Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1894-07-12

DIRE survey made two years later In the
first, Peters run from the northwest cor
ner of No. 6 sixty degrees eighty-five
rods to the northeast corner OF said
township, then down the eastern line of
No. to Union river" (He was running
out No. 7 in 1861 In the latter he run
176 rods on the east side. He was then
running out the French grant and moth
ing else.
The description in the grant to the pro-
prietors, it will be noticed, makes the
northeast corner of No. 6 stop at a monu-
ment on the western bank of Mt. Desert
river (Union river. 1t is, we think, con-
elusive that this corner only came to the
west bank of the river. With this fact in
mind, it is rendered plain that Peters
only run to that corner on the west bank
in 1875 and did not cross the river, max
ing the distance only one rod further
than johnson and Holt made it in 1852,
and their description OF the township
was inserted in the grant of 1853. Peters
was undoubtedly right. He then followed
the line down on the eastern line of No.
ION the west bank until he reached the
river.
John Peters in 1892 run out "the bounds
OF the inhabitants lots in Monsieur and
Madam DeGregoire's grant, for them
This was a bout eight years after his sur
vey of No. in 1856 and he bounded four
of these lots ON the west line of hat part
that lot of land which has been i'm
properly called the gore, on the east side
of Union river and he unfortunately call
ed that line No. 6. How he happened to
do this, if advertently made, am at loss
to say; it was the division line between
No and the "French grant"
DeGregoire and wife were required
under their grant to give the settlers
thereon title to the lots they occupied.
Peters was running them out at that date
1792) and said four lots could not be ex-
tended west of that line under that
survey. The Frenchman did not own
any part of the tract called the gore and
the term No 8 line was misnomer and
must have been used by Peters (if he did,
by accident, misrepresentation, or mistake,
for in 17SS he had himself run out that
very line as one of the boundary lines of
the French grant, not of No g. and said
settlers lots could only be bounded upon
it so far as DeGregoire's obligation and
survey were concerned. The gore was on
No. and the figure seven might have ac-
cldentally been written or changed. In
this case the error would be explained.
1t would have saved much writing and
con- lecture had the copies referred to in
his communication been obtained at an
earlier date.
Your readers will be glad to know that
we have ceased discussing this question
of boundary lines; but the future his
torian of Union river, hoover he may be,
will, we think, be aided in his work by
What has been written. If | have sue
ceeded in untying, or partially severing,
the Gordian knot which Others may have
failed to do, claim no credit for it. 1t
is only because circumstances placed in
my hands ancient papers and documents
which gave information which Others did
not possess, and enabled me to know
where to find other records and papers
n pOrrDbOratt hose had am now at
liberty to commence to finish what | at
first undertook to do, little dreaming
when | commenced what | had to wrestle
with when attacked your city's ancient
boundary lines. w. F.
CHERRYFIELD, Me, June y, 1894