XXX TABLE OF CASES CITED
Reg. v. Roddy, 41 U.C.Q.B. 291;
1 Cart. 709: 699 n. 5.
Reg. v. 8t. Catherine's Milling and
Lumber Co., 13 0.AR. 148, at pp.
165, 166 : 657 n. 6.
Reg. v. St. Catherine's Milling and
Lumber Co., 14 App. Cas. 46:
684 n. 2, 687 n. 1.
RB. v. Shawe, 5 M. & S. 403 : 138.
R. v. Staples: 997 n. 1.
Reg. v. Stone, 23 O.R. 46: 700 n. 8.
The King v. Sutton, 5 C.L.R. 789:
793-5, 819 n. 3, 906 n. 2.
Reg. v. Symonds: 1059 n. 1.
Reg. v. Taylor, 36 U.C.Q.B. 183: 412,
665 n. 3.
R. v. van Vuuren, 12 C.T.R. 902 : 277.
Rex v. Walters, 12 C.T.R. 805: 277
n.9.
Reg. v. Wason, 17 0.A.R. 221: 700
n 7.
Rex v. Wenner, 12 C.T.R. 144 : 277.
RB. v. Wing Chong, 1 B.C. (part ii) = 2
B.C. (Irving) 150 : 666 n., 1076 n. 3.
The Queen v. Yule, 308.C.R. 24 : 688;
at p. 34. 143 n. 1.
St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber
Co. v. The Queen, 14 App.Cas. 46 :
391, 687 n. 1,757 n. 1.
Sandberg v. Sandberg, 26 N.L.R. 684 :
1240 n. 1.
Sargood Bros. v. The Commonwealth,
11 C.L.R. 258 : 441 n.1, 879 n. 3.
Saunders v. Borthistle, 1 C.L.R. 379 :
884 n.
Schiffmann v. The King, 11 C.L.R.
255: 884 n.
Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Ex. 220: 1347
n. 1.
Separate School Trustees of Belleville
v. Granger, 25 Gr. 570 ; 1 Cart. 816;
696.
Severn v. The Queen, 28.C.R. 70: 675
n.2, 725 n. 5, 736 n. 4.
Sewell v. British Columbia Towing Co.
(The ‘Thrasher’ Case), 1 B.C.
(Irving), 153 : 666 n., 717.
Sheard v. Attorney-General, [1908] T. 8.
1077: 349 n. 2.
Shenton v. Smith, [1895] A.C. 229:
344 n. 1.
Sheppard v. Sheppard, 13 B.C. 281 (cf.
S.v. M., 1 B.C. (Irving) 25) : 753.
Shoolbred v. Clarke, 17 S.C.R. 265:
4 Cart. 459: 715 n. 1.
Moses Sibist v. Curators of Church of
England, 21 NL.R. 90: 1442 n. 1.
Yinclair's Divorce Bill, [18991 A.C.
160 « 19244 n 4

in re insolvent Estate Skeen, 27 N.L.R.
536: 1321 n. 1.
Skelton. v. Government of Newfoundland,
 1897 Newfoundland Decisions,
243: 349 n. 2,
Yloman v. Government of New Zealand,
1 C.P.D. 563: 1457 n.
Imiles v. Belford, 1 O.A.R. 436 3
1 Cart. 576 : 420, 666 n., 1225.
Smith v. Brown, 2 Salk. 666: 2 n. 1.
Smith v. City of London, 20 O.L.R. 133:
748.
Smith v. Justices of Sierra Leone, 7
Moo.P.C. 174 : 1385 n. 1.
‘n re Sooka Nand Verma, 7 W.A.L.R.
225 (cf. Sonnadere v. Municipality
of Perth, 1 W.A.L.R. 61): 141 n. I.
Sottomayor v. De Barros, 3 P.D. 1;
1246,
Spiller v. Turner, [1897] 1 Ch. 911:
382 n. 1.
Yprigg v. Sigcau, [1897] A.C. 238;
5 C.T.R. 268: 1622.
‘e Squier, 46 U.C.Q.B. 474; 1 Cart.
789: 701 n.2, 1338 n. 1.
Stamp Duties Commissioner v. Salting,
[1907] A.C. 449: 381 n. 1.
Standard Ideal Company v. Standard
Sanitary Manufacturing Company,
[1911] A.C. 78: 668 n. 1, 707 n. 3.
State Railway Servants’ Case, 4 C.L.R.
488 : 886 n. 2.
State of Tasmania v. Commonwealth
and State of Victoria, 1 C.L.R. 329 :
896 n. 1.
Steer v. Steer, 16 N.L.R. 237: 1240
n. 1.
Stephens v. Abrahams, 29 V.L.R. 201 :
637 n. 1.
Stevenson v. The Queen, 2 W.W. &
A’B.(L.) 143 : 441 n. 1, 600 n, 2.
2x parte Steward, [1907] O.R.C. 37:
1244.
Stockwell v. Ryder, 4 C.L.R. 469 : 349
n 2.
Stone v. Rex,[1906]T.8, 855: 1317n.2.
Strachan v. The Commonwealth, 4
C.L.R. 455: 145n.1,912n. 1.
Suds v. Spencer, I.R. 6 C.L. 173:
Sulte v. City of Three Rivers, 11 S.C.R.
25: 4 Cart. 305: 676 n. 3.

Tai Sing v. Maguire, 1 B.C. (Irving)
101: 413, 666 n., 698, 718 n. 8,
1076 n. 2, 1104 n. 2,
Tandy v. Earl of Westmoreland, 27
St. Tr. 1246: 111.
Tappenden v. Tappenden, 25 W.N.
INSWI8L: 1243 nn. 1.