STREET-WIDENING IN MASTERTON.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9576, 24 August 1909, Page 5

STREET-WIDENING IN MASTERTON.

RESERVED JUDGMENT GIVEN.

His Honor Mr Justice Cooper gave his reserved judgment at Wellington on Saturday with regard to two appeals concerning the awarding of betterment for increased land values brought about by the widening of Masterton streets. Under the Masterton Borough Betterment Act, 1302, the Borough Council widened Cross Street, and £122 betterment was awarded against May Sullivan and Cecilia Sullivan. In respect to widening in Dixon Street, the borough was awarded £39 betterment against the Commercial and Farmers' Club. The property holders appealed against these awards on the ground that the claim had net been made within twelve months of the widening being carried out. Mr M. Chapman, K.C., with him Mr D. K. Logan, of Masterton, appeared for the appellants, and Mr C. A. Powrall, of Masterton,

for the respondent borough. In giving judgment in the case brought by May and Cecilia Sullivan, his Honor said that the two questions which had been argued upon the motion were: Whether the Compensation Court having decided that the claim was made within the required time its decision was final, ard (2) if its decision could be reviewed, was the claim Hied within the time. On the first point, His Honor ruled as follows:—"The Compensation Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction. Its decision is final on all matters lawfully coming before it. It is a general rule that no Court of limited jurisdiction can give itself jurisdiction by a wrong decision oo a point collateral to the merits of the case upon which the limit to its jurisdiction depends; and, however final'itfi decision may be on all particulars, making up together that subject matter, which, it' true, is withm its jurisdiction, and however necessary it may be for it to make a preliminary inquiry, whether some collateral matter be or be not within the limits, yet upon this preliminary question its decision must always be open for inquiry in the Superior Court." The Act of 1902 was very badly drawn. Its interpretat'on .lause contained no definition of "street-widening works," or "execution of the work," or of "work." "It is, in my opinion, clear," went on his Honor, "that the mere taking of land for the purpose of widening a street, cannot be called 'the execution of the work of widening the street.' It is the taking of land for the purpose of widening Hie street, but that ia not what gives rise to the claim of lha corporation for betterment. It is the 'execution of such work' which ia, undtr Section 68 of the Public Works Act of 1894, the foundation for a deduction of betterment from the claim of the owners whose land on the opposite side ot the street has been taken for street-widening purposes." He held that the streetwidening was completed as soon as the frontages were set back to the boundary of the additional width, and as soon as the physical obstructions were The local Act gave no definition of the various phrases used, but he construed thi.m all as meaning the one thing, the work of "widening" the street, which did n>t include the formation of the street when "widened." In his opinion, therefore, as the work of widening, in the sense in which he construed th? Act, was completed before September 16th, 1907, ths claim made on Sepember 7th, J 908, was out of time, and the Compensation Court had no power to make an award. He was oi" opinion that the award must be set aside, with £lO 10s costs. In the case brought by the Commercial and Farmers' Club, a similar decision was given on the same ground, and also on the additional grour.d that the club acquired the land some months after even the formation of the 1 road 1 was completed.