that in almost every case the area was much... Munc My calculation of the area was more than that set down in the Return, and consequently I increased the Rent in terms of the original grant. I beg leave to forward a Memorandum showing the several Lots granted by Mr. Schueton, their areas and rental, with the corrected areas and rental fixed by myself. To prove how necessary it was to have these Lots carefully looked into, Mr. Scott is a very good illustration of the whole, and for this purpose I enclose a copy of the Diagram for this Lot; thus, it appears that the original Lot had a frontage of 60 feet only, the area 5418, and, according to the return, the rental £43; even according to the diagram the area is wrong; it should be 6270, which would make the rental nearly £47; but as the Lot now is, it has a frontage of 81 feet, and Mr. Scott claims more, but yet declares that the rent should be the same, viz: £112.
19 I have no doubt that the frontage is now just as Mr. Scott received it from Mr. Holgate, the original grantee; there is no record of how this additional land was given, but if it was given, it was stipulated that it should be paid for; in fact they could not do otherwise, and even had they not done so, it was my duty to do it, and, of course, Mr. Johnston or the Land Committee would have done the same. Again, had I given the four feet which Colonel Malcolm allowed him to take, I should have charged him with it in a similar manner: an inspection of my memo will prove that I have not dealt differently with Mr. Scott than with the others who had lands granted under similar circumstances.
With regard to the depth of the Lot, I fixed it without reference to the Diagram, but it happened to be similar to it nearly on the East side; but I made an increase on the West side of 23 feet, which I conceive