ted himself for examination, could not be compelled to furnish evidence against himself by being subjected to a test, or supplying specimens of writing where the question of his own handwriting was a material part of the case to be proved against him. Maclean, K.C., D. A.-G., for the Crown. Henderson, for

accused.

Hunter, C.J.]

REX v. MCGREGOR.

[Nov. 1, 1905.

Criminal law-Certiorari-Summary convictions-Record of proceedings-Appeal, right of depending upon recordRule nisi-Crim. Code ss. 856 (3), 590, 591.

Held, 1. The omission of the magistrate to take down in writing the evidence given before him was fatal to the conviction.

2. It is not unecessary to state the grounds on which the motion for a rule nisi is made, but if they are not stated it may necessitate an adjournment.

McQuarrie, for the Crown. W. J. Whiteside, for prisoner.

Hunter, C.J.]

JOHNSON V. DUNN.

[Nov. 2, 1905. Contract-No time limit-Reasonable time for performanceNominal damages-Trespass-Injunction.

Action for damages for trespass and for an injunction. Plaintiff entered into a contract in October, 1902, with the Hazelmere Mill Company for the purchase and cutting of shingle bolts on a quarter section of land at the rate of 40c. per cord. The mill paid $150 in December following on account of the purchase price, and it was variously estimated that there were between $400 and $800 worth of timber on the land. No time limit was mentioned. The contract was assigned in March, 1905, to one Kinney, under whose authority defendant entered the land and began to cut the timber in August, 1905, when he was stopped by an interim injunction. No notice was given plaintiff of the assignment, and no bolts having been cut pursuant to the contract, he notified the company on May 12, 1905 (which. notice reached them on the 13th), that the carrying away of the timber must be commenced within two months from date of notice and completed within two years. Neither defendant nor his principal was served with this notice, although they became aware of it within a few days, and defendant did not commence work

within two months of the time the notice came to the knowledge of Kinney.

Held, 1. It is well settled that the law implies that, where no time is mentioned, the contract should be carried out within. a reasonable time having regard to all the circumstances; and when undue delay occurs, the other party has the right to notify the delaying party that unless the contract is carried out within a specified time, such time to be a reasonable time, he will consider the contract at an end. Chitty, 14th ed., p. 354; Leake, 4th ed., 599, and cases there cited.

2. The time here given was, in all the circumstances, reasonable. Only nominal damages having been proved, judgment was given for $5 and costs, and injunction not continued.

Martin, K.C., and W. M. Gray, for plaintiff. Bowser, K.C., for defendant.

Full Court.]

IN RE TELFORD.

[Nov. 8, 1905. Medical Act, B.C. Stat. 1898, c. 9; 1899, c. 4; 1903, c. 4; 1903-4, c. 4; 1905, c. 6-Enquiry by committee of council-Appeal to judge-Medical practitioner-Removal from register-"Infamous or unprofessional conduct."

Appeal by the Council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. from the judgment of MORRISON, J., reversing and setting aside the order of the council erasing the name of Dr. T., the applicant, from the British Columbia medical register.

A young, unmarried woman, being pregnant, having to the knowledge of T. endeavoured to effect a miscarriage, asked him to perform on her a criminal operation for abortion. T., supposing it might be necessary to operate owing to the patient's condition arising from these unsuccessful attempts, inflicted a wound the more effectually to deceive her parents and others with respect to her real condition by causing them to believe that she had been operated upon for appendicitis. This was done in a private sanitarium under T.'s exclusive control, and without professional or other consultation. T. informed her father (whom she resided with and was dependent upon), in answer to enquiries as to his daughter's condition, that she was suffering from appendicitis. The incision made by T. could serve no purpose relating to the health of the patient. T. was prosecuted for having performed a criminal operation for abortion, but was acquitted. The Medical Council, however, after a formal inquiry by a Committee of Council, resolved to erase his name from

the register of medical practitioners. From this decision he appealed to a judge of the Supreme Court.

Held, reversing the decision of MORRISON, J., that T. was guilty of unprofessional conduct, his acquittal on the criminal prosecution disposing of the charge of infamousness; and that the order of the Medical Council erasing his name from the register should be restored.

Davis, K.C., and A. E. McPhillips, K.C., for the Council. Martin, K.C., for respondent.

REX v. WILLIAMS.

Hunter, C.J.] [Nov. 10, 1905. Criminal law-Habeas corpus-Code, Part LV. ss. 785, 786, 789, 790-Summary trial-Election by accused-Costs-Action. Application for writ of habeas corpus and certiorari to quash a conviction by magistrate under Part LV. of the Code relating to summary trials of indictable offences. The affidavit of the prisoner stated that at the trial he was not told that he had a right to be tried by a jury and that he did not plead guilty. The magistrate, in his affidavit, stated that before committing the prisoner to gaol he reduced the charge to writing, read it to prisoner, put to him the question required to s. 786, explained to prisoner that he was not obliged to plead or answer, but if he did so he would be committed for trial in the usual course. That prisoner thereupon consented to summary trial and pleaded guilty.

Held, 1. The omission by the magistrate to hold the preliminary enquiry as provided in s. 789, to enable him to decide whether or not the case should be disposed of summarily was fatal.

2. The omission to inform the accused as to the probable time when the first Court of competent jurisdiction would sit, was also fatal. No costs of action.

Whiteside, for the Crown. Bowser, K.C., and Edmonds, for prisoner.

Duff, J.]

WALLACE v. FLEWIN.

[Nov. 27, 1905.

Water Clauses Consolidation Act, 1897-Appeal from commissioner-Power of Commissioner to amend record.

Petition, under s. 36 of the Water Clauses Consolidation Act, 1897, for cancellation of a record issued to one Keith in Feb.,

1905, and afterwards, in March, 1905, at the request of Keith, amended to read as having been granted to Keith and Hamilton.

Held. A commissioner, prior to the passage of the amendment of 1905, having adjudicated upon an application for a record, and having made the appropriate entry, is functus officio, and has no power to amend such record.

Any such amendment, being a nullity, cannot be reviewed in any proceedings under s. 36.

Bodwell, K.C., and Oliver, for petitioner. Bowser, K.C., for respondents.

Book Reviews.

THE LAW OF ASSESSMENT, by A. WEIR, B.A., LL.B., of Osgoode Hall, Barrister-at-law, including the law of Statute Labour. Toronto Canada Law Book Company, 1905.

If light is needed on any subject in which the profession and the public are jointly interested it is the law affecting the assessment of property. Mr. Weir, whom we know to be a careful and painstaking student of the law and an accurate thinker, has here given us the result of his industry and thought. Further experience will remedy some defects, for no man is born a scientific bookmaker; but what is most important he gives us the law as it stands.

A book on this subject, giving the Act and the decisions on the various sections, gathering together all the Canadian cases, with a full selection from those of England and the United States will be as useful to those who have to administer the law in the various municipalities as to the lawyer who may be called upon to advise thereon.

The author has, we are glad to see, dealt fully with the procedure in tax sales, and his collections of authorities on the subject will be found very useful to practitioners, who are so often called upon to advise upon the legality or otherwise of the proceedings antecedent to or at these sales.

A good index closes the volume.

UNITED STATES DECISIONS.

BILLS AND NOTES:-A bank which has accepted a cheque on deposit, with the depositor's indorsement, is held in Aebi v. Bank of Evansville (Wis.) 68 L.R.A. 964, to discharge the in

dorser from liability thereon by failing to notify him of its nonpayment for nearly a month, notwithstanding it was lost in the mail when forwarded for collection, and the bank waited in the hope that it would rcach its destination.

BURGLARY:-Raising a window partly open so as to create an aperture sufficient to admit of entrance into a building, which is subsequently effected through the opening, is held, in Claiborne v. State (Tenn.) 68 L.R.A. 859, to be a sufficient breaking to come within the statute defining burglary as the "breaking and entering into a mansion house by night with intent to commit a felony."

LATERAL SUPPORT:-A landowner is held, in Kansas City N. W. R. Co. v. Schwake (Kan.) 68 L.R.A. 673, to have no right to recover damages for injury to lateral support of his property until the earth is so much disturbed that it slides or falls, since the actionable wrong for impairment to lateral support is not the excavation, but the act of allowing the land to fall. An elaborate note to this case reviews all the other authorities on liability for removal of lateral or subjacent support of land in its natural condition.

FLOTSAM AND JETSAM.

A story is told of a certain newly-appointed judge who remonstrated with counsel as to the way in which he was arguing his case. "Your honour," said the lawyer, "you argued such a case in a similar way when you were at the Bar." "Yes, I admit that," quietly replied the judge. "But that was the fault of the judge who allowed it."

The Central Law Journal says: "A judge is not half fitted for his work till he has learned that legal principles are intended to bear such a relationship to each other that they may be woven into a garb of justice in which to clothe the very right of a matter."

"It is a sad day for the State when the attorneys begin to lose confidence in the work of the higher Courts."