his illegal practicas, the minute the Sani. tary Board put its hands on these objectionable places the rents would certainly go down, and ihat is the main reason that this class of property holders is so bitterly opposed to sanitary restrió- tions. I again respectfully call the attention of the Board to the Public Health Ordinance 24 of 1887, section 67, which makes an overorowded domestic building a public nuisance, and also to section 75, where those who so overcrowd are liable to a fine not exceeding $50 and, in default of payment, to imprisonment not exceeding one month. I know it has been intimated that the officials are to blame for allowing these abases to continue, bat, while I dispute that statement, I call the attention of the Board to the fact that we had not sufficient authority until now to Carry out the spirit of the law, although much might be said on that subject at another time. In the future, however, a different state of things will prevail and the law will be enforced, provided we have the support of the courts, and the first thing in the accomplishment of this desired end is the curtailment of the overcrowding, since tho only way to reach these individuals is through their pockets. When they realise that their entire property and income may be endangered they will have to be content with smaller returns and live within the law. In all these discussions Î hava no personal interest whatever to serve and I wish there were some other way out of the difficulty, and, while I am here to help the Board in every way I can, yet I must say that I see no justification in either law or justice that those landlords should receive more than the value of their land and of the materials in their buildings. I recall to your Lordship and hon. members of the Board the 53rd and 54th of Victoria, saction 41, which says the compensation shall be a fair amount of damages without any extra allowande, evidently the spirit of the law here being that the man shall in a sense be punished for maintain- ing a publio nuisance. And he would be stopped from disputing the fairness of the returns, for they were sent in by himself at a time when there was no object in his trying to create a false impression.
Mr. H. L. Dennys-Your Lordship, I must take exception to some of the inferences of the learned counsel. The section of the Ordinance should be read to the end, where special em- phasis is placed on the words "fall and fair compensation." Now that means "full and fair," not something essentially unfair. My client purchased the property for $20,000 hard cash and that fact is beyond dispute. He also earns thereon 8 per cent, and we have no right to im. peach bis veracity in regard to these state. ments, that were so clearly shown to be cor- reot. Now is 8 per cent. an unreasonable amount for a man to earn on property in Taipingsban? There were no cocklofis in the premises at the time he let them and when he received $30 a month for them, and mezzanide Aoors have been in buildings practically without restriction ever since the beginning of the Colony. It is barely possible the floors may extend a foot or two too much, but that is easily remedied. The learned counsel says that the Government is not responsible for the wide prevalence of this state of things; but if it is not, I si odd like to know who is responsible. These bundings, too, are almost new and it is not fair and reasonable compensation to value. them at such figures as the Government has seen hit to do. The landlord does not wish to have this property taken from him; he prefers to keep it, but, if he must part with it, he Is entitled to a fair and reasonable compensation. He paid $20,000 for it when the dollar was worth nearly twice as much as it is to-day. If the houses wore, as the Government claims, in an insanitary condition, he should have been notified, but he has never received any such in- liuation. There is a period of depression now that extends more or less over the entire civilised world and that has been emphasised here by our special disasters, but in a reasonably short tima these hard times will pass away and better days come, and property is sure to enhance in value.
559
Suob property owners as have means and can wait especially when they are earning a fair return on their investment, think they have an excellent cbaace for a good speonlation in holding and have no desire to sell. It is therefore manifestly na fair to take the property at the lowest valua. tion. It is a serius reflection on the future of the colony. This landlord has been twelve years in this colony and has made the valuation of property and the buying and selling of same his special study. Is it then reasonable to sup. pose that he did not know what he was doing when be purchased this piece and that he paid It was evidently a aa excessive price for it? carefully considered investment on his part and he believed the property would have a steadily increasing value.
His Lordship-Yes, but you must remember that your argument outs both ways. If he is to expect 8 per cent., the number of years allowed in the compensation will be correspondingly diminished.
Mr. Dennys-I understand that, and we are not asking for 8 per cent net. He gets only 8 per cent gross now. As your Lordship will remembor, I made this claim on a different principle from that generally discussed here in the presentation of claims.
to
Mr. Deason-I also object, your Worship, Some of the theories advanced by the Attorney-General. The Government cannot elaim overcrowding and then claim deduction for vacancies. They osanot blow bot and cold.
It may be the private opinion of the learned counsel for the Governisent that the Government is not obliged to exercise supervision in such matters, but, certainly, so far as I have ever been able to see, the law has long been otherwise. The Government by its laches bas permitted this overcrowding to grow up and con- tinne here from the earliest days of the colony and now all at once, without any notice to land. lords, it proposes to initiate reforms and to panish as it were these men of property who have done so much to build the city. for having done that which the Goretament did not object to.
Mr. Maitland (whoss vans by mistake was given in the report of the first session of the Board as Mr. Nathan) was then recalled as a witness and was asked if he know of the existence of a second agreement made by Mr. Palmer, bat he said he did not.
CHAN KWAI, CLAIM NO. 10.
The next caso called was that of Chan Kwai Claim No. 10, represented by Mr. C. D. Wilkin- 800. In answer to some of the preliminary ques- tions raised by counsel for the claimsat, his Lordship said the Board would decide them on Monday when they took up the other matters they then expected to decide.
This is a claim for lots 27 and 95 Squaca Street. The claim is $6,830, based on the report of their own valutator of the property, who values it at $7,392, The Government offer ie $3,339. The owner refused $3,000 for the land soon after par- chasing it and since then had declined an offer of $3,600 from Mr. Palmer. The rentals of the small house were not returned to the assessor before for last year, bat for the year
nor.
they amounted to $140, or about $11 a mouth.
Mr. Leigh was then called and said that be bad examined the property and that he esti. mated the small house to be worth $2.430, exolu- sive of the 10 per cent, for forced sale, and that ho arrived at the valuation in the following man- He did not think the ordinary method of procedare applied in this case because the proper ty on which the small house stood was not fully developed, and to arrive at a proper value it should be compared with surrounding property, and then add the value of the old material on the ground, taking the value of the square foot at $1. To find what would be a fair value of the property. if developed, he sompared it with the property of Mr. Palmer near by, of which he had ascertained the rentals and knew the purchase price and felt that Mr. Palmer, in making such investment understood what he was doing and would only buy where he felt sure there was a bargain.