HUTT ROAD WORKS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1149, 9 June 1911, Page 2

HUTT ROAD WORKS.

LAND TAKEN COMPULSORILY. CLAIM FOR .£750. Tlio claim of Elizabeth Lindsay Murphy against tlio Minister for Railways for land taken for the purposes of the Hutt Railway and Road Improvement Act was heard yesterday by a Compensation. Court. Mr. Justice Sim presided, and I lie assessors were Messrs A. H. Mile* (for the respondent) and A. L. Wilson (for the claimant). Mr. F. 0. Dalzicll appeared for th« claimant, and Mr, W. 11. 1). Dell l'or (ha respondent. The amount claimed was .C 750, and it was alleged by tho plaintiff that tho only natural moans of approach to her land from the llutt lioad and tho only menus formerly used had been wholly taken away, and no other means of approach had been substituted, and no access for vehicles ou a practicable grado could bo obtained without great expense. Even then, it would be necessary, owing to tho ]irecipitous nature of the ground, to acquire from the adjoining owner a portion of tho land mtuisito to form such means of approach. The area of the land taken was 1 acre 10.7 perches, being portion of Scction 12, Block XL Belmont S.D. Somo of the witnesses for tho plaintiff alleged that, there was a danger of the new bank slipping down on to tho Hutt Road, owing especially to a vein of "greasy pig" in the 'bank. For tho respondent it was contended that Mrs. Murphy's old track encroached on the old Hutt Road, and if-she had been compelled to set it back clear of tho road she would have had to adopt practically the same lino as the new track, and would have had (o remove, at enormous expense, 00,000 yards of earth. This earth had been taken away by (ho Railway Department, and sho now had a practicable road. There was no danger that tho whole faco of the bank would slip away. There was no proof that the vein of blue, matte: —described 'by somo of the plaintiff's witnesses as "greasy pig" and by tho defenco as grit—ran in such a direction as to make a larco slip likely, and tho probability was that it did not. Onco • tho new bank was overgrown with vegetation it would be as stable as tho old ono. The present track was wider and'bitter fenced than the old one, and had as good a grade. The Railway Department had constructed this access and offered it to Mrs. Murphy, and she had declined it. Mr. Dalzicll said that the Department had declined to give any guarantee, and his client: had therefore been advised bv psople who understood tho liaturo of tli'o ground not to accept this accoss. with tlio responsibilities that it would involve. AY'hen the case for tho defence was concluded, his Honour suggested to Mr. Bell that on? of the difficulties with which tho Court were faced could be removed by tho Department giving a guarantee to maintain the road. They might then prorecd to assess compensation on tho Assumption that (he land, with (ho road and its responsibilities, could bo given bock. Mr. Bell said he could make no Buch offer on behalf of tho Department. Ho submitted _ that the compensation to which claimant was entitled was considerably less than .£750. Mr. Dalzicll submitted that tho Court might to determine to what sum Mrs. Murphy was entitled as compensation, assuming that tho Crown retained tho land. Then if it were possible some arrangement might be come to, but it was difficult to see how such jn arrangement could form part of the prwent proceedings. Claimant could not under any circumstances take tho road unless she were given an indemnity not only for I damage which might be caused by slins, but also for the loss of tho road by slip. Judgment was reserved.