in C. P. R. v. Robinson (14 S. C. R. 105), a case which arose in Quebec. This decision, rendered in 1887, was followed by the Quebec Court of Appeal in 1894, in Jeannote v. Couillard (3 Q. B., 461), reversing by a majority of four to one the judgment of Jetté, J., below on the question of solatium. Since then the principle seems to have been accepted as settled.

The question is again brought to the fore, however, in the case of Hunter v. Gingras, reported in the last number of the appeal reports (33 K. B., 403). The late Chief Justice of the province dealt with the point at some length, and though he based his judgment on the reasonable expectation of the future benefit which the father might have received had his child not been killed in the accident, he definitely asserted, in his formal notes, his dissent from the doctrine laid down in the above mentioned cases. The discussion of the question is not, he says, closed in the minds of Quebec jurists, and his reasoning is sufficiently forceful to create at least an element of doubt, even in those who have hitherto been content to accept the ruling in the Robinson case as final. Article 1056, similar in wording to Lord Campbell's Act, was taken from ch. 78, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, which, in turn was a reproduction of 10-11, Vic. cap. 6. The opinion which prevailed in the Robinson ca-e rested on the supposition that this statute was based on the English act, which created a remedy hitherto inexistent under the English law. But, according to the late Chief Justice, this is not the correct view. The recourse of the deceased's representatives existed in Quebec prior to the statute 10-11 Vic. cap. 6, as part of the common law of the province, and the only effect of the statute was to restrict this recourse as to the prescriptive period and as to the persons entitled to it. But no restriction was placed on the measure of damages which might be awarded, and, since, on the principle governing the interpretation of amending laws, these new provisions should be incorporated with the old law and be read as an integral part thereof, the general rules of the Civil Law as to the extent of damages recoverable should be followed. If this reasoning be accepted, we should have no concern as to the decisions of the English Courts under Lord Campbell's Act.

Martin, J. definitely accepts the doctrine of the Robinson case as binding, but concurs in the majority judgment awarding $500 over and above the actual expenses, on the ground that it is not essential to the recovery of damages to prove that valuable

services have already been rendered (which is in accordance with the English decisions) or to establish the exact value of the services which would probably have been rendered had the child lived. Though it may not be possible to calculate with mathematical accuracy the value of probable future services, this does not alter the fact that a healthy child of nine years is an asset appreciable in dollars and cents. The learned judge repudiates the idea that recovery should be possible where a horse or a cow is killed, and that there should be no compensation for the death of a child.

Dorion, J. suggests a kind of middle course between the admittedly unsatisfactory solatium doloris principle and the narrowly restrictive rule followed by the English courts, a compromise which might provide a working basis. His remarks are quoted in part, in an English translation (for the inadequacy of which the learned judge's indulgence is requested):

"The doctrine that there should be no recourse for the death of a child, unless one can establish, accounts in hand, the value of his services in money, has always been repugnant to the public, to the bar, and even to the tribunals who have considered themselves bound by prior decisions on the question.

"The difficulty is to establish a basis of damages. The words solatium doloris have frequently made the courts hesitate to award a sum of money as the price of a father's tears.

"One should, perhaps, admit as a basis of damages the perturbation caused in the life of the father of a family by the death of a child, the loss of one of the joys and of the happiness of the home which constitute the reward for the sacrifices made for the child's upbringing.

"The difficulty is to arrive at a figure which is neither ridiculously inadequate as a compensation for a loss of that kind, nor too high for accidents in which human frailty plays such a part, and from which all idea of vindictiveness must be banished.

"If one restricts oneself to the purely pecuniary loss, it is very hard to estimate in figures the value of the parents' expectation of the services which a nine year old child will render in the future. Would it not be better to return to the older jurisprudence and hold that a child of that age, who has cost such a lot of care, represents an

asset, a moral support, the withdrawal of which is not without influence on the courage and activity of those who suffer the loss?"

Whether or not, in the future, a modification of the principle as laid down in the Robinson case will be formally admitted by the Supreme Court, it is worthy of note that our courts, even while accepting the ruling of that case, have not consistently followed the English decisions under Lord Campbell's Act. To cite only one instance, it has been held, by a strong English court, that funeral expenses cannot be recovered under that Act. (See Clark v. London General Omnibus Co., 1906, 2 K. B. 648); while the Quebec courts, in the present case and in many preceding ones, have unhesitatingly admitted that item.

CORRESPONDENCE.

The Editorial Board of the Canadian Bar Association does not hold itself responsible for the opinions of Correspondents. Contributions to this department of the REVIEW will be published only over the genuine names of the writers.

THE CANADA LAW REPORTS.

Editor Canadian Bar Review:

SIR, I desire to state for the information of the profession that with numbers 63 and 64, the latter a small volume, it is proposed to conclude the publication of the present series of Reports of the Supreme Court of Canada. At the same time the Reports of the Exchequer Court of Canada, which began as a separate series in 1891, will also cease to be published. The reports of these two Dominion Courts will be united in one publication to be known as "The Canada Law Reports," and will be cited hereafter by using the year of publication along with the name of the Court. The first volumes will be "1923 Supreme Court"; "1923 Exchequer Court." The decisions of the two courts will be kept separate in each number and have distinct pagination, so that the Reports may be bound separately. It is hoped to be able to publish one number each month of the year except during long vacation. Arrangements have been perfected to add considerably to the Admiralty cases in the Reports of the Exchequer Court. Owing to the gratifying manner with which this new departure has been received by the Law Societies of Canada, it has been found possible to publish the combined Reports and deliver them to the profession through the Law Societies at the price of $2.00 per annum.

It is believed that this wide distribution of the Reports will further the aim of the Fathers of Confederation in providing by the British North America Act for the establishment of Dominion Courts, to institute thereby a legitimate centralizing agency for the promotion of National Unity.

E. R. CAMERON,

Registrar, Supreme Court of Canada.

RECENT LITERATURE.

In future issues the CANADIAN BAR REVIEW proposes to conduct a department under the above title for reviews and notices of Books and Periodicals of special interest to the legal profession. For this purpose literature should be sent by publishers to the Editor, care of THE CARSWELL COMPANY, LIMITED, 145 Adelaide Street West, Toronto, Can.

The

Canadian Bar Review

VOL. 1.

*

"Justitia, Officium, Patria."

TORONTO, FEBRUARY, 1923. No. 2.

NOTE AND COMMENT.

Frederic Harrison, whose long life of ninety-one years came to a close last month, passed away with his mind in the grip of a bleak conviction that the best of this world has been lived out by man, and der Untergang is now well on the way. "Every board in civilization is cracking," he wrote to a friend not long ago, "Literature, the Drama, Art, Industry, Government and Peace are being swept over by a flood of democratic vulgarity. The British Empire is. melting away like the Roman Empire for the same causes." Therein we seem to hear the voice of the disillusioned Positivist who recognizes that he has "done service unto them which are no gods"-and yet his life was very much worth while. He was at one and the same time lawyer, littérateur, publicist and philosopher. It is not to our purpose to speak of him. other than as a lawyer, although it is not in that direction that his greatness lies. distinguished career at Oxford, was called to the Bar in 1858. He was secretary of the Royal Commission for Digesting the Law, 1869-1870; and became Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law to the Inns of Court in 1877. He held that position until 1889. His chief contribution to the law lies in the matter of his lectures before the Inns on Jurisprudence and the Conflict of Laws, published originally in the Fortnightly Review and later in a volume issued by

O.B.R.-VOL. I.-8

Mr. Harrison, after a