CO129-332 - Public Offices & Others - 1905 — Page 424

3

421

>

I docbuket Ti

toch sen å grivi, eybeIT

17.

t esiet BANA

BAD, PRRÀ 10 euter u

DIS

✔

TO W SAY Iscos i wyls

+

ZEADY AS-

06. 40 $

fred untest witcher

bon sang da mund Broj diten Gum

**cnda dandal wod: 119

Me any con art to go turbabes 014

t Owine ledig oft zum 2* *.

Un Toe nu te thuDODE 1G 2CAME TO Borog o

*START# ha el JiT N JOK Bl exert

*

TOVOVILA

undeek end to beNI TOYO SA I

,oldani,do em mdpat cele Jnavalatıl

bconsu #dub wdaju 92d lost antdrynɑ wouho.

Me na BRAF my to enbor - dati sotuttge

**

* A

མཐཱ།

$

doch mua 78,8) besoze Jon t

To anJade edd no

3.

.fod has£x1

kiing BRO

#

vo bodzenuwa Joi et cab etm

6.) YaIsqoq utt to autav od:

5.

1895: after which year the rentals decreased from $15,406.87 to $8.845.72 in 1898.

Sir Matthew does not deal with the property as a whole, bu takes the land and building separately, giving $32,481 as the depreciation on the land; but as an earning power, they cannot be separated, and the value must be deducted from the earnings of the year before the rentals began to decrease.

was 1895.

That year

Clause 9 deals with the value of the Lot,when it ceased to

be a Marine Lot. Here again Sir Matthew is met by the conflict- ing evidence of Experts, but treats $2.50 per foot as the most correct valuation, and deducting this from $3.50 which he thought

fairly represented the value of the Lot as a Marine Lot, not withstanding Governor Des Voeux's valuation of $5.00 per foot, he arrives at the conclusion that $1 per foot, giving $32,481,

is the total amount for depreciation.

It is now contended that $110,000 was no criterion of the

value of the property in October 1899 because it was afterwards

sold for $140,000. In July 1859 the property was offered for

sale by auction and no purchaser could be found to pay more

than $100.000.

I then offered it to Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co. to

the HongKong & Kowloon Godown Company, to S. J. David & Co. and

Mr. Stephens offered it to Mr. Chater, for $110,000, and they

would not buy: but Mr. Hughes ultimately found a buyer in the

Humphreys Estate & Finance Comapny, who after about 7 months working, earning gross rentals of $1,754.87 during that time, sold it, I was informed, with a lease at $600 a month for the Western half to be used as a soda water factory for $120.000.

Had such a Thus the lease accounts for the rise in value.

lease been offered to us we should not have sold the property.

Clause 11 states that we are entitled to 10% on the amount

of depreciation. This should be on the ascertained value of the