An appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Division, Ont. (40 Ont. W.N. 129) affirming (two judges dissenting) the appellant's conviction, by Ross, Co. CJ., for stealing an automobile, was dismissed, on the ground that there was no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the questions raised, and on which there was dissent in the Appellate Division, being all questions of fact, in regard to which there was no right of appeal to this Court under s. 1023, Cr. C.
Assuming that the question whether there was any evidence to support a conviction should be deemed a question of law, yet the question whether the proper inference has been drawn by the trial judge from facts established in evidence, is not a question of law but one of fact. APPEAL from the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario (1) dismissing (Mulock, C.J.O., and Grant, J.A., dissenting) the appellant's appeal against his conviction, by Ross, Co. C.J., sitting in the County Court Judge's Criminal Court of the County of Elgin, of stealing an automobile (Criminal Code, s. 377). V. T. Foley for the appellant.
I. A. Humphries K.C. for the respondent.
On conclusion of the argument by counsel for the appellant, and without calling on counsel for the respondent, the judgment of the Court was orally delivered by
ANGLIN C.J.C.-The Court is unanimously of the opinion that it has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
On examination, it turns out that the questions raised are all questions of fact,-questions of the appreciation of evidence which were eminently for the trial judge, and in regard to which there is no right of appeal to this Court under section 1023, Cr. C.
*PRESENT:-Anglin CJ.C. and Newcombe, Rinfret, Lamont and Smith JJ.
(1) (1931) 40 Ont. W.N. 129.
Statutes and regulations cited
-
- s. 377
- section 1023
-
Unresolved citations
- s. 1023