MOUNT VERNON ESTATE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1680, 11 May 1904, Page 29

MOUNT VERNON ESTATE.

AWARD OF THE COMPENSATION COURT. NAPIER, May 3. The assessors in the Mount Vernon compensation case have succeeded in agreeing, and the award was delivered this morning. J. W. Harding, who claimed £115,878 for 7303 acres, is awarded £35,728, and A. H. Harding, who Claimed £68,841 for 6264 acres, is awarded £57,777. Lx regard to the latter award, 2000 acres were deducted for a reserve area. The total is equal to about £6 17s per acre, and Sir Robert Stout, in delivering the ward, referred to it as a very generous one. Costs amounting to £250 each were allowed. DISPARITY OF VALUATIONS. The value of "expert evidence” has passed into a proverbial saying, and it would almost seem that the testimony of valuers will shortly'be the subject of attention by the phrase-makers. For instance, during the recent sitting of the Compensation Court at Napier to determine the compensation to be paid to the owners of the Mount Vernon estate/ there was arrayed against the Government Mr J. G. Wilson, of Bulls, Mr David Peat, of Wanganui, Mr W. H. Beetham, of Masterton, and Mr T.

R. Hodder, of Palmerston North. It is particularly interesting to read the evidence of the gentlemen named, and to consider their valuations in the light of the unanimous award of the Court and the remarks of his Honor the Chief Jus-’ 'lice when pronouncing the award. We will first deal with Mr J/. G. Wilson. He valued the property at £9 5s 2d an acre, and, in addition to this, suggested that the Government should make a present to the owners of the family residence, valued at sums ranging from £3OOO to £SOO0 —the reason for this being, to quote Mr Wilson’s own words, “as it did not seem to me to be fair to load a property of 2000 acres with an exceptional building of that sort." In this connection it may be noted that there are hundreds of superior houses in Wellington city built on less than an acre of land. And yet this 2000 acres of first-class land, worth at the least £20,000, must not, according to Mr Wilson, be burdened with a comfortable family residence! To do Mr Wilson justice, he is quite prepared to let the tenants who will take up the land bear the burden of the family residence and share the cost of it added to their rents for 999 years!

We will now proceed to Mr This gentleman valued the whole at an average value of £9 4s 6d an acre/ How little he was able to justify such a valuation will be seen by a question put to the witness by the Chief Justice, and Mr Peat’s answer to it. His Honor said: “Taking the land at your valuation, £144,959, 5 per cent, on that amount would be £7247. Supposing the estimated value of the stock, £17,000, is correct, 7 per cent, on that is about £I2OO. In other words, the estate would have to pay a rent of £B4OO a year. Do you think the place would stand that ?” To which Mr Peat, with great candour, replied: “It could not, your Honor.” We will leave MiPeat at that, merely recalling the fact that the unanimous award of the Court for the whole land taken was £6 17s 9d an acre, or £2 7s 5d an acre less than Mr Wilson’s valuation, and £2 6s 9d an acre less than Mr Peat’s. - .

These differences, it will be seen, amount to a very considerable sum on an area of about 16,000 acres. Had either of these valuations been accepted, it would have meant an increased rental to the Crown tenants of 2s 5d or 2s Od an acre. Mr Beetham valued the property at £9 7s 7d an acre, and Mr Hodder put it at £lO 5s 4d. lake Mr Wilson, Mr Hodder thought it would be a proper thing for the Government to make a present of the family residence to the owners. Mr Hodder thought that if he had been managing the station he would have increased the net returns by £3OOO a year. Yet it has always been believed that Mount Yernon was considered one of the bestmanaged stations in Hawke’s Bay. We have before referred to the re--marks made by his Honor the Chief Justice, when making the award, some of which we will now quote. “I £3l glad to be able to state that we have come to a unanimous conclusion in this case. It has given us grave consideration, and I wish to make, because of this, one or two remarks. I have not seen a case like this before, in which the variation as to value has been so great, and, in my opinion, irreconcilable. . . As to dealing with other matters —I now speak principally fo? myself—l think we have made an ex-ceedingly-generous award.” And further on, his Honor, continuing, said, —“We have considered in making this rather generous award that there has been, no doubt, some disturbance in the carrying on of the business, etc.” On the Government side, there were six witnesses called as to value, and their valuations varied from £6 8s 9d to £6 13s 4d, the average being £6 11s 2d. The award of the Court was £6 17s 9d an acre, or only 6s 7d an acre more than the value of the Government witnesses. With this should be contrasted the average valuation of Mr J. G. Wilson and the others wetoave named. This works out £9 10s Bd, or £2 12s Ud an acre in excess of the unanimous award of th© Court. Therefore, when his Honor the Chief Justice remarks-—‘T have not seen a case before in which the variation as to value has been so great, and, in my opinion, irreconcilable, the Government witnesses can well say with Hamlet,. “Let the galled jade wmee; our withers are unwrung.”