|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
596 NEALE 9. HAGTHROP.
calculations up to the 17th of February, 1831. He then goes on
to say, that the complainant had located the four purchases of Fitz-
gerald, a defendant, stating upon his plot the dates of the several
conveyances. The auditor has, for want of better evidence,
adopted those locations and statements. The complainant has
examined three, and the defendant five witnesses to prove the per-
manent ground rent which those lots would have yielded, if they
had been leased between the years 1804 and 1810. Mary Riley,
one of the complainant's witnesses, has also proved, that there
were two houses on the lots erected in or before the year 1797;
viz: a single frame house two stories high, and a double frame
house one and a half story high. The auditor infers from other tes-
timony, that those houses might have rented for, from three to five
dollars a month each. But there is no proof of their value, inde-
pendent of the ground rents attached to them; and the auditor
infers, that the ground was chiefly valuable for the purposes of
building, which requires their removal. The auditor, therefore,
inclines to think, that he should charge the defendant John Fitz-
gerald only with the average ground rent, as estimated by the
aforesaid witnesses. And he has allowed for the value of certain
improvements which appear to have been made by the defendant.
And the auditor is further of opinion, that the value of the said
premises, for the time prior to their alienation, should not be
estimated at a higher rate than for the time subsequent.
The auditor further says, that the complainant has also located
the possession of the defendant Benjamin Rawlings. The plaintiff
has examined three, and the defendant five witnesses, to prove its
value. It is also proved, that in 1797 there was a small two story
frame house on the premises, which, it is inferred from other evi-
dence, might have rented for four or five dollars a month. But
there is no proof of its value, independent of the ground annexed
to it, and it is supposed the ground was chiefly valuable for build-
ing, which would require its removal. The auditor, therefore,
thinks he should charge said defendant only with the average
ground rent, as estimated by the aforesaid witnesses; and that the
value thereof for the time prior to its alienation should not be esti-
mated at a higher rate than for the time subsequent. The com-
plainant has also located the possessions of John Weaver, and
proved, that the lots, in 1818, might have been leased at a rent of
two dollars for every foot fronting on Goodman street; and the
auditor has stated the account accordingly, The complainant has
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
