accuracy and rapidity in the various publications Wife's suit for judicial separation-Adultery of wife— Cruelty, condonation, connivance and conduct conducing-Wife's offence continuing at time of suit-Bar to relief-Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 22 EMPLOYER AND WORKMAN. Compensation-Fatal accident-Assessment of compensation-Average earnings-Probability of increase-Claim by dependant-Partial dependency-Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), Sched. I., para. 1 (a) (ii.) Compensation-Incapacity—No present incapacity—Probability of future incapacity-Suspensory order—Jurisdiction of arbitrator-Form of order-Claim for compensation-Delay-" Reasonable cause "-Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 1, sub-ss. 1, 3; s. 2, sub-s. 1 (b) connected with the LAW REPORTS the Council will be obliged if the Solicitors to whom application is made by any reporter acting for the Council will as soon as possible after application furnish the necessary papers, together with any information in their power as to the names of the various Solicitors engaged in the case. At the same time, the Council thankfully acknowledge the assistance they have already received from so many members of the Profession in furnishing the papers required to Income tax--Fishery Board-Balance of receipts over prepare accurate reports. REVENUE. expenses-Taxable profit VENDOR AND PURCHASER. 207 205 206 203 - 207 In the Council Chamber.-Hudson Bay Co. v. Council of the Rural Municipality of Bratt's Lake. Concluded. Cur. adv. vult. Martin v. Council of the Rural Municipality of Snipe Lake (Saskatchewan). Heard. Cur. adv. vult. Steel Co. of Canada v. Dominion Radiator Co., Ltd. (Ontario). Part heard. In the Board Room.-Ma Hnit v. Hashim Ibrahim Meter (Upper Burma). Concluded. Cur. adv. vult. Bindeshri Prasad v. Musammat Baisakha Bibi (Allahabad). Part heard. RECORD OF BUSINESS. COURT I. THURSDAY, June 26. Cotson v. Richardson, Westgate & Co., Ltd. Appeal from Wes Hartlepool County Court. Dismissed. Harold Johnston v. Henry Liston & Co. Appeal from Dew bury County Court. Cur. adv. vult. Ling v. De Dion Bouton (1907), Ltd. County Court. Cur. adv. vult. Appeal from Barne Sheldon v. Butterley Co., Ltd. Appeal from Alfreton Count Court. Part heard. FRIDAY, June 27. In re Thellusson. Ex parte R. H. G. Abdy v. The Offici Receiver. Appeal from Horridge J. Part heard. THURSDAY, July 3. In re Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908. In re an Arbitrati between O'Conor and Whitlaw. Appeal from Division Court. Part heard. No sitting. FRIDAY, July 4. MONDAY, July 7. Henrietta Cattrell (married woman) v. Mayor, Aldermen Burgesses of the Borough of Birkenhead. Application defendants for security for costs of appeal. Secu ordered. Craib v. Mayor, Aldermen, &c., of the Metropolitan Borough Niger Co., Ltd. v. Yorkshire Insurance Co. Appeal f Catherine Richards (wife of Brinley Richards) v. Tho Brown. Appeal from Younger J. Allowed. In re an Arbitration between Arthur O'Conor (tenant) an Whitlaw and Another (landlords). Appeal from Divisi Court. Allowed. Same v. Same. G. Whitlaw and Another (landlords) Arthur O'Conor (tenant). Appeal from Divisional Co Allowed. In the Board Room.-Bindeshri Prasad v. Musammat Bai- Gibbes v. Mirams and Others. Application for judgme sakha Bibi. Further heard. new trial, on appeal from Darling J. Part heard. COURT II. THURSDAY, July 3. a ship in the East India Dock, was struck in the right eye by a rope. His right eye had been practically useless since childhood, but he was not disfigured. The accident was HM.S. Drake. Owners of s.s. Mendip Range v. Captain S. H. reported immediately. The appellant resumed his ordinary Radcliffe, R.N. Appeal from Roche J. Dismissed. FRIDAY, July 4. work until January 11, 1916, when, upon his eye becoming worse, he was given a lighter job at the same wages. On March 16 he resumed his ordinary work and performed the The Orduna. Shipping Controller v. Owners of s.s. Orduna. same without interruption until February, 1917. He then Appeal from Hill J. Part heard. MONDAY, July 7. applied for admission to the membership of a sick club open to employees of the respondents, and was examined by the respondents' medical man. The respondents learned as the The Orduna. Shipping Controller v. Owners of s.s. Orduna. result of the examination of the appellant's defective Appeal from Hill J. Allowed. KING, APP.; PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY, RESPS. i-ployer and workman-Compensation-Incapacity-No Tresent incapacity-Probability of future incapacitySuspensory order-Jurisdiction of arbitrator-Form of -der-Claim for compensation-Delay-" Reasonable cause "—Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, r. 58), s. 1, sub-ss. 1, 3; s. 2, sub-s. 1 (b). Appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal setting aside award of the Judge of the City of London Court under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. In December, 1915, the appellant, who was employed by respondents as a permanent labourer, whilst unloading eyesight, and they discharged him on that ground. The appellant made no claim for compensation until February 23, 1917. ceedings, and asked for a suspensory order to provide for the In July, 1917, the appellant commenced arbitration proevent of his thereafter becoming incapacitated. The respondents denied their liability on the grounds (1) that the appellant had not been incapacitated by the accident; (2) that no claim for compensation had been made within six months of the accident. At the hearing the medical evidence was to the effect that the accident had aggravated the condition of the disease in the eye, and probably precipitated the necessity for removal. As regards the objection founded on the delay in making a claim for compensation, the appellant stated in cross-examination that as the respondents were treating him fairly in giving him light labour, he saw no necessity for taking compensation, and that he did not know that he could make a claim whilst so employed. The county court judge by his award made a declaration of the liability of the respondents to pay compensation to the appellant should it thereafter be shown that he was unable to earn his full wages by reason of the accident. The Court of Appeal (Swinfen Eady and Bankes L.JJ.) and Neville J.) set aside the award upon the grounds (1) that there was no evidence of any possible or probable incapacity to the appellant in the future; and (2) that the county court judge had not found that the appellant's admitted failure to make a claim for compensation within the six months was occasioned by mistake, absence from the United Kingdom or other reasonable cause. Rigby Swift K.C. and Kingsbury for the appellant. Sir John Simon K.C. and C. B. Marriott for the respondents. THE HOUSE (Lord Birkenhead L.C., Viscount Finlay, Lord Atkinson, Lord Parmoor and Lord Wrenbury), after consideration, allowed the appeal. THEIR LORDSHIPS were of opinion that, where an applicant in arbitration proceedings had sustained personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, but at the date of the arbitration was not incapacitated thereby, the arbitrator, under s. 1, sub-s. 3, of the Act, if satisfied on the evidence that it was probable that partial or total incapacity might ensue thereafter as the result of the accident, had jurisdiction to make an award. The proper form of order in such a case was as follows:-" Declare that the applicant has sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, but, inasmuch as Solicitor for the appellant: R. Wilberforce Allen. Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, Imp.), in troduced a new substantive law in England. The effect of s. 3 of the Dominion Statute 49 Vict. c. 25 was to bring that law into force in Alberta. Their Lordships were of opinion that the Supreme Court of Alberta Act, (7 Edw. 7, c. 3 Alb.) gave that Court jurisdiction; in any case that Cour had jurisdiction since the right existed when the Cour was instituted, and the Court was not expressly deprived o jurisdiction in the matter. Solicitors for appellant: Lawrence Jones & Co. Solicitors for respondent and intervenant: Blake Redden. A. M. T. H. B. H. J. C. Judicial Committee of the Appeal from the Court of Appeal of Manitoba. The respondent, Catherine Walker, petitioned the Co of King's Bench for the Province of Manitoba praying t her marriage might be declared null and void on the gro of the impotency of her husband, the appellant. Galt J. dismissed the petition for want of jurisdict July 3. He was of opinion that, since the Court had not previo exercised jurisdiction in matrimonial causes, the jurisdict if it existed, ought to be declared by the Court of Appes Upon an appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Attor General for Manitoba intervening, that Court unanimo reversed the decision, and remitted the petition for hear leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted. May 12, 13. Maugham K.C. and Horace Douglas for appellant. Canada (Alberta)—Divorce--Jurisdiction. The respondent, William Board, petitioned the Supreme Court of Alberta praying for a decree for the dissolution of his marriage with the appellant on the ground of her adultery. The appellant applied for an order dismissing the petition. on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction. The application was referred to the Appellate Division, and the Attorney-General for Alberta intervened. The Appellate Division (Harvey C.J. dissenting) dismissed the application, and remitted the petition for hearing; leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted. May 13, 15. Maugham K.C. and Horace Douglas for the appellant. Şir John Simon K.C. and Hon. M. Macnaghten K. the respondent. John Allen for the Attorney-General for Manitoba. July 3. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE (Viscount Haldane, Buckmaster, Lord Dunedin, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline Lord Scott-Dickson) dismissed the appeal. VISCOUNT HALDANE, in delivering the judgment of Lordships, reviewed the material legislative enact and referred more particularly to the Dominion S Sir John Simon K.C. and Hon. M. Macnaghten K.C. for 51 Vict. c. 33, s. 1, which provided that, subject to exce the respondent and intervenant. and modifications which were not material, "the 1: July 3. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE (constituted as above England relating to matters within the jurisdiction stated) dismissed the appeal. VISCOUNT HALDANE, in delivering the judgment of their Lordships, reviewed the material legislative enactments, and pointed out, as in Walker v. Walker (supra), that the Parliament of Canada as the same existed on July 15 were from the said day and are in force in the Provi Manitoba." The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 Vict. c. 85, Imp.) did not merely set up a new court gulate procedure, but introduced a new substanti giving a right to divorce a vincula matrimonii for specified causes. That statute and the amendments of it made before July 15, 1870, were accordingly in force in Manitoba. Jurisdiction to apply the law so introduced was given to the Court of King's Bench by the Manitoba statute 34 Vict. c. 2 and subsequent statutes of the province. The case was indistinguishable from Watts v. Watts, [1908] A. C. 573. Solicitor for appellant: Lawrence Jones & Co. Solicitors for respondent and intervenant: Blake & Redden. the Legislature under the British North America Act. Further, it was doubtful whether under s. 92 of that Act a provincial Legislature could create and endow with its own capacity a new legislative power not created by the Act. Solicitors for appellants: Lawrence Jones & Co. Solicitors for respondents: Blake & Redden. Solicitors for Intervenant: Charles Russell & Co. A. M. T. J. C. A. M. T. July 3. Supreme Court of Judicature. In re THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM ACT. Canada (Manitoba)—Manitoba Statute-Invalidity-Powers of Lieutenant-Governor-British North America Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Viet, c. 3), ss. 66, 92. Appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba. By an Order in Council made under R.S. Man., 1913, c. 38, the Lieutenant-Governor referred to the Court of King's Bench for Manitoba the question whether the Legislature of that province had jurisdiction to enact the Initiative and Referendum Act (6 Geo. 5, c. 59, Man.), and a further ques tion whether there was jurisdiction to enact specified sections of that Act. The Act in question contained elaborate provisions by which, shortly stated, it was provided that laws might be made and repealed by the direct votes of the electors of the province. The consideration of the questions came before Mathers C.J. By consent there was no argument, and the learned indge answered both questions in the affirmative. The Court of Appeal unanimously answered both questions in the negative. Special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted. Appeal from a decision of Coleridge J. The husband petitioned for divorce on the ground of the wife's adultery. Her adultery was admitted, but she pleaded condonation by connivance and conduct conducing, and she brought counter-charges of cruelty and prayed for judicial separation. At the date of the petition she was still living in adultery with the co-respondent. Coleridge J. found that the husband had by his conduct connived at and procured the wife's adultery; he accordingly dismissed the petition. He also found that the husband had been guilty of gross cruelty, and that there was reasonable ground for apprehension of bodily harm to the wife if she were compelled to cohabit. He therefore granted a decree May 15, 16. Maugham K.C. and Horace Douglas for the for judicial separation on the ground that the husband's appellant, the Attorney-General for Manitoba. Sir John Simon K.C. and Hon. M. Macnaghten K.C. for the respondents. Hon. F. Russell K.C. and T. Mathew for the AttorneyGeneral for Canada, intervenant. July 3. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE (constituted as above ⚫tated) dismissed the appeal. VISCOUNT HALDANE, in delivering the judgment of their Lordships, said that the language of the Act could not be construed otherwise than as intended seriously to affect the Losition of the Lieutenant-Governor as an integral part of connivance took the case out of Otway v. Otway, (1888) 13 P. D. 141. The husband appealed against the order for judicial separation. Skinner for the appellant. Tyndale and Latey for the respondent. THE COURT (Warrington and Duke L.JJ. and Eve J.) allowed the appeal. They held that under s. 22 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), this was a case in which the Court must act and give relief on the same principles and rules as the Ecclesiastical Courts would have acted and given relief, and that those Courts |