have been in exclusive occupation of the said railway, as carriers, no other carriers having availed themselves of the privileges conferred by the act of providing carriages or power independent of the company. There is no station or building in Tilehurst, nor is there any extraordinary profit or expense in the repairs or maintenance of the railway in that parish; but the expenses may, for the purpose of these rates, be fairly taken as proportional to the length in the parish, as compared with the whole length of the united lines. The different stations and buildings throughout the lines, are to be considered as rated separately from the railway. The following are the detailed particulars of the mode in which the rates, allowed by the Court of Quarter Sessions, was ascertained by the parish officers. The gross receipts of each mile in the parish of Tilehurst were ascertained to be 3,680l. The expenses of the whole line of the three railways, during the period to which therates apply, amounted to the sum of 257,205l. 14s. 11d., comprised under the following heads : Adding to this the annual depreciation of the plant, or moveable stock, necessary for working the whole line of railway, together with the branches, which amounted to 20,000l. a-year, the total expenses amounted to 277,2051. 14s. 11d. The proportional expenses of one mile (being 175th of the whole,) 1,584l. The value of the whole plant or moveable stock, at its first cost, was about 580,000l. On this sum, the respondents allowed 51. per cent. as interest on that stock 101. per cent. as tenants' profits, including the profits of trade .... £. s. d. 29,000 0 0 58,000 0 0 87,000 0 0 49700 Leaves.. £1,599 0 0 This balance of 1,599l. was taken by the respondents, and found by the Sessions to represent the net rateable value of each mile of the railway in Tilehurst parish; and the Sessions find the above amounts and sums to be correct, but submit to the judgment of this Court, the principle on which the calculation is founded, and the propriety and sufficiency of the deductions. They further state that the per-centage mentioned above, as tenants' profits, is not to be taken as the actual profits of the company from trade, the whole of their receipts and profits being in fact derived directly from their trade; but the Sessions find that per-centage to include such a reasonable profit of trade as would induce a lessee who carried on the like business under the same circumstances, to forego the rest, and to pay it as rent. The appellants contended, that assuming the estimate of the respondents to be founded on just principles, the following additional deductions ought to be made : 1. The buildings, stations, shops, sheds, and other erections, appurtenant to the Great Western line alone, rated or rateable separately from the railway, and necessary for the profitable enjoyment of it, may be taken, for the purposes of these rates, as worth 35,000l. a-year rateable value at the time of making the rates; and the appellants claim a portion of this sum to be deducted from the receipts in Tilehurst parish. This deduction, if to be taken as Tith of the whole, is 2961. per mile; if to be taken as 15th of the whole, 2001. per mile. In like manner the annual value of the buildings, stations, &c. on the two branch railways above mentioned, may be taken at 10,000l. per annum, and if the united value of these buildings in all the three railways is a proper deduction, then the deduction (being 15th of the whole) is 257l. per mile. 2. The appellants further claimed a deduction in respect of depreciation, and wear and tear of rails and sleepers, being the solid timber and iron-work of the Great Western Railway alone. This expense is not included in the item of maintenance of way above mentioned; nor has it been found necessary as yet, by the company, to appropriate any annual fund for this purpose, because this expense has hitherto been taken from the capital, and not deducted from the revenue; but such deduction, if proper, is to be taken at 20,000l. a-year, in respect of the whole of the Great Western Railway, exclusive of the branches. If divided by 118, the amount per mile is 169l. If divided by 175, the amount per mile is 1147. 3. The appellants further claimed the following deductions: 51. per cent. interest on 420,000l., being the outlay in forming the Great Western Railway Company, obtaining the act of incorporation, raising the capital, and other original expenses, 21,000l. per annum. 4. Income tax paid by the company in pursuance of stat. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, amounting in the whole to 10,000l. 5. Additional parochial assessments not actually paid, but which will be payable in consequence of the recent decisions of this Court on the rating of railways, 12,000l. at least. This last item includes the rates on all the three railways occupied by the company. It has not yet been paid; nor can it be clearly ascertained until the deductions are settled in each rate. 6. The annual total loss on the two branch lines already referred to, 10,500l. 7. The appellants further contended, that instead of ascertaining the tenants' profits by a per-centage on the original value of the plant, or moveable stock, they will be more correctly represented by a per-centage on the gross receipts; and that for that purpose 151. per cent. on 3,680l. should be deducted, viz. 5521. 8. It was stated, on the part of the respondents, that the plant, or moveable stock of the company was, at the time of making the rates, depreciated in value; and the Sessions find that, in fact, it was so depreciated, and was then worth about 500,000l., and not the sum of 580,000l. as above stated; and if any of the deductions demanded by the company were allowed, then the respondents claimed to take such reduced value on the sum upon which interest and tenants' profits should be calculated, that is to say, 151. per cent on this sum, 75,000l. And the portion of this in respect of a mile in Tilehurst, 4281. The Sessions find the several sums and particulars above mentioned correct in amount, for the purposes of the present case, and they refer to this Court the propriety and principle of all or any of the above deductions. The rates were to be confirmed, quashed, or amended, or the appeal remitted for further inquiry, according to the opinion of this Court upon all, or any, of the above points. This case was argued in Michaelmas term 1844. Whateley, Tyrwhitt, and Bros, for the respondents. The deductions have been made according to the directions of the Parochial Assessment Act, 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 96. s. 1, and are sufficient. First, there are no stations and buildings situate in Tilehurst, nor can any deductions be made from the rate in Tilehurst for stations and buildings situate and rated in other parishes. In The Queen v. the London and South-Western Railway Company (1), the Court, in giving judgment, states, "the subject (1) 1 Q.B. Rep. 558; s. c. 11 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 93. matter of the rate in any particular parish is, no doubt, the beneficial occupation of the land there, and you cannot draw into the rate the value of the occupation of buildings elsewhere; yet, as you are to rate on the value in the parish, however occasioned, you cannot strike off any portion, because it would not have existed but for the occupation of buildings in another parish; still it exists, and in the parish, and cannot, therefore, escape the rate there." This deduction was allowed in The Queen v. the Grand Junction Railway Company (2), but there it was an item admitted by the respondents, and not questioned at all at the Quarter Sessions. In The King v. the Trustees of the Duke of Bridgewater (3), the canal, with the tolls and wharfs, and buildings adjacent, were rated, but no deduction was claimed for the rate, in respect of the wharfs and buildings. The principle with regard to canals, is, that the proprietors are to be rated " in respect of the lands which they occupy in every parish through which the canal passes, and for that value which the land there produces"-The King v. Kingswinford (4). Nor is any difference to be made in the mode of rating, whether the subject-matter of the occupation be productive of itself, or rendered productive by something brought from another parish, or by being used in conjunction with property brought from another parish-The King v. Lower Mitton (5). The principle of this rate is the receipts per mile in the parish of Tilehurst. Such a mode of rating is sanctioned by The King v. Woking (6). The same mode of valuation was not adopted in The Queen v. the London and South-Western Railway Company, and The Queen v. the Grand Junction Railway Company. The mode of calculating the tenants' profits in the latter case, in respect of which a deduction is to be made from the gross receipts, was to ascertain the capital required, and to allow interest upon that sum, and a per-centage equal to the risk incurred by the tenant, and the industry required. That mode was sanctioned by the Court. They also referred to The Queen v. Capel (7). Secondly, there is no ground for deduction for the wear and tear of sleepers, which are composed of solid timber. These are not ordinary repairs, in respect of which a portion of the receipts is to be set apart-The King v. Tomlinson (8), The Queen v. the Cambridge Gas Light Company (9), The King v. Lower Mitton. It is true, that in The Queen v. the Grand Junction Railway Company, a deduction was made "for renewing or reproducing those portions of the subject of the rate which are of a perishable nature, such as the rails, chairs, and sleepers, &c., when rendered necessary by accident or decay." But that is no authority, as the point was not discussed at sessions or in this court. The principle of the Parochial Assessment Act proceeds upon lettings "from year to year;" under such holdings, a fund for rebuilding is not a "usual tenant's rate or tax," on account of which a deduction is to be made, under the statute, from the rateable value. No allowance of this kind was claimed either in,The King v. the Trustees of the Duke of Bridgewater, or in The King v. the Hull Dock Company (10), though, in the latter case, a great part of the docks had been rebuilt and a heavy expenditure incurred. Thirdly, no allowance can be made for obtaining the company's act, or the other expenses attending the formation of the company. It might as well be contended, that allowance should be made in rating an estate for the expense and trouble of investigating the title. No such deduction is authorized by section 1. of the Parochial Assessment Act. Fourthly, a claim for deduction is made in conse(2) 4 Q.B. Rep. 18; s. c. 13 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) quence of additional charges arising from the decisions of the Court. The company has not paid them, and there can be no pretence for claiming any allowance for those charges prospectively. Fifthly, no deduction can be made on account of the alleged losses on the branch lines. They cannot affect the rating on the Great Western line. The question is, not whether the branch lines are a losing concern or not, in any particular year, but whether the company have a beneficial occupation of themThe King v. Parrot (11), The Queen v. Vange (12), The King v. Attwood (13), The King v. Mirfield (14), The King v. the Hull Dock Company, The King v. Chaplin (15). Sixthly, as to the mode of ascertaining the tenants' profits. The officers have charged a per-centage on the original value of the plant, as in The Queen v. the Cambridge Gas Light Company, and The Queen v. the Grand Junction Railway Company. Lastly, if any deduction is to be made for stations, the division should be by 118 miles, and not by 175, as the company do not repair the stations on the branch lines. Hill and Carrington, contrà. -The main principle is not disputed, namely, that the gross receipts are to be taken as the basis of the rate; from them proper deductions have to be made. In making them, the cases which have been cited must be applied with great caution, as in all but The Queen v. the South-Western Railway Company, and The Queen v. the Grand Junction Railway Company, the rateable value has been ascertained, either by a comparison with similar property, or by making the tolls taken the criterion of the rate. Those principles are not applicable here. The stations are necessary for the profitable use of the railway. They assist in earning the money. Upon the ground, therefore, that a mileage division is proper, as was decided in The King v. the Oxford Canal Company (16), and adopted in The Queen v. the Grand Junction Railway Company, some allowance must be made for the stations in every parish through which the railway passes. Each station is so much burthen, not producing in itself any profit, and its expense must therefore be thrown over the whole line. If there had been a station in Tilehurst, it would not be correct to deduct from the earnings in Tilehurst the whole expense of that station, which would contribute equally to the earnings in the next parish. Secondly, as to the depreciation fund, it is hardly contested on the other side that allowance may not be made in this way for works which have been actually done in the course of the current year. But it is said that no fund has been set apart for this. That is not necessary even with ordinary repairs. The case of The King v. the Hull Dock Company, and the statute 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 96. s. 1, shew that the true principle of rating is to estimate the expenses and profits, not from year to year, or for each year, but communibus annis. Where the rent is the basis of the rate, an allowance is made in the shape of deduction, "where the subject is of a perishable nature, towards the expense of renewing or reproducing it"-The Queen v. the Cambridge Gas Light Company, The King v. Lower Mitton, The King v. Tomlinson. Thirdly, the expenses of obtaining the act of parliament, and of the formation of the company ought to be allowed. An express act of parliament is necessary to enable the company to carry. Deductions are made for the cost of the plant, and should on the same principle be made for the expenses of the act and production of the capital. Fourthly, the income-tax is an outgoing, and is partly a tenant's tax and ought therefore to be deducted from that which is to form the basis of the rate, which is to be free from " usual tenants' rates and taxes." Fifthly, upon the principle of considering the rate communibus annis, parochial assessments not yet imposed may be taken into consideration -though it cannot be correctly ascertained 62. (16) 10 B. & C. 163; s. c. 8 Law J. Rep. M.С. what they will be. Sixthly, the loss on the branch railways is an outgoing to be allowed for. It is part of the cost of bringing traffic to the main line-The King v. the Oxford Canal Company is again applicable to this consideration. No tenant would take the branches separately from the main line so long as they are worked at a loss. The loss upon the branches must affect the rent. Lastly, the depreciation of the plant and stock must be taken into the account. The question is not as to the present state of the capital; but it must be ascertained what capital has been embarked in the concern. Cur. adv. vult. Judgment was now (January 22,) delivered by LORD DENMAN, C.J. - This case has stood over for some time, from the wish to afford it the fullest consideration; and as our decision must be governed by the principles laid down in the two cases of the South-Western and Grand Junction Railways, it may be convenient to recapitulate briefly what was in those cases decided; not that they introduced any new principle into the law of rating, but because the circumstances under which the established principle was applied were somewhat novel. We there laid down, that although the profits of trade carried on by the occupier of land upon it cannot be made directly the subject of the rate assessed in respect of such occupation, and that the value of the occupation alone was the proper subject, yet in that value was to be included what ever at the time formed part of it, whether permanently or not, and from whatever source derived, and therefore, of course, not less so, although derived in any proportion from the fact of the trade being so carried on upon it. Further, that although the sum to be sought was that which, after all due deductions made, a tenant might be found to give by way of rent from year to year, in order to be placed, as occupier, in the same position as the party rated, yet this was to be sought, not by drily considering what rent would be given for so many miles of railway as happened to be in the rating parish, apart from all the actual co existing circumstances; but by including in the consideration all such as would necessarily attend upon the occupation under the demise, and influence the tenant's mind as to the amount of rent which he would give. In the application of these principles, the practical difficulty for those who assess the rate in cases of such complication as railways often present, will be to distinguish accurately between that which is properly referable to the trade alone, and that increase of value which the carrying on of the trade upon the land gives to the occupation of it. The case of the Grand Junction Railway in Davidson and Merivale, vol. i, p. 237, presented many circumstances the same as exist in the case now before us; and we thought the parish officers there had successfully met the difficulty. We are now to examine the rate stated in this case, only, however, as to its principles, and so much of its details as involve principle: beyond that, and especially as to the accuracy of calculations, the questions must be for the Sessions alone. We have here a company sole occupiers of a line, of which they are owners; of this the land, in respect of which they are rated, forms a part; they are also sole occupiers, as lessees, of two branch lines, both issuing out of the line first named; upon all these lines they carry on exclusively a large trade as carriers; the net receipts of which, from the branch lines alone, if set against their expenses and rent, would make the occupation of them, in fact, a losing concern; but this occupation increases the traffic upon the main line; and for the sake of this the company are content to sustain that partial loss. In order to ascertain the rate, the course pursued has been to take the gross receipts per mile in the respondent parish, and this sum is not in dispute. The deductions to be made from this are calculated on a mileage proportion of all the expenses and outgoings, taking the whole three lines as one entire line, in all particulars in which the appellants are at all chargeable; and we do not understand this mode to be objected to. Setting the proportion of these per mile against the gross receipts per mile, the residue has been taken as the rateable value per mile. We are then to see whether these deductions include all |