The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-01-16 00:00:00

lbas been deterionted to value one-third since the London Docks'
bar e been erected. .

Mr.sgstier' the vestry clerk of the parish, proved that he
applied Wto the surveyor of the London Docks for liberty to have
them surveyed, and was refused. Mr. !Sim, agent of the Dock
Company, had a verbal notice from witness of the Intention of the
tiustecs to make a new estimate of the value of property in the
palish, previous to the rate being made. Witness received a letter
front the agent of the Ctnnpany on the oth of the present month,
giving periiiiseion to view the Docks.
Mr. Sergeant 1109AMQV ET asked the Chairman whether it was
requisite fur him to proceed.
The CHAIRMAN said, the appeal went to everything possible;
that one tit the pointir was of conaieerable importance, that the ap-
pellants were rated above the value and rate of other persons ; and
it was for the beamed Sergeant to use his discretion. He (thc
Chairman) could not atop the case.
Mr. Sergeant 110SANQU ET mid, then he was sorry that the ease
would take up a considerable portion of the Chairman's time, and
he felt himself hound to go into the value of the docks. The Com-
pany lied been first rated at 25,0001. ; then a survey was made,
anti they found that the premises were not worth the rate ; upon
which it was reduced. They then thought proper to elect Mr. Mon- I
tague, a surveyor, whom they did not think proper to call. But
why do they not call him ? because he would speak essentially to
facto. Nothing has been done to deteriorate the property : and why
is the surveyor not called to speak to the value of the property in
1798, and 1800, when the docks were first commenced ; that was
the mode of valuing them. Now he (Mr. Bottanquet) would ask
the Court, who were called upon to decide whether an estimate of
17,0001., formed by different wharfingers along the water-side, was
such an estimate as would satisfy the Court, or such a proceeding as
would contain soundness terjustnees for the Court to decide upon.
It was for the Court to decide, whether it has been formed upon
such principles new. satisfactory to decide upon, and that there was
no false principle on the other ode. It was not long since the Mr-
uslogimin Has Cotypeny was attempted to be rated in the same
way : they were valued for gas at 0001. ; but their value to a te.
mantles@ but 2001. The Lord Chief Justice held that the premises
',geld not be rated trpon the profits, for in that case • blacksmith's
totes might be Heed. The premises evidently, therefore, could not
he stated at a higher ruin than they would let for to a tenant, and
that wee 2001. 'The East India Company's warehouses were at-
tempted to be rated in the same way ; that cue wascarrled ento
the Douse of lords, and there decided as the aforesaid in the Court
of King's Bench. Now he (the Learned Sergeant) would hold,
that the value, as set up by his Lr-med YfiClidl, upon the docks,
exceeding that of tee rivweside warehouses, was not to much ; for',
the water-side wee ous
cra es:ltonted the Thames, and each of them 1
had a cone absolu y to get their goods in, without the least in-
convenience : how meth Ocala", was theis advantage, then, than
those dock warehtotites, none of which had a water-frontage? The
profit and advantage arising therefrom would be much better ex-
plained
by the witnesses. Here the Learned Sergeant described
the manner in which the property had been measured, to form a
proper estimate fur the rate by the appellant's surveyors. I
Mr. Benjamin Biggs, surveyor, sworn—l have lived In Wart-'
pire twenty years ; consider myself enabled to value warehouse pro-
perry ; I have measured the Docks, also other property in the pa-
riah.
A book produced contains my survey, and is limonite ; I
have proceeded upon two principles—first, the assessments, so
much per square; • Mr. Nk'illiam Lord is assessed at 4801. ; 85
squarer on ground floor, 21. 17s. (Id. per square ; upon that princi-
7le I valued the London Dock property, and my fair estimate is
,8001.
By the Couar—Mr. Johnson. of his kr.owledge, Is aware that
warehouses are let in the Docks weekly.
Mr. Riggs continued, cons-examined by Mr. Boeseetto—The
East Inds' Company's warehouses,letter A lets at VOL ; D at 1841.;
E, 3441. ; these are the comparative assessments. Witness's second
mode was actual valuation, upon which he returned 7,81101.
Mr. D. R. Roper, surveyor, assisted Mr. Biggs in making ths
estimates, and concurs in principle with him ; he estimated •
variety of other properties to bring in comparison with it. Wit-
ness's calculation was made upon what the warehouses would
actually let at a yearly rental. The weekly rental paid by the
East India Company is higher than what it would let at yearly ; in
addition the tasetton makes a considerable difference.
Mr. Slinnagne, surveyor, has also surveyed the premises on the
part of the parish, and afterwards with the appellants' surveyors;
went through all the details with the two last witnesses. In 1822
I valued at 7,7101.; in 1823 1 valued at 7,0011.; the last is a fair
value and &just ma. In estimating warehouses upon what the
warehouse-keeper teetives by the merchant putting goods there, Is
unust, and no safe criterion.
Cross-exareined by Mr. A NDRE WIP— I think 111 knew the posi.
Lion as I now do, from the detail of evidence, it would have mails
some &Hendon in my judienent.
Mr. Osage Stuidt—li as called in by the two last witnesses;
the estimate at 7,8010. is a fair valuation.
Mr. & Roberts went through the eervey ; amours wi.h the last
witnesses.
Mr. Joseph Galloway has also surveyed the property; a just
estimate in 1822 was 7,7101.
Ithen was 7,7101a150 Mr. Welton surveyed the docks in 11a2; a fair valuation
Mr. Biggs tecalled—The tat upon all these premises is near
10d. in the pound, and paid by the appellants.
Mr. S. Bose), This is my ease.
' Mr. BoeUterie espondent& There
%RA 11 •41411, ben IKstowtoos anis In this valuation some-
otekd
where; and even 06 pma. &int witness Iliad that had he
known whut lie this day heard in evidence, it would have influenced
his judgment. It was a ease of the utmost importance to the
parish, and required the serious attention of the Court. He would
take their valuation per squaw foot as it was laid down by the first
witness, and would multtply It by four, which, upon the average,
would make the docks liable to a rate of nearly 29,0001. pet year.
The Learned Gentleman then commented on the mode resorted to
by the appellants to value their property. Instead of doing as the
respondents had done, and Hiking for their guide premises which
were not deteriorated, they had formed an estimate upon the Bride-
well Hospital, a dilapidated building. This was not a fair crite-
rion. But the trustees of die parish hail formed the:, estimate most
fairly, from premises which were not dilapidated, and which closely
resembled the London Docks.
The CHAIRMAN, in giving the opinion of the Court, said, the
case before him was one upon which he was free to confess he
hardly knew how to decide. Men of science had given their opi-
nions and valuations on one side, and persons of great practical ex-
perience had done the salmon the other. He did not for a moment
doubt that the trustees had • right to make a rate ; but his difficulty
was, in deciding upon the amount of that rate. Ile certainly should
not say that 7,11e01. was a sufficient sum at Which to rate the docks;
whilst at the same time lie was of opinion it would be running to
the opposite et treene to estimate them at 15,00:11. It would be
well, therefore, to steer between the two sums; and the decision of
the Court was, that the premises should be rated at 10,0001. for the
' present ; and the parties, he thought, nod better meet and make an
amicable adjustment.
Judgment was aceordinjely entered, pro forma, for 10,0001. as the
1 sum at which the docks should be rated.