COMPENSATION (DUET' ISLAND BAY RECREATION GROUND.

Evening Post, Volume LXVVII, Issue 36, 12 February 1909, Page 7

COMPENSATION (DUET' ISLAND BAY RECREATION GROUND.

BAYLIS v. QITY CORPORATION. CLAIMED £15,947 ; AWARDED £2925. Judgment was given to-day in the case of Q. H. Baylis and others v. the Wellington City Corporation. The action arose out of the resumption of certain lands at Island Bay by the corporation for the purpose of making a recreation ground. Baylis's original claim of £12,560, by the order of the court, was reduced by £1560, this sum representing the balance of the unpaid purchase money on certain sections bought by other claimants, M. G. Phelan, W. Whitehouse, and G. W. Harvey had' claims of £1365, £900, and £1122 res-< peetively. His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman presided, and the Hon. T. K. I Macdonald and Mr. J. M'Kerrow were the assessors. Mr Gray (with him Mr. Weston) appeared for the claimants, and Mr.,; M orison (with him Mr. O'Shea) for th» respondents. * His Honour announced that' the dcci- - sion of the court had been arrived at by majority. In Baylis's case a sum o f £2505, with interest at 5 per cent, for one year, was awarded ; in the case of Whitehouse, £160, with interest at 5 per cent. ; and in the case of M. G. Phelan, £260, with interest at 5 per I cent, the award in each instance being, !in full satisfaction of all claims. The fees for each assessor were fixed at £94 10s, and no order was made as to costs. I Mr. Gray asked if the point of law, involved in the case had been settled. It appeared that Whitehouse owed a considerable balance of purchase money I to Baylis, while in the case of Phelan there was a sum due to Baylis as mortgagor of the land purchased by Phelan.. The court in its award had merely fixed the value of the land regardless 1 of the amounts due to Baylis under tha contracts. "It was contended that as the bona fides of the sales were not chalI lenged by counsel for the corporation, Baylis was entitled _to the amounts out' I standing. ! In reply to Mr. Gray's question, his I Honour asked did counsel seriously asM • that the question of Jaw should be re- • eerved. After consultation with Mr. Weston, Mr. Gray said he did. His Honour said that all legal ques« tions of far-reaching importance which' came before him would be referred to the Full Court. Mr. O'Shea said there was no cvi« dence to challenge the validity of the contracts. In answer to a remark by Mr. Weston, his Honour said that counsel might presume that the court had disregarded the sales, or held that they ' had been at an excessive price. Necessarily, if had come to the conclusion that the land was not worth the money agreed to be paid under the contracts. Eventually it was agreed to state a case for the Full Court, . to determine whether, in the case of Whitehouse and Phelan, the court was bound to consider anything more than the value of the land, it having come to the conclusion that the land was not worth ,a» much as the parties concerned had contracted to pay for it.