of a grant of land to be used in a manner incompatible with any other mode of enjoying it. For if grafs were to grow on the way, the owner of the land would have a right to feed his cattle bn it. Rex v. W. Follife, 2 Term Rep. 90.

Ground yielding no Profit.

PART ART of the ground on which houfes had ftood, being con verted into an acre planted with trees for ornament and yielding no profit, is rateable to the poor. Rex v. Gardiner, Corp. 79.

The Tolls arifing from Navigation. Where rateable.

1. THE right of navigation of a river, with the tolls thereof, with power to erect fluices and ftaunches, is granted by letters patent. Tolls which are paid for paffing through each luice are rateable to the poor rate of the parish in which that fluice is erected, though the grantee refides elfewhere, and the tolls are collected in another parifh. Rex v. Cardington, Corup. 581.

2. A navigable canal extends 29 miles, 2790 yards of it lie within the local limits of the township of Leeds. The proprietors of it are rated to the fupport of the poor at L. for the tolls arifing out of this navigation, at a fum confiderably greater in proportion to the whole produce than that which the length of the canal in the township of Leeds bore to the reft of it. It was argued, that being evidently difproportionate to the extent of the navigation, the rate was bad, fince the proprietors were not liable to be rated for more than the proportion of the tolls which became due in the township of Leeds, and here they were rated for more; fo that L. received contribution from profits which accrued in other places, and for which the proprietors will be liable there. The court refused to quafh the rate, on the ground that it did not appear to be manifeftly unequal on the face of it, and they never enter into the queftion of inequality. But by Buller J. If a person have property in Yorkshire, and receive it in London, he fhall not be rated for it in London. A toll muft be confidered to be paid at the place where it becomes due, and not at the end of every mile for that mile; for it is an entire contract to carry the goods the whole distance intended, and the hire is payable at the place to which by that contract they are to be carried. Rex v. The Undertakers of the Aire and Calder Navigation, 2 Term Rep. 660.

3. A barge way and toll gate is fituated in the hamlet of H., and the herbage and pafture of the way are let out to leafe; the owners of the tolls have an intereft in the foil, in respect of which they may be rated for the tolls, which are an adventitious profit arifing out of the land, and fuch tolls, as become due in H. for

navigating

navigating veffels there, are rateable there although collected in another parish. Rex v. The Mayor, &c. of London, 4 Term Rep. 21.

4. By a navigation act, the proprietors are entitled to a toll of 45. per ton for goods carried from R. to N. and from N. to R., and to a proportionable fum for any lefs diftance; and they are enabled to collect the tolls at any intermediate place on the navigation, and to diftrain for them if unpaid. If goods are carried from R. to N., this is one integral voyage; the tolls are due at N. where the voyage is completed, and are rateable there, though they are collected at fome intermediate parish. Rex v. Page, 4 Term Rep. 543. Nol. Rep. 35.

5. Where the tolls of a navigation were vefted by ftatute in certain commiffioners, to be applied by them to the purposes of the a, and no other ufe whatsoever, they are not rateable to the poor. Rex v. The Commiffioners of Salter's Load Sluice Navigation, 4 Term Rep. 730. Nol. Rep. 90.

Property of the Crown and the Public.

OYAL palaces are not liable to be rated. Rex v. Mathews,
Cald. 1.

2. Nor buildings applied to public purpofes. Lord Amberft v. Lord Sommers, 2 Term Rep. 375.

3. The ranger of a royal park, in which there is inclosed arable land fowed by the king's fervants with the ranger's corn, reaped by him for his own benefit, and the ftraw appropriated to the use of the king's horfes, is an occupier of this land, and rateable as fuch. Lord Bute v. Grindall, 1 Term Rep. 338.

4. An under-keeper of a royal park, occupying feparately, by virtue of his office, an houfe and land in that park, is rateable for them to the maintenance of the poor. Rex v. Mathews, Cald. 1.

5. Where the fcite of a palace is demised to a subject for a certain permanent intereft, the grantees who occupy it, are rateable to the poor. Duke of Portland v. The Parish Officers of St. Margaret's, Weftminster, at nifi prius H. 33 G. 2. Wynne's Analyfis of the Poor Laws, p. 60.

What Places are not rateable as not having Occupiers.

1.

•TH HE apartments in an hofpital, inhabited by the fick or by fervants who attend there for their livelihood, are not rateable, for there are no occupiers to rate. It would be abfurd to call the poor objects of the charity fo for this purpose; neither can the leffees of the hofpital, in truft for the charitable purposes to which it applied, be confidered as fuch. Rex v. The Occupiers of St. Luke's Hofpital, a Burr. 1053. Black. 249.

2. But thofe apartments in them which are inhabited by offiters belonging to the hospital, as the chaplain, may be rated as fingle tenements, of which thefe officers are the occupiers. Ib. Eyre v. Smallpace, cited Burr. 1059. S. P. Said alfo to be determined by all the judges in the cafe of Greenwich hospital.

3. Where houfes belonging to an hofpital had been rated to the poor, and the governors pull them down and erect buildings on the feite for the ufe of the hofpital, and inclofe an area for the benefit of the patients, these premifes are not rateable, for there is no occupier. Rex v. Inhabitants of St. Bartholomew the Lefs, 4 Burr. 2435.

4. A corporation, feifed in fee for their own profit, are to be confidered as occupiers or inhabitants within the 43 of Eliz., and are rateable to the poor in their corporate capacity. Rex v. Gardner, Cowp. 79.

5. An alms-house, wholly occupied by objects of a charity or their attendants, and of which no profit is made, although the abfolute property of it is in the perfon who gives the alms, has no legal occupiers, and is not an object of taxation under the poor laws. Rex v. Peter Waldo, Cald. 358.

6. The colonel of a troop of the horfe guards, in confequence of a warrant under the fign manual, took a lease of stables for the ufe of the regiment; no perfons lived there, except two grooms paid to take care of the horfes The colonel is a trustee for the public, deriving no benefit to himfelf, and is not rateable as the occupier of the premises; and the property in queftion is to be confidered either as part of the poffethons of the crown or of the public, neither of which are liable to be rated. Lord Amherst v. Lord Sommers, 2 Term Rep 375

7. But the owner of ftables, in the parish of Mary-le-bone, rented by the colonel of a troop of horfe by the authority of the king, for the ufe of the troop, is liable to be affeffed for them to the rates collected in that parish, under the 10 G. 3. c. 23. Eckerfall v. Briggs, 4 Term Rep. 6.

8. Where the feflions found, in the cafe ftated for the opinion of K. B., that the mafter gunner at Seaford was the occupier of the battery house there, which was the property of the crown, and that he was removable at pleasure from his office, the court held that being found occupier precluded the question of his not being rateable, though it might have been contended below that he was not occupier in the legal fenfe of the word. Rex v. Hurdis, 3 Term Rep. 497.

9. A private ftatute in 12 Car. 2. vefted lands in trustees for the use of a free fchool and other eleemofynary purposes, and enacted that they should be free discharged and acquitted from and fball not be rated to any manner of public tax, affeffment, or charge whatsoever. The court were of opinion that the poor rate was a public tax within the meaning of this act, and that the lands are Bot rateable. Rex v. Scott, 3 Term Rep. 602.

10. Chambere

10. Chambers in an inn of court or of chancery are not liable to be affeffed to the poor's rate of the parish in which they are fituated, within the intent and meaning of 43 Eliz. c. 2. Moxon v. Horfenail et al. Comyn's Rep. 534. Vid. alfo Rex v. Juftices of Peterborough, Cald. 238.

Vin. 428. (G) Rates good or not and fet afide in what Cafes.
Inequality on the Face of it.

1. IT was moved to fet afide an order of feffions confirming a
rate, whereby the occupiers of land were affeffed at three-
fourths of the yearly value, and occupiers of houses at only one-
half, as being on the face of it unequal. Sed per cur. Here is no
apparent inequality, and we are not to prefume it. There may
be reasons to make a difference between lands and houses.
v. Brograve, 4 Burr. 2491.

Rex

2. On an appeal against a rate the feffions confirm it, and state the objection to be, that no difference was made in affeffing tenements and farms, confifting of lands and cottages or dwellinghoufes, whereas the custom was to rate the former in the proportion of one penny in the pound, and the latter of three farthings, the clear income of the latter being to the former in that rate. Per Lord Mansfield. The question is, does the rate appear on the face of it to be unequal? Unless it manifeftly does, the court will prefume it equal. Rate affirmed. Rex v. Butler et al. Cald. 93. Rex v. Hardy, Cowp. 579. S. P.

3. A rate was appealed against as unequal, because lands were rated at a penny and houfes at three farthings in the pound. The feflions quafh the rate, and order a new equal affeffment to be made, which was affirmed in B. R. Lord Mansfield C. J. The court has laid down no general rule as to the mode of affefling houfes and land. The proportion in which they contribute muft ever depend upon local circumftances, and if nine-tenths of the burthen arife from houfes, it ought to influence the judgment of the court below in adjusting the proportion. Rex v. Sandwich, otherwife Swannage, Cald. 105.

Where raised for other Purposes than fupporting the

Poor.

·A Rate cannot be made to reimburse an overfeer, but only to raise money for the relief of the poor; for the ftatute is exprefsly fo, and must be purfued. An overfeer is not bound to lay out money till he has it; if he does, he must make a new rate, and out of that he may retain. But a mandamus cannot be granted directing them to make one for the purpose. Tawney's cafe. 2 Salk. 591.

2. So where the title of a rate was "an affeffment, &c. for the neceffary relief of the poor, and towards payment of money borrowed for repairing and rebuilding the workhouse." The court were of opinion that one of the purposes for which it was made being to repay money borrowed, it must be quafhed on the authority of Tawney's cale. Rex v. Worrell, Dougl. 111.

3. Overfeers may make a rate to reimburse themselves for law expences neceffarily incurred. Rex v. Micklefield, Hil. 25 G. 3. 1 Bott by Conft, 78. pl. 103.

Where it should be quafhed. Where amended.

1. APPEAL against a rate, because many manufacturers of

blankets and other traders were not affeffed in it for their ftocks in trade. The rate was quafhed by the feffions on that ground. The court held the order of feffions to be wrong in quafhing the rate, for they ought to have added those persons and that property which they thought to be illegally omitted, and quafhed their order. Rex v. Witney, 5 Burr. 2634. Bott, 34. 2 Black. 709.

2. So where the stock in trade of common brewers and maltsters was omitted, and the rate quashed on appeal, the court quashed the order of feffions, because they should have amended the rate. Rex v. Ringwood, Cowp. 326.

3. But where a rate was quafhed because the owner of a number of houses was rated for them in grofs, and not the occupiers feverally, the court were of opinion that the feffions did right, and could not have amended it, for the infertion of the names would alter the other affeffments. Rex v. St. Catherine's, Gloucefter, Trin. 16 Geo. 3. B. R. Cited in Rex v. Maddern, H. 27 G. 3. and relied upon by Afhhurst J. in giving the opinion of the court. 4. Where a rate was quafhed for affeffing land and houses in an unequal proportion, the court were of opinion that the juftices could do nothing but quafh the whole rate. Rex v. Sandwich or

Swannage, Cald. 105.

5. And where a rate was quafhed by the feffions because the name of the vicar was omitted, and he was not affeffed for the fmall tithes, the court of K. B. were of opinion, upon deliberation, that the feffions did right in quashing the rate; for it is impoffible to draw the line between the omiflion of one perfon and that of fifty; and it is not enough to fay that the more money is raised the longer it will laft, for it may be an inconvenience to many to pay at once double the fum. Rex v. The Overfeers of Maddern, 1 Term Rep. 625. Rex v. St. Agnes, 3 Term Rep. 480. S. P.