Compensation Court

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 38, 4 July 1914, Page 5

Compensation Court

THE BOROUGH COUNCIL'S CLAIM,

VERDICT FOR THE COUNCIL.

SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES.

The sitting of the Compensation Court was continued at New Plymouth yesterday, the Court being still engaged ou the claim of the New Plymouth Borough Council against the Public Works Department.

G. T. Murray, resident engineer at Stratford for the Public Works Department, with 34 years' experience, 13 years being spent in the Taranaki district, deposed that he made longitudinal and cross sections of the Skinner road pit. The average depth of stripping was sft., of grit 10ft., and gravel 3ft. In his opinion a small proportion of the grit would be fit for concrete. The cost of washing the gravel by day labor was 4s 4d per yard, but this work was unsatisfactory and a contract was let at 3s 6d per cubic yard. The wastage would be at least 25 per cent, at the bottom layer. The cost of getting down to the bottom layer of gravel and laying oat a workable surface was 5s 2d per cubic yard, and to strip the top layer cost from 6d to lOd. In April, 1913, on the day he started the line, the ballast was being taken from the pit, .but next day the deliveries from Mt. Egmont began. The Mt. Egmont ballast was 2s 4d per yard cheaper than that from the Skinner road pit. The" cost of laying the siding to the pit was £925 exclusive of Tails and sleepers, and including these, £ 1546. The SkikineiJ roadl pit was abandoned because the railway department objected to the quality of the ballast obtained from it. Mr. Ostler remarked that this was hia whole point. The pit was fit for ballast but for nothing else. To Mr. Skerrett: He would not agree with a letter from the Public Works Department in June, 1913, to the New Plymouth Borough Council- to the effect that as contours were not kept the quantities mentioned by the Department could only be approximate. He could not say whether the 3s 6d per yard mentioned by him was the price for washing alone or for removal as well. As soon as the blocks and washed gravel hart been removed, the Department would not use the pit any further. The area disturbed was about 0 acres. The Department had taken more land than ■ this with the idea of ballasting still further, but this was not now intended. When the land was taken in 1912 ballasting was proceeding on the Whangamomona line. Hiß Honor remarked that previous evidence was that the 17 acres taken was the whole of the land prospected with shafts. Witness continued that it would not pay the Department to work the pit any further. The material now used for ballasting was not taken out for the purpose of exposing the face of rock in the Mt. Egmont quarry. It was from a separate pit. The Railway Department delivered it at Pohokura for the Public Works Department at 3s lOd per yard. Edwin Bould, land purchase officer m the Public Works and other Departments, deposed that when the StratfordToko railway waß put through, W- acres and 30 perches were taken from the Corporation (not the area covered by the pit) and the compensation claimed waß £124 for land and £320 for severance. The matter was settled by the compromise and the Borough was paid once for all for severance. Mr. Ostler here put in an advertisement clipped from the Daily News of Thursday offering shingle for concrete delivered on truck at Eltham at 5s per Witness said that it was quite unaccessary for the Department to have taken any of the land at Skinner road except what was disturbed. The recognised methods for valuing reversions for compensation were by tables made up on a 6 per cent, basis. This closed the evidence for the respondents. . Mr Ostler, in Mimimng up his case, submitted that More- the ciaiman s could ask for compensation for shingle under the land, they must prove that metal was scarce, but that the material had some potential value as- a commercial value at the time when .compensation must be fixed—which he Submitted was in 1803. He contended that nc evidence had ibeen willed- to- prove that, tat merely the fact that good metal was scarce. The claimants did not claim that this was Unit-class metal. They merely contended tlmt as the Department had found a. value for it as concrete, they should be paid for it. The only basis on which compensation could 'be fixed was the agricultural value of the land, which was not appreciated by the presence of a gravel deposit. As a- matter of fact, the operations of the department had not injured, but rather benefited the land. It was notable that no claim, was now made for the thousands of yards of gravel, which there was evidence still existed. This bore out his contention tilmt gravel .was of no vaf.me to the Borough. He asked that questions- of law be reserved for the full bench of the Supreme Court, The amounts could he assessed! alternatively on his and Mr Skerrett's constructions respectively. His Honor pointed -out that three alternatives would have to be assessed. (1) The value of the land taken as it then was-; (21 the amount of compensation, if anv, to be received for lengthy occupation-; (3) tho value of the land as at 1012. , L , Mr Skerrett stated' that he was no partv to .reserving; the questions of law 'to the full Court or the- Court of Appeal, -unless, His Honor himself desired it.

He then proceeded to reply to, Mr Ostler's contentions on the Jmes of Jus opening address, and quoted law in support of his view of the case He extended that the metal m 1003 had a commercial value, and the wspondfemts in denying this, were looking back eleven years, without regard to the changed conditions and higher standard of roading requirements, obtaining at the present day. After counsels' addresses, the court adjourned until 8 o'clock last night, to consider the points raised!. tAt. about half an hour after that time, the court returned with Us award. The award declared that the gravel and grit on the land at Skinner road did have a commercial value to Hi,' claimant in 1003, apart from the fact that it was taken try the. Crown, and for this value £407 16s was awa •tied.

The value of the tad alone to the claimant in IPO3 when the Crown entered was assessed at £lO7 17s 2d. Its value in November, 1912-, when it was formally taken under proclamation, was assessed at £lßl 5s lOd. Compensation was also awarded fo* damage hv severance £43 12s, and lo*-* of rent £22 10s.

The only question -omaining to be settled is whether the vaJuc of the lam! without gravel (which value is to be added to the other compensation) shall be taken as in 1903 or in 1912, and this point was held over for flegal argu-