COMPENSATION COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2322, 13 September 1881, Page 3

COMPENSATION COURT.

Tuesday, Sbptbmbeb 13. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston and Messrs. O. N. Bell and H. Mollwraith, assessors J The Court opened at 11 a.m. CLAIM OP BOBEBT "WILKIN V. MINISTBB POB PUBLIC WOBKS. In this case, which has been before the Court for some time, Robert Wilkin claimed to reoover from the Government compensation on account of damage to certain land belonging to him through the erection of the Ashburton railway bridge. Evidence on both sides had been taken, and the case now came before the Court f r ;r counsel to address on it. Mr George Harper for the plaintiff. Mr Joynt for the defendant. It was agreed that the printed evidence Bhould be taken no read. Mr Joynt opened his comments on the evidence, and submitted that on the evidence it had not been proved that the claimant had sustained injury by the worts carried out by the Government on tbe north side of the Ashburton. Secondly, that claimant had not showed that oven supposing any injury had beou done to his land, he had sustained any pecuniary injury. These would be the two main points of his argument in commenting on the evidence laid before the Court. He also submitted that the Court was sitting under the provisions of the Aot of 1876 as regarded the enquiry only, but that the rights of parties must be decided by the provisions of tbe Aot under whioh the cause had been brought. His Honor asked Mr Harper whether he was prepared to dispute this. Mr Harper said he jdid not dispute his learned friend's right to bring in the section of the Aot of 1871, but he should contend at tho proper time that injuriously affecting land was quite a different thing to taking land compulsorily. Mr Joynt theti proceeded to call the attention of the Court to section 38 of the Immigration and Public Works Act of 1881; and went on to comment on the evidence, submitting that the claimant's case as brought out was incomplete; and, further, the respondents had a right to Bay this, even supposing a part of the property had been swept away by the works, yet tho value of the remainder of the land had been greatly enhanced by the works, and they had a right to set this off as against any damage done to the other part. He would now call the attention of the Court to the points raised by tho evidence, and Bubmit that the preponderance of evidence showed the washing away of tho land to have been duo to natural causes, apart from the construction of the works, and also that tho enhanced value of the land would counterbalance any damage which it might be oontended had been sustained by the claimant. The case was proceeding when we went to press.