1868. June 10th. In the matter of a Plaint between BROWN Wednesday, against COCKING and others. By The County Courts Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142. s. 11., "all actions of ejectment, where neither the value of the lands, &c., nor the rent payable in respect thereof," exceeds 201. by the year, may be brought in the County Court. Held, 1. That the test of the jurisdiction of the County Court is the value or rent as between the litigant parties, and not the value or rent as between the lessee and a sublessee. 2. That where a County Court Judge had decided that the annual value did not exceed 207., and there was evidence to support his decision, this Court could not grant a prohibition; per Cockburn C. J. and Lush J. Hannen J. hæsitante. MAY 22nd. Inderwick obtained a rule calling on the Judge of the County Court of Cornwall holden at Redruth, and the plaintiff, to shew cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue to prohibit the Judge from further proceeding in this plaint, which was in ejectment to recover the possession of a dwelling house, described in a statement annexed to the summons: the annual value of the premises was stated to be 181. 7s. 6d., and the rent paid in respect thereof 197. 10s. On the hearing before the Judge it was objected that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint, inasmuch as the rent payable in respect of the premises exceeded the sum of 201. In 1802 the property was let by indenture on a building lease for a term of ninety-nine years, determinable upon three lives, of which the defendant Cocking was the last surviving; the other defendants were his tenants. In the lease was a proviso for re-entry in case County Courts c. 142. s. 11. Ejectment. Annual value or rent. Jurisdiction of County Court. Prohibition. 1868. In re BROWN V. COCKING. of nonrepair. In 1865 the house was conveyed to the plaintiff in fee, subject to the lease of 1802. It had been divided into three small tenements, two of which were let at rents amounting to 247. The plaintiff gave evidence that 247. was not a fair criterion of the rent at which that part of the premises would let to an ordinary tenant, one of the tenements being sublet furnished, and that the annual value was 187. 7s. 6d. The Judge decided that the annual value did not exceed 207., and gave judgment for the plaintiff. Lush J., upon an application at Chambers, had refused to issue a prohibition. By The County Courts Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142. s. 11., "All actions of ejectment where neither the value of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments, nor the rent payable in respect thereof, shall exceed the sum of twenty pounds by the year, may be brought and prosecuted in the County Court of the district in which the lands, tenements or hereditaments are situate." Cole and Lopes now shewed cause.-First. Stat. 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142. s. 11. gives two tests for determining whether the County Court has jurisdiction. 1. The annual value; for the rent might be a peppercorn, or the premises might be in the hands of the owner of the fee and no rent be paid. And that value must be the value as between the litigant parties, and not the improved value. 2. The rent "payable" in respect of the premises must not exceed the annual value of 207., payable by the defendant to the plaintiff; otherwise the plaintiff would never know whether he might bring ejectment in the County Court, for he does not know what rent is payable by the sublessee to his lessee. Secondly. It was a question of fact for the Judge what was the value of the premises, and, there being evidence before him which supports his decision, this Court will not interfere by prohibition; Joseph v. Henry (a), per Coleridge J., referring to Thompson v. Ingham (b), In re Bowen (c), The Guardians of the Lexden and Munster Union v. Southgate (d). [Lush J. referred to Reg. v. Allen (e).] Inderwick (Keane with him), in support of the rule.— First. The rent payable by the occupier is the test intended by stat. 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142. s. 11. [Lush J. The corresponding sections in stat. 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108. for recovering possession of premises when the interest has expired, or been determined by notice, or one half year's rent is in arrear, throw light on this. In sects. 50 and 52 of that statute the rent "payable" must be the rent paid to the plaintiff who is seeking to recover possession.] Those sections apply to landlord and tenant. In stat. 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142. s. 11. the rent intended is that payable by the person in occupation of the premises. Secondly. The Court has jurisdiction to grant the writ of prohibition, the decision of the County Court Judge in the present case being on an issue collateral to the merits. In the case of In re Bowen (c) it was the duty of the County Court Judge to ascertain the amount (a) 1 L. M. & P. 388. (c) 21 L. J. Q. B. 10; 15 Jur. 1196. (b) 14 Q. B. 710. (e) 7 B. & S. 902. 1868. In re BROWN V. COCKING. 1868. In re BROWN V. COCKING. of the debts owing by the trader, not simply for the purpose of giving himself jurisdiction, but for determining what was the estate of the trader and how it was to be disposed of. In Rey. v. Allen (a) title was an essential element in the inquiry before the justices, and their decision was upon the facts which were of the very essence of the enquiry. [He cited Bunbury v. Fuller, in error (b), and cases cited in note to Crepps v. Durden, 1 Smith L. C. 693, 6th ed.] In Reg. v. Nunneley (c) and Reg. v. Huntsworth (d) the Court overruled a decision of the justices that an objection to a church rate was not made bonâ fide. [Lush J. That was on the ground of the proviso in stat. 53 G. 3. c. 127. s. 7. that if the validity of the rate, or the liability of the person from whom it is demanded, be disputed and the party disputing the same give notice thereof to the justices, they shall forbear giving judgment: they have no power to inquire whether the grounds of disputing the rate are valid.] Prohibition was issued in Thompson v. Ingham (e), and that case may stand with In re Bowen (f). [Lush J. In Thompson v. Ingham (e) it was admitted by the plea that title was in question, and therefore the County Court Judge had no jurisdiction.] COCKBURN C. J. The County Court Judge was right on both points. First. On the merits he was right in saying that he (a) 7 B. & S. 902. (c) E. B. & E. 852. (e) 14 Q. B. 710. (f) 21 L. J. Q. B. 10; 15 Jur. 1196. (b) 9 Exch. 111. 140. (d) 33 L. J. M. C. 131. had jurisdiction, for the question incidentally before him was the annual value or rent of the premises as between the litigant parties; and it is immaterial that by the rent which the lessee received from another person he had created a different value as between himself and that person. The annual value may be greater than the rent reserved and would be so in most cases, but the jurisdiction of the County Court depends upon the value as between the litigant parties. The Legislature prescribed that test in order to prevent suits being brought in the superior Courts which might as well be decided by the County Courts. The Legislature must have used the phrase in the same sense as in actions of debt. Secondly. Whether the Judge was right or not he determined the matter as a question of fact. It was incumbent on him to go into evidence on the subject, irrespective of the merits, in order to see whether he had jurisdiction, and we cannot review his decision. We control the County Court so as to keep it within the legitimate sphere of its jurisdiction, and if it decides without evidence that a case is within its jurisdiction, or if, in order to avoid hearing a case which it is its duty to hear and determine, it refuses to go into evidence, this Court will interfere. But when the Judge has properly investigated that which is the foundation of his jurisdiction, this Court will not inquire whether his conclusion on the balance of evidence was right or not. We do not review his decision on a question of fact as we should the verdict of a jury in a cause in this Court. LUSH J. The first question is, whether the County 1868. In re BROWN V. COCKING. |