COMPENSATION COURT

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1626, 29 April 1903, Page 57

COMPENSATION COURT

STREET-WIDENING CLAIMS. ACTION FOR £IOOO. A sitting of tlie Compensation Court Ava- held on Friday to hour the action in which Isaac J. Plimmer, as trustee of the will of the late Henry Bragg, sued the City Council for £IOOO damages, compensation for certain land of an area of 9.93 porches taken in Re vans street for street tvidening purposes. His Honor tho Chief Justice presided. Mr T. Kennedy Macdonald acted as as seesor for the claimant, and Mr James Luckie for the Corporation. Mr Quick appeared for Air Plimme-r and Mr Alartin for the City Council. Air Quick, in outlining the case for claimant, said the action was brought under the Public Works Act. The land in question, bad been proclaimed as far back as the loth of July, 1902. It A\’as part of section 767, and had a length of 3Oft by a dentil of 90ft. The case would not present any great difficulty, but would simply rest on the vn!" property and tho Louse and land taken a.s a whole. The situation of the property Avas such that the whole of the traffic of tho city in its Avay outward would have to pass by it. The value of the laud was also enhanced by the fact that the tramway crossing Ava-s situated close to it. The issue Avould turn almost entirely on the value of the house, a building which was in firstclass repair. At the time of the acquisition by the Council the bouse was bringing in a rental of 12s per Aveek. but this could not he taken as a guarantee of its value, as it Avas trust property and liable to be sold. Evidence would be given that two commodious Mo-ps could have been erected on the section, and would have brought in a very remunerative rental. Counsel referred to the hardship Airs Bragg (the testator’s widoAv) had experienced through the loss of rents from the time the property had been proclaimed up to the date of the Court making its award. This, he submitted Avas a matter which should he taken into consideration hy the Court, and viewed in a very benevolent sense. Alexander L. Wilson, auctioneer and valuer, was the first witness called. He acted as 'valuer for the Government in making up the city valuations

Witness thought that £2O to £25 per foot was a very fair valuation of Bragg’s property. If put up to auction it would bring that. His Honor: That means £9600 per acre.

Witness (continuing) said that land near Adelaide road, which bad been bought for £ls per foot had recently been resold to the Corporation for £22 pea* foot. . . __ _ _ In cross-examination by Air Martin, witness denied that he had valued the land in 1897 at £7 per foot.. His valuation was £lO per foot; and during the last few years land had doubled and even trebled its value. Witness also denied the correctness of a copy of his valuation from the Government valuation lists, showing that the land was valued at £7 per foot. Alex. J. Rand, builder, Newtown, valued the land at £3O per foot and the buildings at £250. The buildings were in a very fair state of preservation. Alfred Henry Rigg, builder, stated that the bouse was very well built, and should be worth from £260 to £270. It would be useful for twenty years if kept in ordinary repair. A fair price for the land would be £25 to £2B per foot. . Corroborative evidence was given by Francis Lou don, Robert Hardie-Sbaw, and William Charles Watson. Mr Martin said bis learned friend bad said the annual return® from the property could no* be taken as any guarantee of its value, but he would ask the Court to examine the case from that standpoint. Counsel, referring to the statement that the land was a srtib-

able site on which to build shops, said that, on the other hand, it was largely used and expressly adapted for the purposes of dwelling-houses. Taking the annual rental at the rate of 12s per week, and deducting therefrom rates, insurance, etc., it AA'Ould be found the net annual return would be about £25. The Court would accordingly see that on a basis of 6 per cent, a fair price for the property Avould be £4OO. Counsel said it was for Air Wilson to show that the return officially supplied by the Land Tax Department was incorrect. Avhen it was stated that on his (Mr Wilson’s) valuation the land was rated at £7 per foot in 1897. This year the official returns would slioav that the valuation Avould be assessed at £l4 per foot. The Corporation bad offered £550 for the property, and Avhile the gentlemen Avho had given evidence said shops could he erected on the ground they Avere not in tlie habit of paying £2O per foot for land on Avhich they proposed to erect shops. George H. Baylis gave evidence that an adjoining section to the land in question had been offered to four years ago for £8 per foot. W itness valued Bragg’s land at £l2 per foot. The building was erected in 1878, and Avas worth about £IOO. William Heber BrightAvcll estimated tlie land to be Avorth £l3 per foot and tlie buildings £l5O. Joseph G. Holdsworth stated that the sale of an adjoining property had recently been effected at £l3 os per foot. Evidence as to tlie value of the property given by Joseph G. Holdsworth, James Ames (City Valuer), James Russell and Walter Lewis Thomson Avas in the main confirmatory of the statements made by the three previous tvitncsscs. After an adjournment of tea minutes, the Chief Justice intimated that the Court had come to a unanimous decision. In its aAvard the Court had included tlie sum of costs, Avith interest, etc., duo to plaintiff from the date of taking over the property by the Corporation down to the present time. The award avculcl be for a lump sum without specification as to items. Plaintiff Avould be entitled to a payment of £762, each party to pay their own assessor. The assessor’s fees were fixed at seven guineas each.