The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Jones and Others, Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Liverpool
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 141 E.R. 1108
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
See S. C. in House of Lords, 11 H. L. C. 443; 11 E. R. 1405 (with note).
the mersey docks and harbour board v. jones and others, Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Liverpool. 18fiO. [See S. C. iu House of Lords, 11 H. L. C. 443; 11 E. K. 1405 (with note).] By a series of local acts, the trustees of certain public docks were impowered to take certain rates and tolls from vessels entering therein, the proceeds to be applied to the repair and maintenance of the docks and harbour; and, if the amount raised should be more than sufficient for that purpose, then the rates and tolls were to be lowered.-By subsequent acts, the trustees were impowered to raise money for building additional warehouses, and to levy rates for payment of the expenses of carrying the acts into effect, paying interest, and maintaining the buildings so erected; but such additional warehouses were to be rateable to the poor as in the case of premises of which there was a beneficial occupation. -Held,-in deference to the decision of the court of Queen's Bench (between the same parties) upon a case stated by the sessions in 1827 (The King v. The, Inhabitants of Liverpool, 1 B. & C. 61, 9 D. & R 780), and the legislative declaration as to the rateability of the additional buildings erected under the authority of the later acts, -that the trustees were not rateable in respect of the old docks, &c.-The court has no power hostilely to vary a special case which has been stated by consent, for tha purpose of raising a different question from that which the pat-ties originally contemplated. This was an Action of replevin brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for (a)1 The poihts marked for argument on the part of the defendants were as follows:- " That no right is shewn to have ever existed in respect of the windows mentioned in the pleadings: that the right, if any, was in respect of former windows, which right has been lost by the plaintiffs' alterations : that the plaintiffs have abandoned or otherwise lost any right to lights heretofore existing by throwing out new windows, and varying the site and enlarging the size of former windows, and altering their premises as stated in the case and shewn in the plans and models; that any such right came to an end (if not previously) when the defendants newly built their house: that any right, if not destroyed, was at all events suspended, and has not been revived : that the suspension continues until the plaintiffs restore their premises to their former condition : and ijhat the facts existing at the time justified the defendants in raising the premises, and that they are not liable to an action for continuance of a building so justifiably built, especially as it is a permanent structure." (a)2 An appeal is pending. 8 C. B. N. S.) 115. THE MERSEY DOCKS TRUSTEES V. JONES 1109 the taking and detaining certain goods and chattels of the plaintiff's, and by consent of the parties and under a judge's order pur-[115]-suant to the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, the following case was stated for the opinion of the court:- By a rate made for the relief of the poor of the parish of Liverpool, on the 2nd of June, 1858, the plaintiffs wero assessed in the sum of 20,5801. ISs. 8d., in respect of the annual value of the dock estates within the said parish vested in the said board. The following is a copy of the assessment:- s. d. " Wet docks and basins, cranes, sheds, and wharfs connected therewith, within the parish, viz. Wellington, Bramley, Moore, Nelson, Stanley, Collingwood, Salisbury, Clar ence, Trafalgar, Victoria, Waterloo, Prince's, Canning, Albert, Salthouse, Wapping, King's, and Queen's docks 18,900 0 0 Graving-docks and graviug-blocks, engines, and sheds con nected therewith, at the Clarence, Prince's, Canning, King's, and Queen's docks .... 746 13 4 Transit-sheds and offices, Prince's dock . . . 375 13 4 Tramway, railroad, and sidings, and high level railway along the side of the docks within the parish . . '233 6 8 Dock offices, comprising general offices, treasurer's offices, solicitor's offices, secretary's offices, marine surveyor's offices, board-room, and store-room . . . 116 13 4 Depot for wrecked goods, Waterloo dock . . . 52 10 0 Depot for wrecked goods, Prince's dock . . . 32 13 4 Transit-shed west side of Nelson dock . . . 23 6 8 Transit-shed west side of Nelson dock . . . 23 fi 8 Transit-shed west side of Nelson dock . . . 23 6 8 Transit-shed west side of dock entrance to Waterloo clock 20 8 4 Weighing-machine, George's Dock Passage . . 14 0 0 Weighing-machine, Prince's dock . . . . II 13 4 Telegraph-office, Tower Buildings . . . . 770" The plaintiffs did not appeal against the said rate. [116] The distress in question was levied in consequence of the non-payment of tie rate. The plaintiff's entered into the usual replevin-bond, and brought the present action. The dock estates within the parish of Liverpool became vested originally in the mayor, aldermen, bailiffs, and common council of the borough of Liverpool, as trustees of the docks and harbour of Liverpool, by virtue of several acts of parliament. Part of those estates was granted voluntarily by that corporation, part was sold by that body to the trustees for a pecuniary consideration, and other parts were purchased by the trustees from private individuals, according to the powers given to them by the said before-mentioned and other acts, being altogether twenty-two in number, and forming a series extending from the first year of Queen Anne to the 21st year of Her present Majesty, both inclusive; all of which were to be referred to as part of the case. Before the construction of many of the present works, part of the land was shore, both above and below high-water mark: but the greater part consisted of kind and buildings in the occupation of individuals rated to the relief of the poor of the said parish. The dock estates at present consist of docks, basins, piers, jetties, graving-docks, gridirons, wharfs, quays, sheds, offices, buildings, landing-stages, ships, stairs, river-walls, dams, embankments, locks, gates, bridges, mevis, sluices, tunnels, cuts, channels, roads, railways, tram-roads, cranes, engines, machinery, and other matters and conveniences requisite to form complete docks : and the trustees are authorized to receive large sums of money under the name of dock-rates and duties for the accommodation of vessels in the said docks, by virtue of the said acts of parliaments Under and by virtue of the 6 G. 4, c. clxxxvi., and [117] the 14 & 15 Viet, c. Ixiv. (beiiag two of the acts comprised in the said series), a committee was appointed in the manner directed \ y these acts, called " The committee for the affairs of the estate of the trustees of the Liverpool Docks," and all the powers and authorities of the said trustees of the Liverpool Docks were vested in such committee. tilt) THE MERSEY DOCKS TRUSTEES V. JONES 8 C. B. (N. 3.) 118. By statute 20 & 21 Viet. c. clxii. (local ;md personal), and which was also to be referred to as part of the case, intituled "An act for consolidating the docks at Liverpool and Birkenhead into one estate, and for vesting the control and management of them in one public trust, and for other purposes," s. 26, all the docks, lands, buildings, and other property, real and personal, situate at Liverpool, that wore held by or in trust for the trustees of the Liverpool Docks became vested in the plaintiff's, under the stylo of "The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board," but subject to all charges and liabilities affecting the same. By s. 49 of the last mentioned act, it is enacted, " that, subject to the provisions of this act, the board shall stand possessed of all the property, powers, rights, and privileges hereby transferred to them, upon the trusts and for the purposes upon and for which such property, powers, rights, and privileges were holden previously to the commencement of this act." The 56th section enacts as follows:-" The following rules shall be observed by the fcoard with respect to the moneys received by them under this act, that is to say, -1. The conservancy expenditure shall be defrayed out of the conservancy receipts, -2. The pilotage expenditure shall be defrayed out of the pilotage receipts, -3. No portion of the conservancy receipts or pilotage receipts shall be applied in aid of the general expenditure,-4. No sums shall be payable in respeot of docks by any vessel that does not use the same,-[118] 5. Save as by this act is provided, no moneys receivable by the board shall be applied to any purpose, unless the same conduces to the safety or convenience of ships frequenting the port of Liverpool, or facilitates the shipping or unshipping of goods, or is concerned in discharging a debt contracted for the above purposes." The 59th section is as follows;-"The board shall render to parliament as soon as may be after the 24th of June in every year an account of its receipts during the preceding year ending the 24th of June, and the manner in which the same have been applied." The board manages the dock estate by its servants and agents, who receive and account for to the board the dues and other moneys arising from the management of the said estates; and no part of the estates and premises comprised in the above assessment or schedule is let off to other persons, nor are any rents paid to the hoard for any part thereof. With regard to the application of the moneys received as dock duties, the statute 8 Anne, c. 12, s. 9, under which the first dock was built, enacts as follows :-"That all and every such sum and sums of money that shall be raised and received by the duties aforesaid, and recovered for any the forfeitcires in this act appointed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Fowles v Eastern and Australian Steamship Company Ltd
-
Londonderry Union (Guardians) v Londonderry Bridge Comrs
...A. & E. 435. The Queen v. Exminster12 A. & E. 2. Mersey Docks v. Cameron; Jones v. Mersey Docks11 H. L. 443. The Mersey Docks CaseENR8 C. B. N. S. 114, The Salterƒ€™s Load Sluice CaseENR4 T. R. 730. Wait v. Governors of Bristol Poor5 A. & E. 1. The Tyne Improvement Commissio......
-
Jones and Others, - Plaintiffs in Error; "The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board" Trustees, - Defendants in Error
... ... Inspector of Poor, 1866, L.R. 1 Sc. and Div. 17; considered in Tunnicliffe v. Birkdale Overseers, 1887, 1888, 19 Q.B.D. 282; 20 Q.B.D. 451; and cf. Dewsbury ... of the shipping frequenting [444] the port of Liverpool, were therefore held liable to be rated as occupiers, ... DOCKS [1864-65] Jones and others were the churchwardens and overseers of the town and parish of Liverpool, and had ... ...