CO129-263 - Acting Governor Barker Governor Sir Robinson - 1894 [5-8] — Page 631

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

626

the pier for which Government was responsible was of little consequence as it could have been restored at a cost of about $50, and the portion referred to which was in a dilapidated condition was removed by the owners themselves and not by order of the Government.

(3) The Reclamation has not yet been actually commenced on "the portion" of the Praya foreshore in which the wharf is situated and the use of the wharf has not been interfered with. In accordance therefore with the provisions of section 8 of Ordinance No. of 1893 the compensation payable is not yet due.

Considering that the Petitioners had no claim of right to compensation in respect of the removal of the wharf beyond that suggested in the Praya Reclamation.

Edit History

2026-05-27 13:34:22 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
626 the pier for which Government was responsible was of little consequence as it could have been restored at a cost of about $50, and the portion referred to which was in a dilapidated condition was removed by the owners themselves and not by order of the Government. (3) The Reclamation has not yet been actually commenced on "the portion" of the Praya foreshore in which the wharf is situated and the use of the wharf has not been interfered with. In accordance therefore with the provisions of section 8 of Ordinance No. of 1893 the compensation payable is not yet due. Considering that the Petitioners had no claim of right to compensation in respect of the removal of the wharf beyond that suggested in the Praya Reclamation.
Baseline (Original)
626 the pier for which Govern- ment was of little co r responsible was ce as it consequence could have been restored at a cost of about $50, and the portion referred to which was in a ed con- dilapidated dition was removed by the owners themselves and not by order of the Government. (3) The Reclamation has not yet been actually commenced on "the portion "of the Praya foreshore in which and the use which the wharf is situated of the wharf has not been interfered with. In accordance there fore with the provisions of section 8 of Ordinance No. of 1893 the of compensation~ payable is not yet due. Considering that the Petitioners had no claim. as in of right to compensation in respect of the removal of the wharf beyond that suggested in the Praya P Reclamation.
2026-05-27 13:34:22 · Baseline
View content

626

the pier for which Govern-

ment was of little co

r

responsible

was

ce as it

consequence could have been restored

at a cost of about $50, and the portion referred to which

was in a

ed con-

dilapidated dition was removed by the

owners themselves and not

by order of the Government.

(3) The Reclamation has

not yet been actually commenced on "the portion "of the Praya foreshore in

which

and the use

which the wharf is situated

of the wharf has not been interfered

with. In accordance there

fore with the provisions of

section 8 of Ordinance No.

of 1893

the

of

compensation~

payable is not yet due.

Considering that the

Petitioners had no claim.

as

in

of right to compensation in respect of the removal of the wharf beyond that suggested in the Praya

P

Reclamation.

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.