Scottish Court of Session Decisions

At a meeting of the Valuation Committee of the Commissioners of Supply for the county of Argyle, to dispose of appeals from the valuation of the assessor for the year ending Whitsunday 1883, Hunter's trustees appealed against the valuation placed upon the Dunoon Pier. The assessor had fixed the valuation at £1217, 16s. The revenue from dues on goods and passengers was £63 in excess of that of the previous year. The principal dispute between the parties related to a sum of £156, 10s. as revenue from cartage. The income from carting as an element of valuation for the year ending Whitsunday 1882 had been disallowed by the Valuation Appeal Court as previously reported, on the ground that the carting business of the trustees was not a monopoly, but was open to other carters. It was now established to the satisfaction of the Committee of the Commissioners of Supply that there was no separate charge for carts entering on the pier except for those passing over it for embarking or landing; that with a view to the safety of the public, no horses except those belonging to Hunter's trustees were allowed on the pier, that any other carts going upon the pier for the purpose of removing goods to and from vessels had to be taken along it without horses; that such carts and also wheel-barrows were constantly taken along it without charge for the purpose of removing goods.

The Commissioners, on the ground that these facts established a monopoly on the part of the trustees, sustained the sum of £156, 10s. as a proper item in the valuation, and confirmed the valuation at £1217, 10s.

Hunter's trustees took this Case.

Lord Lee as one of Hunter's trustees declined, and the Case was heard before Lords Fraser and Kinnear.

Argued for appellants—The Court last year had decided that the revenue derived from cartage was not heritable in its nature, and this was merely an attempt to get behind that decision. The trustees had no monopoly of cartage, as other carts came upon the pier for the purpose of removing goods from the steamers, but they could not allow horses unused to the work to come upon the pier, as that would be detrimental to the public safety.

Argued for the assessor—The trustees had here a monopoly of the cartage on the pier, and some value ought to be assigned to it as belonging to the pier, which is a heritable subject. The 6th section of the Lands Valuation Aet provides that the yearly value should be taken to be “the rent at which, one year with another, such lands and heritages might in their actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year,” and in case of a tenant taking the pier such a right in the business of cartage as the appellants had would add greatly to the rent.

At advising—