TAXES.
Case 1.—Herbert Randolph,—Appellant; William Brockman,—Respondent [15th January 1706].
[Decree of the Court of Exchequer affirmed.]
The respondent was seised of a fee-farm rent of £260 18s. 4½d. issuing out of the manor of Aldington, in the county of Kent; and the appellant was seised in fee of the manor itself, subject to the payment of this yearly rent.
The former owners of this manor and rent respectively, had proportioned the taxes to be paid by each of them, for his distinct property, thus; the owner of the rent, paid five-sevenths of those taxes, and the lord of the manor paid the other two-sevenths; and this usage bad constantly continued until the appellant became possessed of the manor in the year 1703.
By an act of parliament, 1 Ann. intitled, An act for granting to her Majesty a land-tax for carrying on the war against France and Spain; it was enacted,
That all and every auditors, reeves, receivers, and their deputy and deputies, who audit or receive any fee-farm rents, or other chief rents, due to her Majesty, or the Queen Dowager, or to any person or persons claiming by any grant or purchase from or under the Crown, shall allow 4s. for every £1 of the said rents; and proportionably for any greater or lesser sum, to the party or parties paying the same, without fee for such allowance; upon the penalty of £20 to the parties grieved, to be recovered as aforesaid.
At Lady-day 1704, half a year of this fee-farm rent became due, which the appellant, on the same day, tendered to the respondent, first deducting thereout the amount of the land-tax, at the rate of 4s. in the pound; but the respondent refused to accept the money so tendered, not only because it was contrary to the former usage, but because the manor itself was taxed at a less rate.
The respondent therefore, in Trinity term 1704, filed his bill in the Exchequer against the appellant, for recovery of the half-year's rent then due, and that the defendant might continue the [2] future payments thereof; the plaintiff offering by his bill to allow the taxes for the said rent, according to the proportion in which the manor was taxed.
On the 15th of November 1705, the cause came on to be heard, when the Court decreed that the defendant should account with the plaintiff, not only for the half year's fee-farm rent due at Lady-day 1704, but also for the rent due and in arrear to Michaelmas then last, and that an allowance should be made to the defendant for taxes of the said fee-farm rent, in proportion only, and according as the said manor and premises were taxed and assessed.
From this decree the defendant appealed, insisting (S. Harcourt, J. Jekyll) that it
