which he had set back his buildings. It is to be regretted that he did not call the owner of Marine Lot 185 to be present when he adopted and laid down his line.
Mr. Hancock, and I think, Mr. Price also, maintain that Mr. Danby could not have fixed the line where he did, and if he did line it was no justice, it was a mistake; but after the judgment of the Chief Justice, who entered fully into the question, there can now be no doubt that the line fixed by Mr. Danby in 1877 and confirmed by him in 1880 must be taken to be the boundary line. The judgment, moreover, proves that, if Danby had made a mistake, the owners both of 184 and 185 acquiesced in and accepted that boundary.
It must now be conceded that Mr. Hancock was not justified in fixing the boundary at the South West corner, where he did. But this mistake gives Mr. Stephens no right of compensation otherwise: either legally or Mr. Stephens was called upon to rectify his title and to obtain lease for land of which he was already in possession, and he knew was not to receive any marine lot. Moreover, so far as Lot 184 was concerned, he knew that Government could not grant him anything except what he surrenders to Government. And he could not, and did not surrender to Government anything beyond the line fixed by Mr. Danby.
He must have known that nothing in the lease could justify what he did, viz. breaking down a wall on part of Marine