A grant was made in 1693 by Frontenac, Intendant of New France and confirmed in 1694 by royal warrant of Louis XIV, King of France, upon the request of Augustin Rouer, for and in the name of Louis Rouer, his son, for the concession of a lake, or one lake (" d'un lac ") called Mitis, which discharged itself into a river of the same name, with oneleague of land all about the lake. This grant was and still is commonly known under the name of the seigniory of Lake Metis. According to the topography, it is not a single body of water which is to be found at the source of the River Metis, but three bodies of water, two of them being approximately of the same altitude above sea level and the third being of an attitude approximately eight feet above the other two; all three discharged naturally, from one to another by channels of flowing water which form no part of the lake expanse. At the time of the grant, these bodies of water were situated in a remote locality and uninhabited unless by Indians. After various changes of ownership, the respondent became the proprietor of the seigniory in 192 and it then instituted a petition of right for the pur- ,pose of determining the extent of the property. It alleged that, at the time of the grant, it was not known that there was any difference of level between the three bodies of water and that what are now shown in the modern maps and known generally as three lake sections with connecting nhannels were, by the grant, considered and described as a single lake; and it concluded by asking for a declaration that the three bodies of water should be considered as "a lake" within the meaning of that term in the grant. In 1875, the seigniory had been sold under a sheriff's warrant to one B., the respondent's predecessor and the sheriff's deed described tht property as follows: " all that tract of land forming and known under the name of seigniory of Lake IMetis * * * with one 'league of land all around the said lake *
*
Prior to the sheriff's sale, from November, the provincial government had granted to the respondent's predecessors timber licences on two limits which, according to their description, included all the land which would be comprised within the boundaries of the seigniory if they were those as claimed now by the respondent to have been fixed by the grant of 1693; and the respondent's predecessors exercised their rights of cutting timber within these limits. At the trial, the respondent produced a number of maps which were admitted in evidence on its behalf: they came originally from various sources but were mostly selected Trom the collection of maps at the *PRESENT:-Anglin CJ.C. and Idington, Duff, Mignault, Newcombe and Rinfret JJ.