27
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
January 7, 1899.
there will only be a fine of 20s. and costs.” The defendant will haye to enjoy his yelping favourite’s “ nature ” by himself, or he will find . that it will become his “nature” to pay fines and costs.
The latest instalment of that species of legislation whose object is to protect people against themselves—the Inebriates Act, 1898— technically came into force with the new year, but several weeks must elapse before its provisions respecting the committal of inebriates to reformatories can be put into actual operation, for the regulations made under the Act have to be revised by Parliament. As now put forward, the regulations deal first with the granting of certificates to reformatories by thqHome Oifi.ee ; and, in the second place, with their internal administration.	Certificates —• which,	when
granted, are to remain in force till surrender or withdrawal—are to be issued subject to certain conditions. The site of the reformatory is to be at¡ some distance from large centres of population. The quantity of land attached to it is to allow not less than one acre for every ten patients in the case of reformatories for males, and half that quantity in the case of those for females, so as to give ample scope for outdoor employment, exercise, and recreation. Every officer is to be a total abstainer, minute regulations as to visitation are made, and there are the familiar provisions for visits by friends, forwarding of correspondence, recreation and work. Altogether, the regulations seem grateful and comforting, and it is a question whether their perusal may not lead some people to become drunkards, if only for the sake of being sent to one of these statutory Arcadias. Speaking seriously, Tottie Fay and the late Jane Oake-bread deserve the thanks of the public, if not of the publicans, for having been the cause of a very salutary measure, though it is a question with me whether any reformatory will ever reform a bona-fide confirmed drunkard.
The legal honours of the new year will have a certain amount of interest for readers of the Estates Gazette. Sir Henry Hawkins, who is to be made a peer, had a fairly good practice in compensation cases when at the bar, and his successor -on the bench, Mr. T. T. Bucknill, Q.C., was not unknown in connection with litigation of the sort. He is a sound commercial lawyer, a good all-round sportsman, and altogether a very “popular appointment.” Of the new “ silks ” Mr. H. S. Theobald is the author of a well-known work on wills and (in conjunction with Mr. J. Balfour Browne, 0.0.) of one on the law of railways. Mr. C. E. Gill’s name is universally known, and he ought to command a big business as a leader. He made his reputation some years ago when successfully defending a man for an alleged libel on Mr. H. H. Marks, M.P., and was thought to have had none the worst of the many encounters he had with Sir Charles (now Lord) Russell, who■ led for the prosecution.
The death of his Grace of Northumberland removes the oldest duke in the peerage. The Percys have always been illustrious, and Sir Harris Nicolas says concerning them, “ Not more famous in arms than distinguished for its alliances, the house of Percy stands pre-eminent for the number and rank of the families which are represented by the Duke of Northumberland, whose banner, consequently, exhibits an assemblage of nearly 900 armorial ensigns, among which are those of King Henry VII., of several younger branches of the blood royal, of the Sovereign Houses of Prance, Castile, Leon and Scotland, and of the Ducal Houses of Normandy and Brittany, forming a galaxy of heraldic honours altogether unparalleled.” The fortunes of the familv were founded in this country by William de Percy, who, being in high favour with William the Conqueror, obtained from him, according to Madox in his “ Baronia Anglica,” a barony of 30 knights’ fees, being thus entitled to be considered a feudal lord of the realm from the time ■of the Conquest.
“ A gentlewoman with ׳ a piggery wishes another to join her. Small capital required. References exchanged.” They say that the ladies can and will do anything nowadays, but keeping a piggery would surely be an uncongenial occupation for most “gentlewomen.” Is the “ new woman ” the up-to-date successor of the “ Grceculus esuriens ” of Juvenal, the “starving monsieur” of his English imitator, and the briefless barrister of more modern times 1 “In eoelum jusseris ibis”—“and bid her go to a piggery, to a piggery she goes.” It is rather strange that such an advertisement should have appeared in the aristocratic “ Morning Post.”
This is not a bad story of a simple-minded countryman and his solicitor. The countryman having finished the story ■of his grievances, was asked if he had stated the exact facts of the case. He replied “ Oh, yes, sir. I thought it better to tell you the plain truth; you can put the lies in yourself.”
STVLO.
Council’s case, seeing that the structure had been passed by the district surveyor.
Mr. Berry replied that the Council could not control the district surveyor; but said he was prepared to take any reasonable course his worship might suggest.
Mr. Hopkins : I think a reasonable line would be to withdraw the summons.
Mr. Berry: Very well, sir; I will withdraw it.
Mr. Temple Martin asked for costs. The defendant, he said, had been put to considerable expense without any justifiable reason, and because the County Council and the district surveyor were not quite in unison.
Mr. Berry resisted the application for costs.
The learned magistrate considered the defendant was entitled to his costs under the circumstances.
Mr. Berry then intimated that the Council would ask for a case.
The magistrate said that that would involve the defendant in further expense, and in consequence no order was made as to costs.
agings aitit Doings.
There are, I think, worse nuisances in places of business than pipes, cigars and cigarettes in full blast, and, à propos of les temps et les mœurs in the City, the practice of what is called “ football ” at the Corn Exchange demands some notice. At a recent inquest on a young man who died at Guy’s Hospital after an operation for strangulated hernia, it was proved that his internal injuries had been caused in a scrimmage at football at the Exchange. It appeared that two or three hundred men were taking part in the game at which several footballs ־were used and several players rolling on the ground at once. There were no “ sides ” ; everybody did as he pleased. The scene, to use a stock phrase, can be better imagined than described. The Coroner and his jury were not unnaturally anxious to know why such a pandemonium was permitted. Where were the police l The secretary of the Exchange stated that as it was an “ open market,” it would be “ against the Act of Parliament ” to close it “ after hours.” This explanation did not prevent the jury adding to their verdict a rider to the effect that the Corn Exchange authorities were to blame for permitting football to be played there at Christmas or any other time, upon which the secretary said an endeavour should be made to obtain statutory powers to stop the game in future.
Mr. Genn said he appeared formally that day, because those proceedings were only a preliminary step to the case being heard by Quarter Sessions. He did not propose to call any evidence.
The magistrates unanimously decided to fix the gross value at £450 and the rateable at £200, and allowed the costs of the appellants.
LICENSED HOUSES AT HENLEY.
At Oxfordshire Quarter Sessions, held on January 3, several rating appeals were heard by Sir William Ansell and a special Bench of magistrates.
Mr. Bosanquet, Q.C., and Mr. Cranston (instructed by Mr. Simmons) appeared for the appellants ; and Mr. Leslie and: Mr. Ames (instructed by Messrs. Mercer, Oldham and Blaker) appeared for the respondents, the Assessment Committee of the Henley Union.
The appeals related to the following public-houses at Henley:—The Sun, the Duke of Cumberland, the Union, the Old White Horse, and the Three Horse Shoes.
The witnesses engaged on behalf of the appellants were Mr. Chambers, of Henley; Mr. Hamlin, of Reading; Mr. Humphrey, of London and Maidenhead ; and Mr. Thomas Woods, of Hounslow.
The witnesses on behalf of the respondents were Mr. William Eve, F.S.I. (Wm. Eve and Sons, London), Mr. Dryland Haslam, F.S.I. (Haslam and Son, Reading), and Mr. W. Anker Simmons, F.S.I. (Simmons and Sons, Henley and Reading).
The first two cases, having been heard, were dismissed with costs, and the appellants in the other cases then agreed that these should be similarly dealt with.
THE LONDON BUILDING ACT.
Whether an Act of Parliament is necessary to put down the strange sort of football played 1 in Mark-lane seems to me rather doubtful. Without desiring to impugn Mr. Young’s knowledge of the subject, I cannot help echoing with the coroner, Shylock’s query, “ Is that the law 1 ” Mr. Young’s retort is, “ Thyself shall see the Act.” If the Corn Exchange is an open market, the public, I suppose, would have a right j to frequent it to buy and sell; but it does not follow that they or those employed in the place | are entitled to indulge in any kind of pastime they like there. A custom must be reasonable in order to be upheld in a court of law. I see nothing on the point in Mr. Gaches’s “ Law of Markets and Fairs” (1898), nor is it touched | on in Wheatley and Cunningham’s “ London Past and Present ” (1891), which latter authority ; simply states : “ Corn Exchange (Old), Mark-lane, City, built in 1747 (J. Woods, architect). After several alterations and enlargements, the whole was rebuilt in 1881 (Edward J. Anson, architect). The market days are Monday,
| Wednesday and Friday, and the hours of business are from eleven to three; Monday is the principal day. .	. Corn Exchange (New),
Mark-lane, built in 1827 (George Smith, architect). These Exchanges adjoin, and have a communication one with the other.”
| A few months or weeks ago the London j magistrates were constantly being asked if they ! would or could relieve against barking dogs 1 and crowing cocks. They could only refer the aggrieved to a County Court, but now, thanks | to the new by-laws of the London County Council, we have changed all that. The magistrates ' who at one time were rather too much inclined to advise applicants to “try and be neigh-| hourly,” seem now determined to enforce the law firmly. In a case before Mr. De Rutzen,
1 at the South Western Police-court, a man was | summoned for “ unlawfully keeping a noisy 1 animal, to wit a dog, which caused a serious | nuisance to residents.” The necessary notice,
' signed by three residents, had been given, and ' one of the witnesses stated that he had lost a tenant through the nuisance, whilst another | said that he had a delicate wife who had suffered greatly. The defendant seems to have thought that the fact that—as he put it, not very accurately—•it “ was a dog’s nature to bark,” constituted a defence to the summons. The worthy magistrate remarked: “ I can hardly understand how a respectable man can like to be a nuisance to his neighbours, but this time
WHAT CONSTITUTES A WOODEN BUILDING!
At the Lambeth Police Court, on December 29, before Mr. A. A. Hopkins, Mr. H. A. Townsend, of 71, Heron-road, Brixton, was summoned at the instance of the London County Council for having, contrary to the provisions of the London Building Act, 1894, and the amending Act of 1898, retained a structure to which part of the Act of 1894 applies, without having obtained a license as required by that part of the Act.
Mr. T. Seager Berry, from the Solicitors’ Department of the Council, appeared in support of the summons, and the defendant was represented by Mr. G. Temple Martin, instructed by Mr. Jonas. The case occupied the attention of the Court for some considerable time.
The proceedings were taken under section 84 of the Building Act of .1894, which makes it an offence for any person to set up a wooden structure without first obtaining a license from the County Council, and under the amending Act ■of 1898, which prohibits the retention of such structures.
Evidence was brought forward by Mr. Berry to show that the shed which gave rise to the proceedings is erected at the bottom of the defendant’s garden. It is constructed of wood, the woodwork on three sides starting from above the party fence walls dividing the garden from those of adjoining houses.
Mr. Berry contended that although the structure (which is used as a workshop) was contained within three walls, it was not attached to them, and was consequently a structure within section 84 of the principal Act.
For the defence Mr. Temple Martin urged that the proceedings had not been taken within six months of the time of the “ discovery ” of the building by the district surveyor in January last. The learned counsel went on to contend that this was not a wooden structure coming under part 7 of the Act, but was a building under part 6. It was enclosed on three sides with brick walls 9in. thick, in conformity with the first schedule, preliminary, part 1. The front was constructed as a shop front, in conformity with section 55, the roof or flat was covered with metal, in conformity with section 61, all these sections being included in part 6. The attention of the district surveyor having been called to the workshop, some alterations were made by his direction to fully comply with the Act. Upon its completion it was seen by the district surveyor, and at the end of January he sent in his return to the Council. Under section 161 that return was deemed to be a certificate that the works were in accordance with the Act.
Mr. Berry, under notice, put in the return of the district surveyor, but pointed out that that official, although appointed by the Council, was in no sense a servant of the Council.
After considerable argument on the question of the time limit, and Mr. Temple Martin having stated that he had several other objections to raise,
Mr. Hopkins remarked that he did not think it necessary to go into those objections, as he doubted whether there were any merits in the
Ha its anîr Eafhtg.
CHEMICAL WORKS AT PENRYN.
The Penryn borough magistrates recently heard an appeal by the trustees under the will of the late Mr. E. D. Anderton, against the valuation by Messrs. Body and Son, Plymouth, of Ar.derton’s manure and vitriol works, stores, etc., at Penryn, at a gross estimated rental of £800, and a rateable value of £356. Mr. II.
E.	Duke, barrister-at-law, instructed by Mr.
F.	W. Nalder, for the appellants ; Mr. J. H. Genn for the Assessment Committee of the Falmouth Union.
Mr. Duke said the trustees regarded it as somewhat extraordinary that the Assessment Committee should increase the gross value from £315 per annum to £846, and the net rateable value from £252 to £392. There was no doubt that at one time a lucrative trade was carried on at these works, and the £252 assessment was fixed when the works were in their most flourishing condition. But for a good many years past undertakings of this kind had undergone a very great change, competition having increased and other works been established. Raw materials were now manufactured in very large quantities in the United States and also on the Continent, and the manufactured products were imported into this country and distributed upon terms which made it very difficult for local manufacturers to continue the industry. There was not only this severe competition, works of this kind to be conducted at all required a very disproportionate amount of working capital. A crisis had arisen in the existence of this undertaking, when it was really a matter of considerable doubt whether it should or should not be carried on, and yet it was proposed to increase the rateable value by 50 per cent. Under the circumstances his clients had no alternative but to appeal to the committee. The committee had all the facts before them relating to this undertaking and the condition of the industry, and yet did not see their way clear to remedy what, in the view of the appellants, was a serious mistake.
The Clerk (Mr. G. A. Jenkins) : What are the figures that ought to be taken, according to your case 1
Mr. Duke: Roundly, about £200 rateable value a year.
The Clerk : What about the gross.
Mr. Duke said there was great difficulty in firing accurately the estimated gross value owing to the peculiar circumstances of the trade, and the necessity for large expenditure for renewals, but the expert advisers of the appellants, in order to avoid unnecessary controversy, bad adopted the basis which the Assessment Committee seemed to have taken, and on that footing the rateable value of £200 would represent a gross estimated rental of £450. He should ask the Bench to reduce it to that amount.
Mr. H. H. Fuller, F.S.I., of 15, Serjeant’s-inn, said he had valued for Assessment Committees in various parts of the country. During the past few years he had had extensive experience in the valuation of chemical manure works. Owing to foreign competition the condition of the trade just now was very bad. When the works at Penryn were erected it was common to get phosphates from Cambridgeshire. Now these phosphates being so pooi a richer phosphate was got from America1, and brought over in large ships, which were unable to get to Penryn because of the absence of water. Consequently, barging had to be done at Is. 6d. a ton. His opinion was that £200 a year was the very outside rateable value cf the works. The present depression in the trade was not a passing phase. The causes were permanent.
Mr. G. Humphreys-Davies, F.S.I.,	8,
Laurence Pountney-hill, London, E.C., with great experience in valuing works of this class, corroborated what had been said as to the condition of the trade. The rental value of premises engaged in the trade had steadily declined for several years. At the present time it was very difficult to find tenants for vacant works. As works had become vacant they had in many cases been demolished. He thought the very highest net rental of these works should be £200 a year, and the landlord would be very fortunate if he .could get it. His survey was made independently of Mr. Fuller.
As Mr. Genn did not cross-examine either witness,
Mr. Duke said that was an admission that the case of the appellants was true. He had the evidence of Mr. Williams, who, if need be, would tell the Bench that these works could not be carried on if this rent was to be put upon them. But as the evidence of Messrs. Fuller and Davies was not challenged in any way he thought his proper course was to ask the Bench to reduce the valuations to £450 gross and £200 net. Apparently the Assessment Committee had taken the view that the appellant’s case was unanswerable, and he was only sorry they did not take it earlier.