Judgment of the Court
THE CHIEF JUSTICE.-Upon the point as to the validity of the by-law, which was fully argued and upon which judgment was reserved, I am of opinion strogC.J. that the respondents are entitled to our judgment. The publication of the advertisement in the Norwich " Gazette," a newspaper published in the village of Norwich, was in my opinion, as the Court of Appeal have held, a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the statute. The enactment requiring publication is as follows (1) :- I am of opinion that we may safely hold the village of Norwich to be in an adjoining local municipality. It is what may be called an enclave in the township municipality of North Norwich, which latter township is in the strictest sense within the municipality adjoining that of South Norwich.
Now, what the legislature had in view in requiring publication in a newspaper published in an adjoining municipality was to ensure the insertion of the advertisement in a paper published in the near neighbourhood of the municipality whose ratepayers were to be called on to vote, a purpose with which the contiguity of municipal jurisdictions had nothing whatever to do, and inasmuch as in a geographical sense the Norwich " Gazette " was published within the limits of the adjoining township of North Norwich, I think the statute was sufficiently complied with.
The word " adjoining " although in some criminal cases it has been very strictly construed, has yet in other cases received a wider and more liberal construction.
I refer to the cases of London 4 South Western Railway Co. v. Blackmore (1); Hobbs v. Midland Ry. Co. (2) ; Coventry v. London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Co. (3) ; Hooper v. Bourne (4) ; Harrison v. Good and Stroud's Judicial Diet.
The objection to the by-law must, therefore, be overruled, and the argument of the appeal must proceed upon the constitutional question which the appellants raised.
Objections to validity of by-law over-ruled and argument ordered to proceed upon the constitutional question.
Solicitors for appellant : Du Vernet 4 Jones.
Solicitors for respondents: O'Donohoe, Titus 4 Co.
J.