TABLE OF CASES CITED xix

Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General
 of Ontario (The Pardoning
 or Executive Power case), 23
S.C.R. 458, 5 Cart. 517: 105 n.1,
364 n. 1, 663, 664 n.1, 666 n., 667n.,
680 n. 5, 686, 1386 n. 1.
Attorney-General for the Dominion
of Canada v. Attorney-General for On.
tario, [1897] A.C. 199: 6841.2, 688.
ltéorney- General for the Dominion of
Canada v. Attorney-General for the
Province of Ontario, [1898] A.C. 247;
681 n.1, 1299 n, 2.
Attorney-General for the Dominion of
Canada v. Attorneys-General for the
Provinces of Ontario, dec., [1898]
A.C. 700: 679 n.1, 682 n. 2, 1385.
Attorney-General for the Cape of Good
Hope v. van Reenen, [19041 A.C. 114:
272, 279.
dltorney-General for the Commonwealth
 v. Ah Sheung, 4 C.L.R. 949 :
820 n.3, 1083 n. 5, 1454 n. 1.
Attorney-General for Manitoba v.
ditorney-Qeneral for Canada, [1904]
A.C. 799: 1051 n. 1.
1ttorney-General for Manitoba  v.
Manitoba Licence Holders Association,
 [1902] A.C. 73: 677.
1ttorney-General for New South Wales
Vv. Brewery Employés’ Union of New
South Wales, 6 C.L.R. 469 : 840-3.
Ltorney-General of New South Wales
v. Collector of Customs, 5C.L.R. 818:
793, 794, 836, 837, 906 n. 2.
litorney-General of New South Wales
v. Collector of Customs, [1909] A.C.
345: 1372 n. 2.
Lttorney-General of New South Wales
v. Curator of Intestate Estates, [1907]
A.C. 519: 145 n.4, 363 n. 2. :
Attorney-General for New South Wales
V. Love, [18987 A.C. 679: 411 n. 1.
ditorney-General of New South Wales
v. Rennie, 16 N.SW.L.R. 11l,
[1896] A.C. 376: 503 n.4.
Attorney-General of Newfoundland v.
Commercial Cable Co., Royal Gazette,
October 17, 1911 : 1615.
1ttorney-General of Ontario v. Atiorney-General
 for the Dominion of Canada,
[1894] ‘A.C. 189: 714, 722 n.1.
724 n. 4.
Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General
 for the Dominion and
Brewers’ Association of Ontario,
[1896] A.C. 348 : 676 n. 2,677n.1,
704, 719 nn. 1, 2, 720 n. 3, 721 n.1,
723 1.3, 724 n. 2,725 n.4, 1385 n. 2.
Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorh


ney-General for Quebec, [1903] A.C.
39: 760n. 1.
ttorney-Qeneral for Ontario v. Hamil:
ton Street Railway, [1903] A.C. 524 :
699, 754 n. 1.
{ttorney-General of Ontario v. Mercer,
8 App.Cas. 767 : 146 n. 3, 657, 680.
{ttorney-General for Prince Bdward
Island v. Attorney-General for Domanion
 of Canada, [1905] A.C. 37 :
513, 653 n. 1, 754 n. 5, 772 n. 2, 792.
Vttorney-General of Quebec v. Attorney-General
 of Canada, 1 Q.L.R. 197 :
680 n. 1.
Lttorney-General of Quebec v. Queen
Insurance Co., 3 App.Cas. 1090:
704 n. 1, 843,
1ttorney-General of Quebec v. Reed,
10 App.Cas. 141: 704 n, 2.
Attorney-General of Queensland +.
Gibbon, 12 App.Cas. 442 : 525, 1385
nl
Auld v. Murray : 408.
in re Australasian Automatic Weighing
Machine, 1 Tas.L.R. 113: 895 n. 1.
dustralian Boot Trade Employés
Federation v. Whybrow & Company,
10 C.L.R. 266 : 848-57.
Australian Boot Trade Employés'
Federation v. Whybrow & Company,
11 C.L.R. 311 : 863 n.2.
n re Award of Wellington Cooks’ and
Stewards’ Union, 26 N.Z.1.R. 394 :
396-9, 1200-2, 1320, 1454 n. 5.

in re Bahama Islands, [1893] A.C. 138:
1421 n. 3.
Baird v. Walker (cf, Peters v. Olsen,
4 Adam, 608; Mortensen v. Pelers,
5 Adam, 121), 1897 Newfoundland
Decisions, 490 : 1103, 1104.
Baldick and Others v. Jackson, 30
N.Z.L.R. 343 : 146 n. 3.
Bank of Australasia v. Nias, 16 Q.B.
717: 402.
Bank of Toronto v. Lambe, 12 App.Cas.
575: 672 n.2, 673, 704 n.4, 718,
722 n.2, 725 n. 5.
re Robert Barbour, 12 N.S W.L.R., 90 :
1365 n. 2,
Barton v. The Queen, 2 Moo.P.C. 19:
1348 n. 2.
Barton v. Taylor, 11 App.Cas. 197: 447.
n_re Bateman’s Trust, 15 Eq. 355:
145 n. 3, 658 n. 1, 1457 n.
Baume v. The Commonwealth, 4 C.L.R.
97: 879 n.3.
Baxter v.AhWay,8C.L.R. 626: 359,360.
Baxter v. Commissioners of Taxation,
New South Wales, 4 C.L.R. 1087 :