Iver
dermudaR
Hole day suptteo
*'*uso call rotomar sailsace
A sude notaziones viz to no? #
madina or Bun 000,01 IK, Jund gebottom "on af et
wk and Rebf secetet al veron 94
The De A
28L VAUL MI
.000,0ÀI 132 BI
ROAAOLA KO
** breatho Tent I
Yheque wohod noelYox » 3098 410⠀
el of al cerotto anarq:28 .*
tried a nem vindantātu Borgut .*M Jod tyd dog winn
* 2WCB todo oft *
**
MY,I to staren esaj attmtse
#2001 » 0008 38 eapol & deb,bemetal apw 1,
Do? Ventout renai abor e no baal od of town as
WEBT taalt and 107 #JMLO000 engel ent
3 LIK OVna fon biworth and Bu of be
0 perc
# 2-dt med: 38 IT pikalt
94. To euier boundIGURD DIS
olen
6.
property.
422
Clause 12 deals with the loss of rents $25,142 from the 1 January 1896 to the 10th. October 1899 when the property was sold. This claim is disallowed with the remark that it should
never have been put forward. This opinion is at variance with
that of Attorney General Goodman who recognised the loss as a
proper subject of claim. Justice Fielding Clarke said that the greatest care should be exercised that no injury be inflice-
ed without adequate compensation, and Chief Justice Sir John
Carrington endorsed that dictum.
The loss of rents was caused by the Reclamation, the
Reclamation was the work of the Government, therefore, according
to the above dicta, the Government ought to pay the loss.
That there was silting Sir Matthew need only look at the
Government plan of soundings taken in 1888 and photographs
baken in 1895 and k896.
The losses had become so great in 1899 that our Counsel
advised that we were not justified in running the Godowns any
longer at a loss that would have to be claimed from the Govern-
ment, and advised the sale of the property to put a stop to
further 1088.
The same Counsel in January 1896, advised that the time
had then arrived for the assessment of compensation, and Mr.
Stephens notified the Governor, Sir William Robinson, to that
effect on 31st. January 1896; in reply to which the Colonial
Secretary wrote "that this Government denies that access to
Marine Lot No. 184 has been interfered with by the Reclamation
Works"; and this denial notwithstanding the Government was in
possession of Report and photograph showing the silting up.
By assessing the damage at this time, there would not have been any loss of rents, nor question when the Lot ceased to be
a Marine Lot.
Finally the Award is not good because based upon conjecture