COMPENSATION COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10174, 25 February 1911, Page 6

COMPENSATION COURT.

AN INTERESTING CASE. \ LENZ v; MASTERTON BOROUGH COUNCIL. , A sitting of the Compensation Court, constituted under the provisions of the Public Works Act, to deal with the claim of William Lenz against the Masterton Borough Council for the sum of £lB7, for land dedicated for street-widening purposes in Short Street, was held yesterday. Mr D. K. Logan appeared for the claimant, and Mr C. A. Pownall for the Masterton Borough Council.

His Worship stated that the case had been adjourned in order to allow him to look up the question which had been raised as to the jurisdiction of the Court. He was quite satisfied that the Court had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court had decided that it had jurisdiction in .similar cases. The question had been commented upon by Mr Justice Edwards, hut merely in an incidental manner. He did not raise the question of jurisdiction as it had been raised in this case. The Act clearly conteraplated that matters of this sort should he determined by the Compensation Court. If this' Court sinned, it sinned in good company, because the Supreme Court had accepted jurisdiction.

Mr Pownall asked that it be noted that he appealed for the Council under protest as to the jurisdiction of the Court. ' . A number of formal matters in connection with .the case were admitted,• and a > technicality as was waived.

The members of the Court having inspected the street in which the dedication had been made, Mr Logan delivered a comprehensive address dealing with the legal and other aspects of the case. He quoted authorities to show that in such claims the Court should not place too nice a point upon the,question of values. It was true that the Court had to consider the matter of betterment, but in,this case in would be shown that there had been no betterment. It would be proved tbat : the block contained, roughly, three acres. It was valued, on a conservative basis, at £4oo!' Very nearly one-sixth of this, or about ' half an acre, had been taken for street-widen-ing. The amount of the claim was not excessive, but was based upon the.value's placed upon the land by independent and respectable valuers. The block was a narrow one. and the taking away of 16ft for widening had made it too narrow for ordinary building purposes. William Lenz, the ciaimnnt, deposed that he had purchased the land, from Mr Pybus as a speculation, with a view to cutting itup. He paid £3lO for the block, and considered that he had a bargain. He applied to the Council for the exemption ; of the street for street-widening; but when this was refused he dedicated.. The Government value placed upon • the land wlien he purchased was,£39s. He was advised, after he had dedicated, that he had a claim for compensation., He valued the sections, after sub-divis-ion, at £55, and he had not been able to get the same number of sections out of the land after the street had been widened as before. The sections were not'of "the same value now as before the dedication, because they were not of'the same depth. He thought the sections suitable for workers' homes.

!By Mr Pownall: He had at first informed the Borough Council that he did not intend to dedicate; but he had subsegxiently changed his mind. He did hot tell the Borough Council that he hadCchanged his mind.; He had offered one section for a church at £IOO. He had not cpntemplated the. dedication of any portion of the land .when he purchaser it., His agent may have, asked Mr Pybus; to take a smaller sum for the land on account of the Borough Council wanting a strip of it.-''

Mr Pownall: Then you want compensation twice ?

Mr Lenz: I have received no compensation, from the Borough Council y et -'. ■ I. " ,;.'■' : '.''" . Mr Pownall: You got,.compensation from Mr Pybus in the purchase, and now yo\i want it from the Borough Council.

The Claimant said he knew nothing about Mr Pybus. He had paid £4 19s for putting the fence back. He claimed £2 for damages to the crop which was on the property. The crop belonged to Mr Rigg, but he was only a "tenant at will. One of the allotments facing High Street had been sold for; £IOO. / If Short. Street had notbeenwidened he would have had at least three more sections than he had at present. He denied! that the sections were benefited by the widening of the street;' The. length of'the f -strip; tiaken 'was 16 chains 7 links. He" had not sold any of his sections, ?o far. By Mr Logan: He had no direct communication with Mr Pybus in the matter of the purchase. The purchase was made through Mr Edwards.; When he purchased he was afraid thai he was going to lose half a chain frontage to the street. This was why he made so low ail offer. When he procured his conveyance, he was not aware that he had to make the dedication. Orlando Pragnell, solicitor, deposed that he was acting for Mr Pybus in the sale of the property. The property was sold without any restrictions of tenancy, and if there were any I crops upon it they belonged to the | purchaser, ' -.■"■:■. I James B. Keith, land agent, stated that he made an estimate of the loss sustained by Mri'-Lenz in dedicating the strip of land to the borough. The loss was about £IBO. The cutting off of the front would;leave about 43ft after a cottage had been <erecte*d, and 'witneses considered this too small par-

ticularly when there was nq drainage. By Mr Pownall: Witness had never acted as agent for Lenz. Witness had never sold a worker's section with a depth of less than 105 ft. By Mr Logan: Witness had had frequent enquiries for the. class of section in question of late. , John Robert Nicol, land agent, stated that he was a director of the Greyto'wn Building Society which lends a lot of money for building in Masterton. Witness' estimate of the loss sustained by Lenz was £l5O. He considered that £ls had been lost on each of the ten sections. The lack of depth was a big drawback. Witness did not consider the increased width of the road was an improvement. By Mr Pownall: Lenz now had ten larger sections in place of thirteen small ones which would be of more I value.

By Mr Logan : The area was not important as long as there was sufficient depth. Charles C. Ross, land agent, estimated the value of the'sections with the dedication oft at £5lO. With' the dedication he estimated that the value would be increased from £ls to £2O a section. Witness said there had been'.a fair demand for sections for workers* houses recently. Witness did not consider High Street to be a main thoroughfare, and the widening was not of any advantage. John Fraser, land agents,' stated I that the claim of £lB7 made by Mr | Lew, was a reasonable one. His esti- j mat of the loss was £135. Witness' considered that there was no appreciation in the value of the land | through the widening of the street. j Onnorid C. Cooper, managing direc- j tor of Messrs Abraham and Williams, Ltd., considered Mr Lenz's loss to be £l3O 13s 9d. 'Witness, recently handled the sale of the Solway sub-division. All the sections with the exception of two sold readily. Mr Lena's sections were of better value than the Solway sections because they were nearer to town. The Solway sections sold on an average at £IOO per acre. This concluded the evidence for the claim. ■ . Mr Pownall said the value of the land must be taken to be wliat he paid 'for it at the,time. When the land was valued at £395 there was a boom in land, and the price of £3lO was a very fair one at the time -when the purchase was made. It was absurd to say that the widening of the'street had i not increased the value of the land, j and that 105 ft was not sufficient for a cottage. Sections are far more likely I to sell when fronting a decent street than when fronting an ally. It was quite obvious that Mr Lenz . anticipated that he would lose the land when he was making negotiations for the purchase. '■'•,•' ■''■'■' William T. Mansfield, Town' Clerk, stated that he had up recollection , of stating that he would take half a chain off Mr Lenz's side of the road. ■.-,' By Mr Logan : Witness would not deny what Mr Lenz said.. A. J. Hatha way, land agent, for a considerable time " Government borough valuer, said the cutting off of the strip of land had, in his opinion, damaged Mr Lenz's property to-the extent of £64. The betterment caused I by the widening of the street would b,e between £4 and £5 to each section. - Witness considered ! "-j a depth of 105 feet tp be ralher short, but he-knew of houses that.were on sections that were a less depth. There was.very little demand for-Mr Lenz's class of property at present, r . Charles . Augustus Tabuteati, ,'land' agent, deposed that.in his depreciation iii'the value of the:Jand iri question was more than" eompeni sated for by the widening of -.,. Short I Street,

.Richard Brown, land agent and valuer, and formerly Town Clerk, expressed the opinion that in, every case the widening of the street increased the value of the land abutting upon it. He did not consider Mr Lenz property had been depreciated by \ the widening of Short Street. -V;-' Eli Smith 1 and F, f J.\' Butenieht,' land agents, also gave evidence that in their opinion the land had ; not suffered in value by .the widening of the. street. .■■ , ; This was the whole of the evidence. The Court, after retiring to sider, their judgment, awarded, the claimant £65. : The President stated that, as this sum did not represent half the amount claimed, each>., side would have to pay their own costs.