1885.] LEGAL. 205 



evident that they were intended for one estate. It was therefore 

 an exceptional hardship tliat tlie Company should come right 

 through the centre, at once destroying the absolute privacy and 

 seclusion wliicli were among the chief elements of value. Taking, 

 however, the properties as a separate estate, independent of Stanleys, 

 it comprised a compact model farm and 125 acres of land, lying in 

 a ring fence, and hounded on two sides by good roads, and possessed 

 valuable residential features. Tlie line entered it on the north side, 

 and traversed almost the entire length of the northern side, severing 

 nearly an acre of land, to which the Company would necessarily 

 have to make a proper communication, and by the construction of it 

 the residential value would be most seriously depreciated, and great 

 difficulty would be found in getting any one to build on the property 

 after its mutilation. Sir John's valuation of the property was as 

 follows: — 3 acres 1 rood 2 poles of the land at £100 per acre, 

 £326, plus £610 for consequential damage to the remainder of the 

 estate : 122 acres, at £5 per acre. He was also of opinion that the 

 necessary accommodation works should be provided by the Company. 

 The jury had not to consider the value of the land to the Company, 

 but its worth to Lord Eavensworth, and what damage he suffered 

 by the severance of it. 



Sir J. AVhittaker Ellis, who was called on Lord Eavensworth's 

 behalf, estimated the damage at £1000. He thought £50 an acre 

 a fair price for such land. 



Mr. Tewson, of the firm of Messrs. Debenham, Tewson, Farmer, 

 & Bridgewater, said the agricultural value of a strip of land taken 

 in this way was not a fair test of value ; it was just as much a test 

 as would be the value of the oils, paint, and canvas, composing a 

 picture by Turner, as compared with the finished article. Lord 

 Eavensworth would have paid £100 an acre or more to secure the 

 strip if he had needed it for the purposes of his estate. An owner 

 ought not to be deprived of his property at a value estimated by the 

 present depression of price in the land market ; for no man sold 

 land now unless he was obliged. He was of opinion that the 

 railway depreciated the value of the estate £20 per cent. 



Cross-examined by Mr. Marriott — A railway with a station a mile 

 and a half off did not always depreciate the value of property, but in 

 this case the circumstances were peculiar. A question of privacy 

 was involved, and owners of this class of property did not much 

 care whether they had a station a mile and a half off or three or 

 four miles off ; besides which, there was no obligation on the part of 

 the Company to maintain a station there. There were cases in 

 wdiich he advised that land should be given for the purposes of a 

 station, but those were in cases of building estates. 



