February 11, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE,
232
that would justify the price mentioned. The Commercial Wharf, in Upper Thames-street, was taken many years ago at a ground rent of £1,000 a year. Some £25,000 was spent upon it, and his firm had sold the lease by auction for £19,000. But this property was situate in the City, where land, quite apart from river frontage, was ׳of very considerable value. Witness was acquainted with all the wharves situate in close proximity to that in question, and the prices obtained for them did not in any way justify the valuation put upon the claimants’ property. In his opinion, the property in question was worth 6d. per foot as bare land, with regard to loss on removal, he thought a round sum of £5,000 would ainplv compensa'e the claimants for any loss sustained. It was not a retail business ; if it was so. witness would have allowed three years’ profits. His total valuation, including £920, the agreed value of the fixtures, was £11,670.
Alderman Samuel Green, F.S.I. (Messrs. Green and Sons, St. Swithin’s-lane, E.C.), agreed that the illustrations given on behalf of the claimant were not a satisfactory guide to the value of the premises in question, which, he said, were not particularly substantial, being half worn out. Witness was satisfied that £900 a year was the full value of the claimants' property, and a rental that could not be obtained in the open market. He had deducted the ground rent of £515, which left a profit rent of £385. He had employed the 6 per cent, table, but felt certain that no such price could be obtained in the market, especially with such a heavy head rent. His multiplier therefore was 15.84 years’ purchase, £6,098 ; 10 per cent., £609 ; total £6,707. Witness agreed that a round sum of £5,000 would represent the los׳s sustained by removal.
Mr. Jaimes F. Field, F.S.I. (Messrs. Field and Sons, 54, Borough High Street, and Chancery-lane, W.C.), was of opinion that the premises were worth £900 a year to the sitting tenant. In the open market they would fetch between £750 and £800. He had employed the 6 per cent, table, 15J years’ purchase, £9,063. It was somewhat difficult to estimate the loss consequent upon removal. The profits mentioned by Mr. Nichols, the accountant, were ■those of the whole concern, and an allowance of one year's profits ought to be ample. If the profits of the Vauxhaill business were allocated, witness would feel disposed to allow another half-year.
Mr. Andrew Young, F.S.I., valuer to the London County Council, thought the premises were worth £1,000 a year to the claimants, or about £200 in excess of the market value ; 6 per cent, table, 15J years’ purchase, £7,639. Witness considered that one year’s profits was a liberal allowance for the loss attending the removal. His total valuation was £8,402.
Mr. Charles Barker, surveyor and engineer, 37, Gracechurch-street, E.C., said that assuming the wharf to be emntv, the maximum rent, in his opinion, to be obtained in the open market, would he £650. Looking at the fact that the claimants were the sitting tenants, and that the wharf was in their hands, £850 a year would be fair. He had let four wharves within 300 yards of the premises in question, and valued many other bankside properties.
Mr. Wm. Adams, manager of the Works Department׳ of the Council, gave evidence of the demand for cement and the ׳''־rices for lighterage, etc.
Mr. Littler, in his address, said his witnesses were prepared to give instances-of the value of wharves, but they were not tested. He thought the claimants would take good care to obtain other convenient premises, and under the circumstances, the County Council were dealing liberally in the matter.
Sir Edward Clarke said this was not by any means an ordinary case, but was one of extreme gravity and importance, both with regard to the amount involved and the considerations before them. The accounts were absolutely unchallenged. He did not wish to test any instances, because the jury had to judge What opportunity Messrs. Francis and Co. had to go into another wharf at a reasonable cost, and he showed the fallacy of comparing rents until they knew the circumstances. The claimants had endeavoured to find another place, but could not discover one suitable. Thus they had to consider the old premises at a ground rent of £515 ; thev had s׳pent on them £9,100.
Mr. Littler contended that this was the value of the property as named in the accounts—lease, buildings and plant.
Sir Edward Clarke said it was carried forward from year to year on the basis ■of what had been expended on the premises as everyone who kept business books knew, and 6 per cent, should be allowed on the outlay. The advisers of the Council had never suggested a place where they could go, and it did not, therefore, lie in them to complain that claimants had not taken other premises or bought anyone out, as was suggested by Mr. Littler. Sir Edward Clarke proceeded to deal with the profits to be apportioned to the retail business at Yauxhall.
Mr. Littler pointed out that the claimants’ accountant said it was not a retail business there.
The Under-Sheriff : If that is a contradiction of the evidence given by Sir Whittaker at the last hearing it is admissible.
Sir Edward Clarke : I submit that this letter cannot be admissible. If Sir Whittaker had in 1895 asked £1,000 for that wharf, and my learned friend had a letter showing that in that year he was prepared to accept, say, £500, that ־would, of course, be a contradiction, and I would not dispute its admissibility; but when the witness says he knows nothing about it, the letter cannot be a contradiction of his evidence.
After further argument׳, the learned Under-Sheriff ruled against Mr. Littler, but eventually allowed the letter in question to be read. It was intimated therein that an offer of £5 per foot frontage would be accepted for property known as the water company’s lands.
Sir Whittaker remarked that he did not quote that price himself, and in reply to Sir Edward Clarke said the £5 mentioned would be a ground rent, and as such would be sold at. 25 years’ purchase.
FOR THE COUNTY COUNCIL.
Mr. Littler then proceeded to open the case for the Countv Council, and devoted himself principally to comments upon the expert evidence adduced in support of the claim, which, he said, was regarded by the respondents as an extremely exaggerated one. For this reason the Council thou״ht themselves justified in ■taking the opinion of a jury as to׳ whether such an exorbitant amount should be paid. There were many remarkable circumstances connected with the case. Notice to treat was־ served in March, 1896, so that when the claimants give up possession they will have had three years in which to find fresh premises ; and vet they asked the jury to believe that during the whole of this period they had been looking for a fresh wharf and had failed to find anything suitable. He did not wish to trouble the Court and jury with the correspondence, but it was a fact that ever since ■the middle of last autumn the claimants had themselves been pressing the Council to come to a conclusion, which went to show that they had some suitable premises in view. They had been told by Sir Whittaker Ellis that he had had a very considerable experience of wharf property on the Thames, and therefore it must have struck the jury as being somewhat remarkable that Sir Whittaker was not instructed to find fresh premises for his clients. As instances of value, Sir Whittaker had mentioned, among other premises, the Lees Wharf, at Blackfriars, about a mile from the property in question, and had also mentioned the waterworks land, which he himself, in 1888, had offered for sale at 3d. a foot. They were offered a freehold for 25 years’ purchase, and yet the Council were now asked to pay as much as 18i years’ purchase for a 49 years’ lease. Was it possible to rely upon evidence given upon such flimsy grounds? Mr. James Green had come before them and said he bowed to the superior knowledge and judgment of Sir Whittaker Elli־. Mr. Bousfield was candid enough, for he said, “I have neither bought, sold, let or valued any wharf within a mile of these premises.” Mr. Stenning, when asked to give his multiplier, said, “ To anybody but the owner I should say the 6 per cent, table.” This witness had actually allowed an additional three years’ purchase because the claimants were in ■occupation. The loss of trade should, of course, be considered separately. He was not going to suggest that a man could be compelled to remove from his business premises without causing him substantial injury. The ouestion was what was the extent of the injury in the present case. Somebody on the ■other side had suggested that■ three years’ profits ought to be allowed, whilst others said two. Were the iury going to allow ■three years’ profits in a case ■in which the claimants had had three ־״־ears in which to find other premises. It was the duty of every claimant to do all he possibly could to mitigate the loss, and he suggested that this ,had not been done in the present instance. The learned counsel havin״ dwelt further upon the facts of the case, proceeded to call evidence.
Mr. Edmund Farmer, F.S.I. (Messrs. Deben-ham, Tewson, Farmer and Bridgewater, 80. Cheapside, E.O.), said he considered the rental value of the premises in question to the claimants, as tenants in possession, was £900 a year, but■ if the wharf was in the open market its full value would be between £750 and £800. Witness said he had, of course, deducted from that amount the rental paid, £515, which left an improved rental of £385 : 49j vears’ lease. 6 per cent, table, 15J years’ purchase. £6,064 : 10 per cent, for forced sale, £606. £6,670. This, witness said, was his estimate of the value of the leasehold interest. The illustrations given by Sir Whittaker Ellis did not in any way bear out■ the valuation put upon the propertv. Witness had valued the Westminster Mills, mentioned by Sir Whittaker, in 1894. That property consisted of magnificent warehouses of five, six and seven floors, and the rent would be, to a large extent, interest in buildings. Then there was Nelson’s Wharf, in Commercial-road, which had been bought at a fabulous price. There was nothing in his dealings therewith
nient would justify a ground rent equal to £1 per foot being charged, and as 65ft. frontage were actually taken it followed that the loss would be £65 per annum; capitalising this at 25 years’ purchase, £1,625 ; add 10 per cent, for forced sale, £162, £1,787. Dealing with loss of profit, witness said the frontage occupied by the double blocks of flats was about 50ft. ; the loss therefore to the builder was equal to more than half a block on either side, but to deal moderately with the question, he took it as equal to the■ loss of one entire block. The rental value of these blocks might fairly be taken at £360; less׳ ground rent, 50ft. at £1 per foot, £50 ; and rates, taxes and contingencies, 33 per cent., £120, £lbo. This would be saleable on the 6 per 'cent, table with a 3 per cent, sinking fund, or say 16 years’ purchase, £3,040 ; the cost of erection was estimated by the claimant at £2,500; loss of profit, £540. His total valuation was £2,327.
Mr. J. H. Hayes, architect, and Mr. Aubrey Troutman, builder, Clapham, also gave evidence.
FOR THE RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Alex. R. Stenning, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I., 121, Cannon-street, E.C., said that at the time the railway company ■gave notice to treat +he total ground rent paid by the claimant was £100 ; ■this rental would increase in seven years to £640. That worked out at £52 per acre, which was a very good price. Witness had looked upon the land taken, 30ft., as a frontage plot 180ft. in depth, and he was of opinion that the utmost ground rent that could be expected was 6s. per foot, or £9. The other plots might be taken at less value, and he considered that £1 per house for six plots would be a fair value to put upon the land to be taken, or per annum £6 ; total loss of ground rent per annum, £15. This capitalised on the 5 per cent, table, 20 years’ purchase, would work out at £300, which would have to be deferred for seven years from the date of rhe notice to treat, on the 5 per cent, table, £750, £213; add 10 per cent., £21 ; total valuation £234.
Mr. James Green, F.S.I. (Messrs. Weatherail and Green, 22, Chancery-lane, W.O.), was oi opinion that the apportioned ground rent of the land taken by the company was £15 per annum, and this, capitalised at 22¿ years’ purchase, amounted to £337 10s., which he deferred for seven years on the 4¿ per cent, table, giving £248, to which he added the customary allowance of 10 per cent, for forced sale, making his total valuation £272.
Mr. W. H. Elwell, F.S.I., surveyor to the Great Northern Railway Company, 38, Parliament-street, S.W., and Iving’s-cross, gave the following valuation : —
30ft. frontage to west side of proposed new road, at 6s. 6d.	..	..	..	..	9 13 0
Lessened value of sav seven plots on west side of same road, £1 each.. ..	..	7 0 0
16 In 0 19 8
On 5 per cent, table for 99 years
332 0 0
Deferred for seven years on 5 per cent. taHe	710
(say) 235 0 0
Add 10 per cent. ..	..	..	..	23 0 0
£258 0 0
The jury awarded the claimant £625.
RIVERSIDE PREMISES AT VAUXHALL.
A CLAIM OF £40,000.
At the London Sheriff’s Court, Red Lion-square, W.C., on Wednesday, before the Under-Sheriff (Mr. Burchell) and a special jury, the hearing of the case of “ Francis and Co., Limited v. London County Council” was resumed. 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 Vauxhall, by the London County Council, in connection with the Vauxhall Bridge improvement scheme. (Estates Gazette, February 4).
Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Edward Boyle, Q.C., and Mr. Lewis Coward (instructed by Messrs. Clarke, Rawlins and Co., Gresham House, E.C.), were counsel for the claimants ; and Mr. R. D. M. Littler, Q.C., C.B., and Mr. Edward Morten (instructed by Mr. Blaxland), for the London County Council.
Sir Whittaker Ellis, Bart., F.S.I. (Messrs. Farebrother, Ellis and Co., 29, Fleet-street, E.C.), was called, and in reply to Mr. Littler said he could recollect dealing with a wharf belonging to the Vauxhall Water Company, and known as the water company’s lands, but it had practically nothing to do with the question at issue.
Mr. Littler : Do you identify this letter (produced) sent bv your firm on January 15, 1895?
Witness : I known nothing about it.
Sir Edward Clarke : I must object. Surely this cannot be evidence.
Mr. Littler: I have here particulars of certain land and the price asked for it in 1895. I am entitled to ־nroduce this letter in order to show that Sir Whittaker is wrong in his estimate of the value of the premises.
Camjmtsaftatt Cam.
BUILDING LAND AT1 WILLESDEN GREEN.
At a Middlesex Sheriff's Court, held at the North London Hotel, Kilburn High-road, on Feb. 3, before the Under-Sheriff and a special jury, the case of “Cave v. Metropolitan Railway Company” came ■on for hearing. This was a claim by Mr. Wm. Francis Cave, a builder, of 114, Priory-road, West Hampstead, for £3,000 compensation in respect of the acquisition of a quantity of land situate on the Mapesbury Estate, Willesden-green, for the purposes of railway improvements.
Mr. R. D. M. Littler, Q.C., C.B., and Mr. C. A. S. Garland (instructed by Messrs. Newman, Paynter, Gould and Co., 1, Clement’s-irm, W.O.) were for the claimant; and Mr. Edward Boyle, Q.C., and Mr. Archibald Willis (instructed by Mr. A. C. Ellis, 30, Craven-road, W.) for the railway company.
The land in question forms part of an estate of over 12 acres, extending from the Metropolitan and St. John’s-wood1 Railway on the north to Willesden-lane on the south, and is held from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners subject to certain covenants and restrictions for building thereon, for a term of 99 years from September 29, 1893, at ground rents ultimately amounting to £640 per annum. By arrangement with the lessees, the land forming ihe subject of enquiry was to be taken at a peppercorn rent. The property was acquired for the purpose of doubling the Metropolitan Railway at Willesden-green. The line was promoted by the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company, now known as the Great Central, under an Act of Parliament passed in 1892. It was parallel with the Metropolitan, and that company eventually decided to take over the line themselves. The land taken is two narrow strips having frontages respectively of 30ft. on the western side, and 35ft. on the eastern ■side to the new road leading from Willesden-lane to the bridge over the company’s railway, which gives immediate access to Willesden-green station. Notice to treat was also given in respect of two small strips of land on either side of the new road for the purpose of dealing with the question of gradient. In 1893, the claimant purchased the estate of 12 acres from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with the intention of developing it for building purposes. The erection of flats was contemplated, and it was alleged that the operations had been materially interfered with. The claim was for the value of the land taken, loss of profit, and additional expenditure necessitated.
Mr. Cave, the claimant, gave evidence to the effect that he had built very extensively on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners’ estates, and had erected about 150 blocks of flats similar to those he proposed to erect on the land in question. Under the agreement with the Commissioners the ground rent of £50 in the first year was to increase to £640. His original intention was to build: a number of dwelling houses, but it had been his ambition to erect flats adjacent to the railway. Notice to treat was served upon him on November 18, 1895, and his plans were thus frustrated.
Mr. Chester Abercrombie (Messrs. Abercrombie and Edmunds, High-road, Kilburn) said ■the land in question was in every sense suitable for the erection of flats, being in close proximity ■to the railway station. Witness considered that the frontage acquired, 65ft., was worth a rental of £1 per foot.
Professor Bannister Fletcher, F.R.I.B.A., 129, New Bridge-street, E.O., submitted the following valuation : —
East side—35ft. at 20s. ..	..	..	..£35 0 0
Westside—30ft. at 20s...	..	..	.. 30 0 0
£65 0 0
At 25 vears’purchase ..	..	..£1,625 0 0
Add 10 per ceDt. for forced sale	..	..	162 0 0
The value of 20s. per foot is based on the plans supplied to me by Mr. Gave, and be pledges himself to build at £2,500, and upon the letting value of the flats, as follows ,
Ground floor	..	..	..	£55	0	0
First floor ..	..	..	..	65	0	0
Second floor	..	..	..	60	0	0
£180 0 0
£360	0	0
90	0	0
270	9	0
50	0	0
£220	0	0
£2,500 0 0j
! Profit
£3,040 0 OJ 540 0 0
Two sets in each house= Less 25 per cent...
Less ground rent, 59ft. at 20 cent.
Each house costs Mr.Cave.
including interest They are worth to sell 8 s investment on the 6 per cent, table
Claim under the first notice .. £2.327 0 0
Mr. E. H. Bousfield (Messrs. Edwin Eox and Bousfield, 99, Gresham-street, E.C.) said the building of flats was exceedingly profitable and large, improved ground rents were created in respect of the same ; not in relation to the value of the land qua land, but in proportion to the rack rental value of the flats when erected. This mode of develop-