well as sound extended policy. It cannot, therefore, permit ever existed. But if this had been shewn, it was be presumed that the proprietary officers knew the incumbent on the party to obtain an office-right after lands surveyed to Conrad Weiser, to be without the the opening of the Land Office on the third of April, limits of their purchases. It would form an exception 1769, or in a reasonable time afterwards; and no case to their uniform established practice, and ought to be has yet gone further than by extending that time to the clearly shewn. The warrant in all probability, pursued month of July following. Here the warrant was not the terms of the special order, and was for lands in obtained till 1784, and the military permit had, long some part of the new purchase." The order to Samuel before, lost its preference. As to the consent of Hayes Weiser, to make the appropriation, called for lands a to a line, it can have no effect, unless he was authorized small distance from another tract, which was confessed-to settle boundaries. The evidence was over-ruled, and ly within the purchase. If other words were used in verdict for plaintiff. the warrant, it ought to be shewn; and its absence induces a presumption, that if produced, it would operate against the party. No mountains or waters are to be seen on the survey, from whence it might be inferred, that the lands designated thereby, were out of the Indian purchase. If the king is deceived in his grant, it will be avoided. Any contract or deed will be visited by allegatio falsi, sive suppressio veri. The plaintiff suf. fered a nonsuit. This principle is fully recognized in Kyle's lessee . White. Both plaintiff and defendant had settled on the Indian land, on Juniata, previous to the purchase of 1754. Neither of them, says the chief justice, can derive title from the date of their improvements, because they were made against law, on lands not purchased of the Indians. 1 Binney, 248. This case will be again cited for other purposes. As settlements under military permits are excepted by the act of February 3d, 1768, and the proclamation of the 24th of the same month, it is proper that class of cases should be considered here. During the Indian warfare, it was necessary for the accommodation of the the armies on the line of their march, that such settlements should be encouraged in the wilderness. And it was reasonable,that persons who by such permission, had settled plantations, at the risque of their lives, for public accommodation, (throwing aside all motives of private interest, which, no doubt, had their influence,) should have the preference, when the office was open for the sale of the lands. Such preference was accordingly given. In Blaine's lessee v. Crawford, Alleghany, May, 1793, before M'Kean, C. J. and Yates, J. (MSS. Reports.) It is recognized as a principle, that a military permit to settle and improve lands, is not to be regarded, unless followed by a settlement and improvement. Before we proceed to the general subject of the Land Office, it is proper to bring into view the public trans actions respecting boundaries with the adjoining states. With respect to the state of New Jersy, there could be no controversy as to the general boundary of the river Delaware, but the jurisdiction in and over that river, and the islands therein, became the subject of compromise. An agreement was accordingly entered into by the two states, by means of commissioners, on the 26th of April, 1783, and ratified by act of assembly, passed 20th of September, 1783, (chap. 1024,) all which may be seen at large in this volume, ante. page 77, and need not be repeated here; see also an act annexing the dif ferent islands in the Delaware allotted to this state, to the jurisdiction of the adjoining counties, 26th of Sep. tember, 1786, (post. chap. 1234.) With respect to New York, commissioners were appointed, in pursuance of an act passed 31st of March, 1785, (chap. 1143,) to join with commissioners on the part of the s'ate of New York, to ascertain the northern boundary of this state, from the river Delaware, westward, to the northwest corner of Pennsylvania. This duty was executed, and the line run and marked, which line was ratified and confirmed by an act passed September 29th, 1789, (post. chap. 1446,) which, as it may be seen at large in this volume, need not be repeated in this note. By an act passed 27th of March, 1790, (chap. 1489,) three hundred pounds were granted to Reading Howell, for delineating on his map all the lines of this state, as established by law, or otherwise fixed and ascertained. The draughts of the Delaware, and the boundary line between this state, and the state of New York, returned by the respective commissioners, are deposited in the office of the secretary of the commonwealth. 1754, to build a fort, to prevent the encroachments of the French, at the Fork of Monongahela, where Pittsburg now stands. And to encourage the enlistment of troops, the following proclamation was issued by governor Dinwiddie, on the 19th of February, 1754: In the lessee of Todd, v. Ackerman, Westmoreland, A considerable part of the lands now within the juMay, 1793, before M'Kean, C. J. and Yeates J. (MSS. risdiction and boundaries of Pennsylvania was claimed Reports.) A question was raised, whether a person to be within the dominion of Virginia, and was possess claiming under a military permit, did not lose his pre-ed by rights under that colony. It was determined in ference, by not entering his application on the third of April, 1769. On the single abstract point, it was held, "that a settler under permission of a commanding officer, to the westward, did not lose his preference by omitting to apply to the Land Office on the third of April, 1769." But how early such application ought to have been made, was not then decided. It must be in a reasonable time, as mentioned above in Plumsted and Rudebagh. "Whereas it is determined, that a fort be immediately built on the river Ohio, at the fork of Monongialo, to oppose any further encroachments, or hostile attempts of the French, and the Indians in their interest, and for But, in the lessee of Bernard Gratz v. Patrick Camp- the security and protection of his majestys's subjects in bell. Westmoreland, November, 1800, before Yeates this colony, and as it absolutely necessary, that a suffiand Smith, Justices, (MSS. Reports.) The plaintiff cient force should be raised to erect and support the claimed a moiety of the land under a special order to same: For an encouragement to all who shall voluntarily David Franks, of the 1st of April, 1769,à survey there-enter into the said service, I do hereby notify and proon made 1st June, 1769, and a conveyance from Franks. mise, by and with the advice and consent of his majes The defendant offered to shew, that he made a settle- ty's council of this colony, that over and above their ment on these lands in 1761, before the Indian purchase, pay, two hundred thousand acres of his majesty, the under a military permit, which he asserted to have king of Great Britain's lands, on the east side of the been lost; and that Christopher Hayes, the agent of the river Ohio, within his dominion, (one hundred thousand said Franks, had agreed to the running of a line be- acres whereof to be contiguous to the said fort; and tween him and his principal. It was admitted, that he the other one hundred thousand acres to be on or near took out no office-right until 1784. the river Ohio,) shall be laid off and granted to such persons, who by their voluntary engagement, and good behaviour, in the said service, shall deserve the same. And I further promise, that the said lands shall be divided amongst them immediately after the performance But the Court said, that such evidence, in a case so circumstanced, would introduce the utmost confusion, and impair former determinations. Here it is not attempted to shew any parol evidence, that such a military VOL. XII. 42 of the said service, in a proportion due to their respective merit, as shall be represented to me by their officers, and held and enjoyed by them without paying any rights, and also free from the payment of quitrents, for the term of fifteen years. And I do appoint this proclamation to be read and published at the court house, churches and chapels, in each county within this colony, and that the sheriffs take care the same be done accordingly." As this proclamation was transmitted by governor Dinwiddie to governor Hamilton, the latter gentleman wrote thus, in answer, on the 13th of March, 1754. "The invasions, &c. having engaged me to inquire very particularly into the bounds and extent of this province westwardly; I have from thence the greatest reason to believe that the fort and lands (intended to be granted,) are really within the limits of Pennsylvania. In duty to my constituents, therefore, I cannot but remind you of what I had the honor to write to you some time ago, upon this subject; and transcribe for your consideration the following extracts from two letters of the honourable Thomas Penn, in relation to this mat ter. 'I desire you will enter into any reasonable measures to assist the governor of Virginia to build a fort there, to wit, at the Ohio, taking some acknowledgment from him, that this settlement shall not be made use of to prejudice our right to that country, at the same time you gave him assurance the settlers shall enjoy the lands they settle bona fide, on the common quit-rent, &c. March 9th, 1752.' 'I hope you will, as I wrote you on the 9th of March, acquaint the governor of Virginia that we consent to this, (that is, to the building of a fort at Ohio,) without prejudice to our right to the land, in case it should be found to lie within our province, to be granted to the bona fide settlers on the same rent and conditions as they are to have it from Virginia. July 13th, 1752,' "As Mr. Penn's expectations herein appear to me extremely reasonable, and I cannot, I apprehend, at all interfere with the well judged encouragement you have thought fit to promise to such as shall enter into this service, I flatter myself you will find no difficulty in making the acknowledgment therein mentioned, as I on my part am ready to give you any assurance that the bona fide settlers shall be entitled to the lands under this government on the same rent and conditions as are granted by you, &c." March 21st, 1754, governor Dinwiddie writes in reply, "I am much misled by our surveyors, if the forks of Monongialo be within the limits of your Proprietor's grant; I have for some time wrote home to have the fine run, to have the boundaries properly known, that I may be able to appoint magistrates on the Ohio, (if in this government, ) &c. "In the mean time, hat no hindrance may be given to our intended expedition, I think it highly reasonable, if these lands are in your Proprietor's grant, that the settlers thereon should pay the quit-rents to Mr. Penn, and not to his majesty; and therefore, as much as lies in my power, I agree thereto, after the time granted by them by proclamation to be clear of quit-rent, ceases; but surely I am from all hands assured, that Logs-town is far to the west of Mr. Penn's grant. دو This fort was shortly afterwards taken, and possessed by the French under the name of Fort Du Quesne; and the military grants never fully took place; but divers settlements had from time to time been made under Virginia rights, which in the amicable settlement of the boundary, in and after the revolution, were provided for as follows. By an act passed April 1st, 1784, (post. chap. 1088,) a certain agreement between the states of Pennsylvania and Virginia, concluded and signed, on the 31st of August, 1779, was recognized and finally ratified, together with the conditions proposed by the state of Virginia, in their resolves of the 23d of June, 1780, as follows; to wit, "That the line commonly called Mason and Dixon's line, be extended due west, five degrees of longitude to be computed, from the river Delaware, for the southern boundary of Pennsylvania, and that a meridian drawn from the western extremity thereof, to the northern limits of the said states respectively, be the western boundary of Pennsylvania, forever, on condition that the private property and rights of all persons, acquired under, founded on, or recognized by, the laws of either country, previous to the date thereof, be saved and confirmed to them, although they should be found to fall within the other, and that in decision of disputes thereon, preference shall be given to the elder, or prior right, which ever of the said states the same shall have been acquired under, such persons paying, within whose boundary their land shall be included, the same purchase or consideration money, which would have been due from them to the state under which they claimed the right, &c. This agreement, and con ditions annexed, had been adopted by resolution of the legislature of Pennsylvania, September, 22d, 1780. Hence has arisen in Pennsylvania, a particular, local, species of land titles, out of the common terms and usages, of the Land Office, and laws respecting it. To connect the subject, and as much as possible, to avoid confusion in so long a note, the cases decided on this part of the general subject, will be here given. In Smith's lessee v. Bazil Brown, Fayette, May, 1795, before M'Kean, C. J. and Yeates, J. it was held-1 hat a prior improvement under Pennsylvania, shall prevail against a Virginia certificate, under the compact between the two states. The custom of granting the lands to real improvers, is recognised by our laws. Between claimants under Virginia, the certificate of the commissioners is conclusive, but not where one of the parties claims under Pennsylvania. There can be no doubt, but that on every principle of moral and political obligation, the compact between the two states should be held inviolate. MSS. Reports. This case will be cited more at large upon another point. And, in the lessee of Samuel Hyde v. William Torrence, Washington, May, 1799, before Yeates and Smith, Justices. MSS. R ports. The plaintiff claimed the premises under an early improvement made by Tho mas Provence, which originated in 1767, and was con tinued till 1783, without interruption. On the 8th of May, 1782, he conveyed to Aaron Jenkins, in conside ration of £200, who released to Joseph Ross, under the yearly rent of 150 bushels of corn; and the tenant afterwards improperly permitted Martin Harden, the son of defendant's landlord, to come into possession on his receiving a bond of indemnification. On the 26th of July, 1783, Jenkins conveyed to the lessor of the plaintiff in consideration of £300, who, on the 24th of November, 1789, obtained a warrant for 200 acres, including Provence's improvement, whereon interest was to commence from the 1st of March, 1770, but got no survey. The defendant, as tenant to John Harden, claimed under two titles. 1st. An application of John Husk, for 300 acres, on the west side of Monongahela, at the mouth of Big White Lick creek, dated 13th of June, 1769: a deed from Husk to Harden, in consideration of £50, dated 20th of April, 1783; and a survey of 222} acres, made on the 18th of July following. 2d. A cer tificate of the Virginia commissioners, "That Edward Arsken is entitled to 400 acres, on Monongahela river, on the mouth of Whitely creek, to include the settlement and improvement whereon Thomas Provence lives, made in 1767, dated 9th February, 1780, which was regularly entered with the surveyor of the county, on the 7th of March following; and a conveyance from Arsken to Harden, dated 20th January, 1783, in consideration of £200. Evidence was offered to prove, that Arsken was no settler under the Virginia law of 3d May, 1779, "by making a crop of corn, or residing on the land for one year before the 1st of January, 1778," and that if he asserted himself as such to the commissioners, he was guilty of misrepresentation and gross deception, which would have been examinable by the chancellor of Virginia, either as a fraud or trust. But on the face of the certificate, it would rather appear, that Arsken did not claim under a settlement made by himself, or others for him, but would avail himself of the improvement and settlement made by Provence in 1767. This was opposed by defendant's counsel, who contended that the certificate was conclusive evidence of the facts which it contains, and cannot be contradicted by any proof consistently with the solemn compact between the two States. It must be considered as the judgment of a court of justice, acting on a subject with in its jurisdiction. The laws of Virginia must govern. It must be presumed that the acts of the commissioners were rightfully done, and that they did not exceed their authority. Their duty was to adjust the claims of settlers, and it is absurd to suppose they would give a certificate to any one, without previously determining that he was a settler. If Provence intended to controvert the truth of the certificate, he might have prosecuted his claim by appeal to the general court before the 1st of December, 1780. In no other way could the certificate be impugned. It is admitted that an elder, or prior right under Pennsylvania may be opposed to it, but none such exists here. After the 1st of December, 1780, the certificate could not be controverted in Vir ginia, by the laws of that State; nor, in Pennsylvania, after the compact. Provence did not prosecute his right before the Virginia commissioners, nor by appeal to the general court, and he cannot set up a title under his improvement begun before the treaty at Fort Stanwix, on the 4th of November, 1768. By the Court. Is a Virginia certificate undeniable evidence of the facts set forth in it? Or is it competent | to a claimant under this State, to examine io the merits of such certificate? This is the mere abstract question, and in the determination thereof, we feel ourselves bound to pay the most sacred regard to the compact between the two States. certificate, if there really was no settlement made by Arsken, his improvements and peaceable possessions ought to prevail. Whether the application of Husk, calls for the land with clearness and precision-whether it has been abandoned, or, the not obtaining a survey thereon, until 1783, can rationally be accounted for, under the circumstances of the country resulting from a conflict of jurisdictions, are matters of fact to be determined by the jury, but thereon the verdict ultimately depends. Verdict for the plaintiff. In the lessee of Thomas Jones, v. James Park and Benjamin Kinsole, Alleghany, May, 1799, MSS. Reports. The plaintiff claimed under a patent, dated in 1785, and made a regular title under divers mesne conveyances, to 340 acres of land, the subject of controversy. The defendant held under a certificate granted by the Virginia commissioners to Zadock Wright, on the 18th of February, 1783, stating that he was entitled to 400 acres of land, at the mouth of Montour's run, in Youghiogena county, to include his settlement made in 1772." A witness proved, that in 1772, Zadock Wright had settled a tract at the mouth of Montour's run, different from the lands in question. That John Westfall had settled another tract three-fourths of a mile above the mouth thereof, and Abel Westfall one other tract below its mouth; and that the title of Zadock Wright's tract, since became vested in Jeremiah Wright. On inspection of a diagram, which represented all the tracts together, it was manifest that the terms of the Virginia certificate called for the lands held by Jeremiah Wright. It was then offered to prove that the Virginia certifi cate was intended to protect and secure the improvement of John Westfall, which was objected to, and overruled. Such testimony would render all property held under titles of this nature insecure. The terms of the written paper must govern, and it is evident that the certificate was intended for the lands now occupied by Jeremiah Wright. Zadock Wright made his settlement there, at the mouth of Montour's run. We are no strangers to the mode of procedure adopted by the Virginia commissioners. They never granted two certifi cates to the same person, unless he claimed one of the tracts as assignee of some other, and in the case it was uniformly expressed in the certificate. Here it is not so expressed, and the consequence is obvious, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Verdict for the plaintiff instanter. Same judges. We think the point has already been resolved in this court, in Smith's lessee v. Brown, "between claimants under Virginia, the certificate of the commissioners is conclusive evidence, but not where one of the parties claims under Pennsylvania." We apprehend this must have been the clear intention of the contracting States. A Pennsylvania claimant is at liberty to show fraud, mistake, or a trust. Suppose a certificate, stating a party to have made a settlement in a particular year, and it could be shown he did not come in from Europe till after the 1st of January, 1778, and that a title under this State did accrue before his arrival, what good reason can be assigned why these facts should not be re-in 3 Dallas 425, to 466, in Sim's lessee v. Irvine, stated ceived in evidence? The operation of the certificate necessarily must be, that, prima facie, the facts contained in it shall be deem ed true; but not undeniably so. But it has been said that Provence should have gone before the Virginia commissioners, or have appealed to the general court of that commonwealth. This cannot reasonably be insisted on, as to a person asserting a different jurisdiction! Besides, how does it appear that he had notice of Arsken's application for the certificate, or of its being granted to him? This was res inter alios acta, and a judgment affects only parties or privies. The different laws of Virginia respecting military land warrants, and rights under the royal proclamation, and the material parts of that proclamation, may be seen in the special verdict, in the circuit court, and decided in the supreme court of the United States, on an ejectment for Montour's island, in the Ohio river, founded on the right of major Douglass, located in May, 1780, and on which the plaintiff recovered against a patent granted to the defendant by act of September, 1783, and in which those rights, and the construction of the agreement between the two States, came fully to the view of the court. As the case could not be abstracted within a reasonable compass, without mutilating the facts, and being in print, it is here referred to generally. See the royal proclamation at large, dated 7th of October, 1763. Council books, S. p. 427. Our opinion on the present point, is confined to the defendant's Virginia title, The plaintiff sets up no claim The controversy respecting boundary between the under Virginia. The plaintiff cannot found his preten provinces of Pennsylvania and Maryland, was of early sions to the land under the laws or customs of Pennsyl- and long standing. It was not rendered less difficult vania, by any improvements made thereon before the and tedious, by the situation of the parties; and even 4th of November, 1768. But here his settlement has after an agreement by the respective proprietaries to been continued peaceably down until 1783, when he adjust their limits, nearly thirty years were passed in was stripped of possession by a trick practised on his expensive litigation, before the controversy could be tenant. Opposed merely to the defendant's Virginia | terminated. The history of this dispute and the records and papers respecting it, could not be brought within the compass of a note. They would of themselves form a considerable volume. Extracts are, however, here furnished, sufficient to give an understanding of the border titles. In any other point of view than as they affect the landed interest of the country, they have, from the lapse of time, and a settled boundary, become unimportant. make a settlement, until his majesty's pleasure should be signified. In the third section of the agreement previous to the royal order of 25th of May, 1738, there is this clause: "All lands in contest between the said proprietors, now possessed, by, or under either of them, shall remain in possession as they now are, although beyond the temporary limits hereinafter mentioned. The respective jurisdictions to continue over such lands until the final boundaries shall be settled, and the tenants of either side not to attorn to each other, nor the respective pro By the charter, Mr. Penn's grant was to be bounded on the north by the beginning of the three and fortieth degree of northern latitude, and on the south by a circle drawn at twelve miles distance from New Castle north-prietaries to accept of such attornments " ward and westward, unto the beginning of the fortieth degree of northern latitude, and then by a straight line westward, &c. The lord Baltimore insisted that the whole fortieth degree of north latitude, was included in his charter, which was prior in point of time. Mr. Penn insisted that lord Baltimore was precluded by a recital in his charter, that the land was uncultivated and possessed by barbarians; whereas it was not so, but possessed by Dutch and Swedes; and therefore the king was deceiv. ed in his grant. The early part of this controversy, especially respecting the three lower counties, now state of Delaware, may be seen in the beginning of the first volume of the votes of assembly. A principal dif. ficulty was also made concerning the circle of twelve miles to be drawn about New Castle, and the true situation of Cape Henlopen. In order to bring this dispute, which had been then depending nearly fifty years, an agreement was entered into between Charles lord Baltimore, and John Penn, Thomas Penn and Richard Penn, Esquires, May 10th, 1732, which recited several matters as introductory to the stipulation between the parties, particularly the respective charters; and the title derived from James, duke of York, to the three lower counties by two feoff ments, dated 24th of August, 1682. That several controversies had been between the parties concerning the boundaries and limits of the two provinces, and three lower counties. They then make a particular provision for settling them by drawing part of a circle about the town of New Castle, and a line to ascertain the boundaries, &c. and a provision in what manner that circle and line should be run and be drawn; commissioners were to be appointed for that purpose, who were to begin the work in the month of October following, and complete the same on or before the 25th of December, 1733. In the eleventh section, a clause is inserted, quieting the occupiers and possessors of iands held under the respective proprietaries, on their attorning, and paying arrears of rent, duties, &c. to the said several proprie laries. November 24th, 1733, the commissioners on both sides reported, that having used their endeavors to wards the execution of the articles of agreement, they had respectively broken up, as they differed in running the circle from New Castle; the Pennsylvania commis. sioners insisting that the circle should begin twelve English statute miles from New Castle; and the Maryland commissioners insisting that the periphery of the circle to be run, should be twelve miles, whose diameter would be somewhat less than four miles from New Castle. Lord Hardwicke expressed great dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Maryland commissioners, and said they behaved with great chicane in the points they insisted on. 1 Vez. 455, Penn v. lord Baltimore. May 25th, 1738, the royal order issued, founded on the agreement of the proprietaries of Pennsylvania and Maryland, before the committee of council. It recites the first royal order made on the 18th of August, 1737, that, "the respective governors should not make grants of any part of the lands in contest, nor permit any person to settle there, or even attempt to The king took the report of the committee of council into consideration, and approved of the agreement of the proprietaries, and by the advice of his privy council, ordered the same to be carried into execution. In the year 1739, the temporary line was run between the two provinces. A suit in chancery was depending for many years, upon a bill exhibited by the proprietaries of Pennsyl vania, against lord Baltimore, to obtain a specific exe-. cution of the agreement of 1732, which agreement was decreed to be carried into effect in the year 1750, and after a bill of revivor and supplemental bill, the final agreement between the different proprietaries was executed on the 4th of July, 176). This agreement recites the original charters to lord Baltimore and William Penn, and the grants to and from the duke of York, for the three lower counties, and that very long litigations and contests had subsisted in council had been pronounced relative thereto. The from 1683, down to the present time, and many orders agreement of 10th of May, 1732, at full length. That the time being expired for completing the said articles, Charles, lord Baltimore, petitioned the king in council to confirm to him by another charter, the Peninsula granted to Cecilius, lord Baltimore, on the 8th of August, 1734, which was opposed by a counter petition by John, Thomas, and Richard Penn, on the 19th of December, 1734, and upon references and report thereon, the king, on the 16th of May, 1735, ordered the consideration of the report to be adjourned, that Messrs. Penn might proceed in equity. That they petitioned Chancery on the 21st of June 1735. It then recites the proceedings in Chancery, and the decree of the lord Chancellor at large, that the agreement of 1732 should be carried into specific execution. The appointment death of Charles, lord Baltimore, the proceedings in of commissioners in pursuance of the decree. The Chancery, upon a bill of revivor, and supplemental bill, &c. And whereas the parties to these presents (Frede rick, lord Baltimore, and Thomas Penn, and Richard Penn,) have come to an amicable agreement in manner as hereinafter mentioned. It then proceeds to describe and make provision for fixing the circle and running the line, &c. Then there is the following proviso, "That nothing therein contained shall extend to the right of any grantee, or those claiming under him to any of the farms or lands in the actual possession and occupation of any tenant or occupier which have been at any time and in any manner heretofore granted by or under the authority of the said Frederick lord Baltimore, or by or under the authority of any of the ancestors of him the said Frederick lord Baltimore; but that it shall and may be lawful to all, and for all and every such tenants and occupiers of the same premises, and every part thereof, their and every of their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, to hold and enjoy the said farms, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and every of them, and every part thereof, for and during all and every such, their several and respective estates, terms, and interests in the same, and every of them, and every part thereof, subject nevertheless to and by, and under all and every the same quit rents, reservations and services, to be from henceforth paid, rendered, and performed to the proprietaries of the said province of Pennsylvania, for the time being, as they the said tenants and occupiers and every of them were liable at the time of, and immediately before the execution of these presents, to have paid, rendered, and performed to the proprietary of the said province of Maryland, any thing herein before contained, to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding." was given the many spectators in attendance, to examine the articles offered for exhibition; the committees then proceeded to the discharge of their respective duties. A close an impartial examination of the articles before them was made by the committees and the fol. owing award reported: $5.00 2. 00 3 00 "Provided also, that it is hereby further declared and Mr. Wolverton, for his stallion, Sanspareil, agreed, &c. That neither these presents, nor any clause, Mr. Willets, for his stallion colt, Tartar, article or thing whatsoever therein contained, shall exMr. Carr, for the best breeding mare, tend or be deemed, construed or taken to extend to the right of any grantee or grantees, or those claiming un- [The committee on horses reported, that of those exder them, to any the farms, lands, tenements or heredi-hibited on this occasion, there was none of such form, taments, situtate, lying and being on the east side of the size, and action, as to entitle them to particular notice.] river Susquehanna, and within the space or distance of Maj. William A. Petrikin, of Muncy, for his one-quarter of a mile more south than the east and full-blood Durham Bull, Don Diego, $7.00 west line mentioned in the sixth article of the said articles of agreement, of the 10th of May, 1732, and which [This truly noble animal was considered by the comhave been at any time, and in any manner heretofore mittee worthy of a much larger premium, had the state granted by or under the authority of the proprietaries of the society's fund been prosperous enough to warof the said province of Pennsylvania, for the time be- rant the payment of adequate rewards. He is of the ing, and are now in the actual possession or occupation stock imported by Col. Powell, of Philadelphia county, of all, every, or any of the tenants or occupiers of the and is half-brother to the Bull purchased by Mr. Clay, said province lands, hereditaments and premises, but last fall.] that it shall and may be lawful to and for all and every such tenants and occupiers of the said last mentioned lands and premises, and every part thereof, their and every of their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, to hold and enjoy their said farms, lands, tenements and hereditaments, and every of them, and every part thereof, for and during all and every their several and respective estates, terms and interests in the same, and every of them, and every part thereof, subject nevertheless to, by and under all and every the same quitrents, reservations and services to be from henceforth paid, rendered and performed to the proprietary of the said province of Maryland, for the time being, as they the said tenants and occupiers, and every of them, were liable at the time of, and immediately before the execution of these presents, to have paid and rendered and performed to the proprietaries of the said province of Pennsylvania, and any thing herein before contained to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding." Mason and Dixon's line was run in the year 1767, and 1768, and the agreement and proceedings thereon were approved and ratified by the king, by his order in council, on the 11th day of January, 1769, and the proclamations of the respective proprietaries, to quiet the settlers, &c. were issued in 1774, that of Pennsylvania, bears date the 15th of September, 1774: council Books, U, page 466. The agreement of 1760, was inrolled in chancery, in England. The original is now deposited with the secretary of the commonwealth. This original agreement was produced in evidence at Bedford, October, 1806, on the trial of Ross' lessee, v. Cutshall, reported in 1 Binney, 399, and admitted after argument, and decided to be proper evidence by the supreme court, on an appeal, because it was an ancient deed, ascertaining the boundaries of the then provinces of Pennsylvania and Maryland, and may be considered in the light of a state paper, well known to the courts of justice, and which had been admitted in evidence on former occasions. (To be continued.) From the Muncy Telegraph. FOURTH EXHIBITION OF THE UNION AGRI- On Tuesday, the 29th ult., The Union Agricultural Society held its Fourth Annual Exhibition at Danville, Columbia county. The court room was occupied as the place of exhibition of Domestic Manufactures, and a lot adjacent to the village for the show of Live Stock, After the Constitution had been read, an opportunity Caspar Hartman, for a half-blood Durham Ephraim M'Collum, for a Cow and Calf ploughing Orrin Sholes, for a Sideboard of superior $2.00 1.00 3 00 3 00 2.00 5 00 J. B. Hall & Co. for a very handsome and Mrs. Tweed, of Milton, for a pair of Silk $1.50 5 00 |