RACECOURSE AND SOUTHBRIDGE RAILWAY.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 360, 7 August 1875, Page 3

RACECOURSE AND SOUTHBRIDGE RAILWAY.

ASSESSORS' COURT

A Court to assess compensation for land taken for the purposes of the Racecourse and Southbridge Railway, was held at the Magistrates' Court, Christchurch, yesterday morning, before G. L. Hellish, Esq, R.M., and G. L. Lee and C. R. Blakiston, Esqs, assessors.

Bealey v Maude—Mr Hanmer for claimant. This was a claim for £lO, damages sustained by claimant in consequence of defendant neglecting to fence the railway line adjoining claimant's land between Leeston and Southbridge. Mr Duncan, who appeared for the Crown, said that he was instructed to offer no defence. The Court gave judgment for £lO and costs.

The Crown v William Graham—Mr Duncan appeared for the Crown. Mr Slater for Mr Graham. In this case 2a lr 24p of laud at Southbridge had been taken for railway purposes. Mr Duncan said that he was instructed to offer £3OO as compensation, without prejudice. Mr Slater said that he was instructed to refuse the offer. Mr T. W. Maude proved an offer of £230 in writing, and a subsequent offer.of £3OO, both of which had been declined. Flans of the Incus in quo were put in by the Crown and Mr Graham and admitted. In cros£-examination by Mr Slater, Mv Maude said he had arrived at the conclusion that £3OO was a fair offer from his own valuation ; it included severance. Mr H. F. Gray, who had also examined the land, gave evidence to the effect that he valued the land and damage sustained at £3OO. In reply to Mr Slater, Mr Gray said that he had included compensation for severance in his valuation. Did not think that any damage could be claimed for annoyance caused by the railway passing so close to the homestead. Mr Walter Lawrey also gave evidence on the part of the Crown, and estimated the amount of compensation at £2(13 lOs : this included the value of the laud, and for severance and general injury to the properly. Mr C. Clark gave evidence, and estimated the amount of compensation at £3lO. Did not think the house was injured

at all by the proximity of the railway. Mr W. Graham was put into the box and deposed that the Government had made him an offer of £3OO ; witness had claimed £150; the difference of £l5O was for compensation for injury to house and homestead by the proximity of the railway, which ran within seven chains of the stable, and about twelve chains from the house. Mr Mellish—That narrows the question down to the injury (if any) done to the house and homestead Mr Slater called the following witnesses; —Mr R. VVilkiu, who estimated the amount of compensation to be paid at £520 6s lid. This included the sum of £l5O for injury done to the house and homestead. Mr G. F. Barker, a surveyor, estimated trie compensation for damage at £526 lis 3d. This included .£125 for damage done to the homestead. Mr Slater addressed the Court, and submitted that by the evidence of Mr Graham and his witnesses a fair sum should be awarded for injury done to the homestead. Mr Duncan pointed out that where full value was given for the land taken and the severance, no damage could be given for injury done to the amenities of the farm (Penny v South Eastern Railway Company, judgment of Bolland and Alderson, justices). The Court assessed the amount of compensation at £3OO, Mr Graham to pay his own costs and £6 6u costs of the Crown. The Crown v George Sandry .—Mr Duncan for the Crown ; Mr Joynt for Mr Sandry. In this case 5a 3r 34p of land at Leeston had been taken for railway purposes, and the Crown had offered £6O as compensation. Mr Sandry was called, and deposed that he leased the land in question. His lease had eight years to run, and Government had had possession of the land for more than twelve months. Witness had personally made no claim for compensation, but Government had offered him £6O, which he had declined. In reply to Mr Joynt, the witness said that the railway had taken the whole of his frontage on the Leeston township. Considered the letting value of the land to be from 25s to 30s per acre. One hundred and eighty acres had been severed from the road. Mr H. F. Gray estimated the amount of compensation at £66. In reply to Mr Joynt the witness said that he did not consider Mr Sandry had suffered from loss of frontage, as he had access to the farm by a side road. Mr Walter Lawrey estimated the sum to be paid for compensation at £6O. Considered that Mr Sandry's interest in the remaining term of his lease had been enhanced by the railway. Mr R. Wilkin, examined by Mr Joynt. estimated the amount of damage sustained, including loss of frontage, at £IBB 15s. Mr Gillett deposed that he considered the amount of compensation for nine years to be £243 18s, that would be without taking off discount. Considered that the working of the farm was seriously interfered with by the construction of the railway. In reply to the Court, the witness stated that, if the railway had not been made, Mr Sandry would have had to take his produce eleven miles to the nearest railway station. Mr Luna, surveyor to the Ellesmere Road Board, examined by Mr Joynt, estimated the amount of compensation at £243 18s less interest. In reply to the Court, the witness said that be did not consider Mr Sandry realised any special benefit from the railway, the only benefit he reaped was in common with others. Mr Sandry was recalled, and said that the lease was originally granted to Mr Loe, from whom witness bought the assignment in 1871 for £SOO, the land then assigned was 403 acres, and the lease had nearly twelve years to run. Mr Mellish said that the Court considered the offer of the Crown to be a very liberal one, because on the claimant's witnesses 5 own showing the value of the land had been considerably enhanced by the railway. The Court awarded £6O compensation, and adjourned the question of costs until Monday. The Court then adjourned.