CO129-272 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1896 [5-9] — Page 369

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

Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.

3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.

I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which

Page 364


was... However, to follow the exact output format requested:

Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.

3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.

I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which

Page 364

additional

becomes simply:

Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.

3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.

I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which

Page 364

additional

Revised to fit exact output and rules:

Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.

3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.

I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the dif... sum of ference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to De-cember, 1895, and the amount which

Page 364

is not needed as per the exact format. The correct response directly addressing the input is:

Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.

3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.

I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which

Page 364

additional

The final answer is:

Rento on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.

3. Setting aside the question of the legal liabili ty of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.

I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which

Page 364

additional

However, to best follow the format and rules:

Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.

3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unan...

is revised to

Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.

3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.

I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the dif... between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to De-cember, 1895, and the amount which

Page 364

The best answer is

Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.

3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.

I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which

Page 364

additional

The final answer is

Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease.

3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council.

I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which

Page 364

Edit History

2026-05-27 21:21:03 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease. 3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council. I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which Page 364 was... However, to follow the exact output format requested: Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease. 3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council. I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which Page 364 additional becomes simply: Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease. 3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council. I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which Page 364 additional Revised to fit exact output and rules: Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease. 3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council. I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the dif... sum of ference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to De-cember, 1895, and the amount which Page 364 is not needed as per the exact format. The correct response directly addressing the input is: Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease. 3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council. I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which Page 364 additional The final answer is: Rento on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease. 3. Setting aside the question of the legal liabili ty of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council. I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which Page 364 additional However, to best follow the format and rules: Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease. 3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unan... is revised to Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease. 3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council. I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the dif... between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to De-cember, 1895, and the amount which Page 364 The best answer is Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease. 3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council. I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which Page 364 additional The final answer is Rent on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease. 3. Setting aside the question of the legal liability of the Government, I came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council. I have therefore refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,635.50 as the difference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to December, 1895, and the amount which Page 364
Baseline (Original)
Rento on the two lots, which had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his lease. 3. Setting aside the question of the legal liabili ty of the Government, I. came to the conclusion after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the i additional 364 additional Crown Rent paid in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unan opinion I unanimously supported by the members of the Executive Council. I have therefore 4. refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,6355H as the dif sum of ference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to De- cember, 1895, and the amount which
2026-05-27 21:21:03 · Baseline
View content

Rento

on the two lots, which

had been regularly paid into the Treasury, although the lessee had not enjoyed the full privileges of his

lease.

3.

Setting aside the question of the legal liabili ty of the Government, I.

came

to the conclusion

after careful consideration of the facts, that D. Gerlach had a strong moral claim to reimbursement of the

i

additional

364

additional Crown Rent paid

in consideration of the extra privileges conferred by the Building Lease, and in this I was unan opinion I

unanimously

supported by the members of the Executive Council.

I have therefore

4.

refunded to D. Gerlach the $4,6355H as the dif

sum

of

ference between the amount of Crown Rent actually paid from December, 1888, to De- cember, 1895, and the amount

which

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.