COMPENSATION COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9304, 3 August 1908, Page 3

COMPENSATION COURT.

LEASES AT CULVERDEN.

A LESSEE'S CLAIM. A Compensation Court sat at the Supreme Court this morning to hear the claim of W. E. Hare against the Crown for £2100 compensation for tho cancellation of his lease of land in. the Culverden Estate, consequent on the acquisition of tho estate by the Crown, under the Land for Settlements Act. Mr Justice Denniston presided, and had with him as assessors Messrs W. H. Bargreaves (Crown) and W. J. M. Hopkins (claimant). Mr Beswick appeared for tho claimant, and Mr D. M. Findlay for the Crown. Mr Beswick said that the claimant was a blacksmith and wheelwright at Culverden, where he occupied a large blacksmith's shop, and also owned the leases of other properties on which there were buildings. Certain ninetj'nine years' leases had been granted by the owners of the estate, and the claimant held three of the leases granted in 1886, for lot 16, which contained 1 rood 21 perches; lot 14, which contained! 1 rood 20 perches; and lot 10, of 2 roods. The blacksmith's shop was on lot 14. His business, which had been commenced some twenty years ago, had increased to considerable proportions. He had originally taken up only one section, but in 1887 and 1894 had become the transferee of the other two. Tho improvements on lot 10 consisted of a- dwellinghou.se, washhouse, fencing, well, pumps, workshop, loose box. stablo and shed. The buildings were let to tho Amuri County Council for £40^ per annum, and a man named M' Naught paid £4 a year ground rent. Hare paid rent in respect of this Jot totalling £10 per annum, and the rent of lot 14 was tho same. It contained a blacksmith's and wheelwright's shop, coal shed, implement ehed, and tyre furnace, well, fencing, paint shop and timber and trap shed, cottage of four rooms, with washhouse. The rent for ■the cottage was £16 per annum. On lot 16 there was the house occupied by tho claimant, a men's room, loese box, trap shed, chaff house, the usual outhouses and other improvements, such as well and asphalt. Mr Beswick applied for permission to reduce the total amount of claim from £2100 to £1570. Something, he eaid, might be made of the fact that the Government had offered the claimant a thirty-three years' lease, with the right of renewal. The claimant was not in any way bound to take it, and declined to accept it. Tho ninety-nine years' lease would have been a more saleable asset than a. Government lease. He mentioned that while there was nothing in th© least* to say that no other blacksmith's «ho-p could bo put there, there had been an understanding with the proprietors of the estate that no other would be built. Mr Findlay said that the estate had sold several freeholds, and it was open to any purchaser to erect a blacksmith's shop. The claimant, giving evidence in support of his claim, said that in respect to lot 14 he had paid £125 to Geeson, the former lessee, to buy him up. There was a small blacksmith's shop on it then, and he added to it considerably. He valued the improvements now on the section at £500. Tho County Council had a lease for five years over the buildings of lot 10, the lease having four years to run. He valued the existing improvements at £450, and those on lot 16 at £400. He wont to Culverden twenty years ago with nothing, and was now worth £3000. He estimated that his loss through giving. up business was £200. Albert Freeman 6aid he had been for many years employed by the Government as valuer. He had valued the improvements for the Government in January, 1906, fixing lot 10 at £300. 'lot 14 at £265 and jot 16 'at £320. He had since inspected them more exhaustively for the purposes* of the caso, and fixed them as follows:— Lot 10, £420; lot 14, £350: lot 16 3 £430. The total was £1200. Tho value, as far as rentals were concerned, was £60 per annum. John Forbes, builder said that he had examined Mr Hare s buildings, and valued them as follows : — Lot 10, £401 ; lot 14, £386 ; lot 16, £326. The total was £1113. The claimant, recalled, said that since January, 1906, he had spent £70 on additions to lot 14. This concluded the case for the claimant, i Mr Findlay, in opening the case for the Crown, said that it had been suggested that tho rental value of the property must be taken into account; that the rent was high, and therefore it was less advantageous than a freehold. If tho rentals of £30 a year were too high then something must be taken from the value of the buildings, which th© tenant was only a user of. The rental offered was £18 odd, a very considerable reduction, and that was upon the price the land was purchased with all expenses added, showing that the present rentals were too high. The present tenant going in would have to consider that lie would have to pay more than a freeholder. His Honor: Your theory is that the man is well out of this. Mr Findlay said that that was so. Tho Crown did not want the man to go j out and had offered him a thirty-three years' lease. He submitted, in connection with Mr Freeman's valuations, that that of 1906 must be taken as genuine. He was now valuing for a claimant, and it must be assumed that he had added a large sympathetic percentage. No claim had been substantiated for disturbance, for the claimant had elected to go out, and apparently had not been earning, as profit, any more than an ordinary wage, which he could get tomorrow as a workman. The claimant would not be doing badly if he got a fair value of the buildings, less something for the fact that as a lessee he got no value for improvements, and at an over rental on his own admission. Raymond Hepworth gave evidence that ho had in charge of the Government Valuation Office, but was now in business. Ho had examined the buildings as follows : — Lot 10, £275 ; lot 14, £256; lot 16, £310; total £350. That was the full value of the buildings. The terms of the lease and rent would make some .difference-. He considered the lease was onerous, for the condition regarding painting apd repairing every five years was a considerable item. Within seventy-seven years he thought the buildings would have to be "replaced, and for that element ho would take off £607 15s, leaving a balance of £242 ss, which he thought was the sum a buyer could afford to pay, and no more. John Henry Stringer said ' that he had chocked Mr Hepworth's calculations in regard to depreciation, and agreed with Mr Hepworth's valuation. Charles Calvert, contractor nnd builder said that he valued the buildings on lot TO at £302, on lot 14 at £3(51 10s. and on lot 16 at £316. The claimant, recalled, said that in 1894 he had paid £225 for tho cottage on lot 10, but had since added tfir, \ County Council office, which had cos! J about £100. Mr Calvert's estimate of I £75 might have been fair. j Thii= closed the case. j (Left sitting.) The fine now cruiser Achilles is making a name tor herself as ;i good shoot- , ing ship. Whilst lying off St Andrews ■ recently, her gunlayers, at a mile and ' a half range, hit a target, 80ft square, fifty-five times out of eighty-four rounds. Had the target been a ship , instead of a piece of canvas, every shot would have been effectively placed.