of that land, it would be necessary
the reversal of that
obtain virtually judgement.
After a careful perusal of the judgment, and considering all the fact of the
race,
especially the difficulty of determining positively the point from which the boundaries of the different lot should start, I am of opinion,
allowing for the fresh
evidence which Mr Stephens says he can produce, that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a judgement really be the reversal
which would,
of that of the 6th March, 1885, and to prove that the owners of Marine Lot 185 are in possession of more
than they
are entitled to
land
I have already fully reported the question of compensation, and
Annexure to Circular 2,
Report by the Acting Attorney General.
332
Mr Stephens, in his letter of the 12th December 1885 claims from the Government a sum of $10,000 as Compensation for being deprived of a strip of land along the Eastern Boundary of Marine Lot No 184
Covering
an area
of 339 square feet.
His claim, he states, is made up "the actual value of the land which
was conveyed
to him by the
Crown Lease, and to this he adds :
1. The cost of defecting his title
with the express assent and
assistance of the Crown Officers
2. The expenses incurred in preparing
plans, making contracts, and
levelling ground, and
construction on the ground.
3. The
concluded that under the circumstances
of the case Mr. Stephens is not entitled
to any compensation.
Edw. J. Ackroyd,
Attorney General.
22th July 1887.