The Express.
London, England, 1866-09-05 00:00:00

THE LONLON, OHATHAM, AND LOVER
RAILWAY.

Yesterday at the Sheriffs' Court, Red Lion-
square, the case " Grissell r. the London, Chatham, and •
Dover Railway Company," came on for hearing before Mr.
Under-Sheriff Hall and a jury. The proceedings were
under a writ of elegit, founded on a judgment obtained by
Mr. Thomas Grissell, the plaintiff, and the levy was for
5,320/. 9s. lld., with interest of 4 per cent. from the
signing of the judgment in the Court of Common Pleas on
the 20th ult.
Mr. Lanyon appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and a
clerk from the aloe of Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton
represented the company.
Mr. Lanyon informed the jury that ne would call before
them Mr. Vigers, one of the auctioneers of the company,
and he would, no doubt, satisfy them that there was
sufficient " surplus property " in Middlesex to satisfy the
claim of Mr. Grime% who had obtained& judgment against
the company. ...
Mr. Robert Vigefd was called. He said he was, jointly
with his brother, auctioneer to the company. They bad
been instructed to sell certain pyperty, and had advertised
the same. A copy of the Tuna of the 23rd ult. was
handed to Mr. V. igen, and he was questioned as to the
value of certain property therein descnbed in Hugh-street,
Pimlico, which was to be sold by auction during the pre-
sent month. The property was advertised as the " sur-
plus" property of the London, Chatham, and Dover Rail-
way (Victoria station improvements). They had been
instructed by Mr. Forbes and others to sell for the com-
pany through Messrs. Freshfiehh, the then solicitors to the
company.
On examination Mr. Vigers declined to give a valuation
of the several plots of property described in the advertise-
ment.
Mr. Lanyon said he only wanted a " rough" valuation.
It was necessary that some value should appear in the
present proceedings.
Mr. Vigen said he must decline to give what was called
a " rough valuation." He would make one if required.
Mr. Lanyon went through the list, and inquired the
value of each.
Mr. Vigers said one was worth about 500/. and 3/. a
year rental of another portion worth about 901. The site
of St. Michael's School was likely to fetch from 5,0001. to
6,0001. The property was in Hugh-street, Pimlico:abutting
on the wall of the railway. Besides the property men-
tioned, there was other worth about 10,0001., and two
houses in Belgrave-road which were worth about 3,000/.
each.
Mr. Under-Sheriff Hall asked whether the leasehold pro-
perty, as it was both leasehold and freehold, would be
taken as tenant by elegit, or whether it would be
taken absolutely.
Mr. Lanyon said the best course would be to hold it as
tenant until the claim was satisfied, and not to take it at
once.

The learned tinder-Sheriff observed that the property
described was more than sufficient to satisfy the demand
of Mr. Grissell. . . .

Mr. Vigers expressed a hope that it would cover five or
six times the claim.
Mr. Linyon thought it would be advisable to confine the
inquisition to the freehold property, and not to reckon the
leasehold. He subsequently said in a case like the present
the best course would be to take the value of the freehold
and leasehold.

The clerk from the office of Baxter, Rose, and Norton
suggested that there was no evidence that the property in
question belonged to the company.
Mr. Under-Sheriff Hall thought the evidence of Mr.
Vigers showed it. He did not see how the company had
aPI ocus standi on the present occasion. The learned Under-
Sheriff told the jury that they had to find as to the value
of the freehold and leasehold property, in order that a re-
turn might be made, and they could not do better
than act on the evidence of Mr. Vtgerai as to the value.
Verdict accordingly.