CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE PUBLIC WORKS ACT.

Evening Star, Issue 2918, 26 June 1872, Page 2

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE PUBLIC WORKS ACT.

The district court at Tokomairiro was occupied on the 10.h and 20th inst. in hearing the case of Faulkner v. Calcutt, which was a claim under the Public Works Act, section 28, made by the owner of certain sections, and lessee of another piece of land belonging to the Corporation of Dunedin. Mr W. W. Taylor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr B. C. Haggitt for the General Government. The plaintiff is the owner of 161 acres of land at Waihola Gorge, and the General Government proposed to carry the Clutha line through seven acres. Faulkner complained that the proposed line would rah right through the centre of his property, and not only so but pass within one chain of his dwelling-house, to his serious inconvenience and annoyance, and beyond that that the ling would prevent his cattle having free access to the water. Fov the plaintiff eight witnesses were examined, Joseph Clegg, who professed to have had considerable experience in surveying, considered about forty links of land would be actually required for railway purposes ; and valued the land at L 8 an acre. If the railway was constructed it would not be worth more than L 6 10s. The plaintiff

Valued his land at L3O an acre, including damages. Mr H. Clark, M.P.C., valued the land at from L7toL Ban acre. He went over it about five years ago when valuing it for the Provincial Government; but then the line was not exactly the same, though he believed there was no great difference now. In his opinion, Faulkner’s laud would be ruined by the railway; and be did not think L2OO compensation too much. Mr A. Mollison agreed with Mr Clark’s estimate of the land, and considered it would be deteriorated by the railway to the extent of L 260 or L 270. A Mr Douglas, storekeeper, Waihola, supported Mr Mollison’s idea of deterioration; while a Mr Webb, gardener, of the same place, thought L2OO would be sufficient. Mr Haggitt, in stating the defence, denied the right of the plaintiff to claim damages for his cattle not being able to obtain free access to water, as his title-deeds showed no such right; and characterised the evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses on the point of damage, as showing strong partisanship, as they were unable to specify in detail how they arrived at the amount of damage. He did not find fault with Mr Faulkner in trying to get as much out of the Government as possible—he did not say much either regarding the storekeeper or market gardener’s evidence, as no doubt they were good neighbors ; but he should prove facts that would show their evidence could not be much relied upon; but when he came to that of Messrs Mollison and Clark, he must, he regretted to say, find very serious fault. Introduced to the notice of the Court as M.P.C.’s, it would have been expected that they, at least, would have been able to give some reasons for their estimated damages ; but all that he could do, he had totally failed in his attempt to get them to say how they had arrived at their conclusions. Men who should have rather assisted the Government from their public position, he was sorry to find acting in a directly contrary spirit, and making reckless statements and he had the best of evidence to show that they were such. His remarks applied especially to Mr Clark, who had been employed some years ago by the Provincial Government to value the line—he estimated the line «vhich was the same now with one or two slight deviations to avoid expensive building, &c., at total damages L 14.000, but added, looking to the advantages that the line will be to the public, did not believe it would exceed LIO.OOO. Such, orin like words, was Mr Clark’s opinion then, when by his own evidence yesterday—land was of higher value—he said then he believed the advantages would be so great, that many would give their land free—willingly —well, at that time Mr Clark was not an interested party—the line did not come through his property, but what do they find now ? At the request of the inhabitants the line is proposed to be brought nearer the township of Milton, and consequently through Mr Clark’s land —this valuator for the Provincial Government demands £SOO for 5 acres, or one twentieth of his own whole valuation £IO.OOO, while the land required from him is only one eighty-fourth. He was perfectly surprised ta a man in hia position acting as he had done. Seven witnesses were called for the defence. The first was Mr Calcutt, who said he considered the plaintiff’s land poor, and the buildings upon it worth very little. He showed by other cases of land taken in the district for railways in the district, that L 5 an acre was the extreme price. The damage to plaintiff's property he assessed :—2d per acre on 40 acres, or L2 per annum at 8 per cent, L 2 5; crossing of creek, say L 1 0; damages for forced sale, L 2 5; the rest of LI2O as a solatium for annoyance and inconvenience. Faulkner asked L 60 0; and witness thinking him to be joking, replied “you’ll get abont L 80.” He bad been instructed by the Government to deal liberally and avoid reference to Court if at all possible. He had acted up to these instructions, and would not have offered Ll2O had he been acting for a private company. The plaintiff seemed determined to oppose all he could. —Mr John L. Gillies considered L 6 an acre full value for Faulk ner’s land, but would not value it at that for loam purposes. In his opinion Faulkner would gain by the railway ; and if there had been no prospect of a railway he would have valued the land at 3,0s an acre less. —Mr James Adam only valued the land at L 4 10a an aero ■ and thought the railway would increase the value 10s to 15s. Messrs William Black, Crofts, and M'Lennan, farmers and land-owners in the district, gave similar evidence. —Mr R. Gillies (of Gillies and Street) considered L 6 an acre the extreme value of the land ; the outside compensation he advised was LIOO. Considered the railway would improve the land LI an acre. Did not know why Mr Calcutt offered Ll2O, qqless to prevent litigation. Judge Ward said he and the assessors were unanimous in assessing the damages at Lll7 11s, made up as follows Value of land, at L 7 per acre, L 47 Us ; loss in cultivation, L 2 5; culverts or crossings, LlO ; house and garden, L 2 5; inconvenience foxcattle, LlO. The plaintiff was cast in damages, having to pay those incurred by the defendants, amounting to L 29 12s.