BOND STREET

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 109, 10 May 1932, Page 8

BOND STREET

WIDENING WORK

CORPORATION'S CLAIM

BIG SUM INVOLVED

Under an agreement dated 9th September, 1927, the Wellington City Corporation, in the- Supreme Court today, before the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, claimed £5000 from a syndicate known as Bond Street, Ltd., for the widening of Old Customhouse quay (now Bond street) and Farish street. It was contended that the work had been completed in terms of the agreement, and that the £5000 was now due and owing by the company.

The statement of defence denied that the Corporation had fulfilled its obligations. It was also set up as an alternative defence that if it were proved that the Corporation had fulfilled its obligations, such obligations were not fulfilled at least twelve months prior to the commencement of the action. By way of a further defence and counterclaim the company alleged that the Corporation had not proceeded with the work with due diligence, and that as a result the company had suffered heavy loss and damage. Bond Street, Ltd", counter-claimed for £10,000 general damages.

Only the claim, is being heard at the present juncture, the defendant reserving its right to go to trial on the counter-claim at a later date.

The City Solicitor said that the Corporation undertook to do the widening of the streets after the buildings had been removed,.and it also undertook to take portion of Nimmo's property fronting Willis street, which was required to complete the widening. Old Customhouse quay (Bond street) was to be widened to 43ft, and Farish street to 42ft, the widening in each case being about 20ft. The widening work was the subject of an agreement, dated 9th September, 1927. As to the question of the £5000 in connection with the widening work, the defence was that the Corporation was suing too soon. The Chief Justice: "Don't they say you are suing too late because you didn't proceed with sufficient expedition?" "EVERY EXPEDITION USED." The City Solicitor said it was correct that the defence alleged that tlie Corporation did not proceed with due diligence, but the defence also alleged that the claim was too early, because twelve months had not elapsed since the completion of the footways. The position in regard to the footways, however, was that the Corporation carried out the work pursuant to the agreement with "the agents of Bond S.treet, Ltd. The Corporation, immediately certain buildings had been removed by the company, got to work and the whole of .the work in connection with the street that had, in the opinion of the council, to be done, except .the. work adjoining Nimmo's property, was carried out within a period of live months from March, 1928. Every expedition was used, and wherever it was thought necessary or proper flagging was put in to the footpaths. There was no settlement with Nimmo's until March, 1929. For the loss of frontage to Willis street iNimmo 's were given a greater depth to their property and a cash payment of '£32,000. \ ' • It was not until 23rd August, 1929, that the whole of the complicated business was completed, added the City Solicitor. The time occupied,was nearly two years, but it was contended that there was no waste of time, as would be shown from the evidence. It was sul? mitted that the. two questions for the Court were:-,-(l) Did the Corporation parry out the agreement about the footways? (2) Did the Corporation take proper steps to acquire Nimmo's property and to settle compensation? ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENCE. Counsel for Bond Street, Ltd., said the company contended that the Corporation, had not carried out the conditions, of the agreement." As far as the coun-ter-claim was concerned it involved very different issues and brought in the whole question of the value of properties. 'The Chief Justice: "But, surely, if it is held that they have performed the agreement then your counter-claim would fail." ' '

Counsel: "Absolutely, your Honour.'.' Counsel added that it was not thought necessary at the present time to burden the case with extra evidence in regard to the counter-claim. V

The City Solicitor then proceeded to call evidence in support of the claim, the first witness being Findlay Neville Martin, the City Valuer.

(Proceeding.)