CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10156, 4 February 1911, Page 5

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

LENZ v. MASTERTON BOROUGH COUNCIL. QUESTION OF JURISDICTION. A rather important case, as affecting local bodies, was heard in the Magistrate's Court at Masterton yesterday, before Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., sitting as a Compensation Court, when John Frederick William Lenz, apiarist, of Masterton, claimed a sum - of £lB7 from the Masterton Borough Council. The facts, as set out in the statement of claim, are, briefly, that the plaintiff is the owner of a piece of land comprising 2 acres 3 roods 38.3 perches, more or less, at Manaia, the land having a fortage to Short Street, which was less than 66ft in width. The section was subdivided into ten allotments for the purpose of sale. Accordiug to the provisions of section 117 of the Public Works Act, 1903, he had to set back the frontage of the land, as the street was being widened, and dedicate to the Borough Irood 26.5 perches. The balance of the land, it is claimed, is injuriously affected in consequence, as the saleable value of the lots has been diminished, the loss in depth to each lot being 16ft 6in, on which the claim i? based. -

Ihe assessors -sitting with the Stipendiary Magistrate were Messrs D. J. Cameron (for Mr Lehz) and W. B. Chennells (for the Borough Council). Mr D. K. Logan appeared for the claimant, and Mr C. A. Pownall for the respondent. Mr Pownall took a preliminary ob-; jection to the proceedings. He stated that the deed of dedication was not received by the Town Clerk until the day that the claim was made. The Borough Council had therefore not had an opportunity of availing itself of the provisions of section 117 which enabled it to exempt a street which it did not want.

His Worship ruled that dedication had been made, but that notice should have been given. Mr Pownall, therefore applied for an adjournment of the hearing, to permit of the street being exempted from the operations of the Act.; He also raised the point as to whether the court was the proper tribunal to hear the case. Section 117 "of the Public Works Act, he claimed, provided for the reference of the matter to the Minister, who had power to set up a Commission.

Mr Logan contended that there.was no duty conferred upon the claimant to give notice of dedication. The act of dedication, in itself, was sufficient. The right to compensation arose the moment the deed of "dedication was registered.

His Worship pointed out that notice of dedication had not been given. Mr Logan subrhitted that there was no provisiou in tlie Act for such notice being given. Hjs Worship said that the question was whether the claimant' was not bound, by reason, to notify the Council, of the proposed dedication. Mr Logan remarked that he could not discuss what the duty of the Legislature might, have been.

His Worship held that it was only reasonablo that notice should" be given. •

Mr Logan admitted that the Act was badly, drawn. At the same time his client was exercising his statutory right.

His Worship pointed out that the Council had certain powers of exemption. How, he asked, was the Council to exercise its power .without notice?

Mr Logan'said he Mas not prepared to ai-giie this aspect of vhe question. It was clear that the Council could not exercise its power unless notice weie given. He still contended, however, that his client was uader no statutory obligation to give notice of dedication. Counsel quoted authorities as to jurisdiction, but in none of these was a ruling given on the point at issue. It was maintained, however, that the Compensation Court as set up had every right to assume jurisdiction. If there was a doubt in the matter, a case should be stated for a Judge of the Supreme Court. His Worship stated that the claimant need' not necessarily apply to the Supreme Court for a mandamus if the Court were to refuse jurisdiction. The matter might be referred to the Minister for Public Works.

Mr Pownall quoted ..a further section of the Act dealing with the matter.

. His Worship said he would adjourn the case for a reasonable time, to enable him to look into the authorities quoted concerning the jurisdiction of the Court. An adjournment would be made until Friday, February 24th, at 2 p.m.