The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1861-04-09 00:00:00

illorsttobire.

ARBITRATION CASE.

It

•

psavala4aa
' mar was -

In consequenoe of the non-agreement of the arbitrs•
tors, Messrs. Abbott and Botham, rum/Ming the claim
of Mesas. Davis and Robinson against the Dorchester
Local Board of Health, for eompeniation for alleged
damages for carrying • public sewer under their pre-
_

noises, 22, Southatr;st, -the ems came ea for bearing
on Thursday last before James Its:stow, Req., of thi
Inner Temple, banister-at-lam. Mr. Coombs spin
attended to support the claim of Messrs. Davis and
Robinson, and Mx. Symonds to oppose on the part of
the Local Board of Health:

eines

Mr. Cooing, in opening the ease, simply stated the
facts as they were subsequently given hi 'Mem* by
the witnesses. He said the proceedings were taken
under the 144th motion of the hot, which set forth that
compensation for damages might be slanted, and that
he should be able to prove the Oakes of the demand now
made. Ile dwelt on the fact that the Board treated
their application with silent contempt, thereby showing
this his clients had been driven to adopt the present
course of procedure.
Jeremiah Jewett, town surveyor, said be knew house
22, in Southetreet
diagonally
ecrarrimental sewer had been
dt laid down, poising • under it from South.
terrace. The caown of e arch wee 911. ffln. below the
pavement. In the way basement stories were gene-
rally constructed in Dorchester this was deep enough
for • basement story being constructed to the lumen
question. The pipes were of the best stone-ware, and
laid in the best manner, and the earth was rammed in
laterally round them. If six feet were excavated for
a basement, there would not be se/Solent earth over
the pipes for tunneling. The earth was not piddled
round the pipes, and be had never heard of those laid
in chalk being paddled. Before he entered on the
reetnien, on the 4th of September, be asked the tenant
If he had any damage, and he said he had not. He told
him if any damage were done, he would be remunerated
If the damage were pointed out before he sertilled.
The tenant rammed himself well satisfied. These pre-
mises could have been drained into the sewer in Bal-
kh's passage. The fall would, however, be one in
sixty. The fall of the weer sitsingsiader them pre-
mises was one in sinilvenemp,
while the laving* the deeds of thesei premises
had also been emasiderable. Had there bees • basement
story the basement floor could not have been drained into
the 16ollen's purge sewer. Be knew of no appreciable
damage done to the premises in consequence of the
drain, and were the house his own he should not have
considered iSa tees for oompenation.
William John Marsh sail he was the present tenant
of the house—Mr. Sawed Taylor was the former
tenant. He received no notice from the Surveyor till
the workmen had been there three days. There was
great want of more accommodation , especially for store-
rooms. Had had nothing to do with the premien before
September. Was • yearly tenant, and there was no
change in the terms of the agreement between Mai sod
his landlords in mongooses of the sewer.
Joseph Robinson said he was Joint owner of the pro-
mises with Mr. Davis. The rent we. MS, and the pro.
petty extended from the front sired to the back street.
The house in Charles-street, however, was under a
different holding, and to get to the premises in South.
street from the beck, one most go throtariattere
Charles-street. The rent of the house in
was £l6. Be estimated the vahm of the two houses
and gardens at El,OOO. Mr. Davis considered the pro-
perty was worth 121,200. He estimated the damage at
£lOO, Mr. Davis estimated at 1260.
John Hicks, architect and surveyor, said the premises
In question had Hit. Pin. in frontage, and were such
premises, being in an improving part of the town, as
might be considerably improved; If pulled down for
rebuilding it would be desirable to have a basement
story. In mach ease • step to the shop would be bed,
which would make the door 911. Bin, above
Use crown of the sewer. The basement ought
to be UM from the Boor to the ceiling; out ef
this eft. Bin, in the door of the shop and dee
that of the cellar would have to be deduced.
It would now be impossible to tunnel our the arch fee
• basement story, and it would not do to lay the feud.
dation flat on the pipe. His own opinion was that the
property bad been depreciated in value to the amountsi
one third—that whereas it was worth £6OO before, it
was worth only £4OO now. His opinion was that base-
ment stories should always be lift. in the clear; but
his practice was not always in conformity with his opi-
nion, in consequence of went of opportunity. It wee •
difficult operation to excavate a cellar wider an old
building, and he would, if the premises were not pulled
down, recommend a store to be built up behind. If he
were to mill down the premises to rebuild a new 'hop,
he would recommend the back premises to be ocinveded
into a store, and to bring the whole of the goods into
the shop from the back street. This would be throwing
the £l6 house into the £25 hods and @hop. The new
premises would cost from £7OO to £I,OOO, and would
after all fetch about £7O a year. If he were to buy the
house, 22, South-street, as an investment, he woeM not
give more than 2300 a year. It had been damaged £2OO
by the sewer, as one could not do what he chose income
of iinprovement. 7ft. was not a sufficient height for
any person to live in.
George B. Criekmay, architect at Weymouth, had
'inspected the premises, and considered that they
might be remodelled with advantage, and in such
ease a basement story would be dasirable. A nine-feet
depth for the room would be a great advantage, but it
might be Sit. Sin. In the present instance, if the
height of the basement story were but Wt, from the
floor to the ceiling, even than the drain could not be
tunneled over, and if the sewer got out of order it
must all be taken up throughout the premises. There
was a probability that the drain would choke, but
knowing that public sewers were usually flushed
periodically, he did not think a public sewer was so
likely to choke as a private sewer. There is at present
no damage done to the premises, but there was • damage
to the freehold to the amount of Elite, in consequence
of being hampered ill the exercise of their rights in
regard to the improvement of the premises, and being
Interfered with in reference to this sewer.
Thomas Anderson, agent to the Johnstone estate,
Weymouth, said if two properties were offered him for
sale, equal in every other respect, but one having this
sewer running under it, and the other not, he should
jurist decidedly knock off £5O or EGO on account of the
drain. No doubt it was possible for • first-rate seed
pipe to be cracked and the effluvia to escape. If there
were no intervening obstacle, the effluvia would go up
the sewer.
William Abbot, one of the arbitrators, said be was a
surveyor, and land and building agent practising in
London. Had been in practice 47 years. Had seen the
house 22, South-street, and had hoard bow the sewer
had ircen laid, and valued that depreciation at £lO9.
'Gm exercise of rights in the attention of premises had
been interfered with, and the freehold of the owners
hart been depredated in value. Had never before known
an arbitrator called as • witness before the umpire. Be-
lever' he filet heard of this case in January last from
Mr. Hicks, who asked his opinion in respect to a case of
arbitration. He gave an abstract letter of facts, and he
gave Mr. Hicks his opinion that damage was done
without giving an opinion what amount of damage had
been done. Neither of Mr. Hicks's letters conveyed
any elm what he considered the amount of damage was.
Hail no recollection of having any communication with
any other person, till he heard from Mr. Bottum that
be had been appointed. Mr. Hicks, in his first letter,
asked Min if he were of open to an engagement as an
arbitrator, and on his stag be was, Mr. Hicks wrote
to him the second time, stating the case and
asking him if he thought he had a good came to go for
damage, and be said be believed there was. He had
stated that the fad that no notice bad been given to the
landlord, and also that the drain was not in the original
plan, was an important element as bearing on the
conk. Had never said these things were an de-
ment bearing on the damage. Had in court, at the
former time, asked whether it was right or just, if the
public purse had been saved, the town should not pay.
His own opinion was, that the blunder of the engineer
had created all this litigation, and that it was undoubt-
edly an element of cats in the ease. Had had ONI-
Kidereble experience, and it was an engineering • eipie
iu London to carry the drains under the public ways.
lie knew of no publics drains passing under private
property—except collateral drainage. Did dot know
which way the drain went at Woolwich—or that it went
under the whole town. In rakulating the damage, bad
taken as Mind rental of the premises. He considered
that the property was worth SO years' purchase, with
the prospective increasing advantages of the position, or
£4-I0 in the whole, as the value of the fee simple.
Ile considered that the value of the land, 3,0381 t. Sin.
we. worth Is. 6d, par foot, as • freehold, and he believed
that the damage done was at least half the value of the
property, or £lOO. These adverse rigbte prevented the
improvement of the property and besides, the town
senora could some an the premises to examine the
sewer whenever be pleated. He would not purchase
the property for the purpose of expending any motley
upon it. If there were no deans rights he would like
to have this property, very much, but with these
adverse rights he would not have it at • Wt. Living at
he did in London, be again said, he would not have that
with
property at a gift tilde adverse sights. The fall
of one in sixty was quite as good as one in six for
drainage. Had be been the owner of the property they
should not have drained under it, for he would have
gone to the Court of Chancsoy and obtained an in-
junction to rastrein them making the sewer. The
advantage of draining into this sewer was decidedly no
equivalent for the damage that had been done.
(Mr. Ilarstow said Mr. Abbott had said he would not
have the property at • gift as he resided in London, but
he might get some meta take the rents for him.)
lir. Abbott mid he would not have the property under
any circumstances whatever with the right of the Dor-
chester Town Council to come on the premises and dig
clown to the drain whenever they might please.
Mr. Symonds,. in reply to the evidence given an the
part of the appheasite contended, in the firosturkesi, that
they had stanch, as the claim was for
damages in prospective, and not in fact; and in support
of his argument quoted a railway case—Boston v.
Welsby.
Mr. 11/MOW said he was quite of opinion that the
cese referred to by Mr Symonds was Doi a parallel ease
to the one before them, and that he would not therefore
tremble Mr. Coombs for • reply.
Mr. Symonds asked Mr. Bardow to take • noes of his
objection, in order that, should his decision on the sub-
ject of damages be averse to the Board, the point of law
might be argued in • superior courL
Mr. Barstow said the question rested with him
whether or not he should do this, and be would give the
application his best ooesideration.
Mr. Symonds then replied to the evidence, and said
that be should call witnesses who would prove not
only that no damage had been done to the premises by
reerfing this drain under them, but that they had been
heereved. or, in other words, that the benefits arising
from the drain more than eompensated any
which it was said was likely hereafter to arised.ala&
°Pinim" °l.Pg,•••d by the claimants' architects
lee the denrabtlity lades 21%. in the clear f=
meet stories were not eerelogt In abate mediae, and
that here was quite safileient &Pea as was °Missal
The mod that wad be mid, den by the
a" the, might be to the Image ei
amides be beild dory, bid
not in appralable a.e byt damages.

Josiah George Pods, surveyor of Southampton,
where the Board of Health Act had been in operation
since 1800. In carrying old the works there, in very
many instances, there has been an intersection by
sewers. Very many of the drains went under the
houses, but there had been no claims for damages. Had
seen these premises, and assuming that glazed-atone
ware pipes, properly jointed with cement, believed the
drainage was secure, nor did be consider there had been
s.v.an&syslitanar in the
_value of the property, Thor,
be an
Imaginary, mbue' licieTre could
in the rbeentU, triLl
would show a depreciation in the valued the property,
bet there being no loss in rental there could be no loss
In the present value. There was • possibilty of the
cracking of • pipe, but it was vary improbable. Had
known no stone ware-pipes break after being imbedded
in the soil. Did not think the drain in the laid would
, affect the marketable valise of the premises.
Robert Dyrnood, the younger, surveyor and engineer
at Exeter: Had been • good deal in aiming out
matters under the Board of Health Act. He believed the
sewer had been properly constructed, made of
the best material, and of the proper diameter.
Had never before heard of compensation being
given for sewers going under the houses, and
did not believe these premises had even depreciated in
valise. Were be in the character of an intended par-
chaser, be should not consider that be should offer •
lees sum on amount of the drain; nor, were be an in-
coming tenant, ask for any reduction in rent on that
account. DI tenant he should not ask for a reduction
in rent; as • landlord, be should consider the advan-
tages of the sewer more than compensated for its pas-
sing under the premises, and he did not think there
was any diminution for the purpose of sallies. It was
just within the possibility that the drain should get
out of order. If a basement story were erected Bft.
below the pavement it could not be tunneled over,
and if the drain got out of order the effluvia would be of
temporary inconvenience, but not sufikiestly serious to
depreciate the value of the property. .
B. Ifoodey, surveyor and builder at Dorchester : He
had heard Kr. Hicks's opinion of the estimated value of
these premises, but could not agree with him. He did
not think the sewer injured the precedes in the least
dein., nor would he be deterred from buying it at the
same pries on amount of the sewer. Considered £350
was a fair pries for the premises as an investment.
The sewer could not do any injury to the premises.
He would, of course, if he had the choice, never prefer
to have • drain forded under his house on account of
the Inconvenience, but as ramided the value of the
property, he did not believe that was at all deterlo-
Georre
Sias aid he now resided at liedlpole. He
for resided at Dorchester, sod carried on the busi-
nessof builder. At that time this house be-
longed to Mews. Jacob. Before they built
the boom at the back, now let for 216, they asked
his opinion respecting building it, and he told them
that if they did they ey would reduce the value of the
front home £lOO. He then valued that house at £5OO.
He had himself had two houses in that neighbourhood,
and summing that be wished to purchase the house in
question, be would prefer having the sewer than other-
wise. He did not consider the property depredated at
all; indeed, he would prefer it. Were be to live there,
be should consider it no disadvantage to the property
whatever.
Thome Dodson, Weymouth, said he had been engaged
in the building trade • good many years. He knew
these premises, and could not me in what way the
sewer &geoid the value of the house. Were he about
to purchase, the sewer, at that dishes°e under the ground
would have no effect on his mind. Would have no ob-
jection whatever to • sewer of that depth going under
his premises. It was, perhaps, an inconvenience, but
with him would not affect its value.
John Halpin, a member of the Baird of Health, said
be resided in High-street, and lied OWN property at For-
dington. The main sewer in High-street crossed his
pewees, and be thought it was very beneficial. His first
Impression was against it, and he complained to the Sur-
veyor , of the infringements of his rights, but he subse-
quently saw, on the came being pointed out by the Sur-
veyor, that he was hominid by it. At Fordington,
the public drain also passed under one of his houses.
The Surveyor had deviated from the original line at his
rogues*, for the impose of passing under his houses,
which had been materially benefittad by the sewerpees-
int %unlade'se. Looking at this property, and testing it
with his own, he should say it was beneficial.
Bohai Seannard, contractor, said be knew the sewer
in question. Mr. Jesty was the contractor for the
sewer, and witness did the work. The only disturbance
to the premises was • shaft in front and behind, and a
tunnel for the pipes. The pipes were of the best
material, and some with longer necks than usual. They
were jointed with cement and bearded. Previously
there was • osespit to the privy, and • cesspool about 2
yards from the well was running over, and the liquid
into the well. Under his contract he
emptied oesspit and filled it up, and the tenant
expressed himself satisfied. He himself considered the
px,-or was improved—it was far more healthy than it
was
John Bailor, a member of the Board of Health, said
be lived in
73='res nearly opposite that 'Hall. A
sewer tram te-street paned through his pre-
' aims into the ad dein( premises. By means of this
newer he had a dressage of his premises, which in con-
sequence was inereased in value, as be heti been able
le drain it at a private mat. It did not exceed 1110.
Alden frp his own. he did not 'amidst these pre-
mises were depreciated in value. If one of the stone-
ware pipes broke, it would, DO doubt, be very annoying,
end might perhaps affect its sale, t the probe •ty
was very remote,
Mr. Symonds then replied on the mem, and main.
kilned that he had fully met it by proving from
unquestionable testimony that as there lad been no
&usage committed, the claim for damages mild rot be
meintained, and contended that even should the umpire
be of opinion that some trilling compensation
should be given for way-leave. it OiNght to he of n. triiups
as ailment as not to carry costs, as the applicants amid
have gobs before the magistrates, and then they could
not have claimed more than no.
Mr. Coombs in reply, said the claim had not been met
by the parties on the other side. The Board of Health
had taken away a portion of their freehold, they had
kept it, they had got that possession now, and his climes
could not exercise that right over their freehold they
could before the 4th September. It was for this that
compensation was claimed.
11G. Barstow said he would look into the case and
make his award at the earliest opportunity. He thought
he could promise them that they should receive it by
Tuesday morning next.

[Oars being the only report of these prosseclinp any
of our contemporaries who may take the same will
plasm acknowledge it.)

'4\