The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-18 00:00:00

THURSDAY

pensation to be awarded for manorial rights of copy-
hold land at Holloway, required for the direct York
line, and also for a small portion of freehold property
adjoining the same.
Sit. F. Thesiger and Mr. Bovil appeared for the
claimants, and the Hon. Stuart Wortley (with whom
was Mr. Denison) for the company.
The case occupied five hours before the jury re-
tired, and they consulted for another hour. It was
described in the opening address on the part of the
claimants as an important and difficult inquiry,
inasmuch as the claim was principally made in respect
of manorial rights and for a small portion of
freehold property. The.property was situate near
the Hornsey-road, with one part to Duval's-lane.
The copyhold land comprised four acres, one rood,
and eighteen perches; and the freehold twenty-two
perches, with a frontage to Holloway-road, which
made the latter of great value, espcially for building
purposes. The plaintiffs, Mr. John Wainwright and
Mr. Kemp, were lords of the manor of St. John of
Jerusalem, and held one undivided moiety of the pro-
perty as such, and the other moiety as trustees for a
Mr. Jacomp. A gentleman named Jackson was the
copyholder, and the company had paid him a sum of
3,5001. by way of compensation. The property com-
prised thirteen acres, only four acres of which with a
little more were required for the purposes of the com-
pany, and the remainder would be determined by the
line of railway about to be constructed. There was no
principle to guide the jury in estimating the compensa-
tion to be awarded to the lords of the manor. Lords
of manors were paid by fines on death and alienation.
They were entitled to the improved value of the
property when a life dropped, and, in the case of the
manor of liennington, on which a sum of 2401. was
formerly paid by way of fine on a death, on a recent
occasion, in consequence of the great increase in the
value of the property, the Crown, in whom it vested,
bad demanded and obtained, by way of fine on a life
being dropped, the sum of 75,0001. The property at
Holloway was valuable, and the jury would not only
consider the present value, but estimate the sum to be
given to the lord for what was in effect an enfran-
chisement of the property required by the company.
The plaintiffs had male a claim for 2,5681., which
the company had declined to pay, and the jury were
consequently required, difficult and important though
the case might be, to assess the amount to be awarded.
Several witnessed were called on the part of the
claimants. The property required was extremely
valuable for building purposes. An offer of 1,000/.
an acre on it being enfranchised had been refused.
Mr. Harrison, a surveyor, was of opinion that a lord
of a manor was entitled, out of 1,0001. an acre, to
2701. There was no principle or calculation to be
made; it was a matter of arrangement between the
parties. Tha effect of the railway would, in his judg..
merit, be to damage the adjoining property to one-
third of the value. A death occurred in 28 or 30
years, and an alienation once iu about the same
period.
Mr. S. WORTLEY admitted that the question was a
difficult one, to ascertain the amount to be awarded
to the lords of the inanar. The entire claim made
was 2,5681., and after deducting 3501. for the free-
hold, the sum demanded by the claimants was 2,218/,
On the supposition that their right on fines and aliena-
tion would, on the property improved, eventually
amount to that sum.
Sir F. THESIGER stated that the value of the land
in the whole was 3 024/., from which the value of an
under-lease from Mr. Jackson, the copyholder, was
to be deducted. _ _

Mr. S. WORTLEY apprehended that the demand
made for the manorial rights was very great, more
than one.tnird of the sum awarded to the copyholder,
Mr. Jackson, who had made a claim for 4,500/. in
respect to the property, but had accepted 3,5001. The
jury had heard a good deal of the value of the land
for building purposes, and a plan had been exhibited
of intended improvements in that respect; but they
would bear in mind that the plan was projected in the
year 1845, when many melancholy failures occurred
with reip?ct to schemes of presumed value.
The; Learned UNDER-SHERIFF told the jury that
they had to assess the value to be awarded in respect
of the property in question, and also damage to the
adjoining property. It was undoubtedly a difficult
question. There were no principles
to guide them,
and they must " pick their way, as it had been de-
scribed in the best manner they could adopt. The
whole. claim might be stated at 2,568/. 10s. The sum
of 1,3001. 10s. was asked for the enfranchiaement,
9181. for the severance, or damage, and 3501. for the
freehold. The jury would consider the evidence,
and assess the sum to be awarded. _ _

The jury retired for an hour, and at five o'clock,
on their return into court, assessed the value of the
freehold at 275/., for the enfranchisement 9751.,
and 3061. by way of damage, or compensation ;
making 1,5561. to be paid by the company.

THE REV. RICHARD HARVEY V. THE SAME.

This was another compensation case, in respect to
property near Hornsey Church.
Sir F. THESIGEZ informed the jury that 1,0001.
had been agreed upon ; 7501. for the land, and 250/,
by way of compensation.
The jury accordingly assessed the amount at 1,0001.