is, in the present case, an occupation as pasture land only. The order of Sessions must therefore be confirmed. CROMPTON, J.: I also am of opinion that the Sessions were right in point of law. I admit that the decision may cause some hardship, inasmuch as the land becomes less valuable for rating purposes. But it is clear that the tenant has no beneficial occupation in respect of the right of shooting. I think that we held rightly, in Reg. v. Williams (1), that the right to kill game, if enjoyed by the tenant, raised the value of his occupation, and consequently was to be considered as increasing the rateable value of it: and, in accordance with that view, we ought to hold that if the tenant takes the land without that privilege (whether by way of reservation or by contract between the parties), the value of his occupation is thereby and to that extent lessened, and its rateable value diminished. The ques tion really is, what does the tenant take under the demise ? This is not like the case of an occupier of a house, who takes the whole but chooses to shut up some of the rooms: or of the occupier of a farm, who chooses, after having taken it, to restrict himself from the occupation of some part of it. Here what the tenant took, by the demise itself, was only the land, as pasture land, without the right of shooting: and therefore he is rateable only in respect of his occupation of the land as pasture land. HILL. J.: The true question here is, of what hereditament is the appellant the occupier? Is he the occupier of the land with all incidents, or did he take it separate from the right of killing game? That right, in my opinion, was as completely separated from the occupation of the land, as if Lord Scarborough had previously, by grant, granted the right of shooting to some third party, and had then let the land to this tenant. If, as contended by the respondents, the rateability of the tenant in respect of the game be independent of the question whether he possesses the right to shoot, I do not see how the point could have arisen which was decided in Reg. v. Williams (1), namely, whether the possession of such right by the tenant increased the rateable value of his occupation. Order of Sessions confirmed. (1) 103 R. R. 871 (23 L. T. O. S. 76). 1859. Jan. 26. 1859. Jan. 26. [516] PURDY v. SMITH. (1 El. & El. 511–515 ; S. C. 28 L. J. M. C. 150; 5 Jur. N. S. 912.) A local Act provided that there should be charged, as toll at a certain turnpike gate, "for every horse or other beast drawing any taxed cart," 3d. Held, that a cart which had been taxed, in the previous year, under stat. 16 & 17 Vict. c. 90, Schedule (D.), was a taxed cart within the meaning of the local Act. [Dissented from, Williams v. Lear (1871) L. R. 7 Q. B. 285, 41 L. J. M. C. 76, 25 L. T. 906. All turnpike trusts have now expired, and the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 90 was repealed, except s. 8, by 32 & 33 Vict. c. 14, S. 39.] TYNE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIONERS . OVER- (1 El. & El. 516-526; S. C. 28 L. J. M. C. 131; 5 Jur. N. S. 865.) The docks were completed, and used by ships frequenting the river Tyne and the Commissioners received an income of 10,0007. per annum from the said rates and dues : Held, that the Commissioners were rateable to the poor rate in respect of their occupation of the docks; such occupation not being exclusively for public purposes, but producing a benefit only to a particular section of the public; and there being nothing in the Acts expressly excluding, in the event of a surplus, the payment of poor rates out of the funds in the hands of the Commissioners, before the rates were reduced. THE appellants appealed against three several rates, dated 5th April, 1858, 5th July, 1858, and 13th December, 1858. Under the first assessment they were rated as follows. The two other rates were in the same form, except that they were at 6d. and 9d. in the pound respectively. A case was stated by consent of the parties, the material part of which was as follows. By stat. 13 & 14 Vict. c. lxiii. (1) certain persons were appointed called "The Tyne Improvement Commissioners," who were to be the conservators of the port of Newcastle-uponTyne, and of the river Tyne. By the Tyne Improvement Act, 1852, 15 Vict. c. cx. (2), power is given to the Commissioners, among other things, to make and maintain certain piers, landing places, docks, basins, locks and other works, to be called the Northumberland Docks. By the same Act they are empowered to borrow a certain amount of money, in respect of the said docks &c., on mortgage of the rates, dues and moneys to be levied under the Act. Sect. 66 empowers the Commissioners to demand and receive certain tonnage rates and tolls on goods, specified in the several schedules to the Act, "so soon as the said docks or basins, or any part thereof, shall be completed and fit for the reception of vessels:" such rates and tolls. being, by the schedules, leviable upon all vessels clearing or entering, or loading or delivering at, respectively, the said docks. By sect. 68 it is enacted that the said rates and dues shall be applied by the Commissioners, "in the first place, in the payment of the expenses of or in any way incident to the working, management, and maintenance of the said docks and the works connected therewith; in the second place, in payment of the annual interest of the moneys borrowed and due and *owing under the authority of this Act on the credit of the said rates and dues, in the manner herein provided; and lastly, in appropriating and setting apart a sum equal to 21. 10s. per cent. per annum upon the whole of the sum borrowed, or such part thereof as shall remain due and owing, upon the credit of such rates and dues, and as a sinking fund. to be applied in paying off the principal money: Provided always, that on and after the expiration of five years after such docks and the works connected therewith, or any part thereof, shall have been opened for the reception of vessels, if, after payment of such costs, charges, and expenses as aforesaid, and the interest upon the money borrowed or re TYNE IMPROVE MENT COMMISSIONERS v. OVERSEERS OF CHIRTON. [517] [ *518 ] TYNE IMPROVE MISSIONERS v. maining due and owing, and the appropriating and setting MENT COM- apart such sinking fund as aforesaid, and before the complete payment of the principal of the sum borrowed, there shall at any time remain any surplus of the aforesaid rates and dues OF CHIRTON. to be raised in respect of the said docks and works, the Commissioners shall from time to time lower the same rates and dues to the extent of such surplus." OVERSEERS [ *519] By sect. 70 it is provided "that after the payment in the manner aforesaid and extinction of the debt for money so borrowed as aforesaid, and subject to the payment of such costs, charges and expenses as aforesaid, the Commissioners shall yearly and every year set apart and appropriate, with and out of the said rates and dues to arise in respect of the said docks, such a sum, not exceeding 1,000l. per annum, as they shall think fit, and shall accumulate the same at compound interest until the sums so set apart and appropriated, and the accumulations thereof, shall amount to the principal sum of 10,000l.; and the sums so set apart, appropriated, and *accumulated shall be invested in the purchase of Exchequer bills or in other Government securities, in the name of the Commissioners, and the same sum, and the accumulations thereof, and the interest thereof, shall be held and applied by the Commissioners, as circumstances may from time to time require, in and for the purpose of extraordinary repairs of the docks and works connected therewith, or other extraordinary expenses incident to the management, improvement, or enlargement of the said docks and the works connected therewith; and when and so soon as the whole of the money so to be borrowed as aforesaid shall have been paid off and discharged, and the said sum of 10,000l. shall have been accumulated in the manner aforesaid, if there shall be any surplus of the said rates and dues to be raised in respect of the said docks and works, after the payment of such expenses of working, management and maintenance as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to lower the said rates and dues to such an extent as will reduce the rates and dues to be thereon levied and raised in respect of the said docks and works to the annual amount (as near as may be) of the expenses of the management, maintenance, and working of the said docks and works connected therewith." By the Tyne Improvement Act, 1857, 20 & 21 Vict. c. lxxi. (1), the Commissioners are incorporated under the name of "The Tyne Improvement Commissioners." The Northumberland Dock (1) Local and personal, public: "To the Acts relating to the river Tyne" amend and enlarge the provisions of &c. TYNE IMPROVE. MENT COM OVERSEERS OF CHIRTON. [ *520 ] was completed under the powers of stat. 15 Vict. c. cx., and is now used by shipping frequenting or arriving in the river *Tyne. The docks, works and premises which are the subject MISSIONERS of the said rates are and were, at the time of making the rates, in the actual and exclusive occupation of the said Commissioners, under the authorities and for the purposes of the said Acts of Parliament solely; and the Commissioners have received as much as 10,000l. per annum in respect of rates and dues levied by them in respect of the said docks and premises. The river shore upon which the docks and premises are built is in the township of Chirton, and was, before they were so erected and used, included in the land rated to the poor in that township. The appellants contended: 1. That the said dock and premises are not by law rateable to the relief of the poor. are not the Owners or 2. That the said Commissioners occupiers of the said dock and premises. 3. That the right and title of the said Commissioners to the said dock and premises, and to the occupation thereof, depends upon the Tyne Improvement Act, 1852, and the said Tyne. Improvement Act, 1857; and that they, the said Commissioners, are not, either as owners or occupiers thereof, rateable to the relief of the poor in respect of the said dock and premises. 4. That they, the said Commissioners, have no beneficial ownership or occupancy of the said dock and premises; but that any ownership or occupancy thereof by the said Commissioners is for public purposes only. 5. That the rates and dues levied under the said Acts are, by sect. 68 of the Tyne Improvement Act, 1852, applicable to certain purposes only, which purposes do not include the payment of poor rates. The question for the opinion of the Court is: Whether the appellants are rateable at all in the township of Chirton, in respect of their occupation of the said dock and premises under the several Acts of Parliament. Pashley, for the respondents: The Commissioners are rateable in respect of the docks. They do not occupy them solely for public purposes, and the funds raised are not, of necessity, applicable solely to defraying the expenses of the public purposes expressly provided for by the local Acts. The case falls completely within Birkenhead Dock Trustees v. Birkenhead Overseers (1). (1)-95 R. R. 475 (2 El. & Bl. 148). * [521] |