Judgment of the Court
J.-The petitioner claims as the wife of the deceased Proud. The evidence of marriage might be more convincing, but the petitioner lived with Proud as his wife, openly, in Edmonton, had children by him acknowledged by him as legitimate, and was accepted by people of repute as his wife. Dr. Geggie's evidence is conclusive upon this point, namely, that Proud considered himself the husband-that is to say, the lawful husband-of the petitioner. When the doctor, on the day of his death, suggested a will, his answer was that his wife, with whom, admittedly, he was living on the most affectionate terms, would " get everything, anyway."
At least a prima facie case in her favour arises on these facts. A serious point is presented by the absence on her part of all recollection of the details of the marriage ceremony. On the whole it would appear, however, when the state of her health is considered, that there is no real ground for disagreeing with the finding of the learned trial judge, who accepted her statement that somewhere in New York she went through a marriage ceremony with Proud. J.-This is an appeal from the judgment of the President of the Exchequer Court of Canada (1), in an action brought by the widow, formerly the wife, of a deceased soldier who, for her benefit, had taken a policy of insurance upon his life issued by the Dominion Government under the provisions of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, 10-11 Geo. V, c. 54, for one thousand dollars. The learned trial judge, who tried the case in Edmonton where the late Mr. Proud and his wife lived at the time of his death, and for some year or two previous thereto, after the evidence for her was all heard and none adduced by appellant, on the application of defendant, now appellant, allowed the case to stand over for a couple of months, at the urgent request of appellant's counsel, who pretended to doubt respondent's story in the witness box, as to the validity of the marriage with her late husband, and possibly might ask for a commission to take evidence. No such commission ever was asked for and if the respondent's story was false an investigation would certainly have enabled its falsity to have been demonstrated.
Such is the conclusion I have reached after reading the entire evidence.
She had been examined for discovery a week before the trial and I imagine at some length, for the appellant's counsel insinuated time and again it would contradict her story at the trial.
Although in the printed case herein it was put down apparently as one of the exhibits that reference thereto is cancelled.
It never was put in or used and all references thereto would seem to have been bluff, and, I suspect, the whole of that was inspired by slandering on the part of her deceased husband's relatives who expected to recover, if verified, said policy for themselves.
They evidently (if counsel before us for appellant right) dared not face the court.
The probability is that inquiry demonstrated no such case as pretended for defendant (now appellant) could be established or the commission would have issued.
I am, from a perusal of the evidence, quite clear that the judgment of the said judge was right and that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.
The story is a melancholy illustration of how often the poor returned soldier and his family have been improperly made to suffer.
Solicitor for the appellant: W. Stuart Edwards.
Solicitors for the respondent: McDonald, Weaver & Steer. SAMSON v. LEVACK
APPEAL from the decision of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec (1), affirming the judgment of the trial judge, Letellier J., which maintained the respondent's action.
S.C.R.
The respondent claimed part of the price for which he had sold to the appellants a certain patent for manufacturing paint. The appellants made a counter-claim asking for the annulment of the contract.
The Superior Court maintained the respondent's action and dismissed the appellants' counter-claim. The Court of King's Bench (1) affirmed the judgment, holding that the sale of interests in an industrial enterprise, subject to the condition that the vendor bind himself not to divulge the secret or the formula of the manufacturing process to any person, cannot be annulled on the ground that the formula at the time of the sale could be known by the public owing to the fact that it had been registered at the patents office at Ottawa, such registration having been made known to the buyers.
The Supreme Court of Canada, after hearing counsel for both parties, reserved judgment, and, at a subsequent date, dismissed the appeal with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs. Ls. St.-Laurent K.C. and A. Langlais K.C. for the appellant.
L. G. Belley K.C. for the respondent.
STANDARD TRUSTS COMPANY v. BRIGGS MOTION for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta (2), allowing an appeal by the defendant respondent from a judgment by McCarthy J. on an interpleader issue as to a wife's right as against her husband's execution creditors to the crops grown by her on their homestead and on other land leased by her.