PETERSFIELD.
Agent—Mr. G. DUPLOCK.
PETTY SESSIONS (TUESDAY).—Present, Sir J. C. Jervoise, (chairman), Right Hon. Sir W. G. H. Jolliffe, Bart., M.P., J. Waddington, Esq., and Major Briggs.
— The magistrates were occupied several hours in hearing appeals under the Assessment Committee Act. Sir W. Jolliffe and Mr. Waddington being ex officio members of the committee retired during the hearing of' these cases. The first case was that of Mr. Thomas Waller, of Steep farm. This had been partly heard at a former session, and stood adjourned. Mr. Adams appeared for the appellant, the committee was represented by Mr. E. Chalcraft, (the chairman), Mr. Shenton, and Mr. Minty. On the case being called Mr. Minty rose and contended that according to the 18th Sec. of the Act, application for redress should first have been made to the assessment committee, and that until this had been done the jurisdiction of the magistrates did not arise, and that no such application having been made to the committee the appellant had no locus standi before the bench. Mr. Adams contended that there was nothing in the Act to prevent an appeal being made at once to the magistrates. After a good deal of discussion the chairman announced that the magistrates were of opinion that the appeal must be in the first place to the the committee, and until that had been done the magistrates had no jurisdiction in the matter. This case was accordingly dismissed.
— Mr. John Etherington, of Hawkley, applied to have an error in his rating corrected. He had appealed to the committee, but having, through illness, failed to give the requisite notice of such appeal, the committee had declined to entertain it, and had referred him to the magistrates. It appeared that whereas it was the rule in the parish to assess the houses with the land, his house comprising two tenements had been so assessed with his farm and afterwards assessed again separately. This error, on being explained by the appellant, and admitted by the committee, was corrected, and 3l. 15s., the estimated yearly value of the tenements, was ordered to be struck off.
— Mr. Adams, who appeared on behalf of four separate parties from the parish of Liss, next proceeded to address the bench, and opened his first case, that of Mr. Thomas Triggs, by remarking that, in his opinion, the committee prosecuted on a wrong principle in taking the rent paid instead of the value by fair estimation as the basis of their assessment, he had had many years’ experience, and had been engaged in making many rates, and the rule upon which he had always gone was value not rent, but the committee had taken rent whether high or low as the basis of their assessment, which he (Mr. Adams) considered very unsatisfactory.—Mr. Chalcraft denied the accuracy of Mr. Adams’ statement, and said that although where they found the rent high, they might have accepted it as a criterion, they certainly had not done so when they found it low.—Mr. Adams proceeded to compare the farm (Woodlands), occupied by his client, and assessed at 1l. 9s. 8d. per acre, with several other farms of equal or better quality which were assessed at lower rates, viz:— Stovold, 22s. 6d.; Vinson, 15s.; Bridger (Palmers), 23s.; Chase (Hexcourt), 29s.; Jenkins, 25s. 5d.; Nash, 18s. 2d. He called Mr. Henry Mills, one of the overseers, who produced the rate book, and deposed that he had been an occupier of land in the parish of Liss many years, he knew Woodlands farm, considered it worth about 24s. or 25s. an acre; Palmer’s farm was of about equal value; Hexcourt was very superior, and he should think it worth 10s. an acre more than Woodlands; Nash’s was worth 2s. an acre less than Woodlands.—Cross-examined by Mr. Chalcraft—Woodlands contains about 28 acres; Palmer’s, 78; Hexcourt, 145, and Nash’s, 116.—By Mr. Shenton—smaller farms will, no doubt, usually command a higher rental per acre than larger ones.—Re-examined by Mr. Adams—I know Jenkins’s farm, it contains about 22 acres, it is worth about a guinea an acre. I consider Woodlands to be worth about 24s. an acre.—Mr. Adams produced a receipt showing that the rent paid was 35l. whereas it was rated at 42l., so that even taking the rent as a basis it would not justify the rating. He asked for a reduction from 29s. 8d. to 24s. The magistrates finally fixed the rate at 25s. an acre. The bench considered that as this case had already been before the committee on appeal, and had been reduced by them from 18l. to 16l., it might remain at that sum. Case dismissed.
— The next case was that of Mr. John Chase, of Kippences. The farm contained 81a. 0r. 33p., and was first assessed by the committee at 150l., but had been reduced by them on appeal to 140l., that is from 36s. 6d. an acre to 34s. 3d. The present application was for a further reduction. Case dismissed.
— Mr. Adams then applied on behalf of Mr. Joseph Inwood (Pophole). whose farm contains 63 acres. and was first assessed at 120l., but had been reduced by the committee on appeal to 95l., or 30s. 2d. per acre. The present application was for a further reduction to 26s. an acre. Mr. Wells was again called, and went into a comparison of this with the farms mentioned above, and gave it as his opinion that it would be fairly assessed at 28s. per acre. Mr. John Chase was also called, and stated that he considered 27s. an acre to be its full value. Reduced to 28s. per acre.
— Frederick Clark, of East Tisted, was convicted of using wires for taking game in the parish of Colemon on the 21st of November. Fined 30s., and costs, 7s. 6d., or in default 21 days’ imprisonment with hard labour.
— William Philips, of Steep, was convicted of stealing two fowls, value 4s., the property of Mr. Richard Hedger. One month’s imprisonment with hard labour.