1860. The QUEEN V. SHIRE Canal difficulty presents itself, from the circumstance that the adjoining lands are no longer rateable simply as land. They have become in many instances covered with build- GLAMORGANings of a valuable description, and the value of the land becomes, as it were, merged in that of the buildings by Company. which it is covered. It is possible, however, to ascertain the value of the land as applicable and subservient to building purposes, as distinguished from the joint value of land and buildings; but here a new difficulty presents itself. By The Parochial Assessment Act, property is to be rated according to the rent which a tenant from year to year might be expected to give for it. Now a tenant from year to year would not give for the land in question a rent equivalent to its value for building purposes; it is only in the hands of a lessee with a long term that the land would have this larger value. For this reason this Court, then consisting of my Lord Campbell and Erle J., in the case of Regina v. The Grand Junction Canal Company (a), held, on a provision similar to the present, that land occupied by a canal Company was not liable to be rated otherwise than as agricultural land, notwithstanding that the adjoining land was occupied as land covered with buildings. We cannot, upon consideration, bring ourselves to acquiesce in the propriety of that decision. It appears to us that, in applying The Parochial Assessment Act to such a case as the present, the criterion is not what a tenant from year to year would give for the land to be rated, that is, the land occupied by the canal Company, but what such a tenant would give for the adjoining land, according to the rating of which the land in question is, by the provision of the enactment which we are called upon to construe, to be rated. Now (a) 7 Weekly R. 597. 1860. The QUEEN V. GLAMORGAN SHIRE It the adjoining land, being built upon, is worth so much to a tenant from year to year, as land built upon. In the yearly rent paid for a building, a certain proportion of the rent must be taken as paid in respect of the land Company. occupied by the building. That proportion, larger, no doubt, than the value of the land if not applied to building purposes, is capable of being ascertained. is, in our opinion, the rateable value of the adjoining land, and should be taken to be the proportion in which the lands and grounds lying near the canal in question are rated, within the 67th section of this Act of Parliament; and, consequently, as the proportion in which the land occupied by the canal is to be rated. To rate the latter according to what a tenant from year would give for it, independently of what such a tenant would give for the adjoining land, is, as it seems to us, to rate it independently of the rating of the adjoining land; in other words, to give no effect to the provision of the section according to which the rating is to be made. We hold, on these grounds, that the position taken by the argument of the appellants, that the whole of the land in question ought to be rated as mere land, is not tenable, as relates to the adjoining land when built upon or made into wharfs. But as, where the adjoining land has not been applied to such purposes, it must be treated as land under The Parochial Assessment Act, and cannot therefore be rated as land applicable to building purposes, at all events beyond what a tenant from year to year would give for it for such a purpose, it appears to us that the true principle on which the rate should be made is, that the land covered with buildings, valued as we have already pointed out, should be brought into hotchpot with the land of the other be description, in each particular parish; and that the land be amended accordingly. Rate to be amended. 1860. The QUEEN V. GLAMORGAN SHIRE Canal Company. BLECH against BALLERAS and Others. Friday, DECLARATION. That, before and at the time of Plaintiff, having char the making the agreement hereinafter mentioned, tered a steamer, agreed with defendants to take out some engines in her to Barcelona, it being known to both parties that the engines could not be shipped unless some alterations were made in her hatchways. The agreement contained the following conditions. First: that plaintiff should lay the steamer on her berth at Liverpool for Barcelona. Secondly: that she should not be required to lie on her berth longer than ten days. Thirdly: that she should make the voyage from there to Barcelona for the lump sum of 6507., plaintiff to pay all charges. Fourthly: that defendants should load in the steamer two engines and tenders complete, for 2407., freight to be paid at Liverpool on delivery of bills of lading, without any deduction for interest or insurance. Fifthly: that such of the above goods as weighed above 20 cwt. should be put in the steamer, stowed, taken out and landed at shipper's risk and expense. Sixthly that the said goods should be taken out of the steamer as soon as the captain was ready to deliver them, in five days, Sunday excepted; and 207. sterling demurrage to be paid by the shipper or receiver of the said goods, for every day that she was detained over and above five days. Seventhly: that the steamer should be entered in the joint names of plaintiff and defendants, so that the latter might assist to get cargo. Eighthly: that any surplus of freight above 6507. should be divided between plaintiff and defendants, and also any loss which might result. Ninthly: that the said steamer should guarantee to carry 480 tons dead weight, besides 40 tons of coal in the bunkers. Tenthly: that the bills of lading for the whole cargo of the said steamer should be signed at the office of plaintiff. Eleventhly: that the steamer should be consigned at Barcelona to the friends of defendants, paying 27. commission on the above freight. The steamer was put on her berth at Liverpool, and, by consent of her owner, the beams in her hatchways were removed, for the stowage of the engines, at the joint expense of plaintiff and defendants. The engines, which exceeded 20 cwt. in weight, were then brought alongside; and it was found, before ten days had expired, that they would not go down the hatchways, notwithstanding the removal of the beams. The consent of the shipowner to the further widening of the hatchways was thereupon obtained; on condition that the ship should, before sailing, be made right, to the satisfaction of Lloyd's surveyor. In 1860. BLECH V. BALLERAS. the necessary plaintiff was lawfully possessed of a certain screw steamvessel called The William France, and thereupon afterwards defendants agreed with plaintiff as follows. First: that plaintiff should lay the steamer William France on the consequence of berth in Liverpool for Barcelona, on her arrival at Liverpool from London, having discharged her cargo. Secondly: that the said steamer should not be required to lie on her berth longer than ten days. Thirdly: that the said steamer should make the voyage from Liverpool to Barcelona for the lump sum of 6502., plaintiff to pay all charges. Fourthly that defendants should load in the said steamer two engines and tenders complete for 2401, freight to be paid at Liverpool on delivery of bills of lading, without any deduction for interest or insurance. delay for widening the hatchways and making the ship thus right, she lay on her berth thirteen days beyond the stipulated ten. Plaintiff having brought this action, on the second clause of the agree ment, for demurrage in respect of the detention by Fifthly: that such of the above goods as should weigh above 20 cwt. should be put in the said steamer, defendants of stowed, taken out and landed at the shipper's risk and the ship on her berth beyond ten days: Held, that defend ants were liable on that expense. Sixthly: that the said goods should be taken out of the said steamer, as soon as the captain should be ready to deliver them, in five days, Sunday excepted, clause, it being and 201. sterling demurrage should be paid by the shippers or receivers of the above named goods, for every day she should be detained over and above five days. Seventhly: that the said steamer should be entered out in the joint names of plaintiff and defendants, so that the latter might assist in getting cargo. Eighthly that any surplus of freight above 650% should be divided between defendants and plaintiff, and also The Judge any loss which might result. Ninthly: that the said collateral to and independent of any partner ship in the freight; assuming that the agreement constituted a partnership to some extent between the parties in that respect. directed the jury that, by reason of the 5th clause of the agreement, defendants, were liable for any detention of the ship necessary to effect such alterations in her as would enable the engines to be put on board by defendants. Held a right direction. steamer should guarantee to carry 480 tons dead weight, besides 40 tons of coals in the bunkers. Tenthly: that the bills of lading for the whole cargo of the said steamer should be signed at the office of plaintiff. Eleventhly: that the said steamer should be consigned at Barcelona to the friends of defendants, paying 27. per cent. commission on the above freight. Averment: that plaintiff did accordingly lay the said steamer on the berth in Liverpool, according to the terms of the said agreement. Breach: that although, before suit, all conditions precedent had been performed and fulfilled, and everything had happened and been done, and all times had elapsed, necessary to entitle plaintiff to a performance of the said agreement by defendants, and to maintain his action for the breach thereof thereinafter mentioned, Yet defendants did not perform the said agreement on their part, and did require the said steamer to lie on her berth longer than ten days; and accordingly the said steamer was detained by defendants in and about the loading the said engines and tenders on board the said steamer at her berth, and the said steamer did, on that account, lie on her berth for a longer space than ten days, to wit, for the space of twenty-three days; and by reason of the premises plaintiff had been put to and incurred divers great costs and expenses, &c. The declaration also contained counts for money payable by defendants to plaintiff for the demurrage of a ship of plaintiff kept on demurrage by defendants, and for money found to be due from defendants to plaintiff on an account stated between them. Pleas. 1. To first count. That plaintiff was not possessed of the said vessel, and that defendants did not 1860. BLECH V. BALLERAS. |