664
APPENDIX D.
QUESTIONS PUT BY THE GOVERNOR TO THE JUDICIAL
ASSESSOR AND HIS ANSWERS THERETO.
Question 1. Should the capitalized value of the net rentals obtained from the property or the value of the land and of the buildings on it, as deduced from the evidence, be taken as the value of the property before the reclamation in front of it?
Answer. The value of the land and of the buildings on it, as deduced from the evidence, should be taken as the value of the property before the reclamation in front of it.
Question 2.-If the former, should the net annual rentals be taken :-
(1.) From what would have been received in any year on the assumption that the full storage capacity of the Godowns was utilized, as proposed in Messrs. Leigh & Orange's Valuation No. 2 of the 28th December, 1898; or
(2.) As what was received in the year 1895, as proposed in Messrs. Leigh & Orange's Valuation No. 3 of the 28th December, 1898; or
(3.) As the average of the receipts for the years 1887 to 1895, as proposed in Mr. W. Danby's statement, dated the 10th June, 1905; or
(4.) From the Valuation of the Assessor of Rates as given in the state-
ment of Mr. A. Chapman, dated the 15th June, 1905 ?
Answer.-Should, however, the capitalised value of the net rentals obtained from the property be taken as the value of the property, then the net annual rentals. should be taken as the average of the receipts for the years 1887 to 1895, as proposed in Mr. Danby's statement, dated the 10th June, 1905.
Question 3.-In the first three cases, dealt with in the last preceding paragraph, should the net rentals be arrived at by inaking the deductions from the gross rentals given by Mr. T. Howard, or by making in addition the deductions proposed by Mr. H. C. Nicolle in his statement dated the 11th July, 1898 ?
Answer. The net rental should be arrived at by making the deduction proposed by Mr. H. C. Nicolle in his statement dated the 11th July, 1898.
Question 4. Should the amount for which the property was sold by Messrs. Howard and Stephens on the 10th October, 1899, or the capitalized value of the property as deduced from subsequent assessments, or the value of the land and of the buildings on it, as deduced from the evidence, be taken as the value of the lot after the reclamation in front of it?
—
Answer. The value of the land and of the buildings on it, as deduced from the evidence, should be taken as the value of the property after the reclamation in front of it; the amount for which the property was sold by Messrs. Howard and Stephens on the 10th October, 1899, forming part of such evidence.
Question 5.---The statement of claim includes 10% of the full value of the pro perty before the reclamation was carried out for "compulsory purchase." This claim was abandoned by the claimants' counsel at the hearing. Should it, or any part of it, be taken into consideration in the award ?
Answer-I think that the claim of 10% was abandoned by the claimants' counsel without due consideration; and, the case put by the Crown on this point not being sufficiently strong, it would be unfair to deprive the claimants of this percentage, if they are otherwise entitled to it.