COMPENSATION CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 10062, 29 August 1918, Page 3

COMPENSATION CASE

WILLIS STREET WIDENING THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH HOTEL The case was resumed in the Supremo Court yesterday before Mr Justice Hosking in whicli compensation, is claimed from the Wellington City Corporation by the Duke's Buildings, Ltd., in connection with the Willis street widening scheme. The claim is for £11,740 on account of the reduce tion of the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel site. Associated with His Honour aro Messrs C. B. Morison. K.C., and G. H. Scales, as assessors, representing the City Council and the Duko’s Buildings, Ltd., respectively. Mr M. Myers and Mr G. G. Watson appear for the plaintiff company; Mr A. Gray, K.C., and Mr J. O’Shea for the City Council. Richard Dwyer, licensee of the Empire Hotel, gavo further evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs as to the leasing of the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel from Mr Isaacs. A rent of £SO a week was fixed after the six o’clock closing came into vogue. Under a lease of March, 1915. various changes had to he met amounting to £7O 10s a week. The total charges now amounted to £6O per week, the use of a tobacconist’s shop being included. Joseph Dwyer, licensee of the Midland Hotel, gave evidence to the effect that the alterations to the Duke of Edinburgh through the loss of 10 feet frontage would mean considerable interference with the ordinary business of the establishment. The bar takings would bo considerably reduced and the arrangements for boarders would be likely to break down. In a hotel a bar trade, without a substantial boarding establishment, was most unsatisfactory. The takings during alterations would go down 00 per cent. Mr O'Shea, in opening the case for the defence, described the various negotiations between the corporation and other property-holders concerned in the street widening. He urged that the element of betterment through the widening of the street must come into consideration. At present the tramline was two feet from the pootpath. With the widening, the footway tor pedestrians would be vastly improved and there would be room for vehicles ll> a.op alongside the hotel. So far as shops on the site were concerned, there would be a great advantage gained in regard to window spaces. A new entrance in Manners street, according to nan which had been suggested, could be provided, which would be bet- , ter than before. The cellar space [could be extended and in the reconj struction of the building there would bo more light and air. If the claim of j sue plaintiffs were allowed for a ninth of the site it would mean that the whom area was worth £IIO,OOO. This was inconceivable. The Government valuation of the land (unimproved) was £15,600. His Honour: 'T understand that a large valuation is put on this particui lar piece of land because it is one out l of three of the best sites in Wellington." Mr O’Shea contended that - there were many equally good sites in Manners street, Willis street and along Lamhton quay. The claim was a seriously exaggerated one, and no assistance had been received bv the corporation from the owners of the property. Oyril Hawthorn Micthell. architect of the firm of Atkins Bacon and Mitchell gave evidence ae to having prepared a plan for the reconstruction of the hotel with the reduced frontage. Ho acted in conjunction With Mr Atkins having in mind the interests of the lessee of the hotel. This plan had been supplied to the city solicitor. It showed a loss of 599 square feet on three floors, hut a gain of 61 square feet in the cellar. A large amount of waste space in the present building would bo saved, and some better-sized bedrooms would bo provided. The bringing of the buildings into line would make the hotel .look much better. Estimates were got from builders last year for reconstruction in accordance with the plan and witness considered them reasonable. Dross-examined bv Mr Myers witness said that tie hotel already was well lighted. To put on an extra storey would require total reconstruction. There would bo more chance of improvement in that case with the extra ten feet frontage. Tlie ease was again adjourned.