ASSESSMENT COURT.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 374, 24 August 1875, Page 3

ASSESSMENT COURT.

Monday, August 23, [Before G. L, Mellish, Esq, Chairman, and G. L. Lee and C. E. Blakiston, Esqrs, Assessors ] The adjourned sitting of the Court of Assessment, to consider the claims made for compensation for lands taken in the construction of the Northern line of railway, was held yesterday. CROWN V LAMBIE, Mr Duncan appeared for the Crown, and Mr Joynt for the claimant. This case had been adjourned to consider the question of interest and costs, counsel for claimant having promised to produce authorities in support of his application. Mr Joynt said that he had forwarded to the Supreme Court library a requisition from the Resident Magistrate for books which contained rulings in analogous cases to the one before the Court, and which be (Mr Joynt) felt would have settled the matter at once, and the reply he received by the messenger was, that no books could be allowed out of the library without a special order from his Honor Judge Johnston. He might mention that the practice had obtained for a long time of obtaining books from the library on a requisition from the Resident Magistrate. [Several legal gentlemen in court here remarked that the stoppage of this practice would be found very inconvenient.] Mr Joynt continued to address the Court, and cited a large number of cases in support of his contention. After Mr Duncan had been heard contra, the chairman said the Court was of opinion that the claim for interest could not be maintained. Mr Joynt asked that the case might be further adjourned until the Court had seen the authorities to which he (Mr Joynt) had referred, as not being able to obtain from the Supreme Court library. The Court agreed to do so, and the case was further adjourned until Monday next. CROWN V W. D, WOOD. This was a claim for £SOO compensation for land taken at Riccarton. Mr Duncan for the Crown, Mr Garrick for the claimant. A notice to treat from the Government had been received by the claimant, which notice Mr Duncan now desired to be withdrawn. Mr Garrick cited Hodges on Railways, p, 207, to show that “ a notice to treat once given cannot be revoked.” Mr Garrick also read authorities to show that when a proclamation had been made for a certain quantity of land required for the construction of a railway, there was no power to go outside this proclamation to attach any greater quantity of land, as had been done in this instance. He admitted that under the Immigration and Public Works Act the Government could take 110 yards on either side of the central line, should a deviation be found necessary, but in this case there had been no deviation from the original line laid down, and with all due deference to the Court, he felt that on this point he had the law in his own hands, and it rested with him, if the Court was against him here, whether he might not proceed further. M r Duncan said that the first notice had been issued under a mistake, as the land contained in the second summons was required in the first instance. The Government had no desire to shirk the rights of Mr Wood, and were perfectly willing to be bound by the decision of that Court. The Government had agreed to give Mr Wood £l5O for the land required, and they thought that a fair amount for the land. Mr Garrick held that the second application for the land as shown by the correspondence between the Government and his (Mr Garrick’s) client had only been made because his client was not prepared to accept the value placed on the first land applied for and taken, and the representative of the Government well knew that this second lot of land applied for would only harass his client who having large water rights to conserve must be injured to a very material extent if be were deprived of this land. The Government did not now want the land, and he held that the Government had no right under their abandonment of the first summons to the land stated in the second one, as it would not only affect water-rights, but land further down the river, and no compensation would be an equivalent to the loss which would accrue to his client; He (Mr Ganick) had been trying to arrive at an arrangement with the Crown, offering to come to terms if they would not take the strip of land—which was really not required by them, and shown on the plan produced. Mr Duncan said he would agree to this strip of land being conserved to Mr Wood, provided that no further claim was sent in by him for future damage. Mr Garrick handed in a copy of a letter from his client to the Government, agreeing to accept £250 as full compensation, provided the strip of land shown on the plan handed in, was conserved, Mr Duncan, on behalf of the Government, agreed to consider the letter, with Mr Wood’s right to the strip of land maintained, and the case then resolved itself into assessing the value of the land between the £l5O offered by the Government, and the £250 agreed to be taken. The Court then adjourned. On resuming, the Chairman remarked that, during the adjournment, it had occurred to himself and assessors, whether that, being a Court of Assessment, they possessed any right to adjudicate on the point whether the Govern-

ment had the right to take the second portion of land outside the first proclamation. They (himself and assessors) were, in the opinion of the Court, only there to assess the value of the land taken under the first summons, and the injury done to the adjoining land by stripping. Mr Garrick would contend that the Government had no right whatever to take this second piece of land. After some contention by counsel it was evident that the arrangement previously determined upon was upset; and Mr Garrick, in reply to a remark from Mr Duncan, said he would ask that the case might be adjourned until he had applied for an injunction to test the right of the Government to enter upon the land at all. Counsel then decided to go upon the assessment of the value taken under the first summons of the Government, or about one acre in extent, Mr Duncan called Mr R. Wilkin, who stated that he estimated the value of the land on the wholfeblock amounting to la 3r3lp. He had estimated the value of the land comprised in that block at £75 an acre, and had not calculated severance, as he considered the taking of the higher portion had rendered the remaining portion of the land useless to Mr Wood. He assessed the whole piece of the land cut off by the railway at £145 15s Bd, By Mr Garrick—Had claimed £SO an acre for some land of his, portion of the same rural section, but on the other side of the railway line. He had received £l9O for la 2r 24p of this land, which amount included his claim for severance. He offered land some short time since adjoining, at £6O an acre. The land previously alluded by him did not belong to him, but he was acting as agent for Mrs Thompson. He had however land of his own immediately adjoining Mr Wood’s, and he had not considered that its frontage to the river added to its value. Mr Charles Clark, called, valued the whole block of four acres and odd at £llO to £l5O an acre for building sites. He did not assess the value of an acre of the land with any rights reserved. In reply to Mr Garrick, Mr Clark said that taking the two acres of land away rendered the whole block less valuable for building sites. Mr E. C. J. Stevens, called by Mr Garrick, said he knew the land described in the plan produced. If there were no railway nor railway station near it he would consider the laud worth £7OO, and would give £6OO for it for purposes of speculation. He considered taking the two acres of land had considerably deteriorated the value of the remaining portion, as a railway running near private residences was always felt to be objectionable, and this annoyance he hud himself experienced. He estimated the western half of the laud at £3OO, and the other at £4OO, In reply to Mr Duncan, Mr Stevens said he was only considering the value of the land for residential purposes, and the reason he attached such value to it was because he knew that land for such purposes was very scarce. He had not taken into consideration in his assessment the value of any reservation of water rights. Mr H, E. Alport considered the value of Mr Wood’s land at £l5O an acre. In 1864 £IOO an acre had been paid for this land, and ho agreed with Mr Stevens that why it was now considered so valuable was its position and suitability four villa residences. In England the practice was to put 50 per cent, on the market value of land, and 50 per cent, more for severance. He estimated the value of the acre of land with severance at £SOO. Mr W. D. Wood, called, said he purchased the land now being considered by the Court in January, 1864, (4-J acres), for £3BO, and the law expenses brought it up to a great deal more. The Government had been in possession of the lard for four years. His estimate of the value of the land taken, and the portion stripped, was that it was of greater value than the land left (exclusive of water rights), as that left was not relatively of the same value for building sites. The four acres would not be as saleable for such a purpose, nor of the same value, as a larger quantity of land would be. Valued the land taken at £4OO. Had offered to take £250 for it, but considered he had lost £l5O by the railway running through his land. The chairman said the Court had determined to award the claimant £225, the Crown to pay costs, £l3 13s. CROWN V SMITH. This was a claim made for land taken at Leeston. Mr Duncan for the Crown, and Mr Thompson for claimant. Mr Thompson contended before the case was considered that the Court had already determined that a notice to treat could not be revoked, and read a decision given in Walker v Eastern Railway Company to confirm this. An offer had been made by the Crown in June last which it was now tried to have withdrawn, and he would contend that once an offer was made for a certain amount, and a date fixed for the hearing of the offer, that offer could not be revoked. He thus objected to the Crown now leading evidence as to the value of the land, Mr Duncan held contra that the analogy between powers given to a private company at home to take land, and to the Government in New Zealand, was entirely different, and cited clause 14 of the Immigration and Public Works Act, in confirmation of his contention. Mr Duncan here made an offer of £lO an acre for the land taken, but Mr Thompson refused to accept it in the face of one of £ls 10s an acre having previously been made. After consideration, the Court decided against the point raised by Mr Thompson. Mr Duncan called Mr W. Laurie, who stated that he believed the land taken was a little under six acres, and had valued it at £ls an acre. He had taken into consideration the rent of the lease under which the land was held. The railway running through the land had, in his opinion, increased the value of the whole block of 400 acres, at about £5 an acre, or £2OOO in all. Mr Charles Clark called, stated that before the railway ran through the land, it was worth about £l2 10s, and within the last eighteen months, or since the railway ran through, the value of the land had increased from £22 10s to £25, Mr Thompson called Mr R. Wilkin, who considered the present agricultural value of the land at £2O an acre, and before the railway run through at about £ls per acre. He considered the severance of the land by the line and from a road equivalent to ten acres, at £25 an acre. The damage of the severance of the land by the line and from the road he estimated at £l6o—that was allowing the discount for the eight years’ lease yet to run, as he considered Mr Smith would have to give four acres of land to put himself in the same position as he would have occupied had the railway not not run through. If no lease existed, he would estimate the value of the laud taken and the severance from the road at £250. By the Bench —He considered the value of the laud had been enhanced by the railway to the value of £2

to £5 per acre. Colonel Packe called, stated that years before the railway was heard of‘ land (a part of the same rural section) was sold for town allotments at £2O an acre. Considered the value of the land before being leased, was about £5 an acre. If the land were now for sale, believed it would fetch £2O an acre. The rent paid by by Sundry was 10s an acre, and the loss that would accrue through an abatement to be made, would amount to £24 on the eight years lease. After Mr Thompson had addressed the Court, an award of £6O in all, or £lO an acre was made; claimant to pay costs, £9 9s. The Court then adjourned.