DISPUTE ABOUT WALL

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 140, 15 June 1928, Page 11

DISPUTE ABOUT WALL

THE NORTHLAND CASE COURT ACTION BEGUN A dispute about a retaining, wall on tho Northland road reached tho Supreme Court to-day, in an action in which the City Corporation seeks a declaration that it is lawfully entitled to enter upon the land of Henry Ernest Guise, a painter, for tho purpose of erecting, the wall. An injunction was also sought restraining tho defendants from hindering the work, £250 damages and any other relief that the Court might see fit to award being asked as compensation for the delay that has occurred. The ease is being heard by his Honour Mr. Justice Sim. For tho City Corporation, Mr. J. O'Shea appears," and with him Mr. Hislop; and Mr. O. C. Mazengarb is on the other side. Outlining the facts, Mr. O'Shea said that the development of traffic in Northland had made it, necessary to widen the Northland road to carry tram, vehicular, and pedestrian traffic, and a large retaining wall was necessary. A wall had been built by the Karori Borough Council and added to by the Wellington City Council, but in 1927 it was obvious that the wall was in a precarious condition, there being cracks and other indications of instability. The City Engineer (Mr. Harl) prepared plans for the construction of a new. wall, and interviewed Mr. and Mrs. Guise. Much of the work had to be done on Mr. Guise's property, to whose sections neiy access was to be provided. Mr. Hart was satisfied that both 'Mr. and Mrs. Guise were willing for the work to go on in view of the benefits that would accrue. Had ho not boon thus satisfied, h«. would not have designed the wall ,as he did. In December last tho plant was placed on tho ground, and work was started in January. A complaint was made that .the noise of tho engine on the works was intolerable. Some time towards the end of January Mrs. Guise complained to Mr. Fletcher, whose company was carrying out tho work, that in view of the inconvenience they wore put to they should receive further consideration. Mr. Guise had previously proposed to havo a concrete wall erected for his own purposes, and he had asked the Fletcher Company for a pricefor the work. Mr. Fletcher, with a view to pacifying Mrs1? Guise, agreed to build the wall that Mr. Guise wanted. That wall was, started immediately the Corporation wall was sufficiently ' advanced to permit a junction to be made. This wall was practically completed at the time when the company's men were ordered off the work. At the end of February an attempt was made at settlement, but Mrs. Guise said that she would not allow the work to go on, ordering the Corporation's men off the property. Counsel claimed that the Corporation and the Fletcher Company, or the Fletcher Company, had a license to go on the property, coupled with an interest*, or grant, the interest being the right to use the machinery until the work was completed. The Corporation was prepared to honour the agreement made with Mr. Guise regarding access to the aection's should the Court hold that it was entitled to continue the work. (Proceeding.)