Page images
PDF
EPUB

Blais v. Barleau.—Hold: That a commandement dc payer and notice that application for a contrainte par corps will be made in default of payment after the delay fixed by law, must be made and given, before a contrainte par corps for non-payment of amount of judgment can be granted. Taschereau, J.

Tessier v. The Grand Trunk.—Held: That the delivery to a police, man in the employ of the Co., at one of its stations, of baggage, several hours before the train started, and in the absence of the baggage man, is sufficient to bind the Co, when it is not shown that plaintiff had knowledge of the by-law of Co., that it would only be responsible for baggage when cheeked. Taschereau, J.

SUPERIOR COURT.

Quebec, 18th February, 1871.

St. Bridgets Asylum v. Fernay.—In a petition for sequestration, tbe grounds on which such demand is based must be stated, and it is not sufficient to allege that it is in the interest of the petitioner that the properties be sequestrated. Meredith, C. J.

Lemay v. Lemay.—In a petition to quash a capias or attachment before judgment, grounds of exception d la forme, v. g. irregularity of writ and endorsement, want of copy, &c., cannot be set up, and will be overruled on demmrer. Meredith, C. J.

R v. Hamelin (certiorari).—Conviction quashed, the mayor of a municipality having prosecuted in the name of such municipality, thus, "G. C. de la Ville de Levis, maire de la dite Ville, au nom de la Corporation de la Ville de Levis," and the offences stated in information and conviction being different. Meredith, C. J.

Farrell v. Cassin A defendant cannot under art. 1535, claim secu.

rity equal to the value of the property, but where he has paid part of the principal of price of sale, he will be allowed to retain balance and such interest thereon as shall equal part already paid, uuless plaintiff gives security for the entire price of sale, but without interest thereon. Meredith, C. J.

Winn v. Pelissier.—A shipmaster is only bound as to storage to follow rules and custom of port where he takes his cargo, unless there be an agreement to the contrary. Meredith, C. J.

14th February, 1871.

B. C. A. Gugy v. Win. Brown.—That the clause of the Interpretation Act requiring that whenever an article of the Code is to be repealed, the precise article referred to should and must be mentioned, is inoperative in the face of a statute substituting other provisions to those of the Code, though not specially referring thereto. Taschereau, J.

Montmagny, 13th February, 1871. Arsenault v. Rousseau .j- al.—Hold: That several defendants, though they have appeared separately but by the same attorney, may join in and fyle but one plea. Bossc, J.

Quebec, 2nd February, 1871.

Batten v. Stone.—It no longer suffices to give notice within four days and move on first day of ensuing term for security for costs. The application should be made within the four days. Meredith, C. J.

4th March, 1871.

Huard v. Dunn.—No action lies for false imprisonment under a conviction, valid on its face, so long as such conviction is.in full force and vigor and has never been annuled or vacated. Stuart, J.

IN THE COURT OF REVIEW.

Quebec, 4th February, 1871.

The National Bank v. The City Bunk.—Held, That the Code has not changed the law existing anterior thereto as to particulars in S. C. eases, and does not require that they be annexed to declaration or fully or in detail set forth therein. Stuart, Taschereau and Casault.

Philippsthal v. Duval.—On the 6th May, 1870, an order was made on defendants motion, fixing 9th for striking jury and 14th for trial. On 7th defendant demanded acte that he required jury list to be made up at least of one half jurors speaking English. On 9th the jury was not struck as defendant did not make the requisite deposit, he alleging objections to the composition of jury. Subsequently plaintiff moved to vacate order for jury trial; the defendant moved for a jury de medielatse linguse; both applications were refused. On 18th June, an order was given on plaintiff's motion fixing 20th of June for striking jury and, 7th July for trial. The Prothonotary had prepared a list of forty-eight names for the striking ordered on the 9th May, between that date and 30th of June; when the jury was struck, a jury in another case had been struck. Defendant challenged the array on ground that a new list should have been made commencing with first name after the last on the last panel, i. e. that of the jury which had been struck between the 9th May and 30th June. Stuart, J., quashed the panel. Judgment reversed in review. Meredith, C. J., and Taschereau J. Stuart, J., dissenting.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.

Quebec, 18th March, 1871. McLaughlin $ Begina.—That no opposition lies to the execution of the judgment entered up by the Prothonotary under C. S. L. C. c. 106, s. 2 on a certificate from the Queen's Bench that a recognizance is forfeited, on the ground that the proceedings are irregular and the opposant should have been called upon to plead and defend before the Superior Court. Badgley & Drummond, dissenting.

Oouin Sr Dubord.—Held, That a mandamus will not lie against a Crown Lands Timber Agent to order him to issue licences for timber limits.

Fraser ■J- Patterson—The Insolvent has no action against the assignee to his Insolvent estate, even after his discharge, to compel him to render an account cf his administration ; his recourse is by petition or motion; and if he claims under deeds of composition and discharge, these must have been first deposited with the assignee to enable him to give notice of the same under the Insolvent Act.

Gauthier Sr Sauvageau Senecal, to whose insolvent estate Sauvageau

was assignee on 10th August, 1866, transferred to Gauthier certain sums of money owing to him, a year before he became insolvent and made an assignment, and the transfers above mentioned were only served on the debtors a few days prior thereto. On action by Gauthier against debtors, Sauvageau intervened, and Gauthier's action was dismissed in the Court below (Arthabaska). Judgment reversed by C. Q. B., who held:

That the creditors of the vendor are not, in the absence of fraud or simulation, tiers, in the sense of the art. 1571 C. C.

That the notification of the transfer under the circumstances was valid, and would have been valid even had the transfers been served "apres la faillite notoirement connue et declaree. Duval dissenting.

Burton # Young $ al.—An action was instituted against Young k Knight for a penalty, which was dismissed. Appeal by the plaintiff Burton. The defendants, who had severed in the defence, severed on the appeal. Young died, and Knight forced on the case as against him, and judgment was confirmed. No proceedings were taken on the appeal for or against Young or his representatives. Motion by Knight to transmit record to the Superior Court granted: "Considering that more than six calendar months have elapsed since the appeal to Her Majesty, &c., was allowed, and that no certificate has been filed in this Court, as required by law, that such appeal has been

lodged, and proceedings had thereon, &c."

18th March, 1871.

Laventure $ Dussault.—Dussault sued the appellant for several hundred dollars. His action was dismissed in the Superfor Court (Artha. baska), but this judgment was reversed in review, and the defendant condemned to pay $250. In appeal, the defendant was condemned to pay $87 and costs of action of that class, and the respondent condemned to pay the costs of appeal and review. Monk dissenting.

16th December, 1870.

The Principal Sec. of State Sr McGreevy.—McGreevy by his action claimed $8597.50; the defendant pleaded tender of JC644 7s, entire amount of indebtedness. Judgment in Superior Court for $3019.18. On appeal by the defendant this amount was reduced to £679 7s. 6d., with costs of Superior Court, plaintiff (respondent) to pay costs in appeal.

Le Secretaire De La Redaction.

REVUE CRITIQUE

Dl

ASSIMILATION OF THE STATUTORY LAWS OF THE PROVINCES OF ONTARIO, NEW BRUNSWICK AND NOVA SCOTIA. *

The plan finally adopted has been to gather together the statutes in each Province, bearing upon any particular subject, omitting, as a general rule, those subjects on which the Dominion Parliament, under the Union Act, has an exclusive right to legislate, such as the Criminal Law, the Militia Law, Navigation and Shipping, &c, subjects on which uniformity could be secured without the action of the Local Legislatures, but, nevertheless, selecting even from those subjects, one, Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, as coming within the daily operations of the merchants and traders of the three Provinces, for the purpose of illustrating the differences in some of the most ordinary branches of business.

The next step was to make a summary of the provisions in each Province bearing on the subject selected, placing the same in

• Tho British North America Act, 1867, provides for the assimilation of the laws of Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and in aecc dance with this provision, steps have been taken by the Domi. nion Government to ascertain the differences in the statutory laws of these Provinces, the common law (the English common law) being the same in all the three. The Hon. J. H. Gray was entrusted with this difficult and honorable task, and he has already made his preliminary report to the Honorable Minister of Justice, supported by voluminous Appendices, which have not yet been printed. Our article is an extract from the said report, prepared and contributed by the honorable and learned Commissioner.—[Ed. Note.]

Vol. I. T No. 3. parallel columns, giving as nearly as possible the corresponding sections of the Acts of each Province, with the substance of each section, for facility of reference, and in a general column of remarks at the close, pointing out the difference. In some instances where the mode of legislature was so entirely dissimilar, as hardly to admit of a selection of corresponding sections, then to give a concise review of the main parts of the mode adopted in each Province.

In carrying out this plan it was found that while both in Nova Scotia and Ontario, the statutes had been revised up to a much later period, and that in both an available index to their statutes to within the last four or five years could be found, yet in New Brunswick there had been no revision since 1S54, and no general index for sixteen or seventeen years.

First.—It became, therefore, necessary to prepare such an index. This was done.

Secondly.—As there were many of the Imperial Statutes, which affected the Dominion—were frequently referred to in the courts —governed the adminstration of justice, and bore upon the property and civil rights of the three Provinces, of which statutes no collection had been made or existed in any compact form in any of the Provinces; it was thought advisable to make one, briefly referring to them by their titles and subject matter, when they were not of a character frequently to be cited; when they were, by giving the sections in full, as well as the title and subject matter; but omitting all parts of the statute not bearing upon British North America. This was done.

Thirdly.—Applications were made to the Provincial Secretaries of the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and to the Secretary of State for the Dominion, to obtain, if possible, a sufficient number of copies of the codified and uncodified laws of the two former Provinces, and of old Canada—to be used for cutting out the extracts for the paralled columns—leaving simply the general remarks to be written, thus saving labour and time, and greatly facilitating the readiness with which the comparisons could be made.

From Nova Scotia no copy of the Consolidated Statutes was obtained, but one set of the Acts for five years, from 1864 to 1869 was sent.

From the Secretary of State for Canada, one copy of the Consolidated Statutes, and the Acts passed subsequently up to the time of Confederation.

« PreviousContinue »