615
3. In 1884 Mr. Stephens was informed by a Surveyor in the Public Works Department that the adjoining owner, Cheong Ying Cheong, had encroached on his Lot, and Mr. Stephens required Cheong Ying Cheong to remove his wall, and, as the latter refused to do so, the former commenced to pull it down. Cheong Ying Cheong sued for an Injunction and damages and I was a witness for him, the Court decided that Mr. Stephens was wrong. Messrs. Howard and Stephens then made a claim against the Government in respect of 339 square feet, being the amount by which the actual area of the Lot was alleged to be less than the leased area. The Government had to admit that their Surveyor had made a mistake, and, in order to settle the claim, offered Messrs. Howard and Stephens sum of $1,700 in November, 1887. This offer was, however, not accepted.
4. Shortly after the Claimants acquired the property, they erected two-storied Godowns thereon, which cost them :-
Godowns,
Marine Lot No. 184,
Total cost of property to Claimants,
$3.10 per square foot (including buildings).
.$ 36,000 65,000
.$101,000
a
The
5. The Godowns were completed and in full working order by 1887. net storage capacity of the Godowns (2.e., when full) is about 15,000 Tons (of 40 cubic feet). The Godowns are fairly well built of granite, and are at the present time in what may be called a fair state of repair. In my opinion, their value at the present time as buildings is, say, $50,000. The increase in value is due to the fact that the cost of building has risen considerably since 1886.
6. On the 10th May, 1889, the Praya Reclamation Ordinance (No. 16 of 1889) was passed, for reclaiming a certain portion of foreshore from the sea. All existing Marine Lot Holders baving property affected by the scheme bad the privilege of joining in the project, on condition that they paid the Government the cost of Reclamation immediately opposite their respective properties. Messrs. Stephens and Howard did not consent to join in the movement.
In due course
the Reclamation Works were commenced and practically completed by 1st January, 1836, up to a line corresponding with a prolongation of the East Boundary of Marine Lot No. 184, but no part of this Reclamation was opposite the Claimants,
Lot
7. About January, 1896, Mr. Howard inade a complaint to the Government, and asked for compensation. He alleged that, owing to the construction of the before mentioned Praya Reclamation, his trade as a Godown Keeper had been injured. The matter was referred to myself by the Government to report upon. After going very carefully into the matter, taking soundings, levels and other ob- servations, extending over the whole period of the Low Spring Tides of that Season (ie., March, 1896), and also personally visiting the site many times at the very Low Spring Tides, and occasionally taking photographs, showing large cargo boats moored and discharging flour within 15 to 18 feet off the Praya Wall during some of the extremely low tides, I reported that not only had Mr. Howard's business as a Godown Keeper not been injured by the adjoining Reclamation Works, and that no silting (as he alleged) had taken place in front of his Lot, but, on the contrary, I was able to prove that these Reclamation Works, up to that time, had been of very great benefit to him, I found (and proved by photo- graphs) that at Low Water Spring Tides, cargo boats of all sizes, and containing all kinds of cargo, came up, made fast to the Old Praya Wall, and discharged and shipped cargo when they were not able to lay alongside the New Praya Wall adjoining. This was proved by the previous year (1895) turning out to be Mr. Howard's record year. They therefore did not proceed with the case.
8. Mr. Nicolle, the Government Auditor, in his Report dated 11th July, 1898, Statement B, shews that the average net annual income derived from these Godowns from 1887 to the end of 1895 inclusive, that is, for 9 years, was $10,025 which sum capitalized at 7 % equals 14.28 years' purchase, or, $143,157, I there- fore value the property in 1895 at $143,157.