LAND TAKEN

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11685, 24 November 1923, Page 7

LAND TAKEN

FOR TRAMWAY PURPOSES VALIDITY OF PROCLAMATION QUESTIONED , SUPREME COURT ACTION. Tho validity of a proclamation by which the Wellington City Council acquired an area of land at Lyall Bay tor tramway purposes was tested at the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr Justice MacGregor, when John James Boyd proceeded against the City Council, the District Land Registrar, and the Attorney-General, for a declaration that the proclamation was void. For the plaintiff, there appeared Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C., and with him Mr S. A. Wiren; for the City Council, Mr J. O’Shea appeared with Mr C. Hennery, and Mr A. Fair represented the Attorney-General. “NO AUTHORITY.” Mr Skerrett in outlining the case said that the facts practically were all admitted, and were very simple. The plaintiff, in 1917, was the owner of a piece of land! in Lyall Bay on which certain buildings were erected. Proceedings were instituted in that year to take the land on which these buildings were erected for tramway purposes. At this stage, said Mr Skerrett, he wanted to point oiut that in the Municipal Corporations Act there was no reference to, or authority conferred for, the taking of land for tramways. Mr O’Shea interposed to say that the City Council bad such power, and by virtue of the Act cited. Continuing,. Mr Skerrett said that the land in question had been taken by the City Council without obtaining the consent of the Govemor-in-Council as required by section 15 of the Public Works Act. The City Council was aware, he contended, that there were buildings on the land, and that they were therefore prohibited by law from taking the land 1 under the Public Works Act without previously having obtained the consent of the Governor-General. At the timo the land was about to be taken, an objection was lodged on behalf of the plaintiff by Mr D. M. Find lay, on the grounds mentioned, namely, that because of the existence of buildings the Aand could not be legally taken. The objection was overruled, and the proclamation issued, but at no time had the consent of the GovernorGeneral been obtained. Mr O’Shea: Consent was applied for, but there was nothing to show that it has been granted. Mr Skerrett said that the plaintiff had now allowed the time for the applying for compensation to elapse, and it was now necessary for him to attack the validity of the proclamation. The City Council had obtained the land by a piece of waste paper. That, he maintained was sufficient fraud under the Land Transfer Act. LAND DOUBLED IN VALUE. Evidence was given in support of tho claim by plaintiff, who admitted under cross-examination that the land had doubled in value during the past two years. Mr O’Shea: The value of this land has probably increased more than that in any other portion of the city.. For tho defence, Mr O’Shea said that a memorial had been sent to the Governor asking for liis consent to the taking of the land. Consent had not been obtained, but the request went through, and a proclamation was issued in accordance with the common practice of the department. The council had naturally assumed that everything was in order, and there could be no suggestion of fraud of any kind. His Honour: But the Governor-Gen-eral’s consent was not obtained. Mr O’Shea submitted that the coum

cil was justified in assuming from the issue of the proclamation that the necessary consent had been granted. Hi« Honour held that nothing should have been taken for granted. The 'xransil was dealing with a man’s property, valued at £2OOO, and should have made sure that everything was in order. They were hardly justified in accepting the proclamation as the consent of the Governor-General in Council. The hearing of the legal argument on the issue involved occupied the whole of the afternoon, after which His Honour reserved his decision.