tenant's right to deduct property -tax from rent. 441 



and received to Ms urn. It was his own voluntary act, as lie must have 

 known he had a right to deduct it from each rent. 



Sicahmn v. Ambler settled that a tenant Ms a right to deduct from 

 his rent the amount of properfi/-tax assessed iijmi, and paid hy Mm in 

 respect of his landlord, although the landlord is not in fact liable to be 

 assessed, and has before the payment claimed exemption, and that ex- 

 emption has been subsequently allowed. Parke B. said : " The qnes' 

 tion here was whether the defendant was entitled to deduct certain 

 property-tax paid by him— not to set it off. It was in effect settled by 

 Denbif v. lloore that a claim of this nature cannot be set oflp, because in 

 paying over the property-tax a tenant cannot be considered as having 

 done anything more than paying part of the rent, and he cannot set off 

 that. The plaintiff is in fact the representative of the Eau Brink Com- 

 missioners, and we have now to decide whether the defendants are 

 entitled to deduct certain payments they have made on account of the 

 property-tax since the commencement of their lease of the tolls, which 

 they held at different detached periods between 1837-50. We do not 

 see any reason why they should not be entitled to deduct the money, 

 not to recover it by way of a cross action, but to deduct it from the 

 unpaid rent. They never paid the rent in full. There appears to us 

 to be no reason why they should not be entitled to deduct every sum 

 they had paid on account of their landlords down to that time. It 

 was the business of the landloi'ds here to get relieved from the assess- 

 ment, which they neglected to do in the first instance, but which they 

 finally effected ; but the tenants in the meantime being assessed and 

 compelled to pay, have a right to make every deduction." 



By a case reserved from the Quarter Sessions, on an appeal against 

 a rate for the parish of H., W. was found to be the occupier of a farm 

 situate partly in H. for 1&5 acres and partly in C. for the residue, and 

 it was held by the Court of Queen's Bench that he was lic(Me to be rated 

 in H., although the boundaries of such land could not be ascertained. 

 And 2Jer Curia^n : " It does not seem necessary that the parish officers 

 should be able to point out which is the land rated" {Regina v. Woods). 

 The occupier of a farm, of which a certain number of acres are in parish 

 A,, and the residue in parish B., is properly rated to the poor rate of 

 parish A., as the occui^ier of the number of acres in that parish, although 

 the specific acres in either parish are not Mown (ib.). And per Lord 

 Campbell C. J. : " It is not necessary for the parish officers to set out 

 the particular boundaries of the laud, in respect of which they rate an 

 occupier " {ib.). 



Emblements can only be claimed in respect of crops which grow by the 

 industry and manurance of man, and which ordinarily repay the labour 



