they (the local board) would cause the building to be demolished, under the 143d section of the Metropolis Local Management Act. The Vice-Chancellor granted an injunction to restrain them from so doing. In the present case, however, that rule cannot apply. The same objects are dealt with in both Acts of Parliament. The powers conferred by the two are substantially, if not strictly, the same. So soon as you find the legislature is dealing with the same subject-matter in both Acts, so far as the later statute derogates from and is inconsistent with the earlier one, you are under the necessity of saying that the legislature did intend in the later statute to deal with the very case to which the former statute applied. I therefore entirely agree with my lord that the question is reduced to this,-does the 141st section of the Metropolis Local Management Act, aided by the light thrown upon it by s. 250, override and control the 145th section of the City of London Sewers Act, 1848? It appears to me that it does, and therefore that our judgment in this case should be for the defend

ants. *180] *BYLES, J.-I am of the same opinion. I agree with my Lord and my Brother Willes that the first question is hypothetical, and raises a point which it is unnecessary to answer for the purpose of disposing of this case. I therefore give no opinion upon it. As to the second question, I must confess, that, as soon as Mr. Hannen had called our attention to the language of the interpretation clause, and to the latter part of s. 242, all doubt vanished from my mind, that, under the 141st section of the Metropolis Local Management Act, the Metropolitan Board of Works had power to name streets and number houses in the city of London in the manner prescribed by that section. With regard to the third question,-whether the order of the Metropolitan Board of Works as to numbering houses in the city of London overrides the order of the Commissioners of Sewers of the city of London in the same matter, -if the order of the last-named body be inconsistent with that of the former body, the general rule must prevail, that a prior Act is repealed by a subsequent Act whose provisions are inconsistent with those of the former Act. That being so, the defendants are entitled to judgment.

KEATING, J.-I also agree, for the reasons already expressed, that the defendants are entitled to the judgment of the Court.

Judgment for the defendants.

*181] *COLBRON and Others v. TRAVERS. April 26.

A. in 1807 (when the old income-tax Act, 46 G. 3, c. 65, existed) leased premises to B., at a rent of 3401, with a proviso that the rent should be reduced to 3307. in the event of "the said tax called income-tax" becoming repealed, annihilated, or suspended at any time during the continuance of the demise; such reduced rent to continue to be paid only so long as the incometax should remain repealed and not payable :-Held, that the rent which had so become reduced on the expiration of the old income-tax, was restored to the original amount on the passing of the new income tax Act, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35,-there being nothing in the 73d section of that Act to render the covenant illegal.

THIS was an action brought by the plaintiffs to recover the sum of 1857. under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned; and by consent.

and under a Judge's order the following case was stated in accordance with the provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, for the opinion of the Court, without pleadings:

By indenture dated the 27th of February, 1807, and made between Matthew Place of the one part, and James Spring of the other part, a house and premises, being No. 17 Portland Place, were demised by the said Matthew Place to the said James Spring for a term of sixtythree years from the 29th of September, 1807, at the rent of 3407. per

annum.

The following is a copy of the reddendum clause in the lease,"Yielding and paying therefor yearly and every year during the said term unto the said Matthew Place, his executors, administrators, and assigns, the rent or sum of 3401. of lawful money of Great Britain (reducible by and upon the contingency hereinafter in that behalf mentioned), free and clear of and from the land-tax and the sewersrate, and also of and from all and all manner of rates, taxes, duties,. charges, assessments, and impositions whatsoever, made, laid, charged, assessed, or imposed, or which shall or may be laid, made, charged, assessed, or imposed upon or for or on account of the said hereby demised premises, or any part or parcel thereof, by authority of Parliament or otherwise howsoever (the property or income-tax always and alone excepted), and to be so paid and payable at and by four even and equal portions and payments, on the 25th day of December, 25th day of March, the 24th day of June, and the 29th day of *September, in each and every year; and the first payment thereof to begin and be made on the 25th day of December now next ensuing."

[*182

The covenant on the part of the lessee to pay rent and taxes then follows, in the following form:-"And the said James Spring, for himself and his executors, administrators, and assigns, doth hereby covenant, promise, and agree to and with the said Matthew Place, his executors, administrators, and assigns, in manner following, that is to say, that the said James Spring, his executors, administrators, or assigns shall and will well and truly pay or cause to be paid unto the said Matthew Place, his executors and administrators, or assigns, the said yearly rent or sum of 3407. of lawful money of Great Britain, free and clear of and from the King's taxes and the sewers-rate or tax, and also of and from all and all manner of rates, taxes, duties, charges, assessments, and impositions whatsoever, made, laid, charged, assessed, or imposed, or to be made and charged, assessed, or imposed upon or for or on account of the said hereby demised premises, or any part or parcel thereof, by authority of Parliament or otherwise howsoever, and without any deduction or abatement whatsoever (the income-tax or property-tax always and alone excepted, as aforesaid), on the days, and at the times, and in the proportions and manner and form as herein before in that behalf is mentioned: And also that he the said James Spring, his executors, administrators, and assigns, shall and will from time to time and at all times for and during the term and continuance of this present demise, and at his and their own proper costs and charges and expenses, constantly and regularly bear, pay, defray, and discharge the King's taxes and the sewers-rate or tax, and all and singular the rates, taxes, duties, charges, assessments, and inpositions

*183] made, laid, *charged, assessed, or imposed, or to be made, laid, charged, assessed, or imposed upon or for or on account of the said hereby demised premises, or any part or parcel thereof, by authority of Parliament or otherwise howsoever, the said tax called the income or property-tax always alone excepted, as aforesaid."

In a subsequent part of the lease occurs the following proviso and covenant for quiet enjoyment:-" Provided always, and it is hereby declared to be the true intent and meaning of these presents, and the said Matthew Place, for himself and his executors and administrators, doth hereby further covenant and agree, that, if the said tax called the income or property tax shall become and be repealed, annihilated, or suspended, and not paid or payable at any time or times during the term and continuance of this demise, then, upon every or any such occasion, and from time to time when, and for and during so long time as, the said tax shall be and remain repealed and not paid or payable as aforesaid, but no longer, the said yearly rent or sum of 3407. herein before reserved shall be and remain reduced unto the yearly rent or sum of 3301, payable at and by four even and equal portions and payments on the days and times and in manner as aforesaid; anything herein contained to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding: And the said Matthew Place, for himself and his executors, administrators, and assigns, doth hereby covenant, promise, and agree to and with the said James Spring, his executors, administrators, and assigns, in manner following, that is to say, that he the said James Spring, his executors, administrators, and assigns, paying the said yearly rent or sum of 3407. of lawful money of Great Britain, reducible as aforesaid, upon the days and times and in the proportions and manner and form aforesaid, and, according to the true intent and *184] *meaning of these presents, well and truly observing, fulfilling, and keeping all and singular the covenants, provisoes, and agreements herein before contained or mentioned, shall or lawfully may have, hold, use, occupy, possess, and enjoy the said messuage or tenement and premises hereby demised, and every part and parcel thereof, with the appurtenances, for and during the said term of sixtythree years herein before mentioned, without any lawful let, suit, trouble, hindrance, molestation, or interruption of or from or by him the said Matthew Place, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or any other person or persons whomsoever lawfully and equitably claiming or to claim by, from, through, or under him, them, or any or either of them."

The property or income-tax which was payable at the time when the said lease was executed, was imposed by the Act of 46 G. 3, c. 65; and that tax ceased upon the restoration of peace in the year 1815, from which time to the present the tenant and his assigns of the lease for the time being have paid to the landlord the reduced rent only of 3301.

By the statute 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, a property or income-tax was imposed as provided by that Act; and taxes on property or income have since from time to time been imposed by other Acts of Parlia ment, at varying amounts of charge; and the tax for the time being in force has been payable in respect of the said house and premises. The plaintiffs in this action are the owners of the reversion expect

ant upon the determination of the said lease, and, as such, entitled to whatever rent has been from time to time payable thereunder: and the defendant is the assignee of the lease, and bound to pay the rent to the plaintiffs, whatever the amount may be.

*The plaintiffs contend, that, from the time when the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35 came into operation, the full rent of 3401. has been [*185 payable; and they have made a claim on the defendant accordingly for 1857, being the difference between the rent which has been paid and the full rent of 3401. for eighteen years and a half since the statute 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35 came into operation.

The question for the opinion of the Court was, whether, during the whole or any part of the said last-mentioned period, the full or the reduced rent has been payable.

If the full rent, the judgment was to be entered for the plaintiffs for 1851., or any smaller sum to which the Court might consider them entitled; if the reduced rent, the judgment was to be entered for the defendant. In either case the costs were to follow the event.

Garth, for the plaintiffs.-The income and property-tax imposed by the statute 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, was virtually a renewal of the tax imposed by the 46 G. 3, c. 65, which ceased or became suspended at the close of the war, in the year 1815. And, according to the true construction of the lease of 1807, the rent payable by the lessee was to be 340%. whenever any property or income-tax similar in character to that which then existed was in force; and the tax which was imposed by the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, was a tax of a similar character to the tax existing in 1807.

Bovill, Q. C. (with whom was Mr. Milward), contrà.(a)—*The property-tax Act in force at the time of this contract was the [*186 46 G. 3, c. 65. The tax imposed by that Act was not a yearly tax; nor was it perpetual; but only "during the present war, and until the 6th day of April next after the ratification of a definitive treaty of peace." That tax ceased in 1815; and no income or property-tax was again imposed until the year 1842. The tax referred to in the covenant in question is, the tax then existing under the 46 G. 3, c. 65, which has never been revived. Under the new Act, a covenant shifting the burthen from the landlord to the tenant is strictly prohibited. The 73d section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35 provides that "no contract, covenant, or agreement between landlord and tenant or any other persons, touching the payment of taxes and assessments to be charged on their respective premises, shall be deemed or construed to extend to the duties charged thereon under this Act; nor be binding contrary to the intent and meaning of this Act; but that all such duties shall be charged upon and paid by the respective occupiers, subject to such deductions and repayments as are by this Act authorized and allowed; and all such deductions and repayments shall be made and allowed accordingly, notwithstanding such contracts, covenants, and agreements." [BYLES, J.-This is not in terms a contract

(a) The points marked for argument on the part of the defendant were as follows: "That the tax contemplated by the lease terminated, and has never been revived; and that the duty latterly imposed by the Acts of Parliament referred to in the case is not in law or in the language of lawyers, or within the meaning of the provision of the deed, the same tax as existed in 1807."

affecting the payment. It is merely a bargain, that, in the event of a certain charge coming upon the landlord, the tenant shall pay a larger rent.] The policy of the Act was to prevent the insertion of any such covenants in leases.

Garth, in reply.-There is nothing in the 73d section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35 to affect this case. The property-tax is excepted out of the reddendum. Cur, adv. vult. *WILLES, J., now delivered the judgment of the Court:(a)

*187] We are of opinion that our judgment in this case should be

in favour of the plaintiffs. It was an action founded upon a lease made in the year 1807, when the income-tax which expired soon after the termination of the war of 1815, was in existence. The lease contains a reservation of a rent of 3407. (reducible by and upon the contingency thereinafter in that behalf mentioned,) free and clear of and from the land-tax and the sewers-rate, and also of and from all and all manner of rates, taxes, duties, charges, assessments, and impositions whatsoever, made, laid, charged, assessed, or imposed, or which shall or may be laid, made, charged, assessed, or imposed upon or for or on account of the said thereby demised premises, or any part thereof, by authority of Parliament or otherwise howsoever (the property or income-tax always and alone excepted)." Then there is a proviso, that, "if the said tax called the income or property tax shall become and be repealed, annihilated, or suspended, and not paid or payable at any time or times during the term and continuance of this demise, then, upon every or any such occasion, and from time to time when, and for and during so long time as, the said tax shall be and remain repealed and not paid or payable as aforesaid, but no longer, the said yearly rent or sum of 3407. herein before reserved shall be and remain reduced unto the yearly rent or sum of 3301." The rent is to be 3407. per annum so long as there is such a tax in existence, and 3301. while there is none. It appears that during the period which has elapsed since the year 1842, when the statute passed imposing the *188] existing income-tax, down to the present time, the lessee *had paid the lessor rent of 3301., which became payable on the expiration of the former income-tax; and this action is brought by the landlord in assertion of his right to claim the higher sum. Upon comparing the Act of Parliament relating to income-tax in force at the date of the lease, viz., the 46 G. 3, c. 65, with the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, it seems to us that the tax now in existence is clearly of the same kind and character as that referred to in the lease; and we also think it clear that the lease could not mean to refer to the tax then existing only, but that it must have been intended to refer to periods when by reason of future Acts of Parliament there should exist an income-tax of the same kind. That being so, unless there is some illegality in the covenant for the increase of the rent during the period for which the premises should be charged with an income or property-tax, the landlord is entitled to be paid the larger rent stipulated for. On the part of the defendant, it is contended that the contract is illegal, as being in substance a violation of the 73d section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, and of the corresponding section (s. 115) of the 46 G. 3, c. 65 Those sections provide in substance that all contracts whereby the

(a) The judges present at the argument were, Erle, C. J., Willes, J., Byles, J, and Keating, J.