APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM THE LAND COMMISSION OF 1886-87.
31
to have taken place to the West and South. This was done by Mr. STEPHENS at the instance of the Government in accordance with their previous notification and, as far as I can see, he derived no appreciable benefit from the transaction. Mr. STEPHENS became the purchaser of Marine Lot 184, took an assignment of it from the then owner, surrendered it to the Crown and obtained a new Crown Lease with altered boundaries on the 13th September, 1884. These new boundaries were settled by Mr. HANCOCK from the measurements contained in the various Leases, working from West to East. He found, according to his measurements, that the block was more extensive than the Lease measurements and that most of the increase was found in Lot 184. He had instructions to make Whitty Street 30 feet, if possible, instead of 25 feet and seems to have considered himself justified in assuming, that because Lot 184 contained more land than was mentioned in the Lease, that therefore there must have been an encroachment at one time by Lot 184 on Whitty Street. But it does not appear that Whitty Street was ever at any time, or was ever intended to have been, wider than 25 feet, indeed, according to the sale plans, 25 feet appear as nearly as we can judge to have been the width intended. Now the Government sold and intended to part with the whole block of land, and I presume that, under the circumstances, the measurements were given as approximate and proportionate between the various purchasers of the different lots into which the block was subsequently intended to be actually divided. At first, as we have seen, when Lots 184, 185, 186 were sold there were intended to be two blocks with a Street dividing the block originally sold from the one that was retained in the hands of the Government. Subse- quently, as we find, the Street was abandoned and the two blocks were thrown into one. We do not know, as I have already pointed out, when the reclamations were made and the blocks laid out. Judging from probabilities one would assume that the Lots upon which the Battery originally stood would be the first reclaimed and that the work of filling up was continued at the same time both to the East and West of the land which was originally above low water mark, nor do we know whether the reclamation of Lots 184, 185 and 186 was completed before the other Lots were sold. If it was and the streets and roads were actually laid out in accordance with the sale plan, or approxi- mately thereto, then, as it appears to me, if there was any slight excess in the block the parties who had purchased the various Lots would have been entitled to have divided the excess between them, possibly paying the difference if appreciable for the increase in their holdings, as they would have been obliged to have retained their purchases if there had been a slight diminution in the quantity possibly receiving an abatement in the price and a proportionate deduction in the ground rent. If the land had not been actually reclaimed until the two blocks had been conso- lidated into one then as it appears to me the holders of the various lots would have had equal rights to have had the surplus or the loss divided between them. When the blocks were reclaimed however they do not appear to have been re-measured and divided between the parties according to their purchases. No question arises with regard to Lots 198, 204 and 205. Ļots 204 and 205 seem, according to the evidence, to have been held as oue Lot, and the actual boundaries seem to correspond very nearly with the actual lease measurements except in the length which both Mr. HANCOCK and Mr. DANBY agree in saying do not correspond. Mr. HANCOCK assuming that these Lots were put back from the Praya, and Mr. DANBY assuming that the road at the South was originally intended to be put further back than it actually has been. At the Eastern boundary of Lot 198 it would appear to be the exact length while each of the other boundaries decreases, and decreases in a corresponding ratio as we compare them with the measurement of the Leases until we come to the Western boundary of 184 which is about the same. Mr. HANCOCK on his plan has shown what he considers to have been the original line intended along the Praya, and Mr. Danby and Mr. DRUITT agree with him that the actual present line of the Praya does not agree with either of the sale plans. Mr. HANCOCK asserts that, according to the way in which he has laid out what he considers the original frontage of the Praya as it was intended to be, all the actual length measurements exactly correspond except the Western boundary of Lot 184 which ought to have been 360 feet to make it correspond with the other measure- ments of length, but is given on the Lease as 340 feet. This lease measurement he considers must have been a mistaken one, and as he thinks probably a clerical error. If this be so, and I am inclined to think it is if Mr. HANCOCK'S measurements are to be relied on, it seems probable that when the block was laid out a measurement was taken out from Battery Road of 250 feet to the Praya, and that that spot was marked as the North Eastern line of the Southern side of the Praya and that a line was taken from some temporary mark on the South Eastern boundary where, from the importance of its position, we should expect some fixed mark to be, (there being nothing to prevent a mark being placed there on the hill side), and that a line of 340 feet instead of 360 feet was run out to the Praya, and that that spot was marked as the North Western line of the Praya, the Southern line of the Praya running from the North Eastern boundary of the Lot to the South Eastern boundary, as thus ascertained, along the whole of the Lots, the intermediate boundaries of the lots as regards length not being measured, and this is borne out to some extent by the evidence of the Surveyors, Mr. HANCOCK stating that there is a well defined boundary on the North Eastern portion of the block, and Mr. DANBY stating that there was also a well defined boundary on the North Western portion of the block. But we are told that the buildings on the Praya are not in a straight line, but that the buildings on Lots 198, 204 and 205 are in a straight line but slope back from the Praya, while the buildings on Lots 184, 185 and 186 are in another straight line but sloping still further back from the Praya. If we assume