Friday, September 6.

Otago Witness, Issue 2168, 12 September 1895, Page 16

Friday, September 6.

His Honor delivered the award of the court, saying : "There were one or two points of lavr raised at the hearing which, of course, it was for me to deoide. Before pronouncing the award of the court, it might be as well that 2

should give my opinion upon these points of law, in order to »how the principles upon wlrch the award has been bused. It wa? suggested by Mr Newton that under the wording of our acts compensation could not ba claimnd in respeot ot the additional burdens cait upon the Tot&ra estate by the taking of Ard^ownn. I have compared oar act; with the English acts, and have also looked at the case cited by Mr Chapman of Cowper Essex v. Tbe Loaal Board of Acton. I do not think that onr acts differ in any matetial parvicahr from the English law in thif respect. It reems to me that if there are two f states tinder the same management, and one of them is compulsorily taken, and by reason of auh compulsorily taking an additionel burden is thrown on the ts'ate which is ltft, the court is jus 1 ifi'.d, in estimating the amount of compensation, in considering that circumstance. It was aho suggested by Mr Newton, though it was not seiioasly pressed, nor, indeed, could it he seriously preyed, that the ourt ought to look at cfce Land for Settlements Act, at the object for which the land is bting taken, and at the expense that the Government; would be put to in working out the ac*;. lam quite Batiefied that this court has not Ling whatever to do with that. We ore referred by the Laud for Settlements Act to the Public Works Act, and it ii frtm the provi lions of the Public Woiki Act, and from thosa provisions alone, that the compema'ioa should be assessed. It is a wellrecognised principle of the law of cempeueation in England, and the principle is founded en common sense, that tho measure of compensation cannot b« the gain or the lost of the person who takes the laud, but that ii mast bo tbe lo3s of the ptrjou from whom the land was taken. It was further suggested by Mr Chapman that there was a rule that an Bllowauce of some 10 per ceut. sho jld be made where land is ot-mpulaorily taken. It m\y be thtt in England there is, not a law, but what may be called a rule cf thumb of that kiud. However, there is certainly no su(h defmiterule here. Alt that we have to do is to ascertain the fair selling value of the land taken, assuming it to be sold in one lot or in pu'celr, as might be most advantageous to the owner at the time the value has to be estimated. Those, I think, are All the questions which were raised at tho hearing, and I now proceed to pronounce the award of the oourt, vihcb, I am happy to fay, we have arrived at unanimout-ly. The court awards that the sum of £34,600 be paid to the claimants as a grois rain in respect of all demands. We also award that tbe claimant* receive for cos*s the sum of £100, and also disbursements and witnesses' expense.', including, of course, the expenses of all qualifying witness is where Cec< ssary. It will bt necessary for that amount to be ascertained before the court can proaou.ca its final award, because the total sum, including tbe costs, is to be mentioned in the award, bo what we shall do is this : that the couct will adjourn till some day next week, and tha registrar, who is, of course, an officer of the court, can a.certain, probably with the assistance of the parties, wlut that amount is. If tbe p«r\icß are not satisfied with the registrar's dec'iMou and do not acce pt they can come to us. It is for me to fix the tuseasora' fees, and these I fix at five guineas each per day for five days. There will be no further fee for the adjourned kiUiog.