SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 291, 28 August 1918, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

COMPENSATION CASE

DUKE OF EDINBURGH 13UILD1NG

Tlio further hearing of the claim for compensation brought by the Duko Buildings. Ltd.. against the City Corporation was coiitiuueu. in tho Supreme Court yesterday, before 1 Jlis Honour Mr, Justice llosking and two aduessors, Mr. U. Jl. Scales brine for the claimant company and Mr. U. il. Morison, ii.tl., for the City Corporation. Mr. Jl. Myers, with him Afr, 0. Watson, appeared l'or tho fluke Buildings, Ltd., and Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. J. O'Shea, City Solicitor, for tlio Corporation. The company claimed £2530 for tho piece of land taken, end £9210 for sovera.iico and injurious alleetion, losn of income, otc., making a total of £11,740. Tho land is required for street widening. Mr. Myers intended to call four land agents to give evidence as to the valuo of the land taken, but after consultation between the parties it wus decided to take the evidence of one as representing tho opinions of all four. iiobert Charles itenner, land agent, was selected to givo evidence on behalf of himself and the others. JTo imid that tho valuo or the old Duke of Edinburgh Hotel silo was between £21.C00 and .£22,000. After the severance of the lCft. strip, the value depreciated by about £2600. The site was one of the best of the three or four of the finest sites in the city. Tlio loss of 10ft. was not in his npinion compensated by the slightly increased frontage. If tho site were used for shops the taking of the 10ft. strip must have its depreciating effects on the rental value of suoh offices. Cross-examined, witness stated that ho based his cstijnate of the valuo of tlio Duke of Edinburgh on his knowledge of tho sales of city properties, also on tho fact that Bcgg's site sold at £185 per foot. Ho was certain that tile increased frontago accruing from the severance of tho IOH. strip would not, compensate for tho severance. His Honour remarked that ho did not see how an increased frontage would benefit an hotel. Thero were no glass windows for the display of drinks. Mr. Gray said that tho increased frontage meant something to the shops in tho building.

William John I'roiiße, architect, said he practised both in Auckland and Wellington. He said i the model of the Duke of Edinburgh building exhibits had been prepared under his supervision, and showed what effect the severance of the 10ft. strip of land would have on the buildings/ and he described in detail the effect. He gavo particulars of the probable cost of putting tho building in order, and stated that while the work ,wiis in progress tlio greator part of the hotel Would not bo habitable because of tho noise, hammering, and dust.

Cross-examined, witness said that. by tho I taking away of the pfirt of Iho building on ihe strip of inuil thorn was a loss of 919 square feet, in tho three storys, withI out taking into account, the basement. i'lJe Corporation architect's plan showed <a loss of 599 square feet, but in this tho lounge wfl.s not taken into account, also other siuiecs.

Daniel Burke, of fhn firm of Campbell and Burke, builders, said his firm tendered for the demolition of a brick wail and other work in connection with tho Duke of Edinburgh Hotel. Tho firm's tender was for £1500. He then estimated that ir cou 4 ,)c done in two months. Ho did not think it coul£ bo done now in three months, as bricklnytrn wcro scarce. It would cost substantially more to do tho work notv. While the work of demolition and reconstruction was poing on there would be n considerable detrim?nf to tho business of tho hotel. John 8. Swan, architect, George Duke Hansford, builder, and Jticliard Dwyer, notelkceper, also pave evideneo. The caao had not concluded when tho Court rose last evening, and the further hearing will ho resumed this morning.