ASSESSMENT OF THE COUNTY MAINS.

Thames Advertiser, Volume XVI, Issue 5106, 2 March 1885, Page 3

ASSESSMENT OF THE COUNTY MAINS.

4t the adjourned sitting of the Assessment Court for the Borough of Thames, Mr Kenrick delivered his decision in the case in which the Chairman of the Thames County Council appealed againot the valuation of the County mains, in their passage through the municipal throughfares, at £760. The following was the judgment :—

"He said it would appear from the English authorities quoted that decisons have been given ruling Corporations liable for assessment to rates in districts where their occupation of land is limited to a mere right of occupancy of the soil by their mains beneath the surface. In the case of the Chelsea Waterworks Company, the company were held liable to be rated, as having the exclusive though limited occupation of the soil for their mains, even though the aurface of the soil under which the mains were laid was also rated to the owner. The principle appears to be that the right, limited as it may be, is in effect a beneficial occupation of land rateable to the extent of the benefit derived. It must .be remembered that these authorities are interpreting the words of the statutes or charters under which the respective companies are incorporated. In the absence of these statutes or charters, it is somewhat difficult to apply the same interpretation to'the limited definition of the words rateable property in our own Bating Act; but the decision given in the West Middlesex Waterworks Company and others-taken in conjunction with the interpretation placed upon the rateable powers granted under the Towns Improvement Act, 10 and 11 Vic, to local bodies—thereby justifies the interpretation sought to be placed upon the Rating Act by the Borough authorities when assessing the County Council for these mains. Exemptions appear to be recognised, in cases where corporate bodies manage either gas or water works solely on public grounds, their occupation of the land being deemed to be for public purposes only; but the exemption will not apply where profit is made, even though those profits are applied to the reduction of rates. The Thames County Council cannot therefore"'i claim exemption on this ground, neither do I think that they come in in the j exemption named in Sub-seotion 2 of . Sec tion 37 of the Rating Act, 1876 (re exemption on account of goldininiog purposes. The Thames water-race wad. proclaimed and constructed by the Provincial Government under the authority of the Public Works Act, 1870. But this power is not limited to the construction of water-races for goldmining purposes only, and as a matter of fact the water brought in under tha above-quoted authority appears to have been used for other than goldminiug purposes. The Council who, by the Act of 1880, have this race vested.in them, with all rights and privileges', and subject to the same liabilities in the Crown, cannot, I think, sustain their contention that their title to this race is an authority from the Crown for goldmining purposes, they admittedly having no such limitation placed upon their powers. Having come to the conclusion that the Thames County Conncil is rightly held liable to assessment for rates ia respect to their mains carried through the streets of the Borough, there arises the further question—Have they been properly assessed—in substance and form—apart altogether from the amount of the assessment, which is admittedly excessive ? The Valuer oppears to have assessed on the capital value of the mains themselves, adding thereto the value of the labour spent in laying the pipes down, taking five per cent, upon their value as the amount of his assessment. He states that his assessment is apart altogether from any value attachable to the beneficial occupation of the land. This he appeurs'to have found difficult, if not impossible to fix. Now, tho Valuer is restricted in his valuation by tho definition of the words rateable value, given in the Rating Aot, 1876. Rent at which a property would let from year to yoai, or five per cent, on the value of! tho fee simple, being the only method nllowable to arrive at an assessment on rutoablo value, it is clear that the Valuer has adopted neither of these methode, but simply taken instant deductions of the capital value of! the moveable property apart from the land. There can bo no doubt that the assessment must be hold to bo bad; it is in-

equitable, inasmuch as no deductions whatever are made,and,there is not sufficient evidence before me to enable me to supply the omission, and it is illegal inasmuch as he has not taken either the letting value or the value of the fee simple - if euch a value can bu said to attach to the limited beneficial occupation of 'the ■ soil by these mains. Two modes of arriving at the rateable value of a company's mains appeared to have been decided .as correct'in England, viz,: the profitable occupation—i.e., to take the net profits realised after making every possible deduction; such as set out in detail in the judgment given in Regina v. Inhabitants of Lee, 35 L. J. Me 105, LR. ,128 241. Next, the letting value, taking into consideration the improved value givon to the land from the water mains being laid in it. Lee v. Cambridge Gaslight Co. Ad, and E 73 v. 6, 3 N. and P. 262. There being no way by which I can amend the assessment—no evidence to enable me to say what the rateable value of these mains should be, —I must strike the assessment of £760 out." . ' ' ■ ■