Charlebois v. Baril

Here there was nothing to constitute the post office the CrAsnioIs defendant's agent and a finding of actual receipt by him of the plaintiff's acceptance was, therefore, essential. The burden of procuring such a finding was upon the plaintiff. Without it he cannot succeed.

We are not in a position to pass upon this question of fact. Its solution depends upon the credibility of the defendant and that, in turn, largely upon the view taken of his demeanour as a witness-thus presenting a question eminently for the tribunal which sees and hears him give his testimony.

But, under all the circumstances, we think that the plaintiff should, as a matter of indulgence, be given another oportunity to obtain, if he can, a finding that his letter was actually received by the defendant. Upon payment to the defendant of his costs of the appeals to the Court of King's Bench and to this court within one month, the plaintiff may have a new trial, the costs of the former trial to be in the discretion of the trial judge. In default of such payment, the appeal will be allowed and the action dismissed with costs throughout.

D. L. Desbois.

Baril & Tousignant. HILL v. MOISAN

APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec (1) reversing the judgment of the trial judge, Lane J., and dismissing the plaintiff appellant's action.

The appellant claimed by his action the sum of $22,000 for the outstanding instalments of a "bonus" and a further amount for royalties, the whole resulting from the execution in favour of the respondent by the appellant of a sub-license of a Canadian patent for improvements in the aK method of manufacturing articles from pulp, known as "Drake Process."

The action was maintained by the Superior Court, but dismissed by the appellate court.

The Supreme Court of Canada, after hearing counsel for both parties, reserved judgment, and, at a subsequent date, dismissed the appeal with costs.

NICKERSON v. MANNING

APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (1), affirming the judgment of the trial judge, D. A. McDonald J., and maintaining the respondent's action.

The respondent brought an action against the appellant for damages for maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause swearing out, obtaining and executing a warrant to search the house of the respondent. The appellant, a police officer and a member of the " dry squad," purported to act under s. 73 (1) of the Government Liquor Act, R.S. B.C., 1924, c. 146.

The trial judge found in favour of the respondent on the verdict of a jury and the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed with costs.