The Midland Railway Case.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 125, 25 November 1895, Page 2

The Midland Railway Case.

(Per Press Association.) Wellington, Nov. 22. The Midland Railway Company's claim sets forth that Government restricted the right of selection over a large area of land ; that the Company were refused right to the timber on certain lands; that the lands selected depreciated in value by Government authorising the removal of timber ; also, by increased and graduated taxation on land ; that Gevernment refused to give effect to the request of the Company to sell or lei land selected ; that, in withholding for an unreasonable time consent to the deviation of the railway from the west to the east side of Lake Brunner, and to the substitution of an incline for a tunnel at Arthur's Pass, the Company were delayed and prevented from raising the capifcal necessary to complete the railway ow? ingto government delay in considering the application for extension of time ; that owing to statements made by the Minister of Public Works before the Parliamentary Committee in October, 1892, it was impossible for the Company to raise the necessary capital ; that owing to the foregoing matters the credit of the Company was destroyed ; that the whole of the share capital and debenture capital was lost ; also interest thereon and expected profits, the total amountina to £1,585,900, which the Company claims to recover. Counsel for the Crown will move on Monday to strike out five counts of the Company's claim on the ground that they do not disclose any legal basis for a legal claim, and with respect to the other counts a motion will be made for more explicit particulars. Objection will also be taken to the jurisdiction of the 1 arbitrators on the ground that the contract has been broken ; that a large portion of the work was abandoned, and that the line has been seized under the statute which expressly provides for resort to the Supreme Court, thereby barring arbitration. The Midland Railway claim is for matters arising before January 14, 1895, and does not include the Company's claim for Beizure of the railway in May last. The Crown statement alleges that the Company was allowed ten years to complete the railway, and tfaia expired in January, 1895, when only 75 out of 235 miles were finished, and these the most inexpensive portion ; also the Company had notified its intention to abandon the line from Reefton to Motueka, about 94 miles. Respondent alleges that the real reason of failure to complete the contract wae that the Company was unable or unwilling to provide funds for the purpose, although concessions were made. The Company itself estimated the substitution of an incline at Arthur's Pass would save it £559,881, and other concessions were also granted. Respondent contends that the Company by its failure to carry out the agreement is stopped from all right under it, and the arbitrators have no jurisdiction. It is pointed out that the colony has lost by locking up five million acres of Crown lands, and the area selected by the Company, 373,677, acres, and by the non-completion of the railway. The right of the Company to include the seizure of the line in arbitration is denied and it was done under statute. This Day. Sir R. Stout at once raised the question of the jurisdiction of the Court, contending the contract having expired the right to arbitrate also ceased ; further, that the seizure of the line by the Government also suspended all rights under the contract. He said he raised this question now because he did not want to spring a surprise on the Court, but would not ask for a decision till the evidence on the points had been heard when he would submit the question again. Mr Hutchison in replying refused to concede any of the points raised. He also contended that as the line was seized after the notice of arbitration had been given the Court could not take notice of it. Sir R. Stout contended the Company should supply more information on some of the counts of the claim, while some of the other counts should be struck out to save time and expense. The Government had no conception as to how the Company's money claim was made up. Mr Geo. Hutchison said the Crown was quite familiar with the various claims of the Company. If counsel on the other side waited until they heard his opening address they would get all the particulars they sought. retired to consider Sirß. Stout's contention that more information shonld be supplied, and on returning to Court announced they had decided to reserve their decision till after they had heard the opening address of counsel on both sides.