CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1208, 17 August 1911, Page 2

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

MELLING BRIDGE AND LAND. A sitting of the Compensation Court was held yesterday by Mr. Justice >Siro. Mr. J. C. Jl'Kcrrow was tho assessor for the claimants, and Mr. G. H. Soalos for the respondent. Tho claimants wero Philip Henry Gosse, of Lower Hutt, carrier, and Thomas Burt, storekeeper, of Lower Hutt; and the respondents tho Mayor and corporation of tho Lower Hutt Borough. The land affected comprised 5 acres 3 perches, in the vicinity of Mailing's Bridge, over tho Hutt River. Tho claim was for ,£7OO, as compensation for alleged damage to the section caused through, tho bridge and approach spoiling the only available access. Mr. F. G. Bolton appeared for the claimant, and Mr. A. Blair for the respondent council, Mr. Bolton said that tho claimants were the owners of the property at tho time that Melling's Bridge was constructed. Tho access to the land was by moans of a road formerly known as Parker's Lane, and now as Brunswick Street. The bridge had been constructed by llib respondent council, and the supports and approaches wore made over this access. On account of the low construction ot the bridgo, only five feet was allowed between its decking and the land. The effect of this was to spoil the access from am- stand [joint whatever. The land coil Id cnly bo used for grazing purposes. Tho damage, therefore, must be assessed as the difference between the value of the land from an agricultural or building point of view, and its value for grazing purposes pure and simple. Tho action for compensation had been forced upon tho claimants, who had suggested one of three alternatives, viz.:—

(1) No claim for compensation if an entrance was arranged at tho southern eud of the property. (2) To sell the property to tho local body for ,£7oo—the amount of the compensation claim. * (3) To accept some road proposed to bo constructed by the council, plus .£2OO damages. Philip Henry Gosse stated that he had bought tho laud in 1906 for .£550. Tho land was used for grazing purposes, though it was really iirst-class agricultural land. Ho had sold it, sinco the claim commenced, to Mr. Burt, no had received as much as thirty shillings a week for the property, but tiis neighbour, who was a partner, was getting JCIO per acre. The acoess to the land was spoilt by the construction of the bridge,*'and the approach thereto, it being impossible to get produce away from it to tho road. It was also, by reason of the nature of .the,,, approach, made,, inore,,liablo to be ■flooded. Access hadpreviously "been easy. Everard W. Scaton described the difficulty of getting stock off the land. A., number of witnesses gave evidence in support of the ■ foregoing. Mr. Blair held ■ that the claim must be dismissed. He' submitted that the approach had been merely raised to tho level of tho bridge. It was a permanent raising of the road to its proper level. It was, therefore, not a matter under which a claim could be lodged under the Public Works Act, because, under tho provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act (Sections 181 to 180, particularly in Section 188), it was provided that no claim should bo paid that had to do with the construction of a street to its proper level. For the purposos of tho law a bridge was a street. The claimants, also, never at any time had any right of access except as a concession from the Hutt Borough Council, whose property had to be traversed. Outside this question, it could further be shown that the claim was the most absurd one that had ever been made to a Compensation Court for a considerable number of years. . Tie respondents invited the Court to visit the property at their (respondents') expense, and see for themselves that this was so.

Mr. Blair then called Percy R. Purser, clerk to the Lower Hutt Borough Council, whose evidence v;as to the effect that the section was not depreciated in value by the erection of the bridge and the approach, but rather that it had increased in value, by reason of the fact_ that tho claimants were given a beneficial access to th/) Helling Railway Station. Otiftor witnesses gavo evidence.

Tbo Court then briefly adjourned, and, afterwards, Mr. Justice Sim said tint it had been decided to adjourn the matter until Wednesday. September 6, to enablo the Hutt Borough Council to construct a read to the property in a way suggested by the council's engineer, viz., at the southern end of the property. If this was done, the claimants' land would bo in as good a position as bofcro the bridge was constructed. His Honour asked Mr. Blair if he would undertake that this would bo done. Mr. Blair said he noticed that the Court had not dealt with the points of law he had raised; but. he added, ho did not think there would bo any difficulty in tho way of the oouncil doing as suggested. At the same, time, he preferred to receive a direction from the Court in the matter instead of being asked to give an undertaking. This course was adopted. Tho Court then adjourned until September 6. "