TABLE OF CASES CITED XXV 
Kinney v. Dudman, 2 R. & C. 19: 
2 Cart. 412: 715 n. 1. 
Kramer and another v. Minister of the 
Interior, 20 C.T.R. 684 : 1077 n.2. 
Lovitt v. R.,43 S.C.R. 106, reversed on 
appeal to Privy Council, [1912] A.C. 
212:381n.2,721 n. 6,1029n.2,1621. 
Low v. Routledge, 1 Ch.App. 42: 375 
n. 5, 420, 1453 n. 2. 
Tuby v. Lord Wodehouse, 17 Ir.C.L.R. 
618: 111. 
Tyne v. Webb, 1 CLR. 585: see 
Deakin v. Webb. 
Lafferty v. Lincoln, 38 S.C.R. 620: 
358 n. 1, 674. 
Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway 
Co. v. Marsh, 358.C.R. 197: 755 n. 2. 
Lalloo v. Rex,[1908]T.S. 624: 1097 n. 3. 
Landers v. Woodworth, 2 S.C.R. 158 : 
447, 451, 696, 735 n. 1. 
Laporte v. The Principal Officers of 
Artillery, 7 L.C.R. 486 : 1627. 
Laramée v. Evans, 241.C.J. 235: 1625. 
Laughlin v. Laughlin, 24 N.L.R. 230 : 
1240 n. 1. 
Lea v. Lea, 23 N.L.R. 91 : 1240 n. 1. 
Lee Fay v. Vincent, 7 C.L.R. 389 : 884, 
908 n. 1. 
re Legislation respecting Abslention 
from Labour on Sunday, 35 S.C.R. 
581: 754. 
Leisy v. Harden, 1350.8. 100: 905 n.2. 
Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier, [1895] 
A.C. 517: 1242. 
Lenoir v. Ritchie, 3 S.C.R. 575; 1 
Cart. 488 : 661 n. 1, 667 n., 730 n. 1. 
Leprohon v. City of Ottawa, 2 O.A.R. 
522; 1 Cart. 592: 672 n. 2, 718 
n.3,730n.1, 824 n. 1. 
w parte Leveillé, 2 Steph.Dig. 445; 
2 Cart. 349: 722 n. 4. 
Lewis v. Lewis, (1902) St.R. (Qd.) 115 : 
887 n.3. 
w parte Levy, 16 C.T.R. 1041 (cf. ex 
parte Keating, 15C.T.R. 959):1244 n. 
Licence Commissioners of Prince Ed- 
ward County v. County of Prince Ed- 
ward, 26 Gr. 452; 2Cart. 678 : 667 n. 
Lindberg v. Ah Sheung, 4 C.L.R. 949: 
1083 n. 5. 
Lindley v. Jones, 16 C.T.R. 695 : 1441 
n. lL. 
Liquidators of Maritime Bank of 
Canada v. Receiver-General of New 
Brunswick, [1892] A.C. 437: 130, 
145 n. 2, 657, 680 n. 6. 
Logan v. Lee, 39 S.C.R. 311: 756 n.1, 
886 n. 3. 
Long v. The Bishop of Capelown, 1 
Moo.P.C. (N.S.) 411 : 1427. 
Longeuil Navigation Co. v. City of 
Montreal, 15 S.C.R. 566; 4 Cart. 
370: 715 n.6. 
Loranger v. Colonial Building and 
Investment Association, 5 L.N. 116; 
2 Cart. 275: 703 n. 3. 
ford Colvin. 29 L.J.Ch. 297 : 1321 
vN 
Vacheath v. Haldimand, 1 T.R. 172: 
142 n. 1. 
UcCaffrey v. Ball, 34 L.C.J. 91 : 667 n. 
UcCaffrey v. Hall, 35 L.C.J. 38: 700 
n.8. 
UcClanaghan v. St. Annes Mutual 
Building Society, 24 L.C.J. 162; 
2 Cart. 237: 715 n. 1. 
UcCuaig and Smith v. Keith, 4 S.C.R. 
648: 724 n.1, 751 n. 2. 
UcQulloch v. State of Maryland, 4 
Wheat. 316: 823, 827, 830. 
WacDermott vv. Judges of British 
Guiana, 2 P.C. 341: 1385 n. 1. 
Hacdougall v. Union Navigation Co., 
21 L.C.J. 63; 2 Cart. 228: 715n. 2. 
‘e McDowell and the Town of Palmers- 
ton, 22 O.R. 563 : 667 n. 
WcGregor v. Esquimalt and Nanaimo 
Railway Co., [1907] A.C. 462 : 682. 
YcKelvey v. Meagher, 4 C.L.R. 265: 
385, 652 n.1, 809 n. 3, 816 n.1 
1125 n. 1, 1317 n. 1. 
Mackenzie v. Maxwell, 20 W.N. 
(N.S.W.) 18: 888 n. 1. 
McKilligan v. Machar, 3 M.R. 418: 
667 n. 
UcLennan v. Hubert, 22 L.C.J. 294 : 
1347 n. 1. 
Wacleod v. Attorney-General for New 
South Wales, [1891] A.C. 455: 375, 
382, 391, 1454. 
Uc Millan v. Free Church of Scotland, 
22 D. 290: 1437. 
HcMillan v. South-West Boom Co., 
1P.& B.715; 2Cart. 542: 715 n. 4. 
Wacgueen v. Frackelton, 8 C.L.R. 673 : 
1437 n. 2. 
Hadden v. Nelson and Port Sheppard 
Railwaey Co., [1899] A.C. 626: 710. 
agda v. Registrar of Asiatics, [1909] 
T.8. 397: 1097 n. 3. 
Uagdalen Hospital v. Knolls and 
others, 4 App.Cas. 324: 1385 n.5. 
x parte Maher : 690. 
Maher v. Town of Poriland, 1 Pugs. 
73: 690. 
Yalcolim v. Commy. of Railways, [1904] 
T.8. G47 + 349 n. 2.