when in Military occupation, but appear to me to be worded most objectionably-
In the reply which I directed to be written, I pointed out to the writers of there letters respectively, under what circumstances the premises in question were taxed, and I think what is there stated will fully satisfy your Lordship of the liability of the premises to the rate.
4. It is clear to me that it is the Landlord on whom the burden must eventually fall, and I fear that the Captains of the Respective Officers' Mess, prompted by their apprehension, that they had neglected (when they engaged the premises) to settle with the owners as to who was to pay the Assessment, and that as occupants of the Buildings they might be called upon to discharge it themselves.
I am not quite sure that I have done right in not at once enforcing the claim, leaving the Applicants to seek redress in the Ordinary Courts of Law, which must of course be the proper tribunal to decide on the intention and meaning of all local Ordinances, but I was very unwilling that it should be known that the Civil and Military Authorities were at variance on this point.
(Enclosure 13)
250
…
11
5.
that it is not obvious; the only premises exempted from tax being particularly specified in Section II of the Ordinance - I much doubt the validity of this claim, because their tenant happens to be in the Military employ, or an Army employee, certainly does not appear to me to be at all obvious;
were 20 ill agreed
when in Military occupation, but appear to me to be worded most objectionably-
In the
reply
which I directed to be
written, I pointed out to the writers of there letters respectively, under what-
Cheametan ees
were
the premises in question taxed, and I think what is there
stated will fully satisfy your Lordship of the liability of the promvices to the rate.
that it is
4. It is clear to me Landlord on whom the buurther must
owners
11
(Biolosure 13)
»
in the letters
250
and
fear that the Captions spirit manifests
of the Respective Officers Resistant Commissary beneral Smith,
prompted by their apprehension, that o they had neglected, (when they engaged the precises to settle with the
Ws
to who
Avas
to
pay
the
Moner
Asserement, the
as
recupants of the Buildings might be called upon to discharge it themselves.
I am not quite
sure
that I
in not at once
the
5.
have done right
in
enforcing
of private
eventually fall, and why property, should be exempt from taxation under the Ordinance above quoted_ because their tenant happens to be in the
Military employé, certainly dres
or a
not
appear
Army
to me to be at all obvious;
the
the mly premises exempted from tax being particularly specified_ in Section II of the Ordinance - Imuch
this claim, leaving
the
be
Applicants to seek redress in the Ordinary Counts of Law, which must b of course
the
proper tribunal to decide on the intention and meaning of all
local Ordinances, but I was
very
" unwilling that it should be known that the Civil and Military Authorities
on this point
were 20
ill
agreed
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.