COMPENSATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 73, 19 December 1907, Page 4

COMPENSATION COURT.

WIDENING OP CITY STREETS. CLAIM FOR LAND TAKEN. The case between Lewis Albert Sanderson and the. City Corporatioiir-a claim , for £073 for loss arising out of the dedication of certain strips of land for the purpose of widening Brougham and I'irio streets —was heard yesterday by a Court consisting of His Honour Mr. Justice Cooper (President), and Messrs. A. L. Wilson (assessor for plaintiffs) and E. W. Seatoii (assessor for the Corporation). Mr. Skerrett, K.C. (with him Mr. Bunny), appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. O'Shca for the Corporation. Mr. Skerrett, in opening for the plaintiffs, said that the property had a frontage to Brougham. Strcut ot, in all, 139 ft., and that it had an original depth of 100 ft. 9in. Portion of the property with which the Court was concerned was a strip dedicated under the Public Works Act, it having a dopth of Bft. 3in., and extending along Brougham Stroet 72ft. —practically the whole frontage to Lots 1 and 2. No claim was made' in respect of Lot 3, because it had been, purchased by tho Corporation. Another pieco of land consisted of seven allotments having a frontage to Pirie Street of 229 ft. 4in. by an original depth of 32ft. In this case a strip of Bft. 3in. in depth had also been dedicated. He would liko to call attention to the fact that two of the dedications, viz., those relating to Lots 1 and 2, facing Brougham Street, were niado after the Amendment x\.et of 1903 came into force, and no question of law arose with regard to them. In respect of tho dedication of the remaining strips, a question of law would arise. In Riddiford v. the Hutt Borough Council, the Court of Appeal,-by a majority, had decided that it was' Unnecessary to dedicate a strip under tho Public Works Act, where there was no such subdivision as involved tho construction of now roads. In that case application was made by Riddiford for leave to appeal/to the Privy Council, but the appeal was not proceded with. It could not be suggested that thero was any bottorment. Part of a bank had been cut away, and a substantial retaining wall had been erected. This would not havo been necessary had this 'strip' not been dedicated. If a house were <t(i bo erected on Lot 1 the structure would have to be placed further back down to tho gully, and its view would thereby bo impaired. His clients claimed £4 per foot in respect of Lots 1 and 2, and £3 per foot in respect of Lots 4 to 10.

Evidence was given by Ernest B. Sanderson, A. C. Pearce, J.'G.'Faulder',"'P. H: Connell, Alex. A. Gallatly, Robert Port; ■Tamos Bonnie, Chas. W. Wycherley, James Searl, and Edward A. Bonth'orn.

Mr. O'Shea, on behalf of the Corporation, submitted that by virtue of the decision in ro Riddiford v. tho Hutt Borough Council, thcro was no necessity to make .the dedication antler the Piiblic Works .Amendment' Act,. 1900, but there was necessity under the Act, of 1903. 'Therefore, claimants could not recover compensation for dedication in Pirie Street, but they could for dedication in Brougham Street. : ..--. ■•"' '. ,

Hia Honour said that at Mr., Sk'errett's request .he would agree to state: a • case-. for. the Supreme Court to enable application to. be made to the Privy Council for special loiivo to appeal.

Mr. O'Shea, in'opening for..tho Corporation,, contended that plaintiffs' wero' entitled to £1. per foot for land taken in Brougham Street, but to nothing for land taken in l'irie Street. ' , : Evidonce was given by James Aimcs, Geo. Frost, Alfred Longmoro, and 11. A. .Jeffrey. . The Court delivered judgment in the afternoon, His Honour stating that it had been able to arrive at a unanimous decision. In respect of .allotment, "No. 1, £70 was awarded, and in respect of allotment No. 2 £GO. Each party was ordered to pay its own assessor's foe of £7 75., and costs. The Court'assessed 'the vnlno of the land taken in Parie Street at £50, and directed that that amount should bo awarded to claimants if they , could establish their legal.rifrht to the same. Replying' to His Honour, Mr. Skerrett stated ith'nfc ho did not now wish a case stated, ns tho matter was getting of less and less importance.