RESULT OF ARBITRATION.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 200, 30 August 1901, Page 3

RESULT OF ARBITRATION.

A DISAPPOINTED BOARD,

At the meeting of the Harbor Board • yesterday- the award of the arbitrators in regard to the property leased from the Board by- the Gisborne Freezing Company was laid on the table, the party opening it having to guarantee the costs, .£22 Us. The arbitrators were Mr John Coleman and Captain Chrisp. They had disagreed, and had called in Mr George Grant as umpire. In reply* to questions the Chairman said that if the Board refused to open the award it would remain for Mr Shelton to choose whether or not he would do so. On the motion of Mr Sievwright, seconded by Mr Macfarlane, it was decided to authorise the payment, and open the award. The award showed that the rent per annum for the next three years had been fixed at £l5O, a reduction of £SO per annum on what it had previously stood at. Each party was to payhalf the cost of arbitration.

In reply to Mr Matthewson, the Chairman said that no reason was given for tho award ; the arbitrators were not called on to give reasons. Mr Whinray : It seems to be a bit of an incongruity. The Chairman : It is a big incongruity. Mr Matthewson : It is an outrage cn common sense. Mr Clark said it must he remembered that the award had reference to the Board’s own property, not to that of the freezing works. The Company, as he had told the Board, had previously been paying too much for the property originally leased from the Board. The Chairman : I only wish we had it

back again. Mr Clark : You had it for a good many years, got no revenue out of it, and had had to pay £6O a year in rates. You got a first-class tenant, and then tried to get him by the wool Mr Whinray: I think we are got by the wool now. In reply to Mr Sievwright, the Chair-

man sail that Mr Grant was not at the examination of the witnesses ; he would not come into it until after that had been gone through, but would be supplied with full information by the arbitrators. Mr Macfarlane: Was evidence taken '? Mr Clark : Yes ; and full minutes were kept.

In reply to Mr Sievwright the Chairman and Secretary said that no records of evidence had been forwarded to the office,

tho Chairman adding that it was not necessary for the arbitrators to give any reason as to how thoy had arrived at their decision. Mr Cooper: What would be tho value of improvements when the property was taken over ’?

Captain Tucker: £3300. Mr Clark : The total cost was £3300, land and everything, including £9OO, cost of tho blockyard. There were two acros, worth a hundred pounds an acre in the market.

Mr Sievwright could not understand how land worth £2OO a year three years ago should now be worth less.

Mr Clark : Only that you forced them into it, after they had put improvements there and could not get out of it.

Captain Tucker said that it was understood that a nominal rental was to bo paid for tho first year; it was fixed at £IOO.

Mr Clark : Yes, and then you slated

them as soon as you got a show. Captain Tuckor: There was no slating; wo fixed a pepporcorn rental out of consideration.

Mr Cooper said the only way tho valuo could ho got at was to tako the value of tho property at tho time, and the presont valuo of the land. The Chairman: We have submitted it to arbitration, and have done with it for three years.

Mr Cooper: We cannot expect the company to pay an increased rent on their own improvements. Mr Sievwright: Is that award challengeable ’? lam inclined to think that it is. Ido not wish to give a solicitor’s opinion to the Board, but I think it should bo referred to the solicitor to make some

enquiry. Personally, I would have been ns well pleased to let the matter stand where it was without this abitration.

Captain Tucker said they' knew that properties bad gone up in value, some as much as fifty per cent. Mr Clark: I am sorry to hear any member suggest to challenge the award. The Board showed a want of consideration in ever asking to have tho rent increased. But having, under the terms of the lease, submitted the matter to arbi-

tration, to now want to, challenge the award seoms to mo rather a peculiar idea. Captain Tucker said that thoy might havo boon satisfied with a slight increase, but no man could stand retrogression.

Mr Siovwright moved that the solicitor bo requested to enquire into the items of tho award as to whether it was challenge-

able on any proper grounds. Mr Whinray : I second that. Mr Cooper : I hopo this does not mean the start of litigation. Mr Whinray considered it was a duty they owed to the ratepayers to enquire into an anomaly like this. Mr Cooper : Wo should enquire into tho thing ourselves without having law about it.

Captain Tucker said some reason ought to be shown why there should be a decrease.

Mr Siovwright: But thoy arc not going to give reasons. Mr Clark said the value of the Board’s buildings had been fixed at £9OO, leaving tho land at £IOOO an aero.

The Chairman said it looked like giving them 5 per cent, on their money. He did not think tho award gave them anything like value, but as they had loft the matter to arbitration, he did not see how they could go behind that resolution. As for tho solicitor, he had been consulted with at every point b t y the Board’s arbitrator. Captain Tucker said he was positive they could get £SOO a year for the pro-

perty. Mr Sievwright said he had no desire that the award should be challenged unless there were adequate grounds for doing so. Mr Whinray said that the borough assessed the property at £4OO, and they knew the making of the land cost throe or four thousand pounds. If the property were put in the market for. competition, they would get from £SOO to £7OO a year for it.

Mr Clark said it must be recollected that the Freezing Company's buildings were not to be considered; they' must regard the property just as the building went into the hands of the Company. Although tho Board now got £l5O, they were really in addition getting an increased yalue of £4OO a year for what would have to be handed over at tho end of 21 years (£SOOO worth). The Chairman said that the motion did not commit them to more than consulting tho solicitor.

The motion was then carried, Messrs Clark and Macfarlnne dissenting.