February 25, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
320
on the dates already mentioned. In addition to the brickfields, the company had also acquired three sets of buildings and stabling which would accommodate 40 horses. It was not proposed to abandon the brickmaking business altogether as a result of the water company’s action, but it would be shown, said counsel, that it could not be conducted ■with anything like the same advantage on any other part of the property. Proceeding to deal with the several items which made up the total eiaim of £78,950, the learned counsel said the value of the brick earth and the flints, including loss of business by reason of the profits which might have been made, should first of all be considered. It would be shown in evidence what was the average cost of the manufacture of bricks, and the average amount received for them. In the year 1896, bricks were manufactured by the claimant at a prime cost of 16s. lfd. per thousand, after deductions had been made for waste, etc. In 1897, the prime cost of manufacture was 16s. 6d. per thousand, and in 1898, 14s. ljd., or an average for the three seasons of 15s. 4gd. per thousand. The average selling price for bricks of all kinds was, in 1896, 25s. per thousand ; 1897, 31s. 5d. : 1898, 32s. lOd. The profits had been, for flints, £3,138, and for bricks, £28,396, or a total of £31,534. This was the first and largest item in the claim. Then there ־was the cost of reinstating the farm buildings, stables and yard, £5,407; expenditure on the Chatham brickfield previous to the notice to treat, £5,043 ; damage by severance, £17,929; and loss on existing contracts, £8,478.
Mr. R. D. BateheiSr, the claimant, was called, and gave evidence in support of the above-mentioned facts.
On Thursday, Mr. George Potter, valuer, chartered accountant and public auditor, of Luton, near Chatham, gave evidence in great detail of the accounts of the claimant’s business.
The case was adjourned.
Among the experts retained for the claimant are Mr. Elias P. Squarey, P.P.S.I., of Salisbury and London; Mr. George Langridge, F.S.I., of the Broadway, Tunbridge Wells; Mr. J. Hubert Oakley, F.S.I., 10, Waterloo-place, S.W. ; Mr. Grant, valuer, Sittingbourne ; Mr. Nash and Mr. Franklin Homan, surveyors, Rochester ; and Mr. Horton, and several brick manufacturers ; on behalf of the company, Sir J. Whittaker Ellis, Bart■., F.S.I., of 29, Fleet-street, E.C. ; Mr. Alex. R. Stenning, F.S.I., 121, Cannon-street, E.C. ; Mr. Leslie Vigors, F.S.I., 4, Frederick’s-place, E.C. ; and Messrs. Isitt and Co., chartered accountants, are retained.
AWARD.
PROPERTY IN WHITEHALL.
Mr. Robert Yigers, P.S.I. (Messrs. Vigers and Co., 4, Frederick’s-court, Old Jewry, E.C.), who sat as sole Arbitrator in the case of “ Mey-r.ell and Pemberton v. H.M. Office of Works,” at the Surveyors’ Institution, on the 12th ult., has issued his award. It was a claim by Mr. Percy Lee Pemberton, surviving partner in the firm of Meynell and Pemberton, solicitors, 20, Whitehall-place, in respect of the compulsory acquisition of those premises and damage to the business in connection with the Whitehall improvements. The valuations submitted by the expert witnesses were as follows : •—For the claimant: Mr. G. H. Brougham Glasier, F.S.I. (Messrs. Glasier and Sons, 7, St. James’s-street, W.), £6,459 6s. ; Mr. Edward Tewson, F.S.I. (Messrs. Debenham, Tewson, Farmer and Bridgewater, 80, Cheapside, E.C.), £12,323; Mr. H. C. Trollope, F.S.I. (Messrs. Trollope, Hobart-place, Belgravia), £5,999 ; and Mr. Daniel Watney, P. P.S.I. For the Commissioners: Mr. W. Edgar Horne,
F.	S.I. (Messrs. Horne and Co., 85, Gresham-street, E.O.), and Mr. James Green, F.S.I. (Messrs. Weatherall and Green, 22, Chancery-lane, W.C.), were of opinion that there was no profit rental value attached to the building; Mr. W. H. Elwell, F.S.I., surveyor to tire
G.	N. Railway Company, considered that the maximum rental value was £1,000 ; whilst Mr. J. H. Sherwin, F.S.I., 16, Whitehall-place, S.W., thought the outside value of the premises was £900.
Mr. Yigers has awarded the claimant £3,478.
SPECIAL NOTICE.
— :0:—
The “ Estates Gazette” can be obtained at any of the Railway Bookstalls of Messrs. W. H. SMITH & SON and of all Newsagents. The Publisher will be glad to be advised of any difficulty that may be experienced in obtaining copies of the paper.
building on the rest of the land. He considered it an eligible site for dwelling houses, it being so accessible to the train service and near Pen-maenmawr, also commanding magnificent views. Yalued as a site for building, provided the rights of the commoners were bought out, he considered the land worth £350, but without buying out those rights, he valued it at £30, and considered the Council would be getting a very ■good thing if they acquired it for £30.
Mr. Chamberlain, on behalf of the Council, submitted that Mr. Oliver was “ taken in ” when he bought the land. If Mr. Oliver could have shown a satisfactory title the Council would have given him £75 for the land, therefore it must not be thrown at the Council that they had any intention of behaving shabbily towards Mr. Oliver.
Mr. P. McIntyre, F.S.I., Llanrwst, agent for the Gwydyr Estate, gave evidence to the effect that he had made enquiries as to the rights of common, and valued the land accordingly. He value! Mr. Oliver’s rights in the land at £1 13s. (laughter). It seemed to him that the right of sporting was all that Mr. Oliver could claim over the land.
Mr. C. Darbishire, chairman of the Hospital Committee, stated that if Mr. Oliver had had a freehold title to the land, the Council would have given him a satisfactory price for it. It was .common land, and anybody who kept an animal in the parish had the right to turn it on the land. It was not fenced in at all. Nobody had the right to fence it■ in.
The Bench eventually fixed the price for the Council to pay Mr. Oliver at £20, and the Council to pay the costs.
BRICKFIELDS NEAR CHATHAM.
IMPORTANT CLAIM.
Mr. Daniel Watney, P.P.S.I. (Messrs. Watney and Sons, 33, Poultry, E.C.), sat as Umpire at the Surveyors’ Institution, Savoy-street, W.C., on Wednesday, in the case of “Batchelor v. Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham and Rochester Water Company,” which was a claim for £78,950 compensation in respect of the compulsory acquirement of certain brickfields, | situated near Chatham, and covering an area of 20 acres, for water supply purposes.
Mr. Graham Harris, C.E. (Messrs. Bramwell and Harris, 5, Great George-street, S.W.), was arbitrator for the claimant, whilst Sir J. Whittaker Ellis, Bart., F.S.I. (Messrs. Farebrother, Ellis and Co., 29, Fleet-street, E.C.), acted in a similar capacity on behalf of the water company.
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., and Mr. Morten Smith (instructed by Messrs. Haywood and Smith, Rochester) were counsel for the claimant■, and Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., M.P., with whom was Mr. Pollock (instructed by Messrs. Prall, Son and Prall, Rochester), for the respondents.
From the opening statement of counsel, it appeared that the claimant, Mr. Richard David Batchelor, an engineer, brickmaker and contractor, was the freeholder and occupier of the land in question. Notices to treat were served on July 22 and September 6, 1898, and a claim prepared by the late Mr. Christopher Oakley was subsequently sent in. Mr. Batchelor commenced the manufacture of bricks at Darland, close to the property in question, about seven years ago. He was in a peculiarly good position, inasmuch as he was the holder of all the land containing brick earth in the neighbourhood. Another significant fact, said counsel, was that the amount of brick earth was suffi cient to carry on the trade of brickmaking for a hundred years. Moreover, when the brick earth was removed the land would not in any way be rendered less suitable for other purposes, such as building. The land acquired was purchased by the claimant about six years ago, and a portion thereof was level ground occupying an excellent position and peculiarly suitable for brickmaking purposes. It was capable of carrying 12 “ berths,” which could be arranged in the direction of north and south —a matter of great importance in brickmaking, because the bricks dried in that position better, and it saved handling. Another advantage was that the land contained chalk. Having stated that the claimant had been entrusted with a contract for the erection of a naval hospital, which would require about eighteen million bricks, counsel proceeded to mention the dates of purchase of different portions of the property. It was on November 19, 1897, he said, that the claimant first heard of the promotion of the water company’s Bill in Parliament, but operations had been commenced by the claimant in February of that year. Machinery had been fixed for 12 berths, and an order had been given for timber which was to cost £2,326; prices had also been quoted for the supply o! the whole of the stock bricks for the new naval barracks. The water company’s Bill came before a committee of the House of Commons on April 27, 1898. The claimant, having petitioned, opposed, but he was unsuccessful, the i committee, after hearing the evidence of a distinguished chemist, taking the view that the water supply could not be sufficiently protected if the land in question was used for brickmaking purposes. On July 1, the Bill received the Royal Assent, and notices to treat were served
material, that he could not arrive at the annual value of the house without ascertaining the tiade done therein. By this finding he made the case an exception within the meaning of the decision in ‘ Dodds v. The South Shields Union.’” The case reported by us last week is most important to be borne in mind as a modification of the earlier authority.
A complicated dispute was that which arose in “Wohlgemuth v. Coste,” but properly considered the issue was simply one of fact. The plaintiff’s case really came to this—that he had introduced A, who had introduced B, who had introduced C, who had introduced a purchaser for the public-house in respect of which commission was claimed. The defendant argued that this indirect introduction was not sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover, but Justices Lawrance and Channell held that the question was merely one of fact, and confirmed the County Court Judge’s decision in favour of Mr. Wohlgemuth. We have often had occasion to point out that in cases of this kind it does not matter how long the “ chain ” is. Provided all its links are complete, it signifies nothing it they range from A to Z. And this rule is in strict accordance with common sense. If a man has a horse or a house or a business to dispose of, all he requires is to get his price. It cannot really matter to him how many persons assist him in doing this, or how the commission he is liable to pay is “ cut up ” between them.
By a curious coincidence, a correspondent writes us this week to put a query, from which we gather that he is confusing such a case as “Wohlgemuth v. Coste” with those in which several agents have been originally retained by the principal, and in which it has been held that he or they will only be entitled to commission through ־whom the contract in respect of which they claim was brought about. This is obviously not the case of a “ chain ” at all, and under the circumstances he mentions we do not think that our correspondent is entitled to recover. In the leading case of “ Prickett v. Badger,” it was, no dou’bt, said that if a man having a house to let or sell places it in ■the hands of several house agents, the successful agent would be entitled to claim commission, whilst the others, in the absence of an agreement or custom to the contrary, would be entitled to something for their trouble, i.e., to the expenses they had incurred in the agency. But in “ Simpson v. Lamb,” which is practically on all fours with the case put to us, it was laid down that whilst a general employment may carry with it a power of revocation on payment of a compensation for what may have been done under it, there “ may also be a qualified employment under which no payment shall be demandable if countermanded.” Chief Justice Jervis said: “I think the evidence here showed that the employment was of that qualified character—like the case of the house agent or the ship broker— the plaintiffs undertaking the business upon an understanding that they were to have nothing if they did not sell the advowson, taking the chance of the large remuneration they would have received if they had succeeded in finding a purchaser.”
C0tttp£!tMtt0Jt Cam-
LAND AT PENMAENMAWR,
At the sitting of the Conway Petty Sessions last week, was heard an application by the Penmaenmawr Urban Council to fix the value of a piece of land belonging to Mr. Richard Oliver, which the Urban Council had statutory powers to acquire for the purpose of erecting thereon a hospital for infectious diseases.
Mr. Francis Nunn, who appeared for Air. Oliver, said there were three acres of land near the railway and only about a mile east of Penmaenmawr station. The land was near the ■hill known as the Lion’s Nose, and for it the Council offered the ridiculous sum of £5 per acre.
Air. Richard Oliver said that he purchased the land seven years ago, and gave £60 for ■it. In 1897 the Penmaenmawr Urban Council offered him £75 for l¿ acres of the land. There were common rights on the land. He tried to buy out the rights of commoners, and two or three j of them agreed, but two of them were farmers, who could not, for certain reasons, they being trustees, agree to give up those rights. The Council had bought up the common rights for 20s.
Cross-examined by Mr. Chamberlain: The witness admitted ■that he could not build on the land because he failed to dispose of the rights of the commoners. The man he bought the land from told him he could do what he liked with it. He found afterwards that the land was originally purchased for £10, though he gave. £60 for it.
Mr. T. T. Marks, C.E., valuer, said that he had inspected the locus in quo. The portion the Council required was the best part of the I land for building purposes. The erection of a fever hospital would certainly deter people from
legal ®0pics.
By a Barrister.
[The writer will answer any question relating to real property law, or to the practice of Agents. Auctioneers, and Surveyors, under “ Queries and Replies.”]
In the well-known case of “ Proudfoot v. Hart■,” where a tenant had agreed “ during the said term ” (of three years) to keep the “ said premises (a house) in good tenantable repair and so leave the same at the expiration thereof,” the Court of Appeal held that the tenant’s obligation was only to put and keep the premises in such repair, as having ־regard to the age, character and locality of the house, would make it reasonably fit for the occupation of a reasonably-minded tenant of the class who would be likely to take it. The question of tenant-able repair, it was decided, was one of circumstance and degree—as Lord Esher observed, what might bo suitable for a house in Spital-fields would not be suitable for a house in Grosvenor-square, and vice versa (see Daniels’s “ Leases : Principles and Points,” p. 94). One of the points taken on behalf of the defendant in “ Watson v. Eddy ” (Estates Gazette, February 18) was that the covenant in the lease under discussion was nothing more than a general covenant to repair, and should be construed in accordance with the age and condition of the premises, and the Judge took the view that the defendant had not broken the covenant, but had left the premises in sufficiently good and substantial repair. He added that he considered the claim a “ grossly-exaggerated ” one, and much more than covered by the £5 which had been paid into Court. The plaintiff had originally sued for £46 14s. 6d. Landlords should remember that tenants arc at any rate their fellow-creatures.
We report in another column the appeal in “ Broggi v. Robins, Snell and Gore,” and as we gave an account of the case when heard before Mr. Justice Day (Estates Gazette, May 28, 1898), and commented on it very fully (Estates Gazette, June 4, 1898), there is no occasion t׳> repeat here the somewhat complicated facts or to go again at length into the law of the subject under dispute. It is sufficient to say that the opinion which we strongly expressed last year to the effect that Air. Justice Day’s judgment would be reversed on appeal has been confirmed, but it is only right to add that the Lord Chjef Justice and Lords Justices A. L. Smith and Collins mainly founded their judgment, not on the substantial and generally interesting point dealt with in our previous criticism, but on the special question of whether due notice had been given by the tenant to defendants of the repair, or rather, according to his view, of the lack of repair of the premises. Mr. Justice Day, said Lord Russell, had held that there was a contract, by usage at any rare, in such a case as the one before the Court, and that the repairs had been neglected after due notice had been given by the tenant to the defendants. But his Lordship added that the “ evidence that such notice had been given appeared to him to be altogether wanting confirmation. It, therefore, became unnecessary to express any opinion whether, assuming the allegation of breach of duty against the defendants had been made out, the plaintiff would have been able to maintain the action. That was a difficult question, and he was glad that the answer to it could, for the present, stand over.” There are quite a number of cases in our law of landlord and tenant which our Judges may be glad to let “ stand over! ”
Three or four years ago the decision of the Court of Appeal in “ Dodds v. The Assessment Committee, etc., of South Shields” created a good deal of interest in licensed victualling circles. There, on appeal against the valuation of a public-house, situated m a town where there were other public-houses of a similar character, the Assessment Committee desired to prove, by cross-examination of the appellants witnesses and by other evidence, what were the average weekly takings. The Court of Quarter Sessions rejected the evidence so tendered, and, on a case stated, it was held by Lord Esher and Lords Justices A. L. 1Smith and Rigby, affirming the judgment of the Divisional Court, that, as there was nothing exceptional in the case of a public-house so situated, the ordinary mode of arriving at the rateable value should be adopted, and that the evidence was inadmissible. In “Cartwright v. The Sculcoates Union ” (Estates Gazette, February 18), the South Shields case was much discussed, but it will be seen that the ■Court of Appeal distinguished it from the one under their consideration upon the ground that the circumstances were different. They thought that, although the profits of trade (as such) could not be rated, yet in estimating the rateable value of a public-house, if the ability to carry on a lucrative trade therein added to the value of the house, that value could not be excluded merely because it was referable to the trade. “Here,” said Lord Hals'bury, “the arbitrator found as a fact, syhether rightly or wrongly was not