1823. The KING v. The BIRMINGHAM PANY. at liberty to examine, unless it is specifically pointed out to their consideration. In the present case the quantum is specifically pointed out, and our attention is directed to a distinction between the value of the occupation of the land per se, and the profits resulting from carrying GAS COMon, by means of the occupation, a beneficial manufactory. Now the criterion by which the value of this land, covered as it is by warehouses, buildings, and used, as it is, by a pipe-way, is the rent fair which ought to be paid for other land in the same parish. When the land is rated, it is rated according to the fair rent which it will fetch, and not according to the profit which particular persons might, under extraordinary circumstances, produce from it, by a particular mode of occupation. Its value is to be estimated according to a probable rent, if let to any other persons, and not according to temporary profits, arising from the sources which are unconnected with the land itself, and with reference to the value of which alone the rate ought to be imposed. Here the gas forms no part of the profits of the land; it is a manufactured article, produced by labour, and the investment of capital, and the profits upon which depend upon the price of coals, labour, and a variety of other circumstances. Looking at this, therefore, as a question of quantum, expressly submitted to our consideration, we are at liberty to decide the case upon that footing. If the case stated that these buildings, warehouses, and pipe-ways would have let for 8001. per annum, then we should have nothing to decide upon, but when we are informed that the rate is imposed partly upon the buildings, and other premises, and the remainder upon the profits arising from the sale of the gas, which is produced from the investment of capital, and a variety of other circumstances, we are bound to decide the case with reference to that distinction.Referring to that distinction, I am of opinion that the 1823. The KING 17. The BIRMINGHAM larger rate cannot be supported, and therefore it must be HOLROYD, J.-This is not like the case of a canal, where there is a beneficial use of the land by means of the water. The land in such case is rated as so much land covered with water. Here, it is professed to rate the trunks and other apparatus, but it is in reality a rate upon the gas itself, which is not a natural produce, but is manufactured at the expense of human labour and capital. In this respect the case is distinguishable from those cases which have been cited. I think the profits arising from the sale of gas are not rateable, and that this rate must be confined to the buildings, pipes, trunks, and apparatus. BEST, J.-I have no difficulty in saying that this rate profits rateable, on account 1 1823. The KING v. The BIRMINGHAM PANY. and at considerable hazard of capital, and has not a permanent annual value. Here there must be an union of capital and constant employed labour, in order to produce a profit. In this respect the case is distinguishable from a canal, where, when once the wharfs and locks are esta- GAS COMblished, they remain permanently, and produce a permanent profit, but not so of a gas manufactory, where there must be an application of human labour, and a consumption of coal, day by day, in order to produce the article for sale. For these reasons I am of opinion, that this rate ought to be amended in the manner suggested. Rate ordered to be amended, by striking The KING V. The INHABITANTS of NORTH COL LINGHAM. By an order of two Justices, Mary, the widow of Wednesday, Renting a house, and let ting part of it is holding a William Barks, with their three children, were removed from the parish of North Collingham, in the county of off to a lodger, Nottingham, to the parish of Fulbeck, in the county of separate and Lincoln. On appeal the Sessions quashed the order, ing-house subject to the opinion of the Court, on the following tute 59 Geo. 3. case: The pauper's husband, being legally settled in Fulbeck, came to reside at North Collingham in the year 1812, where he took and hired a house (being a separate and distinct dwell within the sta c. 50, so as to confer a settle ment. A tenement within the meaning of that statute, may consist of house and land taken at different times and of different persons, provided the whole annual rent amounts to 10%., and the land and house be in the same parish. 1823. The KING v. The distinct dwelling-house) with a garden, for a year, and from year to year, at the annual rent of 61. 6s.; and he continued to hold and occupy such house and garden, and INHABITANTS actually paid the aforesaid yearly rent for the same, from of NORTH the COLLINGHAM. year 1812 up to his death, which happened in December, 1821; but during the last four years of his holding the said house, he let to a lodger at 30s. a year, one of the rooms thereof, which room was on the ground floor, and communicated with a yard appurtenant to the house, by an outer door, and with the adjoining rooms of the house, by the inner door, of which doors the lodger kept the keys, as there was another outer door to the house. No alteration was ever made in the house or doors during any part of the period, for which William Bark was tenant thereof. The room was let unfurnished, and the lodger occupied nothing but the room, and William Bark was assessed and rated for the entire house to the poor, the highways, and king's taxes, and paid such assessments during the whole of his tenancy. In the year 1819 the pauper bonâ fide hired a piece of garden ground, in the parish of North Collingham, for the year, at the rent of 37. 15s., which ground he actually occupied for a year, and paid the said rent, and he continued in the occupation thereof up to the time of his death. The question for the opinion of the Court is, whether the pauper's husband gained a settlement under the stat. 50 Geo. 3. c. 50, which received the royal assent on the 2d July, 1819, it being admitted that the garden ground mentioned in the case was hired after the passing of that act. Nolan and Clinton, in support of the order of Sessions, contended, that a settlement was gained by the pauper in North Collingham, and consequently that the order of Sessions, quashing the order of removal, must be affirmed. Two questions arise in this case upon the 1823. The KING v. The of NORTH COLLINGHAM. construction of the 59 Geo. 3. c. 50.; first, whether a person who has taken a house, being an entire and distinct dwelling-house, can be prevented from gaining a settlement, by letting off a part of it to a lodger; and, INHABITANTS second, whether the whole of the tenement, which is to confer a settlement, must, under this statute, be taken at one and the same time. As to the first point it is quite clear, that before the passing of this act, taking a tenement of the yearly value of 107. would gain a settlement, though a part of it was underlet. Rex v. Llandverras(a), and Rex v. Newnham (b). There is no doubt, therefore, that letting part of the tenement to a lodger would make no difference before the 59 Geo. 3. The question then is, whether that act makes any difference in the old rule of settlement law upon this point. Now there is nothing in this statute which would render the circumstance of under-letting destructive of the settlement. All that the statute requires is, that there should be a bonâ fide hiring and occupation of the house during the whole year. It is by no means necessary that the occupation of every part of the house should be exclusive. It is only requisite that the pauper should continue the tenant, and reside for twelve months. The object of the Legislature in passing this act was, not to prevent the person who lets lodgings from gaining a settlement, but to prevent a mere lodger from gaining a settlement. In this very case the person who took the room might, by the old law, have gained a settlement, if he had paid four shillings a week, but it was to prevent the gaining of settlements by such means that the Legislature passed this act; to remedy the evil arising from constructive settlements, and to establish one plain and intelligible rule, namely, that no settlement should be gained by renting a tenement but (a) Burr. Sett. Cases, 571. S. C. (b) Id. 756. Sir W. Bl. Rep. 603. |