COMPENSATION COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4473, 28 September 1901, Page 3

COMPENSATION COURT.

Special to the “Times.” NAPIER, September 27. Giving evidence in the Forest Gate compensation case this afternoon, Mr James McKerrow, chairman of the Land Purchase Board, said something like 30U estates had been inspected by nim that bad been offered to the Government. Of this number about 102 had been purchased. A great many more estates had been offered in which the Government simply thanked the owners for their offer. These properties were unsuitable for subdivision. He had signed vouchers, for £2,100,000 for land acquired by the Government. An, owner never had to wait for bis money, which was paid down on the signing of the necessary documents. He believed there would be no difficulty in the investment of £30,000 to plapa the owners of Forest Gate in a similar position to what they were in now. In reply to counsel for claimants Mr McKerrow said tho Government morality was not involved in This matter. The Government had nothing to do with fixing tho price. It was fixed by the Land Purchase Board* This was then recommended to the Government, which had not the slightest authority to put one penny on the price. Mr Cottenll: “You .have 'heard the statement made by the Premier and reported in ‘Hansard*! regarding the price the Government was'prepared to give. What do.you think of ■ that Witness: 1 suppose it was just one qt those political licenses. (Laughter.) You must remember that the' Premier has an enormous mass of information in his head, and I often wonder at the excellence of his memory.

Counsel: Well'it seems to have failed him on this occasion!

jjr Findlay, in* addressing the Court for the Crown, said the. Government was not entitled to give more • of the public money than was fair value of the estate. /

Mr Justice Edwards: If you take •sometliing which is not at all essential to the public welfare against the will of ’ the proprietor any doubt must bo determined against the .Crown, because the Crown takes something it is not compelled to take. I suppose, however, the law must continue until a different mode is provided for those things. : Dr Findlay; That is not quite reason, able. We give them the estate for six months to make what , they can out ot it before wo take it. . His Honor: You take a way that upon which they live.. Ten witnesses .say it is worth £30,000, and tho other side brings an equal number to say it is worth £50,000. You intend to take it. 11 you like you can leave it alone. Thus if there is any doubt it must necessarily determine against .the Crown and in favour of tho man whose property is taken. 1 , ■ • : ■

Dr Findlay; But in this case they offered the property first and there was no threat to take it. It was the owners who desire to sell. They were anxious to sell 'Forest Gate, and it is suggested they had another place in view. - Replying to Dr Findlay’s arguments, his Honor said they had no right to come and take a property and. say tha* because only £SOO a. year was made out ot it its value should' be capitalised on that basis.

Concluding his address,, counsel for the Crown maintained that what, had been offered by the- Crown was ample compensation for the seizure of- claim-, ant’s property. v ’ - Mr Cotterill, addressing the Court for the Herrick family, said that although they were prepared to take the Court’s award of the market value of the land he asked the Court to bear in mind that the land was being taken against the will of the claimants. Compensation was payable to the claimants upon the highest price which thpy ' could- show they could realise. ' * ;, - The award of the Court regarding the Forest Gate and Kumer.oa properties is expected to-be given on’Monday. I • ft