Henry Joseph Boutilier

Male 1789 - 1879  (89 years)


Personal Information    |    Notes    |    All    |    PDF

  • Name Henry Joseph Boutilier 
    Born 29 Aug 1789  St. Margaret's Bay, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Gender Male 
    Occupation Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Farmer 
    _UID 8F19E10AC4D7C241B93E647810694AB57C6F 
    Died Feb 1879  Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Buried 3 Feb 1879  St. George (Anglican), Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Person ID I395  Victoria Boutilier's Genealogy Pages
    Last Modified 20 May 2010 

    Father Jacques Bouteiller,   b. Aug 1735, Etobon, MontbĂ©liard Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. May 1827, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age ~ 91 years) 
    Mother Suzanne Catherine Rigoulot,   b. 20 Feb 1746, Exincourt, MontbĂ©liard Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. Apr 1831, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 85 years) 
    Married 22 Dec 1765  St. John's (Anglican), Lunenburg, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Family ID F11  Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

    Family Ann Peach,   b. Abt 1793, England Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. Mar 1877, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age ~ 84 years) 
    Married 16 Apr 1812  St. George (Anglican), Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location 
    Notes 
    • married by license. (St. Geo parish records)
    Children 
     1. John James Boutilier,   b. 15 Jan 1813, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 16 Oct 1883, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 70 years)
     2. Anne Elizabeth Boutilier,   b. 4 Nov 1815, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 15 Apr 1889, South Head Cow Bay, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 73 years)
     3. Susan Margaret Boutilier,   b. 11 Jul 1818, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 19 Jun 1908, Point Edward, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 89 years)
     4. Henry Joseph Boutilier,   b. 11 Feb 1821, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 9 Oct 1901, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 80 years)
     5. Mary Martha Boutilier,   b. 25 Sep 1823, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. Feb 1916, South Port Morien, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 92 years)
     6. Barbara Ellen Boutilier,   b. 9 Mar 1826, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 28 Dec 1888, Barrachois Sydney River, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 62 years)
     7. John George Boutilier,   b. 13 Feb 1829, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. Dec 1906, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 77 years)
     8. Sarah Ann Boutilier,   b. 16 Nov 1832, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. 10 Oct 1909, Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 76 years)
     9. Susan Elizabeth Jane Boutilier,   b. 21 Jan 1837, Coxheath, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location,   d. Abt 1866, Nova Scotia, Canada Find all individuals with events at this location  (Age 28 years)
    Last Modified 23 May 2017 
    Family ID F237  Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  • Notes 
    • "Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, at Common Law and in Equity by Henry Oldright vol 2 Halifax (printed Halifax, Charles Annand, 1873) Cases Determined from Michaelmas 1865 to Trinity Term 1866 inclusive."
      Includes BOUTILIER And Another v. KNOCK And Others. (p. 77-86) December 16, 1865.

      A lot of land was allotted in 1767 to J. B., as appeared by the drawing or allotment book filed in the registry of deeds for the county wherein the lot was situate, and the accompanying plan; by a card alleged to have been drawn by the said J. B. in 1767 (the date of the allotment book), the card containing a description of the lot corresponding with that in the allotment book; and by the certificate of the registrar of deeds given by the registrar to J. B., and proved to be marked with the registrar's initials. This card and the certificate were proved to have been continuously and consecutively in the possession of J. B. and those claiming under him, and were produced by the plaintiffs at the trial. The block of land allotted by the allotment book contained in the whole 180,000 acres, being the whole township. Nothing was known of this book but its antiquity and the fact of its general acceptance. A grant, which appeared to be a grant of confirmation, passed in 1784, conveying 71,406 acres of the above 180,000. This grant recited a previous grant in 1765 of the whole 180,000 acres, and the grantees under this latter grant (of whom J. B. was not one) were all also grantees under the previous grant, and their title and possession were confirmed by this latter grant. This latter grant, however, stated that the grant of 1765 had not been accepted nor taken out of the Secretary's office. The plaintiffs were H. J. B. and S. B., and they traced their title from J. B. as follows : Deed J. B. to J. G. B.; deed J. G. B. to H. J. B. (one of the plaintiffs) ; deed from H. J. B. (the last named plaintiff) to S. B. (the other plaintiff). S. B., it appeared, had conveyed the locus to one D. R., and the deed to D. R. was executed and recorded before action brought. The plaintiffs' counsel at the trial alleged, in opening, that the action was brought for the benefit of D. R. M., a surveyor, had acted as agent for the plaintiffs, or one of them, or those under whom they claimed, and the defendants had been put in possession by him fifteen years before action brought. The defendants did not attempt at the trial to prove title in themselves, but relied wholly on the alleged weakness of the plaintiffs' title.
      Held, the Court being at liberty to draw the same inferences as a jury might,-
      First, That, under all the circumstances, a grant of the lot to J. B. in or before 1765 might be presumed.
      Secondly, That as the possession of the defendants was not adverse to the plaintiffs it did not prevent the operation of the deed from S. B. to D. R.
      Thirdly, That as there was no pretence of title in the defendants, and the plaintiffs would have been entitled to judgment if D. R.'s name had been upon the record, the record might now be amended by adding D. R. as plaintiff.
      Fourthly, That the plaintiffs, under all the circumstances, were entitled to the general costs of the cause, neither party to the costs of the trial, and that the defendants should pay the costs of the argument.
      Ejectment for lands in the township and county of Lunenburg. Pleas, denying the title of the plaintiffs and their right to the possession, and alleging title in the defendants.
      At the trial, before Young, C. J., at Lunenburg, in October, 1865, the following facts appeared in evidence. The plaintiffs claimed, under one Jacques Boutilier, to whom the lands had been allotted in 1767, as appeared by the allotment, or drawing-book, filed in the registry of deeds, at Lunenburg, and the accompanying plan; by a card alleged to have been drawn by the said Jacques Boutilier in 1767 (the date of the allotment book), said card containing a description of the lot corresponding with that in the allotment book, it being described therein as No. 15, Letter F, Third Division,- and by the certificate of the registrar of deeds, given by the registrar to Jacques Boutilier, and proved to be marked with the registrar's initials. This card and certificate were proved to have been continuously and consecutively in the possession of Jacques Boutilier and those claiming under him, and were produced by the plaintiffs at the trial. The block of land allotted by the allotment book contained 180,000 acres, being the whole township. Nothing was known of the allotment book but its antiquity and the fact of its general acceptance. A grant passed in 1784 conveying 71,406 acres of the 180,000 acres allotted by the allotment book. This grant recited a previous grant, in 1765, of the whole 180,000 acres, and it confirmed the title and possession of a number of the grantees under such previous grant. It stated, however, that this grant of 1765 had not been accepted, nor taken out of the Secretary's office. Jacques Boutilier was not one of the grantees in the grant of 1784. The plaintiffs were Henry Joseph Boutilier and Samuel Brookman, and they traced their title as follows :- Deed from Jacques Boutilier to John George Boutilier, 22nd June, 1822; deed from John George Boutilier to Henry J. Boutilier (one of the plaintiffs), 16th June, 1840; deed from Henry J. Boutilier (the last named plaintiff) to Samuel Brookman (the other plaintiff), 12th March, 1849. Brookman had conveyed the locus to David Rodenheiser in November, 1863, and the plaintiffs' counsel, in opening, stated that the action was brought for the benefit of Rodenheiser. It appeared that Morris, a surveyor, had acted as agent for both or one of the plaintiffs, or for those under whom they claimed, and that the defendants obtained possession from him. Brookman, however, disclaimed Morris' authority to give the defendants possession, and the demand of possession came from Rodenheiser, whose name was not on the record. Aaron Knock, the principal defendant, appeared to have been in possession of the locus for about fifteen years before action brought.
      The defendants called no witnesses, but relied on a motion for a non-suit. The learned Chief Justice declined to non-suit, but reserved the points taken.
      The jury found for the plaintiffs, under his lordship's direction, subject to the opinion of the Court,-the Court to be at liberty to draw the same inferences that the jury might have drawn.
      James, for plaintiffs. Defendants went into possession under plaintiffs, and, therefore, cannot dispute their title. Leonard Knock said that he and Aaron Knock went into possession under Morris, and it was proved that Morris was acting as agent for some of the plaintiffs. If Morris professed to act for Boutilier, although he had no right to do so, still Boutilier could take advantage of his so acting. There is a legal title in the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs had not a perfect legal title they had at all events a colorable title, and if so, the acts of possession proved here are sufficient to give them title to the whole lot. The filing of the allotment book in the registry of deeds at Lunenburg was sufficient to give title. Prov. Act of 1760, ch. 8, sec. 3 (Prov. Statutes,, vol. 1, p. 61). [Wilkins, J. Was that Act prospective?] I think that it was. The neglecting to improve mentioned in section 3 must be evidenced by inquest of office. The exception in the section is confined to the peninsula of Halifax. Cunard v. Irvine, James' Rep. 31, is distinguishable from this case. A party occupying lands with the permission of the Crown has sufficient possession to maintain trespass against a wrong doer. 4 B. & C. 754. [Wilkins, J. We have settled the point that where there is no adverse possession, a grant gives seisin to the grantee.]
      J. W. Johnston, Jr., contra. It is sufficient in this action to show title out of the plaintiffs and in a third party. No presumption is admitted against a party in possession. The plaintiffs' case is made up entirely of presumptions. Brookman's disclaimer and purchase put an end to Morris' agency. The acts of an agent must be either distinctly adopted or repudiated by the principal. 7 C. & P. 406. The plaintiffs did not venture to ask Boutilier a question as regards Morris' agency. A grant may be presumed after a lengthened possession. 1 Jac. & Walker, 159 ; Cowper's Rep. 103, note; 8 Ves. 129; 11 East, 488. The allotment book does not prove any drawing,-it is nothing but a bald index. Boutilier could not bring the action, because he had conveyed to Brookman; nor Brookman, because he had conveyed to Rodenheiser. Rodenheiser could purchase legally, notwithstanding defendants' possession.
      Cur. adv. vult.
      Wilkins, J., now delivered the judgment of the Court.
      The reasons, upon which the doctrine of presumptions is applied to supply defective evidence, are well stated by Mr. Justice Archer in Beall's Lessee v. Lynn, 6 Harris & Johnson, 361. (See note (6) to Jackson v. Lunn, 3 Johns. Cases, 124.) ''Presumption is often resorted to for the purpose of supplying defective evidence; and in this country (United States) is not oftener applied to any subject than to supply defective title to lands. It would be difficult to make out the titles to many of the elder tracts of land in this State, by a regular deduction of title deeds from the patentees down to the present proprietors, without resorting in some stage of them to presumption. Records may sometimes be lost or destroyed, ancient title papers may be defectively executed, or the proof of them from lapse of time may be impossible." Again: '' Proprietary grants, under certain circumstances, are presumed. In general, these presumptions are bottomed upon the existence of certain facts, which can leave but little doubt upon the mind of the truth of the fact which we are called upon to presume. They frequently, too, derive their force and efficacy from that vigilance with which the law guards ancient possessions; which, sooner than that they should be disturbed, presumes that they had in contract a rightful commencement."
      In Jackson e. d. Gansevoort et al. V. Lunn, 3 Johns. Cases 109, the Court, although a grant by letters patent was proved to A. in 1735, drew the presumption of a grant from the original patentee to B., under whom and whose heirs acts of subsequent possession were proved, commencing in the year 1836, which was one year subsequent to the date of the letters patent. Radcliff, J., said (p. 113): "It is no doubt true that a plaintiff in ejectment must prevail by the strength of his own title, and if a legal title be shown to exist in another, he must be defeated of his recovery. But such an outstanding title must be a continuing or subsisting title. It is not sufficient to show that, at any distance of time, it was vested in another. If that were sufficient, it would be in the power of a defendant in ejectment, on most occasions, to hunt up the original grant or patent, comprehending the premises in controversy, and oblige a plaintiff to deduce a chain of paper title from thence. * * The possession may be shown by acts of ownership applicable to the nature of the property." Kent, J., said (p. 117): " Patents and grants are, in a variety of cases, to be presumed, even within the time of legal memory, for the sake of quieting an ancient possession."
      In Jackson e. d. Gansevoort et al. v. Parker, 3 Johns. Cases, 124-2, it was held that where the legal possession of lauds was in the heirs of A. under a claim of title, and a descent in 1752, and B., afterwards, entered on the lands, and made improvement, and his possession was continued for 37 years; but it did not appear that he entered under claim or color of title, or hostile to the heirs of A., whose title was not disputed until after 1783, the legal intendment was that B. entered under the title of the heirs of A., and that the Statute of Limitations could not begin to run till after the possession of the defendant was held adversely to the heirs of A. It was held also in that case that an entry adverse to the lawful possessor is not to be presumed, but might be proved. The Court said " the possession of the premises at the time of the entry of B. being in the heirs of A., under claim of title sanctioned by a descent cast, and his entry not being under any claim or color of title, nor appearing to be hostile, the intendment of law will be that he entered under, and in obedience to the right of the heirs."
      Now to apply these principles to the case before us. There appears nothing in it to preclude, but sufficient, on the contrary, to warrant, a presumption that the name of Jacques Boutilier was included in the grant of 1765,-or if not, certainly in some other grant. It appears from the recital to the grant of 1784 that the former grant actually passed the Great Seal, and that it included other names and other interests than the names arid interests of those who applied for and procured the grant of confirmation. The language of the recital in this respect is: "And whereas many (not all) of the said inhabitants (to whom it is before recited the grant of 1765 passed) do now pray that the lands so laid out and assigned to them (which words show and recognize a previous allotment to all the inhabitants) may be granted to them (that is, to the petitioners) in due form, and the possession thereof confirmed to them." It may be that those who did not concur in the petition were content to rely on the title they then had, namely, a title derived from the original grant, which certainly existed, and does not appear to have been avoided, and also in connection therewith on the preceding " laying out and locating" to them-an act which the recital shews to have been done. Unless, indeed, those of all the inhabitants who did not apply for and obtain the grant of 1784, had either the grant of 1765 to fall back upon, or some subsequent grant or grants, then they, representing 108,594 acres out of the 180,000 acres of which the whole tract described in the grant of 1784 consisted, had no title at all. That is scarcely conceivable. When the grant of 1784 passed, lot No. 15 of the 300 acre farm lots had been "located and laid out " to Jacques Boutilier in 1767, as appears by the allotment book. The recital to the later grant shows it had been allotted to him as one of the inhabitants, and that the older grant had actually passed to them generally to establish their locations.
      We have then but to proceed one step further, and presume, or rather infer, that the name of Jacques Boutilier was in the older grant, or in some other grant which is not now forthcoming. The grant of 1765 having actually passed the Great Seal, the title and constructive possession thereby passed to all the parties therein named, and we know from the recital to the more recent grant that they were the old inhabitants, of whom we know by evidence aliunde Jacques Boutilier was one. The recital informs us that from various causes the old grant was not accepted nor taken out of the Secretary's office, " but it had passed the Seal of the Province, and we have no evidence that all of the numerous grantees named in it concurred in a determination not to accept it, nor to take it out of the office. In the absence of such evidence, it would seem scarcely possible to presume such a concurrent determination that would necessarily affect the rights of so many of those who possibly did not desire to reject the grant. On common law principles it would be difficult to conclude that a mere verbal renunciation of their rights, even by all the grantees, without a formal disclaimer under seal could prevent the operation of the patent.
      Let us consider, then, what grounds we have for presuming that old Jacques Boutilier was one of the patentees under the grant of 1765, or some other grant. The evidence is certainly very strong. It is proved that he lived in Lunenburg for a number of years; that in the early part of this century he removed to Cape Breton, and about the year 1811; that, sixty or sixty-two years before the trial, the card and the accompanying paper, both indicative of the lot in question having been allotted to him, were seen by the witness, Henry J. Boutilier, to have been handed to Jacques by Rudolf, the then custodian of the county records, the initials of whose name are subscribed to the paper; that these indicia of title have been in the possession, consecutively, of all those persons to whom and through whom title purports to have been transmitted to Boutilier and Brookman, the plaintiffs on the record, who have themselves produced them as evidence in the cause. If we go back to the original of these documents we find the name of Jacques Boutilier in the ancient allotment book, and on the accompanying plan, as the designated proprietor of the lot in question. We find that the lot was surveyed when old Jacques originally drew it. We find him; in the exercise of assumed dominion conveying, and with the conveyance transmitting the card and paper to John George Boutilier, upwards of forty years before the trial. The defendants' possession began fourteen or fifteen years ago. It was never adverse to the title of the Boutiliers if Aaron Knock entered under Morris as the agent of the Boutiliers, of which there can be no doubt, provided an inference can be fairly drawn, as we think it may, from the evidence that Morris was acting for that family; but even if the possession were adverse in its inception, Jacques and those claiming under him, if they had title, as we think they had, by grant from the Crown, had constructive possession from the ancient date of the grant, and a possession, therefore, against which, of course, Knock's possession for fifteen years, if adverse, could not prevail. It must be borne in mind, however, that twenty years before the trial, and five years, therefore, before the commencement of Knock's possession, Rhino had, under Henry Boutilier then claiming title and offering to sell, and by his permission entered and cut some trees on the land in question, which is proved always to have been called "the Boutilier lot."
      In short, when we see an allotment of lands in the county of Lunenburg to the owners of 300 acre lots made and solemnly registered as far back as 1767, and marked on a plan, showing the name of old Jacques Boutilier as one of those owners, and memorials of that ownership in perfect accordance with that register and plan delivered by the then keeper of the allotment book to him, and those found in his possession in Nova Scotia proper and in Cape Breton for years, and transmitted by him to the successive owners, or pretended owners, of the lot under titles purporting to be derived from him-it seems scarcely possible, even if these facts alone marked the case, to resist an inference that the allotment of the 300 acre farm lots was made under a then existing and producible patent from the Crown.
      My learned brothers entirely concur in the conclusion that I have expressed. They are not, however, quite so clear as I am on the point of a deduction of title from the particular grant of 1765.
      There remains one other point to be disposed of. It was insisted by the defendants' counsel that the plaintiffs on the record, by producing the deed from Brookman to Rodenheiser, had shown title out of themselves. This is true in a strict sense; but we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the deed last mentioned was deliberately put in evidence by the plaintiffs' counsel, and under an impression that its legal validity would be prevented by the assumed fact of a disseisin by Aaron Knock. That such a disseisin had existence by no means certainly appeared; and, at all events, the jury did not pass upon it. It being quite apparent, then, that it was in view of this assumed conveyance alone that Rodenheiser was not made one of the plaintiffs, we have concluded that we shall best promote the ends of justice by authorizing, as we do, an amendment by placing his name on the record, and giving judgment for him in whom the title indisputably is. The plaintiffs must have the general costs, but not the costs of the trial; and they must pay the costs of the argument.
      Rule accordingly.
      Attorney for plaintiffs. Creighton, Q. C.
      Attorney for defendants, D. Owen.



      "Lived at Coxheath; later bought land which had been leased to a William Cox at Howie Center, Cape Breton"
      "From the research of Karen McKay MG100 Vo.113 #26 reel #15169 PANS She has his wife's name as Susan?"

      Burial appears in St. George, Sydney parish records as "Henry Joseph Boutilier (brother of S.M. Andrews)", Coxheath, age 89 years, 6 months.

      "grant bk U p. 3"

      Cape Breton County Deed Book L p. 194
      registered 19 February 1838
      dated 15 February 1838
      Henry Joseph Boutillier of Sydney, yeoman, and wife Ann Boutillier, to Nicholas and Thomas Tobin (as tenants in common) of Sydney, yeomen
      consideration 45 pounds
      Lot no. 25 on S Side SW branch of Sydney River beg. at NE corner of Lot 26, bounded by line running by magnet (1790) south thirty one degrees east, one hundred and eight eight chains, to a general rear line; thence north 59 degrees east (in 1790) thirteen chains and twenty five links, to SW courner boundary of lot no. 24, thence N 31 deg W (in 1790) 191 chains to the river; thence along the windings of the river upstream to place of commencement; continaing 250 acres, reserving the road from Sydney that crosses the front of the lot, and the old Saint Peter's road, three chains wide
      Henry Joseph Boutillier and Ann Boutillier make their marks; witnesses Charles P. Ward and James P. Ward.


      C.B. Co. deed books
      D 1867 Henry J. Boutilier to Henry J. Boutilier Jr. CC 65 Coxheath
      D 1870 Thomas W. Boutilier from Henry J. Boutilier & wife EE 387 Coxheath
      D 1876 John Henry and John George Boutilier from Henry J. Boutilier & wife KK 210 Coxheath
      D 1876 John Henry Boutilier from John George Boutilier KK 213

      COXHEATH, C.B. to MINNESOTA OUTMIGRATION
      Some of the Coxheath cluster of Boutiliers moved to Minnesota; some only stayed temporarily and returned to Cape Breton or went futher west.
      Minnesota Boutilier Naturalizations
      name, county, reel, code, vol., page
      James Boutilier, Carlton County, 2, 1, A, 124
      Lewis Boutilier, Carlton County, 2, 1, A, 123
      Vinson Boutilier, Carlton County, 2, 1, A, 153
      Levi Boutilier, Duluth, 3, 3, C, 202
      John George Boutlier, Duluth, 7, 13, J, 132
      Perry F. Lewis, Carlton County, 2, 1, A, 123
      maybe:
      Gordon Butler, Morrison County, 2, 6, 2, 31 (Gordon H. Boutilier?)
      Napoleon Bouthillier, Duluth, 3,3, C, 242 (Louis Napoleon Boutilier?)

      St. Louis County Boutilier marriages (Duluth is in St. Louis County)
      http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mnstloui/marriagesb.htm
      Bk. C 43 Butler, Napolion to Morrison, Mary 1885-12-31 Duluth 1886-01-04 Duluth (possibly)

      St. Louis County Births
      BOUTILIER ANNIE E 06/17/1889 367 (cannot place this child at present)

      St. Louis County Deaths
      BOUTILIER JOHN A. 1/15/1900 30 (a son of John George 1829-1906)

      Duluth 1890-92 City directories (Ancestry.com database)
      Hartley G. /bds 2420 w 7th, helper; bds 2423 W 8th, Moore & Erickson [George Hartley Boutilier]
      John G./2420 W. 7th, carpenter; 2423 W 8th, laborer; bds 2423 W 7th rear, carpenter [John George Boutilier]
      Levi/ns 6th ln of 24th Ave, lather; ws 24th W btwn 6th & 7th, blacksmith [Levi Thomas Boutilier]
      George H., 2405 W 7th, carpenter [George Henry Boutilier]
      James F. 2404 W 7th, carpenter, West Duluth Land Co. [James Forman Boutilier]
      William H. bds 2423 W 8th, laborer