IN BANCO.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 76, 23 December 1907, Page 9

IN BANCO.

;.'. TE ARQ FORESHORE.CASE. ... CLAIM FOR MESNE PROFITS. ' Sitting in Banco on Saturday morning, His Honour; Mr. Justice' Cooper, delivered reserved judgmont in the To Aro foreshoro case of the Grown v. Messrs. Luke and Co., Ltd.: v ■■.'■■•■ _ ' ~"., . : His; Honour. said that the only question ho had to determine wa,s what amount tho defendants ought to pay for-mesne profits. Tho Crown, while assorting that the defendant's might be ordered to pay mesuo profits from the dato they took possession of the land in question, did not ask tho Court to go back further than tho year 1900. Tho amount claimed by tho Crown from that timo till the present time was £190 155., and was based upon a 5 per cent, calculation upon a.valuation mado by Mr. Martin, Government valuer, supported by Mr. Gallatly, of tho firm-of Bethuno and Co. Tho defendants had paid into Court tho sum of £65, based upon' a 5 per cent, calculation on a valuation mado by Mr. Holdsworth, and supported by Mr. L. H. B. Wilson and Mr. A. L. Wilson. The £190 15s. was calculated upon a yearly;; cstimato of the capital valuo of the land in question, commencing at £300 in 1900, v 'and-increasing year by year to £750 for the year: l9oG-7. The same .method was adopted by. the valuers for the defendants, hut they had assessed tho capital value in 1900 at £92, increasing year by year, to £287 10s. for the voar 1906-7. Both sets of values were hypothetical only, for the naturo and situation of tho land rendered it'impossible for cither sido to give moro than an arbitrary estimate of valuo.

It was. tho opinion of tho Court that the capital values assessed by the plaintiff's witnesses were too high, while those assessed by tho defendants woro too low.. The land in quostion was part of tho foreshore, which had been reclaimed sinco the To Aro Reclamation Act, and which, by tho decision in the King v. Puketapu Sawmill Co,, had boen established to be Crown land. It had been occupied by the defendants as part of their yard'and promises, and only a ■hypothetical value could bo given to it. It was not posisiblo to ascertain what.was, or had been, the realsaloablo valuo of tho property sinco tho defendants commenced to occupy it; or, what was its real saleable valuo now; Tho Court could only form an estimate of its occupational value, and it thought that a sum of £125 was a reasonable sum for defendants .to pay as mesno profits from 1000-1 to ,1906-7, tho poriod in question. Judgment would therefore be for that amount with costs on tho lower scale, tho monoy paid into Court to bo credited against the amount of tho judgment. At tho argument, Mr. M. Myers appeared for tho'Crown, and Mr. T. Young for tho defendants.