Midland Railway.

Opunake Times, Volume III, Issue 147, 29 November 1895, Page 3

Midland Railway.

Counsel for the Crown moved on Monday to strike out the five c->unts in the Midland Company's claim on the ground that they do not disclose any legal basis for a legal claim, and •with respect to the other counts a motion will be made for more explicit particulars. Objection will also be taken to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators, on the grounds that the contract has been broken, that a large portion of the work has been abandoned, and that the line has been seized under a Statute which expressly provides for resort to the Supreme Court, thus barring arbitration. The Midland Railway Company's claim sets forth the Government restriction over a large area of lands ; that the company was refused a right to timber on certain lands ; that the lands selected depreciated in value by the Government authorising the removal of timber, also by increased aud graduated taxation on land ; that the Government refused to give effect to the request of the company to sell or let land selected; that in withholding for an unreasonable time consent to a deviation of the railway from the west to the east side of Lake Brunner, and to the substitution of an incline for a lunuel at Arthur Pass the company was delayed and prevented from proceeding with work; that the company was prevented from raising the capital necessary to complete the railway owing to the Government's delay in considering the application for an extension of time; that owing to the statements made by the Minister of Pubiic Works before a Parliamentary Committe in October, 1892, it was impossible for the company to raise the necessary capital ; that owing to the foregoing matters the credit of the company was destroyed ; that the whole of the share capital and debenture capital is lost and also the interest thereon, and the .expected profits, the total amounting io £1,584,900, which the company claims to recover.

THE GROWN STATEMENT. The Crown statement alleges that the company was allowed ten years to complete the railway ; this expired in January, 1895, when only 75 out of 850 miles were finished, and these the most inexpensive portions ; also that the company has notified its intention to abandon the line from Eeefton to Motueka about 94 miles. Respondent alleges that the real reason for failure to complete the contract was that the company was unable or unwilling to provide funds for the purpose, although concessions had been made. The company itself estimated the substitution of an incline at Arthur's Pass would save it £539,881, and other concessions also were granted. Respondent contends that the company by its failure to carry out the agreement is stopped from any right under it, and the arbitrators have no jurisdiction. It is pointed out that the colony has lost by the locking up of five million acres of Crown lands and the area selected by the company, 373,677 acres, and by the non-completion of the railway. The right of the company to include the seizure of the line in arbitration is denied as it was done uuder Statute.