THE CASE OF PLIMMER, REEVES, AND CO. v. WELLINGTON CORPORATION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 7222, 18 July 1884, Page 5

THE CASE OF PLIMMER, REEVES, AND CO. v. WELLINGTON CORPORATION.

The decision of the Privy Council in the case of Plthmee, Keetes, and Co. v. The Wellington Corporation, of which the news reached AVollington yesterday by telegram, is deserving of more than a passing notice, involving as it docs interests of the greatest consequence to tho city. As it is not generally understood on what point tho appeal went, it may bn as well to give a short outline of the facts involved. Prom the statement of facts on which the judgments have been given, it appears that about the year 1555 Mr John Plimhee built tho wharf known as Plimmer’s Wharf, aud occupied what was then tho foreshore by drawing up au old vessel, the Inconstant, the last timbers of which were removed the other day to make way for the foundations of handsome buildings which are to replace it. Prom that time until 1801 Mr Pwit-

Miill occupied tho land and the wharf, but at tho latter date Customhousequay was made, which cut through the wharf, leaving tho seaward end of it standing, and Mr Pent Men was permitted to exorcise a right of pre-emption over tho site where the “Ark ” stood. He asked leave to connect tho wharf with the breastwork, and continued using the former as before. In 1855 the bod of the sea on which tho wharf stands had been vested in tho .Superintendent of the Province, and so remained until the abolition of the provinces, when the rights of tho province passed to the Crown. On tho Corporation taking tho land, with tho wharf and other buildings since erected on it, for reclamation purposes, Mr Joseph, who had purchased Mr Plimmee’s interest, claimed to bo tho freeholder of tho land, and Messrs Plimmee, Beeves, and Co., tho present claimants, to bo entitled to a long leasehold term under him. The title set up was a statutory titlo alleged to have been acquired by Pxjmmse by more than twenty years’ occupation of the land, and it will be recollected that this question was very lengthily argued before all the Judges. They, however, did not decide whether a twenty ycars’adverse occupation would vest a part of the harbour in tho occupant of a wharf, but gave judgment against tho claimants on the ground that in their opinion PliiiitEE had been a tenant at will of the Superintendent in 1855, that the sevorence of the wharf in 18G1 determined that tenancy, but that a fresh tenancy of tho rest of tho wharf had then begun ; so that there had been no period of twenty years either before or after that date during which Plimmee had occupied the land adversely against tho Superintendent, and, of course, since the Crown acquired the titlo time would not continue to run in favor of the squatter. This is tho decision which the Privy Council has overruled, and, so far as can be gathered from the short telegram received by the claimants’ solicitors, the judgment of tho Court of Appeal on the question of a break in the continuous occupancy has been reversed, and the claim of the landlord and his tenants respectively, to tho fee simple in tho land, and tho lease of it, has been supported. The result is that tho Corporation have to compensate Mr Joseph:, as the freeholder of tho land,and MessrsPLiMMEE, Reeves, and Co., as the holders of a long lease. The claims put in aro, wo believe, about £12,000 for the lease, and £3OOO for tho freehold, but of course the actual amount of compensation payable has yet to be ascertained by Mr Justice Richmond and two assessors. It is impossible, therefore, to say what amount of loss this decision involves the Corporation in; but whatever it is, it will bo considerably augmented by tho large amount of the costs which such difficult and protracted proceedings will have necessitated, and which it may bo assumed will be made payable by the unsuccessful party. So far as we understand, this case stands entirely on its own merits, and does not govern any similar claims. Most of the owners of land abutting on tbo foreshore have compromised their claims to tho mutual satisfaction of both parties, and only a few are still undecided. We believe one or two claims by leaseholders hare been received, but no compensation has yet been assessed. If the reclamation proceeds these claims need excite but little trouble, because thei’e is a provision in the To Are Reclamation Act enabling the Corporation to give land instead of money by way of compensation. The difficulty of the position lies in this, that sufficient work has been done along the foreshore to enable claims to be sent in, while not enough has yet been done to exchange in settlement of such claims. The funds immediately at the disposal of the corporation for the purpose of the reclamation are small, and have been seriously reduced by the cost attending tho two unsuccessful attempts to start the works. Tenders are now before the Council for a third time, and, by the obliging babbling of a member of the Council at the last meeting, we know these tenders are only two in number. The amount of each has not transpired, but it can hardly be hoped after two failures that they will bo as low as on former occasious. This we shall learn next week. It is to be hoped, however, that the amount involved in the decision in Pxjmmee-Reetes’ claim, the possibility of other claims which cannot be paid in land, and the amount of the tenders for tho reclamation, will not be beyond the slender means at the disposal of the Corporation, and that, after the expenditure of so much money, the reclamation scheme, fraught with such interest to every ratepayer, may not be again postponed.