ROSENEATH LIFT

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 150, 21 March 1925, Page 16

ROSENEATH LIFT

“IMPROVED ACCESS” INTERPRETATION SOUGHT Has the Wellington Citv Corporation the power,, and was it authorised under I the conditions of a poll .taken on September 15, 1920, to erect an inclined tramway, elevator, or lift, at Oriental Bay to give improved access to Roseneath ? This was the effect of questions in support of which legal argument was heard yesterday by a full court, comprising Their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Adams, Mr. Justice Reed, and Sir. Justice Ostler. The AttorneyGeneral ( Sir Francis Bell), Robert William Bnrbidge (merchant), and Robert Henrv Stickney (printer) claimed a declaration: (a) That the expenditure of any of the loan moneys raised, or to be raised, on the proposal was ultra vires; that a deed of conveyance of land over which the proposed inclined tramway was to go was void, in that the land comprised was the property of the Crown; and that as it was held for the purposes of a quarry the corporation was not lawfully entitled to use any portion for the proposed work. Plaintiffs accordingly sought an injunction restraining the corporation from proceeding with the construction or the expenditure of the moneys raised. The defence was a denial that it intended to expend moneys on the construction of an inclined’ tramway, but an admission that it proposed to expend such moneys in meeting the construction of an ’inclined elevator or lift, and emphasised its right to do so. Mr. D. G. Smith, outlining the case for plaintiff, said it was difficult to know whether, what the City Council proposed to construct was an inclined tramwav, elevator, or lift. He contended the’council sought to construct a tra’mwavs, and it had no authority to spend liionev raised for street purposes on such a work. The nine loan proposals submitted to the vote: of the ratepayers on September 15, 1924, were all carried, including proposal No. 2, which provided for “improved access to Roseneath.’’ The City Council raised £75,000 of the total loan, and on March .15 passed a resolution announcing its in. tentions of giving “improved access to Roseneath.” Even if the council had the power to construct such inclined tramwav, lift, or elevator, they could not do so in this case, as the land was vested in the Crown, and could’ not be taken under the Public Works Act, as it was Town Belt land. A very small part of the land at the top of the clitC yvas owned by the council. Two questions, continued Mr. Smith, were raised—(l) Is the council lawfully entitled to spend the loan moneys raised under proposal 2 (street works) for improved access to Roseneath in the manner resolved upon by defendant corporation on March 20, 1924? (2) Is the council lawfully entitled to proceed to construct the works* referred to in the resolution of March 20, 1924, upon portion of the Towri Belt ? “I am not attacking the validity of the poll,” he said. “What we are concerned with is the interpretation of the words ‘improved access to Roseneath,’ contained in the proposal. Many people thought they were getting a road.” Mr. Smith submitted the newspaper advertisement and the voting paper were the documents for the purpose of interpretation, and tl.at the voting paper must be interpreted in the light of those advertisements. He contended that the express undertakings set out both in the advertisement and the voting paper precluded all possibility that an inclined tramway, lift, or elevator was meant as a means-of giving impioved access to Roseneath. In its own resolution the council had called the work an inclined tramwav, and Mr. Smith submitted that the council was bound by it<> own definitions. It was treated by them as part of the tramway system. It was never claimed for it that it was to be merelv a moving platform. Had the work intended been done on a street he had no doubt but that it would be called a tramway. Mr.. J. O’Shea, city solicitor, submitted that (he work was a street work—a work of providing access from one street to another—work which the City Council tjvas empowered to do. The voting papers were clearly, correctly, and unmistakably punctuated, and set out the intentions of the council. , It was quite evident that the proposed work could be defined as a lift or elevator, and was in no sense an inclined tramway. The arguments of plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the conveyance were based on ’. assunipticns which were wrong. There was statutory power empowering the council to construct roads through the Town Belt from a city street to a country road, and that was what was proposed to be done in-this case. The legal estate of the land in the conveyance was vested in the coun cih If the council made a street on the Town B :lt it could also make the lift. It was only a matter of making* the former first. If the trust to the council were that the land in the conveyance was to be used only for quarrying purposes, Mr. O’Shea assured the

Court that the purpose the council had in view for giving improved access to Roseneath would not interfere in the slightest degree with the use of the land as a quatry. The Court reserved its decision. At the hearing Mr. I). G. Smith appeared for Messrs. Burbidge and Stickney, Mr. Taylor watched proceedings in the interests of the Attorney-Gen-eral, and Mr. J. O’Shea, city solicitor, with him Mr. L. C. Hemery, assistant citv solicitor, represented the City Council.