THE COMPENSATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12425, 7 August 1902, Page 7

THE COMPENSATION COURT.

The Compensation Court refumed its sitting at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning,' Mr E. H. threw, S.M., presiding, and Messrs A. M'Kerrow and J. A. Park sitting as assessors. ! The hearing of the claim of Elizabeth Mackay ogainst the Borough of Mornington for £15'J 525, in compensation for land taken under the Public Works Act for road-widening purposes, was continued, Mr D. M. Findhy appearing for Hi? plaintiff, and Mr A. Bathgate for the borough. | Mr Bathgate, in opening the case for the borough, said that the latter had been referred lo as if they had acted in a high-handed maimer. In explanation he would say that 111 exercise of the functions in carrying out what was manifestly a great public improvement the borough had decided to iake the land of this complainant lor widening a narrow lano and making a tolerable street ol it. Before taking action they commenced negotiations with the property-owners concerned, but in pome cases, and in this among others, it was found that the ideas of the owners as to the value were so very different from those of the borough that such negotiations were only wasto of time. The attitude of some of the owners was that th( y were, afraid of committing themselves lest thei' should not ask enough, and it was manifestly a saving of time and trouble to allow the matter to be assessed before the Compensation Court. It was n matter of policy. He would point out that the evidence given in support of the claim was vague aud unsatisfactory, the various witnesses had •■:imply .made general statements, which they were unable to substantiate on cross-examina-tion. He submitted that the property had been greatly improved by the carrying out of this work, and detailed in what respects the improvement had been made. It had formerly had a deserted, shimmy appearance, and .had now been made much .more taking to the eye. The value, of the improvement in the value of the property that hud been effected must be taken into account in assessing compensation. William Cowan M'Nee, land agent, gave evidence. He considered the property would bring as much money now as with the ground that had been Mken, and would be more saleable.—Mr Findlay: 'I'hen you would allow nothing in compensation?— Witness: Yes, I would givj "sentimental" damages.—Further evidence was given by Francis B. Smith, town clerk, Mornington, who considered the property would sell for r,s much now as before. It was much tidier, and had a broad street all round it. He had worked out the present value at £,TOI. James Annand, ljuilder, considered that the property had increased rather than depreciated in value. Its full present value he considered lo be £350. Francis Anderson, builder, said he estimated the former value of the property at £375, and estimated its present value at the same amount. After adjourning, Mr Carew intimated that tile court' had awarded the claimant £82 10s, the Mornington Borough Council to pay £G 18s costs, and the assessment fees (£3 3s each). ' The next case taken was that of Joseph Robson and John Wright) as owner and mortgagee respectively, who claimed jointly from the Mornington Borough Council . £15, in 'respect o£ land actually taken facing Hawthorn terrace, Mornington, and £40 for land injuriously affected and depreciated in value. Mr W. Downie Stewart appeared in support of the claim,.and Mr Bathgate to ojppose it. Mr Stewart said the original area of the land hi question was between 12 and 13 poles) with a five-roomed liouse on it. The area taken by the council was 2.5 poles. TKo' taking of the land had been very disastrous to Mr Robson, and had interfered with several plans he had had in view. It was a Question of what value the land was to him, not what anyone else might give for it, or what value it was to the council, The claimant had lost the. double frontage he> had had before, and could not now erect a shbp facing two streets, as ha had intended. The widening of the street would be of no value lo Mr Robson. In consequenco, of it the road had been brought right past his front windows, and this had deprived him of all privacy. To avoid this result the only, way would be to shift the house back, which would bo an expensive business. The widening of the roiid had also put. the house on a slant with the street, and had made its appearance unsightly.. Something had been said to the effect that , the running of a tram line up the road would improve the value of the property, but thcre'was authority to show that the court were not to take this iiito account. It was s.'gnificant the witnesses which would presumably be the same for the borough as in ihe preceding case were all connected in some way with tho Mornington Borough Council. Evidence was given by James Robson, who denied, on cross-examination, ffsat the idea of erecting a shop was an afterthought of his; by John Wriglit, who estimated the cost of shifting the house at £71175; by Geo; Simpson, who said that at the time the land was taken tho property was worth £350, while now £230 would be enough for it; by Geo. France, who reckoned tho depreciation in .value at £80; by Thomas N. Baker, who gave evidence lo a similar effect'. Mr Bathgate said he would like to.fxplain one matter. With regard to the statement that his witnesses were- all Mornington men and more or less connected with tlie borough, that arose from the fact that naturally Momr.ingtori men know most about property in that bcrough. He had been instructed, however, to subpoena. Mr Burton, but he was unfortunately out of town, and there was another witness he had been unable to got hold of. It was not, however, a sort-of family party as suggested. . Evidence was given by Mr W. C. M'Nee, who stated that it would require a 7ft man to se< into the rooms of the house, and that tho ceiling could be seen from the road; by Jas.'Annand, Francis Anderson, and Francis B. Smith, who considered that the value of the property was now as great as before the land was taken. Tho two laf.t-uamed estimated its value now and previously as about £300. After r. short deliberation the court awarded the claimant £25 as full compensation, no costs being allowed, this amount being less, than half the claim; each party to pay its' own assessment fee, in each case' £2 2s.