93 THE ESTATES GAZETTE January 21, 1899. Mr. Justice Channell, in delivering judgment, said that he had so recently, in “ Bradford-om Avon Assessment Committee v. White” (L.R., 1898, Q.B., 630), expressed his opinion as to the principle involved in the case, that it was unnecessary for him to repeat his views on the subject. He agreed that the answers to all the questions must be in the affirmative. As to the second question, it would not be doubted that the appellant, coming to give evidence that the premises had not altered in value, might be asked in cross-examination what he had given by way of premium for the premises. As to the third question, he thought that the amount of the premium might be taken into account as showing that there had been a rise in the selling value of the premises, from which it might be argued that there was some rise in the rent at which the premises might be expected to let from year to year. He therefore thought that, although the evidence was not entitled to much weight, it could not be entirely excluded. THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT. APPEAL AGAINST AN AWARD. At the Doncaster County Court, on the 12th inst., before his Honour Judge Masterman, D.C.L., an appeal was made against the award of Mr. E. J. Lancaster, of Barnsley, made between Mr. A. J. Brown as the outgoing tenant of the Bentley House Farm, and Sir W. H. C. Cooke, of Wheatley Hall, as landlord. Mr. Bairstow (instructed by Mr. Andrews), was for the appellant, and Mr. Walter Beverley (instructed by Mr. Baddiley) for the respondent. The grounds of the appeal were that the award was invalid on account of the Umpire having failed to comply with the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, which states that the award shall not award a sum generally for compensation, but shall specify the sum awarded, in respect of each improvement, and give detailed particulars; and further that the compensation had been awarded to the landlord for breaches of agreement, in respect of which the landlord was not entitled to compensation. In the alternative the appellants applied to the Court to remit the award of Mr.. Andrew Merryweather back to him as Umpire with such instructions and directions concerning the same as should be necessary to give full and complete eifect to the several rulings of the Court as contained in the judgments of the Court, and he appealed against the award of the said Andrew Merryweather. Mr. Bairstow contended that Mr. Lancaster’s award was bad, as׳ it did not comply with the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and therefore he asked the Judge to remit the first award of Mr. Merryweather back to him. It appeared that after Mr. Merryweather’s award had been declared invalid the parties had appointed an arbitrator, but were unable to agree upon an Umpire, and an application was made to the Judge in August last to appoint an Umpire, and his Honour refused, to make the appointment on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. His Honour: I was asked on the appeal to decide that the award was invalid, and I decided that it was invalid. Mr. Bairstow: If the Umpire has gone the whole proceedings have gone. The Judge: You say that after my decision the same Umpire, Mr. Merryweather, ought to have issued another award? Mr. Bairstow: I say that he still had power. All he had got to do was to amend his award. The ministerial act to carry into eifect your Honour’s decision was that the award should be amended. As it was it was invalid. Mr. Beverley contended that the Court had no jurisdiction, and that the first award having been declared invalid, the second reference was not under the Agricultural Holdings Act, but an ordinary common law reference, and therefore his Honour had no jurisdiction to upset Mr. Lancaster’s award. He quoted the case of “ Shrubb v. Lee ” in support of his contention. The first award was made in April, 1898, and the amount was £669 6s. Id. ; the second award was for £637 13s. 10d., and that sum his client had always been ready and willing to pay. His Honour reserved his decision. The Queen’s Hotel, Upper Norwood, which was to have been offered to auction by Messrs. Green and Son, on January 27, as announced in our advertisement columns, has now been withdrawn from sale. SPECIAL NOTICE. We regret that owing to circumstances we are unable to publish the index to Yol. LII. with this issue. It will, however, form a supplement to the Estates Gazette of January 28. was given as to the precise amount of the premium paid in 1895 or any time previously, but it was admitted by one of the appellant’s witnesses that assuming the valuation appearing in the quinquennial list made in 1895 to have been calculated according to the method usually adopted in the parish of Camberwell, the valuation must have been based on a supposed payment of a premium of about £6,400. The assessment committee, however, at the time of the revision of the quinqennial valuation list did not in fact know the precise amount of the premium which had been paid by the then occupier. Evidence was given by a valuer on behalf of the respondents that there had been since the date of the quinqennial valuation list a general appreciation of licensed premises throughout the metropolis, and that, in his opinion, the annual value of the public-house had between April and October, 1896, increased by about £100. It was, however, admitted that there had been no structural alteration to the public-house. No evidence was given of any circumstances specially affecting the annual value of the public-house. The respondents contended that they were not bound to give any such evidence, but that it was enough for them to show that the value had in fact increased. It was further admitted that no public-houses had been placed in the provisional or supnlemental lists except such as had in fact been sold since the date of the quinqennial valuation thereof, although public-houses in the neighbourhood had generally increased in value. For the assessment committee it was contended that it was not necessary that there should be a structural alteration of the rated premises in order to warrant their insertion in a supplemental list; that the facts mentioned as to the premiums given for the lease of the public-house were evidence of an alteration in matters stated in the quinquennial valuation list during the 12 months preceding the making of the supplemental list under section 46 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 ; and that the payment of such premium showed that there had been such a material and unforeseen alteration of the value of the public-house as to warrant its insertion in the supplemental list. For the ; p-pellant it was contended that the facts above mentioned were not in law any evidence of an alteration within the meaning of section 46 (1), of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, and that all evidence as to the amount of premium paid by the appellant for the public-house in October, 1896, was irrelevant and inadmissible, and that the amount of such premium in the absence of any evidence, save as hereinbefore stated as to the premiums previously paid, would not afford any indication of an alteration in the value of the public-house. The Court of Quarter Sessions gave judgment in the following terms: —“ We find that although there had been no structural alteration in the appellant’s premises between 1896 and April, 1897, there has been alteration in value in these premises by way of increase in that period. The appellant has failed to establish, in our opinion, that the alteration in gross and rateable values made by the assessment committee in the supplemental list is in excess of the actual increased value within the statutory period, and we confirm the alteration of the list made by the Assessment Committee with costs.” The values in the supplemental list were, therefore, ordered to remain as assessed by the Assessment Committee. The questions for the opinion of the Court were : —(1) Whether the alteration in value which took place during the 12 months preceding the making of the supplemental valuation list was in law an alteration within the meaning of section 46 (1) of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 ; (2) whether the amount of premium paid by the appellant in October, 1896, for the premises ought to have been received in evidence ; (3) whether the amount of such premium was in law any evidence of an alteration within the meaning of that sub-section. If the Court should answer all the foregoing questions in the affirmative the order of sessions was to be affirmed, and if the Court should answer all or any of the questions in the negative the order of sessions was to be quashed and the gross and rateable values of the public-house were to be reduced to £485 and £405 respectively, or the premises were to be struck out of the valuation list, or the Court was to make such other or further order as to the Court should seem fit. Mr. Littler, Q.C., and Mr. Page, Q.C., appeared for the appellant; and Mr. Macmorran, Q.C., and Mr. Ryde for the respondents. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Quarter Sessions. Mr. Justice Lawrance, after stating the facts, said that three questions had been left to the Court. As to the first there was authority binding on the Court, with which he entirely agreed, showing that the answer must be in the affirmative. As to the second question also, the answer, he would not doubt, must be in the affirmative. As to the third question, the answer was that the amount of the premium was, if properly used, some evidence of an alteration in value. The decision of the Quarter Sessions must accordingly be affirmed. Mr. W. A. Mason, F.S.I. (Messrs. Hedley and Mason, Birmingham and London), with a special knowledge of rating matters and a large Westgate Brewery Gross. £1,379 . Rateable. ,.. £927 St. Edmund’s Brewery 1,198 ... 865 Three Maltings 490 ... 411 Mineral Water Factory 115 ... 77 Braddick’s Malting 120 ... 100 Totals £3,302 £2,380 Mr. William G. Cooke, A.R.I.B.A., of 35, Walbrook, London, E.C., with a large experience in rating matters, said he had valued many breweries in all parts of the country, and also the special properties in this district for the Assessment Committee, and every case he had dealt with had been settled with the exception of this, which was the only appeal. In some instances he had doubled the old assessments. His valuation was as under: — Bate-Gross. able. Westgate Brewery ..............£1,299 ... £866 St. Edmund's Brewery .......... 1,158 ... 845 Three Maltings ................ 462 ... 385 Mineral Water Faotory ........... 106 ... 71 Totals .............£3,025 £2,167 Mr. George Westall, brewery valuer, of London, of 30 years’ experience, gave his valuations as—gross, £3,153 ; rateable, £2,269. Counsel on each side having addressed the Court, the Recorder said the appeals must be allowed, and the assessments would be: description of the land. The adjoining land, rated as agricultural land, was more park-like than Dr. Lyons’s. Cross-examined: He had seen many farmhouses superior to Dr. Lyons’s. He would describe the residence as a “gentleman’s residence standing in its own grounds.” The Vice-Chairman said he did not think they need call upon Dr. Cooper for an answer in this case. The majority of the Justices who had sat throughout the hearing, and those, of course, were the only Justices entitled to decide the matter, were of opinion that the appeal must be dismissed with costs, so far as they related to the first ground of the appeal. Westgate Brewery Gross. £745 Rateable. ... £497 St. Edmund’s Brewery 736 ... 514 Three Maltings 255 ... 2C4 Braddick’* Malting 50 ... 40 Mineral Water Factory 48 ... 32 Totals £1,834 £1,287 The Assessment Committee to pay the appellants’ costs. THE “ADAM AND EVE,” PECKHAM. IMPOBTANT POINT. In the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, on Wednesday, before Mr. Justice Lawrance and Mr. Justice Channell, the case, stated by the London Quarter Sessions upon an appeal against the supplemental valua tion list for the parish of Camberwell for the year 1897, in regard to the Adam and Eve public-house came on for argument. The facts, which were fully reported in the Estates Gazette of March 5 and 12, and May 21, 1898, were as follows :—The appellant is, and has been since October, 1896 the occupier of a public-house known as the Adam and Eve, High-street, Peckham, in the parish of Camberwell. At the quinquennial valuation in 1895 the gross and rateable values of the public-house were fixed at £485 and £405 respectively, which values were duly entered in the quinquennial valuation list made in that year. By a provisional list made in December 1896, the assessment of the public-house was in creased by the overseers to £600 gross and £500 rateable value, and objection was made by the appellant to the increased assessment on the ground that the value of the public-house had not in the course of the year in which the pro visional list was made increased in value by the addition thereto or erection thereon of any build ing, nor had there been any increase of value from any cause within the meaning of section 47 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. At the hearing of the objection the assessment com mittee endeavoured to get from the appellant information as to the premium given by him for the lease of the public-house. This informa tion the appellant refused to give, and the assessment committee, after hearing the objection and viewing the public-house, reduced the assessment to £575 gross and £485 rateable value. In the supplemental valuation list made in 1897 the appellant’s public-house was again valued and assessed at £575 gross and £485 rateable value. The appellant objected to the valuation, and, on appearing before the assessment committee, contended, inter alia, (1) that the public-house had been improperly included in the provisional list and therefore ought not to be included in the supplemental list, and that it was therein too highly rated ; (2) that no alteration in the value of the public-house had taken place during the 12 months preceding the making of the supplemental list within the meaning of section 46 (1) of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 ; (3) that the overseers were not in law entitled to consider, or in any way to act on, any sum of money paid or supposed to have been paid for the public-house either since the date of the valuation list in force at the time of the making of the provisional list or at all. The assessment committee, after hearing the objections, refused to give the appellant any relief, and he appealed to the London Quarter Sessions. At the hearing of the appeal counsel for the appellant objected to any questions being asked or any evidence being given about the premium paid by the appellant. The Court, however, overruled the objection, and the fact was elicited by the respondents on cross-examination, that the appellant had paid £16,400 as the consideration for his lease. No evidence PROPERTIES AT BURY ST. EDMUND’S. An appeal was heard before the Recorder, at the Bury St. Edmund’s Quarter Sessions, on Friday, January 13, in respect of the two breweries, mattings, and mineral water factory owned by Messrs. Green, Ring and Co., Limited. Mr. Edward Boyle, Q.C., and Mr. Evers-leigh appeared for the company, and Mr. E. J. Castle, Q.C., Mr. Poyser and Mr. Walpole for the respondents. Mr. Boyle, Q.C., in opening the case for the appellants, stated that there were really two distinct breweries, but they were owned and occupied by the same firm, and he contended that the increase in the assessment to £2,814 was so excessive that his clients were compelled to appeal for justice. These premises were erected 100 years ago, and the Westgate Brewery and other premises were turned into a company in 1887. The rating value of the remainder of the brewery premises was as follows ; —st, Edmund’s Brewery, old assessment, gross £481, rateable £401, new assessment, gross £1,044, rateable £765 (assessment made in 1888), Three maltings, old assessment, gross £270, rateable £225, new assessment, gross £400, rateable £334; Braddick’s mailings, old assessment, gross £80, rateable £64; new assessment, the same, and here, counsel said, a reduction was asked for, № grounds which would be stated later on; mineral water premises, old assessment, gross £56, rateable £46 ; new assessment, gross £90, rateable £60. Mr. Herbert H. Fuller, F.S.I., 15, Serjeant’s-inn, Fleet-street, London, E.C., a Board of Trade surveyor, with very large experience in valuing breweries, maltings and manufactories in all parts of the country, stated that there were many drawbacks to the breweries in question, one of which was somewhat old-fashioned arrangements, whilst they were both situate a, long distance from the station. His valuations were as under: Rate- able. , ¿497 . 514 . 2G4 . 32 . 40 Gross. Westgate Brewery .................£745 . St. Edmund’s Brewery ............. /35 Three Maltings ..................... ^ Mineral Water Manufactory ......... 48 Braddick’s Malting ................ 50 Rateable. .. £503 .. 510 .. 201 .. 42 .. 35 Totals...............£1-834 £1,287 Mr. J. H. Townsend Green, surveyor (Weatherall and Green, 22, Chancery-lane London, E.O.), said he had a large experience in valuing breweries and licensed properties, and had been over all the properties׳ in detail and made separate valuations. These were as under: — Gross. Westgate Brewery .................£754 St. Edmund’s Brewery............. 725 Three Maltings ................... 251 Braddick’s Malting ................ 52 Mineral1 Water Premises .......... 53 Totals............. £1.835 £1,291 Mr. Charles Rix Spelman, F.S.I. (Messrs. Spelman, of Norwich and Yarmouth), said he liad had great experience in valuing properties, such as breweries, for many years. He had been over the hereditaments which formed the subject of this׳ appeal. For the Westgate Brewery he put the• gross value at £784, and the net value at £523; St. Edmund’s Brewer} (including the three maltings), £781 gross, and £542 net. The value of the three maltings he estimated at £239 gross, and £184 net. Braddick’s malting at £49 10s. gross, and £39 10s. net; and the mineral water manufactory at £62 5s. gross, and £41 10s. net, making a total of £1,905 15s. gross, and £1,330 net, Mr. George Blencowe (Messrs. Biddell and Blencowe, auctioneers, valuers, etc., Laven-ham and Bury St. Edmund’s) said he had had great experience in valuing properties in the eastern counties, and knew the value of property in and around Bury St. Edmund’s. He had valued the property belonging to the brewery, and valued the Westgate Brewery at £550 ; St. Edmund’s Brewery, £800 altogether (beinu brewery £550, maltings £200, and stables £50); the three maltings he valued at £400; Brad dic-k’s malting at £80; mineral water manufactory £40. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Castle Q.O., stated that the Assessment Committee had been advised as to the value by an expert, and the evidence which he would call would prove the correctness of his figures.