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 Inter- 
national 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 Govern- 
ment, [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. Attor- 
ney-Qeneral, [1910] T.S. 348: 1097 
n.2, 1318 n. 1. 
Hong Kong and Leung Quin v. Attor- 
ney-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