the performance of the duties of the officers, but to be outside the walls of the prison. In order to see whether anybody can be rated for these, it is not safe to say merely because they are outside the walls that they are rateable: we must see why what is within the walls is exempt. I take it that the ground is, that everything within the prison is occupied by the directors of prisons, and the governor and officers have no separate occupation. The directors do not occupy beneficially, but solely for public purposes, and there is abundant authority that such an occupation is not rateable. That being the principle, and I believe it to be a sound one, I must see whether these official residences, although not within the walls, are yet within the principle. I take the facts to be these. The houses beyond the walls are allotted to certain officers; the appointment and existence of such officers are necessary to carry on the prison establishment. They have no choice and must occupy these houses. They pay no rent; but I do not rely much on this, because it seems to me that if rent were paid there would be an increase of their salary; and vice versa, if they paid no rent, they would have so much less salary. It must be taken that there is no necessity for these residences being within the walls of the prison; but it is evident that they must be near the prison. Lastly, it must be taken that they are not more than is enough for the necessary performance of the official duties. When this is once stated, I am at a loss to distinguish these from the residence of the governor, which is held not to make him rateable. But the reason is not, in my opinion, because it is within the walls of the prison. It seems to me that these fall within the same principle as the governor's house. Supposing the latter were without the prison walls, I cannot see any difference in principle which results from the change of position. It is part of the prison, only without the walls. But I have said there is a material fact which may make a distinction, although it would not affect the principle. That fact is, whether these residences are necessary or not. It must be simply what is necessary for the indi vidual officer; for any excess he is rateable. I should think if the officer is a married man what is necessary for himself and his wife is not more than ought to be allowed. Therefore, I think that the officers residing in these houses are not rateable. WIGHTMAN, J.-The question is, whether any part of the premises mentioned in this case is rateable, or rather, whether they are exempt from rateability on the ground that they are devoted exclusively to public purposes, and that there is no beneficial occupation by any one beyond what is absolutely necessary for the discharge of the public duty. It was hardly argued that the prison itself was rateable. The question is limited to the point, whether the occupation by the officers of the gaol of what may be called official residences beyond the walls of the prison is sufficient. to render them rateable. It is agreed that for all that is occupied in excess of the necessary discharge of the public duty the governor is rateable. Now, these residences are beyond the walls of the prison, and form no part of it. It appears to me that an intelligible line may be drawn between residences within the prison walls and those which are separate and beyond the walls. In some cases it is stated that rent is actually paid for these residences, and it may be taken that where rent is not actually paid, an equivalent sum is deducted from the wages. In respect of the residences within the walls, there is no separate and distinct occupation unless, as in the case of the governor, there is an excess. But the separate residences outside the walls stand on a different footing, and the occupation of them is beneficial. We must draw the line somewhere; and I think it may be very clearly drawn at the point which I have already mentioned. With respect to the farm, I quite agree with my Lord in thinking that this case is quite undistinguishable from The Governors of the Bristol Poor v. Wait. Judgment for the respondents, without costs. 1854. Jan. 30. Poor-Rate THE CHURCHWARDENS AND Rateable Value - Profits of Occupation or Collateral GuarantieRailway-Agreement to make up Dividend. The Newmarket Railway Company being empowered by their act to make a branch line of railway joining that of the Eastern Counties Railway Company, an agreement was entered into between the two companies (which was afterwards confirmed by act of parliament), whereby in consideration of the benefit likely to accrue to the Eastern Counties Company from the making of such branch, and the working of it in connexion with their railway, the Eastern Counties Company agreed that whenever the net earnings of the Newmarket Railway Company, after payment of working expenses and other charges, &c. should not be sufficient to pay a dividend of 31. per cent. on their share capital, the Eastern Counties Company would pay to the Newmarket Company such sum as would be sufficient to make up the said dividend to the rate of 31. per cent.; provided that the sum payable in any one year should not exceed 5,000l. The net earnings of the Newmarket Railway Company not being sufficient to pay the said dividend of 31. per cent. in the year preceding that in which they were rated, the Eastern Counties Company, in pursuance of their agreement, paid to them 3,7051. to make up the dividend to the said rate: Held, (per Coleridge, J. and Erle, J., dissentiente Lord Campbell, C.J.) that in rating the Newmarket Railway Company to the relief of the poor, the sum of 3,7051. ought not to be taken into consideration as increasing the rateable value, as it was not an earning of the branch nor money paid by way of rent for the use of the branch, or springing from the profits of the occupation, but a payment arising from a collateral contract of guarantie in case the profits of the occupation should fall short of a certain amount. Upon an appeal against a rate made for the relief of the poor of the respondents' parish on the 21st of October 1852, the parties, pursuant to the provisions of the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45. s. 11, by consent and by the order of Platt, B., stated for the opinion of this Court the following CASE. By a rate or assessment made, on the 21st of October 1852, for the relief of the poor of the above-named parish of St. Andrew the Less, in the borough of Cambridge, in the county of Cambridge, intituled "An assessment for the relief of the poor of the parish of St. Andrew-the-Less, Cambridge, in the county of Cambridge, and for other purposes chargeable thereon according to law, made this 21st day of October 1852, after the rate of 1s. in the pound," the appellants were and are rated and assessed in respect of the occupation by them of a portion, situate within the said parish, of the branch railway hereinafter mentioned, as follows, viz. amounts than they ought to be rated or, assessed at or upon. By the Newmarket and Chesterford Railway Act, 1846, the appellants, by their then name of the Newmarket and Chesterford Railway Company, were empowered to make and maintain a railway from the Cambridge line of the Eastern Counties Railway, at or near Chesterford, to the town of Newmarket, with a branch to the town of Cambridge. At the time of the making of the agreement next hereinafter mentioned, the appellants had made the said railway which they were so empowered to make from Chesterford to Newmarket, but they had not made the said branch to Cambridge. By an agreement, bearing date and made on the 28th of May 1851, between the Eastern Counties Railway Company of the one part, and the appellants of the other part (a copy of which said agreement accompanied and was to be taken as part of this case),—after reciting amongst other things, that in consideration of the benefit likely to accrue to the said Eastern Counties Railway Company from the construction of the said branch and the working of the railway of the appellants in connexion with their railway, the said Eastern Counties Railway Company were willing to secure to the appellants certain advantages as thereinafter expressed and defined,—it was mutually agreed between the said Eastern Counties Railway Company and the appellants (amongst other things) as follows, viz. :-That the appellants should proceed with all convenient despatch to make and complete at their own expense the said branch railway, that is to say, from Littlefield Road, in the parish of Wilbraham, to a junction with the Eastern Counties Railway at or near the Cambridge station. Twelfth, that whenever after the opening of the said branch line, and during the continuance of the said agreement, the net earnings of the appellants, after payment of working expenses and other charges upon revenue and interest on borrowed capital, should not be sufficient to pay a dividend on their share capital or on any stock into which the same might be thereafter converted, equal to 37. per cent. per annum upon their capital of 350,000l., the Eastern Counties Railway Company should and would, on notice and requisition to that effect by the appellants within a reasonable time before the day in each half-year when the dividend should be made payable, pay to the appellants or permit them to retain out of any monies in their hands for which they might be accountable to the Eastern Counties Railway Company such a sum of money as would be sufficient to make up the dividend to the said rate of 31. per cent. per annum, provided that the whole sum payable or to be allowed by the Eastern Counties Railway Company to the appellants in any one year, under or in virtue of the said agreement, should in no case exceed the sum of 5,000l. Eighteenth, that the said agreement should continue in force for the term of ninety-nine years, ninety-nine years, reckoned from the opening of the said branch line to Cambridge. After the making of the said agreement and before the passing of the act of parliament hereinafter next mentioned, the appellants did, at their own expense, pursuant to the said agreement, make and complete the said branch railway to Cambridge in the said agreement mentioned, and the same was duly opened on the 9th of October 1851. By the Eastern Counties and Newmarket Railways Arrangements Act, 1852 (a copy of which said act accompanied and was to be taken as a part of this case), it was enacted, that the said agreement should be and was thereby made and declared to be valid and binding on each of the said companies. The said branch railway, so made and completed as aforesaid, is of the length altogether of fifteen miles, of which five furlongs (and no more) are situated within and run through the said parish of St. Andrew-the-Less, in the said borough of Cambridge. From the time of the making and completing of the said branch railway until and at the time of the making of the said rate appealed against, the said branch railway had been and was occupied and worked by the appellants. The gross earnings of the said branch railway for the year immediately preceding the making of the said rate amounted to the sum of 9,705l. 3s. 8d., of which sum such part as bears the same proportion to the total sum of 9,7051. 3s. 8d. as the length of the said branch railway situate within the respondents' parish bears to the total length thereof, is to be deemed and taken, for the purposes of this case, to have been the gross earnings for the same period of and in respect of such portion of the said branch railway as is situate within the respondents' parish; viz., 4047. 78. 8d. The following deductions were and are proper to be made in respect of the said branch railway from the gross earnings of the said branch railway during the said year immediately preceding the making of the said rate, viz.: Of this sum of 10,370l. 4s. 2d., such part as bears the same proportion to the total sum of 10,370l. 4s. 2d. as the length of the said branch railway situate within the respondents' parish bears to the total length thereof is to be deemed and taken, for the purposes of this case, to be the amount of the deductions proper to be made, in respect of such portion of the said branch railway as is situate within the respondents' parish, for the said period of one year, from the gross earnings of the same portion of the said branch railway during the same period. The gross earnings of and deductions in respect of the said branch railway during the said year being thus distributed, the result is, that during the year immediately preceding the making of the said rate the gross earnings of that portion of the said branch railway situate in the respondents' parish were 404l. 7s. 8d., whilst during the same period the deductions proper to be made therefrom amounted to the sum of 4321. 1s. 10d., and consequently the deductions proper to be made from the gross earnings of that portion of the said branch railway situate in the respondents' parish during that period exceeded those earnings by the sum of 27l. 14s. 2d., which sum, it is admitted, was the deficiency or loss of the appellants as occupiers of the said branch railway on the occupation by them of so much of the said branch railway as lies within the respondents' parish during the year aforesaid. The net earnings of the appellants, after payment of working expenses and other charges upon revenue and interest on borrowed capital, not being sufficient to pay a dividend on their share capital equal to 31. per cent. per annum upon their capital of 350,000l., the Eastern Counties Railway Company did, during the aforesaid period of one year immediately preceding the making of the said rate, in pursuance of the provision above mentioned and contained in the said agreement of the 28th of May 1851, pay to the appellants two several sums, amounting together to the sum of 3,705l. 9s. 7d., as and by way of a payment to the appellants under the said agreement, to make up the dividend upon the said share capital to the said rate of 31. per cent. per annum. It is contended by the respondents that the said sum of 3,705l. 9s. 7d. so paid to the appellants ought to be taken into account in ascertaining the annual rateable value of the said railway and branch railway. The correctness of the view so contended for by the respondents is denied by the appellants. The question for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench is, whether the said sum of 3,7051. 9s. 7d. so paid to the appellants as aforesaid ought by law to be taken into account in ascertaining the annual rateable value of the said railway and branch railway, and whether the appellants were or are by law assessable to the said rate in respect of or upon that sum. If this Court shall be of opinion that the said sum of 3,705l. 9s. 7d. ought not by law to be taken into account in ascertaining the annual rateable value of the said railway and branch railway, and that the appellants were not or are not by law liable to be assessed to the said rate in respect of or upon that sum, then the said appeal is to be allowed and the said rate is to be amended by reducing each of the sums of 145l. and 1167., which now appear upon the said rate as the "gross estimated rental" and "rateable value" of so much of the said branch railway as is situate within the respondents' parish, to the sum of 21.; and the said Court of Quarter Sessions shall and may adjudge accordingly; and that the respondents do and shall pay to the appellants the sum of 20%. for costs. If this Court shall be of a contrary opinion, then the said appeal is to be dismissed, and the Court of Quarter Sessions shall and may adjudge accordingly; and that the appellants do and shall pay to the respondents the sum of 201. for costs. Worlledge, for the respondents (1). The sum of 3,705l. 9s. 7d., paid by the Eastern Counties Railway Company to the appellants under the agreement, ought to be taken into consideration as part of the value of the occupation. If they let the line to a tenant, they would let it with the right of receiving the payment from the Eastern Counties Railway Company. A person is rated in respect of the occupation of property upon the value which it bears to him, all the circumstances attending that occupation being taken into consideration -The Queen v. the Grand Junction Railway Company (2). [COLERIDGE, J.-Suppose a mill-owner. gives another 1,000l. to shut up his mill; is the latter rateable at an increased value?] Yes, so long as the occupier derives that profit from occupying it as a closed mill. [LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-Must not the rateable value depend in some sort on the profits of the land?] No doubt it must; but the payment in this case is agreed to be made by the Eastern Counties Railway Company for the advantage which they derive from carrying goods along the Newmarket line. [COLERIDGE, J.-The difficulty is, that this payment is only to be made if the line (1) June 1, 1853, before Lord Campbell, C.J., Coleridge, J. and Erle, J. (2) 4 Q.B. Rep. 18; s. c. 13 Law J. Rep. (Ns) M.C. 94. is worked at a loss; it can be, therefore, no part of the profits.] It is either a portion of the earnings of the Newmarket line or it adds to the value of the occupation, and therefore, in either view, must be taken into consideration in fixing the rate. Hawkins, contrà.-No doubt, the value of the railway to the occupier must be considered in fixing the rate, but no mere personal advantage can add to the rateable value. This payment is nothing more than a guarantie or indemnity to the appellants in case of their working their line at a loss. The Eastern Counties Railway Company say, if your traffic does not make up 31. per cent. on your share capital we will make it up to you, to the extent of 5,000l. [LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-Out of the traffic brought to their line.] The expectation that traffic will be brought to the Eastern Counties line may be the reason why they are willing to pay the sum; but the payment is nevertheless quite unconnected with the occupation of the line by the appellants. The Eastern Counties Railway Company are rateable in the parishes through which their line passes for the increased traffic brought on their line. The question is, what would a tenant give for the privilege of occupying the line, not for the privilege of receiving this payment? If another company were to take a lease of the Newmarket line they would not have the benefit of this agreement, which is a private arrangement between the shareholders of the two companies, and not binding on the occupiers for the time being. [COLERIDGE, J.-They say this payment would be an outgoing claimable by the Eastern Counties Railway Company, and that it is therefore part of the profits of the appellants.] It is a mere covenant in gross, and the payment cannot affect the value of the occupation. Worlledge replied. Cur, adv. vult. The learned Judges, differing in opinion, now delivered their judgments seriatim. ERLE, J.-The only question submitted to us in this case is, whether in rating the appellants to the relief of the poor for the |