UNWANTED RAILWAY SIDING

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 302, 21 September 1928, Page 16

UNWANTED RAILWAY SIDING

PLACED ON WRONG SECTIONS DAMAGES AWARDED

“It must strike one as being a funny thing to buy one or two sections of land from the Government, and to wake up the next morniug and find that a railway line has mysteriously come there over-ni-’iit,” said Mr. J. 8. Hanna, in the Supreme Court yesterday, when appearing for Henry John Baldwin, Kathleen Cecilia Baldwin, his wife, and John Keane, all of Lower Hutt, who jointly claimed £250 damages from H.M. the King for inconvenience and loss suffered through a railway siding being wrongfully placed on their sections in Randwick Road, Lower Hutt. . , Mr. Hanna said that early in March, 1927, plaintiffs were about to purchase the two sections, and one section was bought on March 2, and the other on March 12. “In the interval on March 8” went on counsel, “someone waved a wand, and 10, there was a railway siding there. All would have been well had mv clients wanted it, but they did not. They did not like the look of the siding at all, as a matter of fact; and started to try and have it cleared away. Mr Baldwin went to Mr. Strand, lour Honour, for he is the man that has these sort of things put right out there. For months and months they were at him. Although Mr. Strand, who is the Mayor of Lower Hutt. is extremely capable of dropping a siding, without notice on a couple of unsuspecting sections he is not nearly so capable of carting them awav, for it took no less than five months to have it removed. Up till yesterday no notice was taken of our claim, but when it was known that the case wo”'*' be beard to-day, the Government paid £lO into Court as satisfaction of our claim. Xs it cost nearly £25 to clear up the mess after the siding had been removed we refused to take the money out of Court and say quits, as we are entitled to a fair sum for compensation. I lie damages in this case have been aggravated, Your Honour, by Mr. Strand, wliose conduct Mr Justice MacGregor: What has Mr. sir He is the Hutt Valley Housing Committee, who arc agents for the Goveru--1(1 His Honour: He is not the Public "m'JhS ■" .1»1 to ;i—. were aggravated by Mr. Strand, for these two young men approached him time after time, and he told them that the siding had a perfect right to be there. Baldwin on one occasion said be would fence off the railway section, whereupon Mr Strand told him that if he interfered with the railway lines in any way he would have him prosecuted. That sort of condU His Honour (smiling) : You will will have to sue Mr. Strand for all that sort of thing. In a Terrible Mess. Baldwin and Keane, who arc wood and coal merchants, gave evidence along the lines of counsel’s address. They stated that the land was in a terrible mess after the lines had been taken up. lhe place was full of bog holes, and considerable damage had been done to the property apart from the inconvenience caused. For the Crown. Mr. J. Ireudeville contended that, although slight inconvenience may have been caused, no damage was done when the siding was removed. The claim was an absurd one, and had the plaintiffs been ready to talk reasonably it would have been settled long ago. Mr. Strand, who was at the head of n voluntary committee working in with various Government Departments, had obtained authority from the Lands Department to have railway hues placed across two sections, but the Public M orks Department had placed the lines across two other sections by mistake instead. The sections of the plaintiffs had been lying idle, and the whole complaint had really been over an open drain on the property, which Baldwin and Keane wanted to have filled in. That was a matter purely between them and the Lower Hutt Borough Council. When Baldwin had seen the Mayor it was about the drain almost every time. Placed on the Wrong Sections. William Thomas Strand (Mayor of Lower Hutt) stated that the rails had been placed on the wrong sections. Baldwin had seen him at his house, but in connection with the open drain on the property, which was a matter for the borough engineer. The land was in a bad state, and full of bogs and holes owing to the wet weather and the open drain. The taking away of the rails did not damage the land in the slightest. Mr. Hanna: When Baldwin visited you on the third occasion at your house did he not tell you that he would take the lines up. and did you not say you would have him prosecuted if he touched them? —“He came to see me about the drain, and then got nasty, and mentioned the lines. I do not remember just what was said, because Baldwin became abusive, and I don’t generally waste mimh time with people when they get like that.” Several other witnesses gave evidence to the effect that they did not think that any damage had been caused, although Baldwin and Keane had suffered inconvenience through the lines being there. “A Blunder Committed.” In giving judgment. His Honour said it was quite clear that a blunder had been committed by putting the lines through tlie wrong sections. At the same time, the claim had been greatly exaggerated. The open drain had doubtless been the cause of more damage than the siding remaining on the sections for a few months. A certain amount of inconvenience and loss, however had been suffered, and it did not seem that the £lO paid info Court was sufficient compensation to cover the claim. “It .does not do in this, sort of case to weigh the damages with scales of gold.” continued His Honour, “but I think justice will be done if T award the sum of £35. Judgment will be entered for Hint amount.’with £7 7s. costs.” Tlis Honour stated that, the amount awarded would include the sum paid into Court.