subject to any amendment thereof by rules so made, have effect with the necessary modifications, as if made under this section.

Rules for the effectual execution of the Corrupt Practices (Municipal Elections) Act, 1872, were made by the judges for the time being on the rota for the trial of election petitions, on the 20th of November, 1872. Additional General Rules were made on the 10th of December, 1872, and on the 27th January, 1875. As new Rules will no doubt be made in accordance with the provisions of this Act, it has not been deemed necessary to include these Rules in this edition.

Expenses of Election Court.

101.—(1.) The remuneration and allowances to be paid to a commissioner for his services in respect of the trial of an election petition, and to any officers, clerks, or shorthand writers employed under this Part, shall be fixed by a scale made and varied by the election judges on the rota for the trial of parliamentary election petitions, with the approval of the Treasury. The remuneration and allowances shall be paid in the first instance by the Treasury, and shall be repaid to the Treasury, on their certificate, out of the borough fund or borough rate.

(2.) But the election court may in its discretion order that such remuneration and allowances, or the expenses incurred. by a town clerk for receiving the election court, shall be repaid, wholly or in part, to the Treasury or the town clerk, as the case may be, in the cases, by the persons, and in the manner following (namely):

(a.) When in the opinion of the election court a petition is frivolous and vexatious, by the petitioner; (b.) When in the opinion of the election court a

re

spondent has been personally guilty of corrupt practices at the election, by that respondent. (3.) An order so made for the repayment of any sum by a petitioner or respondent may be enforced as an order for payment of costs; but a deposit made or security given under this Part shall not be applied for any such repayment until all costs and expenses payable by the petitioner or respondent to any party to the petition have been satisfied.

In R. v. Mayor and Treasurer of Maidenhead (51 L. J., (c. a.), Q. B. D. 444), it appeared that in March, 1875, a petition against the return of certain town councillors was tried before a barrister, pursuant to the provisions of 35 & 36 Vict., c. 60 (Corrupt Practices (Municipal Elections) Act, 1872), when he directed by order that the expenses of the petition and proceedings in court should be borne by the respondents, but he made no order with respect to the expenses of the court, although it was alleged that he expressed his intention,

The

in his judgment, of ordering one of the respondents to pay them. Treasury paid the expenses of the court, and issued a certificate requiring the borough to repay the amount. A rate was accordingly made in August, 1875, but the Treasury withdrew that certificate, and the rate was abandoned. In December, 1875, the Treasury issued another certificate requiring the borough to repay the amount paid for the expenses of the court, and, as the amount was not paid, a mandamus was applied for, and after a return and trial, a special case was stated. It was held by the Court of Appeal (affirming the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division), that the court of the barrister appointed to try the municipal election petition was a court of record, and that its judgment could only be proved by the record; that the issuing of the certificate by the Commissioners of the Treasury was a ministerial and not a judicial act, and that it was therefore competent for them to cancel the first and issue the second certificate; that there had been no undue delay on the part of the Commissioners, and that they were entitled to a peremptory mandamus. With regard to the levying of a retrospective rate for meeting expenses of this character, it was also held that as Parliament has directed that a rate shall be levied to meet expenses which must be incurred in an inquiry by the court for the trial of an election petition, and these expenses cannot be ascertained until after the inquiry is closed, the legislature has by implication given all the powers necessary to secure the payment of these expenses by a rate-that is, it has given the corporation the power to levy a retrospective rate.

Acts done Pending a Petition not Invalidated.

102. Where a candidate who has been elected to a corporate office is, by a certificate of an election court or a decision of the High Court, declared not to have been duly elected, acts done by him in execution of the office, before the time when the certificate or decision is certified to the town clerk, shall not be invalidated by reason of that declaration.

Provisions as to Elections in the room of persons unseated on petition.

103. Where on an election petition the election of any person to a corporate office has been declared void, and no other person has been declared elected in his room, a new election shall be held to supply the vacancy in the same manner as on a casual vacancy; and for the purposes of the election any duties to be performed by a mayor, alderman, or other officer, shall, if he has been declared not elected, be performed by a deputy, or other person who might have acted for him if he had been incapacitated by illness.

As to filling up casual vacancies, see secs. 40 and 66 (1).

For provision to meet the case of the illness of the mayor or other returning officer, see sec. 67.

Prohibition of disclosure of Vote.

104. A person who has voted at a municipal election by ballot shall not in any proceeding to question the election be required to state for whom he has voted.

PART V.

CORPORATE PROPERTY AND LIABILITIES. CORPORATE LAND.

Power to purchase Land for Town Hall, &c.

105. A municipal corporation may contract for the purchase of and hold any land not exceeding in the whole five acres, either in or out of the borough, and thereon, or on any land belonging to or held in trust for the corporation may build a town hall, council house, justices' room, with or without a police station and cells, or lock-ups, or a quarter and petty sessions-house, or an assize court-house with or without judges' lodgings, or a polling station, or any other building necessary or proper for any purpose of the borough.

The powers of a municipal corporation under sec. 40 of the 7 Wm. 4, and I Vict., c. 78, as to the buildings which they might erect, were more limited than those which are conferred by this section.

With regard to the borrowing of moneys for the purchase of land and the erection of buildings, see sec. 106.

See also sec. 107 as to the purchase, &c., of land, with the approval of the Treasury, when a corporation are not empowered to acquire land or to hold land in mortmain, and as to the application of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts, 1845, 1860, and 1869, relating to the purchase of lands by agreement.

With respect to the principle on which buildings, which are occupied by municipal corporations for public purposes in the discharge of their statutory duties, are to be assessed to parochial rates, see Overseers of the Poor of Chorltonupon-Medlock v. Guardians of Chorlton Union and Overseers of Ardwick, 51 L. J., Q. B. D. 408. In that case four modes of estimating the rateable value were suggested for the consideration of the court:-(1.) The annual interest actually paid on the money borrowed and expended in the purchase or erection: (2.) The annual rent which a contractor would require if he erected the premises as they stood for the purposes for which they were used: (3.) The amount of rent which a tenant, unfettered as to uses, and unrestricted as to charges, would give if the premises were in the market: and (4.) The annual profit which the corporation or school board makes or can make. The court held that the third alternative indicated the principle upon which the property was to be assessed, and that the rateable value was to be based on the amount of rent which it was estimated that a tenant unfettered as to uses and un

restricted as to charges would give if the premises were in the market. It may be observed in connection with this case that in Mayor, &c. of Worcester v. Droitwich Union Assessment Committee (L. R., 2, Ex. D. 49), with reference to the assessment of waterworks belonging to the corporation as the urban sanitary authority, it was held that the corporation were rateable, not for such profits as a mercantile body might make by supplying water, but only with reference to such profits as were actually earned, having regard to the restrictions in the Public Health Act.

As to the liability of a corporation for income tax under Schedules A. and B. of the Income Tax Acts, in respect of municipal buildings see Coomber v. Justices of Berks (L. R., 9 Q. B. D. 17; 30 W. R., 779). That case had reference to the assessment under the Income Tax Acts, of a block of buildings erected by the justices of Berks, in the exercise of their statutory powers, the buildings comprising assize courts, with the usual rooms and offices, and a county police station, with the usual offices and accommodation for constables living there, and for prisoners. The courts and police stations were used for the administration of justice, and for police purposes. Parts of the building were also used for holding county and committee meetings, and various other occasional purposes, but no rent or profit was received or made in respect of the buildings, or any part of them. It was held that the buildings were not assessable under Schedules A. and B. of the Income Tax Acts.

Power to Borrow with approval of Treasury.

106. The council may, with the approval of the Treasury, borrow at interest on the security of any corporate land, or of any land proposed to be purchased by the council under this Act, or of the borough fund or borough rate, or of all or any of those securities, such sums as the council from time to time think requisite for the purchase of land, or for the building of any building which the council are by this. Act authorized to build.

The consent of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury is sufficiently signified by a letter signed by their secretary. The consent cannot, however, authorize an alienation or charge of corporate property further than is specified in the memorial on which it is founded. Arnold v. Mayor of Gravesend, 25 L. J., Ch. 776.

Where the council intend to apply to the Treasury for their approval of any loan, notice of the intention to make the application is to be fixed on the town hall one month at least before the application, and a copy of the intended application is during that month to be kept in the town clerk's office and to be open to public inspection. If the Treasury refuse their approval or grant it conditionally, or under qualifications, notice of the correspondence is to be in like manner fixed on the town hall for one month, and during that period a copy of the correspondence is to be kept in the town clerk's office and to be open to public inspection. (See sec. 236).

For provisions as to the repayment of loans, see sec. 112.

With regard to loans by the Public Works Loans Commissioner, see sec. 120. The provisions of the Local Loans Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 83), are given in the Appendix, p. 289.

As to the buildings which the council are by this Act authorized to erect, see sec. 105.

In Attorney-General v. Corporation of Birmingham (L. R., 3, Eq. 552), it appeared that by a local Act (the Birmingham Improvement Act, 1851) the

corporation were authorized to execute certain works for the improvement of the borough which comprised the making of new approaches to the town hall, the making of new streets, and the enlarging and altering of existing streets, and to purchase the lands necessary for the works. The expenses connected with these works, including sums required for payment of principal and interest on moneys borrowed, were to be defrayed out of a "Street Improvement Rate," which was limited to sixpence in the pound per annum, and for the purpose of these works the corporation were empowered to borrow £100,000 on the security of the Street Improvement Rate. For other purposes of the local Act the corporation were empowered to levy a Borough Improvement Rate which was not to exceed 25. in the pound per annum, and to borrow £150,000. Certain properties were by the Act exempted wholly or partially from assessment to the Street Improvement Rate. The Act provided that nothing therein should be held to alter any of the powers, privileges, and authorities vested in the mayor, &c., by or in pursuance of any Act of Parliament then in force or thereafter passed in relation to municipal corporations. By another local Act passed in 1861, the corporation were authorized to carry out further street improvements (the works being specified in the Schedule to the Act), the cost to be defrayed out of the Street Improvement Rate; and the corporation were empowered to borrow additional sums. The corporation having contracted for the purchase of land for the widening of a street which was not included in the Schedule to either of the local Acts, made application to the Treasury under the Municipal Corporations Mortgages Act, 1860 (23 Vict., c. 16), for their sanction to the purchase of the land and to the charging of the borough fund with the purchase money, and after all parties interested in the scheme had been heard before the commissioner deputed by the Treasury, the sanction applied for was given. It was held that the corporation were lawfully empowered to charge the borough fund with the amount requisite for the purchase. In Preston v. Mayor, &c., of Great Yarmouth (7 L. R., Ch. 655; 41 L. J., Ch. 760; 27 L. T., N. §. 87 ; 20 W. R., 875) where a corporation were authorized to raise money for local improvements upon the security of the borough rates by an Act of Parliament which contained a provision that the corporation should in every year pay off at least £100 of the principal of the borrowed money together with the interest due thereon, and that the creditors to be paid off should be determined by ballot, it was held that the creditors were entitled to be repaid their principal only in the way mentioned in the Act, and that a creditor who was unpaid could not by giving notice to the corporation to repay his principal, entitle himself to have a receiver of the rates appointed by the

court.

When a corporation were empowered by an Act of Parliament to enlarge and improve the market place" in a borough "with all" proper works and conveniences connected therewith or belonging thereto," and, for the purposes of the Act, to borrow money on the credit of the borough fund and to purchase lands, it was held that the purchase of a site near the place where the principal market of the borough was usually held, and the erection thereon of a new corn exchange, were a lawful exercise of the powers conferred by the Act, for which money might be borrowed on the credit of the borough fund. Attorney-General v. Mayor, &c., of Cambridge, 6 L. R., H. L. 303; 22 W. R., 37.

Power to acquire Land with the approval of the Treasury.

107.—(1.) Where a municipal corporation has not power to purchase or acquire land, or to hold land in mortmain, the council may, with the approval of the Treasury, purchase or acquire any land in such manner and on such