COMPENSATION CLAIM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26630, 28 November 1947, Page 9

COMPENSATION CLAIM

NORTH OTAGO ESTATE ACQUISITION BY CROWN CASE BEFORE COMMITTEE A claim for £20,188 compensation arising from the Government’s acquisition cf the Mount Fortune Estate, North Otago, for the purpose of the settlement of returned servicemen, came before yesterday’s sitting of the Otago Land Sales Committee—Messrs C. B. Barrowclough, D. J. Ross, and E Sincock. The property is a part of the original Moeraki Estate, and is situated north of the homestead block, the northern boundary being the Waianakarua River. The total area of the property is 1476 acres- freehold and 59 acres leasehold.

The application was made by the Mount Fortune Pastoral Company, for whom Mr A. N. Haggitt appeared, and was opposed by the Crown, which was represented by Mr J. R. Hampton.

Rival Budgets . For the company, a budget supporting the claim was submitted by Charles Leslie Orbell, farmer, Timaru. The property, he explained, was divided into eight paddocks, and provided splendid grazing for sheep and for fattening lambs. It would grow good crops of rape, turnips, and oats, and also, occasionally, wheat. Witness was not .prepared to say how the property should be subdivided, as this could only be obtained after experience of working the property.

Evidence for the company was also given by Francis * Gordon Brown, farmer, Waimate; William Herbert Naylor, builder; Robert Henry Henderson, chief accountant for the National Mortgage and Agency Company of New Zealand, Ltd.; and , Hugh Armstrong Finch, farmer. For the Crown, a budget supporting a basic value of £13,420 was submitted by James Murray Macdonald, district field inspector, Land and Survey Department.

To Mr Haggitt. witness said that when he compiled his budget he had not allowed for the 59 acres of educational reserve, and an adjustment would have to be made for that. The paddocks were too large, and if they were further divided the efficiency of the property would be increased. New fencing would cost £655. Evidence in support of the Crown’s budget was given by Reginal Cowie. district farm appraiser, State Advances Department, and an independent valuation was submitted by Gerald Charles Ronga Green, State Advances Department. , Question of Management At the outset of his submissions, Mr Hampton expressed his appreciation of the fair manner in which Mr Haggitt and his valuers had conducted the case. He said that he would ask the committee to confine the chief point at issue to the question of management. He thought it would be useless to take the other matters any further as one of the witnesses for the applicant, Mr Orbell, frankly admitted that two valuers could use different methods and yet arrive at the same valuation. The question of management had been dealt with thoroughly during the. hearing of the Moeraki Estate claim, when it was stressed that the amount claimed for management should be in proportion to the number of sheep carried. That was the basis accepted by the Land Sales Court in its Moa Flat judgment.

Mr Hampton considered that the method adopted by the applicant company in assessing tlje deficiency iii improvements . was wrong, and that the committee would have to accept the Crown’s method. Dealing with the fencing, Mr Hampton said that the Crown contended that the property would be subdivided and that there was a deficiency in fencing as well as buildings. It was proposed that there should be a ~ cottage for a married couple in addition to the dwelling for the owner, and that some outbuildings were required.

Mr Haggitt said it had been admitted by the Crown that the 59 acres of leasehold which went with the property had been omitted. Mr Hampton; We have not budgeted for it. Mr Haggitt: It will have to be taken into account when considering the carrying capacity. Counsel considered it would be ridiculous even to consider the idea of fencing off the two leasehold reserves, as the land in question always went with the property. He submitted that if it was right that depreciation should be allowed for an hypothetical dwelling, then it was necessary to allow depreciation on fenciflg.

“Buildings Adequate”

All the experlS who had given evidence in support of the application, Mr Haggitt continued, claimed that the buildings on the property were adequate. There was a certain amount of work to be done that would require the services of a man, but he contended that a single man and not a married couple would be adequate to meet the needs. He certainly thought that returned servicemen should receive all possible amenities, but the committee should give credence to the witnesses who claimed that the present buildings were sufficient. In conclusion, Mr Haggitt referred to the fact that the Crown had offered by way of compensation a figure that was £llO less than the Government valuation, but there was no court in the Dominion that would give such a low figure as that. The committee reserved its decision.