DAMAGES CLAIMED

Hutt News, Volume 2, Issue 45, 17 April 1930, Page 12

DAMAGES CLAIMED

GOLF AND TROTTING CLUBS

SETTLEMENT REACHED

Settlement by agreement was brought about in the case in which the Waiwetu Golf Club proceeded against the Wellington Trotting Club in.the Supreme Court last week for damages. on the ground that the alterations made to the Hutt Park trotting^course had resulted- in financial loss- to the former club and prevented full use of'the golf course.

Mr Justice Blair was on the bench. »Mr J. 6. Hanna, with •him Mr J. D. appeared,for the plaintiff and Mr ! JD...M. Findlay, w|th him Mr W. Perry for the defendant. . .

The statement of claim set out that :Jbetween March 1929, and the present time the trotting club" had ploughed up large areas of that portion of the Hutt ;Park reserve leased to the golf club, and placed a trotting track over a large part of it, and excavated other areas; and by these operations and the removal of spoil

had interfered with the golf club's enjoyment of the lease. Since March 1929, it was claimed, the plaintiff had lost the use of a large area of its com-se, and had •lost a considerable sum of money owing to members resigning and others not using the course. Even after reinstatement had been carried out the course, it" was maintained, would not be .in' a satisfactory condition until November, 1932. It had been agreed between the parties that the defendant should be allowed xto : carry out alterations to the trotting course on condition that the alterations were completed by the enu of June, 1929> that the golf club" would be provided with temporary greens ami fairways, and that the course would be restored to its original condition on completion of % the work. The defendant continued the work until October 1929 and then did not Te--1 store the original condition. The plaintiff claimed damages totally £500 made up as follows: Loss of parts and interference with other parts of the golf course since March, 1929, until reinstatement in April, 1930, £100; estimated "cost of .reinstatement of golf courße in April, 1930, £350; interference with use of golf course after reinstatement until November, 1932, £50. !' -.

The defence was a denial that the trotting club hftd interfered in any way with the golf club's use or enjoyment of the land. In making the alterations the defandant had acted under powers delegated to it by the Hutt Park Committee. The defendant had repeatedly offered to comply with the plaintiff's. requirements, and had placed all its resources at the

latter's disposal to enable the course to be properly used. Before the, issue of the writ, it was maintained^, the defendant had offered to reinstate or-replace any greens or fairways, but the plaintiff had refused to accept the offer, and had fail-. Ed Xo state its requirements definitely. If any agreement was made between the parties, the defendant had complied with it. As a further defence the defendant alleged tliat the plaintiff had failed to obtain the approval of the Hutt1 Park Committee to the proposed new lay-out of the golf course ,and it was impossible for the defendant to provide any permanent greens or fairways until such approval was given.

The court adjourned to enable the parties to consider. Ms : Honour's suggestion that an agreement might be reached regarding the defendant's offer to reinstate the golf eouwe, leaving the court to determine any "question of damages for interference.

The case was voltled, th & c l * f endant agreeing- to carry out the wD"k and pay the .plaintiff £75 in full, settlement of

its ielaim in respect to interference.