LAND COMPENSATION

Waipa Post, Volume 37, Issue 2218, 6 October 1928, Page 5

LAND COMPENSATION

alleged DAMAGE BY PIPELINE. WATER SUPPLY TO MENTAL HOSPITAL. X A special sitting of the Assessment Court was bs!id at Te Awamutu yesterday to determine a claim for £IOO damages against the Public Works Department by Louis Theodore Bergemanri, dairy farmer, Puniu Road. The Court comprised Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M. (chairman) !a,nd Messrs J. T. Johnson (for claimant) and W. A. Gordon (for the Department). iMr H. A. Swarbrick appeared for Mr Beirgemann and Mr Bould (land purchase officer) for the defending Department.

The grounds of claim, weer under section 13, subi-section 5, of the Public Works Act. The Department, by an arrangement with Te. Awamutu Borough Council, undertook to lay a water pipe line to Tokanui Mental Hospital. The trench for the line was cut through part of claimant's land, and it wfas kept open for about two and a half years, until September, 1927. The claim was made in March, 1928. The claim was made up of an amount for the loss ofl 2h acres of land and £4OO for serious hindrance in the working of the farm. Counsel alleged undue delay in filling the trench, which was 15 feet wide and occupied over half an acre of the farm. The Hoss was computed at £ll2 10s, but the claim under this head was £6O.

The Public Works Department did wot itself construct the pipe line, letting the work to contractors, who experienced a very grcjat deal of difficulty in making the pipes watertight. Louis T. Bergemann said that in 1924 a surveyor told him he was. instructed to lay off a line for a water supply to Tbkanui. The actual commencement on his land was in November, 1925. The trench was to be 2 feet, and work was expected to be completed within a; rn'onth or so. Difficulties caused the trench to be widened to about 5 feet, and the spoil thrown out on >o(ach side caused a loss of feeding value of a strip 15 feet wide. The line was 36 chains long. One small paddock had been ploughed to put in oats for winter feed, with grass to follow. He Was debarred from using it for this purpose until September, 1927. Gangs of workmen frequently, in the interval, invaded the farm, and on occasions vehice'ls entered the place to bring material for repairing the line. He lost a total of three acres of land for two and a half years. He computed his cows returned him notedly £4O per head per annum, as he maintained a town milk supply. The farm, carried !dne cow to two acres.

The chla/irman: If you kept the same number of cows, and your returns were maintained, your loss must have been very small. Continuing, witness s!aid the pipe line crossed six padodeks of his farm. The cows having to cross the trench four times daily throughout the winter caused much inconvenience, and before millang each, cow had to be carefully and thoroughly washed. The crossings bsdame quagmires, and he had fre- , quently to fill in the' worst places to make- them passable. The hay paddock was cut off, and he had to bring in his hay by sledge instead of carting it. The pipe line crossed four farm drains/, and in one silt accumulated. Two elarthenwarei vent pipes now stood in the paddopks, and the likelihood of damaging 'them interfered with his farm management. To Mr Bould: He was first served with a notice by an officer frfom the Public Works Department in 1924. He made no objection, but he suggested the fairness of compensation. The surveyor replied thlat no compensation would be allowed. There was no mention at the! timle of a water supply to his house, but this matter was mentioned about a year later. His first intimation of a dlaim for compensation was stome! months after the line was opened. He mentioned it to Mr Bartlett. Had the work beeai completed in a few weeks he would not have made any claim for compensation, preferring, as a public-spirited man, to put up with some loss. The drain was not completely filled in till about September, 1927. Part of the trench was left open, by arrangement, in expedition that he could use it for land drainage; purposes. It proved useless f|>r that purpose, so he filled it to grass (level at his own expense. He had been paid by the Department for filling in the first 11 chains, and had acknowledged plaiyment and expressed satisfaction. The rest of the trench was only partly filled in—for six inches above the pipes. That was a mutual arrangement** He had written on 3rd May agreeing to fill in the total length of and re-sow with grass and clover in approved manner. The price was £l9 for one length and £2 10s for the other. He was paid, and acknowledged on 27th September, 1927, satisfaction with the way the Department had met him, but indicated ai claim for dampi£|nsation for detriment to his land.

Continuing, claimant said four years ago, when the work of trenching was commenced, the land was quite dry. The drains were to carry surfaqe water awiay. The farm was level, and principally pipe-clay subsoil. He leased the farm for 9s per acre from the Mission Lands Trust. The lease expired in four years, and he had a right of renewal for a further 21 years. The drain across the middle of the 2iacire, paddock prevented his using satisfactorily any pari) of the paddock. The lie jof the land was against his ploughing it; the drain was iat first 2 fcjst wide and from 2 feet to 4 feet deep. To the Court: During the season of 1924 'be had about 50 to 60 head of stock on the place; there might have been a few less in the succeeding years, but he could not give definite figures because the herd was coming to profit at all seasons of the year. There v|as a decided loss in the quantity of feed available for his herd. Re-examined: When re-filling the pipe-line trench some of the spoil was unused. Richard H. Wj&stbrook, farmer and road overseer for Waipa County Coun-

edl, .b-ave evidence in support, generally iriaccora" with tbel loregoing, and on some points jo-obabiy more convincpngi '■';'■■■'■ \ ' The chaiimjain commented on the peculiar fact that the claimant had wished to have the use of the trench for land draining purposes, and later he contended ijhat the trench prevented iftis draining. Horace, F. Hughes and Hector Ranson, farmers, Puniu Road, gave corroborative evidence. Mr Bould submitted that .the claim had few merits. There was accord that no agreement had been made between the parties, and therefore recourse was made to section 35. He quoted English and New Zealand decisions on identical cases. There had been no permanent injury to the land of claimant, and therefore the second item of the claim could not be sustained. Re the first part of tihe claim, all the requirements of claimant had been met; the ternch had been re-filled and the wholle affected areia sown in grass. Claimant had not proved any actual lossl He asked for a nonsuit. Mr Swlajrbrick, combating that application, said he would like time to provide an answer. He had expected, by past experience, that a nonsuit would not be! applied, for. The chairman remarked that on the evidence some of the alleged damage or hindrance wia/s too remote to be covered by the provisions of the Act. After a, good deal of argument between Mr Swarbrick and the chairman, the Court was adjourned until Bth November to enable authorities in support of Mr Swarbrdck's contention to be referred to.