3. Governor Sir Matthew Nathan held the enquiry, and the proceedings thereunder with the Award are printed in pamphlet form, which no doubt is in possession of the Colonial Office.
From these it will be seen that the Governor took the land alone as distinct from the land with the buildings thereon, as the only subject for Compensation, when he ought to have known that the land without the buildings had little, if any, earning power, and that from this earning power alone the true value of the property could be found.
He also took the values of the land as a Marine Lot at $34 per foot, and as an Inland Lot at $2 per foot, at one and the same time in the year 1898, when rents had decreased to $8,845 from $15,406 in 1895.
He allowed nothing for the difference in value between the cost of the buildings, $36,000, and the enhanced value of $50,000 as given by the Experts for the Crown.
And he disallowed claim for the loss of intermediate rents, which the Judicial Assessor has stated was a proper subject for Compensation, and could be awarded under the Ordinance.
He made an award of $35,729 from conjecture only, without a single fact in support and against all the facts in evidence, regardless of the opinion of his Judicial Assessor.
The facts in evidence are as follow:
4.
(a) The working account of Howard's godowns from 1885 to 30th June, 1898, audited by the Colonial Auditor, showing the net rentals and cost of earning.
(b) The statement of the loss of rents, $25,142, from 1st January, 1896, to 10th October, 1899, when the property was sold, showing when depreciation commenced and when it ended.
(c) The cost of buildings, $36,000.
(d) Governor des Voeux payment to us of $1,700 as the Market value of 339 feet of the land in 1887, being a fraction over $5 per foot.
(e) The offer of $200,000 made to your Petitioner in writing for the Property in 1888; in reference to which it was stated by Counsel at the Enquiry that the Crown strongly objected to your Petitioners bringing in oral evidence to prove it.
(f) The Property was sold as an Inland Lot for $110,000 in 1899.
(g) On the 21st August, 1899, Governor Sir Henry Blake offered to allow your Petitioners to come into the Reclamation Scheme, and place them in the same position as if they had originally joined in the scheme, in lieu of the award of $15,000 made by Acting Governor General Black, the acceptance of which offer would have given them the land which was sold in 1903 for $133,500, at the rate of $8.78 per foot.
Your Petitioners did not accept this offer for the reason that the profit to be derived from the sale of the New Lot would not cover the loss sustained on the Old Lot.
Your Petitioners' claim is $197,142, based upon net rentals of $15,406 in 1895, before rents began to decrease, capitalised at 16 years purchase for a Crown Lease of 999 years, with 10% added, giving $282,000 as the value of the property in 1895, as stated and affirmed under Statutory Declaration by Messrs. Leigh and Orange, Architects and Surveyors; less $110,000, the value of the property, as an Inland Lot in 1899, when rents had decreased to $4,308 for 283 days to the 10th October in that year, when the property was sold; leaving a difference in value of $172,000 which with $25,142 for loss of intermediate rents, make a total loss of $197,142.
5. Such a difference in your Petitioners' claim of $197,142, based upon facts, and the Award of $35,729, arrived at from conjecture only, will show conclusively that a grievous injustice has been done to your Petitioners, leaving out of consideration the sacrifice of a lucrative business other than rents, and yet, Mr. Secretary Lyttelton states that Governor Nathan's decision must be final, notwithstanding that the terms of reference required that the amount of compensation should be justly arrived at.
Against this decision your Petitioner appealed to the New Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Earl of Elgin, who, it is stated, sees no reason for departing from the decision of his predecessor.
6. This injustice could not have been done but for the passing of an Ordinance containing a clause which could not have found a place in an Act of Parliament, empowering the Governor to take away the rights of a Crown Lessee, without paying adequate compensation, or even any compensation at all, if he in his absolute discretion thinks fit, a discretion with which the Privy Council has decided no Court of Law can interfere.
7. By this decision and the refusal of two Secretaries of State for the Colonies to exercise their prerogative and insist upon Governor Nathan carrying out the provisions of the ordinance, as defined by Governor des Voeux and the Courts of Law, your Petitioner has no course left open to him except presenting a further Petition to Your Most Gracious Majesty, through the Colonial Office, as suggested by the Secretary of State for the Home Office in a letter dated the 6th March, 1906.
8.
Your Petitioner has accordingly adopted this course, and craves leave to refer to the former Petition and the Appendices thereto, to the proceedings under the Enquiry by Sir Matthew Nathan in Hongkong, with the Award and Appendices thereto, and to the Correspondence annexed to this further Petition.
9. Under the above circumstances, and seeing that three Governors of Hongkong have failed to assess compensation fairly from the facts in evidence, your Petitioner feels justified in approaching Your Majesty, to pray that Your Majesty may give such directions as may ensure full and fair compensation being paid for the losses your Petitioners have sustained, as before mentioned.
And your Petitioner most humbly prays
Dated
That YOUR MAJESTY may be most graciously pleased to grant this humble Petition, and thus end a matter which, under a proper tribunal would have been settled years ago.
And your Petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray, &c., &c.
7 Castle Terrace,
Cowes, Isle, Wight,
24 March, 1906.
The Howard
689
3. Governor Sir Matthew Nathan held the enquiry, and the proceedings thereunder with the Award are printed in pamphlet form, which no doubt is in possession of the Colonial Office.
From these it will be seen that the Governor took the land alone as distinct from the land with the buildings thereon, as the only subject for Compensation, when he ought to have known that the land without the buildings had little, if any, earning power, and that from this earning power alone the true value of the property could be found.
He also took the values of the land as a Marine Lot at $34 per foot, and as an Inland Lot at $2 per foot, at one and the same time in the year 1898, when rents had decreased to $8,845 from $15,406 in 1895.
He allowed nothing for the difference in value between the cost of the buildings, $36,000, and the enhanced value of $50,000 as given by the Experts for the Crown.
And he disallowed claim, for the loss of intermediate rents, which the Judicial Assessor has stated was a proper subject for Compensation, and could be awarded under the Ordinance.
He made an award of $35,729 from conjecture only, without a single fact in support and against all the facts in evidence, regardless of the opinion of his Judicial Assessor.
The facts in evidence are as follow:
4.
(a) The working account of Howard's godowns from 1885 to 30th June, 1898, audited by the Colonial Auditor, showing the net rentals and cost of earning.
(b) The statement of the loss of rents. $25,142, from 1st January, 1896, to 10th October, 1899, when the property was sold, showing when depreciation commenced and when it ended.
(c) The cost of buildings, $36,000,
(d) Governor des Voeux payment to us of $1,700 as the Market value
of
339 feet of the land in 1887, being a fraction over $5 per foot. (e) The offer of $200,000 made to your Petitioner in writing for the Property in 1888; in reference to which it was stated by Coun- sel at the Enquiry that the Crown strongly objected to your Petitioners bringing in oral evidence to prove it.
(7) The Property was sold as an Inland Lot for $110,000 in 1899. (g) On the 21st August, 1899, Governor Sir Henry Blake offered to allow your Petitioners to come into the Reclamation Scheme, and place them in the same position as if they had originally joined in the scheme, in lieu of the award of $15,000 made by Acting Governor General Black, the acceptance of which offer would have given them the land which was sold in 1903 for $133,500, at the rate of $8.78 per foot.
Your Petitioners did not accept this offer for the reason that the profit to be derived from the sale of the New Lot would not cover the loss sustained on the Old Lot.
Your Petitioners' claim is $197,142, based upon net rentals of $15,406 in 1895, before rents began to decrease, capitalised at 16 years purchase for a Crown Lease of 999 years, with 10%, added, giving $282,000 as the value of the property in 1895, as stated and affirmed under Statutory Declaration by
Messrs. Leigh and Orange, Architects and Surveyors; less $110,000, the value of the property, as an Inland Lot in 1899, when rents had decreased to $4,308 for 283 days to the 10th October in that year, when the property was sold; leaving a difference in value of $172,000 which with $25,142 for loss of inter- mediate rents, make a total loss of $197,142.
5. Such a difference in your Petitioners' claim of $197,142, based upon facts, and the Award of $35.729, arrived at from conjecture only, will show conclusively that a grievous injustice has been done to your Petitioners, leaving out of consideration the sacrifice of a lucrative business other than rents, and yet. Mr. Secretary Lyttelton states that Governor Nathan's decision must be final, notwithstanding that the terms of reference required that the amount of compensation should be justly arrived at.
Against this decision your Petitioner appealed to the New Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Earl of Elgin, who, it is stated, sees no reason for departing from the decision of his predecessor.
6. This injustice could not have been done but for the passing of an Ordinance containing a clause which could not have found a place in an Act of Parliament, empowering the Governor to take away the rights of a Crown Lessee, without paying adequate compensation, or even any compensation at all, if he in his absolute discretion thinks fit, a discretion with which the Privy Council has decided no Court of Law can interfere.
7. By this decision and the refusal of two Secretaries of State for the Colonies to exercise their prerogative and insist upon Governor Nathan carry- ing out the provisions of the ordinance, as defined by Governor des Voeux and the Courts of Law, your Petitioner has no course left open to him except presenting a further Petition to Your Most Gracious Majesty, through the Colonial Office, as suggested by the Secretary of State for the Home Office in a letter dated the 6th March, 1906.
8.
Your Petitioner has accordingly adopted this course, and craves leave to refer to the former Petition and the Appendices thereto, to the proceedings under the Enquiry by Sir Matthew Nathan in Hongkong, with the Award and Appendices thereto, and to the Correspondence annexed to this further Petition.
9. Under the above circumstances, and seeing that three Governors of Hongkong have failed to assess compensation fairly from the facts in evidence, your Petititioner feels justified in approaching Your Majesty, to pray that Your Majesty may give such directions as may ensure full and fair compensation being paid for the losses your Petitioners have sustained, as before mentioned.
And your Petitioner most humbly prays
Dated
That YOUR MAJESTY may be most graciously pleased to grant this humble Petition, and thus end a matter which, under a proper tribunal would have been settled years ago.
And your Petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray, &c., &c.
7 Castle Terrace,
Cowes, Isle, Wight,
24
March, 1906.
The Howard
689
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.