CO129-332 - Public Offices & Others - 1905 — Page 425

Iver

dermudaR

Hole day suptteo

*'*uso call rotomar sailsace

A sude notaziones viz to no? #

madina or Bun 000,01 IK, Jund gebottom "on af et

wk and Rebf secetet al veron 94

The De A

28L VAUL MI

.000,0ÀI 132 BI

ROAAOLA KO

** breatho Tent I

Yheque wohod noelYox » 3098 410⠀

el of al cerotto anarq:28 .*

tried a nem vindantātu Borgut .*M Jod tyd dog winn

* 2WCB todo oft *

**

MY,I to staren esaj attmtse

#2001 » 0008 38 eapol & deb,bemetal apw 1,

Do? Ventout renai abor e no baal od of town as

WEBT taalt and 107 #JMLO000 engel ent

3 LIK OVna fon biworth and Bu of be

0 perc

# 2-dt med: 38 IT pikalt

94. To euier boundIGURD DIS

olen

6.

property.

422

Clause 12 deals with the loss of rents $25,142 from the 1 January 1896 to the 10th. October 1899 when the property was sold. This claim is disallowed with the remark that it should

never have been put forward. This opinion is at variance with

that of Attorney General Goodman who recognised the loss as a

proper subject of claim. Justice Fielding Clarke said that the greatest care should be exercised that no injury be inflice-

ed without adequate compensation, and Chief Justice Sir John

Carrington endorsed that dictum.

The loss of rents was caused by the Reclamation, the

Reclamation was the work of the Government, therefore, according

to the above dicta, the Government ought to pay the loss.

That there was silting Sir Matthew need only look at the

Government plan of soundings taken in 1888 and photographs

baken in 1895 and k896.

The losses had become so great in 1899 that our Counsel

advised that we were not justified in running the Godowns any

longer at a loss that would have to be claimed from the Govern-

ment, and advised the sale of the property to put a stop to

further 1088.

The same Counsel in January 1896, advised that the time

had then arrived for the assessment of compensation, and Mr.

Stephens notified the Governor, Sir William Robinson, to that

effect on 31st. January 1896; in reply to which the Colonial

Secretary wrote "that this Government denies that access to

Marine Lot No. 184 has been interfered with by the Reclamation

Works"; and this denial notwithstanding the Government was in

possession of Report and photograph showing the silting up.

By assessing the damage at this time, there would not have been any loss of rents, nor question when the Lot ceased to be

a Marine Lot.

Finally the Award is not good because based upon conjecture