Sessional_Paper_1905 — Page 727

649

buildings at $50,000. That, added to the value of the land, comes to $155,600, and, of course Your Excellency will see that I am discussing this by the light of the figures of the Claimants' experts. I do not want to go into the figures of Mr. Danby or Mr. Hooper, I am simply going by the Claimants' ex- perts' figures. We say that the value of the Lot after Reclamation was not $110,000, which Mr. Ram states frankly that he considers was a forced sale. We say that the figure for which it sold 15 months later, namely, $146,000 was more like the proper figure to have got for the Lot, and Mr. Ram admitted this. If you deduct $146.000 from $155,600. that leaves a balance of $9,600. I submit that that represents all that could be called a fair compensation, and, that being so, Governor Black's award was sufficient, and more than sufficient.

I would now ask the Court to turn to page 41 of the Claimants' documents, and there look at what Messrs. Howard and Stephens call their Statement of Claim. We, of course, have already dealt with the land and buildings, and the next item we come to is the claim for loss of Godown Rents. Now, I will state how we propose to deal with that. We submit that, as regards the silting, the evidence which has been adduced on behalf of the Claimants certainly does not show either conclusively, or even satisfactorily that this loss of Godown Rents was due to silting. The evidence on behalf of the Claimants was, I think, to a great extent theoretical evidence. They thought that there must be a certain sweep of the tide which would produce silt, and so on, but I must submit that it was a very unsteady basis for the Court to go upon, as shewing that silt had actually caused a loss of business. I put it to Mr. Orange, and I think that Mr. Orange admitted it, that really there has been a great increase in Godown compe- tition in this neighbourhood, and we submit that an increase in Godown compéti- tion is a far more likely factor in the case than this question of alleged silting. Besides there is another point to be taken into consideration, and that is that the silting reports are dated some time between 1895 and April, 1896, and they purport to say that there has been serious and prejudicial silting there in front of the Lots. We find that 1895 was Mr. Howard's bumper year. It shews, we submit, that this alleged silting cannot have been serious at all, and that it had no effect on the business. So much for the question of fact. But I also submit as to the point of law on the authority of the case of the Metropolitan Board of Works against Howard, that actual loss of profit cannot be taken into account in assessing com- pensation. That is a decision of the House of Lords, and I submit that such compensation cannot be taken into account.

There is only one more item in the Statement of Claim, and I will dispose of it in a very few words; that is the claim for Law Costs from 1896 to 1903, amounting to $9,763.50. I think I can dismiss that in a sentence, by saying that the Claimants have no right to saddle the Hongkong Government, and the rate- payers of this Colony, with the costs of their unsuccessful and uncalled for litigation They applied to the Court several times, and on each occasion they were defeated. They tried in all the local Courts, and then took it Home and were unsuccessful wherever their claim was tried.

With regard to the 10 per cent. allowance for compulsory purchase, I think Your Excellency's Legal Assessor will tell you that 10 per cent. has been allowed where there have been compulsory purchases under the Land Clauses Act, 1845. In this case, however, the Lot. was left in the possession of Messrs. Howard and Stephens, and therefore there was no compulsory purchase at all. The Reclamation was offered to Messrs. Howard and Stephens, but they would not come in; they have practically had two offers, one being made quite recently. Therefore, I submit, that as regards to the reclamation, you cannot say there was a compul- sory purchase. I think that all the cases at home in which 10 per cent. has been allowed are where land has been purchased compulsorily. I would submit that it is for the Claimants, if they can, to establish and to quote some precedent which would justify the granting to them of this 10 per cent. It is for them to shew, if they can, that the 10 per cent. would be awarded at Home. Un- doubtedly, as you have pointed out, this is a somewhat peculiar case. I would submit that the Claimants are not entitled to claim this 10 per cent. I do not think that my learned friend will be able to quote a case like this. Therefore, to bring my remarks to a conclusion, I would subinit that I have shewn, taking in fact the evidence of the Claimants' experts, that the sum of $9,600, or say, $10,000 roughly, would