« EelmineJätka »
ing and Watching Act, 3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 90, said parish shall be rated, or shall be in the words and figures following :-'An rateable according to the last valuation assessment for lighting that part of the made and acted upon for the rate for parish of West Ham, Essex, commonly the relief of the poor within the said known as the ward of Plaistow, made," &c., parish. "after the rate of 24d. in the pound upon The 34th. Provided always and be it land, and after the rate of 6d. upon houses, further enacted, that it shall be lawful buildings and other property situated in for the overseers of the poor of any such the ward of Plaistow, pursuant to the parish, and they are hereby required, statute 3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 90.” In which whenever, according to the rate made for rate the said appellants were assessed as the poor, one and the same person shall be follows. (Then followed an extract from rated in one sum in respect of land, and the rate-book, in which the quantity of also of houses, buildings and other proland and the rateable value were the same perty, to cause such land and also such as in the poor-rate, and the amount of the houses, buildings and other property to be rate at 6 d. was stated to be 3511. 11s. 3d.) separately assessed, and the sum hereby A plan accompanied and formed part of authorized to be levied shall be assessed the case.
accordingly. Provided always, that every The sections of the last-named act which courtyard, yard or garden (such garden are applicable to the questions raised, are not being a market-garden or a nurserythe 32nd, 33rd and 34th.
ground) shall be included in and make The 32nd section. That as soon as the part of the assessment to be made on the inspectors have been elected as aforesaid it house, buildings, or other property to shall be lawful for them, or any two or more which they may be respectively attached. of them, from time to time to issue an order Provided also, that such land, houses, under their hands to the overseers of the buildings and other property shall not in poor of any parish to which the provisions the whole be assessed at a higher amount of this act shall be extended, by which than they were in the last rate made for order they shall require the said overseers the relief of the poor within the said to levy the amount mentioned in the said parish. order.
There are no public lamps within the The 33rd. That the overseers aforesaid area rated as above, but all necessary shall, for the purpose of collecting, raising lamps are maintained at the expense of the and levying the rate necessary for the appellants, and the premises are watched purposes of this act, proceed in the same by policemen appointed and paid by the manner and have the same powers, reme- appellants. The cost to them of the lightdies and privileges as for levying money ing and watching is upwards of 3,0001. a for the relief of the poor in the said parish. year. The docks are closed for traffic daily Provided always, that owners and occu- at 7 P.M. during the winter, and at 8 P.M. piers of houses, buildings and property during the summer months. (other than land) rateable to the relief of The appellants contended that, under the poor in any such parish, shall be rated the 34th section, the said wet dock, tidal at and pay a rate in the pound three times basin and canal ought to have been rated greater than that at which the owners and as land at 24d. in the pound, being a sum occupiers of land shall be rated at and pay, three times less than that at which the for the purposes of this act. Provided said buildings and other premises were also, that the total amount of the sum to rated. be collected, raised and levied for the The Sessions decided that the appellants purposes of this act within any one year were properly rated at the higher rate, and shall not exceed such sum as shall have confirmed the rate, subject to the opinion been agreed on by the inhabitants of the of this Court. said parish, as aforesaid, and that the said If the Court should be of opinion that sum shall be assessed upon the full and the Sessions were correct, then the said fair annual value to which lands, houses, rate was to be confirmed. If the Court buildings and other property within the should be of a contrary opinion, then it was agreed that the said rate should be [CROMPTON, J.-I thought that wareamended by assessing, for the purposes of houses were ancillary to docks, not docks this case, the said wet dock, tidal basin and to warehouses. Is not the real question, canal at the sum of 2 d. in the pound on what is the meaning of "land"?] the sum of 6,2501., and the residue of the Yes, that is the question; and it is subsaid premises at the sum of 6 d. in the mitted that “land" used in the limited pound on the sum of 6,2501.
sense of land occupied for agricultural purT'indal Atkinson and Murphy, in sup- poses, as defined in The Queen v. the Midport of the order of Sessions (June 1). - land Railway Company. The question arises on the construction of [Erle, J.-The act there contained the section 33. The appellants contend that word “works,” and the Court held that the they are only to be rated as the occupiers line of railway was a "work."] of “land”; while, on the contrary, the But "land" was defined in the judgSessions have held that they ought to be ment. The Queen v. the Southwark and rated as the occupiers of property "other Vauxhall Water Company (2) is distinthan land." The land, which is now guishable, for there the land which the covered with water, is taken out of agri- appellants were rated for could not be cultural possession, and is made profitable benefited at all by the watching and for commercial purposes. The principle lighting. is laid down in T'he Queen v. the Midland [Lord CAMPBELL, C.J.-Must not this Railway Company (1), where the question be taken to be unum quid ? It appears to being whether the railway was made rate- me that you cannot sever this part from able, "land" being excepted, the Court the rest.] said, “Reading the two clauses together Bovill, for the appellants.-In reality as comprehending all real property, we the area of these docks is land covered think that the exception extends only to with water, used for the passage and floatland used for the purposes of agriculture, ing of ships. It was intended by the or gardening, or any kind of mere vegeta- statute to effect an equitable adjustment tion, together with the roads and other of property, the assessment being made as matters that are ancillary to those pur- for the poor-rate. Section 34. enacts that poses; and that hereditaments in which it shall be lawful for the overseers, and capital has been invested for habitation, they are hereby required, whenever, acor for purposes of profit from manufactur- cording to the rate made for the relief of ing or mechanical industry are to be the poor, one and the same person shall be rated.”
rated in one sum in respect of land, and (ERLE, J.- Are the two statutes iden- also of houses, buildings and other protical?]
perty, &c. That shews that “property,” No, they are not; but the principle in section 33, means property ejusdem applies equally to the one under which generis with the houses and buildings. this question arises ; and a certain bene- The "courtyards,” mentioned in section fit is derived by the appellants in conse- 34, would have been "land" if there had quence of the external area being lighted not been a special provision to the contrary; and watched by the parish. The next both sections must be read together. The section (34.) contains the proviso, “That Queen v. the Southwark and Vauxhall every courtyard, yard or garden (such Water Company is conclusive in favour of garden not being a market-garden or nur- the appellants; it was there held, that the sery ground) shall be included in and
company were only rateable at the lower make part of the assessment to be made amount; but water-pipes are nothing but on the house, buildings or other property, reservoirs, and reservoirs are land. The to which they may be respectively at- Court is asked to say that there is a diftached." Here the whole area, basins, ference between a large and a small reserwarehouses and all, are inclosed within a voir in considering the question whether wall.
they are land or not. In The Queen v.
the Mayor, &c. of Bath (3) the corpora- must be intended to be in proportion to tion were held liable to be rated for the the benefit derived. The charge here is reservoirs as for "land" occupied by them. the price for lighting and watching, which The Queen v. the Rochdale Waterworks is a need created by dense habitation, for (4) is to the same effect.-(He also re- which the legislature has repeatedly made ferred to Howell v. the London Dock provision, treating it as an incident to Company (5).)
towns. Thus, in local acts for the im
Cur, adv, vult. provement of towns, in the Metropolis The Court differing in opinion, the
Local Management Act and the Municipal following judgments were deli
Corporations Act, the charge for lighting vered.
and watching is imposed by various de
scriptions on the locality frequented by ERLE, J.—This case turns upon the numerous inhabitants, where light is reconstruction of section 33. of the 4 & 5 quired in respect of personal passage, and Will. 4. c. 90, directing the rate for light- watchmen are required for keeping good ing and watching to be the same as the order. By the Plymouth Local Act the poor-rate, except that the rate on houses, charge was on the populous or town part buildings and property other than land, is of the borough, which was further described to be three times greater than the rate on to be within 100 feet of the end of a conland. The appellants, lessees of the Vic- tinuous row of houses-see Luscombe v. toria London Docks, admit that all houses the Plymouth Board of Health (6). In the and buildings whatsoever, such as ware- Municipal Corporations Act no part of the houses, wharfs and locks, are to be rated borough shall be included in the watchat the higher rate ; but they contend that rate which is more than 200 yards from a the area of the dock, being mere land street or line of houses regularly watched covered with water used for the passage and -see Hallett v. the Overseers of Brighton the floating of ships, amounting to 95 (7). In the Metropolis Local Manageacres out of 165, ought to be rated at ment Act the words are the same as in the lower rate as land. In answering the the statute now in question. This conquestion thus raised, we must consider the struction of section 33. of stat. 4 & 5 Will. words of the enactment describing the two 4. c. 90. is made more clear by section 34, classes of property, and the purpose for giving the ratepayer rated for land and for which the two classes were made. All houses, buildings and property other than rateable property is included under the land in one sum, a right to require that term "land," and land is here divided into each class of property should be separately two classes : the one consisting of houses, assessed, and providing that courtyards, buildings and property of that sort, the yards and gardens other than marketother consisting of all land not included in gardens or nursery-grounds shall be in the the first-named class. The general rule is same class as the houses and buildings to well known, that specific words, when fol- which they are attached. The legislature lowed by wider terms, restrict the exten- implies by this section that all landed sion of those terms. According to the rule property, where the surface is free from of construction, the class of property sub- any houses or buildings thereon, was prejected to the higher rate is confined to sumed to be in the class of land, for it houses and buildings, and other property provides that land, although so circumof the same sort as houses and buildings ; stanced, still if it is a courtyard, yard or and this stands decided in The Queen v. garden attached to a house, it shall be the Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks excepted out of the class land and taken Company. If we refer to the purpose of into the class of houses ; while all other the enactment the incurrence of charge land, with a surface free from houses or
buildings thereon, remains in the class land. (3) 14 East, 609.
By this section the yards that are classed (4) 1 M. & S. 635.
(5) 8 E. & B. 212; s.c. 27 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) (6) 27 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 306. M.C. 177.
(7) 7 E. & B. 355. NEW SERIES, XXVIII.-Mag. Cas.
with houses are in the nature of curtilages ; and water confined by lock-gates for shipand as they alone are specified, it seems ping purposes, each being equally far from clear timber-yards and the like, where the agriculture. Also the decision in The surface is used merely for a store, and Queen v. the Midland Railway Company which are in no way attached to any dwell- is in point for the appellants ; for a railway ing, ought not to be so classed. Accord- was held rateable, under the statute there ing to this construction, the property in in question, where the rate was imposed question is in the class of land, and not in on houses, warehouses, shops, cellars, the class of houses, buildings and the like. vaults, &c., and all buildings, erections, It is a water-way for ships to come to the works, tenements and hereditaments, exwarehouses and jetties, and resembles a cept houses under 51. and land: the Court private way for carriages through fields to held a railway rateable only because works a house. The ships pass through the lock were mentioned ; and the judgment is, in and canal to the basin, where they would effect, that, but for that word, it would be lie on the mud at low tide, as usual in tidal land, and so not be rateable under that harbours, if the water was not retained by statute. In the present statute there is the lock, such mud being clearly mere no such word as works,” and this case land, though used by ships. The lock is also is therefore by implication an authorated as a building, because it is masonry; rity in favour of the appellants. Upon but it seems unreasonable to say that mud the words, and the context, and the authoapproximates in any sense to a building rities, I think judgment should be for the because it is covered with water. If the appellants. principle of charging in proportion to the LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-My Brothers benefit be applied, then according to the Wightman and Crompton have read the facts of the case the property in question judgment which I now read. I am of derives absolutely no benefit at all. It opinion that in this case the Sessions came was contended that land meant only land to a right conclusion. The whole of the used for agriculture, and that houses, premises in respect of which the appellants buildings and other property of that sort were assessed at the sum of 3511. 11s, 3d. meant all land in which property had been to the rate in question appear to me to be invested for any other purpose than agri- property other than land within the meanculture. But such a construction is not ing of section 33. of statute 3 & 4 Will. 4. supported by any words nor by the con- c. 90. From the “plan,” which is to be text. Where the legislature so intended taken as part of the “case,” it appears the intention was expressed, as in the that “ The Victoria London Docks," conMetropolis Local Management Act, 18 structed under the powers of two local acts & 19 Vict. c. 120; the 163rd section, of parliament, consist of one great comrelating to the sewers-rate, defines "land" mercial establishment, occupying an area to be all land used as meadow or pasture- of 165 acres, surrounded by a wall. Of ground, woodland, orchard, market-garden, this area ninety-five acres are now usually hop, herb, flower, fruit or nursery ground; covered with water, forming two basins for but section 165. divides the rateable pro- the reception of merchant ships, the one perty into the two classes of buildings and called the “ Tidal Basin" and the other land, without that restriction to agricultural the “Inner Dock"; but both have been land. The Queen v. the Southwark and excavated for this purpose, and are beneath Vauxhall Waterworks Company decides that the level of the adjoining River Thames at land in which capital has been invested for low water. They are surrounded by stone commercial profit, entirely exclusive of walls, and intersected by a great number agriculture, is to be rated in the class "land" of jetties, which run to the centre of the and not in the class buildings. There the space covered by water, with warehouses capital was in water-pipes used under the and cranes on the sides and extremities of land, and the decision and the reason thereof these jetties. The cargoes of the ships are in point for the appellants in this case, lying in the dock and basin are landed at there being no distinction between water these jetties and deposited in these wareconfined in pipes for household purposes houses. I am of opinion that the dock and the basin are property ejusdem generis beyond a rod of iron. The case of The as the "houses and buildings.” The dock Queen v. the Southwark and Vauxhall and basin may, no doubt, in one sense of Water Company was much relied upon by the word, be considered "land,” and they the learned counsel for the appellants. would well pass by deed or will by the When the facts of that case and the ratio description of "land covered with water." decidendi are examined, it will be found But in the enactment to be construed the not at all to be at variance with the doclegislature appears to have intended to trine which I now propound. Certain divide land into two classes : one where conduit mains and pipes belonging to a capital is invested in it for commercial water company passed under the soil of purposes; and the other where it remains the highways in the parish of Putney, and in its natural state or is cultivated for it was expressly found that “the company agricultural purposes. Generally speaking, had no works in the parish.” They were, the first class might be expected to derive therefore, to be considered as the occupiers much greater advantages from lighting and of the land on which the pipes lay. Colewatching than the second, and therefore it ridge, J. said, seeing that the appellants is to be assessed at a higher rate. The would be rateable only as occupiers of 34th section of statute 3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 90, land, they are clearly not to be rated at the respecting "gardens," seems to shew higher rate. Wightman, J. said pipes are clearly the intention of the legislature that not rateable per se, but only because the what is accessory to "houses and build- owner of them occupies land. So, being ings" should come within the same cate- an occupier of land, he is liable to the gory, and that the other category should lower rate. Erle, J. said, “ Pipes are not only comprehend land used for agricultural houses or property of that kind”; and Lord purposes. When I look at the subject. Campbell, C.J. said, “The appellants are matter rated here, I do not see how the not rated as being occupiers of pipes; they dock and basin are to be separated from are rated as being occupiers of the land the jetties and warehouses. The dock and which they occupy by means of those basin would be useless without the jetties pipes.” In this case the property in the and warehouses, and the jetties and ware- basin and dock may derive material benefit houses would be useless without the dock from the approaches to the establishment and basin. They all form one undertaking being lighted, at the expense of the rate; and one establishment. There is no doubt and it must be greatly protected by the that a large capital must have been laid out watchmen who are appointed by the Comin excavating and puddling the dock and missioners to guard it. I have only basin, and surrounding them with walls. further to add, that the size of the dock If they had been used for carrying on a and basin, so much dwelt upon, seems to manufactory without any buildings being me quite immaterial, and that this attempt erected upon them, and without water to separate the part of the establishment being introduced into them, they could not which, for the purposes of the establishpossibly have been considered "land" ment, is covered with water, from the rest within the meaning of this section of the of the works, cannot succeed unless the act of parliament. And can it make any appellants could have supported a claim difference that, instead of their being to be rated on the lower scale for half a paved and goods being deposited upon rood of land used within the inclosure as a them, water is introduced into them, which reservoir for water to supply the boiler of supports floating warehouses in which the a steam-engine which aids the operations goods are stowed ? This is the view we going on in the establishment. For these took of a similar enactment in a local act reasons, I am of opinion, with my Brothers in The Queen v. the Midland Railway Wightman and Crompton, that we ought Company, where we held, that the word to give judgment for the respondents. "land" so used must mean land occupied