577
Square Feet short of the area mentioned in the Lease. This difference was owing to the encroachment of an adjoining Chinese owner, which existed at the time when Mr. STEPHENS purchased the property in September, 1884, for about $2 a foot, and the contention of the Crown was that the offer of $1,700 in November, 1887, was not evidence that the value of the property in 1887 was 23 times what it was in 1884, but that it was the price of peace offered on account of an error made by the Government Surveyor. The offer was rejected and eventually S5,000 was paid to Messrs. HOWARD and STEPHENS. It was not contended by the claimants
$5,000 that this payment showed the actual value of the land to be =$14.75, and I
339 am unable to consider that the original offer of the Government represented only the actual value of the land.
The second fact brought forward in favour of the valuation at $5 a Square Foot was that Section 8 of The Praya Reclamation Ordinance provided for the cost of the works including a "sum. not exceeding One hundred and Five thousand Dollars for the purchase of a portion of the land in course of reclamation opposite Marine Lots Nos. 95, 96, 97, 98 and 105." It was admitted by the Crown that the area of the land in question was about 21,000 Square Feet, so that the price to be paid for the reclaimed land amounted to $5 a Square Foot, but the Crown contended that this price was affected by the upsetting of an arrangement entered into two years previously with the owners of the property, on which previous arrangement reclamation bad been commenced and by which their Godowns were to have been 40 feet deeper and 25 feet nearer the sea. This contention was supported by the fact that the most easterly of the Lots in question (No. 105) was sold in 1893 for $3.76 per Square Foot only. The Crown also contended that the position of the portion of land in course of reclamation, for which the sum of $105,000 was to be paid, being a quarter of a mile nearer the centre of the town was more valuable than Marine Lot No. 184. This contention was not disproved by any of the claimants' witnesses.
The third fact brought forward in favour of the valuation at $5 a Square Foot was that the Lot (then 32,820 Square Feet) had been sold in 1881 for $85,000, or at the rate of $2.59 per Square Foot. It was contended that this represented more closely the value of the Lot than the sale at its mortgage value in 1884. It was further contended that there had been a general rise in the value of property since 1881. The above fact and the contentions were not disproved by any evidence brought forward by the Crown.
In re-examination Mr. ORANGE stated that some Marine Lots were of double the value of the corresponding Inland Lots.
The fourth fact brought forward in favour of the valuation at $5 a Square Foot was that Messrs. LEIGH & ORANGE's second and third valuations based on the capitalized value of the net rentals exceeded the combined value of the land and buildings as otherwise ascertained. These valuations resting, however, on incor- rect data, the argument in favour of the $5 per Square Foot value of the land in 1895 derived from them, may be neglected.
Messrs. LEIGH & ORANGE's statement, dated the 28th December, 1898, and Mr. ORANGE's evidence went to prove that in 1881 the land forming Marine Lot No. 184 was worth approximately $2.50 a foot and that there had been a rise in its value between that date and 1895.
(ii.) The only evidence as to the value of Marine Lot No. 184 at the time the reclamation in front of it was commenced, which can be derived from the Survey Report and Valuation of Messrs. PALMER & TURNER, dated the 19th September, 1899, put in by the claimants, is contained in the statement that they valued the