of the appeal ettr Stepheus could not show-
that the line ficially adopted: from the line fixed by
was d
differout
the judgment, and
he then asked that as the judgment did not sufficiully indicate the line that further enquiry should be hold and
evidence taken
Ch
the point. The Court, compered of the Chief Instive and uspelf,
of opinion that the judgment and the evidence upon which it was
based, olcarly indicated the line, and
that
210
funthion
evidence on
386
had to decide during the time I was
Acting Neviens Judge
Adv a o
whether
live which the thief ductive had ruted to be the boundary live between
and 185 had been correctly-
1811
pointed
or not.
tod out to the Registrar
Imeier pronounced anything
with respect to the correctrices of the boundaries, nor did I, as alleged by
in the last part of bio
M." Stephens
Pris
as granted.
letter, alter the boundaries as
that point
by
the lease.
any Order was
required, and my
confinued.
And that ended
with the case.
my
connection
I had nothing whatever to do with the granting, or preparation of the beaver, and the only question ad
had
From the above statement it will,
I trust, be seen that cur
Stepheus has
no foundation for any of the statuente
complexit contained in his letter.
or co
(Signed) Edw. J. Ackroyd
Registrar
Dated this 27th day of February
1886
Page 390Page 391