ONE SIDE HEARD

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 36, 12 February 1930, Page 6

ONE SIDE HEARD

CLAIM FOR "40,000 EVIDENCE FOR RESPONDENT Tko ease of Joseph Henrys against the Minister of Public Works, a claim for £40,000 compensation for land taken by proclamation at Quinton's Corner, was continued in the Compensation Court yesterday afternoon. The evidence for the claimant was concluded, and a start was made with the respondent's case. Mr. Justice Blair presided, and the assessors were Mr. \V. G. Eiddoll (for the claimant) and Mr. E. Bold (for the respondent). Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. J. J. M'Grath, appeared for the claimant, and Mr. A. E. Currie, of tho Crown Law Office, for the respondent. The claimant, continuing his evidence, said that several of the leading land agents were continually asking him to put a price on his property, but ho told them it was not for sale. He intended to leave the property to his family and relations, and had thought seriously of developing it. He was not in favour of tho proposal to take the land; on tho contrary, he had strongly resisted it. "I value my property at £1000 per foot," said witness, "but it is a question whether I! would sell at that price." He had never been approached by the Government regarding the taking, over of the land, nor had he ever received an offer from the Government. Witness, admitted that in 1927 his solicitor had discussed with Mr. A. Fletcher tho possibility of erecting a nine-story building on the corner. He denied that tho scheme was not gone on with because it was found that it would not pay. Mr. Currie: "Did your inquiries sho\v that .the time was.not ripe for such a scheme?"—"l can't say." . , Mr. M'Grath explained that as the claimant's solicitor and attorney he had arranged with Mr. Fletcher to work out the cost of a nine-story building to see whether it would be a good commercial proposition. Mr. Fletcher did so, and counsel found that a three-story building idea was preferable. . At the time the.plan of tho bigger building was prepared, it was ..known that the land was to be taken. A Chinese fruiterer, who carried on business at Quinton's Corner until last year, at a weekly rental of £12, said that he and his pattners had been willing to sign a new lease at £15 a week for a new shop on the site.. This concluded tho claimant's case. MEMORIAL FOUNDATIONS. The first witness for the respondent was A. L. Eobertson, quantity surveyor, who said that ho was called in to make an adjustment in connection with v the war memorial. , Hard bottom was expected five feet down, but it was found necessary to go down 25 feet. The result was that tho foundations of the memorial cost considerably morq than was estimated. In reply to Mr. Gray, witness said he would think that \\\e character of the subsoil at Quinton's Corner was much the same as at the memorial site. There was not- much variation in the subsoil all along ■Lauibton quay. Andrew Fletcher, builder and contractor, said that he was a member of a company which acquired the block known as Fletcher's property on Lambton quay in 1925 for £14,100. They sold it to tho Wellington City Corporation in August, 1928, before tho date of tho proclamation, for £20,500 net. Mr. Ouvrie: "It has been suggested that you sold at a ridiculously cheap price. Is that your view?" Witness said that he and his two brothers owned 99 per cent, of the stock in the company, and they were all perfectly satisfied with the price. Questioned regarding the proposal in 1927 to erect a nine-story building on the claimant's section, witness Baid that to his knowledge there was nothing definite in tho air then about tho property being taken over by the Crown. An option to purchase the Fletcher property for £20,500 .. w t as given to a friendly society, but it expired befoi*e tho society could complete* Mr. Gray\ remarked that ho supposed that witness felt in honour bound to sell the land to the City Council for the same prico as it was offered to , the friendly society. Witness: "I could not in justice see how it was possible to get more." (Laughter.) ; In further cross-exiiminatioji, witness said that-while'he and tho others interested in . the/property'were- convinced that its value would not go back, they were agreed that thero was no possibility of the samo increase as in other parts' of tho city. Therefore, they decided to get as much as -possible-, out of it, and to utilise their money elsewhere. The Court adjourned until to-day.