April 7, 1916.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN

657

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.

COURT OF APPEAL.—April 4 and 5.

Before the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Phillimore,
and Mr. Justice Sahgant.

The Court heard five appeals from the Railway and Canal
Commission Court respecting the carriage of coal from the
Glenrhondda and Corrwg collieries. of the Glcnavon Garw
Collieries Limited to the port of Barry. The appellant
railway companies were the Great Western Railway Com-,
pany, the Barry Railway Company, and the Rhondda and
Swansea Bay Railway Company. The court below granted
a through rate of Is. 4-4d., holding that the railway com-
panies were not justified in charging an increased rate of
Is. 6-4d. The railway companies now appealed both against
a through route and rate, and also against the Is. 4-4d. fixed
by the Railway and Canal Commission.

Tn opening the case, Mr. Talbot, for the Great Western
Railway Company, said that before 1908 the route was over
the Taff Vale Railway vid Trehafod, when the rate was
Is. 4-4d., which was the same rate formerly charged from
the collieries to Cardiff. After 1908, as the result of negotia-
tions, the traffic was carried by the Great Western, Railway
and the .Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway, which was
worked by the Great Western Company. The colliery owners
claimed the right to deduct 2d., though the route was longer
than that vid Trehafod, and the difficulty between the com-
panies really turned upon that 2d. The Great Western
objected to the rebate, and based their contention upon the
rates charged to other collieries in the neighbourhood. There
was no ground for making the railway companies carry these
collieries’ coal for Is. 2-4d., which was what it would amount
to, and which was quite an inadequate rate. The Great
Western Railway resisted the rebate, but the Barry Railway
Company, whilst at first agreeing, afterwards came to the
conclusion that they were bound to allow the rebate, owing
probably to their commitment with other people. If the
Is. 6-4d. rate was allowed, counsel contended that the Barry
Company should receive 8d. vid Coity, and 4d. vid Peter-
stone, but the court below had allowed the Barry Company
lOd. and 6d. As the judgment of the Railway Commission
stood, the real rate would be Is. 2-4d., and the 2d. rebate
would come out of the pockets of the Great Western Railway.

Mr. Holman Gregory (for the Barry Railway Company)
said the Barry Company were entitled to lOd. and 6d. in any
event, and what they did with it was no concern of anyone
else, though they intended to give a rebate.

Mr. Talbot said Ins company did not object to Is. 4-4d.
rate if there was no rebate, bub the Railway Commission fixed
the rate at Is. 4-4d., saying they had nothing whatever to
do with rebate or what happened afterwards. That was a
wrong judgment, he submitted, and designedly apportioned
a rate to the Barry Company as would result in the reduction
of the amount the trader had to pay to Is. 2-4d. It was also
giving the Coity and Peterstone route an unfair advantage
over the Trehafod.

On Wednesday, the Master of the Rolls informed Mr. L.
Scott, K.C., who represented the colliery company, that
the Court had come to the conclusion that he had no locus
standi on the question of the division of the through rate
amongst the companies. All his clients would have to do
was to pay the Is. 4-4d.

The Court reserved judgment on the whole case.

Mineral Rights Duty : Earl Fitz william and the
Inland Revenue.

Mr. Thomas Jones, as referee,' has just issued his judg-
ment in an appeal by the Earl Fitz william, against a
determination of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on
a question of mineral rights duty under the Finance Act,
1910. The referee recites that the parties attended at his
office in Westminster, when the appellant was represented
by Mr. R. F. Pansey (of Messrs. Newman and Bond,
solicitors, of Barnsley), and the Inland Revenue Commis-
sioners by Mr. J. H. Shaw, of the solicitors’ department.

The ground of the appeal was “ that the sum upon which
the duty is purported to be charged is in no way liable to
mineral rights duty, but was a cash payment on account of
an option granted by Earl Fitzwilliam in respect of 'certain
estates belonging to him, and to recoup some of the outlay
his lordship had incurred thereon.” No evidence was laid
before the referee, and the matter resolved itself into argu-
ments of a more or less legal nature.

The points relied upon by the appellant were shortly as
follow :—Earl Fitzwilliam, between 1904 and 1906, acquired
certain estates east of Doncaster, comprising a total area of
8,500 acres or thereabouts. He also entered into an agree-
ment with the Doncaster Corporation to lease the Barnsley
bed and certain other seams under a further 1,500 acres
adjoining and intermixed with the first-named property.
This agreement, dated July 23, 1909, was for .a term of
60 years from April, 1908. A certain minimum rent was
reserved therein. His lordship subsequently bored to prove
the minerals, and when the provisional valuation, pursuant
to the Finance Act, 1910, was agreed, his lordship’s outlay
was fixed at F8,000. He afterwards decided not to work
the minerals himself, and entered into an agreement with
certain parties, dated June 9, 1911, granting an option on the
whole area. This option was shortly afterwards terminated,
and the grantee only paid the costs of the preparation of the
agreements. On November 23, 1911, a similar option was
granted to other parties in respect (to the same minerals, and
they covenanted to pay Fl,500 before July 1, 1912, and .a
further Fl,500 wTithin six years from the commencement of
the term. This second option was terminated by the
grantees previous to January 1, 1912, and no payments were
made therefor. On June 21, 1913, an agreement was
entered into with the Doncaster Main Colliery Company, in
pursuance of which a payment of Fl,500 was made to the
grantor in June or July 1913, and it was the duty upon
this sum which formed the subject of the appeal.

The original agreement was produced, and the main con-
ditions therein relied upon were : (1) The introductory
paragraph to the agreement defines the appellant as the
lessor, and the Doncaster Main Colliery Company as the
grantees, and they or their nominee are together therein-
after referred to as the lessees; (2) clause 1 is as follows :—■
“ Subject as hereinafter mentioned, Earl Fitzwilliam will
let, and the grantees or their nominee will take the lease as
hereinafter mentioned (3) clause 4 provides for a lease of
the minerals for the term of 100 years from June 1913, with
no minimum rent payable for the first five years. . The
minimum rent is to start from the sixth year, and rise to
the eleventh year, when it is to reach and remain at a
fixed sum per’annum; (4) clause 14 provides that the lessees

are “ to pay to the lessor in addition to the said rents the
sum of Fl,500 on or before July 1, 1913, and the further sum
of Fl ,500 within four years from the commencement of the
said term, such premiums to be recoupable out of over-
gettings for coal worked during the existence of this
demise ” ; (5) by clause 16 the lessees have power to break,
tiie lease at the end of the second, third, fourth, seventh,
eighth, or twelfth, or in any subsequent seventh year of
the term by giving 12 months’ notice in writing; (6) by
clause 21 the lessees take over the rights and obligations of
Earl Fitzwilliam under the agreement with the Corporation
of Doncaster, dated July 23, 1909; (7) by clause 26 power
is given to the grantees or their nominees to rescind the
agreement at any time before July 1, 1915, if boring proves
unsuccessful; (8) by clause 30 the grantees agreed to pay
the sum of F105 to the lessor’s solicitors and mining
engineers for the costs of the above agreements.

The referee says the agreement contains numerous other
clauses and covenants to be embodied in the actual lease
when taken up. In accordance with clause 14, Fl,500 was
paid to'Earl Fitzwilliam at Midsummer 1913, and it was to
duty on this sum the appeal had reference. The grantees
having put down further boreholes, their solicitors (Messrs.
Barker Rhodes and Company, of Rotherham) on. November 5,
1914, served a notice of rescission by the Doncaster Main
Gohiory Company Limited'upon Messrs. Newman and Bond,
solicitors for the appellant. In their letter, Messrs. Parker
Rhodes and Company wrote :—“ We have a letter from Sir
Arthur Markham stating that he has definitely abandoned
this (the Cantley) coal field, and it must therefore be under-
stood that the Doncaster Main Colliery Company Limited
rescind the provisional agreement which they entered into
with Earl Fitzwilliam.” In consequence of this, the
appellant claimed that everything was terminated. No coal
had been worked, and no rent or royalty paid beyond the

For the appellant it was contended :—(1) That the pay-
ment of the Fl,500 was partially to recoup him for his outlay
and for Iiis costs in negotiating with the Doncaster Cor-
poration. (2) That it does not come within section 20, clauses
1, 2, 2 (a), or 2 (5) of the Finance Act, 1910, as it is not
part of the “ rental value ” defined in those clauses as being
” rent paid by the working lessee in the last working year.”
(3) That if the proprietor had been working the minerals
himself, the Fl,500 would riot have been paid. (4) That
“ mineral rent ” in section 20 is such as is intended to mean
the figures reserved as royalty. (5) That the Fl,500 paid is
no more liable to duty than the sums paid to the solicitors
and mineral agent for the negotiation and preparation of
the agreement, as the grantees terminated the agreement by
their notice of November 5, 1914, and their right to recoup-
ment out of future surplus royalties became void, and of no
effect by that termination. (6) That the second Fl,500 has
not been pressed for, nor paid. (7) That had the lease pro-
ceeded, no claim could have arisen for at least five years for
mineral rights duty, as no minimum rent had been reserved
for that period. (8) That the “ rental value ” as such is not
a sum paid for the option. (9) That the agreement as put in
is not a mining lease as defined by section 24, clause 3, of
the Finance. Act, nor has it ever been a mining lease or. an
agreement for one, because the grantee determined his option
as before stated, and there has been therefore no letting of
minerals.

On behalf of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Mr.
Shaw contended that the question was in a narrow compass,
and that the facts were not in dispute. There was (he said)
an additional fact which bore upon the position, namely,
that after the assessment of duty, the notice.of rescission of
the agreement of June 21, 1913, had been withdrawn by the
Doncaster Coal Company, and new terms arranged by an
agreement under date February 1, 1915, and the original
agreement was therefore in force. The assessment on the
Fl,500 was made in pursuance of the payment of that sum
under “ agreement for a mining lease,” and Mr. Shaw sub-
mitted that the only questions to be considered on the appeal
under sections 20 and 24 were : Was the agreement a mining
lease? Was the Fl,500 rent? Was Lord Fitzwilliam the
immediate lessor? Was the. colliery company the working
lessee? If (said Mr. Shaw) those questions were answered
in the affirmative, all the conditions of the agreement fell
within the definition of a mining lease, and the Fl,500 pay-
ment was liable to assessment for mineral rights duty, and
had been properly assessed therefor.

The referee, after full consideration, has decided that the
agreement of June 21, 1913, is in effect a mining lease coming
within the scope of section 24, clause 3, of the Finance Act,
1910, which defines that, for the purpose of mineral provi-
sions, the expression mining lease “ includes an agreement
for such a lease or any tenancy or licence, whether by deed,
parcel, or otherwise, for mining purposes.” He decided that
the Fl,500 paid at Midsummer 1913, was “ a payment, con-
sideration, or benefit in the nature of a fine, premium, or
foregift,” and was included under section 24. clause 2, of the
Finance Act—“ the expression ‘ rent ’ shall be construed as
including any fine, premium, or foregift, or any payment,
consideration, or benefit in the .nature of a fine, premium, or
foregift.” He decided that Lord Fitzwilliam was the imme-
diate lessor at the date of the payment, and came under the
definition in section 24, clause 3, of the Act, as follows :
“ And the expression 1 lessor ’ and ‘ lessee ’ shall in addition
to the meaning assigned to them for the general purposes of
this part of the Act, be construed so as to. include respectively
‘ licensor ’ and ‘ licensee,’ ” and that the first clause of the
agreement of June 21, 1913, defined the appellant as
“ lessor ” and the colliery company as “ grantees,” and
subsequently as “ lessees.” He decided that the colliery
company were the working lessees, as defined in section 34.,
clause 4, of the Act, where the expression “ working lessee ”
defined the lessee as one “ who would have the right actually
to work the minerals if the minerals were worked.” The
referee therefore decided that the Fl,500 paid to Lord Fitz-
william in pursuance of his agreement with the Doncaster
Main Colliery Company of June 21, 1913, was liable to
mineral rights duty, and had been properly assessed thereto
by the Inland Revenue assessments. Mr. Jones intimates,
in conclusion, that the withdrawal of the notice of rescission
of the agreement of June 21, 1913, by the Doncaster Colliery
Company, after the assessment of duty, and the subsequent
arrangement of new terms between the appellant and the
colliery company, had. in no way influenced him in coming
to his decision. No application for costs on either side was
made to him, and he decided that each party should pay their
own costs in the appeal.

Mr. T. C. Elder has arranged to address the North-East
Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders at Newcastle
this (Friday) evening, on “ The Business Side of Science :
Its Bart in the Coming Economic Crisis,”

TRADE AND THE WAR.

In an address on “ Shipping in Relation to the War,” at
the National Liberal Club, Mr. Howard Houlder maintained
that a deadly blow would be struck at British shipping if
taxation were imposed. It would deprive it of the reserve
fund that would be needed to build new ships later on, and
to meet the competition which was springing up on the part
of neutral nations. Any attempt to centralise our shipping
industry .in the hands of a Government Department would
be absolutely fatal,, not only to the shipping industry, but
to the true interests of the country at large.

By Order of the Board of Trade, the Carbonite Syndicate
Limited is being wound up under the Trading with the
Enemy (Amendment) Act,'1916.

The monthly meeting of the central executive of the
Employers’ Parliamentary Association discussed the ques-
tion of the debts owing by alien enemies to British firms, and
adopted a resolution reiterating the view that, in respect of
simple trade debts, the Government should at once devise
machinery whereby, on cessation of hostilities, the British
Government should be in a position to investigate all claims
of British traders, and, if satisfied as to their validity, dis-
charge the debt, full opportunity being given to the alien
enemy to contest the claim in the British courts; the British
Government being fully indemnified by the enemy Govern-
ments on behalf of the sums so expended. A letter was
addressed to the Board of Trade, pointing out the increasing
probability of widespread bankruptcy in enemy countries
after the termination of the war, and the consequent proba-
bility that a large proportion of such debts will be irre-
coverable, and urging that, since it is believed that in the
great majority of cases these debts will be largely, if not
entirely, included in excess profits, justice might best be met
by the purchase by the Treasury of all such debts incurred
within six months before the outbreak of war, and which can
be certified by a chartered accountant as included at their
full value in the accounts of the company as on August 4,
1914, and subject to any required indemnity respecting their
validity. The concentration of all such debts in the hands of
the Government would simplify their collection at the close
of hostilities.

Convened by the Institute of Industry, a meeting was held
at the Savoy Hotel, London, to consider the proposal to
form a national organisation to deal with the problems that
will arise in connection with trade and industry after the
war. A large number of business men attended. Mr. F. J.
Nettlefold, Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, Col. Cassel (president of the
Society of Chemical Technologists), and Mr. Dudley Docker
(of the Midland Carriage and 'Wagon Company) addressed
the meeting, and a resolution was passed welcoming the pro-
posal that all national movements of a similar nature should
amalgamate their forces, with a view to creating a strong
central business organisation.

The Government has appointed a Committee, under the
chairmanship of Viscount Peel, to enquire whether any avoid-
able delay is caused by the methods hitherto adopted for
dealing with ships and cargoes brought into British ports
under the Order in Council of March 11, 1915, and to make
such general recommendations as they may think fit for
improving such methods.

The Swedish agents of a Newcastle^rm have advised their
principals that, for some time past, Germany has been export-
ing large quantities of coal to Sweden, which country is thus
not only making good the deficiency in the supplies of coal
from Great Britain, but is, at the same time, helping to
improve the exchange value of the German mark. •

At Wednesday’s meeting of the members of the council
of the Newcastle and Gateshead Chamber of Commerce, the
secretary (Mr. Herbert Shaw) announced that he had
received the following letter from the assistant secretary of
the ' Goal Exports Committee regarding shipments of
unscreened coal : “ I am desired by my committee to write to
you with reference to the shipments of Northumberland
steam coal unscreened. My committee are receiving a
number of such applications at present, and their inclina-
tion would be to refuse them and insist that (except in some
of the softer Tyneside collieries) Northumberland steam coal
should only be shipped screened. In view7, however, of the
fact that 'there are already in existence a considerable
number of contracts, particularly with French consumers, for
the shipment of Northumberland steam unscreened, my
committee have decided that they will, as far as possible,
enable these contracts to be carried out by licensing such
coal shipments, but they desire that it should be known
that they are not prepared to license steam coal unscreened
which is bought subsequent to this date. It may be urged
that it is illogical for my committee to permit freely the
export of Northumberland smalls while objecting to the ship-
ment of unscreened steam. They are of opinion, however,
that, by stopping the shipment of unscreened coal, they wall
increase not only the make but also the available supply of
smalls, as, in many cases in which unscreened steam is
taken, it is unlikely that the consumer will screen the coal,
and screened coal would suit him equally well. I need
hardly say that it does not apply to those collieries which,
though geographically in Northumberland, really belong to
the Durham coal field.”

The British Government has notified brokers that, owing
to the scarcity of tonnage and of coal, no vessel other than
regular liners will be permitted to load coal in this country
for Scandinavia unless she is fixed back with cargo from
Scandinavia for the United Kingdom or an allied country,
or unless she is furnished with a certificate from the Board
of Trade to the effect that no homeward cargo is available.
This new arrangement, which will take effect on and after-
April 25, is intended to prevent undue inflation of rates.

British Industries Fair, 1917.—In consequence of the satis-
factory results achieved by the two British Industries Fairs
already held, the Board of Trade propose to organise a similar
Fair in London next year (1917), from Monday, February 26,
to Friday, March 9, inclusive. Full particulars will be
announced in due course. Participation will again be con-
fined to manufacturers, and admission (by invitation) to
wholesale buyers.

Hull Coal Exports.—The official return of the exports of
coal from Hull to foreign countries for the week ended
Tuesday, March 28, is as follows :—Amsterdam, 250 tons;
Copenhagen, 55; Calais, 417; Gothenburg, 4,193; Guernsey,
719; Harlingen, 703; Leghorn, 1,991; Oporto, 1,443; Rouen,
5,820; Rotterdam, 1,251—total, 16,842 tons. Corresponding
period March 1915, total 53,671 tons. These figures do not
include bunker coal, shipments for the British Admiralty, nor
the Allies’ Governments,