صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

this it would appear that the local Assembly was of opinion that the Imperial Act was not in force in the colony.

It is possible that in Nova Scotia the period of the restoration of Charles II. was adopted as the date at which English Statutes generally should cease to apply, as is said by Judge Chipman in The King v. McLaughlin, quoted below, to have been the case in New Brunswick. The statute requiring the acceptance of a bill of exchange to be in writing on the bill was passed in 1865.


New Brunswick. This province was a part of Nova English Scotia until 1785; but all Nova Scotia statutes passed previous to that date were repealed in 1790 in so far as they affected the new province. As to English law and statutes, the rule would be the same as that applicable to Nova Scotia. The question was discussed in The King v. McLaughlin, an unreported case decided in 1830, quoted in Cassels' "Procedure in the Supreme and Exchequer Courts," at page 30, from which the following extracts are taken. Saunders, C.J., said that "the colony was not to be considered as either a conquered or a ceded country, and therefore the colonists at the time it was settled brought with them such parts of the common law of England as were applicable to their condition." Bliss, J., was of the same opinion, and Botsford, J., said he never considered Nova Scotia, of which New Brunswick was a part, in the light of a conquered country. The British right to it was founded on discovery and was always so maintained; and the grant to Sir William Alexander, in 1620, was founded on this right of discovery; therefore the English common law and all statutes in amendment of the common law passed anterior to the settlement of the colony were in force." Chipman, J., considered the true principle to be as laid down by Lord


Provincial legislation.

English law.

Mansfield in Lindo v. Lord Rodney, that each colony at its settlement" took with it the common law and all the statute law applicable to its colonial condition. It might not be a clear point as to what period of time should be deemed the time of the settlement of that colony; the period of the restoration of Charles II., it was understood, was adopted in practice by the General Assembly of the province at its first session as the period anterior to which all Acts of Parliament should be considered as extending, and the reason which had been given for this was that it was about the time of the restoration that the plantations began to be specially mentioned in Acts of Parliament, and the inference therefrom was that if any Act after that period was intended to extend to the plantations it would be so expressed."

The provincial legislation on the subject of bills and notes was almost identical with that of Nova Scotia. Here also the Statute of Anne was re-enacted at the first session held on the 3rd of January, 1786: 26 Geo. 3, c. 23. The Act requiring the acceptance of a bill of exchange to be in writing on the bill was passed in 1836 6 Wm. 4, c. 49. The law in force at the time of Confederation was to be found in 1 Rev. Stat. Title xxx., c. 116, as amended by 22 Vict. c. 22, and 30 Vict. c. 34. See Con. Stat. N. B. pp. 1064-5.

Prince Edward Island.—This province is also claimed to have been a colony by settlement, dating from 1497, when it was discovered by Cabot; 1 Burge, xxxiv; Forsyth, p. 26. It was, however, colonized by the French, but ceded to England by the treaty of Paris, and subsequently annexed to Nova Scotia by the proclamation of October 7th, 1763, when the laws of England at that date were made applicable to it. After being connected with Nova

Scotia for some years it was made a separate colony in 1769, and its first Assembly convened in 1773.


One of the first Acts of the legislature was to fix the Provincial damages on protested bills: 13 Geo. 3, c. 5. In 1836 an Act was passed to regulate the transfer of notes payable in Treasury notes: 6 Wm. 4, c. 3. In 1861 certain bills and notes were exempted from the usury laws. 24 Vict. c. 28. The Act of 1864, 27 Vict. c. 6, declared the acceptance of a bill at a particular place to be general unless accepted there "only and not otherwise and elsewhere." It also required all acceptances, to be in writing on the bill, and provided a remedy on lost bills and notes. These were the principal provincial Acts in force on the 1st July, 1873, when Prince Edward Island became a part of the Dominion of Canada.


Manitoba. There has been a conflict of decisions as to English the law regulating bills and notes in this province. It formed a part of the territory of the Hudson's Bay Company under its charter of May 2nd, 1670. As the company was given the power "to make laws, constitutions, and ordinances" which were to be binding within its territories, subsequent English Statutes would not be in force there unless specially made applicable to these territories or to the other colonies similarly situated: Connolly v. Woolrich, 11 L. C. J. 197 (1867). It does not appear that any laws or ordinances were made affecting bills or notes either by the company, or by the Council of Assiniboia, which for some time before the Union with Canada had jurisdiction over the central part of what is now the province of Manitoba. With the rest of the Hudson's Bay Territory it was purchased by Canada in 1869 and became a part of the Dominion on the 15th of July, 1870, under the Imperial Order in Council of June 23rd, 1870.

On the 8th of October, 1883, in the case of the Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Adamson, 1 Man. L. R. 3, it was held by Justice Dubuc that the English Bills of Exchange Act, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 97, was in force in that part of the province formerly Assiniboia by virtue of the Ordinance of 1864, which he held introduced the English law of that date. A few days later, October 16th, Mr. Justice Taylor laid down the rule that the laws of England as of May 2nd, 1670, the date of the Hudson's Bay Company's Charter were in force until April 11th, 1862, when the laws of England as at Her Majesty's accession (June 20th 1837) were brought in by local ordinance of the Council of Assiniboia; and that by another ordinance of January 7th, 1864, the laws of England as of that date were introduced: Keating v. Moises, 2 Man. L. R. 47. Mr. Justice Killam subsequently held that these ordinances merely introduced the English procedure in the local courts, and that the general statute law of England subsequent to the date of the Hudson's Bay Company's charter was not in force: Sinclair v. Mulligan: 3 Man. L. R. 481, (1886). This view was subsequently upheld by the full court, Chief Justice Taylor adopting the view of Mr. Justice Killam : Sinclair v. Mulligan, 5 Man. L. R. 17 (1888).

In the case of the Merchants' Bank v. Mulvey, 6 Man. L. R. 467 (1890) Mr. Justice Dubuc held that although the English Statute, 3 & 4 Anne c. 9, which made promissory notes transferable by indorsement, and gave the holder the right to sue in his own name was not in force in Manitoba under the rule laid down in Sinclair v. Mulligan, yet the bank as holder of a note to order indorsed to it could recover on two grounds: (1) the Manitoba Statute 38 Vict. c. 12, which introduced the English law, brought in the Statute of Anne, in so far as it related to procedure: and (2) the Dominion Banking Act of 1871 gave plaintiff

the right to carry on the business of discounting notes. Under the authority of Goodwin v. Robarts, L. R. 10 Ex. 337 (1875) however, promissory notes would always have been negotiable in Manitoba, and private holders as well as banks could sue. Chief Justice Cockburn then held that the Statute of Anne was declaratory of what was the law before it was changed by Lord Holt. The series of Lord Holt's decisions which the statute was passed to override extended from Clerke v. Martin, 2 Ld. Raym. 757 (1702) to Buller v. Crips, 6 Mod. 30 (1703), the first of them being more than 30 years subsequent to the Hudson Bay Company's charter.

The case of the Merchants' Bank v. Mulvey having been begun before the 22nd of May, 1888, was not affected by the Dominion Statute 51 Vict. c. 33, which brought into force in Manitoba the laws of England relating to matters within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, as they existed on the 15th of July, 1870, and gave them a retroactive effect to that date, subject to any changes subsequently made by the Imperial or Canadian Parliament. This would include the law of England as of July 15th, 1870, respecting bills, notes, and cheques.

The North-West Territories, having formed a part of the Hudson's Bay Territory, were, like Manitoba, governed by the laws of England in force on the 2nd of May, 1670, until they became a part of Canada on the 15th of July, 1870. The Dominion Statutes did not formerly apply to them unless specially so declared: NorthWest Territories Act, 1875, section 77. Now Dominion Acts apply to them unless inapplicable or otherwise declared 49 Vict. c. 25, s. 2; R. S. C. c. 1, s. 7. On the 2nd of June, 1886, the laws of England as they existed on the 15th of July, 1870, were introduced into the Territories: M'C.B.E.A.-2

« السابقةمتابعة »