COMPENSATION CLAIM

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 94, 14 February 1947, Page 5

COMPENSATION CLAIM

SUM OF £97,859 INVOLVED TAKING OF ‘AWAROA’ STATION ACTION BY OWNERS Possibly the biggest legal procedure in connection with land property to be heard in the Bay of Plenty, is now in session before the Land Sales Court sitting in Whakatane. The case involves a claim against the Minister of Crown Lands for the sum of £97,859 as compensation for 1326 acres of land at Edgecumbe, known as the Awaroa Block, which was taken under the Servicemen’s Settlement Act by the Crown and for which the sum of £44 per acre was advanced. The owners find this not acceptable, and are claiming at the rate of £73 per acre * " , Presiding is Mr Justice Archer, and associated with him are Messrs. E. Scott and W. Stewart. For the claimants Mr W. J. Sim, K.C.,' conducted the case assisted by Mr R. Gamble. The Crown was represented by Mr S. T. Barnett (Under-Sec-retary for Lands) and Mr R. Kay...

The case which opened on Wednesday morning is expected to last at least two days, in the course of which an inspection will be made of the property. The litigants Bernard John Holdsworth, of Waikohu, and his wife Margaret Adair Holdsworth, and brother Charles Glanville Holdsworth were described by counsel as joint owners of a first-class property which when on the verge of coming into its own was acquired by the Government for settlement purposes at a price .which fell far short of a compensatory value for the work and development which had taken place since the' area was first acquired. Counsel emphasised the value of the 5000 gum trees, which the Crown refused to allow, and stated that he intended putting only the indisputable facts with regard to the productivity of the station before the court.

In a statement to th ecourt hypothecated values were set out as under: Buildings £11,000; piggeries £1050; plant and implements (seven sheds) £2,800; water supply £1000; bridges and culverts £420. Capital ■ stocks 800 cows at £ll each £8800; :200 milking heifers at 10, £2000; 210 one-year-old heifers at £6, £1260; 7 pedigree bulls at 25gns, £184; 6 two-year-old bulls at 30gns, £189; 14 3-6 year-old bulls at 12gns, £168; 24 horses at £25, £600; 12 boars at £5, £6O; 98 sows at £4, £490. Farm Returns Neville Ernest Frehner, accountant of Wairoa, who managed the affairs of Awaroa from 1937-41, gave detailed statements of the returns of dairy and sheep farming operations, and described the method of stocking and rotating the six. sharemilking establishments comprising the station. Latterly a seventh- unit had been launched. He stated that for the 950 cows milked an average over the years mentioned would be 2331b5. of butterfat. Upon the termination of the' sharemilkers agreements due to the action of the Government the owners were compelled to pay out £4OO 15s as compensation. As the station stood now some 224 acres and the large residence were retained as an individual farm for the owners.

Mr Barnett who cross-examined asked leave of the court to recall witness, as he confessed to being somewhat at a loss at the new mass of figures released.

Mr Sim, K.C.: “Certainly I agree. I should be terrified to let him go.”

Valuer’s Evidence

Frederick R. Ball, registered valuer, public accountant of Gisborne, gave details of his public life, including the chairmanship of the Poverty Bay Power Board, and his association with the - Land Sales Court in connection with commervial valuings. He said he had inspected the property and had completed a budget setting out the land, buildings, implements, assets etc. The 1325 acres taken by the Crown represented roughly a square compact block containing some 50 acres of plantations. He estimated that this area was capable of carrying 1000 dairy cows,' 200 heifers, and 200 weaner heifers, together with pigs, horses and subsidiary stock. It could be expected with ordinary management to answer'all the calls of avei’age dairying, cropping etc. and produce on an average 2351b5. butterfat per cow.

Witness was in the box for thi’ee hours giving lengthy details of butterfat production and pork production based upon his investigations. At one point in the evidence Mr Barnett objected strongly maintaining that witness was merely propounding a personal theory and wasting the time of the court. The

differing items upon which the Crown and witness had based their assessements were thrashed out in detail witness claiming at one stage . that he had made frequent representations to the Crown for a list of their own basis of valuations but had been ignored. This brought a protest from Mr Barnett, and a rebuke from the Bench, Mr 'Justice Archer declaring that the court was only interested in witnesses assessments, which he surely should be in a position to give with his long years of experience. On the suggestion of Mr Justice Archer, counsel for both parties agreed to get together during the tea adjournment and endeavour to compromise on some of the minor points. Allegedly Absurd On resuming in the evening, Mr Barnett in cross-examining witness declared that his valuation of £7l per acre was an absurd figure which exceeded anything else ever realised for land in the district before. Witness maintained that it was a fair valuation, and that such land in his district (Poverty Bay) could not be bought for that figure. Mr Barnett: I listened with reverence to your various claims to authority in local affairs this morning, but I listened in vain for any qualifications about farming.

Witness: I milked cows till I was twenty-one. Mr Barnett: Where? Witness: In Southland.

Witness agreed that his experience of the Rangitaiki was limited. He knew little of the land this side of Opotiki. He gave details of his method of calculating farm values, and under a good farmer, there would be no ‘slips’ among his herd, or very few. Mr Barnett: I wish the cows would understand that! * -

Witness: I mean they would all be culled out and replaced by productive stock.

Mr Barnett: You’re not talking about the Rangitaiki; you’re talking of Utopia! At this point Mr Sim took strong exception to an inference by Counsel that witness was ‘employed’ by the owners, declaring the word as improper. Mr Barnett apologised. The cross-examination continued, witness agreeing to reconsider his valuation figures as far as the buildings were concerned. Mr Barnett asserted several times that it was plain that witness had merely had a shot at his estimates, rather than going into figures.

Again Mr Sim rose protesting that Counsel was endeavouring to disparage witness and to create prejudice.

Continuing, witness said he would not agree with the Crown that 400 acres was under paspalum and weeds. The question of subsidence was a remote One as the property was higher than the surrounding country. It was quite reasonable to expect the block to operate without the aid of a tractor or truck.

Value of Gums

Referring to the gum-trees and macrOcarpas for which a figure of £2,600 had been set down as valuation, witness defended this figure by saying that declaring that the trees were a sound source of post timber and many of them could be taken away without destroying the shelter value.

Mr Barnett: Many of them settle the matter for you by falling over and damaging fences and drains in the process. The most expensive part of the process is the cleaning up.

To Mr Scott witness agreed that the farms as a whole had not been worked up to average standard in the past. His estimate was that it would be 10 per cent, below average. He admitted that he knew of no other property in this locality which had sold for anything like £7l per acre, but maintained that his estimate of 2351b5. of butterfat per acre was a fair one on the returns submitted.

Here Mr Justice Archer interposed that under the Act, all estimates were expected to be drawn up on figures based on the average efficient farmer. Witness had apparently drawn his up on actual returns. Did he not think he had employed a wrong basis of computation. Witness thought not.

The case was then adjourned until Thursday morning.

Farm Manager’s Evidence

Following an inspection of the property yesterday morning the court resumed on the recall of the witness F. J. Ball, who compromised further with the' opposition Counsel on the matter of the valuation figures submitted for buildings. Roland Thomas Olding, farmer of Cambridge, a one-time manager of the station and one who had been closely associated in its development

over a number of years, was next to give evidence. Witness declared that he personally had sought to purchase a section of the Station for his son and was actually prepared to give £75 per acre. He was negotiating the deal when the Government stepped in. Case For Crown

Witness also gave figures showing that in the area retained on the homestead section, comprising 224 acres, 223 head of dairy cattle were run, from which it was confidently expected some 2501b5. of butterfat would be received per head. Mr Barnett opened the case for the Crown in the afternoon by requesting a ruling from the court seeking the definition of the basis of valuation for buildings under the Act.

Mr Bruce Brown, Senior Field Officer to the State Advances Corporation in this district, stated in evidence that he had valued the property which the Crown sought to acquire from the estate at £4l per acre. Giving details he considered that up to 1943 the whole station had been efficiently managed and above the average in productivity. This had been due to the instalment of a farm manager who exercised direct supervision and continuous herd testing.

A technical discussion on the question of hearsay evidence ensued between opposing Counsel and Mr Justice Archer, who intimated that he proposed to allow a certain degree of hearsay evidence which had a direct bearing on the case, but that he would treat it accordingly. Cow to 11 Acres Witness said he had based his valuations on a sound knowledge of land in the. locality and on other properties which had been taken through the Land Sales Court. He had made a summary of what had been produced on the land concerned and had made comparisons with adjoining properties. He estimated the carrying capacity at 1£ acres per cow, and butterfat at 156.61b5. per acre. Witness estimated the production per cow at 2401b5.

Referring to the gum trees which the owners valued at £2600, witness maintained that as a money-produc-ing asset they were valueless. During the war years when other posts had been unprocurable they certainly had commanded a temporary market which had since disappeared, as better types of timber had come to hand. Today they were used in temporary fences only and sold at £7 per 100 against a splitting cost of £6 10s per 100. There was likevise no firewood market either locally or in Tauranga, and farmers had informed him that contractors were not prepared to take the trees even for nothing. In any case the removal of the trees would deprive the farm of shelter for some little time. Few Farms Like It

To Mr Sim, witness admitted that there was no other place on the Rangitaiki Plains comparable to the Awaroa Station. He could not recall details of several other properties on the Rangitaiki quoted by Counsel, which had been valued at between £6O and £7O per acre. Witness considered at some length production figures submitted by Counsel which were substantially in advance of his own. He still maintained that his basis of valuation was fair, and that he would not change his mind regarding his estimated price. He admitted that in farms in this district carrying a cow to the acre the production had been as high as 2201b5. of butterfat. Referring again to the gum trees witness admitted that 500 were sold by contract in 1945 when there was a shortage of posts and mine props. After six years however he had seen gum posts dug up as useless and the cost of putting them in was greater than their utility value.

Vincent Patrick McGlone, Fields Inspector for the Lands Department, who was conversant with the Awaroa Station and had'assisted in the compulation of the valuation with the previous witness, gave evidence as to the state of the houses. In al except for the new unit, the houses had lean-to additions and opened spaces which he considered depreciated their value as compared with a properly constructed building under one roof.

To Mr Sim witness enlarged on his method of valuing the houses and why his figures were £BOO less than those supplied by Mr Ball valuer for the owners.

Maurice Andrew Patten, Farm Appraiser for State Advances, described how he had prepared a survey of some adjoining farms showing extent and brief description. This had been, done for the purpose of obtaining comparative values upon which had been based the estimatory budget of the Crown. Hugh Gavan, Engineer to Lands and Survey Department, who had been working in the area for the past seven years, stated that the Rangitaiki river was subject to

flood which flowed northward from a gap above Edgecumbe. The water followed a central canal through Awaroa. In extreme floods the e'r would remain on parts of the property for two or three days. He mentioned five major floods within eight years which had invaded the estate. With regard to subsidence, he said a survey in 1935 showed that a subsidence of from 3” to 4” had taken place. On all Plains property where peat problem exists, there would be more fence and drain maintenance than on higher country. Portion of the estate, (about l-3rd) would in his opinion, eventually fall into a ‘pumping area.’ Future subsidence would take a long time because it was now in its last stages. Mr Frehner recalled, a read a new statement which he bad compiled, showing comparative figures embodied in Mr Ball’s budget with the actual figures from the station over the four year period ending 1939 and the six year period ending 1941.

In his summing up, Mr R. Kay said that the Crown had seriously approached the subject in the full kuowledge that the-property had been brought into productivity by the owners. They had however based their claim largely on fallacious premises. The station was originally run as a mothership with six and later seven supplies. He criticised the evidence of Mr Ball in particular, dwelling upon the variations which had been submitted and the final adjustments which witness had acquiesced to. This closed the case for the Crown and the address by claimants Counsel will be heard this morning.