Open Collections

BC Sessional Papers

RETURN To an Address of the Legislative Assembly, for a Return of all papers and correspondence referring… British Columbia. Legislative Assembly 1877

Item Metadata

Download

Media
bcsessional-1.0060674.pdf
Metadata
JSON: bcsessional-1.0060674.json
JSON-LD: bcsessional-1.0060674-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcsessional-1.0060674-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcsessional-1.0060674-rdf.json
Turtle: bcsessional-1.0060674-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcsessional-1.0060674-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcsessional-1.0060674-source.json
Full Text
bcsessional-1.0060674-fulltext.txt
Citation
bcsessional-1.0060674.ris

Full Text

 40 Vic. Arbitration—Dock Site. 44§
RETURN
To an Address of the Legislative Assembly, for a Return of all papers and correspondence referring to or connected with the payment of $16,590 34 to Messrs.
Einlayson and Tolmie, and $419 40 paid to Messrs. Drake & Jackson, and
$428 50 paid to Mr. A. R. Robertson.
By Command.
F. GEO. VERNW,
Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
Lands and Works Department,
March Uth, 1877.
Ihe Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to Mr. Tolmie.
[Circular.] Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, B. C, February 3rd, 1875.
Sir,—I have the honour to request you will inform me at your earliest convenience,
by letter, at what price you will be prepared to sell to the Provincial Government a
portion of Section 22, Esquimalt, for the purpose of Dock construction.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) Robert Beaven.
The Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to Mr. Finlayson.
[Circular.] Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, B. C, February 3rd, 1875.
Sir,—I have the honour to request you will inform me at your earliest convenience,
by letter, at what price you will be prepared to sell to the Provincial Government Lot
44, Section 21, and a portion of Section 22, Esquimalt, for the purpose of Dock construction. I have, etc.,
(Signed) Robert Beaven.
Messrs. Tolmie and Finlayson to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
Victoria, B. O, 7th May, 1875.
Sir,—In reply to your letter of 3rd February, inquiring, with a view to Dock construction, our valuation of certain portions of land at Esquimalt jointly owned by us,
we have the honour to state that when the Government shall have notified us of the
particular part of our land actually needed for Dock construction, we will be ready to
place a value on the same.
We have, etc.,
(Signed) W. F. Tolmie,
Rodk. Finlayson, •I
450 Arbitration—Dock Site. 1877
Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to Messrs. Tolmie and Finlayson
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, B. O, May 17th, 1875.
Gentlemen,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communication
dated the 7th inst., and beg to inform you in reply thereto, that the land owned by you
required by the Government for the construction of the Esquimalt Graving Dock, is
that situate at Thetis Cove, Section 22—say about 8 acres—and Lot 44, Block 21.
An early answer to my inquiry as to what value you place upon the same will
oblige, I have, etc.,
(Signed) Robert Beaven.
The Chief Commissioner of Ijands and Works to Messrs. Finlayson and Tolmie.
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, B. C, June 22nd, 1875.
Esquimalt Dry Dock.
Gentlemen,—I have the honour to enclose a plan of Suburban Lot 22, Esquimalt
District, showing by red colouring the portion, viz., six and eleven-hundredth acres,
required by the Provincial Government for Dry Dock purposes, and to inform you that
I am prepared, on behalf of the Government, to purchase the same from you at once, by
payment at the rate of six hundred doilars ($600) per acre.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) Robert Beaven.
The Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to Mr. Tolmie.
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, B. O, July 9th, 1875.
Sir,—I should like to meet you on business connected with the Esquimalt Dock§
Will the hour of two o'clock on Monday (12th) afternoon suit you?    Please reply.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) Robert Beaven.
The Chief Commissioner oj Lands and Works to Mr. Finlayson.
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, B. C, July 9th, 1875.
Dear Sib,—I should like to meet you in town on Monday, the 12th, at Mr. Heister-
man's office, say about two o'clock, p. m., if convenient to you. Can you send me an
answer as to whether that time will suit 3-ou ?
I have, etc.,
(Signed) Robert Beaven.
Mr. Finlayson to the Chief Commissioner of Lanels and Works.
Victoria, 10th July, 1875.
Dear Sir,—I received your note of yesterday stating that }7ou would like to meet
me in town on Monday, 12th, at 2 p. m., at Mr. Heisterman's office, and in reply have
to say that I shall make it a point to meet you there at the hour and place named.
,        Yours very truly,
(Signed) R. Finlayson, 40 Vic. Arbitration—Dock Site. 451
Messrs. Finlayson and Tolmie to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
Victoria, B. O, 14th July, 1875.
Sir,—In reply to the proposal conveyed in your letter of 22nd June, offering six
hundred dollars per acre for six and eleven-hundredth acres required by you at Esquimalt for the proposed Dock, we have the honour to inform you that we decline the sum
offered as being entirely inadequate.
At the same time, as the law compels us to surrender our property when required
for public purposes, we are quite prepared to enter into negotiations on a different basis.
We have, etc.,
(Signed) W. F. Tolmie,
Rodk. Finlayson.
The Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to Messrs. Tolmie and Finlayson.
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, 16th July, 1875.
Gentlemen,—Referring to your letter of 14th instant, in which you decline the
offer made in my letter of 22nd June last, to purchase on behalf of the Government
six and eleven-hundredth acres of land owned by you at Esquimalt, arid required for
construction of proposed Dry Dock,
I have the honour to inform you that having tendered to you, what in my estimation is a reasonable value for the land in question, I now give you notice that the subject will be submitted to arbitration as provided by " Public Works Act."
I have, etc.,
(Signed) Robert Beaven.
Messrs. Drake $• Jackson to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
Victoria, B. O, 21st July, 1875.
Sir,—Dr. Tolmie has instructed us to reply to your notice of arbitration in respect
of certain lands at Esquimalt, required by the Government for the construction of the
proposed Dry Dock. We shall be glad to know if you will concur in the appointment
of a single arbitrator; if so we shall be prepared to submit to you the name of a gentleman in every way qualified for the position.
We have, etc.,
(Signed) Drake & Jackson.
The Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to Messrs. Drake $• Jackson.
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, B. O, July 27th, 1875.
Re Esquimalt Dock.
Gentlemen,—Referring to your letter of the 21st instant, I have the honour to
point out to you that Mr. R. Finlayson is jointly interested with Dr. Tolmie in the land
alluded to, and is therefore a party claiming money or compensation for certain lands
at Esquimalt, required for Dock construction.
If you will kindly mention the name of the gentleman whom you, on behalf of
Messrs. Finlayson and Tolmie, consider in every way qualified for the position of Arbitrator, I shall then be in a position to inform you whether 1 can concur or not.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) Robert Beaven, Messrs. Drake $ Jackson to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works,
Victoria, B. O, 27th July, 1875.
Sir,—The name of the proposed Arbitrator is E. Grancini for both owners.
We have, etc.,
(Signed) Drake & Jackson.
Mr. Drake to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
Victoria, B. O, 5th August, 1875.
Sir,—In view of the value of the land required for Dock purposes, I am instructed
by the owners to write to you to inquire if the amount of land specified in the sketch
furnished by the Government cannot be reduced. The owners are not anxious to sell
all their interest out, and if a less amount will answer the purpose, the owners would
prefer it. On the plan there appears to be a piece of rocky land fronting on the water,
between the limits of the Dock and the Dockyard, which is apparently not required.
Is there any chance that the authorities will omit this from their appropriation ?
I have, etc.,
(Signed) M. W. T. Drake.
The Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to Mr. Drake.
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, Sth August, 1875.
Sir,—Referring to your letter of the 5th instant, inquiring if the amount of land
specified in the sketch furnished by the Government, as required for Dock purposes,
cannot be reduced,
I have the honor to inform you that the Engineers, Messrs. Kinipple & Morris, are
of opinion that the whole of suburban lot No. 22, Esquimalt, is required for Dock purposes; but as Mr. Finlayson expressed to me verbally a wish to retain a portion of the
land, I have taken the responsibility of surveying off the part absolutely required, and
applying only for that. This course leaves the owners about two acres to speculate
upon.
The portion referred to in your letter of the 5th instant, is required for Dock
purposes.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) Robert Beaven.
The Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to Messrs. Drake $• Jackson.
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, August 13th, 1875.
Gentlemen,—Referring to the appointment of Mr. E. Grancini as sole Arbitrator
in reference to the value of Messrs. Finlayson & Tolmie's land required for Dock purposes, being a portion of suburban lot No. 22, Esquimalt District, I have the honour to
inform you that whilst fully agreeing with the fitness of Mr. Grancini as an Arbitrator,
yet I am of opinion that it -would be scarcely fair to that gentleman to place him in the
invidious position of sole Arbitrator as to the value of the property in question.
I have therefore the honour to request you to nominate and appoint an Arbitrator
on your part, to whom you are willing that the question in dispute shall be referred.
. 1 have, etc.,
(Signed) Robert Beaven, 40 Vic. Arbitration—Dock Site. 453
Messrs. Drake $ Jackson to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
.    Victoria, B. O, 14th August, 1875.
Sir,—In acknowledging your communication of the 13th of August, we are directed
to point out that the land left to our clients after the Dock requirements have been
satisfied, although nominally about two acres, in reality will be very far short of it, as
the road to the Dockyard and the Dock itself will have to be taken out of it. If this
can be made a subject of compensation it would not compensate our clients. In the
meantime Mr. Grancini will be the Arbitrator on behalf of Dr. Tolmie and Mr. R. Finlayson.    A formal appointment under the provisions of the Act shall be made out.
And on their behalf we have to request you to nominate an Arbitrator.
We have, etc.,
(Signed) Drake & Jackson.
Appointment of Mr.  W. Wilson as Arbitrator.
Know all men by these presents, that I, Robert Beaven, as Chief Commissioner of
Lands and Works, acting under the provisions of the "Public Works Act, 1872," and
the " Public Works Extension Act, 1873," do hereby nominate and appoint William
Wilson, Esquire, of Pemberton street, Victoria, to be Arbitrator on my behalf, with,
under, and subject to all the powers and provisions of the said Acts, to determine the
amount of purchase money to be paid to Roderick Finlayson and William Fraser Tolmie
for six and eleven-hundredth acres of land, being part of Suburban Lot twenty-two,
Esquimalt District, required for the purpose of the Dry Dock at Thetis Cove, Esquimalt.
Given under my hand this eighteenth day7 of August, One thousand eight hundred
and seventy-five.
[l. s.] (Signed) Robert Beaven,
Witness : Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
(Signed)        A. S. Farwell, S. G.
The Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to Messrs. Drake $■ Jackson.
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, August 18th, 1875.
Esquimalt Dock.
Gentlemen,—Referring to your letter of the 14th instant, I have the honour to
nominate Mr. William Wilson of Pemberton Street, Victoria, Arbitrator on behalf of
the Government. I have, etc.,
("Signed) Robert Beaven.
Messrs. Drake § Jackson to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
Victoria, B. G., 25th August, 1875.
Sir,—We must again recur to the subject of the quantity of land required for the
Dock, for an investigation of the various dry docks at Liverpool, New Clyde and elsewhere shew that three acres is a large estimate; in the present instance you require six
acres and upwards. As our clients put a considerable value on this land, could not the
amount be reduced ? By7 so doing the country will save a large sum. As this is a
matter of importance, would you permit us to inspect Mr. Bulkley's report and all the
correspondence bearing on the subject, as we wish to ascertain the reason for requiring
so much land.
Your obedient servants,
(Signed) Drake & Jackson.
82 454 Arbitration—Dock Site. 1877
The Surveyor-General to Messrs. Drake £ Jackson.
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, August 28th, 1875.
Gentlemen,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 25th
Last., requesting that yrou be permitted to inspect Mr. T. A. Bulkley's report on a proposed Graving Dock at Esquimalt, and in reply have the honour to inform you that the
document referred to is open for your inspection at any time during office hours.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) A. S. Farwell.
Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to Mr. A. R. Robertson.
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, 30th October, 1875,
Sir,—I have the honour to forward to you the enclosed sketch maps (2) shewing
property in the vicinity of Thetis and Lang Coves, Esquimalt.
1 have, etc.,
(Signed) Robert Beaven.
Messrs. Drake $ Jackson to the Arbitrators.
Memo.—Date of claim, 20th September, 1875, • accepted by A. R. Robertson on
behalf of the Government.
To the Arbitrators appointed under the " Public Works Act, 1872-3," to assess compensation for Land taken belonging to Messrs. Finlayson and Tolmie:—
The grounds of compensation are as follows :—
1. The value of the land in connection with the water rights and frontage.
2. The value of the land for building or Dock purposes.
3. The value of the water rights.
4. The stoppage up of the public road running through the land of the complainants.
5. Damage to adjoining land in consequence of severance.
6. Compulsory taking.
7. Damage to adjoining land in consequence of a road having to be made.
The claimants place their damage at $100,000.
(Signed) '        Drake & Jackson,
24th February, 1876. for Messrs. Tolmie & Finlayson.
The Arbitrators to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
Victoria, B. O, 6th March, 1876.
Arbitration between the Government and Messrs. Finlayson and Tolmie.
Sir,—The Arbitrators in the above matter beg to request that you will cause them
to be furnished with the following documents:—
1. The claim of Messrs.  Finlayson  and Tolmie on which the Arbitrators are to
arbitrate.
2. Mr. Bulkley's report on projected Dry Dock.
3. Messrs. Kinipple & Morris' report on projected Dry Dock.
4. Copies of any letters between Messrs. Drake & Jackson and the Government on
the matter in question. We have, etc.,
(Signed) Wm. Wilson,
E. Grancini. 40 Vic. Arbitration—Dock Site. 455
The Surveyor-General to the Arbitrators.
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, 8th March, 1876.
Gentlemen,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th instant,
requesting to be furnished with the following documents, viz.:—
1. The claim of Messrs. Finlayson and Tolmie on which the Arbitrators are to
arbitrate.
2. Mr. Bulkley's report on projected Dry Dock.
3. Messrs. Kinipple & Morris' report on projected Dry Dock.
4. Copies of any letters between Messrs. Drake & Jackson and the Government on
the matter in question.
In reply I have the honour to inform y7ou,—
1st—That Messrs. Finlayson and Tolmie have not filed any claim with this Department.
2nd—I enclose herewith a printed copy of Mr. Bulkley's report, which you will
please be good enough to return when done with.
3rd—I enclose certified extracts from Messrs. Kinipple & Morris' report, and trust
that the information therein contained will be sufficient for your purpose.
4th—I have already placed complete copies of Messrs. Drake & Jackson's correspondence on the matter in question in the hands of A. R. Robertson, Esq., Q. C.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) A. S. Farwell.
The Arbitrators to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
The undersigned, acting as Arbitrators under the provisions of the "Public Works
Act, 1872," and the " Public Works Extension Act, 1873," to determine the amount of
purchase money to be paid to Roderick Finlayson and William Fraser Tolmie for six
and eleven-hundredth acres of land, being part of Suburban Lot 22, Esquimalt District,
required for the purposes of the Dry Dock at Thetis Cove, Esquimalt, find that by
the "Public Works Act, 1872," Section 14, " No claim of any kind for compensation,
" &c, &c, shall be submitted to or entertained by any Arbitrators unless such claim and
" the particulars thereof have been filed in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Lands
" and Works within six months next after the loss or injury complained of."
As the claim placed belore the Arbitrators has not complied with tbe requirements
of the above section, they are not in a position to make an award (although in possession of a mass of evidence which should enable them to fix a value) until the requirements of Section 14 are complied with.
(Signed) Wm. Wilson, 1  .   , .,
E. Grancini, } Arbitrator!..
24th March, 1876. C. W. R. Thomson, Umpire.
Mr. McCreight to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
Government Street, Victoria,
March 30th, 1876.
Dear Sir.—I have perused the enclosed memorandum of Messrs. W. Wilson, Grancini and Thomson, dated the 24th of March, 1876, in reference to an arbitration relative
to lands proposed to bo taken for the Dry Dock at Esquimalt, and in reference thereto
beg leave to observe, that claims under the " Public Works Acts, 1872-3," seem to be of
three kinds : 1st—In respect of lands, etc., taken. 2nd—In respect of loss or damage
to such property. 3rd—In respect of contracts relating to public works. And I think
the provisions of the 14th section are confined to the two last categories. Omission to
claim in respect of lands, &c, taken would make it incumbent on the Chief Commis- 456 Arbitration—Dock Site. 1877
sioner to tender the reasonable value with notice of arbitration, but would not justify-
either a forfeiture to the Government of the land, etc., on the one hand, or on the other
render the taking of the land impossible, and so make the Act abortive. (See Section
20 of Act of 1873, which is evidently designed to meet the case of an obstinate or absent
owner.)
I think Section 14 of the Act of 1872 was meant to deal with claims to be made by
contractors, or persons whose lands, &c, are merely damaged by public works.
As these demands are often frivolous, the period of six months may not unreasonably be given as a limitation; but even supposing Section 14 applied to lands, &c, taken,
it would, I think, be repugnant in this respect to Section 20 of the Act of 1873, and
therefore to be neglected in construing the latter, under which the Arbitrators are
acting.    (See. Section 1 of "Public Works Extension Act, 1873.")
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) J. F. McCreight.
The Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to the Arbitrators.
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, 1st April, 1876.
Gentlemen,—Referring to y-our communication of the 24th ultimo, with reference
to the arbitration between Messrs. Finlayson and Tolmie and the Government in respect
to the requirements of Section 14 of " Public Works Act, 1872," not having been complied with. In reply I have the honor to inform you that, owing to the illness of the
Honourable the  At'torneyT-General,  I have not been able to obtain his views on the
matter.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) F. Geo. Vernon.
The Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to Mr. Robertson.
Lands and-' Works Department,
Victoria, 11th April, 1876.
Sir,—I have the honour to enclose herewith a report from the Arbitrators in the
matter of Messrs. Tolmie and Finlayson and the Provincial Government, in reference
to certain land in Esquimalt District required for T)ock purposes, and to request that
you will favour me with your written opinion on the same at your earliest convenience.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) F. Geo. Vernon.
Mr, Robertson to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
Victoria, 13th April, 1876.
Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge your letter of the eleventh instant, with
enclosed report from the Arbitrators " in the matter of Messrs. Tolmie and Finlayson
and the Provincial Government in reference to certain land in Esquimalt District."
I understand that you desire my opinion on the question as to whether the Arbitrators may proceed to make their award, notwithstanding the fact that no claim was
filed in your office within the time mentioned in Section 14 of the " Public Works Act,
1872."
I am of opinion that the wwds "no claim of any kind for compensation in respect
" of any contract made or for loss or damage occasioned by anything done under this
" Act," &c, include a claim for compensation for land taken. 40 Vic. Arbitration—Dock Site. 457
The word " compensation" is used in the second section of the Act, which clearly
deals with the taking of land.
Moreover the words of Section 14 apply plainly' to such a claim as has arisen in
this case, ex. gr. for " loss " occasioned by the claimants being deprived of some land and
"damaged" by severance, &c
The words of the section under consideration are most comprehensive, and seem to
me to indicate a general intention on the part of the Legislature to require claimants to
file their claim and the particulars thereof within a certain time, as a preliminary to
arbitration. I do not observe any words in the Act or the amending Act expressing a
particular intention with respect to such claims as those in question, so as to make such
claims an exception.    1 think, therefore, the claim ought to have been filed.
At the opening of the proceedings before the Arbitrators I called attention to the
point above mentioned, and for the purpose of obviating any difficulty on that head I
suggested, and it was agreed, that the claim should be considered as filed on the first of
September, 1875. It was therefore taken as an admitted fact that the claim had been
filed. The question arises, could either party hereafter impeach the award, on the
ground that the admission was not in accordance with the fact ? I think not. The
Arbitrators derived their authority to try the questions submitted from their respective
appointments.
The filing a claim is merely matter preliminary to the exercise of their power. It
appears to me that both parties having agreed that the claim should be considered as
filed, and neither protesting against the Arbitrators going on with the inquiry, both are
now estopped from saying that the claim was not filed.
It is like the case of a judge trying issues in fact by consent without a jury. The
statute says the consent shall be in writing. Yet it has been held that where the trial
has proceeded upon a verbal consent the defendant is estopped from saying that the
Court had no jurisdiction because the consent was not in writing.
Upon the whole, therefore, I think that although the claim ought to have been filed
by- the claimants, yet that the award which may be made by the Arbitrators will not
be open to objection on the ground that the claim was not filed.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) A. Rocke Robertson,
The Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works to the Arbitrators.
Lands and Works Department,
Victoria, 18th April, 1876.
Gentlemen,—Referring to your letter of the 24th March last, in which you inform
me that you cannot fix the award in the matter of Messrs. Tolmie and Finlayson and
the Government, with reference to certain lands at Esquimalt required for Dock purposes, until Section 14, "Public Works Extension Act," is complied with,
I have the honor to inform you that this Department is advised that your award
will not be open to objection on the ground mentioned by you in the letter referred to.
I have, therefore, to request that you will proceed to make your award and publish
it at your earliest convenience.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) F. Geo. Vernon.
The Arbitrators to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
Victoria, B. O, 22nd April, 1876.
Sir,—We, W. Wilson and E. Grancini, x\rbitrators, and C. W. R. Thomson, Umpire,
appointed under the provisions of the "Public Works Act, 1872," and the "Public
Works Extension Act, 1873," to determine the amount of purchase money to be paid to Roderick Finlayson and William Fraser Tolmie for six and eleven-hundredth acres of
land, being part of Suburban Lot 22, Esquimalt, required for the purposes of the Dry
Dock at Thetis Cove, Esquimalt, find that Section 14 of the "Public Works Act, 1872,"
has not been complied with, and as the declarations of the Arbitrators and Umpire
made before a Justice of the Peace require that they shall hear and determine the
matter referred to them " under the provisions of the ' Public Works Extension Act,
1873/ and as the 'Public Works Act, 1872,' shall be construed with and as part of this
Act," (See Section 1, "Public Works Extension Act, 1873,") they are unanimously of
opinion that the claim placed before them cannot be entertained by them.
As, however, the undersigned Arbitrators and Umpire have been notified by you
by letter of 18th April, 1876, that their award will not be open to objection on the
ground that Section 14 has not been complied with, and as they have been requested
by you to render an award, the undersigned, W. Wilson and E. Grancini, Arbitrators,
not agreeing as to the value of the aforesaid six and eleven-hundredth acres land taken
for Dry Dock purposes, the undersigned, C. W. R. Thompson, Umpire, hereby awards
as follows :—That the claimants be paid at the rate of twenty-five hundred dollars
($2,500) per acre, with interest added at the rate of ten (10) per cent, per annum, from
the date of notice of the land being required by the Government, until the date of payment by the Government of the amount awarded.
We have, etc.,
(Signed, J«W-.,]MiM„
C. W. R. Thomson, Umpire.
ARBITRATION.
Declarations. .
I, Charles Ringler Thomson, do solemnly and sincerely declare that 1 will faithfully
and honestly, and to the best of my skill and ability, hear and determine the matter
referred to me under the provisions of the "Public Works Extension Act, 1873."
(Signed) C. W. R. Thompson.
Made and subscribed in the presence of
(Signed) R. Finlayson, J. P.
I William Wilson, do solemnly and sincerely declare that I will faithfully and
hones'tly, and to the best of my skill and ability, hear and determine the matter referred
to me under the provisions of the "Public Works Extension Act, 1873."
(Signed) Wm. Wilson.
Made and subscribed in the presence of
(Signed) R. Finlayson, J. P.
I, Ennenigildo Grancini, do solemly and sincerely declare that I will faithfully and
honestly, and to the best of my skill and ability, hear and determine the matter referred
to me under the provisions of the "Public Works Extension Act, 1873."
(Signed) E. Grancini.
Made and subscribed in the presence of
(Signed) R. Finlayson, J. P. 40 Vic.
Arbitration—Dock Site.
459
List of documents connected with the award in the case of Arbitration as to the
value to be paid for the land taken by the Government for the purposes of a Dry Dock.
So. 1.
Evidence of A. J. Langley.
»     2.
William Selleck.
„   3.
»    4.
>!
L. Lowenberg.
George Morison.
„    5.
J. Grant.
„   6.
W. F. Tolmie.
„    7.
H. F. Heisterman.
„   8.
„   9.
))
R. Finlayson.
John Howard.
„ io.
W. Arthur.
„ 11.
„ 12.
»
Thos. Allsop.
Robert Beaven.
„ 13.
William Bennett.
„ 14.
J. H. Gastineau.
,, 15.
A. S. Farwell.
„ 16.
R. E. Woods.
„ 17.
J. P. Davies.
„ 18.
„19.
A. Map.
Particulars of claim.
Evidence of A. J. Langley.
Alfred John Langley, being duly sworn, saith :—
I own three lots on Wharf "Street, 29, 30, 31. I bought 51, 52, 56 and 57, (7 lo(s) ;
I think I paid $3,000 or $3,500 for the seven lots. I have had no direct offers for 29, 30 and
31. I have been asked if I would take $500 a lot which I refused ; this was about two
years ago. I value the lots at not less than $1,000 a lot. I don't know if Mr. Morison
owns 51, 52, 56 and 57.
By Mr. Grancini,—1 think I paid the $3,000 or $3,500 in 1860 or 1861.
By Mr. Pollard,—It was a prospective value either Railroad or Dock or something-
arising from the value of the harbour.
By Mr. Wilson,—When I bought the land I thought it would be very valuable at
some time, that Esquimalt would be the deep sea harbour.
By Mr. Pollard,—I do not know anything about the value of adjoining lots ; the
neighbouring lot has been leased for two or three years for $15 a month to the Canadian
Government for storing rails.
_ By Mr. Wilson,—I have been asked whether I would sell, but no prices mentioned.
This was during the last two years.   I declined.
(Signed) A. J. Langley.
Evidence of William Selleck.
Wednesday, March 1st, 1876.
William Selleck, being duly sworn upon oath deposeth and saith, as follows,—
Map produced. I am the owner of the property between these crosses. 1 own
three lots on Queen Street, 30 x 100, Nos. 43, 44 and 35; they are worth $500 each.
When Mr. Bulkley was there surveying the Dock I was offered that sum; I did not accept
it. Lot 28 is mine ; I refused $1,500 for it in the last five months ; there is nothing on it.
It is a corner lot with three fronts, 30x100. Lot 27 I sold to John Porter in October last
for $1,500 ; there is a stable on it worth $500. John Porter offered me $1,500 for the lot.
I refused, and he then asked for the privilege when I did sell it. One of lots 53, 54 or
55 sold for $1,000, and one for $800 in 1858 ; they are the same size as the others 1 have 460 Arbitration—Dock Site. 1878
mentioned. I consider that if the land fronting on Queen Street was laid out in building
lots it would be as valuable as lots 43, 44 or 45. There are about 14 lots of 30x100 in an
acre. The land fronting on the water I consider as valuable for building purposes as the
other land. When I bought the land in 1858 the water frontage went with it as shewn
on this plan. I should think the value of the land for dry dock purposes is greater than
for building purposes. I cannot give the Arbitrators the difference of the value. If a dry
dock is built my property would be more valuable. I offered it to the Government at
$500 a lot, 1 mean lots 43, 44 and 45. The value of the lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 on Tolmie
Street were worth $200 to $300 in September last. I think they are the same size as
mine.
By Mr. Pollard,—I surveyed my land and put it up at auction, 13th July-, 1858. I
paid $4,400 for four acres and a half, or a little more than four acres (as the navy road
came out of the block). The highest price paid at the auction was $1,000 for a lot, and
the lowest $400 for a lot, half cash and half in three months. I do not own lots 46 and
47. Captain Foster bought them privately in 1859, for $400 each, I think. Lot 28 is a
corner lot right outside were the Dock gate would come, that is why people consider it
worth so much. I do not think it is worth twice as much as 27. I was offered $1,500
for it and refused it. Lot 26 is a public house; lot 27 adjoins it. I think that the fact
of the Dock gate adjoining those lots would double their value. The value of the lots
without the prospect of any dock might be $300 or $400, or might not be able to sell
them at all.
ByT Mr. Wilson,—Mr. Hunter offered me $500 for one of the lots 43, 44 and 45, and I
put that value on the others. It was for lot 45 that Hunter offered me $500, It was
when Mr. Bulkley was there boring. I have had no one looking for lots lately. 1 do
not know if the price of land last September was not as high as when Mr. Bulkley was
boring. There was no demand for land last September, so I can't say what it would
fetch.    I consider the value of the land depends upon the prospect of the Dock.
(Signed) Wm. Selleck.
Evidence of L. Lowenberg.
March 2nd, 1876.
Leopold Lowenberg being duly sworn. Map produced. I represent seven lots
belonging to T. W. Wood, in Blocks marked A. B. C. D. I was instructed about July
or August last to ask $5,000 for the seven lots. The lots are thirty feet in width and
vary in length; some of them are the same lots as those marked on a map in my possession as being sold at auction for $1,200 and $1,400 a lot some years ago. i consider
the land in question is as valuable as the land I have mentioned in Blocks A.B.C. and D.
I should attribute a greater value to the land on the water than the other part. I
should consider the land worth more for Dry Dock purposes than if only fit for building-
purposes. I sold a little over two acres for $5,000; this was about four years ago. I
consider land has about the same value now as in September last. Real estate is not
worth less than it was a year ago.
By Mr. Robertson.—I know section 22, the one in dispute. I sold two acres for
$2,350 on the Cadboro Bay road yesterday. I could not give the least idea of the value
of the land in question, nor any other land; the value of land depends on the demand,
and the price the man asks for it. I have had to appraise land lately, and I only put
down the price that has been realized by adjoining lands. If the Dry Dock scheme was
abandoned, the price of land at Thetis Cove would be the same. Land there was always
held at good prices. I do not consider that what a property would return is the way
to estimate its value in a new country.
By Mr. Wilson,—I own no land at Esquimalt. I have received a notice from the
Chief Commissioner for all the land round the harbour, but I don't know whether the
land I represent is wanted for the Dry Dock.
(Signed) Ld. Lowenberg. 40 Vic. Arbitration—Dock Site. 461
Evidence of George Morison.
George Morison, being duly sworn, saith:—
I own four lots in Esquimalt; I think 51, 52, 56 and 57 are the ones I own. I
bought them of Mr. James Langley7. I never put any real value on them, but I would
not like to sell more than one at a thousand dollars;-1 consider them worth more. I
have been keeping them for that purpose. Last year Allsop wanted to buy one from
me; he asked me to put a price on them, say $1,500; I said I would not. I think it was
after Bulkley was boring.    I value my lots at least $1,000 each.
By Mr. Robertson,—I can't fix the time the conversation took place; they have
been bought a long time, thinking a good harbour or depot would be there. My expectations are that there will be a railroad depot or wharf or business place, or something
there. I consider them worth $1,000 now. I cannot say there is any7 use they could be
applied to now to realize$l,000 each. Iboughtthemallat onetime. 1 have had them three
or four years. I should not have bought them as a matter of choice, they were deeded
to me by Mr. James Langley; I took them as security7 for his wife for about $100 a lot;
they are in my name. I have not purchased or sold any other property in that neighbourhood. I owned four lots in James' Bay, but have no experience in the sale of real
estate. I hold them as trustee for Mrs. Langley. There was no understanding as to the
market value of the land between myself and Mr. Langley at the time I took them
over; Ldo not know the assessed value of the land.
Bjt Mr. Drake,—I simply hold the lots as trustee for Mrs. Langley, independently
of what they7 cost me.
By Mr. Wilson,—They7 have never produced'me anything. I consider the lots worth
$1,000 each. I do. not know the size of them. I suppose a water lot is of more value
than a lot in the back part of the town. Mr. Allsop asked me to make an offer, say
$1,500. I think be was talking business. I do not know if any lots near me sold as
high as that. If I was offered $1,500 a lot, I would sell them. Mr. Allsop came to me
several times on the subject.
(Signed) Geo. Morison.
Evidence of W. P\ Tolmie.
Thursday, 2nd March, 1876.
William Fraser Tolmie, being duly sworn, saith:—
1 am one of the parties interested in this property. I have an equal interest with
Mr. Finlayson. It was bought from the Hudson Bay Co. in 1856. It was a purchase
made by me for a particular purpose. Between thirty and forty years the whole country was in dispute; it was debated between the Hudson Bay people as to where the town
would be. Esquimalt became known and the Company settled there. From my intercourse with the navy I obtained information that Esquimalt was a particularly good
harbour. I consulted with. Mr. Finlayson and we agreed to purchase Thetis Cove, having learned it was particularly adapted for the purpose of a graving dock. As early as
I860, Admiral Maitland, Commander-in-chief of the Pacific, interviewed me as to the
sale of this property7, and then spoke about it for the purposes of a public dock. I have
never offered it for sale for building purpose. I always thought it would be wanted by
some parties for dock purposes ; that was my original idea when I bought it. There
was a part that is rocky that would be available for wharfs. I consider my land worth
more than for mere building purposes. I am not anxious to sell. I have an abiding
confidence in Esquimalt as a commercial port. This piece of land is in the most sheltered part of Esquimalt harbour, and the most easy of access. I have heard the evidence
of Mr. Selleck and Mr. Langley. I consider that this piece of land is more valuable for
the construction of a graving dock than any other piece in Esquimalt harbour. I have
read the report in the paper produced, Standard, October 30th, 1872.
[The document is not put in, but one of the Arbitrators will, under the 15th Section,
apply to the Government for its production and also Messrs. Kinipple & Morris' report.
Dr. Tolmie's examination is postponed until the production of the report.] 462 Arbitration—Dock Site. 1877
7th March, 1876.
The deepest water is also at Thetis Cove. I have seen Mr. Bulkley's and Messrs.
Kinipple & Morris' report as to the respective values of the several sites for a dock and
they agree with my previously formed opinion as to the value of this site. As to the
purchase of this land, I bought the land "looking ahead." I never thought it would be
all wanted for a dock. As building land I value the land in question (the six acres the
Government have taken) at $1,500 per lot for the water lots, lots of thirty feet frontage,
considering that Esquimalt is the most commodious harbour in British Columbia, its geographical position and its rising importance. I value the back lots at $500 a lot, considering that $600 or $700 has been asked for some lots and $500 has been paid and refused for
others. I value the back lots at the rate of $6,000 per acre. I think a considerable increase of value is attachable to this land owing to its special adaptability for dry dock
purposes. Mr. Bulkley values the special advantages of this locality over other localities at $112,000, and Messrs. Kinipple & Morris value the special advantages at
£18,000, and that advantage would avail us in selling it to any parties. As this land is
taken compulsorily I claim a compensation in respect to that taking should be paid as
is customary.    I am not anxious to soil the land.
By Mr. Robertson,—When I say it is customary to pay 25 per cent, compensation I
speak from hear say, not from my own knowledge. I have never offered this land for
sale, Or even had an offer, as it was known we were not selling. The land originally
cost £1 an acre; this was in 1856. My estimate of $1,500 per water lot is based upon
my experience of Portland and other places, and upon the comparative value of water
lots in other places with the lots immediately behind.
By Mr. Wilson,—When I say $1,500 a lot for water lots I mean as regards the
choice part of Esquimalt Harbour, the part in question. I consider Mr. Bulkley's
report a trustworthy report and think that the Arbitrators ought to consider it as it
treats of the value of that property. I see in Mr. Bulkley's pamphlet eight acres at
$1,600 an acre amounting to $12,800; but Mr. Bulkley is an engineer and not a land
agent, and I also see that he makes out this land to be $112,240 more valuable for Dock
purposes than the next most suitable spot in Esquimalt; I mean that the difference of
the Dock constructed in Lang's Cove and Thetis Cove is $112,240, and that the owners
of the land on Thetis Cove should benefit thereby. On May 7th I notified the Land
Office that 1 would fix the price of the land as soon as they told me what they wanted,
but I did not do so. I have never put a claim in for compensation till the Arbitrators
met. I consider it was put in pro forma then, for peace and quietness. I dated the claim
back to 1st September. The claim had to be built up and substantiated from testimony
to be produced before the Arbitrators.
By Mr. Drake,—When I speak of Mr. Bulkley's report I only refer to its engineering
point of view.
(Signed) W. F. Tolmie.
Evidence of Henry Frederick Heislerman.
Henry Frederick Heisterman being duly sworn, saith:—
I am a land agent. I know something about the value of land at Esquimalt Harbour. On the 30th of June, 1873, I sold one acre to Mr. Robertson for $1000; this was
at Constance Cove. I sold six acres to Mr. Beaven with a water frontage of 180 feet
on Lang's Cove, for $3,000. Mr. Trounce has some lots south of Block XXII; I offered
him $500 a lot for two lots last summer; he refused it; there were no improvements.
Arthur wanted to buy them; I think they are 30 x 100. I also applied to buy Lot 32,
Block F. Mr. Long was the owner of it, 18 feet on Wharf Street by 30 feet back, no
improvements; he wanted 8500 for it. There have been no lots sold lately; no one will
sell any. I think all the back lots are worth irom $300 to $500 a lot. The water lots
could not be bought for less than $900 or $1000 a lot.
By Mr. Robertson,—Porter bought Lot 27 from Selleck, for $1,500; there is a
stable[on it worth $300; it is on the principal street. 1 collect the rent for Lot 28; it
brings $15 a month.   Porter bought in  October.    When I offered the $500 a lot  to 40 Vic. Arbitration—Dock Site. 463
Trounce, it was before the site of the Dock was fixed; he said nothing would induce
him to sell; the land derives its value principally from the possible Railway and Dry
Dock. Before any Dock was spoken ot prices ruled at $200 a lot, lots 30 x 100. Land
has improved in Esquimalt during the last four or five years, independent of the Dry
Dock. I have effected no sales in Esquimalt other than those I have mentioned. I have
not tried to make any sales or purchases lately; there is no land for sale. I had orders
to purchase about two years ago, but could not buy; people had more confidence last
year. I am sure I could sell the back lots at $300 or $400 a lot now. I have several
persons who wish to buy for building, lots 30 x 100. I am not authorized by any person to-day to give $300 or $400 a lot. No sales have been made at Constance Cove
lately. Part of Lot 52 was offered at auction (containing about two acres) in December
last; I don't remember the prices bid.
By Mr. Grancini,—I think the four water'lots in Blocks C. and D. would have
fetched $1,000 each, and the back lots $500—this would have been six months ago. If
I was selling the rocky piece I should think it as valuable as the rest. If there was no
Dry Dock I could not give their value. The town has stood still, but property has
increased in value; lots on Wharf Street have never been less than $200 a lot.
(Signed)       H. F. Heisterman.
Evidence of John Grant.
Wednesday, 8th March, 1876.
John Grant, being duly sworn, saith:—
I tried to buy some property at Esquimalt about a year ago; a friend and myself
wished to buy some land at the head of Thetis Cove, anywhere between Wharf Street
and Thetis Cove. I asked who had the sale of the land about there, and was told
Allsop. We were prepared to pay $400 or $500 a lot, and wo were asked from $600 to
$700 a lot. I think some of the lots we wanted to buy were in Block B. We were
anxious to get Lot 52 in Block C, and Lot 47 in Block B. We were offered some lots, I
think 21 was one, in Block E, for the same price as those lots in Blocks C. and B. I
believe the lot in Block E. is 30 x 90. We were willing to give from $400 to $500 a lot
for the land in Block XXII, between Hospital Road and Thetis Cove. We were not able
to buy7 any at that price.
By Mr. Robertson,—I knew at that time that Thetis Cove had been selected as the
site of the Dry Dock, but did not know that everybody else knew. Mr. Allsop said
that those lots that were for sale would not be sold for less than $700, or thereabouts;
I said that was more than we were prepared to give, but we would give $400 or even
$500 for good lots. I think he said some of the property was Dr. Tolmie's, and some he
said belonged to a man in England. The only interest we had in buying land was on
the chance of the Dock being built, and the property being more valuable. 1 cannot fix
the value of the land independent of the Dry Dock. It was in the Blocks A. to E. and
XXII that we wanted to buy land. We did not make any offers for land in Constance
Cove. I did not say I would give so much money for such a lot, but said I would be
willing to pay such a sum if they7 were sold.
By Mr. Wilson,—"By we" I mean Joshua Davies and myself; the arrangement to
buy was between him and myself; I had information that led me to believe that the
Dock was to be built there; we would have invested $2,500 between us. I think I did
not go to any one else but Allsop. Our object in trying to buy the lots was simply for
speculation, in the idea that their value would increase. I have not tried since the site
of the Dry Dock has been fixed. 1 would now be willing to give $400 or $500 for that
Lot 21 in Block E. There are pieces now that I would be willing to give $400 or $500
for; the reason that-T might not give as much now as last year, is that last year there
was a chance of the Railway Terminus being at Esquimalt. Allsop gave me a memorandum of the lots he had to sell. I would not like to give as much for property in
Esquimalt this year as last, owing to uncertainty in Railway matters. I believe in that
property for two reasons—Dry Dock and Railway.
(Signed) John Grant. 464 Arbitration—Dock Site. 1877
Roderick Finlayson's Evidence.
March 20th, 1876.
Roderick Finlayson being duly sworn, saith:—
I have not formed an opinion of the value of the land taken, up to the present moment. Its value to those who own it depends really upon the purposes for which we
intended it, for I had it in contemplation to put a stone quay there, and use the rocks
on this same land for that purpose. I had that in view for several years. 1 waited till
the requirements of commerce justified it. It was my intention, if the Government had
not taken the land for Dock purposes, to put up a stone quay there. I had not made up
my mind as to when I would do that, but a demand is last growing at Esquimalt for
such a wharf, as there is no wharf for ocean steamers at Esquimalt, and that being the
most suitable from its depth of water, was considered the best. I think the time has
come to build a quay on a small scale, if there was no Dry Dock to be built on the land.
I think I would get a percentage on the outlay from the ocean steamers laying alongside it. I can't say what percentage 1 would expect; the principal reason for putting a
wharf there is its sheltered position and the depth of water. I have not gone into a
calculation as to the cost or returns. The intention was to keep it for that, and I would
much rather have the Dock at Constance Cove, simply7 for that object. I bought it for
that purpose in the beginning of 1856 (I believe). I have never caused any one to
make a calculation. I do not think a road there would be very expensive. We intended
to make a plank road along the shore; that w7ould be the onlyr way, except blasting the
rocks: as a commencement the plank road would be cheapest I have held it continuously since 1856. In 1858 there was no shipping; the coal mines and lumber trade were not
developed, but now the time is fast approaching when such a wharf is required. The terminus on the opposite side would affect the value of the property, as a narrow gauge
could be built round the Esquimalt harbour. It is difficult to put a value on the land,
as the proprietors do not wish to part with it. I think the water lots fronting the harbour ought to be worth $3,000 or $4,000 a lot. If the land were not my own, I can't
say if I would buy it for the purpose of building a stone quay. The value of this land
depends upon the progress of the country and population; it is difficult to put a value
on it, as it is not agricultural land, it is a town site. I have not sold any7 lands about
Esquimalt town. I bought land some years ago in Constance Cove, the west part of
section 52, for $900. It was the year that there was an idea of building a dock at Con-
atance Cove.    There were surveys made by the Admiral's officers.
By Mr. Drake,'—People have applied to me for leases of the land for building purposes, but we would not lease it, having it in contemplation for the purposes we have
said. I have never offered it for sale; I think it is more valuable than Selleck's property, as it has deeper water, and the rear is equally as suitable as Selleck's property
for building purposes.
By Mr. Wilson,—Mr. Selleck is under no obligation to me; I lent him money and
he gave me security, 1 do not know if any of Mr. Selleck's property is to be taken for
the Dry Dock; the value of the land back of the water frontage without the Dock is
between $600 and $700 a lot, 30 x 100, at the lowest price. I have never estimated the
value of the land on the basis of the figures I have given. The foreshore I believe
belongs to the Admiralty. We do not possess the foreshore right yet. We did not
send in our claim, as we were of opinion that too much land had been asked for; 1 do
not know of any other reason.
(Signed)       Rodk. Finlayson.
Evidence of John Howard.
Monday, March 20th, 1876.
John Howard, being duly sworn, saith :—
I live at Esquimalt, have lived there since 1858. I know Thetis Cove and the land
lying about it. I know the land to the West of Thetis Cove, it is a mountain of rock ;
the rock is irregular in its height. I should suppose the highest part would be thirty
feet high or more.    Plan produced.    The rock extends to the point A, as shewn upon 40 Vic. Arbitration—Dock Site. 465
the plan marked X. The rock is very much broken up. The land West of Thetis Cove
(in the state it is now) is not suitable for building residences or warehouses. It would
require to be blasted, that would be a very expensive jirocess from the look of it. There
is no road to it. It would not be possible to make a road out to the point without a
good deal of blasting. I have been over Section 22 two or three times. I have purchased land about Esquimalt; it is some time since I bought. There is a part of Section
22 that could be built on. Independent of the Dry Dock the land would not bring
much. I think it would be worth $750 an acre, or at the outside $1,000 an acre, that is
averaging it all round, the good land and the rocky. I know of some lots that were put
up at auction at J. P. Davies' about five years ago. I believe the highest bid for one lot
was $25. I don't know where it was. Lot 40, Block A, was sold by Mr. Spark when
he left here at public auction for $110. It was sold to Downer; it was fenced. I know
the lot Selleck sold to Porter. There is a stable on it and a little place that used to be
a lock-up. I don't think the stable could be built for less than $400. I consider lots on
the main street are more valuable. I consider the value of this land, Section 22, is
almost entirely contingent upon the Dry Dock. I do not hear of any demand for property in Esquimalt. I have a house and lot on Wharf Street, opposite Arthur's. I want
to sell ; I can get no purchaser. I have offered the house and lot for $600, the lot is 30x
120. The house could not be built for less than $500. In selling the house and lot for $600
$500 represents the value of the house and $100 the value of the lot. I have only offered
it to one person at Seattle. I would sell it to anyone at that price. One or two parties know that I offered it for sale. This was nine or ten months ago. I know Mr.
Langley's lots 29, 30 and 31 on Wharf Street. I think that independent of the Dock
they are worth about $150 each.
By Mr. Drake,—Lots 34, 35, 36 on Block F. are mine. I don't know if they are
taken for the Dbck ; have received no notice. I gave $2,000 for the lots and buildings,
ninety feet frontage, six or seven years ago. I have put $3,000 improvements on them.
I would take $6,0u0 for them. No one is living in the house I offered for $600. It has
been empty two or three years ; the house does not improve by that. I have other property in Esquimalt, in Lang's Cove. I bought it some four or five years ago. There
was a house on it when I bought it.    I do not deal in land.
By Mr. Robertson,—In saying I would take $6,000 for my lots and buildings I take
into consideration the value of an old established business. I think I gave $200 for the
house and two lots at Lang's Cove, the two lots together were 60 x 120. I bought it at
auction from Mr. Nathan.    The house was worth $200.
By Mr. Wilson,—The buildings on my lots are worth pretty near all I am asking for
it. I can't rent my house for $5 a month, two storeyed, part hard finished. I went to
Esquimalt in 1858. The population is the same now as 17 years ago, probably 100 people. One lot was sold at J. P. Davies' auction room about 1865, which Mr. Spark bought
for $40. I did not bid against him as he told me he wanted it for the church. I might
have gone as high as $50 had not the lot been wanted for the church.
(Signed)       J. T. Howard.
Evidence of William Arthur.
Monday, 20th March, 1876.
William Arthur, being duly sworn, saith :—
I live at Esquimalt, have lived there 16 years. I own some land there. I know-
Thetis Cove and the land in the vicinity of it. I know Section 22; I have been over it
hundreds of times. I concur in Mr. Howard's description of the land. The land West
of the Cove is not fit for building without blasting away the rock. Independent of the
Dry Dock, if the land West of Thetis Cove was divided into lots 30 x 100, they might
be worth $20 a lot. Part of the land is not rocky but very" good. If I wanted a lot just
to build on, or for a garden, I might give $100 a lot. Averaging the land all round I
think $700 or $800 an acre would be a good price for the land as a speculative purpose.
Mr. Williams purchased five acres near the Club in 1873 for $1,750 I think. Section 31
fronting on the water is the piece.    Two and a half acres are good land, the rest is 466 Arbitration—Dock Site. 1877
rocky. It was not improved or fenced when Mr. Williams bought it. There was no
house on it. There is no demand for real estate in Esquimalt. I have heard of no transactions in land lately. 1 bought Lot 45, Block B, about three years ago ; I gave $100
for it at public auction. I sold it to Selleck for $200. It was all fenced and had been
planted several times when I bought it. I bought four lots on Smith's property in 1860.
I still hold them.
By Mr. Drake,—With the Dock to be built on it I should think that Section 22
would be worth $1,200 or $1,400 an acre. At the time of the Railroad survey Williams
was offered $3,000 for the $1,750 property. If the Dry Dock want our property we
would take $8,000 for it. I should think it would make no difference to the value of the
land whether private individuals or Government built the Dock. I believe the land is
admirably suited for Dock purposes. The prices I have given would only be for residences. I can give no idea of its value for Dock purposes ; the water is I think more
valuable than the land ; it is deep water off the western shore. The water frontages
would be worth more than the prices I have mentioned either for Dock or wharf
purposes.
By Mr. Robertson,—1 would take $5,000 or $6,000 for the $1,750 property, that is
as far as I am concerned. In order to make the water frontages available for wharf
or dock purposes a great deal of blasting would be wanted.
By Mr. Wilson,—When I spoke of the value of the water frontage for wharf and
dock purposes 1 meant the value it would acquire by the work being done. I consider
that the adjoining land is increased in value by the building of the Dry Dock. The part
of Section 22 that is left would be increased in value three or four times by the building
of-the Dock. I should say a water frontage would be worth more than back land, for
either wharf purposes or dock purposes.
(Signed) William Arthur.
Evidence of Thomas Allsop.
March 22nd, 1876.
Thomas Allsop, being duly sworn, saith:—
I am a real estate agent, and have been so for several years. I know Thetis Cove,
and something of the land about it. I have examined the land in question with a view'
to appraise its value; it has not been pointed out to me. I have formed an opinion of
my own as to its value without reference to any public works. The part on the west
side of Thetis Cove 1 don't think I could put any value on. I don't see how I could
attach any value to it; it has no timber on it; it is not serviceable rock—not limestone.
It does not seem to me suitable for residences. I can't say what it would bring if offered
for sale. Without the Dry Dock or public w7orks, 1 don't see why any one would make
an offer for it, unless the owners of adjacent property bought it to prevent being overlooked. I cannot give an opinion as to its suitability7 for wharves or quays. The land at
the head of the Cove seems suitable for building purposes. Irrespective of the Dry Dock
I don't see that it could be worth more than $1,000 or $1,500 an acre. I do not know of
any sales lately in the vicinity of this land. There is a good deal of land in and around
Esquimalt unoccupied, as suitable for building purposes as this, only that this is near
the thickest part of the town; persons wishing to build could find plenty of other land
if this was held at a very high figure. I had no distinct offer from Mr. Grant; I had
no land that I had power to sell, but some that could have been sold on my recommendation. Mr. Grant made no distinct offer for land I had to sell, but made an offer for
land that Mr. Langley and Mr. Morison owned, but nothing came of it. I did not
make a distinct offer to Mr. Langley or Mr. Morison for the land that Mr. Grant
wanted. The Hudson Bay'Company7 applied to me to value a section of land near
Constance Cove, part of it reaching down to the water; it was a large tract. I believe
Mr. Lowenberg valued it at the same time.    I valued it at $250 per acre.
By Mr. Drake,—I value land according to what I think it is fit for. I believe there
was over 100 acres in the piece of land I valued at Constance Cove; I valued it for 40 Vic. Arbitration—Dock Site. 467
agricultural and timber purposes, and also because it abutted on a good harbour and
roads. I hardly know the value of good timber land at Esquimalt. My instructions
were to value section XXII merely with a view to give evidence; I valued it as suburban town land at Esquimalt. I should value land (Block P.) for building purposes,
having a road running through it, higher than Block 22. I can't give a decided opinion on the relative value of the two pieces of land, because I have not studied the
relative value of the road and shore frontages. When I valued the land I took the
water frontage and road frontage into consideration. I valued the shore frontage the
same as the road frontage. I considered it all as frontage. I valued the whole of the
part available for building purposes from $1,000 to $1,200 or $1,500 per acre. I could
not estimate the value of the water frontage of the rocky part. I did not take into consideration any value that might be attached to the land from works that private individuals might put up, such as quays, etc. Mr. Grant led me to believe he would give a very
high sum, but I do not recollect the amount he mentioned. I do not recollect what Mr.
Morison said he would take, but it was a sum greater than Mr. Grant was willing to
give. The only value I put on the land was for building and occupation land. Occupation of land adds to its value. The probability of its being wanted for that purpose,
adds to its value. I have no idea of the value of the land for a Dry Dock or for
wharves or quays.
(Signed) Thomas Allsop.
Evidence of Robert Beaven.
Robert Beaven, being duly sworn, saith:—
At the time this land was required for Dry Dock purposes, I was Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works. I tendered Messrs. Finlayson and Tolmie $600 per acre.
I judged that was good value for the land. If I judge right it was assessed at $500 per acre.
1 thought that was its speculative value. Its intrinsic value would be small, as it is
neither mineral or agricultural land. A great deal of th* land is very rocky, and any
work done for the Dry Dock would require a good deal of blasting, which would be
very expensive, and would lessen its value. 1 think I have stated all my reasons for
fixing that value. I thought it was right the Government should give a fair price. I
thought the piece of land left to Messrs. Finlayson and Tolmie (about two acres) would
be enhanced in value by the Dock. I bought some land of Dr. Helmcken in Constance
Cove.    I paid $3,000 for seven acres; this was in 1873.
By Mr. Drake,—I sold part of it at the rate of $750 an acre; I had it surveyed and
cut into lots. I bought it because I thought the railway was to be built. I sold it at
so much an acre all round, without distinction as to water frontage. I don't think land
is worth $750 an acre for agriculturai land. It was good level land. The reason I
think the land at Thetis Cove is not worth so much as my land at Constance Cove, is
that it would cost so much to blast. The plan does not show that the rock on the west
side of Thetis Cove is required to be blasted for excavating the dock, but I believe they
will have to be blasted down for placing machinery buildings on. The Engineers said
it would have to be levelled off. 1 don't know the amount of rock there is in the six
and one-tenth acres. If I owned the land at Thetis Cove, and it was wanted for Dock
purposes, I would give what was wanted, as long as sufficient was left for me to speculate with.    Two acres with the Dock would be equal to fifty without it.
By Mr. Grancini,—Mr. Morris considered that Thetis Cove was sheltered from
some winds that might prevail in other parts of the harbour. It was also acceptable to
the Admiralty7. The selection of the site was left entirely to Mr. Morris. I told him to
select the best site, independent of the value or ownership of the land.
By Mr. Wilson,—The Engineer decided as to the quantity of the land to be taken.
I took the six acres because the Engineer said it was necessary.
(Signed) Robert Beaven, 468 Arbitration—Dock Site. 1877
Evidence of William Bennett.
William Bennett, being duly sworn, saith :—
1 am a Civil Engineer. I know Thetis Cove at Esquimalt. I have been over the
rocks on the West side of Thetis Cove several times. It would be perfectly impossible
to put any building there without considerable blasting. The amount of blasting would
depend upon the size and position of the building to be erected. I am told that up here
the cost of blasting is from $5 to $4 per cubic y7ard. The approach is most difficult. An
approach could not be made without a great deal of trouble. It would require filling
and blasting to take a team down. There are several sites in the harbour where a quay
could be erected at much less expense than at this particular spot, as the approaches to
it are so expensive to make. I know the land that is required by7 the Government for
Dry Dock purposes.    Plan produced.
By Mr. Drake,—I have been to San Francisco and have seen the plank roads there.
It is feasible to carry a plank road round the water frontage. There would not be any
great expense. The rock would be very convenient for forming a stone quay. It would
be less expensive getting it on the spot than having to haul it half a mile. The rock is
useful either for building purposes or building a quay. I am the resident engineer of
the intended Dock. The intention is to use the rocks for the purpose of making concrete. It is less expense to the Government having the rock there than having to haul
it. The price of blasting in England would be about $1 per cubic y7ard. The price raises
with the quantity. I have had no experience here as to the price. This locality is most
suitable for a Dry Dock, the most suitable in the harbour.
By Mr. Robertson,—In building a stone quay it might be necessary to blast more
stone than would be required for the quay, that is if a warehouse were required. I
should think there would be ample rock for all the Government required. I have made
enquiries as to the price of blasting from those who have had to pay for blasting.
By Mr. Wilson,—The soil round the shore is not suitable for driving piles. Every
pile would have to be iron shod. Where the foundation is rock the piles would have to
be planted. That is a very expensive operation, much more so than driving. I do not
read Messrs. Kinipple & Morris' estimate of the value of the land. I have not read their
report carefully. Quays in a harbour where there is not much rise and fall of tide are
very expensive affairs.    I have no idea of the cost without figuring on it.
(Signed) W. Bennett.
Evidence of John Gaslineau.
Thursday, 23rd March, 1876.
John Herbert Gastineau, being duly sworn, saith :—
I know Thetis and Constance Cove. I have seen Mr. Bulkley's report on the Dry
Dock. I have examined the ground and the plans he made his estimates from. I think
he has undervalued the advantage of Thetis Cove. I agree mainly with his figures except as to the Cofferdam (the cost of it). As I had not the data of Mr. Bulkley, I made
a separate calculation of my own. I have examined Thetis Cove personally. They
propose to use a large quantity of rock both for the sea w7all and dock, and the rock being there appears a saving of money. Independent of the Dry Dock it would require
about five feet of blasting for 200 feet to make a large area for warehouses, etc., and the
whole of the rock would be used in building the warehouses. There is no especial difficulty in building a stone quay at the point, but I can't say what the expense w7ould be.
The rock has a certain value. I believe it would cost less to blast than to bring stone
from any other locality. The backing will be rubble and concrete and the broken stone
will do for that and will be cheaper than bringing it from any7 other place.
By Mr. Robertson,—I have not made a survey of the site myself. I have no doubt
that his, Mr. Bulkley's, plans are correct, and I have made my calculations from those 40 Vic. Arbitration—Dock Site. 469
plans. I can't explain how we differ as to the cost of the Cofferdam. The lowest price
I have known blasting to be done in this town is $2 90 per cubic y7ard. If a site for a
warehouse were blasted out as I have said at point O, the height of the floor would be
25 feet above the water, and at a distance of from 100 to 300 feet from the wharf. A site
30 x 100 contains 660 yards and would cost taking it at $3 a yard $1,980.
(Signed) John Gastineau,
Evidence of Arthur Stanhope Farwell.
Arthur Stanhope Farwell, being duly sworn, saith:—
I am the Surveyor-General of the Province. I know the land taken by the Provincial Government at Esquimalt for Dry Dock purposes. 1 know the character of the
land on the west side of Thetis Cove; it is all trap rock. The price of blasting down
there would be from $3 to $4 50 per cubic yard. It would be rather an awkward place
to build a stone quay at the northern point; the water is very deep there (I heard Mr.
Finlayson say so). There is no rock on the lot fit to build the facing wall, coigns and
coping, and it would be expensive to build an approach there. Heavy blasting and
filling too would be required. The rock used in blasting out would do for filling in
the back of the facing wall, and the filling of the approach. A lot of rock would have
to be blasted, more than was wanted, unless a very small quay was built. No question.
has arisen as to the fore-shore rights since I have been in the Land Office Department.
Independent of the Dry Dock I do not see to what use the west part of the land could
be put to. The north-western part might be useful for warehouses, if it were all blasted
off level, or nearly level with the quay walls. I have no idea of the value of land in
any part of the country except Government land, which is worth $1 an acre.
By Mr. Drake,—I know where the Dockyard buildings stand. Mr. Innes' house
might be as high as the rocks.
By Mr. Wilson,—I gave Mr. Robertson a sketch showing the land other than Mr.
Finlayson's and Dr. Tolmie's wanted for the Dock (sketch produced), and list of owners
as near as we have been able to gather them. 1 don't know if they have been notified
that their land was required. We received no definite answer except from Mr. Selleck.
I think we received an indefinite answer from one of the Banks. Mr. Selleck fixed a
price of $500 per lot.
(Signed) A. S. Farwell,
■ Evidence of Richard Edward Woods.
Richard Edward Woods, being duly sworn, saith:—
I am the Deputy Sheriff of Vancouver Island. I have in my custody the Wild Land
Assessment Roll for 1874. (Roll produced ) Section XXII, Esquimalt Town, appears
on the roll.    It is assessed at $500 per acre.
By Mr. Wilson,—The Sheriff is the Assessor.    Mr. Williams and Mr. Roscoe were
the Court of Appeal.    The land is assessed at the same value in the roll of 1875.
Section XXII, Esquimalt Town, is on the Assessment Roll of 1875, and is assessed
at $6u0 per acre.
(Signed) Richard Edward Woods.
83 470 Arbitration—Dock Site. 187?
Evidence of Judah Philip Davies.
Judah Philip Davies, being duly sworn, saith:—
I am an auctioneer, have been so here since February or March, 1863. Have had
a good deal to do with the sale of real estate. I know Thetis Cove and the land near
it. I have sold several plots of land in Esquimalt during the last few years. I sold lots
33 and 37 on July 31st, 1866, each having 35 feet frontage on Wharf Street, depth 240
feet, running into the harbour, for $125 each, to Mr. Rothwell. I sold Lot 40, Hospital
Street, 35 feet frontage, running back to an alley in the rear, to S. Spark, $40. I sold
lot 16, on Wharf street, with improvements, to William Arthur,'for $100. I sold lots
34, 35, 36 to John Howard, with the buildings, 90 feet frontage, for $2,000. I suppose
the buildings were valuable as an hotel. I had to go through the buildings. To any one
occupying the buildings they might have been worth $500 or $1,000. They were fitted
up as a bar room. 1 think they were not worth over $400 or $500 as an extreme price.
I sold Town Lot 18, Block 23, January 10th, 1867, for $15, to John Costello. I sold Lot
32, in 1867, for $105, to Charles Bossi. I sold Lots 24, 29, 32, in Section 22, for $16
each, (known as Smith's lots) on July 18, 1867. I sold Lots 13, 14, 15 on Wharf Street,
to C. B. Young, for $90 each, October 10th, 1867. I sold Lot 40, Block D., Section
XXIII. to L. Lowenberg as agent for somebody, for $25, on October 10th, 1887. I sold
a part of Section XIX, 8 acres, or thereabouts, for $925, for the eight acres, March 27th,
1869. I sold some lots in Constance Cove in 1870. Ten lots to Timothy Scanlan, for
$25 each. I believe they were small lots. I sold the east half of Section 52, Esquimalt
Harbour, about two and a-half acres, for $1,525, March 24th, 1871, to Anstruther. 1
offered Lot 59, Hospital Street, for sale January 24th, 1871; $25 was the highest bid.
It was not sold. Lot 58 was also offered for sale, but not sold Lots 65, 66, 62, 63.
were in the same category. Lot 64 was bought by Sydney Spark, for $75. I sold Lot
30, in Section XXIII, for $150, in August 1872. I sold subdivision 9, easterly half of
No. 8, of suburban lots, 37, 45, for $90, to G. T. Buck, on December 11th,' 1875. It
would be 30 feet by 100 in depth. I have had a good deal of property placed in my
hands to sell in addition to the above, but could not find buyers. Judging from the last
sale, there w7ere a great many enquiries for property. There is a good deal of enquiry
for land in Esquimalt Town. I don't know whether it is from inquisitiveness or not.
Independent of the Dry Dock the land in question I value at $1,500 per acre; that is
looking at it in a business point of view. Irrespective of the Dry Dock I think the
land if put up for sale, would sooner bring $2,000 than $1000. I am speaking of it as a
business man, having some knowledge of real estate, and knowing its locality and what
it is fit for. The land on the wrest part of the cove is fit for very little, unless the rock
is valuable. The rock would be valuable if anyone wanted to build a breakwater or
wharf, but I don't know if it would cost more to blast than to bring other rock. The
land at the head of the cove is useful for building sites.
By Mr. Wilson—I think that in contemplation of the Dry Dock the demand for
building sites has been greater.
By Mr. Drake—If it was publicly known that the land was going to be taken for
Dry Dock purposes, it would give it an increased value, and also to all the adjoining-
property. (Newspaper produced.) 1 do not know that I have seen the report. With
the report before me, I say it would add at least one hundred per cent, to the price I
gave, $1,500 per acre. About half of the sales I have mentioned were mortgage sales.
I have property down there to sell and can't sell it.
(Signed) J. P. Davies.
Mr. Robertson to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works.
Victoria, 14th July, 1876.
Sir,—I have the honour to enclose herewith my account in the matter relating to
the arbitration respecting Lot 44, Block XXL, Esquimalt District, under the " Public
Works Act."
I also enclose vouchers showing the disbursements for witnesses in the same
matter. I have, etc.,
(Signed) A. Rocke Robertson. 40 Vie.
Arbitration—Dock Site.
471
Mr. Robertson's Bill of Costs.
Victoria, 8th May, 1876.
The Honourable Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works
To A. Rocke Robertson, Dr,
1875.
October
i
November
ii
18T6.
February
22
j>
22
n
ii
23
24
24
ii
ii
25
25
25
ii
March
25
1
2
6
April
July
18
18
20
20
20
20
21
21
23
24
11
27
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
20
20
21
To retainer re claim of Messrs. Tolmie and Finlayson to compensation for lands
taken bv you for Dock purposes	
attending at Land Office making search on Registry of lands contiguous to land
required for Dock purposes—long attendance 	
Pa
attending W. Wilson and E. Grancini, consulting and making arrangements for
holding Arbitration	
attending notifying Messrs. Drake & Jackson as to appointment for first meeting
of Arbitrators 	
long consultation with you ,	
attending Arbitration one hour	
under  instructions   from   Arbitrators,  attending at Land  Office  applying for
copies of certain documents 	
attending at Land Office obtaining office copies of said documents	
having received same, perusing Bulkley's report and letter, etc	
attending summoning witnesses to appear...	
attending Arbitration two hours	
attending Arbitration two hours	
attending Arbitration two hours and a half  	
attending Arbitration, same postponed	
attending Arbitration three hours	
attending at Esquimalt obtaining evidence as to value of land in vicinity of Dry
Dock, and buggy hire	
attending you as to appointing J. P. Davies to appraise laud	
attending J. P. Davies requesting him to appraise the land	
letter to him thereon authorizing him to appraise...,. 	
attending R. Beaven notifying him to attend Arbitration ,	
attsnding Arbitration three hours	
long search at Land Office re Dock , 	
attending Arbitration, same adjourned	
attending Arbitration three hours	
attending Arbitration, case closed, four hours	
having received J. P. Davies' bill for appraising land, attending you as to excessive   charge	
letter to J. P. Davies thereon	
Roth well, witness fee	
R. E. Woods, witness fee	
J.T.Howard,      ,,        ,, 	
W.Arthur, ,,        ,,   .'	
J. P. Davies,        ,,        ,,  	
Thos. Allsop,       ,,        ,,	
long opinion re default of claimants to file their demand	
attending paying witnesses	
attending at Supreme Court taxing costs of Messrs. Drake & Jackson	
id witness fee A. S. Farwell 	
,,     W. Bennett	
,,     R. Beaven	
Take off..
25 00
5 00
3 25
1
15
5
00
25
00
1
75
1
75
5
00
7
00
25
00
25
00
25
00
5
00
25
00
10
00
1
75
1
75
1
25
1
75
25
00
2
50
5
00
25
00
35
00
1
75
1
25
5
00
5
00
5
00
5
00
30
00
25
00
10
00
10
00
5
00
15
00
15
00
5
00
432
50
4
00
428  50
Taxed at
50, this 21st July, 1876.
(Signed) Chas. E. Pooley,
Registrar Supreme Court. 472
Arbitration—Dock Site.
1877
Messrs. Drake g Jackson's Bill of Costs.
In the matter op the Arbitration relating to Lot 44, Block 21, Esquimalt,
under the "Public Works Act."
1875.
July
August
20
21
27
10
14
18
■September   1
November 11
15
19
25
1876.
January
February
March
Attending Dr. Tolmie and Mr. R. Finlaysoa, conferring as to the land proposed to
be taken by the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works for Dry Dock
purposes	
Perusing the letters of the Chief Commissioner as to his offer of $600 an acre, and
your refusal	
Writing to Chief Commissioner suggesting that a single Arbitrater would be satisfactory to our client ,	
Attending Dr. Tolmie, informing him that the proposal of a single Arbitrator was
declined  	
And conferring with you, when you instructed us to ascerta-in if the Chief Commissioner would be satisfied with a smaller portion of land, as you desired to
retain the rocky land on the west side	
Letter accordingly  	
Attending you conferring, when you informed us that Mr. Grancini was the Arbi
trator selected by you., ,
Drawing appointment	
Two copies	
Attending you on your signing the same	
The like on Mr. Finlayson	
Attending Mr. Grancini therewith ,	
Writing to Chief Commissioner informing him of the appointment, and requesting
him to appoint his Arbitrator	
On receipt of letter that Mr. William Wilson was to be Government Arbitrator,
attending you informing you thereof, when you again requested us to urge on
the Government the propriety of taking a smaller portion of the land	
Letter accordingly r	
Attending at the Lands and Works Department examining Mr. Bulkley's plans
and Reports, engaged a long time	
No Umpire having been appointed; attending -Mr. Grancini requesting him to press
the matter on, and notify Mr. William Wilson	
On receiving notice that Mr.j Thomson was appointed Umpire, attending informing
you thereof, and attending the Umpire requesting to know when he proposed
to hold a first sitting	
Instructions to appear	
Perusing Title Deeds	
Instructions to Mr. Gastineau to check Mr. Bulkley's figures and to examine plan..
Attending advising on evidence required as to Mr. Bulkley's comparative report,
which did not appear in the Land Office	
Writing to Mr. Bulkley for information	
Searching file of newspapers for Mr. Bulkley's Report	
Attending Mr. Gastineau with plans and figures, and long consultation on the
points on which we required evidence	
Attending at Laud Office to see Messrs. Kinipple & Morris' Report; but the Chief
Commissioner declined to allow perusal	
On receipt of notice of Arbitration, attending Mr.  Finlayson and Dr. Tolmie i
forming them thereof	
Attending Mr. Finlayson as to the witnesses to be called in support of the value of
the land, and advising on evidence 	
Instructions for Brief, 9 Witnesses	
Drawing same	
Copy for Counsel	
Attending Arbitration, same adjourned after sitting one hour	
Attending Arbitration, two hours „	
Summons (or Selleck ,   s __ " _ -#
Copy and Service !..'.'.'.„."."
Paid Horse Hire "'
Summons for Mr. Langley , _
Attending him..,	
Carried forward       139 25
$  cts.
3  25
|.     1  25
I
J
1   75
1
75
1
25
1
75
1
00
1
00
1
75
1
75
1
75
1 25
1
1
75
25
3
25
1
75
1
3
5
1
75
25
00
75
1
1
1
75
25
75
3
75
1
75
3 25
3
25
15
00
5
00
5
00
25
00
25
00
1
50
1
25
2
50
1
50
1
50 40 Vic.
Arbitration—Dock Site.
473
Messrs. Drake & Jackson's Bill of Costs.— Concluded.
1876
March
April
6
Brought forward	
Attending Arbitration, two hours ,
Attending Arbitration, two and a-balf hours	
Attending Mr. Lowenberg, informing him that he would be required ,
The like on Mr. Morison ,
Attending Arbitration, same postponed at request of Mr. Robertson	
Attending at Lands and Works Office, examining and making extracts from Messrs
Kinipple & Morris' reports 	
Copy thereof for Arbitrators , ,
Summonses for Mr. Heisterman and Mr. Grant	
Notice thereof to each	
Attending Arbitration, three hours	
Attending Mr. Gastineau, perusing his report	
Attending Arbitration, three hours	
Attending Arbitration, same adjourned	
Attending Arbitration, three hours	
Attending Arbitration, four hours	
Subsequent attendances, paying Witnesses, etc	
Letters, etc	
Drawing Bill of Costs, and copy ;	
Copy for Mr. Robertson	
Notice of Taxing	
Attending Taxing Costs	
Paid	
Witnesses.
Paid  Mr. Selleck, one day ,
,, Langley, one day...,	
,, Morison, one day	
., Gastineau, four days' special	
,, Heisterman, one day	
,, Lowenberg, one day	
,, Grant, one day	
,, Selleck  , ..,„..„
Taxed off.	
Allowed at	
139 25
25
00
25
00
1
25
1
25
5
00
5
00
1
50
2
00
2
50
25
00
3
75
25
00
5
00
25
00
35
00
10
00
5
00
5
00
1
75
1
00
3
00
2
00
7
50
5
00
5
00
150
00
5
00
5
00
3
50
7
50
443
25
23
85
	
419 40
(Signed)
Henry S. Mason, D. R.
Arbitration Fees.
Victoria, B. C, 22nd April, 1876.
Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works
Dr. to Messrs. William Wilson, B. Grancini, and C. W. R. Thomson,
Arbitrators and Umpire in the matter of compensation for land taken from Messrs.
Tolmie and Finlayson for purposes of a Dry Dock.
To Arbitration Pees $750 00
Taxed at $750 00.
(Signed)       Chas. E. Pooley,
Registrar Supreme Court, 474 Arbitration—Dock Site. 1877
Victoria, 1st May, 1876.
The Honourable Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works
To C. J. Prevost, Dr.
To services in taking down the evidence and acting as secretary to the Arbitrators in the Arbitration as to the amount of compensation to be paid to
Messrs. Tolmie and Finlayson for land taken for purposes of a Dry Dock $60 00
Certified correct,
Wm. Wilson,
E. Grancini,
C. W. R. Thomson.
1 believe this to be a proper charge for the sevices rendered.
Chas. E. Pooley,
Registrar Supreme Court.
VICTORIA:
PRINTED   BY  RICHARD  WOLFENDEN,  GOVERNMENT  PRINTER,
AT   THE   GOVERNMENT   PRINTING-   OFFICE,   JAMES1   BAV.
1877,

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcsessional.1-0060674/manifest

Comment

Related Items