In Feb. 1870 Topple sent in to the Metropolitan Board of Works particulars of his claim, in which he stated that his interest was subject to that of Edwards under the agreement of the 18th Dec. 1869, and the value of Topple's interest was assessed on the footing of the claim so made, and the amount of compensation awarded to him was 13811. On the 7th March 1871 Edwards gave notice to the Metropolitan Board of Works that he claimed the sum of 3501. in respect of his interest in the premises under the agreement of the 18th Dec. 1869. On the 27th March 1871 the Metropolitan Board of Works issued their warrant to the sheriff of Middlesex, whereby, after reciting that they did not admit but denied that Edwards was entitled to receive any compensation at all from them in respect of the matters mentioned in his notice, they required him to summon a special jury to determine the amount of compensation (if any) payable by them to Edwards. On the 29th April 1871 a jury was summoned, and assessed Edwards's claim to compensation at 1007. Edwards's costs of these proceedings were taxed at 621. The Metropolitan Board of Works still disputed Edwards's claim, and paid the sum of 1627. into court under the 76th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. Edwards accordingly presented the present petition, praying that the amount might be paid out of court to him. Jessel, Q. C. and Willis-Bund in support of the petition. Southgate, Q. C. and Charles Hall, for the Metropolitan Board of Works, opposed. July 22.-Lord ROMILLY said that if the agreement in question had been executed before the landlord received the notice to treat, the petitioner would have been entitled to compensation in respect of his interest, even though the three years' tenancy had been created in the expectation of the house being taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works under the compulsory powers vested in them by the Act. Here, however, the tenancy was created after service of the notice to treat, and his Lordship was of opinion that it was therefore not a subject for compensation by the party serving the notice. The petition must, therefore be dismissed, but without costs. Solicitor for the petitioner, Silberberg. Solicitor for the Metropolitan Board of Works, W. Wyke Smith. V. C. WICKENS' COURT. PRATT v. HARVEY. A testator bequeathed a sum of money towards the expenses of building a church, and provided that, if the church should not be commenced in his lifetime, or before the expiration of two years from his death, or within half a mile of a certain place, the legacy was to go over to his general personal estate: Held, that the legacy was invalid, as coming within that Statutes of Mortmain. [Q. B. THE question in this case was whether a legacy was invalid, as contravening the provisions of the Statutes of Mortmain. The facts were these: J. T. Fisher, by his will dated in Dec. 1868, bequeathed (inter alia) the sum of 1000l. to the vicar and churchwardens of the town of Newarkupon-Trent, to be applied by them in and towards the expenses of building and erecting a new church, near Northgate, in connection with the Church of England; and the testator provided that if the church should not be commenced during his lifetime, or before the expiration of two years after his death, or if it should not be erected within half a mile of Northgate, then such legacy was to go over to his general personal estate; and the testator bequeathed the residue of his property to the plaintiffs, who were infants. The testator died in May, 1869. Charles Hall for the defendants, the legatees, contended that the bequest, when made to them, was contingent on the fact of land being purchased within the lifetime of the testator, and therefore good. It was true that no land had been so purchased; but that would not invalidate a bequest originally valid. He cited Cresswell v. Cresswell, L. Rep. 6 Eq. 69; 18 L. T. Philpott v. St. George's Hospital, 6 H. of L. Cas. 338; Re Watmough's Trusts, L. Rep. 8 Eq. 272. Borthwick for trustees. The VICE-CHANCELLOR.-The authorities referred to lay down the law that a charitable gift for building is only good in two instances-namely, where it is directed that the building should take place on specified land already in mortmain, or where by the gift the purchase of land is expressly excluded. This case does not come within those definitions. I consider that the restriction on the gift is not nearly enough to exclude its application in the purchase of land, and that being so, the legacy must fail, except to the extent of the 5001. allowed by the Act. Solicitors for the plaintiffs, Swann and Co. Solicitors for the defendants, Pelgrave and Hodgkinson. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. Reported by T. W. SAUNDERS and J. SHORTT, Esqrs., Barristers-at-law. Wednesday, May 31, 1871. THE GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF THE STOURBRIDGE UNION (apps.) v. THE GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF THE DROITWICH UNION (resps.). Poor law-Parish not maintaining its poor-Association of townships for rating purposes-Severance -Loss of settlement therefrom-Alteration of area. The ecclesiastical parish of Old Swinford never maintained its own poor; but the township of UpperSwinford, within the said parish, and three other townships also therein, from time immemorial associated together under the designation of the "parish of Old Swinford," jointly appointed overseers, and made rates for the relief of their poor. The four townships, however, disjoined, pursuant to a mandamus directed to one of them in 1842, and separate overseers have since been regularly appointed, and separate rates made for each. The township of Upper Swinford now forms part of Stourbridge Union, which comprises the parishes and places of Stourbridge, Old Swinford, &c. Q. B.] THE GUARDIANS OF STOURBRIDGE UNION v. THE GUARDIANS OF DROITWICH UNION. A. was born about the year 1804 in the township of Upper Swinford. The wife and children of his son, paupers, were entitled to derive a settlement from the birth settlement of A., and were therefore adjudged by an order of justices to be legally settled in the parish of Old Swinford, and to be removable to the Stourbridge Union. Held (in consequence solely of the decisions in Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Tipton, (3 Q. B. 215); Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Hunnington (5 Q. B. 273), and successive similar cases), that as there had been a change in the chargeable area wherein the birth settlement of A. lay, by the separation of the united townships, the paupers had no legal settlement there, and that the order was bad. 1. By an order of two justices for the county of Worcester, made on the 28th April 1869, on the complaint of the Droitwich union guardians, it was adjudged that the settlement of Mary Ann Smith and two children, aged six and two years, was in the parish of Old Swinford and Stourbridge union, and the former union was ordered to remove the said paupers to the Stourbridge union. On appeal, by an order of a judge the following case was stated for the opinion of this court. 2. Mary Ann Smith, in the order mentioned, is the widow of William Smith. 3. The grounds of removal, including the particulars in the settlement relied upon in support of the order, stated, amongst other things, that William Smith was the son of Samuel Smith; that the last-mentioned Samuel Smith was born in the parish of Old Swinford, in or about the year 1804, and that the last legal settlement of the said Mary Ann Smith and her two children is in the said parish of Old Swinford, in virtue of the birth settlement of her late husband, William Smith's father, Samuel Smith, in the said parish of Old Swinford." 4. It is agreed that if the alleged birth settlement of Samuel Smith, in the alleged parish of Old Swinford, or otherwise in the Stourbridge union was, under the circumstances herinafter stated, available at the time of the making of the order, then the last-mentioned settlement was and is the last legal settlement of Mary Ann Smith and her two children, and the order for the removal of Mary Ann Smith and her two children to the Stourbridge union was rightly made. 5. Samuel Smith was born in the township of Upper Swinford, in the ecclesiastical parish of Old Swinford, in the county of Worcester, in or about the year 1804. 6. The ecclesiastical parish of Old Swinford has existed from time immemorial, with a parish church, and churchwardens have been from time immemorial, and still are, regularly appointed for that parish; but portions of the old ecclesiastical parish of Old Swinford have been from time to time separated off into ecclesiastical districts, under the Church Building Acts; and at the time of the making of the said order, the only part of the old ecclesiastical parish of Old Swinford remaining was and is the township of Upper Swinford, in which the church and rectory are situate, and which still constitutes the ecclesiastical parish of Old Swinford. And the portions so separated off have been since such separation, and still are, distinct for all ecclesiastical purposes from the present ecclesiastical parish of Old Swinford as provided by the Church Building Acts. [Q. B. 7. The ecclesiastical parish of Old Swinford did not, before the passing of the 28 & 29 Vict. c. 79, maintain its own poor, and there is not now, and there never was, any poor rate made for such ecclesiastical parish, and there are no overseers appointed, nor were there any ever appointed for such parish. 8. The ecclesiastical parish of Old Swinford was originally made up of a number of townships and hamlets. These townships and hamlets are as follows: The township of Stourbridge, the hamlet of Amblecote, the township or hamlet of Upper Swinford, in which the old parish church and rectory are situate, the township or hamlet of Wollaston, the township or hamlet of the Lye, and the township or hamlet of Wollescote. 9. The township of Stourbridge has from time immemorial had separate overseers appointed for it, and a separate poor rate has always been made for such township. 10. In like manner the hamlet of Amblecote has from time immemorial had separate overseers appointed for it, and it also has a separate poor rate. 11. The townships or hamlets of Upper Swinford, Wollaston, the Lye, and Wollescote, forming part only of the ecclesiastical parish of Old Swinford from time immemorial previously to the year 1842, were together called "the parish of Old Swinford," and they had two overseers appointed for such townships or hamlets jointly, who were called the overseers of the poor of "the parish of Old Swinford," and one poor rate used to be made by such overseers for such last-mentioned four townships or hamlets, which jointly supported their poor. 12. The Stourbridge Union was formed in the year 1836 by an order of the Poor Law Commissioners for England and Wales, under the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 26; and by such order the parishes and places of Stourbridge, Old Swinford, Cradley, the borough of Halesowen, Illy, Hawn, Hasbury, Sutley, the Hill, Catkemore, Ridgacre, and Lapal, in the county of Worcester and King's Swinford and Amblecote in the county of Stafford, were formed into a union called the Stourbridge union. 13. In the year 1842 a rule for a mandamus was made absolute, commanding the justices to appoint separate overseers for the township of Wollaston, in pursuance of the statute 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 12, s. 21, which they did; and such separate overseers have been annually appointed for. that township, and a separate poor rate has been since made for the same. In consequence of the decision of the Queen's Bench in that case, separate overseers have since the year 1842 also been legally and regularly appointed for the township of Upper Swinford, the township of Lye, and the township of Wollescote, and each of those townships has since that period had a separate rate made for it by its Own overseers. After separate overseers had been appointed in 1842, by an order of the Poor Law Commissioners, dated the 18th Aug. 1842, after reciting their said order dated the 19th Sept. 1836, forming under the provisions of the Act of 4 & 5 Will. 4 the Stourbridge union aforesaid, and reciting that the parish of Old Swinford aforesaid was one of the places the names of which were specified in the margin of the said order, and that the same was still one of the places forming the said Stourbridge union, and reciting that the parish of Old Swinford comprised several townships, and among others the townships Q. B.] THE GUARDIANS OF STOURBRIDGE UNION v. THE GUARDIANS OF DROITWICH UNION. of Upper Swinford and Wollaston, but that at the date of the said order the poor of the said parish of Old Swinford were maintained by such parish as the poor of one parish, but that since the date of the said order the said townships of Upper Swinford and Wollaston had been lawfully separated for the maintenance of the poor thereof from the said parish of Old Swinford, and the other townships comprised therein, and that each of the townships of Upper Swinford and Wollaston then maintained its own poor separately; and also reciting that by reason of such separation the ratepayers and owners of property in the said township of Upper Swinford and Wollaston respectively had become entitled, under the provisions of the said lastmentioned Act, separately to elect one guardian at least for each of the said townships, and that the said townships became liable to contribute separately towards the common fund of the union. The Poor Law Commissioners did, by their order now in recital, order and direct that one guardian of the poor should be separately elected for each of the said townships of Upper Swinford and Wollaston, with the qualification specified in the thereinrecited order, wherein the said union was founded. Similar orders were made by the Poor Law Board as to the other two townships, on separate overseers being appointed for them; and it is agreed that the court may refer to any order of the Poor Law Board mentioned in the case. 14. The whole of the said townships or hamlets which formerly constituted the ecclesiastical parish of Old Swinford, are in the Stourbridge union. 15. Since 1842 there has been no place with separate overseers or with separate poor rates called Old Swinford, but there is still an ecclesiastical parish as before mentioned, called Old Swinford, which is co-extensive with the township of Upper Swinford, in which the said Samuel Smith was born, which township is a place with separate overseers and separate poor rates. It was contended by the appellants that there is no poor law parish of Old Swinford, in which the paupers could be legally adjudged to be settled, and that the order in question was therefore void; as it in point of fact adjudged them to be settled in the parish of Old Swinford, the only parish of that name being an ecclesiastical parish, and not a parish with overseers, or a parish for which a separate poor rate is made. It was contended by the respondent, that for the purpose of removal to the Stourbridge poor law union, under the Union Chargeability Act (28 & 29 Vict. c. 79), the paupers could be legally adjudged to be settled in the parish of Old Swinford, in the Stourbridge union, or otherwise in the Stourbridge union by virtue of the birth settlement of Samuel Smith in the township of Upper Swinford, in the parish of Old Swinford, and that the order was therefore properly made. The question for the opinion of the court, was whether the justices were entitled under the circumstance above stated to make the order of removal (either in its then present, or in an amended form). If the court should answer this question in the affirmative, the order was to be confirmed with costs; if in the negative, the order was to quashed with costs. Field, Q. C. (with him Poland) for the appellants. -The settlement was destroyed by the destruction of the area in which it was. Three decisions conclude this case: first, Reg. v. The Inhabitants of [Q. B. Tipton (3 Q. B. 215). There a pauper was born a bastard in the workhouse of Halesowen, where her mother was maintained as a pauper belonging to Halesowen. Halesowen consisted of several townships, maintaining their poor jointly; the workhouse was in one of these; and the pauper's mother was settled in Halesowen in respect of a part of Halesowen, which was in another township. After the pauper's birth separate parish officers, under stat. 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 12, s. 21, were appointed for each of the townships, and thenceforward they maintained their own poor separately. Held, that both under and independently of stat. 54 Geo. 3, c. 170. s. 3, the pauper at her birth was settled in the parish of Halesowen, but not in any particular township; and that she had not, after the separation of the townships, a settlement in the township in which the workhouse was: (See per Lord Denman, C. J., delivering the judgment of the court therein, p. 219.) The division of parishes into townships separately maintaining their own poor was effected by 14 Car. 2, c. 12 (a). Until officers are appointed to relieve the poor of a parish, &c., a settlement there does not come within the definition of "the right acquired in any one of the modes pointed out by the poor laws to become a recipient of the benefit of those laws, in that parish or place which provides for its own poor, where the right has been last acquired: (Burn's Justice, 30th edit. Tit. Poor, p. 316.) In the case above cited, Lord Denman, C. J., says (p. 222): "To sustain the order of removal into the township of Halesowen, we must hold that a settlement by birth was gained equally in the parish and each of the twelve townships comprising it, for which we can find no warrant of direct authority, or analogy in the law of settlement. It has been suggested as a difficulty, that unless we so hold, the parish, by subdivision, will get rid of settlements, and that persons who would otherwise have gained them may have none. A similar result happened under circumstances nearly the converse of the present in the case of Reg. V. Saighton-on-the-Hill (2 B. & Ald. 162);" and the learned judge, after stating the facts of that case, adds that the necessary effect of the decision of it was to leave the pauper without any settlement at all. As soon as the parish is divided into townships under the statute of Car. 2, all antecedent settlements disappear. In Reg v. The Inhabitants of Hunnington (5 Q. B. 273), the facts were as follows-viz., that part of the parish of Halesowen which lay in Shropshire, consisted of several townships, Hunnington, Oldbury, and others, but maintained its poor out of a common fund administered by officers for the whole of that part of the parish. Afterwards, in obedience to a mandamus, separate appointments of overseers were made for the respective townships, and each then maintained its own poor. Before the subdivision, a pauper was settled in the Shropshire (a) The 14 Car. 2, c. 12, after reciting t' at certain counties, "by reason of the largeness of the parishes within the same," are unable to reap the benefit of 43 Eliz. c. 2, enacts that the poor within every township or village within the counties aforesaid shall be maintained within the several and respective township and village wherein he, she, or they shall inhabit, or was or were last lawfully settled, according to the intent and meaning of this Act, and "that there shall be yearly chosen and appointed according to the rules and directions in the said Act of 43 Eliz., two or more overseers of the poor within every of the said townships or villages," &c. Q. B.] district of Halesowen, by a hiring and service in the township of Hunnington; and it was held that he was not therefore removable to the township of Hunnington as the place of his settlement, when overseers were appointed for that place. Lord Denman, C.J. there says "The principle we acted upon in Reg. v. Tipton (sup.), must decide this case. THE GUARDIANS OF STOURBRIDGE UNION v. THE GUARDIANS OF DROITWICH UNION. In Rex v. Saighton-on-the-Hill (sup.), this court decided that although the settlement in the last place of residence was extinct by the destruction of the township, that did not prevent the extinction of the settlement previously acquired." [BLACKBURN, J.-I cannot understand what they mean by the use of the word destroyed. If the parties liked to obtain a mandamus, they could still have compelled Saighton-on-the-Hill to appoint overseers.] The definition of "parish" in Burns's Justice as a "place that provides for its own poor" (sup.), is adopted in 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 109, which declares that "the word parish shall be construed to include any parish, city, borough, town, township, liberty, precinct, vill, village, hamlet, tithing, chapelry, or any other place, or division, or district of a place maintaining its own poor, whether parochial or extra parochial." Then" parish settlement" must mean the right of a pauper to the benefit of the poor law in any parish maintaining its own poor, and the right of the poor law authorities to remove him thither. The case first cited was again approved of in Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Acton (8 Q. B. 114), and in Reg. v. The Inhabitants of St. Martin, New Sarum (9 Q. B. 245) Lord Denman, C. J., says, “The result of the cases arising upon the division of Halesowen may perhaps be regretted; but we had not the power to create a settlement by relation." It is a well known doctrine of this court that the law of settlement should not be lightly disturbed. Then the above cases must govern the decision of the court in the present one, Here the settlement was not in the parish of Old Swinford. The principle of the later legislation has been to make the paupers chargeable where found. In this case there is mere consent of the litigant parishes that the grandfather was born in Old Swinford. [COCKBURN, C. J.-I quite agree that the whole system of settlement is based on false considerations, but that is beside the question to-day.] The Union Chargeability Act 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 79), provides for the removal of paupers to the union or parish in which they shall be settled; and sect. 13 enacts that, "except as herein provided, no alteration shall be made in respect of the settlement of poor persons in parishes." The order could not have been amended, because there was no proof before the justices that the pauper was born in Old Swinford. [LUSH, J.-It is so found as a fact.] The only amendment which would validate the order is one which there is no power to make, viz., to substitute some township for the union of Stourbridge. Jelf (H. Matthews, Q.C. with him), for the respondents. As to the last observation, it was intended to submit to the court the question whether in any way an order could be made to fix on the appellant union the charge of maintaining these paupers. No doubt the court would desire to distinguish if possible this case from those cited. [BLACKBURN, J.-Reg. v. Hunnington seems most clearly in point. What say you to it?] The Stourbridge Union was formed in 1836, and if the law as between the union and [Q. B. It is the different parishes constituting it had been at that time as it now is, then, irrespective of any division under the statute of Charles, that union would have been liable. [BLACKBURN, J.-But union chargeability did not then exist.] If the Union Chargeability Act had come into operation simultaneously with the separation, then Reg. v. Hunnington (sup.) would not have been decided as it was; the ratio decidendi of that case probably being that it was a necessary application of the law of settlements to hold that whereas a liability distributed over an area had been incurred, it would be a hardship to load any one of those townships with the burdens, because before that the parish would have borne the burdens evenly. Now an order made under the Union Chargeability Act really has an operation to distribute over the whole union the burden of any pauper born. [BLACKBURN, J.— But can it be, that if he had not been removeable to any place before the Union Chargeability Act received the royal assent, he would be removeable the day after?] At least the settlement is not available. The argument contra, on the statute of Car. 2, shows the real ground upon which the decisions rest, viz. that there was not machinery to properly carry out the law of settlement. conceded by the appellants, that if there had been officers to provide for the poor, the settlement might have been made available. [BLACKBURN, J.—Lord Campbell, C.J. does not say so; while Lord Denman, C.J., and the rest of the court do not expressly say so, although they do give reasons which appear to me equally unsound.] It was only necessary to decide in those cases that each particular settlement then brought into question was not available. Anything said beyond that was extra-judicial. In Reg. v. The Inhabi tants of St. Martin New Sarum (sup.), a pauper gained a settlement in parish J. Afterwards, by Act of Parliament J. was united, for all but for ecclesiastical purposes, with parish B. by the title of the United Parishes of J. and B., and it was held that the pauper was settled in the united parishes. [MELLOR, J.-That is, of course, the converse case. They were united, and the burthen of each parish still remained.] The principle is the same. If the effect of the area being destroyed is to destroy the settlement, then, as in the other cases, the settlement would be gone, and it was only by a fair interpretation of the poor laws the court was able to say there was a settlement available against the united parishes. The counsel in the last named case for the respondents was arguing thus: "Here the parish officers of the whole are parish officers for each part; though the converse would not be true," when he was stopped by the court, which shows that the point as to machinery was brought forward. Although the settlement in Upper Swinford may not be available, yet there may be a settlement available in the parish of Old Swinford. [COCKBURN, J.-Li you cannot show a settlement within "a parish" you cannot come within the 2nd section of 28 & 29 Vict. c. 79, that presupposes a settlement in a parish. Now here there is no settlement in the parish. The person must be settled in some place in the union.] He may be said to be settled in the old parish. [COCKBURN, C. J.-But that has ceased to exist.] See paragraphs 12 and 13 of the case. COCKBURN, C.J.-The only satisfaction we can have in deciding this case is the melancholy one of feeling that if we are wrong our illustrious predecessors were equally liable to error; and never felt more sure that they were wrong than I do in the present instance, for I cannot think that by the 14 Car. 2, c. 12, s. 21, it was intended to curtail and abridge the operation of the statute of Elizabeth. The three cases cited are all directly in point, more especially that of Reg. v. Hunnington, and cannot be distinguished from the present one. They decided that the effect of altering a parish by subdividing it into townships separately maintaining their own poor, was to annihilate settlements within the original area. I think that what has been said in the former cases equally applies to the one before us, and that the courts having originally gone wrong in their ruling, we must not produce such uncertainty in the decisions on the principles applicable to poor law settlements as we should do if we were now to depart from the authorities cited, and that we must abide by them, more especially as in this case, I am happy to say, our so doing will not be productive of any great hardshipnone at all, indeed, to the pauper--and as regards the parishes, if the state of the law works unfairly in one case, yet, in another, the same decisions may be in their favour. BLACKBURN, J.-I am entirely of the same opinion. We find that from Reg. v. Tipton (reported in 3 Q. B. 219) to Reg. v. St. Martin's, New Sarum (in 9 Q. B. 249), on four occasions when the present question has come before the court the judges have always held according to the decision in the present case. I quite agree with my Lord that they were originally mistaken; but I also think we ought not lightly to upset their judgments. I say that for this reason, viz., that when a case does not go to a court of appeal and we are quite sure that there has been a mistake, we are not bound to follow on in error, but when the matter is not an important point affecting people in general, then communis error facit jus is a maxim which we should apply, unless we see distinctly that the decided cases were founded in mistake, and that the reversal of them would be the greater benefit though unsettling the law. MELLOR, J.--I am of the same opinion. If the cases in question had been recent we should probably have felt ourselves at liberty to have said the court was wrong; but the first of the decisions we are now acting upon was pronounced so long ago, and has been followed by such a series of cases, that I think we should not disturb it. LUSH, J.-I am of the same opinion. I think this is one of those questions where it is much more important that the law should be settled than to discuss how it ought to have been settled. Judgment for the appellants. Attorneys for the appellants, Gregory and Co., agents for Barnard and King, Stourbridge. Attorneys for the respondents, Taylor and Lake, agents for N. Bearcroft, Droitwich. [Ex. CH. EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. Saturday, June 17, 1871. ERRORS FROM THE EXCHEQUER. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. BLACK. Under a local Act (13 Geo. 3, c. xxxiv.), improvement commissioners for the town of Brighton were empowered to levy a duty of 6d. upon every chaldron of coal, culm, &c., landed on the beach, or brought into, and consumed within, the town, for the purpose of erecting and maintaining groyns and other works against the encroachments of the sea. By a subsequent Act (50 Geo. 8, c xxxviii.), the duty was continued and increased; and subsequently, by the Brighton Town Improvement Act (6 Geo. 4, c. clxxix.), it was, together with market tolls, and other rates, duties, and assessments, which the said commissioners were empowered to levy, consolidated into a common fund for the general purposes of the Act, which included, in addition to the maintenance of the groyns, &c., the paving, lighting, watching, cleaning, and otherwise improving the town. By the Brighton Commissioners Transfer Act 1855 the said commissioners ceased to act as such, and the corporation and their successors were appointed commissioners in their stead. Held (affirming the judgment of the Court of Exchequer), that the coal duty was a property in respect of which the corporation (who had succeeded to the rights of the commissioners) were liable and bound to pay income tax, either as A "hereditament" under schedule A, or as property or profits" under schedule D, of the Income Tax Act (5 & 6 Vict. c. 35). THIS was error upon a judgment of the Court of Exchequer in favour of the Crown, upon a case stated without any pleadings under 22 & 23 Vict. c. 21, s. 10, upon an information filed by the Attorney-General against the defendant, as town clerk of the Corporation of Brighton, to recover penalties incurred by him for not including in the returns under the Income Tax Act (5 & 6 Vict. c. 35) certain duties levied by the corporation under their local Acts upon all coal landed on the beach, or brought within the limits of the town of Brighton. The facts, shortly summarised, were the following: The defendant is town clerk of the Corporation of Brighton, which belongs to the port or harbour of Shoreham, in the county of Sussex, and is the proper person to make such returns as are required by the 5 & 6 Vict., c. 35, and the proceeding, though nominally for the recovery of penalties, was, in fact, brought for the purpose of obtaining the decision of the court on the question at issue between the Crown and the corporation, whether the corporation are liable or not to pay income tax upon the amount of the rate or duty, which they levy and receive, in respect of coal, culm, coke, cinders, ashes, and charcoal, landed on the beach, or brought within the limits of the town of |
