The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-26 00:00:00

- -
NEW LONDON BRIDGE.

Ott Thursday a Court was bald before the Lord Mayor and
Aldermen, to determine what compensation was due to 31r.
Solomon Davies. a tobacconist, and Magistrate of the county of
Surrey, for the toes of the premises, 319 and 321, High-street, in
the Borough, in which latter he carries on his business, wholesale
and retail. For his freehold interest in the above premises he
asked the aunt of 16.7501. ; for the loss of his trade by removal he
claimed the sum of 11.5001. ; for an alleged liability to fiction for
the erection of the engines used in the mannfacturing of tobacco,
and which might in the other neighbourhood to which he would be
compelled to remove be prosecuted as a nuisance, 1,0001. ; for the
expense of obtaining compensation 5001. The compensation for
loss of fixtures, Ste. was agreed upon. His total claim was the
sum of 31.!201. The Corporation could not accede to any of the
demands ahnve specified, and a nominal tender of Ss. was made, to
bring the ease to issue.
The CoMalote SERGEANT, in opening the case for the City,
referred to one of the Proverbs of Solomon, which states that
buyers groan and cry, and then go away and laugh. This would
he exemplified in the present case if Mr. Solomon Davis succeeded.
The Learned Counsel, after stating the details of the de aland, pro-
ceeded to contend that a wholesale dealer could not be considered
entitled to compensation of a similar description to that which a
retail dealer might reasonably expect; for it *as evident that a
wholesale business did not depend upon the localities, and could
not be injured by the removal to any reasonable distance. With
respect to the premises, the evidence would be of a peculiar nature.
In 1806 Mr. Davies purchased the reversion of a Moiety of his pre.
miles in fee for 6001; in 1819 he purchased the other moiety, for
1,1501. For these, with a leasehold claim of ten years and a half
unexpired, at a rent of 1001. per annum, he now asked 18,7501. Mr.
Solomon Davies groaned at being obliged to part with his preufises,
in which he had for so many' eats carried on business. Ile enforced
tile advantages of his thoroughfare, its increasing value, and a num-
ber of particulars which the Jury would hate an opportunity of con-
trasting with his statements in 1819, when he became a purchaser.
They would also have an opportunity or seeing the value which he
put upon his own premises, when exercising the high and honour.
able functions of a Magistrate.
Mr. Wood:harp°, the Town Clerk, produced the claim of
Mr. Davies on the Corporation. On the 20th of October Mr.
Dtvies put in his first claim, in which he r-presented that the pre-
mises were built expressly for his trade, and perfectly adapted to
his use. Their situation was in the greatest thoroughfare in Lon-
don, and their consequent publicity and notoriety, and the conve-
nience of the adjacent wharfs, rendered the premises equally advan-
tageous for wholesale and retail trade. Mr. Davies stated further,
that he had sought in vain for suitable premises, and that his loss
by removal would be serious. His total claim was then ±O.-1201. 125.;
but he afterwards sent in an amended claim. In the first he had
required 5001. as compensation for liability to actions, and in the
second he increased his demand upon that score to 1,000/.
Mr. Cnllingwood, vestry clerk in St. Saviour's parish, stated, that
a part of 31r. Davis's premises were in that parish. %illness pro.
ducted the rate-book, in which the premises in their part of the
parish belonging to Messrs. Davies and Son were rated at 701. per
annum. The second house. in the occupation of Slr. Cook, a pub-
lican was rated at 451. The rates were made at four-fifths or the
suppOeed value. The rate was signed by the claimant ass Ma-
gistrate.

11r. Sherwood, vestry clerk of St. Glare's, stated that the general
mode of rating in that parish was as near the real value as possible
to he ascertained. The other part of the claimant's premises, situ.
ated in the parish, was rated at 501.
The next witness called was Miss Elizabeth Mbabane, the sister
of the lady who had sold her moiety of the property to the claimant.
They had lived in Cheltenham, and in 1819 witness and her sister
came to town. About a fortnight afterwards Mr. Solomon Davies
rafted upon them for the purpose of closing a negotiation which
had been entered into for the pore/lase of the moiety belonging to
witness's sister. Overheard the conversation between them. Mr.
Davies offered 1400/. for it, utauring her that that sum was the out.
side value of it. He had. he said, received considerably less in his
business since Waterloo bridge was erected ; that London bridge
was in so dilapidated a state, that where 50 carts passed formerly,
not ten did at that time. His business, he said, was dwindling
down to nothing, and he 'Mould be soon obliged to shut up shop.
(A laugh.) He might, he declared, shortly shut up what he made
in a snuff or tdbacco box (laughter); that where he took thousands
he now took hundreds, and where he took hundreds he now took tens.
Referring to the purchases:Mich to had trade of witness's brother's
moiety, he said he was ashamed of having given no more than 6001.
for it ; but it was knocked down to him. Witness's sister said,
that as he had ferought her brother's moiety for a song, he could
afford to give more for her's, to which he replied to the effect that
" When birds drop into one's mouth one cannot help catching
them." (A laugh.) Ilex sister said, that having made arch a
bargain of her brother's moiety, he .could surely affurd to give
more. He asaured her, that 1.400/. was the full value. At
length her sister agreed to take 1,4:.01. and WM was sent as a de.
pototthat evening. He said he would have na lawyer in the bud-
fleas, and that be should draw up the agreement himself. This was
agreed to, and he did draw up the agreement, and brought Dens
and paper in his pocket. Witness, and Mr. Hugger, their land.
lord, witnessed the agreement. Mr. nagger asked her sister if she
had,a copy, and refused to sign until she had. Mr. Davies said it
was perfectly unnecessary, but wrote a copy. Witness's sister had
never seen the pretnistes at that time. After the agreement, eh;
went with witness to see the premises. 31r. Davies asked her be-
fore site signed the agreement, whether she had seen the premises,
and she said she had not. Site signed the agreement. When they
went to the premises about some business, her sister expressed sur-
prise at finding them so large. Mr. Davies said they were so dila-
pidated, that rte expected they would tumble about his head. He
stated that trade was getting very bad there now. Witness's
sister remarked that it was a very good place for his trade,
to which he replied, " Not at all ; I can get many other '
places which can suit me as well." In May last, witness
called upon 31r. Dade., at her sister's desire, to request that
be would pay the rent, and she, stated to him that he Maxi-
venienced them extremely by withholding it so tang, He said
he could not pay one shilling until the whole of their affairs were
settled. The rent demanded was for the time that elapsed from
the making of the agreement. He had paid two hundred pounds
three or four years ago, in part payment of rent. He has refused
to complete the purchase, until her sister had made out a title sa-
tisfactory to him, and there was now a snit in Chancery to compel
him. Ile paid he wished to God he had never seen the premises,
for he never had any thing but trouble since he entered them.
(Laughter.)
The witness was ernes-examined by Mr. Brougham, but there
was no important variation in her testimony.
The agreement of 1819 was put in and read.
talc. Montague, Clerk of. the Il'orks of the City of London, va-
lued the premises at 8.549/. 16s. Bd.
Mr. Kay, surveyor to the post.office, and Mr. Smith, surveyor to
the Mercers' Company, agreed with Mr. Montague in opinion.
31r. Hoggart, the auctioneer, thought the fair annual value of the
pretnisrs was 350/., the tenant paying ell outgoings. Upon 20 years
purchase at that rate, he thought they would fetch 8,2211/. in the
market; and then lie valued the fixtures and plant at about 10001.
His entire valuation for the premises was 9,20 W., and he thought
they would fetch that by the hammer.
Mr. Bramah, and two other engineers, stated that if improved
engines were made use of no noise would be made calculated to
subject the claimant roan indictment.
Ale. Bantrottam replied at considerable length in behalf of the
claimants. Ile contended that Mr. Divies's statements in further.
ante of the bargain with Miss Moathane had nothing to do with
the case. As to his signature to the rates, it was likely that he had
signed these formally as a mere matter of course, without being
aware of their contents. He dwelt on the hardship of removing
a person from the situation in which he had lived all his life. lie
should prove the net polite of his client to be 3,3131. pc. an.
num, which would fully establish the value of that trade which he I
had spent all his life in acquiring, and which would be ruined by
being suspensed for six months.

A g- ......
reat number of witnesses were then called to prove the value
of the p•emises.

Mr..Ldmonds. the surveyor, thoufflit property in that neigh-
bourhood worth 30 years purchase. Upon 2u years' purchase lie
valued the freehold,' at 940!. His total valuation' as opposed to
that on the part of the Corporation, was 13.1671.3 d.
Mr. Simon Bull's total valuation was 148004; Mr. John Win.
'lanky the auctioneer's valuation, was 14,0331.; Mr. Chadwick's

111r.Cliavies, son to the claimant, said he had never seen Ruch
engines as those described by the engineer. The vibrations of his
father's engines was felt in the adjoining buillings. The stoppage
of their trade for a short lime would be seriously injurious to it, and
they would in all probability lose the snuff trade, not having any
opportunity of manufacturing it. The average net profits of the
business for the last five ye►rs were 3,3131. las. 9d.
Other evidence was (oven to the same effect.
The COMMON SERGEANT, in reply, said that it could not for a
moment be supposed that Mr. Davies had intended any fraudulent
misrepresentation to Miss Mosthane, therefor: what he had stated to
her as to the value of his premises must be taken to be the truth,
and the Jury would doubtless act upon it. He also urged that 3lr.
Davies perfortned his duties as a Magistrate properly, knew what
he was signing, and would not allow the public to be defrauded,
and therefore the rental and value of the premises should be esta-
blished upon the rates which he had himself signed.
The RECORDER, having charged the Jury at great length, they
consulted for a considerable time. They assessed the compensatio•t
as follows s—For the freehold. 11,5001.; for the goodwill, 5,3501.;
for the fixtures 1,01171. (n charge not disputed by the Corporation);
for the expenses of removal, 1501. ; making a total of 18.06/I.—re-
jetting the claimant's demand of 1 0001. for liability to actions, and
also the demand of :001. for the expenses of obtaining compen-
sation, and deducting from his total claim the stint of 13,0510.

We learn with ple:uwre that a Benevolent Association
has been formed for the protection of individuals impri-
soned for pretended debts, who are incapable of defending
themselves against the mercenary attacks of unjust dis-
counters, money-lenders, and extortionate attorm ys, whose
claims for the most part arise out of illegal transactions,
whereby persons in the middling as well as better ranks of
hte are frequently aulkiset to extortions and personal incon-
veniences of the most grievous and vexatious nature. The
case of the unfortunate widow tried before Ote Lord Chief
Justice in the Court of Common Pleas, in June last, may
be pointed out as oats' among the many hard cases which►.
loudly cull for such an institution.