23
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
January 7, 1899.
!¿gal f meeîthtgs.
SALISBURY COUNTY COURT.
December 22.
(Before His Honour Judge Hooper).
LANDLORD AND TENANT DISPUTE.
KNOWLES V. CAUSEY.
This ־was an action remitted from the High Court, in which plaintiff claimed £100, a half-year’s rent of a farm occupied by the defendants, which was due on March 25 last. Defendants had paid two sums of £41 2s. and £25 respectively, leaving a balance of £33 18s. They admitted that this balance was due, but filed a counterclaim for £64, one item of which, viz., £12 11s. 2d., the amount of the land tax on the farm, was admitted by plaintiff.
Mr. Arthur Whitehead appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. R. Hall represented the de-ten dants.
Mr. Whitehead pointed out that as defendants admitted the balance of the rent was due, the real issue was whether defendants could make out their counterclaim, with the exception of the item of £12 11s. 2d., which he admitted. In fact, plaintiff was bound to allow the amount of the land tax off the rent on production of the receipt by defendants, but they had never produced the receipt showing that they had paid .the tax.
Mr. Hall then proceeded to address the Court in support of the counterclaim, and in doing so dealt with it item by item. He first took an item of £15, which defendants claimed as due to them by an arrangement under which they agreed with Mr. Knowles׳ not to shoot the ground game on their farm. He pointed out that plaintiff, in August, 1896, agreed by letter to pay defendants a proportionate sum on the understanding that they would not shoot the ground game. The undertaking was kept and the money was paid for one year. Defendants continued to adhere to their part of the bargain, and expected that plaintiff would do the same, and consequently the present claim was made.
Mr. Whitehead said when the plaintiff made the arrangement •spoken of by Mr. Hall, Mr. Knowles was only tenant of the Syrencot Estate. He subsequently became owner, which made the circumstances entirely different.
His Honour said there was always a difficulty in a tenant parting with his right to ground game.
Mr. Whitehead said whilst plaintiff was tenant of the estate he could enter into a contract with defendants as to the ground game, but in March, 1897, he became owner, and Messrs. Causey, as tenants, could not sub-let to their landlord their personal right to kill the ground game under section 3 of the Ground Game Act, unless there was a contract under seal, which there was not in this case.
His Honour : How do you get over that, Mr. Hall?
Mr. Hall: I’m afraid I cannot get over it, your Honour.
This item of the counterclaim having been disposed of, Mr. Hall went on to the next, which was a claim for damages for breach of contract. He said under an agreement made with the previous owner of the estate, defendants had the right to fence in and lay down to pasture a certain portion of their farm, the landlord undertaking to find posts on which to erect a wire fencing. When plaintiff became tenant he declined to allow Messrs. Causey to lay any more land down to pasture, and refused to find the wood for the fencing. They had laid down a piece of land to grass and fenced it in, but owing to the refusal of Mr. Knowles to allow them to proceed, what they had expended previously was of little use to them.
Mr. Hall produced the agreement in question.
Mr. Whitehead contended that the agreement, which was made between Messrs. Causey and a previous owner, could not bind the assignee of the reversion, Mr. Knowles, because it was not a covenant made by any particular person and his assigns.
His Honour : Was the grant of the reversion made expressly subject to this covenant?
Mr. Whitehead : Oh, no. This is a personal covenant between ■the previous owner and Messrs. Causey, and does not bind Mr. Knowles.
His Honour upheld this view of the matter, and said that he thought Messrs. Causey’s remedy was against the person who made the agreement.
Mr. Hall said his Honour’s ruling on that point governed the other items in the counterclaim.
Judgment was entered for plaintiff on the claim, less the amount of the land tax—£12 11s. 2d.—and also on the counterclaim.
Auctioneers and Estate Agents desiring to secure Partners, Purchase a Business, or engage Professional Assistance, should consult the “Wanted” Advertisements in the centre of the Paper.
quence of the presence of a chimney jamb, there would be a diminution of shop frontage of 2ft. 6in. Learned counsel contended that the diminished annual value would be £24, and not £4, and he asked the jury to award £12 or £15 upon an eight years’ basis, to compensate the claimant for the loss which he suffered by the loss of space. Mr. Flatt would have to be out of possession of the shop for upwards of a twelvemonth, and it would be necessary for him to provide premises in which to accommodate his stock, and he would also have to obtain a residence in which to live. The claimant’s net trade profits were £300 a year, his profits being as high as 35 per cent., and sometimes as much as 50 per cent., and Mr. Crump contended his client was entitled to receive that amount for the loss of profits. Mr. Elatt claimed £25 for fixtures, £70 for the cost of removal, including damages and enforced sale of part of the stock; £40 for the services of an assistant, rendered necessary during the time the alterations were going on, £25 the rent of a dwelling house for a year. There was also a claim for electric fittings, etc., bringing the total of the claim up to £540, after deducting the £4 per annum which the company were willing to allow for the diminished annual value of the property.
The claimant was called, and bore out counsel’s opening statement, and said that he estimated the new building, when completed, would be worth to him £55 a year. In answer to Mr. Low, plaintiff stated that in future the rent was to be £46 a year, and he thought this figure was suggested by liis solicitor.
Mr. Herbert H. Fuller, F.S.I., 15, Serjeant’s-inn, London, W.C., estimated the amount of compensation which ought to be paid at £560 10s.
Mr. H. P. Gould, accountant, gave evidence in regard to the value of claimant’s business.
Air. Low, in opening the case for the respondents, animadverted upon the fact that the claimant had refused to allow the company’s representatives to inspect his books, and therefore they had had no opportunity of testing the accuracy of the figures which had been given by Air. Gould. Instead of there being twelve months during which Mr. Flatt would be deprived of the use of his premises, a contractor had undertaken to rebuild the shop and dwelling house in a period of four months, at a cost of £728, which would have to be paid by the defendant company.
Mr. F. Hornor, F.S.I., Norwich, put the amount of the compensation to be paid to the claimant at £240.
Air. C. C. Rix-Spelman, F.S.I. (Spelman and Sons, Norwich), thought the original rent of £50 a very high one, and he conceived £55 a year would have been a fair rent after the new window had been put in. He could not understand where the £200, said to have been spent in alterations, had gone to. Fair compensation for all things would be £234. This calculation was based upon the work of rebuilding being completed within a period of four months.
Mr. B. B. Alorgan, F.S.I., Norwich, stated that he put the full annual value of the premises, after the alterations had been made, at £50 a year. He estimated the amount of compensation which ought to be paid Air. Flatt for inconvenience and loss of trade at £264.
Air. S. Al. Alills, F.S.I., Norwich, put the amount of compensation for a period of six months’ disturbance at £235.
Mr. John Young, builder and contractor, stated that he had entered ־with the Hospital Trustees into a contract to rebuild the whole place in accordance with plans in four months at a cost of £728. Supposing that he had to take a slice off the front and set back the building, he could do the work within a period of two months. The smaller scheme was compulsory, the larger one was optional with Mr. Flatt.
The jury awarded £375 as compensation, and they stated that they were unable to divide this sum into different amounts for the property and the loss of business.
We have received from the Hunters’ Improvement Society, a copy of the prize list of the 15th annual London show, which is to be held at the Royal Agricultural Hall, Islington, on March 7, 8, and 9 next. It is notified that all yearlings at the show must be exhibited undocked. The total value of the prizes amounts to £5,420. The last day of entry is January 30. Forms of entry may be had. of the secretary, 12, Hanover-square, London, W.
The council of the Polo Pony Society announce their intention to offer, during 1899, gold and silver medals for polo ponies under the following conditions : —(1) To any society offering at its show £20 in prizes for polo ponies a gold medal will be given for the best polo pony stallion, mare or gelding exhibited, and (2) to any society offering at its show £10 in prizes for polo ponies a silver medal will be given for the best polo pony stallion, mare or gelding exhibited. Forms of application (which must be sent in by March 1 next) may be had from the secretary, 12, Hanover-square, London, W.
1,980
150
350
Sir J. Whittaker Ellis, Bart., F.S.I. (Alessrs. Farebrother, Ellis and Co., 29, Fleet-street׳, E.C.), was of opinion that, assuming the value of the lease was £18,000, the new railway would depreciate the property to the extent of one half.
Mr. W. Roland Peck, F.S.I. (Messrs. Hampton and Sons, 1, Cockspur-street, S.W.), had made his valuation on the same lines as Air. Tewson. For the land taken he had allowed £891, including the 10 per cent, for compulsory sale; loss during construction, £3,038; permanent depreciation of residential vaiue, £3,600; total, £7,529.
FOR THE RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Freeman, in opening the case for the railway company, said it was not disputed that the estate in question was a very desirable property, particularly from a residential point of view, but quite apart from the works which the company were now carrying out the property would lose the whole of its secluded character within a very few years by reason of the construction of other railways, and of the land immediately surrounding the estate being available for building purposes. The railway company had done all that could be reasonably expected of them, as the new line was being constructed as far from the house as possible. It would be ridiculous to assume that the estate which had never realised £18,000, would be ! depreciated to the extent of £9,000, or one-half of its value, as had been suggested by Sir Whittaker Ellis. He called Mr. R. T. Wreathall, F.S.I., the Vestry Hall, St. Martin’s-place, Trafalgar-square, W.O., and the Manor House, Greenhill, Harrow, who estimated the depreciation of the whole of the estate by reason of the land taken (which was included), at. £100 a year ; 48 years, on the 6 per cent, table, 15| years’ purchase, £1,575 ; agricultural loss on 4f acres, 30s. per acre, £7 2s. per annum, 15f years’ purchase, £110. Witness had added to these amounts the sum of £250 to cover loss and inconvenience during the construction of the line, making his total valuation £1,935.
Mr. Alex. R. Stenning, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I., 121, Cannon-street, E.C., submitted the following valuation: —
£1.00 a year ]ess rent for house for48 year! on the 5 per cent, table, 18 years’ purchase ..............................£1800
10 percent... ..	..	..	.. !so
For two pieces of severed land For temporary inconvenience
Total ..	£2,480
Air. Howard Martin, F.S.I. (Messrs. Thur-good and Martin, 27, Chancery-lane, W.C.), also gave evidence. His figures were as follows : —
Compensation for depreciation of the value of 4a. 2r. S6p. of pasture, severed from the park by the railway, at £2 an
״acre...............................£9 9s.
Capitalised on the 6 per cent, table for 48 yeara=years’purchase	..	.. 15-65
The general depreciation of the remainder of the estate by the construction of the Company's works, £100 a year for 48 years on the 6 per cent, table 15565, [ .. =65־ For inconvenience and annoyance during the progress of the works	..	..	350
Total ..	£2 063
Air. Robert Vigers, P.S.I. (Messrs. Vigers and Co., 4, Frederick’s-court, Old Jewry, E.C.), was also retained on behalf of the railway com-pany.
The Arbitrator, having heard counsel, reserved his award.
BUSINESS PREMISES AT NORWICH.
Recently the Under-Sheriff of Norfolk (Air,. Frank Jewson) held a Court at the Guildhall, Norwich, for assessing the amount of compensation to be paid Mr. F. G. Flatt, ironmonger, of Alagdalen-street, in that city, for the compulsory appropriation of his business premises by the Norwich Electric Tramways Company, and loss of trade. Mr. Crump, Q.C. (instructed by Messrs. Watson and Everitt), appeared for the claimant; and Air. F. Low (instructed by Alessrs. Mills and Reeve) for the respondents.
Mr. Crump stated that apart from smaller matters, with which he did not propose to trouble the jury, the two principal heads of the claim were: loss of trade profits, and loss in the value of the property which the alterations would cause. The Tramway Company were not taking the premises out-and-out, but it ־was proposed to mutilate the premises, which ־were leased to claimant by charity trustees in 1895 for a period of 14 years. Eleven years of the lease had therefore to run, and during that time he would have to remain in the premises The rent was fixed at £50 a year for the shop and dwelling house, upon condition that Mr. Flatt should do a certain amount ׳of improvements, and the sum so spent was £200. These improvements increased the value to him of the premises to £70 a year. The tramways would : cut into the premises to a depth of 7ft. 9in., ! and it was suggested by the Tramways Company that their value would thus be reduced, j when the alterations had been finished, by a sum of £4 per annum. Moreover, in conse- '
of the land. There was little demand for gravel ; if used on the spot for building it might be of some value ; but, having to cart it such a long way to the station, made it practically valueless.
Mr. Henry Wilmer, assistant overseer, said the ten acres were rated at £26 5s. gross, and £25 5s. rateable ; whilst it was let at £59 10s. a year.
Counsel having addressed the Court, the jury retired to consider their verdict. On their return they awarded £456 as the value of the land, and £25 for severance ; total £481.
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT EALING.
At the Surveyors’ Institution, on Tuesday, Air. F. T. Galsworthy, F.S.I. (Messrs. Cliinnock, Galsworthy and Chinnock, Waterloo-place, S. W.), sat as Arbitrator in the case of “ Nelson 4!. Ealing and South Harrow Railway Company,” which was a claim by Sir Montague Nelson, of Hanger Hill House, Ealing, for compensation in respect of the compulsory acquirement of 7¿ acres of land, comprising a portion of his estate, and consequential damage to the remainder of the property by reason of the construction of a new line of railway.
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., and Air. Lewis Coward (instructed by Alessrs. Dawes and Sons, 9, Angel-court, E.O.) were counsel for the claimant; and Mr. G. M. Freeman, Q. C., with whom was Mr. H. W. Disney (instructed by Alessrs. Baxter and Co., 12, ”Victoria-street, S.W.), for the railway company.
It appeared from counsel’s opening statement that the property, which consisted of Hanger Hill House, with .stabling and grounds, another residence called Hanger Yale House, and a total area of 145 acres, was leasehold, being originally held by the claimant for a. term expiring on September 29, 1925, at a rental of £1,000 a year. Subsequently a reversionary lease was granted for 21 years at the increased rental of £1,200 a year. Sir Montague Nelson occupied the property all the year round, and had made it as perfect as possible by an expenditure of about £18,000. The land had been laid out park-like, and it would be considerably damaged by the construction of the projected line, which would run along the entire eastern boundary of the estate, thus depreciating its value as a residential property. The railway company had made one or two concessions, including the construction of a level crossing, and an allowance of £300 in lieu of a bridge, which the learned counsel asked the Arbitrator to include in his award.
Sir Ed. Alontague Nelson, ■the claimant, gave evidence in support of counsel’s׳ statement. He said that altogether he had expended about £19,416 on improvements since he had been in occupation. The new railway would run the entire length of the estate, and would divide a portion—about 8¿ acres—on the eastern boundary. From the terrace and the principal windows of the house the line would be distinctly visible, and the privacy of the house would thus be greatly interfered with. The construction of the railway would render it extremely difficult to secure a new owner. The lease of Hanger Vale House would expire in six years, and he had no doubt that he would then have to accept a lower rental.
Air. Edward Tewson, F.S.I. (Messrs. Deben-ham, Tewson, Farmer and Bridgewater, 80, Cheapside, E.C.), was the first expert witness called. His valuation was as folk
The land acquired is about 7J acres, the annual residential value ol which to the occupying owner should be put at per acre
The apportioned landlord's rent may be put at ..
Leaving an annual residential value of per acre
The lease has 38| years to run from Christmas, 1897, which on the 5 per cent. table=years’purchase
Add iOper cent, for compulsory sale
D nring the progress of the railway works the mansion will be unlettable, an 1 any dealing with it by the lessee rendered impossible for two years. The fixed rental is per annum
The land itself will not he materially damaged consequently its value must be deducted from this fixed rent
£1,000	891
----575
2,650
3,600
425
900
1,325
The total quantity is 145 acres. Deduct that required by the railway company 8a. 2r. Op.; grounds and gardens, 7a. 2r.; let with Hanger Lodge, 4a., total 20 acres, leaving 125 acres, which taken at £3 per annum£375 .. .. ..	־־
Rent of Hanger Lodge	,,	200
Leaving a rental actually paid for house and gardens at
To this must be added 5 per cent, on the outlay made by the lessee in permanent improvements to the house and buildings. The amount is £18,000, which at 5 percent.= ..	..	..	.,
Loss on this for two years After the railway has been completed there will be permanent damage to the residential value of the estate. This residential value should be taken at the outlay which has actually been made by the lessee, £18,000־־־depreeiation 20 per cent. ..	..
Total ..	£7,141