661
Summing up for the Crown.
Mr. POLLOCK: I do not think that I need add much now, because I have addressed you so recently pointing out what I submit is a true view of this case that, even taking my friend's view of this Tribunal having power to award com- pensation for damage through depreciation. Governor Black's Award is more than sufficient to cover the damage which has been sustained in this case. As Your Excellency pointed out just now, a good many of the figures which have been brought forward or produced by my friend have been so speculative that they do not afford any ground for this Tribunal to work on. I have already given. you figures, shewing that the statements made by the experts whowere called on behalf of the Claimants, in conjunction with the admissions made by such experts, have proved conclusively that their evidence is speculative, and caunot be accepted as a reliable guide for this Tribunal to work on. As Your Excellency will gather, the Claimants cannot shew that they have suffered any actual loss, because you will remember that the land cost Messrs. Stephens and Howard $65,000, the Buildings cost $36,000, which two sums added together make the sum of $101,000, and it is admitted on both sides that the sale effected by Mr. Stephens in 1899, namely, $110,000 was not a very good one, and the Claimants, as a matter of fact, made $9,000 on their outlay. Had they, however, held the land a little while longer, they would undoubtedly have realised considerably more. This is proved conclusively by the fact that some twelve or fifteen months afterwards this same block, was sold for $146,000. However at the time they sold for $110,000, they doubtless thought this figure a very good one, and I would sug- gest that they were misled by the very low valuation made only a month before by Messrs. Palmer & Turner. Messrs. Palmer & Turner valued the Lot in September, as put back from the sea, at only $1.50 per foot, which, I submit, is an abnormally low valuation. They valued the Lot and Buildings together at $94,000, and, in the following month, when Messrs. Howard and Stephens got the offer of $110,000, they may really have thought that they were getting $16,000 more for the land than Messrs. Palmer & Turner advised it was possible to get. Mr. Ram, one of the witnesses called on behalf of the Claimants, not only verbally but also in his Report, admitted that the price of $110,000 obtained by the Claimants was a forced one, and he further admitted, when I put the question to him, that he honestly believed that the sum of $146,000 realised on the sale of this Lot in 1900 was much nearer the true value of the land than the sum of $110,000 obtained by the Claimants in October, 1899.
Referring to Mr. Chapman's List of the Godowns which have been erected in the neighbourhood of Howard's Godowns, I submit that, in view of this big com- petition which was taking place, it was only natural that Mr. Howard's business should not be as flourishing with increased competition as it was in the days when he had things all his own way, and this further goes to shew that Marine Lot 184 was not depreciated in value owing to the silting which they allege was caused by the Reclamation, but rather to the fact of increased competition with Godowns which in construction were much more modern than those of Mr. Howard, and which, as regards location, were much more central.
From the Table of Assessments put in by the Crown, you will see that only a year after the sale by the Claimants, the assessment was raised to $10,800"; the following year it was raised to $14,935, and it continued so for the next few years; for 1905 and 1906 it stands at $15,300, and, similarly, the Table annexed to Mr. Hooper's Report, shews a gradual increase in rateable value of Godowns affected by the Reclamation. I would submit that these figures shew that these Inland Lots did not suddenly drop 50%, because there was a Reclamation in front of them. The evidence of the experts called on behalf of the Claimants cannot carry very much weight on account of its speculative nature. It is specially marked in Messrs. Leigh & Orange's Report, after giving their Valuation No. 4, which was $2.50 [reads from Report by Messrs. Leigh & Orange.] This was said by Messrs. Leigh & Orange in December, 1898, just about a month after General Black's Award, and was probably given, I should think, with reference to that Award. He remarks (immediately after valuation No. 4) that the Lot had been completely ruined for Godown purposes and was too far West for Chinese residences and shops.