655
A-After 1895; yes.
Q-And they were nearer the Sea ?
A-Yes; now they are.
Q-And so it is more convenient to go to the Godowns that are right on the sea-front than to go to those at the back, and those on the sea-front are much more valuable ?
A-Yes.
Q-As to the sale of this property in 1899, do you know that the Govern- ment admit in their answer to the Claimants' Petition of Right that they only valued it at $101,000 in 1899 ? If it was not worth more than $101,000 before the Reclamation, do you mean to say it was worth more after the Reclamation?
A-It has proved itself to be worth more.
Q-It is worth more as an Inland Lot than as a Marine Lot?
A--No.
Q-Now, were not these Godowns of Mr. Howard's very good Godowns in- deed; as a matter of fact they were the largest of their kind at the time?
A-They were very fair Godowns.
Q-These newer Godowns, in what way are they superior?
A-They are built under the New Building Ordinance, and are therefore more up to date in every way; they are higher; they have better walls. The Building Ordinance to which I refer is the Building Ordinance of 1889.
Mr. Pollock (re-examining on behalf of the Crown) :-
You say the property was sold for $85,000; to whom was it sold for that sum ?
A-A Chinaman.
Q-At that time was there any slipway there or anything of that sort ?
A-No.
Q-There was one there originally, but at the time we speak of it was taken away, is that so?
A-Yes.
Q-The Dock Company had taken it away?
A-Yes; the Dock Company had filled up where the Slip was.
Q-Were there any buildings on Lot 184 then?
A-Only one or two tumble-down sheds, a block of offices and a workshop.
Second Witness—A. Shelton Hooper.
Mr. CALTHROP (cross-examining on behalf of the Claimants):-Mr. Hooper, you were the first to value this property for rating purposes, were you not?
A-No. It was one of the first properties I valued.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.