Middlesex Sessions, Thurs...
The Times, 1824-01-16T00:00:00

valued; and the reidt-af s h? e.assesstneht on the 'Doclk CofIpany w.-w refteeeven: lower-Shan its .origi. nal sum-' It- wasi now sta~ted :'wo-be~, nio :more- thin 6,2501.-' The rate rAis;-accordingly levc& jPon; 'this'su.m .-.Thikg4reat rctution -led the-parislsEo delermine, tha: ssthbey'bhad b'een so much 'misn' formed with respect: to the former.- askM1mednt,.thD'y would mat a newvstfrvey.of the whole arisb, in .orderto. learn .te valuedi all kinds cf rpeoierr Mnit. In.doing this, they took.Gne:surm eyr'from each three 'employed before. andjihese tw'o chose a third, ah indif ferent partv,- to act -w f. themr.. ._Thes--'gentlmen, after a most minute and laboiious inquirg. ito .the .vaiue,o? ill pro- perty, made a report. Thii report was adopte. by-tbe parish, and agreed to by the Dock' Companiy, as fir as they,-tere concerned. An assessment founded on it wis made at.ChristWas, 1822, and the Dock Company was rattd on a sum of 7,800L;.-but -from this was deducted- one- fth, (as on' all oth'er piroclial, assessments at that time), so that theactual sum assessed was no mbre than 6,24Q1. To this thie Dock Company agreed, and one rife-was paid on that amount; ut'theCourt WOuld pethaps be sqrpristd to learn, that at the very next quarter, thepirish, without-any fresh.appointment of persons on both sides to make a new suveyv, or without any.regular noticc to tie D-ok 'Comipany,raised their. assessment from 6,2401. to 15,000l. It was against such an- enormous and extraordinarv in. crease of thieir rat that the Doek Company now complained. T'hey contended, that it was 'unauthorized by- the previous assessment to whiich bothparties had agreed,and that nochange in theirpremiscshai- taken place since the last assessment to warrant stich an increase. He had no idea upon'what principle'it could have been:done. They got no notice of any new assessment. The Chairman (Mlr. CoNsT.r2Have you not now said enough, Mlr.Sergeant Bosaneueq-to.rall upon the-other sidetoshow why they -made tbe increase. _... . . : Mr. Sprgeant,Bos0AXuytT said he.thought so, b-ut he was ready to go on'ifthe:learned Counsel on theothertude wished. 1r. BcrANDy, on bebalf of the parish of St. John, said he had no objectiol' to geat onee into their case, and show why the assess- ment had been mnreased. " The learned genteman tthen proceeded to contend2 that the increased assessment was .not one penny more tharn thetBir annual rent of tbat.part ot the Dock Company's pre. mises which. were inSt. John's`parish. Headmittedthat the valua- tion made at Christmas, lA22,was a fair one, as far as the in- dust}y and integtity of the geriternen who made it were concerned but 'it .was made in etror,' in one- very imnportant particular- that-it rated the Dock property which was very valuable on the same scale' as other doc-k and w'harf property in that parish, which it would be proved had been in conseqesneice. of the erection of the docks considerably deteriorateA in value. He would -call seveial 'respectable witnesses to prove these facts. Mlr. Oseland, one of the parish trustees, proved that the original rate on the Dock Company was only temporary, until the whole of the workg there were coniplered. The reason of the alteration in the assessment by the parish 'vas, that the surveyors had erred in making it. 'The trustees of the parish, in order to come at the fair value of such property, took seven different premises, and on the survey of them, it was found that they contained 268 squarei of 100 feet each. The assessment on them was about 41. 7s. -per square. Applying the same rule to the Dock property in which 'it was found that there were 5,165 squares, which,at tibe same rate per square would Diake the dock assessment at 22,4571. As how- ever they found that there were several open .spaces in the Dock C(ompany's rremisesnotparticularlyuseful,they.allowed a deduction of one fourtn for them and carriagc ways, which would make the assessmentamountto 16,8511.; and in orderto make it a roundsum, they then struck off the 1,8511., -leaving. the assessment at 15,0001. Fearful of tlieir own judgment on the occasion, they called in seve- ral respectable' w}arfingers and merchants, who knew the value of Dock property, and it was 'the'opinion' of all of them, that the portion of the London Dock in St. John's parish would, if let out at rent, bring in an annual sum of 15,0001., and that many persons would be glad to give that sum for it, and make good profit of it The London Doek possessed peculiar advantages, beyond any other wharfs or stores on the river side. On his cross-examnination, the witness admitted that no change had taken place in the Docks since 1822. Ten or twelve respectable witnesses, some of them sutveyors "and others wharfingers, were now examined. The substaTiCe of their testimony was, that the Docks were well worth 15,0001. a year rent. Some of them stated them to be worth 16,0001. a year; others 17,0001.; and one witness said they were well worth 18,4001. a year, but none of themu went lower than 15,000L Ar. Sergeant BOSANQUET now proceeded to comment on the evidence, add to cafl witnesses to show that the assessment made in 1822 was not under the fair value. He then called the gentlemen who had made the valuation.of the property in 1822, and also the preeeding valuation, and they each stated that they did not make it under the fair value., Alir. Mlontague (one of the above witnesses) stated, on his cross- examination, that had he known that the Mast IbidiaCompany paid ao much for the-rent of partof the Dock 'Company's stores, at the time he made his valuation, it would have alterea his opinion jn a considerable degree, but it would also have altered his opinion' of other 'propertv Mr. BOLL.M,iIIitx ly to this evidence, -contended, that there was in part of ita dencte of th, coaduct'mof the parish iY raising the assessusent. . The tseAi txJ N, after again adverting to the diffculties of the case, and the conflicting evidence, -gave if as his opinion, that the assessmer.t ought to bc increased, but not to-tio extent of I5,00O1L Some discussion here took place as to what the amount should be, and it was a length deci'ded by the Chairman; 'with the concurrence of the other magistrates, tlat the rate should be made on an assess- ment of l0,S000., .with6ut any deduction;' This case occupied nearly the whole of the day, and exclted considerable interest. -. A4imQPDhE s. 1".:. - -- -, --j- , - "':j, , i, -i;-- '?r G EZAi - .. ? - . -