The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-01 00:00:00

CHARLES JONES.

On Saturday a Jury was sworn in the Mayor's
Court, to assess the amount of compensation which
should be given to Messrs. Thomas and Charles
Jones, the extensive oil and colour merchants, for
the inittry done to their wide by their ejection from
their extensive premises, Nos. 125, 126, 127, and
128, Upper Thames-street, which are to be taken
down to make space for the intended approaches to
the bridge. This was a leading case of eorapensa-
tion, and excited great interest among the numerous
expectants.
The COMMON SERGEANT conducted the ease on
behalf of the city. The claims put in from Messrs.
Jones were as follow :

For their Leasehold Interest in the premises
(fir a term of 50 years), at an annual
rent of 3001
Fixtures
Loss on removal of Stork 2,000
Goodwill of Trade 24,900

£44,400
The demands on the other items were considered
so high, that a nominal offer only was made on the
part of the corporation, who acted as trustees for
the public, in order that they might bring the ease
before a jury. A wholesale business like that of the
claimants did not depend upon the locality, and
could sustain no injury from any probable removal
which could entitle them to remuneration beyond
that which they must receive in the shape of pay-
ment for the lease, as forming part of the advantages
of the premises. It marked the character of the
whole claim, that three years' purchase was asked
for the good-will, when such a sum would be more
than the value if the advantages of the business were
entirely transferred oe a new corner.
On the part of the corporation, Mr. Montague,
the clerk of the city's works, stated that in his opi-
nion, taking into consideratiou the whole advantages
of the premises, 5,405/. 59. was the utmost value of
the leasehold interest. Mr. Smith, the surveyor to
the Mercers' company, valued it at 5,180/. 14s. 4d.,
Mr. J. W. Higgins, the surveyor who had been em-
ployed by the Katharine's Dock Company, and was
well acquainted with the value of water-side pro-
perty, valued the leasehold interest at 5,0181. 155..5d.
which he considered extremely liberal. He took
into account that the sale was forced. Mr. C. S.
Hoggart, the auctioner, valued it at 4,5001, and
took into account the circumstance that the sale was
forced.
Mr. BRotiGnAm, in behalf of the claimants, made,
an eloquent and ingenious speech to the jury, in
which he represented to them that this was the
second time these respectable merchants had been
driven out of their premises, and had their trade
broken up to make way for city improvements.
The first time they had been driven from their pre-
mises, then situate on the site of the abutment of
the Southwark-bridge. After a considerable lapse

of time, they had the good fortune to obtain their
last premises, which by heavy expenditure they
adapted in all respects to a most extensive business,
which by incessant and most successful industry
they had accumulated. These premises they would
show were worth more than 8001. per annum. They
were provided with cellaring which went under the
whole of the premises. 'The site at the abutment
of the present London-bridge was unequalled. The
trade carried on consisted of 200 different articles,
for which They had 4,000 regular customers. From
300 to 400 coaches daily passed the door, and by
these conveyances orders were brought and parcels
sent. The sale of fish-oil and of turpentine averaged
yearly halls million of gallons. The gross profit on
the miscellaneous articles form'ng the business was
from 15,0001. to 16,0001. per annum ; the net profit
from 8,0001. to 9,0001. per annum. Some of the
business was certainly ‘vholesale, but even that was
dependent on the local conveniences, which it was
impossible to imagine must not be lost to the claim-
ants on their removal.
On the part of the claimants Mr. Burrell was