Compensation Count.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 155, 5 July 1904, Page 4

Compensation Count.

CLAIM FOR IMPROVEMENTS. HIGH SCHOOL BOARD'S LEASES AT MANAIA. (Before Messrs F. P. CorMl and W. Cowem (arbitrators), and Mr D. Peat, umpire.) FRIDAY, JULY 1. The arbitrators in the above case in sompany with the umpire, on Thursday Visited the leases of Daniel James Hughes and Edward Newing, Manaia, held from the New Plymouth High School Baard, and made a personal inspection of the improvements, the value of which was in question. On Friday morning the Court sat m Hawera, when Mr Samuel (New Plymouth) appeared for the High School Board, and Mr Welsh (Hawera) for Messrs Hughes and Newing. In opening the case Mr Welsh explained the position in which the lessees stood, and reduced the questions to be decided by the court' as follows:—(1) What improvements had at the time of the passing of the Reserves, etc., Act. 1901, the said D. J. Hughes had made; (2) what, on February 25Ui, 1908, was ehe value of the said improvements ■ made ; (3) what was on February j 35th, 1903, a fair and reasonable rental of the land as upon a lease for 21 years. The same questions, Mr Welsh said, would apply to Sewing's case. There was then another question to decide, namely, if 'the board elected to grant a renewal of the lease what rental should be fixed, and in fixing the sum the improvements made 'by Hughes and j-Newing would not have to be taken into account, but other improvements would.

Daniel J. Hughes, being sworn, said on August 26th, 1899, he purchased the lease from the lessees,

Morgan and Peterson, of sections 21 and 63, block 3, of the Waiinatu survey district, containing 200 acres, the purchase price being £4OO. The witness proceeded to give details of the cost of improvements ellected by him prior to November Sth, lyoi. Mr Samuel drew attention to the fact that in his judgment! Mr Justice Edwards had laid it down that the cost of the improvements need not concern the arbitrators ; what they had to determine was the value of the improvements on February 25th, 1903, the date of the expiry of the lease. Mr Cowern said a knowledge of the cost would be useful in estimating the subsequent value. The witness continued to supply tho details and the total cost of the improvements was set down at £759 16s Od. Witness had used the land for gazing ;l to make the farm convenient for dairying would involve a cost of £4OO, but there was a swamp in the middle of it which would make it awkward, for dairypurposes. The road to the farm was a "hit bumpy." A fair and rea-

sonable rent for the farm for grazing purposes, as the farm stands now with all improvements, for a

lease of 21 years from February 25th, 1903, would be 12s per acre. Mr Samuel put in the lense showing the conditions under which Hughes had the land as expressed in the particulars given above. To Mr Samuel : Witness was warned by the High School Board that he was not entitled to improvements. Iu an interview with the board in 1899 the witnoss said that they (tho board) might exixxt legislation to have tho act altered which deprived the witness of his improvements. Buing more closely pressed, witness said he "thought" ,he made the statement to the board. Mr Samuel : You knew when you bought this property that you were not entitled to any improvements'» -Yes. You knew just for what you were paying tho £-100 •?—Yes. And yet your idea of fairness is that now you should claim from the board the sum of £759 ?—Yes, because I think the law regarding improvements was terribly unfair. Don't you think any man who would put £759 worth of improvements on a properly with only a few years to run is lit for a lunatic asylum ?—You don't understand the position. Now, look here, I am going to suggest that prior to the act of 1901 you did not put any more improvements on the land than any other sane man would ; but that after the act was passed, having reasonable ground for thinking you could then claim compensation, you clapped on the improvements '?— From your point of view that may be so, but I can prove when the improvements were made. Your statements are theory ; mine are facts.

Wei,, I will still put it to you : Either that all your evidence as to the dates of making the improvements ih untrue or that you are next door to an insane nmn f-There are a lot of fools in the world.

After further cross-examination of the above kind, Mr Samuel submitted a list of improvements on witness' lease that had been prepared by Mr Marchant, of New Plymouth, and the witness was cross-examined as to details. With less than two years for the lease to run witness did £l2B worth of stumping and erected a lot of sulMlivisional fences. Witness was paying 6s fid per acre, and at the time of taking the lease over thought it a fair rent. Mr Samuel : Then, at the time of the purchase, for what did you pay £4OO ?—I was a speculative sort of man, and, -thinking I could got an alteration of the law as to improvements, I thought I would "chance the'ducks."

Then you paid the £4OO for Morgan and Peterson's improvements, believing something would turn up ? -Yes.

Mr Corkill : Hid Messrs Morgan; and Peterson lead you to believe thut the act would be'altered ?—Yes,. Morgan and Peterson led me to believe that. They and Nowing had promises from Sir John McKenzic to that effect.

Edward Nowing, a party to the submission, deposed that on December 2Gth, 1883, he purchased from Mr Martin the lease of sections 22, 23, and 24, about 400 acres in the

renl paicr in aWHice. Up produilw 'a list of improvements done by him prior to November Bth, 1901, and the value of them (£1460 18s 3d) on February 25th, 1903.'

Mr Samuel admitted that all the improvements done by Mewing had been effected prior to' November, 1901, but in examination some inaccuracies were shown which slightly reduced the amount of the claim. Witness, continuing, said part of the land was lit for dairying at present, but other was not, without a shed being erected. With all improvements woidd now be 17s or 18s per acre. Mr Samuel put in the leases under which Newiug held the land, showing thai he was not entitled to compensation for improvements. In reply to Mr Samuel, witness said lie had effected his improvements within a few years after taking over the lease. Supposing you had taken over the place with only two or three years to run, would you have put on these improvements ?—Certainly not. At the heuring before. iJie commission in Wellington, did you say flint since the passing of the act .Mr Hughes had put up about 100 chains of fencing, and a stockyard, but that you made no improvements '?— Yes.

When the act wub passed in 1901 did you expect that you would be compensated for improvements until [the end of the term?— Yes. Mr Welsh (to witness) : For how long had you been trying to secure legislation prior to 1901 to have the law altered ?—For several years. I interviewed Sir Harry Atkinson. Mr Samuel : And you were unsuccessful until 1901 ?—Yes, 'but we had many promises.

Ah, political promises were like piecrusts until the time of Mr McGuire, for whom I suppose you now offer up prayers .nightly ?--Of course. Mr Peat : How long ago is it since you put on the fertilisers for which you have charged in your list of improvements ?—The last lot 1 sowed was eight years ago, the other before that. (Later on the witness said it was four years ago.)

George T. Hutchinson, carpenter, said he assisted to complete the stockyard for Mr Hughes in February, 1901. Witness submitted a pocket-book showing an entry of the month, but not tho year.

James Livingstone, settler, residing in Hawera, said he knew Sowing's farm, when Martin took it up first. The improvements should be worth as much now as in 1903. (Particulars were given as to value of hedges, drains, fences, gates, etc. The orchard and plantation witness valued at £250). A fair rental for the land improved as at present would be about 15s or Mis an acre. That was on a 21 years' lease. Witness was cross-examined at length as to his estimate of the value of the improvements in detail.

William T. Wells, of Manaia, deposed that up till July, 1902, he had lived near Mr Hughes' place When Hughes took the land up the improvements were practically worthless, and he immediately set about improving the place. The stumping, burning and clearing was done the first year after Hughes took possession. Cross-examined by Mr Samuel, the witness said he had never been personally over the ground, hut his teumr. had done the ploughing on it.

Mr Welsh : Can you say whut a fair rent for this place would be?— Well, I leased a place opposite Mr Hicks, fully improved, at Ms per acre.

And how does the land compare with Hughes' '.'—Well, HiO acres of it is infinitely better. Witness went on sa say that he recently let a part of his own (arm at 16s per acce.

At the conclusion of the evidence tendered by Messrs Newlng and Hughes'., Mr Samuel contended that a good deal of useless evidenco had been submitted, and warned the arbitrators that they should not bo led away by statements as to the cost of improvements : their value at the date of the expiry of the lefese was! whathlaH lo IV; deUerminert. George A. Marchant, ranger for the Education Board, and an arbitrator and valuer of experience, deposed that he had inspected Mr Hughes' land. With respect to the stockyard he had no doubt in his own mind that it had been erected since November, 1901 ; he would say tho same of some of the, sub-division-al fences. The particulars were given. Witness valued the total improvements on the land at the dat« of tho expiry of the lease at £OB6 lis (id. From 8e fld to 9s was 1 a liberal allowance to make for the erection of a four barbed wire fenC6 Witness had also been over Ncwing'a property, and valued all the improvements at £990. He estimateu the value of the orchard at £4O. Mr Welsh said he did oot intend to cross-examine the witness at length, as tho arbitrators had inspected the property and had before I them tho estimates of Messrs NewI ing and Hughes. Mr Welsh then proceeded lo examine witness as to how he knew when the stockyard and sjlfdivisional fences on Hughes' properly were erected, and witness finally said he was not prepared to affirm that they were not; in existence prior to November, 1801. Further examination was confined to 'details.

In re-examination by Mr Samuel, Mr Marchant said he excluded fertilisers from his schedule of permanent improvements. The crop, ho contended, had aUsoijbva a greater .quantity of the natural costit.uents of the soil than was replaced by the artificial fertiliser.

Sydney 11. James, valuer, of Stratford, deposed that in July, 1900, he inspected the properties of Messrs Newing and Hughes. He had a copy ol the report he then made. Mr Newing's fences were then in fair order. The fences were in a worse condition now. He valued the orchard at £BO, and the total improvements at £1123 10s. Witness had also inspected Hughes' land, and estimated the total improvements at £754.

Witness was cross-examined by Mr Welsh as to the detailed estimates. Tho evidence being concluded,

Mr Samuel said the board did not desire that any unfair sum should be fixed, but it was not a case for generous treatment. 'Pie i'aiiia-mi-nt had despoiled ihe board, nnd wherever there was a doi: r tt it had lo bo construed in favour of the board. He discredited the evidence of Mr Hughes, and urged that the improvements claimed were not made prior to the passing of the act in 1901.

Mr Welsh addressed the court at some length in reviewing the evidence. He pointed out that the board was evidently hostile to Hughes and friendly to Xewing. The hostility arose out. of an assumption I that Mr Hughns, nt thi! time of purchasing the lease, had no expectation of legislative interference, and that it wus not until after the act had become law that h<> made the improvements l . Against that theory they had the sworn testimony of Mr Hughes and Mr Hutchinson,and that of Mr Wells, who said thut. immediately upon taking up the land Hughes proceeded to make the improvements. The hearing, which commenced 'at 10.30 a.m., was competed shortly before 10 p.m., when the arbitrators announced that their judgment would ho delivered later.—Star.