A WAIMATE CASE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 95, 24 April 1911, Page 2

A WAIMATE CASE.

AN AGREEMENT FOE COMPENSATION. A South Island appeal case, which promises to last a- day and a half or two days, and which concerns the validity of &v agreement regarding compensation for land taken under the Public Works Act, was commenced by tho -Court of Appeal to-day. The Bench was occupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), and Justices Williams, Edwards, and Chapman. The parties were Edward Butler Harrison, of Waihao, near Waimate, farmer, appellant, and the Waimate County Council, respondents. Mr. H. D. Bell, K.C., with him Mr. W. E. Kinnerney, appeared for appellant, and Mr. T. F. Martin, with liim Mr. W. M. Hamilton, for respondents. I Harrison appealed from a decision given by Mr. Justice Sim at Timaru, on 13th October, 1910, whereby judgment was given for respondents, with an. injunction, with costs, as on a claim for £1000 and disbursements. In the judgment, Mr. Justice Sim said' that the proceedings were brought originally as a motion to eet aside a claim for £2135 18s 6d, made by defendant aga-inst the _ Waimate County, Council as compensation for land taken for road purposes, and for land injuriously affected by the construction of the road". The question was whether ,an agreement regarding compensation was binding on the parties. His Honour thought that before ~the claim was made there was a valid agreement between the County Council and defendant. In these circumstances there was jurisdiction to interfere by injunction to restrain the defendant from proceeding with his claim. Judgment was given for plaintiff on the claim for the injunction. 1 Appellant submitted as follows : — (1) That the judgment was erroneous in point of law. (2) That the judgment was erroneous on the facts. (3) That there was no valid agreement settling the compensation, and appellant was not debarred by agreement or otherwise from proceeding with his claim. (4) That neither the statutory requisites under the Counties Acl to the validity of the alleged agreement relied on by respondents nor the provisions 'of the Statute of Frauds were complied with. (5) That the document of 23rd August, 1909, was not ratified by the council bo as to be binding on appellant or respondents. (6) And upon the grounds stated in the affidavits. Lengthy legal argument is proceeding.