CO129-324 - Governor Nathan - 1904 [10-12] — Page 12

the Colonial Secretary dated the 18th May, 1904, they suggested without prejudice in any way that $25,000 would be a fair sum to compensate their clients for the money they have expended and the trouble they have taken*.

5. It appears to me that the only ground on which the Government would be justified in paying compensation to Messrs. E. J. Kelly and Ellis Kelly is that on which they seem principally to rely, viz., that the letter from the Colonial Secretary of the 14th July, 1902, quoted at length in the appeal to you, stated that a Crown Lease to Ho Lap Pun would be issued in due course. Prior to this letter being written it could not have been known which of the two alternative courses provided by the New Territories Land Court Ordinance - issue of a title appropriate to the case or compensation - would be followed by the Government and it is to be noted that the agreement with Ho Lap Pun included no provision for the assignment to Messrs. E. J. Kelly and Ellis Kelly of part of any compensation that might be paid if the second alternative were adopted.

6. On the last page but one of the appeal to you the sentence beginning "Our Clients on learning from Messrs. *Deacon and Hastings of the Colonial Secretary's letter to them of the 14th July", suggests that the amount of $3,500 was paid to the vendor after that letter was written whereas from the receipts forwarded with the letter to the Colonial Secretary of the 18th May, 1904, it is clear that the whole of this amount was paid by the 9th June, 1902. It is not unreasonable to suppose also that the Architects' and Lawyers' fees, which form the other two items of the alleged expenditure, were,