View report page

V
104
for the widow, gave the very proper instruction to Mr. Spicer not to part
with any of the rents but to hold them as they would have to be accounted
for to the person in title when the Probate dispute was settled. The
Probate dispute was settled and Mr. Spicer, apparently hearing who were
the people who by the settlement were entitled to the rents, proceeded to
communicate with the widow who referred him to the solicitor, and after
that, when any sums were to be paid out of the rents, Mr. Spicer applied
to and obtained instructions from the Plaintiff, Mr. Watts, the Solicitor,
as to whether or not he was to pay, and having got instructions from Mr.
Watts he paid or did not pay according to the instructions he received.
Further, on Mr. Watts' instructions, Mr. Spicer paid to Mr. Watts the net
balance of the rents and rendered him an account of the rents collected.
That went on for two or three years.
The question on those facts is : Is Mr. Watts receiving the rackrent
of the lands as agent for any other person ? Different minds take different
views and, therefore, I ought not to say that the thing is clear; I only
say that it is clear to me, but possibly what is clear to me is wrong. It
seems clear to me that Mr. Watts, giving instructions as to what was to
be done with the rents which were obeyed by Mr. Spicer, giving instructions
to Mr. Spicer to pay and giving instructions to Mr. Spicer to pay to him
the balance after making the authorised payments, is receiving the rackrents. It is perfectly true he is receiving them on behalf of the widow and
her son, but that is receiving them as agent and he seems to me to be clearly
receiving them as agent for another person. The Police Magistrate has
taken that view and the Divisional Court has affirmed it.
I am not at all sure that it is not a question of fact and if it is a question
of fact the Police Magistrate has found that Mr. Watts received the rents.
The reason why I doubt it is that there have been in the House of Lords a
series of contradictory utterances as to what is a question of fact and what
is a question of law. Some of the noble Lords, particularly Lord Wrenbury,
have taken the view that when there is a statute it is always a question of
law what the statute means ; when you have found out what the statute
means it is a question of fact as to whether the particular instance comes
within the meaning you get from the statute. But however simple the
words of the statute it is always a question of law as to what they mean.
For instance, if a statute says "pig" it is a question of law what "pig"
means and having found out what "pig" means it is a question of fact
whether a particular animal was a pig. On the other hand, there are noble
Lords who take quite a different view of the matter and say when plain
words are used in the statutes it is a question of fact whether the particular
instance they are considering comes within the plain words and, but for
Lord Wrenbury's views, I should have been disposed to think it was a
question of fact and the fact to be ascertained being whether Mr. Watts
was receiving the rackrents as agent for another person I should have
thought he was clearly receiving the rackrents collected by Mr. Spicer who
pays to Mr. Watts such sums as he is instructed to pay. They are clearly
received by Mr. Watts for another person, namely, the widow and son who
were employing him, and it would seem to be fairly clear that Mr. Watts
therefore is a person receiving the rackrents of land as agent for another
person.
That is the view taken by the Police Magistrate. So far as it is fact
its conclusion is not appealable. It is the view taken by the Divisional
Court, and it is the view which I take. Consequently so far as it depends
on me I dismiss the appeal with costs.
Lord Justice Greer dissented, mainly on the grounds (1) that
"the person receiving the rent" meant "the person receiving the
rent from the tenant" and (2) that Mr. Spicer was not the agent
of Mr. Watts.
Lord Justice Sankey delivered a judgment to the same effect
as that of Lord Justice Scrutton.