188
February 4, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE,
very large pecuniary results, and it was difficult to measure the full extent of the injury that would be effected by the dislocation of the whole trade by its removal. Messrs. Francis and Co., Limited, were practically a family company, but notwithstanding this fact, there could be no question as to the bona fide character of the accounts they would have to deal with, these having been duly audited each half-year for the last 20 years. About 90 years ago—in 1810— the business of Messrs. Francis and Co., Limited, was first established at Nine Elms. It was carried on there for a considerable period, during which the cement obtained a special value, and became widely known as Francis’s Nine Elms Cement. Ultimately the premises at Nine Elms were acquired by the South Western Railway Company, and the claimants took over the property in respect of which the claim was made. But at Yauxhall there was, of course, no area which could be used for the manufacture of cement, and some 60 or 70 acres were taken at Cliffe, near Rochester. The retail, or the most profitable part of the business, was carried on at the wharf in Yauxhall, which was found to be specially convenient for the purpose. There they had a river frontage of no less than 122ft., and also a frontage of 200ft. to the Yauxhall Bridge approach road. The total area was 20,000ft., and the property was held under three leases, granted some 30 years ago, at a total rental of £515 per annum. The leases would expire in 1948, so that the premises would stand at the rental mentioned for the next 50 years. The first question to be decided was׳ the amount of compensation which the claimants ought to have in respect of the value of the premises which they occupied. If they were worth more per annum than the rental which they paid, there was, of course, a profit rental which would have to be considered on the recognised scale. Then the jury would have to consider the effect which the removal would have upon ■the claimants’ business, and the loss they would sustain. In a recent case figures similar to those to be submitted that day were discussed, and—
Mr. Littler: I must object to Sir Edward going into this matter. We have nothing to do to-day with what took place before another jury.
Sir Edward Clarke : If my friend had waited a minute he would have heard me tell the jury that I was not going to trouble them very much with regard to figures, because they had been already discussed in a recent case. The same witnesses were then examined on both sides.
Mr. Littler : But this is most irregular. This inquiry ought to be quite independent to the other. The difference between us is enormously wide, and my friend had better tell the jury what his case is to-day. He does not know what our witnesses are going to say.
Sir Edward Clarke : I am not going to be told by my learned ■friend how this case is to be conducted ; it must ■be left to the learned Under-Sheriff. ^ But I do say ■that this matter was discussed in a recent case. The same witnesses were then engaged, and I should have thought that after the investigation that then took place it n!ight be possible for us to agree upon a sum in respect of the premises in this case, and confine ourselves to the more difficult question, namely, the effect which the removal would have upon the business. In regard to the premises, will not say more than this. The rental of £515 was fixed 30 years ago, and it is so obviously inadequate that it is practically a ground rent. ■Counsel went on to say that expert witnesses would tell the jury that the premises were worth a rack rental of £1,600 a year, and had not ■the claimants ׳been disturbed, they would therefore enjoy until 1948 a profit rental of £1,100 a year, and that■, capitalised on the 5 per cent■, table, would give a total of about £20,000. With regard to the business it was carried on at Cliffe, but- all the accounts were kept at Yauxhall, where the retail business was conducted. The total output of cement at Cliffe was between 84,000 and 85,000 tons per annum, about 26,000 tons being actually sent to the wharf at Vauxhall. The wharf was the principal avenue through which the cement manufactured at Cliffe was sent out to the public, and, obviously, if the claimants were deprived of it the business would be materially affected.
As he had previously stated it was extremely difficult to estimate the loss ■than would be sustained. Knowing that the County Council would have to acquire their premises for the purpose of the construction of the new Yauxhall Bridge, the claimants instructed their accountants to take out the accounts for the years 1896-7-8 in order to allocate as far as possible the expenditure and profits in the different parts of the business. So far as the figures were concerned, the jury would have no doubt as to their accuracy, but it was difficult to apportion ■the business. It was perfectly clear that they could not take away one part of the business and leave the other flourishing. The loss of the Yauxhall premises must, of course, affect the whole. Having suggested that three years’ profits should be allowed as compensation for the disturbance, the learned counsel proceeded to call expert evidence.
Sir J. Whittaker Ellis, Bart., F.S.I. (Messrs. Farebrother, Ellis and Co., 29, FleeLstreet,
I was then disposed to accept. As soon as witness became aware that the railway company intended to acquire part of his property, he endeavoured to have his agreement with Mr. Parks cancelled, but without success, and on May 15, 1898, the company’s contractor and workmen entered upon his land without his׳ consent. The land in question was of considerable value for building purposes, and he had since sold a portion of the property, containing seven acres, for £13,231, which represented nearly £2,000 per acre.
Mr. William Hurst■ Flint, F.S.I. (senior partner in the firm of Humbert and Flint, estate agents, 11, Serle-street, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, W.C.), with 28 years’ experience, agent to the estates of the Earl of Essex and other noblemen, said he was born in Bexhill, and had watched the extraordinary development of the town and suburbs. He had extensive dealings with land there, and was prepared to give instances of prices obtained. The estate in ques tion was situated on rising ground at Sidley about one mile from Bexhill. His figures were
£728
18,200
500
17,700
2,330
115,370
1*889
13,663
1,366
£15,' 29
3,235ft. of building frontage at an average of 4s. 6d. per foot ground rent, equal to a total ground rentof ..
At years’purchase
Deduct for irregular strip, la. lr. not taken
Deduct cost of road, £1,300 : surveyors’ fees and one year’s ground rent £730 ; and 5 per cent, on contract for roads and other costs £300 ; total..
Deferred three years on the 4 per cent, table
Add 10 per cent. .
Total
FREEHOLD PROPERTY IN FLEET STREET.
The case of “ The Governors of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital v. C'ity of London Corporation ” ■was fixed for hearing before the Recorder (Sir Charles Hall, Q.C., M.P.), and a special jury at the City Guildhall on Tuesday. This was a claim for compensation in respect of the acquirement of 1,078 superficial feet of freehold land, at present forming the site of Nos. 90, 91 and 92, Fleet-street, and Nos. 2 and 3, .St Bride’s-passage, E.C., required for street widening purposes, for which it was necessary to rebuild the premises.
Mr. C. A. Cripps, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Fox (instructed by Messrs. Wilde, Moore and Wigiton) were counsel !for the claimants; anr, Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Lewis Coward and Mr. Percival Clarke (instructed by Mr. Vickary) for the City Corporation.
Upon the learned Recorder taking his seat, Mr. Cripps mentioned that the parties had agreed to accept a verdict for £16,000, and costs to be taxed.
The experts retained to give evidence were Mr. Howard Martin, F.S.I. (Messrs. Thurgood and Martin, 27, Chancery-lane, W.C.); Mr. Edward Tewson, F.S.I. '(Messrs. Debenham Tewson, Farmer and Bridgewater, 80, Cheap-side, E.C.); Mr. E. B. I’Anson, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I., 7a, Lawrence Pountney-hill, E.C. ; and Mr. E. A. Gruning, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I., 25, Gresham-house, Old Broad-street, E.C., for the claimants ; Mr. E. H. Bousfield (Messrs. Edwin Fox and Bousfield, 99, Gresham-street, E.C.); Mr. Alex. R. Stenning, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I., 121, Cannon-street, E.C. ; Mr. Samuel Walker’ F.S.I. (Messrs. Walker and Son, 22, Moorgatei street, E.C.), for the Corporation.
Mr. Flint said the estate had been laid out for building purposes, roads were being con structed and sewers had been laid. He gave the area of land already disposed of, a portion o׳f the freehold being sold and certain building frontages let on agreements at 5s. and 6s. per foot, with an option to acquire at 25 years’ purchase, equal to £3,030 to £2,744 per' acre. There only remained 575ft. of building frontage, and the result was that out of a !total building area of 5| acres, 4| acres had been disposed of within six months, and the builder’s plans had been approved. The railway had taken 9¿ acres, or all the remainder of the estate, except an irregular strip of land covering l¿ acres, which would be of no use for building, but only for market garden purposes. The land taken gently ■sloped to the south-east, which was pre ferable for building land. He produced a plan showing how the land would have been developed but for the interference by the rail way. According to that ■plan it would only be necessary to take one road from Sandhurst road onwards across the railway, and he believed there would be no difficulty in obtaining proper access from ■the two sides of the railway, whether the line ran in embankment or cutting. When Mr. Squirrel bought the estate, the railway company had a right to take two acres, interfering with the proposed road in Woodgate-avenue. In his opinion there would have been no difficulty in diverting that road, or of a mutual arrangement of “give and take” being made with the adjoining owner, without money compensation, or any surveying difficulty being presented.
The case was adjourned. Among the experts retained are Mr. James Woodhams, F.S.I., of Hastings, for the claimant; and Mr. G. Humphreys-Davies, F.S.I., 8, Laurence Pountney-hill, E.C., Mr. James Green, F.S.I. (Messrs. Weatherall and Green, 22, Chancery-lane, W.O.), Mr. E. H. Bousfield (Messrs. Edwin Fox and Bousfield, 99, Gresham-street, E.C.), and Mr. A. L. Ryde, F.S.I., 29, Great George-street, S.W., for the railway company.
BUILDING LAND AT BEXHILL.
RIVERSIDE PREMISES AT VAUXHALL.
IMPORTANT CLAIM AGAINST THE LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
At the London Sheriff’s Court, Red Lion-square, W.C., on Thursday, before the Under-Sheriff (Mr. Burchell) and a ■special jury, the case of “Francis and Co., Limited v. London County Council,” came on for hearing. This was a claim by Messrs. Francis and Co., the well-known cement manufacturers, for about £40,000 compensation in respect of the acquirement of their extensive wharf at Yauxhall, by the London County Council, in connection with the Vauxhall Bridge improvement scheme.
Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Edward Boyle, Q.C., Mr. Lewis Coward and Mr. Percival Clarke (instructed by Messrs. Clarke, Rawlins and Co., Gresham House, E.C.), were counsel for the claimant ; and Mr. R. D. M. Littler, Q.C., C.B., and Mr. Edward Morten (instructed by Mr. Blaxland), for the London County Council.
Sir Edward Clarke, in opening, said the claim which the jury would have to deal with was, in many respects, of very considerable importance, and he was bound to say at the outset that they would find it extremely difficult to deal with. It was in regard to a business which produced
Mr. Daniel Watney, P.P.S.I. (Messrs. Daniel Watney and Son, 33, Poultry, E.C.), sat as sole Arbitrator in the case of “Squirrell r. Crowhurst, Sidley and Bexhill Railway Company,” which was a claim by Mr. H. T. Squirrell, the owner in fee simple of a quantity of building land known as the Workham’s Farm Estate, at Sidley, in the parish of Bexhill, and containing 18 acres, for compensation in respect of the compulsory acquirement of a portion of that property for the purposes of a new railway (Estates Gazette, July 30 and August 6).
Mr. G. M. Freeman, Q.C., and Mr. Lewis Coward (instructed by Messrs. Longham, Son and Douglas, 107, Cannon-street, E.C.) were counsel for the claimant ; and Mr. Edward Boyle, Q.C., and Mr. Archibald Willis (instructed by Messrs. Cheeseman and Cope, 3, Great George-street, S.W.) for the railway company.
It appeared from the opening statement of counsel that the land actually acquired contained an area of 9a. lr. 29p. The railway company had also taken a quantity ■of land adjoining the claimant’s estate, on which it was proposed to construct the Sidley station. The company was constituted ■by an Act of Parliament, which received the Royal assent on July 15, 1897. When the Act was passed the property in question belonged to a gentleman named Parks׳, who was one of the promoters of the new railway. The claimant, Mr. Squirrell, is by occupation a builder and contractor, and is also a dealer in land. Mr. Freeman said the development of Bexhill could, without the smallest exaggeration, be described as phe nomenal. It had been going on during the last 15 years, but in the course of the last five years it had been extraordinary, mainly ■owing to the very judicious manner in which Earl de la Warr laid out his extensive property. During the period last mentioned land in Bexhill had gone up five and six times in value. Mr. Squirrell made an offer to buy the estate at a price which worked out at £500 an acre. This offer was accepted, and in pursuance of an agreement dated December 21, 1897, the land was subsequently conveyed from Mr. Parks to the claimant. On April 18, 1898, the land was submitted to auction and was bought in at £18,000. On December 13, 1898, the area taken by the railway company was agreed upon. There was no notice ■to treat, the matter finally resting on an agreement of reference to an arbitrator. The property was situated about three-quarters of a mile from the sea as the crow* flies, and had a main road frontage of 710ft. Having stated that the land was bought by Mr. Squirrell with the intention of erecting thereon semi-detached or terrace houses, of a rental of between £35 and £45 per annum, counsel proceeded to make comparisons of prices realised for land in the neighbourhood during recent years. He afterwards called
Mr. H. T. Squirrell, the claimant, who gave evidence in support of counsel’s opening statement. Witness added that he had received an offer from a Mr. Charles Hughes, of Plais-tow, formerly a builder at Bexhill, to buy the land for £16,000. This was refused, and the whole estate of 18 acres was subsequently submitted to auction by Messrs. Moss and Jameson, and bought in at £18,000, which price he
Compmiattflit Сада.
LAND AT HARROW.
At the Surveyors’ Institution (temporary premises, Savoy-street■, W.C.), on Saturday, Mr. G. T. Galsworthy, F.S.I. (Messrs. Chinnock, Galsworthy and Chinnock, Waterloo-place, S. W.), again sat as sole Arbitrator for the purpose of hearing evidence as to the value of certain property in the parishes of Harrow-on-the-Hill and Hanwell, acquired for the purposes of a new line in connection with the Ealing and South Harrow Railway. [Estates Gazette, January 7 and 14.] The claim now dealt with was that of Colonel W. M. Douglas Willan, formerly the ■owner of Twyford Abbey, in respect of the acquisition of a quantity of building land on that estate.
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.O., and Mr. Beven (instructed by Messrs. Ravenscroft, Hills and Woodward, 15, John-street, Bedford-row, W.O.) were counsel for the claimant; whilst Mr. G. M. Freeman, Q.C., and Mr. Courthope-Munroe (instructed by Messrs. Baxter and Co.. 12, Victoria-street, S.W.) represented the railway company.
Mr. Balfour Browne, in opening, informed the Arbitrator that the circumstances attending the present claim were different to: those in the cases already heard, inasmuch as the land in this instance was not used for residential purposes. However, its value from a building point of view could hardly be disputed, aftei the contention of his learned friend in conducting the last■ case. The area acquired was 4a. Or. 18p., and the claim was for the value of the land taken, for severance caused by the construction of an embankment, consequential injury to the remainder of the property by interference with the means of access (the approach road to Twyford Abbey), and loss ol building frontage.
Mr. Edward Tewson, F.S.I. (Messrs. Debenham, Tewson, Farmer and Bridgewater, 80, Cheapside, E.C.), was the first expert witness examined. He had valued the land taken, 4a. Or. 18p., at £500 per acre, £2,056, to which he had added the usual 10 per cent, for compulsory sale, making £2,262. An area of 90a. 2r. 30p. had been severed by the construction of a high embankment, 15ft. by 32ft high. This was beautiful park-like land, and witness was of opinion that it had been damaged tc the extent of £100 per acre, or £9,070. Thi avenue forming the approach road to׳ Ttvyforo Abbey was the only and direct means of accest to the claimant’s property. A portion of this road had been sunk by the railway company, and by reason of this interference an area oi 144a. lr. 33p. had been injured to the extent of £25 per acre, £3,617. A sinking of a roao was always a nuisance, for when it occurrec it was difficult to clean and dry it. He though: that at certain periods of the year a portion of the avenue would be rendered impassable by water. The injury would no doubt be lessened by the formation o׳f a bridge in the embankment by the railway company, and fci this he had made an allowance of £1,000. Witness estimated the loss of 240ft. of building frontage to the avenue at £3 per foot, or £720. His total valuation was £14,669.
Sir J. Whittaker Ellis, Bart., F.S.I. (Messrs. Farebrother, Ellis and Co29 ,.׳, Fleet-street, E.O.), and W. Roland Peck, F.S.I. (Messrs. Hampton and Sons, 1, Cockspur-street, S.W.), practically adopted Mr. Tewson’s figures.
FOR THE RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Alex. R. Stenning, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I., 121, Cannon-street, E.C., was of opinion that the land in question was not likely to be developed for building purposes for some considerable time. Witness׳ had valued the land taken at £200 per acre, £800, and had added the usual 10 per cent, £880. With regard to the claim for damage by severance, the coming of a railway was never, in his experience, a bar to the letting of property. He had, however, allowed £800 under that heading. It. his opinion there was no consequential injury to the estate, and no׳ loss of frontage to the avenue. His total valuation was £1,680.
Mr. R. T. Wreathall, F.S.I., St. Martin’s-place, Tfafalgar-square, and Harrow, also had valued the land acquired at £200 an acre. He considered that 200ft. on each side of the embankment had been damaged to the׳ extent of 33 per cent., or a third of its value. His figures amounted to £1,747.
Mr. Howard Martin, F.S.I. (Messrs. Thurgood and Martin, 27, Chancery-lane, W.C.), estimated the value of the land taken, 4a. Or. 18p., at £250 an acre, £1,028; 10 per cent, for forced sale, £102, £1,130. An area each side of the line had been depreciated to the extent of half its value, 8a. Or. 36p. at £125 an acre, £1,028, total £2,158 Having heard counsel,
The Arbitrator reserved his award.