REMUERA TRAM EXTENSION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 152, 28 June 1911, Page 6

REMUERA TRAM EXTENSION.

THE COURT CASE PROCEEDING. no evidence-In defence. The case between the inhabitants of the Remuera Road ' District and the Auckland Electric Tramways Company, Limited,,re theßemueratram extension, was continued this morning before Mr. C. C. Kettle,- S.M. - " :: "' : - v Charles Augustus ■■'Cawkwell stated that he became a "member of "the Remuera Road Board-'in-May, l,9o6;'ahd he was now chairman.of the .Bo.afd. In November, 1006,' there was the":first discussion at the Board on.the.maiter in dispute.

Mr. Kettle statedT-hat the whole question was, had the Board, power to vary the deed of delegation? Otherwise, the matter reverted to the Order-in-Council.

Mr. Cotter agreed that the action was by the Remuera Road Board, and the point to be :deterjuined was,whether the Board after the execution of that deed could now sue in the present proceedings. His Worship stated his view of the proceedings was a question of whether the deed of delegation had been carried out. The action was for a breach, of the deed of delegation, the plaintiffs 'treating the deed of 19th September as absolutely void.

After some discussion, it was agreed that the inhabitants were not quiescent in the later deed. Mr. Cotter said that the question of whether or not there ■was discontent on the part of the ratepayers, did not bear on tho master. Mr. ' Cawkwell said that the inhabitants had suffered damage on account of the service not running as had been expected. The capital value of the property had suffered, and the people had been inconvenienced.

This closed the plaintiffs' case, and Mr. Cotter stated that he was not going to call evidence for the defence.

Mr. -McGregor, in his address, traversed the agreements between'the Board and the Tramways Company. The deed of September, 1906, was only a respite from the obligations of the Order-in-Council '>(or de?d of delegation) ; that was, so long as the company would, run a bus service according to the time-table set out. His point was that the company was relieved from running the service according to the Order-in-Council until such time as the permanent extension to Green Lane was open. Hut.immediately the permanent extension to Green Lane was open the deed did' not say that the bus services should cease. There was not a suggestion that as soon as the permanent extension was opened there should be no bu§ services; hut this went back again .so the original Order-iii-oouncil. It was only- a temporary suspension of the >ous clause in the deed of delegation. It was absurd that the residents should yield up the rights of a tram or bus Service for 33 years for this which lasted only for three years. ' Though thui-e was nothing in the later deed' about reverting to the obligations of the deed of delegation, it was quite reasonable to submit that the deed of. delegation..still held.

Mr. Cotter.'stated thafc under ;.the original Order-in-eouncil'-there -was an- obligation, to the local authority or its delegate to construct a particular tramline •from the junction of the Remuera road district with Newmarket to the Victoria avenue, and then an extension from a. point five chains westward to the junc-tion-of the Clonbern-rd. That was the only line of tramway absolutely provided for as to its construction under the original Order-in-Council. There was a permission given to the local authority or its delegates to. .construct four other lines, but the local authority had never delegated" "the' "perriiissio'n"' to: construct those other, lines to the. defendant company, so that the company had absolutely no' right whatever, to construct any of the optional linesTr The only right delegated to the. company was the right to construct a tramway from Newmarket to Victoria avenue and the Clonbern park. The company, therefore, never had any right or authority of any kind to construct atramline down Victoria-avenue to Green Lane or to Mountain-road..-Mr, Cotter went on to-argue from the deed of September to .show that- the obligation of the company was to construct an extension (in addition to the right delegated in the first'deed) frxini, ..Victoria-avenue.-to Green Lane- within three years. He. protested against the terms of the Order-ih-Coiincir: being. cffllcdC in' question, as. the suit was: : not on,c hr.otignt by the. King or Government against the compan3»; The local authority, he contended,, •had " even-= right' 'by-section- 14-. -of*the! Act to make any alteration in the, deedof delegation, by the consent of the, delegate company, without any reference to the ratepayers. Instead' of construct: ing the.J.ins; down Clonbern-road, the company agreed to construct the line ] from Victoria-avenue to. Green Lane; on I the. understanding that the bus- service I to Mountain-road and that tot Victoria-| avenue should continue only for r.kr-cl 52 ...-.;& .;;:,„ (Proceeding.) r.-.,.,