ment exists, and that writing is not admitted by the opposite party. Trust and Loan Co. v. Bourgouin, 6 Q. P. R. 31.

9. Return Notice Contestation -Time.1-The notice given by an opposant to the plaintiff that the opposition is returned and that it should be contested within 12 days from the service of the notice will be set aside upon motion if, at the time of such notice, the opposition has not in fact been returned. Labelle v. Hyde, 5 Q. P. R. 406.

10. Sale of land by hypothecary creditor Opposition à fin de chargeSecurity for realization.]—An hypothecary creditor who puts up for sale immovable property, may demand by motion that the tenant, who makes an opposition à fin de charge based upon his lease, shall furnish security that the immovable will be sold for a sum sufficient to assure the complete payment of the debt. Trust and Loan Co. v. Charlebois, 5 Q. P. R. 365.

11. Solicitor-Election of domicilDefault - Motion-Costs Amendment -Time.]-By virtue of Rule 63 of the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court, an opposition signed by an attorney who has not elected a domicil pursuant to Art. 86, C. P., may be set aside upon motion, but, if the applicant has suffered no prejudice, the Court will grant the motion as regards costs only, and will order that an election of domicil be made, and the time fixed by Art. 650 for contesting an opposition, if the notice therein mentioned has been given, will be extended until 12 days after the service of notice of such election. Myers v. Mercier, Q. R. 22 S. C. 309.

PARISH.

See CHURCH, 1.

PARKS.

See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, XVI. 8.

PARLIAMENT.

See CROWN, III. 6.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS.

I. AGENCY.

II. CONTROVERTED ELECTION PETITION. III. CORRUPT PRACTICES. IV. VOTERS' LISTS.

See BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES, 11-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 9-LIQUOR ACT OF ONTARIO MUS, 1 TIONS, 2, 3.

MANDAPENALTIES AND PENAL AC

I. AGENCY.

1. Delegates to convention.]— The respondent was nominated as a candidate for election as a member of the Legislative Assembly for Ontario by a party convention, and, in acknowledging and accepting the nomination, he said:

66

There are three things essential to success: first, a good cause; second, proper organization; third, hard work. The first we have; the second and third will largely depend on you:"-Held, that the respondent by these words constituted every delegate who was present his agent, and became responsible for all that was afterwards done by them in organization and work for the purpose of the election. In re East Middlesex Provincial Election, Rose v. Rutledge, 23 Occ. N. 183, 5 0. L. R. 644.

2. Evidence of—Canvassers-Speak ers-Relatives-Scrutineers.] The following were held to be agents:-One who accompanied the respondent on a canvassing trip during which he spent a day canvassing for the respondent and spoke on his behalf at an election meeting at which the respondent was also present and spoke.-One who accom panied the respondent on a canvassing trip, acting as interpreter (the respondent being under the impression that he was one of his supporters), and actually worked and canvassed for him with his

authority. The son of the respondent, who took an active interest in the election on behalf of the respondent with his knowledge, acted as scrutineer, and was furnished with a sum of money by the respondent when leaving for the polling place at which he was to act. Leblanc v. Maloney, 5 Terr. L. R. 402.

3. What constitutes Authority -Recognition - Delegates to convention -Canvassing-Accompanying candidate in canvass.]-See In re Lisgar Dominion Election, 22 Occ. N. 433, 14 Man. L. R. 310.

II. CONTROVERTED ELECTION PETITION.

1. Appeal-Settlement of case.]-No machinery has been provided by the Ontario Controverted Elections Act or by the Rules for the settlement of a case upon an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the judgment upon the trial of a petition under the Act. The trial Judges can give no direction as to the evidence to be submitted to the Court.-Semble, that either party may treat the whole of the evidence taken at the trial as being before the Court of Appeal. In re South Oxford Provincial Election, McKay v. Sutherland, 23 Occ. N. 41, 5 0. L. R. 58.

Local

2. Copy-Neglect to deposit registrar Extension of time-TermsCosts.] Election petitions filed with local registrars under 62 V. (2) c. 6 (0.) are received by them as registrars of the Court of Appeal.-And, although a petitioner who does not leave with the local registrar at the time of filing the petition a copy of the petition to be sent to the returning officer, is in default under Election Rule 1 (2), still the time for doing so is subject to Election Rule 58, enabling the Court or a Judge in a proper case to enlarge the time appointed. And where, through inadvertence, the solicitor for a petitioner had omitted to leave the copy, and applied without delay, the time was extended, and an order for the dismissal of the petition was discharged, upon terms as to costs. In re North Grey Provincial Election, Boyd v. Mackay, 23 Occ. N. 303, 6 O. L. R. 273.

3. Costs-Conduct of respondent.1The respondent, having allowed the organization of the contest to go into the hands of persons as to whom he could not or would not give any information, and having failed to shew that he had made any serious effort to prevent illegal practices, was refused any costs of his VOL. XXIII. C. L.T.-ANN. DIG.-11

5. Discovery Examination forParticulars.]-Section 18 of the Controverted Elections Ordinance, C. O. 1898 c. 4, provides as follows: "The said petition and all proceedings thereunder shall be deemed to be a cause in the Court in which the said petition is filed, and all the provisions of the Judicature Ordinance, in so far as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, shall be applicable to such petition and proceedings:"-Held, that the provisions of the Judicature Ordinance respecting examinations for discovery come within the above section.2. That where particulars of the charges had been ordered the examination could not be compelled until after the delivery of the particulars. Leblanc v. Maloney, 5 Terr. L. R. 341.

6. Evidence-Return.]-In a controverted election petition it is not necessary that proof should be given that the respondent has been returned as member. Leblano v. Maloney, 5 Terr. L. R. 402.

the electors whom he has treated.-3. He will also be ordered to give particulars of the conspiracies of which he accuses the petitioner, the payments and promises of money or rewards which he alleges the latter has made, and the particular circumstances of each offence. Ste. Marie v. Perrault, 5 Q. P. R. 430.

9. Service Order extending time for Grounds for.]-An election petition filed in the clerk's office on the 17th December was sent to the petitioner at C. by registered letter on the 20th, and was received at the post office at C. on the evening of that day, but, for some reason that was not explained, the letter was not delivered, and the petitioner had no knowledge of its receipt until the 27th, the last day for service:Held, that an order extending the time for service was properly made. Re Regtigouche Dominion Election, McAllister v. Reid, 35 N. B. Reps. 390.

10. Service Substituted serviceOrder after time expired.]—Under s. 8 of c. 20 of 54 & 55 V., substituted for s. 10 of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, R. S. C. c. 9. the Court has jurisdiction to make an order for substituted personal service, where the application for the order is not made until after the time allowed for personal service has expired. The order is not bad because it omits to fix a time within which the substituted service must be made.Where the petitioner, by reason of a deception practised upon him, erroneously believed a personal service had been effected and allowed five days after the extended time to elapse before taking out the order for substituted service:-Held. that it was not too late. Re York Dominion Election, McLeod v. Gibson, 35 N. B. Reps. 376.

11. Stay of proceedings pending appeal on preliminary objections Trial Time Extension.] Preliminary objections to an election petition filed on the 22nd February, 1902, were dismissed by a Judge on the 24th April, and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. On the 31st May the Judge ordered that the trial of the petition be adjourned to the thirtieth juridical day after the judgment of the Supreme Court should be given, and the same was given, dismissing the appeal, on the 10th October, making the 17th November the day fixed for the trial under the order of the 31st May. On the 14th November a motion was made before a Judge, on behalf of the member elect, to have the petition declared lapsed for non-commencement of the trial within six months from the time it was filed. This was refused on the 17th November,

but the Judge held that the trial could not proceed on that day, as the order for adjournment had not fixed a certain time and place, and, on motion by the petitioner, ordered that it be commenced ou the 4th December. The trial was begun on that day:-Held, that the effect of the order of the 31st May was to fix the 17th November as the date of commencement of the trial; that the time between the 31st May and the 10th October, when the judgment of the Supreme Court on the preliminary objections was given, should not be counted as part of the six months within which the trial was to be begun; and that the 4th December, on which it was begun, was therefore within the six months:-Held, also, that, if the order of the 31st May could not be considered as fixing a day for the trial, it operated as a stay of proceedings, and the order of the 17th November was proper. In re St. James Dominion Election, Brunet v. Bergeron, 23 Occ. N. 147, 33 S. C. R. 137.

13. Trial

-

Ber

Production of voters' lists Certified copies Costs.]Since the Franchise Act, 1898, provides that the voters' lists used at an election of a member of the House of Commons may be proved by the production of certified copies, it is unnecessary to procure the attendance of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery from Ottawa to produce the lists at the trial of an election petition, and the costs occasioned by procuring his attendance will not be allowed to the successful petitioner as against the respondent. but instead thereof only what the certified copies of the necessary parts of the lists, if procured, would have cost. In re Lisgar Dominion Elec tion, 14 Man. L. R. 268.

3. Conveying voters to poll Onus.]-The taking unconditionally and gratuitously of a voter to the poll by a railway company or an individual, or the giving to a voter of a free pass or ticket by railway, boat, or other conveyance, if unaccompanied by any condition or stipulation affecting the voter's action in reference to his vote, is not a corrupt practice, and the onus is on the petitioner to prove that the railway tickets supplied had been paid for. re Lisgar Dominion Election, 22 Occ. N: 433, 14 Man. L. R. 310.

In

4. Dismissal of charges against candidate and agents Concurrent findings of both trial Judges-Disagreement of trial Judges-Right of appeal.] -The Judges at the trial of an election petition, having reserved judgment in respect of five charges, subsequently gave judgment dismissing four of these charges, both Judges agreeing as to the result. In respect to the fifth chargea charge of payment of money by the candidate to a voter to induce such voter to vote for him-the Judges disagreed, one Judge being in favour of the dismissal of the charge, the other being of the opinion that the charge was proved: -Held, that the existence of a right of appeal in respect of one class of charges does not draw with it the right of appeal in respect of other charges, as to which there would otherwise be no right of appeal:-Held, also, that the portions of the Ontario Controverted Elections Act relating to the right of appeal in cases of disagreement between the Judges, must be construed in connection with the other provisions of the same Act; and also with the provisions of the Ontario Election Act, which are in pari materia; that the words or otherwise in s.-s. (5) of s. 57 of the Controverted Elections Act extend the effect of that subsection to a difference or disagreement in every matter on which a candidate might be disqualified for a corrupt practice, and that s.-s. (6) extends it to candidates and others. That if an appeal lies in case of a disagreement between the trial Judges, a judgment in appeal finding a candidate or other person guilty of a corrupt practice would necessarily subject him to disqualification or other disability or penalty, notwithstanding the absence of a concurrent judgment to that effect of the two trial Judges, and that this would be contrary to the statute :-Held, MACLAREN, J.A., dissenting, that an appeal did not lie in respect of any of the charges.

66

In re

V

Lennox Provincial Election, Perry Carscallen, 23 Occ. N. 255, 6 O. L. R. 203.

5. Disqualification of candidate.] -The judgment of the trial Judges un

seated and disqualified the member-elect. On appeal the members of the Supreme Court of Canada were equally divided in opinion, and the judgment stood affirmed. In re St. James Dominion Election, Brunet v. Bergeron, 34 Occ. N. 147, 33 S. C. R. 137.

6. Treating Antecedent habit Candidate.]-The respondent admitted that he had treated on the day of the convention, after the convention was over, several times, at at least two hotels, several persons, some of whom might have been electors. He denied, however, that the treating had any relation to the election:-Held, that under s.-s. 2 of s. 162 (added by 62 V. (2) c. 5, s. 7 (0.)), treating generally or extensively or miscellaneously is only primâ facie a corrupt practice. If it be shewn that the treating was not in fact done corruptly in order to be elected, or for being elected, or for the purpose of corruptly influencing votes, it is no offence any more than it was before the enactment of s.-s. 2. There may still be innocent treating, though, if it be general or extensive or miscellaneous, the onus of shewing that it is innocent is upon the respondent. And an antecedent habit of treating must still help, among other things, to rebut the inference of corrupt intent:-Held, also, that, although the respondent did not become a candidate," within the meaning of s. 2. s.-s. 8, until the 27th March, yet if any corrupt acts in relation to the election were done by him before that date, they would affect the election, for the Act applies to everything done at any time before an election by a person who is afterwards elected. Youghal Election, 3 Ir. R. C. L. 53, 1 O'M. & H. 291, followed. In re East Middlesex Provincial Election, Rose Rutledge, 23 Occ. N. 183, 5 O. L. R. 644.

7, Treating Committee meeting.] -Upon a charge of treating a committee meeting held at an hotel, the evidence was that McC., who was found to be an agent of the respondent. brought into the room where the meeting was being held a box of cigars for the use of the members of the committee. He said he did it at the request of the landlord. It was not shewn by whom payment was made:-Held, that the charge was not proved, for it is the person at whose expense the treat is supplied, or who pays or engages to pay for it, who alone is guilty of the offence. In re East Middlesex Provincial Election, Rose v. Routledge, 23 Occ. N. 183, 5 O. L. R. 644.

former law as to treating voters at an election in omitting the element of corrupt intent, and should be strictly construed. Under it, the providing or furnishing of refreshments or drink would not be an offence unless done at the expense of the candidate. In re Lisgur Dominion Election, 22 Occ. N. 433, 14 Man. L. R. 310.

9. Treating

Intent-Candidate.]

-It was shewn that the respondent and his chief agent had on several occasions in the course of the canvass treated in bars. The respondent was a physician, with a large country practice, and constantly on the road. He was also a horse fancier, and, although an abstainer from liquor, a great consumer of cigars. It was not disputed that while on the road he was in the constant habit of treating, and he continued to treat after his nomination by the convention on the 1st February until the writ for the election was issued, on the 22nd April :Held, that no corrupt intent having been shewn in any of the instances of treating proved, the election was not thereby avoided. West Wellington Case, 1 E. C. 16, distinguished. In re East Middlesex Provincial Election, Rose_v. Rutledge, 23 Occ. N. 183, 5 0. L. R. 644.

10. Treating Intent Custom.] -The treating of electors prior to and on polling day by an agent of the respondent, although done on a liberal scale, will not be assumed to have been done with the corrupt intent necessary to make it an offence, when the Court is satisfied that he was accustomed to keep at all times considerable quantities of liquors on hand and to supply them quite freely to others in the way of hospitality or as a matter of business, and there is no other evidence to shew that the treating was done in order to influence a voter or voters.-The same rule applies to treating when done in compliance with a custom prevalent in the country and without express evidence of any corrupt intent in so treating; also to the supplying of meals at a private house to electors who have come from a distance, in the absence of evidence that this was done for the purpose of influencing the election. In re Lisgar Dominion Election, 22 Occ. N. 433, 14 Man. L. R. 310.

agent of the respondent and taken to the home of another in the vicinity of one of the polling places, where it was drunk freely on election day by the electors generally, the inference of fact was drawn that it was provided by both these agents for the purpose of influencing the electors, though there was no direct evidence to that effect, and it was held to be a corrupt practice notwithstanding that apparently it did not have that effect.The evidence also shewed that a quantity of whisky was taken to a place in the vicinity of another polling place by an agent, where it was consumed by the agent and others on polling day :-Held, that this shewed a scheme on the part of the respondent's agents to influence the voters generally, and procure the election of the respondent by providing whisky at each of the polling places.Quare, whether an agent accustomed to carry about with him a bottle of whisky to treat those whom he should happen to meet, should not, if following this custom while actually engaged in canvassing, be held to have treated with a corrupt intent. Leblanc v. Maloney, 5 Terr. L. R. 402.

12. Treating Meeting of electors -Individuals.]-The respondent requested M., who was found to be an agent, to go with him to a factory and introduce him to the workmen, some of whom were voters. M. did this, and the respondent addressed the workmen on behalf of his candidature. After the meeting was over and the workmen had dispersed, M. asked the foreman to have a drink at a neighbouring inn, which the foreman declined. M. also said that if the workmen who went home in that direction would go to the inn, he would "leave a drink for them there." This conversation was not in the presence of the respondent, nor heard by him. When the men were leaving their work for the day, the foreman told them what M. had said, and eight or ten of them called at the inn and got a drink of beer without paying for it:-Held, that a charge of treating a meeting assembled to promote the election, under s. 161 of the Ontario Election Act, failed upon this evidence, for the meeting had come to an end before anything was said about the treating, and the men were not told anything about it till nearly three hours Nor did the evidence supafterwards. port a charge under s. 162 (1) of corrupt treating of individuals in order to be elected, M. being a customer of the factory and following a previous habit in his intercourse with the men. In re East Middlesex Provincial Election, Rose v. Rutledge, 23 Occ. N. 183, 5 0. L. R. 644.

See ante II. 8.