SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4156, 22 June 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

"Wednesday, June 21.

(Before Mr Justice Williams and R. Howlison and A. W. Morris, Esq.'s, Assessors.)

M'KENZIE AND CO. V. EDWARD RICHARDSON AND THOMAS CALCUTT. This was 4 an action brought by A. M'Kenae and Robert Bauchop, carrying on busi- ' ness under the style of A. M'Kenzie and Co., against Edward Richardson, Minister of Public Works, and Thomas Calcutt, for the purpose of having determined the amount of compensation to which plaintiffs were entitled for injury done te the quarry near rort Chalmers by reason of the construction of the Dunedin and Moeraki railway line. The land in respect of which the comSsnsation was claimed waß part of the Town elt at Port Chalmers, and having a frontage of 398 links to the road line. Mr Macassey; With him Mr Joyce, appeared for the. claimant, and Mr Baggitt for the Crown. Mr Macassey said the Court would be asked to assess the damages on the assumptoon that the claimants hereafter would be in a position to show that their title was a good one. The title of the claimants bad its origin in a lease granted by the Corporation of the town of Port Chalmers on May 11th, 1872, at a rental of L3O per annum, to be paid half-yearly. On November, 24, 1874, Mr Calcutta on behalf of the Minister of Public Works, cave the claimants notice that the lands would be reqnired for railway purposes; and on February 24, 1875, possession was actually assumed by the Minister of Public Works. From that time the claimants were practically prevented from using and enjoying their quarry. The lessees would loose about four years and a quarter of the original lease. During the twenty months the claimants were in possession of the quarry theycleared L 1,936 10s sd. In answer to Mr Haggitt,' counsel said plaintiffs churned as damages as much as they could get. Edward U T llen, builder, said he had had thirty years' experience of quarries. He considered the stone in M'&en&e's quarry superior to any to be found in Otage. The market price for stone in M'£en4?c quarry is Is 8d per cublio foot, and it could be Worked for 25 per cent, lesa than Proudfoot's, and 50 per cent, less than that from the Water of Leith. Its not profit when sold in Dunedin would be 6d a foot. -He thought that a man ought to be able to dear 1<25 or L3O a week out of the quarry. The / demand for this stone is constantly increasing. Cross-examined: The fact of there being so huge a quantity of atone in the quarrydoee not prove chat there was a great demand for the stone, but it shows the capabilities of the quarry. Witness was not aware that the opening up of the railways has developed other quarries. There is a large extent of stone nearly similar to M'Kenzie's in the same locality, but it would cost 20 per cent more to quarry, and 50 per cent, more for carriage. Nonnan Wood, contractor, said'he preierred Mr M'Kenrie's stone to any other, and he believed other builders held the same opinion, v

G. F. Barr, C.E., said he recently ex ainined M'Kenne'a quarry, and made *.survey ofxt. He estimated thtqiMtttity of balding .tonejnthe quarry *? *6B*,7Bir cubio feet. With a large Public Work* scheme, it might be j>otaiUe tooonwune that

David Bom, architect, said thatwhtnavtr blocka of stone of ordinary kind were required Port Chalmers stone was preferred. The demand for stone has increased and is in excess of the supply. Alexander Kiach, stonemason, said he had worked in M'Kenzie'a quarry for the last three or four years. The stone from there is finer in the grain than that from any other of the Port Chalmers quarries. 800 feet of building atone could be got out each week, exclusive of the quantity of material which could be got out for rubble. William Brown, accountant, said he recently examined the books of Messrs M'KenzieandCo. relating to the quarries at Port Chalmers. The result of the twenty months' working showed a balance of LI, 936 10s sd. This was exclusive of L2O a-month for Mr M'Kenzie as manager. The net return for twelve months was L 1,161185. Alexander M'Kenzie, one of the plaintiffs, said that on taking possession of the quarry he expended about LSOO on appliances, and L6OO would not cover the cost of clearing away the rubbish. He believed that the ?uarry had been producing a rental of nearly ■1,200 a-year. The demand for the stone for building purposes had been so great that he supplied 46,000 ft in twenty months. The gross cost of producing the stone was Is 9d a foot, leaving a piofit of 7d per foot. His profit on the ballast was 3s a ton, and Is on metal. The net profit on rubble was 4s a perch. It is now impossible to work the auarry from its former level, even though tie bridge referred to by Mr Barr were erected. Cross-examined: Witness did not keep a large supply of stone on hand because he had not room to store it. He paid Ll5O for Mr Borlase's lease, which bad then six years to run, and he would have given him) LSOO for it, as he was hot upon that quarry. Messrs R. A. Lawson (architect), James Gore, and A. Crawshaw, contractors, gave corroborative evidence, and the Court adjourned till this morning.

Thursday, June 22. The case was continued this day. The following witnesses were examined:— D. L. Simpson, engineer to the Harbor Board; H. Trcseder, S. H. Kingstreet,Wm. Sanson, Oerrge Proudfoot, Robert Allen, David Proudfoot, Alexander Dawson, John Thomas, Thomas Thompson, George Munro, and R. Beauchop. The whole of the evidence was to the effect that the stone from the claimants’ quarry was of a superior description, and that the quarry was rendered useless by the construction of the Moeraki railway line, except by incurring a large expenditure. David Proudfoot considered the quantity of stone which Mackenzie’s quarry contained was worth L 71,000. He, however, admitted that he would only rive LI 50 a-year for it, exclusive of an annual rental of L3O a-year. This closed the case for the plaintiffs. [Left sitting.]