624
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :—I hold that the Ordinance says that the Governor shall not compensate for loss owing to the works. It was at a man's own option to come into the Works, and, if he did not come into the Works, then that was his own loss. [Refers to Chief Justice Carrington's Judgment.]
Mr. CALTHROP-I quite agree that on that Section we have no legal claim, but the Section I rely on is sub-section 6 [quotes Section.] I admit that we have no legal right; we merely rely upon the mercy of the Governor. There was to be no appeal to any legal tribunal.
HIS EXCELLENCY:-What do you consider was the object of that?
Mr. CALTHROP:-It was to save time and trouble, and to have things as simple as possible. I am going to refer to the Petition of Right in Suit 94 of 1899 paragraph 8, [reads from l'etition.] I will now read the answer of the Government [reads para, 5 of Answer.] This answer was filed on the 16th day of May, 1900, and I want to call Your Excelleny's attention to the basis on which they valued our loss at that time. They said, in answer to our Petition, that the land was only worth $2 per foot at the time, instead of $5, and then they went on to say that the whole together was only worth $101,000.
HIS EXCELLENCY :- I see that you valued your own loss at the time at $90,000 for depreciation and that you value it now in the Statement of Claim at $172,000. The land with buildings thereon before the reclamation work were carried out was formerly valued at $200,000 and now is put at $282,000.
Mr. CALTHROP :-With the buildings thereon we admit a value of about $200,000.
HIS EXCELLENCY:-$172,000 instead of $90,000 is a considerable alteration.
Mr. CALTHROP :-That was based on the valuation which had been made.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :-That was based on what he thought the value was.
HIS EXCELLENCY:-Was the valuation of $200,000 made before or after the valuation of $282,000 ?
In
Mr. CALTHROP:-One is $225,000, and the other estimate is $280,000. the evidence before Your Excellency, you will notice there is a great difference between the valuations; that valution of $282,000 was made by Messrs. Leigh & Orange. The other is simply a valuation made by Mr. Howard.
He was estimating it on a monthly rental. He first states that he lost $25,000 on rent, and then goes on to say about the depreciation. There he valued it at $200,000, because he had an offer in the year 1888 of $200,000.
We are quite prepared to prove this offer, only the Crown have .objected strongly to our bringing in oral evidence. I was going to point out that in this estimate I admit there is a difference, but there is also a very great inconsistency with the estimate on which the Government land based the $15,000; I am refer- ring to paragraph 5. They there admit that we suffered some loss during the construction of the reclamation. They also go on to say that there has been depreciation in value, that the total value of the land is only $2 per square foot, and with the buildings about $101,000. If the Government at that time were correct in their estimate, it is quite clear that we lost nothing at all by the diminution, if I may call it, of the capital value of the property, but the only loss suffered was from the interference with our business while the works were going on. They paid us at that time $15,000, and, as I pointed out, we suffered no loss on the capital value. The $15,000 was offered to us while the Praya Reclamation Works were going on. I was going on to say that since then a further amount was offered to us on the basis that the square foot value of the land was only $2. If it had been $3, it seems to be perfectly clear that the sum they ought to have paid us, in addition, was another $1 on the foot, which would have been a sum of $32,800. Now, I refer again to the Report which has been made by Mr. Danby, and I should like to refer to paragraph 9. In paragraph 9, Mr. Danby on behalf