The Milson Point, Sydney Harbour, where the masts north of the Sydney Harbour Bridge are located, and the suburbs of this area west of Kirribilli are both named after James Milson. [13] A village of the elderly in North Sydney, which includes a retirement home, is also named after him. [14] Milton also stopped paying his rent after paying 4 2s 8d of the $10 rent for the year past June 30, 1829. Until the end of June 1831 Milton owed 25 17s 4d rent (5 17s 4d for the remainder of 1828/29 – 10 – for 1829/30 – 10 for 1830/31). In June 1831 Campbell Milton had sent a rent bill and received from Milton a promise of payment that had not been honoured. On August 12, 1831, Campbell began a lawsuit against Milton for rent arrears. As the original lease no longer existed, Campbell sued Milton for assuming (or breach of the promise of payment) for the use and occupation of Campbell`s land. [16] During the 1831 court action, Milton never challenged Campbell`s title on the 120 hectares or that a lease had been in effect. In fact, there was still a copy of the memorandum extending the original lease, the “second document.” Nor did Milton contradict Campbell`s son`s evidence that “a formal instrument had been implemented by the parties, tying them under their hands and seals to certain benefits of a fixed-term contract of years.” Milton instead challenged knowledge of the boundary between Campbell`s 120 hectares and the 50 adjacent hectares of Milton (called “very large part of the country”), which he said could not be proved without the Title Documents (“Proof of Title”) under which Campbell held his land. Milton`s lack of knowledge of the border gave him difficulties and, for that reason, he refused to pay rent.
Milton claimed that, because he didn`t know, Where the boundary between the two lands lies, not knowing where the opposite border of his 50 hectares was, left him open to a charge of transgression if he imposed cattle on land that migrated to his land, when the cattle were actually on his other neighbour`s land, and left Milton, unbeknownst, how far he had to go by improving his own property, to Campbell`s land or to his land. (The fact that Milton did not have the remains of titles on his 50 hectares was not drawn into his argument.) Milton also stated that he did not have the use of the 120 hectares “sacred to the lease” because a man named Cunningham could come to the land and take up quantities of land.
Comments are closed.