LAND TAKEN FOR ROAD

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 69, 18 September 1925, Page 5

LAND TAKEN FOR ROAD

SETTLERS AND SPECIAL RATE

COUNT? COUNCIL'S SUIT TO (JOURT.

.The .request of a number of residents in the "Wairarapa.-South County to the County Council to acquire certain private property for the purpose of a road, the acquisition of the land accordingly at a certain price, and the subsequent failure of the ratepayers'in .question to meet expenses incurred were'the subject, of a 'case heard' by Mr- Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court yesterday., ■ • The .plaintifts were the chairman, councillors, and' inhabitants of the Wairarapa South County, and the defendants Herman Nitz,... of Kauwhat'a>. near Masterton, farmer; Edgar Leonard ,Nitz, Lucy Martin'Nitz, Paul Henry, William Kurnmer, Walter Thomas Kummer, John' Bannister, Francis Charles Bunny,'and Clara Cecilia Tatham, of Masterton. , ■'•: Mr. M. Myers, K.C.,.with him Mr.. H. E. Hart (Mastertou), appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. C. P.. Skerrett, K.C.; with him Mr. T. Jordan (Masterton), for'the defendants. -' ■ • The facts as .stated in the.claim were that iv 1919 the defendants requested the plaintiff; council to acquire certain, lands fromone -Charles A." Cameron; of Flat', Point, for 'the purpose of a road kriownasthe Kaiiwhata deviation from the Kauwhata River, to the, sea coasfy offering to a special rate on the. lands for' the ; charges on any loan that might have' to be raised for the purpose. ' The council acquired: the land, and the Compensation Court awarded C. A. Canieron .S.BOO- and costs for the land, taken.: Jn August, 1920, Cameron agreed nvith the council to fence the laud for £600. It was agreed that interest shguld be paid, to Cameron on the^sums of £80p and £.600 at 6 per cent., and.this.interest had been paid. It was' claimed that .the defendants concurred 'in-, the" action of plaintiffs. ",.'• ■ ■'. . ■-■"?. .' . . \ : ■ , Owing to the '/slump,' 'the special; loan for the payment;of'the amount' owing .to ; Cfunerqn for land aW fencing was not immediately , obtained,; and in 1922 the defendants informed plaintiffs that ,they no, longer desired the, land for^the. road, and requested : the plaintiff to try : to arrange, with Cameron ' Vo take biick the land and cancel the. agreement.. Canieron .refused 'to do. this. V The defendants, also refused ( to sign .'.documents Vto permit;the necessary stops; 'to,•.'■be"' taken for the levying of a special rate for the, purpose of. raising.-a special loan' to-,- coyor "the costs.; The defendants,, it was submitted, had repudiated their, original agreement and declined to; acknowledge any liability. ■;■■ The plaintiffs claimed; accordingly a declaration' that, the. original request was sufficient, consent for the purpose of section 16 (2) of the Local Bodies' Loan Act. . LVthe alternative a decree of the ,was , sought that' the defendants execute .the necessary form of consent. If ; such relief could, not^be; had, .damages wero .claimed by the plaintiff council for,, breach' of contract by defendants.

The defence was a denial,of- obli-r gation, on tho ground that,no special rating area ""had T'TDeeri. created, an(l that .the consent' of _'the . Masterton. County Council had not been", obtained to the 'acquisition', of the land or the construction of the..; road:" : The plaintiff: council had ; no authority in law to 'enter into-;such a:.contract as the original 'consent of'tho settlers ,\vas constfu'ed....to.-. he. ■' 'No-steps had been taken'-tp'Saisb any."spepial- loan to ,prpvjdo;,for the c.ost, and,;such;. delay absolved the defendants from any obligations, if.-there' were any; created. ''"':;-'.' i' : ;'■' ■;:,;';'r'-'Vi'-; ' ''.^ •'•'■■• ■:■'..

Heury M. B.; Trapp, clerk• to the' plaintiff council, gave evidence/ as to tho negotiations... , He. admitted, to.. ■ Mr. Skerrett that: by 1923 cohditiqhs had changed from "the time, when .the road was originally desired. , /Pro-, duce went largely by road instead of, by coast and the. sea. Motor,transport had,- ihade , the The P.ublic \V"orksy'grarit,oif £350 towards the construction of the road was never taken up by the council. The. council had not constituted any special rating area nor fixed the Bum to be i<used by loan. Mr Skerrett asked 4 for a nonsuit on the ground that there was no case to answer Why should the council come to the Court and ask to be extricated from the muddle into which it got itself ? The document upon which so much store was set by the council was « r petition and not a contract. His Honour reserved his decision. ,