fendants could not maintain trespass. They have a right to do all that is necessary to give them the complete enjoyment of the quarry, by erecting galleries and all engines requisite to work the stone. In order to do so they must be in the exclusive occupation of the quarries, and if so, why may they not maintain trespass against a wrong-doer? Here there is nobody else working the quarries; and they are, to all intents and purposes, in the exclusive occupation. The proprietors of the quarry cannot be rated; for the two-pence per ton for the stone, which they derive, is a pure rent, and is not rateable; Rex v. The Bishop of Rochester (a), Rex v. Earl Pomfret (b). But the case decisive of the present is Rex v. All Saints, Derby (c), where a pauper, by order of a corporation made at common-hall, was allowed the liberty to take sand and gravel from the bed of a river, (of which the corporation were entitled to the soil,) with a condition that he sold the sand to the inhabitants of the town at a certain rate; for which liberty he paid to the corporation at the rate of ten pounds per annum, it was held that he thereby acquired a settlement. That case was founded upon the principle that, under such a license, the pauper had such an exclusive occupation as to coufer a settlement. W. E. Taunton, contrà. The defendants are not in any sense the occupiers of this quarry; but even if they are, still they are only occupiers as trustees for the public, and not for any beneficial purpose of their own. First, are they occupiers at all? By the agreement set out in the case, and recited and ratified by the act of parliament, the owners of the quarry are bound to supply the company with lime-stone at the rate of 7d. per ton, in a good merchantable state, and in default of their continu(a) 12 East, 355. (b) 5 M. & S. 141. (c) Id. 90. 1825. The KING v. The TRENT and MERSEY CANAL. 1825. The KING 0. The TRENT and MERSEY CANAL. company ing to supply the stone, then the company may enter and case who keeper or dairyman, giving the purchaser license to 1825. The KING 0. The TRENT and MERSEY CANAL. 1825 The KING V. The TRENT and MERSEY CANAL. which would gain a man a settlement would not necessarily render him a rateable occupier. Would a cow tenement make a man a rateable inhabitant? Surely not. It is not denied as a fact that the company have exclusively worked these quarries for the last thirty years, but that is merely an accidental circumstance, and does not make them occupiers within the sense and meaning of the statute of Elizabeth. But assuming them to be occupiers in any sense whatever, then the question is, secondly, whether they are beneficial occupiers, or occupiers only as trustees for the public. Now attending to the language of the act of parliament ratifying the agreement in question, it is manifest that they are neither the exclusive occupiers, nor have they a beneficial occupation which will make them liable to be rated. The primary object of the legislature in passing this act, was to secure to the public a supply of lime-stone at the cheapest possible rate for agricultural and other purposes, and having that object in view, the statute imposes upon the company the obligation of executing such orders as may be entered by the public in their books, and in case of default, they shall not only return the deposits which have been paid at the time the orders were given, but they are rendered liable to a penalty by way of forfeiture, equal to the money deposited, for such default. There is therefore a duty and obligation cast upon the company, which they must not neglect but at the peril of a penalty. Is this then consistent with the nature of an occupation for the company's own beneficial purposes? Surely not. But the act does not stop there, for it is expressly declared that in case of default, either on the part of the company or of the quarry owners, "it shall and may be lawful, for the person or persons to whom such stone was to be delivered, to enter into the pit or quarry of such proprietor or proprietors of lime-stone having so made default, and to employ any person or persons to get the quantity so required, upon paying the sum of 2d. per ton only for such stone, they getting the same in a regular and proper manner." It is manifest therefore from these two provisions, first, that the company have not the exclusive occupation, because any other person would be entitled to come and get lime-stone in case of default, either on the part of the company or of the stone proprietors, and second, that the company are merely trustees for the public, and not beneficial occupiers, upon whom the liability to pay rate attaches. On these grounds the order of sessions must be quashed. ABBOTT, C. J.-This case comes before the Court under circumstances so very peculiar that it is not very likely any prior decisions should be found to cast much light upon it, or serve as a guide for our judgment on the subject; nor is it likely that our decision may serve as a precedent for any case that may occur hereafter. The question arises upon a contract of a very special nature, made between the owners of certain lime quarries and the Trent and Mersey Canal Company. The question is, whether, due regard being had to the terms of that contract, the company can or cannot be considered as the occupiers of the lime quarries for which they have been rated. Now, looking at the contract, it appears that the company, before it was executed, had made an application to parliament to enable them to make certain railroads. At that time it was thought convenient and beneficial to the public, that quantities of lime-stone in the neighbourhood of Caldon should be secured at a specific price as far as regarded the owners of the quarries, and in consideration of their consent to supply stone at that price, the company undertook to apply to parliament for some alteration in the bill then depending. The contract 1825. The KING V. The TRENT and MERSEY CANAL. |