Search Website Design and Content © by Eric Krause, Krause House Info-Research Solutions (© 1996)
      All Images © Parks Canada Except Where Noted Otherwise
Report/Rapport © Parks Canada / Parcs Canada  --- Report Assembly/Rapport de l'assemblée © Krause House Info-Research Solutions

Researching the Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site of Canada
  Recherche sur la Forteresse-de-Louisbourg Lieu historique national du Canada


Clôtures et Barrieres:
Fences and Gates

by Linda Hoad

In Historians,
Preliminary Architectural Studies,
Volume 04, Unpublished Report HG 02
(Fortress of Louisbourg, 1972,
Report Number H G 02 04 07)

Copyright © Parks Canada/Parcs Canada

This report on fences and gates in 18th century Louisbourg is based on the information in the Domestic Architecture index and on a study of the plans and views. A brief glance at secondary sources revealed virtually nothing of relevance to the Louisbourg situation. Monique Gruer's compilation on Palissades et Barrières may also be consulted. It includes military uses of palisades and a great deal of secondary source material which should be used with care, since there is no analysis of the material and much of it is not relevant.



The vocabulary used in describing 18th century domestic architecture is always a problem. The terms used in this report are discussed here and the translations (or lack of them) are explained.


Several different types of material were used to build fences or enclosures in Louisbourg. Fences are described in the documents as being made of palissades, piquets, pieux, or of lisses, or of brousse. Apparently each of these materials could be used alone, or in combination with any of the other materials.

The most commonly used fencing materials are palissades, piquets and pieux. The words seem to be interchangeable, and have all been translated here as "picket."

The term lisse seems to have two meanings in connection with fences. The only definitions of the word found in the dictionary [PAGE 2:] are "ribband" or "strake" in a naval architecture context; that is, "a continuous line of planking or plates from stem to stern of ship," or "wale, strip, scantling, or light spar, of wood, used especially in shipbuilding to hold ribbs in position ..." (The Concise Oxford Dictionary). When used in the documents to describe the material of which a fence was made, it has been translated as "rail"; and when used as a synonym for "tringle" or "lambourde" in the construction of picket [piquet] fences, it has been translated as "ribband."

Another fencing material, apparently used only in the faubourgs of Louisbourg, is described as brousse, which has been translated here as "brush." The dictionary definition is "bush," giving the impression that this was a very rough type of enclosure, probably resulting from the accumulated brush of land clearance.


Two words are used in the documents to indicate gates. The most usual is porte or "door," strongly suggesting a solid structure. The other term, barrière, which has not been translated, is used in this report to mean the type of gate shown on plans 1742-3 and 1751-29.



The majority of the properties in 18th century Louisbourg were enclosed with fences; inside the town, pickets [piquets] were used most often, but in outlying areas, quite a variety of materials were used.

The purpose of the fences seems to have been security, since most gates were provided with locking devices. One other use is indicated in a trial [PAGE 3:] it was suggested that the thief took the stolen goods (a jacket) from a picket [piquet] where it had been put out to dry [NOTE 1].

By law, concession holders were required to mark the four corners of their concessions with a post 6-8 pouces in diameter, sunk 3 pieds in the ground. It was recommended that a piece of coal (or charcoal) be placed under the post, presumably to prevent rotting. The number of the concession was to be marked on the posts [NOTE 2]. It was not compulsory to fence a property completely [NOTE 3], although documentary evidence suggests that most properties were enclosed on all sides, and that internal divisions were also marked by fences. It does not seem likely that a 4 pieds corner post was used when the property was fenced; the corner posts would be the same height as the rest of the fence in this case. (see views 1725-8C, 1731-3, 1737-3).





The size of the pickets [piquets] used for fences is rarely given. The only qualifications used in the documents are gros, petit, rond and piquet de maison (large, small, round, house picket [piquet]) [NOTE 4]. The ordonnances mention that corner posts were to be 6-8 pouces in diameter.

The height of picket [piquet] fences is seldom specified. The height above ground is mentioned only twice: 4 pieds (for corner posts marking a concession) and 7 pieds (for a garden fence) [NOTE 5]. The depth below ground varies from 2 1/2 to 3 pieds [NOTE 6].

[PAGE 4:]

SCALED HEIGHTS from the plans and views are as follows

(1) 1725-8a & 1725-8c = 8-10 pieds (uneven)

(2) 1726-2b = 8 pieds

(3) 1737-5 = 8 pieds

(4) 1753-1 = 10 pieds

(5) ND 7a = 5 pieds

(6) ND 82 b = 6 pieds

The height of picket [piquet] fences shown on the views is more difficult to interpret, but on the whole they seem to be lower in relation to the buildings that the scaled heights would indicate. (e.g. 1731-3, 1737-3)

There are several documentary references to thieves climbing over fences [NOTE 7], suggesting that they were not insurmountably high. The type of wood used is mentioned in only one instance: sapin (fir) [NOTE 8]; no mention of removal of bark has been found.

Spacing of the pickets [piquets] seems to vary considerably. Documentary evidence indicates that there was a space between the pickets [piquets] in some instances. A prisoner declared that he had pulled a piece of cloth through a fence [NOTE 9], and a witness declared that she saw through the pickets [piquets] of a fence that a window had been broken [NOTE 10]. (This may also be an indication of the height of the fence, since she did not (could not?) see over the fence).

Plans showing closely spaced pickets [piquets] are 1725-8a and 1725-8c, 1726-2b, 1737- 3a, 1737-5 and ND 82b. Those showing wider spacing are 1737-3b, 1753-1, ND 66b, and ND 76. Plan 1753-1 may also be interpreted as wide pickets [piquets] or even as planks, placed side by side.

Several documentary references are made to the "ribband," although the words used are tringle and lisse [NOTE 11], as opposed to [PAGE 5:] lambourde, which is usually found in military contexts. The function and method of construction seem to be identical to that used in a military context; that is, the ribband is set into the palisades and nailed to them [NOTE 12]. (See Pierre Bureau's memo on the King's Bastion interior place of arms, April 30, 1968.)

Many of the views show the ribband or indicate its position:

(1) 1725-8a & 1725-8c: INSIDE location

(2) 1726-2b: INSIDE location

(3) 1737-3: n/a; [Report does not state location: Appears to be an OUTSIDE Location]

(4) 1737-5: OUTSIDE location

(5) 1753-1: OUTSIDE location

(6) ND 66b: OUTSIDE location

(7) ND 76: OUTSIDE location

(8) ND 82b: INSIDE location

(9) ND 7a: OUTSIDE location

There is no documentary or cartographic evidence to indicate that a ribband was not used or that two or more ribbands were used. (top, bottom or middle).

Most of the views indicate that the pickets [piquets] were pointed, although there is no documentary reference to this feature. Plan 1725-8 shows a pointed fence (c) and also one which is not pointed (a)


The method of construction is never specifically mentioned in the documents, but estimates for picket [piquet] fences include rigolles or trenches, and in one instance the filling in of the trenches is mentioned [NOTE 13]. Thus one can conclude that a trench was dug, the pickets [piquets] were set into it, and then the earth was piled back in against the pickets [piquets].

[PAGE 6:]

The military technique of placing a braced post or picket [piquet] every ten pieds to hold the ribband (see Pierre Bureau's memo) is not mentioned in connection with domestic fences, but it may have been used. The Port Toulouse specifications quoted by Pierre Bureau were in fact for palisades (and not for enclosures as he suggests), and indicate that braces were placed in front of and behind the post. It is not clear whether these braces were above or below grade.

Plan 1741-2 shows large squared posts approximately every 20 pieds. Plans ND 82a and ND 82b show squared posts, probably with finials, at the corners, and ND 88 also shows one corner with a squared post. Plan 725- 8c indicates a brace extending into the street.

Only one mention of repairs to a picket [piquet] fence has been found. In 1744, the fence between the engineer's yard and garden (picket [piquet], according to the 1734 Toisé) was repaired with "two rafters, two planks, a board and a hundred flooring nails" [NOTE 14]. It is difficult to know whether or not this was a common practice, but it is not unlikely that repairs were made with any material that was readily available.


(i) The diameter of pickets [piquets] used for fences seems to have varied considerably. Although the only size mentioned (6-8 pouces) is for the posts marking the corners of a concession, it is possible that this was an average size.

(ii) Pickets [piquets] were set 2 1/2 - 3 pieds in the ground. The height [PAGE 7:] above ground is not definite - one documentary reference states 7 pieds, but scaled measurements average out to about 8 pieds. However, if the height of these fences is compared to the height of buildings, it seems that the fences are never higher than the wall plates, although fences are frequently shown just below the wall plate of a one storey building (1725-8a, ND 66b), or at the level of the top of the ground floor windows (1737-5, 1731-1).

(iii) Fir is the only wood mentioned, and it is not known from documentary sources whether or not the bark was removed.

(iv) The spacing of pickets [piquets] seems to have varied from one fence to another.

(v) At least one ribband was used, and its location (inside or out) varied.

(vi) Some of the fences had pointed pickets [piquets].

(vii) The pickets [piquets] were set into trenches, and a variety of bracing methods were used.

The evidence would indicate that there was considerable variety in the construction of picket [piquet] fences (height, spacing, pointing, etc.). Some attempt could probably be made to incorporate materials other than pickets [piquets], as in the case of the repairs to the engineer's fence.



Masonry enclosures appear to have been used only for King's properties; for example, the engineer's house, the hospital [PAGE 8:] (plan 1726-la & 1726 b), the proposed barracks, (1739-4a), the proposed addition to the commissaire ordonnateur's house (1739-5b), and the cemetery [NOTE 15].

The size and height of these walls is fairly constant: 1/2 to 2 pieds thick and 9- 12 pieds high (10 pieds is most common).

The tops of most of these walls are pointed or sloped (1739-4a, 1739-5b, 1745-4, ND 7a), although the early hospital plans show a rounded top (1725-8a, 1726-1b., ND 82a & ND 82b).

The only documentary reference to capping is the slate used on top of the engineer's house wall [NOTE 16]. The rounded top on the hospital wall seems to be stone (1726-lb), but the wall shown on plan 1745-4 appears to be covered in slate or shingles. The only other detailed plan of a wall capping is 1734-8, showing a wood revetted wall on the Island Battery. The capping is shingles nailed to planks which in turn are fastened to nailers. This solution may not be practical for enclosures, but it could be kept in mind. Plates 117 and 117 bis in Doyon and Hubrecht indicate several other methods of capping walls, some of which are not applicable to Louisbourg (e.g. tiles).


Masonry, walls should only be used where documentary or archaeological evidence indicate their existence. Other details should be chosen from tile relevant examples presented above, depending on the location and function of the wall in question. [PAGE 9:]



The documentary evidence for all three types is scanty, and, unfortunately, there is no cartographic evidence.

There are four references to plank fences, one of which specifies that the planks were horizontal [NOTE 17]. It may be significant that all four references occur in the 1750's (that is, after the English occupation), but there is not sufficient evidence to assume that plank fences were English as opposed to French, or that they did not exist prior to 1745. All of the fences were located within the town itself.

It would appear that rail and brush fences were used more commonly outside the town in farm contexts, usually for paddocks or fields. One of the references specifies "lisses en long", which probably means horizontal rails [NOTE 18].

Several references indicate that some fences contained a mixture of materials. A tenant was ordered by the court to replace the "rails, pickets [piquets] and nails" which he had removed from the fences of the property he was renting [NOTE 19]. (This reference could also mean that the fence in question was a standard picket [piquet] fence with a ribband.) A detailed description of a property in the Dauphin faubourg specifies that one of the fences was made of pickets [piquets] and rails, another of small pickets [piquets], and a third of rails and brush with several small pickets [piquets] to support the other materials [NOTE 20]. [PAGE 10:]


No details are given as to the methods of constructing plank rail and brush fences. Rail and brush fences should not be used inside the town, unless new evidence is found to indicate their existence.




There are few documentary references to the size of gateways. Several times a gate is described as "large," and in one reference the word portail (portal) is used [NOTE 21]. The door at the entrance to the engineers property was 5 pieds wide [NOTE 22], and the barrière of the Magasin de Vivres yard was 8 pieds wide [NOTE 23].

The cartographic evidence suggests that the gates in masonry walls were generally larger than those in picket [piquet] fences, although the fact that masonry walls are associated with king's buildings would account for this in part. In addition, a masonry wall will support a larger gate than a picket [piquet] fence.


(01) HOSPITAL: 1725-8b = 6 pieds

(02) HOSPITAL: 1726-la = 8 pieds

(03) PROPOSED BARRACKS: 1739-4b = 8 pieds

(04) HOSPITAL: ND 82a = 9 pieds

(05) DE MESY HOUSE: ND 7a = 5 1/2 pieds


(01) PRIVATE PROPERTY: 1725-8a =3 pieds

(02) MAGASIN DE VIVRES: 1726-2c = 8 pieds

(03) FIRST ENGINEER'S HOUSE: 1726-2a = 3 pieds

(04) MAGASIN DE VIVRES: 1730-8 = 8-9 pieds

(05) DE MESY HOUSE: 1739-5a = 7 pieds

(06) RODRIGUE PROPERTY: 1739- 5a = 3 pieds or less

[PAGE 11:]

(07) KING'S BASTION: 1741-2 = 6-8 pieds

(08) LARTIGUE PROPERTY 1753-1 = 5 pieds

(09) DE MESY HOUSE: ND 7a = 3 pieds

(10) DAUPHIN FAUBOURG: ND 66a = 5 pieds

(11) HOSPITAL: ND 82a = 5 pieds

(12) KING'S GARDEN: ND 88 = 8 pieds

In addition to specific references to gateways, passages or rights of way between two buildings were described in two cases as 4 pieds and 3 pieds wide [NOTE 24].


Gate surrounds in masonry walls seem to have been cut-stone for the most part (Engineer's house, Hospital); the wood surround in De Mesy's wall (ND 7a) was an exception.

Documentary evidence exists for only three gates in picket [piquet] fences. The Magasin de Vivres "barrière" required 89 pieds of 8 by 8 timber for the "supports, braces and sills." The next reference is not clear, but it seems to indicate that the gate was supported only by a picket [piquet](the gate had blown down during the night [NOTE 25]. Doyon and Hubrecht, fig. 119, illustrate a similar type of surround. The last reference is to a "cadre de porte" or door frame," suggesting a fairly substantial structure [NOTE 26].

The plans and views show a considerable variety of surrounds, but they are difficult to interpret in many cases. Plans 1726-2c and 1730-8 show the same gate (Magasin de Vivres) with two different bracing patterns; an attempt should be made to correlate these plans with the Toisé evidence (89 pieds of 8 by 8 timber).

Plan 1726-3a [2a?] indicates another type of surround at the Engineer's house -- there appear to be fairly substantial uprights on either [PAGE 12:] side of the gate. The small house in the garden has smaller squared members on either side of the opening. Plan

1739-5a shows squared posts at the Rue St. Louis entrance to the commissaire ordonnateur's garden, although the other gateways shown on this plan do not illustrate this feature.

Plan 1741-2 shows substantial posts at both gates.

Plans ND 82a & ND 82b indicate squared posts slightly higher than the fence, and with a simple finial.

Plan ND 88 indicates a rather unusual feature -- there appear to be two square posts joined by a horizontal member on either side of the gate.

Many of the views show very elaborate gate surrounds, quite possibly the type of surround that would be denoted by the term "portail". (See plans 1731-1, 1737-3, and ND 76). Photographic enlargements of these features might prove useful, since further study will be required before design of such structures can be recommended.

The Gibson Clough sketches, although somewhat exaggerated, tend to confirm the variety of gate surrounds suggested by other evidence. The Island Battery sketch shows a simple finial at the powder magazine and a much more elaborate (possibly cut stone) gate post and finial opposite the barracks. The function of this latter feature is unknown.

The gateposts shown on the commissaire ordonnateur's property are fairly simple except that the main gate is arched. This latter style is illustrated for the hospital, the engineer's house, and the nunnery (with the addition of a cross on top of the arch). The [PAGE 13:] finials vary, and the materials used for the arches do not seem to be the same; in fact, most of the arches appear structurally unsound, and may be imaginary.

The two gateways in the engineer's garden have simple posts with two different styles of finials.


Although the plans indicate the gateway only, it seems reasonable to assume that there was some type of gate in the openings shown. The word most frequently (almost invariably) used in the documents is "door," but it is unlikely that all gates were of the solid type. One account of a theft indicated that the "door" of the yard was opened by unhooking the hook located on the inside [NOTE 27].

Detailed information concerning "doors" and barrieres is rather rare. Both the engineer's house and the hospital had 2 pouces doors, tongue and grooved, and emboitée top and bottom. The engineer's door was 7 pieds 9 pouces high, and the hospital door was double leaf [NOTE 28]. A door of Boston planks was placed in one of the small yards of the Queen's Bastion [NOTE 29]. The only other clue as to the type of door used in Louisbourg is the one shown on plan ND 82b. It seems to be a two leaf door made of planks, with one diagonal brace on each leaf.

The only detailed description of a barrière is that for the Magasin de Vivres courtyard. It was 8 pieds wide and 4 pouces thick [NOTE 30]. This means that it could not have been constructed in the same way as the barrière on plans 1751-29, but it was probably in the same style. [PAGE 14:]

The gates illustrated by Gibson Clough do not conform at all with the existing evidence. The commissaire ordonnateur's gates seem to be panelled; the hospital gate appears to be latticed; and that at the nunnery has two folding leaves. The fences illustrated in these sketches are also unique and should not be used as a basis for design.


The hardware used on gates varied from a simple hook, to a padlock or serrure (usually a rim lock). There is no mention of bolts or latches used on gates. One rather interesting locking device is described in a trial: a log was placed against the gate on the inside. This must have been a fairly reliable system because the thief was supposed to have climbed the fence and then opened the gate from the inside in order to leave with the stolen goods [NOTE 31].


The location and number of gates has not been discussed here, since each property will have its own requirements. It should be noted, however, that a reference was found to a gate between two properties [NOTE 32]; this may have been a common practice.

(1) SIZE

Most gateways in picket [piquet] fences were fairly narrow (3-5 pieds); those in masonry walls seem to have been considerably larger. Only one gate is illustrated (except for Gibson Clough), and it is the same height as the fence. (ND 82b) [Page 15:]


The evidence for gate surrounds is unsatisfactory and only the simpler examples can be substantiated from the documentary evidence. The type of surround used seemed to depend on the gate, the fence, and the location of the gate (e.g. main entrances tend to be more elaborate).


The majority of gates seem to have been the "door" type, although it is likely that the ND 82 style would have been more common than the type of door used at the engineer's house and the hospital. The latter (2 pouces, tongue and grooved, emboitée) is expensive, heavy, and imposing, and is therefore inappropriate for most domestic purposes.

The "barrières" should probably resemble the 1751-29 plan, but on a scale closer to the dimensions given for the Magasin de Vivres barrière, or even smaller. Again, the military specifications seem to be too expensive and too heavy for normal use.


A variety of hardware was used, but the majority of gates were locked with keys.

[PAGE 16:]


[NOTE 1:] 5 avril 1756, AFO G2, vol. 205, dossier 391, pièce 6, "Procedure Criminelle contre Jean Colin ... accusé de vol ..." [NOTE 2:] 18 mars 1721, AC F3, vol. 50, f. 81, "Ordonnance du Roi"; 18 mars 1721, AC B, vol. 44-2, ff. 549(v)-50(v), "Ordonnance du Roi"; 23 juin 1718, AC E38, ff. 1-2, "Estrait de Brevet de confirmation de concession." [NOTE 3:] 22 août 1721, AC C11C, vol. 15 suite, pièce 230, "Conditions des Concessions ... " [NOTE 4:] 1717, AC E93, ff. 26-26(v), Dossier De Costebelle; 17 novembre 1742, AC C11B, vol. 24, ff. 292-93, Despiet au ministre; 30 juin 1756, AFO G3, carton 2044, no. 59, Vente d'une maison; 9 septembre 1751, AC C11B vol. 28, ff. 267-72(v), "Estat de la dépense qui a eté faite ... au Port Toulouse." [NOTE 5:] 23 juin 1718, AC E38, ff. 1-2; 18 mars 1721, AC F3, vol. 50, f. 81; 27 septembre 1726, AFO G2, vol. 180, f. 365, Concernant l'affaire le Brun - Boularderie. [NOTE 6:] 23 juin 1718, AC E38, ff. 1-2; 18 mars 1721, AC F3 vol. 50, f. 81; 19 octobre 1751, AC C11B, vol. 30, f. 229, "Etat de depenses ... à la maison de M. Duvivier ... " [NOTE 7:] 23 septembre 1740, AFO G2, vol. 197, dossier 135, no. 4, Vol dans une maison; 22 septembre 1751, AFO G2, vol. 209, dossier 499, pièce 1, Vol de farine; juillet 1734, AFO G2, vol. 183, ff. 78-91, Vol fait dans la cour du Sr Dacarette. [NOTE 8:] 10 aout 1737, AFO G2, vol. 185, f. 222, Concernant le terrain de Jacques Fournac. [NOTE 9:] 20 septembre 1725, AFO G2, vol. 178, ff. 831-36, Visite des prisons. [PAGE 17:] [NOTE 10:] 5 avril 1756, AFO G2, vol. 205, dossier 391, pièce 6, Vol dans la maison de Rhuaud. [NOTE 11:] 30 septembre 1734, AC C11B, vol. 16, ff. 196-213, "Toisé définitif ... pour la construction du logement de lingénieur en chef ... "; 9 septembre 1751, AC C11B, vol. 28, ff. 267- 72(v), "Etat de la dépense ... pour la construction des Tabiments provisionels ... au Port Toulouse." [NOTE 12:] 19 octobre 1751, AC C11B, vol. 30, f. 229, "Etat de depenses ... à la maison de M. Duvivier ... " [NOTE 13:] 30 septembre 1734, A C11B, vol. 16, ff. 196-213; 9 septembre 1751, AC C11B, vol. 28, ff. 267- 72(v). [NOTE 14:] 30 octobre 1744, AFO DFC, no. d'ordre 203, "Etat de la Dépense Extraordinaire ... " [NOTE 15:] 30 septembre 1734, AC C11B, vol. 16, ff. 196-213; 25 octobre 1729, AFO G2, vol. 180, f. 139. [NOTE 16:] 30 septembre 1734, AC C11B, vol. 16, ff. 196-213. [NOTE 17:] 19 mai 1751, AFO G2, vol. 209, dossier 492, Procès verbal d'inquête ...; 31 octobre 1751, AFO G3, carton 2041 pt. 1, no. 80, Echange de maisons; 3 juillet 1753, AFO G2, vol. 202, dossier 281, pièce 2, Inventaire des effets de Louis Bertin ... 11 juin 1755, AFO G3, carton 2044, no. 54, Bail à loyer. [NOTE 18:] 19 septembre 1733, AFO G2, vol. 182, ff. 629-60, Inventaire des effets de Joseph Dugas ... un terrain au Port Toulouse; 14 novembre 1738, AFO G3, carton 2046 pt. 1, no. 96, Bail à ferme ... à Miré; 1 mai 1741, AFO G3, carton 2046 suite, no. 51, Bail à loyer ... à Miré. [NOTE 19:] 25 juillet 1757, AFO G2, vol. 209, ff. 42(v)-43(v), Plumitif d'audience. [PAGE 18:] [NOTE 20:] 30 juin 1756, AFO G3, carton 2044, no. 59, Vente d'une Maison. [NOTE 21:] 17 décembre 1737, AFO G2, vol. 184, f. 497(v), Vol dans une maison de campagne; juillet 1754, AFO G2, vol. 183, ff. 78-91, "Procedure Criminel ... de Jean [Mamié]"; 21 juin 1754, AFO G3, carton 2042, no. 60, Inventaire des effets de Marie Joseph Le Borgne de BelleIsle. [NOTE 22:] 30 septembre 1734, AC C11B, vol. 16, ff. 196-213. [NOTE 23:] 1 novembre 1727, AC C11B, vol. 9, ff. 180-92. [NOTE 24:] 24 octobre 1739, AC C11B, vol. 21, f. 270, "Etat du terrain appartenant a la veuve Rodrigue"; 12 janvier 1754, AFO G3, carton 2042, no. 33, vente d'un terrain. [NOTE 25:] 9 octobre 1732, AFO G2, vol. 181, ff. 489-99, Vol dans un magasin. [NOTE 26:] 30 juin 1756, AFO G3, carton 2044, no. 59, Vente d'une maison. [NOTE 27:] 22 février 1751, AFO G2, vol. 189, f. 21, Vol dans une maison. [NOTE 28:] 30 septembre 1734, AC C11B, vol. 16, ff. 196-213; 31 décembre 1749, AC C11B, vol. 28, ff. 330-51(v), "Etat des ouvrages de reparation et fournitures ..." [NOTE 29:] 31 décembre 1750, AC C11B, vol. 29, ff. 276-99, "Etat des ouvrages de reparation et entretiens ... " [NOTE 30:] 1 novembre 1727, AC C11B, vol. 9, ff. 180-92. [NOTE 31:] 22 septembre 1751, AFO G2, vol. 209, dossier 499, pièce 1, Vol de farine.[NOTE 32:] 9 octobre 1732, AFO G2, vol. 181, ff. 489-99, Vol dans un magasin.