10 Nov: 1846
W. H. F. Talbot EsqDr Sir,
In reply to your letter I beg to say that the Company has now made arrangements with Mr Burgess wch will render it unnecessary for us to ask you to allow him to use your Bridge. I should be sorry to construe your Agreement with the Company in any other way than the fair meaning of the Words wod warrant but I confess it still appears to me that just as Lord Methuen was to receive £240. per Acre for all the Land sold by him, so you who are to stand in a similar situation with him are to receive the like sum without reference to the particular value of any one part of the Property.
I am &c
“H. G. Awdry”
Extract from Agreement of the 22 July 1845. –
“That it shall be referred to such Referee as hereinafter mentioned to fix the price per Acre which the Company shall pay for the Lands and hereditaments including the damage by severance such price not being less than the price per Acre which the Company shall pay to Lord Methuen for the Land purchased or agreed to be paid purchased by them of him”
Extract from Award
<short horizontal line>
“I have fixed the Sum of £3707 . 10 . 0 as a fair price to be paid by the Railway Co: for the 15 . 3 . 14 . of Land proposed to be taken by the Co: such Sum to include all damage by severance – <illegible> after the rate of £260 . pr Acre for Wick Farm and £200 – per Acre for the other Lands – or an Average of £234 . 1 . 11 . per Acre on the whole quantity
“Geo: Sexton”
12 Sep: 1846
<Letter 2 >
<copy on mourning paper:>
H. G. and J. W. Awdry to W. Awdry
Copy
Melksham
5. Oct. 1847
Dr Sir,
Mr Talbot & the W. S. & W. R. Co.
We have received this Draft Conveyance and are not less surprized than Mr Talbot to find that the question as to the Amount of purchase money is again revived: We had thought that the matter had been fully settled as we had heard nothing to the Contrary since the letter of which we send you a Copy which we wrote on the 10th Novr last – Mr Talbot certainly never had any reason to believe that we had conceded the point – We conceive the Case to be so very clear that we do not feel called upon to consent to a reference which might seem to raise a doubt where we conceive none can exist in the mind of a professional man. We would rather therefore suggest that if the reasons contained in our letters to Mr Talbot are not satisfactory to him it might possibly be desirable that he should take our opinion on the subject. There was a clerical Error in our Draft Conveyance, which might for a moment have led you to suppose that we saw the matter in a different the same light with Mr Talbot but the figures carried out shewed plainly that this was not the Case.
We are &c
“H. G. & J. W. Awdry”
P.S.
In a subsequent letter dated 20th Jany last we again informed Mr Talbot that for the reasons before stated we did not consider that there was any doubt as to the true construction of the Agreement & Award in reference to the purchase money.
W. Awdry Esqr