COMPENSATION COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2036, 26 September 1908, Page 3

COMPENSATION COURT.

JOHNSTONE V. MINISTER FOB PUBLIC WORKS.

His Honor, Air Justice Edwards, presided over a sitting of the Compensation Court yesterday when hearing was taken of the case of John Georgia Johnstone v. the Minister for Public Works, claim for £46-1 16s lOd, compensation for lands taken under the Public Works Act 1905, for the purposes of the Gisborno-Botorun railway.

Mr G, Stock appeared for tlio claimant and Air J. W. Nolan for the defendant. Air Stock outlined the case for his client and reviewed tlio ovklenco ho proposed to cull. Air Nolan handed in a plan with the various portions concerned in the case numbered.

John George Johnstone said that ■lie was tlio owner of the block in question, having purchased it in 180-1. He paid £9 10s per acre and 2S acres of it was flat country, which was of special value to him tor winter feedgrowing purposes. At the time of buying he valued the flats at £45 per aero. He was not aware of any increase in the value of flat land from the timo he purchased until the laud was taken for railway purposes. There wore four entrances into the flats from the hills at the time of purchase, but now lie had only two, one of which was useless owing to the oresenco of «. large crook which required bridging. The other was not a convenient ono, having to bo approached by a circuitous route. Tho actual value ho placed on the land taken for the radway was £SO per acre, and he considered he had sustained loss on tho two pieces separated to tho extent of £3O per acre. Another paddock near the cowshed had also been cut off, which ho had used for his cow paddock and for rams, etc.. Before the railway was laid the entrances -to his prop rty wore very convenient and in order to make the present entrance, he lmd been compelled to shift his sheepyards.

To Air Nolan : Portion of the sheepyards had certainly been removed since the -railway was laid. The yards had been made smaller on account of tho necessary alterations. The yards had boon previously used for a station of 5000 acres, and he had, in -all, 362 acres. Tho entrance was put in in its present place by the tenant to whom he had leased it at a little over 11s per acre. There was a purchasing clause in the lease for £lO per aero, and tho buildings were insured for £BOO. Another clause in the lease stated that if tho claimant’s tenant completed, ar 7 compensation claimant receives from the Government goes towards the purchase, anth that if tho tenant does not complete by August, 1909, he shall forfeit to the claimant £2OO. He knew that the lessee had made a claim in connection with the block of £202 and had accepted £SO in settlement. A joint claim by himself and the lessee was put in for £1202 os. Alost of the land he bought for £9 10s per acre, but there was a block of 149 acres at £3 10s per acre. Counsel then proceeded to deal with the various sections of the block, with -a view to ascertaining the amount of loss -actually sustained. Witness did not know what the adjoining land had been sold for, but one block in the vicinity was bought for £26 per acre. He did not think that his land was made more valuable by the fact of the railway running through it. To Air Stock: The hills he paid £3 10s per acre for were not of as good quality as those in front. The lease to the tenant was only optional. AA'-hen. he bought tho property the route of railway was aiot decided.

Joseph Burton Ivells said he had considerable experience in land valuing. He had valued the claimant’s land at Lome, taken for the purposes'of the railway, and in 1905 the value he put down at £3O per acre. He knew the two portions that had been severed from the rest of the block, and considered them to be of little value. Tije. portions were of great value when connected with the rest of the property. He valued the portions now at about £2O per acre. The flats were depreciated in value by loss -of frontage to the extent of £5 per acre. Air Cole’s property close by 'was bought for either £25 or £26 per acre, and part of it was hardly so good as that of claimant’s. To Air Nolan: He had gone carefully over the property, and apart from the railway altogether he valued two of tlio severed pieces at £2O per acre, for grazing and ploughing purposes- At! present he thought the value of the portions mentioned was £5 or £6 per acre. He knew the entrances of the old Lome station, and did not- think there was u' great deal of difference between them and the present entrances. One -of tlie_ principal drawbacks on the block owing to the railway was tho inconvenience of working. ‘The fact of the -railway going through the property, in his opinion, enhanced the value of the property to the extent of £1 per acre all round. . . John AVdlson Bright said that he valued the land taken for the -railway as in 1905 at £3O per acre to tho owner. A loss of eight acres out of the flats would make -a material difference. One of the blocks severed, nearest the station, wus practically of no value at present to the owner, -but would have been worth £3O instead of £ls or £lB, had it not been cut off by the railway. The loss of road frontage ho put down -at -about £3 ner acre. To Mr Nolan: One of the severed portions might he used for a garden. If one acre of ono of the blocks was contained in the creek, it would duce its value below £3O per acre. The pronerty was certainly enhanced by the. railway, owing to- the 'difference in tho cost of the carnage of the productions and commodities ot the place. . AVm. Baird, sheopf-armer, l’ulia, valued the land taken for the railway at about £33 per aero. Tho small ■severed portions were not ot much value. £2 to £3 per acre would he -about tho loss owing to loss of Montage. He bought flat land at Puha -and paid close on £6() per acre dor some 34 acres, and £4o for some 111 To Air Nolan : He bought it for a home, and did not know that, it - had been sold at the sale of the Loine estate for £24 per acre,’ The value of the land as a whole was greater on account of the railway to the extent of 10s per acre. , This concluded the evidence on behalf of the claimant and, for the defence. Mr Nolan contended that claimant was not the '(person who should bring the action, as the tenant was tho person who suffered. Attu outlining the, evidence he proposed to call, counsel called— . Ashton Slater AVuchsniaim who w seared the value of the land in 1900-6 ■it £3O per acre. He considered that bv the severance of the two portronr, referred to claimant had lost £lO per acre. The inconvenience in working was no .greater than it had been before, and the entrances were even better. The increased value ot the land owing to the railway would be at least 10s per acre over all. To Air Stock: He considered thcic was no damage sustained on the farm owing to loss of frontage. Gavin Ralston AVyllie stated that he conducted the silo of he Ixirne estate sections. He valued tlio flat land at £2B per acre, and had sold a block of 34 acres adjoining, at tl at price: Tho two severed blocks he valued at £l4 per aero, but he did not consider that the working ot the place was interfered with to any ap--1 racial* 1 © exent by the railway. The value was certainly greater on account of the railway by at least 10s *>*«**- stock; The flats are most He did not consider there wan great damage sustained by tho prance. The entrances were bcttci than tl -y had been, and he put down J-js pm acre as the excess in the value of the ,!a„ c i as the result of the railway running through it. , AVm. Edward Akroyd valued the land taken at £25 per acre, and he allowed £OO for the severance. I ho

railway, ho thought, increased the value of tho farm by 14s or 15s per aero

To Air Stock: Air Colo’s adjoining property was about tho same value ns claimant’s.

Edwin Bold, of the Public Works Department, stated that-claimant a nd Mr McCrcdio, tho tenant, had handed him tho original claim for £1202. Liter ho received 1 amonclpd claims from each, AlcCrodio’s boing £202. Tho claim was settled l\v McCrcdio accepting £SO. An offer of £l2O had boon made to claimant, but it was refused. The amount paid to Colo was at- the rate of £’3o per aero, but the whole of liis frontage was taken in hi,s ease. In the case of Bennett’s section taken compensation was granted' at tho rate of £3O per acre and Ingram’s adjoining at £25 per aero. Tho section for the Puha station, 4] acres, was bought outright for £220. At tho time of the settlements ho had instructions that -hero was to bo no station at Pulm. but on account of pressure being brought to bear, it was decided to have a station. . To AH' Stock: All the sections lie had referred to wore small sections. Air Oman, for -his section adjoining the station, was claiming £SO per aero.

Cecil Francis -Lewis, Government Valuator, valued the land t-akon at £lO9 (Is for tlio whole five acres. The damage caused by severance ho estimated at £SO, -and tho -railway had caused, in his opinion, u bottermont of 15s per acre. To Air Stock: Ho had taken into consideration tho loss of frontage, -and thought that, although there were disabilities through tho cutting up, they wore not serious. Ono of tlio severed portions could be used as a garden, and the other for grazing purposes. He valued Colo’s land at about £3O ner acre, and thought that it was slightly hotter land than thatheld by claimant. This closed tho case for tho defendant. and after counsel had addressed the Court, tho Court retired to consider tho case. Counsel wore called in in consultation, and it was eventually decided, by consent, that an award bo made, fixing tho amount payable to the claimant- at £9O, each party to pay his own costs, and the costs" of his assessor.