Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

The real question in the case, however, is the question of fact I have already alluded to. Do all the transactions between Joly and his friend Langlois show sufficiently and clearly that Joly is the real owner, and Langlois is only the pretended owner? It is very difficult to give a confident and decisive opinion on this question. It is a question of appreciation of evidence, and of inference from facts. I have weighed it all as carefully as I can, and I have come to the conclusion that although the circumstances may show clearly, that in all Langlois did he was desirous of protecting his friend Joly from the hostile action of his creditors, there is nothing to show that he (Langlois) is not the real owner. Creditors are suspicious naturally enough under such circumstances, but that is a very different thing from saying that Langlois is to lose his property, or that any hope or design the parties may have had that Joly might some day become the owner, is to expose Langlois to lose his present rights.

Opposition maintained.

C. L. Champagne, for opposant.
Geoffrion & Co., for plaintiff contesting.

GENERAL NOTES.

An esteemed correspondent at Quebec, with the tone of whose communication we certainly have no reason to be dissatisfied, thinks a recent reference to our "modern legislators" to be somewhat déplacé, in the columns of the Legal News. Our correspondent is perfectly right in assuming that we do not propose to allow politics to intrude upon our space. At the same time it may be remarked that the Legal News is not exclusively (as our correspondent implies) a mere report of judicial proceedings. It is an independent journal devoted to legal topics, and, as such, it follows the course adopted by the leading journals of the law in England and the United States, in offering a free and unbiassed criticism of such matters pertaining to the law, and to law-makers and administrators, as may seem to merit attention.

The seizure of their bodies would delight these candidates for martyrdom, but the necessities of the revenue would be fully answered by taking their property. If they shut their doors against the sheriff, he will be bound, after politely asking them to surrender, to break the doors open by force. This law is at least as old as the reign of James I. It is reported by Lord Coke in Semayne's Case; and, although Lord Coke did not get on well with the ladies of his family, he was a very accurate reporter.-Law Journal (London).

In commenting upon Eno's case, the Evening Post points out that an offence, in order to be extraditable, must be the offence understood by the name given to it in the treaty in both of the countries which are parties to the treaty and not in one only. There is no

66

doubt that the offence charged against Eno is not forgery in England, and that an indictment against him for forgery would not lie in England. The Post, however, seems to assume that Eno has committed what may be described as American forgery," and that is not the case either. He has only committed New York forgery. Many American decisions go the length of the English doctrine, quoted by the Post, that telling a lie does not become a forgery because it is reduced to writing." In Massachusetts it has been held "that the mere false statement or implication of a fact, not having reference to the person by whom the

66

instrument is executed, will not constitute the crime."

The cookery of accounts to cover an embezzlement is forgery by the statute of New York only, and, of course, it is even more preposterous to maintain that the extradition treaty must be construed by the statutes of one State than if such a construction were general in this country.-N. Y. Times.

The Washington Law Reporter gives the following statement of three months' work of the United States Supreme Court :-"The last volume, 109, of the United States Supreme Court Reports, covers a period of three months, October 15, 1883, to January 7, 1884, and in that time shows 90 cases decided by the court. Of these the chief justice delivered the opinions in 20, Judge Blatchford in 13, Matthews in 13, Woods in 12, Gray in 9, Bradley in 6, Harlan in 6, Miller in 6, and Field in 5. There were 12 dissenting opinions, of which no less than 5 were by Judge Harlan, 3 by Field. 2 by Gray, and 1 each by Miller and the Chief Justice. The longest opinion in the volume is that in the Civil Rights Cases, U. S. v. Stanley, which covers 59 pages, of which 36 are devoted to Judge Harlan's dissent."

W. D. Thompson, in the American Law Review, says of the late Charles O'Conor:-" He was a model to the bar and an honor to his country. He used no dishonorable means to win the favor of a jury. He was no orator; but by plain statements of facts well marshaled he rarely ever lost a doubtful case. As a man,

his character was unimpeachable. He was honest, stern, upright, and noble. He was seldom known to smile. He was like the younger Pitt: 'Modern degeneracy had not reached him.' No political cor

The manner in which certain lady taxpayers propose to demonstrate their fitness to take part in the government of the country-namely, by lawlessly declining to pay the Queen's taxes-will be found attended with some difficulty. The maxim of law that an Englishman's house is his castle may be admitted to extend to an Englishwoman, so that if she keep her door shut against the sheriff's officer, armed with the ordinary writ of fi. fa., the blockade cannot be raised by break-ruption, state chicanery, or bribes could induce him to ing the door open. Crown debts are, however, not recovered by a fi. fa., but by the more effective weapon of a writ of extent,' under which the body, land, and goods' of the fair recalcitrants would be seized.

swerve from the path of duty. All his sayings and actions bespoke of energy and a powerful intellect."

[blocks in formation]

Our correspondent "E. B." draws an inference from our brief note on this case which the words do not justify. We did not intend to offer, and we did not offer, any criticism upon the ruling in appeal, save this, that the practice which had been followed for some years in the Superior Court, tended to greater expedition. For the rest, the Court of Appeal was called upon for the first time to interpret a portion of the Code of Procedure, and, of course, it was in no way bound by the rulings of the lower Courts. Moreover, it is of comparatively small importance in what manner a question of this kind is decided, so long as it is finally settled, and the profession have an authoritative ruling to guide them.

No one has questioned the policy of requiring security to be given: the only point was whether the law required the demand to be made within four days. If it did, it would not be a hard law. If a defendant is compelled to appear within one day, there would be no hardship in requiring him to ask for security within four days.

The question of exacting security from resident plaintiffs is a different one, and we must say that we sympathize to some extent with the remarks of our correspondent on this subject.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

These intermissions are extremely beneficial to hardworked professional men, for though business of certain kinds proceeds, and has to be attended to throughout the year, yet the members of firms are enabled to divide the vacation between them, and to obtain in turn the total change so much desired, by flight to other scenes. Although life in our northern metropolis is not at the high pressure of more excitable cities, yet the following remarks from the American Law Review are applicable here :

"Overwork is the bane of the time. Professional men and business men alike wreck themselves by excessive, unremitting toil. Hence, so many shattered nerves, early and sudden deaths, and disabled brains. So well recognized is this that we assume our readers, whether busy or not, weary or not, are already planning for a vacation. They owe this to themselves, their dependents, and their clients. It is a mistake, almost always, to say one

cannot

afford a vacation. The opposite is more nearly true. If one craves the gayeties of Saratoga, or of the seaside watering places, and can afford it, very well; though, to our notion, nature, and not society, is to be preferred by him whose brain needs rest, and whose nerves need quiet. In any event every one should for weeks, and, if possible, months, of this summer, quit the city and town for the pure air of the country. Go somewhere away from business and care and away from study. Do this, whether well or ill. It will help the strong to remain strong, the feeble to regain what they have lost."

The Law Review proceeds to speak of the places to which members of the profession may betake themselves. On this point we shall only say that if any of our contemporaries or brethren of that ilk chance to visit this "fringe of the Arctic zone in the course of their holiday rambles, it will be a great pleasure to us to see them, and that we may usually be found at our office through

[ocr errors]

out the vacation between the hours of noon and five p.m.

SECURITY FOR COSTS.

To the Editor of the LEGAL NEWS:

SIR,-The impression left by your remarks in connection with the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Bowker Fertilizer Co. & Cameron is that you look upon that decision as a step backwards. In this, if I may be permitted to say so, you fail to appreciate the real bearings of the question. To reason as if a demand for security for costs were to be unfavorably treated, as most preliminary

NOTES OF CASES.
COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE.
MONTRÉAL, 31 mai 1884.

exceptions are treated, and properly so, no doubt, is to mistake the character of a demand of security for costs in the case of foreigners. Such a demand manifestly cannot be confounded with that kind of plead-DORION, Juge en chef, MONK, TESSIER, CROSS, ings which is generally resorted to for the mere sake of delay. It is a fair demand in every respect, and as the fact appears, as a rule, on the face of the writ-the right cannot be questioned.

This is obvious enough and the best evidence that the proceeding is a favorable one is that it is allowed to take the form of a

motion unaccompanied by a deposit, although the code classes it among dilatory exceptions. I should say that, on principle, a foreigner should be liable to be called upon at any stage of the proceedings to give security for costs.

I would go further still and would hold that with the view of checking unjust claims, the costs, in all cases, should be secured in some proper manner in the case of resident plaintiffs, as well as in the case of nonresidents.

BABY, JJ.

LAREAU V. DUNN et al.

Exception de bornage-Identité d'un lot cons-
tatée par tenants et aboutissants—-Possession
de bonne foi-Articles 412 et 417 C. C.
Le 28 août 1877, William McGinnis prit
une action pétitoire contre Pierre B. Lareau.
Il est allégué que le demandeur a acheté, le
11 novembre 1854, des MM. Keyes, cinq lots
de la paroisse de Ste. Brigide, savoir, les lots
de terre, 3 x 30, situés dans la 8me concession
Nos. 99, 100, 101, 102 et 103. Le défendeur
Lareau acheta du seigneur Rallond, le 18
mai 1857, le lot No. 104, 3 x 30, voisin par
conséquent des lots de McGinnis. Le lot
No. 105 fut vendu par le seigneur Rallond le
10 décembre 1851, à Moïse Daigneau, qui se
trouvait par conséquent le voisin sud du dé-
fendeur Lareau. L'action pétitoire allègue
que le défendeur Lareau, au lieu de prendre
possession du lot 104, prit possession et occupa
le lot 103, la propriété de McGinnis. Lareau
posséda à titre de propriétaire le lot qui lui
avait été concédé et le cultiva pendant au-

In France under the ordinance of 1667 the payment of costs was enforced by imprisonment, at the discretion of the judge, and such, I believe, is the law in England now. And this is as it should be, since the institu-delà de vingt ans sans inquiétation, au vu et tion of suits without justification is a species of personal wrong (délit).

are

[ocr errors]

su de McGinnis. Finalement, en 1877, ce dernier s'aperçut qu'il lui manquait deux arpents et neuf perches de longueur sur 30 arpents de profondeur; il en conclut que le défendeur était en possession du lot qui lui manquait.

With us the most frivolous suits brought, not unfrequently too by plaintiffs who proceed in forma pauperis,-and their dismissal entails in some instances the expenditure of much time and heavy amounts. Le défendeur a plaidé à cette action, lo. It is a hardship and a nuisance that the par des exceptions de prescription trentecosts should not be secured, in cases of that | naire et décennale; 20. par une fin de non sort at any rate. Our courts, I believe, have, recevoir, alléguant que les procédures auas the law stands, the power to order im- raient du commencer par l'action en borprisonment for the costs, in cases where the nage; 30. par une exception d'impenses. institution of the suit and its prosecution constitute a personal wrong (délit). When they exercise that power, and the time is not distant when for their own protection they must, the propriety of giving every facility to a defendant to obtain from a foreigner the security which the nature of the case admits of will no longer require to be enforced by argument.

E. B.

La contestation fut liée sur ces prétentions.

Le 26 décembre 1878 la Cour Supérieure d'Iberville rendit un jugement interlocutoire par lequel les exceptions de prescription sont rejetées, et ordonne en même temps la nomination d'experts arpenteurs. Ces derniers firent un rapport favorable aux prétentions de la demande. Sur motion du défendeur

pour le faire rejeter la Cour rendit un second
jugement interlocutoire, le 29 décembre 1879,
par lequel elle renvoie la motion, mais ad-
met en même temps certaines irrégularités,
obscurités ou contradictions. Elle ordonne
qu'une action régulière en bornage soit prise
tout en tenant en suspens l'action pétitoire.
Sur l'action en bornage, Joseph H. Tessier,
arpenteur, fut nommé du consentement des
parties. Le rapport de cet arpenteur fut fa-
vorable aux prétentions du défendeur La-
reau ; il conclut que sa possession est en tout
conforme à son titre; en conséquence qu'il |
détient ce No. 104 de la 8me concession de
Ste. Brigide. Le 31 mars 1883, la Cour adopta |
les vues des premiers arpenteurs et rejeta
les conclusions de Tessier, et le 19 mai 1883,
elle rendit un jugement final par lequel elle
condamne Lareau à délaisser l'immeuble re-
vendiqué, à payer les frais des deux actions
pétitoire et en bornage, plus la somme de
$1,184.50 représentant les fruits perçus par le
défendeur pendant la détention de l'immeu-
ble.

Au cours du procès, M. W. McGinnis étant décédé l'action fut reprise par ses héritiers et ayant-cause, Dame E. D. Dunn, ès-qual., et al. Appel fut interjeté de ces jugements.

|

"Considérant qu'il appert par la preuve en cette cause que le lot que le dit appelant a ainsi possédé est bien le lot qu'il a acquis du dit Jean Roch Rolland, joignant d'un côté le lot No. 103 appartenant aux intimés-comme représentant feu William McGinnis, et le No. 105 qui appartenait à Moïse Daigneault, lors de la vente faite à l'appelant ;

"Considérant qu'il y a erreur dans le jugement interlocutoire du 25 décembre 1878 qui a prématurément rejeté les exceptions de prescriptions de dix et de vingt ans avec titres, avant de déterminer si l'appelant possédait réellement le lot qu'il avait acheté de l'honorable Jean Roch Rolland le 18 mars 1857, et en rejetant l'exception par laquelle l'appelant opposait à l'action du demandeur ce moyen, qu'il aurait du procéder par action en bornage et non par action pétitoire, la preuve ayant constaté qu'il était nécessaire de procéder au dit bornage, ce qui a été reconnu plus tard par la Cour de première instance, qui a elle-même ordonné qu'une action en bornage fut intentée afin de déterminer les limites des héritages des parties avant d'adjuger au pétitoire;

"Considérant qu'il y a erreur dans le jugement interlocutoire du 29 décembre 1879, Le 31 mai la Cour d'Appel infirma les dé- ordonné que les procédés sur cette action qui, avant d'adjuger sur l'action pétitoire, a

cisions de la Cour Inférieure. Voici les considérants du jugement:

“Considérant que par acte de vente du 18 mars 1857, l'appelant a acheté de l'honorable Jean Roch Rolland, alors seigneur de la seigneurie de Monnoir, le lot de terre désigné au dit acte comme étant le No. 104 dans l'augmentation de la dite seigneurie, contenant trois arpents de front sur trente arpents de profondeur, plus ou moins, bornée en front par les terres de la septième concession, en profondeur par les terres de la neuvième concession, d'un côté par William McGinnis, d'autre côté par Moïse Daigneault, sans bâtisses et en bois debout;

"Considérant que cet acte a été enregistré et que depuis la date du dit acte, le dit appelant a été, jusqu'à l'institution de cette action, le 20 août 1877, c'est-à-dire pendant plus de vingt ans, en possession du dit immeuble sans trouble ni inquiétation quelconque;

fussent suspendus jusqu'à ce que le demandeur, que représentent aujourd'hui les intimés, eut adopté les procédés nécessaires pour déterminer la ligne délimitative des lots 103 et 104 par la voie d'un bornage régulier;

"Considérant qu'il y a également erreur dans le jugement interlocutoire du 31 mars 1883, qui a ordonné, entre l'appelant et les intimés, un bornage dans la prétendue ligne de division entre les lots 103 et 104 tout en déclarant que l'appelant n'avait aucun droit au lot qu'il avait possédé depuis le 18 mars 1857 en vertu de l'acquisition qu'il en avait faite de l'honorable Jean Roch Rolland, ce qui le rendait incompétent pour procéder à un tel bornage;

"Considérant qu'en supposant que dans l'acte de vente du 18 mars 1857, il y aurait eu erreur dans la désignation du numéro de l'immeuble vendu, cela ne pouvait affecter l'identité du lot qui était désigné par tenants et aboutissants et comme joignant

d'un côté le lot appartenant à Moïse Daigneault;

"Et considérant que lors même que le lot que l'appelant a possédé depuis plus de vingt ans ne serait pas celui qu'il a acquis par l'acte du 18 mars 1857, sa possession, qui a duré plus de vingt ans sans interruption à la connaissance des intimés et de leur auteur, aurait été de bonne foi, et dans le cas d'erreur, aurait été basée sur une erreur commune, et qu'à raison de sa bonne foi, et en vertu de l'article 412 du Code Civil, l'appelant a fait les frais siens, et qu'il ne pouvait être condamné à payer une somme de $1,184.50, mais qu'au contraire il aurait le droit de répéter ses impenses et améliorations aux termes de l'article 417 du même code;

Considérant que l'action pétitoire du dit William McGinnis, que les intimés représentent, est mal fondée;

"Considérant que l'action en bornage portée par le dit William McGinnis en ordre de la Cour de première instance comme incidente à la dite action pétitoire, est aussi mal fondée; "Considérant qu'il y a erreur dans le jugement final rendu par la Cour Supérieure siégeant dans le district d'Iberville le 19 juin 1883;

Cette Cour casse et annule les dits jugements interlocutoires et le dit jugement final, et procédant à rendre le jugement que la dite Cour de première instance aurait dû rendre, renvoie tant l'action pétitoire que l'action en bornage intentés par feu William McGinnis, représenté par les intimés, et condamne les dits intimés à payer à l'appelant les frais encourus sur ces deux actions en Cour de première instance, moins les frais d'arpentage qui seront divisés entre les parties, et cette Cour condamne de plus les intimés à payer à l'appelant les frais encourus sur cet appel, et ordonne à Germain Chouinard, séquestre nommé en cette cause, pour régir et administrer le dit immeuble réclamé en cette cause pendant le litige, de livrer la possession du dit immeuble au dit appelant, avec réserve de tout droit à une reddition de compte, et la Cour sur motion de Edmond Lareau, Ecuier, Avocat de l'appelant, lui accorde distraction de frais."

L'hon. juge Cross, dissident.
Edmond Lareau, avocat de l'appelant.
Barnard, Beauchamp & Barnard, avocats
des intimés.

SUPERIOR COURT.

COTEAU LANDING, July 2, 1884.
Before JOHNSON, J.

FLAVIEN CHOLETTE, Petitioner, and JAMES W.
BAIN, Respondent.

The Soulanges Election Case-Dominion Elec-
tions Act of 1874 and Amendments-Inti-
midation-Corrupt Practice.

The serving of a notice upon persons, warning them that they are not entitled to vote, and threatening them with the legal consequences if they vote, is not an interference with the exercise of the franchise.

Where voters drank and caroused on the road to

the poll, but there was no evidence of treating by an agent of the candidate, held not to affect the election.

PER CURIAM. This petition asks that the and the respondent be personally disqualielection of last December should be set aside, fied. It includes in its allegations all the acts of corruption known to the law.

nial of the truth of every averment in the peThe respondent's answer is an express detition, and also denies the alleged qualification of the petitioner. There is a formal admission tion No. 1 to No. 5 inclusively-covering the of what is alleged in the petition from allegaholding of the election at the time allegedthe nomination on the 20th and the voting on the 27th December. That the candidates former of whom was returned, and his return were Mr. Bain and Mr. De Beaujeu, the published in the Official Gazette, and that the

petitioner is a qualified elector.

the bill filed by the petitioner, and six days
Ninety-nine particulars were contained in
number for the petitioner, and 20 for the re-
were taken to hear the witnesses; 108 in
spondent.

touched more or less by the evidence, but the
A great number of the particulars were
few in number.
cases relied upon finally at the hearing are

There is first of all what I may call the principal case, from the point of view of the petitioner-and I must say it was put with great ability by Mr. Monk-that part of the case which rested on a plan argued, and supposed to have been agreed upon by the respondent and his agents, to prevent a number

« AnteriorContinua »