Boyd, C.]

1

[Dec. 1, 1905.

UNITED COUNTIES OF NORTHUMBERLAND AND DURHAM v. TOWNSHIPS OF HAMILTON AND HALDIMAND.

Toll roads expropriation-Costs of arbitration.

A county which, upon the petition of two interested townships, proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Toll Roads Expropriation Act, 1901, initiates and takes part in an arbitration to fix the value of a toll road cannot recover from the petitioning townships the costs incurred by it.

H. F. Holland and W. F. Kerr, for plaintiffs. F. M. Field, for Township of Hamilton. J. B. McColl, and J. F. Keith, for Township of Haldimand.

Clute, J.]

[Dec. 1, 1905.

MCCARTNEY v. COUNTY OF HALDIMAND.

Municipal corporations-Contract-By-law-Purchase of landConveyance to corporation-Attempted rescission.

A municipal council desiring to maintain as required by statute an industrial farm passed a by-law directing that “a farm be purchased for an industrial farm." Tenders were then called for; a committee was appointed to examine the properties offered, that of the plaintiff being among them; the plaintiff's tender was accepted; the title to his property searched by the corporation's solicitor; and a conveyance of the property to the corporation obtained and registered. A cheque in the plaintiff's favour for the purchase money was made out and signed by the proper officers, but before its delivery to the plaintiff a by-law was passed by the council rescinding the former by-law, ordering the cheque to be cancelled, and directing the property to be reconveyed to the plaintiff.

Held, that the transaction was an executed one, the benefit of which the corporation had obtained, and, notwithstanding the absence of a by-law specifically authorizing it, could not be rescinded against the will of the plaintiff, in whose favour judgment for the amount of the purchase money was accordingly given.

Lynch-Staunton, K.C., and J. Harrison, for plaintiff. Douglas, K.C., and T. A. Snider, for defendants.

POLICE COURT, ST. THOMAS.

J. M. Glenn, K.C., Pol. Mag.]

[Nov. 6, 1905.

THE KING v. ANDERSON.

Sunday observance-Sale of newspapers-Newsdealer a "trades

man."

The defendant was charged with a violation of "The Lord's Day Act," C.S.U.C. c. 104.

According to the evidence given on the hearing, the defendant keeps a store on Talbot Street in this city, and on Sunday the 22nd day of October last he was in his store doing business, and on that day sold copies of The Detroit Free Press, The Detroit News Tribune and The Buffalo Courier, for five cents each. Only one witness was called on behalf of the defendant and this witness stated that he was travelling agent for The Detroit News Tribune, and that he had appointed the defendant to represent that paper in St. Thomas. He also stated that the defendant was supplied from time to time with so many copies of The Detroit News Tribune as he required at a certain price, and that he was credited from time to time with a certain amount for unsold copies. No evidence was given to shew the terms upon which he was being supplied with the other newspapers mentioned.

Held, 1. A newsdealer who sells newspapers on Sunday is liable to a fine as for an infraction of the Ontario "Lord's Day Act," C.S.U.C. c. 104.

2. A newsdealer is a "tradesman" within the meaning of that statute.

A. McCrimmon, K.C., for the Crown. John A. Robinson, for defendant.

Province of Nova Scotia.

SUPREME COURT.

CAMPBELL v. MCKAY.

[Nov. 28, 1905.

Full Court.] Trial-Withdrawal of case from jury-Collection Act-Commissioner acting under-Judicial act-Disqualification by interest.

Plaintiff was brought before D., a commissioner of the Supreme Court, for examination under the provisions of the Collection Act, and made application for his discharge on the ground of the insufficiency of the affidavit on which the warrant for his arrest was issued, and also on the ground of interest

on the part of the commissioner. The commissioner refused the application and ordered plaintiff to give bonds and in default to be committed to gaol. In an action brought against the commissioner claiming damages for malicious arrest and imprisonment plaintiff relied principally on evidence that the commissioner had refused upon affidavits to discharge plaintiff from an order made for his arrest on the ground that he was about to leave the province.

Held, 1. This was a judicial act and a perfectly justifiable proceeding and in the absence of evidence of malice, or from which malice could be inferred, the trial judge was right in withdrawing the case from the jury.

2. It did not take away the jurisdiction of the commissioner, and make the matter null and void, that he was afterwards discovered to be disqualified by interest on account of having had as a solicitor, a claim for another person against the same debtor. O'Connor and Tobin, for appellant. Fullerton, for respond

ent.

Full Court.]

THE KING v. ROBINSON.
Disorderly house-Evidence.

[Dec. 2, 1905.

Defendants were convicted of the offence of keeping a disorderly house, to wit, a common bawdy house. The evidence in addition to disclosing the character of the house that at the time of the commission of the offence charged the defendant, Isaiah Robinson, was the tenant, and that he and his wife were in actual occupation of the house.

Held, that there was sufficient evidence to justify the conviction and that it should be affirmed.

Maddin, for prisoners. Attorney-General, for the Crown.

Province of New Brunswck.

McLeod, J.]

SUPREME COURT.

[Dec. 4, 1905.

CUSHING SULPHITE FIBRE Co. v. CUSHING.

Winding-up Act-Allowing proceedings on behalf of company— Leave to appeal to Privy Council.

An application was made on behalf of the plaintiff company for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick. The

application was supported by a majority of the bondholders and shareholders of the company. For the liquidators of the said company, it was contended that they were the proper parties to take action and that they had not sufficient time to consider the advisability of appeal.

Held, that while permission might be given to other parties than the liquidators to take proceedings in the name of the company, this leave would not be granted until an appeal from the winding-up order winding up the said company was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. In the meantime, the liquidators could give notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. To grant this application, would mean protracted litigation if the winding-up order was sustained, and in the other event, leave could be obtained at a later date. Application refused. Teed, K.C., for the company. Hazen, K.C., for the liquidators. Pugsley, A.-G., for certain shareholders.

Province of Manitoba.

KING'S BENCH.

Mathers, J.]

[Oct. 13.

BAIN v. CANADIAN PACIFIC RY. Co.

Discovery-Production of documents-Examination on affidavit

as to documents.

Held, 1. When an affidavit on production of documents is made by an officer of a company any other examinable officer of the company may be examined upon it, and his answers may be used to impeach the affidavit on an application to compel the filing of a further and better affidavit.

2. If such last-mentioned officer on his examination states that he does not know whether or not certain documents exist which by the rules of the company should be in existence, he will be ordered to inquire and obtain the information necessary to enable him to answer fully and explicitly.

3. Reports of the various officials and servants of a railway company upon the occurrence of a fire alleged to have been caused by sparks from an engine, and as to the condition of the engine, if made in the regular course of duty, are not privileged from production.

4. The fire having occurred on the 20th day of the month, the officer was ordered to produce all reports on the condition of the engine from the first to the last day of the month.

Hoskin, for plaintiff. McLaws, for defendant.

Province of British Columbia.

SUPREME COURT.

Morrison, J.]

REX v. GOLDEN.

[Oct. 19, 1905.

Criminal Code, s. 591-Statement of accused-Signature of accused-Evidence of, against him at trial on charge of forgery.

Prisoner was tried at the October assizes in the City of Vancouver with having forged a post office money order. At the preliminary hearing the magistrate read over to him the warning set out in s. 591, and the prisoner said he had nothing to say, whereupon the magistrate asked him to sign the statement which he had made, which the prisoner did. Counsel for the Crown tendered this signature at the assizes for comparison by an expert with the writing on the post office order. This was objected to on the ground that anything the prisoner wrote would be on the same basis as if he had spoken it, and that he had declined to give evidence before the magistrate.

Held, that the signature so obtained might be put in evidence. Maclean, K.C., for the Crown. Bowser, K.C., for accused. accused.

REX v. GRINDER.

Hunter, C.J.]
[Oct. 23, 1905.
Criminal law-Handwriting, proof of in criminal prosecution—
Accused testifying on his own behalf.

Prisoner, charged with horse stealing, gave a certain memorandum in writing as to the transaction. At the trial MORRISON, J., on conclusion of the prisoner's evidence in his own behalf, asked him to make a copy of said memorandum, which direction was objected to and over-ruled. On a third trial the Crown sought to put in evidence the specimen of handwriting so obtained.

Held, that the prisoner, notwithstanding that he had submit