EASTER TERM, FOURTH GEO. IV. Saints. The case of Rex v. The Trent and Mersey Canal Company is the converse of this case, nor is it distinguishable in principle from Rex v. Milton. Here the navigation runs through fourteen different parishes, and the whole is rated to the amount of 250l. in the parish of Fornham All Saints. Now, having decided that a canal is rateable in each and every parish through which it passes, it follows that this rate should have been separated into fourteen different portions, instead of being imposed entirely in one parish. If this were not so, the navigation might be rated twice over. The principle upon which this is founded, is very plain and simple. I have the utmost reverence for the learning of the Judges who decided some of the former cases upon questions of this nature, where a contrary doctrine has been held, but still of late years, the Court has been gradually coming to what is the true principle, and unquestionably the common sense of the thing, namely, that in whatever parish the land is occupied, as land covered with water, and is productive of profit to the proprietor, it is to be rated in each and every parish, according to the profit it produces, although they may not be received in that parish, but in another and a different parish. Now, this rate has not been imposed upon that principle, and, therefore, it must go down to the Sessions to be amended. BAYLEY, J.-I am of the same opinion. If the rate is imposed for the use of a sluice, the proprietor will have to contribute to the relief of the poor in the parish where the sluice is situated; but if it is for the use of the navigation, and for the use of land extending through a great many different parishes, each parish has a right to be paid in respect of the land on which the navigation is so used. The defendant is liable to be rated in the parish of Fornham All Saints, for something, but not to 1823. The KING v. PALMER. 1823. The KING v. PALMER. the extent of this rate. The Sessions must rehear the appeal, and reduce the rate according to their discretion. HOLROYD, J., concurred. BEST, J., was absent. Rule ordered to be amended. W. E. Taunton and Dover were to have argued the case for the defendant. Saturday, The proprie The KING v. The EARL of PORTMORE and Another. UPON appeal against a rate made on the 15th April tors of a river last, at two shillings in the pound, for the relief of the navigation are relief of the rateable to the poor of the parish of Woking, in the county of Surrey, whereby the Earl of Portmore and J. S. Langton, Esq. were rated as proprietors of the River Wey, at 32l. 10s.; the Sessions confirmed the rate, subject to the opinion of poor in a parish through which the navi. gation passes (though no riverage dues this Court, upon a case. are received in such parish), The appellants are proprietors of the navigable River to their profits Wey from Guildford to the River Thames; and by an act upon the whole of 22 & 23 Car. 2. are entitled to receive certain riverline of naviga. tion. age dues upon barges and other vessels navigating the river. They are not themselves inhabitants of the parish of Woking, nor are they carriers upon the river, but they grant licenses under certain regulations to the owners of barges, &c. navigating the same, upon payment of certain riverage dues upon goods conveyed upon the river. The navigation of the River Wey extends for a considerable distance within Woking parish. There are in all ten locks upon the navigation, one of which, called Trig's lock, is locally situated within the parish of Woking. No tolls are collected at that lock, or at any place within the parish, but the several wharfingers along the line of the na 1823. The KING v. The EARL of vigation receive from the different barge-masters, according to certain rules laid down in 1764, an account of whatever goods are loaded or unloaded at their respective wharfs, and make an entry thereof in a book kept by each PORTMORE. of them for that purpose. From these books they furnish quarterly to the receiver, appointed by the proprietors of the navigation, on account of the riverage, &c. due in respect of such goods, and he from these accounts makes out and delivers to the different barge-masters bills for the tonnage or riverage due from them respectively, and receives the amount thereof for the use of the proprietors. The appellants are not rateable to the relief of the poor of the parish of Woking, except so far as they are rateable in respect of the River Wey, or the locks or riverage thereof. Many tons of goods annually pass through the parish of Woking, to and fro, in vessels using the navigation, to different places of destination, but the goods annually landed within the parish do not yield riverage to the amount in the rate assessed. If the Court should be of opinion that the proprietors of the navigation are not rateable beyond the amount of the riverage arising from such last-mentioned goods, then the rate is to be amended, by reducing the amount of the assessment on the proprietors to the sum of -l.; if otherwise, the rate is to stand at its present amount. C. Monro, for the defendants, was instructed to contend that they were only rateable in respect of the riverage dues, arising from the goods actually landed within the parish of Woking, and not in proportion to the profits arising upon the whole navigation; but after the case last decided of Rex v. Palmer (a), he felt that he could not resist the confirmation of the rate to the amount for which the appellants were assessed. (a) Ante, 416. 1823. The KING v. The EARL of The Court said, that it was now too late to contend against the principle upon which this rate was founded. Rate confirmed. Cowley was to have argued in support of the rate. Saturday, A pauper was bourer in hus bandry to serve a farmer, under an The KING v. The INHABITANTS of SUTTON SAINT EDMUNDS. UPON appeal, the Sessions confirmed an order of two hired as a la- Justices for the removal of Thomas Watson, and Mary his wife, and their son William, from the hamlet of Leverington-Parson-Drove, in the Isle of Ely, to the hamhe was to have let of Sutton Saint Edmunds, in the county of Lincoln, yearly wages, subject to the opinion of this Court, upon the following agreement that and his master either to find him two cows, or provide himself with two, and feed them on his master's farm. The panper bought one cow, and his case: The pauper being settled at Sutton Saint Edmunds, and having been married several years, at Lady-day, in the year 1793, agreed with a farmer of the name of John Ulyatt, in Leverington-Parson-Drove, to serve him as a confined labourer in husbandry, (that is, to work for him, and no other person) for a year. The terms of the agreement made between the pauper and his master, were as follows:-The pauper was to have 87. a-year wages, mer in his mas- his master was either to find him two cows, or the pauper ter's pasture, master found him another, both of which were fed during the sum and, in the winter, were kept in his master's straw with hay was to be at liberty to provide himself with two, and feed them on his master's farm during the same year; yard, and fed and he was to have the further privilege of keeping two ewes on the farm during the whole year, and the running of a pig at the barn door, and in the straw yard, during the same time. The pauper went into the service of grown upon the farm. The pasture and the hay feeding were re spectively worth 51. 5s. a-year-Held, that the pauper did not gain a settlement by renting a tenement of 101. value. Aliter, if the contract had been that the cows were to be pasture fed. 1823. The KING v. The of SUTTON SAINT ED. MUNDS. Mr. Ulyatt, under this agreement, at Lady-day 1793, and continued therein till Lady-day 1797, under contracts to the same effect. During the first three years of such servitude, the pauper lived in a house on his master's INHABITANTS farm in Wisbech High Fen, and the last year of such service, in a cottage at Leverington-Parson-Drove. The occupation of the cottage was incidental to the service of the pauper, who was discharged from it at the same time he left his service. The pauper bought one cow, and his master found him another, both of which were fed during the summer, in the pasture of his master, and in the winter were kept in the straw yard of his master, and fed with hay that was grown upon the master's lands, and the pauper had the exclusive use and advantage of such cows, and he also kept two sheep and a pig on the farm during the whole year. If the pauper had not had such cows and sheep and pig kept for him on his master's farm, he would have had more wages, and at the time he left Mr. Ulyatt's service in 1797, he took his cow, sheep, and pig with him. Evidence was given to the Court that the keep of the two cows during the summer months would require two acres and a half of land on which they were fed, and that such acres were worth together annually 51. 5s., and that to cut hay sufficient for the winter keep would require two acres and a half more of such land, of the annual value of 51. 5s. and that the summer feed and winter keep, with hay for the two cows, on such farm, were of the annual value of 10l. 10s. and that the keep of the two sheep on the farm during the year, was of the annual value of 17. 6s., and the keep of the pig at the barn door and straw yard, where it was fed on the produce of the land, was of the annual value of 17. 19s. The valuation of the two cows, the two sheep and pig, for the whole year, forming, together, 13l. 15s. 6d. The Court of Quarter Sessions did not consider that the keeping aud feeding of the cows, sheep, |