that their value should be apportioned among the Chap. III. various parishes on the mileage principle, was not accepted. In rating engine-houses and power-houses due regard must of course be paid to the principles of the rating of plant and machinery, briefly set out above (p. 57). (iv) The rateable value of offices, timekeepers' boxes, shelters, and other buildings and fixtures used in the executive part of the business (h). (v) The rateable value of any special profits which arise out of the hereditaments in any particular parish. (vi) The rates paid on the above-mentioned items, except in so far as they have already been taken into account in the estimation of the rateable value thereof. By making the permissible deductions which are set out above, or such of them as are appropriate to the particular case, from the gross receipts, we arrive at the net annual value or rateable value-the sum at which the tramway and its appurtenances is to be rated. It must be noted that the land occupied by a tramway is not "land used only as a railway for public conveyance" within the meaning of Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 211 (1b). If it were, it would be assessed to general district rates at one-fourth only of its net annual value (i). The same principle would no doubt apply to contributions raised in rural districts under sect. 230 of Public Health Act, 1875. The tramway in the above case was connected with, (h) See Melbourne Corporation v. Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co., Ltd., ub. sup. (i) Swansea Improvements and Tramway Co. v. Swansea Urban Sanitary Authority, [1892] 1 Q. B. 357; 61 L. J. M. C. 124. Chap. III. and worked in connection with a railway, but the Court held it to be an "ordinary tramway." Compare with the same case Williams v. London & North Western Railway Co. (k), which approves it, where a railway in a depôt, connected by a tram line and a dock railway with the company's system, was held not to be within similar words contained in a local Act; and R. v. Newport Dock Co. (1), where a dock railway was held to be within the words (m). No doubt a tramway benefits by the expenditure of the rates in street-cleaning, lighting, &c., and it is proper that it should be assessed to them at its full rateable value. But a light railway may approximate sufficiently closely to an ordinary railway to be regarded as such for the as such for the purpose of assessment under the Public Health Acts. Quare whether a light railway on a public thoroughfare is rateable as a railway, and not as a tramway merely because it is made under the Light Railways Act and not under the Tramways Act (n). In connection with the valuation of light railways, reference should also be made to the English and Scots rating and valuation Acts enumerated in note (q) to sect. 12 of Light Railways Act, 1896, and to Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18), s. 133, and Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 19), s. 127. As to the application of the last-mentioned sections, where the poor rate is merged in a general rate, see Islington Corporation v. London School Board (o). () [1900] 1 Q. B. 760; 69 L. J. Q. B. 531 (C. A.). (m) See also London & India Docks Co. v. Great Eastern Railway Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 568; 71 L. J. K. B. 369 (C. A.). (n) See Liverpool and Prescot Case (1898), Rep. IV. 14, Oxley, 180. (6) [1902] 2 K. B. 701; 71 L. J. K. B. 852; (1903) W. N. 125; 19 T. L. R. 589 (C. A.). B. THE PAROCHIAL PRINCIPLE. This principle is simply that the rateable value of the running lines of a railway or tramway situate in a particular parish is to be estimated by taking into account the earnings and expenses made by the lines in that particular parish. It is easy to apply the principle to hereditaments situate in a single parish, but in order to apply it to running lines it becomes necessary to regard the lines as a series of different hereditaments with a series of different hypothetical tenants. That this must be done, however, in the case of railways has been settled law since R. v. London, Brighton & South Coast Railway Co. (p). The items enumerated under Deductions (8), above-that is to say, the indirectly productive portions of the system-are rated separately in the parishes to which they belong (q). So far the application of the principle to railways is logical in theory, though difficult enough in practice. But the Courts have not adhered to their own principle. They have rated running lines in particular parishes as being of value when in fact they produced no profit, and, when they produced some profit, they have rated them as on a larger profit. This is due to the doctrine of "contributive value," which has been superadded to the parochial principle. This doctrine is not of sufficient importance for our present purpose to justify detailed discussion. It will be seen from an examination of the cases that there has been a grave difference of opinion in the Courts as to its proper application, though the more prevalent opinion seems to be that "contributive value" may be taken into account (r). (p) (1851), 15 Q. B. 313; 20 L. J. M. C. 124. (9) R. v. Great Western Railway Co. (1846), 6 Q. B. 179; 15 L. J. M. C. 80; R. v. Mile End Old Town Overseers (1847), 10 Q. B. 208; 10 L. J. M. C. 184. (r) See London & North Western Railway Co. v. Cannock Overseers Chap. III. Chap. III. The fact is that the Courts, if the similitude may be respectfully applied, seem to have been trying to ride two horses at once. If it is proper to consider the profits actually earned by land as the value of the land, then the "parochial principle" should be applied, and applied without exception; if, on the other hand, it is proper (and it is submitted that it undoubtedly is proper) to regard profits actually earned and value as things which are closely connected but not identical, then "contributive value" should be taken into account. But if the "parochial principle" strictly applies, then the doctrine of "contributive value" does not, and vice versa. If the "parochial principle" is difficult of application to a railway, it is almost impossible to apply it to a tramway. The system on which tickets for passengers are issued and goods are charged for on a railway renders it possible in some degree to allocate the proper proportion of profits earned to a particular piece of line. But the raison d'être of a tramway is the fact that passengers can get on when they like, and get off when they like; that tickets are issued in the cars and not at a booking-office, and for a journey equivalent to so much money paid rather than for a journey from point to point. The gradually increasing introduction of the American system of charging a uniform fare for any distance renders the attempt to apply the "parochial principle" still more futile. In fact, in the cases on tramway rating which have been reported hitherto, the "parochial principle" is said to be applicable, but when the Court comes to apply it, it is driven to such a rough approximation (1863), 9 L. T. 325; 28 J. P. 181; R. v. London & North Western Railway Co. (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 134, sub nom. R. v. Bedford Union, 43 L. J. M. C. 81; and London & North Western Railway Co. v. Irthlingborough Overseers (1876), 35 L. T. 327; 40 J. P. 790, as against Great Eastern Railway Co. v. Haughley Overseers (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 666; 35 L. J. M. C. 229; and R. v. Llantrissant (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 354; 38 L. J. M. C. 93. that the principle becomes almost unrecognisable. Chap. III. The difficulty arises from the attempt to apply a principle to a species of hereditament of which its framers never dreamt, and from the attempt to make an estimate when there are no accounts in existence on which it can be based. In two respects, however, the rating of a tramway system is simpler than that of a railway: (i) There are not so many indirectly productive portions which call for separate rating; (ii) There are not so many special local outgoings or earnings which have to be rated in particular parishes. Both the receipts and the expenses may be said, as a rule, to be spread more equally over the whole system than they are in the case of a railway. Hence some kind of mileage division, though the result must necessarily constitute only a very rough approximation indeed to the ideal application of the "parochial principle," will not work out so unfairly as it would if the profits and earnings of a railway were so divided. แ Several methods are possible: (i) Division of receipts and expenses according to the lineal mileage of the lines situate in each parish. This would be a reasonably fair method under the following conditions: (a) If the car traffic was fairly evenly distributed (b) if the population was fairly evenly distributed But such a state of things is scarcely likely to exist anywhere. As a rule, tramways are used to collect the population from various points on the route and |