January 14, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE«
66
Mr. Weall expressed the opinion that the house was well situated, and in a position calculated to catch trade. The assessment was a very fair one.
Mr. Harding estimated the gross at £70, and the rateable at £56.
The Chairman said the decision of the Bench was to fix the gross at £45 and the rateable at £36, and under the circumstances to allow appellant his costs.
The remaining cases were held over till next Sessions.
^agings an& Domes.
The law is certain and ought to be certain. So runs the old maxim. But things are not always what they ought to be, and disappointed litigants and other cynical and captious people might be inclined to say that the only thing certain about the law is its uncertainty. It seems to be high time that the question—of substantial interest and importance to all sorts and conditions of business men—whether orders for advertisements above the value of £5 require to be stamped should be definitely settled. In a recent case in the City of London Court, Mr. Commissioner Kerr decided that an order of this kind, being a contract, did require a 6d. stamp, and non-suited the plaintiffs, much to the astonishment of their counsel, who said that he had never heard of such a thing, and urged that if this were the law “ a serious additional tax would be imposed upon thousands of firms throughout the country.” The learned Commissioner admitted this, but of course it is not his fault.
The point has been raised before in his Court, and the £10 penalty paid. The Commissioner, moreover, has taken the opinion of the Inland Revenue Commissioners upon the subject. That opinion is not final, but it was and is to the effect■ that an order for an advertisement is a contract, and that, that being so, it requires a 6d. stamp where the amount of the order—the value, as it were, of the subject matter of the contract—is above the value of £5. In the case I am referring to the Commissioner declined to give leave to appeal unless the plaintiffs could get the Somerset House authorities to reverse their decision. This was somewhat arbitrary, for there never was a State department yet that was fond of stultifying itself, and, I repeat, it would be well if all uncertainty on the point were cleared up by the authoritative judgment of a superior Court. If my opinion on the subject is worth nothing, at any rate I charge nothing for it, but I think that the provisions of the last Stamp Act are clearly in favour of the learned Commissioner’s decision, and of the view taken by the Inland Revenue officials. There seems to me to be only one point: —Is an order for an advertisement a contract? If not, why not, “ or how otherwise ” ?
Millionaires seem still to cling to the opinion that a lavish expenditure of their millions is the best advertisement for them. It is probably the best and the only one, though a great many people forget that when Dives buys a celebrated racehorse or builds a yacht or a house he is, after all, only making an investment— taking, as it were, money from one pocket and putting it into another. The horse, the house, and the yacht remain. The value of an Ormonde or of a Britannia, no doubt, may and does deteriorate, but in the case of a house this is not necessarily so, indeed, it is often the other way. The new mansion which Mr. Wm. C. Whitney has recently erected in Fifth Avenue, New York, and which, it is said, is shortly to be opened, must from all accounts be almost without a rival in the world. Europe has been ransacked to fill it with pictures, tapestries, bronzes, and so forth, and Mrs. Whitney’s suite of apartments are described as “ regal—the walls of the boudoir are hung with a silk fabric costing seven guineas a yard.” How do these things “ get in the papers ” ? Again, the bathroom “ is built of the finest Carrara marble, relieved by onyx and other rare stones. The bath is cut from a single block, and the floor is composed of rare mosaics. The bath taps and other metal work are made of pure gold, of unique design.” Mr. Whitney must be a kind of modem Midas. I suppose he eats bank notes in sandwiches and drinks aqua d’oro.
I wonder when and where the development of “ autos ” will stop. A few seasons ago there were, I believe, no less than three syndicates running automatic “tipsters” in London. Two of these retired from business, owing, perhaps, to backing their own tips, but the third still exists and continues to give all the winners— and some of the losers. The idea is really not a bad one for conveying the very latest racing information. Perhaps we may live to see automatic bookmakers with automatic policemen to run them in and automatic magistrates to fine them £5 and costs. Meanwhile, it is stated
structed to value the whole of the licensed premises in the St. Albans Union. It was undoubtedly a good situation for a public-house, and he valued the place at £80 gross and £64 rateable value.
Mr. Thomas Dinwiddy, F.S.I., of Whitehall and Greenwich, said his opinion with reference to the house in dispute was that its gross value was £102, and the rateable value £82.
Cross-examined by Mr. Boyle : He did not think the licensed property had been too much put up. He considered the Assessment Committee wise in paying attention to this particular kind of property.
Mr. William Dorant, F.S.I., of St. Albans, auctioneer and valuer, stated that he estimated the gross value of the Hare and Hounds at £80.
Mr. J. R Eve (Messrs. J. R. Eve and Son, Bedford) deposed that the house was in nice order and in direct line to the Midland and L. and N. W. stations. In his oninion, the gross was £82, and the rateable £65. The increased demand for public-house property must necessarily affect the amount which a tenant would have to pay for a free house.
Mr. Charles Frederick Jones, F.S.I., of Fleet-street•, speaking with 28 vears’ experience, estimated the gross value at £100 and the rateable value at £84.
Mr. S. L. Harding, F.S.I., practising in St. Albans and London upwards of 47 years, said that within that period his firm had been connected with the sale of 100 licensed houses, representing over £100,000. The gross value of the Hare and Hounds he should estimate at £80, and the rateable £64.
Cross-examined by Mr. Boyle : The house in question was notoriously one of the best for the sale of beer in the town.
Mr. Frank Cecil Ryde, Westminster, gave the gross value as £80 and the rateable value £64.
Mr. John Weall, F.S.I. (Sedgwick, Son and Weall, Watford), said a fair estimate for the gross value of the house in question was £80, and for the rateable £64.
In giving the decision of the Bench, the Chairman said they had carefully considered the appeal, and had come to the decision to fix the rate for the premises in question at £55 gross, each party to pay their own costs.
THE DUKE OP MARLBOROUGH.
Mr. Arthur William Godman appealed against the rate made in respect of his licensed house, the Duke of Marlborough, Holywell-hill.
Mr. Boyle and Mr. Grubbe appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Muir and Mr. Ryde for the respondents.
Mr. Boyle for the appellant stated that the old assessment was £25 gross, and £20 rateable, and the fresh assessment £70 gross and £56 rateable.
Mr. H. H. Fuller said the Duke of Marlborough was a fully-licensed house. The houses near it were small ones, and he put its value at £38 gross and £30 rateable. The house had a poor class of trade, there being several other places near at hand. The L. and N. W. Hotel would be more likely to catch cyclists than this one.
Mr. J. F. Field said the place was very old-fashioned, and would bear remodelling. He should say the house as it now stood was worth £45 gross and £36 rateable. If it were his house he should remodel it.
Mr. A. Rumball regarded the house in question as having been a good one in the coaching times, but since the Holywell-hill had been cut straight through, it had depreciated, while since the erection of the L. and N. W. Hotel, it had become more desolate still. He put the gross value down at £45, and the rateable at £38 10s.
Mr. W. Hurst Flint said the house was isolated. In his opinion a free tenant would give £44 gross and £35 rateable.
This concluded the case for the appellant, and witnesses were then called for the respondents.
Mr. Low said he had valued the premises in question. He had for 10 or 12 years advised the Assessment Committee. The house had a very prominent position at the bottom of the hill, near the river. There was a footpath to the Abbey and along to St. Michael’s by the river. His valuation was originally for £75, but the committee reduced it to £70. Witness gave a description of the premises, and said he put the house at £45 unlicensed. In fixing that, he had full knowledge as to other property round about.
Mr. J. R. Eve said the house had a commanding position, and he put down the gross value at £76, and rateable at £61.
Mr. Dorant considered the site in question as being singularly well adapted for a licensed house, and he estimated the gross value at £70, and rateable at £56.
Mr. Ryde gave a similar value.
Mr. Jones gave the gross value at £77, and the rateable at £63. The house stood in a fair position for the trade it was possible to do.
Mr. Dinwiddy said the house covered an exceptional area. His figures showed £80 gross value and £64 rateable.
i 7 William IV., c. 96, sec. 1, the point being the rent at which the premises may reasonably be expected to let to a tenant from year to year, the landlord doing the repairs and incurring such other expenses as were necessary to maintain the “hereditament” in a state to command the rent. One could not help thinking when they saw the enormous increase, that the respondents must have to some extent assessed the particular house, and he had abundant authority to show that they had no right whatever in assessing a public-house to consider the trade done in the house. That was a personal matter. One tenant might do a large trade and another a small trade. To assess it would not be assessing the hereditament, but the intelligence of the tenant. He should ask them to say that the assessment was far too high, and should be very considerably reduced.
Mr. Herbert Henry Fuller, F.S.I., 15, Serjeant’s-inn, Fleet-street, London, stated that he had had 25 years’ experience in valuing property, and had valued licensed property all over the country. He had inspected the house in question. The diversion of the road would make a great difference in the value of the house. The Hare and Hounds was an antiquated public-house, with stucco front, and only two bars. As a residential locality, the houses were small cottages, and at the end of the town, which had not developed so rapidly as the other end. There were fields at the back and side. Within a small radius were other houses, and there was also a grocer’s license. He should put the gross at £44 a year, and rateable at £36. At that rate, the license duty would be £20, rates and taxes £13 10s., repairs £9, making a total of £78 10s. Before the tenant could realise anything, she would first have to disburse that amount. The Assessment Committee assessed the house at £64, which would increase the rates and taxes and licensed duty to £129. Before the tenant could realise anything that sum would have to be paid. This would be a ridiculous sum for a house of that description.
A long legal argument arose as to whether questions as to trade done at the house could be asked by Mr. Ryde. Mr. Boyle objected.
The Chairman said the Bench were of the opinion that the question could not be allowed.
Mr. J. F. Field, F.S.I., 54, Borough High-street, London, S.E., put the gross of the house in question at £48, which was the largest rent a tenant, in his opinion, would pay, and the rateable value at £39.
Mr. A. Rumball, F.S.I. (Rumball and Edwards, St. Albans), said that he had had 35 years’ experience of his profession, and was intimatelv acquainted with St. Albans, having known it all his life. He knew the Hare and Hounds, and estimated the gross value at £48, and £33 10s. as the rateable value.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ryde:	He had
arrived at that estimate by means of information in his possession as to other houses. If the Hare and Hounds were an unlicensed house he should estimate its value at £36, and allow 30 per cent, for the license.
Mr. William Hurst Flint, F.S.I. (Humbert and Flint, Watford and London), said he was surveyor to various authorities around London, and had had 28 years’ experience. After visiting the Hare and Hounds on two occasions, he fixed the gross value at £48, and rateable at £38 10s.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ryde : He regarded the house in question as being in a back street. He agreed that the percentage of free houses was getting smaller every year, and that brewers were paying higher prices for houses now. The fact that a brewer gave a fictitious price would not affect its valuation, because the brewer might have a special reason for so doing.
Mr. Stafford, F.S.I. (Stafford and Rogers. Bedford), the next witness, gave the estimated gross at £49, and the rateable at £39. He arrived at these figures from experience of similar houses.
This concluded the case for the appellant.
Mr. Ryde, addressing the Court for the respondents, said it was clear from the evidence given by the appellant i that the assessment was far too low. The old rating was merely a rating fixed by overseers, lay persons, without anything to guide them. It was passible they might have taken the rent paid by the tied tenant. He should ask to be heard at some length on the case, because the Bench had before them eight appeals, and so far as the general principle was concerned, the remarks he should make would annly. He submitted that if the cases were permitted to pass in a hurry, the Court would have to face not eight cases, but probably eighty, should the matter at issue be dismissed hurriedly. As to his friend’s point about the amount one tenant could earn as against another, he (Mr. Ryde) submitted that the fact that an ordinary tenant could do a very good trade in these particular premises, which he could do anywhere else, must be taken into account.
Mr. Robert John Low, F.S.I. (Harding, Low and Harding, St. Albans), said he was adviser to 11 assessment committees. He was in-
Hafes anîr Eating.
APPEALS AT FALMOUTH.
A large number of assessment appeals came before the East Kerrier Petty Sessions, held at Penryn, on December 27 and 28, against the recent revaluation in the Falmouth Union carried out by Messrs. Body, of Plymouth. One of these, the first-named in the subjoined list, was reported in the last issue of the Estates Gazette.
The firms appealing, together with their assessments, were as follows : —
Inc. to
G88’׳Net £ £
846 392 1898 979 272 166
897 482 241 172 665 500 275 200 240 180
Old Ass'sme’t Gross Net. £ £
Anderton and Sons, West of England
Bone and Manure Works	..	..	315	252
Falmouth Gas Company	..	..	665	435
Penryn Gas Company........... 100	75
John Stephens and Sons, Ashfield
Rope Works...................216	197
W. and E. C. Came, Brewery .	120	93
Falmouth Hotel................. 315	229
Pendennis Hotel................ 250	200
Royal Hotel ....................190	'	14
Mr. H. E. Duke (instructed by Messrs. Mar-rack, Nalder and Hockin) appeared on behalf of the appellants, and Mr. J. H. Genn appeared formally for the Assessment Committee.
The expert witnesses called on behalf of the appellants were: Mr. G. Humphreys-Davies, F.S.I., and Mr. H. H. Fuller, F.S.I., of London ; and Mr. Corbett Woodall and Mr. J. W. Buckley, engineers.
Mr. Genn did not cross-examine any of the appellants’ witnesses, and did not call any witnesses for the respondents.
In the absence of any evidence from the respondents, the Bench practically adopted the appellants’ case and reduced the assessments as follows: —
Gross Net.
Anderton and Sons........ 450	200
Falmouth Gas Company	..	..	931	520
Penryn Gas Company	..	.,	134	91
J. Stephens and Sons..... 416	208
W. and E. C. Came.........142	102
Falmouth Hotel ............. 402	302
Pendennis Hotel .............192	144
Royal Hotel.............. 200	150
Costs were granted against the respondents in all cases.
LICENSED HOUSES AT ST. ALBANS.
At the Herts Quarter Sessions, on January 2, several important assessment appeals were heard. The first case heard by the Court was that of Mrs. Helen May, the occupier of the Hare and Hounds public-house, in the parish of St. Peter’s, St. Albans, against the assessment of her house by the Assessment Committee of the St. Albans Union.
Mr. Boyle, Q.C., with Mr. Grubbe, were for the annellant ; and Mr. Ryde, with Mr. R. D. Muir, represented the respondents, the St. Albans Union Assessment Committee.
Mr. Boyle, Q.C., in opening the case for the appellant, said he believed that all the notices of appeal and objection connected with the case were admitted ; and although various points as to the making of the rate had been raised, all these he was instructed to waive, so that they might, on that occasion, try only the point as to what was the fair gross and the fair rateable value of the Hare and Hounds, in the occupation of Mrs. Helen May. This was an appeal against a rate which was made on October 10, 1898. Prior to that rate, the house was assessed at £20 gross and £16 rateable value. It was an open secret that the appellant was rather startled to find that that £20 had been increased to £80 gross, and that the rateable value had been increased from £16 to £64 per annum. It seemed that the Assessment Committee met in July, 1897, and from the minutes it appeared that they passed a resolution that it would be desirable that property of a special character, such as licensed houses, should be re-valued. His client objected rather to that. It might be, and in fact was, that some of those licensed houses were under-assessed, but uniformity was the chief thing at which the Rating Acts had always aimed, and to assess any special property in any special district seemed unfair. It might be that the houses and shops and other business premises in the Union of St. Albans were over-assessed, and it did not seem right that any special class of property should be picked out for the particular attentions of a valuer appointed by the Assessment Committee. The Hare and Hounds was an •old-fashioned house and was fully licensed, being situated in Sopwelldane. It fronted a somewhat unfrequented thoroughfare—the Old London-road—and was a house of no pretensions whatever. When the New London-road was opened up, this particular house •lost its charm. The assessment he (the learned counsel) had mentioned compared very unfavourably with many houses in the town of excellent position, such as the Cross Keys and the King’s Head, assessed at £70 gross, especially when they thought of the present little house at the far end of the town, with fields and market gardens near it. The whole question to be decided was the one set out in 6 and