COMPENSATION COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LIII, Issue 9302, 8 March 1907, Page 5

COMPENSATION COURT.

■ «•- THE OEO CASES. The Oeo compensation claims were continued before Mr A. Turnbul'l, S.M., on Thunsday. Mr Gully said that he would proceed with the evidence for the claimants. Charles W. Curtis, one of the claimants was called. He said he was a. faarmeT in possession of a farm of 207 acres, rnear lot 55. The land was open, amd he 'had beem oarrying on dairying and mixed farming. His tenders (for lots. 53 and 1 55 were accepted on August 27. His intention was to hold the sections and work them in connection with Ms present farm ; he was not merely speculatdmg. His idea was to plough a portion of lot 55 in the spring, and he entered into a contract to have fencing done by September 30. Before this date the contract was knocked on the head by a notice received from fche Public Trustee. The. amount paid to the Public Torastee by way of rent, cost of lease, and, stamp duty was £49 13s. At the end of October, witness received oaotdce that the Act had been passed- taking from him lot 55, but leaving lot 53. Th& balance that he did not plough he intended to graze bullocks on. That was for the first -year, and affair that he would have been, guided by events as So whether he .should continue to graze .the Jtamd or should use it for dairying.' About 100 chains of fencing was necessary .to complete the ting fence, and bis share would have been about £25 to £30. He- would not have done much sub-dividing in thri first season, but the land was emineniily suitable ' for sub-division. There waa a stream Tunning through the .land, 'so that all thie sub-divisions would be well watered. r ' This stream also acted as- a natural drain. ' The grass, was good .considering thai the land had never been touched. At the* start he would have put on 50 bullocks .or more. He had not made any purchases, but -hold. • gone around, ev«n"to Wdnganm, to see where he could be suited in stock as soon as the fence was completed. He intended . using part of the land for growing winter feed— <abouit 15 acres of turnips. Used in conjunction with lot 53 considerably' more could be stocked. Lot 55 would oarryj£rom 50 to 60 milking cows through the year. To milk these he would have to put up a 2-xoomed whare at a cost of £150 and a. shad. /'Sub-dividing by ietneies would cost £35. A fair return for 50 cows last season would be from £10 -to J612 per head. Returns would be greater this year. About two-fifths of the giroes receipts' would be consumed in working expenses, not including rent. He differed witn a good' many .in o.ne respect — he would not write off a penny for deterioration in a herd of cows. It was mot aa though the whole herd went off together. Perhaps one cow would be put off. He would' fatten her for sale, and in her place put one he had bred' and cost him nothing but its grass, and which fox some time would cost very' little. The gross profits on grazing bullocks would .be £3 or A £4 per -acre per annum. ■ About £200 would be invested in .baying bullocks, amd the -.cost of working would be practically nfl in this case. He had been in tihe district about 30 years. In August he would have' given 22s to 23s per acre for lot 55, and then expected a profit He believedhe could easily have sub-let it at SMe or 255, but would not have let it go. Ptricee had xiseDi — that was. indicated 1 in August — and ' now he was suro it would Bring 28s, and perhaps more. He thought it a fair thing to reckon the sub-letfriing value as 5 per cent ,of the freehold value. He estimated that . the net profits the first year would be from £150 to £175. Mr Morison: There are three elements in farming operations^— the ' land, 1 ' whdeh you cannot do without, the capital, and then thie brains, energy and judgment of the farmer. Witness : Yes. Mr Morison : And the profits had to be divided between these three factors-; and you reckon 19s was a just sum to allot for nemt? Witness said he wanted to get the land at a rental that would permit of a profit. Mr. Morison: Just so. You wanted to be paid for your brain work and .energy, and if you were not working this land you • would be applying your energy and brains to something else. The cross-examination continuing, witness said that there was a good deal of land about this district he could apply himsfeK to and make a profit. His experience' was that the coastal land was richer than the bush land. Jamee Paterson, fanner, with experience of Taranaki land and native leases, deposed that be knew lot 55, and considered that Curtis got a good bargin. The letting value of the land at that time should have been 25s an acre to Curtis. Now,, if ring fenced,- it should bring 275. There had. been a rise of about £3. an acre in land values since last year. , The -land would caryy at least 50 cows, and as to returns he 3aid that he received 4J12 per head from 130 cows, and working expense* amounted to two-fifths. There was little, difference in Muggeridges' and Curtis' lots,' and the same evidence as to value and returns would apply to both. It was a qmte high enough estimate to say that £3 per acre would be netted by grazing bullocks ; £2 10s would be a fair estimate. It was hoped ttoat prices would keep up; they * 1110114 be sarprised W see them collapse. Last July he bought a farm for £23 an acre and a couple of months ago was offered £31. Last winter hie bought a 48acre farm for £25, and could now get £30. The farm next his sold the other day for £36, and a native leasehold near by for £9 10s an acre for the goodwill. The rental was up to 16s 6d, and thte improvement was a boxthorn hedge. It was better land than either of the Oeo lots, say £5 to £7 on the freehold value. He knew of another native lease that had been fenced and had a rough two-roomed house and a cowshed on it, for which £14 wat, being asked for th* goodwill Aa to depreciation in herds, he was milking 400 i cows andi ddd not think they had drprer coated one penny. He bod milked one l herd for five years and it had not depreciated; it had improved. Land of Harrop's up the coast, 80 acres, was under' 1 lease at a bit over 15s. Hairrops dm not want to sell, bnt pat £700 on it. It waa „rinfcf enced, and on account of being more

neglected as regarded weeds was worth { £2 an acre less than lots 55 and 56. i

Prank Muggeridge. claimant in respect of lot 56, said he was a farmer, and with his brother he was the successful tenderer for lot 56. He knew the land in lot 56 as they had grazed bullocks there before. His idea when the tenders were accepted was to erect the necessary buildings and start dairying straight away. He wrote to the Public Trustee for permission Ui build, and purchased 26 cows, which were to be added to 14 then possessed and milked on lot 56. He had since purchased other cows As he was overstocked when lot 56 was taken away he had to rent land at Manaia from Mr Barleymar. at 30s an acre. Through bullocks having to be moved to a section some miles away he was inconvenienced in a firewood contract, and estimated that he would ]pse £50 on the contract in consequence of losing lot 56. He intended putting on 60 cows at first, but thought that by growing root crops it would have stood 100 cows. He had reckoned on making £10 for milk and £2 for calves and pigs. Land had risen in value of late, and they were getting one penny more per lb for butter fat than last season. He tendered 18s 6d, but would have gone 23s rather than have lost it. He was prepared to give 25s to-day.

To Mr Marisoai : He might have sold the 26 cows, hvsb did not want to. He did not take Barleyman's place tfll November. Edwaxds (a native) asked him nottotemder, saying the natives were going to try to stop the leases. , James Paterson was recaUled, and said he meant that the profit on bullocks was £2 10s after paying rent. (F. Muggeridge said £3, out of which rent was to be paid.)

William Thomas Weflls, who had been 26 '•years fanning in various parts in the d£sfcrk't j was next called. Witness said lie knew the Hands under consideration, and thought that the lot that Curtis got at 19s was cheap at the price. It should have been worth 22s 6d at the time and 25s now, or even at the end of October. The increase was due to an increase of the producing value of the land being occasioned by an important transaction t>y the Kaupokonui Dairy Co. — a deal which enabled the company to pay out Is per 1b for butter-fat and promise a probable bonus of to Id. He liked Muggenclge's lot a little better than Curtis', and thought it would be worth about Is an acre more to rent. As to returns from cows, he said that he had one herd that averaged £11 10s last season, exclusive of profit from calves and pigs. He purchased 135 acres adjoining his present farm two months ago at £36 an acre.

This concluded the evidence for the claimants.

THE RESPONDENTS CASE.

Mr Morison said he would call evidence, but it would be subject to the objection he had raised. The first witness he called was

Robert Lambie. who said he had had considerable experience of dairy farming in Taranaki and Canterbury. -He had done valuing for mortgages at various times He was well acquainted with the Oeo land and had land close to lots 55 and 56. As to the class and the nature of the land, it was very poor jierfc to tihe' Oeo road, and about 25 acres was covered with rushes. Then in the centre wher© the creek ran through it was rather broken and poor, and at the back of the section it was rather better. In his opinion it was only second-class lamd. He would put the renting value oi lot 55 at 15s and of lot 56 at 15s. He had land somewhat similar to it on the otber side of the river, and he would not give £15 or £16 an acre for the land in lots 55 or 56. . There was no comparison between the best of the land at Manaia and the land at Oeo, as the prices indicated Milking labor ran from 25s to 30s, and a milker's keep would be 10s a week. A milker was expected to do front"] 20 to 25 cows ; he would not ask a man j to do more than 20 cows, except in emergency. The capital value of a good average cow was about £8. Twelve* and a half j per cent, was a fair amount to write off ' for herd depreciation, which meant thai a herd needed renewing about evfery eight years. That was under ordinary circumstances, and he ga^re an instance of a herd that had to be renewed in one year on account of an epidemic of contagious abortion. As to returns per cow he would not like to base his calculations on more than 9d alb for butter fat. The average cow, according to statistics, gave 1801bs a year. About £9 would be a fair .gross return. As to working ■expenses, he gave half and took half on ehaT© milking. On j the Oeo land, in its present condition, he thought one cow to three acres would yield greater profit than one cow to two acres. He did not think £3 per acre could be made yearly by fattening bullocks on this \ land. It would not be extravagant to say ' tßat it would be necessary to erect £350 I worth of buildings, etc., to put lot 56 into good working order for dairying. It would be difficult to subdivide lot 56 in more than two paddocks to get permanently good I water. He would not give £29 for the j freehold of these lots, and did mot think they could be made pay at that price. He would sooner give £30 an acre for good Manaia land than £16 for the Oeo land. !

To Mr Gully : He had been dairying in Taranaki for about 18 years, 11 years on snares. In his opinion any witness who said that lot 55 would carry 50 or 60 cowwas overestimating the carrying capacity of the land: foe would estimate about 30 cows He thought tho value of the land generally in the district w.n<s too high He did not think the high values would be maintained ; they would drop He could noL say when, but as soon as the price of butter-fat drops a penny or two theland values would show sympathy. He thought a decrease would come about, as the ruling price now was abnormal. Wher. prices were high for any artick people put all their efforts towards producing that artici3, and an over-production resulted, a fall in prices following. At this stage the Court adjourned till 10 o'clock this morning.