Majority
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of murder before convicting him of that crime. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed. Solicitor for the appellant: I. A. Humphries.
Solicitor for the respondent: H. M. Rogers.
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL PAPER
COMPANY .........................
LA COUR DE MAGISTRAT, ARTHUR
LARUE, AND
FRANQOIS-X.
LA- COUR ...................
J
MOTION by the respondents to quash for want of jurisdiction an appeal from a judgment of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec (1), affirming the judgment of the Superior Court, Fortier J., and quashing a writ of prohibition issued against the respondent.
Judgment of the Court
J.-On the 27th January, 1936, Francois- Xavier Lacoursibre, district magistrate, issued a summons or warrant against the appellant for infraction to the Lord's Day Act (R.S.C., c. 153). The appellant denied the jurisdiction of the magistrate and made an application for a writ of prohibition which issued against the respondents according to an order of Honourable Justice Marchand of CoUR the Superior Court. The writ is in the following terms: 3AG Edouard VIII, par la Grace de Dieu, Roi de Grande-Bretagne, d'Irlande et des Territoires Britanniques au delh des mers, D6fenseur de Cannon J. la foi, Empereur des Indes.
A la Cour de magistrat pour le district judiciaire des Trois-Rivibres, si6geant au palais de justice de la dite cit6 des Trois-Rivibres, Arthur Larue, constable et officier sp6cial, charg6 de 1'observance de la loi concernant le jour du Seigneur, de la cit6 des Trois-Rivibres et Frangois Xavier Lacoursibre, Ecr. magistrat de district dans et pour le district de Trois-Rivibres.
Salut: Nous vous enjoigons de ne pas proc6der contre la dite requirante Canadian International Paper Company, sur la plainte port6e par le dit intim6 Arthur Larue, le 27 janvier 1936, et nous ordonnons que toutes proc6dures prises contre la dite requ~rante sur la dite plainte et poursuivies en conformit6 avec la proc6dure criminelle, soient arraties et interrompues i toutes fins que de droit, et que le dossier du tribunal inf6rieur soit transmis h notre Cour Sup6rieure, sifgeant dans et pour notre dit district de Trois-Rivibres, en notre cit6 de Trois-Rivibres, sans ddlai, pour Stre IA et alors proc6d6 ult~rieurement selon que de droit sur la demande de la dite requ6rante produite devant cette dite cour, le 3 mars 1936, et nous commandons au dit Arthur Larue de comparaitre devant cette dite cour, en notre dit district de Trois-Rivibres, en notre dite cit6 de Trois-Rivibres, le sizibme jour apris signification sur lui de ce pr6sent bref pour r6pondre A la demande de la requ6rante contenue dans ea dite requ~te et dans la d6claration ci-annexee.
Subsequently the writ was quashed by a judgment of the Superior Court (Fortier J.) on the 7th December, 1936, and the Court of King's Bench unanimously upheld his judgment on the 24th February, 1937 (1).
On the 4th March, 1937, the Court of King's Bench granted special leave to appeal to this Court.
The respondents now move to quash the appeal for want of jursidiction because these are proceedings for or upon a writ of prohibition arising out of a criminal charge which, under sect-ion 36 of the Supreme Court Act, are not appealable to this Court.
It must be noted that by section 41 of the Act, the highest court of final resort having jurisdiction in the province in which the proceeding was originated may grant special (1) Q.R. 62 K.B. 268.
leave to appeal to this Court in any case "within section 36," i.e., except in criminal causes and in proceedings for or upon a writ of habeas cropus, certiorari or prohibi- Co. tion arising out of a criminal charge, etc. It was not disputed that these proceedings arose to stop the magistrate from hearing the criminal charge laid against the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended, cannon j. however, that the proceedings under the Code of Civil Pro- cedure are not similar to the prohibition proceedings within the meaning of our section 36. This point seems to have been raised without success in Gaynor & Greene v. United States of America (1).
Article 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure says: The writ of prohibition lies whenever a court of inferior jurisdiction exceeds its jurisdiction.
It is applied for, obtained, contested and executed in the same manner as mandamus, and with the same formalities; and the writ of summons is directed to the court of inferior jurisdiction and to the party proceeding therein.
Under 993,
The writ of summons can issue only upon the authorization of a judge of the Superior Court, granted upon the presentation of a petition, supported by affidavit, affirming the truth of the facts set forth in the petition.
The writ issued in this case prohibits the court, the magistrate and the complainant from further proceeding, in order que toutes les proc6dures prises contre la dite requirante sur la dite plainte et poursuivies en conformit6 avec la proc6dure criminelle, soient arrit6es et interrompues h toutes fins que de droit;
and it orders also that the record of the Magistrate's Court Court be transmitted to the Superior Court; but Arthur Larue alone is summoned to appear before the Superior Court to answer the petition. As far as the Magistrate's Court and the Magistrate himself are concerned, the writ contains nothing but a prohibition to proceed on a criminal charge and no summons to appear.
English authors and authorities have always been quoted, as far as my knowledge goes, in every reported prohibition case in the province of Quebec.
See inter alia: Bastien v. Amyot (2); Rossi v. Lacroix (3); Paris v. Couture (4); Vannier v. Meunier (5).
(1) (1905) 36 Can. S.C.R. 247.
(3) (1929) Q.R. 46 K.B. 405. (2) (1905) Q.R. 15 KB. 22.
(4) (1884) 10 QLL.R. 1. (5) (1887)
Q.L.R. 210.