COPY.
nd Introlou .tud
Hon. Colonial Secretary,
CO
Enclosure S
182
19 FEB (2)
-
si
en meldo to mam
If sugará 35 moldoet
*
jud avar şi-
rog laet and el torero
(no abband "len el telgkoDo calmost to pr vi denings
vino Jİ Husi, erg ni
11 .eoidimad Diqisina.
Il val of
ua on at credi .you w
bolnu a la cebivut, me
umayo. Isitogul and are (
(lucase nebtvon, ..
* Bond ja re 911b508 880 JI .noiJ
Jan neob Ji tiedon
900 ecavit, moti
• Aston (0005 Janus zomero náð vêm ggol.
Indian 1543f a yoy Hijolle teiquuõe Siw.travel grove Vi dekre (as of amosa Ji) bluar o smo pid go major wont not quoti
A pa po beiquevo meocd borde and shufcul "neal 31. siqueta posmoil izetul nud o ufore "asai ang Ish o15J"
The point is certainly an arguable one and I have
had the opportunity of considering a number of the decisions of the English Courts on cases ejusdem generis, and the same principles should govern the construction to be placed on our Ordinance.
As a result I have formed an opinion contrary to
that of the Crown Solicitor.
At home property in the occupation of the Crow has always been held to be exempt from rating and the rule applies also to property which is occupied for Goverment purposes. The princi -ple is sufficiently clear where buildings are used exclusively for public purposes but difficult questions have arisen where officials houses are included in the curtilage. I think this case is governed by Showers v. Chelmsford Union 1891. 1 4.B. 331-60 L.J. (M.C.) 56 and Gambier v. Lydford 23 L.J. (M.C.) 69. In the former certain police officers occupied as residences part of a building vested by Law in a joint committee of the Justices and the County Council. The whole building was under one roof and the whole premises were enclosed by a wall and were used solely for the purposes of the police. Each officer paid a rack rent for the premises occupied by him such rent been deducted from his pay. The Court of Appeal held that the rule exemptinį from reteability property occupied for the purposes of the Government of the country did not apply to the premises occupied by the police officers as residences and that each of them was rateable to the re- -lief of the poor in respect of his occupation. Lord Esher E. R. re- -marked "Do the police officers occupy part of a public building which is used for public purposes and public purposes only, and which is such a building as must be deemed to be the property of and in the occuptaion of the Crow in the sense that it is occupied for the benefit of the public? It is one building ?". And Day J. said "If the buildings are used as residences for the police officers were out- -side the wall which enclosed the buildings used for public purposes, they would according to the decisions be rateable".
He
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.