Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-06-14] British Columbia. Supreme Court Jun 14, 1989

Item Metadata

Download

Media
delgamuukw-1.0019703.pdf
Metadata
JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019703.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0019703-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0019703-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019703-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0019703-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0019703-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0019703-source.json
Full Text
delgamuukw-1.0019703-fulltext.txt
Citation
delgamuukw-1.0019703.ris

Full Text

 17645  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 Vancouver, B.C.  2 June 14, 1989  3  4 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  In the Supreme Court of British  5 Columbia, this 14th day of June, 1989, the matter of  6 Delgamuukw versus her Majesty the Queen at bar, my  7 lord.  8 May I remind you you are still under oath.  Thank  9 you.  And would you state your name for the record,  10 please?  11 THE WITNESS:  Barbara Lane.  12 THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  13 MR. GOLDIE:  My lord, before Miss Koenigsberg begins, there are  14 just a couple of corrections in the transcript  15 which -- of volume 238.  I don't think they are very  16 significant, but they may puzzle somebody in the  17 future.  At page 17505.  18 THE COURT:  Yes?  19 MR. GOLDIE:  Line 12, Mr. Rush is recorded as asking for the  20 reference to treaties, and that question was asked by  21 me, my lord.  22 THE COURT:  Oh yes, Mr. Goldie.  23 MR. GOLDIE:  And page 510, lines 11 and 12, the exhibit was  24 reserved for the defendant the Province not the  25 Attorney General of Canada.  2 6 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Ms. Koenigsberg.  27  2 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. KOENIGSBERG:  29 Q   Dr. Lane, I have three disparate and brief points that  30 I would like to ask you about.  The first deals with  31 some evidence that you gave in volume 231 at page  32 16902.  And you won't recall, I'm sure, by that page  33 number, that the topic was applications made for land  34 in the Bulkley Valley and by name of a number of  35 Wet'suwet'en chiefs.  And it was with reference to a  36 letter in volume 4 at tab 16 -- and rather than have  37 more of these put up in front of you, I'll just show  38 it to you and you'll have to take it with a few  39 annotations on here.  It was 17 -- 16902, and it's tab  4 0 14 of volume 4.  41 What -- the evidence that you gave was in  42 reference to paragraph 3 of tab 14, which lists a  43 number of applications.  It actually begins on the  44 earlier page, but if you just look at tab 14 here and  45 I think you will recognize that paragraph as listing  46 applications made in the Bulkley Valley.  Do you see  47 that? 17646  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   And there are --  3 A   These were applications made to the Royal Commission.  4 Q   It references applications made to the Royal  5 Commission?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   Yes.  And this is sometime later in 1920?  8 A   Correct.  9 Q   That these persons or some of them were being followed  10 up, if I can put it that way, with regard to their  11 lack of success before the McKenna-McBride Commission?  12 A   That's correct.  The failure of the commission to be  13 able to satisfy these applications.  14 Q   That's right.  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   Now, his lordship asked you a question with regard to  17 this, and maybe I'll just leave it in front of you so  18 you can see the wording in case you would like to.  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   And his lordship's question was, "I take it some of  21 these applications were for individuals and some were  22 for larger reserves, or were they all for reserves?"  23 And your answer was, you distinguished between  24 reserves, and at the end you say:  25  26 "I don't think it is a proper assumption to  27 conclude that because individual chiefs are  28 named as the applicants for the other lands  29 that they were attended -- intended as  30 individual applications.  I believe those  31 chiefs were applying on behalf of their bands,  32 their constituents."  33  34 If you look at that list, did you intend, along  35 with Round Lake Tommy, to include Jean Baptiste as one  36 of those individuals who was applying on behalf of the  37 band?  38 A   Yes, I did.  39 Q   And you put into evidence, I believe, probably also in  40 that volume, a number of documents referring to what  41 subsequently happened with Jean Baptiste and his  42 stalwart defence of the land on which he had buildings  43 and animals and partly under cultivation?  44 A   Yes.  I am sorry, could I just ask you to go back for  45 a minute?  46 Q   Yes?  47 A   I may have misunderstood you.  That previous question 17647  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 that you asked me, did you ask me whether I intended  2 to refer to Tyee David or to Jean Baptiste?  3 Q   Jean Baptiste?  4 A   Jean Baptiste.  5 Q   You did —  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   -- in your -- in your earlier evidence --  8 A   Right.  9 Q   -- you did say that you felt that the documents  10 supported -- that you put in, supported the  11 proposition --  12 A   Right.  13 Q   -- that Round Lake Tommy --  14 A   I see yes.  15 Q   -- was applying on behalf of the band?  16 A   Right.  17 Q   And we have those documents?  18 A   Right.  19 Q   I am asking you now, and it's quite a limited  20 question --  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   -- did you intend that the documents also supported  23 the same proposition for Jean Baptiste?  24 A  Well, if you will allow me, I think I can best answer  25 the question if I explain the relationship here.  Jean  26 Baptiste, Tyee David, Tyee Lake Abraham, I believe,  27 and another individual who is not named here, perhaps  28 rather than Tyee Lake Abraham -- I would have to check  29 my records.  But three of these applicants before the  30 Royal Commission, and I am not sure that the same  31 three -- two out of them are the same -- were all  32 brothers and leaders of the band, and had all applied  33 for contiguous lands at the north end of Tyee Lake  34 which had been their band territory.  And the  35 applications were made separately by the three named  36 individuals, but clearly, if you know the relationship  37 between those individuals, and the fact that they were  38 asking for the land to be reserved, it was meant to be  39 for the group at large, even though the applications  40 were made in the names of the several individuals.  41 Q   Okay.  And that's —  42 A   That's what I had —  43 Q   What you —  44 A  What I was alluding to, yes.  45 Q   Okay.  And so can you answer me as to whether you  46 intended to include Jean Baptiste?  47 A   Yes.  He was one of those related individuals, all of 17648  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  1 them full brothers, I believe, who were the leading  2 chiefs of that band.  3 Q   Right.  And the second topic --  4 A   I shouldn't say "band" perhaps.  Maybe "clan" is the  5 more appropriate term.  But anyway, that related group  6 that owned the territory.  "Band" is a term that's  7 used with several connotations.  It's used by the  8 Indian Affairs Department to be one thing, it's used  9 by anthropologists to mean another kind of  10 organization among the Indians, and it's perhaps a  11 confusing term.  12 Q   The second topic deals with those documents which you  13 referred his lordship to, and this relates to the  14 Coast Salish and the use of the camas root?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   And you gave that evidence in volume 229 at page  17 16734, and I may not need for you to look at that, we  18 will see.  You did some field work, as I recall, among  19 the Coast Salish?  20 A   That's correct.  21 Q   And can you advise us as to whether the Coast Salish,  22 in addition to cultivating the camas root, also picked  23 berries?  24 A   Oh yes.  25 Q   And those berries also formed a significant part of  26 their diet?  27 A   That's correct.  28 Q   Thank you.  Those are all my questions on that topic.  29 And the third topic deals with that confidential  30 memo which is dealt with again in volume 229 at page  31 16721 in which you were explaining the factors that  32 you considered in determining your opinion that that  33 memo had been prepared for the perusal of cabinet.  Do  34 you recall that?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   And you were describing the genesis of that memo -- or  37 the factors that you took into consideration, and you  38 mentioned the sequencing of the documents as they were  39 kept in the Public Records Office?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   And part of that sequencing in the documents that you  42 put before his lordship which are now before us,  43 included at the last page, said parlimentary papers on  44 it?  45 A   I recall that, yes.  In the book in which the index  46 tabs —  47 Q   Yes. 17649  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Ms. Koenigsberg  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1 A   -- show on the right, yes.  2 Q   Yes.  I was unclear from your evidence whether you  3 intended us to understand the parlimentary papers  4 described that group of documents in which the memo  5 was found, or described the next section?  6 A  My recollection is it was the next section.  7 Q   Yes.  And would you agree with me that -- I am going  8 to just show you a document which says, I believe,  9 "Memoranda to"?  10 A   No, I believe that's "et cetera".  11 Q   "Oral memoranda, et cetera".  Is that the page which  12 in fact describes the section in which that memo is  13 found in the Public Records Office?  14 A   I would need to check to be sure, but I think that's  15 the case.  16 Q   Okay.  It's my —  17 A   It's awhile since I've looked at that.  18 Q   It's my information that it is, and if it assists you,  19 you can see the page number is 601, it is written in  20 pencil at the top, and 602 is a blank page and 603 is  21 an extract of a dispatch?  22 A   Yes.  As you know, I am very loath to trust my memory  23 on documents that I haven't looked at for some time.  24 But if you say that is in fact the case, it doesn't  25 ajar anything in my recollection, and it may well be.  26 Q   Perhaps I'll leave it at that, and if for any reason  27 you should determine that you don't think that that is  28 accurate, perhaps you can let Mr. Rush know?  29 A   Certainly.  30 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  Those are all my questions.  31 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Rush?  32  33 RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. RUSH:  34 Q   I'll be directing the witness' attention to the two  35 document books which were produced to her and marked  36 as Exhibits 1056 and 1057.  Those are the document  37 books of the Provincial defendant.  38 Now perhaps the grey one could be set aside, Dr.  39 Lane, for the moment.  And if you will direct your  40 attention, please, to tab 4.  This is tab 4 of volume  41 1 of the Provincial defendant's documents.  And Dr.  42 Lane, I think you were referred to this tab and asked  43 if the U.S. Congress had put an end to the treaty  44 making activity referred to in a tab that was part of  45 the plaintiffs' documents, that is tab 19 of volume 2,  46 by the -- by the period of 1871, and you said, as I  47 understand your answer, "Your understanding," 17650  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1 referring to the understanding of the question, "is  2 partly correct and partly incomplete."  And the  3 reference in the transcript, my lord, if you need one,  4 is page 17513.  5 And I wonder, Dr. Lane, if you would explain what  6 you meant when you said that the understanding is  7 "partly correct and partly incomplete" by reference to  8 the statute which is contained at tab 4, page 136 of  9 this volume of the Provincial defendant's documents  10 book?  11 A   Yes.  I think I recall what it is you are referring to  12 here.  The -- it's incomplete because the context of  13 this document is not sufficiently explained.  This was  14 a rider, this statement, about ceasing to make new  15 treaties.  However, nothing here will impair those  16 that are already in being.  It was a rider on the  17 Appropriation Act in 1871, because at that date,  18 treaties were -- the ratification of treaties made on  19 behalf of the United States were the sole prerogative  20 of the upper house, the Senate in the United States  21 Congress.  And the lower house, the House of  22 Representatives, had been very unhappy about not  23 having any say in treaty making, and several years  24 previous to this, had cut off the funds, the  25 appropriations of money to implement the treaties, as  26 a means of wresting power, vis-a-vis the upper house,  27 to be able to have a part in the ratification or non-  28 ratification of treaties.  And so the device was  29 finally arrived at as the rider on this appropriation  30 bill to cease calling them treaties, and after this  31 they were called agreements.  And they still continued  32 the same process but they were now called agreements,  33 and the entire Congress then had a say in the  34 agreements processed with the Indians.  35 I believe there was also a technical change in how  36 they were ratified, in that the Congress then enacted  37 legislation enabling legislation which made the  38 treaties of effect.  But they simply changed the name  39 of them in order to resolve this power struggle that  40 was going on between the two houses of Congress.  41 Q   The two houses of Congress being the House of  42 Representatives and the Senate?  43 A  And the Senate, yes.  It didn't alter the arrangements  44 that the United States made with the Indians, it  45 altered technically who had a say in those  4 6 arrangements.  47 Q   All right, thank you. 17651  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1 Would you turn to tab 11 --  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   -- please, of that book, the Provincial defendant's  4 document book.  And your attention was directed to  5 this tab, to the copy of the dispatch number 19,  6 Lytton to Douglas, September 2, 1858.  Do you have  7 that?  8 A   I see that at the bottom of the page.  9 Q   Yes?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   And that, as your direction -- as your attention was  12 directed, refers to a dispatch of July 31st, 1858,  13 numbered six, and that is at tab 40 of volume 2 of the  14 plaintiffs' document books?  15 A   Yes, I see that.  16 Q   And you were referred in cross-examination to the last  17 sentence of the letter which is at tab 11 here, and  18 you said in your answer that the reference to which  19 you were directed, was taken out of context, and my  20 question to you is what is the appropriate context?  21 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, my lord, I object to anything which purports  22 to construe that document.  Just so that my friend  23 knows what my position is.  24 THE COURT:  Yes.  I don't think your question asks for any  25 construing of documents.  2 6    MR. RUSH:  27 Q   Go ahead, Dr. Lane.  My question to you is your answer  28 was that that was taken out of context, and my  29 question is, what is the appropriate context, if that  30 is so?  31 A   In my opinion, the appropriate context is to review  32 the remarks in this dispatch in the context of the  33 dispatch referred to in the first sentence, that is  34 the dispatch of 31 July, number six.  And I think that  35 the remarks on the enclosures, the Chesson letter here  36 at this tab, have to be looked at in the context of  37 the earlier dispatch that is also alluded to -- or  38 referred to.  39 Q   Now, the Chesson letter you make reference to is that  40 which is indicated as the enclosure in number 19 which  41 is at pages 59 and 60?  42 A   Yes.  The dispatch of September 2, 1858, which  43 transmits the Chesson letter which you have just  44 mentioned.  45 THE COURT:  I have a note here that the July 31st dispatch  46 number six is volume 2 tab 40 in your collection?  4 7    MR. RUSH:  Yes. 17652  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1 THE COURT:  Is that what that refers to?  2 MR. RUSH:  Yes.  3 THE WITNESS:  Yes, I think the covering dispatch here which  4 refers to the earlier dispatch and to the enclosed  5 letter requires that all three be looked at in context  6 together.  7 MR. RUSH:  8 Q   All right.  Now in terms of the enclosure, is there a  9 feature or aspect of the enclosure in number 19 which  10 ought to be viewed in context with the July 31st  11 dispatch which is at tab 40 volume 2?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   In other words, I'm asking you to look at Mr.  14 Chesson's letter, to be perhaps more particular?  15 A   Yes.  Mr. Chesson encloses a long letter here in which  16 he makes a number of recommendations, some of the  17 recommendations have to do with -- if you allow me a  18 moment to refresh myself on this letter.  Yes.  At the  19 first page of his letter, toward the bottom half of  20 the page, he in fact at the end of the last full  21 paragraph, he is speaking -- making suggestions as to  22 the recognition of native title in the new colony of  23 British Columbia, and the recognition of native  24 rights.  In other words, I think this is a discussion  25 about Indian title.  And then in the balance of the --  26 let me see where we are here.  27 Q   What page are you on?  28 A   I'm just searching.  Yes.  In the latter part,  29 starting I guess at the bottom of page 59 and carrying  30 to the end of the letter.  He is discussing a  31 different matter, and that is the suggestions  32 regarding the nature of Indian administration; the  33 apparatus for dealing with Indian Affairs; and the  34 suggestion of employing people of mixed blood, many of  35 whom could be found at Red River, as the agents who  36 should be employed to assist in civilizing the  37 Indians, and suggestion that such people be employed  38 in various departments of government, and so on.  39 And so I think the two rather different things are  40 being suggested here among the number of suggestions:  41 one dealing with recognition of Indian title and  42 taking appropriate steps with regard to that, and the  43 second dealing with how any Indian administration or  44 the Indian Affairs administration might be.  45 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, my lord, I have to object to the witness  46 saying there are two different things.  That's  47 construing the document.  Whether they are two 17653  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  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  different things or whether one is -- flows out of the  other, or whether one has anything to do with one or  the other is a matter for submission to your lordship,  and ultimately construction of the document.  MR. RUSH:  Well, in my submission, it is not a construction of  the document, and perhaps if the witness has ventured  into any tentative area, it is in summarizing what is  contained in what I saw the witness refer to as the  last paragraph at 59 and then paragraph of 60.  THE COURT:  Well, I have to -- I have to treat the evidence as  being not a construction placed upon the document.  And I think this is another of those cases where we  have rules that are very difficult for witnesses to  follow.  I think you should proceed.  I can see some  basis for the objection, viewed narrowly, but in view  of the ruling I just made, it does not amount to a  construction, and I will view it that way.  MR.  RUSH:  Q  All right.  Dr. Lane, I asked you if you would direct  your attention specifically to parts of the Chesson  letter which should be placed in context with the July  31st, 1858 letter, and are the passages -- or which  you have summarized of Mr. Chesson's letter, those  which should be taken into account in relation to that  earlier dispatch of July 31st?  A   Yes.  Q   Found at tab 40?  A   Yes.  Q   All right.  Thank you, my lord.  I don't wish to ask  any further questions on that.  Now the next matter, Dr. Lane, is the -- is with  reference to the Captain Clarke proposals, and you  were referred to the proposals made by Captain Cook  and responded --  A   Captain Clarke.  Q   Captain Clarke, sorry.  A little bit later.  And  responded to by Judge Begbie.  And you said that the  Clarke report made a special mention of native title?  A   Yes.  Q   Do you recall that?  A   Yes, I recall.  Q   And you also made -- I think you were asked about the  Clarke proposal itself?  A   Yes.  Q   And do you recall that?  A   Yes, I do.  Q   And I want to show you a document and I want you to 17654  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1  2  A  3  Q  4  A  5  6  7  Q  8  A  9  10  11  Q  12  A  13  Q  14  15  THE  COURT  16  MR.  RUSH:  17  Q  18  19  20  A  21  Q  22  23  24  A  25  26  Q  27  A  28  Q  29  30  31  A  32  Q  33  THE  COURT  34  MR.  RUSH:  35  THE  COURT  36  MR.  RUSH:  37  38  39  THE  COURT  40  MR.  RUSH:  41  42  43  THE  COURT  44  MR.  RUSH:  45  THE  COURT  46  MR.  RUSH:  47  THE  COURT  examine this, if you will, please.  Yes.  Can you identify this document for us?  Yes.  This is the handwritten Clarke proposal which I  consulted at the Provincial Archives of British  Columbia in Victoria.  All right.  Is this the whole of the Clarke proposal?  No.  This is the first few pages.  It is the first  three handwritten pages here of the letter of  transmittal.  Would you pause there just a moment?  Yes.  This is a copy, by the way.  Yes.  Just pause there.  Would you turn to tab 29 in  your book.  :  In which book?  In the black volume, volume number 1 of the Provincial  defendant's documents, tab 29, my lord.  The same one  we've been referring to.  Yes, I have tab 29.  And would you just compare the handwritten  enclosure which is described as enclosure i  under number 20?  I am sorry, what did you say?  these and I didn't hear you.  Yes.  Do you have tab 29?  Yes, I do.  And do you have the reference -- please mak  to the enclosure referred to as enclosure i  19.  Do you see that?  Yes.  And would you compare --  :  Sorry, in tab 19?  No.  In tab 29.  :  Yes.  Your lordship will see on page 106, number 20, the  copy of the dispatch, this is at tab 29.  It should be  the second document along -- the second page along.  :  Second page, yes, all right.  Yes.  You see number 20?  Newcastle to Douglas,  January 7, 1860, and then underneath that, enclosure  in number 19?  :  No, I am sorry, I don't.  I am in tab 29.  Are you in the defendant's --  :  Oh, I may not be.  -- document, my lord?  Volume number one.  :  I am in the Attorney General's.  copy to the  n number 19  I was just comparing  e reference  n number 17655  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1  MR.  RUSH:  2  THE  COURT  3  4  MR.  RUSH:  5  THE  COURT  6  MR.  RUSH:  7  8  9  10  THE  COURT  11  MR.  RUSH:  12  13  THE  COURT  14  MR.  RUSH:  15  Q  16  17  18  19  20  A  21  Q  22  A  23  Q  24  A  25  26  27  28  29  30  Q  31  A  32  33  34  Q  35  36  37  38  39  A  40  Q  41  A  42  43  44  45  46  Q  47  A  Yes, that should be right.  :  Tab 29 looks to be "Further Papers Relative to the  Affairs of British Columbia."  Yes.  And the next page is 106, my lord.  :  I have it, yes.  Thank you.  And next page is 120.  It should be on the next page,  106, and under that is enclosure in number 19 below  number 20, and it's apparently a letter of a Mr.  Clarke to the Under Secretary of State.  :  Yes, all right.  It's in the middle of page 106, my lord.  Do you see  that?  :  Yes.  Yes, all right.  Now, Dr. Lane, I was asking you to compare, if you  will, that reference to enclosure in number 19 with  the handwritten copy of the document I've just passed  to you?  Yes, I have done that.  And what can you say when you compare the two?  The —  If anything?  The letter which begins "Army and Navy Club, Monday,  My Dear Sir," and ends, "Believe me, et cetera, A.  Clarke," and it's to the Under Secretary of State  which is under enclosure in number 19, is an accurate  printed copy of the handwritten material of the first  three pages that you have handed me.  All right.  These are the first three pages of the Clarke  proposal.  It's Mr. Clarke's letter of transmittal --  or rather a copy of it.  All right.  Now I just want to direct your attention  to the first page of that letter, and you will see  above Army and Navy Club it's got October 15, 1859  question mark, and it appears to my eye that that is  in writing that is different from the other script?  That's correct.  And can you say anything about that?  I can only say that it would appear to me, when I see  an entry like that in another hand and with a date and  question mark, that someone at a later date was  attempting to ascertain a date for this undated  letter.  All right.  And perhaps an archivist. 17656  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1 Q   All right.  Could you go then to the fourth page along  2 in the document I've handed to you?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   And do you recognize this document?  5 A   Yes, I do.  It's the -- you understand that what you  6 have handed me is a print-off from a microfilm which  7 is held at the Provincial Archives in Victoria?  8 Q   Yes?  9 A  And the next page filmed in sequence is this page,  10 which appears to be signed H.B.F. -- I am not certain  11 about the first initial but I think that's what it  12 is -- and it's written in another hand entirely and  13 says, "Land Scheme for B.C., A. Clarke Oct. 15th,  14 1859," which was the queried date that you just  15 referred me to on that first page, and then makes some  16 comments about Matthew Begbie's opinion on the above,  17 and also his later suggestions and also Colonel  18 Moody's opinions.  And to explain this, I should say  19 that in the dispatch which transmitted the Clarke  20 proposal -- land scheme proposal to Governor Douglas,  21 he was asked to review it and respond, and Governor  22 Douglas subsequently asked both Colonel Moody of the  23 Lands and Works Department and Mr. Begbie as his legal  24 advisor, to review the document and give him their  25 reports.  And that's what this page is alluding to,  26 the several documents that were in reference to the  27 Clarke scheme.  2 8 Q   All right.  29 A  And I asked at the Provincial Archives if anybody  30 could assist with identifying who was responsible for  31 placing this page there, and my recollection is that  32 they thought the initials belonged to somebody -- I  33 think the surname was French but I've forgotten what  34 the initials may have stood for.  A previous archivist  35 at some earlier date in time.  36 Q   All right, thank you.  My question is directed to the  37 last page now, Dr. Lane, if you would turn to that?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   And it's headed "Proposed Land Scheme", and can you  40 identify this page, please?  41 A   Yes.  This is in fact the first page of the Clarke  42 land scheme -- land proposal.  43 Q   All right.  And can you tell us how long this proposal  44 is?  If this is the first page, have you seen the  45 whole?  46 A   I haven't looked at it for a number of years now, but  47 my recollection is that it was quite lengthy. 17657  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1 Q   All right.  2 A  And I -- my recollection is I looked at material at  3 tab 29 when it was drawn to my attention yesterday, I  4 believe it was, was that these were the section  5 headings of that rather lengthy land proposal, and as  6 I compare them now, I see in fact the text that I  7 recalled and was referring to which runs down the  8 left-hand column of the page.  9 Q   And you are referring to the document I've just passed  10 to you?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   All right.  13 A   The last page of that document which you've directed  14 my attention to --  15 Q   Yes?  16 A   -- consists in the Clarke narrative, which he said he  17 was setting out as for an order in council.  And the  18 section headings then on the right-hand column are the  19 ones that he proposed in setting it out in this scheme  20 for an order in council, and I see those are the  21 section headings that are -- occur in the printed  22 material at tab 29.  23 Q   All right.  Dr. Lane —  24 A   Yes.  25 Q   -- let me ask you, coming back to my question which  26 was a question in which you indicated that a special  27 mention of native title was made by Mr. Clarke --  28 Captain Clarke?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   And I wonder, can you look at this and assist us with  31 regard to that answer?  32 A   Yes.  If you look at the -- on the left-hand column,  33 the long paragraph, Mr. Clarke says:  34  35 "I must at the outset remark that the proposed  36 scheme is suggested under the impression that  37 no claims or rights have arisen to the soil of  38 British Columbia excepting isolated claims of  39 the Hudsons Bay Company not yet decided, other  40 than those of the Crown, and that no Indian  41 title exists, or if any, that it has been  42 extinguished and separate provision made for  43 them."  44  45 And it was to this preface to his report that Mr.  46 Begbie was responding when he said Indian title has by  47 no means been extinguished and provision must soon be 1765?  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1 made, et cetera, or whatever the exact language was.  2 And this is the only place in the Clarke land scheme  3 in which Indian title is mentioned, for the obvious  4 reason that he assumed either it didn't exist or it  5 had been extinguished.  And with that explanation, he  6 then goes on for the balance of his very lengthy  7 report to discuss those suggestions he is making for  8 how lands should be disposed of to settlers.  9 MR. RUSH:  My lord, I am going to be asking that this be made an  10 exhibit.  And my suggestion is that we tack it in the  11 end of the -- I would like to have it marked as a  12 separate Exhibit number, but I suggest it be placed at  13 the end of volume 4 of the plaintiffs'.  14 MR. GOLDIE:  I have no objection to that, my lord.  I requested  15 the witness to provide me with the appropriate  16 reference to this scheme she has now enlarged upon in  17 her re-examination, and I would ask that that be done.  18 MR. RUSH:  Well, I understood my friend's question, which is  19 still outstanding, that the whole of the scheme as Dr.  20 Lane, I guess, had researched it, whether she had that  21 scheme, that that be provided.  22 MR. GOLDIE:  No.  I just asked for the appropriate reference.  23 This is page 17572, and the witness said she can but  24 she could not do so off the top of her head.  25 THE COURT:  All right.  So this will go at the end of volume 4.  26 MR. RUSH:  That's what I propose, that we do that, my lord.  27 THE COURT:  Do you think that would be more convenient than  28 putting it with --  29 MR. RUSH:  Well perhaps not, my lord.  Perhaps it should go in  30 sequence.  Maybe that is the wisest.  31 THE COURT:  Yes.  I think perhaps it should be added to the end  32 of tab 29 and marked as a separate exhibit but  33 identified as being tendered by the plaintiff.  34 MR. GOLDIE:  Well, depending on what I find when I get the  35 reference and my examination of this document, I may  36 wish to add to that, my lord.  37 THE COURT:  Well, I will be glad to hear you in that regard.  So  38 this will be -- the next exhibit number will be?  39 THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1058, my lord.  40  41 (EXHIBIT 1058 - Vol. 1 tab 29 of Cross-exam Documents  42 of B. Lane - Document from A. Clarke to the Under  43 Secretary of State)  44  45 MR. RUSH:  I guess tab 29 is the last tab of that volume.  4 6 THE COURT:  Yes.  47 MR. RUSH:  And my lord, yes, that can be placed in there. 17659  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  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. GOLDI  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT  MR. GOLDI  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT  MR. RUSH:  Q  E:  This will be after Governor Douglas' own dispatch  on the Clarke scheme?  I just put it right at the end.  Yes, I think that's what it is.  E:  Yes.  I take it it's common ground that Governor  Douglas and Judge Begbie are referring to the same  document.  Well, I think so.  Yes, all right.  Now, Dr. Lane, if you will please -- I am sorry, Madam  Registrar, would you place before Dr. Lane volume 3 of  the plaintiffs' document book, and that's Exhibit  1040.  And I would like you to refer to the first tab,  98, please.  And there are two dividers, they may be  orange in colour or blue, and it's behind the second  of these two which -- for which there is a letter --  at which there is a letter of a Dr. McKay dated  December 3rd, 1888?  Yes.  Do you have that?  Yes.  There is a typescript.  Yes, we will refer to the typescript --  Yes.  -- Dr. Lane.  And your attention was drawn to the  third to last sentence of the typescript beginning:  "The Cowichans did not suffer in any way by the  settlement of whites in their Country and there  never has been any reason which they should  have had any payments made to them in respect  to their Country."  Now my question to you was, does that statement  of Mr. McKay referred to you by Mr. Goldie, accord  with your understanding of the documentary record?  MR. GOLDIE:  Well, I object to that, my lord.  That's not what I  asked the witness about.  THE COURT:  I have to confess that I don't remember what you did  ask the witness, Mr. Goldie.  MR. GOLDIE:  I asked to place that -- and if that was the -- in  context, whether that was referring to the Cowichan  Indians.  MR. RUSH:  Yes, my lord, and I am asking --  MR. GOLDIE:  Perhaps we should get the transcript, my lord.  It  doesn't --  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q 17660  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1  MR.  RUSH:  2  3  ]  4  5  6  7  8  9  THE  COURT:  10  11  12  MR.  RUSH:  13  THE  COURT:  14  15  MR.  RUSH:  16  THE  COURT:  17  1  18  19  20  21  1  22  23  MR.  RUSH:  24  THE  COURT:  25  26  27  MR.  RUSH:  28  29  30  31  1  32  1  33  34  35  THE  COURT:  36  37  MR.  GOLDIE  38  39  1  40  THE  COURT:  41  42  43  44  45  46  MR.  GOLDIE  47  1  Excuse me.  And I quite agree we should get the  transcript.  And what I was saying and what I do say,  my lord, is that my friend has established a context  and I am directing the witness' mind now to that  context and related documentary record, if there is  one, and how it accords with that record.  And that's  the question and I think it's completely appropriate  to the question asked of her.  Well, I think there is a difficulty because we start  out with this being a document that you first put to  the witness.  Yes.  And she gave me a lot of information about this  letter.  Yes.  And I have a lot of notes about it.  And then Mr.  Goldie asked her, I think, about what was the context  in which this letter was written, and it seems to me  that you could ask her for further contextual  information arising out of the answers she gave, and I  do not think in re-examination you can ask her  questions generally about this document.  No, nor do I intend to, my lord.  Well, I thought your question was, "Does this  statement accord with a documentary record?"  Wasn't  that your question?  Yes, it was.  But it was directed at the particular  statement to which she -- her attention was drawn, and  I think there is a legitimate distinction there in  terms of the purpose to which the question is  directed.  I say that the context was probed by Mr.  Goldie and I simply wish to ask the witness if there  is anything that she would add to that probe in  relation to --  I think that question would be appropriate -- would  be suitable.  :  Oh yes.  I still would like to get the text of my  question, my lord.  I found one reference to it but it  doesn't --  Well, I don't think there is any objection to the --  to the question as Mr. Rush has most recently stated  it, that is, "Is there anything else additional to  what you mentioned to Mr. Goldie that you think should  be mentioned now to round out or complete the context  in which this document should be read?"  :  Yes.  I think I should say that all I asked her to  do was to confirm that what is found in the typescript 17661  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1 is in the handwritten copy.  That's at page 17578.  I  2 read her that sentence and I asked her to confirm  3 that.  And she said, "This is my typescript," and she  4 said she would check it, and, "The answer to your  5 question is, yes, this is my transcription made to the  6 best of my ability to be an accurate copy."  Now I  7 don't see how my friend's question arises out of that  8 cross-examination.  That's volume --  9 THE COURT:  Well, if that's all she was asked about in  10 cross-examination, I think certainly, subject to  11 whatever Mr. Rush would say, that I would agree with  12 that.  13 MR. GOLDIE:  It's volume 239 at page 17578.  14 THE COURT:  Unless there is some other reference there.  15 MR. RUSH:  Well, the witness' attention was drawn to it on a  16 couple of occasions, I believe.  17 MR. GOLDIE:  Oh yes, I referred to that letter a couple of  18 times, I agree.  But this is the time in which I read  19 to the witness from the transcript that sentence.  And  20 it went on and my question was:  21  22 Q  "All I am asking you to do is confirm that  23 that is what is found in the transcript is  24 in the handwritten copy."  25  26 MR. RUSH:  Well, if I may say, my lord, I think that my friend  27 has somewhat decontextualized his answer -- or his  28 question.  I think you should go back a little further  29 in the transcript, and it's -- begins at page 17578,  30 and perhaps at the top of the page where there is a  31 context for this series of questions that were put to  32 Dr. Lane, and begins at -- with her answer at line  33 one:  34  35 A  "I don't hold those dates in my head but  36 that sounds right to me.  37 Q   And Governor Seymour was the -- I said the  38 mainland colony, I should have said the  39 Vancouver Island colony?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   And Governor Seymour was his counterpart  42 on —  43 A   On the mainland.  44 Q   -- on the mainland?  45 A   Right.  46 Q   All right.  Now, the Cowichan Indian  47 controversy was one that Helmcken referred 17662  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  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  to in his letter to McKay, if you recall  that?  A   You mean the one much later?  Q   Yes, the one --  A   The one in the 1880's?  Q   Yes, some 30-odd years after the event.  A   Correct.  Q   And that's under volume three in tab 98."  And that's what we are referring to.  Q  "And McKay's response —"  This is Mr. Goldie's question:  Q  "And McKay's response to the question that  Helmcken put to him was -- is found in the  last paragraph of his letter?  A   I beg your pardon, what tab are you at?  Q   Do you have volume three there?"  There is discussion of it being at tab 98.  Q  And  "Well, it's the — it's the first 9?  we go right to the end.  A  Are you referring me to Mr. -- Dr.  Helmcken's letter?  Q   Helmcken raised a question, didn't he?  A   Yes.  Q   And all I am asking you to confirm is that  it is to his question that McKay responded  in his letter."  So -- and my lord --  MR. GOLDIE:  Please read on.  MR. RUSH:  I thought you read that part.  MR. GOLDIE:  Not quite.  MR. RUSH:  All right, I am happy to read it all.  Mr. Goldie's  question -- and I'll begin at line 30:  Q   "And all I am asking you to confirm is that  it is to his question that McKay responded  in his letter, and I am looking at your  typescript of the letter under the blue  separator, and I quote:"  And quotes the sentence that I've indicated, and then 17663  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  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  he says:  Q "All I am asking you to do is confirm that  this is what is found in the typescript is  in the handwritten copy?  A   In the handwritten copy?"  And she confirms it.  My point is the context of the  question and the confirmation of the sentence is that  it was in relation to the controversy between Indians  and non-natives in the Cowichan Valley to which the  sentence is specifically referred -- addresses.  And  of course is part of the context, not just to that,  but also to the previous questions that Mr. Goldie was  directing the witness' attention, which I say deals  with what he characterizes as the Cowichan Indian  controversy that Helmcken had referred to in his  letter.  So all of that is -- simply leads me to  suggest that the sentence was placed in the context,  and I am simply asking the witness to -- given that  fact, to add to, if she can, anything that further --  anything further with regard to that context and that  sentence.  MR. GOLDIE:  Well, I can't add anything to what I've said that  doesn't arise out of my cross-examination.  THE COURT:  I think it's close to the line and I think the  course of wisdom would be to allow the question just  in case there is something important that might  otherwise be overlooked.  MR. RUSH:  Q   Dr. Lane, would you please direct your attention back  to the tab -- perhaps you can just set aside the  transcript and I'll refer you to the typescript again,  and to the last sentence which I have drawn to your  attention.  Is there anything that you would add,  apart from what you have said already, regarding the  context for the reference to the Cowichans made in  this letter by Mr. McKay?  MR. GOLDIE:  I take it that that question is confined to  documents, not to the witness' general statements.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. RUSH:  I think that's accepted.  THE COURT:  Yes.  A   The sentence beginning:  "The Cowichans did not suffer  in any way"?  MR.  RUSH:  Q  Yes? 17664  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1 A   In evaluating or in understanding the context for that  2 sentence, I feel it's necessary to refer to the letter  3 which raised the question to which this is the  4 response, which is the other letter in this portion of  5 the tab, the letter from Dr. Helmcken to Mr. McKay,  6 and to the record of documents which relate to the  7 Cowichan controversy, and I refer specifically to the  8 documents which have been referred to earlier in the  9 course of my testimony and in the course of referring  10 to the document books.  11 Q   All right, thank you.  12 Now, I would like to direct the witness'  13 attention, my lord, to the grey book, volume 2 of the  14 Provincial defendant's book of documents, which is  15 Exhibit 1057, and in particular, to tab 40 in that  16 volume.  Do you have tab 40 now, Dr. Lane?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   All right, thank you.  Now, your attention was  19 directed to this document described as an order in  20 council, and you said that you had not seen this  21 document before, in your cross-examination?  22 A   That is correct.  23 Q   And you have had an opportunity of reviewing that  24 during the cross-examination, or if you haven't, would  25 you review it now.  26 MR. GOLDIE:  My lord, it might be of assistance to the witness.  27 I have endeavoured to find a clearer copy of this  28 document, and I -- the best we have been able to do is  29 only marginally better than what is in the document,  30 but I'll hand it to my friend.  31 MR. RUSH:  32 Q   How are you making out?  33 A   Thank you.  I think I can read this.  It's just a  34 little slow because it's faint in places, but I think  35 I am all right.  36 Q   All right.  37 A   Yes.  I had not seen this order in council.  I have  38 seen the correspondence referred to, I believe, that  39 the order in council is directed toward.  I refer  40 specifically to the correspondence from the Indian  41 Commissioner for British Columbia asking about the  42 policy of offering presents to the Indians when he  43 meets with them.  44 Q   Now Dr. Lane, this order in council is in relation to  45 the proposal of the British Columbia -- or the  46 establishment, if I may put it that way, of a Board of  47 Indian Commissioners; is that right? 17665  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1 A   Yes, that's part of the context here.  2 Q   All right.  Having looked at the document, is there --  3 is there any other documents which -- or any context  4 which you consider to be relevant for the purposes of  5 the court's consideration of that Board of  6 Commissioners?  7 A   Yes.  And since this order in council deals with  8 matters that are contained in related correspondence,  9 I would assume that it would be appropriate to have  10 that correspondence as well as the order in council.  11 Q   Is this correspondence which you have reviewed?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   And who are the participants in the correspondence?  14 A  Well, there is correspondence between two of the  15 members of the British Columbia Commissioners, Mr.  16 Powell I believe it was at that time, the Indian  17 Commissioner, and Mr. Trutch, who was then Lieutenant-  18 Governor, both of whom were named as members to the  19 three-man board.  I don't recall, because it's not  20 fresh in my mind, whether I had correspondence from  21 Mr. Lenihan as well, the third member.  22 Q   All right.  Okay, thank you, Dr. Lane, that's all I  23 wish to ask you on that.  24 And if you will turn to tab 45, please, this is a  25 copy for you --  26 A   Excuse me, I perhaps should make my answer clearer.  I  27 meant not just correspondence emanating from those  28 people, but the return correspondence to them as well.  29 Q   Yes, all right.  Thank you.  30 Now, have you moved to tab 45 in the same volume,  31 Doctor?  32 A   Yes, I have.  33 Q   All right, thank you.  You were directed to page 409  34 by Mr. Goldie in this document of the Dufferin-  35 Carnarvon Correspondence 1874-1878, 409 being part of  36 a memorandum of a conversation with Lord Dufferin --  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   -- on British Columbia affairs --  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   -- by Alexander Mackenzie.  Do you recall that?  41 A   Yes, I recall this.  42 Q   And you were asked if you would not have taken into  43 account, in considering the context of Lord Dufferin's  44 speech in Victoria, the observations which are  45 contained at 409.  And I would just ask you to -- with  46 regard to that document which appears to be -- or at  47 least that portion of the document which seems to be 17666  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  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  discreet, from pages 408 through to 410, is there  anything else in that document which you would direct  his lordship's attention -- which would assist in the  context?  MR. GOLDIE:  My lord, before the witness answers, the question  that I put to the witness at page 17617 in volume 239,  after reading to her the portion which is found on  page 409 of appendix three of the document, I said --  this is -- was the question I put to her:  Q   "Now, I suggest to you that the context of  Lord Dufferin's presence in British  Columbia is a matter to be taken into  consideration with respect to his speech.  Would you agree with that?  A   I'm sorry.  Could you repeat the question?  Q   I say, the matter of Lord Dufferin's  instructions and the character in which he  appeared in British Columbia in 1876 is  part of the context in which his speech  should be set for the purposes of your  assignment here?  A   Yes."  MR. RUSH  Now, that was the question that was put to her in  that regard.  Yes.  So my lord, a particular passage was referred  to your lordship and it might be of assistance if  there is anything else of significance that -- in that  same document that the witness feels would be of  assistance in terms of contextualizing that speech.  GOLDIE:  But that is to say his -- the nature of his  presence in British Columbia.  Yes, I think that's --  Yes.  I think that it is appropriate for the witness  to add to the list of things that might contribute to  the context, if any.  MR.  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT  MR.  RUSH:  Q  A  Q  A  Dr. Lane, can you follow that question and is there  anything -- if you will peruse the document, is there  anything further that you would draw to his lordship's  attention on this subject?  Yes.  If you will allow me a moment to refresh myself  on the document.  Go ahead.  Yes.  I recall the context here and it's set out at  the -- I think one really needs to look at the text 17667  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1 beginning with the last paragraph on page 408  2 beginning:  "On Lord Dufferin entering the room," and  3 carry over to the -- certainly the rest of that --  4 balance of that paragraph onto 409, to understand that  5 the compensation for British Columbia that is being  6 discussed there is in relation to money instead of  7 the -- in lieu of the Island railway.  And this whole  8 discussion refers to the railway matter.  9 MR. GOLDIE:  The document speaks for itself, my lord, that's  10 all.  11 MR. RUSH:  I think she has drawn your lordship's attention to  12 the point.  I don't wish to pursue it further.  13 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  14 MR. RUSH:  15 Q   Now Dr. Lane, would you please refer to tab 50 of this  16 volume 2 of the Provincial defendant's documents.  And  17 here we find -- and you referred to a letter of Mr.  18 David Mills dated December 20th, 1877, and addressed  19 to the Lieutenant Governor in Victoria.  Do you have  20 that?  21 A   Yes, I do.  22 Q   And apparently your --  23 THE COURT:  What is that date?  18?  2 4 MR. RUSH:  '77.  25 THE COURT:  Oh, '77.  2 6 MR. RUSH:  Yes.  2 7 THE COURT:  Thank you.  2 8 MR. RUSH:  29 Q   And your attention was drawn to a proposal, I believe,  30 made by Mr. Sprout for the work of the Indian Land  31 Commission?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   And I wonder if you could assist the court in helping  34 us with what happened with the proposal?  35 A  Mr. Sprout who was at this point one of three Indian  36 Reserve Commissioners, had proposed that he alone  37 could do the work of the three at a saving of funds to  38 the two governments.  And that if he did the work  39 alone, he would not only be able to do it cheaper,  40 faster, but he would satisfy both governments and the  41 Indians so that everybody would be better satisfied if  42 he took the work in hand alone.  And the result was  43 Mr. Mills wrote this letter to the — Mr. Mills for  44 the Federal -- Dominion Government wrote to the  45 Lieutenant Governor of the province suggesting that if  46 he were agreeable, he might bring this suggestion to  47 the notice of his advisers.  However, as emanating -- 1766?  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  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  in the last page, "emanating from yourself and not as  made at my suggestion, " and the result was that the  three-men Indian Reserve Commission was disbanded and  Mr. Sprout was appointed the sole Commissioner and  served in that capacity for some years until Mr.  O'Reilly was appointed as the sole Commissioner to  replace him.  Q   Okay.  And I -- you did not include this -- this was  not included in the document books submitted by the  plaintiffs?  A   That's correct.  Q   Were you aware of this document?  A   Certainly.  Q   Okay.  And can you say whether or not it was  appropriate for consideration?  A   I didn't consider it important to include because Mr.  Sprout worked for a number of years defining reserves,  none of which were ever approved by the Provincial  Government.  I suppose that's one way of satisfying.  But since nothing came of it, I didn't feel it was  necessary to go into Mr. Sprout's activities, and I  don't believe I put in any of the Sprout material of  which there is voluminous.  Q   All right.  And when you said in terms of the set  proposals regarding setting aside reserves, was that  in his capacity as the Indian Reserve Commissioner, as  sole Indian Reserve Commissioner?  A  Well, he went on defining reserves but they required  the approval of the Department of Lands and Works of  the province and such approval was withheld, as I  recollect, from all of the work that Sprout did for  the next several years.  RUSH:  All right.  Those are my questions, my lord.  COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  I suppose we have nothing  left to do today, have we, or is there anything anyone  can suggest that we might usefully engage ourselves  in?  MR. RUSH:  I can suggest nothing further, my lord.  I think the  case should be stood down till next --  COURT:  Monday.  RUSH:  Monday, yes.  COURT:  Yes.  RUSH:  With the resumption of Dr. Galois' cross-examination.  COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  I wish you all a pleasant  few days.  Thank you.  And the witness is excused?  Yes.  Thank you, Dr. Lane.  (WITNESS EXCUSED)  MR.  THE  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE 17669  B. Lane (for Plaintiffs)  Re-exam by Mr. Rush  1 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court stands adjourned until  2 June 19th, 1989 at 10:00 a.m.  3  4  5 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 11:15 A.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 Toni Kerekes,  16 O.R., R.P.R.  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

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.delgamuukw.1-0019703/manifest

Comment

Related Items