WATERFRONT LAND

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 36, 14 February 1929, Page 13

WATERFRONT LAND

OWNERSHIP DISPUTED

The ownership of approximately iiftcen acres of land on the seashore to the north or! Lowry Bay was in dispute in a, case which came before Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court to-day. The ease was H.M. the King v. Alexander Kenneth Scobie Mackenzie. Cheviot Wellington Dillon Bell, and the District Land.Registrar, Wellington.

Tho Crown claimed possession of tho Jand, contending that tho defendants' certificate of title was bounded by road, and that all the land between that road and the sea coast was Crown property, . i

The defendants' submission was that their certificato of title showed the road running alongside the sea coast, and that they were accordingly entitled to tho whole of tho land up to a point 66ft from the high-water mark.

Tho land under review was part of that bought by the Government during tho lato Lord Normanby's stay in New Zealand and used as the Governor's residence. Later it was purchased by Sir Francis Dillon Bell and the late Mr. Lovin, but on tho latter's death in 1893, it was sold to the Lady Bell trustees, who hold it at present.

The only witness called to-day was Sir Francis Bell, who described the road that was used as the main road to tho eastern shores of tho harbour and the Waivarapa in 1875 and the years following. Ho stated that the road shown in the plan produced in Court was not really existent, and that it had never been shown on any Government plan. Questioned as to whether at a particular point where tho road passed in front of, the land in question- there, was an inlet of the sea, witness stated that except for certain erosiou there had been no essential changes iv the land.

Tho case rests on the interpretation of plans made by surveyors from. 1863 onwards, and the nature of the land at. that time.

Mr. A. Fair, K.C., Solicitor-General, with him Mr. J. Prendeville, appeared, for tho Crown, aiid Mr. M. Myers, K.C., with him Mr. H. F. Johnston, for'the defendants.

The Court adjourned in order to view tho property.