Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-01-25] British Columbia. Supreme Court Jan 25, 1989

Item Metadata


JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019517.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0019517-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0019517-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019517-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0019517-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0019517-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0019517-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 11252  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 25 January 1989  2 Vancouver, B.C.  3  4 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  In the Supreme Court of British  5 Columbia, Vancouver, this Wednesday, January 25,  6 1989.  In the matter of Delgamuukw versus Her  7 Majesty the Queen at bar, my lord.  Caution the  8 witness you are still under oath.  9 THE COURT:  Ms. Koenigsberg.  10  11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. KOENIGSBERG:   (Continued)  12 Q    Ms. Harris, yesterday we had talked about the  13 incidents of adoption in houses and how many houses  14 out of 45 for which we have genealogies as the final  15 product in this trial did not show any adoptions.  16 My number was 4 and I believe you were going to  17 check that, and have you been able to check that?  18 A    Yes, yes, I did as you requested.  That's what I  19 have here.  In fact, I noticed there were few houses  20 where sihlguxlixwst, the raising of a child, was  21 recorded as with a dotted line and with those that  22 were moved, I had noted them.  And you can -- you  23 will be able to see these, including the example you  24 gave of Denny Lavaseur, there in fact were 14 houses  25 that have no adoption that are known to me either  26 among living people or dead people; in other words,  27 all people represented on the genealogies.  28 Q    You have removed from the list of houses from which  29 there are no adoptions any houses that show  30 adoptions if your reason or if the reason known to  31 you for the adoption was what we have called an S  32 word adoption?  33 A    That's correct.  34 Q    And do you have that list --  35 A    Yes, this is what --  36 Q    -- of houses?  37 A    -- are what these figures are here.  It hasn't been  38 typed or anything of course.  39 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Can you give us the list?  40 MR. GRANT:  Just — I just want her to clarify whether, Ms.  41 Koenigsberg, the list of houses with no adoptions,  42 the 14 houses --  43 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I think probably shorter to do the 14 houses.  44 THE COURT:  Let me make sure I have it straight.  There are 14  45 houses with no adoptions except S word adoptions?  46 THE WITNESS:  That's correct, which doesn't affect house  47 population. 11253  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  MS.  KOENIGS  2  Q  3  A  4  5  THE  COURT:  6  7  8  THE  WITNESS  9  10  THE  COURT:  11  MR.  GRANT:  12  THE  WITNESS  13  THE  COURT:  14  THE  WITNESS  15  MR.  GRANT:  16  17  18  THE  WITNESS  19  20  21  MS.  KOENIGS  22  Q  23  24  A  25  26  27  28  THE  COURT:  29  MS.  KOENIGS  30  Q  31  32  33  34  A  35  36  37  Q  38  39  A  40  41  42  43  44  Q  45  46  47  BERG:  Okay.  Okay.  Amagyet, Dawamuxw, Djogaslee, Gaxsbgabaxs,  Gutginuxw, Guxsan, Gwagl'lo, Gwoimt.  I am sorry, there were two houses that were close in  sound to that.  Can you give me the spelling for  that?  :  Gwoimt is -- I believe it was the way it was  spelled on the Statement of Claim.  G-w-o-i-m-t?  That's right, my lord.  :  Yes.  Thank you.  :  Haaxw.  I will spell it, H-a-a-x-w.  Can I clarify?  There are two words that are very --  two houses that are the very same.  Is that the  Kispiox group or the --  :  This is the Kispiox, Lax Seel, not the Kitwanga  one.  Hanamuxw, Luutkudziiwus Nii Kyap, 'Wiik'aax  and Xsgogimlaxha.  BERG:  Okay.  And so we are agreed that Delgamuukw is  removed from that list?  Oh, yes.  Yes.  No, that was -- that other list was  referring to just living members and a unilineal.  It was more referring to a unilineal kin group, it  wasn't directed towards adoption so much.  The list you are talking about is footnote?  BERG:  7, page 95, and just so I am clear that we  understand each other, Delgamuukw does include  adoption including a living person, that is Lottie  Harris?  Yes.  These adoptions or houses, or adoptions that I  have just named, include those with adoptions of  people both living and dead.  But they are all S word adoptions in the list that  you have just --  No, T word.  They are adopted into the house.  Those  14 that I just named are houses whose -- I am sorry,  those are houses with no adoptions into the house.  The remaining ones are the ones that have adoption  that have affected the population of the house.  All right.  And we are dealing, so I understand,  with these 14, because I can't do this in my head,  these 14 are all separately shown houses by your  genealogies? 11254  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 A    I went by the genealogies, yes.  I am not referring  2 to the amalgamated groups; I went strictly by the  3 genealogies.  4 Q    So at this point our numbers are 31 out of 45 have T  5 word adoptions which affect the size of the house?  6 A    Yes, that's correct.  7 Q    Okay.  Now, we were dealing with anomolies that we  8 were trying to figure out on the genealogical charts  9 where we could find adoptions out; that is, the  10 designation of a person with the slash through their  11 name, but not find them on correspondingly adopted  12 in, and we had I believe finished with Emma Green  13 and the next one for which we show some difficulty  14 is a person by the name of Gwaslam, it is a male  15 person, in the house is Guxsan, and that's tab 13?  16 A    That was a person whose name wasn't shown by the  17 informant and what was indicated there is they were  18 adopted into the house of Gwaslam which is a  19 Kitwancool house so we don't have the corresponding  20 genealogy.  21 Q    That will explain that, but maybe we just better let  22 everybody --  23 A    That's why the word Gwaslam is in brackets, to  24 indicate that it is the house we went to.  25 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  That's page 24 of Guxsan, so Gwaslam is shown  26 on page 24 of Guxsan which is at tab 13.  And it is  27 down at the bottom of the page on the last line.  28 MR. GRANT:  What page again?  2 9    MS. KOENIGSBERG:  30 Q    24.  And I understand your evidence to be that the  31 reason we don't find him on a genealogy that you  32 have produced is that Gwaslam is a name in a house  33 or a house?  34 A    It is the name of the house, the chief's name of the  35 house.  36 Q    In Kitwancool did you say?  37 A    That's correct.  38 Q    Do you know if the reason for that adoption was to  39 increase the size of the house in Kitwancool?  4 0 A    I don't know.  41 Q    Would you not have made inquiries because that was a  42 Kitwancool house and that was not included in your  43 genealogical chart?  44 A    What was the question?  Oh, is that why it didn't  45 make inquiries?  46 Q    Yes.  47 A    Well, partly that, and partly just that there was 11255  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 such a huge volume of work there that there just  2 wasn't time to do absolutely everything.  3 Q    Whether it is a significant adoption for Kitwancool,  4 we don't know?  5 A    No, I don't know the details of that.  6 Q    The next one deals with the house of Luutkudziiwus,  7 that's tab 28, and we will also need tab 29, Ma'uus,  8 and the persons are George Harris, Gloria Harris and  9 Jeff Harris Junior?  10 A   And Emma Harris.  11 Q    And?  12 A    Emma Harris.  13 Q    Yes.  Probably don't have it because we figured that  14 one out.  15 A    Oh, I see.  16 Q    Page 5 of Luutkudziiwus shows Emma Brown being  17 adopted out and three of her children, George  18 Harris, Gloria Harris, and Jeff Harris Junior being  19 adopted out, and if I understood the designation we  20 should find them on Ma'uus adopted in?  21 A    Yes.  I believe I explained this one to Mr. Goldie.  22 It was difficult to diagram this one and one other  23 where a woman had been adopted, and that woman in  24 this case was Emma Harris, was adopted out of the  25 house of Luutkudziiwus and into the house of Ma'uus  26 and, at a later date, it was decided that her -- one  27 of her children which was Vera Wale, who you find on  28 page 4 of Luutkudziiwus, would remain with the house  29 of Luutkudziiwus because she married a man from  30 Gitanmaax and resided in Gitanmaax.  31 THE COURT:  I am sorry, who's this, Vera?  32 THE WITNESS:  Vera Wale, the daughter of Emma Harris.  33 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  My lord, if you put together pages 4 and 5 of  34 Luutkudziiwus, you see that.  35 THE COURT:  These on page 5.  36 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  You see that Emma Brown and Jeff Harris had  37 four children and Vera Wale is not shown as adopted  38 out.  3 9 THE COURT:  Yes.  40 THE WITNESS:  It was kind of an awkward thing to diagram and I  41 suppose it might have been more accurate if it had  42 shown Vera to have been adopted out and then adopted  43 back in, but I just thought this was a less unwieldy  44 way to diagram it and still get in the biological  45 connections.  It was just a difficult thing to  46 diagram.  But I see that the dotted line from Jacob  47 Morrison to Emma Brown is there but it should have 11256  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  3  4  5  MR.  GRANT:  6  7  THE  WITNESS  8  MS.  KOENIGS  9  THE  COURT:  10  THE  WITNESS  11  MS.  KOENIGS  12  13  14  THE  COURT:  15  THE  WITNESS  16  MS.  KOENIGS  17  18  19  THE  COURT:  20  MS.  KOENIGS  21  Q  22  23  24  25  26  A  27  Q  28  29  30  31  A  32  THE  COURT:  33  34  35  THE  WITNESS  36  THE  COURT:  37  THE  WITNESS  38  MS.  KOENIGS  39  40  THE  COURT:  41  42  43  THE  WITNESS  44  THE  COURT:  45  MS.  KOENIGS  46  Q  47  in brackets under Emma that she came from  Luutkudziiwus' house.  Jeff and Gloria and George  Harris were not adopted separately from Emma.  She  was adopted before they were born.  This is on the Ma'uus genealogy you are now  referring to?  :  Yes.  BERG:  Bear with me, Mr. Grant.  What page in the Ma'uus genealogy?  :  One.  BERG:  On page -- no, I am sorry, it is page 2 of  Ma'uus.  I am sorry, sorry, sorry, I picked up the  wrong page.  Page 1 or page 2?  :  Page 1.  BERG:  I am sorry, it is page 2 of Ma'uus.  On page 2  of Ma'uus -- oh, because page -- I see, sorry, my  pages were cut in half.  It is a double page.  BERG:  We see Emma Brown being adopted with a dotted line,  but under Emma Brown her three children are not  shown with a dotted line and you say that that  counts -- that shows that that counts as one  adoption of Emma Brown?  Yes.  And that the children, Jeff Harris Junior, George  Harris, and Gloria Harris were in a sense born into  Ma'uus because they were born after their mother was  adopted?  Yes, it was just difficult to diagram.  I have a note from Mr. Goldie's cross-examination  that Emma Brown was adopted by Jacob Morrison before  any of her children were born.  :  Yes, that's correct.  I have a note five children were born.  :  Yes.  BERG:  There is another child somewhere.  If you look  on --  That wouldn't make any sense, or does it?  Are you  saying then that Vera was born into the house of  Ma'uus and then adopted back to Luutkudziiwus?  :  Yes.  I could have shown it that way, I suppose.  All right.  BERG:  Just so I understand again, understanding what you  have just said about the difficulty of diagramming 11257  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 it, on Luutkudziiwus, what's confusing is that you  2 are showing the children, Jeff Harris, George Harris  3 and Gloria Harris as adopted out but in fact they  4 were never in Luutkudziiwus?  5 A    Yes, they were descended from Luutkudziiwus' house.  6 Q    And properly for the purposes of understanding  7 adoptions in and out, Vera should be shown as  8 adopted into Luutkudziiwus because she wasn't born  9 in the house?  10 A    That might have been a clearer way to put it.  11 Q    And do we understand that Vera stayed behind in the  12 sense of stayed or went back to the house of  13 Luutkudziiwus for convenience or to -- because they  14 wouldn't want to lose that many members, or what?  15 A    The reason that I was told was because she married  16 in Gitanmaax and it is a lot easier to function in a  17 house in the village that you live, and with -- by  18 then there were enough people in the house of Ma'uus  19 that they were not in fear of becoming extinct of  2 0                members.  21 Q    The next problem was on the Luus genealogy and we  22 will also need the Baskyelaxha genealogy.  Luus is  23 tab 27, Baskyelaxha is tab 3, and the persons that  24 we want to deal with are the Hillis'.  25 A    Yes, this is the same situation again.  26 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Just wait a minute until everybody gets there.  27 Clifford, Myrna, Mamie and Myrna, two Myrnas.  Page  28 8.  29 THE COURT:  24 and 27 are we?  30 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  31 Q    On Luus, it is at page 8, and we see that on the  32 third line down that -- fourth line down that the  33 children of Emma White and Charley Hillis are all  34 adopted out to Baskyelaxha.  I shouldn't have said  35 Charley Hillis except they got their name from their  36 father.  It is Emma White we are concerned with and  37 it doesn't show Emma White as being adopted out.  38 A    I will start at the beginning.  Mable White or  39 Mable -- yeah, Mable White was Emma's mother, you  40 see her on the second line.  41 Q    Known as Mable Williams?  42 A    Yes, that's her maiden name, that's on the page 8 of  43 Luus.  She was adopted into Baskyelaxha's house.  44 The house was virtually extinct at that time and she  45 was adopted into the house with the hope that she  46 would repopulate the house and she did an extremely  47 good job of it and has at this point in time 1125?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 something like 80 macrilineal descendants, so her  2 oldest daughter, Emma, who would have been born in  3 the house of Baskyelaxha or had gone with her as a  4 small child, I'm not sure of the precise date, she  5 also had very many children.  So it was decided by  6 the chiefs at a later date that because the house of  7 Baskyelaxha was sufficiently repopulated that Emma's  8 children that she had with her second husband would  9 go back to the house of Luus if you want to put it  10 that way to make it clear.  This is the same  11 situation as the last one.  It was difficult to  12 diagram because I didn't want to lose the  13 genealogical connections and that's why you see the  14 same group repeated and shown as, I suppose, in a  15 rather unclear manner but that was what I was trying  16 to demonstrate, was the biological connections.  I  17 didn't want to lose that but I wanted to demonstrate  18 the fact that half of Mable White's descendants were  19 in Baskyelaxha's house and half was in Luus' house  20 but that was the reason.  21 Q    And properly then, however Clifford, Myrna, Richard,  22 Mamie, should be shown with a dotted line in --  23 A    No, no, just Mable because they were the  24 descendants.  25 MR. GRANT:  On which genealogy is my friend now?  26 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I am sorry, I am looking at Baskyelaxha.  27 THE COURT:  Just a moment.  I don't think I have it yet.  That's  28 23.  2 9 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Tab 3, my lord.  3 0 THE COURT:  Yes.  31 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  32 Q    I think I have lost the train here.  In Baskyelaxha,  33 we do not see anybody adopted in?  34 A    I do.  Mable White right on the first page and Bill  35 Blackwater as well, but of the group of people we  36 have been discussing, Mable White is the person  37 who's adopted in and all of those people are her  38 descendants but you might want to put it that some  39 of them returned to the house that she originally  40 came from just as in the case with Emma Harris.  41 Again, it might have been clearer to diagram it as  42 having returned because again I didn't want to lose  43 the biological connection.  44 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Is it appropriate to look at these people as  45 not having been adopted?  46 MR. GRANT:  Which people?  47 THE WITNESS:  Which people? 11259  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  2 Q    I am sorry, the Clifford, Myra, Mamie and Myrna?  3 A    Yes, because they are the descendants of Mable and  4 she was the only one who there was an actual  5 adoption which took place at a feast and her name  6 was paid for and all of the process that goes with  7 adoption.  She was the only one where this occurred.  8 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Okay.  But there is a break in time there.  9 When these children were born, what house were they  10 in?  11 MR. GRANT:  I am sorry, my lord.  12 THE WITNESS:  Are you referring to Clifford, Myrna and Mamie?  13 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  14 Q    Yes.  15 A    They were born in the house of Baskyelaxha.  16 Q    Because their mother, Emma White, was in that house  17 at that time?  18 A    Because their grandmother had been adopted into that  19 house is how they ended up in the house of  20 Baskyelaxha.  21 Q    Okay.  Well, you have got to help me and maybe I am  22 missing something obvious here.  Are you not at  23 least initially and prima facie born into the house  24 of your mother?  25 A    Yes.  26 Q    And at the time these children were born, what house  27 was their mother in?  28 A    I am not certain of the situation.  I'd have to  29 think about that.  I talked to Emma about this but  30 it's been a couple of years.  I am not positive if,  31 when the arrangement was made that Emma's children  32 by her second husband would return to Luus or remain  33 with Luus, I am not certain if at that time Emma was  34 returned to Luus as well.  I can't remember what  35 Emma said.  36 Q    My difficulty is that if I wanted -- want to  37 determine the number of adoptions and in particular  38 if I am concerned with the number of what I will  39 call more than one adoption at one time and  40 attribute some significance to them, I would want to  41 know where this group of children were when they  42 were born so that I could determine if they had been  43 adopted into a house in order to increase the  44 population of the house.  Now, prima facie, when I  45 look at Luus and see them as a group adopted out, my  46 assumption is that they are adopted in some place as  47 a group and likely, since there are several of them, 11260  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 it is for a reason to repopulate or contribute to  2 the population of another house?  3 A    The problem here is again it was the -- the  4 diagramatic convenience so I have shown these people  5 as being adopted out but there was these -- the only  6 adoption that actually occurred, a formal Gitksan  7 adoption, was the adoption of Mable White out of  8 Luus and into Baskyelaxha, and the arrangement was  9 made at a much later date that some of the children  10 would --  11 Q    Grandchildren you mean?  12 A    I am sorry, yes, some of the grandchildren, Emma's  13 children by her second marriage, would return or  14 remain, I don't know the exact terminology the  15 Gitksan might use for that situation, but return or  16 remain in the house of Luus.  17 Q    Sorry, you mean return to the house of Baskyelaxha?  18 A    No, Luus.  19 Q    I am sorry, you are talking about the --  20 A    They were born in the house of Baskyelaxha you might  21 say.  Well, because the arrangement was made before  22 they were born, they would consider themselves to  23 have been born in the house of Luus.  24 Q    Yes, and whether an actual feast was held to adopt  25 those children or some less formal means was arrived  26 at among the chiefs to determine their house  27 membership, they as a group are in Baskyelaxha in  28 order to assist in the population, to maintain the  29 population of Baskyelaxha and because Luus is quite  30 healthy; is that fair?  31 A    I lost track of which group we are talking about.  I  32 thought you were talking about the ones that went  33 back to Luus.  34 Q    I am talking about Clifford, Myra, Mamie and Myrna.  35 They are the ones as shown as adopted out of Luus  36 and they do appear in Baskyelaxha?  37 A    Right, and again as I say --  38 Q    But not as adopted?  39 A    They weren't formally adopted.  They as individuals  40 were not adopted out of Baskyelaxha, I mean out of  41 Luus.  It was their grandmother, and again this was  42 just a convenient method to diagram the biological  43 connections.  44 Q    Okay.  I don't want to belabour it too long but I am  45 confused about how it is we are going to be able to  46 determine adoptions, if I can put it this way, by  47 function that fit the rules? 11261  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 A    Well, this was the only two cases, that we have just  2 discussed, Emma Harris and Mable White's  3 descendants.  We won't encounter it again.  4 Q    So I understand it, the group of children I am  5 talking about being Mamie, Myra, Clifford and Myrna  6 Hillis have been adopted out or shown as adopted out  7 of Luus?  8 A    They are shown as but they haven't been.  That would  9 not be an appropriate way to put it.  10 Q    When you say they haven't been, do you mean there  11 has been no formal adoption proceeding, that there  12 was an informal agreement that when they were born  13 or after they were born that they would be in the  14 house of their grandmother, the adopted house of  15 their grandmother, Baskyelaxha?  16 A    No, they were born in the house of Baskyelaxha by  17 virtue of being the descendant of Mable White who  18 was adopted into the house of Baskyelaxha many years  19 ago.  The slightly less formal, if you want to call  20 it, arrangement was that the children of Emma White  21 by her second marriage, her Johnson children, that  22 they would return to Luus' house.  This was informal  23 in that each one individually didn't pay for a name  24 at a feast but it was formal and legally sanctioned  25 at a feast in that that decision was taken  26 beforehand by the chiefs and the decision was  27 announced and the feast was put up when this was  2 8 done.  29 MR. GRANT:  Those are the ones on page 7 and 8 of Luus I  30 believe.  I just want to be clear what the witness  31 is talking about.  32 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  33 Q    Page 7 of Luus shows a line of children of Emma  34 White and Bruce Johnson?  35 A    Yes.  36 Q    Four of them.  Dora Johnson, Anita Johnson, Valerie  37 Johnson and Bernadine Johnson?  38 A    Yes.  39 Q    Correct?  Do I understand you that they were born in  40 the house of Baskyelaxha and adopted back or taken  41 back into the house of Luus?  42 A    They were taken back into the house of Luus but I  43 don't think people would apply the word adopted to  44 it necessarily because of the -- it was not the most  45 common type of arrangement which is usually referred  46 to as adoption.  47 Q    Okay.  Without stretching it too much, would it be 11262  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 fair to say that in function it looks very much like  2 other adoptions granting that there has been no --  3 A    Yes, in function, yes.  As I say, it could have been  4 diagrammed I suppose as having been the descendants  5 of Mable White in the house of Baskyelaxha and  6 adopted back to Luus but this is not the way that --  7 it was not done in precisely the usual manner of  8 adoption.  9 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Okay.  10 THE COURT:  They don't show in the genealogy of the house of  11 Baskyelaxha, do they?  12 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  13 Q    No, they don't.  14 A    Right.  15 Q    They show only in Luus and they don't show as having  16 had an affiliation with Baskyelaxha but, as I  17 understand it, if we were -- if you were to diagram  18 the evidence that you have just given so that we  19 would have understood that from looking at the  20 genealogies, we might see the line of children on  21 page 7 of Luus, the four that I have previously  22 mentioned being born into the house of Baskyelaxha?  23 A    No.  This arrangement was made before they were  24 born.  Yes, that's the way I was told.  25 Q    But their mother was in Baskyelaxha?  26 A    Yes.  27 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Okay.  And —  28 THE COURT:  It wasn't just those four, was it?  There is also  29 Lily, Margaret —  30 MR. GRANT:  No, the line goes to Floyd Johnson on page 8, my  31 lord.  Floyd Johnson as well is one of those  32 children.  33 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I am sorry, yes, my lord, you are looking at  34 the line above for Lily.  35 THE COURT:  Yes.  Floyd Johnson, then —  36 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  All of those people are shown as adopted out.  37 THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  38 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  39 Q    But they are also -- I think they are shown as  40 adopted in because I don't show it as not  41 understanding it, so let me double check.  I am  42 sorry, actually now there is another anomaly.  If we  43 look at page 7 of Baskyelaxha, we find Lily White  44 and Margaret White.  Starting on page 3 of  45 Baskyelaxha, we have the line Sara White; page 4  46 then is Phyllis White; page 5, Lesley White; page 6,  47 Freda White; page 7, Lily White; and page 8, 11263  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 Margaret White.  Those people are shown on page 8 of  2 Luus as adopted out of Luus and into Baskyelaxha?  3 A   Again, they were the descendants of Mable, children,  4 and it was just to indicate the biological  5 connections.  They were born in the house of  6 Baskyelaxha.  They were not individually adopted.  7 The adoption occurred before they were born.  8 Q    Okay.  So to understand the usage here when we see a  9 slashed line through a whole group of people whose  10 mother was also adopted and we don't find that line  11 correspondingly on the house to which it is shown  12 that they are adopted out, the assumption is that  13 they were born after their mother was adopted?  14 A    Yes.  It was just these two situations that were  15 very difficult to try and get the information into.  16 Q    Okay.  I think we now have clear that you could have  17 diagrammed all of the children of Bruce Johnson and  18 Emma White as adopted out?  19 A    You know, if these -- I was doing these for the  20 information and that's what I was trying to get in,  21 but for the purposes of the court, obviously it  22 would have been easier to diagram it that way so it  23 was more clear but my idea was to get the  24 information in.  25 Q    Okay.  I understand that, and my concern is that  26 when the genealogical charts formed the basis of  27 impressions which lead to conclusions about the way  28 the social structure works as in how many adoptions  29 and its function or marriage preferences or  30 whatever, that then the reasons why things are the  31 way they are on the charts become important.  Would  32 you agree?  33 A    Yes, I would.  34 Q    The next one will involve two genealogies,  35 Haxbagwootxw which is tab 25 and Miluulak, tab 30?  36 A    Who?  37 Q    Haxbagwootxw, tab 25, and Miluulak, tab 30?  38 A    You mean Miluulak, M-i-1-u-u-l-a-k?  39 Q    Sounds the same to me.  40 A    Sorry, I wasn't quite sure.  I know it is very  41 difficult to pronounce these.  42 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  This deals with Robert Jackson Junior.  You  43 see, look at tab 2.  4 4    THE COURT:  Tab 2.  45 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  46 Q    I am sorry, page 2 of Haxbagwootxw, tab 25.  47 A    Page 2 of Haxbagwootxw, is that -- 11264  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I am sorry, Haxbagwootxw, page 2.  He is  2 shown -- now, I will have to ask for a lot of your  3 help on this one.  He is shown as adopted out.  4 THE COURT:  Who's this?  5 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Robert Jackson Junior on page 2.  6 THE COURT:  Yes.  7 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  8 Q    To where was he adopted out?  9 A    Sorry, I don't recall that one.  He is obvious -- I  10 didn't type these.  I see it doesn't say what house  11 he went to.  12 THE COURT:  Can you make a suggestion, Ms. Koenigsberg?  13 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I am not sure, my lord.  One of my notes says  14 Miluulak but I will see if I can find it.  I thought  15 you might know.  That's why I said Miluulak, but I  16 don't have a page number.  17 MR. GRANT:  I think evidence in fact — I think one of the  18 witnesses on commission was examined on this by my  19 friend, in fact Mr. Stanley Williams.  2 0 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  21 Q    It doesn't assist me very much I can tell you  22 because I can't remember, believe it or not.  23 A    I am sorry, I can't recall.  24 Q    I don't see him on Miluulak.  Well, I see Robert  25 Jackson on page 15 of Miluulak but that would be  26 Robert Jackson Senior; is that correct?  27 A    Yes, it is.  2 8 Q    And he is indeed shown?  29 A    Yes.  30 Q    In Miluulak.  Well, I suppose the anomoly is that  31 perhaps we could not find Robert Jackson Junior  32 being adopted in any place?  33 A    I don't recall.  34 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Well, why don't we come back to that one if I  35 can confirm that he does not appear anywhere.  And  36 we can determine whether that is an adoption that we  37 count as significant and where he is --  38 THE COURT:  I suppose he might have been adopted to a  39 Wet'suwet'en house or to a Kitwancool house, could  40 he?  41 THE WITNESS:  I just don't remember that one.  It is a  42 possibility.  43 THE COURT:  In your terminology, can the adoption of a male ever  44 be significant?  45 THE WITNESS:  Yes, I think it can, especially in the case where  46 the male that's adopted takes a high ranking name.  47 Sometimes an adoptee can become the chief of the 11265  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  3  THE  COURT:  4  THE  WITNESS  5  6  THE  COURT:  7  8  9  THE  WITNESS  10  11  12  THE  COURT:  13  THE  WITNESS  14  15  THE  COURT:  16  MS.  KOENIGS  17  Q  18  19  20  21  A  22  Q  23  24  A  25  MS.  KOENIGS  26  27  THE  COURT:  28  MS.  KOENIGS  29  THE  COURT:  30  MS.  KOENIGS  31  Q  32  33  34  35  A  36  37  38  39  40  41  Q  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  house as in the case of Bill Blackwater in  Baskyelaxha.  And Pete Muldoe?  :  That's correct, yes, and I think that's very  significant.  And then their -- his children, although not in his  house, would have some claim to a chiefly name in  another house; is that the significance?  :  Well, I think the significance is the fact that  that individual leads the house and holds up the  house.  Just becomes the chief?  :  Yes, because he is the chief.  It isn't his  descendants that make it significant.  All right.  BERG:  I believe you agreed yesterday that if we called  Steven Robinson and the two Clarks' adoptions, and  that we might be able to do that, that they would  have been significant adoptions?  Yes.  Significant in relation to the continuity of the  house?  Yes.  BERG:  The next one is Nii Kyap which is tab 31 and  we need Tsabux, which is tab 37.  Tab 7, no.  BERG:  31.  31.  BERG:  Tab 31 and tab 37, Nii Kyap and Tsabux.  We have  Mary Jackson on page 15 of Nii Kyap and she is shown  as being adopted out to Tsabux but we could not find  adoption in of Mary Jackson on Tsabux?  I believe that's Mary Black-Hat-Tom on page 5 of  Tsabux.  That was the -- Black-Hat-Tom was the name  of the man that adopted her and I believe it was the  case of he raised her as well and so she is -- her  birth name was Mary Jackson but she was raised by  Black-Hat-Tom I believe is the situation.  All right.  The reason I didn't -- wasn't able to  conclude that on my own is that Mary Black-Hat-Tom,  which is the only adoption shown on Tsabux I  believe, is shown as married to David Patrick and  then Joe Patrick but the Mary Jackson shown on page  15 of Nii Kyap is shown as not married?  Oh, yes.  I don't put -- to be consistent, I try not 11266  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 to put the additional information on the -- with the  2 person that's adopted out.  I try to leave it at  3 that point, and then you find it on the next  4 following genealogy except for in those two unique  5 cases that we just discussed.  So ordinarily you  6 won't see that although I have noticed there is a  7 few where that additional information is there.  8 Q    So you say that Mary Black-Hat-Tom?  9 A    Is Mary Jackson.  10 Q    Is Mary Jackson?  11 A    Yes, Jackson.  12 Q    So Freddie Jackson, her brother --  13 A    Yes.  14 Q    -- wasn't adopted?  15 A    No.  16 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  The next one is Haiwas, tab 22, and we will  17 need Dawamuxw on tab 4.  18 THE COURT:  I am sorry, did you say Dawamuxw or Delgamuukw?  19 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  20 Q    Dawamuxw.  Okay.  If we look at page 2 of Haiwas, we  21 see Adam May adopted out; is that correct?  22 A    Mm-hmm.  23 Q    Into the house of Dawamuxw.  If we look at page 4 of  24 Dawamuxw, we find Adam May but not a sign that he is  25 adopted.  He is at the very top.  26 A    I am trying to remember this.  I remember hearing  27 about it.  28 Q    Well, to put this in context, it would appear that  2 9 Adam May on page 4 of Dawamuxw is in some lineage  30 which does not seem to have a known biological  31 relationship to any other in the house; is that  32 correct?  33 A    I believe that these are two different Adam Mays.  I  34 am trying to remember exactly what was said.  35 Because there was an Adam May who was generally  36 known as Adam Snow because he was raised by Lucy  37 Snow, they said he was a retarded person who never  38 really grew up, and Lucy Snow raised him from --  39 Lucy Snow, from the house of Dawamuxw.  40 Q    Is she shown on --  41 A    Yes, she is on the first page of Dawamuxw.  42 Q    I see, yes.  43 A    See her on the -- near the middle of the page.  4 4 Q    Mm-hmm.  45 A   And she raised Adam May who was known through most  46 of his life as Adam Snow if I recall, and this was a  47 sihlguxlixwst and I believe that it's this Adam May 11267  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 and it is incorrectly represented as having been  2 adopted out of the house of Haiwas.  I am sorry, I  3 am not absolutely positive but, as I recall, that  4 was the situation, that he was raised by Lucy Snow  5 but not necessarily adopted into the house.  6 Q    From whom would you have obtained the information --  7 A    Mary Johnson.  8 Q    Just a minute.  9 A    Sorry.  10 Q    -- on Haiwas that Adam May was the brother of Alice  11 May and the son of Louisa Green?  12 A    I believe that came from Eadie Shanoss.  I am not  13 positive exactly because I remember interviewing her  14 but it could also have come from Nancy Supernault  15 who I also interviewed or Janet Johnson who I also  16 interviewed.  There are three sisters that you will  17 find here on the Haiwas genealogy and I interviewed  18 all of them, and I am trying to remember if anybody  19 else from another house told me about that.  20 Possibly Mary Johnson talked about Haiwas.  Yes,  21 definitely I remember talking to Mary Johnson about  22 Haiwas' house.  I can't remember who precisely told  23 me about that.  I remember the story from the other  24 end that I was just telling you about, Lucy Snow  25 raising Adam May and being a retarded boy and so on,  26 from Mary Johnson.  27 Q    Is it fair to say that if you tended not to  28 represent S adoptions on these genealogies that you  29 must have received information from someone that  30 Adam May was a T adoption out?  Are you to have  31 represented him as one?  32 A    I'm sorry, I am not absolutely positive but as I  33 recall, this was an S adoption, sihlguxlixwst, but I  34 am not absolutely positive about it.  35 Q    If we research your notes we should look at notes  36 with Mary Johnson?  37 A    Yes.  38 Q    And Nancy Supernault?  39 A    Yes.  4 0 Q    And —  41 A    Eadie Shanoss.  42 Q    And —  43 A   And Janet Johnson, and you might find it in there.  44 Q    And we might find a note?  45 A    Yes, but I don't recall.  46 Q    We will have to put this one in limbo because we  47 don't know whether to discard it as in our count as 1126?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  A  3  Q  4  5  A  6  Q  7  8  A  9  10  11  12  13  14  Q  15  16  A  17  THE  COURT:  18  19  THE  WITNESS  20  THE  COURT:  21  MS.  KOENIGS  22  23  24  THE  COURT:  25  THE  WITNESS  26  MS.  KOENIGS  27  28  29  30  MR.  GRANT:  31  32  MS.  KOENIGS  33  Q  34  35  36  A  37  THE  COURT:  38  MS.  KOENIGS  39  40  THE  COURT:  41  MS.  KOENIGS  42  Q  43  44  A  45  46  Q  47  A  an S adoption misplaced or a T adoption.  I didn't have it on my list.  I missed it.  Okay.  If it is a T adoption then Dawamuxw goes out  of your list of 14; is that correct?  Yes.  Let's go on.  We will check that over the lunch  hour.  When we --  It is not likely it was a T adoption because as a  retarded person, it wouldn't -- they wouldn't give  him a name, retarded person wouldn't take a name, so  that is the way that one is adopted into a house so  it wouldn't be done -- the house membership wouldn't  be a large concern of a person of that situation.  And we should assume there are two persons with the  name Adam May?  Yes.  You will find that in many cases here.  Do I have it right that you think this may have been  an S adoption?  :  Yes, if I remember correctly.  And if so, it goes off your list of 14?  BERG:  No, my lord.  I had put it the other way  around.  If it was a T adoption, then it takes  Dawamuxw off the list.  Yes.  :  But I don't believe that it was.  BERG:  The next one we will need, two more  genealogies, tab 10 and tab 39.  Tab 10 is Gitludahl  and tab 39 is Wii Seeks Wiigyet and it deals with  Ralph Michell.  This is the Wiigyet from Kispiox, just for the  record, as I think there is two.  BERG:  This is the one that we have known as Wii Seeks  Wiigyet.  Okay.  Ralph Michell on page 1 of tab 10  Gitludahl is shown as adopted out to Wii Seeks?  Yes, that's correct.  I am sorry, on page 1.  BERG:  Page 1.  It is a large page, my lord, if yours  are cut in two.  He is on the right-hand side.  Yes, thank you.  BERG:  Now, on -- is it correct that Wii Seeks is found on  the genealogy of Wiigyet?  Yes, that's correct.  Wiigyet Waiget and Wii Seeks  are the same house, yeah.  And I don't find Ralph Michell shown adopted?  Ralph Michell is on page 3 of Wiigyet's genealogy, 11269  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 and he was born in the house of Wiigyet, and he is  2 shown there with his biological mother and father,  3 and because Gitludahl's house was extinct and  4 Wiigyet's house considers itself to be closely  5 related.  You can see there are a few people from  6 the house of Wiigyet, I guess there was two, who  7 went to the house of Gitludahl to try and hold up  8 the house and Ralph was one of these and he took a  9 chief's name, Aa'lagat, from the house of Gitludahl.  10 Then when Pete Muldoe took Gitludahl, Wii Seeks'  11 name, the name Wii Seeks was open and Ralph who  12 returned to the house of Wii Seeks and took that  13 chief's name.  Again it was a diagramatic problem of  14 showing someone adopted out and back in.  I didn't  15 know quite how to diagram that.  16 Q    He could be shown on page 3 of Wiigyet -- of the  17 Wiigyet genealogy as adopted out into Gitludahl?  18 A    I didn't know how to show him as adopted back in  19 again was the problem and if you follow the names  20 and what house they belong to, you can logically  21 assume the pattern there.  It was just another  22 difficult problem in the diagram.  You have a  23 limited set of symbols and I try to do the best that  24 I can with them but there are some situations that  25 are fairly unique and difficult to diagram.  26 Q    Is it fair to say that it would not be incorrect to  27 have shown him adopted into Gitludahl and then back  28 out again?  29 A    But how could I do that?  I couldn't think of a way.  30 Q    Well, bear with me for a second.  If you had done  31 that, we would then count that as adoption of a T  32 variety which is of significance to the house of  33 Gitludahl?  34 A    Yes, but I can't think of a way to show a person  35 adopted in and then adopted back out without making  36 two symbols for the same person or something that  37 would be worse than what we already have.  38 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I understand.  39 MR. GRANT:  Just to clarify, my lord, for the record, that when  40 one looks at the line above Ralph Michell in  41 Gitludahl on page 1, he's indicated as adopted into  42 Gitludahl.  My friend's question is, there is no  43 indication that he is adopted into Gitludahl.  I  44 suggest it shows he is adopted in because that  45 entire line is a dotted line.  4 6    MS. KOENIGSBERG:  47 Q    When we read this, we should count, if our purpose 11270  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 is to try and confirm an impression of adoptions of  2 significance, we should count Ralph Michell on  3 Gitludahl as adoption in, correct, to Gitludahl?  4 A    Yes.  5 Q    All right.  And the slash through would tell us that  6 he also was adopted out?  7 A    Yes.  8 Q    And into Wiigyet albeit he was born in Wiigyet?  9 A    Yes.  10 Q    In terms of the function of moving people by means  11 of adoption or something that looks or serves the  12 function of an adoption, could we fairly count Mr.  13 Michell's travels between houses twice?  14 A    See, what we are doing here is trying to squeeze  15 Gitksan realities into convenient English categories  16 and I don't think it really fairly represents the  17 situation in some of these -- some of these  18 difficult situations that we have been discussing.  19 We are using the word adoption that is very accurate  20 in some cases but possibly not a very appropriate  21 way to put it in other cases.  And this case and  22 some of the others that are very difficult to fit  23 into, what we have defined as adoption are suffering  24 from this problem.  They don't fit the reality very  25 well when we call it adoption and try and fit into  26 that category of having moved back and forth because  27 these two houses have a close relationship as  28 Gitludahl also does with the house of Antgulilbix,  29 and people may not precisely put them as adoptions  30 and people might maintain residual rights in the  31 house they came from which is I believe the  32 situation with Mr. Michell, so he held up the house  33 with Gitludahl and then he returned to his own  34 house.  35 Q    If I understand what you are saying, that's why I  36 keep coming back to the function that the movement  37 performs and not worry too much about whether any  38 particular person has called it adoption, and my  39 question is:  Ralph Michell moved houses twice for  40 the purpose each time of assisting the house that he  41 moved to in maintain the integrity of that house; is  42 that fair?  43 A    Not really because it's when Ralph Michell, because  44 supporting Gitludahl's house as Aa'lagat, he didn't  45 stop entirely supporting the house of Wii Seeks.  In  46 the majority of the -- what we are calling adoptions  47 people clearly move from one house to the other, 11271  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 they give up all rights or they would ordinarily  2 give up all rights, I wouldn't know the precise  3 situation of every individual, but ordinarily they  4 clearly move from one house to the other and ties  5 are mostly severed with the original house but in  6 these difficult situations we have been talking  7 about, in most cases it is an effort to maintain the  8 existence of a house that obviously is suffering  9 greatly from population problems as in the case of  10 Gitludahl which has something like ten known  11 adoptions, so -- and a case of a person like Ralph  12 Michell, he is attempting to do his best to hold up  13 Gitludahl's house but is not conceding the fact that  14 he may return to his own house which he in fact did.  15 Q    Accepting your explanation of the facts surrounding  16 Ralph Michell's movement, we can look at it in terms  17 of your genealogical charts and understanding what  18 it means to adopt and the function that it plays by  19 saying Ralph Michell was adopted into Gitludahl to  20 bolster that house's viability at one point in time?  21 A    Yes.  22 Q    Okay.  And you have in fact shown that?  23 A    Yes.  24 Q    I am assisted with that at least with Mr. Grant's  25 explanation.  Now, that would be a T adoption that  26 we would count if we are counting adoptions of  27 significance?  28 A    Yes, I believe that.  29 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Now, another possibility I am suggesting to  30 you is that when Ralph Michell moved back to the  31 house of Wiigyet, even assuming he maintained some  32 connection with that house --  33 MR. GRANT:  Which?  34 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  35 Q    Of Wiigyet and took the name Wii Seeks which had  36 become available, he was performing a function to  37 the house of Wiigyet, they obviously needed someone  38 like Ralph Michell to take the name Wii Seeks?  39 A    I am not sure I -- if I know what you mean by  40 performing a function.  41 Q    I take it they needed a person with Ralph Michell's  42 qualities to hold the name or to have the name Wii  43 Seeks?  44 A    Yes.  45 Q    Because at the time that that name came open there  46 were a number of people in the house of Wiigyet;  47 correct? 11272  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A    Yes.  Q    And I haven't done an analysis to determine if any  of them would, by any of the rules we have heard, be  eligible for that name but likely with a fairly  large genealogy there may have been some but that  Ralph Michell had particular qualities that they  needed?  A    Yes.  Q    And they felt they safely could remove him from  Gitludahl as a house member and re-incorporate him  into Wiigyet?  A   As I say, because the links were always maintained,  I don't think it is fair to say remove him from the  house of Gitludahl because this is one of those  cases where a very close association was maintained  and a clear break was not made between one house and  the other.  It wouldn't be viewed by the people  involved as having clearly shifted from one house to  the other.  These two houses are very closely  associated within their wilnadaahl.  Q    Well, is he then an example of a person holding  membership in two houses at the same time?  A    I don't know if it is fair to put it that way  either.  But it is clearly -- it would be always  known that when he held the name Aa'lagat that he  was holding a name belonging to the house of  Gitludahl.  That would be clearly known.  But the  way he would be involved with the house of Wii Seeks  and Wiigyet would be that he would contribute to  their feasts.  I don't believe he is a trapper or a  hunter, but he could possibly use the resources of  that house as well.  I don't know the situation but  he could do that by privileged means anyways since  he was related to those members.  It's one case  where the moving back and forth is not -- is not a  complete severing of the rights.  In most cases the  shift is quite clear but this is one that is just  not.  THE COURT:  When he moved back, when he moved back to his house  of origin, would you call that a T adoption or an S  adoption?  THE WITNESS:  Oh, a T adoption.  THE COURT:  Is this a convenient time?  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Yes.  THE COURT:  Thank you. 11273  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1    THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will recess.  2  3 (MORNING ADJOURNMENT AT 11:15 a.m.)  4 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  5 a true and accurate transcript of the  6 proceedings herein, transcribed to the  7 best of my skill and ability.  8  9  10  11  12    13 TANNIS DEFOE, Official Reporter  14 United Reporting Service Ltd.  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 11274  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO SHORT RECESS)  2  3 THE REGISTRAR:  Ready to proceed, my lord.  4 THE COURT:  Ms. Koenigsberg.  5 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  6 Q   Okay.  The next problem involves the House of 'Wii  7 K'aax, tab 41, and Spookw, tab 35.  It involves Mary  8 Moore.  And on page 15 and -- 14 and 15 --  9 A   Of 'Wii K'aax or Spookw?  10 MR. GRANT:  Of which one?  11 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I'm sorry.  On 'Wii K'aax it's page 14.  12 Q   We see Mary Moore the top line, the first line with  13 people on it, 14, as adopted out to Spookw?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   But I don't find her on Spookw.  16 A  Mary Smith, page 14 on Spookw.  See her husband's name  17 is Joe Smith, and the genealogies usually reflect  18 maiden names of women.  19 THE COURT:  On what page of Spookw, please?  20 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I'm sorry.  21 THE COURT:  Page 15?  22 A   Page 14 of Spookw.  I think she is on page 14 on both  23 of them, I believe.  Johnson.  Yes, she is on page  24 14.  25 MR. GRANT:  Same page as Johnson Alexander, my lord.  26 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I see.  Okay.  27 A   Okay.  28 Q   So if we look at the two page 14's side-by-side we see  29 Mary Moore married to Joe Smith, adopted out, and  30 then we see a Mary Smith but not her marriage.  I'm  31 sorry, and she is adopted in --  32 A   To Spookw.  33 Q   — To Spookw?  34 A   Yes.  Yes.  It was just her, that's why the children  35 are still in 'Wii K'aax.  36 Q   I see.  Was that a recent adoption?  37 A   I'm sorry, I don't know when that was.  38 Q   Do you know the reason for the adoption?  39 A   No, I don't.  40 Q   So we don't know if it's a significant adoption or  41 not?  42 A   No, I'm sorry, I don't.  I don't recall being told the  43 situation.  44 THE COURT:  But she didn't take her children with her?  45 A   No.  This happened when she was older and the children  4 6 were already grown up.  But I don't know exactly  47 when it was. 11275  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  3 Q   In doing the genealogical research, and receiving the  4 information with regard to adoptions, and attempting  5 to trace them, I take it from what you're saying  6 that you did not have a sort of standardized way  7 of -- of conducting the interview such that you  8 would always make enquiries as to why something  9 happened?  10 A   It's -- it's -- in an informal situation with --  11 particularly with elderly persons it would be  12 exceedingly rude to demand that they stop talking  13 about something and get back onto the subject.  And  14 it is a considerable skill involved in getting the  15 questions answered that you went for.  But you  16 certainly come away with all sorts of things you  17 didn't ask for, because the elders will tell you  18 what they want to and you have to try and politely  19 direct them back.  It's not like filling in a  20 questionnaire.  21 Q   Okay.  22 A   So -- I'm sorry, I didn't really answer your question.  23 So I tried to get that information, but it wasn't  24 always possible to return to the subject.  And it  25 wasn't always possible to interview everyone enough  26 times to get all of the relevant information.  27 Q   The next one involves the Antgulilbix, tab 1, and  28 Luus, tab 27, and it deals with Eddy Tait.  29 On page six of Antgulilbix, on the left-hand side  30 of the page, there's an adoption out indicated of  31 Eddy Tait into the House of Luus, and I couldn't  32 find correspondingly where he was adopted into.  33 A   Okay.  It is, again, page six of Luus as well.  And  34 he's -- Eddy Tait was his birth name, but he was  35 raised by Joe and Irene Cournoyer.  So he's  36 represented as adopted in there with the dotted  37 line, and it says Eddy Cournoyer, and in brackets it  38 says Ts'iibasaa.  These were all done by memory.  As  39 I say, they weren't computerized so this is why we  40 see these kind of inconsistencies with names.  It's  41 hard to get in all this information.  42 Q   He's adopted by Joe Cournoyer?  43 A   No, by Irene.  44 Q   By Irene Williams?  45 A   Yes.  He was raised by Irene and Joe.   I guess he was  46 adopted -- he was Sihlguxhlxwst.  Raised by Irene  47 and Joe.  Irene took him into her house, that's why 11276  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 he's represented on the Luus genealogy.  2 Q   So it is a T adoption?  3 A   Yes.  It was an S and a T in that case.  4 Q   Okay.  The next one --  5 THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  Before we leave that.  He became  6 Ts'iibasaa?  7 A   No.  In brackets --  8 THE COURT:  That's an indication of Antgulilbix?  9 A   Yes.  That he came out of that house.  10 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  11 Q   And you're using there the name Ts'iibasaa as exactly  12 the same as Antgulilbix?  13 A   Yes, that's correct.  14 THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  15 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  16 Q   If I understood you, and I'll confirm because I wasn't  17 sure I did understand you, there never were, as far  18 as you know, two separate houses; Ts'iibasaa and  19 Antgulilbix?  20 A   No.  It's just a matter of the two highest ranked  21 names changing position over time.  It would be more  22 correct to label this genealogy  23 Antgulilbix/Ts'iibasaa, or the other way.  I think  24 it might be more appropriate to label the  25 Antgulilbix genealogy as Antgulilbix/Ts'iibasaa, as  26 we did with the Yagosip/Guuhadak genealogy.  27 Q   And finally on this list Stephen Skawil.  And the two  28 houses are Nii Kyap, tab 31, and Gyetmgaldo'o, tab  29 18.  So 31 and 18, page four.  30 A   Of which one?  31 Q   Of Nii Kyap, tab 31.  We see Stephen Skawil adopted  32 out and indicated as to Gyetmgaldo'o, and I could  33 not find Stephen Skawil on Gyetmgaldo'o.  34 A   Gee, I don't remember this one.  35 Q   I can tell you that on page six there is a Dan Skawil,  36 but I had understood from previous evidence I think  37 I heard there was a Dan and a Stephen Skawil?  38 A   Yes.  I'm sorry, I can't remember the details of this  39 one.  40 Q   Do you have any reason to think we shouldn't adopt  41 Stephen Skawil into the House of Gyetmgaldo'o?  42 A   I'm sorry, I can't remember either way.  43 Q   From whom did you obtain the information about Nii  44 Kyap and perhaps Stephen Skawil being adopted out?  45 A   Oh, a lot of the information about Nii Kyap's house  46 came from David Gunanoot, particularly about people  47 farther back in the genealogy.  Gerry Gunanoot, the 11277  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Q  A  A  A  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  current Nii Kyap, also gave me information.  And  Alice Sampson, also a member of this house.  Jesse Sterritt?  I don't remember.  I don't remember if I talked to  Jesse about Nii Kyap's house.  And from whom would you have received the information  about Gyetmgaldo'o?  Jesse Sterritt, Cora Gray, Charlotte Sullivan, Emma  Green, Sylvester Green, Kathy Holland.  Okay.  Can I ask you in what as a genealogist would be  the appropriate thing to do with a recorded adoption  out and no adoption in in terms of that person?  There -- from the charts at this point in time  that's a non-person; is that fair?  I think this is -- it doesn't affect the person.  It's  a problem with the recording of the information in  that it was an oversight.  I can't remember the  details of this one, but if Stephen Skawil was  adopted out of Nii Kyap as he -- he certainly should  have been adopted into Gyetmgaldo'o's house if that  is the correct information, but I just can't  remember the details of this one.  Okay.  So assuming that we don't find, or you don't  remember any information that tells you that you  wrongly recorded him being adopted out and adopted  into Gyetmgaldo'o, which we find on the Nii Kyap  chart, we should assume that we have a T adoption in  Gyetmgaldo'o?  :  Well, my lord, with respect, the witness I think has  said she can't remember.  I think that if my friend  wants the witness to look at her -- the files  relating to these two genealogies to refresh her  memory I think that's fair, but I object to my  friend saying the witness should assume A or B when  the witness quite simply cannot remember.  How can  she adopt either answer until she has an opportunity  to refresh her memory, if my friend so desires her  to do that.  :  Well, really isn't the witness in cross-examination  capable of answering hypothetical questions of that  kind?  :  Oh, no, but I don't think it is hypothetical.  She's  saying if -- the witness has said I don't remember  the situation.  My understanding of what the  question was assuming -- knowing you don't remember  this we should assume from these two documents that  Stephen Skawil was adopted as a T adoption.  She 1127?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  said she can't remember.  THE COURT:  That doesn't say she can't make that assumption.  It  may be that she can't, but I see no -- I see no  reason why she can't.  She might say, for example --  the effect of all this is lost now.  She might say  if it wasn't recorded it obviously wasn't  significant, yes, we can assume it was a T adoption,  or she can say I don't know, or she can say I can't  make that assumption, but I don't, with respect --  Well, she's just saying she can't remember.  I just  think she should have an opportunity if there is any  way she can to refresh --  I don't think, with respect, that's correct.  The  question's properly put.  I think the witness is  perfectly able to answer it, or to deal with the  question.  She may not be able to answer it.  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Q   If we assume that you wouldn't be able to refresh your  memory from the documents, and I invite you to do so  at the lunch hour if you wish to actually determine  whether, but my question really is related to how  much reliability do we put on the designation of Nii  Kyap, in the Nii Kyap chart, genealogical chart, you  have recorded the information that you had, which is  Stephen Skawil was adopted out.  We're to assume  it's a T adoption unless he's one of those rare ones  which you didn't intend to include, and he should be  in Gyetmgaldo'o, that's what we should take from the  Nii Kyap genealogy; is that correct?  A   I -- I would assume he should be represented on  Gyetmgaldo'o.  As I say, I can't swear by that.  Q   Okay.  Then I would invite you over the lunch hour to  see if you can determine from your notes if you were  incorrect in your designation for Stephen Skawil on  the Nii Kyap genealogy, and if not then we should  assume that it's correct and that Stephen Skawil is  a T adoption in Gyetmgaldo'o.  I will just have to speak with the witness as to  which of her notes she wants.  I trust my friend  doesn't object to that over the lunch hour.  KOENIGSBERG:  Yes.  And she may have them in a more  convenient way than Mr. Goldie, but -- and I  shouldn't offer Mr. Goldie's beautifully bindered  list of seven or eight volumes there, but I believe  all of the notes are in them, and she could look at  those.  THE COURT:  Ms. Sigurdson will make them available, I'm sure.  MR. GRANT  MS. 11279  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 MR. GRANT:  I can handle that.  2 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  3 Q   That completes my short list of problems on adoptions  4 in or out.  And I have another anomaly that doesn't  5 fall into that category, and it deals with a person  6 designated as Gideon Johnson.  And we need Duubisxw  7 which is tab 7, we need Guxsan, tab 13, and we need  8 Antgulilbix, before you put her away, tab 1.  9 Now, I may have done a grave injustice to the name  10 Duubisxw.  Is it Duubisxw?  11 A   Duubisxw would be close.  Duubisxw.  12 Q   And if we look at page two of Duubisxw --  13 THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  Just a moment, please.  14 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  My lord, it's tab 2, Duubisxw.  I'm sorry, tab  15 7 Duubisxw, my lord.  And then we'll be looking at  16 tab 13, which is Guxsan.  17 THE COURT:  I don't seem to have a tab 13 any more.  18 MR. GRANT:  I'm just handing up the Duubisxw one so you can --  19 oh, and here's tab 13, Guxsan.  20 THE COURT:  Just a moment, please.  Here's tab 7.  Tab 13 is —  21 MR. GRANT:  Guxsan.  22 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Guxsan.  23 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  I have it.  24 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  And Antgulilbix.  25 THE COURT:  Yes.  Thank you.  Yes.  Thank you.  2 6 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  On page two.  27 THE COURT:  Page two of?  28 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Of Duubisxw.  2 9 Q   We have Gideon Johnson shown as married to Evelyn  30 Wesley of the House of Duubisxw.  He holds the name  31 Wii Hlooxs?  32 A  Wii Hlooxs.  33 Q   Wii Hlooxs in the House of -- would you pronounce that  34 for me, please?  35 A   Txaaxwok.  36 Q   Txaaxwok.  We should leave that out.  Then if we  37 look --  38 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, I haven't found that yet.  39 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I'm sorry.  Page two.  4 0 THE COURT:  Of Duubisxw page two?  41 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Yes.  On the right-hand side about the middle  42 of the page Gideon Johnson is married to Evelyn  43 Wesley.  44 THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  Page three comes before page two  4 5 on mine.  46 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  To follow this, my lord, you need to make note  47 of his name, his chief's name. 11280  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  Q  2  A  3  Q  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  A  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Q  25  26  27  28  29  A  30  Q  31  A  32  Q  33  A  34  Q  35  36  A  37  38  39  40  Q  41  42  A  43  Q  44  MR. GRANT  45  46  THE COURT  47  MS. KOENI  Is that a chief's name?  I'm not certain.  Wii Hlooxs.  And that he is designated as being in the  House of Txaaxwok.  And then if we put that beside  Guxsan, page seven -- sorry.  Page seven may not be  right.  Somewhere -- I'm sorry, there's a glitch in  my system.  I'll just look for him.  I believe he's  on here.  I'm sorry, it is page seven, again on the  right-hand side, there is a Gideon Johnson shown  there as married to Ellen Williams.  He has no  Indian name given and no house designation.  At that  point in time I assumed he was not -- he was not the  same Gideon Johnson?  I believe it was the Gideon Johnson.  I did the Guxsan  genealogy early in the research and at the time I  didn't know which house and what his chief's name  was, and I hadn't recalled since I did the  cross-referencing from memory that he had married  into Guxsan's house.  I would have caught that if I  had done a genealogy for his own house, but he  belongs to a Kitwancool house.  So you see him  represented three times on the genealogies as having  been married to three different women.  Okay.  If you turn to page eight of Antgulilbix Mr.  Johnson takes a turn for the worse, or the better  depending on one's point of view.  On page eight on  the left-hand side we have Gideon Johnson as a  woman.  Yes.  Married to Sam Derrick.  It's supposed to be Gideon.  I was going to ask if Sam Derrick knew.  Oh.  And it is the same Gideon Johnson, because it is the  same Indian name and the same house designation.  Yes.  He and Sam Derrick and Ernest Harris were all  married to Nelly Wilson.  It should have been a  triangle instead of a circle on that hand drawing of  Antgulilbix.  And I will tell you I found this one when I was trying  to figure out marriage preferences.  Yeah, that's --  And just so --  :  Possibly that could be amended, my lord, on the  exhibit as a triangle.  :  Yes.  I think so . 11281  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 Q   All right.  And then do I understand that Gideon  2 Johnson of the House of Txaaxwok has been married to  3 Nelly Wilson in the House of Antgulilbix, Ellen  4 Williams of the House of Guxsan and Evelyn Wesley of  5 the House of Duubisxw?  6 A   That's correct.  7 Q   And he's still alive?  8 A   Yes, he is.  9 Q   He's up there with everybody else on a level where  10 most other people are deceased.  11 A   Yes.  He's very elderly.  12 Q   I understand that Fanny Johnson --  13 A  Are you finished with these ones?  14 Q   Yes.  Olive Ryan's grandmother --  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   -- Adopted Gideon Johnson at some point in time.  17 Olive Ryan gave that evidence.  I would turn to it,  18 but I don't think much turns on it.  I just want to  19 know what you know about it.  Olive Ryan gave that  20 evidence at trial.  And that he later went back to  21 his own house, but that he was adopted for a  22 considerable period of time.  23 A   I haven't heard that before.  24 Q   Okay.  As far as you know, and record, if he was  25 adopted, using Olive Ryan's terminology adopted, it  26 would have been an S adoption?  27 A   I have no idea whether it was an S adoption or T  28 adoption.  I haven't heard this before.  29 Q   Okay.  So it's possible, is it, that Fanny Johnson  30 adopted Gideon Johnson and that he was in the House  31 of Hanamuxw at one time?  32 A  Anything's possible, but I don't have any information  33 about that.  That's all I know.  34 MR. GRANT:  Does my friend have the reference to that?  35 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Yes.  It's volume 20, page 1319.  36 MR. GRANT:  Thank you.  37 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  38 Q   Going on to another category, or my very rough  39 catagories of anomalies in the charts, and I'll just  40 hand up some books.  It happens that the first part  41 of this does deal with adoptions.  The first problem  42 I encountered was in regard to the evidence of  43 Stanley Williams.  And that evidence has been  44 excerpted out of Volume 3 and is at tab 1(a) in the  45 book I've just handed up in which, and perhaps it  46 would be of assistance if we had Hax bagwootxw's  47 genealogy out, which is tab 25.  And so everyone 11282  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 doesn't get confused there was a draft, or a  2 genealogy previously provided to the defendants and  3 marked as an exhibit on Stanley William's commission  4 evidence, and it was marked as Exhibit 6, and so I  5 have included it in these excerpts, and it's just  6 behind the first transcript pages of Stanley  7 Williams.  And it, I can advise you, is the  8 genealogy we were looking at with Stanley Williams.  9 Now, this deals with the adoption, or as referred  10 to by Stanley Williams, of Philip Turner and George  11 Turner.  And it was Stanley's evidence, which you  12 will find on page 155, and that is toward the bottom  13 of the page, and Mr. Grant is questioning Mr.  14 Williams.  And if you just look up to the top of the  15 page you'll see he's looking at Exhibit 6 for  16 Identification, genealogical chart of Stanley  17 Williams, dated January 12th, 1988.  And that is the  18 genealogy that is just behind these pages.  And Mr.  19 Grant's question was, it's about line 34.  20  21 "I'm referring you to Exhibit 6 which  22 is -- which you have in front of you,  23 the genealogy of the House of  2 4 Gwis Gyen."  25  26 And so we're all not more further confused,  27 actually the name of the genealogy is Hax bagwootxw.  28 And Stanley refers to this as the House of Gwis  2 9 Gyen.  30  31 "And on the first page of that it shows that  32 Philip Turner and George Turner who were  33 the children of Irene Harris have been  34 adopted out of your house; is that  35 correct?  36  37  38 And if you look at Exhibit 6 you see a slash  39 through George Turner and a slash through Philip  40 Turner on the first page indicating that they are  41 adopted out.  It does not indicate on that draft  42 where they were adopted to.  Mr. Grant goes on.  43  44 "Q   And what house are they in now, Philip  45 and George Turner?  46 A   In the House of Yal."  47 11283  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 And that was the evidence there.  We went on to  2 Ken Harris' adoption.  If we look at the Exhibit  3 853-25 on the first page Philip Turner and George  4 Turner are shown in the House of Hax bagwootxw, but  5 not adopted out.  And why -- why are they not shown  6 as adopted out on the Hax bagwootxw genealogy that  7 we have now?  8 A  Well, why the two genealogies are different you may  9 have to ask Mr. Grant, but the -- again, it's trying  10 to squeeze a situation into English terminologies.  11 The House of Yal at this point in time is entirely  12 composed of Philip Turner and George Turner, as far  13 as I know.  I don't know exactly which names belong  14 to Yal, but there may be others from the closely  15 related House of Hax bagwootxw who has Yal's names  16 and therefore considered from the House of Yal.  But  17 this is the case of amalgamation I would say.  You  18 can interpret it that way.  19 Q   Amalgamation of which?  2 0 A  Amalgamation.  21 Q   Of which houses?  22 A   Of Yal and Hax bagwootxw.  I believe Yal came out of  23 Hax bagwootxw to begin with and is not -- does not  24 have enough members to function as a separate unit  25 at this time.  So you can call it adoption if you  26 wish, but it's a matter of George Turner and Philip  27 Turner having names from the House of Yal and being  28 biological members of the House of Hax bagwootxw,  29 and eventually they could reconstitute the house, I  30 suppose.  31 Q   Okay.  32 A   But that's the situation at this time.  33 Q   Let me follow this according to the rules as I'm  34 trying to understand them.  You began your  35 explanation with Mr. Grant would have to explain, or  36 maybe could explain the difference between Hax  37 bagwootxw genealogy number two, being the one that  38 has been marked at trial here, and the -- what was  39 marked as Exhibit 6.  Did you not prepare both of  40 these genealogies?  41 A   Yes, I did.  But the difference between them, the two  42 slashes, why one version appears in one case and why  43 one version appears in the other case, the only  44 difference I know of is the two slashes.  Now, I  45 don't know why that has occurred.  4 6 Q   Do I understand that then you did not remove the  47 slashes from the Exhibit 853-25? 11284  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  MS.  MR.  THE  MR.  MS.  THE  MS.  THE  MS.  A   I'm sorry, I can't recall whether the final version  that I submitted had the slashes or did not.  I  can't recall the details of that.  COURT:  We don't have a genealogy for the House of Yal.  KOENIGSBERG:  No, my lord, we have not received a separate  genealogy for the House of Yal.  And that was my  next question.  A   Right.  GRANT:  My lord -- my lord, if I may, I do want to set it  out that -- I appreciate my friend's very, very  careful viewing, and I overlooked this.  If you look  at the index of Exhibit 853-25 it will refer to that  tab as Exhibit 446(6).  It was my understanding, and  I -- what I had done was taken out the Hax bagwootxw  genealogy out of my file of Stanley Williams'  evidence.  The exhibits were in Vancouver, our  copies of the exhibits, but I understood that the  one I duplicated and put into Exhibit 853-25 was  Exhibit 446(6), which is the genealogy that was  tendered.  It is an exhibit at trial, and it was  tendered with Stanley Williams commission evidence.  I am only saying that with some chagrin on my part,  but I -- I -- if there was any -- if there was any  distinction between Exhibit 446(6) and Exhibit  853-25 that was through inadvertence on the part of  counsel, my lord.  That was not at all intended, and  I had understood I had taken out my copy of the  exhibit, and unfortunately I did not have an  opportunity prior to preparing these and I relied on  the date, and I guess I shouldn't have.  So to that  extent that may resolve some of the questions my  friend -- one aspect of questions my friend has.  Of  course I just want to advise you of that.  COURT:  Thank you.  GRANT:  And I would propose to replace it, or however it's  appropriate, that it should be identical to 446-6.  KOENIGSBERG:  I'm sorry.  Is Mr. Grant saying there's  another draft around somewhere, or there might be  another draft?  COURT:  I think he's just saying that he thought tab 25 was  Exhibit 446(6).  It turns out it isn't.  KOENIGSBERG:  No, it isn't.  COURT:  At least not with respect to those two persons  Philip and George Turner.  KOENIGSBERG:  And I — there are other problems from my  point of view and understanding of Hax bagwootxw.  Q   But if I can just try and clarify the basis for what 11285  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 is shown on the genealogies, because this is  2 essentially my concern, that you took -- you got  3 information from informants and recorded it, and you  4 had, if you prepared what is -- what is Exhibit 6,  5 and it is at tab 1(a) in the binder I've just handed  6 up, you had received the information that Philip  7 Turner and George Turner were adopted out of the  8 House of Hax bagwootxw by -- it's dated January 12,  9 '88, however, so is Exhibit 853-25.  Do I understand  10 correctly that you received information that you  11 have recorded here that Philip and George Turner  12 were adopted out of the House of Hax bagwootxw?  13 A   I knew that George Turner had the name Yal and that  14 Yal had once been a separate house, but as I  15 understand it at this time there's not enough people  16 in the House of Yal to constitute a separate house.  17 Q   I understand that.  Actually, if I can, and I don't  18 mean to cut you off, I would like to explore a bit  19 with you, in any event, Yal as a separate or  20 non-separate house.  But first my concern is am I  21 correct that when you recorded Philip and George  22 Turner as being adopted out that reflected  23 information that you had received that that was the  24 case?  25 A  Again, it's trying to squeeze realities into  26 inappropriate catagories.  I don't think adopted out  27 is an appropriate word for the situation.  28 Q   Okay.  Just so I can understand you, we are dealing  2 9 now with your terminology and your attempt to depict  30 it on this chart; correct?  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   Okay.  And you had information which you squeezed into  33 the attribution of those two persons as being  34 adopted out; correct?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   Okay.  What was the information that you had?  37 A   That these —  38 Q   At the time that this was produced?  39 A   That the names that Philip Turner hold and that George  40 Turner hold belong to the House of Yal.  41 Q   And that was it?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   Okay.  Is it fair to say that numerous times on the  44 genealogies we see people in house A with names  45 which belong to house B, we don't have a separate  46 genealogy for house B and we don't have the  47 designation that those people are adopted out? 11286  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 A  Are you talking about cases of amalgamation --  2 Q   One can assume that they are --  3 A   — As in —  4 Q   — A result —  5 A   -- Yal and Hax Bagwootxw or of Wiigyet, Waiget and Wii  6 seeks?  7 Q   That persons like Philip Turner or George Turner  8 holding a name which at one time were in a separate  9 house, but they aren't designated as being adopted  10 out?  11 A   Right.  12 Q   Okay.  Why then would you have shown George and Philip  13 Turner as adopted out on the basis of information  14 that they held names in a house which was  15 amalgamated or had been in Hax bagwootxw or was in  16 Hax bagwootxw?  17 A   Because George and Philip refer to the House of Yal  18 as -- as if it were a separate entity.  I believe  19 that they are hoping to reconstitute the house and  20 that this is why they refer to it more separately  21 than would be the case with the members of Wiigyet,  22 Waiget and Wii seeks who don't seem to be attempting  23 to make those houses separate again at this time.  24 This is an assumption on my part that that's why  25 they refer to them as being separate.  26 Q   Okay.  Stanley Williams is one of your informants?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   Did you discuss the House of Yal with Stanley  29 Williams?  30 A   I don't recall.  I remember clearly talking about it  31 with Philip Turner.  32 Q   Is it fair to say that Stanley Williams is referring  33 to Yal as a separate house on page 155 of this  34 transcript which we've just read?  35 A   Yes, I believe that's what he's saying on 155.  36 Q   The question which was put to him by Mr. Grant was  37 down toward the bottom of the page.  38  39 "And on the first page of that it shows  40 that Philip Turner and George Turner  41 who were the children of Irene Harris,  42 have been adopted out of your house; is  43 that correct?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   And what house are they in now, Philip  46 and George Turner?  47 A   In the House of Yal." 11287  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2 A   Yes.  He's referring to what I just referred to.  3 Q   Might Stanley Williams have told you that they were  4 separate houses?  5 A   Possibly.  I'm sorry, I don't recall.  6 Q   Did you receive any information between the time that  7 Exhibit 6 or the first draft of the Hax bagwootxw  8 genealogy was received and the time that you  9 prepared a final version of Hax bagwootxw that would  10 have made you say that Yal was not a separate house?  11 A  As I say, I submitted a version before the -- or with  12 the original date on it and that is the only one  13 that I can speak about.  14 Q   Okay.  So —  15 A  Why there's a difference between them, as I say, you  16 may have have to ask Mr. Grant about that.  17 Q   Whether there was an interval -- whether there were  18 two versions of it or a draft in a final form of the  19 genealogy of Hax bagwootxw did you receive any  20 information that Yal was not a separate house?  21 A   No.  22 Q   In some informants' views in this community Yal is a  23 separate house; is that fair?  24 A   Yes.  People would interpret it both ways.  25 Q   And some persons would say that Yal is a part of Hax  2 6 bagwootxw?  27 A   Yes, that's correct.  28 Q   How do you as a genealogist determine which informants  29 are the correct ones?  30 A   They're both correct.  31 Q   Do I understand you to mean that there can be in  32 certain circumstances no difference between a  33 separate house and houses being amalgamated?  34 A   It's a matter of degrees.  With amalgamations there's  35 not a feast that clearly delineates between the  36 times at which the -- the houses amalgamate  37 necessarily, and so people may view the closely  38 associated houses as being one at a certain point in  39 time or as being two.  The reckoning of the  40 properties is kept separately, the land, and the  41 names, and the crests, and so on.  And the hope is  42 usually there that the two -- if it's one small  43 house, as in this case, that's been subsumed under a  44 larger house the hope is always there that it can  45 reconstitute itself out of that house.  And moves  46 are frequently made in that direction, so it's not  47 inappropriate for people to refer to it as one house 112?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 or two houses.  And they know what they're referring  2 to.  3 Q   Each person that says it knows what he's referring to,  4 but he may not be in agreement with another person's  5 view; is that fair?  6 A   Both of them would understand why each one was saying  7 what they're saying.  It's not that they'd likely  8 argue you're right and I'm wrong.  They realize it's  9 two interpretations of the same thing.  10 Q   Okay.  Stanley Williams has used the terms adopted in  11 relation to this separate house, not separate house  12 in relation to Yal and Hax bagwootxw, would you  13 agree?  14 A   Yes.  He's in the same dilemma as I am trying to  15 squeeze his subtle meanings into English words.  16 Q   Yes.  And is it fair to say that, at least in this  17 instance, what can be called an adoption out and/or  18 an adoption in if we had a genealogy of Yal we would  19 show Philip and George Turner adopted into the House  20 of Yal; is that correct?  21 A   If -- if there was enough people to constitute a house  22 of Yal at this time we could -- we would show them  23 adopted out of Hax bagwootxw and into Yal.  24 Q   Right.  And we could have those two genealogies  25 side-by-side and we could describe that as either an  26 adoption of two people or more, or an amalgamation,  27 or a division; is that fair?  2 8 A   No.  2 9 Q   We would take the same facts, the same movement of  30 people for the same reasons and we could chart it as  31 an adoption, as an amalgamation, depending on how we  32 were showing it, or as a division.  That is the  33 house is breaking apart.  Yal Hax bagwootxw having  34 been one now they're two.  Do you understand me?  35 A  Again, it's a problem with trying to use words that  36 don't accurately reflect the situation.  37 Q   No.  I don't -- I don't mean to interrupt you, but I  38 want to be sure we're right on the same point,  39 'cause I don't say it's that easy.  I'm assuming the  40 same circumstances, and that for whatever reason it  41 has to be described to communicate it to anybody  42 whether they're Gitksan or non-Gitksan, can you  43 agree with me that we could describe it, and justify  44 our description by the rules that we've discussed in  45 the customs, and so on, as any one of those three?  46 A   I don't know the Gitksan words that would be used to  47 describe exactly what happened, but I believe that 11289  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 if enough people were -- a division is usually  2 somewhat different from -- from an individual  3 adoption.  An adoption usually refers to an  4 individual, but a division may refer to a whole  5 group.  If the House of Hax bagwootxw was to divide  6 it would not be a matter of a whole bunch of  7 individuals one at a time moving from Hax bagwootxw  8 to Yal.  But if there was a division of the House of  9 Hax bagwootxw under the leadership of George Turner  10 a group of people would reconstitute the House of  11 Yal.  It wouldn't be individual adoptions each one  12 going through the process of moving an individual  13 from one house to another.  There would be a feast  14 held and the adoption would be ratified at -- or I'm  15 sorry, the division would be ratified at that feast,  16 but this wouldn't be a whole bunch of individual  17 adoptions.  A division would be the movement of a  18 large group of people to reconstitute the House of  19 Yal.  It would be a division of what used to be the  20 House of Hax bagwootxw.  But they're two different  21 things.  It would also be possible to reconstitute a  22 house in the manner that Gitludahl has done with  23 separate adoptions, but that's quite different from  24 a division.  25 Q   I understood you to say that Hax bagwootxw, that one  26 way we could look at this situation of George and  27 Philip Turner being described as being adopted out  28 was that they were choosing to or could be seen as  29 reconstituting the House of Yal as separate from the  30 House of Hax bagwootxw?  31 A  As moving towards that.  It's not -- it wouldn't be  32 considered appropriate to say they make up the House  33 of Yal.  Two people don't make much of a house.  34 Q   But there are Gitksan persons, notably perhaps Stanley  35 Williams, at least we concretely can see that here,  36 who would describe George Turner and Philip Turner  37 as constituting the House of Yal.  If you're correct  38 that there are no other members of the House of Yal  39 at this point in time, there's only George and  40 Philip, because his words to describe this are they  41 were adopted out and they're in the House of Yal?  42 A   If Stanley was speaking in his own language he  43 wouldn't use a word that means adopted.  44 Q   Well —  45 A   He would use something that conveyed much more  46 accurately the realities of what is occurring.  47 THE COURT:  Well, who are the other people, if any, in the House 11290  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 of Yal?  2 A   There aren't any.  That's the problem.  That's why he  3 wouldn't refer to it as if it was a completely  4 separate house.  As I understand it there's just  5 George and Philip.  There may be others I'm not  6 aware of, but that's the only ones I know of.  7 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  8 Q   I'm not certain, but I thought -- I actually have a  9 vague recollection that there are other people who  10 would say they are in the House of Yal.  I have to  11 ask my researchers if I'm right.  I say, even  12 leaving that aside, what I'm getting at is albeit  13 there are what I'll call ideals of describing the  14 rules of the way things work, as you've put it  15 there's reality, and you have to understand the  16 circumstances to determine which of the descriptions  17 that are available to you to describe a situation  18 such as division of, amalgamation, adoption best  19 fits the circumstances.  Almost never do you have a  20 perfect fit?  21 A  Actually, in the majority of the cases you have a  22 perfect fit, but we're discussing the anomalies.  23 Q   That might be so.  And I just would like you to  24 confirm for me, if you can, that at least Philip and  25 George, and on the basis of what Stanley Williams  26 has actually said, and I might say he was being  27 examined in his own language.  We are stuck, I  28 suppose, with how good his translator who speaks  29 both languages was in translating it.  But then, of  30 course, that's your difficulty as well; isn't it?  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   He is conveying a concept somehow with his words to  33 the translator that we are dealing with an adoption  34 out into a separate house?  35 A   Only because it's being very crudely translated, which  36 I would think he thought was sufficient for the  37 situation.  38 Q   You have to assume that.  39 A   Yes.  As do you, I would think.  40 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I certainly do.  41 THE COURT:  Two o'clock.  Thank you.  42 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will adjourn until two.  43  4 4 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)  45  46 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  47 a true and accurate transcript of the 11291  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 proceedings herein to the best of my  2 skill and ability.  3  4  5  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  6 Peri McHale, Official Reporter  7 UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD. 11292  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AT 2:00 p.m.)  2  3 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  4 THE COURT:  Ms. Koenigsberg.  5 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  6 Q    We were dealing with Stanley Williams and the  7 genealogy of Haxbagwootxw.  Steven -- I am sorry,  8 before I forget, perhaps before we forget, did you  9 happen to have an opportunity to look at your notes  10 and determine if you could tell us what happened to  11 Steven Skawil?  12 A    No, I am sorry, I didn't see a reference in my notes  13 and I can't remember.  14 Q    If we look still at the genealogy of Haxbagwootxw  15 and we can look at its -- the trial Exhibit 853-25.  16 A    The other way around, isn't it?  17 Q    Pardon?  18 A    Isn't it the other way around?  19 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Exhibit 853-25 is the trial exhibit.  20 MR. GRANT:  The trial exhibit is also 446(6), I think I  21 understand what the witness is -- Ms. Koenigsberg is  22 saying.  23 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  24 Q    I suppose the issue is with or without the slashes.  25 It doesn't really matter for my question but I was  26 referring to the trial one which I have which is  27 without the slash.  28 A   All right.  I just want to be clear.  29 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Okay.  Stanley Williams gave evidence that he  30 adopted a person by the name of Sylvia, Sylvia  31 Johnson.  I think we find Stanley --  32 MR. GRANT:  This is — I believe I've got some clarification of  33 this distinction, my lord, and this is an example of  34 it.  35 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I am sorry, what distinction?  36 MR. GRANT:  That is between these two documents.  Apparently on  37 the one that is in my friend's document book, it is  38 handwritten in and when I look at Stanley Williams'  39 evidence, this change -- the addition of Sylvia  40 Johnson by adoption shows -- that's shown on that as  41 a result of -- it was corrections to the genealogy  42 that was tendered.  43 THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Grant, you are explaining something that I  44 haven't got to yet.  45 MR. GRANT:  Okay.  46 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  And forms part of my cross-examination I might  47 say and I'd just as soon have the evidence from the 11293  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 witness.  2 MR. GRANT:  It is just that the witness wasn't present for that  3 direct examination.  4 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  5 Q    No, she was not present.  Whether she read the  6 evidence, I don't know and it doesn't really matter.  7 If we look at the Exhibit 853-25 we do not -- and  8 we look at page 4, Stanley Williams is shown there  9 married to Fanny Muldoe and there are no adoptions  10 shown?  11 A    Right.  12 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Just so we are not all terribly confused.  In  13 what is at 1(b) Exhibit 6 genealogy we see on page 4  14 Sylvia Johnson adopted dotted line written in, and I  15 might advise you all that that's my handwriting and  16 you will soon see why.  17 THE COURT:  Just a moment until I get it.  Yes.  18 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  This notation on Exhibit 6 on Mr. Williams'  19 commission was put there in conformity with Mr.  20 Williams' evidence as it was being given and as it  21 was agreed by counsel it should be shown, so that if  22 we look at page 156 of volume 3 which is at tab 1(a)  23 in the book I have handed up, the evidence of  24 Stanley Williams was as follows.  25 THE COURT:  What page, please?  26 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Page 156, my lord, and that's at tab 1(a).  27 THE COURT:  Yes.  I don't have tab 1(a).  I have only got tab 1  28 and 2.  There are some dividers here.  You are  29 talking about what's in front of the first divider?  30 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  You didn't get one of the beautifully  31 decorated ones with new blue tabs?  No.  Nor I.  I am sorry, you have identified it as page 156.  35 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  36 Q    It starts actually on page 156.  Mr. Grant,  37 question, about the middle of the page:  38  39 "Q  Is that Sylvia Harris the same person as  40 you referred to in your interrogatory as  41 Sylvia Johnson?  You have Sylvia Johnson  42 and there is another word, this is in the  43 list of -- the list of the interrogatory,  44 and it says Ga -- Gaagim looks, drift  45 away?  46 A  Sylvia Johnson is Ronnie Johnson's wife.  I  47 adopted her into my house.  32 THE COURT  33 MR. GRANT  34 THE COURT 11294  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Where would she be?  you adopted her yourself;  Q  Okay.  And so she is not shown on Exhibit 6  but she should be on your genealogy; is  that right?  A  Um-hmm.  Q  Okay.  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  MR. GRANT:  Q  Well, he says  is that right?  A  Yeah.  Q  So she should be on -- Exhibit 6 she should  be under Gwis Gyen, a dotted line under  Gwis Gyen with a reference to circle and  Sylvia Johnson.  That's on -- I propose to  mark that in on the exhibit and it will be  marked in by hand but it will be in."  We went through that again I might say, and the copy  that you have is my copy as I did that.  Now, I note therefore that before we corrected  the version of the genealogy in conformity with Mr.  Grant's questioning of the witness, it did not show  Sylvia Johnson as adopted but I also note that the  copy that we were given at this time whenever it was  prepared, perhaps at the same time, it also does not  show Sylvia Johnson adopted.  Did you not have the  information that Sylvia Johnson was adopted into the  house of Gwis Gyen or Haxbagwootxw?  A    No, I don't remember ever hearing that before.  Q    Would you have, on the basis of that evidence if you  had received the evidence which I have just read to  you, the information, would you have recorded Sylvia  Johnson as adopted?  A    Yes, I would have.  Q    Now, we do see at the same time another problem of  identification here.  We have on this exhibit, on  Exhibit 853-25, there is a Sylvia shown?  A    Where are you looking at?  I am really lost.  Q    The trial?  A    This one.  MR. GRANT:  Yes.  THE WITNESS:  What page?  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Q    Sorry, page 2  her?  A    Yes.  Q    With the name Sagemloox?  We have a Sylvia Mowatt.  Do you see 11295  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 A    Yes.  2 Q    Okay.  And she is shown I believe if we put the  3 pieces together as the natural daughter of Irene  4 Harris and Robert Harris.  Do I have that right?  5 A    Yes, that's correct.  6 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  If we look back to Exhibit 6, Haxbagwootxw.  7 THE COURT:  Back to, I am sorry, page 6?  8 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  9 Q    Back to Exhibit 6, the Haxbagwootxw genealogy, page  10 2, we have a Sylvia Harris with the same name and I  11 believe she is shown as the natural daughter again  12 of Irene and Robert.  Do you see that?  13 A    Yes.  14 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Okay.  15 THE COURT:  I haven't found Irene.  16 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I am sorry, Irene Harris.  17 THE COURT:  I found her, how is she shown as being married to  18 Robert Harris?  19 THE WITNESS:  Irene Harris was married three times when you look  20 at the —  21 THE COURT:  Oh, I see.  She was married to Simon Turner, then  22 Robert Harris.  23 THE WITNESS:  Yes, and they had to be shown separately to show  24 which children had which father.  25 THE COURT:  Okay, thank you.  2 6 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  27 Q    Now, if we look at Exhibit 853 tab 11, and I don't  28 even remember which one it is, just tell you what  29 that house is in a second.  Gutginuxw, page 8?  30 A    I don't have it yet.  31 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  And it is not easy to find page 8, it might  32 not have the number on it.  Do you have page 8, my  33 lord?  34 THE COURT:  Yes.  35 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  36 Q    If you look there, you see there is Sylvia Mowatt  37 married to Ronnie Johnson.  She is probably Sylvia  38 Johnson who should have been adopted by Stanley  39 Williams?  40 A    That sounds like what Stanley is saying in his  41 evidence.  42 Q    But her natural parents are here shown as Mary Green  43 and Arthur Mowatt.  Is she not the same person as  44 Sylvia Harris?  4 5           A    I don't know.  46 Q    My difficulty here was in determining who the  47 natural parents are and therefore how I would trace 11296  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 her --  2 A    I don't —  3 Q    -- back to a house.  4 A    I don't remember -- I don't know Sylvia Mowatt,  5 Ronnie Johnson's wife, personally and I don't know  6 if Lily Harris in fact has a sister named Sylvia as  7 well, so I am not positive if these are two people  8 or one person.  This is the kind of problems that  9 you encounter when you initiate the genealogical  10 research and they generally come out in the wash but  11 commonly I would confront this kind of a situation  12 when I was beginning a genealogy, but I would have  13 to inquire further to be sure if this is one person  14 being referred to or if it is two people.  I have no  15 way to say at this time.  16 Q    Okay.  And if it is one person then we would not  17 know, unless you checked out that information, not  18 only who her natural parents were but from that to  19 which house she should properly belong or that she  20 came from in order to go into the house of Gwis  21 Gyen?  22 A    Yes.  23 Q    There is one other matter with relation to the  24 genealogy of Haxbagwootxw and it arises still out of  25 the evidence of Stanley Williams.  At page 218 of  26 Stanley Williams' transcript which is after the  27 next -- I have it just behind the genealogy?  2 8 A   Are we through with Gutginuxw?  29 Q    For the time being, yes.  30 A    Now, I am sorry, oh, okay.  What was I supposed to  31 be looking at?  32 Q    We are looking at the Haxbagwootxw genealogy and the  33 problem arises out of Stanley Williams' evidence  34 which is at page 218, and he identifies or says that  35 he was married to a person by the name of Dora  36 Johnson and that they had a child, Myrtle, Stanley  37 Williams and Dora Johnson had a child named Myrtle  38 and he was married to Dora Johnson, and you do not  39 show on page 4 of this genealogy any other marriage  40 for Stanley?  41 A    I didn't know about it at the time.  I have heard of  42 it since.  43 Q    And I understand that that Dora Johnson, it actually  44 says on 218, was from the house of Malii?  45 A    Yes, so I didn't catch it in the reverse direction  46 as I ordinarily would.  47 Q    So it would be correct to alter this and add Dora 11297  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 Johnson and put her in the house of Malii?  2 A    Oh, to add her as a spouse?  3 Q    Yes.  4 A    To Stanley, yes, that's correct.  5 THE COURT:  We are looking at?  6 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  7 Q    Haxbagwootxw, my lord, page 4.  Stanley Williams is  8 shown with one marriage and there are two.  And  9 again that would affect or might affect marriage  10 preferences?  11 A    I hardly think with 1,550 marriages that one could  12 affect my conclusions --  13 Q    One would at first --  14 A    -- generally.  15 Q    -- glance say that with a great deal of safety but  16 in fact isn't it true that in a number of cases in  17 order to reach significance of marriage preferences  18 say house to house which you have discussed, you  19 picked the figure of 20 percent to show  20 significance.  Am I correct so far?  21 A    Mm-hmm.  22 Q    And I know that when we looked, I believe it was at  23 Baskyelaxha, I am doing this by memory, but when we  24 looked at Baskyelaxha there were 41 marriages, 26 of  25 which you knew the spouse's house affiliation and  26 then you had five marriages, probably Gutginuxw --  27 A    Baskyelaxha.  28 Q    Baskyelaxha.  I can't remember which house it was  29 but there were five, that would have been five out  30 of 26; correct?  31 A    Yes.  32 Q    To show the 20 percent preference but you barely  33 made 20 percent with five and if by chance we had  34 picked one out of there and added or subtracted, we  35 would affect your ability to say that you had met  36 that particular standard; is that correct?  37 A    Yes, but that 20 percent is far in excess of what  38 would be considered statistically significant.  I am  39 not a statistician but I know that it would -- it  40 wouldn't have to be nearly 20 percent to be  41 statistically significant with the amount of  42 possible marriage partners there are.  I just  43 arbitrarily chose that to demonstrate that there can  44 be a considerable number of marriages between two  45 houses.  46 Q    Yes, but you also chose to only count, to determine  47 20 percent, the marriages where you knew the house 1129?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 affiliation?  The fact was that --  2 A    Of course.  3 Q    -- in almost half of the marriages in that  4 particular house, not quite half, you did not know  5 the affiliation and given that you didn't know the  6 affiliation, that could totally change the numbers?  7 A    Yes, it could increase them or reduce them.  8 Q    That's right, and my point is that when we are  9 dealing with highly impressionistic data from which  10 to draw conclusions and very small numbers in the  11 whole to conclude significance that actually one or  12 two known marriages with particular preference could  13 alter your conclusion?  14 A    I don't agree, not when I have looked at 45 houses.  15 Q    But with respect to any one, how is it --  16 A    Well, it could put it under or over the arbitrary  17 line that I set --  18 Q    Yes.  19 A    -- at 20 percent, but it does not begin to alter my  20 conclusions.  21 Q    Well, I assume that you set the standard at 20  22 percent because it had some significance to you?  23 A    No, it was just an arbitrary figure.  I thought  24 that, with a number of possible houses that one  25 could marry into, that 20 percent was a very  26 significant figure and it was just arbitrary just to  27 demonstrate that this does occur, that's all.  2 8 Because I knew from my intimate knowledge of the  29 genealogies that in fact there were many marriages  30 back and forth between pairs of houses but this was  31 just an attempt to demonstrate it in numbers and, as  32 I say, if I was a statistician I would be able to  33 determine what was considered to be statistically  34 significant.  35 Q    Yes.  36 A    But instead I set a very high limit on that.  37 Q    Well, it becomes arbitrary what you call the limit,  38 doesn't it?  You have no basis for saying 20 percent  39 is high or low; it seems high to you but is there  40 any basis upon which you can say 20 percent is well  41 over significant if you are not speaking about  42 statistics?  43 A    Well, with just rudimentary mathematics I think that  44 it seems that if there are 45 houses all together,  45 and I am trying to remember the figure, how many  46 houses that -- at least 27 other houses I believe,  47 that any individual would have to marry into as well 11299  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 as all other categories of people who were not from  2 houses, but just marriage between house members was  3 considered, there would be -- I am trying to think  4 how I figured it.  If there is -- if the house  5 has -- has 90 people in it which would be a fairly  6 sort of average figure and there were 27 other  7 houses, if there was 90 marriages that were known,  8 then of those 90 you would expect only three to be  9 in each one of the other 27 houses approximately.  10 That's the only way that I determined what would be  11 below what could be expected on average and what  12 would be above.  I certainly didn't go into  13 available persons at any one point in time and age  14 variation and et cetera.  15 Q    You have certainly hit on the kinds of variables  16 that I would have thought that you would have to  17 have in order for instance to begin comparing or  18 expressing a preference as an actuality if I can put  19 it that way.  For instance, you have to define,  20 would you agree with me, your population so that you  21 can determine chance?  22 A    I didn't begin from on the basis of trying to do any  23 kind of a statistical analysis.  I began by talking  24 to people, talking about their social structure, so  25 Gitksan people were telling me this is the way we do  26 things.  After I was told several times we marry  27 into our father's house, we are supposed to marry  28 into our father's house, then I noticed that this  29 seemed to be true because I do see this demonstrated  30 on the genealogies, and this arbitrary 20 percent  31 figure was just an attempt to put some numbers to  32 it.  But it is my opinion that the Gitksan say they  33 marry into their father's house and that you can  34 find that evidence on the genealogy, whatever the  35 figures might be, I believe it is there.  36 Q    Well, I don't think we have to belabour this too  37 long, but I want to be sure that I understand of  38 what use you think the numbers are and let me  39 understand what you have said.  You did not attempt  40 a statistical analysis?  41 A    Right.  42 Q    You would agree with me that in order to attempt a  43 statistical analysis you at the very least at first  44 would have to define your population and determine  45 chance for any occurrence that you wanted to test?  46 A    How do you mean define the population?  47 Q    You have to know how many of whatever it is you have 11300  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 got so that you can determine what the chance is  2 that any particular thing is going to happen in that  3 population, and then you compare what actually  4 happens and see if it happens more often than  5 chance.  Have I put it roughly correctly?  6 A    Well, even someone who does a statistical analysis  7 like Kasakoff, she has limited information to work  8 on when she did her statistical analysis, and she  9 admits that there were problems involved so --  10 Q    No question, but we know what she did; that is, she  11 tells us what her population is, how she arrived at  12 the population, and then she tells us how she  13 calculated the numbers.  Then we can quarrel with  14 her or not about whether that is representative  15 population, whether she should have included other  16 groups into that population or whatever.  But to  17 start with, she defined the population, was then  18 able to calculate chance and then can look at the  19 actual numbers within that calculation and tell us  20 if they are greater or less than chance, so are we  21 agreed that's how you would go about it in its  22 basics to do a statistical analysis?  23 A    It's -- I don't think it's for me to say, not being  24 a statistician.  25 Q    Well, would you agree with me that you do use the  26 words, "greater than chance", "less than chance"?  27 A    Right.  28 Q    You do have obviously then an understanding of the  29 concept of chance and how one determines it?  30 A    Right.  31 Q    And it is common sense that --  32 A    Right.  33 Q    -- in order to determine it, you have to define a  34 population?  35 A   And I defined the population as the members of the  36 house.  37 Q    Well, you didn't, did you, because we don't know the  38 numbers of the marriages that you have looked at  39 within houses to say that it's so many of this or so  40 many of that?  There are --  41 A    Who doesn't know?  42 Q    Well, you say that there are 1,550 marriages.  As I  43 understand it, the marriages that you are including  44 in that number, that includes one of those spouses  45 being a Gitksan person?  46 A    Yes.  47 Q    The other spouse may or may not be a Gitksan person? 11301  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 A    Correct.  2 Q    So therefore may or may not be in a house?  3 A    That's right.  4 Q    We don't know which ones, when you talk about  5 marriage preferences, are in the population that you  6 are going to count or out?  7 A    I don't know what you mean by which ones.  8 Q    You don't count, in the instance of Baskyelaxha, 20  9 if there are 25, I think 20 -- approximately 20  10 or -- 16 marriages because you don't know who the  11 spouses are?  12 A    I am only referring to the ones between whose house  13 memberships are known, that's correct.  14 Q    That's right, and the other numbers could be  15 significant or not, you don't have the information  16 to be able to tell that?  17 A    Yes, but as I say, they could be significant in  18 either direction.  19 Q    Okay.  When you counted up the marriages that you  20 were going to count in determining marriage  21 preferences, in every case where you formed an  22 impression, did you only count the marriages where  23 you knew the affiliations of both spouses?  24 A    Yes, I did.  25 Q    Okay.  But you didn't write this down in -- I mean,  2 6 you didn't write down the numbers, you didn't go  27 through the exercise of writing down the numbers; is  28 that correct?  29 A    Yes, I did.  30 Q    You did?  31 A    I believe so.  How else could I calculate them?  32 Q    Did you?  33 A    I don't know where the notes are, if they were in  34 the files or not.  35 Q    I had the impression from your earlier evidence that  36 you actually did that from memory?  37 A    No, never.  I never said that.  38 Q    Okay.  You didn't do it from memory?  39 A    My impressions to begin with that of what were the  40 principles, the marriage patterns that came from  41 memory, but to get these 20 percent figures, I  42 didn't do that out of my head.  I sat down and  43 counted them to get those 20 percent figures but I  44 had already formed my opinions about what were the  45 marriage patterns and preferences from memory,  46 from --  4 7 Q    An impression? 11302  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 A    From intimate knowledge of the genealogies, from  2 having created these things.  And when I did count  3 up the marriages that I knew to have occurred  4 between two houses, I found that it did bear out  5 what my impressions about -- my opinion had been  6 from doing the research but I had formed those  7 opinions before I counted up the actual marriages.  8 Q    Okay.  Let me just ask you one other question so  9 that I can try and sort this out.  How did you  10 determine the 1,550 marriages?  What did you count?  11 A    I counted all marriages that were in the sample.  12 Q    In the sample being the genealogical charts?  13 A   All the genealogical charts, yes.  14 Q    If I count up all the equal signs?  15 A    Yes, that's —  16 Q    I should get 1,550?  17 A    Let me think.  No, you should get double that.  18 Q    That's right.  19 A   Approximately -- approximately, with the exceptions  20 of people who were married more than once and people  21 who married people -- who were non-Gitksan and  22 therefore who are not represented on -- it wasn't as  23 simple as just counting up the equal signs.  I had  24 to keep a separate record of which ones were  25 marriages.  If I am looking at one genealogy, I  26 would have to keep a separate accounting of those  27 marriages that were with people from outside of the  28 Gitksan house system because they would only appear  29 once, but any marriage that occurred with somebody  30 who's represented again on the genealogy or even  31 more than once in the case of a triple marriage that  32 a counting had to be kept straight to result in the  33 1,550 figure or whatever it was.  34 Q    And you recall going through that exercise?  35 A    Yes, I did.  36 Q    Because I found it very complicated and I was  37 looking for your notes.  38 A    That's because I have it in my head who belongs to  39 what house for the most part.  I have forgotten some  4 0 now but at one point in time I could find any name  41 at any time when I was actively working with them  42 every day.  43 Q    Okay.  I take it that you did that after you  44 completed the genealogies and --  45 A    Yes.  46 Q    -- substantially?  47 A    Yes. 11303  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 Q    Did you keep the notes of your calculations?  2 A    I don't remember.  I have no idea.  If I did, they  3 should be in the files.  4 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Okay.  Why don't we go on to finish off  5 Sakxum -- or dealing with Sakxum Higookx.  This  6 deals with evidence of Stanley Williams and it is --  7 Sakxum Higookx is tab --  8 THE REGISTRAR:  Tab 34.  9 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  10 Q    Pages 7 and 8 and it deals with Doris Wells  11 Morrison.  You show Doris Wells was adopted into the  12 house of Sakxum Higookx by David Wells?  13 A    Yes.  14 Q    And David Wells is Doris Wells' father, natural  15 father?  16 A    I believe that's so.  I am not positive, I forget.  17 Q    And from whom did you obtain the information that  18 Doris Wells was adopted into that house?  19 A    Gee, that's been a long time.  Possibly Olive Ryan,  20 but I am not absolutely positive.  21 THE COURT:  Where do I find this?  22 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  23 Q    Sorry, pages 7 and 8, my lord, on Sakxum Higookx.  24 If you put them together, you will see David Wells  25 on the left-hand side and then the dotted line all  26 the way across for all of those people adopted and  27 Doris Wells is one of them and she is shown as  28 married to Harold Morrison?  29 A    Yes, that's correct.  30 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  On page 343 — well, I am sorry, start with  31 page 341 of Stanley Williams' transcript which is in  32 volume 3 and which is after the 218 one.  I am  33 sorry, it is volume 5, there is a divider.  34 THE COURT:  Yes.  35 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  36 Q    On page 341, about the middle of the page.  It  37 begins, this is Stanley Williams' evidence:  38  39 "MS. KOENIGSBERG:  40 "Q  And did David Wells also hold the name  41 Sakxum Higookx?  42 A  Yes, he had the name Sakxum Higookx before  4 3 Alfred.  44 Q  Do you know Doris or Dora Morrison?  45 A  Yes, I know her.  4 6 Q  And do you know her as the daughter of  47 David Wells? 11304  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 A  Yes, that's his daughter, Doris."  2  3 Then if we go over to page 343 again about the same  4 place on the page begins Ms. Koenigsberg, and I am  5 concerned with the answer here of Stanley Williams:  6  7 "A  I am not aware of the territory that was  8 given, supposed to have been given to  9 Doris, but I am aware that David Wells was  10 supposed to have adopted Doris into his  11 house and I -- this never, ever happened  12 and it is quite serious with the adoption,  13 the adoption is quite serious, because when  14 the adoption occurs you have to spend a lot  15 of money in the feast hall.  So I don't  16 think this happened."  17  18 You are showing on your genealogy Sakxum Higookx  19 that it did happen; is that correct?  20 A    It was my opinion that it did happen at the time  21 that I did the genealogy.  22 Q    And from what did you form that opinion?  23 A   As I say, I believe Olive Ryan was one of the people  24 that talked about this and I can't remember.  It  25 might be in the files.  26 Q    Okay.  Were you aware of any controversy over  27 whether Doris Wells Morrison had in fact been  28 adopted or not?  29 A    I wasn't aware that there was a controversy over  30 whether she had been adopted or not, but I had heard  31 there was an argument over the name Liginiihlax,  32 that's all I was aware, but I had heard it had not  33 been disputed that she had been adopted by her  34 father into the Eagle house.  35 MR. GRANT:  My lord, my friend is reading and I think out of  36 fairness she should read or at least your lordship  37 should be referred to the continuation of that  38 second series at page 343 to 344 line 6 which is  39 part of the same sequence of what occurred and the  40 explanation of Mr. Williams in fairness.  41 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Well, I don't think that anything that is  42 covered thereafter has anything to do with Stanley  43 Williams' expressed opinion that this was not an  44 adoption that actually happened.  It deals with --  45 goes on to deal with other matters which I am sure  46 Mr. Grant would like to take great exception to  47 cover with Stanley Williams, it has to do with the 11305  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 taking of the name left to Dora Morrison in the will  2 of the Liginiihlax and the alleged selling of a  3 totem-pole.  4 MR. GRANT:  All I am talking about is the reference here to Dora  5 Morrison, "Do you know if she holds the name  6 Ligii'Nihlaa?" is directly related to the answer  7 Stanley Williams relating to the adoption.  I mean  8 that's what I am saying is that that's part of the  9 sequence.  10 THE COURT:  Well, does the passage -- I have just glanced at it  11 but it doesn't seem to me, Mr. Grant, that it refers  12 to the question of adoption, it relates to this  13 name.  14 MR. GRANT:  But that's the point, my lord, the question is —  15 and is that the name -- this witness has already  16 explained the relationship of names and houses.  I  17 mean, that's part of it, the name is the name  18 connected, what's the name connected to.  And that  19 when people talk about people holding names or not  20 holding names, they are talking about what house  21 they are in.  22 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Well, okay.  Why don't I cross-examine her  23 about that?  24 THE COURT:  All right.  25 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Do you adopt Mr. Grant's answer?  26 MR. GRANT:  I didn't give the answer, I made an objection.  27 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  28 Q    His evidence?  Would you agree with the proposition  29 that was just put forward by Mr. Grant that, if  30 Doris Morrison did not receive the name Liginiihlax,  31 that that would signify that she had not been  32 adopted or vice versa?  33 A    No, because she may have received another name,  34 especially in a situation where it was a father that  35 adopted her.  He may have adopted her many years ago  36 and given her a child's name in the house, so  37 because there is a dispute over that particular name  38 does not definitely determine whether she was or was  39 not adopted.  40 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Thank you.  I would say, my lord, that it's  41 really unnecessary to read all of that evidence in  42 of Stanley's evidence.  It is in in any event but I  43 don't think it is going to help with this witness'  44 evidence.  45 THE COURT:  Well, at the moment, all I have got is that the  46 chart shows the adoption, Mr. Williams says it  47 didn't happen. 11306  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Yes.  2 THE COURT:  And I also have that the witness was told it  3 happened by, was it, Mary Johnson or Olive Ryan?  4 THE WITNESS:  No, I believe it was Olive Ryan.  5 THE COURT:  Olive Ryan, all right.  6 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  The next matter deals with Baskyelaxha.  7 THE COURT:  What tab number is that, please?  8 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Sorry, my lord.  9 THE WITNESS:  3.  10 THE COURT:  Yes.  11 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Sorry, do you have a submission to make, Mr.  12 Grant?  13 MR. GRANT:  No, I am just putting my -- I will make it known if  14 I am objecting, Ms. Koenigsberg.  15 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  16 Q    I am sure you will.  17 This deals with a problem of Thomas Wright's  18 evidence at this trial and the genealogy of  19 Baskyelaxha, and perhaps the easiest way to deal  20 with it is to go through the evidence of Thomas  21 Wright and compare it to Baskyelaxha.  Thomas  22 Wright's evidence that bears on this matter begins  23 on page 51 and that's in your next tab, it is tab 2,  24 and it begins at the bottom of page 51.  Perhaps the  25 better place to begin is about the middle of the  26 page, Mr. Grant is questioning, and it's line 24:  27  28 "Q  Were you taken or adopted for a short time  29 by Peter Wiigyet?  30 THE INTERPRETER:  He doesn't recognize that name.  31 MR. O'BYRNE:..."  32  33 Never mind that.  34  35 "THE INTERPRETER:  He didn't know what I was  36 saying.  He said Wiigyet and I had to mention  37 Peter again, Peter Wiigyet.  Then I said Pete  38 Wiigyet to try, you know, he might have known  39 him by Pete Wiigyet or Peter Wiigyet, but he  40 didn't recognize the name."  41  42 And so on, and then Mr. Grant says at line 44:  43  44 "Q  Were you taken in by Mable Jackson when you  45 were a baby?  46 A  Yes, she did look after me for quite a long  47 time.  Then my dad took me from her. 11307  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 Q  Was Mable Jackson's name Baskyelaxha?  2 A  Yes, that was her name.  She wasn't  3 supposed to take it because she was a woman  4 but she was the only one left and she took  5 it.  6 Q  When you say she was the only one left, do  7 you mean she was the only one left in her  8 house that could inherit the chief's name?  9 THE INTERPRETER:  I nodded to him.  He asked me  10 who it was and I said -- I agreed.  He  11 asked me if it was Mable, and he said she  12 was the only one in that house so she took  13 me, she adopted me into that house because  14 she was the only one in there.  15 MR. GRANT:  16 Q  What clan is Baskyelaxha?  17 A  She is Wolf Tribe, same as Wiik'aax.  18 Q  I believe you told us already but just to  19 be clear, did Baskyelaxha have a separate  20 house from Wiik'aax?  21 A  Yes, they're quite different.  She did come  22 out of that house, Tsimgaak.  23 Q  So is it correct that Baskyelaxha came out  24 of Tsimgaak's house at some earlier time?"  25  26 And then it becomes less intelligible.  What appears  27 to be intelligible is -- is, and you can pick it up  28 again over on page 53.  I am sorry, start over on  29 page 52 right at the bottom:  30  31 "MR. GRANT:  32 Q   Before your father took you on your  33 trapline when you were 13, had you been  34 with Baskyelaxha all that time, or had your  35 mother and father taken you back?  36 A  No, they didn't.  Baskyelaxha died in  37 Hazelton and Peter Wiigyet, my father, and  38 my parents Alfred and Sarah Wiiminoosikx  3 9 had me.  40 Q  How old were you when those other people  41 took you back from Baskyelaxha?  Or when  42 Baskyelaxha died?  43 A  I was 13 years old and I was given a lot of  44 money and I banked it.  45 THE INTERPRETER:  He saved it.  46 THE WITNESS:  That's why I was given a lot of  47 land because I paid for all the funeral 1130?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 expenses of people that died."  2  3 Then we go through a discussion of where the name  4 Amayee came from and then about the middle of the  5 page:  6  7 "Q  You already told us I believe that your  8 mother gave you this name, the other day,  9 was there a feast held when you were given  10 that name?"  11  12 There I believe he is referring to the Amayee name.  13  14 "A  Peter Jackson gave me Ganaaw'mgan..."  15  16 A    Ganaaw'mgan.  17 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Yes, that one.  18  19 "...when I was living there.  Then he took  20 it back after I left him.  21 Q  How was Peter Jackson related to Mable  22 Jackson?  23 A  They were married.  Peter Jackson was  24 Fireweed and Mable Jackson was Lax Gibuu.  25 THE INTERPRETER:  That's Wolf."  26  27 Then just on down at line 40:  28  29 "Q  Do you still hold the name Ganaaw'mgan?  30 A Mable Jackson gave it to somebody else and  31 that person died at Cedarvale.  32 Q  Do you know who she gave it to? That  33 person's English name?  34 A  Jimmy Tait."  35  36 And then over on to the next page 54, which I think  37 will relate to all of this:  38  39 "Q  Was it Jimmy Tait that stayed at Kitwanga?  40 A  Yes, it was Jimmy Tait.  41 Q  If you had stayed with Baskyelaxha's family  42 and had been raised by them, would you have  43 acquired rights to use Baskyelaxha's  44 territory?  45 A  Yes, I would have but they gave me one  46 already, it's called Xsageitsik, on this  47 side of Kisgagas.  As yet I haven't walked 11309  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 on it.  2 Q  Whose territory is Xsageitsik?  3 A  Baskyelaxha."  4  5 Now, from that evidence, we would appear to have  6 a Mable Jackson married to Peter Jackson and the  7 Mable Jackson is said to have been the last  8 surviving member at that time when Thomas was 13 of  9 the name Baskyelaxha.  For starters, I don't -- I  10 can't find a Mable Jackson or a Mable Wiigyet; the  11 only person I can find is Mable White with the name  12 Mable anyway on Baskyelaxha.  13 Now, before we get too far with this, I will tell  14 you that Thomas Wright says, and I can find it for  15 you, but you have him on Guuhadakxw as being born in  16 1903, and I believe he said he was born in 1900 so  17 you are pretty close.  18 THE COURT:  That's Thomas Wright?  19 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  20 Q    And therefore it seemed to me unlikely but I will  21 ask you if you have different information that Mable  22 White was the person that raised him until he was  23 13?  24 A    Mable White, no way.  Mable White is younger than  25 Thomas, I believe.  Mable White is still alive.  She  26 was born in 1902.  27 Q    That's a contemporary of Thomas Wright?  28 A    Yes.  Are you referring to Mable Jackson?  29 Q    Yes.  30 A   All right, sorry.  31 MR. GRANT:  Just to clarify one point, I think my friend may  32 have confused it.  Ms. Koenigsberg in introducing  33 her question said that he was taken -- Thomas Wright  34 was taken into Baskyelaxha when he was 13 and  35 that —  36 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  No, until he was 13.  37 MR. GRANT:  I think the first time she said it the other way  38 around.  We agree as to what he said.  39 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  40 Q    I think that the facts we can fairly take out of his  41 evidence, and I will -- perhaps I should state them  42 so we don't get into an involved argument about it.  43 Thomas White was, in the terms we have been  44 discussing, adopted into the house of Baskyelaxha  45 until he was 13 at which time he left the house of  46 Baskyelaxha and went back to his parent's house  47 and -- but he was in Baskyelaxha long enough and 11310  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 with whatever it is, that is, he required to have  2 received some territory at Baskyelaxha.  Not  3 entirely clear exactly why he received it, whether  4 it was because he paid money or because of his  5 affiliations in that house.  It also appears to me  6 to be clear that Mable Jackson was -- held the name  7 Baskyelaxha according to Thomas Wright and was at  8 one time the last surviving member of Baskyelaxha.  9 I think we can take that out of what I just read,  10 would you agree?  11 A    No, I wouldn't.  12 Q    Okay.  What would you disagree with?  13 A    I would agree that -- most of it.  I would agree  14 that it seems Thomas is saying that Mable Jackson  15 had the name Baskyelaxha and that could very well be  16 true and this is someone so far back that I just  17 hadn't heard of her in my research.  I never asked  18 Thomas Wright about Baskyelaxha's house, I didn't  19 know until now that there was a connection between  20 Thomas and Baskyelaxha's house.  But I wouldn't  21 interpret what he says as meaning that she was the  22 absolute last person in the house, but it is likely  23 that Jack Tait, John Tait and Sarah and Jimmy Tait  24 were too young to take the name Baskyelaxha at the  25 time that Mable took it, but if Thomas was still  26 alive, we could ask him.  But I don't feel free to  27 speculate on, you know, to make solid conclusions.  28 I can speculate but I can't make solid conclusions  29 on this information.  30 Q    Okay.  Let's agree then that according to Thomas  31 Wright's evidence and information, Baskyelaxha --  32 Mable Jackson held the name Baskyelaxha and at one  33 time was the only member of that house who could  34 take the name either because she was the only one  35 left in the house or she was the only one old enough  36 in the house?  37 A    I believe that's what he is saying, yes.  38 Q    Okay.  Now, you obviously -- well, you do not show,  39 am I correct, Mable Jackson in the house of  40 Baskyelaxha?  41 A    No, I didn't know about her.  42 Q    Okay.  She would by this account have been in the  43 generation that you show as the second -- on the  44 second line on the first two pages; is that correct?  45 A    No.  I would say she is more likely to be in the --  46 well, sort of in between the first and the second.  47 I don't know how old she was when she took Thomas. 11311  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Q  8  A  9  Q  10  11  12  13  A  14  15  16  17  Q  18  A  19  Q  20  A  21  Q  22  A  23  Q  24  25  A  26  THE  COURT  27  MS.  KOENI  28  THE  COURT  29  MS.  KOENI  30  Q  31  32  A  33  34  35  36  37  Q  38  39  40  A  41  42  Q  43  A  44  Q  45  A  46  47  THE  COURT  Thomas was born somewhere around 1900; Jack Tait was  born 1895, which puts him closer to Thomas' age but  his brother John seems to be born somewhat earlier  so I can't really guess whether the generation of  Jack Tait or the one previous would be a more  appropriate place for Mable Jackson.  Well, we have on that line persons born in 1876?  Yes.  And if she was raising Thomas when he was 13 --  until he was 13 and was still alive when he was 13  or about when he was 13, she could easily fit into  this same age range as John Tait; is that fair?  I wouldn't say so because his brother, Jack Tait, is  almost the same age as Thomas and it seems to me it  would be much more likely that she would have been  older than that but it's -- there is no way to tell.  Okay.  Did you interview Mable White?  Yes, I did.  And did you interview Bill Blackwater?  Yes, I did.  Both of whom were adopted into Baskyelaxha?  That's correct.  And were they adopted in in order to maintain the  integrity of the house?  Yes, they were.  Mable White and what was the other?  3ERG:  Mable White and Bill Blackwater.  Okay.  3ERG:  And did they give you the information that Jack Tait  and John Tait had held the names Baskyelaxha?  I remember specifically them saying that Jack Tait  did but I can't remember if it was either Mable or  Bill Blackwater that told me John Tait had it but  clearly I remember them saying that Jack Tait was  the last Baskyelaxha.  And it's your evidence that they did not know beyond  the generation above them who had held the name  Baskyelaxha?  They didn't tell me and I did ask, so I would assume  they didn't know.  And did you interview Thomas Wright?  Yes, I did.  And he didn't give you the information about --  I didn't ask him about the Baskyelaxha house, I  hadn't realized there was a connection.  We will take the afternoon adjournment, Ms. 11312  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 Koenigsberg.  2 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Yes, my lord.  3 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will recess.  4  5 (AFTERNOON ADJOURNMENT AT 3:00 p.m.)  6  7 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  8 a true and accurate transcript of the  9 proceedings herein, transcribed to the  10 best of my skill and ability.  11  12  13  14  15  16 TANNIS DEFOE, Official Reporter  17 United Reporting Service Ltd.  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 11313  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED PURSUANT TO SHORT RECESS)  2  3 THE COURT:  Ms. Koenigsberg,  4 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Thank you, my lord.  5 Q   On a jaunt of discovery over the break, if you look at  6 Wiigyet's genealogy, which is tab 39, and if you  7 look at page one on the left-hand side at the top  8 you see Jack Tait's mother, Baskyelaxha?  9 A   Yes.  From the House of Baskyelaxha.  10 Q   Right.  Might the person —  11 THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  What did you say?  12 A   From the House of Baskyelaxha.  13 THE COURT:  From the house.  14 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  15 Q   Jack Tait's mother was from the House of Baskyelaxha?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   You show, of course, an unnamed person --  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   — At the top there?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   And your assumption is that's Jack Tait's mother?  22 A   Yes.  23 Q   And would you also assume she held the name  24 Baskyelaxha?  25 A   I wouldn't want to assume that.  It's possible.  26 Q   Given all the rules that you know would it be most  27 likely that she held the name Baskyelaxha?  28 A   Oh, that's —  29 Q   Since you have no other information as to how he got  30 the name Baskyelaxha?  31 A   That's far too speculative.  32 Q   All right.  Now, dealing just then with Wiigyet.  On  33 page two, on the right-hand side, at the top,  34 furthest right-hand side is Peter Jackson.  And he  35 would, would you agree with me, fit the description  36 of Thomas Wright's description of Peter Jackson,  37 Peter Wiigyet?  38 A   That's a possibility.  39 Q   And is it then likely that that Peter Jackson was  40 married to Mabel Jackson?  41 A   That's possible.  42 Q   And we should show him as married.  Is that reasonable  43 information?  Would you from the information, if you  44 had obtained it from Thomas Wright directly, that  45 Peter Jackson was called Peter Wiigyet, was in the  46 House of Wiigyet, and that he was married to Mabel  47 Jackson, have assumed that that Peter Jackson was 11314  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 married?  2 A   I'd have to be more clear than what I read in the  3 transcript.  I would have had to ask further  4 questions, because it is a bit confusing.  And I'd  5 want to be really clear that that was -- I mean, it  6 seems likely, and it might bring that to mind if I  7 had remembered that information.  I would want to  8 question him further, or someone else.  9 Q   There certainly is no doubt, I think you've actually  10 said it, that I think your words were virtually  11 every Gitksan person, and I took that to be of age,  12 was married?  13 A   Yes.  14 Q   And we don't show a marriage for Peter Jackson.  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   And we should?  17 A   If I had absolutely complete information, which I  18 obviously don't.  That's just a lack of information  19 for that specific person.  20 Q   On your -- there is no place on your genealogical  21 charts where you show the marriage which is -- for  22 which we have evidence of Peter Jackson and Mabel  23 Jackson; is that correct?  24 A   Today, here in this courtroom, is the first time I'm  25 hearing about Mabel Jackson, that I remember.  So  26 certainly I don't have knowledge of who she is  27 married to since I never heard of her before, that I  2 8 can remember.  29 Q   And if Thomas Wright's information is accurate, and if  30 he was reporting it accurately, that is a marriage  31 which should be recorded on your genealogies?  32 A   That would be if I had the information, yes.  As there  33 would be others, if I had the information, as the  34 genealogies would go back a hundred generations if I  35 had the information, but the information is just as  36 complete as was possible with the information that I  37 had at the time.  38 Q   Well, just so we don't make it quite so speculative,  39 we do have Thomas Wright telling us that there was a  40 marriage between two people for whom that he knew,  41 with whom he lived, and whose names he knew?  42 A   Right.  And if I had that information at the time I  43 did the genealogy then I would have put it on there,  44 or I could have if I had.  I'd have to look it over  45 again to be sure if it sounded correct, but I didn't  46 have it so that's why it's not on there.  47 MR. GRANT:  Okay. 11315  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MS.  MR.  KOENIGSBERG:  Okay.  GRANT:  THE COURT:  I stand to be corrected on this, my lord, but in  this excerpt -- I can't remember all of Thomas  Wright's evidence, but in this excerpt that my  friend has included there's a reference to Peter  Wiigyet and reference to Mabel Jackson.  I didn't  notice the reference in this excerpt to the fact  that they were both married.  Thomas Wright was  taken and raised by different people, and that's  obvious from this.  I'm just wondering if my friend  is making an assumption here.  I -- in that review  of it I didn't pick that up.  Well, on page 53:  A  'How was Peter Jackson related to Mabel  Jackson?  They were married."  MR. GRANT:  I'm sorry, my lord.  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  And we certainly have enough marriage to keep  them out of the Gaats (phonetic) category.  MR. GRANT:  The clans.  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  The clans.  THE COURT:  Satisfied, Mr. Grant?  MR. GRANT:  I'm sorry, my lord.  I just didn't have that note.  It's very clear.  THE COURT:  Yes.  Few things are quite that clear.  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Okay.  I am finished with the genealogy of  Baskyelaxha, at least for awhile, and Wiigyet.  And  the next one deals with the evidence of Mary  McKenzie, and it deals with Luus.  And that's tab  27.  THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  Did you say Luus or Ma'uus?  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Luus.  Tab 27.  My diction isn't always up to  the language, my lord.  Q   To put this in some sort of perspective, in your  report at the beginning on page eight --  THE COURT:  Report, page eight?  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Yes.  Q   Down at the very bottom, second to the last full  paragraph you say:  "As I worked to discover who was the current  chief of each House and who his relatives  were, I began to unravel the recent  history of the Gitksan Houses.  I learned  about cases where two Houses declined in 11316  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 population and had been forced to  2 amalgamate.  In such cases, one biological  3 family might be named by informants as two  4 Houses.  Luus and Wii elaast, closely  5 related Lax Gibuu Houses from Galdo'o,  6 exemplify this:  When the House of Wii  7 elaast became very low in numbers it  8 adopted two people from Luus' House and  9 when the last original member of the House  10 of Wii elaast died, members of the House  11 of Luus undertook to care for Wii elaast's  12 property.  It is still known which land,  13 names, crests and other property belong to  14 Wii elaast even through the people using  15 this property are biologically inseparable  16 from the members of the House of Luus.  17 Because this kind of separate accounting  18 of property is kept, the current or a  19 future Wii elaast could take some of the  20 members of the House of Luus and  21 reconstitute the House of Wii elaast,  22 separate from Luus.  But if no steps are  23 taken towards the reconstitution of the  24 absorbed House, after a long time has  25 passed, the two Houses will be seen as  26 one, the property as common.  What will be  27 remembered for millenia is that there was  28 an amalgamation and it is often remembered  29 why the amalgamation took place."  30  31 Indeed, when we look at the genealogy of Luus we  32 see that, at least in a number of sentences, this  33 genealogy reflects the evidence, or your opinions in  34 your report that I have just read, that is that  35 members of the House of Wii elaast are on Luus and  36 not in a separate house; is that correct?  37 A   Right.  38 Q   Okay.  Now, you had informants, I take it from your  39 report, that told you that Wii elaast was not a  40 separate house, and that the members of Wii elaast  41 were members of the House of Luus; correct?  42 A   The informants say that the members of the House of  43 Wii elaast are biologically members of the House of  44 Luus, but they don't say that the House of Wii  45 elaast does not exist.  46 Q   No.  I think my question was framed in the terms that  47 your informants told you that Wii elaast and Luus 11317  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 were not separate houses.  That Wii elaast had been  2 subsumed, or whatever word, into the House of Luus  3 at this time?  4 A   I don't know if I can agree with that.  As I say,  5 they're one biological family but two houses.  6 That's the way people would commonly say it.  One  7 family two houses is the way the informants  8 themselves would put this kind of relationship.  9 Q   Well, we have examples where we have two genealogies,  10 two houses, but they are the same biological family,  11 don't we, or at least they have many members in  12 common?  13 A  What would that be?  14 Q   Well, Guuhadak and Yagosip, Wii gaak, and I have  15 forgotten the other one.  They're so closely  16 related -- Spookw?  17 A   Those ones I think are quite more clearly distinct.  18 They have managed to maintain enough population in  19 each one that they can be clearly distinct.  And  20 that the word adoption may more appropriately apply  21 to the situations that occurred in that I believe  22 Molly May was adopted out of the House of Wii gaak  23 and re-populated the House of Guuhadak, and so on.  24 But that's a different situation than this one,  25 because this Wii elaast did not manage to maintain  26 enough house members to be clearly distinct and they  27 became amalgamated with Luus.  28 Q   Okay.  You say that, and my question to you -- and you  29 show that, and my question to you is who were your  30 informants who put it to you in such a way that you  31 did not show Wii elaast as a separate, albeit small,  32 house?  33 A  Who are my informants?  34 Q   Who would have --  35 A  Who would have told me this is the way it should be?  36 Q   Yes.  37 A   I believe I've talked to many people about this.  Jeff  38 Harris, Jim Angus Jr., who's Wii elaast himself,  39 Ellen Johnson when she was alive, Mary Johnson,  40 Irene Cournoyer.  Possibly others.  41 Q   Okay.  When you said at the top of page nine in your  42 report, I believe referring to Wii elaast and Luus,  43 "In such cases, one biological family might be named  44 by informants as Two Houses.  Luus and Wii  45 elaast...", did you have some informants who  46 referred to these as two separate houses as opposed  47 to the one house with the visible Wii elaast in 1131?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 Luus?  2 A  What was that with the -- what do you mean by visible?  3 Q   I'm not distinguishing the description as you have it  4 here, "In such cases, one biological family might be  5 named by informants as two Houses" from the  6 situation where it would be described as there were  7 houses, but now there's one.  8 A  M'hm.  9 Q   You have described informants, I take it, who have  10 told you not what you have on page nine, that is  11 that these might be named as two houses, but rather  12 they say they are today one house in the sense of  13 they're no longer separate?  14 A  As I say, the informants usually put it one family two  15 houses.  That's the way they put it when they tried  16 to express this in English.  17 Q   Okay.  Well, let's deal with Mary McKenzie.  And her  18 transcript is at page 368-69.  And that's tab 3, my  19 lord.  2 0    THE COURT:  What page?  21 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Page 368 and goes over to page 369.  22 Q   And we start toward -- well, about half way down.  23 Again, Mr. Grant is questioning Ms. McKenzie.  It  24 begins at line 25.  25  26 "Okay.  I'd like to move to another area  27 now and I'd like to ask you leading into  28 the questions of laws of the Gitksan  29 relating to adoption, my lord.  30 I'd like you to explain through an  31 explanation of the adoption laws of the  32 Gitksan, show how the legal system of  33 the Gitksan works.  And possibly the  34 best way of approaching this is by  35 taking some examples.  Now, do you  36 recall of adoption in Elaast's House,  37 Wii elaast's House, in an earlier --  38 with respect to the old Wii elaast?  Do  39 you recall that adoption and if you do  40 could you explain to the court what  41 happened?  42 A   Yes.  The late William Elaast, Wii  43 elaast, and he had no sister at all, no  44 brother, he was just by himself, then he  45 has to see ahead of him that when he  46 dies there's no one in his House to be  47 his successor.  So the thing that came 11319  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 to his mind was that he had to adopt out  2 of a house of the Lax Gibuu."  3  4 Now, just for time's sake I'm going to skip all  5 the clans and houses talking to each other about  6 whether this is gonna happen or not.  And if you go  7 over to page 369 and we get to line eight -- well,  8 seven.  9  10 "So the Lax Gibuu all agreed that they  11 seen the old Elaast -- old Elaast's view  12 of when he dies he'll have no one to  13 take over his chief name.  So they  14 agreed right away and they say there  15 will be adoption, so he mentioned these  16 two people and Alice Williams she -- she  17 had children, she had two, three  18 daughters, but -- and he had one son,  19 Steve Morrison, so the family agreed  20 that they would take these two and only  21 two from the Galdo'o people like from  22 Luus' House, Elaast, Steve Morrison and  23 Alice Williams were all out of had Luus  24 House, so we agree they go to Elaast,  25 and that means they have to sit at  26 Kliiyem lax haa's  table because Kliiyem  27 lax haa is the head chief of the Lax  2 8 Gibuu.  29 Q   Of Kispiox?  30 A   Of Kispiox.  So after all the  31 arrangements were made feasting was  32 given by Wii elaast, the chief Elaast,  33 and he announced that he was adopting  34 Mrs. Williams and Steve Morrison into  35 his House.  This is why that if he dies  36 Steve Morrison will move up and have the  37 name of Wii elaast and then her -- his  38 mother, Steve Morrison's mother was with  39 her."  40  41 I think he meant him.  42  43 "Now, it was only these two that were  44 adopted, although Alice Williams had  45 three daughters, grand-daughters, but  46 those stayed, they weren't taken into  47 Elaast's House, so this is how it stood 11320  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 for many years until the late William  2 Elaast died, then Steve Morrison got in  3 as Elaast.  4 Q   And was Alice Williams given a name in  5 Wii elaast's House?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   Can you recall that now?  8 A  Axlax 'Nisxw.  9 Q   Now, what happened after Steve  10 Morrison -- Steve Morrison became Wii  11 elaast?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   And then he held that name until he  14 died?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   And then what happened with respect to  17 Wii elaast's House?  18 A  When Steve Morrison died we had -- we  19 had to give -- we had to give permission  20 to take James Angus Junior to take  21 Elaast's place and at that time again is  22 from Luus' House again.  So we agreed  23 when we got together that Jimmy Young --  24 Jim Angus would take the chief name of  25 Wii elaast.  26 Q   Did anyone else move over from Luus'  27 House to Wii elaast's House when Jim  28 Angus moved over to become Wii elaast?"  29  30 And she goes on and talks about Irene Cournoyer.  31 But just stopping there, first Mary McKenzie refers  32 to Alice Williams and Steve Morrison, who indeed do  33 show on Luus' genealogy.  I'll just find them.  34 A   Page six.  35 Q   I think they're page six.  Yes.  On page six we have  36 Alice Williams holding the name that Mary McKenzie  37 attributes to her, and beneath her Steve Morrison.  38 THE COURT:  I'm sorry.  You're on Wii elaast?  39 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Luus.  Luus.  And I think you already pulled  40 it out, my lord.  And it's page six.  41 THE COURT:  Page six, yes.  42 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  43 Q   They are not shown as adopted out of Luus.  And they  44 are members of Luus by this genealogy.  And it shows  45 Steve Morrison holding the name Wii elaast, but from  46 the genealogy we would assume that was in the House  47 of Luus at this time he holds that name, but he's a 11321  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 member of the House of Luus?  2 A   Except, you know, the names Elaast and Wii elaast are  3 Wii elaast house names.  4 Q   Yes.  Assuming that Mary McKenzie's description of the  5 adoptions are for the purposes of the survival of  6 the House of Wii elaast as a unit, she refers to  7 them moving over or going out of the House of Luus  8 into the House of Wii elaast, and she uses the word  9 adopted out.  Is it fair to say that the genealogy  10 does not reflect that particular description?  11 A   If you again try to cross-examine the reality into the  12 crude terms that we're trying to work with it  13 doesn't, but to the Gitksan the reality is depicted  14 there.  15 Q   Well, is this another example where the Gitksan would  16 say -- or where the Gitksan would say they're both  17 right?  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   Yes.  That an amalgamation as represented by your  20 genealogy -- depicted by your genealogy looks just  21 like an adoption into a separate house?  22 A  Again, an adoption refers to the movement of an  23 individual from one house to another.  I think  24 that's fair to say.  25 Q   Well, that's one -- one form of adoption.  We see here  26 an adoption described with two people at a time, and  27 they aren't --  28 A  Was it at the same time?  Possibly, yes.  Yes.  29 Q   They described it at the same time.  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   And announced it at a feast.  32 A   Right.  Well, all of the members of the House of Wii  33 elaast of whom I've ever heard, except for William  34 Elaast, were members of the House of Luus.  And the  35 House of Wii elaast does not at this time have a  36 viable separate existence.  It has names, and it has  37 property, but it doesn't have sufficient population  38 to function as a separate house.  And the members of  39 the House of Wii elaast clearly know that they are  40 from the House of Luus biologically, and that they  41 are using Wii elaast names.  And there is a distinct  42 possibility, because their names are concentrated in  43 this one lineage, that they may subdivide in the  44 future.  They're in a very good position to do that.  45 But at this point in time it's, I think, more fair  46 to represent this as an amalgamation.  47 THE COURT:  I'm missing something here.  Firstly, this suggests 11322  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  THE COURT  A  THE COURT  THE  THE  MS.  MS.  that Alice Williams was the mother of Steve  Morrison.  She would have only been 12 years old  when he was born according to these figures.  There's obviously a problem with the dates.  But that  was common with the Indian Affairs records, I'm  afraid.  I'm sorry I didn't catch it.  All right.  Secondly, how would that help to assist  the problems of the House of Wii elaast to move  Alice Williams and Steve Morrison over?  It wouldn't  populate the house in any way.  That's a good question.  And I don't know why that  arrangement was made, but I've heard the story  exactly the same way as Mary related it in her  evidence.  And this doesn't show -- and this is part of Ms.  Koenigsberg's point.  This doesn't show them being  adopted out, does it?  No, because I think it's --  Because you believe it's really an amalgamation?  Yes, that's correct.  It's just a difficulty of trying  to use this limited set of symbols to relate the  information.  What house has the name as ascribed here to Alice  Williams, Axlax 'Nisxw?  Axlax 'Nisxw.  That's Wii elaast's name.  That's a Wii elaast house name, is it?  KOENIGSBERG:  That's spelled A-'-A-L-X-N-I-S-X-W on the  genealogy.  Could this be described in another way then as a  possibility that it is nothing more than these  people are holding Wii elaast names?  That's exactly the way it is put by Gitksan people  speaking in English.  We're holding Wii elaast  names.  That's one of the ways they put it.  KOENIGSBERG:  Q   Are you distinguishing that from a situation in which  a person has the name and is Wii elaast?  A  COURT  A  THE COURT  A  COURT  THE COURT  A  A  Q  No.  THE  MS.  You don't mean to make that distinction between  holding a name?  I don't mean holding a name in reserve and holding a  name open.  No, I'm not talking about that at all.  We were using the Wii elaast name.  We have the Wii  elaast name.  That's the way they put it.  All right.  Thank you.  KOENIGSBERG:  Q   If we were counting adoptions we would count this as a  A  COURT: 11323  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  A  3  4  5  Q  6  7  8  9  10  A  11  Q  12  A  13  Q  14  15  16  17  18  A  19  Q  20  21  22  23  A  24  Q  25  A  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Q  34  A  35  36  37  38  Q  39  40  41  42  43  A  44  45  THE COURT  46  A  47  THE COURT  highly significant adoption, wouldn't we?  It's -- I hate to say the same thing over and over  again about trying to categorize the subtleties of  these situations with a crude descriptive category.  I understand that, and I don't invite you to repeat  what you've said.  My point is this:  It has been  described by a person, I'm sure you would agree, who  is a very knowledgeable person about Gitksan  society, Mary McKenzie.  Right.  As an adoption for the survival of a house?  Right.  And in detail it's not that it even looks like an  adoption.  This was adoption which was acknowledged  by the people in that community as adoption.  They  had a feast, an adoption feast that's being  described?  Right.  So that if we are, for whatever purpose, we are going  to describe the mechanism of adoption as a means of  social or political or whatever survival this one  should be counted?  The adoption of Alice Williams and Steve Morrison?  And James Angus Jr..  She describes that one too.  I would be more likely to put -- again, it should be a  continuum.  Not this is adoption, this is an  amalgamation, but the adoption of Alice Williams and  Steve Morrison more closely fits the meaning of the  word as you and I are taking it.  But with James  Angus it seems to more closely fit the meaning of  the inception of an amalgamation, but there could be  a continuum --  Yes.  -- With these placed along a range.  I mean, some  adoptions are obviously -- the majority are clearly  and distinctly adoptions, but these ones I would put  somewhere in the middle of the continuum possibly.  And it's going to be a matter of degree and  interpretation whether the movement of a person or  people between houses is an amalgamation or an  adoption, or it doesn't make any difference.  It's a  movement of people for a particular purpose?  Right.  And that's easy for the Gitksan to know and  hard to put on these pieces of paper.  :  Do we know when old Wii elaast died?  I'm sorry, I don't know.  I mean --  :  I'm a little confused by the fact that Mary McKenzie 11324  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  THE  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MS.  THE  MS.  THE  MS.  seemed to group these movements together with James  Angus Jr. when he wasn't born in 1943.  No.  James Angus becoming Wii elaast was a much later  date I believe than Alice Williams and Steve  Morrison take the Wii elaast.  You think it was much later?  He -- yes, I know it was much later.  When do you think this movement, that's as neutral a  term I can give it, if I can call it that, take  place?  Oh, I would give a rough guess the nineteen-twenties  or thirties.  I believe I've heard it said that  Alice Williams was something like in her fifties at  the time that occurred.  My lord, just for your clarification, she refers to  the James Angus event occurring when Steve Morrison  died.  Oh, does she?  Yes.  At the bottom of page 40 — line 45, 369.  Oh, yes.  And I believe Mr. Sterritt, Neil Sterritt, gave  evidence that Steve Morrison's death occurred in  1978.  Thank you.  KOENIGSBERG:  One other small matter arising out of Mary  McKenzie's evidence and on the Luus genealogy.  At  page 375 of Mary McKenzie's evidence, at the top of  the page.  A  COURT  A  COURT  A  MR. GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT:  COURT:  385?  KOENIGSBERG:  375  COURT:  Oh, yes.  KOENIGSBERG:  Q  It just goes to 375.  She uses the word Tommy Tait.  And if you'll take it  from me, she later corrects herself and she means  Abel Tait.  It's here.  Actually it's down in the  next line she corrects herself.  She says at the  answer at line five, "Yes.  Because Tommy Tait and  Lottie Muldoe's mother was -- were brother and  sister."  A   Tommy -- that sounds right.  Q   And I don't believe that you show that on the  genealogy.  A   Okay.  Q   And that's page --  A   Tommy --  Q   It should be Abel Tait.  A  Abel Tait. 11325  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 Q   She goes on and corrects herself.  2 A   I'm sorry.  3 MR. GRANT:  Perhaps the notes —  4 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  5 Q   You see Abel Tait on page two?  6 MR. GRANT:  My friend possibly should start at 374, line 32,  7 where that starts.  It doesn't make any sense.  8 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Well —  9 A   I can explain.  10 THE COURT:  Page two, did you say?  11 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Well, Mr. Grant wants me to read about where  12 people were sitting, and unless his position is  13 that -- that the fact that she is saying Abel Tait  14 and Lottie Muldoe's mother were brother and sister  15 is somehow qualified by that, my only point is that  16 she says they're brother and sister, and when I  17 looked at the genealogy I didn't see them  18 represented as brother and sister, and I didn't know  19 which was right.  20 A   On page 374, line 41 of Mary McKenzie's evidence.  21 Q   Yes.  22 A   It said Fred Harris' family.  That's supposed to be  23 Fritz Harris that you find on page one of the Luus  24 genealogy.  25 Q   M'hm.  26 A  And when she says Fritz Harris is the father of Lottie  27 Muldoe she doesn't say that -- I'm sorry.  I  28 confused you.  But Fritz Harris is the father of  29 Lottie Muldoe.  That's why he adopted her into his  30 house.  And she eventually became Axgigii'ii, and so  31 she said Abel Tait.  32 Q   And Lottie Muldoe's —  33 A  Mother were brother and sister.  They're  34 classificatory brother and sister.  They are the  35 same generation and in the same house.  You see  36 Louisa Ward is Lottie Muldoe's mother.  That's Fritz  37 Harris' wife.  See Louisa Ward, Fritz Harris' wife  38 there, and she is of the same generation, I guess,  39 and in the same house as Abel Tait.  So that's what  40 she means as classificatory brother and sister.  41 House brother and sister.  42 Q   It's your evidence you believe she means in a broader  43 sense and not related by blood?  44 A   That's correct.  45 Q   And that's why you didn't represent them?  46 A   Yeah.  I'm positive that's correct.  I have so much  47 information from really reliable sources on this. 11326  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Okay.  Lastly dealing with Mary McKenzie on  2 Wiigyet's house.  We need Wiigyet.  Okay.  We'll  3 need Wiigyet, and I think that's --  4 THE REGISTRAR:  Kispiox, 39.  5 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  6 Q   Okay.  We can look at it, but on page 374 again we're  7 here dealing with Nellie Starr, and it starts up at  8 the top answer, line three.  9  10 "Now, when there is a feasting, Fred  11 Starr has to attend these feastings and  12 he has a name 'Woos lo'op, as Fred  13 Starr.  Now, in Gitksan law a wife has  14 to have a name because her husband a  15 chief."  16  17 I think she means when her husband's a chief.  18  19 "So this is when Joe Starr wanted to  20 adopt Mrs. Starr into Wiigyet's house,  21 so this happened.  The family of Fred  22 Starr agreed and the family of the  23 different chiefs agreed because he's to  24 live with us -- she has to have a name  25 and she has to be adopted before she  26 gets a name.  This is why Joe Starr  27 adopted her and gave her a name.  28 Q   Now, was she -- did she have children at  29 the time of the adoption?  30 A   I don't know.  Not yet she hadn't.  She  31 had a few children after that.  32 Q   Are her children considered members of  33 Wiigyet's House?  34 A   They are considered after the adoption,  35 and when two of the Starr children have  36 names from Wiigyet's House --  37 Q   Now, I would like to ask you about the  38 adoption of --  39 THE COURT:  could I ask when was Nellie  40 Starr adopted?  41 THE WITNESS:  About 20, 25 years ago.  42 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Sorry, Mr. Grant."  43  44 When I look at Wiigyet's genealogy I don't find  45 Nellie Starr there.  46 A   Yes.  I'd heard that Nellie Starr was adopted into  47 Wiigyet's house, but I didn't get a chance to 11327  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 confirm it.  You see Kate Starr is there, because I  2 know that I was there, as a matter of fact, when she  3 received a name.  But I was never able to confirm.  4 It was just a matter of time of not getting around  5 to it, because I had heard it in both directions.  I  6 heard some people say she had been adopted and  7 others say that she hadn't.  I hadn't had a chance  8 to clearly determine.  9 Q   Was Mary McKenzie one of your informants?  10 A   I didn't ask Mary McKenzie about Nellie Starr.  No, I  11 didn't.  12 Q   Would you agree with me that she is quite convinced  13 that Nellie Starr was adopted?  14 A   It certainly seems so.  15 Q   And would it be fair to add Nellie Starr was a person  16 adopted into the House of Wiigyet?  17 A   I'd still want to ask again, because I can't remember  18 now who told me it to the contrary.  But I would say  19 if I was really interested in this point that I  20 should go to Pete Muldoe.  21 Q   Okay.  Could I ask you what you would do if Pete  22 Muldoe said Nellie Starr is not adopted into the  23 House of Wiigyet and you have Mary McKenzie very  24 clearly saying not only is she adopted, but her  25 children were adopted and given names?  26 A  Well, I think when she says her children were adopted  27 she is referring to Kate getting a name.  It was  28 probably not too long before this, because I  29 remember the feast was just two -- two and a half  30 years ago when that happened, but --  31 Q   Kate Starr is the daughter of Nellie Starr?  32 A   Yes.  But if Pete Muldoe told me she was not adopted  33 into the house it would be very difficult for me to  34 believe that -- that it was so that she was in fact  35 adopted into the house, because certainly Pete  36 Muldoe should remember all of the adoptions into --  37 into the house that he was from.  He may have had  38 the Wii seeks name for at least that far back, but I  39 would want to investigate further.  As you can see  40 it can be a very lengthy process to find out one  41 single piece of information.  42 Q   If I understand, you would have to resolve the  43 difference in the knowledge of the two chiefs; Mary  44 McKenzie —  45 A   That's correct.  46 Q   — And Pete Muldoe?  47 A   That's correct. 1132?  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 Q   And if there was a difference you would take Pete  2 Muldoe because he's a member of the House of  3 Wiigyet?  4 A   It would seem that he should know more than anyone of  5 the business of the House of Wiigyet, because he is  6 older than Mary, as well as having been a member of  7 Wiigyet's house.  But, as I say, I'd want to go to  8 at least a third reliable opinion, someone like Mary  9 Johnson or another Kispiox elder.  Albert Tait if he  10 was still alive.  Someone who would have been there  11 20 or 25 years ago, because this is a fairly serious  12 contradiction when you've got two chiefs who are  13 very reliable.  This is the hypothetical situation  14 we are  15 talking about where I said that Pete did tell me this.  16 This would be a fairly serious contradiction to  17 encounter two high chiefs saying such opposite  18 things.  19 THE COURT:  Aren't we speculating terribly.  Pete Muldoe hasn't  20 been asked, has he?  21 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I haven't searched to see if Pete Muldoe gave  22 that evidence.  I don't know.  My concern is as a  23 genealogist who has to rely on knowledgeable persons  24 for information about what's here, if it's not here  25 how does she -- how do we resolve it?  26 THE COURT:  She said she would try and go and get information.  27 A   That's how I got the other 4,000 names on these  28 genealogies.  29 THE COURT:  And if it's evenly divided I suppose you have a rule  30 of thumb, or something, do you?  31 A   If I had two —  32 THE COURT:  Or is it a matter of judgment?  33 A   If I had two highly respected people I would have to  34 ask for a third opinion and probably give a little  35 more weight to the house member than to the  36 non-house member.  It would all have to be taken  37 into consideration.  38 THE COURT:  All right.  Are you —  39 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Well, I have another topic I can go into, or  4 0 we can adjourn.  41 THE COURT:  How are we getting along?  42 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I would say I would not be longer than a half  43 day tomorrow.  44 THE COURT:  All right.  You'll remember that I have to adjourn  45 early tomorrow.  46 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Yes.  And what time is that, my lord?  47 THE COURT:  I should adjourn about — about 11:30 I suppose. 11329  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  H. Harris (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  Proceedings  Perhaps -- perhaps maybe we should start at 9:30.  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Fine with me.  THE COURT:  Is that agreeable?  MR. GRANT:  That's agreeable for myself.  THE COURT:  And then we can have -- well, you don't have to  finish.  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  I'll hope to finish.  THE COURT:  And then we might have re-examination tomorrow  afternoon.  MS. KOENIGSBERG:  That's what I wanted to clarify, you would be  available later tomorrow?  THE COURT:  I'll be back shortly after two o'clock.  MR. GRANT:  That would be fine.  THE COURT:  Do we have a matter to deal with now?  MR. GRANT:  Yes, we do have a brief matter.  Maybe the witness  could stand down.  We'll stand the witness down.  THE COURT:  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  (WITNESS STOOD DOWN)  All right.  What's the other problem?  My lord, maybe I could just speak to the situation.  The next witness that is coming up is Dr. Kerry, a  linguist, commencing on February 6th.  And on --  when Mr. Plant was still with us an agreement was  reached, because this next report is a -- I would  call it a -- it's one document, one report, but it's  authored by two persons.  And the first ten to 15  pages are common, then it talks about Gitksan  linguistics for, I believe, 40 pages and then it  talks about Wet'suwet'en linguistics for a certain  number of pages.  Dr. Rigsby is the Gitksan  linguist, Dr. Kerry the Wet'suwet'en.  As you may  recall Dr. Rigsby was in Australia.  We proposed to  the other side we did not wish to tender Dr. Rigsby  or bring him up to give evidence.  We wished to file  the report as his report.  And they agreed on  September 15th, subject to certain amendments, with  which we confirm we'll make to the report, they  consent to the filing of the report without the  necessity of cross-examining Dr. Rigsby, but they do  wish to cross-examine Dr. Kerry.  And we'll be  leading evidence from Dr. Kerry and there's no  problem from that.  Now, out of this, my lord, is the practice we've  developed after your rulings last fall, and Ms.  Mandell is dealing with this from the plaintiffs' 11330  Proceedings  Submission by Mr. Grant  1 side, but is that we are listing, providing all  2 draft reports, any draft reports that exist, any  3 notes of the expert witness in advance to avoid  4 delays in cross-examination, subject to time  5 problems as you know, but delivering all of this  6 material, and also what I would call the  7 correspondence.  And this is correspondence, as you  8 know, some of which is privileged and some of which  9 isn't, and we list it.  10 In this case all of the material relating to Dr.  11 Kerry has been disclosed, including any  12 correspondence with Dr. Rigsby, or any  13 correspondence of Dr. Rigsby's or any notes of Dr.  14 Rigsby relied upon by Dr. Kerry.  In other words,  15 and as well as the drafts of any of the reports from  16 both sides.  Now, my friends say, and they, I  17 understand from Ms. Sigurdson, have received his  18 field notes, because they were listed sometime ago  19 and they requested production and they got those.  20 This is Dr. Rigsby.  No difficulty with Dr. Kerry.  21 Our position is is that once my friends took the  22 position they did not wish to cross-examine Dr.  23 Rigsby there is no -- and they will accept the  24 filing of his report without cross-examination,  25 there is no rational reason why we should have to  26 have his files, or whatever, delivered from  27 Australia to here so long as those are not notes or  28 files upon which Dr. Kerry relies, because they  29 can't put them -- I mean anything that Dr. Kerry  30 relies on, of course, is discloseable.  We have no  31 issue with that.  But once they agreed they would  32 accept the tendering of his report without  33 cross-examination there is no utility at that point  34 in the production of his notes.  When I say  35 production of his notes, his field notes have been  36 disclosed, or of correspondence upon which doctor --  37 which have not gone past Dr. Kerry or upon which Dr.  38 Kerry has not directly or indirectly relied upon.  39 Anything that Dr. Kerry has either seen or relied  40 upon, of course, this doesn't apply to.  41 And my friend -- I believe Mr. Willms was going to  42 refer you once again to Phillips and Barrett which  43 we've talked about at length, but we don't differ  44 that filing a report under Section 10 where a  45 witness is being cross-examined puts us in the same  46 situation as Section 11 putting a witness on the  47 stand.  But in this case, my lord, we're very 11331  Submission by Mr. Grant  1 concerned about requiring Dr. Rigsby to sort through  2 his files and deliver up material to us, which may  3 or may not be relevant, and we're very concerned  4 about that.  5 With respect to the Federal Crown the  6 correspondence that I've had an opportunity to  7 review is that they had requested Dr. Kerry's  8 material, and I say quite properly on September  9 21st, and they requested all of the Dr. Kerry's  10 material and all other data upon which Dr. Kerry  11 relied upon.  And there is no question that that is  12 discloseable, and that has been disclosed.  13 So we are saying what -- once -- my friends may  14 have said before they agreed to filing the report  15 without cross-examination of Dr. Rigsby, they may  16 have then said well, we would like to look at his  17 notes before we make that decision.  That's one  18 point.  But at this stage that agreement was entered  19 into five months ago, and now they're saying we want  20 Rigsby's material that Dr. Kerry has not used,  21 relied upon, or  22 referred to in any way for his opinions.  But they  23 wouldn't be able to put that material to Dr. Kerry  24 or to any other witness.  It seems, with respect, a  25 bit of a -- of a goose chase that is not only not  26 necessary, it's not going to advance the issues for  27 any party, because we have an agreement with respect  28 to this one -- the Gitksan report -- the Gitksan  29 linguistic report.  Those are my submissions.  30 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  Ms. Sigurdson.  31 MS. SIGURDSON:  My lord, Mr. Grant is correct, we requested the  32 documents for both.  We requested production of a  33 list of documents, drafts, the usual kind of  34 material we've been asking for.  We requested  35 production of this on December 6th, and have  36 repeated the request since then for both Dr. Kerry  37 and Rigsby.  It's -- our position quite simply is  38 that the report will be tendered, privilege will be  39 lost.  We're entitled -- we're entitled to  40 production of those documents.  41 As to the practical or problem that Mr. Grant  42 raised the problem is we can not use it, that may be  43 a problem counsel may face, but it's a problem we'll  44 have to deal with when we see the documents.  45 However, in this case it is a joint report.  And at  46 page three of the report there is a sentence "Rigsby  47 was also largely responsible for the chapters on 11332  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  MR. GRANT:  THE COURT:  MS  Submission by Mr. Grant  Submission by Ms. Sigurdson  Proceedings  linguistic methodology and on language, culture and  society."  By these largely responsible for we  assume they're co-authored those sections, which are  very important sections.  It may be that Dr. Kerry  is a witness that should have had an opportunity to  respond to any comments that we may wish to make.  In short, I say they are produceable.  Privilege  has been lost.  They were requested in a timely  fashion, and they should be produced in time for Dr.  Kerry as he co-authored this report.  We don't differ about the co-authored sections, my  lord.  Of course, we say --  Can you give me a suggestion, Ms. Sigurdson, as how  you might use this material?  Or I'll put it more  broadly than that, about how you might profit from  it?  SIGURDSON:  Very hypothetically — I haven't seen it.  If  there were sections that were removed from the  report we would assume that both Dr. Kerry and  Rigsby would have to agree to that.  That may be a  matter of credibility.  There other matters of  sections that they rely on each other's evidence  that there have been changes in that kind of  evidence, amendments,  revisions.  That too may go to credibility, or it may  go to the substance of the report.  But I understood Mr. Grant to say that you have -- I  don't know if he said you have, or you're going to  have anything that Dr. Kerry saw.  My understanding is they have -- it's all been  delivered, but Ms. Mandell is still searching  further just to be sure.  She doesn't want any  problems.  Is that your understanding?  SIGURDSON:  I understand Ms. Mandell is searching further,  but we have --  THE COURT:  You have received material already?  MS. SIGURDSON:  We have received material for Dr. Kerry and in  that were included two or three items, not full  letters.  Page two of a letter seemed to be from  Rigsby to Overstall, that kind of thing.  I don't  know if we've received everything or not.  All of those letters are being tracked down by Ms.  Mandell today in fact, those missing pages.  All right.  Well, the trouble I'm having with the  problem is simply that the decision has been made  not to cross-examine and therefore I'm having  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  THE COURT  MS  MR. GRANT  THE COURT 11333  Proceedings  1 difficulty seeing how you could profit from it.  I  2 can see how it would be useful to have something out  3 of Dr. Rigsby's file if it might assist in the  4 cross-examination of Dr. Kerry, but I understand  5 you've got that.  6 MS. SIGURDSON:  Well, first of all, we've had no drafts, we've  7 had none of the usual correspondence between  8 Overstall and the other experts that seem to pop up  9 with every witness.  My assumption is that there is  10 more.  11 THE COURT:  Have you had some for Dr. Kerry or Dr. Rigsby?  12 MS. SIGURDSON:  We've had some from Dr. Kerry.  We've had  13 partial pages of three items I believe that were  14 sent.  There has usually been more.  My assumption,  15 and it is a guess, is there is more in Mr. Rigsby's  16 possession.  We have had no drafts, and I assume he  17 has kept a bunch.  The tribal council, I understand,  18 often keeps a copy or under the contract is supposed  19 to.  There is a body of material out there we have  20 not seen.  21 MR. GRANT:  Just to clarify that, there is a file that Ms.  22 Mandell, I spoke to her at the break this afternoon,  23 has reviewed which is correspondence between  24 Overstall, Kerry and Overstall, Rigsby, and she's  25 prepared that list.  So what my friend is concerned  26 about here when she talks about those documents  27 there is no dispute over that.  We have to list  28 that, and usually it's my experience it's been ten  29 to 20 pieces  30 of correspondence usually, and whether or not it's  31 privileged that's no problem.  Draft reports Ms.  32 Mandell says that she has -- she had one more place  33 to check, but thus far has been unable to locate any  34 drafts.  If there is drafts once again we have no  35 difficulty with that.  We are not an opposing that.  36 Again, I think the central thing is it's a question  37 of the Rigsby material that Dr. Kerry has not used,  38 not relied on, not seen, and that's where we have  39 difficulty.  40 THE COURT:  Ms. Koenigsberg, have you anything to contribute to  41 this?  42 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Well, I certainly could say that my friend can  43 take comfort from the fact I haven't got around to  44 asking for these documents yet therefore I must not  45 want them.  I hadn't, been otherwise occupied at the  46 moment, given it a great deal of thought.  It would  47 seem to me really the nature of the kinds of 11334  Proceedings  Submission by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 documents one might find in Dr. Rigsby's file  2 whether strictly speaking Dr. Kerry has seen them or  3 not are drafts of the co-authored, but actually  4 written by Rigsby sections which are adopted by Dr.  5 Kerry, and that there may have been a back and forth  6 about those.  And that it's one -- we've dealt with  7 the problem in this case frequently of  8 miscommunication, I suppose, between counsel in  9 asking for things and witnesses, but the end result  10 of what we see, of course, is that when a witness is  11 in the box it turns out that they have things that  12 just didn't turn up when they asked for them before.  13 If Dr. Rigsby has been asked to divulge from his  14 files all of those things which Dr. Kerry and  15 doctor -- as far as Dr. Rigsby knows has seen who  16 knows if he has in fact turned over those things  17 which do actually fall into that category, or he  18 simply doesn't know.  He just assumes that Kerry has  19 it.  The problem is that quite frankly the  20 methodology section and the general cultural section  21 are undoubtly the most important parts.  I mean, I  22 don't say they're -- they're certainly going to be  23 the underpinning.  And Dr. Rigsby would have, one  24 assumes, material in his file and it may not  25 surface.  Not -- I don't say that anybody's actually  26 trying to hide it.  It's been a very difficult  27 problem to turn these things up.  28 Having said that, I don't really understand what  29 the difficulty is in asking Dr. Rigsby to send from  30 Australia documents which are relevant, and to say  31 go  32 through his files.  Surely he must have gone through  33 his files if he has produced the documents Dr. Kerry  34 has seen.  I'm not too sure why it's such a  35 difficulty.  36 THE COURT:  All right.  I would like to — I would like to adopt  37 the Solomon school and cut this baby in half and say  38 you should produce whatever is conveniently  39 available and not bother with what's in Australia,  40 but that seems to lack even the remotest connection  41 with logic.  I think that the defendants are  42 entitled to see anything Dr. Rigsby has that relates  43 in any way to the portion of the report that is  44 co-authored with Dr. Kerry.  It may be that the  45 disclosure of everything Dr. Rigsby has which was  46 passed to Dr. Kerry will be all that counsel will  47 need, but I don't think it wise to speculate that 11335  Submission by Ms. Koenigsberg  Ruling by the Court  1 such will necessarily be the case.  And I cannot say  2 that looking at Dr. Rigsby's notes in this  3 connection will not set counsel upon a train of  4 inquiry in the cross-examination of Dr. Kerry that  5 will be at least relevant if not useful.  For that  6 reason it seems to me there must be production of  7 those documents, even though Dr. Rigsby is not to be  8 cross-examined, because as counsel have said they  9 are relevant, or they may be relevant, and they are  10 produceable notwithstanding the fact that counsel  11 have agreed that they won't require that witness to  12 be produced for cross-examination.  13 Having gone that far, and having applied or  14 attempted to apply rational principles by ordering  15 the production of anything that is relevant and is  16 no longer privileged it seems to me that I ought to  17 go all the way and order Dr. Rigsby to produce the  18 balance of his relevant material relating to the  19 entire report.  And I say that, because it doesn't  20 seem to me the fact that he's not going to be  21 cross-examined excludes the ordinary rules of  22 production.  And at the risk of repeating myself I  23 had the view that the documents being or being  24 possibly relevant and no longer privileged are  25 indeed produceable.  And I think the defendants are  26 entitled to look at them whether they're of any use  27 to them or whether they can be used at trial or not.  28 It is not beyond the realm of possibility that  29 looking at a relevant document produced under the  30 order I am now making Dr. Rigsby will not also set  31 in train an inquiry or area of investigation either  32 in cross-examination of Dr. Kerry or, indeed, in the  33 preparation of cross-examination for other witnesses  34 or in the preparation of the defendants' own case.  35 And, in summary, therefore, I think I should  36 follow the principle that the documents being not  37 privileged should be produced.  I regret that this  38 would come at such a late date when we're a little  39 more than a week away from the time when the  40 documents might be useful.  I regret they're as far  41 away as Australia, and there would be some  42 difficulty, but there are regular communications  43 between Australia and Canada and I would think that  44 the facilities that are available would be adequate  45 to ensure the delivery of that material in a way  46 that is going to be useful.  I believe I was told  47 that Dr. Kerry would be on the stand for about two 11336  Ruling by the Court  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  weeks.  MR. GRANT:  No.  THE COURT:  One week?  MR. GRANT:  No, my lord.  This ruling, of course, will affect  the position.  As you may recall, last week I  requested my friend -- some clarification from Mr.  Goldie regarding confirmation, but Dr. Kerry was  scheduled for one week.  THE COURT:  I would think the material would be here before the  commencement of cross-examination.  I don't tie it  to that, because, as I said, I think the material  being relevant and produceable may be useful in some  other part of the case.  For that reason I don't  think I can refuse to order its production.  All right.  Anything else?  MR. GRANT:  No, my lord.  MS. SIGURDSON:  No, my lord.  THE COURT:  9:30 tomorrow morning then.  THE REGISTRAR:  Yes.  THE COURT:  Thank you.  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court adjourned until 9:30  a.m..  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO JANUARY 26, 1989 AT 9:30 a.m.)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein to the best of my  skill and ability.  Peri McHale, Official Reporter  UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items