other tenement situate in a parish wholly or partly in a borough instead of the occupier, his liability to be rated in any future poor-rate shall cease, and the following enactments shall take effect with respect to rating in all boroughs: 1. After the passing of this act, no owner of any dwelling-house or other tenement situate in a parish either wholly or partly within a borough shall be rated to the poor-rate instead of the occupier except as hereinafter mentioned," words which would apply to every case but for the exception. Then, by proviso (1.), it was provided "that nothing in this act contained shall affect any composition existing at the time of the passing of this act, so nevertheless that no such composition shall remain in force beyond the 29th day of September next." Now, if "composition" is there used for the purpose of designating where less than the full amount is paid, there is no difficulty in the construction of the act, and though, as I pointed out during the argument, the two cases under the Small Tenements Act, 13 & 14 Vict. c. 99, differ in various respects, for instance, the one applying universally, the other to particular cases, the one coming into force without, the other with the agreement of the owner, and the one remaining in force for one period, the other for another period, I have yet failed to discover any reason why the legislature should make the then existing state of things come to an end in the one case on the 15th of August, and in the other on the 29th day of September, 1867. It has been said that the reason is that the 29th of September is a quarter-day, and was fixed with a view to the convenience of arrangements between landlords and tenants, but as far as I can see there is equal reason as respects landlords and tenants for fixing on this day in the one case as in the other, and it is difficult to see why there should be a difference of six weeks in the two cases. In the particular case before us, it is true that as more than three years had elapsed from the original order, the vestry could put an end to the arrangement when they pleased; but there might be cases in which this was not so, and no argument can therefore be founded upon it. Looking, then, to the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 14, and seeing the distinction there taken between the payment of the full and a less amount, I conclude that the legislature meant the word "composition" in 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102. s. 7. proviso (1.) to apply to cases where a less sum was paid. We have already held in Mason v. Bennett (3) that the case where less than the full amount is paid by agreement, is clearly within the proviso, there is no reason why the case where a less sum is paid without agreement should not equally be within it, and I think the proviso applies to all cases where less than the whole amount is to be paid by the owner. Section 8. is quite consistent with our decision, the result of which is that the rating of an owner to the full amount is to cease on the passing of the act, and where the landlord is rated to a less amount, such rating is to cease on the 29th of September. I am of opinion, on the whole, that the rating of the owner (though there be no agreement) at a smaller sum than the ordinary and full assessment, is a "composition" within the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102. s. 7. proviso (1.), and therefore that the decision of the Revising Barrister must be reversed in the one case and affirmed in the other. BYLES, J.-I am of the same opinion, as there is no reason for any distinction between the cases of the owner being rated at a smaller sum by agreement and without it. KEATING, J.-I am of the same opinion. There are two cases where the owner is rated at a less sum, the one where it is by agreement, the other where it is not. Each case is popularly known as a "composition." I can see no reason, and no satisfactory reason has been suggested, why there should be a difference between the cases, and if the legislature had intended to exclude one of them, one would expect that language would have been used which would expressly shew that intention. BRETT, J. concurred. Decision in Hanks v. Jones reversed, and affirmed in Trotter v. Trevor. Attorneys-Deane & Chubb, agents for Chubb & Son, Malmesbury, for appellant; Bower & Cotton, agents for Jones & Forrester, Malmesbury, for respondent. (3) Ante, page 48. At a Court held, on the 22nd of September, 1868, by me, the Barrister appointed to revise the lists of voters for the borough of Malmesbury, William Stephens Jones, a person on the list of voters for the borough, duly objected to the name of William Bubb being retained upon the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of a member for the said borough, in respect of his occupation of a dwelling-house, in the parish of Somerford Magna, within the said borough. The ground of objection was that the respondent had not been duly rated. A rate made for the relief of the poor of the said parish was produced by the overseers. By the "heading" thereof this rate purported to have been made by the overseers on the 18th of July, 1867, and on each page thereof, in the usual form, there were the words, "Rate made the 18th day of July, 1867." The rate was duly allowed on the 4th of September, 1867, and that date appeared in the entry of such allowance as the date thereof. The rate was duly published on the 8th of September, 1867. The respondent was not rated to the said rate. The appellant contended that this was a rate made during the twelve calendar months preceding the 31st of July, 1868; that the date in the heading of the rate was not the time when it was "made" within the meaning of the 3rd section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and that the said rate was not so "made" until the day of the allowance thereof, or until the day of the publication thereof, NEW SERIES, 38.-C.P. to and that not being rated therein, the said respondent was not entitled to be registered under the said 3rd section of that act. Apart from the question raised by this objection, the respondent's qualification was proved my satisfaction. I decided that although a rate is of no force until it has been allowed and published, yet that, after allowance and publication, it is to be deemed to have been made on the day on which it purports to have been made by the overseers, upon whom the duty of making it devolves; that the word "made" in the 3rd section of the said act is to be thus construed, and as such day in respect of the rate in question was prior to the qualifying twelve months' occupation of the respondent, I disallowed the objection and retained his name on the said list. The question for the opinion of the Court is, whether the said rate was a rate "made" during the twelve calendar months preceding the last day of July, 1868, within the meaning of the 3rd section of the act aforesaid; and if the Court should be of opinion that it was, the name of William Bubb is to be expunged from the said list. Dowdeswell (G. T. Howard with him), on behalf of the appellant, contended that the rate was not "made" till it was allowed by the Justices. Macnamara, on behalf of the respondent, contended that the rate was "made" when signed by the overseers. The following statutes and authorities were referred to: 43 Eliz. c. 2, 17 Geo. 2. c. 3, 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 96. ss. 1, 2, 30, and Forms, 2 Will. 4. c. 45. s. 27, 6 Vict. c. 18. s. 16, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 14, The King v. Dorchester (1), The Queen v. the Earl of Yarborough (2), The Queen v. St. Mary Kalander (3), The Queen v. Fordham (4), Wright v. Stockport (5), The King v. Newcomb (6), The Queen v. Godolphin (7), Stevens v. Evans (8), The Queen v. Gadsby (9), Reily's case (10), Malcolmson's case (11), Lorant v. Scadding (12), Bushell v. Luckett (13), Sibbald v. Roderick (14) and Fox v. Davies (15). But in consequence of the decision the Court ultimately came to, it is unnecessary to set forth the arguments. BOVILL, C.J.-This case has been most ably argued on both sides, but in the view that we take of it we do not think it necessry to take time to consider our judgment. There is no doubt that in various acts of parliament the making and allowance of a rate have been treated as distinct matters, but whatever may be the effect of the word "made" in the Poor Law Acts, we have to consider what is its meaning in the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102. s. 3, sub-section 3. On the one side it has been contended, that a rate is made when signed by the overseers; on the other, that it is not made till allowed by the Justices; and extreme cases may be, and have been put which present difficulties in either construction, and, indeed, in the construction at which the Court has arrived. It is impos and an allowance by the Justices, both of which are within that period. This being so, it becomes unnecessary to determine what is a making of a rate within the statutes relating to the relief of the poor, and the decision of the Revising Barrister must be confirmed. BYLES, J. and KEATING, J. concurred. BRETT, J.-I have had great difficulty in coming to a decision in this case, but looking at the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102. s. 3, and comparing it with the 2 Will. 4. c. 45. s. 27, I agree that the only safe way is to construe "made" in the former to mean entirely made," that is to say, to mean that every step should be taken within the year. Decision affirmed. Attorneys-Bower & Cotton, agents for Jones & Forrester, Malmesbury, for appellant; Deane & Chubb, agent for Chubb & Son, Malmesbury, for respondent. } 1868. AINSWORTH, appellant, v. Nov. 18, 20. CREEKE, respondent. Parliament-Borough Vote-Poor-Rate "made" within 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102. s. 3. Ratification of Act of Landlord in getting Tenant's Name put on the Rate. sible, however, for the Court to deal with (Appeal from Revising Barrister's Court.) extreme cases, and we must assume that the legislature acted on the assumption that what ought to be done would be done. After the very full discussion which has taken place, I have come to the conclusion that neither contention is correct, but that when the legislature used the language "has during the time of such occupation been rated as an ordinary occupier in respect of the premises so occupied by him within the borough to all rates (if any) made for the relief of the poor in respect of such premises," it meant rates completely made within the year of occupation, that is to say, made by a signing by the overseers (8) 2 Burr. 1152. (9) 1 Nev. & P. 472. (10) 2 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 560. (11) 15 Ibid. 375. (12) 13 Q B. Rep. 687; s. c. 3 H.L. Cas. 418; 16 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 163; 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. 5. (13) 2 Com. B. Rep. 111; s. c. 15 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) C.P. 89. (14) 11 Ad. & E. 38; s. c. 9 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. 76. (15) 6 Com. B. Rep. 11; s. c. 18 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) C.P. 48; 2 Lutw. 97. A rate for the relief of the poor, in order to be "made" within 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102. s. 3, must be entirely made within the year of occupation, and it is so entirely made if the signing of the overseers, allowance by the Justices and publication be within that year, and it is immaterial that the steps previous to such signing were taken before the commencement of the year. A landlord, who paid the poor-rates, and by arrangement with his tenant, charged a higher rent in consequence, got the overseers to put his tenant on the rate instead of himself without communicating with his tenant, who, however, appeared before the Revising Barrister to claim a vote in respect of the premises-Held, that, even if this act of the landlord could by ratification be made a claim by the tenant to be rated, the ratification must be within the year of occupation; and that, therefore, the tenant's appearance before the Barrister after the end of such year could not be a ratification. This was an appeal from the decision of the Revising Barrister for the borough of Burnley. CASE. At a court held by me to revise the list of voters for the borough of Burnley, Harry Creeke duly objected to the name of Thomas Ainsworth being retained on the list of voters for the township of Habergham Eaves, in the said borough, whereupon the qualification of the said Thomas Ainsworth was proved in every respect, except as regarded rating and payment of rates. With respect to these two points, the facts as established by the evidence were as follows: A rate for the relief of the poor in the township of Habergham Eaves, in the borough of Burnley, was signed and allowed by two Justices on the 16th of August, 1867, and was published on the Sunday following, viz., on the 18th of August, 1867. At the head of this rate in the rate-book were the following words: "An assessment for the relief of the poor of the township of Habergham Eaves, in the county of Lancaster, and for other purposes, chargeable thereon according to law, made this 18th day of April, in the year of our Lord 1867, after the rate of 1s. 8d. in the pound." Then followed a form of declaration, to be copied and signed by the parish officers, at the end of the rate, as follows: 186 ." rate made the day of At the end of the names in the rate-book was this declaration by the overseers: "We, the undersigned, do hereby declare that one of us, or some person on our behalf, has examined and compared the several particulars in the respective columns of the within rate, with the valuation list made under the authority of the Union Assessment Committee Act of 1862, in force in this township; and the several hereditaments are, to the best of our belief, rated according to the value appearing in such valuation list. "We do also declare that the within rate amounts in the whole to the sum of 4,8351. 158. 10d. "James Dugdale, jun.,) 66 George Slater, "John Margerison, Overseers." "Dated this 16th day of August, 1867. Two days after the rate was thus signed and allowed, viz., on Sunday, the 18th of August, in the same year, it was duly published according to law. The rate-book containing this rate was put in evidence for the purpose of proving that the said Thomas Ainsworth was duly rated to it, in respect of premises occupied by him in Low Water Street, in the said township, during the twelve months immediately preceding the last day of July, 1868; and in respect of which premises, so far as rating and payment of rates were concerned, his qualification was in dispute. Upon examining the rate-book I found the name of Thomas Ainsworth in the column headed "Arrears," and the name of John Holmes in the column headed "Name of Occupier." The latter name had been struck through with a pen but was still legible as under: The rate-book thus disclosing an ambiguity on the face of it, I instituted an inquiry into the circumstances under which the name of John Holmes had been struck through and the name of Thomas Ainsworth inserted. In the course of that inquiry the following facts were established by the evidence: Thomas Ainsworth was a tenant of John Dugdale & Brothers, a firm carrying on business in the borough of Burnley (one member of this firm, viz., Mr. James Dugdale, jun., had signed the rate in question as overseer), and had occupied as such tenant for more than twelve months previous to the 31st of July, 1868, the premises, No. 14, Low Water Street, which appeared in the rate-book on the same line with his name and the name of John Holmes, as shewn above. Some time after the 18th of August, 1867, the day on which the above-mentioned rate was published, Mr. Shaw, a partner of the said firm of John Dugdale & Brothers (who had at the time been invited to stand as a candidate for the representation of the borough of Burnley. in parliament, but who had not then accepted the invitation), without mentioning the name of Thomas Ainsworth, and without in any way communicating with him, or with any other of the tenants of the said firm on the subject, requested the assistant overseer for the township of Habergham Eaves in general terms to insert the names of the tenants of John Dugdale & Brothers in the rate-book containing the said rate of the 16th of August, 1867. The assistant overseer, anticipating some difficulty in ascertaining the names of the said tenants, acted upon a suggestion made by Mr. Shaw, and sent the rate-book above mentioned to the office of John Dugdale & Brothers. The names of Thomas Ainsworth and other tenants of Messrs. Dugdale were inserted in pencil in the said rate-book, whilst it thus remained in the office of the said firm, by one of their clerks, and when that had been done the rate-book was returned to the assistant overseer. The name of Thomas Ainsworth and the names of the other tenants, which had been written in as above stated in pencil, were then written in ink at the assistant overseer's office by his clerks, and the names of John Holmes and others, which stood in the occupiers' column in the rate-book when the said rate was signed, allowed and published, were struck through with a pen after the manner shewn above. On the 10th of December, 1867, the rate due in respect of the premises occupied as before mentioned by Thomas Ainsworth, and also the rates due in respect of the other tenants of John Dugdale & Brothers, were demanded by the overseer, and paid by Mr. Shaw by a cheque, in the name of the firm, for the sum of 350l. In return for the above cheque receipts were handed over to the firm made out in the name of each tenant separately, and amongst them one in the name of Thomas Ainsworth. Messrs. Dugdale had paid their tenants' rates in a similar manner in full and without any composition for nearly forty years past, and there was a clear understanding between the tenants when they entered into occupation and the firm, that the rates were included in the rent; and the tenants had to pay an additional rent in consideration of the firm |