Netherton against Ward
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1819 |
| Date | 06 November 1819 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 571
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
netherton against ward(). Saturday, November 6th, 1819. A tenement situate in the King's dock-yard, deriving a benefit from the public sewers, and occupied by an officer of Government, who paid no rent, is liable to be rated to the sewers. Trespass for taking plaintiff's goods: plea, not guilty. At the trial before Graham Baron, at the Spring Assizes, 1818, for the county of Surrey, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following case : The trespass complained of was the taking of the goods of the plaintiff by the defendant, as a distress for non-payment of a rate made by the commissioners of sewers, for the limits extending from East Moulsey in Surrey to Ravensborne in Kent, under whose authority the defendant acted. The plaintiff was assessed in the sum of 31., as upon a rental of 601., in respect of a messuage or tenement in His Majesty's dock-yard in Deptford, in the county of Kent, of which messuage or tenement the plaintiff then was, and still is the occupier, solely by virtue of the office of clerk of the survey of the said dock-yard, where he resided, and still resides, with his family and servants, not paying any rent for the same; nor can he occupy it longer than during the time of his holding such office, from which he may be removed at His Majesty's pleasure, at any time. The whole of the yard is within the district of Church Marsh Sluice, and the sluice and district are within the jurisdiction of the above commissioners. The dock-yard is principally drained by sewers, which are made and maintained at the expense of the Crown ; but the [22] dock-yard in general, as well as the house of the plaintiff, derive a benefit from the public sewers, which are under the direction and management of the commissioners. The whole of the dockyard, and the messuage or tenement in respect of which the rate was made, as well as all the buildings and offices in such dock-yard, are the property of His Majesty. (a) This case was argued at Serjeants' Inn. 572 NETHERTON V. WARD 3B.&ALD.23. No rent, profit, or emolument, or advantage whatsoever, is derived to His Majesty from the dock-yard, or any of the buildings or offices therein, other than the use which is made of the same for the public office. The plaintiff was assessed by the rate in question, according to the yearly value of the messuage or tenement; and the commissioners are authorised by certain local Acts, viz. 49 G. 3, 50 G-. 3, and the 53 G. 3, to make a general and equal pound rate-, upon all and every person or persons who did or should inhabit or occupy any house, building, tenement, or hereditament whatsoever, within the aforesaid district, according to the yearly value of each and every such house, building, tenement, or hereditament; and in pursuance of such authority they made the rate in question, if the plaintiff was by them assessable, in respect of the messuage or tenement. It was then stated, that proper steps had been taken, on the part of the commissioners, to authorise the distress on the defendant's goods; and also, that proper steps had been taken, on the part of the plaintiff, in order to the bringing of the present action. If the Court should be of opinion, that the plaintiff was not liable to be assessed to the rate, the verdict was to stand ; if the Court should be of a contrary opinion, a nonsuit was to be entered. [23] Jervis, for the plaintiff. This property is not rateable to the sewers, being in the possession of the Crown, producing no profit, and wholly dedicated to public purposes. The possessions of the Crown are not rateable to the poor. Lord Amherst v. Lord Somers (2 T. E. 372), Edcersall v. Briggs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King against The Commissioners of Sewers for the Tower Hamlets
...to prove that fact, and that fact being proved, she was exempt from the rate, and recovered a verdict. And the case of Netherton v. Ward (3 B. & A. 21), supplies another instance in which the commissioners had subdivided their district. For these reasons, therefore, without going further in......
-
Ann Stafford v Hamston
...on which liability to taxation is incurred (b). In Masters v. Scrogys (3 M. & S. 447), Don v. Gray (2 T. R. 358), and Nethertm v. Ward (3 B. & A. 21), the question was, not whether the party taxed was liable because he lived within the district of the commissioners, but whether he derived b......