and ware-houses. There is a close partition, both above and below, between the part ufed for a dwelling-house, and the part used for workshops or ware-houses; and there is no communication between the dwelling-house, working-fhops, and ware-houses, either above or below stairs (except by the aforefaid entry or paffage) there being a ftair-cafe in the work-fhops below ftairs, for going up into all the wate-rooms above ftairs. The faid S. P. was charged by the affeffors in the parochial affeffment only for the above eighteen windows, in that part of the faid building used for a dwelling-houfe; but the furveyor of this divifion, on his furveying, finding thirty-five windows in the faid building, viz. eighteen in the dwelling-house, and Seventeen in that part made ufe of for work-fhops, and warehoufes, (conceiving that as all the faid building was under one roof, all of it ought to be looked upon as part of a dwelling-house) left notice in writing with the faid S. P. that he intended to make a furcharge on him for feventeen windows; against which furcharge the faid S. P. made his appeal; and on hearing the faid appeal we were and are of opinion, that the feventeen windows in that part of the faid building which is ufed for work-fhops and ware-houses only, are not chargeable by the faid act, the fame being separate, diftinct, and entire, from that part ufed for a dwelling-house and habitation, and therefore we have not confirmed the furveyor's charge.

Mr. J. T. the general furveyor of this divifion, declaring himself diffatisfied with our faid determination, and requiring us to ftate specially and fign the cafe aforefaid, in order that it might be tranfmitted to one of the juftices of his Majefty's court of King's Bench or Common Pleas, or to one of the barons of his Majefty's court of Exchequer, we do hereby humbly certify the fame accordingly.

7. S.

W. L.

G. W.

Opinion. We are of opinion, that the determination of the commif

fioners is wrong.

Golchefter, in
Effex, 1758.

CASE On a furcharge of windows &c;

MR

R. R. D. ftands charged by the affeffors for fourteen windows, or lights, and the furveyor by his furcharge has raised him to twenty windows.

Upon appeal this day the cafe appears to be, that the increase of fix windows is occafioned by charging two fhop windows, two warehoufe windows, one compting-house window, and one garret window, ufed only for the laying in of timber and boxes in his trade.

The commiffioners apprehend, that Mr. D. should stand charged, according to the original affeffment, at fourteen windows; for that in the enumeration in the act, no fhops, warehoufes, or comptinghouses, are directed to be affeffed; though places of lefs confequence, fuch as wash-house, pantry, landry, larder &c. are.

Wherefore their determination is, that Mr. D. fhould ftand charged for fourteen windows or lights; with which determination the furweyor declares himself diffatisfied.

P. S.

S. W.

F. G.

R. K.

W. S.

J. W.

Opinion. We are of opinion, that the determination of the commif

fioners is wrong.

Mansfield.

S. S. Smythe.

R. Adams.

H. Bathurst.
E. Wilmot.

W. Noel.

7. Willes.

T. Parker.

T. Dentfon.
M. Fofter.

E. Clive.

Serjeants-Inn, June 19, 1759.

CASE.

Newcastle upon Tyne, Aing and determining appeals upon the

Ta meeting of the commiffioners for hear

town and county. window tax on houfes, windows, and lights, for the faid town and county, on the first day of September, 1758.

7. W. of Pilgrim Quarter, in the faid town, (upon notice given to the furveyor of the faid town) appealed upon a charge of fifty-two windows, or lights, charged by the parochial affeffors upon his dwelling-house, with the appurtenances; upon which notice, a furvey being made by the said surveyor, the state of the cafe appeared as follows, viz. From

12

+ N

From the street there is only one entrance into the dwelling-house, and into a fquare court or yard backward; in which court or yard is a building adjoined to the faid dwelling-houfe, but not fo high as the faid dwelling-houfe by one ftory; which building is not lodged in, but made ufe of as printing-offices and ware-rooms. The faid building is three ftories high, viz. one ground-floor, and two stories over, in each of which was a communication between the dwelling-house and the faid building upon the landings of each ftory; which communications are now built up. That there is now, no way into the faid printing-offices and ware-rooms, or any part of them, but by a staircafe out of the abovefaid court or yard. That underneath part of the faid printing-offices and ware-rooms, on the ground-floor, is a brewhoufe, and a back-kitchen having a fire-grate and pot fixed, and a dreffer and fhelves, though alledged by the appellant not to be made use of as a back-kitchen, but as a ware-room. Underneath another part of the faid building is an office for keeping of accounts. Into which brew-houfe, back-kitchen, and office, on the ground-floor, are feparate entrances from the paffage in the faid court: in which faid building are twenty-five windows or lights, of which the appellant faith he ought to be relieved, as a feparate building from his dwellinghoufe, the communication being built up between the faid offices and dwelling-houfe: but we, the majority of the commiffioners prefent, from the state of the cafe above, were and are of opinion, That the windows and lights in the faid building are chargeable, and therefore did not relieve the faid appellant; who being diflatisfied with our determination, requested a state of the cafe to be transmitted to one of his Majefty's juftices of the court of King's-Bench or Common-Pleas, or to one of the barons of his Majefty's court of Exchequer we do hereby humbly certify the fame accordingly. Witnefs our hands.

R. S.

C. S.

W. P.

H. E.

W. C.

Opinion. We are of opinion, That the determination of the com

miffioners is right.

M

CASE,

County of R. H. is now in poffeffion (as heir at law of his Leicester. late father) of two houfes, which were feparate purchases, made by his faid father; and one of which houfes had been for many years inhabited by Mr. H.'s late father and himself till the year 1747, when Mr. H. pulled down one of the faid houses, then being in the occupation of 7. B. and rebuilt the fame and which faid two houfes adjoin clofe to each other, and have feparate and diftinct ftair-cafes, and alfo different avenues from the ftreet to the house, and there is an inward communication between the two houses by a door-way on the ground-floor, which is conftantly made ufe of: and Mr. H. ever fince the faid two houfes were in his poffeffion, has been charged (as well by the affeffors of the window-tax as collectors of the land-tax, and overfeers of poor and parish rates) for them as two separate houses; and the fame have always been, and are now, diftinguished or known as two houses.

Mr. H. the appellant, is by the affeffors of Mr. Alderman B.'s ward, in Leicester, charged for the faid premises to the window-tax for one entire tenement.

To this charge of the affeffors and furveyors of the divifion aforefaid, Mr. H. the appellant, hath appealed to the commiffioners, and the commiffioners have determined, that the appellant is liable to be charged for one entire tenement, and not for two feparate houfes to the window-tax; with which determination Mr. H. the appellant, is diffatisfied.

We therefore, the commiffioners prefent at the faid appeal, at the request of the said Mr. H. the appellant, have ftated and figned this cafe, and humbly fubmit it to your lordships opinion, Whether the faid Mr. H. is chargeable for the faid premises to the window-tax for one entire tenement, or for two separate houses.

Opinion. We are of opinion, That the determination of the com

miffioners is right.

CAS E.

City of Oxford, in the PON an appeal to the commiffioners, county of Oxford. from a charge made by the furveyor of the windows, the following cafe is ftated at the furveyor's request, pursuant to the act of parliament in that cafe made and provided.

The appellant is by the affeffors of the parish affeffed for fourteen windows, and by the furveyor is charged for fixteen windows; the appellant having laid four windows into two, as appears by the plan hereunder.

One entire Frame.

One entire Frame.

A wall above,
twelve inches
broad.

A wall above

twelve inches
broad.

To this charge of the furveyor, the appellant hath appealed to the commisioners, fuggefting, he ought not to be charged more than fourteen windows. And the commiffioners have determined, that the appellant is not liable to be charged more than fourteen windows, and have taken off the charge of the furveyor: with which determination the furveyor is diffatisfied, apprehending the fame to be contrary to the true intent and meaning of the ftatute in that cafe made and provided.

We therefore, the major part of the commiffioners, prefent at the faid appeal, at the request of the furveyor, have stated and figned this cafe, and humbly fubmit to your lordships opinion, Whether the fame ought to be charged or not,

March 2, 1759.

T. T. Mayor.

J. N.

7. T.

Opinion. We are of opinion, That the determination of the commiffioners is wrong,