that in almost every case the area was much... Munc My calculation of the area was more than that set down in the Return, and consequently I increased the Rent in terms of the original grant. I beg leave to forward a Memorandum showing the several Lots granted by Mr. Schueton, their areas and rental, with the corrected areas and rental fixed by myself. To prove how necessary it was to have these Lots carefully looked into, Mr. Scott is a very good illustration of the whole, and for this purpose I enclose a copy of the Diagram for this Lot; thus, it appears that the original Lot had a frontage of 60 feet only, the area 5418, and, according to the return, the rental £43; even according to the diagram the area is wrong; it should be 6270, which would make the rental nearly £47; but as the Lot now is, it has a frontage of 81 feet, and Mr. Scott claims more, but yet declares that the rent should be the same, viz: £112.
19 I have no doubt that the frontage is now just as Mr. Scott received it from Mr. Holgate, the original grantee; there is no record of how this additional land was given, but if it was given, it was stipulated that it should be paid for; in fact they could not do otherwise, and even had they not done so, it was my duty to do it, and, of course, Mr. Johnston or the Land Committee would have done the same. Again, had I given the four feet which Colonel Malcolm allowed him to take, I should have charged him with it in a similar manner: an inspection of my memo will prove that I have not dealt differently with Mr. Scott than with the others who had lands granted under similar circumstances.
With regard to the depth of the Lot, I fixed it without reference to the Diagram, but it happened to be similar to it nearly on the East side; but I made an increase on the West side of 23 feet, which I conceive
4.
that in almost
the
area was
every much..
case
Munc
My
calculation of
than that set down
in the Return, and consequently I increased the
Rent in terms of the original grant. I by sleave to forward a Memorandum showing the : several Lots granted by Mr. Schueton, their
their areas
" and rental, with the corrected areas and rental
fined by myself. To
prove
how
it
necessary
was
to
have
these Lot's carefully looked into, M. Scott is the
- very best illustration of the whole, and purpose
I enclose
aefors to; thus, it
a copy of the Diagram
for
this
be
that the original Lot
to; thus, it appears had a frontage of 60 fect only, the
area 5418,
and, according to the return, the rental £43;
even
according to the diagram the
area
is
wrong; it should be 6270, which would make the rental nearly £47; but as the Lot now is,
it has a frontage of 81 feet, and Mort Scott
claims
more, but yet declares
even 4
feet
yet
that the rent should be the same, viz: £112.
Ꭺ
>
19
I have no doubt that the frontage is now just
as Mr. Scoth recived it from M2 Holgate, the
original grantee, there is no record of how this
given, but if it was given,
additional land
was
of stipulated that it should be paid for; in fact they could not do otherwise, and even had they not done so, it was my duty to do it,
course Mr. Johnston or the Land Committee
and, again, had I given the four feet which Me
Colonel Maleolim allowed him to
Serth says
take, I should have charged him with it in inspection of my
a
similar manner: an
menso: will prove
that I have not dealt
differently with Mr. Scott than with the others who had lands granted under similar
circumstances.
With regard to the depth of the Lot, I fired it without reference
to
the
Diagram,
but it happened to be similar to it nearly. the hast side; but. I made an increase
on the West side of 23 feet, which I conceive
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.