t
U
40 as dec
I me, to Ɛ dysi 313ų „ tunatuî.1 Lui?
S
vid:
t
}
0
108 9.
17
loe Mo
213 Pequo0 05
96 Lives and ɣller ai. J I
COPY.
14.
336
F. B. L. Bowley, Esq.,
Hongkong, 22nd. February, 1911.
mit
Dear Sir,
NG B
2 ore JJ
de avu
C BOUUR
91T
4 m. se at os
minio tuo ai
1. A COLL ,-,,。,,, (8)
Crown Solicitor,
Kowloon Marine Lots 29, 30 and 31.
In reply to paragraphs 1 and 2 of your leter of the 7th. February so far as we understand them, we gather that
the Government maintain the alteration of levels which has taken place was made for the purpose of such works as were necessary to constitute the Harbour of Refuge, but we have to point out that when the alteration of levels was carried into effect the
question of the Harbour of Refuge had not materialized and that such alteration in levels took place, not with a view to the works authorised by the Harbour of Refuge Ordinance, but with reference to the development of the Kowloon Peninsula by the
reclamation of the area of the seabed to the west of the above lots. We refer you to the letters you wrote to the omers of these lots on the 6th. June, 1906. It is therefore clear that no
such alteration of levels can be deemed to have been carried
out as accessory to the works authorised as defined by paragraph 4 section 4 of the Ordinance since, when such alteration took place, the works authorised were not in contemplation and there- -fore Section 7 of the Ordinance is superfluous.
Our clients contend that their houses have
been depreciated by the alteration of levels. They have no objection to their claim to compensation in this respect being considered by the Tribunal appointed under Section 12 so long as the Government admit that, if that Tribunal is of opinion depreciation has taken place, then compensation will be payable under that Section. Your letter under reply seems to indicate that it is so admitted, but it is necessry to get the point entire
-ly