CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE-Continued.

avant le code criminel. (4) Dans l'espèce, comme le libelle avant
le code criminel n'était qu'un délit, la cour n'est pas autorisée à
ordonner l'émission gratuite des subpoenas demandés par l'accusé.
R. v. Grenier, 322.
·:-Procedure-Trial-Mixed Jury:-When the accused asks in the
Province of Quebec for a mixed jury, it must be granted as a
matter of right; the abandonment, by the accused, of the order
for a mixed jury is not, however, a matter of right, but may be
allowed by the judge. R. v. Sheehan, 139.
-Prostitution-Art. 207, § (1) Criminal Code of Canada:-A woman
who is kept by a married man, and who surrenders herself to
sexual intercourse with him alone, does not come under the pur-
view of ? (1) Article 207 of the Criminal Code, which declares any
one to be a vagrant who, having no peaceable profession or call-
ing to maintain herself by, for the most part supports herself by
the avails of prostitution. R. v. Rehé, 274.

:-Témoin-Privilège contre l'arrestation-Offense commise par le témoin
pendant le temps qu'il est éloigné de son domicile pour rendre témoig-
nage-Le privilège d'un temoin résidant dans un district et
assigné devant une cour siégeant dans un autre district, contre
l'arrestation, ne peut le mettre à l'abri de l'arrestation à raison
d'une offense criminelle commise par lui, pendant le temps qu'il
est éloigné de son domicile pour rendre témoignage. Ewan, Ex
parte, 465.

:-Trade Marks—Forgery-Criminal Code of Canada-Section 448
(1) Where a trade-mark is complained of as being forged, and as
infringing the rights of the proprietor of a duly registered trade-
mark, any resemblance of a nature to mislead an incautious or
unwary purchaser, or calculated to lead persons to believe that
the goods marked are the manufacture of some person other than
the actual manufacturer, is sufficient to bring the person using
such trade-mark under the purview of Article 448 of the Crimi-
nal Code, which prohibits the sale of goods falsely marked. (2)
In such case it is not necessary that the resemblance should be
such as to deceive persons who might see the two marks placed
side by side, or who might examine them critically. (3) The
Canadian law respecting trade-marks being derived from Eng-
lish legislation reference for its interpretation should be had to
English decisions, more especially as the law extends through-
out the Dominion, and it is desirable that the jurisprudence
should be uniform. R. v. Authier, 146.

DAMAGES.

-:-See NUISANCE, 278.

:-See STREET RAILWAY, 223.

DEPENS:-See PROCEDURE, 1.

DIFFAMATION:-See LIBEL AND SLANDER.

DROIT CONSTITUTIONNEL:-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
DROIT CRIMINEL :-See CRIMINAL LAW.

DROIT MARITIME:-See SHIPPING, 95.
DROIT MUNICIPAL:-See MUNICIPAL LAW.

DROIT PAROISSIAL:-See PAROCHIAL LAW.

ELECTRIC STREET RAILWAY:-See STREET RAILWAY, 25.
ENCROACHMENT:-See IMMOVABLE, 202.

ENVOI EN POSSESSION:-See SUCCESSIONS, 34.

ERROR:-See OBLIGATION, 325.

EVICTION :-See SERVITUDE, 485.

EVIDENCE.

-:- :-See CRIMINAL LAW, 142.

-See EXTRADITION, 151.

-:-See JUDGMENT OF FOREIGN COURT, 547.

EXÉCUTEURS TESTAMENTAIRES:-See SUCCESSIONS, 34.
EXPROPRIATION:-See RAILWAY EXPROPRIATION.
EXTRADITION.

--Evidence-(1) Under the Ashburton treaty between Great Britain
and the United States of America of 1842, and the convention o
1890, to obtain the extradition of a fugitive charged with the
commission of an extradition crime, the same evidence must be
given as would justify his committal for trial if the crime had
been committed in Canada, and to obtain the extradition of a
fugitive who has been convicted of an extradition crime, a duly
authenticated copy of the record must be produced and proof of
the fugitive's identity must be made. (2) On an application for
the extradition of a fugitive, evidence to show that the offence
charged is a political one, or that it is not an extradition crime,
should be allowed; and if proof be made to that effect the
prisoner must be discharged. (3) On a writ of habeas corpus, the
judge must see, in the first place, whether the offence charged is
or is not of a political character, or whether it is or is not an
extradition crime, and then whether the proceedings are regular
and justify the prisoner's committal for surrender. (4) In the
case of a fugitive who has been convicted, the judge does not
examine the evidence given at his trial and must not revise the
verdict of the jury; his duty is to see if the offence is an extra-
dition crime, if the conviction, after a regular trial, has been duly
proved, and if the prisoner has been identified. In re Levi, 151.

FABRIQUE.

-See PAROCHIAL LAW, 424.

FOLLE ENCHÈRE:-See PROCEDURE, 52.
FORGERY:-See CRIMINAL LAW, 146.

GAMING CONTRACT.

:-Bet-Action against Stakeholder-Article 1927 C. C. (affirming the
judgment of the majority of the Court of Review):-The deposit
of the amount of a bet in the hands of a stakeholder is not equi-
valent to a conditional payment, and, when the bet is decided in
favor of one of the parties, the money does not become his pro-
perty, and an action brought by him against the stakeholder,
claiming the amount of the bet, will not be maintained.—In the
present case, the stakeholder, defendant, having brought the
money into court, and the other party to the wager having inter-
vened and also claimed the amount of the bet, with further con-
clusions, in any case, for the amount of his deposit, it was order-
ed that the plaintiff and the intervening party should severally
be paid the amount of their deposits. Marcotte & Perras, 400.
GARANTIE:-See SURETYSHIP, 264.

-See WARRANTY, 571.

GOOD WILL:-See COMPANY, 510.

HÉRITIER BÉNÉFICIAIRE:-See PROCEDURE, 58.

INDIAN LANDS:-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1.
IMMOVABLE.

:-Ownership—Division wall-Encroachment on land of neighbour—
Action for demolition :-(reversing the judgment of the Superior
Court, Archibald, J., R. J. Q., 10 C. S. 329):-Where a person, in
constructing a wall, encroaches on his neighbour's land, neither
the fact that both parties were in error, at the time the wall was
commenced, as to the true line of division, nor the good faith of
the person who encroaches, is a sufficient defence to an action
against him for the demolition of the wall. The fact that the
neighbour was notified of the construction and did not make any
objection to the line at the outset, is not equivalent to an accept-
ance by him of the line adopted, and which, subsequently, in an
action en bornage, was ascertained to be erroneous. An encroach-
ment to the extent of forty-two square feet (contained in a tri-
angle with a base measuring 17 inches, and sides 60 feet long) is
not so inconsiderable as to justify the application of the maxim
"de minimis non curat lex." Cusson & Delorme, 202.
INJUNCTION :-See RAILWAY EXPROPRIATION, 295.
-:-See PAROCHIAL LAW, 424.
--See COMPANY, 510.
INSOLVENCY:-See COMPANY, 45.

·:—Commerçant-Restaurateur-Cession de biens-Absence de biens-
Présomption Cessation de paiements-Cas où il n'y a qu'un seul cré-
ancier-Peut-on ajouter les frais au capital d'un jugement pour former
un montant suffisant pour la demande de cession de biens?-Cas où
demande de cession de biens a déjà été faite à un associé du débiteur

INSOLVENCY-Continued.

(infirmant le jugement de la cour de révision, Taschereau, Ouimet
et Archibald, JJ., et confirmant le dispositif du jugement de la
cour supérieure, Mathieu, J.):-(1) Un restaurateur est un com-
merçant. (2) L'absence de biens chez un débiteur jointe au refus
de payer un jugement contre lui, constitue une présomption de
cessation de paiements. (3) Le droit d'un créancier d'exiger une
cession de biens de son débiteur, ne dépend pas du nombre de
créanciers que ce dernier peut avoir; s'il n'a qu'un seul créancier
il n'en est pas moins tenu d'abandonner ses biens. (4) Pour for-
mer la somme requise ($200) pour autoriser une demande de
cession de biens, on peut ajouter les frais d'action au capital d'un
jugement, lorsque le créancier en vertu de ce jugement-qui
demande la cession—a préalablement payé ces frais à son avocat
à qui ils avaient été distraits, ce paiement ayant l'effet, sans sub-
rogation expresse, de rendre le demandeur seul créancier de ces
frais. (5) Le fait que le créancier a déjà fait une demande de
cession de biens à l'un des associés, croyant alors que cet associé
faisait affaires seul, ne l'empêche pas, quand il a découvert l'exis-
tence de la société, de faire la même demande à un autre associé.
Carter & McCarthy, 499.

INSOLVENT COMPANY.

- :— Liquidateur—Action demandant la nullité d'un paiement—S. R. C.,
ch. 129, art. 15, 31, a, et 72:-(confirmant le jugement de Ma-
thieu, J., R. J. Q., 10 C. S., p. 255)-Le liquidateur d'une compa-
gnie insolvable représente les créanciers de cette compagnie pour
les actions qui appartiennent aux créanciers eux-mêmes. Par-
tant, l'action qui demande la nullité du paiement fait par la com-
pagnie à un créancier qui connaissait l'état d'insolvabilité de
cette compagnie, étant de la nature d'une action paulienne, peut
être intentée par le liquidateur. Blandy & Kent, 196.

INTEREST:-See PAROCHIAL LAW, 378.

JUDGMENT OF FOREIGN COURT.

:-Evidence-Art. 1220, C. C. :-(reversing the judgment of the Su-
perior Court, Curran, J. (R. J. Q., 11 C. S. 123) :-(1) A copy of a
judgment rendered by a court of a foreign country, duly authen-
ticated in accordance with the requirements of Article 1220 of the
Civil Code, makes prima facie proof of the facts therein set forth,
and that the law therein applied is the law in force in the coun-
try in which such judgment was rendered. (2) A married
woman domiciled in France, common as to property with her
husband, who has been authorized by the court of her domicile
to collect a legacy of movables, and to ester en justice for this pur-
pose, may, without other authorization, bring suit before the
courts of this province against a debtor domiciled herein, for the
recovery of a sum of money forming part of such legacy. Bau-
ron & Davies, 547.

JURISDICTION:-See PROCEDURE, 289.
JURY:-See CRIMINAL LAW, 139.

JURY TRIAL:-See PROCEDURE, 445.

LESSOR AND LESSEE.

-:—Article 1608, C. C.-Relation of lessor and lessee:-D. having ob-
tained a loan from L., transferred to him all the rents and reve-
nues of certain real estate until the loan should be fully paid. L.
then appointed D. his attorney for the administration of the
property. D. having occupied part of the premises himself, L. in-
stituted an action of saisie gagerie and in ejectment, on the ground
that D. was a tenant by sufferance. Held (affirming the judg-
ment of the Court of Review, which reversed the judgment of
the Superior Court, Archibald, J., 8 C.S. 496), that the relation
of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties, and
that the action of saisie gagerie and in ejectment was unfounded.
Blanchet, J., diss. Létang & Donohue, 160.

LIBEL AND SLANDER.

·:-Diffamation—Intérêt public-Candidat-Dépens:-L'appelant et
l'intimé étaient candidats à l'élection fédérale de juin 1896 pour
le comté de l'Assomption. Le jour de l'appel nominal, l'appelant
déclara qu'il avait acheté l'intimé à l'élection de 1892, où les deux
parties étaient candidats, et qu'il lui avait fait retirer sa candi-
dature moyennant la somme de $750. L'appelant, sur des déné-
gations de l'intimé, réitéra l'accusation dans des correspondances
adressées aux journaux et des circulaires qu'il fit distribuer dans
le comté de l'Assomption. Il alla même plus loin et défia l'inti-
mé de le poursuivre pour diffamation, offrant même de faire un
dépôt pour garantir les frais. Jugé (infirmant le jugement de la
cour supérieure, Curran, J.):-(1) Que la preuve ayant démontré
la vérité de l'accusation, l'appelant était justifiable, dans l'intérêt
public, de dévoiler l'acte repréhensible de l'intimé et de réitérer
son accusation en présence de la dénégation de l'intimé. (2)
Cependant, l'appelant ayant engagé l'intimé à le poursuivre, par
ses sollicitations et son offre de garantir les frais, dans le seul but
apparent de justifier son accusation, et ayant ainsi fortement
encouragé le litige dans un but que le tribunal ne saurait approu-
ver, il n'y avait pas lieu à lui accorder ses frais de défense.
Jeannotte & Gauthier, 520.

LIQUIDATOR:- See INSOLVENT COMPANY, 196.

LIVERY STABLE:-See NUISANCE, 278.

LOUAGE:-See LESSOR AND LESSEE.

LOUAGE DE SERVICES:-See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 177.