STREET DEDICATIONS. CLAIM AGAINST THE CORPORATION.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIV, Issue 148, 19 December 1907, Page 4

STREET DEDICATIONS. CLAIM AGAINST THE CORPORATION.

A claim for £970' compensation was made yesterday by Ernest Valentine Sanderson'and nis brothers and sisters from the City Council for' loss arising out of a dedication of land in Pirie and Brougham streets. The- case was- heard by Mr. Justice Cooper and two asses-sors-rMr. E. W. Seaton for the Corporation, and Mr. A. L. Wilson for the claimants. Mr. Skerretfc. K.C., with him Mr. Bunny, appeared for the claimants, and Mr. O'Shca, City' Solicitor, for the Corporation. In his opening remarks, Mr. Skcrrett stated that; the property had a frontage to Brougham-street in all pi 139 feet by an original depth of 100 feet 9 inches. The portion of the property in which the*' court 'was concerned was astrip dedicated' under the Public Works Act, having a depth of 8 feet 3 inches, and extending along Brougham-street 72 feet— practically the frontage to lots 1 j and 2. Lot 3 was purchased by tho" Corporation* and therefore no claim was made in respect of that. Another piece of land, consisting of seven allotments, had a frontage, to Pirie-street of 229 feet 4 inches, by an original depth of 32 feet. In this case- a strip of 8 feet 3 inches in width had also been dedicated. One point counsel wished to 1 call attention to was this : two of the dedications — viz., .allotments 1 and 2. facing Brougham-street — were made" after tho Amending Act of 1903 came into force, and no question of law arose with re-gai-d to them. With regard to the remaining allotments a question of iaw did arise. In Riddiford v. the Hutt Borough Council, the Court of Appeal, by a majority, decided that it was unnecessary to dedicate a strip under tho > Public Works Act where there was no such subdivision as involved the conscraction of new roads. In that case an application was made by Mr. Riddiford for leave to appeal to tho Privy Council, aud leave to appeal was granted ; but there was a compromising ' matter subsequently, and tho appeal was not proceeded with. What the claimants proposed to do was to get 'His Honour to make an award, reserving for the consideration of the Supreme Court the legal aspect involved in the Palmer case. It could not be suggested that theie was any betterment. Continuing, he stated that the land sloped from Brougham-street towards allotment fl. Likewise- the allotments facing Pirie-streefc sloped - in tho direction of the back of the allotments'. As to 'lot 2, what had happened was this : a bank which had stood for many years wag cut down to the extent of ' 6 feet 3 m'ches, and if became necessary to erect a- substantial retaining wall, which would not have been necessary had this 8 feet 3- inches not been dedicated. The same applied as to lot 1. His clients therefore claimed that the loss of the strips of land in question entailed the erection of an extensive wall. If a house were to be built on allotment 1 the cost of election would now be greater. But the serious matter was that tho structure would have to be placed further down tho gully, and its view thereby impaired. Houses, ne said, had been erected on the Pirie-street sections since tho dedication. His clients claimed £4 a foot in respect of allotments 1 and 2, and £3 in respect of allotments from 4 to 10.' Evidence in support of the claim was given by E. G. Sanderson. A. C. Pearce, John Geo. Fafder, Alex. Anderson, Gellatly, Peter Conneil, Robt. Port, and James Bennie... Mr. O'Shei contended that, in accordance with tho case RiddiEord v. the Hutfc Borough Council, there- whs no necessity to make a dedication under the provisions of the Public Works Act, 1300, but there was a "necessity under tho A,ct of ,1903. Therefore- claimants could not claim compensation in respect of the dedication fn Pirie-street, • but they could claim in respect of Broug-ham-street. Counsel went on to say that £1 per foot would very well compensate claimants in regard to the Brougham-street property. It was arranged between counsel on both sides, and the court, that his Honour should estimate the damage, and state a special caso for determination of th& Supreme Court, to enable application for leave to appeal to be made to tho Privy Council, the Court of Appeal having already decided the point in the' case Riddiford v. the Hutt Borougi) CouncL 1 in favour of the latter. Evidence was then called on the question of facts by Mr. O'Shea, on behalf of the corporation. Tho following wera the witnesses : — Chas. Wm. Wycherley, James Scan, E. A. fionthorac, James Ames, Geo. Frost, Alfred Longmore, Harry A.. Jeff re}. Judgment was reserved. In the afternoon his Honour gave judgment in the case. He stated that the court had been able to arrive at a unanimous decision. In respect of lot Ivo. 1, £70 was allowed, £60 beingallowed in respect to lot Xo. 2. Earn party would pay its own assessor's fee of £7 7s and costs. The court assessed the value of the Pirie-sticet land at tho time of dedication to be £50, ;md directed that that amount should lie awarded to claimants if they could establish their legal right. "Do you wish m& to state a ca*o now, 31r. SkerrcttV" asked his Honour. <r Ko, your Honour," was the reply. "Tho matter is getting less and less

fimtaSSßMßaesrssassiia