COMPENSATION COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3139, 17 March 1909, Page 5

COMPENSATION COURT.

CLAIMS FOR BETTERMENT. JUDGMENT FOR BOROUGH COUNCIL. Judgment was given yesterday by Mr W. P. James, S.M., on behalf of the Compensation Court, in reference to the claims for betterment made by the Masterton Borough Council under the "Masterton Borough Betterment Act," against propertyowners in Dixon and Cross Streets, consequent upon the widening of those streets, announced the decision of the Court this morning. The claims were against the following parties for the amounts mentioned:— Cross Street, May Sullivan and Cecilia Sullivan, £231 (Occidental Hotel); MissE. E. Williams, £43 17s 6d; Dixon Street, Commercial and Farmers' Club, £66. The Court consisted of Mr W. P. James, S.M. (chairman), and Messrs R. Brown and J. B. Keith, assessors for the Council and respondents, respectively. Mr C A- Pownall appeared for the claimants, arid Mr D. K. Logan for the respondents. In the course of his judgment his Worship said:—"There were two legal points raised in these cases: (1) That notice of the claim had not been given within twelve months of the completion of the work; (2) That as the Commercial Club did not become the owners of the land till after the street ftad been widened and the work completed, ,the club could not now be called upon to pay any betterment. As regards the first objection , I must hold -.that the notice of claim was given within twelve months of the completion of the work. The work done after the 17th September, 1907, was of small matters, which, however, were necessary to complete the job. There is uo evidence that any delay took place in completing the job, and the whole work up to the j painting of the fences and the contracts being completed in Cross Street was continuous. There is ample evidence in the Dixon Street widening to show the notice was from within twelve months of the completion of the work. The second objection I must hold cannot be sustained. The Act allows twelve months after the completion of the work to give notice to the owner of the land benefitted, and I take it that the owner at the time notice is given is the only person who can be proceeded against. This is borne out by section 9 of the Masterton Borough Betterment Act, 1902, which provides for the award being registered against the land, so that if I were to hold that only the ; owner of the land at the time the ] works were completed could be proceeded against, we should be in this position. Immediately the award was made against the original owner, a copy of such award could be registered against the land in question, and although the owner, at time of completion of works, had sold his interest in the land, the purchaser would have to pay for the betterment before he could get his land released." The amounts agreed upon as betterment to be paid were:—Occidental Hotel, £122; Miss Williams, £ls; and Commercial and Farmers' Club, £39. Mr James stated that he had received a letter from Mr Keith since the decision was arrived at, stating that he disagreed with the amounts fixed. He (Mr James) and Mr Brown were, however, aesreed upon this. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs, and the assessors' fees were fixed at £2 2s each for each case excepting that against Miss Williams.

CABLE NEWS.

Dnited Press Association—By Electric Telegraph Copyright,