Assessment Court.

Thames Star, Volume XVI, Issue 5033, 28 February 1885, Page 2

Assessment Court.

(Before H. Kenrick. Esq., E.M.)

His Worship delivered the following judgment in the Court this morning on the objection of A. Brodie, County Chairman, to the * valuation placed on the County mains running through the Borough:—He said it would appear from the English authorities quoted that deci.sions have been given ruling Corporations liable for assessment to rates in districts where their occupation of land is limited to a mere right of occupancy of the soil by their mains beneath the surface. In the case of the Chelsea Waterworks Company, the company were held liable'to be rated, as having the exclusive' though limited occupation of the soil for their miins, even though the surface of the soil under which the mains were laid was also rated to the owner. The principle appears to be that the right, limited as it may be, is in effect a beneficial occupation of land rateable to the extent of the benefit derived. It must be remembered that these authorities are interpreting the words of the Statutes or charters under which the respective companies are incorporated. In tho absence of these statutes or charters, it is somewhat difficult to apply the same interpretation to the limited definition of the words rateable property in our own Bating Act; but the decision given Fn the. West Middlesex Waterworks Company and others—taken in conjunction with the interpretation placed upon the rateable powers granted under the Towns Improvement Act, 10 and 11 Vie, to local bodies —thereby justifies the interpretation sought to be placed upon the Bating Act by the ; Borough authorities when assessing the i County Council for these mains. Exempi tions appear to be recognised, in cases where corporate bodies manage cither gas or water works solely on public grounds, their occupation of the land being, deemed to be for public purposes only ; but the exemption will not apply where profit is made, even though those profits are applied to the reduction of rates. The Thames County Council cannot therefore claim exemption on this ground, neither do I think that they come in in the exemption named in Sub-section 2 of Section 37 of the Eating Act, 1876, (re exemption on account of goldmining purposes). The Thames water-race was proclaimed and constructed, by the Provincial Government under the authority of the Public Works, Act, 1870. But this power is not limited to the construction of water-races for goldmining purposes only, and as a matter of fact the waler brought in under the above quoted authority appears to have been used for other than gold mining purposes. The Council who, by the Act of 1880, have thn- race vested in them with all rights and privileges, and subject to the same liabilities as the Crown, cannot, I think, sustain their contention that their title- to this race is an authority from the Crown for gold mining purposes, they admittedly having no such limitation placed upon their powers. Having come to the conclusion that the Thames County Council is rightly held liable to assess* ment for rates in respect to their mains carried through the streets of the Borough, there arises the further question—Have they been properly assessed—in substance and form —apart altogether from the amount of the assessment, which is ad mittedly excessive ? The Valuer appears to have assessed on the capital value of the mains themselves, adding thereto the value of the labor spent in laying the pipes down, taking five per cent, upon their value as the amount cf his assessment. He states that his assessment ii npart altogether from any value attachable' tothe beneficial occupation of the laud. This he appears to have found difficult, if not impossible, to fix. Now, the Valuer ii restricted in his valuation by the 4e«

noition of the words rateable value, gli'fn in the JRating Act, 1876. JRent at which a property would let from year to yen', or Qre per cent, on tho value of the ifee simple, being tho only method allowable : to arrive at an assessment on rateable value, it is dear that.the Valuer ltai adopted Deither of these methodt, but simply taken instant deduction! of the capital value of the moveable property apart from the land. Thore can be no doubt that the assetisment must be held to be bad;, it ii inequitable inasmuch an no deduction* what* erer. are made, and there is no "sufficient evidence before me'to'enable'mc'i fo Supply the omission; and it is illegal inasmuch as he has not taken.either the letting value .. or the value of L the fee. simple—if,such a. value can be said to attach to the limited beneficial occupation of the foil by theie mains. Two modes of arriving at the rateable value of a company's mains appeared to have been decided as correct m England, viz.: the profitable occupation—i.e., to take the net profits realised after making every possible deduction ; such is set oat ia detail in the judgment given in Begin a v. Inhabitants of Lee, 35 LJ, lie 106, L.H. 128 241. Next, the letting value, taking into consideration the improved value given to the land, from the/water mains being laid in it. Lee v. Cambridge Gaslight Co. Ad, and E 73 V. 6, 3 S. and B. 262. There being no way by w&icb I can amend the assessment—no evidence to enable me to say what the rateable value of these maim should be,— I must strike the assessment of £760 out.

MIDDLE WARD. The name of James McAndrew waa substituted for that of J. M.Mennie in - connection with a section ia Pahau f Street..