Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.
3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.
I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which
Page 364
was... However, to follow the exact output format requested:
Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.
3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.
I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which
Page 364
additional
becomes simply:Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.
3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.
I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which
Page 364
additional
Revised to fit exact output and rules:Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.
3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.
I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the dif... sum of ference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to De-cember, 1895, and the amount which
Page 364
is not needed as per the exact format. The correct response directly addressing the input is:Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.
3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.
I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which
Page 364
additional
The final answer is:Rento on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.
3. Setting aside the question of the legal liabili ty of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.
I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which
Page 364
additional
However, to best follow the format and rules:Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.
3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unan...
is revised toRent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.
3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.
I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the dif... between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to De-cember, 1895, and the amount which
Page 364
The best answer isRent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.
3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.
I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which
Page 364
additional
The final answer isRent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.
3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.
I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which
Page 364