January 28, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE*
146
James F. Field, F.S.I. (Messrs. Field and Sons, 54, Borough High-street, S.E., and Chancery-lane, W.C.) ; and Mr. G. E. Knight (Messrs. Dowsett, Knight and Co., 3, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, W.C.), handed in valuations ranging from £576 to £649.
The jury awarded the claimants £817 12s., which sum was in excess of the highest valuation submitted on their behalf.
ACQUISITION OF COMMON LAND BT RAILWAY COMPANY.
The long pending arbitration between the Barry Railway Company and the Commoners of the Cadoxton Lower Common was held at the Angel Hotel, Cardiff, on the 19th inst., before Mr. Ralph Clutton, F.S.I. (Messrs. Glutton, 9, Whitehall), the Referee appointed by Mr. D. T. Alexander (Messrs. Stephenson and Alexander) acting on behalf of the Commoners, and Mr. R. Forrest, F.S.I. (Windsor Estate, Cardiff), acting on behalf of the railway company.
The Commoners own certain rights over pasture land, known as the Lower Common, in the parish of Cadoxton juxta, Barry, which rights the Barry Dock and Railway Company were desirous of acquiring under their powers for the purpose of their new dock.
Mr. Trevor Lewis (instructed by Messrs George, David and Evans and Messrs. Spencer, Corbett and Evans) was for the Commoners, and Mr. Rhys Williams (instructed by Messrs. Downing and Handcock) was for the railway company.
Evidence was given by Mr. Alexander, Mr.
E.	W. M. Corbett, and Mr. Wm. Thomas, of Sully, on behalf of the Commoners; and by Mr. R. Forrest and Mr. H. Kay (agent to the Hon. Ivor C. Guest), on behalf of the railway company.
The Arbitrator will give his decision in due course.
&atts bg tbt Map.
After a lapse of 13 years, Lord Delamere, as lord of the manor, has lately revived the Court Leet of Over, Cheshire, the charter for which is probably the oldest in the county.
* " * *
Apropos of the recent sudden death of Lady Portman, it may be of interest to our readers to learn that the colossal fortune of the Port-mans came about in a curious way. The wife of the first Lord Portman, being an invalid, was ordered asses’ milk, and to procure this a farm near London was purchased for the sum of £2,000. It is on the fields thus obtained that Portman-square, Bryanstone-square, etc., are now built. The revenue of Lord Portman from his London property alone is reckoned at £175,000.
* * *
An interesting presentation has just been n.ade to the chairman of the Shoreham Urban District Council, this being in the form of a seal dated 1326; also a charter and memorial and seal about 400 years old, presented by King James I., conferring upon the town the privilege of holding a market once a year; another seal and an ancient mace. All these were originally in the hands of the High Constable, but, since the abolition of that office, they had passed into the custody of the Duke of Norfolk, who has restored them to the local authority. At the date of the old seal, Shore-ham was a seaport of far more comparative importance than at the present day.
* * *
The premises and plant of the Simpson Lever Chain and Cycle Company, Limited, an ill-fated concern, of which we have heard so much, is to be submitted to auction by instructions of the Receiver, for debenture holders, on the premises at Draycott, near Nottingham, on February 13, by Messrs. Morris and Place. The property will be offered complete, as a going concern. It is generally thought that the depression in the cycle trade has now reached its lowest depth, and that a very large number of substantial orders will be received by the best manufacturers early in the coming spring. With this in view the offer of the well-designed factory at Draycott comes most appropriately and affords an excellent opportunity to a cycle manufacturing or light engineering firm looking out for premises that will provide for necessary extension.
* * *
When the new scheme of enlargement is completed, Yictoria station will be one of the longest stations in London, and will, architecturally, be one of the handsomest. The additional accommodation is to be obtained mainly by lengthening the station. It is impossible to widen it to any extent, owing to the terminus of the L.C. and D.R. on the left, and the Buckingham Palace-road on the right. What widening there is will be made immediately beyond the Grosvenor Hotel, and will he
be fairly met by a payment of £500. This brought his total to £3,318, which was his estimate of the damage that the claimant would sustain. As to the suggestion that the remainder of the estate had been damaged to the extent of 15 per cent., he did not think the property had been in any way injured by severance. Witness had prepared a valuation on the basis of Mr. Reeve’s plan, showing how the estate could be developed after the construction of the road. Mr. Reeve proposed to widen the road leading from Marine-terrace on to the property, and a piece of land would be required to make this frontage. Mr. Reeve had valued 500ft. at £12 12s. per foot, and 205ft. at £10	10s. per foot. Witness
considered that the land facing the sea was more valuable than that in Hartsdown-road, inasmuch as it afforded an uninterrupted view of the sea. He adopted Mr. Reeve’s valuation of 205ft, at £10 10s. per foot; that amounted to £2,150. Then the company were charged with 500ft. of frontage on the Hartsdown-road. There were two ends which could be covered, and the most that could be got out of it was 450ft. for building. The land on this road was certainly not so valuable. He valued the 450ft. at £8 per foot, £3,600. His total, therefore, was £5,750, as against Mr. Reeve’s valuation of £7,800. Witness had also valued the remainder of the estate upon the basis of Mr. Reeve’s scheme modified after the piece required by the company had been taken off. There were 160ft., but only 140ft. available for building. This he had valued at £9 9s. per foot, £1,260; 210ft. at £7 10s. per foot, £1,575; tennis courts, £200, £3,035. This amount deducted from £5,750, the amount of his other valuation left £2,715.
Mr. H. M. Cobb, F.S.I., Higham, Kent, and 53, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, had valued the land taken at £3,000 ׳per acre, which should cover any damage to the remainder of the property. That would amount to £2,550. As regards plot 2, £500 per :acre was in his opinion a liberal price, £453. This, in addition to the usual allowance of 10 per cent-., amounted to £3,303. Witness adopted Mr. Walker’s plan of development of the remainder of the property. He -did not consider that any damage was caused by severance.
Mr. Alfred Savill, F.S.I., 39, New Broad-street, E.C., adopted Mr. Walker’s figures.
The award was reserved.
LAND AT PORTSMOUTH.
At the Surveyors’ Institution (temporary premises, Savoy-street, W.C.), on Tuesday, Sir J. Whittaker Ellis, Bart., F.S.I. (Messrs. Fare-brother, Ellis and Co., 29, Fleet-street, E.C.), sitting as sole Arbitrator, resumed the hearing of the case, “Ward v. Corporation of Portsmouth,” the hearing of which was commenced at the Beach Mansions Hotel, Southsea. [Estates Gazette, December 17, 1898.] This was a claim for compensation in respect of an alleged breach of contract by the Corporation in regard to the Eastney burial ground.
Mr. Loehnis (instructed by Messrs. Cousins and Burbidge) again appeared for the claimant, and Mr. Manisty (instructed by Mr. Hellard, the Town Clerk) for the Portsmouth Corporation.
The case was adjourned on the last occasion in consequence of the illness of Mr. Cogswell, surveyor, who gave a valuation on an alternative basis showing how, in his opinion, the land might have been developed and the loss sustained by the claimant in consequence of the action of the municipal authority.
The award was reserved.
THE VALUE OF A GROUND RENT.
At the London Sheriff’s Court, Red _bion-square, W.C., on Tuesday, before Mr. Under-Sheriff Burehell and a special jury, the case of “ Spence Trustees v. “ Surrey Commercial Dock Company came on for hearing. The jury were called upon to decide the value of a leasehold ground rent of £28 7s., secured on certain property in Lower-road, Rotherhithe. The lease was for a term of 99 years from 1852, leaving 52 years unexpired.
Mr. Gregson Ellis was counsel for the claimants, and Mr. Lewin for the Dock Com-pany.
Mr. James Green, F.S.I. (Messrs. Weatherall and Green, 22, Chancery-lane, W.C.), submitted a valuation amounting to £815. He had capitalised the ground rent on the 3 per cent, table, as the property had become part of the dock company’s undertaking, and really consisted of a first charge on their assets. Mr. Green’s evidence was supported by Mr. Alex. R. Stenning, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I., 121, Cannon-street, E. C.
On behalf of the respondents, Mr. George Ernest Nye (Messrs. Bradshaw Brown and Co., Billiter-square-buildings, E.C., valuers to the dock company), who stated that his firm had settled 55 claims without dispute; Mr.
Mr. Radcliffe said he did not contend that the sewer had no right to lateral support ; he said it ■was absolutely immaterial.
Mr. Spearman observed that no harm or damage had been done to the occupier of the grass land or to the dirty little bit at the end of Kent House-road. The Board had offered to consent to building over the sewer, and it was the only authority (the sewer belonging to them) which could object.
Mr. Radcliffe : Knowing we legally cannot build over it.
Mr. Spearman argued that Mr. Radcliffe said this because the Board could only legally consent- when the buildings were to be erected ; there could be no injury until they declined to consent. He cited the “ Queen v. Poulter,” where it was held that until there was injury compensation could nob be recovered, and also “Lord Gerard v. L. and N.W.R.,” with reference to letting down the land. He relied or. the submission that any depreciation said to be caused to this estate was purely fictitious, and that the damage could not arise until the footpath was diverted and building intended. He contended that the law as to claiming compensation once and for all had been altered ir. the Darnley case by the House of Lords, and said the claimants could not claim for prospective damage until the damage had occurred— that was, until the gentlemen had laid out then property and were proposing to build upon it, and the road had been diverted and consenl to build over the sewer had been refused, nr. action for damages had arisen. Mr. Spearman produced a map made by John Rock, land surveyor, in 1745, showing a road leading from Penge-common to Sydenham-green, and a lane connecting those roads with this property, and quoted the award of the Commissioners to prove the little bit of road was a public road, and therefore the alleged damage to it could not be sustained.
The Arbitrator : It is a question where thai lane is ; the roads were 30ft. up to the junction of this lane, but it does not follow that Ken: House-road was a public road.
Mr. Spearman said that was a fair inference, and produced another plan signed by Sir J. Bazalgette showing the condition of the foot path in 1855. The Board had offered £45C in compensation to the claimants, being £10C for ten manholes and £350 in respect of actual and admitted damage or disturbance of the surface.
The case was adjourned.
Mr. Daniel Wa-tney, P.P.S.I., of 33, Poultry, E.C., is retained as expert for the Board of Works.
BUILDING LAND AT MARGATE.
Compensation Cases.
ALLEGED DAMAGE BY CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER.
At the Surveyors’ Institution, Savoy-street, W.C., on Thursday, last week, Mr. Alex R. Stenning, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I., 121, Cannon-street, E.C., sat as Arbitrator in the case of “ Cator v. Lewisham Board of Works,” which ־was a claim for compensation by the trustees of the Cator Estate, Beckenham, in respect of damage done to their -property by reason of the construction of a sewer by the Lewisham Local Board.
Mr. F. R. T. Radcliffe (instructed by Messrs. Radcliffe, Cator and Hood, 20, Craven-street, (fharing-eross, W.C.) was counsel for the claimants, whilst Mr. Spearman (instructed by Messrs. W. W. Young and Son, 24, Ely-place, E.C.) appeared for the Lewisham Board of Works.
The proceedings were taken under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855. The sewer m question was constructed at the lower end of Kent House-road, Beckenham, and the trustees of the estate claimed £303 cost of repairing the road, and gravel from the estate pit ; £75 damage in respect of the cutting up of other roads by cartage, etc., and an amount in respect of prospective damage to the remainder of the property. In the course of the hearing several legal points were discussed. A note was taken by the Arbitrator of an objection by the learned counsel for the Lewisham Board of Works to evidence given in respect of consequential injury to the estate.
Mr. T. H. Burroughes, F.S.I., 30, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, W.C., said he had been for over 14 years surveyor to the Cator Estate. When a new station had been built at Lower Sydenham, and at New Beckenham, and a road had been constructed connecting New Beckenham with Kent- House-road, there would be every prospect of building operations being carried on there. Witness had not gone into details as to the prospective damage to the property, but was of opinion that if the proposed road had to follow the line of the sewer it would be disastrous to its future as a building estate.
Mr. Wm. Read, of the Cator Estate office, gave evidence as to the :cost of reinstating the Kent House-road. He was examined as to various items contained in the contract, and said the road was left in a very muddy and uneven condition after the work was completed.
Mr. Leslie R. Vigers, F.S.I. (of Messrs. Vigers and Co., 4, Frederick’s-place, Old Jewry, E.C.), gave the following valuation: —
At the Surveyors’ Institution, Savoy-street, W.C., on Wednesday, Mr. W. H. Elwell,
F.	S.I., surveyor to the Great Northern Railway Company, sitting as Umpire, resumed the hearing of “ Hatfeild v. L.C. and D. Railway Company,” which was a claim by Mr. Charles Taddy Hatfeild, of Hartsdown, Margate, for compensation in respect of the acquisition of two pieces of land near the Margate railway station by the railway company for the purposes of an approach road (Estates Gazette, December 24).
Mr. Edward Boyle, Q.C., and Mr. W. C. Ryde (instructed by Mr. Toke H. Boys, Margate) were counsel for the claimant, and Mr.
G.	M. Freeman, Q.C., and Mr. Horrell (instructed by Mr. White, of the Solicitor’s Department, Victoria station, S.W.) for the railway company.
Mr. Freeman, in opening the case for the railway company, submitted that the claimant would have experienced considerable difficulty in dealing with the land in question independently of the interference of the railway company. Furthermore, it could not be regarded as building land, because, if it was immediately developed as such, it would be a considerable detriment to the residential character of the claimant’s property. The claim for consequential damage to the remainder of the estate was absolutely without ■foundation, and he asked the Umpire not to allow one farthing in respect of it. As to the suggestion that the estate would be further damaged by reason of the utilization of a piece of land at the end of the approach road for the purposes of a coal-yard, it- was ridiculous to anticipate that anything of the sort would be done.
Mr. Samuel Walker, F.S.I. (Messrs. S. Walker and Son, 22, Moorgate-street, E.C.), was the first witness examined. He said he had valued plot one, 3r. 16p., at £2,500 per acre, which would work out at £2,125 ; plot two, 3r. 20p., was, in ■his opinion, worth £500 per acre, £437; total, £2,562. He had added , the usual 10 per cent., £256, making a total of £2,818. There would be a surplus of la. 3r. 20p., and witness having examined the plans submitted by the engineer to the railway company, showing an entrance road 40ft, wide found that the area would be somewhat curtailed and some frontage lost. There was certainly some damage, which he thought would
18 plots, 20ft. frontages, at £8 per plot, ground rent ¿54; 10 plots, 50ft. frontages, at £7 10s. per plot, £75 ground rent: total £129, damage one half...........................£64 10 0
At 4 per cent., years’ purchase........ 25
1,612 0 0
Six manholes at £10 each............... 60 0 0
Total ..	..£1,672 0 0
Mr. Vigers said he considered the presence of the sewer damaged the present value of the property as well as the prospective value ; anyone purchasing the land would naturally take into consideration how he would deal with it in the future and would give a less sufa owing to the sewer being in that particular position, running in an oblique manner. The prospects of developing the land were very good ; the intended railway station would be an advantage, whilst a three-road bridge was t-o take the place of the present level crossing at Beckenham, and would be a great advantage to ■the neighbourhood generally. Mr. Vigers considered the land must “ creep ” after the making of the sewer, and the damage would show on the surface sometime or another ; he produced plans showing how the land could have been utilised for building, and gave the prices at which he had sold land in the vicinity.
Mr. Frederick Payne, F.S.I. (of Messrs. Baxter, Payne and Lepper, 10, Market-square, Bromley, and Beckenham, Kent, and King William-street, City), said he estimated the damage done to various plots by the sewer at Is. per foot, and capitalised the ground rent so obtained at 4 per cent., 25 years’ purchase, his total being £1,645. When the proposed roads were constructed it- would not make much difference if the present pathway across the meadows was diverted, and he had no doubt the Lewisham Board of Works would agree to the diversion as a matter of public convenience. Anyone laying out the estate would give less for the land owing to the sewer running in an oblique direction, and the present saleable value of the property was diminished in consequence. The very fact of the sewer going through the land damaged it.
FOK THE BOARD OF WORKS.
Mr. Spearman submitted that the claimants were not entitled to any damages for anything except actual and existing injury. He quoted the case of the “Metropolitan Board of Works v. Metropolitan Railway.”