626
the pier for which Government was responsible was of little consequence as it could have been restored at a cost of about $50, and the portion referred to which was in a dilapidated condition was removed by the owners themselves and not by order of the Government.
(3) The Reclamation has not yet been actually commenced on "the portion" of the Praya foreshore in which the wharf is situated and the use of the wharf has not been interfered with. In accordance therefore with the provisions of section 8 of Ordinance No. of 1893 the compensation payable is not yet due.
Considering that the Petitioners had no claim of right to compensation in respect of the removal of the wharf beyond that suggested in the Praya Reclamation.