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 Insurance
 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 appeal
 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 Provinces
 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.