CO129-034 - Sir Bonham - 1850 [9-12] — Page 22

6.

the

" was perfectly justified in doing to make it coincide with the depth of the boundary of adjoining Lot, and regarding which the tenant-

complained, and therefore I am

has never

f

firmly convinced the line. I have laid toron is the correct one, and that the

area

upon

which

• rent is charged is what M. Scott ought to pay

ofor, viz:- 9,759 super: feet, giving

rental

a

of

£75.13.1.

Two illustrations will suffice to prove.

that Mr Scott ought to pay ofor

mne

than 5418 Luper: fect;

either

the shape of the lot must be an

triangle nearly, or a rectangle,

margin;

the former it

was not, and it is not

Queen's Roud

Scott's 156.

Queen's Road.

3956

as in the

certainly

at all

likely

that the latter

1

Figh

water

could have been the shape, or that the line

on one side and 45

of high water would recede at a right angle with 56

with 56 feet the other. The line of high water and

on

211

112

mark

20

the

that I have adopted for the boundary of

Lot on the Sea side, is

by the dotted lines.

as

shown in each

call

To show what little regard. I paid to

when I

deposit. of silt, on stone walls even; determined the line of high water mark Mr Scott's Lot, he had extended his wall into

the

sea a distance of 170 feet; but

fired the line at 122 on

of

yet I only

the rast. and 112 on

the West. I submit a plan of the Lot

RJ

surveyed at that time, showing the houses and walls built, the line of high water marks, &c,

and it will be observed that, on the West side, wall built nearly up

there

was a

Road; and in firing

the Queen's

to the

the boundary on that side,

had

I continued. the direction of the wall, and this determined the road frontages of 81 feet; Igiven the additional 4 feet claimed, there

have been an angle. in the

must

of necessity have been boundary line, which would have been objectionable.