Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-01-09 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL BOROUGH SESSIONS.

(Before GILBERT HEiiDERSON, Esq., Ricordei.)

The court sat by adjournment of Saturday morning,

THE RATING OF THE TOBACCO WAREHOTION.
In•this case Mr. David Atwool was the appellant, and
the Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of laverpopl
were the respondents. For the latter, counsel were.
Messrs. Deighton and 11. Mansfield (instructed. by
Messrs. Dodge and Wynn), and Messrs. Aspinall and
Danson (instructed by Mr. Tyndal) appeared for the
respondents.
Mr. Aspinall, having stated the law of the case, said ,
Mr. AtWood was the appellant, and the subject matter
of the appeal was the rate upon a very well-known
building, called the Tobacco Warehouses, at the Queen's
Dock. and the circumstances were these. The warehouses
were built a considerable time ago ..by the Corporation of
Likierp66l at the instance of the Crown, and they 'were
built in a way which, he might correctly describe as
piecemeal. The Crown being desirous, of having the
premises built, it. suited their convenience at-that time
to pay a rent which was equal to a per centagie on the.
-outea.7 by the Corporation, and, so calculated, the rent
amounted to £6,700 as year. The expenditeee by the
Corporation, however, included not. merely tbeluilding
of theiVarehouses, but the construction:of a sea-wall and
a variety of Otheimatten, amongst which wereedtent-
tions from time to time, and the cost of =l .addi-
tions not contemplated in the orfei, nal agreernentewhich
it was only just the Govtrnment should pay, Ina Which
could .heidly be said to‘ represent any part of the
rental or.value of the bailding when let to any one-else. ,
The. Crown paid a rent of year for sonic time,
but the Crown property being free from' rates', no rates
were payable or paid. Same years ago, howrier, it
became neelonger desirablethat the Crown should occupy
these premises themselvesi.and they wished to get rid of
them, very- probably because they were not 'as valuable
Or as useful as they expected, and they accorangly
advertisedfor tenders from persons-who were willing to
occupy them.
The ItecordEr asked if the Crown had a lease of 'the
premises ?'
Mr. Aspinall said the Crown had!a lease for 21 years,
of which six were yet unexpired. A tender was, made
for the warehouses,. hut- the gectlemart who made it
either could not or did not comply with the conditions-
proposed by the Crowns. and his=, tender was there-
fore declined, and further tenders advertised for:
Amongst the tenders sent in was one from Mr. Atwool,
.and he was. accepted as-. tenant during the unexpired
;portion of the lease, at a, yearly rental of £4,000.' N:45
sooner, however, had Mr. AtwoeV's tender been ac--
cepted, than some illnatured things were said about
him in 'a public body ia.'the town,. and which probably
led to the action that had been taken by the parish in
thiS matter.

Mr. Deighton object-A to these- remarks as Lela-
vent, and _ _

Mr. Aspinall said he would not pursue them further.
He.proceeded to say that- Mr.. Atwool, after the fairest
of all-possible competition, public notices invithirten-
ders having been placarded in several places iiuthe
kingdom; and the adjudication having been made by, the
commissioners in London, became,the tenant.
The Recorder asked: what wad- the interval between
the nbn-acceptanie of the first oftr and the acceptance
of Mr. Atwool's tender-under the second.

M. Aspinall replied-that the date of the second adver—
tisement, inviting fresh tenders was the '3rd of April,
and the tenders were to have been' sent in on or before
the 23rd of April. Mr. Atwool having entered onhis
tenancy, the parish took steps taaseertam the amount of
his rent ; and, in the first rate, he was rated at £lsooo.a
year gross rental, but, as was usual, deducted 10 per cent.
and rated him on £3,600 a year, which was the rateable
value. And this was whk Mr. Atwool undoubtedly
supposed the parish would ?save adhered to, , but in
the following year—lBs9, when the rate was made
he (Mt. Atwool) was surprised to find that instead
Of the parish authorities being content with rating him
on £3,600 a Year, which represented a gross rental of
' £4,000, the parish increased the gross rental to £6,000
a year, and rated him upon ,a rateable value of £6,400 a
year. That being so,- Mr: Atwool appealed to the
magietrates in the ordinary way, and the question was
heard before Messrs. Stewart, Sheil, and Castellain.
There was not any evidence biciught forward by the
parish; the matter was left rather to the magistrates
themselves, and after a long discussion amongst them-
selves, decided to strike off £4OO a year, and that the
warehouses should be rated on a rateable value of £5,000
a year, which gave a gross rental of, he believed, £5,555
and some odd shillings,• pence, and farthings, into the

barmcmin. _ _
Mr. Danson—Ls,sss 1 ls. lid. •
Mr. Aspinall resumed. He did not know how the
magistrates had arrived at that sum as the gross_ rental,
and the matter being very. unsatisfactory, Mr. Atwool
thought it would be, better that the matter should be
brought to the Quarter Sessions and the opinion of the
Recorder taken upon it ; and he (Mr. Aspinall) held
that some good cause should be shown for.the parish de-
parting from the usual mode of assessing property to the
poor-rates, and that a reason should be given why Mr.
Atwool had been singled out particularly as the party
Upon whom the authorities should operate in respect of
the new principle they had adopted.
Mr. James A. Picton was the first witness called. He
stated that he was formerly one of the surveyors for the
parish of Liverpool, in conjunction with Mr. Culshaw.'
He had surveyed the tobacco warehouses, with a view
of making a valuation to arrive at the rental. The
height of the open portion of the building under the
beams was 15 feet. The entire area 'outside the walls
was about 23,700 square yards. Taking off one-fifth for
the walls and the smaller gangways, such as was usual
in the general rim of warehouses, the.space was reduced
to 18,778 square yards, but deducting the wide gang-
ways required for this peculiar business, the space was
15,345 square yards. There was an upper floor, which
if filled, would darken a.portion of the lower floor, and
the area of that was 4,260 yards. He took the available
space on the ground floor at ss. per yard, making £3,836;
and taking the upper floor, which was less valuable, he had
estimated it at ls. 6d. the yard, making a sum of £320.
The total valuation was £4,156. There would be ten
per cent. off in the rateable value, which _would reduce
it to L 3,741.
Culshaw gave similar evidence, and corroborated
Mr. Picton's measurements ; and Mr. Joseph Boult also
deposed that the valuation was a fair and reasonable
one. _ _

Mr Deighton then addressed the court at considerable
length. He called attention to the mode in which the
value of property' was to be ascertained, according. to the
6th and 7th William IV, cap. 96, contending that the
act of-Parliament required that the rent upon which the
assessment should be made was such as might be reason-
ably expected to let for from year to year. Now, the
appellant in this case had a valqable monopoly from the
Crown, which would have to be taken into consideration
in making the calculation. He: had the sole privilege
of storing tobacco. and connected with it was also the
privilege of being paid for the porterage and the cooper-
age. At the time the tobacco warehouses were offered
to the public to be let by the Government, Mr. Notes-
worthy sent in a tender of £6,700 per annum ; but,
although he was not able to fulfil the conditions, Mr.
Atwool succeeded in getting the premises for so small a
sum as £4,000. Now the question was, ;what the build-
ing might reasonably be expected to let for from year to
year; and on that point he (Mr. Deightoti) was prepared
to offer a considerable amount of evidence. - ,
Mr. Samuel Holme was then called and examined.
He stated that he looked upon the tobacco warehouses as
eastern
Dock ;
ifrtsowntestoecrcnupfrieodnt tehmete)nvhdeodle
tqoutahye
roifvetlh;e
a dock warehouse of a very improved description. Its
itsiC King'
s-
thern end abutted upon the Queen's Dock basin; and to.
the north it was bounded by the chain-testing machine
and the Harrington Carrying Company's premises. He
knew of no place in Liverpool possessing greater com-
mercial advantages than the warehouse in question.
The building covered, altogether 23,861 yards;
and after making all deductions for the yards and walls,
the clear internal stowage place was 22,641. He took
that stowage space at 6s. a yard, which he believed to be
a fair and reasonable price for a building of that capa-
city and importance of position ; and this amounted to
£6,792. Adding the 4,561 yards of the cigar floor,
which he had taken at 2s. 6d. a yard, be made the
gross value £7,362. Even making a. deduction for
gangways and passages, which he held to be unusual,
the value of the rental would be £6,135 ; and deducting
the ten per cent. allowed-by the parish for the repairs,
the assessable value, according to his judgment, was
£5,522. The.rent received by the Corporation from the
Government he considered to, be equitable.
Mr. Notesworthy gave evidence to , the effect that
when the tobacco warehouses were offered to be let by
the Government he made calculations, and tendered for
£6,700 per annum, but he had been induced to withdraw
from the tender, under the advice of his friends that he
was not able to carry out so groat an undertaking.
I Mr, Melladevestated that he made the, caleulationa