COMPENSATION SOUGHT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15750, 27 October 1914, Page 5

COMPENSATION SOUGHT.

CONSTRUCTION OF DRAIN.

CLAIM AGAINST BOARD.

A claim for compensation occupied the attention of His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper and two assessors at the Supreme Court yesterday. The case was one in which George Henry Boyd, formerly of Auckland, but now of Greymouth, claimed from the Auckland and Suburban Drainage Board the sum of £408 as compensation for alleged losses arising out of tho taking of a strip of land for the purpose ot putting a drain through from Willow Street to Union Street, Freeman's Bay. Mr. William Garrett acted as assessor for Boyd, and Mr. George Elliot, as assessor for the Auckland and Suburban Drainage Board. Claimant was represented by Mr. A. L. Denniston, and the board by Mr. J. Stanton, city solicitor.

Under an agreement of lease, dated August 11, 1910, claimant obtained a lease of a piece of land near Union Street from Thomas S. Culling, for five years, from August 19, 1910, at a rental of £200 per annum, with the right of renewal for a further five years at a rental to be agreed upon Between the parties on a valuation oasis. Boyd set out that the value of the land had been depreciated by reason ot the fact that the drain had been constructed across tho whole western boundary of the property, in such a manner as to deprive him of natural drainage of storm water, the level of the land taken Having been raised by the erection of the dram; the drain had been put so close to h:s workshed as to leave insufficient room in which to carry out cartage operations properly, thus making impossible egress to Little Union Street; the soil between the drain and the shed had been rendered unfit for vehicular traffic, owing to the means of drainage of storm water Having .been destroyed; the gradient of Little Union Street had been so increased that loads could not be taken up the gradient. The claim for £408 was made up as follows :—Proportionate rent on 4.6 perches, being one-thirtieth of total area, at £k(JO per annum for nine years, £60; land injuriously affected as follows :—2O per cent, depreciation on £193 6s 8d per annum, being the proportionate rent of twenty-eight-thirtieths of total area for nine years, £348. Boyd had originally claimed for £1358, but the claim was amended to £408. Proportionate Reduction in Rent. His Honor said that claimant had abandoned every one of his original claims, and was now simply asking for a sum equal to 20 per cent, reduction in rent for nine years. Damages were not De:ng claimed, but a proportionate reduction of rent. Twenty per\cent. was being claimed on the assumption that Boyd would have to pay £200 per annum rental for tho next five years. But, claimant was not bound to take a fresh [ease; if he did, the rental would be Fixed on the value of the property as it stood. The claim for £348 could not be admitted.

Mr. Stanton said the Drainage Board was prepared to pay reasonable compensation in regard to the item of £60. After hearing Mr. Denniston, the Court agreed to take evidence regarding damage, which, Mr. Denn ; sto n contended, had been already caused to the land. Evidence as to Alleged Damage. The evidence for the claimant was to the effect that a ferro concrete con 0 ny, in w£ilu Boyd was interested, had erected a shed on the land and carried on the business of making concrete blocks, girders, and piles for bridges. A good deal of carting was done in connection with the business. The action of the Drainage Board in constructing the drain resulted in the level of the ground being raised, and storm water could not drain away. Hie drain protruded above the ground, in. wet weather water lay upon the ground and would not drain off. Carts could not use a roadway to L'tlle Union Street, which it had been the custom to travel over previously, because there was not sufficient room between the shed and the sewer in which to turn round. Before the construction of the drain there was nothing to interfere with cartage operations. In add-'tion, damage had been done to the land during the operation of constructins the sewer, and vehicular traffio had since been interfered with. The gradient of Little Union Street had been made so steep that carters found it impossible to take a load of the size they usually took up the street.

City Engineer's Views.

Called for the defendant board. Walter E. Bush, city engineer, stated that he did not think there had been any interference with drainage. The sewer was built of reinforced concrete; it would be a very easy thing to drain the property into it. the configuration of the ground being especially favourable. In winter the ground had always been damp and muddy. ilie Ferro-Concrete Company had placed certain of its materials against the sewer, and if these were removed, carting work could oe carried on. But even now there was room to swing a team. In 1912, witness, in his capacity as city engineer, and not as Dramage Board engineer, had prepareu plans for the grading of Little Union Street, and these were finally approved of by the City Council, no opposition being made to them. The Drainage Board had nothing to do with the matter. Loaded vehicles could st"II climb the street where the gradient had been altered.

After hearing evidence by Thomas 8.Gay and Neville Newcomb. land agents, to the effect that the land had not depreciated in value by reason of the Drainage Board's operations, the hearing was adjourned until 10 a.m. on Friday.