Star.
London, England, 1829-06-01 00:00:00

GUILDHALL, MAY :A
THE CORPORATION OF LONDON U MESSRS. THOMAS AND
CHARLES JONES.

Saturday a Jury was sworti in the Maeor's Court
to assess the amount of conwerisations which shculd be
given to Messrs. Thomas and Charles Jones, the even-
site oil and colour merchants, for the injury done to
their trade by their ej.:ction from their extensive pre-
mises, Nos. 125, 126. 12J, and 128, Upper Thames•
street, which are to be taken down to make space for
the intended approaches to the bridAe. This was a
leading case of compensation, and excited great interest
among the numerous exkctants.
The COMMON SCRGEANT conducted the case on be-
half of the city. The claims put in from Messrs. Jones
were as follow :
Fur their leasehold Interest in the premises (for a
term of So years), at all annual rent of 5001. X14,0D0
Fissures
..,- Loss onimpoiral -If stoat .. 2 000
Goodwill of trade 24.900
•
X. 44,400
The demands on the other items were co:slider. d so
high, that a nominal ofer only was made on the part at
the Corporation, who acted as trustees for the public, in
order that they might bring the case before a Jury.
A wholesale business like that of the claimants did not
depend upon the locality, and could sustain no Mimi
Isom any probable removal which'could entitle them
to remuneration beyond that which they must receive
in the shape of payment for the lease, as forming part
of the advantages of the premises. It ma.ked the
character of the whole claim, thai three years purchase
-was asked for the goad will, when such a sum. would
be more than the valise if the advantages of the.boti-.
ness were entirely transferredlo a new comer.
On the part f the Corporation, Mr. Montague, the
Clerk of the City's works, stated that in his opinion,
`taking into consideration the whole advantages of the
premises, 5,4051. ss. Was the utmost value of the tease.
hold interest. Mr. Smith, the snree.yor to the Nlercer:
Compatoy,;valued it at .5,1401. 114. 4d, Mr. J. W.
Higgins, the surveyor who had been employed by the
Katharine Docks Company, and was well acquainted
with the valise of water-side property, valued the lease.
bold interest. at 15.0184. 15.. 41 which he considered
extremely liberal. He took into account that the sale
was forced. Mr. C. S. Hoggart, thi auctioneer, va-
lued it at 4,5001. and took into account the. them°.
stance that the sale was forced.
Mr. Beouonam, in belialf of the claimants, made an
eloquent andingenions speech to the July, in, which he
represented,t° them that this was-the secondtimethese
respectable raerthairts.h had been driven out.•of their pre-
mises, and had their trade broken up to make way for
city improvements. The first time they hat been driven
from their premise, then situate on the site r.f she abut-
ment of the Southwark bridge. Aber a considerable
lapse of time, they had the good fortune to obtain their
I.st premises, which by heavy elpendeime,•they adapted
in all respect.to a most extensive buiiness,..sshicht by
incessant and mot successful iodustrr they, iad
accumulated. Thes'e premises they-wriuld strow_ were
worth more than 8001. per annum. They were
provided with cellarorg which went under. the Wh4e 9f
the premises.:,.. The site at the abutment of theinerent
Loudon bridwas unequalled. The trade carried on
'consisted of different article., f7o- a hich they had
4;000 regular customers. 'Fr;on 300 to 400 coaches
daily passed the door, dorsi by the,e conveyances orders
were.braught and parcels scot. The f fish oil and
of turpentote arieriaged yearly hail .1 uf gallons.
The gross profit oil the naiscr:lai e:or. articles forming
the business was from 15.0001 ro 16,0001. per 201111171;
the bet profit Irorw-8,0001. to 9,0001. per annum. Some
of the business was certainly whole-ale, but even that
was dependent on the local conveniences, which it was
impossible to imagine roust not be lost to the claimants
on their 'corneal.
On the pet of the claimants, Mr. BOrrell it ac called,
and he stated that he considered the premises worth
twenty years' purchase upon a compulsory .a!r. Tt.ey
•
might let At 7001. per annum, but were worth.more to
Messrs. Jones. He valued the leasehol.l interest at
12,100/. No such premises could be found in the
neighbourhood. On his cross-examinatic.n, he admitted
that in general the value of a hatf-side property had
greatly diminished. He also admitted that he had con-
sulted Mr. I'anson. It also appeared in evide: ce that
Mr. Roper and Mr. Winstanley had been called in by
the claimants to value the premises.
A considerable body of evidence was adduced, and
several eminent traders wefe examined, to show th.t
the business ..vas of the nature and magnitude repre-
sented by the claimants' Counsel. Several. declared
a
they would give from 8001. to 1,0001. per nnum• for
such premises. The present stock was valued at twenty
thousand pounds, and the loss of removal was estimated
.at fifteen per cent. The averagrprofit, it watotated,
should be ten per cent. on such a busintss. It.earied
from sto 20 per cent. The•averake returns were
,
stated by the claimants clerk to be 207,2091:155. 1611.
Thi average gross profits were. 1.5051-01.. bbsideirs
9f the claimants had greatly improved ssigte stheir 41k.
*oval from near the Southwark,hridge... i .. r
The COMMON SzantAwr_t in his reply, contrast. yd the
evidence given by the Surveyors owthe,part of. the
Corpotation.with that of Mr. BurreNand dwelt (.Tithe
circumstance of the absenCe of IStiiirs: Roperr.
and .Winstanley, whose evidence it was to be considered
was not such as would ea-fere case. He congratulated
the claiminta*lm their gel & fortune' in' hiving been
placed twice within a irewyears in the way .of
improvements, so•as to entitle them so .the sweets of
compensation. He nutted however that the verdict of
the Jury would fall short of the amount claimed,. And
fail to excite undue hopes in other expectants.
The Jury retired for about one hour, when they sr:lmPa aver-
diet, awarding as compensation for
The Lease er,sikp 0

Mures
761 s
cm removal of stock and intern etipa 4 trade 6,000 V 0

Total • .
'MAU kis skin the sum claimed.

. 14,001 19 •