sion of the duties of the parish officers and of an appellant. Where property is rateable it is the duty of the officers to include it in the rate, and to take what means they can to ascertain its value. It is not for them to omit it altogether, and to cast upon the appellant what is properly their duty, the burden of proving its value. In the case of a single omission the difficulty upon the appellant might not be very great; but where all the property of a given description is omitted, the difficulty might be excessive. Before the 41 Geo. 3. the omission of a single individual who ought to have been included, compelled the sessions to quash the whole rate, and so as he was rateable at all, the extent to which he was rateable was not in question. The statute 41 Geo. 3. requires the sessions to amend amend or or alter a rate appealed against, without quash a quashing it; but with this proviso, that if the sessions shall think it necessary, for the purpose of giving relief to the appellant, to quash the rate, they may do so; and when a rate contains so many omissions, that it Power of sessions to rate. Poor people not rateable. can hardly be expected of an appellant that he should have evidence to show the extent to which each person omitted ought to be rated, and where the investigation before the sessions would be likely to exhaust more time than they could reasonably be required to give up, we think it would not be an improper exercise of their discretion to quash the rate, and make the officers do in the end what they ought to have done at the beginning. Another answer is, that the sessions do not appear to us to have made this a ground upon which they wish for our opinion. "As to the question of the lessee, whose under-tenants have been excused from poverty, the point was not very much pressed upon us in the argument, and we think the lessee not liable. The statute 9 & 10 W. 3. imposes the rate, indeed, upon the land, &c. without mentioning either occupier or owner. But as this is a burden commonly falling on the occupier, and rarely imposed upon the owner, we think the owner not compellable to bear it. The owner fixes his rent upon the supposition that this is his tenant's burden; and without very clear words to show that such was the intention, we think we cannot make the landlord surety for the tenant. Rate on the Dock to be on the same scale of value as other pro "As to the question, whether the rate upon the company should be according to the full amount of their profits, without making any deduction for the sum they are liable to pay for poor-rates, we think perty. the rate ought to be so made. This property is to be charged according to its worth and value, in like manner, and in the same proportion as other real property is charged in the same rate. If other real property is charged only at three fourths, or any other part of its value, after making deductions of the same nature, as those that have been made in the case of the company, the company ought to be charged in the same proportion. If other real property is charged according to the rack-rent actually paid by the occupier, and according to a rate so estimated, where the occupier is not a tenant at such rent, there will, Mode of computing the rate. even in those cases, be a virtual allowance in respect of the poor-rate, such a rent being, in reality, a part only of the worth or value of the land; the whole worth or value is made up of what is paid in rent, and what in rates and other outgoings. Land intrinsically worth 40%. a-year, can only pay a rent of 30%., if it is to pay 107. per annum in other ways; and in estimating a rent, both landlord and tenant look to the value of the thing on the one hand, and to the outgoings on the other; and the outgoings must be deducted from the value before the rent can properly be fixed. Wherever, therefore, the rate is according to the rent, which is generally the case, an allowance is virtually made for the poorrate; and if this rate is made according to the rents, the company should have the allowance. The mode of estimating the allowance is a different thing; that suggested in the case is clearly wrong; for if 22251., the present rate, is deducted from the 89007., the rate upon 66757. only will leave part of the rateable proportion of 89007. free from rate; the allowance must be so made, that the sum, upon which the annual rates are made, may, with the amount of the rates, make up the 89001. This sum, according to the present rate, will be 71207., and the sum to be paid by the company will be 1780.; the process of calculation will be adapted to the amount of the rate; it is sufficient for us to propound the rule, leaving the process of calculation to others. Upon the whole, therefore, all persons Decision. omitted (except Nicholas Osborn) must be put upon the rate. The rate payable by the dock company must be reduced to 1780%., and the case must be sent down to the sessions, that they may introduce the proper sums, if they find it practicable, or they may quash the rate if it be not. "In the other case, the rate is 6s. 8d. in the pound; the sum upon which the rate is to be made will be 54871. 15s., and the rate will be 18291. 5s.” |