Land Committee. Numerous unimproved Lots - recommended to the favourable consideration of this Committee by: Henry Bollinger, because the parties had expended large sums of money in this way Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co., and others; are allowed to retain ten unimproved Lots. Messrs. Gibb, Livingston & Co., because they had spent $4,000 on one lot are allowed, if they choose, to retain seven others, and I, after being heard by the Committee, it was shown that they had spent £8,000, (or $12,000, but they were subject to certain conditions), they never applied to me on the subject. I recommend that they not be deprived of an improved lot upon which nearly $1,600 had been spent in improvements and buildings, without any reason other than a factitious entry that, it is evident, could have been inserted for a purpose.
With respect to Marine Lot No.36, I have little more to say. I am unwilling to apply to Mr. Holgate on the subject, and all other parties who could give evidence have left the Colony. I would however submit that - although the Committee appointed by notice dated 29th March, pursuant to notice dated 22nd March, left no record of their proceedings, it is no fault of mine, and I am prepared to make affidavit that that Committee not only confirmed me in the possession of 80 feet frontage, but added four feet additional, in evidence of which it will be found that the retaining wall against the road is exactly that length.
Perhaps it may not be consistent with the knowledge of your Committee, but I am satisfied I am correct in stating that at the time the lot in question was being cleared and formed, if Mr. Holgate had applied for 150 feet in place of 80 feet it would at once have been granted on the same terms, if no Government reserve intervened on the line required. Witness the number of lots that lapsed to the Crown because the holders did not think it worth while to improve them, besides others that were allowed to be retained after the period had expired, on the parties undertaking to improve them.