XXX TABLE OF CASES CITED 
Reg. v. Roddy, 41 U.C.Q.B. 291; 
1 Cart. 709: 699 n. 5. 
Reg. v. 8t. Catherine's Milling and 
Lumber Co., 13 0.AR. 148, at pp. 
165, 166 : 657 n. 6. 
Reg. v. St. Catherine's Milling and 
Lumber Co., 14 App. Cas. 46: 
684 n. 2, 687 n. 1. 
RB. v. Shawe, 5 M. & S. 403 : 138. 
R. v. Staples: 997 n. 1. 
Reg. v. Stone, 23 O.R. 46: 700 n. 8. 
The King v. Sutton, 5 C.L.R. 789: 
793-5, 819 n. 3, 906 n. 2. 
Reg. v. Symonds: 1059 n. 1. 
Reg. v. Taylor, 36 U.C.Q.B. 183: 412, 
665 n. 3. 
R. v. van Vuuren, 12 C.T.R. 902 : 277. 
Rex v. Walters, 12 C.T.R. 805: 277 
n.9. 
Reg. v. Wason, 17 0.A.R. 221: 700 
n 7. 
Rex v. Wenner, 12 C.T.R. 144 : 277. 
RB. v. Wing Chong, 1 B.C. (part ii) = 2 
B.C. (Irving) 150 : 666 n., 1076 n. 3. 
The Queen v. Yule, 308.C.R. 24 : 688; 
at p. 34. 143 n. 1. 
St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber 
Co. v. The Queen, 14 App.Cas. 46 : 
391, 687 n. 1,757 n. 1. 
Sandberg v. Sandberg, 26 N.L.R. 684 : 
1240 n. 1. 
Sargood Bros. v. The Commonwealth, 
11 C.L.R. 258 : 441 n.1, 879 n. 3. 
Saunders v. Borthistle, 1 C.L.R. 379 : 
884 n. 
Schiffmann v. The King, 11 C.L.R. 
255: 884 n. 
Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Ex. 220: 1347 
n. 1. 
Separate School Trustees of Belleville 
v. Granger, 25 Gr. 570 ; 1 Cart. 816; 
696. 
Severn v. The Queen, 28.C.R. 70: 675 
n.2, 725 n. 5, 736 n. 4. 
Sewell v. British Columbia Towing Co. 
(The ‘Thrasher’ Case), 1 B.C. 
(Irving), 153 : 666 n., 717. 
Sheard v. Attorney-General, [1908] T. 8. 
1077: 349 n. 2. 
Shenton v. Smith, [1895] A.C. 229: 
344 n. 1. 
Sheppard v. Sheppard, 13 B.C. 281 (cf. 
S.v. M., 1 B.C. (Irving) 25) : 753. 
Shoolbred v. Clarke, 17 S.C.R. 265: 
4 Cart. 459: 715 n. 1. 
Moses Sibist v. Curators of Church of 
England, 21 NL.R. 90: 1442 n. 1. 
Yinclair's Divorce Bill, [18991 A.C. 
160 « 19244 n 4 
in re insolvent Estate Skeen, 27 N.L.R. 
536: 1321 n. 1. 
Skelton. v. Government of Newfound- 
land, 1897 Newfoundland Decisions, 
243: 349 n. 2, 
Yloman v. Government of New Zealand, 
1 C.P.D. 563: 1457 n. 
Imiles v. Belford, 1 O.A.R. 436 3 
1 Cart. 576 : 420, 666 n., 1225. 
Smith v. Brown, 2 Salk. 666: 2 n. 1. 
Smith v. City of London, 20 O.L.R. 133: 
748. 
Smith v. Justices of Sierra Leone, 7 
Moo.P.C. 174 : 1385 n. 1. 
‘n re Sooka Nand Verma, 7 W.A.L.R. 
225 (cf. Sonnadere v. Municipality 
of Perth, 1 W.A.L.R. 61): 141 n. I. 
Sottomayor v. De Barros, 3 P.D. 1; 
1246, 
Spiller v. Turner, [1897] 1 Ch. 911: 
382 n. 1. 
Yprigg v. Sigcau, [1897] A.C. 238; 
5 C.T.R. 268: 1622. 
‘e Squier, 46 U.C.Q.B. 474; 1 Cart. 
789: 701 n.2, 1338 n. 1. 
Stamp Duties Commissioner v. Salting, 
[1907] A.C. 449: 381 n. 1. 
Standard Ideal Company v. Standard 
Sanitary Manufacturing Company, 
[1911] A.C. 78: 668 n. 1, 707 n. 3. 
State Railway Servants’ Case, 4 C.L.R. 
488 : 886 n. 2. 
State of Tasmania v. Commonwealth 
and State of Victoria, 1 C.L.R. 329 : 
896 n. 1. 
Steer v. Steer, 16 N.L.R. 237: 1240 
n. 1. 
Stephens v. Abrahams, 29 V.L.R. 201 : 
637 n. 1. 
Stevenson v. The Queen, 2 W.W. & 
A’B.(L.) 143 : 441 n. 1, 600 n, 2. 
2x parte Steward, [1907] O.R.C. 37: 
1244. 
Stockwell v. Ryder, 4 C.L.R. 469 : 349 
n 2. 
Stone v. Rex,[1906]T.8, 855: 1317n.2. 
Strachan v. The Commonwealth, 4 
C.L.R. 455: 145n.1,912n. 1. 
Suds v. Spencer, I.R. 6 C.L. 173: 
Sulte v. City of Three Rivers, 11 S.C.R. 
25: 4 Cart. 305: 676 n. 3. 
Tai Sing v. Maguire, 1 B.C. (Irving) 
101: 413, 666 n., 698, 718 n. 8, 
1076 n. 2, 1104 n. 2, 
Tandy v. Earl of Westmoreland, 27 
St. Tr. 1246: 111. 
Tappenden v. Tappenden, 25 W.N. 
INSWI8L: 1243 nn. 1.