Harter v The Overseers of The Township of Salford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 June 1865 |
| Date | 03 June 1865 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 122 E.R. 1313
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 34 L. J. M. C. 206; 11 Jur. N. S. 1036; 13 W. R. 861. Applied, In re Watson, 1883, 23 Ch. D. 506. Distinguished, Hoyle v. Oldham Assessment Committee, [1894] 2 Q. B. 377. Referred to, Liverpool Corporation v. Chorley Assessment Committee, [1911] 1 K. B. 1066.
[591] harteh, Appellant, the overseers of '-the township of Respondents. Saturday, June 3rd, 1865. - Poor rate 43 El. c. 2, s. 1. mill not worked. Machinery. - In March, 1863, the appellant, owner of a silk^ z -, mill, gave up business with the intention of never resuming it, and the mill had / / not iinca been worked, but with the machinery and other articles and things in it had been advertised for sale. All the contents of the mill wore essential articles and things for a tenant to have in working it for the manufacture of silk. The machinery, some of which was affixed to the floors and ceilings, were in the nature of tenant's fixtures. A man occasionally went to the mill to protect the property against trespass or depredation. Held, that the appellant was rateable for the mill, but only upon its annual value as a warehouse for the machinery, article* and things in it. [S. C. 34 L. J. M. C. 206 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 1036 ; 13 W. R. 861. Applied, In re Watson, 1883, 23 Ch. D. 506. Distinguished, Hoyle v. Oldham Assessment Committee, [1894] 2 Q. B. 377. Referred to, Liverpool Corporation v. Charley Assessment Committee, [1911] 1 K. B. 1066.] The appellant was rated to a rate made on the 1st April, 1864, for the relief of the poor of the township of Salford, as owner and occupier of a " counting house, silk K. B. li.- 42 1314 BARTER V. THE OYER8BERS OF 8ALFORD B. & 8. 898. mill, and steam engine," " gross estimated rental 6401.," \" rateable value 5311." He appealed against the rate, and the following special case was stated under stat. 12 & 13 Viet. c. 45, s. 11. The appellant, for many years prior to March, 1863, carried on the business of a silk manufacturer at the Irwell silk mill, in Stanley Street, in Salford, being the mill and premises mentioned in the rate, and of which he was at the time of making the rate the owner and, so far as after stated, the occupier. In March, 1863, the appellant finally gave up business with the intention of never again resuming it, and from that time to the present the mill had not been worked. The- mill, with the machinery and other articles and things, after mentioned of referred to, had by the appellant been repeatedly advertised for sale in the Macclesfield and other papers published and circulating in the neighbouring towns in Cheshire, Derbyshire and [592] Warwickshire. The premises consist of two mills, one called the fire proof mill five stories in height, and the other called the new mill three stories in height, both of which were used for throwing and manufacturing silk, and of a building three stories in height adjoining and forming part of the mill, and used as a lodge and joiners and mechanics shops. Whilst the appellant carried on business on those premises a portion of one of the rooms of the fire proof mill was used as a warehouse for storing thrown silk, but at the time of his discontinuing the business the silk was removed therefrom, and at the time of the making of the rate that portion of the room had therein some loose counters, drawers, boxes, reels, beams, scales, weights, shelves, desks, and other articles and things which, or others of a like nature, would be necessary articles and things for any tenant to possess who might take the premises for the purpose of carrying on therein the silk throwing and manufacturing business. At the end of the yard between the two mills is the boiler house, with boilers therein necessary for a fifty horse power steam engine, which engine is in the basement story of the fire proof mill. The shafting in both mills is fixed to the walls and ceilings in the usual way. In the joiners and mechanics shops were contained at the time of making the rate a bench fixed to the wall, with a lathe upon it, a grindstone fixed to the floor, and a variety of loose tools, articles and things. The machinery in tbe fire proof mill consists of machinery for cleaning, doubling, winding, reeling and spinning silk, driven from the shafting, and ai to the larger portion thereof affixed to the floors, walls and ceilings to steady them when working, and as to the [693] other portion thereof not affixed to the building. The machinery in the new mill consists of winding machines and looms, which looms, and some of the winding machines, are driven and affixed as above mentioned ; but several of the winding machines and certain warping mills are not so driven nor affixed to tbe building in any way. The machines both in the fire proof and new mill which are affixed to the floors and ceilings of the rooms in which they stand, would, if they were the property of a tenant, be tenant's fixtures. There are also in both mills steam pipes for heating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Briant Colour Printing Company Ltd Re
...appellants have relied upon three cases: Berwick v. Southwark Corporation (1909) 1 King's Bench, 78; Harter v. Overseers of Sal ford, 6 Best & Smith, 591, and Associated Cinema Properties v. Hampstead Borough Council (1944-) King's Bench page 412. In my judgment all those cases are disting......
-
Townley Mill Company (1919) Ltd v Oldham Assessment Committee
...involve a consideration of the extent of the ground covered by certain old decisions such as Staley v. Castleton Overseers and Harter v. Salford Overseers, under which people have been rated in respect of their occupation of silent factories for the purpose of housing machinery therein, and......
-
London County Council v Wilkins
...they did not pay any specific sum for their occupation is irrelevant. 37The words of Mr. Justice Blackburn (as he then was) in Harter v. Salford Overseers 1865. 6. B. & S. 591 p. 597 cited by Lord Justice Buckley (as he then was) in R v. St. Pancras Assessment Committee (1877) L.R. 2 Q.B. p......
-
Arbuckle Smith & Company Ltd v Greenock Corporation
...readily give a profitable rent. But so it is, even though the principle of it puzzled so great an authority as Lord Blackburn (see Harter v. Salford Overseers, 6 B. & S. 591 at page 595). Whether the rule is "in truth an exception from the general law of rating" (per Lord Russell of Killow......