548
0)
appeal
of afeed. It must be remembered that there is by section 12 no from the Boardé decisions and that
wspaper reports were
nerally
rally the
extremely meagre . Personally, Parqued that the Bourd was bound to go into the likes, though the argument is not reported.
A second question which early engaged the attention of the Board and upon which it was asked for a tuling
was whether claines for co- pensation could be heard until after the preparation and publication of the list mentioned in s. £. 3 of sect. of Ordinance 8 of 1894, because such list was, for the purposes of any elain for compervation, to be prima facio evidence of the facts therein stated and set forth.
Moreover in
settling
the mode
of determining claims for compen- sation of owners, section 13 of the
same
same Ordinance distinctly refers to
deductions which
might
ht be made in
respect of
the
age,
character etc. of
the houses and has evident relation
to s. S. 2 of section 6, whilst section 14 directly mentions the list + publisher under the provisions of section 6 of
"this Ordinance."
The Board however pulled that the arbitration could proceedtiiv. dependently of the publication of the list adverted to, with the result that, in several cases, the prima facivevi. dence which would have been of cor
reason
siderable help to Government by of its bes
been furnished by in-
having -dependent surveyors appointed by the Board, was not ready when the.
the Go-
vernment offers had to be made. However, as this prima facie evidence would have been usually contradicted by surveyors called on witnesses, the matter because of he importance;
avt