APPEAL from the judgment of Maclean J., President of the Exchequer Court of Canada (1) dismissing the present appellant's appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents refusing an application for patent made by the appellant's assignor; the alleged invention relating to improvements in coke ovens.
On conclusion of the argument of counsel for the appellant, the Court retired for consideration of the case, and on returning to the Bench, without calling on counsel for the respondent, delivered judgment dismissing the appeal, on the ground that the Court could see no reason for disagreeing with the view of the learned President of the Exchequer Court that there was no satisfactory evidence of invention. With regard to the other points in dispute, the Court pointed out that it must be distinctly understood that it expressed no opinion thereon.
R. S. Smart K.C. for the appellant.
spondent.
GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY
COMPANY
MELLEY ANWEILER,
(PLAINTIFF)...............
APPEAL by the defendant from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (1).
The action was brought under the Fatal Accidents Act of Saskatchewan, for damages for the death of an employee of the defendant, it being alleged that the deceased came to his death owing to negligence of the defendant, its agents, officers or employees. At the trial Maclean J. granted the defendant's application for non-suit, withdrew the case from the jury, and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal (1) allowed the plaintiff's appeal from the judgment of Mac- TRx lean J., and ordered a new trial. The defendant appealed to this Court.
At the conclusion of the argument for the appellant, and frteaplat n without calling on counsel for the respondent, the judgment of the Court was orally delivered by the Chief Justice, dismissing the appeal with costs; holding that the Court could not say that the jury would not have been justified, by drawing inferences from the facts in evidence, in making findings as to how the deceased met his death and whether or not it was caused by negligence of the defendant. The Court pointed out that it did not pass upon the question of the admissibility of the evidence contained in Steeper's examination for discovery, as to which it had not heard argument; and that, of course, it must not be understood even to suggest that upon the evidence now in the record the plaintiff should succeed; all it determined was that the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the case should not have been withdrawn from the jury.
E. Gregory K.C. for the appellant.
David Campbell K.C. for the respondent.
HERMAN D. HOWSON ...... HERBERT LEWIS GEOFFREY R.
LEWIS
APPEAL by the defendant from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (2) which, reversing the judgment of Knowles J., held that a certain agreement of sale of lands and chattels from the defendant to the plaintiffs should be rescinded on the ground of material misrepresentation inducing the purchase; that a certain lien note made by the plaintiffs to the defendant should be set aside, rescinded and cancelled; and that the plaintiffs should recover against the defendant the sum of $1,531, with certain interest.
On the conclusion of the argument for the appellant, and without calling on counsel for the respondent, the judgment of the Court was orally delivered by the Chief Justice, dismissing the appeal with costs.
Henry Rees and Cuthbert Scott for the appellant. J. M. Stevenson K.C. for the respondent.
DONALD M. ROBERTSON,
H.
ESTHER M. ROBINSON,
H. GEORGE
H. ROBINSON
APPEAL by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario (1) which, reversing in part the judgment of Kelly J. (1), held against the plaintiff's claim that certain land standing in the name of the defendant wife was the property of her husband and exigible to satisfy the claims of the plaintiff and the other creditors of her husband, or that the said