COMPENSATION CASE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 282, 21 August 1908, Page 4

COMPENSATION CASE.

BOWDEN. AND HALL v.. THE KMC. LAND TAKEN FOR RAILWAY. CLAIM FOR £1000. " A-claim for £1500 compensation, T. Bowden and IS. Hall v. tho King, in respect of land taken by the Railway Department noar Kaiwarra, was heard yesterday, before Mr. Justice Chapman and Messrs. T. Kennedy Macdonald and A. 11, Miles, 'assessors. Mr.. Morison appeared for tho claimants and Mr. Myers for tho defence.' Tho statement of claim sot • out that by Governor's proclamation, dated May 25, 1907, an 'area'of 1 acre' 2 roods-1-1.5 porchos, part'of the claimants' property of 9 acres 1 rood 15 porches, between Kaiwarra and Ngahauranga, had beon taken and vested •in His Majesty for the .purposes of tho "Wellington-Napier Railway. Tho lands in which tho claimants had ail interest would be injuriously a(fe6ted.by the caid work by reason that (a) owing to tho hilly nature of tho adjacent land the taking of this area deprived thorn 'of' iiqcess to the property from tho llutt Road, and by reason of such deprivation of access and frontage it was impossible to road and subdivide tho laud into residencp ijitos, ,which othonviso could havo boon accomplished, and (b) such inability to road and subdivide tho lands had greatly depreciated their valuo. The sum of £1500 was therefore claimed as compensation for all loss arising out of the taking of tho land and tho construction of tho said public work, tho amount being made up as follows: —To compulsory takingof land, £900; and to depreciation in value of remaining land, £600. Mr. Morison, in stating the' caso for the claimants, said that sinco the Government had taken tho frontage area it would be mipqssiblo for tho owners to sell tho back portion of tho property to anyone except adjoining landowners, bocauso of difficulties of access. Lnless a road could be constructed through an adjacent valley, for which consent of the owners of the valley would havo to be obtained, it would bo a very long timo boforo tho property would' soil at a proper value. John Thompson, resident of Kaiwarra, said that ho formerly owned tho block. An area of five acres at Kaiwarra, purchased ten years ago for £250, was sold recently for £1250. Improvements had boon made in tho,meantime to tho value of perhaps £750. He thought that the action of the' Government ill faking part of tho frontage of claimants' property had practically ruined tho rost of tho property. Tho frontago was a very fine torraco, - with an unsurpassed panoramic"outlook, sunny and well sheltered, and tho block-would havo. boon a good on'o for residential purposes:""Ho computed tho value of the bloolc boforo it was touchcd bs~ tho Government at. £1500. There would not now bo tho same market for tho property, bocauso there was no house sito with a fair view. Ho thought that the land had been' reduced over half in value by the Government's action. Thoro was no • practicable access to tho back' area, and ho did not think the land would bo marketable now that tho frontago had been taken away. There was a public road from Khandalhh leading to tho property, but it had not. boon - taken over by the Borough Council because it was not of tho requisite width. Ho did not think that this road would bo of, much valuq to tho property. To Kaianga property, ncaT Kaiwarra, had been sold at tho rate of £2 and £3 afoot for frpntago sccti.ons. . Hp assessed tho redaction ill valuo of the claimants' land owing to tho Government's action at £750 not allowing for tho house. "With the' houSo it would be £800.

Cross-examined ; Tho house was now worth £30. He -was interested in tho pieco of land adjoining this, and also in claims made against tho Railway Department for taking land near Kaiwarra. Ho would not like to pay £1750 for tho property. John M!Kerrow, land valuer,-,said that 110 formerly'owned tho blbok 011 the Hutt side of'(tho-. property in question. -Ho sold tho frontage a.-.year ago at;.;£l6o ari'acre.' He *, thought tjmt the claimants; property, before it : was interfered with; was worth £150 an aero. Tho value, in his opinion, was now reduced by about half, and tho market would be limited to adjoining land-ownors. . Edward Pierce, who had had experience of land investment, thought that tho property as a whola was worth about £1250, or, £125 an aero, to a man who wished to make his home thoro. Tho - removal of tho front torrace, withjts sea view, would moan a-total loss of £750 on the land alone, Robert John Thompson, land agent; said that from £4 to £6 a foot had boon paid for residential* sites iu tho locality. , Tho property as a wlioln might liavo fetched £1800, but it was now absolutely spoiled, and ho would not value tho hack' portion at nioro than £70 or £80 an aero. There was not another vacant site along tho' road so oligiblo as this had boon for residential purposes.

1-Javoid Smith, 'survoyor, said that it would bo impracticable to take a front road to tho property. , Mr. Myers stated that the Department was willing to givo back sufficient land to form a road.

Mr. Morison said that this would liavo 110 valuo with t)io taking away of tho front terrace.

Mr. Myers, in opening the case for tho defence, said tlmt £340 had been ofierod as oompensalon. It .was_ absurd to call this property a suitable site for a gentleman's residence. It would bo nccessary to build ,upon a laud slip, whore 110 man in his senses would put a v'alunblo house. The'rc would bo 110 sun there, and the only really eligible site was 0110 -further up the road, which liad not been interfered with. It was surely curious that the land in dispute had not been sold before, when,- thoro was fo great a demand for building sites. 1 Everard W. .Soaton, surveyor and engineer, \ said that subdivision of the property was impracticable on tho' score of expense. Tho .formation of a 12ft, road beforo tho .Railway Department commenced its works would moan ron\oval of 14,000 cubic yards of earth,_ and there was 110 place to put tho spoil. If tho owners could put it at KaP warra it'would cost at least. 2s. Gd. a yard, and removal to Wellington would' cost 4s. or ss. a ! yard. It was improbable that the local authorities would allow less' than an 18ft. road. 'No'man in his' senses would put up a- valuable house on the property, which was an old slip. 111 any caso an approach would be necessary, which would cost at least £1500.> The real residential sito' was at- the Jiack, but 110 would'not have given £1500 for the '.original property. Cross-examined: .Ho would not pav for the whole property more than from £?00 to £900. People might bo found who would givo £1500 for it.

.Joseph G. Hpldsworth,- land valuer, :gavo oyidenco'that subdivision was out ofjtlio question altogether.'Tho position was'too high, and thoru wero'liot enough building sites. Ho thought'that tho utmost valiio of tho land taken was £1.50 an aorc, : a total value of £238 lis. lid. for tho area taken.

L. 11. 'B. Wilsoii, la'nd dealer, said that £1 12s. a foot was tho highest price obtained for Te Kaianga lttnd by tlio syndicate concerned, though subdivisional sales might have been mado at a highor rate. Ho did not think that tlio taking of tho front portion of tho claimants' land had reduced tho value of the back portion. Ho would not put up a substantial house on tho front terraco.

. 13. Lynnoborg, who had been valuing land for tho Government, and Charles Yi r . Caverhill, valuer, also gavo evidence. Ttlr. Caverhill valued the wholo property at £800, and hold that no depreciation had been caused. Tho Government valuation was £935. Tlirco small cottages could be'put on tho front terrace.

G. T. Lundon estimated tlio value, of tlio land taken at £200 an acre—£3lß altogether, or, £330, including £12 for improvements. Tlio Government's action hud not caused depreciation. > Gfcorgo (Jlapcot, engineer of the Onslow Borough Council, thought that rondiug "would bo too expensive, A road to serve the back land would spoil : the' front terrace vcrv largely. ' . ' ■

/i'liis concluded the evidence for tho defence.

"Ths-Court-dooided to -visit tlio Bito tomorrow morning. '