EDITOR'S PREFACE. Some explanation is perhaps due to members of the legal profession for the appearance of this volume of Supreme Court cases. It will be found upon reference to Volumes XIV., XVI. and ERRATA. P. 275, line 24 of head note, insert "no" before "ratifica- P. 365, line 8, for "corner" read "quarter." P. 487, line 10 from the bottom, for "1885" read "1855." P. 608, line 3 from the bottom, for "trail" read "trial." the mistake may be readily detected, but it is of very great consequence when, as in these cases, the judgments are not printed and the only report is a brief note of the result of the decision. Upon reading these unreported judgments it appeared to me that there were in the cases following some useful expositions of legal principles that would justify their publication. In some of the cases the judgments of the courts below are not reported in the official reports of these courts, because the members of the court appealed from were equally divided in their opinion, but these judgments subsequently became of importance by reason of the Supreme Court adopting the reason EDITOR'S PREFACE. Some explanation is perhaps due to members of the legal profession for the appearance of this volume of Supreme Court cases. It will be found upon reference to Volumes XIV., XVI. and XVIII. of the Reports of the Supreme Court of Canada that each of these has an appendix in which notes of certain decisions are given, but not the text of any of the reasons for judgment. I found, upon taking office as Registrar, that my predecessor, the late Mr. Cassels, had made a collection of many of these judgments with the purpose of some day publishing them. In his time, and also since, applications have been made to the reporters of the court for certified copies of the reasons for judgment in many of these cases, and also of the judgments in other appeals in which the decisions were reported only in the form of a short note in Mr. Cassels' Digest, and I understand these certified copies have been occasionally cited and used in argument before the courts. In two instances I found the report in the appendix was incorrect. An erroneous headnote may not be a matter of great significance if it is followed by the reasons for judgment by which the mistake may be readily detected, but it is of very great consequence when, as in these cases, the judgments are not printed and the only report is a brief note of the result of the decision. Upon reading these unreported judgments it appeared to me that there were in the cases following some useful expositions of legal principles that would justify their publication. In some of the cases the judgments of the courts below are not reported in the official reports of these courts, because the members of the court appealed from were equally divided in their opinion, but these judgments subsequently became of importance by reason of the Supreme Court adopting the reason ing of some of the judges below. In such cases I have thought that these judgments could be with advantage incorporated in any report of the Supreme Court decisions. In conclusion, I desire to express my indebtedness to Mr. L. W. Coutlée, K.C., one of the reporters of the court, who has prepared the subject index and lists of cases, and supervised all the press work. OTTAWA, Nov. 1, 1905. E. R. CAMERON. |