LAND AT LYALL BAY

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 125, 23 November 1923, Page 7

LAND AT LYALL BAY

BIG INCREASE IN TWO YEARS

.VALIDITY OP PROCLAMATION QUESTIONED.

■ The action of the City Council in acquiring a piece of land at Lyall Bay for the_ purpose of a tramway was under review at the Supreme Court to.-day, before Mr. Justice MacGregpr. The plaintiff was John James • Boyd, who- proceeded against the Wellington City Council, the District Land Eegistrar,. and the Attorney-General for a declaration that the proclamation governing the'acquiring of land was void. '

Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him n*' mA ppea^ fostte Plaintiff; Mr. J. O'Shea, with him Mr 'C, Hemery, for the City Council; and Mr. A. Fair, Principal Crown Law Officer, for the Attorney-General. The District Land Registrar did not enter an appearance. ■

In opening his .case, Mr. Skerrett said that the facts were practically' all admitted, and were very simple and; very, clear. In 1917 Mr. Boyd was. the owner of..\ Piece of land at Lyall Bay, on which certain buildings were erected. In that year proceedings were instituted to take the land on which these buildings were erected for the purpose of a tramway. He wanted to point out that in the Municipal. Corporations Act there was no reference or authority in regard to tramway undertakings. ■ ~ : Mr. O'Shea: "There is power rto take land for the purpose of tramways." Mr. Skerrett said that the land was taken by the City Council without obtaining the consent of the Goverrior-m-Council as required by section 15 of the Public Works Act. He submitted that the City Council was aware that there were buildings on the land, and* that under those circumstances they were prohibited by law from taking the land under the Public Works Act, without the previous consent of the Governor-in-Council having been obtained. An objection was made on behalf of the plaintiff by Mr. D. M. Findlay that .the Corporation could not lawfully take the land because of the existence of, the buildings. He was overruled, and the proclamation was issued. No consent had been given by the Governor-in-Coun-cil. -

Mr. O'Shea said that consent had been applied for, but there was nothing to show that it had been granted. '.'..V Mr. Skerrett said that Mr: Boyd had allowed the time of applying;-for compensation to go by, and it was essential for him to attack the validity of theproclamation. The City Council "had acquired the land by a piece of waste paper. That was sufficient fraud under the Land Transfer Act. '

Under cross-examination, the plaintiff said that the value of the land had almost doubled in the last two years Mr. O'Shea: "I think that the?" value of this land has increased probably more than any other." ' '";v Mr. Skerrett: "Would you say that on a compensation claim?" (Laughter) Mr. O'Shea aaid that a memorial had been sent to the Governor, asking for consent to the. taking of the land. rNo consent was obtained, but the request went through, and a proclamation iias issued m accordance with the ordinary" practice of the' Department. The council had been advised of that fact, and had assumed that everything was in order. There could, therefore, be no suggestion of fraud, even of the watered kind, which Mr. Skerrett was pleased to call wrong-doing. ;.'..' _■.'>,„.:„ Mr. Justice MacGregor: "The-conße'nt of the Governor-General was not qb- 1 tamed." !.'..' Mr. O'Bhea: "Surely we could assume' from the issue of the proclamation that the consent had been granted." His Honour: "Had you the right to assume that? . You were taking a man's property valued at £2000, and should have made sure that everything was in order. I wouldn't have accepted the proclamation .as the consent of the Gov-ernor-in-Council." Mr. O'Shea said that it had been laid I down seventeen year» ago, and had not j been challenged since," that once regis- ! tratjon of a proclamation was effected that disposed of the matter. His Honour: "You say that the City Council can take this land, worth t tween one and two- thousand pounds, and not pay Mr. Boyd a penny." Mr. O'Shea: "Yes, your Honour; Mr. Boyd is not now entitled to compensation." (Proceeding.)