Subsequently his status as a half-breed was recognized by the issue to him in 1876 of half-breed scrip. Held, that under the Manitoba Act and amendments, 33. V. c. 3, s. 32, s-s. 4, and 38 V. c. 52, s. 1, he was entitled to letters patent for the lot mentioned. Aikins, Q.C., and Culver, Q.C., for the Crown. BRADY v. REGINAM. Petition of right-Demurrer-Personal injuries received on public workNegligence of Crown's servants-Liability of Crown therefor. The suppliant alleged in his petition that on a certain date hei was driving slowly along a road in the Rocky Mountain Park, i N.W. T., when his buggy came in contact with a wire stretched : across the road, whereby the suppliant was thrown from his buggy to the ground and sustained severe bodily injury. He further alleged that the Rocky Mountain Park was a public work of Canada, under the control of the Minister of the Interior and the Governor-in-Council, who had appointed one S. superin-> tendent thereof; that S. had notice of the obstruction to traffic caused by the wire and had negligently failed to remove it, contrary to his duty in that behalf; and that the Crown was liable in damages for the injuries so received by him. The Crown demurred to the petition on the ground that the claim and cause of action were founded in tort, and could not be maintained or enforced. Held, that the petition disclosed a claim against the Crown arising out of an injury to the person on a public work resulting from the negligence of an officer or servant of the Crown while acting within the scope of his duties and employment, and therefore came within the meaning of 50 & 51 V. c. 16, s. 16 (c), which provides a remedy in such cases. Demurrer overruled with costs. City of Quebec v. Reginam, ante p. 33, referred to. Hogg, Q.C., in support of demurrer. Chrysler, Q.C., and J. T. Lewis, contra. BERTRAND v. REGINAM. Damages to property from government railway-Government Railways Act, 1881, s. 27—Claimant's acquiescence in construction of culverts, effect of -Negligence of Crown's servants—Estoppel. The suppliant sought to recover damages for the flooding of a portion of his farm at Isle Verte, P.Q., resulting from the construction of certain works connected with the Intercolonial Railway. The Crown produced a release under the hand of the suppliant, given subsequent to the time of the expropriation of a portion of his farm for the right of way of a section of the Intercolonial Railway, whereby he accepted a certain sum "in full compensation and final settlement for deprivation of water, fence rails taken, damage by water, and all damages past, present, and prospective, arising out of the construction of the Intercolonial Railway," and released the Crown "from all claims and demands whatever in connection therewith." It was also proved that, although the works were executed subsequent to the date of this release, they were undertaken at the request of the suppliant and for his benefit, and not for the benefit of the railway, and that, with respect to part of them, he was present when it was being constructed and actively interfered in such construction. Held, that he was not entitled to compensation. 2. The Crown is not under an obligation to maintain drains or back ditches constructed under 52 V. c. 18, s. 4. Pouliot, for the claimants. Hogg, Q.C., for the Crown. CH. D.] ONTARIO. Supreme Court of Judicaturc. COURT OF APPEAL. [13TH JANUARY, 1891. SIBBALD v. GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY CO. Railways-Level crossings--Defect in construction-Trespassers-Negligence -Damages-New trial. Where a railway company, in constructing their railway, cross an existing highway in a diagonal direction, leaving the road bed of the line some feet below the level of the highway, they exceed their statutory powers and are liable to indictment. They are therefore trespassers ab initio and chargeable with all injuries resulting, even indirectly, in consequence of the dangerous condition of the highway to those lawfully using it; and this liability attaches to a company operating the line who have not themselves been concerned in the original improper construction. Mosenberger v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 8 A. R. 482; 9 S. C. R. 811, considered. Judgment of the Chancery Division, 19 O. R. 164, affirmed; BURTON, J.A., dissenting. McCarthy, Q.C., and W. Nesbitt, for the appellants. ROBERTSON, J.] BLACKLEY v. KENNEY. Surety-Extending time— Discharge—Notice of suretyship. This was an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of ROBERTSON, J., reported 19 O. R. 169, and came on to be heard before this Court on the 29th of May, 1890. Aylesworth, Q.C., and Walter Macdonald, for the appellant. A. C. Galt, for the respondents. THE COURT allowed the appeal with costs upon the ground (not taken in the Court below) that as there was no evidence whatever of the plaintiff's knowledge of the covenant under which the alleged suretyship arose, and as he had no reason to think that the relation of principal and surety existed, his dealings with the debtor did not work a release, assuming that that relationship did exist. STREET, J.] GIBBONS v. McDONALD. Assignments and preferences—Bankruptcy and insolvency— R. S. O. c. 124, s. 2. A security for a pre-existing debt given when the debtor is in insolvent circumstances cannot be impeached, though working a preference, if it has been taken in good faith and without knowledge of the insolvency. Johnson v. Hope, 17 A. R. 10, and Molsons Bank v. Halter, 16 A. R. 328, and in the Supreme Court (not yet reported), con- . sidered. Judgment of STREET, J., 19 O. R. 290, affirmed. Moss, Q.C., and Stanley Hays, for the appellant. HUNTINGDON v. ATTRILL. Foreign judgment-Penalty-Action to enforce. The Courts of this Province will not indirectly enforce the penal laws of a foreign country by entertaining an action founded1 on a judgment obtained in that foreign country in a penal action. The Court being divided in opinion as to the penal nature of the judgment in question, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of STREET, J., 17 O. R. 245, affirmed. Kingsmill, Q.C., and H. Symons, for the appellant. McCarthy, Q.C., and A. R. Creelman, Q.C., for the respondent. C. C. YORK.] RADFORD v. MACDONALD, Evidence-Executors and administrators-Corroboration R. S. O. c. 61, s. 10. To enable an opposite or interested party to recover in an action against the estate of a deceased person, it is sufficient if his evidence is corroborated, i.e., strengthened, by evidence which appreciably helps the judicial mind to believe one or more of the material statements or facts deposed to. It is not necessary that the case should be wholly proved by independent testimony. Parker v. Parker, 32 C. P. 127, approved. The production by the plaintiff, an architect claiming payment for his services in drawing plans and making estimates for the erection of a house, of a memorandum in the deceased's handwriting showing the rooms and accommodation required and the. suggested cost, held, BURTON, J.A., dissenting, sufficient corroboration of the plaintiff's evidence.. Judgment of the Court below affirmed. P. H. Drayton, for the respondent. 7TH D.C., STORMONT, D., & G.] [OSLER, J.A., 12TH DECEMBER, 1890. SULLIVAN v. FRANCIS. Execution - Fraud - Collusive purchase-Division Courts-Practice— Appeal Notes of evidence--Security. The goods of a tenant were seized for rent and offered for sale by a bailiff. The tenant bid them in and they were immediately seized under an execution against him on behalf of an execution creditor of the tenant. They were then claimed by a third person who alleged that the tenant was in reality bidding for him, and this claimant paid the purchase money : Held, that if the goods were sold at an under-value, owing\ to the bids being made by the tenant ostensibly for himself, as part of a scheme between the tenant and claimant to defeat creditors by keeping down the price, the sale would be fraudulent and void as against the creditors of the tenant, though it would be good as far as the purchase money was concerned, which could not in any event be recovered back by the claimant. Appeal allowed and new trial ordered. The right of appeal from the Division Court is not lost because the Judge omits in an appealable case to take down the evidence. at the trial in writing. The security to be given on a Division Court appeal is now regulated by 53 V. c. 19, and is to be either by a bond in the sum of $100 or a cash deposit of $50. H. H. Dewart, for the appellant. A. H. Marsh, Q.C., for the respondent. |