COMPENSATION COURT

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1739, 28 June 1905, Page 53

COMPENSATION COURT

THE TAW AHA ESTATE. A CLAIM FOR <£65,000. AN AWARE OF <£34,000. The * Compensation Court appointed turner the piesitieney of Sir Robert feiout, Cmef justice, to decide the questions that may arise in connection Avitn me Claims made by tiie trustees of the late C. R. Bidwill against the Crown m respect of the resumption of tne Tawaha estate (situated near _b eatherston) under the Land for Settlements Act of 1900, held its hist s.tung in his Honors. library at the Supreme Court on the 20th instant. The assessors sitting With the Chief Justice were Mr Lnnot S.adden, who was appointed by the claimants, and Mr George Augustus Fail-brother, representative of the Crown. Mr Gray (Messrs Gray and Jackson; appeared as counsel for the claimants; and Hr hndlay (Findlay, Dalziell and Co.) for the Crown. The total amount of the c.aim is <£65,000, but this sum will be reduced by the value of the 1000 acres reserve which has to be deducted from the estate. , , . His Honor said he had suggested that a conference should be held in Chambers before evidence was called, in order to see if the parties could come to any arrangement with regard to the area of IOuO acres which under the act has to be reserved to the owners of the resumed estate. . . Dr Findlay said no arrangement had been arrived at as yet. The difficulty was that the department asked the Court to apply to the question of the reserved aiea” the into, . rotation of section 12 of the Land for Settlements Act 1900, that was applied to it by Mr Justice Coopei in the 1? laxbourne case. He would make the broad submission that the c.atruants were entitled to a reserve of 1000 acres but not unless they had complied with ’the act. The right to i.eta.n mmt "be exercised by.virtue of section 12, subsection 2, and it had to be so* exercised as not to alfect tire land taken by tne Crown for the purposes of the Land for Settlements Act. He did not propose to ie argue the matter, but wou.d rely upon the view taken by his Honor a colleague, Mr ] ustice Cooper, in h.s ieserved judgment in the 1' laxbourne case delivered at Blenheim in 1903. His Honor then said:—“Now I come to the second point, which is one of very considerable importance —and one on which I merely indicate an opinion, and am not at present giving a judgment-, -as to the construction of tne paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of section 12. which reads as follows:—'The right to select and retain si all be so exercised as not to ahect the land proposed to be taken save to the extent necessary in order to enable the owner to select and retain up ib the prescribed maximum of the whole estate/ I have to consider the whole scope and policy of the statute. In this instance the primary policy of the statute is the acquisition of land for settlement. In order that the power of the Crown should not be exercised with undue hardship to the owners of the land the right has been inserted in the statute by the Legislature permitting the owners of the land to retain a selected area within the prescribed maximum; but that right in my opinion is limited by the provisions of paragraph (c). I read that section as meaning that while the owner is entitled to select and retain up to the prescribed maximum out of the whole estate, he must not and cannot exercise that right in such a way as to injuriously afreet —I prefer the word ‘injuriously* rather than ‘prejudicially’—the balance of the estate That :s a question of fact. I agree with Mr Skerrett that it is impossible for the Court, upon mere plans, to say whether or not the taking of this piece of land selected by the claimants containing something like 9000 acres of the whole estate does, owing to its relative position to the rest of the estate. neee=sari.y injuriously affect for settlement the balance of the estate. That is a mire question of fact, and must be determined by the evidence adduced before the Court. In my opinion the construction I place upon the section —and again T say I am only indicating an opinion at the present time —the construction I Slace upon the section entires the ourt upon a review of the whole of tho ei idence to come to the conclusion —if the evidence forces the Court to that conclusion —that the selection of an area by any owner out of an estate which has been acquired under the statute by the Minister for the purpose of close settlement, if injuriously affecting the estate for settlement as a whole, cannot be allowed, and must be mod fled. That is the principle, in my opinion, which must be adopted in construing the words 'so exercised as not to affect the land proposed to be taken/ ’* Proceeding. Mr -Ju tioe Comer had said in the same judgment:—“Section 109 provides 'that all sections shall, as far as the features of the country will admit, be of a rectangular form, with due regard, however, to fencing lines, and when fronting a road, river, lake, or the sea coast be of a depth not less than twice the length of the frontage/ Now, I read the words 'as far as the features of the country will admit* to be applicable only to the form of the section—all sections shall, so far as the features of the country permit, be of rectangular form. It is obvious that you cannot get, where the features of tne country prevent it, a section with all right angles. That • is all that is pointed to. But I read the balance of the section, 'when fronting a road, river, lake, or the sea coast to be of a depth not less than twice the length of the frontage, - as not governed by the words, ‘as tar as the features of the country will admit/ The object of that part of the section was to prevent an owner selecting land under the Land Act from obtaining an undue proportion of frontage either to a road, river, lake, or the sea coast. That was the mischief which the Legislature intended to remedy.** The Chief Justice said the result of

that would be that many lands would never-be sur\eyed into sec-tons and sold. There were Government lands where it would be impossible to carry this system out.

Dr Findlay said he understood the act had proved to be workable, and under it the Court would not allow the claimants to run their reserve along a road frontage. The Chief Justice said the act could not be read to mean that the Crown could run main roads through a block of land in such a way as to prevent an owner having anv reserve at all. Dr Findlav said the primary uuject oi the act was to afford opportunity for settlement; and it was not as if there was not full compensation for.the land taken. Ills Honor: Well, I don’t suppose you object to them getting an area, so what do you suggest? Dr Findlav said they did not want to cause any undue hardship; they were prepared to modify the requisition, and they suggested they should leave the homestead block, consisting of 739 acres, which was shown on the plan. His Honor: But that is not 1000 acres.

Dr Findlay: No. but we say they can select 1000 acres, and it is their duty to bring theruseites within the limitations of these two sections of the act. His Honor thought that question qualified the clauses, because he had iu his mind’s eye land that could not be “section ised”' at all. He ventured to say if he Aveut into the Lands Office in Otago he could point out hundreds of acres that could not be “sectionised,** and be kueAV something about surveying. If land fronted a lake or the sea coast, and it Avere sold bv the Government, it would be impossible to “sectionise*’ it as Avas apparently required. Dr Findlav remarked that he could not sav the question Avas free from doubt: but when the officers of the CroAvn came to determine avli ether they should take the land they relied upon the decision given in the Flaxbourne case. His Honor said it might be that it Avas an improper piece of land for the CroAvn to select. It see -ed to him that the reserve could be only limited to a rectangular form, for the section went on to say “with due regard, liOAvever, to fencing lines, and Avhen fronting a road, river, lake, or the sea coast, be of a depth not less than ttvice the length of the frontcl ty o. 9 Dr Findlay said that no doubt the '-■•a 'maticnl and English construction of the sentence justified Mr Justice Cooper’s inference.

His Honor Avould not say it did not; but it Avas doubtful. Was there not some section showing licav the land Avas to be suiveyed Avhen it came into the hands of the CroAvn?

Dr Findlav said he thought there Avas; but his task A\ T as finished before the matter got so far as that. They could meet the difficultv if the other side Avould meet them bv excepting any portion of the land Avhich they could agree upon from the operation of the act. His Honor pointed out that if the CroAvn was selling the land they would have to dispose of it in sections; in this case they could not say they Avere taking land which could not be disposed of because they could not., get the requisite frontages. In such a~ case Avas not the proclamation illegal? Dr Findlay said the CroAvn Avas prepared, he thought, to meet that argument. His Honor: But it seems to me impossible to dispose of this land Avith these rWers running through it. Dr Findlav: Oh, no; Avhen the land is ours we can cut and carve it as Ave think fit. His Honor: But Avould not a mandamus or prohibition prevent- you? You see I am also pointing out that the features of the country Avill not permit you to cut and caive it as you think fit. Dr Findlay: I think it can; if we take if in sections.

His Honor: No; I*ll defy any surveyor to “sectionise** this land and comply with the chaises of the act.

Dr Findlay: Well, Ave submit that question does not a ise here. His Honor: I think it does, because you have to compH with Part V. of the act, which says that the land has to be in sections; and If you have taken land that you cannot sell in sections, is your proclamati n valid? Dr Findlay: Yes; but I submit that section 109 is mandatory, as Mr Justice Cooper held; and the claimants must reduce their claim. His Honor said he did not think the proposal put foiward Avas a proper one to ask the Court to agree to. It Avas suggested to give the claimants certain flat country Avhich Avould spoil the “lay of the land.”

Dr suggested that it might be well to get the opinion of the Full Court on the matter. His Honor said he did not knoAv Avhether there was poAver to do that. The act said the CroAvn could take land Avith certain limitations, and if they could not comply Avith those limitations was not their right to take the land gone? Dr Findlay thought they Avould have a good deal to say in ans Aver to that proposition.

His Honor said that perhaps eonnsel had better take time to consider the matter. It did seem—although he was not giving a decision on the point—that if the Crown could not give the claimants 1000 acres in..compliance with section 109, it followed that the Crown could not take the land at all. But he had not read Mr Justice Cooper’s judgment as yet. His view was that it would be wrong to give all the rich flat land to the claimants, although he thought some of it should be given to them ;but he thought the proposal made was not a fair one. Without binding the assessors or himself to the opinion, it seemed to him, at first glance, that it Avoukl be better for the Crown if the claimants retained the homestead block and some pieces of the flat land where they could fatten their cattle and sheep. Of course that was a matter for arrangement, and if the parties could not arrange it between themselves, then the Court would have to decide the question. Hr Findlay suggested that the shorter wav m gh: be to hear a statement by Mr John Strauchon, the Chief Surveyor, who had examined the land

This course Avas_ agreed to. Mr Strauchon in answer to questions, sai\! that the proposal of the claimants avou ld ruin the balance of the estate. It Avoukl be as if they look the fleece of a sheep and left the _ Government the “semirings,** for the area they wished reserved comprised the richest of the land, and the remainder Avould be useless for settlement. Mr Strauchon submitted a rough plan showing a uiA’ision of the estate which he regarded as a fair and reasonable method of deducting the onetliousand acre reseive.

Mr Gray explained that the trustees in this case had not the slightest personal interest to ser\-e in making their cln-m. Their sole desire Avas to do the best that Avas possible for the beneficiary under the Avill of the late Mr Bkhvill of whose estate they Avere the trustees. Less conscientious trustees might have got rid of an irksome responsib lity by giving over the Avliole of the estate to the Crown. and investing the proceeds for the benefit of the beneficiary, a boy six years of age. But they felt it to be their duty to do the best they could in his interests, and they decided to select, as the reserve, 1000 acres, which combined as far as possible the general characteristics of the whole area, making it suitable for grazing purposes. Therefore, they chose part of . the river fiats, and part of the high country, and they proposed to establish a new’ homestead on the high lands beyond the reach of flood Avaters. They wanted to make a first-class farm out of the 1000 acres. Their trust Avould run on for another fifteen years. They Avere actuated by no mercenary motives nor by any desire to injure the GoA r ernment*s acouisition of the estate but simply in the interests of the boy. His Honor said he had no doubt of that; but he could not sever . them from the owners of the land. They had proposed to take away some 200 acres of high land, and 800 acres of flat land, Avliich Avas practically taking all the most valuable land of the estate.

Mr Gray: No, your Honor; not the whole; only a considerable portion of it. There are 450 acres of flat country left; and Ave are prepared to submit evidence shoAving that the land Ave propose to take Avill not prejudice the remainder of the block. His Honor: Perhaps so; but that is not the point. You propose to take nearly tAvo to one of the flat land against the high land, Avhilst you leave about five or six to one of the high land. Do you call that a fair division? Mr Gray: Yes, I do, your Honor; because some of it is often flooded. His Honor: Yes; but nothing to speak of. A small drain . Avould prevent it. Why, in Otago tAventy years ago if you had proposed to select such land it would have been said that you Avere “picking the eyes out of the country/* and you Avould noA-er have got the selection. But. of course, I do not say the trustees have acted Avrongly. I think they have done what tlie-y should have done for their “cestuique trust.” As the parties could come to no agreement as to Avhat portion of the oMaH should be (‘omorise-'* m 1 loan r ~ serve, the Court submitted two alterna- . ive plans to counsel, ... .«.* re. e . r «•-. chonM Tm eontsidmn-d. cud, cessary, modified so that this matter iioutd be served Avhen tne Court met on die following day. The Court then adjourned.

Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice (president), and Messrs D. Sladden and G. A. Fairbrother (assessors), comprising the Court appointed to determine the claim for compensation made by the trustees of the late C. R. Bidwill in respect of the resumption of the TaAvaha estate by the Crown under the Land for Settlements Act of 1900, continued their inqu ries on the 21st. Mr Gray (Gray and Jackson) appeared as counsel 'for the claimants, and Dr Findlay (Findlay, Dalziell and Co.) for the nominal defendant, the Minister of Lands. The claim is for £65,000; but this sum will be reduced by the amount of the value of the 1090 acres to be deducted from the area of the estate.

The conference between the parties, which was held in Chambers, cont nued for some time, the subject being the location of the reserve of 1000 acres which under the act the late owners of the estate are entitled to retain. It was eventually arranged that the claimants should retain the homestead and buddings and the “horse-shoe paddock,” which totals an area of about 10*10 acres. This decides the question of Mrs Bidwill’s claim in respect of the homestead buildings and the fifty acres also claimed by her. An adjournment was then m’de until 2 p.m. Mr Gray, in opening the case for the claimants, said the claim was for £65.000 for the value of the Tnwaha estate, which had been taken by the Government, and for loss oi business and expenses in connection with that resumption. As the parties had come to an agreement by which the owners retained two areas of the estate aggregating 1000 acres, the amount of the claim avou ld be reduced by the value of that reservation. The estate consisted of an area, of 3340 acres or thereabouts, and it was comprised entirely of highly improved country, having all the characteristics necessary for carrying on sheepfarming satisfactorily ; and it had been carried on successfully in tits capacity. The estate Avas only a few rrtles from Greytown and Featherston, and only one mile and a half from Mart inborough. Jdecry part of it was productive, and iliorc was not a single Avaste aero included in it. There av \s a large dwell-ingho-use, and. indeed, a great deal of money li-ad been o.>wended in improving and beautifying the r-yr-perty. An extremely useful nv. ih-'d had been adopted for 1:1 otoc t ’l'.g i ho low-lying lands from flooding by tea planting of av llows, etc. Mr (’ho'es Robert BidAvill died in 1902. leaving a

AvidoAv and two children. Since Ins death the /.roe policy of making lor the continn--us improvement o f the estate had been folloAved by the trustees, the present claimants, until the t’mo when it was “ in the air ” that the Government intended to acquire the land for closer settlement purposes, when they Avere compelled to discontinue their operations to some extent. The land was splendidly pastured and watered, and Avhere there was any lack of av Her excellent dams had been constructed. The station had been devoted to what might bo called ‘‘ mixed farming ” —breeding cattle and sheep and to agricultural work. The cattle and stock Avere fattened during the winter and sold in the early spring, when prices were high. The river flats Avere probably the richest and best in the colony of New Zealand. The bulk of the improA'-ements Avere upon that portion of the land Avhich had fallen to the owners; but there AA'as a very considerable area of bush—totara and matai-—• Avlucli A\’as use. ul for fencing and also for milling timber. An offer had recently been made for the bush at a price which avou Id mean about £1250. As to .he AVer king of the property during Mr Bidwill’s time, there Avere no books that could bo produced to shoAv the profits made; but since his death, strict accounts had been kept by Messrs Badham and Biss, skilled accountants of this city. Their balance-sheet sh OAved for the year 1903 a profit of some £3900, and for the next year a profit of about £2500, the difference being accounted for by the fact that in the beginning of 1904 the Government was contemplating the acquisition of the property. But after paying all charges and expenses, and the annuity to the widow, the trustees had paid off £SOOO from an existing mortgage, which Avas a strong indication of the av ago-earning poAver of the property. Part of the claim arose Loan the fact that the trustees had been obliged to reduce the stock on the station, instead of being Left untrammelled as they Avere in the first year of their trusteeship. It Avas generally admitted that the value of Jio land was very great, and lie (Mr Gray) did not think the Court Avould find any difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the land was of a value somewhere in the neighbourhood of the amount which the claimants’ expert witnesses Avould put it down at. As regarded the “swamp paddock,” the Government had offered, previousiy, £lO 10s per acre, but the offer Avas declined by the trustees, as it was beknv the price at which they had recently sold some similar land to Mr Campbell, which Avas £ls per acre. The trustees had no personal interest in the matter, but be (Mr Gray) submitted that they should be compensated for the losses sustained in such a sum as Avhen invested would rep; esent the amount Avhich the property produced before the resumption, so that the beneficiary under the will should not suffer by reason of the land being taken over by the Crown.

The first witness called was Richard T. Badham, a member of the firm of Messrs Badham and Biss, accountants, of Wellington, who stated that he had knowledge of the accounts of the T&Avaha estate. They Avere kept in & business-like manner. He produced a balance-sheet showing that the profits for tb 9 p rsf ae ! ■■ <f the trusteeship Avere £3978 18s sd, which Avas made up bv him for the year end.ng 1903, and in Avhich he had taken into account all the charges properly to be so dealt Avith in regard to av or king expenses, etc. For the second j-ear ending 1904 the profits had been £2531 18s 9d, and similarly the working and other rightful expenses had been taken into account in the compilation of the balance-sheet. In answer to Dr Findlay, the Avitness said that in estimating the profits he bad not taken into consideration the variations m the value of the stock from time to time. The profit was the result of the trading operations during the year. The stock at each period was taken into consideration at a standard value. He had not alloAA r ed anything for the depreciation of buildings, etc. Depreciations had not been taken into account, although there must have been some depreciation; but it was not a very considerable amount. By arrangement, l)r Findlay interposed as a Avitness Peter Heyes, who stated that he Avas an accountant, and had. much experience in the colony in such cases as that before the Court. He had been furnished by the claimants Avith a copy of their balance-sheet, and after investigation, he agreed Avith some of the items therein contained; but in regard to others, such as the profit and loss account and the interest on floating capital and d. predation, he differed with their statements.

William IfdAvard Bidwill, a shoapfarmer, residing in the Wairarapa district, said he Avas one of the trustees of his late brother Charles Robert Bidwill, and knew the land in question avoll. In fact, ho Avas bo n on it. The property was improved gene ally before it came i o ids i.i e b other: but subsequently it v s greatly improved. His late brother o} \ . Avoolsiied, and out:i ~ •. ; i 1 j-u.!- up fencing and erected •. anJ inr.de a plantation having stKiic thirty-five acres. He p\ elected the b.. ilk from tile river, and spent ,;..jgo sums of money upon A\ork

was very beneficial to the property. The low-lying land was laid down in English grasses, and all the upland was ploughed, except the hill races. 'He had no personal interest in the matter but h© considered tiuit tlie land was suitable for anything. The “swamp paddock, 5 * which was not as much improved, as tli© five hundred acres, included in what was known as the “swamp land, 55 was sold some eighteen months ago to Mr Campbell for £ls an acre. The whole of tlie steep hill faces, with the exception of a few acres, had grown turnips, and as the character of the sou was similar to that found in other parts of the estate where oats had been satisfactorily produced, there was no doubt it. would prove to be equally suitable for an oat crop. As to the block running towards the “Big Hill,” four b 1 ’' dred and sixty-one acres had been ploughed, and had yielded from forty to sixty-five bushels of oats to the acre. Like the hilly ground, it would carry about two and a half sheep to the acre, and was worth about £l3 per acre. The next area was 1049 acres on the river flats, which included part of the reservation,. and was good fattening land. The whole of the block would fatten four or - five sheep to the acre. It was worth £25. pen acre, although about half of it was subject to flooding. An expenditure of £SO would, however, prevent that. Most of it could not he regarded as “flooded country.” On the back-water side the land was the lowest, hut here, as in other places, the proteetivei-works that had been constructed had been effective. _ The flat country, worked in conjunction with tlie whole estate, had been of very great value. At this stage the Court adjourned until 10 a.m. on the following day.

Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice (president) , and Messrs I). Sladden and G. A. Fair brother (assessors), comprising the Court appointed to determine the claim for compensation made by the trustees of the late C. R. Bidwill in respect of the resumption of the Tawaha estate by the Crown under the Land for Settlements Act of 1900, continued their inquiries- on the 22nd. Mr Gray (Gray and Jackson) appeared as counsel for the claimants, and Dr Findlay (Findlay, Dalziell and Co.) for the nominal deigndant, the Minister of Lands. The claim is for £65,000; but this sum will be reduced by the amount of the value of the 1000 acres to be deducted from the- area of the estate.

William Edward Bidwill continued his evidence,, and in cross-examination by Dr Findlay said his late brother was a competent sheepfarmer, and farmed the land in question for seven years, when he died. His trustees under his will had full powers to sell the estate or postpone the sale. Witness acted as a sort of advisory trustee. The manager had been there only two years, and if he required advice witness gave it to him. The homestead block, which was 73.9 acres in area, would winter between 21 and 2-£ sheep to the acre, exclusive of the bush land, which had an area of about eighty acres. The u swamp paddoek ” would carry that, and he valued that land at £ls per acre, and the buildings he thought were worth £4OOO. Land which would carry two sheep to the acre was worth more than twice the value of “ onesheep ” land, because as the land increased in value, in most oases it required more for management, and this rule, within certain limitations, applied with regard to four-sheep ” and “ twosheep” land. O'ne-sheep land was worth for rental. 5s 6d per acre to a farmer; but it would depend upon the cost of management and other considerations. This valuation was based upon the experience of the last five years, which had been profitable to the breeder, but not in regard to sheep or cattle that were bought. To the breeder, the last five years had been probably the most profitable in the history of sheep-farm-ing in New Zealand. The rich river jßats of 1049 acres on Tawaha could carry five sheep to the acre, except where—on about fifty acres —there was bush. Between the part reserved and the part outside there was a difference of £3190, or £5 per acre, in value, on account of its liability to floods. But an expenditure of £SO would protect that land. It would cost about £SOO to protect the reservation inside the “ horseshoe,” and in regard to that protection there would be a legal question involved, on account of the necessary backing up of the water past Mr Riddiford’s property, which would have to be considered. . His average value for the flat land was £2O per acre. At five sheep to the acre it would he about 4s rental per sheep. He took £5 per acre off for the floods on the low lands; otherwise it would he worth 5s (3d per sheep. This land was only suitable for cattle, which were less profitable than sheep. On the whole, he thought he had placed too low a value upon the flat lands, but a fair price on the high lands, which would carry anything. He was not aware that Mr Beetham held that, the whole of the land could be protected at a cost of £2000; rut Mr Beetham did nob know the land as well as witness did, because he had been there all bis life, and knew every inch of it. However, if it could be done for that sum it should be done. In 1904 the sheep on the run numbered 5202, and in 1905 4100. The cattle in 1900

numbered 261; ifi 1901, 194; in 1902, 141; in 1903, 296; and in 1904,, 247. The sheep in the same years respectively numbered 5690, 5370, 6440, 6391, 5262, and in 1905 4100. Dr Findlay said that, taking the witness’s figures, he had allowed the carrying capacity of the station at 4000 sheep per year more than it had been cairying for the last five years. The witness said' his calculation had teen purely on a sheep basis with regard to his own property; and on that basis he had made his valuation; but there had also been a very considerable amount of produce sold. It was necessary in a farm of this sort to take into consideration the area of land shut up for grass-seed. The last year was the first for ten years that. the property had couie into an efficient state for carrying up to its capacity, as most of the upper lands had previously been ploughed and laid down in crops. Mr Campbell purchased 105 acres of land from the trustees. He had a good house and ten acres of land surrounding it. The land on Big Hill had been cropped, witness believed, some eight or nine years ago-. Other portions of the land had yielded from forty to siityfive bushels of oats to tlie acre. There had never been a bad crop. On the river flats there was some “ox-eye daisy,” but not where the sheep were d 1 as a “noxious weed,” but be did not regard it as a detriment to grazing land. The price of land had gone up within, the last few years considerably, and he valued this land at £58,080, but he could not say what it was worth when his brother died. There had been a considerable legitimate increase in the value of land during the last two years. Dr Findlay: But you made a declaration on the 24th February, 1903, giving the value of the property for probate purpose at £27,415? —That would surely be on the unimproved value. I think there must be something wrong about thafi—some clerical error. Did that include the land sold to Campbell?—Yes, it would. Well, you sold that to him at £ls per acre, so that would mean that there are £ISOO to deduct from that? —Yes. And the Government refused to take that valuation, and a fresh one was ma ,de? —Yes, by Mr Frazer, who made it £37,691. Does that include the land sold to Campbell?—Yes, I think it is; but I’m not sure.

Well, did that £37,000 represent the true value of the estate at your brother’s death ?~The deparment agreed to accept the valuation of Mr Frazer, the Government valuator, as the valuation for probate purposes. But was it the value of the property ? —lt may have been a fair valuation at fche time lie made it. We never disputed it. He is a fair man, and no land-owner would dispute it. Landowners have given up that sort of thing, for it is no use going into Court over it. The witness pointed out that there was a great difference between the unimproved and the improved value of this property. The improvements were valued some seven yeai’s ago at £7OOO, hut they valued the improvements now at £16,348. In re-examination by Mr Gray, the witness said there was nothing improper in the methods. they adopted in regard to these valuations. His valuations were based upon the value of the property as a whole. John Davies, a sheep-farmer of forty years’ experience, residing at Kopaturoa, on the West Coast of the North Island, stated that he had inspected the Tawaha estate, and valued it at £59,985, including the buildings. It was a compact and accessible property. The soil varied in quality,' but was, on the whole, good. Tlie flats were exceptionally good. Up his way similar land on the Ivairanga block brought from £3O to £4O per acre. His Honor: I pity thd :e whe pay that for it.

Witness: Well, they do, sir; and are glad to get it. . His Honor: And if a fall in butter comes, where will they be? Witness: I suppose they’ll have to drink cold tea instead of champagne, as they do now. (Laughter.) Air Gray; And I suppose they are making money, aren’t they ? The witness said he supposed they were, or they would not stick to . the land. As to Tawaha, he regarded it- as good sheep country, in splendid order, and highly improved—there was none better in the colony. In cross-examination, the witness said he had estimated the value of the buildings, as he saw them, at £3OOO, and had allowed 8 per cent, for depreciation. The depreciation on the farming implements would not be more than £IOO. Ho would expect the ploughman to do what fencing repairs were necessary. He thought the land would carry from two to five sheep to the acre. He had given evidence in the Flaxbourne case. Laurence Wright, a member of the firm of Schoics and Wright, sawmillers, of Wairarapa, stated that he .and his partner bad valued the bush on riawaha. The river-end bush was worth £460. There was 100,000 ft of totara, and also white pi«a and matai. He would be prepared tar pay royalties on the timber at liis valuation It would pay to put a small milling pUnt down there. The bush in the Ngapuke paddock was worth £235#

Dr Findlay: Are you prepainad to give the Government £6OO for this bush ?—No, not in a lump sum. But why not?—Because you cannot tell how the totara trees will turn out at the “heart.” If it did not turn out “heart,” we would not pay 3s royalty for it.

What cash offer would you make for all the timber on Tawaha?—None; I would only take the “heart” of totara “off the saw.”

James Wall, a sheepfarmer, having a property near Martinborough, stated that he had known Tawaha for the last twelve years, and had valued it. He reckoned that he could make a profit of £3337 10s per annum out of it. It was considered to be about the best land around Mart ipborough.

Cross-examined by Dr Findlay, the witness said he put down the price of Romney and Lincoln wool at 9d per lb on the river station. The price of Romney wool two years ago was about 6d per lb, but that was the lowest year. He considered he would get 9d for the wool from the class of sheep he would put on Tawaha station. He valued the station at £55,933, and he thought he could afford to pay a rental of 8s per sheep for the land, because he couh also put the land to other purposes. The mustering-paddock was worth £j 10s per acre, and he reckoned it would carry two ewes to the acre.

Mr Gray: Would you pay the total amount you value it at for Tawaha, that is, £55,933? The witness: Yes, if Dr Findlay will finance me. (Laughter.) Hugh Morrison, a sheep-farmer, residing in the Wairarapa district, said the “Horseshoe paddock” was worth £23 per acre. It was flooded country, and was not suitable for sheep all the year round. In his view, it was better than Air Campbell's land. He valued the estate at a little more than £55.000.

in cross-examination, witness said i thought he could pay a rental of 7s per sheen in certain localities on the station.

James Duncan MacDougall, a sheepfarmer, residing in the Wairarapa district, also gave a valuation of Tawaha. The “Horseshoe paddock” was worth £24 an acre. It would carry five thousand ewes, at 17s each. He allowed over 100 per cent, of lambs with the old ewes which he would buy to stock the land with.. He would not breed ewes, but would buy them when about two to four years old. He would subsequently fatten and sell them, and lie reckoned to receive then as much as he gave' for them. The .mortality, lie l'eckoned, would be 3 per sent., which was act low. EVery ewe he bred from he would fatten and sell. He would not breed cattle either; but would buy and fatten them in the same way. He had made 30s per head by fattening cattle during the last five years. Walter Dutton Powdrell, who stated that lie had been sheep-farming at Patea and Waiinate until three" and a half years ago, gave evidence that land in those districts, which was not as good as the flats on Tawaha, had sold at £27 per acre and over. He valued t) “Horseshoe paddock” at £22 15s, and the higher land at £3O, making an average cf £27. Ha would expect to make 5s profit per fleece, and 12s each for the lambs. The net profit would he £2007 on the 1770 acres of land. He valued the rental at 15s, and the difference was a fair sum to go- to the lessee for his trouble in managing the place. He paid £2l per acre for his Hawera land, and did well out of it, making £7OO a year for two years. The next year he lost £BOO. • He thought the five hundred acres of the “mustering paddock” at Tawaha should shear about three sheep to the acre. Alexander McOullocTp a dairy-farmer at Palmerston North, said the river flats at Tawaha were worth on an average £27 10s an acre. Up his way, similar land had brought £3O or £4O for dairy farms and people had paid cash for them. Some of tins land was more than equal to the “pink flat” on the Flaxboume estate.

William George Hodder, a farmer, living near Feathorston, said he had known Tawaha for thirty years. He had a three years* lease of one hundred and five acres of land, which Mr Simon Campbell bought from tlie claimants in this case, and. was at present in occupation of it. His rent was 20s per acre, including rates and taxes. Tlie “mustering paddock” was quite as good land. William James Welsh, sheep-farmer, residing near Masterton, valued the 628acre block of Ta waha at £26 per acre, and the “Horseshoe paddock” at £22 10s. Tlie 350 acres near (lie downs was woritli £2B, he thought. Working the land in the manner lie would adopt, he would expect it to carry three sheep per aero. Arthur Powys Whatman, a sheepfarmer, residing near Masterton, valued the “Horseshoe paddock” at £23 per acre, and I lie rest of the 620 acres at £27, and the outer part ati £2B. ’Hie kite ATr O. R. Bidwill was ono of i lie host farmers in tm colony, but. by the modern “all round farming system, instead of the old method of merely raising sheep for the boiling-down pot., the witness could make £IOOO out of Tawaha, although Mr Bidwill only made £3OOO per annum. By putting in rape, he had fattened forty sheep to the acre, and could fatten inoro. He thought the “mustering ground” on Tawaha would carry, all

the year round, about two sheep to the acre. But that land he would us« for growing rape and oats. At this stage the Court adjourned until 10.15 a.m. to-morrow.

Sir Robert Stout. Chief Justice (president), and Messrs D. Sladden and G. A. Fair brother (assessors), comprising the Court appointed to determine the claim for compensation made by the. trustees of the late C. R. Bidwill in respect of the resumption of the Tawaha estate by the Ci'own under the Land for Settlements Act of 1900, continued their inquiries on the 23rd. Mr Gray (Gray and Jackson) appeared as counsel for the claimants, and Dr Findlay (Findlay, Dalziell and 00. l for the romiral defendant, the Minister of Lands. The claim is for £65,000; hut this sum will be reduced by the amount of the value of the 1000 acres to be deducted from the area of the estate. The first witness was William Henry Beetham, a sheep-farmer, who stated that he had lived in the Wairarapa district for nearly fifty years, and was well acquainted with the Tawalia estate, which he had recently valued. He had valued the river flats in two blocks. One of 628 acres, including the “Horseshoe,” was worth £25 an acre. The “Horseshoe” was more liable to floods than any other part of the estate, but the .quality of the soil was better than that of some of the surrounding country. Tlie whole of the river flats were exceedingly rich and fertile, and but for the floods would be worth £3O an acre. The other block of 416 acres he valued at £l7 per acre. Taking the river flats together as one block of 1049 acres, lie would value it at £2l 16s. The income of the estate during late years did not represent the- amount that could ho made from it by putting different stock. The unimproved value of a large tract of land in the neighbourhood had increased by 59.02 per cent, in two

years. Alexander McKenzie, a stock-buyer, who had had thirty years’ experience, said the Tawaha station was more valuable as it is than if it were subdivided, as the improvements were mainly in one nart. The Horseshoe paddock was worth £23 9s 6d per acre, and the contiguous land was worth £29. Witness could get a cash buyer for it at £3O. He had never managed a station, nor lived on one, but he bad been taking stock off Tawaha for thirty years. During the past two years there had been a rise in the price of cattle and sheep of probably 10 per cent. Air Gray intimated that the parties had agreed as to the value of the buildings hoi nor £3250. Dr Findlay said that as the claimants were going to take the homestead in their reservation, the value of the buildings did not affect the defendants. Alexander Camnbell Pearce, called by Mr Gray, stated that he had been manager of’ Tawaha station since December, 1992, and was associated with the late Air C, R. Bidwill in the work of the station. The place had teen worked on the same lines since Mr Bidwill’s death as before. The fencing and improvements bad all been kept up to date. There had been floods the last three years, and in the higtest flood the water covered the Horseshoe, Tsgapuke, the sandhills, and the river paddock. The number of sheep that had been wintered last year was £6IOO. In September of last year there were rumours of a petition being presented for the resumption of Tawaha for closer settlement, and in consequence of that rumour they refrained from buying stock.

Til is closed trie case for tlie claimants. Dr Findlay, in opening tire case for the defendants, said that the rules for estimating the values of properties taken under t<he Lands for Settlement Act Ixad been so often threshed out that something like a concrete rule had emerged; and here, as in the Flaxbourne case, the claimants had admitted a capitalisation of the stock at the rate of 6 per cent. One feature must strike one as very strange with regard to these claims, and that was that in every one of the numerous cases which, his Honor had heard, the evidence had gone to show that the sheepfarmers in this colony were the most backward, wasteful, and incompetent of any class in the community. It seemed that their pitiable waste of wealth by adopting out-of-date methods, lack of enterprise, and general incompelency was astounding. His Honor knew that sheepfarmers who were represented to be first-class men, keen and alert, and knowing their business thoroughly, when they came before that Court as claimant's stood by and heard, with a calmness’that was almost heroic, their neighbours condemning their methods of working their farms, and airily stating tint, if they had the, property they could easily make 50 per cent, more out of it. It was worth while questioning whether such men were really wasters of possible wealth, or were actually capable men, who knew the possibilities of their properties, and were working them to the best advantage. In his (Dr Findlay’s) view, the fanciful values that had been put oil this property were not due to the fertility of the farm, but. to the fertility of the imaginations of the witnesses. To consider or inquire into what could be done by mixed or dairy farming, or large flocks, or making b a stock-deal-er s Garden of Eden, was not a practical method of determining the valu®

of the property, and was one which he submitted would not be adopted by the Court. The owners of this land had ■worked it for years, and the Crown ventured to say that the record of profits made by them was as good as could be obtained. He would ask the Court to at once dispose of the idea of making £4OOO or £oooo a year, when the best the Bidwills —who were given credit ror being entirely competent meu—could make was no more than J-iie Court was dealing with, an economic question, which it was supposed had been settled, viz., that to obtain the products of the soil, land, labour, and capital were necessary; hut modem thinkers had recognised a fourth factor management—and to hold that “management” was a deduction from wages was now generally recognised as a fallacy—an exploded theory. A shop or store in which a business —carried on by one man —might result in ruin, where the same business was carried cn by another might produce a fortune. The difference was not due to any difference in the shop, but to the brains of the manager. So in the case 01 a farm. The same farm managed by one man gave him an independence, while managed by another, who was a blunderer, the result was bankruptcy. In ordinary cases of sheepfarming the proprietor brought in his produce and sold it; and the income capitalised, after deducting the interest and the amount sunk, was a reasonable method of arriving at live value of the land. But when, in addition to that business, there were introduced the elements of stock-dealing and trading, treating the farm as an essential or chief factor in the production of the income was illogical; and to take the income in that way and capitalise- where stock-dealing was introduced, was not a proper process. In determining what the right method was they had some assistance from the evidence. When the late Mr Biciwill died, his exectuors, for the purposes of prebate, put in a valuation cf £27,000; but as the department refused it, a subsequent valuation was made by Mr Fraser, who Mr Bidwill himself admitted to be a fair man —so fan* that h;s valuation was not challenged and his valuation was £38,000. That was admitted by Mr Bidwill to have been a fair valuation in 1903, and he now got over his difficulty by saying that the value of the land had increased by 30 per cent, since then, and lifted its gross value to nearly £50,000. vvhy shou.d a person when he had no litigation on, and when he is. content with a muon lower valuation for the purposes of the succession duties,-come and ask now lor this enormous sum from the pubic Treasury? His Honor, who had heard more of these cases than any of the other Judges, would notice that in no case had the Crown witnesses given higher valuations than in that of iawaha. The average of their valuations was £45,000. On the other side the lowest valuation —that of Mr ivicr; i.son and the Crown’s highest valuation, irrespective of buildings, was £4'3,113, sc tho difference between the two was £BOOO. If they took the lowest values of the claimants on each of the six portions into which the esrate had been divided, they would find the total was £46 732 and then the difference would he only’ some £2OOO or £3OOO. The total amount, including all the claims, for the whole freehold came to' £<2,oU‘J, and the average valuations of claimants’ witnesses was £51,508. The defendant’s witnesses’ average was £44,3/U. They maintained that if a purchaser proposed to make the profits which any man embarking in a bus ness or trade expected to make, lie could not give more than £44,00 for Tawaha. Fu° claimant® had one-third of the whole estate. They "would not have to leave the station, hut would he able to carry on their business as heretofore. The house and outbuildings remained with them, and all they would have to do would be to sell some of their stock which they would not require, and perhaps some of their already limited stock of implements. He would ask the Court not to burden this land with any serious sum for "disturbance,” as the claimants had over one thousand acres to carry on with. All they had to do was to pick the proper time for the sale of their surplus stock, and then no loss would result to them. It was also to he remembered that before it was thrown open for closer settlement the land had to bear the expense of “ reading,” and the sum which might be awarded by way of compensation to the owners.

John Fraser, called by Dr Findlay, said h© had valued the Tawaha estate and its earning capacity. Not including the buildings his total valuation was £41,856. He had been valuing land in the Wairarapa for about ten years, and he valued Tawaha in 1903. It was then worth. £37,686, in his opinion, including the outbuildings. In answer to Mr Grav, the witness said in 1903 the buildings were worth £2675, and to-day were "worth £3363. The value of the estate, including the buildings, was now £45,106. During a conversation between his Honor and Mr Gray it apneared that the value of Taw alia had nearly doubled in six years. The capital value in 1900 was £.24,514, in 1903 £37,691, and in 1905 it was £45,106.

Quentin Donald, farmer, of Feather-

ston, said he had had seventeen years’ experience of dairy farming, and had made estimates of the value of Tawaha for that purpose. Some of the land was inferior for dairy farming, although certain witnesses on the other side said it was excellent. He valued Tawaha at £43,113, exclusive of buildings. The yearly gross receipts would he £4170 ss, and the expenditure £1826, leaving a balance of £2344 ss. Capitalised at 5 per cent, this would give a total of £46,885, exclusive of land tax. Other deductions brought the sum down to £43,113. John Charles Mclvillop, farmer, of Masterton, valued Tawaha at £41,022 4s. He had fifteen years’ experience in mixed farming and cropping. Adam Armstrong, a valuer who has had much experience in tho Wairarapa district, said he valued Tawaha in 1897 at £22,140. Quite recently he had again valued tho estate, and made it worth £40,096, exclusive of buildings. He valued it on the quality of the land and its carrying capacity. Andrew Anderson, a re sklent of Wai-i-arapa for thirty-five years, and a dairy farmer for twenty-four years, had known Tawaha in a general vny for a number of years. He vmued the property, including the outbuilding®, excepting the mansion house, at £44,296, and, excepting these buildings, at £42,751 15s. Thomas Ben Hand, a farmer, said ho had known Tawaha for about thirty years. He valued it without the buildings at £41,503 17s 6d ; hut if it wore his property ho would not take that sum for it. Alexander John Wilson, a sheepfarmer and sheep-seller of thirty years’ standing, stated Hint he had much experience in land valuation. He thought Tawaha was worth £41,000.

Benjamin Richard Raynor, a farmer, residing near Masterton, valued Tawaha at £40.399 without the buildings. Donald John Cameron, a sheepfanner of about twenty years’ experience, thought Tawaha was worth £41,849 irrespective of buildings. This concluded the evidence, and the Court adiourned until the following day nt 10.15 n.m.

On Saturday morning his Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), sitting with the assessors, Messrs D. Sladden and G. A. Fairbrother, continued the hearing of the compensation claim of the trustees of tho late C. R. Bidwill against the Crown. This case is in connection with the Tawaha estate, which, is situated near Masterton, and wnich was resinned by the Government under the Lands for Settlement Act of 1900. The amount of the claim is £65,000, which will he reduced by the value of 1000 acre* of the estate which have been retained by the claimants. The’ evidence had been closed on the previous day, but Messrs R. T. Badliam and P. Heyes were recalled to give supplementary explanations with regard to certain small items in the accounts which had required further examination. Mr Campbell Pearce, the manager of the estate, also gave some adoitional particulars with, regard to the improvements that had been made since 1897.

Sir Gray said lie wished to direct the attention of the Court to a matter affecting his client, Mr W. It. Bidwill, one of the trustees of the estate. Dr Findlay, in liis opening address on the previous day, had impressed upon the Court the fact that the trustees in 1903 had made a valuation of the estate for probate purposes of £27,000, whereas now they claimed that the value of the property had been largely increased.

His Honor said the Court •would, not be bound by this statement, as they had before them the evidence of expert valuers, which would guide them. Mr Gray said he desired to mention the matter because it was possible it might be used in “another place.” Dr Findlay objected to Mr Gray referring to any such matter, inasmuch as counsel had agreed to waive their right to address the Court. Mr Gray said his only- object was to point out that the trustees were bound by law to send in a valuation, and when the Government made a fresh one they were* bound to accept it. But it was unfair to Mr Bidwill, who had no interest in the matter whatever, that it should go forth to the world that he had made a lower valuation then, whereas he now claimed a much higher sum, and these statements had been commented upon by Dr Findlay, and reported in the press. Dr Findlay said if Mr Gray continued he would have to ask leave to reply; it seemed to him Mr Gray had better direct his observations through the press. Mr Gray said Dr Findlay had impressed these statements upon the Court, and he only desired to show that Mr Bidwill had only done what the law required him to do. His Honor said he had no doubt Mr Bidwill knew what the law was, and had done what was required by the law ; but the statements made would not bind the Court in any way. The Court retired to consider its award shortly after twelve o’clock, and at 1 p.m. returned, when the Chief Justice announced that they had unanimously decided to award £34,000 for

the land, which would be taken to cover everything. The assessors’ fees were fixed by his Honor at thirty-four guineas each, each party to pay its own assessor. If compensation has to "he paid by the Government to Mrs Williams, who for some years has been a resident on the estate, the claimants will have to pay £IOO for that purpose. The original claim of £65,000 was for the whole Tawaha block; hut under an arrangement arrived at m Court with the Government, "the claimants retain the homestead, one thousand acres of land, and all the buildings. The area of the estate was set down at 3340 acres.