left the Colony in February, 1898, pending the proceedings, and Major-General WILSONE BLACK became the Officer Administering the Government.
19. Your Petitioners' suit came on for hearing before the Full Court on the 30th March, 1898, when the Attorney General, MR. GOODMAN, informed the Court that "Certainly at the present time the Government had never said it would not take into consideration and fairly and rightly, even if only morally bound, decide as to any damage which might have occurred to Mr. HOWARD'S premises in consequence of the Reclamation Works." The Attorney General also further stated that "when the reclamation work was carried on in front of Mr. HOWARD's godown then would be the time for the investigation of the claim he had to damage by the interposition of the Reclamation Works between his godown and the harbour, and that when he made his claim for that damage the Attorney General would have no objection to his making such further claim as he could substantiate for intermediate damage caused by the alleged silting up of his foreshore during the period before the Reclamation Works actually reached the front of his premises.
20. Upon these statements of the Attorney General and at the suggestion of the Court your Petitioners consented to the further hearing of their suit being adjourned sine die.
21. Your Petitioners forwarded to the Colonial Secretary for the information of the Government, full particulars of their claims, and submitted for the inspection of the Government all their Books of Account and Vouchers.
22. Subsequently your Petitioner, the said THOMAS HOWARD had, at the request of the Government, sundry interviews with the then Director of Public Works (Mr. R. D. ORMSBY) and with the then Acting Attorney General (Mr. H. E. POLLOCK) with a view to arriving at a satisfactory settlement, but it was found impossible to come to any terms, the representatives of the Government not having offered any sum of money by way of compensation or proposed any means of settlement or any mode of hearing and adjusting your Petitioners' claim and your Petitioner the said THOMAS HOWARD was then threatened by Mr. POLLOCK that unless your Petitioners were prepared to very materially modify their views he had no option but to return all the papers to His Excellency the Acting Governor for him to award such a sum of money or such a Crown Lease of new land as he may in his absolute discretion think sufficient.
23. A short time after, your Petitioners without having seen General BLACK or being heard by him in support of their claim, and without having had any opportunity of seeing or knowing what evidence was laid before General BLACK in opposition to their claims, received from the Government what purported to be the award, under the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, of His Excellency General BLACK, by which he adjudged them the sum of $15,000 and no more, and this too notwithstanding the statement of the Attorney General before the Full Court that the Government would act fairly and rightly even if only morally bound, and would recognise a claim for intermediate loss of rents.
24. Your Petitioners applied to the Supreme Court of Hongkong in its Original Jurisdiction to set aside the award of the said General BLACK on the grounds indicated above and the said Supreme Court dismissed their said suit and refused to set aside the said award on the ground that under the provisions of section 7, sub-section 6 of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance the Governor was not in the position of an Arbitrator, had no duty imposed on him towards your Petitioners, was not called upon or empowered to exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial functions and possessed an absolute and uncontrolled discretion in the premises.
25. A Petition for Special leave to appeal from the aforesaid decision has recently been presented to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council but it was dismissed with costs against your Petitioners on the ground that the words of the Ordinance constituted the Governor the Executive Officer to award compensation, and that his decision being absolute, the rules and regulations which bind an Arbitrator over whom the Courts had jurisdiction did not apply to the Governor, and consequently no useful result would attend the granting of the application for leave to appeal.
26. Your Petitioners on the 30th day of September, 1899, after widely advertising the said Lot for sale and after offering it for sale by public auction sold their said Land and Buildings, then in fact an Inland Lot and removed from the sea front by a distance of 310 feet and by building land, for the sum of $110,000 the best price that could then be obtained for it.
27. The value of the said Marine Lot with the buildings thereon in the year 1888 before the passing of the Reclamation Ordinance was upwards of $200,000, and in the year 1895, prior to the extension of the Reclamation Works to its immediate neighbourhood, of the value of upwards of $250,000 as appears from the Declaration and Valuation of Messrs. LEIGH & ORANGE, Civil Engineers, Land Surveyors and Valuers, hereunto annexed, and by the conversion thereof into an Inland Lot by the Praya Reclamation Works it became of the value of $110,000 only, as proved by the price realized on the sale thereof as aforesaid.
28. Your Petitioners therefore suffered a loss of upwards of $140,000 in the value of their said property by the carrying out of the said Reclamation in front of their lot and during the progress of the work of Reclamation they suffered from the obstruction of their access to the sea by the silting up of the foreshore in the immediate front of their lot and by the consequent diminution of their business as shown by the statement hereunto annexed, a loss on rents of $25,142, making a total money loss to your Petitioners of upwards of the sum of $165,142 without including in this amount any consequential losses suffered by them in their business of lending and advancing money at interest on goods wares and merchandise, stored with them.
29. Your Petitioners humbly submit that an award of $15,000 made by General BLACK, under the circumstances hereinbefore stated is a wholly inadequate compensation for a proved money loss of upwards of $165,142.
30. Your Petitioners crave leave to annex and refer to copies of their correspondence with the Government of Hongkong and with the officers of that Government in connection with their said claims from the 27th day of March, 1889, to the 25th day of November, 1898, and to copies of documents in the Appendix.
31. Under the above circumstances your Petitioners feel they are justified in approaching Your Majesty in order that your Majesty may direct that they may be awarded full and fair compensation for the losses they have sustained as before mentioned but which your Petitioners are unable to obtain except by Petition to Your Majesty.
And your Petitioners most humbly pray That YOUR MAJESTY may be most graciously pleased to grant this their humble Petition and Direct that such Compensation and Relief may be granted to them in the premises as to YOUR MAJESTY may seem just.
And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, &c., &c.
(Sgd.) MATTHEW J. D. STEPHENS.
THOS. HOWARD,
Dated Hongkong, 22nd May, 1903.
686