Enclosure 2.
4th December, 1903.
821
that an offer of $200,000 was made for the property in 1888,
I have had private information on this subject from Sir C. P. Chater and Mr. B. Shepherd, Land Officer, tending to show that the property in question was certainly not worth the amount stated.
10.
According to the latter's information it was only a proposal to turn the business into a Public Company of which Mr. Howard was to be the Manager, but the negotiations fell through owing to Mr. Shepherd's refusal to consent.
11.
Why that refusal was made was no doubt owing to the fact that a large profit was made by the two partners in money-lending transactions on the goods in the Godowns which was of course ruled out by Government in consideration of the compensation for loss on the property.
12.
As an illustration of the approximation of my final calculation to what might be considered a fair and reasonable amount I attach a calculation given by Sir W. Goodman to whom I referred the case privately as he had advised Government in the Musso case. You will observe that his total compensation exclusive of interest amounts to $31,563 as compared with $94,367 in the calculation which formed the basis of the Financial Minute recently submitted.
13.
But Sir W. Goodman in such calculation takes as the value of the lot &c., after depreciation, the sum of $110,000 for which it was sold in 1899. As I have already shown that such a value was not a proper one and even if $120,000 be admitted as the true value of the property, it will be perceived that the latest award is some $3,000 more favourable to the owners.
14.
Onclosure 2.
4th December, 1903.
821
that an offer of $200,000 was made for the property in 1888,
I have had private information on this subject from Sir C. P.
Chater and Mr. B. Shepherd, Land Officer, tending to show that
the property in question was certainly not worth the mount
stated.
10.
According to the latter's information it
was only a proposal to turn the business into a Public Company
of which Mr. Howard was to be the Manager, but the negotiations
fell through owing to Mr. Shepherd's refusal to consent.
11.
Why that refusal was made was no doubt
owing to the fact that a large profit was made by the two
partners in money-lending transactions on the goods in the
Godowns which was of course ruled out by Government in consider,
ation of the compensation for loss on the property.
12.
As an illustration of the approximation
of my final calculation to what might be considered a fair
and reasonable amount I attach a calculation given by Sir W.
Goodman to whom I referred the case privately as he had advised
Goverment in the Musso case. You will observe that his total
compensation exclusive of interest mounts to $31,563 as con-
pared with 794,367 in the calculation which formed the basis
of the Financial Minute recently submitted.
13.
But Sir W. Goodman in such calculation
takes as the value of the lot &c., after depreciation, the
sum of $110,000 for which it was sold in 1899. As I have
already shown that such a value was not a proper one and even
if $120,000 be amitted as the true value of the property, it
will be perceived that the latest award is some $3,000 more
favourable to the owners.
14.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.