LAND ON THE QUAY

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 33, 8 February 1930, Page 10

LAND ON THE QUAY

MONTAGE VALUES

COMPENSATION CLAIM

Further evidence in support of tho claim made by Joseph Henrys for £40,----000 compensation in respect of land taken by proclamation at Quintal's Corner, was given in the Compensation Court to-day. The respondent was the Minister,, of Public Works. - His Honour Mr. Justice Blair presided, and tho assessors were Mr. W. G. Riddell for the claimant, and Mr. E. Bold for tho respondent. Mr.. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. J. J. M'Grath, appeared for the claimant, and Mr. A. E. Currie, of tho Crown Law Office, for the Government. C. J. S. Harcpurt, partner-in the firm of Hareourtand Co., was further crossexamined by Mr. Currie. Kef erring to the rentals.obtained by Smith, the lessee of Henrys', building witness sr.ic! as a rule the Chinese fruiterer in general did not pay more than the-white man for shop premises.. .Fletcher's property which had frontages to both Lambton quay and Boweu street had been sold at £429 per foot on the Lambton quay frontage.- .:„ ■ • -. «..''« Questioned regarding the effect or. the Bowen street frontage on tho price, witness-said that it was an, advantage, but he had made no calculations , k in respect of it. The property was not unusually deep for that part of Lambton quay. • -.; ■•-..■•' Mr. Currie pointed out to the Court that his cross-examination was directed towards showing that the mere quotation of Lambton quay prices, irrespective of depth or other frontage,; was not a fair, basis of valuation. His Honour observed that Mr. Harcourt had not said -hat he would disregard the Bowen street frontage. Mr. Currio asked witness whether one-eighth of the value could be ascribed to the Bowen street frontage. Witness replied that for laud next door over £100 per foot frontage had been offered. He had not the faintest idea what the Government valuation of the Bowen street frontages was. a Mr. Currie: "How many shops could you get on ..Fletcher's property?"— "Possibly six .as against seven on Henrys' property."- The shops on Fletcher's land could be made deeper, but the tendency nowadays was to build shallow shops. "Are the' tenants of such shops/as desirable as those who carry stocks substantial enough to require'storerooms?" —"They are taken everywhere." The arrangement existed in the T. and G. Building, and was quite satisfactory.! His Honour: "You can't tell by the size of a shop the size of a man.'s bank account. A man with a big farm sometinieshas a big mortgage." . ' .Witness said that Fletcher's land was sold to the City Councilfor £3 6s per square foot.. That was property with two frontages; for land \with only a Lambton quay frontage (fee Self-Help property, £4 per square foot was paid. Mr. Currie: "If Fletcher's property, with two frontages, was sold at £429 per running foot on the Lambton quay frontage, does that indicate that the value of" Lambton quay frontage is something under £400 per foot?" Witness replied that the Self-Help property was sold at-'.over £400 per foot. "Do you know of one case where prior to the proclamation land in Lambton quay with only ono frontage bro-ight more than £400 per foot?" Witness quoted the sale of lernandos' property as a case in point. That must have brought more than £400 per foot.' He had valued the Self-Help property, about the time.of the proclamation, for mortgage purposes at £500 per foot frontage. "Do you consider that the development of Wellington will leave the-north end as a backwater?"—"No, certainly not." ' . "■ , ■ -■ ' "Has the Thorndon end moved as briskly as other parts of the city?"— "It has even exceeded Courtenay place." •: • ; . The Court adjourned until Monday. In connection with the evidence given by James Ogden Smith yesterday, in which ho said there was a possibility of the claimant's building being condemned, Mr. Smith points out that he also said that he hadnever heard of auy suggestion that the premises were likely to be condemned. ■ j AN EXAMPLE TO OTHERS .■ .- ■-. . ♦ .—■ ; '• BOARD NOT TO BE'IMPOSED ON In1 order to deter others who have ideas of imposing on charitable institutions two young men, aged 20 and 23 respectively, were brought before Mr. T. B; M'Ncil, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court to-day on charges of being rogues and. vagabonds in that they endeavoured to impose on the Wellington Hospital • Board by making, a fraudulent representation with a view to obtaining benefit thereby. ■;■- ---• Chief-Detective Lopdell said it was unfortunate that_.these young men had placed themselves in the position they were in, but,they must of necessity be brought before the Court as an example to othersl The accused had been the subjects of hard luck,'.and they, had been out of work for some • time. They approached Mr. Lowe of the Hospital Board on Thursday last and obtained an order for two meals and abed. On the next day they, again went to Mr. -Lowe"'and obtained a similar order,1 but when-they presented the, order it" was found that it had been altered to four meals. The idea was when giving these tickets or orders that the applicants were asked to. do some work, and when they did this, they were given. the orders. In a! statement from the dock, one of the accused said that they'had come from the country, and had tried everywhere for work. They had brought some.moriey with them and; with ■ this-they had paid their board until the day.they first went to the Hospital Board. . . ; Chief-Detective.- Lopdell: "The ,• pity is that they came from the country at all. I thing' the chances are much better in tho country for lads like these." . Saying that he' wanted to give them a chance to' make good, ; the Magistrate convic.tcd " and discharged the accused. Their Inames were' suppressed.