394 LEGAL. [March 



coppicing. The saleable underwood was here worth £3 per acre on 

 five acres for fourteen years' growth. Upon the rest he put no value. 

 In the parish of Norton appellant had a larch plantation of 97 a. 

 Or. 18 p. which was worthless. Of 157 a. r. 36 p. at HoUy 

 Baub, 8 3 a. r. 2 3 p., consisting of timber, firs, and brakes, he valued 

 at 3s. per acre. The remaining 74 a. Or. 15 p. was worthless. He 

 valued 6 7 a. 3 r. 2 1 p., consisting of timber and mixed coppice, at 

 from £1 to £5 per acre, or an average value on fourteen years' 

 growth of £107, 2s. 5d. He had inspected 500 acres of appellant'.* 

 estate, or 407 acres, excluding the ash beds. 



In cross-examination by Mr. Todd, the witness said Mr. Lutley 

 lost 2s. 6d. per acre on the property at Whitbourne. Of the whole 

 estate 226 acres was worthless, except for sporting. The tithe on 

 the woods alone in Norton parish was nearly 2s. 6d. per acre. 



Mr. C. Woodyatt, surveyor, called on behalf of the assessment com- 

 mittee, stated that lie valued the four odd acres of appellant's pro- 

 perty at Whitbourne at 5 s. per acre. The 29 a. 2 r. 13 p. was very 

 rough timber and underwood. Felled about ten years it would reaKze 

 £200, £3 per acre. He could make money of it any time he 

 desired. He could undertake to let it at Is. per acre for sporting. 

 The seventeen acres of the Linton property was worth 5 s. per acre, 

 or 6 s. with sporting. The underwood at Hodgsbatch would realize 

 £2 or £3 per acre, cut every ten years. The land was worth, all 

 round, 5s. per acre. He valued the appellant's land at Lower 

 Brockhampton at 5s. per acre. The rabbits in the coppicing would 

 be worth 2s. per acre more. The larch plantation at Norton was 

 worth 15s. per acre. The 157 acres he averaged at 3s. per acre 

 and the 67 at 10s. The 83 acres, described by the last witness as 

 valueless, would be well worth thinning. 



The Chairman, in giving the decision of the magistrates, said it 

 was not an easy task to arrive at a fair estimate of property of this 

 description, as the Act imposed such difficulties upon those dealing 

 with it as to make it almost insuperable. The statute said the land 

 should be valued as if occupied in its natural and unimproved state, 

 but he had a difficulty in supposing that any one would occupy a 

 wood or plantation in that state. Such property would usually be 

 occupied for purposes of profit. As to what the land would be 

 worth if let for profit, they had two contradictory witnesses. 



On contrasting the evidence of Messrs. Stooke and Woodyatt as 

 fairly as they could, and seeing that the woods in question produced 

 rabbits and game of some value, and that they were subject to tithe 

 rent-charge, which the appellant was entitled to have allowed him 

 before the gross estimated rental was arrived at, they gave a verdict 

 for the appellant with costs. The objection to the insufficiency of 



