CO129-332 - Public Offices & Others - 1905 — Page 423

2

420

.81889

b teda na deloverton sat

*

*** xoliwice erfd yo $a.!

PISTA 9.14 to 6 suvio Mi

du „bLOMA E'Zoxid fitoren Lo eouts al 03.ras, ach bezento

ahon Jox ag* *to BAT

03:

1

20,213

deie wd "o,betetto

by polileor man mü ni wa dug bok snore? MotJOMBLONT

Mo atit tasrier 57

22 Mme †

gmodos els sent wo0 VIlantatto

nuo 2003,88rk got bros read sonte

tensj jou gew bin! besigen and no texg out

* on bones o ti but evra, Jol ente" lo two

.YILIRT SWith art

becBen Al ! (I) & onusis

to notaschav att betgoba og afstnot.Jon and gabarī

meta/6 to adut art bru MIDI TONSI00 etilpot #gnato 2 netej

ztasd sucher bluce folde er o? (8 1107* Deistis nd of nott

Ta adem var,carh 20 Binne eixa no No item!AY B to ‡an) 53

.moto en‡ Tot RBONJIW B vonal

*

*

LASB*8 Jon el I

•

*

vizu et noise FAY ntr the DRI I Jud „DI8 BMOLJUØTTOO

,30\MBAI #1seg 7 md no mistnet den eyeteve end gnidet yd do anibivic exoted on yo bovinout cas, El morterede galtoubeh

IM I BÌ** OT .07 Ja Tebnt met wit MÊR Indiqeo bmi (#2^ong

bo ad vino 260 2901 ni qonaqong odd to ouleg nát tano XTation

.Pannol yd zvoda B# ,tany Jare no aisémet den and sort be

eroniloo zeⱭwo 78 nody molde22-95 OJ 86 has noltauley s'egavic

InkRuon IWO

‚sinez zvO BİZ

49 50 notdijet" edo nt atslo to date injusa in al mottond

and advised me that if deducted I could claim it as a persona. loss; and as to capitalising at 7% 14 2/7 years purchase, I dare affirm that no arbitrator i England would do it with a lease of 999 years.

As to Messrs. Leigh & Orange giving $5 per foot as the value of the land in 1895, they had a good precedent in Governor Des Voeux, who in 1887 stated that the market value of the land was then at that rate; and as the net rentals in that year were only $11,017, the value in 1895 when the net rentals were $15406 would be $6.99 per foot, giving a value of $227,042 for 32,481 feet of land, which with $36,000 the cost of the buildings and 10% thereon, give a total value of the property at $289.346; therefore Messrs. Leigh & Orange were correct in their statement

that the land of this particular lot with the Godown business was worth more than $5 per foot, and that the property was worth $282.000 in 1895.

Fir Matthew Nathan states that he is unable to consider that

the original offer of the Government of $5 per foot represented

only the actual value of the land, notwithstanding Governor Des

Voeux's assertion that it was the market value, but that it was

the price of peace on account of an error made by the Government

Surveyor, There is not a tittle of evidence in support of this

contention.

I pass over most of the remaining paragraphs in clause 2,

as irrelevant when facts are obtainable. Sir Matthew could not

deduce anything from the statements beyond probability, but is

of opinion that the value of the land on the 1st. September 1898

did not exceed $3.50 per foot, which date he takes as the time

when the status of the Lot changed from a Marine Lot to an

Inland Lot.

This date is not supported by the experts, whose calculations of the value of the property as a Marine Lot do not extend beyond

K