proprietor of a navigation, is to contribute in respect of the profits of the land extending probably through many parishes, and he is to pay to each of those parishes in respect of the land locally situate within it. These are principles which have been laid down in all the recent cases upon this subject: Rex v. Milton (a), Rex v. The Trent and Mersey Canal Company (b), Rex v. Palmer (c), Rex v. The Oxford Canal Company (d). Here the whole land occupied by the canal contributes to produce the entire amount of the tolls, and the proprietors ought not to be assessed at that amount in any one of the parishes through which the canal passes. The profit must be estimated with reference to the whole line of the canal. If a canal runs through six parishes, and a particular toll is payable for going through one of those parishes, the toll is not to be considered as earned altogether in that one parish, but in the whole six. In Rex v. The Oxford Canal Company, where the Company were entitled to mileage duties upon goods passing along their own canal, and to compensation duties upon goods passing out of other canals into theirs, the Court held that the Company were rateable for the whole amount produced along the whole line of the canal. In Rer v. Earl Portmore (e), it was held that the proprietors of a river navigation, were rateable to the relief of the poor in a parish through which the navigation passed (though no riverage dues were received in such parish), in proportion to their profits upon the whole line of navigation. Suppose a canal runs through the parishes A., B., C., and D., and the principal traffic is from A. to D., from which the boats must necessarily pass through B. and C. and suppose that in B. and C. there is a heavier toll imposed, in consequence of there being more locks, or other expenses, there: it cannot be contended in that case, that the tolls imposed in B. and C. are earned there; (a) 3 B. & A. 112. (b) 2 D. & R. 752. 1 B. & C. 545. (c) 2 D. & R. 793. 1 B. & C. 536. 1827. The King .v. KINGSWIN FORD. 1827. The KING บ. KINGSWIN FORD. they are in fact the profits of the whole canal, for which B. and C. are entitled to a proportionate share, in respect of the quantity of land in each; and it would make no difference that the part of the canal between B. and C. was made first, for the profits could not be realised until the whole canal was complete. Shutt and M'Mahon, contrà, were stopped by the Court. BAYLEY, J.-It appears to me that the sessions, in reducing the rate to which this Company were originally assessed, have not proceeded upon the right rule. The Company are rateable as the occupiers of land in the dif ferent parishes through which the canal passes. Tolls, eo nomine, are not rateable; but the subject-matter out of which tolls arise may be rated, and that in the present case is the land used as a canal. The land used in making this canal, therefore, is properly the subject of rate in every parish through which the canal passes; and the rate is to be apportioned to the amount of the profit earned by the canal in each respective parish. Here there is a long line of canal, forming one joint concern, the expenses and profits of which are furnished from, and paid into, one common purse; but the canal passes through several parishes, and the profits may be earned unequally, more in one parish and less in another; and if so, the contributions made to the parishes ought to be unequal also, more to one and less to another, in proportion to the profits earned in each. The true principle upon which the proprietors of a canal ought to be rated is, in proportion to the profit which the canal yields, with respect to the use of the land in every parish through which it passes. This Company have not been rated according to that principle; the rate therefore is bad, and must be increased to the amount stated in the case. The distance which a canal runs through a particular parish, is not the proper criterion of rate, but the profit which it earns within that parish; unless the profit earned in every parish through which it runs is equal, and the whole profit is produced equally along the whole line of the canal: in which case, the distance would be the proper criterion. It will eventually be no injury to the Company, to increase this rate according to the amount of tonnage earned in the parish of Kingswinford, because they will of course procure the rates in the other parishes to be lowered, according to the real proportion of tonnage earned in each; and the result will be, that the Company will be assessed to the same amount, but in different proportions. For these reasons, I am of opinion, that the order of sessions must be quashed, and the rate amended, by increasing it from 91. 16s. 11d., to 251. 3s. 4d. HOLROYD, J., and LITTLEDALE, J., concurred. Order of Sessions quashed, and the 1827. The KING v. KINGSWIN FORD. The KING v. The INHABITANTS of LYTCHET MATRAVERS. BH.226. TWO Justices, by their order, removed Isaac Orchard A pauper, under age, hired himself serve on board and Prudence his wife, from the parish of Lytchet Matravers, in the county of Dorset, to the parish of Saint James, in by contract to the town and county of Poole; and the sessions, on appeal, a ship trading quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon to Newfoundthe following case:— The pauper never acquired any settlement in his own right. His father was settled in the parish of Lytchet land. While he was so serv ing, and before he attained 21, his father acquired a new settlement. After he had attained 21, the pauper returned to his father's house :Held, that the pauper was not emancipated when his father acquired the new settlement, and that his settlement shifted with that of his father. 1827. The KINO V. LYTCHET MATRAVERS. Matravers, and while he was so settled, the pauper hired himself by contract to serve for two summers and a winter on board a ship trading to Newfoundland. In the month of February or March, 1816, being then 20 years of age, he entered upon that service, in which he continued during the stipulated time. There was no evidence that his father ever exercised any control over him during the period of his service. He attained the age of 21 years before his return from the voyage. Shortly after he had left this country, and before he had attained the age of 21 years, his father acquired a settlement in the parish of Saint James, in the town and county of Poole. On the pauper's return from Newfoundland, he went to reside in his father's house, who before that time had left Poole, and returned to Lytchet. After a few weeks he left his father's residence, and lived with his sister, working on his own account, as well there, as during his residence with his father. The sessions were of opinion, that the pauper was emancipated at the time when his father acquired the settlement in Poole. The Barstow, in support of the order of sessions. sessions have come to the right conclusion. The pauper was emancipated at the time when his father acquired his settlement at Poole. The cases that will be relied on by the other side, as shewing that the pauper in this case was not emancipated, are Rex v. Huggate (a), and Rex v. Wilmington (b). In the former, the pauper was bound apprentice to a certificated man, and during his apprenticeship, he being of the age of 18, his father gained a new settlement; and the pauper did not return to his father's house until after he was 21: it was held, that he was not emancipated, and that his settlement followed the new settlement of his father. But the facts of that case were materially different from those of the present. In the first place, the pauper there could not by possibility gain a (a) 2 B. & A. 582. (b) 5 B. & A. 525. 1 D. & R. 140. settlement by service under the apprenticeship, because his master was a certificated person; therefore the pauper's domicile continued to be in his father's house: and in the second, he was in the habit of frequently visiting his father during the period of his apprenticeship, and once resided with his father for a considerable time, in consequence of ill health. In Rex v. Wilmington, on a question of emancipation, the Court laid down this general rule, in order to exclude discussions in particular cases in future ; "that no emancipation is effected during minority, excepting by marriage, becoming the head of another family, or contracting a relation, such as wholly and permanently to exclude the father's control." The pauper there was held not to be emancipated, but the facts there were very different from those in the present case; for there the pauper was a molecatcher, not having entered into any regular contract of service, and he occasionally visited his father while he worked as a mole-catcher, and once slept at his father's house. With respect to the general rule just cited, the present case does not seem to be affected by it, for the circumstances all concur to shew, that the pauper here did contract a relation, so as wholly and permanently to exclude his father's control. Having once done that, and continued in that relation until he was 21 years old, his emancipation became perfect, and related back to the period when he contracted that relation; Rex v. Rotherfield Greys (a), where Bayley, J., said, "In order to constitute emancipation, the son is to be wholly and permanently free from the father's control. Entering into the army subjects him to the control of the crown, so long as he continues in that service; and if he remains in the army until after he is of the age of 21, then his emancipation is perfect, and it would relate back to the time when he originally enlisted," Gambier, contrà. Unless the doctrine of relation can be prayed in aid of this case, it is impossible to say that this (a) 2 D. & R. 628. 1 B. & C. 345. 1827. The KING บ. LYTCHET MATRAVERS. |