March 4, 1899,
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
352
tion thus occupied an important position in connection with the valley, inasmuch as the latter was extremely narrow and it was practically impossible for the railway company to construct another line of railway, they were bound to acquire this land in perpetuity for the purposes of their undertaking. The claimant’s valuers, under these circumstances, took up the position that Mrs. Nurse was entitled to receive in respect of this land what she would be entitled to have in the event of the lease terminating in 1909 from the railway company in the ordinary way, and put forward the claim, which was a common one in the North of England and North Wales, in respect of mineral properties, that a way-leave or the equivalent of a way-leave should be paid by the company to Mrs. Nurse. Counsel, in conclusion, quoted the ease of “Manchester Corporation v. the Countess Ossilinski,” and contended that the land had been proved during 60 years to be specially adaptable for a railway.
Mr. Thomas Forster Brown, M.Inst.C.E., chief mineral inspector for H.M. Woods and Forests, was proceeding to state that he had a wide experience of cases where, for the privilege of passing an important property—
Mr. Lawson Walton objected.
The Umpire said the vendors were competent to show that they might be able to treat with a company at the end of the lease for a higher price than was represented by £70 a year.
Witness quoted the award in the case of “ N.E.R. Company v. Lord Eldon,” where rents were paid for passing overland under similar conditions, but the issue had not been finally determined.
Mr. Lyttelton, in reply to the Umpire, said he put the case on the ground that the land wai proved to he a suitable place for a railway to be made, and a railway must inevitably come, rather than go into the hill. They were not afraid of a special case being given on this principle. If it was to go before a Divisional Court the award had to be made alternatively.
Mr. Lawson Walton : That is the best plan.
Witness said the district had largely developed quite irrespective of the G.W.R., and he did not see why, because this lease had existed, this particular property was not to he benefited. _ The railway could not escape this property without extravagant expense, and that was reallv the point. His total valuation came to £11,685.
Mr. Robert Forrest, F.S.I., agent for Lord Windsor, of St. Fagan’s, near Cardiff, said it was such a property that almost of necessity any form of transport bringing minerals down' from the hills would pass along it. His valuation was £13,464.
Mr. Elias Pitts-Squarey, P.P.S.I., of Salisbury, said he valued the rental on the 3 per cent, tables. He had adopted Mr. Forrest’s formula dealing with the assumption of traffic 1849 ״, and concluded that ■the division over the tonnage carried was equal to l-18th of a penny, and formed a safe basis for the calculation of the value ; the basis of Mr. Forster Brown’s calculation was that ■in 1909 it would attain to 3,750,000 tons, and applying l-18th of & V&Din,y to that gave £868 Is. Id. annual value, which made the two separate sums, one with reversion in 21 years ■of £4,908, and in the other a reversion in 12 years of £6.558, to which he added 10 per cent, for forced sale, and added £1.000 for buildings. His total was £15,132.
Mr. Edward Wells, agent to the previous owner of the land, said he was in the service of the railway company, and attended on subpoena. He gave the past history of the property.
Mr. Wm. Thomas, mining engineer, Aber-dare, gave a valuation of £15.251.
Mr. David T. Alexander, auctioneer and surveyor (of Messrs. Stephenson and Alexander, Cardiff), said his valuation was £10,981. If the land was used in connection with the canal, it would be worth from 6d. to 8d. a yard.
■'IT!
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY.
Mr. Cripps, Q.C., said the case of the claimant was bolstered up by an impossible form of valuation, unsound in principle, and utterly unreliable. The Umpire had carefully to eliminate from his mind any consideration which would come in from the value of the land to ■the railway company.
Mr. Alex. R, Stenning, F.S.I., 121, Cannon-street, E.O., ■said he capitaKsed the rent on the 3 per cent, tables for the term of 16 years, giving a multiplier of 12.6, ■or £882. For the value of the reversion ihe treated it as bare land, the first area of 600 yards at 2d. per yard, or £40 a year ; the ■second at Id. per yard, or £20 a year ; total £60, at 5 per cent., deferred 10 years, £549 12s. ; which, added to £882, made £1,431 12s. ; or, with 10 per cent., £1,574 12s. He added £250 agreed under the lease, making his total £1,824 12s. In reply to the Umpire Mr. Stenning said he did not value the land as being utilised by a railway; with the estate in Mrs. Nurse’s hands the fact that lines ran across the land was rather a detriment than otherwise.
Mr. Lyttelton mentioned that formerly there was a canal terminus, and a branch tramway ran on the land ; the company, by statute, had
yards away from Acre-lane. It could not be developed for building even with the Acre-lane frontage. He estimated the value at £600, and added 10 per cent., making £660 ; thi* was at the rate of £1,200 per acre.
Mr. J. Robert Cooper, F.S.I. (senior partner in the firm of Ventom, Bull and Cooper, Old Jewry, E.C.), said he had seen ■the agreement whereby the whole property was let at £130 per year. It was used as a cycle school, and there was a good cement track made on the
land,	so that £30 was a liberal allowance for that portion ; it was really no t worth that rental, but he had taken £30 at 20 years’ purchase, giving £600, and added 10 per cent., making £660.
Mr. David Burnett, F.S.I., of 75, Nicholas-
lane,	City, said he had dealings with property quite close to the land taken. His total came to £660.
Mr. Crump, Q.C., commented on the idea that the Board couid take a back garden at prairie value because there was no direct communication. The agreement was an onerous one, made with the knowledge that the school was coming.
The jury awarded £965.
BUILDING LAND AT BEXHILL.
Mr. Daniel Watney, P.P.S.I. (Messrs. Daniel Watney and Sons, 33, Poultry, E.C.), sitting as sole Arbitrator at the Surveyors’ Institution on Wednesday, resumed the hearing of the case of “ Squirrell v. Crowhurst, Sidley and Bexhill Railway,” which was a claim by Mr. H. T. ■Squiirell, the owner in fee simple of a quantity of land known as the Warkham Farm Estate, at Sidley, in the parish of Bexhill, for compensation in respect of the acquirement of a portion of that property for the purposes of a new railway. (Estates Gazette, Februarv 4 and 18.)
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 ; Mr. Edward Boyle, Q. C., and Mr. Archibald Willis (instructed by Messrs. Cheeseman and Cope, 2, Great George-street, S.W.), for the railway company.
The case for the railway company was continued.
Mr. A. L. Ryde, F.S.I. (Messrs. Edward Ryde and Son, 29, Great George-street, S.W.), had valued the area acquired, 9a. lr. 24p., at £300 per acre, £2,829, and had added the usual 10 per cent., making £3,012. He estimated the damage to the remainder of the property at £120 ; total valuation, £3,232.
Mr. E. H. Bousfield (Messrs. Edwin Fox and Bousfield, 99, Gresham-street, E.O.), and Mr. Bray, of Hastings, also gave evidence. They agreed that £300 per acre was the outside value of the land in question. Mr C W Willoughby, P.A.S.I. (Messrs. Weatherall and Green, 22, Chancery-lane, W.O.), was retained.
The award was reserved.
A UNIQUE COMPENSATION CASE. :RAILWAY LINE ON LAND: IS IT A COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKING?
The case of “Nurse v. Great Western Railway Company,” which ■had been referred to Mr. Thomas Fenwick, F.S.I., M. Inst. C.E., of Leeds, as Umpire, and in which Mr. William G. Rees, F.S.I., of Newport, was arbitrator for the claimant; and Mr. W. Herbert Williams,
F.	S.I., G.W.R., Paddington, for the company, came on for hearing at the Westminister Palace Hotel, on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Mr. A. T. Lawrence, Q.C., and the Hon. A. Lyttelton (instructed by Messrs!. Lloyd and Co., solicitors), appeared for ■the claimant ; Mr. Cripps, Q.C., and Mr. Lawson Walton, Q.C., and Mr. Howard Wright (instructed by the
G.	W.R. solicitor) represented the railway company.
Mr. Lyttelton opened on behalf of the claimant, and said this was no doubt a somewhat remarkable case, and in his own and his witnesses’ experience a unique one. The claimant was Mrs. Nurse, who was tenant for life of 220 acres of land called the Sofrydd Estate, at Crumlin, South Wales, in- which she had an estate ■of copyhold, and her sister the reversion in fee of the ■estate. The G.W.R. Company had given two notices to treat for 3a. 34p. of land, which was leased in 1849 to the Monmouthshire Canal Company, who were predecessors in title to the G.W.R. for a term of 60 years, at a rental of £70 per annum, the lease terminating in 1909. Upon this land an important railway was constructed, which was a pass from a very rich mineral district ■to Newport and the sea ; it was the inevitable route, under the existing circumstances, by which the abundant minerals under this valley must proceed when returned from the coal pits to the sea, and it was also the natural course for the iron ore to proceed up from Newport and from ships trading there. In this particular spot there was also Crumlin Viaduct, which was really the key to the valley. The land was immensely more valuable at the present time than in 1849 ; in fact, the special adaptability of this particular place for transport purposes was evident from the natural conformation of the valley. The piece ■of land in ques-
creased, ■and he had calculated on an average trade of 300 barrels.
Mr. Hodges said the claimants were mortgagees of the property for £1,150. The lease was granted in 1870 at a premium of £500.
FOR THE COUNCIL.
Compmsaiimt (lasts.
THE GLARE-MARKET IMPROVEMENT SCHEME.
Mr. Henry Weatherall, F.S.I. (Messrs. Weatherall and Green), said the present manageress had been in the house since 1888, and the claimants !»id all outgoings. Under the conditions he did not think any brewer would give anything for the lease. A tenant could not he got to give £80 a year for the property ; he was certain there was no money in it. He had made calculations on a basis ■of 290 barrels. During the whole of the public-house boom the house apparently never had a tenant, and he took it that they could not sell the house. He valued the fixtures at £83.
Mr. Thornton, licensed property valuer (Messrs. Thornton, Lumsden and Co.), ■said he had made ■alternative valuations to find if it would pay either a brewer or ■a tenant to take the house. From his calculations it meant a loss on either way of trading, and he could see no value in the lease.
The Arbitrator reserved his award. In the case of Mrs. Billing, owing property in Drury-oourt and Benham’s-yard, rent £90 ■a year, £2,900 was agreed upon between the parties, and £1,000 for the leasehold ■interest. Mr. Arthur Watney was ■the surveyor concerned, and Messrs. Bell, Brodrick and Grey, Ormond House, the solicitors.
A GARDEN AT BRIXTON.
In the Sheriff’s Court, Holborn, on Friday, February 24, before the Under-Sheriff, Mr. Burchell, and a jury, was determined the compensation payable to Mr. William Curtis Edmonds, as the owner of half-an-acre of land at the rear of Hambly House, No. 46, Acre-lane, Brixton, S.W., compulsorily acquired by the London School Board.
Mr. Chump, Q.O., and Mr. G. A. Scott (instructed by Messrs. Taylor, Stileman and Ln-derwood, Bedford-row) appeared for the claimant ; Mr. Edward Boyle, Q.C., and Mr. Norman Craig (instructed by Mr. E. C. Mortimer, solicitor, and Mr. S. Cooke, surveyor) appeared for the School Board.
Mr. Crump, Q.O., in opening, said the land taken formed the kitchen garden of an old residence called Hambly House, in Acre-lane. The School Board had apparently obtained access in the rear, as otherwise the only communication to a thoroughfare was to Acre-lane, Brixton; it was a populous residential district in which manufacturing businesses were carried on and where artists might find it to their interests to establish their studios. The notice to treat was given in August, 1897.
Mr. James Morison Duncan, F.S.I. (senior partner in the firm of Duncan and Kimpton, surveyors, 40 and 42, Queen Victoria-street, E.C.), said he valued the land taken at £80 a year, and 22¿ years’ purchase, giving £1,800; he added the usual 10 per cent, for compulsory sale, £180; for severance damage, £225; rearranging surface drainage, £100 ; and building boundary wall, £75, total £2,380. His value worked out at fd. per foot per annum, and was fair, as he had got more than that in the immediate neighbourhood. The rental value of the whole was £250 per annum. The house was of no value except as old materials. The land taken could not be land-locked while the frontage belonged to the same owner.
Mr. Edwin Fox, F.S.I. (Messrs. Edwin Fox and Bousfield, 99, Gresham-street, E.C.), adopted the valuation of the previous witness. The land was conveniently situate close to the main roads and Brixton station, and was suitable for commercial purposes.
Mr. Boyle here read an agreement made between the landlord and tenant of the property, which had been let in 1897 at £130 per annum for three years, whereby it was provided lhat if the School Board gave notice to take the kitchen garden the tenancy might terminate or the rent be reduced to £100. The School Board intended to build a boundary wall.
Mr. Fox said he valued the premises as in possession. He could not value the garden us if he were going to it in a balloon (laughter).
Mr. B. I’Anson Breach, F.S.I. (of Messrs. Farebrother, Ellis, Breach and Co., 29, Fleet-street, E.C.), said he had taken 26,000ft. as worth Jd. per foot, or £81 5s. per annum, which he treated on the 4^ per cent, table, 22g years’ purchase, giving £1,827 12s. 5d. ; he added 10 per cent., £182 16s. 3d. ; and £100 for reconstruction of drainage, making his total £2,310 18s. 9d. He had dealt with similar land in the neighbourhood. The land could be let for a factory or timber yard, and a 15ft. way could be provided from Acre-lane.
FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD.
Mr. Boyle said there was no way out from the land at all, and a 15ft. way could only be made by pulling down a range of stabling and conservatories.
Mr. Douglas Young, F.S.I. (Messrs. Douglas Young and Co., of Ooleman-street, City, and Clapham), said it was purely back land, 180
At the offices of the Strand District Board of Works, in Tavistock-street, Covent-garden, on Monday, Mr. H. T. Steward, F.S.I. (Messrs. Hunt and Steward, 45, Parliament-street, S.W.), the Arbitrator appointed to decide the value of properties compulsorily taken by the London County Council in connection with the Glare-market and ■Strand improvement scheme, under the provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, commenced a series of enquiries.
The first claim considered was in respect of the
HOPE PUBLIC-HOUSE, BLACKMOOR STREET,
which is held upon lease for an unexpired term of 20 years from Lady Day next at a rental of £70 a year.
Mr. A. J. Ram was counsel for the claimant, and Mr. Corrie Grant for the London County Council.
Mr. Thomas■ Jesse Weaver, public-house valuer (Messrs. J. J. Hill and Weaver, auctioneers and valuers, 28, Theobald’s-road, Hol-bcrn), said he had viewed the Hope Tavern, and valued the freehold interest. The property was now leased for an unexpired term of 20 years at a rental of £70 per annum, and comprised a public-house with a frontage to Blackmoor-street of 16ft. 10in., and one-story warehouse fronting on Glare-court. For 1898 the trade payments were £152, and the returns £264. In his opinion the freeholder would readily obtain a premium of £8,000 for a lease of 60 years at £70 a year. This sum anticipated on the 4 per cent, table by 20 years was worth in present money £3,633. The rental of £70 was worth 30 years’ purchase, or £2,100; and the warehouse at rear £237 ; total £5,970, to which he added 10 per cent, for forced sale, £597, giving £6,567.
Mr. William Rolfe, surveyor and valuer of licensed properties, 102, Great Russell-street, London, W.C., gave his estimate of the present value of the freehold interest as follows: —
1,—The freehold rent of £70 per annum is
worth 30 years’ purchase ............£2,100 0 0
2—The lease terminates at Lady-day 1919, when the freeholder will be entitled to possession, and could grant a lease for 80 years at the rent of £70 per annum. This
lease would fetch a premium of £8,500, which anticipated on the 4 per cent, tables by 21 years, is worth at the present time ..	3,729 11 0
3,—The freehold premises in Clare-court, let at 8s. 6d. per week (landlord paying rates and taxes), are worth ................ 291 0 0
6,120 11 0
Add 10 per cent, for compulsory .sale	..	012 1 1
£6,732 12 1
FOR THE COUNTY COUNCIL.
Mr. Thornton (Messrs. Thornton, Lumsden and Newman, licensed property valuers, 15, Ooleman-street, E.C.) said he had taken the rental of £70 a year on the 4 per cent, table, and the figures worked out at £952 ; value in possession, £100 a year, £1,919 ; on the 4 per cent, table, 25 years’ purchase, £2,500. His total valuation was £3,362.
Mr. Henry Weatherall, F.S.I. (Messrs. Weatherall and Green, 22, Chancery-lane, W.C.), adopted Mr. Thornton’s valuation.
Mr. John Marks, hotel and licensed property valuer (Messrs. Orgill, Marks and Orgill, 21, Hart-street), was also retained by the Council.
THE GRAPES AND ARTICHOKE.
In regard to the Grapes, 109, Drury-lane, owned by Mr. Grimes, Mr. Corrie Grant said there was no contest, and he asked the Arbitrator to make a formal award of £3,647 and costs. Also with respect to the Artichoke, 20, Clare-street, Mr. Russell was to be paid £7,200 for the freehold.
THE NEW GEORGE, DRURY COURT.
On Thursday, the case of the New George public-house, Drury-court, held by Messrs. Stansfeld and Co., brewers, on a lease expiring ■in 1909, was gone into.
Mr. Walter Ryde (instructed by Messrs. Maitland, Peckham and Co., 17, Knightrider-street) represented the claimants; and Mr. Corrie Grant (instructed by Mr. E. O. Davies, solicitor, and Mr. Andrew Young, F.S.I.) again represented the County Council.
Mr. J. Morton Graham, public-house broker, of 51, Burton-crescent, King’s Cross׳, said the property was close to the Strand. In his judgment the house was 25 years behind the times. He had treated the property as being closed at the present time, and, looking at it from that point of view, he thought he could get £2,000 for it with possession in the open market.
Mr. E. F. Fuller, surveyor (of Messrs. Fuller ■and Fuller, 30, Queen-street, City), said that,, looking at the situation of the property and its capacity for doing business, be thought the claimants were entitled to £1,400 for their interest. In the open market he had no doubt it would sell to a brewer. The trade had in-