Victuallers," declared that the male members should for the purposes of 1861. The QUEEN V. LICENSED Society. meet not less than four times a year the Society, and at such meetings might make by-laws for carrying out the objects of the Society. The charter VICTUALLERS' also provided that the executive business of the Society should be vested in "the Committee of Management," consisting of twenty three persons elected by and among the members, one of which twenty three was to be called "the Governor" of the Society. The newspaper mentioned in the charter has continued to be published ever since the date of the charter. By-laws have been made from time to time in the manner provided in the charter. By one of the bylaws it was provided that, out of the profits of the newspaper, certain annual amounts should be appropriated to various charitable "funds" of the Society: and that any balance remaining should be divided among the members entitled to participate. By another by-law it was provided that the four quarterly meetings of the Society should be held "in the premises of the said Society's school, or at such other place as the said Governor and Committee of management" "may appoint." The premises rated are the freehold property of The Society of Licensed Victuallers, and are used for the purposes of a school for the benefit of the children of licensed victuallers, and for the other purposes mentioned in the by-laws in respect of the user of the school as hereinafter mentioned. The children are maintained, clothed and educated therein free of charge. The school house contains suitable apartments for the masters and mistresses, children and servants of the institution, and also a large hall in which the quarterly 1861. The QUEEN V. LICENSED and other meetings of the Society, upon the general business of the Society, are held. The newspaper in the charter and by-laws mentioned, VICTUALLERS' and the school, are managed by the Governor, Committee, Society. trustees, auditors and other officers of the said Society. The profits arising from the newspaper are applied as provided for in the by-laws. The Governor and Committee contended that they had no beneficial occupation of the said school house, and were not liable to be rated to the poor rate, general rate and sewers rate, or any or either of those rates, in respect of the school house. If the Court should be of opinion that the Governor and Committee were liable to be rated to the poor rate, general rate and sewers rate, the rates were to be confirmed. If the Court should be of opinion that the Governor and Committee were not liable to be rated to any or either of the rates, the rates were to be amended by striking out the names of the Governor and Committee therefrom. If the Court should be of opinion that the Governor and Committee were liable to one or more of the rates, and not liable to the other or others of the rates, then such one or more of the rates were to be confirmed, and such other or others of the rates to be amended by striking out the names of the Governor and Committee therefrom. . Lush, for the respondents. The Society is rateable in respect of its beneficial occupation of these premises. [Crompton J. Perhaps the best course will be for the other side to state the grounds upon which they contend that the appellants are not rateable.] Huddleston, for the appellants. The Society has no beneficial occupation. The objects of the school are purely charitable: there are no payments by the pupils, as in Regina v. Sterry (a) and Regina v. Temple (b); nor does the Society derive any emolument whatever from the school. As to the newspaper, the Society may, in one sense, be said to be the proprietors of it, and to derive emolument from it. But they appropriate a certain portion of the profits to charitable purposes: and have not, therefore, any more than a private individual who devotes part of his income to charitable purposes, any beneficial occupation of the buildings used solely for such purposes. It is true that the quarterly meetings of the Society are held on the premises: but, by the by-laws, they have power to hold them at such other place as the Governor and Committee of management may appoint. And, further, the use of the premises for the business of the Society is not such a beneficial occupation as creates rateability. Buildings used for charitable purposes are on the same footing, in this respect, as buildings used for public purposes: and are evidently so treated in Nolan's Poor Law, vol. 1., where it is said, p. 184, "If there is no beneficial occupation for private emolument the property is not liable to assessment; but when such an occupier does exist, he is rateable, although the ultimate object of his occupation be to promote a charitable institution, or advance the public good." In Rex v. Waldo (c) it was held that an almshouse, wholly occupied by objects of charity or their attendants, and of which no profit was made, had no rateable occupier. Lord Mansfield, in giving judgment, (b) 2 E. & B. 160. (a) 12 A. & E. 84. (c) Cald. 358. 1861. The QUEEN v. LICENSED VICTUALLERS' Society. 1861. V. LICENSED VICTUALLERS' Society. says, "It is sufficient that" "the profit is here in fact The QUEEN applied to public and charitable uses." Rex v. Waldo (a) was recognised as an authority by the Court in Rex v. Agar (b), Regina v. Wilson (c) and Regina v. Temple (d). In Regina v. Baptist Missionary Society (e), which is probably relied on by the respondents, the Society not only used the rooms for their own meeting, but let them to other Societies for similar purposes; and were therefore held rateable. [Hill J. The Court, in giving judgment, say, "We think it right to add that we find no authority or principle for holding that a number of individuals, occupying premises merely for the purpose of diffusing religious instruction, would be, on that account, exempt from rateability in respect of them to the relief of the poor." That is strongly against you.] In the present case there is clearly no beneficial occupation. [Hill J. I do not agree that there is no distinction between buildings used for charitable, and buildings used for public, purposes. In the former case, there is an actual occupier in the latter there is not. Crompton J. In Regina v. Baptist Missionary Society (e) Erle J. takes that distinction, in the course of the argument; and Coleridge J. says: "Regina v. Wilson (ƒ) and Rex v. Waldo (a), if to be supported at all, must be supported on the ground that the person rated did not occupy the premises."] Per CURIAM. (CROMPTON, HILL and BLACKBURN Js.) (a) Cald. 358. (c) 12 A. & E. 94. (e) 10 Q. B. 884. (b) 14 East, 256. (d) 2 E. & B. 160. (f) 2 4. & E. 84. 1861. The QUEEN against PICKFORD. Wednesday, Stat. 7&8 Vict. The mother of a bastard child applied to a justice, within twelve months after the child's birth, for a summons against P., the alleged c. 101. father. The summons was issued by the justice, but could not be served, Bastardy P. having absented himself. On P.'s return, which was more than twelve order, on months after the child's birth, and before which time the justice who had second sumissued the first summons had died, the mother obtained from another mons issued justice a second summons against P.; and, upon its coming on for by a second hearing, the justices in petty session made an order adjudging P. to be justice. the putative father, and ordering him to pay a certain sum by way of Jurisdiction. maintenance. Held, that the order was bad, inasmuch as, by stat. 7 & 8 Vict. e. 101. s. 2., the jurisdiction to make the order is limited to the justice before whom the first application is made; and that the second summons, not being issued by the same justice, could not be considered as part of the original process upon the first application. KENEALY, in last Michaelmas Term, obtained a rule to shew cause why an order, under the hands and seals of three justices for the county of Chester, adjudging the defendant to be the putative father of a male bastard child, born of the body of Jane Mason, and ordering him to pay certain sums of money in respect of the said child, should not be quashed. The order was as follows. “Order in bastardy, on application after birth. "Cheshire, to wit.] At a petty session of Her Majesty's justices of the peace of the county of Chester, acting in and for the petty sessional division of Prestbury, in the hundred of Macclesfield, in the said county of Chester, holden 21st August, 1860, before us, Charles Richard Banistre Legh, John Dixon and John Upton Gaskell, Esquires, three of Her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the same county: Whereas Jane Mason, of the township of Bollington, in the said county, single |