SIR W. J. RITCHIE C.J.-We do not think this appeal can be entertained.
The matter of disqualification was not in question in the action for penalties, and if it had been there are no words in the statute which would give this court jurisdiction to hear the appeal. We think that an appeal, which is unknown to the common law, must be given by statute in such clear and explicit language that the right to appeal cannot be doubted.
We will not determine on this motion whether or not the appellant is disqualified for seven years by the judgment rendered against him. We will assume that this is so. But, even if that is so, this does not make his case appealable to this court. The fact that in the future, for seven years, he may be incapable holding any office does not render the case appealable. We have already held that the words "where the rights in future might be bound " in sec. 29 of the Supreme Court Act do not mean "all cases where rights in future might be bound," bit must be read in connection with the words that precede " such like matters or things."
Neither is the case appealable as relating to a fee office where the rights in future might be bound. The appellant may be deprived of a fee of office for seven years, but, if that be so, that is the consequence of the judgment merely, but there is no controversy in the case relating to a fee of office where the rights in future might be bound, as required by said section 29 he act.
Appeal quashed with costs. -