HATUMA COMPENSATION CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 3572, 26 October 1898, Page 4

HATUMA COMPENSATION CASE.

In the Supremo Court yesterday argument was concluded in the special case stated by the president of the Compensation Court constituted to determine the claims for compensation on account of the taking of tho Hatuma estate, Ifewko’s Bay, by the Minister of Lands under the Laud for Settlements Act; Mr Sainsbury appeared for the claimants, and Dr Findlay, with him Mr Baldwin, for the Minister. The claim of T. P. Eussell was as follows . —Land (22,770 acres) with buildings, fences, sheep-yardsand othcrimprovements, .£182,160. Messrs G. E. Sainsbury and H. H. Bridge’s claim was as follows: —Land (4357 acres), with dwelling-house, manager’s house, stables, woolshed, sheep-yard, fences, sheep-dip'and other buildings and improvements, .£46,430. Dr Findlay concluded his argument early in the afternoon. He elaborated his contention that the measure of full compensation here was the value of tho land only, and that the value was the market value only. In support of this contention he cited numerous authorities, including some of an American source. He also submitted that when the statute gave a right a strict compliance with the statute was imperative.

During Dr Findlay’s argument a qualified agreement was given by counsel on either side to the proposition that the compensation to be awarded should be assessed at such a sum as would enable the claimants to purchase another station of equal value to them, allowing a further compensation for the difficulty, delay and expense that would be incurred and involved in finding the same. Mr Baldwin, also for the Minister, submitted that there was a broad distinction between the. Public Works Act and the Land for Settlements Act. The latter Act was an Act for tho acquisition of land. Injurious affection and damage in the meaning of the Land for Settlements Act must be injurious affection and damage arising out of the acquisition of land. There were three separate and distinct matters in respect of which compensation could be claimed under that Act, and one of these must always bo for land taken. If a man was going to claim for land only, and under that head claim for every other head of damages, it placed the persons who had to meet the claim at a serious disadvantage. In any case under the Land for Settlements Act one claim must be for land taken, and therefore it would seem to be superfluous to claim for anything else. Both the claimants and the Compensation Court were strictly bound by and confined to the terms of the claims. A Compensation Court was not in the strict sense of the word a Court at all. It was a tribunal set up on a particular occasion to deal with a particular claim, and the claim was a condition precedent to its constitution. Without the filing of a claim and without a notice appointing assessors, there would not be a Compensation Court to deal with any particular matter. The claim practically conferred the entire jurisdiction on the Compensation Court, which was simply constituted to hear and determine the claim set up. That was the limit of its jurisdiction. That being so, the Court in question here had no power to allow amendment of the claims which it had to hear and determine. The whole of its jurisdiction arose out of the claims, and it was bound by thsm. Mr Sainsbury, in reply, remarked that counsel on the other side had said nothing about the Ardgowan case, for the very good reason'that it 1 did not suit them to take up the position in this case that the Minister of jjands took up in'that. It would, no doubt, have been more prudeht had the claimants here put in a claim for depreciation and, sale tot stock, but they thpugjit, rightly or wrongly, that their claim, put in in the form it was, would cover everything which the Minister might reasonably be supposed to meet. On the main question he (Mr Sainsbury) still submitted that (he market value of the land was not tho criterion of full compensation. Of course, if the market value would give the claimants full compensation, the Court might adopt it as the measure of full compensation. If it would not, then the claimants were entitled to receive compensation on a measure that would give them full compentation. They were entitled to receive that full compensation which was mentioned in both the'Land for Settlements Act and the Public Works Act. The Court reserved its decision.