THE PROPOSAL TO TAKE LAND AT BARUGH'S GATE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2255, 21 December 1886, Page 2

THE PROPOSAL TO TAKE LAND AT BARUGH'S GATE.

This matter came up fur settlement at the meeting of tho Wailc.ito County Council on Friday. Mr W. Macgregor Hay appeared for Mr Ch.irles Ewen, an objector who had received notice. Thu Clerk read over tho objections. Mr Hay bri"fly opened tho ca^e for the objector, and called Mr L. B. Ewen, who deposed : 1 am tho occupier of the farm. No notice about the taking of land was served upon me. I was at the meeting' of the Cambridge Road Board when the matter came Wfoio them, and they decidod that they would take no steps in the matter. My father has a life interest in the land. The land in question was planted as an orchard before any proceedings were taken. Tho Cambridge road at this point is mote than one chain wide, which, I think, is quite sufficient. I know the road into Mr Barugh 'h. It was made by Mr Leslie with our consent. He ottered to pay &2 per year. I produce Mr Leslie's letter. Mr Barugh paid for two year*. Mr Baruarh has u»ed the road for five years by my father's permission. If tho land proposed to bo taken, as shown in the plan, were taken it would give Mr Barugh a road. I obj> ct to the land being taken. No notice has been served on me. Cr. Runcitmn asked Mr Ewen what his objection was to taking the land. Mr Ewen said Mr Barugh had made no offer. Cr. Seddon said they had nothing to do with Mr Barugh. Cr. Smith said it was quite certain that wore it not that Mr Bat ugh wanted a road, the land would not have been taken. The Chairman said they could not go into that question as it had been decided to take the land. ' Cjr. Smith asked why it was necessary to take the land. Mr Seddon said it was necessary to take it for the purposes of the culvert. Mr Hay said the council ould at any time enter upon private land for the purpose of repairing the culvert. The council was not at liberty to take land at their own sweet will, but only if it was wanted for public purposes. Now it was not necessary to take the land for public purposes. He quoted from the Public Works Act to show that the council could at any time enter upon the land without taking it. Cr. Rnnciman said apart from tho culvert the council wanted the land. He had been in hopes that the whole matter would have been settled amicably. That was why he wished to know what damage would be occ\sioned to Mr Ewen. Cr. Seddon said the question was a very plain one. Mr Ewen s^id he did not wish to part with the land. He did not wish to be bounced out »>f the land. He would not state what money he or hisjfather would be prepared to take. In answer to Mr Hay, witness said he had never received a statement of the works intended to be done. Mr John Gwynnptli, C.E., «aid he had an idea where the land proposed to be taken ! was, though the plan produced was wrong. The land proposed to be taken was on lot 1, and not lot 3. He produced a plan of the road taken when the culvert was m vde. Plenty of land was left on the creek side for widening the embankment. The road here extended 2~) links from the foot of the bank. He had left more .space at the other side because if tho embankment were widened at any future time it would be done on the inside of the curve. He did not think it would be ncce^sarv to take any more Kind, certainly not on the cieek .side. The amount of land pi op ised to b1;b 1 ; tiken was »noio than was required, but it was not necessary to rake any at all, as the council had full I lower to enter upon any land for the purposes required in connection with the culvert, without paying for compensation. Mr Hay then addressed thp council. He briefly drew the attention of the council to Section 10 of the Public Works Act to show that the council had not the ab-o'ute power of taking land, which they tnuught they h.id. They had tho power to take land only if it was required, and it bad abundantly been shown by the evidence that the land was not required, either for the pur pose of the culvert or for the purpose of widening th°. Cambridge road. Subsection 3 of Scctio'i 10 required that a cipy of the notice wo,* to be served on the owners and occupieis of the land, so far as they can be ascertained. In this case a notice was served upon a person who had a life interest in the land only, not upon the owner nor upon tho occupier. The land was registered in the Registry Office at Auckland, and had beonfoi many years and the owner-/ name could easily have been a^cettained. There was no description of works to bo executed, and that was necn-sary in oidrr to take the land. [It was here pointed out by Cr. Soddon that in certain cases a description of works was not necess.irv, and quoted section 1!) Public Works Act, 1552.1 Mr Hay .said it was quite true that the section quoted altered the reading of .-cot ion 10, but it did not alter the reading of section 11, which reads asfollow.s :— " If, after due consideration of all objections, the local authority is of opinion that it is expedient that the proposed works should be executed, and no ptivate injury will be done, &a, &c, the land could then be taken. Here there were no proposed works, andtholocil authoiity could have no opinion about proposed works which never were proposed. How was the chairman to make the declaration required by sub-section 4 of section 11, that the law has been complied with, and that that the proposed works should be executed. Another point was this. It, was necessary to give an accurate description of the l:>nd in the notice to be gazetted and publicly noti tied. This had not been done, the Ga/.ette notice mentioned that the land proposed to be taken was part of Section 3, Pari-.li of Tamaheie, but the land they were now deiling with was a pait of Section 1, of that paiihh. This objection he considered fatal if anything further were lOvjuired. The consideration of the objection at this meeting of the council was also illegal under Section 10, the local authority should appoint the tune and place. In this case the clerk had done so. So much for the legal difficulties, he would briefly advert to ths tneiits. He had only to say that the proposal to take the, land was a gross interference with private rights without being for any public purpose. The purpose stated in the notice he took to be unti n». It was a mere flimsy shadow. They wanted to take a road for Mr Barugh and they had not the manliness to say s<> Why not call a spade a spade ? It wa> well known that the Cambridge Road B ».ud had declined to take the road, and it wa-uu-English and contrary to the fundamental principles of British law that another attempt .should be made to take the. land. He might tell the council that tlio very notifications in the newspapers weie chaiged to Mr Barugh in the case of the Cambridge Road Board. [TheCleik: "1 deny it."j Mr Hay : I challenge denial. I know of my own personal knowledge that it, is so. He begged the council to c insider the objection without any feeling of warmth, and to look at it from Mr Ewen's point of view. They were there to u-e public money for public purposes, and if they took this land for Mr B iruarh\ road they would be using it to benefit private interests. These were the meiir.s ot the objection, and he trusted tluy would tind favour with the council. Having heard the clerk's explanation, Cr. Seddon moved that as the objections were not sufficient the land be taken. Cr. Runciman seconded the motion. Cr. Smith moved as an amendment that the objections be considered \alid, and that the land be not taken. He did not expect a seconder, but he did so as a protest. It was quite certain that it was no public benefit. If the council said plainly that they wanted a road for Mr Barugh it would be a different matter. Cr. Runcimau said that was what it was for. Cr. Smith : Then why is it not so stated ? and if so why should the council spend public money on a work intended to benefit a private individual? Cr Johnson seconded the amendment. On being but to the meeting the motion was carried by two or three, the chairman voting for it, Cr. Smith gave notice to move at next meeting that the motion Vie rescinded. Mr Kwen, before leav ing the room, said it had been stated by the council that Mr Barugh had nothing to do with the matter. Mi Barugh had told him that the council had promised to givo him the road. The Chairman and Cr. Seddon aaid they had never mentioned the matter outride the council. The matter then dropped.

The Hamilton poundkoepcr inserts several notice*, in this issue. Mr John Knov will well at his mart this afternoon, at . r > o'clock, a quantity of geese. " Waiiku," said a gentleman in the din-ing-car, "have you {jot auy gooseberry pie?"