The Sun.
London, England, 1863-10-22 00:00:00

Won by a length, a bad third. Lothian's King fell.

BETTING AT MANCtIESTER—WEDNESDAY.
For the Cambridgeshire Gemma, who a few days since
had supporters at 20 to 1, and who afterwards receded to
1,000 to 6 (offere'l), was backed to-day, apparently for good
money, at all prices to 100 to 3 (taken and wanted).
During this process Limosina receded to 8 to 1 being laid;
but afterwards her friends rallied, and 5 to 1 was booked.
Nothing of importance was done on any of the others, with
the exception of Hubert, who appears to be hopelessly gone.
Closing prices:—

CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
sto 1 agst Limosina (taken)
6to 1 agst Catch-'em Alive (offered)
11 to 1 agst Carnival (taken)
11 to 1 agst Exchequer (taken)
16 to 1 agst Port Royal (taken)
20 to 1 ag.t Borealis (taken)
30 to 1 agst Jack of Hearts (taken)
33 to 1 agst Gemma (taken)
33 to 1 agst Despair (offered)
100 to 1 agst Hubert (offered)

COMPENSATION CASES.

GUILDHALL-WEDNESDAY.

Mr. Alderman Hale presided; Mr. White appeared on
behalf of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Com-
pany; and Mr. Tindal Atkinson, instructed by Messrs.
Lumley and Lumley, of Moorgate-street, conducted the
case on behalf of the claimant for compensation.

The subject-matter in dispute consisted of premises situ-
ated at No. 5, Water-lane, Earl-street, Blackfriars, which
were occupied by Miss Eleanor Knight, who carried on a
retail business there for the sale of cigars, tobacco, news-
papers, fancy stationary, lemonade and gingerbeer, and a
miscellaneous collection of other small articles. It appeared
that 13 years ago she took the house and opened the shop in
the same line of business which had been carried on there for
the last 40 years. It was a shut-up shop, but immediately she
opened it she did a good trade, and had done so eversince. She
had paid £4O for a new shop front, £22 for fixtures and
fittings, and her rent, including rates and taxes, was only
£t7. The gross takings of the year amounted to £758, of
which £278 was the annual profit, from which, however,
had to be deducted £47, which would reduce the actual
income to about £230. The gross takings, of course, in-
cluded about £3O a year which she received from her
lodgers. There was no means of testing the accuracy of
these estimates, inasmuch as no books had been kept, it
being a ready-money business, and no vouchers of any kind
were produced. The claimant was in failing health, and
too ill to be subjected to a rigid cross-examination; and a
person who managed her business for her exhibited such
an extraordinary amount of obtuseness as to render it an
impossibility to get anything like an intelligent statement
from him. The Court were, therefore, compelled to rely solely
upon the written claim for £5OO, and the evidence of Mr.
Fryer, a wholesale tobacconist, who had for the last 15
years supplied the claimant with cigars and tobacco; and
he, having selected the year 1858 as the test of the business
done on the premisesin question, said he had supplied goods
during that year to Miss Knight to the amount of £2OO, but
that her trade had lately fallen off. The goodwill of such a
business might be worth £lOO or £l5O, bet, of course, the
value would much depend upon the nature of the tenancy
and the length of the lease. The claimant's business was
such that the goodwill would have been worth £2OO if
there had been a good lease with it.
Mr. Warwick, the overseer of the parish, said he always
considered the claimant did a very good business, and he
knew there was no place she could obtain in the neighbour-
hood where she could carry on that class of business on
caving her present shop.
Mr. T. Atkinson said this was a case where the business
had been the support of the claimant, her mother, and her
sister's family. She had established the business by her own
exertions during a period of 13 years, and he submitted it
was a case for substantial compensation, particularly as she
being in failing health, and not able to obtain a place in
the neighbourhood, would have to recommence life with
greater difficulties to overcome, and not the same health and
strength to carry her through them.
Mr. White urged upon the magistrate's notice the total
absence of books, vouchers, and proper accounts to show
that the business was what it had been represented. The
company were anxious to deal liberally with all with
whose interest they interfered, but the claims of annual
tenants being by far the most numerous and the most
fallacious, it behoved the company, on behalf of the share •
holders, to watch those claims very narrowly. In the pre-
sent instance the claim sent in was for £5OO ; the com-
pany had been the claimant's landlords for two years, during
which time she had not paid a fraction of rent. They had
offered her £2OO as compensation, which had been refused,
and if the Court thought the very unsatisfactory statement
of the witness who managed the business for Miss Knigh
sufficient to justify him in dealing with the case, he would
suggest that the utmost that the claimant would be entitled
to would be one year's profits, the goodwill of an annual
tenant being worthless.

Mr. Alderman Hale said he perceived there was a discre-
pancy of a third between the business alleged to have been
done in cigars and tobacco, and the quantity of such goods
stated to have been supplied, and in the rest of the items he
thought the calculations excessive. He was desirous of
doing strict justice to Miss Knight, and with as much libe-
rality as was consistent with justice to the company, and had
come to the conclusion to award £195 for one year's profits,
£l2O for goodwill, and £lO for expenses of removal, making
a total of £325, possession of the premises to be yielded
within 14 days.
Mr. Atkinson asked for costs.
Mr. White said the worthy alderman had dealt so libe •
rally with the claimant that costs ought not to have been
asked for.
Mr. Alderman Hale declined to order costs.
There was another case of a similar kind, in which John
Pleasant, a tailor, in business in Water-lane, claimed £175
compensation.appeared for the company, and Mt. Eadey for
. White
the claimant.

In this case the claimpanostsseteastiepd.a
year, rates and taxes £l6, and repeal about £lO. That
ywehaerna
ahgeo enteredhoid
ainptroopme
ri
u:n:,
enelic
the year round, lie
and that he paid two
jkoelputnner beeenksilbuetaperhoJlY,Jed a set of books which ho had
'AS and the measure book for the
purposesmadeilpoffrotmhis cle;im.iilv°i‘ Re estimated the wages for, 1862
a6flooll:fatthil:lprreenmt iswesastw4:l6vae
at £104; stock Varchased, £116; rent and
itnaxeus(l,
i4nsg2a;baonu:
repairs and swAdries, £25, making totala
including
of £297. His
gross takings. during the year were £442,
£i3 which ho received from lodgers, which, after deducting
£287, lefic a net profit of £145, to which was to be added £lO
for re.noval, and £2O as a proportion of the premium paid
by the claimant 12 years ago, making up the claim of £l7 5.
The claimant said he had succeeded in getting another
house in Warwick-lane, at the advanced rental of £7,0,
which, Vaal rates and taw, would make a serious differ -