co-appellants here, as well as Thomas Harrison, the appellant to the Privy Council, were co-defendants in the action before the Supreme Court of Ontario.
This difference, however, does not appear to us to be sufficient for distinguishing this case from the others above mentioned. J. We know of no rule, and none has been pointed to us, which could prevent one of the co-defendants, under the circumstances appearing in this case, from severing and appealing to the Judicial Committee; and Thomas Harrison, having been properly allowed to appeal to the Privy Council, we think the principle laid down in the former decisions should also govern this appeal.
The motion to stay proceedings pending the decision of the appeal to the Privy Council shall therefore be granted; but upon the undertaking by the applicant Thomas Harrison to expedite his appeal so taken by him and to proceed with diligence. If he should not do so, leave should be reserved to the appellants herein to apply to this court for the removal of the stay under the present order. Motion granted. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. DELAGE This case is reported ante, p. 682.
The judgment of the Court of King's Bench was varied by the Supreme Court of Canada by reducing the amount of damages from $10,000 to $7,826, on the ground taken by Howard J., dissenting judge in the appellate court, that the trial judge had misdirected himself as to two items of the damages.
S.C.R.