RIGHT TO PROPERTY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 230, 26 September 1906, Page 5

RIGHT TO PROPERTY.

OWNERSHIP OF A FOEMER STREET. PROTEST AGAINST" CROSS-EXA3II-XATION. > The Royal Comtnission of inquiry into ! the ownership of a strip of land, iv Poni souby between Haekett-street and Ring j Terrace, know as new Swift Avenue. claimed by S. E. Hughes, was continued today btelore District Judge Kettle. J Claimant appeared in person, and the " ' City Council was represented by Mr T. Colter, city solicitor, Mr A - Hanna and ' Mr J. C. Martin appearing for adjoin- ' ing owners. Prior to the'resumption of the enquiry ' ' Mr. Hughes read a letter to the Comj missioner in which he stated that he appeared without prejudice to his posli lion, and recorded his objection to the j scope of the Royal Commission which was not in accordance with, the provisions of and was beyond the limits defined in section 22 of the Commissioners Act. 1903, as the basis was the report ; of-the Lands Commission on his petition. ! lie also objected to the ionn which the J enquiry was taking as being outside the ; terms and powers of the Commission, and as not being conducted on judicial ! lines, and also that he had not been ! allowed, to fully state his case. He ob- , jected to anyone outside himself and •! the Auckland City Council being repre- ! sented, or by counsel, or taking any part ■j in the enquiry. He submitted that I Messrs. Boak, Hanna and Self had no j right in law, equity or justice to be repre- ! sented, or to take part in the enquiry, I especially after the remarks of Mr. Justice Connolly in the case of trespass which !he had brought against Boak and Hanna, !in which his Honor saidthat the proeeedi ings taken by the defendants were not ■ ' taken in the interests of the public, but !in support of an entirely unfounded : claim by them to the occupation of the hind in question. The claim that the \ • land was a public highway was not then set up, but was an afterthought. It I appeared that 20 or 30 persons had ; knocked down a fence and forcibly put ' plaintiff's sons off the ground, both dei fendants taking part in it. Their con- | duct was not only ■without merit, but J was as wrong as it well could be. i Mr. Hughes contended that if the appearance of these parties were allowed. !it was giving a premium to break the j I law and then take advantage ofateehni- '■ cality. He asked his Worship's ruling ' on this point. His Worship ruled (hat all the parties i represented had a right to appear, ana | :in answer to Mr. Hughes saw no neees- I sity for stating a ease for the opinion i 'of the Supreme Court on the point. i Mr. Hughes further entered an objection against the Commissioners action in going to Mr. Denre before the enquiry. holding that Mr. Denre should have been I called before the commission, so that he I might be cross-examined. Mr Hughes gave his evidence a fortnight ago. and was to-day cross-exam-i ined by Mr .Martin. A series of questions was asked a? to the part taken jby Mr Hughes in the transfer of the I i laud in question from Miss Stoddart, a \ ! former owner, to a Mr Bevan, from i whom the property was purchased by j i Hughes. Witness answered a number j lof questions, and then protested ng-ainst I the cross-examinntion. He had his deeds and f-tood by them. I Mr Martin continued to cross-examine witness on the same linrs. when witness said to the Commissioner, "If you hold lhal [ nin to answer questions of this sort 1 shall withdraw from tlie inI quiry. I shall do so now. with all duey j respect to the Commission.' , Witness I then left the box and began to gnther !up his papers. m Mr Kettle: What h (he matter? • j Witness: If you allow this sort of 1 ! (Toss-examinvtiou and this sort of busi ness outside my deeds, I shall withdraw from the Commission entirely. You are i going outside your province. I did not ' I come here to be badgered and browbeaten by solicitors who have no right to be present. I don't want to be ma- ' ligned and browbeaten. T shall with- ' draw at once if it is allowed any further. 1 ■ I stood enough thp other day. f .Mr Kettle: Will you go back to the witness box? Witness: 1 will go hack if I am going to be treated in the proper way. I am not going back to be browbeaten. Mr Kettle: Kindly go back to the witness box and listen to the questions. Witness then went back to the wit--1 ness box and the cross-examination was . ! continued. j i After this had been completed claimI ant put ill further papers relating to , ! the case, including the' agreement" be 1 J tween the original owner and the Pont sonby Highway Board. TJ C contended ( I that this was only a license to use thp , ! road, and did not -jive The City Ooani cil ownership by right of usor. Swift I .Averjue, which win to have been closed and taken in exchange tor the piece in dispute remained open, and the road Jin dispute had been closed for many years. Ho also stated that the City Council had permitted the sale of 17 feet of the avenue, but had refused to allow his n .. - 5 feet to be brought under "the Land Transfer Act. i'r Kettle: Was the land dedicated as a road? Mr Hughes: Xo. r ! Mr Kettle: The Supreme Court says ;it was. If a man chooses to dedicate Ji a road that is his business. ] Mr Hughes: But if a man gives one yr I thing in exchange for another he should p i get the return. The City Council got j j one thing, and they won't get the two: aj if I have to spend my last farthing I s ! will see it to- the bitter end. t I Mr Kettle: If a man has a piece of s i land and chooses to dedicate it to the s ' public it rema'iis dedicated. Nothing - except the authority with which the p ; municipality is vested can kill the rights - ; of-way. In this ease the representa- !, ! tives of the man who made the exchange 1 may have a- cause of complaint or not, but that is not the question. The ques--9 tion is whether a right-of-way exists or not. In the Supreme Court your counsel admitted that this was a highway, j and once a highway it remains so until closed by the City Council. I Mr Cotter pointed out that in closing j a road the City Council was compelled I ! to first offer it to the adjoining owners, , J .=o that even if they admitted Mr I (Hughes' right to the land they could j j not convey it to him. r ] Witness read correspondence which ■> ; had passed between himself and the : City Council as to the land, claiming ; that the Council had promised to faeili- | tate the granting of a title to him if he 3 i could prove his right, before Parliament. I ; The Public Petitions Committee of the ' I House of Representatives had reported I favourably on his petition that his title I should be granted, and he claimed that - j he had fulfilled his part of the a-gree--3 i ment and the Council had failed to ful[m theirs,

Mr Cotter admitted that after the Supreme Court case connected with the land in question the City Council had token steps to close the road and it would have been put through but for an objection raised by witness. In answer to Mr Kettle witness said that he knew tnat there was a dispute as to the title when he got his conveyance. He considered that the land was worth £250 and £300.

Mr. Cotter: What was the market value in IS97?— It might have been worth £50 or it might have been. £150; property fluctuates so" in that district.

Mx. Cotter: Do you swear that you gave the full market yalue if that land had been free of adverse occupation?— I could not tell you.

Did you not take into consideration the fact that it was adversely occupied? —No, I gave what the land was worth at the time. I bought the land knowing that it had been through a respectable firm's hands twice, and the City Council had allowed part to be put tinder the Land_ Transfer Act, and 1 believed that my title came from the same source. I was quite safe in buying. You deliberately bought this propertyknowing that there was likely to be trouble r—Xo, I thought the title was a good one.

Did you think that the moment you asked Boak and Hanna to do so they would vacate?— Yes, I did.

You knew there w-as a dispute between the parties?— Yea, I thought that they Vere bluffing the man from -who i bought.

Mr. Kettle pointed out that tho recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee referring your petition to the Government for favourable consideration was made, on Mr. Hughes' ex parte statement, and the claims of the others that this was a road was not before the committee. Mr. Hughes replied that he had no idea of whether they were represented; he had not notified them.

Mr. Kettle: I recognise that the committee was not seized of the whole'of the facts.

Mr. Cotter (to Mr. Hughes): «3Tou knew that Mr. Justice Conolly. in giving judgment, said that you must submit to losing the action and the land.—l have not lost the land; the City Council have the right of user, and as soon as that right ceases, I am going to have the land, no matter if fifty lawyers are against mc, as sure as I am standing in this box. That's the sort of man I am.

Mr. Kettle: Why did you not appeal from the Supreme Court decision?— The mistake I made was in not bringing an action for malicious injury to property: then there .would have been none of this.