View report page

10
Cases, a School Board exactly similar to that, and in exactly the same
conditions with them, is a possible hypothetical tenant, and therefore
ought to be included.
That seems to me to be the real point of principle which is put
before us, and I think that was the real question intended to be
argued; but then the case unfortunately, at the end, after saying "The
Court being of opinion that the Appellants ought not to be excluded,"
in which I think the Court was quite right, goes on to say "decided in
favour of the contentions of the Respondents, and followed the methods
suggested by them as fair tests." Now, we have three tests put
forward, and, among others, the second test, which is the one about
the Contractor. If the question of whether that second test can be
used in any way were raised here before us, it would present,
apparently, considerable difficulties. If it were said to be a test which
was to be acted upon so as to give what has been called the commercial
interest which a contractor would require, I should doubt very much
whether that could be right. If all that is said is, according to its
terms, that the question of what sum a contractor might demand as
rent is a fact which may be given in evidence for the purpose of
consideration, I do not intend to say now that it might not be given,
because I do not think the question is raised before us, and we are not
called upon to decide it. We find in this case it is stated as one of
fact—"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." That, no doubt, is founded upon this, that the Court
did take into consideration the fact that a possible tenant was a School
Board precisely of the same kind, and with the same wants, and with
the same powers, as this School Board, and assuming them to be right
in taking that into consideration, then that is a right mode undoubtedly
of getting at the rateable value. Then it would be the rent which the
owner might reasonably expect to obtain from a tenant, including such
a tenant as the School Board. No fault can be found with that, and if
that would support the finding of the Court, namely, £1,100 rateable
value, it seems to me impossible to say then that what the Court
has done—which Court has found that £1,100 is the rateable value—can
be wrong. But it leaves unsolved the question of whether it is right to
receive either in evidence or for the purpose of acting upon it wholly
and entirely that second test, as it is called, with regard to a contractor.
On that it seems to me that we should on this occasion give no opinion
at all, and we must wait until that question is so raised that the Court
is actually called upon to decide it.