« EelmineJätka »
places than are therein specified, or any act of parliament being passed, the complaces adjacent to the places specified, was pany purchased some land at Hampton, on repealed. Thus the company is, by express which they have erected engine and boiler enactment, prohibited from supplying the houses, in which are two steam-engines, parish of Hampton" with water. The boilers and other apparatus necessary for company, at first, drew their supply of drawing a supply of water from the Thames, water from the Thames, a little above the and the company has also laid down a present Hammersmith Bridge, by means of main under the highway, extending from à main laid into the river opposite the their works at Hampton to the reservoirs engine-house. The engine-house and works at Barnes. This is the conduit main, were at Hammersmith, and from thence thirty-six inches in diameter, and the the water was supplied through mains and length of it from the works to the boundary service-pipes to the district which they of the parish is one mile five furlongs and served. For the purpose of facilitating this fifty-six yards. The whole of the water supply the company constructed two re- supplied by the company is conveyed servoirs, one at Kensington and the other through this main into the company's reat Barrow Hill adjoining to Primrose Hill. servoirs at Barnes; it is then, according The company supplied every parish through to the provisions of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 84, which their mains and pipes were laid with filtered in filter beds, which have been water, those parishes being mentioned in constructed for that purpose adjoining one or other of the said acts, and thus the easternmost of the two reservoirs, derived profit from each parish in which and the water so filtered is then drawn their mains and pipes were laid. With a into the company's mains at Hammerview to improve the quality of the water smith, and thence supplied to the cussupplied by the company they, several tomers. years since (about 1827), purchased a large The company derive no direct profit tract of land on the Surrey side of the whatever in the parish of Hampton, nor Thames, on part of which they constructed have they any freehold or leasehold intwo large reservoirs, and they then drew terest in the soil of the highway through their source of supply higher up the which their main is laid, but they could Thames, near Barnes Terrace, being at not supply the water, so raised, to their the westernmost end of the western reser- customers without using the main in quesvoir. In the year 1852 the general ques
tion for its conveyance. tion of water supply to the metropolis was The company contend that they are not raised, and it was then enacted by the 15 rateable at all in respect of this main, and & 16 Vict. c. 84, that none of the water that the company's works in Hampton are companies supplying the metropolis with to be rated as ordinary buildings, without water should, after a period therein speci- reference to the profit earned by the comfied, take their supply of water from the pany; and if the Court should be of opinThames within the tidal influence. This ion that the company are liable to be naturally led to a re-construction of the rated in respect of their main, the company works of the West Middlesex Waterworks then contend that they are only liable to Company. The company then determined be rated in respect of the land actually to take their supply of water from the occupied by the main, and not in respect Thames at Hampton (above the town), of the profits derivable from the other and to construct at Hampton an engine- parishes which they supply. house and other works necessary to draw The parish contend that the whole works the water from that source, and then send and main are rateable, and that they are to the water through a main along the high be rated in reference to the profit derived in road to their reservoirs at Barnes. To the parishes to which the water is conveyed enable the company to construct their new
by their agency. works they obtained an act of parliament, The questions for the opinion of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 159. (a copy of which ac- Court were, first, whether the company was companied the case). On the last-mentioned rateable for the main ; and, secondly, on
what principle the company was to be (1), that it is to be rated as for “mere land rated, the amount to be settled by arbi- and buildings with fixtures and machinery tration.
attached, and deriving some additional The case was argued, in Michaelmas value from their capacity of being applied Term, 1858, (Nov. 6), by
to such purposes as that of a water comLush, for the respondents, and
pany;" and we add, such additional value Bovill, for the appellants.
is derived from an increase of demand The following cases were cited:
beyond supply, according to the principle
regulating exchangeable value, and not by The King v. the New River Company, reference to receipts earned in another 1 M. & S. 503.
parish, beyond assuming that they are The Queen v. Mile End Old Town, sufficient to pay for all outgoings, including
10 Q.B. Rep. 208 ; s. c. 16 Law profits on capital. If an apparatus occuJ. Rep. (n.s.) M.C. 184.
pied by one occupier, consisting of several The Queen v. the Cambridge Gas Com- parts, lies in one parish, the rate is on the
pany, 8 Ad. & E. 73 ; s.c. 7 Law whole and is received by that parish. If J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 50.
such an apparatus lies in several parishes, The Chelsea Waterworks v. Bromley, the occupier is liable for the same amount
17 Q.B. Rep. 358 ; s. c. 20 Law J. of rateable value, and no more ; but that Rep. (n.s.) Q.B. 521.
amount is to be apportioned among the The Queen v. Hammersmith Bridge, 15 parishes in which it lies; and the question
Q.B. Rep. 369; s.c. 18 Law J. Rep. then arises, as in the present case, what is (n.s.) M.C. 85.
the principle which regulates such apporThe Mayor of Liverpool v. West Derby, tionment? It is clear that each parish
6 E. & B. 704 ; s.c. 25 Law J. Rep. must rate the part that lies within it; such (N.s.) M.C. 112.
part becomes a separate rateable subject The King v. Miller, Cowp. 619. in that parish, and must be rated, accord. Cur. adv, vult. ing to the Parochial Assessment Act, upon
an estimate of the rent which that part WIGHTMAN, J. now delivered the fol
would yield after proper deductions. In lowing judgment.-- In this case the first practice a tenant of the parochial portion question is, whether the company are rate- of a canal, railway, gasworks, waterworks, able for their mains, which are laid under or the like, has rarely if ever been known. the surface of the highway, without any But an hypothetical tenant must be asfreehold or leasehold interest in the soil sumed ; and the terms of such a tenancy thereof being vested in the company. We are not difficult to be conceived, if in the think they are. These mains are fixed hypothesis some necessary incidents are also capital vested in land. The company is assumed to be involved : such as-First, in possession of the mains buried in the that each part of the apparatus is to consoil, and so are de facto in possession of tinue in joint co-operation : no one tenant the space in the soil which the mains fill, of an essential part being able to stop his for a purpose beneficial to itself. The
part; secondly, that the title to the redecisions are uniform in holding gas com- quired land is permanent, so that there panies to be rateable in respect of their is no risk of being compelled to move fixed mains, although the occupation of such capital ; thirdly, that there is land in the mains may be de facto merely, and with required quantity, and capital to be investout any legal or equitable estate in the ed therein, and occupants ready to take land where the mains lie, by force of some and work parts yielding profit, as tenants statute.
at rack-rent, and parts not yielding profit, To the second question, requiring the as contractors for remuneration provided principle to be stated on which the com- any greater profit can be obtained than is pany is to be rated in respect of the plant, ordinary in such relations. If a tenancy of engine-houses, cottages, buildings, wharfs, mains, land and premises,” we answer, in (1) See the statement of the case, 10 Q.B. Rep. the words of The Mile End Old Town case
210; and 16 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 185.
each parochial part be assumed according of being applied to such purposes as those to this hypothesis, then, although each of a water company. The meaning of those parish rates separately upon its own esti- words would be exemplified in this case if mate of the value of the part lying within it be supposed that the bank of the Thames it, and the law gives no power of making and the underground of the highways in all the parishes co-operate in rating the Hampton were heretofore of no rateable several parts lying in each, nevertheless value, but that when a wharf on the bank was this Court is bound to protect the occupier required to raise water from the Thames, of such an apparatus from being rated and when the underground of the highway beyond the rateable value of the whole was required for laying the mains giving taken together; and it is in reference to transit to such water, the owners of the this protection that the Court must take soil of the bank and of the highway could into its consideration at once all the sepa- get some payment for allowing the use of rate rates as so many claims upon one their soil. Thus, land which before progiven fund, and must apportion that fund, duced nothing would produce something, bearing in mind that every addition to the and so have some rateable value, which rateable value assigned to one parish must would be an addition arising solely from be a subtraction from the rateable value its capacity for being used for a water which might be given to some other parish. company. Value is derived entirely from Supposing, then, the apparatus to be appor- the relation of demand to supply, and if tioned to several tenants according to the a water company comes into competition parts in several parishes, the tenants of with a mere agriculturist for land for the parts directly earning net profits in a waterworks, an addition is made to the parish would be rated by that parish for value of such land by the additional comall the profits earned therein: this being petition. This principle might raise land the parochial principle of apportionment worth nothing into being worth something, which has been unanimously upheld hither- as above supposed, and land worth someto in respect of all canals, railways, water thing into higher value, in the case of a companies, gas companies, and bridges. site for a steam-engine with yard and shed But the tenants of the parts directly earn- and cottages attached, or a site for a resering no profit would not be liable to be voir or filtering bed, and the like. Upon rated in respect of any rent in the ordinary the common principles regulating value, it sense, which is profit remaining after all is enhanced in proportion to the scarcity deductions have been taken from the re- of the thing in demand ; so that, if a few ceipts. But as these parts of the apparatus, levels only were suitable for the required directly earning nothing, but indirectly transit, or a few sources of water alone conducing to such earnings elsewhere, are were accessible, the price would be higher. assumed to continue in operation, the In this sense, the words cited above from company, to whose interest such continued The Mile End case are applied to the operation is essential, must be assumed to mains in Hampton in their ordinary meanpay adequate remuneration to a contractor ing, and in the meaning in which they are for land and fixed capital vested therein, applied to stations, warehouses, yards, together with the labour and skill requisite workshops, and the other premises apperfor the effective continuance of such ope- taining to railways and canals, rated on ration, and this contractor with the com- the principle of indirectly conducing to pany would stand in the relation of occu- the direct earnings of railways and canals. pying tenant to the parish, and the part On this principle the company contended within the parish would be the rateable that the rateable value of the part of the subject, and the local rateable value would apparatus in the parish of Hampton is to be such sum as would pay the rent of the be ascertained; and we are of opinion that land and the profit on fixed capital therein. the company is right.
It is said in The Mile End case that the The parish contended for a higher parts indirectly conducing to produce profit rateable value; and it remains to consider are to be rated as mere land, &c., with on what ground. It was argued that some additional value from their capacity every part of the apparatus was equally essential for the delivery of water from may have included a reference to those Hampton to the consumers in other parishes, profits in the amount; but the Court enand that therefore the rate should be on tirely ignores any such reference, and the quantity of apparatus in Hampton. takes the question to be, whether the rate The answer is two-fold. In the first place, is to be on two acres of mere land accordall the apparatus is not equally essential. ing to the value of land of that kind in The subject of purchase by the consumer is Amwell, or with reference to its value in water delivered at the required place. the occupation of the company with the matters not to him whether the water has power of using it for their purposes, and passed from the east or the west, or been with capital laid out on it making it fit for raised on the spot from a well. Transit those purposes. Lord Ellenborough conof water is not the subject of demand, fines his judgment expressly to the local as in the case of goods or passengers to be value in Amwell; for he says, “The water conveyed by railways and canals, but the has a certain ascertained local value at water itself brought to the service-pipe the fountain head."
“If it has, it of the consumer, the junction of such pipe is rateable for that value, irrespective with the main being the source of profit. of profits which may or may not be deSuch delivery is the one indispensable re- rived elsewhere from distribution through quisite for purchase, whereas the course of pipes." transit might be varied in manifold direc- In The Queen v. the Mayor of Bath (9), tions, according to convenience, without the question of apportionment was also affecting the value of the water to the con- approached, but left undecided; there the sumer. In the next place no definite corporation had collected springs, in the meaning was and, as it appeared to us, parish of Lyncomb and Widcomb, into could be given to "quantity of apparatus," reservoirs, and distributed the water there for apportionment of rateable value. Quan- and in Bath, making 501, profit by the tity must be ascertained by some measure, sale of water in that parish, and 5501, in lineal, superficial, or solid, and if any of Bath; the parish rated for 6001., claiming these measures were applied to steam- the whole profit, because all the water was engines, reservoirs, filtering-beds, cottages, derived from the fountain head; but the mains, and the like, and the rate upon the rate was quashed, “because a large porsum total of earnings appropriated accord- tion of the apparatus and the soil in which ingly, the sum total would be disposed of the pipes are laid, producing eleven-twelfths upon a principle not more rational than a of the water-rent, is situate in Bath, therolottery,
fore Lyncomb and Widcomb is wrong in The cases relating to apportioning the rating for the whole water-rent.” The source rateable value on water companies are of the water, not being rateable for all the worth consideration. In The King v. the profits of the supply, the Court decides New River Company, the question was, that the profit from the water ought to be whether Amwell should rate Chadwell apportioned, but gives no rule for apporMead at 51. or at 3001. The case stated tioning. that no profits arose in Amwell; that the In The Queen v. Mile End Old Town, land alone without the spring was of the the principle of apportionment above menvalue of 5l., but, if the advantage which tioned was adopted. It has been said to the company derive from the use of the be inaccurate in laying the rate for the spring may by law be included in the rate direct source of profit on the service-pipes, upon the land, the land and the spring which belong to the consumers, whereas together are of the annual value of 3001. the rate must be on real property in the The judgment is for the rate on 3001. This occupation of the party rated.
The princase has been supposed to sanction the ciple of the judgment is, that the direct notion that the parish of Amwell was en- source of profit from water or gas is the titled to rate land in Amwell, by reference delivery of the article to the consumer, and to profits made in Islington or elsewhere. Probably, the parish officers and Sessions
(9) 14 East, 609. NEX SERIES, XXVIII.-MAG, OAS.
that the instrument of delivery should be [IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.) rated for the net profits; and if the service- 1858.
HUGHES AND OTHERS, appipe belongs to the consumer, the junction Nov. 29, 30. of the service-pipe with the main is in the 1859.
pellants, v. DENTON, reFeb. 12.
spondent. occupation of the company, and is rateable. Our judgment here is founded on that
District Church-Annexation of Annual case; and we have thus endeavoured to
Payment in Lieu of Tithes-Summary Proapply the principle there laid down to the rating of the premises here in question.
ceeding to enforce Payment-1 42 Will. 4.
c. 45. 3. 21.- District Chapelry made a Judgment for the appellants Separate Parish — 19 & 20 Vict. c. 104. accordingly.
The church of St. Bartholomew, Moot The learned Judge then added :--I may Lane, was built within the limits of the here observe, speaking for myself alone, parish of St. Giles, Cripplegate, and by that from this judgment, in which Lord an Order in Council, made in 1850, under Campbell and my Brothers Erle and Hill the Church Building Act, 59 Geo. 3. c. 134, concur, I do not dissent; as it is founded a particular district was assigned to it within upon the principle laid down in the case such parish, with authority to publish banns of The Queen v. Mile End Old Town, of marriage, and to solemnize marriages, which is the leading case, as well as one baptisms, churchings and burials therein, of the latest cases, upon the question the fees for which were to be paid to the before us; and it is most desirable to incumbent :-Held, that the church of St. preserve uniformity of decision, if pos- Bartholomew, Moor Lane, being a church sible. There appears to me, however, so to which a district had been assigned within much difficulty in applying the parochial the limits of St. Giles, Cripplegate, was principle of rating, by estimating the capable of receiving, under 18 2 Will. 4. rent which a tenant would give for the c. 45, s. 21, an annexation, by the Vicar of subject-matter, in such a
St. Giles, Cripplegate, of part of his annual present, as practically to amount nearly, revenues, although the district had for eccleif not entirely, to an impossibility of siastical
purposes become by virtue of 19 . doing so satisfactorily. I may also add, 20 Vict. c. 104. s. 14. a distinct and sepathat I am not quite satisfied that the rate parish. distinction which has been taken between By a local act, the tithes of the parish direct and indirect sources of profit, as of St. Giles, Cripplegate, were extinguished, applied to the mains and pipes of a water and a certain annuity payable quarterly was company running through different parishes, secured to the vicar in lieu of such tithes : is well founded ; and more especially in -Held, that the substitution of such an cases where the mains only belong to the annuity for tithes did not prevent the legal company and not the service-pipes. In- annexation of a portion of such annuity by deed, the whole subject
matter appears to the vicar, under 1 . 2 Will. 4. c. 45. s. 21, me to be involved in so much difficulty as that section authorizes the annexation of and uncertainty, that I cannot but hope any part of the tithes or " other annual that the legislature may interfere and make revenues" of the vicarage. some provision adapted to the rating of By the said local act the said vicar of the property of such companies as that St. Giles, Cripplegate, was enabled to enin question, and which may declare the force payment of the annuity in lieu of tithes principle upon which such companies are by a summary proceeding before a Justice to be rated, and establish some uniform of the Peace. Held, that after an annexaand practicable mode of carrying that tion of a portion of such annuity had been principle into effect.
made to the District Church of St. Bartholomew, Moor Lane, under 18 2 Will. 4. c. 45. s. 21, the incumbent of such district church had the like power of enforcing pay.