The North Wales Express

ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS AT CARNARVON. THE ABER FERRY RIGHTS. DIVERSE OPINIONS AS TO VALUE. On Friday, Mr Roberts Vigers, president of the Surveyors' Institute, sat, at the County Hail, as umpire. in the dispute be- tween the Carnarvon Corporation and Mr Lloyd W. G. Hughes, of Coedhelen, respec- ting the value of the Coedhelen Ferry Rights The arbitrators were Mr John Menzies, C.E., for the Corporation, and Mr Walter B. C. Jones for the Coedhelen estate, but they had failed1 to agree, and referred the matter to Mr Vigers. The counsel em- ployed in the case were Mr J. Bryn Roberts M.P. (instructed by Mr J. H. Bodvel Ro- berts, the town clerk), for the Corporation, and Mr E. J. Castle, Q.C. (instructed by Mr H. Lloyd Carter, of the firm of Messrs Lloyd Carter, Vincent, Douglas Jones and Co.), for Mr W. G. Hughes. In opening the inquiry Mr Castle said it was held under the Carnarvon Corporation Act of 1897. Section 14 of the Act seemed to bring the affairs with regard to the ferry and any lands taken with it belonging to the proprietor of the ferry, within section 92 of the Lands Clauses Acts, under which a man could not be compelled to sell part only of a property, and which entitled an owner not only to the full value of his property. but also to 10 per cent compensation for com- pulsory purchase. The Carnarvon Corpora- tion Act in question gave the Corpora- tion power to build a bridge practically in substitution of the ferry, and also to collect a toll from the persons using the bridge. Whereas the present ferry charge had from immemorial custom been a halfpenny for the double journey, as far as he could construe the sec-cnd schedule, which seemed to him to be ambiguous, the Corporation would be able to charge a halfpenny for every person each way. The very fact that the Corpora- tion were going to the expense of building bridge showed that there was a considerable amount of traffic. The ferry had been part of the estate of Mr Lloyd Hughes from time immemorial, and the question of title did not arise. But as there had been certain admis- sions and correspondence between the par- ties, and as the other side had not admitted the question of title, bethought it advisable to show that there had veen exercised the right of ownership for the last 30 or 40 years, quite sufficient to show that there had been a presumed grant in the ordinary way. Mr Bryn Roberts said he did not intend to raise that question. He would assume that this was an ancient ferry. Mr Castle said he was obliged to his learned friend. The question was how to arrive at the value of the ferry. He had no wish to conceal anything, and there wa sno doubt that up to a few years ago the ferry was let for the small sum cf JE13 a year. Recentlv the rent was increased to t20 a year. That was in 1891. The rental in- cluded, in addition to the ferry, the house occupied by the ferryman. At the outset of the negotiations Mr Carter, representing the owner of the ferry, was asked what value would be' put upon it, and he said about jEloOO. That was a mere statement on the spur cf the moment, to enable the Corpora- tion to know what amount of money they would require for the construction of the bridge and the purchase of the ferry. But as soon as that was communicated to Mr Wal- ter Jones, the surveyor to Mr Lloyd Hughes, he immediately said no statement as to price could be made until steps had been taken to ascertain the real value. So a let- ter was written withdrawing that offer, and stating that no figure could be named until a, count had been made. Dealing with the traffic over the ferry and the profits arising, Mr Castle went on to say that in fine: weather the people of and visitors to Carnarvon were fond of crossing the harbour by the ferry to enjoy a walk in the country on the other side. The tenants of the ferry were Messrs Pritchard, one of whom would be called be- fore them and would say what the profits were, and that his father brought up upon them a family whom he left fairly well off. Owing to some differences with Mr Lloyd Hughes some time ago, Messrs Pritchard be- came only tenants at will, so that they had no rights in the ferry which they did not hold at the will of the landlord. A certain amount of prejudice had been raised in the case from the fact that the landlord had been content for so long to accept a sum of £ 20 a year, when, as the surveyor would say when he came before the Court, it was worth £100 a year. The owner, when the matter arosei went to the tenant for information, and found that he had kept no books. As far as could be learnt from conversation with him the takings were, one day with an- other, about 10s per dlay, or L180 a year. That was not considered satisfactory by Mr Walter Jones, who determined to have a count, for which purpose he employed two men. These men kept a record of all who used the ferry for a year. The other side had also counted, although they excluded from the count those who went over gratui- tously. It appeared that the lessee of the ferry was also a boat builder and owner, and if he allowed certain customers and his work- men to go over for nothing, that did not affect the value of the ferry, because Mr Lloyd Hughes had a right to remove him and take over the ferry himself, when all these persons would be charged. When these crossings were included in the Corporation returns he did not think those returns would differ much from those made by the counters employed on behalf of Mr Hughes. One or two persons appeared! to have the right to -go over adversely to the ferry owner-the postman, the telegraph boy, and the police- man,—but if this had ever been granted it was a curious law. However, if they had a right to go over, he must admit it, and it would reduce the return by about 1000 crossings a year. He thought it was a pity the parties could not have agreed as to the numbers using the ferrv, but if not they would have to provG count in the or- dinary way. In arriving at the estutifttS !)<, the actual gross receipts they had had to es- timate the number who crossed! more than once for the same fee. They had taken the number crossing from Carnarvon, and had added 30 per cent to cover those who might pay on the return crossing, and also to in- clude the extra money that should be paid for the increase which would take place in the traffic if Mr Hughes were to open up the property on the other side for building pur- poses. Up to the present Mr Hughes had not desired to do that, but the coast line beyond the ferry was a very pretty one, and if residences were allowed to be put there, there was no doubt that very soon the busi- ness of the ferry would be greatly augmen- ted. This prospective benefit Mr Hughes had a right to be paid for. Of course, he might change his mind as to the opening up of the' estate, or might be succeeded by some- one who would do so. Thus he got his figure for gross receipts. As to the working ex- penses they were marvellously small. The boats seemed to have cost £ about twenty years ago, and as he got into one of them he nearly went through the bottom of it-as he Was rather heavy (laughter). The ferryman, or boy, got 5s a week and his food, say 8s 6d. altogether. Hence the actual deduction for working expenses was very small, but he did not propose to deal with them in that man- ner. He deducted from the gross takings an amount which would allow for fair boats and a living wage, say 30s a week for both items. This deduction gave them a net annual in- come from the ferry of about £100 a year. What price would be put upon that? His witnesses, who were of great experience, put it down at 36 years' purchase. The crux of the position was as to what multi- plier they would give-that was really the question between them. The ferry had none of the risks of a trade-it was a business which worked itself mechanically, and would go on as long as Carnarvon retained its pre- sent position. It could not be killed by neg- lect, and in fact ft became something as sub- stantial as Consols. It was a fixed income, more stable in his opinion than municipal rates and tolls, upon which corporatons could borrow at 2! to 3 per cent. The only way in which it was liable to competition was by the building of a bridge, which the Corpora- tion were now doing, but which could not be erected except by Parliamentary sanction, which again would not be given unless the ferry were purchased at its fair value. He had no doubt that, if the owner had let the ferry at the best price obtainable he could have got nearly tl50 a year for it. Mr Castle remarked that since the passing of the Agricultural Rating Act the ferry had been assessed for rating at £ 40 a year gross. He presumed this was done when the agri- cultural land of Coed Helen came to be di- cided that ferries were incorporeal heridita- was illegal, for it had been several times de- cided that ferries were incorporeal heridita- ments which were not subject to assessment for rating. Evidence was taken on behalf of Mr Lloyd Hughes. George Cosey, an army pensioner, said that he was engaged to count the number of passengers who passed to and fro over the ferry. He started work on the 14th Feb- ruary, 1898. He carried on the counting in turns with another man and kept a record of all passengers with the exception of the ferrymen and children in arms. There were counters also engaged on behalf of the Cor- poration. The witness found upon compar- ing his books with theirs that they generally agreed, there being occasionally slight differ- ences. The question sometimes arose as to the witness entering the Anglesey Inn and neglecting his duty, but his explana- tion was that while he called there for a glass of beer he never sat down nor did he ever put down imaginary figures. Replying to Mr Bryn Roberts, witness said that during the twelve months he was engaged he frequently rendered accounts to Mr Carter. Mr Roberts: The suggestion came from the other side.—Did you frequently visit the Anglesey Hotel ? Never when on duty.— And you never saw your double when you came out ? (laughter). I leave that to your- self, sir (renewed laughter). Proceeding, the witness said that the counting did not go on continuously throughout the year, there being several breaks. Last summer was an exceptionally bad summer. He caught a severe cold (laughter). Mr Castle: Do I understand that it is suggested that it was a dry summer in Car- narvon ? Mr Roberts Yes. Mr Castle: I was given. to understand it was a wet summer. John Norris, another army pensioner, was also called to prove that, with the last wit- ness, he had kept count of the persons using the ferry, the records of which he put in. A discussion ensued between counsel, on a suggestion by the umpire that they should come to some arrangement as to the returns. It was agreed that each side should state the gross figures. Mr Walter Jones stated that he calculated that 129,601 crossed the ferry from February 1st, 1898, to January 31st, 1899, counting both ways. Mr Menzies said his calculation was 12-1,736. Mr Castle then said he would consider his count right, subject to a small difference which he should not trouble about, and he would proceed to the next part of the case. Mr W. B. C. Jones said that he had valued the ferry on the strength of the figures sup- plied him by the foregoing witnesses. He produced figures showing the number of pas- sengers who crossed from 1st February last year to the end of January this year. The total number of days counted was 257. In February the passengers one way and were charged numbered 2716, whilst 2492 were not charged for. There was a gradual in- crease in the number of passengers crossing as the months went by, the maximum being reached in July, when 12,803 crossed one way and were charged for, and 11,780 were not charged for. The passengers charged for at a halfpenny each were 69,347, producing a total of CI44 9s 5d, and there were 60,254 passengers who were not charged for. He had, morever, taken into consideration the fact that We counters were not there the whole time. The income derivable after legitimate working hours, the prospective value of the ferry, and what the 60,254 pas- sengers not charged for, would have realised at a. halfpenny each, and had allowed in respect of all these things the sum of C45, making the gross value j6189 9s 5d a year. 2 The reductions he had made in respect of working expenses, &c., were t83. He would allow 30s a week for a man and a boy to look after the ferry, which was at present worked almost entirely by boys. He thought 30s for labour to be an extremely liberal allow- ance- There would also be tips. This would amount to P.78 a year. Further he would add 25 a year as interest on capital, making altogether a total of R&3. As to boats, two good ones could be got for 4-20. Deducting R83 from £ 189 9s 5!d there would remain f;106 9s 5-!d as net 2 receipts. As a multiplier on this figure he had put 36 years at 21 per cent, producing £ 3816, adding 10 per cent for compulsory purchase. The income derived from the ferry would be permanent, there being no competition. He considered that a develop- ment of the estate on the other side would double the income in a very short time without doubling the expenses. Replying to Mr J. Bryn Roberts, witness said that he had not estimated each item sep^telj'' to arrive at the additional sum of £ 45. Mr Roberts: As to the prospective value of the ferry, do you think if land were sold for building purposes on the other side a large number of houses would be erected? —Witness: There would have been before this bridge was heard of, if my information is correct. Do you know that, there is a quantity of land suitable for residences hi the market at CafflarvonI am hot aware. You know that a number of villas have been built on the Ysguborwen Estate?— Surely you would not compare that land with this. How many villas have been built in Car- narvon during the last ten years ?-I cannot say. It there had not been one, it would not have influenced my mind as to this land. Would there be a road for carriages other than by Llanfagdalen ?-I do not know. I think a road would be detrimental to the estate. People would wish the place to be private. Is it your experience that the toll keepers get tips ?—When I go across the ferry I give Id or 2d. That is the tip I mean. If you went across you would not take change of a penny (laughter). Did you. use to tip the turnpike keeper ? No #e ui>ed-to curse him (laiigbter). How do you explain that a large number 1 go across in summer than in winter?— No doubt pleasure seekers would form a considerable portion of those who went across in the summer months. If other promenades were made in the town would not the traffic across the ferry be affected?—The promenade on the Coed- helen side is so beautiful that there is nothing to compare with it. Would not a promenade towards Plas Brereton be a comparison ?—It would be hideous—a great concrete thing. Would not a place on the Anglesey side prove as attractive ?-There would be no comparison. There is talk of improving the Anglesey ferry you know?—Nobody will go to Ang- lesey if they can help it. There is nothing in the locality to compare with the Coed- helen side. tiat do you think is necessary to main- tain the ferry efficiently?—Thirty shillings wouid cover a man and a boy. What are the hours ?—From six to ten in summer. What hours must a man work?—That will be arranged between him and the boy. C, At what hour can a man be away ?—At any time. The boy will be there. Then a boy can do the work af a man ?— A boy does it at present. Are there no complaints made?—That does not prove it is legally wrong. By Mr Castle: He would work the ferry for half the cost if he had the management of it. Mr Thomas Taylor Wainwright, engineer, surveyor, and valuer, of Liverpool, described the other side of the ferry as a most desir- able place for villa residences. The whole of the sea frontage would, he thought, be taken up as building sites in the course of a very few years. He agreed with Mr W. B. C. Jones in the figures he had given as the gross income of the ferry, but he allowed jS5 more towards the annual expenses. At one time he used to value ferries at 33 years' purchase, but latterly he had raised it to 36 years, which was the value he placed on the ferry in question, amounting to £3999. The future of the ferry depended entirely on the prosperity of Carnarvon, and therefor8 had equal value to the town itself. He saw no reason why, even in the absence of a bridge, the foreshore on the other side should not become a favourite site for villa residences. Cross-examined He was astonished when he heard that the ferry was let for E20 a year, but he did not regard actual letting as a test. The ferry appeared to him to be efficiently worked at present, but he would prefer a man. Re-examined When he crossed the ferry he saw nobody but a boy working it. He had seen Mr Pritchard there standing with his hands in his pockets (laughter). Mr John B. Pritchard stated that his brother was the lessee of the ferry, but they were partners. He gave evidence bearing out the statement of Mr Cassell. He had no record of the takings, and could only judge by counting the money. They might have reached 10s a day. Mr Roberts: There is a disagreement be- tween you and your brother?—Witness To this extent, that I have got married and left (laughter). Have you any accounts showing you have any interest in the ferry?—None whatever. Have you any accounts showing receipts ? —No. When did you leave your brother ?—I got married five weeks ago and left him a fort- night before. Has there been any division of capital stock ?-There was none. There are boats ?—The boats for hire are his private property. And the boats for the ferry?-They were not of course. I ask you were they?—They were not I say. They were worthless. There has been no settlement and he has paid you nothing ?—Nothing, whatever. Do you know that Mr Lloyd Hughes sent for your brother some time ago to inquire as to the takings of the ferry?—I do not remember. He may have done so. Was he not sent for in order to work out an anrage ?-It is possible, being my elder brother. As lessee ?-There is no lessee, only ten- ant and owner. Did your brother not say that Mr Lloyd Hughes had asked him as to the re- ceipts of the ferry?—I do not remember. Do you not know that your brother told Mr Lloyd Hughes that the gross receipts were from R70 to £ 100 ?—I do-not know. Mr Castle: Are you on bad terms with your brother?-No, I am going to sleep there to-night. Mr Roberts: I did not suggest that. Mr Castle Yes you did. l Mr R. J. Davids, civil engineer and sur- veyor, Carnarvon, was of opinion that the annual cost of working the ferry efficiently would be about JE49. Two active boys could manage it well. As to the land on the other side, a bathing-place would be a great ac- quisition, and if he could have had the right to build villas on the coast he would have made his fortune.—Cross-examined: The reason no villas had been erected was that land could not be had. He, however, once had a concession to form a bathing-place, I but it was not sufficiently supported by Car- narvon people, and was not a success. Mr W. E. Jones, agent to the Marquis of I Anglesey, said his valuation was practically the same as that of Mr Wainwright. j Mr Thomas Jones (Messrs Taff Jones Lon- don), also gave evidence. He estimated the gross receipts at £ 192 10s, and after making the necessary deductions there would be a net income of £110 15s. He thought there must be some potentiality of an increase in the value of the ferry and for which the I owner was entitled to be compensated. Mr Roberts: Is there no potentiality of 1,1, decrease ?-Witness: The strong pro- bability is that the land will be utilised sconer or later for building purposes. I Assuming that the population declines would you not then expect a decrease in the receipts of the ferry ?—Taking your assump- I tion as a basis. As a matter of fact I may say that it has decreased?—If you tell me I shall take it to be so. That does not indicate any potentiality That does not indicate any potentiality I of an increase ?—I think you are assuming that only the population of Carnarvon use this ferry. Do you assume chat any substantial part j are tourists ?—I do not say so. j Mr J. B. Pritchard, re-called, said in answer to Mr Castle, that the increase in j traffic in the summer months was due to a great extent to visitors. I I Mr Roberts Is Carnarvon a resort for visitors?—Yes, to a great extent. lias there not been a falling off in the number of visitors ?-Certainly not, judg- ing from the number of boats we hire to visitors. Are these not boats used by young men resident in the town ?—Yes, as well as by visitors. I Mainly by younga men ?—I would not say so. Have you got boatmen to accompany the boats?—The bye-laws do not compel us. r.'iDENCE FOR THE CORPORATION. Mr John Bryn Roberts then proceeded to I call evidence, reserving his address. Mr John Menzies, chairman of the Carnar- von Harbour Trust, which has jurisdiction over the harbour in which the ferry is situat- I | ed, said he had valued the ferry for the Cor- poration. According to the figures pro- | dueed by the Coporation counters 47,560 passengers crossed from the Carnarvon side and 45,756 from the Coedhelen side of the ¡ ferry for ten months from July to April last. Adding the estimated figures for the pre- sent and next month, he brought the totals j respectively for the twelve months to 63,041 and 61,095. He assessed the value of the ferry at C148 a year, which, after allowing for depreciation, insurance, &c., only left a margin of C13 for profit. This margin capitalised amounted to £ 433 at 30 years purchase. Mr Castle objected to the evidence of Mr j Menzies on the ground that it was simply an estimate. ) Mr Bryn Roberts We have had nothing but guesswork from the other side from be- ginning to end. Even the estimate of I Mr J. B. Pritchard of 10s a day was guess- work. I Mr Menzies, proceeding, said that the traffic across the ferry dependedd very much j on the state of the weather. For instance s on the 19th April, 1898, which was a wet ) day only 199 passengers crossed, but on the following day the number that crossed was 405. I The Umpire: Does not everything depend j upon the weather? It does not make much difference in a year one with another. Mr Bryn Roberts: If you take an aver- age of 10 years there will be a great differ- ence. Mr Menzies further examined said that I he would allow a man to work the ferry 4s a day for 365 days in the year, and an assist- ant 12s a week, making a total of jE2 a week. By Mr Castle: He had never valued fer- ries before. He had had nothing to do I with the promotion of the Corporation Bill. í He had no recollection of the question of building houses on the Coedhelen side being used as an argument against the bill. The bridge was being built in order that the residents might be able to enjoy the fine marine walk on the other side. Mr Castle: You have taken the traffic from Carnarvon to Coedhelen, although upon a particular date the maximum traffic might have been from Coedhelen to Carnarvon.— Witness: Suppose it is. I have taken the total traffic. It does not do to take the figures by the month. You must take the maximum each day. You might have ten going and seven returning one day and the next day you might have seven going and ten returning, so that th'e total would show ex- actly the same in a month. Unless you take the maximum each day you do not get the number of halfpennies received.—What you say does not affect my figures in the least. By Mr Roberts: As to the future of the ferry he did not think there was the slight- est prospect of the other side being utilised for building purposes, Mr Lloyd Hughes having all along declined to let the land. Mr Castle; 1 admit Mr Hughes has said he wili not let land, that does not bind his successor, and even he himself may change his mind. Counsel for the Corporation then put in correspondence which had passed between the Corporation and Mr Lloyd Hughes's solicitor, in which the latter was asked to name a price for the ferry. Replying to Mr Castle, Mr Menzies denied that when the bridge scheme was formulated a great point was made of the possibility of opening up the Coedhelen sides. The bridge was desired to enable the Carnarvon people to reach a fine marine walk. The Rev Evan Jones, Carnarvon, was called as to a conversation he had with Mr Davia Pritchard in reference to the takings, but Mr Castle objected, and the umpire, declined to admit the testimony. Mr Bryn Roberts said he should comment, strongly on the other side withholding Mr David Pritchard, th'e actual tenant. 0 j The inquiry was then adjourned until Sat- urday morning. SATURDAY. The arbitration was continued on Satur- day morning at the County Hall. Mr Menzies, recalled, stated that in view of a point put to him by counsel for Mr Lloyd Hughes, he had made a further calculation, having taken the maximum number of per- sons crossing the ferry on each day for a year, not from one side only but from either side. The total for the year came to 64,560, while the total crossing from Car- narvon was 63,641. Mr Lewis Jones (late agent of Coedhelen) knew the country well, and was a keen man of business, so that he was not likely to be taken in by any tenant in respect of the value of a property. In cross-examination the witness stated that his estimate of the value of Aber ferry was based on 30 years' purchase. He thought 36 years was excessive the purchase money, he should think, ought to be invested in some security such as a first-class mortgage. He did not consider that Consols should be purchased, as he regarded the ferry income as inferior to Consols in stability and con- verti bility. Captain Jchn Jones, retired master mariner, said he had been engaged in count- ing We persons using the ferry for the Cor- poration from June 20 last year. He en- tered in his books the number of passen- gers each way, the time of crossing, state of the weather, and latterly the names of the passengers so far as he knew them. He was on duty from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., and was assisted by a young man named Lloyd Jones. During the year two little acci- dents occurred, a woman falling overboard on each occasion. They were rescued. The boat bumpcdagaillst the steps the women went on one side and tumbled over. Mr Cassell: I suppose they were half seas over before they went over (laughter). The Witness, replying to further ques- tions by Mr Bryn Roberts, stated that the present boats were very inadequate there ought to be two larger boats, costing about 216 each. Although pressed by Mr Castle in cross- examination, as to his record of the strangers stated to have crossed the ferry twice for one payment, the witness's evi- dence oil the point was not shaken. Mr D. H. Jones, borough accountant, of Carnarvon, said that the tabulated state- ment of passengers crossing the ferry, sub- mitted to the court on the previous day was prepared by him day by day from the books brought to him by the Corporation count- ers. The account went up to May 9th this year, and the figures for the rest of that month and the month of June were esimates, and in Ms opinion excessive esti- mates. Mr John Morgan Davies, Ffrwd Vale, land agent and surveyor, and agent for es- tates in North and South Wales, said that he had known the Carnarvon district for I over 40 years. He had made an estimate of the value of the ferry. He had taken Mr Menzies's figures as to income, viz., £ 132. The deductions which he made for expenses were:— £ 5 on the value of two boats; ferryman's wages, 28s a week; as- sistant, 10s a week; or a total of P,98 16s a year; insurance premium, LIO; thus bring- ing the annual total up to E113 16s. This left a net income of 218 14s. At 25 years' purchase he set down the value of the ferry at zC467 10s, which was increased to £ 514 5s by adding 10 per cent for compul- sory purchase. The income was uncertain, and it had no conversible security, and from his experience of these matters 25 years' purchase was a higli value. Mr Bryn Roberts: What is your opinion of the prospective value of this ferry, as- suming that no bridge was built at all?- Witness: I don't think that it can have any prospective value, because I do not think any one would be permitted to build on the other side, nor do I think that busi- ness people would care to cross to their houses if situated there. Mr Castle: Is this not the only site available if there is any attempt made to give Carnarvon a seaside position?—There are sites on the Bangor road. Is not the access to those cut off by the railway?—Not altogether. of I would suggest that if there was any at- tempt G the direction I have named this is the only place ?-J do not look upon Car- narvon as a sea-side place, or that it is ever likely to become so. Mr Evan Evan^, county surveyor, of Carnarvon, said he had valued property in every county in the Principality. He con- sidered the rent of t20 paid for the ferry a fair one. Taking the rental at 2U years' purchase he valued the ferry and the house attached at £ 609. Ha had practically ad- opted the figures of Mr Menzies. The net income of £ 13 a year, when capitalised at 30 years' purchase, would produce L394 10s, and he had added 10 per cent for com- pulsory purchases, thus making the total value -2434. He had known the ferry for about 10 years, and from his knowledge of it he did not think that there was any pros- pective value attached to it. During the years mentioned he could not remember that more than seven houses of the kind likely to spring up on the other side of -he ferry xwere built in the whole town. That had not arisen from any difficulty in con- taining sites because there was plenty of land, both leasehold and freehold, in the market for building purposes. Mr Asshe- ton 'Smith, for instance, had about 400 acres marked out in building lets, and though that had been available for some forty years, not more than one-tenth of it had been taken up. He did not think there was any prospect of th'e other side of the ferry being utilised for building, and cer- tainly he would never as a professional man advise anybody to build there in the ab- sence of a bridge. The ferry he re- garded to be inconvenient and very danger- ous in consequence of over-crowding. Mr Castle said that it had come as a sur- prise to him that properties in that part of the country were frequently valued at 30 years' purchase. He asked witness as to the prospects of the town as a pleasure re- sort, and the latter replied that he would not call it such a resort. The witness had not considered the question of whether more people would cross the ferry because of the bridge. Asked what was the object of such an expensive bridge when the in- come of the ferry was only estimated at A13 a year, witness replied that the bridge would be a great convenient to the people of the town besides being a source of safety. Do you know that in connection with the bridge plans were drawn out of the Coed Helen estate on the other side laid out for building purposes was an inducement to the town to support the bridge scheme?— Witness: They were election plans (laugh- ter). That was for the purpose of getting the bridge passed ?—There was a bridge in con- nection with those plans but no ferry. Has not your object been to work your figures down to the existing rent?—I have based my estimate on the figures of the counters. Mr Job Bowen, Carnarvon, land valuer, and Crown agent for several North Wales (bounties, said that some years ago lie valued the ferry between Carnarvon and Anglesey for the purpose of sale, and on that he had based his valuation of the Aber ferry. The annual income he put down at £ 132, and the expenses, which included an insurance premium, at £ 121 14s, giving a net annual value of £ 10 9s 4d. This at 30 years' purchase with 10 per cent for com- pulsory purchase wou-ld bring the totr to L345 3s. The witness agreed with previous witnesses as to the non-de- mand for villas such -as were suggested for the other side of the ferry. C!1 Replying to Mr Castle the witness ad-