The Great Western Railway Company against Tilehurst
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1851 |
| Date | 07 June 1851 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 117 E.R. 501
QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 7 Railw. Cas. 130; 21 L. J. M. C. 84; 16 Jur. 217. For judgment see 15 Q. B. 1085. See North and South Western Railway v. Brentford Union, 1887-88, 18 Q. B. D. 759; 13 App. Cas. 592.
[379] the queen against the great western railway company. (the great western railway company against tilehurst.) [Saturday, June 7th, 1851.] The Great Western Railway Company were aasessed to the poor for 2£ miles of their line, situate in pariah T., being part of a branch of the Great Western Railway, purchased by the company from certain projectora, and incorporated with the company's line by Act of Parliament. This branch (from (b) See the next case. 502 THE Q0EBN V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY CO. 15 Q, B. 380. Reading to Hungerford) was worked by the company as part of their general line; but a certain number of engines and carriages and a certain number of officers and servants were appropriated to it. It might have been worked as an independent railway, but would then have required more stock and expenditure. No separate account of receipts and expenditure in respect of the branch was kept. The expenses were not in the proportion of the actual gross receipts, on any part of the line ; nor were the gross receipts or the expenses uniform throughout the line. The company's profits arose wholly from carriage ; and no engines or carriages but theirs used the line. The respondents took as the ground of assessment the rent at which the entire Great Western Kailway and branches, with its appurtenances, including stations, might be expected to let from year to year on the terms of the Parochial Assessment Act, 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96. This rent they ascertained by taking the whole actual receipts for the trunk and branches far a year, and deducting the annual expenditure, classified under the heads, principally, of maintenance of way, stations and works : locomotive account: carrying account; and general charges: and, from the balance, they made a further deduction for interest on capital invested in tnoveable stock, and for tenant's profits, including profits of trade : they also deducted the annual value of the stations, which were rated apart from the line of railway. The rateable value being thus settled, they ascertained the gross actual yearly receipts on each mile and portion of a mile in parish T., and assessed the appellants in respect of the 2£ miles within T. in the ratio which those yearly receipts bore to the gross actual yearly receipts on the whole line and branches, calculating the rateable value per mile in T. in the same proportion to the whole rateable value (excluding stations) as the gross receipts in T. bore to the total gross receipts. The appellants contended that, assuming the rateable value of the whole railway to be the right basis for each parish, and to be rightly ascertained, it ought to be distributed along the line, and apportioned, on each part, in the ratio of the net earnings or net profits accruing in that part, and not in the ratio of the gross receipts. They estimated the rateable value by taking the gross annual receipts per mile, as calculated by the respondents, and deducting the actual expenses ol each mile. These they ascertained, for the present purpose, by computing the actual expenses incurred on the branch alone (such as maintenance of way, &e.: salaries of servants, &c., on the branch : lighting and office expenses on the branch : annual repair of carriages used on the branch : cost of running engines on the branch : rates and taxes : Government duty : annual rateable value of stations on the branch : &c.), and dividing them, where they were common to the whole branch, by the number of miles, and taking the result as the expense per mile. A small part of the general expenses of the entire railway (central superintendence, printing and advertising) was apportioned on the branch in the ratio of the traffic upon it, and such portion then subdivided as before, on the mileage principle. The appellants also made a deduction for interest an capital, and tenants profits including those of trade, being a per centage on the capital necessarily invested in the moveable stock employed on the branch: and this deduction also they distributed over the branch by a mileage proportion. If these deductions were allowed, they exceeded the receipts; and the branch was not, in itself, profitable, nor would the occupation of it alone, by a tenant, be beneficial; but it was profitable to the company as proprietors of the railway generally, by bringing traffic to the main line. Quajre, whether the appellants or the respondents, if either, had laid down principles of assessment which the Court could, in the present state of the law, declare to be correct. [S. C. 7 Eailw. Cas. 130; 21 L. J. M. C. 84; 16 Jur. 217. For judgment see 15 Q. B. 1085. See North and South Western Railway v. Brentford Union, 1887-88, 18 Q. B. D. 759 ; 13 App. Cas. 592.] On appeals to the Berkshire Quarter Sessions, April 1850, by the Great Western Railway Company, against certain rates made respectively for the relief of [380] the poor of Tilehurst and of several other parishes, the sessions confirmed the rates on the following terms: That the appeals should be referred to the arbitration of two barristers (with power to refer any matter in diflFerence between them to a third party named by them), who were to decide at what amount the several rates should stand : 15 Q. ft 881. THE QUEEN V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY CO. 503 and that the arbitrators, if they should deem it necessary or expedient, should make a separate award in the nature of a special case on one or more of the aaid appeals, in such terms and way as would enable either of the parties to the said appeals to take the opiuion of the Court of Queen's Bench thereon; and that they might defer their award on the residue of such appeals so as to enable them to make a final award in conformity with the opinion of the said Court; and that they should order the said rates to be amended in conformity with such award. The arbitrators made their award in the! case of appeal against the Tilehurst poor-rate, for the purpose of enabling the parties to that appeal to take the opinion of this Court. The case was, substantially, as follows. The Great Western Railway Company are assessed to the relief of the poor of Tilehurst, by a rate made on 20th April 1849, in respect of land occupied by them as a portion of the line of the said railway, being part of a branch of the said railway, from Reading to Hungerford, called the Berks and Hants Railway. The appellants in their grounds of appeal complained, in substance, that they were assessed in [381] respect of the said railway at an amount exceeding its just rateable value. The Reading, Nevbury, and Hungerford Branch of the Great Western Railway is 25J miles in length. It was originally projected by certain persons incorporated, under stat. 8 & 9 Viet. c. xl. (local and personal, public), by the name of " The Berks and Hants Railway Company." The 48th section of the last mentioned statute enabled the Great Western Railway Company to purchase, and the company incorporated by the said Act to sell and transfer, the said undertaking to the Great Western Railway Company, and directed that, on the completion of such purchase, the Great Western Railway Company should have and hold the said undertaking, and that, from and after the completion of such purchase, the company by that Act incorporated should be dissolved, and the buildings and works thenceforth become part of the Great Western Railway. By virtue of the above provisions the Great Western Railway Company became the proprietors of the Berks and Hants Railway; and thereupon, by a subsequent Act, 9 & 10 Viet. c. xiv. (local and personal, public), it was enacted that the same should become thenceforth part of the Great Western Railway. The Berks and Hants Railway was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Best Origin Ltd v Commissioner Of Rating And Valuation
...to relieve them from the burden thus cast upon them; see, for example, the judgment of Lord Campbell in Reg. v. Great Western Ry. Co. [(1851) 15 QB 379, 396, 397] and the judgment of Wightman J. in Reg. v. West Middlesex Waterworks Co. [(1859) 1 E&E 716, 728]. Unfortunately, the Legislature......
-
Railway Assessment Authority v Southern Railway Co; London County Council v Southern Railway Company
... ... apply it to modern conditions, and especially to the assessment of great public utility undertakings, such as railways, water-works, gas-works and ... These two points were decided against the railway company for the reasons clearly expressed in the judgment of ... ...
-
The Newmarket Railway Company against The Churchwardens and Overseers of the Parish of St Andrew the Less, Cambridge
...profit, when it arises, and not on a tendency to profit. I consider that this principle was laid down in Regina v. Great Western Railway (15 Q. B. 1085), where it was contended that a branch railway, yielding no profit, was liable to be rated on account of its tendency to increase the [104]......
-
The Queen, on the Prosecution of the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Township of Atherstone, Respondents, against The Company of Proprietors of the Coventry Canal Navigation, Appellants
...thrown upon the whole line of the canal. Thia must be considered as one of the points decided in Regina v. Great Western Railway Company (15 Q, B. 1085), That was the iSL.asL.ssa, tamyaco v. lucas 1027 case of rating a railway; and there the question arose how the expences of maintaining su......