down to the rating of the premises here in question. Judgment for the appellants accordingly. The learned Judge then added:-I may here observe, speaking for myself alone, that from this judgment, in which Lord Campbell and my Brothers Erle and Hill concur, I do not dissent; as it is founded upon the principle laid down in the case of The Queen v. Mile End Old Town, which is the leading case, as well as one of the latest cases, upon the question before us; and it is most desirable to preserve uniformity of decision, if possible. There appears to me, however, so much difficulty in applying the parochial principle of rating, by estimating the rent which a tenant would give for the subject-matter, in such a case as the present, as practically to amount nearly, if not entirely, to an impossibility of doing so satisfactorily. I may also add, that I am not quite satisfied that the distinction which has been taken between direct and indirect sources of profit, as applied to the mains and pipes of a water company running through different parishes, is well founded; and more especially in cases where the mains only belong to the company and not the service-pipes. Indeed, the whole subject-matter appears to me to be involved in so much difficulty and uncertainty, that I cannot but hope that the legislature may interfere and make some provision adapted to the rating of the property of such companies as that in question, and which may declare the principle upon which such companies are to be rated, and establish some uniform and practicable mode of carrying that principle into effect. The church of St. Bartholomew, Moor Lane, was built within the limits of the parish of St. Giles, Cripplegate, and by an Order in Council, made in 1850, under the Church Building Act, 59 Geo. 3. c. 134, a particular district was assigned to it within such parish, with authority to publish banns of marriage, and to solemnize marriages, baptisms, churchings and burials therein, the fees for which were to be paid to the incumbent :-Held, that the church of St. Bartholomew, Moor Lane, being a church to which a district had been assigned within the limits of St. Giles, Cripplegate, was capable of receiving, under 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 45. s. 21, an annexation, by the Vicar of St. Giles, Cripplegate, of part of his annual revenues, although the district had for ecclesiastical purposes become by virtue of 19 & 20 Vict. c. 104. s. 14. a distinct and separate parish. By a local act, the tithes of the parish of St. Giles, Cripplegate, were extinguished, and a certain annuity payable quarterly was secured to the vicar in lieu of such tithes : -Held, that the substitution of such an annuity for tithes did not prevent the legal annexation of a portion of such annuity by the vicar, under 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 45. s. 21, as that section authorizes the annexation of any part of the tithes or "other annual revenues" of the vicarage. By the said local act the said vicar of St. Giles, Cripplegate, was enabled to enforce payment of the annuity in lieu of tithes by a summary proceeding before a Justice of the Peace. Held, that after an annexation of a portion of such annuity had been made to the District Church of St. Bartholomew, Moor Lane, under 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 45. s. 21, the incumbent of such district church had the like power of enforcing pay |