Sessional_Paper_1905 — Page 741

663

he says we should be entitled to compensation fot the difference between a Marine Lot and an Inland Lot. It was not admitted by the Crown in 1900 that we had suffered any loss at all by our property being turned from a Marine Lot into an Inland Lot, in fact the Attorney General in 1900 denies that our property had been turned into an Inland Lot at all, and in the Answer he denies that the said Marine Lot has been converted into an Inland Lot. I think Your Excellency will say without hesitation that our property must now be an Inland Lot. But, what is the loss we have made by being turned from a Marine Lot into an Inland Lot? Our witnesses have come here and they have said that we have suffered a very considerable injury from this transformation; but it is not alone the difference in value. Mr. Danby came here, and he said it was worth $4 per square foot, but, as a Marine Lot, it was worth $8; that is to say, it depreciated 50% after being turned from a Marine Lot into an Inland Lot. The right basis, I submit, would be to take the difference in value of this property as a Marine Lot in 1899 and as an Inland Lot on the same date. The Crown witnesses say that the price we obtained, namely, $110,000, was a very low one, but, although we only got $110,000 in 1899, still the Attorney General told us that we ought to have been very glad to have got $110,000, and Mr. Turner said he thought it a very good price indeed. Mr. Turner made an entirely independent value, same being for a prospective purchaser. His valuation is $94,000, being the lowest made with the exception of that of Messrs. Leigh & Orange. They said they did not think at the time that it was worth anything as Godowns, so they only put the value of the Godowns as building material.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:-1 would refer Your Excellency to paragraph 5 of the Petition, where it is stated-[reads from Petition.]

Mr. CALTHROP :-'

-The Crown say that it is not worth more than $2 per square foot, and, adding the value of the buildings at $36,000, they make the total value $101,000 exactly, and on that valuation of $2 per square foot they offer us $15,000. Now, Mr. Danby admits that it is worth $3 per square foot, so, if it had been a Marine Lot, it must have been worth very much more, and it shews that we are entitled to at least $1 more per square foot. I do not know if it is necessary for ine to go into the question of rateable value, but it is quite clear from the Crown's own shewing that the property was not rated at its proper value. It was rated in 1887, before it started as a Godown, and, after that, the tonnage capacity.only was filled in. Mr. Hooper coines here to-day, and says it was worth a rental value of $10,800; having deducted the Crown Rent, Insurance, etc., he says he would make the rateable value about $10,300, that is to say, that the value on 16 years' purchase, on his own shewing, at the end of 1895, is worth over $160,000. In his valuation, be admits that the rateable value in 1895 would be $10,800, so that shews if it were $10,000, taking the 16 years' purchase (as that was apparently the way they would work it out in the Rating), it would come to $160,000. It cost in 1887 $101,000, and the rateable value then was put at $6,600, that is to say, it was 16 to 1. Therefore taking the rateable value at $10,800, the value of the Godowns could be taken at $160,000. I made a calculation on the capital value, and I divided that by the Assessor's value and, I think, it was admitted by the Crown Witnesses that $101,000 was, very fair value at the time, and, taking it at $100,000 at 7%, then, when you deduct the Crown Rent and Insurance, which would be about $400, that would bring it out at what the Assessor made it at that time, namely, $6,600.

Then as to the question which the Attorney General has referred to, whether we are entitled to claim on account of our access to the sea being cut off.

I may point out that whatever legal right we may have, no person would pay the price that is demanded for a Marine Lot if he knew that his access to the sea was going to be cut off, and Mr. Danby in his evidence has admitted this. It is perfectly well known that the Praya is vested in the Crown, but I do not think the Crown are going to interfere and block us from the right in question. The whole question is whether the property, as a Marine Lot, is worth much more than as an Inland Lot. Then I think it is perfectly clear that after we sold our property all the property in the neighbourhood went up, so it is no real criterion. We have evidence to shew that at that time it was a very fair price for the property. We tried to sell it several times, and eventually succeeded in obtaining $110,000 for it, and we have been told that we were extremely fortunate in getting that price.