14
claim against the Government for breach of the Agreement of 26th October, 1922, in respect of the works and undertakings on the part of the Government, but no claim had been formul- ated.
It will be seen that the reentry or forfeiture was found- ɛd on default by the Company in payment of the one-quarter premium above referred to. It now appears that although all the building Lots and approaches had been formed and handed over to the Company the entire area in accordance with the development plans had not been formed, there being a small portion of the recreation ground on the north west corner of the site that had been left unformed so as to provide
for storm-water drainage The Director of Public Works
expresses the opinion that as far as possible the recreat- ion ground was completed on the 11th April, 1928, and that the lack of further formation could in no way interfere with or affect the Company in completing the buildings on tile Lots.
•
Further formation has in fact been carried out since the 11th April, 1928, and since the reentry.
The recreation ground is certainly part of the entire area, and a portion for which premium has been paid and is payable, and which is taken into account in apportioning the Crown rent to the respective Lots. The Agreement of the 26th October, 1922, stipulated that although the recreation ground was to be handed over to the Crown on completion of the scheme, the amount of premium and Crown rent which would be payable if a Crown Lease thereof were issued was to be borne and paid pre rata by the Lots.
The reentry deprived and was intended to deprive the Company of the right to resort to the land and buildings for recovery of the balance of cost claimed, but did not take away from the Company any right of action against the subscribers under the respective agreements with them.