XXil TABLE OF CASES CITED
Davies and Jones v. The State of
Western Australia, 2 CLR. 29:
908.
Deakin v. Webb, 1 C.L.R. 585: 672
n.1, 673 n. 1, 825, 1368.
Deek v. Deek, 2 Sw. & Tr. 90: 1242.
Deeks v. Davidson, 26 Gr. 488 : 1437
n. 2.
Delpit v. Coté, R.J.Q. 20 C.S. 338:
1625.
IY Emden. v. Pedder, 1 C.L.R. 91:
385 n.2, 672 n. 1, 809 n.1, 821-5,
830, 837, 856, 906, 1453 n. 1.
Dettman v. Williams, 3 C.L.R. 43:
893 n. 1.
Devine v. Holloway, 14 Moo.P.C. 290 :
471.
Dewar v. Smith, 1900 S.A.L.R. 38:
682 n. 4.
The Diana, Lush. 539: 377 n. 2.
in re Dillet, 12 App.Cas. 453: 1359
n. 1.
Dinner et al. v. Humberstone, 26 S.C.R.
252: 681 n.2, 715 n. 2, 764 n. 2.
Dobie v. The Temporalities Board,
7 App.Cas. 136 : 358, 674.
Dominion of Canada v. Province of
Ontario, [1910] A.C. 637: 612n.1,
684-7, 795 n. 1, 1455 n. 1.
Donegani v. Donegani, 3 Knapp, 63 :
392.
Donohoe v. Britz, 1 C.L.R. 391: &9%0
n 2.
Dorion v. Laurent, 17 L.C.J. 324:
1625.
Dow v. Black, 6 P.C. 272: 713 n.1,
716.
Doyle v. Falconer, 4 Moo.P.C. (N.8.)
203 : 446.
Dulmage v. Douglas, 3 M.R. 495: 716
n. 5.
Dumphy v. Kehoe, 21 R.L. 119: 658
n.2, 680 n. 1.
ww parte Duncan, 16 L.C.J. 188;
2 Cart. 297 : 700 n. 2.
Dunn v. Reg., [189611 Q.B. 116: 344
n. 1.
Dunstan v. Houison, 1 S.R. (N.S. W.)
(Eq.) 212: 1441 n.1.
Doser v. Degré. R.J.Q. 20 C.S. 456:

Covey v. Municipality of County of
Broome, 21 L.C.J, 182: 720 n. 2.
Dook v. Sprigg, [1909] A.C. 572; 5
C.T.R. 107: 1104 n. 1, 1621.
Jooper v. Cooper, 13 App.Cas. 88:
756 n.1, 886 n. 3.
Jooper v. Commissioners of Income
Tax for the State of Queensland, 4
C.L.R. 1304: 360, 426, 427, 1331
nl.
Torporation of Toronto v. Virgo, [1896]
A.C. 88: 725.
Coté v. Chauveau, 7 QL.R. 258;
2 Cart. 311: 700 n. 2.
Toté v. Watson, 3 Q.L.R. 157; 2 Cart.
343: 715n. 1.
in re County Courts of British Columbia,
 21 8.C.R. 446 : 701 n. 1.
Phe Courier, Lush. 541 : 377 n. 2.
Cousins v. Commonwealth, 3 C.L.R.
529: 893 n. 2.
Towan v. Wright, 23 Gr. 416 : 722 n. 1,
736 n. 3.
Earl Cowley v. Countess Cowley, {19011
A.C. 450: 1299 n. 1.
Cox v. Coleridge, 1 B. & C. 37: 830 n.
Tredit Valley Railway Co. v. Great
Western Railway Co., 256 Gr. 507 :
713 n.3.
Tremar v. Cremar, 12 V.L.R. 738:
1242 n. 6.
in re Criminal Code, 43 S.C.R. 434:
755 n. 1.
‘n re Criminal Code, Bigamy Sections,
27 8.C.R. 461 : 376, 1454, 1459 n. 1.
The Ship ‘Cuba’ v. McMillan, 26
S.C.R.651: 716 n. 1, 1525 n. 2.
Dunard v. The King. 43 S.C.R. 88:
1630.
Cunningham v. Tomey Homma, [1903]
A.C. 151: 478 n. 1, 697, 1089 n. 4.
Oushing v. Dupuy, 5 App.Cas. 409,
364: 505 n.2, 723 n.1, 1157 n. 1.
1358.
Tuwvillier v. Aylwin, 2 Knapp, 72
(see Stuart, 527, at pp. 534. 535) :
264. 1358.

Daily Telegraph Newspaper  v.
McLaughlin, [19041 A.C. 777:
1361 n. 2.
Dalrymple and others v. Colonial
Treasurer, [1910] T.P. 372: 265
n. 2, 446 n. 1.
Damodhar Gordhan v. Deoram Kanji, 1
App.Cas. 332: 1103 n. 2.
x parte Dansereau, 19 L.C.J. 210 : 451.
Davenport v. The Queen, 3 App.Cas.
115: 1385 n. 5.

Bast India Co. v. Campbell, 1 Ves. 246 :
146 n. 5.
Hastern Rand Exploration Co. Lid. v.
Nel and others, [19031 T.8. 42 : 410
n. 1. .
Elkan v. de la Juvenay, 22 A.T.T. 34 :
RR7n. 2