COMPENSATION COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 220, 18 September 1888, Page 8

COMPENSATION COURT.

CLAIMS AGAINST THE

KAIHU

VAIJLEY RAILWAY COMPANY.

The Compensation Court sat in Chambers at the Supreme Court this morning. Big Honor Mr Justice Gillies presiding., Messrs A. Boardman and H.;;G. Wade were tne arbitrators. The claims under consideration were two ih number, viz , by James NimmOj claim £3,742 17s 6d, and by T.KS.Tiriue, claim £949 17s 6d, each being for alleged damage to property done by the Kaihu Valley Railway. Nimmo v. the Kathu Valley Railway Company.—Claim, £3,74217s 6d. --Mr. S tone appeared, with Mr Theo. Cooper, '-'"for the olaimant, and Mr E» Hesketh (instructed by Mr Maiekeoknie) for ; 'the.; dofendant company.,— To the defence put in by | the company was a denial of the statement of claims.— Mr Cooper, in opening I the "case, quot&l a judgment .given by ■Kis Honor under the Act of 1876 in Rutherford "V. the Remuera .-'Road; Bo rd, as the course consistently followed ,in determining claims of this kind. The-amount olair^e^ \yas large,,.byfon the1 ; other hand they would be able to show that the injury done to the; block, under certain circumstances, was also large. He would only ask the Court to a.ssess a fair amount lor the injury which they .would prove had been sustained. He (Mr Cooper) would; now• rhpe&t-y to the Company; an offer, that had previously been made for settlement of. the claim, first, for .the amount of, land, taken, secondly, for, the injury sustained, and that the Company be compelled to fence the land, and third, under the general head of severance, by cutting the land off from the- road on one o«ide of,the river or the other, and,bytaking the good land from the bad. The offer they had made-wasy this, and. he now asked his friend to consider it. In the . first place he thought a fair offer ior the land taken was £30 ' l7s 60. Then they claimed general .damage for severance, and tbey said the railway, wasno earthly benefit .to. them because; it went; Stfaightthrough Mr Nimmo's land .without stopping. The railway was a positive source of injury to the land. This railway, in fact, was projected for purposes of private gain, for the opening up .of certain timber lands, and .of a ; certain block Of land belonging to the Company. The claimants, also asked for proper stations,, jwid crossing places. 7An off er: made by the \ Company, dated June 26th, was tbmakeand; provide crossings at such; places as in the opinion of the Public Works Engineer were fair and reasonable intervals-.: Subseqiieht(. to that date they agreed to erect statipos along the line. The claimants asked for these stations and crossings, and they said they Were entitled to fencing, because the, railway had 'brokeniip what was jireviously a bier block of land bounded by the ocean and by the Kaihu River. They asked for a deed'bf covenant to fence because, otherwise, "the* Company might "turn roundand compel the < claimants to pay half the cost of fencing, _.-, .'-; He , submitted ; this offer was fair and reasonable. ,1 —Mr Hesketh said he was sorry he could"I ■ ■:-.'-■ v_y,:-■;.-■;■, o.:-.-.-,'.,L-■"■_:.■ >'-■:.■■-;''■■ .77.:-7 7:r.:-._

not, on, behalf of the Company, accede; to this offer. He did not think Mr Cooper had made it clear, what his demand really j was.; He (Mr Hesketh) understood that there were no less than five things asked for, viz., payment for the land taken, j erection of flag stations, erection of cro3sihgs, fencing, and costs. The stumbling - blocks were fencing and payments ot costs. The length of property to be fenced was 6 and 7-10 th ihiles,_ and fencing was consequently a serious item. There were a great many natural fences and the fencing on both sides of the land could hot be undertaken by the railway. It was true there was no time-table at present, but it was impossible that the trains could run f and not benefit this land, and so "enhance its value as to compensate for the fifty-three acres taken. —lii answer .to the President, Mr Cooper said the claimant.would accept crossings and flag-stations a« offered;' The questions at issue; were reallyfencing and costs.—The President pointed outthateither party would rhave the right to callupon the othertofence. [---Mr Cooper urged that if the railway had not been put on the land 'there would have been no necessity .to erect fences. Three lines of fences were-required where there was before only one. The presence of the railway separated the good land from the bad, thus decreasing the saleable value of the property. He submitted that it was for the company to prove that the railway had improved saleable value of the land. He i regretted 'that his offer had not been j accepted, and proceeded to call evidence. — i Samuel Vaile deposed that he was a land agent and joint attorney with Mr Douglas for the claimant in this case. The block consisted of 40,630 acres; of which some 53 acres had been taken by tha Company. He reckoned the best land at 20 acres and £1 per aero was a low value. There were 33| acres valued at 10s per acre. The ordinary cost of ereoting a fence would be about 15s a chain and the cost of maintenance foi; ten years about half that amoemt. 1,072 chains of fewping were required on .-..Mr, Nimmo's jand, At the time the claimwas lodged there was no provision for stations, except at the terminal; points. Without /stations and crossings the railway would be ! a serious detriment to MrNimmo's land. It divided his .land -into ■','■: two pieces. It blocked bis access from the river. The line also severed the; tracks coming from the coast to the river. : The land cut off from tho block was the best portion of the land, all the timber being on the waterside of; the land. In witness's opinion the land, 7 even with the station and crossings was not'worth more than it was before the railway was made. The cost of transport by water would be about Is 6d per tori, arid there was no certainty as to the rate by rail. Witness did pot think that; the rail way would open up and settle the land; There were three or four small lakes and swamps on the Jand, but he did not know tfiafc these swamps were not drainable. He estimated the damage for severance was Is 6d pet acre on tlie whole block by reason of the railway. The liability to fence the railway would have an effect on the saleable value of the land.—By Mr .Hesketh ':":'- I always thought the railway would be injurious to the land. I sold the land to Mr Niramb at 5s per aero. At the time of the sale I exhibited a statement (produced). ,;„ This statement assumed that the railway would eventually go through to! Hokianga*. The line was 21 miles in length, and it would be; about 7; miles beyond Mr Nimmo'3 land when finished. Supposing the railway vyas worjsed well and had , two flag stations and crossings, it would bo of no benefit to the land under the contract. Tberewere white posts 12ft high: across, the swamps* but be did not know they were to tell the people which way the road went (laughter).y Witness never heard of six crossings on Mr Nimmo's land. If the railway was worked properly under,witness's views,"it would be a very different business. ; The Court adjourned at 1 p.m,, and on resuming at 2 p.m. Mr Cooper stated that an arrangement had been arrived at for settlement of the claim. The company would execute a deed of covenant to erect flag station arid crossings, and that each train should stop at Nimmo's station for persons or goods there. There would b'd a mutual agreement that there should be no liability for either party for fencing tho boundary, lines of the railway. The question of costs would be left to the. Court. He suggested that the Court should .adjourn for a week, in order that a deed of covenant might be executed and tho claim 'withdrawn —The President made an order accordirigly.-^-ThiH a-rangement was al 6 applicable to Turners claim; in which-Mr Button appeared for the claimant and Mr Hesketh for the defendant Company.— Counsel then addressed the Court on the question of costs. Mr Cooper suggested that the arbitrators' costs should be divided into three parts, one to be paid by Mr Nimmo, another by Mr Tinne, and the third by, the .Company,, each party to bear their own costs.-—Mr Hesketh said he could not consent to the proposal inadei and he referred to the claims iinade as unreasonable arid exorbitant. Tbe Offer- of the Company to provide flag:statipns and iorossings wasmadeon the 2sth June, and virjiually the settlement arrived at was what was agreed to by the.Company on the 26th June and the 6th July. The costs in Nimmo's case to the witnesses would not be less than £100, and he asked that the amount of costs should be fixed by?the Coui_t. Mr Hesketb used similar argumont in refererrce to Tinhe's ; clairi..—TheyPresident stated that each party might send in a'statement of their expenses, inorder that the assessors might have gome guide in fixing costs. - ; The Court then adjourned for a week.

It is considered, that the departmental building, "-cur biggest wooden building," is'now well gnatariteed-agftinst. fire. A large sum has been spent in the ia-t few months in laying wator pipes through the corridors, enlargingthemaihs and providing fire-extin-guishingappliance-atconvenieiitpoints,and eiec.ingdoorsm the main passages to reduce draughts,: while an efficient fire brigade has been organised, iby .Lieutenant-Colonel Hume amongst the-officers' of the various departments,