Attorney General for Quebec & City of Hull v. Scott et al.

' *Feb. AND

-Feb. 25. CHARLES N. ARMSTRONG (PLAIN- RESPONDENT. TIFF) .........................................

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.

JUSTICE.-The respondent, Armstrong, Theief brought the action to recover from the appellant, Beauchemin, a balance amounting to $2,217, claimed for the hire of a locomotive engine and two railway cars. In the Superior Court, the action was dismissed with costs.

On appeal, the Superior Court judgment was in part affirmed by the court below, but the appeal was allowed as to costs and the present appellant was condemned to bear a portion of the costs incurred in the trial court.

The amount of these costs and interest is $631.

The respondent, Armstrong, acquiesced in the judgment dismissing his action, but Beauchemin now attempts to assert an appeal from that portion of the judgment in the court below which cohdemned him to pay $631 of the costs although it had affirmed the dismissal of the action against him.

This is not a case where the amount demanded originally governs as to the jurisdictional pecuniary limitation under subsection 4 of section 29 of the Supreme Court Act, but it is a case falling within the decision of the Privy Council in Allan v. Pratt (1) which was followed by this court in the case of Monette v. Lefebvre (2).

The interest of the party appealing is for a sum less than $2,000 and, therefore, the appeal must be quashed. Appeal quashed with costs.