CLAIM FOR £488.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 945, 15 December 1933, Page 7

CLAIM FOR £4BB.

Land Taken by Crown for a Road. COMPENSATION SOUGHT. A claim for compensation amounting to £4BB 15s 6d on account of land taken by the Crown to straighten a bend on the road from Christchurch to Fai lapu was heard in the Supreme Court this morning. Claimant was William M’Laughlin, of 106, Clarence Road, Riccarton, and the Minister of Public Works was named as the respondent. Mr Justice Ostler presided, and with him as assessors were Messrs W. E. Simes, for claimant, and E. Bold, for the Public Works Department. Mr Nicholls appeared for M’Laughlin and Mr Brown for the respondent. Before the hearing the Judge and the assessors made an inspection of the land. Claimant’s statement set out that on January 22, 1932, 2 acres 15.6 perches of land in the Halswell Survey District had been taken and vested in the Crown by proclamation for the construction of a road. He had an interest in that land and contended that the land adjacent to that taken, in which he had an interest, would be injuriously affected by the work by reason that: (1) The land would be severed into three portions with consequent greater inconvenience in working; (2) there would be loss of shelter caused by the removal of hedges on the land taken; (3) a spring from which the water supply for thirtynine acres of the land was solely derived lying close to the land taken would be fouled by drainage from the new road. He claimed the sum of £4BB 15s 6d for compensation for all loss arising out of the taking of the aforesaid lands and the construction of the public work named. The sum was made up as follows:—Two acres 15.6 perches of land taken at £9O per acre, £IBB 15s 6d; severance, £250: loss of shelter, £25; fouling of spring, £25. Farm in Three Parts.

Mr Nicholls said that the case was that of a road being put through a property .that was now all too small. As there was already a road through the property it would be divided into three portions instead of two. There would be entailed the upkeep of a new fence and an extra road frontage would mean planting trees or a live fence. The best part of the farm would haye the road through its centre. Deterioration would be caused by the new road, particularly as the changing of stock from different parts of the property was concerned. In that respect there would be danger as the speed of the traffic would be greater on a straight than on the curved road. For fouling of water £25 was claimed, but had information been known which had later come to hand that sum would have been increased to £IOO. The stream would be unfit for drinking for some time, if a bitumen road was constructed, owing to injurious ingredients coming from it. Such a fact was important since the farmer sent his milk to the city for sale.

Claimant, giving evidence, stated that the Government had taken 2 acres 15.6 perches by proclamation from the property, which consisted of sixty-one acres. The Government valuation was £4520 and the unimproved value £3535. lie had refused £95 an acre and had later been offered £llO an acre. He was disgusted when he received the Crown’s intimation that the road would be put through and sold the land at £BS an acre. It would have been a good deal for him if he had given the Main Highways Board £2OO to stay out. “ Perhaps the board would consider that,” remarked his Honor. Witness declared that he would stand up to his statement. His Honor: Is it too late, Mr Brown, to consider that offer and close the case ? Mr Brown: I’m afraid so, sir. Value of Land.

Witness added that an offer of £IOO an acre had been made for land a little further along the road. To Mr Brown, he said he had left the farm, because the road was going through. He had bought the property for £B7 an acre in 1926, but with improvements he had made it had cost him £9O an acre.

M’Laughlin, to Mr Nicholls, added that he had bought the farm at a forced sale and he could have turned it over straight away at a profit. Benjamin Trevor Legg, farmer, of Halswell, who purchased the farm in May, 1932. for £BS an acre, said he would have given £9O to £95 an acre if the construction of the road had not been decided upon. John Robert Warren, farmer, and George T. Mulcock, farmer, also gave evidence. (Proceeding.)