TABLE OF CASES CITED XXXI
Pennant v. Union Bank of Canada,
[1894] A.C. 31: 714, 724 n. 4.
Thébergev. Laudry,* 2 App.Cas.102: 505
n.2,666n.1,667n.,883n.3,1365n.2.
Thomas v. Thomas, 23 N.L.R. 38:
1240 n. 1.
Thompson v. Thompson and Hutchins,
11 W.AL.R. 137: 881 n.2.
Thrasher’ Case, 1 B.C. (Irving) 153
(overruled by Supreme Court, ibid.,
243, 244); 3 Cart. 320 n.: 666 n., 717.
Thurgood v. Thurgood, 17 N.L.R. 49 :
1240 n. 1.
Tilonko v. Attorney-General of Natal,
[1907] A.C. 93 and 461 (cf. ex parte
Tilonko, Times, October 14, Novem-
ber 27, 1907, when an application
for a rule to bring up an order of the
Secretary of State under the Act 47
% 48 Vict. ¢. 31 for his removal was
refused on the merits) : 272, 280-2.
Toohey v. Melville, 13 N.S.W.L.R.
132: 447.
iu Toit v. Marais, 13 C.T.R. 139 : 278.
Toronto Corporation v. Canadian Pacific
Railway Co., [1908] A.C. 54 : 711.
Toronto Corporation v. Bell Telephone
Co. of Canada, [1905] A.C. 52: 712,
n. 2. :
Toronto Railway Co. v. Balfour, 32
S.C.R. 239: 755 n.2.
Tovey v. Houison, 7 C.L.R. 393 : 1437
n. 3, 1441 n. 1.
Town of Aurora v. Village of Markham,
32 S.C.R. 457: 755 n. 2.
Toy v. Musgrove, 14 V.L.R. 349 : 169,
811 n.1, 1077 n. 2; see Musgrove v.
Chun Teeong Toy.
I'rial of Earl Russell, [1901] A.C. 446 :
372, 385 n. 2.
Tseww v. Registrar of Deeds, [1905]
T.S. 30: 1104.
Pshingumuzi v. Attorney-General of
Natal, [1908] A.C. 248 : 1359 n. 1.
Tully v. The Principal Officers of Her
Majesty's Ordnance, 5 U.C.Q.B. 6:
361, 1627.
Turcotte v, Dansereau, 24 S.C.R. 578 :
755 n. 2.
re Tyson, 10 Q.L.J. 34: 382 n.1.
Tmbilini and Others v. The General
Officer Commanding, 21 N.L.R. 86
and 169 : 278.
Union Colliery Co. v. Allorney-
General of British Columbia, 27
S.C.R. 637: 754 n.1, 755 n. 2.
{Jnion Colliery Co. of British Columbia
v. Bryden, [1899] A.C. 580: 698,
1079 n. 2.
"Union St. Jacques de Montréal v.
Bélisle, 6 P.C. 31: 422 n. 4, 667 n,,
719, 723 n. 2, 724 n. 2.
alin v. Langlois, 5 App.Cas. 115: 505
n. 3, 667 n., 674, 702 n. 3, 883 n. 3.
7ardon v. O Loghlin, 5 C.L.R. 201:
791 n. 2.
Venter v. Rex, [1907] T.S. 910: 1097
n. 2.
n re Victoria Steam Navigation Board,
ex parte Allan, 7 V.LLR, 248 : 1188
n.1, 1354 n. 2.
7ictorian Railway Commissioners v.
Brown, [1906] A.C. 381: 1161 n.2.
Victorian Railway Commissioners v.
Coultas and wife, 13 App.Cas. 222:
1385 n. 6.°
Tincent v. Ak Yeng, 8 W.AL.R. 145:
41] n. 2, 1104.
Walker v. Baird, [1892] A.C. 491, 1103,
1104.
Wall v. Macnamara, 1 T.R. 536: 134
n. 5.
‘n re Wallace, 1 P.C. 283 : 1385 n. 1.
2x parte Wallace & Co., 13 N.S.W.L.R.
1: 441 n.1; 667 n.
Vallis v. Solicitor-General for New
Zealand, [1903] A.C. 173: 1048,
1365 n. 5.
Warren v. Mayor of Charlestown, 2
Gray, 84: 863 n. 1.
Leonard Watson, case of, 9 A. & E.
731: 374. :
Watts v. Attorney-General for British
Columbia, [1908] A.C. 573 : 753.
Vebb v. Outtrim, [1907] A.C. 81:
672, 824 n.1, 826, 830, 882, 883,
386 n.2, 1368, 1371, 1377, 1378,
1453 n. 1; [1905] V.L.R. 463: 882.
Weiser v. Heinlzman (No. 2), 15
O.P.R. 407: 699 n.5.
Nest Rand Central Gold Mining Co. v.
The King, [1905] 2 K.B. 391 : 1626.
Skip * D. CO. Whitney’ v. St. Clair
Navigation Co., 38 S.C.R. 303 : 376,
ams
! This, not Landry, is, Mr. Reeve Wallace informs me, according to the Privy
Council Office records, the correct spelling of the name in this case.
Criticized by Kennedy J. in Dulien v. White [1901] 2 K.B. 669; PallesC.B.
in Bell v. Great Northern Railway Co. of Ireland, 26 L.R.Ir, 428, and dis-
{inguished in 7'oronto Railway Co. v. Tums, 44 S.C.R. 268.
