By Crown grant, in 1786, known as the "Prince William grant," certain lots were granted in York County, New Brunswick, according to a plan.
The plan showed many lots "not granted," including those numbered 247, 249 and 251, which were side by side and went back from the river St. John to a " designed road," the distances back not being designated. In a Crown grant, known as the " Saunders grant," in 1819, under which the plaintiff claimed, there were excepted lots 247, 249, and 251 " as described in the said Prince William grant, being reserved by us for a glebe." Attached to the Saunders grant was a plan which showed the side lines of said excepted land as running back from the river 92 chains and 81 chains respectively. A grant in 1836 conveyed to a church for a glebe land of which the description therein coincided in effect with lots 247, 249 and 251 for a distance measured back from the river of 92 chains on one side and of 81 chains on the other. As found on the evidence, the distances along said side lines from the river to the "designed road" in the Prince William grant plan extended, by ground measurement, much beyond said 92 and chains; and it was the area so beyond that was in dispute, the plaintiff, which claimed damages for trespass, contending that the Saunders plan regulated the locality and area of the excepted lots and that the disputed land passed under the Saunders grant. Held: It was the Prince William grant that determined the dimensions and locality of the excepted lots; and as it mentioned no distances for their side lines, which were otherwise limited by the designed road, upon which the lots were based; and as the position of these lots, as inset upon the Saunders plan, with regard to a certain lake and to the designed road, corresponded with that shown upon the Prince William grant plan; and in view of the actual situation and measurements on the ground, the distances of 92 and 81 chains mentioned in the Saunders grant plan should not control, but should give way to more definite and convincing evidence of intention arising from the relative physical situations. Furthermore, as it is a rule of interpretation that Crown grants of this character ought to be con- *PRESENT:-Mignault, Newcombe, Rinfret, Lamont and Smith JJ.