« ZurückWeiter »
ployer. In so doing, the Justices exceeded the powers conferred in the statute. No. 161. I agree that we must therefore suspend the sentence.
July 19, 1873.
M'EWEN & CARMENT, W.S.-ANDREW BEVERIDGE, S.S.C.-Agents.
CASES ON APPEALS UNDER THE LANDS VALUATION ACTS
(17 & 18 Vict., c. 91, 20 & 21 Vict., c. 58).
For previous cases see vol. iv. p. 1132, et seq.
URQUHART FRASER. Mar. 14, 1867. Farm-Renewed Lease-Fair Annual Value-Sub-Lease-Surplus Rent. Fraser.
-The appellant's father had a lease of 200 acres of land from the Earl of
woh Aberdeen at a rent of £5. The appellant succeeded to his father in 1848, Id. Ormidale, and in 1849 he got a new lease for 19 years at a rent of £11. He there
after trenched and reclaimed waste land, and built new buildings and Case 52.* dykes. In 1856 he had reclaimed upwards of 100 acres, and built a
steading of offices, expending about £850. He renounced the old lease, and got a new lease from Whitsunday 1856 at the rent of £15, and under this lease he at present holds. Since this lease he has built an additional steading of offices and dwelling-house, and he has sublet a portion of the land, with such additional steading and dwelling-house, as a separate farm.
The assessor entered the Earl of Aberdeen as proprietor of the whole land and subjects, and the appellant as occupier of one portion, estimated as worth £40, and the sub-tenants as occupiers of the other portion, estimated as worth £55.
The assessor maintained that £15, for which the farm was let in 1856, was not the fair annual value, and therefore the farm was to be valued at what it was worth. The Commissioners reduced the valuation to £15, and directed the entry of the sub-tenants to be deleted.
The following opinion was returned by the Judges “We are of opinion that the determination of the Commissioners is right, in the special circumstances of the case, and more especially considering that the existing lease was granted on a renunciation of the previous one, which would otherwise be still in subsistence.”
W. A. SKENE. Mar. 14, 1867. Rent by nineteen years' Lease—Consideration other than Rent-(Tenant Skene. bound by lease to erect a dwelling-house, &c., according to plans approved of Lord Kinloch. by Landlord-Claim for part value and other claims postponed to end of Ld. Ormidale. lease).—James Glenny was tenant of the farm of Lethenty, Aberdeenshire,
under a lease for nineteen years, by which he became bound to erect a Case 53. dwelling-house and steading of offices, according to plans approved of by
landlord, the landlord becoming bound to pay £150 when the buildings were finished, and at the end of the lease to pay the value, exclusive of carriages and deducting the said sum of £150, to the extent of another sum of £150. The claim of the previous tenant, father of the present tenant, for the value of the millhouse, kiln, and machinery, to the extent of £200, was agreed to be postponed until the end of the present lease. The tenant erected the dwelling-house, &c., apparently of greater value than the two sums of £150, and also other buildings for which he had no claim at the end of the lease.
* These cases are quoted from the Abstract printed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
The assessor valued the subjects, irrespective of the lease, at what they No. 163. were worth to be let one year with another. The proprietor appealed.
Mar. 14, 1867.
Skene. The Commissioners held that they should be assessed at the rent stipu-" lated by the lease, £108, and interest at 5 per cent on the sums of £150 and £200, payable at the end of the lease, £17, 10s.-in all, £125, 10s. Held that the Commissioners were right,
ANNANDALE AND SON.
No. 164. Paper Mill—Annual Value—(74 per cent on cost, or 11s. 1d. per ton of Mar. 14. 1867 output-Rent).—Messrs Annandale and Son erected a large paper-mill at Annandale Beltonford, near Dunbar, and the assessor assessed the annual value of it and Son. at £2024, which he brought out by taking 77 per cent on the cost of the Lord Kinloch. buildings, and other percentages on steam engines, railway, and ponds. Ld. Ormidale.
The appellants stated that the mill was only partially in operation, and that the annual value should be ascertained according to output. According Case 54. to valuation of other mills, the value should be 11s. 1d. per ton, and as the out-turn at Beltonford was 1040 tons, the annual value should be £580.
The Commissioners found that the value should be according to the productive power or out-turn, and fixed the value at £580.
The Judges returned the following opinion :-“We are of opinion that the determination of the Commissioners is wrong, in respect of its proceeding on the amount of the out-turn, and that the value of the works is not to be ruled exclusively either by the amount of actual out-turn or by a percentage on the cost of erection, but is to be estimated according to the rent at which, one year with another, the premises might in their actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year, having regard to the rent or annual value as assessed of other works of the like description, and taking into account the peculiar advantages or disadvantages of the Beltonford works.”
DRUMGRAY COAL COMPANY.
No. 165. Oil Works—(Retorts—Pipes— Tanks—Sheds-Heritable or Moveable).
f April 8, 1867. The Drumgray Coal Company are entered as proprietors and occupiers of oil works at the yearly value of £450, the amount being fixed on the prin-Coal Co. ciple of taking 15 per cent on the original cost, as a rate which would reimburse the proprietor for erecting the works and keeping them in repair. Wumidores
Lord Kinloch. The works consist of retorts erected on a foundation of building, or built in, and these connected by pipes, with tanks for receiving the oil. The Case 55. tanks are sometimes placed on the ground. In this case they are under ground. The sheds covering the works are on built or iron supports. The lease of the coal-field does not embrace the ground on which the oil works are erected. The entry of the Drumgray Coal Company as proprietors was not objected to before the Commissioners.
The appellants objected to the assessment, on the ground that the oil works are not of the nature of subjects comprehended under the Valuation Act, that they are part of the coal-field, and the rent paid for it depended on the facilities for working up the minerals in the oil works; that 15 per cent on the original cost is not a proper and fair value, in respect the original cost does not afford a criterion for annual value.
The Commissioners refused the appeal. Held that the Commissioners were right in the circumstances as reported by them.
DUKE OF RICHMOND. 67 Rent-Value-Deductions for Furniture and keeping up Garden.Duke of Huntly Lodge, furnished, and gardens, with shootings in the parish of Richmond. Huntly and five other parishes, were let for three years at the rent of Lord Kinloch £435 for the whole. Ld. Ormidale. The portion of the rent applicable to the furnished lodge, gardens, and
shootings in Huntly parish was fixed at £305, and deducting £80 as Case 56. interest on the value of the furniture, left £225, which the assessor
entered in the roll as the value of the subjects in Huntly parish. The appellant, the proprietor, claimed to be allowed a further deduction of £90, reducing the value to £135, as the expense of keeping up the gardens, which he undertook to do to a certain extent. Two gardeners were required for this purpose.
The Commissioners held that, as the rent included compensation for the furniture and for keeping up the gardens, it was not in the lease conditioned as the fair annual value of the subjects, and so not to be taken as the measure of value, and they fixed the value at £185. Held that the Commissioners were wrong. The value ought to be set down at £135.
DUKE OF RICHMOND. Feb. 8. 1868. Croft-Lease-Agreement—House built by Crofter — Rent or ValueDuke of The Duke of Richmond is entered in the roll, 1867, as proprietor, and John Richmond. Christie as occupier of croft—rent or value, £8. The Duke, or Christie, Lord Kinloch, or either, is entered as proprietor, and Christie as occupier of house and Ld. Ormidale. shop, built by Christie on said croft—value, £6. Christie entered into
an agreement with the Duke, whereby he was to enter to the croft at Case 57. Whitsunday 1860, to occupy from year to year, but to have no lease, and
to cultivate the croft in a certain manner. There being no house on the croft, Christie proposed to build one according to plan subscribed in reference to the agremeent, the Duke engaging to supply wood, and to pay for the slating and ridge stones. Christie obliged himself to pay £8 of rent. The Commissioners having been informed that the buildings had been erected in the first year of the occupation, and that the lease had been renewed from year to year, held that there was other consideration than the rent the first year, but the sole consideration for the lease annually renewed was the rent. They sustained the appeal, holding the entry of £8 as covering the entire subjects.
Held that the Commissioners were right, in respect no evidence that for the year in question £8 is below an adequate rent for the combined subjects.
John BRUCE. Father Proprietor- Son Tenant-Rent-Fair Annual Value.- Mr Bruce Feb. 8, 1868. Bruce.
. of Sumburgh, in Zetland, let to his son his whole estate, consisting of
home farm, house, station, and land at Grutness, Station West Voe, and Lord Kinloch. Station Boddam, and upwards of 100 small farms, under sub-tenancy, in Ld. Ormidale.
1859, for six years, at the rent of £440. The son was restricted from Case 58 raising the rents of the sub-tenants. In 1865 the lease was renewed for
six years, and the rent increased to £520, with the privilege to the son to raise the rents of the sub-tenants. The son immediately raised the rents of the sub-tenants to a greater extent by £30 than the increased rent The assessor maintained, the sub-tenant's rents having been so raised above the increase to the landlord shewed that the rent was not the fair annual value. The increased rents of the sub-tenants were entered in the
roll, and the home farm and other subjects in the actual occupation of the No. 168. son, which had been improved since 1859, were entered in the roll at the present value, being an increase over the entry in the rolls of previous Feb. 8, 1868. years made according to the rent. The son appealed against the entries of the value of the subjects in his own occupation.
The Commissioners held that the rent, and not the value as in their present condition, should be entered in the roll. Held that the Commissioners were right.
ont ens, and agreed to de Navigation Proprietor of pen en he
THE BURGH OF RENFREW.
No. 169. Compensation for Injury.—The burgh of Renfrew is proprietor of fan Tree salmon-fishings in the river Clyde. The Clyde Navigation Trustees in- Burgh' of jured them by their operations, and agreed to make up to the burgh the Renfrew. difference between the rent the fishings now let for and the average rent received for them previous to the operations. For the year in question Ld. Ormidale. the difference was £207, 10s., and a proportion of the sum, £189, 10s., was entered in the county assessment roll, parishes of Inchinnan and Case 59. Renfrew. The remainder of the sum was applicable to a portion of fishings within the burgh. In the roll the burgh of Renfrew is entered as proprietor, and the Clyde Trustees as occupiers and tenants. The Clyde Trustees maintained they were not occupiers and tenants of fishings. What they paid was in the nature of compensation for injury. The ground taken by the assessor was that the fishings were an existing subject, yielding revenue to the burgh, of which this sum of £207, 10s., formed part.
The Commissioners held the assessment to be right. Held that the Commissioners were wrong.
The remah. In the roll at occupiers and teenants of fishing se
stated that the Clyde M. 31, 1868
CLYDE NAVIGATION TRUSTEES.
No. 170. Bowling Harbour-River Clyde — Annual Value. — The assessor en- Mar. 31. 1868. tered the harbour of Bowling at the yearly value of £700. The Clyde Clyde NavigaNavigation Trustees appealed against this entry, and stated that the gross tion average annual income of the harbour for the last three years was £637, Lord Kinloch. and this was subject to a charge of 10 per cent for collection. This average Ld. Ormidale. was sevenfold more than the average previous to 1865, in consequence of exceptional circumstances.
Case 60. The Commissioners fixed the valuation at £541, 9s., being the amount of the actual revenue, less 15 per cent for tenants' profits. They considered this a fair and moderate rent.
The Judges returned the following opinion :-“We are of opinion that the determination of the Commissioners is wrong, and that the value of the harbour should be stated at £407, 13s. 7d.”*
No. 171. Ironwork-Furnaces out of Blast-Notes on Roll.--The appellant's fa ironworks of Langloan are entered in the roll at the yearly value of Addie. £1800, and in the column for observations the following note is made :, —“In blast, £1500; standing, £300;" the meaning of which is, that
*“ NOTE.—In the absence of satisfactory information we have assumed the Case 61. income of the year, as originally stated to the Commissioners, at £637, from which we have deducted 20 per cent for charges of maintenance and the expense of collection, and a further deduction from the balance of 20 per cent for tenants' profits,—the percentage allowed by us in the case of Glasgow Harbour.”