KARAKA.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 5, Issue 218, 17 October 1916, Page 3

KARAKA.

A COMPENSATION CLAIM. BOAD BOARD RESPONDENTS. A sitting of a Compensation Court was held at Papakura on Tuesday last. The Court was presided over by Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M., who had been deputed by Mr Justice Cooper to act in place of a Judge of the

Supreme Court. Associated with him as assessors were Messrs J. G. Rutherford and Mr G. L. Peacocke. The claimant, Edgar Spieis, land agent, of Hamilton, and late of Pukekohe, was represented by Mr E. J. Prendergast, while Mr C F. Buddie appeared for the respondent (the Earaka Boad Board). The claim was for £504 15s, of which £242 5s was in respect of 2 acres 1 rood 27.6 perches of land taken by the respondent Board for a road approach from Beach road to the new Earaka bridge. A further sum of £232 10s was claimed for injury to the remaining land through severance, and the remaining £3O was claimed for loss of shelter owing to certain trees having been cut down by the Board. Mr Prendergast said that Mi Spiers had purchased, in 1913, an area of ten acres of land at the point where the bridge now crossed the creek. It was admirably situated for a home site, and possessed a splendid water frontage, while a fringe of pine and wattle trees afforded shelter from the prevailing winds. In 1914 the Board had taken a road through the centre of the property, and had cut down a number of shelter trees. The blocks of land left to the claimant on either side of the new road were too small for farming purposes, and the value of the holding had been to a great extent destroyed. Evidence would be adduced to support the claimant's estimate of his loss, and counsel urged that as the road and bridge were admittedly of great public benefit to the district, the Court should award liberal compensation to an individual who had suffered that others might profit. After Mr Prendergast had concluded his address, the members of the Court drove to the property, which is situated at the end of Beach road, three miles from Papakura, and inspected the new road. On returning to Papakura, it was decided to postpone the taking of evidence till the next day (Wednesday), at the Magistrate's Courthouse at Auckland. When the Court resumed in Auckland on Wednesday, the first witness called was Mr Robert Morton Gillespie, land agent, of Papakura, who valued the property in question at £IOOO before the road was put through. He considered that the vale of the remaining land had been reduced quite 30 per cent. A living could have been made off the ten acres, but not off blocks of 3| acres each. The property as it had originally stood was an ideal home site. It was a natural beauty spot, and could be reached by launch at any stage of the tide. There was good fishing and bathing to be had. The road had taken away the best building site on the block, and the loss of shelter through a number of trees having been cut down had depreciated the value of the southern half of the land. Witness quoted a number of recent land sales in the neighbourhood, to show that his estimate of value was reliable. In his opinion the existence of the road and bridge was of no benefit to Mr Spiers' land, but was a positive detriment to it.—ln cross-examina-tion, Mr Gillespie stated that the the Karaka lands across the bridge had derived considerable benefit from the new works, but the land was of considerably less value than that on the Papakura side. He did not think it would pay to cut up the block into acre sections, owing to its distance from the railway line. Mr Llewellyn Mills, land agent, of Papakura, gave similar evidence. He had known the land for over 25 years. He considered that its sentimental value had been quite destroyed by the road. Mr William Duncan, of Auckland, stated that he was formerly Chief Government Valuer, and had been for the past 26 years in business at Auckland. He had known the land for many years, and considered it was worth £lOl per acre before the severance. The remaining land was now worth £66 per acre at most. It was not so much a sentimental value, but a special value that had been lost. The original block had had a distinct commercial value as a beauty spot that would make an ideal home site.

The claimant, Mr Edgar Spiers, stated that he had bought the land in September, 1913, from Mrs Earl, for £s9l', of which £l5O had been paid off. He had not built on it, but realised its value as a home site. He had had an offer of £1250 for it, but the sale fell through. He was now prepared to sell the two remaining lots for £3OO each. He considered that his claim for £504 was under rather than over the mark. He admitted that if his full claim were granted by the Court he would have the ownorship of the balance of the land, acres, at a cost of only £9O. This concluded the claimant's case. For the defence Mr Buddie called Mr Edward Morgon, for the past ten years district valuer at Auckland, who stated that he had known the land for about 15 years. He valued it at £425 before the taking of the road. He considered the land actually taken to be worth £4O per acre. There was, in his opinion, no loss duo to severance, as the remaining 7 A awes would be readily saleable and had participated in the general rise of values in the district. He considered the remaining land to

had been cut down at the point, but their value for shelter purposes was negligible, owing to the slope of the land. The values quoted by the claimant's witnesses, in referring to the sales, had to be viewed with some care as they were in some cases exchange values, which were often as much as 100 per cent above the cash values. Similar evidence was given by Messrs Bobert Charles Norman, owner of the adjoining property, Ewen Donald McLennan, farmer, of Papakura, and John Edward Makgill, of Epsom, all of whom considered that the land had not suffered by severante, but had rather benefitted, in that it had now an increased road frontage and could with advantage be cut up into small sections. The two lots of 3| acres each could be worked as one property, notwithstanding the existence of the road. Mr Joseph Batty, chairman of the Karaka Road Board, gave formal evidence as to the steps taken, and as to an offer of settlement made by his Board. This concluded the evidence and the Court adjourned till last Friday afternoon.

. counsel's addresses. On the Court resuming on Friday, Mr Buddie, for the Road Board, briefly traversed the evidence and cited decisions to show that the claimant was not entitled on the basis of a sentimental value. He was entitled to a fair commercial value, though that might be assessed on a liberal scale, to distinguish between the position of a willing vendor and that of a man whose land had been compulsorily taken. Mr Spiers had spent nothing on the property and had had it in the market ever since he had purchased it. Counsel submitted that the property had not been bought as an ideal home-site, but only as a speculation. Claimant had increased his original claim from £367 to £504. Counsel suggested that the existence of the road and the bridge had appreciated the value of the remaining land and that the loss of value by reason of severance was non-existent. Mr Prendergrast, on behalf of the claimant, said that the property was never intended for cutting up. It was a beauty spot and an ideal home Bite and from those sources it derived its commercial value. Mr Spiers had paid £6O per acre for it and the fact of an experienced land agent being willing to pay that price for it was an indication that the property was of considerable value. Counsel referred in detail to the selling prices of land in the vicinity, with the view of showing that the value of claimant's property, before the road site was taken, was in the neighbourhood of £IOO per acre. There was a distinct loss of value by the severance of the land. When claimant bought the land he had no knowledge of the road proposal. As soon as the matter came to his knowledge he endeavoured to sell the property, thus indicating that he considered its value had largely been lost. The Government valuer, Mr Morgan, had obviously under-estimated the original value when he mentioned £42 per acre. The existence of a main road through the property could not inflate the value of a home-site with a water frontage. The class of person who would buy euch a place would prefer the privacy of the original situation at the end of a quiet by-road. It was quite improper to value Mr Spiers' property on a farming basis, for to do so was to ignore its special advantages of position,

THE AWARD, The Court then adjourned to consider its finding,, and after deliberating for an hour announced that it had decided to award a sum of £215. The assessors' fees were fixed at £ls 15s. No order was made as to costs.