RAILWAY COMPENSATION COURT.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 401, 24 September 1875, Page 3

RAILWAY COMPENSATION COURT.

OXFORD. Wednesday, September 22

(Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M., and Messrs F. H. M. Walker, and J. Beswick, assessors.) CROWN V G. A. WHITE, In this case the Court had to assess and place a value on a portion of land taken at the East Oxford railway siding. Mr Duncan, as in all the other cases, appeared for the Crown. George Alfred White deposed he was owner of rural section 2071, through which the railway passed. He agreed to give the Government an acre of land to build a station on. He was willing to make over the portion taken on consideration of the Government returning the piece not taken. He would agree to a nominal sum of £1 for the portion fenced off. The award of the Court in this case was for £1 to be paid to Mr White. CROWN V HON C. C. BOWEN. In this case the Court was asked to determine the value of a quarter-acre, lot 27, part of rural section 2777, Ashley township. The summons was proved to have been served on Mr E. C. J. Stevens. W. Buss deposed he was a land valuator residing at Rangiora. He knew the lot 27 on which the Ashley goods sheds stood. The fair value of it was £l7 10s. A. Ivory deposed that he valued the section at £ls. The sum of £l7 10s was ample value for it. The Court awarded the value of £l7 10s to be paid as compensation. CROWN Y. JOS. PEARSON. The Court had to decide the value of 2a 3r 24p, land taken for railway purposes. The Crown made an offer of £lO per acre, which was refused. Mr J. R. Pearson appeared for J. Pearson. W. Buss deposed—He knew the land at Carleton station referred to belonging to J. Pearson. The railway station buildings and a siding were on the 2a 3r 24p. He valued the land adjoining at £6 an acre. The price taken being small, he valued it at £l2 an acre. The siding to a farm would enhance the value of the 180 acres belonging to Mr Pearson to the extent of 10s per acre, being a total of £9O. This would cover the value of the land, and no damage was done.

By J. R. Pearson—The frontage on the main road, if there was any, was of more value than another part of the land. In this case the frontage had been taken, but the value of the land was enhanced. There was formerly a gorse fence, but against the loss of the fence he placed the advantages of the station.

A. Ivory deposed—He knew the land in question, and had estimated that the railway had increased its value to the extent of 20s per acre, and the piece taken was worth £lO an acre.

By J. R. Pearson—The railway has increased the value of land on account of the convenience.

By the Court—The small portion of frontage taken would not injure the farm materially. There was a siding, which was a convenience. In the case of Messrs Lee, iStoke Grange, simihuly situated, they were anxious to get a siding. Everyone had to put up with the loss of frontage. 'lhey were anxious to get sidings, but wanted compensation in other ways. For the defence,

John Rhodes Pearson deposed—Before the railway came there was a good gorse fence along the section. This was now gone and the frontage taken. He was feeding sheep and stock on this land, and the noise with the din of passing trains would also prevent them feeding quietly and so well as they otherwise would have done. George Curie, an adjoining farmer, deposed he knew the Carleton railway station. When he was written to about his land adjoining for the railway he asked £.!5 per acre. Land on the other side of the road to the line had been sold at £3O an acre. He did not think the land was increased in value by the station being on it, it was rather decreased by the railway. The gorse fence on the fifty chains of frontage had been a good one for the protection of stock from the S, W.. but it could not now be kept there. The value of the laud taken was, in his opinion, £24. By Mr Duncan—The value of the land before the railway came was £2O an acre. The railway had increased the value for farming purposes, and it was now worth £25 an acre probably. James Quigley, an adjoining farmer, deposed he considered the value of the land taken for the railway station was from £24 to £26. The paddock of about 200 acres was depreciated in value, as Pearson kept stock, and in lambing, as the sheep made the portion near the line a camping ground, he would lose 10 per cent of his lambs, which would be frightened to death by passing trains. By Mr Duncan—The value of the land with the station and siding might have been increased to the extent of £2 an acre. By the Court—The farm would now sell for £9 an acre more over the whole since the railway has been made, less the loss of a gorse fence for about four years. The value of the laud was from £l2 to £ls an acre at present. Mr Duncan, on behalf of the Crown, said that notwithstanding the evidence given, showing in fact that the whole land had been enhanced in value to the extent of £IOOO, and according to another witness to £2 per acre, the Crown agent was still willing to pay the £lO an acre offered. He pointed out that no claim could be made by Mr Pearson for loss of frontage. The award of the Court was given for £29, without costs, the Resident Magistrate observing that the offer made by the Crown seemed to him a liberal one, and further that the evidence had shown Mr Pearson was not entitled to any compensation. CROWN V F. LEUES. In this instance the question for the Court to decide was the value of 2a lr lip, part of rural section 4983. T. W. Maude explained the nature of the case. He said the Government held a guarantee from several residents along the line to sell them a strip of a chain in width for the line at £lO per acre. [Guarantee produced.] In this case the Government had taken three chains in width, and offered £lO per acre for it. The offer of £lO per acre was made in Court to Leurs, who declined to accept it. W. Buss deposed that the value of the section and land taken, including the severance, was £25 an acre. This valuation was arrived at from prices obtained for sections in the immediate vicinity. This land had only slightly been enhanced in value by the line coming to it. R. H. Parish, storekeeper, Oxford, deposed that £25 per acre was the fair value of the extra quantity of laud taken. The Court decided that £25 per acre should be paid for the extra quantity of land taken outside the width of one chain. CROWN V. H. SEDCOLE. This was a similar case to the foregoing, the railway having taken la lr 3p, part of rural section 2071. W, Buss and R. H. Parish estimated the value of the extra land taken outside the width of one chain agreed to be sold at £lO per acre at £SO per acre. '1 he Government agent made an offer of this sum. H. Sedcole accepted the same.

The Court made an award accordingly, that beyond the width of one chain taken the sum of £SO an acre be paid.

CROWN V PUBLIC TRUSTEE FOR T. W, REEVES.

In this case, Mr Duncan explained that 12a 2r 8p had been taken for railway purposes out of rural section 201, which was at present occupied by several owners, but who had no title, among whom were G. VV. H. Lee, D. Fisher, and P, Briggs.

Proof of the service of the summons on 11. H. dc Bourbel, agent for the public trustee, was giveu. W. Buss deposed he valued the laud taken, viz, 7a 3r 32p, on which the West Oxford station buildings were erected, at £2O an acre, and the other position, the actual line, at the price named in the guarantee, viz, £lO per acre. The enhanced value of the 200 acres in rural section 201 was £5 per acre.

By D. Fisher—Valued the section for 10 chains back, considered the value of the whole had been increased. The back section was as much improved as the other portion. Thomas Woodfield, storekeeper, Oxford, gave similar evidence. The section had been enhanced fully £5 or £G an acre.

By D. Fisher —Had sold sections behind this, belonging to Rhodes and Wilkin, at £5. £6, and £7. The railway station site was worth £6O or £7O an acre. I could buy it for less than £2OO an acre.

D. Fisher, when asked if he had anything to say, said he did not object to the price offered, viz, £lO an acre. Mr Duncan said the Crown was willing to pay that amount to the lawful owner or owners of the laud, as an act of grace, although it was apparent the adjacent land was improved in value. The Court made its award, that £lO an acre would be paid to whoever was entitled to receive the same.