CO129-332 - Public Offices & Others - 1905 — Page 418

4

415

Jan?

TO MAMA

9203RLs ent no

?

NO I SAMA, 100.

249

ok #od nabral too

Van Pond and ya dad basini

and tear boatežu evG OG DOPCIe? b

*

*

ator Buã to sags.

ved 2 Jol Amal

toidudlatego to bewmg #7002 10 2401

pidemo no?faumlong wit

BkZ00% IST. OD TE NDESA Ve 468ja DO Jod 120 to anot ei

6.989

Yo bost

BJDAY 32 B301

9.

10.

*# 000,"I*

betinu pot raɛjash miyat tontevel, zoltak vd knocen ant

eno ntoARD! ni C8"

1 wort bris ejnot to atof tot sovej-du? ar: lo Medied no

YFIÐGong Bns to notзølOST:ab. 10% ano sind beitavros pamon

tnersqon bed et avarad AVIS (Sa

The third by Governor Sir Matthew Nathan, is $32,481 Toz depreciation on land only, and 10% thereon" by reason of the alteration in its status"; making a total of $35,729.

The process by which this last Award is arrived at is, to

say the least, obscure.

Sir Matthew Nathan ignored the net rentals from which

alone the true value of the property can be found, paid no

attention to the value of the buildings as given by all the Experts, and took the land alone, as distinct from the land with the buildings thereon, as the only subject for compensation,

knowing, as he must have done, that the land without the build-

inge could have but little, if any, earning power; repudiates the rate of $5 per foot paid to us by his predecessor Governor

des Voeux at the market value of the land in 1887 when the net

rentals were $11,017; passes the year 1895 when net rentals were $15,406; and, unsupported by his Experts, takes the year 1898 when net rentals had decreased to $8,845 as the time for valua-

tion, both as a Karine Lot and an Inland Lot, and is of opinion

that the value of the land was then probably about $3 per foot

as a Marine Lot and $2 per root as an Inland Lot; and states

that $1 per foot appears to be the rate of depreciation,giving $32,481 only, as against $172,000 claimed by us, deduced from Messrs. Leigh & Orange's valuation of $282,000 based upon net rentals in 1895, less $110,000, the amount for which the property

was sold in 1899.

Sir Matthew disallows our claim of $25,142 for loss of

rents before the Reclamation was brought actually in front of

our Lot because no evidence was brought to show that there was

any shoaling between the 1st. January 1896 and the 1st. September

1898. Evidence to show shoaling between those dates was not

necessary because the shoaling which obstructed access to the sea-wall in front of our Lot had taken place before that time, and the Executive Engineer of the Reclamation stated that after March 1896 the causes which had produced the shoaling ceased