CLAIM ON DRAINAGE BOARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14747, 1 August 1911, Page 9

CLAIM ON DRAINAGE BOARD.

THE HOBSON BAY SEWER.

EFFECT ON LAND VALUES.

Thk hearing of the claim of Mr. W. K. Holmes against the Auckland and Suburban Drainage Board for £1000 damages to his 20-a-cre leasehold, situated at Whakatakataka, Hobson Bay, was continued yesterday. The constitution of the Compensation Court ww,, as formerly, Mr. C. C. Kettle S.M. (president), Mr. W. Duncan (assessor for the claimant), and Mr. Georgo Elliot (assessor for the respondent Board). _ Mr. J. R. Reed, with him Mr. G. M. Newton, appeared for the claimant, and Mr. T. Cotter, with him Mr. R. McVeagh, for the Drainage Board. Charles Herbert, a cab proprietor, who was interested in a lease of tho grazing rights, over the property, described the spring which was on the property when the lease was taken, and said the lease was thrown up because the water failed. Henry Albert Metcalfe, civil engineer, paid explosives might shake the ground so as to completely alter the run of the water, and so as to cause it to disappear into the tunnel or elsewhere. This concluded the evidence for claimant. Mr. Cotter, before opening the case for tho respondent Board, submitted that there was no satisfactory evidence tendered as to the existence of a spring on the land at all. lis locality had been variously indicated by the different witnesses, and there was nothing to show that the operations connected with the piercing of the tunnel had in any way caused the water that was there to disappear. r , The President said there did not appear to be sufficient evidence to show that the tunnel operations deprived the property of its water supply. After the assessors had seen the property, if it was necessary to call upon the respondents to give evidence in this respect they would do so. Hubert Eaxl Vaile, member of the firm of Samuel Vailo and Sons, the first witness called for the respondent Board, said tho land was, in his opinion, too broken for building purposes. .It sloped steeply towards the south-west, which was a great disadvantage for residential purposes. Its inaccessibility was also much against it. If the right to drain into the sewer was obtained It would be an advantage to the property, but in his view the land was not suitable for building purposes, and could only be used for grazing. It would carry about six cows at 2s a week each. The construction of a road through the property was out of the question. The land was useless for mercantile purposes, as one could only get there, by launch at high tide, .and there was no access by land. In his opinion it was ridiculous to say there had been a loss of £1 per foot on this land by reason of the Drainage Board's operations, for the land was not worth £1 a foot in the first instance. In answer to Mr. Reed, witness said Government valuations were very erratic and unreliable, and were not always' mede by unprejudiced persons. Ho thought, the valuation of £120 per acre was very high, probably because it was not objected to. If Mr. Holmes had been offered 6s per foot per annum for 100 ft of the land, then the man who made the offer was smarter than witness's people were. They could not get that amount, and he cud not believe there was a second man in Auckland who would offer it. The tenant's interest was worth £500, and the value of the freehold was £1500, calculated on the amount of the rent he was receiving. In his opinion the value of the riparian rights was 15 per cent. It was impossible to say to what extent the value of this property had increased of late years, because there had been no sales, but he thought some four, or five years ago it was worth £50 to £60 per acre, arid was now worth £75. During the afternoon the members of the Court inspected the land When they reassembled at 7.45 p.m. the president announced that the claims for the taking and diversion of water and loss of rent therefrom £200, and for the spoliation of a site fo.- a road, and also for landslips (£SO) might be struck out. Mr. F. G. Ewington, land agent, called by the respondent Board, estimated the damage to the lessee at £325, but the betterment he regarded as a set-off. against this damage.' i The leasehold, unless cut up in areas of some four acres, would be practically useless. The fact of the sewer being there caused damage to the amount of £100. , Charles G. B. y Osmond, land agent, valued the leasehold interest in the property at £288 16s 6d. The land was suitable for residential purposes, but not for mercantile pursuits. He valued the owner's interest at £36 3s 6d, making in all £325. He did not consider that the construction of the. sewer affected the value of the property seriously, but if it increased the deposit of mud on the beach it would affect the value of probably £90. Neville Newcombe, land agent, said that Mr. Holmes's loss for the deprivation of riparian rights was £196 8s 6d,. and the owner's interest was £24 lis 6d. Thomas B. Clay,land agent, stated that he had examined the property in question, and that the lessee's interest in the riparian rights was worth £231 Is 3d and the owner's interest was worth £28 19s 9d. He would also allow the lessee further damage to the extent of. say, £50, for inconveniences. He valued this land at £135 per acre before the sewer was constructed, for residential purposes. At present it was worth about £120. That meant a loss of about £300. ; The Court then adjourned until 7.30 o'clock on Thursday evening.