Page:The-new-brunswick-magazine-v3-n3-sep-1899.djvu/31
of York Point instead of at Red Head as commonly understood.
The line of argument followed by Donaldson and Ansley in their very able report was about as follows: That in the interpretation of the bounds specified in the grants, regard was to be paid to the intention of government quite as much as to the claims of the grantees. That it could never have been the intention of government to fix the bound at Red Head on the east shore of Courtenay Bay, for in that event the grant of 1765 would be found to include not 2,000 acres, as stated in the grant, but 5,496 acres, while the second grant of 1770 would contain not 2,000 acres but 3,236 acres. They further contended that a literal construction of the wording of the two grants harmonized much better with the theory of a Red Head situate at the Mill Pond than with a Red Head situate on the eastern side of Courtenay Bay.
It is clear that the civic authorities were rather late in raising the question of the validity of the title of the old grantees after those gentlemen had been for more than sixty years in undisturbed possession. The question as to the correct interpretation of the bounds of the two grants is, however, a very interesting one.
In the first grant made October 2, 1765, to James Simonds, Richard Simonds and James White, the bounds are described as:—
"Beginning at a point of upland opposite to his house and running east until it meets with a little cove or river—thence bounded by said cove till it comes to a Red Head on the east side of the cove, thence running north eleven degrees fifteen minutes west till it meets the Canebekassis River, thence bounded by the said river the River St. John and harbour till it comes to the first mentioned boundary—with allowance for bad lands, &c., and containing in the whole 2,000 acres more or less."
It must be admitted that great carelessness is displayed in the wording of this grant. Not only is the