Majority
'Mar. 3.
AND
THE TOWN OF ST. LOUIS (DEFEND-)
RESPONDENT. ANT) ..............................
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH (APPEAL SIDE), PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.
Judgment of the Court
THi CHIEF (oral).-We are all of opinion that this appeal cannot be maintained.
We have elaborate judgment of the Court of Appeal with clear and plain motifs in the body of it, and also the notes of Mr. Justice Boss6 which show the principle on which the judgment proceeded.
It lies upon the appellant to shew that this judgment was wrong. This he has failed to do.
The only ground on which it was sought to make the municipality liable was that Niquette was under its control and that the municipality was responsible for his acts. It appears to us that there was not any such responsibility.
The statute under which the municipality acted, 59 Vict. ch. 55, sec. 26, s.s. 18' says in so many words that where a landowner desires to connect his private drain with the main drain of Louis. the municipality, he may do so at his own cost under the " surveillance " of an officer appointed by the corporation.
That does not constitute the private owner employee of the municipality nor under its control. So far as I can see the judgment appealed from was well founded according to the law of Lower Canada, without resorting to English decisions, which are abundant, or to American or Ontario authorities. If these were referred to there would be still less doubt in the case, but I do 'not profess to act on any law except that of Quebec, namely, the statute referred to, which requires the "surveillance" referred to only in the interest of the municipality in order that the main drain may be protected from injury during the work of connecting the private drain with it and not for the purpose of otherwise controlling the private owner in the
The reasons to this effect given in the judgment appealed against are, we think, in all respects a correct interpretation of the law.
The conclusion is that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.