29

A.—3.

I often sold goods at that store without taking them to my other store. For section 98, Palmerston Street, I claim £300, or £100 for the 32 feet required by the Government. There is a bonded warehouse on the section, which is included in the £300. The bond is built of wood and iron, and is 24 feet by 40 feet. Mr. Mackay : 32 feet are required for the railway. Witness :If that section is taken, I shall have to get a new store and a new license. Taking off the 32 feet would greatly interfere with the value of the section. A lease granted in terms of the Superintendent's promise would be worth £300 with the store upon it. £1 a week would be a fair rental. The 32 feet makes the section much more valuable, because you can change the frontage. Under the old allotment there was to be a right-of-way at the back ; and if the 32 feet are taken off, the right-of-way goes too. I cannot say what the building cost me ; I value it at £100. The Commissioners : Will the completion of the railway and protective works increase the value of the property ?—Yes, but I cannot say to what extent. By Mr. Mackay : I have seen the right-of-way at the back marked off on some of the plans, but Ido not see it on any of the plans produced. I was always under the impression that there was to be a right-of-way at the back of the sections, but I see, according to the plans, that the right-of-way ends at Brougham Street. Section 9 belongs to Spence Brothers, whose agent I am. Mr. Mackay said he had no further remarks to offer, except to make a reservation as to the legal and equitable rights of the claim. John Munro, auctioneer and land agent, sworn, and examined by Mr. Fisher, stated: I know the section in Wakefield Street which Corr rented from Bayfeild. It must have been of considerable value to Corr to have the store there ; but several elements enter into the consideration of value, so that it would be difficult to fix the value of the section. I should say the building itself would be worth £250 as a receiving store. It would be worth £300 a year, because there would be constant receipts and deliveries. If Corr kept the accounts, he ought to be able to tell what the revenue was. Such a building as I owned myself at Stanley wharf would be worth £300 a year to me, but this store was in a much better position. 1 don't know what the land alongside the store would be worth. The stand was only valuable to Corr for the purpose for which he used it. Mr. Mackay : Are you aware that Corr put in a valuation in November last ?—I am not aware. You have stated that you consider the building worth £300? —I said £250. Are you aware that Mr. Corr claimed only £200 for it ?—I am not aware. You stated that you considered the store worth £300 a year as a receiving store. Are you aware that Mr. Corr estimated the loss of his good-will in that store at £250 ? —I am not aware. Mr. Corr recalled : As regards the statement of Mr. Mackay about the £200 and the £250, I told him that I would sooner accept £200 from him, although the building was worth £250, than pull it down and remove it myself. Mr. Mackay : Before I arranged about the removal of your store, and paid £90 for the work, did you not hand in this claim ? (Mr. Mackay handed to witness the claim preferred by him in November, 1874.) —Yes, that must have been handed in to you before. Did I not offer to purchase the store from you before it was removed, and did I not offer to give you the £200 set down in your claim ? —Yes, I believe you did ; but I told you I would go to Bull, a man competent to form an opinion on the subject, and I said that if he agreed that it was a fair price I would take it; but Bull told me to do nothing of the kind. How do you reconcile the statement put in in 1874 with the statement in your claim in 1875, in the former of which you say, " I built a store on the section which cost me £200 " ?—ln putting these things down I did not keep a very close account of everything, and at the time I purchased the iron for the store it was very cheap. When you came to me again, I found that iron was up in the market. Does not the store on section 52 suit you as well as the other, with the exception of the short distance between the wharf and it ? —No. It is the distance that makes all the difference. If I had been allowed to remain where I was, I should have saved a considerable amount in cartage, because I could have trucked the goods into the store. The first arrangement I had with Mr. Bayfeild in February, 1874, was for a three years' lease, but in August, 1874, 1 induced him to make it a seven years' lease. How could you arrange with Bayfeild on the 14th February, 1874, when it has been stated here that he bought from Monaghan on the 31st July, 1874 ?—ln Monaghan's sale note to Bayfeild you will find that Bayfeild had acquired the right to the property some time before the execution of the transfer. You remember that in January, 1874, you called for tenders for erecting a building upon the section ?—I do. Did you get a letter from the Town Clerk ?—I did. This is a copy of it;— " Town Clerk's Office, Westport, Feb. 2, 1874. " Sir, —Observing that by advertisement in the Buller News you are calling for tenders for building on section 47, in Wakefield Street, on the Coal Reserve, it is my duty to inform you that at the last meeting of the Borough Council a resolution was passed requesting the Government to acquire or otherwise withdraw from occupation the said section, on account of the same being required as an approach to the wharf. " I have, <fee, " Geo. Caeeuthees, " John Corr, Esq., Westport." " Town Clerk. Mr. Mackay : What reply did you make to that ?—I considered it a great piece of impertinence, and I built all the same. Were you not aware that the Government were going to construct the railway alongside the section ? —I was not. Do you positively swear that you were not ? —I will not positively swear, but to the best of