payable in that village ? It appears to me the very moment we decide that under the Act, a notice from Charlottetown to Summerside would be good, we must decide that a letter by any means put into the way office or post office at Summerside is also regular.
' I can see no more reason for personal service where the Henry, J. parties reside in the same town than if he lived in another.
I think, not only in the decision in the case referred to, but in others that have come before this court, according to all the authorities the contention cannot be sustained, and therefore the appeal ought to be allowed with costs.
FOURNIER, TASCHEREAU and GWYNNE, JJ., concurred in allowing the appeal-with costs.
Solicitor for appellants: E. J. Hodgson.
Solicitor for respondent: .T. M. Sutherland.
I. N. BELLEAU (Respondent below)......APPELLANT;
ET. DUSSAULT, et at (Petitioners)......RESPONDENTS.
*Mar. 98.-Promise pay for previous election-Hiring of poll-Corrupt practices.
Ist.
it have been resorted to.
J.
JJ.
sitting under the provisions of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, 1874, unseating the appellant for corrupt practices committed by his agents
The petition of the respondents contained the usual charges of bribery, corrupt practices, by the appellant personally and by his agents.
The facts of the charges upon which this appeal was decided sufficiently appear in the head note and in the report of the case in the court below.
J. Belleau, the appellant, in person.
Geo. Irvine, Q.C., for respondents.
C J.:
This case has come before us on appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Caron.
I feel bound to say, that as long as I have had the honor of presiding in this court, no case has come before us where there was such a clear, undisguised infraction of the law as there has been in this case.
In the first place, without going into the two particulars brought before us, we have what to me is a startling admission made. Dr. Lacerte, an agent of the appellant, says that he has spent $150.
This agent offers $50 to one man, (who will not take it from him,) to organize the carters in the interest of the appellant in this case.
He then SUPRElE COURT OF CANADA.
gives it to another, to a devoted friend of his party, and when he is asked who this devoted friend was, he says he does not recollect his name, and no account is saysCAS.E.
rendered by the election agent of this money, nor does the present appellant, the sitting member, profess to know anything about it. Then we have another leading manager at this election, who expends, he admits, $1,100 in the interest of the present appellant, and yet he renders no account of it to the agent, and cannot tell to whom, cannot apparently name one person to whom he gave this money, or any portion of it, but says it was distributed over the county in the interest of the appellant.
Then we come to the charges of giving drink on voting day, and here it appears to have been done wholesale, that is, to this extent, that in the very committee room of this person, for the purpose, the witnesses say, of amusing the supporters, they put three gallons of spirits, and the people were invited in, and go, and are treated; any one who would take it, got it. Then, again, there is the payment of carters without apparently any disguise-the engagement of carters to take voters to the poll, and payment of them. All these are known to be corrupt acts, and, if done by an agent, will avoid the election.
There is another question, as to the agency, but, as far as I am concerned, I do not think it necessary to do more than to read the judgment of Mr. Jistice Caron. I read, as my judgment, the words he has used in his judgment (1):
dfendeur L. et et And concludes by saying
"Chacun de ces actes constiiue des manceuvres frauduleuses."
Q.
I think the evidence fully sustains the conclusions at which the learned judge has arrived, and I think it was impossible for him, or any other man, lay or legal, to come to any other conclusion than that there was a gross violation of the Election Act by agents, admitted to be agents of the candidate; and therefore this appeal must be dismissed with costs here and in the court below.
I am of the same opinion.
J.:
The judge of the court below has shown a great deal of lenity and patience, and I think, perhaps, he ought to have resented a little more than he did the insults, the reiterated insults, offered to him during the trial of the election.
He was exposed to very harsh attacks by the newspapers, impeaching his impartiality, and everything has been disposed of rather in too mild a manner.
As to the merits of the election, never has an election tried or decided in this court shown such strong, complete evidence of every offence alleged. The most direct agencies were provEd.
It is impossible to entertain a single doubt on any one of the offences alleged.
HENRY, I.:
I have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that this election ought to be avoided for the reasons given in the judgment of Judge Caron. Every case he mentions there was, I think, sufficiently proved. Furnishing the liquor in the committee-room on election day is sufficient or itself to avoid the election, and I think it is proved they were very liberal about it. It was there for everybody, friend and foe. Still, that being the case, where it might go to show the motive