Dobson, Knight, Appellant; Jones, Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1844 |
| Date | 01 January 1844 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 134 E.R. 502
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 8 Scott, N. R. 80; 1 Lutw. Reg. Cas. 105; Barr. & Arn. 243; 13 L. J. C. P. 126. Applied, Fox v. Dalby, 1874, L. R. 10 C. P. 291; Smith v. Seghill, 1875, L. R. 10 Q. B. 428.
borough of greenwich. dobson, knight, Appellant; jones, Respondent. 1844. {S. C. 8 Scott, N. E. 80; 1 Lutw. Eeg. Gas. 105; Barr. & Arn. 243 ò 13 L. J. C. P. 126. Applied, Fox v. Dalby, 1874, L. E. 10 C. P. 291; Smith v. Seghill, 1875, L. E. 10 Q. B. 428.] A., the surgeon of Greenwich Hospital, occupied, as such, a house at the infirmary in the hospital, which was appropriated to the surgeon. Eepairs were done by the commissioners of the hospital. The surgeons to the hospital, when not provided with a residence within the hospital, were allowed a weekly sum as lodging money. By the regulations of the commissioners of the hospital, no officer of the hospital is allowed to make any exchange of apartments.-Held, that A. did not occupy the house "as tenant," inasmuch as he was required to.occupy the same with a view to the more efficient performance of his duties as surgeon. William Jones objected to the name of Sir Eichard Dobson, Knight, being retained in the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of members for the borough of 5 MAN. & G. 113. DOBSON V. JONES 503 Greenwich, in respect of property situated within the said borough; in respect of the qualification for which his name was inserted in'the list, that is to say, House. Infirmary. Greenwich Hospital. The facts of the case were as follows :- The appellant, who is the surgeon of Greenwich Hospital, has occupied a house at the infirmary in the hospital for the last nineteen years and upwards. It is a house appropriated for the surgeon of the hospital, [113] and he occupies it as such. He took possession of the house upon being appointed surgeon, and has occupied it ever since. The house is of the clear yearly value of 101. and upwards. The furniture in the house belongs to him. He did not pay for any fixtures on going into the house, and if any repairs are required, he applies to the commissioners of the hospital, by whom whatever is necessary is done. The name of the appellant is upon the ratebooks, as rated for the house, and the rates and window-taxes in respect of it have been paid. No poor-rates or window-tax have ever been demanded from the appellant, nor has he ever paid or tendered the amount of any rate or tax for the said house, but the rates and the window-tax have always been paid by the commissioners of the hospital. It was stated by the appellant that he had never had any communication with the lords commissioners of the admiralty, by whom he was appointed surgeon of the hospital, upon the subject of the payment of the rates. The appellant also stated, that he had a written appointment, but he did not produce such appointment, nor did he shew by what tenure he held the office of surgeon. A printed paper, purporting to be particulars of a part of an order in council of the 23rd of January 1805, containing certain rules and regulations, was produced by the appellant, and which he stated he had received from the office of the inspector-general of hospitals at the admiralty-office, containing the following order :- " Surgeons of hospitals, when not provided with a residence within the hospital, to be allowed fifteen shillings a week, lodging money." A book was also produced, copies of which had been furnished by the government to the different officers of the hospital, containing "Regulations established by the lords commissioners of the admiralty, for the govern-[114]-ment of Greenwich Hospital," dated the 4th of June 1829, and one of those regulations is as follows:- " All officers and others, having separate apartments, are to inhabit those assigned to them; and no exchanges or other appropriation, of apartments or alterations therein are to be made without our express permission. They are to use their best endeavours to preserve them unimpaired, and in a neat and proper state of cleanliness and repair; and they will be required to make good any loss or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Nadchatiram Realties (1960) Ltd v Raman and Others
-
Wheat v E. Lacon & Company Ltd
...emoluments and so were liable to tax under Schedule E, Lord Wright M.R. cited with approval the statement of principle by Tindal C.J. in Dobson v. Jones (1844) 5 Man. & Gr. 112, 120 who referred to an earlier and similar case, Hughes v. Chatham Overseers (1843) 5 Man. & Gr. 54 where he said......
-
Langley v Appleby
...[Solicitors:-Sharpe, Pritchard & Co.; Solicitor of Inland Revenue.] 1 SI 1968 No 26. 1 5 Man & G 54. 1 5 Man & G 54. 2Dobson v. Jones 5 Man & G 112. 3 LR 10 CP 285. 4 1 TC 199. 1 [1892] AC 150. 2 21 TC 35. 3Ibid, at p 37. 4Ibid, at pp 53-4. 5 5 Man & G 112. 6 LR 10 QB 422. 7 21 TC 35, at p ......
-
Langley and Others v Appleby (HM Inspector of Taxes)
...[Solicitors:-Sharpe, Pritchard & Co.; Solicitor of Inland Revenue.] 1 SI 1968 No 26. 1 5 Man & G 54. 1 5 Man & G 54. 2Dobson v. Jones 5 Man & G 112. 3 LR 10 CP 285. 4 1 TC 199. 1 [1892] AC 150. 2 21 TC 35. 3Ibid, at p 37. 4Ibid, at pp 53-4. 5 5 Man & G 112. 6 LR 10 QB 422. 7 21 TC 35, at p ......
-
Preliminary Sections
...E.R. 577. 130 Davies v. D.P.P. (1954) A.C. 378. 400 280 Davies v. D.P.P. (1954) A.C. 378, 400 173 Dobson v. Jones (1844) (5 Man.& Gr.112), 134 E.R. 502. 46 Dockings v. Lord Penryn (1878) 4 A.C. 51. 53 Donovan v. Fricker 37 E R 813 62 Dykes & Ors. v. Thompson (1909) W N 104 256 Edo and Osaka......
-
THE APPRAISER V. NIGERIAN RAILWAY CORPORATION
...(5 Man. & Gr.54), 134 E.R. 479,488. 15 5. Smith v .Seghill Overseers (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B 422. 6. Dobson v. Jones (1844) (5 Man.& Gr.112), 134 E.R. 502. 7. Cory v. Bristow (1877) 2 App.C.262,276. J.E. David, for appellant. 20 P. Atilade, (N.C. Ikejiani and A.O. George, with him), for responde......