The King v. Price Bros & Co. Ltd.

Dominion Ardhives. The earliest are of the date of 1765 and in all these maps down to 1863, there is a single lake shown at the head of the River Metis.

, that the area of the grant must be limited to one lake, the upper lake, with the surrounding league, as, upon the evidence, the grant cannot be given an interpretation or construction of wider import than the restricted literal meaning of the language used carries with it.

.- The preponderance of evidence favours the view that, at the beginning of the 19th century and previously as far as known, the expanse of water, consisting of the upper, middle and lower sections, with connecting stretches, from the southern extremity of the upper section to the point where the river proper debouches from the lower section, bore the designation 'of Lake Metis, the whole expanse being treated as a unum quid.

Held, also, that maps generally, are of little or no value to prove the facts which they depict or represent, geographers often laying them down upon incorrect surveys or information and copying the mistakes of one another; but they may be useful as admissions against the party who produces them. Idington J. expressed no opinion. Duff J. held that although they may not be conclusive for the purpose of construing the grant of 1693, they are at least very cogent evidence in support of the contention advanced by a report of a surveyor in favour of the respondent as to the denotation of the name Lake Metis according to the contemporary usage of persons familiar with the locality.

Per Anglin C.J.C. and -Mignault and Newcombe JJ.-Maps, when they have no conventional or statutory significance, should be regarded merely as representing the opinions of the persons who constructed them; they furnish at best no adequate proof, and none when it appears that they are founded upon misleading or unreliable information or upon reasons which do not go to establish the theory or opinion represented, and when they have not the qualifications requisite to found proof of reputation.

Per Anglin C.J.C. and Mignault and Newoombe JJ.-A map prepared by a private person, although filed with a provincial government, is not admissible as a public document against the Crown; it merely illustrates and the proof must come from sources outside the maps. Mercer v. Denne ([19041 2 Ch. 534) disc.

Per Rinfret J.-At the time of the seizure and sale, the sheriff cannot have meant, nor could he have intended the public to understand that he had seized and was selling other than the only lake which then was known by the name Lake Metis, that is the body of water furthest from the St. Lawrence.

The buyer B., who was perfectly aware of the whole situation, cannot have imagined that his sheriff's deed granted him rights over the other two lakes; and the respondent's predecessors, when they bought from B. in 1876, cannot have intended, in view of the licences held by them since 1868, that they were getting more than the land, around the upper lake, not already covered by their Crown licences.

Per Anglin C.J.C. and Mignault and Newcombe JJ.-The report of a surveyor employed by one of the parties to a dispute affecting the title to land to survey that land, when made post litem motam, is not admissible as evidence, either of reputation or of fact; it serves only as notice of the claim.

appeal side, province of Quebec, affirming the judgment of the Superior Court (1) and maintaining the respondent's petition of right.

The judgment appealed from was reversed (2).

The material facts and the questions at issue are fully stated in the above head-note and in the judgments now reported.

Wainwright K.C. and Vien K.C. for the respondent. C.J.C.-I concur with Mr. Justice Newcombe. J.-This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, maintaining the judgment of Mr. Justice Gibson the learned trial judge who tried a petition of right presented by the respondent claiming, under and by virtue of a grant made A.D. 1693, by the Intendant of New France to one Louis Rouer, and confirmed in the following year by the Royal Warrant of the King, and successive assignments pursuant thereto of the rights so acquired, and including thereunder a great variety of instruments of which a clear detail is given by the said learned trial judge.

The grant was given of

The claim now set up is that not only was there one lake granted thereby, but three.

I am unable to hold, as we are in effect asked to do, that certain circumstances, which arose over a century later than said grant, can help us to give said grant an interpretation or construction of wider import than the restricted

1=s literal meaning of the language used imperatively carries with it.

It seems to me that the evidence of Johnston, a witness

' of scientific attainments, and Joncas, a surveyor and civil engineer, who were sent to the district in question where

Lake Metis is, with instructions to find and to report on the facts tending to determine whether only one lake, or two, or three, as the respective parties hereto had long been contending, and still contend for herein, is conclusive on the question of fact arising in our trying to correctly interpret and construe said grant.

Certainly if Johnston is correct in his estimate of the facts attested by the growth of the trees and vegetation in the locality in question there has been no material change in the levels of the water since the time of the grant in question, and, if Joncas is correct in the evidence he gives, tending to corroborate Johnston's view in that respect, and further that there was a fall of eight feet or more within a stretch of over or about a quarter of a mile in the water flowing from Lake M~tis (properly so called) and the next lower lake, known as " Lac A la Croix," I cannot accede to the contention set up by the respondent. For I cannot conceive of a lake having such an outlet and fall having ever been confused with another lake, or river as forming part thereof.

I cannot conceive of people blundering into asserting that two lakes were in fact one.

Such seems to have been the case with the late Mr.

Ballantyne, chosen by Mr. Rouville in 1835 to survey the territory he had then acquired under the above mentioned grant of 1693, and successive grants or divisions thereof, by which it was passed on by said grantee and through others to Rouville.

Rouville, apparently, knew as little as the rest of us about this acquisition, and employed Ballantyne as his surveyor to enlighten him.

In the report Ballantyne made he uses the following expression:- I am not inclined to believe that Mr. Ballantyne was intentionally dishonest, but I cannot believe that he took the same pains as either Johnston or Joncas, in 1923, or Breen, in 1870, who arrived at almost exactly the same results in making a survey of said outlet from lake M~tis (properly so called) and demonstrating that there was a fall in the level of the water rushing out from that end of lake M6tis which absolutely forbade, in my view of such things, anyone, taking due care, from reporting those three sections of water, draining the surrounding country and emptying the results into the so-called river M6tis, as one lake.

Owing to the erection of a dam by respondent at the end of these three lakes the level between Lac & la Croix and Lac aux Anguilles in its natural state was not, and, I imagine, could not possibly be made as clear as the fall from the Mdtis, properly so called, to La Croix.

But how did the latter get the names they acquired and when?

We were told in argument that La Croix had a tradition attached to it but as I do not find the tradition or its origin dearly testified to by oral evidence, perhaps it resulted from the necessities of those visiting there for business or pleasure promoting in these later times what anyone so doing must have seen necessity for instead of the absurdity of calling the second and third sections, part of lake Mtis.

I am quite confident that there must have been some of these people intelligent enough to recognize the absurdity of calling all those stretches of water by one name and as if one lake.

It takes time, under such conditions as existed in that far away district to have each spot given a name which adheres to it.

I have no doubt that as lake M~tis, properly so called, was the chief body of water at all like a lake, in 1693, and that no reasonable person could then claim for the other sections, now claimed as lakes, any necessity for having a name given them, there was no grant made of any lake but that I have been designating the one properly so called. Then the outlet from it at the river M6tis was clearly a recognition of the lower parts of its outflow, as part of the river M~tis.

Such a view may be said to be unfounded in the evidence. I reply thereto that for such speculation there is quite as much evidence as for accepting in whole the report of Mr. Ballantyne, as if evidence.

I cannot accept that as evidence of anything but the . fact that he had been so retained and so reported. On that report we have much argument based, as if it proved the facts stated as such, therein, when they are not proven, and are only good for evidence of what occurred relative to the filing of same in the Crown records when all relative to the truth or falsehood of the statements made therein was expressly reserved for future determination. I cannot, therefore, accede to the respondent's argument based on Mr. Ballantyne's statements of fact. Much less can I as helping to prove the actual facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of the original grant. Nor can I assent to the suggestion that the commutation deed of 1853 extended, or ever was intended to extend, the rights originally granted.

The mere power given by the imperial statute of 1820, on which the said deed of 1853 rests, never contemplated more than a mere change of tenure.

I observe that the court below seems to have adopted the opinion of Mr. Justice Greenshields who wrote at greater length than some of the others writing; and he certainly seemed to start out in his conclusion as if the statements of Ballantyne were to be accepted as fact, instead of simply proof of his having, acting on behalf of his client Rouville, presented his opinions to the Government, and which were received for future consideration, but not as proven evidence. And that was so clearly put on record at the time as to rather lead one to doubt the sincerity of argument rested thereon.

That argument seems nevertheless to have pervaded the minds of the court below and, without that state of mind I, with great respect, submit that the judgment appealed from would not have been given.

As, with great respect, I cannot accept that view, or any other than as above indicated as briefly as can be at present, I am decidedly of the opinion that this appeal should be allowed with costs throughout, and the petition in question herein dismised with costs.

There are many other grounds taken by respondent which I am of opinion have no evidence to support them, and I have no time to deal with them herein, and yet they are put forward with apparent confidence which the re- THE K,a spondents could not have felt half a century, or more, ago, PI

R. when accepting licenses from appellant, recognizing his rights, though under protest.

Idington .

.-The crucial question on this appeal is mainly a question of fact, which has been elaborately and ably examined by the trial judge, Mr. Justice Gibson, and by Mr. Justice Greenshields, in the Court of King's Bench. The powerful argument addressed to us for the Crown has not, in my opinion, seriously shaken their conclusion. The consideration of the question can be most conveniently approached by referring first to the report and plan of Ballantyne, of 1836. The report is, in part, in these words:- Report of the survey of Lake Mitis, surveyed in November and December, 1835, by D. S. Ballantyne, D.P.S.

Pursuant to the instructions directed to me by J. B. Tach6, Esq., dated the 8th October, 1835, I have surveyed the Lake Mitis situated about 36 miles south east of the river St. Lawrence, conformable to the plan and field notes hereto annexed, and in the manner hereafter mentioned.

Beginning at the south extremity of the said lake, towards the north extremity of said 'lake, in scaling the different courses and distances and taking intersections, to the entrance of the river Mitis. The parts surveyed by scaling are coloured on the plan in pink and those by intersections are coloured in yellow.

Remarks

The general features of the county around the lake is level for one mile and from thence begins rising hills.

The average depth of water in the expanded parts may be from 4 to 6 fathoms and in the contracted parts from 4 to feet.

The average breadth of the expanded parts is from 24 to 16 arpens and the contracted parts from 4 to 24 perches. The contracted parts is dead water and the soil on the banks is alluvial for 3 to 5 arpens each side and from thence begins the flats, extending from half a mile to a mile and afterwards begins the rising ground.

Both in the expanded and contracted parts of the lake, the bottom is composed of sand and clay and the bed of the river Mitis, stoney. At the point B, where the river takes the name of river Mitis, the average breadth may be about 3 perches and very rapid, the average fall may also be about forty feet to one mile. The whole extend of the lake, i.e., from the point A to the point B is almost a perfect level.

The river discharging in the lake is small and run with a gentle current, and are not connected with any lakes.

The islands are of a sandy soil rather inclined to be loamy and elevated above the level of the lake about 3 to 4 feet, the timber growing on them is firs and white birch of a middle size.

The hunters and old settlers of Mitis and Rimousky that have often frequetted those parts gives the appelation of Lake Mitis to the The effect of this report is, when read in light of the plan, that, at the date of the report and previously, so far as known, among the hunters and settlers of Metis and Rinouski, the expanse of water, consisting of the upper, middle and lower sections, with connecting stretches, from the southern extremity of the upper to the point where the river proper debouches from the lower section, bore the designation of " Lake Metis "; the whole expanse being treated as a unum quid. The preponderance of evidence favours the view that at the beginning of the nineteenth century it was to this expanse as a whole that the term "Lake Metis " was applied.

Ballantyne's report was referred to Bouchette, the surveyor-general, and Bouchette, whose report is dated about six weeks later than the date of Ballantyne's, while personally not unwilling to accept the view advanced by Ballantyne, advised the executive that this should be subject to verification in the manner suggested by Colonel de Rouville, the owner of the seigniory, in support of whose application Ballantyne's report had been made and filed. De Rouville's application has not been found, and we are ignorant of the nature of his suggestions as to verification. About a month later, the surveyor-general was authorized by the executive to make Ballantyne's report and plan part of the records of the surveyor-general's office, it being understood that Ballantyne's survey was not to be construed as settling " conclusively " the boundaries of lake M~tis. The object of Colonel de Rouville's application was, of course, to fix in principle the extent of the seigniory, by establishing the identity of lake M6tis within the meaning of the grant of Louis XIV, in 1693, and this was apparently the question intended to be reserved.

There is no evidence of any formal acceptance of Bal- * lantyne's report and plan as correctly defining lake M~tis for the purpose of giving effect to the grant of Louis XIV, except such as may be found in the grant of 1855 and the map of 1853 hereinafter mentioned.

The learned trial judge seems rightly to have held that the dominating purpose of this last-mentioned grant was to effect a change of tenure, pursuant to the powers and duties created by the Act of 1822. This, of course, is not necessarily inconsistent with the existence of an intention manifested by that grant to accept Ballantyne's survey as correctly ascertaining the subject of the earlier grant, and rightly construed in light of the facts known to the Crown officials as well as to the grantees this grant of 1855 does appear, inferentially at all events, to involve a declaration upon that subject.

The description of the land which was the subject of the grant in the deed of 1855 is in the following words:- In the original grant of 1693, the distance of the lake from the river had been given as from twelve to fifteen leagues. There appears to be little doubt that the figures given in each grant are intended to express the distance, reckoned according to the sinuosities of the river, and not in a straight line, and give the length of the river proper, so measured, from the lower end of the lake described as lake M~tis to its embouchement at the St. Lawrence. For nearly twenty years before the grant of 1855, the Crown had been in possession of Ballantyne's plan and report, which had been official records of the department of Crown Lands. Ballantyne had reported the " distance " as " thirty-six miles."

This was not adopted in preparing the description for the deed of 1855.

No doubt in the meantime more accurate information had been obtained upon this point; and the "ten or eleven leagues," mentioned in the description as the length of the river, accords PVB. with the fact as deposed to by Cimon (who, as the result of his measurements, gives the length of the river as thirty-three miles and a fraction), if " Lake Mtis," in the description, is to be read as designating the whole expanse which is delineated and so designated in the plan and survey of Ballantyne. That this is the purport of the description is borne out by a map of the west part of Rimouski, which appears to have been returned, in 1853, to the two houses of the Quebec legislature, with a report by the department of Crown Lands. That map professes to give the boundaries of the seigniory; and the lake, as there delineated, obviously comprises all three sections. This delineation depicts the river proper as debouching from the lake at a point which must obviously 'be the lower end of the lower section-the lake, as depicted on the map, discharging itself into the river at that point. In this respect, the lake and river as shown in this map, returned to the two houses of the legislature by the department of Crown Lands, answer the description in the grant of 1855, as well as in the grant of 1693, construed according to the contention of the respondents; but does not snswer the description in either grant, construed according to the contention of the Crown. The length of the river given, moreover, ten or eleven leagues, is wholly irreconciliable with the contention of the Crown that lae Mktis embraces the upper section alone.

The description in the deed of 1855, interpreted in light of these facts-in light, that is to say, of the documents of 1836, of this map of 1853, of the fact that ten or eleven leagues is an approximately correct statement of the actual distance, measured from the lower end of the lower section to the St. Lawrence, according to the sinuosities of the river, and of the adoption of these figures in substitution for the figures in the original grant-appears to afford satisfactory evidence that the Crown and its grantees under the grant of 1855 did accept, for the purposes of the deed, the claim advanced in 1836 as to the identity of the expanse of water designated by the name " Lake M6tis." Assuming that this is not conclusive for the purpose of construing the grant of 1693 (and leaving out of view the surrender of the earlier grant involved in the acceptance of the grant of 1855), it seems at least to be very cogent evidence in support of the contention advanced by Ballantyne as to the denotation of the name " Lake M6tis," according to the contemporary usage of persons familiar with the locality. The admissibility of Ballantyne's survey, plan and report has been challenged, but Bouchette's report upon them, and the letter of advice from the Governor's secretary to M. de Rouville, are indisputably admissible, and the documents to which they relate can unquestionably be referred to for the purpose of explaining them.

Moreover, Ballantyne's report and plan, having been received as part of the records of the Crown Lands department, can be inspected for the purpose of estimating the significance of the map returned in 1853; and it is impossible to doubt that they can be referred to for the purpose of construing and applying the description in the grant of 1855.

Ballantyne's report and plan evidently remained a part of the official records in the Crown Lands office, and without official challenge as to their correctness, as representing the state of affairs existing in 1836, and they formed the basis of official and other maps and plans of Rimouski for nearly half a century after the grant of 1855. Ballantyne's boundaries of Lake M6tis are reproduced in a series of maps, many of them official, beginning with 1863, and ending about the end of the century.

In 1870, a departmental map was issued, with the authority of the commissioner of Crown Lands and the assistant commissioner, in which the seigniory is shown as embracing all the three sections of the lake with the surrounding land; and again, in 1880, a departmental map, prepared by Mr. Tach6, the assistant commissioner, exhibits the boundaries of the seigniory in the same way as the map of 1870.

There are similar maps in 1893, 1898, 1904 and 1914. In 1895, for the first time, there is a map issued to the public in which the boundaries of the seigniory are traced in accordance with the view now advocated by the Crown; as circumscribing, that is to say, the upper lake alone. But again, in 1898, an official map, signed by the commissioner of colonization and mines, gives the boundaries of the seigniory according to the plan of Ballantyne. It is not until 1870 that we first hear of the designations " Lac A la Croix " and " Lac d'Anguilles " as attaching to the middle and lower lakes as quite distinct sheets of water. The latter designation appears in none . of the published maps produced, and the former-until 1914-only as an alternative designation in this legend J "Lac Milieu, ou Lac A la Croix."

Then there is another series of maps, beginning with the year 1798 and ending about the year 1830, in which the lake source of the river M~tis is shown under the designation of "Lac M6tis," and circumscribed by the boundaries of the seigniory, and delineated in such a way as to indicate an intention to include the whole lake source in the body of water so described.

From the dimensions, moreover, of this lake source, as delineated on nearly every one of these maps, it must be inferred that the mapmaker conceived the body of water delineated as having a much greater longitudinal extent than four and a half miles, the length of the upper lake as ascertained by Johnston's report. As a rule, this body of water is shown as having a length, when scaled, of from ten to fourteen miles. It is quite clear, from the legends on some of these maps, that the delineation of this body of water proceeded on no survey or report but from information gathered from people familiar with the locality.

These maps, however, afford some evidence that Ballantyne's view was in conformity with the general repute and the fair inference appears to be that, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the whole chain of lakes was the subject designated by the term " Lake M6tis," according to the usage of those familiar with the locality. This, of course, is by no means necessarily conclusive as to the construction of the grant of 1693, but it is sufficient to establish a prima facie case in favour of the suppliants on the question of fact as to what was the subject or what were the subjects designated in 1693 by the appellation " Lac M6tis."

Nothing in the maps of the eighteenth century is at all inconsistent with this. Against it there can be urged only this, namely, that the grant of 1693 itself describes the subject of it as "un lac," and that this forbids the adoption of a reading of the description as a whole which makes it embrace three distinct bodies of water, each of which might be described in technical, as well as in popular language, as " un lac."

To this the answer appears to THE KG'w be that the phrase of the grant of 1693 " un lac appell6 Ps, Bnos. Mtis " may not improperly be read as a mere paraphrase -of the proper name, Lac Mitis; and if it be true that under Duff J this latter description the whole chain or expanse now in question was embraced, then effect ought to be given to the grant according to this nomenclature.

The appeal should be dismised with costs.

MIGNAULT J.-I concur with Mr. Justice Newcombe. NEWCOMBE J.-I see no reason to doubt the conclusion of the learned trial judge expressed in the finding that the identification, situation and extent of the lands referred to in the re-grant of 1855 are to be determined from. the primordial title, to wit, that of 10th February, 1693.

I is the affirmative determination expressed in the next following paragraph of the judgment which is at the foundation of the respondent company's case:- Considering that it appears that, at the time of the primordial grant, it was not known -that there was any difference of level between the uppermost section of (sic) the other two, and that the intention of the grantor was not affected by the consideration of such circumstance, but, on the contrary, it a4ppears that what are now shown on the maps and plans as three lake sections with connecting channels, were, by the primordial grant, considered and described as a single lake, regardless of there being separate sections, and regardless of there being a difference between the natural level of one section and that of the other two. I accept the finding that according to the topography it is not a single body of water called " Lake M6tis " which is to be found at the source of the river M6tis, 'but three bodies of water; the learned judge says that travelling up stream there is a first lake, now called "Lac & l'Anguille"; connected to it, by a rather widened channel, is, at a distance of about two miles further up stream, a second lake, now called "Lac & la Croix "; then further up, connected by the river at its normal width, is a third lake, the distance between the second and, the third lake is about one-half mile, the third lake now called " Lake Mitis." The first and second lakes are approximately of the same altitude above sea level; the channel between them is sluggish; but the third lake is of an altitude approximately eight feet above the other two, and the stream in the connecting channel has a flow consequent upon the fall of eight feet in the half mile.

It is to be observed however by reference to the report of Mr. Johnston of the Geological Survey, who surveyed these lakes, that he gives the distance between the upper and middle lakes as fifteen hundred feet. He shows moreover that the levels of the middle and lower lakes have been raised by reason of the dam which has been constructed at the discharge of the lower lake, and that Mr. Johnston also found that

There are thus three lakes lying at different levels, and these discharge naturally, from one to another, by channels of flowing water which form no part of the lake expanses, and it serves only to misunderstanding and confusion to call these lakes three lake sections or separate sections. This misdescription finds its origin in the report of Mr. Ballantyne, a surveyor, who was sent by the proprietor of the granted rights to survey the seigniory in 1835, at a time when questions had arisen and were pending as between the proprietor and the Crown as to its extent. Unfortunately Ballantyne's survey and plan were permitted to find their way to the records of the Crown Lands office at Quebec, and, although the Government declined to accept or to act upon his report, and has never acquiesced in or become bound by it, it has nevertheless, as a document of reference, exercised a confounding influence upon the subsequent cartography and description. The grant was made in 1693, 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 M6tis, which discharges itself into a river of the same name, with one league of land all about the lake, which is at a distance of about twelve or fifteen leagues from the river St. Lawrence, and the land is granted by the same description e titre de fief. This was less than ninety years after the establishment of the first settlement at Quebec. The lakes are situated at the head waters of the river Metis, a stream 'which flows into the St. Lawrence from the southward, 200 miles or more below Quebec, and which comes down from the height of land or watershed between the St. Lawrence and the Baie des Chaleurs, and has a length, exclusive of the lakes, following its sinuosities, of about 33 miles, or, in a direct line, about 10 miles less. The region was at the time uninhabited, unless by Indians, or at places on the St. Lawrence convenient for the fishery; it may be that it was due to the proximity of the natives to a settlement at the estuary that the river M6tis derived its name. The chain of lakes, upper, middle and lower, including the connecting channels, is about fifteen miles in length; the upper lake, four and one-half miles; the middle lake, about five miles; the lower lake, about three miles, and the connecting streams about two and one-half miles.

There is no evidence except from the grant, and such as comes from the maps to which I shall refer, as to what any of these lakes was called at the time. They were situated in a remote locality and probably not much was known about them. If they were named, it is most unlikely that the three lakes would have the same name; if one of them were named "M6tis," it may perhaps have been the lower because the name is French, and the discovery would naturally come from the settlements on the St. Lawrence; or, the existence of the three lakes were known, it may have been the upper one, as the source of the river, which had received the name " Mitis." The application of the name is thus left somewhat to conjecture, but certainly if the grantee before making his application had explored these waters, or caused them to be explored, to the head of the upper lake, and if it had been his intention to obtain a grant of the land surrounding all three, it is inconceivable that he would have described the area in his application as one lake and the surrounding league. He could not have ascended the channel which carried the discharge of the middle lake and was two miles in length without realizing that it was a river or stream, and not a lake, and he would not have thought of using the name "Lac M6tis" as descriptive either of it or of the upper channel.

The inference to be drawn from the maps of the 18th and early 19th centuries, which were introduced by the respondent, is that, according to the knowledge or reputation of the time, there was only one lake on the river M6tis, and this, as early at least as 1755, bore the name of Lake M6tis, and it was from this lake that the river took its rise. I see no evidence to suggest that the name was applied to three lakes; and it is noteworthy that it is the upper lake, the source of the river, to which the name " Mgtis " adheres, and that we find the middle lake known under the name of "Lac & La Croix," and the lower one as "Lac 4 l'Anguille."

Ballantyne on his plan puts the letter A at the head of the upper lake, and the letter B at the foot of the lower lake, and he says that the hunters and old settlers of M6tis and Rimouski applied the name " Lake M6tis " to the whole extent from A to B, and that the river takes the name of M6tis at B. Moreover, he says that

There are subjoined to Ballantyne's report under the title " remarks " a few paragraphs, the first group of which is descriptive, while the concluding group of paragraphs is evidently designed to set forth his reasons and argument for projecting the boundary lines of the seigniory around all three lakes. It is here that he refers to the hunters and old settlers of the time, and to the aborigines of 1693. In my view, neither one of these declarations or statements can have any probative effect, because of the partizan source from which they come post litem motam, and because, seeing that Ballantyne reports as a fact the use which the Indians made of the name " Lake M6tis " in 1693, a subject upon which he could possibly have had no information, there is no reason to suppose that he was adequately informed when he tells of the application of the name by the hunters and old settlers of Mitis and Rimouski. It is, I think, just, having regard to the occasion and context of Ballantyne's remarks, to consider them as put forward by the surveyor merely as argument to support the case of his employer, and not as evidence which can be permitted to influence the findings.

The respondent produced a number of maps which were admitted in evidence on his behalf. These came originally from various sources, but were mostly selected from the collection of maps at the Dominion Archives. The earliest are of the date 1755 and in all these maps down to 1863 there is a single lake shown at the head of the river M6tis. In Holland's map of 1803, the lake is shown under the name "Lake M6tis" surrounded by lines presumably drawn to represent the boundaries of the grant, but the lake is according to the scale somewhat less than ten miles in length and has an extreme breadth of upwards of five miles. It was not until 1863 that a map emerged showing a long narrow crescent-shaped lake corresponding somewhat to the lakes depicted upon, Ballantyne's plan, but this map makes no attempt to separate the three lakes and shows all of more or less uniform width. Later maps follow Ballantyne's draft more closely.

Maps are from their nature of very slight evidence. Geographers often lay them down upon incorrect surveys or information, copying the mistakes of one another. This may be illustrated by reference to Holland's map of 1803, where it is said, under the figure of Lake M6tis, surrounded by lines to represent the boundaries of the seigniory, that Now this drawing which is the first representation of a lake which is of any use for the purpose of realizing its size or shape was certainly laid down without any reliable information; there is no lake of its outline or size upon the ground, and yet the lake as shown here re-appears in subsequent maps with considerable regularity until 1863, a time considerably subsequent to Ballantyne's survey. It must be remembered that these are all maps of an unsurveyed district, and they are really of little or no value to prove the facts which they depict or represent; they may however be useful as admissions against the party who produces them; and, in this aspect, the inference which they support is that, until the time of Ballantyne's survey, everybody, both cartographers and the persons from whom they got their information,, were under the impression that the river M6tis had its source in one lake only. It may be that the description of the grant is apt or sufficient to include the upper or the lower lake as a lake, or one lake, called " Mgtis," which is the subject of the grant, but upon what principle the description can be extended to include more lakes than one I am unable to realize. I see no convincing evidence that the three lakes were called "M6tis;" but, if they were, how does that improve the respondent's case? If there were three lakes called " M6tis " discharging into the river M6tis the grant is surely void for uncertainty, or because it is impossible to apply the description to any defined subject matter; and, if it be only the lower lake which discharges into the river M6tis, that fact, while perhaps sufficient to identify the lake as the subject of the grant, does not entitle the respondent to include also two other lakes called " M6tis " which do not discharge into the river M~tis.

Maps, when they have no conventional or statutory significance, should be regarded merely as representing the opinions of the persons who constructed them, they furnish at best no adequate proof, and none when it appears that they are founded upon misleading or unreliable information or upon reasons which do not go to establish the theory or opinion represented, and when they have not the qualifications requisite to found proof of reputation. Some of the later printed or coloured maps issued by the department of Colonization or of Crown Lands represent the seigniory in accordance with the respondent's contention, others adopt that of the Crown. These maps embrace large districts, if not the whole province; they are issued for departmental use. One realizes that publications, documents and information not infrequently find their way into the Crown Lands and other departments of the Government from which inferences may be drawn adverse to the public right. Claimants are vigilant to avail themselves of any consent which may be afforded to introduce to the records information which may serve their interests. Territorial limits and the boundaries of wilderness grants are, perhaps more frequently than not, lacking in definition or precision of statement, and when a general map of a province or district is in course of preparation, the attention of the departmental draftsman is not apt to be specially directed to careful consideration of the particular features or details upon which claims may depend, and sometimes, not unnaturally, particulars creep into the draft without due consideration of their use or trustworthiness. They are matters of detail, perhaps proper to be shown if verified, but not contributing to the main purpose of the work, which is not essentially concerned to verify them. These maps are prepared and issued not for the purpose of establishing facts or as admissions; they merely illustrate, and the proof must come from sources outside the maps. Mercer v. Denne (1).

Neither the minister nor the Governor in Council can in the reasonable course of administration consider and conclude all the particulars or details which find place in a general map, or all the questions which, if the map import admission or proof, it might be used to determine. The map makers of the department use the information which is available, and they in turn, no matter how carefully they execute their work, are not proof against oversight or errors, the consequences of which might be very serious if these erroneous representations are to be taken as determining the facts with relation to pending claims. It is not in this manner that the Crown domain can be alienated.

It is a remarkable fact that whereas, according to the original grant, the distance of the lake called M6tis is about 12 or 15 leagues from the St. Lawrence, the grant in free and common soccage of 1855, known as the commutation, gives a distance of about 10 or 11 leagues; and, although nothing else appears by the latter grant to indicate an intention to enlarge or to alter the area or location of the lands granted in 1693, there is no explanation or suggestion of any reason why the statement of the distance from the St. Lawrence is thus varied. It appears in fact that the outlet of the upper lake is about 30 miles from the St. Lawrence, and that of the lower lake about 23 miles, and it may have been that the draftsman of the grant of 1855 considered that, as the distance stated in the original grant was then known to be excessive, it ought to be reduced, and that he stated the distance of 10 or 11 leagues as his appreciation of the true distance, which, in fact, as will have been perceived, corresponds very closely to the actual distance of the outlet of the upper lake from the St. Lawrence.

Certainly the distance of 10 or 11 leagues was not taken from Ballantyne's report which states that. the lake Mitis is situated about 36 miles southeast of the St. Lawrence.

It is the upper lake which the Crown identifies as the lake M6tis of the grant, and expresses its willingness to concede, and it would answer all the requirements not unreasonably if the stream between the upper and middle lakes be regarded as the beginning of the river M6tis into which the lake discharges. On the other hand, the lower lake undoubtedly discharges into the river M6tis, and if, at the time of the grant, it were called lake M6tis, it would satisfy the grant in all particulars, except as to distance from the St. Lawrence. I do not think the grant necessarily fails or is utterly void for uncertainty, or that it is impossible to define the subject of the grant upon the ground.

The object of the litigation is to extend the grant, which admittedly and upon the common view includes the upper lake, to the middle and lower lake, and

I would reject that contention.

J.-Price Brothers & Company, Limited, par sa p6tition de droit amend6e, conclut:- La compagnie demande, en outre, qu'il soit proc6d6 h un bornage entre le territoire de la seigneurie et celui de la

Couronne.

Les parties ont consenti h suspendre l'adjudication sur la question du bornage jusqu'h ce que le jugement final ait

6t6 prononc6 quant ' 1'6tendue de la seigneurie.

L'acte de concession original du fief h Louis Rouer remonte au 10 fivrier 1693 et fut ratifi6 par Louis XIV, le 15 avril 1694.

Le plan de D. S. Ballantyne, que la compagnie d6sire faire accepter, porte la date du 10 janvier 1836.

M. Ballantyne 6tait un arpenteur qui agit sur les instructions de M. Hertel de Rouville, le seigneur d'alors. Il pr6para un rapport et un plan dont M. de Rouville voulut faire la base de ses reclamations relatives h la superficie du territoire compris dans la concession originale, et qu'il pria la Couronne d'admettre pour les fins du bornage qu'il sollicitait.

La difficult6 peut se r6sumer comme suit:

La concession originale d~crit la seigneurie

Ballantyne, en 1836, rapporta qu'il existait en r~alit6 trois nappes d'eau reli6es par des bras de riviere; mais qu'elles 6taient toutes trois presque sur le mime niveau et qu'elles devaient 6tre consid6r6es plutft comme un seul lac divis6 en trois sections qui, de tout temps, avaient 6t6 connues par les chasseurs et les indigines sous l'appellation commune du lac M6tis.

Ce que la compagnie demande done de d6terminer, c'est la question de savoir si la d6signation dans ses titres couvre les trois nappes d'eau conformiment au rapport et au plan de Ballantyne, ou si elle n'en comprend qu'une seule; et, dans ce cas, laquelle doit lui 6tre attribu6e.

Il est av6r6 que les trois sections dont il s'agit sont maintenant connues sous les noms de Lac ' l'Anguille, Lac h la Croix et Lac Mtis, et que, par rapport au fleuve Saint- Laurent, le Lac h 1'Anguille est le plus rapproch6 et le Lac M6tis est le plus 6loign6; le Lac ' la Croix se trouvant, par cons6quent, au milieu.

La difference entre les superficies r6clamies et conc6ds de part et d'autre constitue 52,477 acres et repr6sente done une valeur consid6rable.

A la fois parce que la compagnie est demanderesse, parce que le texte de son octroi ("un lac") est de prime abord oppos6 A sa pr6tention, parce qu'elle r6clame & 1'encontre de la Couronne, et, au besoin, par application de 1'article 1019 du code civil, il ne parait pas y avoir de doute que le fardeau de la preuve lui incombe.

Le compagnie, dans sa p6tition, a inumbr6 toute la lign~e de ses titres depuis 1693; mais, A l'examen, il apparait tr~s clairement que l'on doit se borner A la consid6ration de trois 6tapes seulement: la concession originale, la commutation de 1855 et le titre du sh6rif de 1875.

Il semble que c'est en r~trogradant de la dernibre jusqu'A la premiere de ces 6tapes que l'on peut le plus avantageusement tirer une conclusion des faits et des nombreux documents qui ont 6t6 soumis.

La compagnie p6titionnaire a 6t6 incorpor6e sous le nom qu'elle porte en 1920. Elle succ6dait A une premibre compagnie du mame nom incorpor6e en 1904. Le titre en vertu duquel elle d6tient actuellement la seigneurie du Lac Mtis est une vente qui lui a 6t6 consentie par la premibre compagnie le 17 mai 1921.

La premibre compagnie avait elle-meime acquis la seigneurie, le 29 aofit 1878, d'un monsieur George W. Bartholomew, lequel tenait son titre comme adjudicataire du shirif en vertu d'un acte de vente en date du 6 avril 1875. L'acte du sh&rif d~crit la seigneurie comme suit:

Cette description a 6t6 conserv6e identiquement dans les titres subs6quents; et c'est donc celle qui se trouve dans la vente en vertu de laquelle la compagnie actuelle est devenue propriitaire. II convient d'ajouter que cette description est conforme A celle du procks-verbal de saisie et de l'avis de vente publi6 dans la Gazette Officielle.

D'apr~s le code de proc6dure alors en vigueur (articles 638 et 648), la saisie d'un immeuble 6tait constat6e par un procs-verbal contenant et 1'annonce dans la Gazette Officielle devait contenir 6galement " la designation de l'immeuble " de la mgme fagon. Il ne s'agit pas naturellement d'envisager la designation, que le sh6rif a alors donn6e A l'immeuble qu'il a saisi et vendu, au point de vue de l'irrigulariti qu'elle pouvait comporter. La Couronne ne se pr6vaut pas de cette insuffisance. Mais la comparaison entre la d6signation du sherif et la situation telle qu'elle 6tait alors connue des parties nous semble 6tre de la plus haute importance pour la d6cision que nous avons a rendre.

En effet, dis 1835, M. de Rouville avait soumis A la Couronne ses pr~tentions bas6es sur le plan et le rapport de Ballantyne.

Elles d6montrent que jusqu'a cette 6poque les droits du seigneur sur ce que nous appellerons les trois sections en litige n'6taient pas reconnus. Or, ces pr6ten- THE K.

tions ne furent pas alors accueillies.

Sur r6ception de ce PICE BROS. rapport et de ce plan, l'arpenteur g~ndral, M. Joseph Bou- chette, fit rapport au gouverneur que 1'61oignement de la seigneurie ne permettait pas de contr8ler les donn6es fournies par Ballantyne et recommanda de diff6rer toute decision until it was the intention of the Government to settle that portion of the waste lands * * * provided the survey of Mr. Ballantyne on which it is based shall have been found upon verification correct and satisfactory, and have been approved by His Majesty's Government.

Sur quoi le Secr6taire Civil 6crivit, le 24 mars 1836, a M. de Rouville that His Excellency will authorize that report and plan .(ceux de Ballantyne) to form part of the records of the Surveyor General's office but with the understanding that whenever His Majesty's Government shall see fit to lay out townships to be bounded by the seigniory of Mitis and that the verification of the survey of the lake shall become necessary to establish the boundaries of that seigniory legally-you will be prepared to contribute the proportion of the expense to which you are liable by the law and usage of the province without reference to any disbursement which you may have made for the outline of the lake as laid down on Mr. Ballantyne's survey, which survey is not to be considered as conclusively settling the outline of the lake.

Ce n'est que le 9 mars 1870 que M. Thomas Breen, arpenteur provincial, regut de 1'assistant commissaire des terres instruction de procider a l'arpentage de la rivibre M6tis, the above stated survey having been deemed expedient preliminarily to establishing the position and extent of the seigniory of Lake Mitis in connection with the delimitation of the divisional line of boundary between that seigniory and the adjacent lands of the Crown in rear of the projected township of 'Mass6.

Ces instructions recommandaient 'a M. Breen de contr8ler 1'exactitude du rapport de Ballantyne et de v6rifier les variations de niveau des trois sections, ainsi que le cours des eaux dans les parties r6tricies par lesquelles ces trois sections communiquaient entre elles. On voit, par une lettre, en date du 23 octobre 1871, 6crite par l'assistant-commissaire des terres au procureur g6ndral, que cette mission fut confide & M. Breen parce que M. G. W. Bartholomew avait demandd, par l'entremise de son agent, que le d4partement des Terres de la Couronne vint A confier au plus t~t & un ou deux arpenteurs compdtents, le soin d'6tablir les limites entre ce territoire et les terres adjacentes du domaine public.

M. Breen fit rapport:

Ayant trouv6 un courant trs fort dans la dobharge du lac de la premibre section, on Grand Lao M6tis, j'en ai d'abord fait un relev6 exact La lettre de l'assistant-commissaire, M. Tach6, A laquelle J. il vient d'6tre fait allusion, est un r6sum6 complet de la situation jusqu'A la date de 1871.

Elle soumet toute la question au procureur gendral parce que le commissaire des terres d6sire obtenir une d6cision

Elle d6clare que, depuis le d6p6t aux archives du rapport et du plan Ballantyne

Elle ajoute que M. Bartholomew est inform6 par son agent du r~sultat des op6rations de M. Breen et que ndanmoins, dans une lettre adress6e, le 30 janvier 1871, A 1'honorable commissaire des terres, il persiste A demander que la superficie 4tablie sur le rapport de Ballantyne lui soit reconnue. M. Tach6 signale les " donnies gravement en erreur" du rapport de Ballantyne, et dit qu'il et qu'il lui semble

Nous ignorons si le procureur g6ndral a rendu une d6cision A la suite du rapport que lui a fait alors M. Tach6. Le dossier ne le divoile pas. Il reste acquis cependant que, dbs cette 6poque, M. Bartholomew 6tait en instances pour faire reconnaitre des droits A ce que nous continuerons d'appeler les trois sections, et que non seulement le gouvernement refusait d'admettre ses pritentions, mais, au contraire, soumettait que son titre devait se borner au grand lac M6tis, c'est-A-dire A celle des trois nappes d'eau qui 6tait la plus 6loign6e du fleuve Saint-Laurent.

En outre, le rapport de M. Breen et la lettre de M. Tach6 font voir que, dbs lors, les trois nappes d'eau 6taient connues comme trois lacs diffrents, portant respectivement les noms de Grand Lao Mtis, Lac A la Croix et Lac de la Pache A l'Anguille.

Cela est d'ailleurs confirm6 par un monsieur Israil Fon- Kno taine, t6moin offert de la part de la compagnie, dont les Vo souvenirs remontent au delh de l'ann6e 1877, et qui parle meme d'un quatribme lac connu sous le nom de Tr6panier. irJ

D'autre part, vers le 22 novembre 1868, le gouvernement de la province de Quebec avait conc6d6 aux auteurs de la p6titionnaire des licences pour 1'exploitation de deux limites a bois dans le canton appel6 Mtis East; et, par leur description, ces limites incluaient tout le territoire situ6 de chaque c6t6 de la rivibre M6tis, du lac ' l'Anguille et d'une partie du lac h la Croix.

Du 22 novembre 1868 au 6 avril 1875, date de la vente du sh6rif, les auteurs de la compagnie Price 4taient en possession de ce territoire et y avaient pratiqu6 la coupe du bois en vertu de ces licences qu'ils avaient obtenues de la province.

Au moment de la saisie et de la vente du sh6rif, par cons6quent, ce dernier, en d6clarant lui-mime qu'il saississait le territoire autour du lac Mtis, ne pouvait pas avoir en vue de saisir et de vendre et ne pouvait donner A entendre au public en g6n6ral qu'il saisissait et vendait autre chose que le seul lac qui 6tait alors connu sous ce nom, a savoir celle des trois nappes d'eau qui 6tait la plus bloignie du fleuve Saint-Laurent.

Et Bartholomew, qui fut ' la fois le creancier saisisant et 1'adjudicataire, qui avait 6t6 inform6 du rapport de Breen et des pr6tentions de la Couronne et qui ne pouvait non plus ignorer 1'existence des licences octroybes h Price Bros., n'a pu croire que son acquisition du sh6rif lui conf6rait des droits a d'autres lacs qu'h celui qui 6tait alors connu sous le nom de Lac M6tis avec une lieue de terre de profondeur tout autour dudit lac. C'est 1'interpr6tation la plus normale que l'on puisse donner au texte de la description dans le titre d'adjudication et h 1'intention de l'adjudicataire, qui 6tait alors parfaitement au courant de toute la situation. On ne peut pas supposer autrement que la Couronne et Price Bros eux-m~mes eussent laiss6 pratiquer une saisie et parfaire un d6cret dont 1'effet efit 6t6 de transf6rer h 1'adjudicataire la propri6t6 sur un territoire qui, h ce moment-14 m~me, 6tait depuis 1868 et a continu6 jusqu'h 1876 A 8tre subordonn6 h l'exercice des droits de coupe conf6r6s par les licences.

Il convient d'ajouter que Price Brothers, lorsqu'ils achethrent de Bartholomew, le 29 aofit 1876, la seigneurie du lac Mtis dans les termes mames dont le shirif s'6tait servi dans son acte d'adjudication n'ont pu comprendre, en vue des droits de licences qu'ils exergaient depuis 1868, qu'ils acqu6- Rifes J. raient un autre domaine que celui qui encerclait le grand lac Mtis et qui n'6tait pas couvert d6jA par ces m~mes licences qu'ils tenaient de la Couronne.

Bien entendu, nous ne voulons par la tenir aucune compte du fait que, post6rieurement A leur acquisition de Bartholomew, Price Brothers continubrent de payer une rente de droit de coupe au gouvernement; car ils pr6tendent avoir ce que, dans son plaidoyer, la Couronne admet. Mais, de toute 6vidence, ce prot~t ne peut dater que de 1'6poque de

1'acte de vente qui leur a 6t6 consenti par Bartholomew.

Il ne saurait avoir d'effet pour la p6riode de temps qui s'est

6coul6e depuis 1'octroi des licences, en 1868, jusqu'a ce qu'ils devinssent eux-m~mes propri6taires.

La Couronne s'appuie, dans son plaidoyer, sur 1'existence de ces licences, en vertu desquelles Price Brothers ont reconnu son droit de propri6t6.

nous parait que, dans toutes les circonstances qui ont entour6 la vente du sh6rif, on ne saurait trouver une r6ponse satisfaisante A 1'affirmation que 1'adjudication a Bartholomew n'a comport6 que le Grand Lac M6tis et une lieue de terrain autour; de mime que, dans l'intention des parties A

1'acte de vente du 29 aofit 1876, A la lumibre des faits tels qu'ils 6taient alors connus, Price Brothers, les auteurs de la compagnie pititionnaire, n'ont pu acqu6rir de Bartholomew un terrain plus 6tendu.

La description, aussi claire et aussi pr6cise que possible, de l'immeuble saisi et vendu judiciairement, est une condition impirative de la loi. Le code fixe les 414ments essentiels de cette description. I l'exige non seulement pour les parties immidiatement intiressies, le saisissant et le saisi, dans le proces-verbal du sh6rif; mais pour l'adjudicataire, dans 1'acte de vente; et pour le public en g6ndral, dans l'avis qui annonce cette vente.

Sans doute, dans le cas qui nous occupe, le sh6rif commence par les termes suivants:

mais ensuite i1 pr6cise ce qu'il entend dire par 1:

mme C'est 1 une d6finition de la seigneurie adressie au public dans un avis et dans des documents officiels, et destin6e a lui d6crire la propri~t6 saisie d'aprbs les informations qu'on possidait en 1875.

Cette d6finition devient encore plus importante du fait qu'elle est fournie au nom de ce meme M. Bartholomew, qui est le cr6ancier saisissant et qui deviendra 1'adjudicataire, puis 1'auteur de Price Bros. Or, le rapport de Breen de 1870 et le t6moignage de Fontaine 6tablissent qu'en 1875, d'apris la commune renomm~e et pour le public tout autant que pour le d~partement des Terres, "ledit lac M6tis" indiquait le lac le plus au sud, et les deux autres lacs 6taient connus par d'autres noms. On savait 6galement que la distance de douze ' quinze lieues du fleuve ne pouvait s'appliquer qu'au seul lac superieur, et que les deux autres ne concordaient pas avec cette d6signation.

Le langage du procks-verbal de saisie, de 1'annonce de vente et du titre de 1'adjudication, interpr6t6 ' la lumibre des connaissances acquises dbs 1875 et d'apris le sens qu'il comportait a cette 6poque, d6limitait la propri6t6 vendue a une lieue de terre de profondeur autour du seul lac qui etait alors d6sign6 dans le public sous le nom de M6tis. Et il semblerait qu'on ne peut 16galement soutenir une autre pr6tention; car si 1'avis public de saisie et de vente avait 6tendu la dscription de la seigneurie au delk du seul lac du sud et du territoire circonvoisin, il est logique de conclure que la Couronne, qui r~clamait la propri6t6, et Price Brothers, qui en 4taient en possession comme d6tenteurs de licence, n'auraient pas manqu6 de faire opposition. Les limites A bois sur lesquelles la Couronne avait octroy6 le droit de coupe A Price Bros. sont minutieusement d6crites dans les octrois de 1868. Elles couvrent tout le territoire du Lac ' 1'Anguille et partie du Lac k la Croix, de chaque c6t6 de la Rivibre M6tis, et y sont catigoriquement indiqu6es comme suit:

dans la premibre; et comme suit dans la seconde:

Ces d6signations circonscrivent la seigneurie a une lieue de profondeur autour du seul lac sup6rieur. Le r6sidu du territoire, qui fait maintenant l'objet de la p6tition de droit,

6tait done alors en la possession de Price Brothers pour le compte de la Couronne et sans aucune objection de la part du seigneur. On ne peut assumer que le sh6rif aurait saisi et vendu super non possidente. La r6gle veut qu'il ait proc6d6 r6gulibrement et qu'il se soit confin6 a ce qu'il a trouv6 en la possession du d6biteur.

On est en droit de tirer de tous ces faits 1'argument que, en 1876, le vendeur, Bartholomew, et les acheteurs, Price

Bros., n'ont pu beaucoup se miprendre sur la port6e du titre qui faisait l'objet de leur n6gociation. Et il n'est pas facile de comprendre comment Price Brothers, les auteurs des p6titionnaires, ont pu penser qu'ils acqu6raient de Bartholomew le territoire autour des lacs & 1'Anguille et h la

Croix (pour partie), lorsque, depuis 1868, ils reconnaissaient pour ce m~me territoire le domaine sup6rieur de la Couronne dans des octrois de licences de coupe d6limitant la seigneurie d'une fagon pr6cise et formelle.

Assumons cependant que (malgr6 le sens que les circonstances, connues en 1875, imposaient au texte de la description telle qu'on la trouve dans la vente du sh~rif), on doive quand m~me, au lieu de 1'envisager comme un seul tout, en d6tacher les mots:

Assumons qu'il faille donner effet a cette designation vague et ill6gale, ind6pendamment du second membre de la phrase qui, d'apris ce que nous avons dit plus haut, a pour but d'en d6finir et d'en pr6ciser la premibre partie, et de la rendre plus conforme A la ]oi.

Acceptons, pour les besoins de l'argument, qu'il en r6sulte une cession de toute la seigneurie quelle qu'elle fit, et remontons done h la seconde

6tape: la commutation de 1855.

D'accord avec le juge de premiere instance, nous croyons que les lettres patentes alors 6mises n'ont pas eu d'autre but que de changer, conform6ment au statut imp6rial de

1822 (3 Geo. IV, c. 119), la tenure f6odale en celle de franc et commun soccage. On y chercherait vainement une d6claration expresse que la Couronne et le seigneur ont entendu TE Kim par r6gler les questions qui 6taient resties en suspens en 1835. Il est impossible d'y voir la moindre intention d'ac- Rifr . J.cepter les pr6tentions 6mises dans le rapport de Ballantyne. En 1855, la Couronne n'avait pas encore fait contr6ler l'exactitude de ce rapport. Cela n'est venu qu'en 1870, lors des instructions donnies A M. Breen. La correspondance 6chang6e alors entre le departement des Terres et M. Bartholomew le d6montre.

Ces lettres patentes, il est vrai, modifient la description du lac autour duquel s'6tend la seigneurie en en fixant la distance A " about ten or eleven leagues from the said river Saint-Lawrence "; mais en 1'absence d'aucun 6claircissement sur le motif de cette modification, on ne saurait en tirer une conclusion satisfaisante.

Cette diminution de distance ne se retrouve pas dans les actes subs6quents.

La vente du sh6rif et celles qui ont suivi conservent la distance indiquie dans la concession originale. A aucun moment, les propridtaires successifs de la seigneurie n'ont pretendu que les lettres patentes de 1855 avaient d6fini leurs droits.

Toute leur conduite incline dans le sens contraire. Ce n'est pas en s'appuyant sur ces lettres patentes, mais en se r6clamant du plan de Ballantyne que M. Bartholomew s'est adress6 au Commissaire des Terres, en 1871. Et la p6tition de droit elle-mame n'invoque pas ces lettres patentes comme base de ses revendications. Au contraire, elle affirme d'un bout A 1'autre que les territoires respectifs de la seigneurie et du domaine de la Couronne n'ont jamais 6t6 d6limit6s.

La commutation de 1855 ne peut donc aider A la solution que nous cherchons.

Il nous reste A considdrer la premibre 6tape et A nous reporter A 1'acte de concession originale.

Il se lit:

Ce texte n'est pas ambigu et il n'indique qu'un seul lac. Mais la pr6tention de la compagnie pititionnaire est que, en 1693, ce nom s'6tendait A ce que Ballantyne a appel les trois sections.

En plus, on fait remarquer que le priambule de 1'acte de concession, qui recite la requ~te d'Augustin Rouer, parle L'on ajoute que le lac supirieur ou plus au sud (qui regoit dans le rapport de M. Breen le nom de Grand Lac Mtis) ne se dicharge pas apparemment dans la rivibre Mtis et que l'indication attribu6e A la requ~te ne peut done s'appliquer A cette dernibre section.

La preuve ne permet pas d'admettre les pr6tentions de la compagnie p6titionnaire. Les rapports de MM. Joncas et Johnston, et les explications verbales qu'ils y ont ajout6es au cours de leur t6moignage, 6tablissent que " I'6tat des lieux au point de vue topographique " 6tait lors de la concession originale, sensiblement le mime que celui de 1'6poque actuelle. I y avait, alors comme aujourd'hui, trois nappes d'eau a niveaux diffrents, dont chacune correspondait s6par6iment A l'idie que le langage attribue au mot " lac ". La d6finition lexicologique d'un lac et sa marque caract6ristique proviennent pr6cis6iment de la fixit6 de son niveau. A proprement parler, le terme " un lac " ou " ledit lac " peut s'appliquer A chacune des trois sections, mais ne peut signifier les trois sections A la fois.

L'indication suppl6mentaire du pr6ambule: " qui se d6charge dans une rivibre du m~me nom ", quand on 1'examine de pris, ne complique pas vraiment la situation. Les informations qui nous sont fournies par le dossier ne permettent pas de dire que l'une ou l'autre des 6tendues d'eau avait regu un nom ant6rieurement A la concession; et il est tout aussi logique d'en d6duire que le nom M6tis aurait pu alors s'appliquer A la section nord autant qu'A la section sud. Si 1'on tient absolument A ce que la rivibre ne commence qu'a la d6charge de la section nord, ce serait alors cette section qui aurait 6t6 conc6d~e sous le nom de lac M6tis, mais il n'y a pas de difficult6 insurmontable A penser que, au contraire, la rivibre elle-mme sous le nom de M6tis 6tait consid~r~e comme remontant jusqu'h la d6charge de la section sud. En effet, les deux bras qui relient les trois sections constituent, dans la v6ritable acception du mot, une rivibre. Les exemples sont fr6quents dans la province de Quebec (pour ne pas parler d'ailleurs) de fleuves ou de rivires qui, A certains endroits, 61argissent leurs rives en nappes d'eau auxquelles on a donn6 le nom de lacs, sans que pour cela ces fleuves ou ces rivibres cessent de former une unite conservant le mime nom en deg& et au delh de ces lacs. Nous ne voyons pas d'objection s~rieuse A dire que la rivibre Mtis commengait alors et constitue encore aujourd'hui tout le e J. cours d'eau qui s'6tend de la dicharge de la section sud jusqu'au fleuve Saint-Laurent et qu'elle est entrecoupde, en deux ou peut-6tre trois endroits distincts, par les lacs Tr6panier, a la Croix et A 1'Anguille. Il n'y a rien dans la preuve qui impose une conclusion contraire et qui suggere qu'on a donne un nom diff6rent aux deux bras de rivibre reliant ces deux ou trois lacs.

En plus, le pr6ambule contient cette autre declaration que le lac dont il s'agit

La section sud est celle qui le plus exactement concorde avec cette d6signation.

II en r6sulte que les termes m~mes de la concession, en donnant aux mots leur sens usuel, correspondent mieux avec le lac du sud et semblent exclure les deux autres sections ou lacs. On peut douter, dans les circonstances, qu'il ffit loisible de chercher A 4tendre la port6e naturelle de ces termes pour leur faire inclure trois lacs, alors que le texte n'en mentionne qu'un et que les deux autres ne remplissent pas les conditions de la description.

Il eut fallu, semble-t-il, une preuve tres explicite pour faire adopter une interpretation aussi contraire aux mots employ6s.

On ne saurait trouver cette preuve dans les seuls plans ou cartes g6ographiques qui ont 6t6 produits et qui vont de 1'annie 1755 & l'ann6e 1830. Sans discuter pour l'instant la valeur probante de ces plans, il apparait h leur face mime qu'ils ne pr6tendent en aucune fagon repr6senter la r6gion dont il s'agit. Ce sont plut6t des compilations sans caracthre de pr6cision. Quelques-uns d'ailleurs se chargent d'eux m6mes de nous avertir qu'il ne faut pas y chercher 1'exactitude. Ils portent les l6gendes suivantes:

Il n'est pas m~me certain qu'on puisse leur accorder le poids restreint d'une preuve de commune renomm6e: car il est aussi possible que le lac M6tis y ait 6t6 repr6sent6 comme un seul lac A raison mgme de la mention qui est faite dans la concession du roi de France. Les pr6tentions 6mises dans la pitition de droit apparaissent pour la premibre fois dans le rapport de Ballantyne, en 1835, soit: cent quarante-deux .'o ans aprds 1'6mission du titre du fief. Ce rapport ne peut 6tre qualifi6 de document scientifique, quoiqu'il soit prepar6 ma. par un arpenteur-g6ometre. Toute la partie qui y concerne la question qui nous occupe est pr6sentee en la forme argumentative et a pour but 6vident de soumettre une cause et d'appuyer une reclamation. Il est dbja curieux qu'il apparaisse par ce rapport meme qu'a cette 6poque le seigneur de Rouville, au lieu de s'appuyer sur des droits qui auraient t6 affermis par le consentement public pour toute cette p6riode de cent quarante-deux ans, invoque apparemment des motifs nouveaux pour se faire conc6der une 6tendue de terrain qu'il ne poss6dait pas d6ja.

En plus, 1'erreur dans les niveaux, qui se trouve dans le document sign6 par M. Ballantyne, en diminue consid6rament la valeur.

est clair que ce rapport n'est qu'une requite, et que ses donnies ne peuvent servir de base pour remonter & 1'6poque de l'octroi original et en d6duire des pr6somptions qui permettent d'interpriter cet octroi dans le sens de la compagnie p6titionnaire. La meme chose doit Stre dite des plans qui l'ont pr6cd6.

Quant aux plans post6rieurs a 1835, ce ne sont que des documents 6mis pour fins d6partementales. La compagnie ne pr6tend pas, et on ne pourrait admettre, qu'ils puissent constituer un titre en sa faveur. Ils ne sauraient, en tout cas, avoir 1'effet de mettre de c6t6 les reserves qui avaient 6t6 faites dans le rapport de l'arpenteur g6neral Bouchette et dans la lettre du secr6taire civil en 1836, dont le seigneur de Rouville avait regu avis. C'est la petition de droit ellemime qui se charge de disposer le plus cat6goriquement de la pr6tention qu'aucun de ces plans ou aucune de ces cartes g~ographiques pourrait 6quivaloir a une renonciation de la part de la Couronne ou A une admission des droits de la compagnie, en admettant dans presque toutes ses all6gations essentielles que la Couronne a toujours maintenu son point de vue.

Il m'est impossible, pour toutes ces raisons, de concourir avec les jugements qui ont 6t6 rendus par la Cour Sup6rieure et par la Cour du Banc du Roi; et je conclurais au maintien de Pappel et au renvoi de la p6tition de droit, en