366
3. Your petitioners' reasons for this view are as follows:--
Section 3 of the Glasgow Act incorporates the Land Clauses Acts, the effect whereof is that an owner who sustains damage by the exercise of any powers in the special Act is entitled to compensation. Upon this point we could refer Your Excellency to the authorities of CRIPT'S on Compensation, page 112, where it is said that "although the special Act contains no substantive provision, the Lands Clauses Act 1845, taken as a whole, gives the owner of land (which includes houses) injuriously affected a right to compensation;" and of the case R. v. Saint Lukes', L.R. 7 Q.B., page 148, in which Chief Baron KELLY says "I am clearly of opinion, and I do not think it is open to any reasonable doubt, that the numerous provisions in the earlier part of the Lands Clauses Act 1845 clearly, directly, expressly and necessarily confer a title to compensation."
Part 6 of the Glasgow Act limits the height of buildings, and divides them into two classes -those which are not to be used as dwelling houses and those which are, With regard to the first class the Act recognises (in section 60) the vested interest of the owner of an existing building which exceeds the limited height by allowing him to re-erect it to its actual height. A similar provision is contained in The Building Ordinance 1901 at present in force here. In this case of course no right to compensation arises. But with regard to the second class, that is to say dwelling houses, the Act, presumably from motives of sanita- tion, forbids (in section 61) such an owner re-erecting to the original height, and therefore leaves him to his general right to compensation beforementioned.
4. Whether in Hongkong the owner's interest should be preserved by thus classifying buildings, and alternatively allowing re-erection to the former height or compensation, or whether in all cases alike such re-erection should be prohibited and compensation paid, is a point which your petitioners wish to leave wholly to Your Excellency and the Legislative Council. They however respectfully urge that the right is one which ought to be fully recognised.
5. Mr. SHARP, K.C., who has been acting for your petitioners, has laid this statement of the law before the Attorney General, and your petitioners understand that the Attorney General agrees therewith.
I have the honour to be
Your Excellency's most obedient servant,
A. SHELTON HOOPER,
For the Petitioners.