xxviii TABLE OF CASES CITED 
Potgieter v. Polgieter, [1904] O.R.C. 
80: 1244 n. 1. 
Potter v. Minahan, 7 C.L.R. 277: 
820 n. 4, 1454 n. 1. 
Powell v. The Apollo Candle Company, 
10 App.Cas. 282: 357, 415, 855. 
Prince v. Gagnon, 8 App. Cas. 103: 
1361 n. 2. 
‘n re Prohibitory Liquor Laws, 248.C.R. 
170; [1896] A.C. 348: 676 n.2, 677 
n. 1, 704, 719 nn. 1, 2, 720 n. 3, 721 
n.1,723 n. 3,724 n.2, 725, 1385 n. 2. 
Province of Ontario and Dominion of 
Canada v. Province of Quebec, 25 
S.C.R. 434: 760 n. 1. 
Province of Quebec v. The Dominion of 
Canada, 30 S.C.R. 151 : 688. 
Province of Quebec v. Province of 
Ontario, [1910] A.C. 627 : 760 n. 1. 
Public Trustee v. Commissioner of 
Stamps, 26 N.Z.L.R. 773 (cf. 30 
N.Z.L.R. 244, at p. 252) : 1441 n.1. 
Pugh v. London, Brighton and South 
Uoast Railway Co., [1896] 2 Q.B. 
248 + 1385 n. 5. 
v. Sanderson, 6 Moo.P.C. 38: 1329 
n. 2, 1383. 
Reynolds wv. Attorney-General, 29 
N.Z.L.R. 24: 349 n.2. 
Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 
657: 876 n. 1. 
Rhodes v. Fairweather, 1897 New- 
Sfoundland Decisions, 321 : 377, 378. 
Rice v. The King, 32 S.C.R. 480: 755 
n. 2. 
Richardson v. Ransom, 10 O.R. 387; 
4 Cart. 630 : 701 n. 1. 
Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Co. 
v. 88. ‘ Cape Breton’, [1907] A.C. 
112: 980 n. 1, 1349 n. 2. 
Riel v. The Queen, 10 App.Cas. 675 : 
358, 418, 763, 1359 n. 1. 
Ringfretv. Pope,12 Q.L.R. 303:719n.4. 
Ripper v. Ripper: 1242. 
Roberts v. Ahern, 1 C.L.R. 406: 821 n. 4. 
Yoberts v. Roberts, 2 P.Wm. 75: In. 1. 
ww parte Robertson, 11 Moo.P.C. 288 : 
1341 n. 2. 
Robtelmes v. Brenan, 4 C.L.R. 395; 
390 n.1, 815 n. 3, 1318 n. 1. 
let v. The Queen, 1 P.C. 198: 
1348 n. 2. - 
Ross v. Guilbault, 4 LN. 415: 667 n. 
Ross v. The Canada Agricultural In- 
surance Co., 5 L.N. 23: 667n. 
x parte Rouanet, 15 N.S.W.L.R. 260 : 
879 n. 2. 
Routledge v. Low, 3 H.L. 100 : 666 n. 
The Royal, 9 Q.L.R. 148: 412, 665 n. 3. 
Russell v. The Queen, 7 App.Cas. 829 : 
676, 704 n. 5. 
Ryall v. Kenealy, 6 WW. & A’B. (L.) 
193: 1414 n. 3. 
Ryder v. Foley, 4 C.L.R. 422: 349 n. 2. 
Ryland v. Req., Times, December 18, 
1883: 1626. 
Ryley v. Ryley, 4 N.Z.J.R. (N.8.) C.A. 
50 « 12492. 
Jueddy River Driving Boom Co. v. 
Davidson, 10 S.C.R. 222: 715 n. 4. 
Quirt v. Reg., 19 S.C.R. 510: 715n. 1. 
724 nn. 5. 
Rajah of Tanjore, case of, 13 Moo.P.C. 
22: 111. 
mn re Ramsay, 3 P.C. 427: 1385 n. 1. 
Randeria v. Rex, [1909] T.8. 55: 
1097 n. 3. 
Raner v. Colonial Secretary 14 C.T.R. 
27; 21 S.C. 163 (cf. Kramer and 
another v. Minister of the Interior, 
20 C.T.R. 684): 1077 n. 2, 1621, 
Roy v. McMakin, 1 V.L.R. 274 : 374. 
Rectories’ Case, 5 & 6 Grant : 1448. 
“n ve References by Governor-General in 
Council, 43 8.C.R. 536 (under ap- 
peal to P.C.): 755. 
Reinecke v. Attorney-General, 11 C.T.R. 
565 (cf. Uys v. The Queen, 10 C.T.R. 
46): 277. 
sx parte Renaud, 1 Pugs, 273 ; 2 Cart. 
445; 666 n. 
nn re Representation of certain Pro- 
vinces in the House of Commons, 33 
3.C.R. 475; [1905] A.C. 37: 513, 
754 n. 5, 772 n. 2, 792. 
in re Representation of Prince Edward 
Island in the House of Commons, 33 
S.C.R. 594; [1905] A.C. 37: 513, 
653 n.1, 754 un. 5, 772 n. 2, 792. 
Representatives of the Island of Grenada 
Reg. v. Amer, 42 U.C.Q.B. 391; 2 
S.C.R. 596; 1 Cart. 722: 96 n. 3, 
701 n. 4, 1338 n. 1. 
Reg. v. Anderson, 1 C.C. 161: 1356 
nl, 3. 
Reg. v. Armstrong, 13 Cox, C.C. 185: 
1356 n. 1. 
B. v. Bamford, 1 S.R. (N.S.W.) 337: 
817 n. 1. 
Reg. v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, 11 
S.C.R. 1; 4Cart. 391 : 363 n. 1, 658. 
The King v. Barger, 6 C.L.R. 41: 637 
n. 1, 838,902 n. 2. 
The King v. Bawden, 1 Tas. L.R. 156 : 
826 n. 1. 
R. v. Bekker. 10 C.'T.R. 407, 443: 276.