Crown had granted this land before the beginning of the present century.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision appealed from, holding that the Crown had nothing to grant in 1892, having by the prior grant parted with its title and never resumed it, and there was nothing to show that the owner of the adjoining land had any title to the locus.
Russell Q.C. for the appellants.
Harrington Q.C. for the respondent.
BARTRAM v. VILLAGE OF LONDON WEST. MOTION for leave to appeal direct from a decision of the Divisional Court.
The action in this case was brought to replevy from appellant the books which he held as clerk of the corporation, he having been dismissed from the office. He refused to give up the books, on the ground that his dismissal was illegal.
Judgment was given for the corporation at the trial and affirmed by the livisional Court, and an application for special leave to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal.
The motion was first made to the registrar in chambers for leave to appeal per saltum and was dismissed. An appeal from this order to a judge in chambers was dismissed, and a further appeal was taken to the full court.
The court held that appellant had failed to show sufficient cause to justify the order asked for.
Motion refused with costs. Bartram, appellant, in person.
Christie for respondent.
:-Sir