TE ARAI ESTATE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2226, 1 November 1907, Page 1

TE ARAI ESTATE.

COMPENSATION CO CUT SITTING OWNER’S CASE FINISHED. COMMENCEMENT OF THE LESSEE’S CASE. Hearing was continued at the Co.iniientsa.tion Court yesterday of the claim for compensation made by the Hon. Randal Johnston in respect of the To Aral estate, which the Government has acquired. A SHEERKARMER’S EVIDENCE. George Hecslop, Wiaihi, practical shcepfarmer, said he valued To Aral in May, 1906. Valued iho Kiwi property some years ugo. Between the time of valuation and time of sale much money was spoilt on improvements. By Mr Chapman: Valued Kiwi a.t £3 life, hut was not sure if that included buildings. Had not hoard that a. section had been sold in tho first place at £6, and been then rosold at £7. Tho clearing necessary would take over £2 per acre. Had hoard that another section had been sold at £o ss. While he was valuing tho property men were engaged on a contract for clearing. Valued To Aral jointly with Mr. Grant. Did a .good deal of valuing for tho Government. Thought IV sheep was tho present carrying capacity of the To Arid hills. Tho best land in Block 1 was not equal to tho best in tho district. Tho land of tho estate was suilublo for dairying. In his estimate of tho value of tho estate ho did not take into consideration any agricultural operations. Thought Mr Clark was at present carrying ample stock. In May 1906 the land did not appear to bo overstocked, hut in July last it appeared so. ■Re-examined: There were two ways of counting in cattle with sheep, in some eases cattle being put on to break in country. In .sued cases the cattle wore not counted in with tho sheep. In Hawke’s Bay some time ago people were glad enough to graze cattle free because of the good they (lid the land. His valuation of the whole property was £102,000 odd. W. D. S. MACDONALD.

W. D. S. Macdonald, Whakarau, said that- from 1887 to 1890 he managed tho Ria.pa.tu estate, and later Mr J. C. Arthur’s estate at the Willows .and Whatatutu. Had known To Aral since 1883. Made a special visit to the estate in June last. Since lie knew the property first the scrub and native grass had greatly .increased on the hills. During the winter 1J ahecp was all the, hills could properly carry. In some parts there was cocksfoot grass on the hills and in the wet hollows .and round the foot of the hills there was some English grass. There was also ratstail, which was spreading up the (lulls. None of To Arai flats were equal to tho Opou fiats. Opou flats were roughly worth £lO. Flats an 1 hills the estate should carry two sheep to the acre. When lie anv them in June tho cattle looked well. To his knowledge there was no fencing timber on the estate. Would not think there would be much permanent water on tho hills. His total valuation was £103,523, tho average price of flats being £lB 14s 2d, ■hills £6 2s 5d and the whole estate £9 12s. Valued tho land at £4 15s per sheep per acre on the flats and £4 per sheep per acre on the hills. On tho flats lie would carry 11,000 sheep and a like number on tho hills. By Mr Chapman: Made up his valuation entirely by himself. Did not confer with Mr Lewis. Made another val.uart.icin beside tne one pint in in the evidence, but it was on wrong areas. THE BUILDINGS.

William Oswald Sheet, builder and contractor, said he had built moatof the buildings at Te Arai. Valued the wool-slied at- £475, seed-house £45, shearers’ wharo £3O, stable at wool-shed £2o. U.K.'s wrmre £lO stable at homestead £35, buggyshed £25, men’s wliare £ls, men’s bedroom £2O, homestead £4OO, or with numerous small works a. total of £ISS3.

By Mr Chapman: Could not build the, places at that price now, Tlio homestead was in only fa.ir condition. One part was thirty years old. Valued the buildings as ho saw them ten years ago., with allowance for depreciation to date. ADDRESS FOR THE CROWN.

At 12.20, Mr. Findlay summed up for tlie Crown. In the present case, lie said, there was a. novel position in that there was an unexpired lease of the whole property. In August 1000 the owner leased the property for £O7OO for ton years and evidently regarded that sum as a fair indication of its value. The owner now came to the Court and demanded a capital value nearly double the' capitalisation of the annual rent under the lease. There was clear evidence of inflation in the owner's endeavor to increase his claim. When claimant put in his ■claim for .£127,000 Iris ' valuators were working oil- 2900 acres of flats, and when the amount of flats was reduced to 2700 acres the valuators valued the property at prices ranging up to £145,000. Tiho sale of tlio Waipaoa. estate to Mr Clark was a good instance of prices in the district. According to figures supplied by Mr Clark the estate was worth £30,000 more thaij lie lit id paid for it. The Waipaoa estate was bought at the time notice was given of the taking of To Arab: Fyke and White's block was bought ■at a price allowing £3 per sheep per acre. This was better land than To Aral, so that, the allowance of £4 per sheep per acre for Te Arai was very generous. The evidence of claimant’s witnesses showed that they valued the flats on a subdivisional basis and not as a whole. Flats and hills had always to he considered together. The owner a I.sell nought witnesses from Hawke’s Bay, but it had been admitted by ..no of the claimant’s witnesses that va'ues were far higher in Hawke’s Bay than in Poverty Bay. Ho (counsel) submitted that it was not right to v due Poverty 11 ay laud ut more than £4 per sheep per acre. ITe was, however, prepared to work out at £4 on Mr Clark’s own carrying capacity iigures. For the past tliroo years the average number of sheep on the estate was 16,649 and cattle 2155, or a total carrying of equal to 25,269 sheep. This at £4 gave a total value of £101,076. Mr Clark's figures allowed that the laud won't] curry lj Eilieep and one cattle boast to three acres. He (counsel) doubted if Te Aral or any o-ther property iu the Dominion could do so. There was justification for the belief that ! llio estate was stocked up to its full ' capacity, because for two years the | owner knew the Government iutenrl- ! cd to take the land. It had also como out in evidence for claimant that the lessee had not lately been

maintaining tlio property as it should bo. MR CHAPMAN’S SUMMING UP. Mr Chapman, in summing up, drew attention to an apparent collaboration ‘ by supposedly separate valuators for tlio claimant. Regarding tho carrying capacity ho submittoed that tlio Government evidence underestimated it. It had to be remembered that; all tho Government valuers ignored tho agricultural possibilities. It had been shown that £IOOO a year was the gross return from this I source, and at least half of that amount had to be capitalised and added to the valuations given, by the .Government witnesses. Another 'indication of tlio high opinion of the fund held by tlio Government was tlio' small areas into which tho estate was to bo cut. A suggestion mu do against tho claimant, that the hills went dry in summer, held no weight because tho claimant was soiling the flats and the hills together. A point which struck him as wrong was tho fact that tho defence had put forward as valuators only persons in Government employ. Claimant did not say that the To’ Arai flats were tho best in tho district or that the hills wore tlio best, hut bo held that tho combination of flats and hills was unique in the colony. It liad to ho remembered that To Arai was in a good position as regards markets and disposal of wool, etc. This of course did not increase the carrying capacity, but it certainly made' the land more valuable. , % DECISION RESERVED. After hearing the closing addressestho Bench reserved decision. THE LESSEE’S CASE. Tho caso of John Clark, lessee of Te Arai, against tlio Minister of Lands was then taken. Messrs C. P. Ske.rre.tt, K.C., and G. Stock appeared for claimant and Messrs Fimllay and Nolan for tlio Crown. CLAIMANT’S OPENING. Mr Skcrrett, in opening, started that tho full amount of tho claim was £12,000. Of this, £IO,OOO was for tlio taking of the lease and £2,000 for disturbance. One of the chief items in the latter claim was for certain classes of stock which would havo to bo sold at an inopportune time. An. accountant had prepared figures showing that for a period of two years and four months, the unexpired period of tho lease, the profit mado would bo £12,988. If put up to auolon the lease would be unsaleable. To prove loss it would bo shown that it was absolutely impossible for claimant to get another block of land in tho district which would carry the same amount of stock as To Arai. To get tlio . value of the lease ho would not capitalise the annual profit. _ Suppose that tho owner had put in his lease a clause calling on him to give up tlio land in tlio same way as was done by the requisition. In that case lio felt sure that tho compensation which tiie owner would liavo allowed would have been even what the claimant now asked. Regarding tho value o.f tho freehold It would no doubt suit tho Crown to take as evidence in this caso tho valuations put in in tlio last case, but he (counsel) would like to say a, good deal regarding the freehold value. If claimant did wliat His Honor suggested—rented a farm for two years to hold the stock —the claim would bo £30,000. As to loss of stock claimant admitted that for the sale of sheep March 30th, the date of acquisition by the Government, was not objected to, but for the sale of cattle it was very inconven.ient, and would result ill a loss of at least £ISOO.

AN ACCOUNTANT’S EVIDENCE. Thomas Alexander Coleman, accountant, stated that ho made out th© balance-sheet supplied from Mr Clark’s diaries. In these diaries were all transactions at sales. No regular set of books was kept, butthe names of the different stations were usually attached to accounts. There was also a rough cash book. There was a ledger, which was really only a shearing tally hook. On the balance-sheet he verified all the items on the credit side and was quite sure all items belonged to To Arai. It would take some months to make accounts for Mr Clark’s other estates. For wool ho always got the delivery notes. For 1906 there_were 365 hales of wool' weighing 154,000 lbs. and in 1907 tliero • overe 370 bales weighing 154,061 lbs. That included slipe wool. That wool was sent in under the Te Arai brand. With regard to sheep, wool and cattle lie carefully checked tho prices. The only possibility of error was a fraudulent entry by Mr Clark. In addition to the entries in Mr Clark’s book as to origin of produce he had examined the manager of Te Arai. On the debit side of the balancesheet were all tho station expenses. The shearing, docking and harvesting lie had split between the three estates. Had prepared returns showing interest at five per cent and at seven per cent on stock. In 1905 there were 21,379 sheep anu 20.90 cattle, in 1906 there were 23, 693 sheep and 2310 cattle, and in 1907 it was estimated there would bo 25,300 sheep and 2065 cattle. The wintering capacity of the lun was:—l9os, 14,446, 1906, 16,813; 1907, 18,140. There was very little sheep country on tho market. Did not know of any properties within thirty miles of Gisborne capable of carrying 16,000 sheep and 2,000 cattle,. , By Mr Findlay : Two pages of tie .ledger were devoted solely to Te Arai sheep. Could not say when the entries were made. Some rams were brought from Opou and some from Waipaoa,. and some wethers were sold by To Aral to opou. Witness also detailed a few other transactions. The rest of Mr Findlay’s cross-examination was . in tho direction of showing that the system- of book-keeping was loose to ail extent. - The Court adjourned till 10 o’clock tile following morning.