In view of the fact that at the present time matters involving unlimited amounts may be, and in many cases are, tried in the County Courts, and also for the reason that the importance of a decision on a question of law does not depend on the forum where it arose, and for other reasons readily apparent, the Association was almost unanimously opposed to that part of the Commissioner's Report which favored any distinction with respect to the hearing of appeals from various trial Courts, and the resolution which was finally adopted with practical unanimity was in the following language:

"Resolved that this Association go on record as being of the opinion that it is in the interests of the Administration of Justice in this province that the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court should be a permanent Court composed of two Divisions of five Judges each. Further: That this Association is of opinion that it should be the settled policy of the Appellate Division so far as possible to have all appeals heard by a Court of five Judges and that, in the event of occasion arising necessitating an argument before a Court composed of four Judges, the appellant, in the event of an equal division of opinion, should have the option of a further argument before a Court of five Judges."

RE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.

It is common ground with all members of the legal profession in the Province of Ontario, who have had occasion to deal with the Workmen's Compensation Board, that that Board has been uniformly wanting in the degree of courtesy which a member of any honourable profession would be entitled to expect to receive at its hands. Protests have been made in times past and recently reiterated on the floor of the Legislature, and, possibly in the hope that the appropriate action may yet ensue if the plain facts are kept in view, a special resolution was brought before the meeting by the Resolutions Committee on this subject, and, after some discussion, was amended and adopted by an overwhelming majorify, in the following langu

age:

This Association again records its emphatic protest against the autocratic method of administration by the Board of the Workmen's Compensation Act. And the Association. further deplores the persistent refusal of the Board to permit representation of any claimant for compensation before that body by any member of the legal profession, frequently result

ing in great injustice to the injured party, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Attorney-General for Ontario."

It is proper to add that in the discussion of this resolution the emphasis was placed, not so much upon the indignities to which the lawyers are subjected, but on the manifest unfairness to their clients, who are the principal losers by the system at present in vogue and are in most cases working men unable to present their claims before the Board to the best advantage, and who are thus left in a position (there being no appeal) where they must take what they get and make the best of it.

The foregoing résumé of the proceedings of the Annual Meeting, necessarily sketchy as it is, deals only with some of the business transacted. Special addresses delivered by the distinguished guests and others will require separate consideration. The principal addresses delivered were as follows:

An address by the Honourable Mr. Justice Hodgins, on "The Authority of English Decisions."

An address by Mr. Frederick L. Leckie, of the Cleveland Bar on "The Evolution of the Admiralty Law of the United States."

An address by the Honourable John Lord O'Brian, on "Present Tendencies in the Administration of Justice in United States."

An extemporaneous address by the Hon. J. B. M. Baxter, K.C.

An impromptu address by Mr. A. Moresby White of the English Bar, and an address by Mr. Angus MacMurchy, K.C. (already referred to), read in his unavoidable absence by his partner, Mr. J. D. Spence, K.C.

Each of these addresses was of a distinctly high order, and of great value and interest, and it is hoped that space may be found in THE CANADIAN BAR REVIEW for some or all of them, and in that hope the writer refrains from giving what would be at best an inadequate commentary on their general tenor. They will also be made to do service in the Year Book of the Association.

The Annual Dinner, held at the King Edward Hotel, Toronto, on March 22nd, 1923, was also one of the most successful the Association has held. One hundred and twenty persons sat down to dinner, including fourteen lady Barristers. The retiring president, Mr. King, presided, and brief after-dinner addresses

were delivered by Hon. Mr. Justice Ferguson, Col. Allan Magee, K.C., of Montreal, Hon. John Lord O'Brian, of Buffalo, Hon. Wallace Nesbitt, K.C., Rev. Dr. Bruce Taylor, Mr. A. Moresby White, Hon. J. B. M. Baxter, K.C., Mr. Aime Geoffrion, K.C., of Montreal, Mr. J. H. Michaud, of Montreal, Mr. Frederick L. Leckie, of Cleveland, Ohio, Mr. H. J. Symington, K.C., of Manitoba.

The officers and members of Council elected for the ensuing year are as follows:

Hon. President-Hon. Wallace Nesbitt, K.C.
President-F. D. Kerr, K.C. (Peterboro).

Vice-Presidents-A. J. R. Snow, K.C. (Toronto), Nicol
Jeffrey, K.C. (Guelph); J. H. Spence, K.C. (Toronto).
Archivist-W. S. Herrington, K.C. (Napanee).
Recording Secretary.-A. A. Macdonald (Toronto).
Corresponding Secretary.-W. R. Salter (Toronto).
Treasurer-H. F. Parkinson (Toronto).

Other members of Council, Judge Denton, Daniel Urquhart, K.C., H. S. White, K.C., T. A. Rowan, W. D. Gregory, E. Percival Brown, K.C., W. J. Elliott, K.C., T. H. Barton, W. K. Murphy, R. B. Henderson, K.C., all of Toronto; Judge Huycke, Peterboro; W. S. Ormiston, Uxbridge; F. P. Betts, K.C., London; W. N. Ponton, K.C., Belleville; Harold Fisher, K.C., Ottawa; J. S. Davis, Smithville; W. T. Henderson, K.C., Brantford; V. A. Sinclair, K.C., Tillsonburg; W. S. MacBrayne, K.C., Hamilton; and T. D. Cowper, K.C., Welland.

RECENT DECISIONS.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.

MACKAY Co. v. BRITISH AM. ASSURANCE CO. 3RD APRIL, 1923.

From Appeal Division Supreme Court of New Brunswick.

Insurance, fire-Lumber Statutory conditions-VariationCondition or description-Inspection of lumber—Knowledge of insurer-Estoppel.

A policy insuring lumber against loss or damage by fire contained the following clause: "Warranted by the insured that a clear space of 300 feet shall be maintained between the property hereby insured and any standing wood, brush or forest and any sawmill or other special hazard."

Held, that this clause was not merely descriptive of the property but was a condition of the contract of insurance and void as not being in the form required for an addition to, or variation of, the statutory conditions contained in the Fire Insurance Policies Act of New Brunswick (3 Geo. V. ch. 26).

Prior to the issue of the policy an expert in that class of insurance in the insurer's employ examined the lumber and the locality in which it was piled and reported to the insurer that none of it was within 300 feet of standing wood, brush or forest. On the trial of the action on the policy the jury found that some of it was within that distance at the time of the inspection, but none was replaced afterwards.

Held, that the policy was issued and accepted in the belief that the inspection truly represented the fact and the insurer was estopped from maintaining the contrary.

Appeal allowed with costs.

LONDON GUARANTEE AND ACCIDENT Co. v. SoWARDS.

3RD APRIL, 1923.

From Appellate Division Supreme Court of Ontario.

Insurance, accident - Automobile Collision with other automobile, vehicle or object-Contact with highway-Excessive speed-" Motor Vehicles Act," R. S. O. (1914), c. 207, 7 Geo. V. c. 49, s. 14 (o).

An automobile was insured against loss or damage by "being in accidental collision with any other automobile, vehicle or object."

Held, reversing the judgment of the Appellate Division (52 Ont. L. R. 39) that the automobile, coming into contact with the earth by being capsized after striking a rut in the road, was not in "collision with an object" within the meaning of that term in the policy.

Effect of speed beyond the legal rate, the car not being driven by the insured, discussed.

Appeal allowed with costs.

C. H. M.

ZORNES V. THE KING. HAMILTON V. THE KING.

26TH FEBRUARY, 1923.

Crown" Public Utility"-Petition of Right-Interpretation of Statutes.

In these appeals, reported (1923), 1 W. W. R. 1044; (1923) S. C. R. 257, the Supreme Court held, affirming the judgment of the appellate division of the Supreme Court of Alberta, that an action might be brought against the Government of Alberta for damages caused by a fallen telephone wire, the Alberta Public Utilities Act containing a provision that "the public utility shall be responsible for all unnecessary damage which it causes in carrying out, maintaining or operating any of its said works," and the expression "public utility" being defined to include "the Alberta Government telephones, now maintained and operated by the Department of Railways and Telephones."

The question before the Court was one of the interpretation of a statute, and in that respect it resembled Farnell v. Bowman, L. R. 12 A. C. 643, and Attorney-General of Straits Settlement v. Wemyss, L. R. 12 A. C. 192. In the former case the Government of New South Wales was sued under an Act which provided that any person having or deeming himself to have any just claim or demand against the Government might sue for the same, and that in such action the proceedings and rights of the parties therein should, as nearly as possible, he the same as in an ordinary action. In the latter the statute gave a remedy to