R v Gardner
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1774 |
| Date | 01 January 1774 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 977
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY AND COMMON PLEAS
1 COWP. 79. BEX V. GAHDNBR 977 [79] rex versus gardner. Same day, 1774. A corporation seised of lands in fee for their own profit, are within the meaning of stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2, inhabitants or occupiers of such lands, and, in respect thereof, liable in their corporate capacity, to be rated to the poor. This was a role to shew cause, why an order of sessions made for amending a rate or assessment made for the relief of the poor of the parish of St. Botolph in the town of Cambridge should not be quashed for the insufficiency thereof. The substance of the case stated was as follows : That Philip Gardner, bursar of Catharine Hall, Cambridge, appealed from a poor rate, whereby he was charged the sum of 21. 15s. for 551. per annum. That about the years 1754 and 1755, the master and fellows of the said college purchased five houses in the parish of St. Botolph of the annual rent of 551.; and being so seised thereof, pulled them down and converted the ground upon which they formerly stood, in the first place, towards erecting twelve apartments for the reception of six fellows and six scholars, upon the foundation of Mr. Ramsden: that this building adjoined the old college; but had never been inhabited: that another part was taken into the master's garden: that about 140 feet in length of the college walls, together with the gates, stood upon another part which was taken into the college court, and inclosed by the walls : a part, between the college walls on the outside and the street, was appropriated towards making an area, and planted with trees for ornament: and on the residue were erected two houses adjoining to each other, one inhabited by the college butler and his family, the other by the college porter, both without the college; the former having no communication with it, but through the latter there was an entrance for the society to come into the college after the gates were shut. That both the butler and the porter had the entire use of their respective houses without the college intermeddling therewith, and took in lodgers and boarders. That after the houses were pulled down, the rates and taxes of the parish ceased, and from 1761 to 1769 no rates or taxes were paid by the master and fellows; that the parish then assessed the college to the land-tax at the rate of 551. a-year rent for the premises. That the master, &c. paid the same from that time: that at the same time the parish rated them for the premises to the poor rate for 551. in the same manner as in the rate is set forth. That the said Gardner [80] now is, and at the time of making the rates was, bursar of the said college. This Court therefore is of opinion, that the said rate or assessment as to all persons named therein (except the said Philip Gardner for the master and fellows) should be confirmed, and as to the assessment on Gardner that the same should be amended by striking out the said charge on him, and rating the master and fellows for the said premises, except such part as is taken in for the new buildings for six fellows, and six scholars in the proportion following. £ a. The Reverend Dr. Prescot master of the said college for part of his garden, ........ 1 0 The master and fellows for the house erected for the butler, . . 40 Ditto for ditto for the porter, . . . . . . 30 Ditto for ditto for the rest of the premises added to the college court, and for part of an area to the college, . . . . . 43 15 Mr. Mansfield shewed cause. The question is, whether the master and fellows of Catharine Hall are liable to be rated to the poor for this area, which formerly had houses built upon itl Two objections are made, first, that by law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº RA 480 1993. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 22-02-2000
...and Jones (VO) (1960) 7 RRC 171 Midland Bank v Lanham (VO) [1978] RA 1 R v St Luke’s Hospital (1760) 2 Burr 1053; 97 ER 703 R v Gardner (1774) 1 Cowp 79; 98 ER 977 Kempe v Spence (1779) 2 Black W 1244; 96 ER 733 R v Mast (1795) 6 TR 154; 101 ER 485 R v Liverpool Exchange (1834) 1 Ad & E 465......
-
The Queen against the Inhabitants of Exminster
...cannot be the intention of the statute. A corporation, if the occupier of property, is, prima facie, rateable to the poor; Sex v. Gardner (1 Cowp. 79). Undoubtedly, after stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76, s. 92, came into operation, such property was holden in trust; The Attorney General v. Aspinall......
-
The Queen against Capel, Clerk
...[401] So, also, it is a fallacy to treat the interest of the tenant's capital as distinct from the profits of the land. In Sex v. Gardner (1 Cowp. 79, 84), Lord Mansfield said, "The rates must be according to the value of the thing to be rated ; and the duties increase according to the incr......
-
The Queen against The Cambridge Gas Light Company
...profits, the rate is unequal. The distribution among the parishes has been shewn to be inconsistent with the general principle, (a) 1 Cowp. 79. See Downing College, Cambridge, v. Punhas, 3 B. & Ad. 162. Harrison v. Bukock, 1 H. Bl. 68. 768 THE QUEEN V. THE CAMBRIDGE GAS LIGHT COMPANY 8 AD. ......