XXiv TABLE OF CASES CITED
Horwitz v. Connor, 6 C.L.R. 39 : 140,
810.
Howarth v. Walker, 6 8.R. (N.S.W).
98: 1248 n. 1.
Huddart Parker & Co. Proprielary,
Ltd. v. Moorehead, 8 C.L.R. 330:
834 n.2, 843-5, 851, 889, 890, 903
n. 2.
Huddart Parker & Co. Proprietary v.
Nizon, 29 N.Z.L.R. 657 : 1202-5.
Hughes v. Munro, 9 C.L.R. 289 : 381,
385 n. 2.
Hull Electric Co. v. Ottawa Electric Co.,
[19027 A.C. 237: 708 n. 4.
{mperial Book Company v. Black, 35
S.C.R. 488 : 421, 1233.
‘n re Income Tax Acts, 29 V.L.R. 748 :
1368 n. 1.
wn re Inter-Provincial and International
 Ferries, 36 S.C.R. 206:
118 n. 3, 120 n. 3, 681.
"smail v. Rex, [19087 T.8. 1088: 1097
n. 3.
n re Island of Cape Breton, 5 Moo.P.C.
950: In. 1.

Habib Motan v. Transvaal Government,
 [1904] T.S. 404 : 1092 n. 1.
Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562: 887.
Haggard v. Pelicier Fréres, [1892]
AC. 61: 1347 n.1.
Hamburg America Packet Co. v, The
King, 33 S.C.R. 252: 141 n. 1.
Hamel v. Hamel, 26 S.C.R.7: 755n. 2.
Hamilton Powder Co. v. Lambe,
M.L.R., 1 Q.B. 460 : 707 n. 3.
A v. Dalgarno, 1 C.LLR. 1: 882,
83.
darding v. Commissioner of Stamps for
Disenshend, [1898] A.C. 769: 381
a. lL. .
Harnett v. Crick, [1908] A.C: 470 : 447.
Harris divorce, 1243.
Harris v. Davis, 10 App.Cas. 279 : 417.
Hartley v. Matson, 32 S.C.R. 575:
755 n. 2.
Harvey v. Lord Aylmer, Stuart, 542 :
134 n. 3, 1627.
Hazelton vv. Potter, 5 C.L.R. 445.
133 n. 4, 1319 n. 1.
Hebert v. Clouatre (Report of Commitice
of Toronto Synod, June 1911, pp. 31,
32): 1625.
Hettihewage Simon Appu v. Queen's
Advocate, 9 App.Cas. 571 : 1626 n. 5.
Hewson v. Ontario Power Company, 36
S.C.R. 596 : 712.
The Hibernian, 4 P.C. 511: 1190 n. 1.
Hill v. Bigge, 3 Moo.P.C. 465: 107,
134 n. 3.
The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555:
1352 n. 2.
to Si v. Vernon, [1909] T.S. 1074 :
1097 n. 3.
Hoamie v. Hoamie, 6 V.L.R. (LP. &
M.) 113: 1242.
Hodge v. The Queen, 9 App.Cas. 117:
357, 393, 676, 700 n. 4, 717, 719 n. 5.
Hogan v. Ochiltree, 10 C.L.R. 535:
884, 885.
Holmes v. Angwin, 4 CL.R. 297:
505 n. 2, 883 n. 3, 1365.
Holmes v. The Queen, 31 L.J.Ch. 58
(cf. Robertson, Civil Proceedings by
and against the Crown, p. 360):
145 n. 1.
Holmes v. Temple, 8 Q.L.R. 351 : 412,
665 n. 3.
Hong Kong and Leung Quin v. Attorney-Qeneral,
 [1910] T.S. 348: 1097
n.2, 1318 n. 1.
Hong Kong and Leung Quin v. Attorney-General,
 [1910] T.P. 432: 1363
[oN
n re Horowhenua Block, Division
No. 1L. 30 N.Z.L.R. 530 : 1365 n. 2.

lames Bay. Railway Co. v. Armstrong,
38 S.C.R. 511: 755 n. 2.
The Jassy, 95 L.T. 363: 377 n. 2.
Jefferys v. Boosey, 4. H.L.R. 815 : 384,
w parte Jenkins, 2 P.C. 1568: 1424
n. 1, 1435, 1613 n. 2.
Jephson v. Riera, 3 Knapp, 130 : 392.
Tohnston v. Ministers, d&ec., of St.
Andrew's Church, Montreal, 3
App.Cas. 159: 1357 n. 2, 1437 n. 2.
Jones v. The Canada Central Railway
Co., 46 U.C.Q.B. 250: 721 n.6.
Jooste v. Jooste, 17 CT. R.385 : 1244 nn.
Tumbunna Coal Mine No Liability v.
Victorian Coal Miners’ Association,
BCLR. 39: 6 n. 1.

$8. ‘ Kalibia’ v. Wilson, 11 C.L.R.
689: 868-71, 1215 n. 1, 1350 n. 2,
Kamarooka Gold Mining Co. v. Kerr.
6 C.L.R. 255: 881.
The Eliza Keith, 3Q.L.R. 143: 1190n.1.
Kelly v. Sullivan, 1 8.C.R. 1: 667 n.
Kennedy v. Purcell, 14 8.C.R. 453:
505 n. 2, 674 n. 3, 884 n.
The Khedive, 5 App.Cas. 486: 1525
n. 2.
Kielley v. Carson, 4 Moo.P.C. 84:
1 n. 1, 446.
Kimber v. Colonial Government, 26
N.L.R. 524 : 280.
x parte King, 2 Legge. 1307: 1427
nl