name, notwithstanding that they are also at the right hand side, and opposite or nearly opposite to Monteith's name, and may have been intended for him. I think those fourteen ballots ought not to have been allowed, and ought to be taken off Mr. Monteith's poll. The learned judge has not in his certificate stated what he found the majority to be, or in whose favour it was, and I can do no more than to decide that the fourteen ballots above mentioned ought to have been rejected. I think there should be no costs. Idington, Q.C., for Moscrip. Wallace Nesbitt and F. H. Thompson, for Monteith. From Falconbridge, J.] LANGLEY V. MEIR. [June 30. Insolvency-Assignments and preferences-Landlord and tenant-Rent-Accelleration clause-58 Vict. c. 26, s. 3, sub-s. 1 (O.)—R.S.O. c. 170, s. 34, sub-s. 1. The above enactment is a restrictive provision, and limits the landlord's lien, even though in the lease under which he claims there is an acceleration clause wider in its terms than the statutory provisions. Clarke v. Reid, 27 O.R. 618, overruled. Judgment of FALCONBRIDGE, J., reversed. Shepley, Q.C., for appellant. W. Barwick, for respondent. From Rose, J.] SPARKS V. WOLFF. [June 30. Will-Construction-Change in law-“ Heirs '—14-15 Vict., c. 6—43 Vict. c. 14, s. 2 (0.). A testator, who died on the 8th of November, 1867, by his will, made on the 15th of October, 1867, devised lands in Ontario to his wife until her death or marriage, and upon her death or marriage, to his son, "should he be living at the happening of said contingencies," and if not then living "unto the heirs of the said (son)." The son died in July, 1885, intestate and unmarried, and the widow died in February, 1887. Held, that [the Act abolishing heirship by primogeniture, 14-15 Vict. c. 6, applied, and that all the brothers and sisters of the son were his "heirs " and entitled to take under this device. Tylee v. Deal, 19 Gr. 101, and Baldwin v. Kingstone, 18 A.R. 63, distinguished. Judgment of ROSE, J., reversed. Armour, Q.C., for appellant. Osler, Q.C., for respondent. From Assessment Court.] [June 30. IN RE CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY AND CITY OF HAMILTON. Assessment and taxes-Life insurance company-Reserve fund— Income— Divisible profits. The net interest and dividends received by the Canada Life Assurance Company from investments of their reserve fund form part of their taxable income, though to the extent of ninety per cent. thereof divisible, pursuant to the terms of the company's special Act, as profits among participating policy holders, and not subject to the control or disposition of the company. Judg. ment of the Assessment Court affirmed. Bruce, Q.C., for appellants. Robinson, Q.C., and Mackelcan, Q.C., for respondents. From Assessment Court.] [June 30. IN RE BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY AND CITY OF HAMILTON. Assessment and taxes-Telephone company-Poles, wires, conduits and cables. In assessing for purposes of taxation the poles, wires, conduits and cables of a telephone company the cost of construction or the value as part of a going concern is not the test; they must be valued, in the assessment division in which they happen to be, just as so much dead material to be taken in payment of a just debt from a solvent debtor. Judgment of the Assessment Court reversed. Staunton and Ambrose, for appellants. Mackelcan, Q.C., for respondents. Armour, C.J., Falconbridge, J., { Street, J. KENNEDY V. BEAL. Arbitration Act-Rule 652-Arbitrator selected by the parties. [June 27. Upon a proper construction of R.S.O., c. 62, ss. 12 and 35, Rule 652 does not apply in the case of an arbitration ordered by consent in Court, to an arbitrator selected and agreed on by the parties. Robinson, Q.C., and Ryckman, for plaintiff. defendants. Aylesworth, Q.C., for Contract-Consideration in part illegal-Stifling prosecution. [June 27. The manager of the business of an insolvent firm was arrested and imprisoned on a charge of having procured the firm, while in insolvent circumstances, to transfer certain of its property to another person with intent to defraud the creditors of the firm. After he had been released on bail an offer was made in writing by his wife and her son, to the creditors of the firm, to pay a certain percentage of their claims, in addition to the dividend to be paid by the estate of the firm, and to withdraw certain actions and procure the abandonment of certain claims, upon certain conditions set out in the offer, one of which was that any creditor accepting the offer, should not thereafter, directly or indirectly, institute or be a party to any action or proceeding against the husband in respect of any matter or thing in any wise connected with the affairs or business of the firm. This offer was accepted by the plaintiff and a number of the other creditors. After it was made, the husband was discharged from custody, the informant, one of the creditors, not appearing, and no evidence being offered in support of the charge. Promissory notes were afterwards made by the wife and her son in favour of the creditors for the stipulated percentage. In an action by one of the creditors upon some of the notes, Held, that although not stated in express terms, one object of the defendants in making their offer was to procure the stifling of the prosecution of the charge made against the husband; that it was in accordance with the concluded agreement made by the defendants with the plaintiff and the other creditors, that no evidence was offered on the pending charge, which was consequently dismissed; and that the notes sued upon, having been given upon the illegal agreement thus entered into, could not be enforced. Rawlings v. Coal Consumers Association, 43 L.J.M.C. 111; Windhill Local Board of Health v. Vint, 45 Ch. D. 351, and Jones v. Merionethshire Permanent Benefit Building Society (1891) 2 Ch. 587, followed. Held, also, that as part of the consideration for the agreement was illegal, the whole was bad. Lound v. Grimwade, 39 Ch. D. at p. 613, referred to. George Kerr, for plaintiff. J. E. O'Meara, for defendant Patterson. Wyld, for defendants Altha Ann Brown and J. W. Baker. Fripp, for defendant, W. E. Brown. [June 29. Rose, J., MacMahon, J.] DANIELS V. DANIELS. A chattel mortgage does not cease to be valid as against creditors, etc., if otherwise regularly renewed, because a renewal statement, made and verified by the mortgagee before an assignment by him of the mortgage, is not filed until after such assignment. J. Bicknell and A. Bicknell, for plaintiff. Brewster, for defendant William Daniels. S. C. Smoke, for defendant Stockton. Rose J.] HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. HAWKE V. O'NEILL. [June 16. Jury notice-Striking out-Convenience-Judge in Chambers-Judge at trial A jury notice should not be struck out by a Judge in Chambers, upon a motion made before the trial, simply upon the ground that the action can be more conveniently tried without a jury; that is a matter which should be left for the consideration of the Judge presiding when the action comes on for trial. W. H. Wright, for plaintiff. W. Davidson, for defendant. RIVER R.W. Co. Meredith, C. J., Rose, J. ALLEN 7. ONTARIO AND RAINY McMahon, J. [June 27. Company-Contract made by director—Authorization—Informality-Sale of undertaking-Purchase money-Equitable charge upon. The plaintiff was employed by one of the provisional directors of the defendant railway company to do certain work on behalf of the company in advertising and promoting its undertaking. The evidence established that this director was intrusted by the company with the performance of the various duties necessary for the purpose of promoting and furthering the undertaking, and that he did this, from time to time, without any specific instructions from his co-directors at formal meetings of the board, everything being done in the most informal manner; but that they were fully cognizant of what he did, and of his manner of doing it, and vested in him, either tacitly or by direct authorization, the right and authority to transact the business of the company. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the company the value of his work. Mahony v. East Holyford Mining Co., L.R. 7 H.L. 869, followed. Wood v. Ontario and Quebec R.W. Co., 24 C.P. 334, commented on. The undertaking having been sold by the provisional directors, free of all liens and incumbrances, for a certain sum of money, which was paid to them, and a portion of which was paid into court under an order in another action; all the provisional directors being parties to this action, and two of them submitting to the order of the Court and being willing that the judgment debt should be paid out of the fund in Court, an order was made, notwithstanding that the purchasers were not parties, directing payment of the plaintiff's debt and costs, and of the costs of the two directors out of such fund. W. R. Riddell, for plaintiff. D. W. Saunders, for defendant company. S. H. Blake, Q.C. and H. M. Mowat, for defendant Gorham. D. L. McCarthy, for defendants Burk and Dwyer. WARREN V. VANNORMAN. [ June 29. Meredith, C.J., Rose, J. The plaintiff, having omitted to give formal proof of his title at the trial, was allowed to supply it upon the appeal. Upon plaintiff's assent, the judgment was varied by awarding to the defendant leave to erect and maintain a gate across the end of the way in question. The decision of STREET, J., 29 O.R. 84 affirmed on appeal. Clendenan v. Blatchford, 15 Q.R. 285, referred to. Britton, Q.C., for defendant. J. A. Hutchinson, for plaintiff. Meredith, C.J., Rose, J. REGINA V. LYON [June 29. Criminal law-Demanding property with menaces-Criminal Code, 1892, s. 404-Intent to steal-Evidence. "Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years imprisonment who, with menaces demands from any person, either for himself or for any other person, anything capable of being stolen with intent to steal it ;" Criminal Code, 1892, s. 404, The defendant was convicted by a magistrate of an offence against this enactment. The evidence was that the defendant went, as agent for others, to the complainant's abode to collect a debt from him; that the defendant threatened the complainant that if the latter did not pay the debt, he would have him arrested; that the defendant demanded certain goods, part of which had been sold to the complainant by the defendant's principals, and on account of which the debt accrued, but upon which they had no lien or charge; and the complainant, as he swore, being frightened by the threats and conduct of the defendant, acquiesced in the demand for the goods, which the defendant took away. The defendant swore that he demand ed and took the goods as security for the debt which he was seeking to collect ; but the complainant said nothing as to this. Held, MEREDITH, C.J. dissenting, that there was no evidence of intent to steal, and the conviction should be quashed. Parker, for the defendant. Cartwright, Q.C., for the Crown. Full Court.] Province of New Brunswick. SUPREME COURT. QUEEN V. PHIllips. Peddlers Act-Sewing machine agent not a peddler. [June 15. Defendant was convicted for peddling without a license. The evidence was that he opened a place of business at Sackville for the sale of Singer sewing machines, and that he drove about the adjoining country with a machine in his wagon, soliciting orders. It was also shown that he sold one machine on the road. Held, that this was not peddling within the meaning of the Peddlers' Act. Conviction ordered to be quashed. A. P. White, Attorney-General, for the crown. M. G. Teed, contra. Full Court.] CRAWFORD V. CITY OF ST. JOHN. Civic voters' list-Neglect to put name on list. [June 1. The chamberlain of the city neglected to put plaintiff's name on the civic voters' list after he had paid his taxes, and plaintiff in consequence lost his vote. Held, that the city was liable for the neglect. G. A. Belyea and A. A. Stockton, Q.C., for plaintiff. C. N. Skinner, Q.C., for defendant. Full Court.] YOUNG v. HUBBARD. Replevin-Defendant sued by initial-Bond. [June 15. Defendant was sued in replevin by the name of "C. Hubbard," and only one surety signed the plaintiffs' bond to the sheriff. Held on appeal by defendant that both the writ and the bond were bad. Appeal allowed with costs. M. G. Teed, in support of appeal. W. Pugsley, Q.C., contra. DURHAM V. ST. CROIX SOAP Co. Full Court.] [June 15. Guessing contest-Value of prize piano-Advertised price-Price obtained at auction. Defendant offered by advertisement " an $800 Heintzman piano" at the St. John exhibition, to the person guessing nearest to the weight of a cake of soap. Plaintiff claimed she made the nearest guess and brought an action, in which she recovered a verdict for $300. The judges of the contest had passed |