between the two. Plaintiffs, besides other works on the river, had scoured a shoal between the said bridge and Mr. Edmond's wharf, and on their annual survey they always disembarked at that wharf. In 1874, the plaintiffs having amended their toll list so as to charge for the first time tolls proportioned to a fractional part of a mile traversed, the defendant who was owner of oil mills situate on the Medway less than a mile above the College Lock, but more than a mile above Mr. Edmond's wharf, refused to pay any toll upon barges coming up the river to his mills. Held, that the plaintiffs were entitled to charge tolls proportioned to a fractional part of a mile traversed since the amendment of their list, without reference to the three months' limitation provided by sect. 38. In Fisher v. Lee,1 it was held, that blocks cut with wedges from the quarry, and, therefore, reduced to certain dimensions according to order, and squared with a pickaxe, to be used as railway sleepers, each being after such preparation worth ninepence more than unwrought stone of the same weight,-were liable to the toll as stones only, and not as merchandize under a Navigation Act,2 which imposed a toll on "every ton of butter or other goods, "wares, merchandizes, and commodities," and a lower toll on "every ton of coals, cinders, lime, and limestone, "stone, gravel, and manure." Tame v. Grand Junction Canal Co.3 also turned on the construction of certain canal Acts. By 33 Geo. III. c. lxxx, the Grand Junction Canal Company were empowered to take tolls for the passage of manure between Braunston and Brentford. By sect. 97, persons occupying lands through which the canal passed might carry manure without payment. By 34 Geo. III. 1 12 A. & E. 622; 4 P. & D. 447. 27 Geo. III. c. 96. 3 11 Exch. 786; 26 L. J., Exch. 222. Beneficial interest in tolls renders a company liable for c. xxiv, for making a cut to Buckingham, the powers and authorities mentioned in the former Act were to be exercised by the company and by the owners of land on the new cut as if re-enacted, and the like exemptions were to be allowed. By 35 Geo. III. c. xliii, reciting the firstmentioned Act, the company were empowered to make a cut to Paddington; and the several powers, authorities, matters, and things in the recited Act contained, except the rates, were to be used and exercised by the company, and applied for making the cut and for ascertaining tolls, and in all respects as if re-enacted, and as if the cut had been part of the works authorized to be made by the first Act. By 35 Geo. III. c. lxxxv, for making a cut from Watford to St. Albans, reciting the before-mentioned Acts, the powers granted thereby were to be exercised by the company and by the owners of lands as if re-enacted; and the like exemptions were allowed:-Held, first, that on the construction of 35 Geo. III. c. xliii, persons occupying land on the Paddington Cut could not carry manure on the canal free from toll; secondly, that the provisions of the several public local Acts with respect to tolls on different cuts, part of the same canal, might be compared in order to ascertain the meaning of a clause in the Paddington Act, alleged to create exemptions from tolls upon the Paddington Cut. As has been noted above, the possession of a beneficial interest in the tolls of a canal renders a company liable to actions for nuisance where damage is caused by negligence negligence in with regard to their works.1 works. Distress incident to tolls. A right of distress is incident to every toll.2 Where a canal company was empowered by its Act to take tolls for goods, and in case of nonpayment to distrain any carriage 1 Pages 25, 79. Manley v. St. Gibbs, 11 H. L. Cas. 686, &c.; or goods in respect of which such tolls ought to be paid; it was held, that trams could not be distrained for arrears of tolls due from the owners for goods carried in them if they were not carrying goods of such owners at the time of distress.1 Similarly, in Fraser v. Swansea Canal Co.,2 it was held, that where a canal company were authorized to impose rates of toll for carriage of goods; and in case of nonpayment to seize the goods and the boats laden therewith, and if such goods were not redeemed within seven days to sell the same; this clause did not empower them to distrain goods when no longer on the canal or to sell the boats. Rates. It is proposed now to consider the liability of the various Rates. rights of water that have been treated of to be assessed for the payment of poor rates. 8. 1. Basis of system of rating. The present system of parochial relief is based upon the 43 Eliz. c. 2, stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2,3 the last important measure of a series of enactments on the subject, which provides for the appointment of "the churchwardens of every parish, and four, "three or two substantial householders," under "the hand "and seal of two or more justices of the peace in the same county," as overseers of the poor of the same parish, and directs the said overseers to "take order" with consent of the justices "for setting to work the children of "all such whose parents" they shall deem unable to maintain them, as well as "all such persons, married or un"married," who are unable to maintain themselves and 1 Jenkins v. Cooke, 1 A. & E. 872. 2 1 A. & E. 354; see too Woolrych, 61. 3 See the remarks on the history and development of this branch of law in Castle on the Law of Rating, p. 1. The principal authorities and statutes to be noted are:-The Mirror of Justice, sect. 3; Bl. Comm. vol. i. c. ix. sect. 6; Dalton's Justice of the Peace; 5 Edw. III. c. 14; 7 C. Ric. II. c. 5; 12 Ric. II. c. 7; 15 Q Q 66 "use no ordinary and daily trade of life to get their living by;" and, lastly, empowers them "to raise, weekly or "otherwise, (by taxation of every inhabitant, parson, vicar, "and other, and of every occupier of lands, houses, tithes im“propriate, propriations of tithes, coal mines, or saleable "underwoods in the said parish, in such competent sum or "sums of money as they shall think fit), a convenient "stock of flax, hemp, wool, thread, iron and other necessary ware and stuff to set the poor on work. And also "competent sums of money for and towards the necessary "relief of the lame, impotent, old, blind, and such other "among them being poor and not able to work, and also "for the putting out of such children to be apprentices, to "be gathered out of the same parish according to the ability "of the same parish, and to do and execute all other things as well for the disposing of the said stock, as other"wise concerning the premises, as to them shall seem "convenient."1 66 143 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1-This statute referred to personal as well as real property, but the custom of not rating the former early arose, and was soon universally followed; and by 3 & 4 Vict. c. 89, it was finally exempted from assessment. The principles now governing the law of assessment were laid down in Sir Anthony Earby's case (3 Bulstrode, 34; cf. Dalton's Justice of the Peace; and see Castle's Law of Rating, pp. 17-23), and are now regulated by the 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 96; s. 1. of which provides: "Whereas it is desirable to estab"lish one uniform mode of rating "for the relief of the poor through"out England and Wales, and to "lessen the cost of appeals against 66 "and Wales shall be allowed by 66 any justices, or be of any force, "which shall not be made upon "an estimate of the net annual "value of the several heredita"ments rated thereunto, that is to say, of the rent at which the same "might reasonably be expected to let "from year to year, free of all usual "tenants rates and taxes, and tithe "commutation, rent-charge, if any, "and deducting therefrom the pro"bable average annual cost of the re"pairs, insurance and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain them "in a state to command such rent: Pro"vided always, that nothing herein "contained shall be construed to "alter or affect the principles,or dif"ferent relative liabilities, if any, ac cording to which different kind "of hereditaments are now by law "rateable" (cf. Castle's Law of Rating, 350-358, where the learned author says that: "The principal "difference between the law before "and after the passing of the Paro"chial Act, is, that formerly the "rate might be on any proportion (6 an unfair rate," it shall be enacted" that from and after such "period, being not earlier than "the twenty-first day of March "next after the passing of this Act "as the Poor Law Commissioners "shall by any order under their "seal of office direct; no rate for "the relief of the poor in England It is proposed to consider the rateability of rights connected with water in the following order : I. Piers, Harbours, Docks and Marine Property. II. Rivers and Ferries. III. Fisheries. IV. Canals. V. Water Companies; and VI. Bridges. and marine An estuary or arm of the sea is primâ facic extra-paro- Piers, harchial; but this presumption may be rebutted,' and, with bours, docks respect to the presumption of extra-parochiality, there is property. no distinction between the sea shore and the shore of a Estuaries and tidal river.2 Where a wet dock was constructed on a portion of land reclaimed from the ooze or bed of a navigable tidal river, and in order to prove that it was not part of the adjoining parish, evidence of perambulations of that parish, and of others abutting on other portions of the reclaimed land was given, which seemed to show that the rights of those parishes extended only to high water mark; but, against this, it appeared that in each of the parishes considerable tracts were reclaimed from the ooze or bed of the river, and rated to the poor; it was held, that the presumption of parochiality, arising from payment of these rates, outweighed the contrary presumption arising from the perambulations.3 "of the net profit, provided, with"in the parish, all lands were "rated on the same proportion, "whereas after the Act the net "value is made the basis that is "to be universally adopted); cf. Rex v. Adames, 4 B. & Ad. 61; and Reg. v. Capel, 12 A. & E. 382. With regard to the question for and over what period of time the value of property is to be ascertained, it must be noted, "first "that property must be valued in 'communibus annis, for the rent at 'which the property may be ex 66 "pected to let must be based on 1 Ipswich Dock Commissioners v. 2 Trustees of Duke of Bridgewater v. Surveyors of Highways for Bootlecum-Linacre, 7 B. & S. 348. 3 Ipswich Dock Commissioners v. St. Peters', Ipswich, supra. arms of the sea primâ facie extraparochial. |