r\ n m V IMAGE EVALUATrON TEST TARGET (MT-3) I.O I^|2j8 |25 i ■^'■2.2 ^1?^:^ ^ . >^^' 23 WEST-MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S«0 (716)S72-4S03 -.'^5 "^ CIKM|IC1VIH JVIicrofiche Series. V >! ?■■■ CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. ...a-^. Canadian InstiHife.for Historical IMicroreproductions /Institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquaa 6 Technical and Biblio«raphic Notaa / NotM tachniqim at bibliograpMquM Tha Inttituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for f ilnAng. Faaturts of this copy which may ba bibliographicaiiy uniqua. which may altaTany of tha imagas in tha raproduction. or which may ^gnificantfy changa tha usimI mathod of filming, ara chackad baiow. □ Colourad covers/ Couvartura'^ coulaur □ Covars damaged/ Cpuvartura andommagfo □ Covars rastorad and/or laihinatad/ Couvartura rastaurte at/ou palliculta □ Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua CbliNirad maps/ Cartas gftographiquas an coulaur Colourad ink (i.a. othar than Uua or Mack)/ Encr%da ooulauir (i.a. autra qua Maua ou noira) . " r I CokHirad platas and/or illustrations/ ^y^ l_J Planchas at/ou Ulustrations'an coulaur ^" ■■•«„' • *■ ; ■ '" ■■'■■■" rrS'^^ouhd wit^ Ip> " I I Rali4 avac d'aihras documents * m n Tight bindiiv may causa shadows or distortion along intarior margin/ , La raliura sarrfa peut c^Umt de Tombra ou da la distorsion la long da la marge intkieure^ Blank leaves added diiring restoration may i within the text Whenever possible, these hive been omitted from filming/ II se peut quejEerttines peges blanches eioiuties ton d'une restauratkm apparaissent dans la taxta, mais, lorsqua cela Mait pocsiMe. oas peges n'ont pasMfilmias. { ' L'Institut e microf ifm4 le meilleur exempleire qu'il lui e 4tA possible de se procurer. Les dttails de cat axeihpl'i'* dui sont peut-4tre uniques du point de vue bibliogrephk|ue, qui peuvent nnodifier.uhe imege iproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger uiw modificetioii I le mMiode normale de f ilmaga sont indiqiits >us. loured peges/ de couleur endommegees Peges restored end/or lerainated/ Peges restauries at/ou pellicultes rri P*9** discokMired. f(^ipMd or foxed/ n Peges dfaolorles, tacheties ou piqutes Peges detached/ r~71 Showthrough/ LiJ Transparence □ Quelity of print veries/ Queliti intgele de llmpression □ Continuous peginetion/- Peginetion continue □ Includes indexfes)/ Comprend un (des) index Title on header teken from:/ Le titre de I'en-tlta provient: □ Title pege «f issue/ Page de titre de le Ihrreison t D Ceptton of issue/ Titre de dipert dele livreison m Additionel comments:/ , Commenttires supplAmentaires: □ Mestheed/ < 6«n«rk|ue (pirkMKques) de la livreison f . ■ ■ " ' \ Verious paging^. There are some creases In the middle of pages. ', Pagination multiple. II y a des plis dans le milieu des pages. |^ This item is filmed et the reduction ratio cheqifd bekiw/ rv I |- yjm INK 10X cwnNi 11 191 mm* 14X ■x a* ranw uwn n 18X ■ Klin 22X i 26X 30X : yf » 12X 1SX 20X 24X 28X • 32X • " 1 . ■ v.. - * , ( n- \ * ' \. > ■.-'-'Ci. ■-'' * • '..!.'» (» ■ ■ y VIM X Hi Tb« copy filmed h«r« has been reproduced thenfcs to the 9«n«rosity of : Lan Library University of Mestern Ontario Th« imagM appoaring hara ara «ha baat quality poaaibla eonaldaring tha condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract apecif icationa. v Original copiea in printaU paper covera are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the laat page with a printed or illuatratad impree- aion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copiea are filmed beginning on the firat page with a printed or iiliiatrated imprea- .aion, and ending on the kMt pege with a printed orilluatratad impreaaion. The laat recorded- frame on eech microfiche ahali contain the aymbol «^^meening "CON- TINUED"), or the aymbol ▼ (meaning "END"), whichever appiiee. Mapa. platea. charta. etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratioa. Thoae too large to be entirely ineiuded in one expoaiire are filmed beginning in the upper left handsomer, left to right and top to bottom, aa mariy frainaa aa required. Thut following diagrama illu8tr8t%the method: I L'exempiaire fiimi fut reproduit grica i la g4nAroait4 da: tjm Library University of Hestern Ontario Lea Images iuivantes ont 4t4 riproduitaa avac la plus grand soin. compte tenu da la condition at da la netteti de I'enemplaire film«. et w coriformit# avac lea conditiona du contrat de fllmage. -- ,;:,'.....■::•■■." • Lea a>emplairoa drigihaux dont la eouvarture en papier eat ImprimAe sent fiimAs en commen^ant par la preniicr plat et en termlnant soit par la '* darnlAre page qui cortiporte une emprainta d'impresslon ou d'illustration, soit parle second plat, aelon la caa. Tdua lea autrea exemplaires -originaux sont filmia en commen^ant par la premiere page qui comporte line iimpreinte d'impreaaipn ou d'illuatration at an termlnant par la damlAre page qui comporte iihe telle empreinte. ii^ -■ "'' ■ ■ r ■ ■*■ ■ vinlaa aymbolea auivanta appbrattra sur la derniiire image de cheque micfrofiche. salon le caa: la symbola — ^ signifie "ifk SUIVRE". le. symbole ▼ signifie "FIN". Lea (partaa. planchea. tablef lix. etc.. peuvent Atre fiflmAs A dee taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trai» grand pour Atra . reproduit en tin aaul clichA. Ill est f ilmA A partir de Tangle aupirieur gauche; de gauche i droite. et de haut en bea. en pren^^t le nombre d'images nteessaire. Lea dlsgrammas suivanta illuatrant la mithode. •:■, ■t^--; i - 3 ' ■ • ■ ■ . ... - ^ ..,.'■■ ■ ' , . ';'■■■ ■ ' -■■' .'"■: "■ i 4 :: 'S. 6 32X ■ . * ^ ■ ^' • - ■ ■■ ,' .'.'.■ '. ,^ . > \ . ■ ■■ p ' " - '^-— ^""""'^ ■ . . . • ■ ■ '^ ^- -■ ■ . __;..,--<^''^''''''^ . '# 7 '^ " i ' ^ yr-? "■■ ...' '■ - ''„"\ . ■ f ■ • ■ '■•" I : /'-. ■■../ ^- I, ^yl*' \ ,; / 1^.: /' o FBI THB LOWERCANW DA Snrist COLLEtiTiON DE dMsIOISTB BAS-CANAD^ -M-'- VOL. II. ffftitorial (Eontntittce. S. BBTSVKB ; V^K. LATKBNATB t vtvT. TO&R&NUB. MKnaging Sliitat. "•' F., W. TOBBANOB. ,,- THB ifrAlOBS 1 BT S. BBTHVNB. ^■•A. ■i- i; O IS •■»> ■» >X iHontreal: PBtNl^^D AND PUBLISHED BY JOHN LOVBLL. -«; 'n V ■r-iJ- 'i-,'^. .' «» . » . . :_ ^-^ # ■ ■ . j % •y-f I ■ I t ' . •^ otc^ ;^'^96^ .«'•., \-\ ■V V /-■ Errala, Names o Preface, Index to Reports Hule of I List of Ji Eloctioa Cc Appendix Cor « No. 1 " s No. 8. i " 4. " 6. " 6. •' 7. Note to Wi Index to F V ' H .iv } , ^^'-: 'MBLE OF CONTENTS. / Errala, .,.•••'•••.... "*"' "' T. Names of Contributors, ....... . , < ■ •■ vi. Preface,....., .;. • * I vll. Index to Cases,,....... , ■■■ ■ ■"*\/"' ■• ix— xl. Reports of Cases,.....,... .. ! » \ . " t 1—308. Rule of Practice S. C, ^ ••........f........ , jg^ List of Judgments,\ . . \ 1'""t •. ••••••• 137,8; 307,8. Eloctloo iCases , ' / Oontrover tedvklections Cor tb« City of Hontical ^ Do. \ do. do. County of ArgenteuU, '. '. . . . .*..]" ,3 Do. /W do. do. LotbiniAre '"'26 »•• / U. do. City of Three RiTep8,........i.... '34 Do. L. io. do. Qaeb.«^........... ....V,; Appendix to WT/cox vs. M/cox.... \ \ ' Vf""'*" »— Ix. Containing:— A 'l. ■' J *No.l. Opinion of Chief jLtico Hey...... ".^ " "lSh: " 2.A. OpinionofSmith\j..in8tUMtv..B<>wm.n" ,H_,i/ , ' B./OpinionofV.nfeUn.j,i„«une..„' , '' ,,'■„ 0. Opinion o\ C. MondeW J, in same..:.... ..Z "■ " ' ^^,, ] D. OpinionofEoUand.I,„s^e. ;. 'j •■■ "1;;:^ ^.■ «. Opinion of Panet. X. Aame. ....^ ■'""■ 'T y-^^-'^i'. : .: P. Opinionof A,iwiij:ir^ % '-^^;^ No. 8. Opinion of Si, William Qhint.V..,.. ,1^,^ i " 4. PpinidnofBei«|,j,... \ ' ^'^,^****"-' - ; 6. Opinion of i^keij, .......;...l....!;ii;;zir;;"z;""S^,ii^ 6. Extracts flpomifaji»r«»CoUection. ° liil— 1 iiL ••7. Provincial Statute, 20 Vict, a 45. IZZI'ZZZZ'Z UioJu Note to Wikox vs. WUcox, . . . • Ixi.— liiii. Index to Principal ^attera in Reports, „.... }_ . ^ .:3 ti t^ V ^ ■ ■/ ■ ^'''^'n -■ I ■'.'■.' '■ ■ , ' / . ' , W •••' 1 ' 1 Ir 1 • ^\ N / y? kvi^' ' ■ . • • ' , ' • . • v »»■ , ■ :'.' ■ ■. . - . \, ... ■~ '^, ■ \ ■' T ' ■K ' t ) ' : , ' ' •'■ ' . '■ • -. 1" \- \ , .,■ \ ■- * . ___ ■^ . - - I . \ . \ ^^ \ ■ 'i ■ • ■ ' ^ ■c^fmw^'i; ■>- /' ^• L I RRATA .1, p. 149, # p. 161, II P. 152, II i< .•• II II P. 223, P. 250, lino 0, for" du" read" pu." / _ JL " 12, ' l- .x "\ \ • ^*\' A. ORoaa, 8. UKTIIUNB, p. R. LAPRKNATE, A. HERBERT, J. J. C. ABBO'iT, P. W. TORRANCE, R. LAFLAMME, H. BANjpROFT, Conttibutow. W. P, QAIEDNBE. S. W. DORMAir, A. MORRIS, T. K. RAHSAT. A. H. LUNN. E. 1. HEMMINO, W. A. BOVEY. H. L. 8NOWDON, DUNBAR BBOWNB. TlIEEdi •JU«I8T, ^ for thoir tlioir Cot, A wor owing to have onl; the distu Forth cruve in( tion or v. a work t inaccura( f ' ^,. Tho lal it has bcc in any de lawyer ht fully repa Thp pn intendenc these, Mr work, an( /Mr. La ;the report The nu fioQ cases Each cj In coQ( obligation issued it a of liberali have been of editors compensal PREFACE TO THE SECOND VOLUME. The Editors in concluding the Second Volume of tho Lower Canada -JuKiST, would repeat tho oxpresgionof their obligations to tho Bench for their courteous aid in tho preparation of the reports; and also to tlieir Confrere, of the Bar for the assistance they have rendered, A work like tho present is published under gr^jat disadvantages, owing to the multiplicity of tho engagements of tho Editors, which have only allowed them to put the cases through the press, under the disturbing influences of a variety of nmttcrs Requiring attention. For tho errors and mistakes which may be detected, they humbly' crave indulgence and forgiveness, for no one who has any concep- tion ortjxperienco of tho labour and care required in carrying such a work through the press, will feel surprise at some blemishes and inaccuracies. f " Non ego paucii Offtndar maculit, quai aut incur ia fudit, . a -^ut humana parum cavit natura." '" MoRATii-Ep. ad. Pii. 382. The labour has been attended with no pecuniary recompence, but it has been a work of love ; and if the editors and contributors have m any degree fulfilled a portion of the debt which a great English lawyer has said every man owes to his profession, they ah) well and fully repaid for their toil. ' The present volume has been completed under the editorial supej;, intendonce 6f Messrs. Bethune, Laerenaye and Torrance, and of these, Mr. Torrance has had the general superintendence of the work, and been the medjum ofJi|mtnj'icatiMj with the printer, y Mr. Lafrenaye has had chJ^of the revision and correction of ,the reports in French. ' ^ - The number of cases reported in the volume, including five elec- tion cases (reported by Mr. Abbott) is 138. Each case reported has the initials of the contributor. In conclusion, those who value this publication, are under great obligations to the liberal publisher, Mr. John Lovell, who has issued it at his own risk and cost ; and without this remarkable act , of liberality on his part, it is unlikely that the present volume would have been published, for it does not pay expenses, although the staff of editors and contrihutora is honorary, and receives no pecuniary compensation. • I-- « Mi: / — -->■ 1 * . • ■ '. . » r TO / » ^ Abbott el - Adun ▼• A<}una Ti . AUornay Bank of I BeauprA ' B^Uogar Benning etal Barniar t Barthelat «r fioa-IN, THE BECpND VOLUME Of th • . A ,.: LOWER CANADA JUEIST. •^ I, \f Abbottatal. Tt. Malklahamatal., '..„i...... .............|... M3 \ ▲dun ▼•. Sutherlud ^. .' U . 109 A4uM Ti. Qr«Tal, .V .' 303 j||l AUorney Oeneral, vro Rtgina, ▼•. H oPharMO ai 41. %. HI, W '^' BankofBriUih North- Auerioa Va. OuTiUiar at ftl., , 1S4 BeauprA ra. Mart^l at Martal, oppoaant, « aT6 B^Ungar ra. Durooh((r^ r. .« 388 Banniag ra. The Hobtraal Rubbar Oompany, BAd Toung, oppoiani, and Ooralng . at al.| oppoaanta, A; W*l Baraiar ra. Baauchamin,. : ., ..'^. ..... 103, 389 Berthalat ti. Tha Montreal and Bytown Railway Oc, and Qnj at al., o^poaanta,. . .184 , ^ *' appallant, and Oujr at al., re8ponde(|ita,7- .... ..X.,.,7«A..ii......°. tl " ra. Maaaon,, .......•-. .- r^atn. ...,., j>i^ ..»'••... 316 Olnrbonnaan Ta. BanJ,aniln,...'iV... ..... ••'.••..•.•.•••••'.•..••.»s. .. ♦-...•••• »08 Glarke at al. Tl, Olarke at w.,^ ...^ •- • 309 OookbornTi. Starnei, .>..... V. ^.^ • H* «• Ta,Baandry,.. .^ ••••• 388 , •• TB.TutUa,. •'•?•;•••»;,• •••••• *•* Corporation of tha Parish of VarehAraf Ti. Bontillat, ? U* «« «« *,; " 8te. RoaaTi. Laprohon............. -..118 0«t« af al. Ti, Morrlion v* W« Crawford Ti.F7aon, .'.<«. ••*'v ** ^®* Camming at al.Ti.lAnn, and Smith etal.,oppoianti • 198 Dalp4 dit Pariaaau/Ti. Rochon, ". ./f^ "* - DaTlin Ti. Tnmblaty, ,' .............i _t..... Ml DominalUgiiM, on application of Joaapb Ohagnon, for etrHcrarif 189 bojtioii Ti. Oanthiar, ^..... •- W ■\ \ ^ ',-" ■ ^ ■*■ • t #" . • \ • «' X. INDEX TO CA8EH RRP'OKTKD. .^ vd. lioiirgcoia, , «. Wilson, and Wilson, opposant.'and Wood, oppoVant]'.'i." .".*.'.'.'.'.'.' '353 6/7 ne !■» 111. vs. Childs ot ar ■ ' •. ^oj on. Ducondu Duncan v fidmonsto Elliott \». ItaHtlin ct al., EXpartc Kiodeiir, for cirtiorari, ........... 1 " Casavanlj and Lcniiuux, opposant,. " Uitycr dit Ladgroute, for crrliorvtri,. " Pr«5fontainf, for certiorari, Fdlardoau vs. Ooutiiri!, '. .; Filiatraiilt vs. The Grand Trunk Railway Fisher vs. Rua.sell ct al PAGB 104 192 "} 202 :' "i 91 • .."....... 139 • 188 « •"• >.'.... 202 •••• j -90 ipany of Canada 4 97 Forsyth vs. Mori;i ot al:, and divers opposants, ■\ vs. The O'lnada Uaptist Missionary Society, and Lccming etjal., T. S., 191 icr Foster ot al. vs. Chamberlain ot al., . . . . . i . .. .... J " ^ 1 ' '•"'••• ^« ^ Fraser vs. irfadfurd,'. : , ■";".' V " ^^ Frcl%h v.^ Seymour, •.....!;.!.!.!'.".!!!.!!..!.!" '^ ^«? Gardner vs. .McDonald ,..i. .. \ " Oigou V.S. IFottc , '. ^^ ^ Gloutency vs. Lussier et al.,. .,. .!!.!!". ""■■"! Gould vs. The Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Montreal'. ' Gccenshields et al. vs. Gai^thlcr Groom, appellant, and Bouc)ier, respondent Hall vs. Dotiglas, and Mc.Dougall ct al., mijudicata'ires, ..".'." .'.* " JZ Hastio vs. Morland,..../ ^^^ Henderson vs., Enne.is^'! _* ' ' ^^^ Hogan et al. vs. Gordon, ••....!!....]..... ]" ^^^' "" Irwin, appellant, auA Boston et al., respondents, . ..'..'..'....'......'.*..*.'.' " ^^^' Jameson vs. Larosc 9J'> 208 193 185 200 288 69 187. 102 ■ ........ 171 •'. 73 . 60 279, 280, bi$^~ «■••••• 78 90 Jones vs. Saurau/dit Mars, and Leroux, T. S Kemp vs. Kemjj, Kingan vs. TUb Mayor, Aldermenyiid qiti/.ens of the City of Montreal Laflcur, appellantrand Girard, re/pondcut, '^ '' " " Lamothe vSrtJoss, and Ross et alZ opposants, andThs'Trust "and" Loan C^mp'any of Upper Canada, opposant^, • *^ ' Xarocque et vir., appellants, ai|4 Michon, respondent.^ Y. .].['"[" "^'" Ill ,_ Laviolette vs. Martin ^ _- _ ''" ' Lefebvre vs. DeJIontigny, \ ' Lemesurier et al. vs. McCaw, and Dolan, opposant, Leverson et al., appellants, and Boston, respondent, ........ ;JiOvclkir8. Meikle,.. ., ^97 McCord vs. BcUingham et al., !....!!.!!.!."]! *P McFarlane vs. Thayer, ' ^^ McGill vs. Wells .'...".!.*,'....!!!! ^"^ McGrath vs. Lloyd, and Keith et aL,'opposant8.'.' .'.'.'.'.'." ' JJJ McKenoa vs. Tabb " Magreen vs. Aubert, \\\[ •••••. 190 Jt^Vg.Labelle, ' JiKp^t al. Va. Corbeille, Hercilki y|. Fournier et vir, Herritt ▼s. Fysop U^ti 61 271) 219 Wtrjps^ dIt S» JsPason et al.y gppellanta, and BrauVt,' reip^ndent * *.'.'.' " " ' iaiacui.v8.^ergu8g^,. .......... ...,...;,. ,..........:......::::::;; / 70 194 140 20s 106 303 101 INDEX TO 0A8KB KEPORTEO. \ ■ X]. FAOB 161 86 101 286 208 — Molaon ji al. vb. Burrougha, Morae, appellant, and Brooks et •!., respdndehts.. . ." .' .•.•... 136 Nordhelmoretal. vs. Hoganetal.,* , , "" '"• ^^ Nye, appellant, and Malo, respondent, ..'!!...'.' ' '•"■■ ^^* " vs. MacDonald, *^ Parsons etal. vs. Kelly, V ' ^* Pkault vs. Demefg, . ' !!."!. ^^^ Queen, appellant, and Comte etal'.," respondents,' .".'.'.'.'.* " ^?^ nit t^.lti'.t:;.:-'!:"-":!::"^"':::^ ""■■ -^^ ■■■■:::::::: .« Read vs. Birks, '"■"t' ^^^ Regina, appellant, and Coratc ct al!,* respondents'' ." .' .' .' ." .' * Robertsoa etal. vs. Ferguson,. J....;. Routh vs. Dougall Jife ' Rowell vs. Darah ••• •• -i f^" ' St. Denis va. Qrenier et »tr., .......'.'.'.'.', 7/ '•••••• 274 Sinelair vs. Ferguson, , . ^ ""j" 93 Slack, appellant, and Short, respondent. " '.' ' " ' 7 " ' ' ^^'^ Smith vs. Fisher et al., ......'.' / " ** " " Soupras vs. Boudrean, and Boudreaii,'opposant.. ! '. i ''" '* Stevenson vs. Wilson, -., "1 2§0 Strother vs. Torrance,..,.... .!.'.'!!".."* 7 "•••• 254- Stuart, appellant, and Blair, respondent^ / -V .... 163 Sullivan, appellant, and Smith, respondent, ..... ' "j. * \. ... 123 Symes et al. vs. Janes et al.. ' *"/""■ \ * " ^^^ Torrance et al. vs. Thomas.. . • . .....'.*.'.'.*. "" V T Turner vs. Boyd,....* '^ / ' ^8, 69 Vannier et ux. vs. Larche dit LarchevSqut '."."""I " ' \ ^* " vs. FysonI j * ^ Webster vs. The Grand Trunk Railw^^'co'mpw/f Canada,' !'. i! .'.'.'.'.'."""■ " 291 \ Wes ern Assurance Company, appellant, and Atw/ll, respondent is, Westrop vs. Nichols et al., f ' ^"^ Wilcox et ux., appellants, and Wilcox, respondent' .' . ' ' ^*f Willis et al. T», Pierce T ' «r I ■i^ 9k .\ . ' IN APPEAL. •■*';• FROM THE DISTRICT Qt" ST. FRANCIS. ~^"^. ■'■ MONTREAL. 3rrf OCTOBER, 1867. Coram Lafon'taine, C. J., Avlwin, J., Duval, J., Cauon, J. , BENJAMIN WILCOX el uxorAD ■ / The respondent on the otljer hand contended that most of these grounds wore unfounded in law, and such as were not, were unfounded in facfc But the point in the Court below wliich jyavc ris.e to serious discussion was the question as to the doUaire coutumicr, customary dower cxtendin'»' to the land in qyestion. "the case brought before the Court in definitive form, tho question whether lands held in free and common soccage were subject so far as relates to descent, dower, and alicnation,.to the l-ules.of French law, as in force in Lower Canada, or to thpse of the English law. The Court below, connposed of Bowcn, Cinef Justice, and Day, and Meredith Puisne Justices, rendered the following Judgment, at Sherbiooke, on the 30th January, 1856. " The Court, &c., *************** Considering that the Plaintiff hath proved the material allegations of"his decla- ration, aftd that the defendants have failed to establish that by reason of the niarriage of the said Sophia Blodget with the late Joseph Wilcox, and by virtue of the laws in force, in that behalf the land and premises in the said declara- tion described and sought to be recovered, wiere made and became subject or liable to be taken or held by the 'said Sophia Blodget, by right of dower for her legal and customary dower, douaire Ugal el coutumier, in the manner by her alleged, and that neither by reason of such pretended right nor of^any other matter or things by the defendants alleged in their pleas in thj/cAuse fyled ought the plaintjff to be prevented from obtaining the conclusions of big said dcchiration, doth dismiss tlie said plea, and doth adjudge and declare the plain- tiff to bo the owner and proprietor of one hundred and fifty nine acres of laiid, Ul -X ■.V // / / COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1857. 8 -H- ^ — ^ -^ — ^y — ^ ^— ^ "—. — )fe^, {description,) and the said defendants who arc in tlic uiijust and illegal pos- jt^imanjit said one hundred and fifty-nine acres of land, hereinbefore last des- ^ and founded, aljudgo and condemn to desist from, quit, and abandon the same, and deliver up the same and every portion thereof, to the said plaintiff, * *«««*4i«* Saving to^e said Sophid Hlodget such recourse as by law she may have, in or upon the said lot of liind and premises, by reason of her marriage with the late Joseph Wilcox.. The honorable Chief Justice Bowon, dissenting.'? ' The Judgment of the Court of Appeals composed of Lafontaine, CJ.; Aylwin, J., Duval, J., Caron, J., now reversed the Judgment of .iRo Court at Sherbrooke, Mr. Justice Aylwin, dissenting. Lafontaine, C. J., spoke as follows : ■ U. La question de savoir qrtelles sont les lois qui ont r6gi les terres en franc tt commuH 'socage, Aq\,mw>\& cession du Canada k I'Angleterre, ct si ce sont encore les mfimes lois qui les rdgissent dans le Bas-Ganada, est la principale question de droit que cctte caiiso pr6scnte k notre cxamen. -. '■ ^■ Cette question, qni nagueres a cr6S unc si vivo agitation, parceqfie m^heu- reusoment olle a 6te Ic plus souvent discutde an point de'vuo des inter6ts privds et sous I'influence das . prcjuges,- plutot qu'au point de vue purement 16gal, n'offrc plus aujourd'hui lo m6me intdrfit qu'elle a pu avoir par le passfe. liien- t6t elle no sera plus que du domaino de I'histoire, si jo comprends bien la port6e d'un acte r6(!ent de notre legislature, intitule : " Aete pour fixer la loi relative- ment anx terres tcnues en franc et commun socage dans le Bas-Canada, " (chap. 45), promuIgu6 le 10 juin 1857, par cons6quont dopuis quo cette cause a ^6 plaid6o devant ce tribunal. Cependant le nouvcl acte e*(?epte de ses disposi- tions les proces encore pendants; ccs procds devant 6tre jug^s comnie ils efissent du I'otre avant sa promulgation. L'on nous dit que cett* cause sera probablement la derniere dans laquelle la question puisse fetre soulevie ; si c^est le cas, jc m'en folicite. Celui qui voudra 6crire I'histt^ire de notre legisla. tjon, aura soul le privilege de s'cn occuper k I'avenir. \ Pour 6tre traiteo k fond, la question exigerait une bien longue dissertation, 6tay6e,non seulement de citations d'auteurs qui font autorit6,inais encore dedocu- ments historiques qu'il faudrait transcrire et expliquer. Cette t4c^, je n'ai pas le temps de I'entreprendre. Du reste, en ce qui regarde la pr6sen(e iause, le rap- port qui a 6t6 fait de celle de Stuart ei Bowman, me permet d'abr^ger consi- jng^ en premiere instance, d Montreal, le 36 mars 1851, et, en appel, le 12 juillet 1863, -* Rn premiersJa a taaCfl, cettn cauae a ^ t^ plaid^e dev a ul lea Honorablca Jttgw-BmiHi, ^ ihkm ,> i ^- i .'^.. .■■>'■ i 'I ; i ■!■ in ' - ?i li r 1 if k \ *<.-..... COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 18fi7. Wilcoi L< ■^ jix poijits do In (liflcti8Aio,n. sont coux-ci ', /lent tic doininiition, ft-t-il eu, par lui soul, I'offt't do substituer iiix HiiciuiineA lo\^ du pays J / / On, si CO cliniiircmcnt n'a pas ou, par lui-in6ine, un lei cfTet ; / . ' 2o. La proclamation dn Roi d'Anglctorro, du 7 octol»tfe4^03, n-t-^llc, eu cet cffct ? ^- - /' Ou^ 8i cetto proolarnation a et6 ollo-in6ine inipnissante k cot 6gard ; / 3o. La suhstituiion /loH lois anglaises anx lois fran^aises, a-t-elle et& opdree par I'ordonnancc provinciaic, du 17 scptembre 1704 } On, 81 loH loin iinj>laiscs n'ont pas 6te intiodnites en Canada, soit par lo seal fait du cliangt'inont do doniinatioii, Hoit par la proclamation do 1703, ou I'or- doniiiiiico do l7 y. . Vanfclson ct Charles Mondelet. Lo jiigement, qui a cu rassentimer/t do ces deux der- . nicrs centre I'avis du juge Smith, declare que jusqu'd I'actc imi)<5rUl do 1825, ai>pel6 " ordinnircmcnt " l'acto des tenures, " aucune partio dcs lois civiles inglaiscs n'avait €\.6 "(introduito en Canada. Kn Conr d'Appel, ellc fut plaid^c j(}evant les Honorablea Juges Rollandf Panet ct Aylwin, jiiges do cettc cour, ct devant I'Honorable DominMiue Mondelet, juge siippl«5ant. Lcur jugcment, rendu a Vunanimit^, donna gain do oauso a I'Appelant, Sir James Stuart, qdi iStaitalors lo juge en chef do la rnSmo cour. Mais ce jugcment, de fait, ne comporlo pas de decision 8ur la question dont il s'agit ; le jugC Aj'lwin, quant A, cette qiicstion, dilTerant Mo calo de ses confreres, ct surtout du juge RoUand, commo Ton pout s'en convaincrc par leurs opinions rapport<5(5s dans PAppendice d ce rapport de la priJscnte cause do Wilcox ct Wilcox. En cffct, dans lo compte rendu do la cause do Stuart ct BotL'man, Jo jugo Holland aurait dit : " L'on comprcndra done facilement • qu'individuellcment je n'ai pas dii trouvcr de difficultd d prononcer d'apres notre droit eommun sur le litre dcs demandcurs. Le jugcment est formula de manicro 4 ne pas rep&usser I'ideo qji'il scrait fond^ sur un droit exceptionnel. G'est pourquoi il est pro- noncu>t sana reserve, couimo il i'avnit doj& fait relativeniunt a d'autri's articles : *» mK^ordo." Une telle reponse, par co mot pur et simple " aceordd," c&t 6t& une promesae, un cngiigement solennel, obligatoire pour lo roi et le imrleiimnt anglais. Ceux- ci e(kssont ut6 lien, par la lui des nations, in, niaintenir inviulablo jo 42e artiele do la capitulation. „ . Lo g6n6ral Amherst, en r6pondant, " ils devksnnent sujets du roi, " n'a fait quo la seule r/'poiiso quMI p(kt fairo, s'il no voulait pas prendre sur lui, par ua " accordo " solennel, d'cngagor I'honneur ct la parole do son souvcrain et de son gouvcrnenient. liO droit public anglais no lui perniettait pas do faire une autre reponse ; et dans touto elles fiissent rcsultat ciit 6t6 lo iiiuii, ouiviu, uuiiiub quu |iu»!iiuiu, 1 ururo uwi^ics, JO crois E propos ue ioi I'opiniyn du procureur-g6ncrar K&Btoir, dans sa reponse aux UommissiqjjfeVs for trade and plantation^ " du 27 juillet 1764. , La posoe dtait cclle-ci : " WJiether fucli of the french or Spanish inha- !t ce niuma droit public maintcnait ct contitluait, leur force, apres la capitulation, les lois du . Canada, jnsqu'^ ce qu'ci abrogocs ou moditiees par une autoirlU cmipetente. ni6me, si I'article 42 n'c. WUooi ■■'M ». • : • t: WBogx. _. '_■ ;;^i 1 H l-^' . f 5: (1) Ghalniers : ■' Opinions of Eminent L^ks, &c., " vol. 2. p Hr LlX- C' -;' COUni OF QUEEN'S DENCn, mi. WDen fhUOk y\ du, " ilH devi«nnent i.uj«U endice No. 1), mais etocow dans cello cxpriw6o par Masorc's lui-niOino dans son projot de rapport au gouvornour Carltton. II y reconnalt que si Ioh lois anglaiscs n'avaiont i)a8 6t6 introduitcs ant6rieun)niont k I'orvlonnanco en question, cetto ordonnanco n'avait pu, par oIleMu6rao, avoir Tcffet do los in4roduire. . ^ ■ ' * ' "" J^' Wo (2) shall say nothing concerning the validity of your MiOcsty'i proclamatfn of the 7th of October, 17C3, and the high Icgisli^tlvo authority wjiich your Majesty hns therein thought proper to exercise with respect to your Majesty's new colonies, though there are • persons who think that this branch of your Majesty's roynl prerogotive ought rather to have been exercised in conjunction with both housels of parliament : but we should suppose that what your Majesty har thought fit to do In this respect by the advice of your Majesty's privy council must be legal, and consequently that the oiwration of the • words above cited from your Majesty's said proclamatioi is oomplote and incontbiif had not tlie good fortune," dit Masere^ ^' to be approved by his Excellency." (Collection of severalXcommissions and Other pfablic instruments, proceeding from His M^esty's^ royal authority, relating to'the /cpvinCb of Qnebec. Collected by Francia Masercs, Esq., His Majesty's Attorney-Gencrai'in th^ said Province London, 1772.) (^ Maseres, pp. '^4-27 " -*■ mediately leave tu lu tionrd, of valid^lty to by your Mi Your Mm in the 4th . pleased to \ him by anc \ of the gene your Ui\'n'» ■tatutcs, ai province, r your Majcs ■aid comm nor to l;o c the concur hitherto bo so far as t1 authority f tba^ accoui If this he the court o laws of Kn| of Novcnib( Tincc, con the countr; (an exocuth Tprovince fc and in this . by an oxpn to erect su It Is true purporting clsed by hii wit, an aut "t^e peace f o jHUud or di to the impoi whether & { patent undi the people, their obedit to your M( ■hi^l ordaii nor by vir quently the to him in yi the things i certain prh are therefo acts by yoii reason we 1 \ --^ (A) COUIIT OF QUEEN'S UENCII, I8fl7. # medlnlsly condurWo to their wclfara knd MlUrnotion; In either of theie cuee w«:h«f iMve to lubmlt it to your Mi^eety'i conilderatlun, whether the ordinance* above men- tioned, of tho I7lh of (itplember apd the 0th of Nuvembrr, can be deemed of lufflclont Talii^ity to Introduce any fmrt of tlie lawi of RngUnd thiit were not already oitaliHihad by your Majcaty'i laid |ii*(!)clamatlun. Uur rea*on« fur doubting tbli are aa followM : Your Majesty by your ciimmlislon to General Uurray, dated the 3 let day of November Id the 4th year ot your Hi\]oity'a reign, to be governor in chief of thi« province, wai pleaiod to delrgiOe un(p him a certain limited loglilatlve authority, to be cxcrciied by bim by and with the advice and coniltont of your Majeitj'a council of tho province, and ;^ of the general aiiembty of tiio freeholder! and plantori in tiie ianro tiioroin directed by your MAJcHly io lie iiummonod, to wit, an authority to maice, conitituto, and ordain lawi, ■tatutct, and ordinances for tho public peace, welfare, and good government of tho lald province, not repugnant, but, m near aa may bo, agreeable to tho lawi and MtatutM of your Majciily'a kingdom of Great Hrilain. Hut yoyr Majesty did not in any part of th« ■aid commlMsion delegate eitlier this or any other legislativu power to your said gover- nor to \)c exercised by him with the advice and consent of tiio council only, without the concurrence of an assembly. Now no assembly of tho freeholders and pladtors hai hitherto been summoned ; consequently all the ordinances that liavo hitherto been made, 80 far as tlioy have a ieginiativo tendency, have been made without any warrant or Ruthorlty from your Majesty's commission to your governor^ and perhaps may, upon tba^ account, bo Justly contended to bo null (>nd void. If thlH 1)0 so, the words in tho ordinance of tlio 1 7th of September 17C4, which direct tho court of King's Bench to determine all civil and criminal causes agreeably to the laws of Kngland, and the other words of that ordinance, and of tho ordinance of tlio Cth of Novemlicr following, which purport to introduce tho laws of Kngland into tliis pro- vince, can hove no legal operation to change tho laws which were tJicn subsisting in the country; and tlio ordinance of the I7th of September must bo considered only as ( an executive net of government, erecting and constituting courts of Judicature in tho Tprovince for tlio administration of the laws in being, whatever those laws might bo ; And in this view it is certainly a legal and valid ordinance, because your Majteyty had, . by an express clause in your commission aforesaid, given your said governor fnll power to erect such coucts with tlio advice and consent of the council only. It is true indeed that your Majesty did give a private instruction to your late governor, purporting to communicate to him a certain degree of legislative authority to be exer- cised by him, by and with tho consent of tho council only, without any assembly ; to wit, an authority to make luch rules and regulationB a$ $hall. appear to be necesiary for ^e peace, order, and good government of the *aid province, taking care that nothing bt passed or done that shall any ways tend to affect the life, limb, or liberty of the subject, or to the imposing any duties or taxes. But wo submit it to your Majesty's consideration, whether & power of this kind can Ibe communicated by any other instrument than letteri patent under your Majesty's great seal of Great Britain, publicly read and notiBcd to the people, to the end that the acts done by virtue of them may have a Just claim to their obedience ; for otherwise they may allodge that they are faithful and Iciyal subjects to your Majesty, and ready to pay obedience to every thing that your Majesty's self sh^l ordain, and likewise to every thing that slIKll be ordained by your Majesty's t;over- nor by virtue df powers properly communicated to him by your Majesty ; that conse- quently they will obey liim in every thing be shall do by virtue of the powers conveyed to bim in your MJajesty's commission which has been publicly read to them ; but that in the things not w^anted by the said commission, but said to be done in pursuance of certain private instructions that have not been made known to them, and which they are therefore uncertain Vhether he has received or not, they cannot presume that he acts by your Majesty's authority, and therefore are not bound to obey him. For this reason we humbly apprehend, that the private instruction before-mentioned cannot have Wilcox. r-: 1^ ', r I 1 ,2 ■ WUw» WVm or QUERN'S HENCH, I8fl7. '/- ^ m* eouBcll IIm ItgWi l*tlT« authority umb. ^ tioii#4 la It, tmiUV Md Mrr^ir m U ia. ' . Uttt ieeondly, if* prir^te iMiruflllon ihould \m ,Ufn«d to bfi » legal ro.thoU of cW" (fia^caUuK A leRUUtlire ftathorli/, jret ilio |iuwer convejtd to th« guvarnor •ikIm^ou^ i of this pforlnco l»7 tli« inttiU«tion aboTO-in^ntiooaa la much too conHned an anihorliy' J«i#«rnu.t tte gfiMral IntroduCti-jn of Iftw EnglUli Uwt; particHlMly of the erimlnal »W», *««> «tf •flhct aitlicr llfr, or llmis •«* Uhi.rijr; and Ilia proccii of arroata of (h« body u. imi\ «uita for <^bt and troapata ; and ttm |«owar of eomnlttlBc famooa to (trUoo for conitmiw* of court committed In th« prcaanco of your Majettya Judgna ; and that of granting attadimenta of «ho body for dUol«dl«nco or rciUtaoce to tho ordora of your M*|oatya auporlor^urta of judicature, wh«n audi acta of diaobodlenca or raalatanca arc cotemlUod oijl. of court; wliich oil lmmeacc, and your Mn^it. ty'a royal proclamation of the 7th of October.l 7.).l. If theae inatrumenia have introdiicnl tho Ittw-H (.f Knglaiid, lliey may havo a legal cxiatenco in thia province, notwllbalahdlng; Mie want oMegal authority In the two prQvincial ordinance* abovo-monlionned. Buf,- if your Maj^ty ahould dcterniino that tbcae inatrumeiOa have not Introducc.l the.IaWa of England into thli province, then, aa wo conceive, it wlirfo"ilow,"tliat the whole body ► of thoaoJawH liaa not yet been legally Introduccil Into il, but that thoao jiarta only 6t the lawa of Kngland have a legal cxiatcnco In, this province which are containc4 in tho •«CU of parliament above-men lionod, whicijk|(j^huir own im|K)rt and operation, and without needing any new inatrumcnt of gqiJifrnincnt to introduce tlicm, extend to all your Mojcsty'a dominiona in America. », 10. Sur I.H questionH qui pricodont, on p«ut, on doit inftmc cons»iiItJe diro sur la non-introduction des^oia anglaiHca (du jm privatum). A ces^pinions dcs pro;iiiors ofllcicrs en lol do la couronne, en Angloterre, j'in HJoutcrai unu autre qui nW pas cit6o dans, la cause do »S8 lea questions agit^ea alois relative et ([iM-^ <)il trtro dans uno position 4^ Drond re und jart actlve'L. TaotQ l|j|j|rial. Et spn' opinion ^t Icsfitits qtf iljIKJ^orto doivent >>:r«6n i AUct«, boing Itomnn CHtliiilU;^ nnti rvMiding in tlio couutrlll coded to llin Mujuxly iii^\r»cri<'tt l»y llm irviity of l%ii«, lire not diibject, % iUmi " coloiiita, to thu incN|>Acilii>t, iliMbllitii'ii kihI |M*iinUi l«w tboroof t " To which •Aiory Uiot* f|jUto< S miMworcl on tho lOtli of Juno, •* thnt tliny wew nof.^ And (lbo W)i'5LL!jflttrtnK'y iinil Soliiitor ^lAutrBl, in ihuir joint re|«r)tt to the Privy ('(#t>riru'9<>n tliu |)ro|HMiti(>hH of tho Uonnl of trndu, {ireiMntiHl on th» 18th itt|Hry l7ilH, H^tiktu to bo thijr opinion, " thnt tliu Rovoral ovt* of I'firliatnent, ''miieli inipoM) (liMibilitiot and punHJtioa'iipon tiio public oxorciMof tho Uotnun ■ "^'lUliolic rolitfion.do not'cxtidul to Ciinndii, nnd tliut^|Ii« Mnj«?rtv i* not by -•♦*#Iifi prorogfitivo uniiliioil to abtiliwli'tho IK'nn iind Chnptor of Qiwbeo, nor to ** exemiU the jmilfiUiHl inhihltantn frum p<4ying tilhtt to Ihe^ftriolUteffat^ •' tntitlal to ilimaiiil Ihom front the Roman Outhollet, (1). 1 1. LfH citutioiiH (pii pi'^uoiiont n\)ut 6iii fnitua quo i>our d^mor.trer la j^ropo- ^ Rition quo, d'Hpr^s let ri>f(\e» rjjfueit do I'intorpr^tation dpi loin, «t lit |>rineipM. y db it qui pr6va!ont en cotto iimtitirc, Ih i)roulainatton dii 7 octobro l703,j n'» pM on, ot n'li pu avoir, Hoii||^np|iort oRition aou pour cIlo, h, uno 6poqlM rapproch^e^o la proclnniation, ruRRentiinent dcR proiili«r« offlmers en loi do fit couronno, on "Anglotorro, bion pluR, riwHcntiinent do coux-li in(>nMR qui roinp1i»> eaient Ioh fonotionH do Procurour et do Bollicitcur-g^n^ral, Yoeke ot Norton^ lornquo cotto proclamation fut 6man6o, et qui, on toute probabilit6, I'avaient eux-ni6mcn r6dig6e. 12. Si done la proclamation do 1703, n'a pas on reflFot de Bubstituor les \(A» nnglaiscs aux loin fran^aisoa, I'ordonnancc do 1704 a encore bien moins pu avoir cet eflfot. J'en ai plus haut aHsignd la raison, on invoquant Topinion da juge on ohof Ilcy, ot cello du Baron Maaort'R, njfime lor»qu'il 6tait Procureur- g^niral de In Provtnc& do Quebec. JL19. D'un autre c6t6, je doiR admottro qu'il cat de fail qu'A J'orabre do oetto ' ordonnanco do I764f Ioa tribunaux qu'ollo avait ^tabliR, appliquaicnt qiiclquf^s- fois, danH lours d^ciRions, la loi ciyilo anglaiRO ; ce qui paralt avoir cu liou en inatidre perRonuclle, principalement datis ce qui so rattachait aux affaires com- merciales ; mais il eit 6gakmcnt constant, (ot il snfSt db parcourir Jes r^gistrcs de ces tribunaux pour s*en convaincre), qu'ils adoptaicnt le plus souvent en matiore personnclle, et preaquo' toujoiirs, si ce n'est m6me toiyours, on matidre ^ % (1) D'aprdt la pptffaco du Ut ▼olume de la co^ection de Chalmtrt, d6jd cit6, '^^''./''-r -^- }h- m V'.: 12 vrogk mm. 'CPURx OF QVEms mmu, 1851. «t: .1 , .*»' 1 • J. I • " All dispi^tcs,- UU Cfcrijtie; ari^'frowtU^timi forward, between Ihe new Bul.l«Ma • d nrtoT'aSrr^ continued as prt,vi„„a to ti.e eo„,uest. to l,o' determied ac- cording to tl>o ancient customs and«civillaw8 of Canada, and by judges conversant wrth those laws, sch^.ted from among their own countrymen, and thl' also were 1 . rule of decsion .n the like matters, between the old subjc ts of the Khg who ll IJsh civil and criminal laws foi? their protection V I I ^^^>9v_ UHULF wuitu tiic innoccncc or cuilt of " flnVisA •«;../,;,.#•" y.„ * • i tT^i?-r 7 "' "« J»''-at„rc were placed, did undoubtedlyocc rin teadm li^ on..f cml justice occasionally, (there not being wanting those who ha4 asserted ha the?' " f "' ':'" " ''^'"'-^^--g '». J-tice being sometim'es d al o itTc^^^^^^^^^^^^ to the one code and at times according to th. other, and perhaps imperfe ly n r 2 ' :s;^r s!r:s:i^i:r"^ ^-'-r "'^""' -' '^''^ -^^^ ^^^^ J'^;Jl'^'''fS'^'S'^'^^^^^^ n'est pas sans avoir uno grando nnportat.cc en cetle niatiere. EIcv^ an B.-u-rean du Bas-Ganada, il a ct6 appele, U y a d6ja pln.ieurs annoes, k rcnplir des forictions judic a r ' J^cmlre do la legislature durant una p6riode dcT rei.ps asse. considlable. U pas part aux lutes politujues qui distingnent- particulierement I'eponne dans aqucHe d s'est a,n,. trouv6 erigag6. La nuance politique k laquelle il appar- cna,t.^tau colle qui avC.it, du moit. dans le pa.s6, praeJdu que de 1 764 ^^^^^^^ les lois angla^es avaient 6t6 substitutes aux lois frangaise. , ' J5. Si done il est vrai que, de 1764 ^ 1774, les lois civiles anglaises ont pu Jiclqne^^^^ ,„,tout en .nati^ro coLereiale, L Jln^}r "• ' - "", "' '"^«"^«"^«^'^' '•-'^o""" par M. Christie l«i-m6me, que / tiode, on 6t6 gen^ralement administr^es et mises en force, surtout dans ce quf mt cr66 S. oe fait, que les ,r6g,stfes publics ne permettent pas de rdvoquer en doute attcte dV^ c6t6 la persistanfce et le maintien des lois Lgalse Tatteste cn..e.e tenips que radministration des lois civiles anglaises'ne iLtS qu un fau, et non pas nn droa, puisque ces lois n'avalent 6t6 introduites, ni par e changement de domination, ni par la proclamation dc 1763, encore moins par rordonnance de 1764. • - vu^uiuo 16. Quant au criminel, c'est encore un fadt 8tament ''^ de tout lij vant lafo ment. disj plus que I le droit at pareilles j cueillies ? le raisonni duction di d avec/plus ( 22. Si 1 808 en ce c bles k cett lea incidcn plus dispoE ctc..suivan pays. Ce sera permii du Bas-Cai Des sa p (1) Statui " Pourvu taire de tous d'inlidner lea on autremei Tolont^, non • ou qui pr^va ■nivant. low 1 . COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1857. 15 >."' M usage de mots qu, d6«,g„ent en m raisonnemeht que lV,n fait dans un cas, pour soutenir la proposition d^r^r Ruction des lo,s a„g a ses. s'appiique k I'autre cas, avec autant, sinon mL" avec/plus do force. (Voir oKpmrfece No. 3). 22. Si la 9e section du statut de 1774 a eu I'effet d'introduire les lois anglai- bles & cette tenure, a du par consequent ^tre introduit pour tout ce qui concerne les mcdents du dro.t de propriet6 > ces m6mer terres. On ne pouvait done " ^us disposer valablementde ces terres, les aligner, les engager, les hypoth^quer, etcsmvant . les lo.s et usages du Canada," c'es1>^-dire suivant I'ancien droit da pays. C est la proposition de l'I„tim6. Combattant cette proposition, il me sera permis d appeler k men secours I'arftorit* des deux Legislatures du Haut et au rias-Canada. . • Pes sa premiere session, -en 1792 . le Parlement du Haut-Canada a pasfeg un (1) Statut Imperial d(o 1774, Se6^| 10 : ■ *a " Pourvu aussi, qu'il sera et i^urra^tre Joisible d toute et chaque personne Droori^. ' te„e de tous immeublea ,«.«ble4ou-i.tll^ts. dans la dite ProvSce. quTaura feJS^t d ahdner les d.ts .mmeubles, meu^les ou int^gts. pendant sa vie, par veites. donatio^ lu o^ tZ,?? . ?' '^^-^^^K^^ «* «<»'t«°"« A ce contraires, qui ont pr^valu. • LlT:?flT'f°iP^i^r''°''°^°°^'^^»*« P^o^'°ce; Boitquetel testament soh dn^ssi i MTMt l eaJoMduCauwHii ou^gulya n t le a I br mes pMfliirites par lea loi s d'A ngleterre." mioox _ V. Wilcox. i;, / «' ■■.-*!"■' rf. 16 /• COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1867 4^ ; i8fi miooz T. WUooz. actolKlmp. 1,) k I'effct de r6voquer cottc partie de la 8e section du Statui Jliu- p6mr^gj^74, qui portait '* que dans toutes affaires en litigc, qui conccrne;;:oiit leurs propri6t6s^t lenrs droits de citoycn's, ik auront recours aux lois du Ca^cdt, couitne les maximes sur losqi^elles ellcs jdoivent 6tre d^cid6es ; " (versioti an- glaiso : " Tiuit in all matters of controversy relative to property and civil l^lits, resort shall be had to the laws of Canada, as the rule for the decision of tho same") Mais u. peiiijC ar-jftloian»Jug e ^~ da Banc du d'appointer convenable, telle matiorc Ca- statut spdcial du [ Couronne et Canada," c'e est fait moiiti sculement su encoTe sur to anglaises n'y au nouveau j assez considd] districts; qui acte, en con droit nouveai Mais cette jui personnelles sterling^' il j pouvoirs 6nu excrcer lui-nic II me semb ^ue je viensd (Question qui n le rapport qui cause a 6t6 pi d'Appel, on a vue. Le rai>ji 25. Je pass( 8c section du i des Tenures ? ' Cet acte a f (1) Voir auss (2) Extrait d Chambre des G " II i^ en a qu Idgalement intn par les dispositii " Cette ddn^j Ghambres ou VA dans leur pratiqi considdrer la loi " Voulez-Vous acte en 1823, qu cer taine p actif-^ li M dans cet acte ^ei Raises comme en 'J COURT OF QUEEN'S BENfcll, 1867. 17 Montr6al, on k aucun d'euj, da Banc du Roi dcs dfttricts de Quebec ou do , d'appointcr un notaire, sur I'applicatioh des parties ou quelqu'autrp pcrsonne coDvcnablo, poqr rcccvoir Ics avis de parents oi, amis, ct qu'il procodcra sur telle matioie cii la loaniero et forme prcscrites pa- la loi" (1) CXstatut dont la promulgation avait 6t6 ro.ommand6e* par un message special du gonverncur, no contient-il pas uno reconnaissance solennelle do la cZ'r ?\t'r-"' """■'" '•'""^^"^^ ^' ^^ legislature; que "les lois du Canada, c cst-^-dire notre droit comnmn, l'anci,« droit frart<;ais, ceiui dont il est fau menfon dans la 8o section de I'acte de Quebec, 6tendai. son empire, non seulement sur H partio du pays qu'on a appeI6o 4le Canada Seigneurid," mais encoTeB«rto.jtleresteduBas-Canada, et que pAr consequent les lois civiles anglaises n y dta.cnt pas en force ? En effct les a, tributions sp^ciales, conferees aunouveaujugepar la 14o section du statut de 1823, formaient ine partie di tnct.., qu, avaienf, on premiere instance.une jur sdiction illimit6e Lc nouve 2; nT ''' "^''^ «""^"^>«»« «" J"g« do St. Fran^oi^, n^etablissait pas un droit nouvoau pour cetfo partie du pays, ou il devait exercer sa jurisdLion- Ma,s cette junsd,ct,on ayant 6.6, par la 2e section ^e I'acte, limitee aux acUons porsonnellos ''dans lesquellcs le montant reclame Lcede^it point vi ng Ir sterhna" H iMt nccelsairc d'altribuc^ sf6ciala«.ont ^co i uJ^l il en fflt rev6tu et p QueTl causoa, op,aid.eetjug.e tant en Cour de r-eLierc Initio; qu'rCo d Appel, on a paru ignorer I'existence do ces deux altes, ou les avoir perdus de vue. Le rapport, en effet, n'en contient aucune meJtio; ^ «.!!"r' ^r'" ^ P'^''"' "" ^' P^'""* ^« '« d'"«cussioI Quel a 6t6 l',ffet de la Scsectiondustatut mp6rialde 1825 r«b«n ko „,.1i' j- • *''°*''^ ^^ la des Tenures?" . ' ^' ' ^^T" «'-d'°a>'-ement, "I'Acte Cot acte-a pour titre : « Act to provide for the extjnction of Feudal and Sei- (1) Voir aussi la 15e section du la&ine statut , Voulez-Vous dire des actel cm des bUls ?-Je veux dire dea aritea II \r . - WUooz WUfico. r ::::!rssif;HS'=SS?^ zit^ it $' tf- l: M 18 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 1867. WUooz ■■h>' gniorinl rights and burthens on lands hold d litre de fief and d liirt de cena in tho Province of Lower Canada ; and for tlie gradual conversion of those fonurcj into tho tenure of free and common soccage, and for other purposes relating to the said Province." D'apros ce tilrc, on dovait gueres s'attendre ,k trouver dons «c stiltut la 80 section. Ello y est copendanf, et il faut I'interprdtcr. La section est en ces tcrmes : " And whereas doubts have arisen whether lands granted in tho said Province of " Lower Canada, by His Majesty, or by any fcf his Royal phedccessors, to l)e lioldea,ii^ " free and common soccage, shall bo held by the owners thereof, or will subsequently " pass to oth^ pcrsqps, according to tho rules of descent and alienation in force in " England, Or according to such rules as were established by the ancient laws of tho • " said Province, for tho descent and alienation of land situate therein : Be it thercforo '• declared' and enacted, i^iat all lands within tho said Province of Lower Canada, which " have heretofore been grttnted by His Majesty, or by any of his Royal predecessors, to " any person or persons, their heirs and assigns, to bo holden in free and common soc- " cage, or which shall or may hereafter be 80 granted by His Majesty, his heirs and " successors, to any person or persons, their heirs and assigns, to bo holden in free and « 0{)mmon soccage, may lyid shall bo by s^ch grantees, their heirs an(i assigns, held, '^ granted, bargainee], sold, aliened, conveyed and di^osed of, and may and shall pass - " by descent in such manner and form, and upon and under such rules and restrictions, "as are by the law of England established and in force, in reference to the grant, bar- «' gain) sale,, alienation, conveyance, disposal and descent of lands holden by tho like " tenure, therein situate, or tothe dower or other rights of married women in such lands, " and not otherwise, any law, custom or usage to the contrary in aiiy wise notwitb- " standing : Provided nevertheless, that nothing herein contained sha,ll extend to prc- ---^ " vcntHia Majesty, with tho advice and' consent of tho Legislative Council and as- " sembly of the Province of Lower Canada, from making and enacting} any^such laws " and Statutes as may bo necessary, for the better adapting tLe before mentioned rules " of the laws of England, or any of them, to tho local circumstances and condition of " the said Province of Lower Canada, and the inhabitants thereof." 20. Sur ce point de la discussion, je concours dans I'opinion .exprimec par M. Id jugc Rolland, et'j')' renvoie. Cetto disposition du statut imperial, loin de„, tcndre k faire disparaitrc la confusion qu'on pretendait existor, n'^tait propro qu'^ raugmontcr, si dcja„cllc existait, ou bien a la Ikire nallre, si elle , n'existait pas encore. Bien que, dans fe pr6nmbule de la ,8e section, il soit dit qu'il s'est elev6 dcs doutes sur la question do savoir si Ics terres en franc et commun Stoccage devaient etre r^ics " according to the rules of descent sa^ . alienation in force in England, or according t6 such rules as were established by the ancient laws o'f the said Province, for the descent and alienation of land situate therein," je m'accorde a djre avec M. le jage Rolland qu'on ne saurait attri- buer ^ cette disposition u'n eftet r^troactif. Dans la partio statuante, le langage dent on s'est servi, est celuii qu'on emploie oidinairement quand on dispose seu- lement pour I'avenir, (may and shall). Lorsque je r6fl6chis que par le passS op appliquait Ics anciennes lois dp pays aux terres en franc et cb&iAun socage ; que cctte application avait dionn6ilieu k une infinite de transactions, et par con- sequent 4 I'existence de.drojits acquis, ^1 m'est impossible de croire qu'il soit entr6 dans la pens^e du parlement imp6rial de pOrter une loi qui pAt r6troagir - slir Ic pass6, sans du moins ionserver ces droits acquis de bonne foi. C'eAt 6t6 -boiileverser presqur-tDTis' lef titfifis des pdsseisseurs de ces teifS7~er«reer~une~T^ confusion ( II eftt fallu de I'existei ainsi faile 6tr» en cir» 80 faire qu< , au risque d €an{!)da pn Act") 4an.« otaicnt do \^^anctionn6 depuis la p dice No. 7) > .27. A c(i remarquo. tut, il n'cst droit Jttiglai women. N tredit, on ni avaient ote gement de c nance de 1 7 par I'acto dt dait Ics terr< 6t6vraie, 1 quelque sor • Canada avar d'unie manie , terres" possfid treints de de. jusqu'4 182 I'Acte dQ Qu » autant (]u!<3ll I'hypothes'c c qu'il faut n6( compte de la en fVane et ( du droit angl 28. De plu 61ev68, ne poi alienation), I doute sur la i franc et comi femmes m'ari^ (mat/ and sha anglais, eHe 61 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1857. 19 confusion qui, pous I'opdration ,dts ancicnnes lois du pay», ne pouvaitpas exister. II cftt fallu dc8 tenries plus formcls qu'ync simple assertion, dnns le premi.bule de roxistence de doutcs; il e(it fallu uuo declaration expresse quo cctte loi 6tait ainsi faito pour r6troflgir sur lo passfi, pour me convaincrc (,uo tollo aurait pu are «n clfet I'intenlior. do la legislature imp6rialo. Mais commc il nuriiit pu 80 fano quo des eff >rts ftjssont tejitcs pour attribuer a cetto loi un effet ri-troacti^ . au risque de vio|or t^us les droits acquis, nous avons vu la legislature du Bas- Cun^dix promiilguer I'actc de 1820, cliap. 11, (communemint appde " Jiowen's Acr) 4ans la vuc do piifvenir les inquietudes ot Ics alarnies quede ttls eflbrts otaicut de nature a faire naitre. Que Ce dernier acte ait isl6, ou i.'nit r"« 6t6 X^anctioiino a temps on valablcment, c'est une question qu'il n'y plus a discuter depuis la promulgation de la loi du 10 juin dejnier, chap. 45, (voir Anpen- dice No. 1). _ \ n- V f. A CO que j'al deja dit du statut imperial de 1825, j'ajo"tcrai une autre remarquo. Dans la parfie statuunte, ou Ic dispositif de la 8o section de ce sta- tut,iln'cst parie.quedotrois cliQses que I'on vent soumottre aux rdi-les du droit npglais, savoir : alicnalion, descent et dower or other riffhts of married women. N'est-cc pas un aveu formel, de la part du pa.lenient ang]ais,^ui con- tredit.on ne pout plus fortemct, I'asscrtioii, lo. quo toutes les lois anglaises avaient ote substitutes aux anciennes lois du pays, soit par lo soul fait du chan- gement de domination, soit ifaria proclamation dp 1763, soit enfin par I'ordon. nance do 1764; 2o. quo ces lois seules avaient r6gn6de 1764a 1774; 3o. que par I'acto de Qudbec, elles avaient 6t6 conservees en entier pour ce qui regar- dait Ics terres conc6dces en frane ct commun socage ? .Si cette assertion eftt *t6 vraie, la 8e section du statu tde 1825 serait inexplicaljle ; elle scrait on quelque sorte un non-sens. En ofFet, si toutes les lois anglaises ont r6ffi lo • Canada avant 1774, nos terres socagdres ont du fetjrc soumi^s h lour empire dunemamercaussiolenducotaussientiore, guo I'otaient, /n Angleterre les tQrretf poss6d6e8 sou* cette tenure, et non pas seulement 80u[ les .rapports' res- tremts do descent, dower et alienation. II a.du en 6tre de ^6me depuis 1774 jusqu'i 1826, si les lois anglaises suppos^es avoir regno on Canada avant 1 Acte dQ Quebec, ont 6t6, par cot acte, maintenues dans lour inten-ralite en ' ,T*"* J":^"'' ^'^''"' rapport 4 la tenure socagere. fl me scmblo que, dans 1 hypothesc de 1 introduction des lois civiles anglaises, c'est U une consequdnco quil fautnicessairement admettre. Alors, je le demande, comment so rendre compte de la loi de 1826>qui ne reconnait, ou n'6tablit que troiscas ou la tenure en frane et commun socage dans le Bas-Canada, puisse etre soiimise aux raffles du droit anglais. ? Cen'est pas Jimoi a r6pondre. / 28. De plus ; cndecIaVanf, dans son proambule, que les do/utes qui s'el^ient 6 eves, ne portaient que sur les Ipis de succession U d'alienjtim, (descent and alumatton), le statut de 1825 d^claVait, par (^Ja niM,e, qu'il n'y avait pas de doute sur la non-introduction du rest* des lois anglifikes relatives k la tenure en franc et commun socage-, y compps m§mo le rfowair* oulesaM/mrfrotfode femmes marines. Ainsi, lorsque la 8e section dit que les terres soeag^res seront {matf and shall) asmJGtthfi , en favexn d e n A^mmes fnnri^.» n ,, ^f . „ „ i, „ ^ ^ ^ ^ jj^^ anglais, eHeetablit done un .droit nouveaH pour lo Bas-Canada, puisque j'usqu* WUooz Wilcox. i ri < i ■ 20 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 18fi7. WUeos VUm. \h, il n'y tivtiit pnH eu tic doiite »\\t la non-existenco d'un tol droit. Ceoi inc pa- mit 6fro rncontcstiiMo. I'liw, lorii(|uo Ton voit>Hie c'cst diiriH la mbmo disposi- tion, tilanH la infiine scntenco A avec ies ni6inoA torinofl, qu'il est dit quo ces torroH «'ror«< j(may «»(/«*«//) soumises aux regies du droit anglais, en ce qui rcgardo la mcceasion et Faliemtion, ii me semblo lout-a-fait naturel de conclure quo, nu'^ino pour cos doiix derniors cas, lo li^gislatcur n'a entondu dlsposor que pour I'avenir, puisqu'il n'a jwint distingufi entro Ics ertets quo devajt avoir sa loi, gclon qu'il dftt s'agir, oudo succemon et iYaliinalion, ou de douaire. Ayant voulu (juo I'effot fCit lo mftnio dans los trois cas, ot cet cflPot, quant au douaire, no pouvant op6rer quo pour lo futur, il s'ensuit done que lo k'gislatour a voulu qu'il on fiU do mome on inatifiro do successioti et d^alienalton. 20. Bion que la question do I'introduction des lois civiles anglaiscs n'offre plus aujourd'hui, ainsi que jo I'ai d6j^ fait rcinarquer, lo inftmo intorftt qu'ollo a^ pu avoir autrefois ; et bien encore quo jo penso avoir d6naontr6 quo cea loia n'ont jamais 6t6 ainsi iiitroduites dans lo Bas-Canada avant I'acto imp6rial do 1825, je crois ndanmoins A propos d'ajouter quelquo choso.^ co quo j'ai d6jA dit sur cotfo Question. Personno n'a ct6 jilus en 6tat d'expliquer |o sens et la port6o do la procla- mation royalo du 1 octobro 1708, que Ies homri\c8 do loi qui remplissaient, k cette 6poque, on Angleterro, los charges do Procureur-g6n6ral et do Sollijfffour- gendral, Vorke et Norton. Co aont oux qui ont du rodigcr cette proclamation ; ou, dans tous Ies cas, ello n'a pas du 6tre 6man66, sans avoir 6t6 pr6alablcment soumise k lour examen. Lorsque ces deux homtnes ominents furent quelque temps apres consult^s sur lo sens do cette proclamation, ils^se, spnt accordes k dire qu'elle n'avait pas eu I'effet d'introduire en Canada Ics lois civiles anglaises. Et loin qu'aucune partie de ces lois e6t 6t6 ainsi introduite, nous avons doji vu quo le Procureur-gfineral do Grey et le Solliciteur-g6n^rai Ellis avaient mainte- nu, en 1768, que ^^ Majesty ne pouvait pas m6me, en vertu de sa prerogative, exemplcr Ies habitants proteatanta, en Canada, ^^from paying t/i^hea to the per- sona legally entitled to demand them from the Roman Cat^lics." C'est ce qui rend compte de I'exemption do. cette obligation, qui est accord6e, avec la plus grande justice, par cette disposition de I'Acte de Qu6bec, qui porte, " that the Clergy of the said Ch(!Vch (the Church of Rome) may hold, receive and enjoy their accustomed dues and rights, with respect to such persons only, as shall profess the said religion" "A clause," remarque I'auteur de I'icrit dont j'ai d6j^ donn6 un extrait, " which expressly takes away from the parish priests tlifiir legal title to tithes of the lands held by proteatanta, and which our grfeat crown lawyers declared the king could not deprive them of by his prerogatiye." 30. L'exemption dont je parle, n'Alait pas absoliie, c'est-^-dire, Ies protest^nts n'etaient pas relev6s de I'obligation de payer la dime qaaie* teirMngalsM avaient imposee, et que Ies prfttj-es^cathoIi^taesiR^aient le^roit d'exiger. geule- ment, lesjprotestaots-Bcrdgviiient plus 6tre obligfis de la payeij k cos demiers. -Sk^^tfsaijuate, car il y a de la tyrannie k contraindre des personnes qui n'§p partiennent pas a une denomination religieuse, k payer la dime aa clerg^^o cette d^noQiination. « - — Je-dis que rezeraptii 6e par '■#fc'' J- 'W^^- COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, IB61, . 2^ U «e «,ctio„ do I'Acte de Quebec, n'Auit pa« „no exemption «b»«Iuo7^ le prouver .1 me «ufflt do transcriro ici la 6e Hcction de cot acto, L eTca qu'on «,>pollo u„ ProvUo: « Pourvft n6anmoi„, qu'il nor. loi,ible k k^U^^H lit a Tt -ece«.urH,-def.iro tellos application, du ri^iUu dea dit- dC e droU^accou uma-^pouri'cncouragemontdo la religion protostantc. et pour lo m«int..n ot la ,ubs,stance d'un clerx6 protectant dana la ]>rovi„ce, ainnf nu'il. Icjugoront. en tout tempa, n^cesaaire et utile." (Vera.on an«|«iHe •) TrovTd d nevcrthoIosH that it ahall bo lawful for Her Majoiy, nia llL J Sue c .t to make auch provi.on out of the rest of such accLtomod due, and r « 71; the encouragement of the protectant religion. a„d for the maintenance a uUun por of a.protcstn., clergy, within the aaid Province, aa he o I «; h f I time to tmic, tinnk ncccHsary and expedient " ^ ' Lo.r^«W„, le teste dela dime, dont il eat fait mention dana la 6o section 6tait ce que lea protostanta avaient k payer. "His Maieatv" rJif ,,"*'/*'"'**"' **«'* 31. II aerait tout k fait abaurde do pr6tendre que le droit k U rliiw i * -i anglaiaca Jeur donnaient lo droit d'exicer la dim« .nrt«„» ' J'"^ ^"« '«« '<>•« one. dfl l'«„tr« ««*A ..A ■ "y^'ger »» dime, aurtout dea proteatanta, et quMe autre cot6, cca dermera auraient d6couvert que cea tnftmea loia lea obli- gaient de payer la d.me k dea prfitrea eatholiquea.' Non, le droit k la dime don^^ a agit, repose aur une loi fran^aise qui 6tait en vigueur dana la Lvle ' France, lor8quecep8yiiffttc6d6^rAngletcrrc. Cette loi avait done coSl acTdu^rrW^^^^ etiln'afallu In'r ut' Pour I'autreclasap dea anjeta de Sa Maje8t6,^ettem6me loi 6tait,iiOfl-r«aHi^'^' tion ; modification qu. prochimitJuHtemeFtJa continuation do I'exiatonce de ^ J^e8tV"6 dana la Selection de I'Acto -de Qu6bec. QueJIea 6taient doL les a«/r^ pawee, de cea m^mea loia, qui. asaur^menUevaient^t^^^^^ ^rCardionaTsTS^^^^^ lapta i^anadiena ? Si 1 une de ces lo.a a continu6 d'etre en viinieur iusnu'A l'«Pf« d^m4 (et nous avons dana cet acte m^me, la declaration EZuVen a 4t6 ainw), comment peulK)n soutci^ir qu'jl n'en a - '' "'equiiena Wltoto. "Ccs^hnsiT JJM 4t6 dfl,.ro6madea autrea^fr ; •»?;'! . .•;. ■ • .'i!^. ■■-;:£.. ■ : '^w^^ :M ;5' N-' 22 COUUT or QUEEN'S UFIKCII, 1867. _ ». WUcox. I 8?. Un niitrc niojMt* Invoqu^A I'nppui dii rtyatdmo d«'l*iiitiiii6, rente 4 oxtfmi ner; CVmI l« dfrniiT nii(|iiel on a «u nicouro, *nnn ilouto pnrco qu'il cut m faible qu'il peul i\ p«lno Hoiiti'iiir In diMcuiwion. Avant il<» rojrniniiier iiuaiiiiioinis je fe- ral roinnniiier <|iio I'Acto imporial do 1774, en parliint den Iain qui dglvent aervir de r6;^les de i^oiition »(ii inalii're civile, no fait iwage, pour dinij^nor cch low, quo dos molH ai|ivftiiti.: "liOia kt Ooutumeh du Canada," (wtclion 8). IVpuia la proinul||htion do cot acto, juj^o«i et jiiMtiuiaMca out toujourH honnunient cm quo cos mots, loia ft eoutumea du Canada, HigniflHiont Ion lois tivilci* f'mn9fti8e« qui avaient gouvorni co pays. Kli bion, aiimi qu'on vn lo voir lti«nt6t, il parnit quo ?n 6*6 la uno gftfuo orrcur ! ^ » Lc inoyon dont il^ij?it(«nHi»toiV tlirfl(juo,»i jusqu'u 1774 ily a ou dcsdoutOB *ur la qitestion do lu'Hub»titution dos loin civilos augiaiHOS aux IoIh fn^n^alHeH, la 4o Hcction do rAotodc/Ciuobeca fait dispnraltro toua coh douti's, et a,^oclam6 quo cottd HubstituU'on avait rfiollomont ou liou. Cost bien ; main nn dipahdera tout naturelioinent ^ w Taeto a on cob offot, c'ost sana douto parco qu'f#yin^iiclar6 en tcrincH expres q«« Ioh loia anglaisoH avaiont 6t6 valablomont, ou dov^ont 6tre censfioH avoir 6t6 valablomcnt intiodtu^OH, Hoit par la capitulation, aoit parda pro- lamation do 1703, ou par rordounanco do 1704, ou oidin par le fait soul qu'unft artio'«lo ce» lois avait 6t6 plus ou nioiiw suiviiV on Canada dupuis lo cliango- mont do 8ouvcrainot6 ? Kh ! lion ce u'ost paa Cola, puisquo fa 4o section du Statut no dit rion do la sorte. 'Que dit-olloMlono, ct-tto "4o section ? Sur quoi done pent otro fond6o cotto pretention do I'iiitiino ? .. " i : . ^'«'"W«- Or, wlon l«s prttoii- do 1774 »o P.. tTtr c«:rarr: ""'"'"" ''".^'•"""'•'" '« '*«i->«t«ur ', do r„i.„„. , ,„, -^„,„„..,,.^ ;;;';^-- .;;- « .... ,« ., ,, oivil««duCan».la. Mal« catte con.An,ZT ""^^ '"*•'- «« "ndonnc. lois rActedoQ,,6bccdoit6troL.m6 ',„, "^ '"^.'"""'^^ =«'««* quo, d«n« ce cas, re.a*//(s'ii:pr*.re„urer:t;r :jl^^^^^^^^ T^ -o.; 33. Si j a. ou-^ccourH 4 I„ «o .oction do I'Acto do Qu6becTe t nfin . 6t6 le» seiUes qui aiont rAd, ou qui aiunt du r^.,i, i /i 1 .. " "'""* n^^irn^i^^ attao.^; a^^ llX^^;:)^!^ ;Lt ^ ^"V^ ordonnancos du gouvorneur on consoil, ot lo. 1 ™£ de 7 '''''^ '^' pfflciers publics. commiBsiter^s des jugcs et autres . Deux choBos encore 4 remarquer. La DrGinu\r« n'„o* ' \ MM foTOi OU aaiui poids 4 tot ieni Dnimn-nn „. * "'"'"i , i'dr:r '•-'- " "'" -•^' <■» -- »-- e. r;!-d:"r: 34. Je reviens raaintenanl k I'autre systdme. calui dr. I'. • * •* tion des lois franQaises. f ^ **° ' existence et du main- ™»«,ce ,„i, d„ r^, .«it h.„.emew oonwt ITrS'" ' '■""" celto »Mt,on, p« ta „,to ■• loi. et coutun.,. du a„^ " 'f °' l'™'^"* ' ^ ^ u,^ .qu»......p,oc,^fo;];.^r:r S t.„-,i WHOM WDmi. / r . ":V >: ^ !.■• \ ' •■' .« .: ; 3: »jf / v. ^':^~-F--;- ■ - qu'il 6tait k proppg. fl i r 'I S4 COURT W Q^:N'S HENCU, 18fl7. -3|t '-% V"' ' M f) 5 \ ^^?r ■s^-*- Wllcra Wlkvi. ■',!«■ (1« l^infirtntr ou rtvoqutr, puia<|ii*nn n« jui^nit pw ooQVroi;liiiniition, touta vtUblo qu'olle pftt' 6tro, ii'a pu All iHir ttllu-iiiAiiifl I'fltrflt irintrodiiira !«■ loit sngUiMii, il mo Mnibl« <|u*il >>eriiit iilmuriln do pr^toiidru (|iio a n'u&Maont paa <>xe6d6 loa attribu* tiona do coux qui lea avaient d6cr(^t6ea, ou qu'olloa loa o&aaont (!xc6d6os on par- tie aoulomoiit. Dans Io premier cua, il y avait lieu 4 " rfvocntion ; " dana Io accond, 4 " d6clarer nul" pro'lnnto. Ou no d6claro paa nul co qu'on reconnait en m6nie tempa avoir toujoura 4t6 valable. Dana ce dbrnior caa, on abroffe, on rivo^ue. Puiaquo Io atatut a'eat aorvi dca mota diclarer nul, cVat qu'il y avait, 'ou dana loa ordonnancea, ou dana led ' commixaiona, quolquo nullit6. Par ex- emplo, l'ui>e \ par la | Oiora en mation dielarrt Irangu i do I'intr 80. F 4-inl do I on frano dca atu was Invaded policy. The limited by, tli You are pr( ^lifiBtlco in Can French law bI in free afej^ (1) " Rcpon by the house o Quebec : rcj 241 and 243; 14--.':'W x > t^ \ p«r U pmclaniHtioM de 176.1, m«i. mam Um J^^O^^ITT. 7"""^ r«n«« .,u on pftt faire Ucduiru do c«U« .l^cI.rX„ annumtr' ! T ' ''" ** 3a. KnHn j« ,„« r6»unifl.v« .ti...... T 'f . *^""" *'" ' «'«'«""""'«o I ''^^'>>^^!^'',.^^!^:t;::^z[:^::: '•"■■'"'.",.*• r«vo«ir. , ' "" "' • ""' '■*»'-»«-"^. »'»y«-.t |M. oi,4ror .,,.o pour d«r«."t lo con,it6 de In ..|„„nl 1 J '*'""'«""=^« 'l"''! » donno, l« 24 jnin 1 828. Wimt, in yo»T opinion, wo.it.I ho the law whinl. i„ f « ;vltI.out . „..„, leaving childron, |.. ^ T." ,t r. ,T,; ' ? ""'""■ "' "-" '«"'« «»««» Tenures Ac», o Goo. fV. c Ti.O Thl 1 .i ., *""■" "'" '^^""'""a't of tho C«„«,u „ <«, .l.at before the cnHctmont of tlLc Zl T " '"' r'"".'*" '^ '>""" ''*^"- "^ "I' "»fen joccago ... Lower Cunnda wo., .".'o 'elZu ii: tu " '""'' '" '"'*"' ""*"=''"'"'- tho,«„,o rulcH, a« 8eig„o,.rio, hol.len of tl „ t ^."""'' """'""• ""'^ "^^'"'^'^"'K '<» that ti.o words afrooand co nlu .occUc " in trT "'"""'^ "' '""' "'""'"" "«• "Bcd in contradlrtinction to the a cTent 1 re 'f 'n "7 '"' '"«'" '"'"'' -« "'-"y- « froo and comm^on .oecage tenure Lnllh ^ "''''■^- '^'"' "««^'»"«' was^invadei so fhr, a' d 0"^ fl^l''^^^^ policy. The deparluro f"m t lo alio^^^^^^^^^^ limited by, the motives which ^^qulred It ''"""^ ^ ccextensivo with, and ^su::rn7ardt;;u7tr pX*.^^^ ?: """""^"^ °^ ^^*' >- ^-^ --« of •French law,?hould be appUrab^^ : 5^ U ' ^ '",''7 "°°^"-'^ '"«' '"« old wnow WOciit. ■««.• i ;■ »; ^^ \-t ■■•■ 1*1 I ,>^. f 4 "< , V «# ly! a 26 /court of QUEEN'S BENCH. 1857. \ micox WQcoz. "I tU to the present according to the principles of the Old French laiii^.' Does it occur to 700 that that circuinatance of the courts of justice' having governed themselves npon the principles of French law, does not give validity to those titles which have been thus conveyed 7 — My own opinion is, that the courts were right in those decisions. And at present the only doubt is, as to the effect of the Oant^da Tenures Act upon the question. That Act recites that doubts have arisen whether lands granted in the Province of Lower Canada in free and common socoage will beheld and alienated, and will descend according' to the Canadian or to to the. English law ; and proceeds to enact (hat sncb lands may and $hall pa$t, by conveyance or descent^ according to the law of England. ]^ut the statute does not contain any retrospective language. I suppose the Legislature to have meant to legislate onlyj for the future, leaving the past to be regulated by judi- cial decisions. ' ^ In those colonies where the Dutch law and different foreign laws exist, do they exist concurrently with English law 7— No ; all lands in Trinidad are holden under Spanish law; and in 'Demerara aBd the "Capo under Dutch law. This applies even to lands granted by the King of England. — - 37. Avant la promulgation do Facte imperial de 1825, la 4[}uc8tion dont il s'agit A 6t6 Boulev^c directctnent par unc exception p6reroptoit-e dans unc cause de dame Af. A. Tariou de Lanaudiero, veuve Baby, centre Ics hferitiers de son mari. Le contrat de mariage contenait ftipulatjon dc communaute de biens, avec, de plus, une clause d'anieublissement Durant' cette cominiinaut^, M. Baby avait obtenu de la couronne la concession de plusifeurs terras en franc et commun socage. Sa veuve, pr6tendayt que ^es terres 6taient t ombres dans la < communaute^ eii rfeclaniait-la moiti6. Le irioyen d'exception des ddfendeurs 6tait que "168 dites terres ayi^nt 6t6 airtsi donn^es par Sa Majeat6 le Roi au dit '^ 'Frhn^o\s \inhy in free and common soccai/e, iccllcs n'6taient pas tomb6es en *," la communaut6 d'entre la dito Dame demandercsse ct le dit cifunt Sieur " Baby, mais que suivant les lois d'Angleferre en force a cet 6gard en cetto " Province, les dites terres 6taient dcmeurfees propres au dit Francois Baby en " son vivant, et 6taient demeur^es depuis son d6ecs et %taient et demcuraient ♦' encore en la succession du dit d^funt. " Cette cause fiit jug6e, le 8 octobre 1824, par I'ancienne Cour du Bancdu Roi du district de Quebec (1). Le jugemcnt declare que ^e-' terres en' question sont tombees dans la commuQautd, et en ordonne le partage entre Madame Baby et ses cnants. 88. La m6m»4«estion a 6t6 de nouvcau.s(>ulev6e devant lemdme tribunal dans une catise de Paterson et McCallum {^), inais c'4t«it apr^s la promulga- tion de I'acte imperial do 1825.^r>Dan9 cette cause, il s'agissait d'une,Aypoy 4^ ca-e. shows the unive^ality and antinuitv " f 1 "*^' r'"*""«*^ '» C«'^-'« opinion expressed by the JreaLVnll^??"^^^^ We find the same LoHsHardwicke, M^S ;o;Th '^^^ "'""f'^'^^ ^"^''«»> ^^oncC tutional lawyer of England Crex'id^^^^^^ opinions collected in Cavendish^! "^^^^'^^d hemselves. I hera refer to L Canada Bill i„ ,774 also To 1 n^ '" "" "^""^^ ^^ Covins on L -tteeofthenou.eVc:l t,. P;;^; |7 ^^ ^r. Stevens h^re^c^ ciding.^.Mr. Faribault of QuIelZ ! I '""^ '^"*''''*'" ^« «™ "ow de- low, as ahorney general, ,?:hl^^s:!;^n'^t In the 30th vph,^e of Jhe^TH L vTl^T't ''' ^"^"^'^ "'«'«*«^ "P0«-^ ' opinion, conclusive argument of I^nV "** '^ ™"'* "^'*' «»d '« "^y " Rcton. The,„estion';v7bel^'f:rabrr"":\'' ''' c,seofGene^ Collection of Commissions and P„bTirinst^^^^^^^^^^ of Quebec. , '*"• '"^f^mpts relating to the Province «d b, the Court, of J„s,i„e fa Ltid t ' "'''*"' "r" » «»' «4»i» S...»^ co«l, collet tt/S!3,%r.rit %*'^"«/^'''" ^■°f«*' ' «iriMMU.M. .iaii„7"r."". ''."'"'°" ^' " fi-xyioU^n i-ct^ . . ' " w" WW a'llUaitei anna Ia » * s . -— -• jwuMg ae|l|U|. dans lea alienations , et dit «„>«!." .!?°!.'° "PP."'* ''^ ^-^ P'imog^.dtW d'o»^...n.° iff '•-^ ill ..'«•- vr nm ill jv£:_ ■1-.^s raised in Quebec in 182- before the Court of King's Bench in the case o^t)eIanaudiere vs. Baby, et al. and the opinion of the Court was unanimous/in declaring that lands held in free and comirion soccage were sub- ject to rtre old laws of the conntry ^d not to Uie English laws. Moreover, as applied to Canada, ka^ proposition is kn absurdity too glaring to be overlooked, How could you ap\jly tlie laws of England to lands held in if and seigneurie ? How could th of Equity. %a inmy cases they car not affdrd the relief that is required. Take for instance, trust-deeds, n^arriage soltlements, estates-tail, the statute de donis, the statute, of uses, the administration of minor's property and the care of his person, a bill of discovery, demands to compel specific performance ; in all these cases a Court of Equity alone can give the relief the i^irty desires. Did any lawyer or statesman ever think of having such a court established in Canada, or of vesting the powers of a Court of Equity in one of our own courts ? And why not ? Simply because the principle we arc now laying down, was publicly ac- knowledged and aided upon throughout Lower Catiada. I Having thus eiRablished that the laws of England we/;c not introduced'into Canada by the ^nqitest, I^shall here proceed to show they were not introduced by treaty. V ^ The answer giS'cn by the commander of the British forces, at' the tirtie of the capitulation "They become British subjects," so often referred to, in srtpport of the assertion that th^ laws of England had,been introduced into Canada, proves the very contrary. They became British subjects, aud consequently subject to and protected by thqse principles' of ■ constitutional law, yhich the lawsof Etag- land. jecognise. I have shewn above what these, are. • . , The Plaintiff next contends that whatever may be said on the question above discusicd, the Royal Proclamation of the 7th of Oct*; 1763, has set the question at rest. The legality of this proclamation was questioned before the court of K. B. in Englandj in the well-known case of Campbejl vs. Hall, 1 Cowper's Rep. 204, and judgment was given for the plaintiff, th«t i^, against the legality of the Proclamation. - ^ " ' -"'' Baron MasSres, in the vdhime above referred to, has stated several objections, to this Proclamation. One Is, that it was not issiied- uoder. the great seal, v hi the opinion, of ev^rj^.well j|pd Qdnstitutional Lawyerj'^hb will ever bear in miBd, the piiwcipleFrd l ifiJHflg c a n do pg vrong^ bf> hold condusi^ of Engia instance, and yet, on tlio Ii un^erstar security i Then c the Gove was not 1 their trarii land — in i able to liii told to ad according rule, and caprice of constitutio - I will re uphold lh( duced here ly to rcpea could do it I shall 8 Justice are « I close tl Seignorial ( Aylwin, , ' the existcnc of free and.* /••Theplei ' • in dispute. • Idi^etirc ■ • Frenct Ipiw i Saxon one, r ■ Paris existinj ofalegislativ M to.Towm the French al French laws i Colony becain After the «j civil and crimj give general ft character wer — - iBs^tat ioiBrbe « COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1867. 20 1 bon comes the Ovdumm-.o of the Governor -nn thu n « co«,i.n,i>,„.l, „o,U„ King nor G„,.,„„r ...i, "„",t ""''' " •'°''" " ""^ , 1 will Kinark- llieio i, !,„„ „ e,„„g„ ,'„„„,i,,e„ „„ „, ^ . ^^ nphoM 11,0 l,.g„lit,. of ..bl, P,od.m.tlo„.-,If ,!,„ LaW En,E,r ^ , «™d Lc,. V ,1,„ C„„,,„e,. or ., Tr«,. wLae^i^T^'Sf .Xrw- ^j,(»m,/. A, „f.u„ Fmrd, la. „ an ■mpos.,b,l,ty a„<|c, thh tenure. The tenure bein^ .„ aLT„ " Saxon 0,0, «pe|, ft. .„pp^i,i„„ of^th, cnston,.™ dc-er oftti! Si"*rf iF™:rs.'.s.d r ''■' r™"i»«"."p»-"i.«o.pi.„ia.ior:^ ^„ri . ,?t • ^°°'"°'' ™ °"''" °° ">« B'W* Commandop that IL.' M'llcoi wBtHutiD t w became s was ..J -in 1". i^Kji so COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1857. wacoi "Wlfcpju J m '( m I' ill! ^ )t»l, ! f. issued, invUiiig settlers t. e. British subjects from New Eiigland|aiul from home, and asHHrinjnf them the country, should be governed as nearljr as i)08'HbIo by English laws. General Murray received instructions to summon an assembly as soon as possible. The ordinance of 17th September, 1764, created civil and criminal Courts, and be it reniarkod, at the time of the conquest, French Courts and the French mode of proc'eding, disappeared fore.ver. Under this ordinance the Court of King's Bench, ako the Court of Common Pleas, were esfciWiBhcd both • from similar Ooiirls in- England, Mid one to. decide according to English law, and the other as nearly as posnble to the la^^s of England. It was found ne- cessary in conrse of tiriie to modify thosp taws which were found to be inappli- cable and expensive. The Gpvirnmeiii of Great Britain being desirous of doing, right, passed the Act 14 Geo. III., c. 87, of the ImpermI ?ar- . liament. This Act recited the proclamations and ordinances, and commissions relative to the civil Government and administration of justice, therel)y giving ^thejn a legislativo sanction if they needed it, which I don't believe ; but res- "pecti\:ely they wore to cease, new provisions being'made for the/utura Hence it is tBat from the first- establishment of Civil Government in the Province up to the present honr, we have the English criminal law in the Province. With rt-ference to soccage lands, there is a provision in tjje 9th section that ^ nolliing in this Aqt contained, shall extend or be construed to extend to any l.mds TfiiTFihave been granted by His M^.i*ty, lfec.< to be holden in free and common - 'soccage." This is said to be unmeaning, and contrary (o the words of the sta- tiite.' The twords mean no more than the awertipn that' the law of real property in Canada, as to S'^ccage lands, should continm to be the law of England, riot t«o ifitroduce it, for it was in force before. The next Act worthy to be mentioned is the Act of 1791, the Slst Geo. Ill ,'c. 81, which made provisions for the Pro* • vince of Upper 'Canada, which was i?ettled by people 6f British descent and ori- gin. In'plain terms their laws were to be the laws of England ; lands were to be granted in free and common soccage, and not en yUf 'or en roture. But^there was a proviso that when lands should be granted in Lower Canada, where the grantee should desire them to be granted in free and common soccage ' they should be so granted subject to any alterations that mi^t prospectively be effected by legislative enactments.. No alterations were igj^e. It stood as it then was ; there being often doubt as to the extent of the soccage tenure, as to whethef it had all, the consequences of the English law, or was restricted tos * descentTaliehation and dQwer. I would here refer to Smith's Histoiy of Canada, a very usbftil book. Which contains in. vol. 1," pp. 42 and seq., information respecting a report of the Govenior and Council on the Judicature of the^ Province of a very interesting nature, of date August 28th^_l 767. . V ABSTRACT OP THE REPORT. ; * 1 . Whether any and what defects are now snbsiBting In the present state of JTiidie** tore in Quebec. a. Whether the Oanadians are, or think themselves af grieved, aecording to the ptii sent administratioii of jusfice therein ; and In what rdipeets, together with our opialoo of any alterations or amendments that wa can prbpnaw fnr %he g sncrri b enefit o f t^if PlOTfaice^ n4 tbat they-Jie tnannitted in fonn^oidinance^l^t'ttorpaMed, by the Oovornor, reaaoos of They tli force. The con the Laws i of your Ma That the •Court efK JCIO. Api mine, accoi under £5, 1 , others, at ^ The^ the I ^ is observed August, 17( ftituret, £s . These Or( Buppo^d to to the EngU Besides, tl zabeth, chai This clearly !. foh 7,; Stall We ^nppo! ernor's cpmn relating to T ■ Quebec to ca tute 2, chap. it perpetual. Board of Tra( the Governor tut^ passed e ""4 Geo. III., stores. A coj 4 Gbo. III., 4Geo. Irt., Besides thea England ; The- Articles The Treaty ( ' Romish Religic The Proclani in the Qolony i laws of i, conqt The late Gov not mean to oV) Law, supposed The Lords of of2ndSeptemb< .and Conncily pr prior to the com eeedings by the '^ J COURT OP QUEEN'S DENCH, 1857. If they diflbr, diffoi-ent oplnlonj, with ■^ Governor, Chief Justice and Attorney Qoneral reaaoes of auch differences • • ^^ They then repreaented. that the Laws of England were generally thought to be in the'ra:z;Sti?j E'„X';rLdt:r "^? ,>"" 4 '- ^-'^« -^-^^ - of your Majesty's Province of S^^ If Laws Ordinances, Rules, and RegulaUons That the Ordinance 6f the 17th 5^1*:^ '" ?f' '^'"''* "" ""^--^d *"«! made. •Court 6f King's Bench, an InferLtourt of ?■"' 'of' '"''^""^ ''''''^' "^ «"P«''«' ^10. Appeals to King', B S h „ a^l l^e Z^^'l T"" '" ''''^' '" "" •=•"«"■ "»'-« mine, according to Equity ZarJi;"! fl' ■^"•'*'" "^ *'"''' <^«"» ^^ta deter- under XS, befofe ."altl SS alve'l /''"/ 'l' ^''"""•'•* «^»»'* P^'- • Others, at weekly or Quarter SesVion^ ' "'"'"'•''"• •^'""' * -'"«'« •^'«'"<=e. »; • August, 17C5-, are subject to Z/^ ^JoZ7\ '"r'''" ^"^ "'"'''' '»•« ^O'" o^ /«•/««., £,cA«fl/. ^^ ^"' "-^ ^'"""'"n^", Cuetom of Dower, Rulu of For- . These Ordinances have been triinams«».j j . Buppo^d to be abolished, and X" onC tT" T'^'^' '''"^''''^ '*- <"«- to the EngHsh laws. * "''*''''' themselves bound to proceed according Besides, there are public instruments In sunfiSrtnf^K^ .. zabeth, chap. 1, abolishing tl« authority of ^^12 ''"^'*"PP°'''"«° = Statute of I. fill. This clearly extends to aLfacq IZs o^^^^^^^^^ ^'^« f»»- 1«. I*, 24, 27. , foh7.; Statutes 7 and 8 William r, chap. aV ^™*»-, Statute 16 Car. 2, chap'. 7, We suppose other Acts of Trade WqnriiiifiL - -. ' ernor's commission direcU hS to ^JZZ!^ '«"»«, extend also. Hence the Gov- ' relating to Trade. And the Cotai^ssfc/s of tt O P^bc^H for Plantation Governors " Quebec to carry them into exeTuZ IThl -f^ . *" '"''^" "PP"'"'**' » Collector at ' tute 2, chap. 16, for preserv rsCs Itlanf H ^ f """•' ^'"^"^ «^^"- ^""e. Stl it perpetual. The ALrneraL SL 1"?' ^^^^^^^^ V'''''''t' '''''■ '- ^'^'P' "' --aWng Board of Trade, that it ext'nds\o t3^^^^^ the Governor of Quebec. . These before K ' ^^ '^^ *'P''»'°° " V^-^mitted to ■tutss pissed since, as- '^.''^"T ^^""'l"*^* "^ Q°«b^^^ ~ ^'4 Geo. III., chap. 2, continuing that pari of 8 Opo T . « . . \ •• stores. A copy of this is s.nt toM cSt o^uic"""" '^ ^ '•'"*'*1 4 oeo. III., chap. 16— for granting duties) Besides these Statutes, there is a seripa of\n.,Kt:''- >.. England ; ' ""'"'''' "'^^r"'"' '^Strum^nts for introducing laws of Th.fArtlcle8of'Oapit«latio;inl760,yi4eiticIe8 42 27^.0 ' The Proclamation of October !»«!». «~.-^t!Ai^ .t > in the golony understand ^SlaVtoLt^r^^^^ ' Uws of .t conquered people c^ntled L^^vr;- ^'r^"^*^'' """* °°* ""» "'"-'^'Pal ' The late GovernorVp nnderstood It J. i ^^^ T*""'* "" *"•" confidence, not mean to ov^rn^lte^otLa Ws VT^T" '"' ««P'«"""'^^1»H ^id Law, supposed to be already intSed ' ^ ^^''^'^^1^ ?«rcl»ed English Wilcox . M Uiox .^T^rwTf^^i \- . prior to the conquest rf Oi^n^t^'l^ri^y^Zlionr^ ^t^^' '''^^^^ ^ >■ " — 82 COURT OF QUEEN'S IJENCII, 1857. K'fi J: «f III WiTcos ' ^ tdr'guch property. It ia dear, then, that If upon .ovcntB posterior to that conquest, then the (>(>urt8 arc to be governed by Rngliiih liaws^i We know that the Attorney and Solicitor Oenoralj in April 17G6, understood the proclainiition in a mow confined 8en9c^*^8 introductivc of only somp fewer parts of the law of Knglnnii, particularly beneficial to English sulgccts, And not of the wholabodj' tif the laws. This they took to b« the purport of tiio wor«^ in the proclamation — the enjoijmriit of the benefit- of the laws of p]ngland; and tliey were of opinion that the criminal laws, now almost the only laws that came under tiini description, and that the laws of DoHccnt, Alienations, Settlements,' Incumbrancca, and Distribution, were no^ comi)relionded under it. Your Majesty must diftorminQ, Bracton'says ; cuju» e$t condtrt tjun est interpretare. Wc^y public instruments before you to judge upon. , ; The next evidence of introduction of English Lawajs: Oeneral Murray's Commission in 17U4, ,to be Vicc-Admiral. By this the Laws of the English Court.of Admiralty take place of F^nch laws and customa. This commission aa Governor, and the instructions ' (in the s^mc.^ear. ' ' , - ' • , ., - Not the Waal intimation of any saving of any part of the Laws of England. It scemi as if the\ Capitulation and Treaty of Peace was deemed to be notice enough of intro- • Qucing English laws wiih.resppct to religion ; especially as they continued in tlie couuo try and took) the oaths, wta^n the^ had eighteen months to withdraw. Those are the public instruments for evidences of introduction of English Law ; iat as the Proclamation aiid Governor Murray's Commission have never been published in French, and the two OYdinances of February and March, 17C4, which ha vc;^ been, are very concise, and do not specify the laws introduced, — the greater paift of the people remain ignorant of jhe extent of the chaqges, and imagine ancient lawdin many points still in force. When they come to know the change there will be |^at uneasiness. Hence at present there ia a diversity in\he practices of the English ated Canadian snb- jeets> with respec^ tit letters of atlministraticin and thedistrijwtion of intestate's effects. Also in the practices of conveying and mortgaging E^^shsubjects according to English mode. French, by Notaries^nd Scrrveners, according to E|[ench modes, and so the same lands are conveyed b/brftb modes. Leases by Jesuits are made* for twenty-one . ye&rsj though by French law good only for nine years ; and sundry other instances of diversity are assigned.' , In criminal matters, all proceeding according to ^e English law. The same as to proceedings in the civil business of the King's Bpnch. In th@ Common Pleas, the pleadings are drawn as the parties please— some in French and some in English. . Our arresting^ody for debt, oi^the mesne process, surprises the French. Here follow remarks on the foregoii^g instruments : , 1. Thejir submit it as a doubt whethtf; the ordinances of September and Norember, 1764, ar£ sufficient to introduce snoh laws as weae not established by the proclamation of 1T63. t> > ' By .i|ie Kinj^s commission to the Oovernor, a certain degree of Legislative authority is communicated tp him, to be exercised with advice of Council and Assembly, and no Legislative authority without tl^e Assembly.^ and, tiierefore, the ordinances are consi- dered to be void. If so,, they are good only as to the erection of Gonrts. True| there is a private instrnotion, with advice qf Goqncil to make f^sh rules a* -appear necessaiy for peace and order, not extending to l|fe, limb q| liberty, duties or taxes. But we doubt whether such power can be given, except nflfer the Gim»t 9f«l«! read and notified; and, therefore, we think the instroetion void at to^noonv^ying • LegislatiTO^withorjify. • V If it is not Toid, the authority is too small for the introdnytlbn of ftigUsh lawg, pd^ Qommitmenta for oontempti. Bat tii^N rMU|ou do not (oooh the higher Ia«traiiMat ^ the introdi Pruclamati Inconvcii Their uncei racdy is ncc tcdiou*, an( plan Iicl4 u| Hivcrs. Or the latter (o of proceetjin !• A'pl^iiii does not apf dcfiiult. jiidg ties on,dispii facts ii) diife moned next They are to No challenge cial one. Al ' inventory of found to satii according to A Sheriff t< and Council i , The three ( way not want These appej » Judge's pro •s in a Genen New Trials, plan. It remains t taintyofthe'^li !• A code ol j^jBO^erMd ft ,f*m Lhra efiEi II. To revive > Btatutes afioTe i nnd to introda Province, as t« f torpnt, in. A third 1 particular sabje IV. The law \, former cnitoms «Banenited in ( As to the first •«■• A'speeet" wjected, other p Aa intimate «w '\ .^-4/ ■^ "^ - * 'f wyr^iT^'Sfv COURT OF QUEEN'S RENCrr, 1867. — . . « ilJI the introdiioMon-oCRnirlifh laws «/. . .1.- * ., , .~ """^ ProcUmalion of 17«3 ' " ""^ ^'"*'" of Capitulation, th. Treaty, .„d the. iliioMon'orR me.l, ia „ccoe«ary. Thefe are i v^^ ' ^ '"""" *" ''''''^'''- ^ - • tedious, and more s-evcrevOfan under tl.e plrh "l"''""""'''' ' I'"'<=«^««»nK« expensive, plan ..C.4 up. A JudicatJ r- d t ea^h ttrSb r'«'"' "•"''-'^'•- ^ nivcrs. One Judge in eftch : a nlrri.ter oS v ! "'' «»«bec, Montreal, and Three, the latter to iWe no decidin/p^we ''^1^ ,' ^I'^n"^' ""''' "'••'"•='• "-»«"» ? of pr6ceeo:s :r::;:L: X::^s:t.;iz?r;;:r;;'T "-^- ^^•'«'^-- Oefault^judgment. If he. apiSears, Plea in^l Vhen t "^ /r""^"""'^"'- «" ties onfdisputed facts, and answers to 1/™], 7 *" "'"'^'"'K'' *» interrogate par- facts i, difference, and as. ^" Zy^^:^'^^:''^ ^- »'° ^« ^o «t«te the moned next Court. He that^deslres IZl J .7 ^'^ '''^ * '^"'J^*' »'«''""°- They are to be appointed as Sp eial j' J i^J:', '"fl "P*^-*"'' ''^^ "»"«»« -'ch. No challenges to be allowed A ma i.v 1 * "f ' "^ "''''"'"^ ""* .»^«'^''' «'»<=•'• ^ Inrentory Of Defendant's estate «»,! r^S^; "^2^^ ttre"' 'T ' ^" found to eat afy tho jnairmeiit p««.i.„ c , "^ . ."'" """i '« 'Mre la not enough ~.cor«rng i, Zdgo'a jSr. '' '"^""'- ""•"" "'"""''•■ »»'"«•'■ Co.t. .n'S'la .l-.?:rK 'n, * ■""'■.' ""°'"' » -'•- ^'•'- '» «— C^o^ri:;' S:,^.'! *"•'"'- O*"-- ■« »• "T .1" Oounen, tb.. „. ^^ These appeals should be only in the n>it..r« ^r «.u * • . . Judge's proceeding without! J„ J' Cth/eVW^ of error, except in the instance of •8 in a General Court Martial "" "'"'"''' ^ "«»""«» *o writing, ^^NewTHalsat..wtobeb/aMoubMi^.„,^^«„., These the outlines of the ' M^ ^^jTgland and Pr n^UVs r^^^^^^^^^ 'fr'^T "^ "-^ P"* <» , «. To revive all 4he Asnch Lawi il the ' *," T , '!* ^""^^ '" **•" ^°*'' ^*»«"'- . .tatutes afiove mentioned, J^f^^i^ZT ^^^ *•"« ^"'f"'"' ^•^''. «cept ti» «d to introdnce those by. P^t^^cS^ ^""^'^ *" *"•? '*«*' «' *he *ubjec< Province, as to Uke^w./tlrtCiK^'r^'l "l ^""''""•fion pnbWd In thi ' .^^^^^^ y.w.y ioriur«,Jth« punishment of the nek, mtroduce 4b« *«6.«; particular sLiS^^^ttf^^T.fl'''^*''^?'*'^''''^ '**• ''**"' exception of •n-memtedta tt«p,och«B*tZ *^^^ '"""•"*• *""' "* •'^«-»> •» "ot Wilcox Wltoox ^i' t ti': lUi*'' v^ ^ «: f i .J ^ :i^ v V -? — r 4j < 'r- .'-4 ::i.^.^- ■^ f .'1 84 COURT OF QUEEN'S $ENCH, J857. Wllooi '■ li ronnoction between the parts, ond dangerous tof break it. If the old is loft, no Code i» wanting. The greatest lawyer in Paris not equal to the work. An Englishman would not know whore Co look for it. On the other hand, the a^rantages vrill be these :— The Judges would hare a short rule, not be misled by French lawyers in citing and miaai>plylng, &c. The English subjects would know the law easily. It would deface the (dea of French law, and the attachment to a French gorommuut. Imperfections might be removed as ex|ierience brought t)iem to light. It would bo sufficiently exact at the beginning for all common oases. k% to the'second metliod, the iuconreniencie> would bo these :— , / 1. Keep up a respect for the French l^ws and goTernment. 2. Disgust the English who think tbo)r hare right to the English laws. * 1. Imagining the conquest rei^ered\the French laws void, though' in this the law Is otherwise. / \ 2. 'That they were really introduced by the Proclamation of 1763. The aecond method has these inco^veniencies, I . , . ' j 1. Maintain a reverence for the Itiwa of Paris, thotigh less than the other method!. 2. The Canadians will make the following objections : — 1. That the whole of tlie French law should have been maintained to preserve tho chain of connexion and avoid daggers. 2'. The English laws ought 16 bo particularly enumerated, and published in Frencb at full length. But a few Canadians will make these objections. ^a to the fourth method, U would wenrxtut the very remembrances of the Frencb Lows, Edicts, Government, Ac, and havV many advantages beyond the other method. But it would be troublesome to the ministers to form the Code. ' It would bo liable to many imperfections, from tho inaepurate' manner of setting forth the French laws and customs, ^nd to the two, last objections made to the third method, viz. : a part of their French law would give but an imperfect satisfaction, and they would complain of the' not setting forth the English law introduced at large. Conclusion, ^bat they cannot draw a balance in favor of any tme of these methods in preference of the other, nor find a new one preferable to them all, being unequal to the task. We have no other merit than that of giving some information of facts. Your tlajesty is best able to decide. Again, th«L author remarks : — Vol. 2, p. 1 84 and seq : With a view to report a statement of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the tenure in free and common soccage and the tenures of the Rrovijice, of a different description, the Governor (in the year 1788) appointed a Committee q/T Council for that purpose. The Committee was empowered to call upon the-Attorney General, and Solicitor General for their opinions on the subject matter of the reference, and to take, all such other means as they might think expedient for acquiring the necessary infor« Nation. The advantages of the soccage tenure are apparent in every country whero that system has been introduced)*ana the disadvantages of the other have manifested themselves 'wherever the latter has taken place. A Canadian Seigniory is ordinarily of, &c. The Council stated in their resolves, Ac, that the population of the Province depending now upon the introduction oflBritish subjects, who are known to be all averse to any bnt^g^l) tenures, and the Canadian Seignors of course be Icjft without a hope of multiplying^heir centitairu, except from the predilection of the descendants of the French planters'i to usages no longer prompted by the motives of interest nor recommended by example. That the grdnt of the uxute Imde of the Croum in free and evmmoi eoecfige U euentikl to the grmoth, itrength, defence and eafety of the farmen. * • • • > not the prerogative is competent to put the wasti iand$ of the Crown under a ~weiegrumfl. BuriKe lii^talwriiSaiimtim Umee$imTi0^tdket tintvcrcol. Thali tf this is to be the ^ork not of Parliament,1^t of iM Colony LegiBlatar*, th* Royal In require hi • can be oti though fo objection to such ol u well as QoQBont to 1 Ah to I .iTJDOteil "|> the case ( «vcr 8inc< Hut aiM W8 paRHe< Wgist ratio ' Pmncc, i>r « by the oat In procf . lands. ^ Afl to th ference to i executed*- At Inst t1 and all dou <5ap. fi9, by Ijrantod in ( ^is Royal f by tho owne .rules of alie /w w«re estal alienation of Province of J *«., to be ho be so graiite( •ted, convey< ner and form, fereiice to the And the Act j cations " for i land to the lo ■ada, and the Afler this c "Bowen's Act expressed as U Within two yet ^t Slsc OeorB «f opinion thai -v , ^ COURT OF QUEBPTs BENCU, 1867. Rojmllnstrutjteni virea fcr the »ri»i» .„3SS^T ~ ^ though M a -^„' WoulJ be a mca/Sl If ,„ k.^T"**""" "' "" '"^''"^ ^'•"-. objcc.lon occur,; Vinst giving ,uch kjvldul J? "^'l''' ""' ♦"•» "« "'»«'*'"'•• to -uch of 0.e 8««n.ora who tenant, or JTi. ^"*- " '''"""' ^'' •"«' "P«<"''"X " won a*<^ t|.e ipterct and benefit ZiZwtZ T ""r*"° '' *" *« '"' '"^'^ »*» co,.onl t6|li.-cj,.ng«_5„^^., //<./orv ,o , . *' "' ""^ """""^ "'«""^ »''•''' A . 11*. »''"'•"•» pp. 184 — 312. 1 ' •»or .iiico Wn r«c(,g„M. ^. 1^ ' f ^ ''f M M'nrtold, .i,d it k„ «gi«n„i„5 »f *..!. of »n.T, r," :l'"'"''T'* '"*' "•""""8 '"« ■ Pmncc, ,„„„f of ii„ „^„,. 'J™ 0' ■nortis.ige, .„d «,»|^,y ^ ihe l.» „f ^_^ lt.^P-0^, or^„,e .^.„ ..„ ,„„_, ^^ «U.„.^i^^ and all doubts wL r.^lTZtZT.^ ?-«r«ordinary .nanne, jrantod in the said l>rovi„ce ofUwoS JrK^ **'*'''*'' ''"•^« »s Royal pnedecossons to bo hoWe„ „^!^^ ^*',^^ ^'^ ^j««*y, or by «„y of by the owner thereof, 2 ^n.n^lZ^ZV^^^^^ '"^^' ^''»" ^« ^«'^ ^ •rules of alienation and de«,e„t in f^ „^^^^^^^ ^'"''"' «««>••*''"& »« 'he. /» w«re established by the ancient Jaw rfttlT. ',:;;' ^^^^^^^^ "* ""^^ '"'«• alienation nf |,„ds therein ;" it is tW«- ""'^ T^''^'^ ^^ the descent and Province ofLower Canada, whth ave heTcLT K " ^"'^ "" ''"•'" '''""« ^"^ *«.. to be holden in free aid colon" L^^^^^^ '"^'7^ 5^ ^'•^"J^'^' be so granted, Ac, may and shall be Jk^un' ^^ "•"*" ^^'^^V hereafter .ted. conveyed and disposed ^lla ;«! I r*'\'>-g»-ed. -Id, alien. »er and form, Ac, as aTTy the law of E„l , ^Z ^^ *'*^»'' '» «"«•> «««- fereuce to the grant, Ac, of to the dotefof oth ''f "^ '"' '" ''^' '" - AndtheActgoe.onto;e8ervetothecrnUrr'^^ f ™*"'«^ ^o™«''-'* catwns « for the better, adapting treb^forT^i^*"^^^^^ of taodffi/ land to the local circumstanLs and l«dZ f . "'''^ ^'^ *''« '«'' ^^ Eng -«da,and the inhabitants lieZfcn ««^«'on of the said Province of Lower cf- ' •xpreased M to whether it was in'Sl fl V" ^"* *•"*' dS)*trt«ve been within two years after the .,::;;" ^ ^1^ 'ts n^t h,,.-„g ^^^ ^^,^, J Wltroi / .;^" ;.. ■■ ._f . "? " Frociaimed "* «""furia«y with the wqairemen? "J aist Oeo. utrMp. Sl/sec. ss' but kilTiT' . .-,-..»«.„« 7: '/J I O ■ ■:> •»*. isiT ;.i:1 I, J ..,1, 'I. " ',:.; ,^ .>u 11 1 ' V* C.C'- ■ 9i COtJBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 18ft7. WilMM. )>. liniin have (ioolHiod tl^e cxintvnco uf tlie Iinjxirinl Act, ami ef the Act of,.}704y , by lOtli and 1 Itli at it reffrrcd to the t'ngli»li bafflng *if dowwr, which could only bo done by certain fonijf. There ia utill another reuognitioti by our tegJulaturo of iheEnjfliaji law,inlli* Uegi^iy ordinance of the *|K'cifll coUnrtI, 4 Vic. cap. 30,of which the 34th oco.- hnathe following word* :-»■'• Wh|er«a8, the alienation of tlw real c«tatcH of niHtried '♦ women h»ld in froo andconii^i^n Boccagc, and tho»o held under oUiior and ditler- .♦• ent tennron in thi'«« Province, iii governed by different ruIo«, and whereas it i» " expedient that such alienations of real cwtateH should bo govecncd by the same ?' rulet." llero we liiivo a reeognitiAn of the diiiorence of the tenure, find ihat> the douaire coulumkr cannot exist with the socciige tctriiro. It is saitl that thi» tenure is the siuno as tho/mnc atteii, — but tliis is u great falhicy, TJ>ei« is ho ess^titiat differetice between the two ; for land in franc utltu descends to the children in equal slinres, and socc^go'huids rightly or.wrotigJy recogiiize primo- getiiture, an tlio rule of descent. A^ain umlor the custfun of^ Paris, the tenure «»,/«/■ has one rule of t)e9ce'nt and that CM w^Mre another*, JTiho last observation that I woulil ninku is that the soccagc nnuro having its - injcUlcntsor "natupe and conseqhonces," wliieb nre,cbarn:ttTi*lic and distinctive^ thje King who granted these lands by this lenufe hud a right th make bis grant*/'] subject to such customs as'he pleased ; the at!cei)tancc of them wajr vohiutiiry. PArlics may in- their man-iii^o contracts deroguto from the eustom of Paris. ' Why sboulJ Tiot the King do the sanio in his grants. ^ The grantor may make suqJi condition^as he pleases. He imprints bis will on the grtmt, ami that e»n« not be altered. , At common law a grant of lands in free and commpn soccage oarricB oertAin conditions with it, and just as lands en fief, are descendible by one •Tule, and^hiD*!0 en ruture by another, the free itnd common soccagc tenure carries , with it its own rule of descent, ali^Htiioh and dower, llavmg expressed my oj)inion at length in the^asc of Stuart apd Bowman which is reported, it would be wa"»te of time upon the present dccasW to say inoVc than •.to refer to it. I would merely observe, that at this argument reference tit^asmiKle to a case t>f DelanaudUre and Baby. I haVo a particular knowledge o^ th^ ciise. The suit was one of an amicable kind, between a mother and her chiPdren. It was not a> . Ida^e of douaire at all) but a very different onct the partition of the biena de la» eommunauti befweeh the widow and her children. There wjos a contract of [)arriage,by which eommunauti detput biens prisens-et d venir was Aipulated.— , Sub' intentfed t my f CbURT OP QimEN'8 nEN0n.-18d». "S •T lnl«r>*Hl to ^n thaUongth but no fHrth.r.' I .,'„ ron.rtrt,i„od th«n to a<|h«r* to my fWrmor .>p,„,on, a.ul f woul.i Ji«nm, tho npiK|il,.but nrn in the minority. I ho moUft of tho JiKlgment in tm^^^X w«r« m folluw* ;~ fMKw?r'i *' !!. V*..* '^"«i»««'-ing tut ihe 1^6 Jo^pl, Wilcox, ' fath^ftr of the R«,ponc»«nt, by hi, flr.t ra«rriHgc. .Ii«.l on iho ain't J„„:,„ry, l«25. ' contmclM ,oco„,| marri«g.,|^th .h« Ani.«llm,t,rio,.hia nio.et and of the children bo^nNrf her marrjage with the said Joseplr WilcoJr, hs prescribed by the custort of ParS;, by which the ohildron of the said late Joseph Wilcox, born of hi. marriage with, tlie said Sophia Ilk-lget, may claim a right of property in the one undivided rnoiety of the Haidlot, subject to the usufruct now claimed by the said SopTtih Blodgot;-consideritfg, therefore, that on the day of tb^" dei-oase of the said Joseph Wilcox, that is, on the f?8tb day of April, 1846, the said Sophialilodgfet and the children of her marriage aforesaid, were by» law entitled to cj^m the ^ said dower, and that l)y -reason thereof, the right of Usufruct in; the oWo divided woiety of the i*id lotof land wd« vested in the said Sophi* Blodgct ; of which <.ne nnelividcd mbi'ety she i«. now iin possessipU, having retained possession of the whole-lot from the tilne of the deceasi of the said Joseph Wilcox : -^onsidenng ilut ft,r the reasons above stated, the Respondent^ claim to, the whole of tho said lot of land, in virtue^ of his purchase thereof, from tois lute father on the second day of February, 1826, ^•i# not founded in law, but that the said cb.im must for the present bo limited to tha one und VKled. moiety of the said lot, and tl,e conclusions ofJd. declaration restricted to the said one undivided moiefy ; considering that tlSrther clarma ' «etup by tho Appllants. by their plea^fpcfelnptS^ exception are nOt'fouifded in law ;-con8ulonng lastly that in the final Judgment pronounced b/ Uie Court below there is error, inasmuch- a^t^e said Jwdgment di.es not ad|2t the aaid da.m of dowr, tin. Court, now.here, d^T^verse, annul and set ^side' tl.e ' Judgment so pronounced by the Ccnirt bclow, O^^^h 6f 'Jartuary, 1 856, and doth cond/smn the Respondents to pay tg -the Appd^ants the costs of the ' prc^.1 api^al. And this Co.irt proceeding tb ren.'er the Judgment which the ^T^^^^^^r^"^'^-"^^'^^ "^^ that the claim ^gthe^^aul^ ^ to the t^Bfluctuaiy p ssession of the one undivided State a'E^""*"> ""' '^"'*'"' "-^'-^ -^^- prpvlslo^^ti^r;; ^ ^. ■:^1 1:^.^ 1!^" °^ '^\ ^^^'^ ^^ * he 2ft Victo ria Z^ i ^o T.,n >...° WU« Wthwi. *\ • ''\ . ■'\ ^ tx.' •'■■ •,-. . ■:.:\ -■• ■'■•■'!.''■ ^•-■ i^K' ' ■ ■ , "■■ ■■-(„":•. ■\ ' * - \ '^ '■■ '"V » :, ;n ■,.:.■ • " ' »i„v;^/- Jt -ii' ■■■ ■ ■ \ ■ ' ;t ■4^ 4 ■'■ -;f \ ^' uh ^-tenant iiipiimwtAnwc.4.1 ii. ,-- -j- — - -— ;^~Trr-v ^ ^^=-:-JJij:y" " i v » y xaj. .me icrm- «&, i..j*i . . " phraseology of th«.«»atent8 uiMTersally, shew that the fra- nfer had in contemplatioa EBgll8h>nd not F^-eh Uw. wwatmeira- 1 \ I ■ / '•■ as COURT OF QUEBN^S DENCH, mi. Wlloot wilooi. If ;n: _iaJ inoK ly of th« liiid lo| of land ia wdl ftmndwl in law uM npfmrtaitm to her a Htn d$ douain to(ttumitr, mid the Hght of proiMJj-ty thorain to «uch of h«r cliildr«n •fon-wiid M uuy her.'«ft«r clftiin the wiiin, Mn«,rty in the aforcinid oim iimlividt-d inoi«ly of the Mid lot, in, for the prmmt, unfomidttd in Ihw, hut that thu chiini of tho Honpon- dont t* the olhcr uiulividixl nioi«ty of the naid lot ia well foumlo.1 in Uw ; in coi»e<|u«M()« «!ofh (H.iidcinn the ApiklUhU within thirty daya from the day of tho Horvid* ofihe ju-oaent j«.l«ino..t t.» deliver up to tho Uo»|Mmd«nt poa«cm.ion of lutt one unWvidod moioty of iho afonmaid lota of laud dea^iribed in tho judg- ment pronouuml by tho Court below, on the 30th day of January, IHftS, to- goihor wiUi thu iaauea and profits of the moiety of tho aaid lot or the value tlioreof to be computed from the lath-dayvf April, 1868, and tho coata incurred in tho aaid Court below < And thia Court doth roacrve to tho HB«i>ondeot auoh rooourao aa ho may law- fully have for the rocovory of thu right of property and |K)8»e»8ion of tho, undl- viik'd moiety of tho aaid lot, now in tho poMOMion of tho Appellant, Sophia Blodget, after the expiration of hor riglu of u»ufruct aforoaaid. And it ia ordered that the record be reraitto«l to the Court below, aitting at Sherbrooke. The honorable Mr. Junlice Aylwin diaacuting. Judgment rovened. ' »r. X. /V'ton, for Appellanla. " - ChruUpher Hunkin, Counsel. iSan6om <( J3/-oo/t«, (or Reapondent. • ^' (F.w.T.) -^ The editor* an deeply Indebted to the Jndgea of the Coart of appeals for the very great asalaUnoe a^rded by their honora In the preparation of the report given .bore In the Wilcox case. *or the arrangement and for many of the materials forming the ap- pendix to this case, they are under obiigatlonw to tho president of the Court, Sir L. H Lafoatiiae Bart, who haa alao had tho goo4aeaa to roviae the eu|iro report. 4 I » 1 £.-.VN ;s*s "^•^ Coram 8 T(»wniihl ■enlionil Sir L. It Lea del concerne I'autre mfcndcu, CarW Brooka, 1 WepUon J .jo «e Te d3 ^itZc'dl .r"/*'" ■"^*-^- '-our do preJ^re inatanceTro' ' g«rd6 commo do nullo v«Ie„r, ou commo n'^tant pas prouv6^ le p«micr*t le tro,Meme jrioyen. dWvption. et qu. ce n'oa^que buI leaecond qn^olCr^tn ' der poor d bouter .'appelant de ^ dcmande c,„«„t i Wilh> Brookl 1:7^ t a Juill6t 1 858, 1. I,e„ de .. rd.,denoe .y«„t M, „„„, |, p„Miction de «.lt. Pre tZ^'Z " ''°'":'"' ^'^'^ ■' " "• '•"' "'«-'«• JS.r nf n Win T t^T T' '" P""'* -l^h 'W« <"» Sherbrooke, „4 rt«|di<=i«i.<»P, par un ict. d. !. t%»l..-.r,d„ p«*..^.,.,d. IW. Ie23.el,;p. nillp^ni';!^™' ? — -■■— ,1-r !.''t 1 lev ! •*•■■■. ■ '•' i -f i (1) Mi^iMjiigMak 'l J '■■• r *„ • - „i: •Ml toort et Badgle/. «4 Jawriw i?b7. .- '^^ J ■ : ■'•'.■ ' ■ i ■ >=-■ ;•«--'■ P ?.'.■■;' /.. (v /■ ■1 COUR DXJ BANC DE LA HEINE, 1857. /■ I \ Morto V. - Brook* et ■*v Townships indiqn6» dans la premiiro sctition de cet actc, nomm6ment ceux d'Or- ••-, ford et d'Ascot. Dans la 12o. section i I es^ dit que la Oour se ticndra dans "le villafiri do Sherbrooko," sans plus ample (Tcsignation. Ce village n'avaitpas encore d'existcnce l*g .Ic, coraine te|, ni do liinite?) dfefinics. Dans I'Acte do 1829, chap. 13, qui suWivisait le Ba^-Canada en Comtti^pour h-s fins do la rcpi^sen' tation en Parleinent. il est declare (sect. 1, art. 14f ) que le nouvenu Comfe do , . Sherbrooko sera compos* d'un certain nonike de ijownships quiy sont nomm^s entre autres de ceux d'Orford et d' Ascot, et (sect. 3\) que ['Election pour co Con.t* se tiendra & "Shorbrookc" ot a "Richmon,!". D«ns I'Acte i,n,,6rial de 1840 chap. 36, (I'Acto d'Union.) Sherbrooko cst'n.enlionn* ,ous lo no.n de Villddc Sherbrooko," ihais sans indication de Jimites. Plus tard.pour Icsfins do ' ,cet Acte,uue Proclamation do Lord Sydenham en date dn 4 Sfais 1841 (1) a a^s,g,.6 A la Ville de Sherbrooke les limites suivantcs. "toute cette ^nrtie du '« lownship d'Ascof, dans le district de St. Francois, qui est renferni* dans Ks 5o. et, fle. rangftdu dit township, depuis ]e lot No.lO jusqu'au lot No. 17, inclusivc- uient, ct dans les I7e. et 18e. rangs d'icelni, depuis ,lo lot No. 14 jusqu'an lot No. 20,inclusivement; aussi toute cette partie lie pour Jes fius de la repitssentation d^la dit" ville darfslel'arlcment Provincial." I '■ . '/ C'est sods i'autorite de ces.4ux actosik 1847 et 1851, qu'a ,^t6 ^miii/e la p^ociaim^tion dont il est paile\lai.^ les admissions ci-dessus deAparties ei cette caiise^t qui est en dale du 28-.fuin 1852. Cette jiroclamatiort d6clar7que la ViM^de She.brookc, dans les limites qu'olle luiassigne, sera "une- V/illen6nr toytes fins mmiicipales, cbnfoimfement ai^. dispositions des dits actcs/ ui^li- •■^iles sont ainsi 6nonc6es : - ''■ y^ '' 7 VLadite Ville de Sherbrooke, qui se trouvo 8itufeerp«rtJe dans 14 Township d Orford, . t partie dans le Township d' Ascot, dans le Gomt6 do sierbr^.ke, et dans le District de St. Francois, compr^ndra les lots Nos. 7, 8, /et 10 dans le premier rang du dit Township d'Orford ; les lots Nos. IG, 17, ei 18 dans le Se rang du dit Township d'Ascot; h slots Nos. 16, 17, 1 8j 19, 2o/et 21 dans le 7e rang du dit Tuwnship/1' Ascot ; et les moities 0«est des lo's Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 et 21, dans le 6^tang des lots dans ledit Township d'Ascot." ^ COUR DU^BANC DE LA REINE, mi. 4i Dans le nouvel Acte. c<«icom.int la roprisentation en parlomcnt, pas.* en 1863, ,1 e8t dit, sect 1 art. 40, que "la Ville do Sherbrooko compren.lra, ,,our len fins dujT68ent Acte, la Ville .lo Sherbrooke danhscs prfesonteslimitcs, et lea Tomisliips d'Oxford et Aw-ot tout entire." f L'on V5,it quo la Vilje de Sherbrooke a aubi plusieum transformations dans sa^ c,rcon8cnpt,on terntoriale, depuis qu'elle a 6t6 doolarie viUo4>ar I'Acb i.np6rial de 1340. Scs Imntes qui lui sont aasignAes par I'acte de 1^53, sont aussi ciHos o„i " "'^o^t.reconnues par I'acto de 1850, chap. 140, qui a rendu lo Oonseil L6giBla. t.f 61ect.f. II y a done deux villes de Sherbrooke, I'une pour les fins munidpalo. e autre pour les fins politic^ues. Qui sait, s'il n'y a pas m6.ne une troisiimo ville de Sherbrooke pour les Sns des icoles com.nuncs, car nous avons drrun' c,paht«s scholairea, distinctes, quant k lear circonscription tcrritoriale, des autres municipalit6s. ' , ' Remarquons qu'aucun d^s actes quo j'ai cit«s et qui assigncnt 4 la villo de Sherbrooke oertames limites pour les fins municipales, et des limites differentes et plus etendues pour les fins poHtiques, no d6(.lare que les unos eu les autres do cos hmues serviront pour les fins judiciaires. Cependant il est Evident que la Cour de ire. instance a vu, dans ]^ circonscription pnrement munidpalr, une-circon- scnption jmhcaire. Sur quel principe, sur quelle regie s'est-cllo fond6e » Je I'i-' gnore, car nous soHimes sans rcnseigncmcr.ts a cet 6gard. Puisqu'clle roj.tait la circonscription originaire du Township, 6videinmcnt indiqude pour I*^ fins judi- cmires par I'acte do 1823, il me semble qa'il y aurait cu autant do raison pour ellc d adopter la crconscnptten territoriale pour les fins politiques, p„isq„e celle- c. est 8up6r,euro 4 la circonscription municipalc William Brooks se serait trouve avoir son domicile dans la pre.nidrc, et par consequent avoii* 6t6 r6u 6 - rement design^ et assign^. • ^ D'un autre c6te, la paroisse et le township ont toujours 616 rc^^artlds en ce pays comme otant les circon^^riptions territoriales propros k remplir le but dc 1 administration do la justice, ^rtout en matifere d'assignation devant les tribu- naux 1 ar exemple, la Cite de Montreal fait partie de la Parome^\<, Montreal ' ' f« ™^r, !!»'";« f'ti^d^''' ville municipalede Sherbrooke est enclavee dans' e Tow,.ship^d'Orford. Or,jenc sache pas qu'un D^endenr, residant da.m la Cite de Montreal, assigne comme 6tant de la Paroisse dc Montreal, ait jamais 6to regu a faire valoir une excepiond h/orme, foi/dec sur le motif qu'on aurait twi/>ro/jrme»< indiquo son domicile. \ / ^Jeyuis done d>iniou que I'exce^n aikrait/dfi 6tre rcjetee, mfime quant k ihfiZr "^ T ^''' '''°'^'1"'"'*\ i'^^'f^' ^«"V««t «PPol jjtween them and the commissjcnierb . ■ ' V ' . The test whether liability arising ex mandato ]b jointNw several, is whether the interest of the mandators in the services to bo performecl is joint or several. If jt be joint they are liable in folidvm. This rule has beeii applied to claims by Attorneys, Notaries «:/>«•/« of all kinds, arhitrators anil otbere— and its prmciple is equally applicable to this case in which the dutie^ of the Commis- sioner approximate closely to those of an expert. Pothier Mandat. No. 82. Troplong, Mandat, pp. 633 et seq. Nos. 685 to 691. 1 Bell, p. 346. , ffolmes for Defendants contended that apart froiii the evidtence which he urged was insufficient, there were two points for the consideratipi of the Court The first was that debts of the nature of the one now sued for, were not susceptible of being transferred. The second point was that there cotild be no joint and several condemnation against the Defendants :-each could only be ^eld responsible for the portion of the Commissioners lime which f,e himself had occupied. This must be presumed io^have been his intention when he consented to the appointment.. lo the present case the Defendant, Bellinaham. had made use of the services of the CommisBJopflr. h-t ft>r ■ ,.^3, .^„i. p,^ Abbott I Solmes. Hose an (jr.J.CA.). Coram Sis Held.l.-Th« 2.— ThatsucL to the action. S.— Thatwhei that ho docs noi and what sums cojint book, aqd by him on the 0; ctmfeMit. recovery of tl ■t- '^.. ■.-■ - ■■■•■';.■ ■'■■ ■■';■' ■■■■5 ■•■ \ s • COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1867: 4t cm?o7rr ""' ''»:«*'»- wHch had teen taken up i^th^ n^ustrate his. ,t. J8 only necessary to see the effect of such « nrlndnle If he other five hundred, yet tinder ita operation the first would be iTmned m the same mpner and to the same extent as the other. ' "^"^"""^'^ footing with thtfir rcirular salarv A« f« th ^r such sei vices on the same-^ solidity of fh« nlf Ft .• U.7' . the arguments adduced against the was interested to the same extent in the tiiiiinir of the testimnnv «f ♦v. .u wJtneases as he was ill thi^f own. • anri ThJ, f •! • ^'*""*'"y °^ ♦^•^ ^t^*" - Aivide the respons J^l ?' "I^ *^'^^'^«' '* « impossible equitably to th«fS«;^'l|fc'*^ '"^^If"*^^ '" *^'« cause-being of opinion* each wa. mr^rested in every act^ the Commissioner. ^' ' Abbott and Baker, for Plajitiffi. Vudgioent for PlaintiE \ J&b/mM, for Defendant, Beilingham. ■ / Hose and Monk, for Defendant^ Cushinff. ' ' - ' ' . • H.J.O.A.) ■ 6 > i ^ V. » IN APPEAL. FROM THE DisTEfCT OP MONTEEAI. / ^ ' " MONTREAL, 6th OCTOBe/r, 185? , Coram Sia L. H. Wo^ctain.^ Bart, C. J. Avwik, ' Duval, J, Cabok, J. Appellant. ' ■ AND ■ ' . ' ^ ^^^'i^l«intiff-i» the Court Sdoici UBTTMOUSINTEkBST-ift'vTP nil. o» ». "J Be"poi|dent. totheaction. *"'**^* ^"''^"'^'^'^'"the creditor by tt^debl^;. by w^ of exception a./d what sums had been n^lved £ wnnXS^f h^H^S "^f "^^ ""*""'*» "« ^^ '^^»«^ cojint book, and further stated a««j ex^u!^ th^rT W / 1"°* keep journal, memorandum or ac by him on the one h«,d. «,d re^W^i by C^n th^th^t" f ! ""•"•"* °' *''*' •'«»' -^^"^ • cWoMit. ™«ivea oy mm on the other; the interrogatories wiU be taken pro rZtlr't/; '" ^T^''' '^^ *'*^ Kespondent Plaintiff in Court Below for the recovery of the sum of £U5 amount of four promissory notes : two ml \,. sir' v.i *♦, 44 COURT OF QUIffiN'S BENCH, 1857. Jt rtr- 11 Nye V. Malo. J^ 4 by thl^pcfonclftiit and'endorjied by one 1. R. Flt-njiing, and two madp by J^JR* Fleming artch endorsed by Defendant, and interest from tlio time they became dde. To tliis notion, ^p|;>e]iant Dofondant jn Court Below, pleaded by a peremptory excep^on and a Z|||r«w au /onds en fait, .and Plaintiff replied 'generally. ' ' • Byhis exceptift^ho Appellant a'lmitting tbat there was' due to the Respon- dent the Biijji of forty-five pounds, ejght shillings and eight'pcnce, alleged that: the promiswry notes, on which FlalatiffV potion was brought, were .given in ,cxchaniro for similar notes,, of whicli they were rortewais, which notes with the' exception of two destroyed, ho piodm.ed and fy led -with, hi? plea^ That larg« sums of mon«^y had bgen paid on account of said notes t6 Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff imputed to interest, at thrf rate of 37^ per (jentum, per annum, Ciat the Defendant had a right to liaT^e this excess over legal ititerost, imputed on account •of the principal amount, which left the balance "already mentioned, that the no^ in so far as they exceeded that sum; werb usurious, null and voidj for want OwB legal ned in Plaint.iff'a dtmln rtitjon (1) Fof this" judgment vide \ L. C|^J., 155, 6. • . ,, • 3 ■T. • or that alle(lge( iProralsi TJie. Becai interrog */es8is, a Becai .. dant, Vor Dpfenda he^wase and that "'had bed! Plaintiff Beeau substanci bond or i so origin! "' Becaus •■ excesdof the fact, 1 Becatas dings4n t before or ' Because ca^ifal an ' six'pe^ cei Because anymattei maker or j I^ecause interest, ex Because interest dui And the otl ' Beciluse notes, wjher paid. /. , Bjecayse sunis of mo ;t)lere6f to'l Plea. Becaus^ i any of the a .because i Plaintiff in ^A iE^'SBjENck, 1867. -•."^ 4S V. ;t; or that hdcodld^t off h^ wavof )u«,.,»„ *• .. T ■~^'" ^~' ~ Blledged to have been pafrartho tIeTtL'^ ' "r ' "^^ "' "^"""^ ^ t».oml83ory notea. " v *^ . tiii^^^f the dispountmg^ «f the-said four TM Aj.,)eHant contend^ that the said Judfffil^t ouiriif tn J^ . ' " ^ ^ ' Because the Plaintiff havirur" refused to fSr L , **.^'*''«''««^- . interrogatories pertinent to SI C^^^^l^^^^ ^/ems, and the Defendant's motion .ranted.>4> '^ f '•\^««» ^^J'*" />^« ««»• Because it was not necessary to^rovenhat tf,^%„ ^as made to U.« n f ' ' . dant, sor on whosa Account the ^otcs were in rWlL r . , ^'''^"' Defendant had proverf that theTl T '"/'"'''^'f «""'«*l-a"d;I.at the. h^^asel/s^S ■J^,'^^:,'"«^« *'" "f ""*j>f not^ <^ which , 'had bedh paid to the Plaintiff for ! v V- . ' '"^ P*' ^^"t/'^-^wwW i *. ran >.r^ ™i„:„r,„„„e, >.^^.X:^£tX2^^:^:'l ' before or .. tlle «,« „f ,h. ,„„.g, „ J^ZS^ * •«" F'»'"'"fr'4 ^ ' ^^ecftuse the'Appelhmt.had bv Law Ari^h* f^Ijt . ^ 'v ^ ,>, * maker or an/ antecedent pftrtythel-ettf. - ,^ V ^'^^ , '" pleaded- by the- ^ Because the fca^ments madn 'hv T n i?i„^' • '.' '" \ ' ' w . -. ^d .he o.bo;p.„ jfix^x''4-3;irr r ""! """"* '• -' 4Kere6f to him— and after the ni«»nr!t„ »p *». r ' *^®'^^ the, trjirnsfer, ?Iea. ; ' ^ ""*""*^ ^'^ '•'« ^«™«' «« ««' forth in Defendant's t ^ -■i-^'i ■ \ ,>^ n--' *\ >' i'^;' ;^ X ' «: ■y:.. . jj '' V '■ ~ :.: :<=5 ' ^, articles that hej had rec^ved on account of -- 'i-.--- ■-.,- *-:.;-u -. ■ •« -■». < ^ II fk* \ K^ :t •' 46 COURT OE: QUEEN'S BENOH, 1851. jVtV 4 'O .■'i il tho said notos, and of the intorost fchoreon, the Boveral auras of monoy spocifiod in tLo accountr'fyled by Defendant and that the said sums and the sum of forty- five pounds, eight shiliiijgs and eight ponce burrfln*^ form tho whole amount advanced by the Plaintjrf with fogarintorcist thereon.*^ Pecause the said four^iromissory- notes, in sq,fHr as thejr exceed the said sum of forty-five pounds, \0ighf shillings and eight pence currency, are bonds or secu- rities for the excessive' and usurious interest, over six per cent, and (\b such, null and void. ^ , ^ Atj^e argument |J>e Respondent ccjptendcd, that as the transactions had all taken place since tho Act pf 1853, l6"vVict. Oh. 80, (the learned counsel hero cited 2nd section,) the Defendent, could not claim to impute^ on the amount demanded, the monies wliich he might have paid for interest agreed upon at the time of the contract. He contended that the penalties existing before the.pag- sing of this law, and which consisted in the' loss of^ the debt when tho usurious iulercst had been stipulated and no part of.it received, and in the loss of treble the amount paid when any part of it was received had thereby been abolished, and that the debtor had not even the right to recover back the amoijnt of inter- est he might have paid beyond six per cent, sinpe all action. wheth^ civil or criminal was denied to him. That allowing tho Defendant to impute the in- terest he had paid on account of thft debt would be tantamount to giving him ^an action to recover back such interest, 'which could not lie under the provisions of the new statute. That the only thing that remained of the laws prohibiting usury was the exjoption which the debtor could oppose to that part of a demand whereby mbre than six per cent interest was claimed, so as to have the demand for interest reduced to the rate fixed by law. " ■ ' That supposing, the interest paid over and above the rate of six per cent oould be recovered back, this could only be done by Fleming who had paid the same. Further the Respondent contended that it was not proved that he had received " any more than: six per^ cent interest. ,* ', Zo/bntoine, C/., prononcing judgment, said: — ■' » Quel est I'effet de la nouvelle loi promulgu6e en 1853, chap. 80, intitul6e, " Acte pour modifier les lois d'u^ure ?" Le d6biteur de quiB^ppxig^ plus do six par cent d'int6r6t, pcut-fl 6tre re^u k imputer sur le principal de la ci^ance et les interets 16gaux, ce qu'il a ainsi pay6 audcla de ces six par cent? Telle est la.>^ question qui, pibur la premiere fois, se presente devant ce tribunal. ', Tout'le roonde sait que ies anciennes lois frangaises prohibaienf le prfet d'ar- ' gent k int6r6t, et qu'^ diff"(6rentes 6poques, ces loisavaientiprononc^ deo peines plus ou moins sfiveres contre les personnes qui se rendaient jtoupables d'usure ; le fait 6tant r6put6,crime ou d^lit lorsqu'une peisonne s'y livi^it habituellement. ^11 paralt, n^arimoins, que dans le dernier 6tat de la jurispfudcnce sous I'ancien droit fran^aia, « quand I'usure pe consistait que dans la'stipulation de rint6r6t " ie I'argcnXqu'on avait pret6 par promesse ou par obligation, et que cet int6- " rftt n'exc6dait pas le toux aiUorisfi par la loi dans les c^ oii la loi pouvait pro-- " duiro des intirdts, les juges se contentaient de d6clarer une telle stipulation «* nulle et uiu raire, et d'ordonner que les inl,6r ftt.< qui avaient pu Atr^ pnyAn n.^ ^ " cunSdquence seraient imputes sur le principal." \ -, -3,(1811)chap.() par leq«ol P«ur lo n.„.,,„„ p„„ UnZ^Zto^^,^ !,';«° «•■ *"« -i* .1 '■ • i , * . ■ 1 ■■" ' .'li ' i: i / '* -.■■:¥ • . / ,;'-.' 'li 48 COURT 0P QUEEN'S. BENCH, 1857. r. M«i» il a cru devoir allor plus loin, ainsi qu« noun lo voyonH ilann la deunm* parUe. Il.a youlu que, noin-soulemont un ext-ddant d'i.nt^rftU au-dvlA du taiix . qu.l vonait (riuitonW, ffityr,^|.,,6 do nullit6, niais oncor« quo I'obligation qui aurait d«nn6 Ii«u,,\ u» tel oxcJ^dant d'int6r6t«, fftt ollo-ra6,ne " totalemont i.ulle.'» ' 6tait dav«*«o «.,t.icl,or cofto obligalion d'une nulliUabsolue. citait par consftquonf, «ttr au cr6ancior kon droit d'acti.)ii pour lo principal r6el et Ifigiiiine ' do «„, pr6t. II y a,pIuH c,.co>-o ; lo 16gi«latcur ,,'a pns vo^Iu a'arrfitor h cotte penality, A cotte " porto," '.qu'il faisait «ubir au crdanoi^r pr6v„ri«,«t«ur, par cctto drnxro«,rfr., c'otait tmeflaUti dolj'oxaction d'un taux exc6dal,t six par cent, et par cons6quent la nuHit6 du paicbont qui aurait p« ^ fait ^fi^oet^^^dant. Sous ce rapport, on autant qu'il s'ag^ do cot exc6danfd'int^;6t8, nul change- inent au dro.t comniun, sous lequol lo\cr6ancier ettt continue d'avoir son Action pour ce quo sa <5r6ance aurait pu avo\r do 16gitimo, si lo legiskteur n'avait pas 6to audelA de \a premiire partie do si^ loi. Dans co cas, il n'y cftt eu ni con- fijcahoH, n, ;>..^., pour lo croancior. ca? co n'est ^omiperdre, ni souffrir do con- yi»ca<.Q„, quo d'etre priv6 seuleinont del rocovpir, ou d'avoij- 4 rembouracr uno chose qu. n'ost pas dfie, telle qu'uno soi^mo d'argent pour des int6r6t8 d^clar^s / Ill6g»ux. Lfiprmiire partio do I'ordo^nanco n'itablissait done pas uno " p6. ^ial.(6'' proprernont dito. Mais il n'eh c|t pas do n.emo do la deuMke et do la vt Jf *''«'«« q»« '« 16gislatour ajcru devoir exijror, commo dovant assuVor \Tft t- T '^^::f ^""^'^"^ ^^ >""' '6«!'«S5^»t, pour lo cr^ancier, des' Fijnal,t6s ; ce«t, d'abord uno " port^" r6olle qu'il doit subir, par 1« „«//,/< absM,ie dont soncontrat morae est frapj>6, ot qui lo privc par cons6quent' du re- coup quo lu. lamait encore le droit co.dnxun ; ct c'esl onsuite, uno confiscation, on^Iutot uno ainende, selon lo mot eiiployo dans la version franijaise de I'or- don^ance puisqu'en pkreil cas, il ost reW,, passible du triplo do la valour de c* ,qui 4 fait 1 objet du contrat. Cost doftc dans cette hallile absolue du contrat 6m<^, dans cetto confimtiion, ou cotte perte, ou mhHq amende du triple qu6 con- ^ tf^ut^ Ics " pwhibitions" et p6nalif6s,f dont parle le prMmbule do la loi de 1853, iiinsi qu'on va bientotle Voir, k, ^ RemVrquons d'abord que le titre 4mo do cette loi aiinonco qu'elle n'a pas pourbui d'abrogor en eritier les lois pur I'usure; ." Actc pour modifier les lois d usuro"Uorto ce titre. Puis le preaipbulo i'exprimo ainst: " Attendu qu'il est " cxp6di«^nt d'aholir tout^s pYohibitijma et 'penalitis mr l«> p.-At dft I'arffPnf A 7" ■" i •m COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCti, mi, .*• . ; 1»«';i«« t«ux d'int*r6t quo co Holt, et' de"wr« oxicUer, >i..o«'d un c^tain ^ pmnt, et pas d'avantago, toute convontlon do fairo payer rintLt Ir IW T Connne on lo vo.f. I'objet du Htatut ont d'abolir lc» " prolubi i^fe ni„„ .t' pr6.ex.^„te», ot non p„a do f.iro diHpa,«U,o to«, L r^Xl..! hJ^ We Lo g^lHteur continue dh.utoriHor rint6r6t c<,„ve„tioneI e'lu r/do 110; vout quo la con venuou puiH* 6tro ex6cut6o. rnai; Houle.nont " jul'l u„ Ir-' II commonc. par r«vo.,„er puromont et si.hplement la 60 section do I'onloD- n^nco, m«.s pour en repnuluirecBuite Pu^edeH dispositions, coUe dela Jrl^^^ cu e part,o d6 cette province pour lo pr6t ou credit d'argcHtou valet dW •« ^^ d n^^mporU> guel lau. a'inUrSt, ot <,u'«ucu& paieit fai en vo tu de Cetto disposition porte sur les mfiracs objets, mats dans un sens Mif i r^» ^ae. autre, -pmtibiiioM 01 p6«.lit«,.. ?.«"''"'•'"« I '>"»l?"°"'><>,^uel: ^ forme d'un proviso rpnWm« i„ *„' v- . '»♦ w8p*«K>n que, sou^la • * ^ '~ /v c< .1^ t. I ..t ., ■ ■'■!fi. ^•,::/--t' .4'..-^! •- m ^Li. .( , iifl- *> ^^^- ^50 i' COURT OF QtjERN'S BEJICn. 1661.' mLo. i ' <, ''-I W " Blfttii*, (jue toute convention comme niMKlIt, ot toUto guriiHtlo pour IceJIe/wra •♦ nu//*-, on autant, «t en Riitant "oulciriont, .|u'il nVira del'exo«, cVfit-^-dire iugq'u'i conourronco de bIx pour cent/ 8'il n'avait p».ice ^. droit, la troiHi^mo Bechon du qtaUit serait un non-sons, otia nullij^qu'il pronohce " ' wrait toHt'4-fait ddrisoir*, surtoiit on prfiswico do la 21o seclioh de I'acto des bdiots h ordreda 1849, chap. 22, qoi port*, '*,ne touto poraonne, on cscoinptant " aucuno lottro do change ou billet promiwoiro, pourra rctenir, recevoir oti oxi- " ger le montant do IWompto ou I'int6r6t sur lo inonlant principal y sp4cifl6 au "temps oft il sera ainai re<;u ou ©8compt6." II suffirait done au prfitoiir do rete- nir 26 ou SO pour cent en prenant le billet d'un individu pre»86 par lo besoin, pour pouvoir le rcpousscr onsuito, loteque cot individu, se confiant au sonsliatu- rel des mots du statut, invoquorait la nullit6 d« la convention on ce qui regardo I'intdrfet excessif. Le« cr6ancier serait done Wen venu k lui rdppndre : vous m'avpa pay6 cot int6r6t ; done cet int6r6t est parfaitomcnt Ifegal, et iltfy a pas lieu k r6p6tition ! Quo doviendrait alors la sanction quo le ligislateurla donn6e k sa ioi, en declarant qu'il y Aurait nullili on parcil cas? II serait done permis aux parties d'6ter k uno convention Iecaract6ro muraire dont la Ioi I'aurait d'a- . vance entach6eUfin d'autres mots, il serait permis do fait de pr6tcr k quclque taux d'int6r6t quo ce soit I Telle serait, ce mo Somblo, la consiquonce-inivitable do l'interpr6(ation quo I'lntim^ s'est efforc6 de donner au statut. Si uno toli9 interpr6tatation. <^oit pr6vaIoir, it Pcrait jnfiniment mieux de faire disparaitre \% plus t6t possible 1§ troisi^me section du statut, dar le r6sultat de cotte interpre- tation expostfrait cotte Ioi au reproche ra6rit6 de n'avoir d'autro effot quo celui ' ^de tendre un pi6go, en trompant les espdrances do recours qu'elle est do natujre k faire naltre dans I'espritd'un malheureux d6biteur livr6 aux dtreintesido son avaro crdancier. V •' Donner un pareil efftt aux dispositions du" statut, c'est controdire le but dans lequol il a 6td fait, tel qu'indiqu6 clairemont dans lo pr6ainbuIo. Ce no serait plus " faire ox6^ut6, juaqu'd uncertain point, QipastPavantage, la convention do payor I'int6r6t, lorsqno cot int6r6t exc6derait le tahx Ifegal de six par cent ; ce sV rait,'au contraire, f^ire' executor une telle convention, quelqu'excossif quo fftt rint6r6tcxig6,par le prfitejir. Jo no puis done pas concourirdans cetto interpr6- ♦ tation du statut. f Jo n me pai qui aui coini prfct encore rait vip vant, n oipal et Mrtomj so trotfv Carol probable ^tait ou articks, duit. I» qu'on pai cependa(i Ton dftt I pr6sent c k peine d Mais sfl lo jugenio 6t6 pay6 doit 6t>e i par le cr6i lo Ddbiteu La soltii amodifld Dopuis ; cent, par ( d6duit du L'acte n clause 5e d quant k no nait trois p V lo^llo pflt «re m 2o. Ello int6r6t plus 3o. Elle^ Nrait, accept 060 k payor /ct Bur lesquc Ainsi, d'aj et en poutai I ' / J- .1... . . - ■ - OOUBJM* QUEEN'S BENCH, let! rait viol. i« .oi c. ;lfe rj^zr 'r;' "f "? '" - ""^^"^'"" -"■ *t«it ou non tfnu deTZJ™ Z ^ T' 1"*^"" ^^ '*^'^'' »' '« ^^^«de«r .rtick... .anB ceZ le St n« nT.""^"' '^ ""' *'' """'"'''«' '^^ ^''- «' duit. PourtanUo d^ra" 0,?.^? ! T" *^'""'"«' 'I"' P'°"^« ''*'«' ?'<>• qu'on parcil c^LZTSZ^ '"". T^^' ''' d6ci.i«,.^q„i ontddcU cVnl^MopuJirhrnX^^ «'-tpa,obHg.oder6pondre. present du «oi "i er„e" d r^' l^ ^T' '^"^ ^«"« P'''^'^ ^'^-' ^ > peine de .o« voli dS^ttl':; a^tr' '* '"^•'^^'^ *^"""^« '^P""^- ^. ^. par .e S;ur^!;:rr: r:^^;^:^!'' ^^ ^^ ^-^ • doit 6tro imputd sur I^ faoital on « n«. xV 1 ^ *^ ''^ "'* P"" ««■>' ,1 Vsm ». 1- ^ Jt !Mj- V, «r sr*' n / i .. '^ COUUT OF QUEEN'S liENCII, 185»J" m ^ .. ' i I i^ JM jMjM. Si voHi fiiUki ii« eofttrat quelifijnqMD <'onti«niint MlfMifeelon «riin tan« ' d'irit6r6t plun »-liv borne k win. La wcoiide n'ost iiutro dioso qii'nno explication iM)ur pnrtio «lo c« P. quo lo k-gi»la»cur a voulil pt enton.lu fairc pnr la proniii-re. Cellc-ci, comino on ^^ra vu^fwait main hum sur toutcs no* Joiid'uHurej lo tnux dca IntArfctK, Ic^ pro- lilbltloni, let p^nttlt^ toiit)«taJt •boH, comnie »\ h I6gi.latroFiibl- tiond ot p^naliti'm qui jiisquc lA avait cxiKt^^en, Icwprdlos iU\mt dan* l« pr^anihule de l'ao{«ice««6eHon position, le proteur ne pourra plu« 6tre poursuivi pour et condainnA k payer la valour du triple do co qu'il aurait pr6t6 k un taux plus 61ov6 quo six pour cent. L'un voit qne la premi«^ro et la soeonde clauBo du stntut sont fHitea dans un aettl ot ui(Snio but, colui d'abolir a I'avenir les nuilit^is existant par le passu pour tout contrat. ontaeh6 d'usuro, et auKni de mottro fin i\ toutoH poursuitea au inoycn doarpielles Ton pouvait, avant, obionir los condaninationa au triple dont il vienT^ d'6tre parl6. Ainsi, au nioyon do cea deux clauses, le Idgislatcur a accorijpli r6nonc6 qu'il avait fait dans "le proambule do son acte loraqu'il avait dit •' qu'il >' cat expedient d'abolir toufes proliibitionsjst-pdnalit^a aur le pr6t do I'argent k *' quol<|ue taux d'int?6r6t quo ce soil." -"' ** • Or, Ic taux do Tintorftt sur l?«fgont Xj^M6, ayant 6t6. aUli parle rappol de la loi qui Ic roglait, otlp^ohibitions ct penalit68 ayant auasi 6t6 abolies, cotnrae on vient de le vpH^m le l^gislateur s'en fAt tenn la, il n'y aurait p^ua eju aur lo pr6t d'argepTaucunea limilea ni restrictions. Cea pn^t» anraient^u 6tre faits ^ librenu^et k toua tanx quelconquoa dont il aurait pu 6tre convenu entro les par^; et toiia contrats fails aur lo aujet, auraient 6t6 Idgaui^^lf yalides en en tier intorftta atipul^s quelqu'excessife et outrda qu'ila enaseht pu 6tre,, auraient les l i trfl; (Inmand^a en jurtiga, ot auraieut dft 6tfo aeeot^^ sons'" H5fb' .%'- ,'i -,,. • S % c^WRt OF QiTEEPTs nRivrrr, i^,„«. m.tr... ih.nM.^.ion, q,a,Jcon.,,um. if ■ *' T* ,,,«•«- lo prcH nbule ,|« «m „«t«, ,,„« „.,„ i„t„„ti(«, 8 8uivRfitii: ■ •vv.ii.io imi dU p.6t d argent) et toute jramfitm prtr ic-oilc, «cr» nulla en aufant «t en ««(««/ d« /««.do ... /a« . pour le pr6fc de cent loui«, pour\ne anU, ct L it Z do...x pour cent d'in.^r6t o^ fel autr. t«U n J„h '^iav^o .1 « '^^^^^^^^^ Cp^m^dc rauon,- hbert6 knche de prendre moin. que cc taux I^hI. mai« a^ ntrT'''^n^?X™*'^*'««' „„ t^rii-^Iev6, prohibition fa re Znt I \i "»"»'6 df «'aote,pour le tourTomme avani mais A peine de nullum quant A cette -Upulatioo dela partie exc6dant le taux 16gal LVte |nU«f quauUu principal et quant aux int6r6u au montant de /x pour cenT A^^n eu 6t6 pojt^e et j«ge„,ent obtonu dan« toutes CourB de j„.tiL po r ^ ' capital et e taux d'.nt6r6t 16gal; mai. 1, demande qui piurr.,6tre fait^ Lr ph» que «u pour cent d'i„t6r6t doit 6tre rejet^e, cette JSpulation ^n^Z^ parlaut ne peut avoir d'effet. ell, dojt, f fr. tmit^n .oxam, uyu ^j,^ ». f **■ ! -> :l v<. i ■Vi / t . ii 84 Vyo V. Malo. COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, t867. ^Uo„ ^ ,^, plu,.lev6 que lo.taux l6g«I. ne pouvait (Hire leaX^L a,,tion legale ct dcvait etro r..pou8s6 .Inns son cntier- k hrZnf i\ .JlZ i ITp.7 """"''" ^"'*^' "" J'"''^''^^ P""' '^' *^^<^^^U ne pent pas 6tro mien vue u present que ne Paarait et6 celle fondle surn'n acte affe t/d'usl/ Que I'on re.narq„e bien que les tcnnes dont se sert la/cteuse eV^reln s J u^:::t:rT^"^""'^^""''^^"^- ^'-tce^convi;irq:^;s. - !! ir ^ . '''" ' "' '''"'^'■''"^^ <^i^ P^lH^^onstater-erasure^^^^^ e,t d e ar6 nTltle ^.ant & I'cxc.dant d'int*r6t qS ponrra conternr /' £90 .1"""'" '""''P'"''" "^''^ P°"^ "" ^"-Je ne von, en com/e que fnS^TuZtTr"- '''*•'"""' "" P'*^ ^«rit/^e me payer £100 avec LpouVTent '""•J^P^'-*^ "'^""'^tlonppuriJlOOetnnand'intorAtA Cr^T '„t;i?;T r-"''' ^' n^tiendrai jngement qne pour cette wux legal, etant A ce montant, nulle et devant 6tre d6claree telle. Ma,s supposons qu'au lieu de ne vous compter que £90. dans le raftme cas de quanta ialorine, quant an fond resle la n.6rae. Touiour, eal-il ,l«n, „„ . .. parties. Ce que vous pouvez obtenir par reconduction ou actipn direc rvo™ deve« pouvoir I'obtenir par exception. ^ "« acwpn airectc, vous En France, ou le contrat usuraire n'6tait pas touiours riiil no„r 1« fn..* i« ^ '* ,.e ro. ^opt«. ,„^„, d« i„..^,. „,„„L .vS*.?;;; T^ n;^:; He les d6duire sur le capital de la crfeance. * ' 5^ ' r7Rep.Guyot,Vo.U8Ute,page419,Il'vol.et418.~.3Chardon'dol No RM. , ^ .u.. done d-avis que to'ute int.r.t pay6 au-deU d« taux t s x t" ^^^^^^^^ d VeB notre droit actuel, pent 6tre offert en compensation dn oSI .T ' int6r6ts l^gaux. lorsque le d^bit^ur est poursufviTn Wen J ''S*. "* .t. r.p^t. par acUon di^te ,i le capitaf^t Ju^JZ^ ^pgir » : -f 1 'W-' T ■■ p2r u„ autre t '' '' La^ponse 4 cette objection, au cas oi elle aerait fond6e en faii c'e;^ due «..r - droit de reccvoir qu'un certain montant d'intferet, redi et d6cr^t6 Da\ ifl! 9uetout.equ>ilde.n«ndaitouaVait,e,ueu ^L^m^ti":^^^^; ^, .1 de.ait le d^du ir .. 6u sM ne I'avait pas re,u, iUe pou;a pile d er an ' dater do ce qii'il aurait r.-9ii en MIS, seiait hii acciordor on liii laissor co q^ie la U} dedare no liii pas appar- teiiir ; aiimi, i>ourv{i quo lo IK-innudciir bl(tjt*nnc Jngomont poiir ch qui lui est Idiritinu'tncnt dil, qn'il soit satisfait kl qiiis incertum confiteatur, urgeri debet, ut certum - confiteatur.) See in explanatii^ Brissonius de formlilis, lib. 5, page '364, No. ^ xni. Jurisjvrandi in actionibus personalibus formula : Dari aporter© vel' noii* oportere. It nas acted upon in France, though so great a master as Pothier has questioned the value of its operation. With all reverence fcr so high a name in matters o^ procedure, even his mthorilj, has been questioned, and in this respect I think rightly. • • In thfe practice of old Fraijce, tljle interrogate was eometimes ordered to answer o.te5ror.g«me««; ininy«pii,ion,ihi,i8nota|>roper case to take that course. Tlie Respondent has had his day in Court to Answer, and must abide the result of that answ«p. ) ^ , ™^", Duval J:,^ssented fto^ thUudgment rendered, and in subsWHsesaJdi^^*^^^^^^ The Plaintiff contend. :{l8t. That the money over and above the' legal rate of interest was paid hyJBij m ing and nnf , by tb e^<»fe nda . H,ti,Hl tliewfore ibafe - Defendant cannot recover ^it back or deduct it from the amount demanded. 2nd. That the statute denies the action eondictio indebiti for the monies so paid. p«-6t de I'arg ^eproduit, di % ■■f. COUR*J||^ QUEEN'S BENcn, 1857. wlmt he on,^..ot recover baciL 2o n ' '"'"; '' ''" '■''•""• '^ '^•' ""d" tl.e ca^c of „s„rio„« contracts when. .^^'•'^^'-"''-^ ^>'o..M not interlcrein I -. .f opinion tl.at tl.JVia n wC ' '"'" ";""*' "'""" "^ -"'--• Tl.e Co„.t is n.,t called npon to enL^ H ■""■"''"■ *'" ■'""*^""^ ^'*""-<'^''- percent. Th. vl^ol^l^^'^t'''^^^^^^ back money wiUinj; ij 't^^^:'^''T "^ y---^-'^-t .ransacn,.,. a.Kj|^ appears to.ne to c;I, ^ '.j V Z """ ?''!'" ^••^#^'-''^-. cLa^. 80. ilioju.lgmcnt was motive as follows;— La (yoiir.' ••••,, *i W ;i:iMtri?ti:3^ [.k: «; parties di,tinctes ; I^ n Xl I I^'l^ " '' '^'^ ■"''''' '^^'^ '''^f'''^'''-- «" ' stipulerdesintirLnwt^^r " ^^*^^^^^^^^^ ^'-i* -"•"".., de d'aetion ,,o„r „„ obtenir le u-^":: T' ""' '' '•;:"""* '"' "■^'""■'"' "" ^'^'^' et parconseMii>-atoire pour le djl'l.itcur qui. en pa^il cas, a droit d'en faiic I'inq.ufation jus,|u'4 due concurence . sur le priiinipal ouTs intciifit^ I6gitiines dc la cr6an(H'.— ConsMleiant que bicn" que I'lntiind i-n i^poiidant, au vinLrtdeuxidine inrcfrogitoiiesui faits et articles, ait admis qu'd faisait le n^^oce d'clFets dc la nature dc ceux dunt il s'agit en cet'e cause, il a neanmoi^\le^lare qu'il uc tenait ni journal ni in6nioire, ni livres de coinpte ; quo^'iylKurs, il a.repo.idu d'ono nianit'.re evasive, surtout en ce qui regarde les tr.ntc-siSiorne el frentcseptiemc tnt.-rrogatoiips, pietexlant qu'il avait oiiblie Itif laftntaftt des's.inimbs-|,ar lai ava-icocs .I'un o^'d ot pnr lui ie5ucs ^ V *^,. ^'^^'"'*''' '^*'"''" *' "^''"*''> 'o'" Respondent A ?■ ^'*. ^ Ch»r HcW,-th»t toarept ' ' \)o allowi Tbepla moveables last, had b of St. Hyj posted up, and to wri tad ac! 282; Chapjpan .. Black, 2 B Va 58^ ^^""^ t, lY, p 418, 4*; Chard,,n, t, 3, Petersdorff, Abridgt: V>rb Usury v is 259 '♦»,» \a c ' \ - ■ • ■' ' <5omyn'9 Dig. 7, (509, Verb. Usur^' ' '' * *>'«' f"** |noto. Story on CoB(jiracts,jp. 630, 603. • . Chardon, (^J, t, J; p. 311. , fltedarride, dftl, t, 1, 586. Story Prom; .notes, sec. 403 37 " PotI,.ObIig.p.3,cap.l,art.6;6i,p til . 2 Duugl. 696, Jones «. Barkley.' Chardon, dol, t,-3, 3l\, log. ' ||US8e Comm. Art. 1, Ordon.de commence d^l673, f-' ■ \^ ■•r- . SUPERIOR COURT. . M©Na'REAL,.27rai^E, 1857. ! ' '. . :^ -v. ^ C^r"* Smith, J., MoNDKtEiS J., Chabpt, J, ,' " ' '" ■ > /,:'■ ■ , "■ ■"• No.416. "'; " ^ --""-■•- *^'''"^"«§-C0NTE8tATI0N-DELA^ last, had been charged J'the Plldft ' aT ^' r''"""' *° '^»^ ^«'1» Mav. posted up, to ascertain whethcrS^n^^ '"''"''' '° ^"^" «" »'''«db^«n and to write rhS,„ fo-th^vith r Ltct 7 h! " ^PP^'"'"'^-'^ •'^-c^'locat^ h^dac^oniingly examined theTeC i.^^^ T^ Montreal Atto,| "P,.the 18th May being the^ay t wife . ^ "^^^ "''*"'• ■*>«« P^^^^ w-s Collocated for tie a^ountV ^d^ 'd '1 f'"^-*'"' "^^^ demanded » further sum by his ZJZTt/t Tl "°^'*«*''*t he had He ^.ported to M.M. Sicol and 'Sin talM ' V"" ^^ «^"-ated. for his.„tire demand, Th^ n64S:n o^S fol "" fe"^ opposftion was only discovered the Ifith T..n! T.r>^ • '^ ^'^^ an»o«»f J,},, the Court was mbved ^^V^lm^V^^TT^'-f^^ th.,2oTKune, •itions of th. opposants^OaTet Tud Dufr^"''^^^^ ^" *=^'''^*^Mh^ oppo! him as to his opp^Vsition. " t**"" ^^^^«** b««^ collocated brf^ l^/;;2:^^ -^--t aW ^ ^ ie nothing fixed or stable — ^ '^""*'*' *'**'«'^"« the,^ would ' ' '"" ■'■' ' ■''■ ■- ' ■ vw ..'•':/ :■'■'• = Moti|>i i jJis m i8B ej7^ gifi O ^f j £ ftfayno i i, f or oppogant Foriytli.. ^ ^^^ AMI 4v i' ■«*:■ I' i^:?! SUPERldl COURT, 185T. T Montreal, 23 n^vrmhrk 1857. Cot^ DaiV, J., fjB, J., Ct.MoNDKLKT, J. i288iQii '^ m- (.1 ■, •• ■!;>•» yV'^"/! pHl^itet pti eette cfti'ise vAlal>fe| onlonno ail fST,;w*'"^'' .*^" 'loi^iii'iMluur, ijiKfitjiic^ I)6fi-Jiarcil ('as «eJ|nit-f^«' iiu^c^siujiclfylciirio^^^ te titi^. 33 do Vori]iiWm\m-e de ^gjte^ iiu)i(iUo ce quc^4|'ost (JUe ja]Haisie^x6(-unSii.-^Je iU ,VQi»l|^ qui ^^i||i^it^W i^ V)ar.l8voic dA joH^njiUx SU nne , jnflBie >«"^*i>*e-,'\rr«t coinrS^dansNttftite-Huii'O action. " \ . 4«ifP w. if&&cr/«o», poor WB^^ ' \ ,'iii ,' .' ■' > "■<<■• ■■■■'■ ' " ' f'-} ' , ■■' ■ ■'■"'. iX^-v"- '"" *" " " 'I'lffeBtin all " I %WmC^r by any Rule qf.l'ractica;bacnt p^rty, /tc. Ac, maybe lawfully made and holified at the'-'offlce of the "|£rotlwnot(try or Clerk of.tlje Court in which such action may be pending;. "••^^d* aiao— 6L. CReportt, p. 148. . '. * i: SUPERIOR COURT, ISfiO. 61 r ■ I _ CoramDA:r,J., Smith. J., (C) MbiM^Ur, J. " f ■■:. ■■ ' ' . No. 8411. '■'— . J^atnoletle V9. Martin, > *'"*'»»'>'AL AUTIIOBlZATtON Hoia, tftat » miirrlctl woman abroad drto. tin* - i.u ^ domlcllo whoro »uch dooa wa. mMa.' «'"''**»"co b« ...ffloleht acmrdlng to tins lawa of her U J .were rogislored ,<,, ll,o ntb December ls« .. nTl ■ ^'^'^'S'^^'o County of L'Acadio, a«d on tho 21st j2u17\Z jTn' ''"'''' ""' '''' ihe Coiinty of IIuntingtTon. " ^' ^' *' ^''^ ^^S'^t'-y Office of On the 16tli D..'ccmbcr, 1837, Babv and I.U .5f-> i • .,. bany, in tbo-Unitod State . sold to Orvi o ClaTk ' h""^-^; '''"«*^ ''^ ""^ m<^d as above by Mu^p. k.by, andt " h^^ltt f T^ ^'' "P^"**^ "'^'*- .nd it was not alleged in the d'jd of sa'th Ze "a^'^^^^^^^ rized by her said husband. ™ ' ^"^^ .'^'" ^^^^'^to aut^o- i O" t'»e 23rd January, 1830/ Clarkfl snU ♦i,„-i i %ndon the.21st Marc^ 1851, by it pal, 1^^ coUeague,Milli,an,bothinhi;olt2ernd^ B"-ot„.Notary, and his T^feaiWMartb a jSortion of t e S Jn t""^"'^ "^ ^•^'"^*''^^' ««'d to ew^t/^v.n. MartLbtain:d::;erorraCir:ft^^^^ 18Ui June. 1842, without opposition anrl J^T T^- Purcbase on the 1844. in the Registry OfficeTr trc:u„t;^^^^^^^^ f' ^" '""^ ''''' ^<'*^ situate the land. . ^ ""^ Huntingdon, wiU.in whieh was ©ft the returnof Mr. atW Mll?Balw*„r„„„i />,, , had not receive^ , fers.^re registered by memorial on the SlBt^gu^^T:^]^^^?^-. Office for the County of St. John^ for souring CS.^: If if'^^^ ' of interest accrued. ^ ^ ^^ T"^ y ^^''^ arreAr^ ■ "0 ..e 30.1, «.7.^»^« a. ^. .N«M.,^,^"a. , ... ., , ' ■ :■ » . '5 V .At .jft.. -I ¥ tHfj* iV "%' «9 **'(, ilfi l mf . ¥ 9 i: mJi f». mvmoR com%u4, IMibMta llMtUk„ SBIO] t-^:: '■ .■«■■■ ^^^ ■v .■? ^ rt. ■ ■» ■:\, V'-,. same oWfgMlons, "To tho rro«i(font,r)ireotOT«*iftKl ^ompdny'tjf tho McchaniiJi and Karmer|i» iknjt of AlBjtny, and to the Pro8idont,"Dlrect4>rB nnd Company of tho Canal Ufitik otAlUmy ;" tiioso laHt transfcrrod tJieir right* l.y dewl oPdat« •lit July, ISfil, passwl beforo IJelle aiid colleague, Notaries.'to Coorgo Wcokw, * jiiikjih qwi^itj^ of Asulgnoc^to tho Ujiitrupt oatato of Colborn. On the 22nd JaBiiary,.J9f4, by aalepimea before IfeUo and colleague, f A-&ignee, transforrotl tlifl Raid obligations t^rtho mUI Banltm Finally, tho^plftintiff, by deed of irarftfer passed boforo Lacostoand colleague, ^^" Notarfcs, of a^ 2nd May, 1850, obtained /rom the BaidTBanks the cWjon of thQsaidthr ThI plaitttilfr, -by his action, ailogod the absoTuto nullity of the deed of b81« of " ,18thl>ecemberjlB3T,by Mme. Baby, ofHhe immovGables therein dewiribed ; - . thfcUfie'if§o«ine4 proprietor until the 28th Junft 1844, when she sofd them under the ■auiHorh.ft'^Qn of her husband ; that the title^under which the defend- - ant held, only ^ok ctfect frouMhfe 28th June, 1^44, ,day.'of the legal sale by .. Mme, Babj^; ahd that, consequertly, the jftdgmentof ratifica.tion obtained.^" f he defondant^ti tlie 18th Jwie, 1842, could not i ft any way- diacfiarge the im- ' moveable, as helhad no£ at iBlit time'a legal ••» \ -r4adwed4tifl^affl^^ deftoda^ t ! « t - T— :i — . « . ■ t i i. i .flUoRi^ WM onl^ defendar •Rd that ^atract To tli* . 'purchaHe ofbftititi that eueh existing I should ha faith subs To the '-the bankr rugtcy, t{ , deads wer d'autruL To tho.^ y>(s(6^ Vat " ccptod tfic competent agai»iBtih( * Tolhef ^. . The ehi( Court, Was ' , {o contract, other wordi lhS223r^ sonal, of a 1 TJie parti Berthelol positions s-^ the empire ( '- .pacitafed th this inoapi^c - of domicile \ • hi4t, ch;28'^ , tiino bad-bi V JKogerSjik J, ' > and ^niith, J ' . tio'h'li^uij'ed thJEirefore rad , capse Baby Hi :;^riffe 28tff^ * I ■as- ti.« ...ci, ,.^v«„„ „„ „„, Ii ,lt^ ijfi'* *': "f'"" "f ""• i««. ""d . -;;»o «.^, .. tktt-^s;--:---- .- Tli«oh,«f,,„ei|ii„|, „f|,„ ii,^ ,„ ,.„ . "^ "oa "1 faol. ■ -' , .. j 0!W,.„,*Mh.«n.„,o,%rS .i.!on.:-,^>j:'s^it.;?-r;:sr„a^°''f^ e empire of U,^ 223*d, •22ci.H»J ^in. a .^l.^ T,'" ^^^r Canada, undcSr posit •the empire of th, 223.d, ^ (i:.;srsr::?th: ^7^ ^«r*- -^^^ « .I.ac.tH,ed the wife from confr^jetin^r withourr Irt ""' ^hich inoa- tfii.sia«,pacity continued to att«,.t. Tl '''** ,?"*<"''««t'on of her husband ; of do^iJe/her h« bald^(£ A llk'^ITV^'^''^'^^^^ ^h« change* . t.ino had^n'fccoff,.izi,d.by a iudl"; a ^' ?^""^ ^''^ '^*'''' ^hia :d6<^ c>M»e BabyHvas ilZ^I!^^;?^^-^^'!? ^^ ^ fa«^l>'>°d, ahd also be- >-^' I«rl0l«Ht ,- 1 4 ^. / ,. z' ' ^ ■»■ c •-1 fer-r- •i ■ '' , ■ <*w.. iVai; ■ '■ •. ' pWKi ■MWl ■ 1* » «|- -A ■^... •r . ^ •^■-. 61 SUPIilUOU COURT, 1860. -^ r**-- ■ ■ I ' .i ll ' «i!i. < :\ ;£'■: ■* >• ,v. 1^ i V t " « new will) tliftl ArailiMiin B^iy nm.lo ti fognr nllonntloii of hor i»roi)«rtjr. If IbU wcro H.o ,>,m<,, tl.on tlio plafiiiiir was w«.|l founded in enforcing his hynothocAry d.ii,n. ngain.t ii.e .l«h*Uj|jj||fc|y^„t. TUk/fg\a ritH roc«g„l5«,l by the jmlgm^nt of tlu, ^'i^rngKHm '•!« flr.t miit ajjai.ml tho dcfembnt, and tho «ttn,o ri-ht ^hoMpPProw. \lnl. TImt tl.o judgment of the 12th «ircb, 1850, »'a.|^|fl.(>r of tMlttbliHl.ing ft judicial contract botwccu tho par- tlMlw.d th« do%Mi)t c.nlU not cl/uin ut tho present (imo concIumonH cgntra- djctory of tho«s pronounced in hiH favour ugainBt the plaintiff by that ladir- mcnt. \ « ' ' ■ ''^,* ■J-oranqtr, Q. C, for tho dc-rcgdant ^, d|^|tiiHoyi^g pF«K«itioii)lf UU Tpon tho 15lh l)wcinl.oj/],-''rTr7Wo of tlio H«Ie from llaby and his w.fo to Chii^e. tho vendor»hft-l tfjfeir d.mucilo4t Albany, phico of th««ulo; that tho hnwjp^tho State of Now York shotild rcgillato thoform of tho deed of sale, and thMlfco.l.Nbeinjr in confonnity witii thoHO iLh, whh binding on tho parties. ^ V. il t It ""'"'' authoHzatiotH-vtiuJi-ed 4 Lower Canada to niako valid ""-' KBW'P «y« married woman, is restricted t.i th^ territorial liraitt* where tho cusOTkjnJ^rco, and th^parties domieiliatcd beyond, tlicso limitn can di«poBO . of th4,piH>porty within tliene limits, without .nontion of thi« formality • -^ ^«ra. Tbat'M.n^Haby could Jegally ^ell to Com^tock the property feituate in Ldwor Canada, SWollowing tho forms ro.,uirv.r by tho Iaw«* of N«w York and tlud tWeso laws iMf4 not ro.iuire tho marital ajfthorizution m did tho lawH of ISW Canadtt. ' jA, 7th. That this saio Icing vaHd,.t!.o sale hy Clarke to C>natock, an.Jby the , .. flM/"/'!' 7%''^''V'r'-o Vttlid al«Q;.conseq«,ntly, tho defendant rightly 'V f^«^t«^-l>«J-'S'I*«Ucq''i?iU^^^ and tho ratification of tftK, obtained by hitn on tt.o>8th Jyuo.isil, purged the mortgage of tho Hudson's Hay Company./ ^ . &th. That the ratillcalion f,%Jo by Mmo.'Uaby, oa tho 28th June, 1 844 -iag ^ a usdesH (ornmlity ; so »Iso of lhep%sa1e, of aatoiho Hth Apf il, 1847. by • Clark to Gomstockf . >, 4- '■ . '' ' n'T'^v'lf *'r "TiM^'"^^^'' ""^ t%bliifa«oni^rcating tho mortgage, . while the defendant haJ||iBtcc.#I.i. titlo,.tas a fn.t fatal to tho action, apar^ from any other ground. J ' , " ^- v Mr.Jl^stTeeMondeletdks^Ki^s-forowsrJ^ ; ^ *^ " •r.ifonddH^J., dissertting, 8^d:-Tliow ootirffiona^abt'but^iiHiad i^^ " W 7^°;^« conveyarteejn^^ibn in ' L«gpe^ttada,1t would hl^beerv ' . 6ull and vo.cr«ndertW:123ra.arti<,le'^««„^^, /^^ The q.^ostion ^tt*ra8,«^^h^r such conloict was m^i^r^dd^itx M^k State of New Vork f^'^ff^<^ o^Ujehusba5fras:|k, necessary, this.b/ought «> tV,|fts^oi?^whethit!ntho fay •f the m#m5^pial domicile," or of the new domf tHRMias to govern this c«|».„ A„d if tlie latter, be the -one that governed in H^/^^T^'^T^''^*^^ ^"«^'^» theairose whether sach law could refftT--, -^^ate the preset. tcase^jrhero the aHenation of real e*iate was concerned ; orfin othor.,wdrd8, v!^ the law requiring , the authorization of the huSband a rear or personal stat^He.-^ If it be held to be personal, the sale would undoubtedly be good; hag,^if real, it would be radically null, and no means would exist of reme- I- ■«/ SUPERIOII COURT, 1866. tl.«r«for« confined to the Lto of N..^ ^tk i" ;\ '"' T 7' "*"'""' ""^ govorno.1 l.y o.m law«. mu«t l,« hold toL „ I \ 7 . "" ''"*■*' *^^ ^"'"' ' "'"ff cited pi,, Auaon,.iJ]^'u Zroi "" "";' '"''• "''« "«»- purge Ui l«nd in quoHtion from ^hrtLul. tion Whether the dLl of 1837 w„, ta 7*!^? ' ^"'' ""•' i-«iwnd ; as-^hat formaihy was not LIcTt .1 H pt '"''''°" "^ ''''' i , . then arose whether the law that governor the capaciTv 0?^ T '^"U« personal; and, if held to bo pergonal whetlier sTr ^ m '"'^ ''"' '^^ rear property here. In fact,'the 7 lie it ion tu ri'"" ' '"J' ""'^ ^^«'-"*^« tween a real and,^p.onal statute. Uo^uZ tlT "T '^' ''^"'"^^ ^- confoundedthethi!|\ith its c;n,eq«Lcrfn th« ' %^'^^^^ *'''*'''' ^«^ question. Of course/ff the law that Tat 1 ^.t "'''' ''' ^*^ *»^«'» «>f the Hty In contracts by tic wife, w J r iT r„t r^^^^^^^^^ "^ "^^'^^A'*"''^" jority of the' Court would be unfounded- but M? ^^.^^P""'*'" of *»»« "%• to bo personal. eve.y coHsequencTof tilt Uw '^^^^r'"*'"' '^'''^'''' ^ »»«« immpveable, mustl^e go^SySti'u. ^e^^ '' "^"^"^ "^^^'^ ^' " object ortbatla^ was tp regulate the stelsnr^^^^ Uvtdlail* uJun. ♦^' jiT' #^ r Ov ■:# . mi* ,-J Inn' . &L r9- '\ 1 10 SUrEllIOR COUIiT, lfl5«. Uvlotetto lUrUii. % ,i?i « Uuii wUlioiit luving th« mifiutUtgt of Umt preuinion which was only to bo ob- Ulnod l.y ruiliitiiiK ordiir that the wifu might make a valid will, indt Voilikr, ruittanet Marilale, No. 44, and Panim, 2nd vol. Journal du VtlijA*, where by ^n arrii of 10th July, 1073, tho view of the question taken by Uie Court was suHtaincd by an exactly anaiagoua case, with re»po(;t to a will made at I'aria. In Ikierlln, vo. MajorUi so^;. 8, p. 410, the same rule Wa« laid down with respect to PuUaanct J'atemette, and that being a personal law in the •ame degree as the Puiitanct d» Mart, the rules applying to one would equally •pply to the other. Merlin, p. 016, vo. Autoritation Maritnla, cites two arrit* to the same effect. See also Morlin, vo. Testament, p. 200, sec. L art. 6 ; Story, Conflict of Laws, No. 52, citetl by hi* learned brother,— where, he must say, that ho found tho roaBoning'of Judge Story ve|yincowelusivo and unKatisrHOtory; Idem, p. 127, No. 137 ; Froland, Mimoire, ch. 7, p. l^; 1 vol. liuigo, p. 140, No; 50, Boc. 033; Hubert, No. 12, sec. 1, fi, and 7; Nouveau Deninart, vo. Autorimtion, aec. 2,' p. 706, VotWior, Coutume J'OiUutta, Tirait4 de Commu- nauti, c. 8, No. 144, p. 327, No. 247. Upon tho whole, the Court hud no hesi- tation in saying that tho capacity of wife involving the necessity of marital a,u- thority was a personal Bta'uto; ami, being suoh, iiiust bo mettsurod, not by ita consoqiiences, but by its esacntiid character, which wan universal, running into territories where other laws prevailed, and governing tl|e nlietiution of real pro- perty within such territory; 'and, under this view of the {juestion, the deed of ^alowas valid, and there existed no necessity lor any subsoqtieiit ratiUcatioW. The defendant beoamo proprietor in 1837, obtained sinc&'a judgtnent of ratifl- • cation, and by virtue thereof purged the land from all hypothiquen,— thoM sought to bo enforced among the number. Tho judgment of tho Court was in the following terms {— "Tho Court having heard' tho parties by their counsel upon tho merits of this cause, examined the' proceedings and ovitlciieo of record and having deliberated thereon. Considering that it appears by ovidonco that tho dee<| of indenture and conveyance, made and cxecutotl on t}^ fifteenth DiJcenibcr, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven^ by Francis Baby and Mario Clothilde I'insonnault, bis wife, to and in favour of Orvitlo Clarke, of tho land and premises situate in the township of Sherrington iA this Province,, and aosqribed in the Plaintiff's declaration, was so made and executed in the'oity of Albanyj in the State of New York, one of the United States of America then being tho actual domicile of her, tho said Marie Clothilde Pinsonncault, and according to .the laws and usages then in force in the said State, and that by the ysages ami lawa of the said State it was not necessary that any marital authorization shgiild bn giy^fi Ky tht w 8UP1W0U cotmT, mo. ^ ^ _ it-' Fr.nctf1]«hy to the ^V\ M„ri« ClothiWo Wnni^ulThL ..*. i ^ * confer upon lior tli« cnnadtv ""'« Clarke .nd that .1. r n^ r^^ '"^rf "" ^""'^ -^ cffuotual of March, ono tl.„u 1, 1 , 1 L ^^^'^V^""'"' ''""'"» ^"^ ''•« »-•"»"«»»» Milliffan^wo,:. :l:lt ' j^^^^^ '** '•'•" •"•da.ty D.tld furlbcr oonnLlering that by roanon of !?! Ta . r **!. **" '""'^'^'-"^ ^«^ ^ tlon of the .aid l^t mo«tLTT V "'*• J"<^K'"«nt «f ratification and confirm.- •netbouJd 4r^^^^^^^ on theeigbte...th dav of Jua^ tLo e4tio.rof l^^r, ;l7 ""';«*»,•"'; f-^y-no. Doth maintain tho action of thVpb n^frie aii th '"^"!*^ P'"*''"^ «»«» ^ is considered that Mr r,. *• T . *•"* *"* •*"« ■» '»""<=« d smiuwd. with coHf*." Mr,J„.t.ce^fondel«t•.di^e„tdo.„otappoarinthoi«dgn;:^!:^^^^^ . , C'arfwrfJJer/^/^/, for Plaintiff Action dianjiwd. ^ (^"^ ^'^•»V'/^/^^«r«;^«, for D^^^^^ Anthorities cited by riaintiff-— ' Pp'«t7T;:r;^"J;«:"'""- ^" ^-V -. ^ TS , to.. , rranspon do Cane.. " »33, 334, 33«, no.. 370, 371, 318'' ' ^'^"*"°'^ "*» P'^J-dloio pa, aux Tier., pp. Storr, Conflict, p. 64> a, 63: DD 12el'iq^ JKl^ol pp. aiS-aaO, no,. 2ei-263 'l i^fy "^' PP- "^^04, no.. 838^244; ...3.,M.,,;:;'"""*^'«-"ft8«.'<'i »Tie. »P. «.,.«;, Tic. „,..., fonfittncd in Anno.i «"«iinenient of wife without authbri2«fSnn «r u.'."..r_r' IMaMla M.rtl«b 1 »^* , 22i T'fl .■'■'. ' f — .^:-"^-^ ' "Ontittncd ia Appeal. Hogen V. Rogers, Ror. de Leg. 3, p. 886. '^ wife ^>Ti : r . * * '' **° " ° *' 2Pt n O fl L> wife without authorization of hu,b«»d. ,:* \m 08 SUrERIOR COURT, 1866. laiiolette *:• -P % *■ J ■ . te ■J' f - Burgc 1, ch.7,8clc.9, p|). 15!>,-607, 613, Ol/), 020, C23. ' ' Louisiana Condensed Rcporti, torn, 3, p. CG3, Ac, CC7, 075, 079. ' Saul arid Ills creditors. ' ;„ ' . Ex parte/ Josej))! ^nd Leslie ot al, oitposants, (ind Auldjo, Inter. Dcmolombe, torn. 1, n. 75-77, pp. 80, 87. ' v . ^ Merlii, Hep: Autor. Mar., sec. 10, §§ 3, 4: Eflbt Retroactif, sec. 3, 5 2, art* 6: Rati- fication, sec. 3. ' ' BpuUenois, torn. 1, p: 45, 48, 50 ; torn. 1, pp. 201, 202 ; and vol. 2, torn. 1, ch. 2, obser. , 6, pp. 101, 102 ; torn. 1, pp. 105-108. \ * Bourjon, torn. 1, Dtf la Loi qui s'appliquo d la Pcrkonne ; torn. 2, c. 4, s. 3, n. 15. Lacombo^Jl faut que Iq mot fl«/oris(5 soil apposd. IVutljorities cited by Defendant i— "^'v. . Art. 223,22C»et234dolaOoutume., , ' . '^K Morli,^, Autori. Mot. s^c. X,*§ 4. B5uhier, chap. 23, no. 5\ , " "■ - BouMnois, Join, ler, titre 2, chap. 5, obser. 29, -—- — —— ^S^-^-- ^ v '— - - RevAd do Jurisprudence, 3d vol. p. 255, Rogers v.RoMrs. ' * ' ' Boujilenois, Traits de la Personalltd et de la Rdalite des Xois, titro Ire^^chap. 2,del» page A4 a la page 62. . ' / " . - ^ Friland, Memoires co&cernftnt la Quality dos Statuts, chap. 5, n9. 1. • "ofufiier, Sur Ics Ooutumes dc Bourgogne,.chap. 23, no. 59. ' . ' . \ iuvros de D'Agrfesscau, vol. 4, pi .000, 54cme plaidoyer. •* > < wrolani, Mdmpires sur lea -Statuts, chap. 7, vols. 1 and 2. -■ ^ • «•. f othier, Coutuihe d'Orl^ans, chap. 1, sec. 1, art. 0. , I Merlin,^ Verbo. Statut. ; Idem, Autorisation Maritale, sec. 10, nos. 2 and 3. ^Merlini ^ol 12, ^erbo Testament, sec. Ire, 9. 5, art. Ire ; idem, art. 2. /Story's Conflict of Laws,' chap. 8, yer. 200jet les suivants et le^ antoritda qui y Bont\,<| TFdlrx^ DHjit international, livrp 2, titre Ire, chap. 1, et chap 2, sec. Ire. f Pothief, Coutume a'0rl(6ans,'Tit. do la Com. Int-i ch. 8, § no. 144, p. 322, and oo 14T .933. ^--^-V^- . ■ -. ■ ■ - i^> ; .^ V '. * AJ)en*j^yo. Aut. §^1, rios. 5, 6, 7; § 3, ng. 4, p. 799. PtithteB, Coutume d'Orl ■■', . ,. $ D^Aguessean, p. 060, 54iemeplaidoyer. Merlin, R.vo.\Te9t., sec, 1,^5, art Isf. ' Journal du E^lais, Arrfet du 26 Juillet 1673, E. de Mer. Slaj., § 5, p. 419. : • • ;,. F^lix de Int., p. 41, no. 30. ' Bep'. de Merlin, Test., sec. 1, § 5, art. 1, p, 266. ^^ Story, No. 52, •' 'BouUenoi3Pissert,.5|Ute3. quest. 1, p.'lD. No. 137, StonggBj^T \ * ^ --= Froland, cbaS'^^W^ r.fi * \ ' ■w# *- ''i * ^ SUPERIOR COURT, 1863. 60 , latest, four years after ' *° ''"'^^ ^«-"« ^- «»to on the part ~^' \. . rfs creditor, and gener!Ilv iZl *'*^^'"'"^«f « composition to defcn- ' After taring S^S^^'^^'r '^'^'"^''^'^ '^ ^^^ PM-f^A^ ti^^!t.ke„„f * teanS^n^^^^^ ^""^'"- certamobje; ^ • «a^Kyhat.tI^ plainti/^S^:!^!^;^^ ?J*=^^^«7 testimony," and 1- ' of theli^ ;aS::;d^^: '^"'^"^"^ ^ount ^fejranlfMk)rm, for riaintik - • • '». i?. ^iraA#j, for Defendant. V J^. Morrison^ Counsel. - • ' ■ A.M. ' V> «.'.,"«. MOjn^AL, 30 SEPTfe(BRE, .„ # L^ %■ V 'I i \" J, >»^ I -8*4*1*- Ki\ Uthojaw^ goywnV A meters n6t sJ^ck^SnSli*" '^"'^'^P- '='' ^"- 2«"« «» . 4r i: vt 70 ' SIJI'ERIOR COURT, 1867. i — m — i, Groom. -Boucher, fiignifii cctto ie.iu6to aux procureins do I'lntiino on leur en laissant uno copie ail greffecju la susdite Cuur do Circuit. . /,. a.- ■ L'lntimo, vn co rapport' qui no conslatait point si hor proGureurs n'avaient rieUcment pas do domicile 6lu aix toUnes do la loi ou si inomc i%ii'avaient'. 0s leur domicile dans retenduo du circuit, fit motion pour Ic rcjet do'cet appel fondfie sur la nttllitd do CO rapport, ' LaCour a raaintenu lamotioh'do I'lntimd dans Ics termes suiv-ants: •1> * ," Tlie Court Coh&idcring that inasmuch as if doth not appear that tDe "office of the Clerk, ffrejfier, of the Circuit Courtof the circuit of St. Hyaciftth© •• waa tlie elected dftmicilo of t^o Attorneys of the Respondent or that the said i •* iAttoW6^»/bavo no domicile at St. Hyacinthe aforesaid, ic." . w 'i'j • y^» , • • , ' Appel renvoyfi. ;iJCo«eercAo«7»on^Avocats*de rAppellanlo^ - , ,* . ^»cAc c< Prrftio*/, Avoeafa dej'intimc. . - — _ P. R. I. ¥ tt'- 1 , 1 r.,- . ■"- • '* ."A 1 " ,.v ■■'','■ ■ ■ * \ iu '4':S - : ' Comm Smith, J., MojrDELET,.J., Dauwik^, i. "' ../• ■ . No. 016.. , • Magreen v^ Auhert. - ' '' E»ld In the Hquldatfon of the rights of hv^H and wift, domiciliated in a Townahip, under aloAr. 2entof,rfpora<.o„rfecoi-p*«^dei/^,bbthpartic8'being aliv.. real estate acquired dui4.ikti£, ^';^''i''^J«*«'''^"'^>'»^»t'^'«'«^ boconsidorcdasfonning.pw? ' ■ ' -■<*'■.'.'.. . ' 1' ' "^ ■ i' • ■ The parties jn -this cause resided in the township of Chatham where" Der fendant owifiid a farm ac(iuired' during his marriage. The person appointed by the-CoBft, aftep a judgment ofacparation, to report upon' the rights" of the p^r-* ties, included the farm in hi^itfitfcment of the comhiunity property. 4ihott Jor PJaintiff, moved to homologate the report; and for the appoint- ment of ^^perts to pronounce upon the possibility and wod© of dividing the farm, m question -between the parties. . ' " -^ De Bleury, foV D^ndant, objected on the ground ihat the mal estate held " in free and common socage was regulated a& to the rights .o£ raa..r;ed women byth^law^fEngland. ,- 'AhhoU,in reply, cited the statute 20 Vic: cap. 4«, sec. 4, and the case of Wilcox V. Wilcox, recentjy decided in appeal. . * _^ Smith, J. The>e-can be no, longer any question that" in siioh a case as the presentthe rights of the parties must be regulated' by thWommon law of this country. Thc-C6urt of Appeals have so decided; and if any doubt remained, the section of the staf ut^itcfd" ^ the bar completely removes'it. "? ■ ; ::^M^.fQr Plaintiff . ^ \[-\ \ / 1^ _ V. Motion gninted. iJ^^^ewry, for Defendant. -^ , /. ' • -^ ' ' ' •/. >• , J- - ••«> • i fc Av ■f. SUPERIOR .SoURT, 1867. 11 IN ClUMBEBS. f MONTREAL, lOn, NOVJEMBER, J867. , .«':'• ■" ' ' ' ■ . \ No.274 ■* ■ ' V ^■ . .V .. -* ^«rf.l. 0910 suffldoncy of an affidavit ft,r«-^ i - ' '^ , a A petition for the di«l.C^?f J doLZt n '""^•"^'^ '''•"» "^^ » fr"'"-"- after teuo joined. - ^. ' •'''"""^' ^""^ «'*" ""der the 12 Vict, cap. 48. m,y be ^^ •In this case a petition for the releasfl nP 4»^^ r J - il „ , sented i„ Chambers, Contain ng l^^^lt^^^ ''°" ff^^ -*» P'^' wereomitted i,>, the affidavit and T„T *'f ;^\''«'° ,«»«^tial expressions , . issued ; and also ave.ilg tS^^^^^^^^^ '"^^ -^ ^'^ irregularly '. country. This petitionL o p^tl/ i/i /^'"^'f^^ "' '^"^^"^ *^« ^ ^^-Ao case inscribe* upon the r6leZluiu 1 '''"' ^«^%««J«i«ed and yI66o«, for Plaintiff, contended that fhfl r^v ,. object of tl.e. arrest,; stated Ltf^i^S^" T/'' ^^*'^ '^^ «"'^ before the Court that Jie miffhiaZ, i f', ^° ^""« t'^'' ^^^^^-^dant inons to appear conta n,d {"!'«„ !;.*'•' ^'^'*'*^'^ ' ^here was no sum- such cases;WbtIess tie De ll. ^^^.nary attachmentsHigainst goods. In "li.di.tment;^uaI;]I.U^ -a. well >fore the Court, ^n if the .case could bel>rreldS^^ Tl' f "^'J"^" "^^^^^^--^ whether be befora^tUe Court. If tire^rtl^e J^^^^^^ '\ ?^ ^«^-^-* ^^«d.c«as'ed to was to have the M^J^^^:,^^^,:^''^ f^'^) -<^ mpo^ of the ,^t Plaintiff, surely.by answerfn^ am 1^ t '^'^ ^.^^''^bat h». migl,^ answer tlie arrest, hemusfb/coSS:^:^^^^^^^'-^ purpbse 6f W^ iag the saie P^vikior/aaour?^^Sl;^^?'^*'**»^•^^ *^tute conta^- ^^ it is expresriyheianhat thSl^^^J^^ '" ^'^T JT" ^^^'^I, ^^ " ti^e move," &c.,yet'he must "if '.f"'' ^^' "tb« def^itent m^a£ «u,y \ act fe cIlU upon to reply ^ "^ 'KiP'«.fif " lli|^Wi.liff should . d.n0,OTe ^t f,«c, Ho »rU "™ '^''"''>"?»»' ''berated. Evcfl -if tie Defe„. n -& hadwLtd r„ :toirTrr.tw' r'i'r'^'^'^''^^ wer. quaiQ: bit L w; « ° """^ ™'8b' proceed .vin if llie ca»W »tai, tlit.llt.eil, u( tliiii.,ik,.rf „„ ° . ™"""'t, 1" iti" iltnliit i , aui ■ ' . i c; .i • ''I . ' ' ess' J:' 'K -■^ T- m :t iijfc.. -* ■• i" •:> ■ ••;(•' * '. * if r 12 SUPEKIO:* COURT, 1867. JSbMvamn Mondelet, Jf I Jiave not examincil any of tlie mithoriiiea cited by the coun- »««rh«-t. sol for the Tlaintiff, ^y mind being fWiy rnado Up that no conclusive' presump- ^ . tion of waiver of right to petition for release ar sea from delay or from j.Ieading to the action., I am tlierefore of opinion that the petition is in time, and that the Plaintiff must answer it ; and in this opuLn my two colleagues in Cham- bers concur. I shall, however, only order the/ Plaintiff to ans^r. that portiQn of the petition in which the Defendant al/eges that ho had no intention of iA < ^' ■jft' 4 i^*^v*" lukV' leaving the Province with intent to defraud./ AbboH & Baket, for Plaintiff, y. ]0j7c?en, for DefendanJ. H: Stuart, counsel-for Defendant. 4i*'' - *••■■ N. ^; MONTREAL, 23rd NOVEMBER, 1837. \ram. Smith, J. and^ MonIjelet, No. 624 ^, . •' , ",'':' ' ^olsmva.BtirrOV'ffka,;,!- '- \, '* "^ , ^"**"^S!'r *'fj!^ '''" "***,'"' "'""'"'^ '«""'" " I'^n'^^urportirik to bo a copy of . de^la- ' . wV »""*';* Tf'^'^ cortificdto bo 8oby.thc A^neySoftho party producingit; althouS,* such documopt be fy led as i^n exhibit. > j i- • 8 •" . »iiiw^ , .• A paper purporting to b« a copy of the declaration in" cause N6^ 28, between - „Mol8on and another vs. Burroughs, but only certified td be a true^oriy by, the Attorneys of the jiresent Plaintiff, was produced by him as^an exhibit. ' ^ -° ^ Crdss, for Defendant, moved to be pennittcd t6'!nScribe en faux a^rainst it/ - ■ ^ Abbott, for Plaintiff, cfjntenf^cd that the Court.would not permit an issue en A faux to be raised on such a paper. It posses^ no character of authcnticit "" ' ^nor was it of itself either proof ip the cas?, «r susceptible of being prowd.": ft ^ jould serve no purpose whatever beyond being made the vehicle of prW, cithe?^ - by comparii^on with (he original, or by bein^:cnq.uircd of by interrogatories sur : fattset articles. It was in fact no more st^ii^ within the meaning of that ex- .' Pression, than the copy of4» promissory n^which.was 'usually put in at the return of an action on 8u.\h. an' instrrf|%r;>rid was no more susceptible of« .being inscribed against e«/«Mar. To a^feowever, the possibility of beipo ex- poseg. to such an absurd, unneccssftEjr^ expensive plpWding, the Wsrintiff prayed ^acteot his consent that the^corrcclness of,the ^copy should be investigated " v by the ordinary procee^ng^LJEnquute; wh\ch consent the Court qonsideJ ' sufficient m the casepmarlton i>«. Cary, 6 L.C., Rep. 268. . i» Cross, in reply, «6nsidered that his righUo inscribe e«/a«.ragainst^nyeaii- - l>»twhateve.producedbyaparty,didnoUdmil\of a doubt. He would only cite in reply to the argumentfcr the Plaintiff; Nduveau Denizart-^b. Faux inrf- "T' dent, wbore^the rule is laid down broadly, that such an inscription may be wade , - lorsquune des parties ayantsiffnijle, communique on produit quelque piSc^ gm pepUtsseStre, dans le cours de la procedure, "Vautre pai:iie pretend que Iw di4e piice lest fdusse ou fahifie. •'' : ' • ; ' v SmitKJ,-^^ an applic^ion bjr the D#fcndant\to ll «flv>wed toS f oritw ■ tJ w /rtwj ? itgai t wt - ■ '' ■ - ■■'• • » ■ • - == y • a qucuuieiit produced by n^TTain^' as an exhibit ,rtfc'"- ' \' ''-.'■■ m ■:. ■■• ■■ .~ .■:-53 ' ... .... ".M. c. « »■ ■ n --jr- V V • M -^ SUPERIOR COURT, i&67. /5 . < YS Jon,,., ^Tho paper in ,uostio„;i.„ot an aCe ^,^..„^^ ,,, , ^ ^ * ■■■ ■■; " ■■ •-■■'■ /■■.■ ■■■,''•■■■■■• '\" ^ :' : Abbott d' Uaiker, for JPMniiffs , ' Motion rejected, (J. J. C. A.) • Jf . .■■ - ,■'/■,'■■ 4,. - -.■ ' ■ . *-. .•V I I * ; MONTREAL. 28 DEO^MBBB..i837, •.*y. ^ "^ - -'No. 1303. 'Lit;s;rLt :«r:^L;^^^ Nove.Lrc.857.. oetteactior I" ^» ""erite 6tait proraaturde, et vft ,^«nquete. Oette motion fut d^eutee en mfeme tempa que le merite de la Pa„«A r ■ '^tl^if dsma«dere.se etait en droit d'insdHre, comme die I'a fal I» I ^Kr^s^q;^:^:^ ^ ditiinscriptiJi^ *le m^ritV eta '^^^^^ ^^^-^^ «ec d^pens, ^t adgugeant lur .. ._ ■^'■'"'^w. a^Qcat de la daaaderesse • "' ■ ' ■ ---u^ - - -tr. 4. JU •.'■ . .> <■ - - ; , ^ » #^*>. ■■>: ' • ^^ ;« MONiEBAt. * fetCEMBM, MW, Smith, J. :< II' t 5?* e " ' • Pi- 1 '__ 1 Warner, vs. Ula^Tiari, et fc wa^rf /« /X«^. / t • f. v " '" : ; /;;^n«*««ie.arr6tapro«jugeme,Uayant6t^p,ak«,. •' \ ' iJrk-^-p " T ^^ ''^"- ' 1 1 Ir^vM t : devajit la wu rgnp 'H»*5 Vic. cV|^ ,^ &t mi, en force q^Jri^^^^SS^'^ "TW*. ■^iB- ^ f. 'J* *l^ ./*^*' ^#-* «*. c.». u IfMBMr r. StTI*ERIOR' COURT, \B5l. Lea tiers-saiHw firent J«ur declaration affirmant no rion devoir au d^fendour et alldguaot des raisona* spicialos A cotte fin. Lo damandour fit motion li CO que ha tiers-saisls fuasent teniw do faire uno nouvollo declaration ; mais celto motion fut renvoyie. Lo 10D6ccmbro 1857, lo d^fondour fit motion "4 co qn'on autaifts^ue lo ■ *• deman,dcur a laisso ^coulor plus de liujt jours depuis la production do lal^cla- *' ratio^j faite en cettc cause par lea tieps-saisi^ sans offrir' aucunc contestation k " I'encontro d'icelle, il soil d6clar6 d6cliMj,) droit de contester la dile declaration." .Apres auditi9n des parties, cotte raoticHJ fut accorddo. ^ Car/cr, avocat du Demandcur, \ . ^»-^^''- .::v: , . \ ^--■^mmrSmnil O, MoNnjBLET, I, CnWS6t j. No. 1738. ., i--"^^^*ii^! T: I. Fishet, etal. % %i^ ■^ y' .!>' >4h^^ "^ ^ ^ "S^T Conghfe&tionl Act of L. C. 2 Vict, cap. «. on» toemW of a congns S;™?1>!!**f S' """"*" '''^ *° com*«l;tho Trustees the said sum of £1000 bequeathed, or cj^use the same to tie laid out an(^ ex- ponded^ as far air the same may go ioSvirds' purchasing a lot of ground and thereoo building and erecting a 8«itable l^nsion or parsonage for the residence <^f the clergyman (^ minister of tho^btcTi Presbyterian dhurch in St:<3abriel Street of the said ciW of Montreal aiid his successors in office, and further, it'ia . my wish and de^re *at the.said John. Fisher, William Peddie, Andrew Shaw, Robert Simpson, D|i^d Handyside, Thomas tjlSckwood and James Chai-rei Grant, or the survivor^ or survivor of them, 8h«U do, exeeute and perform^l and every act or acts, deed or deeds, n^ssary and retiuis^e for morojt-ffijctually geeqnn^tlte possaasinH nf fhT^finW lofW grnnn^^ in /njondod lu lu puichaicd •%; a. \ 4 ' SUPERIOR COURT, J 86V. 16 ' ' ' ' ''" .' ' " . ' , I ■ ■.' " ^«d th^ mans^prpaj^onaso thereon etecttd, or to be orectod"^ the clergyman or m..ustor of tl.o sa,d Scotch Presbyterian Churcl., and hiJuccesso.* in'IfRc^. ^ t T: 1 tT? ""^ ^'^ """" '^^ P^'^^-S" *''-''°" «'««^«d ^r intended ^ to bo, shall belong t«, and bo the property of, the clerg-yman or mini- ^thesa.d church or the tim4 being, or shatl belo„M|^ the corporation of ti^id hurd, should any such corporation over be ITted, for "tL sole use' 1/r eff TT*".rr';''''' •"'^ ^"^ -«««-<>-'" ««-. whichever may be th/most effectual method of securing the posrfbssion thereof as aforcHiaid " ^^Mo^apppmted executors and extended their powers beyondthe period limited • 8.!!mT'""?'J ""f ^r^ '*"' ""*' ^y ""'' ^^*''« P'^^P^'^tors of St. Gabriel ^ with Robert Simpson, David Handyside, and Thomaa "Blackwoo^.^Wing then the surviving trustees under Somerville's will, ^ere named trustees on ll^ot the testator, ,^„d to receive the property from the trustees under the will .nd f^th,,surv.vo« of themjn case oTa vticancy in the number of five, by dCh " ^."l V" fl f^'»<>'«'*'»- ^*«'v^ -onflis, or resignation to oaTa general meeting of the proprietors for .he election of others to fill suh vacancy or vacano.es, so that the number of five sl^ould be kept up. and Tthlm anj their successors so to be elected, the said trust to be vested in pcrplal slees .^They accepted the trusVand by 4^ dated 21st Mareb, 1840, the trustees ' •ff^^^Jo' «'«»««l^e« and their successors in oflice. cert in lot of la^d on S^brookelStreet for the building of the manse o. palnage, de2ilt t^ tors of the StyGabnelStreet^ Church, as above stated. - ' ^ Ihat the deed and a description of the property br a stvora-^furvevor w«« vx^ ered un^r the ordinance 2 Vict, ca^ 26, eLbiing r^J^ZJZ ho Id ands, and on the 16th April, 1844, at« general meeting of the-prop e o« of the church, William Hutchinson and Walter Itf Peddie harl hH ? ^ ^tees in the room of Thomas Bi^.o, ^r^^^^:^^:^ 1 f oS ' Jtv f ' ^^^'^ r ^^«'^« ''^^^ -^ W»'t- n^ Peddif had b^n 1.71^ «L ^ T'1 ^'''*' *'•"* P'*'"*'^ ^""S « P™Pri«tor in the Mid church and a member thereof, had a right to complete the number of ^stees and supply the vacancies, and in onl^r to the due election ofTrv^ ee. atd th.!ffl ^ ^^ "'^"''^ •' ''''"'**'''^ '^« P'»'°^'ff' the cong„^atio«, and the offio.at.ng mmister had been injured and had an Interet in d^„d,W "^ the completion of the trusteea. ^ •^anamg werelS.H^ *^' 'f««"d regulations of t^e church, the temporal committer ^ were J Wied annually, J±ertmm Pj.fr.n ^n^.yh.rn bri ng t h o f r. .ui L .onmhlm Bclusioaa detnaniloii thflf »i.^ .i^r./.j ^t..t...i>i .... TS^^clusioaa demanded that the def4dant'« shouTd be declar^l bou^d by '«^; !. ■ Bnrith T. • fUtm. . i I * * t ' ' 1 *. ;; 1 } ;^ s IJ.. ' ■' i" ■ t: /• \ - \ . - . i - •., ': /■'. > - / , /. i-HttttJ . («.V -J ' .1 - r ^fl **»•»**" ■•«"" \ ■*» • "*« "i^ »" #*>#V*«t»'>' ■ "'' *»" '?a amith Vithar. '-'-» ^ SUPERiOB COURT, 185^. -M ^„ law to tulfo tT.c-ncccHHary .tep,,fft preserve the numb,-, of t^tXes^^^JT^ mo^linjy of the prt.J.riotor8 of .ffo clnirch for tlio t.Wrtn„. v,f i ! . acquired by deed of tho 2nd April 1 92 til Tr r , 1 f"''^j:''^'^'y^^ ■ , church m conncctiou with tho/ilsinWUed Church officotland i,e laLiff not^ b.j^a,„o.berof.idc.n.rc^j.e^ . Secmdly.-.'Yh^, Peddic had ^..Jt been abJenUrom the city M6ntLl but o^ ' " outht't'lT' T'" •'' «tt«-'el.- ^^ " "Vi^'" Jb«r/%.-The eonelustons ar^ vague, i«formal,,and coial^ not h^'L^ X: sJ"-f 7 '" ''^'^"'^"^ '" '^- -^--'^ ^o -take th/: ee^a^lt wubout Bpecfically po.nt.ng out what should be -done. .«! are otherwise \nX . ^a»%^Generknnfbrmality of conclusiftiis ■'. - ^ ' J ' ■ itl!!it"'' r.'"''?" "'"'^ '''"*^^ ^'^ ^^*«^''«J' ^^^4 ^I*n th^ochurch w^'founded ^tabhshed Church of Scotland, th^it up to W time of the disruption 'in £H« church known aa the Fr.e Gl»uroh movcr^nt In 1844. th Jer^^^^ church had always been and were in fact required to ie byL rufeHnd r^l lations of 1 e church: regl.larly ordainea%inisters of the (5^r h orScoUaS ^nd bqt m the year 1844 a n.«joriJy of tl*e co^e.ation had.declared forSe I^hu..h, as..^ed. he power of revising and Ending ^^^cf^ ' shew that>althongU^*t^,I*e.ydie lived out of . th'e ^ity li.nitsAet he »ttendld iymtth J.-^ dcfc«(^ants "have ^at tempted under an ezmMion d la fhr«.. f"- % ^»;:"":^.". / '"^v - f» - f^ V .■* ' - .- ■ -^ ^_ I If •v»*^t>»i.#H^,„ ,,,„,, tf •**»y#^ •»«MMj»Hi<>''«»*«i^«^*«'f ''•«r«I5«|^Jw "rT to caII a ho rooflU, ml ttflor jcentor'a - r of tJia. » ililished V ncl that t ... ^.'■ nection . ' «04, «, iff, nojt ; fiiush mt on trustee ' TO set*^^' 1 such f such ted is mted» steps isuffi. nded I tie » the said to ded 'IJ rme ■ *\':V" ,■■*■ ■ fiuTOTOR coiTin\ i^fft;" Iwt^igbt at Into Revorend JijiHfa Sornor- held by |.io«l.itorf«n clongrcgatioiiH previo««*to tlii^tw Chureti «iivo.rtoht k I the Scotch iVcHhyH-rinn Chunji, aiich rnHJoritw-h^ing doclared th^r «dheronco ; ; tl.o Court ^oea not think th^|i8U ■\^^^^' ■ "T- fietMr^e^ Jivvl c h, fa nl t if lL. " ^ ^1 ^ ^''"° g"*"**^^- Cross (& Bandro/t, for Defendant. „(S.B.) > «■ j' a 'y-^ r .J: ■■i'-;' Bmltb rUhw. «.. •" ',■,■'•■■...- ; •, ha i'.; ■■ .,>.'', »» .:.- ,.%?■• ^\ • V m Pr-r A t m 4P- A - < '-ki-'t' fifUPEniOR COullt 18#7.. -L w-\ MlhliwjRMHIIIt.'lMT. , No. 811, '"^'"V; „..-,., - ■; Milerman and Cilizen, p/^l, eily of Moniml d«n,a«wL • , ^ ^ ^ ' '"'"'"''• "*'"'"«'' ""'..«'"t«"tf e^ tho botUw •» not " . '!^'« ?''":"'*'r- ^7"g''t «n action for £20 7h. (T.I. for dnmi^eH „e to m„K|« on ^ T^ rrrr**^ tl.e overflowing of tl.o city clrnin, i.Wo. Bummor of mt Tho DefondnntH met the action by a d' '"¥• «'" I'>«'"tifl'« found tha water had penetrated their eelf » during the night, through their private dram, connecting wUh tho street drainn. under the ^ontril and care of tfLlV fondant, at th, comer of St. Peter and St. Paul -treetH. [Montreal, iur. J^ « heen a heavy shqwer during tlfe afternoon of the previou day, and on thi, nirf^ , n question tho,v„tcr rose in the cellars in som.'places iLl\J^ZfZotl cellars The cellars had for some tjmc been damp from tLwrno cause Cotn plaint having toen made to the cU^ authorities, the drain^. were by t 1 into" below St. Paul 'c'ne of tho cdn no suflScient Ann's M^ket contained tho Porter It further appeared that the drain In St. Peter street, at one plaee entirely obstructed by the falling in df )ins, owjng to a defect I'h its construction, and also tHat „^n provided in the nrjain drain, running under the St jroved that the labels and capsules on the bottles which . , . , , - — nd Ale.werc in a measure destroyed, and that tha «»r.w in which they wore packed was damn .nil i».„* .i. i V "^ «nmerchantable. ^' ^x '^'' P"'''"^' ^'""^ ^^^^ '^""^^'^ ' r.Il7Tir'~:^^'' '"^^'"^ ^^' ovidonc^it is apparent that the Defendant, neglected their dram,, nor can they be held exonerated, because a heavy^^^^^^^^ ■ ^^l pI::^ the lijnediat, causp of the flo^ of water iZ^^! «,Z A-ll f" ^' ^'^ "''' ^"^^ *''»^ ^^' d«™«ge would have been ^0 effect of which should have been provided ag^^nst. The damaglSt' only to the packages, to the labels upon tho botOfes. &c but it is SIT^ T thi. would impair the value of tho gLs a, ar^cl^ftil «« ^having proved the damages claimed b^Lm. judgment ^1 ^^ !• * Crdss d& Bancroft, for Plaintfffs. , J. F. Pelletier, for Defendants. ^ / '■mh Judgment for Plaintiffs. V <:oT3» Dk oiRourr, iwt. MONTREAL, 10 OOTOBIIB, IMT. Cbram Bbunkau, J. i ' ^ ITo. loao. At6— Qua !• Shdrir n'oit point tenq *n toi do payer let tkblmiwur conduirn ft l» prliiun oommuno do o« ill inlu«ne ft qui tradutto dev*nt Uii Jugo d« pali . kttendreaun pn)c<>«.-(l). ^» 'i J III [is par un c• 'W • " I>rel)y ceetify that I Lave received from " Norbett Chkmpagnc, constable of thoMwtrict of Montreal the body of F^angoia X. DosrosierB t^gellior, with a Warrant uBderiho hand arid soal of iouis G. LafoiilaHi^^uire; one 6f her majesty's Justice* of the Peace for the said District of Montreal, and tho said Fran- 5018 X. Desrosiors was sober atUe Ume bo was delivered into my custody charged with-haviug assaulted hfs wife and threatened her life." , .. . 27thd8y of august; 1856,- " ' , (Signed,) ThoijaaaJWPGinn, , . ' '» ■■ 'r •»■ --'■' ..■■■''-■* :,":;'. • ^ feaoler. ''Quo les frais/et d^penses du dit demandeur pour avoir arrftt^ lo dit'pr*Tenu et I'avoir conduiU la dite-prison, et los frais el d^pens du Demandeur pour rih toumer «hez lui/ont 6t6 dAment constates par le dit jugo de paix Lafontaine, se mpntant k la sc^me de quatorze livres treiwtchelins et diidenicrset demi cou- wnt, ct que IMcssus le dit J«ge do Pai;t adxessa uu^dit D6fendeur en sa dite quality V^« 8h6nf 4b dit District do M9Btr.6al (dansjles limites *iqnel le dit d61it aurait 6t6 «c: '.4-- •i. I ' (U ^W«M anil l6. Via, ««p.w.«eali ,• ^ •I r-> V T \ / i::- • ' ■ . [ '■'ft ■ * :::\^ • '. ■ * } 4 #■. ■.w ',K%. .. • % il«' I -t f -'," va (",<>, I I n •■'' iV / , f -^.,**U»«^^ ,> ''J ' 'E^ >'i y ^> i"-)<-rr<^ ' ' " «if '^. ft V yh f • I ''♦ ' ' f''- •'■" « 1 • / . «■ }* / * • K "> . > ' T^,' -i- ■ ^ * # \ . ' .. • A • \ • ' •^» 1 ""* '■'i , * , ■i- " ■;, • V .' -Ai,: ._ ;■■ ' • ■ J .^■, •-■■-•/ // IMAGE EVALUATrON TEST TARGET (MT-3) A .f- ' ^ >. ?? ^ % ^- ■50 "^^ ■■(■ I 1.6 6" -J ■f "^ HiotogL ' apliic ^Sdences Coippralion 23 WEST MAtN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 145S0 (716)873^4503 i, *' %ffe^ m •V-,. , ■ >: , ■ ■ ■■.,.■.' • ■ , ; . . f ■ '' .' > 4 ■ »' } -.■ ■ .. ■■ t _ * f " > .-• ;• A * •■■■ ••.^,. ' • - ■ .,#■ - ' ■ - -I'" . ■■ ;■ . • • e ' ■ >'^ ;.■■■' y H ' • - V " ■ ■ . ,/ •' ■ / ■ ...^. ■ 80 OhamiMgne COUR^DE CIRCUIT,' 1867. ^Boston. 1 ml i A John Boston EcnJer,Sh6nTdudto^^ ■: « -"r::::^i^:!:Tsr* - - -- do Mon... .. " dans et pour Jo dit d3 do Mo„ "n"" ^'^ ^"«^'^° ^''^ ^'^ ^a Majesty "G^oh-er.do la pr Jr olln^lM . ^ ?*^" -*^sus do Tho^a, McGinn. "Statut fait et pouTu e„ron '''''"""'" ^"'^" ^«^^«™''^ d" " pay6o au dit No Irt Ch^nnl ' '' ''"''"*' ^- gourde dun,oisdWt,mi, h«it cent } ' (Sign*,) Louis G. Lafontaine," ^ dit^efdTSXnel'"'?""^'^^^ Demandeur en rej'o ne etT ' T™'" '^ '^P*^'"'^'^ ^*^"'«'' (^«^«)- P« '« ' Demandeur par ^e "lire de mI T k"'" '^ P"*'*' '^'^ ' ^* '^^"^^'^ <*« duction du dft ordre « . ° '' "^^ '^"'■^*^^' N'^^''^^' «' '« P~- -au du d t fit; a^^^^^^^^^^^ r '" r^!"^^^ ^--' (1«^«). - dit ba- le D6fendeur aUet Ilo«. f f l^f"' '" P"'""'"* ^" •"'*"*«°* d» dit ordre, au co6t du dltprlXlfr *"^^^^^ ^'*^ somme,- qui' jointo de seize litl tre^che^^^^^^^^^ 7 T" "'^* '''^""^ ^^"™"^ ^-™« '« -">-« m6rite dWoi du dZh '"'' ^'T'' 'i''' '« ^«™-de«r est Gen fond6 et unmoisdeclnLer^T^^^^^^^^^ avoir, au moins. savoir ; lo sept de E de IX^ ^ '" """' ^" '*?'^«'"P'^o'- '» P'^-nte. conform^mont » la ^et au Z.i f . V ^" ''" ^"'' ^'"' ^' '* P'*^*"'^ «««'>°. damfrX n! n "■■ ''•"''"' ^ «^ ^"« '« ^^^-deur es.qualit6 soit con- ^, l^..ndeur plaida : « qu., n.st pas ten„ au ;!^r i/Cl^I;! * m6e; que comma sh6rif il n'est quo d^positaire de denies purretl J « retttiZt f " ^"""^^S^" ''""«""' '* P^^'-*^- tlxe dr'Demr detir est mjuste et la somme reclai^ee exorbitante et nullement en rapport avec les ouvrages all6gu6s avoir 6te faite, et que d'aiUeurs les JlUX dn " Demandeiir sont faux et mal fimd^,." ■ '^ aiiegufea du COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1887. JL. 81 La preuve ayant 6t6 faito J la cour d6Souta le Demandeur de son action mec OtampHn* ^*P«°f- . , ■ BoJfco. Le jugoment est inotiv6 comme suit : ' La cour apres avoir enteridu les parties par leure avocate examin6 la pro- '. % c6duro et lea admissions produites et avoir sur lo tout d61ib6r6 ; considirant que le-D6fendeur on sa qualit6 de sli6rif n'ost que le ^^positaire des deniera • publics, ne peut Otro tonu en cette qualit6 onvers le Demandeur pour la crianco qu'il peut avoir contre le gbuvernemont provincial pour les services, par lui lendus, ainsi qu?aII6gu6s dans la d6claration, a d6bout6 et diboute la dite action avec depoDs. Pichi el Privoit, pour le Demandeur. Oumc/ji/bnncfifafcAanrf, pour leD^endeur. ' • F. B. L. BN APPEL, # DU DISTRICT DE MONTREAL. *• QUBBBC, y JUllLET. IW. 1 r. Coram ^iB. L. H. Lafontaikb, Bart., J. C, Atiwin, "J., Duvai, J., Cabok, J. Na 176. SLACK, Demaiufeur ^ « qu'au contraire le D6fendeur n'a p^ la jouissance de tout le terrain qu'il a « acquis dudit Fr6d6rick Stemm, tandis que le Demandeur a jouissance et -♦ " possession de pl us de terrain que ne lui en donnent ses titres. Que le D6fen- (1) La Cour d'Appel fut dgalement partagrfe snr I'espice qne present© cette cause et qui avait^ti^idnsid^cidje par la Cour Snp^rienip a Montreal. ' ^. r 'i f 1 pi ' ■'■' 1^*^ 82 COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1857. 1^ V ^ (n ^ « " « J"'«a» refu«6 de fa.ro mo«uror. borner et diviscr son terrain, et celui d« Dcmandour. qu'au contraire il a toujours 6t6 ct est encore pr6t de le faire A fra.*commun«, ma.s que le Demandeur no I'en a jamais requii. Que vfl ce que de^sus lo D6fendeyr no pout 6tre te-iu do payer les frais de »n^ r .'""• / '^''r*'""'' '' D6fendeur demandant acte de la d6claratioa - q« .! fait par fes prisentos; Qu'il est pr6t, commo il I'a toujour, 6t6 A iZ mesureret borner son terrain sus-d^cri^e; a itablir les borne, et ligne, 1 "?a ee U T'r?T'" I>— ^e-; le, dite, operations devront\ ^^ servant tout rocoyrs quo do droit contro son vendeur ou autros, suivant qu'il ^^ pourrait y avoir \nn, conclut A ce ent^ur ^urr^^^^^^^^^ Sola Torfutc r "°f '" "^'"'^^ «^''*'«^'^^- ^ it-; ta Wre 31 de I'ordonnance de 1667 (araend6) lors de I'enr6fft,tre««bt d« .«♦u finalement dec.dee par le tribunal devant lequel elle so pr^sente • efar.nn!r quemment I'Appelant 6tait non recevabie enL appj. P''"'"*' ' '' ^"^ *'°"^«- Quant au mfiritc m6me de la queation goulevAe par 1'Appela.t. il e,t ho« A. douta que les voisin, doi.ent proc^der au bornage 'de J hS '^^^^^^ 172, page 19. " ^^e bornage, c'e8t.4-dire,le placement de, borne, nouvelle, flu la rocon„a,s«.nco de, anoienno, pent ,e faire de concert ot ^1^7"^^^^^^^ « r^;r paf:ot2r-« ^"^'' ^^-^ ^ ^-^ -* •^^--p p'--^-. •« ^o„t ^i ^,^- nrrf- COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1867. M "En effet, lonqfA est question de mettre do nouvelles bbrncs, au ddfaut " d'anoiennos, ce born,ige pent 8'effoctuor de deux moni^rcs, soit do concert ' •• entro lea voiaina et par lour fait seulemenf, aoit avoc I'intervention de l'«utorit6 / ^jad^^iaire. \ " La facult6 de poser des bornes de concert, et aans rintcrvention do I'auto- V>t6^ud,cia.re,n'e8tpp8univer»eJleen France, et il existe dts coutumos qui Tinterdiseijt telies que Anjou, Art : 280 ; Maine, Art : 297 ; Loudun, litrSTer " Art. lOr'Tpuraino, Senlis, Ac, &o. ♦ ^Ermfemo Loisol, en a fait uno rdglo de ^roit : " homes ae mottont par auto- ' " nt6 de justice. Art 38 du tit. 11 du iiv : II (1).. Regie 256. « N6anmoin8, il ne faut prendre ces dispositions coutuh»i6ro.<., quo comme ■ ^' une exception au droit commun, 6tant certain que. (fan* ta,majoriU de la « France, ce homage priv6 est autori86 d'apres I'usage le bhu antique. " Beaumanoir en fait mention : -, , "Toutos gens dit-il, qui requi^rent borne le doivent avoir, et hien pouvent les parties so elles so accordent, bomer sans justice. Chap ; 30. page Vsi ^ " Bouteiller atteste la ra^me pratique. V ^ " S'ilavenait que parties fussent d'accord do ra^Nlfe et asioir borne entre eux, faire le peuvent, sans appclcr la loi no antrekl-oKs voisins, " Soinmo Rur hv : Icr. page 36G." Boutellier, Somrae, Ruralo, titic 67, page 306 -L-es parties peuvent clles-mfeme asseoir ^rnes; ,„ai,s ^ la homo ain,si mise, • n> aura nul ca.llet dessous, comme t6raolns d'e. hovins, pour ce que les ecV " vins n'y ont 6t6 appel^s." - i «». *c "Pardessus. •Trait6 cL servitudes ler..,|,I. no. 119. page jfoo. Tout bor- nage do.t n6cessairemen^ 6tre ordonnA par justice, s'il n'cst bfls consenti par tooted les parties ,ntcr.8s^8. Page 301." " Loi.q,re ces exports sent choisis volontairement par des parties capablesde^contracteretde disposer de lems - biens, leur mission e|t ordinairement d6teftniueo par I'acto de nomination cu , par les pouvo.rs qu'ils recoivent " No. 121, page 3*." Q„and I'objct du hor- nage est de provoquer un renouvellement do signes qui ont disparu, q„i ont 6te deplacfes^ ou que de toute autre manidre ou ^r^leud n'6tre|.a3 a la veri- table lun.te des propriet6s qu'ils doivent s^parer, et quand les parties sont' d accord, toute lop6ration consiste dans le fa^; materiel de ce placement «*' Nouveau D6nisart vo : Bornage, page 656, §3, No. 1. « Lefcomage pent so faire de deux raani^res ; 'par ordonnance du jug., ou 4 1 amiable, du commun consentement dps parties intiresseejs." Ibidem, No. 3. ' ^ . ' it ' Ainsi, le homage conventionnel existe «*-^'iild6^ndammeDt du bornage judiciaire qm est i'action do homage consideree simplement quant au droit aue deux propM6taires voisins ont de faire homer lours possessions respectives J Mais entend-on," disent les autours du nouveau D6niaart vo : bomagj, page 627^ No3,du4eme8ommaire5-|^rle droit d'intenter Faction en borm^e, (Ij "^oisel " dit M. Jales Minier, « A trop g^n^ralis^J ses id^Ses ; les maximes qu'll a pubh^es reproduiscHt souvent de. rtgles quln'dtaient que locales. kT ^,Tmb " Pr^cis-Hiatorique du droit Pran9«i8.'' "'»'«8> «c., page 696, , i—^' ,• ■'"""■•-1-... ■■■■■•-" i-A — ■■■ *' . ■■» — — Slack SteH. ■i \ u '.I 41' -t^' , €- Li^ * 84 C0T7R DIP BANC DE LA llEINE, 185^ Stack Short. « ■1 " le (iioit de demander qiie la posgession d'un propriitaire soit Iimit6e et borate " conform6mont k son titro » C'est une question d'un tout autre gonro, o'cst , " proprcmont la question de RavQir si on peut prcscrire au-dolA do son titro." L'Appelant n'flyant fait aucun genre de preuvo et s'en 6tant tenu k I'admis- siondo la contJguit6 dcs h6ritag09 quo comporto Voffro de i'lnlim^de bomer ci- deiaus rapport^e, a done nlors considdri son action comine une action en bor- nago pHrp et simple ddgag^e do tous sos accessoires, et n'ayant prouv6 aucun dos all6gij68de.8ad6claration,4partcofait.admi8, il dovait ndci-ssaiieraent 6tre condamn^ aux d6pens de Paction. L'action de I'Appelant 6tait vexatoirc ; il n'avait auCun int6r6t 4 la porter ; ct pour 6tal)lit cettc proposition 16galo, I'lntimd r6fere au trait* des actions par M.JPoncet, k la page lO?, No. 136. " On dit qu'une action est fond6c, lorsque la pritoniion, qui on est I'objet, a " pour fondoment, ou pour appui la justice, ou la loi." "Mais de ce qu'une action est ainsi juste nu fond, il nc s'en suit pas to'ujours *' qu'on soit admis k I'cxercer. Pour ccia en effet, trois conditions sont rigou- « reusement n^ecssaires, savoir : !<> la qualit<^, 2o I'int6r6t, 3o la capaciti. " A d6faut de I'une ou I'autre de ces conditions, ['action, quoique jUsto et " legitime, n'est point rcfcevabic en justice." ,, Et k la page 206, vo : 143 du in6me auteur. « De I'int6r6t." " 143. II ne suffit pas d'avoir qualiti, c'csta-diro pretention, ni6me legitime,' " pour 6fre recevable k figurer dans une instance judiciaire ; une scconde condi- " tion indispensable est d'y avoiynt6r6t. " On ne peut nier quo les discussions entro Ics citoyens nc soient plus on « moins jf fejudiciables ^ la paix et k I'ordre public. EUes entretiennent les. " ariimo*it6S et les haincs, dies peuvent cntraincr lii ruine des families; en un ^ mot, on Icsr considdre avec raison commre un mal que I'obHgation de fairo " justice peut seule jj^ndre ndcessaire. « Si Ton suppose done le plaidour sans int^rdt dans la cause, il no reste plus " aucun motif pour admettre scs reclamations, puisque rien ne balance de sa •^part rint6r6t de"la paix publique-qui s'opposo k toute discussion sans objet. "Ind6pendammentdecetint6r6t public, iiniiit6rfet particulier forme encore « obstade k sa prdtpntion, c'est cdui de son adversaire ; qu'il nk peut avoir " DROIT d'iNQUIETER BANS UIIUTfi POOR tUI-MEMK." Trait6 des fins de non recevoir par M. Lemerle, page 233. "D« actions susceptibles d'6tre d6dar6e8 noifa recev^bles comme tardives V oji intempestives,, bJenJqu'elles ne soient attdntes^d'auciine prescription pro- " prement dite. « II est des droits qui doTvent 6tre constates ou conserves k leur naissance, " ou leur ouverture^ ou avant un 6vdnement, soit par des r^damations, soit par " DE8 DiLiQENOES, ^e telle sorto que les actions qui en rfisultent ■»o«/ non reet- "vablet, quoique dfaiUeurs^es ne soient pas atteintcs d'une prescription pro- ** prement dite." J Dans son fM^baid I'Appelant 6non(ait ^nsi 8C8 pi6teQtionir u »vjrn7*t^' io 30ih of Hcptcrnber IHAfl rtu^ a h ', ~ ""^^ — ' — the homologation of'th. t^'k ilnT'T ''"T« P^'^'""'^ "^^^ f- final hearing) ,he Court bdow ^ „p h 7!f n ' « ' "." '"""''^•^ ^''« -"«« ''«' propounccl Judgment. homoIoL „? 1^ ^' "'"' ""^' •^'""^^'«'' J'""^"^ n.-ingan,ofth^cond.ionT^;2 trfo^^^^^^^^^^^ ""'' ^^"•*"'' ^'^ pay tho eoH.8 of ,ho Action. Appellant, condemned the Appellant to mont-was, thatth^ Anlllant had nn! ' °^ '"'"^^'""g *»'« J"dg. tion. summoned the iJ^etto^.^^^ /;;::'^"' ^ ^"« 'T'^"'--«^ "'« aI -j:::t:::^it:::C^^^^ V* -« --- th,ft could defeat this Action L^W 11' '''•"'':' '*'""*"'' ""*^ *»•« 0"'^ P'e» Tha.. inasmuch a, trAZi^ ""^"'''''"^ ^°""^«"^'« «t''' viHiblo. ' ^ ' neighbour to draw^inerprevo'tolrinr^ 'T' '"^ """""- ^^ been condemned to pay.osts but ha f f T' '" "'«'" "«^ *<> ^^ve to the Respondent, .he Ju g ne o , ' To T" " /'"' '"" "''^^^ ^--'-^o costs-of the Action betwee.f th ;L ! ^^^ ""'[ ''"' '''''' ''- .no., rule where both parties co„sen{ to th' iX/.; "''"'"^'' '« ^'^^ ^- Each party ,s both Plaintiff and Defendant • enTh a ■ " "Pon his hmd by the pther. And it is manifL f f^*"^ "" ^''-^o^el'ment the «-,.ondenthadencr<.achcdup n t JZ^^^^^^ P'- that exidnt, andthiirboin.rft fact in is«li .P'''"''"'^ « considerable the Respondent o,,hrt:;:VL:i::^^^^ i '^^' ^^p^"-t. It is submitted that th'o only way tirResl. , 7 ?f ''° T ^^f^""""'- by notifying the Appellant of'^.uTe^LlT T ' "'"'r'^ *^^"'^ »>« the return of the Action into Court "' ' ' " '"^T' P'-^^''*'"' to Duval ^taient pour le maintien T W^^^ t C ''t "'"T ' ^^ '« ''"S« - et ^ h^o^bles Juges Aylwin et CaT^^Lr IoI^jS^S,^'^^ ^""^""^' -S. ir.2>ori»a», pourPAppcllant. "™ation. . Za/r«iayc «fc />ff^,„, pour l'lntim6. . (1) Vide, 2 L. 0. Reports, page 486, Weymes. A Cook. r* It. Xf, Slack Short ( 4'. I '%>. ^ 1, o ■MMT I 1 Mf A 'i ■ll I ;: 86 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1857. ? ,1 [; / (IN APPKAL FROM THB DIBTBICT OF QUBBKC.) * MONTREAL, Sra OCTOBER, 1867. Coram Avlwin, J., Mxriditii, J., Short, J., Baoquit^ J. , ' No. 89, ' Tfi' Queen Appellant, v. Cornte et al, ReiipondehU. BeU. 1. In tho cane of a j(«ner«l hvpothtqut,, dittlaR m hr back aa 1818, and claimed In nsapcot of land ■ituate In tlje County of Shorbrooko. and duly roRlHtored in acoordaiioo with tho provUiona of tha R43g(itry Ordinance 4 Vlo. cap. 30. that tho want of roRiitra,»lon during the period that the 10 and 11 Goo. IV. cap. 8 waa In force cannot bo Invoked, without averment and proof that the debtor hold the land whilit that itatute waa In force. t. That a hypolMqua duly created during the lifotlmo of tho debtor may bo preaerved by rcaiatnUlon afhirhlH death. * -t. wu a. That kvpoiyqut$ Uoaltt tire not exempt fh>m roglitratiun under the 4th lection of tho Redatra tlon Ordinance 4 Vic. cap. 30. b • > This was an appeal from a judgment of tho Superior Co^rt, rendered at Quebec on tho 17th of February 1852, dismissing a contestation fyled by the Crown to a judgment of distribution, by which the respondents were collocated in preference to Her Majesty. The claims of both the appellant and the respondent wore general Aypo,, thiques, the latest of which bore date in 1826. The monies which formed the subject matter of dispute were tho proceeds of certain immovable property situate in tho County «f Sherbrooke, where the statute 10 and 11 Geo. 4, cap. 8 was in force, from 1830 until the coming in force of tlie Registry Ordinance 4 Vic. cap. 30, and by tho second clause of thU statute it waa enacted : "That fron^and after tho passing of this Act no aot or deed in law, or instrument in writing, by which mortgage or i^ypotheque was or is created, sliall bind or affect aa a luoitgngc, incuinberance or kypothique any immovable property situated within the counties aforesaid, unless such aot or deed in law, or instrument in wjiting, bo duly enrogisterod in the manner hereinafter directed within iwelvc months next after the pacing of this Act;" but no allusion is made in this statute to the necessity of registration on the part of the Crown. The Respondents failed fo register their hi/jjotM^uis during the period that the statute above referred to was in force, but duly enregisfered tho same with- in the delay prescribed by the Registry Ordinance. The Crown abstained from registration altogether, o Under these circumstance the Respondents were collocated in preference to tho Crown, and the report of collocation was accordingly contested by tho Crown on the ground mainly that the hypotMques of the respondents were inoperative,* for wanti: of registration during the period prescribed by the 10 and 11 Geo. 4 ch. 8, that the estate of tho debtor was vacant and insolvent at the time of the registration under the 4 Vic. ch. 30, and that tiie claims of the Crown being a"" hypotoiqueligalcy,^^ not liable to registration under th^povisions of either ' the statute above referred to or the Registry Ordinance. ' , < ■«'„■ •\ S *';^-1^-'Ti(r^-^.Tf . COTOT OF QUEEN'S HEWcn, UM. . „ ..II, for i„„„e, du,by l,ta ^ l,.,r»t Lri^ „' "«""" *' J"'" C«W- Comto, on the ground that tho hyuotliecarv rl«im. r n . ^ "»<** "Ppocant registorecJ. .b raquirod by tho provi" ons ^ tC U ^^ ^T '"^ '^" ^^'^ .C.30; where«,nV«gi«trLon wTal rh^ bJoa rd7o?;r^^^^^^ '^•"' " owwn. " "*''"' '"■d« o' "'« claims of the Th? judgmoni thus rendered hm been imnn^,., i i .1 , ft^wnlon Boveral grounds. '^ *^ "' ''^ *''" '«^ officer, of the /In tjhefirstplacfl.itisoontendod thatftHth«lo„i • 4e County of Sh.rbrooke. thatZ noUr^I dcJls "" "I'f " "^ """'»'«<^ '" opposantCointe is founded, became altlJllr ^'" ''^'"'' '''^ ^'«™ «f tl.e -quence of their not ha^ b^ re£^^ months f.om the passing of tife 10 and T J ' V 1* s""'' '^'"''" ^-'- provisions of that statute ««o. iv. oap. 8, as rofjuiied- by the ^p..rapo„ .h. t^ of U.r^tXl Sir J I *^",1'''"' '' <"«"»»' foiw Th,.M,.„p,pp,^fc,„^„^,„^^^ ««"«•»• IV. 0. 8 »«i.ip mentionod .„ i„ foZ ' '" ''""""'"»'■''""» "-tuto Xe.d| «lji.dic.ed .poo in ,h, „.r »« t, tto'Z T '?""; !.° '"*'' ''*" '"'""Jlr D.vid»„, defend.., ..d Hon^m«k,'°<5p^'° '^~«- """'». "• •'"t. E •.p: r .(!> ' rr. U' 1' 11: t' t T „„;lf_*/ -;v. \ 8S COUItT or QUEEN'S BENCH, 18fi7. t^t ViMQnMB V. Oomt* at •!. i 'i Tlio Jufl;;cH wore Sfr^ Ja'»o* J^tuart aiid Judj^oH Howon, Vmivi miuI hui^nrd ; and Olio of tlio poinU dccidid vinn lliiit n hypotliou not n>^iHtorL*d n* requirod by tlie provixioiiK of tlio 10 mid II (iuo. IV. <;. 8 wim void aa again$t »ubu- qutnt purchatcri for valuable eoniideralion, but not abmUuttltf void. Tho next point connootod with llio <|ueiition of rogiitriition to irtdch our attention was called l»y Iho loarnod ooiinnol for t!io (>'rown, in, that tho hyjjo- thecB of Mr. Cointo were not rogi»l«rotl until after the death of Sir John Oald- wcll, and it in contended that tlie rpgintrrtion of a hypothec againat tho estate of a person du<;cnKed cannot bo prorHtan(l, and authorities are nut wanting to c8tnbli«h, that the oreditm uf a vactant CRtato cannot nccpiire hypotliocn upon tho real property of the vacant entato to tlio prpjudico of each other. Uut I can see no rotnton for saying, and I know of no law or authority which requires nio to say, that a hypothec legally created during the life of a debtor, may not as Ifgnlly be. registered after his death. After the death of a doLtor, hix heirs may grant now hypothec*, and therefore it would seem most unroiisonnble to say that the death «tf n debtor a few days, or perhaps a few hours, after the creation of a hypothec should |)rcvent the crotlitor from tikiiig tlio*e mcaiiircs which may be nec'C'Sdry for tho preservation ofjtuidi hypothec. To d}) so, would in effect, in the cuao supposed, make tho rights of tho credi- tor depciulnnt upon the duration of the life of the debtor. Under the Code Civile it would Rccm thnttho inscription of a eluim cannot legally bo male against a Kueeeision vacanle, Troplong, P. «fe II., Vol. III. No. 059, but there is an important ditferonco between the French inscription and our cnrcgi«tration. Under tlie French system the inscription was ncces— < sary for tho perfect creation of tho hypothecary right, Troplong, Vol.- III. p. 1 1 ; whcrcns under our laws the enregi'stralion merely preserves a right which has already been created. I may aild, that tho provisipns of the CWe Civi7u on the suljc'ct have not received the approbation of tho most esteemed coininen- ' tators on that system. Troplong, for instance, speaking of the Art. 2140 of the Code Cii'tl bearing on this subject, says : — " Jt eat empreint d'une grande exa- geration et ia geniralite conduit d de» resultats que la rainon repoutse tria- aouvent ; et qui aontfen aula a&r contrairea d aa penaei primitive" Troplong. I'riv. % after re«.linff over which I then ,„«;i„. ""* ''"** ^ °"» •^^« -'ything ,„ the ob^rv^tion. J<>^n^ arroar* of tho conntitut d r „m-o! " "r ""'""' '•^'' ""'^« '»""' «^ need not, however, at l.a«t fo hrllt , '" '"' "'^I^'"'^'""- ThTn point the Court will not .ufflco to nav tl.r ^ ""*"'' ' ^"' "'« '"«"''y I'^fore year., .rrcar. of inJr!^^ 71 '.oX ":'"n":'^ ''^ "^P''"'""' ""<^ «- Crown tho lK,„oflt of the pr«,c2o„ ^f «! " '^' "'"' '" "'^'"' '« »'^« 'he b«cn nocoMary to have co„2 th^ ■^*'^" '""'""^•'"'' ^'^'' '^ '^"'"'l have nance whichltabliCre ^rt 1^^^^^^^^^^^^ for tho ordi! vantage of «a ayiV. d, „o„ r«ir " '' ' "^' '' '"'"' ^'^ ^'^"" '^ For those roasonH, therefore, after irfvinff to fh. .'i u '•" my power, I «,« no roH«on ford! t.S. ^^ ""' '^''^'^ conald^ratipn A» the judgment of thia Cou^ t^"'f !" !"''^'""'* '^ t^^^i^Hlelow. ^rtofdistr1bution^;io.o^ U^^^^^ the |nakingthi.,r.er.ation iJ;::r':poTo7l^^^^^^^ °"' '^"-" ^- 'mportant question which is not rai^ an.l M r '^°'"" '" '"•*^«"» «» ""der the contestation already AM bv^ In ^ "'""'^' **« ^•««'"»«<1. Uuder the 3d section of S ^ Geo V 7;^"- ''" ■•""^• general- hypothecs created before the rl ''' r' V " '" "'^''* ''"'''"«*J. that valid as regarded lands «. ^^ A«S, " batrZ / "/ ""''' "'""'^ ^« <^— ^ m.o/.Aa^,.a.«,On free and ciont^^^^J'^^^^^^^ d^fnguisb between lands hold^n irfrerTnd^^io ' '"'*' "''''« "'"^"^^ f««««i7 0//A. ^c/. and those' to beiZZ,, T.T '^"'^' "''^ '''»* o/Me therefore, it is thought braol of '^10'; t *^ '^' ''"«-• 'fmay Conipte's claim is founded LTglejL^^^^^^^^ that a. Mr. allegation, it does not appear, even acctrdin; J h' ^ '^"'" *""* <>'*'that a valid hypothec. , '^o'ding to his own showing, that he has that l^^no Kad a A^^oTaL t^,^ .^t ;^" ^^^^^^^ «-- ^ « ^i-^Wbil allowed by law. OaV presentTud^" ' » • f " «^»"~''o» within the imo f-d by the oontestatio'TL': fb^^^^^ ^^T ^''"'''^ *° *»•« P^ " •mportance when we come tTthZ ' , ?^* PO'nt just alluded to may^e rf the Crown an opprnunrof bt^r^^*"*''"."''^* '"^^^ '«h tTafford nition of the CoVrt. ' ^""^"^ ^^ 'J"^*'"" fonnally under the considc^ .;.ji ■->' I - y ^.'1' ; ' t-.' ,' ?:' X I •1 •»i ■li ■t 00 BUPRRIOR COU|rr, IM4.. .^ HOKTRCAL 90 trOTIMlllll, IIM. . CWafu Smitii, J, VAirriUoit, J, Uomoilit, JL - No. 771, LAfLBVIk (AppaUiU.) ' v«. niRARI), iUUmi.) Juf«i, inr. Qnalalra Mir rimmnuhln n«lror' current mo^ey from the ^^ven^t ci^TrT" t*'""""'^*' ''•• *^- "''» inont «nd co.u of .uit." ^"""^T '^^ °' December 1848 until «ctu.l-pi.y. -^■^ ■ • , . ■ (Appel niiilntenu*) l^fr*nayt ,i Papin, pour I'Appel.nt. 1^. , . ■■■»■ . k. / MONTEBAL. SltT MABOII. MJrT-- ^'^'"" Dav. J. ; (Q.) Mo»p>«x. U.|, CuBOr. J. tlOACr— OOWDmO!!— VARIAWCii^ \ 'Si.- *^ -1» trill cf h,r fcll,.r, a, l.to kS v.. v^.rT",: ?• '"««' ■ "«%" .. onto the pUinliU *• MmuU «im rfl»7L ^ I' W * omw to b« p.id . -..-..p-.orth.a.reoi^'jtrr'?:-::-:^^^^^^^ ■■•r •{ ..•:g,L: i I h' ♦ 'f ;*■- i:H 02 r ■# • ■ SUPERIOR COURT, 1867. ■*-. MUsh 8«7nuiur, ; ■ ^ . > ' ' I i ' it « , ; ••'* i * r #■ given to the plaintiff on qpndition that she was satisfied therewith ; but, in case she should, at any time thereafter, institute an action in any of the Courts against the executor of the Testator, for and in respect of the ontafc And sacces- sion'of the late Mary Mai|yin, in her lifetime the Testator's wife, or to disturb or interrupt the will by her made in favour of the Testator, that then and in suc^» case the said Tcstatpr did thereby revoke the said sum of £15 \m annum to the. said Jane Freligh, so ipade and given to her as aforesaid, anything therein fee- fore contained .tp the cotftrary in any wi*i notwithstanding, if any such action should bo made or instituted by iier during her natural life. That the plaintiff h»d not set forth said condition, or that she was satisfied with said legacy— rtor ' could she ; but, on the contrary, she had instituted divers actions against the • defendant as executor of the will ..f hef father, and as legatee In trust thereun- der for and in respect of the estate and «ucc€|ssion of said Mary Marvin, and to interrupt jJhd disturb the will of said Mary Marvin, and that the Plaintiff had violated and broken the terms and conditions under which said legacy of £15 per annum was given, and the defendant turret specifically cet up the acts and proceedings of the plaintiff, which ha complained of. . , , The second plea was, a plea of compensation. " ■ Lastly, the defendant pleaded the generat issue. Day, J. — By the documentary evidence of record, it has been abundantly proved that th» plaintiff has acted in contravention of the condition* of the will, on which the legacy was bequeathed, and consequently thai she has forfeited all claim to tile legacy. It is further to be' observed that the form of the action is bad Thq, legacy is set up in the declaration as an absolute one, and a con- ditional legacy is proved. This is not "setting up the legacy as it is in the will ; •and there is asjgreat a variance in setting up absolutely that which only exi^s , conditionally as if totally different matter had been set up. This is a fatal va- riance, and would of itself be sufl5cient to justify the disnnssal of the action. The motifs of the judgment were as follows : — \ ♦' The Cowrf&c, considering that the plaintiff hath failed to establish the mate- rial allegations of her declaration, inasmuch as she hath alleged an absolute Jkquest and legacy in her favour by the late Richard VanVliet Freligh, in his last will' and testament, in the said declaration set forth, of the annual sum of £15^ whereas by the said will and testament it. appears |;hat the said bequest and legacy was made 'upon condition that she should be satisfied therewith ; ' whic\,8iud condition the said plaintiff hath failed to allege or prove, and hath not declarcji that she is satisfied with the said legacy and bequest And further, considering that the said bequest and legacy was so made, as well upon the said condition at upon another special condition, that in case she, the plaintiff should, at any tune thereafter, institute an action in liny of the Courts of this Province f agaiti^iie executor of the said testament, for and in respect of the estate of the late Sla^ Marvin, in her lifetime tl\e wife df the said Testator, or to disturb or interrupt the Will and testament by her made and executed in favour of t^e said '"ll/Bstatoi^lhat then and'in;any such case, the Testator did revoke the said be- quest and legacy ; V and wat the'^plaintiff bp her action against the defendant, _inBtiitlltft d i" this Court an^ returned on -the first day of April. 18S0. and by her ^ mi \- -if--.-. In 8UJ»ERI0R COURT, 1857. plaintiff and the Bank of Montm^tL^^^^^ '^' ""** *'«^«"^'">t wi this Court, fylcd in a caurwl Lrth ."i;*; ""'^ "'^ ^^^ ^"^ ^PP^i^ion in ™an Buck 4, dofendanT-irth Zi elT f^^^T ""^ P'*'"*''^ -•» Fr««- not satisfied witu the said Huest aj"^^^^^^ that she was aotionsin a Court of this Sco l-fT^ ^!'^ '""^'^^'^^ *" «'«o»and «.id last will and tostana n^rand 7nrl : tV*'*"'*"^ ^"-^O' of-«>e the said late Marv Marvin mainTaLn.r" °^ ^' *"^"'« «"^ '"«*««ion of cause firstly pleaded. doU 1X^1^^ 7'7*'"u '' '''' '^«^«"'^*»t in thir and violated the conditions up n wlhthf '^^^^^^^^ -ade to her, as aforesaid. andTrelt el Ll^^ ?^^^^^^ '"'^ ^^^^^^ *«« »^ '.-ore.verthesa.o.anddi::::rs:::^^^ Crota <& Bancroft, for Plaintiff. Actbn dismissed. ^^'Cf Robertson, (ox h^fmAmi. "'jL'^ ' - m (F.W.T.) as for example in actions on policies o7Sl«!f, ? *'''' """' 5'«°" '«> "w Oonrt. cies, although some of them 'onSonJ^^^^^^^^^ '^^^^^ *'"' "f'"-"^" of the p"S and precision required in the English 0^^.^^ , ^"^ '"*^"*'» ''*»» the fulness MONTREAL, 31bt OCTOBER, 185». Coram Dav, J., Smith. J, Mond.lbt, (C.) J. No. 2619. ' ^l* i>enu vt., Grenier dk vir. witrei'iThro^tTe ri^v:^^^^^ ''*^ ^-- --^-«^« . san^epart, to g.Ve furthefSeet L^C^^^e'e T'?^ ^^ *'"' objected to a motion was made to reject k" nn^ ?*^°'' *""»« ^^ d.p«ili„, i. dMk,.«r ^ *° °'°''°" " "»«• "« "itoW .^ Motion rejected. ' . f ^<"*» <* CToswon, for PliSntiff. (/^ ^ ' ^"-^ft^^^Vfor Defendant. ' . . - V. , ^i ■ ' ;■ t! •' 'ri ^ ■ ! I •■I 1 Vnlith Bejnueiif, :* - 1 f 1 1:"! !'(!■ **7* j / ' 1^ nffn ^ aamatt I ill I i) T ^f I • / 04 SUPERIOR COURT, 1867. "nr \ MONTRBAIi, 318T OCTOBBB, 1887* Coram Day, J., Mondelkt, (C.) J., Bajdolky, J. _ No. 679,' Dubois vs. Oaulhier.^, Held •.—In an action by detkult for rent, whore new conclusioni arc reaerved by the Deolaraflon, In respect of rent accriiiift, tliat such new conclusious may be taken, without aervlce thereofon thw '■- -detondant. This was an action fot the recovery of JE23 lOs. of rent, {ind by tho.declara- lion, reservation was made to take new conclusion for the accruing rent. The Defendant having made default, an««• iJoy, for Oppt. and PIff. I^n/awe, • ■/■■ ;■ ■ it f Sa^ ?! Flf rr^ i 'h I > 06 ;t ^ '« « '» ■,^^ SUPERIOR COURT, 1867, A /. '■ i i . "■ — j/ r ■ .^ /' ^'■ MONTREAL, 38th NOVEUBER 18S7. . Coram Mondblkt, (C.) J. ' No. 360. Falardedu vs. Couture, ■ Hda, In Ml utlon for damagoa In ooniequence of llkintlirt ohll^ being lereraly bitten by Defondant'i ' doR whioh WM trmined uid kept m % flgliting dog ud luffored to run unmiiisled, tlut eiemplwy dsnu^ will bo awarded. This was an action for tho f ecovefy'of damages, in consequence of the De- fendant's dog, which was declared and proved to be a bull dog, and to have been trained and kept by the DIfendant for tlio purpose of fightiqg other dogs, and suflfered to run unmuzzled, having severely bitten tho Plaintiflfs child. The only special damage proved was the doctor's Bill, which amounted to £4 10s., but owing to the fact that the Defendant kept a dog of the character above mentioned, fot the purpose of fighting, and suffered him moreover to run nmmuzzled, the court assessed the damages at £25 'Cy, Leblane and Ca'sidy, for Plaintiffd. / >7l J/1 e«;an/in«, for Defendant- / ' I8.B.] - \ I \- . #' to pronounce UONTBEAL. SSt^ DECEBIBEB. 18S7. ' Coram Smith, J. ' -.J^ •" ' No. 16SB. Turner v. Boyd, Held,— That in tho absence of the original reoovd it ii not competent for the peremption d^inrtaiye. Smith, J. — ^Thi§ is a motion enpiremption d^instanceand has beenWisted by the Plaintiff on the ground, that the original Record is missing and has been so for a long time. It was contended on the part of the defendant, .that the certificate of the Pro^onotary, tolhe effect, that it appeared by the re^sters of the Court that no proceedings had been had during three years was sufficient, and that the absence o^ the record was perfectly immaterial, and in support of this view, reference #as made to the cases of Chapman ct al. v. Ayleta and Qore V. Gugy,* but the Court thinks they are not analogous. In the ^sases referred to, important( exhibits and pleadings were missing from the record) but the Record itself, although incomplete, was before the Court, but here \the Court has no Record whatever, and is called on to tase a judgment solely \on the certificate of the Prbthonptary that such a Record once existed and that proceedings have been had 'therein during three years. The motion must rejected. ^, .... -J \ " Motion rfijected. BUakley d: Andrews, for Plaintiff. ^^ / £«fAun« <^ i>unihn, for Defendant. ^ ., * / \{8.B.) ^ ■• ■ * -. .-" ; : ■ -' •■ ■, 4 • Vide page 264 o^the Ist Vol. of the Jurist. '■ . r ■ ■%.'■ superior/ COURT, 1867. Hi-^ 97 HONTllBAL, Wth NOrittBBB, 1887. Coram I^ondblkt, (C.) J, ^ No. 1194. Filiatrault v. The Orand/Trunk Railway Company of CaLda. Held.-In •n^.otlon by » tutrix to minors for d«ina«M. in oouequenoe of the dertlA>f their IktW ^ through tho negligence of tho Defendant. th»t tho demud U .ubject to the ploriSofolSI Thfa wai an action by a tutrix to minora for the recovery of d/im^ges, in con- sequence of their father having been killed by an accident on the railway, which was alleged in the Plaintiffs declaration to hare occurred th^ugh the nerfect of tho Defendant. The Defendant pleaded a difeme au /oniia en droit, on the ground that the action was prescribed, by the lapse of a yea/, as shewn by tho allegations ofthe declaration itself. / The Court sustained the demurrer and the action was dismissed.* Sabrevoit DeBleury, for PlaintiflF. * ,/,Car/iVcft^«./A«fo/, for Defendant. . . (8.B.) — MONTREAL 28th DBOEMBER, 186T. CoroTO Smfth, J. No. 1037. "~ ' JEx parte Brodeur, for Certiorari. A ^: flea-ThjU where » cMe hM been heard before .nd taken ir» drfWfrrf hy two oommtoslonenf^^ of«n.Uc««..ltI.tacompetentf6ro«« ofe«htwooon«nl«loner.to«^£3S^n£!;,!^ Thisjras an application for a writ of certiorari from a judgment rendered by the commissioner's Court for the Parish of Ste. Anne de Varennes. The affidavit of circumstances set .forth amongst other things, that the case - had been tried befbre and taken en dilibirihy two Commissioners and that one of Such t*o Commissioners alone -rendered judgment therein against the present Petitionef, the other Commissioner being absent . Smith, J It was contended at the argumcAt that where one Commissioner could hear the cause one could decide, but the jurisdiction in the present in- stance was Jiot originally assumed by one Commissioner alone but by two and then one of such two Commissioners affected afterwards to have powir to render judgment alone. This of course cannot be and the writ must consequent- ly be allowed. ^ Ottfnw/, iform e< iforcAaiM/, for the Petitioner. Cherrier, Dorion et Dorim, for the Justice. [8.BJ "* " ji. .^- '# \ .^>., C^ r «ir ,:> I\ I t 9^ K' SUPERIOR COURT, 188?. \ MONTRBAL, »th NOVBMBBB, 1867. Coram C. Mokdklbt, J. Na 1888. Torrance et al. v. Thomai. I;* ArrACHMltNT UKDEK n7TH Art. OF C6uTUM«— Motion TO Quash. tlclMJuit tho loKrilty^of an attachment under tho 177th Article of the Custom of Pari, cunot bo tried on a motion to qiush tho attachment. cannot do The plaintiffs cominencod tlieiractiou against tho defendant on the 0th No- vember, 1867, to recover £715 H lid. cy., value of 85 half-chestd of young- hyson tea sold by them to the defendant. The declaration alleged the sale and delivery of the tea; that the defendant, in adknowlodgmont of the price, had given him twq several promissory notes, the one payable on the 6th November, 1867, for X367 lOs. ild., the other payable on. the 6th January, 1868, for £367 1 Is. r that the defendant had failed to pay the first of said notes, although duo and demanded ; that the said 85 chests of tea were still in the possession of the defendant jn the original packages and unbroken, and in the name state and condition iji which tjiey'were when so sold anrl delivered ; that the defen- dant was then insolent en Hat de diconfiture, and unWe to pay his debts, and that the whole price of £715 Is. lid. was therefore cxig\le ; by means whereof the Plaintiffs, without the benefit of a writ of attachment under the 177th ^'articre of the Custom of Paris might lose and be deprived^ of their privilege and hen npon the said goods, and might lose their said debt and sustain damage. ;' \ The conclusions of tlie deplaration were that a writ of taitie o^ attachment under the l77th article} of the Custom of Paris might in due course V law issue to seize and attach tho said goods or so much thereof as might be h the pos- ^ssion of the Defendant, in order that the same might be forthcoming to abide the future order and judgment of the court, that the Defendant might be sum- moned to Xavc the attachment declared good and valid, and thereupon eon- X demned to pay and satisfy to the Plaintiffs the sum of £1\6 Is. lid., with in- ' \terest on £367 10s. lld».from the *5th November, and on £257 lis. from th6< 6th January ; that the godds so seized might be identified as the goods so sold and delivered by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant, and be declared liable and subject to and affected with the said privilege and lien of the Plaintiffs thereon, as the vendors thereof for the payment of the said sum of £716 lOs. lid., and intiBrMt3d_coste,^d that the said gopds so to be seized arid attached may be - -Ofdered to be sold in due course of law' and the proceeds thereof paid over t6 the Plaintiffs, under and by virtue of the said special privileges so given to them by law, and by preference to all others the creditors of the Defendant in ;r satisfaction wholly or in part according to their sufficiency of the said debt, . interest, and costsi The Plaintiffs sued out a writ of attachment u[)on afiidavit, in conformity with the alleg ations of their declaration , a nd sixty che s t s of the \a ». w o r ^ n f . f .a /.T.nd ■oJilD consequence. \ th& Defendant appeared bjCjittoruey on the return day, and on one of the 8UPEM0R COURT," 18«7. flrit .layB of tho November term moved to quMh the attachment, Btating sereral grounds which in .ubetanoe attacked tho legality of ' the ,aUie emmrvatoire resorted to by the Plaintiffli. > P«if Curiam. The Court is of opinion with the Plaintiff that the process adopted m th,s cause cannot be attacked by motion, which is borrowed from ' !'.m"*v1 rT'r J?" P'""''**" ^"'''''^ '^*»™ *« English Courts should / »1 1 j!f u ^^"^'^ '^"" ' ^"' ^* P""^"* '" «" «""™'y French proceeding, under the n7th article of the Custom which is in force in Lower Canada. ^ 1 toe judgment dismissinjg the moUon is moHvi as follows : "The Court, considering that the Plaintiffs have in this case proceeded under the operation of tho n7th article of the Coutiimc de Paris, which is in Ir ^JZ K ^'^*^^«"«'*''"'<» »>» i" »o way or manner been abrogated or modified by the Provincial ordinance of 1786 or 1787, nor by any law sub- jecting such process as that issued in this case to the practice which, in and by the Courts of Justwe in Lower Canada, has been tolerated or sanction^, to wit, of moving for the quashing of writs of attachment or capiat ad responden- dum, for want of a legal or sufficient affidavit ; considering furrier that the process issued m this cause professedly under the 177th article of the Co««bw > de Fan, cannot and ought not to be questioned or attacked , by a motion, but by an exception in the usual course o( procedure, it being the legitimate mLtter" of a Jin de non proeMer, doth reject the defendant's motion with costs. ir,^ ^ », . . Motion dismissed. Tbrranc* <£• Jfi>m, for Plaintiff. J?o»c tfe Jfon* for Defendants. . CF. w. T) * , . MONTTREAL, S7th PEBEUABY, 1888. ^ CoroTO C. Monde LKT. J. - No.l38>. Torrance et at. V. Thomaa. "^ Ju21''m'DS'r:.^-7 been stated at p. 98 of the p«sent volume of the S"Lr^ ^ .T. ^"1 ^-"^ "* *'•* "'*'^'^''°*^ *^« P'*'-*'* proceed- ed ex parte. The defendant admitted the sale and delivery, the insolvency, and inscribed for hearing on the merits. P™ »^ '""^^ Hie judgment was as fblldws: -J . ^ J ^Itis c. «d for which Z«mK the date, Mo^itre.1, 2d June 1857. the one for the «^£367 lOa. llT^ VamBMMai, fs ■). ' I % -n 1 h iA I 1 v; 1 \^ M ; - h ^'\ SUPERIOR COURT, 1887. Sir' >< fomuimetal Thomac currant niondj>,. payable five montlw aftor date to his the Defendant^ own order It, at tho Hank o^ontreal, an.l ondorHed by the Defendant and delivered to the •»-/ PlaintiffH, nndMJio otlier for the ruiu of £367 Hh. Raid curreftr^ney, payable ■fcyen- months .«lcr date, to the order of hitn the said Defendant, at the Bank of ■ontreiil, and b^ tho said Defendant endorsed and delivered to tho Plaintiffs; with interest upon tho said sum of je387 10s. lid., the amount of the said firstly mentioned note from tho fifth day of November 1857, date of the matu- rity ofthii Haid first note, and on tho sum of £357 lis. saW current money, amount of the note secondly above mentioned from tho Sth day of January 1858, the date of the maturity of tho said second note, and costs of suit, rfit- traita in favor of Messrs Torrance and Morris, tho attornics of the said Plain- VgAiffs. And the Court considering that it appears in evidence in this cause that at the time of tho seizure made in this cause of sixty of the said eighty-seve^ half-chesto of young-hyson tea sold as aforesaid, that th®e said Defendant was insolvent en itat de diconfiture, and that the said sixty half-chests of young- hyson tea were then in his possession in their original packages- and unbroken, doth declare the attachment BaiaU made in this cause of tho said sixty half- chests of young-hyson tea good and v<)id, and doth declare the same liable and subject to and affected with a privilege and lion in favor of tho said PlaintiflBi thereon as the vendors thereof, and it is oftlered that the said Atiy half-cheett: of young-hyson tea so seized bo soldyn due course of law & the proceeds thereof paid over to tho said Plaintiffs by special privilege ftod mpitsference to all the other creditors of tho said Defendant, in satisfootion of tta present judgment in whole or in part, according to their suflScienoj. ' ; /r^ ^ »^ - i. T>. - -«. JudgmeMfoiir Plaintiff. ro*rance *fe i/bm*, for Plaintiffs. . i2o«e <& i/bn/t, for Defendant. (P. W. T.) The plalntiffrelied upon the following authorities:. ' Domat, Lois Clvlles. lib. 4, tit. 6, sec. 2, n. 3i p. 326, fol. ed. Pigeau, Proc. Olv. 1, 466. - i » r , Ronreeaud de la Combe, Recueuil de Jurisprudence, p. 602, 2nd col., p. 603, Ist col. ^"SA ?r'* ^o"™"" ^« '* France, torn. 1, 423; tow. 2, Ut. 8, des ExeeuUcoa, nos. 78, 80, 84. "■ Brodeau sur Louot, art. 177, p. 436. PerrWre, Dlctlonnaire de Droit, p. 817, 1st col., verb. Jlmndfca/um. ~ 7 Toull. 739. ,- Pothler, Vente. , , Despelsses, 1. 28, 29. i • - > Lemaltre, Coftt. de Paris, art. 177. » »■ , "* Grand. Oo&t., torn 2, 1340, 1339, no. 4. , ' - ' ► '-' McOlure T. Kelly et al., in appeal 1829. Rev. de Leg. '3y 126, 127. r,,^,^Jl^' ^1 B; Montreal, Dinning et al. v. Young, *Btble. Oct. 1836, DriscoU for Plaintiffs, and Walker for Defendants. • No. 2406, K. B. Montreal, Scott et al. t. Dodge, retble. 19th Oct. 1830, judgmeni' ueparte rendered by the Oonrfc composed of 0. J. Reid and J. RoUand and J. J^*«. of date the-14th April, 1831 ; DrbcoU, for Plaintiff; and De Montigny, for Defendant. A ^^- ?P1' K-B. Montreal, James Fox et al. v. Thomas M. Smith et al., judgment ren- dered 18th Feb. 1837, the Court composed of 0. J. Reid, AniPyke,Rolland,*ai OaU, ' t:J"?*'?^8' Messrs. 'Buchanan k Andrews, for Plaintiflfe, and Walker, for DefendMt! T hi s la st w a s a keenlT co n te s t ed a q it , but th a PUintlffh got jndg ms nt in thei rfkrorr So. 6Yl,17T5. Montreia, Chance et al. t. Henderson, A. D. 1856. This action waa dismissed/aitfe depreuve the 22nd Maj^ 1866, the Court composed of MM. SmUh mal Foa^efooff, Justices f Cross It Bancroft for PlaintilBi, A. k gt. Robertson for Defendant. \ '' ) ■' - ., - ..- -' ■ . . ■, , -\ . ..■ . . . y ' SUPERIOR COURT, 1888. 101 (*■ liOKTRBAL, a2ii» FEBRUARY, ISQS. ' ' Cbraw C Mo»D«tiT, J. No.ie4S. Sinclair v. Ferguion. ' '. No.1658. • • Rohertaon el al. v. Ferffuton. MilU tt ai. V. Ferguxm. VcNDOR's PRmLKOK. "* wh„*h^!.!Il!! '""«°'. '*"'"*.°" '^" "■"• ''^'•' -^ "'vondioat. la tho h«uU of the Tende, ^A Th.t .^T^ T""" '"*'""*' *'"• ««^ previously delivered. S J2«7^^J.t^" '*^'ri'"° '" ■""" «»«' -nv bo »«do at tho Sherir. Offloe. (7 Goo. 4. C. 8.) ShL ThrtM.ffld.vlt U not a« rigueur In order to obtain • Writ of wvendlcwlon In .uch 7 Tho8o three suiU were issued under the 177th Article of the CduUtne de ^^, and claimed thereby a privilege, which, previous to the Bankrupt Act, 7V1C c.10,8. SO.wassoraetimes asked for in the Courts of Lower Canada. Tie plaintiffs set up tho sale and delivery of merchandize on a term of credit to the defeodants-that subsequent to the sale the plaintiffs became insolvent- hat in ^consequence of the insolvency, the debts became due-that tho goods they sold, or a greater part of them, still remained in the defendants', po«soH8ion. and, therefore, they prayed to be allowed to retake possession of the goods they had sold, and recover judgment against the defendant for the value of whatever portion of the said goods as may not be found in the defendant's possession at tne time of the seizure. i/acra« a^d (7arter for defendant, urged, among other objections :- 1. That the affidavits upon which the writs, issued were informal. " 2. That the writs were defective* 3 That the 177th Article of the Custom of Paris did not give the vendor of goods, sold on a^term of credit, the right to revendicate. 4 That the privilege given hy this article of the Custom was lost to the vendor If the goods were not eniotaliti, in an enf«ety, at the time of seizure. 6 That the service of the declarations at the Sheriff's office was insufficient. F<^ham, for the Plaintiffs, in support of the sufficiency of the writs and de- elarations maintained : — I. That the privileges montioned by. the l76th and 177th Articles of Coutume . ^«'^*«f« not new privileges introduced, but simply the application of a privilege which had always existed in the la^s of France (and which had its origin m tlie Cimmis«»y Poet of the Roman law) to cases where otherwise it fflay be supposeiisnch privilege would not apply. U. That under the 177th Article of the Coutume de Paris, the vendor has the choice of three things :— 1. If the goods sold be under Bei z ura a t the 8 uit . i>f ft nntl. A r nr n Hif^., h a co uH ^ r - Il ' ■ ,•?, #- I s f- en ,t i 'I ^r. «' Tl + t I''' t f r ! M ti by opposition, claim to be paid the proceeds of tbrSe^Athese goods, in pre- ference to all other creditors of the purchaser. ||P !>. II 102 SUPERiOR COURT, 1858. ;• . IlDbertaon et al. \ f •: 2. But, ir fho good, remain in tbe-unf»eM|on of the purqhaMr the v«ndor coulrf .uo out an att/ichmont seiziiiff tl.o go,Kl.,,ttn.l anking thoni to b« Kol.J, and ()i0 proceed, thereof given to him by upecia! privilege. 3. Or, he hrtd, in wldition, another privilege, which, though it may not have been acted upon,rftill existed by our law, namely, the right, when the merchan- diw romama in tlio undliturbod poiiaeH«ion of the purchaser, who has become Inw.'viil, to don- and back the good., or nuch of the goodivan may bo found in tho lK'f5ndnnl'' poswMion ; and at the tame time, to detnand that he bo com- IHjIltd to pay for hucIi of the aaid gpoda an may not bo foun.l in hi. poi.M)«,|on at I ho Mizaroii ' « - ' » III. Tliat by rtferenoe to the Ordinance 7 (;oo. IV. Cap. 8, it will bo aeon That the service of tho declarations in the Sherift'a office waa nufflcient. Mondelet, J., rondorod judgment. Thcac casofl wore of importance to the commercial corarouoity. They came before the Court on an |uuo raised by an Excq>iion a la forme. They had been argued will, groat seal and ability, arid ho bad given th«m a careful con- mderatioii. They were professedly taken nnder the 1 77th Art of tho Custom of Pans, anil demandetl repossession of morcbi*idi*e s6Id on a term of crtsdlt, in consequence of the insolvent of the purobaaer. The Affidavits, Writa, and Declarations had been mot by the Defendants with Exe«ptim$ a Utfortne. Tho first question which thus aro^ waa— la an affidavit necessary in such, cases f He held ^faat it was not. These articles of theCuatom of Paris were in foU force. They were not.affocted either by the Ordinance of 1777, or hj the Ordinance of 1785, which required affidavits in suits issued under their provi- sipns. In France he could not find that any affidavit was required ; and, there- fore, he held an affidavit to be unnecessary. As it was unnecessary, it would bo idle to take up any of the objections which had been urged against those made in the present suits. was, whether the present actions had The second question for consideration ._, ..„ . „ „^ been properly taken out under this 177th Article of the Custom ? He thought hey had. The Article applied to several cases. 1st. To the case where the goods sold were seized by another creditor, when the vendor cou|^ ask, by opposition, to be paid by special privilege the proceeds of the sale. 2nd. To the case where tho goods sold remained in the undisturbed possession of tho Debtor, where the vendor can seize the merehandize and aak that it be aold and the proceeds paid to hfm by special privilege. It was the jurisprudence of the country that the article applied to a third cawj, where the purchaser had become insolvent, the vendor can retake poesea- aionofgpods sold on a term of credit ' / / As to the question of the validity of the service x)f the declaratiotn bo held, that tBe service at the Sheriff's office was sufficient > - ^ Exceptions dismissed with cost • ) . The Judgment i^as as follow : ' ," / " The Court, Ac. considering that in and by fais Exception * i^fonif Wtbwctegefyl e d^ tho D e f e ndant hath ■^wiUlefa^^ ^ nori that the Plaintifl[s have omitted any e««ntial--formality in and previous to and ¥. \ - SUPEKIOR COUKT, 1868. 108 «d on the retnn, otlyekZ^ZTvl^f^.'^'', ml*, of the esluMWiment; this, haa d«mial^ hb.! ^"^^ ^8^*"^' ^^^ '«»«' »>••"» n«d*,.w«« oi nection with oM.er .J., or .Tt^eir l.;:^ le.rthrnTin'" T i« PWicribed in oth«r uniuM i. ,„.♦ /. j " ""v ^nt «n affldHvit tuchM .«ch «. the pr.1 Coll Itltr" '" " '"""-""'^ "'"' "" * P^-- of Ui« doc, ration i.n«cifviii»ll,n™.„ !• ,.*'' "T '*•**•) "«"■"=" . .h.ll li.,i ro.p„c,i,.7v S 1. I f ° °''°" "''4""'' «"' "' •"•• .rie •l..lM..veb.o„™«,,„ Jl,t; „'^,'^' :'j;\^^^^^^^^^ -I. the service of bucIi writ, if tha .«„.„ h ** '^'*^'' ""* "^' next after .uch 2^0 if he Z,!'' '""!'" ^^"••' o^ ^'^^'n oight d«,n service of .he wrTt o^^, Ic!. i7 " ""?' , '" '"'"'*'°" ' *"*' ^••«'«« ^l^o «H well a, of th7i:.«r tl 1 it Tr '*"? ''^ -^•^^-<^ing to law Co,..idori„ff furlher Z't '*""' «*""*' '"'"* ""^ •"'"'^i*^"*- ought not toC::;rrir::;rr;':::::^^ Doth dlHuiiHs the 8Hid )i:x(,oj)tion d lafwme Popham, fqr i'luintlff. ■ • - Monk k Macrae, for Di-fondant. ' - E Carter, Counsel. The der«ndata'i had prerlomly moved In .i- n CIUCUIT COURT. **<>NTaEAL. ISTH FEBEUARY, 18S8. ^ ' _ ' ' Coram C. Mondbuit, J. No,4623. .•^ I 'V. / 1 » *, A I I »!% Ct«rfaanm«u IWjMBln. &smjn COURT, 1H8S. ..f. liti*; tf(*^mlimetit lik« tilt riaintir^ tiuH the dioflw ali^MM b* punotitnl and »i- UftM^ Mr*. to. QuAiurunodoniAinlann niddltlon da rompto par lo mlnmir, une cioeptloii lul oppcNHUit un M • oompttf iiaouniitilueMicunfl lliidn non rcmiTolr. ^ 8o.Quflla tutnurdott AtmoomUmii6k n-ndrnoomptoda nuuvoftu. [ y L'aotion du Donmiidour Atait i>ort4o contre lu l)6ftfndcuriion oi-dovant tuteur pour redditinn de corapte. - A cetto action le DAfoiid«ur plaida p»r oi^oeption ou fln do noivrocoyoir ; qn« le 23 JAAvior 1854, parduvant Mtro. Jobnon ot sou tionrrdra notairon, il avait rondW^n compio d« tutello au Deinandeur, qui I'ayait appronvd ot acceptd," et qui avait d6clar6 avoir prii communication (^^" jdM>^" juntifioativcs k I'appui. Le D6fondeur produiiit le compto et son accoptomn par lo Domandour. Le Deraandeur r6pondit tp^cinlement k cotte fln de 'non-recevoir qoranie sdit : " Que le priteiidu coinptd en date du vingt-troin janvior mil huit cent cinquante 'quatro ot ro^u dovant Mtre. Jobson ot son confrdro noiairea publics, invoqu6 par le dit Ddfondour n'a jamais 6t6 rondu Idgidemont, n'a jaiiiniR 6t6 accompa- gn6 des formalit^s vouluea par la loi eu pareil cas, et n'a jamais 6t6 accoropagni des pi6ces ^stiflcativoa d'icelui. . Que lo di^ttritendu compto a M fait en abrig6 ot rendu en bloc, et nV*st paa exact et fidere^ainsi que lo veut la lot du pays. Quo 1« dit pritendu compto et sa ^r6tendue acceptation, par le Deman ont 6t6 recus par Mtro. Jobson, notaire, qui est le 9|yflu par alliance du deur.^ « ^ Que le dit pritendu compte est d'une nuflit^ radicale et absoluo, le ' fendeur n'ajFant jwnais pirodnit aucune piice justificative d'icdui et partant le D6fendeurDV:«i)i:oi^. rendu aucun compte au Demandeur qui n^pu approuver TH ■' »^' valablementiin deur n'ost poin^i " de lui rendre no d6peiue et rvprisd] conformity adx !•{ Aoescaoseale t e ndo c ompirafar^g^-wr -et de Qui effet, ot que sous cos circonstano^ le Deman- is jaa r ie nniK :> •PWMUtfB COURT, 185$.' I ■ > ' 100 - Unt Aco q.ifl U ,Ui., .4i.«hiio„"".,7r '•'/*""'^"""'"« J« •• J*tl.r«llon tt pat- "owiMit. " ni|>|>ol '*;:r:t^^"-"^--!-^ Willi:: bl..;«.. n,oi, A compter de i« -Ign fl'S ."t ' "'•""^'*«'?^ * '•o.uiro con.pto ^ i' ^* SUPERIOR COURT. MONTEBAL. 1«th MARCH, isss INOHAMBBBS. No. 81«. In tkeie oauiea mull of the Pl.i„.iOi - -n* =i-'; / ^ :l >■ &./^. 'M 4. Tf,^ '■^ 'If ^¥- JrXmk ",'fc. 'f ,1 1 1+— Otf'the*4t t ■■& StJFEJRIOil .COVRT,.l85f. r-'i February lafl't theT>efcndant,obuintiiq., the Gaoler and the Plaintiff's agent were examined by th^ Defendant and established the facts above detailed. It was also proved that one of the shilling pieces was (^^^faccd by a mark oi" - dinge across it, apparently the result of an attempt to bend it ; another shilling ■ had a cross drawn by a knife or other sharp instrument upon it ", and a sixpence, the date of which could hot bo deciphered, had a letter or figure "V," stamped on it. Herbert for the petitioner contended that by. the refusaP of tho Plaintiff's agent, to enumerate or indicate the particular coins, which were paid by each 'Plaintiff, the tender was bad for want of enumeration des espeees; more particularly since such refusal precluded the Defendant from exercising his right of objection to tlie coins tendered, on the score of light weight or other defect, 'becausp of the. , impossibility of identification. And 2nd, — ^That the tender was bad in toto. By our Currency Act 16 Vic. ■ -cap, 168, sec. 8, it is declared that the silver coin of the United Kingdom, while lato/ttfly current /A«mn, shall pass current iu this Province,- for sums in cur- rency, proportionate to their sterling, value; and by the Imperial Statute 16 and Jt? Vic, cap. 102). see. 2, it is enacted tha^ho tender , of payment, made in gold, 'silver, or copper coin, defaced or stamped (by bending or stamping) shall - be a iegal tender. .' ^Now thctfe can be no doubt, but that those of the silver coins, tendered by the Plaintiff are marked and defaced, so as to> render them no longer lawfully current in the United Kingdom, and the conclusion is inevitable, that no sufficient legal tenddr has been made, an4 the Defendant ought therefore to be discharged. Lafrenayem reply,— The payment was a good one, inasmuch as it is shewn in evidence, that tha current, or market value, of coin tendered exceeded 15s., and the defendant could in reality procure for the money, so tendered, more than 15s. worth of aliinent. The Plaintiff has complied wiih the law and the ^tender ought to be decliM-ed valid. Moreover, the defendant had not attempted to shew, by the evidence^r^f skilful persons, that the coin was deficient in weight, or that any of them was counterfeit. " Daiff J.-f-l have considered the questions submitted, and do not think it in- Gumbent on the Defendant to prove the deficiency in the weight pr that coins counterfeit, it would be the diity of the I'laintiffs to pro|e fhe validity of the ^payment; bat the point npon which these petitions are decided is that raised . under the Imperial Statute, 16 & VJ Vic. ^veral df the ^ins tendered I ' SUPERIOR COURT, 1858. -RCar/er, for Plaintiff. - "" «««. Lafrtnaye, Couwel. i?ow«fciro«*,forPotitionet. ' ' A.H. MONTBEAL. Mm MARCH. 1868. Coroni Smith, J. * No. 88. ~ ^ohoneUal^ VS. Burroughs. PROOKOURK^ • .- TlJihA Jlf ?^ .* ' J"^*"""* •««r such entrr to beheld^ "efendw* wu not such m irregu. Tlut the aiffniiw of » judgment on oonfnuinn ."""^ ~ °« •>«« to be an absolute nuUlty .igned by BAer alone ». ZCLpiin""''/''"' '"''''''•'• "«- Abbott fyW .„ .ppetanoe „ A™ ,.ev f! Sf n r ". "' '"^ ^l""- '»"• atop <» \ttorne/for PWnlifft SJ ,"*"''"''• ''J' *« «>»«»t of tho Defend^., In^^u^^y,^, IZ^l"^ '"^'^' ■^«"'» oU. 3ni April, ,857, b„, ^ .oVZEbr/^T' """ ""^ *'«'' "» .Hob i, „» paid fo, t,. u,^ ,; t7'P'^^J' *« P'otbonoto.j, u,e day on ■he prolbonotory. A jndLnt ,1 tt^i '''"""' ""^ *" °^'' »^ot Plainar «„i. ^dg^eni bad bin ^t^^t " ^ TT,"^ """ '» "^ Court. That the validity of a mdZl, ? Judgment pronounced by the fact whether the e^ential 1 iS^ "ft :^ ^^^f -lely up/n Z complied with, theprothonotaiybein/merla mfnll M «*^ ''^'^ '''' '>««'» pearance of and counte«i«,in« of Abb!L wKn .^"^ *'®'*''- ^hat the ap- Attomeys on behalf of rDlt^^^i^Tf^/^t "^"^^ *^« ^^«' CounteiBigningaathe law^nf^. ^.^.,7,°°^;"^ ;° ya^ance anH Cnitfbril fjrton. > ♦ I'll' I I ■■; Motion et al, T. BuiTonglu. I 1 ' f,, lod SUPERIOB COURT. 186e. ^' void, and on that ground alone tho confession and subsequent procfiedings must be hcW to be njili and void also, and consequently that Defendant had a right to asj^the Cou;t in which the action was instituted to reject such irregular pro- ceedings fron>' the record. That *ven supposing tho said appearance and coun- tcrsignrngii^t to be absolutely null and void, that the judgment had never been signed either by tho Plaintiffs or their Attorneys ad litem being, signed by Baker alortfc, and that until jiuch signature was appcsod tho judgment could not be held .to be ajpdgracnt of this Court, and could therefore bo attacked by tac- tion on the ground of irregularities. He cited in support of his views, as show- ing the English practice }h simil ir cases, Scotll Reports, 6 vol., p. 805, Rice vs. Linstead ; do. vol. 8, p. ^00, Kempt vs, Mutthew, and notes ml particularly dictum of Parke, 13., as (to an impossibility of an Attorney appearing on both Bides of the record ; also Tidd's Practice, vol. 1, p. 650 and 9 ; Imp. 1 and 2 Vic., cap. 110, sec. ; and the case of Gngy el o/. vs. Craig M. Q. B., as to the impossibility of an Attorney acting for bath Plaintiff and Defendant under our law, in the case of a confession of judgment. Dorman contra argued that tho English precedents cited did not apply to confessions of judgment under our law, and that it was impossible to attack a judgment of this Court by motion, the recourse being by appeal. That the De- fendant's motion raised questions of fact, not apparent on the face of record. He moved to reject a confession of judgment made, signed, and filed by himself, and countersigned by J. J. C. Abbott, who had filed an appearance as Defend' ajit's Attorney ad litem, and accepted by J. C. Baker us Plaintiff's Attorney,, and by whom the declaration served upon the Defendant and filed in this cause, and referred to in tho confession of judgment, was also signed. This motion amounted to a disavowal by the Defendent of his Attorney ad litem, a question which can only.be determined by a proceeding" >/» desaveu, whicli tiie Defend- ant has in fact taken, and which is now pending. Smith,-J. said the difficulty that presented itself to his mind, and which pre- vented his according this motion was, that tho judgment in this cause had al- ready been entered up and must therefore be considered a judgment of this Court and could not consequently be attacked by motion grounded on irregu- larities that had taken place anterior to the cnteHng up of the judgment, as in his opinioti the fact of the same Attorney api)earing on both sides of the record was not one of those absolute nullities that would justify the wgection of a judg- ment after entry. The proper course in a case of this kind was by appeal. Motion dismissed. Abbott (& JBaker for Vlmti«. Grosff (& Bancroft for Defendant. ■ £.J.H. SUPERIOR COURT, 1867. 109 MONTREAL, aisr 8BPTB1IBBR, 186t. Coram Day, J, Smith, J., (C.) Mondbuit, J. No. S07. ' Adam n. Sutherland, aiODIUTT FOB OOBTS. The last proceeding in this oauae is reported in Ut voh L. y 4 Honorable f.!»| ^« «'*»«» «' *»«« ««id Plaintiff be hence dismissed wii Xs." »; !*|IP judgment of the Court was as follows •— ' ijudgme __. . .^..„„„ A^^^ ^^"ll^^. ' ' ' • • ^""^^ e^^ ^^ «a'J motion, i consequence doth duuniss (Jis acUon with costs, inasmuch as the said Plaintiff hath feild to give secunly for costs, within the delay prescribed by this Cour^" 2)« i?o«d/J^t/fc for PlaintiO: j Motion granted. Ji. 4: GvLaflamme for Defendant. .^ (F.W,T.) I" llONTRBAL,t)OTOBBR3lBt, 1867. Coram DAT, J., Smith, J, MoNDKLKT, (C.) . I. Nemo. J ^eys. McDonald: nexed. !• not raffloient pniof of its eiecutton ^'*"™'^' ***•» *•«» MrtWcte. .fonMid w- of whom was a Notary Public of U C Wt ir;n«=f J • tt ^ witnesses (one waa executed, but no other e vidflnno _-„ -jj..„j _.... - *^ °* ■"« -gHdenfit,jMft_addt»c e d w ith ft-fe r wicrto^fargyscF "i 11 I fi mm- I I ! ! . ! , 1 tion of lEe power. fi ,;i i^>' 110- SUrERlOR COURT, 1857. 1 ! Nyo V. IfoDoiudd. \: I r liavt.' TIio !.(j;>imicn^f the cape on llio final lienriiig Laving turned nininly on the Buffi'i't'(l t!ie tb!li)wiiiy Law he may r - '_. ..: . . : . ■;■■ .. • ' Acii6u disn^ii-aed witlli^ost*. EdkarJ Carter, for PlaintilV. . '' iJosjr it Afoiiil', for Defendant. (S.B.) ■ » Mii^TBEAL, 18T1I iVOVKMBER, 1S57. Coram Smith, J. ; C. Mo.snEi.Er,J. ; IjAdolkt, J. No. 081. .• £ Fraser vs. Bradford. 1. Liability ovtr to a i)arty to a suit for tlio costs of such suit, disqualirios tlio iktbou so liable fh)m\ beiiiK oxaniined as a iVitncsa for such party. 2. A person who receives money from tho maker of a note before its maturity, and undertakes to pay it, is not a competent witness for the defendant in an action against the maker, to prove tliat lie did so; for, in the event of ajudfcmcnt for tho plaintiff, he would bo llalilo ovcr.to tho dofcndant for the costs of such action, as damages for the non-1'ullilmcnt of his undertaking. This was an action by the endorsee of a promifsory note against the maker. Tlie defendant pieced th.it he made the note in favor of one McKenzie, who endorsed it to the plaintiff, and tliivt before the maturity of the note he gave McKcnzie the money witli which to pay it when due ; which he undertook to do, and actually did ; and tltat plaintiff had frequently promised to give it up,' but had never dQue so. Issue was joined upon this plea; and the defendant, at evquilCf biought up McKenzie to prove tho allegations of the plea. lie stated on his examination, on the voire dire, that Lo had received the amount of the note in question fiom the defendant, and had given him a written acknow- ledgment for ii, coupled with an undertaking to retire it at maturity. JIo also admitted that he had endorsed tlic note in question to the plaintiff to avoid any questioli with the defendant as to its Gonsideration. The plaintiff then objected to his being examineil on tho ground of -interest in the suit, but the objection was reserved, and his evidence taken. Ho then swore that he -handed the note to the plaintiff tor collection, to be applied, when collected, -to Lis credit in tho general account between them ; that he settled with the plaintiff for it, by giving him two other notes ; that the plaintiff promised to give him up the note in -q iie8 tttm-t>ti"ththkM^wt>-ttf8"beiHg-^>ai4r^H4-thftt-tJi<^^ •>-x - V'" y --V SUPERIOR ^COmiT, 185Y. notes snirl to l.nve b-on u^L^ f^ """' ''''' """^^^'i'^ '^''^'"^^ ^"'^> t!.o..o notes were pit 7. r,^ ''" ■" '^ '".'=' " "'^''^^ ^''" 1— ''« «f The c:m h™,,» 1,0c,, i„„,-;w f,„ |,c„i,,g „,,,!,„ ,,,„i|, ■ ,..flli« money ptol, ,,„,! fo,. ll.o costs of the, r«ent:„.lio„ „, ,uZl T'? ^■^ .B,,,.1,r,c f.„„ l,n.,ili,y, w„,*l ^„mo,lfc,,olv s«I f ,,, ? i V f '7;- s.."«o, , „ ; , <>,™l»f, see. ,»o., I„ E,,,,'.,,,,, f, : e ", " t "c" tl,o »ce,.lor of a bill w«, rejected », a witness f„, ,|,o *•„,„ ,;, kI ,'* •■ .v„ , p„,y ,„ ,|,c i,„t,„,„„„t „„„| ;„ be<,„el,e ;Vv!, ""'f tl,odc,i„..„„t ,0 place tl,e hill i„ the , l.u tilT Zd C i 1 ' : °"''^'" "'"■ «;i,ie..u if he h.N,o,,e.wo,,idh.ve relict,- the dot; ,t;;::!;:r • .1 lie had not, .vonlj e^llosc him to an action of dama.-c,- ofwu'l, l!! .a., of the a,ti„,, on U,e hill „on,d fonn pa,t. ^:;:l^ZZZ »-- a wnness for the parly, ,l,o»e Mrcccsa wonl I relieve him fr„,„ li 1 v. \ |Vo.., wh«, failnre a liahilifr „„ his part ,vo„h, i,n„:,l,;::;^ , 1° 't ;^ ':^ lield inadmissible on^that 4roiin.J. {Smith T - U n^f r- i • - '"'"'^"'^^ the note the si,npl„t grounliof ehilT if «■ J If •"'"« ""'''"•"'•"■ •"' the holder, the e„do,4 is relieved.) fl," e,*^, "IT '"r"' ''"J "'^''" *« incom^tcnt for the mater; ..blithe posZt^'P^tll'^'T"!',''' "■■tness is brought „p to p,.ve, in his own interest, IhaAe fit "' tract, and is therefore ina,:mi8flble, is the 8tro»,^r and ' U ' """ by the anthorities. (Bai.U,, jj Ue V122 S^ oXSlrf^ witness, and he is gi*,. evidence for hhnself.) Tij' , Z d" bt ^ft ,v case a pt^cisely wit& the rale laid down i, 1 Siirtic ,r ij 1, 1 w> ^'' l>»f, sec. 3»4, 5, and ^tliat a witness called to ,»i».t 'i il ' , ■*'"^- 1 reach of d,i„ or defhnit f;,r ,vl,i,.|, 1, . w ,d U^lg ^ ^t XT^''^^ hnn, <; inadmis*: ;,■ k;;; duty uni:' i.« l^Il ^I^S™':^ ^t O Frawr Brodfbrd. 'I ■|fl I \ 'r.'ii li- y^ ^ 'n> I ul Fnaer Bradford. 7^ 1 ■V SUPERIOR COURT, 1857. to pay the note with tlie money given him for the purpose ; and the inBUo mm, whether he had fulfilled that duty, or was in default to fulfil it ' Again, a liability over to tlio extent of costs is sufficient to exclude a witness ; as in Jones vs. Brooke, (4 Taunt., 404), the drawer of an accommodation bill was rejected as a witness for the acceptor, because, though ipdiSeront as to amount, he whs liable dvor for the costs. So, in Townend vs. Downing, (14 East, 405), a principal was excluded from proving the application to his account of a payment by his surety, because ho would be liable to his surety for costs. See also Larbnlestior vs. ; ».. , . /,. A. Robertspn, for defendant, arguod that the interest of McKenzie was net such as would exclude him. If he had an iotere»t at all, it was not an interest direct and immediate in the event of this suit, but a remote and contingent one, which afibrded no ground of exclusion. In fact, his Interest in this suit amounted to nothing at all. Suppose the plaintiff did got judgment for the amount of the notc^ the record in this cause would not be, evidence for the defendant against the witness in an action to recover back the money. It would still be compe- tent for him to prove, if he could, that he had really paid over the monejito Fraser. But the witness was admissible on another ground. He was cleatly ' the agent of the defendant for the payment of the money in question, and as such wa» admissible ex necesntate ret.- Suppose, instead of giving him the, mo- ney t^e defendant had given it to his own clerk, and directed him to pay the note, could it be said that the> clerk was inadmissible ? Tet the issue would involve the fulfilment or breach of the duty of the clerk, just as much As in the present Case the issue involves the fulfilment of duty or default of McEenzie ; ' and McKenzie was just as much the defendant's agent for the payment of the note in question, as his clerk would have been, had he been entrusted with the money. lie therefore^ tails within the exception to the rule excluding persons on the grpund of ipterest, which admits agents ex necessfkite ret. There is no question that the evidence of "McEenzie clearly makes out the defendant's case. He swears most positively that he settled the note in question, and that the plaintiff repeatedly promised to giirfe it up to him. No presumption or infer- ence to be gathered from his having received the accounts current without ob- jection, could outweigh positive testimony as to these facts. It must also be observed that .McKenzie declares the plaintiff only had the note for collection, and therefore really has not such a title as warrants him in bringing an action upon it. ' ■ f Abbott, in reply, contended that the record would establish the amount of coti'ts incurred by the defendant, and therefore to that extent McKenzie was int e r ^t e d -topitevent-a-ju^thentr;"«ndthi»- was »uflfeient~to exc lude h i m undc r-T"^ fit 5»S^^gl^, SUPERIOR COURT, 1857. 113 the autLonties cited. As to the exception bued upon new«ity, that only ab- plied to general agontn, and not to pertons employed for particular acts only. Th.s argument was used in Edmonds A Lowe, a case closely analogous to the Srn!'!. .7 t'""^f"^ ^^ "" ^''"'^ '■^^ '^' '«'^" now given A. to the right of a holder for coUecUon to sue, it had been repeatedly held that such a .tie would Kupport an action ; but in this case he was more than a mere holder for collection, as McKenz.e says that, when collected, the proceeds were to be applied- tp the payment of his account with the plaintiff. ^i^Tf 'V?" ir^''" T"" ^'""'' ^'"^ «»«« P"««ip«"y tun.8 is one of con- adorable interest. McKenzie. the witness, is endorser on the note sued upon aiul heja* undertaken with the defendant to pay it, ^ith money given him by the ^ndant for the purpose. In the first place, then, is'he, as endorser, ad nnssibla to prove payment ; and secondly, is ho rendg-red incompetent by Lis position as having contracted with the defendant to pay the note. Upon the hrst point the Court is clearly-of opinion, that, though an endorser upon the paper, lie is not thereby rendered incompetent to prove payment. Whatever may bo the ivosult of this suit, he may be sued upon the note, and his liability will not be arected by the judgment in this cause. But the agreement with thft defendant to pay the note introduces another species of interest : which lies in the guarantee he is subjected to towards the maker 'as respects the costs of this action, for which he is plainly liable «o%demnify the maker if judgment be ren- dered against him. The authorities are somewhat conflicting as to the suffi- ciency of an interest to the extent of co^ts only, to excludea witness ; but the weight of authority appears to the Coui^t to be against his admissibility The case of Bin vs. Kershaw, 2 East 458, is in favor of the admissibility of a witness whoso interestv)nly extends to costs; but the rule there laid down was broken m 4ipon m Jou^s vs. Brook, cited by the counsel for the plaintiff. In addition to the cases cited at the Bar, the following authorities are referred to as settlinc the quostion.:-2 Starkio, pp. 257, 8; Humphrey ^s. Moxon Peake's, c. 62- Byles on Bills, and cases (sited ; 1 Phillips on Evidence, pp. 67, et seq. But, even if the evidence were admitted, it would be open to objection as to Its credibility ; and the Court considers that, even with the testimony of McKen- no ip the t^cotd, the evidence for the plaintiff is sufficient to make out his case. ■ • • * ifonrf^fc/, /.-Would be disposed to exclude" the witness on the principle that he was interested for the defendant to the extent of tie costs of the action and as such Whs incompetent The question of interest was never one of amount : it was sufficient to exclude a witness if he was interested to any amount whatever; and he must express his surprise that such a conflict of opinion could have arisen in England on the subject < Badgley, J.— Concurred in the judginent It appeared to him that McKen- «e, by his own showing, had placed himself in the position of parant of the defendant, and as such could not be a witness for him. He had not only given a written undertaking to take up the notel but his admissions went far to shew ^.■?'_'V'!*? "^"^ * ""^^^ °"*'^^ ^y. ^"^M fof his accommodation. Jln j^j FfMwr V. Bradftrd. ■4 ;^ either ofTKeM circumstances an action e»^fl8<« would Tie^i^nsthiini^^an^ (■■ipwt r.-i-^ t t 1 ' > I I i f! li Si 1 fi I:! 114 -■>'•'- V. BradAnrd. I n - ■:> ■;:« . I'M SUPERIOR COURT, ^«7. ho ^ouFd^cvor Ihj ponnittod to roliove himsolf from nuch a liability by bit own teBTimony. IIo concurred also in tlio opinion already expresaed, that, if the objection were only directed to bin crotlibility, tbo plaintiff must still succeed upon tho evidonco generally. Judgment for Plaintitf, Abbott d' iiiiker, for Plaintiff. A.ne for the recovery of unpaid calls, but specifically for the recovery of so much \{ the sharcholder'a afocl; as may not have befin ac- "m.:. "'W'' SUPERIOR COURT, mi. «■■ i ■ ll* tually paid info the h«mU of tl.o Company. Nonv ,ho wordn of tl.o SUtu^ n the opunon of the Court diHtinetiy in fuvoroftho view taken by the PWn- tlfTs Coun«cI. TI.0 words aro "oad. shareholder Bhal! be individually liable to the creditor, the Company to an amount equal to the amount unpaid on the Ntock hold by hm." d:.-. There is no «lh«ion whatever here to call, .nd whatever nocoHBi.y there n.ight be to n.ake cnll» prcviouMy to Buing in any action betwt^nthe Company m.d Kh HharohoMor, we can sec no necc,«ity for ho do- ing whore Ihc'Huit is brought at the instance of a creditor of the Company. • „ , Demurrer dianjissed with cosJs. JJethune and Dunkhi, for riainlifT. F. Griffin, Q. C, for Defendant. (S.B.) • oA^n^ "'"^I'" '^"'^K"""" '•'"^ t^nd^KA at tLo aamo time in the cases 2049 vs. Jodoin. 2019 Ts. Mosson and 1078 va. Taylor, all at the suit of Oockbtirir. MONTREAL, 28 NOVEMBRB, 1867. - , Coram Smith, J. ■ No. 832. "^ , La Corporation do la paroiasu de Verchirea v8. BoutUlvl. '^"'^' o!i d£ afLi^'" t' """'^'P"""" •=' Chen.l„. du Das-Cnnada d« 1838. un conscll munioi,«U qui d^iro abolir unu Kuo. no pcut lu folrc quo »««• I'rooOs- Verbal et uoiv lias par rtuU u.ti.t 2.«e. U» roglomcnt ,.ouv IVHaI,ll..cmout ,Vu„ och.s plub.ic dans uW. „arol.,c ! «« ,..0^" du ^ut, «„, rue geralt ferm^o DOur former partio do cot cncIo» i est nul. (1) \ Lad6clara£iondolaD.-mandorc8so alI6guait; Qu'i uno sUion sp6cialc et I mensuelio du conscil municipal dc la dite parois^c do Vcrchires, duement rc- ^^uise en vertu-doNla loi, tonuo Jo cinq mai dcrnicr,lo dit consoil, comine il en avait lo droit, fit iifl» rcglement pour I'ctablissomciit d'uncnctoi! public, dans la dite paroisso do Vcrchcres, ])ar Icquol r6glomont il ordomia et statua, entro autrcs choses : " Quo le quario forra6 p^ir un bout do la rue ct par les terreins cnfenn63 dans les borncs suivantas, savoir : au Nord-Est la coui- du college, au Sud-Est la rue, le terrein de Prangois Vilbon, au SudOuest par les terreiils concd'dos par Hu- bert Laroso, Ecr., au Nord-Ouostio chemin dc la Koine, serait pris pour en faire un enclos public, pour y mottic en fourriC'rc les animaux divnguant et que lo se: cretaire de la municiplit6informoraitlc surintendant du comt6 du dfl rtiglement, ann do procdder suivant la loi." ' Que le dit rfiglemont aurait 6t6 publi6, lu ct afBcho snivaut les exiVences de la lo). ° Que dans Ic quarr6 dout lo conseil avait ainsi d6cid6 de s'emparer, so trouvait uno portion de terro alors appartenaflt au D6fendeur, 6tant dc quarante pieds de front sur cinquantc quatre pieds de profondeur, born6e au No^-Ouest par uno^rtion de terre appartenant k Luc Robert, au Sud-Est par uno portion de terre appartenant k Francois Xavior T^tro, au Nord-Est la rue et au Sud-Ouest aux terreina Conc6d68 par Hubert Larose. Que le dix-neuf du dit raois de Mai dernier, les 6valuateurs ou estiraateurs de la munioipalit6^de la dite paroisaa dA VeJ c' Oookbora ■ 1 ;i 6hfiJfi8|..ftiirai fl nt»^tca quo tous leg If TinrVIcrch. 100, Sec. 41, par. 10 ySt 119 COUn iSUPKRHSURE, 18*7. >■ i I t : :\ ; ■' ' ■■: 1 •■ .' «• ) 1 • 1 ^ i: ,f • ' t ^ ■ ■ i t H» kuSkroteT' P'^^*^^* *v^ ^^ fonn«lit6i, raquia par 1« |oi tiuwont 4tA ftiiti, donnte el obMrvA^ daWraMm 8x6 4 la lotame do vingt-deiix louis d)y chelin* conrant, lo mon^nt drior do la dito niuiiicipa]it6. . ' Quolo prcinior Juin ||Joriiicr lo conVil municipal do la dito paroiiwe do Ver- chdi'6s auraient pa'Jrd entro Iob njaini d^ oon Boor6tairo-lr68ori^, avec plua forto . (ommo, cello do vingt-doux loiiht dix ^holins nuHdito k 6tro pay6o au D6fondoflr pour lo montant do la compoufMition qiii hit aurait 6t6.ainBi accord6. Qu'en vprtu.do co quo doitaus lo^rroin. oi-tloiwus on dornior lieu d6»i'gn6 Gomme ayant appartonu ^u DWendolir est dovonu la propri6t6 do la municipa- lity do la dite paroisso do Vcrohdres,' la Demandoresse. Quo malgr6 co quo dessus, tt on ddpit dcs fr6quonteii requisitions vorbales et P«' ^crit k lui faitcs par la Demandorosse, lo Ddfondour aurait toujours rcfu86 do lui liVrer lo dit torrein, en sorto qu'ollo serait tres fondAo k so i)ourvoir pour »'on faire mettro on posscBsion, ct olio coni^luait on consiquonco k ce quo le tor- rein ci-dos8UB en dernier lieu d^signd fut d6<:lar6 lui a[>partonir, k ce que lo D6- fendour fut condamn6 k quilter ct ddlaissor lo dit tcrrciu ot k en abandonner et rcmottro la possession k la Demandercsso ; et qu'4 d6faut par lui do le fairo il" fut expulsd'du dit torrein, et la Dcmanderessp fut miso en pescssion par I'auto- rit6 de la dito Cour. <| :j| 'M • .1 A Lo D6fendeuc r6pondit k cetto action par uno* exception dans laquolieN^'all^- guait entr'autres clioses : "Wau temps de I'institution do la dito action,''dep\ir» ct encore actucllement, lo dif'D6fendeur 6tait ct est lo soul et unique propria- tairo de la portion de terre reclain^e par la dito Dcmanderesso en cctto cause (sur laquello ily a uno maison ct autre d6pendances) du dit D6fondcur qui I'a- ' vait acquis antdricurcmcnt do ses propres deniers. Que Io,pr6tondu rdglcmentdu cinq Mai dornier, pass* par lo dit conscil mu- nicipal de Verch6ries pour I'fitablissement d'un cnclos public dans la dito pa- roisso de VercLdrcs ct qui est mentionn6 et en partic rclat6 dans la declaration en cctte cause est entidrcmont nnl, illdgal, vcxatoire, injusto et contrairo k la loi ct no pent avoir cu reflfet do fairo passer la propri6t6 do la^ito portion do torre, maison et dApendanccs, dcs mains du dit D6fbndcur on cellos de la dito Deman- Jerosso, et quo tous Ics proc6d68 fails par le ditcon^jeil ayant rapport au dit rd- gloracnt sont pareillement nuls, ill6gaux, informea iri^guliiirs, voxatoires, et contraires & la loi. Que lo dit conscil ne fiouvait en loi s'approprior, par la voie d'un scmblablo r*- glcmcut, Iqi torrein en question ct abolir lo bout do la rue enclav6 dansle quarrg dont la dit^ 'Demanderesse pretend 6tre dovonu propri6taire en vertu du dit pr^tendu rdglement, mais qu'il aurait falln au moins qu'il fAt proc6d6 par le dit conseil, par la voie d'un Proces Verbal, aprfis avis duement donn6 auz intgre8s6s raivant la loi en tel cas faite et pourvue. Que la loi en tel cas faite et pourvne, veut et ordonne que les chemind et par consequent les rues qui sont comprises sons la denomination de chemin pablic» :f ■v^ •^- COOR SUPERIEURK, 1847, 111 /., d uno rue d.n. le dit village^ contr«ir«mo„t A la loi, quVn conlucncc. le d t iJS con.o. a, en pa„«„t lo .lit r^g|,.,„„,.t ; etM h. ,,ouvoI«. ^ ^ Lo mfondcnir. concluait k la nullitide oo nNglomont. „t a.i renvoi do Paction. Apr*. onquAte ot audition don partio, la Cour en roudant «,« juge.nent a di- bout«l«.t.o„,urIopnnci,H, quo l« oonsoil municipal aurait dft procider .»ar ftioci. verbal et non par idgleinoiit. „ ' ' A iCff .?''^'"* ,yr''"'! ''""^" '""■ '" ^^•""'»"'''"°»-" contrc lo Dfcfc.«d«ur e.t A I effet do fa.ro declarer la I)o„.andoro«,o propriotairo d'un certain terrain que. Ma 1830 la dUo corporat.nn avail r6.oIu do prendre avoc deux autres terrain, ct un bout do ruo dans lo yiliago do Vercl..ire^ pour l'6tabliHHo.„ent d'un encio, public dan, la d.to parois-o de Vorchftre^ touto. le, forn.ulit6,, telle, quo l'e.ti- ma^on d.. d.t terrain par le, ctimatoum qu«lifl6o, i cot effet, I'offro ot d6pot ' ot'obTvde,'""""^ ''*' "^ '" '"'''"'■">'"" •'" ^'^ '•"^elo-nont ayant 6t6 reraplie, Entre autre moyen, que lo D6fendeur offro pour fairo renvoyer cbtto action "11 pr6tend que le dit rdgloment est nul et on con86q.,ence n'» pu avoir I'effet de fairo paiwor la propri6t6 du dit terrain h la Corporation. 10. Parco quo la loi en |)erinottant k la Corporation do la dito paroiise d'6- tablir un oncjp, public pour y mettre lo, aniraaux on fourri6ro, (voir lo 8 3 do la Sect. Ill do Tacto do, municipality, ot do, cirtimin, do 1«66) n'a pa, ou I'in- tention de h.i donnor lo pouvoir d'6tablir cot enclo, dan, le village en s'ompa- rant pour cela do terrain, ra6mo biti,, puisquo par lo § 11 do la Sect.' LII du . mftmo acto dost d6clar6, qu'il no sera pas on son pouvoir do tracer un chemin neuf, on de d6tourncr ou 6largir nn anoicn chemin do mani^ro 4 paaser k tra- vers un jardin, verger ou basw-cour entour6e d'uno muraille ou d'uno cI6ture en plancbo ou en piquets debout, ou d'uno haio vivo ou k endomager uno maiwD, grange, moulin ou autre batimeut quelconque, ou k nuiro k un canal ou chaus- s6e do mouhn ou k en detoumer lo cour, d'oau, sans le consenlomont du pro- pndtaire. ^ 2o Parco qu'il est pourvu par le infimo a,jte, an § 10 de la Sec. XLI, que . iout chemm pourra 6tre aboH ou sa position on auoune partio d'icelui chang^e par^proc^s-vorbal, mais qu'il no pourra 6tro ali^ni d'aucune autre raani6re ; Proc6d6B k fairo pour faire u^i Procds verbal— Sect. XLVII. , liCs me, sont des cl^cmins, g 7, Sect XLV. ! La cour raaintient ces raisons^et declare le rdglement nul et en consfiquenco lla Demanderesse n'a ot no pent r^clamer ancun droit de,propri6t6 sur lo ter- rem du D6fendeur. i | 1 Pour arriver k cela, la! Cour a leu une autre question k decider, et qu'«lle a a*c,d6 en favour du D6fendeur, o'est cello-ci : II t^6i6 pr6tendu de la pirt de WDemanderessequelo rdglemer^t no pouvait dtre attaqu6 que par appel au Cdnseil de Comt6 et non par oxcoption, oommo le fait le D^fendeur dans cette cause sappuyantwr la Sect XLIX du dit acte; Et de son c6t64e D6fendeur pr6tenditque le rtgl^ent en question 6Unt coiitraire A la loi ne ponviiit. Atra ^.P -^ \ f'l" 4 r^- ■6^.1 'cr5 J. ' ■UW94 m mnrt t •; : vr I l> 1 l> 1 I IJ. n ,) , ' . I '] 4. " ■ ^^l^■. ■■ M' fc. ■ -^1 \' ■;'•/. f U H. ■ IIM COUR gUI Boittiiiei. T'O J»^>'>iloiit t>Mt (>(iiniiM* HI it ConiM-Hiiff tliat lliy hmM Plalmiir I.atli fallcJ to wtublUI. the m..tori.il iilloga- tloiVH »of f.-rfli It) ila. Dotlnraliou ..f iho hhiJ I'lalniiff, «r any right in Uw to liiivp nn.l maintiiln tlio t«nc!iiM..n^ tukon in nml l.y tho ««iil Doiiliiriili..n ,loth dinnilM tlio n. n'oii of tlio mii.l riiiiiitilV wiili coi^Jh. Lnfrrnniftfi Pfjiin, nvomtmlii li DinmiMloriHw. ! Pflfflifr, Jiilurif/ifrt Iiia/nl,t^\^Kti^^U^D{,(^,^^^^^ff, * (I'. B. I..) • » h'. MONTIlfiAL, 37 FJtVWItft IBM. • j ^ ' Comin UAnoi.Kr, J. *> ^^ No. U43. ^ ' Za Cor/ioralioH ddn jxtroinie de Ste. Hose v». Leprohon, Jilf«,-»l«r rocoiii«rit oil iiroiirlt'tttlri- J-iui iniut ik K«tw "t -ml twiiu 4V»IMi>!ilr )• route eon«ilMnt ., * ti 1 ixiiit «ii vortil (I«< I'lictp dcN muulrlialltiVii I't cliiiiiliii. rlii l(,»,.;Ciinn(ln Uc IHOS. La DomaiKlorOBSB ayaiit potii-Huivi lu r>4:fuu«k.m- lu ait cbcniin qtii condiiU k mn liU Frti-t .Ic i>«^|o; ^r* rmiJtMlloMiott U QmmMm a« c« chuiuiii n «t6 f«IU .Imu le temp, tttuivntrt !«• .lk|K»UioiH do U lul ; ft b d«'Hr«S? mf..n.K..ir ...inrnci l\.c».pri^.t6H dmw In locftlit6. Quo Jo D6fondoHr nV-nt point tcnu <>t no Th jftinnis 6t6, k I'untrotion ou Jk la rAparntion du dit chemin en nupuno fSicon. "^ ''~ Quo lo dit choinin oat irjaintoimnt ot co doptiis plufiiourfi ann«CM hour Io con- '^ ' ' trfiio ct on la poMOwion do In coipdralion do la paroi^soMo Ste. Uoho ot co «n '■ vortu don loi» faito? et pourviios on paroil can ot depuis quolques anniw a 616 par ello et nous na direction r6|)ar6 ot ontrotonu. •Qae la dito corporation a fait doimor I'ontreticn et la reparation du dit che- min. „ Quo c'eat la dito corporation qui est roflponsabte- do touH Jos donimaj?c« qui pouvoni Atio 6prouv68 par le public, par «uito du inauva's 6tat d'micun des die- mins ainsi placAn spus son contr6le rin^lcs IoIh du pays. Quo lo (lit D6feii(Jci|r u'est point par «a clinrte oblig6 et tenii dV-ntrctonir lo dit chemin ni .par aucuno loi. ■ • ^ Quo lo dit chemin no conduit pas on hivcr au I'ont du D6fondeur ct qti'il n'est point fait ni ontrotonu on hivcr pour conduirc au Pont du Dtfcndcur ofno I a jnmais 6t6 en hivor, maia a toujoura 6t6 fait on hiver do manidrc t\ conduirc sur la glace 4 c6t6 du Pont du Defondcur. Que lo dit cLomiu est lo soul" chomin qui conduit il St. Eustucho ct lo public n'a pas d'autre chemin pour s'y rendre. * ^ Une d6foniie cu droit avait 6t6 reuvoy6o sur au.lition ; en st^rto quo lea par- liea proc6d6ront i lour cnquftto et prouverent lours alI6gu68 respootifs. : -■ Ouimet, pour la domanderesao. La loi 18 Vic. ch. 100, Sect 45 par. 4, 6ta- bht "que Icjf routes conduisant i un moulin oi i une traverse, ou 4 un Pont ^ .- •^' do p*ago, seront faites, et ontretoiuies, parl'occupnnt dn moulin on do la tra- "v«r8eouduPontdep6age;" I'acte est poatorieuralacharto'du Dofei.deur . II ot 12 Vic ch. 09 qui lui donne le pouvoir d'acqu6rir uno route pour coa, duire & son Pont. C'eat au Defondour k fairo voir quo rentrotlen do V' f 4 'it 'A. «^ <>J^ .,<■ •V 12(k ■# 81TPER1(« CqjJR*r, 1858. #.v €' 'd.uraSStoiS"*^'*™ 1"«v "'» Pi'Ke ^ '■»'«■« pour^tabUr qu'un chemin n'est pas assi^etti auz defi^EoM " dispositions prtj^dentes, sera toujburs k la charge ^e Ik partie qui rtolamera Leprohon. " I'cxertiption ;" jJrotendit, quo le Defondeur avail j^rouvd qtio cetto route «tait et devait 6tro consid6r6o un chemin public k fttre entretonu par le public, le , D6fcndour ne I'aylant jamais acquis el cotte route 6Unt ouyertc au public I'ors ^ de la coiislruclion de son Pont en 1847, 18 Vic. ch. TOO Sec. 4 par. 9. ' - Que I'onvrag© avait 6t6 doniid au rabais sanfl notification. pr6alable au D6fen- deur, qu'il avait 6t6 prouy6 que la route tolip qU'entretenue I'liiverpar la Do- *Biandore8se, loin de cpniluiie sur le Pont du p^fendeur cond'uisait & un chcmin/ ttac6 par ses ^rd res BurTa glace. / ^^2:>' Lejugement dela Cour est (ioHjnie suit ' ." . ' Tho-Cburt. * * * considering that by the provisions of the Lower-Ca- nada municipal and Road act of 1846, roads leading to mill» ferry or toll bridge ' are classed as By-Roads, wliereof the Road in question in this cause is ope, and ■ considering tlmt it is provided by the said act that 13y-Roads shall be made or ^ maintained by the owners and occupants of lots iri the concession to which they lead from or front on older concession in proportion to the frontage of the lot? so occupied by them, except By-roads leading to mill, ferry or toll bridge, whereof the road in question is one, which are required to be made or main-, taincd by the occupants of the said mill, ferry or totl^idge, and that the work^ done in such By-roads shall bo by contribution in money, the work to be gi- ven out by the road Inspector, after public notice in the manner in the said act provided, and the sun^rcquired for payment therefor to bo paid by the occupant thereof; and considering that the sum required for the repairs of the said road- in question ijras £7, which had been paid therefor by the said PlaintiflF, and that the said Defandant is by law liable therefor to the Plaintiff, condemn the Defen- danj; to pay to the Plaintiff £7 but without c(»sts^ (1) . , Ou2W^, iforrn efJifarcAant^, pvur la Demanderesso. ^ * Lafrenaye ft Papin, pbur lisTTdiendeur. ~7^ - ■■ •(P. E. L.) it '•:<'• )'■ ^ i-F«g t. MONTBEAlb 27th MARCH, 1838. , * (Mam Day, J. ' ' • - No. 1018. Dalpi 4it Pariseau vs. Rochon. t .■/v. J- ' Held, that in actioiu of damages for imi^i^dent issue of «ai*i« arrtt befon Judgment, the Court will only give nominal damages wh<^ there is serious gropnd for distrust, although not amountinc to a complete justifloation of the prdoess. . . — « Day, T:— This is a^ action of damages for the issue of a taim arrit before ^gment without probable cause. There is the usual plea of justification From the evidence the plea is n6t made out; it'does not appear that there ;was any suflicient ground for the issue of this process, but the conduct of the parties — ttr*«ri»*tBuueur u-ayant pu «t« BOtifi« an prtolable par la Demanderesse. ^ ^ -1 ;-.^. ' SUPERIOR COURT, 1858. 121 ^+ WM Buch as to give «Dbject ctf distnwt. There were Bugpicious circumstances to ihm dtt Wake tlie creditor uneasy. I will, therefore, only give nominal damages. The '™»» judgment will, therefore, he for the Plaintiff, with 608. damages. ■ Lehlanp A Catsidy, Attornies for Plaintiffs. Ckerrier, Dorion tt Dorion, Attomiefl for Defendant.* « T.K.II.) ** ' I, : ^' CIRCUIT COURT. /^ MONTREAL, 16th APRIL,^ 1868. / Coram Badglev, J. No. 1400^ ' The Attorney General, pre Ilegina, vs. Afe^htrson, et at. Rdd under the 87th seotion of the Judicature Act of 1867, in w action on a bond aUeged to have been ■. aemm by the Attorney of Defendanti. that the Bond in question is an act in writing of the ' dewjiibtlon of tho«» oontemphited by the Judicature Act of 1867 and where the authority of the Attor^ to execute such bond it denied, it is necessny to JSrle an affidavit of the denial with the plea containing the allegation thereof. / .. This action, ^as for the amount of a bond alleged to have been entered into by Defendants," acting therein by their duly authorised Attorney. To this action the Defendant pleaded a a defense aufonda en fait, containing a -special denial of {he authority of the Attorney to entet into the bond, but did not. fyle any affidavit containing a special *denial of this fact. ^ On the 14th April, 1858, Mr. Pominville, on behalf of the Attorney General, .moved that the said plea bo rejected, inasmuch as no -affidavit had been fyled therewith, and that judgment be ente/ed against Defendants. 'Pominville, in support, said that by the Act the instrument itself, as well as the si^gnature, is held to be genuine, unless an affidavit is fyled to the etfect that «ueK instrument, or jQmfiLroatemJpMofltJ^^ that this pj-oviso extended ,tp the particular denial urged by Defendant. ~' Herbert, contra, said that no such affidavit was requisite under the 20th Vic* cap. 44, sec, 87 ; that the clause only required an affidavit where the signature was impugned, but that the present case was a different one, for here the power to execute was called in question ; that the clause of the Act requiring an affi- davit did not cover the present case. ■ \Per Curiam :— After referring to the clause of the Act in question, I am o^ opinion that the affidavit should have been fyled ; but inasmuch as the members of the %ax have not yet become familiar with this new lawjl shall discharge the tnquete, and permit the Defendant", on the first day of next Term, to produce the necessary affidavit. Pominville for the Attorney General.. :^ c _ . -^ J?(sr6«r/ for Defendants. position a,pd pleadings and which is en Stat d'etre jugi. If one of the Defendants had died, the question might have been different. But here the sole enquiry is, whether the survivor, in case judgment is entered agdinst the Defendant, is able to give a receipt that will discharge from the judgment; and there is no doubt that he can. " , ' - ■ i '^ Motion rejected. ^«MM«e <£• 2)MnAtn for Plaintiffs, ' j, „ 5or«y for Defendants. ' J (W.A.B.) " 1*^^' ..j-,^ V COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1867. 123 IN APPEAL From the Dittritf of Montreal. ' MONTREAL, isx _ Coram Sir L. II. LaFontaink, Bart., Ch, No. 37. Sir James Stuart, Bart. (Plaint{ AND Blaib, {Leftndant in the Court below^, PhBsoRipnoN.'— Entre presens, WEB, 1867. / AvLwiN, J., Duval, J,, Caron, J. in the Court below,) Appellant, Respondent. ^ MWvZS.'ot'^r, *'",''«"'""'' «'»S°P»"" Court, co»po«rf ofM •S"^,"!^"- ""u °°°" '^'°" ™ '" "■» fo'lo-i-S word. :- « itSlt^r .^^ " "'"''""' "^ "■, obligation i„ ho d«>l.JL;„ « hath alle^fi ^«*i, ^- • Vi. . ™ ^ "°** "^^ ^'^ said exception, he « Z thl SJ' ^;*/ '" r '"'^ "^''^P*'""' «°<1 considering that it appear! « Lw •";"! ' T' P**"*^ theV'^^'ff and Defendant were boA^^ / s^i^. ' 'i.;'M '' 1 «, I m I 1,19 |f 1 . n Stuut Blair. ^^ ■ I T c i ^ y y / }n ■f: -. . COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1857, Henry Stuart for Appellant. By the 113th Articlaof the Custom of Paris, it is declared :— Si aucun a joui et possSde heritage ou rente & juste titre, et de bonne foi, tant par lui que par scs prdddcessetirs, dont il a droit et cause, fran- chemcnt et sans inqui6tation, par dix ana entre pr^Rons, et vingt ans entre absons, agis et non privil^gids, il acquiert prescription sur heritage ou rente.'' , Thia Article, which made part of the old Custom of raris, previous to its re- formation, appears to have been borrowed from a law in the Code of Justinian, by wKich a similar prescription wa? ostabHshed, fnftr prmaentes ; and by a sub- seqiient law of tl^e same Emperor, a. definition was given of the persons who were, to be deemed presents, in the following words : — " Sancimut dehere in hu- *^ju8 modi specie tarn pelentis quam. possidentis spectari dotnicilium ; ut tani is ^. qui questionem ihducit, quam is qui rem possidet, domicilium habeat in uno '♦ loeOf id est in unA Provincid." . . tn^he construction of the word prisenS, as- contained iii the old Qustom of Parisf at a remote period of the" French laW, thostt persona were hcld*Jto be pre- sent who had their abodes iu^ one and the same Diocese, (Etablissement de S. Lonis, liv. !.), But, subscqujjntly,, instead of referring, as before, to an ecclesi- astJcafl division of a Province; to determine the point of presence or absence, a civil division was adopted, and 'throughout the parts of France governed by Cus- toms, with the exception of a few Customs, the divisions of Bailliages wasT either "by express =eBhctihent, or constructively, held to be that within which the parties in cases of prescription must be resident^ to render them present. The deficien- cy in the old Custom oi Paris, on this head, was supplied in the reformed Custom, b)''an express declaration fn the' 116th Article, by which it is said: — '* Sont reputti prisens ceux qui sont demeurdnts en la ville, Prevote et Vicomte " de Paris." This construction put on the word presens was consistent with the spirit and policy of the law est&blishing the prescription of 'ten years, and with justice. In extinguishing the right of property', by an adverse possession, for so short a pe- riod as ten years, the legislator requ^fted that the proprietor should, by a reason- able proximity to his adversary, have an opportunity of becoming informed^ of the usurpation of his estate, and be enabled to adopt legal measures agains&him, to repossess himself "of it. These conditions were.fulfiUed, to a, certain- degre^; by requiring the residence of the parties to be within the minor divisions of a Province, in which judicial power capable of Ikffbrding redress was exercised, that is, within ih^ Bailliages, or jtidicial districts of the P^otfnccs, and in tbi§ respect, the provision of the Custom was more judicious thata that of the Roman Law, which made the residence of the parties in any part of an entire Province sufficient. But the purpose of the legislator would certainly bate been better accomplished, if such residence had. been required to be within the particular ' Bailliage, in which the land in dispute lies, as has jbeen done in the modern Code of France, by wbich the residence of the pers&n prescribing and the person prescribed against, is required to be within the land in question is situated. e.iimits of a Cour Boyale, in which .n-lAWrfe». t dt-drmi-j ietH. and in som^ of the Customs, the rule of Justinian's Code obtained, rendering Q|>URT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1857. 125 i I ha.1 in tl-ocstabliMu: U 32^^^^^ by C«sto„«, .„« „„y regard Tg^ wMel, the parties livc■• 1 * ■ f r t .1^ •, - ,^ J . • ■ f; ...» « - 1 * , '4i ffiP • sl_ ,t- . / * - •'« ■n r? . j S',, 4 ■• ,1- .i ;:*;^/. . / * .,,( J I 1-^ Hliurt BMr. \f''m. 126 COURT OF QUEEN'8 BENCH, 1857. • i " menlde PurUr . Thegcnoial laws of Franco, aiul Uio Custom of Paris, in purticiilar, wero tlicrefuro tliinys introiliiccd into Caumlii, Tlio 113th and 110th A,il;i«il«'8 of tlio Custom above mentioned, have thoroforv bixiii introduced, in so fur as thoy can receive application hero. The 1 I3th AHicIo fsof a nature to receive applicJilion in any country, and the llClh Articjc, whjch > merely„fi}t_^ Jl^ihuiatoty of one «ftW words conisrnea^^^^^ , . After tlio erection of the Superior Council, a Judicature was established in Ca- natla, on the model of the Judicature of France, consistinjr of aPrevoti at Qiic- Im; Justices Eo»/ale8 at Three Rivers and at Montreal, and Seigniorial Oourts jn the Seigniories. Thd Prdoole of Quebec, in name, and in the judicial power with wjiich it was invosteij, contspondod wth the PrevoU d4 Paris; the Jus- Jf^a Royales, in like manner, c6rre^onded with the Jioilliages iii -France, 'and the Cotts^^Upirieur, in its jurisdiction and attributes, corresponded with tho PailiamcuJi^ France; so that, with tho laws of France, including the Custom of Paris, C^ts were cstjiblijhed perftictly analogQU* to those in France, . "and com.petent to^Tr^iUfe' .the laws as would Me- done' in Franco. As a ^substitute for those judicatures," it is provided by ^thi Provincial Statute^ 84 Goo. III., chap. 6, that ^hore shall be Courts of King's flBench in tho sbvcraldis- . tricts, into which the I'r<»vince was divided by that Italtute, and to these Courts, Iho jurisdiction formerly^ exercised by the Private, ti\JjusHce« Botjales and the Superior Council, vim given. " By this enactment, tl^e several Courts of King's "^Bcnch, in the several- districts the^ established, becfjm^ in reality, for all' the purposes of the 1 1 3th and 1 1 6th Articles of the Custoi, Privates and BailHdges, not ill name indeed, but in substance and effiBClT^ ' ^ It seems to have l)een strangely imagined in the Court below^iat because the woids Privotide Paris an used in^he 116th Article ^fiFtE^ustom, and the word BailUuges is used in other OUstoms.-and because there isjio divisipn in Lower Canada now, bearing eitheptof Cliese names; the Iftw respecting jorejent in these divisions has not been transplanted in Canada. This, *t is conceived, is an error, inasmuch as it is the existence of the thing, and not ihfi name of it " which is material in such cases. There are minor divisions, or judicial districts,' in Lower Canada, which, though not called Privotis or Batlliages^ correspond i|i their nature and the purposes of their establishment, with the districts in France, known under these names, and thi* is sufficient \p render applicable to the former the law wiich was Applicable to the latter in France, in what respects the 116th Article of the^ Custom, and th^ use of the word Bailliages in ma Customs: But if it were assumed, contrary to th^ fact, that the 116th Article .;5f the Custom, is noj a part of the law of Lower Cahada, it would still be ne- cessary to put a construction of the word presins in the 113th Article, and what ' ' other construction could be deemed proper, than th&t which, by the common law of France, making part of the- law of Lower Canada, is put on this word, namely^ that the required presence must be in a judicial distinct, in which a ju- risdiction similar to that of a Bailliage, is exercised. ' 4^ In the reasons assigned by the miyority of the Court below, for the judgment^ it is made the ground of their decision, that there were two systems (rulesjtm » '? .^ __CaURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1867. 127 1 ^i Stutrt Bitir. , i ! \ ««/, who lived in the same Province • an f«c»y in obtaining h..^!.!^'^ '"*"''""' ">' P'Moription diould bare arinl I,. twe,,,,*. two pe«„^ tb. 0.0 reridont t Cp, bL., or on Ibe "^7^. r, OP an tbo Bbores of tba flnrf „f o. r "n ™e mm ol L». . M„.... • ./ ^'- I^'rancci «nd tbe otbop boyond th tZt - !;^^ ^^"""^^ **» *« <^««t"°« of the Court What idea does^his convey of the opinion of Oie '? ( i I . \ 1 1 1 .".'tl , li: J ■ ( t i 1 n t; .) '^' 128 f ■ \ r COURT ^F QITEEN'S BENCH, 1887. Sinart r. Btadr. Court bolow, on tliis point I \l» it at kll lilcely that the PriuoU de- Quebec, or iheJiutice Roifale of Montreal, would\ hnvo held iIiobo two raon, willi a conti- ncr t between thcniy^to be i)re8int togeUier, and !mve_ J^)pUfld ilie_iaw-4»f ^ |^ *c»gy6»«f i Respondent lives, and has lived, during all the time 4f3llrc alleged proscription, in the Town- ship of Chatham, m the district of Montreal, while the Appellant lives, and has lived during the same period, at Quebec. On these facts conjoined with t^e l»w, as now explained, it Is cpnsidered by the Appelant, tliat the plea of Prescrip- tion was not maintainable, and ought to have been overruled and dismissed, and thatthe judgment' of the Court below, by which it has been, maintained, ought to be reversed. - Sm L. H. LaFontaine, Bart. Ch. J. dmenHens ;T-Action en declaration d'hypoth^que intent^e envd6ccmbre 1846!, par I'appelant centre I'intimd. Ire. exception: prescription trent^nairc, non pas ccllc qu'un tiers-dfitenteur pent acqu6rir par une possession pendant trente ans, de I'lmmeuble hypoth6qu6, mais bicn celle qui est acquise par le dobiteur personnel, lorsquc trente ans sc sont 6coul6e8 sans que le cr6ancicr ait intentd son action centre lui, cette^ excep- tion a 6t6 renvoyee. 2me exception : prescription de dix ans, entre presents^, ftg68 non privil6gi68, cette exception a 6t6 maintenue. 3rae exception; d6- faut d'enr^gistremcnt, on n'a pas insists sur cette exception. La preuve a 6ta- bli que I'appelant avait eu son domicile, dans le4i8trictdeQu6becdepui8l'ann6e 1825, tandis que rintimS dtait domicilii dans l»^district de Montreal. Le juge- m^iit dont est appel, fipres avoir d6bout6 I'intimd de son exception fond6e dbr prescription trent^naire, deboute I'appelant de sa demande en maintenant ['exception qui a pour base, la prescription de dix ana entre presents : " cpnsi- ' dering that it appears that the defendant personally and by his predecessprshad *' before the institution of this action possessed and enjoyed the lot of land and <• premises, in the said declaration ahd in the said exception by him secondly " pleaded described, for a period exceeding t«n years, without trouble or moles- 6tation^ aud lliat dnring^e iiainr perRRlTfiS^IslHtlff sod «• feudal " ^•'■*^ '"aroTh " tion 01 " thecat " defend " Mr. Ju La qu tuin^ : et La cot cription I " sont re " de Pan Sur oei tient qu'i rimmoub auraient 1 tions diffd le district contraire, me de Pai jurisdictio Paris 6tcr jurisdictioi de rdgle ei risdiction i ,. que nos jui de Cour dc et enfin coi et de celui raj^ort de chauss6s eii Je crois t la difficult^. .sition de I'a de la jurisc i'appelant q citations. ] dois I'avouei Deux poii Saise: lo. (] cette matiSn lequel on pr< TJnce ou dan COU^Jf QUEEN^S BENCH, 1887. __ 120 •• d.fc„d..t i„ tL.tIb.lf 'IS "^^ •"J "(wuining .he „c.pli„„ „f the * - ^ » Sur oette mati^ro, la coatume de Pftris rtdgwinf U Wa. n i W- . dois ravouer, sans avoir Um beaucoup »«irinaiive, ce n est pas, jo Jj^u'Z TfT^'T ^?"° '**^"' ^"'^ ^'*°«'«»°« jurisprudence fran- , ^ Saise. lo. que ce nest pas la situation de l'h6ritaffe au»il f»nf .«„.-iI -J'»c« ou d a n s jonftm n cnntume (laiuimuf d,» c6t* ^ ■ '^'^' ■ttaw /' H J »$ •;•• 1/ i - ^ .1 ' , f I I *> a t I I ^. B.a,i^.) u ^^^ '^irz\i-x^Z^^^ / It ; ♦1 • - ■ ' I'll ' '* \ Stiurt Blair. ■f; '* t 180 COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1867. f dRn'ii i\m nutro province oU uno iutro ciU8 po«6, on arriveroit do toiito n6ciwit6 A uno conclusion contraire & cfllle quo la jurisprudtinco nous niontio bion 6tal.lio. II faUdrait dire qu'il y a abaenee. " Cos tornios (ceux do " rartic.lo II fl), dit M. do Lamoignon dans sos arrSUn, t. 2, p. 186, n'oxpllquent "|.asiiKsoz.la'pr..poBition;oar, on disant abHoluinent quo coux-U sont r6put6s " promsnU qui oiit luur doinicilo on U Pr6Vot6 et Vicoint6 de Paris, on pronant " lo texto do rarti(3l« k la rigueur do la loUro, on pourrait concluro, par un sens '• conlmiro, quo lo demandour ot lo ticrs-dfitonteur 6tant tons deux domourant " hors la coutumo de Paria, il»;ilovraient 6tro rdputAs absenlt ce qui n'est pas " ii^iininoins v6rit'ablo ; car supposd que I'un et I'autro fftssont domicili^s en " Hiio ni6mo coutumo voisine, la prescription do dix ans sufflrait quoiqu'ila ffts- <*«oiit deminirans hors le d6troit do la Pr6vot6 et Vicoint6 do Pario puisqu'ils *J Roiit doiniciliis en nno mfinio coutume et bailliago." Bonrjon, t. 2, p. 655 k la/'noto sous Tart. 18 ; apris avoir fait romarquer quo " I'articio 1 16 de U coutume r6p6to prAsenta, non iculoment ceux qui sont demeu- raijts dans ta villo, mais encore ceux qui sont domeurans dans la Pr6vot6 6t Vi-, , coriit6 do Paris," I'auteur ajoute : " mais pour ce dernier cas, ne sorait-ce pas I)r<:f6it!r la lettre k I'esprit do la lol ?" aussi a'oxprime-t-il ainsi, (mfimo page) aux articles 17 ct 18: " II y a prisence si tous les deux c'e«t-A-dire lo cr^ancior " ot ie posaesseuV sorit dom'icilids dans I'fitendue d'uno m6me jurisdiction " II y a absence si Ie possosseur de l'h6ritage et le cr^ancier sont domic{li6s dans " r6tcndiiti do deux diff6rente8 jurisdictions." Laiioignoii k I'endroitdfij^ cit6 : " Parnpi nous quelqucs-ui^s estiment que, " pour fairo la distinction do ^ prisencfl et do I'absenco, il faijt suivre lesbail- " liagos et 86n6uiiau8s6s ; et les aiittes s'a^tachent aux fins ot limites des coutu- " mts." Viont ensuito lo passage ddj^ transcrit plus hrfut puis il ajoute : « Et "d'aillcurs quanJ I'article parte de ceux qui deineurent en la Pr6vot6 et Vi- " comte de Paris, on jio voit pas si los r6formateu«i qui ont aJout6 cet article, , " ont prttendu parler do la eoutuine de Paris ou do la jurisdiction du Chatelet, " qui est lo sifige de 1^ Pr6vot6 et Vicomt6 do Paris, ce qui mfiriterafi une ob- " scTvntion parliculie^e." Cette observation, voici comment il I'a formnl6odans ses arr6t6s, t. 1, k I'article 34 du titro 29: "sont r^pnt^s presents ceux qui ont leur dpmiciljQ dans un mime bailliage ou tiniehaustie principale, de chacune province, et les autres sont r6put68 absents. " C'est \k .la noutrcllo rtdaction qn'il proposait de substituer, pour mieux rendre le .sens qa*6vid^mment il atta- chait fk Tarticle 116 de la coutume. - * , . . On lit dans I'^dition de 1678 de la coutume de Paris, conte^tit lei notes de Dumoulin et les observations de Tourpet, Joly et L'Abb6 ce qui anit sous I'arti- cle 1 16 ; "JjCs pr6sen8 sont ceux qui sont en m6me bailliage,/ 86n6chau886e, on province." Tonmet se seit ici du mot Provtne«, comme B'apj>]iquant aux pays de droit 6orit od la rdgle du droit Romain avait 6t6 conservSe. i Pothier, des prcsciiptiona, ITo. 108 cin etpliquant lea termes de PaVtiele 116,^ , dlt : la prescription est odnsde dtre eltre p^tv .lonque, tanF!""™""^ eur qui _ COURT OP QUEKN'8 BENCH. 1847. qui d.,„.„„„, „ „,t,„„ t^,.,^ I^^fljj/ «"• '^' • ^»» •'■•« |,our ,,r4«„(. ,,„, CIWW aJ^rJA -I . ' r- '"' S**!™. •"•818; M«,„,,,rt. 8J. .in«.n. i„ mizzr ; , 8"".°d"^"''r " " " «'*•"-'" v- i.ch.e,uero.eolt::rX^^^^^^^^ Co „W point CaiB,nWdiLt?ioprrmi^ oJ r "^ *""'' ^""^ '^'^ tribu„aux Fr J .nune est de r^puter ;,^fce; Tx i' d JeTT*^ '". " ''"P'"^" *^^ ->- rienr." (2) T'' "^*'«'""'^ ««*."«nt A un -p«rloy,ent op co.«eii «upi. On lit dans yAneien Denuart, m mot " Bailli ".up, S*n6chaux on entenden if6n6ral un Xi„r . ^ ', "' ''* '"'*'*• ^«'»« «» certain rf.>/ru:/ „ppel6 Jw^^™! "^"'""^ '^^""'S^ ^« '«"J'« '« J"«tice dansun meuble, en ^rescrit la propri6t6 L dix an si ! vLf ,? ^"•"' ''""' "" '•"" dans /e.r«ttor/ rf« fa C7o«r RovL dan, l"! 1^ '' propriotaiie habite , ««l::sr:s:csizror' T.p.on,etdwsauteu« (I) " Praticlen/rancatt," ia« -"-T— ^-^-■— -^-^-^ -^ Ituart BUir. i' ■ ; ! .^ y; 1 It • fl ■' i .( hi: y,\- I! 118 OOURT OP QUEEM*8 BBNCn, 1M7. ■Tr-r: I MiUkrt Bubr. A' lU -i-'i on lit 4 Ia Huito *ie U r^t^lo Tom ei-J«Mu« oiU« U note auivant* : " Aujourd'bui ■out abMnt dan$ It »»n$ tt* etUt riglt coiix i|ui habilont It rtttort (Turt antr* eour royale, art, 32IIA ilu co«l« civil." Voilii pour oc <|tiu j« trnuvfl de poaitif, ot u co qui augniento loa diffloult^a aur la ([4«oaverto ot aur In pourauite.** 8i d'un c6t6 racqu^reur do bonno foi doit 6tro prot4g6 aprAs un certain lap* do tcinpa, da Tnutro, le propri^lairo, ou lo or6ilnci«r liypothAcaire, a droit a uno 6galo protootion, ai celui-oi k aon domicile dana In m6mo juriaJiction que cului qui prcacrit contre lui, I'on pout fnoilomont ooncovoir qu'il aora plua a mtme do oonnaltro tea actea ou fos trannaotiuna dans lew]uols ce dernier a'ongu- go, quo a'il «lonieurait dana une autre juriadictioni II eat on offot pen de clian- goment, dana la pri)pri6t6 dee hdritajjfea qui ne donnent pna lieu k quelqiie pro- C^durea, ou k quol({uea fornialit^a k romplir, do mnnidre k bient6t fairo connai trc, dana la localit6 do In rdaidenco ilea parties, la mutntion qui pout affecter oelui contro lequel on preacrit, ou du-raoina k lui " faciliter"ceito connuisaance. AtLWiN, J^ oD k la ieiire'ue Be8~di8iHnitio qu'il faut avoir recoura pour decider la quesUon qui nous occupe. ar fil f X '^-•e =?«■ '«W ■ •■t ' COUHT OF QUKKN'rt m|fcfl, 185?. , 113 Kn ntorpr6Ut.on d« cot nrf i«|e. DupleMJ. nou. dit : " Loi ori.«.f. I^^ Carondw, en comnienUnt lo niAme aft. lie. <|it • «♦ Ln di.tJn«.i«« f -. , " coutume ontro le. pr^«,„t, p.r dix «„, et Ic a lu par t^an! ,?°^ •* do droit remain " tU4nHi« « i i • • -, »"""" P*' 20 an8, d6pond auM uo uroii ronnain ilrKJmtic, La lo. dorniire du code de UHueapionibu, d6 " une;,.V.W, et celui ,ui pretend la prolrmor^;:L\Z':Z^, droit remain la residence da cr^anL et du podir" dan. d^^"" ^^'*' '" appo.6 "que le cr6.«cier et I'acqn^reur tiern-d^tenteurl I'h^ntale aTrLent 2 • "niear»ntdan.unemrf»w;ww.„c«,quoique dans dea »ni«, T*^ ! . " que la cho«. dont eat question solt'itafie d.rune J^'^J'^^^^^ 1 T" " mioilea de« partis" "«« <'•'« "»« Provmcg^Ioignie des do- . I Lauridrf.surrart. 116, p. 86a. * , Pothier, prescription, nos. 103 et 104. Toumet, BUI Tart, rie, page 186. .^j' r- ~Bir»^ traits de i'absence, p^e 319, -''- ' -^ ' — - — ' — 8erre9, institutes, 169. -^ «K •iMMPt \ *!. ^ *.'■ ■:| I-' 4 \ notre r J igU c.-.~.ie....c.„...B.p.^^tt.;,vzr r i:::^ A-V ^ N, JR. i^ ••■•: 134 COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1867. Stuarf V. Blivlr. N)'' suit Jbrine rtu droit Romain, duquel a 6t6 p;ia I'm tioltj! qui do't iious-scrvjr do guide. Les termes de cet article no peu- veiit npiia ^trv' applicnbles, il faut en prcndro I'^sprit, d'apr^s loquel il nous pa- r H n6cesj|iairo f the Superior Court, we are enabled to give the siibst:incc^ of liis observations on that occasion. " ' ' I '' • Day, J. — The seconti exception sets up the prciscription of Kn years entri pxesent- The fact of the possession under title for upwards of t||n jears is established. The only question is whether the Plaintiff is to be considered preseiit in ^he hieanin? of the 116th Article of the Custom of Pa.ris. The presence ,of the party iavoking the prescription of ten years under the llS^th Article of the Custom is a substantlv|g requirement of the law. Without an allegation of it, the exception would be bad, and upcin,' the party bound to allcgf6 it, rests by necessary conacqyen'ce, the onus of- prdring it. Who then are prescHs under the rule established bythe 116th Article of the Gustow. The words of the Article are : — " Sont riputis presens ^eux qui sont demeuratia en la r^/e, prtvdti et ttj- comtil de Pari$." Taking it according to the direct meaning of these wordef, it merely defines a geographical limit whicb cannot of course be transferred to this conn- try, but although in that respect, it furnishes no absolute ansWer to the question before us, yet the reason of the rule established by it is apparent and of general application, and it affords a sufficieht and safe guide for a decision in the present case. The " ville prifdU et vicomU de Pam" included the territory in France which was subject to the Coutume de Paris, and thli rule to be deduced is that, according to the spirit of the 1 13th Article, those were constd»red present who were resident within the jurisdiction of the same law. Such I am satisfied would have been the deoisioTn at the Chatelet, and my opinion is confirmed by what F'erri^re says in his commentary that although^lKiUM 1^^ it .»• ana WBACX, which Bad~ IBeTr own ciisfoms, were within We jurisSlctTon of the Chatelet, yet their people would not be regarded as jiresent within the Custom of .ul Paris, because they were not ' IjmI k ~^' ~~ "^ — ~ in Frane, out of the jurisdiction of thj C^om 'of P • '"'"••'"' '^°"'"' *''««' "«ted bad gro^n out of tl5» state of the county »,! " '""" "'"""'' ^"^ '"'«« ^^ich distribution oVjiirisdiction within it Tf„ h """' '" its judicial divisions an/ he if resident within the Bailiiage R^al tT.7 *"«"««f '"^"^ the parties we pi „ Royal Court, and tlu, reason givS uXr^''''''" '"e jurisdiction of theTme inconvenience and difficulty by belnL'K,.'^ "'*'''"'»'« P^rty is liable to ,?,? h.resides. The Customs o^ft^rrd^et^d"* "'*''" ^"^^^^^^^^^ those only were considered present who w«rl ^l " "'""'''•' °' '^is rule. By them cons^«t was the rule that persons who '""'"" "'*' «"""« ^^^'i-ge Roval and r* B.illiage were held to be aCnt wien riTrf ^ r^"* ""'^^^t irn'e^ J^ hejnselves in different jurisdictions The oLITT- "' " "^'^ ^'*""''«« th^y^ouuJ • ■ IT 1 '""l ""•' ^""«'» -- "P«S P el'nr, ^- ♦'"^t P-ties wit'hin the . rule. An obvious reason for it is that'tl * ' '"'' """"« '« ""o to be the bettor lavv were presumed to kno^theiltlTrJ^^^^^^^ jurisdiction of hi same neither could know the rights of JZ/^'lZ"'' ''''"'"'*^^ ''^^ •'"^"'nt laws of Artois and Poitou, although no specTfic „r„v ' ' "'''' ''™^*"««1 '" '^e Provrce C-so, of either. Each Province wrdf^id^dTtra "" T'*' °" ^''^ V hose persons were held to be present whl » . *^""" """''" °f ^lilliage, but indr^entBaiUiages. The sar;, lira^nr ^'^^"^^^ ''''^^^' ^^^^ •the different judicial districts in Lower cTJ ^ ^ ' Province even supposing that milar to the Bailliages in Prance^ Zhrmtr'^'r^^^^^^ in all'espelt* fie rule could *e found under our cltol But wT? ''''' °*""°'> """^ «"»* 'oVpec . . 'n those, portions of France lying outTf th! .*•'''" *''^""'''=« "nay have -exited seems to me that under that CuftoT the V"™'^'"""'' "'*''« Custom of plrisu - Prescbiption, No 49 « a p • • "^ Jurisprudence was fixed A n! ' CoutdeMelun,Art.l7.. CoiitGen.p.no " ^ An. Dbk. vo. Pbes. No^. 51-4 ^ Coiit d'Artois, Art. 72. " * ' Oofit de Ppitou, Art. 377. 1 DiCT. DE DnoiT. vo. Bauli Mi . ««^deJi^.vo.ABSEN8.p.70. * - - Stuart fiuiir. ■f! i j SI I ''I ■111 J '•■• : I .!i ,.. r ) 1 . f « : b 1 !' ll 1 1 i ! J c I ', ( 1 U=l= ' 1 ' Hfeii i-i T^^i , iij 1 « tAt L ' 1 m- J 189 COUR 8UPERIEURE, 1868.. \h ? ' MONTREAL, 24 IIARS 18S8. Coram Smith, J. * ' ,^ No. 1037. . ; , -\ ■ . ' ' ' ' -'i ■ ■ ' - Jforeau et Vir vs. L^onfird. « Jvgt, que le praeta verM d« 1* i>ttao ttgnite de Auit dolt Mre (Ut iminddUteiiient kprM le oompulMtai* de cette pitoe. ' " Lea Demandeurs en cette cause s'dtant inscrit en faux contre une quittance notarise produite par )e Difendeui^^t cc dernier ayant ddclar^ qu'il entendisit se servir de la piece attaqu6e ; it prit une rdgle sur le notaire instrumentaire pour lui faire diposer sa minute au greffc do l». Cour en conformity k la rdgle de pratique 106. i ^ ' Le, notaire ayant r^port6 sa minute au grcft'e le 17 de mars 18S8, le D6fea- deur en faux notina le-Pemandeur en faux de ec fait. ' Le Demand^nr en &ux aa lien de foumir ses moyens de faux deux jfrars apres cette notification en con- formity j^ la r^glede pratique 106, fit moiion le 23 mars 1868 pour qu'un proems verbal de la pi^ce argute do faux fut pr^alablement fait ^Jio/renaye pour le D^fendeur, s'objecta k cette motion, pr6tendant qu'elle ^tetait pr6matur6e| et que ce proems vert>al ne doit avoir lieu qu'apres que les . moyens de faux j>nt 6t6 d6clar£s p^inents. et admissiblcs et il thtbra aux regies de pratique 106 et 109. R&gle i09 " that immediately after the rendering of ''the said Judgniemt declaring the moyens defaux relevant and admissible, the " Plaintiff or Defendant tnfaux may move that Aprocis verbal, descriptive of the ' " Exhibit ^ed, be nWe in the presence of the adverse party, or his Attornef ''adliteir I Smith, J. Cette d^otion doit &tre accordSe. La loi du pays ordonne quNin proces y«^al soit fait ne la piSce attaqu6e de faux aussitdt ap6s son d6pot aa grefiia, et cV^ 1& prpc^iaure k suivre en pareil c«8. Ouimet, M<>ntt€tJ^rchand, pour les Demandeurs. Lafrenatfe et Papin, wur le D^fcndeur (P.fcL.) Motion accord^e;. 'i W i S5 00 •?5 I 00 « ■< Q O o i ■• : 14 'I* ^:i •«/ . r ■■;< it qu'elle I que les ux regies idering of eible, the iveoftbe ' Attorney tne qaNin d6pot aa M>rd6e;. f « COUR D»APPEL, M67.8. * 17 • 137 pi I I a H§ ^ 1 « O Oi 1 •- 1 o o - f> V S S « "^^^ a> 41 Btt 00 -. o> « s i s brie J a § • a il :.s 00 a .< u It h 2- ^^ . . . O S'~ = = S 5 • I . a a '^H •: •"3 O • • a a ■ ;PO : a a a 00 00 00 ; §§a • a I- •a V u So bOm a " ^' . i OS '•3 2 "Sfia" • S •9 o" a 3 ? •" ^ :§ xs o a s •3 3 : « .•I Oh flT a « « .S3 w a ' 45 *«i OQ rco •3 2 d ,^ gf S/S 5) a Go 8*3 c« ■JB-SLau 01 1 V 1 1 1 - - - . ^ M Q eS - a tT'O ♦* .^- •sj 8 3 w-- ■M 138 COUR D'APPEL, 1867"-^ 1 , .t 'i I ■^-4.*/ s § il- ia' o 5b I o o TIk • • • • ' • ■• • > • • 4> . \ • -a • • > ff • • ' • • * * . . J, . "• • • aS « n •*( a •3 «. • • • «. • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • f • .• . • • *. * • • • • • • • • • • • • « ' • • • •t 3.' o 111 •*! Ill 08 oT boa '3 • •h" !r 2P.S „ 0) S S3 '2 a': § i o : a ~ 3 S J; s • • - S'h a""* - a .a S S a - a- - - - - - Cl » - ^ - \. ''^ • jT • . . ,^- • » .,* • • V *H^ • •*• a • . •• S ci*_r« a N a S a 'Bv o a <« a es o o .S.Qu 1 n J' . ui le ■\ vc PI de au M Josi rani •A "5 2 > _ • 5 a a a r ®,«S « a 8 ja a - - o o bo «5 J*>0^r-< «0 a> *^ ftMff cett< •m6ii ner( pulal I'Opi qu'il La savoii pulati 8*61ev •J) n pq E-) pci pq h) lueubl « y _1 i ^ .-*. - . _i_ ,( • — t- t* 1 « / 4' I 1 ■\ MONTREAL 3Y MaSI^ Corow SiHtH^ 1. \ No. 1366. "' J v^.. > tf A uno detnande «n ratification de tJtre d'.m «If ^.^ . -Prairie, I'^ch^isto du 4uCnt a.Iit obL^ ^"^^ *^«P^ -P'^^^t en-cofltr^chanffe 1 ^ ,t. r ^"!-"b.e que ,ui. Joseph Pi^ah:;^!;::;-^^^ . '^balance du prix.d'acqui«itiori ^'' "^""^*^.<^«q'^e«e*«V '. - S^ "^" de Pi6doiue u„ innnouye hvnotb.n„.-^:...: Z" ^ ^ I^^dalue jusqu'a.concureS d'^ .nrtaf^^^^^^^^^ ' ' m ^ ^'« ^^'^'^^^^ ^or^ 4 ' /LWubl.^uel.Op,.osantL«™iI^^^^^^^ au Req„6r»,t, il rodamait en .12 "^ S, "" '^^ •!»?: ^^"^^ tran^! - ./ ' ; -A cette opposition JeJfequ6rdhtLloSt^^^^^ posantn'^taWissaitparsPoIolfonr -^'^^^ 2*« defense se^dlaie^t::^*;^^^ ■m6me.degamntie,au^teJe«deroJhlS ' nef^d6ter..in6apar«„eson,™e;SZe fri^t?^ • , pulation comme accompignant I» clause^elV^ r ' f ^°"*"' *«''""« ^'«"e "ti-^- " l'Opposant.i, nepoujit^pr,;:^:™^ Wange de ' ' , / ^Cour adopta cette proposition, . ' ^ . . , * I > . , '.. I- o»m;/a,./ en-reiidant leiuj^pmentvUf. ■ * " '' -voir si une simple d^cSX^^^^^^^^ ' ^■ .1 !' nieuble.donnfi ia u qiMldav^ en —T--^-"^- ■? ^-»^ ^ ;,^ i,timl|i''i vJ X'- OoteUIe. J ■ ? 1^ -1 m et Ml., (le I'oxistence d'une hypoth^quc ^onft'l Atalt menacA snr rimraeoble par lui ro<;u . en ^change ; la Coiir n'entretcnait auoun douto que la garantio d'un aote d'6- change ne faisait pas exception k la^diBposition du atatut qui oxigcait que toute stipulation d1iypotL6que fut detdrniin6o f our un montant jusqu'i cOnourenoe du- qael seulement Thypotlidque pcut fitrc «xorc6e ; et qu'une telle convention 6tait cssentielle pour Ja. convention d'unc hypotheqne, et Toppositipn ne ddniontrant pas quo cette condition existat, ello dovai^ 6tro renvoy6o. Jugoraent maintcuant la dfifense en droit du Requ^rKnt et ^e'nvoyant I'oppo- sition. ' '# A «< ff. Za/amwj^ vocats du %qu6rant. .,. . &. (/e j9ouc)tcrt/t7/e, Avoeat de rOpposant. . - K \^ I f.to .„ , ' „ M0N1;|^AI., 24 MARS^1838. . JL ^ : ' \ CiWw Smjth, J. ' ^» • , ■ ■ >•••■ V- ....... ♦No. 2229. ■. ■'' ' ' ' ■ ■ ■„ t MasHon et al. V. Corbeille. .; / 4ug6: U. Quo rAcqutfreur d'un immeuble daus la contemuice duqud U y avaii dMoit poumit niela^ mei^du cessioniutlre du prix de vento une diminution Bur lo priz cOdA proportionnelle au ddikut de contonance. ^o. Que I'acceptatlon du transport no rendait pas le d^biteUr ilon rcogvable & opposer au cessionnaire lea exceptions qu'il aurait pu opposor au crtencier cddant. Los I>cinandeurs comhie cessionnaires do Joseph Robin dit Lapointe,r6cl$- , maient du D6fendcur la balanc* du prix de vento d'un immeuble, Acte devant Mtrc. S. A. Berthelot et son confrere," notaires, le 2 Mars 1847; la. balance ^.ajrnnt 6t6 obdoe aux demandeurs par acte du 9 ootobro 1852. Les dfiraandeura relataient un acte du 13 octobre 1852, re^u- devant Savard et •eonfiQrc, par lequel le d6fendeur rcconnut lo transport comme bien et dflment signifiS, et promit payer la balance transport^e, comme diie au cessionnaire. _^ . Le d^fendeur plaida a cette action par deux exceptions, la premiere all^guant I'acte fait oiitre lui ct Robin dit Lapointej son vcndeur, le titrc originaire de la cr6ance— et alleguant sp6cialement la clause de cet actb par lequel il ^Mtyik que si le terrain vcndu n'avait pas la contonance indiqu6e, il y aurait r^ducmn surlc prix de vente, si Tacqu^rcur dftt otre juridiquement evince d'aucune partio du terrain vendu. '" Le dofcndeur deelarait par cctje exception qu'il u'avait jamais eu la livraison, de tout le terrain indiqu6 au contrat,-T-que par suite le cessionnaire n'avait pu * obtenir plus do droit que n'en avait son c6dant et quo I'acccptation qu'il avait " faite du transport ne lui enlevaitpas lo droit de demandcr uue diminution sur le \ prix et sur la balance transport6fe aux/ demandeurs cprrespondantQ au deficit. B^Far laseconde exception, le d6fenaeur invoquait le m&me principe sous une forme plus ample. » , / "^ . , A ces deux exceptions les Demapdcurs prpduisirent deux r6ponses en droit 'mettant en question les propositions/ suivantes : , Tip ftffaut de «?.nnt»?nnns. /\ , au cegsionnairo. "npo88ibiht6 (i'o|)poacr ccttc exception dol'acquoreur do dem«.if re ,|,lTt 1 ^ 7'' ""?" ^«"*« «"' '« droit contc„anceJWption,«.«J: J ;r;^;3 P- 4 raise). d« dOfaut dcf , port cN^it to position du-dSr? P 'T' " '>«««?'««<>" ^u trans- exceptfW Qn «v«it i^^tcndu tl ' P ^ ^ """' P"' '^ ""« '•«"0"«fation aux l-t6 IWiee d. LrSi^^,feSn^""-r" '^^^"'« ^"^ «airo dans ce can de cCatcr^rfi . '-f '''''' '\ " "'^tait pa, n6cesi e.iS=:^"e:dfc:'^^"^^^^ •- ^^^- - ^^^^it d.;de^a„d«^' a.r^.^i?«.«ieH pou. les J^n^andeur,. . ; : ' ' ^ ^ ^\ »U DISTRICT DE MONTREAL. -;: ^" '^J . • ' „ ■' ^O^TBEAL. lor mils. 1838. " ^' V ' - '\ Comw Sir L. U. Lakontaine. Bart I P a' ,^" NE, uart,, J. C, AvtwiN, J., ,DuvAt, J., CAuo», J. . • , Q"NTm PIT DuDOia ET AL, " . / • '\ •: Appellants. ST '^•>, , , !- .'■•■■ 1 f '1 ^ . *•' 1 ■; '•• ^ >■ -, >i .: :.|'v^' ■' ■ ■ * '■ ■ ■ ■ ^"' ' ' ■ ■'# > .; Vii: ' c * cdi • 1 UR DU BANC DE LA 1 858. TT par Ij<^iB Monjosu Tuteur k Ma onfantt Mineurs, de Marie Reino S6n6c«l 6pou8% de Joseph Sararia et d'Angilique 8in6oaI ^pouae pe Damion Oirard, dans la Buccossion do lour tnd^e* Ang6lique Favreau, en son vivant veuve d« feu Amable S^n^cal. Leur declaration oxposait : queries dits Amable S(|n69al et Angilique Favreau avaient laiss^ once enfants, issos de leur mariage i:616br6 le 21 ftvrier 1808, •avoir : Elizabeth, Sophie, Mario Reino, Ang61iqueJ Ad6line, Anastasie, Julie, £m61ie, Eug6no, Amable et Toussaint Sdn6cal. Que ies dites Elizabeth, Sophie, Mario Reine, Ang61ique, et Adeline S6n6oal avaient respoctivoment 6pou86 Joseph Quintin dit DuBois, Louis Monjeau, Joseph Savaria, Damien Girard et Louis Girard. Que Sophie S6n6cal 6taitd6c6d6e laissant plusieqrs infants, auzqnels Louis ^ Monjeau leur p^re avait M nomrad Tuteur, et que cette Tut^ avait 6t6 en- r^gistrie. Qu'Amable S6n6cal,' pdre, <6tait d6cdd6 le sept Nbvembre, 1840, aprda avoir fait son testament devant Demuy, Notaire, le 6 Ao<)(t 1841$, parlequel il institaa . sea enfants k I'exception de Sophie Sin6cal, ses l^gataires universels en p]:ppri6t6 de tous ses biena, pour en prendre posseaaion aprds le d6cds d'Ang61ique Fa- vreau son Spouse, a qui il en I6gua I'usufrui^ .Que par un abte d'accord 'et de 'transaction du 27 Mars 1851, la t^ite Ang61iquo Favreau fit avec ses enfantfl, l^gataires en propri4t6 des biens de feu Ara^hle S6n6cal, une tran- , saction par laquelle ces derniers lui c^dSrent une tcrre situde k Varonnes, un autre Jopin de terre et une coupe de boip, jl^ tout aiix charges et conditions d6- taill^ea au dit acte d'accord. Que par contrat de mariage ctntre Louis Girard et Adeline S6n6cal re^u de- vant Mtre. Girard. le 13 Octpbre 1851, la dite Dame Ang61ique Favreau c6da aux futursipoux " jttno torre sUu(§e k Varennesj une coupe de boia, et de plus la jouissanco et usufruit la'vio dujt-ant de la donatrice d*un demi-arpent de terr.e de ••■front sur neuf arpenta de profdndeur k prendre dans uho portion de terre appar> tenant k TouBSaint S6n6cal, et anaai'tous lea raeubles de manage, animaux, graina, argents qt autrea cffeta et valeura qui appartiendraient & la dite Donatrice lors de son deces, excepts sea hardca et linges qui aeraient partagca ^galement entre aea fiUes; Que la dite Ang^lique F§vreau.cst dfc^dfe'ie dix Mai 1854, 6ana avoir fait de testament. * ' . ' ./ • « Que par cet Acte d'accord et oe contrat de mariage, Mde. Sdnecal, (la dite ng^lici^Favreau) avait avantag6 Ics 4!^ Amable S6n6cal, Tousaaint S6n6cal ^ugdn«|^M4cal et la dite Adeline Sdn^cal, tandis que ses autres enfants et en- ■f tr'jA|r^^mM>pelahts n'avaient rien re$u d'elle soit par Acte entrevifi ou de QuPHSi^Rre''A'ngelique {"avrciaii n'eAt, pas dispose de^tous aea bien« par actei entrevifs, cllo aurait laisaS des biens k partaget* dans sa succession pour une valear d*au moins quarante qaatre mille livres ancien cours, laquelle sommc divis^e en qnze parts aurait doiinS pour la part h^r^ditaire de'chacun de ses ^er "^v- ,' ■ ; if • ■i.r •»^ COUR DU BAJfC DE L^ UEINE, me. ___^ 148 , Jo deux il« Iirrer« do couL^^^r^ ''T"!" '*'" ''«'^''^« 1"' ^'"^ Marie Reino 86n6cal et aIUS ITl ^""T ^"^ ***" ^"'**'«*'' S*"^*''*^ peUnto i Hire de U^ZT^ ''°*"' "" """"P'"'"'" "H' I- Af ■ d. se. onfan, , J^ v„„d *u . J ■"'""«• '"'""'""'»»' ^' '» ™'» ««« ' faus»ra«i,ta(16g.6dMi.leu,dlM„^* -Slait paa raorte (««(„, .i„,| ,„t ordo„„an« d/de™iLtl„ ■^''°"' "»"•>"'•«"-"«">. *t l»W 1,^-^ . ^rui.»fechdu spicialementqu'en supposant que lo pi^tendu tcsta- .inent montionn6 dans les exceptions p6reinptoiros dev InUm^fl cxisteruit, les Ap- pelanta soraicnt encore fond6s ii so poun-oir comuio il» Tavaicnt fait par leur action, attendu quo ni les Intimis niaucundcs nutresjogntaircs u'avaiout accop- 16 ^legs y contonui}, mais qu^au contraira Ie» ditu I6gataites.avafentjfefu86 do ^fraicccpter. r, ' . '' . *? f Les parties n'ayant fait d'auitrl^prouvo que cello qui r6Hultait des piucos pro- duites do part ct dWitrc furent ontcudus au jtn^rtto lo 2.3 Mars l^sVctleSl Mars 1857 en dfiboutant Taction dm Appelants la 6our Sufwricurdia rendu lo Jugonient Buivant : ' , I " La Cour aprjis avoir ontendu les parties, etc. ...... . .7. . . . "Vu que lo« " Domandeurs n'ont pas allcgu6 on tour demande, ni prouv6 quo la nomm^e *' Ang6lique Favreau n'a pas laissi do biens dans sa succession suffisamment " pour fournir aux Dctnandeurs leur l6gitimo ; Vn que la dito Ang61ique Fa- " vreau n'est pas d6c6d6e inteatat tcl qu'allfeguA dans la dito demande et qu'au " contraire olle a disposd do tons sen bions par sou testament solennel re^u do- " vant Mtre. Demuy ^otairc et t^moins on date du 6 Aoftt 1846, tel qu'ello en " avait Je droit par la loi, en favour de H's enfonts au nombre desquels sont les „'• Domandeurs cttD6fondcui-8 qu'elic a institues rcs 16gataires universels ; Vu " qu'il n'nppcrt pas en preuve quo les Uits logataircH universcls ont renonc6 au " dit legs et'vu quo les D6fondeur8 no smt pas tonus en loi, d'aprds la preuve " faite jp cette.causo de payer la legitime r6clamce en cotto cause, d^bouto et " ronvoio Paction des Demaudeurs avoc depens." . iscs- Appelants dans lour factum ont expose ainsi leurs pretentious, t Ainsi Taction des Appelants a 6t6 renvoy6e parce qu'ils n'ont ni alldgud Hi prouv6 quo Md#» S£n6cal n'avait pas laisso dans sa succession des bions suffi- ■ants pour leur fournir leur legitime et^parco qu'ils n'ont pas prouv6 que les ligataires universeU de Mde. S6u6chI avaient renonc6 & leur log" univorscl. Que la legitime doive sc prendre d'abord sur les biens laissi^s dans la succes- sion de cclui qui par ses alienations a donn6 lieu a cettcdemandoy puis sur ceux dont il pent avoir dispose par Ing8 univcrsel, puis par legs particuliors et enfin par donation en coinmcKjant par k*s der-iieres dans I'ordre de leur dato, c'est ce que tous lot auteifrs enseignent. . Msiisoc n'ci^t pas a dire pour cela que celui qui dt'mandii sa legitime & un donataire, fut-ce le plus ancicn, soit tenu d'all^- guc{^ et de proifver §uc(;es8ivemeiit que le donatcur n'a pas laisse de biens dans sa Hiiift(u'8!^ion. qu'il n'a pas fait do testament ou fiti'il n'a pas lains^ do legataires, :;»^ f€OUn DU llANC I)E*LA UEINE, 18&8. 17 'vW !- 14fl J«U uairer.01, .olt pirtlcullm et e'nfln'qne liTdon^tlon, .ub«6q«ento, .k. .uffl. ^.Z uloT V u^"'"' •"^^•-iv'^nont d'.bord l'L6ritk,r ou Ic 16- ^rXiTrdl r" """^ '''^"'" ' ""«'* "«'*^*"^« <^« - -" -i' ; l'7t m c'i^ .'n^trftr'"': ^"»'^'''"'' ''^^"'«"* d'.bord exerccr J quC^^nt^rr' ™^"''" ""•^"' '' ' ^" «ur »i f.i,„ tiL. «tr T" '." f ''° '"'"'°"' '"• ''">" '"•°™ "'I'P<>'1««» par I. nrrt ye.et,uM,s^y6„ •'»!°P'»i° <'".l'l'» "'^l"" i«ri'co„^ J(2). . ' (1) Pothlor, dbliff No 4in Ante, rw7~i ■" ~ pp. 31a et 377, NosT 344 et 347 n«r° P fl'"*' ^- discussion No. 4.-.ToulUer. T 6 M. do Lamoignon, dans ses arTiJlTi? ^T"'^^' ^''^^^ "" "PP^^ '« l" Mar T^4». ' arUole qui est ainsi^4„ " "fwnTJe d^lf/,^''^"''''"^^ " '"^"^'K* «"' «« «"i«?W.^ » d<5flnltire et „e pent Atre'supplil d'oSfce part Jugo?'""""*' "'""* '" condam^naliS"'^ poSetSl^p'4^feS^;,S^^ du 19 mars 1688.- -Piscussio^ppUJe. ' ?~"^^'^*'^''^"''"'''"o°. 2 aeptenibro 1686, es. .„„ ^l^rle bonafir7il^;?;A"ncVn;ti'.if^e^ forn,6e^oq,tro deux Dona- .delaSleniandeduL<5gitimaire '^ ' *^^ '^""•^' »onataire,p(»5?r 6tre ddchargrf naUi«; qui'i^i eJ^ru^t'secon^dte!! [^-F'T''^' '^°"»^« «"ff'U le premier Do- ' Ai^e— Dans toutSces causes ntetn P""?*" 'nOemnisd^esLndamnations. succeiion. """'*'^' '' ,° ^^^ nullcraent question de dis^'uter les bicns de 1« alin4^ 'f- «. P- ^02.-Cc*^ulta.ions et Avui, Avoeats, etc.,... ^t&illg;;;;;^^;!^^^''^ ^ueilela discussion d'^ second Don^m J , -Action , est cltd. GifMd. I'- ll ■ ■'It' 't i ■t r >" V. I II 4 J^ T ' fl (r + u n /: ■i>. QutAtia CHnnL / / / OOUR PU BANC He Ui RHINE, 1888. I>« plu« J'*noiic6 i:ott«nu «u Jugement ((tie !»trW^^hi"-.itM^X onfr^'^r'''" S"*?" ^«™«*">»'J««tJon lo. ApH.nt« .o«mott«nt quails on pwuv* c« que I« lol .,ig„ «n /ardi cai. If. on *t«bH quo do ««n vlan Mdo. 86„*„al avait fait ,itim, camtne odi.u.o i!„^r !. ^"^ "'^"'"*" P" *«"" '««,n.pvpnH, puisqu'elle a «t6 jUBqu'A fcppKSor de. exoeption. qui n'^taientpa- pl^^^^ti a -'appjyer .ur dc. r«i.onB ■Mqaelle. lo. parile. n'avaient d«s ro6me wngd. v ■, ■ " Vl«^u"v" " !?^ P«» ^J'*^*'""' 1»J «oient au«l fevorable. quo la demande do « I6g,tnne. No„ aeulomcnt elle oat fond6«.ur lo texte prficil do la Coutumo, maUAre. de« Bucce«U tendent ik faire prtiyaloir I'igalitd d.n» los partage. Zt\T"^ T ""' ""'""*• ""« J"'*^ p.rticipation dan- los biens d^ ^ aux enfon, pent 6tro «ppol6o non ,cripta, sed mta lex ; elle est n6^ainrf djreaveol«,p^ceh«maiue; elle a pr«c6de toutes los con8titutio.iSWc8 7t ^ politique^ et c e«t la^natnre elle.m6n,o qui I'a grav6o dans lo coeur de tous le. pdTOs. On sent en effet que nourrir I'enfant auquel on a donn6.1o jour et lui ^W do quo, se procurer A lui-mftme de, aliments lorsqu'on ne pourra plui ^la. en fourn.r, soht deux devoirs Ii6s inUmment entr'eux. et dont Fun est la r oonsfiquence n^cessairo do Pautre." ^ \ Et k la Stact. 3B, Art 1. Quest. 1. No. i2. 6 al., le mftmc auteur dit encore : a "J-^'J,"";;.". "'«»* Pl»8 saCR* dansl'ordr© des successions que la ^.poriao^dun %timwre; etdans le I ^^1 "*' '' tencc civile ; ct si lo pdro doit rcstep libre de conserver ^oaAUroit de prbpriL a da,t au.,8. rcm,,I,r esdovoi.. que la paternity h,i , imposes fcnvcrs sl,L(lu " ct cnvcrs 1ft 8oci6t6." t - " «»»^«» "C'est pour fuiro connaitre «ux peres de famille, les bornes au-deJ& de^ que es ,IH spra-ent pr6su.„es abuser de lour droit do propri6t6. on nianquanfi ccrtame quant.to dos bion, d« lourr. ,y.condans.t' (Z««i{ T. 1 1. p. 6d No 2 ) xfjLt^i ^«>''«'"^. i?a'-/.; ^. C.-Du manage d'Amable Sen6cal ayfec it troif r, T '"' '"^ P'""*'"'"^ cnfaHts;tfi sombre desquels ho trouvfnt nuVtr?^ "'"m "'*' ''. '" ^^^f'^"^'^^'^«^«. «' f«"« Sophie Sel^cal. mero des quatrc m.neurs Mojijeau qui sw.t nus^i^demandeurs.- "Ibr 18 r / ' ""', •""■'" " ""^'"""' '''''"•••^' ^^'"'^ ^^'^'^^ ^ No- vcmore 1849, etsafeinme souloinent en Mju 1854. ' _ II est all6gu6 dans la d6claration, entrc autres cI.oro^. que la dite Ang^liaue Wu av^t^ar divers Ms c«tn,vJfi.M dos aM,eJ^^^^ ^ vatn • ^'" '^"r r ""'''' '"'""'^' ^' '^"^'^ ""'^*^« l«s Domanderesscs, nV vaientnen ro^u d'cllc, so.t par Acte entrevifs ou de dernieres volontes; que sans ces dispositions cntrevifs, la dite An^eliqie Favreau aurait iaiss6 k partlej dans sa succession des biens d'uno valeur d'aumdins 44,000 francs, ce qui a7ait fait i^our clmcu., de ces beritiors, au nombre de onze, (les enfants Monjeau comp- tant pour une souclie), une somme do 4000 tV-. ' - . Puis la Demandercsse et Ics entants Monjeau pr6tendcnt quo n'ayant rien regu, lis ffoiU bien fondes ti demander lour legitime. . n est u remarquer que, dans lour declaration, iU ont allcguo que la dite An- gelique tayreau o(a.t dec6d6 sans avoir failde Testament. Cettc assertion'a Tennd n. ' 'n'' ^/f !"^'-- <1- <>"♦ '"-qV ^^ P-duit un t;stament so- lenne fait par elle lo G Aout 1845, par lequel Testament, apr6s avoir legu6 aux enfants Monjcau la somfne do 300 francs pour etre partagee entre eux.lllc ins- titue ses dix autros enfants ses I6gataires universels on propriete, "sujots n^an- .noins SOS dils enfants .> rappdrtor tout ce qu'ils ont rec-y par a,te« de la dite testatnce Icur mere aifin do s'^galiscr entrc oux." , .. Les avantagcH conforms aux D6fondeui-s par Actc cntrevifs, sont ceux qui r^sul- ent de la cession ou donation quo la dite Angoliquo Favrc^u leur a faite, par leur contiat de mariago du 13 Oct. 1851. lo d'uno terrc ii Yarennes de trois ^17 -'T'' r ;'':"/■"■"'■'" ^'^"I^^ '' ^'-; 3« do la'j,ui«sance et usufru t, la v.e durante do la donatrice, d'un deini-arpent de tone sur neuf ; 40 enfin de tou^ les meublos de menage, animaux et grains, argents et autres effets et valeurs qui appartieiulraient a la dite donatrice lo.-.s do son deees, excepto n6- anmoins ses bar ps et linges qui devaient ctrc pa.tnges ogalement entre ses fillcs lu. survivani, .ft future epouse (la Dofendoro>se) noa comprise La prjncipalc question est cello do savoir .!,- dans les cirponstancos qui vien- 4 iient d 6tPe ^exposees, le droit de legitime pent etre valablement rocI.mA, »„ ,i %■ m ir. y.v. .1 COURW BANC DE LA REINE, 1^8.' 140 au contrairo Ics dispositions du Statut Imperial do 1774 (rActe do Qu6bec) et * de notre Statut rrov^ncial do 1801 londei.t les Dcmandeurs non rcccvables il faire valoir cetto reclaftiation. "La legitime," po.te Tart. 208 do la Coi.tumc de Paris, " est la moiti6 de telle part et portion que cliapun enfant eftt euo en la succession des ditspero et more, ^ ayeul ou ayeul?, ou autres ascendant^ si Ics dits pore et mbre ou autres ascendants noAjsent disposi par donation, ontrovifs ou dernidre volont* : sur le tout de- tluit les dettcs et frais fundraires." C'c*t, oomm« on'-le voit, une portion do cc que 1 enfant aurait dn avoir aft inffiita^'* ' ^r*^ L'article272 de la m6mc C'QUtu|nV poin.ot a tontc personhe dftement 4g6e de disposer par donation *rtdo tons se^jijieubles et fioritages proies acquets et conquets k pcrsonne capable," ct par :l»Article 202 lui pormet de dis- poser par Testament et Ordonn^ce de derriiorc' voiont6, d« tous ses biens " "meubles, acqufits et conqufets immeubles, et de la cinquipme parfie Jc tous ses propres hfintages, et non plus avant. • "La defense de tester au-delA du quint ' des propres avait done FefFet dc conserver aux h6ritier8je8 qiiatre autres quints c 6tait une rfiserve que Ton appelait reserve contumidre^^arce qu'ellc etait-6tablie par la Coutume ellc-m6me. * Puis, seloii I'Article 303, « P^re et mere he peuvent par donation faite entre- vifs, par Testament et Ordonnancc de derniepe volont6, ou autrement en ^luel- que maniore que ce 8oit,'ayantager lours enfants, venans k leur successions, Ics uns plus quo les autres;" et "les enfants venans k la succession dc p6re ct .' m^re, doivent fapporter ce qui leur a 6t6 donn6 pour avec les riutrcs biens de la ) dite sHctfssion, ^tre mi%,en partage entreux, ou moins prendre." Art. 304 "ndanmoins," ajoute I'act 307, « ou celui auquel on fturait donn6 so voudrait tenir a son don, faire le pent, eu s'abstenant de I'h6r6dit6, la Ufitime Hservie aux autres." Enfin notre ancien droit etablissaitM^bez certaines pcrsonnps des incapacit6s derecevoir par testament etc. . Voyons a present qucllcs sont les dispositions de nos deux SlaUits de 1774 et ; de 1801, . , On dit dans le premier, Section 10 : " II sera et pourra fctro loisiWe'a toutc ' et chaqufi^ pcrsonne, proi.rietaire de tous inin.cublcs, i^ieuble ou.interfite, dkns la dite Provmce, qui aura le droit d'aliener les ditsimmdiibles, meubles ou.int6r6t8 pendant sa vie, par ventes, donations ou autr'emont; de les tester et leguer k sa mortar testament et Actes de dernidrc volonto, nonobstant toutos lois usages et coutmnes ii ce contraires, qui ont prevalu, ou qui prevalent pr^scntement°on. la dite Proymco; soit que tel Testament soit dress^ siSkrant les lois du Canada, ousuivant les formes prescrites paMes lois d'Anglctel're." " Des doutes s'dlevent sur le sens de cette dispositipi 11 parait que I'on a pritendu qu'elle n'allait p.«a8sezloin pour faire dispara'iWles incapacitis de re— r cevoir, donMtaient frapp6es certames pei-sonucs, et abolir toutes les reserves quo la Coutumeje Pans avait eonsacifees en favour des Lferitiersdusang. On a penl 86, etc^estce que nous a dit ravocat des Appelan^Jque I'Acte da" 77i n» . ::i.lll QillnUa 0&4. ■ft:-: « - '•V, Iflf 'I ' J H: .. ■■( .u. ■■\'-1>t :v -M-.4 • ,'■•'4 t:m -\:/:i\. a v a i t eu d-auirr etfet qiw dedonnerlV la focultd de disj^ji^^i^ Uo COUR DU BANC DE LA REINEi 1868. Quintln ■ i t" / r^ i 1 y 6tenduequavaientcolIe,dedi8po8crparActecntre.vif8; o'est-A-dire qu'A I'ave- liir ua Testatcur pourrait 16guer "toiisces meubles ct Writages propres, ac- qu6ts et conquets k peraonne capable," (Art. 272 do la C. de Paris) SupDC sant done quo ce soit 14 le soulo effet qu'ait du produiro le Statul imp6riaL ces dumoins reconnaltro do la mani6ro la plus formollo qu'il a aboli la Ti»erv\ coutumioredes quatro quints dcs propres dent Particle 292 de la Coutume ne permettait pas do disposer par Testament. Ainsi, si, dansl'Acte d^claratoire - do 1801, Ion retrouve le mot riierve, il devra ndcessairement sVntendre d'une autre reserve que celle dcs quatre quints. Les^outes dont je viens de parier donn^reftt lieu &*la disposition suivanto de lactc de 1801 : «I1 est ct sera loisiblo k toutes porsonncou personnes saines ^ dentcndemcnt et d'&ge, usant do lours droits, do Idguer et disposer, par Tes- tament ou Actes d0 dotniore vulont6, soft entre conjoints par mariage en faveur . de 1 un ou de 1'a.^tre dcs m conjoints, soit en favour de I'un ou plusioursdo lours enfants & leur choix, ou en faveur dequi que ce soit, de tows ct cAacwns leurs . biens, meubles ou immeubles, quefque soit la tenure, dcs dits meubles, et soit ' ^ qu lis soient propces, acquets ou conqu6ts;s««s aKcu«e reserve, res^ictim et U- mtahon, nonobstant toutes lois, coutames et usages a ce contraires : Pourva n6anmoms, qUe le Testateur ou la Testatrice, etant conjoints on conjointe var maTjage. ne pourra tester que do sa narlJ dcs Wens do sa .communaut6 ou dcs b,ens qm lui appartiennont autrorae\t, Li pr^judicier par son Testament au droitdu ou do la survivante, ou au donaife coutumier ou pr6fix des enfants^ Pourvu auss. que le droit de tester, tel que f i-dessils 8p6cifi6-et d6clar6, ne pour- ra 6l,re cons,d6r6 8'6tendre I donncr ppuvoij-delMicr et donner par Testament, ou Ordonnance de dcrnifiro volont6, en faveur dWune corporation ou autri . , gens do mam morte, except^ dahs jes cas oii telle I corporation ou gens-de maimSS mqrte auront la libertfi d'accepter et recevojr suiv^nt la loi.l' ° ^ "' Ce Statut proclame la libert6 illiitiitfee dj testeJ; et en Mt d'incaprfbites d^" recueillir par legs, soit absolues, soit-seuleifient relatives, il dtablit pour raffle' d'und seulc qu'il laisse subsister ; et ^rando sanction a la nouvello regie g^nerale qu'il n'y en aura plus, a I'exception ' cette exception ne fait que donner une plu^ qu'il decrete. r '. ^ Le Testament fait la loi de la Will^et si, par U Testament, uno personne a dispose do tous scs biens, tous ces biciis^ sont sounis a cette loi. Si cette per ^nne n a ft.it aucune donation pj^alable ^|^,yife; tous ses biens sont d6voIu8 a ' . titre de succession testamentaire,! succession qui dojt 6tre recueillio et gouvernfie paries dispositions de derniiro ^folont6 du testateur, sans que personne puisso avoir le droit do les changer on modifier quant a ilour effcfou a leur etendud ^, Le statut donne le droit & toute personne de tester ^e tous ses biens, quels qu'ils . ^ . ' puissent 6tr^ soit en faveur de son conjoint, soit en hiveur de I'un ou d6 plusieurs do ses enfants ^ son choix, ou en faveur de gut gui^ ce soit, et cola sans aucune reserve, restriction et limitation. Si lorqu'une per^opnOja ainsi dispos6 par Tes- tament ^e tous ses biehs, I'un de ses enfants ponvait encore, ft I'aide de quelques v.. extes de la Coutume det>aris, limitatifs-du drojt do disposer, reclamer une d6- traction sur ces mfemes biens, soit^^ titre de legitime \>n k autre tilre. le Statut « # droit ( riservt servie, "r^ser indispo les Art \ citone ligitimi 6tait ur la ligiti que rA( propres fait I'ob seule qu aboli toi 8ucces8i( Paris, pi .^u'ileriti disposer le Statut donner, r Remar € restriction capable c biens. C des enfani nient, r6cl 86'quent d effet la le^ vo. Ugitin Mais I'o seulement xcore pour nuent ou a mot "L6g — ■\m ;■■• _COUR DU BANC bE LA REaNE. 1858. ^jj do 1801, serait nulUM serait un n^lIL '' "a ~^' droit de d6traction auwit I'effet drnW^' ^" ""'^''' ^' '* diminution que ce disposer de tous ses Z «1 iZ 'r' '' *""***" "'«*"'»'' P«» P" ^« f^^^ , Btalut lui en donne Ja f^J^^^ DoT'^ I" f'/'"*'"'''"- ^''^^^'^^ '« . eu..: j; t^rr^s n^llr ™^ ^'argumentation dcs Appelants droit del^gitim, de I'Art 298 de « r , 7°* «>»».«* PrincipalcmenCau rWaux^ermesm^t^sd^'u^lt^xtTtr^^^^^ La l^gitimf cst'une servie, aux autres." dit VAH. sTl I r ^""^^'^^ ' " ^« l^gi«»c ri. "rWe." "nousUter^JonVpafcett^ ! "'"' •^'''®' ^*"' ^^«"*^' ««?• «« '"ot indisponible par le S civH «'? T'*^"' ""' P^'^'oM^ Wens d6cMe Ics Articles /|:.-Iett,^'Z'^^^^^^^ En consulLt cienne %islatioa- relatCH Sf ^^^^^^ liffUhne, tant dans les pay* de drdlc'ri? \^ " '^"*"'* ^'*"* '" "^'^ <1« 6taitunerW.; done Kot « Lt T ^T ««"^ <1« Coutume de Paris, que I'Acte de 1774 avait dLfJtTLl^^ recorinaissent eux-mfimes Fopres ; 2o. que, si le doSetluS tl ^M^'^'-J^ ^"**'^ *!»'-*« <^^^ -5»rt I'objet d'une exception dans le slt 1 iVoS'"^ "'™™' '"'^^^^^^ seule que le Statut laisse subsister don^n 1 . • ! ^*^ '""" '''^*'''"^ ^^'^"^ ^^ aboli toutes les autros.^^'t ifj^, ^^^^^^^ «* - - effet succession t,stamentaire.il ne mt7tZZ: t /^^^^ Doric, dans uno Pans, puisque I'cxercice de ce droit ,l«;fv ^""' *^*' ^"^ ^*'''t"™« ^« ^-^^^ de tous ses \ des enfants du testateur pou^ait enco- T ' ^*'';'' ''"' «bert6, t I'un mont. reclame, 4 tltre 6!t^ul:rZ'Z^T-' '1^"'* *^^"« «« ''^^ sequent diminuer 4 son gr/les w! IT h '' °'™''^'*'^^' «* ?«>• «««- effet la legitime n'est qu'fnTqul Z do t '"""'''''" -^estamentaf^f ten • vo. %i/m,, Sect 2 t 1.) ^ des b.ens et non de mredito (Aferlin. QalnUn Ginurd, K i;"v: 65: I i \i i Slsn^et MnanVdonatfous entre-vi&i r„„ p^tena i ■' \. 152 COUR t)U BANC DE LA RHINE, 1858. .QolBtln dinrd. >^ rK -i*: > ]]) que col!c8-ci continuenl trfitro assujdtiCs k la d6troctioii de In I6gUiine, et que, dans lo ens nctuel, la (lite Angiliqiio Favreau ajnnt donii6 eiitre-vife; presquc . tons ses biciis mix DfefondeiirH, Ics Appclants sout bioii foiul6s u iQwrdbmaiider Icur legitime. I ■ - ; f ■: X ■ ....■■-.■ ' . W' -■'. ' II est vrai >\m Ics Statuts'.dc 1774 et dc 1801 out eu inincipalcnicnt pour ob- jet la libcrtc de tester, ot qu'ils no parIon| pas en tcnrics exp'r^s do collo dc dis- poser piir donation cntrc-vifc, lifianmoins, la liberie de donnor tous sea bions par aete ontre-vifs existait dej^ soii# rautoritfi do I'Art. 272 do la Qoutumo de , Paris, (ic droit est roeoniui par le mot "doiati ns" jjuo Ton liwive dans ce passage do I'Actc do 1774, "^tbuto- persomie qui aura Ic droit d'nlicntaire n'y seraient pas sujets. " Les d^ation's entre-vifs," dit rotbier, -Don. entre-vifs, Sect. 3, Art. 5 ar un ToaUpje^i^y'il ferait depui, ; ^cs Teatamcut en ll- que to,np« qu'.l so.ent faiu, n'ayHa^d'effet qua dopuik ll mort d'u testuteur, L . J. p^ donner attointe au:c ^onn.tion entco-vifn, q^i ,„t effet d« J,^' c^ l«ur m^a.t dft par lo d0t, s'il ne restc pas dans lea Ibien, dont le deAinii d»Fs6 do ,q«o, rempiM^^Ia 16giti.ne do quoIqu?c„(ant,^IIe dt>iUe prendre dV , J«^d^B"r lea 16gata.res «n.vo,.els. qui doivont la foui/nlravant le^6gateire, hers ac_q«, t6s ; ensu.to lous IcsJ^gataires particuliors ^ doivcnt cont'rrbucr. ch- mort'du testateur, ,Is sont con«,^.avoiruno m6m6 da^.^taucunpo ^ut avoir unc m6mo date, et aucun ne pent avoir d'avantogo sbr i'autro ; ^ les Lataires „ pour cause qu, n'ont^aa mOmo A cel> 6gard plus d'avantage que le^ autrl" " S. apres quetous lesiJega ont etff 6puises, il .nanquo encore qu^Iquo chose a. Ial6g,t.meder^nfa„t4q„i ^dle est due, il pout demander co^en manque " auxDonata.resent,c-vife. en CQmmenva..t pV.r celui qui csUc derniers en date!" J.es Donations ant6neurcs nc peuventsouffrir de rctranehement pour la le- gitime, que les i>08t«fleurc»ne soient dpuisees; car tjgnt qu'il rcste do quoi les' remphr dans ce qu, a oto doi,n6 posterieurcmcnr, il est vrai dc dire que ee ne sont pas les Donations antfiricures fe^ Sit do,i„6 atteinte." L'oj, yoit quo la nouvelle I6gislat1(u. est ontiei-cnent contrairo a I'ancienne. Une,dqnat,on.ntre-vife si cllc doU co1uin„.rM'6tre as.ujetti.4 la d.tra don X . a l^Uime. devra de sU.to subir cctto det.,acti.„. bicn qui fc Donateur ait laL^ dans sa succession testamentaire. i. dps legataires univers^u partieuliers, de b, n plus que suffisants pour foxirnir la legitime. Co neSit pI^s subsid airo- ment.jnais en premier lieu; que le legitimaire attaquerait la Donation entre-. clnm' rr" . ?""■' ''«-™*^°'?c pluscellequeluiavaitfaitela- 6?6 7; t ' ?' -' "'' changee, c'cst parce que la loi s«r la^^atiere I'a d 1 J^V Pr :^^"^J1"« "^ P^»>'^' y «vou-.^os la nou«al!e iigislation. . de I6g,t.me 8nr.es bidns donnas par Sstamcnt, i^'doit pas etre permis de la - prendre en pared cas sur ce«x donnos entro-vifs, on pent lore diro quW doit . sant de tpus les b.ens qu^.l laissera. a et6 q„e ses cnfants n'e« pas de E' mem sur ce, bieSis. ni sur .Wdonn^s ' auparavant entre-v^ !'« e„ deva .on de la legitime, la consequence .erait qlT'un Donateur qui auraftriaisserl on deces assez Je b,e«rs pour fournir la legitime sans que le Donataire entre^ StlmeT 1 ^ "T r'!' t "^ ^--<1— •* nlmoins. en faisS. mteleli T^^^ "' '' la • Donatio!, entre-vifs on assH^etti,sent par cela W le^ r. ' "" •'«^'-«»f -^«t. . Tel scrait le,osultat inevitable dans i nypothefe que j'ai pos4o ; remiMnt -/-•-- • ' . : "? mn gflUlemcBt e^t Joij^-tfay^tf-^^ QidaUf IP .^K J ^twt -I I* ,'t :^'. pre» -w -^ (purd. 'i^ StlfEl^IOR COURim868. 4^t 18Q1, mais quj^t tout4-fuit contraire au but m vii pi^r'Io tiAgislnteu' ct^ii'l'tHpritde BH Idi ^ Wnou8 (| ck6 dmiSf*^ causoH, Tune d6cld6c pai; labour du district des Trois- Iliviirc:*, on J821 (Ulrtdc vs. Di<^l) et J'autrd^id6e i Montr6al en 184t^a ■ 2121 Lofobyi'p et itx. #, lioycr) (1) dans Ie8(|j,dllfls lo droit de legitime a 6tl rcconnu. Dja^s la pr^l^o la ddfcns^o soulltei paa la question, dariS la so /conde, la cott^ d6daw,'^il n'y avait f^ 1icu^i*ccorder la I6g^ime,^ don* tion 6t(inl rd2w|rd6t3 conainp onfireus^ e< n'ayantlo donatioijj^uclle nqiw • ^ Jo dol^ ft^ttlJ, |omiirqi8|^ qiio, tlarft Tun* et Y^xp cau8e,^<)M»« ropra#»tait, pas do Testa(g>)iDt jiloa lloniitours'^et jo dois ajoufey|]pc, q«oii||j pas ci-dcRsiis I'opi lion est dc moins quo Clttrrier, '. Ouimjst, (P. ILL.)" ju,e, mbvaa dails un tel cas,il'e^|||f1^ notrqu. udmettro le drqit de.ldgitihUI^ '^ijufistion nelai |r do8 4lf)Ulep. Vifit jjp' ' ' " ' . Jugoment coflfi ropr( ^*aie e]^9|flMfc lie 16i " ■ ^t^ SOjiH APRIL, 1858. tm ^MlfH, J. ' V itish North America^ v6. Cuvillier^ et aL U 1. A dooi wKdtsooV 2. If the willbe'i terms. ■/v * ■ t: -1^., , \- ■ . If ^ The-Bank of . i Willi not cow a'Class ot deW nM bb^mpUted by tho pattlos at the, time it' . 16ti|h tht^'torms <»f tlio de^bo so gjirport to dxtertl to all debtp tfcw I'decd of warranty indicate t)io pwrpqlWfW^wtaolJ thciloedls eicoutcd ; its effdct »to' thf t i>urpoh), though tlio disposftiv* pofti^Mf iho deed bo couched in geiieral * 3. Ad(!|^'of >waiT*itF»tatii9Bthat M.C.propos^ to car^ pnjjlwslness iij ^ontrcal'anifelsewhdijoi . an*iftf>t tojBi^fcJehim,^ do-io, and to meet' llJe cngago^ontsof a firm in liquidation of which 1»; ■ a J'»i a i^V^ili '*" *''">'d rtquiro Bank ^dominoctation ; ind that the sureties, were v^Ui^ te '-; jM)n^ls i^C(i|urityWltTi a view of making'thijBault^rfec^jy secure witli inspect toanydpWj •> tli^dfte^oii which aiighttlicroaftor become due by him: ana then containing an agreement;^ : , the sareliesjbo bfecowpJlalUQ^or all the present and ^lture liabilities of the said M. C., whetfeer a| *• > • ^ x maker or 4|^^,eidprseroi>apcoptor of negotiable paper, or othcrwiso^^h ' ' ihos'ireH**^'?^*"'*'''^*''*"*'^*^'' ^^ the said M. C. by enddrsing, or procuring the discourftol ;' negotiable p^ipTw hisi own name for' ftie bonefil of a Arm of which he became a member 8u(i^ qucnttoiheratecutloifof the deed of warranty; although such paper had boon disebunted at nis request!^dplaMlt(? his individual credit in ^)ie Bank. v 4. A defen«W*in4y be a witness fqr his co-defendants, if ho bo nojt iiitercsted(Wr if his interest be '^ removed'l^ discharge. » »V In July 1849, the Defendant Maurice CuviH^rJ as j^incipal, ^and the ot defendants as Buretie-i, executcitl a deed of agre.eiid|jBnt Between themselves ofj one part, and t^e f>i,ntifr and the Bi^i^itapf Montreal of the ot&er, t^^ ' following to wi| :— , , • .^ ■ "That the late Austin Cuvilliex, aiiPiPfsons' Adstin and Maurice,! trade extensively under th^ firm of Cuvillier andS^^ Until the 1 1| July, whi^n th f f"^ gW" fUsBrHvad hy tho dcyith of Auatin, the.fatber . ■^ W^^ L- ?'erio SUPERIOR COURT, 1858. I« ^If^the That Maurice ,hath since carried, on, and propone* to carry on trade and ThoB»nkof !^merce at Montreal and elsowhore. ' . ^'JuJ^ST'' lablo him to do bo," and to meet the epga^omcnts of the iiaid late CwrUUw.et iL Hrerand Sons, he will require discountH and pecuniary asaistanco ''Sle extent froni the said Banlcs ; and tliat witk a view of maliing tott| secure^ with respect .to any debts winch now or hereafter vtKeni itepectively, by the said Maurice Cuvillier ; nnd with respect ^ . r-^^- and' future liabilities of the siiid Maurice Cuvillier to the said Bnrtfep rcsp^^t|5rfy, the said parties (sureties) are willing to become securicfto the said %hk^as herein before «et forth. / ler^e the parties (sureties) do hereby make themselves jointly and liable to the said Banks fbr all debts horotofore contracted, or that ' l^^il^J" f*® corilracted to and in favor of the said Banks by the said ;fceS<|^lHer; and generally for all the present and future liabilities of the - ' saidMaurtce Cuvillier towardtf the said Banks, whether as maker or drawer, endorser o>^cceptor, of negtotikblo paper, or otJierwisc, and whether resulting , .from disci^iUB, pecuniary advances or any other cause whatever— they obligfhg themselves t5 meet and pay the said present and future dcbta and liabilities of the said Maurice Cuvillier, as if they were the principal debtors thereof. In 1851 Maurice entere.1 into partnership with Austin, under thftflrm of A. Cuvillier «k Go. » . Ir In 1852, Etiward Chaplin became a partner in the firm, which continued un- der the same name.' In 1853, Maurice became a partner in tl;e firm of Bull & Co., of Belleville in IT, C.>.but retained his connection with the firm of A. Cuvillier & Co. ' At the time he became a parter of A;istin'8, .he estate of A. Cuvillier & Sons had been wound up and closed, by the purchase of its assets by Maurice and Austin : and at the same time Mawice ceased to carry oto any business on his in^iwdual account-apart fiom that of the firm. The Bank account, however, which he had previously opened with^e gaintifia was continued in his name, and the financial accommodation required b^A. Cuvillier & Co., or Bull & Co ^vas obtained in his name, either by his endorsing the paper of those firms or ^ ' ^eir customers' paper ; or by obtaining letters of creijit for their benefit: the - ?]aintifrs having refused to open an account with eitlber o^ these firmi A. Caviliier & Go's funds were deposited to the credit of Maurice fn this ac6ount. i -I h ■I I:--: and their Bills receivable, payable to their order^^^discbunted by Maurice,' ,.» ,1,1 .!-.-.,._..... , ,nana|j|SHa|i|rf" the firm lie superadding the endorsementi^ij^ Iiif^he latter end .df 185.4, th^lrni o i ii. ■;i !' i i-.'ih-i tS>t . - -,.^. Ciivillfcr iilpSL became insolvent, art^ there was then in /hef^ands of the l»lairitm c6M negotiable paper niajlein Ootobe<;and Nov^bcr, 1854, fcr^he amount of whlA tfiQj)r*ei^^*' ^^ action was brought, as well against Maurice CuviIIie^, as ;%Ji bis 4reffetf>^ W' •undefthe deed already referred to. >K N " v f.' : ,' \>y .'[ ^"^ .The pafer cortjfed of four drafts by C. H. Castle upon M. C. accepted by^ini ; ' :* -' a promissory note payable to and endorsed by the firn^and yftert&da by " * 4\ U W^.. afts drawn l>y the firm upon ij. Bull & CoA jLBd endbrsea * ' / "" WA- -^^ % I? I s I 'i i: J J 'i . 'i 77^ «?^» fi 1A6 "SUPERIOU. COtlHT, Mm. i1 "." CutOiior, r > i ^^^ by Maurice. All of which p«p«P wii» phnjuretl to\ bo dlwounted By Mftui1««, *• ""i'*'""'"! *° *'•' "*'°'"^ ""^ "'* "«''*»""* •'^P* •" '"» "V-n^ «" «"'e«dy Micntioned ct al. The DefondaiitM severed. Maurice confewicd judgmVnt ; but the sureties set up ns a defence to the actioD. thnt by tl.o terms of the ^eed ' and the mention of the ,,flrtie«, the auretyship w«« conflued to jiabilitiea iricurred by Maurice either for his .individual buainoM, or for th^t of A. CuviUior & Sous, irt liquidation ■ tjat Ih^ paper »» queatioi. .was not accepted or undorscd by Maurice for cither of those purposes, i)ut^or the benefit and use of the firm of A. Cuvillier ds Co and in f^ctjas not intended, or used, for any purpose whicl. would make tlTe auretic* PWntfffl'^ "''''"'" ^''V'"''"»*»f t''«^««'': Iho whole to tho knowledge of the fiunkin, fo/ PlaintiftH, relied' entirely uir6n tlio terms of the bond^ which b considered were so full as to admit (if no exception «or li.nitation. TJiq more statement m/I.e recital thnt Maurice wm then .carry^wg on, and proposed to cap^f on, bufiness At Montreal, wan no Hmifation hs fo the future, and waV not TFuein fact, for It was proved that he wn< noUlwn <;ariying on any business whstever: and there wai not.'iing to show that this business was to bo carried on mdivJdually or singly. Uo was certainly carrying on business in Uie ordi- nary and well understood sense of thft^emi, when he did so as merchants usually do, VIZ : by forming a partnership; and tl.e deed was so wordpd, as properly to bear the construction, that the su^ios were to bo responsible for &I1 the debts he might contract, in carrying on Ti^sincss of any kind with thd Plaintiffs. ' It made them responsible, in so many words, for all paper which he should draw accept, or jndorse ; terms ihich covered every item of the debt?or wMch they' ' were now .sued. Morcove- it was in owdence that all the paper 8««d onVas discounted at the request, and placed in the Bank to the individuaUi-count. of Maurice Cuvillier. .Maiirice CuviHier was insompotont as a witness, for he was interested to prevent a judgment against his sureties, as they would then MPS a" action against hUr, ; and though the mere fact of his being a defend, ant would not absolutely ^seclude him, yet his4)osilioii as siicli, justified » scv*S ' scrutiny of his liabilities tdwatds the sureties. ^'. ' . -ff^'-'Ae'of pour losdofenJeurssouuiitlos propositions suivantesV- Qu'if s'agissait d'un cajitionnement, contrat de droit dtroit, qx» tie pouviet 6trfe 6tenduo d'un cas k nrt autre, oU d'uno personne a une autre ; ct quo pour en faire Tinterprdtation, la cour dcvait 6trc guid^e pnr Jes regies du piSs strict, droit ^ (^e dans un pareil contrat. Ton nepouvait ri.in.pr&uiner, on suppl6er, ctque Ton dcvrait se renfennordans los-termes moment du c«iiti-at, ct r^chercher peque, hs parties avafent en vue, au temps de Idiir engagement, et'rien au delA. . ' N Que Ics cautions dan^^respocc, et k la date de I'acte par elies soiiscrit, nWieni eu en vue que d'assurcr le rdglement des affaires d« feu I'honorablo Mr Ciivil- .. , ' - — J9plu.ieur8k^ea difffer^ntP^ ^ ' \ :V. ♦ - *-r. QUe.Iabn Hi inform^ f6gl6oi«, ot <| faisait cd|iiii nepauvail o cautions ; qi Que Maui KOiinel et dii Ieii4l6feiid\(>u Pothier, Ca bt^mat, Dcs ■ Ltkoombe, C NoaTeau D< Ancien Den Argou. T{ Troplong. suivants. Ponsot. D " ■ Surrailfli Pr^cddent 1 Abljoft .. foj positions anil I^As bi^li "Barge on i|i .4nd coc II.— nA chaft •or btiiiji -surety ; ' \j^' template Simpson vs. ' " Water Hassel Peppin contraci III.— The.cr< -'■ con temp Simpson vs. iV.— The reel •" • inffuc'ucii Bell vs. ferue "^Z Soanmen -ft . ■ ' estate of -..IfiSi'.; (• :.!•' .''•".■ By Maurlpo, y inontioneil. ureticfl sot tip ) intention of faurlco either ' liquidation : ) for cither of r ds Co., and a the Huretitis lodge of tlie lOR COURT,. 1888. 107 Qiiola banqtie do rAmfiriquo nritjinnlquo, «t f.on calMiier Mr^, DaWdnon, avaioht itAinform^^ quo 1m Airnirw do la wjce^wipii^ i ■■>. t'i 1 % \u > I .V i'.\ I I ■#. ,A» 15S •tv SUPERIOR COJTRI', 1868. ■•%■ Tha Bank of Srittah North Anurletk. II. m ' V 'III.- -Hm piMiiifon WM chanKe« proUbIc ftoiountof hi. undertaking and liabiliti.*, by coaaing to carry on tra*» '" "'« '"•»»er proved, wa, that of A aurety, for A, (Sm(mf^!oj . -No firoof, nor even 41j^re8umptioh of those chaitge*- hiding boefl cpn- tomplatod by the ^urottea hoa boon offered by the Phiintiffa ; but the con- trary a|)pear8 by t1i«yrcoUal in the de«e relieved. Again,— , * y^4:0^" ■ ^* - m^ I.-^h9 debt noW*cbii..»?d i» probtcd|^T3anfc m oneroiftly aa ho could bo ; the adllition of his na^e as ondorsftr^oitHind him no lirore, and, no othe/wise than lie was already III.r-B«t it^i, not%tUf®l Ihat the sure^tiea at^ liable for A. Cuvillier h Co'* debt*. • • ^. 1- '- y. IV.--The nama of iftiuricl Cuvilfior, therefore, coujd only have been placed on the papW for the pujT)09e of bringrng the transactions within th» letter of v*^V'*'^f'"y ''"'"° ''jt"'"®"^'/ "ot within ^ho spirit and intent of it. v.— To perlKli.such a'devilar^succeed, wouki not be to treat the contract a) ^ one strtetitsimi juris, butlRe- rcversfe. It would bo giving it the broadest literal cdnstriiction possible; as agjifjpst the sureties, contrary to those prin- eil)le8 of Law which ehuhciate a directlv c%rary rub of Jnte»pretation.. le sureties therefore musi be" reMod. ^* '%-' " '^' ' Maurice Cuvillier, thongh o Dej^Hlant firiLis ca^e^"^ adfnissaUe as a witness for hui sureties ;-haviBg confes8e»gmWaad recoiled ft-ora them a discharire as to costs. ■ r ■ * ' • .1 Gymmklir en ovidBnoo, 35(5 j Wo/rallja^Xones, 7 Bingham, 395 ; Pipe tSI Ste«e: z Ad, &a N. S., p. 734.' , ■ ■ ^g^^ ;■ ' ■ A „"-'" '''M^ '■ .^ > f ^.""f't' '^-^P^ftcr stating the iacta^nd pleadings jSrhe 'first, iSnt.^tqS decided IS the .construction to bo pwt upon^thisn^ond, Tl|g|«l&ffa*are uiC . . th^impreSMon that" it .is a decjl of suWj^p »» ^mfl^W^ti&H covering il' debts due bvMaiirinrf.diivilMnp on;i ft.o."', ji ,/y^'..-.i..^., ,. . ' . " "" "iJOtltod The .-". ■w^ aWii r . :o -r ~-.™j-~ "• •■•o •^'•■"«« iitui. XV arrive an a correci opinion ifWi this point, the,w"holc Me^, which is an Qxtremely loose one? rau^t % 6«:iook#;'af.'^It1sariio tifet in the rfw^q^^^^^^ worfs arenas, geneeil as they caSi be pjade-but the recital also must bo.reail. apd ty oaly prSper mojie-of settling fhe.cjuestfon, is to take the recital asindi- cating \h«? jntflntingfl.nf all pnrti oi — and oontio»lHgutlifrj»dy-<>fth||a limlu of Uiow inUnlloM. TV) do ,|„„, „f ft! ° iflT r 'T *" ""^ "" •*«' <>f«iTu»i « ptftiM ever contemplated. -. en u ■■ impowible to auppobe the CuvuuiJ, «t •!. - / % %. i- A fj..; K T °" "° «n'« «• » *. Then«t„reof thelt^rir^'r^^rr""^'"^^^^^^^ .k.nd, nor cou^d by B„ch moans th^bSltL JT ^ '"^ ^'''^^^^ ^^ «'at yond the intention fairly derciblo tl^t . . *''' "'"'^'"' ^ «^'«ni(erJ: Sefthelot for Defendants. " t Abbott. Counsel for Defendants % J.J.C.A. • - % It!- ; ■ I ll^ t ■ ■■■ • i t i.-T T *' MOTION. . • lluld -Tlmt • notUH, «,..«.M,«ontry ,l».m of «.t«rlty I., .pp.*! I»» w.lvor ...d r..vo.-.Han of. nolle of •uoh ^'urlty .lr«uly Klvmi for • pwviuit. lUy. The Plaintirf rocovwml ju.lgmcnt \n tho Court IwU.w. Oft tlio ;«^%, 18fi8, following. b«ing« b.tunl«y. tl.« defendant by KIh attor*.«yr ». I)evh», &auir«. cave notice to B. & O. Lallamnus EnquircH, ntf.rnoy. of plttint.H, lh«t oTMonday thon next, tho I7th May. i85H. the Uofendant wouU, enter seounty for tho co»U of m appoHl from tho ju.lgn.ont. Immo(li«toly «(lcrwara», oi. the naiuo Saturday, the dofondaut g.ivo notioo that on THoiwlay thon next, tlio IHth May 1858, ho would ontor •ecurity for tho cont^ of an appeal from the judg- ment, naming for hin imretio« ti»o «ame irtdividuaU wlunn ho had named in hi» Grstnoticc. ' ' , , •.. . ^u i^ On Monday, tho 17th May, IH8H, tho defendafit ontorod rtoimnty In thetcrmi of hlH flrttf^noticc. • ', . , ■ ij, • ■ ' ,- ■ On tho Iftt Juno, 185»1, tlio pluintilf, rc*i.ondont in tho higher Court, nindo a motion before tho Court of Ap|.o.il«, th.it tiio notice given by the appellant on tho 15th May, 1858, for Monday morning, the 17th May, bo declared irrc,'ul.»r, in«unicient. and contrary to law, and that the so.urity by naid ftpi.ell:mt on mA notice bo dcclarc.1 irregular, inwufflcient, m\ irrc-diMly produceil, aud that, in coHHCiuonco, Uio appeal be dwrninsed with co^ts for roanoiw given in theraotio,,. Tho judgment in appeal whh recorded in tho following torn* :|— "LttCour . . . ... • /.' apros avoir entondu leu pa^tio» par le;ir> Hvocat., mir la motion fait(S [.av rindm6 lo ler. jour do JuHi courai.t, "t n..n»..r/ Ue li proS Joi! «'=<=«""^ '»• «'»« rendered i„ the same oftbo IMaintiff '*'*^''«V"" "^^ ''»««"J^ •"<» ^'t the good, were the property Popham, for Dofendaiit, contended that fl,« I'l ■ .la- . . ' Z«i*», for PlalutiflV cited Smiih'M j/-h«.«-*i r ■Ma,.,ll,„,,ri„cLl,„.. J„ '!", ^.'""P*; •" ■°"*'"" '=°"'™«' "' '"•»»" Mh«tliu,t clearlv alitlilllluj" " ^" '" "•"^ *^« '-^er, n.ust prove ^«:^^r pS^^^ '^ "^ ''^^ ''^^ "'^» - the correct p.ncip.e. //«mwt% rf Zi/fiM, for Plaintifl-. 'i /. Popkam, for Defendant. % » V •}=* ,^ :"■ i'l f .A .«► J BL'PERIOIl COURT. J-"* ClIAKOeBS. » MOOTliBAn, 9Ttt APRIL, 1M8 ^' Coram Day, J. No.2iM. |HeW-Ti«t .• ^^''ff'*» 't- al. y.Vordon. f irt g t li ttt thft MJJ a gatioH^of tliu al l ldavf nSF^ I 1 1 -■I . ■:.^«< ld2 SUPERI0B,;C6URT, 1868. 1. nogan,et«l, |m , Day. J., was of opinion that the matters alleged could not be taken cogni- zance of by a Judge in vacation, behaving no jurisdiotion. The conclusion of the petition was, th§t the capias be quashed. If the Defendant could obtain this at all, it must be by a motion in term. \ Petition rejected with costs , 4.H.... ; ■■ ■V • ., #; »,, ■ ■ . M >«■ •• •^vIN CHAMBERS. MONTREAL, ItTH APRIL 1858. Coram C. Mondelet, J. The same parties. ^ .» .% ^^% ^^ ') '0 ileld,-That 6zcoptions to tho affidavit for qtvpiaa, or the matter thorehi discldsoU, cannot bo taken after flnaljuirgment.nind*ed,. " * On the ikh April, ISSS, a second petition was presented J^y tho same De- " feiidant .setting forth that the allegations of the affidavit were fajse; an4 that - Plaintiff had t)Ot,^at the time of the arrest, sufficient reasons for the' belief, that tho Defendant was about immediately to leave this province with fraudulent in- ;■• tent; a^ld concluding mel-ely for his liberation from arrest. The PJ.lintiff by a'nswer.in law Contended thai' the Court could i:6t after final .judgment, pronounce nipoii, the validity or invalidity of the arrest, and that the Jtfldintiff cmild nof be' cempclled after final jndgmgit to enter upon an enqu^U to substantiitelthe allegations of the affidayk. / ' 'Mondelet, I,,*ad examined the Englislf;j4uttio.rities, particularly the Statute 1 and 2' Vic, cap. llO^f whicU-our Statute is almost a transcript, and alsoth- decisions there, had also consulted with the other Judges, and tliey were un- animously of opinionVthat the petition niust be rejected as coming too late. Tli'- Sud^es in England had held that exception to the arrest, upon the gro.unds stated itf this' petition, must- bo taken .-wjtliiii eight days after the arrest. Here the practice had 'been to allow the Defendant arrested that privilege at any time during thtj pendency bf the suit, but there' could be no doubt that? a petition ■ "presente(i%fter finai'judgment rendered, came too late. Tho Court ia Aolfyngcx ^ seized of the cause, and cannot entertain a pi-oceed'ing, the object ofjvhich^-| to test the legality or sufficiency of an incident of the ^it. - . '„ ^ , ^^ -] .'lp(jtition rejected with costs.* ■* •' f^rfe 5 M. and W. 30,,^ Rose & Monk, fo^Mm.iff> J.^. JSiliot, forJL>eferidaflt. .v; o « i !■ ■■■ V-. ', . " ■ f •) . kr ^ 4 )■■- -^ } ■ .; \ — r— .. K ■'t' * V ' » V : ;-. * ■■ • \ : :• : • ; ^ % . ^; * *«■; n coald nof» SU^IOR COURT, 1868. 163 . * ' MONTRHAL, 2»th MARCH, 1858. . ' Cbrom C* MoBTDKLET, J. \ . ■ ' * N0.2B16. ."' ' ^ ■ . ."■■ Strother V. Torrance, "^ \ *'«"8CBIPTI0KUNDEBia&ll Vic, Cap. 11. ' V 2o.Th^>«ohple.i.„otwiriv6db,ple«ofp,Vn.enta„dcompc„«tiom ^ ' ' • 'v .hJ^Lf^;'^?;;:;^'*!:' f^'f ''''^'^ ^^'^^'^^ ^"'^"^^"t -- proprietor or^s" he Steamer Outawa" ply.ng between certain porte in thjs province and sonrrht ' , • : Thp Deifendanta met the action by six pleas/ " " JW.C «K8T Pu^ alleged that the Defb«dant.at ihe period in question ,^s not ' " -nero^ti^e steame.^ but that the owiiej. then we^ John Tor™l<^.XvS ' Torrapce,Jam^.Torr«nce, John Andrew Torrance, and Lonson Hil il'rd Jnl ti^^ttlje alleged eanses of action accrued against th.m and not againsr:^ ^ . (Ic^a n ^^'^ ?''^'^ *^' Eei^Ptibnof one year alainst the PlltifTs ^ f:^nh^:i:j^^^--^^^^^^^ i'^j*,'!.!**^™ taken l^cparltewe^ J »=«ri. jfel^^r^'*^"'"''"''" »f '■« ?■»- » the pie. ,^y„ie,, «,, ^ . Tl>e Court docslSffifrflrH thl^i\,..n.^^..i » "other pleas. "* % Thejud^ment as recorded wa:, as fallows L'-'^ .t'^ ■J»- ♦-^. • t-* ^ 1 - 'r 1 *.' > /^ *-" The Court Ac. * Add consiolfring fu^her that & pllntiff kL. ..f - ^ - , ''f •; ,- been any interruDtion f« ^i;« o.-a ~T'.^^^ "^* P'<>^e^ I. A \ Actioii'dismissed. ■■4 %° -^M^i % J, ^^' %- >S >' V / 104 SUpAoR .COURT, 1858/ -mi- 1kithe\et, Ony- %: ^ SUPlERIOR COURT. a* MONTREAL, 87th FEBEUARY, 185S. Coram Badglbiv, J. ■ . _ fe;- X«138. DerJlida v. The Montreal and liytown Bailwaij Company & Ouy £ dl opposants. SEIZURE OF X.AND,-CbNTENTS. T \i .■^■' ^ I /, 4' „*: *-. -li ' Bcltl'Uiat an advertisement by the SUeriir of the Seizure of lana, of which land the contents are not s^tcd in Mkid adxprtlscmeijt. is dofcctivc, and' gives ground for an opposition a fin aunioins a rarrangement fait ptir les Executetirs-testamentairas Uuis Giiy et Ic. ^t Lacroix, devant Lamontagne, Notaire, a Montr6»). k vingt-unieme jour d'Ocr j tobre, mil hOit cent cinwere \]^i giyen m)r the size I , ' ' ' ' ■ ^^^^^^^^^^^ I ' ■ ' ■ . ' 1 . . ■ /■ > " •Reversed in appeal, 4tli June,, 1858. m ^ -/ /<-■ 8UPERrOR*<30URT, lt58. ; -'i 165 or po.itioD of the\ane mentioned in the desoriptio, ; that the queation here was nj>t r^8pect,ng an ordinary city property of which-tbe simple indication of the ntaw^the sign, or ^he number of the street would suffice to make it perfectly toown; ,t was a property in the country, a field of considerable value, containing about 12 arpenfe. ,„ superficies. How could the purchaser know what he was buymgif the extent and contents ware not made known. Must He boy at hazard? then the pHce mqst be chance price, and tlie f.arties interested, must be exposed to capric^hat the law^did not permit,e8pecial|y in the case in- ^u«.t.onjn which the mterests of an unsettled succession w«re in question Authorities 4)fOpposant8>— ' ," I p Coutqme de Paris, Art. : CCCXLVr. ' "" ' *• I^erridre, Do, Tome IV, p. 1298, par. 1 et S du sommaire. : ' ' . U6ncourt, Ventes des ImmeuBles, pages 307 et 308. ' Bruneau, Trait* dos criees, page 30. -. ' B«rth«lel Qny, Carr^ et Chauveau, Proc^aure Civile, Tome V, Question 2228 - U.IT^'^ fo;pl'"ntiff said that it was to be remarked that the opposants them- selve did not g.v, the exact contenU of the tend, they only said it wb X" near twelve arpents. The mention of the content^ was not required^y Ty S , f^l^T ""'•' ^' *'' Custom required was the mention oiZZZ^ ./t«6e«^«,. ' ^The opj^sants had not proved any of thecal legations o7Z llf Tr- ' ''' '?P"^"^ '"^ P"^^^ *^^* ^'^-^ '-% -- danger tha ttL . ale o the property ,n consequence of the Omission in question would bel^s^. .,dyantageous, and t%t th.y had offered to pay the costs of a single i«rti ^ .nent (for what need of three aerbL X£e ' and m the publ ieations, on pain of nullity, it wouia Jlow that the vXy of he seizure would depend upon th^ exactness of the statement of cont^rLd M the instintion of actions en homage wouU be a prelimiriarrto the sSeJth« I mostof jnmoyeable, 1^ t^e opposants were lell foUnS^ I^lfty ^ rlT'Ji? ''"TT ^"^"^m^ K,(rl^ authors writing ' «d« the empire of the code which wo^ld appear to require Sfit not d Me de nuUui that the contents of land in the. comparts sLid be statl^'^Sl . ov Lr^ f T:^ ""' '^^"^ «ituatelf*the city of Montreal and W " X^M "f '.{ ""'K'''' "^- ^''''''^ '"^^ ^PP°««^ts cited theold auto • ^aching to the word|w,,-,^„„," which the authors used, the meaninrof ' tSe «or*"contenanqe,^'w\ich was a manifest error. meaning of Authorities relied upon by Plaintiff. ' j J . " -.- m 001^ 'it iB,K'"« »« ^« / ^ .-> ■ ( «*» i ^ ■/■ '',.'."* ,• '■' "^"^^^B ■••.'•» 1 ::-.:a ■■-■•^..."'l :■: :' - ;■ r / -^„-v>-''-;' r^v-t» .^. ..*' ':' . , ^ " ".J '■■ I'f -1^^ , lee SUPERIOR COURT, 1868. 4 Berthelet , ▼. Gny. .'.. i ■»1 :'i(\ W-.i^ «i'* :;>^ f* ' ^ m ^-# ;R^' /}?": •Z^' 1 Duplcssis, p. 630. Far Wijans s'entend en expliquant la situation de chaquc fonds et sea coniinB. • r;^ Pothier, Proc. Civilft^ De lawisie r6clle, "Jamais I'fitendue et la contenance ne peuvent 6tre si bien designees que par les tenans et aboutissans." Voyez surtout Ferriere, 8ur I'art. 346. '■•'.' •v. 2"Bouijon, p. 713. . •' .- , Orlfeans, 466. A\H6ricourt, 6, 12. ■ ». ,^ '* 1 Pigeail, Pro(j^,jCivile, p. 501. ' < ' J, ' fi Win. 4, Gag. 15 for PTin of a'lyertisement. Per CimiAji;— This is tlio case of a seizure of land in which the Ijoundaries are given brtt not the cont-'iite. The land is in the City of Montreal, and valu- able,' On t"^(i5^qthorities, T think the opposition well founded. ,' ^^ -f'''Th'e judgment w^ recorded- in the following terms ; "^. ^ "TheC^urt,* A'^ * * *^'*. * *'* ♦^-^"^^ Cx)lrisidering that the.sai'j Opposahts are interested in the piece o»; parcel of land uhdcr .sdzure by tl»e Sheriff of this District at the Apt of the Plaintiff against the Defendnnts And iti causing the same to realize anji bring the highest price that caO be obtained therefor, and considering tlii^for" that purpose the contenta of the said piecfe o£ land, should have been contftjned in the advertise- ment thereof by the said Sheriff and*further considering that the daid advejtise- ment is "defective and not in conformity with law from want of specification of the contents of the said lio|-of land^ doth maintain^ the seizure of the said lot of land, made by the Sheriff} and doth order that' the said lot /if land be^advertised de novoi in the manner and for tKe time required by law, and that-in the said advertisement there be inserted therein the contents Q^the said piece or parcel of land in addition to the bounds and lim\ts and description of the same in and by tbe advertisement already made, each party payirig t|ieir own costs."* * w> . C%«m«*, i)or»on, • ^ ^ -Ui^,. MONfRBAL, 4t4 JUNE, 1858; .. * ■ , -S^^ .^orawi.Sift L.M. VAPONTAiNE^^Bartr^J- V^i-win, J., Duval,. J., Cards, J. Nq.«\ / OLITIBB WmetWRLBT. ^Plaintiff in ilie Court below.) ^ AND A])t>eUant. 4 THE MONTREAL AND BYTOW^ RAILWAY COMPANY^ {Defendants in the Court bclowi •' ' , ■ ,,'" '■ AND , ,-;" . ■ " ' " ' HtVOWtEQVY.HTAL.iOfiposantg in the Court below.). ■ ^. jtesptodents. ' SBIZURE OP I.AND,-r<50NTE.|fTS. -■ . ' .^ ' Heldthat »n advertiaemwit tiy the Shrift of t»« Seizure of lajjid of wlilch land, the conte»tr^W)^^ 8tbttid in siid *dWcrtisemeirt , does not give btouimI 'or an opposition &ftn d'annuller. The fiiets of this case appear in tbe report "qf the: |udgraent i» ^tW iJbart ^ T,. <^; Ti.ristfp }(i4.fif Mfg. Tt la sufficient to add the imUt's M the l^nin^'— -9 ii. l-r .iimst, p. iH4.fftj.ftf. ir is aumcrenno au' '. judgiuontJn 9i>peal which r ars^d-tlmt of the ^ourt below. '^I ».i ■ 1- .-jt ■ ■t »: /,. ^ COURT OF QtJEElir'S BENCH, 1868^ ^• — •- ~ : '-^ ' __1_ " ta Cour, Ac, * • • ♦ * ' » ^ 167 ^. indaries id ,Vftlu- ♦ *.■ parcel of '; Plaintiff V.^ liigTiest 1^. )o?o tbe '■- dvertise- dvertise- catJon Qf lid lot of • ivertised tbe said or parcel 10 in and v "r #■ X ofhisdecIkratfoBi. ■-Three of'flie'O .■ . < ■ l-Conrid6rant que dans la procedure siir la Sai«ie faift, en cette cause, 1 .mmeuble sais. est d6sig,,6 comfno suil^skyoir: " Un lot 4p terre situfi dans « feubourg 8t.Lpu.8, de cette vilie, de Ia4ontenance qull^eut avoi^ tant en ^ froni qu en profond^ur et enfermfe dans les limites suiv;,nt«i, savoir ;" Luis la rue Mignonnejusqu'au pied du coteau Baron. 4 la cloture de aivision eltre le di terrein et celu. de Josenh Charles Hubert Lacroix, ecuier, et entre la nro ~ 'pn4t6 d^.dit Joseph ChSSes H^rt Lacrdix. du cite Jford L t cl^d^^^ ^onprable D. B Viger, du .c,t6 sud o^t.-lSjet n.^nrnolnl^:!:^:^, au pa les Execute..^ Testamentaires Louis Guy, et le^lit Lacroix, devant . L3Rnonta5;ne ;?ot,,ro k ]^ntr6ar le vingt-unifime jour d'octpbro mil huit cent cinquante cnq pour unj ruello commune, cb«cune des parties a„ ditarran^^e- . m»nt fourmssant dix pleds fran^ais suMlunJ-proprifetes respectives." ' " .L^2j.-^pn«d6rantqu'«M50^drecett&d68ig^^^^ nV avaiM>a8 lieu d'atta. " quer 1« ^itesa^iede uullit^ otd'cn damander Ik main-lev6e ; quWifn £ ► •^;-n./„ ^a^nuler p.sont.e par les i„tim.s par I'aq'ue.l! ilsToZ au^tt d* 6tre renvoy6e ; q«'ai,si dans;le jugement dont est appel, il "y a mal- i^m ce que la Cour de premiere instance n'a point^^boutTles Inthn6s de e Int ± l"!l Copr Sup^rfeure, Si6gea,. i Mo|,freal avec depens contre " ^ Ie8lnt.,»6s8urlepr68entaj>pel; et cette Cour procfid^nt a rendre le jugement que ^ dite.Cour ^uperieure auraft dfi rendre ; d^boute les Intira6s 1 leur . susdite ppp<«,t,on, et Jes ceWamne auxd^peas d'ie«llfe*en la ^ite Cour Sup6rieui^ Barnard, Avocate crt p^ocureurs du dit Oliir.«. Berthelet ; et il est onlonn^ q«e ,q1ie le dossilr^^oit rep„8 « ladite Cour Superieure Si6geant a Montreal. . Et la eour sur rnetio^ de Me,«iei,rs Laflammc, LaflaMmo et Barnard. Pn^u-' reur8de.lappelaflt,leur.«corde distraction de leurs fm«:«r le present appel." .Lafla^f^e, Lajtamme d: 5ak«mi for appellarft .'^"**?"'"' "'""^ ei4«m«r,i)ono»^i>onon,fiBRe8po8dem8. — ^ * . -; '^. ; '° ;^ suPEKEm court " ^ ___i_ "" J#|f'^ -^"^ * MON*MAL. MirH HAECH. ISM. i ' , ' «. -ipr ,ponm Day, J^ Smrs, J., C MondkIet^J. ' ' ''J ' " - ■ N0.4W7. ■ . ■•*"•■< l|arthel«t .^' 44 ; ) z' ••'* III p#.. Ji 4 .). :>/. rlilishMS' k'thi ■^\ '^ cause, K**ert MpFfe(4 n.(hich treated of tbis-sulgect,Pigeau and others, it was fpt.nd that he was bound t^;do so. , m dedlKration of the Tiers Saisi was contested. .As to the mcnls df the ^ItesMi^jUhe Court would hold its.opinion in siispense. Dut w the motion now- made,%e fiilo was granted. Tl»» rule obtained was in the following terms :— , . "the Court {Smith, Vanfelson and Mmdelet, Justices,) ' having heard the Plaintiff and the Defendant by their respective counsel, uppn the motion of the „ Plaintiff in this cause, made and fyled- on the second day of March; iustaut, it is ordei^d that the attachment or Saiiiie Arret in the handa of the severalGar-^ Siislie^s, be continued unlnl. the further order of this Court, and that the said „ _ . Morton, Charles Seraphim Rodier and David Moss, t|^e of the Garni- , siieej^e respectively held (b produce 'and fyle in this cause, ^tbirt three days, the "sefcal written instruments mentiofled and referre(t to in their respective declarations) oii oath in this cause fyled ;' and further, that the time for fyling tonte^tatioHs of tile said declarations of the said Garnishees, be held^to tun from Che time only when notice shalj have been duly- given to the Plaintiff of the said Written instruments having been duly fylcd. Unless canse to the contrary be fehowti by the .said Robert Merton, Charles Seraphim Kodier and- Dayld Moss, three of the Garnishees in this tmm, o«'Mo,aday the twenty-second day 6f March, instant, at'half-past ten o'clock ifethf forenoon, sitting the Court." This rule waS returned into Court on the 224 Parch, ancl hpprd^on the 23r< March, before M. M. D.aij, Smith, and ^»rfe/ef. Justices, on whi^h da;y th Plaintiff prayed acte of tfie declaration he tfieii made that the GartTshees had fyle^ the instruments in writing, demianiled ofethem by the rule. Jlie rulie was made absolute on the^Oth March, 1852.* ." ; t '- - :— ^j- F. Griffin, for Plaintiff. ^ & G. Robertson^ for Defendants. -w- {V. W, T ) - W' A. ^;« i-^ ;|^> » *■ 11. iT^ : — 5 ->-- ■ — — — I 1_ J : — ' i . .. «■ — ^ ^— r-r— ' — ; ' T— " • • Vide Piaeau. l,,p. 65T ; Roger, Saisie Arret,^p. 345, h. £66. " j \ •. ♦" J^^l^A i' StJPERIOR COURT, 1867. 160 J^ \ 2t'- . MONTREAL, 30th SBPTEMBBR, 185T. Coram Day, J, Smith, J., and Mondilt, J. ' . No. 1»W. ' St/tne et. al. v. Janet $t. at. / x\ /^ luo llamtitHm this cause shiDDed 3925 minr%»a «^.;4 ^ Sebaatopol^r.ls.„i.ionto J^tl^^^ ^ t: S ^^711 gave a receipt in writing. - Ihe doliverv oft bonr 1 H.« t V ^ Defendanla • days, with an interval oUwo dayrZtl^^^rt ,,^"^^^^"^^^^ presenting both Plaintiff. Hd ^Lm^^^^'T' "T'^m '- ...of d^ive^h. I>e.ndan?ta;^ ^.^:^l^;S:t£ ^^^ „ c^don he f^„,„g .norning. «« attend^: accordingly, but fi Jh " U^r^E «ere not ready to go on be left the v§s«el, directing'th; m.te t^InK when they were prepared to prooa«d, They^weat ^^M^ In U^^ *" ' and whe^iH. retudW. he found a c^it^ti^ ll^.'^^^^^^/^ «f«^f^ >t useless to .fidminenee an account^hen, he ' allowed tl ITr "'"^^ co^plc^ .,ltl.o^t h.eplak -rcheck upo^it^^dSo t^tS'7 ' ■t washing proceeded with. On, the first da; it appeal tratS"^^^ - were deliverod ; ohthe second 2305 mmote, ih^^l^Cltf^ ' f * """^*" fictwicy, <>f 65 minpts, fpr the valu^ of which tirorS.!r f ^"^ '^ ^^'^ H. I^efendaptsby thei,pl.^ ^"^ge^^JS^^h^^lt^ . owners of the Sebastopol vith w^m in jealitv the Zjnrff i T ■'^*' *^® ' ^dtMainheVheatpWedinLs^b;^^^^ The Plaiiitiff p^^td thXtpcifemements and delivery Ln tL« « 1 . . 3830 luinots and no- more. .. ".„' """'"^J "^'n the Sebastopol of ' ■r the Defendants examined the l^l^nliffV derfc to prore thnt fi '^ ' " *" ' ageutsinthilransaction ; a„dthi,^a.sterand mat^SlS ^ 7""" '"'^ '^ tbat whatever came into^hesc^fcooner was deUv«.^f bo! ,t^?'' '' '^'^^« " ^H^o^they adduce, evidence tendi^, to st^^^i^^ ^ t^J^ :m measurers: and establishing thefacts alr^adlstatedin If^ ^ "^ absence of fh« tallyman the second day. '^^^^^ ^^ated m ref(^rence to tfe^ Abbm fof Plaintiffs argued that the Plaintitfs had actuallv dlnl was necessary to entitle, th^m to recover -rl£ - V^^ "'""■' '^''^ 'ivery ofithe ^,hea» on bo.^d tS ^7 Lul^Le V ^"*"'^\«^ ^^- ^^^ am ; ;bur the Plaintifl. having^th. ^2^^^^;^:^ *^« ^''^ ;^o„-deli^.ry, ha^tdones^and should hav. the'^J oTZ del' """'"^i'^ re«..pt given by the D,fen.da«ts for the, wheat bo^cUhem t- 1 . T^*- ''%• could»«ot be g6t.rid of by vermtestin^oHy as SnU^^^^""'^*^ tending to relieve themjorklmt liability. That beim^ tl T "^'"''"MonU -;^letp the .f^lainti^Srthe deficient .S^r^iS;^ |yi».u. uii U.^ »euuu?l tifl^.puld WW) S^ A '^^ -i6 " -y" SIT- — -^ f '' y %A Bjmt i'«' Juw. 170 SifPERIOR COURT, 1867. M Jmpairing the w.tghtof Pl.lntiffs U-timony, for he had been notified to be prewnt. The Plaintiffs could not be held, after delivery had comijienoed, to wait till DefendTants sent a person to superintend its continuance. It wa, Defendants' business to be present either by themselves or their representative if they wished to check the deliveiy. The evidence of incapacity of the mea- surers was inJiuflBcient. ' ' . A tl- t. J'4U 4 i?o6«r/*on for Defendants urged that the evidence of record established that the Sebastopol was really hired from her CapUin, merely as a place for stowing the wheat till it could be*8hipHoo.th.«Tox«nto, and that the Defendants, m the Plaintiffs were aware, acted only as intermediaries, and were not treated with by the Plaintiffs as principals in the transaction. That the captain and mate, who had been constajiily on board the schooner while^the 'hf-t wa. there, swore positively to its having been safely kept and all delivered. Ihat it was the duty of the Plaintiffs to have given the Defendants the opportunity of being present? on the second day; and that their having proceeded in the absence of Defendants' tellyman with measurer, who had pr^.ously been employed in measuring salt, and were notskilled mcswurers of wheat, wa. suffi- cient to neutralise the evidence they had put of record, as to the defic>enoy; .and to relieve the Defendante from liability of it. jn addition, it had been Bhewn that as great and even greater discrepimcies between amounts- of gram received and delivered frequently occurred, merely from the difference m the. mode of measurement o'f different measurers, artd that this fact taken m connec- tion with the evidence of the captain and mate ought to >e conclii^ve in De- fendants' favor. , , J *i Smith, J.-(After stating the facts). This receipt must be token under the circumstances as conclusive' against the DefendanU, as to the quantil#«feceiv«^ and their liability to deliver that quantity, and they should have P'o^lf' . they had fulfilled their obligation in that FcspecU On th^ contrai^ the Plain- tiffs have established a deficiency of 95 minots for the valuportunit7 led in the lusly been was Buffi- icficiency ; had been s' of grain Dce in the_ in connec- ive ia De- under the ;j||tt5ceircd troTi^^^t the rlain-'*^' thfey roust light hate ,' measurer" Lhen deliv; - ' w<"re cV e qic^sure- proportion ntedlifbr in' lantB? mea- tnceproken ill tiedis- sims(;lf, the t for Plain- » ■ ; . "" i".< 7 • > cbURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1^87. \. i\iv Ij m APPBAI.. ' *'„ ^ „ •• PaoM THB DI8TEICT OB MONTBEAL. ■ . MONTEHAL, liT OCTOBBE, 1887. .j:' Coram Sir L. H. LAfonTAiwK, Bart, C. J., A^gjj^, J., r^^iij., Carom, J. N0.U7. ^^' ^*, JAMBS IRWIN (PUintiir In the Court below), • • AND ^ 1 / 11 JpptUant ; JOHN BOSTON, KT AL.,.oitited by the taiii, and the Sheriff proTes tlist such gardUm was soWent, or reputed so to bo, to tlie extent of tho property seliad, at the time of hi* , , ■ppolntinent_2. That In an action «• rtvemlication against the Sheriff, for oertalh effects seized ;| by him aad-gSlired to be delivered up to the taiti, it U not competent for the Sheriff to piMUt , 1 1 want oTthe notice of action prescribed by the Statute 14 and 19 Vic., oh. si • fhia was in appeal from a jjidgmont rendered by the Superior Court At llot?trf!al, on the 19th October, 1858^ dismissing the Appellant's action. The actiOti in the Court below was instituted to rfevendicate certain moveable effwts which had been seized by the Sheriff, in a case of McPherson et nl. against Irwitf, the Appellant, and which had been oi'dered by the Court to be given up to the Appellwit, the seizure thereof having been set tfsidc. <»• Tho Eesfohdents' pleaded a difeme aufonds en droit, which was maintained by the Superior Court, composed o( MAI. Day, Smith, Mondelet, justices,, dis- ' iWisaing tho action on^lie 2Vth October, 1853. This judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals, composed of MM. Lafontaine, C. J., Aylwin, Duval, Caron, justices, on the 12th Qf March, 1855, as-Veported in the 5th volnmaJ)f/lfte L."C. Law Reports, p. 307.* ' - . 'This defense en droit was followed by six p^riMuplUiy uic^^ions and the ■ general iastie. ^ .. ■ ^ . The pointy raised by the pleadings may be briefly staied as follows 9% ' ' .}. That the Respondents as public officerir'Were'entitled to one moi^h's ftbtice . of action, under th^piovisions of the Statute 14th and 15th Vict., eh. 54. 2. That the'ad^n illegally combine^ a demand indamaglk with a demand for tho articles s«fzed. „ . " *^ts « r ^' / ■ i / 3. That the Appellant's recourse was by rule and not by action. /^ . / ^4. That a ru/e had'' been taken against the Respondents in /^e case of -McPherson et al. vs. Irwin, and proceedings had thereon,'which wore st^ll pond- iBg and undetermined. "' '• 5. Thafthe Respondknts,were not liable for' the acts of the Bailiff, he having been appointed by the Court. . ' 6. That the goods seized had been duly placed in the hands If a WsU appomted by the Bailiff in obedience to the law, and thatl)y reason ih^reol" tlie' : mponsibility of the Respondents ceased, ."' '- " -"- 7. ^ The action in the Court below, cbropofed of MM. Day, Smith, C. Mondelet, ^ justices, was dismissed on the 19th October, 1856, for the following raasons:- 'Considering that the Dtifendanta in tH^ cause are iuipM^l^r certain acts by diemxlone in their capacity of joint Sheriff of the disL m iho pBrronninreirot' their piublic d^ity as such, and that hj; vuS .t.-. .s§ fr •Montraar / t r^i ,**■ tatuto' ■ As BMton. ® :^ ■ .1 I. ^ .; ^^. ft.;, i.. I-.., ii:.^^ Yv' 9. URT OP QUEEN'S BENCH; l«W^ * -f in that cas« proriil«J, tf^writ in t||(ej3auM is{iao*l otigltt not to Imvo boon luqij out (igiitntt |h«nt,' for or hjr reaton criiteBr^tM^, witlidtat nutiojO in writing of tli« Mid writ bAviilg been first given by ifie Ij^iunliff or lii» Attorney, at 'least oi] eatetidiAr month' bofpr* ti^j^/iaaul writ wns MoHUoil out; and conitid«riDg that -Plaintiff batlt failed to prove, that nny ^ch -notice wan ntt any tiino>given to '•aid Defendantt." Sir L.JI. Lafontaine,BiiTt., C.J. — " « , ' II parait que I'appolant «^&taU'ol>lig6 onvor« In maison do McPherson, Crarte et Cio, il y„ad6j& quolques atin^cs, ti oonntruire uno machine ii vHp^ur qui de- vait $tr« plac^o sur I'un de leurs bateaux, dcatin^ ^ la navigation ontre Bytown et Orcnville, 8nr I'Ottawa. Uno grande partio doa pit^ccA dont bctto machine devaLt 6tro compos6e, avait 6t6 d^livr6e et transport^o h Bytown-dnna Thivcr dc 184§— 49. II y avait encore un certain nombre do pieces k d6livror plu^ tard. Ellos dtaient dans la fonderie do I'appclant k Montreal, Ics unes finies, et los autrcs hon encore achevfios complotoment, lorsquo Ic 4 Avril 1849, WcPherson, Crane et Cio,_pr6tondant en 6tro lea proprifitaircs, intcnt^rdnt contie I'appclant une ac, tion^iticohipagnde d'unc snisie revendi'cation de ces ni6racs objets. Par jugemont interlooutoire du 24 Juillet 1849, lo brof de saisie rcvendication fut d6clar6 nul, iiiainlevee de la saisie donndo k rapp'elant, et il fut enj^oifliau Sh6rif do remottre k co dernier Ics e,ffets saisis. , Puis un jugement rendu sufk m^rite de ]& demahdc, le-22 ddccmbre 1851, d^bouta McPherson, Crane et Cie. do leur action centre I'appelant., " °*'' rcvendication, romplissaient Ja charge dc [lers'dtant pas conform^es k I'injonction qui ^t du ^ juillet 1849, dc d6livror ^I'appo contro eux la pr^sente action, par laquolle ^soiont condamn^B k lui remettre et d^livrcr les effets saisis, sous tel delai qui Vera fix6 a cotte fin, et qu'^ d6faut do co faire, ils soiont declares contraignables par corps et inc'arc6r68 dans la prison de ce district, ji)squ'^ ce que les dits effets soient remis et d^livr^s k I'appelant, ou jusqu'^ ce que les intimes lui aient payo la soranie de £1,000 courant, pour la valeur de ccs effets, 2*?. k co que les Intimes soient de plus condamo^s k lui payer la somme de £250 pour ddmmajls inter(§ts. L'appelant s'est disistd de- puis decctte secondo partie de ses conclusions. La that cause according to law and the practice of this court, and^that no action can by law be brought' in the* manner and form in which the Plaintiff hath now impleaded the defendants fgr the revepdicatton or recovery of the goods land chattels, ^hiclithe Defendants are therein aod there- . b/ ordereid to deliver to the Plaintiff"." '• ^h^ lue Les Intim6s qui, Iocs de 1 Sh6rif^pour le District de A! lour avait 6't6 donn6e par lant Ics eff«tH saisis,^lu il conclut, 1? & CO que les i yi t --/■ .-J—. - ' <■. : Jfft^- * COURT OP QITE^^S TJEJJCn^ J«87. » „ 'i»| Bur app«I, o« (IttgenMot a «t^ inflraiA paretitu Couis l« 19 miwrt 1661^ **f!km. tid«ring thf/t th« «l|0gAttln» cbntalai^ in tht^laintifTi dfloinration {n tlt« Coart Ulow, ire Htfflci«nt in law, if prowd, to ontifle the laM Plaintiff to th« ^oilH sioM by Jum- taken in and Ky tlie Mid declaration, coniidoring rurtlier, that th'd caiislka aMJgned by the d^fendanta in i^pport of the demurrer by thoni fylcd in tba Mlid Courti are inaofficlent ia law td entitle 4he aaid defeodanto W the con cluBiontoftfie taiddemurreror to any part thereof" . "^ Outre la d6lenao an fonds fln droit, il y a eu une d ceptiona pdreniptoirei. Quclquea unes do cea exceptionif moyena qui avaient AijikM employes dans la ddfenaa «n de a'en oecuper ici. La premise dea exceptions que none ■ A At6 accueillie par la Gourde premiere inatance, mil, en conat reau d^bout6 I'appelant de son action, par lo jugement dotrt est ^ 19 octobre 1856, : •• Considering," y oat-il dit,that the defen^anU in t _ impleaded for certain acts by them done in their capacity otJQint Slio% of the District of Montreal, in the performance of their public, duty as such, and that by virtue of the statute in that case prorided, the writ itt the cause issued ought not to have been sued out against them, for or by reason of such acts, wit/MUt." notice in variting of the said writ having been first givrafay th« Plaintiff or hit attorney, at least one calendar Month befdre the said„w.rit'was so sued OBt* apd i considering that the Plaintiff hath failed to prove that any mih noUc^ waa i^„. an/time given Uf the said-defbndants." fr . ' ' :•■ ~V ^|h ,1^ ^"tim^s nous ont dit que ce jugement repose sur le statut pr^vindal ^dffmiidoitl ohm plaint, c'est encore 1^ le langago du statut (sect. 8, version fraii^'aiseO^Cela res..!te enxjore clairement des mots employes dans la 3e,\sectiQn, pouEnj.lique|.respece de con- damnation qui deyra 6tre. prononce gur une-telle action : ," la Cour ^ju I9 Jury»" »:,, ■■:(. <.,. ■Wv -fr-. .■;,iii • •■ --.- :-. , ■■ .*■■:. %, ■I ■4p4.> ■ "■ .-. ■■.'. ■ f ' « , *■■ : ....V... -.,-.■ 1 ■ -:_ ■ , — -^-- i '"\ ■■• - ': -'^'^ ■ '. •Z,-'^. •H '. ■•»" . * # -^ ■ 1 " ;,.:•-., /:'■■ t f f '"^ >> 3 ■ ' i ,-> ... r*. -ist_ ■■■■■ ■ ':■ ' . . , « • J; I'i,^.'- , ■ ^^ -■.■' "■ • ■ 7 - ■■ I .> 'tj" /> ■ , ». ■* • ■V ':; '■'■'-■■■ # * 1 ;■"' . 0' * V' ' ' ( • ■,rc-.... ( Q 7 . I . ,\ ' f ■ -i' . "■ ■* ■ .- '■' ..*■■.' i ■-';■. ',' - : -■'■';■:■■.. - \ J' '-■'A'-- « m ^ ■--*' ' . '.■ ..* . ■ ■■ .f'.. ■■" .•■■■ V-."^-' -■' . '■ ~^J ^" ■ : V . " * ■ ^' V. . .-■' ; ■; ■ ; -„,"'..■■ '■ . - » *■ 1 s ' H f - V ■ ■•.. ^ \ -,.'. ^ ! ' ,11 > H li ' «' I. 1^ i ,^ ^'v// /'./? l- ,J ^u-'a'> 1'. / />■ lltat^ W**^,'' * a \ ■*r y ■ - 1 . ■ ■■■'/ '>' .. . . , t •>« V"' ■ 1 f /. . / » t ^ i • ' ■ - 1 ,1 " ? ' I A; .. . ,^ k^ • ■ ' . . .« *^> ■m li ■4 ■■■ ' ' *. J ■ ■ ^ " .' _ ' ' ■ , ■_ '♦, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (Mt-3) fe ^ ,.V VL 'M ■^ {> kl 1.25 1.0 ^^^ ^ Uii ■2.2 M -* t .V- ir ..X * ':M I too g r a pbic Scmces Corporalion 23 West main street webster, n.y. 14580 .1^716)871^503 '^ Jl ^ ci'^ ^ \ "V /"Ife- ,X : 7 ,:f:^:-: 114 COURT OP QUEEK'S BENCH, 1857. Inrin r. .y esi-il dit, " rendra son jugement on verdict en favour du demandeur, aveo Uh Jotnmages qu'il jugera convenaBies.*' Ce ne sont done que des dommaget, qui doivcnt et peuvent faire I'objet de la condamnation. II ne peut done s'a^r que d'une action dans laqnelle ces dommages forment le principal et unique objet, ot non I'aecesBoire, de la d^ande, enfin d'une action qui, d'apr&s sa nature, peut. 6tre, ainsi quo Ta pr^vu le statut, instruite d^ant un .o«r{yi,'de jur^s. Or, Ton sait qu'4 part des affaires de commerce, nos lois n*autorisent le recours k un Jurj, en matiSres civiles, que dans Ics actions qui naissent de torts, d61its ou injures. '' Assur^ment une action en revendication d'efiets mobiHerb, m6me lorsqu'elle serait accompagnSe de conclusions en domraagcs'int6r£ts, >comme accessoires k la demande principale, n'cst pas une action qui tombe sous Ics dispositions du statut. Une telle action, quoiquc ayant pou; objlt ue r6clamer, comme acccs- soire, des dommages-int^rots, ne serait pas, je pense, de nature k ^tre instruito devant un Jury. En <^et le statiit de 1820, chap. 10 qui autorise le proces par Jury dans une action- " ppur quelque tort souifort k raison de d61its ou quasi dilits," s'exprime ainsi : action " dans laquelle on aura recours k une compensa- tion en dommages-inter^ts ct d^pens seulement.^ L'officier public poui'suivi dans les cas pr6vus par le statut, pent obtenir (4c. Section) que la venue de Taction soit chang^e, c'est-^-dire que le proems ' soit instruit dans un autre district, " S'il appert a la Cour ou au Jury que la dite " cause nc peut 6tre d6cidec avcc justice ou sans prejugSs dans le con>t6 ou dis-- " trict ou circuit dans,lequol la dite action est. rapportable." Si Ic statut s'ap- j)Iique a I'espece actuelle, ildcvra s'appliquer ogalement {I toute autjp contesta- tion qu'une partie cngagera avec le Sh6rif, ou que celui-ci voudra bien engager avec clle, ct cela pour la seule raison que le Sharif est un officicr public. Ainsi s'il s'agit de demandcr au Sh6rif le paiemont d^une collocatioif sur des deniers qu'il a entre les mains, il faudra done lui donner Tavis pr6alable d'un mois ; et si a I'expiration do ce mois, le Sherif refuse de payer, le cr^ancicr forc6 d'enga- gcr uno contestation nvec lui, sera done expos6 a voir porter cette contestation dans un autre district ! Si le Sharif peut agir ainsidans un cas, il peut en agir de m&me daqs tous Ics autres. II sera done adinis a dire, aux Jugcs de la Cour dont il est l'officier : " Je ne crois pas que ma cause puissc 6tre dScidee par vous " avec justice ou sans prt^judicc !" Et il aura le droit d'appeler aes Juges k lui *' rdpondre. Qui, Mr. le Sh6rif, vous avez raison, ou bien ce qui est plus probable, " non Mr. le Sh6rif vous avez tort, ^normement tort." ! Si c'est \k ce quo la legislature a voulu dire, clle aurait du s'expliquer plus clairemcnt. . J'attendrai done qu'elle Ic fasse par un acte deelaratoirc, avant d'adopter I'interpr^tation que les Intim6s donnent au statut. Voyons quel serait le resultat de cette interpretation, dans une autre hypothSse. Supposons qu'au lieu des pieces de fer saisies, dont le Sb^rif ne saurait sans doute que faire, k moins qu'il n'en eut besoin pour c0mplete;r une machine a vapeur dans son moulin, c'eut 6t6 uu beau cheval qui eut 6te saisi par le Sh6rif, A, la requete de McPherson, Crane. )& Cic. Cette saisie ent^pu devenir une bonne fortune pourcet officier public, s'il est amateur de chevaux. II eut pu garder pour lui le cheval saisi, si le statut est applicable k I'espece, et cela, nonobstant .,! , " ' B 1, i COURT OF QUEIN'S BENCH, 1867. ■ m h main Iev6e do la saisie, et malgrt-la volonW di propri*taire. II lui eut .nffit pourrepo«„crraction. d'offrir en argent une ljLati^)uffi.a:Cil^t d W le montant devant la cour.Le .tatut lui donni^n effet led^oit d'oppo^J cette exception : "dans le cas ou la compensation" offerte par I'officier K "neseraitpasaccept^e," porta la 3e sectipn, " il pourra lg„er SK comma cxcepfon ou fin de.non racevoir contra toute'^action iS conlt^^ et mofv^e sur le d.t wriv ensemble ave, la defense da non coupalleTio^ au tra d6fense;et si la Cour 6u.Ia Jury trouve qua la montant ofi^Xu s ffll? L Tat" >r "m "' '" ?"" '" ''''''''"'' ^^'"^ " 'l"''"'^""* t«"« action ou po,^. u,te_ na sera mtent6a contre aucun juge, officier ou autre parsonna ^issant comL- . .«^d^;>our aucun acta ou cbosa fait par M dans I'ex^Lion deli ZcT^ W^.s comme s„sd,t, 4 moins qu'elle na Jt commenc^e dans le, six mois7e of I'ol ^ 'rr" " P^rP^''**'^" d« »'«ff«-e dont on se plaint." Le feit ou ofense aurau ^e la sa.«e qui a 6t6 diclar^o nullc et dont on a danrfft ^Z le m6rte de la- contestation entre les parties. Et bien que, pendant touta la tyjTrr '«^fff*^*^•^^"* -usIamaiudelajlt^lapatLsaJ: nepuisse les r6claraer, clle serait naanmoins exposoe 4 los perdra, par le seul expiration da^e.s,xmo,s! Et ce scrait I'offlcier public qui en profitaraitfs'i ne voulait pas les ramattra au Ifigitima propri6taire ! PeuL raiLnablement soutenir que la WgisUture ait youlu porter jusque li, en faveur da I'officier public la "protection" ct le " privilege" dont il est parI6 dans la pre JbutdJ . statute comme 6ttfnt les motifs de cette loi ? • ^ La 8a secUon, elle seula, suffit pour repoussor le systeme des intlm^s, an d6- itulT '" T T''^^'' *P'^^ "'^ '«P^ ^« «"- mois. Taction contre laquella alia a pour objet da prot6gar I'officier public, la loi n'a en vuel»r cela m6^ qu'une action n6e d'un feit qui y donna ouvortura du moment»e de sa pwf 6tration. Cela me parait 6tre de la derniere Evidence. Or e^ Ac- tion no pouvant 6tra celle dont il s'agit en cette cause, il s'ensuit que la statut de 1851 pe sapphqua pas k I'esp^ce, at que, par consequent, I'appaW n'6tait Z^"'rT 5 "" P""""' ''°*'^ '' '^'^'' ^« ^"> aonner un la d'avis, en supposan mfime, (ca qui ma j,arait 6tra fort douteux pour le moins.) qu'il pfit y avo^ quelque c^ cm an mati^res civiles un sh^rif poumit 6tre admi I invLer les dispositions du Btatut. r * -umii. » jnvoquer des^irlTph "^"^ '^^i^^'.'^^T^t^-de"' d'abo'd qu'il ne sont pas respons^blas , des actas da 'lmi8s,er Kell qui a 6t6 charge da faira la saisie, a^ ensu te, qu'un p^a«Zr *^i"'T' P'^^^" -ivantlaloi, touta r«.ponsabilit6 ieleur 'olnaZ '7'- f "': ^'r' '^ *^" P^P'^'*'-' q«' 'o»^ 'out k feit in- Jffird^Shl '"'*"'*• "Actespo^rfaire certains regleme.ts au sujet d Irwia Boston. I. r i'l / ^:i' h t Inrln Boiton. > » »r- I 4 lit 176 \ > • •■ ■■• •'■■■■■■ COUKT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1867. II n*7 « qu'un oas od, aux teVirieade ce dernier aUtut, le ahdrif peut pr^tendre 4tre exempt de respoDBabiliU, lon<)a« lea effeta aaisia ont 6tb confi^a k un ga^ dien. Ce caa eit ind!qu6 dana la Oe aection. II y est dit, que : " Lorsqu'un *' d6fendeur ou desdtffendeurs offriront un gsrdien, ondeagardienaatira tt tuffi- " ianUjM ah^rif ou coroner qui aaisira lea biens et effeta de tela Difendeur on '* d^fendebrs, en vertu de tout writ de fieri facias, arrftt-aimple, ou de revendi- '* cation, tel ah^rif ou coroner tera obligi d'acecepler tela gardien ou gardiena, et " ne tera pas juffi retponeable det aetet d$ tele gardien ou pardiens, pourvu qv?il " puitte itablir et prouver, que tele gardien ou garditne, lorequUl let a aeeeptit, " itaient solvablet ou riputis itre tell, au fMniant de la valeur det articlet con- " fi^a &. la gardo de tela gardien ou gardiena." Loin de prouver que le gardien nomm6 avait ^t^ ofert par Tappelant, lea in- 4im6a ae aont efforc^a d'6tablir, aans n^anmoins avoir riussi k le faire, 'qu'il avait reiiia^ do augg6rer koffri^ «n gardien. Le ft^t ert qu'on ne iiii en a paa fait la demande ; it tout ce qui s'e»t paas6, lorsque la saisie a 6t6 pratiqude d^montre qn'on £tait bien loin de vouloir confier la garde des effeta k une personne que le saiai aurait lui-m6me nommie. En effbt^ n'eut pas 6t6 le moyen de parve- nir au but que Mr. McPberson, Crane & Cie., s'Ataient 6videmment propoad en fiu- sant pratiquer cette saisie, celui de s'approprier de suite lea effeta aaisis, quelles qu'en fussent les consequences. D'un autre cot6, Je gardien nomm6 ent il 6t6 offert par la saisi, cela n'eut pas~6t6 suffisant pour soustrsire lea intira^a k toute responsabilitS. II leur eiit 6t6 ndcessaire encore de pronver la aolvabilit^ da gardien, lors de sa nomination. lis n'ont pas m&me fentd de le fiiire. La rea- ponssbilitd da Sh6rif comme officier saisissant, on comme gardien dea effeta saisis, ne date pas du a.tatut de 183S, ci-desaus oit6. Du m(5meni que cet officier > a 6t6 appel6 k remplir,en mati^res civiles, les devoirs de I'huissier, du gardiei sous I'ancien droit fran^is, il a 6te assujetti k la m^me respon8aj[>il^^ui att« ~>gnait cea demiers. . En matidre de saisie, le sh^ijf devenait deJ^B^roi/ le ' |ardien des effets saisis. C'est ce qui a 6t6 reconnu par I'upe d^lMRoia antu- toires, d^jjl assez ancienne, puisqu'elle remonfe k I'annde ll8lJ -^^e.yeux |wiler de I'ordonnance de I'ancien conseil legislatifc 27 Geo : 3. chap.^4. qui porlle (lie section) qu'JL moins de I'exercice de certaine faculty donn6e au saisi, ykelle de fournir caution, " les effets ainsi saiisis-arr6t§s rcsteroij^^us la ^rde du Sshdrif ou " huissier pour satisifaire an jugement." f Si les intimis se fina^fnt rappele ce qui a 6t6 jug6 k Quebec en 1813, dana la cause de McClure centre le Sharif Shepherd {Stuaret Beportt, p. 76,) cause tout k fait analogue k laprfisent^r ils se seraient, sa|is nul dout^ abstenua de soulever d«s questions dficid^es depuis iQpgtemps, parfaitera'ent/en accord avec les principes qui doivent regir cette matiere. Une nqjfe du rapporteur, k la page 79, nous apprend que, dans cette cause de McClur^^contre Shepherd, jl y eut appej k la Cour provtncii^e d'appel, et ensuite k sa Majest6 en conseil, et que sur I'un comme.8ur I'autre de«es appel8,lad6cision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine pour le district de Quebec, fut confirmde. Dans cette mdne cause, on a reconnu que le proprietaire des effets saisis, a la voie de I'action directe contre le ah6rif pour les revendiquer, on en r^clamw la valeur, apres que la saisie est d6^Iarde oulle, et que main lev6e en est donn^e. 1 r* Vf COUIIT OF QUEEN'S BEI^CH, ' 1 857. 17^ i.fv'"'!^/.!!/*"?''''" "™»"l»o' que, daiu. I'especp ce' n'est pas ^arceque 1« rf.6nf a/gi,H6g.lementeriMi.i.santle«effetsderap^^^^ qu« celui-ci reclame contrejA,. Pent dn tout Le «h6rif ^ait obligd d'op6rer cette .ai.ie, du mo- ment jifu ,. en recevait I'ordre par le mandat de saisie rov«ndicaUon. Get ordre lui safrait de justification, pourvu qu'il l'ex6cutAt dan* les formes I^galcs. II contTnuaitd avoir la garde des efiets saisis, sans pouvoir 6tre rechorch6 & cet ,^^d, au88. longteraps quo la saisie devait subsistor. Mais du moment qua la fcie 6taU mise k n6ant, que i'appelant en obtenait main levfie, et que le sh^rif j^cevait 1 ordfft de lui remettre jesf effets saisis dont il avait ou 6tail cens6 avoir yta garde ou la possession, son ^Voit r^suUant de I'obligation que la loi lui im- 'posoen paren cas, 6t«it d'ob^ir k cct ordro, de l'ex6puter, en remottant au saisi ces rtAmes cffets. C'est, parceque les intimfis n'ont pas, dans la pr6sertte espfice rem>h cette obligation, qu^jls sont aujourd'hui actiontfAs par I'appelant, ct ce droitjd action a d6jk 6t^ reconnu par cette Cour. Les conclusions du demandeur doivint done 6tre maintenues, si lea fails articul^s dans la declaration d«4iiinpe- lanL sont nrnnv&a 1 - '^■f lant, Bont prouy^s. •i. Qiant k cette preuve, je dois dire qu'elle me paVait ci^mpfi^et que, par con- 86qu'4\ Um 178 dOURT OP QUEENS BENCH, 1887V Inrin BiNton. k' i I % "I'/ • ■y " we hare attached and seized in the potseuion of James Irwin in the said writ '• named, as belonging to John MoPhersbn and others in the said writ also " named, all and every th^ goods, chattels and effects mentioned end set forth, " in the schedule marked A hereunto annexed, being thfsprocit verbal of seizure " thereof: all which said goods, chattels arid effects so attached and seized, we " have put into the guardianship of Alexander McKenzie, of the city of Montr6al " in dnr district, gentleman, to abide the order of this honorable Court." Enfin cet ordro a 6t6 prononn6, les intim6s doivont remettre k I'appelant les effets saisis, on lui en payer la valeur. Je dois k present dllre nn mot d'une autre' pretention des intimds, qui, k raon ^^javis, n'est pas plus soutenable que Ics autres. Elle a 6t6 6mise bien tardivement, ^ car il n'en est pas question dans les exceptions p^remptoires ; cala seul dovrait •• snffire pour en interdire I'examen. C'est k I'cnquete que I'intention des Intimis de faire valoir cette pr6tention commence k apparaltre. Une certaine somme dc deniers a 6t6 pay6c k Parkyn par McPherson, Crane & Cie, pour les ouvrages qu'il y avait encore k faire, lorsde la saisie, pour rendre quelques unes des pieces saisies, propres k servir k la machine k vapeur. Les intim^s pr6tendent que I'appelant doit souffrir sur le somme qui pourra hii 6t^e adjug^e contro eux pouf la valeur de ses effets, la d6duction do celle qui a 6t6 ainsi pay6e k Parkyn. Actueillir cette pretention de la part d'une partie qui a 6t& 6trang^re au contrat intervenu entre I'appelant tt McPherson, Crane & Cie, et qui n'a aucun droit de. s'immiscer dans cette affairt>: prononcer contre I'appelant la deduction qui est ainsi demand6e, sans qu'il ait occasion de d6battre ses droits avec I'autre partie k ce contrat, puisqH| cette partie n'est pas en capse ; ce serai^d6cider d'avance ot bien injustement, au pr6judice du premier, au profit d'un iStranger, et en fa- veur de McPherson Crane it Cie., quoiqu'absents, ce qui pourrait recevoir une solution toute diffSrente dans une contestation qui serait engag6e\4 cette egard (Bntre ces derniers et I'appelaiit; ceux-ci itant les seuls entre lesqnels uhe telle ; contestation pourrait 6tre valablement engagfie. Ce serait admettre une or6ance qui pent 6tre n'existe pas, ce serait declarer I'appelant d6biteur de McPherson, Crane & Cie, lorsqu'il est peut-^tre leur crfianefer ; et cela, sans que c^s derniers aient formula aucunc 'reclamation, et sans que I'appelant ait I'occasion de faiie valoir ses droits contre eux, en ce qui regarde I'execution de leur contrat 1 Et le sh6rif, quoiqu'6tranger lui mftme k ce contrat, voudrait n^anmoins en exciper aujourd'hui, et encore, sans I'av^r ra&me invoqu6 dans ses exceptions I C'est Ik une pretention tout k fait inadmissible. L'obligation des intim6s est de rtf- mettre les effete en entier, on d'en payei 1#, valeur totale, sauf le secours .qu'ils peu vent avoir- contre qui de droits Aylwin, J.— The pretensions of the Respondents cannot be maintained by this Court. The object of the Statute was to afford magistrates and others, acting in the performance of their public duty, the occasion of tendering amends in cases where it is attempted to bdW them liable in damages for their acta. In the case before us, the Appellant seeks to recover his own property, seized by the Sheriff under a process ^hiph has been sst aside, or the value of such pro- - TT" ^'■J COOBT of QUEBN'S bench, 1867. 170 perty, .nd the Mture of the aotion exclude, the idem of noUoe. The Sheriff in negieohnfir to obey the order of the Court lo delJ.er up the property w« not «5Ungy the performance of hi. duty. but. on the contrary, negLt^ to perform a Shenff to refu«, bail in the ««e of . party arrested on a capbu^ or to deman! ^T/% *!'!.'*''.*** ''.'r ^ P'^ ™°"'*" ""***' •judgment of the Court, will it be pretended he ,s entitled to the notice referred to in the SUtute in .uch caw. f And .n thm caw. ,f he i» to be allowe.1 to di«,bey the order of the Court and to tZTriTt" "1 *"/;?' n '^ ^' '•"^ ^" P*'^*'™'''* ^» ^»^y. "»• Sheriff, who wourt at defiance. A. to the Sheriff*. re.pon,ibiiity for the act. of hi. Bailiff, ^e Jaw .mposes on him thi. respon.ibiJity. The property w,m in hi. cuetody! He ba. the nght toexact and to takeVare to get wourity from hi. Bailiff^ and IZtTiT- r**''"^.''^T »»>« Appellant to w4e hi. recourse either «ga.n.t the Plaintiff or against the Bailiff or ffardien. Thb Plaintiff may be a tSV ",'/ "'"^;- ''^- '^^' ^""'^ ^"«'^ P«'^°"°«<» ^' duty of the de«"!»- T r T^'"* '^' •*''"™' ""^ *^« «"«'d''"' -«« ^-°>« General Practice,p.64;lTidd,p 33- - ti it theL "ot'ce under similar Statute, there, he must have acted, if not ooln?h /i ' ° ?" ^°*^'"* '^ '"'^«' * reasonable and bJndJide of hTdut 7" r. r""^- ^" *^" '^'^ *••« «®«*' «*^^d - d'«ct violation of his duty and might have been pa«ed;for a contempt of Court It would Tie mo«/3r of the final judgment in appeal were as foilows:- C "LaCour. • • • * « » • • ,» * * 1. CoMid^rantqueleseffetsquifontl'objetdelaprtsenteactionsontdeseffets qui appartenaient a I'Appelant; et qui. en Avril mil huit X^^nTe-fu^^ et col T*"""* """ '^^^"''^"^^ ' '' P-^-'to de McPheZ Crine James InviD 2 Consid6rant que la dite saisie revendication a 6t6 dficlai^e uta1t6 „f-f '*'r^''""^^*""P'«"'«^^»><>»t^^ de leur demal^! qu il a 6t6 enjoint auz Intimfis qui en leor quality de Shdrif da 1^.^^! ' Montreal avaient execute la dite saisie. de reltTre et d^tref 4 1^^^^^ t^ dits effets qui auraient 6t6 ainsi sai.is par 1 Wier Kell. employ^ A ce"a" '^ IrwlB T. '••^ '% >. ^ ;-i . ■ ■ ^ i I \:'.. ^s» .,^ , ^ ''^Xif/ * t- :■•?' r 180 '^ » •»; \ m f I "1 Jrwln Boston. .1 <5bURT OP QUEKN'8 BENCH, 1867. lea (lit* IntiniAa et qui avaiont onaiu(«^t6/Confl68 jL un gardien nomm6 par le (lit Kolf, (leg faita duquel Huiaaior eTTuquel Oardion lea Intimia aont reapon< aablea. 3. Conaiddrant que lea Intim6a ne ae sont pas conform6a 4 I'tnjonotion qui lour avail 6t6 donn6a de remoUre ot d^livrer k {'Appelant lea dita effota ainai aaiaia ; que, par cona6quent, la pr6aente action qui a pour objet d'en fairo la rovendication oa d'on obtenir la valeur on argent, est une action qui, dana I'eapdce, procidait valabloment contro.loa Intimia ; quo pour 6tre admia 4 dinger 'cette action, il n'etait pas necea^aire de donner aux Intirnda Tavia pr^alable d'un mois -.qui, dana certaina cas, eat prescrit par le Statut de mil huit cent cinquante et un, cbapitre cinquante quatre, I'eapdco actuelle ne tombant paa aoua lea diapoaitions do cotte loi. 4. Conaiddrant, pnr conadquont, quo, dana le jugement dont eat appol et qui d^bonto Tappelant de aa dite action ^ raiaon du d6faut d*un tel ^\i il y a mal jug6 ; et conaiddrant de plua que 1' Appelant a'rat diaiat^ do cetto partio de aoa conclusiona, par laqueile il rdclatnait dea dommagea-int^rita { que la valour dos dita etfots a hik prouv6e 6tre do la aomme de cinq cent aoiicantc livrcs, dix chelins, coura aotuel, de laqueile il conviont taianmoina de d^dfuire cello de vingt cinq livrea, ni6me cours, pour tenir lieu do la valeur des ouvrages qu'il restait & faire pour rendre quolquea unn dea dita effeta proprea 4 leur deati-^ nation ; Infirme le susdit jugemont, aavoir le Jugemont rendu le dix-neuf d'octobre >i mil huit cent cinquante aiz, par la conr 8up6rioure, aiigeant & Montreal, ftvec^^ d^pen^ Bur le pr^aont appel contre lea Intim6a ; et cette cour proo6dant k rendre le jugement que la dite cour 8Up6rieure aurait dii rendre, condamne lea d^fen- dours, (IntimSa) conjoiStement ot aolidairement & remettro et d61ivrer au demBD- deur 80UB quinze joura de la aignification dn pr^aent jugement, toua lea auadita effets, leaquels aont mentionn6a dans la declaration comme suit savoir : *< A " cut off, in a number of pieces, a number of valves with goaring, throttle valve " and handle, valve lifters, eccentric rod and bands, cross head socket, air pump, " piston rod and bucket, head and straps for air puinp, piston, piston rod, pump " cover, and about four, huridred bolts and nuts ;*' et adjuge et ordonne qu'& d^faut dc ce faire dana le ausdit dSlai, lea ditft DMradeura^ chtt^iin d'ewk soient contrainta par corps et eittprisonnes dans la prison commuiite du dit diwmct, jus- qn'& ce que les dits effets aoient remis et d61ivr6s au dit demandeur (I'appelant) ou jusqu'jL cd que les dita d6fendeurs lui^aient pay6 la somme de cinq cent trante cinq livres, dit chelins, dit cours, [fbor lui tenir lieu dn prix et valeur dea dita effets, quoi ' fosant, ils seront valabloment d6charg69, et condamne les intim^s aux d6pe9S de I'acUon en la cour sup^rieare/' ' ' ' Judgment i'eversed. ^. <£ 6^. jBo6er/«on for appellant. IT. «S^ *»"« f«"o*i°g word. :~ Seeing the condrUon endorsed upon the Policy, whe^eupSn the Ee«K,ndent brought h,. acbon in the Court below, to the effect that not^ of .ll^r^c^ «Jher pnor or s«b«,quont, effected or to be effected by t^ p rty Z^^ bewl^^r f'^ ^r "* *'« ^PP«"*°'' '" defeuUwhereof Lr^ ^Tl w?hT T ' ''" ^^^"'*"* *-^"««^ *»•« ^ conditioTeff^ting la! ranee, wuh the Liverpool and ^ndon Assurance Company upon ZZZZ . ind th.« ,„ B,^d,r«,UoD, .„d that V veriict i. contw, «, ..Mm,™ ^ ,. new tnJ,..„j«,ed„d,efu«»itt.,„™„„.u,,c„„rt here ff™!n, for Respondent *" ■ ■';^." <"l \-'f It i. ../ ..^__L 4 .1 •i Ji I '.I-: Mr 182 CIRCUIT COURT, 18fi8. s / > ? r. T » i ■t€ 3! *t ' s 1 if^'^V .^i B '.!' )f -);. ^' No. 1163. Devlin vs. Tumblety. Held,— That an advocate may recover..by action od the quantum mtruit, feoa for profoMional services which are of a nature sufficiently deflried to come under a Roneral and ref^ular rule of ohanpM. but not for lerviceg of an indellnito kind, tuoh as consultations, for which the rate of charge ia arbi- trary. "■ • The Defendant was arrested in September last (1867), on a charge of felonyi and retained the Plaintiff as his counsel at the investigation which ensued before the Police Magistrate in |iIontroal. On the conclusion of the investigation, the Plaintiff, at the defendant's request, presented and supported an application for a writ of habeas corpus, which was refused ; but a second application, made before another judge, was successful, and the Defendant was released on bail While the Defendant lay in gaol, the Plaintiff, by request, pjud hiih several visits, to take his instructions with regard to the trial which, it was expected, would follow, and to advise him in his diflBcuUies. The declaration, after setting forth these facts, laid the value of the Plaintiff's services, on the whole, at JB126, of which sum the payment of JS25 wa^ .acknowledged, and concluded for dClQP. ■'~ - .. . - _i ^. * Vide contrary decision, 2 L. C. Jurist, p. 121. -■»•' ■ V SUPERIOR COURT, 1888. 183 brought „„ .,,: ::r„t:t t:: ::: 'iiJr r r ""•"'■ ■"" '" tbing Ilk, p,ooi.lo», could be m.i„ JJ^d ^^11^ V *" '""^ "'"' ""'• s:r::sr:,::b:- 7^ - . The tone Tf the^2!lZ ^'.r'"'"'** '^'' compensation for Ins .ervice.. much the difficulty had been foUof nl ? ^ ""*'' mentioned *to shew how gible and variableClX - i eltaf ll^^^^^^ ^" '"^" ''" '."^"- it with anv annrr>«n». #^ ^ • • '''v'^*"*' '»'»«'"• There was no ascertain nff waspeZrefruldlTr"^^ The circumstances under which the labouf ■uoTm Stt.^Ltl°*/'6'''«i™ "■e,".«.1.b,o «,.i„.,.„d y,i vum ua luijjossioio to namc a rate of fees. The nimliiv nf *u^ i nrllT ""? *'' '"'*"" °' ^''*' "''" *-'d determine their cha'S '"in the of ir SS ""?*" ^^r ' "^'^ "«^ ^^'^'^ " '-'^-^ *- enharthe vat dlcJ«^^«; K '"• "' ^"' '"'*""''• ^''« '"t«'««t excited by the case out of . t" er il' r?T " •'^'^."''*'' '"«' ^« ^'^^->^'- -ind-wirh could C2 *? ^""^ f estimation. Neither could the reputed health of the ^efendant, however U might operate privately between the parties.r alLed said that the positive value of services rendered to a rich man was greater than of the same given to a poor man. The details of labour Were heS^ve^ i„de" t. I '( ,^:f • 1 ( 11 h ■i i J>^ ! ill S,' ^ fMUHy. )M BUPEBIOB COURT. 18S8. flnit* : no bill of |NirtiouUrawM tjM. Th« Plaintiff avtrrwl that hla«i«rtioiw . laatad through twolvo Jaya. Hut tha niflra duration of tham wan no guide to thair worth. A yiMm/um tmruit claim inuat he for thinga having a Ungibia .. died valua. Tbo only good OTidanoo wm that of Mr. Bohlllar who provad that tha riainliff waa constantly employad diiring fQur daya in bahalf of the Dafan- dant, arroatad on a charge of felony, wfai<)|h larrioaa Mr. Hohillor valiitod at £6 a -. day. Tharo ware, boaidea, two appllcatiota for writa of kabtat eorpu$t and tha •ttandanoaa and labour incidont tharato.jarhii^i Mr. Sohltlor plaoad at tan guinaas'^ for aaoh. Than, aome small itama made an additional aum of about £V 10a. Tha Dafandant allagad that ha bad paid £32 lOn. and Undarad int'd Court tha Airlliar aum of £17 10a. to compUta the £00 .which ha doamed a propar remuneration. The Court thought tha tandor auflSbiant Mr. Darlin'a aaniow might have bean oitramaly valuable, but of auoh a native aa oould not. bo judi« cially determined, and the Court oould only rboogniao thoae which were deflnitA and appreciable. Advocates muat take their choice of two oouraea, either to truat entirely to tha honour and liberality of their dienta to do them joatifie fbr their high and oonfldontr»l aervicea, or (o make an arrangement, beforehand, and •ay, " I cannot undertake your case unleaa I recaive auch a fee." The latter waa the safe plan : no mistakea could ariao out of it. Although the Defendant aaserted that ha had paid £82 K>b., ho made proof of no graaler jwyiment than £26 and judgment went for the remaining £7 10a. and the £17 10^ tendered, making together £36, and costa of skiit. ' . ' The judgment of the Court waa in the following terms : .. " The Court having heard the partiea by their counsel upon the marifa of this ' " cause, examined the proooedinga and proof of record and having deliberated' " thereon, considering that the Defendant by his exception in this cauae fylad, " doth allege that before the institution of' thia action he had piUd to the Plaintiff,' "" on account of the professional aervicea by him rendered to the Defendant, the " sum of £32 lOs. currency and hath tendered the further ium of £17 10s. " currency in full payQient of an^ balance which the Defendant piay be adjudged " to owe the Plaintiff, the said sums making together tha sum of £60 currency, . " with the ^urther sum df £4 9s. Sd. for oosta, and considering that the Defen- " dant hath failed to prove the payment of the said sum of £?2 10s. aa by him " alleged or of any other or greater sum than £25, doth declare his tender and " deposit insufficient and doth adjudge and condemn the Defendant to pay to ," the Plaintiff the sum of £26 for the balance due to him for bja professional " services by him rendered to the Defendant, in the matters and in the manner ''in th^said Declaration set forth, with interest upon the said sum of £26 " from the second day of November, 1867, date of serrice of process in this " cause, until actual payment and costs of suit."* , "" " i>«v/tn for Plaintiff. - • Judgment for Plaintiff. ADrummomf <£ Dun/op for Defendant ' ,. (W.P.O.) • Sed vid*. Veitoh v. Buaaell, S Q. B. MS ; Bgan r. T^e Guardians of the Kcnain^^n Union, S Q. B. 938; Dupin, Profession d'iikHist: Troplong, If andat ; Case of Oulmet v.Bodion, Na 1880, 0. 0. If on. treal, decided January, 18SS, J. S. MeOord, Juiiioe ; Same cat« in appeal before Superior Court, No. Tea, decided 27th Sept., 18SS, Daj, Vanfelaon, Vondolet, Justices. (FvW.TO ■>.< ,.. ., -.^ '^, "-V '. 7T~r ' ~ ..• -. ^=~ ^H*"' ■f, >>-' ^^\^. COUR 8UPERIEURE, IW8. 10« <> -"^ . ' MOIfTBlAL, JT MA1I8, list. 1 ' • Coram Smith, J. ■ , . OlouUnty T. Z««W#f, •/. at. ^ ' , -lll«<.-Qi» la prworimiun Mnal.. pi, vtrtu d. iv,tu,l- i« j ■ " Oct", ,..7 "*•.'" "' ^'*"""* "»'• •' "PI"'"*'" »"' I. n ot^nl^Z'"^""''''^ 'I*"*^ th^ partie. by tLeir couiSl upon the exception dLurln rrV'r^^^^*''^ '"^ ^^^^""""^ having eiaminTr decI.r.Uon and fte ple«lh,g.. ^„ this oau,e, and harjg deli£3ratrrrer considering that the said-Defendant, have WIed to eaU^VhlTuw the e^ «ud Pla^uff to the u^djtnde nan^ev«.«j A ^«,^^, ,,^t,.^^ ,. Demandere«e. • iiri«i/<»«^ P- B' L. " - ^ " • , . # 9(^M*t " ! I i - 1 ■'^:., ■■"•ifc : i !■■' ;| , 1 ; ■*;■■ ' ■I : .' ' i -i tr' ^* t' 1! .r' ^kV ^» 188 SUPERIOR COURT. ( , ! 1;; * * MONTRBAL, 20th MAY, 1858. , , Coram Smith, J., . . ' '• Na«7. •' Henderaon y%. Enneu. . - . Capias — Motion to Quash. • ' « Held,--th«t » wpfts cannot be q^Mhed by motion on the Rround that the retmnt of belief In' the •ffldAvU do not «pocifllMo/< eph Chignon, Requeranipmrun writ deCerttorari. JugiS; quo lurune motion del* n«»«,i». . . Uepuii «don«nde pour writ d.^^rS.'^™" I»«*W durtnt re.p.0. de .1, molt flrent motion "^rdniv.Srr"'" .'" P*^''^' *'''"- "e« cette C.U JeT^u'H" t ;^^^^^^^ '* '«™«"^« ^'- -"» de'certiorari "gemcnt en cour i„rL,re le ^ft S LrH "' ""' ''''"'■*' '* P'°"«"«* ''"i"' ".uence avec d6pens cont^ t TjIXcZT^''''' «* ^"""^ - -.- /'quWayantete notifi6 de la dite TZ " 1- ''^^P' ^''"^- «- " I'audiUon d'icelle, examine la proc6dZTHyl dZL ^"" ""^^ '""^ ^' « tion, et paraissant que le R.q«6,^S „radon^r ' *"'**"^' '* ^'^« "'O' mow depuid ie prononc6 du iuffempnt «„ Z^ • « • "'^ pl«8 d6 six fifico«c «fc Ze6/onc, Avocats du Requerant. Writ cass^. (P.f*,J^'^"-^"'""*''^^<*««*«*J««Commi98aire.. ' • ' MONTREAL. STH JUNE, i888. In Chahbkrs. *" Coram SuiTB, J. .\ " ■No.iesa. ^runeai4 V. Miller. . Alimentaby Alwwak^Ii. -©•fendantanASericali geld dollar , the Defendant refused to accept oh the ci current. in Canada; and on the 2nh Ma! ' pwrn ia aceof juch orduf, teaa ir^ • .-»*-.■ V i 1 :f'^f ,W.| .y^ f[ < I .p !i ^.=s± payment of such allowance, which J that the coin tendered was not he Defendant presented a, petition TT I 1 ' 4 V » t .1 / V. 'Ml < " McKenna, vs. Titbb. ARBrrus — Costs. Held,— thkt wbitrea to whom the mstters in diipuie between the parties to » rait hsTe been referred, «ndi who find » «iun of money to be due to the Plaintiff, have no right to acUndlcate on the ooete of suijb and to decide that each partyfa^ his own ooata. "^ matters in dispute in this c&use had been referred to arbitret, amicAlet compositeurs, who gave an award of £20 in favor of Plaintiff, (being £5 less than Plaintiff's demand,) and they adjudged that each party should pay his pwij .costs of suit. / V At the iSnal hearing, Herbert, for Plaintiff, stated that the only point of difference between the pa'rGai~n^, was the question of costs, and submitted a -■■'■/ Hiol cam core «m& in SI A to it teun B; and I suit, theiin partj ffi Mi (A Hcld,- are Thi. charge co-par origin! ing, th sent in in the ; May is com] . Article, which I complai kenzie, far sucl English co-parti Court o being w was a Hi the case >^ip. 5" ■''.■7^'«f't"'?FWl'E' ■''■■> >n was of a divisioQ a propor- upon the ^-. CTRCCrr COURT, 1M8. IM sail, .», rejeoW • ft?" " ,1 ^'^ ?"''" "■*" "" "1""«°° »' "»"» »« p.rtr paying 0„/iS • ^ ^'"^ """ '">"""' ^'^'i, <«oh /fo-fer/, for Plaioiiff. '"""M *««««, foiLDofcndanl. • (A.H.) \ , SUPERIOR COURT. MONTBEAL, 27th FEBRUARY, 1858. Coram Dat, J, No. 101. Wisher v. Ruasell et al. onginally involved the rfi«ni;^.i^ «f ^.i , ^^'aintitt. The action far such answers can'bind th« «fW n/iT ' ^ *''* q"«»t'on arises ho*f English law, and 't hlld L it i» ^f "t*"**" ^" " * "»**'«' ^-^^Jj of^ co^artne™ and ar^ul Vd r^^^^^^^^ '^P'"'"^' «> *<> ^^^ his late being whether an adnii^!:;' ^l ^ r^^^^^^^^^^^ '^ was a new nrom,-.H, wiffidunt to hh..l ii „ Iu° ' . ^''^ ^'«'o'"*'OQ of the finn. MoKanna TiMh the f ';v-V\ l^»l»l ';'' L ■f.r, ,,'W,-' 'm- 102 SUPBRIOR COURT. WUtmt would refer to a vory old ciyw, Burroughs V. Adams, and to a case ot Russell ?. BmwU. Esdaile et al., doctdid in 1847. Mackay tt Austin, fur Plaintiff. M. Melver, for RiihsoII, Defendant. W. E. Holmesy for Mackenzie, Defendant. (8.B.) ' Judgment for Plaintiff, r* ifONTRBAL, 2tTH FEBRUARY 1858.^ Coram Badolbt, J., • -; No.210. " , Edmonttone et al,, vs. Childa et al. ' , Held,— Ttamt It U competent tbDefendantt who we sued m coputnen carrying on trade under the name of "The Montreal Ball-Road Car Company," to prove under the general^ iaiue, that the Company was incorporated and that the debt sued fDr wia a debt of the Corporation. • ■ . * ^'' This was an action on a promissory note, signed in the name of '* Tho Mont- real Rail-Road Car Company," by John Leeming one of the Defendants, styling himself Trustee of such Company, and was instituted a^inst the Defendants who were alloged-io the Declaration to be copartners, carrying on business under the abov^^namo. The plea was the general issue. jBadffley, J. — ^Thc Defendants here are sued as Copartners, hut the evidence clearly establishes that there never was any such Copartnership as that men- tioned in the declarawon,^nd that on the contrary the Defendants were duly incorporated, under the provisions of the Statute 13 and 14 Vic. ch. 28, under the name of " The Montreal Rail-Road Car Company.*' The Registrar's certi- ficate and the copy of the Canada Gazette containing the required notice are tyled, and there can be no doubt that the Company was regularly established in accordance with the Statute. There is no other Car Company proved to have existed and the Defendants were moreover- the original trustees of the Company. The note sued on is plainly a note of the Company and not of the Defendants, cither as individuals or Copartners. It is true that the Defendants have only pleaded the general issue but as they were sued as Copartners, I think, under that plea, they had a right to prove that they were not so and that on the contrary they were a corporation. Under all the circumstances I have no hesitation in dismissing the Plaintiff's action. Action dismissed. h ,') Bose cEf JIfonk, for Plaintiffs.. A.d;G. Bobertson, for Defendants. (8. B.) (S.B.) ^^1 "d^i:-. ■ V ^■«^v^ ' i i^ '^^;~'^T^^W^ ^ft'i^sfmp^^ae^ljgHB'^ SUPERiqR COURT, 1868. '•'^'H 103 . MONTREAL, 31th PEBRUART, 1888. ~" i - Cor(fm Day J. No. 1608. -«t.J,U.. right, .nd ,„ m. brdtuZo:*. """T "■ '" "'""«°"'"' logou, to the present one. for there thn V\aTJ^7\^ *"^*'' " °<»' »»»- «».».„.. .„d_;„ u:::::^j:srr,ri^^^^^^ Zei/onc tfe eiwsiVy for Plaintiff. ' * J^<»n«"er di^nissed. Za/renay,. ,fe />a;,t„ for Defendant. ^> ' # BerlvTeCts'^^^ the s.»e Un.. l„\o. 1835 (8.B.) ^ ' MONTEEAL, 27th PBBttUAET, 1868. Coram Dxt, J, No. 2089. Oiffon vs. HotttC "1 *wa:L'::M^:xtHtt/:/:r^^^^^^^^^ St Jean Baptiste. whereas the nrope/n^e of the p" 'T^7\ '''' ^*"»^ ^^ SL Jean Baptiste de Rouville • ^""''* ^^f'^ ^^ ^^^ed wd. «V/, and St Jean r;ti:te rf; Z^"^^'^ ' "'""^^^' '' '*«" «-P'"*« ''^ ^o- ia !^ p:!^:?8::;e^^^ Hve- Parishes of that name in the dUI^^^^^^^ ' "T"*^ *^»' «»«'« ^ two Roxton-it does dot follow ^at tT^ I """^ '" ^^^'^^'^ ""^ th« oth«r m bad. Moreover, RLau"^^^^^ description « St Jean Baptiste," i, dence of the defepdfnt. ^ ^"' " "! "''^^^'^^ ^^ describing the ;esi. '■■.:■■■, <-^ ". -. ■■■■■',' Lehlanc d- Cassidy, for Plaintiff. " Exception dismissed. — GarHer" ^ .. . ... = (S.B, <^iie7rJimneM & PominvilU, for DeS^ ' i; v m ,( ii ; -.. ^.--fii^-t . ■i- 194 SUPERIOR COURT, 1868. 1^;. ■ ^1' Ji i *♦ MONTRBAL. rtH FKBBUARY, IMS. Coram Day, J. ' N0.16S8. Afalo VI. Labellt. :^. Held, in an lUBdavU for capiat ptniUnU lilt, tlwt • nforen for th« OMiM of debt U luffloiem. to the deoknktlon lyied In the omim This was n motion to (|iin8li\ a writ of capiat ad\re$pondendum on the p^round, amongBt othon, that it did, no^ appear by the affidavit tliat any legal or suffi- cient caaae of debt existctl to |u8tify the iMuing of Iho writ, inasmuch as the affidavit in effect merely staiod that the do|(endant was indebted in a particular ■uiti of money,/or the reaaoni menfhmed in the declaration in the cause. Motion to quaeh rej^ted. Cherrier, Dorion d Dorion, for I'laintiff. Lajlamme, Laflamme dt Barnard, for Defend nt. MONTREAL aTxH FEBRUARY, isijsr ^ : ^ Qoram Dav, J. ^ No. III. Boudreau v. Lavender. Held, that where it reaultt Arom.the protff that the •llogatlorii do not cjomapond preel^ i;ith the ilMti pnnred. that the declaniilon mivlw amended, on payment of oo|). coots, withQUi pr^S^oe to the eridenoe, and with power to Defodliant. to replead within 8^ diura. ■ ° 1 This was a motion to amend ^ho Plaintiffs' de^lAratronV in consequence of the ' proof not according precisely with the allegations of th« declaration, and par- ticularly in regard to the date of a note on whioK tbraiction was partly balsed. Dat, J. I see no difficulty in granting thi^tQQiidiv ind it is granted accord- ing on payment of SOs. costs, and without prejudice t<^ the evidcQce, with "the right also to the Defendant to replead within 8 days. ' Motion granted. Clierrier, Dorion d Dorion, for Plaintiff. ' J/bnit <£ i/acra«, for Defendant. T (B.B.) a: , MONTREAL, 2 nb FEBRUAtfy, 1858. Coram Day, J. f . "^ No.S*l). Wentrop v. Nicholti, et al. ./ \ Held.— That when the paiiicnlara of Plaintiff's 'd&manda are not disclosed by the QeoUtMtion, and ^e Bill of Partioidan b thA«with lyied, Kuch BUI of Pirtic^ra may be fyled at th* #1411^. if tho Defendant instead of nM>iring to diaminpleadi to the action. A " ■ \\ / This was a motion to reject certain Bills of Particulars fyjijj^ by Plaintiff at enguite, on the ground that they should have been fyled with"' the Declaration, and were fyled without leave of Court, and on a day on which they could not, "" according to the Rules of Practice, be so fyled. Dat, J. — ^This motion comes too late. The Exhibits referred to were fyled before the Plaintiff^s commission royatoire, in which the Defendants joined, was ■ ^ su e d o ut. Bes i d es tfair Befcn d a n t r,-a n jer the "tttites~gr Practice,'1mig ht hav^ ¥i -'.-■■ ' ■ ' . ' % ' ' ■ . . . i(^. .J ■ ■ ' • - . ■ ■ ' " , *ff%'^y--- •rr^^i SUPERIOR cSuRT, 1888. l- ^95 .'K .- -Row <* i/bii* for riaiijtiff*. ^*'*'*"' '«J<»t«d- MONTREAL, a7TH MARCH, 1868. Coram Day, J. ;. . No. M5. ;, •II or which notoi Mtiwlly paid wore m J^lTJ l.T """'" '•ufflolont to covw the ai»fckmA *• Th«t M -Mi^nment of tho luterct of tho b«nkr..^TV, •f^'^'* Norro DH.„e Street, of this city, c" f uXT T'/'^*^^^" " ^--« « Bliop in McQill Street, .vhi,h the Sherfff » ^ ^f"^'*"*. and of good8 in of the Defendant. The opAl X^rZ:t:1 1 /" ^ '^^"P^^^ executed on the 24th day of October S K f ^^ .?''^ °^''»'« «"^ ^'•''"'f^' the Defendant «oId to the oppol J i, 'eTJ:'?,,'"'''' ""^ *'°"*'««»<'. notaries, :;he then po.se.sed. and whic'h' wa^^y ! "'t in ' ™"""' ^'P^'*^ ^^ '«^ Dame Street, and partly in the premiaes No ^4 Vn ,f c""'*'' ^^^^ '^0 Notre sideration of the price or sum ofS, ,« ®""'"'' ^"' ""^ '» «««»- undertook to pay, at tho times in said deed I'teTr^^''-^''' '''' ^PP^"'""'- oftheopposa„t8,thon and there dehVer d to ^ « nl'T !" "T"''''^ "^*«' >n so far as they had matured, paid by the ol f f "^,*»*«' ""^ which were, . and by which deed it was also aJld tl ,t ^Tw ]' *'"' ^"'^^'^ '^''^^f' i« to t^e^posantshis interests tSe ^esj^^^^^^^^^^^ aforesaid That^ftor the execution of saTiwK ''^'^ °^ ^^« ^^o Premises ^ioli^e.7 of all the property aZoJ and Z *'^^PP~*»*« ''«poMintf, creditor* of the laid Defendant, in reapeot of the debt for whicV judgment waa rondered in the cnuie againat the aaid Defendant on the 3 lit day of Maroh^ 1850. That the aaid protondod doed waa ao executed by the aaid Defendant, for the purpose of dufraudhig certain of hia creditora, and •apeoially the aaid Plaintitra, and of preventing if poaaible the ezeroiae in due courae of law lof the aaid IMnintiflfa' romody aa of right againat tl^e property pre- tended to be conreyed by auoh deed, in aatiefaction of the Plaintiflfd' aaid d«bt, auoh property ao pretended to be CMnvcyod \mng '\u fact all the eatate and pro- perty wbataoever of the said Defendant which he then owned and poarovaed or to which he waa in any way entithd. That the protended price, atipalated in and by the aaid pretended nd the soizif re by them effected in the canae, wholly inoperative, null and void, and ought ao tO be^declared by the court, and so far as might be uecj^saily, be rescinded and set aside. Th'iitatthotimeof the seizure of the moveable effects seized in this cause under and by virtud of the writ of execution tlieroiii issued, ' all and singular th6 aforesaid moveable effects were and had been t'ur a l^ng time previously in the absolute physical possession of Ihe said Defendant, ^lul were not in the pvssession of the said opposants, as falsply pcetendcd in, nnd by their aforesaid opposition. " "* _ The opposants replied specially to the .following effect (afttsr denying tlie truth of the Plahitiffa' allegations) : — That at the timeiof tlio (fttecution of the said deed^ of sale and transfer of the-24th October, 1855, the oppostwits gava lo the aaid Duvid Mann the full value of the goods thereby in:ide over to them, and tliat the aaid David Mann divided the price so' obt lined for the goods among his creditors, and, anlong the rest, offered to the said Plaintiffs their share of such pried ' and value. That, at the time of the seizure of the said goods, -the opposants were in possession of the same, and the said David Mann was their clerk and servant in their^mpldy, and feal delivery had booty and was made to the opposants. That the said sale was not made to secure at\y pre-existing debt, but that full value was given at the time of the execution of th^said deed of sale. That whether the Bttid Dttvion,J^Ttrl^oZn T^'^^^r ^'"^ '"^''^ ""^ ''- the mo«t reapecuble me^an T h^^^^^^ «';^"'«"' '"'« *'« ^w,, of purchase, by placing In t"e Cd- of M .;: ^'' ^"" "^''"'''"-tion for thU for no las. ./amount than £2,81 ,1 '" "**"''"'"•' P'^'"'"'"-^ •">*«• -arlty by their own c^:"/:: hrSt^Zr' M rel:f ^ ^'•"" '"^'"' '^ no Moniov .bout the tr.ii,«/..l«» . i.... .1 l . "°™°'«'i *«" «»« not only Sc..n-. crodl.,,. WeXX how";ron:° :' M *™', ■""" °' "'■ may be urired in the nrJl* n<"'«ver, of the special consideratioiie that firming a jiwkrment of thi, p«„w »i. • k ^ ?^ '"' ''■' ■ Judgment con- Ando„,h„«,c„„dVintIfrrZwi?rT^!. ''''^'" "■" 1"«»"=«"- It would ,ppe.r ,h« bv ' htd^^tl^ ! ? *""" '^°""'' "«'« '"•iWion. t.re.t in .l.^7™Jb. .Ch ,^, "j " ^"".'''"^^ '» Smi* 4 Ko.. .11 hi. i„. S.r«), .h.opp„..r„l"!t^''2 «'•'!<' (".-ly.l..on.i„McOill they remove, 'thTgood. .hbh JeTon U„d «TT '"• "l" """• '° '"''«'■ wh.t b....r fonn of .™di«o:; «7^:xtht^hi:r"™/^"7T'"•• leases had surely the loffal effopf ^e^^r iT ^"® *'"""'«•' of the .ould beTf.ll ..qulite or 't^;';:;' " -"^-^ed for on the other side, property seized hSrefrrrsbrtT^ZrvTmi"^^^^^^^^^^ Moreover, the the deed of October 1855 »„i "T "* P? °^ t*** O"*:""*' stock sold by 1 i » ■i ■ 1 I t-.t I i'u 'i i?i>mjmWe in It monthljr itt«i»f "i«ntt, eight of wliloli only w«ro [mid before the woond failure. At the noetiiiga of creditor* held efler the wMjBnJ bai)kruptcy, but after the several meetings of credito|||^^^S|]^ the opposfljlnmssisted, had failed to result in any unanimous arrangeiftetft, any for the avowed jmrpose (aa admitted by^ Mann and Mr. John' *.q* SioitnTone^f tEe'opposants, to Mr. Barry who has been examined as a witness for the Plaintiffs) of placing tie prbperty^eyond the reach of seizure, there is no^ •ales in th( Mtate, than whole more I conten plainly ^tablif ceaaary present ruptodi ^ niture' a were dc the trar a *affiei. be oonai tent* of •uch par cited in i with me fore, whi (dqurt wl opposantt •eiaed wh date of tl tion will I with that the deed, Md -fraud moreover, into the fa delivered a -■■J=. snPKuroRilDRT. 1W8.. ■J b7«nj money of tUoppo..„JLt wV^Ihk ."'•'*''•'• "•^•' Nd .f«ci.l fund ip th« City nThk. which r. ' ' '""''" **''""' ^' ""«" «" • •%«*' »>/ the .^.em•„t Ini nZTt, '" •*'''''•"' '°^" ""-". H i- tBTdeecl w« full, 75 per ce^,t or £ 1 ««« . ^fr"''"*^ P^"* "''P"'«»^ •».• I^rtlo. tbom«,I.e^ « .heZn bv til 'I'^-'^f r-'«« P»t upon th« e.Ut« ^y whole of which e,c J'hM p.ri; J^t^ *! T^'"' '^ "" ^•*^'- ''"' more th.n .ufBcient to p./tho n.I ff!thr « ^ , *'" ^'•"^' "' •" «"'0'«» co-tending for. I„ i«idlL Vprv '^^^^^^^^ »\-"J ^Ley were ju^y pLinly inop«r,liv, (^ w.„t Jf Si' ^1 ''T Tn""""'. "" d««"»)' *» ruptedl/reulning the Lh^l «„r„t J "'*'^/^'^ ^^'«'' '^•''" ""'"^r- . „niture^.nU good.^rotenXt cl'"fd TnT!? T ""' ''' ^"^'^ "^ ""^ ^- were depoelted. It i. contended brmTlelrneS f i '7"'T'~ '" *'"''''' ^''«^ the tranefer confined in the dZ of Ju Itf.!" f "*" *''*^.*^" "■*••. »»>•» • "ffioient delivery |n l.w fZ 1" ' '"'"""* '" '^' ^'^ ''O'-t'tnted b« construed into . de e'y o" r o L pTemi *"""'!.' '''' ^•"^'" "«''^ ^^ '««« tent, of tho«, preml«», i„ the face o.n aZt' '". ''!''"«^'«"'»'j «f the co». •uch party of theee veX pre.nll ?„ , 7. ** """^ ^n-nterruptod retention by w.th me in\.yi„g that it Ih wholly untenable *•;•'"•"•? ^' ««"« "ill agree fore, which h« never c^««d to U. in Man!:. '^''«*'"^' '^' ^"^•j'turo, tl.ere- ,«.i«ed in the -me co«,itlo„ 1 w^en uretelrTT;'"' ""' *'"'"^ '>««" bdaulftmatever that the Plaintift are entUedT '^^^^ "^'^^ ^^'^ ««" be no oppownt. contend thaf. inasmuch ZZ kT""^' ^^ ^ *''• K«<^^ the -.ed what belonged t; ^hZ^Z^^rj:::^^ '"'"«"'"' ""«"« '- date of the deed. th« Plaintiff,. „ome.uir 1 *? f"' T ^''''^'^'^ ""«« ^^^ fon will suffice to shew that the Jaul of h ^1* ' ^^'^ * *°'^ "^ ^^P'-"- with that of the furniture. I .r't^tat I I ^« ""'•* "* •^^"•">' ""«"'-«> the dee,!, a. regard. botA fur«^!u^l '^»^« -"ficently demonstrated that «d. fraudulent .«, th J^^StdCd'aT/th':';^''*' " ''-""^"^ moreover, iffailed to ve.t any pronertv in^u "** ^'""' '^'' ''-»» ^^ t'«d'«on, '•'.ta the facta connected wi7thZ^fI. f m"*^""" ^'' "" '^'^ «'«»'-« ^JoHvered at ^he ^tWe rrr« N LT""*^ ^^^•^"' P-r-onally a„,We pectiv shop, m Notre Dama «,d MoOill StweU, oi«5«pied by I / ■v; .■^ 1,»''« ■^■'- ►■» -if % % i ^0 ^ SUpERm (^URT, 1868. 1^ ' 1 I- .•< f *'■ ' ft- ■ -1 MS ft"* ,SL>L • CtaBtailB|i at al. liim, antT that all mooteij fSiiid on acQOai^t thefeof wore paid, either by Mann per- . ^ -^^ Mauv / Bonaliy or some' one of h» clerksj in money, or by checks drawn by the opposants on the sjjccifll futifl in the l^ly Bank, _ S^ Tol. Digette de Jiutinien, par Hidot ; • Aathorltes cited by Plaintifb' 414 and wig. Pothiflr. counsel Y en te, ljj? s V 33 e^i;jL^lTQnilli fl ir^Mo^4 and teg. , B aa -r-rrr & Seed, 3 YoL t. C. Law Beports, p. 446, and authorities there cited.' SUPEftlOR COURT, 1858. 201 said that no value waa mVan fi.. «i, \ , '^u'«r way. n bad been a^on Reformer, sdecj^lyagainstt^ proved by the testimony of McFarlane^ Be8ide?tTstoc|c JLI ' T T a. «!.. purebred by M.„„, „ ;^„. „, „^Js™* 'r'at.^^^^^ «-<...g ,"««„„, .„di.w»;„;u,La«:; k«„ iii'^s: j:;;::;^ ; ■».■;: I': /! I n I ' . . ■ . 202 SUPERIOR COURT, 1868. Oountag et »i. was in regard to the price at which the sale to the opposantB was made, which Kua the Plaintiffs slated to be too low. They maintained that a public sale would have allowed a larger dividend to have been declared, and that they were justified in refusing io^ accept the composition offered on that gwJund, without losing their recourse against the pVoperty of the Defendant. The Plaintiffs and a very few other crediftors objected to the sale, but the great majority of the creditors t;on- cuned in l(lic arrangement. This point might perhaps have been a ground fbr a special revocatory action in which it would have been competent to the Plain- tiffs to establish the quality of the sale, and any injustice or fraud that might have been attached to it; but the C«ttt now was bound to declare, that no creditor could de piano enter in and executejroperty previously conveyed from his debtor to a thi^ person by a bohAjide sale, whatever opinion might be entertained of the insufficiency of the price given. On the whole three point?, therefore, the Court is/ with the opposants and the Plaintiffs' contestation must be dismissed with costs, the opposition of Smith & Ross maintained and motn livie granted them of the goods under seizure. Judgment maintaining Opposition, ^ow <£■ J/bnA:, for Opposants. .fi««Aune (£' j^unittn, for Plaintiffs Contesting. -^ MONTEEAL. 87th HABCH, 1858, CoroTO Smith, J. No. 251. ExPARTE Pre/ontaine for Certiorari. He d, th At a certiorari in which no proceedings have been had during six monthi, will be ditmlMed on « Mtlon. Smi^:h, J.— This is a motion to quash a certiorari for want of proceedings six months, and a case, Ex parts Boyer, has been cited as a precedent. The Court adopts the precedent, and the certiorari is accordingly quashed. ■ Motion granted. JR. db O. Ldjlamme for Petitioner. Zor"" " »•"". b~. •sisq^ more correct to diieharge the Jr #" MONTREAL, 37th MARCW, 1858. ^ Coram Mowdilit (C.), J. No. «187. •» quently be set widT '^*^'"' *"^ *^* '^P^'* '»""» «>°»«- iHti«m<»irfonrf2>tt„/iy,fo,pjainljff Motion granted. Carrier onrf ^«./A«fo/, for Defendant (8, B.) " MONTREAL, 27th MARCH, 1868. Cofam MoNDKtET (C), J. -^ No. t40«. RyyaU.Rofnn,on,ai^tj^Montreal^ Champlain Bailroad Company T.S *--«^-tI«man.?X3^!::SS2. ''"^•""'^ .tt«hn.entbr *N^ arr«ap5yt Thi. wa« a contestation of the declaration of tlie tiert^aui on tha .tt«,hment the Company h*i paid theriwaT "o'-thsUnding the It was admitted in writing that When the attachment was «,rv«H *i. V. imKe teanng B.XHUKK for Plaintift cont4«ded that these ««rft«/ accep- - I "• .'t !! -r-J'~rr-i ir il I I ■f 4 . t ' r \i - 1, t . I 'l:| 204 BUPERtOR OpURT, 1888. Bytti BoWiMMmft ^ tancfis Ijr two subordinate oflBoers of the Compan^ cooW igjver bind the Com- T.8.pany and were wholly insuflSoient to prevent the Ph»intifl% who were judgment credM^ from attaching the monies covered ty the drafts before they were actually^'fniid. MoNDKLBT (C), J. The only party who had any right to coraplaih of the insuflSciency of the acceptances was the'^Company, and as the Company after- wards paid the drafts, it recognized the validity <>f the acceptances. I must therefore dismiss the contestation. / Contestation dismissed. Bethune tt Dunkin, for Plaintiffs. Hose d Monk, for T. 8. (8.B.) /- ■/ MONTREAL, 27th MARCH, 1868, CorOffi MONDKLKT (C), J. ■"■ " -:---—-:' No. 1813. ■' /""' Mac/arlanev. Thayer. ■ ' - k leW. 1. In an sctlon en homage, that the existeupe ft^ upwards of ten years of a m«r mitoyen alone a portion of the dlvUion line between two properties, and of a fence along the remaining portion \ of such division line, is no bar to the Plaintirs right of action. 2. That where it is established by the surveyor's report VbfX the wall and fence encroach on the • Plaintiffs' property, the Defendant must pay the costo of the aotloir, and the costs of the survey be equally borne by both parties. / . This was an^aclion en homage, in w^iich the Defendant pleaded, in effect, that for upwards of ton years before ttie institution of the action, Defendant had pb^essed his property, in good faith and' under a good title, and. thai; during all that time, there had existed/between the Plaintirs and Defendant's properties well known and recognized/ legal boundaries, in the shape of a mur mitoyen along a portion of the divj^ion line, against which both parties had built their stables, and of a fence al6ng the remaining portipft of su^ flivisidm lino, wd prayed that the action shotild be dismissed.^ , \ Issup having been joined generally, the case was inscribe^ for Enquit^^fl\mi the Plkiutiff proved that no legal *orj|e« existed establish/ng the divisioi line between the respective properties, And on the other hand ^e Defendant proved the existence for more th-in ten years of the mur mitoyenj and fence referr^ to in his plea, and that both parties had equally contributed towards the cost of the erection of the wall and built their stables againsf' it ; the plaintiff al\o pr(j>viug that when the wall was being built he had pro^sted notarially, to thi effect, that it was not in the right line. The ease was thfen inscribed for hearingX on th( ( merits. / / At the hearing, Betudnb, for Plaintiff contended, that the action en fy>mage was iiliprescriptible (1) and that fences and walls existihg between properties as in the^ present case served merely to indicate what is/termed in legal phraseo- ' logy k dilimitation between the properties and could /in no degree determine the legitimate boiinda of each property or answer the requirements of a barnt properly so called (2). (1) yTouillier, No. 170. ~ ,. ? ;" (2) Carasson, des actions possessoires, verho Bornage, p. 430. ' / D^vojraa-AJgatsoa,l.L.O.: Jurist, P. 18T, , ' > \ SUPERIOR CO >GR:r 1868. 205 mrttoveretil des parties, et la vraie position et assiette du susdit otT^Zt c J^^"^"""' ^*"'* ** ^" tout ledit arpenteur fera rapport 4»rt .,d pl.„ to be fjled ,be„i„g .be .c.„.l pli„„ If fttSj «' "t! aqa plan fyled as ordered, and on the 27th of uLoh lana ♦! » T, ^omolog«M .„d co„a™ed, and «„.l ju gm .. 11 "d In IT ' a./*.™ .« 2i„„i;„, ,„;„.,„,,,. J"Jgn..ntforPl.i„,iff. ' ^. 'J^. i>oman, for Defendant (8-B) . , MONTREAL, 30th ipRIL, 1868 ' ^ Comm Smith, J. ' •- N0.24W. ,. Mereille v. Fourniep and vir.' . "» ™ " "««0" M two notarW obligrtioM, »gDed bj the fenuU. D.(i,n , te dulj, ...bori^rf ..d ««.« by ber b^b«S, i„ ,bii T, llVi^l ■ *«« from ber b„.b«,d .eknowWge. bemlf tL.y^l,iJZZ if^lt t^.ar2'^l°'f:^Tr. ""■ P'!* "'■"'ned i„ ,1., de>d. ,n,^ < ' ■■?; "\. 1 1 > I comiary u w«. the husBind who was the party really indebted to ,.;:/ r- 200 I 11 - H'.fl - i- m HMMI ar 1(11 '!;■"■ Nnia: SUPERIOR COURT, 18«8. the Plaintiff .Dd that she signed the deeds, at the instance of the Plaintiff and by hTr'hutblnV^*"" ''"*^'"'^ ^"^ ^'^ ""*'' ^"""^ of securing thodebtso due The Plaintiff was examined on/ai7# tt artielei, and at £nquSte. The Defen- dam tendered verbal testimony in support of her plea, on the ground that there w^Heommencement d, prmve par icrit in the answers of the Plaintiff sufficient u^ allow of the adduction of such verbal testimony, and that at all events iDasmuch as the allegations set forth in the plea imported a fraud and violation' -?or the Registry Ordinance 4th Vic. ch. 80, she was entitled to estabKsh suoh f^ud by parol evWence. Dat, J., who' presided at the. Snquite refused..to^ •dmit the evidence and at the final hearing a motion was ^e to revii* his ruling. ■ f f Smith, J., (after stating facts,) I am against the Defendant's pretensi^ that the answers on faiu et articles afford K commencement de preuve par At«1, but 1 am with the Defendai^ ion the question of adducing verbal evidence to prove the fraud sot up in her plea. The defence in this case rests entirely on moUves of public policy. The law declare|i that all contracts entered into by the wife . assftretyin any way for the debts of her husband, are absolutely "null and tOi^. Any contract therefore which she ma^r so attempt to make, although d.^ under a different name and made to appear as an obligation for 5m individual debt of her own, is in fraud and violation of the law, and it is com- petent, in my opinion, for the party pleading such fraud to prove it by parol testimony. The law wA plainly made to protect the wife, and it would be a contradiction to say, that its enactment could be defeated by tbe rule of t])e trench Law which excludes verbal testimony outre le,contenu d^tift acte. I am under the necessity consequently of reversing the decision of m^ brotheV Dat and ofsending the parties back to JFn^u^te. ' ^^ Inscription on Sdle de Droit discharged and case sent back to Enguete. L.BHournay, for Plaintiff, ; J. Papin^ Counsel. i''. P. i>OOTi»w«<^ for Defendant. ^. 5<«ar/, Counsel. > > (8.B.) . . r-. » . HONTBBAL, SOTB,APBIL, 1858. ^' Coram Shitb, J. '^ ' 06tietal.v.Aforriton. Held, thrt tte pwMripUon of five jam under the u Vic. ch. ts iBpUes to • n^ Il»efth.t8t.t«t^«,«awhiohno«*ionl,l««,*twlU-^^?!^ J">» ^ «° wtion on a promissory note,.bearing date at Mackinaw, in the State of Michigan, the 24th of July 1826, and payable in one year from date. *V^ „ r^*°' ^ ""^"^ '^'*"«'* **'^*'' *'"fi^ *•»« prescription of 6 yean, urfder the 12th Victona, chapter 22. The PUintiflb replied, that that prescription did not apply to the note in question, and ci^led on the Defendant to make oath of payment, under the 84th Geo. 8, cap. 2. and moreover all^y>d4h«^^ m'' laintiff and debt 80 du& The Defen- I that there Iff tafficieDt all events, d violation abKsh Buoh refuBed',t» ) reviiy his ^nsierti that • Aril, bat :e to prove on motive^ y the wife^ |r "noil and I, although tion for an it is corn- it by parol rould be a lie of t^e :te. I am jthei-DAr mete. itolbm. w, in the om date. ITS nifder ptiondid 3 oath of i cripti o tt SUPERIOR COURT, 18fi8. m irew««rH„J ' ,, '/"^*"*'"* "'''^'enized the existence of the debt iZrrZronr '■ "■' l"": '^^^^^ *" P^^^*^- ^"^ «° otherWidenco of e'tabi sh^rr^^^ '"• J"'^^"*^ "^*''"'''^«""» «'«t the said Defendant hatS nr!^n » r.*''"" "'' y*"" '•"'^^ ^'•'P'^d between the brlnirinif of the present action and the day on which the 12th Victoria chapter 22nd became ZtLmIZ I'i'^'"'"^^' ""' ^•"'^ '^« promissory nofe sued ot^ ^ aaid Plaintiffs *!, guahUs was, at the time of the institution of the present aTtion by force of the said Statute 12th Victoria, chapter 22nd, prescrib^Tnlaw the' furthl ^^ ' T' '''' '''*'*^" "^ '^' ^"^"^'ff- •« »»>'« t«h«^f barred ; Td ISc e;r"t"'''^^* 't' ""^ ^'""*'^'' ^*^« ^«''<^ ♦« ««t..blish by lega and suffiaent evidence that the said prescription so set up as a bar i the J act on ZT ""Jp?^ '"^™P^'' '^ ™"«^ ^^ ^^^'"^ ^^^ by force of law the c£ns f r Jrf V'^"''' '^ ™"''^'"*^' '' '^^r 'eason of which the con- lZ7 I L "*'^ ?* •'"^'"'* '° **'" "^'^ P'«* «f P'«««ription .econdly pleaded ahoold not be granted. The Court . . . ." * P'eaaea i>ott^« «* 2)Mott»< for Pliintiffs. ffenrtf Stuart for Defe'ndant. (s. B.) Action diskniased. ■-/■ MONTRBAL. 80TH APEIL, 1888. • Coram Mokdklet (C), J. ■\ - NO.24B0. Picault V. Demers. BOodtaUMr: ^"^ *'^ *•!* *'r''"«»>y'"«»^e'«» within the ten ^ta to AtfRatllrr""^-? '*"' '" '^' '""' ™'^^ ^y '»'« Defendant's demurwP t«lSrrf hT T"" ^V**' ^«'^"'*"''" P'«*- The action was one inZ" , t'il'*''' '" '^' S^'^^^^oUol, and the Defendant, among.! tl^Ti^^T.1:rT''f '''"'''''' y^*'^»°'» *b« Plaint reph^ «peda11y to the effec^ that the dot was only discovered within the ten y^ the rfo/ in no way interrupted the prescription pleaded. dirv^Tr^i""^- u" T"'* '''^ P*'*y demhrring, and consider that the J: A J^i^s; for Plaintiff: ^^ ' I)emnrrer dismiA„KL leblanc A CaeeuJu for Defe n . ^ a nf . 06M I r.U' /:. 208 SUPERIOR COURT, 1858, 11 fr \« «>.' ii" '^' MONTREAL, 30th APRIL, 1858. Cofam Smith, J. No.n7t Gardner v. McDonald. H«ldHri»t the CMU ottxptrtUe Uf, 111 th« .llMntion of the court. - once end of the matter and h« - "^^ «««'npted to be re-.ubmittod, the;o i, an <""'«n'«'K and the inscription is consequently discharged. A. db O. Rohertim, for Plaintiffs. ! " Inwription discharged. ^^aviddJtam^y, for DekaduiUi, 'j I COUR DU BANC D? LA REINE, 1858. KNAPPBL. 1 "'■-. "U DWTEICT DB MONTEBAL. ^ ' ^. ■ MONTREAL 4 JUIN 1868. Co«».S.rL.H.U,o„„„,B.^,,.,„CKA,™M.,W^,,c,^,.,. ' * No. IBS. t OlIVIKR BbbTHBLBT, ^ {Opposant en Cour Infirieure,) HypotiTu Gdy bt Ai., (Demandeura en Cour Infirieurt.) \ .. Intim^s. > ^^^^»'^^°''«'«^C„BMmDBFBKDBM0NTHfAI.BTBrT0WK, {DifenderesHe en Cour Infirieure) «>nn«AMsinMi«ta. ™ '■*'"• '**'**^«n»'Wte.toIon quTlh Jug, ooh* •l™' d. I. .«<»=«„.„ d, feu PH^n. 1„„-. G„y, .,.„. „i,.„„_ „ „ 2. ,1S •i!* ■t-i-'N ' r I im «i{ r.^i T-r- f<'l 4, !] ■:rM, ! '■:3»i k| ( 1 ■■ SIO COUR nU PANO DE LA REINK, 1888. .^ .' : / ?M Boihclr Out tlannlacauM No. UOl, Cour SupArlouw, k MontrAal, un jugomeni pour U *onm.o .lo XI,300 qui lour dUit duo en vortu d'un acto u, le nom de Borry, o.tt« reil^^t. u " P"***?" '^^ '* *•"• fonnella; qu'eofin l'App,l.„IXl pr'^l^^^^^^ f •'"-"^ *»"• -'olLo.. of «,. ^d «Z«™ " '" "-^ .°l;'»"«»". •»/ right in U. to * U,. W,itof„«,.u.. i««^rti Jl dl':"'*''r '•™'' ""«"' ./. i-.,..;.. ,iu, ecta, dilrSto .rr ''°''' J™")* "'• •^'1 opposition At<.™«ifo,tb.PUi„ii^ ^ """^ '^: 0<»io- et DorioD, ,^8., „. ..po., d. ^i., w 1..^.^ d». ,», ^<.^„;. „„^„, ^______^ tont« |« polite. „„. I.. j„u' 1° !!"' ° . ," '"*'°°' •"A^'MlioK, ••oppo«r 4 c p«,™ii- „„■, tZZ^:., "^""P*"' Po-r^it S«lr. "PPort PAp|«l..t „.. .„^„ i„«rte 4 rlt "" ""o™"-". •'•o-c bi- gn»d intJrtU c. oaro«',f„™ii f"' ' ■"'•' ''""''•tf^ o^an . «.n«.t,, ,t - prt..„tirdt,E.t lt^°', '"■ "?*'■ '■*'»•"»' r Wt 4 1, pou™.! Jd« I.«™«. 7i W» .r^ * '* '•"'"'"*• P^"'""' « ^^■«, ^.y. «. e**-; pron„,5,„, j„g^,^ ,„ „^ . j,, . «» Pilot* d« Irwttport dont il .'.J. » Jl . ^i^ ' ** ■" "-io. 0,^4 .1, w-s trims' •'"• "*•"«' '°™«-« ■•• ■•»«■• •W. I If • • ' -i • ' .' ■ > ,-■■ . «*' '' ►-'So, »)«) I 4 I -'•f 'H'nt M mnn t , r, 4 IW. ^ „it ^t dZir!t. r'*^"" - """""^ ^" *^""' P" ^* ' »„^„., waeolwgede lasnccession Guy qg'il , pw>„et ■■ ! -I 9uf» ^- miSi. r i)i til CJOU liA RRTNR, I05S. gtrMtir ot in collcx,.!* util«n,«nt. •t rwn obligation no a'Atondra qu'4 la •ommo qui lul tora adjug4« at autrot donl- • erk qu'il p«jnjovra aur loa trannportji oiapr^H nuntionnii." l^rtholot •'•.ngago ,|o m, p«. f»ir«, dnn. la cauM r(*i,|'lH .oinnio duo k la mcooMion par l«« Mean d« la charitii quo Hortliolot dit btlH conna1tri>.^ Ill lui tr^niportont, tan* yaranU*, la sommo duo par la dJ^rendoreiN, (la Cl«. du chemirt Ae tor) on vortu do I'aclo du 20 D6oombra 1853. ruin comirto nropriAUiro do la or6anoo d« Mllo. (Juy, d« collo do Hamuol Gorrard. ct di^Ia tomniu do ^700 iqenlionnAo au .UMlit *ta^ Kertliolot d6- charge do tout^l.ypolhAquo 4 cot «gard U torro do Horry appartonant A la •uccoHion. II oitNajoutd ; " cotto r^noholation «Unt conditionhollo ot no dovant avoir ton offot qu'aik can oA il no ho ddcouvrirait auouno autro hypotl.6quo quo colloi iuontionn6o« aiUit 6tiit tur la torre do U Dourgogno. Enfln viont la olajiaoyivanto:-" IFottonton.lu ontro lo» partioa ^u'orttluUnt quo loaditoa •oinmos aWi trRn«port6c« pourraient w tl^ouvor plus obn>id6rablo« •• quo lo montant dc« dolite. quo M. »«rU.«|ot a«.umc, .urtout .i le fnoptant do - la collocition dans la dit^cauw do Uloury contro Guy et autrt'o «»t 6tev6, lo " (lit M. Borlholol .'oblige d^rombouraor 4 la dite succwwion la diffaroBco ontro •• la Hoinino qu'il aura aiiiid r«tir*o on vortu ilcs .lit, transport, et la .ommo r*- " olloinent duo par la Bucco«.iSto, aux crAai.cior. incntionn6» en l'6tat anneii " aux pr6i.onto«, uno fols quo co Wntant rdel aura it& conf»tnt6, M. Hortholot " promettant fairo touteH.lc ddmaWlie. nAwwairim pour fairo determiner la cr6- '• ance do inadetnoiselld Jo«ophto Gby et do. b6ritior« Eiionne Guy .ou. lo plo. *• conrt d61ai, et lo. dit-. ex6cutour« tontainontaire. et atiininiHtrateur* .'ongageant , - do lui donnor toute. le« facilit6s on lour jwuvoir pour attoindre4e dit objot, ot " do hii tonir compto- do touto. le. d6p«n«c8 et dibour*^. qu'il fera avec I'inton- " tion et dan. lo but «l'fctro util» 4 la .ucce8i.ion. et d'en promouvoir lo. int6rdU • 4 1 igard do. pr69ont<' L'action a 6f6 intontio au nom do la .uccewion, la c6danto,,ctlejUgcinent obtenu avant la signification du transport on question, laquello signification n'a eu lieu quo lo 20 Novombr^ 1850} Que Bortholoty oAt dQnn6 .on consontcment ou non, Taction n'on procidait pas moina valable- - ment au nom do la c6danfo Unt quo lo transport n'6tait pas signififi ; ce n'e«t quo par cettfe .signification quo Bertliolet est devenu saisi do la creanco. Itfai. do moment qu'il on a 6t6 ainsi saisi, il o*t devenu maltro do la cfdance, mattre du jugement, ot maltre do la procedure 4 faire pour rox6cuter. C'est 4 tort que le. Intimd. prfitondont quo Bortbelot n'est quo lour manda tairo. Rien dan. I'acte du 26 Juin 1865 no justifie cette pretention. C'est une coMlon rfielle, en bonne ot due forme, et qui, ayant 6te suivio do .ignification, • fait pawer sur la t6te de Berthelet la criance dont il s'agit Si Bortholet n'itait qne mandataire, lea Intimia n'avaieut pas boMin de ion oonsentement pour poiy f-. OH|w;iAlfO REmF^iasa. iy onl .1 l.i«n ..miprta quo Uil ri'6uk n.. I- . J'«««n«al. C«p«n«Uiit iU *t* do„n6. CO ..•c.rcLr'nM Lh -? "T'"""""*'" * *«^ ''•"""'d* « .|"il .it -•ont p„ d'lur, " irk r-t^^^^^^^^ " '""'.'""" '" """'•'"' "• - n,*m. ,„«...Ut r*. JuTlu "lit?' 7,1 ?""'""" '" r^^'"'*' ''"« <^ -tr..oc.b.o4,o.o„e..Jir::pZt .r'^^^^^^^^^^ O. ...... .na„d.t revocation ,.,t i„t«,„ne.Uv« 7n .1 ; f ««nlrovo„o pour prouvor quo I. -nd.tafro. ,o .„«„dant i„.;;Lt' .u l„ro Zlt^ '"' ".?™''* ^^ m.„,l,„lr. - f "1-n.t.o.i du „„„d.„, fe,, 4,.„„„r, |„ ,„„,„,„ j„ domnnder quo la 2r»oitl 1 ? ? "o '"""«"»''<' n»'il v« m6me jusqu'A con,en.c„j;o.rV«lttr^r ; «"''r"^'^"°»"'''*"«»'"''«^-"*>« dAcoulo. oit-co oa'un .«! n i <«""*q"entl'«„,orit»« qu'4 cetitre S^i^nlk droit^L^T ?f ^'"""^'"""^ '»**^'«»^" P«>«^N«t ^ ('■ pfuw qB'l^trang fc Tntim^i 'J ^ li * 1 f 1 1 ? f 4 ' 1 f 1 1 f r Sr*' I I 1 ■ ■ i '• ' J ! ( 1 it! 1\ m^: ' JK. -r fl4 COUR J)t BANC DE LA REINE, 1868. Berqidet Ony. •K - ^ ; ff m if ' KmS. '^!! ^ On no snufttit nier que Berthelet >oit celui qui a le plus grand int6r6t k ce procds, puisque ce procds a pour objet Ba propre crdaiToe. Le procds n»«tant paa intrcduit en bod nora, il a done le droit (J'y intervenir pour ae faire recon- naltre, et veiller k sea int6r6te. « On appelie intervention," dit Merlin, «col. lectivement et Taction par laquelle on intervient dans une contestation dans un proces, et lea suites de cette action." . ^ " L'intAret 6tant la mesure des actions, on a le droit d'intervenir dans une con- testation, tputes lea foia qu'on a ipt6r6t S Itre en ca.i8e,"'Bioclie, vo., Interven- tion, J^p, 5. . '■ ^ ^ Ainsi peuvent intervenir, lo. celui dont la chose, lea droita ou la qualit*. Bont I'objetdes pr6tentiona reapectivea des parties, ou I'occasion du procis," No. 8 • Le cessionaire d'une cr^ance dans un^ instance relative k cette cr^ance peiidante entre le cWant U le d^biteur, quoiqu'il n'ait pas encore fait signifier son intervention au *Sbiteur, alorsque dans fta requfete, il a eignlfi6 sea titres k ce dernier." No. 10. « Un criancier inmsrit, qui, par la date de aon inacription, ae trouve expoa^ 4 perdre le montant de aa cr6ance, ai I'adjudicalion ^t main- t«nu6> 08t recevable k intervenir aur I'Appel et k conclure de aon chtSTi la nuL Iit6 dea pourauitea; on diraH en vain quUl a Hi repreaenti par le poursuivant.*' Dalloz, au mot, " Itatervention," p. 684.-Sabatier vs. Debosque, 30 D6cembre 1816. Une partie qui a int6r6t d'6tre en cause y intervient de ^iff6rent0 ma- ni^res; tant6t c'est par une reprise d'inatance, Unt6t par line lequfetpd'inter- ▼ention propiement dite ou par une oppoaition. Ce proc6d6 prend dea noma diflKrenta, Buivant l»«tat de la cause, lora de son intrtiduction. II a'appeHe par- ticuli^ftment oppotitim, Iqpiqu'il est relatif k one saiaie. Tel eat le cas dana la priaente inatance. i - '^,'- Admettant mdnie que Berthelet ait conaenti k la aaisie, ce consentement n'eii 6tait paa raoins toujours r6vocable k sa vblont(S. II pouvait intervenir en tout tempe pour en arrftter lee auitea, a'il trouvait qu'il 6tait de aon mt&tH de le feire. Et en d'ex6cution, ou du tnbunal d'ou qe mandat a «t6 ainal 6man6. Pour obtenir ce dernier ordre, Berthelet devait intervenir; cVsat ce qtfil a fait par aon oppoaL tion,au nioye« de laquelle, prftentant lei titrea qui I'dnt aaisi, lui aeul, do la crt»nce, il devait 6tre reconnu comroe tel, d6clar6 maltre de la proefidure, et obtemr du moins, dans tons lea caa, la preiQidre partie de sea coiijcluaiona, celle qui tend k la auapension des proc6d68 aur la aaiaie.^ J ^ > Si, comme I'ad6cid6 la Cour de premi^rd inatance, Berthelet n'aVait paa le" droit d intervenir commeil I'a fait pour I'objet en question, il semble qtfU y anrait en la m6me raiaon de^repousaer toute intervention de aa part, dana le caa ou la saiaib «tantfaitede aon conaentement, aurait ii6anmoina plua tard m arr6t6e par ordre dea Intimda, k aon prejudice, et malgr6 sa vobnt6 et a:H:,'B^s: "t '*°"°' ?- ^-^^ '- quilesqumit^cettebondtion Que !•«„«' J« »« connais pas de loi tiondcs Intim6se.,t„„e l^on ,: L:^^^^^^^^^^ cettec,|U8^,mn'ont agi q„e comma ZnW-^^.^ '' '^" ''"**"*''"'* <^«°» pareil recour, de leur part, ce «r loHr "1 ^^r'! ^»''' ««» ^ ''"bri d'un probablementdesraJnaX"^^^^^^^^^^ -- <'^»>«t -*- eux. ayant -^^^^^Wan^quoique jene*oi8|>;wbien8ati8fMitHflI«-.v 1. procedure juaqa'A saisie mftJe i„c usitntt ! eaT""/ "'* '^^'''^^^ deBerthele^,je8eraf8d'avi*8deIn,«..^nri !^ ".eu lieu dq consentement concluaiona,;'t„on,a;c Lep^^^^^ P-i^re pa^tie de sea nolle et de nul effet ^ T ^"' '* "*"'« "^^ ^^^'^'^ ' le jugemenMn appel est motiv6 comme suit : • ' Lm CJour • • • ♦ Wire po,l«ri™r«.ht i I. »wj^ l™*^-. ^.'" '^ ''»''?°''>" 1««6, o-ert- BerlhOet Cwy. ;i ii \. i; ' I . ! %>' ~t-r ll. }'J il. w ,' '4 ^•4 h ^ ,1 ■ •fi^ p « jr. 1 ^ |Bli*i«l." ■ ■ <" 216 COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE, 1868. Btrthelet Guy. ' n a pas pu avoir I'effet d'empfechor le dit Bertbelet de s'introduire dans I'lns- tance pour vcillor directement Iui-m6me k ses propres intfirfets, et ni6me se fairo subroger au liou et place des Inlimds, dcs droits dcsquels il est le cessionnairo ; que ce droit d'intervenir dans I'instance appartient k tout cessionnaire due- mentsaisi et placd comme IW I'Appelant; qu'en pareil cas le cessionnaire a droit dese rendro raaltre du procos et de diriger la procedure oomme il I'entend, goit en arr6tant, soit en continuant les proc6d6s du 8h6rif sur une saisie pr6c6.' demment faite selon qu'il le juge conforme ^ sea int6r6ts. 3. Considdrant, que dans les circonstanoes, Topposiiion form6e par le dit Bertbelet coraporte une demande en intervention dans I'instance, de la nature de celle quo tout tel cessionnairo a droit de formuler pour fetre admis k diriger lui- mfeme la procedure de cette instance. 4. Consid^raut que les conclusions prises par le dit Berlhelet en sa dite demande doivent lui 6tre accordfies, k I'exception de cello qui tend k faireddcla- rer nuUe et de nul effet la susdite saisio, puisqu'il n'a pas 6tabli que la proc6dure surcette saisie jusqu'A sa dite intervention soit entach^e de nullit6 ; .que par consequent dans le jugement dont est appel, il y a mal jugfe, en ce qu'il re- jetto en entier la demande et les conclusions du dit Bertbelet; infirme le susdit jugement, savoir, le jugement rendu 1§ 27 ju\n 1857 par la C»ur supirieure, 8i6geant& Montrfeal, avec dipens contre les Intimfis sur le prfisent appel ; et cette Cour proc6dant ^ rendrfe le jngement que la dite Cour Supfirieure aurait dh rendre, admettant partie des conclusions prises par le dit Bertbelet dans son opposition, dfidare et adjuge que, comme cessionnaire et seul crfiancier comjne susdit, il etait bien fonde a intervenirdans I'instance, le regoit ainsi partie dans icelle ; et, conform6ment k I'une de ses conclusions, cette Cour adjuge et or- donne qu'ordro soit donn6 au sbfirif du district de Montrfial, de suspendre tons ses procddes sur les crimes, vente, adjudication de Pimmeuble saisi en cette cause, jusqu'^ nouvej^rdre de la part de la dite Cour Sup6rieure, mais d6boute le dit Bertbelet diy&i susdite conclusion tendant 4 faire declarer la dite saisie nulleetdenul effet; des frais de laquelle saisie, ainsi que de Taction, le dit Bertbelet est^d6clar6 6tre responsable envers qui de droit, de m6me que si I'ins- tance eftt 6t6 originairement conduite ensonpropre nom; enfin oondainne les Demandeurs Intim^s aux dfipens encourus en la dite Cour Sup6rieure, sur la contestation de la dite opposition du dit-Bertbelet, et ordonne la remise du dossier k la m6me Cour si^gearit i Montreal." Jugement infirm*. Za/amme, Za/amme e< ^amanf pour I'Appelant. Cherrier, Dorion et Dwion, pour les IntimSs. (P.w.T.) • H • SUPERIOR COURT. MONTREAL, SOThAPBIL. 18S8. . jjl ■■■',■' ' ,.,-... Coram Smith, J, ., '^ ' ■ ' ■* -. .:\ ■ ■' _ No. 1060. ;' =^: >- : ' ■^^.. -''M' Chapman vs. Masson^ k 7 A. ud B, beUiKMteiuibly the only members of »oo.p«tnerriiIp. A.b iii£mDetentM«iMiMM itarihe ptaintiffin mn .otton agiUiut 0. for » debt of the firm. .Ueging him to have been aieoret pvtner I'liis WHB an action fbt goik sold, against the defendant, as ^vingS^ secret partner with Ball and Snaith, in the firm of Ball & Qo. m t ^ j: SUPERIOR COURT, 1858. Oupmai) VI, Huton. 1 I i 1 ' i (1 i ;j 1 li ' M < ti . ^ 21? third to Ball Dnrinr»L / f *" ''*'"* '^'«^"<'J *° Snaith and one- defendant, m February and March, of his intention to form such a partnershio^ and subsequent ones, tendinir to shew tb-t it haA "i-n « partnerstoip , McNevin that h« h.A ^ , ^'^ ^one into oi.oration ; by shon ill- w. w^ ^"'"' *'''''" ""^ direction, about the flttiDg-up of the ^p.n which the business of Ball & Co. was to be carried on. Thedefendlnt linur '"''/''^»'"*"'"' «°l>«-««-»-edforthe%titp3dZ dSf^f r .v''' *'" '""' P"'*'"^^ ^** ^''^ PHrtner.hip.'a'nd7o tL details of lu conditions; stating the reasons for the concealment of Z..A jeoM . b, the ,!.:;:: s .t x^itrruir '^"^"^ '^-'"- At lire liearinjf, Abboll, for jlainliff, ,ubiiiilt«l tl,„t his use wn, ,„..l. „.,. • partnerdnp. inasmuch as bj. so doinghe made the defendant liable foJonfribu tie^W dul, r^orfed in ,h. prop., ofice . decl.«i„'. ...L Z^ii^tf 1« lie only members of that Srai. Staith Dretai.d.,1 i„ fl,. i 'lp»l»«' to m».,.J..t „ important .. .i^m..r«Tdil?^rfctt ^6fto«, in reply, urged that Snaith had no direct interest in this suit «x.«n. n^;;^d.s,.he would th^rebyrZ^^ or rather from that portion of both, for which, as'a member of the firm of^^Jl rj- U } '. I .1". ^— ^ ( 218 SUPERIOR COURT, I8fl8. & Co he VU8 otheiwwo liable. The inior^jst ho had to prove Masson'a partner was of an indirect and secondary character ; for, by doing so, he was rellived/rom no hability ; and the record in this cause Should not serve as evidence, or the/judg- ment as chcHjugie, between him and they defendant, in regulating the affaira of the co-partnership afterwards. The firm of Ball & Co. was insolvent and the wit- nes. also, and, the firm was already heavily indebted to the defendant ; and if defendant ghouldbe-compelled to pay this debt also, it woold be no defence in an action by him against the witness for the amount, that the Court had in this ca«o declared him to be a partner, The witness was therefore a competent witness m^ this case, and the questj^ps were therefore properly put; buUhey might «pp|y.tph.8credibility,'were his testimony not amply supported. The Evidence of Thompson and McNevin, and the answer* of the defendant on faiU e/ar/«r/e, shewed the intention to form the partnership to h,ve existed : which . intention, Snauh proved, had been carried out Their evidence, therefore, was strongly confirmatory of his. As. to-the probability of so important an a^e- ment l.avmg been made without . writing as .vidgnce of it, it was plain that every ^ecaution had been taken to ensur? the concealment of the defendant's connection with the firm; and, to have executed>any written document, would have added to the nsk of discovery. The circumlitances also were such that the firn. was completely in the defendant's power ; anS he conld. Without difficuUy, force them to abide by any arrangenjent, however inforn^l. ■ "Smith, J.— This ciise involves a question of great difficulty, and one in which the authorities are conflicting in the highest degree. It has not previously been decided m fhi* country, to my knowledge ; and it is to be hoped that it will t)o taken to appeal, that it may be finally settled and determined. This questioaV 18, can a partner be examined as a Witness for the plaintiff to prove a co-part- nership between him and the defendant f I have carefully examined the authoiities cited by the Counsel for the plain- tiff; and, alihongh tfiey appear at first sight to bear strongly in his favor, they do not, to ray mind, conchwively establish the view he contends for. In both Hall vj Curzon, and.Bjackett& Weir, the companies of which the witness and . the defendant_were members, were not ordinary partnership.; they were joint- «tock cotapanies; and, though unincorporated, are distinguishalle ftom pkrt- nerships in many respects. On the other hand, the text-writJ unanimously agree m laying down the rule that th^ declarations or admissions of a partner •" are not admissable in evidence until the co-partnership has been proved aliunde. ^ Ihose declarations or admissions cannot be received to prove the partnership • but after, by other means, the facts necessary to shew the joint interest baW been established, the admissions and declarations of any partner become admis- ^ sable as evidence against the firm. Upon this doctrine there was perfect una- ' mimty m the text-writers. Bat there were cases also to be found which tended to shew the incompetency of a partner aa s witness- to prove the partnership. Brownvs.Brown, 4 Taunt 7i2, was in point; and also Manl vi L„w*ring, ? Tfeunton. 189. The real test in all these cases was the interest Wotrall ^ Jones. 7 Bingham, .spff . ■" • .•■■■-•■- Hwa it could not-bo-^dailieA that thfrwit ncw^ mterest of the strongest l^haracter,^ was now timself liable for the- debt- \ tl / f y^. ■ / % ^ SUPERIOR CO URT, 1888. ^ig •but his pregent testimonj tended directly to shiftTh^ •!..,. /if The power of eo doing might lead to hVL? **'»* «"Po.n«b.lity ^ another, contrary to the weigh! of1u hoi t^v^J^^r '"'""" ' ""' '^ '^''^'^ ^« which in England deprived inte2 Tthe " uitof h T"*.'/ ^^'^ '"'""«• ^«^ cept in a very lipiij cl^ of caJs d.«quahfying character, e*- t«timony, being insufBr„t Ztablbh hTt^! Tr T*^ ' '''^''^' '«»»J»»« Ihejudgment was recorded 88 follows:- - i «*irta liable in l., „ 1 L T« Vf 7,^ ' * '""' ''"''°''*"' """W k«~«i>- of the Mid p|.i„,ij i, i„,° i", ' "^Snailh a witne«, prodaced on behalf tl.« MiJ " ^^^^^sed. -RoM«- i2oy, for defendant. (J. J. C. A.) ^ ' , •j^^r.'^iX"" ss^[^?»--- --.-po-h,;;!:;;:;;' " -^ .MONTREAL, 28th JUNE, 1868. ; ' ' • ™"««»^ CiRPMitt,, o/iW™ ■^ ■^•^°"'' -AW. h»l b«,n orWnanTMU by Mlt. n f j !^? f '' °" ■''" »' '«»dr ,'■■ ■ ■ "' ':. ^-^..^^ ■,;:".."::•> CliaiMlM 1C& ■, « t «* . .;, ».__;/;« 1. } I 4^ i } 1 'i^ ' Ml ' ^ m ::-.;n ■, *f 220 - * .1-- 8UPERI0R COURT, 1868. IcmMwUr MoOav. \ IT 1 * The Plaintiffs who had fyle*! an opponition claiming to b« collocated for thejr olaim, according to priority of tlieir hypothique, created by enregittration of their judgment, on the 9/A December, 1858, contested Dolan'a collocation on" the ground that inasmuoh as he had omitted to cause his deed to bo registered within 30 days from its date, in conformity to the Statute 16 Vic, cap. 30(1, sec. 6, his privilege of bailleur de fonda had been lost, and the Flaintifis were entitled to the amount of the collocation by priority of hypothique. TheOpposant contended that the certificate of enregistratioil written upon the copy of judgment produced by Plaintifis, was defective ; ft is conceived fh- these terms : — ■* , "* "No. 3411. I certify that this documeiit was entered at the hour «f nine ofthe ninth "day of December, one thoasand eight hundred and fifty-three, and registered under " No. twenty-four hundred and eleven, on pages 221 and 223 of Register B., vol. fifth of '* Registen for the County of Drummond. Signed, ' ' — " R. XiLLAB, D. Regr." JBadf/ley, J. pronounced judgment in of favor the Plaintiffs, maintaining their contest ution, ami ordering that the Report of pistribiitioii be reformed, accord- ing to tlio conclusions of the'contestation. ' ' The motives are as follows :— Considering that the judgment obtained by the Plaintiffs and contesting Opposants in 'this cause, rendered on the S{fk day of December, 1853, was duly registered on the 9'h day ofthe said month of De- cember, and that the deed of sale by the Opposaht Dolan to tho Defendant, of the lotrf ofjand an^J premises sold under the number 17, and whereby he claims to be collocated for the proceeds of tho said lots of land andpremises as bailleur defonds thereofa, was date;!' on the 8th day o^^1rtypt863, and was registered on the 18th December, L833, whereby full and valid jjrior effect was given to the enregistration of the/safd judgment, in preference to the claim of the said Opposant, doth order, wc. ' , ' Contestation maintained. 2?o»f? <£• itfbnXr, for Plaintiffs and contestants. '• . ZeJ^/nnc <^ Cf ^^e aaid -me. for hi. own advanufe^ l^Ci^ZZ^'t^T^""' "^^'^ «»« wilre ao done by the said Lod, Liio«,. l Sf ^ ' '*'*^ "^^^ complained of ' the'Pefendant. - ^' '''*^"* *»> participation therein by ' ^'"fi*«rd!£irariffer, for Plhiaiifft, Action dismiMed. &2>«^7««ry,forJ)erendant. - ^ M01^REAL,27rH MARCH 1868, Coram Smitb, J. -4. Crogg, for Plaintiffs. ,' , ' Motion rejected.*'^ «/"• F. Pelletier, for the T. S. ^ ' COURT OP QUEEN'S IJEKCH • V . . - * ^** Montreal Assurance Company, (l^efendants in the Court below.) ' / -4!^ -Appellants, ' » - (Plaintiff iti tHe Court below.) lJ&c '7f" i.r ■H V^ uu i: 222 COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 188». AMunao*. ^ \\WM ^ A proinlMoor note gtren for the premium by % third pwtjr to Mm Compuy'i manas«r, piv«ble to hit order and endoned by him to tho Company, though dbhonored. la • lufflclcnt ooiuld^tlon to ■upport luoh • contract. 5. Such a contract may be proved by parol eridenoe. 4. The evidence of the mortagor, who undertook to effect thj Iniuranoe for the mortRanw. la admlaal. Me to prove that he did lo. 6. Evidence of the Declaratlona of the Manaser that the Inauranoe had been eltteted. *o. i aodhU promiies of a policy, made about the date of the ountraot, la admltaible. <• A hypothetical plea will be rejected on dnmumr. . \ *' 7. The aale by the proprietor and mortinmor, of real estate, iwnding a contract of Intnranoe upon it / effected and held by the mortKa«efl, dooa not alfoct such Inauranoe, Uiough part of the conaldera- tlon of auch aale be a promlao by the purchaaer to i)ay the mort«a)|«e her debt, and though ahe be a party to It. 8. Interest upon the amount of loaa may be awarded, calculated from the day of the On. , The facta of this ewe as alleged by the Plaintiff and Respondent are at fol- lows : : On the 18th February m2, the Respondent, Mrs. R«id,' was the holder of an ovci-dup-Mwtgage-claim of about £4000 upon, the "Hays ^ou8e," bfl-» longing to Moses Judah Ilayn. With the view of obtaining furtJwr delay for t]ie payment of his debt, Mr. Hays uiulortook to procure insurance upon the premises in Mrs, Reid's name, to the extent of^ her iiwrtgage ; and accordingly negotiated with the appellants, through their manager and general agent, Mr. William Murray, an insurance upon thd Hays House to tfeo extent of three thousand pounds, for the premium upon which he gave his noto, payable to Mr. Murray's order, which was afterwards endorsed by him, and placed by the Company in the Bank of Montreal for collection, but dishonored at maturity. No poiify or interim ftcei|.t was issued by the Company. Tho»^Hays House was destroyed by fire on the Sth^JuIy, 1852," and the Company refusing to pay ' the amount insured for, an action was instituted against them in the Court below. The Appellant's defence turned luJncipally upon the following pretensions : 1. That Mrs. Roid had lost her insurable interest in the mortgage in question, by assigning it to Hugh Taylor. ■ - , I 2. That she had novated her claim by accepting the promise of Myer V. Hays (who had purchased the Hays House pending the alleged insurance) to pay her debt, and to procure her a policy of insurance upon the premisea in question. , ' 3. That the value of the prdper^ was covered by mortgages anterior in privilege to hers, and that she consequently had no insurable interest. 4. That nocontract of insurance could be made under the "powere possessed V the Appellants, except in the mode fixed by their charter and by-laws; and that no such contract had been made with the Respondent. 6. That if any such contract had been made, it could only have been so made upon the conditions usual in the Company's assurances, and that these conditions bad. not been fulfilled by the Appellanta. „ ,„ _^ _„ y ;.-.',•;: The plea embodying this latter pretension was dismissed on demurrer, as being hypothetical, and the remainder of the issues were submitted to a special jury ' =Hro pleadings -hrtho case, and tn« BttitielroiiB qoestioiis of law and fact, are so fully stated and discussed in the opinions of the Honorable Judges in the t\ iP«]r*bl«tohli >iui«'ly. ^J^ * Jilted to. bu^leXSt " rT^"*'^ " • -'-^-i^ It was then i^ed by'the cou^tMlTZr^'l^ '»■« P-'^H J"dge. contra^t^ instance with them wa.Tnadli'T T "^"^ ^"""^ «^'^«"«« «f • tliat p„ol evidence of a conTrarofl! T ' ''"'*'**" '^' 8««er«I ground -onMhit uWer their cLTtrandlrS "'' '^ «»™-ttedT.nd. msuranoeyasnot binding upon therri.- 1 ^r'*'''' ' '«'»«' ^o-^'-ct of . • Je wit,e.s ^„ permitted' toZit'an?;^.^^^^^^^^ T °'«-'«^' -^ Murray on behalf of tho Company coTrJ^Sl!!.— ! !*'*" ''*""«'f ""^ Mr. •pondenf. ^ ^' *'°^'*T"'din^.U> that set up by (he Re- contract, |nd on the day after lh«vT„ i ^ ^ *^"^ ^^ ^'^^ ""''inff of the -pleted. and wore JJ^^^^S'yf'fr "fe^ ' '* ^^ ^- • easy ; that h.r mortgage was coS^'^'t^^^ •uchconvemations formed no part of /».! """' '* H* objecterthat ' tained in them could not bind tl^ll,,? , "'^T' *''** «'« Amissions con- .i.«« month if / ,A PoH^No., Md for wh»t period. Name. Beel. *inoe, Md "■oftMnion of penoa In ■ured 8Sl»l One year Dame Eli. fromlSthMbeth Me 1862.dlu- widow of ed same thelateHon 0*7. UamesKeid, Inaur leonktructed. On a bloclc oij bolldingg, built of ■tone and corered with tin, occupied' M a hotel, and IZt — "."""f' 'oown as the Boennivep:^"Hay. Home," Square, Montreal ;Un' bounded on Notre Dame Street by a stone building co- rered with tin, owned by the Hod. p. B. Viger, on Dalhousie Square by a similar J)uild- >ng owned b Total amount of i^uilum wcelved. testament of the said late Hon. James Reid. 2>, i /-■■ 9U COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1858. J Ueomfnir But wliioh entry, lie utatetj, Iiftd bMn oano«lled soon after the note for tj|ie pre- AMunno*. miumt wu dishonored. Upon thie and other loiw direct evidence the jury found a verdict for the PlaintiiT; upon which a judgment wat unaniinouaiy rendered by the Court bulow, condemning the Appellants to pay the amount claimed, with interett from the date of the fire, and coitii. The caRo was appealed ; and on the 7th July, 1867, judgment wna rendered by the Court of Appeals, Aylwiri, J , di$Mtutienlt, affirming the judgment of > ' the Court below. . The following are the opiniona of three of the Judgoa in Appeal : Ayluin, J., diiienting in appeal. — In this case I dissent from the judgment about to be rendered, and am desirous that the grounds of my dissent i^onld be clearly understood. The cnse is one of very great importance as to principle, a^d on this account aa well as from the large amount sought to be recovered, I I think it nccosaary to explain my views somewhat at length. The appeal is brought aa well to revise the iiiterlooutory judgments iu the cause, as tho/final judgment, rendered agaipst the Appellants '* The Montreal Fire Aisurance Company," condemning them» to pay the Iteapondent the anm of X3000 for a loss on a Fire Policy. To understand the case fully, the precise BBU^a raised by the pleadin;^ must be carefully noted The declaration sets forth the incorporation of the Appellants as a body politic - under certain Provincial Statutts referred to ; tliat by a notarial obligation of the 20th Nov. 1847, duly enrcgistcrod, one Moses Judah Hays acknowledged himself indebted to the hon. Ja». Rcid in the aum of £3000, and that for securfog the payment ofthis sum with interest to accrue thereon. Hays hypothecated certain real Ci^tato 'whiyh is described, and the buildings there^p, being the premises aflerVvards destroyed by fire; that the Plaintiff is the Executrix and universal ' ^ legatee of said hon. James Reid, her Into husband, under his last will and testa- s ment; that on the 18th Feb. 1862, the full amount of the obligation with inte- rest accrued, being £4300, and fUe Plaintiff " did verbally covenant and agree " with the said Moses Judah Hay8,4liat, for and in consideration/of a further " delay to be granted to him for the payment of the said sum of monies and . " interest, he, the said Moses Judah Hays would, and he did^ thereby agite " and promise to insure or cause to be duly insured at his own proper expensed" " the said building and premises in the name and for the benefit and behoof of " the said Plaintiff as mortgagee, for the sum of jCdOOO cy., against all loss and #' ; " damage by fire for and during the space ,of one year, to be acooanted an| , " reckoned from- and after the^ said last mentioned day, and that in accordance " with the said agreement, th^ said Moses Judah Hays did thon.and there in "the name, and on behalf, and for the benefit, and behoof of ^he said Plaioiiff; *" " verbally covenant and agree with the said Defendants, and they /the/said . *< Defendants did then and there for and in consideration of the prc^ittm or I " sum of £22 lOs. cy. to them then and there in hand paid by the said Moses "Judah Hays, acting as aforesaid, promise and bind themselves to ii^re, and « t h ey the said Defenfl a nt H did insnre , and be c ome insur a rl t/j; a nil ^ tnw a rda , i'# _li; COURT OP QUEENS IlENCII, 1857. -•N i2« " .hould not b« liable to^nako H ? "" ''7"^'^ *'"'* ^''^ -''^ ^P^J " h.ppen by any for2„Tn v J .^ "" ^' ^•""«« ^^^ «'«• ''»''«'» -hould " policy of In.urance to IZtZZt an 1 L 7 ? • ^'"'■^ """'"°'"'''' ''•-« * :cond.tron..nd.tip„,.tio:x!:iic^:^^^^^^ : _ " Mme to the Plaintiff without delay • " thrt"^„ ♦.. t?K r^ ° *'"'"'"'"'* *^« tiff went to the office of ,h.r' . *''* ^"' *'»'k1^. the Plain- Defendanu -c ingby wll mT"7u ""^ ''T''' ^'•^H^^. ""d the ^ ' .nd declared thif HayTh 'd 1^ ' T """"^^nd «genU{„owIedged • .aid building, and p«™,, jfoj'LT"^ T'u"^^^**' *" '".uranceVn L X3000 fro.':he IsSl F^^; t^ tol ; 8 h% H'""'''"f ^^-^^^'the there again pron|i.ed to excZ« tl.„ P .• *^""""^ ^®"' "»*^ *''•" »nd insured dnri^gZporiSlf::'^^:!!^^^^^^^^ -« ^7 and put off the deHver/of L^olL TtU tL K T7J ''"''-^^^ ^d premise, in quo»(ion were a«c,-r„ !» ""*'' 7^*? /"'j' >»«2, on which day the and that on iU^ZlZ!^^:''^^^:^^/. "'5°"""* ^^"'""^^ ^^^ S^!- .D account of the loss uJder h!' ] . ^''«/^«'.»t>ff delivered to the Defendant- tfon that no ot^e 11^. elte'd "1^"'^' '^ '''' "•*^' "''»• » <^->'«- i:900 in favor of Plan rL'"^^^^^ the premi^ii, except an insurance of an office not „ention7ai:r^^^^^^^ with auch prelimary proof and waiv..rl inlT!k "^^'^T *''«"»«'''«» Mtiafied .on.nct ■ ' *»!»"«"• "«1 R«.|K>.don.i ™d „« „f prfriiy ^ ApNuI"' ^^:r^;,-l«;^ «■"- '» w"c- " .« p™.e.d.d X:I!iz:;.f^ •' -^ "^ "-"^"-^ t. ^-.o . po»,r.«.. \ W- 6th. No inturable interest shown. ' ' ^hich ^ li / i-' iili'l Moauuvnr *■ W'i 1 ij ■ -,f. ^ ■ i'' '■ i /■ i\', «20 COtmT OF Q!rRRN*S HKNCII. 1857. 7tli. No r«lii|i «>p U-giicy, or lind tlifl propor iiiitliority to mio ns r«prfiiont«tivo of her ii«c«iiM>d to bo iniiurwl agtilnit 10th. In«olv«Micy not iniiurod ngRinnt, 11th. fliinornl inmifflcioncy. t\n\ plonH to (lie inorilR woro »% follow* : — Int. I'IcB or exception donion ntlpgnd contriut, und deoUrca the UMge of the Appollnnta to bo, to in«iiio by puli(;ieii in form of one producml, under ■ignnturcR nnd lonlK of throe directom, in nccordiinco with the Rule* and Regulation! ftdoptwl at n general meeting of tho Stockholders and in conformity with the Statute of Incorporation (their clifitor), that when a premium ia paid and it is intended to issue a policy, they gilai„ti« » " the Plaintiff i. not . LS r Vm^^ CtdTI '\^''J-'^-*> "that "trial of the wid cauae by ajury^" ^^ '"^ '" "•»* «""t'«d ^ the From thisjudgmenttho Plaintiff aoDealfld .n^ «♦ and the case «,m down to be tri Jd bfa "1^' '"? l' "" "'^"H ''^ ^'^^ ^''^ the law i«ueB tendered, the demurer ,^^2 rflT"* '' 't' **^« ^''^ «» .1.0 the Defendant.' 5th e^c^^Z IfI^Z^T "" ^'""'""^ "" '" On the 28th June 1855 Z C^nrt ^Z .u ^^"'''"'''■ ;j^ a, ^ appe^,.) d.fi;^:^;r^;^,r:;^:ti:* t ^ ^^ the consideration of the jury and answered TT u V *?* ""»>n"tted to on. and on the 22„d MarTh mr.li»^ ' "^^^ articulation of fact, made by ib^u^''''*^''''^ the sam. / Under this Statute the meritunf^K^ ' -J !* BB-in thi s «Mg K'- .j' #■■■ ""^ 388 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 188t. kA MeOUUmy AMimnoe. Hi vara' ill Ilfi ■*v Thoman. Without now referring to the interlocutory judgment on the Ia«r issues raised, or to the judgment of this Court that the case was susceptible of a trial by Jury, I am of opinion, in the first place, that the QUxsTiONa of fact suBurrTiD TO Tii> JURY DO NOT oovBR TBI 0A8B, and that on this point there is error, aiid indeed great^ injustice done to the Appellants in as much as their real pretensions w^re not put before the jury. , -^ The questions submitted to the jury were the' following : 1st. "Did the Defendants on or about the 18th day of February 1852, " insure for one year from that date in favor of the Plaintifi* as mortgagee thereof, " to the extent of three thousand pounds purrency, the four story cut stone ** building and theatre, described in the Plaintifis' Declaration ?„ 2nd. '* Was said building §nd theatre destrovied by fire on or about the 8th " day of July 1882 1" _ r •" ',' 3rd. t^ Was the Plaintiff at the tiihe of effecting the said insurance, and at " the tiine of said fire, a mortgagee upon the said' real estate, possessing an " insurable interest therein to the extent of JC3000 or more i" 4th. *' Did the Plaintiff sustain damage to tha extent of £3000 by the said fire!" . ) - ^ 5th. *" Do you find for the Plaintiff or Defendant, and if for the Plaintiff, for " what amount ?" These questions are put, as if studiously to avoid the matters really at issue between the parties. It was stated at the argument, by the Appellants' counsel that the questions were sent up to the Court below, by tho Plaintiff's counsel, afld-Wisre adopted v«;^^t«» by the Court, and knowing now from the evidenc^"^ what the Court below couMndt^sslbly have known previous to the trial, without settling the questions, as ought to have been done, after personal con- ference with the counsel, one can easily see how ingeniously the. questions were, framed in Plaintiffs' interest The Defendants' pretentions as disclosed by the Pleadings, were that they dould only insure in the mode pointed out by their charter ; that a verbal insurancia could not bermiade and was not in fact made, there being only gf proposal for insurance ; that there was no payment of pre- miium, aW consequently no insurance. The complex question, <*I)id the Defen- dants insure ?" avoids all these difScult points. Th«n again, the Defendants. say to the Plaintiff, you had no insurable interest at the time of the fire : you had transferred all your interest in the deBt to Mr, Taylor by notarial obligations referred to by date and fyled in the cause. The Plaintiff answered. Yes, I did make such transfers, but they were made without value, and were cancelled. Not an allusion in the questions to this most essen-'^ . tial point in the case, for nothing can be more certain than that the law re- quires the Plaintiff's interest to be in existence both at the date of the iiisurance andofthennM/fV. : - > •. . ; Again, the Defendants toy there were anterior mortgages above the value of the premises ; but under the questions submitted it could have served no pn^ pose to prdFe such anterior mortgages to the highest conceivable amount, for not a word c^uld tha jurors aay as to th»t faoty^ ff hwhrW i t a merits of thd caso, might have been of the highest importance, if some of the bout the 8th COUBT t)P QUEEN'S BENCH, 1^57. - Jegal propositions contended fnr I *i. T~ ' -^-^ — ' ""'ned into in this cause. T^en a'Jb ^2""^'""> ""'"'^^^^^^ «<^^^ tiff,, the Defendants raised by their fifth Z r '"*'*'* ^ *^« I*!"'*"- ahould not have been overruLTthf L?T "T'" ^"""'^' ^^'^^^ ^erean^rrr:-:^^^^ tje» b,P,,i„,ff, Orwasthee,«TTs a "H'"' "'"Z --P"-- w^ that the important allegation of Ralntiff K TA * """'''' *^ ""^ ^^ them ? so CondUionsofthecontra!tw«snon:rS^^^ tant fact of waiver. In addition to thr^nd as sH^"^' T ^'^^^^^^^^ ^ specific questions put to the iurv,^^«^ "'*'""« ^'^^ »««e88ity of havi„^ * ^ ^ berethatthereisSoproJfXeTertrtZr " a« g'ven on the 27th September IsL ? ''^^^ ""<^«'- ^ath. alleged t<.econt.aryseemBto l^T^U/d''ZT„'^^^^^^^^^ ex-mmation, that he had no knowledge I^Tie affiT "'"/'^ '""'"^ '" ^'O"- Murray, one of th^ Compa;.y's cl!rk' alio «t f T ""^ '"'"■'"• A^«^«nder No 6 c i„ ^^^pjjy^^cl.^^^^^^ «ut the Plaintiff's Exhibit ^ , The judge in his charge held erron.r»i • ' "' °®'®'" ''''^^^^ hy him 2-00 as made was ^th^'^SS'^;; ™^T^^^^ hold It as manifestly the nVhf «f ^k tV^ " sufficjent to say here thAt T the consideration of the jurv TWrlr -4^? ^^^^^ ^E to do so. as we„'a?i„ dl^^^.ttr "' ''' ^°"^' '^^^^ '-^^ ' >en no exception as to conditionrriljfr'P'^"- ^ven if there had v '.ere bound to have p W as wel^as tolX "^ ^ T'' *''^* ^''^ P'«'"«ffs con,phancewith the usual cond tio JVf Xc" "" '^^ '" the "declaration, Bernda^tr'istmT^LThtn^^^^^^ for the «eaningWthestatuL. wLh^t^^^^^ % ^^ c«l verdict in relation to the fZ 1^1^' '"/'^'^ ''"^ *« '«^"™ « «F thing reasonable or useful in TelirLrtr k"'. "' ""°^«<'' *t«« » «^ wntten down, or in doing away ^ L^ , ^^"'*'' "' ^^'^^-^^ »<> »»« ««ally had in ju,y trials fn En^lard ' "' '"'^P*''^" ^^ «>« P^H^eedin^ Were there nothinff else in tL ... *. Sir ^ hy the <^es^::il::;r^i^t'^r^^^ ^"* ^^« -- - trial on new questions, ft cannot be dUT^ 5 Judgment, and order a new covermg only part of the «al I'nto f„ T? /"'" "°"""«^ *<> ™«««t question! •0 a, to evade .11 the tender potato rfl'""*^***'*'''' "*'" ^^-^ ^^Sionl fiim^ JuOgmente i„ Ju^ trf,,,^ with^^^tr"' *r' ''*'"" ^'^^^ "P ^-e ^ .tL"- ■ ^; *•"' P^'°* I have mTre ^all'r ^ '''"'^ "-«riaWy send them' ^u^iUons so 88 to wver the c^ TZ^C^- ^^^ "P**" ^^^ Courts to shaoe ' ' " -<» -- back and to^v/^ t^^Ti"^ ''" ^^n^^'^'* '^^ J^^^ « . ^ defined, anew. If this were dofie, ^V ' ■*^ '*% ''in' 'ji.^l :«? 230 ^COUtlT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1867. * d'y KeGiUimor Amxanoe.- ' "*■ ^ X , • 1 , 'i ■'' \ ^±^ \ ■ » <" and if the judges b«Iow or thoir ofScers settled the facta after personal con- ference with counsel, and eliminaUon of all .extraneous points, the object of the law wbuld be better attained. _^ ■' It was contended tliat the Defendants should have appealed at once from the judgment settling the questions, and no doubt it was competent to them to take such an appeal ; but it is equally true .that the appeal from the final judgment brings up t^e correctness of all .the interlocutory orders ; and we have besides, at this stage of the ca»e, the advantage of the proof made, and are thereby enabled to see the bearing of the questions on the real merits of the «ase. The next point to which I shall advert, is that raised by the Af^llant, and in- sisted upon so strongly at .the argument, namely, that apolictf ofinturanee lueh at that in question caf,notbt made without writing or be proved by verbal evidence. This question, distinctly raised by the pleadings and relied on in the Court below, is manifestly one of the very greatest importance. It was ruled by the judge at- the trial adversely to the Appellants, add in my opinion was erronfr- 'ously ruled. The fact that no case has been cited of ah action in any court of justice against an insurer being<'maintained without (some written evidence of the con- tract, goes far to show what thei.law in this matter is understood to be in ^1 commercial countries. L»have been unable to find any sodi case ; and it is certainly not in an action like the present, and with evidence such as to be found in this record, that a precedent for such an action should be furni^edL... under our law. Thejj|»e. of .Smith v^IrviBg^refonwd^o-by-thefiiBspi^^^ is - the onlyiBstance of an action hayine^ been Jrou^rA^ to "recover a loss by fire without a writing ; but the charge offhe late Chief Justice Valli^ris, read from his MSS. by the Appellant's couns^, shows that such an action was not, in the < opinion of that able judge, maidiainable under the law of Lower Canada. (See Appendix.) Authors can be cited to maintain the doctrine, that there is no- thing in the. contract of insurance to require ^writing or to render a .verbal contract absolutely and of itself void. ' ' But it is certain that there is authority to be found as well in the usages as .in the laws of the most- connderable commercial states, extending^ack to tEe^ very remotest periods against such verbal insurances. The history of insurance proves this, as may be seen from the valuable treatise of Duer on Insurance (see note 2, p. 100, vol. 1). I shall quote )a few authorities on the point; and first, the Ordonnance de ia Marine, tit 6, art. 2, which is recognised as law at this day in courts of all civilized countries having cognizance of maritune mat- ters :— ** Le contrat appell^ police d'assurance sera redige par eorit et pourra *" 6ti'b fait sous signature priv6." Pothier, Asaurance, No. 99, holds, that, under the ordonnance above cited, although a contract of assurance maybe made, it cannot b^ proved withont writing.' ■'■' i' ; :- ,'■■■;■ ■ - '• ' Nouveau Denieart v.' Asmtanee, p. 497, § 7 : " II est necessaire pour 6t8- | " tablir la preuve de Pexistenbe da, contrat d'assurance, que la poltee en ait it6 -Tedig6^par"BCiit;^ ^'Alauzet, 7% Dus Atturancee, 1 vol. No. 180, considers the dau^r of allow- ,di COURT OP QUEENS BENCH,-1857:^ ^ 281 ing assnrance to be otherwiM th«n ;„ ™^*: ', "~ "" " tent pour la nec^tA^r V \ - *^' '"** "y" ' " ^ "'<>*"'" q»« ™H- "reconn^ -an^T!!! '' u^' ""* fif^^tHu'H est impossible de cont.act.¥bebt^«:f ^'^'^"^^ ^''^ ""o"^ ^^^^ Code, in^i^ng enaoto, not onir lb.t ih. „„„I™. i. ,7v ' (''"•'W 183,) eiprMaly " «^S/'^' f r '"^ '•' '■*■■ " 1™ ''«"'"'« « "•• point d. ri- ■ "cfnS^ ---C2;c;.:7.;r-'• •■ wi^;rr ■'• "'• •«?'•■»."■"'«'«•' nothing in «,e common «hri° >r. «:^'frr ,![° '"™ "^ "■" "« "'"• »»'• ««ro«/^«.f T«Vu- ' ^ *''* Italian, necessarily imports a written, « ex^iTssed tha " .K /' '"P*"'"" ^^^ ^^" entertain^ and expressed, hat as the usage of a contract in this form has long and nniver- « ^.P?^*'^^' '*»•«« P'<>l>«Wy acquired the f6rce of law. and thaf it is at mol 1 J>uer, pp. go, ei. edMfi4f > , Iny^ d own tb o la >. aa q »o l^ i , tUe U .>.t ^x- > i ' * 1 1 t 1 t ■ i^'.'i i 1 1 ^ B - i 1 i i i .r^f * ;i ■ * 4 . 'f f 1 H « i : - k f f ' 1 I we t /^ ^m. / 232 COXJRT OF QUEEJTS BENCH,' 1867. Aannnoe. h 4^ s J^ " have-already Been,.doo8 not depend solely on the rules of our municipal law "but upon questions not sotUedbjTpositive decisions, is governed by the gene-' 'Lral usage of thp commercial worldl-heneo, I a^opt the opinion, that tU " general and uniform practice of merchants from the earliest times ougk to bo ■ " considered as evidence of the legal ntcemty oXa written contract, Ah the . " same propri^tyHhat a bill of sale is -held, by the universal maritiih0 law to " ^T * ""^'^t^ <"? ^^"^ *"»"''«'' of a ^*'5P-* Thece ha^ bc^ft no express deci- sion on this^^mt in any of our Courts, nor is there more than a single case to be "founc^Mn our Reports, where the question has been agitated; and in this "the judges finding they could place Uieir decision upon other grounds, pur- "pqselyabst^ned. from the expression of an opinion." ' : . In Note II. of same volume, p. 100, Duer refers to this single ci^e of Smith and Odlm (4 Yeses' Penn. Reports, p. 468, in which it is said' by Mr. Phillips .that C. J. Tilghman " expretee'd a doubt whether valid ipsurance^coAd be made - "otherwise than in wflting," l Phillips, 8. The question in this case, was, whether the plaintiflFs, as assignees of oiio Yard, a bankrupt, ^ero entitled to a premium of insurance which the bankrupt, ia- his ac^unts with the defendant, * had changed against him. The court decided they were entitled to it, and Mr Ducr seems to thiffk this' might involve the decision that a parol policy was . valid, but adds Aat « the propriety of the ij^ision^is -mm-^mriuestioriablf:' This|a8eioe8notcertAinIy appear to me to be at all conclusive of the question, which Mr. Duer thinks was in erect ffeatTe^-TrnP^lllips' view of the matter' IB thus .given : v In Great Britain and the Uhite^, Stites the law does' not dW « reWJy and positively prescribe the form if this contract or the mode in which "it* is to be executed.\ .... The English statutes requiring the assured in ' « certain caaes-to be nai|pd in the policy m/j/y that the contract is in wHHngP"' J. 1 Phillips, Ins., p. 8. ". » * -- . •' *' 'me.poliqy of insurance is a written instrument by which the contract of insuranpe is effected and reduced into form." 1 Marshall, Ins., p. 290. " It is very probable' that the form of a policy of insurance nearly similar to ^ " that which wo liave now in use was introdt^ed into England by the Lom- ', "bards, with their other coipmercial improveiflehts." 4 B. «k A., p. 210. "Though a policy of insurance, not being ^ under seal, is but a simple con-,* " tract, yet it is always looked upon as ail instrument of gyeat solemnity, bHng *' the onlif evidence of a contlraqt of the" utmost importance to the parties in- ^ "tended-." Marshal, Ins., p. 349. * lb., p. 352 : "it is indeed-a general rule that th« policy alone shall be con- " elusive evidence of the contract, and that no pafoUvidence shall be received " to vary the terms of it." . * ▼ ' The next poinj; is one of scarcely less importance, as to the power of the in- surance company -and of Mr. Murray its agent to contract in the mafiner dis- closed iftlhe evidence. This is obyiously aquestion distinct in many important respeds from the ge^ral question just considered as to the le^lity of verbal cont|^»cts of insurance in the abstract Corporations are, by their v«ry nature, limTted-by rules inapplicable to private individi^Is in'respect of their mode of " contracting. Their powers and the mode of exercwh>. >,- f^ COURT OF" QUEEN'S BENCH/lsiir S83 geneni, fetions impcMi^ by law, and frequently by the' charter MbOffltfi^ "Dg their powers aod duties. Thi» wm «,« «... „:.i. .'*_.• creating. th|i,„d defining their powers a,„l duties. This was the case with ^ed'^ra'^irt!"?^ B7i.-'.barter.6Victoria,..22".^t:; :,:* - Sar^^jt^^ l**"'- ^*^" or of the Ordlnap^e afoiWid, which^ " Srln^w.t';'':^ a^^n^r, .nd shall be Z>r the Ll of^e \ r > Knee t^^^l^k^ T ^.^•«<^' t^-o-gh-t subscribed in ^neral^relr^^^^ ">ode of coniractii,g is whiftJi U {a :I .. ° . f f"''«> Atj-that the Statute does prescribe the ntode char^/andtnVtwwi:'^^^^ '• . tracts ofinsurance w«re rb« r^ -^ ?.^*i *^' ^°™ '" ''*''«^ «»»■ forth In the swHon Tth^ ^ " . " ^""''^'^ ^"^ in the very manner set -t«^sr^€TZ^-^'Z ^"' r;""- ^'•^ ty-Iaw is M. following " secwtarv^^r^^^^'^'' ""thority^gether wUh the manager and ° rS:hr.?oTth^ec^r^^^^^^^ r«te.a^inst.,oMrnTrmarb;YrrraV'h^ - « b'uildings whatsoever and fn El^ l^^?'"' "^**""^ '^'PP'"«f *»' P<*«" '^ dMeived the public „, „mL, i»! i ?'. . *^°'t»")' »»' I"' ftey hme PW7 c»»tr«*i„g i„ u,e ™Srb2r„^Jl?^i° —'^ *°'?""''°' •*» B«p..de.t ifh.„ «ferT:;^r;j^'^'tiir t ?"^ °' *° "*.,No.e5,rfler.LHLTl. , ^?'"°'' '° Bo.d.u^« * .f^„,^ - ■ -'■ '■'' ."'■■' ■ , V'."' - ■ • \ ■■ ' ' , ■ > , ■ AmUMMK'' 'fl ■ lA ^ f»^ J^ *"!'•» 01- « f ', . . (9< >«.il.w, vs. Amnnoe. 234 COURT OF QtJEEirS BENCH, 18fi7. than that provided by the tarif and holding 89oh oontVaoU valid an against the Company leaving^^ them rteourao against their agents ho adds, No. 80 : " Mais ^^la qucationdoit 6trejug6e diffiremment lonquo les conditioM auxquelles il ft^- *• 6t6 contrevenue sent cellos qui rtsultent des Statuts approuv6« par lo gouver- " mont;ce8 statuts ^tant rondus publics par Ips insertion au bulletin des lois " qui a lieu en m6me temps' que aelle de I'ordonnance d'autorisation, la compa- " gnie au nom de laquelleie contrat a 6t6 sduscrit^ est fonddo A'pritendre, '*'premiirement,que ces atatuts contunnenriea eondilimt de a&n existence, cot^- « ditions imposiea par le ffouv^rnetnient dfina FinUrit public et auiquellea il '• n'eat pas permia de deroger, en aecond lieu, que Vaaauri eat priaumi^avoir "i^."" *'" »'«'«'« *t le» reatrictions qu'ila apportent aux pouvoira de Paffent "^iaque nul e^ cenai ignorer la condition de celui avep lequel il confracte. " L'assurance dftns ce cks est dony^ulle en ce qu'olle a de ^ontraire pux statuts " sans m6rae que Tassur^ puissg exercer un recour8.oontre I'agent" There is a case of Head db Armoty v. ThepRovwsitioa Insuranok Company (2 Cranch p. 106) which was much relied on in the argument by the Appolants' counsel. It is the leading case on the subject* inniie United States, and the doctrine laid down as to the powers of Corporate Bodies by Chief Justice Marshall will be found transcribed totidetn vei^bia in all the recent American treatises on the subject of insurance. The case bears a strong analogy to the present one, in respect of the hm of ipolicy. The question arose as to whether a certain policy of Insurance on j^vdssel effected by Plaintiff at the office of the Insurance Company (Do^rtiSS^nts) was or was not cancelled by an agree- ment in certain corresnondpnce. . The Plaintiff made a proposition by letter to cancel the policy wjjeh'was rejected. The Dofondante afterwards by their wmtery, sent *n Unsimred letter assenting to the proposition, b«t before it reached the l>laintiff, l^e vessel was captured. Without quoting the facts of the ease more particularly the following extracte from the opinion, of Chief "Justice Marshall will shew the views taken, by him. ..'• . " It is a general rule that a Corporation can only act in the manner pre- " scribed by law. When its agents do not clothe their proceedings witl^ those "solemnities which are required by the incorporating act to enable them to " bind the Company, the informality of the transaction as has been very pro-, I ♦* perly urged at the bar is itself conducive to the qBinion, that such Act was * •* rather considered as manifesting the terms on whi^^H^^ere willing to bind " the Company, as negotiations preparatory to a conclusive agreement, Uian as "a contract obligatory on both parties. . . . . . This leads us " t9 enquire, whether the unsigned note of the 6th of Sepiemberbe a corporate " Act obligatory on the Company. Without ascribing to this body, which iii " its corporate capacity is the mere creature of the act to which it owes its ** existence, all the qualities and disabilites annexed by the common law to " ancient institutions of this sort, it may correctly be said to be precisely what •' the incorporating act has made it, to derL-Mmance thereof ^a manfier as set fo«Id bocountetBigned . by the Secretary. Ii appears to the Courfthat an aet not* perf^ed accord ;.ngto«then,quiaiterfoflawcafinotbe considered as thei^tZcI^^^ .n a case rdaUug to the formation or dissolution of a:policy.T^S^ o Mr Jac^o„ is 1, b, understood as- stating that an asL^^^ ^^"' A^"'''' ^f "''"''^"^ accordi4,to the for,i,s requke^tn Z « 1^'^fr!^" *"'?' P^formance of the act agreed to^ done, it if prJC ble that hepracticehealludesto is correct. But if hft%an. to sav 1 ' jf tht. Court. . It would be to dispense with the formalities reouired bv J«w -foryaluable purposes and to enable ftes. artificial bodfes to I^t'a d co^ttl ' n a manner essentially differeni from that prescribed to tbeoi by U,e S « lature. Nor ^o the cases which have been cited by the gentlem«i ^f the h^ appeartotheCourttoapplyinpnncipletothi. A^„ indivTdSan o^ ' «capaQj^4o contract and Wnd himself in such manae^ ^ he ^e^pS^S «gen,ra^ security of society, however,>om frauds and peduSv^is^ne^J " K^Sa r' '^ ' iT'^"^"^ making certS;:::!^^;^;^ . IfaisdisabUn^act has received constructions Which take out of its aueratiott "jeveraV cases not within the mischief iutwhiA. might ve^ prXri^e « deemed within th* strieMetter of the law "»« »».« Z f^^'y.*^ "acts for hiiaser. He who'aathori««^ J::;^!^^^^ ^^ ' h^ makes it Wmsef? but with those bodie^'t^hioh ha^ onTy a J« « em/wice It is otherwise. nejct_gf in"-—-'- ' • • ^ ^ I ! It. i ' »l ^ cmtracHHg iJuy nmU observe that mode or the tnetrument no more create, a conlra officer « "It is necessary therefore, In contractingVith suoU a body (or corporation) o see not only that the contract is one within its authority to make,Vnd that the person actmg as the agent of the company is ^dthorizcd to bipd it, but also tha the contract is in a form by whi^h the company. ««orc/.„i, to it, « con*''""'? '"""^'^ the property insured until the note ma- tured 1 ^Certamly not from the Statutes of incorporation, nor from any by-law produced in th« case ^ Nor is there any kind of evidence to establish acquies- ir "" fT"^^ ^'<^ ^ «'^h irregular, and* in my view reprln- «^le conduct. .Had such acquiescence been established, the qu*,ion as to the powe™ ^^fihed rector, themselve, thereby to bind the omp,^y might hav^ arisen .^t there is no evidence to show that this is not the L cZ or such .rregulanty. It is hoped th^t it may be the /«,/^The point just ZideMt m my opinion, decisive of th, merits of the appeS. ^^^^J^ in^^r^'T^^ '"""^ "^""^ '" "''^ '' ^'^''^' ^'«'»«^ aWineurabU n|«-e,n„^A.«,i^«Ma««..„,„r«?a/Me date of the lo,,? The answer to Pllr V^~r^' given in the n^ative. is also decisive to the fate of the ^r2.Tr ;?',*" "''"'"'' "^'^^ Respondent's counsel attheargo- mei^t^ that ,f she had no insurable interest at the date of the loss, hor actSn could not be maintained. This point could hot but be conceded ft«^ the a^ |Ues under the old law of France and under the Co4e. as well Jsunde t l^^tlT^rTT'^''' '"^'"^ ^*^"«*' '"^^'««^ '"»«*-«"«* both at the fame of effectmg the insurance and at tk date of the loss. It is unneces-^aiy to Zlr^'l ?r - "*r '".*",rr ^" '^"^ ^''«.^''« '«'d down in the folloiJng extraa .— Tl m suffit point d'avniB & ib partio oapablede stipuler une HMawmCT— ♦ '. . >:....J.> 'Vfi si^n; ,j COURT OF QUEEN'S IIHNCH, 1651. 287 ror,nntio„ dulJ ;"3ir^:^^^^^^^^^^ -tto-c..„Uiti«„.«e„Uo„« p^^^ I. « ~:;i.::2^;«^: i^t^ ^' ^'^^ rr^ <>' » •-> th. ■ uec,a.ation " averment is cont k te bv t VJn ' V '"''P*"'"» ^' ^''^^ ''^*' ' ""^ '^ 't"'. "nied by an H««irm2 0/!^^ "^^ "rocove.^' 1 l^f^^ W^ Po''cy,lUeIf; the plaintiff i, ;.ot pormittedU> Hugh Taylor/a. culto?to ,f„ Kr.''^ th^ Rcsp'ondont transJed U, ■ linger, execute™ of the last «Jil of one F n r ^'"^"""^ ' ''"^^.^- ^^'"*- £mo, part of the obhgation consented to f ' n'"''""' r^^""^ ''^ ''''y'*'' - dent'8 husband. The fii tr«n?r ?. . ^ ""^' ^" ^'^«'" <*f '^^ K«5P<>«- " in consideration of th!"LTi;^^^^^^^^ /T ""'^'^ Elizabc-WMcGiiray, •• at and before the deHverof hi „ J' " '"" • ^""^ ""^' ""^ **^"'^ P*^^ " capacity afWesaid. the rTcett ^f ^'T ^ *''* ^""^ ^"^'^ ^'Z'^'' '» "^^ -h/ve aoldXg ed trsL. ?^^^^ " ^/"^^ acknowlcdge^eclared to " doth sell, J^dZl^t^^^^^ and made over, and hy th«»e pr^aento " like snm of £3000^^^ 'iTd !". V T"""'"'' ""*P''"» ^^^^ « " « said Hugh ivw in hii ^id'cLpa^i:': ::Z::'T^ ;^°^':' ^'^^ "claims, action8,>.and mortffaire8.m ""f^r^ tt« "gK privileges, " ceived, r^ver^d.-^ria ^^ '^ f "^ McGillivray, to be j^ ^ The second transfer is to the sama effect. / / •' . the debts trans.rred. ^^r^^^.^!^^ ^— < passed to the.tran8feree8 as fully to all in.;„T^i the^bts were secured, in her pre^ous to the execuj^f tt t E'^^n^ t' rT^ .receipt of full consideration by instrum^mX^ T " "^^^^^Hged the » a;adeeddul,«ealed and de^^To^Z^^^^^ of rights are and alVayg have been vJaJjJ^K ^^ ^' ^""^ *'''""'^«'" ' . parties therpfor" a compkrch^^ TKr ^7^""^ ' ?' '' ^'''''''' "^^^ MoOnilTnv { f tL, > 'If -f » « ration; dm. maproforma^ without conaide- ' ..-:.^ . \ ^t " ;if 4 * f,t<. AM COURT OP^QUEEITS BENCH, 18»T. ANoniiM. /" 1 ■\, • i ■l- \ tv,,.. '-'* ' ■IfM J 'ft/ It {■•ign«a by Tsylor alone, without any rofemnco to bi« capacity at curator . intheonacaw, oraaoneoftheexk-ntoni, in thd other. To iihew how dan- gerous it is to hold that this letter could alter the legal relatioba between the ■; traniferor and thd transferoe^ 1«t usaupixMe that inttead of the receipt of the money being acknowledged in -the imtnimonU of tfan«f(fr Taylor had bound . himielf to pay the consideration xcomy at some future date, nay in°throo months. Such ^n agreement could not alter the character or l«>gal effect of the inntrumonta, It would «lm|.ly create the obligation to pay at th» time agrtti on. Suppose the Plaintiff to have brought her action for the recovery of the consideration money after the deh»y elapsed. Would it have avallwl Taylor for ' J""^*"^ to »'"8« «» * defence' to the action, " I acknowledged by a letter dated " op' the day subsequent |o the transf§rs that the whole transaction sot forth in " the transfers was pro forma and without Value or consideration, Ac" Manifestly such a plea could hot be sustnined in a ro/om/t ? ManifesUy not. So that neither the rights of Mrs. Reid nor the liabilities of the debtors could be lessened by Oie contre lettre. But it was argued by the Respondent and put in issue by an express averment in the answers to the pleas that the'trans- fers were cancelled and set aside. Up to the date of cancellatioa therefore, the transfers were in full vigor, or why tako^A trouble to cancel them and plead such a cancellation as answer to the pleas; at all events the Plaintiff appears to have done nothings pt I«' »►>• '..i /. ! 'I ) 't Ff, !.'-l.Tl -1l m^ fj, *-. til, \ ^11 1 1 T T r' - — — •*■ ' ■ '" " ""." """ ■ "■« WHO tan ui e muim -fr-TKiZm A^ tx -leg. II,.. o„ «,. ,.h Jul, ,eM. ft, pi.u>|ff r,;s^;edT.;:"s:p5^. offli: ' -^*^ I I -^ 'i':} -n 'r S40 If • m Mi GOUHT OF QUEgN'8 BENCH, 18fl7. ■ i' UMmtn, aed awMn.led the poHoy. ""'l wt. up thtt th« Dofen.Unln, m.ilnff hy Murray 4«U«««. Ui«lr iiK«tnt, "di.l neknowlwlKo nud « •ubmitting to conwquence« *tirmtihw a writttn one ; at lM»ing V«W ocrtoinly atmplKy actiona by ^to allo^o and prove compliance M precwicot indoraed on policiea insurance aa uuially made. It is should appet) to a higher tribuoftl «i Ihrtrial of th^c^I ! '^^^'^^^^^^^^ ^on^m^^ of the doctriae ™Jjd the matter ,^a a an *«? ?k * ^' ?'"'"'.»'»»' *-b%A^\\»nU treated •hould insure the premisea is ftll«*l«.^ . *u ! . H«7". that the latter asaumaff th« n^»/.» i^ i. i. """^''««" '«« parties in this cause. But •gent, of the noii-Davment nf ♦l.- L, i °,P°^ *<* think that notice to th^ ll«Ofl]in« AaoniiM, rr » i«d d^,„ i« ^^,, ^^y^ ^ j^^ ^^^ H*;. had noSce ofX ■«» .4 f ! -I 242 COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1887. HoQUUvny .^t «ijni>>« h '^ . non-payment of the note is evident, and the notice' is stated by him to have been handed to Mr. Badgley tlie Respondent's legal adviser, Mr. Murray thinks Hays was notified that the contract was at an end. As to the correctness of the find- ing of the jury on the questions of fact submitted to their consideration, I am bound to express my opinion. This Court is not confined under our statutes, , to consider the question of ^fact found in the same way as Courts in England I would do on motions for a new trial. The Appellants made no attempt to lobtain the decision of the Court in jBanco as to the law of the case. They made no motion there for a new trial ; nor for a judgment no» o6»ton<« vertdieto. Nor were they bound to do so. Tiie case is before us in all its parts both as to law and 'fact ; as a Court pf Appeal ; and it would seem t*at the Appellants from the importance Of the questions presented, treated tlie trial before the jury as merely a formal trial with a view to obtain "before this Court an authorita- tive decision on the whole merits of the ca«e. My own view of the evidence in respect to the proof df the contract, even waving the serious points of law to . which reference has been made, is favorable to the Appella*nts. I look upon the evidence of Murray as containing the true and more reliable statement of facts as tliey occurred. His position was such aa to render it more probable that his recollection should be clearer as to what actually occurred, and it is consist- ent with itself. H? speaks positively as to two interviews with ^r. McGill ; Mr. McGill recollects only one. It was at this aeconrf interview that Murray says he mentioned to Mr. McGill that it was unreasonable to think that he Murray should assume a risk without payment of premium on behalf of a lady with whom he had no acquaintance. Mr. McGill denies that this was said to him, and also denies that he blamed Mr. Murray for. taking the note ; and says he does not recollect Mr. Murray'saying to him « There is no harm done, the build- ", ing is insured for ten or twelve days and it can easily be remedied by realiz- " ing the money and paying the premium." But whether Murray's statements are to be believed or not in respect to these points is wholly inj^atefial to the question of contract or no contract, and as to the question also whether it was or was not a contract conditioned on the payment of the note. Mr. McGill was not present at the time the contract was made, an(^ the conversations had by him with Hays^nd Taylor are manifestly no evidence as lo'^Vhat the contract really was. ' The same remarks are applicable to Mr^^ajdor's evidence. He called on M*-. McGill, who mentioned to hiw, Mr. Hayea' statement that th* insurance was eflFeCted.and Mr. Taylor's own^atement as to Mr. Murray having made no mention of the insurance being conditional, or about the payment of the note, and that the mortgage was insured, although in express contradiction to- what is sworn to by Mr. Murray, cannot be lookid on as part of the res getta, or as proof of what really took place on the visii, of Hays to the^jCompan^ office inrhen the contract, auidi sis it was, must be sonsidered as having been njade. , Asto the testimony of Hays, it was insisted on by the Appellants at the trial, and at the argument in appeal, that he jffaya was an incompetent wit- ness.- It was argued that by the sale to M. V. Hays of the 26th January 185%^ of the property inaured, H»ys had part^ with all bis interea^in the prti^ - ■ ■ 1 . . ■' ■ ^ '' ',%. <— — 't "• # > have b«en Links Hays of tlio find- ition, I am >ur statutes, in England attempt to ase. The/ te uerediito. irts both as Appellants »re the jury I authorita- evidenco in 8 of law to k upon the ent of facts >bable that : is consist- [cGin;Mr. urray says he Murray I lady with lid to him, id says he the build- by realiz- statemcnts rial to the Jier it was IcGill was ns had. by i contract called on insurance ; made no the note, n to* what !9tte, or as ly 8 office n^ade. ts at the etent wit- ary 18%. the pro- ? COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1867. 243 perty, and thaMhe Plamt,ff, by intervening and becoming^ party to that deed McGilU^y had accepted M. V.Hays as berdebtor without discharging Hays, who therefore AuS^ had an .nterest m paying the debt, and getting rid of his personal liability to ' ^^ the riamtiflj by the proceeds of the insurance. It was further argued that if such payment were made out of the insurance monies, Hflys could turn round and say to M. J. Hays : " You were bound personally in yonr contract with . me to pay PlamUlTs debt; that debt is now dischai^ed, not by you, but fVom " ano her fund ; pay ^o, therefore, the sum you were bound -to pay, but never pa,d to the Plamtiff, as part of thfe prix de venie- , To this the Plaintiff * ' answered Uiat the debt, if p^id. from the jnsurance money, would not be ex- , ' trngmsh^d, but by operatro^^^f law ^o^Sd become .vested in the insurance company who thus wpu^be Subrogated by operation of law in jll the PlaiA-' tjTs rights, and wo«ld be.pntitled to ;e„/orce against M. V. Hayf payment of the monies. Without givirig any opinion' as to whether Huch legal subrogation ■ would take place, a matter about Whrch grave'doubts may be cntertaifaed, I am not prepared to hold Hays to be a competent witness; but it is not ne- ' cessar^lo decide this point, nor is it necessary to do so iri the view tkken hy me of the whole evidence as to the alleged cpntract. Taking Mr. Havs' evi- dence as admissible, it must be borne in mind that both he and Murrny w*re ' witnesses for the Plaintiff. The oni states that nothing was satd as to the — nsuranco being condiUonal, or that the policy was not to be issued untU the not^ matured and was paid The other states preciseljf the reverse. BoUi are PIaint>rs witnesses, l^e only other party present (McAulay) IS dead. Where, then, is tl>e evidence of the contract as alleged in the declaration f and yet without satisfactory proof of the contract, which proof 18 thrown on the Plaintiff by the issues, the jury were not justified in^ find- ing the contract proved. This very case, shows the necessity of adhering to whaU take to be, the wise rule of the law, requiringsome writing as necessa? for the formation and to the proof of such a contract of insurance as in question Here. It was Hays' duty to require, and it appears to be the usage of insur- / ance offices to give an ad interim receipt. Had this been done, the difficulties . which Lave arisen in this case might have been avoided. It is. unnecessary to say much as to the proof made as to the usa&e in other offices, as to Verbal , assurances. Such as ,t is. I consider- it as favorable to the Appellant's preten- sions. But I am not prepared to sanction the doctrine .that an insurance agarnst loss by fire can be legally made, without any Writing of any kind, by a mual ' conversation in the street, even with a private party as principal, still less with an agent of a corporation. I attach no importance to the book produced at the tnal as proving the written contract referred to m the judge's cLaige It wa£ • part of-Murray'8 duty to take offers for insurance, &c., and this was'done by entnes m the books in question of tbe property, premium, &c. The entiy appears to have been cancelled soon after it was made, and, if tLe entry is to be taken against the Company, it must be taken |8 a whole as U stands, and as • ^? explained by Hurra's acts. , ^ Two other points were mentioned at the argum^t: first, that interest was"^ ••.♦ .■I I, ' ■. . \ • '1' '•ii t \ /': \ i.; i 1 ■ \ ;. ; 4- »m tho date^<»^4hfr-la ^ i~t5s date drar ■f • ^v. 244 \ , ■Jf^Jt. u '. ^4c'^:x irft* COURT OF QUIEJTS BENeH, 1867. MoQflllTrv ^KrfiWwK. !•' my opinioi^ the judgment fchould be reduced. See 1 Ellin, Inn, p A-wrMoe. 264, Shaiy's ..1. 1864 ; and other RUthorities, if necewary. The other point was to the error in the date of the obligation, creating the mortgage which is aHeged to bear date on the 20th November, tlie obligation produced bearing date the .20th December, 1847. This might have been material if mortgages were in fact proved which could have destroyed the priority of Plaintiff's, but the ques- tion as su^mitted did not admit of any answer being given as to the existence or non-existence of anterior mortgages. LafontaineJ.en Chef. Cette instance pr68«n£e des questions relatives att contrat d'assurance. La principale question, en fait, est celie-ci; Dans les* circonstances particulidres de la cause, t)eutK)n dire qu'une assurance a «t6 r^elle-" menteffectueeau profit del'Intimgeap bureau deI«:compagnie? La,principaie question, en droit, est celle de savofr si le contrat d'^saurandfe pent subsister sans qu'ilyajtune police. ^ '- . La qiiestioii de fait, soumfse k nn corps de jures, a*gte r^solue dans I'affir- wative ; et le verdict ayant 6t6 horaologu6 par la cour de premiere instance la question de droit se trouve 6galement d6cid6e dans I'affirmative par ce tribunal LaCompagnie a interjet6 appel, pr6tdndant qu'il y aju mal jug6 et en fait et en droit. Araon avis, h|,compagnie estdanslVreur. Noufc n'avons'aucune loi qui fesse d6pendre d'un 6crit la validit6 du feontrat d'assurance. Oe contrat est du droit des gens ; il peut done existcr ind6pendamment de la loi civile II est n^anmpins au pouvofr du 16gislateur de r6glementer la forme de ce contrat en ce qui peut regarder radmissitilitfi ou l'inadJiiis8ibilit6 de la preuve de son existence, et alors le contrat participe du droit civil; mais nos lois municipales ne contiennent aucun r^glement k cet 6gard. La Comp^nie a appel6 k son secours quelques statute anglais, qui ne sont ^ue dps 6dit8 bureaux, ayant pour objet I'dtablissemeiit d'un droit de timbre. C'est en vain qu'^B^voque ces statuts, puisqu'ifs n»ont pas force de loi en Canada. . L'on salt qulWrdonnance de marine, (art 2, titre des assurances) po^it que « \q contrat appele police d'assurance sera r6dig6 par 6crit." Suivant' Pothier (1) cette fcnne n'est pas nfecessaire k la validity du contrat, .et ne peut fetre requise que pour la preuve. * «Le8 raisons qu? me portent a croire que cette forme que I'ordonnance prescrit, n'est que pour la prMve, et non pour la valid{t6 du contrat," dit Pothier, « soivVlO que cette hrmar est absolument fitrangere a la substance An contrat, 2o que I'ordonnance ne ikteqttiert pas d peine de nulliUr Au reste, I'ordonnance de marine n'a pas 6t6 enregistr6e en Canada. II est vrai que I'ord. de 1607 qui I'a 6t6, exige (art 2 du m 20) qu'il soit passfe acte par devant notaires ou sous signature priv6e, de toutes choses exc6dant lasommeou valeur de cent livres." Mais cette disposition g6n6rale est suivie de I'exception suivaqte, (m^mqart), " sans toutefois rien innover poiir ce regard, en ce qui s'observe en la justice des juge et consuls des marchands,'' c'est-tl-dire en d'autres mots, en affaires commerciales. Je crois done avoir eu raison dedire qu'aucune de nbs lois municipales ne rfiglemente le contrat d'assurance, et que, comme le remarque Meriin (2), apr^s Pothier d^4,cit6, "il est 6vident (sous I'ord. de (1) Assurance, No. 06. ^--^ (2) R^p. Yd. P olice d'AsgnMnfefe Anc!^; ■ -^ \ ■■ :,. V ■COURT OF QUEIN'S BENCH, 1857. 246 elle-mta, rti,;^ l™t !,^!*' '^ """" '*'•*<'-'• I'" I'"™""™ > T»1I . . . . W ■•^'' de appreciation urdTrflt^^^^^^^ '' -"^T ' '" ^"^^« voir autant de contradictions nu'U y Sa entro ^ T"-"""'"''\^ ^^^r^i^rA. Murray, TAffent ou G^ranf /V^ . . a *^'no'g»«ge de M. Williaia. I'flonoiable Peter Mc^Ud! tfTTl'? ''PP^"''' '*'"" «^^' «' ^^^' ^e dans retat dV ac!.^! :f,^>^'^f ^^^^ Mais, avis, IWrter s« cdL 1 T' •"' '"'•''' ^" P""'^'^"« ''«"™'^»*' ^ '"O" credibility; du fait 0^1 S^^* % P '' «"P'^"°tent un noaveau degr6 de reellementefflulruburl H , ^ '""'**^''"* ^"'""« «-"'«"«« «-^* ^t6 ■ Nous verro fbtntlt i ^r^' -"P^SI'-^P-fitetau nom de I'Intimee. «no assu^nce oT co^^e H^^ ^^^ ^- ^""^^ '«'-'«^"e. ^tait laSr^^s^r;:^-:^:^^^^^ de la rue Noa^e Dame dans la CiS^rMo„tE /'^f '^"' f"''" ^™"*^^*«^ ^^«eU.e,.t^^^^^ m .. "7"'^*'"'^« ^s'^ tttitepour une ann6e k cotfrir du 18 f6rrier 1819 «« « j rlntiin6e et tfour son nmfJf anr I'kA. i / * 'w^ner X862, au nom de M. H^-'r.!?: uT^ ''"' "■.l>«'»"»"H» I. prfme dWr.„ce u. biUd d. i (1) limiiBt,t.i,yg..iBi. GrotoetJoliatNo,iar. Phlllipft 1. 1, 2nd Ed.' p. 8. i.... ¥ ■ ' -' '■' ■■ i. 4< T. '■ ■■■;. ■?\ ! tj '• '4 %' ■ 'l . ■ J 1 ' Mr 4 , ,'''■' >'£.'■ ' 1 [;| ..) , !. I. I ■ )•■ - -» r-i > 1 fe \\w.- if? -1 .. ,. ;** 246 "Ci COURT OF QUEEN»8 "BENCH, 1867. « >' IMil^fV C'est ce qu'i! ^ prAtendu et afllinn6 dans son timolgnage devant le jury 4 cela il est contredit par MM. McQill, Taylor et Hayes. Or strait wne p«rte de temps que de transcrire ici des extraitS de ces divers tifciii^ignages. Comme, pour la raison quo j'j»i donnie plus'haut, cc sent cenx do* ttois dertiiem tAmoins qui doivent pr6val;6ir, qu'il sufflse de dire qu'il rAsiiUe de ta^reuve que Tassu- rancen'apas 6te conditionnelle ; qu'elle a 6i6 faite puremeht et simplement pour I'espace d'uno ann6e; que M. Murray avalt prorais de di6livrer ct d'«hvbyer le m6me jour la police d'assurance k rilonorablo Peter McQill ontre les mai|i8 duquol il savait qu'elle ^evait 6tro d6po86e selon lo d^sir^lo Mme. Rot-d ; que, ce- pendant, cela n'a pasAtft fait ; que, dds le iii6me jour d^' rassurance, M. Murray a inform^ MM. McGill et Taylor gue cctte ateurance avait 6t6 offecfu6e, sans, de sa part, faire mention d'aucuno condition, ce qui se trouvo corrobor* par TentrAe dans ' le r^gistre de la Connpagnie, puisque if ulle condition n'y est 6^onc6e ; qu'eh con- f^^s^qnence de cette information, MM. MciGill et Taylor qui prenaiont aft int6r6t bien^rif dans^ cette'afiaire, I'un comme ami, I'autro comme neveu 4e TifntimAe, sont demeur6s persuades, et par suite rintnnde elle-m6me, et cela de bonne foi, 'qua I'assuranxse avait 6t6 eflfectu6e purement et simplepicnt en la ihanidre or<^i- naire de raaniere S donner k Mme, Reld, pendant une annde, toule la protectioir qu'elle en attendait. M. McGill partit pour l'Angletei1« dans le mois de juin ^ suivant, et s'il eAt eu raison de penser que I'assurance ne^ftit pasbonue, " I would • not. have gone tij^nglan\l,"dit-il, " without having informed Mrs. Reid of the ^ fact of the insurance bein'g vitiated." Le jour de rassurance mfeme, M. Jayior se pr6sente au bureau de la Compagnie pour s'enquirir si cette assurance a 6t6 eflFectu6o : " Mr. Murray t6ld me it had been effected, and said, tell Mrs. Reid the insurance has been affected, the mortgage is covered. M. Murray said nothing to mfe^hbout the insurance being conditional on the payment of a note ; If he had, I would have insured it myself as I had the money in my pocket/ On ne sa||ait'donc avoir de doute sur la bonne foi avec laquelle Mme Reid a. dh se croire bien et duement assurfee ; et cette bonne foi ne doit pas tourner au- jdurd?hui'ii son prejudice. Si, comme la pr6tend I'agent de la Compagnie, I'assurance eftt fet^ conditipp- nclle, le billet devenaitdenulle valeur & son 6cheance faute depaiement; et JjliBsurance tbmbant par cela m&me, les Appelants n'6taiont plus expos6s' k aucune perte, et par consequent n'avaient plus d'int6r6t dans le billet. Cependant r ce billet est endos86 par\M. Murray individuellement, et la compagnie le fait d^poser dans la Banque do Montreal, puis protester, Ce prol6t n'a pas seulement I'effet de mettre Af. Ha/es en d6faut, raais il a encore celui de conserver le recours de la Compagnie contre I'endosseur ;_ et Ton pent raison rtablement croire que c'6tait I'intention de la Compagnie, en agissaut ainsi, de s'assurer el d'exercer ce recours contre lui, par le fait seul qif& lea frais m prot^t out et6 port6s au compte de M. Murray lui-m6me. Le vaste incendie de 1852, en ditruisant ^ l'h6tel de M. Hayes, a pu peut-fetre exercer une grande influence .sur le mode ; d'action de la Comp^nie k VSgard de son agent, mais cela ne saurai^ en rien dt6rer les droits acquis a Mme Reid. Un t6moignage qui me paralt avoir une grande valeur quant k ce point de la -i>te8taUetir«striw^ui tfatedeg employ^s-dfri a Cu n ipa g uie, "te-ltlgT!l6ffirdTnlir— '■•• ■AS? *^. v-r r d«i "TOl sai •r ■ ' t i-'i jury. -En ie perte'de . Comme, 3T8 t^moins que I'asau- nmplement t d'slivbyer e les maiiis d ; que, ce- . [. Murray a sans, de sa !Qtr6e.dan«* qu'en con- ttb int6r6i I ]'l'ntim6e, bonne fo!, nidre or^i- protectioD' (is de juin , " I would eid of tie n. J'ayior ance a 6t6 Mrs. Reid urray said of a note ; y pocket/ me Reid a . jurner au- conditiQp- ;ment ; ^et )xpo86s k dependant nie le fait seulement iserver le ent croire d'exercer port6s au litruisant le mode it en rien L idOURr OF QUBEN'8. BENCH, 1 867. 247 WUMhm Murray. Ce tAmoin dit : « My father, in February 1862. had no pri- M^fimm, ' ^Mcount wHb^e^JWontreal Bank. The expense of protest is charged to my" AdSw.. -/ father's pnvato fccoutit. . . . The reason, why he clrarged the price of the protest , to bh own ^nvate-account, was that as it was going to be a loss tp the Company, * |, « well as t^v,hole note, which was taken for premium, Rethought ^t but fair |o charge the price of the protest tohlso^npiivateaccwnt. TL« entry in cash book js on th6 27lh March." ' ' , ' '■ Puisqu'iraison de l'insolyabilit6 de M.. Hayes, non seuWnt le coAt da bro^t, ,B|W mfeme le monfant du billet ajlait 6tr« nne perte pour la6ompagnie. il .en^wt done qu'on ne regardait pas.Ja defaut de paiement 4^ ce billrt oomme ayant eu I'effet de le rdndre non avenu, et a! ia Cour 4e Cassation; le 9 avril 1807." ^ Enfin les Appelants ont ipvoqu6 la- disposition de I'acte provinciaiae 1842 ch. 22, qui porte « que toute8 les polices d'tesurance que ce soit, faites en verttt : daprfesentacteou dd'ordonnancesusdite^quiserbnt sign^espar trois dlileqrs deladiteCorporation^c'eSt-^Klir^Ja susdite^co^agnie) et contrMfees • sparlesecr^^ireet les regi8seur8,imv6tue8du, 8ceau.de ladite corppration, obhgeront la drte corporation, qiioique nbn^ignSes en p;68«nce du cons^il des " syndics, pourvA que ces polices soi^nt faite^'^t isipees confonn6ment aux regies, et regleraents deh, corporation." Cette fonnej^le est employee, est unm fef A EBN'8 BENCH, 1857. VoGUUmjr AHonnoe. AcUoi^W'IhtimAe centre I'assurancc do Montreal ( Appelante) • mont«Dtd;5^, enhance qu'elle av«U co«tro le nomm6 Hays, par' Bur u«o pt6prii>ti n^m6e ^ffaysm^e} cr^anco qu'ello m6tmd 4 la dlte J4««ra««, ct qu'elle a stUui|w- iUe p^ ^ lai*tf oans rdWanation de police !\ a8 eu d'as8iiraif|i^is sou.^ une oftn? par ^Jap, tt^ssUillil^flpmii' roftl^i " ' *' >ne|o/si f|||rimc 6tA d^^pQU| p^ri^mltor le ' ite de (|^J«5pprldt6^ti^tl |i|,pa9;;^td't^ "*?- eni queisUon |2. iSj(P(6fera* raleur, tel- ft 1; ■'I • ^r. ?!/ 4 4 I? If^ * gfi^Dine. Roid dCaoOff. Ej^l isoiftpara J?^tion etpartapt la,nov|(^on decetfe ^ki^:' ■.>. ■ ;'V'- -, , r^t asBurablk sur la propri , ,.^. ^ .^ pylori TfnraotedujSjfim I . •" . ' Z. rW' -l@'*"^^^<^*W"n«^I« pairceque "leajiyppt^ ll«. a^ «nt6gote8'i l||ienn^ 8ur ledit %,meuble en ab^orbiien^ ^'"^ ^!*W!™*« 4p^Hit Hen par Pincendie de la pl^bprifetfi. ^. , -, Djiprc-s f^^fenseen % V^itait^Ja Pananderesse, Intim^e. 4 A'nrriuve i»IJ^in^ay, lequel estl^ prew«r t^inoin ftiterrogfi dcla pirt de la^u^uite 'V^S/''"" '"^"l- PJ*^^^ I*-^ liquet a et^ par M. ' 0{?Smoin a ptouv6 l^ntije faiterW|f^re de U iprnpa^n^ constatantqu'une , SV ««'l»?i?«» W-^ontant de ^^OQO avak 6t6 eflfectu^e, on f^v«ur de M, Reid A la . %^^d<^ndo^^HayKj^ontle1>|Iletprfp.iss^re avai^t^'pl et acceptor "mu^ v ; \ T> ray Jiouj la prime ^222" 10s. - *«f V . ':iT ;'. ^ ^^ . ^' ^^«>^»'*fV'^*q»«««t^«««tr6e itaJtconditwnneiK inlnf.!:'"^ 1 ?'^"''^^'"'"^ 'P^"«^ etaitpay6.alo,«ralrance , £ H f pour Pannie, P^sUrance devant 6tre nullejai Je bfllet rf^taU pa. pay6 ; ' > f«^« a ^t6 inform* que Pa88urance6taitcap«/ftfe;quAde fait ell^f Ic feu, et que pjirtant k P6p6que ou il V^JjeW, 11 nV aVkit pas d' foveur de M. Reid. ' ..* ^A ,^ • Haj(8 fliji ^ fait roRp/tcafii^jjtenr assurance nie positiven questipn, 11 dit aq conttair^ttfUurraya pris SOB billet p; prime, Pa inform* que la (^iW de U. Reid 6tait assnr*© laontion-da la ooudition doi que ivaift en IWWgBB Uassuran,^ 6tait definitive et cprapletoe, *i Men ii i •. . Q"«nt i Taylor, il est «8al«"eM „„. inZT. , ' ' "'"""«•' * '"*«"™r. Du r«8tp. dans le cas actuel, Murray n'a fait nn« «„ - T • , ' 19. Que le contrat. d^iwsulfeice Ipeut 6tre valahlfl ««n« a/ . . n'est «q„is que pour la preuve et'll7dH Si aue. dlT '"''' !'^ ' avai1j6oritre^:que c'6tait affaire dl commerc qui auraLZ 1 ""^ "''"''' '' ^^ ; 2«.Quel*novation«l%u6en\,,istepas^;u"r2nH!r7l^ *taitaffect.e.apaymentd'elacr6anced^nS,^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ elle comptait entj^rement pour son paiement rv»f L? a x '*^"®"* ouplutOtrhypotLueciu'lav^itrSlf.t^^^^^^^^^^^^ , f~*^*"vu»|njui Buu paiement.' Uestcette .1.. aA^* . t .. %?lf^..*7^^ • *'^S6ffi»?t n'mfluerait — ' 3Q.I^del'a83urancee«Udel%ce«di^ J^^^i^ d tl 1 1 •■i- t, I I.' -Jik^ i^ f ..^S». «^^^ w^- •'«Sl<#^ iprft ti- . V y-y-r ^v 250 COUIif OF QUl^lEIf'S BllNCft, 1851 Ilvilpf^^t; . ■ Ml s»ii..;. ^^my q„«„t «„,..,u««ti6,.« de ti^muign.ga «t do droif, ,„e ambient en .out cor««t« d6fcnHe en HroU .e lp-,„| , „i. d„ e6t6 la 60 .noyen de, d^fcil a««i bie?! ri toulf^ r^^^^ n"in.opar«H.ufB«antoetproprercr , Le» «on.,d6ra..on« d'6nait6 et d'h6nn6tet« «ont tout A f„lt en faveuf de I'ln : " Si ft L r'TT..""' '=°"^'''--"*'' Mad. Reid aurait di^ en Mro infor„"^e. . ,. «•'«!»'"«* e»» *t6pm conditionnelloment, co.nmc c'ifeiit I'int6r6t de M ^ Reid qu, 6laU assur6, ello aura.Vdft 6tro «vertf«. La pretention quo MurraylT ' ?a! '!/Tf •f;'*"^*''"' e^t almurde. pen '^'"-^'^«"«ntde la CourI„fSrieuro..t correct «tde4^ ^ t a-oss dr Bancroft, for Appoll^nU.' ". ^_ ^_ ' ^ ^_ " ^. J?<>i 35, note. ' ' ' ""' Thayer v.- As to exclusion of it by Appellant's charter and by-laws • r-gh^ 6 V*c. cap. 22, § 4. Only directory, Angel k Ames, p. 2«, No.'wd 229 237 ^ Story on Agency, p. 68, No. "53 ; SafTord y. Wyckotf. 4 HUl 446 2 p!r!l« ' Sc' No. 693 , Marshall, 303 ; Boudoa«qui<, 108, 109. ^ ' ^"^^''""S «««'" As to award of interest : > « • , ." 2 Phillips on Ins., 760 j 3 Car. & P., 496. 7 « As to insurable interogt : ' " « / ^ ^^ ,;^ .. Kllig, p. 26, English ed. ; pp. 63, 64, 69, 70, Amer. ed. "'^ , - As to note for premium : , , " ' , 2 Alaozet, 328,329,332; AngeU on Ins., p. ok" - ' As to admisBibility of evidence as to declarations of agent •' lGreenleaf, liMubHnd^ceMeJ. ■ °F> «" mvmg bey n tf^ fatu-. 7S5? She pleaded that her marriage with him took place in' the United State^; and there. r, - — .»"" ■ and there* ,.■,. • • . ..■. w- j^^coijft^^^^ ^^^ '\ AMinrtuiM. J / / /» / - ■* "I ■■ ■■ • '^' " ,' , syreBioft x;ouRT. ' / ° MO»mAL, Mrn PBBRPART, 1 - " Coram BkDOLKr, J. ~rfplent. 1, not money In ZtiZI! '^" •"''^' •^•""° »<> f' ""•«' <>' »ho tawlUI ,nior ai Ai5t of. 1854 and tlio Acts amend nir iho same • thit Pi;in.;ff i i • in bis approximate statement as roamred by law wSh I if TTul ^''" and Lad already paid Plaintiff forTveS fe^' o ^1 "^r^f '*^"'^'"' The evidence Dstablliihed the facts thnt il,« ri^l^A . , '• ' Government with the payment of rhtires„d& uf^^^ '' were placed in on. or^olher of the chartered Ba.r&the Stv of M ^T' th« credit of two of them CJudali "«„,! n.. VJ "'*. ^'V^ M-mtreal to »„ Jl ■ , iS? ^°"'" *"'' •'«P"'rfR«»iver Ge»er.l the. received ■1^ lit £: ' i V' II I II I- JLnwtig gajy^Aom th g iJSiatute. None j^gmoTiafAcU imposed upon the a^SonerTthTdu^ , mstalmeuts to thejbicniors.- thA n««...;.i i:Lu:,..._ ... ■" ^ : paying these jnion. , the personal fbility of tfw Commissioners *ro8e ■ * _ # ^^^*d ^1^' '*-A ■m vXP 60i;UT 0? QUBEN»S BENCH, 1868. •MM JoMiat*!, iSind t> •rf .>o!r» their having Id thtir hand* fund, denttninl-to tho itM of Plainll which they refuted to pay over. It wm" . li«bilit> ariiilng from a rule i of thi conmion law, and which haa equal force In England und in France. ' Vi^. Orcnleaf on g^'J«"'<'« PjitlitT ^- ^"'^'""' «' •!. Stu•l'•^Rep„r^ p. 141 and «»thorit.«|ah|pHnp|bo{all7 « dcBin p. m, arguroentof M. Cochin, whore ^^itn,tjie fbai Commliin. m appointed under tb« SeigniorylW^ for estattng the indemnity Rcvenue^t«^be paid to 8eignion/«ub.i«u at ^i. .ti;^ of tho prtiNl by aiy ;^he plki«s ' .• j>t the return of the «clio^>e t«ro defendant|^.^«« being iifciW . -iJ-'ng attor»«a of;thj,courCVei^ytope«rs^^^^ forfaToS" ^ sefwed wtiieir defences wjth pl«a8 JHp,er^ issue Only; and conducted tieir ' ■^*fe«!>^«<^«''*'M»/«f tt« '^"♦e Cinnnis^-oners as^defendants -a^d^torrilBs at law,acting p|)fessioni|y |or each other enrtherecord. Under -||^™^?«^ »«,Sg ^iW bo^allA^ «pon thedismissal of the plaintiff's t > . »„■ *< (T. JLTL^i J?Bm«9y, for Plaitttiff. ,, ' '.° Judah, Q. e.j for Defendants; Actio^ dismissed without costs. (r '. ^ ^^ '■< '•-^•i^ — - , _*-- «r . f "T "^^^■■\~- .» ■^■^ .««. suPERroR dRr, 1851 m MONTEBAU WTK PRBBtTARr. 1(W. C(«^mSMlTU.J.; MoKo«t.T,J.; CunoT, J^ ■- oppoMDt and cotilo»tanL rious reasons and by one of hi. ^^.TP"""*"* "^ •^«''e WiI«on, alleging va. %e Vt. . ^, des ant... oppoL, en Xaut 7i L'^L'?!^^^^ ^f' ^P^a.rc, et ,ue ce privi.^e report do v2,,JLt^^^l aaintairfod the demurrer, and d«ml«ed the pleading. ^ Doutrt^Kiomf, for J&ne Wilson. • Demurrer maintained. ^f>l<*nc i& Castidyf (or Wood. ^ ^• ioNTEEAL. srrn JUNB. 1857,^ Tbe same Court and Justices. Ko.2054. The BStne Parties. jLuw iMNuo iranies. Wil»n, who cfMled it, ,„ iUheol Mi Dn.ble tot^rt . fl ""' ''''"°'' Thn Courfr WMmtttiaad rim i.iii.*a.f»ij^,-rj4: atv^ -. J^^^^-* '•4% ■# 1 t I m III i4;r i> ,'7 VJ ,1 I II, (■■' ! 1 .' '■ 1 1 , «■ I Hyul^u t d the CDB^^inrae ^wing^^;;^ ..-'^r V r irf if, 'I liiin«4n iU v 8UPKUI0U COURT, lBfl». %i' ; n iMti "Con.i.lor%thnt tho mM at,p.««.„t D^M U. Wood, (i, hf. c£,Utl«n of.' tl.o ordiT of .lutnbMtl..n ..f tl.o procwd. of iho n,«l tWfe of tho ,m J„|,„ \Vi|. •on now lH^or« U,o aurt for di.tribiUioti of tho dHun of th« »nii. in « «t.»le of bi»r.kropt<7 and in«dvoncy, en etat d* diconfilurt, nnd«r aniT «Uudgo that the jiulgmant of distrlbntion in thix faii.e proo«/r#.fr/>ao«.^ for Jane Wil«>n. ^k^^^^ ZeWnnc 4 i. BUPEIIIOR (X)IJKT, 1887. , dfrocion of ,1.. r,«ln,rtf L l^ZZ^t ' .'"""'"*" *'""»'^'- -"'• '" »»'• * - .«d th«r. di.,..r«« U.«,r J^^ Uot« Crj •'^^^ ""'^ ^'-'P' ''^ WM .n.w«r«bte to tbe Plaintiff In d^magl '*''"^«'^»; .; » To establish thai the Defendant gavo\ho order to ar»,- the l?laintiff-reHed on Ujree tlasses of evidence : 1. The testimony of witnesses who w«fe n«^r the .Defendant at the tjme, and «<«, and A^arrf him give the order. Oa;' of these Jv.tncssQs a magistrate from the country, was standing so near as to touchthe Defendant s person, observing rairmtqly his every' act. 2, That -^c^f wit- ness^s .ntimatciy acquainted with the Befeddam, who heard the ordef, ro'cp- mzedjth^ Defendant's voiccdirected tlieir attention to him, and saw him S " ?r ^^^^^ S' ^''^S^'' *'«"I^^' apparently in the attitude of addressing' ' '!r;. f\, ; , ''[^'^'f'^^^Vroy^^^^^nihe next day the Dc^'eftdaut . admuted that he l«d ordered the lower divisiop to fire, and also that when fepcrftedly cha^getf, upon the ground, and immediately aftur tW fatal occur ' K«ce, with having g,ven the order .and wantonly Murdered his felIow-citi^n«, hc.mmlenodcmalofthofac.t,butrcjyHed,-matel8c could 1 do?-theKiot . Att,wasread> Several of DefenOaufstJwn witness^ also swear Umt he gave the oraen • •■,/•■•» ' ♦•° It^ jva^ also Submitted fl.at there was no riot at the time tl* trooL fired, aniflo !t 'In1r^ir"^''i!°" ^"' ''" «''''<^«»«/P'-oceedings adopted by the D,fend- A.* All ihe Pla.nt.frs witnesses concur/ in saying that there was no^lot at the timer that the only disturbance W between tho etfgine-houso and the Am,r.ca.| Chu|ch,ja^ut two hundred 4«ls from the troops, and out of the ^ ange of their fire. Several witnesses wfc were passing at the tinie bcfween -tb^ cn^^-house and m troops,8aytimt all was perfecHy^iet in their vici- nity, an^betwcen^hem and the troops/ and all Were 8ttu6k with horror at the • •; unexpected arul^fatal discharge of tfee^l^oops. Tfier«-Wl undoubtedly been a serious not neW the church b^ore th Arrival , of the Itroops, and about hUf an hour before they fired, aajsofhe of D^n'dantV^nesses have manit^tljr con- f, SI 1 .f « -^ 7"'"-™^-v'»'-"» ^«reiiuaiu s^nesses have manit«stlr con- fciunMed thm xvith the state of -affairs ai the time tS, tfbops fired ; whilst others in cros*cxam.nat,on. admit, that the/only riot theyWfer to waa the disturbance between the fengine-liouse and the -American Church. (\^ of the soldiers^ who fired, and who are Defendant'^ wltnesse8,aay there was no riot at Iho tim^. ^ i?:.i' "^ 'T^ '^^""^ > daylight, ^hen the Defen^nt could easily 8^ that th^6 was nothmg to call far. extreme measures. Ttie whole oircum- stancj showed that he failed to exercise tlie leastdegreeof priidence. , The fact that the whole.division of troops was ordered .to fire, in'diacriiKirt^y, 4,on peac^ble^and unoffending dtizens, showed a recWess disregard of humin life ' 'Which repder^thftjleii^ndant deeply culpable. - , , 7; * It wM co«iMrthat%ie'Dcfenda|rt had far efcceeded the authority vesW conservator of the peaces that fae'Wih chargeable hidenm^d recl^essness, in consequence^ii^^which'- in'hitn as a with the ■i''''£ ■ -^'Av ' ' V .*::-/." •■/' SUPERIOR COURT, 1857. ^ ,>y whether thrown, Z caJ '" '"'"T ^°' '"J"*"«^ ^^'^^^'^ »>^ »'" f""^ position, he ot^^llT Z::i Z r^" ^^"™"'*' ^' '^'"^^ '" '- position, and I to the Lil^ r '' '?^""' "'^^ '" ""PPO'* °f 'hi, : for«,a„;eofp.:tliclties '^ ' ""«"*"'" A^r their «.ts when in the per- De^ ittf S^lrr:^"'^ ^^^y order^; ,i.en at a,, h, th^ the order were dvcn to he offi- • • "" "'* *' ''°''^'""' ''"^ *''"' •^■ fovv it wa*Drlr« H ?, ^'.°''''''" '""^ 6'"*" '" "''^ words'^Flre! firer' . 11.. «l«™ «.„l they neici,,, ta«d-,|,. D.fe„"- --* . '^■Sfc '¥■■ .-iiti*-' ' ' /* %- 208 ''^U SUPERIOR COURT, 1857. iitovonion VM. WilNon. w ■^ iw ■vi": "V- a*- ■•■+ .^ nil'-- K' %y L l.*,»' > ■# -.—A- P-. evidence. To maiiCi* hw action it wj« Wumbent on the Plaintiflf to prove three i^HncipHl points: l8yl'li»| ti.e order to fire was given ly tlie Defendant ^ in Uis capacity of Mayor; 2d. That the firing took place in pursuance of such an order; 3d. That the circurastancos did, not warrant such an qrder beini given. As to the first and second points, the Plaintiff has, in the opinidrf of the majority of the Curt, made out hk case. As to the third, however, ^he cvi- ^nco is very conflicting. It is true that when calmly reviewing the occur- rence by the hglit of subsequent information, we are inclined to tWnk that no serious not existed at the time th* order was given ; but the qu^stioi, was not what was the true state of affairs »t the time, but whether a magistrate acting in excrcse of his discretion at a time of groat diflicuKy had reasonable grounds for- doing what l,e .dio Court, after mature deliberation 'have come to the conclusion that the rWendant cannot be said, in the course which he took, to have acted entirely- without cause. On the one hand, rtany most respectable citizens " have been brought up who state positively that there was no riot or tumult going on at the time; and an the other, an equal number have been examined ivl.6 state the ve^Jr reverse. Two In particular, namely, Mclver and Sharing, are very strong ,n thojf statements. They say that a serious riot was goin.. on^. . and that pistol-shots were fired in the crowd. ' Tlio policemen also say There i,,was a not, and there arc several others who depose to the" same effect. The evidence no 4oubt shows that immediately before the .eatling of the Riot Act a serious riot did take place, and the Court do not fed justified in saying that the responsibility for the consequences ofwhat foflowed shortly afterwards must' be fastened upon the Defendant lU certainly seems to have shown a , want of coohicss and self-possession, but we must remember that he was placed in a position of much difficulty. He had to tkoose between the responsibility of allowing {l,e hot to go on, ainl the responsibility of stopping it by forcible' measurcs^which. might be the .caase ,of bloodshed, 'n.ere is a difference 6f opimofi among the witnesses^ as to whfether the course which hu adopted was justified by the actual state of riffairs. The Defendant's portion was a most tr^^ng one, and the Court cannot say that he acted entirely without grounds Smith, J., said the position of the magistrate in this case was one of peculiar difficulty, and he was entitled- to cfaim the protection of the law when acting in the exercise of his discretron. Unless there couM bo "shown such an absolute want of discretion on his part as almost to amount to malice, the Court wi^uld not hold him responsible for the consequence* of what x^curred. The evidence ' on this point must bo ^strong and conclusive. But here there was a great contra'diction,80 that the 'effect of the evidence on one side was completely neutralized by that on the other. The Court could not put aside one portion of It, and look only to the other. TUey must take the' whole recoid as it came ' before theta, and the conclusi6n they had come tp was that the case was not aatisfactorilji riiade out against the Defendant. . ' » MoNDEtBT, J.^This was a case of such public import^ce Jhat he coiild nol^- let It pass without "saying a few words on the subject. Before proceeding to the merite of the question, he couTd not help expressing his opiniop that the / ..^-■M' -■ K .>'. '«"nd gaaon „ssep.b,cd therein, Z^^Vnl^^;:Zt:i7 ? '''''''' «"'^ ^•«^«- vered in which views were held dist JdfiMo .1 "'"' ''"' ^^"'"^ » And for his pari be considered Ij^ „lT f V"* ^P'"'""*^ ""^ P''«J»*««« fending themselves from uTatll l?"''^ T'''"' '"''«--« '^ d- all praise, and wo^,ld have hLnn^^^Z'-^'''''^ ^-^ d^erving o?. considering the present case then r ^,-' ^ '" '^'^''^"^ *''««« '^"^n- I" whom devolved ^be ::!;2b^ "'^ s^ tt^t' ''-' ''' ^"^-' «i- situation of pecuhar difficulty, for 2 m .K ?" "^^^ "''^ ^'"'^^ ''^^ sufficiently stringent measurS as w" u^^ ::;^'* -.ue.fron, .ot using cited cases which occurred in Fnc.]nZ 1 uT tt ^^^ng^nt. JJis Honor cularly the riots in ^^i^^^ff'^'^,''''':''' ^"'H ^^ more parti- .dentfirmncs.bee„^rwrlo^'b ir"^ "Jr '^^^^^^ ^«'^-ffi' " _would never Imve .beerbu'^nrntte ,'''""" ^*' "^""^ °' ^^-'"-"-t x-ith 0^,, and dirt. The ,"l"d frJ^TT'''^' '''' ^'^>«*>' ^^''^^ ■ ^"^<»'^inncuri„theviewi7^i-;«^^^n^^ ««3J^ that he ^i<, . que^tion, and ho thought th'Mhe lud be I 1. T "^ *''^ '^''''^ «^ ^^« " was ridu in the views he h^ Se^, ' *' P"!!! ««»«I"«Jvely th^t he ' .cnce. All the, witnesses' for Ibe PlaJnfff '"^ !t. ' ^ '"^ '*'''" oM- , "Fire! firel"■b^^when(^o^J"^ii^ f ™;*h«t f « Mayor called out , give the order,- batTsaTrC'n'^'r °^ "'«^>^-»y ^'^ tl.e.MaVor ■ who^ere ex,.;nined ^^t J^t^d ^V '"f ^"'^ ^'^U"*"- |ffwo«>ldi^ ther^ularmilita-ycotSc^SenisSo^^"' ^^ "^K'^tfrom, ' first «Att41rlion,»thei^'EG«wr»r.?'^^'--^^^^^^ , fire on bearing the word "Fire" Th« «#'■!. ' service, to j .Capt.bame4both swear p^livewt^^^^^lS ''^'- ^^^^^ ' given by s^jiy of the officers A^nltlKK °^- , "! - '^ ««°'™a"d ^'as , ti^oriy was impeacberin tfe. .!,'"' ^" '"^'^ ^'^'^ »'*"? «f ^h'« t««- ^ Ws duty, both a^TjudMai^Trif r r^^'"' ""'^ cpus^quently that it wW In goodU: flow thfn'w iSf'"' *" ^''•'^'^' *^^* «*" ^^' P^-^'- «-e . be'econX? On lioIL?.[ r'^'"^"""*^^'«''«"^ '" the evidence to '.. . Sb..testifi^ tLt *;«,;: d S 1^ :^T7"'"' ™jf -tlsfactoril^ ^ - * sdldier, live tb« milftarv wnr^ J- ^ ' *'''' ""^ P''?'''*^^ a disoWged Stevetigoti Wilson. :>- •■> iV .:^-- r- tilery ffafl Tifttbing oxn t>uhli- ^ t ot tbeir o^eiR, $nd it / ■.-• „ .-*• •:- , 't .;;:' O' ' i>- • ■ . - ^1 ^■^ /■ ■■. 260 SUPERIOR COURT, 1857. Stevonion vs. .* '•%.. -, .t 6) ..jf %<'> *• . :. •til -i . :<&:; t , r* ■■■■-■ 4f' would fully,' account for their having aworn that their officers gave the word of ^ command ; nttlte^sarae time it would also explain how th6 officers , could swear that tliey had givfen no such command. He did hot in the smallest degree wish to iihpngn the good faith of the Plaintiff's witnesses, amongst whom were to be found dome of our most respectable citizens. But it must be borne in mind, that at a time of such exciterh^nt nothing was easier than for them to mistake the voice of the Mayor, in the same manner m the soldiers had dorffi . that of their commanding officer, particidarly as none of them actually saw him give the word to fire. Again, as to the question whethcr'the Mayor would havo^f^n justified in ordering the troops to fire (although the evidence wa&v J yer^r^ conflicting as to whether there was a riot going oh flt the time or not), the wiUiesscs for th? defence, including the military bfficers a^tl all the policft, all ' j^Wear that a very serious riot was going on at tlie time, while the Plj^intirs 'HTI'ness^s deny the fact altogether. It nevertheless appeared in evidence^ which : was-het " (Jiprttradict^^ that a large body of men.frora Gviffirltown wertf in i\^' " act of com% up by^c American Church at tlio time the fatal volley y/h^ fired by wKicIl the Plaiijtiff was injured, and, as the'recorcT comes before ns, w^ had noiluiilg whatever' to do witli the volley 'i)iat*f as fired up the hill. Undfet these cfrcunnlstajices of the case, ought ihe 0uif «»tp hold the Mayor liable, even supposing that tlier^ was no rioting g.>ing on ih his immediate vicinity, merely because, in a ihomfent ofjintense excitement, h)i and tl\e other witnesses had not judged quite co;4ectly the position and distance of the rioters'? He thought > not. By taking this view of the question and this onfy, all the witnc8ses°7nfgbt ^ "be considered as havirtg deposed in the grealest gooil f^ith at the same time that they were s^veari9g to such manifest contradictions. For the reasons above ' stated, he had no hesitation in saying that the action must bo dismissed. ,.J/^.. < . ° -*^ ,i ■■' , Aption dismiasedl. 2)or»ian, for Plaintiff. i « >■ f '■ v Lorangfr, ,T. J. J.^ for Defendant. (P. W.T.&S.W.D.) » :P 3^ \ JttONTEEAt, i^APEILi 1868. V -. Gouldxi. The Mayor, Alifermm, and Citizens of the Oity of Montreal^ Hcld.^That a. party h^ai«rW!ia-^ln theOity of Montreal u&er a lease from OovemmLiitor iS!n"""V*2!:"7'*''' on certain conditions U an owner of sttch laua. witWn the meaning Of the Byc-Law-ef the Corporation imposing assessments on real property, ' ■, TJiis «as an action enrepitition, to recover back certain sums of money levied- from the plaintiff by cdmpMlsion for assessfeents, in respectof certain property occupied by Mm within the city limits, under a lease from the Provinoial govern: ment for 21 yeaji, renewable on certain. conditions. The plaintiff contended th^t as he heW the property merely under a Jease d longues a«n«'M, he wa. not the owner i^ 'M property. tWt Her Majesty, from whow he Iwld the rig^ to> <>ccupy the prppei^y, y a» in reality the ownei« thel-eof. aaj^tat riia \ma* iia^lf II .I W IIIBI H.! ■ .11 — ..— ^ I I ■!.. ..-.I ■ . !■ «l !■ .11 II. Ill ■^■■11 ,. ■ ■ ■■■■■■Il U, r ■ V ■sr. t ';*_«,'»»'■<" "•^ „ J '•■.■■:*. V .„■ ■#•'' '-.'^^ *'• ' f'^.' '.at) ;lio word of ioiild flwoar Itest degree vhoin were 9 borne in for them to s had don> jtually saw »yor woijild,. idunce wa»v )r not), the policft, all * Plaintiff's mce which: I rertf in tW 7 volley yfh^ fore 08, w*r IL ifndlK iabic, oven ty, mereiy cs had not e tboiigbt » sses°'njfg^t r, same time sons Above sed. smi^ /■* ' t ,^ V: '^. - ' 7 remmetit-jfor the meaniti); ney levied''' property il govern; jontended- e wa* fldt e right 'to> lan^ »teftlf ir«8 in no way liable to assessment Tf.«f „. #1 "^ " ' . ^ "— could only be legally •called Zn *o Jt * I ""' """"P""* "^ ^^« '«"'' ''« -, land waH bound ^ pay.rda L"l ' '' """'*'"'"*' '' ''" "''"'' '^ ""^ tion of the Recorder, whose iud'ln/^ f '^ ^'^ question of the jurisdi.- - ^^^ra.tpHn^^^.r'^^ "»d t« tHe ^ttlement of \ J^%«<^i-tLion,preseS^^J^^- ^f-;-CourU This ease % the Plai,.tirs -unseVne^saldem^ f ;X ; " '"T^'^"^''^ "'S^d ^th.ng more thana r.r.w.nce to tho./l! l7 ^«'o«o «xammation and some- 9n thrt iiccpu^, but because of Z '^f']TJ^'H!S^^«'^,ng''%t<>(i;e Plain?; LTs'^t^^^^^^^ *""> «»^ « ^^-^ " in 1847 certain lots of and ilTur ^ 1 .1 ""^ ^'"''''^- ^'^^^'^ '^'^t Machine Ga.al, wer« di^2 ^ byXHf ^ ''"''^ ^ *H''"- of the . under titl^- from them drawn i.. tt tl^^T "''r^ the Public Works, tease.'; They were so dispoL of ndo"!^^ ™: '"' !'''"^ " ^"^«"*"'^« «f , wh1bhWlu,rized those Crmiiel ^to T" , «^r:cou^e.ac<^„i.ed butTt S^, ,^ 'T" <^fM'h strean.s, and abo, to dispose ^j^««,e or'Iease of ai? hvl!^^ ' "'^ '''' ^"^'''' ^«*«. '^"^ of any pubjro w^i, but noH^o^^ld Z 'r ^'T ''''''^ ^^ '^' construction -and^ed for 2i:year:eZS t ^ ^tZ^I^; J^^-^^"^ ^^^"^^^ at t]u, option of the holder ~ but ocinZi I !. T ^''"'^^ ""^ continuance, . tBereon,tobepa.d foe at^he^r S;! ^r .^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^'^ ^-.d of th«r retenHof. by tim holder were rot avai^rf nf K . T *""' ^"°'''"S epmsly co„d,'liom«|,"th-at the buildi^^* T 1 f ^ ^"^ ^' ""^ "'*« further . tCla^softheerrvdoZ^Lt '^^^ Particulars to • ' taxe^of whatever-de^^trnZ ;,i1 , . -q«>-s shonld p.y all rates and W water^owers l^ZsfT^l't " P«y^ble in reject of the tete real ana pe^pnal pn^^Z' t citv 2^^ ?*^" "^ *^ ^'^^ a«#hich Th,' XL^r r''^«^ ^f «- P«^-g>f n.., Bye. . Plaintiff, and which I .rZ,nT^T "" ™*? "^^^ ^"^ P*''^ ^^ *he ' l^.ilding«rri,„estion,:i;irrt^,ltti;T; -^" "rr'^"^ *^"' ^w acknowledged limits of the Cit- Ta . ^ f ^ ™ *'^''«^' ""^ ^^''^'^ M ' -^^meu;, unless si^S-^elfS ' "' ^J'^n " '^'^''^ ««'^^" Plaintiff on t-ogro^^d X <*«-'»««W A » .T,„ ^ ® , • ^T'f.'^sm thealJegy leasehold »j«tnr#of the, wnL-S ;»q*^ the ^^«,„. »,^ ^^ being in lui^ft. i.. .i^ ^^ -"?"*P'"P*# Corporation o JVtoiitri'al.'' •_ I # "•<,j. af T"^" T'"g '^ (fu .•to t >« I j ■i'^v '-^r^r-r-'^r:'- '^- ■'' >■'■.' 1»' f ;7?4:/ ir * - * #..♦• 'w:-,. ■ J262 SUPERIOR COURT, 1858. ClovU V(t. •^s^. - V f^ ^ I 'J, sr«» '-4^ c,\-» •^ V •...,.: froni tlio Icgislfttrvo exemption of tli«> properly from the power of tlie Corpora- ''"ji::;jJi°.i'.'" i'°"' ""''«'• "»« P«»'^'»'«'» of ^ho exclusion of such property contained in the IncorjHiialion Act itself. It is neccssHry to investigate Loth oT these grounds and, firstly, the nature of the riaintirs titJ« to the property, and with it tlje quality of his estate in that projwrty, according to our hxw. This ^int will briefly bo touched upon, because it has l)oen In principle discussed anSeeltlcd in tlio cases above adverted to; and it will be only necessary to observe t4t the Indeitturo of Lease appears to have all thc'logal ch'aracterisrics and qualities of ihe BaU Umpkyleoligue, ana ycenaMyiA neiilwr the commoo mid ordinary Bail a %«• (lease from jW tt> year), not the \fifl,7 ihH^ei umka tht » certain torm of years agreed upon by the parties), l^it ditfers from both the ♦ter in this: Tbiit these latter convey ancl transfer "que le droit do jouir att _„.iieu qye; la Bail Efiiphy^iwlque transfer© art premier una prjwri^te, qui pour "Ptre tdsolublon'isR «H.pM fcoios melle." s{Noav. ht^im Emphythte^^ "!^. 1, patt 1.) estate is thus estaWij^hea as b^i»^ that of property a quality which »o legal authdrity before tlie Revolution in Fiance has impugned, aud since that timef only Merlin and Troplong, who have both been opposed by Dnvergier in his 3d volume, ^nd by Prndhon in his Bovihim de Propneti, and by other endnent mom tlia Conmjm- /nU.eUp,aee;,rEt;^l^^^^^^ : . / from the exclusion of nower of fl.«r.-^""*'"''^'^^''''^''«'M^^^^^^^^^ h^ --W.^0f Incorlron '^i^'^^^"'-" -"*«'"-! -'thin tl.c 02d Jdibn h " **»«P'>^l^=Sofoft^5«^ for improviBff and enlari^^n^ '^^ ^'T'^''^™ «^ o/ the LackZ cZ7coJ^r ^ *' "l^'^'" ««'^^'-«««rf« ««rf«- the direction .^ forins no part ofihe •harveaor slips of til I^ Li Sf ♦. S ' ^'"^'""^ tl.e «harve« an^ grounds under the dlt ion oMhl C \ r^' "•' ""^' P"'' '^ alf.sudi cases as ihi«^A.n,.n i .T^*?"®'';'"" <^f '»»« Canal Coinmissiorfers. Ih the excl»"ror t^^^^^^^^^ ,''1 ""^'''""* ''"^ ^^ '^'^^ ^oubt, and benefit at the pnbirZr T • ., '"'^ defined, being for an individual 1«51 could Lt llv Xd wfTV ^^ '^'"'"'^ °'*''« Act of Incorporation of tbo Harbour Oon^inLilrlt .t P '' ''"*''«"*^' «<•"'« T.i"ily Honsc, ■ contemplate by thJaX ^?;'„^^:rLr 1^ 'T"" ^f"' ^ aascseiaent claimed and n«W „. / '^"""^^^'^ "» conclusion, that the Upon thl ll i i t„n! ' ,''•'' '""'^' "''•"«'^' *'" ^''^ ">'"«. ^tore. etc. > Aetio.rdisS^'^V^r^^^V'^''''^--^^ J^fi^nry ^V«er; for Plaintiff. I ' " ./: if. /><./fe/jVr for Defenda^fc,*' ' *^ . ' ' ■^" (8. a.) . ' %, . " , ,' ■■■-'■.-. '■:• ■ ''-.-- I>AV, SM.T.T, and MowitU f Ovr^hS \ * """" °^ C'<''-'«or«r,; by Justices *m^t itr/ Gould ibr iSl Znl t!!l . '""".'' "^ ^"•^«^""' '" »••« R«'=«'der'a Court owned a«d oteupieSfS S^^'"'' °" T^'" "**"« """^ "'""^ P-P"ty Recorder-t Co Jhad L j«;fedrUartSJ'l^'°"u'''' "" "' P"'"^- !«'• That Z snba^que^ period TrcoS 1 "^' T. " '"'' '^-'*^ ^*« »«» P-"*^ until « made l^le^oito apiy .r'rn^^ «. authority of the Recorded Co„rtw«*^ JgrmS^Oiho hr-fnw. ^t.^ „. .L.T '* P^"'"^'"^ hoWevtf adverted in 8p^^ifl« 204 SUPE^IOn COURT, I83fl. I »' - ft i' - iir; r P- I OouW wi.hln tl^rulo ofprac.ce oftho Recorder-. Court. If It wo« »ot ao, howorer the Mo„.a.l. B..m..c..t .l,at the defcuduut .h..uld bo thoroughly Informed of the charge again, hTm V ;7l i "'", "'"'."^ "'" "«^'"'''"'- Co'Tt was unconstitutional, thU would bo ad- V r ed ,„ presently. 6th. That the property was not in theCi.^ of .Montreal, there wa« « I TiT , . ' T T- "'"• ''''"' " ''"''°"^''" '^ Govcrnnunt, and was not ta^ / ' ! . ■ rV, ." ""* "'"' '''"'"^'''^ ""'«" "^'''''"^ ""'«<' "»■ TM« "nconstilutlon- ' c! i T '° "' ''''\f\':>, "'•''"' '•'•""> '"« Corporation being.»ado the judgl, 1„ its own ' '■ ZcJ, ^."'■'""^''""" ''"^ »«» ''««=''l'' »» "« «wn case, for the Recorder, though pahj by the Cor or.u,„„, ,vas appo.nted by the Government, an.l had no greater Intcre t tma one o the Judges of the Superior Court, in the collection of the revenue. Hut as tj.e ponu lHulhoe„„..,sted on, it might be respectful to Counsel to say a word on it. n^ ' i! " hv rli .WH?'" 71 "T' '^' "" ''"'"" ''''' "^ ^^•"^'' "" -^"^-i-^^'y «•»« «"«hor; n^ct aw f^ ' "'t?'"'" '"»'''''"^*' Council and Legrslati.e AsHcmWy, to , ' aw \ I I ''"'' -- ''""■"''' """^ »"•"' government of the Province. These d" ect V or Tv , ' '■"rr'f '° ""^ """'^ '" ^"^ °"'" •"P"'*' ■*<" ''"^'"K rolHtioa . ^^^^^- • ^ ^1"^ T""'^ ""'""'"' '"""'''"^•"•=''' There^eroalsospecialprodilona'- ■ "''" 7'''-;;o "'^ Prerogauve, and « provision that Itfws affecting Crown ami Clergy and „ elf re of the Province. No court could declare that they were not so. Wi h re- and at hJ./TTV"""' '""■"« which he was to erect the buildin-fes upon It" and at the end of which, those building, were toNl^eome the property of the GovL' ment, „.. p„,„,„t , ,„„„^ „„,^^^ arrangements welvmade to continue the 1 asf aV"^ t :;.TtTr.' r;;rr'"*'"r' ^''^' ^'•"^^ ^"^e''***- constituted ^opert aLT/ /""''''"'• ^'■'^>'^"'"""ror indeed, in supposing tlmt either a *«.. d /o„,„„ ««„..,, or a hail c,nphy,Soli,ue carrM lods et . n^, a„d tli^y I ad read with utte„t.on the very beautiful argument of Me«un in the W^'o-e to prole hat ^ 1 ^^.^e;;.""^''''''''■"^'■''""'°"*''^"''*-"•^^^^^^^ ButM^JZi ed; :^^ that nil the authont.es were against him on this main point, though '.hey differed about X sttch eases carryingw,,, ,,„,„. T„o.4o.v<, on £o«a£ summed .fp Sll tLsi;^^^^^^^^^^^ and the authors he referred to woi.ld be found in a n'ote to 2tfd>.48/.Therc.vHL^^^^^^ -. . .- t w as ihat the les*.e ,vas not allowed to sublet, and the author^ agreed that, in tl^at ■ , ease, there was no domarne utile. But in' truth this di«=a^sion.did ^oT coiSe 'up for 5^ ^ Te iTto r G:ul^'^ """"*''' '"'^' '^"^ °" thoIildi„gs,lhi<;. undirtel!^ bdonged to Mr. Gould, as he was to get paid for them at the end of the W, if he ,^^^ ^vaniumself of the condition allowing of thiir retention. The judgment ihichM^- . • ^ «l^*»^thagreatdealofskill,andcovetedtJfcwUcrteLe,m.«tieSainS!r > ' \/Jose 4- JIfon/c, Attorjieys for Ira Gould. „ ' / \» //i*" Pei/e«er, Att<)rne>-fbr Corporatiot^ '^V ^ >£';;. ■ (B.B.). / ., r \- :■ , '„ I: iupetio r A similar judgmeht was also rendered by the SufeW Court, Montreal, composed of M. M. Day, \anfelson end C. Mondelt, Justices, on the 18th October, "l854, A Ez ^ ^^' J; «P;^^* «««»'^'^P f'*>i' t^e aecorder'8 Court, which had.condemn. f "!" defenAfltto pojfiCity Ta^-s uind Assessments on two byd*raulic lots at the '«."* • ^ST • • • " .r. * % • . fr ■ ^;:\-'- ■■'.§,- 8Ul»Eltroil COFRT, 18fl*. .,%:■ y^ V: it him nojus <; re. and t,.; n' 'IJf^'' ™..?.* 'Srt'"'*M »»-'« "'Work., which «« Uxalfon ; .coondly, because und.'i|L„ro^T',^ '"^ f^-^Pt f'^W . U.l. P«r.icul«r property w«h e«m^Zi?liri^il„7r"' '"" "'"'^^^^ ""''' The fi«t of ihcHe poi„t«, urged by iClZSTi^^""^ """" '"" ^'"'P»"'"»°- decided by the Court in the case of Ira fS 7 '"'''"'"' «"•", J»ad already b«,o ■ ckse w«/„ot« common t//Tutpm^^^^^^ n.«rore .he lessee J.ulmt E citt LS tlltT "'*"" *r'""^'^'^'' ''"^ the land than the do,naine direcU aldZ^^l^' "T""' '"*' "" '*"'" "«"* «■» I«.sec, that in consequence thet le 1 li bh^for aM T ""%""'"•' "'"^"""'^'^ '''''' tAenoMt of the operation of .ein„reev '/?,'' ""' ?.'''^'"' '"^'" ^^■^'' ""^-''^ ed that pi^ppcrty belongiuR to Her ^51^.7 , L ""''•' ""''^ ''''''> ^^'''ch^nact- ^|.«n held .hat the laud und r ousSl r 1 ? ^ '''"''"' '"^ '"*''""«• ^"o ^'°«' come the property of the Lssee slfc .1 "'■ '"""'^ *" H«f1*^i«Hy^>d be. ^^ The Court had g^e o" r the tse!2„ ! """""" "' '"' ''•'•"" '" ""' f-««^ -^ waa close, able, and cor ect Tut Til r T^^"*^"' "' "'" '"'' '" "* P'"*"-'"* -«« their decision. ' '^° "'"'' °^ ""! "«^ cxamlnaiion was «ot to change ^^^r'rt:::^7:.t:^^[rt """^^'^^ ^ -"'^'' »^° ^"-'^- .ec. thirteen, it was in Hubs.anc e I eV haraTrdr "f "■'^•^' '="^- "•^"^-^«^*'""' courses acquired for the ttsc of the pr.!.\t I t'""'''' "*' P'°«'«''^J^ Streams or water be dUposcd of under Canettnof^^^' . powers as were createX I Zlctl!?"";''! ."^"r' '' ""^ "" «"'=" "^'^-'^'<' « Works, might be4-5po3dd of IdT In "'^''"^^"'^''«'- ^.'^•k, not required for I>ubH« posed,;here used aJS"! aU in tano''"" """.•""' '^ *'^"' ^^^ "'''^''- ■ "^''^ "■'-» " J- it musi be taken as equivalent to Hal T 7'^'°'^'*''« '^'^'H') «•»»» year to year, and to te.t the Commis^o J;Ti:b^^ J ; iSlZT^h'^'"'^'"' ^^'^'""^ -"^ case, one made in Sej,tomber one tli ,1 !, i hm^ T ^i ' ''"° "*""''" ^""^'^ '" "^« in January, one thousand el^ "hundrS^ h' '"'' '■'"■'^'■"'"•'' ''' "'"" "-^^^ other of land and water Thl llTTi ? !^ '' "" "'M'l'"^ ?» '^'> <^<^n«l, th» a«dw.forthe;":j;d!?;:;^^^^^^^^ thousand eight hundred «n ^o^Vs^'l dTatVycb h^' ft TZT''" ''"'' """ lie Auc.ion. This bore out the vie,, of 1 C ' t n ' ». ^"' "'"'^ "'" ''""' "' ''"'^ ° 8al^ TBe deed then went on to slv that M „^'^'V** ^'"' contract in question was a -Tthe ^nd might be renew^ at^L rat TT' """" '"' '"^"'^-""« y^"*^ *°'•»«•■ l^ses for another perTod of Hands of,,the'.To;n::,rc:;irnv^ 'com \lkar''?f -' '" "^' ^''^^''' '^"'^ *^« ther stipulated that buildlng/aS be ereld Til T ' P°^^«««'°»- " -»^ fur- ^posed byjhe city should beVdTthXr^^^ '''^°' ^''^^ »\^-- -- to all the-r.gulations that the city Ltl.r I^i^t mpo^ 'IT? t"'^^^ r^'""' Intentions of tl.e parties had hnnn * „n-i .. "upoSe. All thi» showed what the and had no hesitation in savinir th«t'fl,ia» V J compelled to^dhere to its. old vipw, tbey^rtook of and werSe":,^^^^^^^^^^ ' were an alienation of the do.aine utile, whi^ pS the 1 eel"' ^I^^Jt''"''' '"' an EmphyUolique or holder by baU d rente W"^ P"''""" "^ Oould VH, Corporation of Montn gav9 MontrML, 'tl'- "-"';*'>.: *- .•■■;>•-,. . authors m an unqualified manner. Some called such BaU f rente. Authorities ; N.Weau Denisart. Verblk pcuvent 6tre ad dessbus tfe neu^f ans. n.aU n. „, , ..^ ■ y^— *t — - r^ Ini7 Emphyliotique,somis 28, q. 1. "Baiix [cdar 8u tumpg ■ ftutujmg nr ;_, ^._-i^...,^. rUIS; nl,„ Dullo., Diet. l^u.g!^ElZZ UqurNo, 5. 38, 3ff, ,0, 44, M. Same auth..r ; Supph-mont, No.. 2, O) 10 '^ ' . tl.„ ; !i" ''!":""*'""*•'• ""' ^""^^ entertained no doubt that the lea.e gare the Ie«.eo ^ *°^^""';;'*=''''77''«'7''« topajr. Secondly, it WM contended for tl^o " 7fr, T^n '* ""•' '" ""'■ '"•*P- '28, .CO. 03, the land wa. Ulcon out of ho , JurBdictionofthe Corporation. The word, were a. follow. :-" That nothing In thl Act .hall extend or be con.trued, ta extend, lo reroke, alter, abridge, or In any manner am,c the power, and authority nowAy law ve.ted, or which may he;eaaer bo'^e" ed i« the Master. Deputy Master, and War4„ of the Trlnityllou.e of Montreal, ^ In the Com" missioner. appointed or to bo appointed for the execution. of any act noW in force " hereafter to bt in force, relating to the improvement and enlargement of the n^^r of Montreal, or any of them, or in the OommisBioner. appointed, or to bo appVinTeV f^r n.ak.ng, superintending, repairing and Improving'the U,hino Canal, nor to tie wharves and Blips erected or to be erected by the first mentioned Oommii„oners. nor ^ Z ar" and ground, under the direction-of the said last mentioned Commissioners. pTorided , ahvays th«t tho said Oorporationof the City of MontVeal .hall have powe" .0 often a. he same may bo requislK to open «„y drain leading fVom the .aid cify To the Rirer St anTl"::::!?!'!;::! r!'^!'"'^^^ ^"^«« °^ *•'«.-"' •^"^"> »"« -i^tenanc of peace ^ '■m and good' order ,• rendezvous for clause, givin took h\l othi, , the Bo^d of former case, a good T laW wharves, and to appoint and designate .ti^nd. or place, of carria^s th" . - '/. ) 1 7 . -.•.■»■ ^^ ' (1) ' "' Biembei notdeif 1 r ■* — : »— — — ; — * • ' i i ' ' t *■ - ■ ;. ,■ - '\ ■- ■..■[:' \ -: :■, .'"i.-.: ;. \ V-::." mr OF QUEBN's b: '#■■ r^ , PROM tIb district OE MONTRHlixi^ ^* "OfTMAL. UT MARCH. IM4 I :..w , No. Ill _ jk«t .. i., MfciIONt AKf MARHIACIB OF MWOB. ^^ - _______ 1» y«»™. d,ugl,tor oiIaZZ, ^. Tr"° *'»'? B»"l'»l»<. ".i""; agod Berlholo ..Ifuirc Ph Aitr^ ,P^\ u- '" '"""'"«° "'"' * '»'« ''W"™ " «.. Apr.,,.,., .li^twi °i;r.r« "'"T""""' "'° ""''•"'°' ■* , of ll,» »„,] .n ' »r l«'« th? lua imgrtfet asi Jef pare n t a coul d- ,0- • ■>- . * .• « ^- I ■ '^ J ■f .it-. A- N • * I" . . ■ '■.'.■■ V'. ■'' ■ -■ • ■ - ■ ■ . * • . ■ * •1 \ 1 * • / * 1 * * ,-■■'..■,* *: ■ ' l\ * 1 / • ' ■■;- '' ■■ '■■^ ■ ■ -" . ''■■■ ' ^ ■ - ' * . ' ; ■ ■ ■■■:■'■■_■ ".''. " • , ■ ■ .■■.*> ■.-' ". / ' • . ■ . ■■■■■ ' ' .i* ■,-■'*■ — --— - -'- ■ ■' : ;-':' ■■■■■■ ■,.; ,,'"■■'■ ■*■ " " ". ■ r'"- ■ ■ , ■ ' ■ ■'' . / ■-■■ r.-u .* ..-; *, .. ' ^ h f"1, m ,' II 1' ,1 f --rfti; % •luit^^tt, ^^ f\ %• -4," -. -«#<• ^5 ■» (■ . . / ' , 1 «• * ; ■ . '• ■!■ , -'^ *^ / tf \ V / 1 - " « , w k ° , J \' ".' *' ■' M HH HH ■ ■ ii ■■ ■ ■ ■ ' V >%' ^M* > ■* « . f ..^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^ 1.0 I.I 11.25 us 122 |2.2 ^ 1)4 "■■ •ii a^fi ""120 IE U l».'6 % s .<^ ^ C; ^^2^ ^.<» Sciences ion 23 WfST MAIN STtilT WEBSTER, N.Y. UStO ( 716.) 172.4303 .'* t:^*. «' '»': ^0 ..-■a*' « -♦ . .-/ , Y^~ ^«^. • i; -.«» *»' ■. -^ "■«--^ ..^a^-=^: .3 *'"^ - ■** •?y •■«> 268 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1858. Larocqu rn. Michon. • «»« II:' Au mois d'Octobre 1866, le D6fcndenr Intiiii* rem^lissait W fonctions de curd^Uns la paroisse de St Jean-Baptisle de Roxton. Du premier mnrianre do I'Appelante avec Icf docteur Isidore Bertlielot Ront n6e8 deux filler, dont I'une ddji mari6e demciirait k la m6me 6poqne h, Roxton avec son mari. Sa jeune soBur alia la visiter avec la permission de leur m^re • qui a son domicile k Montr6al ; ct il y avait a peine uu mois qu'ello 6tait arrivde k Roxton lorsqu'felle y djjousa lo notaire Amable Archaml>oauU, qui, aprcs un long stjonr aux Etats-Unis, n'6tait lui-miimo arriv6 k Roxton que depuis un mojs ou deux sans autre moycn de subsistance que ice que rexercice de sa pro- fession aurait pu lui procurer ; ce qui, soit dit en passant, ne U" promettait pas uiNvenir brillant k Roxton, puisqu'il paralt que peu de temps aprSa son mariago il quitta cette paroisse p^jnik allcr s'Atablir aillcurs. Ce mariage a dt6 c6l^br6 k Roxton par I'lntimd le 12 Octobro 1855. Madame Archambeault avait alors k peine quinze ans, 6tant n6 le 23 Octobre 1840^ (ft elle avait pour tuteur son oncle materncl, M. Louis Isaac Larocque. • L'Appelante pretend que rintim6 a c6l6br6 le friariage de son enfant sans son autorisation, sans m6me cello du tuteur, que par ik le cur6 a m6connu et m6pris6 I'autoritfi de la mere sur son enfant : et quo, dan's les circonstance8,^il est passible, pour I'injure qu'il lui a ainsi faille, des dommages-intirets qu'elle r^cfome de lui parson action, < Voici le plaidoyer 6crit de Tlntimi : ' - •' Le Defendeur niant toutes et cbacuno fcs allegations con'tenues en la d6cla- " ration des dits Demandeur^ dit, pour ddfense & cette action qu'il n'a caus^ " aucun dommage aux D^mandeurs ; qu'if n'est point coupable en la' maniere « et forme portees en la Site declaration, et qu'en c616brant le mariage^dont il ," est question en cette cause, le Def«ndeur n'a fait que suivre les instructions " de ses Sup^rieurs Eccl6siastiquc3 et que lea Deraandeurs ne peuvent exercer " la prosente action centre le D6fendeur." Les Demandeurs ont ripliqui que le D6fendeur «♦ n'est pas receyiable k invo- " quer comme justification de la c616bration du mariage en question les ins- " tructions de ses Sup^rieurs Ecclisiastiques." A I'Enqufete le D6fendeur a produit une admission que lui a donn^e I'autre ..partie k I'effet suivant, "que le mariage dont il est question ea cette cause a «♦ 6te c6lfebr6 avec le conseotement et autorisation et instruction deMonseigneur « Prince, Evfeque du Diocese de St. Hyacinthe, dans les limites duquelle dit " mariage a 6t6 c6l6br6; quo le dit Ev^que avait accord6 dispense de publick- " tion de bans pour la c616bration du dit mariage ; que le P6fendeur est un " njissionnaire et reraplissait lors de la cel6bration du mariage les fonctions de " cur*, au dit lieu de Rqxton oii fut c616br6 le mariage." Le Jugement du^30 Avril 1857, dont est appel, n'est pas motiv6; il y est seulement dit que Taction est d6bout6e faute de preuve. Les parties d6clarent n^anmoins dans leurs/oc^un^s que l!a raison du d6bou^ de Taction, donn6e' »»Va wocc par la Cour, a 6t6 que "semblable action n'existe pas en loi avant d'avoirfait prononcer la nullit6'du mariage." En plaidant en appel, I'avocat de I'lntime a admis qu'en pareil ca», le consen tement des parents 6tait n^cessaire, et qu'il y aurait qu lieu de declarer le ma riage nul, si cette nuUitS avait 6t6 demand^e. f COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1858. es fonctions de 289 »iZrl' "" T '' '"'''•*''^" '" '"""««« ^«'»'fi« q"'«"« *taH a o^tlhri'; '^"'"^^'' A I'appul de la domande. sont clairement 6tabH,. Lo curd a c6I6br6 lo manage d'dne fille mineure sans I'autAisatlon de sa u.6™ L^t vc^j. obtcnu colle du tute^r. II y aurait en une cp^ce dWuse de la o^duite deII„t.n,6s'.Iav«,tproc6d6avec le conscntement de ce dernier, ben n^ !^f:;^eri^^^^^^^^^ Tarm^nconiratde manage, So. 333: "Lorsqu'un mineur n'a ni p6,^ ni cur2« T '""^''^T"''- PT ------ '« consentement de son tuteuZ curatour. Lo cur6 ne do.t pas le marier sans que k mineur Jui ait fait apparoir - tuteurs et curfteurs .e. n.eessai. qu;io,^:^:'^ .^r:::^! nu'elle au'laLtr" ?"f ''"*"" f' ''^PP^J-t^Proc^dait valablement et lefe s^^^^^^^^^^ '' ^"'"""' deVemi^re instance.- Dans le fait 8 «l de la c616bra.ion du manage sans I'autorJsation de la m6re il v a eu ca ion et de dinger sa conduite ju8qu>4 son kgo de maiorit6 Pour „n f!l eimere. lit c est neanmoins ce ou' a fait tl « AtA „j • ,., . r*""* ainsi d'apr^s lea instructions de sol LquTLlain 'iT^f"? ^^^ 1 rT'l f pas produit ces instructions, me porte kZo^^^Z'^J^ V^^" 1 "'""* " * sens ou leur Dort6e. >«« ?ftat« *• , ^ * **^ ^ m^prendre sur leur wur poriee. oes mstructions n'ont pas on nllflr in<>/,.,*& i» * • « proc6der ^ la celebration du maria^e de Mm« A t f ^ ,^ *''***"'*' ^ lArooqm. Vi. Uiobon. I i I ! f J. * • .s: =■-■;•■*. -^ . A ^70 \ COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1868. Uiwqua 1 1 Montreal, dans lequel iftait lo domicile de la miiieurd ; ce domicile etant celui de 8a more. Ces deux dispenses eAssont-ellcs 6t6 obtenucs, il fallait encpre lo conscntemont do TAppclanto pour justiflor I'liilimd. II n'y a pas do douto que co mariage oftt pu 6tro d6clard nul si cotto nullito *. . eAt 6t6 4emand6e par la m6re. Lo Consoil Sup6riour de Qu6beo nous a laissd surla mati^ro un ariot du 12 juin 1741, rappdrt6 par M. Perrault dans sea Extraits, p. 40, (1) relativemont au mimago du bieur de Roiivillo, mineur, y quoique c616br6 apres dispense dea trois bans accordie par le vicaire g6n6ral du diocese, lequel arrt't dit : " qu'il a 6td mal, nullcmtint 'et abusivoment pro- c6d6 et «61dbr6, d6clare le dit mariage non valabloraent contract6retc." Duval, J. This cause may, with truth, be said to be one of an unprecedented character. When we bear in mind that the Catholic Priest holds marriage lo . be a Sacriment and the nuptial tio indissoluWo, the secret marriage of a young girl of the tender age of 15 yehrs at nine o'clock at night, without the slightest intimation to her parents, residing within a short distance of the Parish whore the marriage is celebrated, must necessarily create suspicions of a very grave nature. I cannot believe the Defendant acted in good faith. He mu6t have known apd did know he was acting \k violation of the laws of the Church as well as the laws of the State ; these are elemontary truths which no priest can possibly ignore. By the laws of the Church he exposed himself to interdiction ; by the laws of the State to proceedings of a very serious nature. It is to be regretted that the dispensation granted by the Bishop has not beten fyled. ' By it we would have been infonned for wJia.t causes it was granted. We might' then have asked who certified the truth of the causes assigned i Was.lhe Priest - a stranger to this certificate ? '\ ■ , We have been told that the actfon was dismissed on the ground that the ^ marriage had not been yet declared nujl, and that until this wasTtone no action could be inaintaiiied against the priesgMjklnnnot assent fo such a doctrine. No law has been, referred to ; no auth()^|Hd in its support. 'To require the mother to tak^Vj^rpceedings to have tVef injiWage declared null would be to add to the injury she has already sustained Snd might cause the ruin of her child. The damages are*" smaller than I should have wishfcd to have given ; but I believe ^this is of little m<«g|entias the Defendant is a missionary from whom the Plaintiff is not likely t^ recover mnch. ^ I omitted to mention as an additional consideration in the cause, that neither - of the contracting parties belong to the Parish of the Defendant. ' In myopinion, the matter ought to be further investigated by the Ecclesiasti- ' cal authorities.,' . .' ' Caron, J. ,ta conduite de I'lntimg me paratt d'aprSs la preuve aussi extra- ordinaire que regrettable. II est diflicilo de s'expliquer les motifs qu'il ponvait avoir en agissant, comttie il I'a fait : la production do la dispense de l'Ev6que auraitpu Jeter quelque jour sur ce point, mais du oonsentement des parties, cette dispense n'a pas 6td produite, non plus que la demande qui en a ^t6 faite. Telle que la cause so pr6sente, le cur6 en c616brant le mariage de la fille mi- neure de I'Ap pelante clandestinement et sans son ^onsentemeHt a enfreint les I '' 1 — '■ z — '-^ ■i (1) Ftcfe page 273 for this ./frr^. i\'^. ...h. ■;■ •) , COTJRrOF 'QUEEN'8 BENCH, 1848. 271 !'" ^"''^^''•''t'q"'" auwi bien que k^ifoh civile,. II .erait preHoue cJfisirablo ou"o Ion pfit «u,,powr qu'il ignorait les loia, il serait k mc ZxmJlZn^ M mah cetto supposition m6me est impoJible. ' * ""^ y*" "'""'» «°"P''«''«' , IMusieurs des pretentions de rintia,6 paraissent mal plac6e«^ dan, la bouche .lentendsemettreAcouvertde la responsabili.i de 4on acte, en SJan^wn quelque grave et p6nib!e qu'elle soit. Quel est eh effet ll nTL ^ ! mCme dans I'iottrSl ,1« U., (in. i . "^.'f P"""" Prtfojjlai*- tonjonrs, Pl«t6t que ^^^^^^^:^ -«'«- po^r un remade au mal quLleur a ^6 faiJ! ^"^'^'^"'.'r®^"^" ?*>" «I>- • dcvoi^etrn lit L ' }V" !" ''""''^"^ '' "'•"^''^ ^"'' «» -'«'«'»* «o» vra resterLTunTe n! T' T ' ''"^ * '""P^* *^"« ^'^'^'^'^ »*<^»it*, de- . Wire. po„, fZZlrr kmi"* """f^ '>"'"'?*• P* <"« '»"«l"»-»». ^r. . avait eprouv6, tandis auo !« jy^f.nA maeranit* 6gale au doinmage qJMb' babahte. Je n'aurais pas Msit4> les porter m^ 4 la somme de ^0^ Michon. 0. ■I -:h 't 4«« ■'^^ -u^ . -^ '1.' X 272 COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCIf, 1858. Larocque VI. Micbon. I . I„. BmiiiM 1 ■•K j'avais cru que Ie» moy^ni du D6fondenr lui eft«8ent permis '"' '^S'^t^ apporWs lor. de la c/wbraion dlTrL^^^ ""l ' °" "'"''^"" ■»«>"* *"9^««. »«ont contractants de d«ch^anp«\i« ♦„„. i "^ . 'e^fireirce de. cas, et A peine contra les demariagerautraafr. I2ed " ^ T,'* "°""~'"""' P-'t^- P« 1« contrat ,,lf ■f ' m ii^u \ "S*." ?»-■ «%■ Li nt iU ■.;i*||",*% ". , SUPERIOR COURT, 1838. i>" MONTRBAL, SOn APRIL, 1BB«. Coram Mo*d»lit, (C), J. ; Ryland.v Oitell. ^ Dkuurkir. "" 'tiiTirnnlllllTj'^'l!* '" *''• nomln.tlon or .ppolntmont of the dlm^on, ol . IUlIw« Con,. P»ny. InooironOeU under » .pe,l«l ch.rter. or In th,, ymo of holUI«» lU nwt oiiooth , wiu ^ . dUclurgo th. U.blUt, of the .h.roholdo«. under the U .nd IS VIo.. «p! M. ko. JT . This was ikn action brongl.t by the ee»»ionnaire of a creditor of the Montreal and Bytown Railway Company, aprain>.t ono of tho stockholders of tho Company, under the Railway clanaea consolidation Act (14 and 18 Vic, cap. 61, sec. 10), for the amount unpaid of his stock. The declaration sqt out the cause of in- debtedness, that judgment had been obtained against the Company by Plaintiff-a. tidant, and that execution had been issued and been returned unsatisfied. Tho Defendant after adraitting.q,at he was a stockhoKler, and tliat the Company was incorporated by Act of Parlh^ment, pleaded : Istly. That tho original moetinir of shnreholdcrs had Mn.oj4l6d before a fifth of tho stock had been subscribed, iw required by law ; thaithi diVeCtors named were therefore not directors, and had no right to contract with Plaintiff or his ddant ; that defendant had a right to set up . this want of consideration, and moreover that this premature organization of the Company was done by the directors in fraud of the shareholders. 2ndly. De- " fendant pleaded the«amo matter^^^but said that the fifth part of the stock «as not subscribed, because the stock which stood in the name of the Corpora- tion of .^he City of Montreal had been illegally subscribed for. PlAintiff met these two pleas by Demurrers. : Rams^m support said that if there was fraud it was not alleged th{tt Plain- tiff or his cidantyfere parties to it, tUt the cause of indebtedness could not be inquired mto by Defendant, that it was chose jugie between the Plaintiff and the Company, for whose debts Defendant was liable to the amount unpaid of his stock. ". ^ , Rohertsm for Defendant contended "th»tfkwholo acts of the directors who bad not complied with the requirements of the law were void, and did not bind , the Company. " ^nua^.—Th^ cases referred to on the part of thb Defendant applied 'solely to Corporations created under general Acts of Incorporation, and the very^^Jst-"' ence of which depended upqn the performance of some condition preced^L which must be fulfilled to the letter. MoNDELET (C), J., maintained the Demurrers, and said that the irregularities invoked by the Defendant could not affect the rights of Plaintiff to obtain his judgment against Defendant _ -^ _ ,\^, Demurrer maintained. T. K. RavMay^ for Plaintiff. ^ ; -/4. en subscribed, as !ctor8,antJhadno i a tight to set up ^nization of the in. 2fldly. De- )f the Btofik Was of the Corpora- oged th{tt Plain- ess coiild not b0 he Plaintiff and nt unpaid of his directors who nd did not bind It applied'splely^ 1 tlie veryli^iigt-' itibn preced^t, be irregularities iff to obtain his r maintained. MONTRBAL. I»ra APEII^ Mat. Coram Badoht.J. No. UW. H«ldthati ^"'f'>VVi. Jphniion. * wnption to the " Argus" newspaper "''"'"y ^^ -t^^ 10s, three yean ,ub. ^f^zi:^:t priun:"tr,:rc«c b'^ ^'^^ ^^« ^-p-' - JP-.rfhedidnot.i.h,hep^er;;::Ct:^^ notified through his agent, tho carrie 1 to 1 7''""' '^' ^'«'-«t'ff was than HufBcient. BesiL, the paper II 1 "' u' ^^'-^^i<^i^ «« more £ad,ku, J.~-rhe PlaintiffTenttlcd i" '' ^T """* *'''''«"t an order. Bubsc\iption.aUhoughitm fs r a^fo^''^^^^^^ '" *"^ ^•''"""'d « ^^al ordered, still itl ««« the du y rfThe Defet 7 " ^"^ .^'' " ^'^^ »>« ^^ "ot Office .Wndgment for £3 iL *"* *" """'^ '^' Plaintiff at hi. ||«mVr />or.on rfj 2>om«, for Plaintiff. ■tf. Z. ^nowrfon, for Defendant. < (H. L, 8.) 1 CIRCUIT OOtTRT MONTEBAL. UTH. MAT. isas! , Coram C. M o n d^k i, e x ^ ^ ' No. 1468. * Held that delivery of a Nmrinanor at th„ .. ^' »« Haintilft were prop,i<,t„„ „, ^ C»».»._-T.T"'*''*°' """»«'»• of P'oof. ^ *^*^ "** •<'^o° must be dismiwed for want ^rowne,{6r^hint\ff. \ \^ .: * ^'•n, for Defendant Action dismissed. >D il :i 4' •J ' I , r %^.i! •» I || ■; t ■ 9^8 BU?ERIOR COUKT, 1888. M' MONTRKAL,MTlI MAY, IHM. Coram Smith, J. No.Ut. Jfall, VII. Douglat and MeDougaU, tl at, Adjudicalairtt, Hold, that where oil Ibn ftwtof tli« procw)dln|i» th«< ailJHdinttairt* aw non-niUlpiiln In Ixwnr CmimI*. but h«vo iiald thn capital of Ihulr piinijiaM, % rule totfutU *itehtr*, fkiuiiaiHl on • claim fbr inUreit on •u«h raplUI, and aorvod on tlio " Affunt and Attorney at law" of tho a4J>Ktieat6tof a proeit verbal ^ eaMe, for a ipoolfied d»y of the month, witboui mention of the year, U null, although luch proeie verbal bo fUlly and correctly dated. This was an opposition djin d'annuUer fyled by the defendant to a taitie mo- biliire on the grounl^/tbat the taitie was null, there being no sufficient election of domicile by the seizing Bailiff, and no sufficient notice of sale. The ele<5,tion of dbmicile in the procis' verbal was'simply in the Parish of St. Rocb, and the notite6 of salo wriUcn at the foot of the ;)roc^» verbal which wm fully and correctly dated, was to the effect that the sale would take place on a particular day in' May, without any mefllion being made of the year. '^%4r. .V V f flUPERIOR COURT, 1888. A '' 277 «.i-n,.tn'a,..,U«„.ot,.: l;Vl;;;j^^ -» nul<, .tl«„.,ft ,,.e ,,„„,., ct '^ *<> have been corrected longaince^d noUef till hA T^''' ""^ «"«''^ »<> B.xn.KK for Defendant co tIndeS ^ ^0110^^? tP '" '""' ''-"■''^• good conduct was no excuse in the p^lnt cl jT ^ ''"SP'"*' '^^ ""'f-- to Defendant's store after seven in the eTen7„rh»;i 1 '''^"' *^ *'**"'« ^'^^ ««7. there might have been a sC of u iro^n L ^J KZ'' '"^ *" "•"•«-- ^ proved here that in consequence of i . . ''""*'^? ''^«' ^.ut it was ^ s w "uea 10 one single occasion, «nd the MartfL : ;i !t: tfi. f !'• / 878 ||; llMtta Mortand. S-. :i:i 4l-«4. « prevloin unltofm gbod whuIimsI of ihi PWotHT bdny tttaWUh*! Uyon.l. t Defondant. ilONTBRAIi. twrn. HAY, tawk Coram Day, J. " , ' No. IM. . « Lamothe v». Bo$i ., on a .poeial mortgage, granted by the Defendant in their favor, and" duly cnrcgi«t§rcd, and of the CollocaUon predicated thereon in llie ttisport of Distribution, prepared by the Prothonotary. The contestation waa fylcd by the opposanU Roj»et al. surviving execnton of tho last will and testament of the late Joseph Bo8^ of whioh the Defendant had boon nlso^an executor, on tlio ground that the Defendant m such executor %« indebted to Mr. Ross' estate in thfi sum of £8000 cy. and Interest, as a reliquat d'e compte, and that by, reason of the enregistration of the ^ill, at a date anterior to \lie execution and enregistration of tho Trust and Loan Co.'8 m*tgnge,tho estate had acquired a KypothiqU on the'Defenda-Jifs property, •upcrior in rank and prior to that of tfee Company. - . Day J., (aft^r staling facts) tho poin'i of law involved in the present contesU- tionls whether the will of tho tcstator.or its . registration created a mortgage on the testator's properly. This point, was long since determined in the negative, jn tlie case of Dhvid and Hay^ 3 L. C. Law Reports, p. 440, and in tho case of Weokes'and Pothier therein cited. It was there held that it is only by acccp- (ance of Office, by some acte authentiqutyiYifA the exectttor'a property can be hypothecated, and as I still adhere to the opinion then oxpreaaed. I must dismiss tho opposant'a contestation.* • - Conte.t.tion dismissed/ iJ J . (SB) *" '.• Reporter's l*ote. As tho will In the ease now reported bears date In 1850, oonW anv hvpothlque subsist on the executor's properly, evea nnderrlace.eh party who wa. hi. da.g^^^^^^ contained in the .pecul answer can be divided, I cleariy think it cannoL An.1 T theroforeglvt, judgment for the Plaintiff.* \ . ^ *• '"'*^ J earlier 4, Berthelot, for Plaintiff. Judgment for Plaintiff.. ' CAwnVr Donon rf- Dorion, for Dpfendant /. - ' I vm''d '"•" S"",** ""^ Plaintiff, 10 Toallte; ch. «. 8. 47 1 Vol, Rarue do Leg. year 1840. P. 18. •••"••• KONTEBAL. ITth MARCH. IBM. ' j"^ ."^ C'oramMoNDBi.iT,(C)J. HMHM .v Kemp^^Kemp, •W». Md who n«8lected to open the^oor on boiag aUled on bv tKnw^^ vl«ib tatom, theouU -• ' , • Coram Smith, J. - * No. IM,! - ^ - - , MtOratK vt. Zfoyc/ .* A«M «| a/, oppokanl: TI.I. ^a« a riuU |,y «„ oppownl dy% ,/. ,/„/rai>» on tlie Plaintiff In th« M. .win, H..d. :-It I. ordere^l. thai ihe Plaintiff be hehl to ^nVet !' !p!^. .^J M« . '? <► 280 SUPERIOR COURT, 1858. J . Kemp KAmp, « |i: 'i^r:./ %' ■CM-" J MoNDBLET, (C.) J.-^Tbis is an inscription en faux fyled by the t>Qfendant to the Shcrittlfl return to a writ of Execution, on the .ground that tlio Defendant did' not refuse to open the door^of his dwelling house, in order that the Sheriff mjght seize, as stated in such return. It would appear by the evidence, that when the Sherifi'^s baiiitf went to seizo, he found the door of the Defendant's dwelling locked, and the Defendatit who was outside, pretended he could not open the door although his wife and family were within, and wore not only visi- ble from the outside, but were, called on by the Bailiff to open the door and neglected to do it. This in my humble opinion is equivalent to a rcfjisal by the Defendant to open his door an^ I therefore dismiss the proceedings en faux. Inscription en yhu;e dismissed. " , ., M. Morison, for Plaintiff'.' S. W. Dorman, for Defendant. ■'' • (8.B.) ^ ■ ■ . \ ■ « " ' MONTREAL, SOTH APRIL, 1868. -' Coram MoNDELET, (C.J J. / " • No. 1830. •• .^ ■ ' Kemp^ vs. Kemp. Hold, that a ShcrifPi Return to a writ of execution, setting fortli that the Defendant has refused to open the door of his dwelling house, in order that the Sheriff might seize, is only primd facie evidence of tlie fact, and is not suOloiont of it^plf to justify a condemnation for eontrainte. MoNUELET, (C.) J. — ^I'his is a rule for eontrainte par corps against the Defen- . dant, for refusing to open the door of his dwelling house, in order that the She- riff might seize, and is based on the Sheriff's return to the writ of Kxecution. This is not enough, under the requirements of the ordinance of 1667, and I can only regard the Sherifi''s return as primd facie evidence of tlie fact I am aware that there has been an impression at the Bar, for many years, that the Sheriff's return was suflScient of itself to justify a judgment of eontrainte, and I Bhall there- for« merely discharge the deliberi and order proof&n the Rule. Diliheri discharged, and proof ordered accordingly. ' M. Morison, for Plaintiff. ' S. IT. Dorman, for Defendant (8.B.) < MONTREAL, 28TH JUNE. 1868. Coram Badoley, J. No. 1636. ' ' KempfVS. Kemp. Held, in the case of a SaUie Exieution,yihero a Defendant who wasodtside hla dwelling house, neglect * ed to open the door which was locked, that such neglect did not amount to a reMlion dt juttiee. This was a Rule for eontrainte par eorps, based on the facts disclosed in the two preceding reports. * ^ Badglet, J.— I am not satisfied from the proof adduced in support of the Kule that the Defendant was \n a position to open the door of his bouse. He certainly was not bound to break open the door, and his mere neglect to open ,it cannot, I think, under the circumstances, be construed into a refusal to open it I mnst therefore discharge the Rule, -.^. Rule discharged. , Jf. Jlforwon, for Plaintiff. - ff. W. Bortnan , for D e fe n d an t (8.B.) '^\ SUPERIOR COURT, 1868., sclosed in the 281 . ' SUPERIOR COURT. MONTREAL. 27Tn FEBftUAEY. 1888. ■' " ^ ' Coram Smith, J., No. 2458. ■^ordheimer,etal.,vs,ffogan,.etal. This was an action en saisie'revendication, by wl.ich the Pfel^-ff recover a pmno-forte of the value of £80 currency wh ch tW f 7^^* *" the.r property, illegally detained by the Defenda„7* ^ '"'^'' *^ ""' the defendants, as hotikee^rSHtthtt"' T''?"' ""'^''^ "''^ of May,1857. That PhilhWroduled h! ""J/^r""^''* l««\till the 11th his persona, property and elu^: t'J^ Z^ZTr'r''^ 1 remained ever since hmtuntr bpnn Uft \i I °L " « ^«'«n«ant8, where it had the I>erendants.for^'liilt\l:^^^^^ to was unable'tq pay. and that the Defendantsrad no olr v'/'^T^ '°^ ment of tlus.sum. except the said piaho and ft "tl^L T ^ ^"" '^' P^^ upon the piano, as secirity^for the^men ofl d 'Z '^;/'^»7<^.P-"«g^ for the dismissal of Plaintfffs' action" or, in the event^'thJ '" r'"' ""' tained, that it be adjudged that the DeVendants h" lltZ^ T' """ the piano- for the amount of their said claim for 2rd ^ ''«' "P'° ■ By a special answer, the Plaintiffs denied that fJiA .^-o^^ : .- © tl. property of Phillips, and alleged .J::''^!^^^^'^^ ^ said p,ano was leased to Phillips for the sum of £1108 amo^fW 5 ' ^ payable in^dvance, of which tVe Defendants were then ^'-^\^'' tiff, then delivered the piano to Phillips at thrS^^rtS^^r^^lf ^J" tmned to use it under his lease till about the Ist June ifiifi LI' .f W . T ants illegally obtained and kent possession of it ' ' "^''^ *'''^^*^^°^- " At the enguite i£ was established on the part of the Plaintiff« th«t *i, the proprietors of the piano.Cd that Phi.l.^s posslsed rIVa '^^^^^^^ ^ or h,re receipt, which was filed and proved, liso' that the Defendanrw te not -fied of such le««e, two or three days afterthe piano went to tZrhrel On ' behalf of Defendants it was orovpd that pk51i.v„ k i.. , . ^'^ I™ ^r ,, ""T." ""^ "• '''^*"'' "« •»•«' '"J W .otic, iS for. PbUI,p. W.m,tb.i, d.bt., for bcyi,th.t ft. pi.no ^ .ot Cbng to / ' A W HOM T .0 2.5. . B.^,.„„H ..«.p.«.r^i:;ai:;.':it?:/i^'i;j'«.»' ,i^i^ ■li ,» "1" \ .S82 SUPERIOR COURT, IsSs. .# I'- .f"" Kordheimer HogtnetaU . ' ^' I !»•'. i |l'^ jJL, ihR l^f . 1 t •■•» f XS." . iiv. '"•J J : »i» Phillips, but was tho property of the Plaintiffs, which vna alone BuflScient to deprive them of the privilege claimed, even had it otherwise existed. Smith, /.—(After stating the case.) Tho Defendants invoke the l'76tb Article of -the Custom, I do not think it applies to tho present case which is' that of a permanent l^arder, but only to "p61erin»'' or transient travellers. The commentators^explain the expression " pdlerins" by the exprcssFftHs •• voya- geurs" and " passants." It is further to be considered that the Defendants had notice that the piano did not belong to, the person for whose debt they pretend to hold it. To my mind, the question is a simple one, and I give Judgment for the Plaintiffs both as to the proprietorship of the piano, and the damages for de- tention. The Judgment was recorded as follows : — ' » "The Court, &c., considering that tho Plaintiffs have established tho material allegations of, their declaration, and that the "Piano" seized in this cause was not the property of James 11. Phillips mentioned in the pleadings in this cause, but was their property, and by them leased to the said James H. Phillips men- tioned in the pleadings in this cause, then a boarder in the hotel of the said Defendants, and considering that the said Defendants had no lien by law upon the said " Piano" for any amount which ipay have been due to them by the said James H. Phillips — Doth declare the attachment, Saisie Revendicatioh made-iQ this cause of the said " Piano" described as follows, to wit, '• A certain Six Octave /*ton«j/brte, with rosewood case, maker's name Chick^ring, the maker's number iy^on the said Piano being 16215," good and valid, and it is further ad- judged anfi" di^ said Defendants are hereby jointly and severally ordered to de- liver up the said " Piano"" above described to the said Plaintiffs as the lawful proprietorb thereof, within three days after service upon them of the present Judgment, and in default of their so doing, it is considered and adjudged that the Defendants do, and they are hereby condemned, jointly and severally to pay to the Plaintiffs the sum of eighty pounds current money of this Province of Canada, as and for the value of the said «Pjano"^with interest thereon, from the dlst day of August, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven, the date of the service of process in this cause, and it is further considered and adjudged that the Plaintiffs do recover from the said Defendants, jointly and severally, the sum of nine pounds, said current money, as and for damages suffered by the said Plaintiffs from the act of the said Defendants in refusing to deliver to them the said Piano. The whole with costs against the said Defendants distraita in fevor of S. W. Dorman, Esquire, the_ Attorney of the said Plaintiffs." Judgment for Plaintiffs. S. TF". 2)orman, for Plaintiffs. iZose (i6 Mon^, for Defendants. % ^ . (P. w. T. * B. w. D.) ; •1 •' '■ '' ^ ,T1 »? ' _'_ _ ^ ^ ; _^ ■_ ^ ■e N^ ■__ •^ » porti Hiiilr " .f ■ ♦: -.;"^-^ ' J ■ . ' ■ SUPERIOR COURT, I8fi8. MONTBBAI,. 28Ta JUNB. im. ComwDAV.J. ^ -^ , N0.IMI. the fifL\.a;: 1 r :;t eYhe'r :£ t"'' "" '"^''^ ' ''^''^••— '^'ed aOer but the n^otion to reject it, is prl^t^tril'^ '^. ^"" '«' *"«* --" Po-nt. The plaintiff must go on wUh hi A ^ " "«^' ''"""^ *« '««« the ""^y- ' ^ "^ '*'^*'"*'«"^<"» »»d test the matter in that S.f i^''*^'"'i^^'"^'a''n""ff. Motion rejected. MONTREAL. SMTH JUNE. 1868. . Ooram Day, 'J. No. 486. Heli-1 That«.«,ti , "^^^"^ ''"'' "'' ^«*'«A«'». «< a/. ^ ^uo.wU.U.^.tedonTor.'""'"*'™'^-'^" «"- '" -h««on « p«. for .uch tHI by ■iHis was a motion by the Plainh-ffi. ♦ • . ■■ put themselves upon id t^^r^fC 2T ''' ""'"'l " «"^ «^ ^'"'^ ^^^^^ J«Bpect.ve ple«s fyled by-the DeLant nLlcT^.r *'' '''""""^° «^ ^''^ tible of trial by Jury. ' '"'^°>'^«b as the causd was not suscep- - with commercial- matter. The mour of h pf' 't'° "" """^ ^«°°««H granted. "'•'''<»» of the Plaintiffs mast therefore (be^ Sr^^ir"" 'i' ?•" ^'«'"*''ff«- ' Motion granted. , 7*^ ^<»'*. for Defendants. MONTEBAL, 28TH JUNE. 1868. V ' ^<»"«»» Bapolet, j. , - o No. 1982. 1 / i'l ' "' i '}\ ' -^' i •1 1 a 284 8UPE«J0R COURT, .1868. fTT' SI •cnr' ;• t«iii-» * p.OjlHF"'''" I 4 if Cootbuni vs. BeiRUdryi A demurrer, raising the same questicAi as in the case vs, Starnes, wasfyled and dismissed on the 2fiiJi of November, 1867. In addition to the demurrer the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff served him with a writ of attachment in his cape against the Company, that he (the defendant) had made his declaration ai» «cr« »am in due course, and that it was not competent for the plaintiff now to sue him. Ue-also pleaded the gen- oral issue. , ., At the argument Bethune for plaintiff contended, that the evidence of Mr. Hopper, the Secretary of the Montreal and Bytown Railway Company, to the effect that it appeared by the Company's books that the defendant had transfer- red his stock befoiJB the institution of the present action, could not avail the defendant under iU plea of general issue, and if H could, that such testimony was insufficient to establish the fact of the transfer having been really executed, as far as plaintiff was concerned, ho being a third party and in no way bound by a mere entry in the Company's books that such transfer was registered. It was incumbent on th^ defendant to produce one or other of the duplicate transfers and prove tlicir absolute execution. And further, that even if the transfer had been duly proved, th6 defendant was still liable to pay, the plaintiff's debt having accrued and judgment being rendered thereon' against the Company during the period that the defendant admittedly held the shares. As to the saisie arrit, there was of course nothing in the pretension that the fact of such being served on the defendant prohibited the plaintiff" from suing him ; the effect of the some arrSt could only be to attach calls due tolhe Com- pany, which defendant contends never were made, whereas the action is brought to recover that which, under the circumstances, could not be recovered under the attachment. 'Badglbt, J.— I da not think I can reject Mr. Hopper's evidence. It is legal evidence as far as it goes, but I consider it insufficient. It migl^ do as between the Company, and the defendant but the transfer of stock canjot be proved in this way as between the plaintiff, who is a stranger to the Company and its ' books, and the defendant. ]|owever, even- were the proof of th^ transfer deem ed sufficient, th^. defendant is atill liable to pay the plaintiff's debt, as he held the stock during the time th© debt accrued and when the ji^gment for such debt was rendered against the Company. On the whole I have no doubt of the plaintiff's right to recover. *, Judgment for plaintiff. Bethune & Dunkin, for Plaintiff, y Zei/anc cfe Cassidy, for Defendant , .. i i <4i. ■X. ■^" as fylcd and ntiff served ;hut he (the and that it ed the gon- jnce of Mr. »any, to the lad transfer- >t avail the 1 testimony executed, as bound by a ■ed. It was ite transfers transfer had debt having >any during ion that the from suing to the Com- 1 is brought rered under It is legal » as between )e proved in any and its isfer deemed as he held at for such ioubt of the r plaintiff. SUPERIOR COURT, 18B8.' '. »-■ 285 Coram Shitb, J. . No. 8118. / This was . motion by tho Drfendanis to liwo the ~„,a„ gro„»d that .h.„ thoi, ^usu ... „,«j itTJZ^lT''1- °" "'° ...OH., titho iuiitrr.'natrtrirsr' "-*'• "-^ .no» ovi,|o„co which thoy h.d a right .0 rohut comm„„o„ wa, ™5h^;::]X"tfrr.:r:^^^^^^^^^^ but I sV, not thinlt that a sufflcicnt rmt- .„ ? "' "» "l^miMion, getting i„ Of no. „.ij,„„„ .y^t „, J^^^ 2^^1.1' ,' T°""" -o,eo.o.inthe.hsen„,orn....i.o,hihitst,,;l!::;t:,^Cfot,ot': ^'•o«« «f- Sancro/t, for Plaintiffs. ^^*^^° granted. ^c/Awn, <£• i)M«*i„, for Defendants. ' (s. B.) ' MONTREAL. SOii JUNE. 1858. . \. Coram Smith, J. No. 2013. Cockbum vs. Tuttle. reotorscannotbepleadedintarofthepUintirs^Mto^er *''•' J"-'^"'J«'"on of Dl. This was an action similar in character to thaf J p ti. reported at page lU of the 2nd vol. of the Juris, ''''^^""' ^«- «*«"'««> ' The defendant pleaded amongst other thincrs that the An* «f t the Montreal and Bytown Railway Comn»n. • . **^ Incorporation i^ the-foU lowing cases, No 2017, Oockburn v. Taylor, and No. 8660, OoclAum t. Masson. \ MONTBBAL, WtS 8BFTEHBEE, 1858. -(, ^ " Coram Day, J. No. 96. Eouth vs. DougaUf^ Hold — lu an action where Judgment is rendered tor a larger amount tlian admitted and tendered by ' pica, but wlicre the defence is in the main sustained, that Plaintiff must pay the costs of oon- testation. ; This was an action on a chock for £32 98. 6d. cy, drawn by Defendant and duly protested for^non-paymcnt, and interest from date of protest. The;» defendant pleaded that he only owed £7 168. cy., which he, tendered with his plea, but without either interest or costs. l The Court gave judgment for £8 6s. cy, but without interest, condemning the defendant to pay costs to the fyling of the plea, and condemning the plain- tiff to pay the costs of contestation. On judgment being so pronounced, the plaintiff's Counsel contended that, according to law and the practice of the Court he was entitled, under the cir- cumstances, to costs to judgment and tbat he ought not to be condemned to pay any costs ; but the Court, after consultation with Justices Smith and Badgley, ^ declared that the practice had been invariably the other way, and that the - plaintiff must pay the costs of contestation as stated in the judgment* « Judgment accordingly. ' .Be\ «"d Mr. Young, who iUW an oppLnt4.as • Brto&cT J/m r^Pr'\ "^'^ -"oea.ion irWtested byComC fo cot Thas b^^^^^ TT"°" "^^^ "-* ''^y^^om gi'e security ~" Cominret a Z T ^V'^^ "««h P'«""bility that the opposante. secSVo \ I I P^f't'o^^efendants, and as such not bound to give ferTnl « ^ '^"^ ^'™''° ^'^^ ^'»« ^'^'^^-^' ^«« held to give security JlnH^' ' '''^ "''^''' '■^'^'^^'^^ ^™"''«' -d there the defendant wr„o^ bound to g,ve security; but Corning and Company must make out tharZ are defendants in order to exempt them fr6m Lng such luritv now ^ -nd to «;ve ix:^:^;;^:;--:!;-::^^ defendants, I hold that they fall .ithin its provisLs. It 'Ztue" tl a ISce'S t^ "" "^'""^* Vri^^ege.., got colloca J'foluo '^1 onlyplmntiffs as regards the actual defendants, named such in the cause a«^«inlf tubbe f Company had; '»*™'~"«.'^ -^^J^^^Sz t ; I' r ll J. 988 SUPERIOR COURT, 18&8. fienning VI, The Montmal aubb«r Co. tCZi' '1-. fi'. Benninff.Hml other* aro th« plaintiifH and the Rubber Company the defendanta, and tliiit Corning dt Co. are opponantu, and, an Buch, bound to give security. Another objection was made, that security should have been demanded within a reasonable time after the opposition was made ; I hold that Young was only bound to move when his claim cnmo to bo i)rtjudiced by the contestation. I therefore grant the i^otion with costs. , A. d' W. Jiobertiion, (or Young. Croat (t Banero/t, for Corning et al. (A.O.) MONTREAL. 30Tn OCTOBER, 1808. Coram Smith, J. ,, No. 2600, Oreenahields et al^f V. Oauthier. * Repuoation. Held,— That the noccaiity of a replication to the pUlotiff'f ((onoral aiuwor, is waived by oon«ent of dofondant to aubscquont proceeding!. .The action was for the price of goods sold and delivered. jThe tlofpndnnt pleaded exceptions and a de/enfe en fait, to which the plain- tins replied by g'etteral answers to the exceptions, )Etnd a replication to the defense en fait. ' : The case was then inscribed by the .plaintiffs for enguite on the part of the plaintiffs by consent of partieSj^^ftiid subsequentljf for »ng«^/6 on the patt of tbio defendant by consent alsoi' i , "l ' "^ J The plaintiffsfinallyinacribed for hearing on the merits on the I'^th October, instant, and on the saine day the defendant moved the Court to set aside all proceedings in the cause subsequent to the fyling cJf the answers and replication by the plaintiffs, on the ground among others that the 'ordinance 26 Geo. III. cap. 2, seb. 18 required a replication to the answers to complete the issue. Smith,. J. — There is no doubt that a replication is required by the ordinance, but in this case the defect has been covered by several consents, and by the case having thereafter gone to evidence in the usual form. Judgment must go for the plaintiffs, and the motion of the defendant is rejected. , . ^ Motion rejected. T'orro»vl'' r ' ! .1 r 1 M ;:X; too ^ W' . iff f* V8 ^ AM> « X t ? / l. ' • 3^ li^- ri f^ SUPERIOR COURT, 1808. B«Sl. ''*7 f«»n*> *»>•» tbwWw no ml.r*pr««nt«tion, but thdr flmlinff <. pl«|„|y i^.A/«,.c rf- 6'«i«V/y, for V\mm. ^'''^^" «'""'**"'• Za/renaycrf- /'a/;|>i, for Dofondant., J t (I. B.) MUNTRHAL, vna JUNM. IHOS. Compi Sill hi; J. No. M. Souprat, v». 'Bbudjeau £ //out/rrau^ cppofanU Hold, that It it^ot oomp^tmt for Dur«n(l»iii, whom Umli aro under Miiuro %tU>t % return of n«»ii bona, to oppow tlio Mie of .uch laiidi. oh the ffruund that ha wu poHVMtd of luUlelent movMbUt property to Mtlify I'lalotlirt J udgmont Smith, J.—TliiBUtn oppositioh by the Defendant to tbeaeizuro and aalo of hU lands, on the ground tbat lio is pbuosaed of Hutlioiont moveable property to sati*! fytbe judgment. There was a toturn'of nulla bona in due form, before the is- suing of the writ aguiiist laiidi, imX inoreovor, the Defendant does not tender or even, indicate the moveables be|wi»he8 to have seized. It is impossible to allow such an oppositioiu ) Ouimet Marthand d MoriL for riaintiff. A. d' O. Jiobertion, for Defendant and Opposant. (8.B.) f Opposition dismissed. MOMTREAL, IHJtu BEPTEUBEB, 18S8. (yoram iJADuLEr, J. "A * No. 487. t McG/tll v. Wells. Held,— In a caso whore a proljminiidry pica W been firled and the Plaintiff has dnraandod a plea to the moritR, under the 72d leetioV of tho aoth Vlo. ch. 44. that th« Plaintiff may foreolosu the De- fendant after the eighth day fro^ guoh demand, without lerring the demand -of plea required by tho iisth sootion of the ISth Victoria, ohiipter 88. '' .c This was a motion by the Defendant to take t)ff the foreclosure recorded against him, and to be permitted to plead to tho merits, on the ground that such foreclosure was premature, nef demand of Plea havthg been served on him, as required by the 12th Victoria, ch. 88, see. 26. LajHamtne (S.), for Defendant, contended that tho foreclosure contemplated by the '72d section of the Act of 1867 required to be made " in the manner pre- fcribed by the 26th section of the Act of 1849," and ♦ --r^ } * 'r rV^:X-' SUPEUrOB C'OUIIT, 1858. 891 ^- ClriJIln, Q. a, for rhintlff. Motion rejected. ^^Jtamme, Lajnmmi, "' ''" "«litor., u of Public A«r„fZ'p:;!„r''"'^ ■'"'^'"'"'"^^^ p. .«.. of «.e „i. co„,.„, Defe„Jr»ifrrx:-;-;;: / " That on the said first day of OctohAr iaki ♦!.« - -j t.i • ..^. . nugiii r«inBath6 amount iFdue to them hv th7v\.i:^«"". T;". «"« um » Km.fh7> ;;"""""."°"'^°JggiJ i m i i!lJ O rd n T th a t the said fi^ .!.-« .no amount sa due to them by the Pontiff out of the Zof .i; ♦ •(, 4; ■ !■ I-. . \. / "! • ' ' '■1 -, /■ tH 8UFBIUQR C0URT,,I88S. •-7* ••id a« •k.rtfH ho U.« «ia IMnintiirUUI. in due kntviUm^hy •ii1ii.trun«R\ in wmti^ »,«5uUd in diiplUiaU, on tli. Mid Ant d«y of October, I«fi3, tmiufiir and Mil t' '*e «»{«4 Lcni«i.,ri«r, U..ut)f A Co., :l.« afomaid AS •b»m in tli« capiUl Hiook of lUMld ro,„,,y,y I)„fu„j»„t; tli« »hol« on tli« luulerttnndinK. tl.Httl.a Wrplua of the f*r.,M.,U «if th« mIo by ibn Mid flrin ofUio .nid 68 .Imrc*. .ft«r deduction of til* riaintir« Mi.l debt .iiuuld b« p^ld juOl^lMiv ^^tfc« Mid PWntlff f M thoroiipon tlu. Mid r,«m.mu,i.,r, Uouth A Co, aly dernnndcl of tlio Mid CJompny l)../f«iuini,t to trnniftir tbu Mid AH abiir** of Htook on tb« Hooka of th« Mid Ck>mp«iiy »^fbndant to tliuiu iho Mid Utmoaurier, Kouiji Je (Jo., and then »nd thar« alao pre««nted to the MJd Company DotMndant the Mid tranafor, and offore.1 to aurrender tlio mim, on tlio duo execution of audi trnnafer afor»*ai4l efen^ still continued illegally to refuse to transfer on the Booka of the said Comp^jlm ^foroMid 268 ahares of the said Stock, or any part thereof uuUl ^7 ^^f jy^:^.. SUmucJit C50UR1V IMl. *.'> • hn Mid Co „,m„y r)4„.|«nt l,i,o«.«« .„d w« «. greatly d.pr.,oiiM,l i„ v^gl „ • ..t tlM, only H.„.M,„t which th« Mid f..,u«urioh lloufh 4 Co, *n 1 h«» «"k wore o„»b „d to obUi.. and r«.li., fiJ the Mid Sfl« .hT«^ o Sto^-L wlw * fc. lcH« to the Mi.l I'laintiffoTat lo«,t £2311 »r2d.^«rrZ MoS«ZSt lo„ of .nt„rc«t a«.l co.U ..f protect and <,ther .«Hma,«. inc Ziai; ^^^ ^ oZ: V f;''l '\ T: °' "•" "'^' "'««^ -a «„ju.tiHable\ J ft S M.d Company Defendant, which .ai.J b„ of 5nt«Lt, cct. of protect and other jnd ontal da„,a«„, aforoMid. the .aid Plaintiff e.tl«.at« it £668 ,6, lOd 0^ That By ro^n of the Mid several premise and by few the Mi«fen.I«n|,tbe aaid two amount. 1^ meri^flff, Whiohrforin united £8000 Currency " »• nw m Dof^fldant fyled a Mftnu au fond, en droit, ,t^ the following „ere th« reanons wBignod in support thei-cof: -^, *, >»erB in« thl't t?; hXT ^'"'V^'f^'S-i^ounonhe PlaintirM.kl declaration itippoara, hat the right to recover damagea. b/reaaon of the alloft»d refuMl of the Defon: dan to transfer the nharea ,n the Mid Decoration refernrf to. (If j.ny .uch right exist) .a vested .n the parties therein named as Transferee of the share, to wit. ''^ in the firm o Lemesurier. Routh A Co.. and in the City and District Saving ' Bank and not m the now said Plaintiff, and because n»demand by PlaintS on he Defendant to transfer Mid .tock is alleged in aaW declaration.- or any legal cause or reason J,y which the Plaintiff can demand da.age.. or „<;over the XThet^ Jr^nir ''' "^-'/--P'^ witl^ alleged demand. 2nd. Because by the law .regulating the transfers of share, fa the said Railway «rr7;.^r. ;;'""'' * ''™ °^ *■■'"'«'" •' P'^^*^**'* •»* >* « thereby 7Z e r/ /; *'!*' *.^"P''«*^7[''>« t^n'fe'- i" the form so provided, .hould be d-' ^ ivered to th<.D.rectors of the said Company, to be fyled and kept for th»«,e of ' the said Company, and that an entry thereof should be kept in .book to be kept - for that purpose, and because it is not h, Plaintiff's declaration .lleged. that the trauirfer of the Mid share, was ^jade in the form provided for. .ad embodied in " said law, or that a Duplicate thereof was delivered tb the said Directors And ' because the al%«i offer to surrender the duplicate by the Mid Transfaree. i» not a sufficient compliance wjt h — '-*' ' " • ~ - - 1 -f > °?. » '"^g£'g!»,«^.'°Rl»ance wit h m ^ Uw, nor could luoh uffur. inade by the said 'IVa^wfei^ avail or be pleaded by the saiiSui.^/ ' ^ ^J .*' •efe ^¥i,- ■v>' If" 204 SUPERIOR COURT, 1868. f l£^"v^ ^'^^•'^"'^^ ?« P'^^^dod right of the Plaintiff to recover from the Dcfen- *j^^nx dantth^i«,^,^f money in tlaintiff-s declaration referred to, appears from the % . 6a^ declarliti-on.to rpst upon alleged contracts with thdHaid Transferees, and ^ K **!^.** ?'';«*^ ^ ^ d"« tJ'«'° by the Plaintiff, and on alleged Transfers to ihswi 9f said scares as collateral security for said debts and lipon alleged demands and^ptotpsls 4^ respect of said shares, and refusals by the Defendant to comply - with th.e.1^ said^^mands, whereas by law no such right is br.can be, by reason^of saidjillegations, vested in.the Plaintiff against the Defendant, by reason of al- T-mwi contracte, ^ebts and transactions between Plaintiff and the said Trans- foreJHUo which the Defendant is not alleged to have befin privy, and because the refu8»lXcomply with the said demands of the said Transferees in transferring said 8tpck,>»<^ld confer on the said Transferees a right to a similar action against Defendant on>|^ir part for their benefit, 6ut not upon the now Plaintiff 4th.. Because Ue- alleged fall or depreciation in the price or value of said shares, and the alleged incidental loss and damage in the Plaintiff's decl.iration ' Kferredto, does m)t impose upon Defendant any responsibilitv in law to pay P amtiff for such alleged diminution in value, damage or los^, inasmuch as the Plamtiff-appears to have transferred, and was bylaw obliged to transfer the said shares absolutely to the Transferees, for value paid, and irrespective of the alleged understandings in Plaintifl-'s declaration mptioned; and because such pretended fell in the. price or value of said stock is pot nor c(m the same be taken or held as recoverable- by Plaintiff from Defendant, . without allegations showmg actual damage suffered by him by reason of his undertakings as Vendor or Transferor to the saU Vendees or Transferees, and in the quality of Vendor or Transferor solely, and not from ^nyinkirect interest in any surplus remaining over after the application of the said shaUs as collat,Bral security in payment of said alleged debts, whereas no such allegations are in said declaration made or anything set forth to show that thd Plai itiff was or is so held to said Vendees o^ Transferees, or hath suffered' and sustiiined any damage legally recdverable frompefendaoii. , ' 6th. Because /rom the allegations of ihe Plaiiltift's declar^on the Plaintiff seeks! to impose liability on the Defendait grounded on an allied interest in tlie sfiares in his declaration referred to, rot as absolute proprietor fliereof or as an acjtual shareholder in the Defendant Company, but on the contra^rising from the peculiar nature of the understimdingand alleged debts and tShier as c^llater;al security for the said debis, and on alleged dem8nd~ri>y«aS^ Transferees, whereas no sueh qualified ai^d possible interest in any surplusfr^ the proceeds of said shares can imposcsiJch liability on the Defendant, or ves in the said Plaintiff as possessing' such nterest, any right in law to the s^d sumsiof money claimed in this action, aiJd because the said Plaintifi^ by his! de- claration seeks to recover the money d^mand^ dh the ground of such partial interest m the said shares, or the proceeds therek and by reason of the peculiar contracts aforesaid to which Defendant could noVand are not obliged to have been parties. i • ^ 6th. Because from the Plaintiff's declaration it appears, that the alleged' -Arimsf^r ^ i-^rf the^Miiih>h«» i >^w>r ' tiff took judgment there S "/?' * ^^'P'^^^and demand. If the Plain- \ iho dir o ot owiWH^f the stocfc ' ^ranBterew^trhA wgald ano na .*1 ^ -^•<■■: '^iw' *^M-- ' 296 SUPERIOR COURT, 1868. } I.* •CC^ *. 1 I -■1*5!*^ ^° *•'« second point I would observe, that it did not appear by the declaration Otwi T^iik that the Defendant were^called upon to do an act which they were in law bound to do. The General Railway statute, 14 and 16 Vic. c. 61, seo. 17, prescribed a particular method for effecting transfers of stock, viz., by executing an instru- ment in writing of a given f(jrm, in duplicate, one part to be delivered to the . Directors, to be fyied and kept for the use of the Company, and an entry there- of to be made in a book, to be kept for that purpose. The dcclaratipn did not show the required formalities to have been observed. It alleged that the Trans- ferees had demanded of the Company to transfer the shares on theirBooks, and that duplicates of the deeds of transfer -were at the same time offered to the De- fendant But where special forms were furnished by statute, it behoved parties to allege 4ld prove a strict compliance with them, and this compliance was not sufficiently alleged by the Plaintiff's declaration. The precise wording* of the statute should have been followed, since that offered the only legal means of making a valid U'ansfer. As a matter of verbal criticism therefore I think the declaration defective on this second ground, and, on the whole, have no hesitation in maintaining the demurt-er and dismissing the Plaintiff's action. • ,^ , The following are the motifs of the judgment : — ^" consideriinraiik; by virtue of the Transfer and assignment by the Plaintiff of the shareif wi-tl^apital stock in the declaration in this cause set forth to the said " Lem^^jlWouth & Co.," and to the said " City and District Savings Bank oif Montreal,'^ ^d by la^, he the Plaintiff ceased to hold any legal title to or in the said shares of capital stock as owner thereof, and the Defendant cannot by reason of the alleged de- preciation in the value of said capital stock, after the date of the Baid'transfer and assignment, or of any other of the causes and matters in his said declaration set forth be liable to him, the said Plaintiff for any damages or sum of money in manner and form, as he the Plaintiff I'n and by his said declaration hath prayed, maintaining the said Difeme au/onds en droit firgtly pleaded, doth dis- miw '\ •\. miss the said action, with costs." Bethune <& Dunldn for Plaintiff. Cartier <& Berthelot for Defendant. • «*«>«. U> o^r proof bf *). That the onu» probandi lUla on the guardian. ' 60. That the Sheriff although overTOyear^ of age is liable parcwyt. This was an Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court ftt Montreal, reported at page 86 of the Ist volume of the L. C. Jurist. < r,l^''17''''"''n-^~I^^ ***** "^*' '«" *PP«^*°*« <'<"'* ^"'a"" contreje nomm6 James Cunningham un bref de capias ad respmdendum, accompagn* d un bref de satsu>^rrit avant jugement, sur lequel bref de saisie-arrftt le d6put6 8h6nf fa,t rapport le premier septembre 1864, qu'il a saisi suivant proofs ver- bal annex6, ajoutant:« which said goods, chattels and effects I have put into ^e guardianship of David Garrick. to abide the order of this honorable Court- '^rZLXr^i'' w'' ''""'" '''**" '■■* '1'^'" « -o'"-^ Garric? fnf"- . a5 ^ -1 ""-^ «g°e co^mo tel. Le capias ad respondendum fot m,s de c6t6, ma,a la sa,s,e-arr6t fut declar6 bonne et valable par un jugement du 18 f6vner 856 qu.condamne led6fendeur Cunningham 4 payer auxLan. s ztier ^^"^'"^'^ ''''• " '-' ' '«'"-^-' ^- ^ -- p- Une autre saisie-arrfefavaitaussi 6t6 6man^e de la pwt des mftmes deman deui. centre le m6me d^fendeur en main-ti^ce, c'est /dire entre les m^^ de Canfield Dorwm et autres tiers-saisis. portant le numfiro 376. Les demandeurs urent d^bout^s de cette derni^re saisie-arr6t par un jugement du 29 Z^Z7e iZ; r ? ! "^'"'*P'*''"'"'^^°'l°^^"*««*f«tedecejugeLnt,le 8h6rif, 1 mt.m6 en cette mstancc, signe et fait remettre k Bates I'ord^ suivant : ^ " „ " No. 876. ' " ■ '--M •^George B. C. Leverson, et al., Plaintiffs. I ' vs. Jaoies Cunningham, Defendant, ^ To John Bate^ne of my Bailiffs. and ' '-1 Canfield Dorwin, et al., Tiers^aisis. f' J-' i, 208 COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, 1868. Lerenoii Boston. ^C " Whereas by the judgmoi| of the Court rendered in the above cause on the 29th September instant, the attachment made of the effects of the said Defen- dant was set aside and quashed. " These are therefbre to command you forthwith to deliver up to the said Defendant the several articles and effocte which were attached and which remain in your custody, receiving a proper receipt in writing for the same. " <3ivon'at ray oljfice in Montreal this 30th September 1864. ...•,, " " Jno. Boston, Sheriff." Au bas (Ic cet ordr& est le re9u auivant : • " Received, Montreal 80th September 1854, from the bailiff or sheriff's officer who mad© the attachment or seizure in the above cause, to wit from John Bates, all and every the articles enumerated in his ^roc^» verbal of such attachment so"" made by him Tliomas Bates. " Thomas Bates. •♦ Jamks CuwNlKOHAii. " W. A. Bates." Lorsque les demandeurs eurent obtenii sur la premiere saisie-arr^t No., 363, lesusditjugcmentdu28 f6vri6r 1856, ils firent imaner une execution, puis (apres le rejet d'une opposition de la part du d6fendeur) un bref de venditioni exponas pour faire vendre les effets saisis par I'huissier Bates ; k ce.bref dat6 du 11 Mai- 1855, rintim6 fit le rapport suivant: ' •' " I hereby certify and return, that I have been unable to proceed to the sale of the goods. and chattels already seized in this cause, and mentioned and de-.. scribed in the schedule Hereunto annexed marked A, as within commanded, by reason of the said goods and chattels not being produced and represented on ^he day fixed for the sale thereof, by David Garrick, the guardian named in the mgihal prods-verbal of seizure thereof; but in justice to the said guardian, I anndx to this return various documents and affidavits, respectively numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, which have been filc^ with me as explanatory of the cause of the non-production of the goods so seiz^. (Signed,) ." Jno. Bostok, Sheriff." " Montreal, 1st August, 1855;' Ces documents et ces affidavits ont pdur but principal de rendre compte de I'erreur qui a donn6 lieu k la remise au Di^fendeur des effets saisis. En un mot, le Sh6rif en recevant le jugement du 29 Sept. 1854, ne fit pas attention q,ue ce jugement etait rendu dans une autre cause que celle dans laquelle les effets en question avail 6t6 saisis et dans laquelltftl n'y avait pas encore cu de jugement ; de la I'erreur qu'il commit par son ordre du 30th Sept. 1854 de delivrer des effets qui n'avaient 6t6 saisis que dans cette derniere cause (No. 363) et qui 6taient alors encore sous saisie. \ Les appelants disent dans leur factum, qu'tl la'suite du rapport da sh^rif du ler Aqj&t 1856, ils firent une motion dans laquelle i][j demanderent purement et simplement qu'il flit enjoint au sh6rif de produire les effets saisis afin qu'ils ffts" sent vendus, et ce sous peine d'emprisonnement jusqu'i la production des dits effets, mais que cette dfemande ne)eur flit pas accord^e. *\^ . 1 %•» COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1868. 299 UNNlNOHAiL Le8 Appclants firent ensuito uae nouvelle motiou sur laquelle intervint I'inter- lociitoire Buivnnt : " "The Court, inasmuch, &c. &c, doth order the said John Boston, as such . Sheriff to produce the said goods and chattels so seized as aforesaid before this Court, wlftm such time as this Court shall direct, in order that the said goods and chattels may be sold according to "law, and in default of the said John Bos- ton so producing the said goods and chattels, he, the said Sheriff, shall be im- prisoned and held con/mmr^r cor;,, until ho do protluce the said goods and chattels, or unUlhepay to the said Plaintiffs the balance of four hundred and forty-exght pounds sixteen shillings and twopence currency, with interest pn the said sum from the Hth day of October, 1855, still due on the sqjid judgment, unless cause to the contrary be shown.on Friday the 20th day of December instant (1850), at half past ton of the qlock in the forenoon sitting the Court." Le 20 D6cembre, le Sh6rif comparait, et, sur sa demande, il lui est permia de r6pondre par ecrit, Voici cette r^ponse : - " The said John Boston, as such Sheriff, for answer to the Rule for eontrainte " par ««y, returned mto this Court on the 2eth instant, saith, that the goods and chattels mentioned and referred to in the said Rule, were, according to law and the practice of this Honorable Court, duly placed on the seizure there- of, in the care and safe-keeping of one David Garrick, of the city and district of Montreal, gentleman, as guardian, i/arrft«„ ; that the appointment of the said David Garnck as such guardian was acquiesced in by the said Plaintiffs, and. at the instance of the said Plaintiffs, was in effect duly and solemnly confirmed by the judgment m this cause rendered on the 28th day of February, 1856- and that he. t e said Sheriff, in all things by him done I regard to L s^J seizure, and the placing of the said goods and chattels in the care and safe- keeping of a guardian as aforesaid, acted in good faith, ahd in strict conformity ?T. .?.'''"''T'"*'f *'•' '"'" *"''"'« P'-*"*'^^ «f tJ^'^ Honorable Court. thZf ^r F. '"^ "'•""''' "'""'• ^«'«' "* ''"y «™« ^''"^^ the seizure thereof, in the custody, care, and safe-keeping of the said Sheriff, and that it is out of the power of the said Sheriff for that reason, and for and by reason of the several circumstances, matters, and things set forth and contained in the various schedule annexed to the said Sheriff's Return to the alias writ of vendition toTaV,". -r?' '^.f '''' "'"^ ""•* schedules authentic copies are anne:.^d „ to and fyled with the said rule in support thereof, to produce such goods and chattels, as demanded in and by said Rule. "That moreover the said goods and thattels were not and are not of anv greater value than fifty pounds currency, and that he, the said Sheriff, is of the age of seventy-one years fully accomplighed and ended J ^l^ *^' '*'t ^^'"^ ^""^^ ''"''^' *•"** *" «"^ ^^^T the allegations, matters and things m tiie s^ Rule set forth and contained are false, untme, and, uufounded m fact (except in so far as the same are hereinbefo.^ expressly 2 mitted to be true), and exoepting, as aforesajd. the said Sheriff hereby expressly -1 °'!!.! same and each and every thereof. J v 3 Leverton va, Boitou. ; WefofeTBe said Sheriff prays, that the said. Rule may be hence dis- missed with costs." . . ' ,'J 7t. 1 f|* I I'm 1 > A t flOO COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 1858. i* fi '.'M^ 4- ..-*^ Jfe Le U Kovrior 185V, lea Appelants inacrivent la cause au r6le de droit "for hearing on the nieritB of tiie rule taken against the said mis en caute (the Sheriff) on the 20th day of February inBtant." A I'appel de la cause, lo 20 F6vrier, la Cour ayant d6oid6 d'entendre les parties, los avocata de I'lntim6 firent par 6crit la protestation suivante : "On behalf of the said Sheriff we most respectfully except to the order of this Court just rendered, to the effect that the parties should now be h'oard on the rule for contrainle par corps sued out against the said Sheriff, inasmuch as the said Plaintiffs have wholly failed to join issue on the Sheriff's answer to such rule." Puis, le 25 F6vricr, est interveriu lo jugement»dont est appel.'lequel juge- inent est en ces termes : "This Court having heard the said Plaintiffs and the said Sheriff, by their counseli upon the Rule obtained by the said Plaintiffs on thexg^ day of De- cember, 18^6, upon the Sheriff to produce certain goods and chattels; and that, in default of producing the same, he be imprisoned an^ held contrainle par corps until he produce the same or pay to the said Plaintiffs the b'alance of their debt and interest ; having examined the proceedings and deliberated, consider- ing that the said Plaintiffs have failed to establish, by reason of any of the alle- gations in the Rule by them taken on the said Sheriff, any legal right to have and maintain the conclusions of the said Rule, namely, that the said Sheriff do produce the said goods and chattels by him seized at the suit of the said Plain- tiffs, or, in default thereof, that he do pay the said Plaintiffs the amount of the judgment obtained by the said Plaintiffs against the said Defendants,— doth discharge the said Rule, with costs." > . Pour ce qui regarde la responsabilitd du Sh6rif, k d6faut de representation des effets saisis, et la contrainle par co*y>s qui en pareil cas pent 6tre pronohcfie contre lui, c'estun point qii'il n'y a plus k discuter, Je renvoie k ce que j'ai dit surlamfime question dans la cause de Irwin, Appelant,. et Boston, Intim6, jug6e le ler Octobre, 1867. L'un des moyens invoqu^s pftr I'Intim* pour se soustrairc k la contrainle par corps, est qu'il a atteint I'ftge v6n6rable 4e 10 ans bien «t dAement accomplis. Malheureusement le statut qui exempte Jes septuagenaires de Temprisonnement, la 1 G. 4, ch. 19, fait une exception expresse du Sharif; cet officier continue, qaelque soit son &ge, d'etre soiimis k la contrainle par corps, disposition qui est de nouveau confirmee par le Statut de 1849, ch. 42, s. 15. * ' ; - . D'apres I'Ordonnance de 1667 (1), dans sa disposition relative an sujet, 'con- firmee par les deux statuts en dernier lieu cit6s, auquel on pent encore joindre ^ ,9e section du Statut de 1836, ch. 15, il Jr a done lieu k la contrain^^ par col-ps contre le Sh6rif; c'estJA un droit dont la partie qui a fait saisir les effets • n^n repr6sent63 pent reclamer I'exercice. Le -nouveau Code Civil Fran^ais, -^ art. 2060, a reproduit la disposition de I'Ordqnnance de 1667, dans les termes Buivants: « Lajcontrainte par corps a. lieu . .... 4o. pour la representation des choses d6pos^es aux s6questres, commissaires et autres gardiens." Mais dans ^) Titr/84, Affe *r < m .COURT OF QUEEN'S BENqS; 1888. }." Mais dans 801 nance do 1007 "La contra.nto par corpa ne doit 6tro prononc6o avec la con- damnauon, qu'autant qu'ollo aera de.nand6o; parcoquo quand mftZle dZ ne pas loxiger. Voir aussi Pigoau, ed. do 1770 T I n 411 • «♦ t„' i ;uHe No. Co,e, dans son .L L .a Con Jil'^pJ/c.:; 'n ^"^^^^^^^^^ ' 11 """ :'f S'""^'*'*' 'I"" '« J"«« "« P«"^ pro-oncer la contrLinte par cort quo lorsqudie lu. est deraand6o. Dans los matieres qui tiohncnt TS pny6e, lo juge no doit pr6tcr son office q..c lor«qu'i. I est eq is V M^ toujours quand la contrainte est ainsi deman.l6e\ d^faut de reprLtarion d effeU sa..s, doit-clle 6tre accord6e. TVoplong, dans I'ouvragT I ^6 No. 142. d,t que dans lo cas do I'article 2000 du Cx,de. " la contr Jnte 1 corps' a heu .mp^rativomeut. et non d'une mahifiro facultative pour le Juge elle es . prono„c6e, non seufenjent 'pour la restitution de la ehos^e, mais enl; pour U representation, do cette mfime chose." II „e semblo qu'il en devTt To de ull J";^*/"^^'*'" 34, de cetto Ordonnance. et I'article 2000 du Code Napo- leon. L Ordonnance en pcrmettant au cr6ancior do demander I'application de cetto V.0 ngoureuse „'a pas exige que cette demande fut subordonl^^^^^^^^^^^^ d unealternattvo au gardien pour se lib6rer, cVst u,v droit dont elle autorise le creancer & redamer I'exercice purement et simplement. Si celui conto loqu 1 nspn.d.nce des arrets, quelqne alternative ou faculty 4 faire valoir, pour repoul ser cetto contramte, ou pour en faire modifier I'application, c'est k L klZt q er ormelioment, et aIor« le juge doit apprtcier les circonstances. mI qua^ aucreanceMorsquMIse borne 4 demander purement et simplement la con tramte par corps il pe semblo qu'U fait ce que la loi lui pormet et queTa demande est valab ement faite. Won qu'elle ne contienne pas 1'off.H, d'u 1 aUerl native par exemple, un si mieu. n^aime do payer soit la Lte soirseu eln la I aleur des effets non repr^sent^s : d'un autre c6t6 il me somble d6ra oTnab J de pr^tendre quo I'ofrre d'une telle alternative soit incompatible avec la T demande do la contrainte et doive la faire repousser. Le cr6ancier qd aurah ZrZ2 "f T^ ^^" '* '^™^ '* P'urrigourouso. ne doit p Jl pu pour 1 avoir presentee sous une forme pins favorable au Sh6ri>. Jo pense done que non senlement la seconde motion du demandeur pour contrainte faite avec le « m.iu. n^aime payer sa cr6ance, proc^dait valablLent ma ! ^ue' mdme leur premiere motion qui n'offrait pas cette alternative et qtii a 6t6 r^ dtn Z Vr^'f ^." '' ^"' ''''' '*"'* ^*'«l>t««»e"t faite, sauf au Sharif d un.c6t6, k demander la modification des conclusions, et, de 'autre, k la co^ tret"??L"°'''"'r''"''"^ ''*"* "'^•"«'«' •* jurisprudence qus'^^ fom,6e sous I'Ordonnance de 1067 I'autorise k le faire. Mais ni ^ans I'un m' dans I'autre cas, le tribunal do premiere instance ne devait rejeter en entier U ir°^A-r^''"°* r^.^ P".^'^'^^ <^" J« ^o' do°°«it aux dem/ndeurs le qroii a o pr eaa nt fl rft flUn demaw d e ; . . — L«Terwn Tl. Boiton. r i 4 J / a. ^. 802 LoTfinon Boston. COURT OF QUKEN'S BENCH, 1888. H pout iirrivor que la valeur dea offots non repr^HentAu soit Won au-domous da montant do la cr6anco pour lac^ucllo its ont 6t6 saisis. Dans co cas lo dom- raago qu'6prouvo le cr6ancier ne pout ©xcddor colto valour. 8i lo Sli6rif lul fourniUcoUo valour on donions ot qu'il fasBo voir quo la non ropr6iKjntation doa effoto no i^ut 6tro attribu6o A auouno fraudo do sa part, lo criancior doit 6tro tetisfait, ear il obticnt ploino r6paration. II ORt juato qu'il soit alora Iib6r6 do la contrainto. On peut done auivant lea cirConatancoa lui donnor raltornativo do payer la valour dea ofTetH. Telle £tait dans lea demiora tomps la juriaprudenico en Franco aona Tanclon droit ainai quo lo cortifient lea , autoura du Nouveati Denisart, nu moj; "Gardien," § 4, No. 6. Le jugoraent que noua avona rendu dana la cauae do Irwin ot Boaton, consacre cotte jurisprudence. Lea appelanta ayant domand6 la contrainto par corpa, lo tribunal aurait dh la lour accorder, saaf k y ajonter I'al- temative d'un ai raieux n'aimo payer la vajeur dea effeta, uno fbia cetto valeur bien «t duemcnt 6tablie. The judgment of the Court belojv was reversed, without coats (the Chief Juatice dissenting on the question of costs), and the Court below directed, avant /aire droit, to order proof as to the value of the eflfccts. The following is the judgment of the Court, of Appeals : '* " La Cour, apris avoir ontondu lea partiea, par loura avocats, aur le m6rite, examin6 tant le dossier do la procedure en Cour de [premioro instance, que les griefs d'appel produita par I'appelant ot lea r6[|flfses a icoux ot aur le tout raftre- ment d6Iib6r6 :— lo. Conaid6rant que, dnna I'etat do la cauae, lea appelanta 6taiont bien fond^s k deinander, en cour do premidro inatanco, la oontrainte par corpa contre le Sh6rif, I'lntiip6 on cette cause ; que cette domande n'aurait pas dd 6tre rejet6e comrae olio I'a 6t6 par la dite Cour; 2o. Conaid^rant quo le dit Sh6rif, a, dans sea rdponsea par 4crit a la demanitio do la dito contrainte, all6gu6 que les cftets^ saisis et non reprisont^s pa/ lui, n'oxc6daient pas en valeur la somrae de cinquante livres courant, et est cinsfi par Ik avoir demand^ que, si la contrainte 6tait prononcde contre lui, il luil fAt donn6 Taltemativo de s'en liberor en payant aux appelantaja valeur dcs dits effeta ; quo, datis ce caa, la Cour do premiere instance, apjfes audition des jjarties, aurait d(i ordonner avant faire droit que prouve fftt faite sans delai k la iatisfaction de la dite "Cour de la valour des dits cffets saisis et non ropr68ent^k, pour ensuito 6tre la dite conttainte-par-jjorpa prQnonc6e contre lui avec I'alternative d^ s'en \ib6ror en payant aux dits demandeurs la dite valeur airisi proi^v6e ; 3o. Conaidirant que tous les raoyons invoqu6s par le dit Sh6rif dans sea riSppnsea par 6crit aont mal fundus, k I'exception de oelui qui eat relatif k la valour dea dits effeta ; 4o. Con- aiddrant, par consdquent, que dans le jugemenl, dont est appel, il y a mal jug6 ; Infirme le auadit jugement, aavolr le jugoment rendu le 28 de F6vrier 1867 par la Cour (Superieure siegeant k Montreal ; et cette Cour, proc6dant k rendre \e jugement que la dito Cour Superieure aurait dii rendre, et-d6olarant que la demande de la dite contrainte par corpa proced*ait vaIablM|iont contre le dit Sh6rif, intime, rejotte tous lea moyena invoqu^s par lui dana sea ditea r6poDa08 ejotte par 6brit, k I'exception de celui qui eat relatif i^& valour dea dita effets, et ad- f COURT OF QUEEN'S BENcn, 1888. __ 803 contrirn^ nl "P'^wntd. par l„ tro I. dite^ 1 alternative do .'en l.b6rer en payant aux di.s domandouh, la dite valeur .Tn,i />«.« rf./?am,ay. for Appellants. •'"^«™'"' "^*'*'' Court below revor«^. ^eJhuM it Duniin, tor Reapondent. /Lvramm Baton. ■N API>KL. DU DISTRICT DB MONTREAL. MONTBKAL. 8 SBPTBMBRB. 1888. 0>r««. S,B L. a Lafontain., Bart.. C. J. Avi.win, J., DovAt. J., Cabok, J MiTRISSfi DiT SANS PA9ON it ai., J>if*ndtur$ en Cow IitflrUwt, Appilants; ■T BRAULT, OAUTIONN^MENT, Dtmandtwr en Cow In/irieure, IlfTltlM. Sir L. H. Lafontaine, Bart., Juge en Chef • Le 6 man. lass, lc9 Appelants pr^eentent une roqufite adressfie « knr Honn. 1. La nature du jngement : ' que dans e cas oA la dit «nnai «« •* «, connrme en appel, anssi bien ««u .„, le oo.te.u d^ prtae^l;. ™'«*"""''°. ««»■»««. do™.t to™, «,il ->^ / i-' ^ '^i^ 804 COUR DU BANC DK LA RKINE, 1858. MetH«4 Bnwlt. 1 ni- 'S-' ? .^1 h4 Au biu.do oetto roqiiAt«c«it 6cr\t oe qui Kuit: **~ ■ " Qu'il loit fait aiiifli quo raquiH, Montr6al oe Mnrs 1856. . MONK, COFFIN it PAPINBAU, ^ -^ N^ P. 0. ■. Puis I'ott voit quo le mbmo jour lo« r«qu6rnnlH font un acto h<|uuIh, pour 6vitor cnHUollotnont leu conn6ijuoncet du ju^tfient en d6clnrat!on d'hypotli&quo prononu6 centre eux b* ditpn qunlit^t ro*p«otiVcR, lo 18 novombro dornier, k la pourNuite du dit dornande)ir par repriit« d'instHn^p, C, A. Uraull, ct on con«6 La loi (1) exigo que colui qui interjetto appol, donne coition " qu'il pour- " suivra effoclivcment le dit appel ot satisfera k la condemnation, .et aui^si " paiora tels depens et domroagos qui serorit adjugos, en oas que le jugement " ou la sentence do la Cour du Banc du Roi soit confirm^, ou que I'Appelant . " convionne et d6claro par Qcrit au Gref de la Cour dont est appel, qu'il ne " s'Oppose point "'^1»«. Co,. lo d61aUHon,ent ai e.t qu une facult6 accord6o «u d^tenteur pour *viter co d6lai„eraont II !» vtl qu'on oHt dan, I'habitude do concluro.quo lo d^fendo.ur rTenu do pi " -oux .1 n',dn.e d6I«i„er. Mai, co, c^onclu.ion, no ,ont pi, elL " CW comn.o d.t Pqj^hier, (4) "mettro la cimrrue devant les bcBufa" ^ Ple^erlrru' '"V'" '"^•''"'""'? '^^'^'''"^ ^ *•'*'"•«'' ^^^^ P"-"e»t et ,i piement, quant k la quction qui nous'occupo. ou'il, satuferni^L a i j\j ««.o„,cequidovait«onsi,te^^u ca, d-un^;.;.:::';^;::: if en TptA' fa.ro lo d61a.H,ement da.«, lo dtlai v ulu, ou.sinon, 4 payer la dotto ^^ Le jugoment en appel e,t motivd rt)mrae suit :— ' / nhi'^'".?".?^"'!".^.*""''^ ^""^^^ by their coy„,e! rcpectively, on the'rulo obtained by tho sa.d Rcpondcht on the fin.t day o^June iL. and Ctu If dot bcrafon thereupon being had, seeing that although thWilit; of thriZllnu as tho party condemned in the Court below, i, only conSal «!, f ^u nswer the condemnation, and th«Vhe bond given by him i, irfelular aTdV (1) Rodier, BUT I'ord. do 1667, tit. 27, art. 1. Ed de 1770 Trm ' 2) Pothier, trjdt. de l.h,poth.,ue, ;. 444, Ed -L: L^\^^^^^^ voyager en ce pay,." ^ ^ """ **' *• ^^^"^^ «»« •• "ncontre A ,, 1* KV rutiuer, !!^! ciW p. 448 7 :M= m I»11'^ R DU BAVO Dl U ABINI, lU 1. "r -"rrr %it,p»wmij(ikXo^n thi« Court by ih« otdinMo* orUi* 36 0«o. in.,0«p. 9,8«o. Of bo •uppQi^l ; Hi* orii«r(Hl tli»t th« iwid 'A1i|H)ll«nU Ihi «ilinilt«Ml to proMotiU th«ir Mid iippoAl on giving gtuxl Rnd NiifScioiit MMiurity within oha month, to proaociito tho App<>|il) to autiror tlio cundoinnKtion, nnd to pfy nil aunh oo*tt Mid iliimagtm m iihftll bo iuljud)(od in ^u tlio jueiil dliiniiiae*! with coete." pnutre «t Daouit for AppulUnta. Maekay d; Auilin for Uoiipondent. . « ' • ,n». E. Ifci r. W. T.) « COUR-flUPERIKlIRR. ^ • - MONTREAL, ntu OCTOUafe. IBM. ^ Coram Bmitii, J. ; (0.) \foKi)iLRT, J. ; CiuiioT, J. . No. 10O3. Comttock et al ve. Ltttiur. JugV-Que lo UiSrtonUaur qui • t\A Halgiiii ot qni • aonipnru pii vsoAnco t Mt nn droit da damaiidur lo otutlonni'mi'nt Ju({^(|/min tnlet In prniiil«r Jour Jurldlauo du lonuo unsulvMit, quolqua, I'avb n'alt pM Utt donnO-d»ni Ira 4 Joura aprAa m au inp»rutlon. ( i)> Le D^fi-hdour avait oompnru on culte cauHo lo 30 Soptombro 1860, jour du rapport du Dref de Sommation. \ Co no fut que Ic 16 Octobro 1850, quo le D6nndour donna avia aux proo*)- rourH den Duinandeura qu' it foroit motion " qu*en rtutant que lea Domandeura " no rcHidont point datia lu Ras-Canadn, et notammont quMla aoht r^aidant dana " lea lUtats-Unia d*Ainerique, ila aoiont tenns do donnen lo oautionnomont, Judi- " catum Solvi, avant que lo dit D6fendeur aoit tonu de Vfipondre' ii la forme on *.* au m6rite do la prisonto domando, le tout avoc deponar Une domnndo do d6fen8e avait 6t6 faite aux prooureura du D6fendeur lo nouf .Octo^r* 1850. Cette motion fut faite lo 17 Octobre 1857, etapr6a auditionyile fut accord^e. Onimet, Morin <& Afarchand, pour lea Demamieura. LorHnffery Ponunville & Loranyer, pour le I)6fondeur. (t. b. l.) ■ -=~- (1) Rdgloa do Pratique, page 19, Rdgle 62. -t \ J, EDITORS' NOTE. » - In the Report of the cssea of Sinclair va. Ferguson, Robertaon ts. Ferguai^, and Mills TS. Ferguson, pablisltod in page 101 of the present Tolume of the " Juristx it la stated, that the pririlege thereby inToked had been recognized by our Courts anterior to the ii^troduotion of the late Bankrupt Law. This, it woiild appekr from the stfte- rinent of Mr. |>opfaam of counsel for the Plaintifb, is not the ease. Aa fiir as can "ascertained, all the previous actions founded on the 177 Art. of the Gnatom demandecl a printleyn upon tht yriet . o n ly ; whi le the s e reporte d p na ea wer e t ha fl t a t t o ^.^f"-* ♦M^ (((orolion (n^mdtcalton) of the goods. 1'^ [II.,0«p. 9,8«Q. 4)-> ■a, 3 --. / K • ■ * ' • • Z >' • • * • • • O • • • • * * • ■ S W £- ■ '^ ^v 1^ = 5^ - s 3 3 S S . S 3 3 - Q S CO 05 g • : § 09 a a o S3 o ^ § g 3 a g 2 .9 o .a •a bo o .4- ?=^" JL 4. a PS o I o M 8 « 4 I i4 Aoi Auj Ai,n =4m \M'^ ' 3 ^ « — -jt a»~ J, _ ^ pu 8 a cj ^2 o a o S e p 1 5 ,s| ■ *■ ./ INpEX TO PRINCIPAL MATTERS IN THE SECOND VOLUME OW TBI liOWIiR CANADA JURIST. -I OOMPILIO BT STRAOHAN BBTHUNB, Advocate. * I' _. . . Absentbb :_riieSAi8iiABH^T«ter judgment. " PAei AccocNT rendered by tutosrtbirfirininop when of .ire withont* •«" <*>' Bervices^a^taSiiJ ^ mtek,nd such as consulutious, for Which the rau, of c^^V^^^^^ trary. (Devlin vs. Tumblety, S. C.) "jjewaPDi- AnMi««o,..fj^rtoerouyW/.^ar/^ 182 ^ bmd the members of the firm. (Fisher ts. Russell et .1., S 0) ,01 ^ A™n.„«>r^C^.„,^i:^ (Chapman TS. Blennerhasset, 8. ) »"" dJ petition. "/"»**»J|™«»t«»derl7»th Article of^ustomisnoiife'^i;,^ * v^Fer^son Robertsonetal..,.Perguson.and mXT^^ " '.^VideBom. '""-^ ""•'••••••••••v--. 101 ' AuiwATiOH, Bngllsh law of S-lhSfe D^' " ■ " ' / ' " ^^'--■-:^ ■;::-■ ^ .^^ ^- : -^- ' : - ^---r^: V , awarded to a defendant arrested undtoT^MjA. -.» j j >. iNa .. A^^ ■s.'si.r'^'^ »g»^ ^ ^ % 1t __(-, -ar- N »-^ 'It- V ^ \ ' 4, , h T J ) ' 'J H ^ r y. INDEX TO PRINCIPAL UATTKR8. 'Ml 190 98 279 Arbitrators, even when vested with {lowers of amiabUi etmpoiiteur$, cannot adju- dicate on question of costs, unless specially referred to them, and so much of their award as adjudicates with respect to the costs will be set aside. (McKenna vs. Tabb, 0. 0.) AssiSBMENTB may be recovered from a party holding land within the City of Montreal under a lease from Government for twenty-one years, renewable on certain conditions, on the ground that such party is an . owner of the land, within the meaning of the Bye-Law of the Oorpo- ration imposing assessments on real property. (Oould vs. The Mayor, Aldermen and Oitisens of the City of Montreal, S.O.) ..> 260 [Oonfirmed in Appeal, 1st December, 1868.] Absioneb of a debt' has a right to intervene in a suit instituted, with his consent, by the assignors, and cause all further proceedings to be suspended, ^ but he must bear all costs to the time he so intervenes. (Berthelet, appellant, and Ouyetal., respondents, Q.,B.)...<.. 20t( Attacbmekt, under lllth Article of the Cout&nu de ParU, cannot be tried by motion. (Torrance et al. vs. Thomas^ S. G.) < Attornbyb : — Service on, — vide Gibtipioati of Bailiff. " : — Fide Jddqiunt on confession. " , authority of, — vide Bono. AviD/>f a party in a suit cannot be divided. (Lefebvre vs. DeMontigny, S. 0.) . . Baillbur du roNDB :— Privilege of, will be postponed to the kypothlque of an ordi- nary judgment creditor whose ju^gpient was registered before the deed of the vendor. (Lemesurier et al. vs. McOaw, and Dolan, oppo- sant, S, 0.) ^ , ; 219 Bill op Particulars :^Omission to fyle same, even where 'defendant is in gaol under writ of capiat, will not entitle defendant under 30th Rule of Practice to dismissal of action, (Hende^on vs. Bnness, S. 0.). . . . . ■ '^ ToRj be fyled at enquite, if defendant, instead of moving to dismiss plain- tiff's action, pleads to the merits. (Westrop vs. lliohoto et al., S. 0.) Bond : — In action on, where it is signed by an attorney and the a^ority of such attorney is'impugned by the plea, such plea must be accompanied by a£Bdavit, tinder the requirements of the 87th section / .; ai 167 194 121 182 ":■.;■■ ;:.. : . ■ :' " fi-- ' " INDBX TO PWNOIPAL MATTMS. yj ^ Bt.bo«, leading from a public r«ad to a toll-bridw mut h. »i^ / ' "«■ by the occupanto^iuild toll-brdrafrfT„ ,"""••* '"'''"*^"«"» ofeucboccopanttheMu |,^Xo«^^^^^^ '^ theby-roadlie«canreeo«rft. '^^ '*"'^°^'"'"J"J»dictlon v.. Leproh^s ; ^^'^'P""""" <" the ParUh of Ste. Ro.e Capias ad Ribpomdmddm :— Petition for diVcW-1"; ' " " "« even after l„u, joined (OhlprnT 'T, '^'l ""'*"• ""^ »>« «"'<1<' " :-Defendant arre. J under at auTof dTJ ^'T""""*. S. C). ..... . 71 alimentary allowance froreachplSrlT.^^^ ance In Englfah .liver cota defer.? .' .^'''**' °' '"«•' ••'»»- i-g)i-iiieW ?;L::^f;!l"^^^^^ Fyson, S. ). *. . ^ ' "'•^<»«» ^»- Fy.on, Iferrltt v». " «*">notbe8etasl4e.BorDartvftrr«.«-^V"J."V**"V • 161" ^^ .-fVtde Alimhtaky auowahoi. '' * * ' ' ^®6 b, parol te.«„o»rth..i^'™.,.^'^r;';'"'°'''^ - ^ ' «xp«rtePr-A person confined in the Proriielid pV„ji«« ^ »<^' ftr forgery, is Wm.r/««.S^'l^"1ri^^ during that period on his wl^4«iM V*^"*""" "'• *n««fi>f Co-MisBiOHBoaAToLmarissue^^Tj^"; (f ^"-f. I>Tah,S. 0.).. ,08 ^ ' any kind. (Willi. e^aLT.;ie"eS ^^ ' '''""*"* '^^''' "^ Oo,TnAo.m«.^^^,,_„-«^..^ „ orderthatthesherii^;;^^ t*' ■;■ •■■ . 'v, ■ ■■ .■ ..^■■. ■ ■ ■ ■ •"■:-■ '^tw- .■> '■ 1 V L'l- 4- )■ ^i^- ■■,?.' ' 4 IV. INURX TO PRINCIPAL MATTERS. ■C. fe'ui mVi At I,* • / „ Y' ^ . • PAO« •witct, and ia not sufficient evidence of itself to Justify a cond»mnation'<| . . for contrainte. (Kepip vs. Kemp, S. 0.) 380 CoPA^TNiBB :— In action by, where one dies darhig tlie pendency of the suijt and when the cause is en Hat Hire jugte, it is qot necessary that the imtance be talcen Up on behalf of the deceased, (fiurry et al. vs. Shepstono et al., C. 0.) ...« 122 Corporation op Xontrbai. is liable for damage caused by ovei^flowing of street , drains which have become obstructed, and where such oyerfl'owing' has had the effect of rendering the packages dohtalning the goods unmerchantable, although the contents themselves be uninjured, ^ damages will nevertheless be recoverable. (Kingan vs. The Mayor, ^ Aldermen and Citizen! of Montreal, S. C.) .' • 78 "-.y " ' X—ViSe ASBISBUBNTB. Coars : — Vide Bornaok (action en). \ , ^ <* : — Vide Ezpibtisb. . '^~^' : — In an action where judgment is rendered for a larger amount than "« ladmittedHHd tendered .by pica, but where the defence is in the vain ■ / , sustained, the plaintiff will be con4emned to pay the coBts of conibs- - . - tation. (Routh vs. Dougall, S. 0.) i , 286 CuHi, who celebrates tlie marriage of a girl during minority, without publication of banns and without the consent of her parents, in virtue 0/ a dispen- ^^ satibn from his bishop, is liable for damages for so doiqig. (Larocque et Din, appellants, and Michon, respbndent.-Q. B.) ". .". 267 Dahaobs: — Fide Corporation OP Montrbai. '' :— -In action for, in eonsequentle of plaintiff's child being severely bitten by deiRsndant's dog, which was trained and kept as a fighting dog and . sulfered to run unmuzzled, thkt exemplary da'mages will be kwarded. (Falardeau vs. Couture, S. 0.) r^f '' :— In action for, by a tutrix to minors, in censequence of the death of their father through the negligence of the defendant, the demand is ■ subject to the prescription of one year. (Filiafrault vsj The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, S. C.).. 97 " :— In action for, for improvident issue of laieie arrit before judgment, v^lura justification or sufficient probable cause is not made out, but where the conduct of the parties was such as to create serious dis- trust, only nominal damltges will be awarded. (Iialp6 dit PariseaU ■^ , YB. Kocfaon, S. C.) ...j/..;.... 120 ^. cannot bk recovered against a proprietor of a farm by reason of explosions - in qnarrying carried on bjr his tenant. (Vannier et ux. vs. Larche ditLar<5hevaque,S.0.)...X..^,..... '......,..... 220 " cannot be recovered from a magistrate, for injuries paused by the firing of ^ troops under the orders of such magistrate, if it be made to appear that though there was no necessity for .firingi^jret the circumstantses 1 were such ttiat a perso.n might liave been reasonably mistaken in his ' judgment as to the necessity for 3nch .firing. (Stevenson vs. Wilson, " i—Videf3vnt. ' - 5 - « cannot be recovered by a shareholder in the Qnuia Trunk RaawayXJom- pany against the Company, for reftasing to register, during a period of several months, a transfer made by him of his shares as collateral secnrity, and thereby caosiiig him great peconiary loss, althongh S«ch t|f^B?ftr Hw l|wgMrad;,!n th a fftnn .fegnirecHy the compai ^ 2M ^^ I.. . ^ ■ ■■ • . . . INDKX TO PRI.VCMPAL UATTRHS ' v . . ' ' ' ■ ■ Charter. (Webster vb. The Grand Trunk Rallwaj Company of Ca "'*' nada, a. 0.) -..,.;.... Di«rtAPAtioN:— Fide TiBns 8 AI81. /4f " ^^^ ' /' , in case of attachment undc^ 177th ArtlcWof Custom, may be served at ^ shcnflTs office. (Sinclair vs. Ferguson, Uobertson et al. vs. Ferguson, andMillsetal. vs. Ferguson, 8.0.) , ' ,«, " , —VidePAni^T. ..101^- • " may be ameaded, on payment of 50s. costs, without prejudice to the evi- " ^ ^, dence and with ,K)wer to defendant to replead within eight days J when it results from the proof that the allegations do not correspond' nt„„ precisely with the facts proved. (Boudreau vs. Lavender, S. C ) . 194 DiiooNFiTiuB -.—Vide Paomssony >jotb. «r, o. i>.; . . . 1^4 '•—Vide Salk omnium bonorum. I " : — Vide Lkask.^ " '—Vide UvpOTHKqVK. - - -; : ;- - v — r--; - :. _ DbPAULT CASE :—Flrfe NbW CONCLUSIONS. DErBNDANT may be a witness for his co-d^fendahts, if he be not interested, oCif his interest be removed by a discharge. (The Bank of British North America vs. Cuvillier et al., S. C ) . . * DE.A.8SBMBNT fyled after the expiration of 15 day^ fr;m th^ 's^;;;; ;f 'th; judgmlLt ' • g;")''*^^"^*''''«"*°"™«"f°t'> that end, (B61«nger vs. Durocher, " , O-led^ito spedal conditions attach^^ \s l»i>ll,*buUtf casJ 0/ ^e«u' ihe ^^^ f'"'™!"'''^ be properly put in after judgment in appeal confirm- - ing the judgment m the Court below. (M^trissi dit Sans Facon' Donation' oNfiBBcsB :—Ftde Revocation. • ° '" .neca not be insinuated or registered. ' (Laileur, appellant, and Giraid, respondent, S. C). ' Dot^IBB coVTUMiBB, as regulated by the Cout&mi '^"paril, wai at'^lV Um^s Vllim'- ■ "" ^ able on lands in Lower Canada held under the tenure of free anb common soccage before the passing of the Imperial Statute 6 Geo. 4. ^ cb. 69, commolly called « The Canada Tenures, Act." (Wflcox et«x. appellants, and Wilcox, respondent, Q B ) ,' ^^ Dow.B:-Englislj law on a. well as English law of des;;;;'a;i^'ai;e;;^;;;;;- ; ^ ' wrn '.' . 'V'"" """^ '°'"'°**" '""''"'^'^ ^*« '"'''^duced into \^ , Lower Canada for the first time, by the Impei^al Statute 6 Geo.^. -Ai . ; . cb. 59^ commonly called "The Canada Tenures Act." (Wilcox at ux . aPPellantSj'and Wilcox, respondent, Q.B ) " , Elkction Pbtitions Act :-Pees allowed to commissionir" «nde;,^^' as'slgnabl'e; : .; ffr'^J'^ recovered firom party contesting and' sitting member - V ENon-T*.. " " •" ''T''""""'- ^"•'^"'^^^-^iMametaL.S.C.).. 42 ' Bn«u.tb :*.lt ,8 not comfpetent for tiie plaintifft to compel the defendants to go on " » u i "^^^ ' ^ i n t li ff abganfl o nf c e rUin of laalitttflb* whibitg attached to a commU»im rogatoire, issued by them and.not; returned. ±1 i x:-m '•.- '■■ V. ■* > m<- -^:- - ■ '.■*•■■ 1 -''^' %::^ 1 * ■ .» -.ii yd: IKDBX TQ FRINOIPAL MATTKHS, ri.n 285 ^ 1 ^» '» ' wf . ^ 'f;| 22Sr*» " ■■ •eta. 110 192 297 r-; (t» 9>^nm*^ r;»- tn re*** 4 U I •4-' ^.=^ And defBDdanUi aw under any clroumatanceg entitled to addu^6 otI- dence after the return of the commission. (Foster et al. vs. Chamber- lain etal., 8. 0.) ...4........ ;. , EviDiNoi:— In an action by an endorsee of a promissory note against the maker, the payee and. endorser, who has received tlbe amount of the note from the maker before its maturity, and underUkes to pay it, is not a com- »^petent witness for the defendant to prove that fact. (Phaser vs. Brad- ford, S. 0.) '.....'... . .' '" ;— FWrBoND, ' " ' - '"'" " ■'* :— FiUc DintNDANr. * , . " • :— DefendanU, sued as ibopartners carrying on trade under the name of "The Uont^al Railroad Oa"r Company," muf prove, under the genc- * ral issue, that the c(nn)pany was incorporated and that the debt sued on was a debt of the corporation, (Edmonstone et al. vs. Ohilds et *'*i '*• *^') •, ».....,...,.... .^ ,....'.,4.,, J« • — Vide PABTHIRIHir. ■ " •.— Vide Insdranok. ' *'. :— When a ga94ien, in answer to a rule tqr^'contrainte par eorp«, .pleads tba;t the property is only worth a particular -araoiint, the onu* probandi , falls on him. (Leverson et al., appellants, and Boston, respond^t, Q'B.) ;........ :..... .....t ExoiPTlON d la/orme, by which it ih alleged that defendant is described as of" the township of Orford," whereas he id faCt lived in the town of Sher- broOke, will ,not be maintained, when it is proved that the part of Sherbrooke within which defendant resides is included within the limits of the township. (Morse, appellant, and Brooks et al., respon- dents, Q. B.) ,'. " , by which it is alleged that defendant is described as of "St. Jean Bap- ^ tiste," when in fact he resided in St. Jean Baptiste de RouviUt," will • . not be maintained^ (Gigod Tg. Hotte, S. jO.) ." . . . 193 D£ci.iif ATOiBB :-jgJ^i«fe8uch has been fyled ftquirlng proof to support it, , an^ plaintiff, instead of inscribing for enquile, inscribes for hearing on the merits of the, exceptidta, the exception will be dismissed for want of proof. (Elliott vs. Bastien et al., S. C.) Exbodtor: — Fi({e Htpotrbqcb. ExPBRTlSB :— Costs of, are in th^ discretion of the Court, and in the exercise of such ' discretion the Court will at least divide them. between the parties, r where the report has the effect of materially reducing the plaintiff's demand. (Qardne? vs. McDonald, S. 0.) • • - Paws bt abtiolbs :— Where party interrogated on, answers evasively, to the effect ; that he does not "remember, when the matters enquired of must be . (' , presumedly within his knowledge, the interrogatories will be taken r^ 'pro confeui*. (Nye, appellant, and Malo, respondent, Q. B.) . . i . . . . '*•/ :— F»rf« Admissions. ^ a ^ FoLU-Rnle for, against adjudicatairetyrho, on the face of th^ proceed- ings, are non-residents in Lower ! Canada but have paid the capital of th^ir purchase, founded on a claim f5r interest on such ' capital, and served on " the agent and attorney atlaw" of the adjuduiatairt$, will - not bo maintained. (Hall vs. Douglas, and McDougall et al., (ui/udi- eataire$, 8. 6.). .- i.'. 2t8 Frbi and oohuon aoooAoi lahAs, in LolSr Canada :—Vide DonAiBi oodtumub and DOWBB. -■ , ., ■ ,1 ' / 39 202 208 43. - ■). i ' — Vide Sii:PABATI0N DB OOBPS BT-UOifeltS. ler T8. Brad- . TUMUB and » - IVDKX TO PRINCIPAL IIATTKHB. ^l 0««,..:_OUa,. of. In a deed of exchange, confer, no kypotM^, „„,«.. ."" 0«D„H:-FK.lr'""^ "' """'""' "^•'""""' '• ^-^ - »3» .:-In a rule for eontrainte par eorp, againit, it Is not necMsary to offer 2 ;;"''.!"'•''•"" of producing the moveables seized Levt 0««.. T '"""V^I'^PP*"'"'"'*""! Boston, respondent, Q.B.) V 29» GWURAL Issua -.—vide Evibinoi. , ' > ^f "-^ •....,,..*. 297 Goods, sold d term*:— vide Vmdob. *^ Hom-w-UiBB h^ve no privilege on a piani brought into a hotel by a permanent boarder as against the owner thereof, for the board of iuchbTder /' (Nordhelmer et a|. vs. Hogan 6t al 8 ^ ooaraer. / H*P0T„.,„. , «fc..„, dating as f„ bac. as m\ and%Va-.;Vd in ;e;pe;; of' U^d '" Swl h tt ".? «'.f "»»-'^«' "<» 0»'y r.gi,teretf in accS ' ance with the provisions of the Registry Ordinance 4 Vict chan an ^ that the debtor held the land whilst that statute was in force ?The Queen, appellant. a.,d Oomte et al., respondents. Q.B.). ... ^ 86 ' ^;^det:Q.E??:;'...^.?! «-"-PP«»--.-^ Oomte%'al.. '*'"'t™ttror"'*''Tv,"*''*~"'" »nd« ih^ 4th*sVcVi;;'of ih^ R^giV. '- tnulon Ordinance 4 Vict. ch. 30, (The Queen, appellant, and Comte ' et al., respondents, Q. IB.) . . ^ i rr . m oumie " :-F«i« Gabamtib, ' •.;••'••• .• i. 86 " :-~ICi(^lMBCBABOB.- ' " given during insolvency confers no privilege as against contemWaBftous chirographary creditor. (Duncan vs. Wilson, and WilsonTC^nt aivj Wood, opposant. S. 0.) ""i opposant, t,on of the will under which he is appobted. (Lamothe vs. Ro^ rp'pefoa^lUl oTr* "' ''' ''"" -^ ^r «-^-" «^ toaSBiPTioN ,N KAUx CBUBOt be had in regard to an instr'um;;; 'which 'bea« 'n'onJ Vf ''" - the characteristics df authenticity. (Molson vs. Burroughs, SO ) 72 - :-In case of. the srocii^rW of the exhibit attacked may be mldoimm'el ' ^.ately after its deposit. (Moreauetnr. vs. Leonard, S^) 138 Ihsolvbnoy:— rWeDAooHFiTOHi. , ^ ^ "' . '' ''* IhSTANOB:— J^rfeOOPABTKBBB. ' • iNSCBABCBr-The condition «suall/e'„dorsed on policies of insurance res^c6ng LldttTr. ?'"''"^ '" '*"• ''"•^ '*- Perfomance wUl not b5 of such double msumnee «//«. ^AMr*. make 90 specific objection to LomtX n '"'""''"" thae yound. (The Western is^urance Company, appellant, and,Atwell, ^spondent, Q. B.). ... ,o, :r-A contract of, m.V exist without the execution or hsue of any' 'p'oi;;; V ^or of afty mterim receipt, even with a company whose charter and TLTJ T'^' °"^^ *" JTOve^yparol eviden ce, '^h. y.:r; ... ._ptr„77,^7^*PJ^"^f' anaicGaTf^yrrespondr^Q bT) 221 .-Premium of. taken by the manager of an insurance company in the 8hape of a promissory note of a third party, payable to the order of ' ' J > u <■■ %■ vUi. i\ INOKX TO PRINCIPAL MATTKIUI. PAOB f I* ■'•t It ^ ;■? and ondor.xod hj the manager to the company, though diihonourod, it a Bufflclont coniideralion to lupport tho contract of inanranoe. (Do.) 231 iNSOBANua :— In ruie such aa above the ^videnoe of th« mortgagor, who undertook to effect tho insurance for the mortgagee, is admfMible to prove that ^;' he did 10 ; and the evidence of the declarations of the manager that '^, the iniuranca had been eflbctcd, etc., and of his promises of a policy '/jf ' made about tlio date of tho contract, is admissible. (Do.) 221 *^, " ■ The sale by tho proprietor and mortgagor of the real estate assured, during the pendency of the contract of insurance in favor of tho mort- jC , gagee, does not affect such insurance, though part of the consideration ■ Vj of such sale bo a promise by the purchaser to pay the mortgagee her< ^ > debt, and though she be a party to it. (Do.) « '. 22V « ' ~- " :— Interest on loss may be awarded from the /late of the Are. (Do,)....'.-jftl/^ . iN^iBf aNTioN : — Ft'de Abbionh. •" * JuMMiBT :— Draft of, may be amended, even after the judgment ha^ been pronoiinc- ' ' - ed, provided it has not been registered. (Palsgrave vs. Ross, and .> Boss, opposant and plaintiff en /aux, and Palsgrave, defendant en ' ,, j^«, 8. 0.) ....\....,i , 05 [Confinned''ln Appeal, iBt December, 1868.} • <^ " on confession cannot be attaclced (after entry thereof in the plumitiO by motion, on the ground of alleged irregularities in tlie procedure apparent on the face of the record,' and the fact that one of the plain- tiffs' attorneys appeared for the defendant and counter8]gnc4 the con- fession, Is not such an irregularity 19a would Justify the setting aside of the judgment after entry theredf in ^li^ plumltif. (Molson et al. vs. Burroughs, S. C.) .,..;>.•.. ,.. . , 107 [Confirmed in Appeal 3rd September, 1858.] " ; dismissing a pleading, cannot be desisted from by the parties and re-ad- judjcatcd by the Court. (Clarlco et al. vs. Clarke et ux., S. C.) .... 209 Jury Trial cannot be had in an action for damages, by two professional men against three merchants, for breach of contract to buy a i>ailroad ; jnd 80 much of the conclusions of the defendants' pleaB in si^ action as pray for such trial by jury will bo rejected on motion, (Abbott et al. vs. Mcikleham et al., S. C.) 283 LB4fiut :— Assignment of, by a bankrupt to a creditor, to whom ho sells all his . ■ . moveables, is a sufiBcient delivery inlaw of such moveables,. Is against V creditors of other third parties, and precludes the necessity of a ^ diplacemenl or other species, of tradition rielle. (Cumming et al. V V vs. Mann, andSmith et al.j, opposants, S. C.) . * 195 Lboaoy from father to daughter, conditional on her not doing certain things, ia forfeited by her doing such things^ and it is a fatal variance in a ^^^''^ declaration to claim such legacy as an absolute one. (Freligh vs. Seymour, S. C.) .• 91^ LfcoiTiMB was virtually abolished by the Imperial, Statute 14 Geo. 3, c. 83 (Quebec Act), and the Provincial Statute 41 Geo. 3, chap. 4. (Quintin dit \ Dubois et al., appellants, and Girard et al., respondents, Q. B.). . . . . 141 Hagibt^atb: — ^tde Damaobb. #r MABBiAfl%,of minor without <;onsent of parents :— ria case of, parents may recover damages, without being first obliged to take proceedings to set aside le marriage. (Larocque et rtV., appellajats, and M \dai i.* \he ^.B.) Mabbibo woman :—-Vide Salb of real estate. 267 x. . r . P^'if?^? ■ -; 'T ^^ ",-I.»' •\ . ■ / IWDM TO PaiNCIPAL MATTiKS^ |^ MA«mA...vvA„T:-A.er..„t,U,ln» io oboy . Iawft.1 o«l., of hi. mMter'*" (HJ!ftrM":;rfe ^""'"' ^"^'-- """°™ ^-y-^--- M.A.nH«.«r.l„,„c of d,Ilv^.of . cargo of wheat;;;mm;;;;d'in"p;Ve„cVo'f '" , both oarrler and ^on.Ignee, or their rcpreawutlve., may b« continued I,, in tJwabienoe of either party. (Syme et al. v.. Janei et al 8 0) IflA M.Non cannot be impleaded bj,. a writ l„u,d during hi. minority, aig,o„;h he wa. M0T,0K:«FlXirr;j;;::;r* """"'' "''•"• <°'"'."«'«--Tbooln,8.0.). IST MnNio.PAt.OorKg,uo«« .--When a vacancy occur,, and the munfclpallty fail, to fill It at the fir»>jneetlng of councillors after the e.plration of 3 month. . from the ooIaw,butmu.tdo8obyprort.r*r6fli. (Oorpo- '•"o'»o'th»P«rl.h(,f.Veroh*re8T8. Boutillet,8.0).. 115 " Oowobatiom:— FiWeBY-Boi^p. ••• uo Nbw oo;.«,u«oNB,'rc.erved by detl,^iiti«K. In respect of rent accruing, may be taken In a default case without l^^lce thereof on the defendant. (Dubois vs. Oauthier, S. 0.).. ,\, .. ^ HimBPAPBBsub8criptlonsc««berecovered;6nmerop;;oro/deViv;;yVfihepap^^^^ ^^ without any order fof the same, and notwithstanding a verbal refusal to receive the paper and noUficaUon to the carrier to discontinue the delivery of it (Bristow vs. Johnston, 0. 0.) ...... 276 ' .ubscriptiops c«»«i* tH> recovered, without due proof that the' papijrwa^ ordered by the party sued. (Parson, et al. vs. Kelly, ). 2»5 NonoB subsequently given of security In appeal Is a waiver and evocation oV a notice of such security already given for a previous day. (Sullivan, « appellant, and Smith, re8ponde;it,Q.B.).. .. ,«„ " OF AonoNc— Vide Shbbiit. '• ' OPPOSAHt dfinde caytrver residing out of the Provinc;, wTio iiontests the coUoca- V tioa of another opposant, is bound to give security for costs. (Ben- ning vs. The Montreal Rubber Company, and Young, opposant, Und Corning etal.,*oppo.anta, 8.0.) »» 11; '.^.-ogj OPPOBiT,osdyi«d«d,>/ra,Ve..^A rule by an opposant, calling on"a'piain«ff ^^ contest h4s opposition, and ordering in default that main levie be* granted, is Irregular, and will be dismissed. (McGrath vs. Lloyd, and Keith et al., opposants, S. 0.) 2T9 " ''>»'^«""«««'' cannot be mainta^ed against a Mlzure'oriMds," "on the grqundthatthedefendantwat^posseswd of sufficient moveable pro- ^ perty to satisfy plaintiflPs judgment, when such selsura has been » preceded by a regular return of nulla bom. (Soupras vs. Boudreau. and Boudreau, opposant. S ) j- ' - - „„» PAEtH^isr-FufcADMisBioJ;.. ^ ±:::'-:rr-—':- •• 290 Pabtkpbsiib. cannot be proved, as against a person sued «i>gecret partner, by th^ j8«moiiy of one of the ostensible partners. (Chapman v.. Masson, • 0. U.) V ^ ^ ^ ' P .TMOT - T n>a , oti Qufuiiu ft i uge.Wi,„; ; iV;;;;tft^;v^^^^ in the declaration the-pr2ljmtin53».formalltle8 to be observed in order / to obtam the patent. (Bernier vs. B«auchemin, S. 0.) 193 / ■^^- ^; I. moM TO rmiioiPAL mattim. VAOI 289 06 sai 109 PiTiNT ;— In «n Mtion for InnrinKemeat of, If It ba ptortd that th« article patcnUd w»i In public iii« or on mU In th« Province with the cement of the patentee, at the time of the application for the patent, the plaintiff cannot reoover j and a Terdlot of a Jury under luch clroamitancct will be Mt atlda and a new trial ordered. (Bemier ti. Beauehemln. 8.0.) ; PiBltHPTioii D'ufiTANOi wlU not be allowed. In the abeenoeof the original record. (Turner «. Boyd, 8. 0.) " !— Motion for, praying that action be dlimliied for wanit of proceeding!* y during three yeare, and not aaking that caie be declared p4rim4, 1^ Irregular and will be rejected. (Peck et al. ru. Mirphy et al., and The Mayor, Aldermen and Oitlieni of the City of Montreal, T. 8.. 8. 0.) '„,.. PitiToav ACTiow :— Where the plalntire title depends on the ralldltyef a power of attorney executed wwi niitg prM In Upper Canada and duly attested by a notary public of Upper Canada, under hie seal of o^lce, with a certiflcato of the administrator of the Oovernment of this Prorince annexed, that the mere production of such power of attor* ney, with the certificates aforesaid annexed. Is not sufBclent proof of Iteexecution. (Nye vs. McDonald, 8. C.) PiiA :— A hypothetical plea will be rejected on demurrer. (The Montreal Assu- rance Company, appellant, and McQUllTray, respondent, Q.'B.) .... 331 Pmadino :— a clerical error In a, can be amended at the final hearing. (Hastie vs. Morland, 8. C.) .^ . . , 277 . " :— The necessity of a replication to the plalnUrs general answer Is waived l>y consent of defendant to subsequent proceedings. (Oreonshields ' et al. vs. Oauthler, 8. C.) jgg :— Where a preliminary plea has been fyied and^the plaintiff has demanded a plea to the merite, under the 72nd section of the 20th Vict., ch. 44, the plaintiff may foreclose the defendant after the eighth day from such demand, without serving the demand of plea required by t^e 26th section of the 12th Vict., ch. 38. (Mcaill vs. Wells, 8. C). ... 390 ' In an action by a shareholder In the Grand Trunk Railway Company, against the company for revising to register a transfer of his shares, the allegations that the transferrees had offered to surrender such transfer to the company and had demanded that the company should travfer the shares on their books, ace insufficient to meet the requlrfl- mente of the company's charter. (Webster vs. The Qrand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, 8. C.) 291 » " , :— When a gardien, by way of answer to a rule for eontrainte p^r c^J, pleads that the property is only worth a particular amount. It becomes the duty of the Court, avant/aire droit, to order proof of the fact. (Leverson et al., appellants, and Boston, respondent, Q. B.) 397 POWM OF AtTOBMIY:— P/Opf of, eWe PiTITOBT AOTIOlr. Pbiscbiption:— FJifeDAMAaxB. ■< " • :— In an hypothecary action, instituted, in the Dutriet of Montreal In respect of property situated there, by a party who has always resided '" **>« J>i*tnct of Quebec, the prescription of ten years will be avaUor- ble to the defendant f tlie plaintiff under such circumstences being considered prisent within the meaning of the 116th ArUcle of the Custom of Paris. (Stuart, appellant, and fllalr. respondent. Q. B.) . 123 " Bl'sii years under 10 Ud 11 Vict., ch. 11, ta applicable to the aeUoti of n"^ Ri Rdi Sai in .i ■ s ' 7*yr(fl lUBK TQ riilROIPAL MATTIM. «L p«r«r Of . ,t..«bo.t for w.g,., .„<, .„h p,„ „ ,,, ^.,,,j ,^ W IW PM.In, of Ibu .Ululi, .m on .Mch no ullon I. brouiA. ,1U,^ PllfeMl,T:-.KW«PBMCBIPT10l.. > '% ».'«.«,.' ^r "" "" ■""•" '""' •«•' ">• Ao.,„ to for.. " '-^TtrftBviDMoi. ... ' ■I*-*?--'; ! 73 " :~nd« P,„oaiPTioW^ ^ ' ^ PuBt.0 PouKb :-rirf, MoMiciPAToiSiSir RAaWATOoMPAI.Y.-.P«.V„BA.lCO.PTA»0.. ' «iao bii dwelling house, the door of which is locked and within which are hi, wife and fan.il,. who are ,l.,bl. from tS^'ouUldrlnd 80, tbe itatement of luch defendant to the bailiff th.t i.« . '■* =--^«Bailiiobddfomd8. . ' RciB or Pbaotioi, S. 0., "/ ,' ^^ SAi8,.ABB.r.n«r judgment need not b;';e;;eiXVek'ndi;;;wh;V;« ".Went;; '" « h.fJ« 1""- ^•^"°'"' ^''- '^*'""'" •"» «•"' and Lerouz, T. 8., SO) fl(r .before judgment :_Ftd«DAMAOM. •°-.o.u.;.. 60 :— Ftrf« VlBBAL AOOIPTAMCB. * " ""■ Ws';^»''.'T *'' """'^ *" '•"' ^'^*' "'^"^ ^~'"« that he electa ■ ' ^fuT ■ " ' r-"^^'^ * ^ ' '''' ^ithout-*P>H.ifyfa,g^te What uTi— . - »;»». the ».^ WW be declared n;;i/:^:noXeoV^^^^^^^ • • /^ ■/ ■' IHUIX T>* PII!fOlP*|. MArriM. ! ■• ■ ■-* •• ' fk6t of t>M proeii v*rbal, for a ipcclfled day of the month, without mention of the jre»r, U null, ulthough «uvh ftrufii v*rbal bo M\j «nd cornoll/ d*t«d. (Ik^nupr* v«. Martel, und M»rt«l, oppoMnt, 8«0.) 376 Siiaii MOBiLiua :— FW« Rmiluom na JoiTioi. BALARr or wngoa, accrued lubiequtnt to dlimUial and prior to termination of ■KroomenI, cannot bo rocovered by a merohant'i dork dlimliied for iilifonce without leare. (Charbonneau ri. lienjamln, 8. 0.). .'. loa Bali of real «itato :— Queetlon an to rslldlty of, will bo determined bj the law of the local domicile of tlio |iartlr«, and therefore a inic of real eiUte in LoKer Canada, made in the United Hlatoi, by a married woman whoM matrimonial waa Lower Canada, without the ezpreu autboriMtion of her liuiband, ii Iralld. (Lavlol»(t« ti. Martin, 8. 0.) fli " , omnium bonorum, niade by a trader whlUt notorlouily InioWent, and after nicotinga of hi* creditor! which failed to reiuU In any unanimoui wranB^ment, to tw© «if Ji» owdltori who(ai theioUconilderatlon for iuch lale) became reiponilble for the payment of the dividend ho wae doilroui of paying, by giving their notes for an amount iufflolent to cuvor the dividend, ail of which notes actually paid were so paid out of the proceeds of tlie sales of a portion of the goods assigned, is notoltheraslraulfttod sale orasalo ln'/rat«/ea» frirfitorttm. (O'uni- mlng el al. vs. Mann, and Smith et al., opposants, 8. 0.) 106 BioUBiTV ton ooHTii :— Plaintiff having fiilled to put in, within doky fixed by the Court, his action will bo dismissed with cosU, on defendant's motion to that end. (Adam vs. Sutherland, S. 0.) 109 " -.— VUe Oppobant. ' ' " In appeal given merely for costs and damages. In a hypothecary action. Is Insufficient and will be rejected. (Mdtrlssd dlt Sans Fa«;on et al., appellants, and Hrault, respondent, Q. B.). 303 '< :— Dctbndant summoned to appear in vacation can demand security for costs on the first day of the nearest term, without giving notice within the four days from the return of the writ. (Couistock «t al. vs. Le- sleur, S. C.) 306 SiiONiORiAL CoMmssiONRRB canuot bo sued by a Seignior to pay hlra tho interest on hif hdi tt vtnles income, oat of moneys placed to their credit in a banic. by the Receiver Oeneral of the Province. (Ramsay vs. Judah otal.jS.C.) ^ 261 SlizuBK of land : — Vide SntiHin. # SfcPARATioN !>■ 0OBP8 ET OB BiuNs : — In an action of, wTiero both parties are domici- Hated in a townslhip, the real estate acquired during the marriage, by purchase, and held in free and common soccago, will, in the liquida- tion of the matrimonial rights, be considered as forming part of the community. (Magreen vs. A.ubert, S. C). ...'... 70 SnABEiiotDERB of railway companies, incorporated after the passing of " The Rail- Vay ClauBes Consolidation Act," aria liable to the creditors to an amount equal to the amount unpaid on their stock, and in an action - to recover the same it is not necesaary to allege that the directors , called in all such stock. (Cockburn vs. Starnes, 8. C.) 114 ." _ of railway companies :— The liability of, under "The Railway Clauses Consolidation Act," cannot be affected by any irregularities in the , nomination or appointment of the original directors. (Ryland vs. Ostell, 8. 0.) .V.....i^». ,. 274 *'r """^t'^ tb m Tn Uh, H- n ■■ ,, ,, , ■., ..m^ /, • ' ' ■ 't ' UUUU TO I'RIKOIPAI. MATTIM. rfU ^ fl-A.kn,.ao«. of r^lwy comp.nU., InoorportUU .. .bot. B».ntla«.d, .w Ifbla'*" n«lwUh.u„.|l„g th«jr amjr h.v« t«o.f.rr.d (b• not lUbl. for co.U of bringing In . prl.on,r to g^ und.r warrwl of • country Ju«Uc« who hM.commllUd auoh prUon«r on a orlmln*! ohftrn (Oh»mp«gne vi. Doiton, 0. 0.) " :-Ad»orUMn.,„t bjr, of th« .eUure of land, of "which Und 'th«*cont.nU •ro not .t«t«d, l> defective, and glvei ground for «n oppoiltion dAn «i«»nu//.r. (Berthel.tv..TheMontrc.l»nd UytownHnilwvOom- • pMjr, »nd Ouy ot »l., oppoianti, H. 0.) 7...... 1M [RcTerwd In Appeal. Vld4 pmg^' m!{ ' '-'^•''"»'"'»""'» ^y' »' »h« "««"ro of land, of wWch land Mu. content. •re not lUted In lald adrertUement, does not give gro'und for an opposition d fin dlaanuU,r. (Bortbolc^ appellant, and Ouy et al . reepondent., Q. B.). '. ^ " •'' ^^^ • " li reaponBiblo for good* lelsod by him, In tho same way aa iha gardUii except where n iiolvont gardUu has Iwen appointed by the tuM and the aherlff provea that luob gardUn wai lolvent, or reputed iq to be to tho extent of the property lelzed, at th« time of hU Appointment. (Irwin, appellant, and Boeton ct «l.,roiiK>ndent», Q. B.) i pay th e pii r uhaaM mottBy ; (MMWn et al. t». Oo>- ^ """^^ '"""•''^•^•>-: • " ./. i«^ V „,.... i"**.^ (/■ ■ ^'' m I * • xiv. INDU TO PBIHOIPAL MATTIRS. 99 101 203 ViiiDOB has a privilege on goodi toM 4 termt'Mi (teUtend to the rendee and •till in his possession (he haring become insolTent)^ and snoh goods may ^ be atUohed bj oonserratorf process to prerent their disMpe4ring (Torrance et al. TS. Thomas, 8.0.) *' Also, Sinclair ts. Ferguson, RoberUon et al. ts. Ferguson, and If ills etal. vs. Ferguson, 8.0....../. ;_^^ , ^ ywBAh AoamnAWM, by the secretary in one case and the accountant In mother, of a draft on a chartered railway company, is suflBoient to prerent the attachment by $airie arrit aprU Ji^ement of the money corered by such drafts. (Ryan et al. vs. Robinson, and The Montreal and Oham- „:fl^^^^'°^0<'^V^J,'^S.,B.O.). ....^ WA6I8:— F«fe8ALART. . " .— Fttfe Pbibouptior. ^''' ^ " :— Fi(i« HaSTIB AMD 8IBTA«T. - Warramtt :— If the reciUl, in a deed of, indicate the purpose for which the deed is — executed, its effect will be restricted to that pftrpose, though the dis- positive portion of the deed ia couched in general terms. (The Battle ^ of British North America vs. OnviUieretal., 8.0. rft Will :-. Fide LiOACT. . " :— Vide EYtoTakvom. ' ' . Win iiparie dt hutu, who is sued on t wo nu t arfal obllgation Tin wHc h she ackno w^ ledges henelf personally indebted to ^e plaintiar, can plead and prove by verbal testimony that the statement of personal indebtedness con^ tained in the obligatio^ is false, and that on the contrary it was the husband who was really indebted and that she was merely hia security, on the ground that such contracU are in frau* of the law of the land. (Hercille vs. Fournier et fftr, S. 0.) ,205 Witness may be examined twice by the same party. (St. Deoia vs. GreniVr et rir S.O.) ; ^3 t- m: ' ■ ■*' , Is** ^ -. ..'1 . ■ ■'• ^, ..^ vAoa le« and atlll good! may MHjtpeliring. •.. 99 i, and Mills <« ...... .\.i 101 another, of [>i«T9nt the coTered hy andOham- •••••••«•• 203 t > f 'f.?<. -t*" the deed is gb the dis- (The Bank r« • • • • • ■ e.e ' le acknow- and prore dness con- it was the ia secnritjr, f the land. ••••••••• 20o lier et vir, ••••••••• 93 ^ -ift': \ ■ ^ J ¥Kt»« X A. ^^^ 1 d \-Vf-'. >^ 5« 9" tBB lOWIlR CANADA JURIST. iri fe iSXTlU.) EIJEGTION KEPORTS. ji' ■MSTMOTkw'ioNTBllAl. ' ■ &* MONTMAl, l»m,ttBEUABT, 18S& A..A. DOBION, Esq.. (o»«. *« . >^ THOMAS D'AllGYM«fitB,E«Q j9"«»>ff Membei^; WILLIAM BB1ST0W,ETAL., ' * ^ . PetiUoaera against the retun, of John Row. Eaqulw. JEAN LOmS BEAUDRT, ET AL., -I. PetWoneni against the retorn of A Ainnrf«- » • and ThonuM. tf'Arcy McGee, EsqTS ' ^"l'^. Coram Badglet, J. l.Theromdeiifl3roftllereoognl»nce. *^ "*•"'*"'***<»"• Amongst these are arihpriwHl- statute. '*^*°"'W«v*otherequlronentiofthe _ f"**»«^*"nK "noli quertione the Judge acts Judicially i & #1. ^: ' : ''**"*'"»; -'■^V DISTRICT OF MONTREAL. Controvertod 8th. Tlio Elitotiona Act of 1849. In m Ikr u it establiihei cliiqualifloatloni ^nit » oandldste bj i Bleotioiu. ' of certain «(ita committed by liim, is • ponal aot ^and if mioh adtt b» ohaited ■eainit Mm, ttMiT! aou^t bo'NO altcKod u to oomo wi^liln the very words of it. . -. ^ ^- : CityofMontrad .f U?^ ' I I i . I it* ^ •. Mli. The oyidenoo I*" be ti^eii before the Judge will be (Sonftned'to tlip Ikcts and oircuioHaUn^d^ >^r tliereto I Mid testimony will not specially detailed in the notice of oontostation.and in thews; be t$kon upon general averments. '' "% lOth. The provisions of the Controverts Elections Act of 1867 are 1| becoming a Coinmiiisioner, to appoint a deiiuty to act as Judge iii his pi . . trcal arc unanimous upon this point. it to enable a Judge, The Judgosin lion> On bobalf of Mr. Rose,. Cii»r/er, E^ contended-^ 1. That there is no evidence of service of. notice on Mr. Ros^— a copy o( - • affidaV^it of service drily being producec;!, And the other affidavit not ^tating the ■ manner of service. " '' v ' . * See Sections 3 and -1, 20 Vict., eh. 23°. / SU ThaVit is not alleged in thernotico tfai^the petitioners hadvotdi^ « right tp vote, at the e'lpctioHs.' AUeglhg simply, in the deswiption th^give ■ of themselves, that they were j&/ector«^ does not amount in law to ft speeific averment thiit thay liad a right to vote at the tjme of die election. ^ * N'ottingham case'. Woods wnth's Election Reports,' 69. " 1^ Hogers on Elections. 2d vol., p. 9. , , " '. (Petitioner alleged^ to be a "/»'««*•'«'«■»" held insafficlent.) ' * ', ; Rogers on ElettiiStei. 2d vol.fpp."9, lU, If, 12 ; and spe Nottinghaib case, at p. 13. Wordiworth, Law of Elections. ^.297. . » / See Petition against election of the Hon. George MofTatt andHr. J^eBleury, rejected by the House in 18^4, npon the objection that the petitioners were only called Electoft. « -Dwarris on Stat|ites. p*?^90, 1st vol., and p. 291-^294 ~ > " .' «> May on Parliament; p. 442. ' - - ^ ,3. That the notice doc^ not allejfo as a fact tliat Lutfacr H. Helton had be^n- duly nominated. '\- >- ' . ' This omission is f^tal to all tfiose grounds which refer in any way t4 acts alleged to hav6 been done to Mr. Holton's prejudice, or such as allege him to bave h^d a majori|y ' .of yotes. Before any evidence could be received of the number of votes retarded in Us favor, it would bo necessary toj>rovo that he had been nominated,^ and lience the tdl«> gation was an c!SBentiaIJine. ' " . 4. That the c6py©f. intended Petition to the Legidatnre diffenf materially from the Notice in?¥everal respects, and par^cularFy in this : it is alleged in it that Petitioned voted and had a righj; to veteran easeptial allegation of title necessary to be proved ; and which therefore should hav^ beeu' formally averred in the Notice. •' ^ " ^ . ' ' • • ' 20 Vict.i ch. 23, sec. 1. "^ Election Petition alleging other facts or circoiQBtaiices ' than those utafbd in such Nofffe, shall be received by the Legislature." ' Sect. 4. " Contesting party shall produce and fyle .with snch.Jadg9.a copy of his intended Petition against such election." 4. Sect. 6. '^ Powers shall be limited to the questions of &ct set forth hi the notice of^ : :.the contestmg party.? . ,. ;..^__ . ' . ■ ' ^-Z _::■_. _+,L; ,.„,,,,;;:„._ " :../,,; D.:;:.,::^,..,-. ^ v.. ' ''( 5. Thafr^neral allegations ii a notice under bur present l&w, which requires that the piarty shall " specify yarticolarly the facts and circumstances ^ is wholly insufficient. x^ -. | .' Rogers on Elections, 2nd TolrrP' ^ > Title/ " Form of Petition." [ tostimony will not lb case, at p. 13. >lton had bie^ti^ PI81:^I0T OP MONTREAL; V ./ i "itlB nerferthelen requtlite to itata ^ik ,^^i 4 TT ^~~ — '" " ' '■ ' " .Hod on la evH.nc«, in order that il^J^^n- if ^' '"? ''"*■ *"" '"*">'»•'» *» »>• "o l»rty wwlimited ■ •' Wordsworth on .Electlona^ p. 801 • " ^' \ , ftogerson ^ « p, 121; 2nd vol. ^" ' .' Blrepherd on ElecUons, p, 174 • A. to^^retation-^ord H»ntlngto.e^„:r„,.^d:2 D..^ ,^ -1- • 8 Thw/uK .. ^''•^'«J'>KlB.and(/,a»r. H. Ihat although the wordinff of the A*.f>Ji„iv ' ,'. • \ v>hataci in particular was done h^ T ^"'^^^^^ ««»e™I. >t should be afleged^ the.cha,^e. ^ ""' ^ '^' ^'^ ^A^ding^'t^ enable h|m t<> ^et . Macnan,ara'8Palv,pp.n6,j»6,177,«nd8eJm. ::> " "' "' Sec. 64,- 12 Vict., c. 27. ^ > *' ' • '^ Bogers^n Election8,.^t rol., pp. a4O;l60. ' . " . * ■ » '*^. ' . . ' . 10; ^«fc^n allegation, « tha^ th^ weranaid for their vo*«, '«n;o • « • '' , See Form of Oatti abwnded ta k. ^ * v^ rPte8,'> insufficient ' voting.. '^.•^P««dedt *- / date;" andsLJIpSlhattS ; ^^"^'^^ ^'«««o» ofthe ckndi- ,that el.cto,...H^|LtleSn'we e ]^^^^^^ S-O. opened, aid ^ith fat sectWSO Vict ch^Iwh^^h T T'^'^'^f"^^' «> «« to comply ^^ Parti5ula.lythefi.tsandt±2^:^^'''^'^^^^^^^^^ ' -^-^^^SS^ ^- *^-^oti7 l»»^nt3; 6r who tKe: pose. The law does not ,„l^t?,.^^^ are of too geneS a ^hJXt n^H^ ^^n-^h^; and such aU^tions ^* stetice, whether the eleS^^nU £ ^ ^. *? *^^ definite result. Win- ' bribed vote,, struck WtheSundtaT^'^^ • "^ - B e. trontenacElectio rp!lr^n" ^'^" '^'^^"^ • ' ^ ' A. N. Morin of L "olitS^^^''' ' "^ *'' "^^ ^"'^ " ' ««» «<>-. Chas. D. Pay ind 4% vlii 4» rf: » < - '.» I. * I. \>%' t f JDISTRICT OF MONTR?^ Oontnmrted Cttj 4: tCU' ■I • fi.^'> '1 _ 18. That lk9 allogatloM in the notice, m to disqualified voters, is likQwise too Mtnalgeneri^ The names of the voters, and the grounds of disqualification of each, should have been stated, so as to cotnplj with the requirements of the Election Petitions Act, sec. 70, which absolutely requires that the nam^s of objected voter's should be given, with the several heads of objection, distinguishing the sqme gainst the names ofcthe voters objected to ; ana for this reason, that by sect. 82, the evi lence is to "be limited to the voters olfjeeted to, and to the ground of oljetiUoa stated. ' - . ** See also 8ecUo^ no (6f the Blefitlon Petitions Act). " scctioa C of 2ath Vic.,, eh. 23, limiting tlie evidence to facts alleged in notice. 14. In England -this rule was i|i variably adkered to strictly. See Rogers on Elections, 2nd vol., pp. i 14, 118. J ' ^Vordsworth, p. 304. - ^ y- Dwarris on Statutes, p. 209. r .■ ' , ' " * ' ■v 16. That the Recognizance should have becfc subscribe, before a person sign- ing him&elf " Ju8tic,e of the Peace for the District of Montreal." I. Because 'the form requires it. 2. Jhat his style and title affixed to his signature should' establish that the place where it was executed was within his jurisdiction. This .|8 a rule a^p^tyible to all magisterial afsts, and more particularly in cases where ' their powers do not exist under common law, o^^ in virtue of their commissioii but under a special statute which should strictly be pmsued. ii; Baron Parke in Oosset vs. Howard, 10 Q. B., pp. 452 and 453. "* • 1 DeacQir,~p. 306. Re Pe»Ie88, 1 Ad. and Ellis, p. 163. R. vs. Stockton, 72 B., 62?. See 13 East, R. vs. Hare, p. 189.. ~, ' '• '» ,^, ' ' v Howard V. Brown, 4 Bing. 393. -■• X ^|^ - Frost V. Hayward, 2 Dowl. P. 0., p. 667. V -J *^^) J 16. The omission to st^te in the jKcoognizance the place wh%re it was executed is fatal. Ist. The form given by/the Act requires 'it. ?nd. Without it, the jurisdiction of the Justice is not shiewn. 3rd. The attestation, which refers to a place not mentioned, is invalid and incomplete. 4tiii. The affidavit,^ whidi refers in the /«ra< to the place of the sureties entering into thiq Recognizance. wUhout any place being therein mentioned, is valueless. This is a rale which has never been departed from in Magislemljm|^eding8. - ' ^ , 1 Deacon, p. 306. ' ' Reg. T9. St. George Bloomsbury, 28 Law and Equity Bep., p. 303. ' * £■*< « Oke's Synopsis, 24 and 25. ^ Paley on Con., 167. \ - / ' '^' " ^ R. V. Hayzel, 13 East 141. * Kite h Lane's case, 1 B. Ic 0. 115. ' "m^ . , ,> ^ , Reg. V. Toke, 8 Ad. ^ EL, 233. ^ A '^ v 1*7. An affidavit must, shew where it was made; otherwise tiid authority of the Justice to administer the oath would not be made apparent. 1 Petersd., p. 266, and 2 Archb., pr. 320.' 1 Deacon, p. 306, No. 4 of part 2. B. y. Cockghaw, a W. A M., pp. 878, g^Oi " ^ . DI8TRIC3T OP MONTREAL. R. T. -Rtti. Yorkihlre, 3 M. k B., 493, 484. Cms r. Cms, 1 Dowl. * Loud., p. 678. . Bo/d T. Straker, 7 Price, p. 602. ' Reg. T. Orowen, 3 New Sen. 0«.i p. 664. Reg. T. Morin, 1 i»ew Sen. 0.., BOO, 808, and 894 •red to Uke the-aame.- The StatutA 1 1 «n,i 1, v: / •^- ^"*" ^" empow- .. .b, iw.„. ^. r;^2^:,"."i' .h;k™r.rbU'i: '"."^ '"■• •«"• miWer before a Jhutke for CarAi^n^ u i!, ""^ ''*** ''^*"» *»''0'> in WiiU before a J„sUc. i'-S:.^^^^ ^l'^^^^^^^ ''"'''' '"'°"'«^ "-« ««- fk - of this opinion ; andThe HoZT^o^^l^Z unoV.f^^"';'^' "gumenV w^ to cofrect thp mistake." ""°°''''°""« "P"" '*» "fu«ed to allow the parUe. Bar. and Anst. Election caiea, BV *v HaiWard'. Pari. Deb. 3 Series, Vol. 69, p. nap. % : Noted at page 19 of Macnamara's Paley,.noteK ^ District of Montreil." "»« same as Justice of the Peace for the . 2. ThaHhe recognizance was not accompanied by ab affirl«v!f «r « • 1. That the affidavit of sufficiency reauired from f».« «!«• . • /• '^^'^ *^® J"™* *o. *■»« affidavit of swfficwncV omiii^^ ^„ i. ,^ affidavit was^worn, referring onivto a Zr^LZf-. 1°'' ''^"'^ *^« wherea. np s;,ch phlce ^^LlZ^ f "^""^ "'' % recognizance, District of Montreal." . ^ ™'**^ °^ *^® ^^^"ce for the Cltf«nioatNa| j^ne^dgmentwasasfollA:^^^^^^^^^ - - 1^^ ' ^ -^.^ %,and Thon^a. D'Aro y MrG e e.E^.rZ.^°^l°^"t^^^^^^ Esq., and Thomaa D'A J^ mX^f!: T!!^-' n '^ Antoina Aim6 Dorion, .^ ^ . r ^'^^•» °» «»• notice of contestation of his .%»• *i ;vc j^.,. •'■:mf.. C- w m r.fi. DISTRICT OF MONTREAL s^t- ■■» .4 < at ' » "■ • ■ -1-... OMjhmwM ^loQtioQ^^l^^^ E«quiro8. 2n(f. By Joan Loul» Bmu- OltjodlontrMldry and othtiw, Esquiros, on tlie^irtidlsice of contestation of tho election of An- toine Aimd Dorion, Esq. 3rd.' By Williatti Bristow and others, Esquire^ on their notice of eontosti^tion of the electioji of John Rose, Esq. 4th. By Antoino Aini6 Dorion, Esq., on his answer to tho notice of said' J. L. Boaudry it at. And 6th. By Thomas D'Aroy McOoe, Esquiro, on liis answer to the notice of contes- ation by J. L. Beaudry et al., Esquires. ' " — The throeflrst wore fylod op the 28tli day of January last, tho two last on the 30th day of the saino month ; and the several parties Were heard on tho 9th of February, upon tho validity of their respective applications. The recent Statute, 20 Vic. eh. 23, has cast diroc|ly upon the Judges oCthe Superior Court some very irksomn duties in connection with those Election con- tests before they shall be deem(;d Commissioners to take evidonco, and it is therefore important to separate thoif functions and to divide their duties. This will be best performed by tracing briefly tho -Statutory legal course of an, Elec- tion petition previods to this Statute, and by applying the recent enactments to the former proceedings, as', they rthali present themselves for comment. TheTecont Act wM passed, more speedily to obtain ovideiico on controverted Elections, and was to be construed as part of the '* Election Petitions Act of 1851," which shall be construed as if the provisions of this Act were contained therein. There are no "^xpross words of repeal of the Act of 1851 by this.sub- sequont Act, but this latter Act is made to form part of^tlie former by spccisl inclusion; and the contrariety and repugnance in tho provisions of the Act of 185*7 to those of the Act of 1851 plainly indicate the intention of the Legisla- ture virtually to repeal the latter, in the particulars contradictory of, and con- trary to, the former. < " It is held in law, that a positive enactment is not to be restrained by infer-, enco, bat at tho same time that Judges must act on the maxim, leges posterioret ■priores contrarias abroganf^ — 2 B. Rep. 84. So, also, if two inconsistent Acts bo passed at different times, the last is to be obeyed ; and if obedience cannot bo ob- served without derogating from the first, it is the first which ntust 'give ^ay-^5 Bcav.582. And so also, affirmative words in' an Act of Parliament do not repeal 'the provisions of a former Act, unless there 'be some obvious inconsistency between the enactments — 9 M. and W. 777. So where the later Statute has affirma- tive words inconsistenfwith those of a former Act; the former Act must be held to be repealed — 1 M. and W. 135. And.Dwarris repoats^tho ruling, that every affirmative statute is a repeal by implication of a preceding affirmative statute, so far as it isicontrary thereto; (or leges posteriores, &c. ' * Now, by the Election, Petitions Act of 1851, an Election Petition must be presented to the House within the first fifteen days of the opening of tho Ses- sion ; but shall not be ireceived, unless when presented, it is endorsed with the Speaker's certificate of the reception of the Recognizance, and affidavits of suffi- • ciencyi ■- With that requisite it is referred to the General Coramiftee. 'The recognizance, in th^. meantime, is open to objections from its invalidity, its undue reception, the insufficiency of sureties, &o., all which are finally decided by the Speaker; whose dflcision oondudos the parties, as well as thoHonse mm M tiyxz ■■^1'^ i DISTRICT OF MO^REAL. the General to tl.. Special Co'if '" -^-ffl-te. .re traa«„iUod l^ cftSl altogether without furd-erprJe^:^^^^^^^ objectionable: all this man fe.tly Jake. L vllfr JV™*^"'^'"»" *'"'''«'« '*' • ditipn precedent to the trial of 1^1 • !^ ^' '''' 'eOogniMnpo a con- in limine of all ulterio/Xeding^ '^'^^■'^' '*- '-ffloi^nc, ;. ™.p«„.|on nece.ari,,p„.„^,„i,,,^;::':;;^S^-X ^t/^^^^""* -^-r- enquiry as to tha^ oS^ttwarily covering tJ.* Trie T^ I ^ application ; the stance to the requirements ofTo Ltut Zfr "^ T^'""' '" '"''"" ""^ '^^ viceyand the questions coneerntttvauj;^^^ prompt action in th«t respect is obtain J™ l^ u' '""'l^^^^^ Thus a ^ . cedent to.the ulterior prrooed^^'^r^^^^ -«^''^ « condition pre- . , of 1851. to the proceedings %y LJoLlnrT' '' '* ""^ '^ *»»« ^.t to have evidence taken b/a Commissi. .Ti, 1 ^l^'"? "^^ «^»" <'«•>- ■ ^ ' ^ nizanco to bo entered into with affldlX^ «'«4|P*equired to cause a recog-' '-^«.Wby thatCoXittce l;,'^^^^^^ •*«// no/ JI- . Mie/o/ their su^ciency: SecoLl^ ''^ ""^ '*' '^''«''^*. ^ .K the . onions 'f^' no siUinff member shall obtain the bZ2l7:^^^^^'^^^^^^ ^fl 'he required security has bLpeZc^Zrf^''''^'^^^ of the sittiug member fof evi^ence^i^ t m!j ^ T r "' ^'^^ «??"««»-» accompanied with copies of t^notirof t„t A*" '^^ ^''^«'' ""^^ «hall be with a recognisance and affidavL of luVir^^^ "^ ""^ ^'^ ""^^^r. and IT^evalidi.yofthis application ^ul bf!^S':rT'.'^^'^^«* ^^^S^^- new Jaw.in the same manner as thai of d.^ f ?"'' ^^ ***" "^"^^^ "°der the exjtence of any Hous^ ^ Ass^S^^rS:^^^^^^^ "^ '^"^^«^- ^''O From the foregoin^.^it would Jm evidenUhTtlSi ^ recognizances, in theW cas/thM of thlron J ♦ J l^^'' P*^*" "P«» '^^ other that of the sitting meoiberas L^sZf P^^ "" the^Speaker, and in the <«se can evidence be tfken reUrer part^S?"""''*^ '^ '^^ '^"^^ '» »«i*J»er nizance in the manner and L^qJ^lb^r;? r ^*"<*'«°<' Perfect recog- ' l^t^een the two/Acts in these r::^S^^^^^^ lanty and suflScJenoy 6f these DreliC„«r! ^ \. "* """""""g that the regu- • .ppointment <^a Gommias^ert'^iSreSr ^^ *'" ^^''^''^ -^^'^«* ^e • the Act of 1651, is „,ade b y the 00^^ t°^> "f "^^ V the terms of . / ^^'°'W^iWhftt a fflSnwt3 t <>be^gk6nT-"~^ ■ \l t- ^ ^ ,-^— -''"' \'t -'~ ■"*;>.. "*- ..,.-,,,. ■ - .'v . "rw;v.v ' I . ■ •1; * ,.v: ■* « .<' of the order of the Committee, epecially attigning and limiting the facte, or altegationt, mnttert 'and thinge, retpecting mhich the Commiitioner. ie required and directed to eia- mine evidence, «nd ro}K)rt the sitnio, muat b« tranRmitted to the Commisaioner, who h directed to proceed with the examination, and in fcrutinizing the rightt of the votere, and in ail mattoM »nd ihingn referred to him' in the tame eourtt and manner, and according to the tame rulet at nlect Committeet. Now, the ° new law requires the intending conteatant, " upon any other grounds thiui thouT appearing on the face of the return, or of tlie poll-boolcB or other documents, of^ which the original or certified copies are by law to be transmitted to the Clerk •/ - of tile Crown in Chancery, ^r kept by tii« Ueturning Officer," to give notice in ■■' vriting to the returned metnUr of hit intended contesUttion, ipeeifying purlieu- lariy thefactt and eircumttanees upon which he intends to contest. So, /in like manner, the tittfig member ttiay, as his answer, set forth any other tircumstaneet ■ . not appearing upon the return, Ac, as afort^i.i, upon which he rests the jialidity of his election ; otherwise, he iljiaU not be permitted to prove any facts or arcum- stancet on hit behalf other th^n by way (tf rebutting the case made agjainel /ii# election. Tne manifest intention of both Acts is< the exclusion of general charges and allegation*, and the restriction of evidence to specific facts. The Select Com- mittee, by the Act of 1861, makes this preparatory specifie issue for the Com-' missioner, whilst, by the new Act, the Cfommisaioner acta at once without any intervention by the Corainiltee, and 'settles the alleged facts and circumstances ^ particularly specified in the terms of the Act, upon which he is require4 to take evidence, long before the appointment of a Special Commitee, or any possible action by auch a boidy. The inconsistency of the two ennactmcnts in this last matter is evident ; by the new Act the Judge Commissioner must necessarily settle the specific issue, so to speak, and not th,e Select Committee, all whose functions in this respect become dead and repealed. Again, by the Act of 1861, the Commissioner is appointed by the warrant of the Spec^l CQWmittee, which appoints the time of proceeding in the District of the controvert election, and empowers him. to act as Such Commissioner. But r the new Act casts directly upon the Sadgii tllVe duty of acting as such Comnys- eioner vJkhoufany warrant of any kind, and simply npon the application of the^ COtatcstatit Ot sitting member. The inconsistency between the twefifaws in this last respect is also ^apparent. >^_^jj^ | . In all these particulars, therefore, relating |to the entry and reception of the RecogniMnces in the first instance, namely, by the contestant at the tinft of his application and not at the presentment of tm petition^ the House; the establishment of ita validity by the Judge Commissioner and'^oi the Speaker; :^'. made at/fiin$t lii$ maTRlCT OP MONTREAL >',>^.. m ent B »nd,proccodiaffl^ „^ M,t^^^^„j-^^_^^ ^^^^ POMd o( oommeaoiDg witk th« reoognUancM uid i^d„iu. th«t tl « Comn,.Mio«or niu»t proceed witi, all Hortn of facU and circumstance^ bj U e Hfatomont of Bpecflo facte transmitted by the Special Committee Th« new law contou.pla.os the completion .f the evidence by the time ^1 L I act.on the Special Committee ; and i„ what manner ca'n tLtoZ^^^^^ _ ^aao^ not re.t wUh the C^rpjasioner to a ct J»dicial|, in thl olVH ^ Considering therefore the nowlaw in those particulars contracdictory to a, law, wluch ha. been examme.! with care and circumspection. Under ite provi- Tel r'T- °''",''"'^? ■' -P^i«dicial, until'the validity of 1^ Z. ment^ poceed.ngs «„d application shall bo determined upon by him whilst k .n the observance by the contestant and «ittin.member of the* Statutory provU .on. and requirements which thi Acts h.?o declared to be necelry for llvrreoT''?"^ r K *'^ "'*^^" «^"*"^' '"-^ especially Zefe^: Ut.ve roqu.remente ,n wh.ch the intenUon of the Legislature^ declared byX eTenllTH ^ri* ^''t^^*^'" «« ««'«f«"y gu-ded from interfere! ZnY2! ?'"J of Assembly itself. Amidst these .re to be found the pS sr^::i::^:r;rr!:s^- --^ *^ •-- — ^ -^- • brii^krtJ ';l''l'1;i't*'' "^^^^^^ ''" '•'^•^^^ *'•• «--• Committee to iTl ? r "' ^ ^'"^ ^''^ ^'^^'^^^ application^procoeding out of the J oTlT'?' T u^P""""'"^ ''*^ *^« examination of tie apphcAons. - tod of the objections which have been uraed atrainflt th«m .5.1. 7^ "'*°'^ propositions, or in the answers of the naS ^ „«« 7 ll T"*" validity of the do.nm,n>„ „„^ l!Z.If^- The objections which affect the M ^ «, >*%■• y l^^* ■it' X' 10 DISTRICT or MONTIUCAL v^HStm 1 ]4 >■ |||| The 10th BeoUon of th« Act requiroa, that the reoogniMno« thall be entoroU Into an. The reoO|jliliance« with tho application of Mr. McOeo and othnm, contain no tniintiun of tiio place of their eteoution, which indication is roquirod by tho Htatutory foini givon, and by the general run of ■ntlioritiea in thin ronpect. Now, therutiilal in the rei'ognijsnnce la an follow*,-^" " Qn, Ac, before nio, J. A. Labadio, of the Oity of Nfontroal, Require, Nota^ Publio, and ono of Her Mnjosty'M Junticea of tliu Vmco for tho imid District of Montroni, came, Ac"; and in jHrat,—" Sworn by deponent at the time and place of his entering into the ««1 DiSTRICT OF MONTREAL. 41 Tho pbJQption con, ste^ t([i before " an mean n Juni Oomiaons io The recogni rbejfoiover." retofmlorff, v6. afBdavitrw aliK> a Dea- ~ »M or 1861 allows tlie recogniiance to be entered into ' 1.0 Peace," but tliia niu.t bo un.leratooiL and can-only Eirisdiction in tho locality ; », Held bf tho House of „ froft case. Note K., Paley on convM^ns, p. 19 anniioan* ."r^ *i, f ^^''"7; '^'«'«* ««d «t'»'"» applicants, .nd of Mr. McG««u^/. •pplicant, ar* therefore invalid, and must be sot aside In the case of tho application of Mr. Dorion, tho recogniiance and affldavH of but they arc both bad ,n form as to the attesUtion, under the statute. It ha. bee6 ^ected moreover in this case, that the Act of 1851 declares that^al/L^^ . lttd"!fflT^Lf" '^"'' "''""" '*"" ^'n.riain.,, unless ^Tl^. T^iZ tfr 5*.'«^'=*''"P»"'«^' '^i^h '"« own affidavit that fu inou,, ti 77 r Tf I /T '^•"' '"••^^"'^^ *" ^^*^^- This ha. not bofen done and Z defedt IS fata! to Uie entertaiaing of his application - I have omitted to state that tl.O copy of the notice served by Messrs. firistow aud others upon Mr. Rose, and produced with their applicaUon « def^t vl - ^ .n«much«.u.sm,tsufficic„t:yswornto: acopyonlyof laffiLitVsI^^^^^^ . ^Pended to it,-tho original of wlad|g«t produced,-andX 11;^ Xffil vitl.w.thoutlegal verification. Thl^fL omisiiou, becaus^^^Jo Ac^o" 1857 requ.ro. the copy to be sworn to : and though it pre«,ribes Z mode or form for such swearing, the Judge cannot dispense lltogelber with theTeouil m^nt of an oath, as the proof of its correot^esi r. a copy of the oriJnllZel The copy, therefore, is insufficient ^ ^ law^li 1' •PPl!*^"^"''' ^» ™°" o^ fe«"degreo, iieglect the requirements of the ' «ronVt ' r t" "P«?f »«-» «' f^^ts and circumsuncea, Ihich'should C m.. , b« both the .Acts of 1861 and 1867, as well a. the ca«« of Parliamen. ^ dec,«ons. require, the statement #ith .erUinty and precision of the pi wn. charged, as gudty of the fects with which they are dhaZblT Dwam. sayt; «' At tJie same tin,. ».. f,M. ^„^,„^,^ ,1 ^^ ,Td ,w#. the rule I., go^ n,|^«id thalU la Hght that the juri^llction of a J^g. with Cmbmm «, and it U not fitting that jurisdiction should bo esUblishod one way or the other byjMirol evidence.- 28 Knglid. Law and K^j. li«p. ^ lie affldevit ofsuffldeecy is equally defective, inasmuch m it purport, to have been sworn at th« place whe«» the recognisance was entereorton, A ^., in person. ' ^ Devliuj for T. D'Arty McQee, Esquire, "'j^ji fk w i^ -*•"* 'm ' ./ |K >,, \i DISTRICT OF MONTREAL.' 18 DISTRICT OF MONTREAL. <{ In ikernauer oftke C^tro.ertea Election for tke Count, of Ar^enteuul , SYDNEY BELLINOSAM, Es"« * "ufBcient compliance ture of the deponent was inadvertently oniitt<^ •«<«*«>Py shaU be "swor^ to," although the dgna- ^^Mn leX Se1XS=»irSi^^^^^^^ member purporting to be a protest against fZ^^n^inrc^^^ inent of any facts upon which ho could rest the vIlS'„ri,^ """^f/"*"* »<' """Bcient substantive aver- in rebuttal of that of the contestant, v*^ *" hwelection. he will be restrict^ to evidence. e. The Judge Commissioner acts judielallv In ♦!(«. ... ft. .iWng memWr' Kjr ^ , " '"W" °? "■" " "«l«o?«e«ded for '41 'i Y' 14 DISTRICT OP MONTREAL. ,5**^rerted Burroughs. That the Judge receiving the application Connigrof Ar*.tlio promises; as he Vas not a Judge residing or havii electoral division or district in which the election vras ,d no jurisdiction in jurisdiction in the That there was at. cations to act as Commis- si y ■cs: present no Judge who possessed the requisite qua sioner in this case. That the applicant }iad not produced with/his application the copy of the sitting member's answer, seryed upon him ipn the 1st of February ; and that, therefore, his application could not be granted. , That the applicant bad not produced with his ^pplic^Aion a copy of'his in- tended clectjon petition. {Badgley, J. There Was a copy of petition produced ■- — it must be among the papers.) The document purporting to be such copy has^no authenticity except the la^ sheet df it; as Miat alone is signed and certi- fied to be a true copy by the Petitioner, and the others are not attached to it. {The counsel here opened the folded paper purporting to be a copy of petition, y'^ and shewed the Court that the Ibaved were not attached together.) {Badgley, / J. My impression is that the leases were attached when I received it ; but in any case, I have read it througk^ it is a connected narrative with catchwords at the f , l>bttom of each page which are repeated in the next; and it is-a copy of an elcc* ' tion petition which the Petitioner: produces, aid asserts in his written applica- l tiap,to be a copy of that which he intends to present to Parliament. Whether r it is really "fe true copy or sot is for Parliament to decide, and can only be as- ' certaincd when the original is presented. You need not argue'^l^s objection "^ any further.) ( • , ^ ° There is no aflSdavit to the copjf of notice produced, that it is a true copy of ;;•>., the original notice. The writing {it the ^(^thc copy produced, is not signed ' ' ' 1 "- ' by the party making it, and theref0rc dan na^ no force, validity or effect, as an affidavit. And even If that omission were, to be considered only as an irregu- larity, and not fatal t6 the docun&'eht as ^a affidavit, the assertion by the de- ponent with which it concludes, ^and I have .signed," U false, for he did not ^ » . sign. If, therefore, a portion of the statement contained in the affidavit is pal- pablj^ £Ei1se, no. dependence can be placed on the remai^er. But, in reality,' "i ■'t-^.^tbere is nothing to identify the person who swore to the affidflvit in any way. 4 , vThe signature is the only means of identifying him, and that is wanting^ ^ '" (Badglej/, J. The deponent is described, as Adolphe Qermaini of the.city and* ^1 dislMct4>f Montreal, gentleman. Does not that identify him? \ If the affidavit li , had omitted the name and description of the party sworn, merely saying, " Iti»e undersigned being duly sworn," and there were no signature, there, would then , be no means of identification.) Even if that distinction existed, wKich was de- "nied, there was nothing to sjiew that the deponent was a " literate person." 4 V The signature was the only evidence -th^t ho was such a person, and in its ab- sence the Court could not presume hiia to be so. {Badgley, J'. ^'Ba swears , that he himself compared the copy served, and also this copy, with the ori^nal. Does not that afford evidence of his being a literate person ?) • W'l' " " . '-! — Th cintting"member-l«wf^b)ecttoH8-to-Br g e to - th e noti ce o f c oHt ea tHtioB » a d= 1|,^ • v^ other documents produced by the Petitioner ; but as those now urged were only preliminary, the others would be reserved till these were disposed of. He, l^ow- A '% lietiittiion-tiiit] DISTRICT OF MONTREAL m ^^^ _ . _ "i« ■ iS^ "°* ?;"f «-• that the Judge had any right to act i)t%k^^mJtU>r in a iSil rT" ^' ?l TT'^ * Commissioner, and in no respect) invested with d^^lT ; (f«''^'*y"^- It 'i».Porhaps, be better Liu., urge all pur objections for there cannot be several hearing. i„ the matt^Kbiit in that resect you w, 1 of course act as advised. You must consider^ ho^rj that I ttltTV uL'Tv*^"''" ' ^^"'**"«* «^«» adjudicate upo^your objec- tions; and would b« obliged to grant the application iithout^scrutiny.) ^ Carter for the Petitioner, contended, that the objections urged were insufficient the jXi't hT '".'"* ''^"'*^ "^***^^"' - '^ anyiubtexis d ^ the Judge who had jurisdiction given him b^the statuto in its English version district inwh^ph the County ^fAifeenteuil was situate. As to th6 second objegtion, which asserted the Uon-ptoduclic.n of the ^ittine member's answer of the^tst Februaiy with the contestant's appl Luo '1 was true enough in fact; but the pptension that the Petitioner was i^r^any respect bound to produce that answer, or in any way to notice it. was utterly groundL.. ^e Sta uto of 1857, both in positive and negative terms, ri..orousi restrict noTcllTrr" ™ ''*^ ^^^'^'^^''^ "«*'«« of contestation; and Hdoes ralsreZ^h irr/'*^"'^""^^^ ^^"'*^« notice of' contesUon ting membe serv^^upon the contestant an answer which he himself characte- r2rth;Vj'""''' V-?-^''^"'"^*'^^^^^^^^ andtheconttLltrthe the 28th of Janua^pduced and fyled with his application, the copy of answer BO served upon hiiitf The fourteen days limited % the Stat'ute e.^L TZ 30th of Janu^ ; on the second day after which, namely, on the Ist of February s^zteen days4er the note was served, the sitting member thought propH Z^T f;f *f "^; ^r*'^- ~; and iL is iis last that hefomS th^ con^s^nt did not produce^ Not only was the contestant free from all obligatj to produce It, but it cann^permitted in atiy way to fe,rm a part of the t£ 01 ttiid contest. ^ - v ^w a *^ .^ the third oly^gtion is simpl^t true in ^t. and requires no notice. tha?tt!t«f r T^' V^PT '^ ^' ^'"^ "P^" '^' «"««««"* supposition, Mel w tS J? ;.f r '^'"^ *^ ^ ^PP^"^^'* ^ *^« copy ofWic; fylea with t&e Judge, and^that the omission of a signature to the affidavit il Z:n Ct' ''**' *° ''' ''''''''' Bpth of these propositions are" groundless. The Statute requires t^ Judge to, be possessed of a ^py of the notice of contestation xo guide him in his investigations of the matter before Jh^Ih 1 tI "^P^'- " fT^^ ''•^"-^ ^"'°"» ^ »>y *»>« P^^o" ^^o served the original. The^serv.ce .of the notice must be proved, *ho Statute says, by an a«. rf«.t.^om to before certain particular officials, and containing 'lab avt ments, which it specifies. The re^n of such special rl„iremeL with relrd to f fooLof servicaJoMoa8.^Tk.Qffidaiaiof: sw . • • ' • ^ . . '•egaja CoattartKtKi' BlMStioni, " Coun^of Ar> sentcnlL 'm at a particular place, or upon a particular person, is the basis of the whole cont testation. It » therefore of the utmost importance that it should be invested ^f7 1 -■^;t%-,;.' ^-v V i It I « *f II li DISTRICT OF MONTRfeAL. OonlMrerted BImUoiu. -■ i with every character of solemnity. On the other Kand^ the Statute, when de- ' CoiniaNrfAj. scribing the mode of establishing the correctness of tlve copy, onljr prescribes Uiat it shall bo '*sw6rn to by the pejjjdn who served tlie notice." No affidavit, ot form, or description of Bwearitig is prescribed ; Bor any official indicated before f whom the oath is to be taken ; and tliio reason of this also is plain. The oath> is : only required to satisfy the Judge, pritnd facie,- th&i \\ie copy given him is cof'* rcct; and if it be not, the fact is subject to inst/fnt' and easy verification by the production by the sitting member^of his copy of the §ame document. In reality, " , no written oath or affidavit whatever, is reqi^red to c-stablish the correctness df the copy, I^ the party who Sbtved the notice had appeared in person '.before ^ »<•>^ asserted as grounds for disqualifying hixn from taking his seat, in place o the .sitting member, they «,e also insufficient for that purpose. It may be questioned indeedwhe^e^^ There ,i ^ W ^ I "'*^^° '^' "'^'"''"^ "^ ""^ '^^ the prohibitory clauses. 5ijX^^^^ "^ !^ ^^ ''-'-' - -y^'^^^^ -^ect, wi;h thos. . ■ ^::Z^^ His Honor in rendering judgment, on the.iath P^b™- ^BADOLB^'^-Thls is the first in order, of the elediona^p^^^^^^ been presented to me,anditwa.^made by John jS^bbott. Esq. of th Ci'y of ' '&^ril^:T r*r * ''"'•'^^^ »* the^eML f^;the County of tX^f'f "^^^'''''^''''^'^^''''''^^y'^f^^'f^^^ documentsrequired " V inslnt ^'""^'^"^^''djISped member aj^peared before r£e bathVsth Februir; ' ^l^nt, ana wereheard^n the validity^e .pplitation and proceedinl^ obedience to my order of.the ,29th of Janul^r.that purpoilL; anl^Ed mem^ then took exception, in Ig^'ting^toXapplic^iopr^d thM P«M IZ Iju"^ *"**' *'''^"°^^ "P«^ **■« following' formal aiflch ^ound.8, which as most convenient, will be stated' and disposed ofXamt the order of their statement. • -^ - I^. V *«'l'«™i Th»%t objection setsout that the or m iplication wider the -flOtit- k' -i.:^.: W '«"*■ i"-v^ ^M' ..^i Viol* • /^^ • — .- -■. ----- .■""■vy^ i jt.'ii^o BmmuHuua unqer- tae-iWMt lK,we, Canada residing or havingjurisdiction in tiieelecto, DISTRICT OF MONTREAL. -jSS?* " *^® ^wtiiqt in which BUch contrororted election was h^ld," Ac., and is, therc- ^gr^A*- fore, infortnal and void. , ' v The objectiorLirests upon a verbal inacciin section, which directs tho application to be " Judfft «nw>w«" Canada retidingi^ ^i " Cour Smerieure ou de Circuit 4an$ toxuiillt»ve received tho apprgyral and |k^d have been ^ absolutic^i 8latuf< and whore or omis8i0n|||#)hd exception .objeets^—" ibai '<" filed ihe^ answer of the sitting! jineml •f^stof l^bruiryinstantl" <:, '|; ^e Statute requires the contestant to lotirt^en day* from the declaration theMjaefof Wit #ervi«e, it enacts, "that "it shall be.proved% affidavit, si(rpra%^r#«to&ie ' ''in which shall be stated the time. ]^ace and manner/o istico of the Peace, dec, such service." ,h-. Thes* statutory reguireujeuus M^y WWly.td the^rvTcrfpTtKe^r^^^^ guidance, and in tbe'iuterest ofthe parties thems^via Ud also for the public ^ interest : and they are. thig^^rticula^^use withotA thejBervice there could be S -«.- '\ N - ■■ \ •^o 1^^^. ■- ^%m. r" w 20' DTSTRigr OF MONTBEAii' .« Oouaty 'f • ' t t ' ' ■k .'t •I "o "eoivtestatkin on tnttten not appearing on tiie return or on tbe PolHBook^ ^ Tho. uervlcQ pf notfco i« iha foundation of the whole of tbo prooeedingg. On tbo •olher hand, the require hvent that the copy of the notice Bhonld'^be "•worn to," ' «nji by the- porson who shouU|orvo the wmo, ie manifestly witbintbe attributea ' an^ cognizance of the Judgt for T^ guidance and action jn the reception of the «ppH0Htion; for liis adjudication of its validity ; and for liia information in the taking of evidence afterwards. Hero the service is not objected to, *nd muBt ^therefore bo held to be considered Ungbjectionable by the returned member, no irregularity.or omission in that respect having been alltgcd. It appears not to bo denied that a copy of the notice was produced and fyled . with the application on the 28th January last, and was then judicially noted with, the otherdpumonU produced. At iU foot of th^t copy is written an affldavU sworrifto bcforo a Justice of the Peace and Commissioner of this Court for taking affldavi^ts, wHich purports, and ii^ averred' to have been made by the deponent; stating therein his name, residence, and quality, alid the time, place, and manner of the service, and at the same time averring, tluit the deponent >^ compared the copy to left, (that is, the copy served upon the said Sydney Belling- . - ham,) a«rf aho the fore§otng copy, (that is, the copy produced to tFie J^dge,) with the said notice, (that is, with the original notice), and th^t each of the taid copies was, and is, a true copi) of the $aid notice. 'All thjBse averments are de- ,<5fc»gd in the Jurat^subscribed op the affidavit by the Officer, to have been sworn „ to before him on the 28th January last. The terms of the exception aUd th| argument "feforo me appear to indicate an informality in "this aflSdavit, nstliesolfe point in difficulty as to this copy being a sufficient sworn copy within the-.Statute, the sijjnature jkf the dSponent to that «ffidavi(, being wanting; and this is taken as fclre ground upon which the exception denies that the copy was_ sworn to. As, a merely formal ftr tech- nical point of law, the true test of this objection lies Jn llik: can perjury be assigned upoir the avcrmcnfabove referred j^JSithtained in the affidavit in qties- tion. ? The law declares aat the{/ist ofthe crime is ihftakinyoflheJhUe oath in tlifi particular complained of . And it was held in Morris' case by Lord-Mans- field, and Justices Dennison and Wilmot, '" That, as to the actual swenring, it is '« in the nature and course of buMness quite neccasaty to take tho;ttmf attested " ^y t^e prrfper pi9rson before whom the oath ought to be taken, as sufficifenf ' ♦♦ proof of ita being iactually sworn by the person, so far at least as to put him" ' :" to show, or to raise a presumption, that he was per^nated?' S>o " in ordinary cases, whether the peijuryis assifjncd upon a^ answer in Chancery, or an affi- davit, the proof of the handwriting of the persi;>n whQ administered the oatH ig sufficient proof th^t the affidavit or answer was aVorn ; and if the place af wBickj^ it was sworn is nientioned in tfee jurat, that al^ i^ sufficient ^evidence thaAiC'* wa»-8worn at that place."^ Rex. v. Spencfer, 1 -oription of the signatari by the "depo^«««ii.._ nont to the afflcTavit. but m the falne avcr.,ent ; it i. true, the signature i, requi^Oa'«S»V % apr^fce ruUjof the Qourt of Chancery and of othor|Engli«h CourU.oniy L the "^^ conv^nitnoe o^t!.6 more perfect Identiflcatiori of ihe person chargeable With the p««3ury for wl.K;h .purpose the av«rmonU of Uio kflBdavit are sufficient. This copy of.j.otlce ufyt tho information of the Judge, and they^ro/ H signed by Mr. Uol e w,h«. Kesides being « .{v^ice of tho Peace, is a CoipmissJInet- of thih Court for taking iffldavits, » and as iich must be judicially icnown andUoogni«od by SV /" L ! ''**1*"'=****'« q^estiqn of tho Huffloioncy of thi« sw'earing differs essori- , tWIy froh, that m the Montreal cases, upon the sufllpiency of the afildavits to ro- ,^«f «7««:;9 ^I'ic'U fetter the greatest strictness is required ; tho form of the tSlI*"!! »«g"«t"f to Uiem being regulated by the Statute, and -the an- •- JJonty ^h«rtby given beln^ exceptional both by Stituto and Common LaW *HU credence m this case therefore, must be given to the jurat of th* officer • the copy produced mu«tbo',held to be the c6py;.sworn to.'^'which tho 87«rt; t W and, th.B th.Al ground of objection must be also declared insufficient. My op,rt.on m thisrespcot .s concurred fn, as matter of hm, by my colleagues of the Superior Court for this district. ^ •' ~ ', »«"«» oi The I'eturfled member having declined to tako any further objection, it only remain* to mljudioate upon the application, which is declared to bo valid ; and to^ the tyand place for proceeding with the evidence-Previous to this dedaration ';^wever the Contestant's objections ;to.the||i,wer produced and ftled with the appl.cat.on, mnst be^bribfly noticed. In itsj^he answer is in form ■ and mbslance, a protest agatst answering at all, and seta' «||^«cit1c grounds and reasons why the returned member should not answer.WPa8 been- pre- :- par^d m utter ignoranpe of the requirementVof the statute, anTTt iTcftt can onfybo _, Jreatod asaraerogeneraldenegation of the facts and circumstances cont«ned in the notice. If the grounds or reasons given fof declining to an?wer couldpossibly ^^ justify their reception as indicating in themselves facts and circurastancerwhich the returned member should have particularly specified in support of his election, they are valueless for that purpose, and do nofmeet the requirement of the statute ^^ m that respect This first answer, therefore, will be considered only as a gefleral , y- tleacgation ; the second, or su^jplementiry answer produced on the 9th of Feb ' y!'''^ **^ ^«J-« »>«y«»d the time limited by the^^pto^t is, therefore, no! ,. f^^bfe upon the welj-known principle of law 8tatlS|Plarri8,-«,W«.a , V-^a/wfe tmeses terms, and prescribes a thing to be done within a certain time ' '*fj«j'«'«/«'-»« rfay tVaK even in apenal case; because no terms can te ad. -.^ muted but sucA as directly and precisely satisfy the law. This latter document cannot give the member returned any of tho privileges which . belong to an . , answer nroperly constructed and timely served; setting out in the language of , -^ . • v!- 8ect.onr-"4Lny other; facts and circumstances npon which he reste the \' -'^ *' ^i ! " validity of his election." In such a state of th^ proceedings the statute iteSf ^f '^ ! O: expressly decides "that the returned member Xll not be permitted to .p^e >- I ^ ''MUlOtrnilCoo lu ] i«- ~. J . .1. . . - - — —— hy «tay of nbuttincT the case made^8gatn,t h,s election." The final order for evidence will'he formally, entered and recorded, however.on Monday next. I have nov.»onIy stated ^ipinioii Which offer theniselves at tEfepi^sent time. , " ^^ ...,' '41 ■I 'I ■» Wi ^ ^. I 92 f, DOTRICT OP MONTREAL ed p ul ^tarttoHSr* '^e'ow concluding Uieae wimrkw, I umy b« p«rt«ittc«l jjo olinorve, that the io C«H^^r^r- conv«Bienci«« and oUtnJCti«n« cAuaed t& Buitow tiiid the public in genoml, by tlio operntion of tliin Law in Ix)Wer, (>iinaJ«, ciinnot be compormat^ by tbo «^c^WgLadgmtuMt«x\HscUsd to bo obtained froiH^tliu prinoipio eniboiTi^ itUhe AUtical wisdori^ have united in elovnting the Judicial Oflico abovo tlie aiigry tuivoil of pol^ti* trif'o; and by rendering it indepondont of publie and private infl'tienccs, bayo secured ita integrity and retained it t^ public respect. 'Ihia new Act rcdu the Judge to the pogiB on of a nB}oction Coinroissioner; brings him into dijec and personal co]li»|Qp|g||B4P|^ andiiUMtiiig»^partiHaB8 and parties, still war 'from the cxcU^oJiMimMK'at of a recent fledtjon contest; on the one hand witli the bittorno^of the rotiirned member fearful of the losa of his sc^L notwith- standing all his toil and bxpense, ' and on the other with the eagorneHi of tTki contestant desirous to occapy his place ; artd finally Compels the Judge hinisaff to exarolmSJ the witnesses produced without -any assistance from Counsel. — All these nocei|88rily expose tUtfs^udge to turbulence, it may bo ruffianism, in hU scroti]^ of {he acta and votes ofj)artic8, partisans and voters, nof unwillfaw* if excited or required to oppose authority. , ^ Not only judicial indopenJcaioo is jeopardised by such a Statute, but the moat coDscicntibus discbarge of his duty will not relieve the Jndgejbjpi'ulont suspi- cion or avowed chargjl'of partisanship. The judictoyTEouIdnot be exposed , to such mftlestations. By this act, moreover) tfao^fl^e has no voice ii^tt^s sel- ection as commissionner, capnot relieve himself from the application afcliim- seUJ^ut must act under the annoyances above defiailed, a^ undo^ thd '^ of .the Select g/otamitteo, who may.compel him in his oirtt person to subi to their irresponsible opinions and^ determination, upon his actions in his of Judicial' Commissioner. " „ . , 4 bis m( Coi His b»8t e^ji«t8 to carry th"e law through, aftd to return to the performance of is paramount duti# jgi^jy bo thwSted b^ obstructions and eirasipn^ of the sitting • P^ate .threott and denuncfationa of the action of a Select pted In, this case,, for the • purpose of intfmidating him % V / '»' A i'; \ upob the Judiciary, irijunous tothd Admiinisijilltion # Jiisticoj and pi-oductive of de%s iJli iVterruptiojij^'bij^.busiiress of the '$||periorbourts. In practice, * little advaneo in titf^canC«,gained ao fat as the flret SeasloU is concerned, at « Jeast^tft^ef the caHpj!t«ce8 of.tiroeat which the last election took place. Tiie ^ Statu^p a^ows aiWTd^ to elapse aftfiirthe .election, before the application of 'the conteltants ne^b6..mado ; nay, many similar applications may be made to .■thelpae Jtidge, w^o mnst receive them, nor can he thereafter transfer them to &i;ij oi his'.tTOlleagues*. The applrcattons therefore call ^nly progress in the , •ider in which the applications themselves are produced, and the Statote com- . I** , %5i "^ pe la th » J u dg e to co nti mic t he case i n hand w itho u t inmr r uptiuu until in rchwr ■^ » '' ^ 'What tha't period may be, it is manifestly impossible to foresee; and as mant* < .1 ICUUf V V, A DISTRICT OF MONTREAL. 98 ^\: fettly lmp<«ibIo wHi;t be, to .ppoint «n early time for proceeding with n^ond conlenUlion until th« tei;inination of tho flnit, oJSS^Snif. The ttpplicatlon of tho< ^t«iut^ work* dtfferonUy in the two Motioni of the "*»*^ province ; in Upper Can«|a, the Countfe. have each a Judge who could have but one petition ; in Uwo4 Canada tho Ju.licial Dintricta etnbmco several Coun- tle^ and one Judge mayVo Mveral application* with ali,th« inconvenience, oon- •oquent thereon. \ ^ ' . Viowingtho marks of hiwto and inconsideratenoM, not to My ignorance, with* which tho Statute abound^ aH regards Lower Canada, it does not appear tr, me td PO.H0M the moans for prtictically working out luJvantagcously U.o principlj^ whioh .t professes to ejjrce v^d encourage; but at the «»mo time whatever doubts I may have m my own bfeast, with roii,ect either to the expediency or poUey of the law, yet as longas it continues in forco I am bound to see it eie-^' T^" cm accordmg to its meaning ; and I have tliereforo wiUiin as short a period aa theintereats of the parties appeared to justify, proceeded in this contestation. St. Andr^S"^' ^""^ ''^ *'"''''' '"'" """'*'* " ^^^ ^"y ^^^ *'^'"8 «"^«''''« ** ^ Surrovffht, for the sitting Member ^ # , ? ' * ' Ciarto-, for the Petitioner. 7 ^^ % MONTRIAL, TUESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OP PEBRuIrY, 1868. Coram Badolry, J. ^ . f ^°°?''' •'•' ^'^^'^^^ = ^^foi-c proceeding to record and register his judgments definitively upon tho validity of the contestant's application, and of the excop* tion taken thweto by the sitting Member, heard a short time since, he was com- pelled to notice a document signed by Mr. Bellingham, and put into his hands at Chambers a few &ays ago by Mr. W. E. Holmes, advocate of this city, acting ■for Mr. Bellingham, after the parties had been heard npon the Judge's order to that effect, and whilst the matter was undei; judicial consideration. Ho had is- sued j» rule ordering tho sitting member anrf Mr. Holmes to appear before him to Wiswer resp^ctin^ the document on this d|||y ^ His Honor then handed down the papiS|^ Holmes, Mr Bollingiim not being present, and Wished to know fronj|H|[r. Bellingham desired that it should be formally received by the JudgPW Holmes having declared that he pr^umed that to be Mr. Bellingham's /ntention, the paper w^s returned to tho Judge sitting in Court, and was by him directed to be read publicly and openly in ' the Court by the Prothonotary, enter ? a rH i Wtfi>r a s p m sl pn iy o,. in uuunoiion w ife ■»r theOrenvilIe^Jlailroad, in his suUa in which purpose the Judge was interested ;-th^h,s conduct as V Judge had on two previous occasions fw / ""*1 V X . ■ B \ d •4 DIHUUCT OF MON OontnTArltxl •WMtlOM. Qofoatr ot Ar- •MkHwlT f- • ;'i- II t iL M .■?ti ^1 ■ JL '. ninUuU matter for impAchniont,—tbHt Im Uml n perminal int«r««t In tlio retuH of thin fUjction ; with otlior iwrnoniil wpMrtiotm U(M)n tlio inNjjritj oftho Judjfo,— ' ttnally cimrijing him nt his peril to prooooti with tlio umttor In liaml until tW llo\m of AwwHibly cttuUI bo Inforinotl of tlioM iniputationt, and prevent htiti from fnrtlior aotiolt • It waH«cImitt«(l by Mr. 1Iolnvo«t1iat tho document wn« original, apd boro the signature of tlio Hitting mcinbor ; tliat liu had ndvinod tho wrilnr agninit adopting Buoh* counw, but thought It better that ho should bo tho boaror than that it •hould b« wrved by a bai/iff, and thit he accordingly had handed It to t^p Judge. .. ' Ilia Honor then oommentcd ujwn tho conduct of the parties, pr!ne Judge, and have restricted his abuse to the floor of Tariiament or of the Committee Room ; but, calumnioua and fake as the charges were, he must have anticipated the consequences of his proceeding. His .Honor remarlcek?»|f ; ch«mber y, l 8 not ac ting 'in hj a jttdt^i a j c a p^ x^^ " as a Judge of thia Court, and both bi$ person and his character under the same jr. ,^^■^'l^y•^ , WWMOT OP MOimiRAL. " \ • Jmlgo walking nlong the .tro«ta would not l^.c«nj.nt of aurTThl' ^^ -«k«,ofU.o Individual, but for th« ..ke of tT: u'b^tt ,/p^^^^^^^^^^ I .uch p^tocdon : .„a i„«,p^, „f ,».. public, tWia.puting orSn 171 "I f Fmni.0,. ofju.tico to him. in .fi ordar m^o by him .t hi, ch.mZ tatt! ? ? V.th much moro .n^riou. conaoquonoo than a blow : and therefo^r , Jproc^Ungi„Uu..u.n.oary..„norappIio.witho;,ua.ifr^^^^^^^ ; ,f J"''"=« f-- ^'" «Hklng a Judge th»n from the abualng h^ ^u JIu 1 7" iTs2th ^''^'''''"K^f P'««««J'»K» •' Chamber,, the Chief Juaticg pr3J, -- Still they are emanation, of Judicial power. .„d, whether they harmt; « .« uor», ana witother he ih sweann/yr an affidarit nut «r n«— » Nothing could be added to those remark, withont in .«m« j - , , of the Superior Oonrt, each by hiniwlf in tl.i. Prn„i. T"*"' **"** ^^e Judge. . dant of hi. colleague, and hi^ S ' *^'7'""^ ««*« - • «o«rt indepen- :i*r.on i. dccIareTbrthelw titri ; "'\u" "^S °^""*' '"'« '" *''-^- Cd Sydney I^mnghlm'irihlr^^^^^^^^^^ °^-^'"^^- J«M,e whil.t in t1.e perLance of hi. jud12tc'^^':;rrcT:r^^^^^^ ' tn/acie curi«on*.™i„ai^Ur; „d%^°rpS^:trZ"Sf-r'"' reprimanded accordingly. 1 5 ^^'^ ^ - "®'^'»" «Hll'"'1S52"'nP'" the api^ication of thfe contestant, and for the taking «^ ' •^W«?'=!^oOommisalonen.w*re then formally reco^el' ^'f*^ Vauaij of Ar> ■MiMlU. ^v -¥ ^ ^ .^CC*.- c ^ / * ■,■ .' ■ »■; • > 'f ..:m feo-. ■ ''-J ■ \ai»- ^^:J-' '-^ffl|-'^/r,:- ■ t ''Ct* '"■ ■*• ■■'•') ■'^W'i' ■'• 'm ^i&;- >^-'l Hi'.-'. " ■ * . IHi'r ''' ^^'^: ., "-il Bi '■ ' : '■' i> .5" \4. \lf ••i:M?f¥tt' M ;*" '•1' 1:4 ■ lji«n»-' 'l^- tnum,-' ■ »l|S»«'.'^i'' t'- y V 26 )ISTRfCr OF QUEBBO. .',; DIBTUOT OV QUBBEO, ilH M< iM(ltf«r o/'Aic Cmtrovfrttd EUctimfot the Cbuntif itf Lothiniitt. , . ' JOHy O'FARRBLL, Bsq., •\ •*> Sitting M«nb)»rt Petitioners. QUBBEC. lAth F]iSBBtTABT.)858. . .< Omini Mkrboith, J. . , 1. An application to tako the evidence wlU be rejected, It the alH^Tln of ttao sureties bo Insumoient. S. An application to take ovidence.'whieh the Judge oominissioner HaajreAued to receive for insufficien- cy in theaBtdavits of the sureties, may be afterivards received atu} actcfj' upon, if the defect lie oorredted and the i»ppUoation renewed, within the time fixed by the^Stktute for the inakingpf such i api^icfttionk ' 3. The FVeach and SngUsh versions of the Provincial Statutes, have ^usi tixteti. When they directly contradit^, Ultiy destroy each other: /but if one bo ambiguous oiily, thf other may be retorted to for eq>lanation of the intent and mealing of the law. ' '' 4, The words "Superior or Circuit tt/igif' used in the Cpntroverted Electiona Act of 18S7 mean a Judge of the superior Court, oroftliib Circuit Gourt^ < - : ♦ • B. There are grave doubts whother1;h^ powers conferred upOn a Judge commissioner by ttie Controver- ted Elcction% Act of 1867, are sufficient to ehiriile him.validly to appoint a deputy : sikid in the bee ofthusoitoufats, (ha Quelieojildgesuiianimoiuly decided tietto do BO. / . . Tlie facts of this. case BuiBciently appear bjr thoijudgment delirered by the Honorable Judge, which was as follows :—^*, * ■ ' ' % ^' • Meredith, /.—By the application^ now before me, I^ani ;^f6quired under the provisions of the 20tfi Vict. chap. 23, to take evidef^-e'ujio^^ certain mjtters of " fact connected with tlie Lotbihiere Election contest. te ' ' ^ ». Before proceeding;t!i> consider the ^iuestions of general ^^portaiice wl^ich this case- presents, I ^all advert to the technical objection ufgiji^by the Returned MettilJbr, that the recognisance was not,a$ the statute requires, produced " a^ibe time 6f the application." ^ " ^ > ^ i*.- .• .- The application was placed ii»' mv hands* ftccolBipanied. as was 8li1r»l>8l S d|.lSv the necessary papers, on the 27th of Jannu^'f on the 28th tho^ai'ti^ heard, and the <;ase^w^ continued by consent uutilkhe SQth, :wheil I'^ r< to receive the application" in coiisequence of the ali|||vifs of the sureties bein^ ip^d£Bctent. On the same day (a new bond aad affidavits having been produced, 'and the delay for making the application not having then«xpiced) the Petition- w «n renewed the application thei4 in m/ hands, by making amotion, c#ing upoi^ \ me to receive the bond, and toproci^d to take evidence in th'ifr matter as tM ,1 statute requires. ' 5t iS~s^ ' The Returned Member has argued|th§t as thf bond and affidavits were not filed until five days after the application- haH \jeeq,Jjr(jducjpd, tl^e whole proceedings' ■ -are illegal. ._ . . •. . '' _ '■'■W ,^;;.';-^;: .; ^ ">. «fe After giving the matter due coosideratioq I atv unable to 'adopt this view. *"■• ,he words if at the time of the application"^ .in the statute, I understatid at . me the appliqatumit submitted to t^.Tludge. The application, now under • consideratioQ) was subfaiitted to me twice: aoii.whcWJBubihitted for the second- - ,.,s«»' . ' ,■ . ■% X^iiV''V:i-,.^ , ,, ... .. l y M r i tf A m i . " * ' ^ '"' ^ t i ft r * ^ *^*** ■ * .i o ni i i MaHw *' *<'ft i ^ g f W ff thA ftR imft fttiftn 'wWW^ nVIV' SU WMV^^Vr" ' RVrn'MMm f! " CV4U S^^W"^^^ "Vf? . BV VUV Off aaVOTVBK*'* B i ^^. DISTRICT 0^ QUEBEC. t7 •vi dniOicate of it could have " '^'^ "«"« ^T ^"^ ^ff*^*' «% «opy or The objection that the copy of the M«h-;no« I ' *. piXHluced five day, Wore ihI.^LCZllTJ f ''^ o*^<^ ?•?«" were importance. The law requireslhe rmn! J^ T "?' *^""' °**' ^^^ me of befiled exactl, at\he ^Z ZZ^:'fnZ'^'' *"^« ^^^^ sh^ol^ i^rr jr ^ *^^°^ ^^ °^^-^r - - ^^^ '^-n Of the:p..e^di,^ . ^ tWthe duties in question 8hdbrw.T *''''***"*« *^^^t declare « . Conrt", but by « « l,Z mj" ZT^^ 1 1 "''"'«" ^^'^^ «"?-"'*' ' , no officer tnown by that nam* ' • ^ " ''"'^' **»'»' ""f^*' <»»' ^4* theiy is . " When .ny of the parties sb^' tal' ?''""'^ *° ^ «* ^""«^« •• "^ ''"^ •• tl. facts and circ.^s^^ a^S^" ^''"« ^''^ ^^•^«"- -P-«»« . " M for Wo. to make applieaUrSwriU^^ T"^ ^ *'^''' ^* «'^»» ^*^ '^ in Upper^Canftda. or sLrSr o S^f r ' '^^^ ^^^''^ ^"^^^^y ^^m^ " Wviilg juri^dicfioL withinht^^I^^^ Lower Canada. Jding^ " 8iu,h Antrc^vVted eloction wasS ^^ '^^ "' '" the District, in which « «^I md^e„ of a n^entio^e^" 'SSS" ^ **'^ '""^ -ilce^np^n - "^.the answer, if any, mmle by tKr^^^.!^ f** '^f ^^''^^^ P^' «»d in "Judge Jallic,rthUap^t7^iS,^^^J'>^«^ ^l^^ted; S the said [ ;; du^noftbe M be gi^, m^l^^l^T'^^''^'^ ^"^'^^ ",oppQsiteparty«. «« »« days be^e proceeding therl^ to i&e There pannot be anvaufisfi/^ »-* L • 3ect.on^f the recent ltdicat«r^4^S^t^^^ andb/^he latl^ •It ,8 declared that -tbeCMuit CoS !h« K?! S V®'" •^^^'^«"'* J«<»ge -.Annrn^.^...^..^0^^^^ held bythe^pdge^ofth6S« ^ !*.■ ♦" the Judgejf Commissionel^-n ^his matter,.! rrnieot!, "'"'^ ^^ \^^ ^'^ *<>' ««t as . and dnties o^ the CircHt J.dW W ^ev^^^^^ "P^ ^l^o"^ the^y J irrespective of the (^estion a,^Vh^'hn^^^^ ^^"" *^'>*""« pow^rf i^ this .within the meaning of the,4th Jctil^Z i ' "" ^ """^ " * Supdrior Judge," • •tate tosaytMtheobjeSbn uSr^^^^ ^ do n.t.- however, ^^, ./ ^M f > .r* a8„in my opinioipgroun^less. . *."■ -^'\ «->. :r—y[- J_,^ i* ' '4 .^f. r^ tff-' Mr Ui DISTRICT OF QUEBEC. i 'i [' 9*' - St ^% # ^f •I *♦ CojjtrOTwtoJ^ '/ ItjseeniR to me that the Legislature, iii speaking of the Juflges of the Supe- Oonntyofliot- rior doufHI, have used the words " Sup^ior Judge " in the same way, that in ***"**"* speaking of the Judges of the Circuit Court, they have used the wprds " Circuit ^ ^ Judge." Ami althoijgh it must be admitted that the fixpressioa used is inac- curate, any ^oubt as to the meaning of the statute is reraoved^by the use of the , words " J ug» de la Cour Supdrieure " in the Fretlch version. ** ,^; It has however been contended on the part 4f the Returned Member^ thlf our law has not two texts, and that the translation in French, is not authority as law. This point is" of importance, and it is one in relation t^^ich tio doubt should be allowed to exist. I shall therefore advert briefly to the coilrse^pf our legisla- tion as regards the language of our law. .*;:•.-■. Th6 Ordiiiances of the Governor and Council from 1YV7 to 1702 were, it is ' / true, in the English language only ; but all the stfitutcs of the'l^iarliamont of Lower Canada, and all the Ordinances of the Special Council, were passed in the " , two languages. By thc^lst section of the Union Act, hqwever, all tlfe written - or printed proceedings of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly were required to be in the English language only ; but this provision of law was repealed by the 11 & 12 Vict. cap. 66 ; an 1 since i\fi,i time the Provincial sta- ctutesVare passed by the Assembly, and Legislative Council ; and arfe assented to by th« Representative of Her Majesty, as well imthe French as the English lan- guagc ; and consequently the two versions naust have equal fofc<^ When they exactly agree, they^have the samft effect a« one ; when thej- are f/.ntradictory, they destroy each other; and when, as in the present case, an expression in one of the versions, causes a doubt, which is reinoyed by jihe examination of the other ; the latter must be regarded as explaining the former. ■ Guided by these views in the present case, I hold that the words " J%ge de la C|our Supericure" in the French text, remove any uncertainty tliat might have existed as to the meaning of the word "Superior Judge" in tlie English v^ersioji'^ ,, of the Statute ; and therefore, that not olily-as having the powere which 6om1S formVly have been exercised by a Circjuit Judge, but also as a Judge" of the Superior Court, named in the statute, I can take cognizance of the application ■ ndw before me. ., » ' ■ So far the case seems plain ; but we now "come to the consideration cff the 6th' section by which it was intended to give to the Judgfis of thc'^perior Court, the right of appointing Deputies. . It. is as Ibllows^— ^ ^ ; : ^ ■.;.- ,■■;■'- _ Sec. VI. •* So soon as the said application shall have been validly made as .«* aforesaid, the" Judge so applied to, shall be deemed to afl intents and purposfe^ '* ft Commissioner for inquiring«into and examining and taking evidence in all .«' the matters of fact and circumstanees mentioned in the notice of the said con- «' testing party, and the anbw.er, i||iny, of the returned 9iember. ' * * * ■ « Ad4 it shilll be the duty of the said judges, respectively, to, take upon the " the duties imposed by this Act, arid they shall then have all the powefs aiict " rights (including remuneration for their services, and the right of appoiri^g ♦• Beputies to act'forjthem as su^ judges, while engaged in consequence of sijich • « application;) and shall- perform all the duties and be Bubj«J^|i|,all th« liabilities V^ ■i'il !?*■_:*. " '' ttBBJ gn e d by th a s a id TClftCtion yetitjon a Act t^ perfionB iftp « noii^^ to take evideac^Sfelative to any controverted electjon^" > '. D :>^^v?' v'-^-':. point deputies, .ight be avaid^ I^J^ ^ p^^^Sj;' *'"• '"P«"- ^0°^ to .p. Oou^S. . h th,s city t^ ^whom electioii petitfon" h«vrh '^"*'"" ' ^"* «• ^'^^ J"%^ «'23^ ' .exorcise tha^ right, and as tirdlri^^^^ extent, su^eet the Bar, and the su tSfo^o 7/^^"^^'* '""«^ ^^ --'"e ^ ^ ,Ideemitrighltoadve^totherea«o;^^^^^ to ineonvenieHce. * ie the conclusion already mentfoned. ^ ^'"^'^^ ^ ^'''^^ beefl guided in doming ■ .y .ll«.ion i, miSe to Ih. power of '!tv i"'-"*"«°"«d Ac. in *hto ' .';.■; * «1 fn it, there would be „o gLIitb.W f "'" '" "'° ••""A^ii-r-.-^ - -gned by the said Election Petitbtrtt^ «"bject to all ihe liabilities as- V ' " to take evidence respecting .^ZitlT.r7""" "^'^'''^ Commissione,B here spoken ot; .ere LheLiiVtdr^^^ Il.e Con.™is.ione.^ Jud^, was m^rely a Circuit or CouLrir J^^^"'"'^'^"^^^^^ ' f«P^ythepowerofaCirc.i::SS^ *;;! ^ J Judge, acting under the eo Vic <^ap 2I £ f. '^ ^ ^* therefore follows that if io: th. said fetion Petitions Ic^^'^'^'Pr*^^ ; might perlft^ give to his J^eriife^a^W '^"^^^ Commissione^lh^ Wgivef. ,0 a Deputy 4n^rSr;S'":r *'''' * C-»'»'»i<»ner couS ' Jurfge. but cle^ly none othen rhfeS'^^^ ^^ « «'^ or Coun^ ^«"<^*he,^fo^e.byapartoftheW^ statute seems to hav^ fl : ■ f^Bt^ute.; the rigtt„of.ppointl„53tS:V° "^ •'"^^^ -^-4 > ' <>m.tted to.embody injt,^e nS^jl^ T "^^ *?^<«*«t»t^ ha.^b6% ^ 0- the right inte^.d«e ?>Z:j^E *;' ^-^'^'^^^^ Judg^ to',«^ ' ■; ^e.S|EXo^^^^ .f eb«: . . Deput,e1^th the provision of the st^l^^TLf • :^ ^^^^""^ *«> «PPoii»t . of t^Sj.perio.a,urt to exa^fe^ISf^^^^^^^ -*«»«-» ^^ ^^^^e ««SW if' ^^rumentof nomination rnustcitSiTr^S^^;:':^^*^^ ^^ - . ^^'"^ ^^Od^red the appointment Uece^J^J5lJ- i ' ' ■^''^^*'"<»» which shall one Of the triplicate oln.N ,> T^' :^ '^"^^^"^t '^ tob,-,^ ■ ^'^ - ■ « i- t2*«'. ..iic^i ■^^■''1 "1h ":^>-?i tripb'c i tff ^ /'*"'-''■' ■"'''^'■aoep^.l^cgoAt; ,,..- ^t ,^ -» 't 80 l^iST^lIOT OF QUEBEC. ^» -:44- ; 1 ^ .^ ''_ *.--;-*• ^ ;■■*■ ■^■: ^'X.^ "■ tT]\ t 4-' '4 'it " .1., . i '• '.'--V''. 1 ' !^'! ■ r •' •rssif"? At oontmerted Circuit or County Court, another of them is to bo delivered to the Deputy, and Co?5^i.t. a third is to be transmitted to the Provincial Secretary for the information 0f ; "■'*^ the Governor of the Province. Now in the Act of last session under which * V iv alone, a Judge of the Superior Court can act, nothing of this kind is to be' found; r* ' and as a Judge of the Superior Court siti as frequently in the Circuit Court as in the Superior Court, and may also have to. assist in holding the Court of, Queeix's Bench, it was clearly quite as necessary, in the Act of ISSY, as it was in the Act of 1851, to declare the mode in which the appointment of a deputy is to be made, and the manner ofgiving publicity to such appointments. ' , The Act of 1851 also provides, that it shall be lawful for such Judge (namely ^ such Circuit or Couuty Judge), iptwithstandiftg any such norainatibn, v^hile the ^ • same shall bo in force, and without thereby annullJ^g or superseding the same, ■ , • to perform himself, if the execution of such.coipmissioJijpshall not prevent Jji» ' ' doing so, either the whole or any part of the di^tie^ of" his said office of Circuit , OB County Judge, as if such-nomination had Dtoit been made 9» afores^id.-^ , ~ On this important point, also, the Act of 1857 is stlehti-— -^ 1 -^^- Again, the statute'of 1851 (sec. 101 and 164) defines, in .the most careflil and detailed manner, the nature and extent of th^wers to be executed by t^ Deputy of a Ciwjuit or 'County Judge ; wliercas, in the.Act<>f last, sess^, there is nothing of tl^ Wij thefoS'dbserVed^buti ^Iso jipon ^Hhe- validitif''' cf^'the appKcatiou made to - .4 ihTyi^er and upon this point* simple as it: may appear, very embarrassing questions may arise, and .indeed have' alrtfadj^ arisen .. ., ... 1 1 -Hear"' — M6t^over, according to thp strict, literal igeajuing d^P^arenthesis (which," I repeat, is'fhe only part of 'the law tCnd^yo give the right of appointing D^ puties to the Judges of the Superior Court,) the righUn question ft •conferred, upon the J^dge3 collecHvely;mi is not expresply gi9Ki to each 0/ them; al- • though, under the statute, no two or more of them are required t? act tpgtSth^r - for any other puspOse. ' *^"- v . --.-— ^ It may be thought by some persons, that tU Jud^s attaoh und^ importance 10 the difey them*'. But \ nr^ ;♦. ■■.h\ '"■4lf. * , a-^-^ ^u-" -^ . •'•■•If*, DISmiCT ©y QUEBEC. 81 !<«, Ih. pe^ora named would, i„ ,L/co„,«*f™fcwJl^1^'*-7" • __Wg tirtho subject the mosfcare/ul eomidor.li»n ,L^ it' w^ "IN g"' i whofn .lection p,tWo„j>,,e bl, S,Ti «^V' *'^ well bj ,beir com^^t , Z^j'Slw * •' ""^ *" '"*< » ■■ con,mi8.i„„, we» ,™nt.^ V 1 1 ?„^t?l . '^ T'™ '° *"<* ""l*" tllose »^.r„^„.„^^;„,;l::seStr■;er^;*'■;«r:r *h«*.b„seoA i, .igi;.7t:,tlwj2Z *"i""*°"•°''°'■■ •m^i"g Ibo ,p,«intm«t^ l^ile^ *« "tempted to render tKe Judge,, I^tonre ,iil'«e the n»e«itj of liL^^^^^ °f' ™''«''™'ftat.4o ™|oo»^j-y,„»diffle„,«,.^eomj:S;^tbTTu'S.:^^^^ "' ■ ■ *«e,*i»^op«.eto devote «»muoh.ofthe.™„.rhi. 5' *°"™- -f,f«,io„,i, apprehend tbifeh«i,eon,^„iene*^^t.^LtS'*r'""^^ .that can mult ftom thai allemtt. ..j^.^.V"""**'" 'WMv^ttt. ■■;■ ->. '■■ ' • • '- > ;• ' ' "■• \ . '■ 'C ... :> i u i ■ ^t 'imm'%-^ ■^r-r-5- '•rs,' jh ^ . . .A .„S'i ." ^*i/ :. if j-<- '*f 89 DISTRICT OF QUBDEO. n- ^»* * ^V. I ' " ) In the course of the foregoing renMlrks, I hvre purposely ah»tainod ft-om dwel- tittoi. ling upon the manner in which the judicial o|ico in ^^wor Canada is affected '*^ by the statute in question. That is, doubtless, one of the mattora connected with this subject which must soon engage the attentiorn of the Legislature ; and I cannot believe it was the deliberate intontiob of PHrliamcnt, to place the Chief Justice and other Judges of the highest Court of original civil jurisdiction in Lower Canada, in the position which they iJW occupy yndet the Statute. It must not be inferred form the remark justtmade, thjat I do not duly appre- ciate the importance of the duties assigned to the judgi^'by the reortrt statut«, I admit they are of the highest impQrt,»nco ; .but I contend tjjat if th«(e duties, —which could be performed as well by other persons, without interrupting and disturbing the administration of justice in the ordinary tribunals,— mist be per- formed by the Judg*»,t1ioBii.fuctioniiria«!, ini discharging them, ought"so be allow- ed to act as judges, instead of being compelled, as they now are, to act as oom* -miswonep; the di%ence:Mii|s*&|ipie tw^ important ta|; ^ towell undarstoodtoreqaife ent.^^^^^^ . : ■ If it be 8Md,\hi8 would be cM«*«y*<>^;!^^^ *"' ' ftwer is plain,— the duties to bdimposed !b'p<>«» ^a Judfes are oitl% of a judicial uature,T)rthey arfe riot so. |f they are juiliife^^^e Judges ought to perform them ^ as Judges— if, on tihe contrary, thoffit-dttliies ate not o|^a judicial nature, then they .cannot consistently with justicevhW jmposedaiyipn'^he Judges without their con- sent. . , , " ','; , ",; '' . , _, • C •'In tho same casjei in the course of feting the evidence, tho Hon. Judge Cota^ miMionor ruled as followr: -■';=- :;;;::v!> ■"■^;V;;"]-;h.Y' '"^'^'^^^ v. 'S- ' ' ' ' ' '. ' " ''■ .'. 'iV^'' , "-" ' „ ' ■ . :' 1. Detay'ti) produce tho original iwll-books will not bia. «««»tod, ,o*1ftiel d»y fixed for prodeeding, tothci>er»nwhom'»dotho»ppHMttoHfbrthet m ^ < i „ *. 5. Bvldcncoof pw^lculiracta etf «»OTjpttoil wUJiMA be rwelred, Wider »«oneral allegation of """I A o^py o' tfi6 p«i«-book8 will biiweiTOd as megii*i^dteiw» oh4«p the IWtH section of tho fflec- tlon Petiitons Act. « ., . , ' u^ n" V '* " 6 A witncMSurapioned^^ refuse to answer untUhianeeesaaiyexpenaes^pwa., \ e! A witness wlU not bod»pelMd to «Mwer a question tending *o CTimina** Wm. •■•'■' ■''■-■. ■■ ■ -■■*> ''■',■■■ ■'*■■'' ■ . On bl^e 4ay appointed for the opening of tli^ court teopntesting parties mov.ed for an adjournment of nineteen days to enable them to. pro luce the oii- 'ginal poU-booJj. The application was fejeeted. His Honor stated that the day 'had been fixed at their tequcst, against lh« WTUhes of th'e ret^ned member, and " that they had xxo\ used any djUg^neise to have the poll-book. Montague . »2, t!»o Liineriok ca«p. ** .' '. bmioiwl His Honor .t .lo,l, f hat lu- .c^uld „.,t «.ljonn. .ho cuurtfor n'^oro than tw^niy- '^"S.Sl^*- ^ lo»r houiH without making a.,^ outh tluit a case of necessity exinted for Bjich a.ljounjn....... Now. for anything within )iis personal knowledge, it might hav« .l.oen or the advantage of both of alH,iHu-,i^^^ - ^ shH. being the casc^ I.o wouU not «we«r that it wan even for the advantage of cither party n.u<.h less thn^Tvas abs^l.tely necessary for-^ither party, that the case should be coiitimie -^1 ^ U thfi mffloteney of ■^- ■iVP ■ Vv ,:. <; ■^h - ni- v, V, !'i>.i. mi". ■*r 90 hl.''coi!;iritl^Lt '''^ ^-f -i«"«n -fe^*>™e p..H.ni„arie.. opened Oagj^gn,, .nlw^I^tpS^^^^^^^^ -"'^ the returned Molr. 0.!^ i«JS&^l! »"4^^'«»t«tt6«' in tWpoi^ wore divided into 12 head, of ob- V " l*^«^.U.eelect.on;>«chlw.db^|ng^^„^^ of which the foHowing i, * \ ^ Foreatl^'ji;! ? ' ^t" t"* ^''1 ''^''* '^^ Superintendent of Wood* WJ " S/ ; , ' Fore^salAeUmepf hui election, Hichl^H^ J ,: na^;:;:XS:;"* ^^^^ r ^^^^^^ ^-nfication .^uiW^^^ :^ 8dv-rA denial of his right to tfi4 lot& of Jand upon wWoh/h* «duihiidb£ ^ - « qaal.ficat.on, and also the value ofthe Mid lota. ^ ! ^"^""'f^ "* ; , ^^ 4th^ general allegation of bribing his own vot<^H, and threatening aitd' '' \ ! intunidating the voters of thecontestinff rarty. - ^■l.^. .J;^::^^^P^^..^:,^^^.:.^^^ ^^.,^^ ^>\ ib/^Tde ^'"*' *''<«**'o° of keepingppw, H«Hi«a oT^jmbfe toyi^ o 6th.-0eneral allegation of bribery in giving Bills, Bonds, Muftey, Ac. to Kts ' electors. - . „ «>' s. 7th.— General allegalion that more than 200 ill Judce had* / declined to take judicial notice. . Ii ^*^<^^ The Judge Commissioner pMMribed the order in whi^ he would Mceiye evidence upon the statements i^Hb notice. Jle^id tliat standing in the olace ' of a select CommitteiB y«ood the evvle\ic^, he l/ad a right to do so.-aniiS notifi<^ the Parties, and directed th^Qerk to enier upon his minutes, that ha wcwld proceed to take evidence upon the' heads /^. number? 1, 2, 3, 10 and U m the notice, in that oi^toomecutively, commencing with number 1, and ter* .ggSg^anj dyfigtMMMI I liii iniijii.ri ng Pnrty may o ffer, »„' ^jt^ip o^^ '■^■f. ■< those ieads, before eni on toother head ; and that respecting the num. • VT: ^_„_- - :-- ; 4? * V- 1^- DISTRICT OF THRKK RIVERS. H' 1 yw-' ■ ■■ » ^ ■Ml ^«. 1 'f,^ 11 •« hJ -/ , — > .^ ^ .. • , ; , — -.^ , , \ Oontrowt«l bore 4, 8, 6, 7, 8 and'ia, wkich cotltniti notUinff tiiii^' f .■.i,.'ir'<'!^PJrt<»ll»"r;itioni», ''^ w >mty of ThM« _ ujH)!! wliicii h« wiw objoctioiw to taking t»vi(lt'm!«;i li- niMti"? tjid' particH nnd / rjjtw' *, »'i1 ih rt y^4«n>^^fllR(t diri'ctud tliAt„ wh«n a NVltness would ,bc uii(lJ|H||stninHtion, nil tlio ollior WUciumivh •Mould h»ttv« Uio Room, and. .ordormi moTxf liny Witne«H 1|fronfd he offered for xaniiniition who had been pr«iout, and lit'iird the ovidencoyf another Witnoms' Ruch WitnoHH Hhould iiol t)c cxaniinvd? ,^ rio then proceeded to tuko ovidcnciHu tho orde? pi-ehoribwi, and Mr. Sheriff Ogdon beiuf? t|ie first VVitncHS <.'niled nnd.HWuru lur th« purpoxu of prdvinjf tUnt the Conlestiftg Party wim a cnndiduto at tfio late KIcction, slated, tiint rtiw orignal |K)il-bookit woro not In this ponHOAftion, nn lie hnd tranHmittou I lio Judge ruled, timt thw I'oll- Booka being thobont evidence of the fact intended to be proved, and being in cxixtencej he would not rei^eive necoudary evidenco of .tlrair contents; and tlmt HH in tlie absence of.prodf of this fact, the *Knhiination of other WitnesH could not proceed, ho wouhl bo obliged to n(^oufn nnd give delay for the production ^f the poll-books. . v^ '\-.'^*- ■ . '^ . . The returned Meipber then gavo in an adipiMion of what was required to bo proved on tb.iH point, and the Bhqu6to prc}cceded, and continued nine days, - during which period, twenty-six Witnesses were examined for the contesting Party," upon the unobjectionable heads of ''the notice; after which, on the 10th instant,' the conte»ting Party jpi-dduced a list of 3t Witnesses, whom he required the Jud<;e to examine on the other heads, and was henrd upon his riglit to have' ill! in iXMUiincd. \ ■f. VV^ioroupon the Judge CoinmissioiKT.iofused to talce evidence, and directed to be placed upon his minutei>, the reasons why he did not take judicial notice of the List of objected votes presented to him, and why in his opinion it was not right to take evidence upon the 4tli, 5th, 6lh, 7th, 8th, 0th and l2trh'^4iead8 of objettion in the contesting Party's notice ; which reasons are as folfow'Sr- Seeing that uiidor the provisions of the-29 Vict., Cap. 23, Sec. l,.tho cbntcst- ing Party is directed to give notice in writing, in the manner mentiojied'^n this ^ct, to the person whose fjlcction he intcruls to contest, " of his intention to • ^ contest the same, and in Hueh notice ho shall specify parttcularli/, the/qftsand " circumatatiiCfs upon which he intends to contest the electionj" and that by the Itth Section^ when any of the Parties shall be desirous of taking the evidence, . " rt'speiitiog^the facts nnd circumstanvess alleged in suyh notice, or answer, it - ♦'shall be lawfutfor liini to make application in wiiting to the Judge;" and by the flth Sec: " So sdottjw the said application shall have been validly made, - ■" as aforessid, the .ludgo scTltppljed t.i. ■ ...-.■..■ ,_^.^ ._. .. . « • " " '■ ''* -tion, co^cemin. th« v«,i,,iK. InJLlJZll 'VnST thervfil^ ■it#i Haid notice, I tl •o-grnnt ffc<«of i Sit«ing, mIso tl^ " iliall bo poniitrt ** taid act Hhall fho very genura/ iiuinberH 4, 5, iidoring that tli« copy _ ... and which I have transmit nntitl V,-8, - Zx ■Kcd t« m«j;*nd .Wi^:l^, '" „ r'l l]]^- thi Mid 1^1 eti^^n •t.thai tfcy «, Potitionii Act of i 85 1, and ihlit th- ct were indud«d tliwi«," «ijd w.„inJ 9 contained in ih« hi'adH of ^hj^Miou notice ofiho contwtir.fl^J%ty, afiAcsft, l^fltiUoa prMOnted to ui« in thin inntter, A.e,,bly. contai„.no„,or7^ScuUrS;[h^:^^^^^^ '"« ^^«^^'"^'- ^«. .nh i..,. .. n.ic±rt::st:^r :t:;;ts an ssue of fac^upon any of tl/e *aW heads, but i^W^w^Iy int cdutl to^^^' -d..dual.»^l„tbwhich:thi^^^^ of he retu^fed mmnber. .hu»t lU mcemraHIy aivided ; by their rilTtvo S. of Act of 1^1, whcr^m ,t m enakd " thati,« evidence shall be given b«fo e the htf nTT' " '^^'iy'^o'^^o- -««d by such CWme^ Zll. with t^ .^ ^.,, .«4th;::si:f ^ li:;;::^ mitloe 18 forbidden to do, anj cannot, in law take evidence flbon the allesaZ* of. facts in the hotice, undor tlie abovS numbers- h^osLuJlulTT^ ' therein spocifi lawful for the House. Speaker, General Electioh Committee. Chairman's •Panel. Select eommittee, or Commissioner, as tlie case may be^o adopUu^ ~ -proceedm-gsast^y or he ahalMeem most consonant to^h ^xt^rp^f >on^>pmt ^jd intent &f this acV and considering that it was comprnUo thej^ntestipg Party to hAv^«A»,^i i.;. i:^ -r ...^. , ." ^. <=o°'Petent to / / f /•• J'l ' I ' ,'\ ryffil hi H li s t o£-otj«tted votura At uuh Had th6 V. .;7 . i/ .1 ■ ' ^'-T-Vr^-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l ^^■P^.: .1' '■:;■'» i ■''"vX '■;■". ''''''''■'■'''''■—'.':'''':'■.'■':'''''.■-'■-'...■'.'::: ■''•■'■■''■' ■'•'■■\':' ■ •■t-'''''-'' -i '::'''''' ■ 'f .'■ v^J '•' H V ' ■ ■ ■ ■■■ 'i''-^- .vv,'V- V.'''v.. ^-''^''i;-'^- ./:^-v(v/;%:;f:' :.N^- v/:; ^ '^ >■■■' -'^^■■^^.^':,.v>^^ ^-'.* ■ ■. '>. ■ '■:,-?■■■■ , • . ■.■■■»■.■■ ■ f H ■' . . ■ ■,.-,■.■.,■■'. -■/■■' V ^M P^- ■;.'',' ■ V'."/'-'. ■■■"■;'■■■.. ■ ■;.3;*'v-.,:- , ■ _; : ':- .' ■■ i., ■..:■■, ' ', ^■» .■^' ,; t, ' .^-^ ^ ' , ' ■' ■ '' 4 ;;■•■:• ■•^V:'--.^i:.-:--s .:,..:;.. .,®;«:;:■•:r:r^^■:■-,^^. ; ,;^ .■■ ,■ .' '„./.■"'-: ^^ : " >■ -r'y ■ . ■ ' M ^::.;;v^/ ■■ ^'"■•-. ■• ;.;v-''F«ft-'./ '■- ■■■■■■'■ ■• ■.••:■■' ■ ..- '"^ .■■. ■,,.-•■• /■■ " ■ ■ . , ■ . , f ■ ,-4>- ■■;■» ■. "--r^X. .^v- ^rV :■ . /'■ :: .-■■■.■ .-:■;. ■-.,',- -■•-•^.- •:,r-:-- ■ ■•■ :;c-;;\- -• «/,*'■. ■■■^^■■" •>■,.. ■ ■ 'X ■-■-■: ;;■.. ■■ ■ .' . .. .*'■•■■■ - ' .:.'•■' . ■ ■■■ .-' ■'.-(■ .. ^/;' ' ; ' •■■.■'.^ " i> -' ' ' ' ■ ' ;-,. y,jj y .'■, '■.:: ,.": ■My/- ^y- ■■■-.'"-^ - ■-. • ...-A-'- ^'•' -■• ^--y'- ' .■:'■' ■ './. y /^' ■-: .':■■ v. ' ■ " --; ;•:.: ■■^■' ■;- ^ :■ ■^'■v.:.-- v :' „ ^ -^^-^ ,.-..v^ -^ -^--/:v^^ ^ r- /■ ;rtr7!^--.-. m ..-^yv • . ,- ,■ % ■ /^ ' ' ' *■: ' ■ :■■',■■' ■^:- •■■.--■■•■;■:■■ ■■ .■■.."■.- V- . '..,•,.■:;■■,■-■-■■-.'■■ -,\.^'., • ,■ „ /^^^ ' - -.■■'.';..■■ "■..,..■■ .." ■'■■■:•■•';,;, ■■■ ,.--Vvv;;i.,-„:,!^. • ' ■ .,....-■ .v\ ;' '...■■. ^ .■■-,.- *>' • l ■ ■" -' ■■ ' •'■ /.- '; ■ ■■■■"' '■■''■■■' '■','»■ ;■ ^:/'%-*: ■'■:*■.:;..,;,■:, L- ■;,■*:;,*-.■ ^ . .,;%-,,; .;: : ■ ..■' . :.v:-.. -^-^ :'■ ,,» -.--,.5, ■•' -. ,-._, -r-.;. * -^V. •'^„:.;.- „ ^?: ■' ■ -^'- ' I.-".' ■ ■■«.;•■ .. >:v ■;.■■> ;-',^- -■ ^vk -■■ '^ ; ' ;':■ .■■■/.•• ^^■ . ; . • -^-^ ^-■-- -,■ ^^ '■**'■ ■■r- ■■; "-^" . ■ -. ■ •■ ■;■;■.;■■. -yy . . ■. ^V, / ■.;■■-■■-:; .-'...." .. ■ .:' ,- ..■■■■ :-. ..-^'W ; ijt- ;■-• -,. .-'■:^ ■■ ■ \ V ■■--,-/■ -^'.■■:-- ••-.„. ■■; .■..;..*■ . -^.. -■ ■. .^^-^ ,■ .^/;: ■■ ■'■^ ' ' ■ ■ ■■ . ■ ■■ ■ V ■■■■■' I 1 - ' ••T .. ■•-■.:.--.-.... - ■ -'iliill/ -•• ! ■'* ■ - .-'■■ >-^ ■ "■;; ■■ . ■ "■• :■ ,"-:■■-' y'y."y'' ■■ ■■ :,■-:;". •:'.,;■ ■ -•If?;' •- . -/.. ', ^ ^ '.sj^ . y -^ ■■■••- ■.<-i:^ ' ■ ■ - . .-• ■' f ■■ » • .. -■ ,'• ■ ■ .-^ '■-J?'-.- "- ■ ■-'< - . ■' . ■ :'.■ ;-"^- v,;/ ;.■■.; :^-'./; •'"//' ...>.- .. .•■, ■ :vy^---.,.. ^, ^ ^ ■■ -' y< f;..;:^ '\--':; ■->;:*■ -^l.'^^-:'^ y.' --j'^yy-M:-'':' \ 't0 ■; . «;-.-■-' ■^*-^^ ■■•"■:■■ ■" '■• ":■.•..-,.■'.; --r „ -■•- '■ y^ "' - * ''■■..■'■"■ '' '■ ' - ' - ■.--'-" .. y^^'--:yyyy---' yy--:^ yyy^y-- ■-.yyyy^-yy'. ' ■ ■ ■ '» . ■'■'.■■.'" ■■■■' ■ ----'"■ . ■*-'" ■ . . t ■■'*■■ ■■ - """ ■ ■■'■■'■■ ■..-." a/"^: 1^ t IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) r ^ // {./ ^ .V A %$ U.^ r ■i, .t ' *j « 1.0 I.I ^■'B |2.'5 1 22 " US' 120 .■b "I"- lUI % * * ||l.25||,.4|,.6 V - * V ■■ * - < • . - 6" ^— j% '% 7-> :/i /^s / / m ^ 'n ^> ^K^ u* -- V^■-V-^^^--- '.m^ I * Sdences ioii 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580. (716)873^503 '4^ "'■ - ■ r .^^^ s--,*, ■ 88 DISTRICT OF THREE RIVERS^ ::^ t ^i^ ■ff- li • » two:' Cw^^wwied same time, upon the returned Member; ahd that he might have^^ referred in the eityoTThrM notice k> the Lint, and thereby have nnido the LiHt a part of the notice, and that lie has therefore erred in hid proceeding ; I cannot apply the above-mentioned provision for hit benefit, ak iDaistcJ upon in ' the present instance ;'becau8e such application would have the effect of relieving him from the consequence of his own error or neglect, and would be inconsistent wi^h the existing provisions of law." ■ ' . y -.'/'.' The contesting Party again produced a List of the same fitnesses, and re- quired the Judj^e Coqamissioner to .examine and take their evidence, de bene «M«, conformably to tl:) ISOtli clause of the Election Petitions^ Act of 1851, which requires the Commisfiioner^ whenever ho is of opinion that a Witness ■ ought not be examined and rejects his evidence, to cause such evidence to be taken down in writing, separately and apart from the ipinutes, with his reasons for rejecting it. To this requisition, ^he Judge Commissioner replied that the reasons already given by him for refusing to place this evidence upon his minutes were of such u nature, as to oblige him also to refuse having it taken down de bene etse ; be- cause evidence permitted to be taken de bene eite, according to the clause referred to, must be " of, or concerning, ^ny matter, or thing whatsoever in issue before the said Commissioner"; and as the general allegation^ in the notice, under the numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12, put nothing in issue, he was not obliged to occupy his time 'in taking down this evidence, (fe 6mm e«««, 'any ;nore than he would be to iikQ down evidence of matters occdirring in India; ^ The returned Member then produced eight Witnesses, who were exanftied in rebuttal of the evidopco on the part of the Contesting Party. Their examination occupied parts of two days, and then the Judge adjourned sine die^ and directed his Clerk to make, with all possible haste, a Transcript of the njinutes, to be transmitted to the Clerk of the Honorable the'LegisIative Assembly ; and res- ^ pectfully submitted to such select Committee,- as may be appointed to investi- gate this matter. Ik: U~ 1 i!'^ '•T\ -^ — ■-^- _ y-^rf -■ ._- .--. J«^"> DISTRICT OP QUEBEC. ^ DISTRICT OF QUEBEC, SthPEBRUARy'isSB. InihemaiUroftU extroverted mecH^^ the Ciif of Quebec. 89 The Hon. Chaioks Alletn. Hn»ouT« DoBOBB, Esq, Gkoboe Honors Simard, Esq [ Sitting members ; AND , • - Marc Acrel. Pa^MONDOK, Esq., e^ al, Petitumr,. . GommUotan,]. The substance of the objections in this case anr) «♦• ♦!. Judge upon them, are sufficiently exhiWt^hVfw!, ''P""**" ^^ ^''^ of the Petitioner^ which was Swlf ' '"'^'"' "P"" ^''^ «PP"^''«0'' •I, the undersigned Judge, to whom was" addressed, on the twentv ninfJ, a of January last, on the part of the Petitiduers Marc Aurd« W *''*°*y"'""*^ ^''y and othe«, an application to. hear eviderc^Ti^e pfe e 'c-^^^^ ^"""' ' panied by a copy of the Petition to be prescnld aS^^^^ """'™- a copy of the notice given, and sworn fo by the ^Z^CI^^TL able Chares Alleyn, and Hypolito olrd. E^uiro, who^TZs^^ member elect, George Ho„pr4 Simard. Esquire^It hiving rZ^d - " could not conclude as they have donl but IIm . ^^ '"'^ *" candidates., to demand that they »ighl bo sul^i^t^^^^^^^^^^ consequently, 4here is no Petition- rrr*heilm/f^^^ *''**' tion. and the absence of a Petition i'a wil po^^^^^^^^ '' '''' ^"""^ ^«<- theP.itione«'failingtoprovethatth;'?^n\etr^^^^ their declaration quoad their qualification th«* tL.. "eiurning Officer tod. but remain a ^ct to l>^'^^1^tyTT^T:Z uJi^^'T sembly. or by an Election Committee, and that the p'^utS^ ^ made, moreover, in tiie manner directed by-law--: aPP'-cation was ■^F^ c ji* IM •1 Yi Ar- .■.-/< ^^? I** 711 40 \ DISTRICT OP QUEBEC. '.^ X Controverted currency each, Of a bail-boml for three times that Hniount,-^that the law con- cnty of Quebec, tainfl no special proviHionn for this cage, but requires a separate bail-bond of two .hundred pounds, currency, on the \n\rt of the Petiliouors on each Election Petition, a condition complied with in the present'cose ; — Order, that on Wednesday, the Hoventuenth day of February instant, at ton in the forenoon, in the Court House in the City of Quebec, I will' open my Court, n» Commissioner, in order atlerwttrds to proceed in the matter as may be neces- sary, at which time and place the Petitioners will bo bound to proceed to their enquile. • ^ Quebec, f)iu eighth day of February, oud thousand eight hundreil and fifty- wght. . V (Signed,) Morik,J. S. C. .' %flfeZM7/c i)eC%«»e, Atty. for Petitioners. >^. .\s>. A. Stuart, Aity. (or C AWeyn. F. A Angers, Attf.fovB.Duhord. ' '^.% A I' '. ♦ *• o. » f-A \ : \: / }/. ■that the law con- bail-bond of two nri oach Election ■y intitiiut, at ton 11' open my Coui-t, as may be neced- i> proceed to their .*^ ■. undreil and fifty- iRlN, J. S. C. . ' A ' WILCOX vs. WILCOX. (Appendix.); ' ■ ■/■ ,. No. 1. . • ,-^!/ , Opinion 0/ Chief JuitietH$y. (l) Quoboo. " In the first place I conceive that no authority but that nf p-a- The Kinff and of Great Britain could legally do so Jr^Irrl u >-^.. ''''°''°* Ii»rIIamei(t aud «.„_, ,l„ <. ,,. , '«K'"'7 ao so great a work. Th a will annear not thi*. King "**"".*"« """owing considerations :— ""« appear . alon6,iatlionro- t* i-~ n . P«r ic(i|»l»iure " M well known and indisputable maxim of ih« i«», „* .. orthl.lVvlnc«. adopted and confirmedby thelawofEnlkn? LtLl , / "' peme continue in force, till tkey are e.pLly cJr^edb^T^n^ •^'' '""''"'''^ . ' This ih the/first great princinle bv which w„ ™„.?f -i . ^Mqfthe conquering nation. vested witi. the Ur'SLt^^^^^^^^^ settled is what part of the concjering natiouTal a ri^It o dL»I T '' ""* *° "* whole with re?poct to.this affair Now If th„ .^ , "f declaring the will of the fonnofapur^id absotrSoclTy sl'^^^^^^^^^ in.^iority of yotes in an assembly of all the freeholders or ill fr ,- ''"'* ^^ * it. (sach as was the ancient co'mmon^eUtf^S^^^^^^ determmmg this question, because in this case the will of the c6n«Ling Peol i^^ t actually expressed by themselves. In such a case thfir^f„« w n u^ ^, '^ '^^ ^ laws of the conquered nation will contire in f^e't It^ ;^ *X^^^^^^^ f an Act passed for that purpose by a majority of v«tes InTfi.n ^ ^ « ^ "*^'* ^^ But where the conquering natio/is TrgZ^nX tirsil^T"? "' ''"' ^''^^'^ th, wj^le people, but by some select bfdZeftedwt^^^^^^^^^ ^I '"?'"" °' ^uchjassemblles Of depuUes Chosen by the^sl IVCual sSs' 7^^^^^^^^ men, or a king, or by any mixture of these establishmeAts). some other JZ-^^ -J^ that before menUoned. must be adopted in order to de^emineTn ^trprrroMhr ' quenng nation the power of making laws to bind the' coi^uer 5 latiL resWes T' .^. theUgielatore of the coJ^rTZt iS^:^:^^^^^]::: aristocratical commonwealth in which the legislative anthnrJfv J«^„.;T. ? that senate will have the right of making ST^:S':Z:r:i7Z't:ZTjl^ manneras. haatomal^e lawsfor the other -members of tJe conquerJ^g naL ^f the conquering nation is nnder an absolute MonarcWcal Government and thlLegisTative authority is vested in the King alone, the King will have a right to make laws also for tiie conque«d nation : for the will of the conquering nation wUl in sucf a Glverlln be expressed by the King alone by virtue of the constitution of the Governmirr u/ would m the foregoing case of the aristocratical Commonwealth by the senaT Irdin like manner, rf the conquering nation is under a mlxtform of Government and tW Legislative authority is vested in two or more poUtical bodies, so that their concLS •consent is necessary to establish a law, as. for instance, inVKing, a Senary . Honse of Representatives, these bodies coi^jointly and not Iny one of hem slnglylrtl! Ukeijse have a right to make laws for the conquered people. This i, tU cS'h ttl Kingdomof GreatBritain; it. form orOovermnent isVhat of a limited Mo^^y,^ d (1) Extracted from «ayiew,4c." »^Vo. Jurist; vol. 1, pp. 3JW8of2nd'p«;; B '.4 I it it 'w .^ ._ Jy_, ■ 1 t • *-' "i * 1— — »— m m ^m ^^^^^ ^^ .!;:ivV-,:J- ',\-; il fw;' %: the Lcglslatire authority ii vested in the King in conjunction with the two llougei of Parliament. The King therefore in conjunction with tb(R two Iloutcs of Parliament and not without them, muBt have the legal right of malcing lawa for the conquered inhabl- tanta of the Province of Quebec, and all changes made in the ancient laws of tjiis Bcttlomcnt of Province by any other authority must be void and of no effeetXThis seems vfSloii^.l^Il the to "« *" ^ «=!«" """^ J""* reasoning, and is confirmed botbsby the oonquustoflt. conduct of Edwdrd the First in calling an assembly of his^ noble« to settle the laws of Wales, upon hl» conquest of it, as has been above related, ond by the rules of the English law laid down concerning Ireland ; for Ireland is a conquered coun- Tho ParliiHiicnt ^^7 '"><^ •"*■ always been ponsidered as such, and it is said in the law-boolts, of Great Uritjiln and of late years has been declared by an Act of Parliament to be sub- ^WnB'iSws t*o jcct to the Legislative autliority of the Parlioraent of Great BriUin but ,bind Ireland. j,^g ^^^ j,ggn declared to bo subject to that of the King alone. An argument in I kno? that many gentlemen of the law maintain a different opinion teonthatHio concerning tjie Legislative authority in countries conquered by Great long wUhqut 3,1^0^ and aSsert that though the King malces but a part of the Legis. has a rlKht'to tur^n Great Britain iiself, yet lie iS the sole legislator of all the conquered SmiuolSdwuS' c^ntries.— Theljfround this opinion on that branch of the English con. tHes. stuhtlon wfilch vests in the King alone without the Parliament, the power of making peac^^d war, and Ae absolute property of all the captures made in war.— The King, say they^4s absdlute master of the lives of all . prisoners of war who are taken without a Capitulation : he is absolute mhster of all tlie ships and money, and merchandises, or othrt.plunde'^, his'troop* and ships 6f war get possession of, and may dispose of them in whatwcr manner he thinks fit ; and if he is thus absolute master of all the moveable property he can seize, which is clear Iwyond a doubt, then also, by parity of reason he must bo likewise of- all the immoveable property, that is^ of all the lands and houses of the countries his artpie^ conquer, so that, if the country surrendered at discretion and without a capkulition, he might by right of conquest, lawfully dispossess every freeholder in th^ 'country of his land, and giveV* away to other persons, or sell it to the highest bidder and apply the money thence arising to whatever uses he thought fit. He i3,\therefore, say they, abso- lute monarch of the country, since the lives and fortunes gf the inhabitants are at his » *u. disposal— All the premises in this arguinent I ollpw to be true, but do Answer to this ' • ' , . , ,. .^t V • ^ ^1 ^ ^i it-i.^ argument. not think that the conclusions drawn from them ate just, that the Kihg is, therefore, the abscrtute monarch of such ,| co'untry, ot hiwf.alone^he right of makings law in it. The power over the lives of the conquered people is certainly only a tempo- rary power; if the King does not cause them to be put iuy'death imm^iotely after they are taken, or at least, during the remaining part of the war, he loses hi^ right of doing it • for when a peace is made, and the conquered country is ceded and triknsferred to the conqueror by the former Sovereign, as is the case with the Province of Quebec, and the old or «a)nquered inhabitants are suffered to continue in the country and admitted to the rank of subjects and to take the oath of allegiance^ it seems clear that they have a right to be protected in their persons and future property |^cquire i after the peace, in the same manner as the other subjects of the conqueror ; that' is, ii^ other words, afiter t^o peace is made the preIimina.or proposition that the King is absolute master of tlieiklives and fortunes, from which it was concluded that he was the absolute monarch and legis- lator of the country, is no longer true ; and consequently that conclusion will not follW frOQi H. This will be further evidbnt by considering the original foundation of thl; rights of war. Now these rights of #ar over the persons and property of a conquered ^ people are evidently only temporary rights founded on necessity, in ^order to enable conquerors to preserve the advantages they have obtained in the war, and compel the enemy toaccept of a reasonable peace; and therefore they can subsist no longer than the war continues. And as the rights of war are founded on necessity, so the A ■ '§f'' 1 ' ^' ■■-• V iii. th!fl ^ Uw«. of England in the King afono tor much tlie tame-roa.an ' hat Is on account of th» high oxpcdiciicy amounting to a kind of nccesVitTTf ontru.t: carrying on the operations of war, and of malcing the sudden and temporary regulatloM fit to be observed in conquered countries immediately upon their just subm LT„ h^^ numerous body of men, such akthe Parliament of Great Llta n Thi. r I ^. w;;?;" -^^r •j-" ofU-^^hese regit:: .'>: jd i? Kr;t:„r . and returning to their former mas, ors, and are in .r^th neither more nor LsLp^S ' Blate of tungs' continues, the Kir g contmues to have the sole power of governinrfho laws torttr"*'' r' '*. '"""^ "''*^' ''"'' -"^1"-tly tl.; of m«kin7Cor ; iuTwh „ H ' """1'"*^ '" '"' '"^' '"•'""' **« '•>' W "'^««""y »•"» of such gorernmenf ^ But w,.c„ the peace is made, and the country cVed^othe conv.orors by thoTrLer aoverc.gn, and the old inhabitant, ^re permitted to i^pntinue in it ds Subjects toT con,„cnng sovereign whether wif or without a restoration of their Lds to them he e seems to ho an end of the f ercise of the King's r,rerogativo of mTk n« warTn LLroTlre"? f "? "-- lental powers belongin..tol Prl "£"«:; - pa t he^ ES f ' "17' ""T'" ''«''^'^"^'° """'°'"^' ^'"^ ««P«<=' to this new ^rol; dominions, a^well as to the ;fprmer parts of them, reverts to its LtTJ otSr ?'."rT ^'"">«f tranquillity; t>.at is, in the Brh rCons tution, to the King, and to the t^b Houses of Parliament. > SnH^4l?,,^: 'T*8 t"'o lndee./that the King remains solo prdprletor o/all the land eSr.ffl ;;? """-^ r^ <=«-«l--«i country after the peace, as well arbeW^ ouut^r'S hSr r ^'^ 1" r^T' ""''" *" ^'"^ """"-"y >" "■« t^^^ty of peace th^'oTs- m'tT. ^'^T' ^' P'?/""^ y °f '•'«'"' ^»»<^»' ^as vested in him by the conau^t r^?l?j.'.^( !rr gyfove^bed^^estedoutofhim without some express act of his' own capitulation, rir f¥ '""t purpose. He may therefore do what be nleasea wif h if • hn ™. fa clt'r^^»>- «ive it ^ack to the old possessors, or to new rrire^as L '1^13 keenTt ?n'°h"f ''V''f '"' i"^"""' ^"^ **' P'"''^'''"-^' ««^'^°'° P'«>t"e«l) or he may Lh . 1 r? ^"^'' '? ^'' "'"' ^''''"'' '""'>' '^"d «"l"^''t« it by his own servru and aborers, tor bis own profit, or let it for terms of years to farmers.itTrack r^^ than ho r TA^^^^^"^'' f"^""- ^'x^* >>« « th. sole legislator of the co n try^ any more than ho would bo m any particular county of England, if all the lands in that 00^^^ were by forefe tures for high treason, or by escheats or purchase, or in any other m2 ner to come into the possession of the Crown. " ' ' o'"*' ™*"- d"river"Zm' .. '^•'" '!r"^*t* "7^ °^'**"°^ *'•'' ^''***" argument in favor of the King- theneo in fX™, ^?"°8 t^o nght of making laws in a conquered country seems to be thfs IZiaT^ilS^t t7 T ^^'^ " '"f ^"'^ "^'' "^ "^^ '^' '•'"'^ •" «"«•» «» ''ountry, and may i*;SS.w"» ^ t""* . ° "^"^ *** whomsoever he pleases, he may annex what conditiona »'tZ: J« t^-l'^ fitto those new gran^ and, amongst t^e rest, a condhiot tTa ' tries. the grantees shall be governed by such or such a particular system of the law« of TT '"' ^°' '"1**°""' *•"" ^"^^ °^ ^"«^»°*' °' t''*J'"'8 of Scotland, or 1,, r ''^^''?°''"' "'•'^"y «ther laws that he shall thi*kfitto introduce, and theg«" tees by accepting, the lands granted-to them, must bo/aeemM to have cc^sented tf tha conditions upon;which they were granted, aid consi^n^ntly to throbsrat :' of ho ' ^ '^^iS I *''"• ^°^ ^^-^-^^^ K-«' ^y ^^^ «^-lute owner of these lalds rJnVr!,,!.^. ""''"' *"'*'^y'''^'»*'"»"*»'0'"yo^^^ the persons who shal', thenceforth inhabit them. This, I ^nfess is very plausible, and goes near to nrovl^ that the Kmg might, in a case properly circamstanceS, become the legi^laToJ a con ~*p •xf tK X'\ ■ »■ ^ '\ * ^^E I '' /■■■ J"' I* [if * I? ; ., 1<, i ..'5 , .i! i^^^^'i! L 1 .^. t Ir. "\!: '\ quered country, fiut I think that it U not quite lufflcient for thia purpol«, and tatihn thai If it wu, yet the ProTino* of Quebec, in parUeular, ia not to circumiUnced tiiat the foregoing argumant'can be applied to it. My reaaons for thaie o'pinioni art it / lollows :— AiMwer to thie In the first place, the reason why this argument, drawn from the ' ''*""''"»• ownership of the land, is not sufficient to prove that the King has a power of making laws for a conquered country in any case, is because the pOsiUon upon which it is fouivded is not true, to wit, that the alwolute owner of a piece of land can annex what conditions he thinks proper to a grant. And this restraint upon the power , of the grantor extends to the King as well as to eVery grantor. Thus, if a grant la made, either by the king or a subject, of a parcel of land in England, .to a man and hla heirs for ever, with a condition that'he shall never sell it, or give It aW^ay from the right heir, aad that, if he shall attempt to make such alienation of it, tlni^^rant shall becoOie ▼old, and the land shall revert to the rlglit heif of the grantor. Immediately upon his taking the first necessary step towards such an alienation, and before the alienation is complete, such a grant would be void, because it tends to create a perpetuity which the law abhors. In the same manner a grant by the king of a -pucol of land in England, with lany other condition annexed to it which is contrary- to the general laws of the country, as for instance, a condition that the younge*t son should inherit the land. In- stead of the eldest, or the eldest daughter lustead of the eldest son, would be a void grant, or void at least with respect to thot condition. la the same manner, likewise, if the whole couMy of Yorkshire was to come into the king> hands by escheat, or pj^rchose, orotherWise, and the king was to granj it out to a set cff new grantees, with ' a conditioii thnt^hefr should be governed by the laws of Hanover, those grants, or at jeast those oo,i«9itIoAs of them, would be void, Such Is the restraint whloh tiSe law puts fipon. the power of a grantor, arising from hfa ownership. It is evident, therefore that the mere circumstance of ownership will not give the owner a power of jnaklng.lawB in the land of \(^loh he is owner. And to make -this still plainer. In the case of a conquered country, tet'lt be supposed that, after a peace, and the complete cession of a conquered country ti^ the former sovereign to the crown of Great Britain the king should grant away the whole of such conquered country to one (\f his subjects' to be holdeh of himself by fealty only, or by fealty and a paper-corn rcntj or should sell it to such subject for a«Ma^money, in order to reimburse the nation In soi^e degree for the expense of conquering it, and such subject should afterwards grant /it aWay to other grantees, or let it to leswes for a tehn of years, I would ask whether such subject, when he granted it thus away to new grantees, or let it to lessees, would have a ^ght to in- •ert in his grants or leases a condition that the grantees or lessees should beigovern^^ by such or such a particular system of laws, which he had thought proper t\ mentiiP ^ in his grants or leases. I believe no one can think that such a condition W(«ld be , binding, and if it coujd not, it clearly proves that the mere circumstance of belng^ner • of the conquered country will not confer the right of legislation. The restraint lipon the *^oyret of the grantor does not indeed arise from'any right of privilege of the ^ant6e . -who natfirally ought to be bound by every condition he freely consents to,.bvt it arises' collaterally from the interest that the other subjects have that no unreasonable li^wa or custom should take place in any of the dominions that are subject to the same itrown With themselves, and which, by means of the connection between the several parts of one and the same empire, might ultimately be prejudicial to. themselves. But further, if the ownership of land could be supposed to give the owner a right to impose a system of laws upon the persons to whom he grants it, as a condition annexed to the grants yet if he makes free grants of it, that is, such grants as convey to the grantees a fixed and permanent interest in the several parcels of land that are granted to them, not to be defeated at the mere pleasure of the grantor (without which they cAn hardly be called grants), thia right would be only a tpmporaiy right of legtolaUon in the grantor, which being once executed by the grantor's inserting in a clause of thi c .. ^, 7 •v.**-! v be 0..nglng th. condition, ofle J„„ U whT^ c " li i V" ?°°' "'•""•'"«'. »«""» thl. right In th. grantor, bat .ujh i c 11 won . , "I '*'•*•"'" '"' » continuation of th. gran^ and. from a tL grlnl con^rt U in „ I """"^ '•""' *'" "'^"«' «' .little better than a grant at the Luf , 1 ' l„t '^Y '^'r*"""* •""•' ^l-* *»«"<» »« «» presumed, b, .^Jicatlon or^t. ul" J 'Cio r'^T "h" ""'' ""''" ^•" '"' •xprc. reaervation of it In the Jant of which T Zu " *""'*" *'"'°"» " •ny grant made by a King of England .7nc. Ih. til"; "VT"" " *°> '^""^ '" Without .uch an expre.,rLrra< the granVJ'^ °' ^"^ """^""r- and Indefeasible property to thJ«.nl ""'»»«'»*''" to convey a permanent - con«,quently. If th'o origlL oilSHf^h^^^^^^^^^^ ;»"-•» »' »»>. grantor, and , .11 of making the Uw.L the gra^ '. It mu t be ont a t^ '""'"' "^ ''°"" ** y once for all by a condition inserted J th.T . temporary power of doing It ■X, very dim^rent thing CUTrrar^le.^^^^^ «"">'' -""ch f. a ^fulated. which i. conly JS^X^^^^^ ''^ -"'«•" «'^" -cietie, are founded on the power of the WholTJSiotv iio T / '""' •^''""" '* " particular man, or body ofl„ the p^oft.v. T'"^ *" """' ''«"'«»'«'' »° » whenever they shaltfli M IceW nrfnT K^r"' "'^'' '"'""•' ■'''" ^'""^ '"^''ty cannot conft, upon throwner JlaTd even ^^ ,? ""' circumstance of ownership grantees for the reasons wh^"haXna^«^;j!7r'\r^^^^ .nuexing illegal condition, trhTgIirUit^chTesr..'''r-'-'^ ^'*" grantor from this complete and permanent and^^re"^^ it confer upon him the British arms, tVwIt tEIt of a Got 1 .T"'' '"** ^"'^ ^''^ <">-1"<'«'d bj cretion without InyaTdes of capUulatl^^^^^^^^ -hould have b*en surrendered atdii -ized upon and tien itlL w^ha s ' « hZlwn ""'"^T *"" '"""•'^••*«'' and kept in his own hands as L own ntl ^ "^^ PPP^ty, by right of conquest, other servants or tenanratlwrnfe^ Ze^^^ " ^"^^^^^^^ '^ •"' ''»"^'«" «' have been entirely ceded Zmu. "v the foTer T" T'"' '"^ '""" '"•°"'«' '»'>« Toured to show that, even in sucW Le I.? ^ '^ **^' "'' ' '"'^' '"'''"- not have a full legii ative aJtrrUylirs 'el ! " "? '"'°''* '''' P"'"*"""* ^°»W no such authority could I der7veJW '^T^ "''"'"^' """^ P"tlcularly that the Country. ^ "^ '"'"^''•^ ^ t''* c.rcui^nces of his being the owner of al^^rSr inL"mt\Tat1h^ "'"Y^"'"'*" ^ ver, different from this^e St^Sf^^-J -"P If thadln'a^^^^^ circumstance of ow^:! S?*thS'pk^ to!;. For th^"r:vrce wfHo^C^^^^^ Of Quebec. article, of capitulation, .nTi. iT^ve I^^o^ITl^S" "'"?""* tulatJupon which the iioieeo^Srwl'.T ^^ '**' article, of the%.pi- year 1760. it Is expressly Jrorided th^alTToi^T .^ General Amherst ia the ! \ -n. "i^ !•• .1; iif4. eoOMqiipnlly tlio •rKiim«nt In fkvor of tlin kliifr'i leRliIntivo authority, ilerlrcd from hit owiK j-Hulp (if tho iMd cannot Im nppUoil to tlil« I'rovlnce. If, therfforo, thU rlnht orinaklnir l«wi for the I'rorlnce of Quclwc can he ihewn to Iks- long to tho klnn alonn without the concMirrcncc of hU. Parliament, it muni Im- founded on ■omo other principle (hnn thii of ownomhlp. If any other can »»o found for this purpoie. I know of no other principle likely to he alleged on thli occasion but that of the king't prerogative of making war and |>oaco ; and this hat been examined abovt^ and «hewn, m The l*iirllnini'iit I Conceive, to he ingunieient for tho purponc. Add to all this that tho king hiw lilriiui'v v". hftK already exerciwd a legislatlvonuthority with rogpect to thii Prorlnca uT/vrUoiortty '" •""•i""*".""" with hi« Varliamont in at loam three inntanceii, to wit. In In thl« I'Mvlnci. paining the fiimou* itanip act. In pasting tho act of 4 Oeo. ;), chap. 19 for iutpordng «alt from Europe Into this Province, and tho Act Df 4 Geo, 3, chap. 16 fafgriuillng certain duties in tho IJritlsh Oolonica and plantations |n America, which scemH to ho n kind of declaration, that hlit Majesty Ig not by his owki linglo authority without tho assUtancc of his Parllamcdt, tho true legislator of tho Province; for, if bo wag so, it may be presumed (hat ho would not have permitted this Province to bo in- cluded InlhoHc Acts of Parliumont, lost they should bo made ust) of as precedent* to diminish his just prerogative, but ho would have imposed those several taxes and dutiei and extended tho other provisions of those Acts to this l»rovinco by orders of his own roado in^his privy council. His choosing to proceed In these Instances by the authority ofPiirliament is n proof that ho conghlers the Parliament of Great nrilain- consisting of birasolf, hjs Lords and Commons, as tho only true and adequoto legislature of tWs Province. I wi'"thn"f"'''.' """'''' »'"B"n"'nt8 ngninat tho king's being singly, withoil^^t tho Par- hTvo u<'t"i.""u ''«">«"•. tl'c legislator of this Province, arc Just, it will follow of course " Wml a!v 'Hjili "'"' "" "'" "'■'"""""S hitherto passed in this Province are null and void. In 'f(H-c.'. as being founded at host (for I shall endeavour to show that they have not even tho foundation) upon tho king's single authority, and, If so, then tho great or- ■I dinance of thie l7th of September, 1704, by which the French laws were obollshcd and ,.,,'the laws of England introduced inUhoir siead will be void amongst the rest, and^congo- quently tho French law must by vfHuo of tho first moxim above laid down, bo deemed to be still legally in force. I am sensible that it is n delicate and disagreeable undertaking in any of his Majesty's subjects, and more especially in an officer of the Crown, to argue' against his Majesty's prerogative, but in some cases it may become a duty, to do so. On tho present occasion I have ventured to do so, no.t through an indiscreet desire of cur'iously prying into tho exact bounds of the iloyal prerogative, nor merely because I thou^t the truth lay on thot side of tho question, (for in that case it would have been sufficient to bo silent upon the subject?) but in order to suggest to His Majesty's ministers'what I conceive to be for thp seryice of his Majesty, namely, an easy, short and popular method of getting rid of the sudden introduction of the English laws into this Province, by the ordinance of the '- llrth September, 1764, if His Majesty through compassion for His Canadian subjects, should graciously resolve to indulge them with a continuance of their ancient laws and customs. With this view, I shall proceed to mention two or three other grounds, from which n- may infer that sudden alteratiota of the laws to have been void. In the second place therefore, though it should be admitted that the king alone had a full legislative aui&ority in this Ptovinc»,yet this sudden and violent act of legislation ,. may justly be contended to have bee'i;\Toid for want of a sufficient and authentic decla- ' ration of His l|o}isSty% pleasufjf^'ta tWB|purpose. For if his Majesty, has made'sncli a declaration of his pleai»itr«» i* mist either be, by his Royal Proclamation of the 7th Oc- i tober, 1763, or by the I^ovincial ordinance before mentioned of the l7th of September 1764. Now neither of those acts oan, as I apprehend, be justly considered as a declara- tion of His Majesty's pleasure to this purpose. . - ^ - " 4 %J^ ity, (lertred ttom bit i.t.1. In It. .hat hJ win -<>••» ■-.. ,tit- Colonle., .nd of the ,K,opIc and Ihrblt'nt, th^ 7 ' *"'' government of our .aid l.w. of England and unJer .uch region nd r 'tH^r"" "' ""'' '' ''^""""' '' '"» nle.j and In the meantime and untll^uoh... 'r^/"''*''"°"» »» ""^ "«««! In other Colo- given power under our great Seal i tho g Te {o« *of 1 /. J n ^ "r"''"" ""^ '"'^« to erect and constitute wItW ih« -j i * "J"""" ""^ *"" "»'d Colonies respectively "of Judicature and publll u.t o "^Z °f;« "Id Oouncll. resp.ctlvely/oourt' "termlnlng all causes, -s weU criminals c.;? """.f' '"' """ '"*""« ""•^ ''- "as near as may be. ««rr.abll „ th^r /J ' """"«'••'« *° •"w and equity, and "who may think tromsZ.^1 17"/ ^"*^'"'' ^'"' »''*' """'^ »« *» p'^on. " to appe/l under theTSlErt'^/u^r^^^^ These are the words of »h« irin„>. D "" '"•""* '"^r Council." v of the conquered Provneer^efs^^^^^^ "'7'? *". *'" '^"'"""•'"* "^""^ '- vlnces both those which were thlS , . .''""^''"' *° ''" '»'"">'»»'"« of those Pro- to them that his M^ty I^J it Sue tte J V '"'/'"" *"** """ ""^"'^ »° --'» the laws of England upon a .uppt tl n thao.'"'!"?"^"*'*^"*''' '"'" *''«™ »''« '»'>'' "' . blessing to the Inhabitants ZthevH V " '"*''°"'«<«'<»» <>f 'hose laws will prove the powers giyen to the ^v r^l^^^^^^^ »•>«"•' 'or they refer to the Great Seal as the mJlt^ulnZ IT^^T'^'' '''''' ""'^^^^^^^ actually iptfod«co them. If thereforl th« ^ ^"u^**^'"''' *° ^"^^""^ *''''' P'^^^e and v/nce, it must bfe by t^goVerrr L o7 7 . .'" '"*'"'"^ '"*"^"^«^ '*»<> *»"" P™' ' conUined In the sairZZlo„;Lr?A!f''"^™"^""'«'''P"'""»»"°ft''e powers powers were not bu4 enUo w^L^'l^^tl T ' ""V " "'"'" "P""" *'"'' ^''- may safely conclude that hey have nowtttt" u ''^™^"<'"'"' '^ these laws, we and consequently are notWlfvT T/T ^•"JfK''"^ introduced Into this Province amine the commLion and S jjj^^^^^^^^^ ^« »"* »>'«-f««' now proceed to ex- far the ordinances that haveC„ mad. h ^t ^"^""°'" "^ ^"'•^°' '" «"'" *" "« ^ow particularly the great oillate of the iCfT?",^^ °?'"'" '''*'" ^™^'°- "«» , England have been introducS i^L tV p **^^P^°'''«' »»«*> »>y *Wch the law* of Wers communicated b/hl Mai . v 1m "'''"''' "* ^•"''"*«"* "^ *•»« •««""•«-• and instrucUong. ^ "''^'"*^ *° ''^ governour and Oouncll in the commissions .^JSaSST' in'^roVuncUoTwJtr" ''""""m"''" *'^''' "" "" ^'^^^ ^'^ '-^' ^ ■*-^» •>'.-.7 vt; fe '^ ■■^' 9"; «; *-^i Mil •^' ^JJJJ^) ' > ^ It ■^ ^'! ! im5» ' t f?- f' ^ i\ * .^3 y vW, S. X TowMdi ilie twKtnnlag of (ho OommUalon.-lhf ra ii thi«.p*r«gt*pb. '< An4 w« do h^nhj .'• rflf|iitro nn««"" .eal orV an^ ot*er public «d ,o"mn",t^: in«nt of .ufflcont legal authority for thi. purpo.c, communicated toll, Oor^™o™ noi«J?.in,r T. ," '""''"' *^''"'"' " ■""•""»* *"t»'""tr, "«! are consequently of thl ?rt n t'L th Tr iVr^'H^''''' "''^' •"*" ""' ^"^ ^^"^ ""^"^ .-UrodtedTnt ' Ttlem bT Z:^!' ^f T"""" *'^"°" orthlM)owerM. Jant to ba communlcaud to them by the ln.truotlon. abore mentioned 7 TKyHre authortaed and empowered to ?u?« or :«e. '; n,*"' "^"f • " >''«'»' of thcabject, or to the lmp;,Tg any ^u^I^VaJ:^, T "J»'«». [tdi^TWent that none of the criminal law. of Sl^and othir clwTa .f ^^ ^'"•"' ""•''*' '»•"'"•»" «f «'«6t and Jjr^ ierllti r T'l""" '' tou^e. .o Immediately the liberty of the *ub. \:L» . ^ ^•'*'^"' *''** *'•" «"•* or'dlnance of the irth September 1764 wKloh ' JK ofTl^ t:; *"r °'t" ■""* cHmln,I>w. of England. couM not ^ pa;.^ bj iWoreinoSH '?•**"".*'•'•''*" """' '""""^ .uffidenUuthority, and^ l««?i!7'; r '"f "^ '" '«'«?• Consequently, the law. of England haVe not yet been eofunUTtZt^^^^^ l.R.fl7abolUhed1 bufS^ JL *K.L " , '"• '"'^' conitmctlon to be the law. of thI. Prorlncc. ' noi^t Wn? '"* i^"""* '^°"' ^'>'«»' »• ««y infer that the law. of England hare notyetbeenlegally introduced int^heProrince by the ordinance of th. niplt- W«.torp«,. :Li„ ,"',!.T of o«^nlgaUoD, which 1. a cfrcumaUnce e..entlally.nj mulgatlon. ""''^f^ »« *^« »««•• «^ Let the authorlto^ . legl,. Wnain, f«, '•"''•■''"^^ »« •^" '^ »'•" """i a>)»oIut«, the law. they make can hare m ^dlng force upon their subjecU tUlthey haT. plainly made known to them^^hat I^ V^l S'i; M '^' "* Oo"*""*-* "•ko a new law in Englan^d itself, though their power 1, IneontesUbl, and without llpit, the law is not In force ImmedUtely from thj ^ ' ■#■'■•«'- ' ■x:r •^••t .> 'f? w " Jv «hJ A -^ «7" V K°^''l'»"enttoit,bnt usuaUyfrom ft certain ftituie day appointed by the Act ..self, before whigh the people are euppo.ed to have auJBcie" SoTa^o ^^J^'^^y^^^^i^d with It ; or if no sueh day is appointed, but L exprrs on iHto - . Acgs only that henceforth or henceforward the .aid new law should takenUe it wm be binding oply from the time of the Acts being sold by the King's Printer whicrii tjo present methodofpubyahing Acts of Parliament to'the people ^ rHTbefo™ h crthrs/inr""'^ ine people, by the Sheriff, in the several couatics of England ; and. till they were so proclaimed, were not deemed to be legally in force. And when an A t o Pa lUentlJ made tha extends to the American Colonies, it is never deemed to be legal Irfocl . ; o? StatT Vr *™"^"'"'''' *° '"^ «°--0' »f ">« Colony byCsec e L ' vJilT'T Tv''1 '^ '""• ""'^ P""'^'"'^'' '^y •>•« °'«! introduce into England any part of the law8 Jo enaoM. 7 .7, ^ f". '" *'°"^°" ""'^ ''"' "'''*' Oities «f,Great Britain, nor even or Ih t w ''' '' ""°^ *° '"•' P""*^'' "'^■^^ •'•^^ °f P"'« ''"d contain d in sucS ?e"r h^uM^?. V'''\°'f''"'^ ^''^ ^""r"*''' P-«ed on such a day of such a faTn but U t ?rr T*" '"^°'"'° ''°'"'°" •"•'^ ^•^'^ «"'«» °th" <='«es of GreatBri- " Ipnt' , w r . b« ^ecfcssary to recite those laws wordtor word in the Act of Parlia- » S aw rS ; T T ^''•^.^'°^'"- -y P"t of the law of England, as, for insUnce. nacwLt h f ^-5°,'^ •"«-°<'« of the poor, it would not be sufficient barely to n • t^* P "^" of England relating to the maintenance of the poor, should take place in the Province of Quebec ; bnt it would be necessary to recite all those laws, wor J • -iZZt ZTi ^"°'',"!»'">«'- ''^ thfs : " That the following laws concerning the main- tenance of the i.oor being those wUch are in force in England, upon the same subject. " he t norMlf ""'^f ^^^^^ ^"™^'"^* °'^"''*'^^' which laws are according to the tenor foll.iw.ng; » after whic^ the laws themselves^should be recited word for word • Iwe^o Ih" T'V'': ^'"'''^ ""T^ '^ made acquainted with these laws, and would b^ able to obserVe and obey them,v^lch otherwise they could not do. But, nstead of ST ^8?rovwfL"V^^ ^8 Province by only three or four words iii the ordinance of the I7th September. 1764. ' and ]■ t J " °n "'"'^ ''"'' 'f' ^"P'"""" ^°»'* "^ J"'»'°''ture shall have power to he^ and determine all criminal and civU causes agreeable to the laws of England. Surely th" tlL7t "^*'^V^''°* °^ promulgatjon, as well as upon the other grounds that have .StZ P • ''^°^^';'"^* the laws of England have not yet been legally introduced- Ik r tl/ri""'" '""'' 'consequently, th^ the French laws have not yet been lekaUy abolished, but continue to be stillin force. «" «gauy I am awwe that it may be said that the laws of England have in fact been Introduced into the other American Colonies, without an.expres8 pronnulga- gjfejiipe »*tween this tion ; and yet it is not doubted that they are legally established BJ^?hni*inW *•'''"• -^°d in the sanje manner it may be supposed they may bo » IMty SfSSm'Sw y^^ established in this. Province, without a promulgation. Bnt «ngtheW.of England. *''^ cases are very different. Th|s l8 a tjonquered Province, in ^hich '; bXV«¥? J"'* ' ^^'^ ^'"^"^ ^''''' ''*'" ^'*"y established at the time of .tihe eo|l4ueB^ / ' " i^ ^*^" !u°-^°!^,'T" ^''■^ peopWhayg any knowledge of; whereogy ^ ■ y^i «t^wirtter^ilifflTJoIonSBTS=:^|^!«r nally settled by Englishmen; or cobsidered as if they had been so, and treated aeo v» XI. dingly, lo consequence of the gre/t nnmber of Englishmen who hiiv« aft«r ♦!,«... . Of them, gone ana setUed in thelmong the conl.JLtu:::^::;:;^:::^^ The ,„»„., or j,.a,c^ Zl jIT^'T!!'" 7'''^°'' '''''' ^'^''- ^his Was the cas^ thouKh . cruiuc^ J"'> J'"»'y«''. Which wafacquired by conquest from the Spaniards .ntTiS'rn'aTffl li" Tr '"' "' "" ''"-''"' •""»''"-'« «' «' abandoned itton after the/conquest to go to the other Spanish dominiomi in Amo- A promulBatlon of v ^°V '° * ""'""y settled by Englishmen, there is no need of aav planted colpny. be jieady known to the inhabitants. They carry with them from local and not appliokble to any country but Eneland • and ♦!.'..• o,. «•.!... , '' such of the lawn ivlt bJ.«ii k„ 1a i '^'Hgiana , and they are further, bound by inferior kind k. ii^.ii k- ™ j . "kcw se by such Uf.mWs or local laws, of an is tL veryC: •iSr^^^^^^^ o^^''«J-^. which This ij the L idea of the planted CoJ^ ^^^^^^X^U^ torSZi::^ express promulgation of the laws ofEigranltuc Oofon" with thM Tt Z !eL„„? H ^^' ''^^ "' '"PP*"""^ *" "^ sufficiently acquainted snch «i thi P,« • To ?° ^"^^ "^ ''"«f''* ^'*'» ""Peet to a conquered Province Bnriatd A H ' "^ Quebec, whert, the inhabiUnts know nothing of the laws of a'antts^pZrSor — '-"^ introducedintoU/p^L;^ SlSXA-rS Jut^'^'f ^* «>e French inhabitants of this Prorince may ^^.^e^tWr sTtUe^i^Tt *" " !-*»« anjnconsiderable part of the people fetaflt*"""" Sf t. -r • '" ''*»'°P"™°» of rde British subjects that have resor- 2S:MrL^ sJwefta'.Z ". ft * 'r5"' *"'» " "»-^ '° --^' •" ">« British AwlttaStK" '?''J"*8 "etUed in it, and that this proportion seems likely to increase S^Mhe bulk ort7 ^"'\ ^"^'^ ** ^°'^'* ^ "■» »"^'> -"i unreasonabre ^Xt S^^eti^t L IlS""'* :: T"^^«»"« ^ «>«»er to accommodate the measH S^emr^? ^ V' """•*' "^"^'^ "^^**«''*' thatare less than the hundredth part f^:^S\^^?^ ■'''^^ "! *' «""'.°*'' "P"" w'>^'eb I conclave it may justly be ftndlMiTenetyBthMB Pognced Into th is — -•• ^ ' i — mt t tf lt i r tnft ' ^;xaf " ■ "^■■" — »— — - — „—.. ■■/*";■. I prov inc e jmdconBequent^ r-^ hat th« Freaebiawr- ^^'iwST'"' «dnsijges have not yetbp^n legally abolished; to wit: first be- ^-/ : - V-?' '■' IH^ ''■i t «i. 'C::> secondly, because it has not been made by yirtue of any legUlatlve autfiority legally the Great Seal to the Governor communicates no such authority to the Gove^or and Council, but to the Governor, Council and AssemWy i and the King's private inatrufedons are not a legal method of communicating* such an authority ; and if they were, it ,wobld not warrant the great change that has been made in tife laws by virtue of it, becaus^ th s^change has been carried vastly beyond the Wmitod powers contained in it); and thirdly, because it has been made without a promulgation of the new laws. If his- Miyesty shall \t^ graciously pleased to restore to the Canadians their ancient laws and usages, It will probably be « more gentle and popular method of doing this, and give ess disgust to the English inhabitants of the Province, to declare upop all or some of the grounds that have been above set forth, that the great. ordinance of the mh of September, 1764, by which the English laws were introduced 4nto this Province, ^as telirinally null and void in itself, and consequently that the Frehch laws have never beea^legally abolished, than to consider the laws of England as having been once legally established here by that ordinance, and then to repeal that and the other ordinances. and thereby Danish those laws from the Prbvince ii^ order to re-establish the laws of tl^ conquered mition. And it is for this reapon I have been so full in setting forth the grounds of its nullity. But which of those two metho«"'J«bates upon the Quebec Act of lIU. Do we not ?!Li"i K ^^«»» """•""""ydistJnit recognition of-that intention; and if it was so endorsed by the authority of Parliament, must it not be held to be binding? Wo find It enacted m the fourth section of that Act, .« that whereas the provisions of the said Sr« r . "'""'* °' ?' civil government of the said province of Quebec, &c., Jr^aM P ? T "Pericnce to be inapplicable to the sU^te and c^rcumstanos of Arsons 17 T' k" 'tf '""*" "'"""^ "mounted at the conquest o above 66.000 LZ ^ T 7 "-^ '""" ^^ ''^^''' *^'''' ?«"«"« "^"d P'«P"ty had been pro- r^lnt. „t r'T'"* ""^ administration of Justice in the Pr^ce, &c^ revoked, annulled and made void, frr,m and after the Ist May, 1775. Could ih> Ac Sis ActT' iTi?" ""^"'^•"'f^ of the P.vliament up to this period made manifest ibj « tat date ^. T !' i" ^"'^ ''''^" °""' but annulled it from and after a Briu n ; "vf "^''"* °f °"' ''"'^"•"•"K ^"''■i«''*« Of the Sovereign of Great th til'Lt 7'r ^ ^'? "'"" to the^roclamatisn, issued by his Privy Council, up to IhJn i Pf'^'"-"*^"* «»^fit to interfere, and this Act, by its ten^s, mainteined BvtLeLth" 7 Y/"*"!"' *"" Proclamation, only annulling it™; the future, tenl? ri .? ^!"«''* *** '"'••^ property by Canadian subjects under the old tenure is conceded " as if the said proclamations, Ac, had not been made," &c., further ordermg, tha for the decision of matters in dispute, relative to property and civ 1 rlTtl recourse shall be had to the laws of Canada. The Imperial kLUilM^^^ £■ Stl rr .^ "r* '"""''"'"* *^" *•">■' P"* *° "'»«-^«y to the Canadians contZ « . the a|mm.stration of the French system of laws, which they must damatmn. Then, on reference to the 9th section, which is framed in the form of a prov 0, we find it^enac^ted, that « nothing in this Act contained shall extwd.orba ZIZJ" "^fj V*" .'r '""'^ '•"'* •"'"" ^««° ^^'^^'^^ "y H'" Majesty, shall hereafter be granted by his Majesty, his heirs and' successors, to be holden in free and common socage." If this proviso, instead of extending to the fourth section, to lilt'ir !"' *^' ^"*''"^**" terms would imply, only extended as i proviso t^e let f «7^"'«°icontained«in the 8th, (the next preceding spction,)lt never- thelehs formally djcli^d by the enactment contained in it, that recourse should be had, in the cases named, to the laws heretofore in force in Canada, anishould not i^ply to lands granted in free and common socage. Can it be maintained, in the face rf these declaratiomi and enactments, that the old system of laws was to be applied, as w*ll to the vast extent of territory, both in what Is now Upper Canada, and in the To^n- ships of Lower Canada then known as the waste lands of the Crown, as to the old terri- tory already occupied by the Ptench Canadian inhabitants? Clearly not. Some dlf- ficully arose about the extent of the application of tiiia proviso, it being contended, that as no otiier part of Uhj Act but the next preceding 8th section referred to lands, this rection only referred to it, and its force being held by some to be very limited, tiie dtf. ftrences between tiie parties gave rise to the passing of the Tenures Ait, 6 Geo. IT cap. 69, by the Imperial Parliament. In all the fierce struggles which ensned betweeil contending poUtioal parties in the Province, the abstract right of the Imperial Parlia- ment, to legislate npon tids point, has never, to my knowledge, been disputed: This is conclusive proof, tiiat the right was recognized, and it undoubtedly exhtj. Thi, A^^ If ii tlOOT 6f tBe~ProcIimaffon~ a^d^onSmslbe pr^^ the Quebec Act in tiiis regard, but at the same time Ifawis it. The eightii section of tiiat Act is as follows : « That all lands witldn the iM^vince of Lower CanadafwhiCh : / A/f'\ "^- . ■ \ ■ Jb^htretd^ro been granted by^^ls Majesty, Ac, to be holden in ftye .nd common «^:ry. ". . ?' 7"^ '"'""'''' *** «6grantcd, Ac, may an.g ehall be Ac, held granted, barga.ned, sold, alienated, conveyed, and disposed of, and ^ay and shall pass ^ aL rr ' r ""; """""'' "•* ^"""' *°" ^ "^ ^^^ '»"' "''^'' «f ^ngUnd established ^nd in force in reference to grants, Ac, descent, Ac, or to the do^er and rights of marned women" Could language be stronger than this? If the power be admitted admuL'^'lH^" the Imperial Partiament to pass this law, (and it has always been W^Sf '^- .? I conclusive upon the point.' IM the Provincial Parliament hoa Uselfacquicsced in and confirmed this cnactmetl^at tlie iame thne that they in some • Jof U .r^ r ' \ ''" ^"' °' ''^'- ^'••'''•" "^'^ ^"-'-^ "•«'"'« force'of law o ^ot, it is still a formal recognition of the right of the Imperial Parliament, and thia concurrence of the Colonial Legislature should remove every doui.t which ^ight pr" Tiousiy have existed ul,l.n «,at point. I do not hesitate to decZ my opinion, that it > Zt^n Tf n' T^'^'S^ " "''^^°* receive the Royal AsseZt within the two years mentioned m the Quebec Act. The Law Ot^sirs of the OrownLve held, indeed, that it required a special Act of Parliament to enable the Crown to assent to it, after that n, . ,!, ' r~*''i'' ""■ '^'" ''"'''"^^^ '» """^ *•*« '''^'''"•""'l ''B"'" which such anat nf 7 \ l^'l "^' °' '""^ '''''''^^^ "°°«''"» *» » ««'»'"'«'' f- 'he limited ZZL"H"n '^'^'""'' ''^°" ''•'^' Thcprovisiin of the t;o years' limit, Tf h^ A /kV fj°:° ""^ "'''"'' '' "•*^-* '" '"'''' »' *"« <^^''^'>- The continuance oJl f;t»,efore the Sovereign for this consent, is a sufficient mark of the continuance of the consent of the Colony, to which the Crown c^n therefore validly add its consent oftoZ'hTp land's """*"''" " *'' '"* "''""'' ^'*'"*^' " ''» ^""« - "«P««t ^■^ Lower Canada he|»ort8, Vol. Opinion of Mr. Justice Vanfelion in Stuart v. Bowman 2, p.p. 401-3. pI?ZHr;/r''"''~?f * *•"" ^■"•''^*°* °' ^^'^ ^°«*=-^ ^'fl'*' fro"' the learned aZ Tt ?kT.k n^ "^"'"'^' *'''^* ^'''^ ^"«^*«'' '»^^« «° f«"« in the Town- tThV «„" ^ . ' f r" "" ""* ''^'^ •'^ ^^*"« ^ ^^ prerogative, to provide I^t „ th T"' p?k' 'o^ '^"'•'''»t"'«°» of JUBtice in a conquered or ceded conntr^ bu m the Silence of the Crown upon the point, the laws of the conquering count^ 2^ not ntroduced, but those of the conquer.d people remain in force. Has then th^^ vereignofGrea Britain introduced the English law • Upon this point our attention ^ been first din^ted to the forty-second article of the capitulaL, the an wer t^ which leaves the laW m abeyance, subject to the future disposal of tSe Sovereign The Jr,1 f„ ?" -"'.i^ ^'^"^ ""* country was formally ceded, is also silent upon Lpoint that the Englwh law had been introduced by that Proclamation, but upon faruSTcon- Biderationl now believe that was an" erroneous opinion. The terms of the Proclam.- ♦iThT I tl Z'^> «°f »J«ntty distinct and formal to be considered as introdncing the body of the English law. But besides the administration of the Governments ZaTnTr n P'o^We for the disposal of the lands constituting wh^t was called the domain of the Crown, and these were to be ceded under fn,e and common socage, and to bo administered by the Governor, as in the other Colonies, referring nndonbtedly ta the other North American Colonies. There is no inconsistency in introducing sere- W TTaT"". "V!?^' ^"* *^"" '"''^^ '■""' ^*«' 8"»* incongruity in inteoduo- ^wTl , • Ti"? ^«««"«t "yt^n* of law into the same country, divided, in the extent of their jurtadiction, by the lines which divide the old grants from the new, and iTlTTy !r r^ .m' ^"'!!!!l"?. *° *^° ^'^"'''' P"*^"' "^ °°° "" ^ the son.. tHhL,, l« 8. ihn A^t e ...t,^ Ti Tr. .. - v»r»B» uf one ana me ga me tribunal. -4i^tt^A«^of t',',^Trmcir«allyTaifl^^^ the EngUsh laws were mtroduced into Canada.. At the. time wben this was passed it r^e And common ball be &c., held ay and shall poas ;Iand established er and rights of wer be admitted bas always been 1 ParliameDt hoa lat they in some force of law or ament, and this hich might pre- r opinion, that it in the two years bid, indeed, that to it, after that ghts which such t, for the limited wo years' limit, rhe continuance the continuance add its consent 1, that the Eng- force in respect a Ret>ort8, Vol, om the learned :e in the Town- tire, to provide ceded country, ing country are IS then the So- i our attention the answer ;to overeign. The upon the point, the argiHDent, in further con- the Proclama- 09 inteodncing Qovernment, it was called the on socage, and indoubtedly t» odueing serfr* ty in introdoo^ ^ divided, in the & 1 the new, and game tribnnal, V XT. ■f: had been fbund that the species of Jurisdictions, which had been established, were inconi^enienvyboth to the old 8c|tlers and >he new. The eighth seetioiftof thit Act has' more special Reference to the subject of tenur^,-and gave to the wi^eJr* and other^ the same be^cial rights which they had ever enjoyed previous to the dispute Concern- ing the interpretation of the Proplamation of 1763. ^ The ninth section, which has been cited, can only be held to reW^o this subject, for although it is couched in terms as if meant to apply t)> all the nr^islons of the Act, yet,'ij will be found q^ilA impossible to give it that appUt^atioiyMt must be held then to iSe a proviso to the\netxt preceding y to mean that seigniorial and feudal rights shall not affect the To say that the whole body of the English law was to have em, would bo.'an absurdity. The Court bas ne?t to consider the Imperial Act of 182.^, (6 Geo. IV. cap. 69.) I believe that the Imperial Parliament hi^ the right to paHs that Btati)te as a Declaratory Law only. But, by 4Sis Actj as shewn by the eighth clauBe,\ the English law is only introduced, in respect of these lands, in three particulars, viz i conveyance, descent or' HAeritance and dower; and I think that the Imperial Parliament Has gone very far 4n this. I believe that the Provincial Act of 1829 has never had force of law, but served as an explanation of the views of the Oolo- jiial Legislature in relation to the question. I conceive it to be manifest, then, tha^t tbe English law has never been introduced into Lower Canada, except in the three points mentioned by theVActof 1825; and by that Act, and not before, has it been introduced to govern Tovuiship lands. ■♦A^- section only, and la|ids so newly ce^ force in respect to - 2. S'ils ont un titre, il r^suite d'une prescription acqoise par une possession de 30 ans, revfitne des qualit^s requises par la loi ou de prescription plus courte, avec titre et de la manidre ^ne le veut la loi ; on . S.-D'un acte on d'actes translatifs de propri£t($. 4. LeD^fendeurfi-t-iluntitre? ' 6. S'il a un titre, da qni le t!ent-il7 6. S'il a un titre, »-t-iI acquis un droit irrevocable A la propriety en question, lei Semandeur^ dans la supposition o4 lis auraient nn titre, ne I'ayant enregistr^ qn'apr^s I'enregistrement effectn^ par le D^fbndeur. n faut done, avant tout, savoir d'aprds quel systfime de lois les droits respectifs dea panties doivent 6tre jug^s. ' , Pour bien saisir cette importante question, U faut se reporter i la cession dn pa^s la couronne d'Angleterre, en 1763. \ \ X ¥. :tent to which was passed it ISn 1769^ les armes Yietotienses de Mngleterre isoumettent lenrs vaillants ennemtoT lesFrMifais. . , }l I. < - ■ xvJ. ■' ■' Bn llreo, ft lieu la capitulation. En 1763, Interrlent lo trait* de cosalon. ' ~ InilTllJL^" la capitulation du 8 .eptembro, 1760, no peut ai.ur^ment pa» «trt Sralof.Tr , ? '"T^'r"'' ^' "* ""' "' >'A»«'«terre, que ia coutume Se Parfs fftt alor , et devln par la .uite, la lol du pay., pulaqu'en r^ponao A la domande de Mr do VaudrBull quo " le. Fran?.l. et Oanadions contlnueront d'fitro gouvern^a .Jirant la ' Z'r ,""'.",' '" '"•' "' "-K«» Po- ce pays," le G.u.ralTnS'lrlt "' ! pondu par le. articles pr^ctfd.nta, ct particuli^rement par lo derfigf^4n^ « 1 dovl nnent .ujet. d« Roi." Oe. cxpre.Bion. dtaient blcn naturelle.^'n^rbou^rj du SiorontlM ,;'".'' T. '""*•'• ""«"*" '^''«'''""" "- rcponsabilit* auaBrgr,^"; quo lout «Jt* cello do decider soul cotto que.tion ; II .oumottalt. par cette rlJn!^u O; / \''^1'^.,'>- -»-''^-' ""P*^'""-- Au ;e.te, du allencVou d Ta ^ve du 4 1 objet dont il . "'•^'i"" d'analoguoavecnombre d'aijtres exom^Fjo. qu'on pourrait citor. O'e.t une cession qui a eu lieu, le trait* le dit. .et en Ainsl,le8 doctrine, extrameaetsouverainementinjutftes que do. politiques exa^^r*. Sl/.?"'LT"'"?"' et do malheurs pour le. pcupL ot lour, li £ . "« /oni «S t. ;r: ; "'*'""' ^'^ P°'''^'^"°"^ ^°'"»"'«««' ^^-J^"" ^ l-avantage de. cot qnA-ant., no .ont aucunement applicable, aux circon.tance. du Canada, de 1 760 A 17M o„f rl 7^;;^^^'' P«" !"> '°''^"*. 'l"' 1« Canada a *t* conqui. dan. le .on.- JgSl^ qae 1 ont pnStendu certain, indiyidus, j'emprunto au Procureur-G^n^ral Do Gr*rS^ Sii:!" if ^'^7^;?' ''['-'-' '^-- '- - '^ dan^^app^ik^:: jJl^^lT" "^ °^*'" "'"""""• lawmor^c^ia than that a conquered people retain the.r anj^iont custom, till the conqueror .hall declare new law. " harl, r. f !/"!f ""* ^t' l!^ »«^^P0« revondiquor ce que de. pretention, bar- ^B et infeot*e. de. natk«rr*trdcie. diHoyonige, mettent en question .5^^*!-^ f^°^'''°"""""*'^***'«**''«"»«»^«M«hsB qui,l'honnour lo di- SnS!r I*""? «tlndividuel, la science otlo bon .ens^S n^L eM ^^^7^i^T '' ^™-«-«^"^^» ^^"'-. ^- aon::^^^^;:! " The Canadian, seems to have been .trictlty entitled bv tha iuM ir««i.v« ♦« ♦!-» perty a. they po««««d it upon the capitulation and ^eat^Cnrtlt^'ln both which, they were to expect your M.^ie.ty'8 gracious protectio^v ''""'''*'*^' *" ^rl^fTT/ ?""f^ consequence that all those laws, by which that property was crea^ defined and secured, must be continued to them', io introduce ^"^orT^ Mr. lo P,oc«o,nvQ*n*rai Thurlow, 6nvisag«nt alors la proclamation dea dn>it. dn RonT or„ n. .t Ir. dr o it, d u auu.malu .ur le payB irmi^ansm^cqgSr et t'L^^t / / «- ■^ ^l iW g dea droita da r feaant Toir oe xvii. y uiie autre que.tion, die qui auJue .« S.„- J. iV." ''*"**°*^ •*• "P^^'' *''°"»« .lor. 11 .-ex|,rlme comme .1 """ "" ''^" '='' 'l"''^*' '" '><*<=«''"t^. et qualification.. The conqueror aucceeded ^^ S' ""''* '^°''* '»'"" "ceptlon. and Arong aa the conquered^ .erup tl^r ^r vaU riS '" ,' ""f "* ""* " '"" •""» ^ouia follow e,e,y change In the forn, of gorernrnt wLch 1 " ""* ""*"'• ^•'"«' ««en/ia% neceuary to eatabliah hi. .„J,»T .T . ^"^ "*" oonqu.ror ahould think which relate to crimed a^aituhf^^^^^^ ''"""""'' e.pecially tho«, pow^r of magiatracy. B ^tTwtld ato fo^^^^^^^ "'''''' «' P°"<'« "<» ^ without aon,: auch actuil a^ cogenrneclaarwS^^^^ " f^' ^'""'^ ""^ "^ ""^ OP neglect, not that ideal necealuvwh^^h i„ ^ 7 ""' '''''^'"" "°"'"^ "»» .oyeriook poaaible auppoaiUon, relL inftlle atd St"' '""""^"^ ""^ ''*''^' ""»« ''^ aimilating a conque;d count^^ t^I arUcle of 137'''^"°' *"• *""='""' ^' - litan atate, or to the older ProviL, wMch th- - if . «°"«""°«"'' ^ *»>« •"etropo- the aakeof creating a barm /lit JrX Jn tT""''f *' *" *'""""'''"' ^- unatUinable, and. aa I think u-ZT. ,fu Vl '*'"*"'' P*'*" "'^ the empl gratifying the unprincipled aV^„™\fM'""'^ "" "*''*'"'"»= •">» *^« nec^alt^of M^eaty/aubjecta irotjridTnXe^^^^^ °' ^'""^ few a;:^onr rent lawa of all the different placea ^^^1 Jev coZ "'" '^^'^^^'^ diff.^ judgment, any apeciea of necessity whTh I We h« T ' "f "^^^^^Ato "»y simple and government of Canada" ' ^^" »'«wd urged^abolijUrin^ the laNra Cea opiniona ai sainea, cea ddclaratlois ai hono«*le«^i a. x. par Mr. le Procun,ur-a« thereof, they'ahall wi h L a^Z .td cou^nT^f^r*^*!'^^^ '*»«»»»* summon and call general iZASa^tJS;^^*.^M^' """•"" "^'^"'^^ 0««-a. «n«.nep and form « la ^ej^d di^cte^ tlo^l , 7"™!"*" r^apecttvely, te suS wWch are under our immedlT^rrll^* and we h "^ J?^^"". »» •^^«, Govemora, with the consent of o^XlcS ^ Zlf ^iS^r*" *" *^ •*" so to be summoned aa aforeaald tTlLt '. ""»«eP"»"«»tative8of the people^ Ordinancea for the puW^S '^«if l''^":^*^ "' '"*^ "^""^ StatutTLS ofthe peopU«.di^LZ4!!^'"'*«°^*^'^~^ - ^fegul,ti«nr«rdr^«^i.i^^^ aj i ^eably to ^ T.i w nf ■::\. • "•'.;'". f 3, \1: I ■■ y 'ft, a si I M ' xviii. V *r» ■ V' ^ \ J habiting in, or reiorting to our laid colonlri may conflde lb o^t royal protection for th«t- eqjoyment of the benefit of the Lawi of oar Realm of England i tor which purpoie, we .have given power under our Oreat Seal to the Oiivornors of our ikld colonlM, Eeipeotively, to orcote and conitltute, with the advice of our laid Oounclli, reipectivcly, court* of Judicature and public Juitlce within our laid colonica, for the hearing and determining all caiisci, aa well criminal ai civil, according to Law and Equity, and as near ai may be, agreeably to the Laws of England, with liberty to all per«on», who moy think them- ■elvei aggrieyc(lby the sentence of such courts, In all civil cases, to appeal, under the usual limitatiOnl and restrictions, to us, in our Privy Council." II mo paraitivldcnt que cotto proclamation du Rol, qui lul no pouvalt scul changer les lols du pajg, et qui, probablomcnt n'cn a Jamais cu i'intcntlon, ne rcnforme pas m6mo I'exprcsglon du ddiir do Sa Majcatd, que les lols anglaisos, Je veuz dire dans lour ensemble, fuascWt introduitos on Canada ; J'y vols, tout au plus, rexpresslof^du ddsir du Roi, que les triUunauz du Canada Jugcassent suivant la lol et l'6qult4 {atenrding to law andjquily), et aj|tant quo faire so pourrait, suivant les lols anglaiscs, ((w nfar at may he agrtebly to the l^$ of England). II n'cst pas permis, en presence d'une phrasdologie Bussi gdndralc, au^si pea tranchdo que ccllc-li, ^ tloler toutos les rdgles de la loglque, de la raisoh, do la Ju^lco, et de la lol, et assuribr, /iomnfb on lo fait, quo les termcs sont uno ddclaratlon furmolle de la part du Roi, quo les loia anglaisos dovenaient et soraicnt dtSsormais les lols du Canada. Et certes, si le Rol seirXan avalt I'autorltd, co que Je ne puis admettre, ct s'il en avalt I'lntention, le ddair et la volontd, qu'y avait-ll de plus facile que do le dire 7 Dopula quand, les souverains, surtout les conqudrants, dans le sens qu'on a si dtrangoment atti4||^u< A la coasloii du paya, aont-ils si timides, et substl- tuont-ils i I'oxpreasion do lour volontd, des termcs aussl diolgnds de I'opdrer, que sont les mots "according to law and equity, and as near as'may be agreeably to the laws of England ?" Aceording'to law I Quelle lol 7 Equity t cola Bignifio tout co que Ton veut, et auaal pen qu'on lo d68ire~a« neqr om mhy be, agreeabty lo t^elaw* of England! SI on dolt Jugerautant quo faire so pourra, suivant les lots ^pgralsesV comment so f*'^ qu'elles ont 6t6\ introd\iitcs7 Seralt-ce iono piWt. lalsaer aux Juges la liberty, suivant lours caprices, de s'y conformor, ou de s'en dcartej 7, Pluii ,on 'tflntbrait de prou^r en quol do parcilles pretentions sont tout-A-falt illoglqu^ etiuiisiiiitenables, plus on s'ex- poserait A affaiblir sa position, car Ton risque toujours queique chose, loraqu'on s'attac&e trop A prouvor ce qui est I'dvidenco m6me. AInsI done, nott-seulement la Proclamation de 1)63 no Justifio aucunement d'en infiArer I'introduction en Canada des lols anglaisesi mais olio n'autoris^ pas mfimo I'induction logique «t raisonnable que Sa Majesty Geo. III. ait eu ridde do le faire. Et s'il m'dtait permis d'anticiper, Je dirais de suite, que par 1' Acte de 1774, (Quebec Jet) Ton a legislate dans un sens inverse. D'aillours, la Proclamation de 1703, n'dtait pas bomde 4 la Province de Quebec, qtil n'dtait qu'un des quatre gouvemements qu'elle dtablissait, Je voux dire, les deux Florides etla Grenade, «b sorte qu'il serait centre tout* ralson, d'appliquer d'une manidre absolne, A la Province de Quebec, ce qui, considdrant les eirconstances, et I'dtat desocidtd dans ce pays alors, n'dtait aucunement en rapport avec les choses aux Plorides et d la Grenade. II y avait mille raisona d'admettro des modifications qui rendraient plus quo ridicule les pretentions de metamorphoser en ordonnance absolne, et parfaifcajnont effective, nne -proclamation qui n'a d'autre but et d'autre portde que d'ecprimer un desirdi/Sonverain, qui etait, tout au plus, naturel, mais sans consequence et sans suite. An reste, rhistoire du temps nous fait conn^tre ce que Ton pensait alors de eette - Proclamation. J'emprunte encore an rapport de Mr. le Procureur-Qeneral Thnrlow, les' passages Buivants, ils sont precienx-^ . . "Three very different opinions have been entertained. There are those who think that the law of England, in all its branches, is actually^ established, and in force in Qnebec. They argne that your MaJe8jtj,ujpon the conques t, had nnilni^hto d an- :^. 11, tbority to establish whatever Uws should seem fittest in your royal wisdom ; that your sait alora de eette rlow, les' passages • . xlx. M^eity'i Proclamation, liatcd (heserenth day ofOri„i«, ,»«, ' •jtUtIng law., and an «Ubl(*hmcnt of L 7 uu ' "°^' "^ * 'T«' «' ">• the now ,»J,J„ .,ed countHc. bar 1 "'•'^"«"»*' '*»• «» their place, In^H p»rU of the law. of L.gla/d w re In a^ . V" k ''T"""'«" '« h.ar and deterLlne h, ^ thu law, j; u-pi::;;.:; .r ;:rcer;tv;^^3r::, ''-vt' "^• lU commencement In the ,«me way, .ad now .u„l „^ ., »"'" colonies, took t- of cl.ll and crlmtlTl' pt S rl" VhiT"' "T. '"' " '^'^"''^ ■^- M-^jesty, dominion, or, at least t Jd. „«• , "" ,'^*"'='' ?'«''•"• '« the rest of your eipedlency of a generll chant' ll the . , , ? TT"" '"""^ ""'"'""• »°"°»''"« ^^e authority 'by whic* TiolXZllll '"""'"' """ "' " '="'«"^' ""» '-«•""« th. the laws remain In force ill the cSllroT'.h.T, """''"•"" °' * *="''"'""' '^'"'""^ They understand the rjKh Uulrea h^ ^ "'*""""^ *'"'*''"«* *»"» <=°°'"'y, not (o extend beyrdZtolhSc^^^^^^^^^ T"'^ the right of empire, bul draw this conclusion h^ 1 cha!! ? m . r*""^ °' individuals, fpm which they .hall be'falrly though; necel^tr»lHK .° """"" '" *'"' '"'"•" "'^- »'«'y«»«^ ^'< This Idea they think IrfirmX !'"""'"'*''•' T "'" ''"' ""'^o-'KPty of the conqueror, nions. Cu.L!:'l:t:l\^^^^ *"• -» *PI--1 opl- region. ««„„w.,5X::S^^^^^^^^^ to such moderation could be doubted they look un*',// V ^°'* " '^^ «"""*' ""• of the capitulation and treaty .11.^*^' .7 rv*^ *° '"' * necessary congequenco of their property and pesTni £tv whfct"' "l ^"''' * '"'' «""* -" -''« »»>«» they we« created, deZd and n^oL '.Td 1 I'Vl ''"^ '^'" *•""" *••• '*'- ''^ 'Wch .Ithcr. This moderated Hght 0? 2 floX' r''^''^, -»»-"•/" the idea they have of JlnlcmayhavesomeinJnce^u-^^^^^^^^^^^ geLXl^htTrnX^^^ "f ' '- -"-»-> "> -^ I-.ro terms, the purvL of U s emHo aXhtflT ''''' """"'"'"'•»• ^^' laws of England obtain a ctur^tUoiLT^ *'"' """"''"'' ''•»«" ^^^ .ceed upon it, as mSt that! "''"'5^"'° '"^'>">'^' f«' " •>««»« to assume and pro- • be trne'of anrsTtUefciuntV^duZ °//''«'"^"« *'-«'7 '» force, which could'not " It Will grea Jy contribrS^tre';?4 'J?Z^^^^^^ salj' ne^ " '" '" "'^'"*' *'"''*• nor taking any ioU«Se of That i ^"°'^"""' »»' ''°I«="»»y P-bllshcd among them. Mr. Yorke and^Mr. Da QfByr41iei^Attoruey am^SsiTcI ueneral, as I collect from their report of the 14th Anrii i »«c n wisdom; that your x- i -ii \ ^ 'f 3'' f^C 1' ^ » !:■ 1 ■•si i • f II. ■ , eonstroctioni put upon your If^Jeitj*! Pro«t«matloD of lToa,u If It wtra yoor MajMty'f 'ntentlon, by your Mijflity'i Judgei and offlcera of that country at ono« to abollih all the ningei and cuitomi of Canada, with the rough handi of a conqueror, rather than In the true iplrit of a lawftil SoTereIgn, and not lo much to eitend the protection and beneflt of Your Mojeity'a Kngllih laws to your new lubJeoUi, by Mouring theic Urn, libertlei and propertiet, with more certainty than In former tlmei, ai to Impoiie new, unnece«iai^ and arbitrary mlea, eipecially In the tltloi to land, and In the niodoi of doacent, alienation and settlement, which tend to confonnd and subvert rights instead of supporting them. " There Is not a maxim of the common law OMre certain than that a conquered people . retain their ancient customs till the conqueror shall declare new laws. To ct^ange at once the laws and mhunors of A settled country, must be attended with hasdst^ps and riolenoe. And, therefore, wise eonqnorors, havlne proTided for the security (k their ' dominions, proceed gently, and Indulge their conquered subjects In nil local customs which are In their nature Indlfleront, and which hare been receUed as rules of property or hare obtained the force of laws. It Is tha more material that this policy should b« pnrsned In Canada, because It is a groat and ancient colony, long settled and much cultirated by French subjeets who now Inhabit It, to the number of eighty or one hun- dred thousand. * In criminal cases, whether they be eapiul offences or miidemeanors. It Is hlgtily fitting so far as may be, that the laws of England should be odoptcd, in the description . aid quality of the offences itself. In the manner 6f proceeding to charge the party, to ball or detain him, to agaign, try, conyict or condemn him. .This certainty and lenity ' of tHe English administration of Justice, and the benefits of this constitution, will be more peculiarly and essentially felt by His Majesty's Canadiaji subjects, in matters of crown law, which touch the life, liberty and property of the subjects, than in the con- formity of Your Majesty's Courts to the English rules in matters of tenure, or the suc- cession and alienatiqn pf real and personal estate. This corUlnty and this leniency are the benefits intended by Your Majesty's royal proclomatlon as far as concerns judlcattre." Messrs. York et De Grey parlent 6&erglquement dans le mAme sens, comme U est facile de s'en conralncre, en tiUrtuat A leur rapport du 14 avrll ITBO, dont je m'abstien- drai de fiiire des extraits, pour ^vlter des longueurs et les redites. On le trouve an ler. Vol. de I'histoire du Canada, par Smith, p. 29, et uqq. Tellcs Bont les Tues qu'avalent des hommes distlngu^s pat leur position et leur m^rite, «nr le caract^re; le but et la port^e de la Proclamation de 1763. Cela est d'autant pins rem,arquable, qu'A cette dpoque on devalt tout natureHement avoir des id^es un pea exag^r^es tIs-A-tIs d'un pays qu'on regardalt comme conquls. Bans parler ici de Y6normlt6 de I'lnjnstlce qu'll y auralt en, et deTacte barbare et de ' Tandalisme dont I'Angleterre se seralt sonlU^e, si d'un coup de pl^e elle eftt effactf lef lota, les usages, les droits et tout ce qn'il y avait de plus cher A un penple qnl n'aTolt^ d'antre tort que oelui d'avoir Taillamment combattu pour an gonvernement, le pins ' immoral, le plus ^golste, et le plus liche que I'on pftt Imaglner, et qui sftnrd A son derolr et A I'honnenr franqata, s'est vu, A sa hpnte, s'il en «tait susceptible, enlerer nn p^yg magnifique, aprds en avoir indignement abondonn< les braves habitants qu'U anrait da ' proKger et d^fendre, s'U eftt mis A oet acte d* jusUoe» d'honneur et d'hnmanW, les Bommes immenses qut leur rol, le sardanapale des temps modemes, d^pensait dans les ^gles les pins d^gradantes, et A gratifier les gofits et allmenter les excAs de mattresses bien dlgnes de lui, sans parler, dis-je, de I'acte 40 vandalisme qu'eftt ainsi commis I'Aiigletepre, n'est-U pas eontraire A tout prinoipe, de reeonnattre dans nn monarqne, le premier magta^at dP"ty "d olT^ltlght., re.ort .hall be had to tr.1; P 'r K t,1 '"^ "' *"" ^''""" °' '"•""• *° »« •?!><"»*«<» within and for the .aid Province, by Hl^ Majesty, hi. Heir, and Suc«,.6r,, .hall with re.pect to .nch until they .hall be varied or altered by any ordinance that .hall from Ume to uTu STilf fori "'^^K:?'''r'^*''"^'''"•'°'' L^-t«-n^Ooven.or,or Comma^e,^ of theall t r *"'"f',''jr' '^''^ *"' •'''•=•'*''' con.entof thoLegi.l.Ur. OouieU of the lame, to be appointed in manner hereinafter menUoned" Oet1« .ectlon a rapport A tou. le. .ujet. Oanadion. de Sa Maje.td, "Ml HI. Makrtv'l Canadian .ubjects untkin the Province of Quebec." II n'y a d'excep ion qu'A Wg^VSl «1eTted"" '^""'"* '"' ''°"'"""-**'' " *"• "ligiou. order, and coLuniS, oSj D'aprA. quel procM< et quelle. rAgle. peut^n fairo qu'une .ection qui parte d. t _»-,Tf^FF i^'^^P^ *■ :• i^ \: i- N ■Si I pii- J ' fllh ^..^.., ^jiMrr-^ ** '* '^'" ***** i«f*i«>U, (efl <|tt« J« Bit) d« rtttrtladr* A ua« iiii *l«l^ •• nil en terme, ciprii^ «/*|»»f» * »'mU Mikir, alor»|| MuU porW. qa« I'liK pt)nvol dana I'eapace de alz moia, par le gouverneur, 4c., pour «tre aoumiae A Sa Uajeat^, afin d'obtonlr aon appro- bation^ aoraient lola pour lea townthipi, aana cette formallt*, laquolle aorait do rlgueur dana le^ seignourioa. ^''* ^^**"' <"^°"0*"««» concernant la religion, 011 autrea, par loaquoUea 11 pourrait fttre infflp une peine plua forte qu'uno amende,' ou un empriaonnemont do troia moia Mralent lola dana lea townihipt, dumoment dolour promulgation, maia n'aurayf^t a||4i;une' force dans loa aelgnouriea juaqu'A ce qn'ellea euaaent recu I'approbation comme roxige la aoc. I60. M^,i ,;^ 11. Qae U See. I7me au ai^ot de la r^aerrs faite du droit doa nomina t qua 14, Sa a^jeat* n'auralt kucan droit d'iublir dea cours, Jugoa an officiera quelconquea II a'eiitttlyjcait enfia— 11. Oii«\S.«<.jl8n»e n'auTrait 'aucune force ou Tortu de r^aerre qufrnt au TbtofUJI^i '*""^i'»* *• 1* Qrando-flwtagne, concernant le commerce kc.^ aeralent 13. Qaelil oA lea loia'^_ ■ana force. ' En ToilA, I nullity de la ai Dana la 2e ' pliquer A la Br faire tliiehor da doigt A qui reat r4fltf chir, la parfaitd |>'rend t^l%gu'on la tronve. |>084e, 11 7^|mai^'in8 de la raiaon, palaqne I'on reftaae d'ap- nent. ce qiw ia aection mfime d<>clare cmph a tlqnea e at aa ^spporter au ton*. La soi^ interpretation pendlae, et eUe n'oat raiaonaJi>le que parcqa'eUe 'A ^ #- .^.: (u'A una partia d« trfttcr lo lermcM '1, \I0 chir, U parfaite t l«.t ...1. ,.«„, l-or, r,cule d.,».nt \.. eon.rfquencc. ruln.uw. quUnrileflt »mmmll« au,.l Impr.tic.bf, ot de l^t.t d« cho.r« ,ffy.y„„t ,,„| « Cm re lt,,u,l, 1.. population, do. T.iwn<^i,„ ,„ .„«l.nt i\,yM, ,«.. «„1H .'^^ ! «t dluteUlKlbl*. 4 u„ anm. de righ,. Jncohrfrento. rt.ulfnt de.utu«- J^; 1:;Z -"'^•'"1"«"-. — TPncaUon, .t qu. ... Jur.;!;. L. d« ' pajr. cdrxmeroe. ne cumprenncnt pa. parfaitommt * lid lo a. f""'/"'^'""'' "'" ""'^''*" '*"'""""'. '"•^. •"der«.ch° I -.- I TJ^£'!L'^*y'^'T ^r:'' ^ ^' "'"'*' ' i '""*'" *^p>rt, aU fao^g u t cogu not be expected to d»ir a complete line o5r ..paration. Anj incanZieneee hW, *eTer, to / ITW. ( f 1 j Li hc I •ft" y i '^^ .y>; ,,♦• ,-^- ' .^J -ft ■fc) ;Sb>i 1^ l> ^ m "^ k •■.■■■ ''■■^> ' J " ■ ' . -cte imperial de 1 774 jusqu'd 1826, il n'y a eu, soit en Canada, aoit en Angletei^e,.«ucune legislation qui puisse aucunement ebranler I'^difice bien appuyl flu sysWme Se nos lois civiles, dont I'aAre gigantesque a pris racine d Rome m&me, dont le tronf s'est etendu sur jeS Gaules, et dont les branches et le feuiUage nous recouvrent nous arrivofls d 1826, ^p^ue d laquelle K «t6 pass^ dans le parlement imperial, I'acto des tenures, 6 Geo. IV, c. 59, que I'on pretend dtre un acte d^claratoire quia la vertu/ ;^^de tran a,t exist*, de mdme que^ce qni n'ajamais eu d'existence, en aiteu. Dieului- »6menele pent, et I'on vent que re Parlement Imperial lepnisse. H font aTonter que Jest porter un pen loin la complaisance et la^ confiance, a fant nn degr* de foi qd d^genere en abjection. ^ \ ■«» H« ^itMt»!T.Ti!::^fe^,r,!!L'°.^f"!°'^„^^ c«pttalationi, et dMM *«*••*- «ui|»uau^uvy trasst^ B0leinil6l V I'aete Imperial de 1774, aec. 8me, "And all cause. *c.. .hall wii n^etteS^ ■*Ki r. on A, Vdtre, en « \ XXV K^irt^!" ^" ''"/"**" "^ """^ '"^"""•* une complaisance a«88l grando«ue celle-la? No4ouchc-t-on pas du dolgt qu'une fois la concession faite A I'An Jcterre dltervlnl! dLitrrH "; •"'^^r """">« >-«. " -'7 a plus de 8uret.,plt d TZuel us^t la tlonilo n f r't f ^"«--' P-' f-^'- P>-« ^ une I'/gislation d'outm r que la colon e no pent, ne doit pas admettre, sans tout sacrifier ' ' ^ Je saia quo I'opinion que j'oxprime, ne sera pas Hl nature d .Sdifier nomhr« n. personnesquisepensenttenuesdefl6chirlegenourdevantlesoraldo^:^^^^^^ ma.s quant d moi. je no connais qu'une regie, c'est le devoir, et comme jugeTe L Wis m' nclmcr en pr^Jsence d'un pouvoir qui. quelque ,ler6, que^ue puissant qu'ilsl^ no S. J «dmettais la 16galit6 de pareille intervention de la part de la legislature iiip^riaL ja ne sera. . tout a. plus, que dans ce qu'elle feraij proUuvement^iT^Se A touch0r^,r doigt, l-^norme renversement des droits acquis, quwLaltJrie telfe iZ lat.ondoutrqmer,si nous ^tions assez serviles pour la r^cevoir, quanlr plsV !„: Se dltr; '"' '""''' ""^ '^ I'Angleterre, de porter atteint^ sous 'un a^rr^ fonne d des droits acquis en vortu de ce qu'il y a de plus solemnel che^ les peuples S J avais a d.scouru: ici, sur la partie morale d'une telle legislation, et qn'il mt Xssairo ' d^mprunter d Fhohneur et d I'honn^tete des motifs, en de'h ors des'con^L^ on 1^ pas J a, prlf^re et dH me bomer au sujet qui n'est, assur^ment, qu« trop fertile Je lo 4 c Sa ^rJl2" """ ''•""? "" '^'='^ '^^ *«™ <«- * ^« facte imp : flTr; ohL ! "^^^J^^^"' '""" *^nguliirement, dans une loi qui avait pour objet, touto theTx iSoHSr acte declaratoire, et dont le titre est " An Act to pr'ov de fol Tnda^TT ^.''f '"'^°"''' "^^"^ '*"'* ^»'t'""»«. 0° lan% held d «/re de /!«/• thl t nuiSZt "tr "''"'"" ^''"''^'*' ""^ ^- ^''^ ^'^-1 conversion^ tnose tenure^ into the tenure of free and common socagfe, and for other purposes relal mgto the sa.d Province." Dans 1, cas mfime o4 je ferL' taire mes couvicdonTet qt la wmercer de nous arracher ce qu'elle nous aurait donn^. encore, serais-je pleinemeS ^ 8?bleTvr„^-"""' f™™''"* ''^ -entalement cet acte. qu'on a tout fe toTp^a ' T^un r r T"^ ''^'^" '''^'^' "° •''=*« d«claratoiU : il n'en est pas unr't fiM'»»u.uu*inenlporWatl*l.tedno8 lois civiles, ilest sous ce rapprrt, Zll^,. ir ■ ^Vrf-"^! .*"T-- ''m> ■i"^i».v,.. ••■ - ■■*. H i ' A 1 f ' • I il Kr. ! "' ~JJ: w J'l^onterai que bien que I'acte des tenures ait M passii parle Parfcment Imperial, qu'il Boit cen8« son fait, 11 faudrait peu connattre ce qui se fait dans les legislatures, et ignqrer les expedients auxquels ont recourrf, souvent, des intrigants et des personnea intdressdes, pour introduire ftirtlvement, dans les lois qui ont pour objet de l^gislater surtout autre chose, des clauses qui onKl'effet, ou auxquels ces indiridus voudraient attribuer une vertu bien grande, celle de consomer des oouvres d'iniquit« qu'ils n'ont souvent, ni la franchise, ni le courage davoner ouvortement. Oela se fait ailleurs qu'en Angleterre. Ainsi, done, I'acte des tenures a'est pas m6me, quant aux lois anglalsea. un acto deduratoire, au degrd qu'on le pretend. Supposant mferae que I'actp des tenures ait eu I'effet de r^gler conclusiveiiient troisou . plnsieurs choses, par exemple, dtmtr, convtmnce anddetcent, et que ficte provincial de 1829 n'ait pas affects I'acte des tenures, (ce%iest le cas, vu qu'il n'a pliff 6ti> sanctionn^ dans les deux ans) il ne s'ensnit qu'une chose de deux : Ou de tout temps depuis que le pays appartlent d I'Angleterre, les lois anglaises oni,- dans les TownMp^ rdgie le dmner, descent and conveyance, et rien de plus ; Ou ces lois anglicises ne r^glcnt ces troia objets que depuis la passation de I'acte des tenures, si toutefois I'acte Provincial de 1829, n'a pu I'affecter. II s'ensuit : .. • . Que dans un cas, comme dans rautre, le corps entier deS lois anglaises n'a jamais 6X6 introduit dans les Townships. La forme do conveyance serait bien, A la v^rite, i6gl6e d'apres le droit anglais, mais une fois I'acte fait ses consequences seraient i. deduire, et ses effets A mesurer sur le droit du pays. II en est de cela comme des testaments faits suivant les formes anglaises, les biens se repartisSent suivantle droit fran?ais, ou si I'on veut, le droit du pays. Mais je desire qu'on me comprenne bien, je ne puis reconnaltre au tenures act, I'effet d'avoir mSme pour les trois objets (dower, conveyance and descent), mdroduit pour le temps passe, les Jois anglaises, dans les townships. Si cela est correct, les notes en vertu desquels les demandeurs redament des droits, en cette cause, ne peuvent acqudrir plus de force, et avoir plus d'effet qu'ils n'enefissent ' eu, SI cette loi {tenures act) n'eftt pas ete passee par le Parlement Imperial. Dans la these de I'introduction dans les township^, soit du corps entier du droit civil anglais, ou de tout ce qui, du droit anglais, a report au dower, conveyante and descent, ou en serait-on, in6me dans les townships? Comment pourrait-on jamais administrer tout ce droit ?^ II serait mSme ridicule d'entreprendre une chose aussi Impraticable. II y avait bien de la verite dans ce que le juge Kerr observa, une fois, dans une seaiice du Conseil Legislatif, au juge en chef Sewell, sur I'impraticabilite d'une telle chose, et sur ce qu'il n'y avait pas un senl jugfs en Canada, qui ffit en etat de declarer qu'il y avait moyen d'administrer de telles lois. , ^ Et on voudrait calmer les craintes, et faire disparaltre les difficultes, en disant que ce que les Juges ne comprendraient pas, et ne seraient pas capables d'appliquer, ni d'admi- nistrer, serait le flambeau qui eclairerait les masses, au milieu des tenebres sur leura lois, dans les Townships, impossible. L'Acte Provincial de 1829 n'affecte pas la question, vu qu'il' n'a pas ete sanctionne dans les deux ans, dfapres I'acte constitutionnel de l'?91. Cetacte fut presente pour la sanction royale, et reserve le. u Mars 1829 II ne fut sanctipnne par Sa Majeste, en Conseil, que le n Mki' 183L 11 fut annonce par Proclamation en Canada le i Sep' 1831* Le Pariement imperial, dans sa toute-puisance qui dans I'acception 'familiere n'a de ^ lunites que de^e p^uvoir faire qu'un homme soit une femme, ne pent pas non-plus m sencMx, faire Rar le.|tatut 1, GuiUaume 4 c. 20, que ce qui a de fait existe, n'ait pas ex- i8te,non^plnsflue cequlm'apas existe, ait existe. Or I'acte constitutionnel de 1791 ayant formellement statue qu'une loi provinciale reservee pour la sanction royale. et qui naura pas ete sanctionnee dans les deux ans de sa presentation au goufemeur, Jonr la -fllu>ctioiij: ny ajc,ne-«ta.pa»loV«4ted» .11 s'cnsuit que si le statut imp<5rial veut diro cela, 11 a dit*e qui n'est pas possiMo, ot que s;.l n'a dU ni youlu dire telle chose, le Roi. on donnant sa sanction I un acto qS n dtait plus un acto, mais une nullltd parAvite, a tcnt6 une impossibility ; il a fait, de son autoritd priv^e, cequ'U n'avait aucuii droit Me foire. * . II rdsultedo tout cela, que I'acte provincial de 1829 ne pouvant affecter I'acte imp^. rial dcs tenures, il faudrait^ avcc les modifications mentionndes plus haut, le limiter d^s tous les cas, aux trois objets dont il a 6i6 parl6 ol-dovant. Bien ontendu, dans la ^sition-quo le Parlomcnt Imperial eiit cu le^roit d'intervenir comme il I'a fait par iH^-6 Geo. IV, c. 59, sec. 8, ce que je nio plus fortement que jamais pf , par hazard, en I'absence do tout bonne rai3on,on m-opposait que la Legislature du PB Canada a reconnu ce.droit d'intervcntion, jo mo contenterais de r^pondre que cela ■1.rouvera.t, tout au plus, qu'ello a eu tort, et que deux erreurs ne font jamais une verity - Et pour fairo toucher du doigt le pou do logique qu'il y auraU A tir.,r des consequences do premisses aussi lumineuses, il mo suffirait, sans doUte, de t^f^r les avocats et le barreau en g.u.ral, a 1-ordonnance du Co«seil Special, 2' Vici. c. L q" rroque Je StTr^! TT"''"T!'V "«'<^"'— « pour declarer ^uol/se'cLdohapltre du Statut, du Parjmen dAngleterre, pass6 dans la trente^t^uJeme ann^e du regno d'autris fin°s !' ' " ''' ^*'' °* "''' ^''""*'' ^'^ "" ^'^"'" 'V'"' ^'°^'"^"' "^^ ?««•• O-est aiusi que la Legislature d'alors d^clara serieusement par/une Ordonnance 2 Vict. c 15. que r Acto de VH^eas Corpus (31 Chas. II. ch. 2,) n'ava/t jamais 6t6 en vigueur Z-1 u \ r r 1"'™ 0^d»'"»''°c«(2 Vict. c. 51.) le Con/eil Special, par sa toute- pmssance Attendu qu'il conviont, d'apres les circonstance, /do revoque^ une certaine Ordonnance &c,''revoque la premiere, et permet au pays de/repasser sous I'empire de I'Acte Imperial 31. Chas. II,.c. 2. , / f"" "« Je pourrais, si le temps me le permettait, citer d'antros /Actes de legislation aussi • logiques que celui-la, pour faire voir qu'il vaut mleux s'en Lir A des princlpos fixes, avoues par la raison et la loi. que de fonder, je ne dirai L des raisonnements, mais toute autre chose que des raisonnements, .sur des bases au^i fragiles que I'est souvent expression d une opinion ou d'une resolution par un corps quel^conque. Ce que j'avance Id est une verite qui est parfaitement philosophique, et hautement proclamee par I'ex- penence de tous les temps. . Au reste, je no suis pas plus dispose de me prosterner en presence des Actes du Paile- ment Provincial, qui reconnattraient au Parlement Imperial des droits qu'il ne possede pas, que de m'lncliner en silence devant les decrets de la Legislature Imperialeen une matiere qm n'est pas de son resso>t, et sur laquelle elle n'avait pas assurement pft de 4roit, en 1826, de violer ses garanties etles droits acquis, que de fouler aux pieds en 1774 le jtt» gentium, chose qu'elle n'a jamais, alors, eu I'idee m6me de tenter. ■^Les raisona puissantes, qui avaient tant de force dans la bouche des hom'mes d'etat & ir l^TI^? J !ul''■ ^'°''.^''"'**^^^ ^^^^ °"'^'^^° Im perial, de 1774. et s ur 1esauell«, I AcU, de Quebec a ig^, on m«me eh 1839, toujours ellei noui offre la mftme solntion ; lea loiB civiles Anglaiaes n'ont jamais fait partie des lois de ce pays, pas m6me pour les terres tenues en franc «f commwn $ocage, sauf, que de la nature mAme dea ohoaes, et in«vltablement, lea lois qui rdglent Ik tenure 8eigne4riale aont aana application A 1% tenure «n /rone et commuil locage; et que-e'li r^aulUit de I'Acte dea Tenurea anoune modification A nos lois de propri^t^, mdme dans les Tnetukipi, ce que je nie absolnment, , ces modifications n'auraient j'amaia pu afiecter lea droite acquia, et ne pourraient Atre regard^ea que comme rdgleade droit dappliquer pro8pectirementBeulement,maiaJamaia r^troactivement. Au reste, dans la supposition mftme oik I'acte 10 et 11 G. 4 o. 77, (1829) pftt produire quelque effet, il suffit de le lire pour se convaincre que son contenu entier a pour objet principal de conaolider les lois du pays, mdme A regard des terres tenues «n franc et commun tocage, soit par rapport A la forme des titres tant avant que depuis cet act, C1829), les liypotheques crepes dds avnnt ou depuis, et quant & la repartition de ceux \ qui ep!<^ant enffanc et commun tocage, seroient d^c^d^s sans avoir fait -de testament. « ne vois pas aprds tout, que qui que ce soit puisse' regreter que le corps des lois civiles de I'Angleterre n'ait pas 6if introduit en Canada. Toute personne inslrnite salt, que tout excellent, sous nombre de rapports que soit, en Angleterre, le systime des lois ■ qui y existe, et qui est en nombre de choses eahafmonie parfaite avec le g^nie du peuple qm y est soumis, et dos belles instifotipns dont il a bien droit de s^norguellir, ilserait " hora de mise de greffej^ur I'arjire 80!rfal,'pJi^que et Idgal du Canada, desrejettona qui loin de communiquer une vie noavelle, ou mdme de la force et de la vlguenr, le ferait dess^eher et d^p^rir. En Am^rique, oik le co6nr et les bras font disparaitre les forSts et surgir les Tillea comme par magie. Ton comprend facilen;ent combien il importe que chaque homme qui a mis la main d, la coign^e participe aux avantages resultant de ce travail commun, au lieu de s'en voir ravir, quelque fois la plus belle portion, par un fils aintf, dont tout.le droit d se revfitir des d^pouillesde ses frereset scenrs, nelui vient que ' de devoir au hazard d'etre le premies, d'un grand nombre d'enfants, qui a yu le jour. Lea habitants, des Townships sont bien heureux qu'il n'en soit pas ainsi sur notre'terre d'Am^rlque; et ils peuvent remercier le Ciel e^ I'Angleterre de.ce que non seulement, ilsnesont pas pressures par les Idia de primogeniture, mais qu'ils sont affranchis de • nombres d'autres lois de formalit^s, de technicalites &c., auxquelles ils comprendraient autantouaussi peuque nombre d'autresjj, Qu'une etude de. toute leuryiene rend pas miSme habiles d debrouiller compldtemenf : ,qu'ils se rejouissent, en commun avec tons ceux qui, libres de prejug^s, connaissent et savent appr^cier les avantages inestimableg dont nous jouissons tons en commun, et dont nous avons, assurement, bien le droit de nous glorifier, je veux dire, I'avantage d'S^e soumis i. I'empire de deux systemes de lois que nous devons respectivement aux deux premidres nations de I'Europe : les sages lois criminelles de I'Angleterre et le mode humain de les administrer, et les lois civUes de la Prance et la procedure philosophiqne qui s'y rattache, et qui peuvent, sans crainte du resultat, fetre mises en juxtd position avec les lois civiles anglaises dont Messrs. Yorke et De Grey nous donnent une id^e. "To introduce, at one strolce, the english I4w of real estate, with english modes of conveyancing, rules of descent, construction of deeds, must occasion infinite conftision OiBd injustice." .^ ' . D. Opinion of M6, Justice Rolland in Stuart v. Bowman. "p.p. 345-356. Lo^er Canada Repoi^ta, Vol. 3, -iteiaMiSf-Jiigti—Gtistt ^taxKt fsppei piaMenrr iiQinttesrtnponsBtsir n ne serait peut-dtre pas neceasaire qne la Oonr, pour prononcer aur lea droita dea fhf ««/ 'A 1||6,) n'ft Mrt«in«- Ue., exprlmtt .on opinion sur toutes cea quo-tlon., mais 11 en e.t pluBlenr. eur lesauelle- c ,u«Uan.. „volr. quelle. lol. d'Jil'TjteHef S ^^^ ZZn^^tt "" W..uu„td'opinlon.dl«rente.;le.„n.di.entquep.rll^^^^^^^^ ,e doualre de,fenu„es. que Xe sS L^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 'iZar^T'^ """«f'°"" " »«c«o. ,o,jU..) J..,<,„. ,.. j. ..u bi„ 1.. ,„ Lf ,„.'j; «u«. ° d^ ,"ut «.jp„.««,.^,^..„e«..,„ei:::^,Xs«;:r.^:i::.rp::: « si le Demandeur n'^tahlit sa propLw, sanf TtZloH^lj^le ?T "*" Je. prends done la declaration qui ne oontient n d'.prt8 1. lol da p.™ to „ri J^,. ™ ' ° "" "^" <'■■ '""' • »^p«..d.d„..„A.. ..^^doixr rrrzii:!^^^^^^^^^^ droU, et cela se comprend. Cette distinction a de suite donn6 lien A U -^wl • • ^tante et si d.battue. savolr, si le titre an, terrJTce ^7 ^Ltl'i^Zi:Z aun socage se juge d'aprts le droit «glai» ounonj et JledroitTZ^la^~" ■If 'i !•' L>uttaj!exprimg^aMm opinion qn ^ o».d.3„ug» i,.«,«uu™;Li6«^:.„i"c^rr,i:zi!i •r,: vy -iS ?B> XXX, Terain, un acte do legislation A cet effet, et qu'il a'y a ricn eu do tcl jiiiqii'a la pasgation, du Statut do la 14o Goo. III. Jo ne m'cxpllqiicral pan plug au long. Puis lisant co Statnt Irapdrial, je u'y trouvo rien do ddclaratoiro qui puisso avoir un cffet r6troactif tout au contraire. Mais cot acto rcconnaissant qu'il y a tollo choso au pays qu'uno te- nure in fm and common- tocage, a-tfil par U Idgislatd ou roconnii un droit particulior -pour cctto csp6(So do tenure ; ou on disant quo lo droit du pays no s'y appiiquorait pas at-11 voulu souloinont ompfichor I'dTet d'un principo fondnmontal quant i. la tenure dca terrcs en Canada, jo veux dire I'cffet do la maximo, " nullo tcrro sans seigneur ?" OocI dcvicnt uno question asscz d«Slicato. D'abord lo Statut do 1774 declare que dopuisla cession du pays il n'a tUfait aucunrii^lement pourPadmitiislrationdu gouvernement civil. C'^tait lo prdambule. -Puis vicnt la 80 clause tjui dit, quo tous les sujets Oanadiens do-, Sa Mnjo8t6 " shall hold and enjoy their property and possessions, together with all cus- «' toms and usages relative thereto, and all other their civil rights, in as largo, ample " and beneficial manner as if the said Proclamation (of 17G3), commission, ordinances, •" &c., had not been made ; and that in all matters of controversy relative to proi)erty " and civil rights, resort shajl bo had to tlie laws of Canada, Ac, and all actions dcter- " mined agreeably to the sai^Iaw's and customs." Peut-il y avoir rien do plus expriis que CO langago do la lol? Mais suit la Oc cla;uso qui f(iit ^a dimculK-, ct d cbiix qui prd- tcndcnt que lo droit anglais a «5td introduit ou conserviS pour les tcrres tenucs en franc et cottfmun socage, I'onpeut diro (jn'on n'introduit pas un sy.-temo do lois dtrangcres par unrmot, et £omme I'a dit, d lY^ard do I'offlce du Sh.5riff, Sir AV. Grant, danj unc cause c61ebre, " par cola quo dans uuo loi I'on a parkS d'un shdrifT, (mot anglais, office connu " en Angleterre) il ne s'en suit pas que cet office et lo's obligations do I'offlcier soicnt "Icsmfimes on Canada qu'cn Angleterre." Do mfeu^ pout-on dire, co semble avcc beaucoup do rajson: "parcequ'une tenure est tStablio en Canada semblable d unc qui " prdvaut en Angleterre, il *nc doit pas s'cnsuivre que dans la succession et lo rdgimo do " ces tcrres, dans tous les contrats et transactions, et dans I'administration do la justice, " relativcment d ces tcrres, il faudra avoir recours d un droit autre quo.celui du pays, ' " avec tons les dtJsavantagcs qui peuvcnt en r^sulter." Quoicjuo les lettiJes patentes ou toncessions royales do ces tetres fasaent mention do ce nouveau systcmc','je statut n'en dit rien, la 9o clause est muetto a cet dgard, et con9ue dans des tcrmcs ndgatifs. Lo statut dcvant fetre interprdtd dans lo sens le plus naturel, on no doit donner d la clause Oe qu'un effot limitd, quoique lea termes soient g«5n6raux, ct cela quant d la tenure qui ne doit pas Stre afFcct^o par cettc^ loi d«5claratoire, mais demourer tenure libre, ce qui n'a rien do contraire au droit du pays, sans qu'on puisse imagincr que I'intention dtait do reconnattre I'existence du droit anglais dans toute, son application aux hlens-fonds sous la tenure en franc ct commun socage, co qui, comme on 1'^ reconnu plils tatd. eftt c^iA la plus grand© confusion. Aussi n'a-t-oi),, agi quo dans ce ^ena Id ; dcspartagea do suc- cessions et des alienations nombrenses ont eu lieu d'apres Je droit du pays, je n'ose I'ap- peler meilleur, niais jo dirai qu'il est assur^mcflt plus avmtageux; et en ^ffot la loi do 182», ce proj^ do loi sanctionn6 apres qu'il avalt cess^ d'^xister, fait asscz [voir que I'ln- troduction d'un ftouveau droit au moins pour le pass^ eftt 6te pr^judiciabU Je suit du . nmnbre des-juges qui ne,considirent pa, le ttalut de lIU comme introduisant Lcune partie du droit anglais, et je suis d^avii que la reconnaiuance d^une ttuure libre, noh mjette d la maxime "nulle terre Ban, ,eigneur,'> mai, rigie par le droit dupays, e,t tout ce que la loi vo^ait, et que tout autre interpretation dtait inadmissible , car il faudrait dire que tout le droit anglais avait 6t6 introduit avant 1774, (chose absolument contredlte parle statut Aeme) et que la 9e clause avait I'eflfet de le conserver pour la re^ie des terfes en question dan, toute, ,e, partie,, pretention que personne n'a emise ctique le Statut de la 6e Quo. IV, qn'on a appeW loi declaratoire, contredit formellement, puisqu'il ne parle da droit anglais que comme reglant les alienations, les successions et le douaire. ex- cluant amsi I'idee d'un droit universe!. Or W Statut do U74 no dit rien de cela ; cette " ■ ■ " :" "." T"" " " ^°P*^'<^ ^ ' * " t w ftttefpfetittioirqgede cetleqw Jelui ai donnee . ftt qui n exclut pas la regie des terres de franc et commun socage par le droit commun » ' ■ * . ■ ■■■ rs-'-vJ t.- •■ < ■®^, ;v xxxi. * ■ ,■ da pay«, c'est-A-Uire lo droit tel qu'il etlgtalt lors de la cewlon da pay.. " The Law of Canada,' expres-ion forte du Statut Imperial. Si I'oa pretend quo ce. lolf ccVcof tamcB et cos usage, du Canada, doni parle le statut, ne doivent a'apjuq 'r aac a^ ' ment aux terre, tenucB et 6onc. raison En Canada nous alvons le testament suivant lea formes anglaisos, s'en suit-U que nous avons la loi des legs, Lex tettamentariaf Je sifis qu'on I'a pr^tendu, mais cette pr«tep- xxxii. tion, oommo tant d'autrei, lot^fouri pour introduirt portMt*mttU tt d ehaque oteaiim It droit anglaiM, n'» pu pr* suivant moi, I'introduction du droit commun dea anccesaiona d' Angloterre, (le droit an- glais qu'on etend an mode d'ali^nation Bans aucun pr^texte qnelconqne) excepts en antant qu'il pent arbir 6\& introduit par le Statut de la 6e Geo. IV, et qui n'eat pas dans mon opinion applicable an caa actael, poor des ali^nlations et snccesaions ant^rieures. cnlt^ A prononicer d'aprds notre droit commnn but le titre dea Demandenrs. Le jnge- ment eat formula demaid^re A ne pas repooBaer I'id^e qn'il serait fond^ Bnr.un droit ex- V^ ,. \ nx!li. ptloanel. Cert ponpinol H eiit prononc* A I'miantmlt*, qnolqne lei Jngei ne lolent pM toui d'accord lurcettoijueaUoa coobrofen4e, ctasquejugfl pouVMt avoir ion opinion partlculMra lur oe point Je Jnge dune U esate actnelle comma una action p^tltolra, on en rr? f ndlcatlon, et d'apr«i notre droit, J'al otaraind li lea Demandouri avalent ou non itabli un droit de proprWtA, Xal dft conildirer de iiiUe lei dllKrenti tltrei Invoqudi par eu». Ih lemblent «n Intoquer douie. Ill ne dovralent en arolr qu'un, et ce lera aaiex s'lla I'ont «Ubli. B. Opinion of tfr. Juitiet Pantl. Lower Canada Ileportii, Vol. 3, p.p. 3o7-9TR Pawl, /«sr«/— Lea AppclanU m plalgnent du Jugonjont qui lei a d^boutdi de Uur •cUon p*titolro, par laquuUe ill revcndiquaient, en 1836, oertaini loU de tcrre, doni J'IntlmA, luivant eux, I'dUit ii^uatcmont mil en poiioiiion. Cette action n'appartenant tju'au proprldUlre fondtf en titre, la premidre clioie A faire eit d'oxamlncr 1« litre dca AppolanU ; jcar li Iciir tHre i /ro./ Co»,««» d. /a #Vanr., were the Uw o^ the U„d. anif.dmini.tTred bf t^ bun.\. reguUted by the Co./. Civil or Orrfonnani. of 1007. li 1. w U ,m Ud ^ when .Country 1. obulncd by con,u,U or /r.a/^^tb. King JoMeMei In xi.lV: P erog.tive power over ^ and may entirely chanjror now Ldel the whole ojl/t " brh.m.df a'; '"' form of Gover„n.e«^ .„d m.y govern It by reguUtl'.l'™^ " of tlS, K „!' , , """V" • Oj^untry conquered by BritUh Arm. become, a domlnled " .utotLi^VhT'"""*'^; "" *''^"''''''' '-''«"""'» "»''" "'" «♦. " conqueror, U ■ubordln.te to hi. own authority In PaHiament, .oHhat Hi. Majesty cannot Lkelnr now change contrary to fundamenul principle., or exempt the l/habZLlJo^Z trained bjr any article, of .urrender or ce«ion ^^03^1^^^^^^^^^^^ "" """ « TlVrnnl f'n .1 """'" '' '•'"•"'^ **» *'" P"*^* ' *» '" "^ed by the French> ' "S^Parandl ri*^'*!ir" """"" "* »" '"^•"""'^ "-'«^'"« to the c's'm .< kT /' "" ai^ n.age« e>Ubll.hed for this Country ther ih.ll nnfT Itlo -^ Sr °'''" '"''''n *•'•" *■»«•" ""«">-" e.ubll.hedi;der L rich do^ ''rhet; . tL"CVV 1^-r""^»>J^»''« preceding article, and pa tfcularfyby the iMt. The Eoyal I^JeiogaUre i. thus dearly regerred in it. plenitude tl thl A^ ™ "'«»t Britain and F^ce, dated at Pari., the lOth Pebmarr. 1763 Canada... ceded to Great Britain «i, ^ noU ««;^ «an^ anifon., u,uSre»^t^^"T. ■ole covenant on the pa^t of (ireat Britain/ 1.: «« Hi. BritLiioMaiZron^^^^ •* ;; to grantthe liberty ,^ the Catholic rello to tili^brtlnS^ o'«^^ .equently give tj, «o.t elftctoal ordJ that hi. new Roman OaST.Jwrct^ Z •rZS'llI^S'' °'**f ""^lo^f "ilng to the rite, of the Romi.h Shtch," bn^ ^*i, tU. i, Umitwl expreMly by the m^ immediately following "«/ar«rm aa li uied and dlAscte.l In thoia " Colonies and Province of America, which afn umler our Immediate Oovcrnment ; and " we have alao given power to the eald Oovornora, with the content of our lald Oohn- " clla, nn.l the rcprctontiitlvoa of the I'eopio, lo to be lummoned m» aforeaald, to make, " conititulo and orilaln Law., and Htatutci and Ordhiancea for the public iwaco, wel- " furoflnd good Government of our lald Oolonlei^ and of the people aiid inhahltanti <■ . " thereof, a» ntar at may bf a^rtabU lo the Lawi o/finiflami, and umttr $urh regulations and " rtitrirtiont at art Mr, I in othtrColontii and in the nuan timt, awl untU luch aiumblit* tan •• ht ralltd at qforiiaid, all ptrimu {HAabiti^ /«, or rturting to our $aid ColonU$ may con- "fide in Our Royal Protection, for th* tnjoymmt of thtbtntftt of th« Uw* of our Rtalm of " England, for which purpott, we have given power under our Great Seal to the Governor* " of our laid Coloniet retpeetively, to erect and conttitute, with .the Udviee of our laid .; " 6'ott«c«.- retpeetively, OourU of Judicature and public Justice within our lald Coloniei, " for the hearing and determining all iau^ei, at welt criminal at civil, according to Law " and equity, and, as near as may bo, agrcablo to the Laws of England, with liberty to alt " per ont, who ntay think themielvet aggrieved by t e lentente of tuch Courtt in all eivU ^tautet, to appeal, un er the utuallimitaliontandrettrictiont, tout, i- our Privy CoimctV."" \ Under this Proclamation and the King's commission and Instractions, Civil Qovern- inent, in lieu of the military tribunals, was^eatablished in the Province of Quebec, on tha 1 0th of August, 1 704. The Loglslatl v« powep was wielded by the Governor and Conncn, and 5n the 20th September, 1764, an Ordinance was passed by their authority to which it is proper to advert at length, as the very existence of this act of legislation, as well as of many othirs, by the'iame autborityj Is hardly known at this time, no collection of them havi«g ever been made by authority, and the old printed copies being very rare ,The Ordinance commences aa follows: "Whereas upon the conquest of this Country " Her Majesty V Commander in Chief of the Forces, in America,' did order and direct ," justice to bo admibUtered to the inhabltanU thereof, by Courts established for that ^! purpose in the several OorernmenU into which this Province was at the time divided " of which Hv Majetty, through One of hit Secrttariet of State, wai pleated to tigni/y Ha ' " Royal approfiatim, and to command the tame to lubtut and continue untU Civil Government I " couW with propriety be tettled therein. In order to satisfy any doubt whjch might arise «• with regard to the flecisions of the said Courts, and as fitr as may be to prevent all " vexatioua law suits, which might, at present or hereafter, orUe therefrom, Hii, Excel- «? lency the Governor (General Murray,) by and with thugdvice, consent and itss^stance »i* / *•'"'' Majesty's Conncll, and in virtue of the power and authority to htm given by Hia ai« Majesty's Letters Patent, under the Great Seal of Great Britain, hath thought fit to .Harder and declare that, f^m the 8th day of September, in the year 1»60, the date of w the capitnlaUon of Montreal, nntti tha 10th day of August last, from whi ch U mi, pwit % 4^. *4- "*. tofrae*, I ♦• aovtrnmtnt took pUM* Utrou^hvut thif rtoMe; «H ordtn, Ju'lgiMnta or dccraM o# " ItM Mlllurjr Council ofQiHlMKi, «ii4 of all otiiar OoarU of Juatio* la Iha aaid Uotartt- •' mnt, or In thoaa of Montreal and Thraa-Rlvera, do aland appntvad, ratlflcd and oon- '• Irmad, and shall hava thair fiill force and airtect, aioapt In aiich < M«if wimrn Uia valu« " In diapiita ric(d«d tha aum of X.IOO *i«rlln|r, whan althar part/ roajr apiiaal to Har " M^Jeiljr'a (lo»ernor mA Council of ilia fruvlnea, provided auch appeal Imi liMlged with •• Iha Clarli or Deputy Olerk of Ilia Majaaljr'a OouacM of guebec, within two niuntha " after the publication hereof." " And It ia herehjr fbrther ordained and daolarad, that tha Judget, Juatteaa of lb* " Paaee «nd other Maflatrktai, or Olrll Offloara of th|a Prorlnce, whom It doth or m^ "" ouncarn, upon application of thaaitreral partlen, ihall put In eiccutlun ail such ordora, " Judirmenu or decreea of tha laid CwurU, the fame being pruparl/ aitaitod H not h«ving " bean already eieeutad." The Judgta, *o., nentlonned hara, are thoaa who wars appoinUd under another or " prior Ordinanca, of tlie iTth Heptcmhcf 1704. "'For regulating «nd eitaliiiiihing tha " Oourti of Judicature, Justiceaofthe Peace, QoarUrH«t«lon«, UailiiraandotbariMttan '• ralatira to the distrihutioB of Juatlca in tha Province. HThia Ordtaanea cotaniencee. " Wbareaa it ia highly axpedlant and aeoaiaary, for tha wall governing of Her JiiOeaty'e " good »iil>j«cta of the Province of Quebec, and for the apcady and impartial diatribution " of juatlce among the aama, that proper CourU of Judicature, with pro|)er powers and " authoritlea, and under propar regulationi, ibould b« eaUbliibed and appointed." " Ilia " Excellency the Governor, by and with the advice, conaentand asMlHtanco of Ui« ,Mttje|. " ty'a Council, and by virtue of the powera and authority to him given by Ilia Majesty's " Letters Patent 4o.," ordained and enacted "That tha Superior Court of Judicaturei " or Court qf Quitn'i B*neh, be esUbliahed in thif Province, to ait and hold terms in tha " Town of Quelwc, twice in every year, via, one to begin on the 21st day of January, " called Hilary Ttrm, and the other on the 21at day of June, called Trinity Ttrm, t» " thia Court HU Majeaty'a Chief Juatlce preaidei, with power and authority to hear and " deUrmine alt criminal and civil causes, oftruabl* to tk» Lau$ of England, and to tha ".Ordinancea of this Province, and fk-om thia Court an appeal Ilea to the Qovernor and " Council, when the matter in contest is above the value ofXaoo aterling, and from the " Governor and Council an appeal Ilea to the King and Council when the matter in con- " teat ia of the value of £600, storllrig, or upwards In all trials in this Court, alt " Ilia Majesty's subjects in Ibis Colony to be admitted on Jurloa without distinction , " and His Majesty's Chief Justice, once in every year, to bold a Coyrt of Asaiie and •• General Gaol Delivery soon after Hilary Term, at the the Towns of Montreal and ".Three-Rivera, for the more easy and convenient distribution of justice to Uia Mtgesty'a " subjects in tho«e distant parts of the Province. " And whereas an Inferior Court of Judicature, or Court of Common Pleas, Is also " thought necessary and convenient, it ia ftirther ordained and declared, by the autho' ' rity aforesaid, that an Inferior Court of Judicature, or Court of Common Pleas is " hereby established, with power and authority to cetermine all questions of property " " above the value of ten pounds, with liberty of appeal either to the Superior Court' or '< Court of King's Bench, when the matter in contest is of the value of X20 and up> «• wards. M, trial* in f At* Court to be by Juritt, \f dnutndtd by t thir patty, and thii Court "to tit and hold tu)o tirm* in tvtry year, tie., The Judget m thii Court an to determint " agreable to equity, having regard neverthelttt to the Lauit of England,atfar at circuni' '* ttaneti, and the pretent tituation qf tkingt will admit, until tuch time at proper Ordtn-^ « aneetfar the ii^formation of tkt people can be ettablitktd, bj tht Governor and Coim- " eU, agreable to the LHwt of England. 3%alV«iM>A 2;atef and euttomt to bt allowed > *' admitted in M eautet, in ait Court, betmeen the nativet of thit Province, " eautt of action or ote before theflrtt day of October, 16«4. The firtt proci <* to be an aitaehment againtttht body. Jn ^irteution to go f A^ ipraciiM Wtkit QnartF' TH ■^ •^ "', 'I 1 '■ ^ r \ \ ' 1 ) , « 't i 1 ■ :,' I?' -f »<, »- '■■•■f^'.' All civil canges bolow the juriBdiction of the Common Plean wen iMe triable fir Justices of the Peace. An Officer called th^ ProvoH-Martk^l wa» appointed to act L Tm "1 "««=""«•• of P™c"«. and until the arriral from-England of a person to fill tnis office, provision was made by the appointmenf of Bailiflb. The commission appointing WilHaip Gregory. Esquire, the first Chief Justice of the Province, is'dated the 24th August, 1764, and it directs him "Ho inquire by the oaths of honest and lawful men of the Province aforesaid, and by other lawfcl ways, methods and means by which you can or may the better know, as well within their liberties as " without, of all civil pleas, actions and suits, as well real and personal, as mixed bet- 'ween us and any of our subjects, or between party and party by whomsoever had, ^^ brought ^ued or commenced, and of all other articles and circumstances, the premises " or any of them in any wise, and the said pleas, actions and suits, and every of theny ^' " to hear and determine, and the same do and fulfil In form aforesaid, dblng therein that '••which to justice doth belong and 'appertain, according to \he4aw and cuttom of that " part of our Kingdom of Great ftfi/am callfd England, andthe^law,, ordinance., ruletand' " reguhtiM* of our $ai^ Province of Quebec, hereafler in that behalf to be ordained and " made." ' ,, The Commigslon appointing William Hey, Esquire, the second Chief Justice, is dated! . the 25th September 1766, and Is in the same terms. ' ■ ■^ An Ordinance " for jegistering grants, conveyances, and other instruments in writing of or concerning any lands, tenements or hereditaments within this Province" passed the 6th November, 1764, recites the instructions of His Most Sacred Majesty to the Oover- no#, bearing date at St. James the 7th December, 1763. in relation to the registration jj of grants and deeds, and enacts among other things "that the due execution of every I " deedor conveyance, of what nature sofever which shall hereafter be made of or con- " cerrtng any lands, tenemenU or hereditaments, within this Province, shall be proved " before the said Begistrar or ,I)eputy Registrar, or other person qualified for that pur- '« pose, either by personal acknowledgment of the grantor, vendor or mortgagor in such " deed yr conveyance respectively named, or by the oath of one or more subscribing " witnesses to the same, which acknowledgment, or proof of the due eieputidn of such " " deed or conveyance, shall be endorsed on the back thereof, and signed by the Regis- » " trar or his Deputy, or other person thereto anthorized as aforesaid, which endorse- « ment, shall be allowed as evidence of the due execution of any deed or conveyance in " any of His Majesty's Courts of record in this Province, and every deed or conveyance " of or concemteg any lands, tenements or hereditaments, in this Province, shall, with- " in the space of forty days next after the respective dates thereof, be registered in the «' said office In words at length, and^r want of such registry every such deed or con- " veyancis^ shall be adjudged fraudulent against any subsequent purchaser for » -ralua. " ble consideration." '~^ " Anothe^ ordinance was pMsed the same day, 6th Noveftiber 1764, by whidh it wag " - ordained and declared, that until the 10th day of August ^ext ensuing, that is th6 year of our Lo^, 1765, the tenure of the lands in respect of sncli grants as werei>rfor to the eemon o/| the Province, by the definitive Treaty of Peace «^ed at Paris on tiio Wth February: 1763, and the rights of inherUance at praetiitd before thatp^, mtuch landt or effects] of any nature, whatsoever, according to the custom of the Cotintiy, dUmld remawi to all intents and pnrposes the same, unless they shoald be altered by Bome de- clared {uid positive l|ws. The statement made by Paron Hoseres, respecting these Ordinances and the Oonrta established by them, Is verifled by the judicial records of the Country, in the Court of Appeals before the Oovemor «nd OonneU, as in the other Oohrts. " These Courts srit mdiw»ted4tetetLyare together ttg^ ^^^^ trwsts Vere pade in the Proirtnce, upon the'sapposmoa that these laws were ^%tdr in it and were likely to continne ijo .'' , ( ] |j__ ■. (1) Additional papers oonoemlng the Froriuoe of (toebeo^ Lradon, 177S, 4^: \ nzix. •>.■'. ^^^^^^^^X!''^^ '" ^^'^ "'«" --4 " ^ the efftct of by the Wof Pari '•( ; T leStVor '^0^1 ''"'""'' .'4 ''' ^"'°"""' ""^"'^ questioned, ?ut It has been TterZl? wl ""'" "'^'r *° '»*'' »'««"' "Is" Charter oil 3U. year of the rZ oA \TT '" ^'''T'' <^> *'«'' ''^ '"« was erecte^authori^to Xl-^^ IndtiVTT "' '"'''^'^*"'° habitants, and to award. and issue out wLlKexpc r/r"'- ''"'''"'"''''' *"- nant jpto possession of the houses, Und? trelnu ^ .7 i'""'"* '^" """P'"" .pecially a.Uudged to them, the LaV of L^irfar as tlh^ which should be situation of Gibraltar, were made the law of thaipTaceY^ll ^^ ".' ""'""' *° ""^ real or personal. The Charter to GibZill Z I « ^"^'"^ °^ ^""^'^^ ^''«'''" of EnglL be the meLurrof /nl^to be adf ^^^^ '^"J"''"' ""'"' '"''"'' '''« '"^^ ««y 6e.» The Phrase. " JJaVr^S ^^^wT: I-'k •'''' P""'" " "^"^ "» mation of 17C3, and is similar to^rflr all? ^ the same wh.ch is used in the Procla- : things" as used in our Ca^^^r,^^ ^ CZ^"T "r *^'' '''"""' ^•'""""" °^ Hall, (3) as to the King's Prerbgate p„:er wS ?or a cSfd O 'T^'''" "' now to be fully acquiesced in and to havo tri...^ T ? »aws for a ceded Country, seems- le found appInde'dlHoweCut^^Si^^i^^T^^^^^ usage in some of the old Cdlonie^ on this Continent a^; I ." P"""'" ""^ doctrine. The introduction of the Laws of EnLTa^i r;i^ ? '" accordance with this matter of fact that cannot be denied and t'is e^u n 1 1 rr'^ '"^S"*''^"' '« '^ only restored ana reintroduced by tL Statu!: rf^uX II caT ^3^^^^^^^ tute now comes to be conatniPd fnr «n «».» « \. ' ^^- °^- ^'"^ Sta- case. Th..preaIblesrTutwUr^^^^^ Uon declares that its provisionr- in re pS J, iLctlZ "' '^''- '''"' '''' ''''^ "tkereof, (^Ae PrLwl)Lr*- tSl' ^ contusions U^^j, ^,^^, " Conquest to above 05,Ooij.rsontp^.7eZngte^^^^^^^ '^^ »»>« « and property had been protected, iroverned and ord«r!"^ 7 WicA therf persons -from the first establishment of th^^i^roZe ofSfnat'-C^^^ enact « That the said Proclamation, so for al ^11 , f iV . ^'^ P'°"''^* *° ;; Quebec, and the 0«^.,^ „^,;ri:^t;^-^^W^ "vince U at present administered, and al and evervTeVdL^^ T^f ''''* ^^'^ arrive, viz: the 1st May IMS, impliedly and Bec3urS' 'r "^ ^*^ *° Parliament of Great Britain of thLuZrkr J^ n^^- ' * recognition, by the^ gives them a LeglslativeTrUo^tni VaJ^^^^^^^^^ "r"'^^'"-^' ^' must certainly remove all doubts as to theTelutv oJ^l^^^^^^^^^ '\ ""'' "'»">"'«>. the Cplony, previously to the 1st Mav ms tJ oL P- '" "'"'""^ '^ >'"' » " ■'»■ -O) Bnrge, ColeuM Laws. JVe^mfanuy tlCKtise laXTT (a) 8 Kn^ip's Bep. 150 Jepbwn v^Biei*, . WlCowpwaWL 1^ In •Wfs < ■■'•'. :. :^ ■ ■-■' A •;?'.■ ./■ ■ : ■ '• -« \ -1 • I J >i fe pi-' Fl wk' p\ i' " as targe, ample and beneficial manner, as if the said Proclamation, Commuriont, Ordi- " nancei and other actt and initrumenti, had not been made, and at may conritt with their " allegiance to His Majeity, and tubjectUm to the Crovm and Pat liament of Great Britain. > " And that in all matters of controversy, relative to property and civil rights, resort' " shall be had to the Laws of Oanada as the Rule for the decision of the same, and all " causes that shall hereafter be instituted in any of the Courts of Justice to be appoint- " ed within and for the said Province by His Majesty, shall, will respect to such proper- " /y ' and rights, be determined agreeably to the said laws and customs of Canada, " until they shall be varied or altered, &c." The terms, Hi$ Majeety's Canadian tubjectt when taken with the context, imply the new or French Canadian subjects, in contra- dist^inction to the old subjects to whom tlie Proclamation of 1763 was more particularly applicable. The section is conceived in the future, it refers to the Courts thereafter to be appointed, not to the existing Courts, which, until the 1st May, 1116, wore to continue to administer the Law of England, "as near as may be" according to their constitution. . Now follows the proviso which is all important. Section 9. " Provided always, that nothing in this Act contained ihall extend or be construed to extend, to any lands that have been granted by His Majesty, be, to be holden in free and common socage ; " by section 10, containing another proviso as to the power t6 devise or bequeath by last Will and Testament, " such Will being executed either according to the fiaws of Ca- nada or according to the forms prescribed by theLaw^ of England." The 11th Section after reciting " whereas the certainty and lenity of ibe Criminal Law of England, and the benefits and advantages resulting from the use of it, have been sensibly felt by the inhabitants /rom an experience of more than nine years during which it has been uniformly administered," enacts, " that the same shall continue to be administered and shall bp observed as law in the Province of Quebec, to the exclusion of every other rule of Crim^ nal Law, or mode of proceeding thereon, whicb, did or might prevail in the said Pro^ vince, before the year of Our Lord 1764.*" 'The wise policy which dictated the restora- tion'of the old Laws o.* Canada, in 1774, as better adapted to the wants of the Colony^ than the system in practice, since the year 1764, equally required that the grants of ^ land jn free and common socage made by the Crown nnder the Proclamation of 1763, to the companions in arms o^Wolfe, and to the old colonists of Great Britain, shoud be respected, and' that the LaWof England should continue unimpaired .to be the govern- ing law as to them. Whil^ Justice required that the old. law of real property should subsist as the general rule, the honor of the Grown and the faith of the State, were pledged ^ mai^ain the grants made in "free and common socage according to the taui*' of England;" the new subjects, the French Canadians, in obtaining such a boon as was conferred by the Quebec Act, never could expect that limits should be put upon the pPfWer of the Sovereign to make grants of lands, whatever hia jus coronee, and which it was as competent for him to dispose of under an English tenure, as. it was to his prede- cessor to do the same by a French one. Notae could object to a grant in soccage by the King of Great Britain, with its incidents, more than to a grant iafiffot in franc cAleu, whether according to the Coutume de Paris or that of Vexin le Frangais or any other, by the King of France, with their incidents. Indeed history has shewn, that, the people of Canada, content #ith the provisions of the Quebec Act of 1774, plung to their /alle- giance to the Crown of Great Britain, at the very timOi when, her old colonists repa* diatedit. - . / The British Act of 1791, the 3 1st Geo. IIT, cap. 31, which divided flie Province of Quebec, into Upper and Lower Canada, next deserves to be mentioned. The 43rd sec- tion enactk : " that all lands which' shall hereafter be granted within the said Province of Upper Canada, shall be granted in free and common soccage, in like manner as binds arc now holden in free and common soccage in that part of Great Brittdn called England, -andJAfflt-ttt-CTf ry case ij&£re,faiitirfi thallJ ^ LAetarfter4sraat t d. within the la i d. P r atinet ef -. y Lower Canada, and whore the gratdee thereof Aall desire the same to be granted in free and liomlim '« "^""^ «' primogeniture tn ^f U„7 ? *• 7"" """"'"'' *''•• *"*" «'»"*^ distribution, amongihe chil- lext'and la^t ZiTZ' ""^ ^""'^ ''"'''"'' '''' P'"''*^"'^^ «^ future alterations. The '6th Geo TV ^"^t^?*"^' *" '''' "«""'»«'» on this.headis the Canada Tenures A^,- m^rll ut '^■''^' 8th section of which it is declared in f.press terJT Zf J^rt/f^*'^"^ "1 ''"""' '■'* ^'"'" ^^ ^"^^"H or according , to aU intenH and'pupolee vAateoZ, Zi^^^d ■ S. T*^ f/"» "'^ *«"» ^' '^ «««-««' « conformity to euch rllee and^.t^. and executing the samey good and anOnin»t t^ ^«»— .^i . . ■ * g ood a nd a n fllci ent to jqumUftOM-sacli^gwuto, Ae.,OT'.\.: J I k*: »*-^> ■: ^tho>Bpondent, and an attempt lias been made to get rid of it altogether. I confeal /that I am startled at this attempt toexpunge from the Statute Book a law which took it«' p.ace there, and stood npon it^nnimpeached as long as the Legislature of Lower Canada ^tself had an existence, and which has survired that Leg1slatu«>. This Statute wai brought prominently under the notice of the old Court of King's Bench for Quebec Iq the case of Hunt and Tait, and afterwards in the Provincial Court of appeals, and neither at the Bar nor from the Bench, Uk either of these Courts, was its'ralidity eyor fluestloned. Though the Royal Assent to it was not-signified within tbe space of two Jrears, as required by the Constitutional Act, of the Sls't .«e5. Ill, cap. 31st sect. 33 it was proclaimed as law in the Provhice by Royat Authority, under a Special Act of the .Impeml^Pariiament to that efftect, equally binding and conclusive id this respectas the OoBstitutionalActliielf. The Proclamation was mode in Quebec, on the 1st September. ■ *V ' it " *'"'*' ''^^ • "^ *'•'' "*•» November, 1830, the decision was pronounced in the case of Patersonrf «/., and McCallum rta/., the great case of defective Htlts in Ireland, says ; that it led to. a more general inquiry: (1) MetUn, E6pertolre, vbo Fief, sect, a, 5 4, No. 8. 0) 1Vait6 de la Ckmdition desJFemmei, p. 208, et seq. • v» xliii. legliiiti What the rwervation of a tenare is to the grant 7 Whether it be a part of the gfflit and the modu* cnutuUmU, or whether it be a dUtinct thing et aliud from the grant:" In Whatever way this may be answered, 9ir Henry Spelman himself, p. 19, gives instances W m /-5u""'i"* ^^ ^'"*"' ^''**'' '*'^'"»'^'^ "P"" "»'«■"««>» conditious, dependent upon the will of the. Sovereign, and .shewing that this «i/«„/« donaioru, fteedom of will, might be communicaled to the granteein the disposal of the land after his death. po»t Wum ratm cutcunqw toluerU hatedi TXt^m, and that he was left to frame hU own rule orsuocession. - ^ t«£!S!'! ^'I!*°7f .*''■ *'*"°"""' ^^' ^ "2, the course of descents in England is tfaccd nXto the^naal grants of land. or s„*!in V'!u .'^,"' ''"••''^ '•"P*''^' ''*P- ^' P- ^^VP'i" *"«» tJ^e '«!« of descent . ,L , « .r\ "''*' «"""'' *''-^*^" "O »»»« alienation of property, p. 90. The . very definition oWage land as given in Woodson's lectures. Vol. 2, S. 22, is "soccage 'r«cowr«J/«wiMeJKng', S'tqjerior Co«r/«..(l) Jhfc rules as to alienation, descent and devise of Soccage lands are inseparable from tte tenure, and can only be those of the Law of England. No hardship was Imposedby ^e Crown In ««*,„g these grants originally by the soccage tenure, the acceptance of ■^ '"nq was voluntary, and the condition was made known to each succeeding puiir Chaser from the grantee, and must have been tacitly adopted by him. Just as lands en ^e/arede8cendible„,by one rule, and those en rwture by another, the free and common Boccage tenure carried with itjts own rule of descent and aUenaUon. X . ..■■■-.■ Opinion of Mr. /«*/fce Dmimgue Mondelft in Stuart v. Bownum. Lower Canada Re- ports, Vol. 3, p.p. 898-407, . * ..^"i^*: •^«*^.--^the ex^minaUon of the cause, I shall eonfine myself stricUy to the judicial aspect of th^uesOons which it pre8en^ avoiding all topics that do not ' directly lead to a legal condlusion. A succinct review of some o^the various phases of the Legislative history of Canada, precludes inmy^ind the necessi^f inliuirlng into the effects of a change of domina- tiononou^sy8teiii<^(^U^a,a8 withW adverting to any principles of public or inter, bational/aw, it will bJ found that the riile of decision, in the present case, is written . jn^severiil acts of positive enactment, as wWof the Imperial as of the locaLLegisla- lures. /A few gemtral principles being setjlk, this, like every case, must, after all. depend upon it8>vn particular circumstances. Ntis therefore a pure act of superero! gationlto aclniowledge that the Canadians werefuMy entitled to the preservaUon of their property, and that their laws add usages remalne>intact, until abrogated by com- f. pe>nt authority : the ancient state-of the law, whateverVwas, continued, and of that '; bf' thfe changes, if any, it has undergone, the Acts of the Legislature, and of the ^ ^t, ought to be authentic »nd decisive evidence : ^hUlu on the other hand U ' at indncemettts were held out to tje old subjects, which^eing followed by «pd in^ Acts of Legislation, were Acta of national faith, bhidingupon the- the British nation. As Acts of national law, it was equally esseht^l that the ' '' ^weSupremeLegislatureoftheBmptfeshouldbeadequatetotheirc^truction - *K. « *T!"? c " "" ""** ** *• »"**«* ^r *^« Proclamation of 1763, wbLh was - U Ltfv. mld not have, and 1«« ntft had, any legal eflbct for establishing any plS. SSeirr.l'r'a^'** *'^%^^- --detosay: "We have given power, nnW In. !« ^itw **"**,7^»Vd eounciTs, napecttWly, Courts oTT^cature and publiT . Joitice withm our .aid Colonies, for the hearing and determining aU ckuses, as weU I. ' w • : -■^ ,^,. . \' :l\ ''^& "-^ii JW *Bnn»«^l»JU»;^lBoocsgB»-iPMrtonon«tate^a«vaa -•r— ' - n-- ^ crfmlnnl ns civil, according to law'and equllj, and as near as may b«^ agrcablo to Ih ,=> Laws of England," Ac, Ac. From the period at whic^ Canada became a Brirlsh Tro- ; vince. up lo the Quebec Act, justice would appear l6 hare been ildmtni^tcrcd according to both tbe English and French Laws ludiffbncntljr, on the -autborltl- of Ordinances enacted by General Murray, and others liaYing^tho administration of. the tiorcrnraent *■ (luring this Interval of time. This Is abundantly proved by the judicial recdrds of those t.mes. ' , I • The Act of 1YT4 comes next" in order, and in the 4th section It Is^ciiacted "that th« " suifl Proclamation, (of llG3) so far as the same related to the said Province 8f Qucfccc/ " and the commission uud«r the authority whereof thOgovcrno'ent of the said Province "iis at presrnt administered, and all and every the Ordinance and Ordinances, made by. , " the Governor and Council of (Jucbcc, for the time being, rerative./o the A»»7 Govem- " ment and adminUlralion o/jtutice in the said Prorince, and all commissions to Judges " and other Officers thereof, be and the same are hereby revoked, annut'ed] and made ".voidjfrotn and after thefirtt day of 3Iay, 1116." In this we find ^ mcognltion of the Ijowef under which the Governor and Council of the Pro'vipce of Quebec, passed Ordin-" ances and established Courts of Justice, clearly evidenced by the terms revoked, annulled and made, void, and by the limitation of the tfane at which these Ordinances should ccaSo to have force. It becomes Bet^ssary, therefore, to cnqoir-- Into the" nature of these Ordmanccs, and by a reference to a collection of them published at Quebec fn Hal by ' Brown and Gibsone, by authority, (It Is presumed) we find an Ord nance passed in Council, at Quebec, the iTth September, \lQi, signed Jas. Murray, p. C, constitutrng Courts of Justice and ordaining among other things, that in the Cc urt of Common Pleas, having jurisdiction in civil matters, " The iudge*In this Curt, ire to'dctermino ^^ according to equity, having regard nevertheless to the Laws of Engla nd, as iar as the ^^ circumstance? an.d present situation of thlu|p will admit, until sueli tlm^^as proper ' ^^ Ordinances for the Information of the people, can be established by the Governor and" , ^^ Council} agreeable tonho Laws of -England. The Fren^liJrtitvs and customs to bo - 4 „ "^^f^^^ nnd admitted in all causes/n this Court, betweeVthe natives of this Province, Mkhen the cause of action arose boforp the first day of October, lW4." ■ By the two last Aregoing e,xinjks, two points are established ; Ist the Introduction ^ and administration. In part, of the Laws of England ; 2nd the sanction by the British Pnrliament^oftheauthority under jvhlch they tvere introduced. , . ^^ Reverting to the Qffebec Act, {\1U) the 8th section provides^ that "in all matters of ^ . ^^ controversy, relative to property and civil rights, resort shall be had Ho the Law of ^ ' " Canada, as the rule for the decision of the same ; and all causes^bat shall hereafter _^ "■ " ^e instituted' in any of the Courts of Justice to be appointed within and for the said . |« Province, by His Majesty, his heirs andrsncctessors, sJ^ll, with respect to snch proper- " *y ""^ ''S"''**. be determined agreeably to the said laws and customs of Canada, until « they shall be varied or altered by aiiy^Ordiaanoe that shall from time to time be passed " Hf the said Pfovince, by the Governor^ Lieutenant Qoremor or Commander in Chief , " for the time being, hy and with the adyice of the ^.egislatiTO Oennell of the same, to « be appointed in mataher hereinafter mentioned." This se(?tion is followed by a pi;0Tiso . contained in the 9th section, in the woWs following : <' Provided always that nothing ia " this Act contained, shnll extend, or be construed to extend, to any lands that have " been granted by His Jlajest^, , or shall hereafter be granted by His Majesty, his beir« 'Vnd successors, to be holden fn fiee and common socage," ^nd of this it is sufficient . to say that taking tbis*proTiso according to a well known rule ofrfjonstruculn in refbr- ence to tubjectam materiam, it must be restricted to what immediately precedes in tUo section which it qualifies. By the Impcrial^ct SI Xleo. III,o. Slst, section 43. it is provided " that In evBrr ««■» . — T-^'-Whei^'liSrdffsBaU bS hereafter grrnted within the said Province of Lower Canada, and^ .. . " ^b«re the grantee thereof shall desire the same to be granted in free and common *.«' aoccage, the same shall be so granted, bat subject nevertliBless to sneh altentioiu. .^ X\f, Mt tn ere iy caaa with respect to th« nature and conttqueneti ot tuch tennre of free and common soccage, •^ M may be established^ by anjr law or laws which may be made by HU Majesty, lis ^^ heirs or succoisors, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and " Assembly of the Province," If. this provision mean any thing, iU plain legal import must be taken to be that not only the tenure of free and common soccage, but also that ^ ^11 Its legal consequences are latroduced whenever any lands are gnnttd, according to that tenure. ' The 6 Geo. 4, cap. 69, conUlns the following enactment in the Sttijection :— , ' And whereas doubts have arisen wkether lands granted in the said Province of Lower Canada, by His Majesty, or by iny of his Royal predecessors, to be holdcn in ^ free and common soccagy^hall bq held by the owners thereof, or will subsequently "pass toother persons, according to the rules of descent 'and alienation in force in « England, or according to such rules as »i^ esUblished by the ancient laws of the srfid Province, for the descent^nd alienation of land situate therein : Be it therefore declared and enacted, that all lands within the said Province of Lower Canada, which " have heretofore been jfranted bjr His Majesty, or hf any of his Royal prodecessors, to any person or persons, their Mm and assigns, to be holden in free an^ common " socca^p, or which shall p?' may hereafter i)e so granted by His Majesty, bis heira And " sufcessoTB, to any person or persons, their heirs apd assigns, to U holden in free and " cotemon soccage-, may and 8^11 be by such ^frantees, their heirs and assigns, held, ^^^ granted, bargained, sotd, aliened, conveyed and disposed of, and may a4d shall pass " by descent in fiuch' manner and form, and upon and under such rules anA restrictions, I as are by the law of England estoblished and In force, iji reference to le grant, bar- gain, sale, alienation, convej«nce, disposal and descent of l^nds holden bv the like : ^ tenure, therein situate, or to the dower or other rights of i£»rrlcd womai In. such " lands, and not otherwise, any law, custom or usage tb the contrary in any wise riot- " withstanding: Provlded.nevertheless, that nothing herein contained shall extend to " preve.nt Hia Majesty.With the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and " assembly of the Province of Lower Canada, from making and ehactiug any such laws ".and Statutes as may be necessary from tife better adapting the before mentioned rules " of the Laws of England, or any of them, to the local circumst^inces and condition of " of the said Province of Lower Canada, and the Inhabitants thereof." On the character of this Stature, some diverslty'of opinion exists, wfietier it be a de- claratory law or whether It provide for the future only. Of the fact of \doubt8 having arisen ini relation to the mode- ii» which l&nds In free" and common sdccaVe were to be held, it contains authemic a'rid decisive evidence! Xhis assgrtion by coml»etent autho- , rity Is no more gainsaid than its power can be denied, of finally settling the law on this matter,: for what it has done, has beefi effected by virtue of that sovereign power of Parliament, called Omnipotent, which it were futile to question. If presente itself with two unmistakeable characters of a declaratory Statute : the enunciation of doubts on the ' construction of previous laws, and tbe use of particular words ^iipensable in the phraseology belonging to*that class of Statutes, aud to that cl^s only;,' The reason for Includmg tliem is obvious, aid if the fact of , doubts existing be not siisceptible of dis- pnte, their use Is entirely conclusive. - « ^ The next and the la^t Act of Legislation having relation to this subject, iathe Pro- ^' vinclal Statute, flth and loth Oeo, IV, c. 11. In it are tecited, as well the 8th section of the above recited Imperial ^t«Ltuto of the 6th Geo. IV.c.M.as its proviso, the autho- ' rjty of the Provincial Legislature for maMng the provisions in the present Act contain- ed, and also the clansef of the Imperial Act, 31st, Geo. Ill, above recited, and it then proceeds, among other enactments, as follows: "Whereas should proprietors of land „ " granted in free and common, soccage be deprived of the protecUpn o| the Laws of this • » ^'^J^'^^^J^ P^*!*** advantages resulting from the customs received and established •\ \ ■ v.. ..■■!■ -V^:. - . J, ''t^WOVi^tttempmW^WWolWToFliminn&on of thi « rights they have acquired, and up to this day hare fcxercisedand enjoyed, «■ attached « to 8Dch landB or real propertiea, or to the possession of such lands, so granted in frw -^^-.l /: 1 Vt'- •' and common .occag«, And whereaa dlreri InhablUntt of thli proTlnce, '.nd o?h««, .r« now .cl«d and posseisod of .andrjr land., and other immoroahlo prop«rtr, in fteo and common ioccag., ritnato within the ProTlnce of Lower Canada, and hold th« .amobr and m virtue of granti., bargains, sate., enfcofltaenta, alienation., gift., ex- .. irr,^. ''T !' .'^'""'"*'' "'"'*"'' •»'»'"•"«'. "8ht of dow*r, or other conrTyan- „ f ' "' „ °f • '"'*' *" """^ ««•<> ''«'™. fro" •uch rulciind reBtrlctlon. a. are by the J, ^ ...r^f,®"^'''";' ««'"''"»'»««» «''™f«'«»<« to .uch grant., bargain., MKenftom^^^^ f • . ""S":""""' «'""' ««•"'"««». <»'-P<>«'«. dceenU, deTl-o., Inherltince, right of dow^ ' " mZllll"* 5° r P^Priotor. of ,uch lands, and confirming to them the lawtbl P0MM.10U and enjoyment of the .ame notwithstanding that such grants, bargain. ^^ an e, right of dower or other convoyanpos, do or may differ from such rules Ind rc.i " it V " Z/rh ^ the Law of England, ostablishml in reference to the same, r^.pec " mln^ • u T 7" ^ " "'"° """"'•''y *""* "P«'''«°» '« •'"»ct and dedart, In what , manner such lands as are now holden, or shall or may hereafter bo hild In fVee and !*' ' ^ /"•"^';''**'^*°^J^"°° »'?*'««'« whomsoo^r, art, or BhaUbe'thepropri7top or pos- - '. cZlT^^7 u"^ ^?' '"'^'" """ common soccage within tL Province of Lo^r "Soltv thf V r "".^ «v.y«nce of any such lands or other Immovoabte ' " Wiredttf not made and executed according to the rules and restrictions esta! ■< Zr;r„T ' *^ '' "''''°^'' ^'^P"'*"^' "^''«'*°*»' ^«^'»««' inheritance, right of dower or other conveyances, shall be, and they are hereby declared to be, as good and them, had been made aud executed In conformity to such rules and restrictions as ' :^'3'^7~^''^"''^'^r^«'^''''t-<'»>^''»t«rAc.&c.^^ each and every ithem ^^ct.vely, were, at the time of making and executing the same, good and sufficient " he t'Z o'f" w ^T' *":**'•' ""'''""^ '*" ''^ "«''«« '» foroe'irthls Province, at ' the time of mak.ngand execuUngthe same, and that as fully and amply, toall intenta ' and purposes, as iflhc said rules and restrictions of the lai „f Epgi^had t^ . been .n force, or had ^t been so declared to govern and allbct the trf nsfe , aUenXa " soccrrrTr "'' "^ """" '"""'"^""'' '•^p"'*^- «« ^-'^ - f'« "^"^ «>">«o; soccage, any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding" - • , The 3rd 4th and ;5th clauses protect the lights of baiUeuri de fonde, and privUeired and hypothecary creditors. . y , -uu pnviiegea A proviso is contained in the Cth clause to the following eflHsct :::>-KrOTlded alwav. ' and be.it further enacted, 4c.. that when any proprietor^f W.nd, ^^''^ SS free andxommon soccage in this Province, '.Aa/aaw diedbe/bre the passing of thU^ without having partitioned the, same, eitber by last will and testament, oToLrw^oT - the heirs of such proprietor shall be held to partition attch lands accbrfing to the oW "Itik^^Itp^uS'"^^ . ^The Provincij Statute pwsepted for the Boyal sanction, and W8ervedl4th. Mar«L ' !S?' Tu """^"f f ^ *^ HH, late Mi^ty, Wflliam the Fourth, in Council, 11th Mv» 1831. The Royal Assent was sigbified by the Proclamation of Hia Excellency, th«th« Governor in Chief of Lower Canada, let September, 1831. R,.U_^J /< roTlDce, an^ otlwrt, ilo property, in ft-ea nwia, nnd hold th« lenationi, gifts, ex- or otiier conrojan- ctloDS as arc by ttie Mies, enfboifhieiits, ic«, right of dower to make proTlsiona thom tho lawful 1 grants, bargains, ts, derises, inheri- luch rules and rcs^ > the same, respec- id declare in what t)0 Iield in flroe and da, shall and may •re onaoted by tho at all such grants, doBconts, dorisos. lever, by or in rir* proprietor or pos- Other immoreable *rorinco of Lower «siag of this Act. >ther immoreable ' restrictions csta- ins, sales, enfeoff- oritaoce, right of ;o be, as good and each and every of id restrictions as d erery of them >od and sufficient this Prorinco, at ply, to all intents ;land, had nerer tnsfer, alienation t^ and common I and priTOeged !rOTlded always, nted or held in utingo/thitslcl t, or otherwise, "'- rding to the olcl themselres upon ed'l4tb,Mar% noil, nth May» Uency^ the then' f rf. fr. of ;io^ "fc".^''r '" "•'* "'"•'"'' '^^•iiP '«'^" '«"' "«-'«-' -'th'n the Auent ht iJ ''^%*^ '•; ''*^ «"'"""' •»«"' blt« been nresented for His M^.ty'. ^f this Plolin^ K\ "t""!,''"'"^ administering the Gorel,eVt assenud to and h#^norw the force of l.y. The Imperial Act, l William IV, c. 20, een-' which had he„toore g*ol«r. The rule rupomUat tuptrior luppoiea the gkoler to be the HIieriflT'e lervant which he wai not In tbli inrUnea. A % w ^^ No. 4. Opinion of Mr. Juttkt lUU. Vidt Stnart'a Reporti, pp. 434-436. RiiD, 0«. J. The queition to be now decided li one upon which Tarioui opinions have been entorUined. It li whether an acf, aulhtntiqui, and general mortgage of all prcMi\t and future proi»ertjr, can eflbot landi in flree and common wccage. The court ar« ' conrinced that, under the lawi of thii country, when properly eiplained, landi .held In flree and common Boccage, cannot be lo .effected. The statute of 1774, (the Quetwc act,) directs, as a general principle, that " in all matters of controversy relative to property and civil rights, recourse shall be had to the laws of Oanada, as the rule for the decision of the same ," but by thq next section It is provided, " that nothing in this act shall ei- tend, or be construed to extend, to any lands that have been granted, or shnll hereafter be granted by His Majesiy in free and common soccage." It is true that the parliament ,^ of Great Britain did not thereby in terms determine by- what rule the clvH law should be administered with respect to such lands, but It follows,, that this «^xceptlon being made as to lands held in free ^nd common soccage, that is by the tenure by which lands are almost universall/held In England, the legislature could alone mean that the same law as gpverns lands In fret and common ^socdage in England, should govern lands ^ similarly situated here. Doubts and difflouUies have, however, constantly arisen, and for ft long time existed, a variety of opinions have been formed thereon, and the laws of Canada, having, notwithsUnding, been construed toexteqd to such lands, considerations of the Injurious consequences that would arise to esUtes and families, if the subject welhe to remain longer Involved In those ^doubts and difflctltles, caused the Act of the lmj)erlal parliament of the 6th Geo. IV, to be passed, after which, if any doubU existed, th^y must be removed, for by that declaratory statute, lands in free and common soc-^ caio in Canada, are declared to be subject to the same laws, modes of succession, con- Tejliance and alienation, as lands in free tufd common soccage in England. Now, how canjlt be said that a papfcr drawn up before a notary, not specifying any particular lands, can have any reference to what is understood by a mortgage In the laws of England. A mortgage there. Is not wfat a notorial act is here, a mere acknowledgement of a debt, but is a conveyance of tfie land. A mortgage is a contract of sale for certain land for a certain sum, wIthf-A power to redeem. It is i^ special pledge or security given to a spe- clal creditor, for a special sum of money, an^ia a conveyance, provisional as to ito redemption, which must have all the qualitie^ of an absolute sale, excepting as regords "the proviso of rtdemption. The judgment of the co^irt below is, therefore, reversed • with costs, and the parties sent back to obtalii a fresh distribution of the proceeds of the Bale, the property having been sold at the 'instance of two or three individuals. No. 5. Opinion of Mr. Juttiee Pykt on the validity of the sanction given to the Act of 1839, 9 Geo. 4, chap. -77, and on the elTect of the 6th clause of that Act. - - aOthiANVABT.lSSS. i_-^— ^ ' No^lB88. " — -—THOMAS B. ANDERSON, ET DX, tt al., Plaintiff$, ,..: . _.j^,^.°^ 'v. . ' ,/. . ' : -:. ..' , • .:-'■• : - * . ^ JOHN blXoKWOOD FORSYTH, CWrrtor to ^ THOMAS RICHARDSON, on aA«en<«e, D«>ndanf. The declaration seta forth that the Ute Hon. John Richardson in his life ^Ime of I fontw t l, died h UM t ^it, w t i fa o l e tlt Ma y , IBSI, and U m DeftHUnnt T homM BtoliardgoD " ' -f .f.V: r tho appolntmeBt of (li* Slivrlff'a Mrvant eh Tarloui opinions srsi mortgage of all !age. The court an ftlned, landi .held In 14, (the Quelwc act,) relative to property rule for the decision In this act ihall ei- d, or ihnll hereafter that the parliament he cIvH law should lis «^^ceptlon being lure by which lands mean that the same .: lould goT^ern lands iitantly arisen, and on, and the laws of tnds, considerations llles, If the subject isod the Act of the iny doubts existed, and common boc>^ of succession, con- gland. Now, how ly particular lands, laws of England, dgement ofa debt, ' certain land for a ity given to a spe- >vlaional as to its ccpting as regards therefore, reversed ihe proceeds of tho lividuals. ^ > th(B Act of 1829, 1 his life 'time of llll. ' and the said Plali\tm, Ann, Ilelso, fiuretta, and CharUtta Richardson, being his only children, wrrji and are hlf only lawrtil heirs and heiresses. That by Riynl I,«ttrra Patent dated the 7th Decemlier, 1816, His late Mi^esty King* George the Third, did give and grant unto Ijtelr said father John Richardson certain lota of land thcitin particularly dencribed situated 4n the Townships of T i,t. Ih. •H.nt BW.0 »h.„io OB U.. nth Mv, (h. PLInitdli c«..M not .rail 'th.m..U« of 4li# MM nolM eUuM to obUIn th« ,«,uil.,n .„„ghl for • "•«mI»« of W/y. Th«t ih« I'rorlnclitt Hutute Uand 10 (Ian ^ n««' •• - on which I hi", r •"* "' "?.'' "•"• '"• «■ "• '• '■'• *'""" »- r.." i^om th ulj Upon the flr.t ground of obj.cllon which hM b««n urged •k.Io.I tb« PUIqt|(f,' ri.ht M.^Je«tjr in Oonnell to th« PrortaeUI HUtut* of the 9 * 10 Qto 4. o 77 couJl l.«n. iHM RI,h»r.lion, would b« entitled to the right h« hw Ml tin to th« Und. I„ il .i to.h.e.c.u.i«„„rh^.,.t„., but the Courf U un.Iir^XS^^.^th fc^^^ th. LegUUtur, en b, „Id to b, p„.«l anUl it k^ „riv«U .t th.t nlt1n..u, .£ wla WM m«.le .nd which in ordimiry c»m., would be upon the !loy«l mmdI b.,lng omhIv .„d publicljr gl,en to ^y Pro*l„.|.l .ot by hi. U^^if, repreMnUii.e |„ tl i. Pr!vZo in th- " TEntland f/n JT I' '7''""' '"' """'"'"^ '"•» '••« "' "-"•«' -"O ''•n.mlttod luld r.h '"• "t'^K '""""• '*'" «*»»«•«'?.'"«>«" th. coO.Ututlonal .ct th.t It -hould go through . fourth .Ug.-th.t of a procUm.tlon .nnouncing In thi. ProTbc. r th. c„n.titution.l act, that no rMcr^ed BUI .hall har. any force or authority within Tu rr "? " . ""^ «r™" *"• •'"'" •'«-"y.-'">- by .p<«chorme.Mgc^rL.S^ i^n uST 'f „^r""l' "' *"" ''"''"'"'• '^ "^ Proclamation, that .uch blU hL b«.n laid .fcfore his Maje.ty In Council and that hU Maje.ty ha. been pl.a,ed to M.m to the Mm.. Tl.. rcaion of .uch a prOTtalon 1. a. Ju.t a. it 1. ob.l„„. for with"' It. ■^ f/iL ."?.""^''' •*• *'^"'*'* "' "'«"'''^'' thereby being loft In Ignoranc. «? he 1.T would b. M .to error, which might be followed by Mriou, or l^i«rlo« ^.ulu iJ5 theProcamatlon announcing hi. MiMe.ty. a.,«nt to th. act of th. * lo G.« 4 en not baring l,.„ed ^htll th. l.t September, 1«31, and the demi., of Mr. W;hard.c«l before It became a law of th. Prorlnce and received th. la.t .tamp of authority and con.cq„ently thi. ground of obj«,tion on the part of the D.fend.„' l.t «U /ndl T^ R . r '""""'* "'" "'*"'" *^ *•" '"' ■"«""«"•» •«» b. equally divided Son«t Kr.ra::S:n:"'''^" witho«.4..tie.tion acord^g to i. c^onclu.loari!;: Prn-;-- ,; ^ P*""* "*' A..embly and L.gislativ. Council of thi. Provlace and been reserved for hi. Uateitv'fl tii«M.,«7.i..ii 1. 7 "™''" "' *"« unless the Rov»l ^<.«.t .h.ii\ v ^ . P'***""' "•»*" '"^e "7 fore, or authority ^ Wd as stated in tlu. groHAd of excepUon, yet it has been hejd bj thi. Court ill the .aM of ttongh rig^fied aft.r th. period .0 pr..crlb.d wa. valid and authoJlz^l L.r and br v A' ■ ■■ it vrM thciBMlfw of in the Court gkva (ba •I iif th.t doobli had MiMn how k, Hli U^t,i, could ■action *nj Pro»ln«UI Mi *Ul,IUhln,t r„l,. rf.,«,cllng th. dwcnl of l.ndi gr.ntml lu fr„ ,„a common looMM, «•., nnd th«r«ror« to rKmuv* .uch doubU, It wm MMUd m fullowi : " that it •hull and ^.y b. Uwmi (br III. M^Jotr, hU b«lr. .nd .ncMMo™ to mmoI («, or f nuthorU. ^^ hl» or their MMnt to b. k^cu to My Rill or Hill, which h«lh or ha,* herUofur, btm, ^^ or which m*r h«r««n.r b« pMMd by th« ..id L.gl.Utif. Oouncll nnd A..«mbly for ^^ r»KuU»i„g th. decent, grant, bargain, i«l«, .ll.nnUon, eonvtyane., or di.poial of any nny land, which an. now, or which may hereaflar b« holdcn in f^« .„d common .. *!I!*T T \ "'" "'■' ^""''""' "' '"""' *'•"'"'•• "' '"' r«g"l*U»B th. dow.r or oth.r rlghu of marri«d wom.n In .uch land., any repugnancy or auppoaed repag. • .. TZZ '"^ '"«'' "«"'•"«« to th« l*w of Kngland, or --. . _ ^^ _ It appear, in point of fact that the bDl In quctlon (0th and 10th George IV) hating pa„ed the Lrgi.latWe Council and A..embly, wa. prf.ented to the (lorernor for III. MajMty'. a..ent, on the Uth of March, 1820, and reMrvai for III. Maje.ty'a plea.»re, and afterward. a..ented to by Hi. Maje.ty In Council, on the 11th May,' 1831, and the prooiamatlon .ubiequontly announcing .uch a.Mnt in thi. Frorlnca ta dated the l.t September, 1831, making a lapM of two year, and five montha be we„ the pre.enting and reierve of^he bill and t>ie date of the proclamation. The bill, therefore, under the general rule laid down in the conitltutional act, would bava no fdrce or authority within thi. Province, the a.Mnt having been .ignlfled too lata- bat In the preeent in.tance a majority of the Judge, ia of opinion that they mu.t look td Md/be governed by the act of the Impa^*! LegUlatura of the I. Wm 4 c. 20, a. before iMlted, which wa. alao pa.Md iub.equiintly to the eipiraHon by (en (80th March 1831 tMe dilTorence i. .iitcen day. not ten) da«^., and wl»lch It appeara to u. waa profoMedly I provide for and authorize the ae.ent «f «|. Mi^.ty to the provincial act and 10 Oeo. IV ; and thi. .ututo of Wm. e»«,ating (K>m the .ame .ource and authority aa the constitutional act, naniely, (hM of the Imperial Parliament, the two acta are co- equal, and a. the aututo (>f WilHam ie the la.t, it i. entitled to a preforence In >o far aa the two act. might .eem to claaii or interftra with each other, which upon every prin- clpIaInthecon.tructionof.t«t.te« they .houid hi .o Interpreted, a. that both«ay atand without centially in^aildating each other, and .o that both may have their In- tended operation and elfcct, and aasuredly it never could be urged that tbera wa. any thing to^prevent the Imperial Parliament in the plenitude of it. power, while it oouW repeal the .eqtion relied on in the cbn.tltutional act from also creating any particular exception to the general rule therein contained, where from circumsUnoea and delays created by doubtiH it might be beneficial to the public that .uch exception .hould be made, for although in such a law as the constitutional act, it Was right and requisite to flx a period within which the signification of the Royal Assent on reMtrved bill, ahonid be mide to prevent nscertalnty and confoaion, yet it waa not In lUelf rery material whether the time ao fixed was one, two, tfr three year., Now what are we to conclude ftom the terms and whole tenor of the sUtute of Wm. IV., and from a legal and Jnat Interpretation thereof? In the ^rst place we must "preanme that the Imperial ParU*. ment were aware of their own act. previously passed, and more particularly of the con- stitnUonal act 81 Geo. III., e. 91, as it ia welted in the preamble of that of the I Wm. - IV., fl-om the whole tenor whereof it fa obvious that the Imperial Parliament were ia. formed of the passing by the Legislative Oouncll and A..embly of thi. Pxbvince, of the ' act of the 9 and 10 Geo. IV., ^nd that the Mune Md been reeerved for His Mijesty'a plfMure, Inmrmnnh a s It ii.iftflUttd,th a t donbta^Iiad Uatuwto i Uhied (W>ewT In Mug tend aaanredly) how far the King waa authorised to aawnt to anch a1)ill, and it thei». fore empowera His H^esty noi only to giVe his Royal assent to any such biH Aerefo/of« , ' m: I -I m- y lii. 1,1 , ,& . / '• :v, if Johu P ' might thereafter bo pMsetf by the Legislative Council and A«omblr in free and common Boccage within guch ProvInce,.and if this did not .jmbraco the bUl now in question, the act of William would be inconsistent and inoperaCae to part namely, as to any bill heretofore passed ; but it cannot be supposed that that bill which alone had given rise to the doubts and the ,,ecessity of the interference of the ImpeHal . Parhament was not fully known to that Parliament, and that they had not a fu iTnow lege thereof, as also of {he limitation of the constitutional ac^ ihich last a lugh^ ^nvtr/"" '"r/"'"'"" ''"^''^ •""* *"« ^»«'^'*'"™ •">•» people of this Provmce were concerned, in the ordinary course of reserved bills, could not prevent the Impenal Parliament from making any exception to such rule, whenever in itridom^t might fin i .t expedient t„ do so, in furthering the just views and wishes of the Legiri.- "o 0^0 IV "a M/"'\'''■":"';^ " •'"""' '" *"•' '"'' ^'°^'-'*' ^♦''t^'e of the 9 and wi.M ; ,, ' .".-"^ '''«'-e»'J^.«ffo'-ding to His Majesty additional power as to the giving or withholding h.sRoyaUssent, as circumstances and the public welfare migh^ require The bill so reserved and sedt from this country for His Majestys pleasure, Jd been long deta.ned'.n England, and the statute of William accounts for it by stating thaV doubt? respecting the descent of lands granted in free and common soccage, 4<,.,&c, in I menTIot ; Th T ""'* l!"' ''*° "«"'**^^ ""' *"'« «^»»»«« "^ '"e Imper al Parila! ih!;! rlT ^.'1 ? '"""^'' "' '^' ^'*"^*" of William, it was therefo^ to remove ' auction"!! , , rTr "''''""*"' ^^ ''''''''' ^'''""^ '' «« «*J-'y '^- PO-«r ^ rir., in . i'"'"'^""''"''''''''*"*'^'^'*''' '^""^^^ «»<='' sanction effectual, and gives to the bill , he force and authority of law independent of the clause of limltatio^b the constitu .onal act ; had His Majesty, without the; intervention of the Imperial Par" Wnt, wthhe d h« assent, so as the same could not be signified in this Province until ^ ter the expiration of the two years, there is no doubt that any subsequent assent in the ordinary course would have been ineffectual, and would not have given to the Provln! SZ T V'^^'r '^'' P'""^'''" ''"' *''««°^''^ assent would under Buth ' di«un^stances have been given,-it therefore appears to ub evident that the true inten- tion of the act of William was to give effect and operation to the Provlnciaract bj authorising the Royal assent thereto after the expiration of the tw^^years, for otherwise it.waa useless to have passed such an act to authorise that assent when H coirfi be of nty, which should be thus unavailingly exercised, and at the same time bring in querf- iLm T'^J°™ "^^''^ ^"P«"*> Legislature, and expose it to an interpretation of acting absurdly in having pa.sed an act without any object upon wl,ich it could operate, anj which could be none other than the Provincial act in question, which then alone ex sted! and alone could have given rise to the statute of Williatf, and have been in the contem' ' P'f°°«ftI'eI«>Pe"*l Parliament. His Majestywas therefore rightly, as he is always ably, ndvsed to givb his assent to the Provincial i^ct, which thereby and by virtue of the statute of Wm. IV.. and the proclamatioij of the 1st September, ^831, h^ now the force of law in t^s country, for in authorizing the Ri>yal Jsent to W biU herofl made upoi^lhe subject therein alluded to, the statutfe-of WUiiam has obviously giZ iW-l'tt-n . r""*' '"**"*""' •''* """^ '^"'" ^''^ •'y t^« I™Pe'ia» Parliament Uself; »tw.l not, however, operate in the same way iJi regard to any future bill upon the sa„.e3ubjec, if any should hereafter be 1.assed, as these iust bewhoUv goverSeJ by the constitutional act, which having limited a time within which the R;yal assent IB to be signified, would not therefore require anjr act of the Imperial ParSlr as from circumsUnces and the delay thereby obc>«ioned was therebyLdered n "rsary" regard to the Provincial act of the 9 and lOfleo. 17^. The objec"; of the^tTSm was therefore, as it appears to us, twofold-firstly, to remove the doubts as to the Royal power <« assent to such a bill, and, secondly, to remedy the mischief which the delay .•rising from such doubts had occaa»one4. V ITT!; l«i. :7ouncil and Assemblj n regard to lands held 1 not ombraco the bill lopcrativo as to part, ed that that bill which reuce of the Imperial r had not a full know- vhich Inst although it •e and people of this could not prevent the never in its wisdom it wishes of the Legisla- I statute of the 9 and !r as to the giving or ivelfare might require, leasure, liad been long y stating that doubts kct establishing rules :cage, kt., kc, in a the Imperial Parlia- therefore to remove Majesty the power to inction effectual, and :lause of limitation in of the Imperial Par- in this Provii^ce until )Bequejit assent in the given to the Provln- at would under such : that the true inten- e. Provincial act bj -years, for otherwise rhen it coittl be of of thelloyal autho- time bring in que^- Qrpretation of acting t could operate, and h then alone existed, been in the cootem- tly, as be is always by ^nd by virtue of 183}, has now the any bill heretofore las obviously given Imperial Parliament ny future bill upon be .wholly governed h the Royal assent irial Parliament, as ^ndered necessary in rthe^^t of William ibts as to the Royal ief which the delay The opinion ezpresaed bj' the Oonrt in the case of is decisive upon the second ground of' objection oflbred by the Defendant's connsel at the argument, an'^ therefore The dtyenit aufond* en droit and special p^a of the Defendant, in the opinicA of • minority of the Court, must be dismissed. No. 6. ■\ Matlreif Collection, pp. 288, 9. " ' in pursuance of the instructions above mentioned in Number XXIV, page 166, given by the commissioners of his Majesty's treasury to Thomas Mills, Esquire, His Majesty's Receiver General of the Province of Quebec, in March, 1766, the merchants of the town of Quebec, who had then Ihtely imported wine and brandy into the Province, were required by the said Receiver General of the revenue to pay the King a duty upon the same according to the rates set forth in the said instructions, to wit, six pence, sterling, for every gallon of Brandy, and ten shillings, sterling, for every hogshead of wine ; which were declared to have been the rates established on the importation of the same liquors in the time of the French Government. But the merchants reflised to pay them.^ Upon this George Suckling, Esquire, the then Attorney General of that Province, by the direction of the said Thomas Mills, Esquire* his Majesty's Receiver General, fyled informations in the Supreme Court, or Court of King's Bench, in that Province, against some of the merchants, who had reftised to pay these duties, for defrauding the King of the said duties; to which they pleaded the General Plea of Ab< Guilty} and upon this issue was joined. One of these informa- tions which was against Mr. l>upr^,ca French merchant, of the town of Quebec, who had imported a large quantity of British Brandy, was tried in the month of October, 1766, by a special Jury, eontiiting entirely of Engliihmen, (or sucb «s had been his Majesty's subjects before the conquest of that Province) before Mr. Hey the new chief Justice of the Province, who had arrived in the Province inlthe preceding month of September. The trial lasted several hours ; and the evidence as^ the facts in the cause was strong and clear in favour of the Crown, it^ing clearly proved;^ ^ the first place, that Mr. pupr^had imported the quantity of British brandy stated in the information; and, secondly, that he had refused'to pay any duty jjpon it; and, thirdly, (which was the main fact to be proved) that a certain duty, though sonjewhat less than that which was demanded in the information, had been constantly paid for a giffct many years past in the time of the Pt«noh Government, and universally considered by the Canadians as legally due to the French King. Consequently, the only doubt that remained upon the subject, was concerning the question of law, wlether, or not, by the conquest of the country, by the British arms in 1769 and 1760, and the subsequent entire cession of it to the King of Great Britain by the definitive treaty of peace in February, 1763, the King of Great Britain became laivfully entitled to the same duties upon British brandyi . imported into tHe Province, as had been legally due and paid to the French King upon French brandy, imported into it immediately before the conquest. As this was a point of law of great novelty and difficulty, the chief Justice exhorted the Jury tafind a spe- cial verdict, , if they were satisfied with the evidence by which the facts of the cause had been supported, that he might himself have full time to consider andiexamine it before he pronounced his judgement upon it, and that he might afterwards undergo the more able discussion of his Majesty's principal judges, in England upon a removal of the pro- ceeedings by writ of error, or appeal, before his Majesty in Counoil, but the jury found a rerdiot ^or jthe ^fendant. Idem, p. 294. * ^ . t|In th^year 1761, Major General Murray, who was left in Canada in the chief co«» '■"'%■ •■ y< . )■ .^ -\ ^ J '» ' - V ■■--• ■■ ■ Hn- ■ mand of tho KIng'i troops thoro, Imposed, by his own authority arisin/rfrom that mlHtarv . command, tb^ following duties on strong^liqnon, Imported into iha" counTry Idem, pg. 20e-.8. these duties, though pild by the merchants of Quebec, In obedience to the orders of Gen^Murray, which during the continuance of the n^Uitary government in that Provi^^^^^^ could not easdy be disputed) were thought by many of them to have been lllegluy im-' posed, more especially ^here they exceeded tfa. duties that had been paid on!he same whT r "' \" u" *'"" "' '"^ ^'^""'' Government. And in consequence of this opiln ir. .Tr , ;"3'^ "'*"'"*"^ '" ^"8"""^ '» "'« y«»' !»««. five English mercha^ Who had mportea French brandy and New England rum into iuebec duringThe cont^^ nuance of these duties so imposed by the said General,.and had paid the safd dutlesl back rr^' r"''?'.**. ^"'''"°' "'^^'^''^ *° ♦»"»« •»««"- «8' inst him t reco.o^ AccoH , !: ""^'"^ *''^ "°"''*"'"'** *""""««''''•'« '» *«'^« been illegally depr^vIS . vrsaTGTnSt' r :^ '-'' 'r^' coiieet:,t'i:;LVmre t^^^^^^^^ oy the said General to their-use, and which he had therefore undertaken and promised The Plaintiffs in these actions obtained an order for ainecial inrv «n<» „.J» *• ° fbr the trial.of them on the twenty^urth day of Zr^Im^^l^i^T "" which were now produced in Court and the signatures .if the French officSstherto proved by wltnesseg^thattheaforesaidPrench duties bad really exisTd and be^ naW ^ Sis sTc^'^^'^^'^^Sr*"""'"* '*°«^'*«"« *° the rates abVveraJ^Tdurn' eel; " this so clearly prpved, the Plaintiff in these actions consented to an offer ww/hT? ?2B ed r, 1;Y ^f :"«*""». •'•'t^oe" the "id augmented duty and the old duty of 12.ed. per hogshead tl«it e^ted ^Uecedently to lUt .dictjU aathc^^ ^:i. ^ mt Slfe'I Jt"!" "^ T' t^'' '""^'*''"'*'' *'"'*' " »»«• "-"el ft>' the Plata, fendanf. couwel to argue the le JlUv of evl^V ^ u ^T'""^ '"' *'" ^•- • • • • .' • • • • Idem, pp. 300. . , These xnstrucUonB were received at Quebecabont the end of October. 1768 • and in consequence of them, Mr. Cramah^, the temporary Receiver General of the «Tenu" ffeJCrsr. r'"'^"'"\^*"**" ^ Febr«ary,folIowingvthat is ta P 1^0^' 1769, that these duties on rum, brandy, and wine would be demanded aLdTequiSTf .tu'ZT™"" "5"" "'""" "^° "" *"• •>'^""«' *^«y «bodi?import"f t^ml the these strong liquors. 1» .ccoTg^L^rLf dutjf "^^rn^^^ "'^ would consent to pay them. 4u this an iSiaCwaT^Z bJ 2^ T^'^ Geneva of the «id Province, % the direction .rrJ^lZ"t^tQLZ,^lTZ ' Idem) pp. S06— 311. ttl^^fcf^*.i! *^^"^' *^" ^^^«»^ ft« *'« 0~wn were pdled «d ex««ined | ttdrilihefcctomthe cMBWen ftUywd clearly proved ; to wit, fii^vthat the Mid 1^ f i -f ••.>-" f^ ih Jl^ -ifii ■fM- y A ^, f -ill M mi dotted flih hitai, wtn«, and htibiy had extited and b«ieii paid in the time ot the ^tieh OoverDmeQt, in the manner that Jias been above stated in^ the account of the fq^mef trial, in October, 17Q0; and secondly, that tlie Dofendantsi had lately imported into tli« Province sixty-two hognhoads and a half of ^um from New Bngland, and landod them without paying ta|tKuty ^r giving security to*pay*itj|' and thirjliy,'t1iat they had been required by the^tmiporary Receiver Genetrai of the Revenue to pay the said duty, but had refuspM to pay it;- so that the opiy reiliiining doubt iu the cause was concerning the point-of law above mentioned,,wAeM«r, or no,^t9 contequefwe of M« canquett of the country,, and the tranter of the lovereignty over it from the French King; to the King.qf Oreat Britain, thete iutieevere become legally dw to the King of Oreat Britain.' When tbe evidence Was gone through' on both'sidesl the Chief Justice summed it up to the Jury with grealjudgment and ^lerspicutty, and exhorted theni (as' he had done the former jury, in October, 1766) to bribg in a special verdict/ thit the^maAer of law, which he considered as vei^ new and ^liflScult, might be fully and maturely examined, both by himtelf and the other, higher tribunals, -to which it might, if' the parties so thought fit, be rennoved by writ of error, and- that, in consequence thereof) It might be ;^t last rightly deqided. But the jury (tho'Ugh they, conlhted of some of the most respectablV inhabitants of Quebec, and of such as were 'mopt moderate in their princi>- pies and dispositionycbuid not' be' persuaded either by this exhortation of tiie Chief ■ Justice of thp Province, or by the example «f thoNJury of, London mercheints who'tri^d the actions against General Murray, f peace in Febraaiy, 1T63, tho legkl due of ^e Kiif^ of Great Britain; nnlesi ' s^me act of the King df Oreat Britain himself, or his ^decessors, done (kther before or 'after the cession of it,'B]iall have abrid^d'his righjM in th^Trespect; and consequently that any internal tax (each as a tax on horses, or vfindows, or houses) that should have existed legally nnder the French government, lit the time of ithe conquest, ^oalHiAwlj •ad certafnly now belong to the King of ^reatJBritain, nnleta, m ia aborO mentioned, >.'^ ^'>N 8> to find either a- verdict lome act-^^f hJa'owfl, Jr hf« pr«dooei«ori, had destroyed HI. right to H. ThH^Vadmlt as.a ftindamenal maxim, by which thii queetion I. to be governed, but yaWe. donbtwhether It can be applied to the dutlea on th»lmporUtlon of *ine rurt anl ~:riS:Lgr"^^"'-^"' . „ . .^^^ ,,, i.„,. ,,„ :^--;;;^ ln\"hIT"*^'''"; *•" ^.'^' «'^'"'"?«nt '•""""If to trade and the custom? t'o b. fcald in the American plantatlona, expressly comprchemded, bv wordi. put In for that pJir- S?' I '"\*^"^''''r« t-rrltorle, m^-America, elth^ tien belonging, a ir.veri'k' i •S 1* ',Tlr /' """ *"'*"- *'"' "*''*' Oolo,He.-ln America, that iefeady- made, a,nl exists beforehand with respect to eveiy new acquisition In that co'untry„.nd he«ibre mu, take Jlafe arfd be carried into execution in every such neV coloJC ' - the moment at whkh it becomes a part of the dominions of the Crown of ORfat ijritain brJ/r^*?,?'''"'!"^"*^^^ ""^ exported, thus imposed or appoinffi < before the adl,ni«lt,on of every ^ew colony, seems to be Intended to supercQjJe all the othir .f ""*»""»» r^^-^'Bi'tingin^t at the time oftts bccominra part otZe dominion ^fJ/'^Orown^ofpreatBrlUinrand if ^o, it will follow thaT these acts of tarHam^" ^ to ill r nT. ''." "T'' r ""'""**'* '"' ""' *^''"^'"«' ^^ "»« «>y«l Predecessors, o^h • to be considered as Acts by which they have beforehand ^enonnc^ resigned an,^ give" new ter Uory in America, that shall be found legally sul^sting in such territory at £ Jtae of their acquisition of it, and ^hich would otherwise have accrued lo^them^ by X '■ ^ > IT r "'?"'"'"* """'"" "^ ^*^- ^'"* *"" renunciation of the 8a(d>lght ifnet Tue.'^ rr ?"*" '*"''''"*="™''"*^^^^^ in.^xchango, forVeftflnotL - duUes, or tustoms, impospd by ^hose Plantation Acts of Parliament irf their stead ' secondly in aSbitntc made since the conquest ^ nd cession of this P/ovince, nfilielT the Stat, ^eo in c. 18, cert^n duties are imposed «|,n Madeii^ w.^'e L'Cni,; Wine, and upon foftign molasses and syriifts, imported iritdthe America J cilrfnies: bui .' ^ .nlrTr r " " K *, " f "*^ "P°" °''"^*' "r*"- A»^ «■ > French.ah*«ther fir e,^«- ./ . spin 8,jhey are absolutely pjyhibited in it. >aw thili StaKte-^^ems to he intended td • -Sst^'' T: «^«'*-">^>'>--toms'to be:paid in Lprica. . In^ SS I " this Ac , to levy.the Fre^oh tfuMbs upon strong Hqnor^* ^ould have inierted^Sit J > "tht?tv7f Tt'^'f ''r°'" = ^^ "And it IB fvrthet enacted, by thri!; tho ty aforesaid, that |^ t).e Province >f Q.iel^.<^^ liv America, tl,e following dutt flbair be levied up^mVin^, rum, and,bwndy, impo;Ted into- th*i sid^rovinr- to wit a dnty of ten shiUings, of lawful money of XJreat Britain.>Vh6gahead7^^^^^ duty of sixpence per gallon upoj, brandy, and a W Aenty shUiingHer Lo's ! . Uvl"^".™";^ *:'"* T "^^ *""•« ^ '«^>'^^ "^'^ the'samJliKres^ tively, under the p,«^h governmenV. inimediately Wore the coZest of tC S Province by the BritlS arms; and that^th* saii duties ghaU be pM^fin the said pS ■J. ',r» . -'■\. % /♦■■. ■■^tt ■/• —- .v.,..u „u» „, jTBriwineni, ai a time wnentM King is the head) Were deliberatiig upon4he duties thai wi« fit t^be imnosWi Amferica, seems to aiferd a ground for concludbg that hh ife^jlK, at th^timTof p * tS'^1 i no inWtion that .these duties should be levied tl^is P^lovince. • . .Thirdly if.no such V «i the 4 Geo. III. cap. 16 had ever Ln passS, and lf= no ynerolsystem of customhouse laws,relatingequally to all the diflfelutProvSUstffNorA America, the new ones, ak well as the old, had been enacted beforehanC as is abov! mentioned; jM with jes^ot to Britblv1,randy, which- Genferal^ '* empted from all duty, il ms^ be alleged that the King's haviiigj Emitted, te demand i' duty^upon that cOmmothat it is not so, out of regard to the opinion of a very learn^jd and able lawyer of ^acquaint- ance, who, notwithstanding the foregoing reaaowl (nhich he has aeen and considered), and a well-known aseal for the liberties and privUjBgef,of his fellow-gubjeots Jn all parts of the British dominions, yet thinks that these duties are' legally due to the Crown. The person I mean is Mr. Dunnlngj who is mentioned above, on page 296, as having been appointed his Majeaty's Soli^Hor-fteivral on the 20th of January, 1768, and having given an opinion, in conjunction with the Attorney-General, in favor of the King's claims to these duties, on the 10th of February, in the sam^ year 1»68 ; to who^se judg- ment, upon every subject of law, I am always ready to pay the highiist deference. But I will venture to observe, that in a claim of this kind made by the Crown to an ancient duty, good policy requlrea'that the JusUce and legality of it should not only be discern- ible to the acntest and most learned lawyers, but should he apparent and manifest to the understandings of common men, so that p very body may Immediately perceive atad acknowledge it, and the Crown take possession of the duty which Is the object of the claim, with a general cpnsent and approbation. Where this is not the case, as it evi- dently is not with respect to the duties above mentioned, it is better to resort to the legislative authority of the nation for a new law, either to revive the duties which are u the objecte of such disputed claim, or to impose such other duties and! taxes, as the people upon whom they are to be levied are' eaaily able to bw^nd the exigencies of jfovernment make it necessary to levy upon them. And th^Slpiuthoritf by which this can be done in the Province of Quebec, where no Assembly of the people has yet been established, «eema Jo be that of the British Parliament. The authority of this supreme Legislature and general representative body of the whole British empire has * not yfet been disputed in this Province ; and from the loyal deportment of his U^jesij'a new Canadian subjects there ia reason to hope that evary act of government that shall be founded on that high authority wUl m«^p wkli a ready obedience on their part. J ■ - . ,An Act for settling the Law concerning Laipids held in Prpe and Oonimon lEIoccage, in power Canada. mVk.e.46. . ! (Jumatd to imjwul, im.) i^ Whereas tbe 4c^ hereinafter mentioned has left certain points uuettle^ a« regtrdt ^* IM^ •PPliMble to land! in Lower Oanada held in Free and common loccage, and ah I* '1 X «.. A id Oommoti Soccsge, tuuettled a« ttgiait nnmou loccage) and , of Superior OlriU„rlBd t^ -n" « b"! '' "• .T*^:?!; "' '"'' ^"«»«^' o^ '"« OoTrJ the future and ^ regard, the n«t i„ .tfr i "^ *""•" ''"'"''' ^ '•"o^d for .*ad that the lL re'Sg to !.'„; oJe " T"* *"'.' "^ '"'""''"'"" '""' *"»«1 "gbi n,ore e.pecl.11,7;. regar f t Jr IVe^t^^^^^^^^^^^^^ »- " '" - Po«lble unif!^ won.,nr And iwhereLln the gnorance r^^^^^^^ Tailed «, to th« Law •» the ^att^erraTre Jd U 2 k*//!'''' ""7'^ ^"""""^ P"* the widows aid heira of ner.o.a who haT left ulT. 7 T"*"* '" """"^ •='^- »»•" regard to whljh they haS died r„teVZ lave'Li„,"/r *"' ^''"""°" «°"""«« *«"> thereof, whlci though consistent with fhl „„!,.. ^'' *"""" «'"'?''•>««»» or partition ti.l Justice i ..ch parCar caTJlv^^^^^^ Law and with subsUn- legal right, ^f the parUe,,and ltT]„r.nd „.' r '"/'='=°"'-^ ^'th the strict •Toidance 0f litigation, \a conflm .u«h h< T.""^ ^°' *''" ''"'''*"'« °''"»»" "«1 the M^eaty, by and with th aJZa^.coten T^T 'm T""""" '''•«™'''-' «« of Canada, Enacts as follows ."•'"','*'''''"'"'"•* "'^ *•>« Legislatlre Council and Assembly Intituled, ^ ac/ Ar rLkirifigi,alulZZ ^f I ^'°* ®'"«'' *'"' *'«""'', and Pou, therein menti^d, andihe Royal ^Sn^^Zl "f^' '^^'^ ""'' P^'- .the said ProTince on the First Lrotl^tH u ''•"'»''»««d »>y Proclamation in one, Is hereby declared t^i^UTt/ht^l^^ril^^^^^^ ^"^t/- .ince the day last aforesS^in flee in Low^ clrdi ''•"""»^-»^' »»-» ^ to i.y, II. And whereas it is provided by the sizthnentinn „r *u^ a .\ ■ , . u ' . the pro^prietor ot lands gninted-or Im TtT'^r ^"' "^"^ "''"'' t^at whM before the passing of tS^^^^ Zi^ttS^l V ''°""°"" ''"'''*«"' '"'^"''^ '»'^-« died will^MtesUment or otherwL^hell "f t^ '?"'""'"' **" ''""« «"''" ^^^ '«» the same according ta the .To,J tl^ZlT-T^'l:^''^''''' "^ ""^'^ »^ P"«"<>» * had been held by the« te.^nre 7frZlZ^T'i^^ ^''^'"' "^ '"^'^ '^ «"«»> '"d. Law. Which 1. most -^logons'^nr^t^!„7^'^ ^'"^ *»»*. '"'o^" *o the Mid Old .houid have agreed amongTmltlr^s unot ""^Sr ""'""^'^ ""'"' '''' ^^ »«»" tenor of the sai5 section an5 ofZn"mKr . ?""* **'""•""' ^""^ ^J""«" th. the Legislature held the sa/o d LaTs to be^^^^^^^ "' *'" "''•^''^ «"«*'• »^t . and customs of the people bf Lower ZJ^ .^w T * "'"'"*«»* ''^"' t*"* ft'^'"*' Bnch porUon. a. relL i ^l^ZZ or ^^^,1^ *."' ""*'** '''"^*''* «^«P"«" «' " |.eldinfreeandcomn«,nsocS^ribv'^^^^^ ^ enacted : Therefore, it is CTjllm^'ZTJ:"''T " T' ""' '' "»* ^«'^'^'^ ftee and common s^ccageirLoiSot:?^^^ '•"? P^P^*^*"' "'""^ Ipd heidTa between the pa«,ingof tS IcSaSle^? i f^ ^''-^ '"*«'*•*« " to'.uch lands widow and heirs of such prop iter ^^1 i^^ Of such land. a. if they Z^'^Vu^L ^^c'Sl^^lL*" T "r ^ "'^'* agreed upon, assented fa. or confirmed a dlZ^nt^n^I^'"' *^''^''»" ''»^« .hall have acquiesced the«lndStme%t«Td„^^^^^ or partition thereof, or l»rlefa,r, by having^aUowed ^^! oJ^L^Z^^nVll'Zt. S"' ^' """• P** nnquestfoned by them in any comvttmi^a^T^ Z^l/^^ thereon, fa> remafik .pplyfa>.ndbindmi,^,.hVZ^r!^ J:^^^^^^^^ representatives of or per.pn. tiaiming through ftlS. wi^T «?* "^ "* ^•"^ assented fa,, confirmed oraciniesced In S ^' ^^ .»»«>l"ball hare agreed upon, them«>lve. Provided alw^rtllt^^^^^^^^ " P"*"'""' " """^ P««- •9 V ;■■ V";;*:?^ ■. (-Ml I J D ' 4k feforeMli], or under the LftWi of Lower Oanada applicable to Unda held In'/rane aliu roturitr, and ihall hare rogii tered the deed creating euch charge, or o|i«ratlpg"iuch oonrejrance, before the registration of any lalo, convoyance or inCiimhrance of luoh' lani)* by an/ other person oiairaing to be such heir, and before the passing of this Act, or within six months next atter the passing ot the same but before registration bj such other person, no person being at the datoof such deed in adverse possession of the lands M such heir or as claiming through any such lioir, or having q,uestioncd Uio litle of the vendor or grantor of the charge in any suit pending or decided in favor of the adverse claimant at the date of such deed,— then as regards the coiireyance, sale or charge operated or created by such deed, the grantor or vendor therein mentioned shall be held to liavo l>een at tiio date tlieroof ttie person entitled to inliorit the said lauds from (ha proi)rietor so dying Intestate as regards them; And in like manner any devise of any ■uch lands held in frje and common soccage, by last will and testament made accord* ing to the forms prci cribod by the law of England in force there at the time of making ■uch devise, shall ha re the same force and effect 4l'if made before two Notaries Public according to the iawi and usages of Lower Canada. in. Provided always, that nothing in the two preceding wctions of this Act, shall affect any case pending at the time of its passing, or any case in wjiich there is then any' actual and open possession under a titM adverse to their proyishins or those of the Act therein mentioned, but such cases shall be adjuded upon a« If this Act had never been passed ; nor shall any thing in the said sections afibct any case in which a Judgment having authority otehoujugit has been given before the passing of this Act. • IV. The Laws which shall hereafter apply to and govern lands held in (Voe and com* non soccage in Lower Canada, as well with regard to descent, inheritapce, incum* ' branco, alienation, dower, and the rights of hunbauds and of married women, as with regard to all other incidents and matters whatsoever, shall be the same with those which apply to and govern lands held by thQ tenure of franc joleu roturitr, in Ukv matters, except only in so far as such Laws may have been expressly altered a» regards lands fatild in frpe and common Soccage, by the Act above cited or .any other Act of- the Legislature of Cower Canada or of Canada; and as regards the rights.of married WOmen and their representatives, this section shall apply to cases where the, husband shall die after ^he^ passing of this Act, whatever be the date at which the marriage may have taken place, but nothing herein contained shall prevent the effect of any marriage con* tract or Bettlement niade either in the English or French form. V- y. The Laws'w^ich have governed lands held in FrcD and Common Soccage in Lower Oapada in matters other than alienation, .descent and rights depending Opon marriage are hereby declared to have always been, the same with those Which governed lands held ia franc tUeu roturierf except in so far only as it mtcf have been otherwise provided by any Act of the Legislature of Lower Canada, or t>f this Province ; but nothing in this section shall be construed as a declaration that such lands held in Free ahd Common Soccajse; have or have not at any tinie.been governed by aby other Law aa regards alie* nation, descent or rights 'depending on maniiage. VI. The word " Lands |' in this Act shall Include any immoveable property or here* ditoment capabIe.of being held in firee and common sodcage, and any estate or interest therein ; the ^ord ^' Deed," shall include any instrnment by which any lands can be conveyed, hypothecated or incumbered by the Laws of Lower Canada; and the word << Hypothec '[ or " Charge," shall inclade the privilege of iaOhw dt fondt and all other privileged or hypothecary oharjjea, ' :iw r" rovince ; but nothing in < NOTE • « * TO RRPORT 0» WUeox V. WUco». t To thpia who .dopi the opinion th*t the EngH.b law. w.« . / . ' pracHw of the Bngli.h OourtB of law ohufniJ . - u T. '" '^"* '"** *•>»» »»>• .ome year, after the oonqne.t n 1759 It I S^^^^ '\ od Province of Quebec, for Court, of law at that time In the Province'"*^ "^""' the r^cordijof tK. For example, In the Enirllih refflstar. /Tn, .i.»^ _ ■» - ' • gi.t«r kept,) now In the 'u.tody S he Pmhl7.rof"th « ?' " ''"'^l'''' «- we And the following • ' ^-rotlionoUiy of the Superior Court, MontrtAl, ' DeSr:?^r:^:5'.?~r ^°^ -^^-^ ^•-- ^-- -;rre4 «.-.. o:s^:;sarn:s:t?:::;nt;^;' r^; ^uw., wmian^^^^ We, reposing .pedal tr^.t m you ^^ ^^^ thought fit to con.Utute and appoint. an/bvti.i"*^'\T'"* '"'*'* •^"""••' ''•^« •' you, the .aid Peter Livlu.,Winiim Owe* andT^7.'!'"'• '^' ''""'"^"'^ ""'^ •PP«>'«t Of . 8ourt with ciril Jurl^dicZ^S' the di trio ^ T',''"'^"'*"' *^^^"' ««• ' Quebec, during pleaeure only, hereby grantl?'? T""'' ^° "" P'^^''''^" «>' .nd authoHty to talc, cognl'ince o( and p^oceeTln wi "ci T '"'' °' ^"" '"" P"''" what.ciever. and .uch civil cau.e. .U comjainu t hear tnd ITT' '=°'"'"*'"*' law with power to .It and hold court, for hi nnl! f determini, according- to aforcaid a. often a. occ^iion ll "l„ire a„H ^^^''"' '"'"""''' ^'""" '''« »'-^'<=t " ou. per.o„. and contemp" ou. Xen7r. of'trl: rr* ''^/"•'^;" «.• contemptu- •"n>»n«r„f^iei.tence.and decree., and toZIhl V '^ "'"'«'"""' '"'«''?«'«' .11 necessary poVer.JuriBdicUo„.and;'th:rEsr^^^^ ^°«''»''« -">» , »\-r "-"^''Vof appealing to our court of ^p^^^^^ «n execution, «vlng , mining unto you the said Peter Livius WilWo" ' 7n I** ™^'°"*' hereby com- • our p.wer and authorit;, m' .rd tlnce;n7ng ^ p^eT' lldlTr I"'"''''"- name command and firmlv and ■fr.VfWni. ** 7 P'*™'^®^. And wp do further n our Marshall, Keep J^ all ou j ^L pZn " Cfe ' ^^ «""'«•' • Officer, and Ministers and faithfi.l l^^ir l'- ' ^^^^'t^blesrUlfS all other our , of Montreal, that S"be extuU ^ "f "ul^S^ " and throughout the s,id d4.trlcf aid^.and;.i.ting.ahd7irbX:'7^^^ "-to time of the law and the peril which will fall thereon * ' "'"« ""^^ ^'^ ■ thiyearofourLoAInMhrn'^^^^^^^^^^^^^ of.uly.i^ ^ sixteenth. Witness our tru8tv«nH »«ii k i TJ? seventy six, and of our i* gn the Governor.in-chief, in a^d ov« olr ."aid "f T^ y^"' °" ^^-^P^-'-O^-rS, and - eaid province. yic;-AdmbVo7LLetcTr' r"^^'' T """"^ ^"^^ °^ »"' " ofour^rc«.in^,u..aid^e?r;J:e*S .' '\ .. ■'■ ■ ^■"■■:^ '^siii ' _ ^" ■■ ■ ,. . " -as., -:■■-,■ ■^. --;•••. .:.«^- f ^'■■-' ■■■ - ■■■■ -■ ■■..0.0. 1: I-,: W: r TT -isr m , #1 r i m HOT!. OOUBT COMMON PLBAB. rtiitj th« 111. Mf, itir. PrtMitt. # I QM. Klid. T»cher««ux, J ''•'^• Thli day hii Ul^jf■tJr■• OominUtioii to Pator Llviof, Eiqiiire, Doctor ofLkwi, WlllUm Oven, and Qabriol Blc««rd TMchere«uK, Riqulr«8, Appointing them to bo Judgei of tlia Ooiui-«f Oommon IMom for tlie dlitrLct of Montreal, was opeDl7 road, and ia ai followi, 0«brgo the Third, by the Oraoe of God, of^|pM!t BriUin, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of ^he Faith, ftnd to forth. To ail to whom thoie present letters shall come sendoth greeting : , Know"j|« tliat we having talcen into our Royal considtration, the loyalty, Iwligrl^f Marnlng, And abill ties of j»ur-trusty itnd welUbelored Peter Livius, Doctor of Laws, WilllanvPwon, and Oabifiel Elzonrd Tascliereiiz, Esquires, df our city of Montreal, in our prttrlnce' of Quebec, nave coniititbled kAd appointed, and by these our present let- ter* do oonstftute and ai^oint them, the said PetenLivius, William Owen, and Oabriel Blzeard Tabcheroauz, to bo the Judges df our Otart of Oommon Pleas, to be held in and for the district of M6ntreal, in our said Province, during our pleasure, with all^ necessary powers, Jurisdnstions, and authorities .whatsoever. In testimony whereof, wt have caused these our Ijlftttjrs to be made patent, and the Great Seal of our .safd Pro- vince to be hereunto afflzed, and to be entered on record in one of the Books of Patents in our Register's Office of Enrollments in our said Province. Witness our tnjiSty and well-bclovcd Sir Guy Carleton, Knight of the Bath, our Captain General and Governor in Chief in and over/ our said Province, Keeper of our Great Seal of our said Province, Vice-Admlral of the same} &c., Ac, dec, General and Commander in Chief of o^ft Forces, in our^aid Province and the frontiers thereof, kc, kc, &c., at our Castle of St. Louis, in our city of Quebec, in our Province aforesaid, the sixth day of March, in the yew of our Lord One thousand Be;yen hundred and seventy seven, and in the seventeenth year of,our reign. (Signed) Guv Oarlitom. By hia EzcelleliCy's command, ^ , Gbo. All^pp. Court of Common Pleas opened. Adjournc/d to Monday the 7th April next. Present! .'I Thurad^tjlf 10th ^ri! iymii. Peter Livius, > „ Gabriel Elzd. Taschereaux, J *■■*""• Brook Watson, Trustee of the Creditors of Jean LooiffCarrignant, . . - :_„. /■. .. ,_..• .. .. :^- vs. .:.._ ' :..._ ^:.,.. * Richard Dobie. M^' Panet, for Plaintiff, demands that this cause may be orderlcl " " . t& be heard on Thursday next. Conrt orders this cause to be heard on Thursday next. . ' * On motion of Mr. Grant for Defendant, ' It is ordered that the proceedings in this cause depending in theli^ Court of Civil Jurisdiction for the district of Montreal, may be transmitted into tlib present Court of Common Pleas for the said District, and they are accordingly now transmit^d and received into and by the said Court of Common Pleas. c* \ 4 Mon., i'. M«« rt.JW>,ltVT. . r of Lftwi, WlUlam to bo Judge! of tha I, uid ii M follows, Md Irtlud, Riag, loyalty, Iwligriljr, , Doctor of Lawi, ty of Montreal, in e our preicnt let- Owen, and Oabriel eaa, to be held in pleasuri, witfa all Imony whereof, we of our .safd Pro- e Books of Patents IS our tnjisty and Bral and Oovernor lur said Province, Hiiof of oij^r Forces, astlo of St. Louis, ch. In the year of seventoonth year UY Oarlitom. B 0] Ihe 7th April next. ■ / 0th ^riy H7V. LooiffOarrignant, e may be order/d '8 this cause to be a tfie~l«|e O^nrt of into tlib present y now transmitwd ■/ Present, RertelU d« Rout tlU, and Edward Houthouse, jfond^y the 13th April,' 1TT8. •* ' EsqulTM. Mr. WaUon and RashlleghTs. Michael Aofd. *!..... ^ , „. . ^P'"''""*. P«>duce! tbfl HimrifTs return of haTing leried part of I5V/,«,r!?r'''"?*'^"'"'''""'*"''''"'"'"^"'*''''' ««*«='•. ""'Vtlng to the sum of £238 17s. 8id., and prays without regard to the opposition pnt in by Mr. Mesier. for of hli^clZn "*' *''• '•''* •""" °"^ ^ P*'"* '» *»"• Plaintiff in consequence .«?';. "."^^n'l' ^I'- '''""""""' '»y" ^^ Defendant owes hlM a dsbt Idue by acoonnt. •nd that the Defendant being a bankrupt and insolrent. tbat he has a right to hare hit jwoportloftofthe said sum. > »">•"» Mr. Panet denies tSat the Defendant' is by any act of Court declared a Bankrupt or duced' """"' "'^•'■""^"^'* 'f'*"' "«» «»••""'»• ^^^ »' "r Ui«re is it may be pro- Court harlpg considered this mattel, and as no act appear, whireby the Defendant was admitted by the Court to bo .^ bai.krupt,-order that the (laid sum of £288 I7s 81d. - be paid to PfWntiffli in consequence o4> their execuUon in part payment of their debts and cosU, an^ that thereupon the SHeriff be discharged for that sum » Present, Thursday, the 21st ilay, 1778.' C Hertelle 4e RourUle, ) * ^.^ { L, *n«J >Bsqulres. T , ( /Edward Southouse, ), • ,B Peter ^cfarland T. Robert PJcken. — 'M^'' Mr. Hanguinet, for Plaintiff, p^rays this cause may be continued flirther Court continued this cause further. * ' s ,' ' . Jacques Le Moyne Ts. James Price and William Haywood, absent. , ^Mr. Sangulnet, for Plaint4|pwys Judgment for the sum of Pirty-eight pounds te» ■hillings, lawftil money of tfiS Province, dU by account dated 14th February imt Defendants called, dont appear, though duly served with process, dated 27th AprU ceN tified by the prfipor officer on the 29th same month, at their Utt place .f abode! and being defoulted last Court day for not appearing. '. ■\^" Court iondemns Defendant to pay Plaintiff the said sum of FlftyHjight ^unds ten BhUlings lawful currency of the Province, with Interest from the day of d)4and on PlaljBiff affirming his account with costs, amounting to ' Amount affirmed 26 May, 1770. , _^ _ **»* ^ '^ Herman Eberts vs. James Patten. *' Mr. Walker, for Defendant, prays Defendant may be enlarged ftom JUl uid admitted to appear on common bail for the insufficiency of the Plaintiff* affidavit. Parties agree that on Defimdani's paying Pour pounds lawful money, and part of the cosJi^and that Mrs; Patten, defendant's wife, will be accepted as security for ,the same, anrthe appearing and offering to become security for the same, she is accepted, ftnd •greed that the Defendant be enlarged. Court accepts of said settlement. ' ,a. v,. 0- * ♦ : ' ' # . . « , v .' iB / ^ •i - 1 -■ V^ I'- y^ #/ '' « i« ■W- ■ t' "N. - « ' ( ' - ,^ f . . £ ; _ w