Vris-Gewaagd B (Vrisch Gewagt No. 163 Ptn 2)

· on record 1922 · show on the map

The farm's own history, the grant, the original survey, sits on that page.

Farm number: No. 163
Portion: 2
District: Prince Albert
Extent, as the diagram states it: 559 morgen 200 sq roods

This parcel has no matched survey polygon, so it cannot be drawn on the map. That is a gap in the cadastre match, not an absence from the record.

Why this farm is here

A piece of a farm already in this model. Not yet placed on the map.

parcel Cut out of Vrisch Gewagt No. 163

What the record holds, in order

1922 boundary change subdivided_into: from Vrisch Gewagt No. 163

Research notes

[15 Aug 2026 inbox, SRC-441/DOC-0300] FROM THE DEDUCTION TABLE on the back of dgm B352/1833. Diagram 737/1922, transferred 1922 on 134-7400. Named "Vris-Gewaagd B" on the front of the sheet and in the table, struck through there for "Ptn. 2".

NOTE THE SPELLING DRIFT ON ONE SHEET: the title block writes Vrisch Gewagt, the face writes Vris-Gewaagd and Versch Gewagt, and this project also holds a separate Vrisgewaagd No. 152 (PAR-000267) which is a DIFFERENT FARM. Do not fold them together on the name. NO POLYGON.

The research behind this page, kept separate from it: dated working notes, open questions, and what is not yet settled.

What the record is missing

Nobody is on record as ever having held this third order · B8 never-held
Vris-Gewaagd B (Vrisch Gewagt No. 163 Ptn 2) is in the model, and carries no ownership record of any kind, not a grant, not a transfer, not an occupation.

What would settle it The Surveyor-General's diagram for the farm number names the grantee and the date; the deed reference on it opens the transfer chain.

Found by breaks.py reading the model against itself, not written by hand, each one is a shape of missing record, not a fault in the data. The whole set is on the questions page.