This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1872 edition. Excerpt: ...or other building used or occupied by the company or their servants on the Barnes side. The appellants, the now proprietors of the bridge, contended that they were rated for land, and in respect of tolls, for which they ought not to be rated or assessed. T hesiger in support of the order of sessions. The appellants are not liable to be rated in the parish of Barnes, because although it may be true that they are occupiers of land there, yet it yields them no return, and consequently there is no beneficial occupation in that parish. All their tolls are taken in Hammersmith; and until persons crossing the bridge arrive at the gate on that side, nothing can he demanded of them. In this respect these tolls differ from such as arise upon canals, which are usually calculated according to the distance of the conveyance, and becoming due in every parish through which the canal runs, are rateable in each as profits annexed to the occupation of land. Here the tolls are not apportioned in respect of the quantity of land over which the bridge passes, but become due by merely passing the gate, whether the passenger proceeds across the bridge or instantly returns. BAYLEY, J. Does the land on 116 the Surrey side contribute any profit? If it does, the company are lia ble to be rated for the beneficial occupation in the place where the land lies. What are the tolls payable for? For passin through the gate, and not for crossing the bridge.(a) There being no gate in Barnes, persons, if they are disposed, may walk from the Surrey side of the bridge to the Hammersmith gate, and return the same way, without being liable to tell. RPABKE, J. It is immaterial where the profit is received. A farmer is rateab e in the place where he grows his corn, and not where he...