206 LEGAL. [July 



Mr. Marriott, on behalf of the Company, said the land really was 

 not worth £100, but they were asked to pay £1000. The Com- 

 pany put a value of £30 an acre on the land, which was a higher 

 value than that of land in this neighbourhood. The line, moreover, 

 went through the very outskirts of the estate, where it would do least 

 harm. For the compulsory purchase of land, the Company were in 

 the habit of giving in towns £10 per cent, in excess of the actual 

 value, and in the country £25 per cent., as a solatium for any 

 inconvenience experienced. 



Mr. Garrard, surveyor, said he had been thirty years with Mr. 

 Glutton, surveyor to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. His firm was 

 now acting for the Railway Company in this district. He considered 

 £25 an acre to be the full value of the land, and he did not think 

 it would realize that if sold. 



Cross-examined by Mr. Littler — Had put £32 an acre as the 

 price of the land, but was willing to make it £40, with damage to 

 one other acre. The total damage was £160 to Lord Eavensworth's 

 estate. 



Mr. Eyde, surveyor, said though he put £32 an acre on the land, 

 and £25 per cent, for a forced sale, it was not worth that. The 

 acre severed he put down as damaged to the extent of £30, He 

 thought £150 to £160 was full compensation. The estate w^ould 

 sell more readily in conseqiiencc of this direct line to Bournemouth 

 running through it. 



Mr. J. B. Bird, surveyor, of Cowes, had known the district for a 

 number of years, and valued largely in the neighbourhood during 

 the last twenty-live years. Valued the land at £32 per acre, adding 

 £25 per cent, for a forced sale. There was an acre severed, but 

 that was not damaged, as there was an owner the other side ; but 

 still it should be paid for. 



Mr. Lewis, auctioneer and surveyor, of Lymiugton, gave similar 

 evidence ; his valuation was the same as that of the previous witness. 



The jury returned a verdict of £275. 



Mrs, Gunning Sutton's claim will, it is understood, be the subject 

 of an inquiry at a later date. 



" UNCLEAN" TIMBER FROM EPPING FOREST. 



J, Chilton v. Deputy East. 



RECENTLY at the Waltham Abl)ey County Court, before Mr. 

 Judge Abdy, John Chilton, jun., of the Eobin Hood, High 

 Beech, licensed victualler, summoned Mr. Deputy East, of Buckhurst 

 House, Buckhurst Hill, licensed victualler, proprietor of the Three 



