‘TpHE, defendant claimed the lands, described in a patent, to, ■l Smyth wick, beginning at the mouth of Bear Creek on Lit-, tie River, thence up the creek No. 5 W. 248 poles to a gum, then up the north prong of said creek, N°* 45 É. 2.64 poles to a hickory, thence a certain course to the river,, and down the r i-ver to the beginning. -The artificial course described as. the. two first lines, declined from the creek and north, prong,, and;, the second course struck, the river before the. number- of poles, called for was completed and by that means the third line was, excluded, altogether. Some distance up the branch from the be-, ginning, was a branch running to the north-east, which was insisted. to be the north prong; but that branch, was only 140. poles froni. the beginning ; neither was it long enough to answer-ih‘: distance called for in the second course j and taking that for-the north prong, the distance would have carried us to the river, excluding also the third line; but it¡ was proved that the. former owner of this land admitted the. artificial, boundary as-, laid down in the plot, to be the true boundary of the land.
Taylor,. Judge
The natural boundary if it can be ascertained, is to be followed but if the jury have doubts which is the. natural boundary, and are satisfied from the evidence that the artificial boundary was considered by the proprietor as the tru$ one, they may establish it by their verdict.
Ifnere ds hoc,..