COMPENSATION CLAIM.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11512, 7 October 1915, Page 6

COMPENSATION CLAIM.

1 LAND AT LAKE COLERIDGt MURCHISOX TRTrSTE&S v. MINISter OF pun wo "WORKS. 'the sitting of the Compensation Court wnfi resumed this morning before his Honor Mr Justice Stringer, when the daim of t,ho Murehison trustees for £9152 1.2s ."Id from the Hon. W. Fraser, Minister of Public Works, was continued, the claim being tor land taken under 'the Public Works Act in connection with the Lake Coleridge electrical scheme. Mr A. Boyle was assessor for the claimants, and Mr H. H. Ostler. Tv.C.. was assessor for tho respondent. INIr H. I). Acland, with him Mr W. J. Hunter, appeared for the claimants. and Mr S. ci. Raymond, K.C.. for the respondent. Robert Macau lay, iarmer, residing at Tomuka, said that lie had' been a member of the Canterbury Tyand Board for the pa«t six years, and during that, period bo had also acted as a. valuer of land for the Public Works Department. He bad visited the Lake Coleridge estate, in June and in October, and had made a close inspection of the land taken by the Department. In his opinion, the land was not; suitable for cropping, and ho considered that it wou'd be best left in the tussock. .He fully endorsed Mr Kelly's opinion of the*quality of the. land. He thought, that tid per acre would bo adequate eompensat K»f for the ' temporary disturbance caused bv the works and o per cent on the capital value for the permanent disturbance. He consid'ered that the bridge over the creek was a distinct advantage. Mr Ael and: Would litis advantage of having a. bridge enable one to grow anv more woo! or carry more sh<;ep? Mis Honor: Surely it is not necessary to ask the witness that question. Of'course, the bridge wouldn't enable oiie to grow more wool. Cross-examined by Mr Act and', the witness said that he did not, think the land was very suitable for growing oats, and the crops ho had seen, had' been of poor quality. Mr Acland produced two sheafs of oats, one cut from the village site and the other from the Acheron, and' asked the witness to express his opinion of them. The witness said that the two samples consisted of different classes of oats, atul it was difficult to express .in opinion because one sheaf had hern cut green and the other when it was practically ripe, lb; would not be prepared to say they were poor samples, but what he had sect? when be visited the station was certainly of poor quality. He believe* 1' that the carrying capacity of the land would be about half a sheep to the acre. William M/luUvsh. farmer, residing at Whiterock. said thai he had inspected. the Lake Coleridge property on June 17 and IS, and on October <3. Ho •said that about eighteen months ago, 7500 acres of Whiterock were sold at £3 os per acre, and on an average it, was better land than the Lake Coleridge estate. The Whiterock land referred. to was at an altitude of from 600 ft to HOOOfI. Four years ago another block of WhiterocK lard, _OOOO acres in extent, was sold at £.'s 7s Gu' per acre. Edward Richard Tin-ion, manager of St Helens station, stated that he Jta.d been sheep - farming ail his life. Some of the St Helens land was similar to the Lak« Coleridge country. He agreed with the evidence of 'Messrs Kelly, Stevenson and Maeaulay as to the likelihood of the village site land blowing away it ploughed', lie gave his valuation of the land in dispute aa from £2 10s to £lO 10s per acre. Tin's concluded the ease ior the Crown. Kenneth James Sinclair Murehison, recalled by Mr Acland. gave evidence regarding tho crops ol oats and turuips produced from, the land. To Lis Honor: The village site was in turnips in .1001-5, and in oats in .LUOj-ij. To Mr Boyle: He considered that the carrying capacity of the Acheron land was a. slicep to the acre. On the 52,000 acres of the estate suitable tor sheep, they were carrying Lb .000 sheep, or about' half a. .sheep to the acre, but the Acheron block was the best laud, and, by carrying one sheep to the acre, relieved other parts of the estate. Mr Raymond said that the claim was for lands taken, and, secondly, for land injuriously affected. He submitted that, in 'dealing with permanent disturbance. regard must be taken to the disturbance caused by the works, and trespass could not be taken into consideration. The question was: How much disturbance had been caused by the Zigsag Road? They luul to eliminate from the case all question* of trespass and other questions: other than the injurious affection of the land' in tlie vicinity to that taken. With regard to the temporary disturbance, the compensation was dueort the question of the injurious affection of tho land, and tint to tho disturbance to the sheep. Mr Raymond referred his Honor to several reported cases dealing with this point. In considering the question of permanent and temporary disturbance, it. was important to bear iu mind tho capital and the annual value of t.lu. land so affected. The evidence bad shown tliat what the land was capable of carrying was from half a. ewe to the aero to three-quarters of a ewe to the ncro, and tli© claimant's agents, nlfu they applied to the Valuation Department for a reduction in the value at which the property jiad been assessed, had said' that there was a high deathrat'* on tho property. They had also stated that the land, owing_to jts high elevation and it? inatwssibility, was suitable only for growing wool, and .not. ,-i>r growing crops. The Court had to consider what iras the actual permanent nud temporary damage done to the 1:11!' Iby tile euu.vi. I'U"! ion of i-lie WOrki r-i'd )h'' r>:;l)Si'' ro:i(s.^. n»iv.r.-ciL^v