The Plaintiff claimed that pursuant to the then current crown land policy, he made applications for two parcels of crown land in 1999 and in both cases the Defendant unilaterally, and in breach of contract, changed the terms upon which the lands were first offered and accepted. The Defendant defended, contending that the Plaintiff was a trespasser. They counterclaimed for possession and damages, and an order for pulling down and removal, interest, and costs.