The proprietor of premises consisting of two storeys occupied the upper storey as a dwelling-house, and in the lower storey carried on the trade of a licenced retailer of exciseable liquors. There was no internal means of communication between the two storeys, each having a separate entrance from the street. Held ( rev. judgment of the first division) that he was not liable for inhabited-house-duty in respect of the storey which was used as a public-house- per the Lord Chancellor and Lord Brampton, on the ground that it was not an inhabited dwelling-house within the meaning of 48 Geo. III. Cap. 55, and 14 and 15 Vict. cap. 36; per Lord Brampton, also upon the ground that even if it was to be regarded as a tenement severed from a larger house and assessable under 48 Geo. III. cap. 55, Schedule B, it was exempted from inhabited-house-duty by 41 and 42 Vict. cap. 15, sec. 13 (2), as being solely devoted to trade; and per Lord Macnaghten and Lord Davey, on the ground that even if it was assessable under the Act 48 Geo. III. cap. 55, it was exempted from inhabited-house-duty as being either a separate ‘house’ or a separate ‘tenement’ occupied solely for the purpose of trade within the meaning of 41 and 42 Vict. cap. 15, sec. 13 (2).
Judges:
Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lord Macnaghten, Lord Davey, and Lord Brampton
Citations:
[1900] UKHL 691, [1900] UKHL TC – 4 – 205, 37 SLR 691
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Rating
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.631502
