IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // //A .SS?^ O* *^r /m-^ ^ :/. f/. 1.0 I.I 11.25 Hi^ IIIIIM S [r: Ilia 1^ 1^ 12.0 118 lA. Ill 1.6 V] <^ /i ^> C>/1 -(^ Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 m iV (V ^^^ v^\ #^ U.J. CIHM Microfiche Series (Monograplis) ICMH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques f\f\ :"!ipw Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee D Covers restored ar:d/or laminated/ Couverture restauree et/ou pelliculee □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couvertu couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ D n D n Caites geographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion ilong interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge interieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont pas ete filmees. Additional comments./ Commentaires supplementaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filme au taux de reduction mdique cidessous. ^°^ 14X 18X L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a et6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-£tre uniques du point de vue bibiiographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methode normale de f ilmage sont indiques cidessous. Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagees □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pager restaurees et/ou pelliculees Q Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages decolorees, tachetees ou piquees □ Pages detached/ Pages detachees 0Showthrough/ Transparence varies/ gale de I'imp.ession □ Quality of print vari Quatite inegale de I'i □ Continuous pagination/ Pagmation continue □ Includes index(es)/ Comprend un (des) index Title on header taken from:/ Le titre de Ten-tfite provient: □ Title page of issue Page de titre de la livraison issue/ depart de la livraison □ Caption of Titre do de( Masthead/ Generique (periodiques) de la livraison I I Masthead/ 22X ■)«: V / jOa 12X 16X 20X 24 X 28X □ 22 1 ^UpW' qu'il I est t de vue 9* ation ues The copy filmad haro has baan raproducad thanks to the ganarosity of: Department of Rare Books aiKl Special Collections, McGill University, Montreal. Tha Imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia considaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in kaeping with tha filming contract spacificadons. Original copias in printad papar covars are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copiaa are filmed beginning on the first page with a printad or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printad or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -«> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END") whichever applies. Maps, piataa. charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to nght and top to bottom, as many framea aa required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'axemplaire film* fut reproduit grice d la g^n^rositA de: Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, McGill University, Montreal. Lea images suivantas ont «ti reproduites avac le plus grand soin, compta tenu de la condition et da la nattet* de I'exemplaire film*, at an conformit4 avec lea conditions du contrat de filmaga. Lea exemplairaa originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont film^s an commenpant par le premier plat at an tarminant soit par la derniAra page qui comporte une ampreinta d Impression ou d'illustration, soit par la second plat, salon le cas. Tous las autras axamplairss origmaux sont film«s an commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une emprainta d impression ou d'illustration at en tarminant par la darni«re page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dea symboles auivants apparaitra sur la demi«re image de cheque microfiche, selon le caa: le symbols — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE" le symbols V signifie "FIN". Lee cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent dtre Tiimes a dea taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est fiim« i partir da I angle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche i droite. et do haut en baa. en prenant le nombre d'Images n«cessaire. Lea diagrammes suivants iiluatrent la m^thode. 1 32 X IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR MANITOBA. Between ; , WILLIAM GOMEZ FONSECA .>.„ JOHN CHRISTIAN SCHULTZ, Jj<'fendav/.s(Ajt/>r(hinhs). AND HER MAJESTY'S ATTOriNEY-GENERAL FOR CANADA AT AND .,V THE ReJ.ATI.^X OF ELIZA MERCER, Infonna n>. ( H,;-i>n>U'ut). THE CASE. MACDONALD, TLIPPER & J^HIPFEN, **" .Solicitous for Ai'1'ellaxt.s PATTERSON k BAKER, Solic'itouh for Respondent. WINNIPEG: MANITOBA FKEE PRESS AND (ALL PRINT. . 1888. IN TriE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR MANITOBA. BpTWEEN WILLIAM GOMEZ FONSECA .,-.„ JOHN CHMSTIAN AND IAN SCHULTZ, J^<'fenduntf(Apj)elltint(<). HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR CANADA At and bv the Relation of ELIZA MERCER. InfwiHdn/ (RfxjHiHilnit). THE CASE. MACDONALD, TUPPER & PHIPFEN, •SOLICITOH.S FOU Al'PELLA.VTS. PATTERSON k BAKER. Solicitous for Respondent. m^M WINNIPEG : MANITOBA FREE PRESS AND CALL PRINT 1888. •Ii yfy'. f t IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR MANITOBA. Between WILLIAM GOMEZ FONSECA and JOHN CHRISTIAN SCHULTZ, AND HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR CANADA, At and by the Relation of ELIZA MEKCER, Infamumt (Ht'sj)onondent. WINNIPEG : MANITOBA FREE PRESS AND CALL PRINT. 1888. r INDEX. T , ,. PAGE. Information 4 Answer of defendant Fonseca Replication to Fonseca's answer Answer of Defendant Schultz 22 Replication to Schultz's answer *'■''*•' 20 EVIDENCE : William Logan .... ,,,.,,. „. 26— 63 Wilhani Vmcent ,„.„. ^ 6.'J— 65 William Logan, recalled. . . . • oo Donald Sutherland . Whitcher 70 Thomas Lusted Charles Kennedy G. D. Mc Vicar '[ 79-82 John Sutherland ... ., , ^ 86—93 Alexander Logan Charles Kennedy ~ Kenneth McDonald 101—104 James H. Ashdown 104-105 John Eccles 105-110 Thomas S. Gray ............'.".'' 110-120 Arthur Henry Whitcher 120—128 William G. Fonseca . 128-137 137 DEPOSITIONS : William M. Matheson Ernest G. Pulford .... ^^^ ~^^® '•••••»..,, 1 Of* Andrew Holland A. M. Burgess . . • 167—209 i i '4 INDEX. II. J. S. Dennis John C. Schultz. ... 21 1-226 227 EXHIBITS: Portion of Plan of Siiint John's Kv i ' 94,e; Patent to W. G. Foiiseca, Ex. 2 * ' Portion of Sinclair's plan, Ex. 3 ~ 24N Mortgage from Willia.n Logan to Robert Dunn, Ex. 4 ... . »^q_ Deed from WiUian, Logan to FrcMlerick C. Mercer, Ex. 5 ... . . . . . .',',"" 249- W. Logan to I). H. Thomas, Ex. 6 D. H. Thomas to W. Logan Ex 7 ^ ' ' 249 D. H. Thoma.s to W. Logan, Ex. 8 I). H. Thomas to F. C. Mercer, Ex. 9 • • • - W. Logan to F. C. Mercer, Ex. 10 ~ Mortgage fro.,, F. 0. Mercer to Robert Gunn, Ex. 1 1 ... ^^"~ Assignment of Moi-tgage from R. Gunn to E. Mercer Ex 12 !f I Deed from F. C. Mercer to C. H. Pattison, Ex. 13 ......... , C. H. Pattison to E. D. Mercer, Ex. 14. . . . . ~ W. G. Fonaeca to John Schultz, Ex. 15 '^ ~ F. C. Mercer to E. Mercer, Ex. 16 . ~ D. H. Thomas to John Schultz, Ex 17 ~ Dee,! of Tru.l, Suthertod, et „l, t» S„.heil»„d, et .l! E..' 18 TT Dee," ■■ Log»n to D. H, Tlio.ua«, Es. 19 Let... .mm John R. H.n to Gta 4 Ola,,, dated 15th Sept,' 1883; Ex.SO 255I Letter .„„ J, s. „.„„;, ,., ,„„^ j,,, ^ „ ^ ^^__^^^_ ^^ ^- ^^^ Me,n„r„d™,, .„d Orde, in c^onncd, dated 2,at .nd 2!,lh June, ,880, E. 22 256- Portion of City Plan, Ex. 23 .... A^^l^weenW.G.Fonsecaand^SchultM7thNov.:i87,^ leol Deed from D. H. Thomas to John Freeman. Ex. 28. . . . ...'.'."."" ^^^~ John Freeman to A. J. Belch, Ex. 29 ~ A. J. Belch to T. S. Gray, Ex. 30 ~ ^,,,. -^iMi r f FijriHeca'H letter to J S. D'j 'JnniH, .Sr.l Oct., 1878, Ex.E. Fonseca'H letter to J. S. Dennis, 22n.l May. 1879. Ex. F. Departmental Report on Fonseca's claim, Ex. (J. , . Fonseca'H declaration in support of Beloh'H claim, Jul .'it,, 187J, Ex H FonHeca'.s letter to Surveyo.- fJeneral. 5tl. July. 1880, Ex. J ' ' ' Order in Council, 10th May, 1877, Ex. L. . . Meinoratidum to Council, 7th May, 1877, Ex. M Letter from John R. Hall to 01a,s,s & GlasJ, 15th 8epte„d',e Form of Patent u,sed for land s granted under Manitoba Act, Ex. O. INDEX. Deed from J. Huppe to W. Logan, Ex. 31 W. Logan to H. McDonnell, Ex. 32 H. McDmneJI to J. Schultz, Ex. 33 Abstract of Lot E Abstract of L)tD ^^^~* 9^7 F.mseca'8 a|.plieation under Manitoba Act. Ex. D . . , ~ m. ?63-~ 264— 2()8— 268— 268— 269— 270— 271 — 273— 274— r. 1-S83, Ex, N. 279— 279— 272— Report on Logan's claim by R. Lang Bill in Mercer v. Fonseca ^. ^oi . . . ^u— Decree in Mercer v. Fonseca 2fil~ Notice of intention to read evidence^of Dennis' and' Lang Z~ D.cl.mi„„ of H. L. S.bi„. in ,„„port „f p„„„,., „„. ^ '»'- "",'"""■■' "' *'«• '■"S"" m »"l.r.o« of Fo„,.c'« „,.ta Wm. Logan's application for C, D, E and F ^^'^ Declaration of W. Logan in support of bis own application 'T Declaration of D. Sinclair in support thereof '''~ Declaration of H. Coutu in support thereof Declaration of John Eccles, in support thereof 298— 292— 300— 297— 299— saeK3c .8^ ■: H INDEX. A. M. Burgess' letter to Department recommending issue of fiat, 16th May. OQI A. J. Belch's letter to Lindsay Russell, 19th July, 1881 ^.^ E. M. Wood's telegram, 13th June, 1881 A. M. Burgess' letter to Minister of Interior,' 3rd Sept.,' 1886 !!!"" McPhillip's letter to Minister of Interior 23rd Aug. 1877 on! Letter from J. R. Hail to Glass & Glass, Uth Oct., 1886 ,1 Judgment of Wallbridge. C. J Decree ^^^~ Notice of re-hearing ^^^~ Judgment of Tayiur, C. J ''^^*~ Decree c . ^er on re-hearing ^^^~ Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court ^^^^ Order allowing security aol— Order allowing appeal ^'^^~ 333— IV. il*»«— INFORMATION. IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH. IN EQUITY, j Tuesday, the fifteenth day of September, A.D., 1886. Between HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR CANADA (AT AND BY THE RELATION OF ELIZA MERCER,) Inforntanl. AND WILLIAM GOMEZ FONSECA AND JOHN CHRISTIAN SCHULTZ. Defendants. 10 ^^'Canar*'"" "^ ^" ^'''''^'' ^"orney-General for City of Winnipeg. ■ Her Majesty, atC by the Sion of'^^^^^^ for Canada, on behalf of forming part of the ea.tornl7o if, """""""S "I"-' l"o .cr=,», „„w .he D„LL„ eorr-r:; o?;vs ofTic '""'*•- «''^' '" ' 2. The said two acres abutted upon a laro-^ fr«,.f «f i j .l the Point Doufflas Common whinh . "J'''' " ^"^^^ ^''^^t of land then known a.s BayCompanv. a^d wXth; o^c^tt T'T ^'"'^ -^-divided by the Hudson's of certain pe^ons dl m n^ tuTe h ° ''°i u "' '^'^^" '° ^'^'^ «-">'««°» ^^Hl-.-' - -- - ^,'«J.™»ng title thereto, was used bv those n«r«mi« -^ho *--HeuZJl^ aurvey.d i„lo ,ow„ l„,s, aforesaid, and having consH.uL .ho Mj^i::t:v^:,Z7lZr'7'Z °" tra.leo« for all, applied to the Crown for a m-L. „fT,? ^*""\'""1 others «id Common, in favor of the said ^stel ' " "' '" '" *» to gr.lt rea^LTtW^S^ Po.^S '"^ m""^ °' '"'" *'°" "O '"<■««-' .,..1 in .i.e to the >:rca^^:t^:r:z^:::' -'' °°"™- ,„ at, .he dei"lLTIo1t?:tSd:S id"' r,-?'"""""""^ ^-' '"'ved .11 the other, of the S.ZnX ^^rd t ala" gTZt'^f't Id C '^"'■■^' namely, the sonlherly ten (10) chain, of saik lot hirlv Bve 1351 I) S""' ernment snrrey, with a depth of two miles, bali^ hi, „ a il noon Th^f t"'; ct:r;rCo7f:*ror" -"- ™' -- - -^-"ir: the said sontherly ten (10) chain, of said Wt nnmW thTrty five m ''"''"'"°° " m rear of the land or lot number eleven (n),o7n.d by iL ^t S: °""Jf'''"« (hence running back the usual distance o the two mUe limt li '*°"°°"'''' ^^'ririiTotir"-'"" "-' -'- --'t:,^rrh„:^f-rfa:d ,..d p'eti^::: :?i«fxriiit;::°rLt«fe ": r'rv '^« ii": zzziz r'r.^„^, rr«r,st'i\ir;riro7rh! defendant Foneeca ZdTi;rtrerd°rp.rtmr;tr:"r°r'' '^'° *' ==» among the rest mentionini that one WiinZr , "° "'^ '™'' 1«"<"" and E in block fourl^n 141 ™ th! , T ^?'° "'" '^'' ">«"""• »' '»" « D of part of said lot nntbe "ii ; fl e S,t7th!^T ''™'' r ^'^ owners of lo^ V n. «„i^ ki i ^"^t ' ' "** ^*''^' '^tobart & Co. were the drfXt'^inirrd rwrt-o-irrSrj;^ t r°^ ?•* '■=■ '^' persons, which memo bears date the Sr^daTrflltUim"' "' ""' """' 8. One Aleiander J. Belch, in the month ol .Jiilv A D mm i tar-"-: H re it Fi ac ai In In mi wi lac ani ass of] tha sai( For issn the WsTnrp''"'"/^' "'''"^ ^""'^'" '^°S=^" h^^ boou in occupation of said lots C and F smce the year 1870 and that th,^ r.M i^* u j • "i"^''"» o' »'"« by him. and those claiming under hta^to tat nl fh /IJ;".'"? '"'"^"'^ roint Douglas Common, of whom he was one d d nof "u''^' '^ *^" thesaid land hut acknowledged the Til^f^h^^-^^^^^^^^^ General for his investigaLn andC" and tha offi T '". ^'u- ^^^"''-^^^• writing bearing date th^e 3rd day ofFebrua" 1879 " "•'^^^ '" jo it the occupation of any definite one of a ysln. ff lo/s /ha^^^^^ T/ T"' Fonseca had originally made a claim antasr m sttT. f K t '■ ^' defendant of the associated PoinJ Douglas hi rs LTf^ :id ^^ tZr "^^'^ " "'^ made to him of land, other than that within hi own ^n I'^ ^'""^ ^"'"^ reason of the Grace of the Crown and 2 bLlTe h.d ""' u ^u"'^ '^'^ ^^ it was by the said report suggested tharif Zd .t '^^^^^^^^ Fonseca. which with that enclosed by him wouk fr n '^""'^^"^ ^0 acre. l.e would be liherally dealt with^ ^^:r^:^.-Jl::^-^- Inte^orI?rl.3l Zid:=rttotaK^-r^r 1 ''' ■ Interior and was by him approved and adopt d, and the own t^h^K 1 Z'*^ mjn.l to act thereon and to make a grant f^m ihe Crlt'rn^'S £: aut Schultz. who was a member of the Domin on Hou! "Tr '" '''' ^'''"^^- ^0 assistance of his influence, and by memo in wr it^,. K f «"»'"«"«• for the of November. 1879, it was agreed be^w^L^hT".?^ ."°.^ ^"*' ^^' ^2th day that in case i patent orany portron onh? . ^'^^^^'^^'^*« ^^^'^^^'^ and Schultz said applicatiL ^^^ V^ZZ ^ItZi^rFZ^ Fonseca) would convey one-half thereof If Idefen^^^^^^^^ ''^^^"'^"^ 13. Shortly thereafter, and on the oth day of Pecemh.-r lo^^ . issued to tne defendant Fonseca for a large number of'ln a ^' ' ''' P""'*""^ the said lots C. D. E and F ^'' ^"'^ amongst others ss-z: '^>» , '«n W i ou IM Eiver known t,h.H, , T /' ""' """""'Wl' »f 'ho U of I.„<1 flW i. .he Re,U.ry oLe ta ^S^rJouX Sk^k'"'"'''' "'''■■ ""' 10 l-"). Afterwards tho said Loeaii conx'Pv«^ f^ , of the said lots C, D, E and F. and some of h ' '"°"' P^^''^^"'' ^'^"«»« Portions and there are now various pLons i n nn ' ^l''''''' '^^^^'^^'^d ^o others, entitled thereto and to re^erpTtll^S b^ -L'^lt^/^*^' ^^^^'"^"^ ^'^ '^^ improvements placed upon the property. ^^ '"^"^^ ^^^^^g possession and ofsai^^'^i:^^:^:^^^::;;-';^^ running back alonff°Fonseca Stree wirtru„7f Vu ^'^" ^*'««* ««d to a depth of one hundred and sTxty fi e feet "t"""^'^''^ '^ ninety-two feet having a frontage of ninety-two feet on Austin ^ f ' V""°" "*" ^=»^^ 1«* E, Fonseca Street the same width to a deoth of ^^ ^^ "-""'""ff ba-k along 20 or less; and the said ThomrSimontaveLirtK"^"^"'' '"""'^ ^-*' ^^^^ C and F in the plan hereinafter menTioned and '°''*^'' ''^ ^'^*« «^ *^« !«*« follows :-Commencing at the Zr^Zlt ?"T rV^'^'-^y ^^«^-"bed as survey of the said Poift DougLTom^^^^^^ ^'' ^"^"^^^^ ^' "' the the east side of Main Street in the S^v\7w- ^- °""'^'" Si^'^lair D.L.S., on shownbyamaporplanthere^'duly^g^^^^^^^ -'I --ey is County of Selkirk; thence northerly Xl?hp / m"^''''^ ^^'' ^""^ ^^' thence in a line parallel with the norlh^ n K I ""'t ^"'" ^'''^^ ^'''^y ^^^t. and lot lettered G in same surtyi^ J -«?",!• ^"''' '' '^'^ ^^^ ^^''^^^^ ^ then^e southerly along the flT f To^ let ted^ wh ""I" ^"^"" «*^««* = «« sa,d Austin Street forty feet, more or less to Z ' Z '*'" '^"^^ *'^°'>t« o» lot lettered F; thence along tr sou htl 4 h I '^^^'^^'^^^h corner of said C. in said survey, to the PW 1"^^^^^^^^^^^ lettered F and respe"iv?p;ltTt1.:t:dt:^^^^^^^^^^ ^'^^ ^-^ ^>«^- title to their and those through whom th y at werel '"' "^""^^ ^^^^^ ^^ they t e said patent continually il ^IZ^^Zll^^ Z^^''' '^ ^'^ ^^^"^' «' claiming to be entitled thereto bv reason of ^u""^ P^r i"n« oi tne said lands ftle m any person or persons otherThaTthe c"tr"""" '"' '""^ ^^«™- ^^ 40 tl cl 18. The relator is still in possession of a portion of snid lands and the said T. S. Gray is still in possession of the portion of the said hinds claimed hy him as aforesaid, but the defendants threaten and intend to ejert the relator and the said Gray therefrom. If). It was not the intention of the department to grant to the defendant Fonseca any lots claimed by or in the* possession of other persons as aforesaid, and it was through error and inadvertence thut said lots C D K and F were included in the said patent. 20. The relator had not, nor had any person through whom she claims, nor had the said Gray or any person through whom he claims, any notice or know 10 ledge of any application of the ddcndant Fonseca for a patent for said lots C D E and F, or of any intention on the part of the Crown to grant such a patent and had no opportunity ;.f presenting evidence of her or his claim, if any evi- * deuce were necessary after the admissions aforesaid of the defendant Fonse.a, and the said patent was granted without any notice to or knowledge of the relator, or the said Gray or those through whom she or he claims as aforesaid and through improvidence and error as aforesaid. 21. According to th ^ long established practice of the Department of the Interior of Canada with respect to the disposition of the ungranted lands of the Crown in the said Province of Manitoba under the circumstances above set 20 forth, although the said William Logan's possession of the said lands did not commence prior to the 15th day of July, A.D. 1870, but commenced shortly thereafter, the Crown would not have knowingly granted said lots C, D, E and F to the said defendant Fonseca but would have given an opportunity to the relator and the said Gray, and others claiming through said Logan to show the nature of their claims to said land and the length of their possession and the amount and value of their improvements, and would have either given patents to said claimants free or at prices to be fixed by the Department having re"-ard to the value of the lands at the time snid Logan first went into po8s°essio°n, and the Crown would not have grant 'd said lands to said Fonseca without giviu"- to 30 said relator and others an opportunity of making such purchase, but would have given said Fonseca other lands in lieu thereof 22. Shortly thereafter the defendant Fonseca pointed out to the said Depart- ment of the Interior that a numb.-r of the lots embraced in the said patent wore the property of persons, other than himself and that he had no right thereto and he offered to convey such lots to such persons and required that a similar number of lots should be granted to him by the Crown, which request was granted and a further patent issued to the defendant Fonseca for such further lots. 23. The defendant Fonseca did not include said lots C D E and Fin his said 4(> representation so sent to the Department and he and the defendant Schultz now claim to be entitled thereto by virtue of the said patent and agreement bf NU of sa ov 80 to sai iO 24, Triodefondunts fiav« recently taken forciblo [»ONsoNHion of., lar^^o portion 6f (he lands and premises olairaod by the relator herein and .;lain. Mtle to the nam. uudor and hy ' irtuo of letters pate,, obtained by «aid Fouse. a froni the Dominion aovernnirnt an aforesaid, and have notified tenants occuP-ine the lands oi the relator to pay no rents for the said lands and premises, the property of t^he relator, to her, but to pay such r.nts to thom, and have received rents ''rorri said tenants of the relator and are still receiving and applyin,. fhe same toth.>ir own use claiming that they are entitled to the same under the sai.l letters patc-^ so issued as aforesaid, and have also recently attempted to levy rents rom th, tenants of the relator by distress and sale of their goods and chsttels. 25. The Crown is willing and hereby ottl^rs to convey to he def, !ant Fonseoa. or to h.m and the other defendants, or to whomsoever may be ^ntuled to represent him therein, portions of the saui common equal in extent to th said portions of said lots C, D, E and F, and in room and stead thereo" Your informant therefore prays, 1. That it may be declared that i „. said patent was issued in res pect of the said lands hereim>efore mentioned improvidentiv and through error, and in i-norance of the ri-hts of the several persons aforesaid; th t the said patent may be set aside so far as it affects the said lands by a de ree of this Honorable Court, and be deolar-d absolutely null and void and ot no effect so far as regards ho said lands 2. That the agreement of the 12th day of November, 1879, whereby he said defendant, William Gom . Fo,ise..a. agreed to convey to the defendant John C. Schultz n undivided one-half share or interest in the lands in said C oimon, for which the said defendant, William Uomez Pons, a, should obtain Letters l^atent from the Dominion Govern, -nt and the deed of such undivided one-half share or interesi in the said lands made m pursuance of said agreement, if ny such deed exists, be 30 declared null and void as to the said lands and premises. 3. That the said defendants maybe restrained by the order and injunction of this Honorable Court fr„m selling, disposing of collecting the rents, or otherwise deahng or assuming to deal with the said lands and premises, and Vom interfering in any manner with the tenants of any of the s id lands and premises X- -n.. . relatui daims title to the said lands and premises ma^v e confirmed il 1:1 Ml R CO ex >i> 10 &. That the defendants, or some or one of them, may be ordered to pay the costs of this suit. 6. That for the purposes aforesaid all proper directions may be given and accounts taken. 7. That your Informant may have such further and other relief as the nature of the case may require, and to this Honorable ijourt may seem meet. And your Informant will ever pray (Signed) A. CAMPBELL, Attorney-General for Canada. 10 CONSENT OP ELIZA MERCER TO HER NAME BEING USED IN INFORMATION. this cause"^'' '°°''''* *^"* °^^ """^ '^ "^^^ *« ^^^^^- >" ^^e information in Witness : H. Ferguson. Eliza Merper. FIAT OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR CANADA. I hereby consent that my name be used as Informant in the Information in Dated at Ottawa, this 14th day of August. A.D. 1885. A. Campbell, Attorney-General for Canada. ai ni so on ov Hi 35 thi lor 18( as I oft hav dur cati buil dwc 11 '■m ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, FONSECA. as moZT *° *'' "'' information, I. the said William Gome. Fouseca, say o. the e«t by the l.„d of said M McDenaW on th it'T "'■ *""""** 3. wh^ .a. ,e/.haL .e," 1' r^ir^-rLlt^ ^^t ^« the same property. ^ *> lamily upon have resided with J; fejy",* aTd dwZ/h' '° ""r"""' "'"''' ' ..»™. the said ti.e h\.e oocUll^JdriSlTwr .7= a'nl " 7. In the years AD ISfio pn/i '170 y ora-f.^ 1 <• ti tt cl ah ni Mi Lo to sail of anc lotj acr« 12 said store and out-buildiuffs hav> from *hti flirir. i ai III 14 then explaiufd to him that if William Logan or the said parties could make out their titles to the property I haa no wish to disturb them. 18. At the time named in the last preceeding paragraph I especially statpd to Col. Dennis that William l^gan was a brother-in-law of mine (as the fact was) and that in his case, more than any other, I was especially desirous for family reasons, not to interfere with any property he then ocmpied or claimed or that might be claimed under him ; whereupon Col. Dennis replied that he was familiar with the whole circumstances and that he, of his own knowledge knew that said Logan or any person claiming under him was not in possession' on the 15th of July, 1870, and that he further knew that at the time in question io the land was vacant and unoccupied, but that he was then about to return to Ottawa and that it would be as well for me to send forward to the Department what my ideas were on the subject of ownership, and pursuant to this sugges- io^^o^ did in about two weeks thereafter, to wit, on the 3rd day of October, 1878. send him a letter and statement in the following words and figures : Col. J. S. Dennis. Winnipeg. 3rd October, 1878. Surveyor-General. I have the honor to address you on the matter of my claim on the Point Douglas Common of 160 acres of land under the Manitoba Act, as suggested by o. yourself to me during your recent visit to Winnipeg when you had the best opportunity of seeing for yourself how matters stood ; I send the names of such persons, as to the best of my knowledge, are the owners at present. I have no disposition to deprive any one of their lots. You will perceive that the most valuable portions of the claim has been disposed of. Trusting that the patent will issue at the earliest possible day, I remain. Your Obedient Servant, (Signed) W. G. FONSECA. and fi^Ms ^ ^^"'''^ ^^*°^ accompanied by a statement in the following words 30 Winnipeg, 3rd October, 1878. Common °^'''*' ^''^""'^^ *'^''''* °^^" ^" ^°°'"«^'« ^^''^ «" t^e Point Douglas Kew, Stobart & Co., B and U in block 14, Sinclair survey of Main street F in block 14 " •• .< William Logan, C, D, and E, in block 14 " «' <• John Sutherland, A and H. in block 14 " «• <• Nos. 1 and 2, in block 12 " " >i " Nos. 3 and 4, Sinclair survey ea.?t of Austin street. .« Part of 57, " " " .. "*" D. A. Smith, No. 2, in block 1, Sinclair survey of Main street. i ^ ii* 1 ed as on th Gove on th get in inforr Riuch years, 10 u ^' im^i^tro^n''' ^ ««Wr4»Wl^4-and part of 4. block t. Sinclair survey Colin Strang. W J 3, in blo.-k V2, Sinclair «urvey of Main street. Andrew Strang, E | No. 3. in block 12, " " .. D. a. Campbell, No. 6, in block 12, " •• .. Frank Clark, Nos. C and F, in block 1.1, ' Manitoba (Jollege, A. in block in, " « .. Lieut.-Col. Kennedy, No 8, block 1, " " •• Sheriff C. Inkster, E J 4, in block 12 " Thomas Spenco, No , block E, .i .. " Nos. 2 and 4, block F, .. ,. John Bruce, No. 48, oast of Austin street. Bishop of R Laud. No A. east of McTavish street McKenzie. No. 4, block E " Heirs of Neil McDonald, Nos. 55, 54, 53. 52, east of Austin street. ' .h, north .ide of Fonaeca street and two ch.in^?„„Vthe c^'n .»: S ^Ta^r/?' *•"' ''-''""'"i'^g P«'-tion of lot No. 1, block B — Mc(iill, the remaining portion of Lot No. 2. block B. .peak .„™ „, MM :.n\?:retraeraTtL';r''" ""''''''■'="' ""'^ on the subject of ow,,ershr°„d ,„ 1 ", ,. n T '° """ *•' OoP-l-enl Qorernme ,t land, werrav^irbl, in w „ '^'P"'"""' i" finding out what on Ihi, lalle, point Snel Den, is ° he'''''' T"" ""'" '"I"''"-™'', a^d get info^atio'n. but 1 1::^^"™:; b f ^rZthe'n TtoTr"' '""""^ '" .n^™.«„n to assist .e in preparing the'sre^t Tn °„1t;." n?: *" ;:i .-sr -t ;^e:u- r:f ^foX^- n,^;r~ ,i] .1 m ■4 w 10 and Ntatcmont from ohs.^rvulion .uid m.-raory at tho time, but. us it afterwurdH turiiod out, th.. Ntatomoat w.im not cornea in Hovoral particulars. Tho iuuiu'h of Kew. Stobart iSc Co. aio |)ut ilowu by mo in 8;iid Htatcmont for lot V in said block 14; Thomas siponco for lots ■> aud 4, iu block F; William Logan for lots C D and E, in said blo.;k 14; John IJosti^a for lot -i. E; and Thomas Sponco for lot 2 E ; whoreas m fact upon closer investigation, tho aovornnu-nt rcjctcd all th«8o claims, and tho respmtivo claims of tho parties above named wore never rocognized by tho Govi^rnmont. nor have they ever received patents for the said lots, and most of the said lots have been patented to other parties, while in the patent alterwurds granted to mo were included the eaid lots C D E and 1-' in the three lirst named being at tho time partly in possession of said Logan, and the last named, being lot F. stated by me as being in the possession of Kew Stobart & Co.. whereas now it is ..harged in the present Information that the whole of lots C. D. E and F. were of right the property of the said Logan or those claiming under him. because of the practice of the Government to make grants of land to persons in possession, or partly in possession, of the same. ^^',J^\u^^^^^'"'^ i """^^ application for the said ten chains, viz.. in .Tuly. 1877. the question of ownership of the lands in question, and other lands on the said Common, had for years been prominently before the Dominion Govern- men under the application of the Point holders, as stated herein, and in the oo month of May of he same year the Government had. as before stated, decided aga..-H the ,omt claim of the Point holders, but reserved any rights whi^h could be made out under the Manitoba Act. and when the parties named in the Nth of3Tot « *^'7"'7'' "!*^''' -Pl'li^'^tions under the Manitoba Act for portions of said lot 85 said applications were a matter of public notoriety, and wore well SSorG^rnmen'r" ^"' ''-' ^''^'^^ ^''^ ^^^ ^ -" ^ ^<^ Willfl^?^' ^'""^.u^ the said application of the Point holders the names of Wilham Logan or those now claiming under him. were never mentioned in connection with said application and neither the said Logan or those laimin" ,n 22^ Alexander J. Belch, claiming under said Logan, made application to the Government under the Manitoba Act for a patent for a portion of lots C F and G. in block 14. and he then applied to me to make a decLation as to th; said Logan-s possession and occupancy of said parts of lots C and F. but I then explained to the said Belch that while said Logan was really in posse in of parts of lots C and F in the year 1870.;; Tn=f;;tTLlTe;;:r raslo.ht^h belief I repeatedly informed said Col. Dennis and all others connected with the it {government with whom I came in contact) and further, that owing to the claim of the Pomt Douglas holders, or their trustees, having before that time been refused I could state tLat the said Point holders as such made no claim^o he sa,d parts of lots, and that they acknowledged the claim of said Logan and those claiming under him, and I further alleged in the said declaration that I had a prior title to Logan to the said parts of lots, but was willing to forego my claim to the said portion of lots C and F. wuiing lo lorego nn 23- f °tT:'*^«**°d"'g the said decla- .tion and declarations made by others on behalf of the application of the said Belch, the patent from the Crown wis never granted for the same and I was afterwards informed by the DepZ 10 Minister of the Interior, or the SurveyorGeneral. that I could abandon my ckim in favor of the Government if I cared to do so, but that I had no powerl traT fer any right in this way to said Belch or any other person, and t^at the Gov eniment could see no cause whatever for recognizing the claim of the ^aW 25. I admit the allegations contained in the ninth paraeraoh of fhp Tnfn™, at,on in so far as they relate to the determination of theZo^e^rnn^^^^^^ me 25 acres out of and from saifl Inf ^n k„+ t ^i. 7 Y"v«™ment to give to of M, claiM b„. owing to .he U«. oTrLttrcer/nTre^l'S^^^'Z increased value of the land covered by mv claim a. ,„ ,1,1 / ? ° ont, he was of opinion that 25 acrM would i!Tf "''^" '^'"^ and that this amount .houM be p "enZ to me il T ™T°""V,""' <"'""• Ih. mid ten chain, but in f«t onfv i?!!! °' "^ '^°^' °'"°' '» to the said compromial wlTchtiV.' Tc:aTnlr.rrf '""^ ■""'■"■" .hi. cau«. and I «y i, was then intendX fcr L "ilc ic."u ,"hVr"\° 'i" 30 .he matter of the o„^„er,hro7'loft°b'fr,t°"^": """'''"''' ""'"""""• officials of the Dominion 0overnman7,;„j li: ""'°*' '""' '""" ■"''''"' *» funiliar with the various elalZtrilirrtirofrd Z a1' '°'^'' -"»" *" i'H I/ ■•11 ^ '^P'^'^^^ ^y Order-in-Council, of the 3rd 8L In further answer to the twenty-first paragraph of the said information J say tha it is not the practice of the Department of the Interior to allow any adverse claim whatever falling short of the full requirements of the ManitobI kJt to mterveno to prevent patents being granted confirming titles made out under the said Act. as is attempted in the present case, and I deny that there is any established practice m the Department of the Interior extending to the Provh,!! of Manitoba ' 19 and allotments made by the said trustees should be approved of, and confirma- tory patents made by the aovernment to the holders of the said small lots but the said trustees did not furnish to the Government a full list of all the lots so sold or allotted, and when the patent was made to me of the said seventeen acres I found that in that patent was included some small lots theretofore con- veyed by the said trustees to other parties, and upon observing this I at once wrote the Department on the subject and had the said small lots conveyed to he parties entitled in manner aforesaid, whereupon other lands were patented to me m lieu thereof and this is what is referred to in the twentysecond para- graph of the said Information. 33 It is true, as alleged in the twenty-third paragraph of the said Informa- tion, that m making the corrections stated in the last preceeding paragraph I did not include lots C, D, E and F, for the reason that the said last named lots had never been sold or allotted by the said trustees, and the said Logan, or those claiming under him, had never in any way been recognized by the said trustees, nor. so tar as I know, was his claim ever in any way recog^ nized by the Dominion Government, and to have included lots C, D. E and F would have been a fraud upon the Government. 34. I deny the allegations contained in the fourteenth paragraph of the said Information and put the parties to strict proof of the same, for to the best 20 of my knowledge the said Logan never was the owner of said kupe lot afte wards known as lot 24 of the Dominion Government survey or of any o her Parish lot on Point Douglas and such a pretended ownership was neve7known Drinio':^:; Canti: '' ^^'"""^^'^^' '' '''""' '' '' ''' ^~»* «^ ^^^ th«t f J^' ?f ™'f '"u!^' twenty.fourth paragraph of the said Information Fa i F f T^^' P°f ''''°° "^ ' '^^^« P°^«°" °f the «aid lots C D E and F is untrue, and I say that prior to the granting of the said natenf fn me nearly the whole of the said last named lots' and in fact the whobof th land in question were in a state of nature and had never been fenced built 30 upon or cultivated in any way, and after obtaining the said patent in 1879 I caused the said lots to b fenced, and placed tenan'ts upon parC the sa^d lots 86. I submit that the relator has shown no legal or equitable claim what- o'-er^ upon which to found her ri^ht to set aside my said patent and to o^fain n patent to herself from the Government for the lands in question in tMs cause 3-7. I submit that parties preferring claims to lands in Manitoba and brinrr ing themselves within the provisions of the Manitoba Act. a^ the owne« !f such lands in fee, and that it is not within the power of the DominlnX^ ment or the Department of the Interior to deprive Them of ^ JhT^T^^ "A" patent, granted in su.h cases by the Dominion Governm'ent~do n'^^ Confer" tit 40 but are (after investigation) only confirmatory of a title theretofore had by the «i k applicaut, and that uo practice of the Djpjrtmoat of the Iiitrrior or of the Dom* iniou Goverument could, or cau, exist of auuture to deprive parties establishing their rights to lands under the Manitoba Act, of such land or to grunt these lauds to parties who may have gone into possession since the 15th July, 1870, and on this ground the luformation is bad in law, and J claim the same benefit under this objection as if I had formally demurred to the same. 38. I submit further that the Department of the Interior and the Govern- ment having had the question of the ownership of the lands known as Point Douglas and Point Douglas Common, and all the parts of the same of whi h this land is a part under consideration for eight or nine consecutive years prior lo to the third of February, 1879, b>>ii.g the date of the order-in-council upon which my said patent was granted. Her Majesty's Attorney-General or the relator cannot now be heard to say that the said patent was granted improvidently or through error. 39. I aver that the granting of the said patent to me was not the result of improvidence or error, and that for many years prior to and at the time of the granting of the said patent, viz : the 9th December, 1879, the Government of the Dominion and the Department of the Interior had full information as to the ownership of the lands covered by my said patent and I submit that in any event the Government having by the said order-in-council, of the 3rd February oq 1879, and by the said patent of the 9th December, of the same year in express " words aiBrmed my title to the said lands, the Honorable the Attorney-General 18 now estopped from setting up title to the said lands merely upon the ground of improvidence or error, and these are the only grounds upon which relief is sought by the said Information. 40. I submit further that by the express terms of the said order-in-council my right under the Manitoba Act, to the lands applied for by me, is afhrmed but owing to the increased value of the said lands and the peculiar circum' stances of the case the Dominion Government offered me the lands referred to in the said order-in-council by way of compromise in settlement and liquida- 30 tion of my said claim, and I accepted the said offer and in pursuance thereof received my said patent and that it is contrary to the practice of this Honorable Court to grant relief in cases of this kind and that the Honorable the Attornev- General is now estopped from saying that the Government made the said com- promise through error or improvidence. 41 I aver that in the month of November, 1882, the relator herein filed her bill of complaint in this Honorable Court and made the Informant herein a partv doiendant to the cause, and the present defendants in this cause, also party aefendants therein, for the purpose of establishing her right to the lands m question in this cause nndor (h« Moi«" ^'''^^' -« if the said amendment asked for by the plaintiff had been made. The said plaintiff thereupon gave evidence to prove the lacs alleged in the said Information and the questLs of fact invol ved n the said Information herein were fully heard by the said learned judge at 20 the said hearing, and thereupon the said learned judge stated that the plaintiff had not established the existence of any such custom as that alleged in the said Information or any case that would entitle the plaintiff to succeed if the said amendment were allowed of the said bill of complaint, and refused to allow the said amendment, and I now submit that the In ormant here n could in his answer to the said bill, have set up the facts alleged in the iZmattn herein and is estopped by the judgment in the said cause from 01*™^ he relief asked for in the Information herein. »»uiug ine .tLrut'et'-t "''°™'''' '"™'' "' '-■■- "'' ^«"y i' «-'opped irom prosecuting this suit (Signed) WM. G. FONSEGA.- Sworn before me at the City of Winnipeg, in the County of Sel- kirk, this 2nd day of December, A.D., 1885. (Signed) A. E. McPHILIPS, A Com. in B.R. etc. 30 REPLICATION TO ANSWER OF DEPENDANT, FONSECA. The Informant joins issue on the answer of the defendant Fonseca. Dated Janu.ary seventh, A.D. 1886. PATTERSON & BAKER, 40 Solicitors Jor Informant. fii to % cii "t sa: 22 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, SCIIULTZ. The Answer of the defendatit, John Christian Schultz, to the Information of Her Majesty's Attorney-Oeneral for Canada, at and by the relation of Eliza Mercer, of the City of Winnipeg. 1. In answer to the said Information I, the said John Christian Schultz, say as follows : I am not aware of any fraud on the part of the defendant Fonseoa, and I deny all charges of fraud or collusion between me and my co-defendant made against me in the said Information. 2. I positively deny the allegations contained in the twelfth paragraiih of the Information iu this cause in regard to my co-defendant having agreed to 10 give to me a half interest in the said property for my influence in obtaining the patent of the said lands for my co-defendant, and I say positively that the allegations are wholly false. 3. I admit there was an agreement between myself and my co-defendant, Fonseca, and a deed to me in pursuance thereof, covering one-half interest in certain lands, including the lands in the Hill of Complaint mentioned. I claim such half interest in the said lands and I say that I purchased the same from my co-defendant bona fide and for a valuable consideration whii'h con- sideration was fully paid and satisfied before I had notice of any claim of the plaintiff or any one else, and I submit that this relator takes any interest she oq may have in said land subject to my rights under the said deed. 4. I say that the patent to the defendant Fonseca was issued by the Crown to said defendant after full knowledge and investigation of all the facts and circumstances connected with the right to said land and of the claim of the said relator, Eliza Mercer, and that the said patent was not issued by reason of any fraud, error or improvidence. 5. I submit that I am an innocent purchaser of the said property for ^alue and without notice and that the relator by standing by while I dealt with the said property and by her laches is estopped from enforcing her claim, if anv against me. ' q^ 6. I submit that the relator has shewn no legal or equitable claim what- ever upon which to found her right to set aside my said co-defendant's patent and to oht..-vin a patent to herself from the Government for the land in question in this cause. 111? thi fsai Otf( '-^S^B wa cla re;- tni tho thti s within tho provisions of tho Manitoba A<-t are the owners of «n h lan.ls in f.-e, and that it is not within the power of tho Dominion (lovern- ment or the Department of (he Interior to d.-privo them of such lands and that patents granted in sueh eases by ^he Dominion Govornment do not .-onfer title but are after in vestiffation only confirmatory of a title theretofore had bv tho nppi.ea.tand that no practice of the Department of the Interior or of the )omnucu Government could or can exist of a nature to deprive parties estab- hsh.nff :he,r right to lands under the Manitoba Act of such lands or to grant h..se lanxls to parties who may have gone into possession since the 15th July 10 18.0 and on this ground tho Information is bad in law and I daim tho sai/ benefit under this ob|ect,on as if I had formally demurred to tho same. 8. I submit further that the Department of the Interior an.l the Govern- ment having had tne question of the ownership of the lands known as Point Douglas Common and all the parts of the same, of which this land is a part nd.r consideration for eight or nine consecutive years prior to the 3rd of February. .879. being the date of tho Order-in-Council up^ou w^lh ' l^ patent was granted, Her Majesty's Attorney-General or the'elator can^of now be^ heard to say that the said patent was granted improvidently or throTgl 20 the r'' ' r'f '*""' '^A ^'''"^'"^ "^ '^' '^'^ P"*'-' *° "^y oo-defendant was not the r .t of improvidence or error, and that for many years prior to anrl „f ihl trnu. of the granting of the said patent, vi... theVh DeZb , Ts'i h .overnment of the Dominion nnd the Department of tho Interior had fu 1 mbnnation as to the ownership of tho lan.ls covered by my co-defendant's said patoat. and 1 submit that in any event the Ooyornment having by he d rder-in-Council of the 3rd February, 1879. and by the said patent of *ho &th Docemberol the same year in express words affirmed my co-dofendans title t. he said lands through which I claim the Honorable the Attorney Ge„em now estopped from setting up title to the said lands merely upon Ihe ground 30 I0_ I submit further that by th. express terms of the said Order-in-Council my rights under the Manitoba Act to the lands applied for by m/co-defenda; aidktd" T.J '^''";> ^"^^^^^'^-t «--g to the incr'ease'i vara of the ^aid lands and the peculiar circumstances of tho case the Dominion Governmenl olfored my co-defendant the lands referred to in the said Order-in^ounr bv way of compromise in settlement and liquidation of my co^d Lfdant' l.id claim, and my co-defendant accepted the said offer :n,d in oursnlnl 1k \ re.eived my co-dofendanfs said patent, and that it is c:'r ^y'trr^rlc^tirol 40 thes.d-:;mprom:^ ;::hrr^:i;:;:.^^^ •! L. am II; i m i ill- ! r 24 p-i, ^}'n "T- *^*^ I" *^' """"^^ "^ November, the relator herein filed her Bill of Complaint m this Honorable Court and made the Informant herein a par y defendant to the cause, and the present defendants in this cause also party defendants therein for the purpose of establishing her right to the land in question under the Manitoba Act, and after my answer was duly filed therein in substauoe similar to this my present answer, issue was taken thereon by the plamtifrin tha cause^and the said cause was heard before the Honorable the Chief Justice of this Honorable Court, and after a very lengthy and full investigation and hearing of the said cause, the Bill of Complaint was dismissed with costs. To the .aid Bill of Complaint the Informant herein filed 10 his answer and at the said hearing was represented by Counsel. f ^^ /I *^p'f "^.^'^""f '" application was made on behalf of the plaintiff to amend her Bill o Complaint by setting up the facts alleged in the Infor motion herein by alleging that even though William Logan through whom mh' X Ist'Ttm Ih : r »«V-.P---- «f the landl in question on tTe 15th July, 1870 still that he went into possession of the lands in the Bill described shortly after the said 15th July, 1870, and it was a custom of fhe Department of tha Interior of the Dominion Government to allow those pe sons who were in possession of Government Lands to purchase them at an Tpse price before granting or selling the lands to other persons not in possess^n 20 The presiding Judge upon the said application postponed his judgment uZ the same until all the evidence upon the hearing of the said can«P .hrTiA u been closed, and allowed the said plaintiff to gifett::f oTX tts iwld in the Information herein as it the said amendment asked for by the plS had been made. The said plaintiff thereupon gave evidence to prove th facts alleged in the said Information and the questions of fact involved In the said Information herein were fully heard by the said learned Judge at the sad hearing, and thereupon the said learned Judge stated that tbp nf^i ! «•? / established the existence of any such custom'as tha: al^ d^ mation or any case that would entitln fh« r.Uir.ro' ^ °'°^' amendment Jere allowed of thf s^Bn/^? ct 1 L^^Hted Jo Vl^w '' the said amendment and I now submit that the Informant here'ncotlH i I answer to the said Bill have set up the facts alleged in th. r / ? I ^'' and is estopped by the iudemeut in fh! a . Information herein; asked for inLlnfo^ltrhel" "^' "^"^ '"" *=^™"^ *^« -"«f 13. I submit that the Informant hprpin hxr ia,.v,„ j j i from prosecuting this suit. ^ ^"^'' ^""^ ^^^"^ '« ««t«PPed Sworn before me at the City of Ottawa m the County of Carleton. in The (Signed) John Chbistis, [Seal.] Notary Public. (Signed) JOHN SCHULTZ. 'II i illl ! I I , j ^ ! ■ s-f; j: 1' 1 fliill "^ ^-v-a 25 rkpli(;ation to answer of defendant, schultz. The Informant joins issue on the answer of the defendant Schultz. Dated, first day of February, A.D , 1886. PATTERSON & BAKER, Informant's Solicitors. i5 J an let ma Exl Ma stre stre .^wiiA^ EVIDENCE. #1 IN EQUITY. Before Chief Justice Wallbridge. ATTORNEY-GENBRAL vs FONSECA AND OTHERS, WmiViPEO, November 11th. 1886. For the Attorney-General appear Messrs. Ewart and Patterson. For Fonseca appear Messrs. Glass & Glass. For Dr. Schultz appear Messrs. Howell and Tupper. Direct Examination. William Logan, being duly sworn, testified as follows :- ,„ By Mr. Patterson : Q. Mr. Logan, you were the owner of some laud near the corner «f m ■ and Fonseca streets ? corner of Main A. Yes. Q. What land, Mr. Logan, was it -what corner « A. I^ts C, D. E and F, block 14, corner of Fonseca. y. Hloek 14 in any particular survey ? A. Sinclair's survey. Q. On which corner ? lelte^li" °" • °™'' """ " ""> ">" ™ ' "'->': tke corner i, ,„ Q. I am speaking of Fonseca Street • Derhans vnn w^, \a ^^ (A map is shown Witness whi:h"rafrwaTdr:„rrma^^ ^^ A. Letter D corners on Fonseca and Main ; A is the corner of Logan and Q. Is your land on the east or west side of Main street ? A. On the east side of Main street. -._-,?•. 9' ^^^^ ^' y^'^ «***«• ^e'-e the letters ; do you know where F -. =ircu[ IS f Without reference to any map at all dn J„ V V Fuosuca street is? ^ ^ *"' ^"^ ^^^ ^^"ow where Fonseca 30 A. North of tne block. m li i 27 By his Lordship : 10 Q. North of what block ? A. Block 14. Q. Does that mean it is part of the block, or what ? block^l^' ^""''^''^ line-Fonseca street bounds, is the street on the north of By Mr. Patterson : Q. Now where is Lot D ? A. The corner lot. Q. What corner ? A. The corner of Fonseca and Main and f)^""" °"^°'^ '"""" ^'""^ ''''''' y°^ ^^y- «°d y«« «-y yo« owned C, D, E A. Yes Q. When did you first own this land, and how did you come to own if ? A. I first staked out the land in '68. ' Q. Well then, just give us the history of that land now? A. 1 staked out more than that ^^^^Q. Well, just give us the history of what you did; how you held the A. In the fall of '69 we plowed around some of it ^" Q. Some of what ? A Round the land. Q. Which land ? That of which 0, D, E and F is part ? Q. Then you plowed around more than C, D, E and F, in the fall of '69 ? Q. What was the next thing you did ? Q." Wha't^nltf '' ""' " '^"^"^ ""' '°^" ^" P'^* - *^^ 1-d. A. We continued the building. ^^ Q. And where did you put the first building ? .K- wu°" ^TJ ^^'""^ '' "^^ P*'"y "" a'ld partly on C-verv little nn n r think the south corner was on 0. f j '^ yj \ ery lutje on D ; I Q. When did you put that up and go into occupation oi it ? A. Wo went into direct occupation in September, 1870 y. Did you pat up any more building after that ? A. We continued building; built another building in the fall of '70 Q. Where was the second building put ud ? ^ "*^ '"" »* ^0. A. On D. 6 » "p f Q. Wholly on lot D ? - 40 A. I think so. Q. W^hat kind of building was that ? '11 ii I " 28 A. A log building. Q. Is this building there still ? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember the name of any person who assisted you in putting up the second building ? A. I gave it out to contract Q. To whom ? A. Gaudry. Q. Did you put up any more buildings after that ? A. I had a stable put up before that— before the building on lot' D. 10 Q. Whereabouts was the stable ? A. I think it was on part of E ; that is, in rear of D. Q. Before you put up that building ? A. Before the second building was finished Q. In rear of what lot ? A. In rear of first and second building. Q. Then did you afterwards put up any more buildings ? A. Yes. Q. What more ? A. In "71 I joined the building north of the first building on lot D. 20 Q. Is that building also there still ? A. Yes. Q. What kind of a building is it ? A Frame; half logs, the upper part frame. Q. Can you give us the size ? A. The size of the first building was 14 x 16; the second building was 33 X 23; the stable, I think, is 20 feet square, and the other building I think is 23 xl8. By His Lordship : Q. These appear to have been all on D, excepting a small part of the south 30 end of the first one, which is over on C ? A. A stable on E. By Mr. Patterson : Q. Do you remember at how early a date Fonseca street was marked out as a street ? A. I think in "71. Q. How did you use these buildings that you have described ? A. I used the first one as a dwelling for myself and the second one t let to one Mc Vicar. Q. Which McVicar? A. George D. Q. He lives in the city, does he not ? 40 h 'ill , t I if MMMwifMMHPipwp* ^^ m ''•' A. Q. A. Q. perhaps 10 t9 A. I think so. Q. And the third one ? A. I Used that. Q. In what way ? A. As a hotel or hoarding house Q. Aud the stable you used, I suppose, as a hotel stable? No. Your own ? Yes. . Down to what date did you use this building in this way • you divided the use ; tell us how long you continued to live there ? ' A. Till two years ago, I think. Q. You lived there ? A. I occupied the premises. Q. The whole ? A. Not the whole ; I sold part. Q. Where did you live? A. On the premises in the stoond building. The first and second buildings I had put up in "71 and '72, along there. "imiugs Q. How much land did you use in connection with this buildinir? A. About two acres. ^ " Q. What would be about the boundaries of these two acres? A. I thmk it would take in Austin Street to the east. Q. Now the other boundaries ? A. Main Streef on the west and Fonseca Street on the north Q. And on the south ? A. Lot lettered B— B and G- Q. G is in the rear of B? A. Yes. Q. Was that the only title that you had to this land^ Q. What was that ? A. By owning lot 24 on Point Douglas C, D,'^Eand f" *'"'' ^^ '"^"' ^^'"'- ^''^ ^^"''^ *^** ^'-« ^^^ « title to A. I bought lot 24. lou C. D^e';„7fT'°' ''°° """' '"' '*■ "'"' "'""■' "■•• ^'» !'»'> • «'"« to A. It gave me a right to the Common. Q. Not the whole Common do you mean ? A. To that part of it, or some part of it. Q. Why to that part of it, more than any other part ? ... ..7..jip:j Dc'^ausc i iocatea ou it. Q. What was the foundation of that right ? |i I I 20 30 40 ma SI 80 20 A. Being au owner on Point Douglas ; ft river lot on Point Douglas Q. You made salo of portion,-, of thin land. Did you make uuv conveyance or mortgage of C, D, E or F V A. I think the firnt interruption was a mortgage. Q That waa the first transaction or conveyance, you say ; the first thinir you did V ' e A. Yes. Q I« that the mortgage that you made of that land (showing witness a paper) ? Whose signature is that ? A. I do not think that is the first one. Q. N" , n > 'lave the first one here. Is it your signature ? A. "', es. Q. ' h. r(,(,rfg,, } is to whom ? A. O it> ^.Villia>i Fraser. Q. Hov- oar!y was that made, in what year? A. I th. .g. it was in '72. Q. Do you recollect how mu.^h land it included ? A. I do not know whether it took up the four lots Q. And then what next do you remember conveying? What dealing do you remember you had with the land afterwards ^ sales^' '^^''' ^^'^ ''"^' *'^° °' **"'"° ™«rtg«ff««^ I think, before I made any Q. What is that you have now in your hand ? A. A mortgage of '76. Q To whom ? A. Robert Bown Q. What time in '76 ? A. 22nd March, 1876. Q. That is your mortgage, is it ? A. Yes. Document put in marked Kxhibit 4. Q. What .vas the first sale you made of any portions A I think it is 40 feet to the south of C Q. To whom ? A To one John Freeman. Q. Do you remember any other sale that you made at any early date ^ A. In 72 I sold the Hupe lot 24, Point Douglas ' Q. Give us an idea when the 40 feet on lot C was sold ? A. I think it was in '72 I have not the date Q. You sold the Hupe lot in '72 ? A. Yes. Q. That Hupe lot is no part of C, D, E and F ? A. No, Cicepi it might be appurtenai?it Q. Any other sale of this lot C, D, E ? i.| F. 10 40 81 A. Yes. Q. What Mercer? A. Frederick C. Mercer. Q. What is the date of that deed ^ A. The 20th June 1886, Document put in, marked Exhibit 5 Q. This really included part of D and E. Document read. did t?eMo tXrCt"" "^ ""' '-= "■"' °- " ■» -y -«y ^ What A. I think Mercer lelt his premiges. 10 Description read. By Mr. Patterson : Q A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q- A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q aud F. A. Thft 78. 7hf;2 Ts"'""' """"" '° '""' '"•« '» '^'- n"P-"™? 20 Who disputed it, and why ? Schult;.5. . Anybody else ? In '79, or later, Fonseca. • What objection was urged against your title bv Schult. f You became the owner of the Hupe lot 'i Both I and Schultz claimed the Hupe lot ^^ But you had sold the Hupe lot ? Yes, I did. To whom did you sell the Hupe lot ? To McDonald. You mean that you claimed it after you had sold ? Then, had SchuUz bought? Yes, he bought from McDonald. Then, you say, because he owned the Hnn/i Ut k » • , xno nnpt lot, he dannod also C, D, E 40 That is as I understood ; he never said so. m. li n; ! I . P m f'j 11 lit i I'M i 't.. 1 i 1 10 82 Q. He never said so to you ? A. No. Q. m he take any active measures to dispossess you ? Q. Well, you say Fonseoa next disputed your title about '70 „, .r, . What was his objeoiion to your title ? afterwards. A. He said that he had received a oatpnt frr.rr. ti,„ n my claim would h.ve to come through £m ^^o^ernment and that Q. How did he mean ? Come through him ? n" wT"? ^^'^ u '^'"'''"'^^ * P**''"* f^o™ the Crown. Q. What did he say ? Did he say he would do anything ^ ^^ _^ A. He mentioned at one time that he would give L a ^uit deed for part Q. What part? A. The part the second building was en Q. Did he ever make any claim to it against you before he got the patent ? - as yotsT" '' "" " """""" ^^' ^'^y P"^«- ^f *h^t land which you claim A. No, Q. Do you mean C, D, E and F ? 20 A. Yes. .tJl "' ""' "■°™'*' '" "•"' "^ """ " "- »" 'h. w«.. side of Main but whether Konsec. w» in p„.»„ion pri„ tl tT.Us ^oj i'rue''"""""" ^ By Mr. Patterson : claim^. Have you told us all the sales that you ever made of the balance of your A. Well, in fact. I have disposed of the whole of it up to now. Mr. Glass submitted that this could not be sooken fn «« f .u , interests were concerned. ^ ^ ^*' ^ *^« relator's Mr. Patterson. ^ J. What other sales did you make of portions of C, D, E and F and to 80 A. McDonald. He had a partner but I forget his „ Q- Any other sales ? e " A. To b'ohultz. Q. The defendant in this case ? ame. 40 I It! II' i ■! i? 41; I 1 i ! E 33 A Yes. Q. Anybody else ? Mr. Tupper objects that this is not the proper way to prove a sal Q. You sold parts of which one of these lots to McDonald^ A. I do not know, I say parts of C D E and F. Q. What do you mean ? A. Parts of that possession. Q. Taking the whole as one von snlri =««,„ somebody-to McDonald ? ^ ''"' P"'*'°" °^ °"« «f the lots to A. Yes. Q. And you sold another portion of the nrnr,ar.t,. + jr ^ 10 A. If you speak of it as one property ^^ ^ '" ^'^''"^'''''' «^^">*^^ Q. We will call C.D, E and F one properfv anH in fi, , to McDonald and part to Schultz ? P'^^P^'^^y- ^""^ '^ that case you sold part A. Yes, and part to Freeman as [ said before A." f Snt:;:."'"''^"* -'''' '' ^"^ P-*^- «^ t^at property. His Lordship : He said he parted with the whole of it. Witness : That is the whole of it. Q. Did you sell Fonseca any of it ? A. No I barcrained to sell but it was never carried out Q. Did you sell any to Mr. Belch ? A. No. Q. Did you get paid for any of this land that you sold to Schultz ? Q. How much did you get for the lots that you sold to Schultz ^ A. Something over 11,300. "^"OLnuitz? Q. Were you ever at Ottawa, Mr. Logan « A. No. E .„d pT'" '■' ''°" ""' """» »" *"""«»''" f" • P«'™t i- fti. I.„d-C, D, 80 A. I think it was in '81. Q. Did you ever make more than one application ? A. JNo. Q. ^s^that your signature (showing xtness a paper)? . A.' Y^s.^ '' ^''''' application for a patent of this property? Q. Look at it again and see if you can tell us what is th« H»+n „f ■., A. I see it is dated the 29th April, 1882. ^*^ ''^ '*^ me' k thai pate 8ettl( to ar ( 84 Q. You said awhile ago that you never marlp K„f A. Yes. •^ '"^'*'' '^"* one application ? Document read. Logan fyle nut in w.ii- i of the Department of the Interior.CoJ«7erbi u ^^^ ''^^^ ^'^""^ *^« -«tody Agent, being Departmental Fyle No. M.A 2172 ^''^"■' °"""'""» ^^'^"d Q When was it that you first had tn^^i a a patent for this land-C, D E and F 7 Yof ""j- ^^^^^''^ ^^^ ^PP'-*"«. A. I think it was '83 or '84. Q. What kind of a fence-post and wire and boards ? by Fonseca and Schultz ? **" " *"y buildings put up 20 A. Not that I am aware of Q. Did (hey collect rents, do you think ? No answer. Q And that is all vou knnw ,%f ti>„ Fonseca or Dr. Schultz ? '^' T" "^ "^"^--^hip exercised by Mr. A. That is all ? Q. You say it was in '83 or '84 thnf th„ e A Yes ^®"^® was put up ? I jLt-er -:,r:--rhrd- ----- Q. How were they made, these cellars ? ^ A. They were encased with wood 1 Dn'r .r Sot'; ■ '" *°^ ™ - '-«' -"" *« ^^"-o ^ Q. On a level with the ground ? A. Dug out Q. Excavated ? A. Yes. Jn^t •"" °"' "" '"«- "»^ ^°" when y„„ „,, ,„.,„^ ^^ .^^,^ ^^ A. Nobody. Q. Who paid tax..s up to '79. Mr. Logan, on this property. • I taiUk 1 nam the farps nn *« "to ^i . • j-pcrij , up to '80 I think "P *" ^' "" '^' ^'^^^^^^ that I owned then, and 10 30 1^! ! h T lf**% rS^i <** m 1 I' '" ! ■ ' -' . ■ l3 i '■ fftfen m »,^ \ had Q A. Q A 86 Up to what time 'i I think '81 ; I think H2. Did anybody interfere with your p„yi„;^ tax.s? property in Cross-examination by Mr. Glass. Q. Youaay thM you went ii,l„ „„„..s,i„„ „f „„, . ,. Q: To wh!,' r "■" '""""^ ""■ "' -^ ««■-'• '"■ A. Into tho first littlo house that I built Q .How re you employed at that time ? A. Clerking for one E. L. Barber boai,!,.. r A. Yes. =" ■ Q. Who were partners ? A. I and Barber. Q. That is. you were partners i„ the farming ? Q. How do you mean V A. We farmed on shares. 1 Ye'..""'" " ""' '" "" ^■"'' "'Winnipeg. I he.ieve ? a: r;"nT L"".:: " ""=- ■"^ "— - **.* for hi„ ,n .., Q. How far from lots C, D, E and F ? A. About half a mile. Q. Half a mile north-east was it ? A. Yes. Q. That would be on the northern part ' !.„ .^5 ? A. Yes. Q hiJ869 did Barber build an out building on B? Q. In Lot 14 Barber commenced to bnild a store ^ A. Yes, m the fall of '69. Q. When was that store finished Mr. Logan ? A. I think It was occupied in September, 70 Q. And P .rber went into tho store in September. 70 ? Q. On that point you are quite sure ? A. Yes. 10 20 80 40 Q. Up to that time he had been doing bu had been clerking for him there ? 'less north of Lot .S.5 and you 11 a in # 'If trnm ► 87 A. I was iu St. Paul parish That in fK« «. i . w,«.ie*„gf„,hi„,, „„,p. „i„f,.„„ „':.,;u„';,, r.uT'j,';;' " ""■"• '»» A. 70. Q. You are qaito sure? ' A. Yos. Q. Now, you had been living in the back of hi« n » A Yes. * '^ °' ^'*' "'d store, had you not ? 10 A, I .hink „e „,„ved .bout fd:Zt "° *° """ °°' ' * Now, I want you to bo l>arliculor about that I. i. . n. thi. CO, but wo h«l it up be/ore, you know iL f\ ^"^ °""''""' tho bMk of Lot 35 aftor Barber oa.e't'o th. „:; I'ZlZt' "" '™"" "■ A. It might be a couple of weeks. Q. I believe Barber's store w^as imt fii,ici.„j i. A. Not quite Barber's s ore "L fiu^^d rth'^' ""7'^ '°'° '^^ ^^« " ? think it was plastered in the lalToT 70 ' *^'°^' '° *^« «?"»? «f '^l- I 20 Q. Well, then, what part of the finishinir was it th., , . A. The painting outside ^ ^ ^''''* ^"« '^o"^ in '71 ? up to'isn ; ''^ '"™'^' '^^ '^^'^^'^ ''-' 'y^^^ -"'i about outside the store or anything of that kind f '''' ^*^ ^«"« building. No lumber A. I think not. The building was finished. q. Are you prepared to swear, now that iha r.^ * • the spring of 71 ? ' *^^ plastermg was not done in 80 A I think it was done in 70-in the fall of '70 l^. When you say the fall of '70 can xrm, fi„ *u ' finished when you moved in v ' ^"" ^" '^' ™«»^h ? It was not quite A. No A. Nr* '^" ^""^ ''"''™^"'' ^^'^ did that plastering ? Q. Do^you remember where they got the sand for .naking the plaster ? Q. Where? A. On Point Douglas. 40 Q. Do you know that they dujr a hole nn l^f n . r , sand ? ^ ^ "°'® ""^ '^» C, out of which they got the A. No, there was no hole. Q- There was no hole dug on Lot C ? Wi 38 A. No. Q. And if Senator Sutherland says there was « h 1 *u to contradict him ? ^ ^^ " '^°^« there, you are prepared A. I guess so A , Yes. ^^ ^° '^'** t^at was put up in a week ? Q. It only took about a week to put it up? A. Perhaps a shorter time. Q. It was taken down from somp nth^r- r,i A. Yes. "*^'' P^*«« »"d put there, was it not ? iq a' Yes^"'' '*" ***** ^'''*' ^"^ '>"'>di»g? Q. Bid you thatch it. a.d plaster it outside before you went in . Q. W^Uhe whole of it would take longer than a week, would it not . 1 "eSrir:r t:;r/e; -'- '' ^^ ^-" ^ Q. There was no survey at that time ? A. No. 2Q A. mo * "'"' *'' ^''^ 'P'*^'"^ ''^ "'^^ ^ Q. Who made the first survey ? A. Yes. ^ "■ >""" *"""' " «'"•■' a« y»u h.d it flnf.w j that LTf7h:it' '°"" °°"- *■ '-«'» -^ How ,„ r„„ B.rbe,.s „.. O fl""' kT ^"'"" " '"«'" •>» TO " 80 feet A. It ,. more lh„ 40 fee. .„d more tk^Tw tl , Q. The ne.t ZZLVU^^Z 'll', T *''°" " '"' ing. until then ? " you put np? I suppose you pm „p „„ ^^.,^ the second one ? ^ ^"* "^ ''^^ ^''^^ '"^ ^ouse before you commenced A. It may be a mouth. ^q 1 Sir" '""' " ■"" '■" ;'^" "--nb^'. .o-newhere T Q. Where was that hn'l''i"fr =,s. i ^ i=- wosi of the first building" ° ^'""''^ ' ^'""^^ '* »>« north, south, east or u i UM ^1 01 C( IIIX 39 A. Joining on the corner— ioininff nr, t\.^ .1. Q^ That would b, bringing';™" df Jo °,™' °°"""- A. Yes. *''""•" ■"""ovef towards Barber? 1 S;^;'^"" ■"" "''" """ "- "-at bunding was. taettVa:" '■" ""'"•'■ •"«»""■'« '» y- »"e„,en, .he Hup. ,o. .„„e A. Yes. Q- How long before ? A. I think it was in 'eS-the fall of '68 Q. You say that you owned the Belch lot ? A Yes Q. And you went into that partly becausp nf A. Exactly. ^ ''^"'^ "^ owning the Hupe lot ? Q. And you based your right to it upon that v A. As well as locating it. Q. Did you think you had any riffht to th^ «fk owned the Hupe lot ? ^ ^ * **" ^^^ "t^^"- P'^^e of land because you 20 A. Yes; at least I knew the Common was undivided Q. And you would have an undivided share ? Q. Did you ever have anythine to do wJfk *k or the application for the Common holder ^ ^PP«'«tment of the trustees A. No. Q. Did you ever take any part whatevpr i» Common ? ^ ^ " whatever ,n regard to the control of the A. No. Q. You knew about the trustees being appointed 7 Q. When were they appointed? A. I could not say. Q How long after you went intn fK„ A. Itmightbetwo'ortrryrsltr"^'^"^''"'^^-^^^'^ A.fh7ardT"'"^"*'^^"^'«^PP-^«<^^ Q. How did it come to your knowledge ? A. I do not remember whom I heard it from. y Don t you know your employ- r Mr R<.rK A. No. P'^y '' ^'- B«'-ber, was one of the trustees ? "~ ' '^'' ^""^'^^^ -^*^ ^-'- *" '- «^--Tsupp:;rcJ:r£::;^th 30 40 him V III; :niiir ■ii II! lil m ^i ■ :' I. ij " '3 ^ Ca nor If 40 A. Not long. Q. How long after you went there did you remain wifV, r u ■ ^■ store? ^ remam with Barber in his A. I may have remained a year. Q. That is after you moved into house No 1 ? A. Yes. ^ ^ ■ Q. That is the one 12 x 16 ? A. Yes. Q. Yoa say Simlair or Johnson madp ihn «,»♦ upon reflection, say which of them madHh: firs^ slrLT""' ' ^^" ^°"- '^«-' A. I am rather inclined to believe it was Sinclair Q. Sinclair was a good deal about Barber's store at fh«f Hr.. A. He occupied the floor over. ™''' "^^^ ^"^ "«* ? Q. How soon did Sinclair go there— aftpr RarK„, j went into the little house? ^'^'' ™"''^^ "'•«"• ^^^^^ you A. Not long after Q. Did he make a survey, then, of the oronerfv nr th . u ■ A. I think he made a survey of the Comin ' "'"" '''' ""' '' '■ Q. Did he make a j>lan ? A. I have seen the plan since I N„7i„7g\t' "°*" ""' """ "■■' "' -''« ">» p'«" ' .ha. ^earor-nCh"^ " °°' '"""^ '"'"■'" """""> ^^ — ^ I>» you moan by A. Months Q. After he moved in over Barber's store ? A. Yes. Q. You call that about a month, you say ? A. It may be about a month. Q. Whom did he make the plan for ? A. I think for the Point Douglas holders Q What holders? A. Point Douglas holders. Q. Where was the plan kept after he made it ? A. I do not know. Q. Now, you remember your evidence tho la.f * Ca. yon .„, „po„ .fl...n^ ., <,;-■-": 'Xle-Z'wt; Z ^" Q. Can yon say who.her U.e plan was top. .„ Mr, B.rb„', .,„,. „, ;,„, , 10 20 30 north Q. You were clerk there ? A. Yes, I was not alone, there were two clerks there JarDfci'Butoro? •^s ; keeping a boarding house. 40 little house immediately m 'I HH f i «i »g by this little ^^^^P-^^^^ the Point holders, or trustees or anjbo^;?"" '"'^"^ ^'' ^^^ Q. Did you ever assert your title in nnv ,„ little building upon it? ^"^ '^'^y excepting by putting your A. No; I did not consult anvhn#lTr „„ * Q. Now, that is the on"y Z and v u^"'"^ °" '^' P^'"^*^^«- the plan was for inspection that you might s^eT' ^''^^ ^° ascertain whether A. No, there was no survey. Q But I am talkintr about th.> nlo« 4^i,„* A. rNot that J am aware of * Q. What was the frontage on Main street ot C ^ A. bixty-six feet. ' Q Was any part of the small building you sneak .f ^"''l^?r"^^^'^^---eymadein'orTrto7etthatT '^ ^°"' °^^^^ Q. There was part of the small log building on D : Q. What afterwards turned out to be D '^ A. Yes. 10 20 30 40 The buiidinjf was 13 x 16 ? A. Yts. i I !ii> ^ ^ts I 42 Q. ^iiieen foet fronting on Main street or n«ro,, f. i»t • Main street is ? ' ' '"^"'^ ^'""^ M«»» street, or where A. Away from Main street. Q. How far back Y A. It might be 30 or 40 feet. Q. How many of the U feet would there be on C- ^n,\ h. A. There would be very few feet on C. '"'"^ ''" ^ '• Q. How long after the survey was made hv r>n» w.- , • , saw the plan at all ? ^^ """"'^» «'»''•»"• before you A. I think it was when I sold to Freeman Q. How long would that bo ? ^® A. r do not remember the date. 71 I think Q, Yo. did not .01. to . „a„ uamod' P., „.r.„„ bofon, y„„ .„„ to Pr„„„,a„, Q. You sold to Freeman first '^ A. Yes. Q. And you saw Duncan Sinclair's nlnn ,.rV,-.„ i , A. No, I think „„., I ,hi„k JZi tl:t '°° "°" '" "'«"■""" ' .h, l^^'l'rbeL'yl'tr," r~" «»"■ '»■".' *' »»-- .*n.lair ™.de A. 71. 20 Q Then that would be a few months after ' A. May be a year after. Q. Where did you see it ? A. I think it was at McDonald's. Q. Neil McDonald's? A. Yes, I think I saw the plan there. Q. How did you come to see it there ? A. Ihey were interested in the Point n.,„„i r^ speaking of it and had a draft of it ^ "'"' "°"S^^« Common, and they were Q. Now, you did not see the plan in Barber's «tnr. • ^ No answer. ^"^ ^ ^^^^'^ "•■ '« Fonseca's house ? Q. Now, look at that plan and foil ,«, u witness a plan - Exhibit 2) ™' ''^''' ^'"'^ ^''^ «^w "it (showing A. I do not remember ever seeing it before to-dav ^ xon never saw it in Barber's stnr,. t* ,^ \, ■ ""'T'rr ."■'-:" "" "'" «>- f- we J: zz '/"* °" "" """"■' A. JNo, Ithmk not. I think that is where I first saw it. 30 in Q. In what place did they put this plan to sell Douglas after the survey was made ? A. I do not know. Q. You never saw them offered for sale 'f A. No, except the par4 ^ sold to Freeman g. Howdid you <..^, sell toFreeraan? Did th e lots by on Point 40 ill! selling him ? you see what you were 'Il . ,, I # c h J i.. t 1 i '!' 48 A. No there were pickets put up. he may have seen the plan Q. Who put up the pickets ? ^ °" A. It must be Sinclair Q. Now, I underNtood that Sinclair mif ni,.t . would the pickets be put up 40 feet / ^ ""^ '^^ ^^ ^''^ ^'""'^ ■ how A. It would be on part of the lot. Q Then you must have put un some ninb-^t . l were ( ^ ^ *°*"^ P'^^^ets to show where the 40 feet A I measured it. y. But you had no plan f A No. 10 Q. Where is Freeman now i" A. I do not know. Q. And you put up pickets ? A We stepped it— measured it. Q. Where did you step it from ? A. Lot B, well, from Barber's boundary Q. You had never seen the plan but you saw the pickets V Q xNow, did you or did you not durinn- tk. *■ Mr. Lagan, that Barber and Sohult. and . hi f T ^"^ *^«'« ^now. lots that you daim to own ? ^"'^ 'Others were dealing with these very A. I heard they were selling. Q. Um talking about these lots-this C D E and F ? E and F^"" "' ''^* ^°" '^ '^°* "^"^^ '"^^^ ^^e trustees were dealingwith C, D A. No, I was not aware of it. Q. Were you told that on D E and F on the olan nfK 30 own were written ? P'*" ^^^^^ names than your A. No. Q. The first sale you made, you say, was to Freeman V ^^^^A. IhadafenceonpartofCandpartofE. That is a fence enclosing the dosing haT """ ' '^"" ^"""' ''' "^«'« °^ ^^^ «*able or only a fence en- A. Yes 40 Q. Was the stable on both these lots ? A. I think It was mostly on E. Q- What was the firsf fViii.n. *u ^ iino. on 1) E and fT "^ '^'' ""^ "^^^^ *^«°« '» ^he way of fencing out '' \ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // / 1.0 I.I 1^ lis IIIIIM L25 i 1.4 1.8 1.6 v] <^ /i o^ ^c* ^;. Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14SB0 (716) 873-4503 iV <-v ■■^ <> vs %--.<^' <» <^ i % ^^ ii till 4 If ^^^H ! 4| ' ^^^^H ' ' ^^m 1 ^^^^^^1 ^^■■■..i^ imm, ■ !u ^B w| ■ 44 A. There was no fencing at all. Schnltz Q. In what year ? A. I think in '83. Not long ago. Q. Now, do you know put up a fence 2 or 3 years ago. 20 put „p and .ha. i. wa. p„. .7bf FoTo ™ dttal*'' """ "" ^'-"^"^ "* A. I was made to understand that Schultz did it Q. Was Fonseca there ? A. He was about. A Na ^°'' ^'^ ""* '^^ ^'™ P""'"S "P *^« f^n'^e ? ?: fZk itTa:';! *'^ '-'''' ^'' '^' ""'' ^'- ^^-- ^" ^««i ^ O wl^WV, K '"^^^^^ P""''^ ^'^^"' ^ ^«« '^^ f^°^e 0" Main street Q. Well, thero are buildings on Main street ? Q. Pickets where ? A. I think there are some on Austin street. Q. Buildings, you say, are on Main street ? witbUdC ""' '"" °° """ """■ ' """' *' -"»•= f-' '« -•-«• .he IT^^ZT"' "" •°''°°- "'■ '"«""■ '» -'-"' ">e .ru,t.„a ...H„, A. No. Q. Did you ever take any action to assist them in getting it ? now,^hTt';i:rtL;rerl'^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ «^^^«^ ^«^- - y- -^ ^.ai^ A I do not know whether it was 71 or 72 aftert ^'"' "''^' ^' ^"" ^"''" ^^'' ^^PP«"^^ '» '^« ^'^ '^^ ? That is 6 years '^ A. In what way. ?■ ??)5°^ T u"'' i" i^"^^ ""' '" ^^•''^«'- *»»« t'^^t^^^ got it or not ? A. I think I heard about it. ^ ' Q. What came to your knowledge then, in regard tn H,« ^ * • .• applied '"'^"•""'^ ""' "«' Government granted the patent to those that 40 Q. I am talking about the trustees ? tmatee, wetse't'^'r"' ""' """"'' ' ""°'' *"'°'"' "o"^'" "om^on Q. And what then ? 10 t; I i I 45 ihJ'J.trtT •*°"""°™' «"-« '"« P«en., ,„ other .pp,i,..„., ^,,^ A. Z^:i7:iszr "" '°' -" "" "-« «»^ "°' ^™ «•«' «f ^ Q. But at .ny rate, yo« nerer got the acre for acre » A. 1 got some. Q. Did you get it from the Government ? A. No. the Vt7.l:7,,T2lZV;j^ "" "" """^ "•" -' "'I'. -^ that A. Yes. 10 whoL?:vrkt™!:;3'tr:',a:^v'" -'• """ •-•- »' "■- - A. I think they owned them. Q. Yes, the Government ratified all their nafn«*c n .l from the trustees ? P**^"*' = ^" '^^^^^ who bought A. Yes. Q Yes, that is a fact ; you knew that ? O tZ f.T'^ "T"' ■ ^ *^' proceedings up to now. y. Ihat took place about the Common ? A. Yes. 20 aor. t t°rt ZZ tTaHot '^^^^ tSXT" T '"''■ '°* '"= Manitoba A-t ? ^^'^^^ ^^"^ '«° <^ha»n8 under the A. Yes ; he located there in '69. Q You are aware of that ? A. Yes ; saw the buildina- ^oinir nr» h« ™. Parish, I think. ^ ^ ^ ^ "' "^^^ ^" °^°«'- °" Point Douglas Q. Claimed to the Common. A. Yes, part of the Common. Q. How many chains was he in possession of ? ^^ A. I could not say Q. When did he make his application ? A. I do not know. Q. Was it after the acre for acre was divided in 77 ? Q- As near as you can V A. It may be one year or two years. 40 Q. Becjause you say he was in possession in 1869 ? A. I think that was the ground. Q. Do you know about any John Sutherland wh .fi, u possissiou of a part ? "^uiiieriand, whether he was in tj! k u t s.^ A No. Q. You do not know ? 46 for a patent under the 20 A. I know that he was not No answer. Q. How soon after the 10th Mav ist'i -^^^ m^e .„ .ppucion f„, . pa.,:': ^Z TXZZC.Tr ""' «»«-"-* A. iwo or three years ago— '82 or '83. Q. Do you know that he got ihe patent ? A. I have heard that he did. A ? h3" o"^ '^^'*^'' "'■ '^'^""' ""^^ *" application ? A. I thmk not ; I think he was not .pp.it* *:s:Ma;Hr'Lr '"-' "- '" '""™™ - » •« "»'« A. I 3aw the building going np. Q. Do you know any others ? A. E. L. Barber. Q. Do you know anyone else ? A. Myself Q. Do you know anyone else ? A. Fonseca. A. Yes. Q. Now, did you know. Mr. Logan, that after the lO^h Mav is-r-r ,y. . ^^ persons m actual possession of parts of the OommL j May, 1877, that under the Manitoba Act? " """'^ "^'^^ application A. I found out that later. Q. Did you know it then ? A. Not then. Q. How do you know McTavish did it then ? A. I found it out later. Q. You found out what later about McTavish ? A. That he had applied for a patent. Q. Do you know, was thaf aftpr fJio o„.„ e 40 McT^iripXS>;tr:^r ^^ --- ''' ^-^ ^-- — of A. It 18 about the same time as the Fonseca patent came out. 10 'i f »ii ill m pf I '• 47 Cross-examination of William Logan, continued. November 12th, 1886. By Mr. Glass : .0 Jnlrsto'tr" """* '" "" """ "' »"'><"■■ "'O '">- •«'<>- movtag up A. Yes. Q. Did you come up to the new place at the request of Barber? A. I moved on his business partly. Q. Did you go up there at the request of Barber tn K^ in his store? ^ iJarber, to be convenient to him A. I think not. 10 Q. Look at that plan (showing witness n nUnk a«^ t out the lots upon it to which youfefer ? ^^ ^°" "'° P***"* Witness point, out lots C. D, E and F in block 14. Sinclair map. Q When did you first see a fac simile of th^t «io« Q Sinclair lived with you, did he not ? 20 A. No. Q. Did he live over Barber's store ? A. Yes. Q. And you lived a little north of that ? A. Yes Q. Now, can you tell by Sinclair's residence there when you saw it ? A . It may have been a year afterwards. ^ ' Q. A year after the making of the plan ? A. Yes ; one Mr. Mead had a copy of it. a draft or so.nothing Q. Now, who was Mr. Mead ? ^ A. He was a printer by trade. Q. What connection had he with this estate ? A. I thmk he was executor for McDonald's estate. Q. Was Neil McDonald living or dead then ? A. Dead. Q. Were yoa on intimate terms of friendship with Sinclair' »i«pt ^.ZZ^tT:, "' ™ ' """«- ^"■' -™ '» "" — "y ; I was a. U?J'l'J:iZT'^^'- '"' "'" """ *' "" ""-> k™. «o Barhe..- 40 80 A. I do not think I was at home when he arrived. ^t !i if If* li' i i it 11 h| 4H Q. Now, do you know M.„.T„ba ;.. „,,Tha. riv ' °"""" "' '"' "»' "«' «"' «""k he d A. I could not say Q, How long after Si irvey id in 10 A. I do not ihink if w:ltn;:t:' " ''^ ''"""^^^ '^'^^^^ ^- '^"^ hi- ^ A. It may bo a month or moro T mint * fall I think? '"' ^ ^^'""^ •* "^«« raore like winter, or in the Q. Now, do you know that he arrived in M«ni. k ■ c A. No, I do not. Manitoba in September, 1870 V Q. You think you knew him Hrst in the fall of 'VO ? Q. Where did he do his worlr ii. fK„ of that sort ? '^°'^' '" ^'^^ ^'^y «f ™»king his plan or anything A. I do not know. a: z^;::::. '° """'"" """" ^°" -'« '- ".*»•, ..o,„ •, A. No. Q. You did not ?-You swear to that now ? hm 20 A. Sometimes. ^^ ''"'^ " ^'^ y«» ^^^e Sinclair's store ? Q. Did you see Mr. Fonseca in there with him ^ A. I do not remember. Q. Do not remember ever Renincr 17^« xi_ . „ ^' *^*^**'^ seeing l^onseca there V Q. With Sinclair? A. I did not say with Sinclair a! Tdrrrr"'^^ ""''''--''- '- ^" ^^« --•« -"g his evidouce in the last A. Yes. Q You know all about Duncan makiiur tUi. i evidence in Mercer and Fonseca" ''^ '**" '''''" ^*»«" yo« wore giving A Yes. A. [am pretfy well acquainted with the plan itself Q. Were you acquainted then ? A. I must have known something '0 your ».a,o w., „,(«.„ „„ d, e, ,„"•" "»>' *«" 'I-" A. I do not remember ' A I could not say. Q. As the plan was DroeressiiKT /i;j , and approv, of ,1 V P™»" "'"»• « d you «e , draft of i, f„ Barber', store ouWd.,""' "^ '"■"""' '- ^'""■' «' » t™-ner.., aud . wa. priueip.,,, Q Do you call it trading outaid.. the store ' A. Principally. Q. Who kept his books ? A. I think one Major Robertson. Q. Now, how many days in the mnyo^ » b«au,e Mr Barber is here, Ld Mr Fo ".ec ° „7,T T" ''"" """ "'' ""« "<"«' A, May be half ehe ti^e out of !rstoro?lo:f """ ^" ''>°"' "' Q. You told my learned friend that vnn ^^u to whom ? ^''^ y°" ^""^^ a J"«ce of this land -40 feot- A. To Freeman. Q. When did that take place ? A. I do not remember the date P.rt?, IZFrtZY"'""'- ^"'°"' ''°»""».^» f~' '0 Sutherland-"" A. Yes, and a part of F Q. That, w..u!d he ^. early a« when ? What year v A. 1 cannot say, perhaps it may be '72. 30 ^«- A. I Ihink so. I was asked to do so by the pa ties in u r By Mr. Tupper : ^ ^'^ '''^°™ ^ ««Jd. Q. What year did you sell to Dr. Schultzv A. The first attempt to sell was in 1873 Q What do you mean by the first attempt to sell v A. There was a deed made to '^ .K„u i V had to take action to set it atide '"' ^ ^°^'^ "«^ ^'^t ^7 P"co, and I Q. I ask when you sold to Schult/ r ...v u A . ,hi„k .„„ year, ago we '"I'lud'd """ ''™ "'"""' »'" l,! Ihat would be in 1884 '■? A I think in -84 ; I think so 20 question •on was the question of title, was it not ? ^,7""*^' .^^« ^^^^< the great Q That was the question to which all A. 1 think so. Q And you at that time, claimed lots «f i i ,. • described in a plan as lots C, i), E and F ^ "^^''^ ^^'•^^ A. Yes. men's minds were directed y afterwards 30 Q Now, what steps did vou tak-u tr, u Government, or by anyone els "" '''' ^""' ''''^'™ acknowledged by the A. I made an application in 1882 working it? ' y°" *'^^' than living on it and A. Xone to my knowledge. 40 Q. When did you coramenre to live on n " A. 1 moved my family ,n about Sept.nJ. working 111 It about September Q. How long were you living on it from September, '70? •er; I know that my men were 1 I'. loti yea; Did 52 A. Two years ago. Q. Continuously-in the same house ? A. Yes. Q. That would be up to 1884 ? A. Yes. Q. Then what steps did you take m 187*? t^ u by the Government or by anybody else ? ''' ^''"^ "*'" acknowledged A. I am not aware of any. Q. What steps did you take in 1874 ? A. I am not aware of any. Q. What steps did you take in '75 ? 10 A. Just about the same I think. Q. You took no steps ? A. No. Q. What steps did you take in 1876 ? A. I did not take any Q. In '77 ? A. None. Q. In '78 ? A. None. Qln'79? .,„ A. No. "" Q. In '80 ? A. None. Q. In '81 ? A None. Q. In '82 ? A. The time I made the application. A. I became aware of the fact. 30 ^^^^Q^Uw.„^ei„ December, 70. .„, .H.. would ^ .„ettae in .h„ A. About. Q. When you became aware of it ? A. I became aware of it by seeing the plan DidyVslt^hTsXc^tnlttt^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^ --^ ^ad been made. A. No. 40 By His Lordship : Q. You „e.n th. .„n,oy had bee,. ™.de before you ,.„ .he p,.„ , 5,1 I »' 'is h 'I:' ?■ I 1 ! '1 ' ' 'I i It ' 1; By Mr. Tapper : 53 Q Was your attention cftllpri ? t *w i A. Yes. '""'^ • ^ ^^•'^k you stated you saw the stakes V Q. When did you first see the stakes ? A. December, 1871. Q. Did you ever speak to Duncan S!;„„i • i. December 71. when you saw the plan " " '''"' ^'^'^ «"^^«y- P"or to A. I think not. A. No Q. Did you know for whom that nia« l • A. I became aware that it wl for t Je P '' ^T^ "^"^^ ' Q Well, you claimed to t a PoL tuX p""""^'" ^°'"'"- '^^W-- A- Yes. ^°"»* '^o'^glas Common holder, did you not ? Q. And yet you took no interest, you sav in fh. i . .- your own. so far as that plan was concern'/; "^^'"^ ^^^ ^^^'°»«d as 20 A. I was satisfied by not being disturbed'. ^. But what steps did vou takp tn r^,^ \ A. I did not require any ^ "* ^""'^'^'^ '^^'"ff disturbed ? Q- Explain why ? A. I was away in the fall of 70, taking the census y. How long were you away ? ^-ensus. A. It must have been two months. ^J. Whereabouts were you ? A. From St. Vincent to Prbvenchor Q And what time did you come back ? A. It must have been in December Q- I see; in December. And you had anyone concerning this plan ? A. No. Q You took no interest in it whatever? A. None Q. Now. you attended a meeting of the Poinf k .^ for the purpose of considering the thing ' "' ^''^^'''' ^^^ ^^^ «ot, called A. I think not. * " Q. Did you or did you not ? 40 A. I do not remember. Q. But you may have been there ? A. I rather think not. 10 80 no conversation whatever with VA 54 not? point ' whethc were or 20 Q Is your memory clear upon A. I think I was not w.. ^ J;"' "■'■'■ '' °"" ■"■ ">o- Who „e,„ ,h„. .., „, ,,„ ^„„,^ „„^ ^^^ ^^ lhi.i..n>.,t„th.lde»ply„e,.Ml°''r"'" «™'""''«'. Mr, Logan. w vo„ .. „o ..j„ .. .„ XETr -t» :: - -v:; ^: A. I do not remember F inUr '"'' >"■" """" <"■' "■« '«"- Which i. „„„ a.o.h.d « c U K „„a q: wL *d';z;r "•" ■" """ ■ ■"■' »"ke o„, -> I did not „,e«uro i, u 2711 it '"' """ '' '""«»« "P-i" '«« ' was not measured. ^ '""'' '«<>■' '"» acres or three acres it Q. Th» ,„„r .„„ ^„, „„. ,,^^ ^^,^___^^^ ^^ ^__^_^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^ .„d ?, ^^^ -" '"- - ■"«' o». -« than is now described as ,o.. C „ , A. Yes. ' ■" *<• When you saw the nian in n^„ " l «d a„. give yo„ all the £ haf^^:'?'. ■'"■ r ^™ '■»•-' """ 'he^ 80 •>b|«ion ? '"•' !'»» "latmed, why did you not make any A. I w« S.M.W by owning the four lots. '0- ""'•■'-«-»«"- -ve lots „hy.h„uld you he s.tished with No answer. a 4 fo1.r -^ ""' *• '•- *a. you had gone on and staked out gave you A. Yes, I supposed it did. f^^^"l^::j:i:Z-:y,:''"yyO'> were entltM ,0 all MO and F*. '"' "■"' ■■">"°™-'» "«• you made , comber, is,,, . , „, „, , 10 A. Building and pl( Q- I am wmg and general asifing about December," 1871 now in 71 or 72 ? 1 i J i ii i 1 i; I ,1 j 1 1. 1/ 20 5o A. I had a little garden bo.woon tho buildin^rs Q- Yon told us yest.-rdav that von . '"'"^*' you had staked out in De.-embe 1868 a c.7 ^""' ^^'"" "^^^^ *^« l"-* that A. As well as that I was an'owner '" '^"'"''^^ '' '^"^ ' had I'c i^:rti^;',o7sarthit ^'^ 'n'^-^^ ^^^^^^ ^-^^ -^^^^ ^ou A. I understood that the OovTrr .^ " '" December. 76 ? ^ and that we would get some lotllTribLTd" ^""^ u '^^' ^'^^ ^^« ^-d- what we had been told ^'«t"buted among the holders. That was Q What holders '( A. Point Douglas holders. 10 Q. From whom d.d yon understand that ? A. Jt was general rumor. Q Did you meet all the Point n i ^, '"''a"Vo ' """^^''^ '''^ ^^"^"«« the Q With any particular one did you discus, it V were't v!" 'w people i^The 'cUyltld we' Jant^'rf.r " ^'"^" ^^'^^ ' ^^ere eral rumor. This understanding i not eT dlnce ' I T! *'*" ^^^"^ ^- to see upon what you ba.ed it. We do not ""^ /^/''"had a claim we want and that ; we want evidence. Hou^ver IT' K T^ '^^' ^^^ *J^'»k this for not asserting your right to the land wh,! u ?'^ '■''^'°" ^o" ^^n give A. That is the only reason ^''^ ^^'' '*"ked out ? ^ Q- Well, now, did you go on that Pom^ i. ■ was ,he ownership of the H^pe Ic o d^d vou " ' T°' '' ^'^"^ ^^^ ^'-^ A. As both. 1 « " , or did you go on there as a squatter ? Q. Did you own the Hupe lot at that time V Q You had not sold it ? 80 A. No. Q. When did you sell it ? A. In 71. Q. To whom ? A. One McDonald A. He was satisfied with the lot a: JoZhTn'r '"''""*""■'■ "'''''''•"°'' Q. How was it then found ' havi4 plrTwdtom r '^ ''''''' ^^^"^ '^^^ ^-n issued to McDonald for Q. Were you -ailed as a witness in th A. Yes L^ase f u; d6 A. I would not swear about that. whe.:the ;ia; to:ix:^ "^" ''-'' ''-' ^- ^^ '-»'' correct it now? and I say "No." ^ snonv^as, Was there any squatting in 71 ?» Q. You had gone on in 70 ; you were there ? Q. There were others on who u..a A. Yes. '^''° ^""^ f^^^e «» before 71 ? Q- Well, now, you say you maH,> What plowing did you do? ' P'^^^^^rxts on this lot C, D, E and F 80 WitItl;tu',riTr pTo:'^' '' ^-"'^ «^-^ -w. around it. " P'°^''"S W'^^ aot done on C D E or F except part^fiJ?^^^ -''^^ ^- -^-^er .he plowing was done on C I) E or f' or any A. I think it touched ou F Q- Will you swear it touched on F ' K.r. garden' *' "" ""■'■'''"■"Sfora...k„„f p„,„„^i„ , ^^ A. No, not ou that piece. ym" 'w rr' jT' i 1 1 .0 \\l ■■* ' ■ t ; , '1 i i. , !'.■"■ i ' i III ' ^ vtk 57 Q. Where did you put in a crop ? A. I p,^ ,„ some vegetables between the houses ^- Between what houses ? "ouses. A. Between the first and second house in t h« Q That would be on part of C and I) ?' '' '"""• ?nt!nJ^''^rP"*'"^'^^«^^«^'«t«bles? A.Ith.nk,„thespringof'7l,7land72 Q. About 20 feefsquaV u t n'thr^ ^^'u^^^ '^'^'^ A. Yes. ^ ''• J"'* '" *^« '^o'-ner between the buildings ? tabl^iSr^otS^^^P--^^^ Yousayyou put in these vege- obJec?d?/ourai;: trj; p^i^g ^ '^^^-^-^ *^^^ ^- -- used. For what ?: ^:" ^ritir ^^^^ ^" ^ ^^-'--« *--lose any lot . A:wL:oi:rar"^"^^^^'^^-^^-p'-ed. -ce'rnet:rpKrn^^^^^ «o far as cultivation was for two years; in uil and 1872 andT' °" "^^''^ ^"" Planted vegotaWes plowed on what is now Austin stLl '^ ^""^^^ ^^" ^ ^^ on w4h ylu 30 Q Now h '''';y ^" ^'^ ''^^ ^'•-'^d better Q. Now. how did you stake this land in 18o8? A. It was prairie land. Q. How did you stake it up ? A. I put up stakes on the highway from fh a <^-^- east, and then north, .fnd tie Ztt' '^""" ""' ' ''''^ ^^ -» back Q. Then how many stakes did you out nl A. It might have been five ^ ""' ^^^ ^'^'^^ a'^ng ? Q. What did you put up live stakes for? A. I was trying ,o make the line straight 40 Q. Now. why did y^^^::tl7^:z:v':^:^r^r^^ it straight. A. Ine Hliruutr tfint plIo > j ^ ^ ^"^t 20 fp>»f ? 10 20 I !' 1' 1 I jll 58 A. Yes, that is it. Q^ Now. wh»t WM the v.l„„ ofihi, „,3t t„„,„ y„^ ___^j ^p , FO.S*:"""'" "'" ■ " ' ""•'■ " "°« "■■" ""» loc, „o. .pply to ™, „,i„„. Mr. Tupper, coiitiiiuiug— Q I meau this log cabin ? A. It might b.! $80 to $100. Q- Yes, how do you arrive at this sura ? A. I think the wood for tJi^ Ki,,ij- , n 10 drawi. a.o„. . .„ j;v,''L^-tir, zr •r "'■™ ' ^ Q. It cost you about $80 ? "lattrhUs. A. About that. Q. You swear to that ? A. I would not swear to the exact araouut. ,,J, D.d you br.ng the logs down the river or draw thora frora iuland so.ne A. Drew them on a cart with oxen. Q. You think it cost you about $40 ? A About that, it may have cost me more 20 raorLl'Z^rZZ" ■"" ""'"■ ' "'^ ^"'^ "■»« *„, we. ,„..i„, . Q. But you knew, between the years 1870 «n^ -wo *u • discussed here from day to dav '^ ^' ^^^^ " ^''"^^ ^ «»bject A. Yes. ^ y ■ Q. So you had no claim on that accout ? A. No. Q. Well, what is your other reason V A. I thought the Government would treat with f>.„ p • r. and give them undivided rights. ^"^ ^°'"* ^''"^'■'^« holders A SolhltT'""',?"* ^'^^ "''"•' '^''"^ •- "^-"^ ^^ '^•l '^ 40 A. bo that I would come ju, 4" ^l Vou say you sold the Hupe lot ? H !;l! m 59 Q Was there a deed? A. Yes. Isold the lol but reserved tho Com- * Ye.^JilptSy'"'"-'"' ">"«l><"fCo,„m.„ „pres,ly, tm,.ees..to the action of ehe'eo™:!™""" °'""'°''"°" "'>«"''' «■'«> »" A. No. Q. Although you claimed as one of them ? the ,„ brmg you, , ,ai„ ^^^^ the Go.erLeli ' '' ''°"' "'«' »<' ^"l»' s» -hjt r ie™ fr:,:tt it.,te:rf \°" '«" - *= '^•--, A I. would d.p,ud u„„„ whethe ,h 'p:,!:^'!'"'"^" '<- >"»" '«"' ' Q. Yo^.„d you bad „.e„.ed, by your S::'tb':'^;;^Tc„..„„ , A. n „a, dependent „„ ,h, paiem W- ilow was it denenHwnf „« ^.l Now, ren.„ber „ba. yot^s:: J ."^Itrbi? ■'°° r-"" "» «°™"'»»'' .eed^you „pte«,y reserved -U your ri,h:r ttf S„ J„:" """" '^"' ^" "- *' a..?.o/s:i';;?jr'r:r;:.™^^^^^ Common m the sale V ' "* y"» **ay you reserved your rio-ht "f A. That was nothing to do with the natent ™^W.heenanrS:b/frr:--^d^--r'- ."4>j;p=r£.rznn ;^-Sr -- — -^.- .0 Q And you knew of the issue r>f tu A I think about that date '''""' '" '^^^^^^-^ '" 1H79 . Q;^ Very well, why dul you not br in 1879 your elaim before the »ore rnment r! 1 1 •a ^^^^1 J' |,iM '§&■ Mm ■1 ' m m ^^^^^^^mi > '^■H ^^^M'At * ^R 1 ^flH 1 ,«■ j n 1 Ip ^^Lifi 1 li ■ii'' , i ^^^^^^^^9 1 I ^^^v ! ' i ] ^B^ ! 1 '!" ^^ y il ' fr «0 Q. When was that decided ? A. Oh lately ; about two year ago. Q. D.d the patent for the Hupe lot issue to Schult. ? Q. And the Hupe lot is what you call 24, is it I Re-examination by Mr. Patterson . Q. You state you sold the Hupe lot to McDonald? all ri^/' '''' ' ^^^-^^'^ ^"^ ^o. the patent for it you would have been A. Yes. Q. Did McDonald sell to Schultz'^ ** ' X Go. Q. How did that affect von— fho a^,>; ■ A. It was depriving me ofthl '"" "' *^ '^'^ «"?« '«*? Q. How did ft apply ™o "'2 rTir'" "^^* '"^ '«^ ^4. Point Douglas Common ? ^ ^ "' '" °^^'^»P^»t of C, D, H and F. on No answer. ^'^tir?;^ '^'"-^"^ ^'^^ ^- <^^d there and When . Q. What was the plowing that you did then ^ ^^ A n was simp y a furrow run around the land. Q- What was the extent of the plowing? A. Just one furrow Ob if ^^•, a ' P^«^'»ff- ''''' °" *^^ P^'*^^ taking possession by Q- What did it include ? A. It included these lots C. D, E and F 40 ^l Had any person else enclogod o,,,. „^_,; - , 10 u m I i w I' il t tl: 1 ^ It 1 i. Jr-i ^ ' f- i |l , l> !■■] 11 m.1 61 piowtd 1*;;;!; irzTr'""'' '^'"™ "■«' »i'™s *» .„„ . , '^ 5(ou must know what vn,, Q. Who were ? ^ ^^ '^^'"^ «^'er 100 acres apiece .^.o ■ A. I'arl ofit. "^ ""'""""'•'-I'keorkeepposse.sie", '^ ™"''" I s t:. fi. '( it f 1 .«.. ■ 62 Q- What part ? ^- To the rear. Q To the rear ol what ? A. No. .,r,"?rt'r:r°" °'""^ -" -^ c. ... . .„, p , Q MeDoualfl ,r^., , , . '^"ow remained. '^' '^"• 'laimiu" When 20 A- Only ]vf..Dona]d a« C' '7^"^ *^'« '-- - Q McDonald you Tv , ''""'^ '•"™"">«d Q- Did you abando, yltn. " '" "' "' ^ ^""^ , ^^=£5r=-^^--— Q Up (o what time <' Objected to by Mr. Glass. Question allowed. Q- Repeated. A. Where he was residing? H Where was that. Was if «« . Mr. Glass objects. Question allowed. Q- Repeated. A- I think not. 10 I ^ Haro you any doubt about it V 40 A. I Would. Q. When vva« Harber'n «t„n. built on lot » ^ Q Whon was it o..oupied as a Hton. . 10 Q. About what tim.. i„ '70 A. I think about September. A- I was. A, Si' °"''°"'' ""■"• °^i"' "> y«»r Po.«».„„ ,h„ro > 20 William Vincpvt k,;. > , "•"' """"i-'lioi. by Mr, I'aei,.„„„ , With his f..fce. L^rH;:!";:,^;,^' ■-«' '° "-■ "^«" > «:."£:;• hr to 150 yards .hi. .,d„ ,„ „„ ,' ™';'' " -a. o„ ,hi. si*. .,f ,h„ „,, J^'I; ^^^ QVo,. do „„.k„ow.h„,«.eonhes.« „,„,.„, „e„. i I f I 1 1 T' 1 ! '-k . i 1 ||.1: '20 64 iviarc h. I am uot positive bnf r tUi i • "' ^^ ^^ars of affe I thint year I was taking „p the o usu'"! th ' h 7T ''^"'^ ^^'^ -- bon U^',' was hft ,,, ^^^ ^^- fo e ^^00 t e., and I fouad out the glH March -I understood it was March past. ^'^^ ^"^ ''^'•^-' ^^^ars ofag^iu'io H- vvflo told you that ? A. The father of the another , A^ I could not tell you eJa^lv r/"'"^'*^ ^''^^ ^«-« ^ inthefan^ *^« -" ^-re the child was hor^ ,. ^^^-^^^^^^^^^^^ Q. What is the child's name? A. Adelaide. Q. You remember seeino- th^ u A. I do remember thH^X^T'^utT ^^7"^ Q. Do^you remember seeing it\.o SpT ""'^ ""' ^'^^ ^^at time. Q Wd you visit very frequently ? " I i ' ■^y C5 A. I could uot tell oxiipilir. r n n^ ^"y- ^ am not certain g. Do you romember any ? "^ ^^"ain. A. i ooulduotsay. Q- Do you remember anv tV,.,f .,, A There was a store ^ut up rlht 7' "^^'^""''^ ''''^' Q Whose store was that" ' '^' ''°"^"'^ «^ ^^^'^ ho«- of M. Logan's . A. I t-cyit wLaS I Ltt ctSirfr"^"^^'^'^ '^-^ -as put up, winter ,t was put up; I cannot s y wh X; /^^--/* --not finished the first was not finished the first winter. ^ "' '' ^'^^ ^' '' '^l it was put up • it n Cross-examination by Mr. Tupper. next Q. How many children has Mr. Logans A- Seven. " " Q- What are there names ? A. r -ould not tell you them all. There is P ''''^'''^••^^•^he eldest; Robert the Q- George, the eldest, where was he born ^ A. George, I could not tell where he J u Q. Robert, the next ? ^^^ ^'"■°- A. He was bora iu St I'huI i f '■"t «: "t '"" ' --^ ^^ ^' "°°"' ""' '"="-' ™ -°<'- ^i who IS the next child ? A. Annie. Q. And where was she born ^ 80 t,J. Who IS the next? • A. Adelaide is the next. Q- And then the next ? A. Well, he lost some. Q I mean of the living ? A. The next one was the lufiu «„ t « aro three l.ttle ones anyway ^"'^ ' ^"'^""'^^ *^^' 70u exactly now ; there A NoVd7'^''"7 "^"'^ *^^y ^"« ^-" '^ *" "-estof'them::.reUr;;i^;tu^:;-' ^'"^ ^^ ^« "^ ^^ present. 20 William Logan, recalled: In 70 ? A. It was in March, 1871. Direct examination by Mr. Patterson : A fwL' ]"•''' '° ^'""'P^^' M"-- Sutherland . hI 1 '? '" ^'^'^^P^^ "'^^i' this summer Q. Where were you living i^ jgVO ? 10 A. In Winnipeg. Q. Do you know William Logan? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do^you know where he lived in that year ? Q. Where? A. Well, until the fall of tMn T +i„- i l his family were in St. Paul's if T Im w .'';'' ^^'''"^ '"^ ^^- P«"l'« J I think then moved into Winnipeg info rW^^^^^^^^^^^ the fall of is^O, a'd Q. On which side? ^^^* ^^^ ^"^^t near Main street. 20 A. On the east side. Pons„. »,„els, . litHe „„rt7„f aa, "''^ '«""""'■' ""^ »""" "f Commo- a„d and aumWrs what lorhtta's J^" ' ''°"'''' '"'" '°°'= " " «'"' »= by «■« letter. recoUectl: ;„'d tt:°,ra.^":ri': *'^r°• '" ^' --^i-S to „y Di " mast have been near these In., nf' "'">' P'-»'Wy have been on and D ; it „.. somewhere abont 'he ne'bT™'"^" """ "■'" ''»» """e™ 30 Q. You state he went there to ,t tt'^Z ''.o'f " °" «'->-i''« -P. Q. When had he built the house ■> .alee u^^^Jt^;-y iT„':Ssn '"^ l;-"'""^— ' ^' ^'^ - he had the house built. '"^ *^^' '" "^out three or four weeks Q. Did he put up any more buildings alter that ? small building whid. extended fur'h.r Lnh^"/ "^ ^"^'.^^ }- the end of this 40 street was a whitewashed house outside *^" building fronting on Main I ' ll \' ^- 'Il-"-"- ■■-■■---- 11 By His Lordship ; 67 •oa.b«i,ding wa^betw^r^V ^d 0^1 ™L"'-'° "" «'" you, lord.hip ; the "h.ch he put up later on, com^riZ'^" M»» "treel, and Ihi, while buildir »« lu.t about the width „fit°efT.Lt„^; *",'' " ""' »<>«hw.,d. fi waa ,.ugh.c^t, plaatered .„d wUteTal; '" '"""' '"^ """'"■'S ^ I think " So ih», ? ' "^ °'""" '» Barber's atort Q. So Jhal .t cornered on the log building ? .i.e.e^t^jX'Lnd'TbiZ't'r.r *:? "»'"'■•«' «>-■ There were a: ^'ylT oralhipTh"" ■"" "^ »-Ch?r "'"'■°^- and .W othJ„ JrneS Jtjtlr "'"''^' "" '"» "- ' '-kof, togetbe, ,0 a J-.he'i„g't:'ii/:'g' r„et'tL"ettrM^^^^^^^^^ Q. On^e-third of the way i„ the direetion of Fonaeca .tree. , % Mr. Patterson : Q That is, Barber's store was on lot B? ^- How much land did Mr t„ how much ? ^'- ^^'^^ "s*^ around these buildings ? About stable m the rear. ^'^ buildings, any more than just the a: ^i;t.XS;;r ;^ir--:^. ^- «^^ any other purpose . ,, corner was va.,nt, and he h.ad'he Z^i nlu' ''°P^^*^ ^'"^ *^--« ^^ the '' g. Had everybody hatl use of it ? 30 !!■ h I ' «, it mi HI \U i s^ & -tm II -i' 20 68 H Ihd he make any use of it ? Q- You do not sixj he did that ? A. I would not swear in it ■ u • O Woe ik "wear to it , it is customarv y- Was there a hotel there ? ^" .he llr "'°" """ "-'' *■ ^™-« tad p„««i„„ ,f ,. .^^ .^^^ ^^ lime before he built. ""• "« '"^ some timber there fo?some 1 NOU*- f rri'^T-" ■"■ "•" "°'' •' *" «- of .he tra-efer, Q- Or any part of this land? A. No. ■ ♦ Q. Or about near this land'? Q- Who 'r;h:!s„rwr.X;t ;;t''t '- "■= "-^ " *"■ A. Logan was ^ "^"'^ ''^ **»««« 'ot« C, D, E and F ? Q- He lived there over a vaqi. t » A. Yes sir. * ^'"^ ^ ^^PP'^^^' without any concealment ? Q. Do^you know Mr. Fonseca's signature? ^- ll^ '^''''^^ ^^ow it it yorx se^w itl Fonseca's signature is a^miHcA ♦ u- later of 3rd October. 1878. and h is dedi^l'T V^''' '«^^' -<^ ^is .lated July, 1879 ; and whatever purports to k*^" • "^'"i f ^'^'^'' plication -m the Department of the Interirrifbadmitl^r^ by him, and to come 40 fyles are evidence, a .d that these f^lTs shall h?^ "^" ^^^ ^^''' ^^^^ these admitted all round that ^hesedocuLert/LlitrdK:;^ '^ '^^^ «'^-^- -^^ 'i^ey purport to beeigned. coming from pTblSe ^ "'"'^"^ ^^ ^^««» 10 30 •■■'.\ I 11 // i 1 ; ' ( ■: ' ' J ' 'r' K iLtA '' id, Il, I* ' * I I J 69 dateJrth jlri^sTS by CoTd'°" T^^' ^"« ^« ^° ^- <^- ^o-ca. the other from the D pXoat of tt h.?"''' ^Ti^'"^^"'^*^^ «^ ^^« I"^°"«r John R. Hal], acting feci"; d e' ed to Gil I af '^P''^™''^'^' ^^«^' ^-™ copy by r. B. Douglas. TheZ papers arlt^h , f^T' '''''^'^ ^' ^ ^°"««t in without further proof. ^ ° ^' *^"'"«^ «« «"»'"«'«. and to go Cross-examination by Mr. Glass. Fonsl';;;t:;^fu7hUk^t';t'l:'\H*^^ w<.st .de Mr. Suthenand, that put up by Logan ? "* *^" '''»*^ *'™« that the log house was A. Yep. 10 was some time before. ' "'^ ^^^^ *»« positive, but it w,„.l!:f:? "'' ""' " '""'^ "■" •■">"' ' "«* '» P»' «P !.« ho„,e before he A. It could not be very long A. Yes. ■ 2: Tee" "r '"°° °'^™"°' ^°""'"'""'' »"' y™ ■"" ' A. You mean opposite ? Yes, quite close and further south Q. I .just asked you if it was close ? ^• A. Nearly opposite; a little further south iust ^h...i u, , . »<> south ; yes, about 66 feet further south ' ''"^ ^'°*'^ ^'''^^''' wouM it ''* "'"'' "^* '^ ^"^*^ *^" «^«-« ^-- the southern boundary of 35. A. No, sir. A. No. Q. It would be less than ten chains ? A. Yes. norit„':.rrbrrir- ^°""-- " y. Can vnn toll rnp -wrU^i.! . , Ml : I i fi."'t 10 70 A. Y^'P, A. Yf», generally known A. Yes. Q. Injact. I .„ppo«. H was a latter of gonora. oonvorsation out, thoro. you rolbr to one or other of thL lotlV " ^°" '^'^"'^ °^ ^^'^^ ^'"'"•""» His Lordship addressing Mr. Whitcher. Dominion Lands A-n-nt A Yes l\lr7, '^' ^"^^ ''^°"* °^' '^-^ -'d the river . mont or the'rdll^BaTc: C\rB:ntirr '^ ^'^ ^"-'"^«" «-- veys of the trustees, and subsequent Uer 7 ^"^^^^''^^ adopted the s«r- a westerly direction of a portion ou»e wes ' ^l '/"f f subdivision made in 20 the Point holders their proporUo a paT t the'^r "' '^^ '''' '" ^^'^^^ '« »--' hundred lots ^ P"' ""^ ^^^ Common, containing several dep.nirra„rcVl^«i:/r:wr 'Afr ^''■r- - -°'^-f the p„ M.A. UU: M.A. 3.0 „.„.„, X„ce"aI,ti:trorM;A"at,f '^^ A^taibof. before ,he tr.„JXntt::t:rz:': """^ 't- -"" -™-ii »f Sabme. -"^-roMuce. His name was Herbert Lauchlin Q. He was afterwards a consider, hi.. fJw, • surveyor? (consider., ble time ,n your .«mployraent as a A. He was employad as a clorlr in fK^ n • ■ . not in the Dominion Gov.rnmen urv v a. d iT" ^"^^^ ^^^'^^ «« ^- them. "''"' '"'^^y> «»d could not make any surveys for holders r '°" '"^" ^^ ^^« '-'^^ -^^ ^ --.^ of these lots for the Point Yvb. 40 ( f '; A. Y m\ r- i ' i 1 '•. ■ i i ■I '' 1 ,: i M i I i V^m ' 1 1 1 i-jSi '•■ m ; '^ I i' ;'iW' ^' t ■ 1 im: MM 'i' ft- " .L J., ^ Q- Where is he ? A. He died last fall- 71 -in September, 1885. Mr. Glass addressing witness (Sutherland). Q- Do you remember Sabine ? A. Yes. Q- He was well-known ? A. Yes. Q- About the only surveyor? A. Yes, Mr. aoulet was another one. W Vo you remember when h^ .r. a A. I could not tell you what ye'ltw T^ '"' ^^^ P°'"* ^^oplel Q- That is Sabine ? ^ ^'" '' ^"^ ^ ^ '''^'^^^r him making a survey A Yes. Q. Abonl how long before the transfer' ' " q''w"^^ -t '"''°« '^--"^erziTwoir .r. -^'^ '°°« --f-- Q. Would It be about '67 ? ' ''' ""' ''l^e '» say. A. That would be pretty „ear the tiuie. spouse „?7h.UuTeyr""" """-' ^^'^ «"»« 'Wfo.rth. of the whole . ,Q. wia'tr wt.ToT„:i't't«^' *:" °"^ ^^ p"« -p-hou paid the expen.e of? " "'= • "» ""t to see how many shares ho q: KyThri''^"" '"'' "■' "• p»'^ » ■»"-■ ».m. written one? °« '"'»''"'>■ "-o ion a. a time. Yon see Logan'a 30 A. Yes. A. 1 Should judge there would be abonf «« f . Q. Now, there are 70 feet marked t T' "' °'"'" ^' P«««^We. correctness of that ? "^''^'^ '^''''- Have you any doubt as to the A. I would not be positive as to ih^t know, on account of having seen alo these lotsTk"'" k ""'"^^^^ «« ^^ - I Q. ^ow, B b h^d ee feet as well, tl he tL^"^^ '''' ^''^ ^^ «« ^- O 4 ' . "^"'J'""^ *^« «°« lot he had ■ medilly™;^;:^^^ ---.yo" ^^"^^ ^''^t Logan would commence im- '' 10 20 A. Yes. on the line. : ; i I ill ' « If ( f .if. , ;' r ' 1 4 • u\r \ .h- .'■iM ;' ' X \ 1 i 72 Q- Sutherland had 66 feet in A? A. Yes. J ^^'^^^'•^^d 66 feet north of him? Q- And then Logan begins? A. Yes. A. Yes. Q- Now. do you see 99 feet marked on it? Q. Were you there when Mr ??««= x A. r w.. livtag down .he" ;■ J™""' "-'"«' "■» '* ' Q You we,e not there to ««p„„,,„.f,„^^, ,„ wonllkltTut'^, ':^ptr '" *°'°« °" «• - f" - yon know . y ^ Q- I w,. speaking to you Mr si f 7 !'"""' """" '"I 'i™d 'here the Common. Y„„ ^ « CTg^n^'^T :l*"'/'"'»»"™'-'°™.y about Pha« through which it went? ""*" "^ """'""ation, the v.riois .nc«, when Sabine eurveyed, tb.t was' ^XrX'r^? tf""--'- "'" ■-'■ ^» ?: YZZ^,r:Z'^^ "■«' - '»*- " i" charge , Q.Atth..ti.eorthe.nrv,.ythePoi„.ho,ae,ato„ki.i„„h,rge, ' f P^^M .1 3 1 l. i 1 ! ! 1, ; . f ■ 1 1 1 ■ ' ! ■ i ■ ' ' ^1 i '. 1 i ; i 1 1 1- r 1 f . 1 JiJiUf^^^l ' ''fnliimBl ' '^IB' I'^i i #11 ' 'ill 78 A. Yes. Q- Which was '61 ? A. Yes. Q Thf' trustees were nnnn,-,,* j A. Yes. appointed soon after ? -^^^r^:^:^Z' '-'''''' -"^--- ^- the owners and others to A. Yes, they used to have meetings there Q- Were you a Poin^ owner? ^ A. No, ray father was. . Q. When .he Goverlt wer„Tr "^'k '"'^ ''"' ■'°' '° Se. i.. q«te a„ excilemem, did i, „oJ ^ '° ^'" """" ■«■« '»' acre il e,e.M • A. No, there were "ere v 1 22 ^"! """ " "■" «"" ' conversation among theL peopt" *°"' ''°»''' '"' ' general subject of A. Yes. Re-examination by Mr. Patterson; Q. It wonW be befc^trtralflr '""^ "»'» »««'»"<'- Yos. ■" Q You are sure ol' that ? A. Perfectly sure Yes T fi,;„u r .he,tr^^ .vere appointed at a pnbUe .eetin, „r the Point holders, .ere A Yes. .he ^^''Z^VtrZVXT/r'^^/ *• ''-'-. •"■' «..t ...ted trnste., wen, appointed before fhe tra'sS'^ ''^^-"""^^ J"^ ™c.r that the 40 q: y„:l":: !",f r<;» •'ri'^. '™ *ai it w„ bef„r» .,, t„„.f., "• ' '■■'" "■"• ™ • """■^-■' ■■•^'^. «PPci.ti„, the trnstees. ■i f llSi < i! li ( I" .1 !f i lit i^> ilJ ;. « >Ii ! t. . ! 74 2 ^f """ ™ '"" "■™° '"'y we„ »pp„ta,,, , certato .ha. a„„ we« ^1^:1^',^°" "^ '"f«™« '"• -at I Im al„„,. <^. What trustees ? A. There were persons appointed. A I could not say they wee at first. H Were there two sets nf fr„..+ A. I think there were mJ^'' *° ^"^'' '•««"»'^«tion ? Ponseca and my father, and I fort wh'" '' 'u'* ""* °^ ^" ^^^^e were Mr 10 am almost sure that th re were trus lis hT" 't' "*^''^--^' «• Bown-buf I appoLment'frlh^etrsr '"^^^^^^" ^^«- ^^^ Le of the transfer, an<, .he A. I would not like to be too positive Q. ^he meeting appointing their trustees ? ^ Com2on''wit W r'g'ardt fny pltftvi '°f " ^^^'"^^ *^« -^ole of the Do you mean that they claimed^'or Tc^. rilrTon" '"T^'^" ^^ ^ ^^^^ ^^ m possession of? Did they claim the right to ^at .''' ' ^""''^ ^^^* ^' ^«« A No. "^^* *« ^^a*' and want to turn them out ? 30 Mr. Glass objects. Q- I am asking whether the Poinf h^iA as to turn out of possession men lik Wn %''r"' *^° ^^^''^'^ C«™mon so -n at that time and had buildings h^'Xth^^ f « — in posses- .".■h^o the exclusion of men who'were^^^Is s^'^' ^'^^^"^ ^^^^^ «^-- A. I would not eav that -wli>.f t j ' the Common as "a Common." ' ' ""'""^''"^ ^^ ^^at they w.-re claiming Q. You were not a trustee nor a Point holder? tHere. " ThJy^^ J ^lltdTo t^tty^ ^/T ^-^^^^'^ ^^^ went on 40 possession. ""* ^ny of those parties who were i„ 'if i i|i I l-l !l I!' 76 Thomas Lustkd, being duly sworn, testified as follows : I^irect examination by Mr, Patterson : A. Yos" '"''^ '° St«»«wall, Mr. Lusted? Q. You are registrar of the County of Rockwood 1 a' f d1d^°" """^ '"^ Winnipeg in 1870 ? Q- Wd^you know William Logan in that year? Q. Where did he live in that year .< year-in.T % i:;Z:fon"sX:;:i^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ -* ^-^at time during that year ^' ^'""^^ ^'^ P^'"* Douglas Common some- Q. Do you know where he lived in 71 or '72^ A. ne lived in 71 and '72 n fK r< property Point Douglas Common property "~^''^* '' '^^"^'^ Common Q- You know it for certain ? A I know that for certain ■ T «.«, „„i into his house. ''" ' ^ ""^ ''"'^ ""^^''^ain as to the period he went A. I did not go to live with him y. Do you remember, somewhere ahonf fV,-, ll^'Tf '° '""'■ -™PW "y Mr C caT" '"""• '^'"^ ' ^'- ™ A. At what time? '^"usecaf Q. At about anywhere from '71, 72, 73 or 74. A. Well, of courae, I did not want to get awav have been commenoed^n" '"Cd tistd ta t"' ft^T' >-•"■»■» " »i«ht Q. A. an event, yon remember aXeVm 11^^:1 ™' ''-'"""^■ Q. Now which bnilding was pni np firsl^ A. Mr. Logan's bnilding was out nn fir., ' A ii prepared to say tha, a oerttin hon ^I'bnilt 2^^^ It °''""° ^ ' ""> ■"' owned and occupied by Mr. Log.n-a ™il T^ hu ^ "" ™ " ''""'«°S A yts Ttbt'.r^ "'"*"<'-"'' ae^eetV ;0. I mean ^IV t^^Xt".:' ^iru^ailr^rr' "O '° *« "■" »'' Q Are you sure ? 10 20 30 ii I t I : ■ ^! r I' . I 31' {«, 20 76 Lot 3a iu the survey. Now, my Wd live th "" '' ~'''''^' ''^ '"^^^'^ I am uot absolutely certain, nor do I « we! Vh f ! "' '"y/'^^vi. tioa of the date ; errand in toeing Mr. Ch.rk with re. a do that h T ''u ''''''' '"^ ^* ^^ '- night. " "'»''''' '° t*^e rebelhou that took me there that Q- Do you remember whi, h building was un fir t r A. I answered, I say. that Logan', wis ut « '^f ' ^'-^«"-' « or Konseea's ? <^. Now, are you sure of that ? A I am qnite sure. Q. Before Fonseea's store of the we.st side '{ property, some of which h so H tha/r " ^'^ 'J ''°"^' -'^^- J^^^^-n'^ Common as proprietor of this ot He L wT' T , ''t"^^^' "'^ *^*^« *« ^^e tith. to the Common to me. ^'^ "''^ ^"^^ *h^'' but his right and Q. Johnson's property is a parish iot ? A. Yes. Q. And what went with it '•? .0 .hfpaS;,!?' """ '"'" *" "■' ""' '» *= C— prop,,., „ „„.„„„. U only „y ,hU circuMstan'o ttaT c n .1 t Th'"'' ""' "" '"'" "■'■ " '" <.i- In consequence of that did vnn f t there were squatters there or not ? - '*"■'' "'''*"' '° ascertain whether No answer. ^^_^Q. H.ve you .uy,.„t. ,„ ^„„ „„„ ^,„_, ^ ^^ ^^.^^ ^__,^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ A. No, sir. Q. You bought Johnson's lot and vo„ t» Common at that time ? ^""^ ^'^'^^"^ ^^^ were there on the A. Yes. 40 Q. And you would know the order of the buildings from that ? Q. ^gft'j's property was (here when you bought ? 10 ,1 ih '. > i ■' 1 ;| 1 77 Q And Fonsoca's was not V A. No. Q Can you fix the dato ? A. i say it was durinc the first thr-. my purchase fro.n Johnson I olje ^ J. V"°u '^^ f '^^' "^ ^''h'" ^our. In Bwear „.o«t positively that LoZ\ bui i. "''' ^'"^ "" '^" ^^'""^"'^ a lUtle lo, bui,ding-and waT^ tod ^iT^ ^'^^^ ^ ^''^^ ^^ 'ho road- side. /onsera-HlmildingwasnotuD bu /h . ■''' ^'"'*^'"S «° ^^o west ground at the date of my purcha 1 ,Vom T """'""'^ "'^^^ ^^^^ been on the put up but Fonseea-s had Lt '"* •'°^"^°"- '^°='-'« building had b on 20 10 Cross-examination by Mr (Jlass A ■ 7tZ Z 7 P '' '"'"^^'^'^ ''^-^ fi-t ? September or Octoberr'69""' '' ""^''' ^'"^^ ''"'" «"™« '^^^ i" September. '69- » it was the fall of 'VO. The reason u »■'. , «'°"°« '" '"™' Positively if sible for me to have been thrfor h ' LT.': "■ " T' ' ""^ ""^ ™P«- to correct myself If it was ■«» I w^ .h!, ' ! „! M k'*' ' °'°"*= ' »""» ' •"« 10th lo the nth of December .ndTmilhth "'"'''',''"' ^-swhere abonl the not say. • '" ' "'«'" h"" be™ there between times, I can- ^^Q^ We,, now. ifit was in :,. how soon after December would you be there u„.i,'.b»7thlV8:h'/n,tS,::ir'' " '" '^»». -'•""» "aDecmber, a: w n::u";;s?/ur; '"^^en'-t l°- ™°"" .^k1*- ^^^^ '» ^-'^^ '° until the 2Sth. because I did not return l^,„^ n°.' """^'^^o '"' "e to be there Q. When did you go to OntaS™ ''"° "»"' "" ^^'l- J"'?. '8™ July.'isif """ "'•'' "' '"» '">" "-»>"•-. ■«» and returned on the 28.h Q. Where were you living then ? A. In t lie city. Q. Were you married then ? Keeping house? ii. xea, I was living in what we mil fi, > .1 living on Bannatyne estfte. ^ *^ ' "^^^"''■'*' P^^^^ "^ 'he .-ity-i ^,, By Mr. Tupper : A. Oh. jcs, IwouTd '^' " "*"' "'""" '"• "■•" • year? (I ( 1 I f ''4 '70? 7!) Q I moau, you stafe you would nnf o^ ^ , } " wouia not 8Wear whether thic "'"«^ner this occurred in '69 or A. Not that particularly. Q. Well, I say that is somethino- thof -I thtak .„' "'" "»' ™- ^-^«-'. tl... I feu into tut P, i„ .k, f^, „, ,,, Q- So that if that hole was di,„ ,-+ • ,. , Bomebody else's house ? """' ^"^' '' ""'^^^ ^^ ^or the purpose of plastering lo A. I saw the house. Q- Was there only one house? A . X es. Q In that neighborhood ? A. Yes A ?hr ^'' T' '^' ^""^^ *"^°™ the hole . A Ihree or four rods ?■ ?h7nt'tr *''' "'^* ^^"^« ^™™ the hole . >i I ne next house would b^ at tu^ i V \ body elM's house ? ^ "°" """ ?»" know this w»s not for some ^, ^^^ro:eTr^!::',!:„xti^;-r^^'•"*-- c^ble conveniently ? or the times ^^ A. Yes, just as I have given it. CH,H.Ks K«™„,, hein, dn,y swo™, testis as f„,W. • Direct eiamination by Mr. Patterson : Q. I^Jhe Registry offiee of the City of Winnipeg ? Q. Do^you pr«i„oe docnments fren. the Registry offlce . *" Q Maps and pl.„, ? Let me see the Sinclair nUn , , omciair plan ; (plan prodnced.) I t il 1 th ! i II I ::i f .nj'i 80 Q- Is that certified •? or was on A. his dated the 26th December, 1870 ^•:!?,^V';^«J-t'^ of registration; 'I- -'Oth September, 72 Q. % whom was the plan registeej ? aom» f™f :s.fs'u';hirr.ia'rr£rn'°' "■« ^--^-w™.. Q- Loolf and see ? A. I think he did; I am not certain. 10 Admitted that the copy we havp h..„ ■ A. Yes, my Lord. W„AJ7 7'" -" — w..,.. ., „„, ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ 1 his 18 also a true cony in resn^r^f t^ ,u r:he-:;r-----.o-^^^^^^ •4 T "" '° "" "' '"" "''• °*"^ " "" "»- - -- A. Why, yes; the homestead. Q. Ad...e, .. ,e„.„, .e... .h« „„, ,„.„ , . ^„^^ ^^ ^^^, ^^__^^ ^ The orieina! Sint]q,jr -.Ion ; • .» 20 80 •J ii I - I'l H ter 24tl '76 •7th Merc ber o 1882, Q 81. Mr. Patterson to witness : Q- Have you this City map? Q- Have you registration No. 3815 there? from Logan t'oTs'. MercT *° ^"^ '" ^^' ""^^'^^^ ''^'^^d^ iu the chain of title To witness. A. Yes. Q. Registered when ? A. 23rd March, 1876 1 ?homa7to?' '''V '^ ^^'« -^«fi°, ^u * °" ^° ^''^^ Mercer, dated ^Ut T A v.. T:%rJ%^ ^'^^'•"^'•y. 1882. Is that certified - •^*""*''5^' -. .,j ,v . 1,. Kennedy, denutv.r,>r,i«f.„. ' "* ^ Q.I^VhJ^ro^i^^^^-'^^P-'y-^i^trar 40 'It ^1 ' fr< stre 82 A. Yes. Q. Have you got original No. 33133 ' Mr. Glass desiron that the chain of title should b. shown. by W. N. Kennedy, registrar ^ ''"^"'"^ duplicate, signed . A. Yes. Q. Here is a deed from David Henrv Thnm.^ t^ t u c l , ember 19th, 1H16, registered 21st December 18 / , ^K f "^''. ^'^'^ ^''" '« registered and certified ? '^^^^^ber, 187h. Is that an original deed, No answer. (CertiHed copy put in.) (Witness to stand over till to-morrow to produce further papers.) Georok Duncan McVicar, being duly .worn, testified as follows .- Direct examination by Mr. Patterson. Q. You live in Winnipeg, Mr. McVicar ? A. Yes. Q When did you come to Winnipeg to live ? A. 1869. i- 6 • Q Did you stay right on here from that time f A. I have been here from that time until now with fKn <.^ <• ^ ■■ f,«m the province ; I have „ot bee- here cou.Z„:;* ° """"^ °' """ ^ You have made occasional visits away '^ A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know William Logan ? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you first know him ? A. I think in 1870. Q. Where was he living when you first knew him ? A. He was living at Point Douglas. Q. Whereabouts? A. In a small house on the east side of Main street A S V ^^'^""^ '■ '«« where he lived a good many years ? A. He hved there r , a number of years. ^ ^ Q. Near what other street ? A. Near what is now known as Common street on nno m street on the other y " °"^ ^'a*- and Fonseca Q. Between Comr.on and Fonseca streets ? A. Ye.s. I think .so Q- Is the houst' there yet ? 20 30 40 : ii i n if h ) t ' ■ !, ■ f ! 1 1 r. i i ,)l 88 hi. Sn^h^t Z r„n ' ""' °" ""'» """' <"''«i»e: wi,„„, pu„, .b<,„, ^^^^^ o». ™ .w", ■:;,:;f "-^ ™ "■" - - '-<«■■* whe,. , ,.. , c»„m poi„, *. g. Did you board with him? A. Yes, sir. Q- Wd you afterwards rent a house 1. „a him 7 ^0 Q. Was that the first house that he built ^ little log h:::"°^ ^ "'^^"""^' ^« ^^^^ «-^ ^o„se-a sort of store in front .f the he b?i,t'' ^'''' ^^-^^- ^--^ ^^^ "ttie 10, house was the second house that .A It was built towards Main street. ^ " »id yon rented that ? ^- ', sir. Q. For How long ? 20 A. W.-' could not tell you. Q. For some ti^ie? O wt\'!;'7' "P'«d it for some time, VJ. What did you use if for? Q.- Pa?LTi'tC°*°° "" '^™""-'" '"*"-" •»■' -hi.e,y A. Yes. Q. How loug did you occupy it; ' A I could not give the time deanitelv If „. of a year. unitely. It wa, probably ibe gr. ,ier part Q I supi.„sc it „„ „„, „,^j ^, „^^j iiuisbtd.- " "- ""^ ^^ »■ «-^ - occupied V. immediately a«eMt w.. " A^Sd'uTtr.y^uXz-- g. Do yo, remember the year ? i '■ 't^rr. n'-^fmit '^Vijkfi-'"- '"Hi! ■v ijii m P| , >« H ; it tt'" ill ^ 111 ^^^^^^1 r 1: jI ir one ilding 84 A. I think som." time iu 1871. Q. Delbif that wore y„„ boarding with Wan ? A. And at that time Q. Was there any other istore :" A. That was the only buil(liri'■''" '-' Q How far back ? A. On account of the bend in the sfrp^f n. r time there was no definite line of m1 street ' *"'?"' ''^'' '''^ ^^ ^hat Whic^h one could define the iL of mI ^ "" ""' ''"'' '^'^^ '"^^^^^^ ^y ^0 street H^tZ '^^d^f ^JaZ; ^" '^^ ^'^^ '"^^^"'^ ^^^^^ Main q: It wouii ttriitwSriTtr" r °^ ^* -^^^ ^^ -« - *^-. A. I could not give y^u anliT^ ' T !'''' '' ^^^™ '^'' ^«t«" ^eet? to yeu '.at there wfs norfinTte line^orZ.fst^'r ^'T '"'^^ ' ^^"^ ^ > -^ not obBe.ved the buildings suffic X tf ^v "f." ''''^ ''"'^'^ '^^* *'«^<^ ^ h«-« feet what distance it was from Mrs,C' ' ^"7 ^.finite number of Q. It IS between three and ten feet, then ? A. No, sir. 80 Q- Well, then, what is it ? A. I do not know. Q. When was the line of Main street defined v A. 1 do not know, sir Q. You cannot tell when th^ Una ,^f ^r • .l the li.,e of Main street as ifsl fds ow d m'I^T" M " ''^''"'^ ' ^«"' ''-- as twenty feet ^ . ^' '^''^ ^^'^^ l^uilding stand back as much No answer. Q. Did it stand back 60 feet ? A. I do not know. 10 40 A. Not definitely. Q Cannot teJI within how many feet you were of Barber ? f hi] I i '! :i^: -s;^- nut . I" ^ \ 1 • 'it M • i i : ,mii I 'p ■' ^ Mm 86 A. Not definitely a; JllTjZ Iw.''""' '" '-"' ""' --» "•"•"" «""«■« place ? Q. Well give, me an idea ? A. It was a short distance. Q. Give me as near as you <,an how many feet ? No answer. ^ ^ • I St rr :7a^::.rr " "'°"' '' "-^ " "« ^»' ^^^ ^ Q- Would it be 20 feet ? A. I do not know. 10 Q Would it be 25 feet? A. I do not know. Q- Can you tell if it be 35 feet 'f A. No. Q. Can you tell if it be 40 feet 'f A. No. Q. Your evidence is worth a good deal Vn„ ^ 100 feet V It might be 100 feet ? " ^"^ ""' ^"°^^ whether it was A. I do not know whether it might or not. Q. You do not know whether it might be 100 feet or not ? '' Saturday, November Hth John Sutherlam,, being duly sworn, testified a« follows : Direct examination by Mr. Patterson Q You live in Kildonan ? A. I do. Q. How long have you been living there '^ A. All ray life. Q. Did you know William Logan in 1870 ? A. Yes. Q. Where did he live in that year ^ A. He lived on Point Douglas. Q. Do you mean in the Parish on the Pmnf l ^ A. I mean on the Common extent I wm' "' °" '^' Common? Common; I had not been i^h ; Ce tLrh^had"' Tn ^'^^ ""' ^^^ ^ '^^ have been there, but I scarcely think hat He « T ^" ^"""^°"- ^e might the public road, ^ ^ ' "^ ^ '^^ ^'^»"ff »« a little house on Q. Do you know the house where ho lived on iU Ponseca streets? "*^^' "" *ne corner of Main and A. I know thill house. 30 40 I I ■Iil in ^^^■;'. ^^^B|;| M , ';^i WK\ ■ m ^B^ t 'U Hiiiiiiil hHIIiII ■H^B^' <•' iWaw jBli '1 HHfiB; r«^i ^H|i^ 'Wi HBBpI' ^- '! P^^Qh^^ iHHm^^i 1. 1 i BEMSfflliMt fe ' 81 Q. Can you tell us when he put that up v A. He put It up before the rebellion r i but I know that it was up the w „ r ofth r h H T ^^^" ^« P"* '* »P- >t up^I believe, the summer befor I l^'Llr th^V ' '''^ '''' «^ P"' Q. Are you referring to the loo- h "^'"*','''^ *h« bouse was there. streets, on .he east side oVmI ^0„ t^e l!^' r^'"' ^^'" -<^ ^-eca A. I could nnf t»n V • ', '"*^ * '^^'^ "^nd south ? tbat he bumir ts::d^:ttun;?hr"th\ r- ^^^ '^^^^^ ^^^ ^«- Q. You mean the house that he n« // ^^'^ ^^ ""''^ «« "^ bar. A. They were selli .g i t^l 'we f/ ^ ""^^er of years . same properly. ^ ^"°' ^^''^^ ' ^^^y bad a barroom. Just ou the 10 Q- Do you remember Mr M,nVi-,„„ A. I remember Mr. MeVicrr waTICe"'''"'^ " '"''"' '' '^' ^''^^''^' Q- What is Mr. McVicar's name ? know that the hoZe^ZlrlTJTto 'tVl '' '^? "™'~^ ""^ "^"t «"™- I business was east of Main street TLrmlhrhlK"'^"^' ''"^ "^^^^ *« ^« ^h-"- Main street. "''y '"'Sbt have been occupying a house on Q. What about Mc Vicar ? A I do not know that it is the r u occupied was a little further off Mains re^t'thaTtle^' '"T"^' ^^' ^^''' ^' 20 used to do some business with him at th! r r °"'' ' '"^ referring to. We east of the Logan property hat sthl T T ^' ^""^^ ^' ^ !'"»' aorth- the bar. ^ "^' ''^"^ '^ *^^ 1^°?^" house, where they ueed to have Q. Which building was north-east of the other v up l-erlnr;lt?i::.g\!;;rin^:f '"^^'^^^ ^^^ ^-- that Logan put Q Hewasnorth-eLtTtUCeTha^l''''"'^^^^ A. Yes. ^°"'^ *''''* Logan was selling liquor in ? ^^^^ Q. Do you know where the house .s that Logan built and went to live in 3o -^ir:^hn;;i::^:t:;tn:.:;r-r,-"«^- ^-- - ^^^ Q. What house was that / ^ '" '"" ^^^ >^q»«>' i'^- no. btutr Mat If^^t'^ ThM: ^ i"^'^ ^T^- ^'^ ^^^'^ —was on Main street, of course we did not '2^ m"" ^ '' '"''^ ^'^''^ "^« ^-' highway then. ' ""^ '* ^^'"^ street then ; it was a great Q. How do you describe that house ? off the Main street than the second' f; ^ ^^ u' b'% '' k?^ ^ '''''^ ^-'''- have been two. if ] remember right ^"'l^-about a block, or it might Q. On the same property ^ A. i 'biuk it was on the «ume property. Ut : . I, >\ Li li.:l I ( i ' ' I. •t M. 88 »i.his.rri:rl!rr"°°'" «-"» "=vioa,. house .,-.„..d were McTi.ar's home. I know h. Ifvo ,ht """"i , I ™»M "ol «ay if it Hendersou lived i„ .h„t ho„raIrwlrd° at " ^'"•™ """ «'■ ■'='"™ ?. S: ™;rSe,^!.rih:7h::;""''" "°"" "■»■■ •■»--' .heolyr"'""'"""'"^' "■"•"''-"«'' '»Se.he,-one b„iU „„ ,he e„d „, weretttS'" ''"' "»' ' -^"y <""l— "l ^ i. w.. rather „„, he eid. They " Q. Which two do you moan ? The tJ^X:^t:t::it:':^i;zrT'.i: ''- '-- ^^ - ^• of a passag.. between them. ''^' •^"'' '°"'^- ^^^ere was a kind Q- Do you remember when Mr Fonsecp'^ «*«.„ *u street was built ? ''"''^' "" ^^o other side of Main A. It was built some time shortly after Logan's. VJ. After Logan's what i" A. After Logan's first house, 20 Q. That is on the west side of the one you mean v in the wirifi::ix:-.:;'a:d'r ^^^ '^''-'' -« --^-^ ^^^ere there; that is, in the Common "'"' *^""^'' ^"^^ ^^'^ ^'^^ P"t up Q. Of ^these two houses, that is, Logan's and Fonseca's ? of? Cross-examination by Mr. Glass. Q. Mr. Sutherland, you remember Barber's store ? A. Down at Point Douglas ? Yes. Q Do you know Fonseca's homestead > A, ^hereheislmng. He had a store thf re. Q. You know .onWs homestead-that is. east of where you are talking A. Yes 80 His Lordship : East of what ? A. East of block 14. Q. Yuu know Fonseca's hou^o south of that ? '■» ir.-!, lie had a store there. Q How many years before had he been there ? 40 7 I 1 1 ■■'i t \ 1 i I r : L 1 MC- VV here / A. Oa his homestead A. Really, I .ouM „„, J„ ';„;;"" "»'« '™» "■« time up ,„ ,t„ p„^„, , »<• As far as you know ? A. I could not teJl you where Mr P«. •^^ «»« ^''n- ^^" ^''"•^^'^ '« ^•^•'"g ; I knew he was there Q. rjul you ever see him go away from it V Suth^lfa^'l J;T- ^-^^ ^ -- - ^e -. on Ma.n street, near Senator ,, A. Barber bunt it for himself. ^^-r^^^^^^S:^^^^ Where was Barber, lot -■^"^■"•^""^^"^ --'-"'-- -Whether, was his own or A.- LToZtf:rTeirp''^ T '"'^^ "^« ^'^-^ ^ house about half a mile. VfiL Shat h '17"^^ ^' "^'-^^ ^^ ^^e little log Q Do you know about Barber's nil . """'' °" '^' ^"'"'"O" ^ j^^ Barber s place next to the little log house V g^ Q. But you do remember his old store? A. D.d not the land belong to Klyne at one time, y. How far north? " A. It would not be Quite Haifa .,,;i r\ TA t"^'^'' "311 a mile north-east Q Do you.know that Barber had f »he great highway ? ^'' ^"'^ " '^'''' atterwards on Main street, or on A, Yes. Q- Was that built before or aftor th.y. ^ , . A. It was bunt afterwards " ^'' ^""^"^ ' Q. About how long ? 40 A. I eould not tell you. " " ^' -^ >ou can, how Jong ^ 10 1 • 'M ', ' i i I 90 n..l y"7cl"r"" "■" "'"'" "■"• "' ^"" •>-• '■»." .H '.,„,. ,.„. h„„.,, „. of it* ''•■"• "■ "" "'■" »'■ •"" ■•■'»' '- " ™.... have U..„ wUhi,, My y,„„ of. JJ: ' """'■" ""■" """ " ^" «n f«-. ■ h.v,. b,.,.„ , Ho,,.,. ,„ ho„,?. "■■"■ "■" ""■"■ • ''«"'"■.' "...w,.,.,, B„b.„. .„.„ „ „„ ,„„„ ,„^ A. Oflthe MaiiiMtr.'ft you iii,.aa ? Q OUtho Mail, street through. A. Really, I cannot remember g. Then it would be between the liffi„ i u A. Yes oetween the little log house and Sutherland's ' A. No, I would not swear to that Q. How far was Sutherland's store from H-^k • u A I cannot remember. ''''' '~^°"' '""'^y f«*^t ? , a Now, you remember Sutherland's store Hnw f from the corner of Common street v /«L • '^^'' ^'''' fatherland's A. Really, I cannot te" yoT i ^ ^"'"^ ^""««« ^ diagram) .,, the street. ''""• ^^"^"^ '''' ^ '^^'^t ; Sutherland', house is on A f Zld" "r •' ''"" ''^^ ^"^'^^^ "^" '^'^ ^tJ^^r street v A. I could not say ; Sutherland's house was on ihT ' and Mam street. ^^^ °" ***«' corner ol some street Q. How wide is the house on Main street ^ Q.- Whauhr ;^" ^"" " '^ ^^""' ^-^ ^'— ^^« fi-t one. A. I could not tell you how wide His now. 7 nl , "^ ^^'^ ^'*«'^ fr"f" Barber's? A. 1 he distance between the two > TU , 40 Sutherland'.s ..tore ? ' ^''' " ^"'^^^'^-^ ^ '^^een Barber', store and A . I do not remember. ■I il 'i!; IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1^ 12.2 1^ li£ ilM 11:25 11 1.4 111^ 1.6 V Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 m 1 V iV >v\ ». Q r '^ Mii 1' ii n -^ bet Jfe.s '^:- ::rs!::r f ''-- '-' ^^ ^^« ^- «^^-^ ^--lea^e A I could not tell you whether it was 20 feet or 30 feet W Just give your best judgment within 10 or 11 faat u there between Sutherland's store and BarW« T f It u ""'"^ ^''* ""'^^ further than this room ? •^"'' '^^^ ^^^'^ ^^^^ ^'^^ Was it A That way (from the door to the windows)? It was further than th«f Q. You know what 30 or 40 feet is ? **• A. Of course I do Q. Give me your best judgment ; I do not care what it is ^ A. I would s.y it would be between 20 and 50 feet, anyway Q. Now, how wid.' was Barber's store ' A. Could not say ; it would be about 25 feet, I suppose. A Milt b^sT t ''t '«T '"" ^"'^^'^ ^'°^« *« *^« '*">« 1«^1^«"- ? *^- It would not be less than 5 or more than 20 ^ A. Oh yes, it was not twenty. It would not be more than 10 anyway Q. And you resided there all your life up to that time ? ^ ^^ A. In Kildonan. Q. How far is that from this place ? A. I live about 3J miles or thereabouts A. Yes. I fk'„/r,.tZa:;;':,r"'"' '"""°"- -'" '^"-^ '-^^""-"'^ Q. You have a good memory ? A. «ome cases, such as the rebellion. Q. I suppose you remember the rebellion very well ^ A. Yes, I do. store* .?Kfo;Lrjr„ni.:reu "-"' ""- *■- - '-' -- '«" """-'^ wardt " """" """ '"■" " '"" " "•■••' ""»' '"»••' •>«.. about a year after- ^is, ivJir;: 'rtrkxr-rr T:;r:t"Ttt 's 10 20 30 40 nil ^§4 .! ai & t: t] li Tl hoi 20 92 Q. And a little to the north ' A. A little to the south. Q. How large would thut building b..^ A. Ihe second one ? About '?'; or ^n r ' Main street and 30 feet deep " "• ' ''*°»'d judge about 2,5 feet on Q. Was that a stable ? A. Yes. Q What size was that, now ? A. Pretty nice sized hou,se. about 25 feet bv SO f« f Fonseo. .Ireet were H„e a„y W.VT rru""""'' "P ">» »ther way ,„ .,„ "°"i"Yr::::aSr -'-?- »yX;.t r* '«■» - "-■■ ^«^ thmg of a fence around that. ^ ""^ ^"^•^'''- « ^ouse, there was some- Q. McVicar's house was fho ^„,un■ u A. Just that ; along the old trail. 10 40 !, li r ■ 1 J '' , 1 A .11 lilMllliffllfM f' m |:(t liii ■■^ * > mm ^^^^B j I 11 jM^B ^^^^^^^Hs ^^^B ' 'Iniflfl ^^H/ ill ^^|i' ai ^■i'i ini ^H *^^" ^ H ■1 'I HB'I 1 1" ■ 1 ^^Hl " 1 ' ^^^^B -I'M ^BLiii)i 'J ftjij liiJi^ 93 ^- Yes, lurther north A \l7 '-"'u'""' '^^' "'"•♦h white house ^ A- It was .stric.tly down oH 7 u *"" '^'"''^'t »««• is ? Q- Just outside thee" R^t^ek? ' "" ''^'^"'^y' Q.^r::;:;:i:;j7^^^';o. the old track. Re-examina.ion by Mr. Patterson : Q- VVhat do von R.nr ,., ^l .o B„b... .„,,/"" "y "" "■« ^-a„ce „.„,„ ,k. „.„,„„, ,^^^„,^ ^^^,__^^^ A J cannot fix if F Q The ««.,.. of '4": ,",3,';„^'- ';;- beU.ee„ .0 and 60 Tee.. .he n.a jJm^'c^ h':,,™,:::-':::" -r °' * ^^'"■' --"-i"..- A. No, , a. „„. p„,„., ,„ f; J ",ilf ;^-'^-;e J r» V ^*'''^ »ot \'ery far Q.Y^n^ean Barber's store and Lo,an. were not far apart -> of f.S7°" "^"^' ""' ^^ P-P-d to swear that it was not with' A. No I would " ^"^ number remember kr^r" stored Uare'^befn in T" ^^i^'" ''"^ number of feet • I -ee from Senator Sutherland's sto^ ;s\:^;rnttd L 7Z ^"'^"^ ''' ^- ^""^^^^^'^"^^■^^^"^^'^^^-rn. testified as follows.' IJirect examination by Mr. Patterson ; ^^^y*'" '^"ow William Logan ? Q- no you know the house where he liv.H f A. Ye«, I know where he used to ifvV " '^'"^ ''''' '^ ^^e city ? • Q. Where v'ould you describe it to be% - -'o::i^^r .f - --" ^ H« ^- a house wh.h he buUt in the W- between what streets ^ O o^^r" ^^'^^^^'^ «nd Common streets Q. On what Mde ol' the street ^ 40 20 SO fall I , m [ ! \l ^1. JT :' 'p 1 * oLhi : 1 Q A Q A. 1)4 A. On the cast side. Q You are familiar with Uun.an Si,, .!,.; ■ look at that aud tell u, what lots r ha' ;^^^^^^ ' ««PP-e ; will you de8c„pt.ous of th. lots aad the propertv . ^ ' "*^ °" ' ^'^" y'^" ^'^'^ «"^ ( Witness is shown a plan.) A. Looks to mo his hou.^e was on r' i A. xes. H.^c.„„,i„„ed ,0 live ,h..r. f,„ „ „„„k„ „f y^,„, , A. Yes, the third building Q- Can you tell n,s what lot that was on '^ house thatX C; ;- J Zetr t^nt ''' ^ ^ ^^'^ ^^ ^^ ^'^^ ^^st .0 Q Can you tell us how much land h. L \ ■ mg at any time after 1870 ? "''"* '" connection with this build- A. I do not remember ever sppincr fi, . 1 j p ^t would be about a chain or a charand "halfth' ""k"^-^ "^^ ^^^ ^ -PP°- stables and all. *""* ** '^^''^' th.so buildings covered his Q. What was the next building to the south 1 By his Lordship . Q- "What do you mean by a " chain " . -, "covering a chain and a half-' '*^«'" -^^^^re ^- What do you mean by it ^L:rz;z^z-:: ;::rj:!:- ^- r "^' ^ ^-^^ -^ ^ -- - Mr, Patterson : Q- I forget whether vou iravp n= fK *• that house ? ^'" ^'^"^ "^ ^'^^ time when Mr. William Logan built A. In the fall of 1870. Q Do you remember when Mr P««c > . 40 street was put up / " ^'' P«««"ca s store, on the other side of Main 10 30 II .i \Vf i ■ ill J A. Ill 1871 or 187(1, I 9h h.' put it up:'nhLk/i'; jH^f "'^ '"' ^''^ ^^me logs thor. in the fall ,.f 70 and or f1'::^2:V''^ ""^^^'-'^ '-''^^ «- put up first. Logan. «.ai, ho««e A l...pan's house was put up first. ('ross-<^«ainination by Mr. HoweJ] ; Q. Mr. Logan, what is the width of C ? A. It was. I should say llj;^ '"'^''"^^^^^ ^au first put up ? was between it and Main I^Jet. '""^'"^ ^'^' ^^at; a frame building 10 Q. And what was the size of it ? A. r should say 25 x 30 or 86 the log Si*;;" ''" " """^ ■" '""■'»■ ""-h W.„W y„„ can «, p„. „^ ,„ Q Running north '' A winn- ♦», * '^ And how large was it ? A. I should say about 25 x 30. or something lik. it I itrnoTsur '""^- ^'- ^ ''^^ ^"i'^^inl. ts -t not . .Q. You are not sure whether it was a log or frame? Q. And can you , .,, .k as to the size ^ ■ Q. T^:<:rr:r;^^.! rr ^"- -" w- «-« u, A. About 25 X 30. ' 80 Q. It would be as much as that ? A. I should think so. Q- Do you know on what nart of r *k„ • , , A. It was on the back of the lot °"^'""^ ^'« ^^"^^ ^^« P"^ ^ Q. That is away from Main street ? Q. JZ'LTZ 71:T!^ """' " °' '" '"' "- '••i- «'-t. boundary of Oy """ "■'"""' -»« » '«l«tive ,o the north and south A.Ie«emed,„b,„„,henor.h,id.of.h„l„,. A. I am not sure ~ ' i ; :f- I fe \lm" • I PS' \ i ^, '(. "^ ■ ,i . 1: :'J T l¥ .' '■'1 & lif ''' ' ' f I ' i lih\ f 1! V. : '.i! m aa ■■!» 11 wuh III tni' wiiitt>r nf luuii . .1 A^^"»«- °' '''"' *' "^" 'oot of J'oinf Douglas Q.Canyounotth.ukofth..y..arin.omo..vv might hav.. beJ.. tha7;..r m'I.!: .'o'; .trr"""*"" "'""' ""■'"'"^ ^ >>-•..■ It Q. Doyou™euuth.wi„t..rof7.U„d-H0^ A- I w.-i,t down III Mnv and s.u. ,u ,^ Q- In May of what y. J ' Of 79 ' ""^'-•"-"^ A. 70. ' • Q. Arc you suro ? A. I think so Q. Now, for a loujr tim.. m..r railway bridge should cLs'h/td rZ' Thin'"' ^' ''^"^^ ^^ethor th. or the south end ^ ^ « Kn . r ^wh.-th.r ,t should be to the north A. Yes. Q. When it was finally decided fh«* u A. Yes. ^' Q. And particularly this property iu .ue.tioa > Q. Until it was decided th^t *k 1 a' Well '',"*"'' "V"^' "'"' """' I »o«M »rlnr.h°L'';:,,td''"'' '"*""" "''■"■ P'"-!- »»' d„vv„ .her,. Q. Now, Mr. Loffan th.. r...i > i- 40 A. $1.50 to 1200 net, foot frontage. By Mr. Glass : Q. At the time the little log house w«« r. , no survey, was there ? = "'" "^ ""' P"^ "i' there, Mr. Logan, there w A. A survey took place i„ September 1870 ,r r 1 •^moer, 18<0, if f remember right. Vli il :, m ii-m I 'I i j If- it , ! :!il y M M 1 ft if.;;' f ' " :M ji .:. :■■ fil\ • r\ i^--' 1 1 i m Q You kuow the (•orii..r ^.f n Q You ivmftnber Mr ^n«i, „i j. A. Yes. '■ ^»*herla„d's store on that corner ? A lTw.« ?^' °" '^^^ ^""^«^- ^hat store ^ A. it was at or near the corn,.r. r u Q. On account of this be nran on " ''^ '^"^ '"''^'^y f«-*- onMaiu .reet About h:wrn;VXr;Jrs\^r -> ^« A. About 25 feet, ^ ^"^ ^°"'^ Sutherland's store be ? Q. What distance would it K-. k . «*ore. You see, this ■ al la^on n ' "'". '"^^^'•^-'d's store and Barber's near as I can how many f^JtV ^ "' '^'' ^'"^^ ^"^ ^ want to get as A. I couldn't say. Q. Was there a gateway in between them V rt T '■^'"'^™ber. There was an open space ^ The store was about ^.5 fp„. . . ' " ^P^^^- to Barber's store V "' ^''' ' ^'"^ ^^^Y ^^et would it be from the store A. U may have been about 50 feet. 20 Q. That is the white house I mean ? A. Yes. ft Wa. ,h«K , ,,„s,g„ belwoe,, them ? H»w\i.r„:: ztl,!;:'r„r ;*"'■' ""° '- ">« "-"« "»"- « «, .» fee. A. About 25 feet. .Q- N"W, immediately to the east nf tK i.- . building put up by the Ba. bersl ''' "'^'^"^ ^°"-'' ^^^ there another A. To the east ? Yes and « lini . .l by Logan's. '' ^"^ ^ ''^♦'« '« '^e north I think, on the other corner Q. How wide was the little log house v A. About fifteen feet. 4y P-.?he';:h";rh„t:;" "--'^-'-O .h. wh,.e h„„.„ e«e»,ed „„ .0 „, A About five or six feet. Q. And th.. bal.in.e would go north? ■fi : I ■ i ' 1 \ : ^^ Ik 1 'i ■' * 98 A. Yp8. A. It was built on to th^ hfUn i u house east of that. ""'" '""»I<>S house ; y„„ „,„, ,„,„ ,^_^, j.^^^^ ^^^ Ihat was a sort of stable, was it not ' ""^ ^°"'^' ^^^' >'«« ^P'^ak ol> A. It was built as part of tho boarding houso • Wnr , Q How wide was it? ^ "^'* ' William kept a hotel thoie A. About twenty-five feet to .he white house. ' " """ ''°"' ""' '" '< ■ " was b„,l. at ,igh, „„„,.„ as U waltnu^hl tlT" '" '""' °'"- >""« '». house ias.ead of bej„„ north „frm;,:°:xi'°"'" -^ '->>«'-<» .h.. ,t „«. ,„„ ,„ ,,„ .he^urh.*::r„'irrrar;t* -'''- ^•■«'- *--„ A. Yes, .1 that li„e. ' "'"' "'h're m- are an „pe„ .paee y Q- And there was no house nntil , as Barber's store ? " """"' >"'» P'' Pa»l Iho railway traek up a, f,, A. Groing north ? ^fy'i7^^^^^'^':'::z:7''T^ - ■«« that h„i,<,. got to Barber's store ? ^' "°"'' "'''»'• ^he railway track till you McT^j".::^!:::;!^;'^!.::;;^,"- '-» -- «• ho...- of,. Re-examination. Mr. Patterson : Q. You were speakinir of tK • r- -to what time were you feferrinrwhe'n '"'"^'''^i '" '^' neighborhood of these about four to five hundred d^ ar^s-about'lVr'^ "' *^^ P"^'*^ ^^ '«ts b ' ^ would be as low as that ? ^""^ "^^^^ V^^^ would you think thov A'. About IStS or 18'78 Urn. """'''■•ir-!^»'"p; isoMtr„';;;7ir5ar,'°'/v " ""'"^« 'h», Q. Whereabouts ? ' " '**^"' s^f^wt for $250. '^•, Would $1,300 be tnn «.„ u portion oflotC in 1876 '"' '"--n-id for forty-two feet fro„ta.. on A. That is impro' c-d -iroperly. 10 20 I! I fi ' ■!:' Mi 1 1 1 1 it ■ » n 99 Q- But that included the building V A. 1 think so, ^ H Here IS a deed dated June 187« e "treat; the consideration ment^onld Jh ^°'". "^"^^^^^^ ^^et frontage on Main would that be excesBive^ ™«°t,oned there is one thousand and fifty dollars -Pposeittr::?K:dr^ -t wasworthit I .Q. Supposing this lot ntnety-tto eet o f"' '^'' **™« ' ^«">d tell. ' on ^t, the deed says |1.050 ? ^ '^''' "" ^"^'^ ''''''' i" 1876. no building lo A. That would not be ex.-essive for a corner lot W- ' nnd mortgages here in istr. .<• '""'^'O'^' J-e. 1876, «o.™«?e'.,„a;„;"j; „ ;,°».''"; •» oriBinaJ „„„g.ge, dated thai .n Mc««ive amo„„, ,„ , J„ „/,° "'Mtylwo foci, „„„M you cooside, nea.t|':X\r:L'!itLT:i^'"'' '■"•' ^°" '*"«>- ^ A. Yes. a: ZImorZt' """ '"" "■•' y^ -"»•■ ' By Mr. Howell : 20 Q- H^went up considerably i„ 1876, did it not ? nS^^;;:^^^^::^^:^;;^' over the City in .79. road was going to cross at Winnipeg ' ""''' "" '* ^^ ^^^^^n that the Q- What I mean to sav is thi» «. waagotag .0 „™. pHce. wL. fp'^iror,",,*: ■;^-- "■""^ ""' "■« -O ,„ buainVpIrt :°ni.!,1„lr """' °"' °' "" -'y '» •". waa i. .„,_„„, „, ,^, or Polgelv'lr ' '""'°'" °' "■« """- ™ -P m .he vidnUy „, Ba„„..y„e Q. And the general nrevailin'r n,-u ; the oily would b;.„,y „"„„, .BSedTf'TcLdlhtlr '""' '"' ^"'"^ " ifei- :, i 1 1 Iff' • 1 ' 1' 1 IP 'l' 100 the,.''irf."™:/r:'/"^-"'''»« '"'■"^»" »- '^" «i>,. ,■„,„„ ,,,, „.„„,, ,,^, A. Yes. Q. And it was not until ,* «r,.„ i,, ^ i A. Y™' ^°""^ ™ ""■ ■' V of ,h,. Co,.,.v o„, „„„., _ ,, „^,, A. Yes A. So. Q. Then (or some time after l^nu tu o r Q Well, then, WM the „„| c! „f' ll , °' '"" »f""«'' "' '^'' "™"' ^as it ernment settle it finally with you " ^* Winnipeg ? Did the Gov- 0. p.^K. ™. . .J. . wi„„"ra;s;:rr :;jrer„S'r^ ^ a8 to what part of the City the ? ^.'"'.J^'' ^*"«'^« Property holders was A. Yes ■ ^'ouJd enter? ! ) , ' i i| ' ;l7 r r^PHp-'-n \ i '111 11 E ^ *■' I UH 101 A Y."":.,':"" "' T"**'"*"" ^°^ 'J'"^" - 'o»^ time v Winnipeg that atteotod Xe /'"'^ "' ''^" ^^^^^ -h«- the C. P. R. ^,, ,, ,„,,, A. Yos. and that was not sottled until '80. Re-oxHminalion by Mr. Patterson. ">-;, »„y „.;„ ,„, orM'.T;,^^',''' '■"'"" "• "» --« «-. greater there ,0 A. Greater i„ pr„,«rti„„ ,„ what they w»r,. .he r*,::;:?,:::;"/'"""™' '■•'»•'"'•'-"»» »' Ma., «,». „„„, »„,,>„„„ A. Between Portage avenue and Market street *«- """ -"'' ''■' """ - '-"-' "■- ".an for any other part otMatn A. Yes. ?ij°";' '*"""'"" "ear the railway is it » n.ilol-.honld't'htak.'""" """""'"»"■ °f *» 'ai,w.y-ah„„. „ ,„„,,,„,.,, Q. To Porl^e avenue? Wonid i, not be half a „i|e < A. Vs. to Portage avenue i, would he near half a lile. C„.„,„, K.N„„v bein, duly .worn, testihed as follows : Direct examination : Q. Y^u produce the offlo.al „.p of ,,, city „, Winnipeg, Q Prepared by whom ? A. George McPhillips, Junior. Q. That is on record in the registry office, is it not? Q He is a land survevo'- ? A. Yes. Q How is it certified ? -/b2Sinr:5irS^r:f — V^ by W. .. Ko. the city seal certified by W. N. Kennedy ^"''''^ ''^ ^^^^ ^^^y. This is 80 Mr. Howell objects to plan as being a copy. Mr. Patterson brintrs th' arv u , the conveyances, refer tf it. ^ ""'" '^'^ '« « '^'ffe'-ence and because 40 1 i d ii^ i m -:t ::;« ' i il . uMi . 10 102 Mr. ClIasH hIno ohjcctH, ""' '""°"'' '""■ ""« '•"■'"'MThoma. „,«.„„„.).,„„„, ' '^ JVt.'iinciJy, n^giHtriir. Q In (hut » <'..^rtili..'. l»7i— Joseph Hnpe to William A, Ye, Q. Of what lot y aeed-Wiilia. Watt-toCV'^tni'd-rSh, [.'^--S .„ •M' ^ii it 1 lll^ MM ^ lOS cZw':!a ";th":ii '"*■ ■'" ''' "-'•™ »"^ -*■.'« i. .h». .u „ngi„., A. Original c«rtified bv VV N k'„.,. a W. Keun.Hly ? "'y' '^''^ ' '« t^*t «»» original, certified by lohn A. Yt'B. we put iu certified copy. 'i 1« that an ab, tract of title, c.rtifi.d by W T K . , , A. AbBtrac, of I), block 14. dated July 4th ThH3 ^"^' ^ ^^^^^Q.;h..s . an ab«tract of lot E, in b^loc^TwHat date and by ..o. . ^^^_.^A.Jt.„pto.rnly,,th.t8e2. and signed by J„Hn W Kennedy, deputy- By Mr. Howell : A. Yes. By Mr Patterson : par.i?„,a";" "" >'"» ''°''"' """ " " • "-".Pilafo,, of .w«. .„<, ,he,, A. I ri-momber. Q. h it the «arae an Sincl»ir's m«p? A. It includes that ; I do not know whethm it i- .1, Q. You have the „Hgi„«, y„n„elf, hrveyo; "or? "'""' " ""'■ ..iontf'!r;t'ht " "" '""■ ■'""'=°'''">' ""•* "■. -" "« if o:.e i. . eoMpil- By hi. Lordship : Wh.t is the authority for that map .t .,1 , By Mr. Patterson : Q. E^Mh of June, 18^0 ; is that the date of the map ? Q. Twenty-ninth day of July. 1876 ; is that the date of that ? Q. That plan is the one described in patent? is a ?oJ!Z^""^- "' '^! '®*^''' P''^" ^"'^ J««k at Sin..l„,V.. H.n and ,^- - .K- Js a compihiuon irom that for the narti,>,iio, i j • ' ^" ^"^^ " '^'I's ai lor tne particular land in question here-block 14 ? 20 80 !: '"'^rfBn'X''''iflf!f^'^^™*'^i-r^'-^'"^"'^"'"' ' I .1-1: uh lit A 1 1 J li 1 ■' ! is 1 i . ,1 It 104 feel and ,he other iu links. ""'" ■ ""' '^i'" '"i' » marksd in Q. Now, there are manif'psHir ,M(r.. i plan, and I will try ancT^e" h L' rr! "T'^^r '""'^ ^^'^ ->^ «-'la.r's the frontages of thJlots the same . h "'^u '^'^ ^'"^"^"^«« -- Are plans ? ''™' ■ '^'^'^ •h'^ «'>^'"« of the lots the same in the two A. No. links'ti tt tiere TrL^onafwlth t'e nu f.f ""V." "' ^■^^"'^"- *^^ "»™1>- o*' intotheother? wittx the number of feet ^ ^Jan you rim (hem one ]o A. They do not coirespoad the same. H- Ihey are manifestly different v A. Yes. } ii . Q. Mr. Kennedy, accordiua- to the nl..., ,vV,; v, measure or size ? " "'"' "^^^ '^ y«« »<>"' produce, D has no A. No, iu frontage measurement Q. Or a rear measurement '^ A. No. Q. So that you cannot tell its width'' ^ N"- 20 Q. You mean that there is no mark n,. if f^ u A. No, you have to go by the sZ fh T ''' ^''^'^ " Q. What is the scale? '^ '^' '^'^''^ ' 'Vr-« a scale there to show ,he width. A. Four chains to an inch. KE.NKTH MCD„.V„.„ bo„„d„ly,w„™, „.,«f,„a „ fo„„^. ^ Direct examination : Q. You live in Winnipeg Mr. McDonald '^ A. Yes. ■ Q. Where did you live up to 1870 ? A. In the Red River Settlement 30 Neil McDonlld f" °' """"" ^'^'"""^ --• "-"i^ '^ A. y„„ . „„ „,. ,,,. ,„„ A. Yes. Q. Was that where you lived prior to 1870? A, les. Q. You went away iu that year '/ A. I went away at the end of June. 1870 ' ' y. You were away considerable time? A. Yes, I was away twelve years Q. Were you far away ? 40 aad LI oTtlrE^kjM^Xlr' '"' "'° "■"'"° "=" ^"''^ «-'« -d east I I in i 1'" i i' ^:- ;ii: 1 i li i : t 1 if I! it - f •t iliriil 1ll i'lr^ ^ fm 105 away ? property of Wilham Logan's at the time you went it w^'^^: ithi-r :r:r::; ::s;^tT r ^^^^ «^" -- -^»^« 'ng north of tho market whicrwa I L "'^'^^ ' '^''' ""^^ ^^^ one build- up by E. L. Barber-Edmt^^' Ze';': Itl'; ^1 ''' 'l 'f ^'^^"^ '"^'^ '^^ time I went awav V "'^ ^^^^^ «»« building there at the A N^rol';:: "" '"' *'"^^^ "''^ ^">^ «^^- house? di^In'tseeLogr:\;tri:::n"rh"o^;.':^'^^': '^''-^ -- -t finished; r ^0 Q Was Fonsera's store ^n the o I , "'' '" '''''''' "*' ^^^^^^ion then, erection then ? '" ''^' "*^^^'- '^"''^ "* M'"" street, in the course of A. No, there was no other building but Barber's. By His Lordship: A S^"'' '""'" '° '^"^ ^"^^'^ ^•^'^ fi-t house there i Mr. Patterson : • any b„iW;:,t'" "'"' "*" <" "'""'"= ""-•'» »"ywho„. „. the g,„„„„ fo, A. Where ? 20 Q. On the other side of the street, near Barber's ^ but whrrlJ^yttg^i- T::^^:z^7r r: - -- >«- -'^^ were lying around, whether they beloved to B t "'* ''"'^'' ^"'"^ boards don't know ; r don't know to wh'om IrefbeLn/ed ' ^'"^ °^ ^"^'^^^ «'- ^ Jamk. H. Abhoown, being duly sworn, testified as follows : Direct examination by Mr Patterson: Q. You live in Winnipeg, Mr. Ashdown v A. Yes. Q. How long have you lived in Winnipeg? A. I have l.ved in Winnipeg sin-e the year '08. Q. You know William Logan ? A I do Q. Where did he live in 18t0 ? ...tiol'ia? nh';,:;',";*':.:!;:"' • "r" »'■ "^- *" p-««c^ p r .ide of ,h,. ..,..,. ,;t,i oTit : ;ir'^ °^ *•' "-'^ "" «■.* .^e ward-, b„U,.ve ,,h. ,.„. .. „„„ kr; 'IXt /Zf '°^' "*'»« ="- 80 in; ) i f '! • mM Q. Was it o„ th. oast or ,vost side of Main streot > A Ou the oast sido. Q- Do you romornhor wh.wi ho went to live thor. ■> was ono of Kiel's prisoners. ''""'" ^^"'"'^ '^"^ «^^^' him, I Q. What was the year when you were released '^ A. I th.uk It was in Mareh-Mareh the lOth ^l And then yon went down ;• A. Went past there. Q. Innnodiately after you were released ? "^ A. I-mediately after I whs released-I think next day ^l And you saw a quantity of what V A. Logs— building logs Q. Was Barber's store there at the time > logs ty '''"' ^'"^ ^'"^ ^ '"•'^*"^' ^ ^^-^ ^^'■^*--<" of the south of where the hous?a:^;: tz::^:';'''''' '"^^" '--' ''- ^ ^='"" ^^^ ^-^ .-. up h. By His Ixirdship : dista^ce^:r.""" ^'''''' ''^' ^^- ^"-'^ - Barber's, the o.e a short A. I cannot be sure. I believe it was Barber's Q. u >-.a8 on the east side of the street was it ^ A. Un the east side of Main strM».f v „ \^ street. '*''*^* "-y^^ ' "^ ^he south side of the cross 3y Mr. Pitterson ; ■that ...a.™, , „,L, b,. JurTon^hlrpoi:.,';" """■ ""''"= """ """ ■»" »"■ His Lordship : Q. What season do you mean Mr. Ashdown '^ A. I mean the summer season of 1870. By Mr. Patterson : 20 30 I .( ■ f !3tM«^SiBMH E^ttiii Ummitm m 3 ;f IP I -r ^f > |! ^ 4, >' 11' . : 1 • £ . lOV A. r cannot nav for ('..i-t.iii. V, >. t Q- Could you Lte no t K' .T'^'T ^^"^ ^"'^^'^ f^''" ^" 1871. Fonseca-s store V ' "^'^'^^ "'^"^^ '^"''^l"''? was first, Logan's house or w.th^h.^^l:7r:S'"^'^"'^^'-- •'^^ ^-"^^-^ ^'^^ w. ... up Cross-exainination by Mr, Howell ; .. A. The building that he i - H " V '"."';'■•'■ .•^".'>- --« Pil'-'d The building that he lived in afterwards was more. I should m./L'/i^ '";'. '^"'"''"J? that he lived in '" the other building. I Zn\d h ve th' K^t \'^'' '^^^ ^■^'•' ^■«'- ^e lived 10 than a hundred feet." The b," Id.t \^^^^^^^^^ -- "ot more according ,o my memory f m when th" , "' ""^^^''^^^'v to the south building still further to the sou h did J f T'" ''^'"^ ^"^ ^^e other Q. I asked you how far the h;„:. ::1 T^'^ ^ ^""^^^^ ^-^ '» difference. W w^r prr - -^^^ Within twenty or thirty .et 7 W«s the buildins on the " Ih. o,„ .ido oo ■ O n"''"".''' '"''''""'' " "'""'<' «««"' • hundred foe. Btree,»„„d,he north part of, he liidit,"' "'"'""' "'»" '"""«" ">e ores ...nt:s.t;lf^^r,?Lr£:■';r:^;ft°"'''- -r"- - — o would be More .ha„ ri.ty .„d probably under Th, jrTd '"°" """■ """ " Q. F„„.ee. a, ,ha, .i„e „■„ Uvin, on .he h„.nerd n„r.h of .he river , Q. He had several aeres there had he no. J A. 1 believe so a' ^^'Ir''"' "" living there before the transfer? a: He hir ^"' ^ ''""" '^'''^" '^''■^ ^^^ h° "«t ? Q. He^had a store there on the property that he was living upon ? Q, And^that store was there at the tune of the transfer? , ! . I h r , .1 I i '1: 1 ' It !| [| ■H' >f ^■11 1 \ .. !■ « ■ 1 ': 'i ' i i «" ■ f ; \ ■' 1 'i' '1 iM y ii ,.ii 108 Q. IIo also had stablns and outbuildine-s had ho not ' A. I believo so Q. Fouseca's placo wan about ea«t of thi.s h,nd was it not ? A. ooiitheast. Q. Now, Mr. Ashdown did vou over "•ot ,i nnfnnf ♦•,». i i Manitoba Act in this eo«,.tr, . ^You k^^^.^ I L^ ^yl^:^jt^Z you w.re xn possession of, or which you claimed belbr. 15th luy. ul' '"' A. I think I got a patent for a piece of Point nonoI..« n« within the last two or three years, tha^ ,s a portf:;"of thit tr.h rr^u'^r Q. D,d you ever got a patent for any portion of a river lot v ' ' A. Yes, in connection with the Rev. George Hamilton. Q. You claimed under th- Manitoba Ad. did you not v A. Yes. ■' Q In what Parish was that '< A. In the Parish of St. Jean Baptist.' vo„ li^'^l ^"" '^''""'^ ^'''"'' ^"" ^''■*^' '" possession, or others through whom you claiin.d were m |>ossession l)efore the transf..>r i A. Those fi^m whom I (daimed Q. Now in order to get a patent from the Manitoba Act, wh.t possession did you require to prove that you had the whole lot enclosed ? '^«'^«^««'«" A. No Q. What did yon have to prove ? A. I think simply that the party through whom I claimed wis ,n possession. laimi^u v\at. in Q. In what way? A. By occupancy I think. • Q. In having the whole lot enclosed or having a little patch '^ A The papers were made out by Mr. Bain, of Bain & Blanchard-I think It simply meant in occupation. "i"* n.irn i think Q But how m occupation ?-You see Mr. Ashdown you can bo in occupation after having the whole lot enclosed or having a littl'e ^tch in th^ acres'claim!!^'.^^^^^*'^^^"^^"^*"^'- '^^ ^^ ^^-^ -^ of the e.ghty (I And you got the patent for the whole of it under the Manitoba Act ? Q. Now you were there before the transfer and you know what kind of Tn^t^a^fL tt^tT'^ ''' "'° 'f ''' '''''''' ^^^«- ^"^^y were^i ost so 18 not a tact that these persons who were in oossession hu .ir«. i u ■ . \^;'"^^'^»ow. -I know some cases where they wore refused «« for instance McPherson and some others on the Hudson's bL Reserve ' Q. I am not speaking of the City-I am not speaking of the Hudson's Bav Reserve, but in all cases under the Manitoba Act-p.nentf were grrnte" in all 10 20 80 100 cases when, thoro was no application from tho Ilndson's Bay Company. Was not all the possesMon they required simpij a little shanty as it were > A. 1 enclosed the whole frontage. Q. And you got the full depth two miles back allowed you ^ A. Yes, and the other two miles as well Q. So you got four miles. Well, what remained out of the survey '» A. In that case it was perhaps two and a half miles, ' Ro-exnmined by Mr. Patterson 10 frontij ThoT '^'' k'V?' '^'^'^'^ '' land, except those lots having river frontage-those go.ng back to two miles for possession of a little piece on the A. No ; that was only within the river bank a: " htak l""'''' '° ""'' ''°'' ""* "'=='" *"'« *>' ''»-' '"" f'"'"' Q. What was that-what was the undorstandincr ? Mr. Howell objects fo this question. Objection allowed Q About what was the distance of Mr P«non^„>o u x j , A. I should say that from Fonseca's residence it wo„M Ko f , "-^-ff- ■■ ■„ ".""H "y «. le„t five handSf ;. „Z Mat L°' ":! old bmliiins still stands cast of Msiii street. lae inara street. The 80 .,.nd=ridt,Ytl::.„;MT„Tri'Arii:r^ would stand south-east and north-west. "^"^ ''"'''^'"^^ Cross-examined by Mr. Howell. Q. Would you be surprised to know that a man got title und^r ih. ! ■■ .i :'. '> . SVi •■flW M \ 1 ! 110 Mtent ? y K niie lor only , h,, |„„o.. Ihey o„clos„,l, o, f„, a I,,,,., A Ibeli„v„,h,yj,„,Ufo,„|.rs.r...le„,, H- I UMJerstand that «1I «•>.« . 10 were o« the rivor-woJig a third' '" 't^^^'-^-^ possession -all ,hat enclosed and for a larg.r amo„'t -I ^"' '^' '^'"""^'»'' ^'^* '"^ 'ho land they A. Usually lor a larg.r amount than they had enclosed, admissktns. a« to its adm....:Kility. ''^''*'"'" ^^^ ^o read subject to the objections ■roHN Ec™,bei«g duly sworn, testifies as follows: By Mr. Patterson. can? Q. You live in Winnipeg, Mr. Eccles ? Q. How long ? A. Since '58.. Q. Do J.OU know William Logan ? Q Did you know him in 1870? A. I did. Q. Where was he living then ? A. Point Douglas 20 A. On the east side the co™.,y, .„, ,„, i„^ 1;^ ^2: ""'" "'^""^ «•■>"> ">o .ime I „.„e into Q. About how wide was it ? 40 h ^ i I f < 1 Ill O wT"a% T. l^''' ''"^^ «^'^^ ^^-«« wide. A rr ^"""" '"»"^" ^« ^" ^- i" that place v was the. e::;;:x:i:!;:: oH;^^^^^ "^' ' -- ^^ ^^^ '^--^ -^ ^bto. He Q What did he go to live in then ? A. Yes. Q. Is that all ? ^*'''' following or two years Ibllowiug. '^ou\i:t:^^:::^t'zT::zv^: "°"' »'*— ^^ The .hi,d ho..e w.a to the „„„h oAM-L^h Jt ta"" """ ""^'' ""» '"= ' hoMe is ? " y I'o't'wi »f the Common eicepl th. piec where his A. No. ., J, no yo„ romemher when hi. store wa. built „„ .he west side of Main . A. It was during the summer in 1871. Cross-examined. Mr. Howell. Q. Now, Mr. Eocles you have iust swnm fh * i? transfer, had only half an acre encCd'" '"''"'' '' '^' **'»•' "^ ^he A. Yes. 80 DouJi!l ll^)" >'" "' ""' ^" ""i -^ '"a- Wf ." acre ftom Neil Mc A. I hsd nothing to do with it, sir Q. How much had Fonseca enclosed .t the time of the transfer » wa. andV^ht hi: ""' " '"" ""''"'"^ '^ ^'^^ his st.ble YouL!et»„Tht7.uT;e I^fr w" M T°^ ." f "« «' '"= '-f-' how much land h«. he enZed wh^L heliv^dT"'"''"" *"' '^''"= ^ »<''- A. Half an acre. 40 Q. Can you pledge your oath to that ? A. I have. 10 If 4 h , i ,' , 3 ■ ' '^ A f '•■) ...... 4 J^ 112 A- hot at that time Q- He didn't buy it till afterwards y didn. know it^ A. That is all he had then. ^ ^ Where was his store ? Q. You swear to that-yon dirt,,', i, Q. Now, you K.,, .„„„, ,k.. ^^„ ,„„, ,^^^ ^_^ _^^ ,^ ^^^^ ^ Q.tt he .wore that, i„ your helM,tk.,i.„„,„^, .4f or^irrth^cr::;- '^- ™ - ^--. »«» .he #• Was commenced— r won -f^,^ -x .0 >^» st:;-th-f- - --- ™%r- the. . .. ,, . fArMriit:ri:'r;e"*ha;^''"-''-' A. I did not say so. ""^ ^^« untrue ? Q. Mr. Ashdown savs fKn,^ Is that true or not . ^ "^'"^^ "'^^ »« »>»i'ding there when he got out of " •, A. I cannot sav I rn«n«+ . '*' A.^drt^!;'■.r"™•°"■°"'■--"-'»e. A. Ua/he tr ""'= "■•' «' '-^- ""^ »ot the h,..at„, there i„ ,„„. ^ l-i HfJ : ) ( i"! 1 ) 1 ! f 1 1 jl vi 1 11 "I 'i 1 , ' ' 1 t i1 'i 1 li: :^ i 1 . mi Li 113 Q. Did Mr rw„:,f eirz'? :""'.""■ """»• A I said before. Q. Answer my questimi w A. 1 say that there was a building there Q. Answer my question. was no building there in 1870 ? Ashdown has sworn that there A. That was not true. 20 By Mr. Howell : -tt;rzr hlr:;^^^^^ ^»»- "-^ . ,.a „„, ... at the time of the transfer ? ^ "'"^ ""'''« ^'^^^''^^^d on his homestead A. He did not, sir A.- rl'^l bo7„r:'X°r """' -= "™^ -"'^ -" »" acre . Q. As much as two or three acr ,? ' 80 A. Probably there was that Q. Was that enclosed at the time of the transfer? Q. How far was that from the house ? A. Ihat came right up to the trees. H lou have sworn that he diVI ««♦ f -ore ? ^'^ ^'^ "«t fence next his house more than half an A. Yes. he 1 Jr-'" "" ■» ™ ^» P°»-i„u a. .,a. «„a, ,„, ,„„ ,.„^^^ A I did not. " Q. You better brace up, now, and go further A. I do not know. I cannot claim'that he was there. ' SI 1! ! il! ' M tfl «■'«'■ . I ' H '1 : !• l\ i. V n n n ) t ' ^ 1 ' ! 1 1 r : 'i jfr ij ^^' 1 m^^ : 1 BsS ' » 1 1 tth ^t'li^l n . ' 114 .K- i^ J^/u ^^"S^" «^'eaJ-s that ho had a large piooe endosod W»,«. i think of that? Would you choke down that V "•'^'o^f^d-What do yo„ A. No, I would not. the McDik ;::„";; %zi^ll'': n "t 7"»' ""» "<" '-•"" ■" -ot includod in Iho Common ' '"' ''°"^'" '"'" "=" M'*""'" w.» bought tm NeilTcD^mld":" ""° •^"'" ''™-' '"' "'" "»' P'-" ""«' h,- A. It was not. Q. Was it or was it not a part of the Hudson Bay Survey lot 244 v A. No, that was part of McDonald's homestead. ^ llnSonXtt-S:? '' ^^"' ^^'^* ^^^ '^^^^' f-- Neil McDonald part of the A. No, sir, to the best of my belief .hi. piece th.. h, Bought f„m Nei, Mct/ald-Ui.'ltr ul, '"""' '"" A. No, that wa, Neil MoDouald', private property NeilUoZd Crfpt't'o'S. ■""" """ °"''" '"»' "' ^°"«'" fr- 20 A. Not to my knowledge. Q. You have sworn positively ■? A. I beg your pardon ; I said it was part of Neil McDonald's estate McDo'n Jd°;'ert:'' '° ""' ^'" ' *"■ ""^ ''»"'• '« "»' " - P« of Nei, Q. Was that part of the Common ? the clml''^' ' "" '""" "' «= ™ °- »' *e P™prie,or.-holder,-„f 30 ...r? pa,":; tcrmmlr °"'°'' *"' ''°"'"'-" '''•"^'■' ''™ Neil McDonald A. I cannot say joined upon it. Q. Answer my question A. I don't know, sir Q. That is as dose as you will go on that ? A. Yes Q. Now, on the Common Fonseca had a house, had he not? Q. In which he lived at the time of the transfer v A. Yes. Q. He had a store ? A. Yes. 10 I do not know the number of Neil McDonald's lot. Was it a part of the Common ? It 40 1 i ii.V;,; ! ill:t^' ■i i^' i :( 1 - 1' ' ii§->^ ■h ■ '1 " !l- Ir H i! • Q- On the Common ? "'' A. No it was on the property of McDonald's aion at tt tiL^'of tirtrlS: f "^ '^'' ^^" ''^"'* '^"^ ^^ -- - PO-s- A. No, I didn't know. A llTl T^'^T) ''""" ^' ^^^^ '" P°«-'««i°" of this store ^ Q.- wha! t^^^^^i^:^:^^^ v'^^ -- ^^ '^-^^ transfer? ^ ^ ^^""^ ^" ^^^ Common at the time of the A. He had a dwelling house. Q- Anything- else? 10 A. House and stable, that is all. Q. He had no other out buildinirs ? A. No doubt about that. Q. And his store was where ? A. About twenty yards from his house Q. On what piece of land ? A. On the piece that belonged to Neil McDonald Q. Although he had a store on it ? A. I do not know. Q. You do not know whether he was in possession nf +v,o. Q. How could he have a store there if he was not in r.„ of it ? ^^ ^°^ *" possession of any part A. He may have got permission to build. Q. It was standing on the ground ? . A. Well, I suppose it was. 80 fromlu'wcDL™ t" '^'"''°^ " »"' »'■ *« P'«« »f >-d that he bought A. I do not know that he bought it ? Q. That he got then ? A. Yes. Q. Yet you have contradicted yourself and ndmitf^^ *u * n Q. He had a store thero and he directed it ? A. Yes 40 th« Common that he ocenpied ! l"""**"™ °f the Common or the piece of .863.' "„;,r.tXou Sra:.?."'" '"° ~^ ^"" '"•"' "■- '» "«^ «' K r ;•] i It A 1 iiiiii ltd Q. )^'h"» 'lid ho build his store V A. I don't know, sir A. Who, sir? Q You? A. In Septombor, 1858 Q You swear to that ? A. Oh, he had it more than one ? nl!\°' *'" ^'''" *'^ y«" know ? A. He may have, [ ,,„^., ihi.'kl '""'' " "'"""-''.d he it Ave? Q Had he it two? A I don't know. 20 p.. VZZ:,t^Zr^ """"" " """'• '™ "'^^ When did F„„.eoa Q. When did ho put Ihem there ■; A. It wae hie property, it went to him. Q. Ugan owned the property where Fonseca i, ? Q- What did he own ? A. Up to the trees. Q. That i. he owned the land that Neil McDonald had ? Q There is no doubt about that now ' and Mr. I-ogariiS eH^ZTartYMr t^'lj^Td"' '." «*""- ->'• Q. How do you know ? McDonald and not Fonsec^. ,.,, f wS^McDoridi-thraf; r? r "".'■= '-^ --"-^-^ »■ ^o «.«e from Mr, Logan, a paper or deed ' '"" >"•" ""' »' Ponaeca got the A. He never told me Q. Now, you were a witnpss in ♦!,■*• to there is true ? ""''"^'^ ^" ^^^ ^°'-™- «ase, you know what you swore 80 •'im ■ ^17 •" r 8U[>post> BO. -vej^«r\r^:;;».^;;^-«i. tha. Kon«eoa w. .„ ,o.s....n of Q. Ii>u««orotoitwo«Idubetruey q: whe;:';r,o7iXlr7o /^i^7- '^«^ ^^ - -^ t.. A I don't know where I wa r wT ^ w''" "^ "«^' Provmco of Manitoba. "' ^ ^'^'^ '" Wniuipog I thi«k-I wa8 in the Winn^elr ^"" "' ^^« ^'^^ "^ Winnipeg, or the place next in the • • • . ' ^ • ' *- "«*t 'Q the vicinity of 10 A. VViiat do you mean Kv fh, ■ • • Q- |« Jul,, /8V„"r,Xte 0™"' "' ^"'"■-S'-'.ow c,»., A^ I won't be pMitivo wh.ro I wa. i„ q, v u - f ^=r^-- '-'''^'''^^'z^:::^.., w.. Mr. Log.,,. "'• B"l.er, „„e.„.« ,,^ „, ^^^^^^ ^___^^,___^^ ^^ Bep..™.er,w;:'rir;ot;r;r.„'': "-"r •- ">" "»- »' -<» ^n '"'";' ';"'"«l»t.ly, ,„ ,„„ prep';.7 .o ra.r.rt m'" f° " '"^ "»' "■" --' A- 111! may be corrent hnf k„ '"airadict Mr. Wan ? of my toowle..;. .„d Mlrf,"' "' """^ "»' •"■ ""'-'-I h.™ .„„„ .„ ^o beat A. I could not say. A- I don't know A. I do not know thaf ho u„a ^' ' ' ror a„ e^W, for .bo Xrao'^yTarr " "'"' ™ "°--' '" ""'.le JfroSrt^sf--— i:..»w„.b..b..^ Q.A^d.ha.wo,.ldbero„ad.bo,.ablo. a: N:.'"'°°"'°°°' "-'*'» .he NiolMcDonaM land. A. I did a good mauy times. 40 V' I 1 ; - ^ 1 1 4 1 1 f ".< M 1 L J. M 3» 1 1 ■h 1* , 1 1: . ; j H 'r- il 118 I . Q. WW did yr;"! 17" ''"•••'•''' '-k-^»«»''f*w»^^ A. SomoTtae. rui, Mr ri:.?"" T' '" '^"""'»= "•"""S "-l year ? Mr. F„„»eca. ''°^'°' '°'"''"™» ^i* «' Barber, sometiLs with wi„„y;:ii,s.::e.™r„*;:/r;r e""- -'■'*" ^°" -- ^^ forwards? Where were y„„ „„ ^U \Z7Z sro/"" """■" '""""""<" '"^ No answer. ■'' ' ' Q. Whero wore you on the Ist ? No answer. Q. Where wore you between the 1st and 2nd? A. 1 don t know. Q. Why then do you swear that you were in Winniporr ? A. K.n„ot say that I was in Winnipeg nor in St Nortrt g. What was your occupation ? • '^°'^^'^"- A. I was ftirming at St. Norbert. During what year ? Wholr'^' 1""'^"^^' ^ had Mr. Fonseca's farm then Where was that farm ? On Point Douglas ? I cannot recollect what year youciJo7r:::;L;t'"rye::^^^^^^^^^^ r^ '''- ^^"^^-^--^ just a little strange ? ^ "^^'^ ^*""S = '^'^''^ it not strike you as A. Certain things I can recollect distinctly jruh;;r;;r.f"-r°^r"''"'^"--- g. When did you farm in St. Norbert ? A. In 1871. 80 Q. Has he not more than one ? A. Sometime after .«4;5r;rirrr^------.^^.i,.hi. beJoMh'eyet'aZ/""' ''""""" ■^«'" "»"' "" ■>»-. « wa. i, .he year A. He was in it that spring. Q. The sprinjr that you had Fonsecas farm ? 10 Q. A. Q A. 20 40 ^ M A. Y es. fa Pi 119 Was in 1869. ^ ^° ** "'^'^- Barber's at that time —That St. N^.hl!^? '" '''' ^- ^^^ ^--'^ ^-, ana in .0 ,ou were far.i„, .t lo ^' J"187lIwa8iuSt.Norbert. '<• Where were you in 1870 ? A. JNo, 1 had It a year after Q. Now which part of your evidence is true ^ A. Itwasml869IhadFcnseca'«farm W. How do you fix 1869 ? A. Because it was the year before the rebellion Of winter time the rebellion, and I was liviLt k ^^'^^'^^ »* ^as in the 20 house of Foase.a's on the Point " ' ^°"'" '^ ''^'^^ ^ime, down in a Q. Where were you in July, 1870 ? A I could not place it I was everywhere. H lou swore once before that vou thnnn-K* , A. I was backwards and forwards-mv wi ^°" """■' [° ^' ^"^•'«^* ' part of the time and part of the trmedow7hrrf""'''"^ '' '""^ ^•— - Q. When wore you in Portage la Prairie '» A. Iwas not in Portage la Prairie at all ij. When were you in Headingly ? A. In the spring of 1870. 30 Q. What were you doing there ? A. Getting out of the way, Riel was after me Q. What were you doing in St. Norbert ? A. Visiting a family Q. That was the hotbed of the rebellion ? and you kent ih. f •, . A. Backwards and forwards, visiting occasionly-could n.. • Q. You were not travelling along the main hlh ^'"^^ '°^ ^''^'' A. No sir, kept out of the way. ^'"'^^^ ""^'y ™"«i» then ? A TftT^r'^ '* ^'" ^'^"" *° ^'^°^ y«""«Jf «fter ? *« A. Alter the troops arrived. Q. When did the troops arrive f A. In the spring of 1870. ~^"^'l' f n'T 111 ' ' ''■ ;. > , ' ' 1 ; ' ■ ,. . ; '^1 ■ ^1 ' 1 1 9 .: II : i 1 • T il If '11 ^M * ' um i i 1 1 ! • kI ■I ^1 '■ ■ '1 ■ ^^M 1 ^^1 i ' 1 '' I ■ Ji '^1 ^H 1 1 i ' 1 l^^H ' 1' i ■ ' 1 I t ! M^l 1 ! ' H^l ; ! fi^l ' i n^l j ; iH ■' '1 '. 1 ' ' ^ I^^H ; p ■ ' ''^^M jl 1 • ''il 1 IIH ! . * [ I < II^HH ; I'H i ifl s ' rfl " f i^^i ^ 1 M ' . , rl 1 m yo go; end Wat do ] 120 -cu„.. about it. ^in yoa 3„ r/ .L" tlW" ' "^ '""' ^o" '"""M '= AugStr™"'"'-"-- -» -»"<• .l.e W,b„ay,„„ .He „<,„ „„,, A. I was workiner at thp Uma r dunn,thewHoletiJthattherbelLr;an^^^^ for Fonseca and Barber A 4 ?.?' "^^^ ^''''^'''S for you ? A. Not then; he was in the spring. H) a: ft^r a'r rr ^ '^^ -'^>' "" *^« --- arrived . I. .., ,,, , J»ire.t examination by Mr Patterson; Q- You lire in Winnipeg? A. Yes. Q. How long hare you lived there V • *™*h« early part of June. 1871 Q- Do you know Wilham Logan ? A. I do. Q. How long have you known him ? A A very short time after we came to Winnipe. Q. Do^you know the house where he lired" "^ ^ Q. How soon after you ariived m w,„ • A. I would not be posith" L to th3 if '^ ^'^ '''' '^"'^^ '^^^ house ? Q. How many builLgwe^e there o' i T..' ""^ ^'^^^ *'-«• A. Mr. John Sutherland was iX'^r '' ''^' ^'^^ you f t £Zd'r. ""^"^ '"^'^^"^« «^,^^-'« were there at that Ume. when 30 going down of Lm'e of Ihet"^' ^"'" '"''''""^ *° *^« dilapidated state and A r!" f^ ^° v**^"^ " '" *h« »'"»« place then ^ wa. situated in liie old days ? °°" "°"' »"» y™ know where Barber's store A. Yes Tf T»r„~ _.., i.~ , y gnt now, but the nearest that I could get - 20 !' , '' .s« H I Fl I ; . 1| i' t L uftt Kcf i I' i vmituf ivmg mmem 121 B.rbero„.X.,"e"" '""'"" ' ^'^ '- dap.ha. I go. a.,,„ai„.ed with Q- Wh™ did y„„ measure" '"^ ''"'°" '" '"" '"">'■ Su.heH.„d, . tM.k .,„a„d„ Su.heri.„d. I a. „„. 2 ^^«w did you measure it? 1-«HHS.57=" •""■-■-■"■ A I, kink. „, I have oSfbelt^a':.™-*''''"" '■'-«'''■>«' A^ I Wiev„ 3„ """'«' '» ""> property there? B.*?,,!rf "' ""' '"'° — — P'operty between U^„, k.,« .„, A Yes. a: I ^onglTanlTJ^^^^^^^ ^«= t« »»«"- and Barber's store, ^o' w' '^u'^"' ^ ^° ^"«^'» «tree[ ""^'^^ ^" ^^^" «*'-*■ ^-tending back quite preci^IyrtL'lL""' '"""" «"' ""' " "^ ^ f„„ Barber, .tore not the b„,ld,ng across i, Jfty ,„ fi„;4^J''f;f"''<' "'««« *"» the store, touehing -«. to be put fpie'r ,^^r«ir;hi """=''' •'- '» *« -« «« «... r ,, Q That i, f,„„ here or sonlh of .he li„e ; „„ 5,*: ^'"- "■ "■• wl' of hia „„r„ fro ° Z v. . twT '"It- '"""e'' " "" back a 0(1 abonf " '". °""" ™«' "" »o. *-kne„.h.,_theportio„.ha.Xb„'>n.h:;ll;r'7eatn^;trtr 10 !0 30 f I I f S i t If : '■ ! lUl .< fi. 122 used to be another porch to the hZ u? '^' ^ '" ^"'^"'« ^""^ ^ ^ut there were, but that is to u . ow^ „ J''" n 1^^* ,7 " '^ .^^'^ ''-"S^t „„, round as it ment had that not bJnlken doJl I,*; f."'' ^" ^'''^ ^^^'* "^ «"^ ™«— nearest we could find it ' ^^ *^' ^"^^ ""' *"'^""d it that was the feet 1" ^'^ °^' ^"^^' '^^^ '^''^ "P- *h^ ^-t-- would have been about six betwtn^l!'^,:ri^:;;^oMtndr;?^^^''':i ^ '"^^ ^^^'^ •- p- feet or more sLe this ha7be n tak nMv "t"" '"' " J ^^'^ "' "^'^"^ ^^ 1« we were measuring it, I may savthTtZ^ .J T '"^ '^"' Saturday, when that was removed ^ ^ * '^'' '' '^^^^ ^^^^^ ^'™^^ I "'ver knew that Q. You mean the porch ' A. Yes. Q. Is Barber's old store there yet V A. I think so. Q. Just as it was? but it is covered on three sides. The old store hn J . k '"""'"^ '°^*^'""^ "P' 20 and two sides has been fiJled in from Main s eet Y " -**« '^e sidewalk till you have gone in the rear way tl^eThlut is therr^""' ''' ^''^ °''^*^'^ A S°T u ^°" "^f"^ ^^' measurements with Mr. Sutherland ? A. He held one end and I held the other ^"tntrland ? ■ A ^f LT '"^'^! '"^ "'^r:' ™«^«»'-<'™«nts on that property ^ meaated V^a t;:::r- "'• ^^^ ^ '''- '''' »-^^ -^ o' 4an.s house we Q Which house do you mean f -sE wen, out he had two or three hotiseB ^^ A. But they were all connected Q. You mean the north end of all the buildinp, ? jo^ ou, and the distance aTrmlrM' "r ^^^Te^"''""" " "'"" "' ?: Yt-rSec'altrlf "'°" """-'^ '"^ "' ^-'■« ' Q Did you run parallel to Main street ? Hue ty''r:"j:z::i7iL 'J:z' 'T "r""^ -'"""^ """ « '«p« « 10 the sidewalk, but we upZd hat Ih.t" T 'T '"''"'' """> «"">" "P whore the sixlysta feel came to ^'^ "'""' """ ""'J"'* about I. ^^f r! ! I' ' t tl a fn ac Wa 20 128 Q What kind of an anpl. ia it ? bu.M,„g ,hat would be abonf rigi, ''°'""" ">" '^ » ««">« i» line with th^ Q How„™,the,idewalltdidy„„™„, r;. - r - ---"" ^ til rs-; -?tr£F.rs ^ ^ ' "^''' '^"^ tnis IS as near Q- Were there any obstacles? 'i^ iNot where vve run ;« • i ^ M«in^..... „. .b.« .b.;: :„:„"-« -« H..„ „„,„ ,d ,„„,,„^ ^. _^ Q. What was your forty feet ? n "'" f "'^^* «°«*^-° portion of lots C and F W Do you know when Mr Vn». A. I think so. ""^ ^''"^-'^ P«^ a fence round his homestead ^ Jf:j?"^"7''"ythingaboutit? Q.- B: h?:;: r a ion, way towards it. ^ A , Oh, that's not lonllo IfTn'T' ' V^^ ^'"^"^^^ ' Q-It^is not a long time ago at ail events? Q- What size was his homestead'? . very ™.1| p„„i„„ ,., ^^J'^'""' "■'* > ™ no &„oe „ „.. *, j"' from h,e honee (o Ponsec. ,Lel7ho„ L T'"' '""'""""S "" large piece o«, acre., two .nd . h.lf ,„ tl.reetr .Tfor^t 7° ''"'' "=<»« "-""e^hre or ?„„ ™ put there before. ' * ' '"W"' " » -»» long .go that th.t fence w.. kind of f.„„,.d •"""■o- A »n,.l, l„„p „, . ^„,„,^ ^^_^^__^ ^.^ ^^^^^ * A portion fenced aronnd hi. hon,e.te«, yon mean ? 30 if i M h4 M ii I I 20 124 eh., „., hardly r,„,„ ,h., „, Fon:::''.;!.,!,"""' " «" -'"W i" it too bu, a: r;:;c?c,":;::--;';.«.o„ „.„.„,, ofh.„„t.„.„.„„., Q- W.1I. you h.,. ^„„ . ™ J^'.,"" »«.«»'h.re in th., „,.ighb.„h«d. A. Yl'8. out o,th„ c„„, „„ :r4T.rit""" °' -"■ ■ '^'■•™ '^- -»« « '-« »-„ n.w fencr/""^"""' ''"''" >'"•" '!«' «»„« „f ,.„a ,.„„,„.„d by ,hi. further b«k„„.,id,,.Jl,'^;;:lk'?°7J?-0''"'"'»" Ofc„„„„„b.t hoS befo,?/"'"" >""-■ «»' Vou »M .h, „.,.., Tor .o f„„o,, „„ ,„„„, fenc^ wft7'c:ii„Ti:',r,;';' '""""• •' "■•' '- •> -y h.v. b,™ co^^ry^" """ "" "^ »' ". >^>o, ro.„.e<, „p .„ ,,0 .„. yo„ „.„„ , .^^ A iT I Ld """b "'" ""■ '"'""' """" ■■ 1880 or .omethiMglkeThae' "™''' "" ''°'' ""' '"^ <'«!'• "W-'h i^ about •,, „ ^Ji- Cnyou .., u.bo„ ™„ob ,„,.d .rouud .M. buUd.., „r !.,.„. b. :»p:«,y^r.c'^T;!^b»^^^ «; I don', know how mJoXZ^^LT °' '!.' '""""°^' »"« ^ °» "l.i".mg from hiu, rugit'r """'^ "" ""''^ -f '»' « »"' t.„,.„, .„d ,ho.e A. No; .11 the f„„r lot, until recently- Croas-eMmined by Mr. Howell : -er word., then, .,.„, houjocrpl^" tteXttTr't;Vl:trn"p''.rt 'o't,„ A. Of the sonfhern ? Q The northern part of C. 10 30 M 4 • t- ' . 1 V Uiii 1:' ' 1 „ ! ! 11 ' i '- 1 _ : . 1 ' ■ ' i ', iii lu.': 20 125 would make it about «ix feet more.' ''" removed-that porch. That the por Jlo™"" "'' '''^" "^« ^-^'^^^ ^-^ of the main building on C. and A. Yes. Of i.. If not, it W.3 ne., it, o t to ^eol do"" f "' ""> ^ ''^ "" '■""■" " portion, porhaps half a„ aore. "'' ""'y « "eT small Q I am asking you what ahape » deacriptl^fr '"'»™" "" "^ '° "-"'-• «■" I oould no. gi.. . onl^V/nTiSt h"oZ'''l*,I''"""' -r V«- -»* W. stable -ta- Thot^ro-y- -- '-eid- ut imita Q. Well, Mr. Fonseca then, air. says he had not. A. As near as I can find that ic u^e i Logan bnilt that store ; I boLe he did H. °""k '° "" """'"y- "^U"™ A. Yes, sir. Q. What time ? -he thi j rihfst^k'd^;:™;:;™ "^ '"°'"' ""^ """^ » *-abon,.- Q. And Fonseca was Just then moving out' I know I l^Wetckt^ardTar^^^^^^^ ^ ^T --^-^^er. went outto the Point and stayed a ferdlysthl ''^^ " '^^ '*'^«' ^"'^ ' y. Was his old store on the Common ? A. I never saw any old store. Q- You know where it is ? A. Yes ; but I never was in it. Q. Surely you would know where it was Com^on^^n^rtr^:-— ^-^^^ -- ^« on the . A. He had a house and a stable there enc^losed. 80 : t i 1 , I J. i " t i } 1 i i 1 i: .. 1 1 liH y :i: i I 4-il 126 Q. Anything nise ? A. Not there; he may have had more. Q. How far was this stable from the house ? A. Very little way indeed A Uwls'drffi''uf ''"""-"■ H«w many feet? ii. 11 was diHicult to say If von HL-^ t n Q Just i„ the ta- diale vicij;, '' ' """ """'"'■' " '"' y""- A. I don't think so. A fiaid'h"?' ^r *^° '^"^^^^ ^'^''^^ -t ^^h-t time V A. 1 said before there may be somp liui xu V . (j. You would not say wliether thpv k a \, A. I would not be poLTve bu nl w T^"' '''^^' ^^ "°* '^ was up within the roads. " ^' '^ '^'*' " ''"'V «mall one. If «« it Q. I am speaking about within the small enclosure Q. There was qu.te a long array of trees ther " A. Yes there was ; they are there yet ?: ^mightty'r '^T: t''' '^"^^^ «^ ^^- *-s V wards therelV7d^„./j:tn1:^«^^-e fall driying backwards and for- '' Q. Did he have a fence ? A. I do not think so, Mr Howoli v. i. it could not be called a f^ncewheri ^t T' "' ''""" ^™^ "^ ''t^-' b«t ' Q. Was there the remains'fa fen"" ' '"^ ''''' ''''''■ you not? e patents had been issued to Fonsoca, did A Yes Q. Are you sure that 't was not in 1882 ? A. It may have been. did h* ,f;7' "'• "'''■ "' """^ -'■"»■' '» ^- you .„ .,,.™.,„ ,„ „ ,,,„ Q.- is'fi::,:: ?:rrdr trrr '^'^™ "■-' '« ■«-' - ^ A. No. . ^'^' y^" '"»y agreement for title ? Q. And he wouldn't give you anything but a ,uit claim deed, would he ? Q. And that is all the deed you got from Bskh ? 10 40 ! ii n iiiiii'!iinAi> I, I I .1 m I 1i i 1 ; ■ ; »■ i ■ ii 1 yl i ■ ii liy ■ 11 W T' 127 A. Yes. Q- And you claim entirely through Belch ? A. There was no taxes on it when I bought Q. H.S dwelling house and stable' '^^ ^'' P*"*^^*^"* ^^^ble. ^^ A. Yes. A. I believe so. Q. And part of 35 ' A Yes. Q. And part of 35. A' Yes. 20 .en ctt:t,Z ll™tXV'°'"= »' '"« '=-"«». '» H not wUhin A. I suppose it would. Counsel for defendants objected tn fV,. ^ •■, , the following grounds : ^ ^ *" *^' admissibility of this evidence, on 1 That the evidence was not admissible a« fJ,o • ^0 the same as the issues in the suit of Mercer %! '"'' '" '^'' '''^' ^^'^ "ot n TViof fk T c ' J^'icrcer . ,- /onseca. m .vdence the depo,i,i„„. of J, g, D,f„° l„i pT 'H '"''>'•"■"' » °uld pi ,,. o Mercer v.. Fon.ec., .„d that the Informant conH,"^' "''""' '" "■» •"" Dennis • — ° "' itooeri Ltang The ,nf„r„,a„t d..U„ed to put in the de^.tion, o, Kohert La,„ H. I^rdehip decided, with hesitation, .o recein. ,he deposition, of J, a The deposition, of J. s. Denni, ware then p„, i„ .„d „^, 4() i.*U i;> :'ill' ^il ipi 128 ADMISSION. done. They measured together "' ^' ^'" P^'^^^ ^hem aa Gray has Plaintiff's case closed. DEFENCE Mr. Glass asks to nut in o j certified to be a true copy^of a document'oTrf^^r'' ''l'''^ '''' '^^^' ^S^O. Interior, by P. B. Douglass, Secretary "'^ '" '^' Department of th^ -^^"^wi^rSd^trSllt^^ 10th May. . Mr. Patterson ; I never saw if k f r , .» .H. „.„, .a u i. „. p„';:,;'„t^L L^a jrite^;:-"^ '='"'»- Hie Lordship declines lo admit ll,i. . MgnatHre of John R. Hall. - ""Isnoe without proof of the d..edVire:t;° -"' '" - "«- "»- ^o-. ^ S. Dennis to W. a P„ns,.a, (document put m and read, Ex 21.) Arthur Henry Whitphpr i.o • i. ^"'''"'^' ^™^b-» duly sworn testified as follows- Examined by Mr. Glass : A." Urn"' *^^ ^*°'* ''^^"* ""^ Winnipeg ? ^^^ J You have been connected with the Department here for how many f 80 i f SI It ! 129 A. Upwards of fourteen the Ma Jla'cTirrtf '' '"^ "°" ^"^'^"'*^^>^ ^^^ '^^^ P-^ known as A. Survey Act it would be more properly sir. not 1!IT' tu[e ftom 'he Hud: ''' T^^^ ""'^^ ^^« ^^'^^^^ ^^^ does because of being n po sessfon at"th 7 ^T^^' *"* '''^^™« ^"'^^ ^-^^^Y did you require? P°'^*^«"°" «* ^he time of ,he transfer, what possession 10 Mr. Glass to witness : Mr. Patterson objects that this is a question of practice, the benefit of it hereafter. '* ''""^"''^ ^^^'^ ^^"^t ™ay have Mr. Glass to witness : possibly possession ? ^ evidence of actual occupancy and Q. Of how much ? A. Of a certain area. Q. How much for instance ? Suddosp a man Ko^ u Hudson's Bay lot and there was no cuCtion or enclo I '" '"' '""^ "^ " that lot-would that be deemed to be ufficie„t ev^t "" f "' ^'''''''' '' whole lot ? sumcient evidence of possession of the iutentfof'lhraotrltTw^^ -^«^« ^°t, but the 30 mak. a farm. '*°^''^°™'^"* ^^ *« S'"?''* « reasonable quantity with that to Q And usually they granted how much ? Q. Now, Mr. Whitcher, the depth of the farm thev eave with fh«f sion was how much ? ^ ^ "^ *°** posses- 20 I 1^1 ' I;' I-' J* I 1 'i» evidence a»y .onflic. between h" ev d • .'ll'M'' " h 1° ' """""".""' ' """ ""' "»" the .nryey draft a. Hnd^n', B.yrn,prn7.l.nd :dT7: 'r" " ""T <"■ known as lot 35 on the Dominion 8„ven,Lnt en,™; "'"" '°""''"' »'"' Q. It wa. shown on the Hud.0,,-, Bay Company ;.„„.„„, A. Yea; on a very old plan as 244-lot 3.5 i„ ,^'7 ■ , , Perhaps, my Lord. I should no, have .a,d wha Si n "'' °' ■*' ■'"'■"■ want to say that he wa, wrong. I ,hi k that h, i 7T """""■ '"" ' ^'•^•''' Q. Lo^ 35 is on.. „,■ the syftem ot'l'hTott, .m"' """ °°' """''*" Parish omli;'/" J°" " ■""■■" ""' " ""■ "•""> lotsasanyothsrin the A. I always cousidered it so the t;i::ni..''^a:?e';:f Ve^e 12 ^z:^ r "'■'-■' ^°- ™ - A. I was not hore then. Q. It was situated on what lot of the R, .„« u n, A The honse where he lives on [he roh;;","' ' °"""'°'"' """•"^ Hudsl^Fay'tt'T'" ^ *' "°""'™- """« "-«'■ "»- - It wa. on what '" A. On .124 and 35. Q. 80 that his house was on this lot ,-r.ry,rr,„«i 1 A. When I say it was ther t w!« /h u ^ r""""^" "' '^^ C'""™^" ? was not here at thi time of thJ t'ransTr " ^" '"' ' ''"''' ""'"'■ ^' — I Q. Mr. Whitoher, following ni, the course f«lr.. r settlers on parish lots, was Mr. Fon ...u it"rd to anvth . ^""'"' T'"'*^ '" ^a.tu.1 l^use w. . B.ll.wing up . oth:^ ::Z^ ZV^^^Z wasitrr::^i:;rtn th^rt^Iit^r^- "-r -^-^ " Manitoba Act ^ " ^^^"''' possession of under the Q. What they got in addit.on to that was by .he grace of the Crown 1 10 20 M it Cf I3i A. He did, and a good dm) of it, too. Q. Every settler in the rivnr Knl*. ^t- *u grace of the Crown v ' ''* *^"* '^"""'^y «^^ »«'"^' '"^nd by the A. Yes of ov^uvt:!::L';7!,:r,,:'„7fhit:'"'' """"■ """• ""■ "-'^ - "■■»" — • Mi Patterson objects to proving letter by . I'tter-presscopy lhem.„lvc. a,.cordi„gly ■• "°™"""'"" ''""»» "• h.r.l,y ,e,„ir,.d ,„ p„.,„ Q. Who signs that V A. ^gaed by r. S. Dennis, Surveyor-General. Q. Whiit IS the date of it ? A. It is dated 2l8t March, 1873 _^^^Q. Now, do y„„ k„„„ .„,„i„^ .^„„, , „„,^^,^ ^^ ^^_^^ _,^_ ^^^^ ^_^^ __ A. I know that that notice was issno/l T =.,,.. ^^ Dennis sign it myself I know thTt' ^ "™ ^^ «T'^'' ^ '^''^'"^^^^ ^ol. ^ o«..» : , wi ..„ a -I -,i r;j/?r.t t.i,;rr j;; Q. Herein Winnipeg? A. The Surveyor-General was in Winnioeir at ih.i r Winuipe,?. Winnipeg at that time; it was in Q. W hat was the purport of it "? Q. This was after the transfer? A. mh July , SW Thia fa dated the Slat Mar. A, 1873. Utedl ""' "*"' """* " ' ■""'"'■ ""■ y' '«" ""»"■- that „„a f„|,y „i„„. A. It was. Q- By placard ? A. By placard and sent through the nost w,rn..r cled with the offlce „, came i„ Ji Z^^^n^nZTn Crd" ZITT"' he nrer wa. hand*, „„e of theae notices or they w^rXf U„, '""' °" Book |)ut in. 20 SO 40 1 J ■ r f m lit a. I ' 'i I: ■:V'!l ■iJi '- IS ■'■■i ■ ^-M I:, 1' \l LI J ^ 182 Q. Cai. you tell who P, B. Douglas i. / ^» 4 ^1/^r- ^;--- -™--. - ...e ,, uo,,.. Q. Who commonly certifies to copies of papers ? Mr. Patterson objects. •ay o/.h";: '""""' ^ " '« "" "'-^ »' ">. deputy-head, or chW„le,k ■ i. he w..foL:?Sar.h?tt?onit:i:m'.r,?'''' •^""'•■'>- «- '" provides that the Secretary- "^ ^ °' ""' '''-■'■ """ ">« Act of Ihia year His LordAij, : What law is that y„„ .„ telliu. u. ' A. U „ .„ Aet. This Statu., i„p^i„ that I t'rt ZL a Chief Clerk Q Is he the man ? A. JVo, he was not. Q- Who is the Chief Clerlr nf iU n there is more than one? '^' I^^partment of the Interior, or one. if ^^^P^rilZ:Z7al\l^^^^^^ the organization of the 20 the Chief Clerk, and the Z^s to^t'"^^ Secretary or Assistant Secretary at thattiml ''°'""'^ ^^^'"'^ ^"^ «o Mr. Glass : A. j2JTZZ:u' ^'' ""'''-'-'^'^ '-erioronthe2IstJune.IS80. Q. W at that paper and tell me whether that is an Order-in-Conncil . Mr. Patterson objects that che certificate must be proved y- What 18 the datu of it ? A. 2l8t June, 1880. Q. Who does it purport to be signed by v A. John A. Macdonald. Q. By whom is it certified '' A By P. B. Douglass By His Lordthip . Q. Do you know that man? 30 ' i. ... hll ,n| i 1 >.' "• ^^^R i; l Hi (ii t ^ -n i!-' M 1^ , i|ll •'11 ^ ■ ii 1 K<^' fli 1 HK ! ItlirillMI l4 w^ ^c'' HffflnHN iH in 1 ' 1 1 ■;m: 1 1 1 kilil 1 H 133 A- I do, My Lord. Q- Who is he, and what is he ? A He IS now Assistant Secretarv tr, th^ r> Department since about 1873. ^ '^''^' "« '^'^s heen in the By Mr. Glass ; here in 1873, and he went down w'l h Co] De • " 1 T^^'^ ^'^^ ^'^'^'^^^ was was correspondence, and has Lrn alw yf "h ' T' '" '"^"^^^« *'-"-- grades of clerkships. You will «•« . f'^^^y^; ^'' has gone through several C-ou,.„,,^ Th.. i/hu w,m„T in'I^ror"""""' '" *' ^-- ■" "'•'-in- »" ^-^ —"1 beoanae there Q You refer to staked claims ? A. Yes, I say it was a general principle , I m*>an th ,f th„. .■aaea wher. o, o„„r.e lot. were ^t i, .n/hy ihe L^l'ont ri™. foHnZ::' '" 1 'ii '■ 1 i W] w 1 |:- ■' 186 A. Yes. the othef rndt 7e paL'hTsf Joh'^'^ir. ' '"''"^"^^ ^^^^^^ l^ts 35 and A. Well, as to record of title to it l' J ""^^ '* ^^' "^^^^ ^ »««» ? speak of It as a parish lot I am speakint wi^h "" *^'7*^ '* "^"^ "^«'^- ^^^n I Q- Now, I am asking you if wS^ ^^^'"'^ *° """'^^ By the holders |oi„tly JIZ^^TorTZ ^^flhtf ^^""^, ^°™ ^^« ^^^^^ ^ '« A. It was. " ''^'^ "^'^^'^ o^ their several river frontages ? w»a ;? 2r """"' " ""■"- '»' '»^ ™ -«d b, .he. f„, h., and pa.„,e, A. I do not know for a fact Id '+ t gming there. Anything about that l" ould'rsw'' \"''"' '"^ ^^^^'^'^ ^^^^^^ all lots were using it. but I believe that was .1''!- ^'"^'^ ^^° "^'^^ on that the whole ot the lot was claimed at^^ . "T ? ^"'^ ^ ^"°^ ^^is much Q. As a Common ? ''^ *'°" *""^ »^y the Point holders A. Yes. Q. As^having been used in common by them V 20 the BoJiZnZLlT '^" '-'' '^'"''^'^ ^-- - Winnipeg .» eonnec.ion with A. Fourteen, yes. of p„?„at:r """- »''"" -- -- '"e e„ve™„e« h„„ .„„„^ „^„„, Mr. Glass object,, QuesMon allowed, ''^^l°'l°l'^Z^^^^^^ hs. ,!„„ ,,e„.. ro. «a h.,e „ad. tap..e.e„ts o„ .andXlX Hte^roS;"',",;;,™'''"- ^» Mr. Glass objects. Question allowed. Question repeated A. I do. pr^ttlViiwL'; tv„';iro?;r;r.vr°'*"r«'^'- -»- ">«"« » tme m possession and made imr-oveJenr? '^ ' "'"' *"" '»<'» • '»»« Mr. Q-lass objects. I .'I I ! if I :s :|' h( I I Q' Do yoii know of any cas... ,^», possession and made improvement' .Zt u^'"""' ^''^ ^«^'^> been Ions in to the 15th July. 1870, g^t not, r^^ '"^'^ '^"«««««»°" ^as sub eguei" ««t.rely by the Oovernm.';t T "*'"" "^'^'--- ^^^d were ruled out BepaJe'r ^l^Twl Zr/deL'tT V" '^^ -'-^^'-^ ^^ the -ual occupancy under the Man tba^^^^^^^^ Act, by clafmin; tiding, where the claimant would norh: ^ ^ '"^'^^ Precedence of every- in purchase. ^°"^^ "«' be considered entitled to the first riglt of Q- What do. you mean provided it is valid ^ theclaim.^ ry;rLt v'hd'xh'r"" ''^ ^'"™™-* --'d not consider that if the Crown was in possesst Id f "P«'«»-^— hat I meant .say ^anuoba Act. that the firs't^Xait ^'r '"^ '* -^-' he the Crown intended to dispce of it "^""'^ ^^^ ^' the right to that, provided «howed longer possession and pTo^ed h '„h ^^'" ^^P^'^^^^" ^- i'* who 20 Q: Wd Wlill;^^^^^^^^ ^" ^^---'^ -""i he considered first. .preceden^e'of'oterything' "'""''' '^^''"P""^ ^^^ Manitoba Act; it takes Q- Now in the case of a piece of Inr,^ u- u occupancy of any person at the t me of ^he tT f T ""* '" P««-««ion or Mr. Patterson repeats the question. nver, I, _wo„Id „„, .pp,, ,„ ,„„„ ^^^ ^.^^ consider that 40 * ■/^V '> '^ PhoiDgrdphic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 873-4503 \ iV rn>^ \ :\ - A. Yes I discovered that it included a certain number of lots that had been deeded by the trustees. Q. When you discovered that, what did you do ? A. I notified the Departrapnt Q. And what followed ? A. I gave quit claim deeds, by their order, to those sundry parties, and chose other lands. Q. Was there any other error of any nature in your patent ? A. No. Q. Did your patent include lots C, D E and F ' A. Yes. Q. But was there any other error at any other time in your patent 'f A. No. Q. Did your patent include lots C, D, E and F ? A. Yes. Q. The lots that you gave quit claim deeds to parties of were not because of the parties having been in possession of them then since the 15th of July, 20 A. No. Q. But by reason of their having deeds from the trustees ' A, Yes. By Mr. Howell : Q. Then the only reason why you conveyed any lots was because those lots were conveyed by trustees ? A. Yes. Q. Was any part of this land ever for sal- by the Dominion Government ? A. Never. on Q. Was it ever offered for sale? A. No. Q. How much of the Common is still held by the Dominion Government? A. About sixty-five acres. Q. How far is the hospital from the lots C, D, E and F? The hospital that the Government granted on the Common. A. There are two. Q. Well, the nearest one. A. The neighborhood of half a mile. Q. To the west A. Yes. ^^ Q. Further west than these lots? A. Yes ■ ' it ■;. 1 \ ' I i ii ii- I' ij t ; ui I n 139 Q- And the other is still further? A Yes ; a mile. aovemment^7the cL^" T^^^' T^'^ ""' ' -"^^y— o^ transfer by the ^^^rJ^p^'X^!^ -s. ,on sa, are^he thoy not'^' ''^^ ^'"'^ "^'^'^^ ^^"^^'^'^ f-'" Main street they recode in value, do A. Yes. A About three acres— three or four a: Hd/a'^mT"" "''"^''' '''^" """ ^''^ *"^ chains-three acres 1 Q. Well, the piece of land you occupied was at the east end, was it not ? Q. The piece marked in purple oencil on RvhiKit i u .l common that you occupied? ^ ^ '^°^' ^'^^ P^"*^ «f the A. Yes. Q. How much land is there of that ? A. Between three and four acres ^^ pn.hV;tet„TCNfn'UtiX^'''"'' ""*" '"" "■« ^»» •"•" A. Yes. Q. How much is there of that ? A. About two acres. Q. Did you purchase that before the transfer ? A. Oh yes, in 1064. A. Yes. 80 A. Yes. Q. Was that before the transfer ' A. Yes. Q. The red mark on the east side of Main street shown «« p u • •. , • the land in litigation, is it not ? ' ° *"" ^^^-^'^^ 1- '« A. Yes. Q. This land m litigation is also within the width of your ten chains ? 40 in the'cfaLStr f ^ ''" """ '"^ ''''''* ^ ^'^^ '^^ ^- ^^-^ that you put A. Yes. ,'! I I I 1 I I i I ' \"' ''f' I t I' ii I IF It; ^^'a } 1 II , if - t ^ f 140 Q. Do you remember when Mr n-rc, on his lot ? " ^' ^'"y .ommonced putting up the building A. I think it was in 188'' r.. tu^ summer. **- '" '^" «"™™*^^. or between the spring and Q Where was he putting it up ? A. On the land in dispute. a: uii:Tl "'*'"' '^ ''" "^"^^ ^« -™«-nced ? Q. Th:t^::l:reX-r;o:th''^^'^" ^ -- the lumber the... A. Oh yes, a long tim...-yeL« ^ ^'^'"^ '' '""^ '''' ' Q. And the land was covered by the patent ? -10 Q. What did you do ? noe .0 b"M7h'e;." "" »'""""■ '"" ■ "»' '» Wm .„d Wd y,„, „„„,„^ ^.___ Q. Did you tell him why ? Q. The property in dispute ? A. Yes, the whole of it. 20 moaSoIrwoXor"'"""""" """'"■« «»•'" wheu he „„ k„, „bo„, a Hi. Urd.hip held .ha. i, waa „„, g„«, ,e,ei„„„y, Mr. Howell to witne«« ; Q. Now M. Kcsaca .h.„ „e „any oha,,« of fraud made .,ai„.. ,o„. a: NothL;",:r rrd"" ^"^ "■• '"'-"°" »' *="■■-'■ P»'e-ed .„ you. Q- I see there are three larse lots wifJ, „ Douglas. What do you say as to tlis^ w J"" 'T" "'^"" ^^^"^ «» P«'"t time of the transfer 7 ^ ' " ^^'^ ^"^^ ^he owner of them at the A. Myself. ?' bZ '^''ZT'l "'""^'* '^''' '^''' ^=t« contain ^ A. Retv.,„ thirty.five and iorty acres. Q. Could you tell me how many there are in the Point altogether . 30 40 'i r i :if 1l if I 141 Q I^d om "^ «"J tweuty-sevon and a fractiou. ^. And 01 thoHo you had thirty-f.ve or forty. Q Had you an interest in any of the others V the iL'tt t^:::^::^::^^-^^^^ ^« -* incmde the acreage of - Yj^>naM on the Co.^.T^'ul^: ^::^:^J^^^ ^^^ - .ot Q. And H does not include either the part on the west side of Main street . 10 lotslt'Tu h^veiTy^!^^^^ - that land, those on the Common. You have spoWrout 2?' «" ^"^ ™"^^ ^^"^ '^"^ ^^ A. Well, I have alwavs esZ. i 1 ^''^''^-five or forty acres. Q. That is the t:oZ:::7Z'Zl '"° '^^^ ^^ ^^ ^ '-- «^ ^-^y acres. A. That is upon the north side of the Point g. As shown upon the plan ? A, Yes. Q. So that what do you say now upon refieotion . A. Yes. ■ A. There is aboat fitteeu o, sixteen acre,. W- Well now, I ask von Mr t? -including the part of the CoCon that ^ou? °'- :!" T""* ^''"^^"^ ^°t«- "«* that was purchased from NTMcDonlld h '''''^r,^ "°* '"''^"'^'''^ *^«Part tin^e of the transfer-how maiyt^^^^^fthe poi^' ''''' ''' ^^" ^"^ «^ *^« ^« A. Between fifty and fifty-five acres. ^ ' ibr th^ berfit^ontToTn/hXtr ^ ^^'^^^ ^^^^^^^^ A. Yes. Q. You got a survey made ? A. Yes. Q- And the various persons entitloH tn tu n A. Four of us paid. '^' Common paid for that survey ? Q How much did you pay ? A. One quarter. 40 Q. Exhibit 3 is dated 26th December, 1870 ? I I 20 A. Yes. date Q Do you know when the pi !a» was actually made, before or after that !■ : '1 > M 'Wvi t ' f '^"^ 1 '' '-.. 1 M i ^i i 142 the pU,?' """'^ "^ '^" '""■'°^ """^ '^°"*' " ' ""P'*" «f '"''"'*'« ^'«»«r^' the date of Q. Now do the names of .he P„i„t holders properly appear on this plan ? Main'^strlT 'hZT "T 'T"*?""^ '" '^' nubdivision into town lots along Mam street. How long alter the plan was drawn were these names nut on '" A. Almost immediately and from time to time afterwards ' q. They were not on at the time the map was drawn ? A. Uh, no. Q. The names of the owners of the Point itself were on at the time th • in map was made, w.-ro they not 'i ^ ^"' ^^ A. Yes. Q. Mr. Logan, is your brother-in-law, Mr. Fonseca ? A. Yes, A. No, if he eould get it heisi^i:^r;i::i::;:^:^^-^^-'^^^-^-'^- ^«^-- -- ^^- Q. And after looking ,«to it you became satisRed of what ' ^® A. I hat he eould not get it. Cross-examined by Mr. Ewart. Q. When d; i -du put it there? ..Ji^^: "" """ ""' °" """ """ "■•" '"O "«■■■ -I- • -ulf «- y-rs as to when it put on / (.„«ld you speak positu-oly within a ponod of ton y.ars ^ A. t vy„B put on between three or four years. This is a mere guess. years wLr " "^ ''"" '" ''"'" ^"" ^^^ *"" "« Positively within ten years when the name was put on that plan f A. I eouid not. Q When was the plan made? A. In 1870. 1880? f "'^ ^"" ''""''' '"^ '^^'^^'' **''" ""'"•-' ^'''' P»t on between 1870 and 1880^ (an you swe.,r positively whether that was put on 1 .ore 1880 ' A. It was on before 1880 or 1879 Q You are quite sure ? A. Yes. Q. Although you said a minute ago you eould not tell within ten years ? A. 1 said It was put on before 1880 / «»» • on belrMheTatTn.T T '"" ^""^^ "" ' ''^ ^'"^ "^' ^^^^^ -^ ^^ ^as put 20 on belor. the patent ? Are you sure whether it was put on before the patent? ,>atent. "" ^''"" '^^ '^^'^"'' ^os- I am sure h was before the Q. Are you sure of it? A. I think no. Q. Are you sure of it ? Now. was it not put on after the patent v A. JVo. I am now positive it was before the pi^tent. Q. Was It before the plan was registered ? A The plan was registered in 1872— yes. Q. It was before the plan was registered ? *^ A. I said within a year, at first. Q. You said that you thouffht I was tr^rJn™ * * information. Now this Ls regi^t'e d in S^p embe 1872 and -77 '7'"'' 1870, and you know it is correct ? ^'^Pt^'nber, 1872, and ;t was made m A. Yes. You were quite sure the name was put on b-fore the plan was regis" That was before the 14th day of September, 1872 ? ^ Yes. Q tered ? A Q. Now, you signed this plan as correct, did you not ? A. Yes. Q. Was the names on it before you siened it— sirmnH a „= * ^u 40 A Yes. ? I ! rll (1? '■? •1 ^-l 1 . ! I' lii h i i4 \ m m\ 't 144 Q. And before the others 8i. p„,p„,„ A. Yes. Q. And the names were nn* nn f^r. tu lots had been given or sold 7 ' ^'"'P"'^ ''^ «h«^'>»& to whom the ,0 A. No. Q. Some of the names ? A. Yes. P« Le belT" """ ""' "" "" ■»- »"■«' P"'P0.e ^ L„,.„., „.,„„ „„. Q- Never mind about Loffan's i aa u , -id. Mr. Fonseoa, that somt^f!: s Lt^tt Zl t" .'^^? ^^^^ ^- showing to whom land had been given ? ' " '^^ '^'^ P^^P"^'^ of A, And sold, yes. P'Tsons to whom lots had been sold SoM . ■ t^. Sold, not given !" " '^old, not given. 20 A. Yes, some of the lots showing to whom lot, „„e giveo ? " ""' ""■■"■'• f" *« PO'Po.o of A. Not that I remember • A. Tllul'im,,;-" *" ■""" '- ^"y "'^- p»'p- ^ Q C... you t..n ,„. „h.„ PHtchart'. „.„, „, p„. „^„ ,„. J, , Q Can you IM me within two years ' 80 Q Do7o;r„" :r if:r ;t p^;™o,r •"" '-'"- - "- ---- A Yes ; he wanted to purchase a Int ^ t him to buy that lot and put his name on Zl ™1' /" arrangement with wanted it. Barber found fault a litTlo for It T^' ^"^'"^ '^■'' ^r. Barber Mr. Prit.hard another lot ""'"""^ '^' arrangement and he gav.. Q You struek Mr. Priteha.d. name out and put Mr. Barber, on . Q- And gave-what did you give? A. Another lot further north 40 a: I d^:Jri::r z: '^:::z:zt ^^ - -- -- '- ^ -^ - ^ therJ^ Who ;;:;" Dr. srhJn^i:^::^:;'" "^™^"^' ^^^^^ ^- ^^ -- II- * i I M ' I 11/ i )■ I Mfi 145 A. t don -t remember. I, nay have put it. '4. Perhaps you can tell by looking at it v A. r cannot say positively at present. ' ^ Is that your hand-v,ritinff ? A. It doesn't look like it. Q You see that is writina- tho «tK„ A. I may have done tiil' 17 K "'' """^^^ ' then. th.s one .sjust writt:. I tay'hr:utTtV'r ^"" ''' '" ^""^--^ ^^ Q Now, don't vnn r^ J I, ^ ^ ** °"' ^ cannot sav before in Me.er ll Zj^t:^ ^^Z^''';^!-: ^^ ^^ ---d V ™'«take ? "'« Lordship, that that name was put on 10 A. ^ said it was a mistake, certainly Q. And struck out because it was a mistake v Q- I believe the word " Barber" n» ^ , v ■ A. That is not my writing '' '" 5^°'''' hand-writing, too ^ ■ abou?th!tf • """• ^ '^^'^ ^''^'' ^- ^bout Barber on lot E . What do you say Barber arranged these^ tto lolst """ '"^''^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^-^e on lot D when 20 A. If I wrote it, it would be fnr tu . Q. That is tlinf V. "'",''*^ 'o"^ 'he same reason. A. Yes ""'" "^ ^^"'' *^° '°ts ? A ?heT'r'V'''^"'^^«''^^««-ber? Q. I 'nir bT fC^r/r-^ -^— . they were not. A. No. Q. Then why was hi.s name put upon these lots ^ the ntmes^hr^^^^ '"^"^^^ ^^^'-^^^ ^^- would be the object of putting 30 Q. Why was Barber's name put upon lot B ? ■fi i^or the same reason. Q He intended purchasing 'f A. Yes. ^ ■ Q- You swear to that ' A. From the trustees. 40 A. Yes. >;>^:. 1 i 'i . :|!' ■" it: l:-| i :.■ ■ f i , ¥m ! .! •■ ' is; :Ji..|: It - 1 1 ;; . , '' ;i H^ ' t 1' ilM i 146 A. Certainly in th? C^rmot'ln't yt: °'' ''°''" ""^ ^"^ '-"■ ""» ""»'- "■« -"..H-r lo„ A. There were considerations given Q. Did they buy it from them I ask you. A. I hat would be buying it A In'T»! T^ ^"\^'^ '^'^ *^"y '' f'-^'" the trustees i A. In that way they did. A Rv ^^tl 7\u'^ '^'^'^ ^'^y '' ^••«'" 'he trustees ? A. By deeds tor the consideration mentioned. 7 !il^!^''^ P'^y ^»y ™«"ey to the trustees ? H- inat 1 cannot remember Q. You cannot remember any ca«e in which it was done ? Q. You cannot remember of anv case in whi-.k paid money to the trustees for the ?aVdThey bought ^"'' ''""" '' '^'"^ ''^^^ WelfT ' ""■' "^k'^'° ^^^^""*- ^"^ f--d nobody. '^^ Well, I suppose the way was this — Th.. u ^^ ^ . would be debited in their accounrwifh/rT ?"'' ""^ ^^'''' ^"'"^ lots 20 got from the trustees, thy would bTi^ld^^^^ ''^^ ^^*^' ^^'^^ they ' for certain values; that L in the^^toirwh^ '.,!''"''"'"*'^^'^«'^^"^' distributed they would be charged with fK 1^' ™^"'>' "^^"^^ 'o be for the lots ? ^'^ ^'^^ ^^' *'°°»"t which they agreed to give amoutlto::.""""^^^^ ""''' ''''-' ^"* '^^y -re held for a certain Q. Do you know whether Barber was ever in possession of C. D. E and F 1 He was not in possession ? He never was in possession of C, D, E and F ? ^^ Was he ever in possession of any part of it? the lot in the ,e.r of D, whatever th.,js '" '" P-^'^ion of Q. That would be G ? A. Then my answer is as I stated hnfnr« ♦).„* u C, D, E and F. *''*'' 'h** he was not in possession of Q. Never? A. No. 40 Q. Nor any j)art of it '^ A. No. Q. You never understood that to be the case ? a. 1 knew positively he was not. 10 Q A. A. Q. A. and E i[ ' .. , ;, If r 14V Lord?hii;'dXoT:a;^t"".. W^^^^^^^^ ^'^'^ T -^-^^^ ^^--^^ before His was in pos Jsion of C Vaad E I ^vT ^V^' '''''' ''^ ^«"«^ "P- barber you say that ? ' ^ ^ ^ '*''"'' ""*'^ °»y Patent was issued," did Q.- nr/our/tiv^ ^ ''-^ ''''''' '^ ^^-- o^— I -id u. Q iut'Cu rr™'" Y"'^ -^-^ '^ -. I understood that is right A ItVZ 7 7'"' ""^ '^"^ y"" "'-'^'•^r understood 1 ^ occupationa ar"' havT'"" ""» '"»' "•»" "ta. 1 k-w eha. h.. built i,-J. H. " Q. Built the second log house ? A. Yes. A. He Z ■ Zelt;. "' ''" ''" »"" -''"' " *»' ^' »«« «- there. Q Who else was interested ? A. I do not remember. Q. You knew before ? A. I cannot say I know Campbell was the responsible man ^. Did Campbell ever live in it? *0 A. I cannot say Q. Did Logan live in it? A. I cannot say. Q. Who lived in it ? Q A. Q A. (i 1 f I 1 , 1 i i 1 ■, \ ') I 1 1 ■ ^ 1 i I ■t i 148 n' Uu^^^ ^'°^'^" ''^^'^ '" '* sometime after. Q. When did Logan commence to live in it / In 1870 ^ A. I cannot tell you. Q. In 1873 ? A. It may have been between these two years ? Q. Who was in ,>osses8ion of the place they were putting it up on ^ A. It was an open empty space 5, .u u,. on . bui,:^r^:x;e;;^:::?*°o:^r i8?2? ^'" ' -' ''- '"^^ ''- ^-- -- ^^ ^A. Nobody that I know of This Logan was in a small house, log house. 10 Q. Now. who did you consider to be entitled to lots C. D up to 1872 ' A. Anyone who could make title to it ' ,8^2?- ^" '" " '''' *''"'''^" "^^ ^"'^^-"•^'i -l^o was entitled to C. ]), E, in A. Who was ? Point holders ,„2?- """■ "■"" » "«"' "> C D and E „. f., „ .he trustees c„„ld ,;... i,, i„ A. The Point Douglas holders. Q. When you were examined before did you sav this • " fl«.i \ 1 . to the possession of C D and E so far as the trLrsUuldgiv!" ■'„;':."'''' '' A. Yes, he was one of the holders. ^ ^- Q. Is that true ? A. He had an interest in. Q. Is that statement true ? A. What is that. Q. Barber had a right to the possession of C D and E so far ■,. th. t . could give it? ^^^ "^ '"P trustees A. Yes, that's true, so far as the trustees could give it .h.w ime .0 ,atUfy .he Gove™!,' t ;", ..'aW i" '' '" "■"""■" ™"'^ Q. Is that true that Barber abandoned in 1873 ? A. I am not certain of that. JO a D^E h, ^„„ 0, h. de.i. .0 have .^^ Z ll:^l:f!2;Z^^ A. Thai i. .,ue V -d notin.erfere v Ih each other, no. VJ. inat whole eemence is true? 1 s Mf t' t ! 'i .1 ll Hi^i S i, ll if' ■ i! Ili = i. i !■ I; "i U9 Q. Wh.n did Logan first claim lo"c5 """''^ "'^^ ""^J^^*' A. I Mover knew him to claim it at all. Q- Till after the patent ? A. He made no disturbance thereto ••A«?od^\r:cBXHrt:::c,r.?zr"r - "'t^- -^ *'- Barber movod .way This I ,21 Tr"^,.""" '"" "' """" y«»™ «""' 1872 and 1873 thai Loo-an , l,i„,^ f. , " ''"' ""'" "■»' i « »«» betwooj after Barber K^,' N^w are Tb , \ """"" '"" "•'■°""" " "" •"'fo'e or ..rae? "■ "' ""' »""•""«"" of faol contained in that extract A. I heard so. Q. I say does that extract correctly express the truth ^ ^^ A. Yes, I have heard that it did . .»bject until after the patent .Zed ' ^' """" "^^ » "»"' °" "■« •he V:xxrzT I.:"" t "■ "r'^'°° °'' ^' "■ -^ -" "■ " jr u gui me patent. Just mention who and r.t w>,..t fU .respectively in possession? ^''^ ^^''^ ^^'^^ A. C was in possession of Mr. Logan-William Logan ^^ A We „ . '' ^;; ''*^'^ "^ "°^'^ ^^« «"PP«««d to be on C ^ A. We never supposed he was in possession of that of D H possession ofC, we knew that. ion oi ttiat ot D. He was in Q. Was anyone in possession of D, or any Dart of it ■,♦ th r the patent ? ^ ^ ^ " '" ^"'- <>n»e you got a'ot-l' H "wlr^eXLt Uh°r. J° '"" •"" °'»'- '"■°""-". ' ">'»-• patenf ?''""'°''°"°"' '"'•'■'"'°" "' '^ »' "^ P"' "f » "hen y„„ ,„t the A. I .h,nk no,, ,„ the beat of „.y recolleotio,,, ,t was an open aa it is „„„ *" the ptltT """'°" '" ""'"""°" "' '"' >•' " »"y P"' "f " when ,.„„ ,„. A. No. Jh I- t'l ; t^ ■f, ;. I-, II I p I i ill i' liHIil I it 1:: 1 • i i A. Xo. I think uot. Not that I r«moniher. Q. Was there not a man of the narno of Canmon or «omothi„^ lik. that > ri::rz i^L^^--'^ — ^- ^ - - ^^ aa.e'T™:;nr ^: . Q. When do you Hay you said there wan a «hanty on E or F V A. .here was one McDonald there now c. or r f ^J. At the time the patent was .ranted, well he w.. there prior to th.s A fl'an't tirt'; "!'"'' "" ^ " ' ^^^'•^'^ y- ««^ 'he patent v A. I .annot tell. I do not remember if (here w is a shantv on r, have been a very insignificant thing I don't rememl, r ^ ^' '""^' atth?ttSeV""'^'^' What part of the propert, was he in p,_s.on of A. I never knew him to be in possession of any part. Q. What property did he own then or claim to owa ? A. Well I was told he bought a piece from Mr. Frcman Q. He bought some part of the property there from \f r P-, know what part ? y "leie irom Mr. Frcman, d.. you A. I cannot tell, it is to the south of Logan and F? '^'"'"" ""^"^ "''' '" '^^^^^^^''^ '^''^^ southerly forty feet of lot • shanfy. ^'''' '' "" ^'''"" "'' «« "^ "' P— -- o: C. by his little log feet 0%'a^S 'f1 "" '''"'^™ ^°^^" ^^«' ''^ ^^ - <>* '^e southerly forty A. I cannot tell you that he was in possession of U ^"^ " tha?one wTlilT "'"''' ' '''^'"^''^ declaration in which . ..e words oc.ur • forty feet of lots C and F an7 iX f^fTf 7 *^' ^"*"^' "'" ^^" ««'"horly depth of lot o. Did .ou^y';^Xet::o^tr;^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^'^ Wan was ,n occupation of the said lots lettered C ^ndT^ ' '1 ';:J:!IZ A If the declaration is there I saiH Rn t «t»c, « the property, the whole of it ' ^ "^"^ ''''"''" ^^'^'^^^ ^^S'^" getting Q. (Showing witness document) '^nn A{A rv,»i. i x x , . 40 that effect on the (Uh July 187^' ^'^ "*''' * '^''^^^^'-y declaration to A. Yes. th.. 1!!:™:;:"'°"™''''''°'^-'"'™' """''' ^^ know ,ho „,„,„h.„„ ,. .0 20 ■\m yw'as.;,n...>uZs ■ 'ii j ■ ^^B 1 ■ ; 1 ! ' 1 i 5 1 ( i f { 1 I ■ i :; ■ , 1^ U i M'M':: llk^^ 1 ^H m |^^iii> 151 A. Yes. A. Yos. Q Is that true ? A. If it is there it is true respectively "? ^ trough the said Logan and Barber 10 A. Yes, I said that. Q- Is that statement true > H Where was that ' wbettnul r;" ''^ " °"^ ""« """'"O"" ■••" «' -S - y. I couM no. say tatgiT'*'™ '»'■"' "ft" y°» sot the pate-. p.„ „f .^j. p,„p„,^ a nl Inl'Xy '""»««■»-' "".' we had mad. ^. ine part tHat he was in possession '^ A Not the whole, but what he was occupying then Q. Some forty feet was it not ? *' A. Well, very nearly, 80 Q. That was where the Point Douglas house was ^ to pujew-ti:;rr i:arr?:::z:^^^^^ - ^^-^^ ^-- ^ -eed Q. You agreed to give him nine thousand dollars ^ A. Ihat was the agreement originally, but that was rescinded was ?nad:; '"'''''''' '^^ '^' ^^ ^^^^^-^on, I believe, Tt'iow bargain A. Yes, I wished to take no advantage of him. ^^^^Q. Now after you got the patent, did you also buy from any one part of 40 A. From whom ? Q. A man called Jackson. A. He came tome. ! "! I! f! f wm iililfllllO iSllSSPSr mm ^ ,f 'iii ' ^ I i i, iii ill '\ j;i! (1 / " 1 1 ^ ''" * '! I 152 Q. How much did you buy from him f Q What amount did you give him for that? exactty.' Wdf l^o'Tdn-ftTrv '^^T'^r- ^^^red dollars. I ..ouldn't say you th'e exy:"dateTf'that 'm^s lav; llrin ISsV^r^ '''l ^' ^""^'^"'* "" or 1883. "^"' somewhere m 1881, 1882 M Jr-s"Zj.T "" " """ "" ^"°"' "*« y™ ■"'=*-<> '" -y way „i,., A. I enclosed it in 1880. Q. You said 1882 before V A. Well, I was not certain of that, I think it was about 1880 l««o i , see, well, it was sometime there. I told Mr 1'.!, , l ?' '• """ We talked it from 1881 down. It was noTtilT^ /^ '* '"'''' '" **^*^'- Q. Is that a correct statement . ''' '"'"^ ™"''^^ "'=" '^""- Thest trdai'dVr^mT: "^^ "*'^' ^' ' '^''' '^ ''''■ «"^«^-*-l -«'os„re. stree?c,ri3relo^^^^^^^^^^ "^^J^T T ^^^'" ^^^ ^^- was along Main street? ^ P"' of Gray s cla.m also ? Your f.,uo A. No, that Was not necessary. 10 20 to the in iiiv wi(h Q. Where did your fence commence, now, just tell us ? A. It commenced at the corner of Fonseca and Main and down corner of Fonseca and Austin, and southerly to the exten" oft '/^i' Q. That is, southerly down to the cross street ? A. Along Austin street and then westerly to the Main street A T .u-^I*" ^*^ *^'' ^•'"^^ ^^ ^«'^t before the end of 1880 ? A. I think It was 1880, my lord. ' Q. Did you say in your previous examination " I didn't i..f..rf.r Mercer as to the ninety-two feet until 1882 " ? »'«»«rfere A. I told him about that time the property was mine T ir.l I u hkely, in 1880. and before that the patent had LTd ^ me wfi^T^ """' from 1881 down. It was not till 1882 there was much d^ne ''"•" ' "'"^ ^4 Are these statements correct ^ A. Yes. Q. With the exception of the fence ? A. I didn't say anything about the fence. That should ho m,* «fr i .u . the fence was in 1880. snouia be put ofF. I think Q. When did you first pay taxes upon C. D E and F ' early^'dar"' ^ "''''^ '"'" "'"" *^'' ''"'"'" "*' ^""'^ ^""^'^ ^— »' '^^ - v.ry KO 40 Iff 1:1 it J i ■ h f : i ) •■ , i. ^' F am- : If . ni'iy ( i ; , ' ill r..iisi I ■ i l 1. 153 Q With refereilce to the C, D, E and F? .ad ?, '''■" ' ""' "> I"- - Wea did y„„ a,.t , J;,„,, „^. ^ „ ^ A. Well, the teuants paid taxes. Q When did you pay taxes ? A. It was not necessary for me Q. When did you personally pay taxes on any part of C D E and F . », £s= Si?" - -"— -irr::, ... .. A. I thmk in 1884, may be in 1883. Q. Now, on that examination, did you sav thi« " t ^ m . last year and this year a portion of the tlxes are paM bv\^' '''' "" ^ '"^ ^ cannot tell what taxes I paid myself T do no! ^ ^'^"^'its on account. I 1884 on D and 3 in 1884 No Tp t . not remember paying anything in oft on D and E." Are\re sta'llltstrctT' ''~'''^' *« ^««^ ' l-*<^ -th'ing A. Yes qnalified as I say, they are correct. ^ Qualified by what ? A As to what was paid by the tenants. from ,imel„ time ; „„eti„e. ty^'ia I'^ ZJ"" " ""T'"'™"'" moving. „d.„me putting „n. coLTanTi; rvtar^MrR '" f'l"'"' "■"" some t,„e ; he ha. always paid the tare. LZl^tiof ' ">"" "■" '"»" """•" ^- I am speaking of prior to 1884 ? O Prf Vfl^'u^^'" ^^ *^^^« '" 1««4 and he paid the taxes Q. Prior to 1884 what tenants had you that paid taxes ^ A. They had to pay taxes. Q Who did pay taxeg ? A. Ves. Q. Do you say that ? A. That is to the best of my reooilection .he tl'"a\T,X^' * ''°""'' ""' ^°" ""^ "^ "-"'' "-" "M P»y A. Well, I cannot remember that. Q. It was between 1888 and 1884? A. Oh. you— 10 30 40 i:l -N I l: . I ■ ;:■ i\ 1 1 I! u LI \ i i 154 Q. In April, of 1882 ? A. I do not remember that I Irn tu on the property before Ihal lirao " ' '"«" "»»'"" »1' l«ie, lell ^^^^Q. Do ,„u k„<,„ „H„,.,, .,. .^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ M,„e,„rovi„„.,„ A. I do not believe any one did. Q- You state Mr. Fouspph that ^u ^ with him. was that you ^1^ oTt/rrtlt'hT ^"^"^ ^^ ^»^-^-i". possession of; is that what you say ? *^^ ^^'^ ^^'^^ ^o was i,. A. That was my intention A. Ye8,IgotDr.S.hultztoagree. »i.v, »:• , ^°" ''° *^** examination say • " T tolH T with his lot C "? ^ ^ 'o'd Logan I would not interfere Q. Is that what he states there ? -^O A. Yes. ' "^ Q. Did you say this on that occasim. •< *• made by me in 1883 "? "*" '' f«"«^« ^i-ound C, D, and F, was was Lir'j i'z:^::r '"^""" ^ ^ ^^^^ *^^«' ^^ ™-^ ^-- b.... said if a ,« Q " That is the first improvement I Hi,? t improvement I did, I am sure that thi it~\Z 7\T- *'^^ '^ '^'^ «'«* A Yes' ^''' "^ ''^^' ^ *^*"^ " YoiTdid say that ?' '^P'-^^'emont was Q. And that is true? A. To the best of my recollection -. ' '"" "" ^'"' "'"' °- '-'« «'■ Sabine. «„, „,„ „,, „^ Q. Whemboal. was Barber'. h„„.e, on what 1„, ? Q. On what part of B ? A. I think i, w.,. if I r„n,e„b,, ^ghtiy .he li.„e piee, „n,. :i: « I'l 1. u PI r ' ^ ''1 1 t !'^ l| i- ■! !, ■ I I I \ 1 1 m 1 im i-: fl I Ifit Q. What wa. ,he .ha|« „f ^ Q What Is „„„. „p„„ ih! fcVta .h rp'r."™"'' i" '-'■ A. I do not know. ?• JV* ^^' ;"»i«ki]len House ? A. 1 do not know. I can..«f frequontthe .loon. "^-^ -»-»>- the. na.e« .„,„.,. , ,^ ^^^ Q- There is a building on it ? A. A tavern, yes. Q- In whose possession '^ . Q-^;orkt:ra.,!!,xvr°"^'°*«"^ . ?:?r°'""""""-'<'^'«*b»iMi..,.fwmi.„r.,a„v< n ^""* ^«tween 71 and 72 '■^- Ihis buildinff fbon *k * «outhoitt,tbuildi4? "''^^^^^°»^^«PO'-tiouofthe forty feet is to ,H A. Yes. ^ '^ *° •'^eao Q About how far? f&w:'rj°;iL->:;f,^--'.«.<...a„„. A. Yes. .^.T- -' --• -^ - ^—. a. .. ,„„, ,,^ „, ,„. ^^_^^ A- Yes, SIX feet from it * KrU'tll.''""''"'^' »"''.' iotw... ha.. Q- Do you know how far fh^i i^ u •, , A. Wen between ninety ^Tht' t^^ f"^ ^^""^^ ^^^ ^ <^. I« ihat your signature, Mr Fonse.! 7 !t '^""^' '*'^^« «^a«tly- fron^youtoCoI «enn,s, dated 3rd O^rr'lJs r^^'"? ^'^^'^^^ -'«-"■« "■"• ^"-ward. Log,,. the 1% b JdTngr""""' """' '"" P" »" '^^ '""" ''""-'"■S '« 'ho „orth of ,,o A. Yes. Q. How far to the north ? A. Twenty-four feet. i.iattr, position of the building. H' '1 : I] it' ■f. 1 ','■ la -P !i i li. liii ( • !l 1 5 "? T , '1- KbMHMMMEMaiMMirJMM ! M! m\ ' R u f! 'I ii i' 158 dated^nJh'Nf '' K """I'tf "V '^ '" 'igreomeut between Foas.ca and Schul,. dated 17th November, 1879, and goes iii by consent instead of original. Mr. Ewart (to witness) Q. This is the deed, Mr. Fonseca, which you made to Dr Schnlt^ in pursuance of an agreement, Exhibit 15, dated 24th December, 1879 ?' agreementlsitT*^ ''' ''''' '''' "'^^'^ ^"^ ^^^^ - P-— of that A. Yes. 10 20 Re-examined by Mr. Howell : t F, w?s l^etlt ''"^"'"' ""'■ '^'"'^^ ""^ ^"^'^'^^ '^ ^ ^t'- of ^'. I). I^ and A. Yes. ?■ n'^ l^l ^y^^ ^^^^ *^*' ^*^'^ ^^^»'t ^«^er e, D, E and F '^ A. Didn t find it out till a very long time after. Ci- It covers it in general terms f A. Just to include all the lands which my patent covers. 14. And in the latter description it is apparently left out '^ A. Yes. Q. That was a mistake. Has that been made good since V Q. By other conveyance ? A. Yes. Mr. Ewart objects that this is a question of producing the deed the lots, If the particular description does not cover them all f„ L Z the general words convey the lands. ^ opinion Mr. Howell (to witness) A. I didn't understand Mr. Ewart at that timp tu conveyance. ""^- ^^''^'' was another Q. Is that conveyance registered ? A. Yes. Q. And conveying this C, D, E and F? Mr Ewart objects to this question. .f'll h Ii ■ 1 ! ■ 8; ■. 11' lf)9 Mr. Howell (to witness) A Y^ ^'^ '^^""*'' ^"°*^'' '^""^ '"^ '•eferonce to that agreement ? Q. And it was after you discovered the error in that deed? A. Yes, was ?>,.^'''i ^'- ^'"'''^ '* *•"' "™^ y''" ^°t *^« P^te'^t Of the land in question was there a large quantity of unpatented land near this ? ca.„*p<,x t:if:hau:Upira ""-'•"' ^™'"™' "-'»" «' ■'°"- Mr. Howell (to witness) 10 Q. Did you make any investigation as to what lots were patented '^ A. I knew It from our accounts of the lots. I knew it from the man and from what was occupied and disposed of by the Government and I kepMrack all the To/nt°7l.''"'' f'''-'^^'\Yo^ got your patent-since February, 1879 because- '■ "^^'^ ^"' '""' ^"' "''' '" '^''''' ""'^ "^ *^^' P^^^^^^s, and that is ?: Sr^T^edtd^Xn^ '°^ "^'^^ ^"^ ^^^ ^"" ^^^ -^-^^^ - Poin?Do%l's«tr/'^'''^"^ '^'^ "" ^'^ ^^^^^^^ '^'^ ^^^-^"^ "^y-- A. Yes. Q. Under the acre for acre ord^r ' A. Yes. Q. You got this patent after your patent was got. Do you know whether a large number of other patents were granted or not ? wnethcr A. Yes. Q. To the Point holders ? A. Yes. ^^ Q. Before or after 1879? No answer. Q. In what year ? A. I think it was la 1883. The patent was dated 1883 most^Jterly f"^ *'"' '^'^ '" '""^ """"' ''''"'' '""^ ^-«-™-t gave the Mr. Ewart objects that this is a leading question. Mr. Howell to (witness) did th ■ a ^'■*"""«/*^« P«^^"t« to the Point holders, what lots of the Common 40 did the Government grant to them ? •"•uuu tv !f?i 'i 1!!; M I ' ! ■i fll ft !|r- ' WWm' 1 ■ ; ■ 1 ' 'III 1' .ililH f ' ^mM ■i f SI h -ir « ►!■ J •! ; 3 'I- %• ; 1 \ ■ '}■ ■ ,'■ 'I'' '■ 1 '.'■ \ ]t '» w 'i \- " VI \l: \ '< H U ii V\ ' i '.' $ 1 K 1 i 1 i i 1 • 'A ■ \ f' ' (1 ^ *l l' ^ £ a I \m -a ii 4 ir.1 Mr. Howell to witness ; mulgated? ^'^ y"" ^°°^ ^bout ,ho time it was p/o^ A. Certainly, I had the order sent to me the LllZ ''' ^'^ ^"^'"^ ^^^^^ ^° '^^^ «^ *° ^-*-son I am i"? v..,,,-. 1 1 r I produce then., signed l.y Col. Dennis, marked B. Ex. B objected to being pro.luced an,! read by Mr. Christie and Mr. McCraken Those depositions contain the M-hole testimony given by hin. on that occasion. 1: I If I I I Mm; U ■, i ? r- If ^H ill |w| 11 '■ H n j -1 1 p lii ^H ■ 1 '• 1 ■ 141 w ^^H ;ii i M : H. ! ill ^^^^■j 'P| i " "Iwr ^^^B ^B i' '1 ll iwi wj^uU ' '' 1 IPMB' ^^^^^H ! 1* 1 km f M III ■iiiiii Hfln Hflf'"' 1"^! ll^l ^^^^^^H' lii H i a Jilr ]()G originals. (Objected to as above) *"' ' " ' ^'""''^" ^'''""S "'^I''^** «f At the sairi examination of said L'ol D.^nniu tli« <• ii • Mr. Gormuliy tor i.laintiff Mr (■•!.. . f f *'\%f""',>^^''"S: counsel wore present :- General for Canada' S ^/ho.?; f Lt d ^H "^'"' n"'^ ot}u. tU,n th^ Attorney I have known him for upwanj^oft.,, l^ H ^'""^ ^''TI' ^ '^""^'^^ ^"^'^''t ^^"/; the Interior of Canada ' He was lZJu\ ^ ' ''^' I" ''"''' '" *''° department of under the authority of said^e^xriSt^^^'ClLlcur remb^^i^^ '"^""'""^^ ^"^' I can produce the original depositions sworn to by hi.n on that occasion bei4'^r:.;;::;;.SiJ;^:-^jJf ^^Hstie and Mr. McCraken o.,eet to their whcS's^;Stin™[t tyS'Shr™.^; r- -,?- -'f ^^- ^ -"^-- *^- by Robert Lang. On .svaid exami a i \l o u ^ ''"'' '•'^•'"^'t'""'* are signed Mr. Chri.stie for^efendants Strand Scl.ulu''"'^'' "'''"-"'■'^' '"' ''" l''-"^i« ^..d [Subject to the objection.s.] Mr. Christie cross-examined witness A. H!;S;;:c;'r;i;orL£id wZ;^'^^ "^^ *^'^^" ^"- ^-^ -• ^^ -s taken down by 10 Re-examined by Mr. Gormuliy. Robert Lang's evidence was taken down by me . st"SL?^r itrt"^'- T^-;i-- :z^^-^r -^'- sweS?Hoiran3: '''■ "^'"^'^ "" ^''" ^"•"""^ ^'^^ M''' ^atheson had no right to natiln^-ts's^tr[:;^n^£'\:^n;^-^^^ '^'f'-'^- ^'- ^^^ --i- last mentioned suit. ^'^ Attorney General was not a f.arty to said (Sd.) W. M. Matheson. L Ernest George Pulford called by the Liformant sworn say - 20 30 hou was T know Col. John e (lied on the 7th of 'Vf^L:^Jz tsf'iti^^'' z '''■ ''\ <>';.j'"y 1^85 afhi: o;;;; . the Deputy of the Minister of the "1^,^''"" '" *'"^ ^'^'" ^''''"^'^ "^ Canada (Sd.) E. G. PULFOHD. , ' (• «! i! m ■i 1 , ■ ¥ 167 April 2»th, 188(5. Counsel present Mr. Gorinully, for Attornoy-General, Mr. J. Christie, for defendant, Scliultz, and MacCmken, for P'on.seca. I, Andrew Holland, called by the Informant, being duly sworn, say ;— I am 41 years of age. I knew John Stoughton Dennis. I am a shorthand writer. I took the cvidenee of John Stoughton Dennis, in the certain suit in the Queen's Bench in K([uity wherein Eliza Mercer was plaintitf, and William Gomez Fonseea and John Sehultz and Her Majesty's Attorney-Gene'al for Canada, were defendants, on the 4th of November, 1884. On that occasion Mr. (Jormuily, appeared for the plaintiff, 10 Mr A. J. Chi istie, ai)peared for defendants, Fonseea and Sehultz, and .Mr. Ho-"', for the Attorney-General. °''' (Objected to by Mi'. Christie and Mr. MacCracken, to the reading or proof (jf any papers pu-porting to be proceedings in the suit of Mercer vs. Fonseca. This Exhibit " B," now .shown to me is the oiiginal transcript of my notes of Mr. Dennis' evidence on that occasion, Exhibit " B " contains his sworn testimony on that occasion as swoin to in my presence. By Mr. Christie, Exhibit " B " is a transcript of my notes as dictated by me and was not written by me, but was written from my dictation on a type-writer. It was done as a whole within 3 hours after it was taken, and the witness was not present when it was .70 transcribed. By Mr. Gormnlly, I read Exhibit " B," over the day on which it was tran icribed, It was a correct transcrii>t of my notes. I have no recollection of being sworn on that occasion. I believe Mi\ Dennis is dead. (Signed,) A. Hou..\Nn. April 2!)th. ISSfi. Same Counsel present. I, Alexander MoKinnon Burgess, called by Informant, being duly sworn, say :- ;w I am 35 years of age. I am the Deputy of the Minister of the interior for Canada. I knew John Stoughton Dennis. In 1879, he held the same office a.s I hold now, he held it until December 31st, 1881 1 i ! i 1' I mj )^e^0S^'h'^»V^ftl0S^~- ^.W* -r..- I- 1 ]i il Wt 1 \ '"i ; : i : ;s i IfiS I know Lot "5 Point Douglas Common a great jxn tion of wliieli is now witliin tlie limits of the City of Winnipeg. It was in the old Parisli of St. John. The petition of the Point Douglas holders for a giant to thoni from the Crown of the whole of Point Douglas Common ih now I believe in the City of Winnipeg. It was sent from the Department (>♦" tlie Interior to the (Commissioner of DonTinion l>ancls at Winnipeg, for use in this suit. Thatcluim was disposed of by an order in Council dated 10th May, 1S77, a certiKed eo|iy of which is with the other papers in Winnipeg. I produce the Original of a pefition dated July 2()th, 1^*77, marked E.vhibit " D," from the defendant Kon.seca to the Hon. The Minister of the Interior, claiming a portion of .saiil Lot :ii>. 10 I produce the original of a letter from W. G. Fonseca, was an omcer of tin' Do|!artment of the Intei'ior, a clerk, having charge of business relating to claims under the Manitoba Act. He is not in Ottawa to my knowledge. I do not know where he is. He is not now in the Department. I last saw him about a year ago. He left m a few days leave of absence for Washington, in tho United States, and has never returned to the Depart- ment since. He has been ab.sent now without leave for more than twelve months. The official record now In toie me marked Ex.K. shews tlmt on the :iutli July, 187!), the application of Mrs. Eliza Jane Belch and the application of Alex. J. Belch for 20 certain lands therein mentioned was received in tin,' DejiartMient of the Intoriiu- at Ottawa. That the ai)plication of Mr. Belch had lefereuce to a portion of the lands , in question in this .suit, and that on the 15th ..f August, lcS79, the application of the Belch's and all the papers of record in tho Department having relation thereto were referied to the Inspector of Surveys at Winnipeg lo be dealt with in the usual course. They were not received back until the 18th June, 1S81. Tho usual course was for the Inspector of Surveys to make a report upon the claim. He made no rei)ort ui.on that reference. Except the apjilicaiion by tho B.lch's above referred to, tho records shew that no persons claindng through William Logan or William Logan hims(df had tiled any „^ claim to said Lots C, D., E. and F., nor by Kevv, Stobart .t Co. or persons cluimincr ^^ through them as to Lot F. ° 4:30, adjourned until Friday, May 7th, 1886, at 2 o'ciock. f ; h m ■" "~ ~~~ W" ■I .. n i S ■ 1 ■ ■r L ' h /,'! IJ « lit Hi J n -^ «iS'i W 171 .Tune lOtTi, 1880. CouiisL'l present, Mr. (lonnully f„r the Inforn.ant, Mr. Cluistie, Q. C, lor defen.l- iint Sclniltz, and Mr. McCmken fer defeiulant Fi.nHeca. In answer to Mr. (Jornmlly, Mr. Burgess' examination resui,,,.!. All the .locun.ents that hnv luvn pro.lue,..! l.y „„, ar.. doeu.iients on iveoni in tiie Department of Interi.M- and are pr.Klueed hy me as the .u.stodian thereof. Cross-examine .1 hy Mr. N'oCraken, 1.20 o'cloek. Adjourne.l uu-ll !,.• 7th .. liy at II o'cluek. July 7th, 188fi. Cross-examination of Mr. B.ngcss continued hy Mr. McCracken, on hehalf of d.- 10 tendent Fonseca. No. 1. Were you examined under Commission in the .suit of Meretrv Fonsc.uaan.i the Att()n.ey-(!eneral at Ottawa .m the 4th day of Novemher, ISSi, nn{) whom they claimed having derived title directly through the late Lord Selkirk and " , in the event of this mode of title not having been acknowledged by the Government then that tlie said Trustees might be considered as applying un/ler what was then known as the " Manitoba Act f A. Yes. 1). Was the applicati.m of the said Trustees acknowledged on either one of the above grounds, and if not why not, and when and how was the matter deteruiined by the Government ? A. No; the rea.sons < ,iy are fully ,et forth in t',e Or,Ier-in-Council ,.f the lOth May, 1877, and the memorandum of the Hon(.nrat,le David Mills, Minister of the 80 Interior, of the 7th of the .same month, which forms part of the .said Order Printed copies of the Onler and of the memorandum alluded to are now produce.l marked L and M. The.se I have certified in my official capacity as Deputy Minister of the Literior to be correct. ■ J m l'(' 174 10. Upon what grounds was the application ,>fthe TriLstecH ref.iso.l ^ A. The grounds of the refusal of the application of the T.-ustees are fully set forth ... the memorandun. of the Honourable David Mills of the 7th May, LS77 Ex. m! 11. At the time of the refusal of the application of the sai.l Trustees was it ex- aslansh Lot 12 (he.ng the property of the late Neil MeDonahi) so lon-r as sa"d Lot ^chdnot .te,iere with th. rights of parties ...aking out titll under^ir mI; ntlt^ A. Thomemoranduu.oftheHon.Mr.Millsof the7th May. 1,S77, alluded to in he answer to the ne.xt prece.iing ..ucstion, provides that the hu ds s patent .1 sh^ 10 be bounded next to the river by the rear of the h.t. as originally lail o, t (t ,e o u no tto e held to include any land for which a right to patent might he established under the .Man.toba Act or the Act :58 Vic, Cap. 52, on the sai.l pn-i^rty. in th!i.^*'r ■ 'l " 7''"*^'^""" "^ ^'"^ ^'^'•' 'l''''"^^«- -'^« ••-f'.^ed di,l «o,ne of the Trustees in t -eu UKhvKlualcapac.ty, or did others for whou. they had been actin.. n.ake f e^l .ppl.cat.ons for portions of said Lot No. 35, basin, thei.- rights to patent nn h Government upon the said Act known as the "Manitoba Act r A. Yes. 13. After the determination e the names of all pa: under the Manitoba Act ?:-'rr--^.«-'-»'«;;-|■'-":::^■w;«E;r^^z^x^r A. The tile of papers upon the subject of the claims of the Point Holder, to lands in Pomt Douglas Common, to which 1 have -ilrP'^lv .i ..... i > • "' ""' '^ ^" '^'"'^'■'^ the hie of papers referred to would disclose absolutely who they wL-e. and'tte^^d "^n e ^a " """"'r'' '^■'^ ""'''''' """■ '^"'"' ^^' ««'-l^^- J"'- ^^'^Tavish A. They were. 15. Did John McTavish make application under the Manitoba A.-t for a port, . of the said lot 35, and if so what was the date of his application ^ ' 30 i, \ 176 A. Mr. McTavish did make such application, tlie date of which the papers referred to in tlie answer to question number 13 will disclose. 16. Did the said McTavish pursuant to his said applieiition obtain a patent from tlie Crown for a portion of the said Lot 35 unth December, 187i), for W. J of Lot 13 in Block 3. Lots 11, 13, 14, 1.5, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 on the East side of Austin Street 10 Lots 34, 35, 30, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 4''., and 45 on the West side of Maple Street. ^ Lots 59, 03, 04, 65 and 00 on the East side of Maple Street. Lots 82, 83, 84, 9(\ 91 on the West side of Meade Street. Lots 92 and 93 on the East side of Meade Street. Area : 7 1-3 ac. He also obtained a patent under the said Order-in-Council, patent bearin in Block :^, as shown on the said official map, the streets and highways l.eing also reserved thereout Area '>0 acres ' " On the 24th January, 1880, a patent was issue.l to the Hon. ^Tr. Schultz under the sai(i (Jrder-m-Council for : Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 4. E. A of Lot IG, Lot 15, W. i of L..t 9, VV. I of Lot 14, Lot 15, Lot 18, E. J of Lot 2a, W. J of Lot 8, 4. 3. 11. 10. 10. 9. 8. 20 11. Aria: 8 3-4 acres. the H!u!^ll^s\''',f ■/'''''''"'"'"'"'"■ ''"'•^"'' ^^'-J— ^'-"cil, was i.ssued to the Mon. Air. Schultz, for : E. J of Lot 9 in Block 11. Lot 19, in Block 9. Area : 3-4 of an acre. On the 11th March, 1881, Lots 1 and 2, in Block 3, containing 4-10 of an acre were patented to the Hon. Mr. Schultz, under the said Order-in-Council. u,> the 9th May, 188.3, a patent under the Order-in-Council of the 10th May 1877 was i,:.sued to the Hon. Mr. Schultz, ft)r: •^' '' I I I t I* I Hi If • I ( I 1 1 ■ J 1 1] ' i ill 1 ^'^ 177 Lot. 9 19 (! anil in 17 and 18 8 and 21 20 and 215 24 7 and 10 It On tl... sanu. ,lato, nanM.Jy. ti.e 9th May, lss:{. anoth.r pat, „t na,!..,- th.. Onlor-in- Louncil ot the lOth May, 1H77, vvas issued to Mr. Sehultz, l\,v : Block. Lot. Block. 13 H. IS 27 2S L'l :;i 32 1 34 37 It) 43 U 7 40 48 1 and l; i 4!l 64 l(» and 1': ! .l.S 60 Its (J2 M a 1 .\i'cn ; 4-22 acres 10 Lot. 15 11 and 12 2 12 9 10 2, 8, 9, and l") 1 and Hi 1 Block. 32 34 37 41 47 52 57 63 66 Lot. Block. 23 '.'>:i 8 'Si> 10 .SN 1 and 7 4,-) 18 41) 2 54 24 .")!) 14 t!4 20 Contain.s 3-8 acres. 18. After the deterniination of the application of the Tnustee.s, did E L Buher make a personal application under the Man.toha Act for a portion of .said lot 3.5 and If so pu.-.suant to his .said application did he obtain a patent from the Crown and' if so lor how many acres and off what portion of the said lot ? A E. L. Barber, did make such application, a,., on th. ;: .th March, kS.s;? a imtent wasih^ued tohim under the(»ider-in-Oouneil ofthe ot'. \l.^v IS77 »■ ,. . Lots B and U, Block 14. J- . ■ E. i of Lot 20, and E. i of 21, in Block 4. Area: 1 1-K) acres. A further patent was issued to him on the 4ti, October, 18S3, under the authority of the Order-in-Councii of the 10th May, 1877, for ^f- Block. ' ' Lot. Block. « lyB 2 10 B. 30 I i I '■ I. i ~'\'m -T^^iaU^^K-i.^ 178 S 11 13 4 IS and a « 1 an.l 11 r.i 15 (•,:] 10 It). After the duteiininatidn of tliL' said ai)|>li('nti()n of tilt; snid Tnistecs, did the Hoiiuuralili; Jdlin Hutheilaiul |)er.s()nally make apiilicatinn nnder tlic Manitoha Act f(ir a portion of said Lot S5, and did the Governnicrit pursuant to .said appliration ^'lant him a patent for a portion of said Lot 35, and if .so liow many ai'res vveic included in iiis patent ( A. The Honourable John Sutlierland did make sueli apijjication, and i)atents wero 20 is.sued to hiui under the Order-in-Couneil of tiie lOtii May, 1 A. V'illiani G. Fonseca did make .such application, and a patent for portions of the said lot vfl-s issued to him under the Order-in-Coiuicil of the loth May, l!s77. The area covered by that patent is 17 acres. A further jiatent under tiie said Onlei- wa.s issued to him as the assignee of E. L. Barber for a part of the lot covering 4i acres. A jiattsnt was also issued to him under the said Order for ; Lot. Block. Lot. Block. 1 1 5 8 1, 3, (i, 9 & 10 9 3 & 7 13 8 13 B. 1, 9 & 10 16 B. 2, 4, S & y 17 4 17 B. 6, 7 & 10 22 5 & 10 23 30 li( ii: H 11 11 M ■ li . t 9^ J' I? 179 3 & 10 26 1, 4, 5 & 17 27 3 30 3,5,7,!), 11, 1'2J 7,20 & 23 32 24 33 5 & 7 36 5 & 20 37 4, 11, 17, 10 & 21 26 11. 12 & 22 28 1.5,1(!,17,2(:,22&24. 31 5, 6, 0,11, 12 & 21 in 33 3, 21 & 23 • 39 3 t 10 41 7, 10&22 43 2, 4 ct- 5 46 1, 10, 17& 19 48 1, 2& 4 50 (5,11, 12&22 52 14&21 54 ti, 7& 11 56 5, 7. It) & 21 58 3, 4, 5 & 11 60 13 & 17 62 2, 1(5, 20 & 22 64 2, 3, 6 & 7 34 1, 3, (i fc 10 36 4, ->, 9, 17, 20, 21, 22 &;23 88 11 40 22 & 23 42 (5, 10, 12, lt», 20 44 2, 10 & 10 47 2, 17 & 23 49 9 51 3, & 9 53 1, 3. (5, 10, 12 55 1, (5, 11, 12, U& 17 57 4, 5, 8, 10 & 22 59 4, (5 & 12 01 11, 14 & 20 63 11&12 65 10 20 21. (Jivo tlie dates of tlie patents to the Hon. John Sutherland, E. L. Barber, John McTavi.sli, the defendant \V. G. Fonseca, and Hon. John C. Schultz. A. The date.s of the patents issued to the Hon. John Sutherland are : 12th October, 1882. 19th March, 1883. 9th Apiil, 1883. 18th September, 1883. 12th April, 1884. The dates of the patents issued to E. L. Barber are : 30th March, 1883. 4th October, 1883. The dates of the |)atents issued in favor of John XIcTavish arc : 15 th December, 1879. 12th April, 1883. 8th October, 1883. The dates of the patents i.s8ued to W. (}, Fonseca ate : oth December, 1879. 30 1 \ 1 !i ' 1 i i 1 r » u ■i ■ ^ 1 1 m I- 1 iililinll 180 3()th Marcli, 1883. 28tb September, 1883. The dates of the patents issued to tlic Hon. John C. Schultz are ■ 13th May, 1879. 24tli January, 1880. nth Maich, 1881. » 17th April, 1883. fttii May, 1S83. i)th May, 1883. With reference to the questions 14 to 21, Mr.(;ornmdy objects to same so far as thev ^0 relate to persons other than the defendants herein. 22. What office in the Department of the Intori )r did the late Co! Dennis fill in September, 1878 ? A. Surveyor-General of Dominion Lands. 23. Do you know or do the records of tlie Department sliovv that the .said Col Dennis was in Winnipeg about the month of September, 1878 ? A. I know of my own personal knowledge and the recrds of the Department show that Col. Dennis was in Winnipeg,' in the month .,f September, 1878. 24. Do you know the object of the visit of Ool. Dwinis to Winnipeg at that time VIZ., in September, 1878 ? r. 20 A. I do. His object was to facilitate the transaction of the general business of the Department. 2"). For how many years prior to December, 1870, had the cpie.stiot, of the owner- ship of Point Douglas Common and the varh.us parts of it been before the Department ot the Interior from the Covernment record a.„l had the subject received much atten- Uon from tlie officers of tie Department of the Interior? A. The report of the Honouiable David Mills, of the 7th May, 1877 hereinb.'fore referred to, Exhibit M,, ,.h,.ws, as do the other records of the Department, that these claims were brought to the notice of the Privy Council by th.,> Minister of the Interi..r on the 3rd April, 1874, and they had been before the Department for a considerable time previous to that. The .subject had leceive.l much attention from the officers of ^^ the Department. ,■ I I miAi 181 26. Do you remember seeing William Logan at Ottawa in 187S, or m any time pressing his claims to the lands in question in this cause ; A. I do not. 27. Is there any letter, i)aiK'r or menioianda or any copy of .such shewing that Defendant Fonseca, was required to forward to the Department of the Inteiior a list of persons in occu])ation of the southern Ten chains of saiil lot Thirty-five. A. I can find no trace of any memorandum or copy of memorandum re(iuirinaid survey '. . A. Yes. 20 38. Did John Boskil get a patent from tlie Crown f )r said Lot No. 3, Block E., and if not, why not ? A. Xo patent was issu-'d to him for the lots in i]ae.stion, there being no evidence Hied in the Defiartment establishing liis claim. 39. Was Fonseea wrong in alleging that Boskil was the owner of the said lot in such a way as to entitle Boskil to a patent for said Lot 3 ? Mr. Qormully objects to questions 34 to 39. A. I am not prepared to say that he wa-s wrong, 40. In said statement of 3rd October, ls7>i, is it stated by Fon.seca tbat William Logan is tiie owner of Lots C, D. and E. in Block 14? A. Yes. I, ; , . ,, r- Li: til' :l : B^ !' 'm 30 mm • V r i I iiiiii a 4 1 1 ■ 4L Di,l ^aicl William Lu^mn over obtai,. a pat.nt fn,m tho frown for sai.l Lots C. D. and h. m Block It, and if not, why not ^ A. No patent was issued to Logan for ti.t- lots in .luestion. A. I am not prepared to say tiiat lie was mistaken. 4a In said statement of Fonseca dated the .Sr.l October, 187>S, do yon find that It IS alleged that Thomas Spen,;e was the owner of Lot \o. l'. Block E, in'this survey? A. Yes. 44 Did Spencegeta patent from (Jovernment for said Lot 2, Block K. and if in not, why not ? ' Objected by Mr. GormuUy. A. There being no proof of Spence's claim tiled in the Departu.ent, no patent was issued in his favor for the said lots. 4:.. Was Fonseca mistaken in allegiiur in tho said statement that Spence was tlie owner of Lot 2 in Block E '. ^I'tntt, was A. I am not prepared to say that lie was mistaken. 4(!. How was this statmeent of Fonseca's of the 3nl Oct,.ber, ]87 to who of those inontioned by him wito untitliMl to pati-nts. 49. l.s it the general practice of tlio (^loveriiin'-nt to he tull^' satislifd upon the very best available evidence as to wiiat ought to he doin' in uaL'ii individual casi' iitdore isHuinjj patents for lands ? A. Yos. 50. Was the letter and statenidnt of Foiiseca of the .''rd Oetobci-, IH7S, befoie the orticer»of th l)e|iartnit'nt and the Minister at the time the patent foi' the seventeen acres of the 5th Deciniber, 187!), was made to Fonseca ? A. Ye,s. 10 51. Was the application of the defemlant Fonseca, of th.- 'iGth Jidy, 1877, made nnd^r the Manitoba Act ? (Examine papei-s and answer this (piestioii fnlly). A. Fonsec-a's application sets forth that prior to and on the I. Mil day of July, 1870, he was by himself, and through his servants, tenants, and agents, in actual peaceable possessii)n of a portion of Lit ith July, 1877 ( A. Fonseca obtained a patent under the Order-in-Council of the Iflth May, 1S77, and the De|)aitmental order of the :5rd February, 1879, for an areii of 17 acres. The memorandum of the 3rd Februaiy, 1879, (Exhibit " G ") refers to the claim preferred by Mr. Fonseca, for a grant to him under the Manitolia Act of a certain portion of the P(i nt Douglas Counnon, imt does not allude paiticuiarly to tlie apitlication of the 26th July, uor to any of the other ap|)lications to the same ettect subse(juently made by Mr. Fonseca. 53. Was the claim of Fonseca of the 2()th Jul}-, 1877, approved by the Govern- ^q ment or by the Department of the Interior as shewn by the Onlei-inCouncil of the 3rd February, 1879 ? A. There is no Order-in-Council of the 3rd February, 1879, on this subject. ii^ I I I '^1 H !■'■' IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) & /y {./ ^ .<^ yii i/.A fA 1.0 I.I us KS U Wuu ■ 4 [22 1.8 1.25 1.4 1 6 * 6" ► Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 8-2-4503 V <^ '- "■" '"-" " "■« -' p.-iin« " I do not know any claim to the ,sai(J lots adverse to Hint „ftv,. i .liege that I,„g,„,w» in p„,„i„„'i,.,|„j.„,,s!J ,•""»• '»'»• "' '''« '"= '"«■■=!/ Objected to by Mr. Gorinnlly. ».nc l,a, been ,i„c, „cc„,,i.a ,y hi,,, a,„l th„s„ ollul!;, u"!:! Z '' "'"' "'" ^^ ..^■J;hVit:r;::T4i™if:.Zi;rrt;,:r^^ .pecilically .(ate that it wa, „„ p,.i„r o the 15th J.v rf Julv Z« 1 , ""' tra,.,fe,, f„„he,. evid.„„e „, „cc:,„ti„„ „„ the Ijlr, ,f ty ''At Z tj^l have bee,. „eees.a,,- t„ p,ove a »tiafaet„, title under tl Ma lib . 1 1 T evjenee, hewe.e,-, „., »ti,ract„,y „ .„ „„„,.,„„ ,^ , , ,„£;''.„:^^ ',./'» :i ii' II ■; 11 : liiO HI. Was tbeiippliratiunof tlioHiiiii Hu'lcli ,m til.' 15th Aiij,MiHt, I87;t nf.Tred to th.- [nHi>ect,.rorSiuv.,ysan,.rticeiin th<.. J.)e|iaitmfi.t,t(. l,u.lcalt with in th.« n.Hiinl way and what was the result of tiie reference ? I A.. ItwaHso refern.l, hut the i.apers were ritiirne,! from th.! VViniiipe, without strainj,^ that the posse.ssion wan on and prior to the loth July, 1870, ! e sufficient for the Governm.,.nt to act upon in issuin.' a imtent to the .sai,l Logan or any person claiming through or iiider him, or would 8uch a declaration .m, made hy a party who was in a position t,. know the whole facts not be a good ivason for the Government to refuse to issue a j^atent f ' .,o A. If this .picMhrn has reference to the Issue of patents under the Manitoba Act 1 answer that the declaration did not allege po.ssession on and prior to the lotli July 1870, and would not bo .sufficient evidence for the Government to issue a patent under the said Act, nor on the ..ther hand would the declaration in .piestio,, he a .'ood rea- son for the Government to refuse to issue a patent to Logan, but a declaration so made , by a party who was in a pn.sition to know tl'e whole facts would be a g.,od reason why theGovernrnent should refu.e to issue a patent to any other claimant than Loc^ai. until Logans claim hail been fully investigated. " N't. Does the said Belch in his said application claim also to be entitled to a patent on tor a portion of Lot G. through E L. Barber ? i .lU A. He does. 85. In the said declaration of the defendant Fon.seca on the application of the said Belch, does he, Fon.seca, allege that the .said Barber was in po.s.session of the iiortion of the said Lot G. prior to the ].5th July, 1870 ; that the said Barber and tlio.se claiming under him had before the said loth July and thereafter been continuously in possession 11= ' • m 1 ' ' ■i I 111 ;!,f ' !:; 10 191 of tno saia portion of aaid Lot G. uj) to the time of the application of the said Bcluh ; and in the said declaration of the deiendant Fonseca does he lUc'ke an express ditference in time of coiumencement jf [)ossession between said Lots E. and F. uMder the said William Logan and the j»ortion of Lot G. under the said Barber i Objected to by Mr. Gormully. A. Fonseca's affidavit of the 5th July, 1879, (Exhibit H.) alleges that Barber was in possession of part of Lot lettered G. prior to the loth July, IS7() ; and tiie same lias been since continually resided upon and occupied by liiui and those claiming under him. The affidavit apjioars originally to have cof'<-ained the same statement in legard to Lots 0. and F. and part of L jt G., but the words "jjrior to thu loth July" ai)pear to have been interlineated in the third liii )aragraph 3 of tiie said affidavit, although the said interlineation is not initialed in Liie usual way, and tiiis interlineation docs constitute an express ditt'erence in time of commencemcint of [)ossession between the said Lots C and F. under William Logan, and the portion of Lot G. under Barber. 8(5. .Old said William Logan make an application for a patent for a portion of said ' Lot Number 35, including Lots C, D., E. and F., under the .said Manitoba Act, and what was the date of his .said application ? A. He did make such an application, the date of which is the iOth April, 18.S2. It was received in the Department on the Gth May, hSSlJ. 87. Examine the record on the back of tlio said application of the said Wiiljatn Logan on the books of the Department, and say what was the date upon which the said application was received at Ottawa by the Government or by the Department to *2() which it was directed. A. It was received in the Department on the (!th May, 1882. 88. Li>ok at copy of letter dated lotli September, 1883, addressed to Glass & Glass Winnipeg, and say where tin; original letter may be found. This question and copy of letter objected to by Mr. (Jormnlly. A. I do not know where the original letter is, but the draft i.i among the records of the Department of the Interior, on tile 2172, M. A., which tile ismarked Exhibit K. There is also a press copy of the said letter whicii will be found on folio VJ^ of Letter Book No. 21 of the Department of the Interior for the year 1882. SO 8I>. Was the application of William Logan received at the Department after the 1st of May, 1882, and what land did that a|>plication cover. Did it cover the southern ten chains of said Lot No. 35 ? 'IT 1} ii A. Th e application was received after the 1st May, 1882, and was for a certain por- h Hi ! { w 192 tion of what is now known as " Lot \o. 3.', of tlio Dominion Oovcinincnt Suivcy or Lot No. 241. of the Hudson Bay Company's Survey of tlic Parisli of St. John in the Tounty of Selkirk and Province of Manitoba." Tn paraKrapli 3 of th.; application it is stated that the lands claimed hy Logan may Iw better known and described as fnllows : " Luis C, J), E and F as shown on a ma)) or plan drawn bv Duncan Sinclair, Ks,| Dominion Lands Surveyor in the year ISTO, and re-istored in the Registrv Office in the t.'ounty of Selkirk." f)(>. Was that too late for applications to be received upon which the foun.l claims under tlu; Manitoba Act. ^« A. It was not. The y\ct LSVietoiia, Chapter?, provided that claims un.ler the Mdnr,(.ba Act, .should be barred if not made before the 1st day of May, LS,S_' or if made before tli.- .said day and not proved before the .-nd of six months tlu^reafter • but by the Act 47 Victoria, Chaptered the limitation of time for the Hnal settlement of claims to lands un.ler the Manitoba Act was extended to the Lst May, ISsO. !H. What was the result of the appli.wition of William Logan. Was it found upon investigation to be an invalid claim and for that rea.Mm rejc.aed bv the (.overnment anill,^' pints of lots letters C. F. and 0. in tlie Tity of Wiiuiipog in tlio Pidvinco of Manitdlia, siicli portions buing the soiitlieriy forty fecc of Lots (,'. and F.. iitiil OO feet on Austin Street, by 70 feet in depMi of L(.t 0, being that part not convoy- ed by Barber to Kew. As I iindeistand it, tlie claim of tlie llelator Merrer is for the whole of Lots (I, I)., E. and F., and of course the forty feet claim by Belch is within one hundred feet of the claim of the Relator. 9H. What was the result of the application of the said Belch ? A. Messrs. Archibald and Howell were written to i.y Mr. Lindsay Russell, then Surveyor-General, on the 7th July, 1881, asking th.-m to furnish more complete evi- dence in support of the claim preferred by their client, and that if they cmdd they lo should (loso as speedily as po.ssible. On the l,-)tli July, l^SI, .Messrs. Hough, Andiibald, Howell and Vivian addressed a letter to Mr. Russell, which reache.l the Department oa the :20th of the same month, asking that th(! application of Mr. Belch should be re- turneil to Mr. Whitclier, the Agent of Dominion Lands at VVitniiiieg, to enable them to have the papers inspectrd by Messrs. Aikens, M(mkman & Culver, who drew up the papers, also asking for certified copies of thepajiers filed by Mr. Fon.seca, and his ap- plication on which th'! patent to him was issued. Upon this request no action would appear to have been taken. 99. Wasthi' huid claimed i)y tlie said Belch the same land as is now occupied by one Thomas S. Gray spoken of in this Informati(m ? A. I do not romi'mber the exact description of the laiiil ajiplied foi' by Gray but I will look it lu). 101). Since the month of December, 1879 did the .said Logan make applicati(m for a patent for said Lots C, D., E. and F., and if so when did he make]iisai)plication and how was it disposed of? (Inansweringthisplea.se look at letter from the Depart- ment to Glass & Glass on this subject). Objected to by Mr. Gonnully. A. Logan made ai)plication for a patent for the said lots on the 20th April, 1882, which ap|)lication was received in the Department of the Interior on the 0th May' 1882, but no disposiiion has .so f»r been made of that application. In answering this question I have looked at the letter from the Department to Glass & Glas.s, dated 13th September, ISSS, and hereinbefore alluded to. I repeat that I can discover in the records of the Department no authority for the statement that the claim of Logan to the said lots was not considered to be a valid one. 101. Has the said Eliza Mercer, the Relator her.'in, the said Gray or any other per- son made application to the Goveinment or the Department fir a right to purchase 20 30 I l' ! I i! 195 or a free grant of any part (.f Lots C, I)., E. and F. or any part tliereof because of having been in possession of tlie same or making improvements tliereon ? A. Mercer and Gray have botli made applicati(ms to the Government for patents for these lands claiming thiough Logan. The othei- applications as already stated are trom William Logan and from Belch claiming through Logan. 102. Has there ever lieen a case in the Do|)artmeiit of the Interior where a party making out a clear title under the Manitoba Act has had a patent refused to him by the Government > If .mj give particulars of the case to which you refer. A. There has been no such case t(j my knowledge. 1(>:J. Has tiiere ever been a case where a party has made out a title under the 1() Manitoba Ac,*.— such a title as has been approved by tiie Deputy-Minister of Justice, the Deputy-Minister of the Interior, the Surveyor-General and the Right Honorab' the Minister of the Interior, and yet in tiie face of this that the same land has been patented to anotJKU' who idaims to have gone into possession and made improvements since the I5th of Jidy, IS70, .sbnply because of such possession and improvements ? A. I do not know of such a case. lot. If a party made out such a title inider the Manitoba Act as satisfied the Deputy-Minister of Justice, the Deputy-Mini'^ter of tlh; Interior, the Surveyor-General and the Right Honorable the Mini :ter of the Interior and that they all certified in writing to the same, would it be error, improvidence or fraud to issue a patent to such 20 a person ? A. It w.juld in my opinion be an error or improvidence to i.ssus a patent in such a case to any other pjrson than a person establishing his claim under the Manitoba Act. 105. It a patent were granted under the circumstances mentioned in the last para- graph would it be set asitle in order to give a jjatent of the same land to some other person because that other jjersou claims to have gone into [josse.ssion and made im- provements since the 15th July, 1870? A That I presume is a (piestion for the courts of law, but I do not think it likely that a patent would beset aside for such a purpose. 106. Do you know of your own knowledge that William Logan was not personally 30 in possession or was any one on his behalf in possession of the lands in question on and prior to the 15th day of July, 1870 ? A. What I know personally of this case is what the evidence on the records of the Departnujnt discloses, but I have seen a copy of a judgment of the Chief Justice of I I II ;;! 1 I- ' ,{ ■\ ;| hi I :.*t ^ ! •1 ni ' 1 i I & ' ' ! 1 ti K 1 J ' i 1 ! 1 t i * 1 IOC tlu) Court of Quoon's Bench in Muiitoha in wliidi he dcciiii's in effect that William Logiin w.w not in possession on and [)rior to tin,' 1,'jth iluiy, l.STO, 1()7. Has William L jyan ever told you that ho was not in possession of tht' land in (juestion on and prior to the 15tli July, 1^70 ( A. He has not. 108. How many acres were there in .said Lot 244., or wiiat is now known as Lot 35. Wa.s there over GOO acres .'' A. There were C(»7 acres in that lot. 109. Do you know by the records or otherwise tlu' circumstances under wiiich patents to lands have been granted out of Lot No. ;35 of the Dominion Government 10 Survey or 2 14 of the; Hudson's Bay Company Survey in the Parish of St. Jt)hn in the Pi'ovinco of Manitoba > A. Yes. 110. Do you know by the records or otherwise that the parisli lot holders on Point Douglas originally claimed the whole of said lot, and that they appointed trustees who on behalf of said parish lot holders caused three surveys into town lots of .said lot 244 to be made, and that the said trustees undiT the said .surveys made sales of a (food number of si id lots ? A. Yes. 20 111. Do you know by the records or otherwise that on the loth May, 1877, or about that time the Government came to a formal determination n..i..t D.a.glas, pr.vi.led hs HI «.>! 1 .l..t..rin. nation .'xprcss,.,! that liis sai.l claim of aciv f„r acre shoul-l n,.t int.Tfero with any rights tliiTcaftcr established un.hr the Manitoha Act I A. Yes. _ I V-i. I>.. you know from the roconls or otlicrwisc tluit s , after the said .leterinina- tion the llr.n. .h.hn Si.therhih.l. the .h^fcndant John C. Schult/, .)nl,n McTavish K L IWher an.! defendant W. (i. Funseea, made appiicatin„ to the (iovernn.cpt for portions of the said h.t un.hT the Mm.itoha Act, and that pursuant to tlie s,u I appiioation Krants were nmde to th.Mn of hinds out of the s*ud lot or connnon. and nv e there any vahd claims un.hT the Manitoba Act made to parts of tl,e said common .vW-vh were rejected by tlie (Government :* _ A. As [ iiave ah-eady stated, the lands claimed by the several persons a.-ntioned in U:is.p.estion were granted to them under the Order-in-Council of the . 0th May h//. Nj. valid claims to any part ..f the sai.l I>..int D.a.glas (•,anm..n u .der thJ Muntoba Act were rejeete.l. 114. l)<.y.iukn.nvof yourown knowle.lge ..r fr.,m th.. r.ror.ls that all th.- said eoHunon was increased in value because of th.. acti..n of the sai.l trust..es in , aking th.. sai.l surveys an.! laying ....t streets and selling lots th..re..n, an.l that the (J-vern- ment in consideration of this agreed to h..nor, r..c..gni.,. an.l make vali.l by pat ut uU lots sohl by the said trustees, an.l .li.l the (;ov..inm,.nt .1.. so / A. The ()i'.ler-in-Council of the lOth May, 1877, un.ler th.. auth..ritv ..f whic the claims of the F.m.t hol.h.rs was disposed of, does n..t n.enti,.,, any ii.cre',.s,. of vnl - of the iHii.ls composu.g the Common because of th.. action of the tn.stcs in making -ui- veys an.i laying ..nt streets an.l selling lots, as on., of th.. r..as.a,s why the Cvernn nt recognizc.l any chum on the part of the Point h.il.l.rs. 115. Do you know or can v.ai t..ll fr.,m th.. records if the (;ov..rnment reco.mi. d "M.I n.a.l.^ vali.l by pat..nt all ^ ..Is ma.le by tho.se claiming under the Manitoba Act prwr to the issue of the patents to them un.ler the .sai.l Act ? A. Yes, the Oovernim.nt r..c.«niz..d an.l ma.le vali.I by patent all dee.ls nmde by tlie trustees of th.. Point hol.lers prior to tlie issue of th... patents to the Point holders; but as 1 hav.. alrea.ly ...xplaine.l, the statement of fact contained in this <|Uest,on IS inaccurate, inasmuch as tl... lau.ls .lee.le.l by the trustees to persons other 30 tlian th.KSe recognized as Point hol.lers were not lan.ls occupic.l at the time of the transfer, an.i (vere not therefore either claimed or granto.l under the Manitoba Act. J 10. ])o you know or can you tell from the record it . the consent of all parties 20 ! .11 U f i: I ji I i- * 'f !■ I..J1 or otiienviso till' (idvcrniiu'iit granted to tlu' ruiiailiaii Pacific Railway roinpaiiy a very large tract of the said Cianiiiuii, to wit, almiit :i()() acres of the same ? A. The (Jovernineiit of Canada granted aliout 2^0 acres of Point Douglas Coiinnon to the Canadian P..citic Railway < 'ompany for the purposes of station grounds as already stated, iiut without asking or receiving the consent of anyliody, the land lie- ing Government property, and at the disposal of the (ioveriuiieMt for such purposes as they might think proper under tiie laws and regulation passed from tiuie to time on that hehalf. 117. n () you know or can vou tell frc om the records if any p(H-tion of the said Lot or Common was ever granted to any other person in any other way or upon aiiv otlier 10 terms than what an way nunerated in tlw fori ? (plestloiis if so \\\ wlia t oth A. As already stated, grants have heeii made to the \Vinui[ieg ( ieneral Hosi)ital of Lots 17, 1«, 19 and 20 in Block :iS, and to the Corporation of the City of Wiuni-" peg for Quarantine Hosi)ital purposes, of lots 1 to 12 (inclusive) and 2t to :U (inclus- ive) in Block 7N on Point Dounlas Com the f ornier in consideration of a of §5,0(M» made to the Covernment, ami the latter as a free iiift payi 1 IS, ')() you kunw or can you t(dl from the records that the defendant Fonseca at tile time of the said determination, viz., on the 10th May, 1.S77, was in possession of a portion of the Conmion ten chains in extent from north to south immediately west of 20 the said Neil McDonald's lot, and that the reservation aliout the Manitoha Act in the said determination when referring to the McDonald lot w IS made w ith I'nce t ) the F hol.l iniX, iK'caust he, !'■ express n f. onseca, clauiieil ten chains wide west of tin McDonald lot out the full depth of .said C A. Tl le records show that Fonseca was at ti tun e nieulioneil HI (los.se.ssion )f l)ortion of tlie common ten chains in extent from north to south inunediately west of the saiil Neil Mid )onald's 1 it, hut the record does not slmw that the reservation re- ferred to in the s:ud determination was made with express reference to the Fonseca lioldiug, nor do I know of my own knowledge that such was the ease. 11!). Do you know from the records or othi'iwise that the defendant Fon seca 1 make application umler the Manitolia .Act for a patent foi- tlie .said ten chains, d if .so, what was tlu^ deterniinati i * Hii 1 1 \ 1 i! ML, 1 i 1 201 Lojan or those claiming under him to aial Logan, for lots C, 1) and E, in Block 14, and say if in your opinion because of these remarks of Fonseca, it proved' any title to exist in Logan or those claiming under him, or if because of these remarks of Fonseca, the Government was precluded from making a deed of these lots (if it owned them) to Fonseca, or was Fonseca, barred from receiving them from the Government as he afterwards did. Objected to by Mr. Gormiilly, as letter speaks for itself A. in my opinion the remarks of Fonseca, alluded to do not prove any title to 20 exist 111 Logan or those claiming under him, but in the face of these remarks I think the Government should have not have patented to Fon.seca, the lots to which the remarks applied under the decision of the 3rd of February, 1S79, (Exhibit G) nor do I think the Government would have gianted the patents for these lots to Fonseca except in err.jr. As to whether or not Fonseca, was barred from receiving' them froni the Government as he afterwards did, 1 presume that to be a question ot° law but I have no hesitation m .saying that I think he should not liMVr done .so. 131. Has Logan or those claiming under him ever up to the present time shown any title whatever to lots C, D and E, named in the said statement of the 3rd October, 1878, or to C, D, E and F, now claimed by the present Information. ' 30 A If I understand this question correctly, neither Logan, nor those claimin.. under him have shown any absolute title, but if the expression "any title whatever" is considered to include an equitable right to obtain a patent upon conditions to be namedbythcMinisterofthelnterior,! think the evidence produced bx Luran has established such a riirht. ° ' 132. Do you know that said lots D an.l E, claimed by the relator herein were wholly without buildings, fences, or other improvements and were in fact in a state of i I ' I nf |i: ■'fi i=; J ! I' Hil: ■! ■ g Ij ; I i II ■^ili 1 J ^lli ■■■ LJiil 202 nature until after December, 1879, wlien tlie putent was made to tlie dufenJant Fiiiiseca. A. I do not. The affidavit of John Eccles, of the 2!ttli April, 1882, made in mipport of Logan's claim states distinctly that •' some time in the autumn of 186!>, William Logan, purchased building material and logs for the erection of a house and hauled the same upon the said premises, and afterwards ii» the Spring of 1870, erected a house upon the said property and resided thereon, and has continued to reside thereon, ever since in quiet and undisturbed po.sse.-sion." A similar statement is made in the affidavit made by r)ne Henri Coutu. in the same connection on tiie 29th April, 1882 ; and Logan himself makes the statement ii. clause G of his atlidavit of application also 10 dated 29th April, 1882, 133. If the defendant Fon.seca, knew of his own personal knowledge that Logan '] • M i Li 1 M.'iMta^-^iivim^i^'isamxit^'i^ 203 _ A. TluT.. is a cv.tiHcl cpy „f tl..- ..vi,|..nn. oivm hy Cnl, I),.,n,is I„.fo.v the Toni- nnssum appo,„t,..l l.y tl,o ('„urt of Q.nu.n's U.uvh ,.f Manitoha t.. tak. ,.vi,le„c. in tho cas.. .,f M.m.r vvrsus h.n.s..c.a. in wi.id, In. statos .listinctly tl.at it was Lis intontion an.H,},e n.t..nt„.n .,t tlH, Mnnstor uf tl... Fnt..,i,.r that tl,.. la.nl to 1... ^r,.ante.l to Mr. Funseca n, t us eas. otl...,- tlmn Lis actual .ndusums siuml,! l.o lan.l ....itL.T oocupic.l nor danm.,1 l.y any other person. There is also a record of tho fact that other lots cla.n.e, l,y v.rtne of oocnpation snl.se,,nent t, he transfer whieh were incln.le.l in the patent o Mr. I-onseea w.-re so iMelu.le.l through error, an.l in the.se ca.s,.s steps were aken by the Departn.ent to obtain fron, Mr. Fon,se<.a, an.l the Departn.ent .ii,l obtain from hnn, a eonveyancv to the oeeupants of the lots so erroneously patented to hi„. 1„ an.l 1... was gnu.te. other l..ts in lieu ..f the .san.e, the h.ts s.. cnvvy." bein. L.,t 2 in Bl.,ek 12 lots 7 an. tl.- E. half of lot « in Bl.,ek 11. the W. half ..f lot 4 in Block 12 lots 1 an.l 2 m Bl.)ek B, an.l lot 4 in Block E. ' m. U'lmt evidence is there at the pr..sent tinu. before the (Jovernn.ent that bts (,.. J . an,( h Ivn.jr the l.,ts na.n.-.l n, Fon.secas letter of 3r,l Oct.)ber. 1878, were after- war.ls^plaee.1 „. Ins patent of 5th I)..een>b,.r, 187!), thr.a.gh en.n-, in.providence or queftiords^r*""'"* """'" '" '""''"'■ '" '*'' '"''' ^^'''""""^ 'l"^'^*'"" ^^■'" "f'P'>- ^" ^''i« las. Has the sai.l L.>gan-or any per.son clain.injr un,l..r bin, ..veruj, to the pr..sent '>0 tnne shown that he or they are entitled to the sai.l lots or any on.. .,f then, by vi ue of the Manitoba Act l.y purchas.. fr..n. the said trustees or in any otlu.- way what^ ever, and li s.., give full explanati.m i' i ^^imi titl "^l" ,^';';^'^;''; ^"fe""' ."'^'- *•'««« «»•"•"">« »»<1^''- l^im have shown that he or they are en- ttel^oft. ^-'m "'••'>' 1--'"- ^-n. the lusteesof he Point ho]d..rs but as actual .occupants of the lots an.l Jiavincr built upon them since the ,Iate ., the transfer, the evi.U.nce which they have filed w.,uM a peL' to give them an e.pntable clai... t., the first right of purcha.se. 13a Has the Department by an ..fficial letter to Glass & Gla.ss of Winnipeg stated hat the rea.son the claim of Logan t., the lots in .juestion was reiecte.l wL because ;;: s:: :z^Tu '^ '' ^" "^''^'' --^^ ^"" ^^ - i^-^^- ?-•"- -> -^ -^ the letter so that the examiner may give the substai.c.. in your answer > Objected to by Mr. Gormully. A. The stateinent in the letter to Messrs. Glass & Glass referred to in this question hogan to the said lots was not considered to b'j a valid one. i 5:Mii I I I , I 1 I t r 1 1 : ' H C '( !' I 304 pl.imt.fr H«,un.st to„se-a .u„l Uu- Attorney (Joncml ,l..f..n,l,u.ts, that a ,U.n: has h,...„ .na.lo w, h costs u. tho Court of Q„o..„s H..,.,.h of Manitoha l,v th- Chief Justice of ho s.,l that the said Lo«an an.l those cla.unnK ur.d.r hin. had no valid ,.lai,n .n.der the Manitoba Act? Olijectod to Iiy Mr. (Jonmilly. A. I have seen a eertified copy of the >ai.l deereo. 141 Is it true, as stated in tho said evidence or deposition of the said Col, Dennis ha at ins n.s ance Mr. Lang upon, ng l,aek fr.an Winnipeg nmde lists of the ,„ lands that should go to Schult.. Sutherland, Kon.seea and other^/ '"""'' '^' "" '" Objected to unless tho evi.lence of these persons is put in. h.u.t oJZu:;:'"""" ''^ """ •' ''- «taten.entalthough I an. notable to lay ^y 142. If it is t.-ue that the -.lator now al>a..dons any p.vten.e that Willian. Lo.mn was .n po.sse.ss.on on an. p.-ior to the 15tl. July, 1870, or that Loga.. ever purchased that the patent to Ka.seca was not i.s.sued th.^ough er..,.., i.npn.vidence or fraud ? A. In .ny opinion it is not. 143. Look at the depo.sitions taken in the ease of Me.ver tho Relator plaintiff •^'O agan..st Fo,..secaa,..l theAttorney-(ieneral defendants.and say if y..u Mr. Ale.xanll -r M K.nno,, Bu,-gess was r.ght in .saying then that ''under the Manitoba Act wo were bound t.> respect the rights of all parties in po.sse.ssion on and prior to the 15th Ju ly veryhuKet?" "" ''^'"""'^"•' ^•'''^' ^'^ "^"-'^ "^ t'-e Departn.ent had grown A. Ho was right in saying .so. 144. If the late Col. Dennis sai.l on tho 4th December, LSS4, in his said deposition taken .n the case of Mercer v. Fonseca and tho Attorney General that " the great care ofthoDopartnK.ntwasnottogrant lan.l out of said Common to any peLns but hose show„.g good titles umler the Manit<,ba Act, or who were entitled to patents .o because of sales n.a. o by tho trustee, to then, or by parties entitle.l u..dor the Ma.ntoba Act, or m the case of acre fo.^ aero to the Point holders," was he in vour judgniont correct in that statement an.l if not why not ? Objecte.l to by Mr. Gortnully. it I'd 5. '.I !l 3 I ' II f I i m m I tin ' I M S i , : i , V. : li J) i ^•"ff-rrr 20.) A. 1,1 ,ny i,„]g„u.nt Col. Dennis was right in saying that that was tho gr-at caro f.r the Department. 145. What was the reason for the .leky of .six or .seven years in n.aking the patents to parties tor their respective riglits tohuuls on the .sai,l Conunun ^ Was it ' tor the purpose of getting in all manner of outstan.ling elaims, an,l w..re nuhlic notu^es given .n the papers an.l hy eircular an,l all other possihl,. inforn.ation -nven at Winnipeg, in order to get in the.se claims an.l to avoid the chance of nwikin^^ title to any person not having valid claims in one or other of the forms ahoy, nunu.mted ? A. The principal mison for the delay of six or seven years in issuing patents to the clainuuits ot Pomt Douglas Common was that the Government refus.^1 ahsoUitelv m tor a long time to recognize their claims. At tho same tim,. every ivasonal.le e.ioi^ was ...adeo have claims of every description placed before the Departnn.nt so that tiiey might he investigated and decided upon. 14(i. Was all this time exhausted and trouble and expense gone to in onler to avoid making patents to any per.son upon such a claim as is now .set ui) in tie Infor ination at the instance of the Relator in this cause ? " A. The tiu.e was principally exhausted because as stated in the answer to the next pi-ecedmg .piestion the Covernnient refused for a long period to recognize the claim of thelointhol.lers. I he proportion of trouble and expen.se gone to in order to av,.,d making patents to any person upon such a clai.n as is now set up in the Infor- 20 .nation a tae instance of the R. latur in this case was comparatively small ; althou-di the trouble and exp«.se gone to for the purpo.ses named in relation to lands clain.^d generally under the Manitoba Act was very great. 147. After the 3rd February, 1871), when the 2, acres were agreed to be granted to the detendant l' the Manitoba Act^, ho. 01 those claiming under him, would have been entitled to a patent for the said i I I .1 r I ' lU tUii ' ' i r»i • t 4 i1 M III fill 208 158 Do you know of your own knowlcdcro ,„■ from the records tl.at notwitl.staml- mg the letter an.J statement of Fonseca of tlie 3nl October, IS?.*^ the officers of the Department were fully aware from other infor.nath.n that Loj^an ,in,l those clainnn9. When the selection of the said 17 a^Tes was nrid,- for Fonseca, had the De- lo partment before it the Registrar's abstract i'n,m the K..gistr;y ,.ffiee of the City of Win- nipeg, upon which the Lots G, D., E, and F. appeared, and other like information of a documentary kind, together with other nee.lful evidence which was hroucrht before the Deputy-Minister of the Interior, the Surveyor-CJeueral, atul the Deputy-Minister of Justice, to establish that Logan or those claiming under him had no title under the Manitoba Act or in any other way whereby the Department would be justiHed in mak- ing a patent to him or them as against the lightful claimants to the said Common or- the respective parts tiiereof ? A. At the time the patent was issued t.. Fonseca copies of the Registrar's Abstracts were in the possession of the Department, aud au ex iminatloa shows that the Lots C 20 D E. and F. appeared therein ; but there is nothb.g to show that this abstract or other like information of a documentary kind, or any inlonnition ofanv kind re-ardin-the claim of L.gau, wr.s brought before the Deputy-Minister ..f the Interior, the'survryor- General and the Deputy-Minister of Justice at that time. July 1.3th, 1886. Present :-Mr. Gormully, for the Attorney-General, Mr. MacTavish, for Defendant Fon,seca and Me. J. Christie, for Defendant Scliiiltz. Cross-Examination of Mr. A. M. Burgess, continued by Mr. MacTavish. In answer to question :m, I say in explanation that I am not prepared to say whether if Spence, was the owner or not of the lots th rein referred to. I was not asked by said question whether Spence, had a good claim or not, but whether he was the owner, I make a similar explanation to my answers to ipiestions 39, 42 and 4.5. ;}0 H f i ! . 1 i^ i ^ 1 i 1 ; 1 1 ( " ' 1 I! 'II ^1 H; I ' ■ ll •: -3 m ii., I ^ , . ll v'Tllt M.L ill ^^^^^B|! t 1 ■!■ ^^^H ■i V ^^H' 1 H^ 1 H 1 , u' ill L'O'.I CVoss-Examinationof Mr, A. M. l!iu;,a'.s.s, l,y Mr, Cliri.stie. i!'!"v?!!!!T!".':l'?."'^, "l""';"'. '" I"-"^^'"" -f '^"ffi'-i-'-t evi,lonce to entitle iiMi liiTeiu oil piiviii"- >i' tlio land such 10 Elizii Morcer, to a patunt to tlui lands in (|ii price M may bo tixed tlierotbr by the Mini.ster ot'di,. Inteiidr Ti.e department has not de,.-idod upon that, th,.y have eon.e to no eonclusion and can come to none until the fjue.stion in this suit is deci.led. If the patent in this suit .s set as.de the Government have decided to isM.e a patent to the said lands to Eliza Mercer. Th.s decision appears in a niomorandn,,, mad. by me and approved of by Sir David MacPherson, the Minister of the Interior, dated May l(Jth, 1885. Re-Examined by Mr. Gormully. The land granted to Fonsoca, un.ler the .•i.tluuity of the Departmental order of the .irdtebniary, 1879. Exhibit (}, .-as not ..anted under the Manitoba Act, but was granted as appears in .«aid Exhibit (!. Objected to by Mr. Christie. Mr. Fonseca, would have been entitle.l to his aetual enclosures only under the Manitoba Act, which enclosures would n.,t include the lands in ,piestion in this suit. ' The land, referred to in .piestions 14 to 21 in Mr MacTavish's cross-examination were granted to the persons theiein named, under the Order-in-Council of 10th May' ISm, and not under the Manitoba Act. (Objected to.) The patent for lands .a-antcd under the Manitoba Act, are and have always been i.ssued on a special form of patent -^O a copy of which is now produced marked Exhibit O. In explanation ,.f answer to cro.ss-(,uestion oO, what I mean is that letter was on the hies and might have been referred to. I do not as a fact km.w whether or not it was at that time referred to. The A. Ru.ssell, referred to in cro.ss-question .18. was a chief clerk in the Department or tlie Interior. The statement referred to in the letter of John R. Hall, mentioned in cro.ss-question Jl, that the claim of Logan, to lots C, I), E and F, was not consi.lered .to be a valid , 134, 13.1, 1,2, 1,53, an.l the answers thereto, were objected to on behalf of Defendant Schuitz. Answer to question 130 was ol.jecte.l to on behalf of Informant and ruled out. Questions 147, 140 and 157 were objected to on behalf of Defendant Schultz. Question U8 was objected to on b.d.alf of both Defendants. Coun-iel for Fonseca objected to the witness giving his opinions, on p. 20!) upon cross-exnmination by Counsel for Defendant Schultz. 10 It' I i i; I ; ^ S \ t :t( DEPOSITIONS OF J. S. DEiNNlS, TAKEN IN SIHT Ol' Mmm \\ I.-ONSHCA, AND I'l T IN liV TIIK INIi il!.\l ANT Deposition of Jolin Stoujrl,t,.ii Dnmis tak.'.i in tliis p,isc in pursuaiifc of tii.' onler nm.lo liorcin ,iat. (See Kxldbit 1) ) A. Yes. Q. What did the Government do in connection with that petition >. A. I went into the clain. of Mr. F,.nseea, an.l reported that in n.y opinion he was not entitled to that land. At the .same time he had an e,nitable claim to certain «. :::r ;:r ^fZ t::r' ' ''- ^^""- -' ' —^^^ ^'- ^- ^--^^ •'- >^ Q. As I understan.l it you went up to Winnipeg and saw him there, di.l you not ^ 20 A. I saw him there. Q. And you discussed the matter with him there ? A. I did. Q. Did you go over the land with him i A. I went over part of it. Q. Do you recollect from lo6king at the letter of the 3rd of October 1,S7S written mere ^Hixiubit a.) ( (Same as Exhibit E.) A I think it i.s probable that] a.^ed him to send me a full statement of every iKuly that had a claim to that piece oi lan.I, an.l I think, probably, this letter was he .„ result. No .loubt I asked Mr. Fonseca for this in order t put n y.self in a posZu U, ■| t ' I* ' m. 1 \X i u . , if . !! , ,|ij 1 ! pn ' i * |l 1 ; 1 I i 10 213 know really what Cn.wn lan.Is w. ha,l availaMo tl..... of tho portion that Mr. Fonseca Q. The schedule to that letter is nnniher 15,;!1(), is it not > A, Yes. Q. And it shows what (* A. It shows that lots C. D and l<: out nf W ." i? • i ■ nrm.^loo ri^ I 11- ^-^ ^^ '">">-■. "nt ot W. u. I'onspwiselann on the Point Douglas Con.inon had been disposed of to Wiljian. Loyan. Q^ ()n the .Srd of February, I,S7(. did you ...ncur in a report or a n.en.orandum to A. Y., , i as a party to that report. Q. You recomn.ended that Fon.seea's elain. to this part of lot 8.5 should he settled ? A. Should be comniuted by a grant of 2r) a.;res, Q. As provided by this memorandum of the .Sr.l of Febrnnrv isYo i 12,472? Exhibit D. (Same as Ex. (}.) *'*'"t I'tibiuai^, 1879, number A. Yes. Q. In this memorandum there is no definite p,„tion of the lot -dvon ^ A. No. Q. That had to be done subsequently i A Before doing that it was necessary that we shouM look into It and see what 20 portions we would except. ^ Q. And it was put in that form on that account ? A. It was put into that form to show that nndor nil ti, > • Q. Tho 160 acres that he asks for ? A. No. And we proposed to commute his claim by giving him 25 acres of «.,.h land as was available at the easterly end of the blockf tL i,s\h::nd neTt wherl he ■1^ I. .h I i 'i ■ 214 Q. When was tl.is selection mado ? A. That is more thnn I can tell you The wliol,. of P ,;.,^ n i r, l)r. Schultz, came about t one time ami M. ^..h i i ^ u. .1 k pt.uuii^. ir„. ^1 ,. unit, anu Ml. .Sutherland another t nie nml \Ir Fonsecaanothertime, and they worried lis •.11 H». , in, a 1 ume, ana Mi. tTJ ,„, Z!; n , "■' "'^V"^"^*'^''- "oi'-^i-" al,o,it it. The exact time that we ri^er and if^ ' r '" ^ *;■ '" '"^■'■^^'^-t" <'-l'"t-I claims generallv alon. the i/iit/ jromi ij(Hl(;ia:i Loiuiiioii iij.ittcr 'in f,. ....f i,; w- ^ . . 1" K.fl.^n . . "''^"""'•"'f'M"i^''ii'is..|f into a position to make a reoort I ti^Tli^dXT ^V'^'^^ -f ;-">• - >"^'> --lahle there ; what lands CZ: cZlckwa !•''"'.". •■'"-''i«--'t claims. It stiikes me that after he rtll ^h^h K " ;"'' *f "-"-•' '^^'"y i-^-ice, and made a list of the irtont /','"'''''■''''"' ''''^'■^'''•''''' '•^" «'"l'cHaad, those that shouhl Q. And in pursuance of his selection you directed the patents to issue i A. I think so. Q. Did you know at the time that you directed that patent to i.s.sue that vou were on patenting away the lots C, D and E ! ' -** thatlmtlnl' w rr" "'f T" "' TTr '"'■""' authorising the issue of the patent that hat patent was to include any lands that the (Jovernmcnt had not the vMi to ..ant because that was the very thing we were trying to steer clear of ^ ' Q Did you remember when you approved of the selection of lots that Mr Lane had made, that Mr. I onseca had admitted in hi. letter thatC, I) and. K. were Logan's lot! T A. Certainly not. Q. You did not remember that at the time ? wertto'iot'H'' Tfr ^f ''*'''-^ "' *'" """^'"^ "'' ''^ ''''' -''-^"^« "^ *'- '-^-'^ that :^^^ t^tT "^"'^" ' '"' ^" ''' ''-'-' -'-'^'y *" ''^- ^-^- - ■- - ,0 Q. If it had been brought under your notice at that time that this list of 1 f f ■I M:; ! -v^^irjCUiiWI] 215 ^^^ A. Certainly not. Not for a inon.ent, because it wo„l,i Ikvn-c heen manifestly ntend- ^''^^ ^ "" '''' ""' ""' ^ '"''""'' "^ '"'"'^ ''""■"''' ''"' ^'" f'"^"''""'<^^"t di,l not Objected to by Mr. Chi istie. Q. It was not the intention of tl,ea.vein,n...tto give Mr. Fonseea, land, that other persons had a clann to ? A. Certainly not, and lan.ls tliat he adiniiterl bMon-re,! to other people. Q. And you certainly would not l,,ne disposed nf L.gan's clain, without inve.sti- gation ? , ^ A. Most certainly not. It is all n.sv to ,ne. I did not know that this point woul.l have come np at all; I though it was all straight 1 ,|id not know there was any d.fhculty about ,t. This is the ti'rst I h.ve heard of any lands being included in.pro- perl • m 1< oaseca s patent. I an, predicating n.y i.lea of tiie in.propriety on Fonseca's letter. Q. I will read you this letter:— The T'ntu's I'rinting Office, Main Street, Winnipeg, opposite City Hull, Winniiieg, May 22nd, ls7!). "Mr Bannatynetoldmetheotherdaythatinac,.nver.sation with you ho plainly .stated that had I not been ahead of hin, in surveys, staking, and i.nproven.ents, he would ^0 have persisted m demanding a patent for that portion of ;!.> I now occupy, and that you " agreed with him that I was entitled to n.y patent. I also uu lerstood you when reterence was n.ade to the subject .luring our drive. Of course I do not wish to interfere w.th those who have settled on certain portions of my claiu.. but e.xpect to have that made good. • In that letter he refers to the per-ons who were nnmcl in the letter of the :M of October, 1H7H. A. There were certain portions of the lan.ls that he a.lmitted, au.l that 1h> p.,i„t,..l out to me when we were on the groun.l together, that hu.l been taken up an, 1 settle. I uponanddisposedof outof this ICO acres that he claimed; but the 25 acres was ;iO mtende, to be ui.lependant of that. He was to have 25 acres, an.l those portions were to be deducte.l, and those people who owned those pieces were to be protected iu their possession. Q. That is, those persons name.l in the letter of October, 1878 ? A. Yes. J!' < 1^ i% ': tt ::,j \\l u '■I 21(5 nienfc A. I.unnutawa,..whatd..ci.sio„s,nay l,av..|,....,M.,u,k. sinc-e I l.ft the Depart- Q. But before the issue of tlie patents f A. No, it was not prejudiced in any way. Q. It was intended to lie i)rejudieed ' A. No, no good claim was intended to l,e jiivjudieed. Q. I believe that the practice of the Depurtn.ent has always been uniforn, has it not that a patent would not be .ssued covennj,' the property in possession of another 10 person without ,lue n.vest.jration by the Departn.ent, and noti.v to that person ? A. It is a very delicate thing to do. The practice has alwavs been laid down not to issue a patent as long as theiv was anything in dispute. Q. Sothat had you known that Logan claimed this land simplv, the patent would not have issued until you had dispo.sed of Logan's claim f A. No, it would not. Q. Not knowingly ;* A. It would not. o.«Llrjrv:r;,:::;,T'''"''' '"" -'" '-' ■ '- ""--■» ^'™'«-^^'" •20 A. That I cannot say. Objected toby Mr. Christie. Q. In dealing with the claims of p,.rsons under tlu. Manitoba Act, persons in posses- wth^:rr;:::r;:ii:;^^^^^^^ --^ '^ - --- — Q. Commencing prior to July, 1870 ? A. Yes. Q. And if they proved that, the Crown recognized their title ? A. Yes. 30 I .,! iri' IS I r ^ii 217 Q. VVitlioiit, any n'tVii-ncc wluitcvcr to Hudson Bay Company ? A. Yes. any supposcl nniscnt on the pait of tlio n e it t r'' ' T: '"^^■'"^'^'"■'I'-liti.s ,v,,„in.a hy the Act. wotd.I be rocog- n./e,l b> the Crown, an.l the patent wouM issue to the person who „.a,le out such a titit? A. Yes. Therewere instances where the Hu,is,.n Bay Con.pany proteste.l an.l oveuuie.1. It was held that they ha,l no more .-i.^ht tl,an any other party in the c^t.j^.u.i that the Act «ave the .an,i to ,he ,.,an etnai pLession'o,! U.: .'ti „, Q. So that if Logan ha.l n.a.h.out l.efor.. the l),.partn„.ot a po.s.se.ssion .such as the fhts3'r ■"'"'''"''"''''" ''^'''"''" '•^^•'•'>"y.'«70.h..wo,.i.l have been entitie.lt A. He would. Q. And he would have got these lots I A. He would. Q. Could you tell us how it was that the patent tl,at was i.ssued to Fca.seca, covered these lands i Could you state it just generally { - ^ mi A. The patent to F.mseca.no .loubt. was i.ssue.l by n.y authorityand included lots that •'(. were rep..rted upon u. F..nseeas favor by the official ,s..nt by „.e fro.n the Depart nen and It here were lan.ls u.clude.l that shoul.l not l,ave b,.,. inelu.led, it is clear to e t was a clerical error on the part of those olficials ; but certainly I wa. entirely ignorant hatTrnn : I ' '''I '?''." ""' '"■ ^'" ""* *'"'^' *'"^* *'- P'^*-* --red land that it should not have included Q^ If those letters of the .'Jr.l October, I.S78 an.l the 20th August. 1879, had been aid before you at the tune that the list of lots selected was lai.l before you in ..rder to get your authority to i.ssu,. that patent, woul.l y.ai have issued the patent ^ A On comparison; and Hnding that certain of th.we lots that should have been ex cqvted there were included in the patent, I certainly should not have authorized L 30 Q. Of the jiatent ? A. Certainly not. It was the very thing we were trying to steer clear of. ,ii. i Vf\ ■ 218 Q. So that tlie |.atcnt that has Imoii is.su.., I wn.s i,Mu.,l hy inintake ? A. It was iHsiieil in error. By Mr. Christie. Q. That is, -so far as you know f A. Of course : lam not aC(v'(i. By Mr. Gorniully. Q. IH tl'is correct; that the ,:oP:.,al,. .v.. Mce of thol)e,.artmo,.t at the time with resjiect to patents for pro|)erties ii "!.i aiouml \Virmi|,c.g pr.-elii.Jt.,! the grant;', -of any lots to the plaintilf whiel, were ..en in tl eeupaUo.rof or dain.o.l by other per- Hoas. w.thout not.ce to such persons, an,! until aft..,, a earetui invesHgat.on of t e ,„ claims of such other persons ? o""'..!! ui mo lo A. That i.s tin,', Q, Do you recollect if Logan's elaim was up ' A. I cannot remember that. 1 ,1,. not rfni,Mnl„.r it spociaily, Q. The patent issued in JX.eember.LsTl), an, I this wa,, in Augu.st, IS7I) that he wrote to you ^ ' A. Yes. Q. You cannot say > A I cannot recollect exactly n.,w, there were .so many claims of that kind V.,u •)„ see, a ter I was appointed D.puty-, Minister the must of t!,..e details were arranged It " was the duty of Mr. Lang, in connection with the Surveyor-G.neral, to classify and look into all these ditterent claims, and it was the ,luty of the Surveyor-Gonei-al to make h.s report to me or to the Mini,.ter, so that I wouhl take their reports 1 would luU go into matters of detail myself, and if L,.gan's case came up after 1 was Dermty- Minister It would be dealt with as far as the details are concenu.d in the wav I men- tioned-l.y Mr. Lang and th,- Surveyor-General, and I wouM be merely referi'ed to to approve or disapprove of the conclusions they arrived at. By Mr. Christie. Q And the presumption would be that if the patent was i.ssued for this property •„, and Mr. Logan had claimed it. that the claim had been disposed of by the Department ? A. That would be the presumption. I recollect Logan being at the Department two or three times on business, but I think it was with the Surveyor-General I only saw hiin to speak to him, and that was all. ^ . 11 ■ , ^ 219 5 ,f By Mr. Gominlly. Q. Looking at that letter file which iscalle.l the William Logan file, can you say now whether in December, 1870, any decision had been come to on the Logan claim or whether any adjudication had been made on the Logan claim ? A. Jo the best of my recollection there was n-t. I have no recollection of it I think If there had been I would have remembered it. (Fyled a. E.xl.ibit E) (Same as Exhibit "F.") Q. And so far as the record shows ^ A. The record wonhl show that or. the -I'.hh of Apr,,, 1,SS2. he had not had his claim adjadicated upon, because he asks to have it investigated, |() By Mr. Christie. Q. But that would not presume that he had not had it before tiie Department pre- vious to that ? ' A. He says he enclo.ses his application and affidavits, which is presumptive evidence that that was the beginning of his claim. [ think that if he had put in his claim while I was Deputy-Minister I would have known it. I would have remembered it. By Mr. Gormully. Q. So that you think now, from your recollection, that the time the Fonseca patent was issued the claim had not been adjudicated upon ? A. I do. I assume that this application and the affidavit there are for Lots C. I) -w and E. ' Q. While you were Deputy-Minister .li,l Fonseca ivpeatedly re(iuost the Govern ment, or repeatedly request you to give him other lots in lieu of the Logan lots ] A. Not specifically in lieu of the Logan lots, but in lieu of lamls it svas assumed we could not grant him. Q. But this was after the issue of the patent. Di-l ho ask you to give him other land in lieu of the Logan land > A. Not that I remember of. Q. I see that at page 8 of Fonseca's examination he says this :— "I was (piite will- ing to give up these lands Lots D. and E. to Logan or anyone else if the Government 'iO would ij-ve me an equivalent. I told the Government this." A. No, I do not remember anything about it. I ll Mil ' ■! 'I -I'M i . 4 !i i f ! 220 Q. You Jo not reincinlier his telling you that ? A No it never can.e to ,„y knowledge, as I bef-re renmrk.d. I learn now for the hrst time there were lands improi)evly included in his jiatent. Q. Then he says : " I)i,l you not re.mest then, to do so ?-I cannot remember that • It nmy be very hkely I did. Q. What uas the answer they made to y-ur request ^~. Ihey requested me to convey lands to othe, parties, and left Logan o.lt. Q Did thev not mtimate to you if you conveyed those lands r.o Logan you would not get an e,,uiva- lent *or others?- expect that is what they said. I e.xpect that is likely what they sa,d. Mr. Lang of the Departu.ent is the p.rson with whou. I had nuu-e intercourse than anyone eUe." VVould Mr, Lu.g have authority to „..ke any statement such i,) as that on behalf of the Government .-' A. Mr. Lang's authority siiouhl have be.n eonH.,ed, and was eontined strictly to ascertaining what lots we were in a position to g.ant. I Fe had no discretionary power whatever; his duty was to Hnd out matters ..f faft. Q. I am reading now fr.,m Mr. Lang's examination :-" Fonseca never asked me to select any particular lots. Col. Dennis only gave me instruct ions as to selecting" Then he goes on to say: " Q. Was Col. Dennis personally acquainted with the holdin..s on the Point Douglas Commons ?_Y,.s, C..I. D.nnis told me he was, f tliink I ..Jt in- structions to draw the reference for patents from (',,1. Dennis. » ♦ * , I had no written instructions. I was also directed to .select an area of land as near to .,n the land actually m occupation of Fon.seca as posMhIe, and not inelu.ling any land sold by l^onsecaor the Point Douglas trustees to n.ake up the quantity to' be granted to r onseca. A. Preeisel}' so. Q. But the •)•> A. That I canoot say, l„.,.nu.s,.., I think, if h. had invvsti...t,..l it it uonl a ,v,u„t t,. .....^in !<> ai H repo..t to ,„e i„ ..etaii aft.- h. ..,„,. haH. ,■. all L hljllir ' '''' " w.?t.t;'x:':;.r:r"'"" ^•"- '-"---... pat.... ....... .....io,... A. That 1 ..annot t.ll y.,,,. H. only n.po.t..,! upon .lisputnl elain.s. Gol^:^'''''' '"''"'"' '''''-- '•'■•""•''"^"" '^'"-'^ -ailaU.to tho A. That was in parishes „pth..nv..r: in this pa.-tionhir plac. I -lo not think h. wa. particularly .nst.uc.te.l to ,lo so, l„.a„s.. Point Douglas Tonnnon wal I v . .n c.ut?.";r:;^z;:::;:;ir:^^^ -^ •- --• -- A. Not part of his visit to Manit(,l,a. Ft was his ,h.fv in H„. ,M. \\' out the list of h.ts for patent. ■■ "^'"' '"^'"'" "'"'^'"-' upon aH "h!' r Tt "' '".''"*'■ " ' "^ ^'^'^ ^" ^'""'^^^^"^ *» P— infunnation "P..n all the clanns that were hen., n.a.l,. respeetin.. the Point Douglas Connuon ' eki,t !!"r"' r.T''"' '""' "' it vvas the elainus of parties in the older parishes- claun.s to disputed farms ' 20 Q. But had he not something to ,lo with regar,! to I'oint J)onglns Common ? A I am not sure ahout that. I eannot reclleet that I gave hin, any speeilie in- srue^.on.s about Ponit Dough. Connnon, h.eause the thi„g%vas so consLn iv X- m^l^TTn ■''■r' r '''■^" '"'^"^^' nrplieations,an.I so n.any papers o.. hie ahout It, that I unag.ned we had all the clain.s before us in one form or another. w„s*^;)^^'"'«V't-^''V"'"''^''' "*■ ^^'' l^P'^'-t-'^'Ht to determine whether a elaim was a bona h(K' claim for po.s.session or not > A. Yes certahily if we were nofsati.stied we asked for more evidence and then submitted the evidence to the Departin.Mit of Justice. Q And if they had not evidence sufficient to show the actual possession thev •.,, ruled them out, and the Government sold the land or retained it ^ P°' "■^■^'""' '^'^ -i^ A. Yes. 5 I 111 r-H I :' = i. M p- \ 'f 22:j Jl So that from time to timo it was a part of y„ur ,luty. and a part of the duty of the Department to we.gh and consider th.. different ciain.s that were ma.le hy parses? A. I should thinlv it was. Q. And to come to a determination an.! ,iudf,nnent upon them ? A. Yes ; and Mr. Lash an.l I have spent until two or t}n-ee o'clock in the morn- Q. You do not know whether this patent was issued improvidentiy or in erro- ? A. No. Q. And fron. what was read by Mr. Gonuully y„u cannot say w.th any decrree of 10 conhdence it was issued in error? ° A_. I have not read the patent my.self, hut I assume that it covers those Lots C D and E., and manifestly a. the thing appears to me now. the patent would be iu.on'ect' I am as.sunung that what Mr Fonseca states there is correct, that C, I), and E were three lots that were actually in the po.ssession of another party at the time that ' . made his app, cation and sent in that schedule, and if .so they should not have be-, included in his patent. Q. Although there may have been adetenniuation by the Department that he was not in actual occupation ? A. If there had been, I think I would have recollected it. 20 Q. But it is only upon the (jucstion of recollection, like that, that you go ? A. That is all; I have^no recollection of any case of Mr. Logan's being adjudicated upon while I was in the Department. Q. Do you remember Mr. Logan ever making an application ? A. I remember his being in the office in the Department two or three times • but merely saw him to speak to him. and he did not open his business to me at all ;' but 1 tliink he had bubiness with Mr. Lang and the Surveyor-General. Q. Do you know if it was about this property ? A. I do no^ T know that he .aid he had some claim, and that was general, that is Q. Do you know if it was with respect to Point Douglas Common ? A. That id more than I can tell you. all 30 ■^ u . ■ !, 1 - :i ii Mi R '1 ii i PI m mmMm. 224 Q. There is rothiny i„ the l.tt,.,- of Mio ;!nl nf Oetoher, I,S78 whi.h states (hat Logan wa.s in possessi.m of C, D. aiul E. ■ ' • ^^>'" " states timt A. He puts then. ,|„wn as beinjr a.non.^.t th. lots that were ,ns, .,| „f. Q. But you will ul.serv.. it is a list ..f lots .lisoos.-.l ,,f ,,„f f I,- ■ i • the Point Douglas « 'on „ ' ' ' '"^ "^ I'-u-eras ela.u, on A. 1 say that ,f he ha,l ,lispose.l of then, out of h,s lan,l he ha.l no n^ht to have them nicluded in his patent. ^ y. Does that refer to hdng .lispos,.! of l,y the (iovernn.ent ? A. No, I assuuH. tlHUu to l.e ,lispos,.,| of I,v the o..igi„,l trustees of Point Douglas Conin.on aM,lweaekno,dedge,l their sales an.l conHnne.l then, wherever we vT re 1„ satished about them: hi wlil m» Q. If it turns ont that C. D, ami E. had never l.een disposed of hy the trustee of l>u.nt Douglas Common, but that Logan was elaiming under possession hiinsei?r A. Then of course it couM be a question of claim under the Manitoba Act Q. But, as far as regards this letter, it does not show tlint Logan was in actual 1 -session oi the property ? '"^luai A. N . it does not ; but it shows that he had a claim to these particular lots, winch Ponsec! nowledffed. a, " mi-u Q. It does nut appear on that document that he acknowledged it. He only brin-rs i ;;f::vi;;::.rr;''""'''^'' .> disposed of to ...... person: Whatwast^^ol^e^of^o A. The object was in or,:er that we might give him other Ian i in lieu of those ands which he s,nd had been previously disposed of. That was hi. object, and that was what we wante.l to do, and that is what I supposed ,ve d.u do b cause we were giving bin. a crtain quantity of land ? Q. If your object was to give hi.., lan-l in lieu of the lands ...entioned in this .sc^hedule and the Government actually gave him the lands motioned in that .schedule how can you say that the patent was issued improvidently ? ' A. Because it was issued under a mi.sapprehension on the part of the Govem- nunt Ihey woul.l not have ...eluded land in his patent that they had any riHit to ,„ tissume belonged to any person J se. ^ "o"'' "' do Q. But it does not app. tr in that letter that the lan.l belonged to any person else ? A. Well, I think it is a prima Jhcie case where Funseca puts down this list as having II i n \i H ' IB B' ' miii 9 ^ w ' I^E r^' fliiini 'J 25 l»»...li,p,„„l„f|,„.vi„„.|j,„„,„,hi,,|„i,„ j|,„u|^ , J,„„„, |,„„|, . ... , ;r::';::x;:!'i:;:::^'r:"i':r:;r — ■ ^ --" - «Jt.. ,.„. „. in.l.f I V;',''''"'f •/\"^';'^''': «'""^" ''•-"I'l f'ave l.«.n tl.is : when he fo,.n,l that w. ha-l that those Ian. s l,oh,„g...l to Lo.un, h,. sho„l,l hav. .-n„,e to us an.l said " thi. p" H s wong „. so far as th s, that yo„ havo i„..l,.,ie.l lot. C, I, an-l E, in th. pat nt ' „» . o not daun these lan.lH: I have given you n.tioe that J .io not eiain. 'th, but cla.mth.sa,ne.,.ant.t.voflandof,.,ual vah.e in lieu of then., an.l . a. ady t- land. And .f I l.ad been Mm.ster of the Interior that is what [ woul-l have d.m.. Q I am instructed that this was the positi..n.,f the artair that C, I) an.l E had never been grante.l by the Trustees to this n.an L,.,an, but that Logan was elain.i.t under a b.)gus state of possession > claiming A. That raises a point I know nothing about. L .gan's claim >vas not investigate.! or adjuilicated upon while I was in charge. >-su„ace.i Q. If L^«an had no claim by virtue of a transfer fr.,m the Trustees of Point Dou-das "o Common, then this letter would have been written under a misapprehension ' ^ the taluJbl a'cT' ""^^"^ '"' ''' '''-'' '•" '^ ^-.' Ji^P<-d of it was covered by Q. But the letter it.self does not show how ? A. No. Q. And you understand it as having been disposed ..f by the Trustees ? A. Yes, or by Fonseca himself By Mr. Gormully. Q. It would appear that in J)ece" <= - .1.1 i 1 ■ 1 ,| ;i! % n. t 1 i-H II l>'H -'t^i \^ r ' i 1 i ' 7 II ,1 i i>l|H 1 I '' 'hi 1 . . 1 in h' ■ - ."■ i (Jr '^f ■ ^■. ■:': 1^ jHIM i\ ;., li i ,? ilLl :i,jt EXAMINATION UE HENE E.S.SE OK PUT IN BV THE DEEENDANTS. i( i Lemon, a Special Exa.niner to this Colt ' ^"'''^''' '"^'"" ^^"'^'"" Present Mn Ewart and Mr. (). W. Baker for the Informant and Relator Mr Glass for defendant Fonseca. and Mr. J. S. Tupj.er for defendant Schultz. The said Schultz being sworn saith :— To Mr. David Gla.ss. Q You are one of the Senators of the J)onnnion of Canada ? A. Yes. Q. Wiien were yoii appointed ^ A. In 1882. Q. How long have you resided in tlie T,.\vn or City of Winnipeg ? A. 20 years. Q. In what part of the Town ? A. Principally in the north end. north of wliero the (•. P. R. track is now. Q. Do you know lot 2U of the Hudson Bay survey or 35 of the Dominion survey » A. Yes. ' ■ Q. In passing from your residence to the business part of the City would vou .mss over or near to the lot ;{5 referred to ? ^ ' 10 A. Yes, about half a mile over it. 20 <*"»!-«»& .ii^iktc'-ih. 228 Q. Were you familiar with the i, oven.ents upon it ,m the 15th July, 1870 ? A. Yes 1 wa-s. Q. Have you been especially so since that, the loth July, 1870 ? A. Yes, and up to loth July, 1880. Q. Can you extend the time up to 1SS2 ? Objected to. A. Not every house up to that time. Q. «'v^ the "ame. of Parish lot holders on Point Dou.las imlepemlont of the lot in question as far as you can recollect. Objected to on the ground that ownership of lots cannot he ,«.oved in this way. 10 A. Subject to objection. S ludt^ i l"'l\ r ''"'■ "■ ^''-'■■^-'^. John Bruee, E, L Barber and John' hcl ulu jo.ntly H.s Grace the Archbishop. Thou.a. Spenco 1 think, Madau.e Bouvv ^'^:":t:;rKi::';:r^^"^'""''^ - ^— '■'--' ^'^"-^" ^^- - Q. Row many lots had Fon.seca altogether, Parish lots i Objected to on .same ground. A. r know he had two on the north side and one on the s..uth side 1 thin!- h. had more but I can't say without seeing the plan. " .^ Q. Can you tell the whole af the area of the whole of the Parish lots on Point J)ouglas Connncm independent of the lot in .p.estion ? Objected to. A. I cannot recollect, It is fixed in the Order-in-Council. Q. Can you say the area of the lot .'io i A. It i.s over GOO acres Q. What position did the Parish lot holders take in reganl to lot 33 ? A. Joint ownership. Q. What did they d.o in i)ursuance of that claim amongst themselves ? A. They held meetings, made resolutions and appointed Tru.stees. I li if r I ifl^ft* ! v.- aik-jFTT' : 1 ■ i J Hill » 9' 1; i !!.(„■ ■:^kis|; 229 Q. Can you nay wlio the Trustees were ? Objected to, if the appointment is in writing,' it must l,o i)nMhice,l. A. Hon, Jnlin Sutlieriami, Hon. Walter Bown an,] W. (i. Fonseea. Q. Were ytni one of the Trustees ? A. No. Mr. Glass offers what purports to l,e a eopy of a certified copy of Duncan Sinclair's plancert.hed by the Registrar Kennedy, of the Registry office at Winnipeg, a.s appears by the copy of the certificate on the plan produced Exiiihit 1. Objected to. Q. Can you say as to the making of that survey by Sinclair for the Point Douglas K) nolders r t> •" Objected to. A. (Subject to oljecticm.) Ye.s it was uiade by Sinclair f\.r the holders. Q. You speak of the original survey by Sinclair. Objected to. A Yes. I say he was employed to make the survey an.l plan, of which I believe this plan produced is a copy ? Q. Can you tell where the original plan was kept between the makincr of it and the registration of it ? " A. Yes, in Mi. Barber's store, where the Point hoMers used to meet. 20 Q. Wiiere was the store situated > A. On lot " C." Q. On lofC?" A. I don't mean lot " C." I moan Barber's store was imn.ediatelv t,. the south of the lots in question in this suit, and on Main Street. Mr. Ewart asks that it should be noted that between the answerim^ of the last question and the one immediately preceding it the witness referred to Exhibit No 1 and some explanation was made to him by Mr. Glass. Mr. Glass desires the Examiner to state that the above is the statement of Mr liwart and that ho, Mr. Glass, made no explanation whatever to the witness on the 30 !ti^ H. . rl t: If^ I m hfill !■ . I' >:i ! . I I 1 i-u : i ;«i8 2.S0 plan a,..l that Dr. Sclu.ltz state,! l,. ,li.l ,.>t give l.i.s anssv, ,>o.n the plan l,ut inUe- pendent of it. Isayformy-selflHawMr. (;ia.ss .stan.l up with th. plan in lii.s Iwin.i, but as he 8to(„l between n,e an.l the witnes.s [ ,li.l „ot .see what wa« ,l„ne. ifanvthin-r or hear any explanation, if any, that he made to the witn.'.ss as regar.l.s tlie piaii. ° A. L, Examine)'. Q. In giving yonr an.swer to the last .picstion were y.-n inHneneed in anv way but irom your own knowledge ? A. Dh ! no. Q. Were you assi.sted by any one in giving that an.swer f A. No. Q. Do you remember any other .survey, if s,,, l,y whom was it ( A. The same partie.s had a survey made by J. J. J„l,nston, I think. Q. Who were in actual pofises.sion of lot 8.j on l.jth .luly, 187(>. A There was John Schult., John McTavi.sl, E. L. Barber. W. G. Fon.seoa and Hon J. Sutherland. 10 I ,' ri;' !;' If Q. What part did Fonseca occu|iy ? A. The .south eastern end or corner ; he also occupied on the Kin.r's Hi.'hwav west of Main Street. " ^^'o'l^ay. Q. How many chains from north to south on the eastern part of the lot/ A. Not less tlian ten chains. Q. Wliere was his then residence. A. On the S. E. corner of lot 35. It is still in the same place. Q. Where were his barns, barn-yards and stables, if he had any ? A. To the north of his house. Q. How long prior to loth July, 1870, had he been in occupation of these his house and barns. ' A. Not less than 7 years. 20 liJUll irt 4 J i«mr xs^:' : fmicm!'iss^ias ^A^sm J - 231 Q. When you say his hoiih.- and luinis what do you refi.f to ' A. I mean his dwcliinfl; and storehouse and what was ealk'd " l.yres" in those days, for iieeping liorses aiiu aniuuils Q. In nurard to the ten chains how do you speal< of the inclosuie upon it ' A. It was inelosed from north to south. Q. Wiiere was the land situate,! that Fons.oa ha.i j,'ot from Neil McDonald as hefore mentioned hy you ' A. Immediately on the river side of the ten eliains I sjieak of Q. Who was in possession of that piece of land i A. Fonseca waw. Q. Prior to what time would lie he in possessiim of that ? A. I can't say from recollection, hut I think about seven years prior to the 15th July, 1N70. Q. About how many acres would there he in tlie |uece he j,'ot from Neil McDonald? A. I could not say, it was a larjre field. Q. What land lay immediately to the east of the Held mentioned ? A. The property of Neil McDonaM. Q. Can you say as to this field was it inclosed > A. Yes. Q. Who occupied it ? A. Fonseca occupied it. Q. In connect ion with what ? A. His own place. There was a fence dividinc; this Beld from Fonseca's ten chains, and Fonseca occupied the field to grow grain upon. Q. Where was the building you speak of situated on Main Street, relatively to the ten chains of Fonseca ? A. It would be equal distance from north to south on the ten chains. It would be within the area of the ten chains. 10 20 I ,: 1 ;f ■^1 : I'M IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. ////J «// h A ,.v .-^

1 Hi 233 Q. Do you know the large tract of land in tiie City af Winnipu- .'lantod by the Government to the Canadian Pacific Railway Co ? " " A. Yes. Q. Can you say whether that tract was -ranted because of their havin- been in possession and made improvements since 15th July, 1S7() ? ° Objected to. A. It was not. Q. Out of what parish lots we.^e the three several parcels refe.re.l to in the last three questions taken ? The lot is desijrnated indifferent ways-sometimes Lot ;;.5 and sometimes 244. 10 Objected to. A. I am not sure of the Hudson Bay Co. number, but I kiu.w the Dominion nun - her to be 35. Q. Can you tell who had charge at Ottawa ''or the trustees in brin-inj^ the matter to the attention of the Government .' A. Hon. John Sutherland .nd John Sclmltz. Q. After the Order-m-Council of Kith May, ls77, can y,.., say as to the notoriety ot the decision then come to ? A. Yes, it was well known and I think pulilished in the newspapers here. Q. Can you .say as to whether you ever had any conversation with Lindsay Rus- 20 sell, then Surveyor-General, after 5th December, 187tt, as to grantin. Objected to. A He said these lots had to be included in che patent, .because exan.ination had been made mto the tuleso them and that they were undoubtedly the property of the Government and that Fonseca n.ust accept them as being part of the te: chains in width of the grant the Government had u.ade him. Q. During July, August and September last past, who was the Minister of the Interior ? A. Hon. Thomas White. tim?otTr 7;"^,r"f.'"^7; ^^'""■f!'-'S ^' ^"'J P''°'- *'> 15th July, 1870. and up to the '20 tune ot the Act Creating Manitoba into a Province f i «- « -o A. Yes. Q. How long did you continue a member of the House of Commons ? A. From the first Dominion Election for Manitoba, some time in the year m-> until Oct., er 1882. A few months after 1882, I was appointed a Senator' nd hal: continued to be ever since. Q. During these years while you were in the House of Commons, what consti- tuency did you represent ? A. Lisgar, which is in the vicinity of Winnipeg. Q. For your constituents had you any duties to perform as to lands ? 30 A. My constituency being a country one my constituents constantly appealed to me to adjust the.r d.flerenees and forward their claims for patents. 14 :i IC'ti LciJi ^r 2.S5 Q. A.Hl tl.c.n.f.,n. can y..,. say as t„ tl.. ,,m.ti,... at tlu> lV,,a.tn,...nt „f tli. Intni.,,-' A. Yes. /| Y.H. mc..tiuned yosteniay „a,nos „f iktsohs wh„ wen- Parish l„t l.„l,le,s o„ Pom Dousla,s^tolI.„e,nV,llian, Lo.an,..v..r was a„,l if so, l.,.w n..,,,,,!...! „s a PariHli lot liolder on Point Doiii'las? Objected to. A. He never was to my knowledi?.'. Q. If Fon..eca had persisted in a.ssistin.i,' Logan, toj^et a patent to (', I) K and F when he l^mseca knew that Logan was not in possession of the h.t on 'lOtl> Julv' KS70, m what hght would you have n-g.r.l.d the ., nduct of Fon.seca f "' ' 10 Objected to. A. His conduct would have been regarded by n,o and the other holders as an act of treachery neither Pon,seca'sinHuenee nor any other inHuenee eoul.l have ...tten a patent tor these for Logan, because the Deputy-Minister Ool. Dennis, tol.l me in pre- ZTh . I ^^"'■y^:"-"'-'"'^'-'^'' t'"^t Logans clain. had ..en thoroughlv exan.ined an.i that he had no right whatever to the lots. ((An.versalion objected to.) Q. Between 3rd February, l,S7l. and oti, December. IST!., what took place between you and l*onseca ? A, I made a purchase from him Fon.seca, of an uu.livided iialf of the lands which 20 we believed would be patented to him Q. \Vi)at was the consideration ? Objected to. A. $1,250. Q. Will you say as io the honajides of that transaction ? A. The transaction was an ordinary matter of business. Q. Was there any other consideration besides the money named ? A. No. Q. What would be the value of any one of the lots at tliat time ? A They were irregular lots so I would have to give it by the foot and would .say about a dollar a foot on Main Street. "^ „ Q. About what would they be worth at the present time on Main Street ? A. About SI 90 a foot. i ;i f j I ith , if i 1; 1 11 ill ! f 1 J 1 1 I r ! t ! ,'li i I 236 Q. Can you .say as to the ton uliaiiis appliuJ for by F. Can you say whctluT they include these lots C, 1), K and F m.seoa on 2(jth July, 1877. A. Tliey included these lots. Q. Can you say what the ])iacticn of the D chains was fixed on as an actual resid •e|>artinont was when anv riu nil)ei' (if Manitoba Act as to how far the number of cha end of the lot. ence and oecui)ation b^ the applicant under tl lie ns e.vteiided backwards or to the rear A. It extended back t^ro miles, the wi.jtli of the chains ho proved. Q. Have you heard any Minister, allegation on that Objected to. point >!■ I) 'puty Minister, of the Inti rior make anv 10 A. All ministers have regarded it Q. If any lots were included in F'l as a rule of the Department. )nseca's patent which had theretofore I lecm coii- )oii .seeing this what would have been his veyed to other parties by the Ti-ustees u] duty ? Objected to. A. It would have been his duty to have accepted from the Oovernment other lots in lieu of those. Q. Why would this have been his duty ? Objected to. 20 A. Because the Government .i,!' recognized two thing.s, claims made under the Manitoba Act and deeds made by lire Trustees. Q. Was there not another made of gr-anting lots out of 35 ? Objected to. A. ^es, an allotment of acre for acre to the persons holding Parish lots. Q. About 1867 do you remember a survey of what is known as Dominion lot 35 ? A. Yes, by H. L. Sabine, D. L. S. Q. Can you say about what propoi-tion of that survey was borne by Fon.seca ? A. I should think over half of the survey was borne by Fonseca instead of his proportion, ten chains, the others having failed to pay their proportion. 30 ny l$i (I I *^^ 10 '2V To Mr. Ewart, il VVliLMi (lid yon Hnt know William Logon > A. For 20 yeaiN pawt. A. No, I caumt. Q. Where did he remove to when h.. left that log building ? for Barbln""'' """"■ ^ "''"'' '" ^''' "" " ""'■'"" "^'"■'"^'"" '" ''-> P'-"'^ - - ^'-k A. I think he did. Q. What were they and when erected ? building' ^'^'^"^^^'"'"""^'^''""'"'"^*^'^^^'' ^''""'''"'''' ^'''''' ^^'^'' ''"''"'"'S the! Q. What other building ? A. That is all I know of. !osr I f 1^ 'r if 1 ; ! 1 1 i 1 ! 'i^l ; i: i iilM'IM ' ■ ■- t If ■. I \lV i ir' U \,t' , ! 1; ■1' ' il_ 2:},S Q. Were you aware L..gan sokl a portion of tl,.- property in question to Mercer ? A. I l)eanl so. Q. About what year was tliat ? A. I could not say. It would he impos.sible for me to tell you. Q. Did Mercer erect any building on any part of the property >. A. Yes, he did. Q. What were they and when ? A A frame dwelling house, but aboi Q. Would it be previou.s to 187!t ? A. Yes, I think it was. Iiat date 1 could not say. 10 Q. Did Mercer occupy it after its completion ? A. He did. Q. And did he continue to occupy undl down aftur the i.ssue of ihe patent ? A. I can't tell. Q. Do you know whether Logan sold any other portion of the property in rpiestion to any person ? Objected to by Mr. Glass. A. I heard he sold a portion to one Gray. Q. Did Gray put up any building ? A. If he did it was at the back of the rear of the lot -but none on Main street. 20 Q. Did you hear of the sale by Logan to Gray previous to '79 >. A. If sold to Gray it must be previous to '70. Q. And you heard of it previous to '79 ? A. Yes, but I do not distinctly recollect. Q. Are you aware of any other .sales that Logan made of portions of the property in question ? A. Yes. , , I r I 239 Q. To whom were sucli sales iikhIp > A. To one William Thomas. Q. Did Thomas erect any building,' on the iiropertv previous to 7l» ? A. I don't think so. Q. Were you aware from time to time of the persons who weie in actual occupa- tion of the i)roperty in (juestion down to the date of the patent '. A. No, I was not Q. Were you aware at the timr of the issue of tlie patent that there were several persons residing on the pro))erty in (piestion who did not claim title through Fonseea but who did claim through Logan ? ° in A. Yes. Q. I suppose you were always aware Logan did not claim title ti)rough Fonseca '. A. Yes. Q. I believe that previous to " the transfer " lot .'S") was used liy the " Point Holders," as a place from which they in common cut hay ? A. Yes they did. Q. And it was by reason of that right which they had that tliey claimed a patent from the Government ? A. Not by any means. Q. Did any Point Holder claim to own any [lart of lot 35 for himself to the exclu- 20 sion of any other of the Point Holders previous to " the transfer " ? A. Their claim was absolute in common to the whole of o5. The Question is repeated. A. My answer is yes. Q. Was any such claim admitted by any other of the Point Holders ? A. Yes. Q. Prior to the transfer did Fonseca, ever claim to own lU chains of lot 3.5, to the exclusion of the other Point Holders ? A. Yes. M , : ' 1:1 n :? n AM 240 Q. Was that claim admitted by the other Point Holders >. A. Yes, so far as I know. Q. When did he fiist make any such claim ? A. It must have been 7 oi S years before the transfer. Q. Notwith.standing did the other Point Holders cut their hay on the 10 ehain.s claimed by Fon.seca ? A. Yes, with Fonseca's consent. Q. Notwithstanding that claim of Fon.seca'.s did he join with all the Point Holders in claiming a patent fiom the Uovernment of lot 35, for their joint benefit \ A. The patent was claimed from the Dominion Government to be granted to the 10 Trustees to be subdivided by them in acconlance with their knowledge of the proper proportions to be allotted to each. Q. What was the result of that application ? A. It stood in that form until just before the allotment of acre for acre by Order- in-Council when the Trustees themselves recommended to the Government to sub- divide lot 35 and to grant the acre for acre allotment of the Point Douglas Holders of such portion of lot 35, as had not been patented under the Manitoba Act or patented to those who held the Trustees' deeds. The Government accepted this proposition and the distribution of the parts as subdivided into lots out of Dominion lot 35, was made in that way. 20 Q. Did the Government decline to recognize the title of the Point Holders to lot 35, under the Manitoba Act ? Objected to by Mr. Glass. A. They declined in as much as they did not grant it to us and we accepted what we did get under protest. Q. Then did the Point Holders acce])t patents for jiortions of lot 35, obtaining upon lot 35 the corresponding number of acres they held as Point Holders subject to the protest you speak of? A. So far as I know tliev did. Q. Mr. Fonseca was one of those who accepted ? A. Yes, I believe he was. Adjourned at t o'clock till 10 of 5th November. 30 \i . ' '^ ■ ' ! i 'I 241 5tli November, 1880. Examination at lU a.m. lusuinud. Same parties [)resent. Q. At the time that you ])nrchased from Fonseca what was tlie pcsititin of the matter in the Department so far as relates to the i^rant to him of any part of Lot 35 ? A. I know the Department had deciiled to grant to Foiiseea seventeen acres. Q. Did I understand you to say that Sinclair's plan was made foi' the Point Holders jointly f A. Yes. I think so. Q. And I believe the trustees made dis])osition of various lots accoiding to that plan for the benefit of all ? 10 A. Yes. Q. Did Barber purchase from the trustees that part win !■.• his store was erected on east side Main street f A. He did not. He obtained permission from the Puint Holders to erect the building. Q. Was it understood he was to have any particular quantity of land in connection with his building ? A. Not being a trustee I cannot say. Q. Then you were not consulted yourself personally about Barber building here ? A. Yes. Q. Were you consulted as to the cjuantity of land he was to have ? A. No. Q. Are you aware that Lang who used to occupy a position in the Department of the Interior was discovered to have been engaged in irregularities in connection with the issue of patents from that Department ? Objected to by Mr. Glass. A. I am not aware. Q. Are you aware that he left the Department and went to the States ? Objected to by Mr. Glass. A. I am aware bj' report that he obtained sick leave and went to the States. SO 20 I ■ I • fi& 242 Q. Are you aware that he hnsnot returned from the Statr.s i Objected to by Mr. (41ass. A. r am not aware. Q. Dirl you ever hoar of hi.s having returned from the States ? Objected to by Mr. (Jlass. A. Yes. Q. Did you ever iicar of h\s iiaviny gone back to the Hnitcd States shortly after ? Objected to. A. I did not. I heard he was in St. John's, New Ibunswick. Q. Did you ever iiear of his retiuniiiy to his position in the Department? Objected to by Glass and Tuppor. A. I do not know. Question repeated. A. I never heard. Q. Would you probably be aware it he had returned ? Objected to l)y Mr. Glass. A. I would not. 1 have been sick for 4 years and do not know. Q. Did you evei hear of any irregularities in the Department with which Lang was connected ? Objected to by Mr. Glass. A. I have heard rumors outside of the Department. Q. What was the nature of the irregularities that you heard about ( Ml. Glass oljects emphatically to this line of examination. A. That as the Solicitors of Fonseca and Mercer objected to my giving hear-say evidence I decline to answer that (juestion. Here the witness wishes to say something in explanation of his examination by Mr. Ewart. " Mr. Ewart asked me as to Mr. Grays purchase. I wish to say that Gray purchp -ed on 2nd August, 1881. There were no buildings on the part he bought until afterwards. 10 20 ' i I H. I 10 243 Also [ wish to say Mrs. Mercer bought in January, \HH2. I al80 wish to say that no buildings were erected on lot (.', ]), E and F at the time Fonseca's 17 acre patent was* registered, cxofpt tlioso built by William Logan, In these resju'cts I i-.orrect my evidence of yesterday " To Mr. (5 lass. Q. When you spoke of Mrs. Mercer did you refer to tlio Relator in this cause ? A. I did. Q. You know the lots that are included in this cause tliat arc in controversy, C, D, E and F. A. Yes, I know those. (^. On which of these were the buildings of Logan referred to ? A. On the one nearest to Barber on Main Street. Q. JJo you know as to Barber getting a deed from tlie TriLstees after he got their consent, that is of lot " B." Objected to. A. 1 heard that he did, but am not sure. Q. Was William Logan a well educated man ? A. Yes, decidedly. Q. Can you tell anything in particular on that subject ? A. He was, I think, educated at St. John's College, and was book-keeper and clerk 20 to E. L. Barbc, and was considered by the people of this country to have a sui)erior education. Q. J)o you know where Lind.say Kus.sell is at the present time f Objected to by Ewart as not arising out of his cross examination. A. I do not know where he is. Q. Since the la.st Equity Sittings here have you endeavored to ascertain where Lindsay Russell is. Have you given your Solicitors directions on the subject ? A. I have. j, M| t 'I J I' t II ■: t; -I Ill 'i'i I i 244 Q. And what has been the result ? A. 1 can't Hnd out where lie is. To Mr. Glass. Q. When you speak of Mrs. Mi'rcer purcha.sing part (if tin' lamls in 1SH2 do you rtfer to (Iv) Relator in this cause ? A. I do (Signed) JOHK SCHUKTZ. H i I .1 ,-i, ii I I ; ,; 1 rwf ^ [ ' i. !^, ; i i !■ I' t 1 I ■II I 'i i m-ti 245 EXHIBIT 1. -5^ U^ V5^ f Plan (if Kiver L.)ts in iSt. John, St. Janiusand face, Dominion (!overn- '. i i 't! 'fc. I s m M iw vum I i [Seal.] 24(i KXHJBIT 2. CANAIU. DHPUTy-GoVKRNOB. ViOTORi^ ., ,/ , a... .,fu.^, .,f tl... r.U.I Knujd ,■ Ureal Hnfain "ml Irdun,), Qnrr,, D,-fnuln- of fhr Faith, rt,-.. rfr. rtv. To nil tu wliom these presents shall come— (Jkeetim; : By conwiand : — Whereas, the lands hereinafter .iescril,..,! are part of the lands known as "Domin- onWls and r>entu,ne.l ,„ an Act of the PaHian.ent of Canada, passed in the 10 llnrty-htthye.u.o onrre,,n ,^ 'An Act respeetin,, the Pnl.lic Lands o tl^e Do.nm,on and whereas Wdlian. (). Fonseca, of the City of Winnipeg, in the Pro v„ ce o Mamtoha ,n our Donnn.or. of Canada, (ientlen.an, has applie/l ^ • a grant of th a,d lands and h>s claun to such grant having been duly in\Ltigated by us 1^ has been found duly ent^thM thereto. Now know ye that b. these Present^ we do grant, convey, and assure unto the said VVillian. 0. Fon.seca, hi.s heirs and a.ssi^ns for ever, all those parcels or tracts of land situate lying and being in the Parish ot" Sa nl John, ,n the County of Selkirk, in the Province of Manitob; in our Dominion o Canada, and being eonipose.l of all those parts of Lots Xun.ber Thi.ty-five in the said Parrsh, as shewn on a .nap or plan of River Lots in the Pari.shes of Saint John. Saint .o James and Sa„,t Bon, ac.,s:n the said Province, dated 1st January, ISTo, sio-ned i^y JohnStoughtonDenn,.s. Surveyor-General of Dondnion lands, and of record'in thi nranchof the Departn,ent of Interior, known as the Don.inion Lan.Ls office mo parfcularly descnbed as foll,>ws, that is to say :-Reing con.posed of Fir.stly-Town Lot .N„n.bers49 .Oand 51onthewe,steriysidc. of Maple street. Secondly -Town Lo ts Xun>bei. 5. 6, 7 an. on the easterly .side of Au.stin street. Thirdly-Town Lots ettered E anc i m Block .Vun.ber 14, fronting on the westerly side of Ausfin street m1 / T •^^■7'^'\/:>**">{- ''''-' ^-t Xun.ber 2 in Block Xund^er 12, fronting on Mam street and on Mc lavish street. Sixthly-Town Lot Number 7 in Block Nund.er 11, fronting on Main streetand on McTavish street. Seventh ly-The ea.sterly half of lown Lot Xuniber 8 ,n Block Number 11, fronting on the westerly side of Main street. Lighthly- ■] he westerly half of Town Lot Number 4 in Block Number] ^ fronting on the easterly side of McTa-, i.sh st.eet. Ninthly Town Lots Numbers l' and 2 u, Block B, fronting on McTavish street and on Ma'rgaret street. Tenthlv- lown Lots Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Block E, fronting on the .southerly side of Fonse- ca street. Eleventhly- Town Lots Numbers ;j, 4, o. 0, 7 and S in Block No 1 front- 30 |V( 11 i ■|! ■! I'fl i ii:P' ill i- 1 247 i"Vo TrZTT- T; 'It™^ ^^•■"■' '"^-^Ift'-'y-T-n Lots Numbers 1. 2, 3, str' et Thu^^? 1 > '".^''^^^^ '^'"J'- 6, fronting on Machray street and on Schu tz stieet. Ihirteentlily— Town Lots Numbers ] 2 3 and 4 in Rlnok V fr „f;. \u J4;LX!!rr,:;':tj i^/';rn« ;:fr!r rr-' -i '"■.t't """■ oil,. , < , ', -r, ,j, 'J, <, n, J and 10 in n Ock NunuMT 11 frnntimr ir^lltk clr t" "" H '"'''^ f •"^•*' ^'-^^-"^••'y-Town Lots N,::i:;s 2 all Lots Nun^'ef "1 0".tJ.e southerly side of Fonseca street. Seventeentl lyL-Town an. eighteenthly lown Lots Numhers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in Block Number 15 frontini^ u^ ing by admeasurement 17 acres mure or le.s.s^ To have and to hold the said parcels or tracts of land unto the said William Fonseca, his heuvs and assigns forever, .saving and reserving nevertheless unt u our successors and assigns the free uses, passage and enjovnu.nt of in over and up . navigable waters that now are or may be hereaf/e.: lound on or ..n.le, .r S wi " through or upon any part of the .said parcels or tracts of land ^ 20 Given under the great seal of Canada ; Witness Joseph Olivier Cotte, Ksqui, e, Deputy of our right and trusty and well beloved coun.sellor Sir John Douglas .Suthe,. land Campbell (commonly called the Manpus of Lome), Knight ,^ our most ancient and most noble order of the Thistle, Knight Grand Cross of our most distinguished order of Saint Micheal and Saint George, Governor-Gene. al of Canada and Vice- Admiral of the same. At Ottawa this fifth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand ei-d.t hundred and .seventy-nine and in the forty-third year of our reign. Hi/ Cinnmavd: J. S. Dfnnis. Deputy of the Minister ..f the Interior. ;,q Edouaki) J. La.vgevin, Under Secy of State. \ \ .\ if l\ COl'V OK I.ATKXT, KKK. No. 20129. KEO. 8727, (iKANT No. 12f)0. M 'Mf itiS' < ■It , I* I. ! 248 EXHIBIT :} Poitioi . of Plan uf Tmw,, ,.,„,1 Park Lots, |'„int I).,ujrlns, hy Duncan Sinclair, D. L. S., daivA DocciiiIrt (ith, I!S70. Wo certify that the witliin map or plan truly represents the property on Point Douglas Reserve, belonging to the Point Douglas Land Company, surveyed hv Dun- can Sinclair, Land Surveyor. (Sd.) Wni. Gomez Fonseca, John Sutherland, E. L. Barber. „- . .-Ai, ,, ^ ,„„, (Trustees for said Company.) VVnuiipeg. .SOth Sept., 1872. ^ ^^ I hereby certify that the within map or plan was duly registered in my office this •SOth .lay of September, A. D. 1872, at 11.30 o'clock of the forenoon on the certiticate of the trustees of the proprietors, W. (i. Fcmseca and E. L. Barber and John Suther- lan (Sd.) Wm. N. Kennedy, Registrar Note— Garry Street now called Main Street. Logan " Common Street •:f 'i '■ !^ I 41 ■i !; '1 '; 1!-: PH m H^H '.(! #1 24» EXHIBIT 4. Mortgage .late.l 22,Kl March. 187.5, between Wiii;«.n Lo,.an a„,l Robert (iunn. Consulerat,on 8(10,S.(K). Description of lan.l :- Parts ,.r lots f) an.l K, on the East sule of Main strec^acconiing to a nmp or plan of Point Don:,la« Common, registered n the Reg^stry Office for the County of Selkirk, better Known an.l .IcscrH-ecl a. MIowH :-Commenc.ng at the north-west angle of lot D, fronting on Main street and Fonseca street, thence in an easterly .lireetion along Fonseca street four chains thence in a smitherly direction at right angles 92 feet, thence in a weste.Iy direction parallel with Fonseca street to Main street, thence along Main street !.2 feet to the place or beginning. EXHIBIT 5. Deed dated 20th June. 1^70. between William Logan and Frederick C. Mercer Consideration 81.050. Description of land .same as in Exhibit 4, 10 !i''l; EXHIBIT (i. Deed dated 7th December, 1875. between William Logan and wife and David H. Thomas. Consideration $900.00. Description of land :-Lots D and E, accordin-^ t. the plan of tl^ Point Douglas Commom. on record in the Registry Office in and'' for the County of Selkirk, lot D fronting on Main street and Fonseca street, lot E front- ing on Fonseca and Austin streets, together with the buildings thereon, subject never- theless to the payment of S500 with interest to be paid to Robert Gunn of Kildonan on a mortgage held and duly registered by him in said County aforesaid 20 EXHIBIT 7. Consi SaUon^$?on'^ n^""'"' r ''• ^"I'^T ^^'''^ ^^"'■>' ^^^"'""^ ^"^ William Logan. isideiation $700. Description of land :— Same as in Exhibit 4. M If ! 250 KXHFRIT s, the c"o„nt, tf s.,u.:, e:j,';: . : ' ';tr;::;r'''"' ': '■: "t'?'^ '""^^ "• course pftralM t., tho lino l)etw....„ lotn .. . "' '" ** ^"'^''^y 10 HXIIIHIT It. Mer ''-,:;1.::;';»:"L^;;;:;:;; "';:: ,"™'^ ;: rr\ '"'""' =■ of fh„ P ; * n 1 <■, '-'Lscnptioii ut land: a jiortKin ot Ot E in hbck 14 •in' na" V ii • i . "^ ""»>-'-"■ •''iri( I, (iihtant tour chains m a course S "50° .^0 50 trom the u.tersection of tho said s„uth si.lo ,.f Fonseca street wiT H J s..leof Main street; thence southerly at ri-ht angles to tWenf y"'. "'''' «^* feoMhence eastewy parallel to FonL str^.. c::^d:irn!:r;:r 1.:::^:;:: ,. eetto thoIoSs "T;'"''"'''^'''''"^'^ ''■'-' '^'^ '^f Austin street Tnrty-tw '' feet to the south sule of tonseca street; thence N. 50 , 30', 50" W. along the south side of Fonseca street one chain more or less to the place of heginning. KXHIBIT 10. Same as Kxhihit 5. EXHIBIT 11. Mortgage dated 29th June, l.S7(i. Between Frederick C. Mercer and Robert Gunn Consideration ?5()0. Description „f land • 30 Part of lots Dand E in bloek 14 Point Douglas Common described as follows, (.ommencng at the north west corner of D at the intersection of Main and FonZa I ■ U'h 2ol EXHIBIT 12. • 1 ^?^ «'nn "^ "'"'•^r'^g^- l^^tween Robert Gunn an.l Dame El ^a M«rcer Con- si.leration SoOO. Description of lands same as in Exiiibit 1 1. i:\\ EXHIBIT ].S. DeecMated StI, November, 1880. Between Frederick C .M..rcer and Charles H PattKsoa Cons:derat,on S2(.0, I)e.scripti„n of land: ,.rts of lots D and Eb block 14. Po,nt Douglas Connnon, in the City of Winnijl,, described astlow Fn^tly-comn.enc„.g at the north-west corner of lot D at th^ int..rsection o Zn lot D 132 feet; thence .southerly and at right angles t., the northerly boundary of sa.d lot D, 02 feet, thence westerly a^d parallel wTt t^e northerly boundary of said lot D, 132 feet more or less to Main .'feet, thenc alon the westerly boundary of said lot 1), 92 feet to the place of beginning an.l condlv commencing a a pomt on the southerly boundary of Fonseca .s°tree, ^t the Za . of 198 fee easterly from the north-west corner of lot D, thence easterly and along tl northerly boundary of lot E, 1.2 feet more or less to Austin street, thence so Uher v and along the easterly boundary of said lot E, 92 feet, thence westerly and a a£ :^2z^'f"T'''' T '• ''' ''-'' ''"'-'■ ''-'-^y '' '-' ^° *'- '- Clair, D. L. b., an.l hied in the R.-g.stry Office for the C.mnty of Selkirk. 10 20 i f EXHIBIT 14. Deed dated 31st January, 1882, between Charles H. Pattison and Eliza D mo Mercer. Cons.deratmn SOOOO. Description of land :-Same as in Kxhibit 1 3. ' ^ i 2o2 KXHIBIT 1.5. Deed dated 24th J)eecml](.i i>;7<> u i- iit-,,- partandJohnSchultr e ;;nd 7^^ '■"""'^ ^"''"'''' "' '^"^^ «-* land:-An unlivided o„o h. r T ' ^ ""«"l^''-«ti"" «1,25(). Description of p.e,se„t month and are the and" a at b;";' ""'? '''*' "" "*"^'^ ''^^ "' ^'- the said partio.s hoarin.r date t ht ! ., , ''^'"' ^^' ^" ^g'-*^«'"ent between Ti f 1. • "'*""« uate the .seventeenth day of November A n i^'o „; Ihe foHowny port.on.s of the land known as the Point 7 \ 7^ ' ^^''^' ^'^' '- number forty-nine fifty and fiftv „« T ^"'"^ ^>"'>g'a«Comn.on, to wit.— Lots .even and nL, on'tlle^^ st^'; 'V^t ^ T. ^'t '' ''"^'^ '"-'"' ''"' «-' «-' seven in block eleven, and ti> ast ha f ft -^T. T\ " ''^"''' ''''''•'■ ^^" '"^ lot five in bloek twelve. Lots on I t"' /," L p' I"""- ''''" ^•^'■^' ''^'^''^f four in block E. Lots three bur L ^"'" '" »^ ^^'^ B. L„ts one, two, th.ee and Maekreay streets. U^t^' ^: ^:i:'^:;:^ "'"'" '" ''''r' "'• '"^'^^''^^ ^"^ blo.k six on Maekreay and .Selultx tr " ]\ ' "7"' J'' ""'^' '^"'^ '^" '° Lots one, two, three four five iv • ""'' ^'"'' """' ''""'• '" ^''"^k F. tween Charles ami S^ul.'t ee^s ^7""'' ? f ' """ '"'' ^"' "■" '^'"^'^ ^^^l-' ^^ Schultzand Charles s^^t^'H 'ft:: W " ''IT' '" f l^^ '^'--. ^"^ween and four in block H. and lots 1 two t Ir , T'. '" ''•'""' '' ''''' ^'"•- Charles street. ' ' """'' '^"'' '^""' f'^'-' '" lj''"-'l< fifteen on 20 KXHIHIT Ki. Deed dated 9th tlay of October l.ss-) R f„ t' i . ■ , aul down „. the official n.ap or plan of the said City of' 'Vi n p .! b'^tl '^ i.vL_y iivL itei tasKajj' tiom tl)e north-west corner of snid Ut n . j-i ,, , and at right angles with the northern boundan " sti. . .i^V "': Th "'^ westerly and parallel with the northern l.ou d / f t , .^ d'^ "h^ 7^' t We northerly and at right angles with the northia/blil ^ S ^^^^C^Z^ ' two feet uiore or less to the northerly boundary of said lot I) f, . T ^\ 30 I Si f. ■111 ill pll m ii KXHIBIT 17. I)ee,l .late,l l!.tl. DecuWr, IST.i. F5..tw,..n ]). H. Thonms au,l J,.I,n Schultz o„.s,.le,-at,u,n s..SnO. D.sonption ,.f lund: a portion of L.ts C, D. E ami F accordW lot. B an. C ; hence in an ea.st.Tly .lirecti.m two lu,„,Ire,l and sixty feet n.uro or less nnuung a ong he hno and property of one John Freen,an, tl.ence ^t right an-d" n a other]ydneeH,nonehnndredandthirty-fi^ r l.ss.runnin.ralong the linet an. property of on.. Thon.as Manley, tra,l..sn,an of tl,.. sai.l ( 'ity, an.l Messrs McL..an and McDonald, heretofore known l,y tl,e nan,,. an,l Hrn, of M,.ssr; McLean an.l M D ad, butchers .,f the sai.l City of Winnipeg, t.. the lin,. an,i property ; ... Sc Mercer, n.-rchant o the sai.l City; thenc in a w..st..r]y ,lir,.et!on -JOo'feet n..,re . Hess .■unnn^g along the n... an.l prop,.rty ol' .„.. sai.l Fre,]..riel< < '. Merer to Ma n Zr^ ' X^:;;:^^;;:-'^"''"-''"'''"''"^--^-'^''''^-"'- "-« ^•"^" -- -^>e 10 20 EXHIBIT IS. This indenture n.a,l.. this fifteenth .lay of ()et„h,.r. in the v,.ar.,f ..ur Lord one thousand eight hun.lred and seventy-two, ' Between John Sutherlan.l, E.hnnn.l L. Barhev, William (i. F.H,s..ea, Al...xan.ler M Brown Walter R. Bown, Jan.,.s Au.stin, J.,hn C. Sehnltz. (J.-rge Groat, Xeil L v nt stone, J hovnas Spence, His (Jraee the Right R..ver..n,l Al...x-an.l..r Tache. Charles B.m- V c, John Me lavish, JaniesC. Bird, Secr..tary of an.l on l.ehalf ..f the Manitoba Buck Company, Thoinas Lust..,l. H..nry Johnst.,n.., William 0. Fonseca an.l Rollin P. Mea,leExc.cutorso the last will an.l testament of tl,.. late Xeil McDonald .l..cease.l, .1 i the Town of \\innipeg. in the County of Selkirk, in the Province of Manitoba Gentlemen, of th.. hrst part, an.l J.,hn Sutherlan.l, E.lnmn.l L. Barber, Alexander M Brown Walter R. Bown and William C. F.m.seca, all of the sai.l To-vn of Winnipeg in the County an.l Province rJoresai.l,(;..ntlenu>n, f th,. .s..e.,n.l part. Whereas, the parties of the first part are entitle to an inter..st in a common to 3. tlie and extendnig back ir.>m th..ir .lifterent possessions on the river as formerly laid out liy Lord Selkirk, as belonging to the said possessions ;— And whereas it has been agreed upon by the parties hereto that the sai.l common so belonging and attache.l to tl... p.issessioiis aforesai.l, shall be lai.l out in accor.lance with the map or plan n.)w registered in th.. Registry Offic f.)r the County ..f S..lkirk aforesaid : I fe. I f i:H Mk. Ul :\'n 1 -;nr ^•l!l li 254 And whereas the said land so l.id ,.nt in plots in aceordanc.. with th. sai.l n.an or p^an .s t.. be sold and the ,„onies arisin.. fron. sncl, sale or sales is to be he I i ,s and d.vuled propor .onally. in aocordance with a resolution passed at a publie nee it of the shareholders held at Point Douglas on the twenty-fou th day of July A D 8 • amonj. the different parties ent.tlee west .side running eastward four chain.s and bounded by the conn.ion or reserve of Point Douglas on which said lot of land is situated and on the north by an adjoining lot and property of .s.ai,l William Logan where he resides, and on the south by the property of E L. Barber on which his sai.l E L Barbers store or place of business is carried on together with the building thereon known a« the Point Douglass Hou.se with the furniture complete therein in the bar room and hotel combined, also one board building use.l for a store liou.se and stables all of which IS built on said lot above described, the .second of said parcels or tracts of Ian Is having four and one half chains frontage more or less on the west side of the Red River by which it is bounde.l on eputy Minister of the Interior. W. u. tonseca, Esq., Winnipeg, Manitoba. 20 EXHIBIT 22. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOK. Memorandum. Ottawa, June 21sr, 1880. 30 Referring to the Order-in-Council, dated 10th May, 1S77, approving of the Report of the then Minister of the Interior, recommending a certain .settlement of the claims I-' III Ml Mm iniiai 1 'f 11' 11 jii 1 1 ! 1 1' i i III profiTmU,v tin. l,o,l..r,s., riots at Point I).,,,jjlas, ,„ ,)„. i.,,.., trn.t of,,,,,,..,.,.. Ian,l, l,■, .-all th,. atCnti.,., of th.. (J,:v,.,.„„...nt to the faot mtsn,.,eyea,.sh..fo.eth..,.|ni,„s.o.h..('.M„n,o„ had l...,.„ investiffated, and while th,.y-theela.„.ants-w...-e„n,|,.,.th.. iM.lief thatth,. sai.l (V„n,non I...I0, | ,.ic,ht. ftlHy to the.n as appnrtanees t., thei.. lots on the ,.ive.-, action was tak,.,. l.;T,„stees who had Wn appointe.l on t],..i,. l„.hnlf, to sni-vey and lay o„t th.. ..asfrly pa,t ..f the sa.d ( ,.n,.„..n ,nto town l,.ts, a.„! in o..,ler to .'aise n..„,',.v to pay fny th.. sai.l s,„-. veys an.l tho maps th..,.eof, an.l to ....nstrnet sfoets thnm^h th,. sai,l prope.ty the sa.,1 Tn.st,...s, hy and wiH, th,. antho.ity ..f the said elain.ants, so!,l so,,,,, of th.^ lots HO la„l ,.„t. an.o.inting in all to s > o.!' ac,...s. So,,,... of th.'se lots w..,v pai.l fo,- in f„ll, l,„t on othei-s cei'tain i.istai.nents an.l i„t..,.est ,v,i,ai„ .|„... Tho claimants now ask, in ....nsidcration .,( H„.i,. |,avi„. ,.xp..n,l..,| all .,f the mon,cs rcce,ve,l as al..,ve in d..vel..pin« the p,..,perty, whc-eby the .-en.ainins portion of the, Cominon (m.me hnndHMis of aces in extent), owned hy the tJov-e.-nm. ' t has been .t ,,s allej^ed ^..eatly inc,-..as„.| i„ . al,.o, that the a.-ea cove.-e.l l.y the sa„i small lots he ,-0 t.neh.ded ,n he 1 . of land to be given then in connnntation of their cla„nstothoCom.non,hntthatthear,.a to he s,dv,.n them he in.lep,.r.d..„t of s„ch sma lots, and that th,. (iovern.„..nt ,„ak.. patents di.ect to the pe,..s..ns ownin^ the saiid small lots, on the con.iition that th,.se who ,„ay be in ar,-ear for any instalm'onts an.l interest on the pn-'chase of sneh lots, shall pay s„,.h anea-s of instaln.ents into this Department. The undersigned, consi.lerinjr all tlu- ci,-c,.,„stances, is of opinion that the above request ,s a .easonable one, and he .-ecommen.ls the sa„i,. t. tl„. favo..able consi.le,.a tion of Couni-il. The Order in-Council of the 12th May, lfs77, autho..ize.l the issne ..f a patent for the land given in cmmntation of the elain.s piefer,-..,! l,v the P.jint h..lde,s to such persons as n„ght be in.licated with that view hy the clai „ants. "in trust for the several owne-'s .,f the Point lots." A diffe,ent metho.l .^ ...aking the alIot,nents has been cons,dered, and has been di.scu.ssed with the claimants, .me -..hich would re.su It ID less ,l,fficulty and expense than would be involve.l in a pa,tition suit under the t.-ust .iced contemplated, and the f.,llowing mo.le has been mutually ag,-eed up.m tor that purpose, subject to the app.'oval of th.' Honoi-abie the Privy ("ouncil, viz: 1. That th,. projection int., city lots of the easteily part of the Commmi herein- 10 20 30 ' !l I 2oS J'ntl^r*'?"''^ ^' n'*''!^"^ sufficiently far back to .nake up the area (.such area to include streets as well as lots) to be given in commutation. 2. That tickets numbered to correspond with the several numbers of the .said city re t;d fr" I", .' •'•'""'""^''^^'°» -•-. «hal! be placed in a box. an.l that a desinte rested person shall draw at randon. fron. such box. one tieket at a time, for each clainmnt accordmg to a list to be prepared, which list shall show the numbers of the s h lo s t nM T; r"V"''^ ''"" '•" '"'"'^^ of tie owners or reputed owners of m.ch lots, and shall also show opposite to each such name the number of such city lot which would ,0 t. make up the parcel or allotment appurtenant to such origina Pom ot. and extended to foun the comnmtation therefo,' and in such drawin. the 10 cUy lots coriuspondmg to the number on the ticket shall b. allotted to the ow^er of he Point lot. for whom the ticket is drawn, the drawing continuing until all the tickets are drawn. " 8. The patent to be issued for the re,s,,ective city lot.s, .so drawn, to such claimants as may severally be legally entitled thereto. All of which is respectfully submitted. (Signed). •ToHN A. MACnONALD, Minister (if t/,c /nffrior. by H,s Excellency the Governor-General-in-Council, on the 29th June, 1S80. On a memorandum, dated 21st June, 1880, from the Honorable the Minister of the Interior, relating to the Order-in-Council, dated 10th May, 1,S77, approving of the Report of the then ilmister of the Interior, recommending a certain settlement of the claims preferred by the holders of lots at Point Douglas to the large tract of un- occupied lar^l known ns the Point Douglas Common, lying in rear of the .said lots in the I'rovince of Manitoba. The Minister states that the several claimants refused for a long time to accept this proposal oftheGovernment,but that by a comnmuication recently received it appears that the great majority of the persons intereste.l have exp.es.^ed their willin.r. 3,) ness to accede to the terms offered, and have requested that as little tin.e as possible be allowed to elapse before closing the mattci'. The Committee concur in the recommendations submitted in the said memoran- dum, and advise that the same be approved and carried into effect. Certified. TJ,o w 11 (Signed,) J. O. Cotf, The H(morable ^,1^^,^ p ^, The Minister of the Interior. I i !vi 1 . I f| 250 Certified to be a correct copy of a document of record i„ tlie Department of tl.c Interior. P. S. J)our;i,Ass, For the Secretary. P:XH1B1T 23. copy of plan. Scale. ^ C/isi?7U9 to /.Tnch . I certify the above to be a correct tracing of Block Number Fourteen (14) east of Main street, part of Pari.sh Lot Number Tiiirty-five (35), .Saint John, sliown on a plan I ■ F I I : m ^;h 260 made by George McPhiUips, Jun., D. L. S., dated the 22nd day of Juue, 1S7G and de- posited for registration in the Registry Offic; for the County of Selkirk by the Mayor and Council of tlie City of Winnipeg on the 20th day of July, 187C. J Domin- 20 ion Government Survey of the Parish of St. John.s, Lot Number 35, a descri|)tion of which is annexed hereto, and duly registered and filed in the Registry Office for the said County of Selkirk, log.-ther with all the privileges and appuitenances thereto belonging, at or for the price oi- sum of Twelve hundred and fifty dollars of lawful money of Canada, payable in manner and on the days and times litreinafter mention- ed, that is to say : — The whole amount to be paid and is now paid, the receipt of which is hereby ac- knowledged. And the transfer of the said one half interest to be made by deed fi-om the said Fonseca to the said Schultz within one month from the issue of the Patent. In Witness Whereof, the said jiarties hereto have hereunto set their Hands and 30 Seels the day and year first above written (In duplicate). Signed, Sealed and deliveied, having ~\ been first read over and explained ( in presence of ( (Signed,) Walter Robert Bown. ) (Signed, Wm. G. Fonseca, (Seal.) John Schultz. (Seal.) Mi j i! ^1 i f '"!!■ II i r I Mi' 261 The lands referred lo after the eleventh of this agreement, are a strip of ten chains wide of what was known as tlie Point Douglas Common before the Dominion Govern- ment burvey and now lot number thirty-five (35) of th.. Parish of St. John, on its southerly side or next to the D.aninion Survey lot eleven of the Parish of St John and are the lands which a.e the subject of an application for patent made by the said William bomez Fonseca, or. the sixth day of August, A. D., 1877. It is however agreed that should the patent i..sue on the said application include more than seventeen acres then the party of the second part, shall pay to the party of the first part, two hundred and fifty dollars ($250), within one month of the date of the issue thereof. It is also understood and agreed that the parties of the first and second parts, shall make no efforts to obtain from the Government of the Dominion a patent of any lands the ownership of which may be vested in other parties. Witness our hands and seals the day and date mentioned. 10 /c<- 1 ^ ITT ^ ) (•'Signed,) (bigmd,) Walter Robkrt Bown. I Wm. G. Fonseca, John Schultz. ! I >^.| ' 1 I: i' !i ^ ,( Jl i 11 V\2 fa.::'::t 27 Block 14- Po/NT Douglas Commoa/ JSca.le -^O Feet to a.n TncA. A U S T / A/ s T /? £: JET r Jl arris jB*(^ne ^J^u/^2>.r^, IK ' tliii / 203 KXHtniT28. IWd (liitiMl Kith ()rtol«.|, 1N74, lirtwcMi D, H. TlionmsandJohnFieoman. Con- siilcration .^I'OO. Desoiiptinn of land: ("(mmicncinu' at tlic i uitli went point of letter "B" in tlie snivt-y of said Point Donrrlas roiunion mad.' hy Duncan Sinclair, Kxquin-, Provincial Land Suivfyoi- on the fa-st sido of Main Street in said City, wliicli said Mnrvt-y by a plan oi' map tlii'ivof has lu'cn duly ivgiHtcrcd, thenc- nortliurly forty feet, thence in a line parallel with th.- hoinnlary line of .said lot letter "B" ami lot letter "C" in .same survey in an ea,sterly direction to Austin Street, thence southerly aloiif,' the front of lot letter "F" where the .same fronts on said Au.stin Street in a .southerly direction forty feet, thence alonr .i,< >>, ithern lioundary line of lots letters 10 "C" and "F" in said survey to the place o' bt.giiiiiii»v EXHIBIT 'JO. Deed dated i;Uh Aui,'ust, 1877, hetween John Freeman and A. J. Reich. Consi- delation S")()(). Deseiiption of land same as in Kxliibit 28. EXHIBIT 30. Deed dated 2nd Aui,'ust, 18S1, between A. J. Belch and T. S. Gray. Consideration 83100. Description of land same as in Exhibit 28. 20 EXHIBIT 31. Dee.l dated 17th Octolier, IS72, between Joseph Huppe and William Logan. Consideration .SI, 50. Description of land :— At Point Douglas in the County of Sel- kirk, measuring four and one-half chains in width by all the depth between the Re:' River by which it is bounded in front and the road loading from the Point Douglas ferry, which road forms the rear boundary. The lot lielonging to John Sutherland bounds the said land on one .side and E. L. Barber's lot Iwunds it on the other. 1 1 r I » i '^ii t : -\ - 1 ; ^ i j 1 : 1 m u W lis. . m RSI 264 EXHIBIT 32. Deed datetl 13th March, 1874, between WiHiam Logan and Henry McDonnell. Consideration S1,()0(), Description of land :— In the City of Winnipeg, in the County of Selkirk aforesaid, measuring four and one-half chains in width, containing four acres, one rood and 23 poles, known as lot numbered 233 and registered in the Hudson Bay Company's R(>gistry ; said lot is bounded on one- side by the Red River, on which said lot fronts and the road leading from the Point Douglas ferry, which road forms the rear l)oundary. The lot belonging to John Sutherlanc oounds the said I'/t on one side and E. L. Barber's lot bounds it on the othiu-. The party of the first part particularly excludes (in the sale of the said lands of lot numbered 233 as afore- IQ said described) any right or title in any shape or manner thereto belonging in the Point Douglas Ct)nniion, Together with all and singular the rights, members, easements, privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, and all rever.sioi remainders, rents, issues ond profits thereto; and all the estate, right, title, interest, both at law and in equity of him the said party of the tirst part of, in, to and out of the said lands, hereditaments and premises. EXHIBIT 33. 1 Deed dated July 5th, 1882, between Henry McDonnell ami John Schultz. Con- sideration $3,000. Description of land : -Same as in Exhibit 31 with these additional 20 words, " said parcel or tract of land may l)e furthi^r described as lot 24, according to the Dominion Government survey of the Parish of St. John's." 'I i.i. 'i Wl 265 Registry Office, City of Winnipeo, July 29th, A.D. 1882, at 10 o'clock A.M. An Abstract of all Conveyances, which appear to have Iwen Registered in this Office upon Lot " E," Block 14, part of Lot 35, St. John. 1 1 C H •2 s ! 3 i ^ ^' i X i -? ^ § S .a :. Z ^-B -iH. .5-2 '-"^ = Tj ^ 2 ?. 'O 5 "^ - 2 ^- ■S o ■=■ 3 c -/. -^ ^?: cii >.=^ g d s! ~ i^' Li, ■;r. -t^ =^ >0 ' — '^ S 5 ~ " "T t^ "^ X i£ 5-' = ?-' ^- '- = i^ i 2 1^ — X . ;z j^ 'S ^ * a ^ -t X -^ 5< =i ^ ^'^ -5 V -j:^^Z'=^ - .9 "^ - X 5 d u =4-1 i_0_|__ % x:% ,11, i |§i?||§g5 oog og gog •■/.' '^ f.' ~ -■ 1^ — 10 o rr lo lo ci ci ci -f lo >o cc x Eh t-H a X! Jd h ! X ■J Sutherland et al . . . . William Fra.ser tW. Logan Freil E. Kew Rohert (iunn W. Logan Roliert (Junn. . . . D. McVicar W. Lo'i-an "o A illiam Logan McLeiii! & McDonaldj W. L'igan F. C. Men-er Rohert (iunn i Frederick ('. Mercer. John Schultz Danu- E. Mercer. .... John H. Sempl.-. ... '. W. Radiger K. ("owlard John .Seliiiltz : : :^ i-^" : : : : : : 3 : J : : : 'J 'J 3= i- ^ :a M = K ^* ^' /V* C_i f^ ^^ ^ ""^ ^ a: :;D. Sinclair, D.L.S. . . liSutherland et al . . . . "William Logan ; W. Eraser William Logan ^Villiam Logan et ux. Rohert (Junn U'illia'ii Logan \\ . Logan 1 ). McVical^ j William Logan i Roliert (Junn ! W. Logan (Sr wife. ... D. H. Thomas David Hen'y Thomas F. ('. Mercer W. Logan et ux J). H. Thomas Roliert (Juini ] ( hill ies W. Radiger. . I J H. Semple ( F. C. Mercer. 1 W. ( J. Fonseca , 73 s — iJ 35 X X X II 2 « ^— C7 f^ _^-* — f' ■' r*H • ■ ■ •' -c ■ "S .•- :sl3| g .9 : s .2 J -5 S :$ g !> „ !-* '*2 'Jaq 1 05 = 03 a) DiJ es ^~i Qi X !ii tri u' '& c U 1 u 1 a C 1 H 1 1^ i^ t^ iX 1- i-i 1^ 1^ i'^ J^ |X '^- ""i y* ^y^^ — S'^. >^ ~ o CI 1^ " j^ lo ''■ '^ 7^ '.c -^ c^ 1— 1 ci c; CI CI lo 10 -^ CI ci o CI ci '.c CI TT "O 10 7" ;i i: 1-- 1-- t- l^ t^ 1^ i^ 1 ^ 1^ J, ,^ « X X X X X X X X X X O lO CI l^ rfi "■ c ^ ^ :5 4 -^ ~ ^ S -1 X ^ ►^ ^iprrc — •* — s^xTOx— 1 77 CI Tl CI CI CI CI CI CI — CI CI 16 Fel.'y, 1880 16 Feh'y,1880 16 Feh'y, 1880,16 Feh'y,l880 ; 5 Dec'r, 1879 19 Mrch, 1880 ( 1 March, 1880 2 March, 18801 8 March. 1880 9 March, 1,880 : 26 Feh'y, 1880 9 -March, 1880 1 25 Mrch, 1880|25 Mrch, 1880] ,29 June, I87ti :U Mrch, ]87t) 22 Mrch, <>^7() 19 Jun.-, . .7(i 29 Jun.-, 1876 '20 Jun.-, 1876 19 Dec'r, 1876 7 March, 1879 28 Jan 'y, ^ S78 5 Sept'r, 1879 :2I July, 1879 17 Nov'r, 1879 X X X X . . . C ■ 5 ■ -s ■ • • : : :^ :- :_• : :„ a "i t '"*='"£ t '■** "d if*^ S Q_03 oa 03 s oa oq -s; s d s <* CO 3: q: a 1 is E t^l>.Tfi»IOXTC'*iTti|^ t^ClpCICIXXClTf. ■0 M © :t -t X X ic o ^ CI Cl -f ?. 12 t ~ .S "^ "^ c: ■■£ z: r: CI lo lo '.e !>. X 1^ X ic^oT^ CI ;c c; — ' re lO -fi 1^ CI r: — :e CO .— S fe — — ^ J* i* 1* X O X X c = c " c c iS •^ oi § S 5 ,2 =^ ~ - 2 It' (M 266 x-r o .s to I -K-f- = ■5S o 5 in 53 fci -;• '•■" •r c o o S. ^ S o i; o -►^ ^ -3 ., -t? * •'" '-' ^ o ■ V a «,.'- ^ -^i *!- i-i -': I-; ^, -'.«'.<; y: S >■: a ^^ -^ • o u ■ -tf . -w to o -. "— hJ :?,S - J5 '-< > — ) ^ IN (M :o jt; X 1- X X X> '■ — - — , y—i >i >ix"! C^ ?i i?r.^ lO c; ^fc '^i 1— I ^m ^ Jl* -y^ ,__ ^ f— iCif^»O^^H7^^^ ' 5^ — -< — iri iM :y ? .^ p p f- c x; 1-1 !-• b- c rj ^N lis 5 'C; '-7 1 1^ '^ 56 i>^ X X xxxxxxxxxxxx t^ zri X X t^ XXX ;_' J~ O „^J C >i SA'S 4) b? S a; c< IC ;2; •^< |-» cc H, j^^ fi. X 3> O >0 h- C 1-5 1-5 ; » O IM 1-1 ■ 0 W (J.1 IM 5-1 X (N SC -H S M ^Ijcnyj ' Ph Cu ^^^ *^ a, pQ a oj ^ mjci aq PQ Q ;3 i3 M «' Si^S'tT^'^S'^^ -^ "4 *■' 'i' >f5 corr-t-fTf — ■*Tfi5ot-.c>or»'f? -"'—' — <— I— Ir— II— li— IIM3^ ;^f*i-'3 '-0 S-- 3 1-^ ir h r- gt 03 i)C W 15 - t S - a- O -3 267 a JS o <-» ^i 'JD ^ *a Ji «4-l ■g fld & •*" 4^' J?. -< a' K OC) S fl O •• „ C O J «! a s pH ii C 56 < -X B -= r 0) r>. 'ScS OS .- i- "*^ . Si T a. ■Li O 73 C i* (Si O "3 il o 5 o . = >'. = X ■ c > -2 ■-SS ' -2 o ^ _2 X o o £g -jj i^j ^ — c o >^ o o o • t^ tC O T? >0 »Q "S * El, : - "i £ ^ i 3 = ■ * Sw.2 S . ■ M -, S 3 3 tc tc C 3 •> ~ :S '*" T; O i^ i) ;■£ = = «■ ^^^:^S'*^ 5»4j S ?r, ~r ^ _i' It! 1S' ^' ^ i I ^^ . S J i^ - -^ h3 ^ ?; o ^-2 :£ ^, :S ^ -C -C S - 3i ■g -e -e ~ r. -ii -s M ~ !S 5i si r, •— ;^ O i: •/■ &< in. &. 't; a eg >'. a -c r> c -■ »0 iC o (N (N Tl 70 -H ■^ Bx^'ZB 4^.?L^1^ M o p;_5^ ^ig- g'cafe;4 j ^ o w ^ 3 -S-5 = = = c*^^ - 3 §-ii = '0'J^ 2^03 = M i~ =S^ S S ^- 3 1'^ ■ ^i 1 1 . . ' " .... X ■ «■ 3 : ^ X ■ e • -53 ■ ■ - s ? ^ s a .x*-"^ " .ji _ p p . ■5 9 ? • :« ■ V ' a ■ IS *6 0) - T-i =i f) s; O r: " X -'- — t^ ^ •-> 'M 'Ti ■M -Ti (M -M - 1^ $-, ,o 5-) t: c; ;=; ■«-■■= X' ^4^ -p SM t3 ~ J: -3 "" 3 "- 'S 'S SP & ?'« « to iM X ^ W gO_ga j^ 35 it'i r-t X (M (N 0) I t^ ^ gfi t* i^ -?■ ".C i^ lO ^r? irfx rfi ir l-fMOlMS^XXirjp- "^ W e TC -t X X 'C X o ". 5 t f b Q* __ ^*- Co '4^^ eg ^53 ■t^ -H -t^ M '*-| ^ S. 01 ■ a V 'A a : B , J a ■•■. V J2 ii „• »S .i j; ■ _• -OS . . .« . 3 S '■'"• »3 m_SS_^_m_5j^£ - =a i^. m ^q J a ^ ;3 f— I ^■^ --^ I— - -^ { a portion of lot number thirty-five (35) in the Parish ot St. John according to the Dominion .survey of river lots, to wit : the southern ten chams of said lot eonunencing in the rear of the land or lot No 11 owned by the late Neil McDonald, and thence running back the usual distance to the' 10 two mile lun.t, and therefore prays that letters patent thereof may is.sue to him for the same. And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. Dated this 26th day of July, A. D. 1«77. ^ '^'"''' Wm. G. Fonseca. ■1 EXHIBIT E. Letter dated 3nl Oct., 1878, from W. G. Fonseca to J. S. Dennis. See copy of this Exhibit at pages 14 and 15. 20 EXHIBIT F. The 7't)H(.s Printing House, Main street, opjiosite City Hall, Charles R. Tuttle, Editor and General Manager. Col. Dennis, Deputy-Minister of the Interior. Dear Sir, VViNNii'Eo, May 22nd, 1879. Mr. Bannatyne told me the other day that in a conversation with you he plainly 30 stated that had I not bf-., .head of him in surveys, .staking and improvements he HJ 969 woul.l have persisted m de.nanding a patent for that portion of 35 I now occupy and .hat you agreed w.th hi.n that I wa.s entitled to ,ny patent. I aI«o ho understood you when rc>ference was .nade to the subject during our drive. Of courne I do not ^fish to ave rat" ? " T''" '*^" ""'^' ''^ "^^*^^" '^"''^'-^ "^ ^^ '='--' »>"* expect to have that made L'ood. '^ EXHIBIT G. Dei'artment ok the Interior, Dominion Lands Office, lO Ottawa, ;Jrd February, 1879. Memoranijum. In the matter of the claim preferred by .Mr. W. G. Foaseca, for a grant „. him under the Manitoba Act, of a certain portion of the Point Douglas Comn.on, the un, ersigned has the honor to report that the Deputy Minister of Justice lias on t..-. evidences submitted to him, approved the recogniticn of the elaim, but gives the on. ,on that the extent of land to be granted .s a matter for .he decision of the Kight n. the Mmister of tlii.s Department. In com. .n with others making similar claims, Mr. Fonseca. applies for the full depth of • ,nner two n.ile" belt remaining in rear of the Neil McDonald pro- 20 perty, an 1 a width hroughout of ten chains from the outline of the River lot next adjoming to the v aid. It is to be observed that the Point Do«gla,s < 'ommon lot was not surveyed either by the Hudson .s Bay Company, or subse(iuently by the Dominion Land... Under these circumstances the pos.scssion of Mr. Fonseca, under the Manitol,a Act, could not be athrmed to include any greater extent than his own actual encio sures, and did not therefore carry with it the occupation of any defi u.ic of a system of lots. If therefore anything be3ond the ground actually enclosed by him be gn.Url to Mr. Fonseca, such concession will bo purely an act of grace on the part of the 30 Minister, and. in view of the relatively great value of the land in question, the under- " signed 18 of the opinion that Mr. Fonseca, would be most liberally treated were he given such additional area to that he actually occupied, as would make tl whole 25 acres. As it will be advisable in public interest to recognize th.^ private surveys whi. kn..w what, parts of the Comm.m, c.vcrod by this claim have alreatly been dispose.l of to other parties, either by Mr. Fonseca. acting for himself alone and receiving tho cjuivalent therefor, or by tho trust.ies of tho P.,int Hol.lers. In the latter case a proportionate a.lditional extent in tho n;ar woul.l .cpnie to be added to make up f.ir any such lands sold, f.,r which Mr. Fonseca received no equivalent. Respectfully submitted. o* Lindsay Russfi.l, Survey .)r-General. ' ' ' ulA The farts are as stated by the Surveyor-General, and the conclusions arrived at by him are recommonde.l to the fav.)rablo consideration of the Minister. Approved. (Signed) J. A. McD. (Signed), J. S. Dennis, Deputy Minister. 30 EXHIBIT H. In the matter of the a[)plioation of Ahxander J. Belch, of the City of Winnipeg in the Province of Manitoba, for the issue of letters patent to him of parts of lots lettered C, F and G, in the City of Winnipeg in the Province of Manitoba, under the Act 33 Vict, cap. 3, sec. 32 and amendments thereto, such portions being tho southerly 1-- I?' li ij.'Sii .■. 1; , 271 40 feet of lots C and F, and 66 fef,t on Austin street by 7s in occupation of the sail portions of lots letters C; and F, in the year of our Lord 1870, and the same has been since occupied by him and those claiming under him. 3. That that part of lot lettered G, described above was in the occupation of 10 Edmund L. Barber, prior to the tiftecnth day of July, in the year of 'our Lord 1870, and the SMne has been .since continuously resided upon and occupied by him and those claiming under him. 4. That the Trustees of P^ \ ;\ ,v \ % V >s» vi ^, 'v •^^^^^^ 6^ 2/7 the settlement, considerefl tlie Company ivs possessing the title to the land. This oc- curred in the year 1862. The statement that the Common, as now claimed, was set apart by Lord Selkirk and intended by him for the exclusive use and benefit of the Point holders, is not borne out by the facts ; on the contrary, the original plan of survey embracing the Point Lots (see tracing B herewith) shews the land south of Lot 249, being the north- erly limit of the present Common and between it and Fort Garry, to have been em- braced in one immense lot or tract, numbered 277, and it was not until many years after Lord Selkirk left the country that this lot was subdivided into smaller parcels by the Hutlson's Bay Company which then represented Lord Selkirk in the country, jq The undersigned is of opinion that the claimants were, at the time of, and previous to the transfer, in the enjoyment of a right of Common and of Cutting Hay over the land in question, and generally in the Province, the ascertaining and adjusting of which is provided for in the Act 33 Vic, cap. 3, and that the same should be commut- ed "by a grant of land from the Crown." He is of opinion, however, that the applicants are unrea.sonable in their demands. The commutation of the Hay and Counuon Rights in the Province already effect- ed by the Govemment, and which has been based upon an acreage allowance of land or scrip, has been conceded to be of the most liberal charactei'. The claimants in the parishes iii which the right was protected by the Council of Assiniboia have been 20 satisfied by a grant of the land, acre for acre, where practicable, in the Outer Two Miles in rear of the respective river holdings. In all other parts of the Province the right has been connnuted by a grant of .scrip, in no case exceeding the rate of one dollar and a half of scrip for each acre of land to which the applicant may prove his right under the Manitoba Act. The (juestion now to be considered is what would be a fair and reasonable commu- tation of this right on the part of the Point holders. Thoy may, upon the whole, have somewhat more claim to considei-ation than eithei' of the classes whose rishts have been commuted by laud or scrip respectively as above, in view of the fact of the land in question being now situate within the limits of Winnipeg, and therefore 30 possessing special value. On the other hand it nmst be rememl^/red that such rights as they may possess have only been acquired by "User" and to the extent shown in the papers, there being no proof whatever, beyond the mere statements severally made by the applicants, of any title or even of any special right to the Common having been conferred upon them either by Lord Selkirk, the Hudson's Bay Com- pany, or the Council of Assiniboia. Upon a full and earnest consideration of all the circumstances, the undersign- ed is of opinion that the applicants would be fairly, indeed liberally, dealt with were they to receive, in commutation of their rights, a grant of acre for acre, out ;: '' ¥\ If 278 of that part of the common next toward the river, which is the most valuable part of the property. The total acreage of the small lioldiugs, embracing the point, is 226.07 acres. The und(irsigneil reconnnend.s that a patent for an eiiua! (juantity issue to such persons as may be indicated, with that view, by the claimants, in trust for the benefit of the several owners of the Point lots. The land so patented should be bounded, next to the river, by the rear of the lots as originally laid out, (the lot owned by the family of the late Neil McDonald to be considered as one of such lots,) but not to be held to include any land for which a right to a patent may be established under the Manitoba Act or the Act ;^8 Vic, cap. 10 52, on the said property. It should be understood fuither that the Government is to be entirely relieved from any trouble or responsibility connected with division of the grant among the claimants, and, finally, the patent not to issue to the trustees until the written con.sent to such step shall have been filed in the Dominion Lands Ottiee, of the several parties to whom the Point holders or any of them may have .sold lots on the Conniion. St. Bonikack Common. Lot 82, in the Parish of St. Boniface, or No. 754, according to the Hudson's Bay Company Register, known as the Hi. Boniface Common, is claimed under somewhat similar circumstances, and the undersigned recommends that the claim slundd be dis- posed of in a similar manner Tn this case the common only contains 118 acres, wbilt; the aggregate area of the small lots on the river, represented l)y tlie claimants, is 1141 acres. Were the common to be divided, pro-rata, therefore, according to acreage, the pro- portion of the grant would be as one is to one-tenth, nearly. The claimants, however, have joined in an agreement that the land, if given by the Government, sliall be divided, share and share alike, annmg them, that is to say, as there are twenty claimants, each share will be o^\ acres, and they .stati; that they will be perfectly satisfied with such an arrangement, and have further joined in .- request that the patent may issue to Archbishop Tacho, in trust for the severa owners. The undersigned recommends that the patent issue accordingly for their land to Archbishop Tache in trust for the claimants, in the .same manner as suggested in con- nection with the settlement of the claims preferred to the Point Douglass Common, the 20 30 I* :: ' j ■ 1 .1 s 1 1 f 1 1 279 Goveninient to be similarly relieved from any and all responsibility respecting the final division of the land among the persons entitled. All of which is respectfully submitted. (Signed,) DAvin Mills, Minister of the Interior. Certified to be a true copy of the original. Ottawa, July 7, 1886. A. M. Burgess, Deputy Minister of the Interior. 10 EXHIBIT N. Same as Exhibit 20 at page 255. EXHIBIT O. CANADA. Deputy-Goveraor. Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, 20 Defender of the Faith, &c., &c., &c. To all to whom these Presents shall come — Greeting : I «• ' m l^ • i^^l m 1 " 1 ''^^1 1 20 m ■ 1 I ; i 1 in III ' 1 ■ i'l' 1 M 9 \ '" ;i't I ? ;ll 1 01 H ^Mm J, ' 1 1 i I \ V s ^T-Ti i 280 P3 a> o 3 ? o , 5 3" re 'T3 -1 re S WluTC'iis tlio Lamls, hereinafter descrilicd, arc part of the lands known as " Dominion Lands," and niontioncd in an Act of the Pariia- nieiit of Canada, pa.ssed in the forty -sixth year of Our Reign and known as the " J)(aninion Lauds Act, l.SS.'}." And Whereas lia applied for a grant of tlie said lands and claim to such grant having been duly investigated by Us ha been found duly entitlecl thereto. Now Know Ye, that by tliese Presents We do grant, convey and assure, tnito the said and assigns forever, all tli lying and being in the I'arcel )r Tract of Land, situate, in Our Dondnic^n of Canada, and being composed of a 3. o 1 10 20 in the said Province, dated 1st Jainiary, 1875, signed by John Stiaighton Dennis, Surveyor-Ceneral of Dominion Lands, and of record in that Hranch of the Department oi the Interior known as till,' Dondnion Lands Office, containing by admeasurement acre , more or less. To have and to hold the said Parcel or Tract of Land, unto ^ the said * and assigns, for ever : .saving and reserving, nevertheless, unto Us, Our Successors and Assigns, the free uses, passage and enjoyment of, in, over and upon all navigable waters that now are or may be liereafter found on or under, or flowing through or upon any part of the .said Parctd or Tract of Land ; also reserving thereout all " travelled roads " crossing the si ■, existing as such on the 15lh day of July, LSTO, which by and under the laws of As^j.aiboia, were or may be held to be legally Public Highways ; and further reserving thereout the right for any person or persons at anj' time or times to land, in connection with purposes of navigation of the River, upon the slope of the river bank of the lands hereby granted, from any vessel, barge, boat or 30 other craft while navigating the said river, or whilst using the waters of the same for purposes of navigation, and to plant on such slope of the river bank aforesaid any post or posts for attaching thereto any such vessel, barge, boat or other craft engaged as eioresaid. Given under the Great Seal of Canada : — Witness, Deputy of Our Right Trusty and Entirely Beloved Cousin, the Most Honourable Henry Chailes Keith Petty Fitzmaurice, Marquess of Lansdowne, in the County of Somerset, Earl of Wycond)e, of Chipping Wycond^e, in the County of Bucks, Viscount Calne and Calnstone, in the County of Wilts, and Lord Wycombe, Baron of Chipping Wycombe, in the County of Bucks, in the peerage of Great Britain ; Earl of Kerry u 1 1) m I ilil i:ii 281 anrl Earl of Shelbnrno, Viscount Clannmurice and Fitzniaurice, Baron of Kerry, Lixnaw and Dunkerron, in the peerage of Ireland ; Knif,dit (irand Cross of Our Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George ; Governor-General of Canada, and Vice-Admiral of the same &c., &c., &c. At Ottawa, this day of in the year of Our Lord, one tliousand eight hundred and eighty- and in the forty- year of Our Reign Ref. No. Grant No. } Hy Connnand, 10 Under Secretary of State. Deputy of tin; Minister of the Interior. Bill of Complaint in Meucer vs. E\jn.sh:ca. IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH IN EQUITY. and Between Eliza Mercer, Plaintiff. William Gomez Fonseca, and John Christian Schultz and Her Majesty's 20 Attorney-General for c et. Second, a portion of said Lot i^ . having a frontage of ninety- two feet on Austin Street, and running back along ,eca Street the same width to a depth of one hun- dred and thirty-two feet more or less, through said Logati and Thomas, by virtue of successive conveyances of the si.me in fee simple, which have all been registered in said Registry Office, that is to say, a deed from David H. Thomas to one Frederick C. Mer- cer, dated the nineteenth day nf June, 1870, registered the twentieth day of June, A. D. 1876 ; a deed from said David H. Thomas to said William Logan, dated the twenty • second day of March, A. D. 1S7(i, registered the twenty- third day of March, A. D. 1876 ; a deed from said William Logan to said Frederick C. Meicer, dated the twentieth day of June, 1876, registered the twenty-fourth day of June, A. D. 1876 ; a deed fium said Fredei'ick 0. Mercer to Robert Gunn, dated the twenty-ninth day of June, A. D- 1876, registered the same day; a deed f.om said Robert Gunn to tiie plaintiS;' dated the seventh day of March, A. D. 1879, registered the twenty-ninth day of March, A. D. 1879; a deed from the said Frederick C. Mercer to one Charles Herbert Pattison dated the eighth day of November, registered the eleventli day of November. 1880 •' of a portion of said lands a deed from the said Charles Herbert Pattison to the plain- titt; dated the thirty-first day of January, 1882, registered the twentieth day of Febru- ary, 1882, a deed from said Frederick C. Mercer to your complainant, dated the ninth day of October, 1882, legistered the eighteenth day of October, 1882, of the remaining portion of said lands claimed by the plaintifl". (9) The actual peaceable and undisturbed possession of the said parcels claimed by 30 the plaintirt" has always accompanied the said title until the wrongful acts of the de- fendants hereinafter mentioned, and from the date first mentioned till very recently the portions of said lots owned by your complainant have always betn in the actual peaceable and undisturbed possession of her and those through whom she claims as aforesaid. (10) Tlie said William Logan being interested as aforesaid in said Point Douglas Common in the year 1868 staked out a block of land on the cast side of Main street, including said Lots C. D. E. and F, and the lands now claimed by the plaintiff, and claimed the said block so staked out by him as his land. In the next year said Logan ploughed round the said block of land, and in or about the month of August, 1869. 20 • 1 i •'SI . im 4 i «< i i: 284 he dug a cellar on said l.lock of land as a preparation for liuiWing a house thereon and in the autumn of the same year he put the building materials on sai.l ground for his intended .Iwelling house, an.l in the spring of the ymv 1870 said Logan built his said house on said block of lan,l, and sai.l house was complete.l an.l a .juantity of a.l- ditional building materials placed on said groun.ls for an a.hiition to said house all be- fore the sai.l transfer on the fifteenth July. 1870. an.l said Logan has resided in said house and in another built by him on the same land ever since until very recently, and still retains possession thereof. (A) The sai.l the D..partm.'nt of Interior .luring the pendency of the said peti- tion of the .lefen.lant, F..nseca, nMiuire.! him to hi.- a statement showing what persons 10 were entitle.l by p.wsessi..n .)r oth.n'wise to any porti.ms .jf the lands for which he was seeking to procure a patent, an.l in response thereto the defendant Fonseca Hle.l with the said ]X>partment a memoran.lum of such persons, among the rest nientioninrr that the said William L.>gan was tlu- .)wner of said Lots C. 1), an.l E, an.l stating tirat he the defendant Fonseca, .li.l not wish t.) interfer.i with the claims of any such persons,' which meiiDranduin bears .late tiie third .lay of October, 1878. (B) One Ale.Kan.ler J. Belch, in the month of July, A.D. 1879,ma.le an application for a patent for portions .jf sai.l Lots C. an.l F., basing his claim upon the title of said Logan, and in support thereof the ..lefendant Fonseca made a solemn declarati.)n that said William L.^gan had been in occupation .,f said Lots C. an.l V. since the year 1870, 20 and that the .said lots had since been occupie.i l)y him an.l those claiming under him' also stating that the trustees of the Point Douglas Common, of whom he" was one, did not claim any rights in or to the said laml, but acknowledged the title of those cliiim. iiig through said Logan. (0) Sometime thereafter the matter of the .said petition .)i said defendant Fonseca, wa.s referred by the Department of the Interior to the Surveyor-General, for his inve.stigation and report and that official made his report in writing bearing date the third day of February, 187l>. (D) In said report it is pointed out that as the sai.l Common had never been 30 surveyed by the Hudson's Bay C.)mpany or the Domini.m Government, the posses- sions .)f the defendant Fonseca " could not be " affirmed t.) include any greater extent than his own actual inclosures and .lid not therefore carry with it the occupation of any definite one of a system of lots that the defendant Fonseca, had originally made a claim antagonistic to the claim now made as one of the associated Point Douglas holders as aforesaid and that if any grant were made to him of land other than t°hat within his own enclosures it woul.l be by reason by the (irace oi the Crown and not because he had any right thereto and it was by the .said report suggested that if land were granted to the defendant F.mseca, who with that enclosed by him, would make in all twenty-five acres he would be liberally .lealt with and such facts as stated in said report are true. I.': i' Ij m In i III lii i 285 {E) The said report was recomuieiided by the Deputy Miniister of the Interior to favorable consideration of the Honorable the .NFinister of the Interior and was by him approved ami arlopted and the Crown thereby determined to aet thereon and to make a gi'ant from the Crown in accordance therewith. (/') After mueh delay having occiuivd and the .selection of sucli additional lands beingof much coiLsecjiience the defendant .Fonscca,ai)plied to the defendant Schultz who was a member of thM«rj M a M » «w fcfcWIWrtW 286 fompliiinant to coini.Iainaiit, but to pay siicli rents to liini ami lias received rents from said tenants of your coiiipIainaTit and is .still reccivinj,' and ajiplying the same to his own use claiming that he is entitled to the same under the said letters patent so issued to him as aforesaid and has also recently attemjjtod to levy rents from the tenants of the plaintiff, hy distress and sale of their goods and chattels. Your complainant therefore prays. 1. That it may he declared that the defendant William Gomez Fonseca, procured the issue of the .said !)atent to iiimself uncon.scionably and in derogation of the rights oftho.se from whom your complainant claims title and of the rights of the plaintiff, in regard to the \nn-tu f the said l.iiids claimed hy the jilaintitfas aforesai-l or that it 10 nmy be declar(;d tluit t]u- said j.atent was issued in lespecf, of the .said lands herein before mentioned impiovidontly and through erroi- and in ignoran;'e of the rights of the several persons from whom the plaintiff claims and of the rights of the .said plaintifi' in file premi.s.'s and lliat the said defendant William (hmiez Fon.soca, holds the said lands as Trusttu' for the Plaiiititf. 2. Or that the said jjatent may be set aside so far as it affects the said lands of the plaintiff, by a decree of this Honorable Court and be declared ab.solutely null and void and of no effect so far as regards the said lands of the plaintiff. 3. Tiiat the agreement of the twelfth day of November, 1.S7!I, whereby the .said defendant William Oomez Fon.seca, agreed to convey to the defendant John V. Schultz, 20 an undivided one-half share or interest in the lands in said Common, for which the said defendant William (iomez Fon.seca, .shall obtain letters patent from the Dominion Government if any such deed exists be declared null and void as to the rights of your complainant in the said lands and premises and that the said defendant John C. Schultz, be ordered to release and quitclaim to your complainant any interest he may have obtained in the lands ans and may also be oidered to execute a quit claim deed to the plaintiff of her said lands. 5. That all the conveyances of the said lands and premises and through which your said complainant claims title to the said lands and premi.ses may be confirmed. G. That the defendants William Gomez Fonseca and John C. Schultz, may be ordered to pay the costs of this suit. 7. That for the purpose aforesaid all proper directions may be given and accounts taken. • I . i 1 ; 1 i 1 1 f 11 1 ! ' ^^1 .:i : . ! |H ff' r^^^l 9 287 8 That your complainant may havu such further and otiior relief as the nature of tile case may require and an to tliis Honorable Court may nee meet and your com- plainant will ever pray. Decrkk in Mercek vs. Fonheca. This cau.se coming on to be heard on the IGth day of April A.D. 1885, and follow- ing days at the ('ity of Winnipei,', for examination of witne.s.ses and hearing in ])re- sence of counsel for all parties ujion opening of the matter and upon hearing read the pleadings and upon hearing the evidence adduced on the pait of the plaintitfand de- fendants, this Court did order that this cau.se should stand over for argument and the 10 .same coming on this day for argument ujion hearing what was alleged l>y counsel afore.-*aid. 1 This ('ourt doth declare that the Plaintifl' has failed to establish a title to the lands in question in this cau.se or any part thereof under the provisions of the Mani- toba Act. 2. And this Court doth further order and decree that the Flaintitf's Bill of Com- plaint be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to be paid by the Plaintifi" to the defendants fdrthwith aftei' taxation thereof. i'- %\ i< I ■ IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH, IN EQUITY. 20 Between Heu Majesty's Attorney General fob Canada, at and by the relation of Eliza Mercer, Informant, and William Gomez Fonseca and John Christian Schultz, Defendants. 41 5 i I' if Take Notice, that at the hearing of this cause the Informant will give in evidence 30 the depositions of John Stoughton Dennis and Robert Lang, taken at Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, in the foi-mer suit in this Court in which the above named relator u 288 Eliza Mercer was Plaintiff and the other parties hereto were «Jefeiidants, the Haiti John Stoughton Dennis having since that time departed this life and the said Lang having left Canada. Dated this 4th day of March, AD. 1886. Pattkrson & Baker, Solicitors for hiformant. To Mcssis. Glass & Oi.ahs, HolirltarM for Defevdant Fovnern, and J, Stkwart Tui'i'EU, Esq., tiollvUm' for Defendavf Srhidtz. I ^1 ' Hi ,; hi < 'St Ill I ! II rf ! i I! III! I' ii 2«1» DECLARATION OK W. G. FONSFXA IN Sl'lTOKT OF IllS AITI.ICATION F')i: i'Airr of lot :i5. Province of Manitulm, \ In tlif matttT of tliu Applimtion of William (ioni.-/ Fonaoca Dominion (iovciinncnt survey of Rivt-r l/iis in flic Parish of Winnipe}; and St. John's in the Province of Manitoiia, under tht; Act 3S Vic, cap, 3, .sec, SU.and Rnien'lnicnts tliereto I, VVillinni Gomez Fonsecn, of the City of VVinniperht hundr"d and sixty-one I, - ith the per- mission of the Hudson's Bay Company, throu<,di tiie hite (iovernoi McTavi,sli, located and settled on part of now lot luunln'r thirty-ti ve aceordinj,' to Domiui >n Govern- ment .survey of River Lota imiiieea, of tiio City of Winni- peg, in tlic County of Selkirk miuI Province of Manitolm, for the issue of letters patent to liini of a part of lot lunnher tliirty-tive in the Parisli of St. John in saiy the late Neil McDonald, and that within fur years thereafter he huilt a dwelling house thereon and fenced in a portion ol the san-.e and that he has since resided in and occupied the same and that in the year 1869, he also built a store on the said part of lot No. 35, on the west 20 .side of the Highway which h(3 used for a store for a time and since has occupied the same by bi.s tenants. 3. The width of said part of lot No. 35, so settled upon and fenced, was about ten chains from the northerly line nf lot No. 11, which is owned by me. And I make this .solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue (jf the Act pas.sed in the thirty-soventh year of Her Majesty's reign intituled, " An Act for the Supprest'on of Voluntary and Extra Judicial Oaths." Declared at the City of Wiiniipeg in the Province of Manitoba, this 24th day of July, A. I)., 1877. \ (Signed,) A I. EX. Logan. 30 (Signed,) J. H. Bell, J. P. r i I-:. |i ■'{ ■I t ' ■.a I 4 ^ '} i ; ^l . \ 'L: \ 1 >. ■ i i' I, 1"! r i 1 1 ' ^r 2m WiNMi'Kc, April L'OUi, I8S2. 1'lic Hon. Tlie Minister of tlic Interior. 8ik: I have the honor to enelose you my own applieiition and affidavits in .support of ny chiini to certain property, l.ein^r part of Lot No. .'$5. Pari.sh of St. John, Manitoba- Your obedient servant, WiLI-IAM LofiAN. if. 2!t4 DECLARATION OK A. J. JiEF.CH, IN SUPPORT OF HIS APPLICATION FOR A PATENT FOR PART OF LOTS (\ F, AND G. In the matter of tlie a|i|)licati()n of Alexander James Belch, of the City of Winni- peg, in tile County of Selkirk, for the issue of Letters Patent to him of parts of Lots Letters C, F, and G, in the City of Winnipeg', in the Province of Manitoba, under the 33 Vic, cap. 3, see. 32 and amendments thereto, such parts of lots l)eing more iiarticu- larly described in the paper writing hereunto annexed marked A. I, Alexander James Belch, of the City of Winnijieg and Province of Manitoba* 10 Gentleman, do solemnly declare — 1. That I have known the lands the subject of this ajiplication during the past two years. 2. That I am now the occupant of the said lands, and I claim title to that portion of Lots C and F above de.scribed by virtue of conveyances from Wm. Logan to David H. Thomas, dated 2()th June, 1873, and from the said Thomas to John Freeman, dated 13th Oct, 187+, and from John Freeman to myself, dated 13th August, 1877, and to that portion of Lot G above desciibed by conveyances from Edmund L. Barber to Walter R. Bown, dated 7th Januiry, 1874, and from the said Bown to me, datc.l the 3rd February, 1875. 3. I do not know of any claim adverse to mine to the said portions of the said lots or any part thereof, and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the Act passed in the thirty-.seventh year of Her Majesty's reign intituled "An Act for the suppression of voluntary and extra judicial oaths." Declared at Winnipeg in the County' of Selkirk, this 7th day of July A.D. 1879, before me. (Signed,) J. A. M. Aikins, A Commissioner, &.c. (Signed,) A. J. Belch. 20 30 hi mmti..^. ! H .;. !' 'Ji fS| ilHIi 1 .Mi.J| HHI (tl^^fli uHl II^Mi unl to 1 !?!»,1 DECLARATION 10 or W. LOUAX IX sri'l'OliT OF fifS API'LICATroX FOR A PATRXT FOR LOTS (', I), E AXD F. In the matter cf tl.e application ..f \Vn, Loi;an, uf the City of \Vini.ipe<' in the County of S.-lknk an.l Province of Manitoba, for the iisstio to him of Letters-Patent for a certain portion of what is now kiK.vvn as L.,t Nmnher Thirtv-five of the Domin- ion Government Survey, or Lot Xnmber Two him.lie.l ami lorty-four of tl.e Hudson's Bay Company's Survey in the Parish of St. John, in the Countv of Selkirk ainl Pro- vince of Manitoba, umler the Act '.m Vie., enp. 3, see. 32 an.l am'endments thereto, J, William Logan, of the City of Winnip..!,^, in the C,„uitv nf Selkirk aiul Pro- vince ot Manitoba, Trader, do .solemnly deelare— 1. That I have known tl,e lands the subject of this appiieation during the pa.st thirty yoar.s, and had pcssession of a jjortion of the same in LS<;3. •2. In the autumn of the yar ISG8 I staked out a portion of what i.s now known as Lot Number Thirty-Hve of the D.miinion Government Survey, or Lot Number Two hundred and forty-four of the Hudson's Bay Company's Survey, otherwise known as the Point Douglas Common. 3. The said property elainu-d by me under this application may be Ijetter known and icl, mv Ii..um. is Hitimtfil. Ami I make this s,.i,.mn chrlunitiu,, .;<,nsci«ntiou,slv hHicvii.^. thu Maine to he tnie amlhy y„t„,..,r,h.. A..tpa.sM..lintho thirty..s.3Vonth v.a. ,r ll.r MaMys reign' intitiihMl "At. Act h.r the suppicssinn ..f voluntniy ami exiia jmlicial oaths." Declared at Winnipifj tiiis 2!»th (iay'i of April, A.!). l,S«-_'. heCore inc. (.Signed.) K. L. Ohi.kh, A ( 'ommissioiier, i!ijr (Higne/f'W p M I W I W'' Wl ii ll! ) •: n DECLARATION OP JOHiN ECCI.BS IN SUPPORT OF WjM. LOGAN'S APPLICATION. In the matter of tlie application of William Logan, of the City of Winnipeg, in the County of Selkirk and Province of Manitoba, for the issue to him of Letters Patent of a certain portion of what is known as Lot No. thirty-five of the Dominion Government survey or Lot No. two hundred and forty-four of the H. B. Co.'s survey in the Parish of St. John in tlie County of Selkirk and Province of Manitoba, under the Act 33 Vic, cap. 3, sec. 32, and amendments thereto. I, John Eccles, of the Parish of St. Norbert, in the Province of Manitoba, farmer, 10 do solemnly declare: 1. That I have known the lands tlie subject of this apjilication during the past twenty years. 2. That the said William was in possession of the said lands prior to the year 1869 3. That sometime in the autumn of 1809 the said William Logan imrchased' building material and logs for the erection of a house and hauled tlie tame upon the said premises and afterwards in the spring of 1870 the .said Logan erected a house upon the .saitl property and resided thereon and has continued to reside thereon ever since in q.uiet and undisturbed possession, and I make this declaration, etc. Declared before me at Winnipeg this"! an 29th day of April, 1882. (Signed), John Ecoles. E. L OSLKR, A Commissioner in B. R. ^ }\ 1 llii ri;. k 1 ■i Hn 1 ^W H 1 ■ v9 j n P li 1 p V' {| y . 1' u i M 300 DECLARATION OK DUNCAN SINCLAIR IN SUPPORT OF WILLIAM LOGAN'S APPLICATION FOR PART OF LOT 35. I, Duncan Sinclair, of the C!ity i.f Winnipeg, in *iie Connty of Selkirk and Pro- vince of Manitoba, D.L.S., do solemnly declare; 1. That I came to Winnipeg on the L5th day of Septend)er, A.l). 1870, and that on the first or second day after my arrival I got acquainted with William Logan who with his family was then residing in a thatched roof log house which from its general appearance and especially its thatched roof mnst have been there for a considerable 10 time prior to the IStli day of July, 1870, an.l that said house was on what is now known as Lot 35 according to the Dominion Government Survey of the Parish of St. John, Manitoba, and more particularly known as th.^ Point Douglas CJommon now for- ming part of subdivision ot said Lot 35 and described as Lots lettered [C, D, E and F in tlie registered plan of survey of said subdivision subse.p.ently made by me and recorded in the County of Selkirk and Province of Manitoba. 2. That he also at that time had othec buildings in course of erection which was completed that same autumn 3. That after the subdivision of said Lot 35 by me into Town Lots that portion in the possession of William Logan was lettered C, D, E and F, and was acquiesced in 20 and acknowledged as the property of William Logan aforesaid by the parties claiming any interest in said Lot 35. 4. That I do further declare that the said tliatched roof log house has ever since and is now in occupation by the said William Logan together with other buildings. And I make this solemn declaration, etc. Declared etc., this 29 April, 1882. " E. L. OsLER, A Commissioner in B. R. Duncan Sinclair, D.L.S. il 1. , i ri'f m 301 SfR, A M. BURGESS' LPriTER HECOMMENDIXO ISSUE OF FIAT. Dei'ahtmknt ok Intehiok, Ottawa, 16th May, 1885. [1(1 re Mercur vs. Fonscea.] This chiiin lias arisen somewhat as follows : Mr. W. G. Fonseca, of Winnipeg, claimed a entair, j.ieee of Point DouoJa.s Com- mon at the .same time ami f<.r the same reasons as wer.. advanced by the claimant3 known as Point lu.hlers. Suhscjuently Mr. Fon.seea made a separate and distinct clann on the ground of pos,s...ssion at the time of the transfer. In rep<.rtii.g upon in the case ( ol. Dennis, late Deputy Mead of this Department, repn.liated Mr. Fon- seeas claim to obtain the ..uantity of land for which he uppli,.! in the man- ner in which th.. application was made, but admitted that he had an e,,uitable claim to receive some portion of land as nearly as possible in the neighborhood .>f the house through the occupancy .jf which at the time <.f the transfer his claim was ma.le, and recommended to be granted to him an area not to exceed 25 acres. Ill the statement he mad(; un application of the solicitors for those claiminv the cancellation of the patent. It seems to be established beyond doubt that the patent to Fonseca was i,ssued in error and should be cancelled and that the equivalent of the lands known as LotsC, I) and E should be granted to Fonseca elsewhere and that Logan should be placed in a position to deal with the Crown in regard to the title to the lots in question. I therefore recommend that the application of Logan's solicitors be recommended by yuu for favorable consideration by the Attorney General, so that he may g-ant his fiat for the commencement of a .suit by information at the relation of Mercer and others, a draft of which accompanies this memorandum. I have the honor to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, A. M. Burgess, Deputy of the Minister of the Interior. Hon. Sir David L. Macpherson, K.C.M.G., Minister of the Interior. m M :im A. J. P.h::Li'Hs LKTTKR, 19th JULY, IHHl. • Dominion Lands Office, j^^^^^ ^„j . BiiiTLE, Man., July m, iHHl. ^^\"'f '■";";■•; ^■'•"•" ^y'""iP<'« ^^ F'-l-n.-iry loHt I wrot.. you a nut.- i,. wind. [ tl „ k I SUM I ha.l .vaclu..! tl,ut j-oint, on ,„y ,vtun. to .vsumo n.y otHc-ial work at Bntlo. Not Laving how.v.r succ.....l..,l in th. h„,sin..ss ol.ject of n.y visit to Winnip... which was pniunpally to .Uspo.so of certain property on Point Douglas Connnon I purcha.s,.,l son.,, y...,. ago fro,,, on. John Fn...,..an, th. sal. to ,n.. being the nineteenth ot the same property sa.i.e 22i.(i Xove.nh,..-, 1,H72. iq After the trttn«iction-the sale-was close,!, I ,liscover..,I the chain of title was nnperfect. havn.g ,.,, responsil.le beginning, Willian, Logan an,l wife having conveye.l without hrst obtaining title from the Crown. I then marie application by myself aiul wife to the Department for these lots to- gether with another property „„ McWillin,,, street wh..re my family ..side This application was ma,K. bx M .srs. A.kins .^ M,.„kman, barriste.s, on 23r,l July 1.S70 ami by then, torwar.le.i to Ottawa. The papers were ,luly recive.l at the HO. and .ctuni..d to the often. Winnipeg in onler that they might be ,lealt with in the or,i,n.uy way. \\ ,• SV h.ichcr acknowle.lgcl the ivceipt of tl.,..,. In the Letter Register, t..snote,l that the papers were l.ande,! to Mr. Lang, but such is not the 90 fact, as they w.,v touml accidentally on the 11th ult., .stored in an out-of-the-way phvco in the vault up stairs in the Winnipeg office. In the interim son.e of the pro- perty winch they covered was patente.l through the representation.s-n.isrepreseiita- tions IS probably the proper wor,l_of Dr. Schultz, by the Department to one Fonseca who dee.le, to Schultz half the property, as I understan.I. thus unjustly snatched out of the hands of innocent purcl,a.s..,.s inclu,lii,g n.y.self, i„ cmsidoration it is alleged of the doctors influence in securing the patent. In consequence of the state of things I have describe, 1, is it unreasonable for me to ask the Department to interfere to make my title marketable ? What is required IS a Quit Claun ,leed from Fonseca and one from Schultz. The former has made a 30 declaration which will be found among the papers so carefully preserved in the Win- nipeg office, that he gave up all claim he had to me, and that William Logan was the original owner of the laml. This being the case Schultz can hav ,■ no claim. Fonseca in the face of his decla ration now re-juires other pioperty from the Government in lieu of that patented to him after he made the declaration referred to. Schultz's ground of refusal is probably that he hoi, Is a deed from Fon.seca who holds a patent from the Crown In the mean- 1" I *1 1li M 303 J PLAN OF THAT /"ART or IotSSDoat. Goi/^ S£//fi/£y^o/^ r//£ PA/f/s// o/^StJo/z/v PPOI//AfC£ OFAfAAf/rOBA. Ci-A/MED ay- lA/. G . Fo/vsjeca W/NA/ff£G A UGOsr 23 ^/<57Z sumti'e^eo ay G. M9P///U/PS />.l.S. ■m I- ii i 304 time I have sold the Point Douglas property fo^ a little over $3000 and make title clear. Will the Department help me to do so. Believe me my dear Sir, Very sincerely yours, To Lindsay Russell, Surveyor General. A. J. Belch. E. M. WOOD'S TELEGRAM, 13th JUNE, 1881. By telegraph from Winnipeg, Man., 1 Ith. °"^'''' ''"' '^""^' '^^'- To Lr. : v.- Russeij,. ,' " ''■«/■';. /"'"^ I^""g'»s« (" iinmon papers found accidentally here in Land Office to-day. Will forward. E. M. Wood. 10 G. McPHILLIPS' LETTER, 23rd AUGUST, 1877. m„ .1 IT , , Winnipeg, Aug. 23, 1877 io the Honorable ° «, ^vj. i. the Minister of the Interior, Ottawa, Canada. Sib, Having surveyed that portion of lot 35 Dominion Government Survey of the ^^ Parish of St. John in the Province of Manitoba. I beg leave to report thereon as follows: The building alleged to have been built in 1869 is a substantial t^vo story log house eighteen by forty feet and is now occupied as a dwelling house. The building marked (Manitoba College) on plan is a two and one half story frame house thirty by fifty feet with kitchen eighteen by twenty-four feet (18x24) attached thereto. It was built in 1872 and used by Mr. Fon.seca as an hotel but was after- wards sold to the Manitoba Presbytery and is now used as a college. The dwelling of Mr. Fonseca is a one and one half story frame building twenty by thirty feet with log kitchen attached. The frame part of the dwelling is an addition v,, to the old house which Mr. Fonseea claims to have built in 1865. The out-houses are built of logs and are substantial. There a^e also several buildings and considerable improvements ou the claim of Ij 305 Do "giiczr" "' """" "'■" ""■' ""•'"' '"" ""- "» ='«'™""»f '^« >■<»■" I have the honor to be, Your obedient servant, G. McPhimjps, D.L.S. A. M. BURGESS- LETTER TO MINISTER OF INTERIOR. :^Hn SEPT., 1886. Department ok the Interiok, O'lTAWA, September 8, 1886. Remarks on n.emorandum for Dr. Scliult.., in re Mercer vs. Fonsccn. It is true as stated in this men,„ran.lun, that the lots of land placed by Mr 10 Fonseca opposite the nan.es of Kew, Stobart & Co., Thon.as Spence and John Boskh ' W not been granUHl by the Crown to the .several persons n.entioned. On t ' other han.ntis not true that it was found on investigati.n that the several persos were not entitle, , for there is no record in the Departn,e„t of any investi . Z hav,n. been nuule nor ks there any evidence supplied by the clain.ant,' in snppo t " the clann nnphedly made in their behalf by Mr. Fonseca. It is ,uite otherwi e ,n regard to the elaim of Logan. "b-uiwise m The original papers in this case are at the present tin.e in Winnipeg for use m the Courts m eonnectum w,th this suit. I an, therefore unable to state „! this n.o nn he date when Logan's clain. was tiled in the Department, but I know positively l" 20 t was fy ed before the grant was made to Fon.seca, that it was sent to Winnipeg fo mvest.gat,on by Mr. Whitcher. that it never was investigated by Mr. Whitel « lu Robert Lung, who brought it back with },im to Otta-A-a in I think 1881. The statement of the Department that the claim of Logan was not a valid one is contan.,.! m a letter written by Mr. Hall to Glass & Glass in 1888. I was then' a Riviere-du-Loup with Sir John Macdonald, who was at that time Minister of tL Intenor, a letter from Glass & Glass, en.pnring whether Logan's claim ;:« to b eco^ized was then received and without having any special knowledge of the sub- ject, but upon a memorandum furnished him by Mr. Lang, Mr. Hall, wrote the letter qo m question^ That letter had no other authority for the Statement it contained than Mr. Lang. It was as a matter of fact not true that the claim of Logan had been passed upon m any way, for Mercer was the representative of Logan, wa^ then pressing th Department to look into it. Logan furnished one affidavit corroborating his ^n «'™. li tn 306 statement under oatli, tlmt lie was in actual peaceable occupation of lots C D an(ith Decembe.-, notdirS""'^"'^''^^''^"'"^^'"'^'-^-^- H-^Vs, he was satisfied as he was 20 When a person has no title he ca,. have no constructive posses.sion. His po.s.session m such case extends only to bis actual possession: Lake .s Beiley, , Q B 136 Tlds v.ew .seems to be that held by the Government. ^' ^- ■ '•i'J- Uns Mr. Lindsay Rus,sell in his, -eport of 3.-d Feorea.y. 1879. when reporting on Mr Fon.secas ela.n. states that it is be observed that Point Douglas Comno.. has never been surveyed cither by the Hudson Bay Company, (in wl,..' he is in error'aa "he loH well known as Nu,.>be,. 244 Hudson Bay Company survey and .so appears in he books) says unde.. these ci.-cu.nstances the possession of Mr. Fo..seca' could no be affirmey g.-eater extent that his „wn actual enclosures and did no 30 the.-efo..e ca.ry w.th .t the occupation of any definite one of the system of lots The survey of lots when Logan took poss^.ssion had not been made and the sub- sequent surveys that refer.ed to where the log house is spoken of as being on D and partly on C. The same hou.se is spoken of being wholly on Q In the fall of 1870 Logan says, he built a. second building wholly on D, a log building and that these bu.ld.ngs are there yet. That he had put up a stable on E. before he put up the second bu.ldrng. He joined these two buildings, first building 14 x 16. second 33 x 22 stable 20 x 20, another bu.ld.ng 2;! x 1*. There was cellar under all these buildings It only took a week to put up the first building. The cellar under the first building itf '-ji-..*»(S& '■ t t ii II liiliii 1 ' i ii r i 1 Li ii 10 .•joo line the econ.l.u.M>nK,s south-west of tho first so must have hoon o„ (- as the wo.e m the actua «ecu,.at,ou o» persons call...l Point hoM.Ms on the 15th July 1,S7(. BesHleB these small hol.iings th. i„,-.e lot called in the Hu,ls„„ Bay Mu-vey 244 and thesnl>s..,,uentnove..„mentsu,.ey IcH ^^5 containing .101 ancs, this 244 ^.ds n on.pany survey. ,b called P. ,.t Dough., Con,n.on. Main street of this City Iw rrS^ t l.f T""^"""' *•' ,'-'"-<-^-"-'*?in a principal husin^ 'S the (.,ty than become excee..ni-ly vahn.ble. The Point holders having us'd tl,i« Con,n.on lor cutt.n, ay ami Co,. ^ ..:,,. ,et up a elain. to i. ^ owners T le ,-o owners assembled and elected Tru-cees of this Comn.on, before any sub 1 vis r any part., the Comn.on had been n.ade. They had a p.-rtilr^.f tl; r' „;' veyed ,nto lots and convy^-l to those desiring it. certain of these sub-divi iZ By an Order .„ Councd. lOth May. Is77, the (iovernment onlered that each -f t e PohU holders, should be em.tled to have parts of the Common e.p.al in ..uantity tl w la each person hold of Po.nt 1 )ouglas spoken of as acre for acre and also that L er^l who e dee s rom the Trustees, should be entitled to patents for the lots for' w i h they held sueh deeds. Others asserted their titles to palts of the Comn.on L ZZ m peaceabh. possession on the 15th July, 1870, under 'the Manitoba Act Bes^les t lis Fonseca. was ,n possession on 15th July. 1870. of part of the Connnon b in. t n 20 c a-ns m w.dth consisting of about 5 acres and he clain.ed to be entitled to'thl wid h o the Common, o the full extent of the lot. For this latter elain. a ,uantity of land o 20 acres, w.s by the recom.nendation of the Ru.vey<,r.Oem.,-al, .li.vcted .^b gv^n to Fonseca.. Pus Onler in Couneil the-^efor is date.I K.th May, 1877, a,.,l the Dcm art tended that tJ.e er. .r a.o.se n. the manner of selecting i^,. lots comp.-ised in the patent to Fonseca. of 5th J )ecembe.'. 1 ,s79. especially as to lots C, D, E. F. J,dv\'Hr'''"f;'.'' '''"'*''' ^'''"^''''' '''■ ^''"- ^"«'^"' ^''""8'' ''^'^'^" -*'t- t'.e loth a , Lt f ;." :"'l":7«'"^"t« "'^de by him give him such an equitable claim that a g ant of those ands w, h„ut notice to bin, is an error and by reason of it the patent 30 t,. the extent at least of tlu. claim by the relato.-, should be declared void by the It will be observed that Wm. Logan had petitione. wan. Fron. Main street to Cin street is hve chains. There is one chain in depth noi accounted for. It is not sufficS 40 if! li 311 br the Ciwn merely to suggest error or iinprovidence, it inust be boUi set on t and .stabhshed by a proof which excludes all reasonable doubt upon the subject so held in Attorney-General V. Garbett, 5 Grant 184. ""Jtct, sontm in Before setting aside a deed for mi.^ ke the Court requires to be clearly convince.l by the most sat.stactory evidence first that the mistake really exists xnd t t i IS one which really ought to be corrected. Mortimer v. Shortall, 2 Dru. and W. 371, per Sugden C. & MacCormack v MacCormack 1. R., 2 Ecjuity 1.30, the renmrks by Esten V, C. in Attorney-Gernd v Garbott. 5 Grant 184, shows that while grants from the Crown stand in dmi.ntt.t- 1 " w ri r; "' JT'T' l^^\f^^onM.nce of pers,.. holding under and through 10 patents would be rudely shaken ,f, except upon the most satisfactory evidenceand L good and substantial reasons, these grant, are doclared void, and 'more particular v so when the rights of third parties are affected by declaring the samev'd S wri trc""'" ■ r'" f 7^': '■"""""* '' *^^ "-^"^ or improvidence ontL part of the Government, or of the fraud of the grantee, are not protected Cum- gZ 284 Te^C ^' ''• ?; ''''' ^"' '""^"^'^ ^" Attorney-Genei'al v. McNully Tl G an 284. The (government have recognised three chusses of cases to whom grants of this Common sh. -uld be made, which are the Point holders, those claiming by d^ed under the tnistees, and persons in actual peaceable possession on 1 5th July 1870 VVm Lo gan does not come under any of the.se classe.s. His claim rests simply upon entry u. >n 20 part o the Common, erecting such buildings a. I have described, and claim. 1 is ri^ht shou d be c.-extensive with the limits of the lots laid down after his entry. It is set up that the buildings ,so erected give him an equitable claim to this knd. If this be so then a possession after the 15th July, m-.), would be equally valuable with one before' that date, whilst the statute has fixed the date 15th July, 1870, as that which entitles a person to j)ateni. Henderson v. Seymour, 9 IT. C. R. 52, treats such entry as an intrusion, and in Far- mer V. Livingstone. 5 Supreme Court Reports 232, the remarks of Gwynne J. upon the ngiits of persons who set up a claim by reason of possession are adverse to the relator's contention, and the same case again in 8 Sup. C. R. ]40. The po.ssession of Logan presented >.- obstacle i-. the right of the Crown to make a grant. If granted improvidently, in what does the improvidence consist ? Nothing which the law can recognize as a right in ti.e relator has been set up, no misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the defendant has been shown. Mere sentiment or com- passion for the person whose po.ssession is disturbed cannot afford a reasonable ground for declarmg void a record of so hijrh a nature as a grant from the Crown under the seal of the Dominion of Canada. The relator states the error to consist in granting the land to Fonseca whilst Logan was iu possession. la this either error or improvi- 30 imi III ' i^KtfhtiMfltl^'i^^'iiWiiftT' i 312 .?ence ? re would not be e.Tor unless the possession of Logan conferred a ridu TI,.n ;U tirZwlT Vr "'"' '"" '""^'^^°"^ °^ Logan-s'possession o f I I 3 " out trie knowledge of his Dossess on T fi.;„i, « ^ i t , i^ik. wim ferred a right, b^t I think it Zlt. ' ""^"^ ' ^'" ^^"^ ""^ '•^^^^^■^'°" '^""- led.edtta\ttd\'uf ^r^r'V"^'^'"'' '^^ ''^^'^^ ^'^'^ ^^—"^ -^now- pattr orm .art) Th 1 *;";":. '" ''''' "" '' "^^"^ ^"' ^^'"°'' ^'^ ^^ ^-^ - the patent lorm part) This grant to Fonseca was to conform to the outlines of certain part onhe f " '"'"". ''"''''■ ''^'^ '""-^^ '"-" ^l^-t it was to be w th n X " s lit : r; n 7T' ■^" f f -^""'^^ -^"^ '''''''- ""^'h^ be said to exist. It a^- pt,ai,s tnat part 01 the lands included within (" n p „, i i? i u , ' The Relator claims that the whok patent for C D F an,! F .1, , ii u i , . v^. l^v.ng tlie parties to establish tl ' ir right: ^m ^i- 1 tol^ht o'n ^"^ ca ion to the Government after patent declared void. I don't see the force of thtl 1.S be ter to confine the Relator's claim to what she really doe cti .2 fit on laL street and a further parcel on Austin street. • In my opinion the claim to set , side the patent to C, I), E, an,! F, fails for want thYnkTun fZ '''' ^;'^''=.\--*'*»^- "ther error or improvidei.e. The petTt on Ithinkshouhlbe chsnussed with the costs, and as those cannot be had against the 20 Attorney-General, they should be collected from the Relator under the bontT other secun^ given by the Relator as a condition on being allowe.i to li hi! Ii fo I 813 IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH. in equity. The Honorable The Chief Justice. Wednesday, the fourtli day of May, A.D. 1887. ' Eetwken Her Maje.sty's Attorney-General for Canada, at and by the relation of Eliza Mercer, Inf R^'-t^"- Eliza Mercer do pay to 20 this Court " "' "'' '"*'"^*' ^'*"- '^^^'''^ ^'^--^ *^y '^^ Mas'te^ oi l\ (Signed) A. Lemon, Registrar. '-^^^ 314 IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH IN EQUITY. Informant, William Gomez Fonseca and John Christian Schuj,tz, Defendants. this Coint foi rcheanny oi the order of His Lordship the Chief Justice of this Con,^ 10 szr r:':::^:fr ^^ ^ ^^7 'rr' "^-^^ '- info,:";- >;f 1::^ rs '' c(jsis, anu tor leview ot the said order by the full Court thel„t™r: it™":*™ "'■ ™"' "'■""'■'»'■ """ ""^' ""■ ""«'■ p-y-' v "i,,. i„ Dated this 20th day of May, A. D. 1887. Patterson & Baker, To Messrs. Glass & Ghiss, ' Solicitors for the Informant. Solicitors for deft. Fonseca, and to Messrs. Macdonald, Tupper & Phippen, Solicitors for deft. Schultz. ' • I ms^m^^ ■■trf^' —^t*'*T»l**rari'a 315 7th April, 1888. Taylo... C. J., .lelivere.l the ju-lgmont of the Court. 00 This ,s an Infonnat.on Hle.l by the Atto.noy-Ooneral of Canada, upon the relation othe .leten.lant Fonseca. an.ong .,„,.„. ,a,„l,s, LotsC, D. E, .t F, part ;,f > IrTw iBsConuuo. .n the City of Winnipeg, may be .leclared, in n.pet'.f these 1 N f , have ..s.ne,l unprovulently and through error, and in i gnoraL of t e i t several person. ,n..ntione.i in the Information, an.l that^tho patent nly l^'i 1 1 iar as .t affects these lots, and .leclared absolutely null and void and ,f no oT . doh C..^clultz,tovvhon.l.onse. .y an instru.nent, dated the 12th of \oven,her 10 "S;r:iirj:r:;^:;::.t:;-:,:"''''' •■""■'"■" - ' "•-«'— ".:i.ti; B,,tl, ,],.rcn.la„u. I,, thoh- a,,.,,,.,,, deny any fra „■ mi«,„„,l,„.t.l„„t „„. „b,.i„ £lf;=f:^^t::it then, of such lands, and that patents, ...anted in ^ I t t 1) '•"' '^'^'^"^^ .nent.h.n,.eo..f.r title, but are, (after investigatLn:.!? t^nZZ^:^ f th n '• ' o- ^'''''''''''' ''"' "" ^"^'''^ "*• ''- '>"Pa.'tn.ent of the I.e. ^d the Dam.,uonGove..n...ent. could, or ca... exist of a nlture to dep.7ve na,' i" stabh.,h ., the.r righta to lands u..der the Manitoba Act, of such la. d' to' In Both dek,.da,ts further set up th.r, by the express terms of an O.-.ler in Cm., cl of 3rd Februa.y. 1879, the rights of the defcdant Fonseca we., afirmed b ; ir'the I) '""Tf ^''"^ "' ^'" ''''''• '''' ''' P-'"'- -cumstan?es of h ca.e. the Dom.n.0,1 Govern,ne..t otfe,.ed him the lands .-efer.-ed to in the Orde. in Uuncl. by way of comp.-omi,M.. in settlement a.,d liquidafi-n •■ hisclaim ar.d he accepted th. offe.-, and in pursuance the..of Leived the pt^.. tZl t.T It .3 contrary to U.e practice of the Cou.t to grant relief in s. h I .ase and 'e 30 Attorney-General .s now estopped fron. saying that the Government made he conveyance thro..gh e.. „■ or in.p. evidence. The a..swers further et t .at ! former suit wa. brought by the .elator for the purpose of establishing 1 er .d.t W fhT T '" ^""i""' '" """' *'" ^"orney-Gene.al was a pa.-ty def^n dant hat .n the su.t so brought, a decree was made at the hearing^ dis.,o sin^ the b.11 and .t .s submitted that the Atto.ney-General could in his^answ r Z! set up the facts alleged in this Information, ana is estopped by the juZent of the^urt m that suit. fron. claiming the relief asked for i.. thfs suit Both de- (a) Present : Taylor, C. J.; Dabuc, KiUam, J.J. 20 i I) < L .'U(i fendants claim that the Attom.y.(Je„eral Ls est«,,,.e,l l.y lach.,s .uul .lolav Co... pn.s.cut.„K this suit. Th,. .lo.on,la„t Schult. in'a'l.iiti.,; s.ts ,. tit e is'u chaser for vah.e without notice, and dain.s th. .....fit of that piee ' is nltfo'r',i"V 'TT "" '7'" •""'"•^'^"« ^'"' •'"••"""^^i"". -i the case The Info!:!:;. ^""" '' ^^^ "* ^ '-''^''^^ •"■ ^'"^^ ''--"• •^^ ^'-^^ -^tanc of in ci!l^vtt'ar" ;''*'"'?•" "':''"'''• ''"^ '"• " "^ '""■'■''^^'='' '"'• ^'^'- -^'"'"t -ti...., .th r f T""^' ""■ '•"""'■ -%'''t by tlu. Att,.n...y-(i..n..,.al, i!' .t should as no ,. ac. a,an.st th. (•.■ ., I„ .„.,, a case. ,t is n'.t th. .naxlu.. pLr .w' 10 •ts M. 2 J.& w. 234. theMaste.-of the Roils, speakiuj. of a «muf .uad. Kv the (Vow. .UK e.. n., ta hehi, that the ..owe- of ea.lin. lack it^ gran^. wh.r.LdJ ^^T tak., ... nU hke a-.y .-.crl.t possessed l,y individuals, for wh.u i, has l,.-,., .le-eived the grant n.ay bo recalled notwithstanding any derivative title d.p.ndi..:^ . it So Attorney-General V. MeNultv, II (Jr. 2«4 Mowat V C .,,11 .'n ~ . vv^.id. this (.u..t a.h,ws the'de^noe of a i-ure.:!;.'.:: •;.::';, i;,':::^ 'Z he defendant .n such a ca.se. has an e.p.al e.p.ity with the plaintiff; an.l tha 1 U .' H.rson.s havn.g e,ua e.pnties, this Court will not interfere on either side. D„t .1 th.sr„Ietol.en..^pIu.al,l.. where the (,>„..... is cone...n..d ; for au,on. tb.lvt spects.n winch the rules of law, with ..eganl to th. C.-own, dilh. fn.Tu (^^o H'e - .ng pmat. persons, .s the ..stahlished principle, that, where th. right of the ^ . preseived 1 he judgment of \ an Koughnet. C, in Stevens v. Cook. lOCr. 410- and liromi « Leg. Max.. (5 ed.) 55. may aLso be referred to on this point. The .lefence of laches on the part of the Crown, has no more force on behalf of the .le-tendants. That also, is a defence which canr.ot he ,set up again.st th. Crown The ^ullnr., Te,,j,u. Act. 9 C,.,, ,, e. l,;. is „ot in force i . t^.is Province Uteven if .were so. ,t would not help the d.-fendants. for by it. sixty years with a" u'. po^s ' on .s the penod winch bars the Crown. In 2 Inst. 278. it is laid -lown that, in pursuance 30 ^n the c2?th ' t""-"^"';'."''^*^I''^'"''*y «^" '•"•"^' ---K. t'H' '-V detennines thlt in the Cown there can be no negligence or laches, and therefo.v it had been hel.l that and 'i^'ii- r"' ' P^^^'^"":^*-'^ that the king is daily en.ployed in the weighty and pubhc affan-s of government, it '.ath become an establishe.l rule at conunon law !Jt, "^ , ' " '","^"*"' '^ '"'"' ""^ '' ^' •" •"'>' '^'^y '- «"ft'«r in his inter- ests wh.ch are certain and permanent. VUjilantibm nun donnieuHbiu< jam .uhvnt- xunt IS the rule for a subject, but nullum tempu. occunHt reyi, is the king's plea" in the United States the same rule prevails, founded upon public policy. In US v Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720, Story, J. said, "The general principle is, that laches is not 40 20 li Tiji fl.'i •mmmmmatmoK.: 317 imputed to the Goveiunient, and this nmxi.n is founde.l, not in the notion of .xtraor- ltSX,rZ '"'' TT" " °""* '""^'^ P"'"^'- ^''" «-"-»ent can transact its busniess only through ,ts agents, and its final operations are so various an.l its a.^on- ciea so numerous and scattered, that the utmost vigilance would not save tl>e public ^;XuT'"v '^^'^^ U n";!:r^""""' laehescanbe applied to its transact." Post Master General 1 Pet. ;J25. _ I;io n^^t «ee how the Attorn,.y-G.n,.ral can he estopped hy the forn.er suit fron. institutmg the present one. That wa.s a suit l,v Eliza Mercer, the relator here, in h,.r own right as plaintiff, 10 agau,st the detendants ,n tins suit, to which the Attorney-( Jeneral was also a defend- ant. 1 hat the planiftl n. that suit, is the relator here, can he no rea.son for so l^old- mg Besides the former suit was to have the patent set aside on the ground that it liad been i.s.sued in ignorance of, an.l to the injury of the plaintiff's ri-dits but bn.ad er ground ,s taken now, the allegation being that it was issued in ignorance of the rights of several persons, of whom the relator is only one. The relator sui.ur as a plainti.f in her own right, might fail, under such authoriti..s as Boulton v Jeffrey 1 Ur. h. i,^ A. Ill and Lawrence v. Pomeroy, 9 (Jr. 474, and yet, the patent be set aside in a suit instituted by the Crown. That the Attorney-General was a party to the for- me, suit, could not alone, prevent him from bringing this one. Martyn v. Kennedv 20 f, r.l! AT'''"'i*''''V'''^'"P''*'"* *" a rectory, ami the ol.jection was takJn that the Attorney-General should have been a party. Dealing with one groun.J upon which that was urged, that, unless the Crown was a party, it would not be bound and ■ the defendant might bo subjecte.l to a 0 would be, that ho might in it have obtained the relief now prayed for, and was bound to have prayeil for such relief in that suit. But how could he have -rot that ? The Gen Ord. which allows a defendant t<. pray by his answer cross relief against the plaintiff, does not extend to allowing him to pray cross relief against a c o-.lefendant Hml ho, in that suit, prayed to have this patent set aside as issued improvidently and in Ignorance, he c.mld ha.e prayed for such relief only against the present defendants then his co-defendants. Even if he could have prayed for such relief, I ,lo not see liow he was under any obligation to have done so. Certainly the Gen. Ord does not make it imperative upon him to .loso, for it only says a defendant "may claim" any relief, &c. -'J' 40 ■I 'E 1.1 I! k*l m '•* - .t mm '-^it fnm m i ' ii.i u.. , . j». 318 It is further urged for the defence, that Fonseca had a title* to the land now in deprive him of, the patent being only confirmatory of that title, and the crant ma.le we 1 elbtheir V ""T "' ^ ^°'"^'^"'"'^''' ^" ^'^^^ ^^^ --^- ^ aecordal : h wd] established practice, will not interfere. The land in question forms part of what ' was known as the Point Douglas Common, a large tract of land upon which 11 M- ers of lots fronting on the Red River at Point Douglas, had, or cla med th y hL he 1870, the holder of a lot or lots on Point Douglas, and being so, was one of the of ' Who claimed to be entitled to an interest in that common, by virtue of their Lsess- Octobc, ^72, after reciting that it had been agreed that thecomn.on so belongino and attached to the possession aforesaid should be laid out in accordance with a^L"^ out should .be sold, and the moneys arising from such sales held in trust and divi.le.l proportionately, in accordance with a resolution passed at a meeting ^feha^ holders, among he part.es entitled to the benefits and profits, that it 1 ad "^ agreed that rustees should be appointed for the pu.posLf car.yin,. out the tr^ t tat the ,art,es of the second part had been appointed tn.stee.s/and hidac^en d 20 the trust, granted and conveye.l unto the parties of the second pa t, .1. llnds before nentioned, which may be particularly known as Lot 244. or as tl,e reserve nm ..on elong,ng t.. the owners, occupiers and possessors of Point Douglas, to la e ^nd o hold he same for the purposes aforesaid, unto, and to the use of 1)^.11 ti.e saki Ir ties of the second part, their successors and assigns for ever." The parties o e se. 80 cond part were John Sutherland, Edmund L. Barber, Alex. M. B own Walter R Bown and t e den..dant Fonseca. These trustees wore also parties of the fii^t pa.^" as was he defendant Schult. After the execution o^ this died, the trustee appHd to the Government for a patent to the land, and their claim was dealt with and dis posed of, by an Order in Council, dated the 10th of May, 1877. The claim made by the trustees having been disposed of, Fonseca on the 26th July 1877. made a claim on his own beha!f. ^' _ In his petition healleged that prior to, and on, the 1.5th of July, 1870 he was bv himself, and th,.ugh his servants, tenants and agents, in actual paceableplls' •on of a port,., of Lot 35. in the Parish of St. John, according' to Dominfon 1 the 1 7" IV" :' ''' ""^'"■" *°" '''''''' '' -*^ '^'- c-un^icing in the rear" the land on lot No. II. owned by the late Neil McDonald, and thence running back th^asua distance to the two mile limit, and he prayed that a patent might ilue to T ! oA ' "T- J^'' '"' '^ ^'°"™^^" '^"'•^•^y- ■«' "^^ I "nderstand, the same kn.1 as lot 244, spoken of in the deed of 15th October, 1872. from the Point Hohlers t 40 ■..^tupnmmmmmmmt". iiiii: kimm 5, 'MS . ... f * ' i 1 if 10 31 n the distanc; to the rear S th e . Z V ''"'" "' ?, ^''""* "'*" *"' "i"'^' -•'^''' '^" hy Fonneca, which wa,s par of Z Zn.onT; " \ , 'I 'T' "' ^'^^ ''^"'' ^''^"'-^ than the Trustees, to l,.„,„. Z rV'..™ nf h"^ T T" '''"''' "^''' interests, in the deed of 15th October 1872 ' -, "* ""'''"'•'' ^^'^ ''""^^y^' their the land extendin-. back ft- 1 bo 7 iff . "' "'^ "" '"^^'^'^^ ■" <^<"»'"-' t<> hy the deed eonve;. . as I 244 o ri', ''''''''''''' "" '"'^ '•'^•^'•' ^"'^ *^-'' "^^ owners, occupier J„d^,osseJttt'^.l^:.;r'T,:d:"''''";V'^^^ " ''' it extended to land f,,.- nin-r „art of fh . " , " "'^ ^""■''^'''^- ^" ^>'' "'^ t..lmv„aK.«„t„rtl,i., |,,rtic„l„ Ia„,l, „, t„ l,av. 1,^ , '■"""''"'"■"•-• '^<* ■"■ ■"■■•"■*■■■- - « -'.ti-n f...- ,i8.,.» ,,;';':::,„:r, ';:!.;:::'',::;,; - 1"-™ -■■ '"■"' In the Order in Oouncil of loth Mav ISST tl„. ..i • Point D,>u,da.co.nn.,n. are spoken of as .'.tahu^ '" """""'"" "'''^ ^'"« cl-aracter." It then sets out [he alie J L.s n ^ ''^ ',"' '"""''."* '" ''^^"''*--' 'W'pii.^ation, as follows:-" 1 That tin ^', , '""' '" "''''""-^ "'''''^■i'' -' *'- '-1 to t.o aittlei,. al the s.,,,. tiiue that l,e Bra„l„l l|,„„ u,, ,„„, ..hvnys a,s.rt„i tl,.i,- cl„i,„ .1,,.,,,,, ^f „' C , "Vi".'; , • "'"' '*">' '"'™ ,.nd.,. the p,wi™»„ of th ' let!- » Vic c.„ ^H T *' '""""' '"' "•" '""'' who,„ they c a,,,,. ,„ ,u..t„al pe»,,a,l., p„„i„„ the.-eof. „„ the ml, Uy „l Xmo shall be entitled to receive letter* nnf,.«+ ti> „. f i.- ,, J '"-'X-^^y, miv, the.„ respectively in fee sinlpt ' ' '"'' ''""""" "'" '^"""^ '"'"''^'^'^'y *« *« P It' li 320 _ TI.0 Minister of tho Interior then proeee.le,! to .leal with these claims, as foll<,ws - 1_. It may he conceded that the clnin.ants had tor n.any years prov ions t., the transfer enjoyed a nght of common and of entting hay over the i„nd, hut th. enjoyn.ent of such nght can on y he regard e.l as having been exclusiv.. in the same light as the hay and common nght ni the outer two „ul.s enjoyed hy the settlers on fann lots in the <^d Parishes was exclusive. Kespeeting the belief ex,,>-ess..,l hy two of the elain.ants hat an actual grant of the land inelude.l in the connnon was' made at the tim C Lod Selkirk to the Point holders, there is no evidence whatever in support thereof and the circumstances altogether, connected with th. claim reiuler it even more than doubthil that siich was the case. 2. As regards th. right of the claimants to a patent 10 nnder the Act 38 Vict, cap. 52, it is clear to the nn,lersigned, thnt the '■ undi.stnrbed occupancy, and "actual peaceable pes.session." of the eonunon, either at the time of or previous to the tran.s er 1^^ the Point Holders, was not of the character contemplale.l y the Statute, ami therefore not such as woul.l entitle the claimants to a ..rant of the land. lie natuiv „t tl,e right ...ijoy,.! i,, the com.n.,n by the Point Fr..l,lers may be con.si.leivd as somewhat analag.ais to that claime.l in tli.. .,uter tw„ mil..s ii. the ...lParish..s a though ,t mu.st be ,vmemlK.r...l that the latt..- was provi.le.l f..r by an nrd.nanee .,t the Council of Assiniboia. wheivas there was not only no such authority to the claim to the common, but ,h.. papers show that on the Point Hol.lers aimlvint t.. the tonncil on a c.-rtain .,cc«.si<,n, f,.r protection against p...,pl... trespas.lin; by 20 cutting hay thereon, they w..rereferiv.l to the (Joverm.r of the Hu.l.s..ns Bav Coni pany, the natural inference of which is, that the C.nincil, wlii..h ^^■as the 'hi.rhest authority „, the setth.ment, consi.h.-e.l the Company as possessing th,. tit)., to the land. Ihisoccurre-l in the yar 1802. The .statement that th,'. c.mm.m as now cla.me!kirk, and inten.le.l by him for the exclusive use and benefit of the P.>int H„I.lers, is not borne out by the "facts ; ,>n the contrary the ..riginal plan of survey, embracing the Point lots, shows the land .south of lot '-^4.) being the northerly limit of the common, and between it aii.l Fort Garry to have been .mibrace.l in on,, immens.. lot ov tract, numbered 277, an.l it was not until many years after Lord Selkirk l,.ft the country, that this lot was sulMlivi.ie,] into smalku' 20 parcels by the Huds,ms Bay Company, which then r..pr,..sente.l Lord Selkirk in the country. The un.lersigne.l is ,>f ,.pini,^n that the claimants were, at the time of and previous to the transf..r, in the enjoyment of a right of cm.mon and of cutting hav over the lan.l in ,,uestion. an.l gen,.rally in the Provinc.., th,. a.scertaining and ailjust- ingof which isproviddfor in the Act 33 Vict., cap. 3, an.l that the same should be commuted by a grant of kml from the Crown." By that Or.ler in Council, the rights of the claimants are put in the class of ricrhts ilealt with by sub-section 5, of .section 32, of the Manitoba Act, ami not umler any of the first three sub-sections of that .section. Thi. first three sub-soctions provi.le f,)r the title to lan.l oecupie.l by persons being 40 confirmed to them by grants fn.ni the Crown. Sub-section 5 gives no right to any i > f • Il n ii K jj'ti' * I? I ishi,' > m 1 1 * ij J «i ! ?l h k II y> 321 <^ «n.l favor of the Crown It SfTZ H " T"*"'' '"''^ ^™"'" ^'^ t''^' «'''^«« •>.■ tlu. fair an.l eouita '. tlZZ «over„nK.„t to say, in ,..aeh ...., what wouhl with the ..uestion f w at voul ' l' " l" ^^^"•••'■""'•^- ^^e Minister next .lealt says, •• now to be con^ L?,- 1 ,at l'"' , M "l"-''''^ '"'•'"•^' " ''^'"^ ''"-*>"» " '- this ri,ht on the pa^n^ ' ^; t r ;:r r '^" V^^^^^^^^^ "the applicants woul,l he fair! V i.^l i n , ^^'''^-'l^on amve.l at was, that -.".nutation of their ri-M.t ' /ra . 1 T'"^''™'* "f'' """'■ *''">' '" '"---^ '" !« "- -ar.,s the river, ^i^.: i:^:!:;:;:.:— ^^ ^L^^ ^"^ — i-ws ,.hun,e,,, which ..Le„ pit of th::l:; ;l "Un;? ^:" *'^ •■xi)ress<.( t, " in tlie eniovnwmf ,>f ., ..• ^ . l- ' the Order in Coimei mental order wl.inh .„„m ,„... . """*"■ ^'''^t this was merely a depart- 20 .m«l wa. tli»t ,„„l„r tlii.(.2 Vi,.t. ,.,,, 3, „. ,,, ^ '. """' ""' «V">»-«t to th. G,.v„m„r i„ C„„„eil and „ w, l,™!h ' ' '"■'" "'■'''■ ''"'"'•■""•'l ...it-ht to, I.,,,,,,.,, n.«c»«.„: Wa , il; , , J :"""""'■'"' '","'"'' '""' ■'">•"' " The Order in Council of 10th Mav 1877 seHIf.,1 ih^t fi. i • pi.„.y. „„. t., t,„. f,.„ e..„t to whici, it w£„. ,; , ,^1, 'rsr' b„t git ti;; « I I Ml *< 1 1^1: ft FT 1 liiiiiii 1 If IIIlM ! 1 HI]I9|| ], ' HH^ I iifl, 1 lilli i I '••-■"ants woul,M.Hil.,.ally .le^^^t^^^^^ ,^^^^ '-' -.i that. L Mr. ?ons,.ca w.ul.l l,u ...ust lil„.nillv t.vnf .,1 „ [ ' '''''"*^ '^''^^ ^'^""*^^"'- that which hr actually occupu.! a vo 11 L 'h' " i ^"'^'' "''"*'«"'^' ^'"'^ *<> certain lan.ls w..,v ,l...J«„at^ a ' U o ' ''^ ^''^*^'" "^ '^'•^■«" «"'-l".'nth. '^^^^l^^^'^^^^^ol><^^>.^l.:,rtln^r^^^^ ^« '^""- -" the patent 'is^u... Krant...! to hin., for a grant of anv Ian ,'"''" ""^'''*' '"' '"'■^''* "«*• hav satisfied the, ,rovisions^>fs hie „r;tvr l:'"' "'"''''''^' ^^•""'^' '-<• Counc.il of ,uthMayJ877. that To 1;. LV,'''' ''^^ "-"'"" "•" ^''" ^^'-''-i"- land, part of thi,s Point Douglas CW " h " ?"■'"""' "'^" ••'^'''* ^"-^"antof andcuttin. hay. ()rantin/th..nf.e;aketf '"'''''''" "'"^ "'"''^^ "*' — '" -"t..ntion of th.. IVfendara. that 1 . .^^ f "^""'"'': '' '''" ''""-* ^-^'t-H, the of the Manitoba Act whioh r;irto , f ,' ';"'"/'," *'^''"' '■■"'-■ ^^-' -h-sections th. loth of. Jul V, .S7...ar<.,st; ";';:"" "'^'^ '"'"'^ '-"I-'> "" 'i'l-ve then, of ..ch Ian,., an,, t.^a^^ ^ ',.:,• ^r 7"' " '"' ^"^'■'•"""-* ^" <.fa title theretofore had l.y tin- oat 'ntee 1,1 V ■■'^•^"-"•-"'y eouHr.natory It i,s ..ne covering land which the C wn nhd t V" I ""';" " ''"^"'^ "'' ^'"^* '^■-»- 1 Lave nodonl.t thi,sCo„,t ca, Icr 7 f V"!-^'"' '"" ''^^'" «''^"t'"' to Fon.seea. or i.nprovi,lence. '" " *" '" ^■""'' '< '■^^"'"' th''»%'l' <'-aud, or in error theDel.ndal The pi;::::: l! 1^ ^^^^ ^^ ^"^ i^n,.eha.,ed against t..e Court expre^ly exonerated the Defend! t^^l^^:;:^;. 7" '';■ f'^""^" ..ect.on w.th the grant. It is sufficient if it is showrto l3 ^ ^. ' '" '^""■ vuience. As Esten, V. C, said in Martyn v KenZv ' I th"" • Z "T'V"' '"P''"" was indeed UMsinforn,edan.ldeee.ve,l, J ;..,;,, rt^,:t;h/ °* "'' '''■'^"" sufficient. I think,t„entitletheFlaiutiff, Si ^IhnT "" '"*''"'' '* " dispelled the u,is-appn.,ension which had a en ' V f '"'l"""^' '"'^^'thave 30 the Crown to show on, a p.nmx I ! ' T n t ' " ''' "°' '"*''''''^"* f"'" laid before the Court in oXrt^: '''■ ^^ ^"^'^ ^^^'^^"'^^ ™"^t be willconvineethemin "1 X : " '' M "''''' ''" ^"■"""* "^^ ''^'^'^^' - mistake. It was sTh Id n ItT ^ '"T^^^ '' ''''"^^^ ^'"^* '* ^^« i««"-J in V. c said, the i.r;^::;i^s::t:i;;. s:^:;/.^:-, ir ' r '^"" find that the Crown ^^1 ^a.^"'"^. "" *'"" T''' ''^ ""^'^^S^' V. C. " If we wouHa.f.ras we"::n'i^;;r-isr^^^^^ '' ^:-- ".ust judge it to have been n.de in error and ndstake^" 1 t^: It ttl^su.;! "^ 10 •20 ;i ^ 'i-.kii&ti&i.i ^"i.. : IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I ut m 1122 I us no 11:25 ill 1.4 6" 1.6 Sciences Corporation !\ <> ^\ ^2"^ '"^^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 (716) 872-4503 10 tion against error ma Crown patent, does not seem so strong as in the case of an ordmary deed. In Attorney-General vs. Garbutt, Counsel fo'the Defend a;^M" to hken the e^e to the ordinary one of rectifying a deed between private ind v d als pubic offices without any particular interest in any one to see that it is let stands on a different footing in this respect troni a solemn deed made . LI ' y se fttZt- o:^^^ of the partie.s concerned, whose vigilance is stimCd Dy selt interest. Or, as Spragge, V. C, put it, " The Crown and the subiect certainlv donotstand upon precisely the same footing in regard to shewing miSetlei^r respect.ve deeds, in grants from the Crown fnd ag.fements and dfedT b^twe n n n ' aten in i't^laT" "" ''' '^7'"'"' ^'^^^ ^^-'^ ---formed, in matters of fact ad njtaken ,n Its law. in cas..« where, t would not be open to a subject to avoid or reform his deed upon the same grounds." McNuirnGr28VFr'^v"p''"'i' ""^ '^ "* ''''''■ ^" Attorney-General v. inf n7.f ' 1 f ; ? ' ^ ^- 'P°''' "^ P^**^"*^ '^^"^''l '" i».providence, a,s includ- ng, as he understood the expression, patents is.sued not through fraud noi- in mis ake iight^ of the subject. And m Attorney-General v. Contois. 2.5 Gr. 346. Spragge C aid he could see no ground in reason why an improvidence should nc^t be fdi;ved against alike, whether it be the result of mistake in law or of fact. 20 It is not necessary to show positively, that the relator or some person other than he patentee IS entitled to the land, it is sufficient if there existe.l claims or n Iteria' with Tb^f ^ '. ' wf* '"^ *'' '""' '' '""^ ^™ -<^"'^' ^-- "^fl— ^ ^* - delZg vMth the land.- Whore a patent is seta.ide.it is .set aside as was said in Fricht v jScheck Gr. 254, so as to enable the Crown to deal with the case with full know- Jedgr <^1 the facts as m its .justice and wisdom it may deem right. This being so it seems to me the learned Chief Justice misapprehended the ques- tion With which he was called upon to deal, when he in his judgment discussed so largely the question of the rights of Logan. He says he could not hold that the patent ^aued by improvidence unless Logan had such a possession as would confer a right 20 He tinds that Logan was not in pos.se,ssion on the loth of J.ily. 1870, and therefore had no rights. He also says the claim of Logan was rejected by the Government Now, no claim wa,s made by Logan until nearly three years alter the patent now in question had been issued. The only evidence produced to show that his claim when made, was not considered a valid one, was a letter of 15th September, 1883 from John R. Hall, acting Secretary to the Minister of the Interior to the solicitors for the defendant Fonseca. The officers of the Department at Ottawa, who have been examined ,11 this case, say, there is nothing in the records of the Department to justify the writing of such a letter. Whether Logan was or was not in possession of part of the land in question on the 15th of July. 1870, may I think on the evidence be fairly 40 i V • / I ■ > T^-"^ '-^ 1 1 m 8 1 1 1 :; ^ rt 11 ') m l| y !; !', V^fc t, . . mi,:ff .^' 324 evidence, a Stalu.,,-y Deel™L S. bvF T T"'"*" "'■■ ""'""^ "'l-r in i. he „i. Le«.„ L in ,...:Lr^:;''i"r„r:;.ts"sf■■;',l^i,T'• r not say he was so in the month of July. He said fiirH,. ■ i, ft I , ° ^ °'' knew of no claim adverse to that of Belch excen on of h ' f''^'^'l'^'\ ^^at he forego to the said portions of the lot." Pa'of oT C In 7"' '"'''" '"' among the lands claimed by Belch This 1? '. "•''.'" '^"''*'""' ^^^'^ the patent issued to Fonseca/and was selbvlrDrrVr'u^ ''"'■ '^'""^ '' .night be enquired into and i'„forma"tLde.t^^^^^ T^ '''''''' '"' '1 with the claim were in Winnipeg when the naten issu' . ''^^"'' ''""'"*'^ Ottawa until a considerable tine after that That I ' 7 ""'' ""' "'"•■""' *" to this day been disposed of ' '"" "' ^'"" "^ '^''I'"^''^' ''^'^ "^^'«'- It was uiged that the Govrnment had in its possession when th. n„f .. • ^ abstracts of the ti le, and that the li,st of lands to be inl^ "'" ^'^'^ t'''^''"* '^«"^d' fiat de.scnbing lands for patent are n I o^^^^^^^^ F ' '" '"'•'"' "" "'' Burgess the Deputy-Min ster of the Intel. 1 It' H w '"' '?"" ^""' ^^•^' ^'■- ' T . . inienoi, tliat the advei.sc c n m f>a]\^ i *i^,..* r Department, that would not be an answer to a suit by ^:^Z^l^:Tr:^ as issued improvidently, it adverse claim. disclo.sed by these docu xreZ wir n . pr^ent to the „.ind of the Government or its officers' when gran Z he atent That the Government hao the u.eans ot ascertaining the facts, and could byTnvstta tmn have ascertained them, would be no bar to such a suit. The cont Zn t Mar tyn v. Kennedy. 4 Gr. 61. was that the Crown had the information whZ its ..ach. an must be presumed to have been acquainted with all the facts, bl Est n 30 to h ,id H ! T ' '7 ' ^' T'^ J""* "^ '"'^'''' '^""^''"^^'"f? P-'-^i^'* t" a litigation o hold hat each party knows hat with reasonable diligence he might have known a so sa,d tha to apply the princpk to such a case as he was then dfaling with. woX' be to charge the claimant with the consequences, not of his own negj but of tie mismformatmn of a third party in no way interested. In Attfrney-Genll . McNulty. 6 Gr. 324, it appeared that an award which gave the claimant certain rights' was in (he possession of the ( Irown Land Office, but the same learned Judge said there' I am satisfied that this award was not present to the mind of the officer of the Government through whose instrumentality these patents were issued ; nor do I think the presence ofthe submission and award in the Crown Lands Office, or the applica- 40 -f"!''i : I ./ 'I r mi ^.^i».«i)Uidi^^.^Hi>rJ«!4Wt;>^- '•-i- iii) I [ f; ----f»:«W M> >i . i i» [» i l ini' - ..HJIBCT-^ ,;jf. ^ .A.-v.,v_«^,fci^ASjftM*»«iS^*^i^ "miifiriTW [T 'I'll ' ^'In'tfi' -' n 325 , «a„ie thing is referred to "°""^-^''"^'^' '■ ^cNulty, H Qr. 281 the Here, Fonseea had no absolute n»ht fn th^ .- , , ^-dealing, it was land which the C;ow„ ^n J^ "^^^^ "'"'^^ ^^"^ ^--n and it is plain from the evidence that the o".""", ™'? * ""' ^'''" ^'^""''^ ^« J^i'"- tc. which other persons had an; rigt c^ to Xcl ." '"*''""'" "'^^"^'"^ ->' '-'^ ^^om the Order in Council of 0th May 87^ f ""«-«••- being made by others- togrant by way of commutation for Shtf cf c .m "' ''/''"" ""^^ "" ■"*-*-« a, patent might be established under he MlfKr' ^"^ '''"^ ^°'' ^'^'^'^ ^ "g^tto al-Mtappearsfrom the evidenc that the Gov ' ^' '"• ''^ '' ^'«- ^- ^2 So persons who had purchased from the trulls Tp" 't"' '" P"""*^^^ ^^« ''^bts of possession had been recognized by them "^^*' Common, or whose cas^rilt'^^^Siirnlt^; t:^ t f - ^- fonseea, was read in this Deputy-Minister of the Inter or wii these oU" ^"''^^^^'or-General, and afterwards when the patent issued. This evk l?' ^'"""'^/^'-^ '^^f^'-e the Government and no doubt it can be read. tC^ZZT . 'f *he defendants, but I have same as in this suit, except tha theTttortv P J" T '! ""^ '^^''' ^'^'^ '^^ Eliza Mercer, the now relator, wast. nplaTntJ^^^^^^^ T '''" " ''''''"''^'' ^^'^ tionsoffactandthe case stated ntTeTn .^ ''''' °^" "^''^- The allega- a« in the bill i„ that suit In evet ess 3 '."", ^'T^ ^^'■''^"™ ''^ -- prayer of the bill and the prayer of IhTfori'."' '''^ "'^ ''''''''''■ ^he that the p.ayerbfthe bill L two addition„rT ""^ ''"'^'^ '"^^ same, except that Fonseea procured the pate^r peHy SThel'h ''".V\ T^ '^''^^■''^''^ dared a trustee for the plaintiff The i«,T • Tu f '"'• *^^* ^^ '"'^y be de- ^ Inforn^tion are exactly thrsame T "h tS ^ ^'^^^ ™-^ '^^^ *be case, yet, in their answers when se tt /on th^ d ^ ' u"" "''''' '^^' *^'^ '« "«' 'l-^ by the former suit estopped fri S tL int T '^'! '^' Attorney-General is cjuestionsnow raised by "^^he Informal are " ^'■'""'"^"' ''^ ^oth set up that the and which were heardL de^eirelnThe f:ieT^^ ^1^"^^ ^^ ^--' '^0 Uken in that first suit, Col. Dennis has d^ed Tl Tv, "'' ^^^ '^^^^'«°'=« ""^ 1 A. & E. 791 note and T«vl ^as died. The authorities cited of Foster v Derbv dencebeinrn;:tdmil^:i;f„::,.^^^^^^^ ^-I'y warrant histf »inlr VnTyVurgZnolf c^ -f -^f ^'^^^ ^"^'^'^^"^^ ^^ ^^--^ i* 10 20 H ' 1 ^ i *4 .» ?. ^'^' ' "' I «!S^3 nl 326 sent to Winnipeg for tl.e purpose of ascertaining tl.e facts which would show what lands, par of this Point Douglas Co.n.non were available for satisfy in , tl.! clanns of the Po.nt holders. Col. Dennis himself visite.i Winnipeg, wherl h'e saw Tr2r\l I''' """^ '" '"^'^ ^'^'^"^ ^"^ ----^ P-* "f the land a" a events. After h.s return to Ottawa. Fonseca on the 3rd October. 1878, wrote h n. a letter, m wh.ch he professed to give the names "of such persons Ls to the Z .that feZ h 'd Tr : 7r\'' ''••"^"*" '" ' ^^'-''"'^ -• «^-ten.ent anno. : Pomt Douglas Common, and cnta.ning a great many names, the name of WiHiau. s^teTot 7 '*''""' '' ''' ''' "" ''• ''' ''' "'^'"^'^ '^-' «^-bart & Co.. op," - lo in.fhpT r' "J^'-'""?S"'«"^ "!" the learned Chief Justice is occupied with discuss- Julv STolrtl "'"r""'^ ''^""" '''^^ •"~-" "" tHo loth of July. 1870, but that .seems to me not a matter of much moment. The question is not now, has Logan, or have tho.se who claim under him, a right to this land u„i the Mamtoba Act^as living been in possession on the 15th July, 1870. Nor wluchofthe wo Fon.secaor Logan, who was in po.ssession on that day, and .so en titled under the Act. As I have already said, the claiu. of Fonseca was one whid. gave a nght ^o no particular land, and the Crown, even if this land was opened to be gmnted having been occupied by no one who could clain. it under the Manitoba 20 Act by virtue ot a possession on the 15th July. 1870, might still decline to make a grant of it. which would interfere with po.sse,ssion taken by .some, one at a much more rer ■ .f, date Itsec.n to-me that it is not necessary to tind that their existed an established custom mt.e Department of the Interior respecting the right of squatters, such as prevailed in the Crown Land Department of Ontario, to justify the Crown in so act- ing. In the Statutory Declaration made by Fonseca, in support of Belch's claim Logan 13 said to have been in possession of portions of C and F in 1870 though it' IS not said that he was so on tl.e 15th of July. He may or may not ha^e been so and a large number of the witnesses examined in this suit say he was. He seems 20 certainly to have had some rights, for in that year he built a small house and his lights, whatever they were, seem to have been recognized by the Trustees of Point Douglas co.nmon. In the Statutory Declaration made by Fonseca who was one of Trustees, he says. " The Trustees of P.iint Douglits common do not claim any rights in or to the said land.s, but acknowledge the title of those claiming through the said Logan and Barber respectively." Upon the plan prepared for the Trustees by Dun- can Sinclair, 26th December, 1870, certified as correct by Sutherland, Fonseca and Barber, on 30th September, 1872, and registered on that day, Logan's name appears on lot C. The name of Barber appears on lot D and E, that of Schultz being on the latter lots also. And on D the name of Smith ha,s been written, but afterwards struck 40 out. hi p 827 when tl,e paU^nt t,ZZJ^^l wlu" .t '•'^ '^'""'^ "' ^''^ '^"—"t. further inlentigation ha d le, 1 M . V; "" """'' ''' ''^'"^ ""^ ""^" j>YHi.in....erto.r-^t^^r:;r:;r^ n.enth:;i ot h : ' .Inrb'^'"' T " '"'•"•^' '^"^ '-^"'^^ ^'^^ ^''•' «--" "» steer of. n'' ^Zu T" ^' T "" '""^^ *'""g "« ^^'^ ^'^-g ^o li«t of lots for patt/ t' ^oleca i ^^ "" ^ ^* ^"f ^'^ "^^ '^'^ the patent to isiue ^ A Ce.tainTv no N S ' """"'^ ^"" ^"''^ ''"^horized been n.anifestly wron/' O It " ." m •'' '""'"^'"^ ^"'"^"'^^ '* ^""'^^ ''^^e Fonseea land^^tirihe.Mr.r a'lttT A ^C [^ " 1'"""^'"^ '^ '''' ''' that ho admitted belonged to othe , eol O An 1 T^^^. ""' , ^"'^ '''"^'^ Q. Not kno:;':g,;r'ATt wo^'d :r' -' '"'-'' ^'^'-^ ^ ^ ^'- >* --•'^ -• «« aa Jlriuw f ^'■- f"''^'" ""^ "^''^''^' *=""'=''*^^' b>- —^'1 »■-• the Defendants AUo .Vl?.'^ P'^* *" *'^°"''^' '^"^^ ^'^''^'^ ^'- Crown had not . rigU to git olv^rn K "r '^^""^ ""'^ "°* P'-^'^-^ *« '^^ -"-<^ of the officers ffthe Government, when the patent issued and that had they been so the patent 11 not have .ssued including these lands until, at all evenL, furth^: nc uThld be n ,, made No other conclusion can be come to than that there were dail to these lands deserving of be.ng investigated, and requiring to be investigated, and that th ct;^z:r' ^''"" ''-'- ''- '-'^'^ -^"^'-' --^- - ^--^ ^^^ the '^l^T^r f. ^^' '"''«™^*'»" '« tlmt the patent may be set a^ide so far as it affects Ind To id and of iT ^' ""' ^ ''"' ^' ^""^ ''''' '' "^^ '^ ^-'^-^ absolutelv n and vo.d and of no effect so far as regards the said lands. The only authority cit'ed for «ett,ng aside a patent in part was Atty.-Gen. v. McNulty, 8 Gr. 324, in wMch Est n V.C, concludes h^ judgment by saying the patents will be declared vdd eithex who Iv or m part, according to circumste .ices. A mere casual expression such as that doe^ 40 /■ :^ i ■ i 1 > ■J ^ ■ '%' 1 i: 328 m.t carry much weight as ail authority aii.l v.oul.l .scarcely warrant the uiakiiiK of such a decree unless otlu-r cases can l.c foun.I to suppoit it. 1'lmt a patent can he sel aside in pai-t seenm to have been doul,te<> / 'Ifnt" Upon tl prayeil (It.'flarin I express no claims madii to ju'lgiiiont could ill orror aixl in fai'ts, not prps(!i U'en onquired i the case, witli h ri^^lit. Till' present reversed, and a bet 11 i.isncd in oi -luit, including tl Apjxial allow i)29 -ient." Upontl.os. uiitl.urities th.^re seemn ,.u doiiht that a .Iccv. n.ay be u.mlo us prayed (k-clariiig tins patent void iv* to lots C, D E, and F. ■ I express no opinio,, as to who „,ay k- entitled to these lands, or whether the claims n.ade to them ean l,. sul,stantiated or not. It u* not n.v place to .lo so; as n.v ju.lgniont could in no svay bind the Crown. Having foimd that th. patent w^s issued n. error and nnprovidence by reason ,J the .'xistence of adverse claims an€.n i.ssned in error and improvidence Tli- intonnant is nntitled to the co.st.s of the -mit. including those of the rehearing. Apjxuil allowed with ccsts. 10 , ■ )>^Al)t ! BIJ aPB IN THE Saturi Thefi Betw€ of Eliza Willi This < the first d of this Co mation ho and Defen Upon ( evidence t CoDnsel af ing, nboulc And th 1. This of this Oci the enrohn 2. And day of Dec vince of M. to lots C, I clair'a surv aUTsoy vi i as the sami Older and c 3. And '"■*' "'"i'")(jj<(iiw.w»t'r» ir»t ■«#iiPr- llrf-^l-F^-;^, ,,i IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH, IN Ii;QUITY. 330 -'I /Saturday the stiventh day of April, A. D., 1888. The full Court. ' Between Her Ma.tkstvs Ain.RNEV-GENERAL for Canada, at and l,y the relation of Eliza Mercer, and William Gomez Fcinseca aud John Christian Schultz, Iv form ant, Defendants. lo 80 1 HIS Case comi.4r ,u, the twenty-ninth and thirtieth day> of November last and the first day of Deeombe,. ]^st. befor. this Court for re hearing of the decree or order of thm Court, bearing dat.- the fourth day -jf May, A. I)., 1887, dlsraissin.. the Infor- mation herein .uit of this Court with costs, in prcHence of Counsel for the Informant and Defendants. Upon opening of the matter and upon hearing read th.; fileadings herein and the evidence taken at the hearing of thi.x cause and upon hearing what was alleged by Counsel aforesaid this Court was plea,sed to order that the matter of the said re-hear- ing, flbould stand over for judgment. And this Cause coming on this present day for judgment. 1. This Court doth allow the said re-hearing aud doth wider that the said decree of this aurt, dated the fourth day of May. A. D.. 1887, be set aside and reversed and the enrolment thereof vacated. 2. And this Court doth declare that the patent from the Crown, dated the fifth day of December. 1879, granting rertain lands in IW City of Winnipeg in the Pro- vince of Manitoba, to the defendant William Gomez Fonseca. so far as the .same relates to lota C, D, E and F. in Block fourteen (14) on the East side of Main street of Sin- cUir'a survey of part .)f lot numl)er thirty-live (35) of the Dominion Government -ui *«y ui the Farish of St, John in said Province, is void as having been issued so far asthesamerelatestosaidlotsC, D, Band F, in error and improvidence and doth 30 order and decree the same accordingly. 3. And this Court doth further order and decree that the Defendants do pay to the i? Informant taxation b Passed John A. \ IN THE Betwe of Eliza Willi Take Supreme < Queen's £ day of Ap the late t} Dated To M( IV Imndred dollars has been paid into this Court by the lefendants, as security that the Defendants will effectually prasecute their said •Tjeal and pay s\ich costs and damaget* as may be awarded against them in case the 'gment appealed from \>e affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada and upon iling what wivs alleged by the Solicitors, for all parties. It is ordered iliat the sum of five hundr-d .loUai-s already paid into Court, by the Jefondants to the credit of this cause, is hereby allowed and do stand and remain in 20 Court, as security to the Informani and Relator, that the Defendants will effectually pn>se^ute their appeal and pay such costs and damages as may be awarded in case the judgment appealed from be affirmed. And it is further ordered that the costs of this application, be costs in the cause to the successful party. (S)gned,) A. Lemon, Registrar. John F. Bain, J. k^r A 33:1 .i 10 I THE QUEEN'S BENCH. IN EQUITY. In Chambers!; The Honorable Mr. Ju.stiw Bain. Wednesday the 2iid May, A. D., 1888 Between Hek Majesty's Attokney-Oenerai, for Canada, at and by the relation ^EuzaMekoer, ^ in/cymu^nt. and William (ioMRZ Fosseca and John C. Schuitz, r> ^ j . Defendants. Upon hearing read the notice of motion herein dated the Ist day of May. A. D.. S88, and what was alleged by the Solicitors, for all parties. 1 It is ordered that the appeal of the Defendants in this cause to the Supreme curt of Canada, from the judgment of the Full Court of Qucen'.s Bench for Manitoba, 'ivered herein on the .seventh day of April, now last past be and the same is hereby )wed. 2 And it is further ordered that the Defendants be represented in the said appeal ■ one Solicitor or firm of Solicitors, and that the Infonnant's Solicitor, be notified /ithin two weeks of the name of such Solicitor or firm and it is further ordered that he costs of this application, be costs ia the cause to the successful "wty m said zu ■^PP^- (Signed,) John F. Lain, J. A. Lemon, Registmr.