COMPENSATION COURT.— Monday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume II, Issue 434, 4 April 1865, Page 4

COMPENSATION COURT.— Monday.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., K. M., Commissioner.) CH AMES KILVI.SU IDS CORSVOETU, Claim £61 10s for losses on form on East Coast: Sold cow and calf for £3, value £14 10s ; sold for £5 10s., cost £17; removal £b. Halio* acres, 1 in grass, remainder rough reed ; othcx items, £5 : house worth, £20. AVGfSTfS BUiSAS CALVERT. Claim £3U 2s for lo.se* «t Hunua, Papakura. Had 110 acres, SO under cultivation, feed: fencing, £12; clothmg lost £30; oth£ matters £21 '-3s; damage to house, lb, House Sd'with shot; Is6d; remov ß

£21 la 6d; non-occupancy of tonse for 13 months, cost j£soo ; furniture eold at a losa of £100; 30 acre* prepared and cropping, at £5 an acre; Btoreago of goods, £6KOUKKT MAJTFKED SCOTT, Claim £155 18s for losses on farm at Papakura Taller. 3 steers, £20; cow and calf, £16; store cow, £10 ; 3 heifers, £15; 5 calves, £15 ; 4 sheep, £8 ; sow ami pig, £5 ;72 fowls. £5 8s; 5 turkeys, ;61 6s ; 20 ducks, £3 ; damaged fences, £10 ; house, £10; boots and furniture,. £10; non-occupancy, £26 : house worth £200; had 120 acres, 32 grass, remainder buflh feed. JOHN THOMAS MKLLSOP, Claim, £174 for losses on farm at tho Mauku; house (worth £150) £25; damage to ditto, £15 . lost 2 horses, £70; 3 cattle, £30 ; removal, £7 ; 30 acres gross, £30; fowls, turkeys, and pigs, £12. CIIARLES CHAMBEULAIN, Claim £991, for losses on farm at Puni. Had ■1000 acres, 200 is grass, rest bush feed; lost 200 sheep, 30s each; carriiigo,£l6 ; house (worth £1200), £100. HEXKY STAXTOK, Claim £120, for losses on farm atPapakuro. Had 200 acres uncultivated; expense of garden, £10; framed whare, £30; surgical and veterinary instruments and book, £10; poultry, £1 19s ; removal, £5 ! non-occupancy, house value £70. Thomas Alien corroborated as to value. ■WILLIAM LITTrN, Claim £139 4s 6d, for farm at tho Hunna. Bad 2S acres, 15 in grass, 8 ditto felled and prepared, £40 ; furniture, tools &c, £7; dairy utensils, £3; non-occupation of house, £10 (worth £50); tools, &e., £0 15s; half ton sied potatoes. £5; fowls, &c, £l .12b ; removal, £1 10s ; garden, £4. 11KSSKS, BBOWX, CAMI'IiELL, & CO. Bobet Watcrston claimed £1127 10s, for losses on three farms belonging to Messrs. Brown, Campbell, and Co. Had called Bobert Fanner, who said the farms were, at Naihoehoe 1760 acres, at Tirimata 1350 acres, at Waiuku 1100 acres ; of the 4210 acres 100 were pasturage, the remainder good feed -, fencing 110 chains, SOs a chain on account cl difficulty of Cettin" wood ; 30 acres bush destroyed for redoubts at■ Drury and Shepherd's Bush, £100; damage to land by'quarrying, £25 -. 52 cattle lost, at £7 a head. Samuel Hall gave evidence as to valuo. JOHN" sirrox. Claim £36 10s, for losses on farm at Hunua, 2 cows, £26 ; 8 acres gris?, damage £3 10s; houSe worth £40. AGNES POIXOCK. Claim £79 16s for losses on farm at Hunua; damage to house £12 : 32 acres in gra?s; bullock dray destroyed, £10 ; fencing, £10; fowls, £2 16s; cow, £10 ; sea-chest, £3. John Sutton stated that the prices were correct. ISAVKtr CIirRCIIWAEDENS. Joseph Crbpe, Esq., one of the Churchwardens under authority of Bishop Selwyn, applied for£lS d images to the church at the Mauku, which had been converted into a stockade and loopholed ; £12 had been received from another source. DAVID WHITE. Claim XS36 10s, for losses on farm at Papakura ; 60 acres pasturage, 96G rough feed, all sown with grass; 11 aires for oats, £45 ; 9 acres grass, £10: house, worth £250 ; loss in clearing 100 acres, £25; cattle .--old amounting to £230 2s 64 ; claim, £177 10s; 3 horses sold, ,£99; removal, £25; fencing and premises damaged, £25. Kobert White, gave corroborative evidence. ABSAIIAM BI.NXETT WHITE. Claim £195, for losses on farm at Matata. Left his house in ISG4, and, on his return, found house an:i furniture gone. On Frid-iy the Court will hear a certain number of Wairoi claimants.

To the- Editor cf the > t ew Zealand Herald. Sib,—ln the columns of the Southern Cros*, March 25th, under head of " Harbour Improvements," an attempt is made to uphold the Superintendent in Ihe application of moneys to a purpose not contemplated by the Council when they authorised a loan ultimately to be appropriated to specific harbour works, when the works Lad been submitted and endorsed by their approval. The bill of loan being an empowering bill to transfer a gross amount which like fiose for public buildings should afterwards be specially appropriated, to show to which special purposes the irross sum was to be divided. This the Council expected would, in the usual course, be sent doivn in a orivate message or by npprobation bill. And it must be remembered this loan was a credit vote, in consequence of the unavoidable recess created by the meeting of General Assembly, which left no "time for the Council to entertain their approbation. 'J he only specific work mentioned was the proposed addition to the wharf, and 11.. rcfore it could not be supposed that the Superintendent would upon an unappropriated cause for immediate exigencies believe himself warranted in commencing on a new work, involving a debt on the Harbour Trusts of £100,000 to do that which could more effectually be done for £3000, and by such steps compromise the incoming Superintendent and incoming Council or Barbour Koard, not only to the amount but to a three or four years' undertaking, and which, from its consequences and the payment of the interest upon the outlay, would entirely prevent the progress of improvements in any other direction, or the reclamation of lands for future n.Tenue bv lease.

The Council therefore did not stultify themselves, but the Superintendent prematurely took the initiative on a work not submitted for consideration, under a rabid anxiety to ignore the Council in the expression of opinion on the administration of the trust, this is the true case although it may suit the getters up of the back stairs petition to makd the present false appearances. The plan sent down was never alluded to in the message with the bill, but as evidence on voting the engineer's salary of his acquaintance wjih sub-marine engineering a 8 a warrant for his engagement as Engineer in chief. Without calling in question that gentleman's ability to construct the works when decided upon, and their position approved, it i 3 but too evident from the concurrent opinion of five other engineers, that thero wa° a departure from principle, by the proposed disposition, which would euo lurage the silting up, instead of adhering to the disposition usually resorted to, the result of experience, which might retard if not counteract that tendency. The Cross stated that the report recommending " Thai the breakwater should not be gone on with," also recommended a pier in Freeman's Bay instead thereof. The report recommended a wharf in Freeman's Bay not as a substitute for the breakwater, but as a substitute for the jetty in Gore-street, because affording a relief to Queen-street itself as well as the wharf, and to be more beneficial by affording in Freeman's Bay eligible landing for all purposes desirable to the west portion of the city, and because if the breakwater recommended in the evidence of the report should be carried out, that jetty would be unnecessary as the whole f»ce ot Custom house-street, Queen-street, HighBtreet, arid Britomart side would be entirely sheltered from all winds. The engineer himself contemplates a fe'tion for building, reclaimed along Customstreet, and by its consequence, 300 feet out of 100 would be swallowed up thereby. It therefore appeared to the committee such jetty was superfluous. They also perceived that it the east and west breakwater was made it would enclose the whole bay in an area of 12 or 15 acres, and 8 feet water «.t a cost from £2000 to £3000, and this beirg more completely secure (or as the Harbor Master said, render it a mill-pond inside), entirely obviate any necessity for the outlay of the £88,000, or even th:; going to 0 feet water at a cost of £3,150, until the limit was fixed to which permanent doaks works should be carried out. The committee seeing that the Point Britomart breakwater was in progress, although no specific vote had teen taken, did not feel warranted to decide finally on the proper position of any other —but simply and properly put the first question, whether an alteration was desi'able, either on the grounds of money, or advantages—and thus left the test with the Council, shall it go to G feet for £8155, or be stopped at low water mark, and thus leave a portion of the funds available for a cheaper work, which would give perfect protection in all winds. Now, it was evident from the difference in the necessary magnitude of the two works, that the whole line across could be completed for the amount, and parhaps no more material than would be swallowed up in the next- 300 feet, and thus supply an 8 feet harbour for the coasting craft for the next 20 years. The admission made in the petition, " that ail harbours silt up," certainly doea not warrant the taking pains at immense outlay to encourage that tendency, but on the contrary, suggests the propriety of examining and adopting those principles which experience has dictated for arresting such tendency.

The concluding congratulation, " that no damage i has beon dene during the late gale through the pro--7 taction afforded by the portion done," is gratuitous, because the owners of t"hd crafts had taken unusual caro to remove them. No doiibt had vessels at Queen-stroot Wharf received damage, then it woidd be said it was becauso the outer part was not done. Had the compass bearings appoared in tho report, they would have shown that even at tho six-feet mark the wharf would not ba covered, and that at N.N.E. (which tho pilot soys is tho worst kind for that bay) nearly tho whole of Custom-street would also bo exposed. Now the Cross says tho ovidonco contradicts the report. I challenge" proof. The first apparent instance is from the Harbour-master, who says, " I prefer Mr. Weaver's plans to tho others I have seen." Yet he has already said, " I do not seo the use of its being carried out so far ;" and in answer to " then you would not recommend it to bo carried out so tar?" Answer: "No." Pilot, in reference to breakwater, Point Britomart, " It would causo silting up. . . . If it goes no further than 7 feet Ido not think it would cause obstruction to navigation." •' Do you think tbo Bilt from sewerage would bo much?" "If tho west projection (at tho end) was not there, the sewerage would escape more froory, but that is necessary for complete protection." So, then, there will not bo complete protection without the whole extont ho done, involving £88,000. In answer to "Would it not be better to excavate this space?" Answer: '* I contemplate docks will be formed in all these bays : from 6 to 8 feet oil' Point Britomart should be the limit." Then ho gratuitously adds, " that a lino from Judge's Bay Reef to Watchman shall bu outer limits." Now this lino cuts off, at 6 feet, all the outside of the proposed breakwater. Tims all the evidence, including Kall'erty, Simpson, and Sir W. Penison, all terminate at the same limit, corresponding to G feet off Point Britomart. Now, if you project permanent works beyond that limit, how will you keep clear of silt for your dock entrance ? Now, both pilot and Harbour Master, both admit I that more complete protection would b-> given by tho break frfrn low water, Point Britomart, to all vessols inside, but not so much accommodation, that is 15 acres aro not equal to 38 acres. Sir Wm. Denison cautions tho Government in his report not to go in pcimanent works beyond six feet, becauso the advantages to to gained would not be commensurate to the cost. Now, if tho break-water E. and W. in done, thero will be over 2COO feet of quay, at all winds a millpond, the cost not more than half the other projected to six feet. Now, this sis feet will not givefany protection to any but the Britomart corner, yet Pilot says this N.N.E.' does most damage.—See bearings by compass. Now, I think the Council aTO justified in taking the opinions of five engineers, some of them having been engaged in submarine works, in prefereuce to tho opinion of one only who, we have yet leam, if ho have ever himself done any submarino works. No doubt, it wus very good political capiialonevo of an election to propose works to Council, which ho ought to know from their magnitude, no Council on the approach of an election could sanction, consistent with their duty to the countiy. There will always* be be friends who will support a power which will confer favors upon them. As for boatmen, it is invariable that they oppose real improvements, because of tho consequent diminution of their prospective employments, and they all, follow teir employers. But there are some gentlemen who are not sups posed to be biassed by such considerations, and it i more than probable some of them may have signed this petition under the impression that the Council merely in opposition to tho cjuperintcudent spending money without a specific vote were desiring to prevent "the construction of a breakwater. This is entirely an erroneous view. What they are seeking is to obtain a more complete protection for coasting craft by a breakwater not only less expensive, but final, and in a position to advance either the communication by rail, or building, or docking, and it is singular that were it possible for the larger break to succeed, the reclamation across the bay must nevertheless sooner cr later take place.

I think I may add that the language the Sonl/iern Croxx-has usej towards the Council, however it may serve as a political nmnouvre to damage certain persons in public estimation, is disgraceful to any Auckland journal. The councillors are those chosen by the people, acting perhaps in more good faith than richer or better educated people sometimes do ; and moreover, they not only have called for an immediate dissolution, but to obtain the appointment of a harbour board, in order that the merchants may manage their own estate without the interference of either themselves or a Superintendent. I have, &c, A Memueu of Provincial Council. Epsom, April 1, 18Gi.

/ ; I / I I!/ KAFFERTT, Sm W. PESISON, / "*J I , ' I'd Simpson. / I — Burcess S / .-£. ■"'/■ G fppl, u Breakwater (fsoooi t".& W. / &/ .•' j '* I 10 wro« "7 ./' I ' "N 1 * 4 jLess s Building sec. / £y' :*\\ ""' Engineer's /'/ «2| / / / \ I ■: / j V / / / / / / 700 by 1200 feet

To the Editor of the New Zealand Hkkalu. Sib, —"Whilst perusing your columns of late I could not but fail to observe the allusions made by one of your correspondents in accordance with tiie justness of a necessary increase of salary to the officers aud men at present comprising the constabulary fo;ce of Auckland, which now prompts me to reiterate u subccfc that I previously attempted to bring to the notice iof the public through the agency of your columns, namely, the insufficiency of salary allotted to that branch of public servants on whom the very responsible duty of the safe-keeping of the prisoners of our colony has devolved, and whose duties are quite as onerous, if not more so, than those of the conntabulary of this city, when we take into consideration the frail tenement iu which our prisoners are at present, confined. Trusting you will afford me a space in your columns for this brief hint to those who have the power of rectifying such matters, and I trust in this instance will justly use them. I have, &c, Obsebvee. Auckland, April 3rd, 1865.