The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-03-05 00:00:00

WARRINGTON.-NOVEL POOR-RATE CASE.

Mr. Joseph Wagstaff, of the firm of Messrs. Fitchett and
Wagstaff, solicitors, Warrington, appeared before the magis-
trates at the petty sessions, on Monday, to show cause why
he refused to pay £6 35., the amount of poor-rate due to the
overseers of Warrington, for a house in his occupation in
Bewsey-street. The case occupied the time of the court two
hours. The facts may be briefly stated' as follows :—Mr.
Wagstaff occupied a house in Bewsey-street, Warrington, as
tenant from year to year, for which he was assessed to the
poor and other rates for the township, on an assessment of
£63 per annum, by a rate made on the 11th of August, 1838,
for the service of the year commencing 25th March, 1838,
and ending 25th March, 1839, which was allowed by the
magistrates on the 11th August, 1838. On the 23rd of May,
Mr. Wagstaff removed to rappenhall, in the county of Ches-
ter, The year of his tenancy for the house in Bewsey-street,
expired at Christmas last, but he ceased to occupy it in May :
and on the 11th September paid to Mr. Tinsley, the landlord,
the amount of rent due up to the end of his term, gave up the
keys, and ceased to have any control over the property, leav-
ing it to the landlord to let the house to whom and whenever
he pleased. The house continued unoccupied. From the
evidence of Mr. Booth, the collector, it appeared a custom
existed in the township that where premises became vacant
from bankruptcy, death, or other cause, in the middle of any
unexpired term of a year, for the overseers to make an abate-
ment from the year's assessment, for the fractional part of
the year during which the premises are unlet or become va-
cant ; but the overseers demanding the whole amount of the
rate from him, after he had paid the rent, he wrote a letter
to Mr. Booth, informing him that on the 11th of September
he had no longer any interest in, and that he was not liable
for any rent for the premises in Bewsey-street, which he oc-
cupied as tenant to the 23rd of May, since which time he had
ceased to have any beneficial occupancy of them, and from
which time he claimed to be exempt from the !payment of
rates. Under these circumstances it was contended by Mr.
Wigstaff, that in point of law he could not be rated in respect
of the rent paid, but, that an occupation, as well as the pay-
ment of rent, was necessary. Upon reference to the first act
connected with the poor-laws—that passed in the reign of
Elizabeth—he found that rates were to be made "by taxation
of every inhabitant, parson, vicar, and other, and of every
occupier of lands, houses, tithes impropriate, propriations of
tithes, coal-mines, or saleable underwood, in the said par-
ish." The words "inhabitant, parson, vicar, and other,"
include all those who possess property not coming within the
several species of it described in the next following part of
the same clause of the act. The term "inhabitant,' in the
statute, was held to be an inhabitant resident, and the words
" and other " do not carry it further ; therefore, where the
owners of the stock in trade resided out of the parish within
which it was, it was decided that they were not rateable for it.
This showed that a resident occupancy was essentially neces-
sary. On reference to the case "Cane v. Stephens," the
bench would find it laid down as a principle that the farmer
or occupier shall pay this tax and not the landlord, who is
never to be taxed for his rent, for then the landlord would
pay twice. The reason why the occupier in general is to be
charged is, that the poor-rate is not a charge upon the land,
but upon the occupier in respect of the land. In the case
" the King v. Eyre, " the lessee of the tolls of the Key
Bridge, Tewkesbury, Lord Ellenborough said, " that as the
court had so recently decided that tolls per se were not rate-
able, and that as the appellant was rated merely as lessee of
the tolls, and for nothing else, which might have given him
a corporeal quality and locality within the parish such as a
sluice or the like : and then it did not appear that he was an
inhabitant of the parish, or made any profit of the tolls ;
there was nothing stated in the case to raise any question ;
and though it should turn out to be the fact (which was sug-
gested by the bar) that there was a toll attached to the bridge
where the applicant dwelt, yet as the sending the case back to
the sessions to be restated would probably only lead to their
insisting as a fact what they stated as a matter of belief, that
the lessee derived no profit to himself from the tolls, it was
better for all parties to quash the rate, and if at any future
time the parish thought they could make out a better case
against the lessee they might rate him again." Mr. Wagstaff
also cited the case of " the King v. Bedworth," in which a
party was assessed for a colliery, as of the annual value of
£2OO, at £5, and he appealed against the rate. In the argu-
ment, the case of " Rex v. Parrott" was referred to, in which
though the lessees of the coal-mine worked it at a loss to
themselves, after paying the rent, they were still liable to be
rated. Lord Ellenborough, in giving judgment, said, "In
that case the subject matter itself was profitable, and pro-
duced value to the owner, though the immediate occupiers
derived no profit from it. But here the mine itself is ex-
hausted—the subject matter of profit is gone, although the
rent, which was no doubt calculated upon the probable ave-
rage produce of the whole term, be still payable ; but with
respect to the parish, he is only rateable for the concurrent
annual value during the period for which the rate is made, and
when the thing which he occupies no longer affords any such
concurrent value, the subject matter of rating is gone." He
(Mr. Wagstaff,) contended that his case was precisely that de-
scribed in " the King v. Bedworth,"—when the profitable
occupation ceased, the liability ceased also. He cited other
cases in support of this position, and dwelt with much force
upon a case tried at Knutsford sessions, in which Mr. Pick-
' ering, the former occupier of the mansion at present occupied
by Mr. Nicholson, at Thelwall, had successfully appealed

against a rate, and 'under similar circumstances. - - -
Mr. W. Wagstaff having been called and examined to prove
the facts already stated with respect to the termination of
Mr. Wagstaff 's tenancy.
Mr. Nicholson, who appeared on the part of the parish,
was heard in reply. He contended that Mr. Tinsley (the
landlord of Mr. Wagstaff 's house) ought to have been
brought forward, as without his evidence there was nothing
to show that Mr. Wagstaff was not liable to be rated for the
premises in question, even up to the present moment. A
tenancy could only be put an end to by a proper notice on
either side; and what were the facts proved ? Mr. Wag-
staff, either for the benefit of his health, recreation, or some
other cause, had gone to reside in Cheshire, and taken upon
himself the designation of a " Cheshire-man ;" but he could
not be relieved from his liabilities for the house in Bewsey-
street sooner than he was entitled to by law. Mr. Tinsley
would no doubt say, " Bring me another tenant as respect-
able as yourself, and I will release you ;" but hitherto that
tenant has not been found—and he admitted and had proved
the payment of rent up to Christmas. He would not go into
the " old and musty" statutes referred to by Mr. Wagstaff.
He would put a case. Lord Francis Egerton was rated for
property in Appleton. His lordship did not reside there,
but had residences at Wol sky, London, Bath, and perhaps
Scotland. W..; his lordship not therefore liable ? In this
ease there was a house—it had not fallen down—it was to Mr.
Wagstaff a profitable occupancy ; but had Mr. Wagstaff
wished to show it was otherwise, he ought to have appealed
against the rate at the proper time, and not have suffered the
time for doing so expire before the instituting of the present
inquiry. With respect to the case of the overseers of Thel-
wall, Mr. Wagstaff had omitted to state the final result.
They had been indicted in the Court of King's Bench, and
the case was dismissed on the payment of costs, owing to
their having assessed the wrong party to the rate. In-con-
clusion, he contended that Mr. Wagstaff was liable to the
payment of the rates up to the 23d of December, the day up
to which he had paid rent for the premises.
Mr. Stubs said that his attention was called to this case a
week ago, and then finding that his opinion differed so
widely from that of the gentleman whom the bench had been
in the habit of consulting on legal points, he had put himself
in a condition to prove the correctness of his own views, by
obtaining the opinion of a barrister who was looked up to by
the whole of the laws—he meant Mr. Thelwall, the author of
the book upon Poor Laws, and having that document now in
his possession, it should be read for the information of the
other magistrates on the bench.
Mr, Wagstaff read the case as stated above, with Mr.
Theobald's opinion thereon. The latter ran thus—" It is
perfectly clear that the mere payment of rent for a house
which the tenant has ceased to occupy does not make him
rateable. As Mr. Wagstaff ceased to occupy the house in
May, and it has keen empty or unoccupied ever since, I am
of opinion that he find a good ground of exemption when he
ceased to occupy, and the only question is, whether it was
necessary for him to appeal against the rate in order to ob-
tain the benefit of the exemption. If the rate had been made
in March, or at the time when Mr. Wagstaff occupied the
house in question, I should be of opinion that his only re-
medy was by appeal, and that he should be without remedy
now, because the time for appealing is gone by ' • but Mr.
Wagstaff had ceased to be an occupier in May, and the rate
was not made until August, and I am of opinion that in
August the overseers bad no power to rate him. The assess-
ment, therefore, is a nullity ' • and the justices, as well as
overseers and constables, will be trespassers, if they issue and
act upon a warrant."
Mr. Stubs said he would put the case of two rival manu-
facturers, one occupying his own factory, the other renting a
factory upon lease. Suppose trade to be in such a condition
as to render it necessary to suspend operations for one or two
years, and they shut up their factories, would the one be ex-
empt from poor-rate and the other not ? In his opinion the
payment of rent was not the criterion to go by, although it
could be taken as the standard measure of the value to be
affixed upon property.
Mr. Hall considered that in the case of a tenant or occu-
pier of a factory, if he found himself a loser, and went and
agreed with his landlord to pay a certain sum to relieve him
from his obligations, the moment that sum was paid, that
moment the tenant's liability to poor-rate ceased also.
Several other cases were quoted by the bench, and the
chairman (Thomas Lyon, Esq.) said they were agreed on
Mr. Wagstaff 's liability to pay the rates up to the 23d of
May, but not longer.
Mr. Nicholson wished to know whether the magistrates
declined granting a warrant of distress for the whole amount?
If so, he should advise his clients, the overseers, to apply to
the Court of Queen's Bench to compel them to do so.
The Chairman said; in fact, that was the decision the
bench had come to.
Mr. Nicholson again reiterated his intention.to apply for a
mandamus, and the case was dismissed.

It is said that a large quantity of counterfeit silver is in
course of circulation. We have also heard of a number of
" flash" £lO Bank of England notes, exceedingly well execu-
ted, having been put forth. The public will, therefore, do
well to be on their guard.
DISADVANTAGES OF BEING TALL.—Gottsched, who
flourished as one of the most eminent of the German literati
in the last century, was obliged to quit Prussia, where his
stature exposed him to the risk of being forced to enter the
ranks of the King of Prussia's grenadiers.

A letter from Louvain states, that the old established
banking-house of Mosselman, which carried on extensive
dealings in the corn-trade, has stopped payment. A remis-
sion of six months has been granted to the house of Peer-
mann Brothers, of the same place, which was announced to
be in a similar predicament a few days ago.
ANTI-SLAVERY OUTRAGE.—An anabaptist preacher in
Connecticut, who had given great offence by a sermon advo-
cating the abolition of of slavery, having announced another
discourse on the same subject, some unknown person placed
a barrel of gunpowder the day before under the pulpit, and,
setting it on fire, blew up the church !
FIRE AT KILCOOLY ABBEY.—A fire broke out on Sunday
night at Kilcooly Abbey, the beautiful seat of W. P. Barker,
Esq., near Johnstown, which reduced the centre part of the
building to a heap of ruins. The fire was accidental. The
premises were insured for £13,000. A good deal of valuable
property was destroyed, but no life was lost. '

A matrimonial affiance is announced in the fashionable
circles of the metropolis as about to take place between Lord
Fitzallan and the accomplished and youngest daughter of Sir
Edmund Lyons, our minister to King Otho at Athens.
Lord Fitzallan is returned to London from the Continent,
to attend his parliamentary duties.—Brighton Guardian.
We regret to learn, by the latest intelligence from Frank-
fort and Mayence, that Sir William Ingilby, Bart, is said to
be lying dangerously ill at the Baths at Nassau.

STEAM LIFE-BOATS FOR PRESERVING LIVES AND PRO-
PERTY.—We regret to learn that, notwithstanding the hopes
raised by what:Mr. Leathom said on this subject, so popular
in the town, in the Common Council, it has proved a total
disappointment. Sir John Ross, as chairman of the Salvage
Company's Directors, came here on Thursday, with a view
of closing the arrangement with our Dock Committee, when
he found them as cold as ice on the subject, declaring, one
and all, they had no power to apply the funds in that way.
It was a pity they had not, in their wisdom, discovered their
want of power sooner, and not have raised expectations, to
be followed by disappointment, in the town, nor put Sir John
to the expense and trouble of coming here on a needless er-
rand. There seems too much trifling in this. For the sa-
tisfaction of the public, they ought to show, from undoubted
authority, the want of power. or it is probable few will be sa-
tisfied of its truth. The company's proposal was to form the
establishment, and of the real extent suggested by the Dock
Committee, on their paying half the expense of it, reserving
to the steamer the benefit of the legal salvage on saving mer-
chandize, s4c.—Correspondent of the Albion.