have known that it would be a losing adventure at the time when they took it; and their inducement for taking it was, that when they had worked out the coal in this colliery, they would be able to get coal of their own, which was adjoining to it; and that this was a cheaper way of getting at it, than any other which they could have adopted. It was admitted, that, generally speaking, coal mines are rateable under the stat. 43 Eliz, c. 2, which expressly mentions them; but it was contended that this rate is a tax on the possessors of property yielding a clear and visible profit; the words of the statute being, according to their ability,' and that ability must be estimated by actual profits; and in this case it is expressly stated, that the lessees, so far from receiving any profit whatever, since they have been in the occupation of these mines, have actually been losers by the adventure; that according to all the preceding cases, if any person were rateable here, it was the landlord in respect of his rent, and not the lessees, who it is found derived no profit whatever, after deducting the expences of the adventure. By Lord Kenyon, Ch. J. "It is said that this burthen is to be laid where the benefit arises; but that rule cannot hold in a variety of instances that might be put. Suppose a landlord make so hard a bargain with his tenant, that the latter derive no benefit from the farm, must not the tenant be rated to the

poor? the landlord certainly is not liable. This case differs from one of Rowles v. Gell, in this respect, which was the case of lead mines, not rateable under the stat, of Elizabeth, and there the question was, Whether or not the lessee was rateable for certain annual profits which he received without any risk on his part. But here the property is rateable under the express words of the stat, 43 Eliz. c. 2.-It ap pears in this case, that there has been a clear profit of 10007, a year. The appellants objection in this place is that they have made an unprofitable bargain with the lessors, That we cannot examine into. It is sufficient that they are occupiers of rateable property."*

exhausted.

In a case of a coal mine being worked out, Colliery and producing no profit to any one, Lord Ellenborough, Ch. J, said, "Where the mine is exhausted, the subject matter of profit is gone, although the rent, which was calculated upon the probable average produce of the whole term, may still be payable. With respect to the parish, the occupier is rateable for the concurrent annual value during the period for which the rate is made, and when the thing which he occupies no longer affords such concurrent value, the subject matter of rating is gone."t

Saleable underwoods are the last species of Saleable unrateable property designated by name in the

* 5 Term R. 593.

8 East's R. 387.

derwood.

Personal property.

statute we have been examining, and it has been determined that they are rateable annually, to the relief of the poor, in proportion to their value, though they should happen not to be cut down oftener than once in 21 years; and such property is, at all times, rateable according to the improvement in its value, or in the rent which might be fairly expected from it; for it is not necessary, that any of the profits should have been actually reaped, or taken away from the property, during the period for which the rate is made.*

The difficulty of ascertaining Locality, which we must have observed all along to have entered so materially, and so generally, `into the consideration of rateability, with respect both to persons and property, constitutes a larger portion than ordinary of the consideration, in determining the rateability of purely personal property, as will appear from the following cases in conclusion of the subject. It was long a doubt whether property purely personal, was under any circumstances, rateable; next, to what descriptions of personal property the liabi lity attached; thirdly, when it was of a transitory kind, where it became liable.

In a case of Rex v. Andover, in the 17 of Geo. 3, when the liability of personal property was a question much discussed, it was

* 10 East's R. 219.

said by Aston, J. "that there are a great many cases which say that local visible property, may be rated: but the question is, how it must be done? Suppose it were done by the overseers; if notice be given to the several persons rated, and they think themselves overrated, they have an Appeal to the Sessions. So, if a house has been usually rated for the house and stock in trade altogether, the rate is so specified; and if the person has an objection because he is mounted too high, on an Appeal, all that is a matter to be laid before the Justices in Session, who act as jurymen with respect to the fact, and as judges as to the decision. Then the immediate point specified in the Appeal is produced, and notwithstanding the usage, if upon the general question, it should turn out to be the law that personal property is rateable, then it must indeed be rated, though it never was so before.'

Also in Rex v. the Justices of Canterbury, Mic. 9 Geo. 3.-Lord Mansfield said. "To be sure, personal property is within the act of 43 Eliz. c. 2, and yet it is almost impossible to rate it, for it would be compelling persons to discover their debts."

And in another case the Court said, "The Stock in personal property and stock in trade, to be

* Cowp. R. 565.

trade

liable, ought to be visible, liquidated, and as certained: not casual, fluctuating, and uncertain."*

Also in Rex v. White, Tr. 32 Geo. 3. Lord Kenyon said that the expression of Yates, J. in the last case was "if personal property be "rateable, it is not to be done at random, and "to leave the party rated to get off as he can ; "but the officer making the rate, must be able "to support what he has done by evidence ; " and no personal property can be rated, but "the clear liquidated surplus."+

In a case of Rex v. Ringwood, 15 Geo. 3. three persons were possessed, as co-partners, of stock, in the trade and business of common brewers and maltsters, to the value of 40007. for no part of which they were assessed, and · the Session upon Appeal had quashed the rate, and ordered a new one. coming before the Court of B.

The question

R. by a spe

cial case, it was decided, on its having been the duty of the Session to have amended, not quashed the rate; but Lord Mansfield took occasion to say, on the general subject of rating stock in trade, "that in attempting to rate this stock they would have discovered the wisdom of conforming to the practice of not rating it. If they had tried to have amended

* 4 Term R. 771.

+ 4 Burr. R. 2291.