COMPENSATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2639, 9 December 1915, Page 9

COMPENSATION COURT

CITY CORPORATION SUED. In the Compensation Court yesterday ■a.claim was heard for £1560' compensation, brought under the Public Works Act, 1908. The Court was, composed of His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman and Mossrs. W. M. Hannay (plaintiff's assessor), and A: L. Wilson (respondent's assessor). Tho plaintiff was Donald 'M'Lean, contractor,...and tho respondents the Wellington City Corporation. ' The claim was for, compensation for three sections of land taken from the plaintiff by the respondent body, for tramway purposes. Tho 6ectionß comprised. 1 rood 10.7, perches, adjoining Newtown Park,: at tho-tZoo entrance from Daniel Street. M. A. GrajyK.O.,' with Mr. H. Buddie, appeared in support of the claim, and the City., Solicitor; (Mr. J. O'Shen) for' tlie corporation. Mr. Gray sot out- that plaintiff'bought the land in 1905, at a subdivision sale, a!id then gavo £8 ss. per foot, for the Daniel Street trontaiio. Prices at tho sale r.anged from £8 ss. to £15 per foot, and it was claimed that Roy Street, alongside, had been opened up. One of plaintiff's objects in purchasing tho land was to secure a place to etoie his contractor's plant: He intended to build two houses : and to use ■ a part of the land for storage purposes. Tho land was taken over by the Corporation ,in 1913, and the plaintiff, wliilo ho had never built, on his ..sections, had, in fact, used tliem for storage spaces. The claim was at-the rate of £18 per foot. O'Shea said that the fact that 'the City Corporation had taken over the land had relieved plaintiff of a ycry burdensome piece of property: tho land was purchased at £8 55., and tho claim was for £13 per foot,, whereas the market | was really a. falling one, and not a rising one. Better sections in the vicinity were available at £8 per foot, and in Constable Street, tho main artery, sections could be secured for £10 per foot

James Ames, City Valuer, said that he valued the sections at £8 per foot. . Evidence was concluded. ami the Court then adjourned to view the property.