xvi TABLE OF CASES CITED Malone's Divorce (Valid Action) Bill, [1905] A.C. 314: 1244. Hanton v. Williams, 4 C.L.R. 1046: 893 n. 1. ex parte Marais, 11 C.'T.R. 467 : 277. wx parte D. F, Marais, [1902] A.C. 109: 272, 278, 279. Uaritime Bank v. The Queen, 17 S.C.R. 657: 657 n. 6. Marks v. Attorney-General, 1875-97 F.L.R. 219: 1627, w parte Marks, 15 N.S.W.L.R. 179 : 879 n. 2. =n re Louis Marois, 15 Moo.P.C. 189 : 364, 1358. ‘n re Maryon-Wilson's estate, [1911] 2 Ch. 58: 1621. Hason v. Mason, 4 ED.C. 330: 1240 n. 1. Master Retailers’ Association of N.S. W. v. Shop Assistants’ Union of N.S. W., 2CL.R. 94: 866 n. 1, Mathibe v. Lieutenant-Governor [1907], T.S. 557: 349 n. 2. Hayor of Canterbury v. Weyburn. [1895] A.C. 89: 423. Heomini and others v. Governor, dc., of Natal, 22 T.L.R. 413 (see Holland, War and Neutrality, pp. 66, 71, 72): 295. Hercer v. Attorney-General for Onlario, 5 8.C.R. 538, at p. 637: 657 n. 6. Merchant Service Guild of Australasia v. Archibald Currie & Co. Pro- preetary, Lid., 5 C.L.R.737 : 385, 809 0.2, 812 n.1, 1197-9. 1279 n. 1. 1453 n. 1. Merchants’ Bank of Canada v. Gillespie, 10 S.C.R. 312: 666 n., 715 n.1. Merriman v. Williams, 7 App.Cas. 484 : 1433 n.1, 1435. Hetherell v. The Medical Council of British Columbia, 2 B.C. (Cassidy) 186: 413 n.4, 666 n. Wethuen v. Colonial Government, 17 N.L.R. 31: 145 n.1. Wiles v. Mellwraith, 8 App.Cas. 120 : 524 n. 4. Willer v. Haweis, 5 C.L.R. 89: 877n.2. Willer v. Major, 4 C.L.R. 219 ; leave to appeal refused by Privy Council, Times, November 9, 1911; 1246. Winister for Lands (N.S. W.), v. Bank of New South Wales, 9 C.1.R. 322: 885. x parte Minnaar, 11 C.T.R. 217 : 277. Mitchell v. Brown, 10 C.L.R. 456: 884 n. olson v. Chapleau, 6 L.N. 222; 3 Cart. 360: 141 n. 1. 657 n. 6. Molson v. Lambe, 158.C.R. 253; 4 Cart. 334: 661 n. 1. Honk v. Owimet, 19 L.C.J. 75: 146n.4. Yonkhouse v. Grand Trunk Railway, 80.A.R. 637; 3Cart.289: 710n. 1. Hontagw v. Li.-Governor of Van Diemen’s Land, 6 Moo.P.C. 489: 1341 n. 1. Hontreal Street Railway v. City of Montreal, 43 S.C.R. 197, affirmed by Privy Council [1912] A.C.: 713, 724 n. 4. dorcom v. Postmaster-General, 21 N.L.R. 32 (cf. Harrison Moore, Act of State, p. 61): 278. Yoses v. Parker, ex parte Moses, [1896] A.C. 245: 1365 n. 2. Howat v. Casgrain : 687 n. 1. Howat v. McFee, 5 S.C.R. 66: 379. solo and Guana v. Rex, 26 N.L.R. 421: 272 n.3, 279. Wunicipal Council of Sydney v. Bull, [1909] 1 K.B. 7: 382 n.1. Hunicipal Council of Sydney v. Com- monwealth, 1 C.L.R. 208, 817 n.3, 821 n. 4, 905, 1455 n. 1. Wunicipality of Cleveland v. Munici- pality of Melbourne, 4 L.N. 277: 667 n. Mure v. Kaye, 4 Taunt. 35: 146 n. 5. Hurphy v. Murphy, [1902] 1.8. 179 : 1244 n. 2. Hurray v. Burgers, 1 P.C. 362: 1437 n. 2. Hurray v. Johnstone, 1866 Mauritius Decisions, 1: 1626 n. 7. Wusgrave v. Pulido, 5 App.Cas. 102: 105-14. Husgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy, [1891] A.C. 272: 171 n. 1, 392, 1077 n.2, 1621. Wusgrove v. Macdonald, 3 C.L.R. 132: 884 n. Nabob of the Carnatic v. the East India Company, 1 Ves.Jr. 388: 108. Naidoo and others v. Rex, [1909] T.8. 43: 1097 n. 3. ‘mn re Nakane and Okazake, 13 B.C. 370: 689 n.2, 1089 n. 1. Napier v. Scholl, 1904 S.A.L.R. 73: 1248 n. 1, 1269 n. 1. Natal Bank, Ltd. v. Rood's Heirs, [1909] T.S. 402; [1910] A.C. 570 : 1365 n. 1. National Starch Manufacturing Co. v. Munw's Patent Maizena Co., 13 N.S.W.L.R.Eq. 101: 879 n.2. Nefler v. Nefler, [19061 O.R.C. 7: 1944 n.