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. Propreetary,
 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. Commonwealth,
 1 C.L.R. 208, 817 n.3,
821 n. 4, 905, 1455 n. 1.
Wunicipality of Cleveland v. Municipality
 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.