View report page

14
You have very fully and fairly stated the Case, but I have added
a Memo. as I am anxious it should he made very clear that we
do not claim that a Valuation List should be altered on a mere
alteration of rent which, of itself, may be of no significance
worth notice, and Mr. Crompton Hutton's Opinion appears to be
on this point only, and therefore does not bear upon our cases.
I do not wish to encumber the Case, but if you could accept my
Memo. or embody so much of it as will make our contention still
plainer, (if that be possible,) you will oblige.
I am, Dear Sir,
Yours very truly,
E. W. James, Esq. ROBERT PAGET.
I hope this delay in returning case will not cause you any
inconvenience.
Clarendon House, Christchurch Road,
Bournemouth,
September 10th, 1881.
Dear Sir,
Yours of the 8th has reached me here. If you think
the Memo. I appended to the Case for Counsel undesirable as
complicating it, use your discretion as to using it, or any portion
of it. But I cannot help thinking that the supposed case, and
the actual cases stated in my letter, are in the same category;
the values have become materially altered by unforseen circumstances,
from some "cause" other than structural alterations, and
not from a mere whimsical and trivial alteration of rent. It is impossible
for an Act of Parliament to provide for every case which
may arise; something must be left for those who have to
administer the law, and I cannot help thinking that the local
authorities, knowing all the local circumstances, may be safely
left to deal with special cases as they arise, as apparently contemplated
by the wording of the 47th Clause, which so clearly
provides for an alteration of value, other than from structural
alteration.