lift wae machinery within the meaning of entsection 5 of section I of the Rating Ordinance, 1888, and that neither the lift itself - entranced rent arising from the
-724
of the liff
not the
"
was Natcable.
Stis Lordship's decision
of
which I annire a print from the Hong Kong Daily Press, would, if
applied to other buildings in the Colony where lifte
had
A
moet
-Z-Z
are air
Love
unfortunate effect.
in redercing rates, and this Ordinanc
anch was introduced to prevent such a reduction in the case of those
other buildings.
a
I may mention that, under Section 22 of the Rating
Ordinance, 1888,
his Lordship's
& finial and conclusive
brder tra e.
and without appical -
Mr. E. Pozwal
Acting Calling Junval
Sub-enclosure
The Daily Press.
HONGKONG, August
4th. 1899
SUPREME COURT.
August 12th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
THE RATING APPEAL JUDGMENT POR
APPELLANTS.
His Lordshipdelivered judgment in the appoal of the Hongkong Land Investment and Agoney Co., Limited, against the interim assessment, dated 30th June, 1899, of the offices and dwelling on Marine Lot No. 278, in Connaught Road.
Mr. J. Hastings appeared for the appellants, and Mr. F. B. L. Bowley (Acting Crown Soli- citor) for the assessor, Mr. A. Chapman.
His Lordship delivered judgment as fol- lows:
This is an appeal under the Rating Ordinance (15 of 1888) by the Hongkong Land Investment Co., Limited, against the assessment of the pre- mises situate on Marine Lot No. 278. The grounds of the appeal are as follows:---
1. That the said tenement is valued beyond its rateable value, the value of certain machinery upon or in the said tenement having boon in- oluded in the said rateable value, contrary to the provisions of the above-mentioned Ordinance.
2. That the said tenement is valued beyond its rateable value on the date on which such valua tion was made (June 30, 1899), because on the said date certain portions of the said building were anaishod and incapable of beneficial occupation.
The Assessor duly appointed under the said Ordinance after making enquiries assessed the rateable value (that is the annual rent) of the whole building at $17,880. He apparoutly arrived at that sum in the following manner. From inquiries he found that the various floors were let at certain monthly rentals, viz:—First floor and part of basement, $465; second floor and part of basemout, $440'; half the third floor, $150, half the third floor, $150; fourth floor, $320, making $1,525 per mensem or $18.300 per anno, He also found the fourth floor and half the third floor unoccupied on June 30, 1899 (the date of the assessment) and having reason to believe that that portion of the building would · be occupied in about a month, he made a deduc- tion of $170 (being $320+$150) from the sum of $18,300 bring it down to $17,830. Now in dealing with the grounds of the appeal already Bot out, I think it will be convenient to consider the second one first. This ground deals with the question as to whether the assessor made sufficient deductions for the unoccupied portion. The is Rossor in arriving at the sum of $470 acted under the last part of sub-section 5, section 1 of the Ordinance. That reads as follows:-"In the case of buildings let to more than one occupier there may be deducted from the total annual rant of the whole tonement estimated as aforesaid, a sum not exceeding 20 per cent. of the whole, as an allowance for such portions of such buildings as may reasonably be expected to be unlet from time to time during the ensuing year, and tho remain- der shall be tho ratsable value." The Assessor having, as I have said, reason to believe that the naoccupied portions would be occupied in the course of a mouth, deducted one month's rent from the annual rental as a reasonable allowance. Now in this I think he was wrong. It appears to me quite clear that the last part
of
~.0.
34474
RECO
of the sub-section above quoted does not refor to the mare of a new building in which a portion has never been occupied, but refers to the case of buildings already completed, like Chinese tenements, in which, from the sature of their lettings, it may reasonably be expected that some of the rooms or floors will be un- occupied for some part or parts of the year: and in those cases he may make such deductions as he may make think tit, subject only to the condition that such deductions shall not exceed 20 per cent. of the whole aunual rent. To my opinion the assessor ought to have acted under the first part of the sub-section, which reads na follows; Rateable value means the rent at which any tenement may reasonably be ex- perted to let, at the time of the valuation, if, i etc." Now at the time of the valuatiou this floor and a half was naoccupied, and never had been occupied, and therefore not rateable. So it seems to me that instead of dedacting only one mouth's rental, be ought to have deducted twelve months'. I am strengthened in this opinion by the fact that by Section 23 of the Ordinance" The Assessor may at any time moke an interim valuation of any tenement." So that as the floors were occupied he could proceed to assess their annual rentals and collect his rates, I shall refer to this point later on. I will now turn to the second ground of appeal, and the question there is briefly-Doos a lift come under the heading of machinery P In the sub-section previously referred to there
"Such rateable occur these words, value shall not include the value of any machinery upon or in the tenement" Now upon these promises there are two lifts marked by electricity, and it is admitted by the respon- dent that the electric motor which works the lifts is included in the ordinary meaning of the word wachinery, but he contends that these lifts and their necessary accessories are not machine- ry within the meaning of the Ordinance, and that the Ordinance only refers to what i may call trade or manufacturing machinery. Lu support of his contention he refers to the first Ordinance on the subject, viz., Ordinance 2 of 1803 (Police and Lighting Rates Ordinance) Section 6, which is to the following effect: In every valuation to be made under the provisions of this Ordinance the person 80 appointed to make such valuation as aforesaid shall cause every tenement to be separately valued, and such v alaa- tion shall be made upon an estimate of the gross annual rent at which such tenement might rea. sonably be expected to let from year to year. The value of a tenement so estimated shall not include the value of any machinery contained therein." This Ordinance is not in force at present, but its provisions as to machinery are practically reproduced in the existing Ordinance of 1888. The respondent argued that there were no lifts in 1863 and so that Ordinance could not possibly have referred to them, and that even in 1888 there were no lifts in the Colony (though I believe two were in course of con- struction and lifts were certainly in use in other parts of the world), and so the word " machinery · in 1888 could not have a more extended weaning than in 1863. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that lifts were included in the word" machinery" as used in the Ordinance, and that in that case they were not rateable. I have considered this matter carefully, as it seems to open up a wide question, and I am of opinion that lifts are included in the word "machinery" as used in the Ordinance. Although in 1863 there were no lifts, yet the word "machinery is not limited in any way, and must have been intended to include all the machinery thero was at the time in the Colony. Am I then to f conclude that the Legislature in 1888 was of opinion that the world had stood still for
twenty five
274