120 RATING OF COPROLITES. 



waste-M-ecded to improve the plantation, and the waste wecdings were 

 allowed to lie on the ground to rot. The Court of Queen's Bench con- 

 firmed the finding of the sessions, that the wood was not saleable under- 

 wood within stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2. 



LMeduU J. said, " The first question is whether this wood is under- 

 wood ? Small wood never likely to be used for timber may be called 

 underwood ; so may plantations of timber trees not intended for per- 

 manent growth, but to be cut at stated intervals for use as hop-poles, or 

 for other similar purposes. Here the poles were never meant for growth 

 as timber, and may therefore be properly called underwood. Then are 

 they saleable underwoods ? A capacity of being sold for profit belongs 

 to all wood ; the statute must therefore be taken to mean underwoods 

 cut down for sale at regular and calculable periods. The question, 

 therefore, becomes one of fact, which the justices at sessions must 

 decide, taking into consideration the mode of managing that sort of 

 property, the time of cutting, and other circumstances." And in Eex v. 

 Inhabitants of Jlirfield, the Court of Queen's Bench intimated that the 

 fair mode of rating saleable nndcricoods would be to rate them yearly at 

 such a sum as a tenant would be willing to give them annually upon a 

 21 years' lease. 



The question whether coprolites were rateable or not was a most 

 important one, and was first raised in the case of Eoads v. T/ie Overseeis 

 of Tnnnpington, 5 L. R. Q. B. 5G. 



The appellant was rated as occupier of five acres of land on a gross 

 estimated rental of £431 10s., and a rateable value of £256 lOs. 



The Court of Queen's Bench, without expressing any opinion as to 

 the amount of the rate, which was a matter not in dispute in the case, 

 decided that as the a^jpellant was in occupation of the laud in respect of 

 which he was rated, he was properly rated. 



The Court of Queen's Bench having thus decided that coprolite pits 

 were rateable, another question arose as to the principle on which they 

 were to be rated, and this was decided in the case of Reg. v. Overseers of 

 Whaddon, 10 L. Pt. Q. B. 230. 



The Assessment Committee rated the appellant in respect of ten acres 

 of coprolite land at a gross rental of £840 and a rateable value of £630. 

 By an agreement with the Earl of Hardwicke, the appellant contracted 

 to pay £115 an acre for the coprolite land, and to dig sufficient land to 

 l)ay the Earl £1000 per annum at least, such sum to be paid quarterly, 

 whether sufficient land was dug over in any one year to amount to that 

 sum or not. 



It was argued on the part of the appellant that he was never in 

 beneficial occupation of more than three and a half acres at any one 



