་
629
depreciation. It means that there may be causes for which a man may come ad miserecordiam, but it shews that there must be some special cause existing for consideration in their case, and a special cause cannot be compensation for depreciation. It is for them to say what this cause is. It cannot be depreciation, because the Ordinance says he is not to have it. It may cost him more to work his Godowns, and, while you do not give him any compensation for depreciation, you give him compensatiou for extra work, and, further, were the Governor to grant him compensation for depreciation, then the Governor would be doing that which is wrong, because the Ordinance says distinctly that he is not to do it. The Ordinance says--[reads from Ordinance.] It is not a case of compulsory sale. These people had an opportunity of coming into the Scheme and they would not do it. They say they have incurred heavy losses; their loss is, firstly, through their own action, and, secondly, by their want of judgment in selling the property for $110,000, which very shortly afterwards sold for $146,000. This Ordinance was for a mutual co-operative scheme, in which the Lot-holders took advantage by coming into the scheme. The property belongs to the man; if it depreciates in value he is entitled to be compensated for it. Therefore, the position was this in 1889, and any supposed right which Mr. Stephens had was declared by Section 6 of the Old Ordinance to be absolutely and entirely extin- guished. This silting did not take place until after that. I say that, even if this Ordinance was not passed, he could not get any damages unless the property belonged to him. He is not a riparian owner; his rights therefore properly are enclosed within the 4 corners of the boundary, and one of those is the sea. Praya is a Portuguese word, which means "Road." The Assessor will bear me out in saying that this boundary was in existence years before his Lease was granted. Therefore, how can the Petitioners possibly claim to have any rights over the foreshore? I would refer you to 13 Appeal Cases, page 192. a case in the Privy Council, in which there was a Petition of Right against the Government of the Straits Settlements. It was held in that case that the Petitioner, by virtue of his tenement, had the same right of access to the sea as a riparian owner had in respect of a river-[reads from the Attorney General of the Straits Settlements v. Wemyss, 13, Appeal Cases, page 192.] These gentlemen are not in occupation of land adjoining the sea; they are in occupation of land adjoining the road. In arguing for them, Sir Horace Levy argued that as the land adjoined the sea with a frontage thereto, the Respondent had a private right of access to the
Sir Horace impressed this upon their Lordships.
sea.
The
That was
HIS EXCELLENCY:-Was it in the power of the Government to give compensa- tion for depreciation through reclamation of the foreshore?
·
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:-You certainly cannot give it for depreciation and, if General Black did give it for depreciation, then I contend that he had done what he was told not to do by the Ordinance. Here, in the case of Attorney General, Straits Settlement, v. Wemyss, the point was that the owner had a private right of access. Lord Hobhouse in giving judgment says the land was bounded by the sea. In the present ease the Claimants' property was not bounded by the sea, but by the road. But, in Wemyss' case, because it was bounded by the sea, he had the right. If the Claimants could establish that they were riparian owners, then they would have the right of access which is accorded to riparian owners. Again, my learned friend would say that the right of access applied to Marine Lots, and not to given boundaries; but, when you give a general description, then they have no right whatever to land on the other side of the road. The quantum of Petitioners' legal rights is very important in estimat- ing the quantum of compensation if they have any legal right. You cannot enforce the legal right to an equitable right. My point is that Stephens never had any right of access to the sea. They have not riparian rights. It is submitted that no case has been shewn by the Petitioners to substantiate their claim for compensation. I wish to say this that it is manifest these works were being done. by the Government for the general assistance of the Public, and it bears upon this general question of the Reclamation Works. They referred yesterday to some letters written by the Colonial Secretary in 1888, stating that a certaiù principle of compensation had been laid down. I now hold that the Colonial Secretary's letter must be controlled by the Ordinance. The superior document controls the latter. Again, there is the fact that in October, 1903, the Government offered
some money.