20. In October, 1894, further damage was done to the remainder of the pier, and blocks of stone and earth were washed down by a storm from the adjoining reclamation works into the sea immediately in front of your Petitioners' godowns, so that it became dangerous for boats to come near them,
21. In the mouth of May, 1895, your Petitioners, at the request of the Government, removed the remainder of their pier, and they were afterwards paid by the Government, out of the Praya Reclamation funds, the pier compensation to which they were entitled under the provisions of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance.
22. Your Petitioners then applied to the Governor, through the Colonial Secretary, that they might be awarded compensation for the losses they were sustaining by reason of not being able to receive and discharge cargo at low water, owing to the silting and the raising of the bed of the sea there, caused by the Praya Reclamation works immediately adjoining your Petitioners' property, and in answer to their applications your Petitioners were informed that their claim to compensation for injuries to their lot would be taken when the reclamation works were commenced immediately in front of your Petitioners' lot and that until such works were commenced your Petitioners' claim was premature.
23. In the year 1896, as the loss to your Petitioners was becoming great, they applied to the Government that the Governor would assess to them compensation within the meaning of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, but your Petitioners' request was refused, and, acting under the advice of Counsel, they then commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Hongkong against the then Governor Sir WILLIAM ROBINSON, for an Order of Court to compel him to make his award in accordance with the Ordinance, but Sir WILLIAM ROBINSON left the Colony in February, 1898, pending the proceedings, and Major-General WILSON BLACK became the Officer Administering the Government.
24. Your Petitioners' suit came on for hearing before the Full Court on the 30th March, 1898, when the Attorney General, Mr. GOODMAN, informed the Court that certainly at the present time the Government had never said it would not "take into consideration and fairly and rightly even if only morally bound decide as to any damage which might have occurred to Mr. HOWARD'S premises in consequence of the Reclamation Works."
64
The Attorney General also further stated that "when the reclamation work was carried on in front of Mr. HOWARD'S godown then would be the time for the investigation of the claim he had to 'damage by the interposition of the Reclamation Works between his godowns and the harbour, and that when he made his claim for that damage the Attorney General would have no objection to his making such further claim as he could substantiate for intermediate damage caused by the alleged silting up of his foreshore during the period before the Reclamation Works actually reached the front of his premises."
25. Upon these statements of the Attorney General and at the suggestion of the Court your Petitioners consented to the further hearing of their suit being adjourned sine die.
26. Your Petitioners forwarded to the Colonial Secretary for the information of the Government full particulars of their claims, and submitted for the inspection of the Government all their Books of Account and Vouchers.
27. Subsequently your Petitioner the said THOMAS HOWARD had, at the request of the Government, sundry interviews with the Director of Public Works (Mr. R. D. ORMROD) and with the then Acting Attorney General (Mr. H. E. POLLOCK) with a view to a friendly settlement if possible, but it was found impossible to come to any terms, and your Petitioner was then informed by Mr. POLLOCK that the matter must be left to the award and order of the then Acting Governor His Excellency Major-General BLACK.
Appendix V.
Appendix VI.
Appendix VII.
Appendix VIII.
Appendix IX.
620
28. A short time after, your Petitioners, without having had any further notice from the Government or from General BLACK, and without having seen General BLACK or being heard by him in support of their claim, and without having had any opportunity of seeing or knowing what evidence was laid before General BLACK in opposition to their claims, received from the Government what purported to be the award, under the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, of His Excellency General BLACK, by which he adjudged them the sum of $15,000 and no more.
29. Your Petitioners applied to the Supreme Court of Hongkong in its Original Jurisdiction to set aside the award of the said General BLACK on the grounds indicated above and the said Supreme Court dismissed their said suit and refused to set aside the said award on the ground that under the provisions of section 7 sub-section 6 of The Praya Reclamation Ordinance the Governor was not in the position of an Arbitrator, had no duty imposed on him towards your Petitioners, was not called or empowered to exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial functions and possessed an absolute and uncontrolled discretion in the premises.
30. Your Petitioners on the 30th day of September, 1899, after widely advertising the said Lot for sale and after offering it for sale by public auction sold their said Land and Buildings, then in fact an Inland Lot and removed from the sea front by a distance of 310 feet and by building land, for the sum of $110,000 the best price that could then be obtained for it.
31. The said Marine Lot, with the buildings thereon, was in the year 1895, prior to the extension of the Reclamation Works to its immediate neighbourhood, of the value of $256,666 as appears from the Declaration and Valuation of Messrs. LEIGH and ORANGE, Civil Engineers, Land Surveyors and Valuers, hereunto annexed, and by the conversion thereof into an Inland Lot by the Praya Reclamation Works it became of the value of $110,000 only, as proved by the price realized on the sale thereof as aforesaid.
32. Your Petitioners therefore suffered a loss of $146,666 in the actual value of their said property by the carrying out of the said Reclamation in front of their lot and during the progress of the work of Reclamation they suffered from the obstruction of their access to the sea by the silting up of the foreshore in the immediate front of their lot and by the consequent diminution of their business as shown by the statement hereunto annexed, a loss on rents of $25,142, making a total money loss to your Petitioners of the sum of $171,808 without including in this amount any consequential losses suffered by them in their business of lending and advancing money at interest on goods wares and merchandise stored with them.
33. Your Petitioners humbly submit that an award of $15,000 made by General BLACK under the circumstances hereinbefore stated is a wholly inadequate compensation for a proved money loss of $171,808.
34. Your Petitioners crave leave to annex and refer to copies of their correspondence with the Government of Hongkong and with the officers of that Government in connection with their said claims from the 27th day of March, 1889, to the 25th day of November, 1898.
And they humbly pray
That YOUR MAJESTY will be graciously pleased to refer this their humble Petition to the Judicial Committee of Your Majesty's Privy Council and direct that Right be done in the premises.
And Your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, &c., &c.
The Solicitor
15th September 1901
M. J. D. Stephens Misch 17. Attorney. Could Witho
1:
20. In October, 1894, further damage was done to the remainder of the pier, and blocks of stone and earth were washed down by a storm from the adjoining reclamation works into the sea immediately in front of your Petitioners' godowns, so that it became dangerous for boats to come near them,
21. In the mouth of May, 1895, your Petitioners, at the request of the Govern- ment, removed the remainder of their pier, and they were afterwards paid by the Government, out of the Praya Reclaination funds, the pier compensation to which they were entitled under the provisions of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance.
22. Your Petitioners then applied to the Governor, through the Colonial Secretary, that they might be awarded compensation for the losses they were sustaining by reason of not being able to receive and discharge cargo at low water, owing to the silting and the raising of the bed of the sen there, caused by the Praya Reclamation works immediately adjoining your Petitioners' property, and in answer to their applications your Petitioners were informed that their claim to compensation for injuries to their lot would be taken when the reclamation works were commenced immediately in front of your Petitioners' lot and that until such works were commenced your Petitioners' claim was premature.
23. In the year 1896, as the loss to your Petitioners was becoming great, they applied to the Government that the Governor would assess to them compensation within the meaning of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, but your Petitioners' request was refused, and, acting under the advice of Counsel, they then commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Hongkong against the then Governor Sir WILLIAM ROBINSON, for an Order of Court to compel him to make his award in accordance with the Ordinance, but Sir WILLIAM ROBINSON left the Colony in February, 1898, pending the proceedings, and Major-General WILSONE BLACK became the Officer Administering the Government.
24. Your Petitioners' suit came on for hearing before the Full Court on the 30th March, 1898, when the Attorney General, Mr, GOODMAN, informed the Court that Certainly at the present time the Government had never said it would not "take into consideration and fairly and rightly even if only morally bound decide as to any damage which might have occurred to Mr. HlowARD'S premises in consequence of the Reclamation Works."
The Attorney General also further
64
stated that "when the reclamation work was carried on in front of Mr. HOWARD'S 'godown then would be the time for the investigation of the claim he had to "damage by the interposition of the Reclamation Works between his godowns and "the harbour, and that when he made his claim for that damage the Attorney "General would have no objection to his making such further claim as he could "substantiate for intermediate damage caused by the alleged silting up of his fore- "shore during the period before the Reclamation Works actually reached the front "of his premises."
25. Upon these statements of the Attorney General and at the suggestion of the Court your Petitioners consented to the further hearing of their suit being adjourned sine die,
26. Your Petitioners forwarded to the Colonial Secretary for the information of the Government fall particulars of their claims, and submitted for the inspec- tion of the Government all their Books of Account and Vouchers.
27. Subsequently your Petitioner the said THOMAS HOWARD had, at the request of the Government, sundry interviews with the Director of Public Works (Mr. R. D. ORMSI) and with the then Acting Attorney General (Mr. H. E. POLLOCK) with a view to a friendly settlement if possible, but it was found impos sible to come to any terms, and your Petitioner was then informed by Mr. POLLOCK that the matter minst he left to the award and order of the then Acting Governor His Excellency Major-General BLACK.
Appendix V.
Appendix VI.
Appendix VIT
Appendix VII.
Appendix IX.
620
28. A short time after, your Petitioners, without having had any further notice from the Government or from General BLACK, and without having seen General BLACK or being heard by him in support of their claim, and without having had any opportunity of seeing or knowing what evidence was laid before General BLACK in opposition to their claims, received from the Government what purported to be the award, under the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, of His Excellency General BLACK, by which he adjudged them the sum of $15,000 and no more.
29. Your Petitioners applied to the Supreme Court of Hongkong in its Ori- ginal Jurisdiction to set aside the award of the said General BLACK on the grounds indicated above and the said Supreme Court dismissed their said suit and refused to set aside the said award on the ground that under the provisions of section 7 sub-section 6 of The Praya Reclamation Ordinance the Governor was not in the, position of an Arbitrator, had no duty imposed on him towards your Petitioners, was not called or empowered to exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial functions and possessed an absolute and uncontrolled discretion in the premises.
30. Your Petitioners on the 30th day of September, 1899, after widely ad- vertising the said Lot for sale and after offering it for sale by public auction sold their said Land and Buildings, then in fact an Inland Lot and removed from the sea front by a distance of 310 feet and by building land, for the sum of $110,000 the best price that could then be obtained for it.
31. The said Marine Lot, with the buildings thereon, was in the year 1895, prior to the extension of the Reclamation Works to its immediate neighbourhood, of the value of $256,666 as appears from the Declaration and Valuation of Messrs. LEIGH and ORANGE, Civil Engineers, Land Surveyors and Valuers, here- unto annexed, and by the conversion thereof into an Inland Lot by the Praya Reclamation Works it became of the value of $110,000 only, as proved by the price realized on the sale thereof as aforesaid.
32. Your Petitioners therefore suffered a loss of $146,666 in the actual value of their said property by the carrying out of the said Reclamation in front of their lot and during the progress of the work of Reclamation they suffered from the obstruction of their access to the sea by the silting up of the foreshore in the im- mediate front of their lot and by the consequent diminution of their business as shown by the statement hereunto annexed, a loss ou rents of $25,142, making a total money loss to your Petitioners of the sum of $171,80% without including in this amount any consequential losses suffered by them in their business of lending and advancing money at interest on goods wares and merchandise stored with them.
33. Your Petitioners humbly submit that an award of $15,000 made by Gen- eral BLACK under the circumstances hereinbefore stated is a wholly inadequate compensation for a proved money loss of $171,808.
34. Your Petitioners crave leave to annex and refer to copies of their cor- respondence with the Government of Hongkong and with the officers of that Government in connection with their said claims from the 27th day of March, 1889, to the 25th day of November, 1898.
And they humbly pray
That YOUR MAJESTY will be graciously pleased to refer this their humble Petition to the Judicial Committee of Your Majesty's Privy Council and direct that Right be done in the premises.
And Your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, &c., &c. The Stower d
15th September 1901
M. J. D. Stephens Misch 17. Attorney. Could Witho
1:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.