The Welshman

n _u- CARMARTHEN BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS. The Appeal Against the Assessment of the Asylum. The Assessment Reduced. A special Carmarthen Borough Quarter Sessions were opened on the 20th inst., before Mr Arthur Lewis (the recorder), for the purpose of bearing the appeal case in which the Committee of Vieitors of the Joint Counties' Lanatio Asylum, Carmarthen, were the appellants, the -Assessment Committee, Overseers, and Churchwardona Of the parish of St Peter's, Carmarthen, the rreøpondents. The appeal was made in respect to the assessment of the Asylum. There were a number of gentlemen of the town and district present, amoDgat whom we noticed :-Air 0 W Jones; Dr Rowlauds Mr Thomas Thomas, Wellfield; the Rev'C G Browne, principal of the Training College; Mr R M Thomas, town clerk; Alderman R W Richards Rev Lewis James, Narberth Dr Griffiths, Milford Mr C M Williams, Aberyst- wyth; Mr Brigstocke, Parkygors; Dr G J Hearder, medical superintendent at the Asylum Mr H Cadle, the mayor; Mr J Francis, Myrtle Hill; Mr Brunei White, The Grange: Mr D Davies, Parade; Mr Walter Lloyd; Mr D Thomas, Furnace House; Mr Baker, Picton-plice Rev W Thomas, Elim; Mr J Lloyd Thomas, Grilfacb Mr James Philippe, London Honse; and others. Mr Abel Thomas, Q.C., M.P., with Mr J Lloyd Morgan, M.P. (instructed bv Mr Morgan Griffiths, clerk to the Committee of Visitors of the Asylum), appeared for the appellants, and Mr Balfour Browne Q.C., with Mr W Denman Benson (iLStracted by Mr, Rowland Browne, clerk to the Assessment Committee), apreared on bebalf of the respondents. Mr Abel Thomas, in opening the case for the appellants, said that the Asylum was maintained by the three counties of Cardigan, Carmarthen, and Pembroke, and was called the Joint Counties' Asylum. The Borough of Carmarthen bad no part or parcel in the building, nor in the maintenance and management of the Asylum itself, notwithstanding that the Aaylam itself had been erected in the parish of St Peter, which formed part of the Borough. The Asylum was rated to the poor, not only for the parish of St Peter, but also for the union of which that parish formed part. Part of the rates would, therefore, go for the purposes of the Borough, and part towards the Union. That being so it was a very important matter to the parish of St Peter's that the assessment should be at the highest rate possible, and it. was equally as important to the three counties that it should be as low as possible. Of course, in a parish like St Peter's, which includes the whole of the Borough of Carmarthen—which is not as large and important as some other (boroughs one knew of—a building of the size of the Asylum, which was, undoubtedly, a very large and. fioe one, very consider- ably affected the rates of the whole Borough. He was not going to say anything more with regard to that. As be (the recorder), no doubt, knew, aoytuma were not rateable until the Lunacy Act of 1890, and by Section 263 of that Act, it was enacted that lands and buildings already, or to be hereafter, purchased or acquired for the purposes of an asylum, or additional buildings erected, or to be ereoted, thereon, shall, while used for this purpose, be assessed to the county, parochial and district rates, made after the passing of this Ant, on the same basis and to the same extent as other buildings in the same township, parish, or district." Now, he should take it that the words of the same extent would probably mean that it should be rated in the same way and manner as other build- ings. "On the same basis" must mean that the rating of public buildings or other buildings in the same parish or district should be alike, and according to the value of the building. He (the recorder) would hate to take that into consideration, and if he found that in the Borough of Carmarthen and its immediate neighbourhood buildings similar in character to the Asylum—be did not lIay that with regard to the inmates (laughter)-sueb as the Poor House and the Training College, parts or divisions of the Asylum, all those buildings ooght to be rated on the same basis as tbfl Asylum, or the Asylum on the same basis as them. If be was right with regard to the law on that point, the case would come out. in this way, that the new rate that was made by the Assessment Committee, as against the old one, was ridiculous on the face of it. He would show, he thought, beyond any doubt, that the assess- ment of the Lunatic Asylum by the Assessment Com- mittee was the most preposterous assessment made or attempted to be sustained. The Assessment Committee had no right, because the Asylum was governed by three counties, to put up the rates of that institution in exceps to what they rated other places of the same character as rogards construction, but not for the same purpose, with the exception of assessment. According to the old law, viz., 6 and 7 William IV., chapter 96, asylums should be rated for what they might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. The Recorder observed that in his opinion the Act of 1890 did not enact any new principle of rating. It meant that the principle applicable to land and build- ings was applicable loMunatic asylums. Mr Thomas, continuing-In workhouses there was very little difficulty in arriving at the estimate of the net annual value, but in larger buildings, especially on the size of the Carmarthen Asylum, which accommo- dates lunatics from three counties, it was impossible to get at the net annual value by the ordinary course of simply comparing it with other buildings. The last case with reference to that was the Queen against the London School Board, in which it was held that, amongst other tenants, they must consider the tenant who really took the place, and they were going to contend that they must consider the Committee of Visitors of the three counties as the possible or hypo- thetical tenant, and he (the Recorder) was tv test the case to a certain extent. The test he must apply to himself was, what would the Asylum Committee or the Committee of the three counties give per annum as the net annual value of that particular building. Mr Justice Cave said in the Divisional Court in the case of the Queen against the London School Board that one way of arriving at that test was by considering that the Committee of Visitors-be would substitute that for the School Board who, rather than pay a certain rent, erected a building for themselves, and would charge themselves so much interest in lieu of rent for the building. That was one of the tests by which he might arrive at the true net annual value. He thought that was consistent with common sense. The Asylum had been built bit by bit and year by year. It was extremely badly built. Two big towers had been taken down to the bottom and re-built; the roof had been pulled down and re-placed, and great masses of the buil iing had been taken down and re-placed because it was *o badly built. He could not help thinking that his friends' witnesses had made a mistake in putting down the building at £ 80,000 or so, instead of what it was really worth. A similar building could be put up that day by the Commit'ee of Management for X50,000 at the very most. There was a great difference in the figures of the witnesses on either side. If he (the Recorder) really considered what Mr Justice Cave said in the Divisional Court if he was going to apply that test, which was the only one by which he could arrive at the true net annual value of the Asylum, he must get at the cost of the Asylum and find out what interest ought to be charged. He thought he would prove to him, beyond any doubt, that the actual cost of the building was more than £ 54.000. The cost of building an institution in the way the Asylum had been built, viz., bit by bit, was an extremely expensive way of building. The Asylum itself consisted of three portioni. There was the main building of the Asylum about which he (the Recorder) was to consider that day. The ground upon which it stood was 45t acres. With reference to the chapel, he would say it was a licensed place of public worship, and was not rateable. it it was licensed for public worship it was rateable. But the question could be settled again. It was a simple matter of law. Then, in connection with the main buildings, were workshops and the church, which stood completely by itself in the grounds, and the infectious hospital. That stood clwan away from the other build- ings in the same way as the workshop and dead house, and one or two smaller buildings. In the main build- ings there was room altogether for 448 iumates. He would explain to the Recorder that there was in the Asylum 37 more 'inmates accommodated besides that. 'They were accommodated in the infectious hospital, and any moment an infectious disease broke out, those inmates would have to be taken somewhere else. The Sanitary Commissioners always insisted or tried to insist upon hiving an infectious hospital attached to most buildidgs of this sort. it was a recommendation which they were doing their best to enforce. He asked the Recorder, tbe'efore, to come to the conclusion that the number of beds in the Asylum was 448. He should not calculate the 37 beds in the Asylum Infectious Hospital because he (the Recorder) must assume that at eome time or other an infectious disease was liable to break out in the Asylum, when those 37 inmates would have to go out. At the outside of the grounds of the Asylum were farm buildings and piggeries. There was also a lodge and the attendant's house. The latter was rated separately. The piggeries and farm buildings and lands were all rated in one lump sum. He (the Recorder) would see that they were rated now in one lump sum instead of being rated as they formerly were, separately. Outside the land in that building, there was a house called Job's Well, and that was rated at a ratable value of 148. The cost per bed in the main building was -66 lis 7d, while at Job's Well the cost per bed wts 198 2d. That on the face of it seemed absurd. On the other side of the railway was Rhydygorse. This place had its own day and work- rooms, kitchens, and everything else, and accommodated 40 patients. The medical attendance came from the main building. There were five acres of land there; which wis extremely litood land, and that building and land were rated by the parish authorities or the Assess- ment Committee at a rateable value of £ 80, or X2 per bed. The state of affairs was that the rateable value on a place like Job's Well was 19s 2J per bed Rhydynorse JE2; and the main building of the Asylum £ 6 lis 7d per bed. There were also certain buildings in the town which could be compared in exaotly the same way. One | was the Training College. No doubt the Recorder had seen the both. Similar in construction was the Train- ing College, which accommodated 62 students, and it was surprising to hear that the patients—(laughter) — or the btuden s -no doubt there were patients there as well-wrio had a little bedroom to themselves, and other | conveniences, were rated at the rateable value of L2 188 2d, the rateable value on the whole being £170. Mr Balfour Browne objected to his friend making use of 1 he college as an illustration. Mr Thomas said he was simply comparing the Asylum with other buildings in order to show opon what basis the Asylum was placed. He would take the work. house. There was room there for 150 beds, and the rateable value of the whole was L176, being £ 1 3 Id per bed. He would see how buildings were rated in Carmarthen. There must be something radically wrong in the way in which those buildings had been rated. He (the recorder) most consider that upon his decision stood the true rateable vakae o. the building. To come down to what had taken 'place about the rating The Asylum was rated for the first time in May 1890. The Rhydynorse was assessed at £100 gross estimate t rental, and CSO rateable value. The main buildings were assesied at £ 2,938 gross and £2,350 rateable. Amongst those who made that assessment were farmers forming part of the Assessment Committee, and he did not timree with many of the great men his frieod had brooght down from London. They assessed the land at £10.5 gross rateable value JE99 15s; farm buildings and piggeries X20, and £16 rateable; wfll L60 gross. £ 40 rateable attendance boose Z20 and .£16; workship f,60 and L40. Altogether the gross rental was L3,243 and the rateable value t2,603 18s. That was the position up to Aagost last year when the committee of management compiained of the assessment and bad a hearing before the Assessment Commi'tee, and finally, on the 21st. January, 1893, they determined to appeal. When they re-assessed tue Asylum, Rhydygorse was not altered, but a clean sweep was made on the main buildings. They put the whole in one lump sum, in- cluding chapel, workships, infectious hospital, etc., aod increased the assessment to something like L600. Tbe recorder must consider the position of the buildings, the cost it would take to build a similar institution that day, also what interest the committee of managers should charge on the capital in lien of rent. Tue whole circumstances must be taken into consideration. If the question of interest was taken in the assess nent should be reduced by something like Xi,ooo, and if in addition to that the recorder saw it was a part of his duty to con- sider the way in which buildings of a similar nature were rated in the district., he should tike another LI,000 off this, reducing the assessment by £ 2,000. Robert Wilkin Hedley, surveyor and valuer, London, was called. He said he had had much experience in valuing asylums and such buildings in London and many parts of England. Toere were various ways of trying to arrive at the net rental. He used the cube method. He had been all over every part of the Asylum some time last month. He examined the state of the buildings with regard to the state of repair. The kitchen accommodation was very inadequate. It was very rnoch under the present requirements. Toe ) laundry room was antiquated and out of date. With regard to the bedroom accommodation The day space was not adequate to the night space. The building was in a fairly good state of repair now. It had been very badly built. It required constant repairing. He valued the building at L50,,540, and the net annual nlue at £ 2,018 and the land at JE130. He bad not included the Church. He estimated that the main building con- tained 2,246,700 cubes at 4fd per cube. That came to £ 42,120. The infectious fnospital contained 198,099 cubic feet at 4 per foot. Tuis auonnted to Y,3,710 dead-hoose, 4,455 cubic feet at 3d, L193 workshop, 80,212 cubic feet at 3 i, £1,000 gas wo.k s he valued at £ 1,577; water works including engine and boiler, £500; boundary wall, L372 entrance gates, L30 walls, £30 weighing machine, £ 40 ;■ laundry fittings, £ 200; green- houses, £12. The gas and water works were in a bad state, and it was a question whether they could be called works. The gas holder was thoroughly worn out. He did not know ho-v they were going to get through the winter with the present gas wor ks. They were in a most wretched condition. The water works were also in a wretched state, and the engines and boiler were nearly worn out. They oould only pomp half a day's supply. That was a very expensive way of pumping. He would certainly say that he could bnild the asylum with all its present works for about £ 50,000.. Mr Thomas In other ca--les in which you have valued asylums and large public buildings of this kind, what is the percentage that seems likely to be got ? Witness I put it down at 4 per cent. in every rase with the exception of one, and that was in the county of London. That was put down at .£5. £ 50,240 was a fair structural value. He put down the 45 acres of land at 50s per acre, which gave £ 113. The total net annual value would be E20,113 Ho thought tie Committee of Visitors of the Asylum could borrow money at 3; per cent lor the building of the Asylum. He had not included the chapel, which was extremely well built. He was told it was built fur public worship. When valuing chapels or churches of that kind he named a nominal sum for it. For the chapel in question he would say S20. A discussion then arose as to whether the chapel was licensed for public worship. Mr Bro ne put in the license, which the recorder said seemed to him to be a restricted license. Mr Thomas said that it was exclusively used for public religious worship. The services were often to the public. If they took the case of the hypothetical tenant, he would use his :dining or some other room as a chftpel, and the Asylum Committee could have done the same. They could have used one of the other rooms. The matter was then dropped. Witness, continuing, said he had seen the Training College, and had been through it. It was similarly bu!lt to the Asylum and could, at a very little cost, be adapted to an asylum. It accommodated 62 students, with headmasters' rooms and class-rooms. The rate- able value per bed was Y,2 14s 2d. He had seen the Workhouse, and the rateable value per bed there was £1 3t Id. The rateable value per 'bed in the Asylum was L6 12s He would not be justified in including the 37 beds in the infectious hospital in his valuation. The Asylum bad a capacity for 448. He had never, in the whole of his experience, known beds to be rated higher th&n E4 each. The manner in which the building had been erected had enlarged the cost to an undue extent. A good deal of it was jerry built," and had to be re- built. Cross-examined: He believed that the cost of build- ing the Asylum by piece meal was L52,000 or £ 53,000. Mr Browne: I think your informant does not know the faots. I believe it was stated to the Lunacy Com- missioners that its cost was ±83,000. In the blue book I think it is stated that the original cost of construction was X83,51 1. Witness, continuing: That was perfectly true, including repairs done. A great deal of the labour had been done by the lunatics, and, no doubt, a great deal of the work in the original building had been good for nothing. He did not think the infectious hospital was a superfluity. It was necessary that the Asylum should have such an hopital. Mr William Watkins, J.P., Swansea, said he was a member in the late firm of Thomas, Williams, and Jenkins, builders and contractors. He had had a great experience as a builder and contractor and in valuing property of the kind in queslion. He cubed the Asylum and found it contained 2,239,718 fee. He thought the Asylum should be rated at about L52,000 odd. He valued the chapel at £ 4,500. He was of opinion that the Asylum was excessively valued. Mr Collier was also of the opinion that the Asylum was excessively rated. He had had twelve years' experience as an architect. The value of the Asylum, io his opinion, was about £ 53,000. The chapel con- tained 186,000 cubic feet. He did not think it had been built in an extravagant manner. It was well built, and was ornamented nicely in some places. He was the architect for it. He had taken cubic measurement of the College, and found it contained 352,309 cubes. It was a better building than the Asylum. He had cubed Rhydygorse at 153,404, and Job's Well at 148,496. He put the cost at 41d per foot. He put the infectious d lnlec 10US hospital at 5d per foot, the dead-house 4d, workshop 3id, farm buildings and piggeries 3d, gasworks s 2d. All the items made a total of f53,000. Cross-examined He did not include the organ in the chapel when he cubed that building, bat if be valued it he would put it down at £200. Mr Balfour Browne thought the organ must bg included. The Recorder: But some people don't like organs (lau\{hter). Mr Thom, Did not see why it should be included. If they bad a string band there would they include that that also. Mr T Rule Owen, surveyor and valuer, Haverford. west, said he put down the structural value of the asylu?t?O.OM. The rate?e h0 e8timated t £ 1.864, and the gross estimated rental at ?2,7M. He had included nothing for the chapel. Dr G J Hoarder, M.D., medical superintendent 01 the asylum, said he had occupied that position since December, 1867, and since then he had taken an active part in every movement of the Asylum. The price for the Asylum property was £ 3,760. On that property there some partly built houses called Jobs "oilor Job's Mansion as it was called in those days. There were some farm buildings and outbuildings on the land. They had sufficient stone there to build the present existing farm buildings. After the Asylum was built large parts bad been pulled down and re-built. The ceiling had been taken down and replaced. The old roof had been taken off, and a new one put in its place. In "the year 1871-2 they expended upon the building in the shape of repairs, etc., £ 3,063 and £ 3,090. He had made out from the Asylum books the cost of the original building and the subsequent replacement and repairs from 1865 to 1892, and he found them to be £ 52,900 and 920,655 for the replacement repairs, etc. With regard to the 37 patients in the infectious hospital, should an infectious disease break out, the patients would have to go elsewhere or else overcrowd the main building. The materials for the chapel cost £ 2,200. IIn the chapel service was held in the morning and I afternoon on Sunday- He was not aware that any I person had been refused admission into the chapel. He did think the kitchen and laundry arrangement were very ba 1 and would so.,n want to be renewed. The cost, of t' e pumping of water was E250 per year. Cross-examined The lodge keeper bad the r;ght to turn any persons out of the Asylum grounds who were I not behaving themselves. Excursionist went over the Asylum grounds and were not stopped. If any came on Sunday as long as they behaved themselves they would be admitted in, o the cbapel. Of course, if there were sufficient patients to fill the chapel th- public would be excluded. The public would not be allowed to exclude the patieents. He had included all the material for building in his item of £ 2,200. He did not put down the cost of lunatic labour. The pathological room was i largely built by lunatic labour. He did not think that if the Asylum Committee wanted to let the building apd had a tenant for it, that tenant would give much more than L25,000 wLh a little additional for repairs, etc. He certainly would not give the cost of the lunatic labour, etc., in addition. He would, no doubt, include the cost of the labour, etc., wheu offering it, but he did not think ho would get it. Mr Harry Mansell Cook, surveyor and valuer, Ferry- side, Slid he had fourteen years' experience in the pro- fession at home and abroad. He measured the Asylum, and valued it at 5d per cubic foot, with the exclusion of the chapel, at a total of L51,945 9s 3d, and could erect a building of the same capacity for the same amount CroRs-examiaed He had never built an asylum (laughter). He agreed with the estimate of Mr Collier. Mr Ryde, of the firm of Ryde & Son, London, said he bad had 20 years' experience in valuing all sorts of properties. The kitchen and laundry arrangements, and the bedr oom accommodation, were inadequate. The waterworks engines were quite worn out, and the gas machinery wa- very old. His measurements were the same as Mr Hedley's. He could erect similar buildings for L50,936, exclusive of the chapel, an,t would put the structural nature of the whole, including land and building, at £ 54,534. He thought the rateable value ought to be taken at 3 per cent. '*Mr John Francis, austi >neer and valuer, residing at Carmarthen, sa'd he hid valued the land on which the Asylum stolId, and thought that for rating purposes it should be put at X2 158 par acre. He put the total value of the land at £124: 16s 2d. Cross-examined He had valued all the land as agri- cultural land, including the 14 acres upon which the. Asylum building stood. Re-examined He had lately sold a field near the Borough. He had valued the laud considering its proximity to Carmarthen. This was the case for the appellants. Mr Balf"ur Browne having addressed the Recorder at some length, called the first witness for the respondents. Mr C Frederick Jones, Fellow of the Surveyors' Institute, said he estimated the structural value of the buildings, including the chapel, to be £ 69,904. He considered the proper percentage to charge upon that amount to be 5 per cent. He calculated the rateable value to be £3,495, and the gross estimated rental at .f4,486. Cross-examined: He considered the life of the Asylum buildings to be another 100 years. In his valuation, be added the architect's coracaision. He valued the dining hall and the chapel at 6d. The chapel was a superior building to the dining hall; he valued it at £ 5,000. William Thomas, managing director of Messrs Thomas Watkins, of Swausea, said he inspected the buildings on the 26th June. The building was generally in a very good state of repair, and is well built. He thought labour had increased in price these last few years at the rate of about 40 per cent. He would put the structural value of the whole building, exclusive of the land, at £ 70,143. In doing so, he considered the local prices both of labour and materials. Cross-examined The pl-in hold by the recorder was traced by him frcm an original at the Asylum. It took him about three days to complete the valuation. He and his assistant took notes of the measurements on the spot in a note-book, but he had not that book with him. He valued the chapel at 5d per cube. Re-examined: He thought it would take about £73,000 to replace the Asyluw, including the land. Mr R M Thomas, town clerk of Carmarthen, said the Borough of Carmarthen paid L230 rental to the Committee of Visitors for the pauper lunatics, besides maintenance charges. Mr William Eve, honorary examiner to the Institute of Surveyors, said he was asked to give evidence on the other side (laughter). He inspected the Asylum on June 24tb this year. He thought that it was an exceed- ingly eligible and good site. His opinion of the accom- modation of the Asylum was embodied in the wording of the report of 1891,. viz., "that it affords ample pro- vision and all necessary accommodation for all the patients." He put the total structural value at £ 68,036, and thought the increase in the price of labour would account for the difftrence between Dr Hearder's estimate and his own. The land he estimated at £ 248. Mr Rynn, ot the firm of Morri- & Ryan, London, said be thought that 5 per ,!ent was the proper amount to take, and that would work out at 43,435. Adding to that the value of the land, the gross estimated rental he put down at £ 4,483. The structural value he put at £ 68,709. Cross-examine! He took no measurements himself, but w-18 supplied with them by Mr Frederick Jones. He included t he architect's commission in his esti- mate. Mr Morgan Davies, a land valuer, of Ffroodvale, Carmarthenshire, said he was building on ltnd near Carmarthen at present. He agreed with the figures given by Mr Thomas. This was 1 he case for the respondents. Mr Balfour Browne, in his address, said the dis- crepancies between the figures of the expert witnesses were not so great as might at first appear The ques- tion was -Was the rental to be put at 4 or 5 per cent. of the Stl uctural value. Even supposing the structural value were found to be wrong, the difference between the 4 and 5 per cent. would bring in a rental of E2,936, the "mount of the assessment. Mr Abel Thomas, replying on behalf of the appel- lants, pointed out that if, in assessing the Asylum, the recorder took into consideration the estimated cost of the building, it would be necessary to take into account the fact that there was only one possible tenant, and that was the Asylum Committee themselves. He con- tended that 31 1 per cent. was the proper basis of calcula- tion in assessing the Asylum. The Recorder, iu delivering his judgment, said The question which I have to de ermine in this case is the amount at which the Committee of Visitors of the Joint Counties of Carmarthen, Pembroke, and Cardigan Lunatic Asylum (which building is situate within the Parish of St Peter's, in the Borough of Carmarthen) are to be assessed to the relief of the poor, such committee being the olcupiers of the hereditaments consisting of land, main buildings, infectious hospital, chapel, workshops, patholonical buildings, &c stabling, piggeries, &c., gas and water-works, and appurtenances, and described as the Joint Counties Lunatic Asylum at Carmarthen. The case is by no means free from difficulty, arising in a great degree from its novelty, inasmuch as prior to the Lunacy Act of 1890 such property was exempt from assessment, and from the absence of any decided cases laying down the principle upon which such assestment is to be arrived at, and partly from the peculiar nature of the rateable hereditament. The Lunaoy Act of 1890 enacts that lands and buildings, already or to be hereafter purchased or acquired for the. purposes of any asylum, and any additional building erected or to be erected thereon, shall, while used for those purposes, be assessed to county, parochial, district, and other rates made after the commencement of this Act, on the same basis and to the same extent ai other lands and build- ings in the same parish, township, or district," and it was argued by Mr Thomas, on behalf of the appellant*, that by the words of the Section it was intended that the valuation should be made upon the same basis as, and by a comparison with the assessment of other public buildings, ejusdem generis, with the Asylum, and he cited as instances for my guidance and by way of comparison the Training College, the Infirmary, and the Workhouse, and contended, in short, that a new principle of assessment had been created by the statute. With this view I am unable to agree. In my judgment no such new principle has been created. I think that the provisions of the Poor Rate Assessment Act of 1836, Sec. 1, are applicable to the present case, and that what I have to be guided by in arriving at the rateable value is the rent at which the hereditaments might be expected to let from year to year, free of all usual tenants' rates and taxes and tithe commutation rent charge, if any, and deducting therefrom the probable average cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expanses, if any, necessary to maintain them in a state to command such rent. In order to arrive at this, two bassfc were put forward by the appellants, first: That the actual structural value of the building should be ascertained and a certain percentage taken upon that amount, and second: That the amount should be arrived at upon a valuation based upon the number of beds provided for the accommodation of the patients. Although the latter principle may be useful as a test, I do not consider that it is the best or fairest test, and I do not think that, except as a test, it was seriously put forward on behalf of the appellants, Mr Hedley frankly ac nowledging that it was- in effect only another form of arriving at the structural value, and Mr Eve, for the respondenta, admitting that while the bed system was that which he had hitherto adopted—the cubical contents system or the structural value principle wasi the safest to work on, and this is borne out by the fact that this principle has been acted upon in all the valuation which have beeu given in evidence before me during the inquiry. I agree with Mr Thomas that it may be by no means conclusive, but it is. to my mind, in this case, the safest and fairest principle to act upon in arriving at the true value at which the hereditaments are to be assessed. The parties waived all technical objections, and the case came before me upon its merits, with one exception, viz., that of the chapel used for Divine worship, which the appellants contended was exempt, upon the ground that it was a building "exclusively appropriated to public worship within the meaning of 3 and 4 William IV., c. 30. The lioense for the build- ing was produced before me, from which it appeirs that the building was licensed for the purpose of Div'na service, the same being set apart for the uQe of the inmates of the said asylum," and Mr Thomas a I. mitted that the words were decidedly against the cjntenti m of the appellants, but the case aga nst the appellants did not rest thers, for while it is an undoubted fact that the public do attend the ser. vices without interference by the Asylum authorities. it was also proved that it was within the power of the medical superintendent atlany time to exclude the public at his discretion from attending Divine worship. I hold, therefore, that the chapel does not come within the provisions of the Act of William IV., and is properly the subject of assessment. I now pass to con- sider the evidence which was'put before me with regard to (1) the structural value of the buildings, and (2) the value of the land. 1. Evidence was called on both sides to show what the cubical contents of the buildings were, and although there were discrepancies between the estimates of the different witnesses called on behalf of the appellantl-, as well as between them and the witnesses for the respondents, I consider that the real Question in difference between the parties was not so much that of cubical contents as of price per cubic foot. I For the appellants the structural value, or the amount at which the buildings could be replaced in their present condition, was variously estimated, the highest being that of Mr Collier, who put it at S53,000 and included in his estimate the architect's commission Mr Watkins, £ 52,333; and Mr Hedley, £ 50,454. For the respondents the value was estimated as high as £70,14:3 by Mr Thomas, £ 69,904 by Mr Jones, X68,700 by Mr Ryan, and £ 68,000 by Mr Eve. The opinions of such men as Mr Jones and Mr Eve upon matters of this kind are entitled to the very highest respect;; bat in my opinion, having regard to the facts which were elicited from Mr Jones in cross-examination, amongst other things, as to the prices put upon the dining-room and chapel respec- tively, which he admitted were not fairly comparable while pricing them both at 6d per cubic foot, and the extravagant value put upon the coal cellar and kitchen, and with regard to M r Eve, considering that he relied for his information as to measurements entirely on Mr William Thomas (whose evidence, while no doubt honestly given, did not impress me as being at all reliable), and considering also that neither Mr Jones or Mr Eve appeared to have had much if any experience of building prices in this locality, and having regard also to the limited time during which their valuation was made, I do not feel that I should be justified in accepting their estimates as affording safe ground for me to act upon in arriving at the true structural value. Upon question of price I prefer to be guided by the evidence of Mr Collier and Mr Watkins, men of large local experience, confirmed as they are by Mr Hedley, and, indeed, to some extent, by my own personal knowledge. But, apart from the expert evidence, the appellants called Dr Bearder, who gave his evidence with perfect candour and fairness, as I should have expected he would, and who has this advantage over every other witness in the case, viz that he has watched the growth of the building almost from its infancy, and has displayed the most lively interest in it, as appears by the accounts and figures which he has put before me, as well as an intimate knowledge in the building operations connected there- with, although not himself an expert in building. I prefer, therefore, to take his testimony and accept hie views as to the structural value of the building as afford- ing me probably the surest ground but inasmuch as great part of the building has been erected with lunatic labour, which is an element which cannot be elimin- ated, and which has not been ttken into account by Dr Bearder, and bearing in mind his evidence with regard to the amount spent upon what he called replace- ments and repairs, no inconsiderable part of which, at any rate in my judgment, would be necessary to main- tain the hereditaments in a state to command the rent, I have come to the conclusion that the fair amount to be taken as the structural value of this building, exclu- sive of the chapel, is a sum of £ 58,420. 2. Passing on to a consideration of the value of the land, I have come to the conclusion that, while it would be unfair to regard it or any part of it as building land in the ordinary acceptation:of the term, its proximity to the town gives it a value superior to that of mere agricultural land, that it must be regarded as accommodation land, and that its fair annual value is L142. Holding, as I have, that 'he chapel ia rateable, I have to consider on what amount it should be assessed. It is clear that it ooght not to be assessed upon its structural value, which is put at 94,500, and of which some considerable proportion is represented by em- bellishment. It was suggested that a building suit- able for the purpose could be erected for £2,000, but I do not think I should be justified in assessing it even at this amount, and I think there was considerable force in the argument addressed to me by Mr Thomas, that the true test would be the rent that a tenant would give for the luxury of a private chapel on his grounds. It is, of oourse, very hard to say what this would be, but I think I shall be doing justice between the parties if I put the annual value of the chapel at a sum of C30. I have lastly to consider the rate per cent., which is to be applied to the structural value, in order to arrive at the net rateable value, and I have come to the conclusion, not without considerable hesitation, that the five per cent., contended for by Mr Btlfour Browne, would be too high and, in so doing, I have been guided a good deal by the argument addressed to me by Mr Thomas, that the hypothetical landlord, expending money in erecting a large building such ai tbis, would not get a larger sum by way of rent. in this country than would pay him at the rate of four per cent. 00 bi* outlay. It is notjwhat he would ask, but what he might reasonably be expected to get, and what the hypothetical tenant might reasonably be expected to give. At best, it is but a rough and ready test, but, applying the beat considera- tion I can to a very difficult question, I arrive at the conclusion that I must adopt tour per cent. The result will be, therefore, that the appeal most be allowed, and the gross estimated rental and rateable value reduced, and the rate amen ied to the following figures: Rateable value of buildings, land, and chapel, £ 2,508 16s; gross estimated rental, £ 3,328.