TABLE OF CASES CITED xxi 
Campbell v. Hall, 20 St.Tr. 239; 
Cowper, 204: 3, 391, 1431, 1613 
n. 1. 
Oanada Sugar Refinery Co. v. The 
Queen, [1898] A.C. 735: 795 n. 2. 
Canadian Pacific Navigation Co. v. 
The City of Vancouver, 2 B.C. 193 : 
719 n. 4. 
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Cor- 
poration of the Parish of Notre Dame 
de Bonsecours, [1899] A.C. 367 : 710. 
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. 
Blair, [1904] A.C. 453: 1361 n. 2. 
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. The 
King, 39 S.C.R. 476: 710 n.1. 
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. 
Northern Pacific, &c., Railway Co., 
5 M.R., at p. 313: 702 n.6. 
Canadian Pacific Radway Co. v. 
Ottawa Fire Insurance Co., 39 
S.C.R. 405 : 705, 706. 
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. wv. 
Toronto Corporation and Grand 
Trunk Railway of Canada, [1911] 
A.C. 461: 1357 n. 1. 
Cape Town Council v. Hoskyn and 
others, 21 8.C. 393; 14 C.T.R. 386: 
144 n. 2, 361 n. 2. 
Carrigan v. Redwood (cf. in the Will of 
Purcell, 21 V.I.R. 249 ; re Harnett, 
7 S.R. (N.8.W.) 463, deciding that 
Acts 23 Hen. VIIL c. 10 and 1 
Edw. VI. c. 14 are not in force), 
30 N.ZL.R. 244 : 423. 
Carter v. Molson, 8 App.Cas. 530: 
. 1361 n. 2. 
tn re Carter Medicine Company's 
Trade Mark, W.N. [1892] 106: 
1103 n. 2. 
Central Vermont Railway v. St. John’s, 
14 S.C.R. 288; 715 un. 5. 
Ohia Gee v. Martin, 3 C.L.R. 649: 
820 n, 2, 1083 n. 5. 
China Merchants’ Steam Navigation 
Co. wv. Bignold, 7 App.Cas. 512, 
1525 n. 2. 
Chotabhai v. Minister of Justice and 
another, [1910] T.P. 1151, reversed 
on appeal S.A. L.R. [1911] A.D. 13 
(cf. Ho Ying v. Minister of Justice, 
[1911] T.P.D. 33; Sodka v. R., 
gre. 52; A.D. 139): 1097 
n, 3. 
Chow Quin v. Martin, 3 C.L.R. 649 : 
820 n. 2. 
Chun Teeong Toy, case of : 133, 169. 
Canis v. Fenton, 5 S.C.R. 239: 687 
n. 1. 
Church v. Middlemiss, 21 L.C.T. 319: 
141 n. 1. 
Citizens’ Insurance ~ Company of 
Canada v. Parsons, 7 App.Cas. 96: 
703 n. 2, 706, 724 n. 4. 
City of Carleton v. The County of 
Ottawa, 41 S.C.R. 552: 711 n.4. 
ity of Fredericton v. The Queen, 3 
S.C.R. 505: 666n., 675, 704 n. 6. 
Yity of Halifax v. McLaughlin Car- 
riage Co., 39 S.C.R. 174 : 751 n. 3. 
Yity of Toronto v. Grand Trunk Rail- 
way Co., 37 S.C.R. 232: 711 n.3. 
Ty of Winnipeg v. Barret, 118921 
A.C. 445: 693. 
Jity of Winnipeg v. Logan, ibid. 
HNarke v. Unton Fire Insurance Co., 
6 O.R. 223: 713 n. 2. 
Clarkson v. Attorney-General of Canada, 
16 0.A.R. 202: 145 n.4. 
Clarkson v. The Ontario Bank, 15 
0.A.R. 166: 722n.1. 
Clarkson v. Ryan, 17 S.C.R. 241: 
751 n. 3. 
in re Clay, 1 B.C. (Irving), 300: 
667 n. 
Clegg v. Grand Trunk Railway Co., 
10 0.R. 714: 707 n.3. 
Olergue v. Murray, ex parte Clergue, 
[1903] A.C. 521: 1361 n. 2. 
Cloete v. Reg., 8 Moo.P.C. 484: 1385 
nl. 
Clough v. Leahy, 2 C.L.R. 139: 889. 
Tock v. Attorney-General and another, 
28 N.Z.L.R. 405: 888 n. 2. 
‘olliery Employés Federation of the 
Northern District, N.S. W, v. Brown, 
3 C.L.R. 255: 866 n. 1. 
“olonial Building and Investment Asso- 
ciation v. Attorney-General of Quebec, 
9 App.Cas. 157: 703 n. 2, 706, 715. 
Yolonial Government v. Laborde, 1902 
Mauritius Decisions, 19: 146 n. 2, 
363 n. 3, 1626 n. 7. 
‘olonial Government v. Makuza, 26 
N.I.R. 493 : 145 n. 1. 
Tolonial Sugar Refining Co: v. Irving, 
[1905] A.C. 369: 1368 n.1. 
Jolquhoun v. Brooks, 21 Q.B.D. 52: 
831. 
Jommissioners of Taxation, N.S.W., 
v. Baxter, [1908] A.C. 214: 1370. 
Jommonwealth v. New South Wales 
3 C.L.R. 807 : 796, 826. 
Commonwealth v. Progress Advertising 
Co., 10 C.L.R. 457 : 814 n.2. 
Compagnie hydravlique de St. Frangois 
v. Continental Heat and Light Co., 
[1907] A.C. 194: 708, 723 n.4, 
856. 
Conger v. Kennedy, 26 S.C.R. 397: 
764 n. 2.