RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3082, 4 January 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M., and Messrs W. Mason and R. B. Martin, Assessors.)

DISPUTED COMPENSATION. Thomas Calcutt v. Peter Leitch —This was an action brought under the Immigration and Public Works Acts of 1870 and 1871, to settle a question of disputed compensation for a piece of land of 5 acres, 1 rood, and 15 poles, belonging to defendant, situated in the Maungatua district, and required by the Government for railway purposes. Mr Haggitt appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Stout for defendant.

Thomas Calcutt, Government Lands Assessor, said he was appointed under the Public Works Acte, 1870 and lS7i, to arrange for the purchase of land or railway purposes. He h-d filled the office for two years, and thought himself competent to »s----timato the value of land. The land in question is situated on the north west side of the Taieri river, and has no frontage to the Main South Road, and is only approached by the road marked in the sketch produced. Taking the land as a whole, it is not worth more than L 3 10s per acre. It was very swampy, and is still swampy. Drains have been cut in the neighborhood, but not sufficiently deep to dram Mr Lcitch’s land. A small portion of it was under crop, but it would cost from 30s to I 10 per acre to prepare the remainder for cultivation. Of all the land he had purchased for the Clutha Railway, none would be more benefited by the railway than that in question, because it was isolated from the ordinary means of transit to the nearest market. He, therefore, thought that the land would be enhanced in value from one to two pounds per acre. Another benefit the owner would derive from the construction of the railway, was the erectlm and maintenance of about fifty chains of fencing by the Government forever. —J. H. Harris said, that before Mr Leitch purchased the land, he offered 50s per acre for it, and that sum he considered more than its value at the time. It had since been partially improved, and he should now estimate its value at from L 3 5s to L 3 Ks per acre. He considered that block o—on which the land in question was situated—blocks 5 and 4, would be more benefited by the construction of the railway than any other land in the Province, and the property before the Court to the extent of fifty per cent —Hobt. Gillies, land agent and surveyor, said he went over the land yesterday. It would cost 30s per acre to bring a portion of it into cultivation, while another portion would cost more. He believed the land not worth more than L 3 10s per acre, i t would be so improved by the existence of the railway that were it his he would not only willingly give the land required for railway purposes for nothing, but also a bonus.—Three other witnesses were cammed, but their evidence did not differ materially from that of the preceding. —Counsel for defendant argued the question of jurisdiction of the Court urging, that the Court had no power to deal with the matter, and that therefore it should be dismissed.—The beuch over-ruled the objection.—Peter l eitch then slated that, beyond the notice and letter produced, he received no intimation from the Government regarding the matter in dispute. He was the owner of 150 acres of land in the Maungateua district, part of which formed the subject of the present inquiry. It originally cost him L 4 per acre, and was now let on lease, Bince the purchase was completed, he had it thoroughly drained and fenced in. Cattle were now running on it. By his lease he was bound to pay the tenant reasonable compensation, and to do this he wou'd require to get LI 2 per acre for that portion taken for the railway. He had already refused L 6 an aero for any portion of the block. He did not let the land w.th a full knowledge that the railway would pass through it. At the present moment, he would not sell the land under LS an acre. The railway has not increased its value. David Grant, an authorised surveyor, said the land was well worth L 7 per acre. Iho passing of the railway through the land will make a portion of it more expensive to work. William Riddle said he was Mr Leitche’s tenant, and would require compensation and a reduction of rent incuse the railway passed through the ground.— Edward Palmer, a settler, was of opinion that the land was worth LlO an acre. [Left sitting.]