611
had little, if any, earning power, and that from this earning power alone the true value of the property could be found.
He also took the values of the land as a Marine Lot @ $3 per foot and as an Inland lot at $2 per foot, at one and the same time in the year 1898, when rents had decreased to $8,845 from $15,406 in 1895.
He allowed nothing for the difference in value between the cost of the buildings $36,000, and the enhanced value of $50,000 as given by the Experts for the Crown.
And he disallowed claim for the loss of intermediate rents, which the Judicial Assessor has stated was a proper subject for compensation and could be awarded under the Ordinance.
He made an Award of $35,729 from conjecture only, without a single fact in support and against all the facts in evidence.
Whereas our claim is $197,142, based upon net rentals of $15,406 in 1895 before rents began to decrease, capitalised at 162/3 years purchase for a Crown Lease of 999 years, with 10% added, giving $282,000 as the value of the property in 1895, as stated and affirmed under Statutory Declaration, by Messrs. Leigh and Orange, Architects and Surveyors; less $110,000 the sale value of the property, as an Inland Lot in 1899, when rents had decreased to $4,308 for 283 days to the 10th October in that year, the Property was sold; leaving a difference in value of $172,000 which with $25,142 for loss of intermediate rents, make a total loss of $197,142.
when
9. Such a difference in our claim of $197,142 based upon facts, and the Award of $35,729 arrived at from conjecture