the trial. The matter was fully considered here in Prosko v. The King (1).
The Crown discharged its burden of KING estalblishing the voluntary character of the statements BLEOs. made by the accused who had been given the customary warning. The mere asking of a question by the officer subsequently, or his directing the accused's attention to the subject of one of such statements, did not amount to an inducement or persuasion such as would render the statements inadmissible. The appeal is allowed and the conviction is reinstated."
Appeal allowed. Solicitor for the appellant: W. D. Carter.
Solicitor for the respondent: H. Castillon.
DAME M.
*Feb. *Mar.
.RESPONDENT. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
A lake non-navigable and non-floatable may constitute a separate physical subject df possession independently of the lands which surround it; but ownership of the lake so separated does not include ipso facto the right of ownership or of enjoyment of the banks (grgves) or a right of way over them at all events without paying an indemnity proportionate to any damage caused in exercising it. (Art. 540 C.C.). The description of a property in a deed of sale as " une terre " does not exclude from it a small lake comprised totally or in part within the limits of the property sold.
Under the law in force in 1752 in the province of Quebec, then known as New France, the grant or cession of a fief by the King of France to the seigneur invested him with the ownership of all the lakes nonnavigable and non-floatable, situated within the ceded territory; but, in this case, the appellant is not entitled to the ownership of the lake claimed by her under a deed of sale executed in 1911 by the repreresentative in succession of the original seigneur because that lake had ceased to form part of the seigniory before 1848 when the lands including it had been ceded by the seigneur.
*PRESENT:-Anglin C.J.C. and Duff, Newcombe and Rinfret JJ. and Howard J. ad hoc.
(1) (1922) 63 Can. S.C.R. 226.