Dublin Cemeteries Committee v Commissioner of Valuation
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judgment Date | 08 June 1896 |
Date | 08 June 1896 |
Court | High Court |
Q. B. Div.
CASES
DETERMINED BY
THE QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER DIVISIONS
OF
THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,
AND BY
THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,
AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL,
AND BY
THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.
1897.
Poor rate — Exemption — Cemetery — Hereditaments “used exclusively” for charitable purposes — “Private profit or use” — Poor Law (Ireland) Act, 1838 (1 & 2 Vict. c. 56), s. 63 — The Valuation (Ireland) Acts, 1852 and 1854 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 63, s. 16, and 17 & 18 Vict. c. 8, s. 2) — Finality of the decision of the High Court on Case Stated under sections 10 and 11 of the Valuation Revision (Ireland) Act, 1860 (23 Vict. c. 4) — Statute.
In 1830 certain lands near Dublin were vested in a Committee, to be held in trust to be used as a burial ground, the surplus income arising from burial fees, &c., after the payment of expenses, to be applicable, under the sanction of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, to the maintenance of a certain Model School in Dublin, or schools of the same kind, or for the purchase and acquisition of other burial grounds, such surplus income to be handed over to the Archbishop, and to be applied by him towards the support of the school, “so long as” he “should think fit,” and if he should think that “any other application” thereof should be made, the majority of the Committee, with his sanction, should have power to “determine on the future application of such moneys.”
In 1846 the governing body was reconstituted as “The Dublin Cemeteries Committee,” under statute (9 & 10 Vict. c. ccclxi), “for the maintenance, improvement, and extension of the cemeteries” (of Golden Bridge and Glasnevin). Section 14 of this Act provided that the Committee should maintain the cemeteries and chapels and buildings thereon, and authorised the sale of rights of burial; and section 20 enacted that the surplus income, if any, should “from time to time be applied in such manner as to the majority of the governing body should seem fit.” By section 6 a power to make bye-laws for the better order of their proceedings, and the management and maintenance of the burial grounds, was conferred on the Committee. In 1876, by bye-laws purporting to be made under this section, it was provided that portion of the annual income arising from the cemeteries should be funded annually “for the purpose of making provision for the extinguishment of rents,” and that after the surplus for each year should be ascertained, the same should be distributed amongst Dublin charitable institutions, with the approval of the Archbishop. Since that date all surplus—after payment of head-rents, fees to
sub-committees, salaries, wages, and other outgoings, and after setting apart a certain portion of the residue, and investing same for the purpose of redeeming head-rents—was distributed among such charitable institutions. The revenues of the undertaking consisted as well of grazing rents for lands not yet appropriated for burial ground, and of interest on moneys so invested, as of burial fees, &c.The Commissioner of Valuation having entered these lands upon the Valuation Lists as rateable, the Dublin Cemeteries Committee appealed to the Recorder of Dublin. They contended that, under the Irish Poor Law Act, 1838 (1 & 2 Vict. c. 56), s. 63, no burial ground or cemetery was rateable; that these lands and premises were within the exemption of that section, as being a burial ground from which “no private profit or use” was derived; and that they were entitled to have the same distinguished on the Lists as exempt, under section 2 of the Valuation Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 8), as being “exclusively used for charitable purposes.”
On Case Stated for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division:—
Held (O'Brien, J., diss.), that the hereditaments were not “used exclusively for charitable purposes” within section 2 of the Valuation Act of 1854; that, under the Private Act of 1846, there was no trust binding the Committee to apply the surplus profits of the undertaking in charity, the bye-laws above mentioned being ultra vires; that the application in charity of the whole or portion of the net profits of such an undertaking (whether this were done in the discretion of the governing body, or even in the execution of some trust binding them to make such application thereof) would not bring the undertaking within the provision of that section; and that, accordingly, the Commissioner of Valuation was correct in not distinguishing these hereditaments upon the Lists as so exempt.
Quære—How far is sect. 63 of the Poor Law (Ireland) Act, 1838, affected by the provisions of the Valuation Acts, 1852 and 1854?
Semble, the decision of the Divisional Court upon a Case Stated for their opinion upon a question of valuation or exemption, under 23 Vict. c. 4, ss. 10 and 11, though “final and conclusive on all parties as to amount,” still leaves it open to a person assessed in pursuance thereof to question his liability when sued for rates.
Case Stated by his Honor the Recorder of Dublin, pursuant to 23 Vict. c. 4, s. 10, for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division, on the hearing, on the 20th May, 1895, before him at Quarter Sessions of an appeal, under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 63, from the valuation by the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland of certain lands, hereditaments, and premises, belonging to the appellants, the Dublin Cemeteries Committee, situate in the townlands of Prospect, Slutsend, and Violet Hill Great, in the county Dublin.
In the Valuation Lists prepared by the Commissioner of Valuation for the year 1895 the Dublin Cemeteries Committee were entered as occupiers or immediate lessors of land and buildings to the total rateable value yearly of £1279. Of this sum £860 was assessed for land, £359 for buildings and offices; and £60 for labourers' cottages.
The grounds of appeal were thus stated in the Notice of Appeal to Quarter Sessions:—1, that the said lands and premises were exempt from rating as being a cemetery; 2, that the said lands were lands used exclusively for charitable purposes; 3, that in the alternative the assessment should be confined and reduced to such part of the lands, hereditaments, and premises occupied by the appellants as should alone be properly rateable under the statute. The third ground of appeal, however, was not proceeded with before the learned Recorder, counsel on both sides agreeing to take the opinion of the Court on the two first questions.
The facts as proved before the Court of Quarter Sessions, and set out in the Special Case, were substantially as follows:—
By an indenture dated 22nd December, 1828, Luke Teeling of Dublin, merchant, granted and assigned to the Most Reverend Daniel Murray (the Roman Catholic Archbishop of the Diocese of Dublin), the Very Reverend Patrick Coleman, D.D. (Roman Catholic Vicar-General of the said diocese), the Very Reverend Andrew Lube (Roman Catholic Dean of the said diocese), Daniel O'Connell, Nicholas Mahon, and Christopher Fitzsimon, all that piece or plot of ground part of the lands of Golden Bridge in the parish of St. James and county of Dublin, containing 1a. 3r. 29p., to hold the same for lives renewable for ever under a lease of the premises dated the 30th September, 1812, and a renewal thereof dated the 1st of July, 1828.
By indenture dated the 29th March, 1830, and expressed to be made between the grantees in the deed of the 22nd December, 1828, of the first part, the Reverend Francis Joseph Lestrange and others of the second part, and Michael Walsh and others of the third part, reciting that the premises conveyed by the said indenture of the 22nd December, 1828, had been purchased for the purpose of being converted into a place for burial, by funds which were entrusted to the parties thereto of the second part (Lestrange and others), as a Committee for the regulation and management of the same, and reciting that the said ground had been actually converted into a burial ground, and that various sums of money had been and were likely from time to time thereafter to be received for the privilege and right of burial therein, and that by the constitution of the said Committee the net proceeds of the said burial ground should be applied under the sanction of the said Archbishop and his successors to the promotion and support of a model school or schools in the nature of a model school or schools, and for the purpose of increasing burial grounds; it was witnessed that the said parties thereto of the first part did thereby declare that the indenture of the 22nd of December, 1828, and the premises therein mentioned were granted to and accepted by them upon and subject to the trusts thereinafter declared, that is to say, upon trust, inter alia, that the said premises should be held in perpetuity as and for a burial ground and for the purpose of the erection of one or more chapel or chapels and for the erection of tombs and other monuments which might be deemed proper to be erected thereon; that all rents payable in respect of the said premises, and all rent, fees, and emoluments, of what nature soever, arising out of the said burial ground and the right of sepulture or erecting tombs or monuments, should, after the payment of the expenses therein mentioned, become and be applicable, under the sanction of the Catholic Archbishop aforesaid and his successors, to the present or other model school or schools, or for the purchase and acquisition of other burial ground or grounds, as thereinafter expressly mentioned; that the treasurers, thereby appointed and their successors should at the close of each three months pay off all rent, salaries, wages, and current expenses so far as the funds vested in them should enable them to do so, and should pass their accounts before a meeting of the parties to this deed, and should hand over any balance in their hands to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The General Valuation Act, 1852, and of The Acts Relating to The Valuation of Rateable Property in Ireland, and The Governing Body of University College, Cork, Appellants; The Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland, Respondent
...R. 6 C. L. 420. (2) [1906] 2 I. R. 79. (3) 25 Q. B. D. 121. (4) [1899] 1 Q. B. 871. (5) 4 Ir. C. L. R. 590. (1) I. R. 4 C. L. 438. (2) [1897] 2 I. R. 157. (1) 3 B. & Ad. (2) 12 Ad. & Ell. 84. (1) 11 H. of L. Cases, 443, at p. 519. (2) I. R. 4 C. L. 438. (3) [1897] 2 I. R. 157. (1) 10 Q. B. ......
-
O'Neill v Commissioner of Valuation; Council of Alexandra College v Same
...The Court answered in the negative the questions put in the two cases. A. E. C. (1) Before Palles, C.B., and Gibson and Molony, JJ. (1) [1897] 2 I. R. 157, at p. 171. (2) [1896] 2 I. R. 538. (3) [1911] 2 I. R. 593. (4) [1911] 2 I. R. 173. (5) [1891] App. Cas. 531. (6) 8 E. & B. 184; 27 L. J......
-
Campbell College, Belfast (Governors) v Northern Ireland Valuation Commissioner
...to be read in the sense which it had received in the Statute of Charles 1. In the Cemeteries Committee v. The Commissioner of Valuation 1897 2 I.R. 157 Johnson J. expressly rejected the argument that section 2 was subject to the proviso. In a number of subsequent judgments down to 1914 Pall......
-
Whaley v The Great Northern Railway Company
...[1911] 2 I. R. 579. (6) [1898] 2 I. R. 656. (1) 2 New I. J. R. 291. (2) 30 L. R. Ir. 160, at 171. (3) Ir. R. 2 C. L., pp. 597, 599. (4) [1897] 2 I. R. 157, at (5) 17 I. C. L. R. 9. (1) [1901] 2 I. R. 215, 224, at 229. (1) 10 Q. B. (N. S.) 868. (2) 2 Q. B. 862. (3) 21 Q. B. D. 96. (4) 2 New ......