alleged damage caused by the fire
The case is exceedingly simple, though the Petition and the Engineer's Reply are cumbersome with much repetition.
Petitioners request to inform that P.W. sees no reason to interfere in the matter.
(IN. Stephens is a crotchetty & rather stupid shyster)
1344
The petitioners herein have a wharf extending out into the harbour. This wharf must be removed to make way for the new quay. They are entitled to compensation above $22,000, & be paid within 6 months after the commencement of the work in front of their lot. The works are not yet begun but they are proceeding in front of Lot 185.
Owing to the faulty construction of the wharf, the stones laid down in the foundation of the three piers in front of Lot 185 forced up the mud under some of the piers or lifted a corner of the wharf.
The Engineers' plan: Stones upon this comment in 24 hours the piers have protruded about 6 inches; some have settled back to their original level.
But the Petitioners asked how to operate, and whether there would be no further injury.
Sharp was concerned by the works. The portion of the wharf, which was allowed to remain for the convenience of the owners, was rapidly deteriorating. The Petitioners assert that it was removed by the Government. The works had done damage and deprived them of its use.
The Government disputes the S.St.'s authority to interfere; but the question is really as to the holding of the facts under Section 8(b) of Ordinance 7 of 1893.
This is a matter upon which the S.St. is not an authority. Samples 818/1579.
I have not read all these papers. Joseph D.W. Branson spins a yarn as he supposes.
R. 149
Page 623
Sham not read all these papers. Janeph D.W. Bracuston spinin Replen ae he suppesto.
R. 149
becomes
alleged damage caused by the fir
The case is exceedingly simple, though the Petition & the Engineer's Reply language
Petitimers
are cumbersome with much
& repetition. ? Request for to inform that P. ft. see no reas interfere in the matter
I suit ape-
W.7.10 Sef.
(IN. Stephens is a crotchetty & rather stirpil shiitor)
1344
The petitioned herein het of fatetting out into the harbours. This wharf must be umonia to the to make way for the an Traya : thing are suithet to compensation aboue op 22000, & be paid within 6 months after the Commencement of the cooker in front of their lot. The works are out yet begun but they are pranding in front of Lot 185: Owing to the faulty construction of the Whare the stones laid down in the foundation of the three infront
at this hout
Gde 18hrs
If 185 forced up the mud under dorme of the piers or liftes a corn ofthe wharf- The Enginess pland, Stones upon this comment in 24 hours the piers have Profgheden barth 6 inches, a women som have setumes to their original level.
But the Petitions asked how to upora
⭑No
+ no further injury
Sharp
was cancer by the works. The fort Engines days
Potion of the Wharf, which was allows:
tend y
• was Rilapidatie Pion Umow
-
for the Conveniener of the owners: While
Gartlemen assert that it was removed hanus. The works had do damage
deprive them of its use, what dus mulle mom to an
and as their lot was this brought within the fiments of the Melamin
the sharp as to deprive them of it.
immediate payount of the 44 22 ore Compensation, when farts and ther
dispute the S.St. Cannot interfere; but (shaters may or the facts the
Guestion
oney law
her
is wally as to the holdning
.Ad
they facts ut om 8(b) of ordinana 7.993
dection
& this is a matten upon which the 5.57s. is
A
duisin. Samples 8181579
S.
akt
fin
AM
anthontation 1770
623
Sham not read all these papers. Janeph DW. Bracuston spinin Replen
ae he suppesto.
R. 149
is rewritten asalleged damage caused by the fire
The case is exceedingly simple, though the Petition and the Engineer's Reply are cumbersome with much repetition.
Petitioners request to inform that P.W. sees no reason to interfere in the matter.
(IN. Stephens is a crotchetty & rather stupid shyster)
1344
The petitioners herein have a wharf extending out into the harbour. This wharf must be removed to make way for the new quay. They are entitled to compensation above $22,000, to be paid within 6 months after the commencement of the work in front of their lot. The works are not yet begun but they are proceeding in front of Lot 185.
Owing to the faulty construction of the wharf, the stones laid down in the foundation of the three piers in front of Lot 185 forced up the mud under some of the piers or lifted a corner of the wharf.
The Engineers' plan: Stones upon this comment in 24 hours the piers have protruded about 6 inches; some have settled back to their original level.
But the Petitioners asked how to operate, and whether there would be no further injury.
Sharp was concerned by the works. The portion of the wharf, which was allowed to remain for the convenience of the owners, was rapidly deteriorating. The Petitioners assert that it was removed by the Government. The works had done damage and deprived them of its use.
The Government disputes the S.St.'s authority to interfere; but the question is really as to the holding of the facts under Section 8(b) of Ordinance 7 of 1893.
This is a matter upon which the S.St. is not an authority. Samples 818/1579.
I have not read all these papers. Joseph D.W. Branson spins a yarn as he supposes.
R. 149
Page 623
alleged damage caused by the fir
The case is exceedingly simple, though the Ortition & the Engineer's Reply language
Petitimers
←
are commbered with much
& repetition. ? Request for to inform that P. ft. see no reas interfere in the matter
I suit ape-
p.W.7.10 Sef.
(IN. Stephens is a crotchetty & rather stirpil shiitor)
1344
The petitioned herein het of fatetting out into the harbours. This wharf must be umonia to the to make way for the an Traya : thing are suithet to compensation aboue op 22000, & be paid within 6 months after the Commencement of the cooker in front of their lot. The works are out yet begun but they are pranding in front of Lot 185: Owing to the faulty construction of the Whare the stones laid down in the foundation of the three infront
at this hout
་
Gde 18hrs
If 185 forced up the mud under dorme of the piers or liftes a corn ofthe wharf- The Enginess pland, Stones upon this comment in 24 hours the piers have Profgheden barth 6 inches, a women som have setumes to their original level.
But the Petitions asked how to upora
⭑No
+ no further injury
Sharp
was cancer by the works. The fort Engines days
Potion of the Wharf, which was allows:
tend y
• was Rilapidatie Pion Umow
-
for the Conveniener of the owners: While
Gartlemen assert that it was removed hanus. The works had do damage
deprive them of its use, what dus mulle mom to an
and as their lot was this brought within the fiments of the Melamin
the sharp as to deprive them of it.
immediate payount of the 44 22 ore Compensation, when farts and ther
dispute the S.St. Cannot interfere; but (shaters may or the facts the
Guestion
oney law
her
is wally as to the holdning
.Ad
they facts ut om 8(b) of ordinana 7.993
dection
& this is a matten upon which the 5.57s. is
A
duisin. Samples 8181579
S.
akt
fin
AM
anthontation 1770
623
Sham not read all these papers. Janeph DW. Bracuston spinin Replen
ae he suppesto.
R. 149
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.