Page:1898 NB Magazine.djvu/376

another paper, pausing only to observe in passing that our historical data seems to show conclusively that Messrs. Simonds, White and Hazen always proceeded with their improvements in cultivating, draining, dykeing and placing tenants and cattle on the marsh lands on the assumption that these lands were their property, which of course could not have been the case if the Red Head intended in the grants of 1765 and 1770 had not been on the east side of Courtenay Bay. Further than this the decision in the case of Nokes versus Hazen and White in 1792 seems to have been that Red Head as commonly understood was the Red Head intended in the grants. A summary of the evidence given in this trial will be found towards the end of this paper, showing pretty conclusively that Red Head was understood by Simonds, White, Hazen, and all their employees as well, to be situated on the east side of Courtenay Bay.

Samuel Peabody in making his survey of the second grant began at the place now commonly known as Red Head, and ran his line 120 chains eastward as directed. The wording of the grant here reads, "thence North 15 degrees West 160 chains or until it meets the Kennebeckacis, and thence to run Westerly until it meets the North-eastern bound of the said former Grant." On running his line north the required 160 chains, Mr. Peabody found it did not reach the Kennebecasis by about three and a half miles.^[1] In accordance with his conception of the meaning of the words of the grant he then ran a diagonal line (as on the plan) "westerly to the north east bound of the former grant." Upon the discovery that the greater part of the marsh lay outside the bounds of the second grant as thus surveyed, Messrs. Hazen and White became very uneasy. They had lately spent a good deal in improving the marsh in the vicinity of what is now Coldbrook