THE MAITAI LANDS.

Colonist, Volume LV, Issue 13775, 16 July 1913, Page 1 (Supplement)

T H E MAITAI LANDS.

PROPOSED ACQUISITION BY THE CITY.

FORMAL OBJECTION BY THE

OWNERS.

Tho steps taken by tlie -City. Council towards.tiio acquisition of land in the Maitai Valley lias resulted in formal notice of objection being given by the owners of the estate.

At the meeting of the City Council last night a letter was road i'rora Mrs J'Cffie N. Richardson and Misses E. F. and R. Z. It. Richardson, tenant for life'and in feo simpk* and remainder respectively of the Maitai estate, stating objections to the taking of land forming part ot tho estate by the -Council under the Public Works Act, on the following grounds:—(l.) That the local authority had no power to do no for the purpose or in the manner proposed ; (2.) that tho local authority had not taken the proper steps to enable it to take the land; Q.) that it had no power to take the Maitai stream or any part thereof as a pleasure ground; (4.) that loss and injury resulting to them from the taking of the land by loss of riparian rights, damage by severance/ breach of leases, loss of rents and profits, and general depreciation oi the balance of the land could not be adequately compensated for, and that sutficient compensation had not been provided for by the Council;

■!5.) that the taking of such lands was not a bona fide exercise of the powers of the local authority; (b\) that, tho local authority was acting maliciously in taking tho said lauds with the intention to injure the objectors, and at the instigation of and in the interests of c:.-rtain individuals, and not with tho authority, wish, and concurrence of the ratepayers; (7.) that the local authority was not entitled to take, purchase, or acquire or pay for the lands proposed to be taken, or any part thereof, for the purpose proposed or any other purpose. Therefore the objectors gave notice that if within twenty-one days after -the service of such notice the Council did not. withdraw the notice of its intention to take the lands, and refrain from doing so, they would- commence proceedings 'in the Supreme Court by way of injunction to restrain the Council from further proceedings for the taking of the .said lands, or any part thereof, on each audi all of the grounds s-.'t out above. The Mayor said the letter should be referred to the Council's solicitors. He traced the history of the matter, and said it was unfortunate that the land had not been acquired earlier, when it would have been cheaper. If. the Council was likely, to be involved in a Supreme Court action it would mean great expense to the ratepayers,- and it might be considered if it was-worth while going on with the matter.. He moved""that the letter be referred, to; tho city solicitors. Cr liarloy seconded the motion. It was not a "matter the Council should attempt to deal with. He did not know what the writers meant by sayingthat the Council was acting maliciously. The matter had occupied the attention of the previous Council-for two years, and they should not go back on what that Council had done. Cr Piper hoped the city would not be put to the .pxnenstKof a lawsuit. The motion was carried.