580
On the whole, taking into consideration the reply of the Judicial Assessor to the 4th question put to him, I feel justified in neglecting Mr. TURNER's evidence as being based on only remotely relevant data, in accepting the higher value given by Mr. RAM, in treating the sales in October, 1899, and May, 1900, as evidence of the value of the property having, subject to temporary fluctuations as new properties came on the market, generally advanced subsequent to the 1st September, 1898, and after all in treating as the most correct valuation for this date that made by Messrs. LEIGH & ORANGE on the 28th December, 1898. This valuation was $2.50 per Square Foot.
10. The depreciation in the value of Marine Lot 184 on ceasing to be a Marine Lot on the 1st September, 1898, appears from the foregoing to have been at the rate of $3.50 – $2.50-$1.00 per Square Foot. The total amount due for deprecia- tion is thus $32,481.
Except in calculating the value of the Lot after conversion, no attention has been paid to the various valuations of the buildings on it $55,600 according to Messrs. LEIGH & ORANGE, $45,000 according to Messrs. PALMER & TURNER, $60,000 according to Mr. RAM, and $50,000 according to Mr. DANBY and to Mr. SHELTON HOOPER. These buildings, which cost originally $36,000, were generally stated to have gone up in value owing to the increased cost of building operations in Victoria. As subsequent to the conversion of the Marine Lot into an Inland Lot they were used, and at the present day are used, as Godowns, there was practi- cally no difference in their value before and after the conversion.
11. In accordance with the reply of the Judicial Assessor to the 5th question put to him, the claimants are entitled to an amount of 10% on that of the deprecia- tion of Marine Lot No. 184 by reason of the alteration in its status, that is, to $3,248 in addition to the $32,481, arrived at in the last paragraph, or altogether to $35,729 against their claim for $172,000.
12. The claim for $25,142 for loss of rents from the 1st January, 1896, to the 10th October, 1899, has, in view of the reply of the Judicial Assessor to the 6th question put to him, to be next considered. The claimants put in three statements to prove damage done by loss of depth of water at the Praya Wall in front of their Lot and consequent impaired access to it, and damage to their business from the time the reclamation work was first commenced to the time when it was carried in front of their Lot.
(i.) The first in date was Messrs. PALMER & TURNER'S of the 29th August, 1895, based on an inspection by Mr. PALMER made on the 19th of that month. It was to the effect that the foreshore was exposed in front of the Lot at L. W. O. S. T. fof an average width of 24 feet, and that while some silting up might have occurred to the West of a former wharf in front of the Lot, (which had belonged to and had been removed by the owners of the Lot partly in 1892 and partly in 1895) owing to the obstacle formed by the stone filling under that wharf which had not been removed, any silting to the East-of that obstruction was due to the Reclamation Works. He was of opinion that these works would tend to produce such silting and that the "works themselves must also have caused a large amount of earth stuff to find its way into the sea and thus considerably accelerate the deposit on the foreshore."
Mr. TURNER in his evidence stated that he was unable to say whether before the commencement of the reclamation boats were able to get alongside the Praya at dead low tide.