The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-06-12 00:00:00

INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.

In the Court of Exchequer, the cause of "Rushby, surveyor,
appellant v. Newson, respondent" has been heard, which
was a case stated on appeal by the Commissioners of Taxes
for the opinion of the Court, under the 9th section of the
Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1874. The question was
whether the Weavers' Hall, 70, Basinghall-street, London,
had been properly assessed to Inhabited House Duty.

It appeared the premises were occupied as offices by
four accountants, two solicitors stated also to be
scriveners, thirteen merchants, one wine shipper, and
one shorthand-writer; also a housekeeper, his wife,
two children, and servant occupying rooms on the top
story rent free. The Commissioners discharged the
assessment on the ground that the greater part of the
premises were nsed for the purposes of trade, and
were therefore exempt under the 11th section of the
Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1869.
The Attorney-General, for the Crown, contended

that this was wrong, and that the premises were assess-
able at their whole value. Part of the building was
occupied by solicitors and shorthand-writers, who could
not be said to be traders.

Mr. Finlay: The Crown are not entitled to assess as
one house ; the offices are sepa,rate tenements.
Baron Bramwell : That point is not raised in the
case. But may there not be a pro rata deduction?
The Attorney-General: That is not the case I came
to meet, my Lord. It seems, however, reasonable.
_ _

A discussion here arose as to whether the case should
not be sent back to the Commissioners for amend-
ment. Ultimately it was decided that it should not,
Baron Bramwell saying he thought the question was
sufficiently raised.
Mr. Finlay, for the respondent, contended, first, that
all the portions of the Weavers' Hall fell within the
exemption, as the accountants' offices were counting.
houses, and the solicitors, who were scriveners, had
been treated as traders in the Bankruptcy Act.
Baron Bramwell.—Do you call a shorthand-writer a
trader and his room a waxehouse for storing his notes?
Mr. Finlay.—His office is not a warehonse perhaps,
but he is a trader.

On the Court expressing a contrary opinion,
Baron Bramwell said the first point was gone, as
there was the admission that some one did use the
building not for the purposes of trade.
Mr. Finlay contended the assessment was wrong as
being on the whole rental, that the parts of the tene-
ment used for the purposes of trade ought not to have
been included. It would be monstrous if the intrusion
of one or two persons should make the whole block of
buildings suffer. The Court ought to deal reasonably
with the construction of the Act.
The Lord Chief Baron said the case did not raise
the question if a portion of the building was exempt
by law. If it were raised there was no statement by
which the Court could determine it. Therefore
though personally regretting it, his judgment must be
for the Crown. It was perfectly clear the building
was liable for something or other.
Baron Bramwell thought that every necessary fact
had been stated. The respondent's point of sepa-
rate assessment bad not been raised and ought not
to be so. The argument founded on the words
"part of a tenement" was an erroneous one. Those
words might be omitted, as they had probably been
inserted idly and needlessly. Part of a tenement
meant part of a house separately assessable. Nor was
this construction a harsh one except in one sense. The
tax on warehouses had been remitted because it was
pointed out that it would lus taxing an instrument of
trade. By the 32 and 33 Vic., c. 14, s. 11, further
liberality was extenied, although caretakers slept in
the warehouses. They had not to consider cases of
hardship except as to making the construction of Acts
more probable. In his opinion no reduction could be
made in the amount of the assossment on the ground
that a portion of the premises were used for the pur-
poses of trade.
Baron Cleasby concurred. The exemption from
penalties severer at a prior date must not be extended.
His Lordship referred to 57 Geo. 111., c. 25, s. 1, as
showing that to be within the exemption the whole of
the premises must be used for the purposes of trade.
The grounds for the decision of the Commissioners as
to the greater part of the building being so used could
not be upheld as it would upset the judgment of two
Judges delivered on an analogous point.
Judgment for the Crown.