ASSESSMENT OF OCCUPIER OF TITHE RENT-CHARGE. 409 



in the proper discbarge of the duties of the two churches, then he could 

 claim exemption within the principle laid down in Reg. v. Goodchild 

 (1 E. B. & E. 1, and 27 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 233). But on the facts as 

 they appear in the case, the tithes or tithe rent-charge of Burmington 

 are held by Mr. Wheeler, not as having been instituted to the vicarage 

 of Wolford, but because he has become lessee of them from Merton 

 College. He has become lessee, and he pays rent in services instead of 

 money. If he paid in money, he could not deduct the amount. It is 

 enough to say that this is the case of a lessee of a tithe rent-charge, and 

 not at all a case to which Reg. v. Goodchild applies ( Wheeler, appt. v. 

 Overseers of Burmington, resps.). 



Assessment of occiqner of tithe rent-charge. — The Archbishop of Can- 

 terbury, being owner of the impropriate rectory and tithe rent-charge 

 of the parish of H., and of a piece of land thereunto appertaining, 

 granted (under the Augmentation Acts 29 Car. 11. c. 8, and 1 e<e; 2 Will. 

 TV. c. 45) to the perpetual curate for the time being of an annual rent 

 of £40, to be charged upon and yearly issuing out of the said rectory, 

 tithe rent-charge and land ; and he afterwards leased the same to C for 

 21 years, G. yielding and paying yearly to the archbishop £9 IS^., and 

 also £6 16s. for redeemed land-tax, and to the perpetual curate for the 

 time being of T. the said sum of £40. It was held that, in assessing Gr. 

 to the poor-rate of H., as occupier of the tithe rent-charge, G. was not 

 entitled to any deduction in respect of the yearly payment of £40, such 

 payment being so much rent paid for his occupation of the tithe rent- 

 charge, and not a charge upon him as occupying tenant, nor so much 

 tithe rent- charge withdrawn from his occiipatiou. And per Blaclchurn J : 

 " The j)erson rated ought to be rated according to the value of the rate- 

 able property which he occupies, and the rateable value is the rent at 

 which the same might be reasonably expected to be let for fi'om year to 

 year. What does the appellant occupy ? He occupies the whole of the 

 property comprised in the lease, viz., the tithe rent-charge and the half- 

 acre of land. That the curate of Tliannington is not the occupier in 

 respect of the £40 is shown by Frend v. Tolleshunt Knights (28 L. J. 

 (N. S.) M. C. 169). That seems to me a sound decision, and it shows 

 that the party charging, or his assignee or tenant must occupy the 

 whole hereditament though charged" {Reg. v. W, J. Groves, clerk). 



