Railway operated under the joint traffic agreement ratified by the Act 62 & 63 Vict. ch. 8 (D.), the railway company was liable for the carelessness of the train despatcher engaged by the company and under its control and directions, notwithstanding that he was declared by the agreement to be in the joint employ of the Crown and the railway company and that the Crown was thereby obliged to pay a portion of his salary. TASCHEREAU, C.J., dubitante. Appeal allowed with costs. Lafleur, K.C., and Beckett, for appellant. Laflamme and W. G. Mitchell, for respondent. B.C.] CLARK V. DOCKSTEADER. [Nov. 27, 1905. Mining law-Staking claim-Initial post-Occupied ground. In staking out a claim under the Mineral Acts of British Columbia the fact that initial post No. 1 is placed on ground previously granted by the Crown under said Acts does not necessarily invalidate the claim, and sub-s. (g) of s. 4 of 61 Vict. c. 33, amending the "Mineral Act," R.S.B.C. c. 135, may be relied on to cure the defect. Madden v. Connell, 30 S.C.R. 109, distinguished. Judgment appealed from (11 B.C. Rep. 37) affirmed, IDINGTON, J., dissenting. Appeal dismissed with costs. W. A. McDonald, K.C., for appellant. S. S. Taylor, K.C., for respondent. N.W.T.] PLISSON V. DUNCAN. [Nov. 27, 1905. Receiver-Management of business-Supervision and control— Laches. The receiver of a partnership who is directed by the Court to manage the business until it can be sold should exercise the same reasonable care, oversight and control over it as an ordinary man would give to his own business, and if he fails to do so he must make good any loss resulting from his negligence. The fact that the receiver is the sheriff of the district does not absolve him from this obligation though the parties consented to his appointment knowing that he would not be able to manage the business in person. The Chief Justice and MACLENNAN, J., dissented, taking a different view of the evidence. Appeal allowed with costs. Ewart, K.C., for appellant. Chrysler, K.C., for respondent. N.W.T.] [Nov. 27, 1905. EGGLESTON v. CANADIAN PACIFIC RY. Co. Operation of railway-Straying animals-Negligence-Duty to trespassers. A railway company is not charged with any duty in respect to avoiding injury to animals wrongfully upon its line of railway until such time as their presence is discovered. IDINGTON, J., dissenting, though concurring in the judgment on other grounds. Appeal allowed with costs. G. Tate Blackstock, K.C., for appellants. C. de W. Macdonald, for respondent. Province of Ontario. COURT OF APPEAL. From MacMahon, J.] HAY v. BINGHAM. [Oct. 13, 1905. Libel-Newspaper interview-Publication-Privilege-Innuendo -Meaning of words-Nonsuit. A defeated candidate in an interview with a newspaper reporter the day after an election informed him that the plaintiff (who was a political opponent and an active party worker) had as soon as it was known he was in the field, come to and asked him to endorse a note for $1,000, which he refused to do, and had also later in a speech accused him of disloyalty. The plaintiff claimed the innuendo was that he had offered his services and support as a bribe and had corruptly offered to desert his party and abandon his principles and support the defendant at the election if he would endorse his note; that his opposition to the defendant's candidature was not due to principle or party loyalty, but to the defendant's refusal to endorse the note; and that because of such refusal the plaintiff not only opposed his candidature, but attacked him personally and accused him of disloyalty. The interview was published and the defendant next day called at the newspaper office, and the only thing he found fault with in the report was the omission of a few words in the introductory part. At the trial the judge allowed the case to go to the jury, who found a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. On an appeal by the defendant it was Held, that there was evidence that the defendant knew he was speaking for publication and that he authorized what he said to be published in a newspaper; and that the communication was not privileged; but Held, also, that the words were not capable of the meaning ascribed to them by the plaintiff, and that the motion for a nonsuit at the close of the case should have been allowed; and the action was dismissed with costs. Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty (1882) 7 App. Cas. p. 744, referred to. Judgment of MACMAHON, J., reversed in part. From Falconbridge, C.J.K.B.] [Oct. 13, 1905. THE CORPORATION OF OAKVILLE V. ANDREWS. Partnership-Dissolution-Continued use of firm name and omission to give notice of dissolution or file certificate thereofSubsequent receipt and deposit of moneys in bank-Liability. On the evidence set out in this case a partnership in a private banking business which had existed between the defendant and one H. was held to be dissolved; but as the business continued to be carried on in the firm name, and no notice of the dissolution was given, or any certificate thereof under R.S.O. 1897, c. 130, s. 7, was filed, the defendant's liability to persons dealing with the firm continued. After the dissolution of the partnership H., who was also treasurer of a municipal corporation, received, as such, moneys belonging to the corporation, which he deposited with the firm as such bankers, and applied them either in the business or in discharge of its liabilities. Held, that the defendant would not be liable therefor, for in dealing with the moneys, H. did so either as the corporation's authorized agent, or in breach of his duty; if as such agent, his knowledge that the defendant was not a partner must be attributed to the corporation, and, if in the breach of his duty, his improperly mixing them with his own moneys, in which the defendant had no interest, could not render the defendant liable. Millar, for appellants. Shepley, K.C., and D. O. Cameron, for respondents. From Teetzel, J.] [Nov. 13, 1905. CANADA CARRIAGE Co. v. LEA. Fraudulent conveyance-Action to set aside-Evidence-New trial-Conspiracy-Costs-Parties-Damages. In an action by creditors to set aside as fraudulent and void a conveyance of land and a bill of sale made by an insolvent debtor to his sister-in-law, there was judgment for the plaintiffs at the trial, but on appeal by the defendants, the Court of Appeal, deeming the evidence unsatisfactory, ordered a new trial, upon payment by the defendant grantee of the costs of the former trial and of the appeal, notwithstanding the danger which attends the opening up of a case after the attention of the parties has been directed to the defects in their proofs. A brother of the debtor was made a defendant, as well as the debtor himself and his grantee, it being alleged by the plaintiffs, who sued on behalf of themselves and all creditors, that all the defendants entered into a conspiracy to defeat and defraud the creditors. Held, that the plaintiffs could not succeed upon the conspiracy claim, for they could shew no special damage accruing to them, and could not recover damages on behalf of a class. And that claim failing, there was no ground for making the debtor's brother a party, and he could not be ordered to pay costs, but the plaintiffs should pay his costs. Judgment of TEETZEL, J., reversed. Shepley, K.C., and Murdoch, for defendants M. C. Lea and E. A. Lea. Hobson, for A. C. Lea. Lynch-Staunton, K.C., and F. Morrison, for plaintiffs. From Anglin, J.] [Nov. 13, 1905. STEPHENS v. TORONTO RAILWAY CO. Damages-Excessive amount-Suggestive reduction-New trial. Damages to the amount of $2,100 were recovered by the plaintiff, suing as the father and administrator of his deceased son, 22 years of age, who was killed through defendants' negligence. The son's occupation was that of a labourer, had driven a delivery waggon, etc., the highest rate of wages received by him being for eleven days' work for a telephone company at $35 a month. His mother was dead and his father had married again. He lived with a widowed sister, but was on good terms with his father and stepmother, whom he visited once or twice a month, when he would give his father from $2 to $4, and on one occasion $5. His habits were good and he was of an affectionate and generous disposition. Evidence was received of his intention of helping his father to build a house, of assisting him in paying off a mortgage of $650 on his property, as well as a debt of $400, which he owed another son, and for which the father had given his promissory notes. Held, that the evidence of such expressed intention was properly admitted, not necessarily as shewing a promise to make the payments, but of his being well disposed to his father; but the amount awarded the plaintiff for damages was clearly excessive and unless the parties agreed to a reduction of $500 there should be a new trial. Bicknell, K.C., for defendants, appellants. Proudfoot, K.C., for plaintiff, respondent. A provision in a contract for the right to use space for advertising purposes for its renewal "at the end of three years at a price to be agreed upon, but not less than $5,000 per annum leaves the matter at large unless the price is agreed upon and the person using the space cannot insist on a renewal at the rate of $5,000 per annum. Judgment of TEETZEL, J., affirmed. DuVernet, for plaintiff, appellant. D. L. McCarthy, for T. R. Co. S. B. Woods, for Street Car Advertising Co. From Drainage Referee.] [Dec. 30, 1905. IN RE MCCLURE AND TOWNSHIP OF BROOKE. Drainage-Defective system-Recovery of damages and costsSubsequent assessment-Drainage Act, s. 95. The assessment for damages and costs recovered by a person complaining of a defective system of drainage must be made only against the lands included in the drainage scheme complained of. Lands included in an amended scheme undertaken after the right to damages has accrued and claim has been made are not liable. Judgment of the drainage referee affirmed. Aylesworth, K.C., for appellants. spondents. Wilson, K.C., for re |