v. MAYOR OF PARKINSON deem it requisite that the said street called Greaves Street shall be repaired, formed and paved, and they do therefore BLACKBURN. require such of you to whom this notice shall be delivered, to repair, form and pave the said street, to the extent of your premises adjoining such street; and in case you shall neglect so to repair, form and pave for the space of one calendar month after the service hereof, the said corporation will themselves cause the works aforesaid to be done, and you will be liable to repay to them the expenses which they shall incur in respect thereof. Dated the 15th day of Sept., in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven. [ *120 ] "THOMAS AINSWORTH, Town Clerk." The works required to be executed by the defendant were not done, and they were therefore undertaken and completed by the corporation, and the cost apportioned according to the frontage; and a bill was made out and a demand made for the defendant's share. At the hearing of the summons, the justices made an order on the defendant for the payment of *25l. 68. 8d., being the amount of the said claim, less 11. 10s. 7d. charged for superintending the works (which item they disallowed) and costs. Against this order the defendant now appealed. Edward James, Q.C. (J. A. Russell with him) for the respondents: The first objection made at the hearing was that the justices had no jurisdiction, as the complaint was not made within six months of the time when the cause of complaint arose; the second, that the notice served was bad, on the ground that it did not sufficiently specify the works required to be executed, and that it did not specify or fix the level of the said street, without which defendant could not comply with the notice; thirdly, that no plans were deposited pursuant to the 18th section of the Towns Improvement Act, 1837; fourthly, that the corporation did not twenty-eight days before fixing the level of the said street give notice pursuant to the 84th section of the Towns Improvement Act, 1857. These were the most important objections. As to the first, the case of Labalmondiere v. Addison (1) is an answer. As to the second, the 34th section. of the Act prescribes the notice to be given; the works are to be done to the satisfaction of the corporation, which means the corporation surveyor. As to the third and fourth, this street existed before the borough Act passed, although it was not paved, and the surface was very irregular. There was no in(1) P. 130 above (1 El. & El. 41; 28 L. J. M. C. 25). PARKINSON v. MAYOR OF tention of altering the level, and therefore no notice was necessary. The 15th and 58th sections apply to new streets; the word "levelling" is used in an ambiguous sense, and the BLACKBURN. 34th section applies merely to the smoothing of the surface. (LORD CAMPBELL, Ch. J.: Upon this notice, how are the people to whom it is addressed to set to work?) It would have been sufficient if it had called on them simply to pave the street sufficiently. The word "form" might be used as to the sides of the street, the houses, in cases where the street was not already made; but when the street is made, it must mean the bed of the street. Manisty, Q.C., contrà, was not called on. LORD CAMPBELL, Ch. J.: I think the second objection is valid, and that this notice was bad, on the ground that it does not sufficiently specify the works required to be done. The Act says that the corporation shall cause notice in writing to be given to the respective owners, requiring them to sewer, level, pave, flag, or channel the street. The works are to be specified, and each owner is then to set to work to do what is required to be done. Then the notice should state what is to be done; but this notice says the street is to be repaired, formed, and paved. It runs away from the terms of the Act, and is in my opinion insufficient. ERLE, J.: I am of the same opinion. The notice does not follow the terms of the Act, or in any other way convey what is required; it ought to specify what the corporation considers fit paving. CROMPTON, J.: The notice ought fairly to show the parties on whom it is served what they are required to do. HILL, J.: The notice is bad on two grounds: first, it does not specify the works required to be done; and secondly, it requires more to be done than the terms of the Act provide for. Judgment for the appellant. 1859. June 1. [183] REG. V. THE OVERSEERS AND INHABITANTS OF HAMMERSMITH (1). (33 L. T. O. S. 183-184.) Under the County Rates Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 81), a committee of the justices at Quarter Sessions may prepare a basis or standard for fair and equal county rates, such basis or standard to be founded and prepared rateably and equally, according to the full and fair annual value of the property, &c., rateable to the relief of the poor in every parish, &c., and it is enacted, that for the purpose of preparing any such basis or standard, the words full and fair annual value" shall be taken to mean the net annual value of any property as the same is or may be required by law to be estimated for the purpose of assessing the rates for the relief of the poor." The committee of the justices of Middlesex, under this statute, prepared a basis for the county rate, and made a uniform deduction for the entire county of 2 per cent. for empty and unoccupied houses. In the parish of Hammersmith the actual average percentage for empty and unoccupied houses was 14 per cent., and the parish claimed to have that deduction made, whereby their assessment would be reduced from 77,8051. to 66,9137. : Held, that the parishes were not entitled to any deduction in respect of empty and unoccupied houses. THIS was a case stated by the Middlesex Quarter Sessions upon an appeal by the overseers and inhabitants of the parish of Hammersmith against an assessment to the county rate of Middlesex. The case stated as follows: The committee of justices for the county of Middlesex, in preparing the basis or standard for county rates, founded their calculations upon the property tax assessment for 1856, 1857, under Schedule A.; and after omitting all property which was specially exempt from poor rates, they arrived at certain sums as the gross rateable value of the property in each of the parishes and places in the said county respectively; but, as these sums included the empty and unoccupied houses in each of such parishes and places respectively, an uniform deduction was made on such sums of 2 per cent. in respect thereof, without regard to the actual value or number of such empty and unoccupied houses in each of the said parishes and places. The proportion of value of the empty and unoccupied houses to the other property, in the said parishes and places respectively, varies considerably in the several parishes and places in the said county; in one parish such proportion is as low as 2 per cent., in many the proportion is 4, 5, and 6 per cent., and in the parish of Hammersmith the proportion is as high as 14 per cent. The committee of justices, in the said basis or standard, stated the sum at which the said parish of Hammersmith was liable to be assessed toward the said county rate to be 77,8051.; (1) R. v. Malden (1869) L. R. 4 Q. B. 329, 38 L. J. M. C. 125. And see Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862. whereas, if a deduction of 14 per cent. had been made, the amount would be 66,9131. The said basis or standard has been confirmed by the General Sessions for the said county, and the said overseers and inhabitants of the said parish have duly appealed against the same. It is contended by the said overseers and inhabitants of Hammersmith, that a deduction should be made for empty and unoccupied houses in the said parish, according to the actual proportion in value of such empty and unoccupied houses to the other property in such parish. It is contended by the committee of justices that they are not bound, in preparing the said basis or standard, to make any allowance or deduction whatever for empty or unoccupied houses, and that one uniform deduction of 21 per cent. having been made in all the parishes and places in the said county, the said parish is in no way injured thereby. The questions for the opinion of this honourable Court are, whether, upon the facts above stated, any deduction should be made for empty and unoccupied houses in the various. parishes and places, and if so, whether such deduction should not be according to the actual proportion in value of the unoccupied and empty houses to the other property in such parishes and places. If this Court shall decide these questions in the affirmative, the said basis or standard is to be altered by reducing the said sum of 77,805l. to the said sum of 66,9131.; if otherwise, the said basis or standard is to stand confirmed; and it is agreed that a judgment *in conformity with such decision, and for such costs as this Court shall adjudge, may be entered on motion by either party at the General or Quarter Sessions for Middlesex, next or next but one after such decision shall be given. By the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 81, s. 2 (1), the justices at Quarter Sessions are from time to time to appoint committees for preparing a basis or standard for assessing the county rate. By sect. 5 the committee may direct the overseers of the poor, &c., for any parish, &c., to make returns of the amount of the full and fair annual value of the whole or of any part of the property within the parish, &c., liable to be assessed towards the county rate, &c. By sect. 6 it is enacted that "for the purpose of preparing any such basis or standard for assessing any county rate, the words 'full and fair annual value' shall be taken to mean the net annual value of any property, as the (1) Repealed, S. L. R. Act, 1892. REG. ፖ. OVERSEERS OF HAMMER SMITH, [ *184 ] REG. v. OVERSEERS OF HAMMER SMITH. same is or may be required by law to be estimated for the purposes of assessing the rates for the relief of the poor." Bovill, Q.C. (Field with him) appeared for the respondents, and contended that the justices were right. Lush, Q.C. (Poland with him) argued that the basis of the assessment ought to take into consideration the void property which in Hammersmith amounts to 14 per cent., otherwise the amount assessed upon the parish will fall oppressively upon the actual ratepayers; and that sect. 2 bears out this view. LORD CAMPBELL, Ch. J.: We can discern nothing in the Act to justify the position taken by the appellants. All this property is rateable to the poor. I am sorry if there is any inconvenience to the parish like that pointed out, but that is a question for the Legislature, and not for us. WIGHTMAN and ERLE, JJ. concurred. Judgment for the respondent. |