PENROSE RIFLE RANGE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 37, 12 February 1904, Page 2

PENROSE RIFLE RANGE.

FIXIXG THE VALUE. At the Supreme Court yesterday and again to-day, Mr Justice Edwards -was engaged in deciding the value of 100 acres of land at Penrose belonging to the Dihvorth trustees, which the Government has taken compulsorily for permanent use as a rifle range. The judge was attended by Mr S. Vaile. assessor for the trustees, and Mr Gerald Peacocke, Government assessor. The counsel t-ngaged consisted of Messrs. Cotter and Tunks (instructed by Messrs. Jackson and Russell), for the Dilworth trustees, and the Hon. J. A. Tole for the Government. Mr EL Thompson, land purchase officer, of Wellington, was present as representing the Government. Mr Cotter, opening the case for the plaintiffs, said the total claim of £7274, was made up as follows: —100 acres of land at £60, iIGOOO- compensation of £ 1 per acre for depreciation of balance of estate (194 acres), owing to the severance of the estate, £194; £1 per acre for loss of permanent water supply on 110 acres, £110; depreciation of adjoining land owing to a rifle range being a source of danger and annoyance, estimated at £5 per acre, £970; total, £7274. Mr Tole said the Government offered £3000. Mr Cotter pointed out that the original estate owned by Mr Dilworth con-, sisted of 400 acres, of which the railway absorbed a portion, leaving 30 or 40 acres on one side, ana about 300 acres on the other. In selecting the portion for a rifle range, the Public Work 3 Department had taken a strip of land from the centre containing a valuable spring of water. The result of this method of cutting up was to lessen the value of the balance to the Trustees, by affecting its compactness. The water supply to the 110 acres would, by the sale of the spring, be rendered uncertain in quantity and impaired in quality. If the land were intended for the erection of factories, the loss of this water supply would be a serious matter. The extensive roads and harbour frontage, and the proximity of the Te Papapa and Penrose railway stations, made the land specially suitable for factories. The harbour frontage removed the fear of trouble over drainage. The rocky nature of the land was from some points of view not a disadvantage, as it was much sought after for bidding purposes, and was not objected to by manufacturers. In regard to the depreciation which would result from the rifle range, some of the gentlemen present would remember the outcry which occurred from time to time against the annoyance and damage caused by stray bullets from Mt. Eden to the occupants of adjoining land. In the present case it must be clear that considerable annoyance would be caused by deflected bulletsc or stray bullets from inexperienced marksmen, who couid not hit the targets. Mr. Tole here stated that he would admit the item of £ 194 for severance Speaking of the conditions under which the DiKvnrth land was held, Mr Tole said ander Act ot Parliament it could be leased for !J9 years for special purposes, including building, but only ior 21 year 3 tor srrazinsr. Mr. Cotter: But you will get the freehold. Mr. Tole: I am not talking of what we get. but of what we take from you. Mr. Tole proposed that His Honor and the court should at oaee inspect the land. lii-5 Donor decided that if it were advisable for uiai to see the land he would do so after hearing the evidence. The first w,itnes3 was Frank Joseph Bodle, manager of the Auckland branch of the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency, Ltd.. for the past eight years. He said he knew the property and had recently inspected 't- His company owned 40 acres close to the rifle range purchasing it in April, 1809, at £50 per acre. He would not recommend the sale of their block at less than £75 per acre. Cut up judiciously it should realise £ 100 per acre net. There was a steady trend of population from the city in that direction- He considered the amount of £CO per acre claimed for the rifle range was eminently fair. The presence of the rifle range would seriously damage the sale of the rest of the estate, and he considered the claim of £5 per acre on thi3 account not unreasonable. To Mr Tole: Some year 3 ago they purchased grazing land at Otahuhu near their saleyards, and were immediately offered £50 per acre for it. It was true that the Dilworth land was stony and unploughable. Concerning the danger from bullets he could not speak. His Honor observed that the Auckland marksmen seemed to be given credit for being very bad marksmenMr Cotter: It's not the marksmanship, your Honor. It's the deflection. Mr. Tole to witness: Can you tell what the deflection would be of the bullets now used by the riflemen? Witness: No;\Jrat l have read of bullets being deflected over Mount Eden. Robert Hall, a farmer of Epsom, chairman of the Dilworth Trustees, and recently employed by the Government as a valuer of the Matamata Estate, said the property was within a radius of 0 miles from the boundary of the City of Auckland, and was only 15 minutes' walk from the Te Papapa railway station. There was navigable water right up to the 100 acres taken by the Government, and the spring was estimated to yield 150,000 gallons of water per day. Population was increasing rast in the district. The fair value of the land was, in his opinion, £53 per acre, but the loss of water would aTTect the rest of the property by at least £ 1 .per acre. He estimated the loss through the rifle range at not less than £6 per acre. To Mr. Tole: He was not aware that Mr. Dilworth ever contemplated letting the land for factories. The trust land adjoining the rifle range was let now at 13s. per acre for grazing. About five of the 100 acres were covered by salt water at spring tides. He did not consider the rocky formulation a disadvantage. It was suitable for grazing, and it was much sought after by people desiring to build. Charles Caesar Otway, surveyor, of Auckland, gave evidence as to plans of subdividing the estate and the effect on these plans of the cutting out of the rifle from its centre. Captain Frater*, of the firm of Frater and Sons, land agents, of Auckland, valued the Dilworth estate at £52 10/ per acre. He believed that the estate would some time be valuable for manufacturing businesses on account of the water frontage and the fresh water supply. Two-thirds of the estate was suitable for residential purposes, sold in β-acre lots, His Honor: How many people would give £52 per acre to go out that distance to live on six acres?

Witness: It is specially suitable for poultry farming. Witness added that the rifle range would depreciate the remnant of the Dilworth estate fully £5 per acre. It was not unknown for a man to run amok with a magazine rifle, and women were specially afraid on account of their children. It was pointed out that the plan showed txiat the shooting would be in the direction of the harbour. Mr. Cotter said the recochetting was a considerable element with the modern firearms and nickel-plated bulleta. Captain Frater said he would not live near a rifle range if he got a house rent free. He would not like to live even on the opposite side of the water, two or three miles distant. The spring of water which the remnant of the estate would lose by the taking of the 100 acres was, in his opinion, worth from £400 to £500. To Mr. Tole: If the land were cut up for 6-aere fowl runs and sold at £52 10/ per acre, he believed the purchasers would make a handsome profit immediately. Frederick George Ewington, land agent, of Auckland, valued the land at £50 per acre for suburban residences. The loss of the spring of water he valued at £2 per acre on 110 acres. Concerning the rifle range, he believed the noise and nuisance, even more than the danger, would lessen the value of the rest of the estate by £2 per acre. At Devonport, riiie practice often began at five o'clock in the morning, and the noise was like the breaking-up of palings. If was liable to alarm women very much. Mr. Tole: It is not as bad as the noise of the tramears in Queen street, I suppose? Mr. Ewington: Oh, no. But we can't get any compensation for that. Concerning the rocky nature of the land, Mr. Ewington said it was not more rocky than land that he had sold at £1000 per acre. It might be true that the Onehunga water supply was already brought to Mount Smart, only 25 chains from the Dilworth property, but he would still value the spring of water at the iigure he had stated. Joseph Thornes. a land agent of Aucklandj valued the land at £50 per acre on account of its special adaptability for certain businesses, such as tanneries, abattoirs, soap works, freezing works, manure works, and any business requiring good drainage, a good water supply, and access to railway stations. Population in the district was fast increasing. He valued the loss of the spring of water to the 110 acres of the remnant of the estate at £2 per acre. The loss on account of the nearness of the rifle range he estimated at £5 per acre. , Mr. Tole asked if witness thought it likely that a freezing .company would buy 200 acres for £ 12,000. Mr. Thornes: Certainly, and be glad to get it. His Honor: But freezing companies are not as plentiful as grocers. What is the use of estimating its valne for a freezing company when then* is no such company to buy it. Mr. Cotter said negotiations had been in progress between a freezing company and the trustees concerning thfs very estate. Albert Say Board, land agent, of Auckland, gave details of the sale of 14 acres at £ 1750 and 27 acres at £3000, both near Penrose. On the former there was a four-roomed cottage, and on the latter improvements worth about £500. The establishment of the rifle range would reduce the value of the remaining 194 acres of the Dilworth land to the extent of £8 p<-r acre. He had some acquaintance with rifle ranges, and considered it was not safe within a quarter of a mile of them. fB TO-DAY'S EVIDENCE. Colonel Daries, commanding officer of the Auckland district, was called for the. defence at this stage of the hearing. He stated that there was no risk, danger, or deterioration to the adjoining properties by the establishment of a range ou the site acquired. The deflection of a bullet, no matter what object it struck, would be very slight, and the bullet would not be carried off the ground. There was no fear of contiguous properties being jeopardised. In reply to Mr. Tunks witness said that even a shot from a rifle used by an indifferent rifleman would not endanger adjoining property, nor could a shot deflect sufficiently to go off the range. He could not say if the adjoining land would depreciate in value as residential sitea because of the existence of the range. Shooting at the range would be always under the supervision of an officer. Thomas Francis Cabill,, land agent, called by the claimants., said that in September, 1902, he valued the property at £50 an acre. From a land agent's point of view he had always found that a rifle range alongside a property made the property unsaleable. He considered £ 5 an acr a reasonable amount to take off for depreciation. Arthur Coglan, farmer, said that he always considered that the piece taken for a rifle range was the best part of the property for grazing purposes. Alfred Be vans, formerly manager of the Auckland Freezing Works, called for the claimants, said the property would be admirable for abattoirs or freezing purposes. He had opened negotiations with the trustees foT the lease of part of the property near the rifls range, on behalf of the Auckland Farmers' Freezing Company, and it was proposed to put up buildings worth. £25,000. The trustees were asking a rent of £2 an acre per year. Charles George Davis, called for the claimants, said he was a glue manufacturer carrying on his business near the range. He would not take £200 an acre for his land. Major Morrow, called by the claimants, said he had had considerable experience in musketry instruction in the Imperial army. The effect of the mark IV. bullet (now condemned) on striking a hard substance would be to break to pieces. The effect of the mark 11. bullet, a solid one, on striking a hard substance, would be to deflect for some distance. He had seen a bullet deflected from a rock for fully 200 yards. He was certain that if bullets were fired from the top of the range, and struck rocks at an angle some 400 or 500 yards down the range, they would be deflected for some 200 or 300 yards. He did not think that the adjoining land was safe. The bullets would go through 17 inches of oak and through fully 3ft. of ordinary white timber. They would go through a 2in. plank at 3000 yards. He did not agree with Colonel Davies' .evidence. Mr. Tole said he was informed that the range at the 500 yds distance was 15 chains wide. Lieut.-Colonel F. W. Abbott, called by the claimants, said he did not agTee with Colonel Davies at all. When a bullet struck a rock its course was very erratic

—it might go off at almost a right angle. He did not consider the range safe. His Honor: According to that there must have been showers of bullets flying about the houses near the Mount Eden range. Witness said this was" quite possible. He nad known of complaints being made about the Mount Eden range. His Honor: If you did not kill anybody on a narrow range such as Mount Eden don't you thjik the idea that people axe likely to be killed at the Penrose range is rather fanciful? Witness: Mo; not at all fanciful. Witness went on to say that there would be danger to people on either side of the Penrose range. He had known of complaints being made that bullets went off the range on to the flanking ground. This concluded the evidence for the claimants, Mr. Tole, in opening for the Government submitted that the offer of £3000 by the Government was a fair and liberal one. A number of witnesses would be called, and the estimate of the value of the property given by these witnesses would be from £2400 to £2880. (Proceeding.)