SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 1990, 17 April 1890, Page 26

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS.

Wednesday, Apetl 16. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) BOWLEB AND OTHERS V. STREET AND OTHERS. The hearing of this case was resumed at 10.30 a.m. A. J. Burns deposed : I have been a resident in Otago for 42 years yesterday. Since the year 1848 to the year 1877 I acted as agent for people living abroad who had property in Dunedin. I made several large valuations in 1871, and in 1874 these properties were sold at a considerable advance on my valuations. In 1871 I livsd in George street, north of Knox Ohurch. It has always.been lookedjupon as a desirablepart of the city for residence. There was scarcely a quarter of an acre of ground where I lived, with a very narrow frontage to George street. It was offered to me, subject to my tenancy, for £300 in 1872. I considered it a very low price indeed, and would have bought it only I had to leave Dunedin and go to Westport. The Koox Church section was worth a very- great deal more. It had a large frontage to George street. I consider it would have been a very cheap section at £800, with the lease upon it ; and without the lease it would have been worth £1200 or £1400. By Mr Stewart : Property in town and country has undergone great fluctuations in value during the time I have been in the colony. Most of my principals got very handsomely out of their first investments. I know the Knox Ohurch manse section. The water from the hills used to come dona through that section. As the improvements in the city wont on property increased in value. It may have stood still for a time, but I don't think it ever went baok. By Mr Chapman: I sold Park and Curie's corner, Dunning's, and the property below the latter. They were bought out by the tenants, Who found it to their advantage to purchase.

By Sir Robert Stout : I sold properties in Stafford and Stuart streets about the same "james Wilson: lam a brewer living in the north end of the town. I know the Knox Churoh site. That section was a dry one. I had two sections behind it which I bought from the Crown. The only road to the North-Bast Valley before the streets were formed was through the Knox Church section. This section lay above the swamp beyond it. I remember when the section was sold. It had very long frontages upon George and Pitt streets, and at that time corner sections were worth a great deal more than other sections. I should think ; that it was worth £1000. „ „ By Mr Stewart : I used to do a considerable amount of land speculation in those days in the way of buying and selling. The manse section was not swampy. It would have cost only a trifle to level the section for building purposes. Of course that would depend on the nature of tbe buildings to be put upon it. By Mr Chapman: The section was worth £1000 when the church purchased it. Property has risen and fallen several times, but in my opinion good properties have never fallen in value— that is to say, properties in good positions. I went into the brewing business about 1870. The White Horse corner is a valuable corner. In those days it was a convenient place for carriers to stop at. The hotel was doing a good business. The section, hotel, and stables were worth about double what the Knox Church site was worth in 1871. The buildings were not worth much. Knox Church section could have been built upon anywhere in those days. There was a hotel at nearly every corner in those days. The Knox Church site corner would have been available for the erection of a hotel upon it. Joseph Strang: I was the lessee of the Knox Church section. My reiatal was £25 a year. I paid my rent regularly, and all rates. I was using that section as a dwelling, and had stables on it. On one occasion I was troubled with water coming down Pitt street, and both Dr Stuart and myself were annoyed by this stream of water. That was before Pitt street was formed. I remained on that section about five years and a half. The lease is dated Bth June 1867. I had gone some time over half the lease. About a month or so after I went out the erection of the church was commenced, Then I received a notice about kerbing rates. I had never heard of kerbing rates before. I showed the bill I got to Mr Qillies, and told him that they should not saddle me with the kerbing. I don't think the bargain was then decided as to giving up the lease, and I said I should not be saddled with the kerbing, as I was clearing out. I don't think I signed an agreement. Mr Gillies said he wanted the section for a good purpose, and that he would find me another plaoe at a cheap rate. He did so, and gave me to understand that he thought things were looking up with regard to land. The Knox Church section was never offered to me for sale. By Mr Stewart: The kerbing had been going on before a demand was made upon me for payment. It never passed through my mind as to who was to pay for the kerbing. I did not expect to pay for it as tenant, and I took the bill to Mr Gillies. The section was in its natural state when I took possession of it — as rough as it could be, very rough. It had not been cleared at all. It was a place where waggoners left their drayloads. The ground was very rough. On the occasion— a Sunday— when Dr Stuart and myself were flooded, I think Dr Stuart had the worst of it. Whilst I had the section I made an ' offer to buy it, but I was told it could not and would not be sold, as the son was not of age. I don't think I told Gillies and Street that I was prepared to give £200 for it. On one occasion I heard the section was sold for £350, and I said I would give more for it. I never mentioned any sum. By Mr Chapman : I think it was Mr Street I spoke to. I think Mr Street asked £25 a year rent. I don't think I offered him £200 for the section. I don't recollect Mr Street offering to sell the section to me. By Sir Robert Stout: I don't remember whether it was Mr GilUVs or Mr Street who told me the property could not and would not be sold, as the son was not of age ; but I think it was Mr Street. I wonld have made an advance on £350 if the section had been offered tome. By Mr Chapman : I got £200 to cancel the lease. I spent a good deal of money on the ground gravelling, draining, &c. I think the £200 was swallowed up by what I put on it. By Sir Robert Stouli: I got another very cheap place from Mr Gillies, and took the £200 to cancel the lease. Walter Hislop : I was in Gillies and Street's office in 1871. I had something to do with the town portion of Bowler's estate. Five per cent, commission was charged for management on rents and interest coming in. No commission was charged on the sale of the section in question. The firm, on the 7th January 1873, was paid for this section, no rent being paid for the previous half year. In June 1873 £300 of the purchase money of the section was invested on mortgage at 8 per cent. Tbe balance to the credit of the estate on the Ist of June 1873 was £1100, uninvested. The estate got no interest for that at all. On the Ist January 1874 there was £400 belonging to the estate uninvested. In April 1875 £300 was invested. There was always a certain amount uninvested, as Mr Street kept it that way in anticipation of costs. I had nothing to do with the farm personally. Mr White left the farm in consequence of some misunderstanding between him and Mrs Bowler. There was a large overdraft against the farm account during Mr White's management of the farm. I don't know_ what interest was allowed on money deposited in the bank to the farm account. Alexander M'Leari : I live at Inoh-Clutha, and have lived there since 1868. I know Bowler's land there. I was first a tenant of a portion of it in 1871. The trustees let it to me. There was no trouble about letting land there. It would depend upon the rent and the nature of the land. The land Macdonald rented was the best. The farm ought to have let all through for an annual rental of from 13s to 15s per acre. Mine was swamp land. It had not been cultivated at all. I had altogether 100 acres. Allison and Kirkness were also tenants. I did the ditching and fanning, and had the land the first three or four years for nothing ; afterwards I paid 103 an acre. Messrs Thompson, Simpson, White, and Kay managed Bowler's farm in succession. By Mr Stewart : There was a great deal of difference in the character of the land comprised in Mr Bowler's farm. James Duthie: I know the Knox Church section, and was on it before the church was built. I have driven a six-horse team on it before Strane had it. It was a dry section, not troubled with water when I was there. I camped upon it. My waggon never sank on the section. By Mr Stewart : There was a creek coming down Pitt street, which touched the section at the top corner. This was the plaintiff's case. The defendant's case having been opened by Mr G. Cook, the following evidence was given :— John Davie : I am manager of the Equitable Investment Company of New Zealand. Since J 1864 I have been most intimately connected

with land sales. I was land valuator for two occasions — the first for Leith Ward and the last for the whole city. I knew the Knox Church section. It was a rough and wet section. No one in search of a business site would ejo beyond Frederick street. It was very difficult to effect sales of property in 1870. I should s»y that, subject to the lease, £350 was a fair value for the Knox Church section at the time it was sold. By Sir Robert Stout : Land rose in value towards the end of 1871. If there had been no lease on the land the section in question might have brought £550. I don't know that I would have sold this section for £350 without inviting competition, but I might have done so if I thou ht the offer sufficiently good. In 1873 property pretty generally increased in value by 50 per cent. Thomas Calcutt : I have lived in or about Dunedin during the last 20 years, and have been familiar with land values, I sold the White Horse corner to Mr Moliison. As to the commercial value of that site and the Knox Church «ir,o there was a very great difference ; in fact, Knox Church site was never dreamt of as a business site. As a residential section Knox Church site was on the wrong side for the sun ; it got no sun at all, and was exposed to the south-west winds. My recollection of the site is that it was a rough seotion, and that if it were built upon retaining walls would be necessary. If that section had been mine, and if it were subject to a lease, I should have taken £400 for it, as I could have made a better use of the money. Thomas Dick : I remember the time and the event of the purchase of Knox Church site. I had no opinion at the time but that there was a fair price given. By Sir Robert Stout: I supposed that it cost £500 or £600, and did not take any special interest in the matter. After Vogel's schemes came into operation property began to rise. People began to hope better in 1871. I sold some of my properties too soon. Thomas S. Lambert: I am a building surveyor, in partnership with Mr Lawson, who was architect for Knox Church. Mr Lawson is absent from the colony. I have examined the Knox Church site. A large building could not have been put on that seotion without a retaining wall. J. B. Thomson : I have been a builder for a number of years in Dunedin — since the first week of 1835. I lived opposite the Knox Church section in 1865. I knew the seotion at the time when the drays went upon it from the White Horse. A portion of the section was always wet. It was a broken sectiou. I have seen the wheels of drays on the section (towards the north end) up almost to the axle. There was great depression in 1871, and no appreciable rise in property until the middle or end of 1872, but before that people were holding and property was firm. I am one of the property tax valuators for Dunedin. I should say the value of this section in 1871, unencumbered in any way, was £500 or £550. The lease would have a depreciatory effect upon the property, as there was only a carter's shanty and stable upon it. It was a v very uninviting section. To use the seotion a retaining wall of some kind was absolutely necessary. The outside value of that property in 1871, unencumbered, waa $50Q or £550, maximum price. By Sir Robert Stout : I was never employed as a land valuer up to 1871. I think I was first employed as a land valuer in 1872 by the Commercial Building Society. Stores could have been built on the section, but to utilise the whole of the section a retaining wall was absolutely necessary. There was swampy, wet, damp grouud on part of that seotion. By Mr Stewart : There was a very depressing state of things in 1869, 1870, and 1871. The necessary walls could be placed there more cheaply than those which now surround Knox Church, and answer the same purpose aB retaining walls. Thomas Burton, land agent, gave unimportant evidence. Thomas Moody : I know the Knox Church seotion. It was exceedingly swampy when I knew it, and a creek ran down it. The White Horse corner was the more valuable of the two. On the 4th of August 1871 1 was asked to value the Knox Church section, My valuation was £350, and I consider that a fair valuation of it at that time. I made my valuation altogether .independently of Mr Charles Reid. By Sir Robert Stout ; I was one of the subcommittee which recommended the purchase of this site. I don't remember whether I acted or not ; I don't think I did. I do not remember any report being brought up. I was opposed to the new site, because I considered the old site a better t one for building on. I don't know whether any money was spent on foundations on the new site on account of its swampy condition. I considered that subject to tbe lease £350 was the value of the property in 1871. I cannot swear the lease was ever submitted to me. I think it was Mr Gillies who came to me, unless it was by letter. I cannot say whether it was done personally or by letter. I was not asked to value the lease, nor do I remember that the terms of the lease were made known to me. At that particular time property was very low indeed. Very few sales were taking plage. We had none. If there had been no lease on the section, it would have been worth £500. I put the value at 15 years' purchase. I will swear that Mr Gillies did not suggest to me £350 as the value. By Mr Stewart : From the beginniag I was strongly opposed to the new Bite. We had no sales at that particular time, things were so depressed, By Sir Robert Stoat : I can find no trace of any commission being paid over the sale of this seotion. James T. Mackerras: I am a merchant in Dunedin, and have been here 28 years. I had to do more or less with obtaining a site for the church. I looked upon this as an uninviting section. It stood above the road level of George street, and was under the hill in Pitt street, and was wet. I was strongly in favour of the new site, but there were a great many opposed to it. In my opinion at the time £350, saddled with the lease, was a fair and reasonable price for the section. I have no recolleotion of its being specially advocated as a bargain. By Sir Robert Btont i I have an Impression that I suggested this site so that the church might be near the manse. I believe Mr Gillies told me the price it could be got for. By Mr Stewart: Very early in the negotiation I had a strong desire to have the church and manse adjoining, and I had also a strong objection to the old site. Charles M'Queen: I am an ironfounder. I was a member of Knox Ohurch in 1871, and a member of the deacons' court, I was opposed to the new site for a time. The question of oost necessary to utilise the section was discussed at meetings before the purchase was made. The further hearing of the case was adjourned until next day at 10.80 a.m.

We are requeued to mention that Mr John Chambers, Tangyei' representative, is now in Dunedin, and will remain until the 27th hut. A dividend of £2 per share has been declared |by the Dunedin Gold Dredging Company (and will be payable on or after to-morrow,