{"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.14288\/1.0221950":{"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider":[{"value":"CONTENTdm","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf":[{"value":"British Columbia Historical Books Collection","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/contributor":[{"value":"Vancouver Lumber Company","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator":[{"value":"Ludgate, Theodore","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued":[{"value":"2015-04-09","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"[1911?]","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO":[{"value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcbooks\/items\/1.0221950\/source.json","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/extent":[{"value":"v, 175 pages ; 22cm","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/format":[{"value":"application\/pdf","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note":[{"value":"     |n tljE firing (fomntil.\nNo. 17 of 1911.\nON   APPEAL    EROM   THE   COURT   OF    APPEAL\nI OF    BRITISH   COLUMBIA.\nBETWEEN\nCITY  OF VANCOUVER,\n(Defendant), Appellant,\nAND\nVANCOUVER LUMBER COMPANY and THEODORE\nLUDGATE ..---     \u00a50     -       -     (Plaintiffs), Respondents.\nRECORD   OF   PROCEEDINGS.\nINDEX   OF    REFERENCE.\nNo.\n,3\n4\nDescription of Document.\nIn the Supreme Court of Brittsh Columbia.\nEndorsement on Writ    ...\nStatement of Claim\nStatement of Defenoe\nDemand for Particulars ...\nDate.\n7th June, 1909\n15th June, 1909\n7th August, 1909\n28th August, 1909\nPage.\n1\n1\n5\n8\nWMF\n5879 11.\nINDEX.\nKS\nNo.\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\nDescription of Document.\nDate.\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\nm\n1\nParticulars of Defence    ...\nDemand for further Particulars ...\nFurther Particulars of Defence         \t\nReply\nRejoinder ...\nProceedings at Trial        \t\nPlaintiffs' Evidence.\nR. G. McPhebson\u2014\nExamination ...\nCross-examination\t\nE. L. Kinman\u2014\nExamination ...\nCross-examination   ...\nArgument as   to  admissibility   of evidence taken on Com\nmission \t\nDefendant's Evidence.\nE. B. McKay\u2014\nExamination ...\nGbobge Tubnee\u2014\nExamination ...\nCross-examination   ...\nRe-examination\nE. B. McKay (recalled)\u2014\nExamination continued      \t\nR. G. Tatlow\u2014\nExamination ...\nCross-examination\t\nJ. C. Keith\u2014\nExamination         \t\nCross-examination\t\nJames McQueen\u2014\nExamination\t\nCross-examination   ...        ...        ...\nRe-examination\nT. F. McGuigan\u2014\nExamination...\nCross-examination\t\n2nd September, 1909\n3rd September, 1909\n37th September, 1909\n30th August, 1909\n14th September, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n10th December, 1909\n15th December, 1909\nPage.\n8\n9\n9\n11\n12\n14\n15\n16\n17\n17\n18\n22\n26\n30\n31\n32\n32\n34\n35\n36\n36\n38\n38\n39\n44 M\nINDEX.\n111.\nNo.\nDescription of Document.\nDate.\nPage.\n21\nC. E. TlSDALL\u2014\nExamination ...\n15th December, 1909\n46\nCross-examination    ...\n15th December, 1909\n47\nRe-examination         ...    <-'>'..:\n15th December, 1909\n49\n22\nGeobge Eldon\u2014\u25a0-\nExamination...        ...      \u2022 ...\n15th December, 1909\n49\nCross-examination    ...\n15th December, 1909\n53\n23\nWilliam Hammersley-*-\nExamination ...\n15th December, 1909\n56\nCross-examination   ...\n15th December, 1909\n58\n24\nWilliam Skene\u2014\n1\nExamination ...\n15th December, 1909\n59\n25\nThomas Matthews\u2014\nExamination ...\n15th December, 1909\n61\nCross-examination    ...\n15th December, 1909\n61\n26\nSir F. Borden\u2014\nEvidence on Commission (continued on page 75)\n19th November, 1909\n62\n27\nR. H. Alexander\u2014\nExamination ...\n15th December, 1909\n64\nCross-examination   ...\n15th December, 1909\n66\n28\nG. S. MoCoNNBLL\u2014\nExamination ...\n15th December, 1909\n66\n29\nJohn McMillan\u2014\nExamination ...\n15th December, 1909\n67\n30\nF. Buscombe\u2014\nExamination ...\n16th December, 1909\n.68\n31\nPlaintiffs' Evidence in Rebuttal.\n16th December, 1909\n71\n3lA\ni George F. Baldwin\u2014\nExamination ...\n16th December, 1909\n73\nCross-examination    ...\n16th December, 1909\n74\nDefendant's Further Evidence.\n32\nSir F. Borden\u2014(continued).\nQuestions of Evidence (on Commission) ...\n75\n33\nBrigadier General Macdonald\u2014\nQuestions of Evidence (on Commission)\t\n76\n34\nSib F. Bordbn\u2014(continued).\nEvidence on Commission   ...\n76\n35\nExamination of Plaintiff Ludgate for Discovery.     Questions\n1 to 66           \t\n77\n376529 13Z.\nINDEX.\nrj\ni\nNo,\n. Exhibit\nMark.\nDescription of Document.\nDate.\nPage.\nExhibits intboduced dubing Tbial.\n'36\n11\nOrder in Council\n25th February, 1880\n84\n37\n12\nLetter, Ralph Thompson to Under Secretary of State and\nschedule thereto ...       ...       ...       ...       ...       ...\n27th July, 1883\n84\n?)\nLetter, Admiralty Office to Colonial Office\t\n29th February, 1884'\n86\n) J\nLetter, Earl Derby to Marquis of Lansdowne\n27th March, 1884\n86\n38\n23\nReport of Gen. Middleton     \t\n16th April, 1885\n87\n39\n13\nLetter, A. W. Ross to Sir Adolphe Caron\t\n24th March, 1886\n87\n40\n21\nLetter, Deputy Minister of Interior to Under Secy, of State\n19th April, 1886\n88\n41\n14\nTelegram, Sir A. Caron to J. W. Trutch    \t\n20th April, 1886\n89\nit\nLetter, Jos. W. Trutch to Sir A. Caron      \t\n6th May, 1886\n89\n42\n38\nLetter, Under Secy. State to Sir A. Caron\t\n25th June, 1886\n90\n43\n24\nPetition, City of Vancouver to Lord Lansdowne, Governor-\nGeneral    \t\nUndated\n91\n44\n4\nOrder in Council         \t\n8th June, 1887\n91\n45\n5\nLetter, Col. Panet to Mayor of Vancouver\t\n12th July, 1887\n92\n46\n6\nLetter, Mayor of Vancouver to Col. Panet ...\n27th July, 1887\n93\n47\n7\nLetter, City Clerk to Sir A. Caron\t\n9th March, 1888\n93\n48\n8\nLetter, Col. Panet to City Clerk              \t\n21st March, 1888\n94\n49\n9\nLetter, Mayor and City Clerk to Sir A. Caron      \t\n9th January, 1889\n94\n50\n10\nLetter, Col. Panet to Mayor        \t\n26th January, 1889\n95\n51\n32\nMemorandum of Lieut.-Col. McPherson    \t\n21st April, 1896\n96\ntt\nMemorandum of Gen. Gascoigno\n16th September, 1896\n96\n52\n28\nLetter, Lord Aberdeen to Sir F. Borden     \t\n25th August, 1898\n97\n71\nMemorial and Petition in form of Resolution       \t\n97\n))\nLetter, SirF. Borden to G. R. Maxwell     \t\n26th August, 1898\n98\n\u00bb)\nLetter, Sir F. Borden to Lieut.-Col. Macdonald    \t\n26th August, 1898\n98\n>l\nLetter, Macdonald to Borden\t\n30th August, 1898\n99\n))\nLetter, Borden to Maxwell\t\n3rd September, 1898\n99\n53\n22\nLetter, Jos. Martin to Hon. Dr. Borden     \t\n20th January, 1899\n100\n54\n2\nLease, Her Majesty Queen Victoria to Vancouver Lumber \u2022\nCo., and Endorsement   ...\n14th February, 1899\n101\n>>\nLease, Her Majesty Queen Victoria to Vancouver Lumber\nCo. ...       \t\n4th April, 1900\n103\n55\n56\n1\n20\nOrder-in-Council approving Lease of 14th February, 1899\nPetition of  Mayor and Aldermen of  Vancouver to Sir\nWilfrid Laurier   (Ex. 40 on Commission.)     \t\n16th February, 1899\n9th March, 1899\n104\n105\n57\n25\nMemorandum from Minister of Militia and Defence  to\nDeputy Minister        \t\n28th March, 1899\n115\nLetter, Deputy Minister, Militia and Defence, to Deputy\nMinister, Justice\t\n29th March, 1899\n116 INDEX.\nNo.\nExhibit\nMark.\nDescription of Document.\nDate.\nPage.\n57\n25\nLetter,   Deputy  Minister   of   Justice to Deputy\nMinister, Militia and Defence ...\n14th April, 1899\n116\n58\n31\nLetter, Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence,\nto City Clerk     \t\n15th April, 1899\n118\n59\n30\nRecord of   Proceedings  in  Action  of   Attorney-\nGeneral of   British  Columbia vs.   Attorney-\nGeneral of Canada\n16th May, 1899\n119\n60\n27\nEvidence of  A. R. Howse on trial of Attorney-\nGeneral   of    British   Columbia   vs.   Attorney-\nGeneral of Canada\n21st December, 1900\n123\n61\n26\nTelegram, R. G. MacPherson to Sir E. Borden   ...\n28fch September, 1904\n150\nit\nLetter, Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, to\nR. G. MacPherson       \t\n3rd October, 1904\n150\ns\nTelegram, Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence,\nto R. G. MacPherson             \t\n20th October, 1904\n151\n62\n37\nLetter,  City  Clerk to Minister   of   Militia   and\nDefence ...        ...        \t\n11th August, 1906\n151\n63\n36\nLetter,   Acting    Deputy    Minister,   Militia    and\nDefence, to City Clerk ...\n20th August, 1906\n152\n64\n33\nOrder in Council\n31st August, 1906\n153\n65\n29\nLetter, R. G. MacPherson to Sir F. Borden\n27th November, 1906\n153\n63\n34\nOrder in Council\n13th August, 1908\n154\n67\n39\nLetter, A. McEvoy to E. F. Jarvis\t\n28th September, 1908\n155\n)>\nTelegram, Mayor of Vancouver to A. McEvoy    ...\n2nd October, 1908\n155\n>\u00bb\nMemorial referred to in above\n28th September, 1908\n156\n68\n40\nLetter, E. F. Jarvis to City Clerk\t\n6th October, 1908\n157\n69\n35\nLease, His Majesty the King Edward VII., to City\nof Vancouver    \t\n1st November, 1908\n158\n70\n3\nDemand for possession by Plaintiffs      \t\nor Judgment of Hon. Mr. Justice Morrison ...\n7th June, 1909\n31st January, 1910\n160\n71\nBeasons f\n160\n72\nFormal J\nadgment...\n\u00ab the Court of Appeal of British Columbia.\n31st January, 1910\n165\n73\nNotice of\nAppeal  ...        ...        ...        ...        ...        ...        ...\n3rd February, 1910\n166\n74\nFormal J\nudgment           ...       ...        \t\n1st November, 1910\n167\n75\nEeasons f\nor Judgment of the Hon. Chief Justice Macdonald ...\n1st November, 1910\n168\n76\nReasons f\nor Judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Irving\t\n1st November, 1910\n172\n77\nReasons \\\nor Judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Martin\n1st November, 1910\n174\n78\nOrder of.\nlis Majesty's Privy Council giving leave to appeal ...\n4th March, 1911\n175 '\u25a0*.\n%\nm\nM\n3\n\u2022ysi |n t\\ft flribu CmmalL\nNo. 17 of 1911.\nON    APPEAL    FROM    THE    COURT   OF   APPEAL   OF\nBRITISH    COLUMBIA.\nCITY   OF   VANCOUVER\nBETWEEN\nAND\n(Defendant), Appellant,\nVANCOUVER   LUMBER   COMPANY   AND\nTHEODORE LUDGATE   -       -        - (Plaintiffs), Respondents.\n10\nRECORD   OF   PROCEEDINGS.\nIN   THE   SUPREME   COURT   OF   BRITISH   COLUMBIA.\nBetween :\nVANCOUVER LUMBER COMPANY AND THEODORE LUDGATE, \u25a0\nPlaintiffs,\nand\nCITY   OF   VANCOUVER, I\n(Writ issued the 7th day of June, 1909).\nDefendant.\nENDORSEMENT   ON   WRIT.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\n2Q The Plaintiffs' claim is to recover possession of all that certain Island known     No. l\nas   Deadman's   Island,   situated   in   Coal  Harbor,   in  Burrard   Inlet,   City of ^writment\nVancouver.\n7th June\n1909\nSTATEMENT   OF   CLAIM.\nWrit issued 7th day of June, 1909.\nNo. 2\nStatement of\nClaim\n].    The Plaintiff Theodore Ludgate at present resides in the City of Seattle15th June\nin the State of Washington in' the United States of America,  and carries on\nbusiness under the firm name of Vancouver Lumber Company, and the Defendant\nis a municipality incorporated by special  Act,  of the Legislature of British\n30 Columbia i\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 2\nStatement of\nClaim\n15th June\n1909\ncontinued\n\/i\n2. The Plaintiff Theodore Ludgate under his firm name of the Vancouver\"\nLumber Company is entitled to the possession of a certain Island known as\nDeadman's Island situate in Coal Harbour in Burrard Inlet near the City of\nVancouver aforesaid.\n3. On or before the 14th day of February (a.d.) 1899, Her Majesty Queen\nVictoria (in right of the Dominion of Canada) was seized in fee and in possession\nof the said premises.\n4. On the said 14th day of February, 1899, Her Majesty Queen Victoria,\nacting through the Honorable the Minister  of Militia 'and  Defence  (for  the\nDominion of Canada) the Honorable Frederick William Borden, leased the said 10\nproperty known as Deadman's Island to the Plaintiff, in the following terms :\u2014\nTHIS INDENTURE made in duplicate the Fourteenth day of February in\nthe year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine in pursuance of the Act respecting Short Forms of Leases Between Her\nMajesty Queen Victoria acting through the Honorable the Minister of\nMilitia and Defence and Honorable Frederick William Borden of the\nCity of Ottawa in the Province of Ontario and Dominion of Canada of\nthe first part and the VANCOUVER LUMBER COMPANY of the\nCity of Vancouver in the Province of British Columbia and Dominion of\nCanada of the Second Part. 20\nWITNESSETH that in consideration of the rents, covenants and agreements\nhereinafter reserved and contained on the part of the said party of the\nsecond part his executors administrators or assigns to be paid observed\nand performed he the said party of the first part hath demised and\nleased and by these presents doth demise and lease unto the said party\nof the second part his executors administrators and assigns all that\ncertain island known as \" Deadman's Island\" situated in Coal Harbour\nin Burrard Inlet near the City of Vancouver in the Province of British\nColumbia and Dominion of Canada to be used as a lumbering location\nwith the right of erecting thereon a lumber plant and all such appliances go\nas may be necessary for carrying on a general lumber business including\nwharves, etc.\nTO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said demised premises for and during the\nterm of 25 years renewable to be computed from the first day of March\none thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine and from thenceforth next\nensuing and fully to be complete and ended at expiration of said term\nor until determined as hereinafter mentioned YIELDING AND\nPAYING therefor yearly and every year during the said term or unto\nthe party of the first part of his successors in office the sum of five\nhundred ($500) dollars current money of the Dominion of Canada 40\nto be payable on the following day and times, that is to say: Half-\nyearly in each and every year during.the continuance of the said term\nwithout any defalcation or abatement whatsoever\u2014the first of such\npayments to become due and be made on the first day of September\nnext, 1899.\nm AND the Lessee covenants with the said Lessor\u2014TO pay rent; and to pay\ntaxes ; and to repair ; and to keep up fences ; and that the said Lessor\nmay enter and view state of repair ; and that the said Lessee may repair\naccording to notice ; and will not carry on any business that shall be\ndeemed a nuisance on the said premises and will not assign or sublet\nthe said leased premises or any part thereof without leave in writing\nfrom the party of the first part.\nTHE said Lessees to have the right to cut down and remove such timber as\nmay be necessary to provide space for the erection of all buildings in\n10 connection   with   their  industry\u2014Her   Majesty's Men of War and\nCanadian Government Vessels to have> the right to use all wharves constructed by the said Lessees for coaling and watering purposes.\nAND that he will leave the premises in good repair proviso for re-entry by\nthe said party of the first part on non-payment of rent or non-performance of covenant; the said party of the first part covenants with the\nsaid party of the second part for quiet enjoyment; provided always and\nit is hereby agreed that this demise may be determined by either party\ngiving to the other a notice thereof in writing months before the\nexpiration of the first or any subsequent term or the said party of the\n20 first  part may determine this demise at any  time by  a  demand  of\npossession of the said leased premises or any part thereof if required for\nmilitary or defensive purposes and the said lessees to have no claim for\ncompensation for buildings erected or improvements made thereon.\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF the said parties hereto have hereunto set their\nhands and seals the day and year first above written.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 2\nStatement of\nClaim\n15th June\n1909\ncontinued\nSIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED by\nthe party of the first part in the presence\nof the undersigned witness,\nD. A. MACDONALD,\n30       Z ff \u00a7 Lt.-Col.\nSIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED by )\nthe party of the second part in the presence\nof the undersigned witness,\nF. E. KNIGHT.\nF. W. BORDEN (L.S.),\nMinister of\nMilitia and Defence.\nTHEO. LUDGATE (L.S.)\nfor the Vancouver\nLumber Co.\n5. On the 4th day of April, 1900, Her Majesty> Queen Victoria, acting\nthrough the Honorable the Minister of Militia and Defence (for the Dominion of\nCanada) the Honorable Frederick William Borden modified the hereinabove\nrecited lease by the following indenture under seal:\u2014\nTHIS INDENTURE made in duplicate on the fourth day of April in the\n40 year of Our Lord nineteen hundred between HER MAJESTY QUEEN RECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 2\nStatement of\nClaim\n15th June\n1909\ncontinued\nVICTORIA acting through the Honorable Frederick William Borden of\nthe City of Ottawa in the Province of Ontario and Dominion of Canada\nof the first part and the VANCOUVER LUMBER COMPANY of the\nCity of Vancouver in the Province of British Columbia and Dominion of\nCanada of the second part.\nWHEREAS by an indenture bearing date February the fourteenth in the\nyear eighteen hundred and ninety-nine between the parties hereto of the\nfirst and of the second parts it is witnessed that the party of the first\npart did demise and lease unto the party of the second part all that\ncertain island known as Deadman's Island in the City of Vancouver in 10\nthe Province of British Columbia on the terms and conditions is in the\nfollowing words: Provided always and it is hereby agreed that this\ndemise may be determined by either party giving to the other a notice\nthereof in writing months before the expiration of the first or any\nsubsequent term of the said party of the first part may determine this\ndemise at any time by a demand of possession. of the said leased\npremises or any part thereof if required for military or defensive purposes\nand the said lessees to have no claim for compensation for buildings\nerected or improvements made thereon.\nAND   WHEREAS it is deemed advisable to modify the said lease by 20\nremoving therefrom  the  said condition above recited and also any\nrestrictions as to the lawful uses of said premises and also to provide\ntherein for the fixing of rents from time to time, Now therefore it is\nhereby agreed and declared between the parties hereto as follows :\nThat the said lease shall be and the same is hereby amended by the removal\ntherefrom of the conditions on above set forth and any restrictions\nas to the purposes for which said premises may lawfully be used and by\nthe addition thereto of the following provision :\nProviding always that the said lease at the expiration of the said first term of\ntwenty-five years and from time to time at the end of each renewal term 30\nof twenty-five years shall be renewed for a further term of twenty-five\nyears at a rental for each renewal term to be then determined by way of\narbitration in case of any difference as to the amount of said rental\nprovided always that no such renewal or further term shall be granted\nunless the rents reserved shall have been paid.\nIt is hereby declared and agreed between the parties hereto that the said\nlease shall be construed as if the said above recited condition for its\ndetermination had not formed part of said lease and as if said lease did\nnot contain the restrictions to user therein contained, and as if the\nabove-mentioned condition for renewal or renewals had formed part of the 40\nsaid lease at the time of the execution thereof, and it is further declared\nand agreed that these presents and the said lease shall in no way be THEO. LUDGATE (L.S.),\nfor the Vancouver Lumber Co.,\nSigned in the presence of\nheld to deprive Her Majesty of any right which she her Successors or\nAssigns or they may now or hereafter possess to expropriate the demised\npremises for the public use.\nF. W. BORDEN (L.S.),\nMinister of Militia and Defence,\nSigned in the presence of\n(Sd.) JOHN H. POWELL. (Sd.) D. A. MACDONALD.\n6.    The Defendant the City of Vancouver has wrongfully trespassed upon\nand taken possession of the said Deadman's Island and has refused and still does\n10 refuse (after having been requested so to do) to give up possession thereof to the\nsaid plaintiff.\nTHE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM\u2014\n(a) Possession of the said property known as Deadman's Island.\n(b) Mesne profits from the 14th day of February, 1899.\n(c) Damages and costs.\nPlace of trial, Vancouver, B.C.\nDELIVERED this 15th day of June (a.d.) 1909, by David Gordon Marshall,\nof the firm of Davis, Marshall  and  Macneill   Rooms   80-87   Davis  Chambers,\nVancouver, B.C., Solicitor for the Plaintiffs.\n20 To G. H. COWAN, Esq., K.C.,\nSolicitor for the Defendant.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 2\nStatement of\nClaim\n15th June\n1909\ncontinued\nSTATEMENT OF DEFENCE. n0. 3\nt-\\   (>      i i i        r\u00bb    i       o \/^n   \u2022 Statement of\n1. Defendant as to the 2nd paragraph of the Statement of  Claim herein Defence\nsays that the Plaintiff Ludgate is not under the said firm name of the Vancouver i9o9Ausust\nLumber Company or otherwise entitled to possession of the said premises known\nas Deadman's Island.\n2. Defendant is in possession of the said premises referred to in the Statement of Claim and known as Deadman's Island, by itself.\n30 3.    Defendant as to the 3rd  paragraph of the said Statement of Claim\ndenies each and every allegation of fact contained therein.\n4. Defendant, as a further defence to said 3rd paragraph, says that Her\nMajesty Queen Victoria (in right of the Dominion of Canada) was not on the 14th\nday of February, 1899, nor for over 11 years prior thereto in possession of the\nsaid premises.\n5. Defendant as to the 4th paragraph of the said Statement of Claim\ndenies each and every allegation of fact contained therein.\n6. Defendant as a further defence to the said 4th paragraph says that the\nsaid alleged Lease was not executed by the Honorable Mr. Frederick William\n40 Borden acting as Minister of Militia and Defence for the Dominion of Canada or\notherwise. 1\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 3\nStatement of\nDefence\n7th August\n1909\ncontinued\n7. Defendant as a further defence to the said 4th paragraph says that if\nthe said Honorable Frederick William Borden executed the said lease as Minister\nof Militia and Defence for the Dominion of Canada or otherwise (which the\nDefendant does not admit but denies) then that he was not authorised to execute\nsuch alleged lease by a Dominion Order-in-Council or otherwise.\n8. Defendant as to the 5th paragraph of the said Statement of Claim denies\neach and every allegation of fact contained therein.\n9. Defendant as a further defence to said 5th paragraph says that the\nIndenture referred to in the  said  paragraph   was not  executed  by  the  said\nHonorable Frederick William Borden as Minister of Militia and Defence for the 10\nDominion of Canada or otherwise.\n10. Defendant as a further defence to said 5th paragraph says that if the\nsaid Honorable Frederick William Borden executed the said Lease as Minister of\nMilitia and Defence for the Dominion of Canada or otherwise (which the Defendant does not admit but denies) then that he was not authorized to execute such\nalleged Indenture by the Dominion Order-in-Council or otherwise.\n11. Defendant as to the 6th paragraph of the said Statement of Claim\ndenies each and every allegation of fact contained therein.\n12. On the  8th  June,   1887,  the  Dominion  Government  by Order-in-\nCouncil and for the consideration and on the terms therein mentioned vested the 20\nproperty known as  the Dominion  Military reserve  near  the  First  Narrows |\n(bounded on the west by English Bay and on the east by Burrard Inlet) in the\nDefendant for Park purposes subject  only  to  redemption by the  Dominion -\nGovernment for military purposes, and such Order-in-Council is as follows :\u2014\n\"REPORT OF A COMMITTEE OF THE HONORABLE THE PRIVY\nCOUNCIL APPROVED BY HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR\nGENERAL IN COUNCIL on the 8th day of June, 1887.-\n| On a report dated 10th day of May, 1887, from the Minister of Militia and\nDefence stating that he has had under consideration a petition of the\nMayor and Aldermen of the City of Vancouver, B.C., praying that the 30\nDominion Government Military reserve near the First Narrows, bounded\non the west by English Bay and on the east by Burrard Inlet may be\nhanded over to the said corporation for use as a park. Then Minister\nreports that he sees no objection to this proposal provided this Corporation keep the park in proper order and the Dominion Government\nretain the right to resume the property when required at any time. The\nMinister further states that he does not deem it advisable to recommend\nthat this property be transferred to class 2 as not available for military\nuse as he is of the opinion that it will be required for military purposes\nbut until this recommends that the corporation have the use of the same 40\nas a park, subject to the provisions mentioned. The Committee advise\nthat the Minister of Militia and Defence be authorized to take the\nnecessary steps for carrying the same into effect.\nJOHN J. McGEE,\nClerk, Privy Council.' 13. The said Deadman's Island forms a portion of the said Government\nMilitary Reserve referred to in the said last-mentioned Order-in-Council and by\nvirtue of such Order-in-Council the said Deadman's Island became vested in the\nDefendant for Park purposes as aforesaid.\n14. The said Order-in-Council of the 8th June, 1887, was duly transmitted\nto the Defendant by direction of the Minister of Militia and* Defence for the\nDominion of Canada and in pursuance of and upon the faith of such Order-in-\nCouncil the Defendant immediately thereafter entered into possession of the said\nGovernment Military Reserve including the said Deadman's Island, and expended\n10 large suras of money improving the said land, building roads, trails and bridges,\nand rendering the same suitable for park purposes, and has been ever since and\nis now in possession of the said Government Military Reserve including Deadman's\nIsland.\n15. No portion of the said Government Military Reserve has, since the\nDefendant so took possession of same and expended money thereon, ever been\nrequired for military purposes, nor has possession thereof been resumed by the\nDominion Government for that or any purpose.\n16. On and prior to the 25th day of February, 1880, the said Military\nReserve was with other lands in   Canada, owned   and   held by  the  Imperial\n20 Government as Military Reserve, and the Governor of Canada requested\nthe Imperial Government to transfer such Military Reserve with other\nNaval and Military Reserves to the Dominion of Canada to be held and\nadministered by the Dominion in the same manner as other lands in Canada of a\ncorresponding character that had been previously transferred by the Imperial\nGovernment to the Dominion Government were held and administered, and in the\nyear 1884 the Imperial Government in compliance with such request transferred\ninter alia the said Military Reserve to the Dominion of Canada to be so held and\nadministered as aforesaid.\n17. The said Military Reserve so transferred to the Dominion of Canada\n30 as aforesaid was to be held and administered for military purposes until the same\nwas transferred to the class of lands known as \"Class 2\" as not available for\nmilitary use, and the said Military Reserve was not so transferred to such class,\nand the alleged lease to the Plaintiff and the Indenture purporting to modify said\nalleged lease dated the 4th April, 1900, were and are both contrary to the terms\nand conditions upon which the said Military Reserve was to be held and\nadministered by the Dominion of Canada, and the Plaintiffs did not receive or\nobtain any rights thereunder.\n18. Defendant says that the alleged right of action and any claim to mesne\nprofits did not accrue if at all within six (6) years \"before the commencement\n40 of this action, and was including any claim for mesne profits barred by the 3rd\nSection of the Statute of Limitations.\nDelivered this 7th day of August, 1909, by George Henry Cowan of the\nfirm of Cowan, Macdonald and Parkes, whose place of business and address for\nservice is at their office, 537, Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C., Solicitor for the\nDefendant.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 3\nStatement of\nDefence\n7th August\n1909\ncontinued JmT'WrxW\"\nm\nm\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 4\nPlaintiffs'\nDemand for\nParticulars\n28th August\n1909\n1\nNo. 5\nParticulars\nof Defence\n2nd Sept.\n1909\n*<\u00a9K\ni\n8\nNo. i. ;|:'\nDEMAND FOR PARTICULARS.\nThe Plaintiffs demand particulars of the Defendant's Statement of\nDefence in the following respects :\u2014\n1. Particulars of the request of the Government of Canada to the Imperial\nGovernment to transfer Military Reserves to the Dominion of Canada referred to\nin paragraph 16 of the Defence herein, stating whether such request was oral or\nin writing, and if in writing the date of such document, between who, or to whom\naddressed, and by whom signed.\n2. Particulars of why \"the said Military Reserve so transferred to the 10\nDominion of Canada was to be held and administered for military purposes until\nthe same was available for military use\" referred to in paragraph 17 of the said\nStatement of Defence, and if any such obligation depended upon any document\ngiving the date and description of such document and between whom made.\n3. Particulars of | Class 2\" referred to in paragraph 17 of the said\nStatement of Defence.\nDated the 28th day of August, 1909.\nTo\nD. G. MARSHALL,\nSolicitor for Plaintiffs.\nG. H. Cowan,\nSolicitor for Defendant.\n20\nNo. 5.\nI PARTICULARS.\nParticulars delivered pursuant to Demand, dated 28th August, 1909.\n1. The request referred to in paragraph 16 of the Defence herein is as far\nas Defendant has knowledge, contained in a report of the Privy Council\napproved by His Excellency the Governor-General in Council on the 25th day\nof February, 1880, and is as follows :\u2014\n\"On a memorandum, dated 16th February, 1880, from the Honourable the 30\nMinister of the Interior reporting that he is informed that a considerable area of\nlands situated at important points along the coast line in the Province of British\nColumbia is held by the Imperial Government as Military and Naval Reserves,\nand suggesting for the consideration of your Excellency in Council the expediency\nof inviting the attention of the Imperial Authorities to the fact, and asking\nshould the same not be inconsistent with the views of Her Majesty's Government\nthat the lands in question, excepting such as may actually be required for military\nor naval purposes, may be transferred to the Dominion, to be held and\nadministered in the same manner as the lands of corresponding character in the\nolder provinces formerly transferred by Her Majesty'^ Government to Canada.     40\n'The Committee submit the foregoing suggestions for your Excellency's\napproval.\n\" J. O. COTE,\n\" Clerk, Privy Council.\" 9\n2. The Defendant cannot give particulars of why the said Military Reserve\nso transferred to the Dominion of Canada was to be held and administered for\nmilitary purposes as the reason for so holding and administering such Military\nReserve were and are matters of Imperial and Dominion policy.\nDated this 2nd day of September, 1909.\nTo\n10\nGEO. H, COWAN,\nSolicitor for the Defendant.\nD. G. Marshall,\nSolicitor for the Plaintiffs.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 5\nParticulars\nof Defence\n2nd Sept.\n1909\ncontinued\nNo. 6.\nDEMAND FOR FURTHER PARTICULARS.\nThe\nPlaintiffs demand further and better particulars of the Defendant's\nStatement of Defence in the following respects :\u2014\n1. Particulars of the obligation by which | the said Military Reserve so\ntransferred to the Dominion of Canada was to be held and administered for\nmilitary purposes until the same was transferred to the class of lands known as\n'Class 2 ' as not available for military use\" referred to in paragraph 17 of the\n20 said Statement of Defence, and if any such obligation depended upon any\ndocument giving the date and description of such document, and between whom\nmade.\nDated, etc., 3rd September, 1909.\nNo. 6\nDemand for\nfurther\nparticulars\nof Defence\n3rd Sept.\n1909\nNo. 7.\nFURTHER PARTICULARS OF DEFENCE.\nPursuant to Demand of 3rd September, 1909.\nthe particulars of any \" obligation\nNo. 7\nFurther\nParticulars\nof Defence\n27th Sept.\n1909\n1. The following are the particulars of any \"obligation*' referred to in\nsuch demand:\n30 The said Military Reserve was applied for by the Domiuion Government and\ntransferred or surrendered to the said Government by the Imperial Government\nin pursuance of the following Order-in-Council and Despatch, viz.:\u2014\nThe Order in Council approved of the 25th of April, 1880, and the Despatch\nof the Earl of Derby of the 27th of March, 1884.\nCopy of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council\napproved by His Excellency the Governor-General in Council on the 25th\nFebruary, 1880. 10\nfft\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 7\nFurther\nParticulars\nof Defence\n27fch Sept.\n1909\ncontinued\n\"On a Memorandum dated 16th February, 1880, from the Honourable the\nMinister of the Interior, reporting that he is informed that a considerable area of\nlands, situate at important points along the coast line in the Province of British\nColumbia, is held by the Imperial Government as military and naval reserves,\nand suggesting for the consideration of your Excellency in Council the expediency\nof inviting the attention of the Imperial authorities to the fact, and asking should\nthe same not be inconsistent with the views of Her Majesty's Government, that\nthe lands in question, excepting such as may actually be required for military or\nnaval purposes, may be transferred to the Dominion, to be held and administered\nin the same manner as the lands of corresponding character in the older provinces 10\nformerly transferred by Her Majesty's Government to Canada.\n\" The Committee submit the foregoing suggestions   for your Excellency's\napproval.\n\"J. 0. COTE,\nI Clerk Privy Council.\"\nTHE EARL OF DERBY TO THE MARQUIS OF LANSDOWNE.\nGovernor-General, the Most Honourable\nThe Marquis of Lansdowne, G.C.M.G., etc. etc. etc.\nDowning Street, 20\n27th March, 1884.\nMy Lord,\nWith reference to your despatch No. 207 of the 13th of July, 1881, and to\nprevious correspondence respecting the proposed surrender to the Canadian\nGovernment of certain lands reserved for naval and military purposes in British\nColumbia, I have the honour to state that the power of Governor Douglas\nto make reserves in British Columbia appears to have rested on the 2nd clause of\nhis commission dated the 2nd of September, 1858, directing him to execute his\ntrust according to powers, directions and authorities granted or appointed to him\nunder the Royal Sign Manual and Signet or by Order in Council or by the Queen 30\nthrough one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, and further upon\ndespatches from Sir E. B. Lytton, dated the 31st of July and 14th of August,\n1858, and giving him instructions as to the marking out of allotment for public\npurposes and giving him provisional rules for his guidance in selling lands.\nThese papers are contained in a Parliamentary paper given to the British Parliament in 1859, entitled I Papers relative to the affairs of British Columbia,\"\nprinted 18th February, 1859, p. 3, 45 and 49. And it has always been considered\nthat reserves made by him were valid and became effectual without confirmation\nby the Secretary of State.\nAs regards the reserves now in question no formal deed appears to have 40\nbeen, made conveying them to the military or naval authorities, and I am advised\nthat they may now m like manner be surrendered without the formality of a\nregular deed of conveyance.\nIt appears, therefore, sufficient to state that Her Majesty's Government are\nprepared to surrender the military reserves specified in the schedule to the War 11\nOffice letter of the 27th of July, 1883, a copy of which is enclosed, and all navy\nreserves with the exception of those mentioned in the letter from the Admiralty\nof the 29th ultimo, a copy of which is enclosed.\nI request that you will inform me whether the Dominion Government desire\nto receive any more formal notification of surrender than this despatch, and that\nI may also be informed of the nature of the instrument which they would like to\nreceive.\nI have, etc.,\nDERBY.\n10\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 7\nFurther\nParticulars\nof Defence\n27th Sept.\n1909\ncontinued\n2. Particulars of Class \" 2 | referred to in paragraph 17 of the Statement\nof Defence are such lands as have been reserved by the Dominion for military or\nnaval purposes, but which have been found no longer available or necessary for,\nsuch purposes and then transferred to Class \" 2.\"\nDated this 27th day of September, a.d. 1909.\nGEO. H. COWAN,\nDefendant's Solicitor.\nToD. G. Marshall, Esq.,\nPlaintiffs' Solicitor.\n20\nNo. 8.\nREPLY.\n1. The Plaintiffs join issue with the Defendant's Statement of Defence\ndelivered herein.\n2. In further answer to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the said Statement of\nDefence, the Plaintiffs say that if an Order-in-Council such as is alleged were\npassed (which these Plaintiffs deny), such Order-in-Council was not acted upon\nand was inoperative, and was cancelled by Order-in-Council dated August 31st,\n1906\n30 3.    In further answer to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the said Statement of\nDefence, the Plaintiffs say that if any term of demise of the lands in question in\nfavour of the Defendant was established by the said Order-in-Council (which the\nPlaintiffs deny), then the unexpired residue was duly Surrendered by the\nDefendant to the Dominion Government by act and operation of law in or about\nthe month of November, 1908, and prior to the demand for possession mentioned\nin the Statement of Claim herein.    Particulars are as follows :\u2014\n(a) On or before the 28th day of September, 1908, the Defendant presented\na petition  to the Right Honourable Sir  Wilfrid Laurier and   the\nExecutive Council of the Domiuion of Canada, asking for a lease of the\n40 reserve known as Stanley Park, and the Plaintiffs crave leave to refer\nto this petition at length on the trial of this action.\nNo. 8\nReply\n30th August\n1909 RECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 8\nReply\n30th August,\n1909\ncontinued\n12\n(b) Acting upon the said request and petition of the Defendant, the Minister\nof Militia and Defence, representing His Majesty King Edward the\nSeventh, and acting under the authority of the said Order-in-Council\ndated August 13th, 1908, leased the said property referred to in the\nsaid Order-in-Council of June 8th, 1887, to the Defendants upon certain\nterms and conditions contained in a lease dated November 1st, a.d.,\n1908, which lease the Plaintiffs crave leave to refer to at length upon\nthe trial of this action.\n(e) The said lease was also executed by the Defendant and was accepted\nand acted upon by them, and is now in full force and effect. 0 i\n(d) If the property referred to in the said Order-in-Council of June 8th,\n1887, includes the lands sued for herein or any portion thereof (which\nthe Plaintiffs deny), then the said lease as accepted and acted upon by\nthe Defendant as aforesaid was expressly made subject to the lease to\nthe Plaintiffs of the lands sued for referred to in paragraph 4 of the\nStatement of Claim herein.\n4. As to paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Statement of Defence, the Plaintiffs\nsay that the same show no good cause of defence to this action.\nDelivered, etc., 30th August, 1909.\nTo Geo. H. Cowan. 20\nNo. 9\nRejoinder\n14th Sept.\n1909\nNo. 9.\nREJOINDER.\n1. The Defendants join issue on the reply.\n2. In answer to the 2nd paragraph of the Reply, the Defendants say that\nthe Order-in-Council referred to in the Statement of Defence was never cancelled,\nbut was acted upon and always remained in full force and effect, and by the\nsame the Defendants acquired a perpetual interest in the said lands with the\nexclusive right of occupation irrevocable by the Crown except for military\npurposes, and that such Order-in-Council was never revoked, and the Defendants 30\nhave been in continuous possession ever since the same was passed, and are now\nin possession of the said lands thereunder.\n3. In further answer to the said 2nd paragraph, the Defendants say that\nthe Order-in-Council of the 31st August, 1906, did not and was not intended to\ncancel the said Order-in-Council of 1887, and that the same was never communicated to these defendants in any way.\n4. In answer to the 3rd paragraph of the Reply, the Defendants say that\nthey never surrendered to the Crown in right of the Dominion either in fact or\nin law their interest in the said lands.\n5. The Defendants further say that they applied to the Crown in the right 40\nof the Dominion for better evidence of their title to the said lands, and thereupon\nthe Crown in right of the Dominion by an Order-in-Council, dated 31st August,\n1906, which was not communicated to these Defendants or acted upon in any IS\nof\nway  affected  to cancel the   Order-in-Council\narranging the holding; of the said lands which l\nRECORD\n1887   for the purpose of  re-\nintended by the said Order in the\nto be leased for a period of ninety-nine years to Commissioners.    Thereafter, on couVof\nthe 13th August, 1908, the Crown in right of the Dominion made an Order-in- Sjjjjjj^\nCouncil  whereby  the  t-aid  Order-in-Council   of  the 31st August,  1906, was       __\namended to provide for the leasing; of the said lands to the Defendants.    In _ .^\u00b0;9\n*\u00bb   i \u2022   \u2022      i  y^w   t       \u2022     s*? -ia r\\   i       \u2022     r*i H ReJ01nder\npursuance of the original Order m-Council of 1887, and of the Order-m-Uouncil uth Sept.\nof 1908, the Crown in right of the Dominion executed a lease bearing date the 2inued\n1st day of November, 1908, which recited that the Order-in-Council of 1887 was\n10 in force, and that it was thereby intended to demise to the Defendants all the\nsaid lands for the term of ninety-nine years renewable perpetually, subject\nonly to the conditions in a certain lease made by the Crown in the right of the\nDominion of Public Lands (known as Mount Pleasant Park) at the City of\nHalifax, Nova Scotia, and to no other conditions.\n6. In drawing up the said lease, by mistake and inadvertence, there was\ninserted in the same a clause as follows :\u2014\n\" Subject until their determination of any existing lease of portion of\nsaid lands.\"\nBut the Defendants say that the said clause is not in accordance with the Order -\n20 in-Council aforesaid, which was passed to carry out more effectually the Order-in-\nCouncil of 1887, and did not contain any such conditions, and that under the\nOrders-in-Council of 1887 and 1908 they are entitled to the exclusive possession\nand occupation of the said lands.\n7. The Defendants further say that the said lease was signed or executed\nby the Mayor of the City of Vancouver without any bye-law authorising him to\ndo so and without any other authority, and that the said Mayor had no right to\naffix the seal of the City of Vancouver to the said lease or to execute the same\nwith the clause referred to in the 6th paragraph hereof, and that the same was\nwithout authority and void.\n30 8.    The Defendants further say that by the Order-in-Council of 1887 acted\nupon by these Defendants, and under which large sums of money were expended,\nthese Defendants became entitled to a perpetual lie mce to occupy the said lands,\nwhich is irrevocable by the Crown, and the lease claimed by the Plaintiffs passed\nno right, title or interest thereto to the Plaintiffs.\n9. The Defendants further say that the public are interested in the said\nlands, the same having been dedicated as a public park, and that either the\nAttorney-General for the Province of British Columbia or the Attorney-General\nfor Canada is a necessary party to this action.\nDelivered this 14th day of September, a.d. 1909, by Geo. H. Cowan, of the\n40 firm of Cowan, Macdonald & Parkes, whose place of business and address for\nservice is 537, Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C., Solicitors for the Defendant. \u2022\nRecord\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 10\nProceedings\nat Trial\nCase for the\nPlaintiff\nft\nI\nI\n14\nNo- 10 'If        f;\nPROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL.\nBefore MORRISON, J.\nVancouver, B.C.,\nDecember 10th, 1909.\nE. P. DAVIS, Esq., KG, and D. G. MARSHALL, Esq. (Davis, Marshall and\nMacneill), for Plaintiffs.\nW. A. MACDONALD, Esq., KG, and C.  F.   CAMPBELL,  Esq.  (Cowan,\nMacdonald & Parkes), for Defendants.\nCASE FOR THE PLAINTIFF. f 10\nMr. Davis\u2014I wish to take certain objections to certain paragraphs of the\nDefendants' Rejoinder as being bad in law, and ask to have them struck out, and\nthat no evidence may be given under them.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I object to my learned friend's application. No notice\nwhatever has been given of this application, and one cannot strike out paragraphs\nof a Statement of Defence without giving notice.\nMr. Davis\u2014As far as I am concerned, at the present time it is quite\nsufficient for me to take the objection that it is bad in law, and then it can be\nargued afterwards as to its being struck out. This is the formal way of putting\nit, paragraph 3 of the Rejoinder referring to the second paragraph of the Reply. 20\nThe reason why I object, I want to protect myself now by my objections in\nraising this point. For instance, if they came along and tendered evidence under\na defence like that, they might say when I objected to the admissibility of the\nevidence, \" You never took any objection to that pleading, and the pleading is\nthere,\" and I am just protecting myself in that way. The next one is paragraph\nI of the Rejoinder, and the reasons are practically the same. I object to\nparagraph 6 as bad in law. Then in the* next plnce I object to paragraph 8 of\nthe Rejoinder as merely setting up a conclusion of law- I do not suppose that\nthey will tender any evidence under it in any event, but still I take the\nobjection. 30\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I think my learned friend is hardly of the opinion that\nyour Lordship will deal with these objections to the paragraphs at this stage, but\nhe simply wants to save his rights, so I do not want to take up any time now\narguing upon that.\nThe Court\u2014No.\nMr. Davis\u2014I put in an Order-in-Council of the 16th of February, 1899.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014It is as well for me at this point to raise the objection to\nthis Order-in-Council that it cannot have reference to the lease under which this\nPlaintiff claims title to the island, as the Order-in-Council was passed after the\nlease was executed. 40\nThe Court\u2014The lease was executed when ? 15\ncontinued\nMr. Macdonald\u2014On the 14th of February, and the Order in Council was   RBJ^D\non the 16th of February. in the\nThe Court\u2014The lease was filed a couple of days before, that is all.    Was courtrf6\nthe lease made pursuant to that Order ? rritislv\nMr. Macdonald\u2014It does not show. \u00b0 maiJ'\nBy the Court\u2014Is that the suggestion 1 I No-}\u00b0\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I don't know what the suggestion is. at trial\nBy the Court\u2014It may not have any reference to that lease at all, yet it Casef~\nmight have some reference to some point involved in this trial.      If you say that plaintiff\n10 purports to be the Order-in-Council on which the lease is based\u2014\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I do not say so. I say my learned friend is suggesting\nthat is the Order in Council on which the lease is based. I say it is not a matter\nof evidence in the trial unless he can show that is the order on which the lease is\nbased, and the date shows it cannot be the one on which it is based.\nBy the Court\u2014I suppose there is no controversy that the lease was dated\non the 14th, and this is on the 16th ; but the document speaks for itself, and I\ndo not know the contents yet.\nMr. Davis\u2014I will undertake to prove beyond all question, my learned friend\nknows perfectly well this is the Order-in-Council and with the rest of the evidence\n20 will go in.\nBy the Court\u2014There is no jury, and if documents have been improperly\nadmitted, all that can be rearranged.\nMr. Davis\u2014I will straighten that out. My statement won't help it a particle. The evidence shall speak for itself. Extract from the report of the\nCommittee of the Honorable Privy Council as approved by His Excellency on the\n26th of February, 1899.\nBy the Court\u2014I suppose you do not intend to spread all these on the\nrecord, because they will be filed as exhibits, anyway.   Of course I do not pretend\nto carry them in  my  mind,   but   they  might  obviate  the necessity  of your\n30 reading it.\nMr. Davis\u2014All right, my Lord, I will just state the substance of it. I will\ncall Mr. MacPherson.\nNo. 11.\nR. G. MACPHERSON Called and Sworn, and Examined by Mr. Davis :\u2014\nQ. What is your name ?    A. Robert G. MacPherson.\nQ. You live in Vancouver ?    A. Yes, sir.\nQ. You are Postmaster here at present, I believe ?    A. Yes.\nQ. You were a Member for the Dominion House Parliament for Vancouver\n40 City for some years ?    A. Yes.\nQ. You were personally acquainted, I believe, with Sir Frederick Borden ?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Do you know his signature ?    A. Yes,\nPlaintiffs'\nEvidence\nNo. 11\nR. G.\nMacpherson\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909 RECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nPlaintiffs'\nEvidence\nNoll\nR. G\nMaopherson\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\n16\nQ. Will you just look at the two signatures, one on the front \" F.W. Borden.\"\nWhose signature is that ?    A. Sir Frederick Borden's.\nQ. What position does he occupy ?    A. Minister of Militia.\nQ. And Defence, in the Dominion Cabinet ?    A. Yes, sir.\nQ. Look at the\t\nBy the Court\u2014And was so during your time ?    A. Yes, during my time\nof incumbency.\nMr.  Davis\u2014And was so in  1899?    A   Well,  yes,  to the best  of my\nknowledge.\nQ. As a matter of fact he was from 1896, on, anyhow ?    A.  1896, yes. 10\nQ. He has always been ?   A. Yes.\nQ. Now \" F. W. Borden \" on the back again ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Whose signature is that ?    A. That is Sir Frederick Borden's.\nQ. I would ask leave to put in first to let certified copies take the place of\nthese. There are two documents here, the one on the first part of the page is the\nlease in question which date is the 14th of February, 1899, Deadman's Island, to\nthe Vancouver Lumber Co. Then on the back there was a modification of that\nlease, and if there were any question about the date, the 16th, although it is\neasy enough to see how that has crept in, we will put it beyond all question. On\nthe 4th of April, 1900, another lease was signed introducing some modification in 20\nthat of the 16th February. Both are set out in full in the statement of claim:\nIn other respects it leaves the lease the same.\nCross-\nexamination Cross-Examination by Mr. Macdonald\u2014\nQ. How long were you a  member, Mr. Macpherson ?\n1908.\nA. From 1903 to\nQ. And during all that time that agitation was on over at Deadman's\nIsland ?    A. No, we didn't have much agitation ; that was prior to my time.\nQ. That is one of the troubles you escaped ?    A. Evidently.\nQ. I see that in this list\u2014because the copy that goes in will not show it\u2014 30\nthere is a blank left in the printed form; there is no time within which the\nnotice can be given for cancellation ?     A. Well of course I know nothing about\nthat.\nQ. I only draw your attention to it, because we are not going to keep the\noriginal.    That is correct ?    A. Well of course I am not authority for the lease.\nBy the Court\u2014From a glance of the copy that is spread out in the\npleadings, that also is left in blank ? A. I do not know anything about the\nlease.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I see the clause that is used in the printed form that is\nused for leases \" shall not erect any building or obstruction whatever on the 40\nleased premises\" is struck out ?    A. Yes.\nBy the Court\u2014I think he must put in, as it were, a photograph or exact\npicture of that.\nMr. Davis\u2014Yes, By the Gourt\u2014Mr. Davis will see to that, Mr. Macdonald.\nMr. Davis \u2014It can be marked 2 in the meantime, and with the privilege of\nwithdrawing it when a certified copy is substituted.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I see there is another blank endorsement on this, but it\nseems to be cancelled and scored out.    That will go on too.\nMr. Davis\u2014We have no objection to that.    You want a facsimile.\nBy the Court\u2014Isn't it usual, Mr. Macdonald, to photograph it ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014-I would not want it put in to that extent.\nMr. Davis \u2014We will put in a copy that is satisfactory to Mr.  Macdonald,\n10 and if it is not satisfactory and he wants the photograph, he can have it.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nPlaintiffs'\nEvidence\nNo. 11\nR. G.\nMacpherson\n10th Dec.\n1909\nCross-\nexamination\ncontinued\nthis   document\nYes.\n2?    A.\nNo. 12.\nE. L. KINMAN, Called and Sworn, and Examined by Mr. Davis :\u2014\nQ. What is your name ?    A. Everett L. Kinman.\nQ. You live in Vancouver, Mr. Kinman ?    A. Yes.\nQ. You know Mr. Ludgate's signature I believe ?    A. I do.\nQ. Just  look at I Theo. Ludgate\" here  on   the   front of\n(Exhibit 2).    Whose signature is that ?    A. It is Mr. Ludgate's.\nQ. That is Mr. Ludgate of the Vancouver Lumber Co. ?    A.\n2o Q- And then look at the back, \" Theo. Ludgate,\" back of Exhibit\nThat is the same.\nQ. His signature also ?    A.  Yes.\nQ. Did  you under  that lease,  or   these   leases,   take possession   of  this\nDeadman's Island sometime this year ?    A. I did.\nQ. And when ?    A. I think about the first of May.\nQ. Acting under whose authority ?    A. Mr. Ludgate's.\nQ. And you took possession, you say ; and did you find anybody in connection with the city there at all ?    A. When I first went over there I found  two\nmen who I was told were working for the city.     I asked them, and they refused\n30 to tell who they were working for.\nQ. And then what happened to you ?    A. Well, I put them off the Island.\nQ. That is, you put these men off the Island ?    A. Yes.\nQ. And subsequently, what happened to yourself?    A. Well, they arrested\nme on a warrant.\nQ. The city ejected you from the premises, a short way of putting it?     A.\nYes ; arrested me and put me in gaol.\nQ. Adding insult to injury ?   A. Yes.\nCross-Examined by Mr. Macdonald\u2014\nQ. You are interested in this action, Mr. Kinman ?\n40 Q. Well, I hardly know.    I have an interest in the Company that was\nformed, but the property has never been transferred to the company.\nQ. Well, you are interested in the Company, to be plain about it ? A. Well,\nI presume so.\nNo. 12\nE. L. Kinman\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\nCross-\nexamination 4\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nPlaintiffs'\nEvidence\nNo. 12\nE. L. Kinman\n10th Dec.\n1909\nCross-\nexamination\ncontinued v\n[18\nBy the Court\u2014We are all interested in it, you know.   I am very much \u2022\ninterested at the present time.\nMr. Macdonald (to witness)\u2014I mean, financially interested ?   A. Oh yes\nQ. You are ?   A. Yes. J\nQ. And so that in going there to evict these men from the Island you were\nacting on your own behalf as well as Ludgate's ? A. Well, I was acting under\ninstructions from Mr. Ludgate.\nQ. But acting in your own financial interests.\n(Objected to by Mr. Davis as involving a question of law.)\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I want to know whether at that time you were interested ? 10\nA. Oh, yes, I was interested then, as much as now.\nQ. And you put these two men off the Island ?   A. I did.\nQ. Then there was a policeman put on with one of those men again? A.\nThere were three or four policemen come back with those men that same day or\nthe next day; I am not sure which.\nQ. And there was a policeman, one of them remaining, and you put him off\nthe next morningr ?    A. I did.\nQ. By force ?   A. Yes.\nQ. When did you first have a knowledge of this Island ? A. Ten or eleven\nyears ago. 20\nQ. At present I believe you are living in Seattle ?   A. No, sir.\nQ. Living here ? A. My home is 1519, Beach Ave., and has been for some\nyears.\nQ. Where does Mr. Ludgate live? A. Mr. Ludgate is at the Hotel\nFrederick, Seattle, at the present time.\nMr. Davis\u2014I ask my learned friend to produce the demand for possession.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I have not got it, but you can put in a copy.\nMr. Davis \u2014I put in the demand for possession, which my learned friend\nadmits as having been served on the city in accordance with the endorsement.\nIt is dated the 7th of June, 1909. 30\n(Marked as Exhibit 3).\ntew*\nNo. 13\nArgument\nas to\nadmissibility\nbf Evidence\ntaken on\nCommission\nNo. 13.\nMr. Davis\u2014That is the Plaintiff's case, my lord.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014My lord, I must admit my learned friend has overlooked\nthe fact that a commission was issued on his behalf and that commission is part\nof the evidence of this Court.\nMr. Davis\u2014I have not overlooked it at all.\nBy the Court\u2014Apparently he does not deem it necessary for his case.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Oh, you cannot take that course.    If you issue a com- 40\nmission it becomes part of the evidence of the party who issues it, and you cannot\ncome to the trial and lie back and say I am not going to use it now.    I state, as\na fact,  and it can be shown by affidavit if necessary, there was a commission\nissued,\n0 19\nMr. Davis\u2014I do not dispute that.\nBy the Court\u2014I suppose I will have to take judicial notice of that because\nI think it was I who issued the order, but whether it is obligatory on him to use\nthe evidence he has thereby obtained I am not prepared to say.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014That is the point, whether 1 commission once issued for\nthe examination of witnesses at a foreign point, whether those witnesses do not\nbecome witnesses of the Court and the evidence of the party who takes out the\ncommission when before the Court, and for the purpose of being used on the\ntrial.\n10 By the Court \u2014May he not use it if he wishes to ?\nMr. Macdonald \u2014Just the same I take it as if a witness is called into open\nCourt and the evidence given is evidence before the Court and it has been taken\nand is required to be used. In other words, they cannot trifle with the Court in\nthat way in having a commission issued and then not use the evidence.\nBy the Court\u2014Your question is. that commission evidence contains some\nmaterial which may be adverse to the Plaintiffs' case ? If so, you have the\nopportunity of using it, haven't you ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014No, I suggest this\u2014.\nBy the Court\u2014If he can make the case without that, presumably the onus\n20 is on you of course to adverse that, and I presume you have that evidence at\nyour disposal.\nMr. Davis\u2014I may say, my lord, I would like to see my\nproduce some authority. The practice I understand is when a\nissued, certain evidence is taken and there is a provision put in\nupon the party who is using the commission showing that the witnesses are out\nof the province, he is at liberty to use the evidence. Although I do not suppose\nI would object to my learned friend putting the evidence in, still he has no right\nto do so. I only know of one case in this province (which is not reported). Mr.\nLuxton was on the other side, and he had taken out * 9 just as I have here\u2014a\n30 certain commission which he did not wish to put in and I tried to put it in\u2014not\nmyself, because I did not think I had a right to do so, but I asked that the other\nside put it in. Mr. Luxton refused, and under the same provision as to a solicitor\nshowing by affidavit that a witness was away, I put Mr. Luxton in the box in\norder to get myself in a position to put the evidence in. I was not able sufficiently\nto prove through Mr. Luxton that the witness was out of the province, and I was\nnot able to make use of the evidence at all. Mr. Justice Drake decided that\nwas the only way I could get it in and he ruled it out ultimately. That is the\nonly decision I know of in these Courts. Your lordship knows that a man can\nput in a certain portion of his commission evidence, he is not bound to put it all\n40 in. The other side can put in what is necessary to explain it. He is merely in\nthe position of not having obtained certain evidence. You can object when commission evidence is read if there is any question that is not admissable\u2014evidence\nthat is not admissible put in on commission, when that question is read you can\nobject in Court here although no objection may have been taken in the Court\nbelow,\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nPlaintiffs'\nEvidence\nNo 13\nArgument\nas to\nadmissibility\nof Evidence\ntaken on\nCommission\ncontinued\nlearned friend\ncommission is\nthe order that\n\"SIC 20\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nPlaintiffs'\nEvidence\nNo 13\nArgument\nas to\nadmissibility\nof Evidence\ntaken on\nCommission\ncontinued\nBy ihe Court\u2014Mr. Macdonald's objection goes further than that. It presupposes the matter is before the Court, and he complains you have ignored this\naltogether.\nMr. Davis\u2014Yes, that is my right.\nBy the Court\u2014Perhaps Mr. Macdonald has authority.\nMr. Davis\u2014I don't think my learned friend can find any authority. I may\nsay we may use it in rebuttal. Is my learned friend to force me to put it in in my\noriginal case when perhaps there would be nothing to rebut ?\nBy the Court\u2014Is there any obligation on Mr. Davis to use that evidence ?\nThat is the point I would like some authority on. 10\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Well, I would like to see if there is an affidavit.\nBy the Court\u2014Couldn't we go on ? There is no jury, and these are\nmatters that can be adjusted. If you give me authority later on that he is\nobliged to use that evidence.\nMr. Davis\u2014Mr. Marshall says there was an affidavit and the usual one, that\ncovers the point.\nBy the Court\u2014The affidavit of D. G. Marshall ?\nMr Macdonald\u2014Yes, the affidavit of the solicitor for the Plaintiff says \"T\nam advised by counsel and verily believe it is material for us at the trial,\" and so\non\u2014the usual affidavit. 20\nBy the Court\u2014Well, could we not go on ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014That is, I understand, your lordship then does not care to\npass upon that at present ?\nBy the Court\u2014If you give me authority I will receive it and we can strike\nthat out you know. I will leave it open for you to show, as you say you are\ntaken by surprise in the matter.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I wish to take the ground that there is no lease upon\nwhich the PI aintiff can succeed. A lease from the Crown can only arise in two\nways, that is by letters patent or seal\u2014the great seal of Canada as it would\nbe in this case, or under the authority of an Act of Parliament or by Order-in- 30\nCouncil. Now the only order produced here is an order that was passed and the\nword \"approved\" means passed, on the 16th of February.\nBy the Court\u2014Pardon me for interrupting you, you of course are\napplying for a dismissal on the evidence. Now I will not undertake to determine\nthe matter at this juncture, and I think reserving to yourself the right to reply,\nit would be well for us to dispose of the evidence you may hava here, and then\nwe can canvass the whole matter at the conclusion of your evidence.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Would that cover any other points that I have got ?\nBy the Court\u2014Yes, because it would really save that much time and\nobviate the necessity of arguing the matter twice;   so if you would go on with 40\nyour defence you could deal with that later on. 21\nCASE FOB THE DEFENCE.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I put in as the first exhibit on behalf of the defence\u2014\nBy the Court\u2014Again, Mr. Macdonald, if you will pardon me, have you a\nnumber of witnesses ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Yes.\nBy the Court\u2014Well, if it would suit your plan  of defence  to call those\nwitnesses it might be better to do so, and  then  after  that  put  in  your  documentary evidence.\n10 Mr. Macdonald\u2014I will try to do that as much as I can.    This  is  a copy of\nthe Order-in-Council, approved on the 8th of June, 1887.\n(Marked Exhibit 4\u20141).\nThat is set out in the pleadings. I put in the letter enclosing that Order-in-\nCouncil dated the 12th of July, 1887, commission number 16. My lord, there\nwere about between 50 and 60 exhibits on the commission, and I suggest so there\nwill be no conflict about numbers, we will adopt the numbers before the commission.    They begin 1, 2, 3, etc.\nMr. Davis\u2014The only objection to that will be, in addition to those, these\nare out of order now, but apart from that there was a tremendous number of\n20 documents put in at Ottawa. We had not the chance to see those documents\nthere, and for fear that something might be left out everything was put in. Now\nI do not feel it is right to have those go into the record, because nine-tenths of\nthera have absolutely nothing in the world to do with it, and it is not fair to the\nCourt. This is a case which I suppose it is safe to say may go some distance on\nappeal, and at any rate there is no object in cumbering the record.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014As to the numbering, I think perhaps we bad better put\nour own numbers.\nMr. Davis\u2014I would suggest that the commission number be also mentioned\nat the same time.\n30 Mr. Macdonald\u2014Letter dated 27th of July, 1887, from Mayor of Vancouver\nto Col. Panet (6-17); letter 9th of March,   1888,   from  the   City  Clerk to the\nMinister of Militia (7-19).\nMr. Davis\u2014This exhibit T want to object to. I suppose there is no object\nin arguing it now.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Letter from Deputy Minister  of Militia,   21st of March,\n1888 (8\u201420) to the City CI rk.\nObjected to.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Letter from Mayor and City Clerk, dated 9th of January,\n1889 (9-22) to the Miuister of Militia. '\n40        Objected to.\nLetter from Deputy Minister to Mayor, 26th of January, 1889 (10-23.)\nObjected to.\nAt this stage, upon the suggestion of the Court, it was decided to call\ncertain witnesses.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I put in Exhibit 7 of Commission (11-7), Order-in-Council,\n$5t>h February,  1880.     Then the Despatch 8 on Commission with Schedule,\nRECORD\nIn tbe\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence jt\n4\n'A\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\ncontinued\n*stc\na\n22\n27th March, 1884, that contains some exhibits\u2014some letters of Ralph Thompson\nand G. Tyron (12-8). I draw my learned friend's attention to the fact that I am\nputting in, further over in the return 68a. I put in Exhibit 12 on the Commission, letter from A. W. Ross, 24th of March, 1886, to the Minister of Militia,\nMr. Adolphe Caron (13-12).\nObjected to.\nMr. Davis\u2014I ask if the letter goes in the * go in.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014You will find on the Commission evidence the map could\nnot be produced from the department.    There was a great scarcity of maps.\nBy the Court\u2014It was not that there was any objection to the materiality 10\nof it at all but there was none available ?\n(Marked 14).\nMr. Macdonald\u2014It is not there, that is all.    They cannot find it anyway.\n(Exhibit 14-14. Telegram, 20th of April, 1886, from Caron to Crutch.\nAlso as the same Exhibit, letter Crutch to Caron, dated 6th of May,\n1886).\nBoth objected to.\n#\/\nNo. 14\nE. B. Maokay\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\nNo. 14.\nE. B. MACK AY, Called and Sworn :\u2014 20\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald).\nQ. What is your name ?   A. Eric B. Mackay.\nQ. What position do you hold in the Department of Lands ? A. Surveyor-\nGeneral of the Province.\nQ. And you have held that position for how many years ? A. Four or\nfive years.\nQ. And as such Surveyor-General you have the custody of what documents ?\nA. Plans, field notes, and all the documents connected with the Lands Department of the Province.\nQ. You have been subpoenaed to produce such maps and field notes and 30\nother documents as relate to what is commonly known as Deadman's Island ?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Have you those with you ?   A. Yes, sir.\nQ. Have you got, first, what was called in the previous action of the\nAttorney-General of British Columbia versus the Attorney-General of the\nDominion, a plan of reserves ?   A. Yes.\nBy the Court:\u2014Is that a list of what you have ?   A. Yes.\nQ. Have you submitted a copy of that to Mr. Davis.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Well, I know the ones I want.    Exhibit marked No. 4.\nIt was never marked by the Court;   it was marked in pencil by one of the 40\ngentlemen connected with the case.    It is a plan of reserve in Burrard Inlet.\nQ. This plan of reserves, will you produce that to the Court ? 23\nMr. Davis\u2014Can we not shorten this ? My learned friend says he had this\nbook of plans that was produced in the Deadman's Island case, and I consent\nthat any exhibits in the Deadman's Island case should be used just the same here\nas if they were in.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I think we have got a number of plans in this book\nwhich I see no necessity for going into in this action.\nMr. Davis\u2014If my learned friend will just state which of those he wishes to\nuse, he can give them to the stenographer.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I won't put them in; but I thought it would be right to\n10 the Court these should be produced.\nThe Court\u2014I give you credit for that. You can produce the originals and\nput in copies which Mr. Davis is not disputing.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I am putting in now Exhibit 15, Exhibit 4 in. the\nprevious trial.\nj Mr. Davis\u2014I would suggest that it go, although nothing is filed at present,\nas the next exhibit, the stenographer taking a note at the same time that it is\nexhibit number so-and-so in the Deadman's Island book of maps, and then, if\nnecessary, later on, my learned friend can have copies of these exhibits made and\nfiled.\n20 Mr. Macdonald\u2014This   is  called   10 T.   1 L.R., being   Exhibit  4  in   the\nprevious Deadman's Island case. Marked Exhibit 15, copied from volume of\nmap used in Attorney-General of B.C. versus Attorney-General of Canada, to be\ninserted in lieu of the original.\nField notes of Geo. Turner, marked Exhibit 16.\n\u2022    (Was also Exhibit 16 in the Deadman's Island case.)\nWitness\u2014It is Field Book 4 of the Royal Engineers, marked Exhibit A.\nMr. Macdonald (to Witness)\u2014These Field Notes of Stanley Park so-called,\ncame into your possession in your office in the ordinary way ?    A. Yes.\nQ.  As you say, they were produced and used on the previous case ?    They\n30 are the same Field Notes ?    A. Yes.\nQ. And after the action had terminated, they came back in the ordinary\ncourse to your office ?    A. Came back, yes.\nQ. Will you look up Exhibit 31d? Do you know it by that? It is a\ntracing of a map or a portion of New Westminster District, 1879. (Exhibit 17).\nA. No, sir; I have not got that exhibit. The original map is on file thereto.\nIt is marked 16,799.    I have the original map this was traced from.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Mr. Mackay may be all right.    I' notice in  the printing\nat the edge it  says substituted- for 3ID.    (To Witness)\u2014Did you make the\ntracing ?    A. I did.\n40 Q. Will the original help us any more than that; throw any light on it ?\nA. I don't think so, except the original was marked as Exhibit 10, I think.\nQ. Look at this *casing.    Who made that ?    A. I made it, sir.\nBy the Court?\u2014What is that tracing ? I have as Exhibit 13, 31 Deadman's\nIsland.    That is not that document is it ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014It will come out that way eventually, I think, in the end.\n(To Witness)\u2014What does that purport to be on the left hand upper side ?    A,\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia I\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 14\nE B. Mackay\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\n*sic ? tracing 1\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 14\nE B. Mackay\nExamination\n10th Dec\n1909\ncontinued\n24\nTracing of a portion of the map of a portion of New Westminster District in '77,\nfiled in the Lands and Works Department, Victoria, signed W. S. Gore, Deputy-\nCommissioner of Lands and Works, 9th of June, 1899.\nQ. Where was that tracing taken from ? A. From that map just as before\nyou.\nQ. By whom ?   A. By nryself.\nQ. And this large roll map, (Joes it contain the same material as in the one\nyou have in your hand ? A. In part; it is only a portion of that map. This is\nRichard Roll Map, New Westminster District, Exhibit 10 ; that is what it was\ncalled in the other trial. 10\npi By the Court\u2014And accepted as authentic and correct ?   A. Yes, sir.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Without putting in this large roll map, so that we can\nget it down on the notes, can you say this roll map purports to have been made\nin 1877 ?   A. Yes.\nQ. The roll map from which you made this tracing must have been made up\nin 1877 or prior thereto ? A. It has been compiled from other maps; it has\nalways been known as Richards 1877 map of the Department, of which this is a\ncorrect copy.\nQ. Dealing particularly with the locality in question in this action, have\nyou correctly taken the initial (?) from the peninsula lying to the west of the 20\ncity ?   A. Yes ; it is a copy of that.\nBy the Court\u2014That is on this tracing ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Yes.    What number do we give this, in ours ?\nBy the Court\u201417.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014That takes the place and served all the purposes of the\nroll map ?   That is the understanding !\nMr. Davis\u2014If you are\njoing\none\nto use all these, why make an exception of\nA. Those\nMr. Macdonald (to Witness)\u2014These are photographed copies ?\nare photographed copies ; they are perfectly accurate. 30\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I ask you to produce what is known as Capt. Richard\nAdmiralty Chart of Burrard Inlet 1859, and revised in 1886, marked X on the\nedge of it.\n(Marked Exhibit 18.)\nWitness stands aside.\n(Court adjourned at 1 o'clock to 2.15 p.m.)\nAfter Adjournment.\nE. B. MACKAY, Sworn :\u2014\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald.) 40\nQ. Mr. Mackay, you produce a return made to the Legislative Assembly of\nthe Province in 1873 ?   A. Yes.\nQ. Exhibit 29 in the Deadman's Island case.    (Now marked Exhibit 19). 25\nQ. At the time that these lands were surrendered by the Imperial Government to the Dominion Government there was a schedule attached to the\nsurrender, and that was supplemented by a return to the Local House of\nreserves. I call one the schedule and the other the return. Will you just read\nthe headings there? A. \"Government Reserves \u2014 Location\u2014\u25a0 South First\nNarrows Burrard ; Purpose of Reserve\u2014Military Acreage\u2014950 ; Established\u2014\n(nothing) ; Remark\u2014Burrard Inlet.\" That is under the general heading of\nGovernment Reserves.\nQ. Will you turn to Government Reserves for Navigation ?\n10 Q.  \" Government Reserves available for Navigation or Military Purposes.\nLocation\u2014South of First Narrows, Burrard Inlet.\" | Purpose of reserve\u2014\ndefensive, 950 acres ; Remarks\u2014| Commanding entrance to Burrard Inlet.\"\nNow, as Surveyor-General of the Province, what is the practice where an\nisland at a certain stage of the tide is found adjoining a large area of land ?\nMr. Davis\u2014I object.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I am asking what is the practice as to surveying ?\nMr. Davis\u2014I object to that; I don't see how that can have anything to do\nwith the question of whether or not this particular Island is included; that will\ndepend on Turner's survey, and what Turner did will appear from the notes and\n20 from Turner's evidence.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I want to show by the Surveyor-General that, where\nupon the foreshore of a large piece of land is found a piece of land which at\ncertain stages of the tide is dry, it is the intention to include that with the mainland,\nwith the object of showing that it was so regarded and formed part of the mainland.\nMr. Davis\u2014I object to this. My learned friend wants to show that it was\nthe intention of the Provincial Government that this Island should form part of\nthe mainland adjoining it, and he wants to show that Turner's survey show as\npart of it, and that it was surveyed in accordance with the practice of the\nProvincial Government.\n30 Mr.   Macdonald\u2014My  learned friend  is mistaken ;   George Turner, who\nmade the survey, was not in the employ of the Local Government at all.\nBy the Court\u2014I expected that you would call Mr. Turner first, and then\nwe would find out.\nMr. Davis\u2014I had forgotten that Turner was not in the Provincial\nGovernment Service, and since that appears to be the case, and the survey in\nquestion was not made for the Provincial Government, what can the practice of the\nProvincial Government have to do with it ?\nBy the Court\u2014Have you got through with Mr. Mackay as far as Exhibit 1\nis concerned ?\n40        Mr. Macdonald\u2014I was going to put the field notes in his hands.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Now having reference to the Government Returns you\nhave just read and the field notes that you produced, upon what exhibit can you\npoint out the reserve that is referred to there ?    A. Exhibit 4.\nMr. Davis\u2014As a matter of fact, it is shown in them all. A. Shown in the\nthree surveys-Richard's map, Snyder's map, exhibit 4, Index map; the Island and\nthe Peninsula ; both marked Government reserve on those maps.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I will let Mr. Mackay stand down, and call Mr. Turner.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDelendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 14\nE. B. Mackay\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\n376529 \u2022\nI\nw\nI\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 15\nG. Turner\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\n26\ni     i   No> i5,     ^\nGEORGE TURNER, Sworn jj\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald).\nQ. You were the first witness called by the Dominion Government in the\nDeadman's Island case ? A. I was not called until before the Supreme Court in\nthe first appeal; my evidence was not allowed to be entered in the first hearing\nof that case.  \u25a0\nQ. Your evidence was stopped, but you were examined ? A. Well, I was on\nthe stand; I don't remember how long.    I knew my evidence was stopped.\nQ. You did not finish the evidence you were supposed to be brought there in\nto give ?   A. No.\nQ. Your evidence was taken before the Appeal Court anew ?    A. Yes,\nQ. If we refer to your evidence given before the Appeal Court, it covers all your\nevidence ? A, Yes, my evidence from the first; I think I gave my evidence at\nthe Supreme Court Appeal; of course there were probably some questions asked\nat the Trial Court.\nQ. You appeared to have been called as a witness on the 8th of January,\n1910? A. That was the last time I appeared before the Court of Appeal, I\nthink; but I don't remember the date.\nQ. You are employed in what capacity ?   A.   I  am  employed  by  the 20\nDominion Government at the present time at Westminster, in the Public Works\nDepartment.\nQ. And in 1863 ?   A.  I was in the Army\u2014Royal Engineers.\nQ. What was your position ?   A. I was Lance Corporal at that time.\nQ. Who was your Commanding-Officer ? A. Captain Parsons ; he was one\nI had to deal with, with the exception of Col. Moody, who was at the head.\nQ, What official capacity had Moody ? A. Chief Commissioner of Lands and\nWorks or what is the same now as that.\nQ. As Corporal in the Royal Engineers, in the course of your duties, did you\ndo any surveying ?   A. That is what my duty was;  I was brought from the 30\nother service for that purpose.\nQ. I have in my hands produced from the Department of Lands and Works,\nVictoria, what is apparently the original memorandum by Col. Moody to Capt.\nParsons. Do you recognize that ? A. Yes, that is Col. Moody's signature as\nfar as I can remember.\nQ. This is a portion attached to Exhibit 116.\" I see attached to this\nmemorandum for Capt. Parsons the notation \" copy handed to Corporal Turner.\"\nDid you receive a copy at that time ?    A. I expect so.    I can't say now.\nQ. In pursuance of this authority what did you do ?     A. I proceeded to\nBurrard Inlet from New Westminster and made the survey I was instructed to 40\nmake.\nQ. Are those your field notes of that surveying ? A. Yes, these are the\nfield notes.\nQ. In whose handwriting, in respect to this particular locality ?\nin mine.\nA. I\nguess 27\nmain British\nColumbia\nQ. Now  having   reference   to   the   particular   locality   in    and    around   RE^\nwhat is now called Deadman's Island, will you state what you did as appears in the\nfrom these notes ?      A. In making my main traverse to the head of False Creek, court\u21226\nin passing   Deadman's  Island;   I  connected Deadman's Island with  my\ntraverse.\nQ. Why ?    A.   Because it was a parcel of land that  would  need  to  be Defendants'\nsurveyed and shown on the map ; it was a parcel of land that was there and had       _\nto be.shown ; I could not ignore it. r,1l0-15\no . Gr, Turner\nQ. Have you got the line that shows the connection there, showing the Examination\n10 traverse?    A. The notes here\u2014that is it. jS^\nQ.  How far is it shown there ? continued\nBy the Court\u2014Is that book paged ?    A. Yes; page 19.\nBy the Court\u2014Showing Deadman's Island?    A. Yes; page 19.\nMr.  Macdonald\u2014I want to show the distance you took for your off-set ?\nA. The distance from ?\nQ. From your traverse line south-west ? A. High watermark; the distance\nbetween high watermark and high watermark; when I made the survey the\ntide would be out, and the consequence was while I passed Deadman's Island I\nwould be 90 links away from high watermark or 60 feet from high watermark ;\n20 the distance would be from high watermark to high watermark about seven\nchains, about 400 odd feet.\nQ. How many feet ?    A. Nearly four hundred.\nQ. At what stage of the tide did you make that survey ?    A. Low tide ; at\na low stage of the tide.\nQ. Spring tide ?\nnot a half\nA. It would be what we call our low tide ;\ntide ; It would be the low tide.\nQ. Was any name given to the piece of ground you have called the island at\nthat time ?    A. No name at that time.\nQ.  Do your field notec- show whether you, chained across from this piece of\n30 land to the shore ob not ?    A. I should imagine I did ;   it doesn't mention any\nother way, and if I had taken the angles it might have shown.\nQ. You could have taken it by triangulation, but it does not appear to have\nbeen taken that way ? That is right ? A. Yes, that is right ? I should imagine\nI chained across from my main traverse to the Island on foot; there might have\nbeen.a little sag. but evidently I got it chained some way ; I could not swear\nthat I walked straight across.\nQ. You say you chained across ? A. Yes, I probably walked across, but I\ncould not say for certain.\nQ.. After you made that survey what became  of your field  notes ?     A.\n40 Were handed into the Surveyor's office in New Westminster.\nQ. Is the date shown there\u2014the actual date that you made that survey ?\nA. Yes, 17th March, 1863, is the date shown here; it might not have been all\ndone at the time.\nQ. You say you turned the field notes into the office at New Westminster ?\nA. The Surveyor's office at that time.\nQ. At New Westminster ? A. Yes, similar to what is now under the\nProvincial Government. ' Y^-'Jd\n1\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 15\nG. Turner\nExamination\n10th Deo.\n1909\ncontinued\n28\nBy the Court\u2014What at New Westminster ?     A. That was^ headquarters.\nQ. It was the capital, was it, at that time?     A.   Yes, headquarters for\nBritish  Columbia at that time;   was the  office  of the Department of Public\nWorks.\nQ. How did these field notes get over to Victoria ? A. I don't know anything at all about that; when the capital was removed, I should imagine.\nQ. Which would be how many years after this time ?   A.I think five years.\nQ. I suppose you didn't take a hand in moving them to the capital at all ?\nA. No.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014How long did you remain in the service ?    A. We were 10\ndisbanded that year ; I followed surveying after that, my own private work.\nQ. This piece of land on Burrard Inlet\u2014there was no name given to the\nland itself ?   A.  No name given to any land there.\nQ. What were you surveying it for at the time ? What was the land to be\nfor?\nMr. Davis objects.\nBy the Court\u2014I suppose he was surveying pursuant to those instructions.\nIf he had instructions outside of what we have there ? A. There is exactly the\ninstructions given there.\nBy the Court\u2014You were limited in those instructions ?    A. Limited to 20\nthose instructions.    I got some verbal instructions, afterwards which I think are\nnot mentioned there in reference to the Brighouse property in the same locality.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Do you mean that you had any verbal instructions in\nrespect to that area known as Stanley Park and Deadman's Island ? A. No,\nonly as to three other lots for other parties.\nQ. That has nothing to do with this ?   A. No.\nBy the Court\u2014Those instructions covered your survey ?   A. Yes.\nQ. And that is what you surveyed ?   A. Yes.\nQ. That included the piece of land in question, which is now known as\nDeadman's Island ?   A. I suppose so; I don't know. 30\nMr. Davis\u2014Let the surveys speak for themselves.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014In making the survey of what is now termed Stanley\nPark, what became of the piece of land in question\u2014\nMr. Davis\u2014I object to the term Stanley Park unless my learned friend\ngives an exact definition of the term.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I will say that peninsula lying west of Lot 185, In making\nthe survey of that peninsula what became of the   piece  of ground now  called\nDeadman's Island ?   A. I made a survey of it; it is in these notes.\nQ. Did you include it or exclude it ?\nMr. Davis objects ; The notes will speak for themselves.    All he did was to 40\nsurvey ; he didn't include it or exclude it.\nBy the Court\u2014He has already stated that he connected what is now called\nDeadman's Island with the main traverse, because it was necessary to show\neverything above water in that vicinity, and the survey shows that he did.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014At low tide could you walk across from that piece of land\nknown as Deadman's Island to the peninsula ? 29\nMr. Davis objects.\nBy the Court\u2014He has already covered that, because he says he must have\nchained across from the island to the mainland, but was not quite sure\u2014he might\nhave thrown the chain across a certain little channel. He said he must have\nchained across on foot, but he is not certain.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014These survey lines that you find on page 19 that you find\naround this piece of ground called | Island Reserve,\" what do they denote ? A.\nSurvey lines in making the survey.\nQ. From where to where ?    A. For that line, 250 from that point and 300\n1 0 \u2014there is the total length of that line ; this is the usual surveyor's memorandum ;\nthey were kept in different form at that time to what  they  are  at  the present\ntime.    I do work like that at the present time.\nQ.  | Island Reserve \" is in your handwriting ?    A. I think so.\nQ. Don't you know it ?    A. Yes, the whole thing is in my handwriting.\nQ. You don't feel any doubt about it ?    A. No.\nQ. Where do you find in this book the reserve also upon the mainland ? A.\nThere it is there.\nMr. Davis\u2014He points to what?    A. What is called Stanley Park.\nMr. Davis\u2014What direction is Deadman's Island ?    A. Deadman's Island is\n20 south.\nQ. What direction is this from Deadman's Island ? A. There is nothing\nthere to indicate at all; at right angles from the shore line, I should imagine\nabout south-east.\nQ. On this page, where the words | Traverse of Coal Harbour \" are written,\nthat is the part you refer to as this order reserve ? A. Yes, I have not seen this\nsince the survey.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014You see those words \"Island Reserve\"\u2014when did you\nput that on these field notes ?    A. At the time the field notes were made, at the\ntime of the survey.\n30 Q. When you were on the ground ?    A. Yes.\nQ. What induced you to put the statement down that it was a military\nreserve ?\nMr. Davis objects. As to why he recorded that I submit that cannot be\nevidence. Supposing he gave a certain answer that he did it because he wanted\nto. show a certain reason, my learned friend would be attempting to prove\nfrom him that it was the reason without his really knowing anything about it.\nBy the Court\u2014It might be in consequence of some personal knowledge he\nput it there, or according to his instructions.\n40        Mr. Macdonald\u2014That is evidence that I offer\u2014\nBy the Court\u2014If you get an answer would it be of any use to you ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Your lordship rules against me ?\nBy the Court\u2014Yes.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Will you take your field notes again ? Referring now to\nyour previous examination at page 323.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 15\nG. Turner\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued 30\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 15\nG. Turner\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nQ. Your actual instructions would be verbal as to the survey ? Is that\ncorrect ?    A. I can't say.\nQ. Look at'page 10'; what part of the coast does that show ? A. It shows\nI think what is known as the Brighouse property.\nBy the Court\u2014With which this has nothing to do ? A. If I had the\nplan.\nBy the Court\u2014This was 46 years ago ? A. Yes; I would require the\nplan besides to identify everything in the field notes.\nMr. Macdonald\u20141 That shows the south side of Burrard Inlet,\" is that\ncorrect ?    A. It must show the south side of Burrard Inlet. ] q\nQ. Is it near what is commonly called Stanley Park ?\nMr. Davis\u2014Better keep to the word \" peninsula.\"\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Is it near the peninsula the way we understand it ? A.\nThis is up towards Hastings, I think.\nBy the Court\u2014On page 10 of your book? A. I think so. I can't speak\nfrom memory.    Yes, I think this is alongside of Hastings\u2014on page 10.\nQ. Look at the top of the page, what is the entry ? A. % Survey of coast\nlying from the town reserve to the military reserve.\"\nQ. What direction were you surveying in at the time ? A. Surveying down\nthe inlet from Hastings in a westerly direction. 20\nQ. To where ? A. Down to what is known as Stanley Park, around the\nNarrows and continued right to False Creek.\nQ. You see at the top | To military reserve i ?    A. \" To military reserve,\"\nA.\nCross-\nexamination\nyes.\nQ. Page 21\u2014What is page 21 supposed to contain, taken as a whole ?\nIt is a survey of the coast line through the first narrows.\nQ. Survey for military reserve ? A. It is marked 1 military reserve \" on\nthe coast line ; it is a survey of the coast line of what is then known as military\nreserve, passing through the narrows or along the foreshore.\nQ. You put the woids there yourself, \" military  reserve.\"    A. Yes, it was 30\nknown as military reserve at that time.\nQ. In making this survey from the edge of the military reserve to the first\nnarrows you included the land\u2014\nMr. Davis objects\nQ. In making the survey of the coast line from the edge of the military\nreserve to the first narrows what did you include ? A. I took the coast line that\nwas marked \" military reserve,\" that is all I know about it. Deadman's Island\nwas detached, and whether it should be included or not I could not say.\nQ.  You included it anyway ?    A. I included it; it shows that.\nCross-examined by Mr. Davis- -\nQ. A survey of the coast line would include all islands adjacent to the\ncoast ? A. It depends altogether on the nature of the survey ; if a survey of the\nmainland it would take everything in connection with it.\nQ. Speaking of a survey of the coast line, a Government survey of the\ncoast line, it would include all islands adjacent to the coast ?    A. Yes.\n40 81\nQ. And this Deadman's Island that you included in the survey of the coast\nline would have been included even if a quarter of a mile away, or sixty feet\naway ?    A. Yes.\nBy the Court\u2014As he puts it himself, he could not ignore it.\nMr. Davis\u2014When was it you were there according to the notes ? A.\nMarch, 1863.\nQ. How many days ?    A.I  was  three  months  on  the Inlet  altogether.\nQ. How long would you be at that particular spot, Deadman's Island ?    A.\nMay be two or three days.\n0 Q. You don't recollect just now ?    A. No ; depends on the tides.\nQ. It might be one day, or two or three days ?    A. Yes; about that time.\nQ. That was the only occasion that you had any survey work to do at that\nparticular point ?    A. Yes; that is the only time.\nQ. You had no occasion to make any careful examination of that particular\nspot since then, had you ?    A. No.\nQ. You don't pretend to remember at this late date whether the tide ever\ngot so low that there was no water between the island  and the mainland or not,\nYou don't pretend now to remember distinctly as to just what the\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nGolumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 15\nG. Turner\nCross-\nexamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\ndo you\ncondition of the water was, whether or not there was water between the island\n20 and the mainland ?    A. No.\nQ. Anything you   said in that connection is based upon the condition of\nyour notes ?    A. Yes.\n\u2022 Q. You would not pretend to contradict anyone who said there was always\nsome water left at low tide between the island and the mainland ?    A.  No.\nRe-examined by Mr. Macdonald\u2014\nQ. Did I understand you to say that if in surveying the coast line of a Re- ,\nmilitary reserve you had found an island out from the foreshore you would have\n30 embraced that in the survey of that military reserve ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Why ? A. Because to make a proper survey of land that was right\nthere.\nQ. What land ? A. The land that comprises Deadman's Island\u2014we had to\nshow what land there was.\nQ. Do I understand you to say that if you found an island away out some\ndistance from the shore you would have taken that in the survey you were\nmaking at that time ? A. Yes ; I was making a general survey, and would have\nto show all there was to be shown\u2014any land adjoining the mainland.\nQ. Would you mark it \" Island Reserve?\"    A. \"Island Reserve\" would be\n40 an altogether different thing; whether I should have done an \"Island Reserve\"\nI would not say. y\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 16\nE. B. Mackay\nRe-called\nexamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\n32\nit r 'i;Na ia '\nERIC B. MACKAY (Recalled) :\n-j'\n(Examination continued by Mr. Macdonald).\nQ. You have heard the evidence given by Mr. Turner as to the survey of\nthat military reserve. On reading his instructions and his field notes, what do\nyou say, as a surveyor, as to that land he took there being included with the\nmainland or not ?\nMr. Davis objects.\nA. As to it forming part of the mainland, I could only say this that the\npractice of the Provincial Department of Lands was that if an island is connected 10\nwith the mainland it is to be surveyed; that is, if you were surveying a piece of\nland  with  an island  adjacent to it, you must furnish the department with a\nsurvey of the land.\nQ. Taking the relative distance there and the fact of the survey being\nconnected, what do you say as to its forming a portion of the mainland ?\nMr. Davis objects.\nA. That would depend on the nature of his survey, whether for military\npurposes or navigation purposes, and again on the contour of the coast.\nQ. That survey Mr.  Turner made.     Is there any other Island Reserve\nrecognised by the Department except the Military Reserve of 950 acres in which 20\nthat would be included ?    A. Not that I am aware of.\nMr. Davis.\u2014The language used was a survey of the coast line, and the\ncoast line, as I understand it, includes the land adjacent to the mainland and\nalso any adjacent islands ? A. Any adjacent islands that would be connected at\nlow tide, or partly connected.\nQ. It would include an absolute island ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Whether connected or not ?    A. Yes.\nQ. The practice you are speaking of, by the Department in connection with\nland, that is only Crown granted land given by the Government to private\nindividuals ?   A. Yes. 30\nNo. 17\nR. G. Tatlow\nShD?cati\u00b0n ROBERT G. TATLOW, Sworn |\n1909\nNo.  17.\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald).\nQ. You have been, until recently, Finance Minister of this Province ? A.\nYes.\nQ. You were at one time a member of the Board of Park Commissioners ?\nA. Yes.\nQ. When ? A. I was a member for about fifteen years, from about 1888 to\n1903, or thereabouts. 40\nQ. Do you remember the time that the Order in Council was passed with\nrespect to Stanley Park ? A. I remember there was one, but cannot remember\nthe time. 33\nA.   Lord   Stanley.     Yes,  I\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nMr. McGuigan, the British\nColumbia\nbridge ?\nQ. Do  you know  who opened  the park ?\nremember when he opened it.\nQ. Who kept the minutes of the Park Board ?\nMr. Davis\u2014What year was that ?    A.  1888, I think.\nCity Clerk, also kept the minutes of our Board.\nQ. Do you remember the meeting of October 20th, 1888, when you were defendants'\npresent, at which a certain matter came up with respect to what came to be\ncalled Deadman's Island ?    A. The only matters referring to the island that I     **\u00b0fr1L-\nremember coming up in that was, was the building of a bridge to the island and Examination\n10 a trail across the island. - ^ Dec-\nQ. That matter came up at one of the meetings; in 1888 who vvere the continued\nother Commissioners ?    A. They changed every year ; I hardly remember.\nQ. Was A. G. Ferguson ?    A. He was for a time a member of the Board.\nQ. Is he alive or dead ?    A. He is dead.\nQ. And R. H. Alexander ?    A. He was one of the members.\nQ. Do you remember this resolution being passed at a meeting of the\nBoard ?\nMr. Davis\u2014Is that the one you showed me ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Yes.\n20 A. I remember the spirit of the resolution being arrived at.\nQ. In pursuance of this meeting, was anything done as to building  the\nA. The bridge was built.\nQ, Do you know how many years after ? A. The bridge was built about\n1891 or 1892, I should say ; I know it was some time after.\nQ. You said something about the cutting of a trail across the island; do\nyou know anything of that personally ? A. Yes; I think I was Chairman\nof the Board that year ; that was the last time I was Chairman, and, in\nconjunction with the Park Ranger, I laid out not only all the trails in the park,\nbut I remember laying out a trail across Deadman's Island from water to water.\n30 Q. As one of the Park Board, why did you lay out that trail.\nMr. Davis objects. If this is to show that he did it because he was a Park\nCommissioner, I think that is a fair inference, and I am willing to admit\nit.\nBy the Court\u2014You might ask him in what capacity the trails were made\nby them.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014How did you come to do that work or see that work\nbeing done ?    Why did you see to that work being doing on that island ?    A. It\nwas part of the scheme of opening up the park generally ; we were making trails\non various portions  of the park and  across the island; one reason was that\n40 Brocton Park Athletic Grounds was being opened up.\nQ. It was part of your general scheme, you say\u2014whose general scheme ?\nA. The Park Commissioners.\nQ. You think you were Chairman at that time ?    A. I think so.\nQ. Do you remember a conflict arising between you and the city on account\nof some small pox patients being placed on the Island ? A. I remember some of\nthe details in connection with that, 34\nr\/i\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 17\nR. G. Tatlow\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nA. It was at\nA. I think it\nQ. During the time you were connected with the Park Board did the\nDominion Government meet you at all on the question of your use of that ground ?\nMr. Davis\u2014What ground ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014The ground in question in the present action ?    A. Yes.\nQ. On what point ?   A. The Dominion Government asked for reservations.\nMr. Davis\u2014There is correspondence, I suppose ? A. Colonel Anderson, I\nthink, came out and arranged about that, speaking from memory.\nMr. Davis\u2014Was it you arranged with Colonel Anderson ?\nthe arrangement with one of the officials.\nQ. Are you sure it was personally with Colonel Anderson ?\nwas a member of the Marine and Fisheries Department.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Why did you improve the Island in the way which has\nbeen spoken of?\nMr. Davis\u2014I object to the question of motive ; motive cannot be evidence.\nBy the Court\u2014It seems to me the whole thing is covered by the capacity\nin which these improvements are made.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Whatever work was done, was it done as part of the\nBoard's works ? In what capacity did you improve the property ? A. As Park\nCommissioners.\nQ. At that time were the Park Commissioners elected by the people ? A.\nYes.\nQ. At that time what did you have under your control as Park Commissioners ?    A. Stanley Park and some other parts to the east.\nQ. As Park Commissioners what property did you take under your control ?\nMr. Davis\u2014I will admit that the Park Commissioners made a claim to\nDeadman's Island as part of the park.\nMr.. Macdonald\u2014For years ?\nMr. Davis\u2014At the time they built the bridge, and, I presume, ever since;\nthey laid claim to it.\n10\n20\nCross-\nexamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\nCross-Examined by Mr, Davis\u2014\n30\nQ. This bridge to the island was a foot bridge ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Comparatively inexpensive, was it not ?    A. Cost about $400.\nQ. It was allowed to get in disrepair and fall down years ago ? A. Yes, it\nwas not repaired.\nQ. And it fell down ?   A. Yes.\nQ. There is no trace of it there now ? A. I have not been there for some\ntime; it became useless.\nQ. It disappeared altogether, did it not; the last time you were there, there\nwas no sign of it ?   A. I think it practically disappeared.\nQ And no other means of communication between the mainland and Dead-\nman's Island has been constructed either by the City or Park Commissioners or\nanybody else ?   A. Not that I know of.\nQ. This trail that you speak of, do you remember what it cost ? A. Cost\nabout $400.    Very much the same price as the bridge. 35\n10\nQ. And that has not been kept up since the bridge disappeared, the trail has\nnot ?    A. I have not been there for some years.\nQ. As far as your knowledge goes ? A. It was kept up as long as the bridge\nwas utilized.\nQ. As long as the bridge was there, but since then it has not been kept up ?\nA. Would hardly be any necessity to keep it up, the trail was well made at the\nstart, and it did not overgrow.\nQ. Have you ever been there since the bridge fell ? A. Yes, but not since\n1903.\nQ. There has been nothing done on the trail by the Park Commissioners or\nthe City since the bridge fell down ?    A. Not that I know of.\nQ. As far as your knowledge goes ?    A. I have no actual knowledge  of\nanything having been spent on it since.\nTo Mr. Macdonald\u2014\nQ. The bridge went down since the Ludgate lease was given ? A. I could\nnot say.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 17\nR. G. Tatlow\nCross\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nNo.  18.\nJ. C. KEITH, Sworn\n20 (Examined by Mr. Macdonald).\nQ. You are an old resident of the city ?    A. Yes.\nQ. You have been here since what year ? A. I came here on the 2nd June,\n1886.\nQ. You were for some years manager of the Bank of British Columbia here ?\nA. Yes, to 1892.\nQ. Do you remember the occasion of the city receiving a lea.se of the park\nproperty ?    A. I remember the occasion.\nMr. Davis\u2014I prefer you would not use the word | Lease.\"\nMr.   Macdonald\u2014Authority to take possession;   it  does not make any\n30 difference.    You don't want to admit it was a lease.\nQ. Have you a knowledge of this property now in dispute between these\nparties?    A. Yes.\nQ.  Following on then from the time you knew that the city had received\u2014\nMr. Davis\u2014-Refer to the Order-in-Council.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014From the time that the Order-in-Council was received\nby the city up to the time of the Ludgate affair, how was that property used, as\nfar as your knowledge goes ?    A. Used by the city.\nQ. Personally, can you give  any evidence of that ?     Have you used  it\nyourself?\n40        By the Court\u2014Can you get the dates ?\nMr. Macdonald - From 1887 to 1899\u2014what we call the Ludgate incident\u2014\nfrom 1887 when the Order-in-Council Was given up to 1899 when the Ludgate\naffair arose, I want to know whether personally during that period you can recall\nways in which you personally used that property as a citizen ?\nNo. 18\nJ. C. Keith\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909 36\nHD\nI\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 18\nJ. C. Keith\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nMr. Davis\u2014What property ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Deadman's Island. A. I knew the city used it and\nclaimed it for years.\nBy the Court\u2014Ihat must have been hearsay.\nMr. Davis\u2014Does Mr. Keith really go further than to say that the bridge\nwas built and the trail ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Did you yourself personally use it ?\nA. Yes, I walked across before the bridge was there.\nQ.  From where ?   A. A number of people, like myself, were interested personally in Brocton Point Athletic Grounds, and one day at very low water 110\nwalked across to the island, and I was surprised afterwards when the city put a\nbridge there.\nMr. Davis objects.\nQ. You walked across from where to where ? A. From where the road is,\nabout where the bridge would have been built later on.\nQ. You walked across ? A. There is a ridge there at low water, and in\nthose days it was dry.\nQ. All the way across ? A. Well, I walked across from one side to the\nother.\nQ. You walked from the mainland to the island, if we call it such ?    A. 20\nYes.\nQ. After the bridge was built, did you ever utilise the bridge at all ? A.' I\ncan't say that I have; I remember that I have walked across ; I remember once\ngoing with a small picnic party there.\nQ. Since the City according to your idea abandoned the bridge have you\nwalked across from the mainland?    A. Not that I am aware of.\nti\nCross-examined by Mr. Davis\u2014\nexamination Q. On the occasion that you walked over to  Deadman's Island I suppose\nyou can't say how much water there was between the mainland and the Island\nA No. 30\nNo. 19\nJ. McQueen\nExamination JAMES  McQUEEN,  SwORN '\u2014\n10th Dec. '\nNo. 19.\n1909\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald).\nQ. You were one of the aldermen of the city at the time that the question\nabout the Ludgate lease came up ?   A. Yes.\nQ. For how many years previous to that were you one of the aldermen ? A.\nI think 1906 and 1907.\nQ. You came to the city when ?   A. In 1891. 37\nQ. From 1891 up to the time of this Ludgate  lease  being mentioned, how   REc\u00b0RD\nwas that island or property used by the city as far as you know ?    A. Of course in the\nI never was on the property; never was on it myself; it   is   only  a   matter   of court oT\nrepute how it was used ; I knew the bridge was put there  by   the Park Com- British\nmissioners ; that is all I know about that part of it. \u00b0 um_ia\nQ. I see that you were one of the delegation that went to Ottawa, and you Defendants'\nsubmitted a manifesto to the Premier in connection with the matter ?    A. Yes.        _\nQ. Did you have the making up of that ?    A. Yes, with Mr. McLagen ; he x \u00a3\u00b0- 19\nn       -. J or &       'J. McQueen\nIS dead nOW. Examination\n10 Q. In connection with making out that statement of facts did you have any- igo9Dec'\nthing to do with that ?    A. I  knew  then,  but cannot state at this time just continued\nexactly.\nQ. When did you first hear of any person else, other than the city, laying\nclaim to this island ?\nMr. Davis objects.\nA. The first I heard\u2014\nMr. Davis\u2014When did you hear ? A. I can't give you the date ; it was at\na meeting of the Council; it was announced there.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014About how long before you went to Ottawa in connection\n20 with the matter ?    A. About a couple of weeks or so.\nBy the Court\u2014Would it be in consequence of that you went to Ottawa ?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Up to that time had you heard of any person claiming any right to the\nisland, other than the city ?\nMr. Davis objects.\nBy the Court\u2014I assume you have evidence other than that which you are\nnow eliciting in regard to the position of the city ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I am simply trying to show that there was no claim being\nmade to the property other than here in 1899.\n30 Mr. Macdonald\u2014Did you know of an application by Davis,   Marshall and\nMacneill on behalf of a client being submitted to the City Council?\nMr. Davis objects.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I will ask leave to recall Mr. McQueen on that point.\nBy the Court\u2014Yes.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Do you remember the occasion when Lord Aberdeen was\nhere, about the park, a certain meeting of the City Council being held. A. I\nremember Lord Aberdeen was out.\nMr. Davis objects. Anything the Council did will be shown by the minutes.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I will ask leave to call Mr. McQueen again.\n40 By the Court\u2014You are trying tc show some sort of occupation by reputa\ntion.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I admit that.\nBy the Court\u2014 It seems to me as far as Mr. McQueen is concerned his\nevidence can be better obtained from the archives at the City Hall.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014The archives would not be a narrative of what was going\non during all these years with respect to a certain piece of property. 38\nrecord  Cross-examined by Mr. Davis-\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 19\nJ. McQueen\nCross-\nexamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\nReexamination\nQ. My learned friend asked you about a delegation that went to Ottawa. I\nthink yourself and Mr. McLagan and Mr. Buscombe and Mr. Senkler went down\nto Ottawa and laid the whole question before the Government, the question of\nDead man s Island ?    A. Yes,\nQ. And of course you put every fact that you thought would be in your\nfavour, in any way, shape or manner, before the Government in requesting them\nto cancel the Ludgate lease ?    A. To the best of my ability.\nQ. You did the best you could to press it as strongly as you could ? A.\nYes.\nQ. You put in a petition to the Government stating the facts as far as you\nknew, so that they would cancel the lease to Ludgate of February 14th, 1899, and\nwhich we have filed here ?    A. Yes, that is what we wanted.\nQ. But the Government did not accede to your application ? A. Do not\nappear to have done so.\nRe-examined by Mr. Macdonald\u2014\n10\nQ. The Provincial Government shortly after intervened and claimed this\nproperty as theirs ?    A. Yes.\nQ. And the matter was in dispute between the two Governments for some \u201e_\nyears ?   A. Yes.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014With respect to the memorial petition, which my learned\nfriend has just referred to, I ask to have put in just as it stands. At page 28\n(Exhibit 40 upon that action).\nMarked Exhibit 20 now.\nMr. Davis\u2014That exhibit I am content should go in, subject only to this,\nthat it is not to be used by my learned friend as being any evidence or proof of\nthe statements contained in the petition. If my learned friend will say that he\nis not putting it in as proof of the statements contained in the petition.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Well, for example,  the letter addressed by your firm,\ninstead of calling evidence\u2014\n*? Macdonald       *Mr. Davis\u2014As far as letters passing between the city and what we might\nterm the landlord (the Dominion Government), I ask  it to be taken as proof of\nthe facts therein contained.\nMr. Davis\u2014Yes, I will not object to that.    Is there anything further ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I ask that it should be taken as proof that the letter from\nLynwood Pereira to the City Clerk was duly received and that the reply thereto\nof the City Clerk is a correct copy of the letter that was sent.\n_ Mr. Davis\u2014To facilitate matters I will admit those are correct; they bei\n30\naug\nsubject to objection as to being relevant; and with this admission by my learned\nfriend that Lynwood Pereira who signs as Assistant Secretary was not in the\nDepartment of Militia but in the Department of the Interior. '\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I fancy that is the case.\nBy the Court\u2014He was in the Department of Interior.\nJ 39\nNo.  20.\nTHOMAS F. McGUIGAN Sworn\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald).\nQ. You were City Clerk of the City of Vancouver during what time ?\nA. 1886 to 1905.\nQ. And during what time did you also act as Secretary of the Board of Park\nCommissioners ?    A.  During the whole of that period.\nQ. Are the minutes of the Board of Park  Commissioners  in  your  handwriting ?    A. Yes, except the first page.\n10 Q. Dealing particularly with Deadman's Island  (so called),   do you find  a\nminute of the Board of Park Commissioners at the second meeting shown in the\nminute book ? A. Yes, in my handwriting; October 20th, 1888, in the minute\nbook of the Park Commissioners, as follows :\u2014| It was further resolved that gate\nposts with a sign overhead, painted ' Stanley Park\/ be erected at each entrance\n. and that a plan for a foot bridge from Brocton Point to the Island be prepared.\"\nQ. Then at the meeting of December 2Gth, 1889, what do you find in the\nminutes ?    A.  \" That the Council be requested to place a sufficient sum of the\nestimates next year for the construction of a foot bridge to Deadman's Island,\nopening up trails throughout the park and complete the lake.\"\n20 Q. All those minutes are in your handwriting ;   regular minutes  in the\nordinary way ?    A. Yes.\nQ. In May, 1890, who were the members of the Board of Park Commissioners ?    A. Mr. Tatlow, Mr. Castlo; he is dead.\nQ. Was a resolution passed at that time also dealing with the question of\nthe island ? A. | That the City Engineer be instructed to make an estimate of\nthe cost of a light pontoon bridge for ferry boat landing and a ferry bridge to\nconnect the mainland.\"\nMr. Davis\u2014I don't admit that this can be evidence against us.    Can my\nlearned  friend  get further  than  the  fact  which is  admitted, that the Park\n30 Commissioners spent $400 on a foot-bridge ?\n.Mr. Macdonald\u2014I want to show that they dealt with that property.\nMr. Davis\u2014There is no doubt they did to that extent.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Did you let the contract for the building of the bridge ?\nA. It was duly advertised and constructed.\nQ. On August 13th, 1890 ?-\nMr. Davis\u2014I don't object; I admit all that.\nA. \" That a bridge and pontoon bridge be constructed, contractor to be paid\nas per contract.\"\nQ. There was a bridge between the island and the mainland, and a pontoon\n40 bridge at Brocton Point ?    A. Yes; for landing purposes.\nQ. Do you remember the occasion of the question of the smallpox patients ?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Have you got your other minute book here\u20141892 ?\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 20\nT. F.\nMcGuigan\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909 r\/\n3\nTR73\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 20\nT. P.\nMcGuigan\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\n40\nBy 'the Court\u2014Perhaps Mr. Davis will admit there were smallpox patients\nthere ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014If he will admit that during all these years we exercised\ncontrol.\nMr. Davis\u2014I will admit that occasionally there was exercise of control over\nit as Mr. Tatlow said\u2014they built a bridge and made a trail.\nBy the Court\u2014In regard to the City putting smallpox patients there ?\nMr. Davis\u2014It might be ; I don't know.    I submit this is not evidence at\nall.    I object to this resolution.    I say that, of course, they claimed the island.\nHH Macdonald\u2014Is it admitted that we continuously and persistently laid 10\nclaim to this property from the time that the Order-in-Council was passed |\nMr. Davis\u2014I don't say either continuously or persistently.    I admit the\nCity claimed Deadman's Island.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014From 1887?\nMr. Davis\u2014And do so now.\nBy the Court\u2014From 1887 to the present time?\nMr. Davis\u2014Yes.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Now, as City Clerk, during the period you mentioned\nyou remember signing the memorial that was taken down with the delegation to\nOttawa, during the Ludgate lease incident ?    A.   That is the delegation Mr. 20\nMcQueen referred to ; I don't remember it myself; I know the delegation went,\nforward; no doubt I signed it in my official capacity, but I don't remember it.\nQ. Now there was a letter received from Lynwood Pereira to the City\nClerk with respect to this island ?    A. Yes.\nQ. And you as City Clerk replied to that letter ? A. That is the long\nletter, yes ; that is my letter.    I wrote that.\nMr. Davis\u2014We admitted that correspondence.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Now, these statements that you signed as City Clerk, are\nthey correct 1    A. Yes.\nMr. Davis objects. 30\nA. They were written under instructions from the Council.\nQ. The statements of fact, are they correct ?\n\u25a0Mr. Davis objects.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014You say 1 that by Order in Council of 8th of June, 1887,\nthis property was granted to the City of Vancouver for use as a public park, and\nthat the City since then occupied the said property and spent considerable\nmoney in improving the property.\"    Is that statement correct ?    A. Yes.\nQ. ' That said property is now being used and enjoyed by the city as a\npublic park,\"\u2014is that statement correct ?    A. Yes.\nQ. \" That it has always been considered by the City that the Order-in- 40\nCouncil was sufficient ? \"\nMr. Davis objects.\nA. Those are quotations from the resolutions copied in the minute book;\nthat is what I based this letter on. \u25a0\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Then further down, you say that in the opinion of the\nCouncil of the City it was considered desirable\t 41\nMr. Davis\u2014This is evidence of a written document. Let the document be\nproduced. How can this witness speak of correspondence between the Government and the Council that took place 20 years ago ? They can only prove it by\nproduction of the letter. I will admit the fact that a certain letter was sent,\nbut why the City sent it could not be evidence. They might have title or not;\nhow could it affect us ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014As City Clerk and Secretary of the Park Board Commissioners did you obtain any knowledge of this particular piece of property ?\nA. Not except as a citizen.\n10 Mr. Davis objects.\nQ. Of your own actual knowledge, what do you know as to the island\nquestion ?    A.\t\nMr. Davis\u2014In what respect.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014As to the use of the property.\nMr. Davis\u2014I object to that.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014It is his own actual knowledge.\nBy the Court\u2014As to use by whom ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I don't care to lead him.\nA. When the bridge was constructed it  was used by picnic parties\u2014the\n20 island.\nQ. How did you use the island ?    A. For picnic purposes.\nQ. Who used it ?    A. Myself and other parties that I was with.\nQ. You are speaking now of yourself ?    A. Yes.\nQ. You spoke of the bridge. Did you use the bridge ? A. Yes ; the footbridge.\nQ. For what purpose ?    A. For traffic purposes.\nQ. Roughly speaking, would that be once, or twice, or a number of times ?\nA. For several seasons.\nQ. Now, dealing with the portion of the park, the mainland, was there any\n30 difference in the use of it ?    A.  Well, after the mainland was fully developed we\nalways went through the mainland.\nQ. Before the mainland was developed for park purposes, how did you\nutilize that island ? A. We used to utilize it for land purposes for boats, direct\nconnection with the City, before the bridge was constructed.\nQ. After the bridge was constructed, how did you use that property ? A.\nBoth ways.\nQ. Coming from the mainland and coming from the water ? A. Yes, up to\nthe time that the bridge fell into decay.\nQ. Can you fix that date ?    A. I can't fix that date.\n40 Q- When you speak of it being used for picnic parties, can you say anything\nmore on that subject, of your own knowledge ?    A. I have seen other people\nthere, but can't give their names.\nQ. You don't remember the people, but you know they were citizens using\nthe property ?    A. Yes.\nQ. From ] 887, when this Order-in Council was issued, up to 1899, when the\nLudgate lease cropped in, was there any interference by anyone in connection\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 20\nT. P.\nMcGuigan\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nf\\ 4\nU\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 20\nT.F.\nMcGuigan\nExamination\n10th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\n42\nwith  whatever possession  you  had  of the  island?     A.   I  have no absolute\nknowledge.\nQ. No personal knowledge ? A. I know there was a lawsuit between the\nProvincial Government and the Dominion Government as to who owned the\nproperty.\nQ. That was afterwards ?    A. Yes ;  I don't know anything before that.\nQ. Can you say from recollection the bridge went down after the ligitation\nstarted;  was no longer used from the time of this litigation ?    A. I am not pre\npared to say; I know it fell down.\nQ. I suppose from memory you cannot tell when this litigation ceased ?    A. 10\nHas not ceased yet.\nQ. Now there is a letter in here of 12th July, 1887, which is in already as\nexhibit \" 5 \" page 15. Referring to the last paragraph, can you say whether\nthat refers to Colonel Holmes or not ?    A.I cannot.\nQ. You say you remember the receipt of this Order-in-Council covering this\nproperty ?    A. Yes.\nQ. From your local knowledge at that time, taking the boundaries as you\nfind them there, what does that include ? A. Have to look up the city's\ncharter.\nMr. Davis\u2014The boundaries given there speak for themselves. 20\nMr. Macdonald\u2014How soon after the receipt of the first Order-in-Council\nwas the first Meeting of the Park Board which you attended ? A. September\n28th, 1888, there was a meeting.\nQ. But the first meeting of which you have any knowledge was October\n26th ? A. Yes, when I was appointed Secretary ; the previous Minutes were in\nthe name of Mr. Huntley ; he has disappeared some twenty years ago.\nQ. Do you know of your own knowledge after the Order-in-Council was\nreceived what was done in respect to the park, after you became Secretary in\n1888 ? A. Mr. A. G. Ferguson was Chairman an*d he started to take action for\nthe improvements of* the parks, and cut trails. 30\nQ. Ferguson was Chairman ? A. Yes, and Tatlow, Caldwell, and R. H.\nAlexander, were member.-.\nQ. Some time after that the bridge we have spoken of was built ?\nQ. Were you aware of the squatters on that island ?\nA. Yes.\nA. Yes.\nQ. Did you take any steps to have them removed ?\nMr. Davis objects.\nBy the Court \u2014Are you referring to himself or the city ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014The City.\nMr. Davis\u2014I submit that has nothing at all to do with this action.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I want to show what the city did in that matter.\nQ. As Secretary of the Park Board can you state as to the appointment of\nSuperintendent, did it come from the city or the Park Board ? A. I think the\nCity Council appointed the Park Board; I am not quite certain on that point; I\nhave an idea they did.    Mr. Eldon will be able to answer that question.\n(Adjourned at 5 p.m.)\n40 43\nTuesday, December 14th, 1909, adjourned until the 15th.\nWednesday, December 15th, 1909, at 11 a.m     Case continued.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I wish to put in letter of 19th April, 1886, of the Deputy\nMinister of the Interior (Exhibit 13 on that action.)\nNow marked EXHIBIT 31.\nMr. Davis\u2014I object to that letter.\nBy the Court1\u2014I will note that it is objected to.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I now propose to read portions of the examination for dis-\n10 covery of the Plaintiff Ludgate.    I will read all down to the end of question 66\ninclusive, from the first.\nMr. Davis\u2014I wish to take the objection that this evidence that my learned\nfriend proposes to read is not relevant to the issue herein at all.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014-I submit that my learned friend cannot object to it as\nbeing relevant.    That is a matter of argument.\nMr. Davis\u2014There is no plea anywhere in the pleadings that there has been\nany assignment or anything of that sort, of the lease, and if my learned friend\nis putting this in with a view to that, then I will object, and it would be necessary\nfor him to amend his pleadings.\n20 By the Court\u2014You know the contents of the examination for discovery ?\nMr. Davis\u2014Yes; but it never occurred to me that my learned friend intended\nputting it in for that purpose, and I shall object.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I take the ground that the Statement of Defence that the\nDefendants are in possession of the property puts the Plaintiff to proof of this\ntitle, and if in the course of the trial it is discovered that the Plaintiff has no title\nand it is outstanding, then he fails.\nBy the Court\u2014The objection of Mr. Davis is noted, and we will discuss that\nlater.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Now I submit letter dated 25th January, 1899, exhibit\n30 number 30 in the other action, to the Honorable Mr. Borden.\nMr. Davis\u2014I object to that letter as being irrelevant.\nBy the Court\u2014I think we can facilitate matters by allowing them to go in.\nThey go in subject to Mr. Davis' objection, at present, and their admissibility can\nbe considered later, on argument.\nMarked  EXHIBIT  22.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I desire to put in report of Major-General Middieton,\nwhich is incorporated in Exhibit number 24 in the other action.\nMr. Davis objects.\nBy the Court\u2014Received subject to objection.\nMarked EXHIBIT 23. |\n40 THOMAS F. McGUIGAN (Re-called) :\u2014\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald.)\nQ. You ceased to be City Clerk, when ?   A. 1905.\nQ.   At   that   time   were   you   still   Secretary   ot   the   Board   of  Park\nCommissioners ?   A. Yes,\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 20\n15th Dec.\n1909\nT. P.\nMcGuigan\nRe-called\n15th Dec\n1909 44\nY0\nI\nI\n4\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 20\nT. P.\nMcGuigan\nRe-called\n15th Deo.\n1909\ncontinued\nCross-\nexamination\nQ. And who up to that time was in possession of this so-called island ? A.\nThe City of Vancouver.\nQ. Can you say from memory whether or not at that time the bridge had\ndisappeared ? A. The bridge had disappeared several years before that ; it\nbecame in a dilapidated condition.\nQ. The litigation was then on between the Province and the Dominion at\nthat time ?    A. Yes, and for several years previous to that.\nQ. And some time afterwards ?    A. Yes, Mr. Ludgate\u2014\u25a0\nThat will do for the present ; I reserve my right to recall Mr. McGuigan.\nCross-examined by Mr. Davis\u2014 10\nMr. Davis\u2014I would ask my learned friend to produce the Minutes of the\nCity Council of May 12th, 1886.\nMr. Davis\u2014That pontoon bridge that you spoke of had nothing at all to do\nwith Deadman's Island, had it ?    A. It was only a landing.\nQ. But not a landing at the island ? A. It had nothing to do with the\nisland.\nQ. It was not a landing at the island ?    A. No.\nQ. The pontoon bridge had nothing to do with the island ? A. No, the\npontoon was not on the island.\nQ. And outside of the foot bridge and a little trail that was built, no other 20\nexpenditure was ever made in Deadman's Island by the City of Vancouver during\nyour time ?    A. Not to my knowledge.\nQ. You say that the City of Vancouver was in possession of this island in\n1905?   A.   Yes.\nQ. What outward visible sign of possession was there on the part of the\ncity ?    A. Well, there was a question, I don't know whether\t\nQ. You stated that the city was in possession of the island.\u2014what outward,\ntangible sign of possession was there ? A. Everything was in statu quo, and we\ndidn't know where we were at.\nQ. I understand that the city laid claim to it, but I am not talking about 30\nthat. What was there to show that the city was in possession ? What actual\nfact was there to show that the city was in possession, outside of the fact that\nthe bridge had been there and the trail had been built ? Was there anything\nelse to show that the city was in possession of that island ? A. The boundaries\nof the city including Deadman's Island.\nQ. If the boundaries of the City of Vancouver did not include Deadman's\nIsland, then naturally it would be different ?    A. Yes.\nQ. There is nothing except the building of the foot-bridge and the building\nof the trail; those are the only actual things they did\u2014that is the only way they\nwere ever actually in possession ?    A. Yes ; that is right. '  40\nQ. As far as people going there for picnic parties, any island situated like\nthis is and owned by the Government, the people would naturally go there ? A.\nOh, I have gone there several times. 45\nwho claimed  to\nwe call them squatters.\nown\nthat\nA. No,\nthey\nQ. It  would  not  matter  whether  it was  owned by the Government or\nbelonged to the City ?    A. No.\nQ. There   have always  been squatters  there\nproperty ?    A. There were people living there\nQ. There were people living there who claimed to own the island ?\nthey don't claim to own it; but were there on surveillance.\nQ. They claim to own the places where they lived ?    A. I don't know7\ncontinued to stay there, and they are there yet.\nQ. They were there before the first petition went  down prior  to the City\n10 taking over Stanley Park ?    A. They were there in 1885, when I came there.\nQ. They  are the only  people   who  have  been  in   actual   possession  of\nDeadman's Island.    Is that so ?    A. Yes.\nQ. You were Clerk of the City from the commencement ?    A. Yes.\nQ. I turn to minute book of the City\u2014minutes of meeting held 12th May,\n1886\u2014are these minutes in your handwriting ?    A. Yes.\nQ. I read the resolution there : | Moved by Alderman L. A. Hamilton,\nseconded by Alderman Caldwell -That the Mayor be authorised to forward a\npetition to the Dominion Government through the Member for New Westminster\nDistrict, praying that the whole part of Coal Harbour known as Government\n20 Reserve, or such part of it as in its wisdom the Government may see fit to\ngrant, be conveyed, to the City for a public park.\" That resolution was passed\nat that meeting ?    A. Yes.\nQ. There was only one petition sent down at that time ?    A. Yes.\nQ. The same one as the printed form ?    A. Yes.\nMr. Davis\u2014I put in this petition authorised by the resolution of May 12th,\n1886.    I am putting it in, although I think it is in already.\nQ. The letter book of that date, I believe, has been destroyed or lost ?    A.\nAs a matter of fact, our machinery was lacking at that time.\nQ. You had no letter book ?    A. No.\nQ. Did you send that petition down to Ottawa ?    A. I sent it down myself\npersonally.\nQ. Incorporated, or authorised by that  resolution  of May   12th,   1886 2\nYes.\nQ. This is the petition referred to in\nYes.\n(Exhibit 24).\nQ. About  when   was  it  sent  down\nexecution.\nQ. About when was it executed ?    A,\n40 Q.  12th Mav, 1886?    A. Y\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 20\nT. F.\nMcGuigan\nCross-\nexamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\n30\nA.\nA.\nthe minute of the 12th May, 1886\n?     A. It was  immediately  sent   In\nAbout the date mentioned there.\n\u25a0Q.\nLay\nes. 46\nmh\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 21\nC. E. TisdaU\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\nNo.  21.\nCHARLES E. TISDALL, Sworn:\u2014 *\u25a0'\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald).\nQ. You have been Chairman of the Board of Park Commissioners for how\nlong? A. 1 was elected to the Park Board January, 1904, and was Chairman\ncontinuously since.\nQ. As Chairman of the Park Board Commissioners, do you take a personal\ninterest in the parks in the City ?    A. Yes; certainly.\nQ. What do you know as to the property in question, Deadman's Island so\ncalled ?   A. In what respect ? 10\nQ. As to its appearance and the locality adjoining that property, and any\nother evidence that in your opinion will place the matter in the proper light\nbefore the Court ? A. As Chairman of the Board of Park Commissioners I\nalways looked upon Deadman's Island as being part and parcel of the reserve.\nMr. Davis objects.\nQ. How did you treat it ? A. It was treated as part and parcel of Stanley\nPark.\nQ. From the  time that  you became  Chairman of the Board  up to  the\npresent time has there been any change of possession by the Park Board of that\nwhole park?   Has the Dominion Government in any way made any change m 20\nrespect to possession ?    A.   The Dominion  Government made  no attempt  to\ninterfere with the Park Board Commissioners.\nQ. Has any part of that property been reserved for military purposes ?\nA. No.\nQ. Now, the litigation between the Province and the Dominion terminated\nin 1906 ; was there an)- change took place in respect to possession ? A. No ; as -\nfar as I know the City was continuously in possession of Deadman's Island, and\nhad a man named Hammersley in possession of the island, and the Superintendent\nhas had standing instructions to take whatever steps were necessary to look\nafter Deadman's Island as part and parcel of the park ; on several occasions he 30\nput out large fires, and his services have been paid for out of public funds to my\nknowledge ;  out of Park Commissioners' money, for putting out fires.\nBy the Court\u2014You say you were exercising acts of ownership over the\nplace ?    A. Certainly.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014How close does this property lie to what may be called\nthe mainland ?    A. Speaking offhand, approximately 60 yards.\nQ. Have you noticed the state of the ground lying between, the so-called\nisland and the mainland at the different stages ? A. Yes ; when the tide is full\nthe only means of access to Deadman's Island is by boat; when the tide is out,\nyou can walk across it. 40\nBy the Court\u2014At all low tides ? A. Yes; at low tide you can walk\nacross.\nQ. Is there any other pieces of property which you as Chairman of the\nPark Board have exercised jurisdiction over that lies somewhat the same\ncondition?   A. Yes, 47\nMr. Davis objects.\nBy the Court\u2014Objection sustained.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Speaking of this piece of property in particular, this so-\ncalled island, do you recollect the time that the bridge was across ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Was it during your term as Chairman that the bridge went out ? A.\nNo; the bridge was down when I became Chairman.\nQ. You spoke of Mr. Hammersley being there on the island on your behalf ?\nA. He is still available ; he is still on the island.\nQ. Did you know Mr. McLean who was Mayor when the Order-in-Council\n10 was passed?    A. Yes ; he is dead.\nQ. And the first Chairman of the Park Board, Mr. Ferguson, is dead ? A.\nI don't know who was the first Chairman. I thought Mr. Alexander was\nChairman.    Mr. Ferguson is dead.\nQ. Many of the men and officials of the City who were cognizant of these\nmatters are dead ?    A. Have naturally died ; it was a long time ago.\nQ. Now, outside of being Chairman of the Park Board, did you have any\nknowledge of the park ?    A   Yes ; I was often over the parks.\nQ. You were one of the local members here ?    A. Yes; and took an interest\nin that.\n20 Q. Were you here at the time that the Ludgate incident came up ?    A,\nYes; Mr. Ludgate showed me the lease in a room at the Legislature when I\nrepresented the City.\nQ. How long prior to that did you take an interest in this particular piece\nof property ? A. 1 am naturally disposed to an outdoor life, and I knew Stanley\nPark before the road was built in the spring of 1888.\nQ. It would be in your recollection the building of the bridge as a means of\naccess between the island and the mainland ?    A. Yes.\nQ. yo far as your knowledge goes, was there any intimation at all that this\npiece of property was in question until  the   Ludgate lease was given ?    A. Not\n30 as far as my knowledge goes.\nQ. You were a member of the Legislature for how many years ? A. For\ntwo years.\nQ. Now in regard to this island, what was the reputation of it, as to who\nwas the owner of it ?\nMr. Davis objects.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I am going to press the question as to what was the local\nreputation of it as to ownership.\nBy the Court\u2014I don't think that is evidence.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendant's\nEvidence\nNo. 21\n0. E. Tisdall\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\n40\nCross-examined by Mr, Davis\u2014\nQ. Is Mr. Hammersley here ?    A. In Court.\nQ. Yes?    A. Yes.\nQ. Who did you say was paying him ? A. I said he was placed in possession\nby the Park Board.\nCross-\nexamination 48\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 21\nC. E. Tisdall\nCross-\nexamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\ni\n*? trail\nQ. And did you say he was paid by them ? A. No ; he has not been paid,\nhe was simply placed in possession, and left there ; he was not interfered with ; he\nhas his home there ; we allowed him there.\nQ. How long was he there before you became Chairman of the Board of\nCommissioners ? A. I have no knowledge ; he was there when I became Chairman of the Board ; I know he was there previously.\nQ. He had his house there ?    A. I have no knowledge of it.\nQ. He was there the same as the rest of the squatters on the island as far\nas you know ? A. Well, my knowledge of Hammersley is that he was an\nemployee of the Park Board. 10\nQ. As far as you know Hammersley continues on that island the same as\nthe other squatters there ? A. I have no knowledge of that at all; the first\nintimation I had about Mr. Hammersley was when I signed a report, my attention was drawn to some allowance to him. He was getting twenty cents an\nhour, and I was told that he was living on Deadman's Island at that time, and\nwas doing some work for the Commissioners in Stanley Park.\nQ. Not on Deadman's Island ?    A. No.\nQ. What I understand the case to be is that Mr. Hammersley is one of the\nsquatters on the island who have been there a long time and refused to go off;\nthat Hammersley is in the same position as the rest. Are you in a position to 20\nsay that is not the case ? A. I have no knowledge on that point; our employment of Mr. Hammersley was intended to give him possession as far as his house\nwas concerned on that island in the same way that other careta kers\t\nQ. You are not in a position to say it would give him any n.ore than the\nother squatters on that island ? A. No, he has received no pay any more than\nhis looking after the property for the Park Commissioners.\nQ. Approximately Deadman's Island is 60 yards from the mainland ? If I\nrecollect the evidence, I think the evidence is that it is 400 feet at high water ?\nA. I have no knowledge of that.\nQ. 60 yards at low or high water did you mean  to say?    A. I would say 30\njust simply as a pedestrian walking along\u2014I would judge  from  bank to bank,\nwhen the tide is at high water ; from high water mark to high water mark.\nQ. Now you said that at low tide you could walk across ? You don't mean\nthat at low tide there is no water between the island and the mainland do you ?\nA. There is no water other than usually might be after a tide ; there might be\nlittle puddles there.\nQ. That is at extreme low tide ?    A. I assume at extreme low tide.\nQ. During part of the low tide there is water between the island and the\nmainland ?   A. I don't know.\nQ. There is no question but at anything except low  tide there is water 40\nbetween ?   A. Yes.\nQ. You say the city was in continuous possession ?   A. Yes.\nQ. You are speaking of what possession Mr. Hammersley might have, and\nthe building of the footbridge and the *tunnel ?   A. The fact that the Board of\nPark Commissioners exercised jurisdiction over it and had always safeguarded\nthe place from fire. 49\nQ. What have you done on the island other than what has been mentioned ?   Reck>RI)\nA. Trails have been cut. in the\nQ. Except the one trail ?    A. A great many trails cut within the last three c^fS3\nOr four months. British\nQ. Prior to the commencement of this action ? A. Practically nothing has\nbeen done other than what you said, for the simple reason  Defendants'\nQ. I understand that what has been done there has been mentioned\nalready ?    A. In a general way, yes.\nRe-examested by Mr. Macdonald-\nNo. 21\nC. E. Tisdall\nCross-\nexamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\n10 Q. Outside of the litigation which arose, was  there  any  other reason why contmued\nyou didn't spend more money on this park ; I mean  the  litigation between the\nDominion and the province ? examination\nMr. Davis objects.\nA. We had to spend our money where the citizens could enjoy it to better\nadvantage, and it has been towards the English Bay side where the money of\nthe Park Commissioners has been spent.\nQ. You know when the litigation started in 1899 ?    A. Yes.\nQ. And was in progress when you took office ?    A. Yes,\nQ. Terminated in 1906 ?\n20 Mr. Davis\u2014I will admit the dates.    Mr. Tisdall I am sure does not know\nthat.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I want to give the date of the commencement of the\naction\u2014May, 1889, and ended in 1906, August 2nd.\nNo.  22.\nGEORGE ELDON, Sworn :\u2014\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald).\nNo. 22\nG. Eldon\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\nQ. You have been Superintendent of Parks  in  the City of Vancouver for\nhow many years ?    A. I think thirteen years last September since I commenced\n30 at Stanley Park and took charge of the parks.\nQ. That would be then in 1896 ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Before becoming Superintendent of Stanley Park  did  you  have any\nknowledge of the park ?    A. Yes.\nQ. In what connection ?    A. I laid out Brocton Point Athletic Grounds I\nthink 19 or 20 years ago.\nQ. Do you recollect the time  that the park was opened ?    A. Yes, I was\npresent there.\nQ. Who opened the Park ?    A. Lord Stanley.\nQ. Aiter whom the Park was called ?    A. Yes.\n40        Q. Was that a public affair ?    A. Yes.\nQ. On the ground ?   A. Yes. Bf\n'Am\n-9\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 22\nG. Eldon\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\n50\nQ. Can you give the year ?    A. No, I don't remember.\nQ. How long prior to the time you became superint endent ? A. I could\nnot say ; I have not the date.\nQ. It was before you became superintendent ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Now after you became superintendent of parks what property did you\ntake control of ? _ A. Of Stanley .Park.\nQ. What did that include ? A. Included what is called Deadman's Island;\nthis was the only park we had in the city.\nQ. This was the only park they had at that time ?    A. Yes.\nQ. The park system has been increased since then ?    A. The last  four or 10\nfive years.\nQ. But when you became superintendent you had nothing under your\ncontrol except Stanley Park ?    A. That is all.\nQ. Now going back to 1896, dealing with your first year, what was your\nmanner of dealing with the park at that time ? A. My position as park superintendent was to look after the park, employ men, and lay out the work, and\nsee that there was no buildings put up around the park, and watch for fires; that\nwas my special orders from the Park Board.\nQ. Would you personally go through the park, or did you leave that to\nyour men?    A. I went there myself;  at that time I was Park Ranger, and 20\nacted as policeman as well.\nQ. The City had only a small population at that time ? A. I did police\nduty as well at that time.\nQ. With special reference to the property in dispute, did you use to go\nthere at that time ?    A. Used to go there at that time.\nQ. How at that time did you go to the island ? A. Used to go over the\nbridge.\nQ. The bridge, then, was in use in 1896? A. Yes; and previous to that,\nas far as I remember.\nQ. How long did that course of work on your part, giving personal super- 30\nvision to the property, continue ?    A. Until about three or four years ago; I\nhad no assistants until then.\nQ. With the City's growth you have had assistants ? A. Yes; I had to\nhave assistants.\nQ. Under your superintending of the park, what work was done ? A. I\nwould go to see that no fires in the park in the summer time, and see that no\nfallen timber or fallen branches in the road. About twice a week I would be\nthere.\nQ. From 1896 down to the time when the Ludgate incident occurred, how\noften would you say you were on this island during that time ?    A. Well, I 40\nsuppose during the time the bridge was up probably twice a week.\nBy the Court\u2014In what capacity ?    A. As superintendent.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Now, the island itself is only about how many acres of\nland ?    A. I never measured it; 3, 4, 4j, 5 acres, I would not say.\nQ. The whole park property is a large area ? A. Yes ; about a thousand\nacres in round figures. 51\nQ. Now, at the times that you went on this island during this period, how\ndid you get over to this 3^ to 5 acres ? What was the means of access from the\nmainland ?    A. When the bridge was up ?\nQ. When you got there, how did you get over the island ? A. Used to go\nover the trail; there was a trail made from one side of the island to the other ;\nthe south side was where they landed from.\nQ. Was this trail accessible at all times ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Were any means taken in order to be able to use it ?    A. Every year it\nwas  slashed out, and the brush taken out; there is a tendency to growth in\n10 British Columbia, and every year we had to go through it with a scythe to keep\nthe trail open.\nQ. From the time you took the superintendency, how long did that\ncontinue ?    A. Right up to the time that the bridge went down.\nQ. Can you fix the date that the bridge went out ? A. I think eight years\nago, 24th December next,\nQ. Is there anything to mark in your mind the occasion when the bridge\nwent down?    A. Yes; there was a very severe storm at the time I believe the\nCondor went down, eight years ago. 24th December next, early in the morning.\nQ.  At the time the bridge went down or went out the litigation was on\n20 over the title to the island ?    A. I don't know ; I think probably it was.\nQ. Do you remember the occasion of the Ludgate lease ? A. I remember\nthe occasion very well; I remember the time but not the date.\nQ. As Park Superintendent, what was the first intimation you got in regard\nto possession of the property ?    A. 1 think it was from the President.\nQ. Did he say anything to you that showed there'was a claim made to this\nproperty by someone other than the Park Board ? A. We kept on doing duties\nin the park just as usual.\nQ. Did anything occur that showed you that  Mr. Ludgate was claiming\nsome right over the property ?    A. There was nothing that we knew about; we\n30 didn't know anything at all of that until we saw it in the Press.\nQ. Subsequent to what you saw in the Press, was there anything occurred\non the ground that showed . some claim was being made ? A. Not until Mr.\nLudgate came over himself. I was there at that time. I was there that\nmorning.\nQ. Can you fix the date ?    A. No.\nQ. What occurred ?    A. If I remember right, Mr. Ludgate sent word to\nthe Park Board or the City Council, and I was ordered to take my men over and\nprotect the island.    He came over with a gang of men and commenced to chop\nsome trees down, and he was stopped by our men.\n40 Q. Assuming  that   was   in 1899, up to that time had there been any\ninterference whatever with your possession of that island ?    A. Previous to that\nthere had not been ; not that I know of; I don't remember any.\nQ. You spoke of this bridge across to the island that you used, you cannot\nsay what year it was built ?    A. No.\nQ. Can you say how it was kept in repair ?    A. We kept it ;in repair.\nQ. Who paid for brushing out the trails each spring ?    A. The Park Board.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 22\nG. Eldon\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued 52\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 22\nG. Eldon\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\n4\nQ. You don't know as to who paid for the original cutting of the trail ? A.\nThey were there when I went there.\nQ. As far as fires were concerned, who looked after the protection from\nfires of that property ?    A. That was my duty.\nMr. Davis\u2014What property ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014The property in question, the island.\nQ. Did you ever have occasion to put out any fires on the island ? A. Yes;\nseveral times.\nQ. Taking Stanley Park as a whole even in 1896, what was its condition?\nA. It was very very crude even at that time ;   I think  the walk  to Prospect 10\nPoint was about all there was done at that time; they mostly used to go to\nProspect Point, I think, at that time;   I think that was  because there was no\nbridge over Coal Harbour at that time.\nQ. As time wore on, and there was a proportionate expenditure, how did\nthe island compare with the rest ? A. It got just the same attention as the\nother : I think Deadman's Island was used as much as any other part of the\npark in the early days; families used to go there and have a tea.\nQ. It had quite a little clearing at the south end ? A. The south end of\nDeadman's Island, there was quite a little picnicing done there in the early days.\nQ. Subsequent, then, to the Ludgate claim turning up, and after the bridge 20\nwent out, was any person placed in charge of the ground\u2014of this  property,\nDeadman's Island ?\u25a0   A. Mr. Hammersley.\nQ. Did you know he was there as superintendent ? A. No; not at that\ntime; not previous to the bridge.\nQ. At the time that he was chosen\u25a0?    A. I remember the time.\nQ. You knew at the time ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Who was it made the appointment ?    A. Captain Tatlow.\nQ. Is that in writing ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Now, Mr. Hammersley, who has been referred to, did he have anything\nto do with you in connection  with work  in the park ?     A.   Yes ;   he  was 30\nemployed in the park for a number of years.\nBy the Court\u2014Under you ?    A. Yes.\nQ. And you mentioned the fact that he was on the island you knew that?\nA. Yes.\nQ. These buildings that were on the island, were they on the shore of the\nisland or in the centre of it ? A. There was very little ; I think Mr. Hammersley\nhad a garden there, when I went down there; he had a little clearing there, and\nanother man, called Mr. Sager, had another small clearing there ; outside of them\nI don't think there was anyone on the island; there were several on the foreshore ; my instructions were not to allow anyone on the island.\nQ. Except those who were there, and you succeeded in doing that ? A\nYes. B\nQ. But there were some along the foreshore ?   A. Yes; four or five.\nQ. Now, from the time that Mr. Ludgate was stopped, in 1899, up to the\npresent time, has there been any interference with your possession of that\nproperty up to this spring ?   A. Not until this spring.\n40 53\nQ. From 1899 to this spring there was no interference ?    A. No.\nQ. Who has looked after this property all that time ? A. Mr. Hammersley ;\nof course I put out fires and used to have charge of the island.\nQ. Has there been any interference at any time on behalf of the Dominion\nGovernment that you know of?    A. Not that I know of.\nQ. Fr\u00a9m 1899 ?    A. No, not to that time.\nQ. As far as you know has there been any by or on behalf of Ludgate ? A.\nNot that I am aware of.\nQ. There was nobody made himself known to you ?    A. No.\n10 Q. Has  any  portion of that property, mainland  or  island been used for\nmilitary purposes ?    A.  No, none whatever, only just been a review there once\nor twice at Brocton Point; a review of local militia.\nQ. Up to the year 1899 can you say approximately the amount of money\nwhat was spent on the whole park ?    A. No.\nQ. Prior to the Ludgate affair what would you say the whole expenditure\namounted to ?   A.  The expenditure would not amount to, I don't suppose, $5,000'\nor $6,000.\nBy the Court\u2014On the parks of the city ?    A. This was the only park.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Before the Ludgate trouble ? A. There might have been\n20 a little recreation ground at Cambie and Powell streets.\nBy the Court\u2014Which would be included in that $5,000 ?    A.  Yes.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014From 1899 to 1906 the city was growing?    A. Yes.\nQ. Up to 1906 can you give me an approximate estimate of the amount\nspent on Stanley Park as a whole ?    A. No.\nQ. Now you say this spring there was an attempt made to change possession.\nDo you know anything as to that personally ? A. Yes ; I was there at the time.\nI had some men working there and our men were put off; I didn't see them put\noff, but I took them back again.\nQ. They were on there and they were off ? A. Yes, I took them back again.\n30 (Adjourned to 2.15 p.m.)\nCross-examination by Mr. Davis\u2014\nQ. When were you last on Deadman's Island prior to May of this year ? A.\nIn April.\nQ. How often have you been there during the last eight years since the\nbridge went down ? A. I can't answer that question. I have been many times,\nbut can't say how many.\nQ. Can't you give any idea ?' A. I may have been fifty or a hundred times,\nI could not say.\nQ. Do you say there have been no shacks gone up there since you were Park\n40 Superintendent ?    A. I don't say that; there were some gone up on the beach.\nQ. There have been a number of shacks gone up on Deadman's Island since\nyou have been Park Superintendent ?   A. Yes.\nQ. You have not been able to stop them ?    A. Of late years.\nQ. Just the last years you protected it ? A. Yes, after the time the\nimprovements were made, we protected it; those were my orders,\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 22\nG. Eldon\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nCross-\nexamination 54\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\n. Columbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 22\nG. Eldon\nCross-\nexamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nQ. That is the extent of it ?    A. Yes ; I warned the people.\nQ. But you never took any steps to get them off? A. Not since the\nLudgate question.\nQ. Nothing but talk ?    A. Not since Ludgate took possession.\nQ. Did you ever do anything but talk, in regard to the squatters, before\nLudgate appeared ?    A. Yes, previous to that did not allow them to come on,    -\nand if anybody went on we put them off.\nQ. But you did not put off those who were on there ?    A. No.\nQ. As far as the squatters or settlers were concerned, prior to the Ludgate\nlease you did not allow any new settlers to go on the island ?    A. No. 10\nQ. But you did not try to put off those who were already there ?    A. No.\nQ. Since the Ludgate lease the position as to these matters has been this :\nYou have not attempted to put those that were there off, nor have you done any\nact to stop fresh ones going on ?    A.    Not any particular part,  we have not.\nQ. At the present time there are how many of these settlers on Deadman's\nIsland ?    A. On the beach ?\nQ. On the island\u2014when I say the island I include Stanley Park\u2014between\nthe island and the water ?    A. On the water front, 18 or 20.\nQ. How many on the island altogether ?     When I say isknd I include the\nbeach, the part between the trees and the water ?    A. Might be lO, or 22 or 23 ; 20\nI don't know.    There might be more or less.\nQ. Are there as many as thirty ?    A. I can't say.\nQ. You can't say there are not that many ?    A. No.\nQ. And about ten on the island proper apart from the beach ? A. At the\npresent time eight or ten.\nQ. You will not swear there are not as many as thirty on the beach ? A.\nNo.\nQ. You won't swear there are not as many as ten on the island ? A. No ;\nI didn't go and count them, in recent years.\nQ. About how far is it in your opinion between Stanley Park and Deadman's 30\nIsland ?    A. Do you want a correct answer ?     I think I can tell you.     I got a\nman. to measure it.     The distance where the bridge went over is about 550 feet.\nQ. Is it not the case at all times except extreme low tides there is some\nwater between Stanley Park and Deadman's Island ? A.I have walked across\nseveral times this summer ; there was mud, but it was perfectly dry.\nQ. At extreme low tide? A. Yes, for three or four or five hours a\nday in the summertime.\nQ. Extreme low tide in June? A. In the summertime; I don't suppose\nhardly a day at low tide in probably May, June, July, August and part of\nSeptember. 40,\nQ. Will you swear it was ever dry in the month of August, between Stanley\nPark and Deadman's Island?    A. Oh, yes, I swear it was dry.\nQ. Tell me what time it was in August that you walked across when it was\ndry ?   A. I can't tell you the date.\nQ. How-do you know it was August ?   A. In August it is very low tide- 55\nQ. You are merely saying that at extreme low tides it is dry between\nStanley Park and Deadman's Island ?    A. Yes.\nQ. That is what you mean ?    A. Yes.\nQ. It is only when the tide is extreme low tide that it is dry ? A. Yes, low\ntide.\nQ. It is at extreme low tide that it is dry ? A. Yes; extreme low tide,\nyes.\nQ. You understand perfectly well when I ask you the distance between\nStanley Park and Deadman's Island, you understand my question perfectly ?\n10 A. Yes.\nQ. Deadman's Island was included in Stanley Park? A. We have always\nincluded it.\nQ. You have considered that Deadman's Island was part of the property\ngiven to the city ; that is what you mean ?    A. That is the meaning.\nQ. You have no other reason for saying that Stanley Park included Dead-\nman's Island than simply the general idea that the Park Commissioners had?\nA. Yes.\nQ. As a matter of fact when people talked of Stanley Park and Deadman's\nIsland you understood perfectly well the two distinct things they were talking\n20 about? A. Well, we do not\u2014yes.\nQ. Since the bridge went down there has been nothing done on that trail on\nDeadman's Island? A. We put out a large fire on Deadman's Island on the\n18th of August, 1904, at a cost of $15.\nQ. If you saw a fire on any property adjoining the park property which\nwould endanger the park, you would have put it out, of course?    A. Yes.\nQ. It would be part of your duty, whether park property and adjoining\npark property ?    A.   Yes, if the fire threatened the park.\nQ. Was there anything else done on the island? A. I didn't make notes\nof every little fire, or brushing of trails.\nQ. Was there anything else, to your knowledge ? A. There might have\nbeen three or four small fires.\nQ. Don't tell me what there might have been. Up to date, as far as I can\n' find out, there has been no expenditure on Deadman's Island since that bridge\nwent down. Now I ask you whether you know of anything since the bridge\nwent down ?    A. Do you include the bridge on the Island ?\nQ. The foot bridge ; since the bridge went down ?\nBy the Court\u2014In the last eight years ? A. I don't remember of anything\nbut that fire and what has been mentioned.\nQ. You were telling my learned friend something about Ludgate claiming\npossession ; didn't you know that it was the Province of British Columbia that\nclaimed Deadman's Island at that time and fought it to the Privy Council ? A.\nYes; I remember the time the Province put in a claim.\nQ. And the Province carried on that litigation ?\nMr Davis\u2014I suppose my learned friend will admit that'.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 22\nG. Eldon\nGross-\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued 56\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 22\nG. Eldon\nCross-\nexamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nMr. Macdonald\u2014The City did put Mr. Ludgate off and afterwards the\nProvince intervened and put him off?\nBy the Court\u2014Does it really matter ?\nMr. Davis\u2014If my learned friend will admit that, the Deadman's Island suit\nwhich went to the Privy Council was between the Provincial Government and\nthe Dominion Government ?\nMr Macdonald\u2014Yes, Ludgate dropped out of this case when it went out\nof the Province and the fight was between the two governments, the Provincial\nand the Dominion.\n10\nNo. 23\nW. Hammersley\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909.\nNo.   23.\nWILLIAM HAMMERSLEY, Sworn :\u2014\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald).\nQ. What is your age ?    A. Sixty-six.\n1887.\nQ. When did you first go on what is called Deadman's Island ? A. January,\nA. I have been there ever\nA. 20\nQ. How long have you been on that Island ?\nsince.\nBy the Court\u2014You are there now\u2014living on it?   A. Yes.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Until late years whom did you work for, at times ?\nFor the Park Commissioners.\nQ. Under whom ?    A. Mr. Eldon, the last witness.\nQ. When did you first start to work for the Park Commissioners ? A.\nWell about, it must have been twelve years ago when I first went to work in\nthe park.\nQ. Can you say who was the first occupant of that Island ? A. Well, I\nbelieve I was myself; there was no person there when I went there.\nQ. What have you got there ?    A. I have a house and garden.\nQ. And you have been there ever since ?    A. Yes.\nQ. About twelve years ago you started to work for the Park Commissioners ? 30\nA. Yes.\nQ. Before that did you do any work for the City or Park Commissioners ?\nA-w \u25a0 j     -. i        -p , v %J \u2022\/\n.  Well, 1 was working under Mr. Eldon on the Reserve ground before that.\n\u2022 Q. Did you have anything to do with the building of that bridge that has\nbeen referred to ?   A. No.\nQ. You remember when it was built ?    A. Yes.\nQ. After it was built did you use it ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Can you say when that bridge went down ?\neight years this Christmas Day, at night, about 1902.\nQ. How did that come about ?   A. There was\nbridge was knocked down during the night.\nA. Well it went down\ni severe storm and the 40 57\nQ. Up to that time how did you get to the Island from the mainland ? Did\nyou use the bridge at all ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Did you know anything as to the trail being cut on the Island ? A.\nYes, there was a trail cut from the North to the South shore of the Island.\nQ.   Did you have anything to do with that work ?    A. No, sir.\nQ. After you started to work, at times, for the City, how long did that\ncontinue ? When did you cease work ? A. It is about five years ago this coming\nMarch since I ceased to do anything.\nQ. After the bridge went out did you receive any appointment  from the\n10 Park Commissioners with respect to this park ?    A. Well, as caretaker.\nQ. Have you got that appointment ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Will you produce it please ?    (Witness produced paper).\nMr. Davis\u2014How is it this was not produced before?\nMacdonald\u2014We have nothing to do with this man's documents.\nMacdonald\u2014It is admitted that this is in the handwriting of Mr.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 23\nW. Hammersley\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nA. Yes, and have had it\nMr.\nMr.\nTatlow.\nMr. Davis\u2014You received that from Mr. Tatlow ?\never since.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Dated May 10th, 1903.\n20 I Board of Park Commissioners, Vancouver, British Columbia.\nI May 10th, 1903.\n\" Mr. Hammersley,\n\" Deadman's Island, Vancouver.\n\" Sir,\n\"\u25a0 I hereby appoint you as caretaker of Deadman's Island to hold\nI the same on behalf of the Park Commissioners, with instructions to\n'' hold the position until you receive orders to the contrary.\nI Yours truly, R. G*. Tatlow.\"\nQ. And you held that authority from that day until the present time ?    A.\n30 Yes.\nQ. And you have been on the island ? A. I have been there ever since that\ntime.\nQ. After you received that appointment did you do work more or less for\nthe City and were paid ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Considering your knowledge of that property what do you say as to\naccess to the island from the mainland at certain stages of the tide ? A. Well\nyou could go across at half tide from, the mainland every day of the year.\nBy the Court\u2014Go across, how ? A. You could walk across at half tide\nevery day in the summer, and at night in the winter you could go across ; the\n40 water is up in the day in the winter and down in the day in the summer.\nQ. I take it from that, that generally speaking, durmg the summer time the\ntide is low in the day time ?    A. Yes.\nQ. And in the winter time low at night ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Have you crossed on foot more than once ?    A. Numerous times.\nQ; After the bridge went down was there any other means of access except\nby boat or foot ?    A. No, except by boat or foot.\nm 1\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 23\nW. Hammersley\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909   \u2022\ncontinued\n\u2022;\" 58\n. Q. When you were working for the Park Board did you hear of any other\nperson than the Park Board having any claim to the property?\nMr. Davis objects.\nQ. Did you hear of any claim made other than by the City, up to the time\nof the Ludgate lease ?\nMr. Davis objects.\nBy the Court\u2014Objection sustained.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014You say it was from Mr. Tatlow, as chairman, from whom\nyou received that appointment ?    A. Yes.\nQ. What position did he hold at that time ?\nMr. Davis\u2014I admit that.\nBy the Court\u2014He was chairman of the Park Board.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Can you speak as to the distance across from the mainland to the island ? A. It is about 450 feet, the length of the bridge what was\nup there ; 450 feet from the island to the mainland.\nQ. The bridge was the means of access at high water ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Or high tide; and as far as low tide was concerned you could walk\nacross?   A. Yes.   \u2022\n10\nCross-\nexamination\nCross-examined by Mr. Davis\u2014\nQ. You say you are living on Deadman's Island.    An action was brought 20\nby Mr. Ludgate claiming the place that you are on ?    A. Yes.\nQ. You claim that yourself?    A. Yes.\nQ. What are you being paid by the City as caretaker ? A. Well, I have\nnot received any wages really, any more than I work under the Park Commissioners.\nQ. And what you have done as caretaker has been occasional employment\naround that park ?    A. Yes.\nQ. And when you say \"park\" you mean as well, of course, Deadman's\nIsland ?    A. Yes.\nQ. The shack that you have you put up in January, 1887 ?    A. Yes. 30\nQ. You have always claimed to own the land it is on since that time ? A.\nYes, as I fenced in.\nQ. You claim against the City as well as against everybody else ?    A. Yes.\nQ. At the time of the smallpox scare you refused the City officials a landing\nthere ?   A. That was on my gangway.\nQ. You refused to allow them to land ?   A. Yes.\nQ. You refused to allow the City officials to land and claimed it was your\nproperty ? A. It was the landing of smallpox patients; it was not the City\nofficials.\nQ. The City officials were doing it ?   A. Yes. 40\nQ. In 1892, somewhere about that; and you claimed to hold that property\nas against the City and everybody else, and that has been the same from the time\nyou went there in January, 1887, down to the present time ? A. Down to the\npresent time. 59\nQ. You say you could  go  aoross  at  half tide every day from Deadman's\nIsland to Stanley Park ?    A. Yes.\nQ. You say you could go across without getting wet ?   A. Yes, not perfectly\ndry, but there is no water.\nQ. Are you positive about that ?    Because we had Colonel Tracey examine\nit ?    A. Well, of course, you would get muddy, but no depth of water.\nQ. But isn't there water there, right at the present time, during this last\nweek there would not be any water there at half tide ?    A. No, last week I was\nnot over there, but I believe that you could walk over.\n10 By the Court\u2014It would be like an ordinary beach after a tide receded? A.\nYes, but no water.\nQ. If you had a photograph of it it would not appear as a sheet of water ?\nA. No.\nQ. The soil exposed ?    A. Yes, and mud.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014It might be noted that the authority  of Mr.  Tatlow to\nthis witness is handed back to the witness by consent.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of-\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendant's\nEvidence\nNo. 23'\nW. Hammersley\nCross-\nexamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nNo.  24..\nWILLIAM SKENE, Sworn i\n20 (Examined by Mr. Macdonald).\nQ. You are Secretary of the Board of Trade ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Have you the minute book of the Board ?    A. I have.\nQ. Will you turn up minute of the Board meeting of 20th February, 1899 ?\nMr. Davis\u2014I object.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I propose to put this in to show the concensus of opinion\nwith respect to Deadman's Island.\nMr. Davis\u2014There was always a  difference of opinion.    How can anything\nthat the Board of Trade did, or anything that meeting did, affect the question of\ntitle here.\n30 Mr. Macdonald\u2014This is part of the memorial presented to the Government\nincluded in Exhibit \" 40 \" and it shows that the Government did have knowledge\nof a certain position being taken by the City.\nBy the Court That is not disputed.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014That the Government had knowledge at that time\nthat the City claimed the island, in question as their property on the 20th\nFebruary, 1899.\nMr. Davis\u2014I think that is proved beyond all question.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I submit as one of the exhibits letter from H. W. Brown,\nPrivate Secretary to the Minister of Militia, to the Deputy Minister of Militia,\n40 dated 28th March, 1899, and letter from the Deputy Minister of Militia and\nDefence to the Deputy Minister of Justice, 29th March, 1899, with the letter\nfrom the Deputy Minister of Justice to the Minister of Militia and Defence in\nreply.\nNo. 24\nW. Skene\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909 60\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 24\nW. Skene\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\n10\nMarked Exhibit \" 25.\"\nMr. Davis\u2014I object to that. I have no objection to them going in\nsubject to objection to be argued afterwards.\nMe. Macdonald\u2014This was in Return 68a.\nMr. Davis\u2014The opinion in question was included in a public return printed\nby order of the Dominion Parliament entitled \"Correspondence and papers in\nreference to Stanley Park and Deadman's Island, British Columbia,\" printed in\n1899.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I now put in telegram from R. G. MacPherson to the\nHonourable Mr. Borden, dated September 28th, 1904.\nMr. Davis\u2014I object to this.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Also letter from the Deputy Minister of Militia to R. G'\nMacPherson of October 3rd, 1904 ; also telegram from the Deputy Minister to\nMr. MacPherson of October 20th, 1904.    All three in one exhibit.\nMarked Exhibit \"26.\"\nMr. Davis objects.\nReceived subject to objection.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I submit as part  of the evidence for the  defence the\nevidence of Alfred Richard Howse, who was a witness called by the defence in\nthe Deadman's Island case and has since died, and can file an affidavit of death 20\nif compelled to do so.\nMr. Davis\u2014I don't dispute the death.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014In the previous trial in which the Attorney-General of the\nProvince of British Columbia was plaintiff and the Attorney-General for the\nDominion, and Theodore Ludgate, the present Plaintiff were defendants, the\nwitness Howse was called on behalf of the defence ; he was called and examined\nby Mr. Peters who appeared at the trial as counsel for the Dominion Government, and was cross-examined by counsel on behalf of the Province.\nMr. Davis\u2014That is correct.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I put in the evidence of the witness Howse at page 14 of 30\nthe proceedings in the Privy Council Record, to page 42 inclusive,    Marked\nExhibit 27.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014And then in the Full Court he was called again at\npage 343 to $77 inclusive.\nMr. Davis\u2014Subject to objection.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Wherever his evidence appears in the records, it goes in ;\nI am not cutting out any of it. 61\nNo.  25.\nTHOMAS MATTHEWS, Sworn\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 25\nT. Matthews\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald).\nQ. You have been a resident of the City for how long ?    A. 23 years.\nQ. Did you know the so-called Deadman's Island ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Have you been on it ?    A. Yes.\nQ. State what means of access there is between that island and the mainland ?    A. At the present time ?\nQ. From your experience ?    A. There was  a bridge there at one time, I\n10 walked across there many times to the island.    I mean I walked across when the\ntide was low.\nQ. You mean on foot ?    A. Yes.\nQ. I suppose you can begin to fix dates ? A. No ; but I remember walking\nacross at low tide several times.\nQ. Speaking of your own knowledge extending over that number of years,\ncan you say whether or not this property was considered\u2014\nMr. Davis objects.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014You have been on the island ?    A. Yes.\nQ. How did you come to go there ?\n20 By the Court\u2014What is the object of this evidence 1\nMr. Macdonald\u2014As to reputation.\nMr. Davis\u2014I object to this line of evidence.\nBy the Court\u2014The objection is well taken.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014In what capacity did you go to this island ? A. As a\nprivate citizen I considered it part of the park, and that I had a right to go\nthere.\nMr. Davis objects.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Did you ask for anybody's permission ? A. No, I thought\nit was public property.\n30 Cross-examined by Mr. Davis\u2014\u25a0\nQ. Were there other people there besides yourself?    A. I have  seen other examination\npeople there.\nQ. Were you there more than once ?    A. Yes.\nQ. That would be during what period ?    A. On from 1895.\nBy the Courts\u2014Not earlier than 1895 ? A. Yes, I have been there in 1887\nor 1888 ; I was there before the bridge was erected.\nQ. Ajud after the bridge was erected ?    A. Yes.\nQ. You were there both before and  after the  erection of the bridge ?    A.\nYes.\n40 Mr. Davis\u2014I may say that I am not going to call any evidence to contradict\nthe evidence that has been given along this line.\nCross- RECORD\nla the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendant's\nEvidence\nNo. 26\nSir P. Borden\nEvidence on\nCommission\ntaken\n19th Nov.\n1909\n10\n20\n62\n1 No.  26.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Before I proceed further, I ask for a direction of the Court\nas to the mode of procedure of the trial. The pleadings are in this shape : The\nPlaintiff simply sets up his lease ; the Defendant sets up a prior lease or licence;\ntheir reply to that is that this other lease from the same landlord operated as a\nsurrender ; our reply to that is that it did not operate as a surrender; that\nthere was no such thing. I now desire a direction as to whether it is incumbent\non the defence at this stage to meet that reply set up as against the Order-in-\nCouncil under which they claim ? I don't want to be met with the objection\nlater on.\nMr. Davis\u2014My learned friend will be met with objection if he tenders any\nevidence in our rebuttal. I will object to any evidence going in other than in\nthe main evidence at the trial.\nBy the Court\u2014I don't see that I am called upon to decide that question.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I am about to reach the stage whether I have either got\nto put it in now, or keep it for reply.\nBy the Court\u2014Why not put in your evidence ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I will put in the evidence. I put in the evidence of Sir\nFrederick Borden taken on commission.\nMr. Davis\u2014I object to certain portions of Sir Frederick Borden's evidence\ngoing on, and I object to the whole of General Macdonald's evidence. Of course,\nthe commission as it stands can't go in. I would suggest that my learned friend\nread it, and the stenographer take it down until objection is made.\nBy the Court\u2014Exhibit | 28.\"\nMr. Macdonald reads :\u2014\nI Before Andrew Haydon, Esq., at Ottawa, November 19th, '09.\n\"Mr. F. H. Chrysler, K.C., and Norman G. Larmonth for Plaintiffs.\n\"Mr. Wallace Nesbitt, K.C., Mr. George H. Cowan, K.C., and Mr. J. F.\nI Smellie, for the Defendants.\n\"The Hon. Sir Frederick Borden, K.C., Minister of Militia and Defence for 3*0\nI Canada, sworn, examined by Mr. Wallace Nesbitt, K.C.\nIQ. Sir Frederick Borden, you are the Minister of Militia and Defence for\n\"Canada?   A. Yes.\nIQ. When did you first become Minister of Militia and Defence ? A. In\nI July, 1896.    I do not remember the date ; the 13th of July, I think.\n\" Q. You became aware of an Order-in-Council which has been put in, dated\n\" in June, 1887, in reference to Stanley Park ?    A. Yes.\n\" Q. I show it to you on page 15 of the printed report which we purpose\n\" putting in\u2014that is right, Mr. Chrysler ?\n\" Mr. Chrysler\u2014Yes. 4$\n\" Sir Frederick Borden (the witness)\u2014It is a copy of a report of a Committee\n\" of the Honourable the Privy Council, signed John J. McGee; oh yes, I\n\" remember that paper.\n\" Q. Under that, _ the City, so far as you know, were in possession of\n\"Stanley Park as it is called popularly? A. Yes; I knew they were in\n\" possession of it, and I knew of no other document. 63\n10\n20\n30 \"\n40\"\n!' Q. Then there was a second Order in relation to it on the 31st of August,\n1906, has that been put in Mr. Chrysler.\ni Mr. Chrysler\u2014I think sc.\nI By Mr. Nesbitt.\nI Q. If it is not, we will put it in, Sir Frederick\u2014so far as it is important\nto the question, the Minister of Militia and Defence ; that was yourself at that\ntime?    A. Yes.\nI Q. It recommends that the minute of the Council of the 8th June, 1887,\nempowering the Minister of Militia and Defence to take the necessary steps to\nhand over to the City of Vancouver for park purposes the military property\nnow known as Stanley Park, be cancelled.    Do you remember that ?    A.  Yes.\n1 Q. Then it recommends the appointment of six commissioners ? A. Yes.\nI Q. And it further recommends that the conditions of such lease be made\ngenerally on the lines of those under which Point Pleasant Park, Halifax,\nN.S., has been leased by the Imperial Government to the City of Halifax ; you\nremember that ?    A.  Oh, yes.\nI Q. Then, I believe, that was not acted on ? A. No ; there was a change\nwith reference to the Commissioners as I understand it; I think that was the\nonly change.\n\" Q. Then, on the 13th August, 1908, I find that on a report, dated the\n10th of August, 1908, from the Minister of Militia and Defence, who was still\nyourself ?    A.  Yes.\np Q. You have alwrays been Minister of Militia and Defence from the time\nmentioned in 1896 until now?    A. Yes.\n\"Q. That states that by Order-in-Council of the 7th of June, 1887, the\nmilitary property at Vancouver, known as Stanley Park, was authorised to be\nleased, under certain conditions, to the City Council for park purposes, and that\nby Order-in-Council of the 31st of August, 1906, the said lease was cancelled,\nand the Minister of Militia was empowered to lease the said property to the\nsaid City of Vancouver for park purposes for 99 years renewable ; the lease is\nto be made to six Commissioners, three to be appointed by the Governor-\nGeneral in Council, and the remaining three by the City of Vancouver ? A.\nYes\n\" Q. And said lease to be made generally on the lines of the agreement\nunder which Her Majesty's Government has leased Point Pleasant Park, at\nHalifax, N.S., to certain directors representing-the City of Halifax?    A. Yes.\n\" Q. Then the Minister recommends that the Order-in-Council of the\n31st of August, 1906, be amended to provide for the leasing to the Corporation\nof the City of Vancouver of the property in question instead of to the six\nCommissioners, the lease to be otherwise under the same conditions as contained\nin the said Order-in-Council of the 31st of August, 1906 ?    A. Yes.\n\" Q. The document I have just read ; the document first mentioned is*\nExhibit 3\u2014then the lease was executed, I believe, on the 1st of November,\n1908\u2014has that been put in ?    A. Yes.\n\" The Commissioner (Mr. Haydon)\u2014I do not think so.\n\" Mr, Nesbitt\u2014Have you a copy of that, Mr. Jarvis ?\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 26\nSir P. Borden\nEvidence on\nCommission\ntaken\n19th Nov.\n1909\ncontinued\nR 64\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 26\nSirF.\nBorden's\nEvidence\non\nCommission\ntaken\n19th Nov.\n1909\ncontinued\nwas\nI Mr. Jarvis (Assistant-Deputy Minister of Militia)\u2014No; but a copy\nI furnished.\nI Mr. Nesbitt\u2014That lease will'be put in and marked Exhibit\t\nI Mr. Haydon\u2014What is the date ?\n\"Mr. Nesbitt\u2014The first of November, 1908.\"\n(Sir F. Borden's Evidence continued on page 76.)\nMr. Davis\u2014Now from that on, I object.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014If your Lordship rules against me, that Sir Frederick\nBorden's evidence is not admissible, then 1 will not call other evidence which I\nhave to show what was the intention with respect to the lease ; evidence on the\nsame line as Sir Frederick Borden's.\nBy the Court\u2014I do not wish to shut out part of your case. You had\nbetter go on with your evidence, and argue the objection afterwards. Allow it\nin subject to objection.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I will call Mr. Alexander.\ni\nNo. 27\nR. H.\nAlexander\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\nNo. 27.\nRICHARD HENRY ALEXANDER, Sworn :\u2014\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald).\nQ. How long have you lived here?    A. I came to\nI came to Vancouver in 1877.\nQ. You are now General Manager of the Hastings Saw Mill Company ?\nthe Province in 1862 ;\nA.\nLocal Manager.\nQ. Do you know this island in question ?    A. Yes.\nQ. When you first knew that island, did it have its present name ?\nBy the Court\u2014\" This Island\" means Deadman's Island ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Yes.\nA. No.\nQ. Did the property adjoining have any name in those days ? A. You\nmean the whole peninsula ; it was known as \" The Reserve.\"\nBy the Court\u2014Including what is now known as Deadman's Island? A;\nYes. 30\nMr. Macdonald\u2014There was a survey line at what point cutting off the\nreserve?    A. The West line of Lot 165.\nQ. That is at present the line that cuts off the City from the park property ?\nA. I don't know whether the City extends over the park property. 1 don't\nknow whether the reserve is included in the City boundary.\nQ. As far as Lot 185 is concerned, from that on is used as a park ? A. Yes.\nQ. You say this island was known with the peninsula as the reserve\u2014what\nreserve ? A. Well, it used to be spoken of some times as an ordinancu reserve\nor military reserve.\nMr. Davis\u2014And sometimes naval reserve ?   A. I never heard it called a 40\nnaval reserve.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014This island in question, was it occupied as a pre-emption ?\nA. No, 65\nQ. How soon did the pre-emption take up land along Burrard Inlet ? A.\nThere were certain pre-emptions\u2014several of these lots that are now known as\n181, 182, 183, 184, 185, were in existence when I came.\nBy the Court\u2014Where are those lots\u2014across the inlet ? A. No, east of\nthe land, the sawmill is on Lot 196.\nQ. Do they form part of the City of Vancouver or lie east of the City ?\nA. They form a portion of the City of Vancouver.\nQ.  Then this peninsular now termed Deadman's Island had no lot number ?\nAs far as you know it never had a district lot number ?    A. No.\n10        Mr. Davis\u2014I don't dispute that.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Then from that time, 1879, as to the use of the property\nin question known as Deadman's Island, you were one of the Park Commissioners ?\nMr. Davis\u2014Does my learned friend think it necessary to call further\nevidence on this line ? I am not going to call any evidence to contradict the\nevidence given by the other witnesses on this line.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I want to show the use that was made of it generally ; not\nonly on one, two, or three occasions.\nA. I was in the City Council in 1887 and 1888.\nQ. You were one of the Park Commissioners ?    A. Yes.\n20 Q. How  did   you   treat  this  particular piece of property as Park Com\nmissioners ?\nMr. Davis objects.\nBy the Court\u2014Do not the minutes of the Board show that ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014The minutes of the Board don't show the details of what\nthey do.\nBy the Court\u2014Would not the minutes be the best evidence of what they\ndid ?\nMr.  Davis\u2014Can Mr. Alexander give us any more than we already have.\nThe other witnesses stated that the  City  exercised  control  over  Deadman's\n30 Island; they built a foot bridge and a trail, and did some slashing and put out\nsome fires.    I am not going to call any evidence to contradict the evidence of\nthat kind.    Why are not six men as good as a dozen ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014If my learned friend will admit that the Park Board and\nthe public in so far as they could used the island for park purposes up to the\nLudgate incident ?\nMr. Davis\u2014I won't admit that the public used it at all, any further than\nthe evidence has gone.    I say I am not going to call any evidence to contradict\nthe evidence which has already been given by the witnesses Tatlow and Tisdall\nwhich is practically the same as Mr,  Alexander is giving.    I don't think the\n40 Court will disbelieve this evidence.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014My learned friend wants to put the evidence to tw\nthree witnesses.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014How did you treat this particular piece of property ?\nMr. Davis objects.\nA. As a portion of the park.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 27\nR. H.\nAlexander\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nro or 1\n1\n66\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 27\nR. H.\nAlexander\n15th Dec.\n1909\nCross-\nexamination\nA. I think until\nQ. How long did you remain as a Park Commissioner ?\n1888, the end of 1888.\nQ. You can't say from recollection whether the bridge was completed before\nyour term of office or after ?    A. It was not completed.\nQ. Was it in progress ?    A. It had been proposed and passed.\nCross-examined by Mr. Davis\u2014\nQ. The public, the small public there was prior to 1887, used to go over and\nuse the island for picnics before the Order-in-Council was passed at all ? A.\nWell, I don't know whether they did. When any person got drowned here they\nused to bury them there; that is how the island gets its name.\nQ. That was prior to 1887 ?    A. Prior to 1887.\nQ. Prior to the incorporation of Vancouver as a City ?    A. Yes.\nQ. The public simply made use of it as if it were a public property ; you\nsav they used it for a burying ground and there never was any objection, you\nsay, raised by anybody ?    A. No.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014That was in the early history of the property ?    A. Yes.\nMr. Davis\u2014Prior to 1887.\n10\nNo. 28\nG. S.\nMcOonnell\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909\nI was for a year in\nA. I think\nNo.   28.\nGILBERT S. McCONNELL, Sworn :\u2014 20\n(Examined bz Mr. Macdonald).\nQ. You were one of the Park Commissioners ?    A. Yes .\nthe early days.\nQ. Who was your chairman at that time ?    Mr. Fergusson ?\nMr. Alexander.\nMr. Davis\u2014This whole evidence is objected to.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Did you have anything to do with that property that is\nnow in question, known as Deadman's Island ? A. Only in the ordinary way; it\nwas understood to be one parcel, Deadman's Island and Stanley Park.\nMr. Davis objects. 30 \\\nQ. Did you know what was being done with respect to it ? A. Not till I\nleft the Commissioners.\nQ. During your term did you have anything to do with building the bridge ?\nA. I put the by-law before the people which was carrii d for the purpose of\nputting the trail around the island and making bridges.\nQ. And among other bridges was that bridge? A. Both bridges were\nincluded.\nQ. Did you personally know anything as to the locality lying between the\nisland and the mainland ?   A. Yes, was often over there and knew it very well.\nQ. When there is no bridge what is the means of access-to the island ?    A. 40\nAt low water you can walk over very easily. 67\ntide.\nQ. Have you done that more than once ?    A. Several times.\nBy the Court\u2014With ordinary walking boots ?    A. Yes, that\nis\nat lo\nw\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Do you remember the occasion of the bridge going out ?\nA. No, I don't remember the occasion.\nQ. Have you been over since the bridge went out, from the mainland to the\nisland ?    A. Yes.\nBy the Court\u2014In the last eight years ?    A. Yes.\nMr! Macdonald\u2014There is some furth r documentary evidence I wish to\n10 put in.   It is in the return and starts with the letter\u2014one of the letters which is\nattached to the commission (Exhibit 28).\nMr. Macdonald\u2014The first letter Earl Aberdeen, 25th August, 1898, to the\nHonourable Dr. Borden, enclosing memorial of the City Council.\nMr. Davis\u2014Are you putting in that memorial ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Dated 1st August, 1898.\nThen letter from the Honourable Mr. Borden addressed to G. R. Maxwell,\nEsq., dated August 26th, 1898, and the letter of Brigadier Macdonald of the\nsame date.\nMr.   Davis objects.    If  my  learned  friend  puts  in  the  letter  from Mr.\n20 Borden to Mr. Maxwell then he should put in the further letter from Mr. Borden\nto Mr. Maxwell dated the 3rd of September, merely correcting a clerical error.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I think my learned friend's request is very fair.\nAlso the letter back from Mr. Borden to Mr. Maxwell of the 3rd of\nSeptember, 1898.\nAll marked one exhibit, \"28.\"\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 2S\nG. S.\nMcOonncll\nExamination\n15th Due.\n1909\ncontinued\n30\nNo 29.\nJOHN MoMILLAN, Sworn:\u2014\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald.)\nQ. You are one of the Aldermen of the city ?    A. Yes.\nQ. You were Alderman last year? A. Yes, 1906, 1908 and the present\nyear.\nMr. Davis\u2014Is this evidence on the same line ?\nMr Macdonald\u2014No ; in connection with the same objection raised on Sir\nFrederick Borden's evidence.\n40 Mr. Davis objects.\nBy the Court\u2014I am reserving decision on these objections until we get to\nthe end of the case, and then they can all be dealt with nunc pro tunc. I am\ntrying to gather up all these objections to deal with them at one time and then\nthey can be wiped out or not as decided.\nMr. Maodonald\u2014I would like to continue Sir Frederick Borden's evidence,\nand have your Lordship's rulin\nNo. 29\nJ. McMillan\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1909 -\nlS- 68\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 29\nJ. McMillan\nExamination\n15th Dec.\n1 909\ncontinued\nBy the Court\u2014I prefer to deal with the documentary evidence all at once.\nWe might just as well have all the evidence taken and then discuss these\ndocuments later.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014In view of your Lordship's ruling, I will proceed with the\nexamination of this witness.\nQ. In connection with this lease of Deadman's Island did you, as an Alderman,\nintend that any rights you should have, should be lost under the new lease ?\nMr. Davis objects.\nA. No.\nQ. Was there any intention on your part or as far as you know on the part 10\nof the Council to allow the Ludgate lease or any lease in ahead of the city's\nlease?   A  No.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I am practically through, with the exception of Mr.\nBuscombe, who was down at Ottawa, and had a personal interview with Sir\nFrederick Borden in connection with the lease, in his capacity as Mayor.\nBy the Court\u2014A conversation between the landlord and the person\nclaiming tenancy.    Was Ludgate there ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Our contention is Ludgate had no lease.\nBy the Court\u2014This very document was in existence at that time ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Yes. 20\nBy the Court\u2014I will not admit that.\n(Adjourned at 4.30 p.m.)\nNo. 30.\nNo. 30\nP. Buscombe\n1909\nDecember 16th, 1909, at 11 a.m.\nlamination FREDERICK BUSCOMBE, Sworn :\u2014\n1 ith Dec. I\n(Examined by Mr. Macdonald).\nMr. Davis\u2014My learned friend having intimated the nature of Mr.\nBuscombe's evidence, I am going to object to it, and I presume one objection will\ncover all the questions.    Ft will not be necessary for me to repeat the objection. 30\nBy the Court\u2014No.\nMr. Davis\u2014-It goes in, in the same way as the evidence of Mr. McMillan ;\nif your Lordship finally decides it is not admissible, then it goes out of the notes\naltogether.\nBy the Court\u2014Yes ; were it not that a considerable amount of this kind of\nevidence has already gone in on these terms, I would not hesitate to exclude it.\nI think it would be better to let it in on these terms.\nMr. Macdonald \u2014On these terms ?\nBy the Court\u2014Yes ; it does not prejudice you in the slightest way ;   we\nwill receivethe evidence and discuss its   admissibility  later   with  the   other 40\nevidence objected to.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014How many years have you been a resident of the City of\nVancouver ?   A. Between 18 and 19. 69\nQ. When did you first have an official position in connection with the city ?\nA.  1905 as Commissioner.\nQ. Prior to that, in 1899, you were one of the delegation that went down to\nOttawa in connection with the Deadman's Island affair ? A. Yes ; I was a member of the Board of Trade at that time.\nQ. As I understand it the citizens met and appointed a delegation to go\ndown, and you formed one of them ?    A. Yes, that is correct.\nQ. Prior to that had you any knowledge of this property in dispute known\nas Deadman's Island ?    A. Nothing except in a general way as a citizen.\n10 Q. In the early history of the city the park was understood to be part of the\nwestern portion of the city ?    A. I believe so.\nQ. Do you as a citizen know whether that property was improved by the\ncity ?    A. The park, yes.\nQ. Up to the occasion of the Ludgate incident, in round figures, what would\nyou say was spent on the park ?    A. I have no idea.\nQ. The statement made in the memorial presented at Ottawa $100,000 spent\nat that time ?    A. I should think that quite reasonable.\nQ.  Up to 1899 on the park property ?\nBy the Court\u2014Stanley Park ?\n20 Mr.   Macdonald\u2014Yes, on the park property ; of which you do not know\nhow much was spent on this particular piece of property known as Deadman's\nIsland ?    A. I do not know.\nBy the Court\u2014Spent by the city ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Yes.\nQ. You became Mayor in 1905 ?    A. Yes.\nQ. You were Mayor for how many years ?    A. Two years.\nQ. Now, from the time that you first had knowledge of this piece of property\nand up to the time of the Ludgate incident, how did you consider this property\nwith reference to the mainland ?    A. I certainly  considered it part of the park.\n30 Q. How was it treated ?    A. In no way particularly, except I happened to\nknow there was a bridge connecting the so called Deadman's Island with the\npark.\nQ. Now in 1905 when you were Mayor, was a decision yet arrived at with\nrespect to the litigation then in progress ? A. I am under the impression it was\nstill in motion.\nMr. Davis\u2014It is admitted.\nQ. In 1905 the then pending litigation between the Dominion and the\nProvince as to title, was not settled ?    A. Exactly.\nQ. In 1906 you were Mayor ;   did you go to Ottawa at that time in conuec-\n40 tion with matters of a private nature ?    A. I did ; I went east, not to Ottawa ;\nI went east on private business and went to Ottawa.\nQ. Did you have occasion while in the east to see Sir Frederick Borden in\nconnection with the matter of the Island ?    A. I did, not the island, but the park\nlease.\nQ. Was that before or after the decision of the Privy Council ?    A. lam\nnot certain ; I can fix the date of my visit to Ottawa, approximately;\n1906, that was the occasion.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 30\nP. Buscombe\nExamination\n16th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nN\novemDer\nbei 1\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nEvidence\nNo. 30\nP. Buscombe\nExamination\n16th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\n70\nMr. Macdonald\u2014At that time the decision of the Privy Council had been\nrendered ?\nMr. Davis\u2014Yes.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Now at that time did you ask for a lease again ? A. I\ndid.\nMr. Davis objects.\nQ. Was there any discussion at that time as to the Ludgate Lease ? A. As far\nas I can reflect, none whatever.\nQ. Was there any discussion particularizing Deadman's Island ?. A. I think\nnot. 10\nQ. Is this memorandum drawn up by Mr. Macdonald practically correct as\nto the result of your conversation ? A. Practically correct, if it is what you\nshowed me.\nQ. What was decided then as to the lease, as between the three of you ? A. .\nThe particular matter which we were discussing was the granting of a lease to the\nYacht Club of a portion of the foreshore included in that application ; the\nquestion of area; as a matter of fact we had not yet received a complete park\nlease ; the lease of the park had been sent up, but it was drafted in terms not\nsatisfactory to the Conine 1, and it had been returned. It had been drafted in a\nmechanical way in one of the departments. 20\nQ. The result, however, of the interview between the three of you was that .\nthere was to be a lease come along some time ?    A. Yes.\nQ. But during your term of office you did not receive any copy ? A. We\nreceived a copy, which was returned ; we did not receive a completed lease.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I file letter from Mr. MacPherson to Sir Frederick Borden\nof 27th November, 1906.\nMr. Davis objects.\n(Marked Exhibit 29).\nMr. Macdonald (to Mr. Davis)\u2014After looking at return on page 30, I ask\nyou to admit, without  going into the  evidence,  that the address of Mayor 30\nOppenheimer on the 5th of January, 1891\u2014(No. 6)\u2014| During the past year a\nconsiderable amount of work has heen done in the City parks.\"\nMr. Davis\u2014If I knew it was so.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Will you admit that this was published in a newspaper ;\nthen we can di.-cuss whether it is evidence or not\u2014in the 1 World\" under date\nof January 5th, 1891.\nMr. Davis\u2014If my learned friend can make any use of the paper I will\nadmit this is the \" Daily World,\" and it speaks for itself. I am quite content it\nshould go in on the same terms as the other.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014In the \"World\"  newspaper published in the  City of 40\nVancouver on January 5th, 1891, containing a copy of the inaugural address of\nMayor Oppenheimer, the following statement appears :\u2014\n' PARK DRIVES.\u2014During the past year a considerable amount of work\n\" has been done on the City parks. In Stanley Park the grounds leased\n;' by the Brocton Point Athletic Association have been cleared and\n'\u2022' levelled and fenced ; a bridge has been built to Deadman's Island and a\n,x new trail has been cut in order to make more accessible the beautiful\n\" spots in that lovely domain,\" 71\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I put in question 96 of Mr. Ludgate's  examination  for\ndiscovery\u2014\n:' Q. When did you first learn that the City of Vancouver had a written\n\"lease of this property ?    A.  Oh, I didn't know at  all about that; I never\nI paid the slightest attention to their position regarding it.\"\nMr. Macdonald\u2014In order to show the character of the  issue  tried  in the\ncase above referred to\u2014Deadman's  Island  case\u2014I propose  to put  in  all  the\npleadings, and the Appellant's  case  and  the Respondent's  case   in  the Privy\nCouncil, and then of course refer the Court to the reasons for judgment  in the\n10 reports.\nMarked Exhibit | 30.\"\nMr. Macdonald\u2014For your lordship's convenience the case is referred to in\n8 B.C.R., page 343 ; 11 B.C.R., page 2o8, and Privy Council Law Journal, 75.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendant's\nEvidence\nNo. 30.\nP. Buscombe\nExamination\n16th Dec.\n1909\nco ntinued\nNo.   31.\nPLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL. piafntifS\n__      _ T .p .. \u201e. _. , .       ~.       rxi     .     Evidence in\nMr. Davis\u20141 put in first the  letter of Colonel Pmault to the City Clerk. Rebuttal\nVancouver, dated April 15th, 1899, being Exhibit 47 in the other action. 1909 De\u00b0'\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I object to this on the ground that it is a letter from the\n20 Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, written after the so-called Ludgate lease\nwas given.    I claim that no letter written by the Department can be used as\nevidence to support the Plaintiffs' case or offset   the Defendant's case,   even  if\nwritten before, and certainly not if written after the lease was said to be given.\nMr. Davis\u2014My learned friend put in at considerable length evidence of a\npetition to the Government; this is the answer of the Government to that\npetition, and as he has put in one side, this should also go in. It can go in\nsubject to objection the same as the other.\nBy the Court\u2014Yes.\nMr. Davis\u2014The date of the petition which was presented  to   the Govern -\n30 ment is 9th March, 1899, and this answer to that petition  is  dated  15th April,\n1899.    That was the petition to set aside the Ludgate lease.\nLetter, April 15th, 1899, Exhibit 31.\nMr. Davis\u2014I put in next exhibits in the other action, numbers 24 and 25\nand 26.    I will just put in these two, \" 24 \" and \" 26,\" as one exhibit.\nMarked Exhibit \" 32.\"\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I object on the ground that this Plaintiff cannot use as\nevidence statements made by officials of the Department. But if they go in\nExhibit \" 25 \" should also go in here.\nMr. Davis\u2014I put in certified copy of the Order-in-Council of the 31st of\n40 August, 1906 (Exhibit 3 on the action).\nMarked Exhibit \"33.\"\nMr. Davis\u2014I ask my learned friend to produce lease to the City of\nNovember 1st, 1908. lean put in a certified copy. It is proved in connection\nwith the examination of McQueen.-\nMr. DavIs (to Mr. Macdonald)\u2014Will you admit this ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014So far as the City is concerned; but the other is objected to. 72\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo 31\nPlaintiffs\nEvidence in\nRebuttal\n16th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nMr. Davis\u2014This is a certified copy.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014So far as the signatures being what they purport to be\nbut I am reserving all rights as against the effect of the document.\nBy the Court\u2014You admit the physical execution ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Yes.\nLease dated 1st November, 1908, marked Exhibit | 35.\"\nMr. Davis\u2014I ask my learned friend to produce letter to the City Clerk\nfrom the Acting-Deputy-Minister of Militia and Defence of the 20th August,\n1906 (Number 55 on the action).\nMr. Macdonald\u2014That is objected to on the ground that it is a statement 10\nmade, not binding.\nMarked Exhibit j 36.\"\nMr. Davis\u2014I ask my learned friend to produce letter of 11th August,\n1906, referred to in this last letter.\nProduced and marked Exhibit | 37.\"\nMr. Davis\u2014I put in letter ofthe Acting-Under-Secretary of State to Sir\nAdolphe Caron, Minister of Militia, ofthe 25th June, 1886.\nMarked Exhibit \"38.\"\nMr. Macdonali:\u2014I don't think this should be evidence, except as to the\nfact of the letter; it is not as evidence of any facts in it. 20\nMr. Davies\u2014This is a letter merely acknowledging receipt of the petition 9\nto Ottawa; the one Mr. McQueen referred to as being sent.    There is no fact in\nit, except the receipt of the petition.    It  is  only proving  the receipt  of this\nparticular petition.\nMr. Davis\u2014I now put in ceitain correspondence between the City and the\nDepartment of Militia and Defence in October, 1908, with reference to the lease\nto the City, beginning September 28th, 1909, from McEvoy to Deputy;\ntelegram from the Mayor to McEvoy at Ottawa and letter from the Deputy\nMinister of Militia to the City Clerk, 6th October, 1908, and the memorial\nreferred to in the telegram. 30\nMemorial marked Exhibit \"39.\"\nLetter of October 6th, 1908, Exhibit 1 40.\"\nMr. Macdonald\u2014It is not admitted that such a letter as that of October\n6th, 1908, was received.    I have not a copy of it.    I have not that letter.\nMr. Davis\u2014I ask my learned friend to produce minute books of the Citv\nCouncil of September, October and November, 1908.\nProduced by Mr. McQueen, City Clerk.\nMr.  Davis\u2014This is an  extract from the minutes   of the City  Council\nof  September   28th,    1908,  at   a  meeting   of   the  Council,  at  which   His\nWorship the Mayor, and Aldermen Hepburn, Mills, Morton, McMillan, McGuigan 40\nwere present, and also Alderman McSpadden.\n\"Moved by Alderman Morton, seconded by Alderman McMillan, that\n\" application be made to the Dominion Government for a 99 years' lease of\n\" the reserve known as Stanley Park ; also make application to the Dominion\n\" Government for a perpetual lease ofthe Admiralty Reserve on the North\n\" Ann, near Barnett.\" 73\nAlso :\nOctober 19th, 1908, at a meeting at which there were present His Worship\nthe Mayor, and Aldermen Calland, Hepburn, Campbell, Mills, Morton, McMillan,\nMcSpadden, McGuigan, Prescott and Stewart.\nI Moved by Alderman Morton, seconded by Alderman McMillan\u2014\nI That His Worship the Mayor and the   City Clerk  be authorised to\nI sign a lease for Stanley  Park and  the Admiralty Reserve at Barnett\nI subject to the approval of the City Solicitor.    Carried.\"\nAlso:\n10 December 14th, 1908, there appears in the minutes of that meeting, among\nthe communications received from A. McEvoy enclosing\u2014\nMr.  Macdonald\u2014Are you going to have the City Clerk sworn ?\nBy the Court\u2014Mr. Davis is reading from the minutes in the books\nproduced by the City Clerk.\nMr. Davis\u2014There appears in the minutes of that meeting among the\ncommunications received one | from A. McEvoy enclosing perpetual lease to the\nCity of Vancouver of Stanley Park, duly executed by the Dominion Government.    Referred to motions.\"\nAlso on   December 28th,   1908, Meeting  of Council\u2014Finance Committee\n20 Report of December 24th, this item:   | From A.  McEvoy enclosing an account\nfor $1,000  legal expenses  and fees  in connection   with    Stanley  Park  lease.\nRecommended that account be paid.\"\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I understand the witness has not been sworn, so I will\nnot be in a position to cross-examine him.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 31\nPlaintiffs-'\nEvidence in\nRebuttal\n16th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nI\nNo. 31A.\nGEORGE F. BALDWIN, Sworn :\u2014\n(Examined by Mr. Davis).\nQ. You are City Treasurer ?    A. City Controller.\n30 Q. You have heard the minutes read by me from the minutes of the City\nCouncil recommending an account of Mr. McEvoy being paid in connection with\nservices re Stanley Park lease ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Was that $1,000 paid by the City?    A. Yes;   paid in two payments,\none of $50 and the other $950 ; two vouchers.\nMr. Davis\u2014I don't care about filing the vouchers.\nQ. When were they paid ?    A. October 14th, 1908, $50; December 30th,\n1908, $950. .\nQ. Now, there was a recommendation of the Council to the effect that the\nrental for Stanley Park lease for the next 99 years be paid.    Was that rent paid\n40 to the Dominion Government ?   A. Yes,\nNo. 31a\nG. P.\nBaldwin\nExamination\n16th Deo.\n1909\nuni] -d\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nPlaintiffs'\nEvidence in\nRebuttal\nNo 31a\nG. F. |\nBaldwin\nExamination\n16th Dec.\n1909\ncontinued\nCross-\nexamination\n74\nQ. $99.00 was paid to the Dominion Government as rental for 99 years ?\nA. No, not exactly that; we tendered the amount, but they declined it;\nreturned it, and asked that it be paid each year.\nQ. A cheque was sent to the Dominion Government, and they returned it,\nand asked that it be paid each year ? A. Yes; there is the voucher for one\ndollar for the year 1st of November, 1909.\nQ. That would be the first year ?    A. Yes.\nQ. How are you paying it, in advance ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Then you have paid two 3Tears? A. Yes; first of November, 1909, up\nto 1st November, 1910. 10\nCross-examined by Mr. Macdonald\u2014\nQ. How many years have you been a resident of the City ? A. Since\nApril, 1886.\nQ. Have you known pretty well the history of this park property ? A.\nYes ; to a considerable extent.\nQ. Have you been a City Official ?    A. All that time.\nQ. Now, at any time during your being a City Official, and from the time\nthat the Ludgate lease first cropped up, has there been any* intention to allow\nthe Ludgate lease to come in prior to the lease the City held ?\nMr. Davis objects. -^^H\nA. No.\nQ. Now, when this money was paid for the rent, and the money was paid 20\nto Mr. McEvoy, was there any intention at that time to allow the Ludgate lease\nto come in ahead of the City in any way ?\nMr. Davis objects.\nA. No.\n\u25a0 Mr. Macdonald\u2014It is admitted that the condition always has been that\nthe City claimed the island.\nQ. From your knowledge as a'City Official, has there been any claim made\nupon that island from the time the Order-in-Council was passed ? A. On the\npart of the City ?\nQ. Yes.    A. Yes; I always understood so.    I  understood that  the City 30\nclaimed jurisdiction over that.\nQ. Would you pass the vouchers for work done on the park property ?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Would the work done be referred to generally, or would it be segregated ?\nA. Generally it is.\nMr. Davis-\u2014I put in\u2014although I don't think it is necessary. Perhaps my\nlearned friend will consent that the City of Vancouver Incorporation Act of\n6th April, 1896, may be referred to, and the description ofthe City limits therein\ncontained ?\nMr. # Macdonald\u2014Without formally putting the Act in.    But you may as 40\nwell put it in though.\nMr. Davis\u2014No, I am not; but I don't object to your doing so. There are\na number of private Acts which are really public Acts, and in a sense they prove\nthemselves. 75\nBy the Court\u2014Of course judicial notice can be taken of them.\nMr.  Davis\u2014I draw special attention to Section 2 of that Act.\nMr.  Davis\u2014That is our evidence in reply.\nNo.  32.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I would like to know, before I proceed, as to what your\nLordship understands to be the arrangement with respect to Sir Frederick\nBorden's evidence and General Macdonald's evidence which has been tendered\nand objected to. My learned friend objected to certain portions of Sir Frederick\n10 Borden's evidence, and the whole of General Macdonald's evidence, on the ground\nthat we were endeavouring to give evidence of intention with respect to a written\ndocument. It is only fair to state that we submit that on two branches of the\ncase. I would like to know now, before deciding whether I will close my case or\nnot. I am tendering that not only on the ground of intention, but also as to\nwhether there was surrender or not.\nMr. Davis\u2014I object to Sir Frederick Borden's evidence from that point\u2014\nwhere my learned friend stopped reading\u2014\"First November, 1908,\" and to all\nGeneral Macdonald's evidence.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I thought it would be better to show on the notes, the\n20 questions.\nBy the Court\u2014The stenographer might copy off the questions objected to.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014The return at the end of Exhibit \" 19 \" to the Legislative\nAssembly does not show on its heading what it purports to be.    It is explained\nby Exhibit No. 7 ofthe Deadman's Island case found at page 283 of the Record.\nUnder the head of \u00a7 Return \" it shows what it is there.\nThe following are the questions of Sir Frederick Borden's evidence (on\ncommission) and Brigadier-General Macdonald's evidence which have -been\ntendered and objected to :\u2014\n\" Q. That was intended to follow the Order-in-Council ?    A. \u2014\nl' Q. Had you any notion of in any sense altering the Order-in-Council ?\n30 \"A. \u2014\nI Q. That was your sole authority for that lease ?    A. \u2014\n\" Q. I see in that, that it is made subject until their determination to\n\"any existing leases of portions of said land\u2014what lease was referred to\n\"there?    A.  \u2014\n\" Q. The Royal Yacht Club of Vancouver ?    A. \u2014\n\" Q. That is the only thing you were excepting ?    A. \u2014\n\" Q. Now,  I want to ask you whether you were aware of a lease to\n\" what is known was Deadman's Island ?   A. \u2014\n\" Q. What was your notion as to whether that was included in Stanley\n40 \" Park or not ?    A. \u2014\n\" Q. You were not intending to make a lease ofthe Park subject to any\n\" Ludgate lease ?    A. \u2014\n\" Q. In other words, the lease of 1908 was supposed by you to carry out\n\"the original Order-in-Council of 1887 and the subsequent Orders-in-\n\" Council?    A. \u2014\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nfurther\nEvidence\nNo. 32\nSir P. Borden\nQuestions of\nEvidence\ntaken on\nCommission\nn 76\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nfurther\nEvidence\nNo. 33\nBrigadier-\nGeneral\nMacdonald\nQuestions of\nEvidence\ntaken on\nCommission\nNo. 33.\n\u00a3 BRIGADIER-GENERAL MACDONALD, Sworn :\u2014\n\"(Examined by Mr. Nesbitt, KG, on commission).\nI Q. General Macdonald, it is to you that Sir Frederick Borden referred\nI as having had charge of this matter, and charge of the papers in the\nI Department ?   A. \u2014\nI Q. Have you heard his statement ?   A. \u2014\nI Q. Do you corroborate everything he has said ?    A. \u2014\nCourt adjourned for argument.\nNo. 34\nSir P.\nBorden's\nEvidence\ntaken on\nCommission\ncontinued\nNo.  35. 10\nExamination op SIR FREDERICK BORDEN for Discovery, taken under\nCommission (Objected to):\u2014\nQ. That was intended to follow the Order-in-Council ?    A. Based on the\nOrder-in- Council.\nQ. Had you any notion of in any sense altering the Order-in-Council ?    A.\nNo.\nQ. That was your sole authority for that lease ?    A. Yes.\nQ. I see in that, that it is made subject until their determination to any \"\nexisting leases of portions of said land \u2014what lease was referred to there ?    A.\nWell, there had been a lease of a bit of the foreshore of the park, I suppose to a 20\nyacht company.\nQ. The Royal Yacht Club of Vancouver ?   A. Yes, I meant a club.\nQ. That is the only thing you were excepting ?    A. So far as I know.\nQ. Now I want to ask you whether you were aware of a lease of which was\nknown as Deadman's Island ?    A. Yes.\nQ. What was your notion as to whether that was included in Stanley Park\nor not ?    A. Well, \u2014\nMr. Chrysler\u2014Is not that objectionable ? Would it control the thing in\nany way ? Suppose he was mistaken about it. Put it as objected to; it may be\nfor them out there to say. 30\nSir Frederick Borden (the witness)- Perhaps I had better state it in my\nown way. I never have been in Vancouver or in British Columbia at that time\nand therefore I knew nothing personally about it. But in the Department there\nwas an officer at that time who was a civil servant, now Brigadier Macdonald,\nQuartermaster-General, who had the custody of all military lands, and I understood from him\u2014it is the only source from which I could understand it\u2014that the\npark did not include Deadman's Island, that is, that there were two separate properties.\nQ. You were not intending to make a lease of the park subject to any Lud-\nA. The question never arose. 40\ngate Lease ? Ifi\nQ. In other words, the lease of 1908 was supposed by you to carry out the\noriginal Order-in-Council of 1887 and the subsequent Orders in-Council ? A.\nPerhaps I may say that it states that in the lease itself\u2014the second Order-in-\nCouncil was based on the first and our intention was to base the lease upon the\nlast Order-in-Council.\nMr: Chrysler\u2014The lease that you referred to is exhibit 51.\nNesbitt\u2014Yes.\nChrysler\u2014That is all you want to ask Sir Frederick ?\nNesbitt\u2014Yes.\nThis concluded the examination of the witness.\nMr.\nMr.\nMr.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nfurther\nEvidence \u2022\nNo. 34\nSir P. Borden\nEvidence\ntaken on\nCommission\ncontinued\n10\nNo.   35.\nExamination for Discovery of THEODORE LUDGATE :\u2014\n(Questions put in by Dependant's Counsel).\n1. Q. You are one of the Plaintiffs in this action ?    A.  Yes, sir.\n2. Q. I see that your co-Plaintiff is named the Vancouver Lumber Co. in\nthe style of the clause ?    A. Yes.\n3. Q. Who composes Vancouver Lumber Co. ?    A. I do\u2014The Vancouver\nLumber Co.\n4. Q. And you have always been the  sole  member  of   the  Vancouver\nLumber Co. ?    A. Yes, sir.\n5. Q. Then the name \" Vancouver Lumber Co. \" is really simply Theodore\nLudgate?    A. Yes, sir.\n20 6.    Q. Who acted for you in applying for the lease under which you are\nclaiming this land in action, originally? A. Well, Mr. Maxwell, who was then a\nmember, presented the matter to the Government and I had some surveys\u2014map\nof surveys of the property which 1 presume I showed Mr. Maxwell and he\nshowed them to the Government. I may say, then I speak of the Government,\nthe Minister of Militia, then Frederick Borden and now Sir Frederick Borden,\nand some Frenchman who is dead\u2014I have forgotten his name\u2014and a Colonel\nMacdonald who is now a Quartermaster\u2014I don't know just what he is.\n7. Q. He is still in the same department ?    A. Well, I don't know that\nMr. Macdonald ; he was Colonel D. A. Macdonald.\n8. Q. But what solicitor did you have acting for you in pressing your\nclaim for this lease ?    A. I had no solicitor at all.\n9. Q. You just went yourself personally to Ottawa about the matter, did\n30 you ?   A. Yes, sir.\n10. Q. You feel quite sure you had no legal solicitor acting for you at all\nat that time ?    A. Oh yes, quite satisfied.    I had no occasion for a solicitor.\nMr. Macnelll\u2014How does any question of this kind arise on this examination ?    I must instruct Mr. Ludgate not to answer any questions of that kind;\nNo. 85\nExamination\nfor discovery\nof Plaintiff\nT. Ludgate\nBB RECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nfurther\nEvidence\nNo. 35\nExamination\nfor discovery\nof Plaintiff\nT. Ludgate\ncontinued\n78\nthey do not arise in either the Statement of Claim or Statement of Defence who\nhe employed or saw in connection with this lease at Ottawa, and (to witness)\nyou need not answer.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Have you the lease here? A. Well, I don't know\nwhether it is up in your office or not, Mr. Macneill. If it is not you can get it\nany time you wire.\n11. Q. Well, I am going to ask for an adjournment of this examination for\nthe production of the lease.    I have never seen it yet.\nWitness\u2014At the time I was in the Police Court some months ago, Mr.\nMarshall was there and the original was shown to the Judge and he accepted 10\nwhat Mr. Marshall said was a copy of the lease and he gave the Judge in the\nPolice Court the copy and he said that the original lease had been so mauled\naround it had become pretty frail and he would like to take care of it.\nMr. Macneill\u2014The Statement of Claim sets it out verbatim.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I want to see the original lease.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Have you given notice to produce ?\nMr. Macneill\u2014On this examination ?\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Yes, on this examination.\nMr. Macneill\u2014I don't think we got it back from Seattle.\nWitness\u2014You can get it any time you wire. . 20\nMr. Macneill\u2014If you want the lease it must be only for the purpose \u2022 of\ngaining time, because there is absolutely nothing on that lease or in it that is not\nset out in the Statement of Claim.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I am not going to disclose the reason why, but I want that\nlease\u2014the original. In your affidavit on Production you speak of a copy of the\nlease.\nWitness\u2014Mr. Macdonald, I think there is one thing that occurs tome now\nthat I had better make clear that might apparently conflict with what I have\nalready said : the first lease got from the Dominion Government was a 25 year\nrenewal lease carrying with it the right of confiscation. 30\nMr. Macneill\u2014Both documents are set out in the Statement of Claim.\nWitness\u2014But here is the thing : Mr. D. G. Macdonald, who was going to\nOttawa the year following or some considerable time later, said that he would\ntake this down with my consent and put up the whole matter, with the result\nthat he got the lease widened and made more useable. Of course that is shown\non the next part in addition to the lease. I do not think of that when I said\nfirst there was no lawyer. You see that he was thus at that time my solicitor in\ngetting that addition to the lease.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Q. How does it come that the affidavit on production only\nspeaks of a copy of the lease being produced and not the lease itself ?    A. Are 40\nyou asking me ?\n12. Q. Yes.    A. I don't understand that question.\n13. Q. Well you made an affidavit on production in which you stated that\nyou had certain documents which pertain tovthis action and amongst those you\nreferred to a copy of a lease. A. Oh, we can get the original lease here; not\nto-day, you know. 79\nMr. Macneill\u2014It is not in Mr. Ludgate's possession ; it is held by somebody else ; Mr. Ludgate can get it but he will have to borrow it, and if he gets\nit up here he has got to give it back. It is in Seattle, and Mr. Ludgate has not got\npossession of it, but they sent it up to us and we can get it again, for that matter.\nWitness\u2014Yes.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014That means according to Mr. Macneill's statement that\nsome one else has the lease, or has a claim upon it in the meantime ? A. For\nCourt purposes the lease could be got there.\n14. Q.    Who is the party?    A. That is a Bank, sir.\n10         (To Mr. Macneill)\u2014Who is the Bank ?\nMr. Macneill\u2014I cannot tell you offhand.\nWitness\u2014Well, if I was wiring for the lease now, I would wire to Borden and\nGashan of Seattle.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Is that where the original lease is at present ? A. That is\nwhere it is now, and they will send it up any time you want it.\n15. Q. But you do not know the name of the Bank? A. No. I do not\nknow. I do not know whether it is in their own vaults in the New York Block\nor whether it is, as Mr. Macneill says, in the bank.\n16. Q.  But at any rate this firm of Borden & Gashan know exactly where\n20 it is?    A. Yes.\n17. Q. How long has this lease been in that position, that is, that somebody\nelse had control of it ?    A. Just a few months.\n18. Q.  Before the commencement of this action?    A. On the part of the\ncity?\n19. Q. Yes, the commencement of this action, this present action?\nWitness  (to  Mr.   Macneill)\u2014You know about that, Mr.   Macneill.\n(To Witness)\u2014If you don't know, simply say so.    A. Well, I don't know.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014As a matter of date, would it be about the time you sold\nthe timber limits to Gashan ? A. Yes; I did not sell them, I simply got an\n30 advance on the timber limits.\nMr. Davis\u2014We will get you the lease any time you want it.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014I want the original.\nMr. Davis\u2014Well, we will get it for you.\nMr. Macdonald \u2014 (To Witness^\u2014-Then you say that subsequent to the\ngetting of the original lease you got the lease extended by a certain clause being\nrectified or changed ?    A. Yes.\n20. Q. That would be about a year after ?    A. Well, sometime.\n21. Q. Where is the amended agreement or amended lease ?   A. Well, that\nis all on the one.\n40 22.    Q. However, it was all one thing ?     A. Yes, it is altogether, just the\nsame as this copy here shows, just the original\u2014it is all on one paper.    You\nhave a copy there, it shows the whole lease as it stands to-day.\n23. Q. Your recollection is, you say, that the new lease so termed\u2014follows\nright on the old ?    A. Well, it was made some\u2014perhaps a year or so later.\n24. Q. I do not mean that, but in the writing that contains the new lease,\nso termed, it follows right on the same paper as the old lease ?    A.  Yes,\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nfurther\nEvidence\nNo. 35\nExamination\nfor discovery\nof Plaintiff\nT. Ludgate\ncontinued\nm 80\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nfurther\nEvidence\nNo. 35\nExamination\nfor discovery\nof Plaintiff\nT. Ludgate\ncontinued\n25. Q. Now when you obtained this original lease did you not have the\nHon. Jos. Martin acting for you ?    A. No.\nMr. Davis\u2014How can who acted for him be material ? There are certain\nthings that occurred at that time in connection with Mr. Joseph Martin, when he\nwas not acting for Mr. Ludgate.\nWitness\u2014I might say that Mr. Joseph Martin, of Martin and Deacon, first of\nall I went with this case to Mr. Davis after I decided after seeing the island,\nthat I wanted to get it for a sawmill proposition. Mr. Davis was opposed to\nhaving anything to do with the matter, and I then went by suggestion of one of\nthe people here in the city, who was an old timer and interested in timber, and 10\nwas desirous I would come through with this thing, as he had timber\u2014it was\nthrough him my attention was drawn to this property, and I went to Martin and\nDeacon, and they wrote a letter. Mr. Martin was then Attorney-General for\nB.C., if I remember, atid they wrote a letter to the Minister of Militia\nregarding\u2014j\nMr. Davis\u2014That letter will speak for itself?   A. Yes.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014That would be this letter of the 20th of January, '99?\nA. Well, he at that time was not my solicitor at all, Mr. Macdonald, and he had\nnothing further to do with it; it was not very long after that.\n26. Q. In this letter he refers to you as | being a client of mine.\"    That is 20\nincorrect, is it ?    A. Yes, that is incorrect;  that is, that he had no retainer from\nme.    I might be a client of any persons that I would go in and ask to write\na letter, but beyond that I would not be, I would judge, any client.    The matter\nceased there.\n27. Q. He said you represented a number of very large Canadian\nand American capitalists.    That is not correct either ?\nObjected to by Mr. Davis as immaterial.\n28. Q. Shortly after this letter then written by Mr. Martin, which we will\nassume this date of January 20th is correct, you apparently went to Ottawa\nabout the question of this island ?    A. Well, I went over there in the winter, I 30\npresume it was after that; I do not remember the date now.\n29. Q. I see a letter in here after the return dated the 3rd February, '99,\naddressed by you to the Hon. Dr. Borden ? That presumably is correct ? A.\nThat is a letter written by me here.\n30. Q. No, apparently Ottawa; it is dated there ? A. Well I have no\nknowledge of the letter.    Of course the letter is there to speak for itself.\n31. Q. Well I find it in this printed return that is all? A. Yes, well\u2014of\nof course it is all right.\n32. Q. On this question that you alone took this lease, I see in this letter\nyou say \" my firm.\"   Now what does that mean ?    A. Well it would mean, I 40\npresume, the Vancouver Lumber Co.\n; 33.    Q. And the Vancouver Lumber Co. you say was really no firm but an\nindividual ?   A. Exactly.\n34. Q. Then you say on the occasion of your visit to Ottawa you saw the\nMinister of Militia and Defence then the Hon. Dr. Borden, and some other\nofficials of his department ? A. Yes, Mr. Macdonald and the Deputy, I have forgotten his name\u2014he was a Frenchman\u2014I think it was \" Colonel .\" SI\nMr. Macdonald\u2014Napanet, how is that ?\nMr. Davis\u2014No, I think it is Pinault; there are two of them.\nMr. Macdonald (To Witness)\u2014You found at Ottawa that the piece of\nproperty commonly called \"Deadman's Island,\" was under what department?\nA. Well, I don't know.\n35. Q. Then why did you go to the Department of Militia and Defence and\nnot to the Department of the Interior about this ? A. Simply because Mr. Martin\nsaid that property lay with Frederick Borden of the Military Department.\n36. Q. That is, it was part of a military reserve ?    A. Well, I don't know\nlO about that.\n37. Q. That is how it came up ?    A. Yes, I did not know at the time.\n38. Q. Ordinarily you know with respect to Dominion lands you would go to\nthe Minister of the Interior ? A. Well, I don't know I would know that at the\ntime. I was simply turned over\u2014owing to Mr. Martin, whom I asked about the\nmatter, saying that Frederick Borden, the Minister of Militia, was the party to\nsee.\n39. Q. When you got to Ottawa there were certain telegrams seemed to\nhave passed prior to your being given a lease, were there not ? Or do you know\nwhat was done ?    A. No, I do not.\n20 40.    Q. To put it shortly, did you go into the matter down there yourself,\nor did someone else act for you\u2014Mr. Maxwell ? A. Well, Mr. Maxwell put the\nmatter up to the people\u2014the Government. I am not aware of any telegrams. I\ndon't know what occasion there would be for telegrams. Of course, if you have\ntelegrams I do not dispute them, but as I was there I do not see what occasion\nthere would be for wiring.\n41. Q. Was there any necessity at that time for prompt action in the\nmatter or was it standing over ? A. Well, not particularly, except that I had\nbeen here for\u2014I came out here two days after the Westminster fire and I had\nbeen looking round this place and advertising in the paper  till I left for Ottawa\n30 to see if I could get this island.\n42. Q. How soon after you arrived in Ottawa did you sign this lease ? It\nis dated the 14th of February, does that help you ? A. Well, I don't know about\nthe date there, but I judge I was there  nearly three weeks before I got that\n.  lease.\n43. Q. What you mean to say by that is the date does  not help  you in\n2    A. No, I know that I was there at the hotel and  up  and down to\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nfurther\nEvidence'\nNo: 35\nExamination\nfor discovery\nof Plaintiff\nT. Ludgate\ncontinued\nany way\nNo, I know that I was there at the hotel and  up  and down\nthe Department there back and forth, I should judge three weeks.\n44. Q. Where,  as a matter of fact,  did you sign the lease ?    A. In the\nParliament Buildings.\n40        45.    Q. Then did you personally get the lease in your possession before you\nleft Ottawa ?    A. Yes.\n46.    Q. And you came back to Vancouver with the lease ?   A. Yes.\n6 82\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendant's\nfurther\nEvidence\nNo. 35\nExamination\nfor discovery\nof Plaintiff\nT. Ludgate\ncontinued\n47. Q. Can you give me any idea when you returned, about the time ? A.\nWell, no, I cannot. I came back, I suppose, the following ten days or less, than\nthat.\n48. Q. And that would bring you back then somewhere about the\nbeginning of March ? A. You can tell that pretty well from some of the papers\nif you take back to the file there.\n49. Q. I am going to do that some day. A. I could not tell any dates\nthough.\n50. Q. Because immediately after you came back something occurred ? A\nWell, there was a great roar here you know. \u2022 10\n51. Q. With respect to this lease, what occurred ? How soon after you\ngot back did you go on this property which is referred to in this lease ? A. Well,\nnot for some time.\n52. Q. Can't you fix it any nearer ? A. No, I could not. I may tell you\nwhat happened, if it is all right, Mr. Davis.\nMr. Davis\u2014Simply give the date as nearly as you can ? A. Well, it would\nbe probably about six weeks.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014And at the end of that six weeks what did you do ? A.\nI engaged a number of men and went over there. I purchased saws and axes\nand peavies with a view to going on it to clear off the property to begin building. 20\n53. Q. To clear the trees off ?    A. Yes; to move the timber.\n54. Q. From what had taken place, you expected opposition did you not ?\nObjected to by Mr. Davis and witness instructed not to answer.\n55. Q. Well, did you get possession of the property ? A. Well, I hold\nthat I have possession under the lease, yes.\n\u00a76. Q. No ; did you get actual possession of the property as a fact? A.\nWell, of course ; I have legal possession.\n57. Q. But I am speaking of the actual physical possession ?    A. Physical\npossession\u2014well, no ; I did not want to see any bloodshed or crazy action in this\nmatter.    During the time I was there Mayor Garden came over in the name of 30\nthe City or the Queen or something, and ordered me to refrain, and I peaceably\ngave way.\nMr. Davis\u2014You were there ? A. I was there on the property with my men\nin the actual work of clearing the ground.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014In other words, you were starting to cut down trees on\nthat property and he restrained you from doing so ? Well, that would be this\nsummer along in March or at latest in April, 1899 ? A. Well, of course, this is\nmerely\u2014I would say offhand\u2014it was along about that time. I never kept a diary\nof the circumstances. I have no doubt you will get a good deal of that from the\nold papers here, as a matter of hunting back. 40\n58. Q. Then as I take it, you were trying to get possession of this island?\n,A Yes, I wanted to go on and take up business here you know. 83\n59. Q. Did you know at that time it was claimed\u2014that that island was\nclaimed by the City ?    A.  Oh, no.\n60. Q. It was not claimed by the City ? A. When I got the lease I never\ndreamed that the City\u2014\n61. Q. I mean, at the time you attempted to take possession, did you\nknow it was claimed by the City ? A. Well, I presume that I did, from the\nfact that there must have been something in the papers here, and it was not\nstrange to me. I know when Mr. Garden came over there with a number of\npolicemen and asked me to desist from further work on the property.\n10 Mr. Davis (to witness)\u2014Was not  that  at  the  instance of the Provincial\nGovernment ?    A   No, that was later.    The Provincial Government came later.\nMr. Macdonald\u2014What was the next step then with respect to the island\nthat took place ? A. Well, I was resisted\u2014at least, prevented from going on\nthere as I anticipated, and then as I remember it the Province came in and\nclaimed the property, and during that time I went back again with a number of\nmen and implements to go on clearing off the property, and was chopping 'down\nsome timber that was to be moved off, and Mr. Martin, then Attorney-General,\ncame over with Campbell\u2014we had several small forces around there and quite a\nnumber of men, and Campbell and Mr. Martin came over and ordered me to stop\n20 further work upon the property, and Campbell\u2014whether I did not just come\ndown or made some show of resistance I don't know, but Campbell\u2014I think it\nwas Campbell\u2014took me and threw me down to the ground, and I was manacled\nand brought into this building and held for bail.\n62. Q. That was not the City ?    A. No, that was the Province.\n63. Q. How long would that be after the time when Mayor Garden\nprevented you from\u2014 ? A. Oh, I could not say, really I could not say about\nthat; perhaps it must be about a month or some other matter like that.\n64. Q. Then, subsequently to that, what action was started with respect\nto this property ?    A. Well, as I remember it, the Government took injunction\n30 proceedings.\n65. Q. The Local Government ? A. Yes, the B.C. Government enjoined\nme from further going on the property.\n66. Q. And then there was the litigation between the Dominion Government and the Provincial Government over the question of the ownership of this\npiece of property ?    A. The title, yes.\nRECORD\nIn the.\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nDefendants'\nfurther\nEvidence\nNo. 35\nExamination\nfor discovery\nof Plaintiff\nT. Ludgate\ncontinued 84\ntfj\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 36\nExhibit 11\nOrder-in-\nCouncil\n25th Feb.\n1880\nNo.  36.\nEXHIBIT   11.\nCopy of a Report of the Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved\nby His Excellency the Governor-General in Council on the 25th February,\n1880.\nOn a memorandum dated 16th February, 1880, from the Honourable the\nMinister of the Interior, reporting that he is informed that a considerable area of\nlands situate at important points along the Coast Line in the Province of British\nColumbia, is held by the Imperial Government as military and naval reserves and\nsuggesting for the consideration of your Excellency in Council the expediency of 10\ninviting the attention ofthe Imperial Authorities to the fact, and asking should\nthe same not be inconsistent with the views of Her Majesty's Government that\nthe lands in question, excepting such as may actually be required for military or\nnaval purposes, may be transferred to the Dominion, to be held and administered\nin the same manner as the lands of corresponding character in the older provinces\nformerly transferred by Her Majesty's Government to Canada.\nThe  Committee  submit the foregoing  suggestions  for your  Excellency's\napproval.\nJ. 0. COTE,\nClerk, Privy Council.     20\n1\nNo. 37\nExhibit 12\nLetter\nR. Thompson\nto Under-\nSecretary\nof State\n27th July\n1883\nNo 37.\nEXHIBIT 12.\nWar Office to Colonial Office.\nWar Office, 27th July, 1883.\nThe Under Secretary of State,\nColonial Office.\nSir,\nWith reference to your letter dated 21st July, 1883,1 am directed by the\nSecretary of State for War to transmit for the information of the Earl of Derby 30\nthe accompanying \" Schedule of the Reserved Lands of British Columbia proposed\nto be surrendered to the Dominion Government\" as therein requested.\nI have, etc.,\nRALPH THOMPSON. 85\nSchedule of the Reserved Lands of British Columbia proposed to be surrendered to the Dominion Government.\nNo.\nArea in\nAcres.\nDescription.\nEsquimalt and Victoria District.\n5\nAbout\n30\nWilliam Head.\n6\n\u00bb>\n70\nBentick Island.\n7\n11\n80\nSooks Harbor.\n8\ny\n180\nMount Douglas.\n. 9\nChatham Island.\n10\nChain Island.\n11\nTrial Island.\nNew Westminster District.\n1\nAbout\n600\nBetween north arm and main branch of Fraser River.   Inland\nbetween Fraser Eiver and Burrard Inlet.\n3\n>>\n640\nj Ditto.\n4\n)>\n95\nOn north shore of Port Moody, near the centre.\n5\nii\n150\nOn south shore of Port Moody, near the entrance.\n6\n>i\n160\nOn north shore of mouth of Port Moody.\n7\nii\n3,000\nOn south shore of Burrard Inlet, outside 2nd Narrows.\n8\na\n300\nOn south shore of Burrard Inlet, near Coal Harbor.\n9\nii\n600\nSouth shore of 1st Narrows.\n10\ni>\n800\nSouth shore of English Bay.\n11\nit\n500\nPoint Grey.\n12\nii\n480\nOn the north shore of 1st Narrows.\n13\nand\nii\n120]\n90)\nOn each side of the entrance of the north arm of the Fraser River.\n14\n>*\n15\nit\n120\nInland, south of the main branch of the Fraser River.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 37\nExhibit 12\nSchedule to\nLetter\nR. Thompson\nto Under-\nSecretary\nof State \u2022\n27th July\n1883\nt] 86\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 37\nExhibit 12\nLetter\nAdmiralty\nOffice to\nColonial\nOffice\n29th Feb.\n1884\nSir,\nThe Admiralty to the Colonial Office.\nAdmiralty, 29th February, 1884.\nThe Under Secretary of State for the Colonies.\nam\nAdverting to my letter of the 14th August last, D.W., No. 2631, I\ncommanded by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to inform you that they\nhave received from the Naval Commander-in-Chief on the Pacific station a report\non the subject of the surrender of naval reserves in British Columbia, to which\nyour letter of the 21st July last, and its enclosure, related.\nI am now to state, for the information of the Earl of Derby, that my lords 10\nare prepared to give up all the reserves belonging to the admiralty in that\ncolony with the exception of those which they occupy in Esquimalt, i.e., the\nNaval Hospital and Cemetery, the Naval Yard, Thetic Island, Brother's Island,\nAlbert Head, Cole Island, and also the plot of 110 acres in Burrard Inlet marked\nC in the accompanying plan.\nThis last-mentioned plot their lordships propose to retain as a site for a\npossible future naval establishment, or in order to exchange it for a site suitableibr\nthe dockyard if it should at any time be decided to remove that establishment\nfrom its present position.\nI am, &c.y 20\nG. TRYON.\nLetter\nEarl Derby\nto Marquis\nof Landsowne\n27th Mar.\n1884\nThe Earl of Derby to the Marquis of Lansdowne.\nGovernor General, the Most Honourable The\nMarquis of Lansdowne, G.C.M.G., &c. &c. &c.\nDowning Street, 27th March, 1884.\nMy Lord,\nWith reference to your dispatch, No. 207 of the 13th July, 1881, and to\nprevious correspondence respecting the proposed surrender to the Canadian\nGovernment of certain lands reserved for naval and military purposes in British 30\nColumbia, I have the honor to state that the power of Governor Douglas to make\nreserves in British Columbia appears to have rested on the 2nd clause of this\ncommission dated the 2nd of September, 1858, directing him to execute his trust\naccording to powers, directions and authorities granted or appointed to him under\nthe Royal Sign Manuel and Signet or by Order-in-Council or by the Queen\nthrough one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State; and further upon\ndespatches from Sir E. B. Lytton dated the 31st July and 14th of August, 1858,\nand giving him instructions as to the marking out of allotments for public purposes and giving him provisional rules for his guidance in selling lands. These\npapers are contained in a parliamentary paper given to the British Parliament in 40\n1859, entitled \" Papers Relative to the Affairs of British Columbia,\" printed 18th\nFebruary, 1859, pp. 5, 45 and 49. And it has always been considered that\nreserves made by him were valid and became effectual without confirmation by the\nSecretary of State. 87\n10\nAs regards the reserves now in question no formal deed appears to have been\nmade conveying them to the military or naval authorities, and I am advised that\nthey may now in like manner be surrendered without the formality of a regular\ndeed of conveyance.\nIt appears therefore sufficient to state that Her Majesty's Government are\nprepared to surrender the military reserves specified in the schedule to the War\nOffice Letter ofthe 27th of July, 1883, a copy of which is inclosed, and all navy\nreserves with the exception of those mentioned in the letter from the Admiralty\nofthe 29th ultimo, a copy of which is enclosed.\nI request that you .will inform me whether the Dominion Government desire\nto receive any more formal notification of surrender than this despatch, and, if so,\nthat I may also be informed of the nature of the instrument which they would\nlike to receive.\nI have, &c.\nDERBY.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 37\nExhibit 12\nLetter\nEarl Derby\nto Marquis\nof Lansdowne\n27th Mar.\n1884\ncontinued\nNo. 38\nExhibit 23\nNo.   38.\nEXHIBIT 23.\nVictoria, Report of\n20    J,6-4-85-, , 1       RiH SssL\nForwarded with report of D.A.G. of Dist. 16th April\nI am strongly averse myself to the surrender of this island.    It may prove 1885\nto be of immense value when the general defences come to be considered.\n(Signed)    FRED MfDDLETON,\nMajor-General.\n23-4-88.\nCertified a true copy.\n(Signed)    E. F. JARVIS,\nAssistant Deputy Minister,\n30 Militia and Defence.\nOttawa, October 28th, 1909.\nNo. 39.\n\u2022    M EXHIBIT  13. | \u2022 ^\nHouse of Commons,\nOttawa, 24th March, 1886.\nSir Adolphe Caron,\nMinister of Militia,\nOttawa.\n40 Sir, .        . ...\nI enclose herewith map showing the military reserve at the entrance of\nBurrard Inlet. It contains 950 acres, adjoining the terminal City of Vancouver,\non the Canadian- Pacific Railway. I would respectfully request that you would\ngrant the same to the City, reserving the right to use any portion of it for\nmilitary purposes or on occasion when required even the whole of it.    The City\nNo. 39\nExhibit 13\nLetter\nA. W. Ross\nto\nSir A. Caron\n24th March\n1886\nmrmsa 88\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 39\nExhibit 13\nLetter\nA. W. Ross\nto\nSir A. Caron\n24th March\n1886\ncontinued\nto build a carriage road around the reserve and otherwise spend money on it to\nmake it attractive for a park. In my opinion it can be made one of the finest\nparks in the world, and in connection with the proposed establishment of national\nparks along the line ofthe Canadian Pacific Railway would be.quite an attraction\nto tourists travelling over our national railway, and the above proposed arrangement would not in any way interfere with the right of your department to those\nlands.\nPlease give the matter your, earnest consideration and. advise me of your\ndecision.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient servant, 10\nA. W. ROSS.\nThis military reserve piece of ground is the identical spot that Lieut.-Col.\nHolmes, D.A.G., so strongly recommends for the site of our barracks and battery.\nWould it not be better to suspend action in this regard until we have personally\ninspected the spot ?\nFRED. MIDDLETON,\nMajor-General.\nW\nNo. 40\nExhibit 21\nLetter\nDeputy\nMinister\nof Interior\nto Under-\nSecretary\nof State\n19th April\n1886\nNo.  40.\nEXHIBIT 21.\n20\nDepartment of the Interior.\nOttawa, 19th April, 1886.\nGrant Powell, Esq.,\nUnder Secretary of State,\nOttawa.\nSir,\nIn a letter received from the Honourable Mr. Trutch, dated the 30th ult.,\nhe encloses a clipping from the | British Columbia Gazette,\" being an advertisement of notification dated the 11th March, by Mr. Alexander Russell of his intention to make application within 60 days to the Chief Commissioner of Lands and 30\nWorks of that province, for permission to purchase an island containing 10 acres,\nsituated near the head of Coal Harbour, Burrard Inlet.\nThe island in question is included in the reservation for military purposes,\n950 acres in extent, established in 1859, on the south side ofthe First Narrows,\nBurrard Inlet, and I have, therefore, to request that you will communicate with\nthe Government of British Columbia calling their attention to the fact that this\nland is a reserve, and not subject to sale by that agreement.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient servant,\nA. M. BURGESS,.\nDeputy Minister of the Interior.\n40 89\nNo.  41.\nEXHIBIT 14.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 41\nExhibit 14\n(Telegram).\nOttawa, 20th April, 1886.\nJ. W. Trutch, F\nVictoria, British Columbia.\nI am informed that a sale of lots on the military reserves in British Columbia sfrTcLm\nis proposed to be held in two weeks.    You must take measures to stop sale of jg^^*\nany property belonging to the reserves, which belong to and are under the control 20th April\n10 ofthe Federal Government.\nADOLPHE P. CARON.\n1886\nVictoria, B.C., 6th May, 1886.\nThe Hon. Sir Adolphe P. Caron, K.C.M.G.,\nMinister of Militia,\nOttawa.\nSir,\nI  duly  received  your telegrams  of the 20th and 21st ult.   respectively,\ndirecting me  to  stop sale of any portion of any reserved lands in this province\n20 under the control of the Federal Government, and  particularly  of an island in\nCoal Harbour, Burrard Inlet, forming part of the reserve for military purposes on\nthe south shore of the First or Outer Narrows of Burrard Inlet.\nThose telegrams I acknowledged on the 24th ultimo, and subsequently on\nthe first opportunity I had an interview with the Hon. Mr. Smithe, Premier and\nChief Commissioner of Lands and Works of British Columbia, when I protested\nas directed by you against the alienation from the Crown of any portion of these\nreserves.\nMr. Smithe thereupon assured me  that  although  an  application had been\nmade to him for permission to purchase the island  in  question, the Government\n30 had not entertained it and they had no intention at present of disposing of any\nof the lands in this province which have been reserved for military purposes.\nAt that interview I discussed very fully with Mr. Smithe, as I already had\nfrequently done on previous occasions, the various questions connected with the\noriginal establishment and present position of Government land reserves in British\nColumbia.\nThe results of these interviews, as far as the expression of the views on this\nsubject of the Government of British Columbia as represented by Mr. Smithe, I\nhave embodied in a memorandum prepared in pursuance of instructions to me\nfrom the Honourable the Minister of Public Works, to report upon certain\n40 points in a letter on this subject to the Department of Public Works from the\nDeputy Minister of Justice, a copy of which was forwarded to me.\nLetter\nJ. W.\nTrutch to\nSir A. Caron\n6th May\n1886 90\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 41\nExhibit 14\nLetter\nJ. W. Trutch\nto\nSir A. Caron\n6th May\n1886\ncontinued\nI think it very desirable that the views of the Provincial Government, so\nexpressed, especially as far as they relate to lands in British Columbia reserved\nfor military purposes, should be at once brought to your notice.\nI, therefore, enclose a copy of that part of my memorandum already forwarded\nto the Department of Public Works, which relates to this portion of the subject\nof lands in British Columbia reserved for public purposes.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient Servant,\nI   JOSEPH W. TRUTCH,\nDominion Government Agent in\nBritish Columbia.\n10\n1\nNo. 42\nExhibit 38\nLetter\nUnder-\nSecretary of\nState to\nSir A. Caron\n25th June\n1886\nH. Q. 71-11-6, Vol I.\nNo. 42.\nEXHIBIT 38.\nOttawa, 25th June, 1886.\nSi\nir.\nI have the  honour to acknowledge. the receipt  for  submission  to  His\nExcellency the Governor-General of a petition from the Mayor and Corporation\nof the City of Vancouver, B.C., praying that the Dominion Government reserve 20\nin that city be handed over to the said petitioners for use as a public park and to\nstate that the matter will receive consideration.\nI have the honour to be,\nSir,\nYour obedient Servant,\n(Sgd.) HENRY J. MORGAN,\nActing Under Secretary of State.\nThe Honourable\nSir Adolphe P. Caron, K.C.M.G.,\nMinister of Militia and Defence,\nOttawa.\nCertified true copy 30\n(Sgd.) E. F. JARVIS,\nAssistant Deputy Minister,\nMilitia and Defence.\nOttawa, October 28th, 1909. 91\nNo. 43.\nEXHIBIT 24.\nPETITION.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 43\nTo His Excellency the Most Honourable Sir Henry Charles Keith, Marquis ofExhi\u212224\nLansdowne, Governor-General in Council\u2014 Petition\nThe petition ofthe Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Vancouver, in theVa\nCity of\n10 Province of British Columbia, humbly sheweth\nWhereas an Act has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of British q\nColumbia, incorporating the City of Vancouver 1\nAnd whereas there is within our city limits a portion of land known as '' The\nDominion Government Military Reserve,\" near the first Narrows, and is\nbounded on the west by English Bay, and on the e,ast by Burrard Inlet:\nAnd whereas it is advisable that permission should be given to the Mayor\nand Council ofthe said City of Vancouver to have control of said reserve in order\nthat it may be used by the inhabitants of the City of Vancouver as a park.\nYour petitioners therefore pray that said reserve should be handed over to\n20 the said corporation, to be used by them subject to such restrictions as to your\nExcellency may seem right.    To be and to be held by them as a public park.\nM. A. MacLEAN, Mayor.\nTHOS. F. McGUIGAN, City Clerk.\nto Lord\nLansdowne\novernor-\nGeneral\n30\nNo. 44.\nEXHIBIT 4.\nORDER-IN-COUNCIL.\nCopv of the Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council,\napproved by\nHis Excellency the Governor-General in Council, on the 8th June, 1887.\nOn a report dated 10th May', 1887, from the Minister of Militia and Defence\nstating that he has had under consideration a petition of the Mayor and Alder-\n40 men of the City of Vancouver, B.C., praying that the Dominion Government\nMilitary Reserve near the First Narrows bounded on the west by the English\nBay and on the east by Burrard Inlet may be handed over to the said Corporation for use as a park.\nThe Minister reports that he sees no objection to this proposal, provided the\nCorporation keep the park in proper order, and the Dominion Government retain\nthe right to resume the property when required at any time.\nNo^44\nExhibit 4\nOrder-in-\nCouncil\n8th June\n1887 92\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 44\nExhibit 4\nOrder-in-\nCouncil\n8th June 1887\ncontinued\nThe Minister further states that he does not deem it advisable to recommend\nthat this property be transferred to class 2 as not available for military use as he\nis of opinion that it will be required for military purposes, but until this he\nrecommends that the Corporation have the use of the same as a park, subject to\nthe provisions mentioned.\nThe Committee advise that the Minister of Militia and Defence be authorized\nto take the necessary steps for carrying the same into effect.\n(Signed)\nJOHN J. McGEE,\nClerk,\nPrivy Council.\n10\nNo. 45.\nI    No. 45\nExhibit 5\nLetter\nCol. Ppnet to\nMayor of\nVancouver\n12th July\n1887\nEXHIBIT 5.\nDepartment of Militia and Defence.\nOttawa, 12th July, 1887.\nHis Worship,\nThe Mayor of Vancouver City, B.C.\nSir,\nWith reference to the petition ofthe Corporation of the City of Vancouver, oo\nfor a grant of the Military Reserve at that place for the purpose of a park, I have\nnow the honour by direction ofthe Minister of Militia and Defence to transmit to\nyou the enclosed copy of an Order-in-Council, granting the desired privilege\nunder certain conditions. A copy of an Order-in-Council has also been\nforwarded to the Deputy Adjutant General, in command of Military District No.\n11 for his information and guidance.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient servant,\n\u2022   C. EUG.   PANET,\nColonel, 30\nDeputy Minister of Militia and Defence. 93\nNo. 46.\n\u00a7|t y EXHIBIT 6.\nMayor's Office,\nVancouver, B.C., 27th July, 1887.\nCol. C. E. Panet,\nDeputy Minister of Militia,\nOttawa.\nSir,\nYours ofthe 12th instant received enclosing copy of a report of a Committee\n10 ofthe Honourable and Privy Council granting the City of Vancouver for park\npurposes, the military reserve between English Bay and Burrard Inlet with\nconditions set forth.\nThe Citizens of Vancouver fully appreciate the kindness of the Government\nin the matter, and request me to state that the conditions mentioned therein will\nbe strictly carried out.\nThanking you for your prompt action,\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour most obedient Servant,\nM.   A.   MacLEON, Mayor.\n20 \t\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 46\nExhibit 6\nLetter\nMayor of\nVancouver\nto Col. Panet\n27th July\n1887\nNo. 47.\nEXHIBIT   7.\nVancouver, B.C., 9th March, 1888.\nHon. Sir A. P. Caron, K.C.M.G.,\nMinister of Militia and Defence,\nOttawa.\nSir,\nOn the 12th July (a.d.) 1887, a communication was received by the Mayor\nof this city from the department of Militia and Defence informing him that by an\n30 Order-in-Council dated 8th June, 1887, permission was given the Corporation of\nthe City of Vancouver to use the. Dominion Government Military Reserve within\nthe limits of the said Corporation for Public park.\nSaid Order further authorized you to take the necessary steps to carry its\nprovisions into effect, but nothing has been done in the matter.\nWhat will be the character of the title to the said lands given to this city ?\nA lease for a long period, subject to the conditions of the Order-in-Council will be,\nI presume, a mode of conveyance.\nWhere will the necessary documents be prepared, and if by the department,\nhow soon will they be expected ?\nNo. 47\nExhibit 7\nLetter\nCity Clerk to\nSir A. Caron\n9th March\n1888 RECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 48\nExhibit 8\nLetter\nCol. Panet to\nCity Clerk\n21st March\n1888\n94\nIt will be difficult for this corporation to deal with persons trespassing on\nsaid reserve or to keep it in proper order until they can shew their right to same,\nand I doubt if the Order-in-Council would suffice.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient servant,\nTHOS. F. McQUIGAN,\nCity Clerk.\nNo. 48.\nEXHIBIT 8.\n10\nDepartment of Militia and Defence,\nOttawa, 21st March, 1888.\nThe Ci*ty Clerk,\nVancouver City, B.C.,\nSir,\nI have the honour by direction of the Minister of Militia and Defence to\nacknowledge the receipt of your letter ofthe 9 th instant, inquiring what title\nwill be given to the City of Vancouver under Order-in-Council of the 8th June\n1887, of the lands which the city is permitted to occupy as a park ; and I am to\ninform you that the matter will be looked into and that you will be again 20\ncommunicated with at as early a date as practicable.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient Servant,\nC. EUG. PANET, Colonel,\nDeputy Minister of Militia and Defence.\nm>7\nNo. 49\nExhibit 9\nVancouver, B.C.,\n9th January, 1889. 30\nNo.  49.\nEXHIBIT 9.\nThe Honourable Sir Adolphe P. Caron, K.C.M.G.,\nMinister of Militia and Defence,\nT | Ottawa, Ont.\nLetter . '\nMayor and     Sir,\nSi* Aharon We have been directed by the Council of the City of Vancouver to forward\n9th Jan. 1889 the following resolutions passed by the body on Monday, 7th inst.\n\" Whereas the Corporation ot the City of Vancouver has expended upwards\nof $30,000 in making roads through the Government reserve of the city now\nknown as Stanley Park.\n\" And whereas said park is to be used by the Corporation only until the\nGovernment of Canada require same for military purposes.\n\" And whereas said park in a state of nature would be impassable for troops. 40\nor war material without a large expenditure of money and the roads and drives 95\nmade by the City being of a substantial character and permanent kind will enable\nsuch troops and war material to move at once to any point of said park.\nI And whereas it is the intention of the City to make other roads and drives\nthrough said park from year to year, and are willing to make same to such points\nas may be indicated by any military engineer appointed by the Government for\nthat purpose.\n1 Therefore be it resolved by#the Mayor and Council of the City of Vancouver\nin Council assembled that the Government  be requested  to  make a grant on\naccount of the sums already expended by  the  Corporation, and make a yearly\n10 grant for the purpose of further improving same from year to year.\nI And be it further resolved that  a  copy of this resolution, signed by the\nMayor and   City Clerk, with the corporate  seal  affixed, be forwarded to the\nHonourable Sir Adolphe Caron, K.C.M.G., Minister of Militia and Defence.\"\nWe have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient Servants,\nD. OPPENHEIMER,\nMayor.\nTHOS* F. McGUIGAN,\nCity Clerk.\n20 \t\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 49\nExhibit 9\nLetter Mayor\nand City\nClerk to\nSir A. Caron\n9th,Jan. 1889\ncontinued\nill\nI\nNo.  50.\nEXHIBIT 10.\nDepartment of Militia and Defence,\nOttawa, 26th January, 1889.\nHis Worship\nThe Mayor for Vancouver City, B.C.\nSir,\nI have the honour, by direction of the Minister of Militia and Defence, to\ninform you that the two propositions made in the letters of yourself and the City\n30 Clerk of Vancouver, dated respectively 9th March, 1888, and 9th January, 1889,\nhave received due consideration and have been decided upon as follows :\u2014\n1st. With reference to the City Clerk's enquiry, what title will be given to\nthe city, of the land which the corporation is permitted to occupy as park, I am\nto state'that no other document can be furnished than the copy ofthe Order-in-\nCouncil ofthe 8 th June, 1887, officially furnished to you by this department.\n2nd. As regards the request of the Corporation for a grant on account of\nsums already expended in improving the property, and for an annual grant for a\nsimilar purpose in future, the Minister regrets that there are no funds available\nfor any such purpose,\n40 I have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient servant,\nC. EUG. PANET, Colonel,\nDeputy Minister of Militia and Defence.\nNo. 50\nExhibit 10\nLetter Col.\nPanet to\nMayor of\nVancouver\n26th Jan.\n1889 96\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 51\nExhibit 32\nMemorandum of\nLieut. Col.\nMacPherso\u00bb\n21st April\n1896\nNo. 51.\nf  EXHIBIT 32.\n(Memorandum)\nWith reference to the enquiry made by the Department of Marine and\nFisheries concerning the military reserve lands near the City of Vancouver,\nBritish Columbia, known as \u00a7 Stanley Park,\" with special reference to\n1 Deadman's Island.\"\nThe undersigned has the honour to report that there is no plan of this\nmilitary property in the store branch, but a reference to the Admiralty plan No.\n922 in the office of the Quarter-Master-General at headquarters indicates the 10\nposition of \"Deadman's Island\" as contiguous to the Government reserve, now\nused by the City of Vancouver and known as | Stanley Park,\" and is therefore\nmilitary property.\nReference to Case A 7770 will show that an application was made to lease or\npurchase \" Deadman's Island,\" B.C., on behalf of R. P. Cooke, Ottawa, in a letter\ndated 28th March, 1888. Upon this application the acting D. A.G. of the district\nand the General Officer Commanding reported again at the lease or sale of this\nisland for anv private purpose :\u2014\" It is quite close to the most suitable barrack\nsite, and at low water easily got at from the mainland.\"\nThe General Officer Commanding at the time, 23rd April, 1888 (General 20\nMiddleton), reported also that the island  in  question | might prove to be of\nimmense value when the general defence came to be considered.\"\nIn the event of a private company trying to lease the island, as indicated in\nthe letter from the Marine Department ofthe 17th instant, it would be advisable\nthat steps be taken to protect the interest ofthe Government.\nRespectfully submitted.\nJ. MACPHERSON, Lt.-Colonel,\nDirector of Stores, etc.\nOttawa, 21st April, 1896.\nMemorandum of Gen,\nGascoigne\n16th Sept.\n1896\n  30\n(Memorandum)\nFrom the Major-General Commanding the Militia to the\nDeputy Minister of Militia and Defence.\nOttawa, 16th September, 1896.\nWith reference to Deadman's Island at Vancouver, B.C., I am strongly of\nopinion that it may and very likely will become of great value in connection with\nthe defence of Vancouver, and, therefore, I regret that [ am unable to recommend\nthat the whole or any part of it should be leased to any corporation or any\nprivate individual.\nW. J. GASCOIGNE, 40\nMajor-General Commanding Canadian Militia. 9?\nNo.  52.\nEXHIBIT 28. .8\nStanley House, New Richmond,\n25th A\/ugust, 1898.\nThe Honourable Dr. Borden, etc.,\nMinister of Militia and Defence,\nOttawa.\nDear Dr. Borden,\nIn transmitting to you officially the accompanying memorial and petition in\n10 the form of a resolution which has   been forwarded   to   my   care   by   the   City\nCouncil of Vancouver, B.C., I desire to commend the request which  it  contains\nfor your favourable consideration.\nHaying recently visited the park at Vancouver, I can testify to the fact that\nthe municipality have been giving attention to the care and improvement of the\nresort, including the expenditure of a considerable amount of money in improving\nthe approach to the grounds, which, as of course, you are aware are of very\nattractive description.\nI remain, dear Dr. Borden,\nVery faithfully yours,\n20 ABERDEEN.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 52\nExhibit 28\nLetter Lord\nAberdeen to\nSir P. Borden\n25th Aug.\n1898\ns\nion\nWhereas the reserve, being 950 acres, known as Stanley Park, situated to\nthe west of the City, is believed to be vested in the Dominion Government,\nAnd whereas by a certain Order-in-Council dated the 8th of June, 1887, the Memorial\nsaid reserve was handed over to the corporation of the City of Vancouver for use g* pef*fon\nas  a  park, subject  to  the right of the Dominion  Government  to  resume the Resoiutk\nproperty when required at any time and subject to the City keeping the same in\nproper order,\nAnd whereas the corporation of the City of Vancouver has no power vested\n30 in it further than the right to use the said reserve as a park,\nAnd whereas there are a number of small dwellings of a very undesirable\ncharacter existing on the foreshore and other parts of the said park harbouring\nsquatters, undesirable characters, such being detrimental to the interests of the\npublic and unsightly,\nAnd whereas there is now no power vested in the corporation to prevent the\ncontinuance of the nuisances that exist and usefulness to the public of the park is\nseriously affected thereby and in consequence thereof the citizens cannot use the\npark to the same advantage as they could if such nuisances were repressed, and\nthere always exists a great danger of fire destroying the trees and beauty of the\n40 park unless control is vested in the City,\nAnd whereas the City has expended the sum of $100,000 in making roads\nand annually improving the park, 93\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo 52\nExhibit 28\nMemorial\nand Petition\nin form of\nResolution\ncontinued\nAnd whereas the  City annually 'expends  a large sum in improvements\ntherein,\nBE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that it is in the interests of the City\nand public generally that power be vested in the City that would enable the\ncorporation to put an end to the nuisances that do now exist, and to prevent the\noccurrence of them in the future. That in order to place the corporation in such\na position that it would be authorized to further improve the park and keep the\nsame more strictly as a park and for the use and benefit of the public generally,\na petition be forwarded to the Honourable the Minister of Militia and Defence\npraying that an Order-in-Council be passed vesting the said reserve in the 10\ncorporation to be held in trust as a public park and such deed of trust should\nconfer on the said corporation all the necessary powers to evict trespassers,\nremove undesirable buildings and prevent nuisances, and all powers that may be\ndeemed necessary to empower the said corporation to keep and preserve the\nreserve as a park for the City, in so far as may be consistent with the requirements of the Department of Militia and Defence, and that any lands taken for the\npurpose of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for lighthouse purposes, be\ndone only by consultation between the Dominion and City authorities,\u2014Carried.\nJAMES F. GARDNER, Mayor.\nT. F. McGUIGAN,' 20\nPer Q. Cowderoy,      City Clerk. \u2022 ^\nCanning, N.S.,\nLetter\nSir P.Borden G. R. Maxwell. Esq., M.P.\n26th August, 1898.\nto G. R.\nMaxwell\n26th August\n1898\nVancouver, B.C.\nDear Maxwell,\nI am in receipt of yours ofthe 16th inst. with inclosures. and have forwarded\nthe papers to Lt.-Colonel Macdonald  who  has  charge  of that branch  of the\nDepartment. I shall do my best to meet the views of the City Council, especially 30\nas their request is so strongly endorsed by yourself. It occurs to me that perhaps\nan amendment to the lease might be made which would meet the case.\nYours very truly,\nF. W. BORDEN.\nMacdonald\n26th August\n1898\nLetter Canning, N.S.,\nto LfcSSS Lt-Co1*.D* A* Macdonald, 26th August, 1898.\nChief Supt. of Stores,\nOttawa, Ont.\nDear Colonel,\nI enclose papers which speak for themselves. Please look into this matter\ncarefully and see whether powers such as the City desires cannot be conferred by\nan amendment to the lease. It would seem to me as if the difficulty might be\ngot over in that way.\nYours very truly, '\u25a0**\nF. W. BORDEN.\n40 99\nDepartment of Militia and Defence, Canada,\nStore Branch, Ottawa,\n30th August, 1898.\nThe Honourable Dr. F. W. Borden,\nCanning, N.S.\nRe Stanley Park, Vancouver, B.C.\nMy dear Doctor,\nThe right given to the Corporation of Vancouver to transform this property\ninto a public park was given to it by  Order-in-Council, 10th May, 1887, but no\n10 lease was granted nor any authority other than   the  Order in Council, although\nasked for from time to time.\nWhile the properties in British Columbia belong to the Canadian Government, yet they have never been apportioned or classified; namely, those which\nshould go to the Department of the Interior, others claimed by the British\nGovernment, and those which should come under the Department of Militia and\nDefence. However, at the time this property was asked for it was considered\nthat it might become a valuable military one and hence the Department dealt\nwith it.\nThe whole matter was managed in the deputy's office and papers only seen\n20 by me for the first time to-day.\nAfter looking them over I considered that, in view of the former action of\nthe Department, it would be quite within its rights to grant a lease to the\nCorporation of Vancouver for twenty-one (21) years, this by Order-in-Council,\ngiving them the control for park purposes, but possession to be resumed if\nrequired and also containing a clause holding the Department harmless from any\ntrouble that might arise from dispossessing the squatters. To make sure that my\nidea is correct I saw the Deputy Minister of Justice, who fully endorses it.\nPending the' passing of any Order-in-Council on your return to Ottawa, Mr.\nMaxwell and the Mayor of Vancouver might be written to stating the intention\n30 of the Department.\nFaithfully yours,\nD. A. MACDONALD.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo 52\nExhibit 28\nLetter D. A.\nMacdonald\nto Sir P. W.\nBorden\n30th Aug.\n1898\nCanning, N.S.,\n3rd September, 1898.\nMr. G. R. Maxwell, M.P.,\nVancouver, B.C.\n40 My dear Maxwell,\nWith reference again to your letter ofthe 16th ult., I have looked into the\nmatter and find that no lease was ever given by the Dominion Government to\nthe City of Vancouver. The authority is simply contained in an Order-in-\nCouncil. I am satisfied that the Department might give a lease for 21 years\nrenewable under which the City would have all the power they desire. The\nGovernment woulcT,  of course, reserve the right to take possession if necessary\nLetter Sir\nP. W. Borden\nto G. R.\nMaxwell\n3rd Sept.\n1898 100\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nfor military purposes, and would put in a clause in the lease holding the Department harmless from any trouble which might arise from dispossessing the squatters\nreferred to.\nIf this will satisfy the City authorities I shall be very glad to have it carried\nout as soon as possible,    Will you kindly ascertain and let me know ?\nYours very truly,\nF. W. BORDEN.\nNo.  53.\nNo. 53\ni Exhibit 22\nLetter\nJ. Martin to\nSir P. W.\nBorden\n20th Jan.\n1899\nEXHIBIT 22.\n10\nVancouver, B.C.,\n20th January, 1899.\nThe Honourable Dr. Borden,\nMinister of Militia,\nOttawa, Ont.\nSir,\nThe Department of Militia and Defence are the owners under the clause of\nthe B.N.A. Act, which gives the Dominion  all  military reserves  existing in  a\nprovince at the time ofthe union, and the property known as Stanley Park, in J*|\nthe City of Vancouver. 20\nThis park, as you are no doubt, aware, is a promontory bounded on one side\nby English Bay, which is a small bay in the Gulf of Georgia, and on the other\nside by Burrard Inlet, the entrance of Burrard Inlet being at the point of this\npromontory. On the Burrard Inlet side there is a small projection which is an\nisland at high water, called Deadman's Island. This is a part of your reserve.\nYou have no doubt maps in your office which will show all this very plainly.\nA client of mine, who represents a number of very large Canadian and\nAmerican capitalists, is desirous of purchasing this island from your Government\nas a site for a large lumber mill. The people of Vancouver are, I understand,\nvery anxious that this mill should be erected in their city. Mr. Ludgate informs 30\nme that he has seen the members of the City Council and that they all favour\nthis site.\nUnder these circumstances, would your Government sell it for this purnose\nand at what price ? It seems to me that it would not in any way injure the\nreserve to part with this small portion; it is really of no value to the reserve, and\nit would be a great boon to the City of Vancouver to get an immense mill, such\nas this would be, in their midst.\ns fe       I have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient servant,\nJOSEPH MARTIN.      - 40 101\n10\n20\n30\nNo. 54.\nEXHIBIT 2.\n40\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 54\nTHIS INDENTURE, made in duplicate the fourteenth day of February,\nin the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, in pursuance Ma'jSty6*\nof the Act respecting short forms of leases. Queen\nBetween HER MAJESTY QUEEN VICTORIA, acting through the Honourable Vancouver\nTHE MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE, the Honourable Frederick gjmbe^Co.\nWilliam Borden, of the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario and Dominion 1899\nof Canada, of the FIRST PART, and the Vancouver  Lumber  Company, of the\nCity of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia and Dominion of Canada,\nof the SECOND PART.\nWITNESSETH, that in consideration of the Rents, Covenants and Agreements hereinafter reserved and contained on the part of the said party of the\nsecond part, his executors, administrators or assigns to be paid, observed and\nperformed, he, the said party of the first past, has demised and leased, and by\nthese presents doth demise and lease unto the said party of the second part, his\nexecutors, administrators and assigns, all that certain island known as | Dead-\nman's Island,\" situated in Coal Harbour in Burrard Inlet, near the City of\nVancouver, in the Province of British Columbia and Dominion of Canada, to be\nused as a lumbering location with the right of erecting thereon a lumber plant,\nand all such appliances as may be necessary for carrying on a general lumber\nbusiness, including wharves, etc.\nTO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said demised premises for and during the\nterm of 25 years renewable to be computed from the first day of March, one\nthousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, and from thenceforth next ensuing, and\nfully to be complete and ended at the expiration of the said term, or until\ndetermined as hereinafter mentioned.\nYIELDING and PAYING therefor, yearly and every year during the said\nterm, unto the party of the first part, or his successors in office, the sum of five\nhundred ($500) dollars current money ofthe Dominion of Canada, to be payable\non the following days and times, that is to say\nHalf-Yearly\nin each and every year during the continuance of the said term, without any\ndeduction,   defalcation, or abatement whatsoever:\u2014the first of such payments\nto become due and be made on the first day of September next, 1899.\nAND the said Lessee covenants with the said Lessor :\u2014To pay rent; AND\nto pay taxes and to repair; AND to keep up fences; AND that the said Lessor\nmay enter and view state of repair; AND that the said Lessee will repair\naccording to notice; AND will not carry on any business that shall be deemed a\nnuisance on the said premises.\nAND will not assign or sub-let the said leased premises, or any part thereof,\nwithout leave in writing, from the party of the first part. 102\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 54\nExhibit 2\nLease Her\nMajesty\nQueen\nVictoria to\nVanoouver\nLumber Co.\n14th Peb.\n1899\ncontinued\nThe said Lessees to have the right to cut down and remove such timber as\nmay be necessary to provide space for the erection of all 'buildings in connection\nwith their industry\u2014Her Majesty's men-of-war and Canadian Government vessels\nto have the right to use all wharves, constructed by the said Lessees, for coaling\nand watering purposes.\nAND that he will leave the premises in good repair : proviso for re-entry by\nthe said party ofthe first part, on non-payment of rent or non-performance of\ncovenant;\nThe said party of the first part covenants with the said party of the second\npart for quiet enjoyment; 10\nPROVIDED ALWAYS, and it is hereby agreed that this demise may be\ndetermined, by either party giving to the other a notice thereof in writing\nmonths before the expiration of the first of any  subsequent  term,  or  the  said\nparty of the first part may determine this demise  at  any time, by a demand of\npossession of the said leased premises, or any part\n[ if required for military or defensive purposes, and\nthereof \\ the said Lessees to have no claim for compensation\n( for buildings erected or improvements made thereon.\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and\nseals the day and year first above written. 20\nSIGNED  SEALED AND DELIVERED jft-jgg LTJDGATE H\nbv the nartv of the second part in the \u00ab x       '\n1\n)y tne party of the second part\npresence ofthe undersigned witness,\nF. E. KNIGHT.\nfor\nThe Vancouver Lumber Co.\nSIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED\nby the party of the first part in the\npresence of the undersigned witness,\nD. A. MACDONALD, Lt.-Col.\nF. W. BORDEN (L.S.),\nMinister of Militia and Defence.\nENDORSEMENT ON BACK.\n30\nThe party of the first part consents that the party of the second part and\nEndorsement\non Lease of\n1899Feb'     assigIls herein mentioned should have the further right to use the land herein\nmentioned for industrial purposes as well as general lumbering business.\nAlso to have the right to renew the within lease for the further term of\ntwenty-five years, from the expiration of this lease.\"\nThe  party of  the first part further consents and agrees that the said\nproviso mentioned in the within lease, being :\u2014\n'Provided always   and   it   is hereby agreed   that this demise may be\n\" determined, by either party giving to the other a notice thereof in writing 40\nmonths before the expiration of the first or any subsequent term, 103\n| or the said party ofthe first part may determine this demise at any time   RECORD\n' by a demand of possession of the said leased premises, or any part thereof, in the\n' if required for military or defensive purposes, and the Lessors to have no ^rtmfe\n| claim  for  compensation  for buildings   erected   or   improvements   made British\n\"thereon,\" Columbia\nbe eliminated and struck out from the within lease and to have no force or effect.     No. 54\nSigned in the presence of Exhibit 2\nThis Indenture, made in duplicate, on the fourth day of April, in the year of (Lease Her\n10 our Lord nineteen hundred ; qS*7\nBetween Her Majesty Queen Victoria, acting through  the  Honourable the victoria to\nMinister of Militia and Defence,   the Honourable Frederick William Borden, of Lumb^Co.\nthe City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario and   Dominion  of Canada, of the ig'Lfpril\nfirst part, and the Vancouver Lumber Company, of the City of Vancouver, in the\nProvince of British Columbia and Dominion of Canada, of the second part;\nWhereas by an Indenture, bearing date February the fourteenth, in the\nyear eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, between the parties hereto of the first\nand of the second parts, it is witnessed that the party of the first part did demise\nand lease unto the party of the second part all that certain island known as\n20 % Deadman's Island,\" in* the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British\nColumbia, on the terms and conditions therein set forth and whereas one of the\nsaid conditions is in the following words : | Provided always, and it is hereby\nagreed, that this demise may be determined by either party giving to the other\na notice thereof in writing months before  the expiration of the first\nof any subsequent term, or the said party of the \\ first part may determine this\ndemise at any time, by a demand of possession of the said leased premises, or any\npart thereof, if required for military or defensive purposes, and the said lessees\nto have no claim for compensation for buildings erected or improvements made\nthereon.\"\n30 And whereas it is deemed advisable to modify the  said  lease by removing\ntherefrom the said conditions above recited and also any instructions as to the lawful\nuses of said premises and also to provide therein for the fixing of rent from time\nto time, now therefore it is hereby declared and agreed between the parties\nhereto as follows:\nThat the said lease shall be, and the same is hereby amended by the removal\ntherefrom of the conditions above set forth and any restrictions as to the purposes\nfor which the said premises may lawfully be used and by the addition thereto of\nthe following provisions:\nProviding always that the said lease, at the expiration of the said first term\n40 of twenty-five years and from time to time at the end of each renewal term of\ntwenty-five years shall be renewed for a further term or terms of twenty-five\nyears, at a rental for each renewal term to be then determined by way of arbi-\nft I\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBrjtish\nColumbia\nNo.  54\nExhibit 2\nLease Her\nMajesty\nQueen\nVictoria to\nVancouver\nLumber Co.\n4th April\n1900\ncontinued\ntration in case of any difference as to the amount of said rental, provided always\nthat no such renewal or further term shall be granted unless the rents reserved\nshall have been paid :\nIt is hereby declared and agreed between the parties hereto that this said\nlease shall be construed as if the said above recited condition for its determination\nhad not formed part of the said lease, and if said lease did not contain the\nrestrictions to user, therein contained, and as if the above mentioned condition\nfor renewal or renewals had formed part of the said lease at the time of the\nexecution thereof, and it is further declared and agreed that these presents and\nthe said lease shall in no way be held to deprive Her Majesty of any right which 10\nshe, Her Successors or Assigns, or they may now or hereafter possess to\nexpropriate the demised premises for the public use.\nTHEO. LUDGATE (L.S.)\nfor the Vancouver Lumber Co.\nSigned in the presence of\nJohn H. Powell.\nF. W. BORDEN (L.S.)\nMinister of Militia and Defence.\nSigned in the presence of\nD. A. Macdonald.\nNo. 55\nExhibit 1\nOrder in\nCouncil\nApproving\nLease to\nVancouver\nLumber Co.\n16th Feb.\n1899\nPrivy Council, Canada.\nNo. 55.\nEXHIBIT 1.\nExtract from a report of the Committee of the\nHonourable the Privy Council, approved by His\nExcellency on the 16th February, 1899.\n20\nOn a memorandum, dated 10th February, 1899, from the Minister of Militia\nand Defence, recommending that authority be given him to lease Deadman's\nIsland, situated in Coal Harbour, Burrard Inlet, British Columbia, to the Vancouver Lumber Company of Vancouver City, British Columbia, for a term of\ntwenty-five years, at an annual rental of five hundred dollars.\nThe Committee submit the same for your Excellency's approval.\nCertified a true copy. 30\nJOHN  J.  McGEE,\nSeal of Privy Council, Clerk of the Privy Council.\nCanada. ^ 105\nNo. 56.\nEXHIBIT   20.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 56\nExhibit 20\nOttawa, 9th March, 1899. M^orand\nRight Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Aldermen of\nPremier, and President of the Privy Council. aJw11\u2122*\u00b0\noir, Laurier\nIn reference to the interview held with yourself and other members of the 9th Mar\" 1899\nGovernment last Tuesday, relative to the lease of Deadman's Island by the\nGovernment for saw mill purposes, at your request, the delegates representing\n10 the citizens of Vancouver herewith submit a statement of their case :\n1. That in 1863 a survey was made ofthe peninsula now known as Stanley\nPark, and it was set aside as 1 military and naval reserve, said reserve being\nbounded on the west by English Bay, and on the east by Burrard Inlet.\n2. The survey made of this block of land, the original field notes, tracings\nand traverse of the inlet, etc., which were produced by the delegates and\naccompany this statement and marked X demonstrate that the aforesaid reservation embraces the whole of the said Stanley Park, including that portion known\nas Deadman's Island, but which may be more properly designated as peninsula.\n3. That at the request of the mayor, and aldermen and citizens of the\n20 City of Vancouver, on the 8th day of June, A.D. 1887, an Order-in-Council was\nissued granting to the City of Vancouver the use of the aforesaid reservation\nfor  park purposes upon stipulations named in the said Order-in-Council, and\nto be held as such by the citizens of Vancouver until such time as the said\nreservation should be required for military or naval purposes.\nI See the following letters :\u2014\nI\nSir,\nDepartment of Militia and Defence,\nOttawa, 12th July, 1887.\n30\nWith reference to the petition of the Corporation of the City of\nVancouver for a grant of the military reserve at that place for the purpose\n\u2022 of a park, I have now the honour, by direction of the Minister of Militia\nand Defence, to transmit to you the enclosed copy of an Order-in-\nCouncil granting the desired privilege, under certain conditions. A copy of\nthe Order-in-Council has also been forwarded to the Deputy Adjutant\nGeneral in command of Military District No. 11, for his information and\nguidance.\nI have, &c,\nC.   E.  PANET,  Colonel,\nDeputy Minister of Militia and Defence.\nrj 106\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 56\nExhibit 20\nPetition of\nMayor and\nAldermen of\nVancouver\nto Sir W.\nLaurier\n9th Mar. 1899\ncontinued\n9\nFULL TEXT OF THE ORDER-IN-COUNCIL.\nCopy of a report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council\napproved by His Excellency the Governor-General in Council, on the\n8th June, 1887.\nOn a report, dated 10th May, 1887, from the Minister of Militia and\nDefence, stating that he has under consideration a petition of the Mayor\nand Aldermen of the City of Vancouver, B.C., praying that the Dominion\nGovernment military reserve, near First Narrows, bounded on the west by\nEnglish Bay, and on the east by Burrard Inlet, may be handed over to the\nsaid Corporation for use as a park. The minister reports that he sees no 10\nobjection to this proposal provided the Corporation keeps the park in proper\norder, and the Dominion Government retain a right to resume the property\nwhen required at any time. The minister further states that he does not\ndeem it advisable to recommend that this property be transferred to\nClass 2 as not available for military purposes, and until this he recommends\nthat the Corporation have the use of the same as a park, and subject to\nthe provisions mentioned. The committee advises that the Minister of\nMilitia and Defence be authorised to take the necessary steps for carrying\nthe same into effect.\nJOHN   J. McGEE, 20\nClerk of the Privy Council.\n4. That on the 9th day of March, A.D. 1888, the City communicated with\nSir A. P. Caron, Minister of Militia and Defence, asking for information as to the\ncharacter of the title which would be given to the City relating to the lands\nnamed in the Order-in-Council, and in response thereto was informed that no.\nother title could be furnished than the said Order-in-Council, and officially\nfurnished to the City Council.\nSee the following letters:\u2014\nVancouver, 9th March, 1888.\nHon. Sir A P. Caron, K.C.M.G, 30\nMinister of Militia and Defence,\nOttawa.\nSir,\nOn the 12th July, 1887, a communication was received by the Mayor\nof the City from the Department of Militia and Defence informing him\nthat by Order-in-Council, dated 8th June, 1887, permission was given to the\nCorporation of the City of Vancouver to use the Dominion Government\nmilitarv reserve, within the limits of the said Corporation, for a public park.\nSaid order further notified you to take the necessary steps to carry its\nprovisions into effect, but nothing has since been done in the matter. What 40\nwill be the character of the title of the said lands given to the city ? A\nlease for a long period, subject to the conditions of the Order-in-Council, will\nbe, I presume, the mode of conveyance.   Where will the necessary docu- 107\n10\nments be prepared, and if by the department how soon may it be expected?\nIt will be difficult for the Corporation to deal with persons trespassing on\nsaid reserve or keep it in proper order until they can show their right to\nsame, and I doubt if an Order-in-Council would suffice.\nI have, etc.,\nTHOS.   F.  McGUIGAN,\nCity Clerk.\nSir,\nDepartment of Militia and Defence,\nOttawa, 26th Feb., 1889.\nI have the honour, by direction of the Minister of Militia and Defence,\nto inform you that the two propositions made in the letters of yourself and\nthe City Clerk of Vancouver, dated respectively 9th March, 1888, and\n9th January, 1889, have received due consideration, and have been decided\nupon as follows : (1) With reference to the City Clerk's inquiry what title\nwill be given to the City of the lands which the Corporation is permitted to\noccupy as a park, I am to state that no other document can be furnished\nthan the copy ofthe Order-in-Council of 9th June, 1887, officially furnished\nto you by this department. (2) As regards the request of the Corporation\n20 for a grant on account of sums already expended in improving the property\nand for an annual grant for a similar purpose in future, the Minister regrets\nthat there are no funds available for any such purpose.\nI have, etc.,\nC. E. PANET, Colonel,\nDeputy Minister of Militia and Defence.\n5. That relying upon the Order-in Council and correspondence with the\nGovernment and in order to comply with stipulations in the Order-in-Council\nthe Corporation of the City of Vancouver by bye-laws raised a considerable sum\nof money to be expended  in  the  making  of roads,  construction  of bridges,\n30 including the bridge landing on to Deadman's Island, and trails thereon, culverts\nand paths through other portions of the reserve. The total expenditure incurred\nin connection with Stanley Park since the Order-in-Council was passed up to the\npresent time amounts to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). For the\npresent year (1899) the sum of six thousand five hundred dollars ($6,500) is\nincluded in the civic estimates for expenditure on improvements on said park.\n6. As showing that the City of Vancouver has always regarded Deadman's\nIsland as a portion of Stanley Park, we herewith submit an extract from the\ninaugural address delivered by His Worship Mayor Oppenheimer on the\n5th of January, a.d. 1891\u2014it being his third term in succession of that office\u2014\n40 who in reviewing the work of the previous year under the heading of \u25a0* Parks and\nDrives,\" said:\n\" During the past year a considerable amount of work has been done on\n\" some of the City parks.\n\" In Stanley Park the grounds leased to the Brockton Point Athletic\n\" Association have been cleared, levelled and Fenced.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 56\nExhibit 20\nPetition of\nMayor and\nAldermen of\nVancouver\nto Sir W.\nLaurier\n9th Mar. 1899\noontinued\nI\nh\n-cmrm 108\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 56\nExhibit 20\nPetition of\nMayor and\nAldermen of\nVancouver\nto Sir W.\nLaurier\n9th Mar. 1899\ncontinued\n!#'\nIA -bridge has been built to Deadman's Island, and several new trails have\nI been constructed in order to make more accessible and acceptable the beautiful\n| spots in that lovely demesne.\"\n7. The expenditure of the Deadman's Island section of Stanley Park has\nbeen greater in proportion to its dimensions than any other portion, excepting\nthe recreation grounds and around the neighbourhood of the Zoo and flower\ngardens.\n8. The request of the City Council transmitted in August last through\nHis Excellency the Governor-General, the Earl of Aberdeen, and Mr. Maxwell,\nrepresentative for Burrard District, was not made because the  City believed its 10\ntitle to the lands for the use of park purposes to be defective, but that the City\nmight be vested with the power to evict squatters and abate nuisances.\nSee resolution of City Council and letter of Minister of Militia as follows :\u2014\nWhereas the reserve being 950 acres known as Stanley Park situated\nto the west of the City is believed to be vested in the Dominion\nGovernment,\nAnd whereas by a certain Order-in-Council, dated the 8th June, 1887,\nthe   said  reserve   was   handed  over to the  Corporation of the City of\nVancouver  for use  as a  park  subject   to  the   right   of the   Dominion\nGovernment to resume the property when required at any time and subject 20\nto the City keeping the same in proper order,\nAnd whereas the Corporation of the City of Vancouver has no powers\nvested in it further than the right to use the said reserve as a park,\nAnd whereas there are a number of small dwellings of a very undesirable\ncharacter existing on the foreshore and other parts of the said park\nharbouring squatters, undesirable characters, such being detrimental to the\ninterests of the public and unsightly,\nAnd whereas there is now no power vested in the Corporation to\nprevent the continuance of the nuisances that exist and the usefulness to the\npublic of the park is seriously affected thereby, and in consequence whereof 30\nthe citizens cannot use the park to the same advantage as they could were\nsuch nuisances repressed, and there always exists a great danger of fire\ndestroying the trees and beauty of the park unless control is vested in the\nCity,\nAnd whereas the City has expended the sum of $100,000 in making\nroads and annually improving the park,\nAnd whereas the City annually expends a large sum of money in\nimprovements therein,\nBe it therefore resolved that it is in the interests of the City and of\nthe public generally that powers be vested in the City that would enable 40\nthe Corporation to put an end to the nuisances that do now exist, and to\nprevent the occurrence of them in future. That in order to place the\nCorporation in such a position that it would be authorised to further improve\nthe park and keep the same more strictly as a park and for the use and benefit\nof the public generally, a petition be forwarded to the Honourable the\nMinister of Militia and Defence praying that an Order-in-Council be passed 16&\nvesting the said reserve in the Corporation to be held in trust as a public\npark, and such deed or trust should confer on the said Corporation all the\nnecessary powers to evict trespassers, remove undesirable buildings and\nprevent nuisances, and all powers that may be deemed necessary to empower\nthe said Corporation to keep and preserve the reserve as a park for the\nCity.\nCanning, N.S.\n3rd September, 1898.\nMy Dear Maxwell,\n10 With reference again to your letter of the  16 th ultimo, I have looked\nover the matter and find that no lease was ever given to the City of\nVancouver by the Dominion Government. The authority is simply\ncontained in an Order-in-Council. I am advised that the Department\nmight give a lease for twenty-one years renewable under which the City\nwould have the power they desired. The Government would, of course,\nreserve the right to take possession if necessary for military purposes, and\nwould put in a clause in the lease holding the Department harmless from\nany trouble which might arise from dispossessing the squatters referred to.\nIf this will satisfy the City authorities, I shall be very glad to have it\n20 carried  out as soon as possible.     Will you kindly ascertain and let me\nknow.\nYours very truly,\nF. W.  BORDEN.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 56\nExhibit 20\nPetition of\nMayor and\nAldermen of\nVancouver\nto Sir W.\nLaurier\n9th Mar. 1899\ncontinued\n30\n40\n9. When part of Stanley Park was required for lighthouse purposes by\nthe Department of Marine and Fisheries, such Department always recognised\nthe fact that the property is held by the City of Vancouver under the terms of\nthe Order-in-Council, and that no part thereof could be interfered with except\nby the consent of the City of Vancouver and the Department of Militia and\nDefence.\n10. We desire specially to direct the attention of the Government to\nthe letter of the Department of the Interior to the City Clerk, dated\n3rd February, 1899, enclosing the reply of said Department to an application of\nMessrs. Davis, Marshall & Macneill for the purchase, on behalf of a client, of\nDeadman's Island, and the City's reply thereto.\nThese are as follows :\u2014\nOttawa, 3rd February, 1899.\nThe City Clerk, - ^ jZ%\nVancouver, B.C.\nSir,\nI am directed to send you herewith a copy of a communication which\nhas been addressed by the Department to Messrs. Davis, Marshall and\nMacneill, of Vancouver, in reply to an application from that firm to purchase,\non behalf of a client, Deadman's Island, situated in Vancouver Harbour. I\nam to ask that you will be good enough to submit the application in question\nf] no\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 56\nExhibit 20\nPetition of\nMayor and\nAldermen of\nVancouver\nto Sir W.\nLaurier\n9th Mar. 1899\ncontinued\nto the Mayor and Corporation of Vancouver for an expression of their views\nthereon, and to kindly advise the Department of the result.\nI am, etc,,\nLYNDWODE PEREIRA.\nOttawa, 3rd February, 1899.\nMessrs. Davis, Marshall & Macneill,\nGentlemen,\nI am directed to acknowledge your letter of the 13th ult.,\nstating that a client of yours desired to purchase, if possible, 10\nDeadman's Island, situate in Vancouver Harbour, near Stanley\nPark, for the purpose of a mill site. In reply, I am to say that it\ncannot be ascertained from the maps in the Department that any such\nisland as that exists in Vancouver Harbour, but there is an island which\nseems to be identical with Deadman's Island, just off the shore of Stanley\nPark. This island, along with the lands surrounding the harbour, at one\ntime formed what is known as the naval reserve, made by the Imperial\nGovernment, and handed over to Canada. As the portion of the point upon\nwhich Stanley Park is situated is still the property of the Dominion, and as\nthe island forms a part of this property, it could not well be disposed of, even 20\nwere the Department inclined to grant the application you now make.\nHowever, if you will furnish more definite information on the subject, I am\nto say that the matter will receive further consideration.\nYour obedient servant,\nLYNDWODE PEREIRA.\nVancouver, 22nd February, 1899.\nTo the Secretary,\nDepartment of the Interior,\nOttawa. 30\nSir,\nIn reply to your communication of the 3rd February, the Council of\nthe City has considered the subject matter of the communication, and also\nthe copy ofthe letter written to Messrs. Davis, Marshall & Macneill by the\nAssistant Secretary, dated 3rd February, 1899, and beg to point out that\nthe area of land referred to, known as Deadman's Island, is, as stated in\nyour communication, part of the naval or military reserve and forms part of\nthe property known as Stanley Park, and is at low water absolutely\nconnected and part of the park enjoyed by. the public.\nThat by an Order in Council, dated the 8th day of June, 1887, this 40\nproperty was granted to the Corporation of the City of Vancouver for use\nas a public park.    That the City has since that date occupied the said\nproperty and spent considerable money in the improvement thereof. Ill\nThat the said property is now being used and enjoyed by the public of\nthe City as a public park, it being the best and only park available for the\npublic.\nThat numbers of citizens on Sundays and public holidays enjoy\nrecreation and open air in the park.\nThat it has always been considered, by the City, and approved of by\nvarious members of the Crown, that the said Order-in-Council by virtue of\nwhich the park was handed over to the City was a sufficient and reliab'e\ntenure of the lands to be held by the City, and owing to such assurances\n10 from time to time so given, the public  have been  satisfied and content in\nexpending moneys for the improvement thereof, and that the use of the\npark by them would not be interfered with unless it became necessary to do\nso for military purposes only.\nThat the park is now the property of the Dominion of Canada as a\n|\u00a7|--   military reserve.\nThat the City of Vancouver holds under the said Order-in-Council all\nthe rights over the property held by the Dominion of Canada subject only\nto its resumption for military purposes.\nThat the property being held by the City cannot be and should not be\n20 dealt   with except under  the   Order-in-Council, that is, when required for\nmilitary purposes.\nThat when part of this property has been used for lighthouse purposes\nby the Department of Marine and Fisheries such Department and the\nCouncil have always recognised the fact that the property is held by the\nCity under the above Order-in-Council, and that no part of it could be\ninterfered with except by permission of the City and the Department of\nMilitia.\nThat  during such undisturbed occupancy by the City since June of\n1887 certain parties built shacks and became trespassers on portions of this\n30 property, particularly on that portion known as Deadman's Island.\nThat in the opinion of the Council of the City, and on suggestion of\nHis Excellency, then Governor-General, it was considered desirable that such\nacts of trespass on the property by unauthorised persons should be stopped\nand these persons ejected. In consequence thereof the Council forwarded,.\n\u2022 in August, 1898, to the Department of Militia and Defence, a resolution\nof the Council asking that the said park should be vested in the Corporation, so that the Corporation would be placed in a legal position to take\nproceedings against trespassers.\nThat in consequence of such resolutions the Honourable the Minister of\n40 Militia wrote on the 3rd September, 1898, to the Member of Burrard that\nhe approved of a lease being granted and would be happy to see it carried\nout.\nThat the Council of the said City on receipt of the above communication from the Minister of Militia felt satisfied that a lease would be granted\nand expected to receive such a lease.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 56\nExhibit 20\nPetition of\nMayor and\nAldermen of\nVancouver\nto Sir W.\nLaurier\n9th Mar. 1899\ncontinued 112\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme]\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 56\nExhibit 20\nPetition of\nMayor and\nAldermen of\nVancouver\nto Sir W.\nLaurier\n9th Mar. 1899\ncontinued\n10\n20\nThat a lease has beea drawn and forwarded to the Minister of Militia\nwith a request that it be executed.\nThat as the Minister of Militia agreed to give a lease, it was anticipated\nthat one would be forwarded.\nThat it was never contemplated that any other disposition of the park\nwould be suggested after the correspondence that had passed.\nThat the Council receive the communication from your Department\nwith surprise.\nThat it is of the greatest importance for the welfare and future of the\nCity that this property should be maintained as a public park.\nThat for the above reasons, and that the interests of the City would be\nvery materially injured by acceding to the request contained in your letter,\nthe (\"ouncil, on Monday, the 20th day of February, resolved that the\nfollowing answer be sent to your communication :\u2014\nI That the Council is opposed to the granting of the request contained\n\u2022 in the letter ofthe 3rd February, 1899, and is opposed to the operation of a\nsaw-mill on Deadman's Island.\"\nI remain, Sir,\nYour obedient servant,\nTHOS. F. McGUIGAN,\nCity Clerk\n11. The City has not made use of the island as a cemetery as the\nfollowing telegrams from His Worship Mayor Garden will show:\u2014\nVictoria, B.C.,\n8th March, 1899.\nJames McQueen,\nRussell House,\nOttawa.\nCity expended three hundred, cutting trail, besides bridge.    City has\nnot used island as a cemetery. 30\nJAMES F. GARDEN.\n12. In reference to the movement for the building of a dry dock, at the\nclose of 1890 and the beginning of 1891, and the following extracts from the bye-\nlaw submitted to the taxpayers will show that not only no reference was made to\nthe selection of Deadman's Island for the site of the dry dock and arsenal, but\nthe terms ofthe bye-law specified the limits within which the said dry dock and\narsenal were to be constructed and which precluded Deadman's Island.\nSee copy of extracts from bye-law as follows :\u2014\nCITY OF VANCOUVER.\nBye-law relating to a bonus for the construction and maintenance of a 40\ngraving (jock and ship repairing yards for the City of Vancouver as follows :\nSection 1 said bye-law reads as follows:\u2014 113\n10\nThat the said individual, individuals or body corporates shall by the\n30th day of August, 1891, commence the construction of a graving dock and\narsenal for the repairing of ships within the limits of the City of Vancouver,\nbetween Burnaby Avenue and Chilco Street. The cost of the construction\nand equipment of said graving dock and arsenal for the repairs of ships\nshall amount to the sum of one million of dollars ($1,000,000).\nAdvertised and forming a part of said bye-law, section 2 is as follows :\u2014\nThat the said Henry Bell, Perry Cutbillde Long & Co., or the company\nby them to be formed will construct the said graving dock of the following\ndimensions, that is to say, six hundred (600) feet long, eighty (80) feet wide\nat the gates, with a depth of water of twenty-eight (28) feet on the sill and\nof good substantial stone work in the most workmanlike and skilful manner\nwith all the necessary appliances for docking ships on the south shore of\nBurrard Inlet in the limits of the City of Vancouver between Boundary\nAvenue and Chilco Street and adjacent thereto, will construct an arsenal for\nthe repair of ships fully equipped with all the most modern and approved\nappliances for using the same.\nSection 3 ofthe agreement is as follows :\u2014\nThat the said graving dock and arsenal shall cost, with all the improvements and equipments for successfully working same, the sum of not less\nthan one million ($1,000,000) dollars.\nThe foregoing by-law from which the extracts are quoted was submitted\nto and voted upon by the duly qualified taxpayers of the City of Vancouver\non the 22nd day of January, a.d. 1891, and carried by a vote of 353 in\nfavour to 16 against.\n13. Regarding the application made to the Provincial Government in 1895\nfor a lease of Deadman's Island by promoters of a marine railway company and\ncorporation of the City of Vancouver took no action to oppose this application,\nbeing advised that no such lease could be granted except by the Federal Govern-\n30 ment, and that no portion of the park lands would be leased  to any one without\nthe consent of the sa;d corporation and the Department of Militia and Defence.\n14. We, therefore, in view of the foregoing established facts and documents\nherewith submitted, respectfully request that the Government will be pleased to\nrevoke the lease of Deadman's Island granted to Theodore Ludgate, dated 16th\nFebruary, 1899.\nJ. C. McLAGAN.\n'\u2022>\"\u2022\u25a0 JAMES McQUEEN.\nH. J. SENKLER.\n20\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme-\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 56\nExhibit 20\nPetition of\nMayor and\nAldermen of\nVancouver\nto Sir W.\nLaurier\n9th Mar. 1899\ncontinued\n40\nFRED BUSCOMBE.\nHARRY COWAN.\nHerewith are appended resolutions and letters :-\u2014\n1. From the Vancouver Board of Trade.\n2. From the Art, Historical and Scientific Association.\n3. From the Harbour Master of the Port of Vancouver. 5\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo 56\nExhibit 20\nPetition of\nMayor and\nAldermen of\nVancouver\nto Sir W.\nLaurier\n9th Mar. 1899\ncontinued\n114\nFrom the Chairman and Secretary of the Brocton Point Athletic Club.\nFrom Captain Adair, of H.M.S. | Imperieuse,\" Flagship   to   Captain\nMcLeod, Harbour Master, asking that a certain portion of the harbour\nbe reserved for berths for ships named.\nCopy of Resolution passed at a Special General Meeting op the Vancouver\nBoard op Trade, held in Vancouver, on the 20th day of February, 1899.\nLEASE OF DEADMAN'S ISLAND.\nAt a general meeting of the Vancouver Board of Trade, held in the Board\nRooms on   Monday, 20th  February, 1899,  which  was  largely attended  and 10\nthoroughly representative in its character, it was resolved  that  the  opinion of\nthis meeting is thoroughly averse to the leasing of Deadman's Island by the\nFederal Government as a site for a. saw-mill or any other purpose.\nThe island is within the limits of Stanley Park and the citizens have always\nregarded it as part of the park in accordance with Order-in-Council passed by the\nFederal Government some time in 1887 ; and the locating of a saw-mill of\nDeadman's Island would in case of fire be fraught with extreme danger to the\nwhole park. Further, having made improvements on the island, the citizens feel\nthat with the knowledge of these facts, the claim of the Council and citizens to\nthe island as a part of Stanley Park should be recognised.\u2014Carried. 20\nA true copy.\nWILLIAM T. STEIN,\nSecretary.\n5\nVancouver, B.C., 28th February, 1899.\nTo Alderman McQueen, City.\nSir,\nI beg to enclose a copy of the resolution passed at the monthly meeting of\nthe Executive Committee of the Art, Historical and Scientific Association, held\nyesterday afternoon. 30\nWhile sincerely desirous of promoting the industrial development of the City\nof Vancouver in every reasonable way the General Committee ofthe Art,Historical\nand Scientific Association are strongly opposed to the establishment of a saw-mill\non Deadman's Island.\nYours sincerely,\nH. F. DEFOREST,\nSecretary of the Art, Historical and\nScientific Association. 10\n115\nVancouver, 1st March, 1899.\nJ. C. McLagan, Esq.,\nDear Sir,\nYours of the 28th ult., received asking me how a saw-mill on Deadman's\nIsland would affect the harbour of Vancouver. As Coal Harbour is confined to a\nlimited space of anchorage and the safest in this harbour, I am of the opinion that\nit would be dangerous and inconvenient to ships laying at anchor by continual\nfloating of booms and rafts and also the only safe place to anchor small crafts and\ncoasters.\nI am, yours truly,\nMALCOLM McLEOD,\nHarbour Master.\nrecord\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 56\nExhibit 20\nPetition of\nMayor and\nAldermen of\nVancouver\nto Sir W.\nLaurier\n9th Mar. 1899\ncontinued\nVancouver, B.C., 1st March, 1899.\nFred Buscombe, Esq.,\nVancouver.\nDear Sir,\nAs you are going to Ottawa with a deputation of citizens leaving to-day to\nprotest against alienation of anv part   of Stanley Park for commercial purposes,\n20 and more particularly against the proposed lease to Mr. Theodore Ludgate for a\nsaw-mill site, you will please act at the same time for the Brocton Point Athletic\nClub and in its name do everything possible to prevent this action.\nBeing a member of the Committee of the Club, you are familiar with its\nobject and the work it has accomplished, and can forcibly point out to the\nMinister of Militia the serious objections that exist to the establishment of such\nindustry within the park limits.\nYours truly,\nC. S. SWEENY, Chairman.\nL. S. C. SAUNDERS, Hon. Sec.\n30\nNo. 57.\nEXHIBIT   25.\nH.Q.    71-11-6.\nMinister's Office,\nOttawa, 28th March, 1899.\nMemorandum for the Deputy.\nThe Minister desired you to refer the Order in Council of 1887, under which\nthe City of Vancouver holds Stanley Park, to the Minister of Justice for this\nreport as to whether Deadman's Island is embraced in the reserve covered by the\nNo. 57\nExhibit 25\nMemorandum\nfrom\nMinister of\nMilitia and\nDefence to\nDeputy\nMinister\n28th Mar.\n1899\nri H6\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 57\nExhibit 25\nsaid Order-in-Council. All papers bearing on this subject, together with the\nmemorial of the delegates sent to this Department from the Privy Council should\nbe submitted to the Minister of Justice.\n(Sd.) H. W. BROWN,\nPrivate Secretary.\nCertified true copy.\n(Sd.) E. E.  Jarvis,\nAsst. Deputy Minister,\nMilitia and Defence.\nOttawa, November 22nd, 1909. 10\nOttawa, 29th March, 1899.\nI\n\u00ab\nSir,\nLetter I am directed by the Minister to refer to your Department the Order-in-\nMinkter      Council of 1887 under which the City of Vancouver holds Stanley Park for your\nof Militia and legal advice on the following points\nDefence to\nDeputy\nMinister of\nJustice\n29th Mar.\n1899\n1. Is Deadman's Island embraced in the Reserve covered by the said Order\nin Council ?\n2. Is the lease granted to T. Ludgate by the Government legal and valid ? 20\nThese points are in addition to these already submitted in my last letter\nrelative to the ownership of Deadman's Island and Stanley Park.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient Servant,\n'(Sd.) K. F. PINAULT, Lieut.-Colonel,\nDeputy Minister of Militia and Defence.\nE. L. Newcombe, Q.C.,\nDeputy Minister of Justice, Ottawa.\nLetter\nDeputy\nMinister of\nJustice to\nDeputy\nMinister of\nMilit:a\nand Defence\n14th April\n1899\nDepartment of Justice, 30\nOttawa, 14th April, 1899.\nThe Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence,\nOttawa.\nSir,\nI have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letters ofthe 24th\nand 29th ultimo, in which you ask for my opinion upon certain questions with\nrespect to the reserve for military and naval purposes at or in the vicinity of\nVancouver, B.C.\nAs to the first question stated in your last letter of the 24th ultimo, namely :\nWas the property ever transferred by the Imperial  Government of  British 40\nColumbia before confederation ?   I beg to state that it does not appear from the\npapers submitted and from the researches made in 1888 by Messrs. Dnake, 117\nJackson and Helmcken, the then agents of this department, that there was\nany actual transfer. The title to the public lands of British Columbia is and\nalways has been in the Crown, 1 but the right to administer and dispose of the\nordinary Crown lands to settlers, together with all royal and territorial revenues\narising therefrom, has been transferred to the Province before its admission into\nthe federal union.\" So it is stated in the judgment of the Judicial Committee\nof the Privy Council in the Precious Metals Case, and I think that the Imperial\nlegislation affecting such lands, which is referred to in the report of Messrs.\nDrake, Jackson and Helmcken, must be taken to have recognized and confirmed\n10 such a right on the part of the Province.\nThe lands now in question, however, are not ordinary Crown lands. They\nwere apparently reserved by the Imperial authorities for Imperial purposes and\nit may be well doubted whether they were affected by the legislation referred to.\nIn order to come to a decision upon that point, the time and manner of the first\nreservation and the object of it would require to be considered and the information before me .as to these particulars is not sufficient to enable me to form an\nopinion. The lands in question were not, so far as appears, transferred to the\ncolony in any other way.\n2. For the same reason I am unable to form any confident opinion upon the\n20 second question in your letter of the 24th ultimo, namely : | Who is the actual\nowner of this Imperial property and in virtue of what titles or Acts of Parliament ? \" If the reserve belongs to Canada it must be under section 108 of | The\nBritish North American Act,\" and item either 9 or 10 of the schedule therein\nreferred to, i.e., either an ordinance property or as lands set apart for general\npublic purposes. It would not, however, be the property of Canada by virtue of\nthat section unless at the time of the union it was the property of the Province.\n3. As to the first question in your letter of the 29th ultimo, namely : \" Is\nDeadman's Island embraced in the reserve covered by the Order-in-Council of\nthe 8th June, 1887 ? \" there is no information in the papers sent by you or in\n30 Messrs. Drake, Jackson and Helmcken's report or the papers which accompanied\nit, which would enable me to form an opinion on this point. In the letter which\nMr. Gemmill, acting on behalf of the City of Vancouver, has written to your\nminister dated the 23rd ultimo, he refers to plans of the reserve, which he states\nhave been deposited with the Prime Minister. These I have not seen, and it is\npossible that they might throw some light upon the question. Mr. Gemmill\nrefers to the lands in question, including Deadman's Island, as having been constituted a reserve for military and naval purposes. In your letter of the 24th\nultimo, you refer to the property, including the island, as having been \" formerly\nan Imperial naval reserve,\" and in the Order-in-Council of 8th June, 1887, the\n40 property handed over to the City as a Park is described as \" the Dominion\nGovernment military reserve.\" If it can be shown, as I understand may be the\ncase, that the Island was set apart as a naval reserve, that would go a long way\ntowards showing that only the parcel on the mainland was intended to be handed\nover to the City.\n4.    As to the second question in that letter, viz.: \" Is the lease granted to\nT. Ludgate by the Government legal and valid ? \"    I may say that this question\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 57\nExhibit 25\nLetter\nDeputy\nMinister of\nJustice to\nDeputy\nMinister of\nMilitia and\nDeforce\n14th April\n1899\ncontinued\nfl RECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 57\nExhibit 25\nLetter\nDeputy\nMinister\nof Justice\nto Deputy\nMinister of\nMilitia and\nDefence\n14th April\n1899\ncontinued\n118\ndepends to some extent upon the answer to the preceding ones. Assuming, however, that Canada has a good title to these lands, the authority of the Governor\nin Council would be necessary to the validity of such a lease. It does not appear\nfrom the papers whether any such authority was obtained before a lease was\nexecuted. I may state further that the Act respecting Ordinance and Admiralty\nlands has no application to lands in question, that Act dealing only with the\nlands in the older provinces which are specified in the schedule to the Act. If\n\u2022the Government can dispose of them it is only by virtue of the royal prerogative,\nor under section 3 of chapter 26 of the Statutes of 1894.\nPapers returned herewith. 10\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient Servant,\nE.  L.  NEWCOMBE,\nDeputy Minister of Justice.\n1\nwi\nNo. 58\nExhibit 31\nLetter\nDeputy\nMinister of\nMilitia and\nDefence to\nthe City Clerk\n15th April\n1899\nNo.  58.\nEXHIBIT 31.\nDepartment of Militia and Defence, Ottawa,\n15th April, 1899.\nThos. F. McGuigan, Esq., City Clerk, 20\nVancouver, B.C.\nSir,\nHaving reference to the claim by the corporation of Vancouver to Deadman's\nIsland as part of Stanley Park and the exercising by the above corporation of\njurisdiction over it.\nI have the honour to inform your corporation, through you, that Deadman's\nIsland has never been considered by this department as in any way forming a\nportion of the Military reserve granted to your corporation by Order-in-Council\nin 1887. On the contrary, it has always been held as a separate reserve subject\nto such disposition as the department might see fit to make of it. qn\nI have the further honour to inform you that this department granted a\nlease of this Island to the Vancouver Lumber Company, of the City of Vancouver, said company to have, by virtue of its lease, full control of it for the\npurpose for which the lease was granted.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient Servant,\nL. F. PINAULT, Lt.-Col.\nDeputy Minister of Militia and Defence, 119 j\nNo.   59. #\nI ] EXHIBIT 30.\nIn the Privy Council.\nNo. 29 of 1905.\nON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA,\nBetween\nTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE PROVINCE OF\nBRITISH COLUMBIA (Plaintiff) Appellant,\nAND\n10      THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA (Defendant), Respondent.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 59\nExhibit 30\nRecord of\nProceedings\nin Action\nof Attorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n16th May\n1899\nRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS.\nft No. 1.\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nBetween\nTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE PROVINCE OF\nBRITISH COLUMBIA, Plaintiff,\nAND\nTHEODORE LUDGATE AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF\n20 THE DOMINION OF CANADA, Defendants.\nEndorsement on Writ.\nThe Plaintiffs claim is for an injunction restraining the Defendant, his\nservants, workmen, or agents from cutting down trees or committing other acts\nof trespass on the property known as Deadman's Island, being situate in Burrard <Writ)\nInlet in the County of Vancouver in the said Province of British Columbia, for\ndamages and for a declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner in fee simple of the\nsaid Island.\nDated the 16th day of May, a.d., 1899.\nE. J. DEACON,\n30 Plaintiff's Solicitor.\nORDER FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION\n(Before the Honourable the Chief Justice).\nTuesday, the 16th day of May, 1899.\nUpon motion this day made to this court by the Honourable Joseph Martin,\nQ C. representing Her Majesty the Queen, upon reading the writ of summons\nherein the affidavit of the Honourable Joseph Martin and upon hearing what\nwas alleged by Counsel aforesaid, and the said the Honourable Joseph Martin,\nQ C   representing Her Majesty the Queen as Attorney-General for the Province\n(Order for.\ninterim\nInjunction)\nf\nl\n1\nI\n>HIH)UUJrll 120\nRecord\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 59\nExhibit 30\nRecord of\nProceedings\nin Action of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral ot\nCanada\nlGth May\n1899\n(Order for\ninterim\nInjunction)\ncontinued\nof British Columbia, undertaking to abide by any order as to damages which this\nCourt may make in case it should hereafter be of opinion that the Defendant shall\nhave sustained any, by reason of this order and injunction, which ought to be\npaid by her Majesty the Queen, represented by the Attorney-General ofthe\nProvince of British Columbia.\n1. This Court doth order that the Defendant, his servants, workmen and\nagents be and they are hereby restrained from removing, destroying, cutting\ndown or otherwise interfering with any trees, lumber, logs, underbrush, or from\ntrespassing upon the lands known as Deadman's Island situate in Burrard Inlet\nand in or near the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, until\nthe seventeenth day of May instant, at two o'clock in the afternoon, or until the\nmotion then to be made to continue this injunction shall have been heard and\ndetermined.\n2. And the Court doth further order that on behalf of her Majesty the\nQueen further affidavits may be filed and read upon the return of the motion to\ncontinue this injunction, serving a copy thereof with the said notice of motion to\ncontinue the injunction.\nBy the Court,\nJ. 1 DOCKERILL,\nDeputy District Registrar.\n20\n(Order adding\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada)\nORDER ADDING THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA\n(Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Irving).\nThe Twenty-seventh day of May, a.d., 1899.\nUpon motion made this day to the Court by Mr. Alexander Henderson,\nQ.C., of Counsel for the Attorney-General of the Dominion of Canada for an order\nthat the Attorney-General of the Dominion of Canada be added as a defendant\nherein, and upon hearing what was alleged by Counsel aforesaid and upon hearing\nthe Honourable Joseph Martin, Q.C., the Attorney-General ofthe Province of30\nBritish Columbia, and Mr. W. J. Bowser, of Counsel for the Defendant, Theodore\nLudgate.\nAnd it appearing that the said Attorney-General, of the Dominion of\nCanada, ought to be joined herein in order to enable the Court effectually and\ncompletely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in this\naction.\nThe Court doth order that the Attorney-General, of the Dominion of\nCanada, be and he is hereby added as a Defendant herein and that the style of\ncause in this action be amended accordingly and that the name of the Plaintiff be as\nabove. 40\nBy the Court,\nJ. C. DOCKERILL,\nDep. District Registrar.\n(Seal). 121\nSTATEMENT OF CLAIM.\n1. The Plaintiff herein represents Her Majesty the Queen on behalf of the\nProvince of British Columbia, and the Defendant the Attorney-General of the\nDominion of Canada represents Her Majesty the Queen on behalf of the\nDominion of Canada. The Defendant, Theodore Ludgate, is a manufacturer,\nresiding at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia.\n2. Her Majesty the Queen on behalf of the Province of British Columbia\niff the owner of a certain parcel or piece of land known as Deadman's Island and\nsituate in Burrard Inlet in the said Province of British Columbia.\n10 3.    Prior to the issue ofthe writ of summons herein the Government of the\nDominion of Canada, through the Honourable the Minister of Militia and Defence\npurported to grant a lease of the said Island to the Defendant, Theodore\nLudgate.\n4. The said Defendant, Theodore Ludgate, acting under the authority of\nsaid lease, prior to the issue of the writ of summons herein, entered into\npossession of this island and cut down a number of trees growing thereon, and the\nsaid defendant, Theodore Ludgate, asserts his right to cut all the trees growing\nupon this island in pursuance of said lease, until restrained by order of this\nHonourable Court.\n20 5,    The trees which are growing  upon said island are of very considerable\nvalue, and if the same were cut down irreparable injury would be occasioned to\nthe said land.\n6. Prior to the issue of the writ of summons herein the Plaintiff duly took\npossession of the said land.\nThe Plaintiff therefore claims :\u2014\n1. The declaration that the title to the said lands is in Her Majesty the\nQueen on behalf of the Province of British Columbia.\n2. An injunction restraining the Defendant, Theodore Ludgate, from\ncutting any trees, or otherwise trespassing upon the lands.\n30 3.    An  order   for  immediate  possession  of said  lands  as  against  both\nDefendants.\n4. Damages for injuries done to said lands.\n5. Such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seem\nmeet.\nPlace of trial: Vancouver, B.C.\nE. J. DEACON,\nPlaintiff's Solicitor.\nDelivered 30th May, 1899.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 59\nExhibit 30\nRecord of\nProceedings\nin Action of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n(Statement of\nClaim) 12S\nI\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 59\nExhibit 30\nRecord of\nProceedings\nin Action of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n(Statement of\nDefence of\nLudgate)\nSTATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE DEFENDANT,\nTHEODORE LUDGATE.\n1. The Defendant, Theodore Ludgate, admits the allegations contained in\nparagraphs 1 and 4 of the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim.\n2. The said Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 2, 5\nand 6 of the said Statement of claim.\n3. With respect to paragraph 3 of the said Statement of Claim the said\nDefendant, Theodore Ludgate, says that prior to the commencement of this\naction, to wit, on the 14th day of February, 1899, Her Majesty the Queen,\nacting through the Honourable the Minister of Militia and Defence for the \\q\nDominion of Canada, being the owner and entitled in that behalf to that certain\nland known as Deadman's Island, situated in Coal Harbour, in Burrard Inlet,\nnear the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, by an indenture\nof lease made under seal (and to which when produced the said Defendant craves\nleave to refer) duly demised and leased unto the said Defendant Deadman's\nIsland aforesaid for the term of twenty-five years from the 1st day of March,\n1899, and renewable.\n4. Acting under the authority of the said lease, the said Defendant,\nTheodore Ludgate, long prior to the commencement of this action, and before\nthe alleged taking possession by the Plaintiff of the said Island referred to in 20\nparagraph 6 of the Statement of Claim herein, entered into possession of the\nsame, he proceeded to make improvements thereon, and the said Defendant was\ncontinuously in possession of the said island from that time, and he is now in\npossession of the same, and submits that he is entitled to the possession thereof\nand all the powers by the said lease conferred, including the right of cutting\ntimber and logs thereon, as therein set out.\nDelivered this 27th day of June, 1899, by William John Bowser, Solicitor\nfor the said Defendant, Theodore Ludgate.\n(Statement of STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE 30\nDOMINION OF CANADA.\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada)\n1. The Defendant, the Attorney-General of the Dominion of Canada,\nadmits the allegations contained in the first paragraph of the Plaintiff's\nStatement of Claim.\n2. The Defendant, the Attorney-General of the Dominion of Canada,\ndenies each and every allegation of fact contained in the second paragraph of the\nsaid Statement of Claim.\n3. The Defendant, the Attorney-General  of the  Dominion of Canada,\nfurther says that the land known as Deadman's Island is not nor ever was owned\nby Her Majesty the Queen on behalf of the Province of British Columbia, and 40\nthat the said land known as Deadman's Island formed part of land duly reserved\nfor and on behalf of Her Majesty's Imperial Government. 123\n4. The said land known as Deadman's Island is the property of Her\nMajesty the Queen in right of the Government of the Dominion of Canada.\n5. The Government of the Dominion of Canada, represented by the\nHonourable the Minister of Militia and Defence, duly leased the said lands\nknown as Deadman's Island to the Defendant, Theodore Ludgate, under and by\nvirtue of an indenture of lease, dated the 14th day of February, a.d. 1899, which\nlease is a good and valid lease.\n6. The Defendant, the Attorney-General of the Dominion of Canada,\ndenies each and every allegation of fact contained  in paragraph 6 of the said\n10 Statement of Claim, and further says that the Government of the Dominion of\nCanada is in possession of the said lands by itself or by its tenant.\nDelivere 1 the 28th day of June, a.d. 1899, by Alexander Henderson,\nSolicitor for the Defendant, the Attorney-General of the Dominion of Canada.\nBetween\nNo. 60.\nEXHIBIT 27.\nTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nAND\nTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA.\nEVIDENCE OF ALFRED R. HOWSE.\n20 21st December, 1900.\nALFRED RICHARD HOWSE, sworn, examined by Mr. Peters :\u2014\nQ. What is your full name ?    A. Alfred Richard Howse.\nQ. Where do you live now ?    A. North Arm, Burrard Inlet.\nQ. When did you come out to this country ?    A. In 1859.    April, 1859.\nQ. What was your occupation previous to the time you came out ?    A. I\nwas in the Royal Engineers, and remained in the Royal  Engineers\u2014came out\nwith them.\nQ. To what department of the Royal Engineers did you belong ?    A. The\nSurvey Department.\n30 Q. Were you on a survey in England ?    A. Yes; for a considerable time in\nEdinburgh.\nQ.  Was that the Ordinance Survey ?    A. It was the Ordinance Survey.\nQ. What was your rank in the service ?    It was corporal.\nQ. Who was in command ofthe detachment you came out here with ?    A.\nCol. Moody ; the officer immediately over us was Capt. Parsons.\nQ. Col. Moody was the commander ?    A. He was the commanding officer.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 59\nExhibit 30\nRecord of\nProceedings\nin Action of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n(Statement of\nDefence of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada)\ncontinued\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec,\n1900\nQ. How many men came out with you ?    A.\n150 altogether\nO\nn\nn 124\ni\ni\n9\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nV. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\n10\nQ. How many of them were surveyors ?   A. I should think\u2014my memory\nfails me there\u2014but I should think twenty (20); I should say so.\nQ. What employment did you go into shortly after you came out ?    A.\nEngaged in the Lands and Work's Office, as clerk, having the records in charge.\nQ. When did you begin that employment ?    A. About three months after\nwe arrived, two or three months\u2014I cannot say to a few days.\nQ. How long did you remain in that office ?   A. Remained there until 1878,\nI think, 1878 I left.\nQ. How long did Col. Moody remain here after you  went  into that office;\nwhat year did he go away?    A. Went away in October, 1863.\nQ. Where was that office at that time ? A. At New Westminster, a place\nknown as the Camp.\nQ. Was that the Engineers' Camp ?    A. Engineers' Camp.\nQ. Was that in New Westminster or near it.    A. About a mile from it.\nQ. Who was the head of that office? A. Captain Parsons, for the Survey\nDepartment.\nQ. Who was the head of the Land and Works Department ? A. Chief\nCommissioner of Lands and Works, Col. Moody.\nQ. That is the position he acted in ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Do you remember the fact of a proclamation as to pre-emptions being 20\nissued here?    A. Yes,  on the  4th  of January,   1850;   made  by  Sir   James\nDouglas.\nQ. You remember the proclamation;. the fact ?    A. Perfectly well.\nQ. At that time, did you or did you not know of there being reserves on\nBurrard Inlet ?   A. Yes.\nObjected to by Mr. Duff.    Question and answer allowed.\nQ. Prior to the issuing of that proclamation, the pre-emption proclamation,\nwhich you remembar, had there been any survey made of the land ? A. (No\nanswer).\nMr. Duff asks for a ruling on the question. 30\nQ. I want to know, prior to the time that pre-emption proclamation was\nissued, had there been any survey made of the land on the south side of Burrard\nInlet, including the shore around Stanley Park in that direction ? A. Referring\nonly to the inlet\u2014no survey made.\nQ. You have stated that you know of reserves being on Burrard Inlet 1 efore\nthat; now, I want to ask you whether it was known generally at that time that\nthere were reserve for military purposes,  which included what is  now  called\n. Stanley Park, and what is now called Deadman's Island, before the proclamation\nwas issued ?\nMr. Duff objects that the question is leading, and that reserves can only be 40\nmade by executive act, and there could apart from that be no reserve in fact, as\ndistinguished from even a reserve in law.    The point really is, had the Governor\nreserved from sale or pre-emption under Section 3 ofthe proclamation of 14th\nFebruary, 1859 ?   Evidence of reputation on that point is not admissible. 125\nMr. Peters contends that here the fact of reservation can be proved by\nevidence of reputation. The returns and correspondence now in showed that\nthere were reserves, for which no record of any executive act existed.\nThe Court observed that there is no evidence of executive acts in relation to\nthese matters, and suggested the Provincial Secretary be called before resort is\ntaken to proving of reserves by hearsay or common knowledge, and that the\nCounsel has not brought himself within the rule laid down (in Taylor), but before\nbeing forced to give a ruling would like the Provincial Secretary summoned, and\nhis evidence given to assist the Court to determine the matter.\n10 Ultimately the Judge ruled  that  there was  sufficient  foundation for the\nreception of hearsay evidence.\nExamination suspended.    Adjourned until 2 15.\nAt 2.15.\nArgument resumed and examination ofthe witness Howse taken up at the\npoint reached before adjournment.\nQ. I want to ask you, before the proclamation about the pre-emption, that\nyou remember, before that time, what have you to say, as to whether or not there\nwas known to be reserves at Burrard, military reserves at Burrard Inlet ?\nMr. Duff objects that it is one thing to give evidence as to the existence of\n20 reserves, and  another as  to the character of the reserves, in which the public\ncould not possibly be interested.    Objection sustained.\nQ. Now then, Mr. Howse, I will ask you this question : before that proclamation was given\u2014was made, as you remember that was in 1860, what have yon\nto say as to there being reserves at what is known as Stanley Park and Dead-\nman's Island ?    What have you to say about that ?\nObjected to on the ground that all Counsel can ask is as to what declaration,\nif any, of deceased persons, were made, as to the right of the public to purchase\nor pre-empt lands there ; what is to be considered in this case is the public right,\nnot evidence of specific facts.\n30 After argument the Court held the question could not be asked, as to general\nreputation.\nQ. You knew Col. Moody, did you not ?    A. Very well.\nQ. Is he alive or dead ?    A. Dead, I believe.\nMr. Dupe\u2014How does he know ?\nMr. Peters\u2014He is dead, several years ago.\nQ. Did you ever have any conversation with Col. Moody, who is now dead,\nas to the reserves on what is now known as Stanley Park and Deadman's\nIsland ?\nObjected to by Mr. Duff as not coming in on this head; Col. Moody could\na a not be said to be a disinterested person : on the ground that an ordinary conversation with Col. Moody is not admissible as evidence  of reputation.    Question\nallowed; repeated by Counsel as follows :\u2014\nQ. The question I asked you was : Were you present at any conversation\nwith Col. Moody with regard to the question as to whether the lands now covered\nby Stanley Park and Deadman's island were reserved or not ?    A. Not directly\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney*\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nfl 126\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\non Deadman's Island, but generally I had frequent conversation with Col. Moody\non subjects of that kind.\nQ. Where ? A. In the Land Office, sometimes in his private office and his\nresidence.\nQ. Was there any talk as to the utility of any of these properties as reserves ?\nA. Oh. frequently I have heard gentlemen, officers\u2014\nMr. Duff objects that the witness says he has not heard any specially as to\nDeadman's Island ?    Sustained.\nQ. Ihe question I want to  ask you, Mr. Howse, is this : Have you heard\nconversation with regard to the value of Deadman's Island or Stanley Park, or 10\nboth, or either of them, for military purposes ?\nMr. Duff objects that a conversation would be altogether too remote for the\npurpose of showing Governor Douglas had exercised his power for the purpose of\nreserving that property for military purposes.    Sustained.\nQ. Do you know of any instructions being given by Col. Moody with regard\nto reserves at Burrard Inlet ?    A. Do you mean with regard to survey ?\nQ. Yes.     A. Yes, 1 remember the surveys being made.\nQ, You remember the surveys being made ? A. Yes, although not present;\nI remember that being authorised.\nQ. Who made that survey ?    A, A man by the name of George Turner.      \u2022 20\nQ. Is that the witness who was here ?    A. Yes.\nQ. After the survey was made, do you know what became of the field notes' ?\nA. I have seen the field notes and there was also a plan.\nQ. Where were the field notes filed ?   A. In the Lands and Works Office.\nQ. Were you in the Land Office at that time ?    A.I was.\nQ. Did you have charge of that department ? A. No, the field notes were\ntaken to the Survey Office, that is, the drawing office.\nQ. Did you see the field notes ?   A. I have.\nQ. Were there plans made from these field notes ?    A. Yes.\nQ. There were plans made ?   A. Yes. 30\nQ. How many plans were made; do you know how many copies ? A. The\nfirst, I remember distinctlv, was made on a chart, an outline chart from Capt.\nRichard's survey of the inlet; that was the only means\u2014\nQ. I want to get the plans made from Turner's survey; how many copies\nmade from that ?   A, I was about to show you how the plan was constructed.\nQ. Go on about this one ? A. That was the only means we had, there had\nbeen no triangulation or traversing by the Royal Engineers. The consequence\nwas a scale map, but\u2014\nQ. Was that before Turner's survey or afterwards ?  A. What I am speaking\nof was afterwards, and the plot then on Turner's survey was distinctly shown on 40\nthis plan that I speak of.    There have been several subsequently, but they all\noriginated from that survey and those charts,\nQ. There were plans then made,  were made from Turner's notes\nthere?   A. Certainly.\nQ. In the drafting office ?   A. Yes, sir.\nQ. Do you know where these plans were sent to ?   A. Were sent ?\nwere 127\nQ. Who were they given to ? A. Captain Parsons ; they were made under\nthe authority of Captain Parsons.\nQ. After they were made, what happened to them ? A. The notes have\nbeen filed, and some of the charts are still in existence, that is, the official\ncharts. These charts will be found to bear the name of Colonel Moody, signed\n\"Colonel Moody,\" and stamped with the seal of the Land and Works\nDepartment.\nQ. Who were they sent to, what officials ?    A. Kept in the office ; all kept\nin the office.\n10 Y. Who was the man in England who looked after the fortifications; do\nyou know ?\nMr. Duff objects.\nA. The Inspector-General.\nQ. Of fortifications ; were any of these plans sent to him ?\nMr. Duff objects.\nA. Tracings of the plan were sent to him.\nQ. Who else were the tracings sent to ; what other person?\nObjected to by  Mr. Duff that the witness can know nothing about that;\nalso to the method  of proceeding to  prove  the sending of this plan to the\n20 Inspector-General of Fortifications. fc\nAs far as he knows there is no letter sending the plan.    Subject to further\nargument, the court does not think this a proper thing to do.\nMr. Duff undertakes to have a thorough search for the letter made.\nAn adjournment is taken to 7th January, 1901.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo.  60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney.\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\n7th January, 1901, at 11 a.m.\nMr. Bodwell and Mr. Duff for the Attorney-General of British Columbia.\nMr. Peters and Mr. Howay for the Attorney-General of Canada.\nMr. MacDonall for the Defendant Ludgate.\n30 Mr. Peters\u2014I gave my learned friend notice to produce all letters or copies\nof letters from Colonel Moody, and any other official of the Government of B.C.\nto the Governor of B.C., or the Inspector-General of Fortifications, covering the\nenclosure of the plans, showing the Naval Reserve on Burrard Inlet.\nMr. Duff states that he has been unable to find any letter of that kind.\nMr. Peters also gives notice to produce letter book containing copies of\nletters from Colonel Moody.\nMr. Duff states that will be here shortly, the two asked for will be here.\nMr. Peters also asks for the original instructions for surveying, issued to\nGeorge Turner, as he desires to put it in, and supposes there is no objection to\n40 that.\nMr. Peters tenders the original, but will substitute copy (dated 26th\nJanuary, 1863) headed \"Capt. Parsons\" and signed \"R.C.M.\" indent 20,\nmarked Exhibit 8. 128\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\ni\n10\n20\nMr. Peters also formally tenders the field notes on the ground that they are\npublic documents coming from proper custody, and that they are public\ndocuments which have been deposited as a matter of record and acted upon.\nMr Duff objects and understands His Lordship ruled on that before j unless\nhis learned friend can bring these field notes home to Governor Douglas in some\nway, then he submits they are inadmissible.\nAfter further argument, the field notes are marked for identification.\nThe original endorsement of them is as follows: | New West. Dist.\nSurvey of Reserve at English Bay and North of 1st Narrows, 181 and 185 G. I.\nSurvey of Coast Line round Coal Peninsula 4.\"\nMr. Peters enquires if Counsel produces plan of Deadman's Island made\nfrom Turner's notes.\nMr. Duff does not know of any plans by that description.\nMr. Peters says the plan was in the Land Office as late as 1880, and if not\nproduced, he will give secondary evidence of it.\nMr. Duff has no information to enable him to judge whether any plan was\nmade by Landers.    He now produces a plan marked by Landers.\nMr. Peters required plan of survey of Deadman's Island and vicinity made\nfrom Turner's notes, about 1863, by J. B. Landers.\nAfter further argument, the Court suggests it may be as well to say Mr.\nDuff tenders a plan which for the purpose of indentification, is marked so and so,\nand Mr. Peters that it is not the one he wants, or otherwise, they may be\nat sea.\nMr. Peters is going to put the plan in.\nThe Court remarks that Mr. Duff produces a plan already in, marked \u25a0' 4,\"\nand Mr. Peters that it is not the plan he wants.\nMr. Peters assents, and asks Counsel to produce the original commission of\nGovernor. Douglas.\nMr. Duff states they haven't it, a copy has gone in. As to Colonel Moody's\ncommission, they haven't it, and never had it. 30\nThe Court understands it was agreed between the Counsel that all book\nExhibit 6 should go in.\nMr. Peters now asks for production of plan marked | D\" produced on\ninjunction.\nMr. Duff had mislaid it, but will let his learned friend have it.\nMr. Peters asked for admiralty charts of Burrard Inlet and vicinity, known\nas Capt. Richards' or Admiral Baynes' charts, or any other name.\nMr. Duff produces the Admiralty plan.\nMr. Peters is not going to put in a chart that was issued by the C.P.R.\nMr. Duff submits that having produced it, it will have to go in. 40\nMr. Peters is not bound to put it in, and.refuses.\nAfter argument, the Court decides it is material to a certain extent, but\ndoes not say how much, and should be marked.\nMr. Peters points out that it is put in against -his wish.\nMarked Exhibit 9.\nMr. Peters asks for production of all plans filed in the Lands and Works' 129\nDepartment, or Deadman's Island and Stanley Park, signed by Colonel Moody,\nCommissioner of Public Works.\nMr. Duff offers a plan : 1 Plan drawn and traced by Landers,\" showing\nStanley Park and Deadman's Island, referring to the one asked for before\n(Exhibit 4).\nMr. Peters does not propose to put it in now ; (tracing handed Mr. Peters)\nbut wants to know whether plan offered shows the whole ofthe Park and Island :\ncomplains of the ruling which does not allow him to look at the plans. In reply\nto the Court, states that it is not the plan he wants; was asking for the plan\n10 signed by Colonel Moody showing Stanley Park and Deadman's Island, the\n\" plan offered by Mr. Duff Was not the plan asked for. The plan now asked for is\nsigned Colonel Moody, showing Deadman's Island and Stanley Park. The rule\nis he simply looks at it\u2014\nThe Court\u2014It seems to me that it puts you in a very equitable position.\nWhy should you call for one series of plans and look at another, and he (Mr.\nDuff) says these are in the Public Works Office.\nMr. Peters points out that in this case you cannot get as full discovery as in\nan ordinary case ; wants a plan showing the whole of Stanley Park.\nMr. Duff states that is all they have been able to find.\n20 Mr. Peters reads from notice to produce from the words | Dominion Govern\nment allege \" down to i Burrard Inlet\" ; those tracings he required production of.\nMr. Duff states that they haven't any of those tracings. The documents\nwere shifted from New Westminster to Victoria, and it is possible that in very\nearly times, some of these documents might have been mislaid.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nALFRED RICHARD HOWSE, Examination resumed by Mr. Peters :-\n30 Q. Do  you   remember,  seeing  Mr.   Turner's  field  notes?     A. Perfectly\nwell.\nQ. Where were they filed\u2014kept ?    A. In the Lands and Works Office, in\nthe Survey Department.\nQ. Who had charge of that particular  department ?    A. In  early  days,\nCapt. Parsons.\nQ. Were there any plans made ?    A. Several.\nQ. Did you see them ?    A. I have seen them frequently.\nQ. What were they made from ?    A. One index plan was made from Capt.\nRichards' Admiralty charts.\n40 Q- What material was used in filling up the plans ?    A. Double drawing\npaper.\nQ. From what source did they get the information to put in the plans ?   A.\nVery little information, excepting for the reserves.\nQ. The reserves, what were  they got from?   A. From  Capt.  Richards'\nAdmiralty chart, or a copy of it.\nQ. Mr. Turner's notes were filed in the Lands Office ?    A. Survey.\nI 130\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nQ. Were they used for any purpose ? A. They were Used, the reserves\nwere surveyed, and these notes were filed for future reference.\nQ. In making the plans, was any use made of them ? A. Yes, sir,\ncertainly.\nQ. What use was made of Turner's notes in making the plans ? A. Plotted\non the plans I referred to.\nQ. Who by ? A. That I can scarcely say, but it must have been Mr.\nLanders, Mr. Sinnett, or Mr. Armstrong\u2014there were three of them ; nearly all\nthe men could do a little draughting.\nQ. What became of the plans after the plotting was made of them ?    A. 10\nThey were still retained in the Land and Works Office until Col. Moody went\naway.    Just previous to his going away they were signed in my office, that is the\nrecord office down below the drawing office, in the presence of Capt. Luard,\nmyself, and I think Capt. Grant.\nQ. Signed by whom ?    A. Col. Moody.\nQ. Anything else done but sign them ? A. I don't remember, there were\nno witnesses to my knowledge.\nQ. They were signed by Col. Moody; what happened to them then ? A.\nSealed with the seal of the Lands and Works Department.\nQ. According to your recollection, how many plans  were there shewing 20\nBurrard Inlet ?    A. Took the whole of them, 4 or 5.\nQ. Relating to what part of the country ? A. Two of these plans relate' to\nBurrard Inlet, and the land along west of New Westminster.\nBy the Court\u2014Two of them ?    The Witness\u2014Yes, my Lord.\nQ. And the others related to where ? A. The New Westminster district;\nsome across the river, and some at the Pitt River.\nQ. So that the whole thing was not put on one plan ? A. Oh, dear no, a\nbox more of these, indeed all the surveys were isolated ; they were not under\ntriangulation, excepting two or three in the neighbourhood of New Westminster. 30\nQ. And having been signed and sealed, what became of these plans ? A.\nThey were deposited in a file, not a file, just a drawer, specially put aside for them\nin the Lands Department.\nQ. Under whose charge ? A. I am speaking of Mr. Trutch, Sir Joseph\nTrutch's time, and the two temporary commissioners before him.\nQ. What particular official in that department had charge of those plans ?\nA. I had chief charge of them.\nQ. For how many years did you have charge of them ? A. Up to the\nFederation.\nQ. Just give us exact date you went out ?    A. Up to about 1871. 40\nQ. How long had you charge of the records; from what date ? A. From\neither October or November, 1863.\nQ. Did you leave the office in 1871 ?   A. No, certainly not.\nQ. Where did you go then ? A. Before I was in the Royal Engineers I\nwas then appointed clerk in the Land Office, and had charge of the deeds, made\nup the tracings for the deeds, and things of that kind. 131\nwere.\nQ. When did you actually leave the Land Office ?    A. I think in 1878.\nQ. When  you  left  the  Land   Office were   those  plans there?    A. They^\nRECORD\nQ. The plans that were signed and sealed ?    A. Signed and sealed ; and not\nonly that, they were in a strong room of the Land Office, in a plan case, in the\nIn the\nerne\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nbottom drawer.\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nQ. Now, Mr.  Howse, have you seen these plans on many occasions, or not ?    .   \u2014\nA. Yes, on many occasions. A.^Howfe\nQ. Have you  had occasion to use them  for any purpose when you were \u00b0n trial of\n10 there\u2014to refer to them ?    A. I have had to refer to them frequently. GenemTof\nQ. During that period you were there up to 1878, how often did you refer co1tisllb-\nto them, and for what purpose would you have to refer to them ?    A. For title I Attome -\ndeed for tracings on title deeds\u2014grants  in  those  days  had  a small tracing Canada! \u00b0f\nattached to them, showing the plan to which they referred. 2ist Dec.\nQ. What were those tracings taken from ?    A. The generality of them from continued\nthe official plan.\nQ. You say you have seen those plans often; now, I want to know whether\none of those plans signed there showed what is now known as Stanley Park and\nDeadman's Island ?    A. Yes.\n20 Q. The whole of them ?    A. Yes, I believe the whole of them to the best of\nmy belief.\nQ. Can you tell me how Stanley Park and Deadman's Island\u2014were they\ncoloured in any way on those maps ?    A. Stanley Park in red, the military in red,\nthe naval reserves in blue, and the town sites\u2014\nMr. Dupe\u2014I object to that.\nThe Court\u2014The answer is subject to objection, which is now taken, the\nwitness being deaf.\nMr. Duff points out there are two objections to the evidence of this witness :\nsubmits that a general statement that the military reserves were in red and naval\n30 in blue is not evidence, and cannot go in at this date, because there is no evidence\nto show there were any military reserves; goes right to the crux of the question\nand his learned friend ought to show this witness's knowledge before it can ^o in.\nIn addition, there is an objection to the admission of any evidence of plans, or\nany statement contained in those plans as evidence, showing there was a reserve,\nand if so, what kind of a reserve at Stanley Park and Deadman's Island. Mr.\nTurner has been called, and in so far as he has got such knowledge as would\nenable him to give evidence on that point, he can give that evidence; that for\nthat purpose the map will not be admissible.\nMr.  Peters has already stated that he is not in a position to produce any\n40 evidence in the point that Governor Douglas ordered this particular piece of land\nshould be made a reserve ; it is not necessary\u2014the statute proclamation and\ninstructions contain no such statement that there must be a record ; it is common\nknowledge in those days that records were not kept.\nA Government of this Province may make admissions which bind them, and\nmay by their acts, make such an admission. Certain things may be proved\nagainst them by their acts.    To find out how these reserves stand, the proper\nfi\nffl\ni RECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\n132\nplace to go is the records of the Province, and particularly where things of this\nkind would be found. They go, beginning about 1873, and at the instance ofthe\nProv. Government that office is applied to and asked to state what lands in the\nProvince, as a matter of fact, are reserved. A formal return is put in in 1873,\nand gives the source from which that return is made, laying down the piece of\nland we are dealing with, as a military reserve. You cannot start at the\nbeginning, anv more fhan where you presume a grant by lapse of time, here the\npresumption arises by the way they deal with the matter.\nAt this point the Court called upon Mr. Duff for further argument upon the\nadmissibility ofthe return of the Provincial Legislature, dated 14th  January, 10\n1873, Exhibits 5 and 7.\nAfter argument, the Court rules as follows : It is very clear to my mind\nthe return should go in, as it has at present some material effect which may be\nnullified or detracted from later, this point is not clear as I should like it, but\nsome weight should be attached to such.a solemn document, though I cannot say\nnow how much. It is safer under all the exceptional circumstances to allow the\nreturn to go in, than to rule it out.\nAdjourned until 2.15.\nAt 2.15.\n20\n1\n1\nA.   R.   HOWSE,  EXAMINATION  RESUMED  BY  Mr.   PeTERS :\u2014\nQ. Now, I asked you with regard to these plans that were sealed and signed\nby Col. Moody ?   A. Quite so.\nQ. And you stated that on these plans naval reserves were coloured\t\nMr. Duff objects.\nThe Court points out that they have not got as far as that, but simply to\nthe point that the return is now in; part of the argument was based on the\nassumption that the return was in ; Mr. Duff took exception that it was not in ;\nthat was ruled in Mr. Peters' favour. The next point comes up, and there is an\nobjection. 30\nMr. Peters states that he has proved by this witness a certain plan, showing\nDeadman's Island and Stanley Park was filed in the office of the Lnnds and\nWorks Department; that the plan was signed by Col. Moody, and sealed with\nthe seal of the department, and had given the other side notice to produce that\nplan. They produced one which did not contain Stanley Park, or only a small\nportion of it; had given notice to produce another plan, and they could not\nproduce it; he now proceeds to give secondary evidence of it.\nMr. Bodwell states that the plan shows nothing more than that Turner's\nnotes are incorporated into it.     The plan proves nothing as the man who\ncompiled it is here.    It amounts only to this\u2014that this was Turner's opinion, 40\nbut it does not show the executive authority for that opinion.\nMr. Peters replied that he is not putting in the map as having anything to\ndo with Turner's notes, but as being recognised by the proper department of the 133\ncontinued\nProvincial Government as a correct statement of the Government's rights in that   REC(DRD\nlocality. In the\nAfter further argument, the Court ruled that the map  from  which the oSSo?\nreturn was made should go in following the return ; and. therefore in its absence British\nsecondary evidence might be given. Columbia\nQ. I want to ask you if there is anything* on  the  plans to indicate naval or    ,N?: \u00a30\n\u2022v, 0 J J & r Exhibit 27\nmilitary reserves l. _\nMr. Duff objects that the question involves an inference.    Sustained. A^iTwse\nQ. Will you tell me what  was on the plan ?    A.  On the plan I call the on trial of\n10 Index Plan ? Attorney-\n_ . General of\nQ.  No, no ; I want the   plan you   have  referred to,   showing   Deadman s British\nIsland and Stanley Park ?    A.   Shown as a military reserve. \u00ab.\u00b0A*torney.\nQ. What was shown as a military reserve ? General of\nMr. Duff objects that his learned friend is not entitled to ask that question; 21^ Dec.\nit involves an inference.\nThe Court rules the question admissible, and suggests a different form for it.\nQ.  I simply ask you what was marked as a military reserve ?    A. What is\nnow called Stanley Park and Deadman's Island.\nQ. Will you  tell  me  how  they  were   marked ?    A.   In writing and by\n20 colour.\nQ. What was written on them ?    A.  Military reserve.\nQ. On what part of the plan were the words \" Military  Reserve \" written ?\nA. On the place called Stanley Park.\nQ. And on the other part called Deadman's Island was there anything ?\nA. I think it was simply \" R\" for reserve.\nQ. Written ? A. As the so-called Deadman's Island is an integral part of\na military reserve.\nQ. Was there any colour on the plan ?    A. Yes, sir; there was.\nQ. With regard to the particular part of Deadman's Island and Stanley\n30 Park, was there any colour on the plan ?    A. Yes.\nQ. What was it coloured ?    A. Red.\n.Q. How was that colouring put on?    All over, or around, or how was it ?\nA. AJ1 over the plan, within the boundaries of the park.\nQ. What about Deadman's Island ?    A. The same way.\nQ. What colour was on Stanley Park ?    A. Stanley Park was red.\nQ. What colour was on Deadman's Island ?    A. Red.\nQ. Were there more than one set of these plans ?    A. Tracings were made.\nQ. Tracings were made from that plan ?    A. From that plan.\nQ. How many ?    Do you know ?    A. I think at least two\u2014two sets.\n40 Q. When they were made, what happened to them ; how were they marked\nor identified in any way ?    A. As tracings from the official plans.\nQ. Were there any signatures put to them? A. It would be signed by\nCol. Moody in his capacity, not as a military engineer, but as Chief Commissioner\nof Lands and Works\u2014the tracings.\nQ. What became of those tracings ?   A. One set would go to the Governor,\n'A\n%m\\\n5\nh\n1 134\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney*\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nQ. As a matter of fact, do you know what became of them ? A. I beg your\npardon.\nQ. Do you know what became of those tracings ?\nMr. Duff : If my learned friend is going to ask him how he knows .\nQ. How do you know what became of them ? A. Because they were sent\nby letter to the Governor.\nQ. Did you send them ? A. No; they were recorded in a book called the\nletter book outwards.\nQ. Who did send them ?    A. Col. Moody, by his orders.\nQ. Was there a letter book kept ?    A. Yes. 10\nQ. About what date would this be ? A. This must have been in the latter\npart of 1863.\nQ. Now, do you know, as a matter of fact, if there was a letter book ? A.\nThere was a letter book.\nQ. Did you see it ?    A. Oh, many times.\nQ. Where was it kept? A. Kept in the Lands and Works Office, or\nrather, the Works Department of the Land Office.\nQ. Were the letters copied in that ? A. Letters outwards were copied \u2022\nletters inwards were indexed and pigeon-holed.\nQ. Was that letter book there when you left ?    A. Yes. 20\nQ. That was in 1878 ?    A. Yes, sir.\nQ. Did that contain the letters from the Lands and Works Department to\nthe Governor ? A. To the Governor, under the different headings of | To the\nGovernor.\"\nMr. Peters\u2014I ask my learned friend to produce that letter book.\nMr. Duff\u2014Which do you want ?\nMr. Peters\u2014Letter book of 1863, containing letters or- copies thereof,\nfrom Col. Moody, and any other official of the Government to the Governor of\nB.C., mentioning particularly, covering the enclosure of the plan showing the\nmilitary reserve. 30\nQ. Have you any idea what part of the year it would be in ? A. When the\ntracings were sent away would be sometime in October, 1863.\nMr. Duff\u2014I am sorry I have not got October here; will send over for\nOctober.\nMr. Peters\u2014May be in September.\nQ. Now, as a matter of fact, were there letters written to the Governor at\nthat time ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Relating to the tracings ?\nMr. Duff objects, and states that he will produce every document Mr. 40\nPeters calls for.    The witness has said that letter was copied in a letter book.\nMy learned friend shall have the letter book, and see the letter which never\nexisted in the wide world.\nQ. There are two tracings ?   A. Yes, sir.\nQ. What became of the other one; did that remain in the Land Office ?\nA. No 5 would go direct to the Supreme Government. rJL\nBlue.\nA. Yes, burnt sienna.\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\n135\nRECORD\nQ. Did you ever see those tracings again ?   Those two tracings, did you ever\nsee them any more ?    A. Never. Supreme\nQ. Now, on the plan you were referring to, you have stated that Stanley Court of\nPark and  Deadman's Island were coloured red ;   any other colouring on the Columbia\nplan ?    A. Yes, sir.\nQ. What colour was on the plan beside red ?    A\nQ. What parts were coloured blue ?    A. Naval.\nQ. Was there any other colouring on the plan ?\nQ. That is brown, we may call it ?    A.  Brown.\n10 Q. What did that represent ?    A. Town sites.\nQ. So that there were three colourings on the plan?    A. Three colourings, cSumbia\nQ. Do you  happen to remember the date when the first Royal Gazette | Attorney\ncame out in this Province -Provincial Gazette ?    A. I think it was in 1863\u2014Canada\n62 or 3, I could not say for certain. uSon1*80,\nQ. Now, you know Colonel Moody very well ?    A, Very well, indeed. continued\nQ. How long was he Commissioner of Lands and Works ?    A. He came out\nin 1859, before the main body came out.\nQ. The main body of the Royal Engineers ?    A. The main body of Royai\nEngineers ; and remained until October or November, 1863.\n20 Q. Then he went back ?    A. Then he went back.   .\nQ. He is dead, is he ? I think you swore that the other day.    A. Yes, sir.\nMr. Duee \u2014He does not know anything about it; he cannot swear that.\nQ. Did you have conversation with Colonel Moody ?    A. Very frequently.\nQ. What was Stanley Park called in those days ? A. It was known as a\nmilitary reserve.\nQ. Any other name ?    A. Coupled with that of the First Narrows.\nQ. Did you have any conversation with Colonel Moody, as to Deadman's\nIsland and Stanley Park, as to their utility for military reserves ?\nMr. Duff\u2014That has been ruled out.\n30 Mr. Peters\u2014I don't understand that.\nThe Court\u2014Did not that come in Mr. Turner's evidence ?\nMr. Peters\u2014That is, as to general reputation; that was as to the question\nof general reputation as to military reserves.\nMr. Duff\u2014I don't think it was Colonel Moody, it was generally whether\nhe had conversation with officers, but Colonel Moody's declaration on the subject\ncannot be evidence.\nMr. Peters\u2014I am asking a question as to whether these were useful as\nmilitary reserves.\nMr. Bodwell\u2014That is entirely immaterial; that is plainly irrelevant.\n40 The Court\u2014I have dealt  with  this in two branches.     The first is the\nquestion of its utility ; I think this clearly objectionable ; I sustain the objection\non that ground.\nMr. Peters\u2014Your Lordship sees that it does not always follow, if you put\na question, you have got to stop there. I have the right to strengthen the\nevidence on that point. I have the right to ask this witness what Colonel\nMoody, a man interested in the whole matter, what he told him with regard to\n6\nmm 136\nRecord\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\n. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nbeing reserves there, and I have the right to strengthen the probability of that\nbeing a correct statement by showing\u2014\nThe Court\u2014I have to rule of course some way that will not involve two\npropositions in the same question. I might accede to one and disagree with the\nother, I have to deal with them as they come.\nQ. I ask you, did you have any conversation with Colonel Moody as to there\nbeing reserves at Stanley Park or Deadman's Island ?\nMr. Bodwell- -The objection we take is that Colonel Moody's declaration\nwould not bind him to any subject.    There is no foundation as yet as to Colonel\nMoody's declaration on any point.    His statement that somebody else had made 10\na reserve, would not be evidence, and the circumstances under which it was made\nwould have to be proved first.\nThe Court\u2014Is not that a question of general reputation ?\nMr. Duff\u2014Your Lordship will remember that a statement as to general\nreputation must be made by a disinterested person.\nAfter further argument, the question is repeated by the stenographer to the\nwitness, and the Court rules that the question is admissible.\nMr. Peters\u2014I don't wish to ask that question.\nThe Court\u2014You had better form a new question.   .\nMr. Peters\u2014I put that question using the word | Military.\" 20\nHis Lordship referred to his notes, and found that the question as taken\ndown and read to the witness by the stenographer agreed with the notes of the\ncourt.\nThe question is ordered to be amended by the addition of the word | Military,\"\nand is again read to the witness by the stenographer.\nThe Court\u2014The following ruling I gave the other day, I think the question\nis admissible.\nQ. Do you remember Sir Joseph Trutch ?   A. Very well.\nQ. What position did he hold ? A. Chief Commissioner of Lands and\nWorks. 30\nQ. From what time did you know him holding chat position ? A. I think it\nwas in the early part of 1863.\nQ. Until when ?    A. Until Federation in 1871.\nQ. Did he act after Federation; did he act in that capacity after Federation ?\nA. A short time, I believe.\nQ. He left that Province ; does he reside in this Province now.\nMr. Duff\u2014I admit that.\nMr. Peters\u2014It is admitted Sir Joseph Trutch resided in England. Subject\nto that letter being produced.    That is all I have to ask.\nThe Court-\u2014Do  I  understand there is no   cross-examination   of  this 40\nwitness ?\nMr. Peters\u2014My learned friend has to produce the letter book, which I\nwould very much like to see before this witness is cross-examined.\nMr. Duff\u2014I have the letter book down to the 9th of September, 1863.\nI produce this under notice to produce..\nMr. Peters\u2014I certainly don't put the whole book in evidence. 137\nMr. Duff\u2014It is not in existence, that letter.\nMr. Peters\u2014Now you make this general statement about it, it is not in \u00a3\u25a0 *J\nexistence.     You said so about this signed and sealed plan.\nMr. Bodwell\u2014You don't want this book ?\nRECORD\nIn the\nerne\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nCross-Examined by Mr. Duff\u2014\nQ. You lived in New Westminster ?    A. Yes, sir.\n10 Q. Until the union ofthe two colonies?    A. Yes, sir.\nQ. Did you know Burrard Inlet pretty well ?    A. Oh, very well.\nQ. You know the ground that is occupied by the site of Stanley Park pretty\nwell ?    A. Very well, indeed.\nQ. And Deadman's Island ?    A. And Deadman's Island.\nQ. There was some clearing there, was not there at Stanley Park ? A. In\nthe early days ?\nQ. Yes. A. Oh, no, the only clearing I know of in the early days was\nsome of the loggers used to cut the timber.\nQ. About 1865  to 1866 there was some clearing done there, was there not,\n20 somewhere near Brockton Point ?    A.  1865 or 1866\u2014not that I am aware of.\nQ. You don't remember that ?    A. No.\nQ. Now who was the Clerk of the Department ?    A. What Department ?\nQ. Lands and Works Department ? A. There were three; there was Mr.\nLanders, a draughtsman; Mr. Lomas, an ex-Royal Engineer in the Works\nDepartment, and myself in the Land Department.\nQ. Lomas in the Works Department, and Mr. Howse in the Lands Department ; do you remember where the naval reserves were ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Where were they ?    A. One was at English Bay; the other the next\none, was a little town site called Granville, but I believe that was done away with.\n30 The third one was at Port Moody, at the end of the North Road, and the fourth\nwas nearly opposite.\nQ. The third was at Port Moody, near the North Road ? A. Yes, sir,\nNorth Road.\nQ. When did you leave the department? A. I think it was in 1878 ; I am\nnot quite sure about that.\nQ. The Naval Reserves had been done away with before that, I think, had\nthey not ?    A. There is one now covered by the Vancouver Town site,\nQ. That had been done away with before you left ?    A. No, I don't think\nit was.\n40 Q. You don't remember about that ?    A. No, I do not distinctly.\nQ. Do you know how the letter books were kept in this department ?    A.\nVery well.\nQ. Just tell us how they were kept? A. If there was anything particular\nrequired it would be a rough draft that would be made, and a fair copy made by\nthe clerk, who would then, after the letter went away, take the rough draft, and\ncopy it into a book and index it\u2014the letters inwards.\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nM\ns\na\nI\nn 138\nRecord\nIn the>\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney.\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nQ. I am speaking of letters outwards; the letters were all copied, I presume ?\nA. All copied.\nQ. One series or two series of books ?    A. One series for each department.\nQ. How do you mean one for each department ? A. The Governor for instance\n\u2014one book for him, and another book for works, such as roads, streets, bridges\nand so forth, and another one for lands.\nQ. Another one for general lands? A. Yes, anything relating to lands, was\nentered in this book.\nQ. I think you said one of these plans you spoke of was forwarded to the\nInspector of Fortifications ?    A. Went to the Inspector of Fortifications. 10\nQ. Who wrote the letter ?    You did not write the letter yourself ?   A. No.\nQ. What did the letter contain ? A. Well, I have seen the letter, but I\nreally could not give you\u2014    It was simply showing where the reserves were.\nQ. I mean the letter ; I am not speaking of the plan ? A. The letter and\nthe plans referred to one another, but the letter proper would be written by Col.\nMoody.\nQ. And copied by someone else in a book ?    A. By someone else in a book.\nQ. You saw it in the book afterwards ?   A. Yes.\nQ. Which book would that be in, in the Governor's book, or the other book ?\nA. No, there is a book called | Military Correspondence \" ; I think it would be in 20\nthat book ; it was copied.\nQ. How was that signed by Col. Moody ? A. In writing to the Inspector-\nGeneral of Fortifications, as officer commanding.\nQ. As Colonel Commander ?    A. Or officer commanding.\nQ. And in the other book he would sign \" Chief Commissioner of Lands and\nWorks\"?    A. Yes.\nQ. Which of these books would that be in? It would not be in the\nGovernor's book.    A. I think you will find a letter to the Governor.\nQ. I mean a letter to the Inspector-General of Fortifications ? A. Oh, no,\nthat is purely military. 30\nQ. That would only be in the military book ? A. Might have been copied\nin the other books ; it might, but that is where it should be. \\\nQ. How long was that book kept: that book of military correspondence ? A.\nFrom the first, I presume.\nQ. When was the last time you saw it ? A. There was no reference to it\u2014\nI could not have seen it, couldn't have much to do with it after 63 or 64.\nQ. Col. Moody left with the detachment, did he not ? A. No, a few of\nthem went home; a number of them remained in the colony ; had the privilege.\nQ. The Clhief Commissioner of Lands and Works after Col. Moody's departure\nwas not a military officer ?   A. No. 40\nQ. And the Officer of Land and Works had nothing to do with military\nmatters after that ?    A. No.\nQ. Did you ever see that book in the office of the Lands and Works after\nthe Colonel's departure ?   A. Yes.\nQ. Where ? A. In the office of Lomas; that was the clerk of the Works\nDepartment. 139\nA. I would say a month to his\nQ. What became of that book ?    A. It is impossible for me to say.\nQ. You saw it about 1864 ?    A. I should know the book if I saw it again.\nQ. You saw it in 1864 ?    A. Oh, I am certain of that.\nQ. And you never saw it later ?    A. I cannot remember.\nQ. You cannot remember ever having seen it after 1864 ? A. I cannot\nremember.\nQ. Did you ever see it in the office in Victoria ?    A. I believe I did.\nQ.  You think you saw it in the office in Victoria ?    A. I believe I did.\nQ. When and where ?    A. That I cannot say, because  I handled so many\n10 books in the office.    It is impossible to remember a think like that, unless your\nattention was directed to that book.\nQ. Now, there was a letter of a similar kind written to the Governor ? A.\nYes.\nQ. There is no doubt about that ?    A. Yes, sir.\nQ. Where did you see that letter ?    A. In the Governor's book.\nQ. That is in the book of letters addressed to the Governor ? A. Letters\naddressed to the Governor.\nQ. You think that would be somewhere about  1863?    A. The letter must\nhave been written before that, because it was signed by Col. Moody, and he went\n20 home in October or November.\nQ. How nearly can you fix the date ?\ndeparture.\nQ. About a month before his departure ?\nQ. How many of these plans were there ?\nand one smaller one, taken from Capt. Richards' Survey,\nQ. How was the plan made from Capt. Richards' Survey : was it marked on\nthe chart ? A. It would be marked on the chart, but that is not the\u2014(indicating\nchart).\nQ. This is the locality here  (indicating to witness on the chart) ?    A. That\n30 would be across here ; that would show Stanley Park ; part of it.\nQ. In what way would it be marked on that chart ? A. By a boundary line\nacross the narrow neck of land.\nQ. The chart was copied as a whole ; the reserves were marked on the chart\nitself?    A. Oh, no.    It was the outline taken from the chart.\nBy the Court\u2014About this chart.\nM!b. Duff\u2014He is speaking of five plans, one made from Capt. Richards'\nchart.\nQ. Now, the other four consisted of what ?    A. Of Mr. Trutch's survey.\nQ, When was that survey of Mr. Trutch's made ? A. That survey was made,\n40 I think, in April, '62 or '63.\nQ. You think that was made in 1862 or '63 ; that was of what locality ? A.\nBetween the Fraser River and the boundary line was one part of it.\nQ. You say a part of it was between the Fraser River and boundary line ?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Was there a separate plan for that ?    A. Yes, I think a separate plan for\nthat.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nA.\nA.\nYes.\nI think five\nfour large plans\nW\nm\n'i\ngoal\nI) 140\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney*\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nQ. That was one of the plans you speak of?   A. Yes.\nQ. We have got two,  one from  Capt. Richards' chart and one from Mr.\nTrutch's survey, between the Fraser and the boundary line ; what others were\nthere ?    A. One showing Lulu Island.\nQ. What did that embrace besides Lulu Island ? A. Lulu Island and the\nNorth Arm, and over as far as, I believe, the military reserve was included in\nthat plan ; I think it was that plan. There may have been two plans of it, but I\nthink it was all on one. At any rate, there was one plan that embraced the\nmilitary reserve at the Narrows, and came over.\nQ. You say another plan was one embracing Lulu Island, and that extended 10\nas far as Stanley Park ?    A. I think there  might have  been  another plan for\nStanley Park on the Meridian Line.\nQ. You think that plan extended as far as Stanley Park ?   A. I think so.\nQ. Were there any other plans ?    A. Yes ; there was a portion of it up at\nPort Moody.\nQ. That would nob include Stanley Park ?    A. No.\nQ. Were there any other plans?    These official plans which were signed by\nCol. Moody and stamped with the seal of the Department ?    A. There might\nhave been a plan in those days ; beyond Mr. Trutch's there was no survey made ;\nit was a piece here, and a piece there, as the settler required the survey of his 20\nland to get his title deeds.\nQ. There never was a survey of that part of the Province north of the\nFraser River up to the Inlet at that time ?    A. Roads were laid out.\nQ. I mean a complete survey of the whole country ? A. Roads; as\ntraversed, they could find the point, so as to fix an isolated survey.\nQ. You told us of two plans showing Stanley Park ; do you know of any\nothers? A. Not on the official plans, specified as spoken, but there were\nnumerous other plans; there was one I saw in this Court.\nQ. I am speaking now of plans signed by Col. Moody ?    A. Col. Moody ;\nno.    Mr.   Trutch's survey\u2014it   embraces  that,  and   these isolated  surveys 130\nspeak of.\nQ. You had Col. Moody's signature, then, on only one plan ? A, Oh, yes;\nall the plans were signed.\nQ. Are y\u00a9u sure they were all signed ? A. Sure they were; that was\nthe five I speak of, the official plans.\nQ. These five took in different parts of the country ? A. Yes; they were\nall in the New Westminster District.\nQ. They did not take in Stanley Park ?    A. Oh, dear, no.\nQ. How many plans taken in Stanley Park were signed  by\" Col. Moody ?\nA. There was one, the Index Plan, showing the reserves, and one plan on which 40\nStanley Park  was marked; not Stanley Park\u2014Stanley Park is  a new thing\naltogether ; it was the military reserve.\nQ. The Index Plan was the first; did that show the whole district ? A.\nNo ; only Burrard Inlet. Understand the Index Plan was taken from one of\nthe charts, and the charts don't extend more than half a mile inland ; they may\nface a river inland, but simply refer to the coast and the sound, 141\nQ. Why was it called the Index Plan ?    A. Because there was a reference   Record\nto it, to show what were military and what were naval. in the\nQ. That was all ?    A. As I understand it. Court11?\nQ. Had it \" Index Plan\" written on it ?    A. Yes. British\nQ. And it showed which was  the naval and military reserves on Burrard Oolun^ia\nInlet ?    A.   Yes. No. 60\nQ. Now, what appeared on  that plan  of Stanley  Park,  on  the  groundExhlb^27\noccupied by Stanley Park ?    A. That is   the general chart of Burrard Inlet; it Evidence of\nextends on here. %**%\u00bb\n10 Q. That is the only part of it, you   see (indicating) ?    A. The outline was Attomey-\ntaken from another chart, if that is the official plan of Capt. Richards. British '\nQ. You see that is Capt.  Richards' here (indicating) ?\nchart that has the whole of the\t\nA. There is one Columbia\nQ. One large chart, showing the whole inlet, is there ?    A. I am sure of it.\nQ.  One by Capt. Richards \u25a0?    A.  One by Capt. Richards.\nQ. And it is from a chart like that this tracing was taken ?    A. Yes.\nQ. What was the mark on Stanley Park on that plan ? A. Military\nreserve.\nQ.   Anything  more |      A.   No.     Military   reserve   was   all  that  I  can\n20 recollect, and the colours that were used.\nQ. What colour was on it ?    A. Red.\nQ. Was there anything marked on Deadman's Island ? A. I think it was\nsimply \" R\" ; I will explain why\t\nQ. Was there anything on the English Bay Naval Reserve ? A. Yes ;\nthere was an inner piece ; what they were marked I don't exactly recollect;\nthere was an outside piece and an inner piece.\nQ. What was marked on it ?    A. Naval reserve was marked on it.\nQ. And on the Granville Town site ; the naval reserve at Granville Town\nsite ?    A. That was simply across the neck of land leading to False Creek.\n30         Q. Were the words \" Naval Reserve \" written on it ?    A. It was coloured\nblue, and I think it more than probable\t\nQ. Were there any other military reserves ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Where were they ? A. There is a military reserve here on this point\n(indicating).\nQ. There is a military reserve\u2014now, you say there was a military reserve\nat the point on the north side of the Inlet at the 3rd Narrows ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Just at this junction of the North Arm and the Inlet ?    A. Yes ;\nNorth Arm and faces on the 3rd Narrows.\nQ. Faces on the North Arm and 3rd Narrows ?    A. Yes,\n40 Mr. Duff\u2014That is just west of Port Moody ?\nQ. How was that marked ?    A. Military reserve.\nQ. The words \" Military Reserve \" were written on it ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Was it coloured ?    A. Yes.\nBy the Court\u2014Marked red.\nMr. Duff\u2014Yes; my Lord.\nQ. Were there any other military reserves ?   A. No,\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nth\non tne\nI\nn 142\n3\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nQ. Sure there were none others marked on that plan ?   A. No.\nQ. That Index Plan then shows, as you say, a military reserve on Stanley\nPark, and the one you have just spoken of, and the naval reserves ? A. Naval\nreserves.\nQ. Did it show anything else ? A. Shows two naval reserves in Port\nMoody.\nQ. Does it show anything in addition to that ? A. No ; except a town site\nlaid out there.\nQ. Laid out where ?    A. At Port Moody.\nQ. Now, how was the town site coloured on that plan ?    A. I think\u2014I am 10\nnot quite sure about the colouring of that, or whether there was actually a town\nsite laid out then ; I am not quite sure ; I am under the impression that there\nwas a town site laid out at Port Moody.\nQ. Did it show the reserve on the north side of the 1st Narrows ? A. The\nnorth side ofthe 1st Narrows.\nQ. Yes ?    A. About the 3rd Narrows.\nQ. Did it show any reserves on the north side of the 1st Narrows? A.\nNo, except Indian; there was an Indian reserve made by the Governor, I think.\nQ. I want to know if this plan showed anything ? A. The plan, I don't\nthink did. 20\nQ. Did the plan show anything on the north side of the 1st Narrows ? A.\nNo.\nQ. When was the plan made ? A. That plan was made somewhere about\n1863, the close of Col. Moody's career in this Colony.\nQ. Was that the plan which was copied and sent to the Governor and\nInspector of Fortifications ? A. Tracings were made off that plan and sent to\nthe Governor and the Inspector-General of Fortifications.\nQ. What was the other plan that showed Stanley Park ; what was the\nother plan ? A. Contained the isolated surveys, that is to say, it was outside of\nMr. Trutch's survey. . 30\nQ. It showed Lulu Island, you said ?   A. Lulu Island was on Mr. Trutch's.\nQ. Showed the ground north of Lulu Island ? A. Yes ; the other was an\nisolated survey.\nQ. That showed a survey on Stanley Park; did it show the naval reserves\nas well ?    A. The naval reserves I question that;  I question whether it\nwent as far as the naval reserves, because that was taken up on the plan I speak\nof, the Index Plan.    The naval reserve was shown on the Index Plan.\nQ. You mean to say it was shown on this plan you have been describing to\nus; taken from Capt. Richards' survey ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Was there any other plan showing the naval and military reserves at 40\nBurrard Inlet than the one you have spoken of ?   A. You mean the official\nplan ?\nQ, Yes ?    A. No ; there were no more as I know of.\nQ. There is only that one that you have spoken of?   A, No, 143\nQ. You say there was a plan which did show Stanley Park as a military\nreserve ? A. Yes; as a military reserve, and numerous other plans have been\nmade, based on that plan, but are not considered official.\n_ Q. And on these plans Stanley Park was marked as a military reserve ?    A.\nMilitary reserve.\nQ. Stanley Park was marked as a military reserve on all these plans? A.\"\nOr initials that would make it.\nQ. What would be the initials ?    A. M.R.\nQ. Stanley Park was marked as a military reserve on all the official plans ?\n10 A. Yes, where it occurred ; Stanley Park was not known\u2014merely refers to that.\nQ. I suppose Deadman's Island was also marked as a reserve on all those\nplans ?    A. Deadman's Island was also marked.\nQ. You are speaking of plans in the Office at the time you left in 1878, are\nyou?    A. Yes.\nQ. You are quite certain about that.    Now, there was a military reserve\nopposite Westminster, was there not ?    A. Opposite New Westminster\u2014no.\nQ. You are quite positive about that ?    A. Yes, sir, quite positive.\nQ. Do you know anything about a military reserve at Hope ?    A. No.\nQ. Never heard of that ?    A. No.\n20 Q. As far as you know there was not any ?    A. No.\nQ. And there was nothing in your department to show that there was a\nmilitary reserve at Hope ?    A. No.\nQ. Do you know of a military reserve at Keremoes Bend in the Similkemeen\nRiver ?    A. There was a military reserve up there.\nQ. Quite certain about that ?    A.  Quite certain about that.\nQ. And then, according to your idea,  as far as your recollection goes, the\nonly military reserve was the reserve at Stanley Park, and the one at the 3rd\nNarrows ?    A. The one at 3rd  Narrows\u2014but there were  other  Government\nreserves made ; there was a reason for these reserves being made.\n30 Q. You told my friend that there was a plan on which the military reserves\nwere marked red, and the naval reserves were marked blue, and the town site\nreserves were marked brown ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Which was that plan ? A. On the index plan I am speaking of, marked\nby colour, which gives it the name of index plan.\nQ. Where were the town site reserves on the index plan marked brown ? A.\nGranville, now Vancouver.\nQ. You say there was on that index plan Granville Town site marked reserve\nin brown ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Were there any words written over ?    A. I believe \" Granville Town\n40 site.\"    I think these were the words.\nQ. Was there any other town site reserve on that index plan ?    A. Yes,\nHastings; at the Second Narrows, a large reserve, too.\nQ. Marked brown ?    A. Yes.\nQ. What do you call the second narrows ?    A. I will show that to you, sir.\nQ. Perhaps you would not mind marking them on this \"Ex. 4\" just as\nwell as on that perhaps ?   A. That (indicating) is the second narrows.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nm\nI 144\n1\n31\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nA. '62 or '63 ; I am\nInlet ?    A. Indian\nQ. Between the words \" Burrard \" and j Inlet \" on Ex. 4 ? A. The writing\nthere must be taken for granted as being official.\nQ. Could you mark an \"X\" showing it; that would be right, would it ?\nA. A little further this way, I think.\nQ. Marked an | A \" there ? A. I should say it comes to about there, and\nextends down here (indicating).\nQ. Mr. Howse, you don't understand me; I think a mark where the second\nnarrows are ?   A. Here is the narrows.\nQ. Where I put | X \" you see, is that right ? A. Hereabouts, I would say\nit is actually leaving only a small channel for the water. 10\nQ. The town site you speak of. that Hastings town site, was just south of\nthe second narrows ?   A. Yes, on the south side of the inlet.\nQ. At the second narrows ?    A. At the second narrows.\nQ. The Gazette was published some time first in 1863 ?\nnot at all positive as to the date of the first Gazette.\nQ. Do you know of any other reserves  on  Burrard\nreserves.\nQ. Excluding Indian reserves, do you know of any other reserves excepting\u2014 ?\nA. There is a reserve here, I believe; made here on Bedwell Bay; does not show\nit on this chart, but, however. Bedwell Bay is here (indicating). 20\nQ. Do you know of any reserve between the second narrows and Granville\ntown site ?   A. No.\nQ. There never was any reserve ?   A. No, not to my knowledge.\nQ. I gather from what you said, Mr. Howse, that the practice in the\ndepartment maps was to mark the military reserve red and the naval reserves\nblue ?   A. Yes, and the naval reserves blue.\nQ. I suppose that prevailed on all maps ? A. Yes, had been the rule out\nhere in Col. Moody's time; red and blue were used, one to denote military and\nthe other naval.\nQ. And brown for the town sites ?   A. Brown for the town sites. 30\nQ. And that continued down to the time you left the department ? A.\nDown to the time I left the department.\nMr. Duff\u2014My Lord, I have not completed the cross-examination of this\nwitness j I am going to start a new branch.\nMr. Peters\u2014Asks for letter book.\nMr. Duff\u2014There was a mistake about that book\nanswer I got is there is no such letter.\nAdjourned until to-morrow at 11 o'clock.\nI sent for it, and the\n8th January, at 11 a.m. 40\nA. R. HOWSE\u2014Cross-Examination resumed by Mr. Duff :\u2014\nQ. You said, Mr.  Howse, there were only two military reserves on Burrard\nInlet ?   A. Only two. 145\nQ. And you said that on all the maps of the department, these reserves were\nmarked military reserves ?    A. Military reserves.\nQ. That is, the | military reserves \" were written on them ? A. To the\nbest of my belief, that is so.\nQ. That is your recollection ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Now, how were the naval reserves marked ; you told us that they were\nmarked in blue colour ; was there anything written on them ? A. It is invariable\nfor writing names that only black is used.\nQ. You told us, Mr. Howse, that the naval reserves were marked in blue, I\n10 think?    A. Yes.\nQ. Was there any writing on these reserves? A. I believe they were\nprecisely the same as the military reserves, but simply the word | naval.\" If not,\nit will be found on the index plan; the naval, blue ; the military reserve, red ;\nand the town sites, brown.\nQ. You say that on the index plan there was an explanation ? A. Yes,\nunder the head of 1 reserves.\"\nQ. And that showed that the red mark indicated military reserve ? A.\nYes.\nQ. And the blue indicated naval reserves ?    A. Quite so.\n20 Q. And the brown indicated town site reserves ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Was there anything printed on the reserve areas themselves\u2014on the\nindex plan ? A. No, I believe they were merely skeleton plans, skeleton outlines\ncoloured.\nQ. Now, this plan (I am referring, my Lord, to Exhibit 4)\u2014You might look\nat this Exhibit 4 (witness inspects the Exhibit) now on the index plan, the\nreserves are marked the same way as they are marked on Exhibit 4, are they\nnot ? A. As near as my judgment, they are marked the same, only there would\nbe the difference of the colour.\n- Mr. Peters\u2014I submit, your Lordship, if my learned friend intends to con-\n30 tradict thiff witness with regard to anything on  the index plan, he has got to\nproduce it and show it to him.    He is asking him now to practically compare\nfrom memory this plan with the index plan.\nThe Court\u2014I suppose I rule on that when he attempts to contradict him\nby the plan which, he refers to ; I cannot make a prophetic ruling, which may not\nbecome necessary.\nMr. Duff\u2014Of course your Lordship will see the difficulty we are in, is to\nascertain what plan it is this witness is referring to.\nQ. So far as you recollect, the references were shown in this plan in the same\nway that they are shown on Exhibit 4 ?    A. Yes, if that is a correct copy of this\n40 index plan.\nQ. What I mean is this\u2014that the reserves were marked in the same way ?\nA. Oh, yes.\nQ. Were coloured in the same way ?   A. Coloured.\nQ. And then the index plan had an addition, under the head of references,\nan explanation ?    A. Yes.\nQ. On what part of the plan was that ?   A.I cannot remember,\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo 60.\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued 146\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec,\n1900\ncontinued\nQ. You cannot.remember what part of the plan it was on? A. No ; it is\ngenerally\u2014\nQ. Let us see if you can remember where that explanation was on that\nindex plan ? A. These references are generally put on at the taste of the draftsmen. There is no rule in the department that he should put it in a certain\nplace.\nQ. The draftsman was Landers, was he not ? A. I cannot say ; different\nroom to mine altogether.\nQ. You did not see the index plan drawn up ? A. No, I was differently at\nwork.    I was formerly in that room, but had no control whatever. 10\nQ. Do you know whether it was made after or before you went into the\noffice ?   A. I was in the office from the commencement.\nQ. But you were not clerk from the commencement, were you, chief clerk ?\nA. In my military capacity I was clerk there.\nQ. You were not in the Lands Department from the commencement ? A.\nYes.\nQ. You were in the Lands Department from the commencement ? A. Trans-\n' ferred from the Royal Engineers into a civil capacity.\nQ. What was your capacity at the outset in the office ? A. In reference to\npre-emptions and afterwards deeds, filling in of the deeds. 20\nQ. What did they call you ?    A. Clerk of records at that time.\nQ. Was that your first office, clerk of records ?    A. Yes.\nQ. Just leaving the question of your capacity ; in the meantime, I want you\nto try and remember, Mr. Howse, if you can, whether or not these directions were\nactually on that index plan, and where they were ? A. It would not have been\nan index plan unless those references had been put in.\nQ. What do you mean by that ? A. I mean that the references to the plan\nshould draw the attention of the person examining any portion of that plan to the\nreferences\u2014that is the index.\nQ. You say these directions were on that plan, because you think they should 30\nhave been there ?   A. May I enquire what you mean by these directions.\nQ. References ?   A. I understand that.\nQ. You say the references were on the plan, because you think they should\nhave been there ?   A. Yes, certainly.\nQ. And you cannot actually remember seeing them on that document ? A.\nI can remember perfectly well it being an index plan ; that they were referred to.\nQ. But you cannot remember seeing these references, as you call them themselves, on this particular document ? A. Certainly, they were on that plan, and\nit would not have been an index had they not been there.\nQ. Which of the spots set out here on this Exhibit 4 were marked in brown 40\non that plan ?   A. There was one place down at Granville that was marked, and\nanother place at Hastings.\nQ. That is the Granville Town site and the Hastings Town site were marked\nin brown ?   A. Exactly.\nQ. Those are the only places on that plan marked in brown? A. That is my\nrecollection. Hil\n14?\nRECORD\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\n10\nQ. Now, down at English Bay, you told us, I think there was a small spot,\nand then there was a larger boundary outside of that ?    A. I think so. in the\nQ. That was on the index plan too ?    A. That would be shown on the index Supreme\n1 \"\u25a0 Court of\nPlan. British\nQ. The smaller one was marked in blue ?    A. I don't kuow that was marked Columbia\nin blue, but I fancy there was a small space inside that marked blue\nQ. How was the outside marked ?    A. In outline,\nQ. I mean with what colour ?    A. In black. Evidence of\nQ. There was an outline in black ?    A. Yes, all the plan is drawn in black. on?rM\u00b0oTe\nQ. I have not made myself clear to you ; I understood you to say yesterday Attorney-\nthere is a space marked off on English Bay ?    A. Exactly. British \u00b0\"\nQ. And then a larger space marked outside just the same  as  there is  on ^\u00b0A^a^*\nGeneral of\nT Canada\nA. That I cannot say.\n21st Dec.\n1900\nA. In blue.    The fact is,continued\nExhibit 4 ?    A. Yes.\nQ. A smaller space was marked in what colour ?\nthink in blue.\nQ. In what colour was the larger space marked ?\nthe outside line is declared a naval reserve.\nQ. Do you. know what the extent of that reserve was?    A. The figures, area,\nI cannot say;\n20 Q. Now, then, we come to the other maps that you have referred to ; all the\nother maps have the words | Military reserves \" marked on the area, had they\nnot, or had they ?    A. Do you mean all subsequent maps ?\nQ. No, you spoke of some, how many maps showed Stanley Park and Dead-\nman's Island as a reserve ? A. The plans showing Stanley Park were numerous\nin the office what I left.\nQ. We will speak of the official map, the map signed by Col. Moody, with\nthe seal on it ?    A. With the seal on it was the official map.\nQ. How was Stanley Park marked there ?    A. In red.\nQ. Were the words | Military Reserve\" written on it ?    A. I  believe  the\n30 words | Military Reserve \" were on that plan, to the best of my belief they were.\nQ. Will you swear to it ? A. Or at any rate, they will appear in the index\nplan.\nQ. Can you say positively that the words I Military Reserve\" appear on\nthe plan you have last spoken of, on the area known as Stanley Park ? A. To\nthe best of my belief, yes.\nQ. Can you do anything better than that ; is that as far as you can go ? A.\nI believe that is the only way I could describe it. I have repeatedly said that\nunder the head of references refers to these places.\nQ. I understand that, but I want to know what actually appeared on this\n40 map ?    A. I have already stated what actually appeared.\nQ. What did appear ? Tell us what there was on it ? A. There were\nMilitary Reserves, which is proved by the reference ofthe index.\nQ. You say there were military reserves, and that it is proved by references\nof the index plan ?    A. Yes.\nQ. And there were military reserves, because they were marked in red ?   A.\nExactly.\nm* 148\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n19001\ncontinued\nQ. And because the index plan showed that, because they were marked in\nred, they were military reserves ?   A. Yes.\nQ. And you cannot say there was anything else on the plan showing that\nthey were military reserves ?   A. No, not to my recollection.\nQ. And on all the plans in the office, reserves marked in red were military\nreserves?   A. Yes.\nQ. And reserves marked in blue were naval reserves ?    A. Yes.\nQ. And when you saw a plan, with a reserve marked in  red, you  knew it\nwas a military reserve ?   A.  Yes, or at any rate with regard to these points.\nQ. Mr. Howse, was there any list of these maps kept ?    A. That I  cannot 10\nsay, but I believe there was.\nQ. Was not there a book showing a list of maps in the office ?   A. There\nwould be an inventory made of these at the time Col. Moody left.\nQ. There would be an inventory of the plans made in the office ?  A. Yes.\nQ. At the time Col. Moody left ?   A. Yes.\nQ. When did you leave the office, Mr. Howse?    A. I think it was in 1878.\nI have lost the date when I left.\nQ. Did you resign your office ?   A. I did.\nQ. Was it at the suggestion ofthe Chief Commissioner ?   A. Certainly not'\nmy own act. 20\nI\nRe-Examination by Mr. Peters.\nQ, You were asked with regard to an inventory of plans that was made\nwhen Colonel Moody left ?   A. Yes.\nQ. Did you see that inventory? A. I must have seen it; passed through\nmy office.\nQ. Who prepared it ?   A. Very probably Captain Luard.\nQ. Was it signed by anybody ? A. It would be signed by Captain Luard\nand the Colonel.\nQ. Colonel Moody ?   A. Yes.\nQ. Now you stated to Mr. Duff, that on all plans in the office, the military 30\nreserves were marked in red, and the naval reserves blue ?   A. Yes.\nQ. Do you know anything about the custom of the office after you left it ?\nA. Nothing whatever.\nQ. You were speaking up to the time you were there ? A. I am speaking\nof the time I was there, and more especially under Colonel Moody.\nIn reply to Mr. Peters, who repeated his request for the letter, transmitting the tracings to the Governor, Mr. Duff says \\heve is no such letter in\nexistence\u2014the letter book does not contain any such letter; and is willing to\ntender the letter books under the notice to produce.\nMi. Peters does not want to search the letter books and asks for the par- 40\nticular letters to the Governor of British Columbia and the Inspector-General of\nFortifications.\nMr. Duff is referring to the letter to the Governor in regard to the other, .\nMh Peters has attempted to give evidence ; the proper way would be to produce i: -:-\u2022      f,   14& -   \u25a0\nthe letter from the office of the Inspector-General; but does not wish to raise\nany technical objection.\nMr. Peters claims the right to give notice to produce any documents;\nwhether he can put it in evidence or not, is a question to be raised afterwards.\nThe Court does not see how Counsel can refuse to produce a letter which\nthe witness here has stated was sent by his commanding officer to the Governor.\nMr. Peters has shown there was a book, but has not shown it was in the possession of the Lands and Works Department, up till lately, yet it would be in\nsomewhat different light to the communication of the Department.\n10 Mr. Duff's answers is that as far as the document is concerned, he has not\ngot it; it has been searched for; all  the searches go to show there is no such\nbook or document in our possession.\nMr. Bodwell urges the document is not in the jurisdiction of the Court, and\nhe certainly can produce secondary evidence of it now ; has tried to get it, and\nhas been unable. The Dominion Government through whom the search was\nmade has reported that the English authorities were not able to find it.\nMr. Bodwell will take the letter of the Dominion Government as evidence.\nMr. Peters will put it in evidence later on.\nMr.  Bodwell  pressed his point that  the  secondary evidence (as already\n20 mentioned) must go out of the record or the foundation be produced ; insists\nupon the right in that respect; if Mr. Peters does not produce the information\nfrom the Inspector-General of Fortifications, then that must go out of the record.\nI am going to ask you what that book containing the military correspondence did contain, whether it contained all the correspondence relating to\nmilitary matters ?\nMr. Peters objects ; it is asking the contents of a document without producing\nit; it was part of his learned friend's orginal examination.\nThe Court rules that Mr. Duff is asking the indulgence of the Court to clear\nup a point.\n30 The objection appeared to be pressed ; the Court for'information would like\nto ask witness a question.\nBy the Court\u2014\nQ. What sort of correspondence was included or was copied into that\nmilitary book ? A. Mostly military letters to the Inspector-General of\nFortifications.\nQ. Would there be any letters ? A. There were other letters; those letters\nof a private nature, I presume, of Colonel Moody, he took home with him and\nthey were torn out of the book.\nQ. This book, marked \" Military Book\" had two classes of letters, one\n40 on purely military matters ?    A.  Yes.\nQ. It has two classes of letters, one purely military, and the other, Colonel\nMoody's private correspondence ? A. Not private correspondence\u2014it was called\nthe \"Confidential Book.\" The military and colony had nothing whatever to\ndo with it ; it rested entirely between Colonel Moody and the Inspector-General\nof Fortifications.    Those letters, I believe, were taken from the book.\nRbcCrd\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nEvidence of\nA. R. Howse\non trial of\nAttorney-\nGeneral of\nBritish\nColumbia\nv. Attorney-\nGeneral of\nCanada\n21st Dec.\n1900\ncontinued\nw\nm 150\n\\4\ni\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 60\nExhibit 27\nQ. What letters did Colonel Moody take from the book, when he went\naway ?    A. The military letters.\nQ. What was left in the book, if it .was called j The Military Book\" ?\nA. Those were very likely such as reserves, and with reference to other matters\nnot purely military.\nQ. Were any letters contained in that Military Book, which were \u2014which\nreferred to the administration of other than colonial matters ? A. Yes, mixed\nwith matters\u2014a sort of mixture of military and colonial.\nQ. Do you mean to say there was correspondence in that book between\nColonel Moody and Governor Douglas ?    A. No.    I am under the impression 10\nthat entirely referred to England ; to the Old Government; the Governor's book\nwas a separate book altogether.\nWitness stands down.\nNo. 61\nExhibit 26\nNo. 61.\nEXHIBIT   26.\nH. Q. 71\u201411\u20146. C. St. G.\n(Telegram.)\nTo Hon. Sir F. Borden,\nTelegram Ottawa, Sept. 28th, 1904.\nMcPherson to Prom Vancouver, B.C., Sept. 27th.\nsir f. Borden        Can you allow me to announce soon that the lease of Stanley Park to the\n1901 City is accomplished along the lines proposed.    Important to me.\n(Sd.) R. G. McPHERSON.\nCertified True Copy.\n(Sd.) B F. Jarvis,\nAssist. Deputy Minister Militia and Defence.\nOttawa, November 22nd, 1909.\n20\nC. St. G.\nH. Q. 71\u201411\u20146.\nDEPARTMENT OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.\nOttawa, October 3rd, 1904.\nSir,\nWith reference to your telegram to the Minister of Militia and Defence of\nthe 28th ultimo, I have the honour to inform you that the Minister, in view of\n3rd Oct. 1904 the suit pending as regards Deadman's Island, is unable to  do anything to\nfurther your wishes in this matter at the present time.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient servant,\n(Sd)    I\n30\nLetter\nDeputy\nMinister of\nMilitia and\nDefence\nto R. G.\nMcPherson\nR. G. McPherson, Esq.,\nVancouver, B.C.\nF. PINAULT,\nColonel,\nDeputy Minister of Militia and Defence.\n40 151\nCertified a true copy of a copy on file in the Department of Militia and Defence\n(Sd.)   E. F. Jarvis,\nAssistant Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence.\nOttawa, November 22, 1909.\n10\nH. Q. 71\u201411\u20146. C. St. G.\nOttawa, October 20th, 1904.\nTo R. G. Macpherson,\nVancouver, B.C.\nMinister willing grant City lease of Stanley Park, but cannot do so before\njudgment is rendered in Deadman's Island case.\n(Sd.)   COL. PINAULT.\nCertified true copy.\n(Sd.)    E. F. Jarvis,\nAssistant Deputy Minister Militia and Defence.\nOttawa, November 22, 1909.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 61\nExhibit 26\nTelegram\nDeputy\nMinister of\nMilitia and\nDefence\nto R. G.\nMcPherson\n20th Oct.\n1904\nNo.  62.\nEXHIBIT 37.\nNo. 62\nExhibit 37\n20 H. Q. 71\u201411\u20146.\nVancouver, B.C..\nLetter\nCity Clerk to\nCo,    fi   Minister of\n. Ot. Lr. Militia and\nDefence\nAugust 11th, 1906. 5\u00a3Al*\nThe Honourable,\nThe Minister of Militia and Defence,\nOttawa, Ont.\nSir,\nI am instructed by the City Council of Vancouver to respectfully request\nthat in the lease which you are making to the City of Vancouver of Stanley\nPark military reserve, Deadman's Island be specifically included. In the original\n30 Order-in-Council, passed on the 8th day of June, 1887, the Government military\nreserve was handed over to the Corporation for use as a park\u2014the Dominion\nGovernment retaining the right to resume the property when required at any\ntime, but that, until it should be required for military purposes, it was recommended that the Corporation should have the use of same as a park.\nThe recent suit has determined that Deadman's  Island was part of the\nmilitary reserve.    The Island has always been considered as part of the park by 152\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 62\nExhibit 37\nLetter\nCity Clerk to\nMinister of\nMilitia and\nDefence\n11th Aug.\n1906\ncontinued\nthe citizens of Vancouver, and, in fact, very shortly after the Order-in-Council\nof 1887 was passed, the Island was connected with the mainland by a bridge, so\nthat it might be accessible at high tide. At low tide no water divides the Island\nfrom the park.\nI am, Sir,\nYour obedient servant,\n(Sd.)   ARTHUR McEVOY,\nCity Clerk.\nCertified true copy.\n\"E. F. Jarvis,\" 10\nAssistant Deputy Minister Militia and Defence.\nOttawa, November 22, 1909.\n1\n\/\ni\nNo. 63\nExhibit 36\nLetter\nActing\nDeputy\nMinister of\nMilitia and\nDefence to\nCity Clerk\n20th Aug.\n1906\nNo   63.\nEXHIBIT 36. :|\nDepartment of Militia and Defence,\nOttawa,\n20th August, 1906.\nSir,\nI have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter to the Minister 20\nof Militia and Defence of the 11th instant, in which you state that you have\nbeen instructed by the City Council of Vancouver to request that in the lease\nfrom  this Department  to the  City of Vancouver  of Stanley  Park  Military\nReserve, that Deadman's Island should be specifically included.\nI shall lay your letter before the Minister immediately on his return to the\nCity, for consideration] in connection with the proposed lease of Stanley Park to\nyour City, which question I may say is before His Excellency in Council.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient Servant,\nI     E. F. JARVIS, 30\nActing Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence.\nThe City Clerk,\nVancouver, B.C. H. Q. 71\u201411\u20146.\n153\nNo. 64.\nEXHIBIT 33.\nC St. G.\nExtract from a report of the Committee of the Privy Council approved by\nthe Governor-General on the 31st day of August, 1906.\nThe Minister of Militia and Defence recommends that the Minute of Council\nofthe 8th June, 1887, empowering the Minister of Militia and Defence of that\ndate to take the necessary steps to hand, over to the City of Vancouver for park\npurposes the military property now known as | Stanley Park \" be cancelled.\n10 The Minister further recommends that the said property be leased for park\npurposes for a period of 99 years renewable to six Commissioners, three of whom\nshall be appointed by the Governor in Council, and three shall be members of\nthe City Council, of whom the Mayor shall be one, and the remaining two\nselected by the said Council.\nThe Minister further recommends that the conditions of said lease be made\ngenerally on the lines of those under which the Point Pleasant Park, Halifax,\nNova Scotia, has been leased by the Imperial Government to the City of\nHalifax.\nThe Minister further recommends that the three Commissioners to represent\n20 the   Dominion   Government   be :   Charles   Doming,   Brewer;   Robert  Kelly,\nMerchant; and Fred C. Wade, Barrister.\nThe Committee submit the same for approval.\n(Sd.)    JOHN J. McGEE,\nClerk of the Privy Council.\nThe Honourable\nThe Minister of Militia and Defence.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 64\nExhibit 33\nOrder in\nCouncil\n31st Aug.\n1906\ni\n30 H. Q. 71\u201411\u20146.\nDear Sir Frederick,\nNo. 65.\nEXHIBIT   29.\nC  !bt.  (jr.\nOttawa, 27th November, 1906.\nRe STANLEY PARK LEASE.\nNo. 65\nExhibit 29\nLetter R, G\nMacPherson\nto Sir F.\nBorden\n27th Nov.\n1906\nNew lease along lines of conversation with Mayor Buscombe and myself,\nviz., the City to have full control\u2014no Board of Trustees \u2014the Park Commission\nto be elected by the people. No street cars or railways. 200 feet to be exempt\nfor the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club and the Vancouver -Rowing Club.    You 154\nrecord  r^ght exempt 250 feet altogether, and they could be afterwards allowed   to\noccupy the premises under a letter from you.\nYours sincerely,\n(Sd I R. G. MACPHERSON.\nCertified true copy.\n(Sd.) E. F. Jarvis,\nAssistant Peputy Minister Militia and Defence.\nOttawa, November 22nd, 1909.\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 65\nExhibit 29\nNo. 66.\n10\nNo. 66\nExhibit 34\nOrder in\nCouncil\n13th Augt\n1908\ni\nH. Q. 71\u201411\u20146.\nEXHIBIT  34.\nC. St. G.\nCertified copy of a Report of the Committee of the Privy Council approved\nby His Excellency the Governor-General, of the 13th August, 1908.\nOn a report, dated 10th August, 1908, from the Minister of Militia and\nDefence stating that by Order-in-Council of the 7th June, 1887, the military\nproperty at Vancouver, B.C., known as | Stanley Park,\" was authorised to be\nleased, under certain conditions, to the City of Vancouver for park purposes, and\nthat by Order-in-Council of 31st August, 1906, the said lease was cancelled and\nthe Minister of Militia and Defence empowered to lease the said property to the CO\nsaid City of Vancouver for park purposes, for a period of ninety-nine years,\nrenewable, the lease to be made to six Commissioners\u2014three to be appointed by\nthe Governor-General in Council, and the remaining three J?y the City Council of\nVancouver, and such lease to be made generally on the lines of the Agreement\nunder which His Majesty's Government has leased Point Pleasant Park at\nHalifax, Nova Scotia, to certain Directors representing the City of Halifax, of\nwhich agreement is hereto annexed.\nThe Minister recommends that the Order-in-Council of the 31st August,\n1906, be amended to provide for the leasing to the Corporation of the City of\nVancouver of the property in question instead of to six Commissioners ; the lease 30\nto be otherwise under the same conditions as contained in the said Order-in-\nCouncil, of 31st August, 1906.\nThe Committee submit the same for approval.\n(Sd.) RUDOLPHE BOUDEAU,\nClerk of the Privy Council.\nThe Honourable\nThe Minister of Militia and Defence. 155\nNo. 67.\nEXHIBIT   39.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 67\nExhibit 89\nH. Q. 71\u201411\u20146.\n~   _,  Letter\nG. if. A. McEvoy to\nOttawa, 28th September, 1908. SthSeptT\n1908\nE. F. Jarvis, Esq., Acting Deputy Minister,\nDepartment of Militia and Defence,\nOttawa, Canada.\nSir,\nite71\u201411\u20146.\n10 On behalf of the City of Vancouver, I beg to acknowledge with thanks\nreceipt of your communication of the 26th instant with enclosure stated therein.\n1 herewith submit for consideration draft of lease of Stanley Park to the\nCity, and have the honour to request an appointment in order to discuss same\nwith you.\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\nYour obedient Servant,\n(Sgd.) A.  McEVOY.\nCertified a true copy.\n(Sgd.) E. F. Jarvis, jj\n20 Assistant Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence.\nOttawa, 22nd November, 1909.\nH. Q. 71\u201411\u20146.\nCOPY   OF   TELEGRAM.\nG. P.\nTelegram\nMayor of\nVancouver, B.C., 2nd October, 1908.      ^McEyoy*0\n2nd Oct. 1908\nA. McEvoy, P.O. Box 393, Ottawa.\nCouncil authorise you to act on behalf of the City, re lease of Stanley\nPark and Admiralty Reserve.    Memorial Stanley Park mailed Thursday.\n(Sgd.) A.  BETHUNE, Mayor.\n30 Certified a true copy of file in the\nDepartment of Militia and Defence.\n(Sgd.) E. F. Jarvis,\nAssistant Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence,\nOttawa, 22nd November, 1909, 156\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 67\nExhibit 39\nMemorial\n28th Sept.\n1908\nMEMORIAL.\nMoved by Alderman Morton.\nSeconded by Alderman MacMillan.\nAnd Resolved:\nTHAT WHEREAS that Reserve, containing nine hundred and fifty (950)\nacres, known as Stanley Park, situate to the westward of the City of Vancouver,\nis vested in the Dominion Government.\nAND WHEREAS by a certain Order-in-Council, dated the 8th day of\nJune, 1887, possession of the said reserve was given to the Corporation of the\nCity of Vancouver for its use  as a Public Park, subject to the right of the 10\nDominion Government to resume possession of the same at its pleasure.\nAND WHEREAS the Corporation of the City of Vancouver has no power\nvested in it by the said Order-in-Council, beyond it- right to use the said reserve\nas a Park.\nAND WHEREAS there are a number of small unsightly dwellings of an undesirable character existing on the foreshore and beside the public roads in the\nsaid Park, harbouring squatters and undesirable characters detrimental to the\ninterests of the public, and greatly marring the beauty of the Park.\nAND WHEREAS there is presently no power vested in the Corporation of\nthe City of Vancouver to prevent the continuation of the nuisances that exist 20\nas above, and the usefulness of the Park to the public is greatly affected thereby,\nand in consequence thereof the citizens cannot enjoy the Park to the same\nadvantage as they could were such nuisances repressed, and there always existing\na great danger of fire destroying the trees and the beauty of the Park by reason\nof the dwellers and squatters as aforesaid.\nAND WHEREAS the City has expended upwards of Two Hundred\nThousand Dollars ($200,000.00) in making.the roads and annually improving the\nPark:\nBE IT RESOLVED that it is in the interests of the City of Vancouver and\nthe public generally that power be vested in the City as that would enable it to 30\nput an end to the nuisances that now exist and to prevent the recurrence of them\nin the future, and that in order to place the Corporation in such a position as it\nshall have power to further improve the Park and keep the same more strictly as\na Park for the use and benefit of the Public generally, a Petition be forwarded to\nthe Honourable the Minister of Militia and Defence, praying that a lease be\ngranted of the said Stanley Park for a period of ninety-nine (99) years, with\npowers of eviction, and such powers as are necessary to secure to the City complete control thereof.\nDated at the City of Vancouver, in the province of British Columbia, this\n28th day of September, 1908. 40\nCertified a true copy,\n(Sgd.) RUDOLPHE BOUDEAU,\nC.P.C. 157\nNo. 68.\nEXHIBIT 40.\nH. Q. 71\u201411\u20146.\nSir,\nOttawa, October 6th, 1908.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 68\nExhibit 40\nQt P. Letter\nE. F. Jarvis\nto City Clerk\n6th Oct. 1908\nI have the honour to inform you that his Excellency in Council was pleased\non August 13th last to cancel the Order in Council of August 31st, 1906,\nauthorising the lease of the military property known as | Stanley Park \" for park\npurposes, to a commission representing the City of Vancouver, and to authorise\n10 in lieu the lease ofthe said property to the City of Vancouver, under conditions\nsimilar to those under which Point Pleasant Park, Halifax, is under lease to\ncertain directors representing the City of Halifax.\nAdvantage has been taken of the visit to Ottawa of Mr. Arthur McEvoy,\nformerly Solicitor of your City, to draft the conditions of this lease, and I enclose\nherewith, to be executed by His Worship the Mayor, a copy of the lease in\nduplicate.\nIf the lease is satisfactory, kindly return both copies after they have been\nsigned by His Worship, in order that they may be signed by the Minister,\nwhen a copy will be returned to you.\n20 I have the honour to be. Sir,\nYour obedient servant,\n(Sd.)    E. F. JARVIS,\nActing Deputy Minister.\nThe City Clerk,\nVancouver, B.C.\nCertified a true copy of a copy on file in the Department of Militia and Defence.\n(Sd.)    E. F. Jarvis,\nAssistant Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence.\nOttawa, 22nd November, 1909.\n30 158\nNo. 69.\n-7\nEXHIBIT 35.\nBoard of Park Comissioners,\nVancouver, B.C.\nTHIS INDENTURE, made the first day of November, 1908,\nBETWEEN\nHIS MAJESTY KING EDWARD VII., acting through the Honourable the\ni\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 69\nExhibit 35\nLease His\nMajesty King\nEdward VII\nto City of\nVancouver        Minister of Militia and Defence for the Dominion of Canada, ofthe first part,\n1st Nov. 1908 x\nAND\nTHE CITY OF VANCOUVER of the second part, 10\nWHEREAS by Order-in-Council ofthe 7th day of June, 1887, the military\nproperty at Vancouver, B.C., known as \" Stanley Park,\" was authorized to be\nleased under certain conditions to the City of Vancouver for park purposes.\nAND WHEREAS by Order-in-Council dated 31st August, 1906, amended\nby Order-in-Council dated 31st August, 1908, the said the Honourable Minister\nof Militia and Defence was empowered to lease the said property to the City of\nVancouver for park purposes for a period of ninety-nine (99) years renewable,\nsuch lease to be made generally on the lines of the agreement dated 31st\nDecember, 1873, between the Principal Secretary of State for the War Department of the one part and the directors of Point Pleasant Park, Halifax, Nova 20\nScotia, of tre other part, whereby the said Point Pleasant Park was leased to the\nsaid directors representing the City of Halifax.\nAND WHEREAS the said property consists of all that portion ofthe City\nof Vancouver (and the foreshore adjacent thereto bounded by the western limit of\nDistrict Lot 185 Group 1 New Westminster District as shown on the official plan\nthereof filed in the Land Registry Office at Vancouver) and the low water mark\nof the waters of Burrard Inlet, the first Narrows and English Bay, and being all\nthat peninsula lying to the west and north of said District Lot 185. known as\n\"Stanley Park.\" NOW THEREFORE it is by these presents consented covenants and agreed and license is hereby given that said lands or such parts 30\nthereof (as shall not at any time or times hereafter be required by His Majesty\nor his successors for all or any military uses or purposes defensive, including the\nerection of forts or batteries or other buildings whatsoever for all which the\nexclusive possession and control shall remain in and belong to His Majesty as\nheretofore) shall and may henceforward he used, occupied and enjoyed by the\nCity of Vancouver for its use as and for a public park for the term of ninety-nine\nyears (renewable perpetually on the same terms and conditions as herein contained)\nsubject until their determination to any existing leases of portions of said land\nand to conditions following, that is to say :\u2014\n1. The rent of one dollar per annum shall be paid to the Department of 40\nMilitia and Defence for the use of the said park.\n2. The Minister of Militia and Defence shall have full power to resume and\ntake possession without compensation of any portion of said lands or any buildings 159\nRECORD\nnow or hereinafter to be erected thereon  whenever  it  may  be  required in his       _\njudgment  for any military purpose whatsoever, including such portions thereof jj\u00a3 *^ne\nas may be required to be occupied as gardens for any troops quartered thereon.     Court of\n3. His Majesty's naval and military forces may at any time the General or oS^rnbia\nother  officer  commanding  require  it,  march  through, manoeuvre or otherwise       \u2014\nexercise on 1 he said lands and encamp thereon. Exhibit35\n4. The existing main road round the peninsula, together with any new       \u2014,\ncarrying roads that may be formed, shall be maintained and kept in order by the Majesty ^Ong\nCity of Vancouver PROVIDED however that the use of any roads or any portions Edward yn\n10 thereof may be discontinued with the sanction of the Minister of Militia and Vancouver\nDefence. c\"sn\u00ab \u00b0v'd19\u00b08\n5. No establishment for the sale of intoxicating liquors, etc., shall be\nerected on the said lands in any form without the sanction of the Minister of\nMilitia and Defence.\n6. The said Minister of Militia and Defence shall have power at any time\nto exercise the right of quarrying stones or cutting down trees or other obstructions in case of military necessity and also of cutting sods for the repair of earthworks.\n7. Any agreement by the City of Vancouver for pasturing or other occupa-\n20 tion of the said lands shall be subject to the right of the Minister of Militia and\nDefence to resume possession thereof if required for any military use or purpose.\n8. The Minister of Militia and Defence and the City of Vancouver shall\nseverally have the right of closing the park one day in each year against the use\nthereof by the public.\n9. No stones shall be quarried on the said property nor any trees cut therefrom (except for the purpose of opening the roads thereon) without the sanction of\nthe Minister of Militia and Defence.\n10. The City of Vancouver shall, with the consent of the Minister of Militia\nand Defence, have the right to lay, make and maintain such reservoirs, pipes and\n30 other apparatus of said lands as may in the opinion of the Council of the said\nCity be necessary or expedient for the maintenance, amendment or extension of\nthe water supply of the said City,\n11. The Minister of Militia and Defence may re-enter on the said land on\nbreach of any of the covenants entered into as aforesaid by the City of Vancouver,\nand thereupon thisagreement-and all rights and interests ofthe City of Vancouver\nand of the public thereunder shall immediately determine.\nIN   WITNESS   WHEREOF  the said Honourable Minister of Militia and\nDefence hath hereunto set his hand and seal and the City of Vancouver has hereunto set its corporate seal by the hand of its Mayor and City Clerk.\n40 (Signed)    Seal ofthe Department of Militia and Defence,\nF. W. BORDEN,\nMinister of Militia and Defence for the\nDominion of Canada.\n(Signed)    Seal of City of Vancouver,\nALEXANDER BETHUNE, Mayor.\nWM. McQUEEN, City Clerk. 160\nNo. 70.\nEXHIBIT 3.\nVancouver, B.C., June 7th, 1909.\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 70\nExhibit 3\nDemand for   To the Corporation of the City of Vancouver.\npossession\nby Plaintiffs On behalf of Mr. Theodore Ludgate, at present of the City of Seattle, in the\nState of Washington, U.S.A., and carrying on business under the firm name of\nVancouver Lumber Company, and the said Vancouver Lumber Company, WE\nHEREBY DEMAND that you forthwith go out of possession of the whole of\nDeadman's Island at present occupied by you, and we hereby give you notice that\nunless you go out of possession at once proceedings will be taken against you to 10\nrecover possession.\nDAVIS, MARSHALL & MACNEILL,\nSolicitors for Theodore Ludgate and Vancouver Lumber Company,\nLessees from the Dominion of Canada.\nNo. 71\nReasons for\njudgment of\nMorrison J.\n31st Jan.\n1910\nNo. 71.\nREASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE\nfift MR. JUSTICE MORRISON.\nStanley Park, which included Deadman's Island (see Attorney-General of\nBritish Columbia v. Attorney-General of Canada, 1906, a.d., 552) and which, 20\nthen being an imperial military reserve, had been some years 'previously transferred by the Home Government to Canada, was, in turn, by Order-in-Council of\nthe 8th June, 1887, handed over by the Dominion of Canada, whilst still a\nmilitary reserve, to the newly-incorporated city of Vancouver for use as a public\npark. Possession was immediately taken by the city pursuant to this authority,\nand large expenditures of municipal moneys were, and are, being made periodically in improvements and maintenance. Possession has been held since,\ncontinuously, by the city.\nHowever, on the 3rd of February, 1899, the Plaintiff made application to the\nMinister of Militia and Defence for a lease of Deadman's Island to be used for 30\nindustrial purposes, and on the 14th of February, following a lease of Deadman's\nIsland, which is described therein as being \u25a0 near the city of Vancouver, was\nexecuted by the Minister of Militia, and the Plaintiff acting for the Vancouver\nLumber Company. This lease was for a term of 25 years with the right by the\nlessor to terminate the alleged demise at any time upon demand if required for\nmilitary purposes.    At that particular date there was   no Order-in-Council 161\nm existence authorising such a lease, although on the 10th day of February,\n1899, as appears from a Report ofthe Committee of the Honourable the Privy\nCouncil, a memorandum from the Minister of Militia recommending that a lease\nbe given the Plaintiff of Deadman's Island for a term of 25 years at a rental of\n$500.00 per annum was submitted to His Excellency the Governor-General for\nhis approval. His Excellency did not give his approval until the 16th. No\nnotice or intimation of the Minister's intention in this respect was given by him\nor on his behalf to the Defendants. On the contrary, negotiations with the city\nwere then actually pending with a view to granting to them a lease pursuant to\n10 the Order-in-Council of 1887 and later correspondence. On the 4th April, 1900,\nat the request ofthe Plaintiff, the lease ofthe 14th February, 1899, was, as the\ninstrument recites, \"modified,\" by removing therefrom the conditions as to\ndetermining the demise and also any restrictions as to the lawful user of the said\npremises as contained therein. This i modified \" document further provided that\nthe said lease so modified should, after the expiration ofthe first 25 years, be\nrenewed for a further term of 25 years at a rental of each renewal term to be then\ndetermined by arbitration in case of any difference as to the amount of rental.\nThe Plaintiff, however, it would seem, magnanimously consented to the reservations to the lessor of any right the Crown might then or hereafter possess of\n20 expropriating the demised premises for the public use. Whatever view may be\ntaken of the validity of the lease of the 14th February, 1899, there was no\nauthority whatever upon which the Minister could alter its terms so fundamentally, so that it cannot be taken as any sort of ratification of the instrument of\nFebruary 14th, 1899. Armed with this equivocal title the Plaintiff, on the 7th\nJune, 1909, demanded possession of the premises in question from the city who\nhad by force resisted his intrusion. The city had in the meantime succeeded in\ngetting a lease from the Minister of Militia of Stanley Park in this way : Whilst\ncontinuing in possession undisturbed and recognised by the Government, and\nnegotiating  for what they claimed as better evidence of their  title they were\n30 advised at one time, in effect, by the Minister of Militia, that no instrument other\nthan the Order-in-Council could be given. Later on it appears that upon further\nadvice received from the department of justice the Minister in 1898 expressed his\nconsent to granting a lease, and although the city kept demanding one pursuant\nto the Order-in-Council, 1887, it was not till 31st August, 1906, that an Order-\nin-Council was passed purporting to cancel this Order-in-Council of 1887, and, in\nthe same order, authorising that a lease be given the city of Stanley Park, the\nlease to be made to six commissioners. As this arrangement did not seem to meet\nthe desired requirements, a further Order-in-Council was passed on the 13th\nAugust, 1908, amending that of 1906, and authorising that the park be leased to\n40 the city instead of six commissioners, for 99 years, the lease to be made generally\non the lines of an agreement upon which the Imperial Government had leased\nthe military property known as Point Pleasant Park, at Halifax, Nova Scotia.\nA copy of this agreement was annexed to the Order-in-Council, and it contains,\namong other things, copied by the city word for word into its own form of lease,\nthis clause : \" Subject until their determination to existing leases of portions of\nsaid land.\"\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 71\nReasons for\njudgment cf\nMorrison J.\n31st Jan.\n1910\ncontinued 162\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 71\nReasons for\njudgment of\nMorrison J.\n31st Jan.\n1910\ncontinued\nIt appears that on November 27th, 1906,  Mr.  MacPherson,  who then\nrepresented the City of Vancouver in Parliament, wrote the Minister of Militia\nrecommending that from the proposed lease to the city there be exempted a\nportion of the premises occupied by them for the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club\nand also for the  Vancouver Rowing   Club\u2014two  distinct clubs.     That  Mr.\nMacPherson's recommendation for a lease to those two clubs was kept in mind by\nthe department seems clear from the correspondence.    On the 30th July, 1908,\nan Order-in-Council was passed approving of a lease to the Royal Vancouver\nYacht Club.    Whether  a  lease was in fact given pursuant to this Order-in-\nCouncil does not appear.    This  briefly was  the  position of affairs when the 10\nPlaintiff, having failed to get possession of the property in question, brought this\naction for possession and trespass and damages against the city, resting his case\nupon the instruments ofthe 14th February, 1899, and the 5th April, 1900.    The\nvalidity of the city's lease is not questioned by the Plaintiff.    He contends, however, that it is specifically subject to his lease as above recited.    I cannot go so\nfar as to agree that the Ludgate lease is specifically or at all referred to in the\ncity's lease.    The clause in the city's lease relied upon by the Plaintiff is in\ngeneral terms, and there is some evidence as to how that clause was inserted and\nto shew that the lessor at the time of executing the city lease had not the Ludgate lease in mind.    It appears that the city had the control of the drafting of 20\nthe instrument and wrere then, and at all times previous thereto, taking a position\nat entire variance with the contention that they were in any way a party to\nrecognising the Plaintiff as having any interest in the premises in question.\nEven assuming there was an Order-in-Council upon which  the lease of\nFebruary, 1899, was based, that Order-in-Council is ultra vires inasmuch as the\nlicense granted the Defendants by the Order-in-Council of 1887 became, in my\nopinion irrevocable before 1899.    Plimmer v. Wellington, 9 A.C. 699, Jones v.\nTankerville   (1909),  2   C.G 440.      But   it   is   contended   by  the   Plaintiff\nthat  by  the Order-in-Council  of 1906,   the   City   waived   the   right   they\npreviously might, have had.    I do not agree.    The action of the City in having 30\nthe Order-in-Council of 1887 cancelled (and in the same order receiving authorisation for a lease) was simply the act of passing one hand over the other in their\ngrip on the chain of possession in order to more firmly retain it.    I cannot quite\nunderstand the reason for such a superfluous act as this notional cancellation of\nthe original Order-in-Council, unless indeed it be accounted for by the inexactitudes of the departmental terminology, on the one hand, and the over-confidence\nof the City in good faith of the department on the other.   If the Plaintiff thought\nhe was securing a lease of a portion of Stanley Park, then the Minister and he\nwere never ad idem, for the Minister committed a fundamental mistake of fact\nas to the identity of the property demised, and, as against the Plaintiff, the 40\nlanguage, if necessary, must be subordinated to the intent.    There was at no time\nany relinquishment, waiver, abandonment, or surrender of their position first\nobtained in 1887 in full reliance upon the faith ofthe Government of Canada.\nTo hold otherwise on the evidence would be to assert a serious breach of public\nfaith by that ruling part of the Ministry to which alone is entrusted the practical\nfunctions of Government    Why the department came to deal at all with the 163\nPlaintiff in respect to the locus under all the circumstances disclosed at the trial\nis quite inexplicable to me except on the assumption that the Minister, upon\nwhose recommendation the lease to the -Plaintiff was made, was not aware of the\nexact location of this property, and this assumption is borne out by the statements of the Honourable the Minister of Militia and Defence, Sir Frederick\nBorden, in his evidence on commission. I admit this evidence not to vary or alter\nthe Ludgate lease, but to shew that it is not an agreement intended to relate to\nany portion of Stanley Park. Pym v. Campbell (1856), 25 L.J., Q.B. 277 ; Doe\nv. Needs, L.J., Exhibit 59.\n10 Another ground upon which I think the   Plaintiff fails is  this : From the\ndispatches between the Imperial Government and the Dominion, the land in\nquestion was transferred to the Dominion of Canada by the Imperial Government\nimpressed with a trust, the recognition of which by the Dominion is manifested\nin the Departmental correspondence and their dealings with the City. The\nalienation or leasing of Deadman's Island as was sought to be effected by the\ninstrument of February 14, 1899, and the Order-in-Council of February 16th,\n1899, would be a breach of that trust as well as of their grant of possession to\nthe Defendant in 1887. The Plaintiff was not a stranger to the circumstances\nunder which the  City held  possession.    He  knew, or must be taken to have\n20 known, of the subsisting equities to which the property was subject and which\nthe Government in all conscience was bound to respect. But, parenthetically,\neven if it be conceded that Ludgate had obtained thus a legal status, he cannot\ninvoke, as was contended he could, the doctrine qui prior est tempore potior est\njure. Bailey v. Barnes (1894) 1 ch. 223, Jared v. Clements, 72 L.J.,\nch. 291, C.A.\nIn Alcock v. Cooke, 5 Bing ,348, Best, C. J., held it to \"be a principal ot\n\" common law that if the King makes a grant which cannot take effect according\n\" to its terms we must conclude that the King has been deceived in that grant\n\" and therefore that grant is void.    *    *    *    Having already leased the right of\n30 \" possession, he proposes by this grant to convey the same right of possession to\n| another person. Now, if it would be consistent with the King's honour (and,\n\" as it is stated in a case to which I shall presently refer, the common law has no\nI object that is dearer to it than to preserve that honour) it would be\n\"inconsistent with the King's honour that he should grant the right of\n\"possession in the same thing to two. And, therefore, the latter grant is\n\"altogether void. If the King is deceived in his grant, it is perfectly clear the\n\" grant is void.    It cannot be supposed unless he is deceived in his grant that he\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 71\nReasons for\njudgment of\nMorrison J.\n31st Jan.\n1910\ncontinued\n\" would\ngrant\nto\nA that which he has already granted to B: that would be\nivu tg occasion to litigation, which it is always the object of the King to\n40 \" prevent.\" As to the nature of Orders-in-Council, and as to how they are now\nsubstituted, in effect, for the old Crown prerogatives, I refer to the works of\nBroom and of Dicey on Constitutional Law : Institute of Patent Agents vs.\nLockwood (1894), A.6. 347 and 359 et seq: and Sec. 37 of the Interpretation Act\n(Canada), 1906. In the case at bar I do not think the Minister, in entering into\nthe lease in question which contains no reference to the Defendant's position in\nthe premises, took an accurate and deliberate view of all the circumstances, and in\ni 164\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 71\nReasons for\njudgment of\nMorrison J.\n31st Jan.\n1910\ncontinued\n\u00bb\ndealing with the Plaintiff he must be held to have been misled and mistaken.\nAlcock vs. Cooke supra Gledstane v. Earl of Sandwich, 4M and G. 995; and\nEsquimalt and Nanaimo Railway v. Fiddick (a decision of the Full Court of\nBritish Columbia not yet reported) are authorities which show that Crown grants\nhave been held void and in some cases upheld in actions in which the Crown was\nnot joined.\nMr. W. A. MacDonald invoked the provisions of an Act respecting Ordinance\nand Admiralty lands, being chap. 55 ofthe R. S. Canada, 1886. But the lands\nto which alone that Act applies are designated in the Schedule to the Act, which\ndoes not include apparently the lands in question. Of course it does not appear 10\nthat the Dominion in their correspondence with the Imperial Government asked\nto have the lands in question transferred as were the lands mentioned in the Act,\nand in the later correspondence between the Department of Militia and Defence\nand certain of the military reserve, references were made from which it may be\ninferred that this property was treated as having been denominated as class one\nor class two provided for in the Act (Reserves) in British Columbia in the same\nway as they dealt with the Ordinance lands under the Act, which declares they\nshall be retained by the Government of Canada for the defence of Canada, then,\nif this property in question is still in class one, although there is no power to sell\nit, there is power to lease it or use it otherwise as the Governor-General in 20\nCouncil may think best for the advantage of Canada. Having regard to the\nscope of the Act and the context, what is meant by leasing or otherwise using\nlands of this nature to the best advantage of Canada ? Counsel have not dealt\nwith this question, and the only reference I can find to this clause of the Act is\nthat by Burbridge, J., in the Quebec Skating Club v. The Queen, 3 Ex. rep.\n(Canada), p. 387. It may be inferred that the learned Judge considered that a\nlease or grant to the Skating Club would be such a use. I certainly do not\nthink that handing over this portion of Stanley Park, known locally as\nDeadman's Island, as claimed by the Plaintiff, is putting the property to a use\nthat is to the advantage of Canada as contemplated by the Act. 30\nIf, on the other hand, the property is in class two, then before sale (which\ncannot, however, in any way prejudice the right acquired by any person) or other\ndisposal thereof where the property is in actual occupation of any person with\nthe assent of the Crown, and improvements have been made thereon, it must be\nexposed to competition,- which was not done in this instance.\nThe action is dismissed with costs.\nAULAY MORRISON, J. 165\nNo. 72.\nJUDGMENT.\nMonday, the 31st day of January, a.d. 1910.\nThis action coming on for trial on the 10th, 15th, 16th and 17th days of\nDecember, a.d. 1900, before His Lordship Mr. Justice Morrison, without a jury,\nin the presence of E. P. Davis, K.C., and Mr. D. G. Marshall of Counsel for\nthe Plaintiffs, and W. A. Macdonald, K.C., and Mr. C. F. Campbell of Counsel\nfor the Defendant.\nWHEREUPON on hearing the witnesses adduced for the respective parties\n10 and reading the evidence  taken on  commission herein,  and  hearing what   was\nalleged by the Counsel aforesaid, this Court was pleased to reserve its judgment\nand this action coming on for judgment this day.\nTHIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND ADJUDGE that this action>tand\ndismissed, and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.\nAND IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED that the Defendant recover\nagainst the Plaintiffs its costs, to be taxed, including the costs of and incidental\nto the said Commission.\nBy the Court,\n\"A. B. POTTENGER,\"\n20 District Registrar\nEntered Vol. 4, p. 469\nFeb. 9, 1910.\nW.M.\n(S. C. Seal).\nRECORD\nIn the\nSupreme\nCourt of\nBritish\nColumbia.\nNo. 72\nFormal\nJudgment\n31st Jan.\n1910 \u2022\nVancouver, Feb. 9th, 1910, Registry\nApproved, \" D.G.M.\"\n\" A.B.P.\"\nA.M.J.\" 166\nRECORD\nIn the\nCourt of\nAppeal of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 73\nNotice of\nAppeal\n3rd Feb. 1910\nI\nNo.  73.\nNOTICE OF APPEAL.\nTAKE NOTICE that the above named Plaintiffs (Appellants) hereby\nappeal to the Court of Appeal from the whole of the judgment delivered by the\nHon. Mr. Justice Morrison, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, on the\n29th day of January, 1910, whereby the Plaintiffs' action was dismissed with\ncosts.\nAND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the said Court of Appeal will be\nmoved at' its sittings to be held at the Court House, in the City of Vancouver,\non Tuesday, the 5th day of April, 19i0, at the hour of eleven o'clock in the fore- 10\nnoon or so soon thereafter as Counsel can be heard, by Counsel on behalf of the\nabove-named Plaintiffs (Appellants) for an order setting aside the said judgment\nand for judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs upon the following among other\ngrounds:\u2014\n1. The said judgment is contrary to evidence.\n2. The said judgment is contrary to law.\n3. The Order-in-Council of the 8th June, 1887, reserved to the Dominion\nGovernment the right to resume possession, of any part of the land whenever\nrequired.\n4. The property never formed part of the Military Reserve petitioned for 20\nby the Defendants, and was not even at that time within the limits of the\ndefendant Corporation, and was not intended to be included by the Dominion\nGovernment in the said Order-in-Council of June 8th, 1887.\n5. If the said Order-in-Council of June 8th, 1887, amounted to a lease of\nthe property in question to the Defendants then there was a surrender thereof\nby operation of law by the acceptance by the Defendants of a new lease from the\nDominion Government to the Defendants, dated November 1st, 1908.\n6. The Order-in-Council of June 8th, 1887, was not and did not have the\neffect of a lease from the Dominion Government to the Defendants.\n7. The said'Order-in-Council of June 8th, 1887, was cancelled. 30\n8. The learned trial Judge erred in admitting certain evidence given on\ncommission at Ottawa by Sir Frederick Borden.\nAnd on other grounds.\nDated this 3rd day of February, A.D. 1910.\nD. G. MARSHALL,\nSolicitor for the Plaintiffs (Appellants).\nTo Geo. H. Cowan, Esq., K.C.,\nSolicitor for the Defendant (Respondent). 10\n167\nNo. 74.\nIN   THE   COURT   OF   APPEAL. >!?:\nON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.\nThe Honourable the Chief Justice.\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice Irving.\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice Martin.\nTuesday, the 1st day of November, 1910.\nBETWEEN\nVANCOUVER LUMBER  COMPANY and\nRECORD\nIn the\nCourt of\nAppeal of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 74\nFormal\nJudgment\n1st Nov. 1910\nTHEODORE   LUDGATE\nAND\nTHE  CITY  OF VANCOUVER\nPlaintiffs (Appellants),\nDefendants (Respondents).\nThe Appeal of the above-named Plaintiffs from the Judgment of the\nHonourable Mr. Justice Morrison pronounced herein on the 31st day of January,\n1)10, coming on to be heard before this Court at the City of Vancouver, on the\n;.ft 27th, 28th and 29th days of May, 1910, and the same coming on this day for\nJudgment, upon reading the Appeal Book herein, and upon hearing Mr. E. P.\nDavis, K.C., and Mr. D. G. Marshall, of Counsel for the Plaintiffs (Appellants),\nand Mr. W. A. Macdonald, KG, and Mr. C. F. Campbell, of Counsel for the\nDefendants (Respondents).\nTHIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND ADJUDGE that the Appeal of the\nsaid Plaintiffs (Appellants) be and the same is hereby allowed;\nAND THIS COURT DOTH DECLARE that the Plaintiffs (Appellants)\nare entitled to recover possession of all that certain Island known as \" Deadman's\nIsland,\" situate in Coal Harbour,  Burrard Inlet, City of Vancouver, and doth\nQA Order and Adjudge the same accordingly.\n4i)        AND   THIS  COURT   DOTH FURTHER   ORDER AND ADJUDGE\nthat the Plaintiffs (Appellants) do recover from the Defendants (Respondents)\ntheir costs of the Appeal herein, and their costs of the action including the costs\nof the Commission issued herein.\nBy the Court.\nA. B. POTTENGER,\nRegistrar.\n40\nEntered Nov. 7th, 1910.\nVol. 7, p. 85.\n\"N.M.\" 166\nRECORD\nIn the\nCourt of\nAppeal of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 75\nReasons for\nJudgment of\nMacdonald\nC. J.\n1st Nov. 1910\nNo. 75.\nIN THE COURT OF APPEAL.\nVANCOUVER LUMBER CO., AND THEODORE LUDGATE,\nv.\nCITY OF VANCOUVER.\nJUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MACDONALD.\nIt is now settled by the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy\nCouncil that what is now known as Stanley Park and Deadman's Island was an\nImperial military reserve, and was by despatch dated 7th March, 1884, transferred by the Imperial to the Dominion authorities. On the 18th June, 1887, a jq\nDominion Order-in-Council was passed giving to the City of Vancouver certain\nrights or privileges in this reserve, and one of the questions raised before us is\nwhether or not this Order-in-Council embraces the whole reserve or only that\nportion of it situate upon the mainland and exclusive of the island in question\nin this action. The petition of the City to the Governor-General in Council,\npresented in 1886, recited that \" whereas there is within our City limits a portion\n\"of land known as the Dominion Government military reserve, near the First\nI Narrows, and is bounded on the west by English Bay and on the east by\n| Burrard Inlet, your petitioners therefore pray that the said reserve should be\ni handed over to the said Corporation to be used by them subject to such restric- 20\n\"tions as to your Excellency may seem right to be and to be held by them as a\nI public park.\"\nIt will be noted that the land is described to be within the City limits. The\nCity's limits were defined by 49 Vict., ch. 2, section 2, and this section was\namended in the following year shortly prior to the 8th June, 1887, so as to\nextend the- boundaries of the City down to low water mark. This definition of\nthe City's boundaries would not in my opinion include the island in question\nunless we give effect to the City's contention that the so-called island is in reality\nnot an island at all, but part ofthe mainland. This contention is founded upon\nsome rather unsatisfactoi y evidence that at low tide certain persons have been 39\nknown to walk across the tide flats between the mainland and the island. It is\nto be noted, however, that the parcel of land in question is shown on all the maps\nand charts referred to in the evidence as an island ; that it appears on Captain\nRichards' Admiralty Chart of 1859-60 as an island, and is referred to prior to the\n8th of June, 1887, in the correspondence between the Federal and Provincial\nGovernments, as Deadman's Island. Whether, therefore, the land is technically\nan island or not, it was called an island and apparently treated as such at that\ntime.. Under these circumstances it is at least open to doubt that the City was\never in a position to assert that the island fell within the description of the\nproperty given over to its use by the said Order-in-Council.    But in view of 40 169\nwhat afterwards took place, and to which I shall refer presently, I do not think\nthat a decision on this point is necessary to the ascertainment of the present\nrights of the City. It does appear, however, that the City assumed to use the\nisland as part of its park, and shortly after the date of the Order-in-Council built\na foot-bridge from the mainland to the island and made a trail across the island\nitself. At a later period this foot-bridge was allowed to fall into decay, and no\nfurther care was taken of the trail. I refer to these facts not as showing that\nthe City intended to abandon what it conceived to be its rights in the island, but\nsimply that it did not openly and publicly assert those rights in such a way as to\n10 give notice to persons who might desire to acquire the island that it claimed it.\nMatters remained in this position until 1898, when the Plaintiff applied to the\nDominion Government for a lease of the island. It appears from a letter written\nby the Department of Militia and Defence, dated 3rd February, 1899, that the\nCity was notified that the Plaintiff was applying for such lease, and was asked\nwhether the City had any objection thereto. It is difficult to say whether the\ndepartment had in mind that the City might claim the island under the said\nOrder-in-Council, or simply wished to notify the City that it proposed to lease\nfor a site for a saw-mill an island close to the City. Such a disposition of the\nisland might be objectionable to the City quite apart from any possessory interest\n20 which it might claim. No answer to that letter was made for over a month, and\nin the meantime a Dominion Order-in-Council,. dated 16th February, 1899, was\npassed authorizing the Minister of Militia\" and Defence to let the island to the\nPlaintiff for a term of twenty-five years, at a rental of $500. In the following\nmonth the City sent a memorial to the Government protesting against this lease\nand asserting its right to possession of the island under the Order-in-Council\nofthe 8th June, 1887,\nThen arose a dispute between the Province and the Dominion with respect\nto the ownership of this island. It was finally decided in the Privy Council in\nfavour of the Dominion.    Thereupon  the  City  began  negotiations with the\n30 Government of Canada for a lease of Stanley Park, and during these negotiations\nthe City Clerk, who was also City Solicitor, at the instance of the Council, wrote\nto the Government asking that such lease should specifically include Deadman's\nIsland. Whatever vagueness there may have theretofore been with regard to\nwhat was intended to be included in the Order-in-Council of the 8th June, 1887,\nthe City now sought to have eliminated by the new arrangement which it was\nproposed to enter into. These negotiations resulted in the passing of the Order-\nin-Council. dated 31st August, 1906, which authorized a lease of Stanley Park\nto Commissioners, and at the same time purported to cancel the Order of the 8th\nJune, 1887.    This was not satisfactory to the  City, and as far as the evidence\n40 goes the dissatisfaction seems to have been on account of the provision vesting\nthe park in commissioners, and after two years delay a second Order-in-Council\nwas passed on the 13th day of August, 1908, varying the one of two years before\nby authorizing a lease direct to the City. In pursuance of this authority a lease\nwas on the 1st November, 1908, executed and delivered to the City. The terms\nof the lease appear to have been settled between the parties, the City being\nrepresented by a gentleman who had authority to act for the City, he who had\nRECORD\nIn the\nCourt of\nAppeal of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 75\nReasons for\nJudgment of\nMacdonald\nC. J.\n1st Nov. 1910\ncontinued 170\nRECORD\nIn the\nCourt of\nAppeal of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 75\nReasons for\nJudgment of\nMacdonald\nC. J.\n1st Nov. 1910\ncontinued\nwritten the letter ofthe 11th August, 1906. In view of these facts and circumstances it seems to me that we must look for the rights of the City after that\ndate within the four corners of that lease. The property in it is described as\nfollows:\u2014\nI AND WHEREAS the said property consists of all that portion of\nthe City of Vancouver (and the foreshore adjacent thereto bounded  by  the\nwestern limit of District Lot 185, Group 1,  New Westminster  District as\nshown  on the  official  plan thereof filed in  the Land Registry Office at\nVancouver) and the low water mark  of the waters of Burrard Inlet, the\nfirst Narrows and English Bay, and being all that  peninsula lying to the 10\nwest and north of said District Lot 185, known as ' Stanley Park.' \"\nA glance at the maps and charts in evidence will  show  that that portion of\nthe reserve on the mainland is aptly described as a peninsula.    Having regard to\nall the premises I am driven to the conclusion that  the description in the lease,\n\"all that peninsula lying to the west and north of District Lot 185, known as\nStanley Park,\" does not include the island in question, and that the City having\naccepted the lease following as it did the cancellation of the Order in Council of\nthe 8th June, must be held to have acquiesced in that  cancellation and cannot\nnow rely upon that Order.\nThe City's lease also contained a clause as follows :\u2014 - 20\nI Subject until their determination of any existing leases of portions of\nsaid land.\"\nIt appears that there were a couple of leases to athletic associations of small\nportions of Stanley Park. Both parties were aware of the existence of the\nPlaintiff's lease, which had never been cancelled. Now it is contended on the\npart of the City that the exceptions in favour of existing leases had reference only\nto the leases firstly above-mentioned, and not to the Plaintiff's lease. That contention seems to support the conclusion to which I have come that the island was\nnot included in the City's lease, because it is difficult to understand that the\nparties should ignore the Plaintiffs lease which is the most important one of all the 30\nexisting leases. The inference that I would draw is that it was only intended to lease\nStanley Park, using that term as applicable to the mainland, and that the City's\nrequest that Deadman's Island should be specifically included not having been\nacceded to, both parties quite well knew and intended that the description above\ncited describing Stanley Park as a peninsula, was restricted to the mainland and\ndid not extend to the island. But if the other view be taken, and it be held or\nassumed that the City's lease did embrace the island, then in view of the facts\nalready appearing above, I am of opinion that the Plaintiff's lease falls within\nthe description \" existing leases \" excepted from the lease to the City.\nThe next question is that of the validity of the Plaintiff's lease. The 40\nobjection was taken that the transfer of this reserve to Canada was not absolute\nbut was for military or public purposes only. \u25a0 Canada applied for it \"to be held\nand administered in the same manner as the lands of corresponding character in\nthe older Provinces formerly transferred by Her Majesty's Government to\nCanada.\"\nThe despatch already referred to specified no terms.     If therefore there are No. 75\nIt was also\ngiven at a time\nexistence\nthat the\nof the\nCrown\n171\nany limitations upon the use by Canada of this reserve, they must-be sought in        \u2014\nthe conditions, if any, attached to such previously transferred lands.      There is ^^ot\nnothing in the evidence to shew what those conditions, if any, were, but we are Appeal of\nreferred to the Ordinance and Admiralty Lands Act, as indicating how Canada Columbia\nassumes to deal with them.      It was indeed argued by Counsel for the City that\nthis Act is applicable to the reserve in question, but it is plain that this is not so.\n.The Act, however, does shew that Canada assumes power to alienate for Reasons for\nprivate as well as public purposes the lands transferred by the War Department Macdonald\nmentioned in the schedule to the Act.    As the disposition of the reserve in i J.\n10 question is not governed by the said Act, therefore the classifications mentioned in continued\nit are not applicable here.    This reserve, in my opinion, can be dealt with or disposed of as provided in the Public Lands Grants Act, R.S.C., 1906, c. 57, sec.\n2b, and sec. 4, which were in force in former-statutes at the date ofthe plaintiff's\nlease.\nurged against the validity of the Plaintiff's lease that it was\nwhen the Government .had no power to lease owing to the\ncity's rights under the order of the 8th June, and it was urged\nmust have been deceived when it authorised a lease without\nreferring to the prior rights ofthe City; and the case of Alcock v.  Cook, 5 Bing,\n20 340, was relied on in support of this, Assuming that the island was embraced in\nthe order of the 8th June, still I do not see that the doctrine laid down in Alcock\nv. Cook is applicable to the facts of this case. I say this with all deference to the\nlearned trial judge who came to the opposite conclusion. In Alcock v. Cook the\nCourt was careful to point out that it came to the conclusion that the Crown had\nbeen deceived by reason of one essential fact, namely, that the prior title, in that'\ncase a lease, had been enrolled, and was therefore notice to all the world; that\nthe Plaintiff who obtained a grant subsequent to such lease, knew, or must be\nassumed to have known, of the prior lease, and must have concealed the fact from\nthe King, and  therefore deceived him into making the subsequent grant.    I do\n30 not think the facts in this case would justify me in saying that the Plaintiff knew\nof the Order-in-Council of the 8th June, or that he even knew that the City were\nmaking claims to the island. On the facts of this case it seems to me that we\nought not to presume, and cannot properly presume that the Plaintiff deceived\nthe Crown.\nIt was also urged that the Plaintiff's lease is not in accord with the Order-in-\nCouncil of the 16th February, 1899, under which it was authorised. This is\ntrue, but the provisions of the lease which go beyond the terms of the order are\nseverable, in which case the lease is good for the balance. In Hervey v. Hervey,\n1 Atk. 561, Lord Hardwicke said :\u2014\n40 \" Suppose a power to lease for 21 years and the person leases for 40,\n\" this is void only for the surplus, and good within the limits of the power.\"\nSee also Perry v. Bowen, Nel. 87 ; Alexander v. Alexander, 2 Ves., Sr. 644 ; and\nLord Sondtss Will, 2 Sm. and.Giff*2&l. \u00ab?4i6\nObjection was taken by counsel for the Plaintiff to the evidence of several\nof the Defendant's witnesses, and also to the admission of certain letters and\nother documents.    It seems to me that a considerable portion of the evidence\n\u25a0\n4\nr.4\\\nI RECORD\nIn the\nCourt of\nAppeal of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 75\nReasons for\nJudgment of\nMacdonald\nC. J.\n1st Nov. 1910\ncontinued\n172\nwas inadmissible. An example is contained in the following extract from the\nevidence of one of those witnesses :\u2014\nQ. In connection with this lease of Deadman's Island did you, as an alderman, intend that any rights you should have should be lost under this new\nlease ?\nMr. Davis objects.\nA. No.\nQ. Was there any intention on your part or, as far\npart ofthe Council, to let the Ludgate lease or any lease in\nlease?   A. No.\nI do not propose, however, to go into an analysis of the\nbut simply say that I have paid no attention to evidence of\nrecited.    Some of the correspondence objected to is also\nwhile others of it have some bearing* as shewing* notice or\nof one or other of the parties of circumstances which maj\npreting the different leases and Orders-in-Council under rev\nI think the appeal should be allowed.\n(Signed)    J. A.\nVictoria, B.C.,\nNov. 1st, 1910.\nas you know, on the\nahead of the City's\nevidence objected to,\n- the character above\nclearly inadmissible,\nknowlege on the part\nbe looked at in inter-\niew.\nMACDONALD.\n10\n20\n1\nI\nNo. 76\nReasons for\"\nJudgment of\nIrving, J.\n1st Nov., 1910\n* ? 16th Feb.,\n1899\nNo. 76.\nJ;     JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE IRVING. $i\nI agree that the appeal should be allowed and judgment entered for Plaintiffs.\nThe dispute is as to the title to Deadman's Island, and the sole point is, did\nthe Dominion Government lease it to the Plaintiffs or to the Defendants.\nThat question, I must say, seems very simple if we read the documents under\nwhich the parties make their respective claims.\nOn the 14th February, 1899, a lease for twenty-five years was issued to 30\nthe Plaintiffs. It is said that this lease is bad because the Order-in-Council\nunder which it was said to be executed bears the date two days later. That\nseems to me to be immaterial for more than one reason, but in any event the\nlease was recognised as being a good and valid lease by a subsequent document executed the 4th April, 1900, under authority ofthe Order-in-Council\nof * 16th April, 1900.\nThe Plaintiffs, then, having shewn their title, in what way does the City\nsupport its claim ?\nFirst of all the City puts forward the Order-in-Council dated the 8th June,\n1887. 40\nThen, secondly, a lease to the City dated the 1st November, 1908.\nThe Order-in-Council of 8th June, 1887, is to a certain extent indefinite in\nits description of the property proposed to be dealt with.    The application for\nthe land uses the expression \" a portion of land known as  ' The Dominion 173\nGovernment Military Reserve within our City Limits,''' but assuming that it\nwas intended to include the island, and that it conferred any title, that Order-in-\nCouncil was wholly cancelled by an Order-in-Council dated 31st August, 1906. It\nis argued that nothing was done under this Order-in-Council of 31st August,\n1906. I do not understand exactly what is meant by that argument. If you\nrepeal an Act by another Act, there is an end of the first Act and the rights\nconferred by it. If you cancel an Order-in-Council by another Order-in-Council\nthere is an end of the first Order-in-Council and the privileges granted by it.\nThe first Order-in-Council, granted to the City the use of the park, 1 subject to\n10 the right of the Dominion Government to resume the property when required at\nany time.\" The Order-in-Council of 31st August, 1906, was a resumption by the\nDominion Government, and when that was passed the privilege granted by the\nOrder of June, 1887, was at an end ; so it may be said that on the 1st September, 1906, the City had no title whatever to the property that had been handed\nover to it for use as a park.\nIf the island fell within the reserve there described\u2014and I do not think it\ndid\u2014the right of the City thereto was gone, cancelled.\nThen, on the 1st November, 1908, the City applied for a lease\u2014but of what ?\n\"All that peninsula lying to the west and north of District Lot 185, known as\n20 Stanley Park.\"\nIt seems to me to be unnecessary to go further than this. These words \" all\nthat peninsula lying to the west and north of District Lot 185 known as Stanley\nPark \" are altogether inapplicable to Deadman's Island.\nIf one looks at the land itself or at a map or chart of the harbour and the\nNarrows, or if you read the judgment of the Privy Council (1906), A.C. 552,\ndelivered in July, 1906, in the action brought by the Attorney-General of British\nColumbia against Ludgate, or the letter of the 11th August, 1906, asking that\nthe island be specifically included in the new lease, one cannot help seeing that\nthe Dominion Government did not intend to include in the lease of November,\n30 1908, the island. If any one will read the lease granted to the City in\nNovember, 1908, he or she will see that they relate to two different properties\nand are granted for different purposes. Ludgate has the island with power to\ncut down trees with the right of erecting thereon a lumbering plant, wharves,\netc..\nThe City, on the other hand, has the peninsula for use as a public park.\nThe City is \"to keep the existing main road round the peninsula in good order,\nand no trees shall be cut by the City without permission of the Government.\"\nDoes not the use of the words \" existing main road round the peninsula \" shew,\nbeyond doubt, what Peninsula is meant ?\n40 I would rest my decision on these few documents, and as they seem so\nexceedingly plain I shall not deal with the many alternative propositions which,\nin my opinion, only obscure the issue to be decided.\n(Signed)   P. E. IRVING.\nfmm\nMm\nHI\nRECORD\nIn the\nCourt of\nAppeal of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 76\ngirl\nm\nReasons for -\nJudgment of\n9JH\nIrving J.\n1st Nov. 1910\ncontinued\nEg!\npal\n:;l#5 tUP\nWM\nm 174\nRECORD\nIn the\nCourt of\nAppeal of\nBritish\nColumbia\nNo. 77\nReasons for\nJudgment of\nMartin J,\n1st Nov. 1910\nNo.  77\nJUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARTIN.\nMy view of this case is that the Order-in-Council of 8th June, 1887 (which I\nthink was a valid one), was not more than a licence to the City to use the property\nfor park purposes, which licence was revocable at will, being made expressly subject\nto two definite conditions, one of which was the right of the Dominion Government I to resume the property when required at any time.\" There is no limitation of this right of resumption, and in my opinion it might be exercised, as it\nplainly says, at 1 any time,\" and as to the whole or part of the property and for\nany reason, good or bad, or, indeed, for no reason at all; it is quite outside our 10\nprovince to inquire into this phase ofthe matter. The case of Plimmer v. Mayor,\netc., of Wellington (1884), 9 A.C. 699, really supports the Plaintiff's case and not\nthe Defendant's. I fail to see the application of Jones v. Tankerville (1909),\n2 CD. 440, to the facts at bar.\nThe lease of the 14th February, 1899, to the Plaintiff Company of Deadman's\nIsland would, assuming it to be valid, of itself, apart from any other acts, have\nthe effect of a resumption of that small part of the park (assuming the Defendant's contention is correct that Deadman's Island is part of the park), which has\nadmittedly not been used by the public since the bridge was destroyed on\nDecember 24th, 1901, and nothing happened between 1887 and the date of this 20\nlease that had the effect of altering the rights of the Federal Government. As\nto its validity, even if it could not be upheld because the Order-in-Council\nauthorizing it was not approved until two days after its execution, nevertheless\nm the lease ofthe 4th of April, in the following year (which must be held to be\nauthorized by said Order-in-Council at least for the terms of 25 years), the first\nlease is recited and treated as a valid instrument and amended as agreed to by\nthe same parties. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that the joint effect\nof these two instruments is at least to place the Plaintiffs in such a position that\nthey are not open to attack from a party holding the status of the Defendant\nCorporation, which in law was at the mercy ofthe Crown. I cannot accept the 30\nview that in any event there was authority to resume for military purposes only,\nin the face of the statute (cap. 55, R.S.C., 1886), which says that the lands in\nclass one \" may be leased or otherwise used as the Governor in Council thinks\nbest for the advantage of Canada.\" This Court cannot substitute its view for\nthat of the Governor in Council.\nThe fact that more than eight years afterwards the corporation at last\nobtained a lease (which I assume to be valid) of the whole area, cannot, in the\ncircumstances, have the effect of disturbing the Plaintiff Company in its vested\nrights to the small portion already long before leased to it. Taking this view of\nthe main questions, it is unnecessary to consider the other points raised further 40\nthan to say that to my mind no element of a trust is present, and that section\n6 of the rejoinder clearly should be struck out.\n(Signed)   ARCHER MARTIN,\nNovember 1st, 1910. J. A. 176\no\no\nNo.   78.\nAT   THE   COURT   AT   BUCKINGHAM   PALACE,\nThe 4th day of March, 1911.\nRECORD\nNo. 78\nOrder of\nPrivy\nCouncil\ngiving leave\nto Appeal\n4th March\n1911\ns^f:\nPresent:\u2014\nThe King's Most Excellent Majesty\nLord President Lord Sandhurst\nLord Denman Mr. J. A. Pease\nMaster of Elibank.\n10\nWHEREAS there was this day read at the Board a Report from the\nJudicial Committee of the Privy Council dated the 28th day of February\n1911 in the words following viz. :\u2014\n20\nHIS MAJESTY having taken the said Report into consideration was\npleased by and with the advice of His Privy Council to approve thereof and\nto order as it is hereby ordered that leave be and it is hereby granted to\nthe Petitioners to enter and prosecute their Appeal against the said\nJudgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia dated the 1st day of\nNovember 1910 upon depositing in the Registry of the Privy Council the sum\nof 3001. as security for costs.\nAnd the authenticated copy  under the seal of the said Court of Appeal\nof the Record pleadings proceedings and evidence produced upon  the  hearing\nof the said Petition is (subject  to  any  objections of the Respojadefi'ts) to be\naccepted as the Record proper to be laid before His Majesty on the hearing\nof this Appeal.\nWhereof the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia for the time being:\nand all other persons whom it may concern are to take notice and govern\nthemselves accordingly.\nSi\nALMEEIC FITZROY. ftt tht fritrg (tmmol.\nNo. 17 of 1911.\nOn Appeal from the   Court   of Appeal o\/{\nBritish Columbia.\npty        BETWEEN\nCITY OF VANCOUVER # .\n(Defendant), Appellant,\nAND\nVANCOUVER LUMBER COMPANY\nM\\    AND THEODORE LUDGATE .\n(Plaintiffs), Respondents.\nRECORD OF PROCEEDING\nARMITAGE, CHAPPLE & MACNAGHTEN,\n80, Bishopsgate, E.C,\nfor AppellanU.i\nBISCHOFF, COXE, BOMPAS & BISCHOFF,\n4, Great Winchester Street, E.C,\nfor Respondents.  ","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Includes index.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType":[{"value":"Legislative proceedings","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier":[{"value":"971-133-V22vd-V17","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt":[{"value":"10.14288\/1.0221950","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language":[{"value":"English","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider":[{"value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher":[{"value":"[place of publication unknown] : [publisher not identified]","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights":[{"value":"Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy, or otherwise distribute these images please contact digital.initiatives@ubc.ca.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/source":[{"value":"Original Format: Vancouver Public Library. 971.133 V22vd","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title":[{"value":"[Deadman's Island Case] in the Privy Council, no. 17 of 1911, on appeal from the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, between City of Vancouver (Defendant) Appellant, and Vancouver Lumber Company and Theodore Ludgate (Plaintiffs) Respondents. Record of Proceedings","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type":[{"value":"Text","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description":[{"value":"","type":"literal","lang":"en"}]}}