309
0
i
Solicitors for the Lessees, for the first time suggested an amendment of Section 12 of the original Ordinance to include back section holders: the suggestion was not adopted and on
7th November 1910 Messrs. Deacon, Looker & Deacon first put
forward a claim in respect of the alteration of the level of
Reclamation Street.
25.
His Excellency the Governor had from the beginning de- murred to the provision constituting him sole arbiter of the amount of compensation, but the precedent of the Praya Re- clamation Ordinance, 1889, was pressed upon him and he con-
sented.
on the ground that he Subsequently however His Excellency renewed his objection had himself sanctioned rapproved each step laken on and directed the Attorney General to draft an amendment sub-
bekoff fr
stituting one of the judges for himself.
The amending bill was read a first time and gazetted on
the 24th February 1911.
26. Messrs. Deacon, Looker & Deacon then wrote in (8th March 1911) pressing for an amendment of Section 12 so as to include back Sections and compensation for alteration of levels: their
request was refused by the Colonial Secretary on the grounds
given in his letter to them of the 18th March 1911.
27.
On the 9th March 1911 the amending Bill was left in
Committee, and an unofficial member, Hon. Mr. E. Osborne, apparently on his own initiative, suggested an amendment em-
powering the Judge to sit with Assessors.
This amendment was opposed by the Attorney General and
rejected.
28,
The reasons for the Attorney General's opposition to the
amendment were
(1) that the amendment was unnecessary:
(2) that it was impracticable in view of the fact that
-7-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.