that I understand the words 'beneficial occupation,' Chap. III. whenever it is said that to support a rate the occupation must be a beneficial one. For, on principle, it is by no means necessary that the occupation should be beneficial to the occupiers. It is sufficient if the property be capable of yielding a clear rent over and above the necessary outgoings" (r). Thus, (i) if there is evidence of value, an occupier may be rateable, although his occupation in fact results in a loss to himself (8). So a tramway or light railway company may be rateable in respect of an unproductive system or portion of a system. The question of the "contributive value" of such an unproductive line will be discussed hereafter. (ii) The doctrine that lands held for public purposes, other than the purposes of the Crown, are on that account not rateable is now exploded. The circumstance does not affect its rateability (t). Thus a local authority, working a tramway by special statutory power or a light railway, in aid of the rates, is rateable as if they were private promoters, unless the position is such that to rate them would amount to merely taking the rates with one hand and paying them back with the other (u).

Military and naval tramways constructed under Military Tramways Act, 1887, and Naval Works Act, 1899 (post, pp. 287, 296), will be exempt from rating as being in the occupation of the Crown or its servants for the purposes of the Crown (x); but there will probably be a rateable occupation where other persons obtain the right to work such tramways under sect. 11 of Military Tramways Act, 1887, and still more probably

(r) Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Trustees v. Cameron (1865), 11 H. L. C. (11 E. R.) 443; 35 L. J. M. C. 1, per Lord Westbury, L. C. (8) R. v. Parrot (1794), 5 T. R. 593. Compare R. v. Sherford (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 503; 36 L. J. M. C. 113.

(t) London County Council v. Erith Overseers, ub. sup.

(u) Contrast R. v. Beverley Gas Works (1837), 6 A. & E. 645; 6 L. J. M. C. 84, with R. v. Hull Justices (1854), 4 E. & B. 29, sub nom. R. v. Cooper, 23 L. J. M. C. 183.

(x) Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Trustees v, Cameron, ub, sup,

Chap. III. where the Secretary of State sells a tramway and reserves rights of user to himself under that section.

II. Rateable Subjects.

In the case of a tramway the following may be enumerated as the subjects of assessment:

(i) The lines, cable conduits, electric conduits, power houses, stables and other buildings and works which constitute the "occupation" of the promoters in its most obvious

sense.

(ii) Posts and wires erected for electric and other purposes. That such things are rateable was decided in Electric Telegraph Co. v. Salford Overseers (y).

The posts and wires in that case were entirely situated on or over the soil of persons other than their owners; the wires were in part carried on posts, in part in a cover attached to the parapet of a viaduct, and in part in an iron tube on the surface of the viaduct. The owners of the soil had the right to order them to be moved to another position, if they were found to be inconvenient. In his judgment, Pollock, C. B., says: "There is no distinction between the occupying land by passing through a fixed point of space in the air to another fixed point, or by passing in the same manner through land or water. Land extends upwards as well as downwards, and whether the wires and posts are fixed above or below the surface, they occupy a portion of the land"; and Platt, B., pointed out that the telegraph company had a continuous occupation, and not an

easement.

The same principle has been extended to wires affixed to brackets, which belonged to and remained in

(y) (1855), 11 Ex. 181; 24 L. J. M. C. 146.

the control of the owners of the wire, but to which Chap. III. they could only obtain access by leave of the occupiers of the house to which the brackets were affixed (2).

It would be otherwise, it seems, as regards the rating of the posts, if they belonged to the owner of the soil who gave the owners of the wires leave to affix their wires thereto (a). In that case the owners of the posts would be rateable as occupiers of the land covered by the posts, enhanced in value by the rent which they received from the owners of the wires (b). But in the ordinary case of the lease of a tramway, the lessees would be the rateable occupiers of the posts and wires. It is possible that some such question arising from joint user of wires might arise in connection with a tramway, as was settled, with hesitation, in Paris and New York Telegraph Co. v. Penzance Union (c). 'There the Postmaster-General gave the company exclusive use of such wires as he chose to appoint for that purpose, he retaining possession. It was held that the company had exclusive enjoyment without exclusive occupation. Sed quere.

(iii) Plant and machinery.

The result of the great number of cases, and of Poor Rate Exemption Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c. 89), appears to be, put very shortly, as follows:-(a) Where plant or machinery is attached to the land occupied, attachment being a question of fact in each case, the value of the land and the plant or machinery together is to be taken for the purpose of a rate, and so the plant or machinery becomes actually rateable as part of the hereditament (a). (b) But in order that it may

(z) Lancashire and Cheshire Telephone Exchange Co. v. Manchester Overseers (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 267; 54 L. J. M. C. 63 (C. A.).

(a) Watkins v. Milton-next-Gravesend Overseers (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 350, 354, per Blackburn, J.

(b) S. C. sub nom. Watkins v. Gravesend and Milton Overseers, 37 L. J. M. C. 73, 76, per Blackburn, J.

(c) (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 552; 53 L. J. M. C. 189.

(d) R. v. Birmingham and Staffordshire Gas Light Co. (1837), 6 A. & E.

Chap. III. be so rateable, the question of attachment will be strictly regarded; it must amount to an actual accession to the land, and not be merely intended to steady or otherwise facilitate the working of the thing attached (e). (c) Where machinery and plant is not so attached, so as to make it rateable as part of the hereditament, yet its value is to be taken into account in ascertaining the rateable value of the hereditament, if it is on the hereditament for the purpose of making it, and does in fact make it, suitable for the particular purpose for which it is used-that is to say, practically the question is whether its presence on the hereditament would increase the rent which the "hypothetical tenant" (as to this personage, see below) would give for the hereditament (f). How far this principle is applicable in practice, and whether it can be proper to utilise non-rateable subjects to enhance the value of what is rateable, may very reasonably be doubted. The question is of growing importance to tramways as the use of mechanical power increases. If the words of the judgment of Lord Esher, M. R., in the last-cited case, were taken literally, even rolling stock could be taken into account in valuing a tramway.

III. Assessment.

A. VALUE.

(i) Value in General.

By Parochial Assessments Act, 1836 (6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96), s. 1, a poor rate is to be made upon "an esti

634; 6 L. J. M. C. 92; Great Western Railway Co. v. Melksham Union (1870), 34 J. P. 692 (rails and sleepers).

(e) R. v. Halstead Overseers (1867), 32 J. P. 118; Chidley v. West Ham Churchwardens (1874), 32 L. T. 486; 39 J. P. 310. As to the latter of these cases, see Reynolds v. Ashby & Son, Ltd., [1903] 1 K. B. 87; 72 L. J. K. B. 51 (C. A.).

(f) Tyne Boiler Works Co. v. Longbenton Overseers or Tynemouth Union (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 81; 56 L. J. M. C. (C. A.); Crockett and Jones v. Northampton Union (1902), 18 T. L. R. 451.

mate of the net annual value" [called "rateable value" Chap. III. in the Schedule to the Act] "of the several hereditaments 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 tenant's rates and taxes and tithe commutation rentcharge, if any" [this rent is called the "gross estimated rental" in Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 103), s. 15 and Schedule, the Schedule also referring to "rateable value," as above], "and deducting therefrom the probable average annual cost of the repairs, insurance and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain them in a state to command such rent."

For the Metropolis, the form of valuation list is given in Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 67), Sched. II. "Gross value" therein is defined, by sect. 4, to mean "the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected, taking one year with another, to pay for an hereditament, if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and tithe commutation rentcharge, if any, and if the landlord undertook to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance, and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state to command that rent"; and "rateable value" is defined to mean "the gross value after deducting therefrom the probable annual average cost of the repairs, insurance and other expenses as aforesaid."

These principles were applied to a tramway by Mathew, J., in In re London County Council and London Street Tramways Co. (g), in the following words: "To get at the value of the hereditament you take the profits, deduct the tenant's charges and reasonable profits, and what is left is the rent which would be paid by a tenant for the opportunity of earning his profit. By capitalising that rental you arrive at the value of the hereditament in question."

(9) [1894] 2 Q. B. 189; 63 L. J. Q. B. 433,