RAILWAY COMPENSATION COURT.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 384, 4 September 1875, Page 3

RAILWAY COMPENSATION COURT.

RANGIORA. Friday, Sept. 3,

(Before C. Whitefoord, Esq, R.M., and Messrs A. H. Cunningham and J. Beswick, assessors.) The Court sat at 10.10 a.m. CROWN V REV JAMES BULLER,

This case was brought to decide the value of two quarter-acre section, Nos 330 and 331, at Ashley township, taken under Immigration and Public Works Act, for railway purposes. Mr Duncan appeared for the Crown, Mr Buller appeared in person. William Buss, land agent, Rangiora, deposed—He had seen the section. Considered the railway had done no damage to them. Their value was £5 each.

Aquila Ivory, of Raugiora, deposed—£s was a high value for each section, as the river had taken part of the road away. He considered that a fair value. Rev James Buller deposed—That thirteen years ago he purchased the sections at £lO each, and when they were wanted for the railway, he told Mr Maude that he ought to have a fair interest on his purchase, and estimated that now he ought to receive £4O or £SO for them. Having no knowledge of the value of land there or elsewhere, he would leave the matter entirely with the Court. He had no witnesses, but pointed out that he would receive no advantage from the railway, as he had no adjacent sections. Mr Maude, Government agent, said that £2O had been offered for the sections. The Court gave judgment for the amount of £2O offered by the Crown without costs. CROWN V J. S. BUXTON. In this case the Court had been asked to decide the value of a quarter-acre section at Ashley township, No 47, but as Buxton accepted £l2 10s offered by the Crown, the case was settled out of Court. CROWN V 11. CLANEY. This case was brought to decide the value of two quarter-acre sections, Nos 38 and 39, at the Ashley township taken for the Northern railway. Mr Claney appeared in person. Mr Maude offered £27 10s, which Claney refused to accept. W, Buss and A. Ivory, who had inspected the sections, valued them at £27 10s, in which valuation £7 10s was reckoned for loss of use of timber yard, H. Claney said he had paid more for the land. He had no witnesses to call. The Court considered the offer of £27 10s fair and reasonable, awarding that as the amount to be paid for compensation, with permission to remove stacks of timber on the land within one month. CROWN V C. FF. PEMBERTON. This was a similar case to the foregoing, in which the Court had to decide the value of a quarter-acre, lot 25 of the Ashley township. Mr Pemberton attended and consented to accept the offer of £ls made by the Crown agent. The Court made its award accordingly. CROWN V SIR MICHAEL LE FLEMING. In this case the Court had also to decide the value of quarter-acre No 61, Ashley township. Sir Michael Le Fleming appeared in person. W. Buss deposed he knew the section. Its value was £l2 10s. The Government had made a fair offer if this had been tendered. Sir Michael Le Fleming said he had paid £7 10s for the land, and £3 or £4 for deeds some years ago, and besides paying rates expected interest on his outlay. The Court awarded compensation at £l2 10s to cover all claims. CROWN V PUBLIC TRUSTEE FOR EDWARD WARD, A LUNATIC. In this instance the Court was asked to decide the value of three quarter-acre sections Nos 13, 59, and 60 in Ashley township. The defendant was unrepresented. T. W, Maude deposed he had communicated with the public trustee at Wellington, on 26th August, 1875, stating that Mr DePourbel would accept service of the summons but not appear. He had since received a letter from the latter acknowledging receipt of the summons. The sum offered was £lO for each section, which the public trustee said he could not accept, as he was unable to give a title, and hence the Court was asked to make an award. W. Buss deposed that £BO would be ample value for the land taken. The Court awarded the value at £3O. CROWN V ROBERT ROSS (SUPPOSED TO \ BE DECEASED). In this case the Court was asked to award the value of two quarter-acre sections, Nos 227 and 229 in the Ashley township. The defendant was not represented. T. W. Maude deposed he had communicated with the public trustee, who replied that Mr De Bourbel would accept service of the summons, but the latter was not to ap pear, and also stating that he (the trustee) found that £lO each was a fair value. W. Buss deposed that £lO was a fair value for the two sections. The Court decided that the Crown should pay £2O in full compensation. I CROWN V. A. C. GRAY. In this case the Court had to decide the i value of 9a Or 17p, taken for the Northern 1 railway at Amberley, under the Immigration : and Public Works Act, in the following por » tions, viz.:—2a 3r 18p, part rural section ■ 2611 ; 3a Or 19p, part rural section 2883 ; 2a L lr 14p, part rural section 2990 ; 3r 6p, part

rural section 7988# An offer of £450 had been made by the Crown, but was not accepted. Mr Duncan appeared for the Crown, Mr A. Thompson for H. F. Gray, attorney for A. C. Gray (at present out of the colony). . Edwin Cuthbert deposed—He was civil engineer and surveyor, employed in the Public Works department, Had made plan produced of A. C. Gray’s property, on a scale of 10 chains to lin, and stated that the quantities above given had been taken for railway purposes. Amberley railway station by the road was 105 chains from Gray s house. There was a nearer way by crossing the land, viz, 90 chains. On the plan was marked approximately the various roads, fences, and streams of water. By Mr Thompson —Was on the ground last week. There was one stream which he noticed on the property. It was not a larg(s one.

T. W. Maude, deposed—The Minister of Public Works had consented to this case being heard by Resident Magistrate and assessors, under clause 4 of the Immigration and Works Act, 1874, by telegram from the under secretary (read). Mr Gray’s attorney had also, by writing under his hand, consented to the mutter being decided by this Court.

W. Buss, deposed —He knew Gray’s estate of 1700 acres at North Kowai. In company with W. ;Lawry, he had inspected the land with a view to making a valuation. He was informed that 9a Or 17p had been taken for railway purposes. They considered the railw.ay crossings, and valued the compensation for severance iu that respect at £3OO, and the land taken by the railway at £lO per acre. They formed an opinion of the enhancement of the value of the property on the railway being made. He valued the land near the line at £l4 per acre at the present time. There had been a rise in value of land generally in the district of £2 an acre, and he considered that the rail way had increased its value, in Gray’s case, to another £2. This applied to the land generally. By Mr Thompson—We made our estimate of the £3OO for the nuisance of driving stock. There were four crossings from the different paddocks. By the Court—We lumped the sum. Did not value the loss on each paddock.

By Mr Thompson—Our estimate for severance was arrived at on account oi inconvenience of these crossings. We did not take into consideration the inconvenience of working the paddocks, as they are large ones. Near the house they are about 70 or 100 acres each. The paddocks were not cut up into many small angles, They took into consideration the severance of the paddocks from water, but failed to find that severance. In each of the portions cut off there was water to be found.

By the Court—On the small triangular piece severed by the railway the supply of water could easily be obtained. He had known sheep drink there. By Mr Thompson—Had known the property for several years. Walter Lawry, farmer, Springston, deposed —He knew the property, and visited it in company with last witness. He considered it was an improvement in managing the farm to have a smaller paddock taken out of a larger one, but the severance he valued at £250. For the loss of the water he considered £SO ample compensation. The value of the land taken was £lO an acre. The laud since the railway had through it was enhanced to the extent of £2 an acre.

By Mr Thompson —Arrived at the estimate only in regard to stock. He corroborated the evidence of last witness in reference to the water supply upon the property. He had not been on the land before, and could not be certain that the supply was permanent, but it appeared to him that the supply would not fail. The supply came from springs and was not surfac* water. There was only a little water, but the river was low at the time. The water was clear and not stagnant. The line going through had enhanced the value of the rest of the property to the extent of £2 an acre. If there had been no railway made, the land taken would have been"worth £lO, considering the portions of the land selected. He would not not have valued the whole of Gray’s estate at £lO an acre if the railway had not gone there. From what he saw he should consider that £8 per acre all round would have been the value of the estate. The amount due for compensation, according to his estimates, was £391 Is 3d.

By the Court—l am a practical farmer, and speak from thorough knowledge. By Mr Duncan—Have been a farmer for several years. Alexander Carr deposed—He was a farmer. He knew the property. In summer time it was a difficult" matter to find water on it at certain seasons.

Mr Thompson called for the defendant the following witnesses. H. F. Gray deposed—He knew the property, having also held part of it. He estimated the amount to be due in respect of compensation to be £BSB 4s 7d. The amount reckoned by him to be due for severance in regard to 26 chains cut through the southern boundary to the river bank, thereby causing 110 chains of extra headland in ploughing, and reckoning ninety furrows to each chain, the ploughman would lose forty-four seconds of time at the turn, or one hour seven minutes 30 seconds to every chain, which, with the time lost in harrowing, sowing, and reaping added, would give a total of 185 hours lost in each year. This time of a skilled farm laborer, reckoned at Is 6d per hour would represent a total of 2775, and capitalised at 6 per cent gave an estimate of the loss from this cause of £230 16s Bd. In respect to the four crossings, and the severance of 800 acres, which rendered necessary extra driving of stock to the extent of 10s per week, equal to £26 a year, capitalised at 6 per cent amounted to £433 6s Bd. The quantity of land taken he had estimated at 9a 2r 31p, which he valued at £lO per acre, giving a total of £97 10s. Two of the paddocks by the severance he maintained would be left so that the stock could not get water. This might be supplied by wind pumps costing £l5O, or by another plan of bringing water from another part of the estate at a cost of £IOO. In this instance he considered compensation ought to be given to that amount. It would be difficult he said to show that the railway had in any way enhanced the property. Part of it cost £5 per acre, and the rest £4 10s some years ago. The fencing and improvemer ts, all of a substantial character, had cost £3 to £4 an acre. He instanced land near to it which had only sold at £6 and £7 an acre, and the price of land had increased all over the country in several districts where it was not at all affected by a railway. By the Court—lf the produce was sold to a merchant it went to Kaiapoi or Saltwater

Creek. There was no proof he maintained that there was any advantage in having a railway station within a mile ot the farm. From the facts before him he could rot say the land had been increased in value.

Cooke Reynell deposed he was manager for A, C. Gray. In two of the paddocks there was no water for stock except from water-holes, in which rain collected but became stagnant. Had known the neighborhood well for years, and judged from the way in which property was selling it had not been increased iu value. There would be great inconvenience in driving stock and cultivating the land by the severance of about 800 acres.

By Mr Duncan—lt was both an agricul tural and pastoral farm. The Amberley railway station was about, a mile from the homestead. They send wool to Kaiapoi by drays. He admitted that the land immediately round a railway station was enhanced in value. He could not say how much the land was increased in value.

By the Court—The triangular section severed has been cultivated. If the paddocks were cut at right angles it would haye been more advantage to us than having them cut diagonally, H. F. Gray recalled, said—There was a road across the paddock to the Amberley station, distance about 100 chains. Robert Wilkin, deposed—He was a valuer residing at Christchurch. He had inspected the land in question. He valued that taken at £l2 .10s an acre, viz, at £lO an acre, and £2 10s for compulsory taking of it. The damage for severance he computed in reference to water, crossing stock, and loss in cultivation of the headlands. The water, he considered, could be supplied by wind pump at £l3l, or by the means referred to by Mr Gray at a cost of about £IOO. The extra cost of men, and damage in regard to stock, £233 6s Bd. In regard to thecostoi cultivation, he estimated the loss at £126 0s lOd. With regard to one of the sections of one and _ three-quarters acres which was cut off, he' reckoned the damage done at £8 15s- His total of damage was £796 2s 7d. He considered the value of the property was enhanced by the convenience of a railway, although he considered the advantages of a railway were in instances over estimated. Br Mr Duncan—-The increased value of the land was hypothetical, yet he thought it might, in this instance, have been increased by 10s per acre. John Tucker Ford, valuer, Christchurch, confirmed the evidence of last witness. J.t would be idle to say the land had not increased in value, owing to a railway passing into it, but this estate was not of quite so much value as it was eighteen months ago. Mr Thompson addressed the Court. Mr Duncan pointed out that the Court, by virtue of the Act, must consider the enhanced value of the property. The Court retired forty-five minutes ; on resuming, The Resident Magistrate said that after putting the enhanced value of the estate against the land taken, and inconvenience caused by severance and cutting the paddocks into irregular shapes, the Court had found a verdict for Mr Gray, who was entitled to receive £ll4 Is 3d as full compensation. Mr Duncan claimed costs.

Mr Thompson objected, pointing out that he had rot understood the offer of £450 made by the Government was withdrawn. The Court decided that Mr Gray would have to pay costs. CROWN V TRUSTEES A. K. M’LEAN, VIZ, MESSRS HENNAH, WALTON, AND THIEL. In this instance the Court was asked to determine the value of two quarter-acre sections at Ashley township, taken for the Northern railway. W. Buss deposed the value of the laud in question was £2O. The Court decided that £2O should be paid by the Government as componsation. The Court rose at 2.20 p.m.