their sentence by the Court of King's Bench, criminal side, Wilson J., for the offence of speaking seditious words. cH R The appellants were granted special leave to appeal to TH aniG. this court by Smith J., in chambers, on the ground that, at first sight, the judgment appealed from apparently conflicted with a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Ontario in a case of The King v. Buck (1).
On the appeal to this court, after hearing argument of counsel, the Court delivered judgment orally, quashing the appeal for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that such conflict did not exist.
Appeal quashed. M. Garber for the appellants.
D. P. Gillmor K.C. for the respondent.
JOSEPH
DORZEK,
His
NEXT
FRIEND JOHN DORZEK, THE JOHN
*Feb. 20. DORZEK, AND CLEMENTINE DOR- APPELLANTS; *Feb.27. ZEK (PLAINTIFFS)
..................
AND
McCOLL
FRONTENAC
OIL
COM- R
PANY, LIMITED (DEFENDANT) .....
ON APPEAL FROM THE APPEAL ONTARIO The action was for damages resulting from the infant plaintiff being struck by defendant's motor truck. The infant, suing by his father as next friend, claimed for personal injuries, and his father claimed for hospital and medical expenses and loss of work. At trial the infant recovered $1,875, and the father $28425. The Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the judgment and dismissed the action.
Plaintiffs appealed de plano to this Court. The present motion was by way of appeal from the Registrar's refusal to affirm jurisdiction.
Held: This Court had not jurisdiction. To give jurisdiction in regard to either appellant, the amount in controversy in the appeal with regard, to him must exceed $2,000.
Each cause of action was complete in itself and distinct from the other. Appellants were in the same position (as to jurisdiction) as if separate actions had been brought and separate judgments rendered.
The amounts recovered at trial could not be added to give jurisdiction.
*PRESENT:-Rinfret, Lamont, Smith, Cannon and Crocket JJ. (1) [19321 3 D.L.R. 97; 57 Can. Cr.