XXil TABLE OF CASES CITED 
Davies and Jones v. The State of 
Western Australia, 2 CLR. 29: 
908. 
Deakin v. Webb, 1 C.L.R. 585: 672 
n.1, 673 n. 1, 825, 1368. 
Deek v. Deek, 2 Sw. & Tr. 90: 1242. 
Deeks v. Davidson, 26 Gr. 488 : 1437 
n. 2. 
Delpit v. Coté, R.J.Q. 20 C.S. 338: 
1625. 
IY Emden. v. Pedder, 1 C.L.R. 91: 
385 n.2, 672 n. 1, 809 n.1, 821-5, 
830, 837, 856, 906, 1453 n. 1. 
Dettman v. Williams, 3 C.L.R. 43: 
893 n. 1. 
Devine v. Holloway, 14 Moo.P.C. 290 : 
471. 
Dewar v. Smith, 1900 S.A.L.R. 38: 
682 n. 4. 
The Diana, Lush. 539: 377 n. 2. 
in re Dillet, 12 App.Cas. 453: 1359 
n. 1. 
Dinner et al. v. Humberstone, 26 S.C.R. 
252: 681 n.2, 715 n. 2, 764 n. 2. 
Dobie v. The Temporalities Board, 
7 App.Cas. 136 : 358, 674. 
Dominion of Canada v. Province of 
Ontario, [1910] A.C. 637: 612n.1, 
684-7, 795 n. 1, 1455 n. 1. 
Donegani v. Donegani, 3 Knapp, 63 : 
392. 
Donohoe v. Britz, 1 C.L.R. 391: &9%0 
n 2. 
Dorion v. Laurent, 17 L.C.J. 324: 
1625. 
Dow v. Black, 6 P.C. 272: 713 n.1, 
716. 
Doyle v. Falconer, 4 Moo.P.C. (N.8.) 
203 : 446. 
Dulmage v. Douglas, 3 M.R. 495: 716 
n. 5. 
Dumphy v. Kehoe, 21 R.L. 119: 658 
n.2, 680 n. 1. 
ww parte Duncan, 16 L.C.J. 188; 
2 Cart. 297 : 700 n. 2. 
Dunn v. Reg., [189611 Q.B. 116: 344 
n. 1. 
Dunstan v. Houison, 1 S.R. (N.S. W.) 
(Eq.) 212: 1441 n.1. 
Doser v. Degré. R.J.Q. 20 C.S. 456: 
Covey v. Municipality of County of 
Broome, 21 L.C.J, 182: 720 n. 2. 
Dook v. Sprigg, [1909] A.C. 572; 5 
C.T.R. 107: 1104 n. 1, 1621. 
Jooper v. Cooper, 13 App.Cas. 88: 
756 n.1, 886 n. 3. 
Jooper v. Commissioners of Income 
Tax for the State of Queensland, 4 
C.L.R. 1304: 360, 426, 427, 1331 
nl. 
Torporation of Toronto v. Virgo, [1896] 
A.C. 88: 725. 
Coté v. Chauveau, 7 QL.R. 258; 
2 Cart. 311: 700 n. 2. 
Toté v. Watson, 3 Q.L.R. 157; 2 Cart. 
343: 715n. 1. 
in re County Courts of British Colum- 
bia, 21 8.C.R. 446 : 701 n. 1. 
Phe Courier, Lush. 541 : 377 n. 2. 
Cousins v. Commonwealth, 3 C.L.R. 
529: 893 n. 2. 
Towan v. Wright, 23 Gr. 416 : 722 n. 1, 
736 n. 3. 
Earl Cowley v. Countess Cowley, {19011 
A.C. 450: 1299 n. 1. 
Cox v. Coleridge, 1 B. & C. 37: 830 n. 
Tredit Valley Railway Co. v. Great 
Western Railway Co., 256 Gr. 507 : 
713 n.3. 
Tremar v. Cremar, 12 V.L.R. 738: 
1242 n. 6. 
in re Criminal Code, 43 S.C.R. 434: 
755 n. 1. 
‘n re Criminal Code, Bigamy Sections, 
27 8.C.R. 461 : 376, 1454, 1459 n. 1. 
The Ship ‘Cuba’ v. McMillan, 26 
S.C.R.651: 716 n. 1, 1525 n. 2. 
Dunard v. The King. 43 S.C.R. 88: 
1630. 
Cunningham v. Tomey Homma, [1903] 
A.C. 151: 478 n. 1, 697, 1089 n. 4. 
Oushing v. Dupuy, 5 App.Cas. 409, 
364: 505 n.2, 723 n.1, 1157 n. 1. 
1358. 
Tuwvillier v. Aylwin, 2 Knapp, 72 
(see Stuart, 527, at pp. 534. 535) : 
264. 1358. 
Daily Telegraph Newspaper  v. 
McLaughlin, [19041 A.C. 777: 
1361 n. 2. 
Dalrymple and others v. Colonial 
Treasurer, [1910] T.P. 372: 265 
n. 2, 446 n. 1. 
Damodhar Gordhan v. Deoram Kanji, 1 
App.Cas. 332: 1103 n. 2. 
x parte Dansereau, 19 L.C.J. 210 : 451. 
Davenport v. The Queen, 3 App.Cas. 
115: 1385 n. 5. 
Bast India Co. v. Campbell, 1 Ves. 246 : 
146 n. 5. 
Hastern Rand Exploration Co. Lid. v. 
Nel and others, [19031 T.8. 42 : 410 
n. 1. . 
Elkan v. de la Juvenay, 22 A.T.T. 34 : 
RR7n. 2