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
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
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
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
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
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
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

AN UNUSUAL CASE.

ACCESS TO A RIGHT-OF-WAY. CLAIM AGAINST COUNTY F&R LAND TAKEN. JUDGMENT FOE E EDUCED ' AMOUNT. ' What had,the appearance of being the final act in a long process of negotiations concerning the means of access to property near Manakau, until lately in the possession of Mr Robert Bevan, took place before an Assessment Court in Levin on Thursday, when Mrs Alice Tatum, owner of the propeity -in front of Mr Bevan’s, made a claim against the iiorowhenua County Council in respect of land taken by that body to give access from the Main Highway to the right-of-way leading to Mr Bevan's land, lying on the western side of the railway line just to the south of Manakau. From evidence tendered, it appeared that from 1917 to 1924, representatives of the Council made endeavours to settle the question of access as between the holders of the. two properties, and in the latter year the necessary land to give legal access from the Highway to the right-of-way was taken by the Council and proclaimed a public road. The width cf the piece taken was as stipulated by statute, one chain, but the right-of-way into which it. led was one of 12ft only. During the hearing, reference was made to a Supreme Court action heard in Wellington in July, 1927. In that case Robert Bevan proceeded against Mrs Tatum, alleging that when she purchased certain land from the Native owners, a portion of it was right-of-way, but she prevented him from crossing the property. Therefore he' claimed a declaration that the certificate of title was subject to the right-of-way-and that lie/was entitled to have the transfer register corrected. He also asked for an injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing his use of the righf-of-way. Mr Justice Herdman decided that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that the right-of-way shown on his title existed over the land purchased by Mrs Tatum, and to an order directing her title .to be rectified accordingly.

The claim before, the Assessment Court by Mrs Tatum wan for £IOO as the value of the land taken, £77 14s for imprpvements, and £2O for depreciation of the remaining land- The land taken comprised 1 rood 1.5 perches, situate on the Main Highway, and in Block VII., Waitohu Survey District, being part of Manawatu-Kukutauaki No. 4E, Section 48. Oh the Bench were Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., Mr G. Tully (assessor for Mrs Tatum) and Mr N. Mackie (assessor for the County Council). Mr E. P. Hay, of Wellington, appeared for the claimant, and Mr L. M. Abraham for the respondent Council. CLAIM REDUCED.

. Mr Hay applied for leave to amend the claim by reducing it by £SO in respect of the value of the land. The claimant believed that the land was worth £l5O, but a certain amount of sentiment had entered into that value.

The claim was amended accordingly. Mr Hay then said that this was an ordinary claim for compensation unde: the Public Works Act, in respect et land taken for a public work—namely, a public road—but the circumstances were somewhat peculiar. His Worship: It seems to have been wasting the time of the country. Mr Hay: If we could have settled it, we would have done so, but we wen. 100 far apart. His Worship said he thought tha. the simplest plan would have been to give the Council the continuation ot the right-of-way, with a width of 12ft .0 the road.

Mr Ilay: There is a histoiy abou; hat, and the circumstances are spee.al. Has Worship: Two people get at .oggerheads, if you call that special .1 ; s rather a pity if it was not done; t would save time.

Mr Hay: The whole question was whether the right-of-way existed in the iirst place, and whether it should ho granted. Mis Worship 1 The Supreme Court, 1 presume, held that, it existed up to tha front acre.

ilr Hay: That is so. The portion of the right-of-way immediaitefy behind this quarter-acre that was taken is vested in the claimant —the freehold is--and it was held that an old right-of-way did exist over that, although it had not been used for a number of vears.

liis Worship: 1 suppose the mistake was in selling this front piece to .your client without reserving the right-of way. Mr Hay: That is so. The claimant rested for years in the belief that she had a land transfer title. SUGGESTION EKO.U THE BENCH. His Worship: The Supreme Court found there was a right-of-way up to the front section? Mr Ilay: Yes; that was the result. His Worship: They ought to have been able to agree to set. aside the right-of-way right into- a road. Is there anything to prevent it being settled now —to continue the right-of-way through and hand the land back? You have a

chain there that is unnecessary, and no use to anyone. It is no use to the County, unless they extend the road right through. ? Mr Hay: No; it is an eyesore to Mrs Tatum.

His Worship: Not an eyesore if they fence the right-of-way. \ Mr Abraham: That, offer was made by the Council to Major Tatum, to endeavour to avoid closing the road. His Worship: They could close the road and give the piece back. ■ Mr Hay: If Mrs Tatum could get the whole of the piece back, she would be only too pleased, and Major Tatum ' would give his cheque to-day for £ooo for what has been taken. He had an opportunity of . acquiring a' freehold ' strip for access some years ago. Bevan, who was the landowner then, was particularly concerned in the taking ol the land. . liis Worship: The back land is not owned now by Bevan. Had it been owned by a third party then, the ter would probably have been settled. Mr Hay: The freehold of the strip was offered to Bevan at £l5O running from the main road back to his sec-

tion. . „ His Worship: Fifteen pounds a loot,. Mr Abraham said that BevaV had proved in the Supreme Court that .he had a right-of-way. . Ills Worship said’ho took it that the Council did not want anything more than the 12ft. right-of-way. I* the land went back to Mrs Tatum, there was no eyesore about it; it was just

Mr Hay; If, at various times, it is used as a dumping' ground for County purposes, it is an eyesore. At present there are stumps and logs on it; they ; 1 were from trees that existed in the back portion of the right-of-way and were cut down by Mr Bevan or the Council and dumped in a convenient A PROPOSAL FOR A SETTLEMENT It was intimated by Mr Hay . that, if the Court would allow him, he would make a proposal forthwith to the Council —namely, that they be content wit a a 12ft. strip, that they restore the balance of the land taken, and that .they pay to the plaintiff, say, £SO. _ This would involve lestoring the fencing as well. There were also on the disputed piece of land 72 trees; the planting of them had been part of a general scheme ox tree,-plantiug. The land was taken in 1924, and the trees were at that time seven years old. LITIGATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. Mr Abraham stated that Mr Tatum . was notified of the Council’s intention in 1921. He (cousnsel) would- have to > ’ confer with the other side on the proposal made by Mr Hay. He would not, agree to paying £SO for 12 feet. He would also stipulate that the costs of restoring this land to Mrs Tatum should be borne by the claimant, and that she should also bear the cost of the fencing. The same suggestion was made to Major Tatum by Mr Monk (County Chairman) in 1922. All this litigation could have been saved. Mr Hay Slid that the suggestion that ' the costs of restoration should be borne by the claimant was denied. Otherwise he thought that the proposal was an excellent one. He also suggested that

the value of the 12ft. strip should be left entirely to the discretion of the Court. His Worship: You cannot assess 12 feet on an acreage basis very well. Mr Hay. All the trees were on this 12ft. strip. His Worship: If they were put there purposely, you cannot claim. Mr Hay: That is not the case. There . were iextdnsive plantations in okher corners of the paddocks. There were other places similarly planted. His Worship: Well, they are not there now. NEW OCCUPIER OF THE BEVAN PROPERTY. Mr Abraham said he would have to consult Mr Horn, who had purchased the back property on Mr Bevan’s undertaking that he would provide a right-of-way. Counsel presumed that Mr Horn would be satisfied with a 12ft. right-of-way. Mr Hay: We are prepared to meet the matter fairly. I am quite content to allow what is to be paid for the 12 feet to be settled by the Court. I do not want to have the hearing adjourned. I have three or four witnesses. Mr Abraham stated that he had one ' witness —the County Chairman. He was not calling any witnesses as to value. llis Worship: Wo had better hear the evidence in any case; and if the parties ask us to assess the value of the ■whole piece or of this strip, we can do so.

EVIDENCE OF CLAIMANT’S HUS BAND.

Major Charles T. Tatum, in giving evidence, stated that his wife was the owner of Section 48. When the 'land for a public road was taken in 1924, it was fenced on the public road frontage; it had a chain frontage. For twelve feet along, corresponding with

what was now the right-of-way, lie put up a fence and planted trees While the dispute was on, in order to keep traffic to the disputed ground he erected additional fences. The fence on the main road was taken down, also tlie fence along the strip of land taken, and some macrocarpa was substituted, which would not hold stock. The quar-ter-acre had been used mainly for a

hay paddock. At the time when he • planted his corner lie also put cuttings ■ii of trees in various other parts of the property. There were 72 trees on the \land taken; they were mostly flowering red-gums and gunnais. The 72 trees were in the strip on the northern end ofv the quarter-acre taken. The trees were put in in July or August, J 919. There was no connection between the planting of them and the dispute with Bevan. When the land wa3 taken in ■ 1924, the trees were anything up to 12 feet high. T*he value of them would

have been from £1 to £1 10s a tree at the least. He had bought these as two-year-olds in pots. The whole of them were cut down and removed. One effect of the taking of the quarteracre had been to make the paddock awkWard for ploughing and haymaking; also it had depreciated the appearance of the property. He would not have taken a fabulous price for that piece of land, because he had wanted to reserve- it and improve it for home purposes. He had no intention of cutting up his frontage. He did not remember it being suggested to him that he might voluntarily give Bevan a 12ft. fctrip. At one time witness offered a freehold right through the property for £l5O, but it was not accepted. Many years ago the quarteracre was set aside for a home for a Maori .woman, who in turn gave an acre at the back. Claimant bought 25 acres in front, but this strip was-left without being deeded to anyone. It got to be called a right-of-way, but when they looked into the thing they found that it belonged to the original owners, the Maoris. Then he bought it from them for his wife. The original intention was to provide a piece from the front to the back for the Maori woman only, so as to cross the railway line. “COATES’S TOMBS.”

‘ ‘ There was no crossing over the railway,” witness added, “and Coates had it stuck in. You have seen the two crossings there —Coates’s tombs. One was put in at the public expense, to give access to the right-of-way, because without that there was no access to the other side at all.”

Continuing, his evidence, witness stated that the holding of Mrs Tatum was v 25 or 26 acres. It was used entirely as a home. LIABILITY FOR FENCING.

His Worship said he thought that, whether or not the Council took the balance of 'the land back, they should do the fencing of the right-of-way. Witness said that, in _ reducing the claim by £SO, he was anxious to get rid of the matter, as he was sick of it, ami he thought everyone else was. He was now prepared to settle it on the Council’s paying £SO and restoring the fences on both sides of the strip.

His Worship: They would have to fence the right-of-way and put the fence back on the road. They would have to continue the right-of-way to the road, and restore the front. Witness stated 'that the trees were valued by him at £72; there was £5 14s claimed for fencing and £2O for depreciation of the remaining land, which had been inconvenienced by the extra corners and depreciated in appearance. BELIEVED THERE WAS NO RIGHT-OF-WAY. Cross-examined, Major Tatum stated that he bought the acre about twentyfive years ago. Mr Abraham: How much did you pay for the whole acre Witness: I thinjc it was £65. Are you sure it wals mot £2O? —4165 was the amount, for the acre. When Mrs Tatum first bought the 25 acres, is it not a fact that the Native Land Court to confirm the transfer to her till this right-of-way had been reserved? —No. We paid the money and never saw the deeds, which weie nut away in the solicitor’s safe. Was not that the whole basis of the recent Supreme Court action, that the Native Land Court intended that a right-of-way should be reserved to Mrs Henry Bevan’s at the back of the rail-

way line? Ilis Worship: There was no right-of way through this land. If they wanted that, they ought to have reserved it when they sold it. Mr Abraham: That was overlooked by the Native Land Court. It was sold by trustees of the Henry Bevan estate.

His Worship: If it was not overlook ed, Tatum could have paid less for it

Witness: We were under the impression that there was no right-of-way in the matter. When we began to search, we found that this quarter-acre had never been dealt with at allj but had been reserved for the woman. When we found that there xvas no right-of-way and that the title was in the children’s name, I bought it from them His Worship: Even after that, the Supreme Court holds a right-of-way. It is to the frontage from the back. Mr Abraham (to witness): You know, when you bought this acre, that you were buying the outlet to the right-of-way? Witness: No; we understood that we owned the whole land on the road side of the section.

Do you deny that, when you purchased that 25 acres, there was considerable discussion in the Native Land Court as to reservation of this right-of way?—Not to my knowledge. I did not attend the Native Land Court when the transfer was confirmed to my wife. There were people using the right-of-way? —Bevan used to come up and roar like a bull.

For many years it was used?—No it was not used.

PLANTING AND FENCING

Why did you plant that row of plum trees —the one alongside the vegetable garden? How long was that planted’ —Since 1919. When this question came up, we did not want the cattle coming over my paddock, so I put up a fence and a row of trees.

Wm the right-of-way fenced before you bought the acre? —No. There was no knowledge c-f a right-of-way when we bought. ' In 1911, when you bought that acre, that right-of-way was not fenced? —No, it was not.

You do not remember an offer by Mr Monk, in 1921 or 1922, that the Council take a 12ft. strip, Mr Monk suggesting that it would be a waste of land to take a whole chain and asking you to allow them to reserve only 12ft. ? —I cannot recall that. There have been so many conversations and things.

If Mr Monk swears that he did make that offer to you? —I would not eontra-

diet him. I don’t doubt his word at an. r; Mr Abraham handed witness a " letter written by Mr Monk to Mr Bevan and telling him that he had seen Major Tatum about the matter.

Witness perused the letter, and said he could not recall the incident. That communication might have been made and led him to make the offer of £350 for the freehold of the whole strip. Mr Abraham: The date of that is 1921.

Witness, continuing, said that tlis gums were planted on the corner of the acre. The fences were built with,, an opening at each end, but so as to, keep cattle from wandering into the, garden. The sole reason for putting up the fences while the matter was in dispute was so that the traffic would be confined to the 12ft strip. Mr Abraham: There would have been no need to shift any fencing?— There were three or four wires—just enough to keep traffic off. Speaking about the trees, witness said that when he bought them they cost 2s 6d to 3s 6d, in pots. LAND VALUES. Mr Abraham: You don’t suggest that the value of ordinary farming land around you is £4OO an .acre? Witness: No, I don’t. That is a sentimental value to you? —lf you had a corner section and a Council suggested that they take a piece 12ft. square and put a lavatory on it, what would you do? Mr Abraham: Nobody is suggesting that a lavatory be put there.

Witness: It might be put there now. Mr Abralhain: Anything might be put there in these days.-. You have dono everything to block this right-of-way. You have laid drains across it. This is the last skirmish in the right- . of-way war between you. His Worship: This is a skirmish as to the continuation. You cannot say this is a continuation of the right-of way. The right-of-way never existed acrosfc here; it was never intended. It was overlooked when the acre was sold. It was never reserved by the Native Land Court. It was overlooked by the vendors when they sold the front, acre. Mr Hay asked witness if the trees

had required any attention. He replied that they were dug round from time to time." For the first three or four years it was necessary to be very caretally with young plants or they would become choked out. He had employed labour in connection with that planation. EXPERT EVIDENCE. Frank J. W. Stallard, land and commission agent, stated that he had 10 rears’ experience. At plaintiff’s re-

quest he had inspected the piece ot land in question. The property was one of the finest country properties in the district. In making a valuation he liad taken into consideration that the piece of land taken* was from the front of the home and depreciated the . value of the remainder of the estate. He valued the piece of land taken at £IOO, and the depreciation of tjie rest of the property at £2O. The value of farm land in that locality was about £IOO an acre On. that basis a quarteracre would be worth £25; but in valuing a property one took the whole into consideration. To this piece he attached a s]iecial value. His estimate was quite apart from any claim on account of trees.

To Mr Abraham —He valued the property .as a whole at £IOO an acre, as a fair estimate for farm land in'that position. As to the value of a single acre on the road frontage, he did not think it could be bought for less than £l5O, and most farmers would ask £2OO. It would be very beneficial to the whole of Tatum’s property, which was residential, to have the quarter acre restored.

To Mr Hay.—He did not think he would ask any farmer to part with aquarter of an acre of good land front ing the Main Highways for less than £IOO. One could buy seaside sections on the sand at double that price.

EFFORTS OF A PEACEMAKER. Frederick 11. G. Clarkson, farmer, of Paraparaumu, who had for six years owned a farm opposite Mrs Tatum’s, said he knew the quarter-acre in dispute and had cut hay off it. Ho was friendly with both Tatum and Bevan. Seven or eight years ago he had u> act the Good Samaritan; he called them together in his Jiouse, and tried to settle the question about the land. The object was for Major Tatum to buy Mr Bevan’s back section, so that there would be no question of a right-of-way. At that time Bevan was asking £IOO an acre for his back section. After a lot of conversation, witness tried to get them to come to a point, aiul he believed that Bevan asked £BS per acre for the whole of his land at the back. Tatum refused this, and offered £75. It was for about 24 acres. The front section of which the disputed strip formed a part, would be worth considerably more, because the back land had no entrance. There was no difference in the quality of the land; it was all rich. The action of the County Council had made it awkward for Major Tatum’s ploughing and hay-cutting. Witness would value the quarter-acre at £IOO. The remaining land was 'affected by this quarter-acre having been taken out of a three-acre paddock. When living opposite, ho had observed trees growing on the ’ land. There used to be two big pinus insignia trees, and it was fenced from the road to these trees. There were three or four rows of smaller trees; he had seen Major Tatum’s gardener putting them in; they were planted for what he would call a breakwind. They extended, perhaps, two to three chains back off the road; they were planted next to Bevan’s land, and were running lengthwise from the road frontage back to the corner of the section; in 1924, when the land was taken, they were from six to eight feet high. They -were nice trees, because they had been trimmed at the top, making them branch out. Witness left the locality before they were cut down.

Mr Abraham: Don’t you; think £l6O was <a ridiculous value? Witness: No;, it ran a beast to the acre. As much as £l5O an acre was being paid at the time.

Answering further questions by Mr Abraham, witness said he did not remember Bevan pointing out that he had previously offered the land at what he had paid for it. Witness had paid £6O an acre for his own land, including hills. THE RESIDENTIAL ASPECT. Robert G. Wall, farmer, of Kuku, Ohau, and chairman of the Rural Credits Board, stated -that he had known the district for 27 years. At tlie request of the claimant he hud made an inspection of the piece of land taken. He thought that a. reasonable price to place on it was £75. It had been taken out of what lvas really a residential block. The fence that had been put up wanted re-erecting. His Worship said he thought that the Council would have to put up a •fence within the meaning of the Fencing Act.

Witness, continuing, said that, taking into account the effect on the rest of the property, £95 would be fair compensation for the taking of the quarthe 'acre.

Cross-examined, Mr Wall stated that there were plenty of men working on the roads who would be quite prepared to pav £75 for a section in that locality.

His Worship: Why go out there when you can get sections at Manakau or Levin?

Witness: I think they w'-uld readily sell. Mr Abraham: There would be no conveniences, shops or anything; yet you suggest that people would buy quarteracre sections.

His Worship: We cannot look at it purely as a farming proposition. It i a a country home. Witness: I took it as a quarter-acie taken from a residential home —an action which the majority of retired men would object to.

Mr Abraham informed the Court that he., would call brief evidence fox the respondent. He was leaving the question of value entirely in abeyance. He was calling evidence to show that the question of this right-of-way had been outstanding far longer than Major Tatum' admitted, and that an offer had been made to him whereby the whole matter could have been settled FAIR OFFER FOR TWELYE-FOOT STRIP.

Ilis Worship stated that the Court was unanimously of opinion that Major Tatum’s offer of £SO for the 12ft -strip was a fair one. That was the simplest way. The Council did not want the extra piece of land. It would get noxious weeds on it and be a nuisance to them. They had to fence in any ease. A man would naturally plant his corners. There was no question of right-of-way when he planted the trees. Mr Abraham: They were planted right-' along the right-of-way. His Worship: That was his land; it was not reserved. I think really that, even if, as you suggest, the question had arisen, he still was entitled to put the trees in because no question could arise of a right-of-way through that property. There rvas not one. The trees h/iving been in for some years before the County took over, I think he is entitled to compensation for them. Mr Abraham: Mr Bevan agreed to give his purchaser a right-of-way. His Worship: Ilis purchaser under this gets his right of way. Mr Abraham: Mr Bevan has to pay certain expenses. Mr Hay: A question of costs actually arises. I would like an indication as to how they should be borne. His Worship: I presume the Council would have to pay for the closing of the road and the handing back of the title.

Mr Hay: It is worth £3OO if we gel the land back and close the right-of; way.

His Worship: If it is settled in this way, I think party should pay their own costs. * .

Mr Abraham: If it can be settled in this way, I would prefer it to be settled.

UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT AT A SETTLEMENT.

H:-r Vv orship granted a short adjournment to enable the parties to confer, but when the Court resumed, Mr Abraham intimated that they could not arrive at a settlement. Mr Abraham slated that the view of the Council was that, in the first place, the Council offered to purchase from Major Tatum the freehold of the 12ft., in 1917. That offer was refused. He did not suggest that Major Tatum was under any obligation to sell, but by refusing to sell the 12ft. he had brought these proceedings on his head and had forced the Council into taking the whole chain width. If the Court’s suggestion were carried out. it would mean that Major Tatum would receive £SO, and at the same time the Council would be giving back to him for nothing, and at a certain amount of expense, something which did not belong to Major Tatum, but which the. Council had been forced to give back to him.

, His Worship: That is not the question at all. You are simply taking the right-of-way instead of taking the chain load. It is not so? Mr Abraha : m: Why should we have to pay now the cost of giving it back to him? “A WHITE ELEPHANT.” His Worship: Is. it that just by a bit; of spite you will not give it back? It means that if he gets the majority of his claim, you pay the costs. Are you not getting a. white elephant because you will not give this back to Major Tatum? I cannot see the County's point of view. I do not mind—only it is going to cost the

County a good deal more to do it this why, and they are going to get something they do not want. It seems it would be more satisfactory to everybody to do it the other way. The

County .has/ to do it.. this way, and we will go ahead. COUNTY CHAIRMAN OUTLINES NEGOTIATIONS. George Alexander Monk, chairman of the Horowhenua County Council, stated in evidence that lie had been Chairman for about fourteen years and a' member of the Council for about eighteen years. The reason for the Council talcing the land was that it was the only entrance by "which Bevan could get to his land, Avhieli the Council was rating on. Bevan approached the Council in 1917 and they were not inclined to push the matter immediately, thinking that every other avenue should be tried. In 1924 the matter was finalised. He had tried to arrive at some means by which Bevan could purchase the necessary land to make an entrance to the road. Those negotiations had failed. Tatum had had the opportunity of selling to the Council, but refused. There was an alternative route, Which would have required a bridge costing £IOOO over the Waikawa Stream, from another right-of-way, but that was out of the question. The plantation had not cost £72. The quarter-acre he estimated, as land, at a value of; £25. Any depreciation that was there, ! was very little, and had been brought by Major Tatum ,on himself. Witness* disagreed with the suggestion that the Council pay the Major £SO and* give him back the rest of the land.

His Worship: Why do you refuse it?

The Chairman: It could have been done in the first place; he had the opportunity. The obstacle was the: cost of the conveying of the land baek to him. We do not want the land> but we do not see why we should be. saddled with the cost of conveying the land' back to him. The negotiations wore carried on through solicitors be-, tween the Council and Tatum, and had! cost the Council considerable money. Both gentlemen (Tatum and Bevan) and I are the best of friends. There is no question of spite on the Council’s part, but we saw there was a ease of injustice and wanted to get the position cleared up. We thought that, by entering into negotiations, we could do that, but we failed, and these proceedings are only a last resource. Cross-examined by Mr Hay, the Chairman stated that the negotiations were spread over about seven years from 1917, until the Council took the land.

Mr Hay: When did you make it definitely clear to him that you were going to take the land?

The Chairman: Twelve months after the negotiations opened it was made clear to him, that, unless we could pur-chase-it, we would have to take it-com-pulsorily. I cannot point to anything but a verbal conversation. It was not suggested that he should allow thedanl to be unutilised. I understand that Bevan utilised the land by trespassing on a neighbour’s. We took very little notice of what was happening between Bevan and Tatum. ACCESS BY WAY OF RIVER. Mr Hay: The actual strip across this quarter-acre Avas not used by Bevan, was it?The Chairman: Not as far as I am aware. Be\-an used am access across private property by way of the Waikawa Ri\ r er. Did Bevan use this other aeess, which Avas reasonable for a buggy' and pair?—Yes; but the river is not alAvays crossable, and this was private property; he had no legal access. If Tatum had put up a building on his property, Avould it be a reasonable use of the land if he knew that the land might be taken? —lt . Avould be quite obA r ious Avhy it had been done after negotiations had started. Was it net open to you at the beginning of the seven years, if you wished to prevent utilisation of the land, to give notice at the outset — preliminary notice—and stop anything of the;kind?—Quite so.

You do not .suggest that the planting was an unreasonable use of the land? —I suggest that it could be avoided.

Do you suggest that it was an unreasonable use of the land to put the plantation there?—l will answer it if the Court demands it. His Worship: I don’t demand an answer: He can put a house there if he likes. DIFFICULTY OF REMEDY.

Mr Hay: The. trouble that arose about Bevan’s access was not the fault of your County, but of the Government, through one of its Departments? The Chairman: Apparently.

Would not the Government be the body to remedy that? —Apparent!;.’ there was no authority at the time, except by petition to Parliament. These roads are vested in the -Crown, and you'have control over them. Do you consider it your function to interfere between private ratepayers, and settle questions of access? —We were only concerned with access.

You might have referred it to the Government? —It w-ould have meant a petition to Parliament.

CABINET MENTIONED

Mr Abraham: Was this not referred to Cabinet? The Chairman-. I understand but l not by the Council. Mr Abraham: To sec if there was any other way of getting over it with-

out the Public Works Act? The Chairman: That was why the delay occurred. Everything was dene to avoid taking it by prclaination. We never got to the stage where they said they would sell. It was before he put his trees on the land that negotiations opened. Mr Hay: It was about that time that Major Tatum offered to sell to Mr Bevan the whole strip of freehold? The Chairman: It never came be-

fore, the Council. The right-of-way that Bevan claimed, was - his own, without having to purchase it. Mr Hay: The whole right-of-way t®

Bevan’s property ? The Chairman: We were not concerned with that, but only with access to

that. Bevan never had the opportunity 'through- •ilie* SH Council -••'to "buy access through from the road to the railway. We Avere not concerned Avith the right-of-way beyond the acre. Are you aware -that Bevau had the opportunity of buying his own access? —We Avere not avvare because avc Avere not concerned.

Mr Abraham: But you kreAV that that right-of-Avay to the acre Avas vested in BeA’an and has ahvays been on his title? The Chairman: Yes; Ave had to be convinced of that before Ave took any action. Mr Abinhanv: So this action was to ask Bevan to purchase something that already belonged to him? His Worship: He may have been offered the freehold and AA-ould not take it because he had a right-of-Avay on the freehold. Still, the freehold is something additional to the right-of-way. THE COURT’S DECISION. After a retirement -by the Bench, the Magistrate announced that they had come to a unanimous decision. They alloAved the value of the land at £3O, improA r ements (trees) ,£SO, and depreciation £2O. This was £IOO in all, which they did not think unreasonable. The costs of the case, £l3, Avould be paid by the County. Mr Hay stated that liis client was still Avilling to settle the basis with the County on the lines Avhich the Court had suggested; that Avas a matter for the. County representatives to consider. Mr Abraham said that the Council had intimated that they AA r ould accept that offer and pay the £SO, but the stumbling-block Avas the question of the costs of closing the road, which the Council considered should be paid by the claimant.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SNEWS19291105.2.2

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Shannon News, 5 November 1929, Page 1

Word count
Tapeke kupu
6,002

AN UNUSUAL CASE. Shannon News, 5 November 1929, Page 1

AN UNUSUAL CASE. Shannon News, 5 November 1929, Page 1

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