TABLE OF CASES CITED XXV
Kinney v. Dudman, 2 R. & C. 19:
2 Cart. 412: 715 n. 1.
Kramer and another v. Minister of the
Interior, 20 C.T.R. 684 : 1077 n.2.

Lovitt v. R.,43 S.C.R. 106, reversed on
appeal to Privy Council, [1912] A.C.
212:381n.2,721 n. 6,1029n.2,1621.
Low v. Routledge, 1 Ch.App. 42: 375
n. 5, 420, 1453 n. 2.
Tuby v. Lord Wodehouse, 17 Ir.C.L.R.
618: 111.
Tyne v. Webb, 1 CLR. 585: see
Deakin v. Webb.

Lafferty v. Lincoln, 38 S.C.R. 620:
358 n. 1, 674.
Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway
Co. v. Marsh, 358.C.R. 197: 755 n. 2.
Lalloo v. Rex,[1908]T.S. 624: 1097 n. 3.
Landers v. Woodworth, 2 S.C.R. 158 :
447, 451, 696, 735 n. 1.
Laporte v. The Principal Officers of
Artillery, 7 L.C.R. 486 : 1627.
Laramée v. Evans, 241.C.J. 235: 1625.
Laughlin v. Laughlin, 24 N.L.R. 230 :
1240 n. 1.
Lea v. Lea, 23 N.L.R. 91 : 1240 n. 1.
Lee Fay v. Vincent, 7 C.L.R. 389 : 884,
908 n. 1.
re Legislation respecting Abslention
from Labour on Sunday, 35 S.C.R.
581: 754.
Leisy v. Harden, 1350.8. 100: 905 n.2.
Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier, [1895]
A.C. 517: 1242.
Lenoir v. Ritchie, 3 S.C.R. 575; 1
Cart. 488 : 661 n. 1, 667 n., 730 n. 1.
Leprohon v. City of Ottawa, 2 O.A.R.
522; 1 Cart. 592: 672 n. 2, 718
n.3,730n.1, 824 n. 1.
w parte Leveillé, 2 Steph.Dig. 445;
2 Cart. 349: 722 n. 4.
Lewis v. Lewis, (1902) St.R. (Qd.) 115 :
887 n.3.
w parte Levy, 16 C.T.R. 1041 (cf. ex
parte Keating, 15C.T.R. 959):1244 n.
Licence Commissioners of Prince Edward
 County v. County of Prince Edward,
 26 Gr. 452; 2Cart. 678 : 667 n.
Lindberg v. Ah Sheung, 4 C.L.R. 949:
1083 n. 5.
Lindley v. Jones, 16 C.T.R. 695 : 1441
n. lL.
Liquidators of Maritime Bank of
Canada v. Receiver-General of New
Brunswick, [1892] A.C. 437: 130,
145 n. 2, 657, 680 n. 6.
Logan v. Lee, 39 S.C.R. 311: 756 n.1,
886 n. 3.
Long v. The Bishop of Capelown, 1
Moo.P.C. (N.S.) 411 : 1427.
Longeuil Navigation Co. v. City of
Montreal, 15 S.C.R. 566; 4 Cart.
370: 715 n.6.
Loranger v. Colonial Building and
Investment Association, 5 L.N. 116;
2 Cart. 275: 703 n. 3.
ford Colvin. 29 L.J.Ch. 297 : 1321
vN

Vacheath v. Haldimand, 1 T.R. 172:
142 n. 1.
UcCaffrey v. Ball, 34 L.C.J. 91 : 667 n.
UcCaffrey v. Hall, 35 L.C.J. 38: 700
n.8.
UcClanaghan v. St. Annes Mutual
Building Society, 24 L.C.J. 162;
2 Cart. 237: 715 n. 1.
UcCuaig and Smith v. Keith, 4 S.C.R.
648: 724 n.1, 751 n. 2.
UcQulloch v. State of Maryland, 4
Wheat. 316: 823, 827, 830.
WacDermott vv. Judges of British
Guiana, 2 P.C. 341: 1385 n. 1.
Hacdougall v. Union Navigation Co.,
21 L.C.J. 63; 2 Cart. 228: 715n. 2.
‘e McDowell and the Town of Palmerston,
 22 O.R. 563 : 667 n.
WcGregor v. Esquimalt and Nanaimo
Railway Co., [1907] A.C. 462 : 682.
YcKelvey v. Meagher, 4 C.L.R. 265:
385, 652 n.1, 809 n. 3, 816 n.1
1125 n. 1, 1317 n. 1.
Mackenzie v. Maxwell, 20 W.N.
(N.S.W.) 18: 888 n. 1.
McKilligan v. Machar, 3 M.R. 418:
667 n.
UcLennan v. Hubert, 22 L.C.J. 294 :
1347 n. 1.
Wacleod v. Attorney-General for New
South Wales, [1891] A.C. 455: 375,
382, 391, 1454.
Uc Millan v. Free Church of Scotland,
22 D. 290: 1437.
HcMillan v. South-West Boom Co.,
1P.& B.715; 2Cart. 542: 715 n. 4.
Wacgueen v. Frackelton, 8 C.L.R. 673 :
1437 n. 2.
Hadden v. Nelson and Port Sheppard
Railwaey Co., [1899] A.C. 626: 710.
agda v. Registrar of Asiatics, [1909]
T.8. 397: 1097 n. 3.
Uagdalen Hospital v. Knolls and
others, 4 App.Cas. 324: 1385 n.5.
x parte Maher : 690.
Maher v. Town of Poriland, 1 Pugs.
73: 690.
Yalcolim v. Commy. of Railways, [1904]
T.8. G47 + 349 n. 2.