;
!
>
Meeting held on the 28th December 1894.
TAIPINGSHAN RESUMPTION ARBI-
TRATION BOARD.
The Taipingsban Arbitration Board, composen of His Hobour Mr. E. J. Ackroyd, Acting Übet Justice (Chairman), Mr. E. F. Alford, and Mr. W. Danby, with Mr. A. Seth as secretary, sat again yesterday and proceeded with the considera- tion of compensation cases.
Several claims aro submitted, but judgment was reserved in all
Hon. W. M. Goodman, the Attorney-General D assisted by Hon. F. A. Cooper, Dirocton of-C Public Works, and Mr. A. B. Johnson, Cròwa
(.0.
7326
Nos. 56, 58 and 60 Sq tare 3ireet.
Mr. C. D. Wilkinson represented the claimant, The China Fira Insurance Co, mortgagees of the property, ware represented by Mr. J. B. Coughtrie, Secretary,
It appeared from the evidence of the claimant that he bought the property for $3 300 two years go. Que of the houses had since been barned down and another damaged. The thras warƏ Ensured for $240), and he received $95 from the insurance company. He spent $1,200 in rebuilding.
His Lordship-You bought these houses for $5,300 two years ago and you now claim $7.30.
Solicitor, appeared for the Government in all 21 R bm you not be satis d if you get your 85,30019
the cases, while diffrent goanssi appeared for the different claimanta.
On opening the Court His Lordship said that before beginning he wished to remark that the Board bad decided that the fairest way to determine the compensa- tion value was to base it on the rental value, but the question was, which rental it should be ? Should they take the highest rental, or the lowest rental, or an average rental, or the one just before the plague? They thought in determining this the location of the house and its past and its prospects and as many other con ditions as possible should be taken into cou sideration, and on that plan they would proceed with the hearing of the cases.
And here, since it will have so important bearing on the discussion of all the cases that follow, we condenss from the proceedings of the last session of the Board some of the most im portaat points in the remarks of the Attorney. General, in order that the position of the Go- vernment may be better indicated. We uador. stand that the Attorney General, in his opening speech,argued that the Lands Clauses Act was not a proper home Act on which to base the present inquiry; hat the right Act for this purpose was the Act commonly known as the Housing of the Poor Act of 180, and he believed it was upon this Act the Taipingshan Resumption Ordia- anoe had been framed. He drew the special attention of the Board to the section of the home Act which dealt with componsation in respect of dwellings which were overcrowded or occupied for illegal purposes or in any way formed a naisanoo. The learned Counsel also drew the attention of the Board to the recital in the local Ordinance and the reason given therein for the necessity of resursing, namely, that certain portions of the said district have been found to be in a highly insanitary condition. He also drew attention to the words "full and fair compensa, tion" in saction 5 and pointed out that these words were apparently taken from the old Crown leases, which provide that the land demised may be resumed by the Crown, upon payment of full and fair cousideration," to be assessed by the Director of Public Worka. He further mentioned that though, by the Ordinance, no compensation was to be allowed to any sub lessee or tenant, in the case of any house untit from any case for human habitation, and that owners were exempted from this dedustion, yet it appeared to him that the Board should have been empowered to treat owners on the same basis in this respect as that on which sub- lessees or tenants are treated.
The method of procedure in each case is now fired and the investigations move along rapidly. First, the rentals are looked inta, examining therefor both the witnesses fve the plaintiff and the records of the assessor's office, and then any olher person that can throw any light on what would be a fair rental. In this inquiry there is the closest sorating into the differences between the amounts sent in by the cisimants from year t year and the amount assess d by the assessor, Secondly, having taken all the testimony available on the question of rental, the Board next investigates the value of the build- ings on the property, including and excluding foundation, taking tax entries, insurance policies, aud any other tenstworthy record that bars on the matter. Thirdly, the value of the hare gronad is looked into. Theo, fourthly, all the dduations that should be made from the gross income are considored, such as taxes. re in- surance, Crown rent, ropairs and malutonance, expense of collection of rent expenditure necas sary to put buildings in proper condition to last the number of years allowed for in the capi. talisation, and whatever other items each case may call for. Copious notes are taken by each member of the Board and by counsel on both sides.
The fat case taken up yesterday was claim No. 5, being Nos,
56.60 SQUARE STREET.
Ng Tan How oliimed $7.550 in respot of
Witness-I should be satisfld if I get $5,100. His Lordship-I dare say you would. Mr. K. Ligh rave his valuation of the properly at $7,155, exclusive of the 10 per cent. for forced sale.
Mr. J. B. Coughtrie-I lent $4.000 on this property on the 3rd January, 1892.
Had you any valuation of the property made -The matter was negotiated by Mr. Tomlin in my abs-nos. We don't call it a survey. but the asual examination of the property was made. I find the property was sold on 13th December, 1830, for $5,400; on the 4th July, 1987. $5.800; the next sale was made without my knowledge, after the mortgage, to the pressat possessor for $5.300. I looked at the bailding myself.
According to what you saw, what was it worth? I should value it at a little over $6,000. I did so in 1892.
What did you base your calentations upon ? The rentals were given to my office, when the application for mortgage was made, at $711.60 per aunum. Mr. Tomlin waited upon Mr. Chap man, the assessor, and found the assessed value The dis. of the property was $60 per annum. crepancy between that and the rental return was vory slight for Chinese property,
You base 36 009 on this rental of $711.60 per auna P-No; on $610.
You have had experience in valuing property; what is the principle on which you go P-Iq getting at what would be a safe sam to lend Í ahould ascertain the exact rentals. I should require these rentals to yield as much again as the juterest of the loan would come to. It depends on circumstances.
Is that gross rental ?-The net rental.
Auy allowance for vacancies ?-I would take the rent book and see what the property had yielded.
Say a net rental of $100 per month; what would you value a property as being worth - would calculate apon how much it is worth to laal money upon whether I could entertain the proposal or not.
Suppose it brought in a aet rental of $100; how much would you land on it -It would pay interest on $17,500 or $18,000. You might lend $10,000 on it.
In the case of this property the houses were valued at $2,400 for insurance purposes by the company's surveyors and you de lact that from the last price at which the property changed hands; that leaves the foundations and the land aloge at the very moderate price of $1.88 per font.
To the Attorney-General-I lent $1,000 ou the property at 7 per cent.
To Mr. Wilkinson-We were not asked to lead more in this case than $1000
If asked you might have lout more ?-Yes; wo might. In making oar onloulations we calculate apon what the property would fetuh on a forced sale.
To the Attorney General -T do not think 34 per cent, on the gross rental would be enough for ropairs for the next fourteen or fifteen years for these houses.
Hon. F. A. Cooper, who had personally in- spected the property, estimated the present value at $4,284, bat in consideration of certain circumstances hat offered $5 855.
The second case taken up was that of Mr. A. J. May in claims 1 and 13. Ha was repre- sented by Mr. C. D. Wilkinson. Basing his claim on estimates made in a manner analogous to that used in the foregoing case, he claimed to be entitled to 36 754. and in any event to $6 500, while the Government had offered only $4,39. Mr. Leigh was then called as witness and said that he valued the property at $6,140 plus 10 per cent. That the property was fully developed and in good condition. The renta had been for 1892 $510, for 1-93 $470; for for 189+ $470; making a total for the three years of $1.450, which divided he 3 would give an average rental $188.33; or for convenienos way $480. which capitalised would give 86 140. He said that the property had not depreciated magh, The Crowe rent was $10% taxa 962 PR:
556