582
*
The conclusion I have come to is that, as a result of the construction at the end of 1891 and commencement of 1892 of the right-angle branch of the sea-wall and as a result of the filling behind it, there was some alteration in the sea-bed opposite Marine Lot No. 184 and that this sea-bed may have been further affected by the demolition by the claimants of their wharf and the consequent dispersal of the stone filling under it. I am satisfied, however, that this alteration did not detrimentally affect the Godowns from which, according to Mr. HOWARD's state- ment, the net rentals derived were greater in the years 1892 to 1895 (except for the one year 1893) than in any previous years, attaining in the year 1895, an amount which, according to Messrs. LEIGH & ORANGE's valuation No. 2, represented the Godowns being constantly full. No evidence was brought forward by the claimants to show that there was shoaling between the 1st January, 1896, and the 1st September, 1898, and I am of opinion that there was no such shoaling.
I accordingly disallow the claim for $25,142 for loss of rents subsequent to the 1st January, 1896, which I consider should never have been put forward.
13. The next item of the claim is for interest. The claimants are entitled to receive interest on $35,729 from the 1st September, 1898, to the date of payment of this award.
14. After fully discussing with the Legal Assessor his reply to the 7th ques- tion put to him, I have decided that the costs of the present proceedings and of the Petitions sent by the claimants to England should be given to them, but no costs on account of legal proceedings.
15. I therefore award to the claimants the sum of $35,729 with interest on it from the 1st September, 1898, together with the costs of the present proceedings and of the Petitions sent by the claimants to England. From this award the amount of $15,000 paid on the 29th August, 1903, with the interest that has acrued on it has to be deducted. His Honour the Chief Justice will give ins- tructions to the Registrar of the Supreme Court to tax the bill of costs in accord- ance with my finding with regard to it.
4
GOVERNMENT HOUSE,
Hongkong, 12th July, 1905.
M. NATHAN.
Page 660Page 661