SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1802, 15 July 1913, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

THE CHILDER'S TERRACE CASE.

CITY COUNCIL WINS. Questions of interest to property-owners and municipal corporations are involved in a case which came on in tho Supreme Court yesterday before a Full Bench. Mr. Justice Denniston presided, and sitting with him were Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Sim. The dispute arose out of a compensation action in which the claimant was John James Boyd, of Kilbirnie, and the defendants were the Wellington City Corporation. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with , him Mr. D. M. Findlay, appeared for Boyd, while the City Solicitor (Mr..J. O'Shea) appeared for the corporation. Boyd is the owner of house property in Childer's Terrace, Kilbirnie. Ho alleged that the corporation, by raising the level of the road and erecting a concrete wall, had injuriously affected his property, depriving it of proper means of access, rendering it damp, and cutting off part of the light. When the case came before the Compensation Court last month, certain points ot law were raised, and as there could be no appeal from-any judgment of that Court, it was decided to submit certain questions to a Full Bench of the Supreme Court. The questions were framed as follow:— Was the street Where it adjoined claimant's land formed before 1911 in some permanent manner within the meaning of Section 188-of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1908? Had there been such an alteration of level as would entitle the claimant to compensation if tho street had been constructed in some permanent manner? When the case opened yesterday, their Honours decided to view the land concerned in the claim. This occupied some littlo time, and argument did not commence until after midday. After Sir John Findlay had concluded his address, Mr. Justice Denniston announced that the Court did not require to hear Mr. O'Shea. Their Honours were unanimously of opinion tlint Boyd -was not entitled to compensation. Question (a) was answered in the negative, and question (b) was therefore not necessa'ry to answer. In giving judgment, the Court pointed out that such formation as had originally been carried out at Childer's Terrace was undertaken in outlying districts for the convenience of propertyowners, in order that they might have reasonable access to their land. It would be detrimental to their interests if Section 188 of tho Act were to debar local 'bodies from carrying out further improvements -without compensating all pro-perty-owners who had chosen to build, because it would mean that the roads would be left in a state of nature until the local authorities had sufficient means to permanently construct them at the level fixed upon.