perty of the Justices, and is used by the Judges, Magistrates and barristers at the Assizes and Sessions without charge. The Judges' lodgings are at all times occupied by and are under the care of one housekeeper, who with his wife resides on the premises, and has the charge of the whole building, courts and lodgings. The wife has also some duty of superintendence, and they have apartments allotted to them, but no accommodation beyond what is necessary to enable them to discharge the duties of their station. The keeper with his wife and family are the only persons occupying any part of the building as a permanent residence. The house has not been let, nor is such letting contemplated.

A charge is made for the use of the arbitration-rooms, varying according to the extent of the accommodation required; and for the year ending the 31st of December, 1856, such charge only reached the sum of 81. 8s.

A purveyor has allowed to him by the Justices gratuitously the privilege of supplying the Bar, jurors, witnesses and persons attending the various Courts above mentioned with refreshments, undertaking, with the committee of Magistrates, to do so at reasonable prices; for this purpose he has the use of the refreshment-rooms, kitchens and accessories thereunto without any charge whatever. He is only permitted to occupy the said rooms and kitchens during the transaction of public business at the Assizes and Sessions.

By agreement between the appellants and the corporation of the city of Manchester, all the accommodation required for both the city Quarter Sessions and the city Court of Record is provided in the Assize Čourts, the corporation paying to the Justices the sum of 600l. per annum for the same, and 3007. per annum to cover all incidental expenses, including cleansing, gas, fires, &c., the corporation of the said city providing the necessary police.

There are no other sources of income to the Justices from the use of the buildings, and all sums received in respect of their use are applied by the Justices in aid of the special rate.

The sum of 9001. paid by the corporation of the city of Manchester, as before mentioned, and the sums received from all other sources, as above mentioned, were

applied in part payment of the sum of 1,8237. 178. 11d., above stated to have been the expenses of maintenance and management during the last year, and the balance of those expenses was defrayed out of the special rate authorized to be raised by the recited act.

No question is at present raised as to the amount of rating.

The questions for the decision of the Court were: First, are the appellants occupiers of the above premises within the statute of 43 Eliz. c. 2; secondly, whether of the whole or of any and what separate parts.

Mellish (C. H. Hopwood with him), for the respondents.—It may be that the rateable value is nil, but it is submitted that under the particular circumstances of this case the appellants are rateable. The 11th section of the act provides that it shall be lawful for them to use or permit the use of the buildings for such consideration as they may think proper; and it appears that, in the exercise of the power so given, they have agreed that the corporation of the city of Manchester should use the buildings for the city Quarter Sessions and the city Court of Record, paying the sums of 6001. and 300l. a year to the appellants. It is true that it appears from the case that the sums so received are not sufficient for the maintenance of the buildings; but still the appellants are rateable. The Queen v. St. Martin's, Leicester (1) is not contrary to the proposition now submitted, so far as the part let off to the corporation is concerned.

Manisty (Holker with him), for the appellants.-The appellants have no beneficial occupation of the buildings and premises within the meaning of 43 Eliz. c. 2. They make no profit out of them, and the only occupation is for public purposes, and may be considered to be the occupation of the Crown.

Mellish replied.

COCKBURN, C.J.-I am of opinion that this case falls within the principle laid down in Jones v. the Mersey Docks (2), and that the appellants are rateable. It is true that the purposes for which the buildings were erected may be said to be public

(1) 36 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. 99; s. c. 2 Law Rep. Q.B. 493.

(2) 35 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 1.

purposes; but then we find that the appellants are empowered to permit the use of those buildings for lawful purposes, at such times, in such manner, upon such conditions, and for such consideration as they may think proper. They do let part of them to the corporation, and they receive 9007. a year in respect of such part. Whatever be the occupation, if a profit is made out of the premises occupied, there is a liability to be rated. I think, therefore, that the appellants are rateable in respect of such part as they let off at a rent.

LUSH, J.-I am of the same opinion.

Judgment for the respondents.

Attorneys-Redsdale & Craddock, agents for Birchall, Wilson & Hutton, Preston, for appellants; Bower & Cotton, agents for W. H. Guest, Manchester, for respondent.

[IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.] 1867. IDEAL, appellant, SCHOFIELD, Nov. 9. f respondent.

Ale and Beer House-Licence to sell Beer "not to be consumed on the Premi ses"-Handing Beer to Customers through Window-4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 85. s. 4.3 & 4 Vict. c. 61. s. 13.

An information was preferred against a licensed seller of beer by retail, not to be drunk on the premises, for selling beer on kis premises contrary to the statutes 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 85. s. 4. and 3 & 4 Vict. c. 61. 8. 13. It appeared that a constable tapped at a window of the defendant's premises, which were about three yards from the highway, and upon its being opened by the man in charge of the house, asked him for a pint of beer. The beer was handed in a mug to the constable, who drank part of it, standing as close to the window as he could, and the remainder while sitting on the window-sill. The window was open all the time and the attendant present:-Held, that there was not sufficient evidence to justify the Magistrates in convicting the defendant.

CASE stated by Magistrates, under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43.

At a petty sessions, held at Bixford, Suffolk, April 26th, 1867, an information,

under 3 & 4 Vict. c. 61. s. 13 (1), was preferred, by Charles Schofield, Superintendent of Police, against John Deal, a licensed seller of beer by retail, not to be drunk on the premises where sold, for having, on the 10th of April, 1867, at Assington, in Suffolk, unlawfully sold beer, to wit, one pint of beer, to be consumed in or upon the house or premises where sold without being duly licensed so to do.

The facts deposed to were as follows: On the night of the 10th of April inst., about eight o'clock, police constable Barnard was on duty in Assington parish in plain clothes, and went to the co-operative stores kept by the defendant, who also sells beer on the same premises, "not to be

(1) The act 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 85. recites that much evil has arisen from the management and conduct of houses in which beer and cyder is sold by retail under the provisions of 1 Will. 4. c. 64, intituled "An Act to permit the general sale of beer and cider by retail in England, and it is expedient to amend the provisions of the said act in certain particulars."

By section 4, If any person licensed to sell beer or cider not to be consumed on the premises shall, with intent to evade the provisions of this act, take or carry, or authorize or employ, or permit or suffer any person to take or carry any beer or cider out of or from the house or premises of such licensed person for the purpose of being sold on his account, or for his benefit or profit drunk or consumed in any other house, or in any tent, shed or other building of any kind whatever belong. ing to such licensed person, or hired, used or occupied by him, such beer or cider shall be deemed and taken to have been drunk and consumed upon the premises, and the person selling the same shall be subject to the like forfeitures and penalties as if such beer or cider had been actually drunk or consumed in any house or upon any premises licensed only for the sale thereof as aforesaid.

By 3 & 4 Vict. c. 61, "An Act to amend the by retail in England," s. 13, If any person not acts relating to the general sale of beer and cider being duly licensed to sell beer or cider, shall retail any beer or cider, either to be consumed in or upon the house or premises, or off the premises where sold, or if any person shall sell any beer or cider to be consumed in or upon the house or premises where sold, without being duly licensed so to do, such person shall, in addition to any Excise penalty to which he may thereby become subject, forfeit 5l., such penalty to be recovered in the same manner as any other penalties (not being Excise penalties) are by the said recited acts or this act to be recovered, levied and applied. Provided always that no information or other proceeding for the recovery of the said penalty shall be exhibited or commenced except by and in the name of a constable or other officer of the peace.

drunk on the premises." The police constable went to the window (which was shut) on the right hand side of the door and tapped at it. The man in charge of the house opened the window, and the police-constable asked him for a pint of beer, and for which the police constable paid him 1d. The storekeeper gave the beer in a pint mug into the policeman's hands, who stood as close to the window as he could and drank part of it, and afterwards, in the presence of the storekeeper, sat down on the windowsill and drank the remainder of the beer, the window remaining open all the time. While the policeman was drinking the beer another man came up and asked for a pint of beer, which was supplied by the storekeeper through the window, and the policeman saw the man pass something to the storekeeper as if in payment, and the man stood about a yard from the window and drank the beer.

There is no mark or boundary of any kind between the window and the road, the space between being about three yards; but on the other side of the door of the adjoining house, and which is occupied by another tenant, a space of about two yards wide in front of the window is inclosed from the road.

The storekeeper (a man in the employment of the appellant) told the policeman, in reply to something he had said, that the appellant was not at home, and that he, the storekeeper, was not aware that he had sold the beer to be consumed on the premises, that he considered he had not done so.

It was admitted that the mug in which the beer was supplied was the appellant's. Upon these facts the appellant's attorney contended that the beer was sold and the transaction completed, so far as the appellant was concerned, immediately the beer was paid for and handed to the policeman, who was upon the highway and not upon the appellant's premises at the time, and that he, the appellant, was not responsible for what was done with the beer afterwards, and referred to 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 85. s. 4. as defining what is a sale upon the premises. The Justices being of opinion that the sale of beer in the mug of the housekeeper, at the place stated in the evidence, for immediate consumption, with the evident sanc

tion of the servant, was an offence under 3 & 4 Vict. c. 61. s. 13, and contrary to the spirit of 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 85. s. 4, convicted the appellant and ordered him to pay a penalty of 2s. 6d. and 78. 6d. costs. The appellant being dissatisfied with this decision, applied for a case to be stated, which was accordingly done. The question being whether the beer was sold under such circumstances as to constitute a sale on the premises, within the meaning of 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 85. s. 4. and 3 & 4 Vict. c. 61. s. 13.

Metcalfe, for the respondent.-The conviction was right. The beer was sold in such a manner that it would ordinarily be considered as sold to be consumed on the premises. If it be lawful for unlicensed persons to sell beer in this manner, the roads will be blocked up, and the nuisance greater than if the beer were drunk inside the house. In Cross v. Watts (2), where the defendant had a licence to sell beer off his premises, but no licence to sell it upon them, and his wife brought beer from the house in mugs or drinking cups to men sitting on a bench just outside the street door, it was held that the conviction was a proper one, and that the beer must be considered as drunk on the premises.

[COCKBURN, C.J.-There is nothing to shew that the appellant or his servant knew that the man to whom the beer was sold intended to drink it immediately.]

The Justices found that the beer was sold for immediate consumption.

Hance, for the appellant, was not heard.

Poor-Settlement by Payment of TaxesPayment of Property-Tax-5 & 6 Vict. c. 35. Schedule (A.)

A pauper gains a settlement in the parish wherein he has been assessed to and paid property-tax, according to 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, Schedule (A.)

By an order of Justices for the borough of Cambridge, three children of James Legge, who had deserted them, and whose place of abode was unknown, being inhabiting. in and chargeable to the common fund of the union, were adjudged to be legally settled in the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, and ordered to be removed from the Cambridge Union.

Upon appeal to the Cambridge Quarter Sessions against this order, the following CASE was stated for the opinion of the Court, pursuant to 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45. 8. 11:

James Legge (the father of the paupers) rented a tenement, consisting of a separate and distinct dwelling-house, being No. 11, Hanover Street, Pimlico, in the appellant parish for one year, namely, from Michaelmas, 1863, to Michaelmas, 1864, at the rent of 421., subject to the tenancy being determined at a quarter's notice. James Legge entered into the occupation of this tenement, and occupied it under the rental and resided there during the whole year. The rent of 421. was duly paid by him. The rates for the relief of the poor of the appellant parish were and are made annually, viz., from Lady Day of one year to Lady Day of the following year. At Lady Day, 1864, the name of James Legge, the tenant, appears in the poor-rate book of the appellant parish, and he was duly assessed and rated therein in respect of his tenement, but no portion of the rate was paid by him. In the assessment for the year ending the 5th of April, 1865, made under the acts of parliament for the assessment of occupiers of property to the proNEW SERIES, 37.—Mag. Cas.

perty and income tax, the name of James Legge, the tenant, appears; and upon the 3rd of June, 1864, he paid to William. Blackbourne, the collector of taxes appointed to receive the same, the sum of 1. 3s. 4d., being four quarters' duty or income-tax for the year ending the 5th of April, 1864, which became due on the 20th of March, 1864, under schedule (A.), for and in respect of the tenement before mentioned, and which sum of 17. 38. 4d. was subsequently allowed and paid by the landlord of the premises to James Legge by

deduction from the rent of 421.

If the Court of Queen's Bench is of opinion upon the facts above stated that James Legge gained a legal settlement in the appellant parish under the statute 3 W. & M. c. 11. s. 6, by virtue or in conseqnence of the payment of the sum of 1l. 38. 4d., the order of the Justices is to be confirmed; if otherwise, to be quashed, and a judgment in conformity with the decision of the Court may be entered on motion by either party at the Sessions next or next but one after the decision.

Mayd (O'Malley with him), for the respondents. The simple question is, whether a settlement is gained under 3 W. & M. c. 11. s. 6. (1), where the pauper has been assessed to and paid property-tax under 5 & 6 Vict.

(1) By the 3 W. & M. c. 11. s. 6, "If any person who shall come to inhabit in any town or parish, shall for himself and on his own account execute any public annual office or charge in the said town or parish during one whole year, or shall be charged with or pay his share towards the public taxes or levies of the said town or parish, then he shall be adjudged and deemed to have a legal settlement in the same, though no such notice in writing be delivered and published as is hereby before required.

By the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, the duties to be levied under Schedule (A.) are, for all lands, tenements and hereditaments or heritages in Great Britain there shall be charged yearly, in respect of the property thereof for every 20s. of the annual value, the sum of 7d.

By No. IV. "Rules and Regulations respecting the said Duties-First, all properties chargeable to the duties in Schedule (A.) shall be charged in the parish or place where the same are situate, and not elsewhere, except as hereinafter is excepted." Ninth, "The occupier of any lands, tenements, here

D

c. 35, Schedule (A.). It is submitted that by such an assessment the pauper is charged with and pays his share towards the public taxes or levies of the parish. He is assessed to the property-tax, and payment of it demanded from him. The duties are charged in the parish where the property is situated.

[COCKBURN, C.J.-You say that persons paying this tax must be looked upon as prima facie both owners and occupier.]

It has repeatedly been held that all that is required to give a settlement under this

ditaments or heritages, being tenant of the same, and paying the said duties, shall deduct so much thereof in respect of the rent payable to the landlord for the time being (all sums allowed by the Commissioners being first deducted) as a rate of 7d. for every 20s. thereof would by a just proportion amount unto, which deduction shall be made out of the first payment thereafter to be made on account of rent; and the receivers of Her Majesty, and all landlords, both mediate and immediate, their respective heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, according to their respective interests, and their respective receivers or agents, shall allow such deduction upon receipt of the residue of the rent.

By No. IX.. "Rules for charging the said Duties under Schedules (A.) and (B.)-First, the said duties, except where other provisions are made as aforesaid for estimating particular properties, shall be estimated according to the general rule contained in Schedule (A.), and shall be charged on and paid by the occupier for the time being, his executors, administrators and assigns."

By section 37, officers for receipt of land-tax and assessed taxes, and the inspectors and surveyors of assessed taxes, are to act in the execution of this act, and to have the like powers as under the assessed taxes.

By section 73, "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 to be binding contrary to the intent and meaning of this act ; but 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 repay

section is that the parish should rate the pauper so as to shew that they are aware that he is in the parish, and that he should pay on such rating-The King v. Stapleton (2). In The King v. Bramley (3) it was held that a settlement might be gained by being charged to and paying land-tax, although the statute required that the tax should be repaid by the landlord, Lord Hardwicke saying, "The great difficulty has been, whether the legislature did not mean parochial taxes; but this has long since been gotten over, and the land-tax has been holden to be within the act from the notice of habitancy that arises by the parties being assessed and paying it." This principle is also recognized in The King v. Christchurch (4) and The King v. Mitchan (5). The same arguments must apply to the property-tax.

D. D. Keane (F. T. Streeten with him), for the appellants.-The father of the paupers did not pay his share of the public taxes within the meaning of the act. With regard to the decisions as to payment of land-tax giving notice of habitancy, it would seem that this impost must have been collected by the parish officers, otherwise there would have been no notoriety.

[MELLOR, J.-In the case of land-tax the parish is not assessed.]

The property-tax is collected by a different machinery from that of the land-tax. By the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35. s, 36. the appointment of assessors to collect this impost is vested in a body of independent Commissioners. Again, it cannot be said in the present case that the father of the paupers paid the tax. By section 73. of the last-mentioned act contracts between landlords and tenants affecting the statutory liability of the landlord are void, and the landlord must be looked upon as the party actually paying. If the wife of a pauper were to pay for him without his knowledge, he could not

ments shall be made and allowed accordingly, notwithstanding such contracts, covenants or agreements."

(2) Burr. S.C. 649. (3) Ibid. 75. (4) 8 B. & C. 660. (5) Cald. 276. (6) 8 East, 383.