Sessional_Paper_1886-1887 — Page 522

30

APPENDIX TO REPORT FROM THE LAND COMMISSION OF 1886-87.

purchasers of

Whether the Praya in front of these Lots was built when this Sale plan was made out or whether the 186, 185 and 184 had entered into possession of their Lots at that time does not appear. The frontage of the Lots is in a straight line as nearly as possible parrallel to the frontage of the Praya as it was in the Original Sale plan, and the measurements of each of the pieces of Land South of 186, 185 and 184 are given.

On the 23rd March, 1866, the then Owner of Lot 186 obtained a grant from the Government which was indorsed on or attached to the Original Crown Lease of the piece of Land to the South of Lot 186 according to the measure- ments contained in the Sale Plan of 1864.

In 1877, the Owner of Marine Lot 185 applied to the Government for the piece of Land South of his Lot and between his Lot and Battery Road, and instead of granting it to him according to the measurements of the Sale plan of 1864, Mr. DANBY who was then in Government employment was sent from the Surveyor General's Office to survey and take actual measurements of the ground.

Mr. DANBY made a survey of Lots 186, 185 and 184 he found he says a well defined boundary on the Eastern side of Lot 186, and made it the Western boundary of Lot 185 he then obtained the other boundaries of Lot 185 by measurement and having obtained these boundaries he extended the Eastern and Western boundaries of Lot 185 to Battery Road, and plotted out Inland Lot No. 38 with an extension of the Eastern and Western boundaries of Lot 185 as defined by him, and having Lot 185 on the North and Battery Road on the South. The measure- ments, however, differed considerably from the measurements of the piece of Land South of Lot 185 as given in the Sale plan of 1864, and Mr. DANBY came to the conclusion that those measurements must be incorrect as he could not make them correspond with the actual holdings, particularly in the measurements of length. A Sale Plan of this Inland Lot No. 38 as laid out by Mr. DANBY was prepared and approved by the Government, and Inland Lot 38 as so laid out was subsequently sold on the 27th June, 1877, to the then Owners of Lot 185.

At that time Lot 184 was in the possession of the defendant's predecessors in title the Owners of MACDONALD's slip. They made no objection to the Western boundary of Marine Lot 185 and Inland Lot No. 38, as laid down by Mr. DANBY. In fact up to that time they do not appear to have claimed up to that Western boundary. Their buildings did not go up to the line and according to the boundary line that Mr. DANBY laid out they got considerably more than their lease measurements so that they were not likely to make any objection.

Shortly after the purchase of Inland Lot 38, the Owners of Marine Lot 185, appear to have built godoxus upon the two lots along the Western boundary as fixed by Mr. DANBY.

In 1880, Mr. DANBY, who had then left the Government service, was employed by the Owners of Marine Lot 184 to survey the Lot for them he then obtained from the Surveyor General's Office a copy of the plan he had made of Marine Lot 185 and Inland Lot 38, and made out the Western boundary of Lot 184 according to the Eastern boundary that he had laid down for Marine Lot 185 and Inland Lot 38. Mr. DANBY then found that Buildings had been put along the Western boundary of those two Lots up to the line that he had marked and on the part of the Owners of Lot 184, he seems to have acquiesced in that boundary. Had those buildings remained I think we may take it that judging from Mr. HANCOCK's conduct with regard to the North Western corner of Lot 185 when he says he found an encroachment, but did not feel at liberty to interfere with existing buildings this dispute with regard to boundaries would probably not have arisen.

In 1881, the present Owners purchased Marine Lot. 185 and Inland Lot 38. There were 8 shops fronting on the Praya, and there were buildings apparently along nearly the whole length of the Western boundary as shown in the plan used by Mr. DANBY in the survey made by him for the Owners of Marine Lot 184.

Shortly after entering into possession the present owners determined to pull down the old buildings at the back of the lot, and build new godowns with windows and openings for air and ventilation on the eastern and Western sides. They got a plan prepared by CHO AYUN who is now Mr. STEPHEN'S Contractor, and that plan bears them out in their assertion that they intended to put back the walls on both the Eastern and Western sides, and in this they are uncontra- dicted although Cно AYUN might have been called as a witness for the defendant if their statements were not correct. The plan was submitted to Government and approved, and buildings appear to have been put up at once and no objection seems to have been made by any one. They also, they admit altered the wall of the Western boundary of the shops in order as they say to strengthen it, and in so doing it is admitted encroached slightly upon the line recognized by Mr. DANBY, but no objection appears to have been made by the Owners of Lot 184, at the time and there could I imagine have been no intentional encroachment as the work was done under the supervision of the well known Architects and Surveyors belonging to this place Messrs. BIRD AND PALMER. Indeed it was so slight an encroachment that I should imagine it would hardly have been perceived unless particular attention were for some reason or other called to it.

In 1884 the defendant was about purchasing Marine Lot 184, and on the 19th May he received an intimation that the Surveyor General would be prepared to grant him a new Lease of the encroachments which were assumed