TABLE OF CASES CITED 
r 
. 
672 n.1, 809 n. 1, 829-33, 877 n. 2, 
882 n.2, 886 n.2, 1369, 1370, 1453 
nL 
Baxter v. New South Wales Clickers 
Association, 10 CLR. 114: 859 
n.1, 884 n. 
Bayne v. Blake, 5 C.L.R. 497: 885 
n. 3. 
inre Baynes, 9 Queens. 1.J. 33: 145 n. 4. 
Beardmore v. City of Toronto, 20 O.L.R. 
165; 21 O.L.R. 505: 748. 
Beaumont v. Barrett, 1 Moo.P.C. 59: 
21n.1, 4486. - 
Beaver v. Master in Equity of Supreme 
Court of Victoria, [1895] A.C. 251: 
38 n. 1. 
in re Bedard, 7 Moo.P.C. 23: 1299 n. 2 
in re Behari Lal et al., 13 B.C. 415: 
689 n. 2, 1089 n. 1. 
Belanger v. Caron, 5 Q.L.R., at p. 25 
667 n. 
in re Bell Telephone Co., 7 O.R. 605 
703. : 
Bickford, Smith & Co. v. Musgrove 
17 V.L.R. 296 : 436.1. 
Binda v. Attorney-General, 5 S.C. 284 
145 n. 1. 
Bishop of Cape Town v. Bishop of 
Natal, 3 P.C. 1: 1428 n. 1. 
Bishop of Columbia v. Cridge, 1 B.C. 
(Irving) 5: 1625, 
in re The Lord Bishop of Natal, 2 
Moo.P.C. (N.S.) 115: 1357 n.1 
1383, 1428. 
Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone, 3 Eq. 1: 
432, 
Bishop of Natal v. Green, 1868 N.L.R. 
138; 18 L.T.N.S. 112: 423, 1435. 
Bishop of Natal v. Wills, 1867 N.L.R 
60: 423. 
Black v. Imperial Book Co. 5 O.L.R 
184: 1232. 
Blake v. Bayne, [19081 A.C. 371 : 880 
nl. 
Blankard v. Galdy, 2 Salk. 411: 1n.1. 
Board of Curators of Church of England 
v. Durban Corporation and H. E. 
Colenso, 21 N.L.R. 22 : 1442. 
Bond v. Commonwealth, 1 C.L.R. 13: 
593 n. 2. 
Booth v. McIntyre, 31 U.C.C.P., at 
pp. 193,194 : 756 1.3. 
Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. Boston 
Rubber Co. of Montreal, 32 S.C.R. 
315: 668 n. 1. 
ex parte Botha and others, 12 C.T.R. 
612: 277. 
Bourgoin v. Chemin de Fer de Montréal, 
Ottawa et Occidental, 5 App.Cas. 
381: 667 n., 713 n. 4. 
Bowron Bros. v. Bishop and another, 29 
N.Z.L.R. 821: 1364 n.2. 
Bow, McLachlan & Co. v. Ship 
¢ Camosun’, [1909] A. C. 597: 
1352 n. 1. 
re Brandon Bridge, 2 M.R. 14: 708 n. 1. 
Brassard et al. v. Langevin, 1 S.C.R. 
145: 1445 n.3. 
van Brede v. van Brede, [1907] O.R.C. 
107: 1244 n. 
Brewers’ and Maltsters’ Association of 
Ontario v. The Attorney-General for 
Ontario, [1897] A.C. 231: 675, 716, 
718. 
ex parte Bright, 12 C.T.R. 299 : 1243 
n. 6. 
Brisbane Oyster Fishery Co. v. Emer- 
son, Knox, 80: 374, 1278 n. 3. 
Brisbane Shipwrights’ Union v. Heggie, 
3 C.L.R. 686 : 884 n. 
Brook v. Brook, 13 N.S.W.L.R.Div. 9 
(cf. Whitehouse v. Whitehouse, 21 
N.S. W.L.R. Div. 16 ; Webb v. Webb, 
1S.R. (N.S W.)(D.) 32): 1243 n. 1. 
Brophy v. Attorney-General for Mani- 
toba, [1895] A.C. 202 : 693. 
Brown v. Curé, efc., de Montréal, 6 
P.C. 157: 1437 n.2. 
Brown v. Lizars, 2 C.L.R. 837: 133, 
n.4, 146 n. 5, 1104 n. 1, 1319 n. L. 
Bruce v. Commonwealth Trade Marks 
Label Association, 4 C.L.R. 1569: 
1385 n. 5. 
Buckley v. Edwards, [1892] A.C. 387: 
1333-6, 1588 n.3. 
Bull v. Wing Chong, 2 B.C. (Irving) 
150: 698. 
Burn v. Fontaine, 4 RL. 163 : 1625. 
Buron v. Denman, 2 Ex. 167 (cf. Poll 
v. Lord Advocate, [18991 1 I. 823) : 
120 n. 4. 
Burrard Power Co. v. The King, [1911] 
A.C. 87 (cf. Canada Gazette, xlv. 
9040). 649 n. 3. 683. 762 n. 1. 
Caldwell v. McLaren, 9 App.Cas. 392: 
738. 
in re Californian Fig Syrup Company's 
Trade Mark, 40 Ch.D. 620: 1103 
n. 2. 
Callender Sykes & Co. v. Colonial 
Secretary of Lagos, [1891] A.C. 460 : 
422 n. 6, 1321 n. 1. 
in re Cambridge, 3 Moo.P.C. 175: 
1357 n. 4 
Cameron v. Kyte, 3 Knapp, 332: 
2 n.1, 109, 392. 
in re Estate Campbell, [1905] T.S. 28 : 
1321 n.1.