RAILWAY SIDING.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20315, 25 January 1928, Page 2

RAILWAY SIDING.

PALMER’S QUARRY LINE. CLAIM BY HARBOUR BOARD. Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., delivered judgment yesterday regarding the claim by the Harbour Board for £9O damages from Palmer and Son for trespass on the land on which their railway siding has been constructed, or in the alternative £9O for the use and occupation of the land for a period from January 1, 1926, to October 20, 1927. At the hearing Mr H. E. Barrowdough appeared for the Harbour Board and Mr W. G. Hay for Palmer and Son. The action arose out of an agreement made between the Minister of Railways and the Otago Harbour Board with regard to the deviation of the main north line from Dunedin. Under that agreement provision was made for a continuance of the various siding connections on the main line, amongst them being that at Palmer’s quarry. The change of course of the main line caused the quarry t > be at a longer distance from the line, and provision was contained under the agreement with the Harbour Board to reserve the necessary reclaimed land for this additional connection, the Railways Department on its part undertaking to lay the rails for the siding. Subsequently Palmer and Son obtained a siding license in respect of the new siding, and for this they had to pay an annual license fee. In the present claim the board contended that it was also entitled to receive from Palmer and Son the rent in respect of the extra land reserved for them, and used by them for the siding. His Worship, at the conclusion of his judgment, stated: —“Having agreed to make the reserve the board could only be interested in stipulating for the siding connection to be made by reason of some benefit to Itself, and the only benefit to the board is the customary charge it makes for similar privileges. The position then is that the, defendant occupies and uses the Harbour Board’s land by means of the siding extension under the circumstances above set out, and I can see nothing in the agreements entitling him to a full use of such benefits, and I consider the amount claimed is reasonable. Judgment will therefore be for plaintiff for £9O and costs.” The court costs were fixed at xus, and solicitor’s fees at £5 10s. Security for appeal was fixed at ±io.