CO129-266 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1895 [1-3] — Page 566

*

Meeting held on the 4th January 1895.

562

TAIPINGSHAN RESÜMPTION

ARBITRATION BOARD.

The Taipingshan Arbitration Board sat agaid yesterday and considered Claims 11 and 15. The following notice of the sittings of the Board was also posted at the entrance to the buildingsda Thursday, 10th January, Claim No. 3, the Hong kong Fire Insurance Co., for $36,075; No. 17, Wong Ka Pat, for $5,000; and No. 30, Choong Asen, for $1,900. Oa Friday, 11th January, Claims 6 and 38, S. Musso and Cheung Shi, for $15,000; No. 8. Cheong Yan To and others, for $1.700; No. 12. Wong Mai, for $13.000, and No. 34, Ng Yuk, for $3,600 in Saturday, 12th January, Claim No. 18, Leang Tat Tin, for $4,28.50, and No. 28, the Spanish Procaration, for $5,000.

The case of Cheung San, baing Claim No. 11, in respect of lots 570, 571, 572 and 422, was taken up. Mr, C. D. Wilkinson appeared for the plaintiff and called as expert with sses Mr. R. K. Leigh and Mr. C. Palmer. The Govern ment was represented as asnal by the Hon. W. M. Goodman, Attorney-General, assisted by Mr. A. B. Johnson. Crown Solicitor, and the Hon. F. A. Cooper, Director of Public Works.

The claim was for $79.100, against which the The claim Gorernment had offered $28,797.

was, however, sabsequently reduced to $56.000, and the Government's offer increased to $30.000. The presentation of the claim differed very little from that of others previously reported.

The next case submitted was that of Tang Kow Shee, originally for $55,45357, but now altered to $55,514.80, including the 10 par cent. for compulsory sale, This property was repre- wanted by Mr. V. H. Deacon, who claimed that the valuation should be based on the assessor's Jast valuation, especially in this case, where there were no satisfactory rental returns to go bv. This led to much discussion between the Court and counsel on both sides, but fically his Lordship informed the counsel for the claimant that he would, if he wished, sit there. and hear him argue until midnight but that his mind was definitely made up on the point of preferring the rentals as the fairer basis of determining the compensation valas, He said, bowever, that be wished all the light possible on each case and he would like to see what Mr. Deacon's resalts were on the assessment basis. The estimates were then carefully ex- amined and it was found that, as Mr. Deacon bad said, there was only a difference of $1.300 whichever of the two ways the computation was made. His Lordship also remarked that this whole investigation was as much one of common sense as of law or valuation theories and the Board were determined in each case to Bud out as nearly as possible the gross rental valus and the condi- tion of the property and then make such allow. ances and deductions as, should seem just to the Board, and that they did not dare for all these fine systems of valuation, that were so full of in- tricacies as to produce confusion.

Daring the inquiry into this case it appeared that much of the improvements are now worth: leas, having been blown down or destroyed bý Bre or other agencies, since the closing up of Taipingshan, so that now there are in soversi cases not even basements loft.

The Government valuation of the property was $25.344, but they were willing to offer $30,000, When this last offer was made the Court asked the counsel for the claimant what his client would say to the Government offer, bat Me. Deacon said that unless his Lordship would adjourn the Con:t he could not go and consult with her and see, whereupon his Lordship said that if Mr. Deason would promise to urge the acceptance of the offer upon his client he would adjourn the Court, but Mr. Deacon refused to commit himself and the case proceeded.

When the evidence was all in, the Court adjourned to Thursday next, the 10th inst, at 10.30.

C. 0.

7326

IR 29 PR96