View report page

14
my reading of the case produce as rateable value £1,150. But there
was another mode of arriving at the value which produced another
result namely £1,100, and that other method is the one stated in
paragraph 8. It is stated in these terms "On the other hand if the
premises were not the freehold of the Appellants, but were already built,
and offered to the Appellants, the rent which the owner might reasonably
expect to obtain, would, if taken to be the rateable value support the
finding of the Court, namely £1,100 rateable value."
According to that statement the Court has taken the right mode of
proceeding, and enquired what was the rent which a tenant might
reasonably be expected to pay for the hereditament. That, the Court
say, supports the actual finding at which they had arrived, but not the
finding of the original Assessment Committee of £1,150. On that,
therefore, they have proceeded. That being so, we may neglect from
consideration all the other motives which may have operated upon the
Court. I have come to the conclusion that this is the right ground,
and therefore I express no opinion at all upon the other subordinate
modes of arriving at different figures which are not now really
before us.
Mr. Jelf: The Appeal will be dismissed with Costs?
Lord Justice Bowen: Yes.
ASSESSMENTS.
During the year 1885 the Quinquennial revision of the
Assessments of the various properties in tho parish took place.
The greater part of the valuation was made by the Valuation List
Commmittee, either from actual survey, or from the returns
furnished by tho owners or occupiers. The following large
properties were referred to the valuers, Messrs. Castle & Son,
for valuation:—
Great Eastern Railway.
North London Railway.
London and North Western Railway.
New River Company.
East London Water Company.
Gas Light and Coke Company's Works and Mains.
North Metropolitan Tramways.