Star.
London, England, 1830-08-10 00:00:00

N°. 13,548. TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 10, 1830.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OPINIONS OF
CLAIMANTS AND JURIES.

The following list of the claims nsade by the owners of premises
which it has been found necessary to pull down for the purpose of
making the approaches to the new London.bridge now nbout to be
opened, will show that either the claimants or the juries have formed
very erroneous estimates of the value of such popaty. The con.
tram between claims and verdicts, in the London-bridge cases, ap.
pears to be, in many instances, as great u that which appeared in
the list of claims and verdicts in the cases of compensation Under
the St. Katherine's Docks Act :
LONDON SIDE OT THE BRIDGE.
Claimants and Premisss. Claim. Verdict.
lit s. d.
11112 10 0 S. s. d.
.. 18309 17 0 7865 0 0
12933 0 0
W. Bouts and S. T. Smith ... 492 0 0 380 0 0
Ann Letsom ... 2882 0 0
P. Elliott and T. Bond ... 1920 10 0 1362 0 0
Fishmongers' Company ... ... 7116 5 0 5260 0 0
Christ's Hospital •• ... 800 0 0
J. Jackson Bird ... ... 2716 12 0 1900 0 0
G. M. Bird and J. Bird ... 1100 0 0
Dean and Chap. of Canterbury .. 2300 0 0
Haberdashers' Company . 5624 111 4500 0 0
T. Flint ..• .. 2628 10 0 1800 0 0
0. Stone •... .. 11525 II 1 4786 10 6
Trustees of St. Leonard's .. 11823 12 0 2871 11 6
R. Hartwell and Wife, the Mayor, &e.
of London .. ... 3103 15 0
J. Challoner ... ... 483 16 0 WI 15 0
J. Gilbert ... ... 1505 0 0 27 14 0
%V. ChUd and J. Joyner ... 7500 0 6
SOUTHWARK SIDE OF LONDON-BRIDOE.
Claimants and Premises. Claims. Viral*.
X s. d. i s. 41.
J. Wright, Three Crowns ... ... 2912 710 603 15 6
W. Sentence, grocer .. .. 3883 0 0 1348 0 0
W. Fisher, hosier .. ... ... 1269 18 1 483 0 0
George R. Corner ... .. .. 700 0 0 230 0 0
H. CLsrk, Leopard coffee-shop .. 3182 16 6 1105 6 0
Earl of Strathmore ... ... ... 730 0 0 760 0 0
W. Myers, High-street ... ... 2100 0 0 1000 0 0
N. Muggeridge, &c. .. ... 2660 0 0
D. Davidson .. ... ... 6700 0 0 5500 0 0
W. Tipping ... .. ... 5915 11 81 1800 0 0
T. Pocock ...
_.of. ••• •• 2033 3 6 257 6 0

J. G. and H. Wrench

J. Dutton and W. Smith ... .. 4330 0 0 1500 0 0
J. Parker ... ... ... ... 2400 0 0 1825 0 0
R. Payne .., • • ... ... 3269 6 0 1268 10 0
E. Polhill and J. Jones ... ... 21618 4 6 13743 4 6
R. Mills and others ... ... 4161 0 0
A. Davis and wife ... .•• •,. 3750 0 0
B. H. Inglish ... ... ... 2800 0 0
C. Ohage . • ••• .. ... 3060 15 6 1175 0 0
J. Jones, cook-shop ... .. 3692 0 0 1214 13 6
T. England and others ... ... 2400 0 0
W. Payne ... ••• ... .. 939 6 0 401 14 0
R. T. Kent, surgeon ... ... 15844 10 0 9013 14 0
Warden of St. Saviour's ... ... 3300 1 0
E. Sandell, oil and colourman ... 2620 0 0 1680 0 0
W. Mossy and T. Carroll ... 1497 9 0 200 0 0
UNDER THE OLD ACT.
Claim/ate and Premises. Claims. Verdict*.
Z. a. d. I. s. d.
Shaw ... _ .. ... 3704 8 0 1752 0 0
Davies, tobacconist • .. 31120 12 0 18067 5 0
• • ... 3250 0 0 2140 1 0
Ovenden ... ... ... 2071 16 0 883 0 0
Parker ..• .. ••• 3160 17 0 639 15 0
Wilmot ... • • ... 4671 17 6 2710 8 0
Thomas .. • • .. 4170 7 0 2126 0 0
York ... .. ... 932 15 0 220 0 0
IThompson ... ... 40934 10 9 18695 2 8
Collins • ••• ... 1650 0 0 100 0 0
Ooverners.of Ottay ... 3300 0 0 2600 0 0
Stewart .. ... • . 4190 0 0 2200 0 0
Key ..• ••• ... 4018 1 6 485 14 6
Edwards .. .. .0 2110 0 0 887 8 6
Smedley .. • • ... 2596 0 0 1626 1 6
Bailey ... .. ... 2450 0 0 1412 6 6
Jones ... ••• ... 44400 0 0 14061 19 8
Child ... ... ... 943 1 4 147 17 8
Fifteen cases have been referred to arbitration, and a great many
claimants have accepted the Committee's offers. It is necessary to
mention, with respect to the above list, that as on leessbeld and
freehold property there could not exist much difference et opinion,'
the real value being easily ascertainable, the ground upon which
such enormous demands have been made, as appears every where
through the list, is that of goodwill. In several instances where the
goodwill has been set down at I,OOOL or 2,0001 or 3,0001. not a far-
thing has been awarded by the jury. The most extraordinary ex.
cuses have been made for making unreasonable demands. In one
case a very respectable firm asked for a large sum as a compensa-
tion fur a wharf where they used to ship and unship their goods,
which wharf they fancied was their own because, being influential
citizens, they had obtained for years an exclusive and most lucrative
•rivikge of crowding it with their own goods without paying a nail.
• rent.

TILE ARMY.

PRICE 71).