in my judgment, satisfactory. I mention only one circumstance,-the solicitor who had the conduct of the proceedings on behalf of Goddard leading to the judgment in question was not called and no explanation is offered of the failure to call him.
The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant: Symons, Heighington & Shaver. Solicitors for the respondent: McRuer, Mason, Cameron & Brewin.
TAYLOR v. THE KING
APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba (1) affirming (Robson J.A. dissenting) the conviction of the appellant for the offence under s. 301 (1) of the Criminal Code, of carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 14 years.
On the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, after hearing the argument of counsel for the appellant, and without calling on counsel for the respondent, the Court delivered judgment orally, dismissing the appeal. The Chief Justice stated that the only point open, on a fair construction of the judgment of the dissenting judge, Mr. Justice Robson, was the question whether or not there was corroboration in point of law; and stated that, with the greatest respect for Mr. Justice Robson, this Court had come to the conclusion that his view as to that could not be sustained.
Appeal dismissed. C. N. Kushner for the appellant.
R. B. Baillie for the respondent.