LAND CUT IN TWO

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 169, 17 July 1916, Page 8

LAND CUT IN TWO

V, »EYIATIOK."-H |L. JIANUKEWA FARMER'S CLAIM. ; . FOR i£2,24h COMPENSATION. A claim -for -compensation to the extent of £2,241, for land taken and-idam-age-sustained in the deviation of the main railway line at ManuTewa last year was heard at the Supreme Court this morning by Mr. Justice Cooper and two assessors—Mr. G. YV. Baeley for the claimant, Krancie William Wood, fanne:. of Manurewe, and Mr. A. S. Holmes for the defendant, the Minister of Railways. Mr. M. G. McGregor appeared for the claimant, and Dr. H. D. Bamf ord, instructed by the Crown Solicitor, for the defendant. ... The claimant's property, iir- f c ' Gieeor stated, was situated in the Manurewa, Town District, and comprised 29i acres. It was roughly a. parallelo gram, bounded on the east by the Great South Road, on the west by the old line of railway, and on the north by Weymouth Road. The new railway line had been taken diagonally acrose it from north-east to south-west, and meueh.a «ay that if there had been a deliberate intention of damaging the claimants property the Railway Department could hardly have done better. The effect of the deviation wae to cut off an area of 14 acres on the western side of the new line, leaving that part of the propertj entirely without access to any public road, so that it could no longer be used for building .purposes, and was fit only for grazing. Further, the new line ran so close to the Great South Road frontage of the .property that the land on the cistern side of the line was practically useless for a frontage of 13 chains, the average depth there being half a chain. The Test of the property on tnat side had been depreciated by the proximity ot the line, ■which would now be verj close to the backs of any allotments tbatMnight be made. Xo betterment bad accrued from the deviation, eince the raUway facilities had existed before In fact, the proposed removal of the rail nay station further nortli was a detriment instead of a benefit to the pro pertv. The plaintiff claimed a total sum" of £2,241 compensation, made up as follower Land taken for line (3* acres at £130 an acre), £441; damage on western side, £1,500; damage on eastern side, £300. Prior to the deviation, said counsel, the land had been *<\™ T - ably enited for subdivision into building allotments, no new roads being necee

sary. Sow only a portion of it would be so subdivided. It was decided that his Honor and the assessors should visit the locality before hearing any of the evidence and the case was accordingly adjourned till 10.30 to-morrow morning.