LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8538, 11 April 1891, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

, COURT OF COMPENSATION. ; Friday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly and Messrs. F It. Claude and S. Vailo, assessors.] ALEXANDER R. WATSON V. MINISTER OB" PUBLIC WORKS. Claim £3340 compensation tor 25 perches of land at the North Head taken for defence purposes. Mr. H. Campbell for the claimant, Messrs. A. E. Whitaker and C. F. Buddie for the respondent. The case had occupied the whole of the previous day, and the claimant's case was closed. When the Court resumed this morning, His Honor said he had considered the questions raised by Mr. Whitaker as to the right to claim compensation for tho loss of riparian rights, ■;> and that compensation should be only the value of the land actually taken. Mr. Justice Williams held that the Act of 1882 was an encroachment on the rights of the subject, and it must be admitted that the Act of 1885 was much stronger in this respect, and it should therefore be most strictly construed. In the case Paora Tuhaere v. tho Minister of Public Works, Mr. Justice Gillies held that only the land actually taken should be considered in a claim for compensation, but from the newspaper report before him it appeared that the question was not argued. He (Mr. Justice Couolly) held that the evidence of riparian rights was properly taken, and that it was not barred by not having .been lodged within twelve months. It was to bo regretted that no provision had been made for Courts of Compensation deciding questions of law without appeal to a judge of the Supreme Court, as when a District Court judge or a Resident Magistrate was presidenb of a Compensation Court they could not be dealt with. ' Mr. Whitaker said that he distinctly understood that before His Honor gave a decision on these points he was to be heard in argument. His Honor regretted that there should have been any misapprehension, bub he understood that couusel had said all that it was intended to say on the matter. It ' would be most inconvenient to take argument in the middle of a case, as it would detain the assessors and the witnesses, who had no interest in it. Mr. Whitaker suggested that they might finish the case, and that then His Honor should state a case for argument in the Supreme Court, or it would suit him if the award of this Court was made in two parts —first, as to compensation for the loss of land, and second, as to loss by deprivation of riparian rights. His Honor said the award would certainly be made in that way. :.."■■.'■' Mr. Whitaker then proceeded to call witnesses for the respondent. Mr. Richard Arthur, examined by Mr. Buddie, stated that he was an auctioneer and valuer, in business for 32 years, during which time he had a good deal of experience in buying and selling land. He had inspected the land, the subject of this claim, and made a valuation of it. Ho valued it at £590, or at the rate of £5 a foot, and that ho considered a liberal valuation for the land and water frontage. Witness had property on Cheltenham Beach with a water frontage of 12 feet on one side and the 1 Lake Road on Jibe other, with a depth of ; 360 feet, for sale. There was a houso on it insured for £500, and witness was prepared to sell it with house and improvements for £1100. Ho estimated the worth of tho improvements and house ab £700. Ho had examined the balance of the plaintiffs land and had taken tho damage to that into consideration in the valuation of £590. By Mr. Campbell: His firm had been for many years engaged as general salemen, but specially land, house, and estate sales, having only taken up the other when property became unsaleable. The price which he stated for the proporty he had for sale was the present price, but there had been a considerable fall in the price of land since 1886. The witness was cross-examined as to his knowledge of the value of lands in the vicinity of the land taken from Mr. Watson. In re-examination, witness said the land he had for sale was within five minutes' walk of Mr. Watson's land. To His Honor : He considered the present value of the land was £590 to the owner of the adjoining property, but not bo anyone else. He considered the property depreciated 25 per cent, since 1886, bub the general depreciation in property was nearer to 50 per cent. Mr. Whitaker said he wished to have it placed on record that an offer of £600 had been made. Mr. Campbell admitted that bins offer had been made two days ago, and incontinently declined. Mr. R. C. Carr, auctioneer, commission, and land agent, was examined as to the value of the piece of land in question. He considered its outside value in 1880 at £5 a foot for the frontage. He had made an independent valuation of the property. With tho sea frontage it would bo worth £250 moro, and with tho £590 for tho land, that would bo its full value. Mr. F. G. Ewington, land agent, deposed to having inspected and valued the land taken from Mr. Watson. It was, he considered, worth £500 to the owner of the adjacent land in 188 G. Witness had 14 oils acres east and west of Calliope Dock for sale, and would take £8000 for the whole. It had 35 to 40 chains of water frontage. He considered the land was depreciated by having the torpedo service on it; but, had ib been a private residence, it would not be depreciated. The witness was cross-examined as to his knowledge of tho value of lands in the vicinity. To Mr. Vaile : He considered the water frontage at this poinb was worth half as much again as tho water frontage at Calliope Point. * Mr. W. S. Cochrane, member of the firm of S. Cochrane and Son, auctioneers and land agents, deposed that he had resided at the North Shore for twelve years, from 1865 to 1877. He had examined and valued tho land taken from Mr. Watson, and considered in 1886 the value of the land was £350. He had also considered the damage done to the remainder of the property, and estimated it at £400, and ho considered £750 full compensation for the land taken, and the damage done to the remainder of tho property. The witness was cross-examined as to the basis of his valuation, and said his firm had sold land adjacent on Cheltenham Beach. The land taken from Mr. Watson certainly had a special value in consequence of the sea frontage, but he had taken that into consideration in his estimate He had not known of £9 a foot being paid for land in the vicinity, but be believed £9 a foot had been offered and refused for the Calliope estate, with a depth of from 100 to 120 feet, and that had no water frontage, although for ordinary purposes it would be better than Mr. "Watson's. Without the water frontage this land taken from Mr. Watson would be valueless, or nearly so, for it only had a depth of about <50 feet, and was at tho foot of a hill, -where no one would build. Mr. C. Vickermann was recalled, and examined by Mr. Whitaker: He was the engineer in charge of the earthworks, wharf, and buildings, at the torpedo works. The works were completed in September, 1886, and the keys were handed over to Captain Falconer, of the torpedo department, on the 9th of October. The half of the portion taken was excavated. There was only about 20 feet of it level, the rest they had to cut out, and they pub up a retaining wall at the back, both at a cost of about £500. It certainly was not a suitable place for shipbuilding, and the vessels spoken of as being built there were very small, and could be launched in six feet of water. The road to Mr. Watson's place had not been materially altered. Mr. Watson had still a large sea frontage, of over 400 feet. This closed the evidence. Mr. Whitaker addressed the Court more especially as to the value which had been placed on the land for shipbuilding purposes, pointing out that any person building a vessel must launch ib over Harbour Board property, and the Government had a right to take Harbour Board property for defence purposes.. He contended, therefore, that Mr. Watson had no claim in this respect, for he could nob use this property without the consent of the Harbour Board. '- Mr. Campbell contended that the sea was a public highway, and as such every one of the public had a right to use it, and the cutting off from the sea was a proper subject for compensation! ' He submitted that the question of tho depth of land was of very little consequence, for it was the frontage which had the value, the remain-

der had only prairie value. Too much weight«hoold not therefore be given to the depth of the land taken, for it was the frontage which'gave it its value. The Court then retired to consider their award. When the Court resumed, after about half an hour's adjournment, His Honor delivered tho award. It was as follows —" In regard to tho land taken, they awarded claimant £1500. In regard to injury, to property by loss of riparian rights, nil. Each party to pay its own costs, and each party to pay its own assessor, £8 Bs." The Court then rose. SUPREME COURT.— Chambers. After the sitting of the Court of Compensation yesterday His Honor sat in Chambers, and heard the following applications :— :In re the Chattels Transfer Act: McDermott v. Jonas. Mr. Burton moved on Judge's summons to set aside an order of the Court made at Gisborne. Mr. Cooper, instructed by Messrs. Jackson and Russell, appeared to oppose, and raised a preliminary objection, viz., that the application being under rule 405 the proceedings showld have been by motion before the Court, and not by Judge's summons in Chambers. Mr. Burton replied, and His Honor upheld Mr. Cooper's objection, and dismissed the summonses with £1 Is costs. Probate was granted in the wills of Eliza Hill and Walter Cook, on the application of Mr. James Russell. Colonial Bank: v. Greenway.Application by Mr. James Russell to appoint a guardian ad litem. Mr. Tanks appeared in support of the motion, and the order was made as prayed.

R.M. COURT.— [Before Dr. Giles, B.M.]

Judgment Summons.—ln the case of Barker Bros. v. David Anderson, claim £2 14s 6d, the defendant was ordered to pay the balance due, £1 14s Gd, together with costs, Bs, on the 3rd of May. J. Steer v. Mary English.—Claim £1, for loss and trouble caused by the neglect of defendant to fulfil her engagement as domestic servant and nurse. Mr. J. A. Beale appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. O'Meagher for the defendant. Plaintiff deposed that defendant had agreed to work for him at 7s per week, and afterwards decided not to leave the place where she waß then working. By this means plaintiff suffered considerable loss through neglect to his business, besides being put to great trouble and annoyance. Phoebe Lippingworbh also gave evidence. Mr. O'Meagher took objection to the particulars set forth in the claim, and contended that the damages were too remote. The defendant stated that the plaintiff offered her seven shillings per week, and a week's wages in advance, if she would leave her then employer at once. On thinking the matter over, however, witness thought it would not be right to accept the offer. She took another girl to Mr. Steer, but he would not have her. Dr. Giles said it was as clear a case of deliberate breach of engagement as he had ever known. Judgment for plaintiff for 10s damages, and costs 19s 6d. John Macnamara v. Henry, J. Atkins. —Claim, £30, the amount of a promissory note drawn by defendant in favour of plaintiff, to bo paid on demand. The promissory note was dishonoured, and still remained unpaid. Mr. T. Cotter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. E. Madden for the defendant. A considerable amount of evidence was heard. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, and £4 13s costs.

POLICE COURT.—Friday. [Before Messrs. W. Lodder and P. Cheal, J.P.'s.] Larceny. — John Hill Johnson was charged with stealing a macintosh coat, valued at £3, the property of Arthur Bach, at Cambridge, on the 7th March. Accused pleaded guilty to the charge, and elected ! to be dealt with summarily. Accused was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. / False Registration of Birth.Daniel Joy was charged with making a false statement respecting the parentage of a certain illegitimate child to the Registrar of Births, and causing such statement to be inserted in the Register Book. Mr. J. Palmer appeared for the accused, who plead not guilty to the charge. Annie Ashby deposed that she gave birth to a child at Mr. Grant's house, in Manukau Road, Parnell, on September 12, 1890. The child was subsequently adopted by Daniel Joy, who resided at Swanson. She never saw Daniel Joy until he was summoned to appear in Court. Henry Smith, boardinfjhouse-keeper, stated that he declined to give evidence which might incriminate himself. Sergeant - Major Pratt here applied for an adjournment for half an hour, in which to consider the position. The adjournment was granted. On resuming Sergeant-Major' Pratt stated that he would go on with the other evidence. Mrs. Margaret Pearce, a nurse residing in Parnell, deposed that on September 12, 1890, she attended Annie Ashby, at Mrs. Grant's house in Parnell, for accouchement. Elizabeth Lowndes deposed that she received the child from Annie Ashby shortly after its birth, and took it to Mrs. Clark's, in Wakefield-streot. She took the child to Mrs. Clark's in order that it should be adopted by Mrs. Joy. Jane Grant deposed that Annie Ashby gave birth to a child in her house on September 12. Sarah Ashby deposed that Mrs. Lowndes kept her sister's child for a while, when it was taken to Mrs. Clark's to be adopted by Daniel Joy. John Way land,* deputy registrar of births, deaths, and marriages, deposed that on March 14, 1890, Henry Smith called at his office to register the birth of a child in the name of Daniel Joy. Complete information was given him. Katherine Joy was the name given as the mother of the child. Detective Hughes deposed that he laid this information, and served a summons on the defendant at Walker's Bush, Waitakerei Ranges. Mrs. Joy admitted to him that she had adopted the child, and that Annie Ashby was its mother. Henry Smith was again called, and Mr. Palmer objected to him being com--pelled to give evidence. The Bench said that the witness must' be examined unless he could show a just excuse for being exempted. Hy. Smith said that he would not answer any question unless compelled to do so. He ,was a married man, and kept a boardinghouse in Chapel-street. In September, 1890, his wife kept a boardinghouse in Grey-street. Mrs. Joy had been staying an his house for some time. Mr. Joy wrote to him about the adoption of a child, saying that if there was a child to be adopted, he was on the look out for one. About October Ist he acquainted Mr. Joy about an advertisement that appeared in the papers about a child that was open for adoption. He went to Mrs. Clark's office with Mrs. Joy, who obtained a. child from the girl Annie Ashby. An agreement was produced and signed. He subsequently went to the registry office at the request of Mrs. Joy, and registered the child. He sent the papers that ho received from the registrar to Taupiri to bo signed by Joy. Mr. Palmer submitted that the child was registered by Smith, and that Joy was nob incriminated at all. ' The Bench sustained the contention raised by Mr. Palmer, and dismissed the case. Alleged Assault. — Herbert Jones was charged with unlawfully assaulting and beating George Kelly at Birkenhead onApril 3. Mr. W. J. Napier appeared for the complainant, and Mr. S. Hesketh for the defence. George Kelly deposed that his girl was boarded out with the defendant from the Industrial School. He went to Jones' house last Friday, and attempted to 'get his daughter to return home with him. When he was walking along the road defendant came up and struck witness, and violently dragged the girl away. After hearing further evidence, the Bench said this was one of the most peculiar cases that they had heard. The case was dismissed, and each party was ordered to pay his own costs. Illicit, Oyster Fishing. — John Wilson was charged that on March 11 he did have in his possession certain rock oyster 3 during the close season for the same. Mr. H. Williamson appeared for the prosecution, and the defendant did not appear in answer to the charge. Henry Parker deposed that he saw the accused and another man in Mechanics' Bay on March 11. They had 12 sacks of oysters in their possession. One of the men ran away, and Wilson admitted that he had taken the oysters from the Island of Motutapu. The Bench inflicted a fine of £1 and costs.