View report page

20
been arrived at in the same method and upon the same lines in respect
of the Company's current accounts as in previous Quinquennial
Valuations, while the number of houses newly erected during the
previous five years had also been taken into consideration.
The Appellants claimed a reduction to £19,364 gross, and £17,396
rateable value, and contended, not only that there had been a considerable
depreciation in the value of the gas receipts and more especially
that their working expenses and the cost of coal had considerably
increased, but that as regards Islington the original valuation had been
calculated upon incorrect principles.
The hearing of the consolidated appeals, after occupying the Court
for twenty-five days, concluded on the 23rd March, 1892, when the
rateable value of the Company's works, mains, and pipes throughout
the Parish of Islington was reduced to £28,873. "While loyally
accepting this decision it is but fair to point out that Islington was
greatly handicapped by having to combine with parishes which had
nothing like the same interests at stake. It is also to be regretted that
after such a heavy outlay in costs on both sides the judgment of the
Court merely amounted to the adoption of certain figures, somewhere
meanway between those put forward by the respective Assessment
Committees and those submitted by the Company, and that no principles
were laid down for the guidance of Overseers or Assessment
Committees in regard to the future valuation of this and similar
undertakings.
The magnitude of this appeal and of the interests involved may
to some extent be appreciated by bearing in mind that it lasted over a
period of about 18 months, that there were 15 respondent Assessment
Committees, and that 21 Counsel and 15 expert Valuers were engaged
in it, and further that the shorthand writer's notes, a copy of which is
bound for reference, cover 767 foolscap pages. The costs of the Company
are understood to have been over £11,000. Those of the Parish of
Islington, including its taxed share of the Appellants' costs, will, it is
to be feared, be very considerable.
The Royal Agricultural Hall Company's appeal was based on the
question of maintenance and annual profits, and on the receipts and
expenditure in connection with the various exhibitions annually held.