SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 294, 31 August 1918, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

WILLIS STREET LAND VALUES CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION The compensation claim brought by the Duke Buildings, Ltd., against the City Corporation for land taken in Willis Street in respect to street widening entered upon, the fifth day's hearing in the Supremo Court yesterday, before His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking and two assessors, Mr. G. H. Scales being for the claimants and Mr. C. .Ft. Morison, K..C, for the city corporation. Mr. M. Myors, with him Mr. G. Watson, appeared for the claimants, and Mr. A. Gray, K. 0., with him Mr. J. O'Shea, City Solicitor, for the oorl oration.

James Ames, City Valuer, was reexamined by Mr. O'Shea, as to the value of Smart's building and pioperty, and how the compensation claim with him for the. land taken was arranged. By giving Smart a strip of land at the back, and improving the section at the back the corporation lost only £5 on the transaction, hesides a sum of £29 naid on another account. Mr. O'Shea stated that arrangements were completed with the owners of adjoining property to take land for ttreet widening. Harry Arthur Shepnerd, land agont, gave evidence as to a sale of property in "Willis Street made fifteen years ago. He was questioned as to the valuations fixed by Mr. Ames, and said that he agreed with his valuations generally. Flo thought street widening had a beneficial effect on property in Willis Street, at all events that was his experience in respect to his property in Kilbirnie. His Honour: It was a recognised tiling that street widening improved the value of property, which accounted for tho various Betterment Acts. His Honour thought the first Betterment ;\ct was spassed during the time of Charles 11.

James 11. Morice, Assistant City Engnieer, said that the plans handed to tlie Court showing the measurements were, prepared under his direction. The tram rails at the corner of the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel were about ■lit. from the kerb, when the street widening was completed the rails would be from 7ft. to Bft. from the kerb, and the overhang of the footboard of the trnmcar would be about oft. from the kerb. Cross-examined by Mr. Myers, witross said that the'width of'the fcotpath at the corner of the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel parallel with "Willis Street was Bft. Din. wide, and on the ether side about 10ft. The whole of the 10ft. taken from the Duke l.uildiegs, Ltd., would he turned into roadway, except about Ift. 3m,. to ]ft. £in. which would go into widening the fcotpnth. William H. Morton, City Engineer, said that the intention of the corporation with respect to widening Willis Street was to continue the new building lino and new kerb line from Customhouse Quay to Manners Street. Robert F. Dnunmond, building inspector to the city corporation, said it was his duty to ekamino all plans, and read all specifications for new uiildmgs or alterations to buildings. He produced the old plans of the Duke of Edinburgh buildings, and explained its main features, especially with respect to the joists and girders and columns. He did not think that the building could have stood so long had either of tlte girders been missing. . This closed the caso for the corporation,.

Mr. Gray, in addressing the Court, •'aid the case presented some unusual features, but he thought the Court would he satisfied that the evkiiviro Kiveu by the exports of the corporation was much more reliable than bv the experts on the other side. The n mpany would lose 1 perch and '2-si\w of a porch and. the building standing thereon, and there would be the temporary loss by disturbance while thehotel was being reconditioned. No cioubt the land in "Willis Street was valuable, and the valuers on the oilier side had endeavoured to establish an extreme value. It wcu shown bj Mr. Ames, the City Valuer, that the city bad bought land in that street at £250 per foot, and had, resold it at tho stme price on a diminished area. The pricos paid recently for land wero not altogether a safe guide, because in certain eases special consideration! entered ii-to the transaction, and more was given for property because olf these special ciicunistances. Mr. Gray contended that the valuo per square foot was fallacious, in which opinion His Honour agreed. Judging by the sales of property close to the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel, the values pjaced on them by Mr Ames had-proved'-.' extremely accurate, and he contended that. Mr. Ames's qualifications as a valuer bad l.een amply demonstrated by these sides,- and would warrant the Court placing greater reliance on his values tnan those of the land. agents called by the,claimants. Mr. Gray then referred to the loss of a certain number of bedrooms through the taking of the land, and contended that this loss could have been provided for in the'.now building, and they had deliberately refrained from so. Mr. Morison: It is a general principle that a person suffering as in a ca.se such as this must do everything m his power to minimise the loss-. Continuing, Mr. Gray referred to tie loss of business for which tho claimants required compensation, 'ibey had not shown what the real loss would be when the hotel was reconditioned, lhe claimants were asked to supplyplans showing what was intended to bo clone.m reconditioning the hotel, lut no plans were forthcoming. The plans prepared for the corporation, which vere stated by several witnesses to bo excellent, if carried out would not only eave the hotel as good as it is to-day, but a great deal better house with as much accommodation as is available now, notwithstanding the diminished aica, because the waste spaces now existing in the hotel would bo turned to account. U was unfortunate the claimants did not put forward a .wlieme of ;,.!eir- own,, which could have been compared with the scheme of the corporation. The real effect on the nremises of the taking of the land would be the h(crea:,wl frontage to Willis Street and the decreased frontage to Aianners Street. The loss of the strip of the land would bo more than i ado Rood by the extra frontage to a new and improved street. The land, as left, would have the same rectangular depth to Willis Street. The block, as altered, would form a continuous depth with the other section owned by claimant, and the other sections" to tho north. Another advantage would be the betterment caused by the sheet widening, and he had no doubt that when the alterations were completed the owners would be the very first to say they had a very much improved property when they wero dealing with a probable lessee. Tho alterations would not only improve tho site, but also the house, to which convenience and comfort would be added, and they also provided for another shop on the Willis Street ifrontniie, for which n. tenant was prepared to give £;i per week. Tho loss of materials in the strip cut off claimed for could be. compensated by what could bo given in place of it in the corporation scheme of rearrangement. The claimants should not receivo anvthini for the 'oss of the actual land; what they wore entitled to was some payment in regard to tho disturbance of business, and a e.um to cover the cost of altering the hotel to make it as commodious and comfortable as the building now is.

Tho amount of patronage of the hotel would not bo materially interfered with by the alterations. Mr. Myers said that the main outstanding feature of tho enso was that the claimants had lost 384 square feet of space on the ground floor of one of the. most valuable sites in the city, mul- ' tiplied by the number of floors of such a building as the sito could reasouibly accommodate. Dealing with the other items, Mr. Myers said that the ilaimants were entitled to over £6000 without any reference to the fact that the land was taken compulsorily. Ho disputed the correctness of the basis of compensation as laid down by the other side. On the question of the value of the laud no question of betterment could arise. According to the valuation of the City Valuer, the amoint of land lost was of the value of £2466. Valuation was not easy, on account of the configuration of the site, but the claim was larger on account of the peculiar value w the corner site. Mr. Myers then reviewed tho evidence at considerable length, and quoted mitLorities in support df his arguments. They were, he said, dealing with a corner section every square foot of which was of value, and they had lost both frontage and depth. The corporation was endeavouring to minimise the amount of compensation to which the claimants were entitled because they were the owners of the adjoining section. Surely, the claimants were entitled to use their section to the •'.est advantage for themselves. They had lost the. capitalised value of the income from letting the rooms of the ground floor, and also of the ether floors. The corporation suggests that they should alter the buildings in such a way as to get the same accommodation, but the fact remained' that they had lost 384 square feet. What right had the corporation to dictate as to how- the building should be altered. The fact remained that they had incurred a loss, and he contended that the compensation claimed was not exaggerated. The Court reserved its decision.