CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18796, 7 February 1931, Page 18

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

I W. MOODY V. TIMARU HARBOUR BOARD. A claim for compensation was ' prosecuted in the Supreme Court ycis- ; terday by W. Moody against the j Timaru Harbour Board, in respect of ! four acres of land taken by the : respondent Board and situated close to i the Timaru Borough Boundary. The claim was for £4OO, being based upon i the estimated value of the land from j a residential point of view. | Mr W. J. Sim appeared for the I claimant, and Mr Finch, with him Mr : Hudson, for the Board. ! In outlining the claimants’ case, Mr ; Sim said that compensation w r as 1 claimed for certain land taken by the ! Timaru Harbour Board fronting down to the railway line near the town of j Timaru. His Honour: “That is just beyond the bridge coming into the town?”

Mr Sim: “Yes. Your Honour, comprising four acres 27 perches.” Continuing, he said there were none of the I complicating circumstances which had entered into the case heard by the Court the previous day. It would be claimed that the land taken was worth | £4OO, making a total of £2900. There I was no attempt being made to exploit I a public body, but claimant wanted to j be put in the position he would have | been in had not the Board acted under i its statutory powers in 1928 when the ; Board took the land, the time when : correspondence passed between the ; parties, intimating that it would take j four acres under the Public Works Act. i In May. 1929, five months after the . receipt of the Board’s letter, Mr : Moody was in negotiation with Mr Webb, who would be called, and who I would say that he bought seven acres, : paying £2300 for them. Moody bought • the 11 acres of land in 1926 for £2750. To put the whole history of the transJ action so far as he was concerned, lie sold a quarter-acre section for £2OO after paying expenses of survey and so on. At the time the Board inter- ! vened he had the whole property on the market for £2750, and the evidence would go to show that he should have obtained that price if the Board had not intervened. Mr Moody bought this land from Mr Harper, and that he bought it at a very reasonable price would be realised when he was offered £2300 for seven acres, and for a quarter of an acre had realised £2OO. and he had an offer of £4OO or £IOO per acre. The whole question would centre round what was the freehold value of this land. The land was really in the Levels County but a portion of it was what might be termed part town land. It was at the time Mr j Moody owned it. about 11 acres, but i four acres had been taken by the ! Board, the remaining seven acres j being retained by the complainant. I The facts were different in this case | from the case heard on Thursday, in that this land was really in the Borough of Timaru and was consequently valuable, as it had a frontage to a main thoroughfare and had a large 12-roomed house upon it, and the land round about it ran down to the stream and some bush. It would be valuable as a home which a farmer was likely to look for when he came to live in town. It was on the Otipua road, and the ’bus ran past the door, i and the land along this road was I popular from a residential point of j view, chiefly because of its proximity to the town. It was submitted that the true basis of the value was not as county land or ordinary farming land j in the county, but as a valuable piece of grazing land just in the borough itself. It was really in the borough. ; but was rated on the county basis, and this made a very great difference in the rating. His Honour would see that a claim was put in as an alternative, and this was to show the injurious effect on the land by reason of it . being deprived of the water rights caused by it abounding upon the stream. Evidence would be led to the effect that this depreciated the land by at least £IOO per acre. The whole question simply would be what was the freehold of the land. A claim had been made tor £-400. It would not rest as the previous claim, on a purely theoretical ; basis. The evidence would show that / had Moody been left uninterrupted he I could have sold the land.

William Moody said that he bought the eleven acres from Mr Harper for £2750 in 1926. He sold one section facing on Otipua Road for £2OO. He had the property idle for a year. In 1928 he put the property on the market and instructed the agents to sell it at £2750. That would still have involved him in a loss of about £2OO. When the Board’s intimation came he dropped the price to £2350. He was of opinion that this land was worth £4OO to the property. He concluded a sale with Mr Webb in 1928. at £2300 for the seven acres. In IS2O. I-larper had bought the eleven acres for £3BOO. The four acres in question were good grazing ground, the flat portion being superior to that up on the hill. The four acres taken were in the Levels County and the rating was much cheaper than in the Borough.

To Mr Finch: Witness was of opinion that land values were high in 1920, because there was a boom on. He considered that the land was worth £75 per acre, plus £IOO for water rights. The lower land was not suitable for subdivisional purposes.

To Mr Sim. he said the land would not have the same saleable value detached, as it would have if attached jto the other land. When he reduced j the selling price of the land in 1928 ; from £2750 to £2350. when the four ; acres had been taken off. he had been ] advised by an agent that £IOO was the approximate value of the four acres.

! Percy R. Webb, said that he bought ■ the property from Moody in 1929. if he could have bought the four acres taken by the Board he would have clone so. He had wished to obtain a grazing property of tin-; Lind, and the

one referred to was the only one the \ agents could show him. To him, as a j practical farmer, a running stream was ; of greater value than a municipal | water supply. Had the four acres been j included in the transaction witness , would have been willing to give the j £4OO it was valued at. The four acres j were far better grazing land than the : land above it, and in witness’s opinion J the lower land was worth 50 per cent, more than the upper land. To Mr Finch, he said part of this property could be subdivided, and this was one of the reasons why he had bought it.

Percy Barnes Foote, member of the firm of Bowker and Co., land agents and valuers, said that he regarded the four acres as an adjunct to a town house, and a valuable asset. There were not many of that class of place in Timaru. He considered that the property as a whole would bring £4OO more than with the four acres separated. Replying to Mr Finch, witness said he had estimated the value on the basis of an adjunct to a town property.

Alan Norman Oakey, auctioneer and real estate agent, said that in relation to the other land, the four acres were worth £75 an acre. He had allowed in his opinion a further £IOO for the value of the water to the upper land. There were not many of this type of properties offered in 1928 and 1929. Moody would be in a stronger selling position when he had the house, than the Kings’ trustees when selling the land to Harper without the house.

To Mr Finch witness said that land prices were certainly high in 1920. The three acres above the land in dispute were not so valuable, being poor grazing land. He regarded the house | and the seven acres as the kind of home that would be taken by a retired farmer. If the upper land were subj divided the value of the four acres would be decreased by half. Roughly an acre of the land would not be of any use. Witness was convinced that at the time of the purchase there were others who would be willing to pay £4OO for the four acres attached to the seven acres and the house. The Defence. Mr Finch submitted, in behalf of the Board, that the amount of £4OO claimed was greatly in excess of the real loss sustained by the claimant. The land from which this piece was severed had the borough water supply for stock and other purposes. These four acres could not have been subdivided in any practical way. being separated almost from the whole boundary by a big hillside. The land taken was useless as building land, and it would be of no use to anyone who bought the land who wished to sell it, except as a small piece of grazing property. It was admitted that it would be of some use to the man who owned the land above, but for the purpose claimed for it by claimant. £4OO was quite erroneous. John Waddell, farmer, Timaru. said he had inspected the four acres of land taken by the Harbour Board. He valued it at £2O. He thought it was purely a piece of land suitable for grazing. His valuation was based upon 500 acres of grazing land, and he -would assess similar ground in the area mentioned at £2O. There was broom upon it, and this would cost £6 or £7 per year to keep it chipped. It would all grow grass suitable for grazing purposes.

Cross-examined by Mr Sim, witness said that he considered the Government valuers’ valuation of the four acres at £lO5 was excessive. He valued them at £5 per acre. He considered that when Mr Moody bought this land at the price he did he might have had in his mind the prospect of getting a slice out of the Harbour Board or some other local body, and thus making things up a bit for him. Mr Sim: “With such an expert valuer as yourself to deal with. Mr Waddell?”

Witness: “I don’t know about that.” Continuing, witness said he could not give the Court any evidence as a guide to the difference in the value of land in 1926 and the time these four acres were taken under the Public Works Act. If Mr Moody said he had a reasonable chance of geting £2750 for the whole of the land he would not contradict him.

Donald Grant valued the four acres | at £8 per acre as a grazing proposi- j tion. If he were purchasing the homestead, and he was offered the four acres in dispute, he would not want ; them for the reason that he would sooner be without it. They would not j add any value to the other part of the j place. To Mr Sim witness said the Govern- ; ment’s valuation of £lO5 was excessive, j Mr Sim: “You consider it a ridicu- , lous valuation?” Witness: “It is too much.” Mr Sim: “You are throwing out an j insinuation about the Government valuation. I put it to you that you have not approached this valuation in a fair spirit.” Witness: “I think it excessive, and the chances are that the valuer never went near the place.” Mr Sim: “Would you not give this* land some added value by reason of its proximity to the town?” Witness: “I would not say so. I have some in the borough I would like to get lid of.” Mr Sim: “You will admit that the fool in the market sometimes makes the market?” Witness: “Yes, sometimes.” Mark Higgins said he had been valuing town lands for the past 18 | years in Timaru, and also land close to the town. He had been over this pro- ( perty three or four times. He did not ' consider this land suitable for a subdivisional scheme, that was, a scheme which could be carried out at a profit. He regarded it as purely grazing land, and he valued the four acres at £7l. He might give £IOO if he had to take it with the remainder of the land. The Court awarded claimant £2OO compensation, and assessors £6/6 - each, each party to pay their own j assessor. Claim for JtIGOO. Decision was given at 9.15 p.m. in ! the case in whicn the Perpetual Trustees and Mary King, in the estate of < the late J. King (Mr W. D. Camp- ; bell), claimed £I6OO damages from the Timaru Harbour Board (Mr L. E. Finch and Mr A. L. Hudson) for land taken under thb Public Works Act. His Honour said that the Court proposed to award £729. The assessors’ fees were fixed at £ls 15s each, each party to pay its own assessor.