Sessional_Paper_1905 — Page 659

581

(ii) Mr. LEIGH, whose report, dated the 1st May, 1896, was based on measurements and soundings taken on the 26th of the previous month, stated that in the eight years beween 1888 and 1896 a very considerable silting up had taken place which he attributed in the first place to the pressing out of the mud and silt by the depositing of the pierre perdue embankment of the Praya Wall. He made no reference to the effect on the sea bottom of the remains of the claimants' wharf, referred to in Messrs. PALMER & TURNER's statement, nor to the fact that the filling in for the Praya Wall, which formed the Western limit of the reclamation. till 1898, had been completed at the end of 1891 or commencement of 1892. Mr. LEIGH considered also that this wall acted as a groin causing silting to the West of it.

(iii.) Mr. DENISON, whose report, dated the 24th September, 1896, was based on measurements taken on the 11th and 18th April, 1896, stated that the average amount of silting up between 1888 and April, 1896, on one section through the foreshore was between five and six feet. He attributes this entirely to the Praya Wall constructed in 1891-1892 acting as a groin.

(iv.) The only other evidence put forward by the claimants in connection with the claim for damage on account of alteration of sea bottom between the 1st January, 1896, and the 10th October, 1899, was that contained in the following extract from the statement, dated the 14th June, by Mr. RAM:---

<<

-SO

This work was initiated in 1889 but the actual work of reclamation-

far as concerned Section I, in which district Marine Lot No. 184 is situated--was not in hand until some years later and it was not until 1899 or thereabouts-though there had, I believe, been some inter- ference at an earlier date that the access to the sea was interrupted to such an extent as to render the property in question and the buildings thereon, in great measure useless for the purposes of Godowns, for which it had been bought and developed."

•

(v.) For the Crown, Mr. DANBY, in paragraph 7 of his statement of the 10th June, 1905, referred to observations extending over the whole period of low Spring tides in March, 1896, which led him to report to Government that the Praya Reclamation Works up to that time had not injured the Godown business on Marine Lot 184 but had been of very great benefit to that business, enabling boats to be discharged along the old, when they were unable to make fast to the new, Praya Wall. To this statement Mr. DANBY adhered when cross-examined.

(vi.) It was supported by the evidence of Mr. BOULTON, the other witness for the Crown in this matter, who considered, in his statement of June 28th, 1905, that the Reclamation Works sheltered the landing place opposite Marine Lot No. 184 "from the prevailing winds, as well as from the prevailing current." Mr. BOULTON with a supplementary statement submitted a plan dated the 3rd March, 1896, which showed from surveys taken in October, 1889, August, 1892, August, 1894, July, 1895, and February, 1896, that the shoaling that took place within the period they covered was very slight and could not have affected the access of cargo-boats to the Praya opposite the Godowns. He further stated as follows:—

"After March, 1896, the causes which had produced the shoaling ceased to operate, and judging by my previous surveys I should say that there was no appreciable silting between March, 1896, and 1899.”

(vii.) In addition to the foregoing evidence, the correspondence on the subject of damage done to Marine Lot No. 184 by the Praya Reclamation Works, which took place between the 4th November, 1891, and the 11th January, 1896, including the 25 letters from Mr. HOWARD comprised in it, has been considered.