CO129-316 - Governor Sir Blake - 1903 [1-4] — Page 343

327

335

148 in which Chief Baron Kelly says "I am clearly of opinion,

and I do not think it is open to any reasonable doubt, that

the numerous provisions in the earlier part of the Lands

Clauses Act 1845 clearly, directly, expressly and necessarily

confer a title to compensation".

2

-

Part 8 of the Glasgow Act limits the

height of buildings, and divides them into classes those

which are not to be used as dwelling houses and those which

are. With regard to the first class the Act recognises (in

section 60) the vested interest of the owner of an existing

building which exceeds the limited height by allowing him to

re-erect it to its actual height. A similar provision is

contained in The Building Ordinance 1901 at present in force

herel In this case of course no right to compensation arises.

But with regard to the second class, that is to say dwelling

houses, the Act; presumably from motives of sanitation,

forbids (in section 81) such an owner re-erecting to the

original height, and therefore leaves him to his general

right to compensation beforementioned.

4.

Whether in Hongkong the owner's

interest should be preserved by thus classifying buildings,

and alternatively allowing re-erection to the former height

or compensation, or whether in all cases alike such re-erection

should be prohibited and compensation paid, is a point which

your petitioners wish to leave wholly to Your Excellency and

the Legislative Council. They however respectfully urge that

the right is one which ought to be fully recognised.

5.

Mr. Sharp, K.C., who has been acting

for your petitioners, has laid this statement of the law before

the Attorney-General, and your petitioners understand that

the