Sessional_Paper_1886-1887 — Page 524

32

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

that the buildings on Lots 198, 204 and 205 were built first it might be that although built sloping back from the Praya they did not slope far enough back to reach the North Western point of the block previously referred to, but that when WING-KEE'S coal godown was built it was set far enough back with sufficient slope to go back to the North Western point. When Mr. DANBY went on the land in 1877 he did not survey Lots 198, 204 and 205, he did partially, however, survey Lot 205, and there were then buildings reaching to the Praya, and there was an Alley-way between that Lot and Lot 186.

On Lot 186 WING KEE'S Coal Depôt was built, extending to the Praya; on Lot 185 there was a small building in the North Eastern corner extending to the Praya in the same line with WING KEE'S Coal Depôt and in the same line with the North Western boundary of Marine Lot 184. There does not appear at that time to have been any buildings extending on to the Praya ou Lot 184 but, assuming that Mr. HANCOCK is right in his presumption, it does not follow that he is right in taking his measurements of the whole block from the North Eastern corner of Lot 196. The owner of Lot 184 was perfectly justified according to his Lease in taking Whitty Street as it was laid out by the Government, 25 feet in width, as bis Western boundary, and he apparently did so but if the Govern. ment had originally laid out Whitty Street as 30 feet wide instead of 25 I do not know that any of the Lot Owners, not even the Owner of Lot 184, could have complained if they too had got the measurements set out in their Leases. Be this as it may what probably did happen was that the Owner of Lot 198 took the Street to the East of his Lot as his Eastern boundary. The Owner of Lots 204 and 205 took the line of 198 as his Eastern boundary, and the Owner of Lot 186 took the line of 205 as his Eastern boundary. No dispute arises as to these boundaries. Mr. DANBY says they do not perfectly agree with Lease measurements from East to West as they are now held, but the difference is inconsiderable, and Mr. HANCOCK says that the difference between them is so small that for all practical purposes they may be taken to be correct. The difference between Mr. DANEY and Mr. HANCOCK Com- mences at the Western boundary of 185. Mr. DANBY took the Western boundary from WING KEE'S Coal Depot extending the Western line of that building down to Battery Road. As I understand Mr. HANCOCK that would make Lot 186 encroach on the South Eastern corner of Inland Lot 38 almost to the extent of the alleged encroach- ment on the South Eastern corner of land then unallotted by Government at the South of Lot 184. Mr. DANBY on the other hand alleges that even now, after going over the whole matter most carefully, he finds that the actual mea- surements of the Southern boundary of the various Lots from the South Eastern extremity of Lot 196 to the South Western extremity as he has fixed it of Inland Lot 38 correspond nearly exactly, the measurements in the Leases being 679 feet 9 inches and the actual measurements being 679 feet 6 inches. But, however this may be, Mr. DANBY then a duly authorized Government agent, and acting in his employment as such, set out the boundaries of Inland Lot 38, which boundaries were approved by the Surveyor General and by the Governor, and Inland Lot 38 with the boundaries as fixed by Mr. DANBY was sold by the Government to the then owner of Marine Lot 185, and as extending on the South to Battery Hill Road. If there was any encroachment at all it was an encroachment on land which had not then been allotted by the Government and was not in the actual occupation of anyone, So far as Inland Lot 38 is concerned there can be no doubt, in my mind, but that Mr. DANBY's boundary must be taken to be the boundary of the land actually sold by the Government and that the Defendant is not justified in building beyond that boundary even although the land beyond it had once been actually conveyed to him by the Government. But the Western and Eastern boundaries of Marine Lot 185 were also necessarily defined by Mr. DANBY at that time. If the owners of Lot 186 had encroached at that time, they had not encroached all the way down the line, that is to say, WING KEE'S Coal Depôt did not extend from the Praya to Battery Road and the effect of Mr. DANBY's conclusion as to the line of the Western boundary of Lot 186 was calculated to induce the owner of Lot 185 to acquiesce in it as if there was an encroachment he got his redress on the other side. With regard to the owner of 184 there is ample evidence of acquiesence in the line that Mr. DANBY eventually adopted. But it is said that Mr. DANBY's plan shows that at one time Mr. DANBY must have arrived by some other means at the same conclusion as Mr. HANCOCK with regard to the line of boundaries. If this be so it also shows that Mr. DANBY rightly or wrongly deliberately discarded that line in favour of the one subsequently adopted by him. If the boundaries were taken up to the Western boundary of Marine Lot 185 in the way I have pointed out, and if the boundary of Marine Lot 184 was taken from Whitty Street, and I see no other way in which it could have been taken under the circumstances, as the Western boundary of Lot 185 does not appear to have been defined until Mr. DANBY defined it in 1877, then it would appear that the surplus land contained in the block lay between 184, 185 and 186, and I think that until Mr. DANBY fixed the boundaries the owners of those lots if they had wished were entitled to have it divided between them. After Mr. DANBY had fixed the line I am disposed to think that, as between themselves, they were all bound by acquiescence, and the same of Lot 184 additionally so by the fact that the owner of 185 was bound by ac- quiescence to the line fixed on his Eastern boundary. Whether the owners of Marine Lot 184 and 186 could or could not have held the increased area virtually allotted to them by Mr. DANBY without any compensation to Government is a question that does not arise in this case.