CO129-240 - Public Offices & Others - 1888 — Page 468

457

piece of ground in dispute had been granted a former brown hease as part of Marine hot A 185, and Inland Lot Nz: 38, but I may be allowed to mention that if the Judgment of the Suprem Court of Hong trong had barn carried out as it ought to have been by an examination of the ground and measurements and comparison of Mr. Danby's Plans and Report, admitted by him be correct, it would have been clearly ascertained that the ground in question any former grant; and therefore, its having bee taken away from

by the Officers of the Jupes Court, is not only contrary to the terms of the brown Lease held by mr, but contrary to the Court's own Decree.

me

was never included

Had there been simply a mistake by the Surveyor General's department, it could and would have been easily adjusted by a return of premuim and reduction of brown Rout; be as it was well known to the Supreme Court f the unimpeachable evidence before it, that th brown hease was correct, and that the Plaint had more ground than was comprised in his hease, it thus became an unjustifiable act o the part of the Supreme Court to allow the paid Witness of the Plaintiff to execute the Dec of the Court without measurements, and no even upon bath.

I am aware too that it has been stated the the Colonial Government offered

the Encroachment of five feet

tow

me

comprised i

Witty Street in lieu of the 2 fext 2 inches taken from

Eastern Boundary - Your Lordship will hardly require any

my

I

was made

me

to

when all assurance that no such offer

you I paid the Government only 25 cents per foot for the encroachment they allowed retain, while for the old Marine hot N. 184. I paid more than $2. per foot for 3.600 square feet, and would have bought double the quantity at the same price had it been obtainable-

more

without

It has also been said that I pulled down the Plaintiff's tall which stood on my ground w giving him due notice, but that is su efficiently disproved by the correspondruce and Affidavits filed in the Supreme Court, amongst which is an "Authority from the Haintiff to my take down the Wall and charge him, the Plaintiff.

with the cost-

Contractor to

It was part of this Wall which the Plaintiff, by his Surveyor admitted as au encroachment which the Chief Justice said Plaintiff would not be justified in rebuilding, and yet for this, he the Chief Justice, with these facts before him,

multed me in $500 damages-

It may be, and it may be in your Lordships power to ascertain this,__ that the Court was to a certain extent deceived by a building plau produced by the Plaintiffs, shewing a space or the Eastern and Western sides of the building but the Court had allowed its own Eudgment, and not Mr. Danby's ipse dixit which is contrary to his own Plans and Report, to have taken effect,

if