1848. SION COLLEGE v. CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION1 ([1901] I Q. B. 617) distinguished. Decision of Court of Appeal' (1904) (68 J.P. 377; 2 L. G. R. 840) affirmed. City of London Corporation v. Netherlands Steamboat Co. (H. L., 3 Aug., 1905), [1906] A.C. 263; 75 L.J.K.B. 771; 93 L.T. 566; 69 J.P. 443; 3 L.G.R. 1087. General District Rate-Light Railway-Public Health Act, 1875, s. 211. A light railway authorised by an Order made under the Light Railways Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict., c. 48), laid in the open streets, is a "railway constructed under the powers of an Act of Parliament for public conveyance" within the meaning of section 211 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 55, and is entitled under the section to be assessed to the general district rate at one-fourth only of its net annual value. Wakefield and District Light Railway Co. v. Wakefield Corporation (K.B.D., 10 April, 1906), [1906] 2 K.B. 140; 75 L. J. K. B. 388; 94 L. T. 543 ; 54 W. R. 495; 70 J. P. 275; 4 L. G. R. 607; 22 T. L. R. 454. General District Rate-Tramroad-Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Act, 1896; Public Health Act, 1875, s. 211 (1) (b). A tramroad constructed under the Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Act, 1896 (56 & 60 Vict. c. cxlvii), which incorporates certain provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 20), and declares that for the purposes of these provisions the tramroad shall be "deemed to be a railway," held not to be land used only as a railway within the meaning of section 211 (1) (b) of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), which provides that the occupier of land so used shall be assessed on one-fourth part only of the net annual value thereof for the purposes of a general district rate. Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Co. v. Thornton Urban District Council3 (K. B. D., 13 Dec., 1905), 94 L. T. 254; 70 J. P. 77 ; 4 L. G. R. 324; 22 T. L. R. 138. Institution for Encouragement of Fine Arts-Grants from The expenses of an institution established for the purposes and encouragement, advancement and dissemination of the fine arts exclusively, and certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies to be entitled to the benefit of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843 (6 & 7 Vict. c. 36), were defrayed by the fees of students, and grants from See Law and Legislation, 1901, p. 141. See Law and Legislation, 1904, p. 143. 3 Reversed on Appeal (C. A., 25 Jan., 1907), 23 T.L. R. 267. Rates and Rating:- (2) Liability-continued. the Board of Education and the County Council. Held that the grants were voluntary contributions within the meaning of section I of the Act and exempt from the poor rate. ROYAL COLLEGE OF MUSIC v. Westminster Vestry ([1898] 1 Q.B. 304; 67 L. J. Q. B. 80) followed. LIVERPOOL CORPORATION V. WEST DERBY UNION (1905) (92 L. T. 467) not followed. Hornsey School of Art v. Edmonton Union Assessment Committee and Hornsey Overseers (K. B. D., 20 Dec., 1905), 94 L. T. 203; 70 J. P. 121; 4 L. G. R. 178. Rateable Occupation-Water Main-Construction and Management by Corporation-Water supplied to Urban District Counc 1. The L. corporation had powers under local acts to supply with water any local or sanitary authority within 20 miles of their aqueduct from the Vyrnwy reservoir, and to execute the works necessary or proper for giving the supply. An urban authority took the necessary steps under the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 36), to lay a main from the aqueduct to their district. The main was laid by the corporation, who had the entire control and management of it, and the sole right to make connections with it; but the urban district paid 1 per cent. of the cost of laying the main. The main traversed parishes not in the urban district, and the quantity of water supplied to the urban authority was measured at the end of main which was in their district. Held that the corporation, and not the urban district council, were the rateable occupiers of the main. Liverpool Corporation v. Birkenhead Union Assessment Committee (K. B. D., 19 Dec., 1906), 94 L. T. 509; 70 J. P. 146; 4 L. G. R. 273. Rector's Rate under Local Act-Meaning of "House." A rector's rate was authorised by a local Act to be charged upon the "houses" of the inhabitants of the parish Held that premises which had formerly been three dwelling-houses but were now thrown into one and occupied as fruit stores, warehouses and offices in which no one slept (and which with slight internal alteration could readily be re-converted into dwelling-houses) were chargeable to the rector's rate. SURMAN 7. DARLEY (1845) (14 L. J. M. C. 145; 14 M. & W. 181) distinguished. Decision of Court of Appeal' ([1905] 1 K. B. 669) reversed. Lewin v. End (H. L., 3 vay, 1906), [1906] A. C. 299; 75 L. J. K. B. 473; 94 L. T. 649; 54 W. R. 606; 70 J. P. 268; 4 L. G. R. 618 ; 22 T. L. R. 5c4. 1 See Law and Legislation, 1905, p. 127. Sewers Rate-Area Added to County Borough-Inclusion of part of District of Commissioners of Sewers-Levy of Rate-Bristol Corporation Acts, 1895 (ss. 21, 25), 1902; Bristol Dock Act, 1901. Parts of lands within the jurisdiction of commissioners of sewers were added to the County Borough of Bristol by the Bristol Corporation Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. clvii). For all purposes they were to be detached from the County of Gloucester and from the jurisdiction and powers of the county court, justices of the peace, sheriffs, coroners, and officers of that county, and for all purposes to form part of Bristol (s. 21). No lands in the city were to be liable to contribute to any county or other rates, or in accordance with the precept of any board, authority, or person other than the corporation (s. 25). Under the Bristol Dock Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. cclxiv.), and the Bristol Corporation Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. cxlii), the corporation were to make sea walls, &c., within the area rated by the sewage commissioners, and maintain them at the expense of the corporation. Held that the power of the commissioners to levy rates on the lands added to the city had not been abolished. Bristol Corporation v. Canning, clerk to Commissioners of Sewers for the Lower Level of the County of Gloucester (Ch. D., 4 July, 1906), 95 L. T. 183; 70 J. P. 528. Rates and Rating:-(3) Recovery. Costs of Distress for Poor Rate-Scale of Charges-Effect of The provisions of the Distress (Costs) Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. 93), as extended to a distress for poor rate where the sum due does not exceed £20 by the Distress (Costs) Act, 1827 (7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 17), under which the charge of taking, keeping, and selling the distress are not to exceed a certain sum still apply, and are not impliedly repealed by section 1 of the Distress for Rates Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 14), or rendered inoperative by the repeal of 27 Geo. 2, c. 20 by section 36 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1878. HILL V. PANNIFER ([1904] 1 K. B. 811) overruled. Decision of Court of Appeals ([1995] 1 K. B. 219) approved. Coster v. Headland (H. L., 5 April, 1906), [1906] A. C. 286; 75 L. J. K. B. 483; 94 L. T. 589; 70 J. P. 249; 4 L. G. R. 589; 22 T. L. R. 441. Reversed on appeal (C. A., 22 Jan., 1907). "See Law and Legislation, 1904, p. 145. 3 See Law and Legislation, 1905, p. 128. Rates and Rating:-(3) Recovery-continued. Outgoing Occupier-Apportionment of Rate on hearing of Complaint-Demand for full Rate. The justices before whom a complaint for non-payment of poor rate is heard may apportion the rate in the case of an occupier going out of occupation, and may issue a distress warrant for the amount so apportioned, although the demand and summons were for the total Mansel v. Itchen Overseers (K. B. D., 12 Jan., 1906), [1906] 1 K.B. 221; 75 L.J.K.B. 232; 94 L.T. 320; 54 W.R. 456; 70 J.P. 148; 4 L.G.R. 279; 22 T.L.R. 228. rate. Water Rate-Costs of Proceedings--Discretion of Justices-- By the Ruabon Water Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. lvii.), which incorporates the Waterworks Clauses Acts, 1847 and 1863, it is provided that when any person neglects to pay any rate the company "may recover the same with full costs of suit in any court of competent jurisdiction" (s. 37); that all rates and costs may, after order for payment made, be levied by distress (s. 38), and that the justice who issued the warrant of distress may order that the costs of the proceedings for the recovery of the rate be included in the warrant (s. 40). Held that where the justices made an order for payment of arrears of water rate, they had a discretion whether they would direct that the person liable for the rate should pay the costs. Ruabon Water Co. v. Evans (K. B. D., 11 May, 1906), 22 T. L. R. 541. Rates and Rating:-(4) Valuation. Deductions Expenses Necessary to Command Rent-Rent-charges In a district under the jurisdiction of commissioners of sewers rent-charges were imposed on certain hereditaments for the maintenance of works necessary for protecting the district from incursions of the sea; but other hereditaments not subject to such rent-charges were equally benefited by the protection works. Held that the amount of the rent-charges could not for the purpose of arriving at the rateable value of the hereditaments subject to the rent-charges be deducted as an expense necessary to maintain the property in a state to command the rent thereof within section 1 of the Parochial Assessments Act, 1836 (6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96). Whether some deduction ought not to be allowed in respect of the liability to maintain such protection works, quære. REG. 7. VANGE (1842) (3 Q. B. 242) followed. Newport Union Assessment Committee v. Stead; Same v. Green (K. B. D., 26 April, 1906), [1906] 2 K. B. 147 ; 75 L. J. K. B. 586; 95 L. T. 114; 70 J. P. 337; 4 L. G. R. 773. Docks-Exclusive Occupation-Liability-Rateable Value-Rates and Dues as Element in Ascertaining. A harbour authority had constructed a floating dock and basin, which occupied part of what had been the bed of the river, but the legal ownership of the bed was vested in another person. Held by the King's Bench Division that as the authority had a de facto occupation of the floating dock and basin they were rateable in respect of such occupation. This decision was not appealed against. The harbour authority were empowered to charge not only rates or dues for the use of the docks, wharves, &c., but also harbour rates on shipping or goods whether the vessels entered dock or not. Held by the Court of Appeal, reversing the decision of the King's Bench Division, that as the harbour rates were in the nature of tolls in gross, and the occupation of the rateable hereditaments was not necessary to the right to demand these rates, the rates were not to be taken into consideration in assessing the rateable value of the hereditaments occupied by the harbour authority. Swansea Harbour Trustees v. Swansea Union Assessment Committee and Overseers (K. B. D., 21 Dec., 1905; C.A., 7th April, 1906), 94 L. T. 627; 70 J. P. 305; 4 L. G. R. 882; 22 T. L. R. 201, 433. Harbour Incorporation of Borough-Scheme for Differential A scheme settled by a Committee of the Privy Council on the incorporation of a borough in 1894 provided that a harbour within the borough should "not in future pay to the borough or be assessed for any rate or charges * * * * at a higher rate of assessment than at present, that is to say, 3d. in the per annum (exclusive of the rate for the relief of the poor and the other charges at present collected with the poor rate within the harbour district)" so long as the harbour should pay for its own lighting, cleansing, &c. Held that the harbour was liable to be rated for the expenses of the corporation, as local education authority, under section 18 of the Education Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 42). Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners v. Whitehaven Union Assessment Committee (K.B.D., 11 Dec., 1905), 94 L.T. 504; 70 J.P. 89; 4 L.G.R. 128. Railway-Earnings Outside Parish-Parochial Principle. A railway company were assessed for the portion of their railway in the parish of Ilminster. It was contended by the overseers that in rating the railway they were entitled to take into account not only the actual earnings of the railway within the parish, but also some portion of the gross receipts earned in other parishes in respect of traffic arising or terminating at Ilminster. Held, that no portion of the gross receipts earned in other parishes could be taken into account. Great Western Railway Co. v. Ilminster Overseers (K. B. D., 1881), 4 L. G. R. (Note) 99. |