SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 960, 29 October 1910, Page 14

SUPREME COURT.

STREET WIDENINC CASE. COUNCIL SUCCEEDS. Judgment was given yesterday by the Full Court in a case relating to land taken by the City Council for the widening of Willis Street. The 'main question in the case was' whether a certain proclamation taking the laud could be revoked by a later proclamatjon taking only a small portion of _ it. The caso was heard a fortnight ago by the Chief Justice (Sir' Robert Stout) and Justices Williams, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman. Mr. C. P.. Skerrett,. K.C., appeared for tho plaintiffs, and Mr. J. O'Shea, city solicitor, for. the defendants. The plaintiffs—John Anderson Pike, merchant, Arthur Thomas Bate, shareholder, Charles Perrin Skerrett,- solicitor, Andrew Wylie, solicitor, all of Wellington, and the Bank of New Zealand —were the owners of a piece of land which the Wellington City Corporation (the defendant .in the case) some time ago proposed to take for street-wideii-ing purposes.- This land, which comprises' 6.55 perches, has ,a frontage to Willis Street, between the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel and the premises lately occupied by Mr. F. Cohen. On May 5 ancl 6, 1909, the defendant corporation notified by. advertisement its intention to take the land under the' Municipal Corporations Act, the .Public. Works Act, and certain local Acts. On Juno' 21, 1909, the plaiutiffs and the defendant entered' into an -agreement, under which the corporation was to. take the land within one month, and compensation was to bo assessed' by a Court of Compensation, under the Public Works Act, the corporation' being deemed to have entered into possession on May. 1. The corporation proceeded: to take the land in the, ordinary way under the Public Works Act, tho proclamation being dated August L 26. The plaintiffs, other than the bank, lodged a,claim for compensation for'the land, claiming £17,745.. The corporation notified that- it did' not admit tho claim, and offered- £5892 10s. in settlement. This was not accepted, and plaintiffs notified that they required their claim to be determined by a Compensation Court under the Public Works Act. The next stop was the issue of a proclamation, dated May 7, 1910,- and stating that the land taken by the former proclamation for street-widening was not'required for that purpose,'and' that so much of the said proclamation as affected 5.47 perches of the land was thereby; revoked. In effect the corpora:-, tion wished to take a strip ten feet wide along the frontage,-and leave the rest of the allotment ill tho possession of the plaintiffs.' The above facts were admitted by both 1 parties. Tho plaintiffs contended (inter alia) that the proclamation of May' 7, 1910, was , ineffectual to revoke the proclamation of August 26,. 1909, and they asked for enforcement of , their agreement with the corporation. The defendant corporation contended that the second proclamation was, by virtue of Section 3 of tho Public Works Amendment.* Act, 1909, effectual to revoke tho first; that it had "carried out the agreement, but was entitled to use thei_ statutory power subsequently given to it in revoking the proclamation and (inter alia) .that the corporation did not audi could not contract itself out ; of the statue.

The Chief Justice, in his judgment, said the points: seemed to him to bo two—(1) Was there anything in the agreement made that prevented,the corporation taking advantage of the provisions of Section' 3 of the' Public Works Amendment Act, 1909? (2) Could the corporation deprive itself, by the agreement, of the statutory power granted by the Legislature? He ; gavehis reasons for answering' both questions m the and concluded with the opih--ion that the later proclamation was valid, and that the plaintiffs could claim from tho corporation two things, only—(1) the value of the land taken as on .May 1; (2) any' loss the first proclamation had caused them.

The other judges gave judgment ,in the same effect. i