"That having one-fourth part of the duties, trouble and services to undergo and perform in transacting the business of the Copartnership, yet he was by the said Contract entitled to one-sixth part only of the lands to be divided under the contract. But that, although he disliked as aforesaid his having no greater share than one-sixth part in the Concern, he nevertheless joined with James Simonds in carrying on the business in full confidence that some equitable allowance would be made him for his services over and above his proportion of the said profits and lands." On the occasion of James Simonds' visit to Halifax early in 1764 he obtained a license to occupy ten acres of land at Portland Point for carrying on the fishery and burning limestone, but it was not until the 2nd October, 1765, that a grant was made to him, in conjunction with his brother Richard, and James White, described as follows: "Beginning at a point of upland opposite to his (Simonds') House and running East till 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 Canebekssis river, thence bounded by said river, the river St. John and harbour till it comes to the first mentioned boundary." The bounds of this tract are shown in the accompanying plan. It was supposed to contain 2,000 acres "more or less," but in reality it contained upwards of 5,000 acres. Elias Hardy in 1785 claimed that the grant must have originated in misrepresentation, either in the application or survey, otherwise the quantity could not have been so much mistaken. To this Ward Chipman replied that the land had never been actually surveyed, but making allowance for lakes, sunken and broken ground, etc., it was supposed not to contain much if any more than the number of acres mentioned in the grant. The grant was made in accordance with the return of the surveyor describing its boundaries and expressing them to be "with allowance for bad lands, containing in the whole by estimation 2,000 acres more or less." Chipman adds, "no misrepresentation can well be supposed to have taken place at the time of passing this Grant when the lands upon the river St. Johns were considered as of very little value and there could be no inducement to such a step."