# 2.
parties have made any bona fide outlay, and unwilling to retain their lots on "raised terms, you will settle each case equitably and on its own merits, bearing in mind such expectations as it may have been reasonable to form under public notice issued, though without sufficient powers, by the Officer exercising the "Chief Authority" on the spot!.
I beg leave also to refer to Lord Stanley's despatch in additional support of certain claims I advanced against over-measurement of the Marine Lot now processed by me, which I have paid in error ever since 1843. His Excellency, I think, stated the Lot having been granted by Mr. Schuston did not come under "the regulations affecting those sold at the sale by Captain Hallist in June 1841" with respect to the last, Lord Stanley says, Blue Book page 392, that, "it would be only just to confirm the Marine Lots at the prices they fetched at Auction," which was accordingly done, and His Lordship further states, Blue Book page 393, line 12, "With respect to the Marine Lots alienated by Mr. Johnston, the conditions being the same, the same decision must of course apply to them as to those sold under Captain Elliot's notice." My complaint is that, while all the lots sold by Captain Hallist are charged at the original measurement, although, on a second Survey, some of them have been found to have been nearly doubled in extent, and although my rent has been fixed at the average of these, I am not charged at the original but at an arbitrary one, taken nearly two years after its occupation.
I have therefore respectfully to solicit that His Excellency will be pleased to direct an inspection of the original Diagram and measurement of the lot, and that the rents may be equitably charged in terms of Mr. Johnston's