COMPENSATION COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 9261, 26 September 1901, Page 4

COMPENSATION COURT.

A STATEMENT OF THE PREMIER CHALLENGED. '

(Special to ilerald.) NAPIER, last night. The Forest Gate property, compuisoriiy seized by the Government, came beiore the Compensation Court to-day at the conclusion of the Kumeroa estate case, in which the. Court is now considering its decision. Mr Justice Edwards presided, and the assessors were Mr J. C. McKerrow, for the Government, and Mr Chas. filgar, . of . Featherston, for the claimants, who are the trustees of the late Colonel Herrick, viz., Mr J. N. Williams, of Frimley, and Mr Sydney Johnston of Takapau. Messrs. Cotterilland Humphries appeared for the claimants, and i)r Jb'indluy for the Government. Counsel, in opening the case, said that on May 23, 1900, the trustees offered the property to the Government for £4 10s per acre. Apparently time was taken to make the most careiul inquiry, for it was not till September 18 following that the Land Purchase Board replied, offering £3 17s 6d per acre. On the 27th of the same month the trustees wrote that they were unable to accept the offer, and on October 4 the Chairman of the Land Purchase Board acknowledged in another letter receipt of the letter from the trustees, and added : "I Relieve the Government, if advised, would give £4 2s per acre. If the trustees agree to this, the Board will recommend the Government accordingly." After consultation, the trustees refused the offer, confirming their refusal in a second letter of subsequent date. On April 10 of this year the Government gave notice that the properly would be taken under the Land for Settlement Act. He (counsel) did not propose to say anything with regard to any of the items in the claim with regard to interest, loss through disturbance, etc., because he believed that some agreement would be come to between the parties as to them. The only matter, therefore, he would deal with at this stage was compensation for the land taken, for which was claimed the market value to sell. It had been known that the property consisted of between 8500 and 9000 acres, and the claim was based on 8777 acres. It had just bpen ascertained, however, that the correct acreage was 8783 acres, exclusive of roads, and a block of 39 acres to which - the Herrick" family had no right except that of occupiers. The question, then wasthe value of the land, and the total amount of the award would be in accordance with the ascertained acreage. The Government had intimated practically to the Land Purchase Board that they were prepared to give £4 10s per acre, the price the trustees had asked. Dr Findlay said Mr McKerrow, Chairman of the Land Purchase Board, informed him that there never 1 , had been any intention on the part of the Government to offer more than £4 per acre. Mr Cotterill said his authority was Hansard, published under authority of the Government, and he quoted from the Forest Gate debate, in which Mr Seddon had declared that the price the trustees offered the land at was the price the Government were prepared to give Colonel Herrick's widow, and then they altered their minds and asked to withdraw. Dr Findlay maintained that the Premier had no power to make a statement binding the colony. Mr Seddon could not make an offer. The offer must come from the Land Purchase Board. It was a novel way of bringing evidence. It was a perfectly unauthorised statement, and was refuted by the only officer who could know. Therefore the Premier's statement could not be .taken as evidence. Mr Ootterill contended they must assume that the Premier of the colony was at the time speaking with a full sense of his responsibility. The case is expected to last for the rest of the week.