COMPENSATION COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LXIII, Issue 97, 24 April 1902, Page 5

COMPENSATION COURT.

The Chief Justice sat this morning to deal -with, the claim for £1200 compensation brought against the Wellington Corporation by John Coombe, as administrator of the estate of the late Elizabeth Coombe, for the compulsory taking under the Public vtforks Aot of certain property in connection with the Elizabeth-street extension. Tho assessors were Mr. T. K. Macdonald (for the claimant), and Mr. James Lockie (for the Corporation). . Mr. Skerrett appeared in support <>" the claim, and Mr. Martin for the Coiporation. His Honour remarked that the claim vas apparently only for a leasehold. What of the owner? Mr. Martin said the owner's case had still to be dealt with. His Honour said it was very inconvenient. It would have been much more satisfactcry to have had the cases before the Court together. Mr. Martin intimated that ho had tried to arrange that course, but had been unsuccessful. The Corporation had taken the whole acre, part of which the present claimant? held on lease. Mr. Skerrett said the only point that ■would really be at issue was the condition of the buildings and tho amount that would be required to Jtaep them in repair. He would submit, that the annual rentals at present received would have been enjoyed for -the whole" period of tho lor&t?, which from the date" of taking the land, 18th April, 1901, had eight years ana seven months .to run. Tho property was held under two separate leases, coterminous, running for twenty -one yeais from "November, 1888, with the right of renewal for tweuty-one years. The lease of part of the premises for tho first term of twenty-one years was £14 per year, and another part £11, t whilo for the leniuiuing portion it was i£l6 and £12 respectively. The total rental paid by the holder of the lease thus -averaged about £26 per anmim for the tveuty-one years. The rentals received by the lessee wove £2 8s v week, or £124 16s per annum. The' rates were £12 a year, paid by tho landlord ; the insurance on the buildings £4 a year, and reasonable allowance lor repairs and depreciation £12, making tho total expenditure on the property pet ; anum about £54, and leaving a" profit »ii £70. Mr. Skerrett said the matter could be mathematically settled, and that 4£ per cent, was a fair basis. The* question ought to he treated as if the total sum was given to the claimant for investmorit, not in leasehold, or freehold, but in a reasonable manner, and he suggested that that was .by way of mortgage. It was very difficult indeed "without very largo risk to invest money even in freehold property in Wellington so as to -secure «n income of 44 per cent. The Jfive buildings in question, which originally cost £459 to erect, were sold by the Corporation. Some were re-erected «s

they originally stood, and timber from the others was used in other buildings. It was further contended that inteiest as from Ist July up to Avhich dato the claimant received rent, should be allowed by the Court and should be fixed at 10 per cent , because of tho compulsory taking. The Corporation, in purchasing the whole acre, was makir.g a speculation, and the Court should not put it in iv better position than a private speculator. Evidence for the claimant in support of tho above opening was given by J. B. Harcourt, J. C. M'Kju'ow, G. H. Bethune, A. Wilson, P. Drumroond, W. Hutchings, W. F. Eggeis, G. Snaddon, and John Coombo. Tho claimant stated in reply to Mr. Martin that live years ago under special circumstances he oll'ored to Fell tho leasehold rights to Mr. Muir for £500. Ho did not know whether tho right-or-wuy had been authorised by the Council. Ho made the road, and the Council collected the rates. His Honour atked what bearing this point had on tho ciue. Did the Corpora tion say i^ could have closed this right-of-way T Mr. Martin replied in the negative, but added that if any of the buildings" were destroyed by fire the Council might vefuse to permit the re-erection of residences there. Evidenco was then called for tho Corporation. Two witnesses — J. Russell and xM. Baker — had been called when the Court adjourned at 1 o'clock for luncheon. On resuming, tho Chief Justice remarked that the main points in dispute wore as 10 the amount required for repairs, whether there should be any allowance for lo3s of rent, and whether tho amount awarded should bo fixed on a 4J per cent, calculation or on a higher per centago. Mr. linker, making his calculation at 5 per cent, fixed tho value of tho lease and builuiiigs at _,u/l, and i\ir. Hokiworth, tukitig 7 per cent., assessed it at £595. The latter stated that he would bo unable to sell a leasehold which would not return 7 jjer cent, interest. W. M. Muir stated that he had valued the buildings at' £4oo, and tho va'.uo of tho leaso nt £100. He. did not hink the Corporation was giving too much when iT offered £600. Ji 4 .. Ames City Valuer, thought tho claimant's interest was worth iouu, but he had leeommended ihat £6UO should bo paid. The Court nV.cd the amount of compensation at £860.