WHO IS TO PAY ? KILBIRNIE TUNNEL.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 46, 24 February 1908, Page 7

WHO IS TO PAY ? KILBIRNIE TUNNEL.

SUPREME COURT ACTION. The Kilbirhie tunnel figured in a cas» brought before Mr. Justice Chapman at the Supreme Court to-day. The question the court was aske^ tb decide \Vas whether certain landbAvners shouW B&y tb the Hataitai Land Syndicate the. proportion of costs paid by tho syndicate to the Wellington Corporation for th 6 construction bf the Kilbirnie tuivnel. The parties were . Hataitai v Lniid , Syndicate V. J. J. B.oy'd. Jlr. Hadfield appeared for plaintiffs and Mr, D.-M. Findlay for defendant. Th> amount iii dispute ia 43fi7.95.7d. Mr. Hadneld stated that the plaiijliS company owned 200, acres of land at Kktihtai for ft long time b'ef6re ths* construction of Ihe 'tunnel. , Efforts hail been niadfe by thliji,, in conjunction witS other land owners,, 16" improve access tv Hieri- land. Tlie first, pioppsal was tb widen dhd grade ijib rfead over the hiU, tjievc being sohi'e difncKlty-iii piercing the tuririol, Because it ifftuld pass through thd Uvfc belt. This diflicufty ,Ms sutmpmitedj a large' iitiiiibsJ:' of.jlil&iniw landowners baVihg apbroachid llie CHy Council to thdt end. ,. TU Hataitai Company was approached by the City fcoun- " * ,. a ?f er^» t wl^ ptopofliori 5f tHa cost of the work they \f oujd contribute, ahd a committee of ' landowners inieryiswed the plaintiff company to aseeHaiit rfe.i.". < , would b^' Prepared to contribute, to the cost of the tunnel. Cfer- ♦- £h ii>6 ■ ow »ers ' agreed with tlie plamtjff cdmjfcUiy to wfbnd a proportion of moneys paid to tljo corporation in respect to the. tunnel, and five or 6 i± agreements' .wero sighed td tfiat effect. .Ft? f A •? %** si S ned ii b y tk defendant Boya ii, tho office of the^ompanv, Th ? HataitAi Company got. tHe, tunnel, r.nd it was the best H, could get. If the case were successful for tho bohipany; it could be tn^eri as* a test oise, and. a jjreai deal of liHgaMSn would tm avoided. , Alexander Shepherd, formerly iiSc'reW? to the rildintiff^eorilpahy, caVe evidence, nrfd in Wply W Mr. Fifidky, siid i1?i 1 ?. B , l^ «St.*»iow ihe ImmM Wto be fat tvarfiwiys alone, . Th^ iigitatio'ii <idr tho tunnel was on tlie as'sufhptiori that thrf ; ♦unnel was ipr JMeslf jaii - and yeluculdr tralnc as well. I " . < Land value's bnhanclh&. •Witness, proceeding, said ii- was thought the ctfnsti'Hetioh *Ji Iho iUnneJ would materially increase im value of the land ih { H & diSCrirf. A s aki there at £8 10s\a foot wluclt wbiild" fldt h^ ve^ al i SBti 4IM4 l M S4 » foot Without the fcxfnnel. Witness took Sqyd'B sighatdro to the agWenfcnt, afid n* vtOuld have p'm-suadel $$ mahv " la'hdS" 16 ?-^ P *T Ab *? *& apemitl He ri6t deny, lliat > wßcn • M-d Signed the agrefemerit iHat ho did So " n - tse »". t '^ ifeprtssiofi iJtMt'u .footfiath *as 6o be j efiftstrttcfeK tlifotfgh ih^ W THE DBFJSNOS. x ? Ir :. . in his opening, submitted that the plaintiffs had- failed to prove that ths ttinfje'l was constructed in the manner wjiich the. landowners undertaking to pay towards jts construction were led to belief. , InYhe" agreement refefencS'wa* mfide to'; a" sojnelning was projected, .something Ih'at vrsS designed. His contend*. waf, thai here before tlie Agreement entered }n t o al w thVo wv-sw v- s aji acfc ™ 1 motion^ art -acton] pl&ii beford the corainumty, and passed by ,the' corporation, adopting tho rficomiriendatio^s of fa eri* c^vVed- some■fclimg Mb t-W.was «tefaxaUy.d6K6. The people Wio oir that document' did sb oil the assumption 'tliat the tuimfel was to lie njore iitoii a more tramway tunnel A FOOTPATH EEQtTtRED. John James Boyd." buil&Sri "the defendant, in givirig eyidente, said' Shitilierd came to liis houSo and askiiteS. witness that there Would be a footpath in the tnhiiAl. WJtttess rerifarked at that time that if there was to-be no ' xootpath ho would not sign the agreement Shepherd said there yvoull bo a footpath, with a haijdrail. Witness, continuing, said : "I rfnutrked to Shep. herd, 'lou cotild hold a fair in it!' t Shephei'd replied, 'It will bs all right.' •» Had there been no provision for a footpath witness Wild not hav6 Signed tha agreement. Shortly^Sfterwards he went to England, and when" he returned, when Shepherd asked, witness to sign tho agreement Jd«fendafi6 cdritiriuqd) he rtiade the remark, "Y6d ar6 the largest landholder and we will have you flgn first Witness subsequently fdtlridthat the tunnel wa*s not big en6iigh t€ hold a footpath. , - 'Left sitting. If