portador to demotish some part at back of the wall of the buildings. Litigation ensued; H. Stephens soon became defensive & has been awarded £500 damages, & alleged that he has suffered other loss in respect of delay & injury to the fabric of his own buildings.
M. Stanevik & the fort officers maintained the correctness of their Survey, M. Danby maintained his own line. The Court decided "in favour of Mr. Danby's survey".
That decision settled the fee.
It must not be overlooked that H. Danby laid down his line as the agent of the fort on their behalf, it was accepted by the Govt by the terms of 1842 & 1852 & the latter had acted upon it in putting up his building; so that whether as Mr. Danby's line was fairly accurate, the fort board had no rights to depart from it.
Is it within the power of the Govt to arbitrarily abandon this determination for themselves?
The full Kowloon...
Whether H. Stephens has been led into error...
Mr. Stephens has morally a substantial ground of complaint in reference to the Eastern boundary of his land.
And I am in doubt that he has not also a legal ground of claim against the fort in respect of his foreshore boundary - he was granted land up to the 25 ft fort ditch, & even if the foundation was firm in the original lease, it does not appear what right the Crown had to nominate disposition of the ditches without the express consent of the owner.
Still less does it appear what right was vested in the fort to arbitrarily abandon this determination for themselves. In the lease of Witty's lot, there is no mention of the ditches.
The papers do not show that Mr. Stephens acquiesced in the widening of Witty's ditches; but he must have known that the sheet originally only 2 feet in width had been altered, & upon enquiry as to the effect this change would have on his land.
If he had a right to uniformity (& in the new one) I think he could establish that his pulling down his neighbour's wall was a necessary consequence of the new disposition of his land, & that the fort should not be liable for any loss which he has been compelled to bear.
But the fort board ignores him & has one fixed boundary - are worth the proper costs, condemn the surrender and have, I believe, Mr. Stephens surrendered a valuable right which gave him the 25 ft ditch as a boundary, that he has been given a different boundary : & if I understand his complaint correctly, that Mr. Danby's line was not adhered to, resulting in a loss of less than his new lane jumps to grant. If this is the fact, he is entitled to compensation, either by making up the difference from a tier of the 30 ft Witty's start, or by a money payment.
I suggested to Mr. Stephens that he might perhaps have a legal right to more if he wished to go to law - But I think we may tell the Govt that under the circumstances they ought to give him liberal treatment in measuring the market value of the land in question.
Tell Mr. Stephens owing to the incomplete information furnished in this Petition.