The general principle, which I have already described, on which land is assessed and rates levied has been discussed in this Court on certainly three occasions: namely in the Shanghai MunicipaleCouneil v. Tam Wa; the Shanghai Municipal Council v. Shanghai & Honkew Wharf Ca., and the Shanghai Municipal Council v. Hardoon. In the first case Sir Frederick Bourne session of rather more than half of was the Judge and in the other two the land, which has a frontage on to cases Sir Havilland de Sausmarez the river, while they have disposed was the presiding Judge. of two plots (now styled Lots 1037 On each occasion the principles of; and 1039) having no river frontage, assessment and the Jevying of the at the back of the river fronted rates was approved and upheld by lands which are debarred from the Court. Inthe case of Shanghai river frontage by the land remain-Municipal Council "v. Shanghai ing in possession of Shanghai Hongkew Wharf Ca. Sir Havil-Hongkew Wharf. land de Sausmarez stated unless The defendants maintain that the there is legislation that is binding ab! on all, custom which is acceptable by all is our safest guide, for it is. almost sure to be reasonable and itis unlikely to be repugnant to the lour community. Evidence satisfied law of any of the nations which form
the Court in the case cited (Shanghai Mumicipal Council v. Tam Wa) that the principle was such as it j; eould accept: Since then another-assessment has been made and the same principle adopted, I think it would be most unfortunate that it. should be shaken."'
Since that judgment was given. another assessment has been made upon the same principle approved: in that case. There is no doubt: that a British Court has power to take cognizance of and apply local: laws. And it matters not, as Dicey states in his book entitled The: Conflict. of Laws,'' whether these laws are "written or written, whether they are the direct result of legislation, whether they exist og. custom or are created by judicial In the case of the Shanghai Municipal Council v. Hardoon, Sir Hawilland de Sausmarez also approved of the principle of assessment adopted by the Council and stated that it was binding on British subjects. And in that case he decided against the Municipal Council because they had departed from the established rule saying: "How the Council came to recommend that the ratepayers should make a departure from a sound rule it is difficult to see." Therefore, we have the principle of assessment of land values, and the procedure in connexion with the assessment not only established og a local custom but also confirmed by judicial decisions.
ESTABLISHED CUSTOM, I am of the sonic opinion as stated by Sir Havilland de Sausmarez, viz., that I think that it would be most unfortunate if this established custom, which has by now become a yule of law, should be shaken.
It may be that the defendant's land as now situated is of lees rate able value, and it may be that at the next assessment the assessors. will reduce the rateable value of this: particular plot of and. From which follows that which the defendants consider am unfair burden thrust upon them namely the payment of an excessive rate, without remedy until such time as the ratepayers. shall decree another assessment. But I cannot dismiss from my mind: that at the time the defendants made their purchase they knew, or could have ascertained, the rateable value of' the land they were purchasing. And that it was then within their powers before completing the purchase to make terms for a proportional payment of rates with the Shanghai & Hongkew Wharf Ca. who were continuing to hold that part of the land which. had a. river frontage. I cannot agree with the argument of the defendants that their land has not been assessed.
T am of opinion that it was properly and lawfully assessed in 1920, and that by that assessment, whatever may have happened since, they must urti! the next assessment takes
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.