Supreme Court

Southland Times, Issue 18015, 10 December 1902, Page 2

Supreme Court

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9th, 1902. Before His Honor, Mr Justice Williams. The Court resumed at 10 a.m. CIVIL ACTION. Anderson v. Anderson, an action to set aside a deed of- settlement whereby the plaintiff had settled certain lands at Chariton on the defendant, John Anderson, on trust for himself and the infant children of tlie lute J. R. Anderson, was continued, ami evidence called. H was arranged Hint counsel sliould submit their legal arguments and authorities to his Honor in writing and judgment would be given in Dunedin. COMPENSATION. Trustees late J. T. Thompson v. Minister of I’ublic Works, a claim for compensation for land taken for the new gaol site, north of Invercargill. Mr Y. H. Hall appeared for the claimants and Mr J. L. Watson for the respondent The assessors were Messrs W. Todd and W. D. Hunt.

The claimants’ statement claimed on lots 1 and 11, block vi. Northend township, on 10 acres 2rd 21.2 p., £2126 IDs an average of £2OO per acre. Also for depreciation on lots H anil 12, block iv, owing to proximity of gaol site, £75; and on lot Hi. block vi. for the same reason, £7O ; total amount claimed, £2271 10s. The Minister of' i’ublic Works' offered £BOO. Mr Watson raised a formal objection to the claim, 'owing to no particulars of a lease being included in, the statement. His Honor agreed that it was desirable that lhe lense should be put inMr Hall said that tliiswas a claim umler the Public Works Act for land taken in lots I and 2. block vi, in the township of Northend. which now comprises part of the town of Invercargill. It was just north of the Hospital. ami it lay between the railway

line on the west, which was its continuous boumlary. and l.ilTey street on the east. making it only one block away front the main North, road. up which a tram line runs. The best test of the value of the land was what was realised for sections -I ami 5 next it. Those sections facing the west faced an unformed street, timl were not a bit higher than a considerable portion of the land now claimed for. and the aeliml average was £220 per acre. Sales were made in November 19(10 ami Nobringing from £-15 to £75. anil others were resaved for leasehold purposes. Part of the blocks were lower than others, bit were nevertheless of the utmost value lor factories ami foundries. A price hail been given of £658 an acre for Inml to the south oi the town, which was of no more value for imlustrial purposes and no nearer the railway station than the land now-acquired, nml this had been done without reference to lhe I'mirt.

T S Boyds, agent for the Trustees, gave evidence regarding the sale of land in the locality. He thought £2OO per 1 To Mr Matson : Would not be surprised to know that the capital value of the whole <£ lhe land was pul in al £2oo for tlie purposes of the land tax. He did not remember Mr ; Bnll culling on him about it. lhe sections would require to lie drained before being used for building purposes.

It. 1,. Matheson, one of the trustees gave evidence that he valued the land. 10 acres 2 roods, al £2126. 1 his price nas based on dial the sections in block v brought. The price obtained for them was U 222 per acre, ami this land was just valuable. The Trustees thought the depreciation on sections, which would be caused by the presence of the gaol in the neighbourhood, was very reasonably assessed. For foundry or factory purposes the land was almost as valuable ns that purchased for £658 pe" aero to the south eml : Hie proportions of value were not represented in the pri ces claimed and obtained. To Mr Watson : To sell these sections on tbe same lines as lhe previous ones thev would have to spend money on surveying ami levelling sand hills. There Mould not in* much drainage, ami there would be m> difficulty in getting sidings put in to the sections for foundries o factories.. ' IT W. Bicknell, malinger of the Union Bank of Australasia, one of the trustees. gave evidence of the purchase <>l a section at £7O. mu! tbe re-sale m £9O to a warder. £2OO per acre lias fair value for the lioul. E. Russell, solicitor, gave evidence that he purchased a spctjon three qua.r.ler.s <>: a mile from lhe laml in question, on th. eastern side, at lhe rate of £3oo per acre. H 11. Brodrick. hind agent, valu.d the land al £1550 without The gravel, but with the gravel at £2<>oo. There would notSbe the slightest trouble in levelling the laml to be used for residential purposes. Il was better lund for building purposes than either Grassmere or Collingwood. It. Cleave, nurseryman, valued 10l i at £lOOll and lot I £750. J. H. Hannah, hind and commission agent, valued lhe land for residential purposes ut £ I (>Ho, taking into consideration all adverse conditions. This dosed the claimants' .use. The Court adjourned for half an hour ■while his Honor and the assessors viewed the land. On resuming Mr Watson called Thomas Miller, civil engineer mid surveyor, who produced a plan of Hie laml, showing Hie different levels marked, 1.0 l I had a little over two ,acres of high ground, mid the rest would have to be filled up to make it available for In. Iding sites It was so near tidal level that it could not be drained in Hie usual manner. I.oi 11 had no high ground to speak of. mid the Slime conditions ns to drainage mid filling-in applied. The total cost m' levelling, grading, etc., would le 9s Sil. I'.j Mr Hall : The hind was -1 feet above medium tide. A low embankment could l.e put up ami Hie Imid could he kept absolutely dry. The land would have t<. be drained if used for foundries or factories. There were some pails of Hie land now suitable for dwellings. John Brown. valuator, valued lot I lit £585. mid lot II al £331'., total £1)21. That won! I Hie honest value of th.* land in its present stale. W. G I'OX, county valuer, produced enmity books which gave value of the laml for rating purposes al £2" per acre. Valued 10l I at £505 for resident ial purposes. and lot II at £3lO. approximate value £B5O. Andrew Bain, eontracior, valued tin* high ground al £360, and the low-lying-ground £5O-1; total £B6 1. Lot I was utterly useless in its present state for building purposes Alexander Cross valued tlie laml at £BB5. Alfred Ball, town clerk. South Invercargill. valued 10l lat £530, and lot II nt £22s—total £755. The ground was wet. H. Carswell.' Government valuer, estimated the valiie of lot I £550. and lot H at £28(1. total £B3O. Most of the land required hegvy expenditure to I'eiider it fit for habitation. R. Tapper, with experience in land valuation for varioe.s public companies, valued lot I at £-420 nml lot Hut £2BO. total £7OO. Land adjoining Mr Thomson's was under offer for £6O for 1 | acres. Lot II was too low for building purposes, and this applied to n portion of lot I.

Counsel agreed not to address the Court, and after a short retirement his Honor announced that it had been decided to award £1250 in full settlement of all claims. with costs £33 15s against, the respondent The Court rose at G. 50.