203
1
I am of opinion that both the owner and occupier of premises are so exempt.
as above described. There are two great principles applicable to this case which have from the earliest times prevailed as rules.
The first is that the Crown is exempt from all rates, unless bound by express provision; the other is that the Crown is not bound by an Act of Parliament and a fortiori by a Colonial Ordinance unless expressly named therein.
Taking these well-recognised principles as a guide, there can be no doubt that the occupier of the premises would be exempt from the payment of rates, because the person employed by yourself, acting in the service of the Crown, is the occupier. The only doubt which I entertained was whether, having regard to the peculiar language of the proviso in our local Ordinance, the owner could claim immunity from the payment of rates, on the ground that the premises were demised to the Crown. Looking, however, at all the circumstances of the case, more especially to the fact that if the owner of the premises could be held liable for the rates, the Crown would, in effect, have to pay them in the shape of increased rent, I am of opinion that the owner as well as the occupier of premises, during the time of the occupation, must be held exempt.
"True copy
(Signed) F. J. G.
D. B. G.
I have verified
(Signed) Henry John Ball
EX