and they appeared to the summons. At the hearing, however, they objected to the jurisdiction of the Court, on the ground that the defendants did not "dwell or carry on their business" in the Chester district, within the meaning of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, sect. 60. The judge overruled the objection, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 277. is not necessary to consider it. But when we have that, and find that they go on negotiating, and that one of the terms is, that a person then in occupation under the defendant stipulates that the plaintiff shall grant a licence, to commence at the end of the current licence, and this is at first assented to, I think he has quite sufficiently expressed that it was an existing licence. I am inclined to think that the subsequent tender would not have prevented the party from giving his notice. Green's Case is precisely in point, that the mere receipt of the money does not prevent the forfeiture, and so here, I think, that if there had been-subject, however, to the control and supervision of Railway Company · Carrying on Business" A railway company "carries on its business" within the meaning of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 60, at the place of its principal office only, and not elsewhere. A railway company, whose principal office was at L, employed at its station at C a manager and other officers, who carried on all the company's business in C, and in a large district connected with C, subject, however, to the control and supervision of the head-office at L: but such control and supervision was only occasionally exercised : Held, that the company "carried on its business," within the meaning of sect. 60 of the County Court Act, 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, at L only, and not at C. Macintyre had obtained a rule calling on the judge and registrar of the County Court for the Chester district, to show cause why an order in the nature of a mandamus, under 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, sect. 43, and 21 & 22 Vict. c. 74, sect. 4, should not issue against them to compel them to proceed to levy execution upon a judgment obtained in that Court. Upon the affidavits it appeared that the plaintiff was a harpist travelling from Ireland, through Chester, to London. On his arrival at Chester, not having money to pay his fare on to London, he left his harp by way of security with the company's servants at Chester, who then gave him a free pass to London. Afterwards he paid his fare to the company, who then transmitted to him his harp. The harp suffered considerable damage in the course of transmission, for, which the company, however, declined to compensate the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereupon brought a plaint in the County Court for the district of Chester to recover damages from the defendants for the injury done to his harp. The summons was served on the defendants at their offices at their station in Chester, The company have a manager and a staff of officers at Chester, by whom the business of the company's lines and stations at Chester, and in a large district connected with Chester, is almost entirely carried on ; the company's principal office at Euston Square; but such control and supervision are, in fact, only exercised in matters of difficulty or importance. By sect. 60 of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, it is enacted, that a summons may issue "in any district in which the defendants, or one of the defendants, shall dwell or carry on his business at the time of the action brought; or, by leave of the court for the district in which the defendant, or one of the defendants shall have dwelt or carried on his business at some time within six calendar months next, before the time of action brought, or in which the cause of action arose, such summons may issue in either of the last-mentioned courts." Harrington showed cause, and contended that the company did not "carry on their business" within the meaning of the County Court Act, at any place except at their principal office in London, Taylor v. Crowland Gas Company, 11 Exch. 1; Corbett v. General Steam Navigation Company, 28 Shiels v. Great Northern Railway Company, 30 Shiels v. Rait, 7 C. B. 116; Adams v. Great Western Railway Company, 30 Macintyre, contrà, argued that the company carried on their business at Chester, as well as at London, inasmuch as the principal business of a large section of the company's lines was transacted at Chester. 66 Turner v. Evans, 5 E. & B. 512. WIGHTMAN, J.-During the course of the argument I have felt some doubt whether the London and NorthWestern Railway Company might not be said to carry on its business" at Chester, within the meaning of the County Court Act. I have, however, come to the conclusion that a decision by us to that effect would be productive of great uncertainty and inconvenience. It was admitted by Mr. Macintyre that, if Chester station had been a small subordinate station, it could not be considered as a place at which the company's business was carried on. It was, however, contended, that the fact that Chester is a large and important station makes a difference. I cannot agree in this distinction. If the words of the Act had been "carry on their business or part of their business," it would have been another matter. But the words of the section are general, and can only apply to that particular place at which the party carries on his general business. In the present case it is admitted that the manager of the company's affairs at Chester has the control of a part only of the company's lines. In no sense, therefore, can the company be said to "carry on their business" at Chester, but only to carry on there the particular business of a certain portion of their line. Upon the whole, therefore, I am of opinion that the County Court Judge had no jurisdiction, and that this rule must be discharged. CROMPTON, J.-I am of the same opinion. If the company had asked for a prohibition, I am satisfied that they would have obtained it, and so I think they ought to succeed now. The case turns upon the 60th sect. of the County Court Act. In Adams v. Great Western Railway Company, which was a decision upon the 128th sect. of the same Act, the Court of Exchequer held, that "dwelling" means the same thing as "carrying on business," and that where a corporation carries on business, there it may be said to "dwell." What, then, is the meaning of " carrying on business"? Mr. Macintyre argued, that a person's business may be said to be carried on generally wherever a portion of it is carried on, and that, therefore, the railway company in this case may be said to carry on their business at Chester. I cannot agree in this view of the words of the section. If it were the right one, then, wherever the cause of action arises, no matter how remote from the County Court, the action might be brought against such a company as the London and North-Western in the district of any small station which the plaintiff might select. This construction of the words, therefore, cannot be right, and we must hold that "business must mean general business. I agree with Mr. Justice Hill, when he says, Legislature no doubt was, that, if the sum in dispute was small, it would be very convenient to try the matter either where the defendant dwelt, or else where he carried on his business. The sort of case contem. plated was, for example, that of a person who keeps a shop in Westminster, but dwells in a suburban villa, and the Act gave power to a plaintiff to sue such a person either where he dwelt or where he traded. There may be cases, indeed, where a person carries on business within the meaning of the section at more places than one. Thus, he might be a partner in a firm at Liverpool for one purpose, and in a firm at Manchester for another. That, however, would be an exceptional case. Generally, the place of business will be the place where the staff and managing body Now, in this case, the railway company are carrying on one entire business, the whole of which is, it is admitted, controlled by the officials at the Euston station. are. At Chester there is a local superintendent managing the affairs of that part of the line, but he is under the control of the London directors. Can it, then, be said that the company carry on one business at London and another at Chester? I am of opinion that it cannot, and that the local superintendent manages only a branch of the general business. Chester, it is true, is a large station; but at every station, however small, a separate branch of business is carried on, and I cannot hold that the company carry on as many separate businesses as there are branches. No hardship can arise from this view of the question, for if the cause of action arise in any particular district, then, by leave of the Court, the action may be tried there, no matter where the defendant dwells or carries on his business. I agree with my brother Crompton, that the rule should be discharged without costs. MORRISH, Appellant, . in Shiels v. Great Northern Railway Company, in Poor-Rate-Occupier-Licence to use Premises words almost applicable to the present case, that a railway company does not carry on business within the meaning of sect. 60 at any place other than its principal office. I also agree with him, that there may be cases in which a general business may be carried on in two places by a private trader or firm, but I do not think that the present case is one of them. In my opinion, therefore, "business," under this section, means that general business which is only carried on at the principal office. The rule must, therefore, be discharged, but without costs. BLACKBURN, J.—I am also of opinion that this rule should be discharged. The question turns upon 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 60, which was passed to regulate the place in which a defendant may in certain cases be sued, and enacting [reads section]. The idea of the for Certain Purposes. to By agreement between M and the Commissioners of the International Exhibition 1862, M was to have, consideration of a certain premium, and royalty rent or head money, the right of selling refreshments in the Exhibition building, during the time that it was open the public. For this purpose a certain space was to be appropriated to him in which he was to erect such fittings as were requisite, and to make all necessary excavations for cellars, &c.; but these erections were, when completed, to become the property of the Commis sioners. The admission of M and his servants into the building was to be regulated by the Commissioners, and in case M did not obey the directions of the Commaissioners in certain particulars he was to forfeit all his rights under the agreement, and the Commissioners were to be at liberty to relet the refreshment-rooms. In pursuance of this agreement a certain space was allotted to M, in which he exercised the licence granted him during the whole time the Exhibition was open :- Held, that, under these circumstances, he was not liable to be rated to the relief of the poor as the occupier of any portion of the Exhibition building. This was a special case stated by consent on an appeal against a poor-rate, made on the 2nd of April, 1862, for the parish of Saint Mary Abbott's, Kensington, and confirmed, on appeal, by the trustees of the said parish under 7 Geo. 4, c. cxiii. s. 57. The poor-rates for that parish are made under the provisions of a private Act of Parliament (7 Geo. 4, e. cxiii.) twice in the year. The rate in question was made on the 2nd of April, 1862, and was for the relief of the poor to Michaelmas, 1862. The rate so made did not include the name of the appellant; but on the 11th of August the trustees of the parish amended the rate, and inserted therein the name of the appellant as the occupier of the Western English Refreshment Department of the International Exhibition, of which they estimated the rateable value at 14,2177., and assessed upon him the sum of 5331. 2s. 9d. in respect thereof. On the 25th of January, 1862, an agreement was entered into between the Commissioners of the International Exhibition (who were incorporated by Royal charter) and the appellant, of which the following are the provisions, so far as they bear upon the present case. 1st. In consideration of the sum of 5007. to be paid by the contractor, one-half on the 28th day of February, and the other half at the time of the exeention of this agreement, and of the royalty rent or head money agreed to be paid to the Commissioners as hereinafter mentioned, the Commissioners agree that the contractor shall have the right of selling refreshments on and from the day on which the Exhibition shall be open to the public until the closing thereof on and at that portion of the Exhibition buildings now in course of erection which is called, or known as, or intended to be called, the western section of the refreshment department, and which portion so to be appropriated to the contractor is to consist of a space of 40,000 square feet at the least, but the exact site and boundaries thereof shall be fixed and determined by the Commissioners, and which portion of the Exhibition so allotted to the contractor is hereinafter referred to as the said refreshment rooms. 2nd. The contractor shall, at his own expense, do as follows:- Firstly, fit up the area allotted or to be allotted to him as hereinbefore mentioned with such fittings, counters, and ornaments as he may require for carrying on his business. Secondly, provide on such sites and places therein as shall be appointed by the Commissioners, such kitchen and cellarage accommodation as the contractor may re quire. Lastly, lay on gas and water from the mains, and make the necessary communication with the main drains. 3rd. The plans of all fittings, counters, and ornaments proposed to be erected by the contractor, shall be submitted to the Commissioners and approved by them. 5th. The contractor to provide an office where communications are to be left by the Commissioners. 6th. The contractor and his servants shall be subject to all bye-laws and regulations that may be made by the Commissioners for the orderly conduct of the Exhibition and of the persons employed therein. 8th. The admissions into the building of servants and other persons on business connected with the refreshment department shall be regulated by the Commissioners; but no provisions or materials for cooking will be allowed to be introduced into the building except between the hours of 5 and 8 A.M., unless in special cases, and then only with the written permission of the secretary or general manager of the Commissioners. 9th. The refreshment rooms shall be kept open throughout the whole of the hours during which the public are admitted to the Exhibition, and the contractor engages to keep therein, on every day on which the Exhibition is open, a sufficient supply of all refreshments specified in the schedule hereto annexed, and to sell such refreshments to all persons desirous of purchasing the same at the prices therein specified ; and that all such refreshments shall be of best quality. 12th. On every day on which the Exhibition is open, the Commissioners are to cause an official return to be made of the number of visitors admitted to the Exhibition on the preceding day; and the contractor, in addition to the premium mentioned in clause 1, is to pay.. [specifying certain sums] in the nature of a royalty rent, or money calculated upon the number of visitors to the Exhibition. 16th. The contractor shall keep the refreshment rooms clean, and in a proper state for the use of visitors; and shall remove every night from the building all fragments, stale provisions, dust, and rubbish, that may have accumulated. 17th. Any questions which may arise as to the fulfilment and mode of carrying out of this agreement, shall be referred to the Commissioners, and their decision shall be final; and if the contractor do not obey the directions of the Commissioners in . . . . [mentioning certain particulars] the contractor shall forfeit all his rights under this contract; and the Commissioners shall be at liberty to re-let the said refreshment rooms without any hindrance or interference whatsoever by the forfeiting contractor or his servants, and without prejudice to the recovery by the Commissioners of any moneys due, or damages recoverable by, the contractor. 18th. All fittings, counters, ornaments, and other works erected by the contractor in or about the said refreshment-rooms shall become the property of the Commissioners, and shall be held by them as part security for the fulfilment of this contract by the contractor, and in the event of the contractor forfeiting the benefit of this contract he shall be divested of all reversionary or other interest in such fittings, counters, ornaments, and works; on the other hand, if at the close of the Exhibition the Commissioners shall be of opinion that the contract has been satisfactorily carried out, then, in a certificate from the office appointed in that behalf by the said Commissioners, the contractor will be allowed to remove such fittings, counters, and ornaments as aforesaid, but without having any claim for detriment or dilapidation, from whatever cause arising, but all fittings, of whatever kind, which may be put in the kitchens or store-rooms, and all cellarage, gas-pipes, water-pipes, and drains below the level of the ground-floor of the refreshment-rooms, will remain the property of the Commissioners. 21st. The contractor shall not sub-let this contract or any part thereof, unless with the written consent of the Commissioners. 22nd. The Commissioners will at any time between the 13th of February, 1862, and the 30th of April, 1862, on the contractor proving to them that he has sufficiently completed the arrangements undertaken by him to be performed before the opening of the Exhibition, consider the propriety of granting to him the privilege of supplying refreshments to the persous employed in the Exhibition building. 23rd. Such licences as may be necessary to enable the contractor to sell the refreshments offered (including wine, spirits, and beer) are to be obtained by the contractor at his own costs, the Commissioners agreeing to do any reasonable acts that may be required on their part to facilitate the obtaining of such licences by the contractor. The site and boundaries of the said western section having been fixed and determined by the said Commissioners, in pursuance of the said agreement, on or about the 15th of March, 1862, the appellant commenced the necessary excavations previously to fitting up the same as refreshment-rooms. He commenced supplying refreshments to the workmen employed in the building, under clause 22, on the 24th of March, 1862, and continued so to do till the 1st of May, 1862, and after the 1st of May, 1862, the said western section was appropriated to the appellant, as mentioned by the said agreement, and the appellant exercised the rights and privileges conferred upon him by the said agreement. The keys of the doors of the said western section leading therefrom into the Exhibition building were always kept by the police officers employed on behalf of the said Commissioners in the said Exhibition, and the said officers at a certain time every evening, usually between six and nine o'clock, locked out the appellant and his servants from the Exhibition, and readmitted them each morning, but the appellant had an entrance to the said western section from the outside of the building, which was made shortly after the 1st of May, 1862. The appellant obtained admittance to the Exhibition building by means of a season ticket previously to the said 1st of May procured from the Commissioners for which he paid five guineas, and without which he could not have gained access to the said western section. By the local Act, 17 Geo. 3, c. lxiv. s. 30, the rates authorised by the Act were to be levied upon every person who should "inhabit, hold, occupy, or enjoy any land, house, shop, warehouse, store-house, stable, cellar, vault, or any other building, tenement, or hereditament within the said parish," and by sect. 35 lodgers are made liable to the payment of rates. By 7 Geo. 4, c. exiii. s. 7, persons removing and persons coming in are to pay rates in proportion, and by seet. 9 of that Act it is provided, that if empty or unoccupied houses should become occupied by any person or persons, or any alteration or amendment of the said rate or assessment might in the opinion of the trustees be made, then it should be lawful for the trustees to add or insert the names of such occupiers, &c. Prentice, for the respondent, in support of the rate. I admit that the Commissioners were not liable to he rated, as they were incorporated by royal charter had such an occupation under his agreement with the for a public purpose, but I contend that the appellant Commissioners as rendered him rateable. It is not to create a lease, any words which show an intennecessary that any particular words should be used tion to convey the occupation of the premises sre sufficient, brother; viz., that it merely amounts to a licence to sell liquors and other refreshments in this particular space, and does not give any exclusive possession by way of demise to the party rated, of any part of the building. right of selling refreshments from the opening of the Exhibition to the public, until its close. Now, a licence to sell refreshments upon the premises of the Commissioners would not of itself confer such an occupation as would make the person who had it liable to be rated. But it is said that, because that licence is to be exercised in a particular portion of the BLACKBURN, J.-I am also of opinion that, upon building which is to be allotted for that purpose, the the true construction of this agreement, nothing passed appellant must be considered the occupier, within the to Mr. Morrish under this agreement, for which he meaning of all the cases which have been decided could be rateable under the Local Act of this parish. upon questions of rating, of that portion which is to Mr. Prentice contends that the words of that Act being be appropriated to the exercise of his licence. It is nearly the same as those of the Local Act under which said, moreover, that by the agreement he is to be at the parish of Saint Martin's-in-the-Fields was rated, liberty to make various small subordinate erections for as appears from the report of the case of Reg. v. St. the purpose of exercising that licence. It seems to Martin's-in-the-Fields, that case is an authority in his me that all these erections are really entirely sub- favour. But I think that is not so. In that case ordinate to the purposes of the exercise of the licence, Miss Burdett Coutts occupied the box in question and that they carry the case no further than the mere under an indenture, whereby the proprietor of the grant of the licence. I think, taking the whole of theatre "did grant, bargain, sell, and demise for the the case together, that it was never in the contempla- term of one hundred years at a peppercorn rent unto tion of the Commissioners to give Mr. Morrish the him, the said Thomas Coutts, his executors, &c., occupation of that portion of the building within all that box, &c., marked, &c., on the south, or which that licence was to be exercised. A similar Prince's side of the New Theatre Royal Drury Lane, case was put during the course of the argument to the in the county of Middlesex, being directly and imme counsel for the Crown, to which no satisfactory answer diately under the box called the stage-box, &c.; and was given the case of a licence to use a field for also all that vacant space or passage containing eight the purpose of playing cricket, with the privilege, feet four inches, or thereabouts, lying immediately during the time when the game was being played, of between the box and of the wall of the said theatre, erecting a booth for the accommodation of persons who the said vacant space so lying behind the said box to might wish to take refreshments there, and of putting be made and constructed into a room, and fitted up on the ground the various matters that might be and furnished by, and at the expense of, the said pronecessary for that purpose and for the play. It could prietors for the sole and exclusive use of the said T. hardly be said that an agreement of that sort would Coutts, his executors, &c., as thereinafter mentioned confer such an occupation as was within the contem- and expressed, and also full and free liberty of ingress, plation of the Legislature in determining who should &e." Thus giving in very strong and unmistakeable be the person rated to the poor as occupier of that field. terms exclusive enjoyment, though showing that that It appears to me that in this case the appellant had exclusive enjoyment was only to be had at particular not such an occupation. If the Commissioners had times, and that, at all other times, the proprietors of thought fit at any time to come with any of their Drury Lane were to have the occupation of the box. friends within the 40,000 square feet over which Mr. Now, upon that state of facts, the decision of the Morrish had a licence to exercise the privilege given to Court was, that this was a tenement liable to be rated. him, they would, independently of any rule or regu- So, here, if there had been an exclusive occupation lation, have had a right to do so, and to go through given to Mr. Morrish and those who were with him, any portion of that space. It appears to me, therefore, then it might have been very well said that it came that this is not such an occupation as is contemplated within the words of this Act. But, looking at the by the statutes, and by all the cases on the subject. agreement, I can find no words giving such an occuThe case of Reg. v. The Inhabitants of St. Martin's-in-pation. The whole of the building was vested in the the-Fields, appears to me to be clearly distinguishable from this case. In that case there was a demise to Miss Burdett Coutts of a box at certain times. She had an exclusive right to the box at certain periods, and at other periods the right remained in the lessor. That is quite different from this case, where the grantors do not profess to demise any part of the building, but merely to give a licence to exercise a certain privilege within a certain limited space. CROMPTON, J.-Upon the whole of this agreement I am disposed to take the same view as my learned Commissioners, and nothing had gone out of them unless they had used words to show that they intended to part with some portion of it. The argument derived from the clause in the agreement, which authorised Mr. Morrish to put up fittings, seems to be taken away by the eighteenth clause, which provides that the fittings so put in shall become the property of the Commissioners. And I think that, when one looks at the nature of the transaction, and the extreme improbability that it should be the intention of the Commissioners to part with the occupation of any part of the building, it would require strong words to show |