1. The plaintiffs disputed the fairness of the division of the lands as between the 1st defendant and defendants 2 to 5, but the Court held that the division was fair. The fact that the plaintiffs did not take possession of the land falling to the 1st defendant’s share when they might have done so, does not preclude them from claiming mesne profits from the parties who in accordance with the decisions of the Courts were wrongfully in possession in 1898 and 1899.
2. In the lower appellate Court, the only contest was as to whether defendants Nos. 2 to 5 or defendants Nos. 6 to 11 were in possession and liable for mesne profits.
3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.