xvi TABLE OF CASES CITED 
Malone's Divorce (Valid Action) Bill, 
[1905] A.C. 314: 1244. 
Hanton v. Williams, 4 C.L.R. 1046: 
893 n. 1. 
ex parte Marais, 11 C.'T.R. 467 : 277. 
wx parte D. F, Marais, [1902] A.C. 
109: 272, 278, 279. 
Uaritime Bank v. The Queen, 17 
S.C.R. 657: 657 n. 6. 
Marks v. Attorney-General, 1875-97 
F.L.R. 219: 1627, 
w parte Marks, 15 N.S.W.L.R. 179 : 
879 n. 2. 
=n re Louis Marois, 15 Moo.P.C. 189 : 
364, 1358. 
‘n re Maryon-Wilson's estate, [1911] 
2 Ch. 58: 1621. 
Hason v. Mason, 4 ED.C. 330: 1240 
n. 1. 
Master Retailers’ Association of N.S. W. 
v. Shop Assistants’ Union of N.S. W., 
2CL.R. 94: 866 n. 1, 
Mathibe v. Lieutenant-Governor [1907], 
T.S. 557: 349 n. 2. 
Hayor of Canterbury v. Weyburn. 
[1895] A.C. 89: 423. 
Heomini and others v. Governor, dc., 
of Natal, 22 T.L.R. 413 (see Holland, 
War and Neutrality, pp. 66, 71, 72): 
295. 
Hercer v. Attorney-General for Onlario, 
5 8.C.R. 538, at p. 637: 657 n. 6. 
Merchant Service Guild of Australasia 
v. Archibald Currie & Co. Pro- 
preetary, Lid., 5 C.L.R.737 : 385, 809 
0.2, 812 n.1, 1197-9. 1279 n. 1. 
1453 n. 1. 
Merchants’ Bank of Canada v. Gillespie, 
10 S.C.R. 312: 666 n., 715 n.1. 
Merriman v. Williams, 7 App.Cas. 484 : 
1433 n.1, 1435. 
Hetherell v. The Medical Council of 
British Columbia, 2 B.C. (Cassidy) 
186: 413 n.4, 666 n. 
Wethuen v. Colonial Government, 17 
N.L.R. 31: 145 n.1. 
Wiles v. Mellwraith, 8 App.Cas. 120 : 
524 n. 4. 
Willer v. Haweis, 5 C.L.R. 89: 877n.2. 
Willer v. Major, 4 C.L.R. 219 ; leave 
to appeal refused by Privy Council, 
Times, November 9, 1911; 1246. 
Winister for Lands (N.S. W.), v. Bank 
of New South Wales, 9 C.1.R. 322: 
885. 
x parte Minnaar, 11 C.T.R. 217 : 277. 
Mitchell v. Brown, 10 C.L.R. 456: 
884 n. 
olson v. Chapleau, 6 L.N. 222; 3 
Cart. 360: 141 n. 1. 657 n. 6. 
Molson v. Lambe, 158.C.R. 253; 4 Cart. 
334: 661 n. 1. 
Honk v. Owimet, 19 L.C.J. 75: 146n.4. 
Yonkhouse v. Grand Trunk Railway, 
80.A.R. 637; 3Cart.289: 710n. 1. 
Hontagw v. Li.-Governor of Van 
Diemen’s Land, 6 Moo.P.C. 489: 
1341 n. 1. 
Hontreal Street Railway v. City of 
Montreal, 43 S.C.R. 197, affirmed 
by Privy Council [1912] A.C.: 713, 
724 n. 4. 
dorcom v. Postmaster-General, 21 
N.L.R. 32 (cf. Harrison Moore, Act 
of State, p. 61): 278. 
Yoses v. Parker, ex parte Moses, [1896] 
A.C. 245: 1365 n. 2. 
Howat v. Casgrain : 687 n. 1. 
Howat v. McFee, 5 S.C.R. 66: 379. 
solo and Guana v. Rex, 26 N.L.R. 
421: 272 n.3, 279. 
Wunicipal Council of Sydney v. Bull, 
[1909] 1 K.B. 7: 382 n.1. 
Hunicipal Council of Sydney v. Com- 
monwealth, 1 C.L.R. 208, 817 n.3, 
821 n. 4, 905, 1455 n. 1. 
Wunicipality of Cleveland v. Munici- 
pality of Melbourne, 4 L.N. 277: 
667 n. 
Mure v. Kaye, 4 Taunt. 35: 146 n. 5. 
Hurphy v. Murphy, [1902] 1.8. 179 : 
1244 n. 2. 
Hurray v. Burgers, 1 P.C. 362: 1437 
n. 2. 
Hurray v. Johnstone, 1866 Mauritius 
Decisions, 1: 1626 n. 7. 
Wusgrave v. Pulido, 5 App.Cas. 102: 
105-14. 
Husgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy, [1891] 
A.C. 272: 171 n. 1, 392, 1077 n.2, 
1621. 
Wusgrove v. Macdonald, 3 C.L.R. 132: 
884 n. 
Nabob of the Carnatic v. the East India 
Company, 1 Ves.Jr. 388: 108. 
Naidoo and others v. Rex, [1909] T.8. 
43: 1097 n. 3. 
‘mn re Nakane and Okazake, 13 B.C. 
370: 689 n.2, 1089 n. 1. 
Napier v. Scholl, 1904 S.A.L.R. 73: 
1248 n. 1, 1269 n. 1. 
Natal Bank, Ltd. v. Rood's Heirs, 
[1909] T.S. 402; [1910] A.C. 570 : 
1365 n. 1. 
National Starch Manufacturing Co. v. 
Munw's Patent Maizena Co., 13 
N.S.W.L.R.Eq. 101: 879 n.2. 
Nefler v. Nefler, [19061 O.R.C. 7: 
1944 n.