Sessional_Paper_1905 — Page 700

622

APPENDIX C.

TRANSCRIPT OF SHORTHAND WRITER'S NOTES.

3rd July, 1905.

Mr. Calthrop opens for the Claimants.

Mr. CALTHROP:-This is a matter that has already been before the various Courts of this Colony, and also the Privy Council, and the reason for its now coming before Your Excellency and Your Lordship is, because, after the matter had been brought before the Secretary of State for the Colonies in England, Mr. Lyttelton considered that he was not thoroughly satisfied that the Petitioners had received adequate compensation, and it is now stated that the question to be considered is whether or not a further sum ought to be paid to the Claimants for the injury which they allege they have suffered through the making of the Praya. It is admitted now that the Petitioners have no legal right in the matter. They have, as Your Excellency is aware, appeared before the Courts and attempted to substantiate a legal right to damages, but, in that direction, were unsuccessful. The land in question became the property of Mr. Stephens in 1884. He bought it from the Mortgagees, the Hongkong Fire Insurance Co., for the sum of $65,000. That sum was the amount which had been advanced by the Hongkong Fire Insurance Co., on this land as Mortgagees. The Mortgagors had bought the land in 1881. Mr. Stephens subsequently assigned a moiety to Mr. Howard. 1884 a new lease of this land was granted by the Crown, and it appeared that when this New Lease was granted by the Crown, there was a mistake made as to the area, in consequence of which mistake, I believe, after having started building on their land, they found they had encroached on the land of a neighbour- ing Lessee, and it turned out that the Crown had granted them more land than they had a right to do. In consequence of this, Mr. Howard and Mr. Stephens made a claim for the value of 339 sq. feet-the deficiency in area.

In

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL :-The question is whether the award made by Governor Black was or was not sufficient to cover all claims and demands made by the Claimants.

Mr. CALTHROP:-The amount of compensation allowed by the Government in connection with this 339 feet (and I suggest that they acted on the assumption that the land was worth $5 per square foot) was $1,700. This offer was made in 1887. I understand that Mr. Danby is going to be called. Mr. Danby says in his statement that in the year 1884 they gave us the 339 feet short, and in consequence they offered us $1,700, which works out at $5 per square foot, and he goes on to say (which is perfectly true) that we did not accept it. With regard to that action, I think the sum of $3,300 was paid in addition to the sum of $1,700. I suggest that when they made the offer to us of $1,700, that offer was made on the idea that the land was worth $5 per foot. In 1887 the Godowns were completed, and Mr. Howard took possession, and started in business as a Godown Keeper. In May; 1889. the Praya Reclamation Ordinance was passed. In 1888, there was a letter which was put in the Petition of 1903 at page 16. It is a letter from the then Colonial Secretary; it is on page 18, and in it he deals with the method of compensation. [Reads letter, starting from "the foreshore belongs to the Crown" down to "reclamation in front of it".] There the Gov- ernment state that they consider an Owner whose Lot, having been originally a Marine Lot, is turned into an Inland Lot, shall receive compensation, that com- pensation being the difference in value to bin brought about by the change. In à letter in that same Petition at page-

HIS EXCELLENCY : Is it the difference in value to him?

Mr. CALTHROP:-The difference in value of the land. It makes no difference to him. There is no doubt that everybody knew that land having a sea-frontage would fetch a greater price per square foot than land that has not a sea-frontage, and it was well known that this land which was a Marine Lot would be worth less as an Inland Lot than it would be as a Marine Lot. In a letter written by Mr. Howard in 1892, and published in page 49 of the Appendix to the Petition,