EXTRAORDINARY COMPENSATION CASE.
Howard v. The Petersfield Railway.—This case was heard on Monday last, at Petersfield, the claimant demanding £950, besides two occupation bridges for 2R. 25P. of land, and the Company’s agent offering £76. Mr. Appleby, of Fareham, appeared as arbitrator for Mr. Howard; and Mr. G. A. Dean, of Lancaster-place, Strand, London, for the Company. G. Powell, Esq., the Board of Trade referee, was umpire. Mr. Appleby did not call any witnesses to support his claim, but made a long statement. Mr. Dean, in summing up, alluded to this fact, and stated that the arbitrator for Mr. Howard had pursued an extraordinary course, and by not calling witnesses had failed to prove his case in toto. Mr. Dean stated that there is no doubt but that where a Railway Company is in a position to legally take away a man’s land against his will, and they do take it, that they should not only pay the full value of the land taken, but something more; damage done by severance being a separate consideration, and paid for as such. But the day has gone by for obtaining excessive compensation against Railway Companies. Railways having become the high roads of England, the districts which are without them, comparatively speaking, are without high roads, but simply have bye lanes. Rapid locomotion, facility of transit, and frequent opportunity of travelling from place to place in a comfortable, convenient, and easy manner, are some of the advantages which railways confer on the travelling public. Therefore, wherever excessive compensation is obtained for land taken, or wherever litigious opposition is offered to the progress of railway extension, such progress Is retarded, the public inconvenienced, and property in districts through which railway accommodation was proposed to be given, remains without that increased value, which is invariably conferred upon properties in the vicinity of a railway. Let the claimant in this case not only be fairly but liberally compensated; the Company wish him to be so compensated, or they would not be in a position to avail themselves of his services. He trusted that the umpire would not, by his award, sanction the proceedings of a claimant who requires the Company either to pay him an excessive compensation, or else be driven to an expensive litigation, which he well knows they must incur; but they will never shrink from such expenses whenever the interests of the shareholders require that they should be incurred. Having said thus much, he would leave the interest of the Company entirely in the hands of the umpire, feeling perfectly satisfied that when he brought his great knowledge and long experience in cases of compensation to bear upon this case, that evenhanded justice would be done to all concerned.—The award of the umpire will be given shortly.
See also 13-Aug-1863