in this case) permit the inspection to be delayed until the goods have reached the purchaser's warehouse. Constitutional law-Ontario Marriage Act.-Peppiatt v. Peppiatt,22 is a report of the judgment or opinion of Meredith, C.J.C.P., in respect to the unconstitutionality of the provision of the Ontario Marriage Act empowering the Supreme Court under certain circumstances to declare that a valid marriage has not been entered into, to which we called attention, and discussed at some length in our number for June last (p. 503.) Company - Subscription for Shares - Non-delivery of prospectus-Morrisburg and Ottawa Electric R. W. Co. v. O'Connor, 23 being apparently the first reported decision on the construction of one of the sections of our Ontario Companies Act (also found in the Alberta Companies Act) calls for notice. The actual section which it had reference to, was sec. 3 (3) of 6 Edw. VII. ch. 27 (0)—no subscription for stock induced or obtained by verbal representation, shall be binding upon the subscriber, unless prior to his so subscribing he shall receive a copy of the prospectus.' That section is no longer to be found in our Companies Act, but the judgment of the Court will, obviously, be equally applicable to the enactment which has superseded it, now R. S. O. 1914, ch. 178, sec. 101 (3), [cf. Alberta Companies Ordinance, sec. 57 (3)], viz.- A subscription for shares shall not be binding on the subscriber unless at or before the subscription there is delivered to him a copy of the prospectus, if any, issued by the company, or if the prospectus has not been issued a copy of the statement' (sc. issued in lieu of a prospectus). The decision of a majority of the Appellate Division (Hodgins, J.A., diss.) is that this enactment has no greater effect than to make the subscriber's contract voidable, if the prospectus or statement has not been served. The subscriber may elect to affirm, as here by allowing his name to be on the list of shareholders for two years and more, without objection. Hodgins, J.A., on the contrary holds that the effect of the section is to wipe out the subscription, and make it legally non-existent; and that, in this case, no act appeared to have been done by the subscriber from which his subsequent assent to becoming a shareholder could be inferred. 22 34 O. L. R. 121. 23 34 O. L. R. 161. Nuisance-Trespass on neighbour's land in order to abate. -All decisions which illustrate the few cases in which the law still permits self-help have for that very reason an interest of their own. Suttles v. Cantin,24 is such a case. In order to abate a nuisance by which a stream of water flowing off the plaintiff's land, caused "railings" to be distributed over part of the defendant's mining claim, covering up virgin ground which had not been mined, the defendant peaceably entered upon the mining claim of the plaintiff, which the plaintiff was not operating, and opened a water gate in the plaintiff's dam, so diverting the flow of water and abating the nuisance, doing no more than was necessary and proper for that purpose. The majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal have affirmed the trial judge in holding that the plaintiff was justified in acting as he did; and that the nuisance being one of commission, even if there had been no emergency, the defendant was not bound to give notice of his intention to abate it. Martin, J.A., (p. 107) cites the case of Raikes v. Townsend,25 which decides, as stated in its headnote, that- If a man in his own soil erect a thing which is a nuisance to another, as by stopping a rivulet, and so diminishing the water used by him for his cattle; the party injured may enter on the soil of the other and abate the nuisance, and justify the trespass; and this right of abatement is not confined merely to nuisances to a house, to a mill, or to land.' Lease Notice of forfeiture Verbal inaccuracy.—Big Valley Collieries Ltd. v. McKinnon,26 is a decision which shews that even in these easy-going days in law, the ancient maxim qui cadit in syllaba, cadit in tota causa has some faint application still. It is a decision of Hyndman, J., of Alberta, supported by a couple of recent English judgments, that a very little inaccuracy in a notice that is to be made a basis of a forfeiture under a proviso or stipulation in a lease, such as erroneously stating the date of the lease, is sufficient to invalidate the notice. The date of the lease was stated as January 16th, 1915, whereas it should have been January 8th, 1915. There were one or two other small verbal inaccuracies in the notice. 24 32 W. L. R. 101. 25 (1804) 2 Sm. 9. 27 Voluntary payment of debt of another.-Levinson v. Gault and Mackey (No. 1), is a decision of Middleton, J., which is worth a word of notice because it illustrates the characteristically English rule of our law that the voluntary payment by one of the debt of another, without his request, gives no claim for money paid against the person whose debt is discharged. Our law knows nothing of the Roman and civil law principle of negotiorum gestio-where by service. rendered to another without his consent, you can place him under an obligation quasi-ex-contractu to indemnify youexcept in the case of military and civil salvage, and the anomalous case of services rendered to a drunken man. Mind your own business' seems to be the general English principle. 28 Railway Crossing-Negligence of Watchman-Liability. -Re Royce Avenue crossing (Toronto), is a decision of the Board of Dominion Railway Commissioners upon a point which apparently had not come up before them on any previous application. The question was-Where does legal responsibility lie where gates are, by order of the Board, erected at a railway crossing over the tracks of two railway companies, and a watchman provided, all at the cost, divided in certain proportions, of the municipality and the two companies, and an accident happens through the negligence of the watchman? The decision is that the watchman should be regarded as the agent of the company whose trains or engines do the damage, although he may have been appointed in fact by the other company; and that the municipality was not responsible for the damage caused. The Chief Commissioner says:-"It is the railway peril that the watchmen are employed to avert. His work is of necessity linked up with the operation of trains and engines, over which the municipality has no control, and the scope of his duty can be much more properly looked upon as an added railway responsibility to the cost of which the interested municipality has to contribute, but is not responsible for its observAs to the two railway companies each railway company has to advise the watchmen as to the movement of its trains, and the question of the negligence of watchmen is more or less bound up with the possibility of negligence of other servants of the operating railway in the manner in which the trains are operating over the crossing.” ance. 27 9 O. W. N. 14. 28 32 W. L. R. 227. A. H. F. L. ONT.] SOME RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES. SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. COFFIN V. GILLIES. [JUNE 24TH, 1915. ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO. Present: SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK, C.J., and DAVIES, IDINGTON, DUFF and ANGLIN, JJ. Contract-Construction-Sale of foxes-Mixed breeds. By contract in writing G. agreed to sell to C., who agreed to buy, two black foxes to be the offspring of certain foxes purchased by the vendor from Charles Dalton and W. R. Oulton in the year 1911." Held (DAVIES and DUFF, JJ., dissenting), that the proper construction of the contract was that the two foxes to be sold must have both Dalton and Oulton parentage and G. could not be compelled to deliver a pair bred from the Dalton strain only. D. C. Ross, for the appellant. Appeal dismissed with costs. W. M. Douglas, K.C., and J. E. Thompson, for the respondent. ONT.] SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. [JUNE 24TH, 1915. TORONTO POWER Co. v. RAYNER. ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO. Present: SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK, C.J., and DAVIES, IDINGTON, DUFF and ANGLIN, JJ. Power comтрапу -- Accident to employee Negligence Injury from supposed dead wire-Duty of employer-Proper system. A power company is not liable for injury to an employee from contact with an electric wire represented to be harmless but which had, in some way, become charged, when it is shewn that every reasonable precaution has been taken for the safety of employees and there is nothing which proves or from which it can be inferred that the accident was due to the negligence of some person for which the company was responsible. Per IDINGTON, J. (dissenting). The only reasonable inference from the evidence is that the accident was caused by negligence; therefore, as decided by McArthur v. Dominion Cartridge Co.1 and Toronto Railway Co. v. Fleming,2 it is not necessary to determine precisely how such negligence produced the injury complained of. There was also some evidence of a I want of proper system and failure to employ competent persons to superintend the work. Judgment of the Appellate Division (32 Ont. L. R. 612), reversed, FITZPATRICK, C.J., and IDINGTON, J., dissenting. Appeal allowed with costs. D. L. McCarthy, K.C., for the appellants. J. H. Campbell, for the respondent. ONT.] SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. [JUNE 24TH, 1915. HAMILTON STREET RAILWAY Co. v. WEIR ET AL. ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO. Present: SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK, C.J., and DAVIES, IDINGTON, DUFF and ANGLIN, JJ. Negligence Obstruction of highway · Street railway-Trolley poles between tracks-Statutory authority — Protection by light. The Act incorporating the Hamilton Street Railway Co. authorized the city council to enter into an arrangement with the company for the construction and location of the railway. A by-law passed by the Council directed that the poles for holding wires should, on part of a certain street, be placed between the tracks, which was done under the supervision of the city engineer. Held, reversing the judgment appealed against,1 that the location of the poles was authorized by the legislature and did not 1 [1905] A. C. 72. |