the
" was perfectly justified in doing to make it coincide with the depth of the boundary of adjoining Lot, and regarding which the tenant-complained, and therefore I am firmly convinced the line is the correct one, and that the area upon which rent is charged is what M. Scott ought to pay for, viz:- 9,759 super: feet, giving a rental of £75.13.1.
Two illustrations will suffice to prove that Mr Scott ought to pay for more than 5418 super: feet; either the shape of the lot must be an triangle nearly, or a rectangle, as in the margin; the former it was not, and it is certainly not likely that the latter could have been the shape, or that the line of high water on one side and 45 with 56 feet on the other would recede at a right angle with 56 feet. The line of high water and that I have adopted for the boundary of Lot on the Sea side, is shown in each by the dotted lines.
To show what little regard I paid to deposit of silt, on stone walls even; when I determined the line of high water mark Mr Scott's Lot, he had extended his wall into the sea a distance of 170 feet; but I fixed the line at 122 on the East and 112 on the West. I submit a plan of the Lot surveyed at that time, showing the houses and walls built, the line of high water marks, &c, and it will be observed that, on the West side, there was a wall built nearly up to the Queen's Road; and in fixing the boundary on that side, I continued the direction of the wall, and this determined the road frontages of 81 feet; I given the additional 4 feet claimed, there must have been an angle in the boundary line, which would have been objectionable.