ASSESSMENT COURT.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 362, 10 August 1875, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT.

Monday, August 9. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M., Chairman, and G, L. Lee, and G. R. Blakiston, Bsqa, Assessors.) The Court resumed yesterday morning to consider the claims made for land taken in the construction of the Racecourse and Southbridge line of railway. CROWN Y SANDRY, In this case, heard on Friday last, the chairman said the Court would allow professional fee of £3 3s, the costs of witnesses to be adjusted according to the Act. CROWN V WILLS. Mr Joynt said that his client had agreed to accept the Government offer of £175. CROWN V LONGSTAFF. In this case a claim was made for £176, damage to laud, and also one at the rate of £SO per acre for land taken, and £37 10s value of the latter ; total claim, £212 10s. Mr Duncan for Crown, Mr Joynt, for claimant. Mr Maude called, stated that an offer of £7O had been made to the claimant for this land. About three roods had been taken in the construction of the railway. H. F, Gray, called, had inspected the land under consideration. Had made an estimate of the amount of compensation to which the claimant would be entitled to as £7O, viz, £ls for land taken and £55 damage sustained. That he considered a fair compensation. In reply to Mr Joynt, witness said his basis of calculation had been the inconvenience found in working four acres of the land, and he thought £55 sufficient compensation for that. There would be no inconvenience experienced in working the land on the other side of the line. So far as the saleable value of the land on the other side of the line was concerned, the intersection by the line of railway might have depreciated it, but he considered he had allowed sufficient for that in the £55, F. Lawry—Knew the claimant’s land; had examined it, and assessed the land taken by the railway at £ls, and considered one out of the four acres severed as injured for building purposes. Had assessed the damage for that at £25 or £4O altogether. Had taken the land at the other side of the line into consideration. If the land belonged to him he would be satisfied to receive £4O aa damage sustained. Did not consider the other piece of land (108 acres) had depreciated in value by the railway running through one end of it. He thought £2O an acre a fair value for land in that district. He meant it was so under the circumstances of the case. F. A. Wrigge, land purchase surveyor, produced an authenticated map of the Racecourse and Southbridge line of railway. The quantity of land taken from Mr Longstaff was 2 roods 24 perches. At 63 link! width the actual quantity of land taken would be 3 roods. Mr Longstaff, called by Mr Duncan, said he had not let any of the land severed by the railway. In reply to Mr Joynt, witness said that £7O would nob compensate him for the damage done to the land. Valued the land at £SO an acre, and that amount had been received lately for land in his neighbourhood sold by public auction. The line had cut up one of his paddocks. To the Court—For some years before the railway was talked of the land in his district was gradually increasing in value. In reply to Mr Duncan, the witness said that he estimated the loss of his frontage as land destroyed for building purposes. Mr Lockhead, farmer, residing at Leeston, knew claimant’s land. Had recently made a calculation of amount of land taken by railway

and damage done to the rest of the land. Thirteen and a half chains of frontage had been destroyed. A sum of money had been expended on the land for drainage, which was now useless, and judging the depreciation of the land for building purposes, and the money received lately for building sites in that neighborhood. He had assessed the damage sustained by Mr Longstaff at £252. Bat for the intersection of the railway Mr Longstaff might have continued the Superintendent’s road there and laid off a large block of land for building sites. He also considered that twenty-seven acres of land out of the 108 acres had been injured by the railway fence and water drain alongside to the extent of 3s per acre. Mr Rennie called, had estimated the damage sustained to the land by the line intersecting, which, in his opinion, had destroyed a paddock of seven acres for building sites, that would have sold for £SO an acre. The four acres cut off from corner to corner, where it had sufficient depth for building purposes, he now valued at £35 an acre, the other portion of this lot at £2O an acre, and the land taken by the railway at £SO. Altogether he assessed the compensation to which Mr Longstaff was entitled to amount to £lB5. If the railway had not been made through Leeston at all, he did not think the value of land would have been much less than at the present time. To the Court —He had been a resident for nine yeais in the district, and, previous to the railway being formed there, he had never known land sold for £SO an acre. In reply to Mr Joynt, the witness said that the value of land had gradually been increasing in the district during the last five years. In reply to Mr Duncan, the witness said that the railway had increased the value of land in the district, but he would as soon have land ten miles from a railway as nearer it. Mr Lunn, surveyor to the Leeston Road Board, stated that considering the position of Mr Longstaff’s land for building and agricultural purpose, he estimated that seven acres, which could have been marked off for building sites, would have sold for £SO an acre, The line and fence running through this land had now depreciated its value considerably. In round numbers, he had estimated that the depreciation in the value of the land amounted to £lB5. He had himself offered Mr Longstaff £4O an acre for these seven acres before the line went through them, and he of course wished to make a profit off that. His brother had gived £SO an acre for land a mile further from the township than Mr Longstaff’s. In reply to Mr Duncan, the witness said the railway had considerably enhanced the value of land throughout the district, and two years prior to that date land was sold in the district at £l2 10s an acre. After counsel had addressed the Court, the chairman said the Court had determined to award the damages at £BS, costs £3 3s to be against claimant, and witnesses’ expenses,£2 2s. CROWN V W. D. WOOD. This was a claim, reduced to £SOO to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court, for depreciation of value to his land at Riccarton by the intersection of the railway line. Mr Duncan appeared for the Crown and Mr Garrick for the claimant. Mr Garrick desired at the commencement to say that his client’s claim for compensation was subject to a condition to maintain his right to keep the weir at its existing height to dam the water back. Mr Duncan would consent to this condition on the understanding that no injury would be done to the railway embankment. After some discussion between counsel on points raised by the counsel for the claimant; the case was adjourned for claimant to receive further notice from the Crown in reference to adjoining land, it being understood that the case was adjourned at the instance of the Crown, the proviso previously alluded to to be noted by the Court. Case adjourned until the 23rd inst. CROWN Y JOHN LAMBIE This claim was one for the assessment of quantity of land taken, and for upholding an offer which it was contended had been made to the claimant. Mr Duncan for Crown, Mr Joynt for claimant. T. W. Maude called, stated that he had had negotiations with the claimant for 6a lr 14p of his land required for the construction of the line. Had offered him £IOO in full. Claimant offered to take £2O an acre some time before July, 1874. In crossexamination witness stated that he did make an offer to give £2O an acre after he (claimant) offered the land at that price. The Crown had occupied the land for about fifteen months, though the land might have been pegged off for about two years. Mr Lambie withdrew his offer to take £2O an acre by letter. [Letter read and put inj. Witness also read a second letter of July 31st, 1874, from claimant, saying that in consequence of the delay made in determining arrangements, and through the incorrectness of plans, it would be necessary for fresh arrangements to be entered into, Mr Lambie told him that morning that he was willing to take £2O an acre, and he (witness) declined. T. A. Wrigge, jailway surveyor, said that 6a lr 16p had been taken out of claimant’s land for the purposes of the railway. Mr Joynt here contended that a notice to treat by the Crown for a certain amount, could not be revoked or diminished. The Crown would first have to show that that offer had been refused by his client. Mr Duncan held that the Grown was not bound to give any notice of their intention to revoke an offer. The offer made had been withdrawn. Mr Maude recalled, stated that he had withdrawn his offer about the time the letters read were received. He had had conversations about that time with Mr Lambie, who had repeatedly refused to take £2O an acre for the land. He (witness) now refused to give £2O an acre for it. After some further contention by counsel, the chairman said the Court had determined to bind the Crown to their offer of £2O per acre Mr Joynt asked for interest, contending that since possession was first taken his client had been deprived of use or rentals. The chairman said the land had under the Act been taken compulsorily in the interest of the public. He did not see any provision in the Act allowing for interest, and he doubted whether a decision in this direction would be a valid one. Mr Joynt quoted from “ Hodges ” to show that in the compulsory clauses interest was allowed in England. After further consideration was given for £2O an acre, the question of interest and costs to stand adjourned for a fortnight. CROWN V FREDERICK SMITH. In the absence of a necessary witness through illness, this case was adjourned for a fortnight. The Court then, adjourned,