Sir W. J. C.J.-This is not an appeal from a decision by the judge at the trial, but from an VOL. IlV.]
order of the Superior Court, dismissing a motion to set aside the election petition on the ground that the trial had not been commenced within six months from the date of the presentation thereof.
I think that where a party has gone before a judge and admitted bribery by agents, that we should not strain the law to allow him to appeal.
There is no provision in the law allowing an appeal from the decision of the Superior Court on a preliminary .objection which is not final and conclusive and does not put an end to the petition, and such is the appeal which is now before us.
I am clearly of opinion that we have no jurisdiction in the case, and therefore the appeal should be quashed.
SRONG J---Nothing can be clearer than that appeals in Controverted Elections are limited to two matters ony, viz: first, an appeal from any decision, rule or order on preliminary objections to an election petition the allowance of which is final and conclusive and puts an end to the petition or which objection, if it had been allowed,would have been final and conclusive and have put an end to the petition ; and, secondly, an appeal from the judgment or decision on any question of law or of fact of the judge who has tried the petition. As the appeal is now presented it is quite clear that it does not fall under either of these heads, and consequently this court has no jurisdiction. The appellant after admitting that his election should be set aside for corruption by agents, wishes us to assist him and convert a judgment which on the material now before us is clearly not appealable into a judgment on the merits from which an appeal lies.
I am of opinion that this cannot be done and therefore the appeal must be quashed.
FOURNIER J-I am of opinion that we have jurisdiction in this case. Moreover, I think the decision in this case should be postponed until we are ready to decide the case which was argued at length before this court some days ago, and in which the learned counsel for the appellants contended that a similar judgment was appealable either as coming within the first part of sec. 50, R.S.C., ch. being a judgment on a preliminary obj ection to an election petition, or as coming within the second part of sec. 50, being a final judgment upon a question of law by the judge who has charge of the trial of the petition. However, if the majority of the court have decided to go on, I will only enter my dissent, and later on in the Quebec County case I will give at length my reasons for my opinion in favor of the jurisdiction. HENRY J.-The motion which is now made and under consideration is to allow the appellant to complete his case and without that the court has no material to pronounce upon. In another case this court gave. permission to allow the appeal to stand over until another session in order to have the judgmou!t appealed from printed, and I think if we do not - ish to be taxed with inconsistency we should be prepared to allow appellant's counsel forty-eight hours to produce his notice of appeal and ascertain whether he has or has not limited his appeal to the question of the six months.
J.-I am also of opinion that we have no jurisdiction.
J.--Upon the facts presented it is apparent the court has no jurisdiction.
Appeal quashed with costs. Solicitors for appellant: Godin, Champagne &* Dugas. Solicitors for respondent: Lacoste, Bisaillon, Brousseau & Lajoie.
VOL. XIV.]