COMPENSATION COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2225, 14 April 1881, Page 3

COMPENSATION COURT.

Thttbsday, Apbil 14. TBeforohis Honor Mr Justice Johnston and Messrs James Henderson and J. T. Ford, assessors.] The Court opened at 10 30 a.m. COUHAQE V MINIBTBB OF PUBLIC WOBKB. This case, which was partly heard at a former sitting, stood over for his Honor's ruling on a point of law raised by Mr Joynt. Hia Honor now said that it had been arranged to postpone the case to enable the Court to express an opinion as to the points of law raised, which were as to the construction of the Public Works Act and the Act of 1830. These had been raised by Mr Joynt for the defendant, and dealt with the time at which, and within which, the claim should be made, and as to the oammencement of the six months within which, under the Act, any claim for compensation was to bo made. The question which was one of considerable nicety, had been carefully considered by the Court, and they were now prepared to give a decision upon the points of law, and also to give their finding as to the award which should be made. The Court was unanimously of opinion—and in thia they were justified by the decision of Mr Justice Gillies —that the period commenced, ijot from the commencement of the work by which the alleged damage was done, but from its full completion. It was necessary to observe that clause 72 of the Public Works Act, 1876, provided for a period when all claims should be set at rest, viz., five years from the proclamation of the taking of the land for a railway. In respect to damage done, which was the case now before the Court, the Act limited the period of claim to six months after the completion of the work by which the damage arose. The Court were unanimously of opinion that this must be so, and they were further supported by the case of the Wellington waterworks. Having thus established the fact that the olaiin must be made six months from completion of the work from which the damage arose, it then became necessary to Bee if this was complied with in the case before them. The claim, as was proved, had been made long before the completion of the work, but it was also shown that the damage had occurrrod some time prior to the completion also. They had, then, to see whether the right to compensation having accrued by something done in the process of the work, was divested by the Act of 1880. [Clause read.] The section said that no person or Lody should bo entitled to compensation after Ist September, 1880, but the Court was of opinion th»t it did not deprive the claimant of his right to compensation accruing, as it did, prior to the passing of the Act. Therefore the decision of tho Court, on the point of law raised by Mr Joynt, was antagonistic to him and in favor of the claimant. As regarded the award, it was left to the assessors to advise the Court as to the value of the land, they being conversant with the locality, and the Court had arrived at a decision which they thought was fair. The award was that the Government should make out of the land of the claimant a threequarter of a chain road properly made and metalled, and that the Government should remove or pay for the removal of the claimant's fence to the other side of the road, and that for the land thus taken the Government should pay the claimant at the rate of £5 per acre. Mr Joynt asked his Honor to fix a price on the land in case the Government did not make the road. His Honor said that thia was a matter for arrangement. Mr Joynt said he would take award as made by the Court. His Honor said, of course, if this were not carried out a mandamus could be applied for. The Court then rose.