646
A-Yes; at the present time the Godown in question is removed 260 feet back from the sea.
Q-Did you know anything about the silting up?
A-I know little about it. My partner made the report in this connection, but I have very little personal recollection of it.
Q-Did you know anything about it two years after 1895 ?
A-I used to pass through the locality several times at that period, but never interested myself to any extent in the matter.
Q Did you see any silting up?
A—I did not take any particular notice, as I was not looking for evidence of it; I have no definite knowledge on the subject.
Mr. POLLOCK:-Are you prepared to say of your own personal knowledge that goods are never stored in Godowns above 18 or 19 feet?
A—I am not prepared to say.
Mr. POLLOCK ----I think it is hardly likely that a practical man would instruct an Architect to build a Godown 29 fect high, if there was no advantage in having it erected above 18 or 19 feet?
A-I should say that goods are not stored more than 18 or 19 feet high.
Mr. POLLOCK:-Therefore there must be some object in building 29 feet high?
A-Presumably there is some advantage.
Mr. Pollock opens for the Crown.
4th July 1905.
MR. POLLOCK-I ain quoting a case, which Your Lordship, as Assessor, might look up. It is the Metropolitan Board of Works against Howard, 5 Times Law Reports. I will read it through [reads case through.] This, I submit, has some bearing upon the present case, and is the most recent case of this kind on record. Valuations 2 and 3 in Leigh & Orange's Report are practically beside the point.
They have valued according to the earning capacity of the Godowns, which we submit is a wrong principle to adopt.
[Court adjourned until 2 p.m., 5th July.]
5th July, 1905.
t,
MR. POLLOCK: I propose in opening on behalf of the Crown to submit taking the evidence which has been given on behalf of the Claimants, by itself they have failed in establishing their point, which is that General Black's Award of $15,000 was insufficient. I think that I shall be able to shew that, taking the evidence which has been given, and altogether excluding the evidence which can be sub- mitted on behalf of the Crown, the Claimants have failed in establishing their alleged rights, and that, as a matter of fact, they should be, what we would call in legal proceedings, non-suited, that is to say, it is unnecessary for this Tribunal to go into any evidence on behalf of the Crown, because the Claimants' case has broken down.