would not be presumed. It might well be supposed that the particular place in the building where the liquors were kept was in the hands of the defendant, who, as appeared, decided in all ordinary cases as to supplying the member on his ticket or not, and who was the occupant of the place for that purpose. The room in question was fitted up like a bar, the defendant was in visible possession, controlling the stock of liquors therein, which were there to be disposed of for an equivalent received by the defendant from those who had the right of entry: ss. 53, 108, 112 of the Liquor License Act.

Ritchie, Q.C., for the defendant.

J. R. Cartwright, Q.C., and Langton, Q.C., for the Crown.

[ARMOUR, C.J., FALCONBRIDGE, J., 18TH FEBRUARY, 1898.

SMITH v. BOYD.

Amendment-Pleadings-Trial -Partnership —Conspiracy-AccountParties-Terms-Costs.

The action as framed was to recover damages for an alleged conspiracy between the defendants, the plaintiff's partner in a mercantile business and another, whereby they fraudulently and secretly withdrew money from the assets of the firm.

The real grievance was the alleged misappropriation by the plaintiff's partner, with the assistance of the other defendant, of partnership funds to the injury of the partnership and of the plaintiff.

At the trial the plaintiff sought to amend by alleging that moneys were received by the other defendant in trust for the firm, and by adding the firm's assignee for the benefit of creditors as a party, and by claiming an account.

Held, that the amendment should have been granted upon. proper terms as to costs.

DuVernet, for the plaintiff.

Delamere, Q.C., for the defendant Boyd.

H. S. Osler, for the defendant Cooper.

[ROSE, J., 15TH FEBRUARY, 1898.

In re DOMINION COLD STORAGE CO.

LOWREY'S CASE.

Execution-Order of Court of another Province -Winding-up Act, R. S. C. c. 129, s. 85-Production of certified copy-Entry.

Execution may be issued under s. 85 of the Winding-up Act, R. S. C. c. 129, upon the order of a Court of another Province, without making such order a rule of Court or obtaining the direction of a Judge, but upon the mere production to the officer of the High Court of a properly certified copy of such order.

Re Companies Act and Hercules Ins. Co., 6 Ir. R. Eq. 207, followed.

Re Hollyford Copper Mining Co., L. R. 5 Ch. 93, and Re City of Glasgow Bunk, 14 Ch. D. 628, not followed.

In such cases the settled practice of the High Court is to have the order entered in the proper book as a judgment or order.

Masten, for D. Lowrey.

George Bell, for the liquidator of the company.

[MACMAHON, J., 3RD FEBRUARY, 1898.

BEAULIEU v. COCHRANE.

Trades unions-Expulsion of member-Fine-Conspiracy-Remedy-Action -Bar-R. S. C. c. 131, s. 4-Libel-Malice-Privilege.

An action by a member of a trade union against certain of his fellow-members for an alleged conspiracy and unlawfully imposing a fine upon him and expelling him from the union, and depriving him of its benefits, and for libel.

There was no evidence warranting a finding that the defendants had entered into a conspiracy to inflict a fine and thus cause the plaintiff's expulsion from the union.

The plaintiff had a monetary interest in the death benefit and sinking funds of the union.

Held, notwithstanding this, and notwithstanding the fact that the imposition of the fine was wholly illegal and unwar

ranted by the rules of the union, and was virtually an expulsion of the plaintiff, he had no remedy by action; for by the Act respecting trades unions, R. S. C. c. 131, s. 4, the Court is not to entertain any legal proceeding instituted with the object of directly enforcing or recovering damages for a breach of any agreement for the application of the funds of a trade union to provide benefits to members; and this action came within these words.

Rigby v. Connol, 14 Ch. D. 428, followed.

The alleged offence for which the fine was inflicted was the causing an extra apprentice to be brought into the yard in which the plaintiff and defendants were employed. The defendants, after being told by their employer that the plaintiff had nothing to do with bringing the apprentice in, wrote and caused to be published in their trade journal a statement that the strike ordered by the union when the apprentice was brought in would not have occurred but for the treachery of the plaintiff, who richly deserved the fine imposed.

Held, that there was evidence of malice, and the publication. was not therefore privileged.

Belcourt, for the plaintiff.
T. McVeity, for the defendants.

MANIТОБА.

In the Queen's Bench.

[FULL COURT, 16TH FEBRUARY, 1898.

KELLY v. CITY OF WINNIPEG.

Municipal corporations-Corporation works-Resolution of council fixing rate of wages-Intra vires-Bona fides-Discretion-Injunction.

An appeal from the decision of BAIN, J., ante p. 92, was dismissed with costs, the Court holding that the resolution was

not an illegal one. It was a matter within the discretion of the council, and therefore not one with which the Court could deal. Tupper, Q.C., and Phippen, for the plaintiff.

Ewart, Q.C., and Isaac Campbell, Q.C., for the defendants.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

In the County Court.

[BOLE, Co.J., 22ND FEBRUARY, 1898.

GILLIS v. CHANNE MINING CO.

Jury-Findings - Question of fact-Terms of contract of hiring-Conflicting evidence-Motion for new trial-Refusal to interfere.

Action for damages for breach of a contract of hiring.

The plaintiff, a working miner, claimed upon the basis of a hiring for six months, or "a winter's work." The defendants averred that the hiring was only from day to day, so long as required by the defendants. Three of the defendants' witnesses admitted that during the conversation when the agreement was made between the parties, the defendants' manager spoke of six weeks being the probable term for which the plaintiff's services would be required. The jury awarded damages as upon a six weeks' contract.

Upon motion by the defendants for a new trial :

Held, that, as there was conflicting evidence upon a question of fact, as to the terms of the agreement entered into, it being conceded that there was an agreement of hiring, and this question was left to the jury, and there was some evidence to support their finding, the verdict could not be set aside and a new trial ordered, where there was no complaint of misdirection or non-direction, or of the improper admission or rejection of

evidence.

ONTARIO.

Supreme Court of Judicature.

COURT OF APPEAL.

IN CHAMBERS.

[OSLER, J.A., 19TH FEBRUARY, 1898.

HOLMES v. BREADY.

Appeal-Taxation of costs in Court of Appeal-Forum for appeal from

taxation.

An appeal does not lie to the Court of Appeal or a Judge thereof, but to the High Court or a Judge thereof, to review the taxing officer's taxation of the costs of an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a judgment of the High Court.

There has been no such change in the Act or Rules as to make Petrie v. Guelph Lumber Co., 10 P. R. 600, inapplicable, and it is therefore to be followed.

C. A. Moss, for the plaintiff.

G. G. Mills, for the defendant.

[Moss, J.A., 26TH FEBRUARY, 1898.

PATTERSON v. CENTRAL CANADA L. & S. CO. Waste-Permissive waste-Tenant for life-Growth of weeds-Leave to appeal-R. S. O. 1897 c. 51, s. 77, s.-8. 4.

An application by the plaintiffs for special leave to appeal to this Court from the order of a Divisional Court, ante 81, affirming the judgment of STREET, J., 17 Occ. N. 380, which was mainly in favour of the defendants, in an action by remaindermen against tenants for life for waste.

The plaintiffs made complaint with respect to several matters in which they alleged there had been error, but the most important claims rested upon the contention that a tenant for life is liable to the remainderman for permissive waste.

VOL. XVIII. C.L.T.

J