Com
}
416
But what I seek partecelarty to impress upon you, Ser, is you. this that at any stage of my wakes whether on rccasion of the first, second or third interruptions, the result of an advise decision
under the law must have been the same _
new
one, even
the
though
day it
namely to was an absolute forfeiture of all the materials at stake. I will be judged by the ordinance itself, whether upon the Suwayor General proving any contravention of it, however immaterial, own. that contravention be an acpost fact me, though it be the Contra_ vention of a Specification that was not in existance on was contravened - whether, (Irepeat with all respect) upon his proving the simplest contravention, he does not become entitled to have the work in progress adjudged
a muisance, and all its materials _ placed at his absolute discretion" ? (be Sictim 17 of Ordinance No & of 18567 Surely, Ser, such bung the law, it was of very material Consequence to me on occasion of the first interruption of 23. May to rescue the basement stories of my three buildings from the absolute discretion of the Surveyor General. If that first interruption " had consisted of a notice or a caution or an official warning of
hof 1856
any
his
[ in connexson with Section to of
$12
c
Kind and I had disobeyed it, the consequences might fairly be Chargeable on omnyoun obstinacy, but I present the fact to youe, under
sun hand and upon outh that he me no notice n
gave whatever (see Depositions of 3th June, appended, as Waining
contrasted with the Surveyn Generals report upon the case quoted in Colonial Secutary's letter N° 765 of 22th October that Thuilt in defiance of repeated warnings . May I further comment one
fact in this deposition. If the Surveyor General could
one more
not
As
he
alleges" find the Contrada inthe case he might have found myself the registered moner.
residing on the very peremises )
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.