PETERSFIELD
Agent—Mr.G. DUPLOCK
PETTY SESSIONS,Tuesday, present Sir J. C. Jervoise, Bart., M.P., Chairman, J. Bonham Carter, Esq., M.P., J. Waddington, Esq., and Major Briggs,
— Richard Moore was charged with assaulting James Hall, at Buriton, on Saturday, 23rd of January. Complainant keeps the Five Bells, public-house, and he deposed that about ten o’clock on the evening of the 23rd, defendant and several others came to the front of his house, and defendant, who was the worse for liquor, attempted to enter the house, which complainant objected to his doing and advised him to go home; defendant still persisted in attempting to force his way in and struck complainant several violent blows on the face. Fined 1l. with costs 7s. 6d., or one month’s imprisonment with hard labour. Not being prepared with the money he was removed in custody.
— Thomas Cannings, an inmate of the Petersfield Union Workhouse, was convicted of an assault on William James, another pauper inmate, and sentenced to 10 days’ imprisonment with hard labour.
— James Harris, an old man living at Sheet, was charged on the information of William Haylock with setting a trap to catch game on the 27th of last month. Defendant pleaded guilty and was fined 1s. with costs 7s. 6d.
— The Assessment Committee again.—This being a Special Session for hearing poor’s rate appeals, there were several cases set down for hearing, the first was that of Richard Maidman against the Overseers of the parish of Liss. Mr. Adams appeared for the appellant, and, in opening the case, stated that his client occupied 17 acres of land, which was valued at 33l., being 39s. per acre, and added that this formerly included unlimited common rights, which had now been taken away by the recent enclosure of the commons and which had very much reduced the value of the land, he further contended that it was greatly overrated as compared with other farms—instancing Palmer’s farm, which is only separated from the appellant’s land by a lodge, and which is rated at 23s.—Andlersash, which is better land, and is rated at 27s. 4d., and Flexcombe, which is greatly superior, and is rated at 29s. He asked for a reduction from 39s. to 23s. per acre, so as to place it on a par with Palmer’s. He called Mr. John Chase, whose evidence confirmed the above facts, and the magistrates reduced the rating to 23s.—The next case was that of Mr. William Mellersh, of Tigwell, in the parish of Eastmeon. Mr. Adams appeared for appellant, who occupies 407 acres, assessed at 289l. rateable value, being at the rate of 14s. 2d. per acre. The ground of appeal in this case, as in the other, was inequality, and Mr. Adams proceeded to institute a comparison between this farm and Riplington, which is rated at 10s. 8d., and Park farm, which stands at 10s. 5d., and referring to a valuation of the parish made about ten years ago, by the late Mr. Osborne, of Fareham, he showed that Tigwell was then put at 11s. 6d. an acre, Riplington at 10s. 3d., and Park at 10s. 3d. He called Mr. G. Etherington, auctioneer and valuer, who deposed that in his judgment the three above-named farms were of about equal quality. Mr. Weeks, of Eastmeon, gave similar evidence, and the bench reduced the rating to 12s. 2d. an acre.—Mr. Adams next appealed for a reduction on behalf of Mr. William Berry, of the Stroud in the parish of Eastmeon, who occupies a brick kiln and 36 acres of land, rated at 85l., which, deducting 25l. for the brick kiln, gave 33s. per acre for the land. This was compared with land in the occupation of Mr. Dean, in the same parish, which stands at 20s. per acre. Mr. Weeks on being called by Mr. Adams, deposed that in his opinion Dean’s land was worth from 4s. to 5s. more than Berry’s. This witness handed to the magistrates an estimate which he had made in detail of several pieces of land, the occupation of the appellant, which together amounted to 65l. 1s. 11d. Assessment reduced from 85l. to 65l. —Mr. William Weeks, Mr. Samuel Padwick, and Mr. John Lillywhite, all of Eastmeon, also applied for a reduction, the ground of appeal in each of these cases was not inequality but excess of rating. Mr. Osborne’s valuation was again referred to, and Mr. Weeks stated that on going carefully into the subject he had found that the amount at which Mr. Osborne had put the 8000 acres, comprised in the valuation, exceeded by about 9l. the entire rent paid for the same, that the assessment committee had at first raised this amount 800l. but several parties having appealed, they had subsequeatly adopted, in those cases, Mr. Osborne’s valuation, and added thereto 10 per cent, but he contended that even now the rating was too high. The magistrates, after a lengthened hearing, considered that sufficient evidence of excess had not been adduced to warrant them in disturbing the rating as fixed by the committee. Mr. Bonham Carter and Mr. John Waddington, being ex officio members of the assessment committee retired during the hearing of these appeals, which occupied the bench about four hours.