The Statesman.
London, England, 1824-01-16 00:00:00

PRICE 7d.

Mr. ProLt.l3foaU resisted dila application. His client
bad not time to answer the very notornided assertions upon
which the injunction was obtained.
1);; The Vice.t.tr kNCELLOa—Pray how soon shill you -be
prepared to answer the affidavit opoo which (for it is arc
ex parse injunction) Air. Knight obtained his original
motion

In answer to this question Mr. PdILLIMOTtE replied, that
in the course of ten days he should be quite ready,
The VICE CHANCELLOR directed the money to remain
with the • Accountant tieneral, And granted the application
of Mr. knight as to Mrs. Lawless being made a party to
the Bill.

' 111DDLESP'..\: SES'ilONSl—TituasoAT, JAN. 15,

POOR RATES.—THR PARISH OF ST. :01IN OF WAPPINU
AGAINST TICK LONDON DOCK C MP%NY.
')his Was on. appeal by the Lender Deck eerePailY
against an assessment fur the poor rate made Lathe. parish
of St. John of Wapping. on that si o. titan of the Lour, LL
Docks which is within their parish.
Mr. Sergeant BOSAN4/4.IST staled the Cale for the appel-
lants. It appeared that the „Company were assessed,
and Continued se to be for a considerable time, at 6,700/.
a year. In the course of some thee after, the perish tras-
tees made a new survey of the premises of the Dock Com-
panies and other mate[ side property in the papist). The
result or, that the assessment on the London Darks was on
25,04.111. iletead of 6,7e0/. The Company refusing to
agree to this new assessment an arrangement was entered
into between them and the parish, by which !Wee 'Welt
surveyors were appointed on each side, by whom the whole
property was agent surveyed and valued ; and the result of
this was, that the assessment on the Dock Company was
reduced even lower than its original sum. it was now
stated to he no more than 6,250/. The rate was accordingly
levied upon this sum. This great reduction led the parists
to determine, that as they had been so much misin-
formed with respect t 3 the former assessment,
they would make a new survey in time [thole
pariah, in order to learn the value of all kinds of
property in it. In doing this they teolt one surveyor front
each three employed berms. and these two chose a third, alt
luditierent party. to act with them. 'riles,. grutic urn, after a
most minute and Isborious inquiry into the value of all pro-
perty, made a .report. This report was adapted by the parish,
and agreed to by the Dock Company, as far as they were con-
cerned. Au assessment Needed Quit was made at Christmas,
Itese, and the f)dclt Company was rated on a sum of 7,1';001.;
but from this was deducted one fifth, (as on ehl other parochial
assessments at that time), so that the actual sum assessed was
no more Dian ALM/. To this the Dock Company agreed, aed
one rate was paid on that a.nount ; but the Court would per-
haps, be surprised to learn• that at the very next quarter, the
parish., without any fresh appointment of persoes nu both sides
to make a new surrey, or without any regular notice to tee
Lock Company, raised their assessment few:ALUM. to 13,00.11.
It wns against such SO enertnous tine extra .rdsaary increase of
their rite that the Dock Co:aninny now complained. They
contended, that it was uaautnoris d by the previous assessment
to which both parties had agreed, and oat no change in their
premises had token place s:ltce the last assessment to warrant
such an increase. Ile trail no ieca upon what principle it c met
have been done. Taey got 114 notice of any new assessment.
The Chairman (Mr. Coxse).—llave yen not now said
enough, Mr. Sergeant liebanquet, to call up3n the other
side to show why they made the increao!?
Mr. Serpar4 H..sANQUKT said., he thought•so, led he
was ready to go oar it the Learned Counsel on the other
side wished.
Mr. lioeteten, on behalf of the parish of St. John, said
he had nu objertian to go at once into their case, and show
why the assessment had been increased. The Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to contend, that the increased
assessment was not one penny more than the fair annual
rent of that part of the Dark Company's premises which
were in St. John's parish. Ile admitted that the valuation
made at Christ:nes, Des 2, was a fair one, as far as the
industry and integrity of the gentlemen who made it were
concerned ; but it was made in error, in one very import-
ant parti. ular—:hat it rated the Dock property, which was
very valuahle. on the same scale as other dock and wharf
property in that pet ieleellich it would be proved had been
in consetteence of the erection of the docks considerably
deteriorated in va'eme. He would call several respectable
eitnesses to prove these faces.
Mr. Oselard, one of the parish trustees, proved that the
original rate on the Deck Company was only temporary,
until after the Miele cl the works there were completed.—
'lime reason (tithe alteieti in in the assessatieut by the parish
was, that the ;surveyors had treed in making it. Tim'e
trustees of time earieO, iu order to come at the fair value
of such property, took seven der:rent premises, and on the
survey of them it oes found that they contained 263 squares
of 11/0 feet each. 'fhe assessment on them was about 41.75.
per square. Applying the same rule to the Dock pro•
petty, in which it was found that there were 3165 squares
which at the same rate per squere would make the dock
assessment at 22,4371. As however they found that there
were I open spaces in the Deck Company's pre•
mises not p articalsrly useful, they allowed a deduction of
one fourth for them and carriage ways, which would
make the assessment amount to 16,8511 ; and in order to
make it a round sum, they then struck elf the 18511.,1eav•
ing the assessment at 13,000! Fearful of their own jedg•
menr on time occasion, they called in several respectable
wharfingers and merchants, who knew the value- of Dock
property, and it was time opinion of all of them, that the
portion of the Loleon Dock in St. John's parish would, if
let out at rent, bring ill an annual sum of ,15,01.10 L, and
that many person, mired Ibe glad to site that sum for ir,
and make good prolit ef it. The Loudon Dock possessed
peculiar advantages, beyond may other wharfs or stores oft
the river side.
Oa his cross-examination, the witness admitted that no
chance had taken place in the Docks since 1822. Ten or
tweve respectable witnesses, some of them surveyors and
others wherlingers, were now examined. The substance of
their testimony Was, that the Docks were well worth 15.000 f
a year rent. Some of them stated them to be worth 16,000/.
a year ; others 17,0001. ; and one witness said they were
well worth 18,4001. a year, bat none of them went lower
than 15,0001.
Mr. Sergeant BOSANQURT now proceeded to comment ore
the evidence, and to call witnesses to show that the assess-
ment made in 1822 was not under the fair value. He
then callecinthe Gentlemen who had made the valuation
of the property in 1822, and also the precedindvaluation;
and they each stated that they did not make it under the
fair value.
Mr. Montagne (one of the above witnesses) stated
on his cress•examination, that had he known that the East
India Conipatiy paid so mace for the rent of part of the
Dock Compeer's Stores, at the time he made hie valuation.
it would have altered his ',pinion in a considerable
degree, but it would also have altered his opinion of other
property.
Mr. HOLLAND, in reply to this evidence. contended that,
there was io part of it a defence of the coaduclof the parish
in raising the assessment.
The CHAIRMAN, after again adverting-to the difficuttiee
of the case, and the conflicting evidence, gave it as &Is opi-
.nioo, that the assessment ought to be increased, hut nut 40
the extent of 15,0001.

- ,