275
twenty-five years and was ignorant of the fact that great strides had been made in science and mechanics, and that great improvements had been made in machinery and that numerous novelties had been introduced? Am I to suppose that when the Legislature uses a general word like "machinery," it only means machinery of a certain class? I cannot do so, and I can only say that if the word is to have a limited meaning it is a pity that it was not so defined. I therefore hold that lifts of this description are not rateable, and that being so I, in accordance with my decision in the Gas Company's case in 1890, hold that profits also are not rateable. By profits I mean the enhanced rental that would accrue from the existence of such lifts. I need not therefore refer to the cases quoted on behalf of the appellant in support of this contention. The correct way of assessing this property is to take the probable annual rental supposing that the lifts did not exist. It is unfortunate in this case that the only evidence before me as to what this rental would probably be is evidence given on behalf of the appellants. I do not suggest at all that such evidence is untrustworthy, but it must be admitted that it would be more satisfactory to have evidence from the other side as well. However, I must do the best I can with what I have got.
Another point was raised by the appellants, that some further deductions ought to be made even in the case of the occupied portions of the building, inasmuch as on July 30, 1899, water had not been laid on, and the lavatories could not be used, and some portion of the basement was inaccessible; but seeing that the tenants went in with full knowledge of these defects, and that there was no evidence before me that any reduction of the rent was going to be made or claimed on account of these deficiencies, I do not think that the assessor would have been justified in taking them into consideration.
The question now remains, what is to be the assessment? Evidence was given as to the probable monthly rentals of the premises without the lifts by Mr. Shelton Hooper and Mr. Turner. The former estimated it at $860, and the latter at $930. I think that under the circumstances, and considering that it is only an estimate, I ought to take the higher figure. Mr. Turner's estimate is as follows:-
First floor and part of basement $400 Second floor and part of basement, 300 Half of the 3rd floor.. 65 Do 65 Fourth floor 100 $930From this must be deducted, as I have already shown, $155, being the estimated monthly rentals of the fourth floor and half the third, leaving a monthly rental of $765 or an annual rental of $9,180, and that is what I hold to be the proper annual rental in this particular case. There will be costs for the appellants.
Spur TT