FREEHOLDERS’ RIGHTS
Sir, —I thank you for the opportunity to reply. Mr Rushton’s claim for compensation is clearly against the City Council, but because the Crown and local bodies taking land compulsorily evade the law and intention of the Public Works Act, 1928 by refusing to pay adequate compensation, why should freeholders be compelled to incur the heavy expense of employing solicitors and valuers to endeavour to obtain their just rights and have compensation assessed by the Court without any guarantee of justice, as there is no right of appeal against the Court's decision? The Crown, instead of setting an example, is the worst offender, with “bluff,” misrepresentation, intimidation, delay tactics, loss of livelihood, dispossession of homes and interference generally. The position is cruel and intolerable. As the Government makes and amends laws, some thought should be given to British justice. English law is based on common law and equity.— Yours, etc., INTERESTED.
December 2, 1953. [This correspondence is now closed.— Ed., “The Press.”]
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19531203.2.11.1
Bibliographic details
Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27213, 3 December 1953, Page 3
Word Count
164FREEHOLDERS’ RIGHTS Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27213, 3 December 1953, Page 3
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.
Log in