Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

COMPENSATION COURT.

Friday. Febbuaby 14. (Before his Honor Mr J\istice Williams and Messrs J F. WoocThouse and T Chalmei, assessors ) JOLLY AND POLLOCK V. DVNEDIN CITY CORPORATION.

Claim £400, for loss sustained by depnvation of water.

Mx S. Solomon, K.C., with Mr Stephens. appeared for the claimants. Maria Jolly, of Dunedin, wife of William Gerard Jolly, of Dunedm, insurance agent, and Katherme Pollock, of Nelson, wife of John Pollock, of Nelson, surveyor; Mr W. C. MacGregor for the lespondents. the Coiporatici. Mayor, Councillors, and Citizens of the City of Di'nedui

The statement of claim s^t cut that the taking and diversion of tbe waters of Ferguson's Creek, Burns Creek, and Williams Creek, and vhe construction of the Dunedm waterworks extension works would injuriously affect certain land in which the claimants had an interest, as the land could not be used to the same advantage because cf the loss of the water taken al-d diveited by the execution of the extension works and of power derivable therefrom. Tbe land affected was part of section 42. block I. JCoirh Harbour and Blueskin district, containing 119 acres 2 roods 8 poles.

Mr Stephens, in opening the case for the claimants, said the claim was one for loss sustained by the wateTs of certain streams lieiii" taken and consequent deprivation for the loss of the water itself and the power derivable therefrom No land had been taken. It was simply a claim for loss of water only. On testing the creeks last year Mr Beal. C E.. found the number of heads in the Waitati Stream (including Ferguson's Creek) to be 263 heads, in Burns Creek 0.63 of a head, and in Williams Creek 082 of a head The three added together gave a total of 1 13 heads, which was the number of heads in the streams before the wa.ter was touched by the corporation. There was an available fa'l of 28ft net, so tihat the power producible before the water was taken was 111 theoretical hcrse-power. His Honor: Was it ever vised 9

Mr Stephens said it was not. Continuing, he said that 12J theoretical 'horse-power was equal to 10 biake horse-power. The property was situated about a mile from Waitati, with an easy giade to that township. The evidence that would be adduced on behalf of the c'aiman'ts would 9how that 10 horse-power in this position was valuable for various reasons, and that the minimum revenue which the claimants might expect from this power, if used, would be 12s per week, or £30 per annum, or a capital value of £600. Witnesses would also say tha-t taking away 4i hoise-power would so reduce the commercial value of Jolly's property as to piactically destroy it It would be shown that the claim wa^not exßggeiated but was exceedingly modest under the encumstances.

Evidence w-as given by expeits as to the quantity of water, etc.

Mr MacGregor, in opening the case for the respondents, said the pimciples v. Inch must guide the court at arriving at the damage recoverable were not the somewhat fanciful principles which had be-en hinted at a.% to what might or might not occur in the dis- i tant future «s to the use of the water. The court, he submitted, must first say that before the water was taken away from the land the propeity was worth a certain amount of money. Then the court must cay by what amount the property had bean depreciated by the taking away of the water. The second of these two amounts was the compensation which the claimants were entitled to recover. Really no assistance had been given to the court on those lines at all. The respondents jvould show the value exf the laud before- the

water was taken away, and, in the next place, whether any depreciation had been caused to tho land by removing a percentage of tho water from it. It might be taken that Mr Bead's figures were substantially accurate, and that the water power naturally followed as substantially correct — namely, that fourtenths cf the power had been removed. By accepting these figures the court would be relieved of a considerable body of evidence. Expert valuers would be called to say that the capital value pf this propeity in November. 1901, was assessed at £950; in 1906, when a valuation was made for a special purpose, at £1010; and in January last at £1100. The significant point of these valuations was that the highest valuation was made after the water had been taken away, so that the propery had actually increased in value. Mr Craig made two of the valuations, and the third was made by Mr John Wright, who was not availab'e as a witness in the case. It would be shown that the absence of the stream wou'd l.ot make a tittle of difference to the value of the land. The f*ult of the land was that it had tco much water. A large amount of valuable lard was cut up and used by the beds of the creek, so that from an agricultural or pastoral point of view the presence of the Waitati Stream, which came right through the middla of the property, was rather an er.cumbj.ance than a benefit. Ther-e was ample water in the side creeks to supply cattle and other needs without the- Waita-ti Creek. Practical farmers whom he would call would say that the piesence of the Wpitati Stream added nothing to the value of the land, and that the taking away of the whole stream would not depreciate the land.

It was agreed, at Mr MacGre^or's request, to contimte the case next Wednesday, so that in the interval some of the respondents' witnesses might . visu-t the land.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OW19080219.2.211

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Otago Witness, Issue 2814, 19 February 1908, Page 53

Word count
Tapeke kupu
957

COMPENSATION COURT. Otago Witness, Issue 2814, 19 February 1908, Page 53

COMPENSATION COURT. Otago Witness, Issue 2814, 19 February 1908, Page 53

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert