632
No. 2142.
STB.
28
Appendix V.
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
Hongkong, 22nd November, 1898.
With reference to previous correspondence on the subject of the claim for the injury sustained by you and Mr. M. J. D. Stephens as lessees of Marine Lot 184 in consequence of the Praya Reclamation Works, I have the honour to transmit the enclosed award made by His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government together with a Cheque on the Colonial Treasury for $15,000.
I have the honour to be,
Thomas Howard, Esq.
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
T. SERCOMBE SMITH,
Acting Colonial Secretary.
Under the powers conferred upon me by Section 7 Sub-section (VI) of Ordinance 16 of 1899, I hereby award to Messrs. Thomas Howard and M. J. D. Stephens lessees of Marine Lot 184 the sum of $15,000 as and by way of compensation for the injury that they have sustained by the Praya Reclamation Works.
Appendix VI.
SUPREME COURT.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
WEDNESDAY, BLACK, Major-General.
Saturday 1st December, 1900,
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP Sir dous Canningros, C.M.G. (Chief JUSTICE.)
HOWARD AND STEPHENS v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
The Chief Justice gave judgment in this case. The plaintiffs were represented by Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. Stephens) and the Attorney-General (the Hon. W. Meigh Goodman, Q.C.) appeared in person, instructed by the Crown Solicitor (Mr. F. B. L. Bowley.)
The Chief Justice said In this case the Court is called upon to determine the following issue of law-" Assuming all the facts stated in the Petition to be true and having regard to the provisions of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, 1889, has the Court jurisdiction to inquire into the proceedings connected with the award referred to in the Petition and to set aside the said award and declare it null and void ?”
29
For the purpose of determining this issue, I think it will be convenient in the first place to state the facts set out in the Petition, in the second place to state the provisions of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, 1889, so far as they have any bearing on the issue, and, lastly, to state the conclusions to which an examination of the facts and of the Ordinance seems properly to lead.
As the facts set out in the Petition are to be taken as true, I will state them in the form of a narrative, in the same manner as if I were setting forth findings established by evidence.
The plaintiffs were until quite recently the Crown lessees and the owners and occupiers as tenants in common of Marine Lot No. 184 in the City of Victoria. There were godowns erected on the Lot and the plaintiffs carried on there the business of godown-keepers.
The Lot is situate in the western district of the City, and from the time when the Crown lease for it was granted, that is, in 1884, until about April, 1898, it abutted on the north side for a length of 100 feet on the Praya and was only separated from the sea in the Harbour by the Praya. At that point the Praya was about 50 feet wide.
Until the construction of the reclamation works which will be presently mentioned, the sea in the Harbour came at all times of the tide to the foot of the sea-wall bounding the Praya, and the plaintiffs were able, at all times of the day and night and at all states of the tide, to bring cargo-boats to the sea-wall, to load and unload goods into and from them, and to convey such goods easily and cheaply from and into their godowns.
About the year 1891 the Governor, acting under the authority of the Ordinance already mentioned, commenced to construct an embankment along the Harbour front of the City, from a point to the westward of the plaintiffs' Lot to a point to the eastward of it, and to construct a sea-wall, and to reclaim and fill in the foreshore and bed of the Harbour between the Praya and the new embankment and sea-wall. These works have been carried on ever since and are still being carried on, and the result of them, as far as the plaintiffs' Lot is concerned, has been that the Lot has been converted from a Marine Lot into an Inland Lot; it no longer abuts on the Praya or sea road, and no longer has any direct access to the sea, but is separated from it by the old Praya, by a piece of reclaimed land, the property of the Crown, of about 185 feet in width, and by the new Praya and sea-wall, of about 75 feet in width.
During the progress of these works the plaintiffs' access to the sea along the whole front of their Lot was seriously impeded and diminished, and they suffered heavy losses in their business as godown-keepers, and upon the completion of the works the Lot was seriously depreciated in value by being entirely shut out from direct access to the sea and by being converted from a Marine into an Inland Lot. By the diminution of their business during the construction of the works the plaintiffs suffered a loss of about $25,000, and by the depreciation in value of their Lot they suffered a further loss of about $90,000. Before the commencement of the works the Lot, with the buildings thereon, was of the value of about $200,000 at the least. After the completion of the works in the immediate front of their Lot, the plaintiffs were unable to obtain more than $110,000 for the Lot and the buildings thereon, and this depreciation was entirely owing to the conversion of the Lot from a Marine into an Inland Lot.
The plaintiffs were not assenting parties under the provisions of the Ordinance to the execution of the reclamation works, and accordingly, acting on their opinion as to the construction of the Ordinance which is stated in paragraph 10 of the Petition, viz., that it is the duty of the Governor to inquire into all cases of
you
-་ ་ འ ་
632
No. 2142.
STB.
28
Appendix V.
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
Hosokose, 22nd November, 1898.
With reference to previous correspondence on the subject of the claim for the injury sustained by you and Mr. M. J. D. Stephens as lessees of Marine Lot 184 in consequence of the Praga Reclamation Works, I have the honour to trans- mit the enclosed award made by His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government together with a Cheque on the Colonial Treasury for $15,000.
I have the honour to be,
Thomas Howard, Esq.
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
T. SERCOMBE SMITH,
Acting Colonial Secretary.
Under the powers conferred upon me by Section 7 Sub-section (VI) of Ordi- nance 16 of 1899, I hereby award to Messrs. Thomas Howard and M. J. D. Stephens lessees of Marine Lot 184 the sum of $15,000 as and by way of com- pensation for the injury that they have sustained by the Praya Reclamation Works.
Appendix VI.
SUPREME COURT.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
WILSONE BLACK,
Major-General.
Saturday 1st December, 1900,
BEFORE HIS Hosoun Sie dous Canningros, C.M,G. (Chise JUSTICE.)
HOWARD AND STEPHENS v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL..
The Chief Justice gave judgment in this case. The plaintiff's were represent- ed by Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. Stephens) and the Attorney- General (the Hon. W. Meigh Goodman, Q.C.) appeared in person, instructed by the Crown Solicitor (Mr. F. B. L. Bowley.)
The Chief Justice said In this case the Court is called upon to determine the following issue of law-" Assuming all the facts stated in the Petition to be true and having regard to the provisions of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, 1889, has the Court jurisdiction to inquire into the proccedings connected with the award referred to in the Petition and to set aside the said award and declare it mull and void ?”
29
For the
purpose of determining this issue, I think it will be convenient in the first place to state the facts set out in the Petition, in the second place to state the provisions of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance, 1889, so far as they have any bearing on the issue, and, lastly, to state the conclusions to which an examination of the facts and of the Ordinance seems properly to lead.
As the facts set out in the Petition are to be taken as true, I will state them in the form of a narrative, in the same manner as if I were setting forth findings established by evidence.
The plaintiffs were until quite recently the Crown lessees and the owners aul occupiers as tenants in common of Marine Lot No. 184 in the City of Victoria. There were godowns erected on the Lot and the plaintiffs carried on there the business of godown-keepers.
The Lot is situate in the western district of the City, and from the time when the Crown lease for it was granted, that is, in 1884, until about April, 1898, it abutted on the north side for a length of 100 feet on the Praya and was only sepa- rated from the sea in the Harbour by the Praya. At that poiut the Praya was about 50 feet wide.
Until the construction of the reclamation works which will be presently men- tionel, the sea in the Harbour came at all times of the tide to the foot of the sea. wall bounding the Praya, and the plaintiffs were able, at all times of the day and night and at all states of the tide, to bring cargo-boats to the sea-wall, to load and unload goods into and from them, and to convey such goods easily and cheaply from and into their godowns.
About the gear 1891 the Governor, acting under the authority of the Ordi- nance already mentioned, commenced to construct an embankment along the Harbour front of the City, from a point to the westward of the plaintiffs' Lot to a point to the eastward of it, and to construct a sea-wall, and to reclaim and fill in the foreshore and bed of the Harbour between the Prava and the new embankment and sea-wall. These works have been carried on ever since and are still being carried
on, and the result of them, as far as the plaintiffs' Lot is concerned, has been that the Lot has been converted from a Marine Lot into an Inland Lot; it no longer abuts on the Praya or sea road, and no longer has any direct access to the sea, but is separated from it by the old Praya, by a piece of reclaimed land, the property of the Crown, of about 185 feet in width, and by the new Praya and sea- wall, of about 75 feet in width.
During the progress of these works the plaintiffs' access to the sea along the whole front of their Lot was seriously impeded and diminished, and they suffered heavy losses in their business as godown-keepers, and upon the completion of the works the Lot was seriously depreciated in value by being entirely shut out from direct access to the sea and by being converted from a Marine into an Inland Lot. By the diminution of their business during the construction of the works the plaintiff's suffered a loss of about $25,000, and by the depreciation in value of their Lot they suffered a further loss of about $90,000. Before the commencement of the works the Lot, with the buildings thereon, was of the value of about $200,000 at the least. After the completion of the works in the immediate front of their Lot, the plaintiffs were unable to obtain more than $110,000 for the Lot and the buildings thereon, and this depreciation was entirely owing to the conver- sion of the Lot from a Marine into an Inland Lot.
The plaintiff's were not assenting parties under the provisions of the Ordi- nance to the execution of the reclamation works, and accordingly, acting on their opinion as to the construction of the Ordinance which is stated in paragraph 10 of the Petition, viz., that it is the duty of the Governor to inquire into all cases of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.