COMPENSATION COURT

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 507, 20 February 1920, Page 2

COMPENSATION COURT

GOODWIN V. BOROUGH COUNCIL.

A sitting of the Compensation Court was held at the local Courthouse on Wednesday, the president, j Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., presiding, i when Mr. Daniel Goodwin, of Station Road, Pukekohe, claimed from the Mayor, councillors, and burgesses of the Borough of Pukekohe £135 as compensation for loss arising out of the construction of a drain through the claimant's property. The claim was laid under the Municipal Corporations Act, and the Public Works Act, 1908, and its amendments. The statement of claim was as follows:--(1) Entering on the lands with workmen and tramping the soil, £5 (2) disturbing the claimant in the quiet and peaceable possession of the premises, £5; ('.I) digging and excavating, £10; (4) constructing drain, £10; (5) cutting and destruction of separate system of field drainage constructed by the claimant, £2O (6) filling in of old drain, thereby blocking surface drainage, £5; (7) polluting of water for watering stock, £3O; (8) actually appropriating a large portion of the premises by the construction of the drain, £2O; (9) depriving the claimant of his rights to the unrestricted use and enjoyment of the premises, £10; (10) subjecting the premises to a perpetual right of entry by the borough for the purpose of inspecting the drain and reI pairing it from time to time, £2O. Total, £135. The nature of the work was digging and constructing an open drain from the north-eastern corner of the claimant's land, through the centre thereof, and down to the culvert under the railway road. Claimant contended that his lands had been injuriously affected by the borough drainage works. M. Percy H. Basley appeared for claimant, and Mr. W. P. Endean for respondents. The whole of the morning's sitting was occupied hearing legal argument on the subject. During the luncheon adjournment, the Court inspected the site.

Upon resuming after the luncheon adjournment, claimant gave evidence of his endeavours to come to an amicable arrangement between himself and the Borough Council, and produced voluminous correspondence between the parties, finally the council accepting no responsibility in the matter at all.

(The whole matter has been fully reported in the "Times" from time to time, and readers are cognisant with the facts of the case.)

The president said the claim could not be made under the Public Works Act unless land was taken for a specific purpose. In this case he found that the corporation had not taken the land, but had used the land for the purpose of constructing a drain. The court was for the purpose of assessing the value of the land taken and damage. There had been no land taken, and he found, as it had not been shown that the council had t.-iken any land for a public work under the Public Works Act, the claimant is entitled to no compensation under the Act. He thought an injunction could be obtained, and the matter decided under common law. He allowed the defendants K5 5s costs, and witnesses expenses W. Mr. Basley intimated that this action was only a preliminary step, and that now an action for damages would be instituted against the Borough Council.