Earl Battery Road; on the West he was bounded by Marine Lot 185, but here was the boundary line, as the owner: an imaginary line of Lot 185 had in order to obtain light and ventilation, set back his buildings from the line.
In the May 1884 the Surveyor General wrote to say that the owner of Marine Lot 1871 was in possession of more land than he was entitled to under his lease, and asked that he be called to surrender his old lease, to take out a new one, and to complete his title to the extra land on the South of his lot.
To this system of accepting surrenders of leases and granting new ones I called the attention of Government, as soon as the Land Registry was transferred to the Supreme Court, and in my letter of the 2nd October 1883, I pointed out the danger of so doing.
The matter had been considered in Executive Council on the 15th November, 1883, it was decided that the system which appears to have been followed in the Land Office of accepting surrenders of leases and granting new leases in place of them should be put a stop to as a general rule, subject to exception only when there might be possible doubt as to title.
Now in this case there was no necessity to call upon Mr. Stiphens to surrender Marine Lot 1821, and take out a new lease for it, as he had not encroached on Whitty Street, and the only extra land which he was in possession of was a small triangular piece between the original South boundary of Marine Lot 184 and Battery Road. A separate lease for this small piece could have been granted to him as done for Inland Lot 38; if that had been done.