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. Corporation
 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 Carriage
 Co., 39 S.C.R. 174 : 751 n. 3.
Yity of Toronto v. Grand Trunk Railway
 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 Association
 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.