was found that many members who contemplated making the trip had failed to reserve cabins on the "Montlaurier," and the view was expressed that the remaining suitable space on the ship might not be sufficient.

After considering the subject, the Council appointed a Committee, headed by the Dominion Vice-President, the Honourable Chief Justice Martin, to go into the matter and ascertain what further steamship accommodation could be secured. Immediately on his return to Montreal, Chief Justice Martin communicated with the Canadian. Pacific Steamships, the White Star-Dominion Line and the Cunard Line representatives, The Robert Reford Co., Ltd.

The only suitable steamship of the Cunard Line sailing about the date required by our members seems to be the "Caronia," which leaves Quebec on July 5th for Liverpool.

The White Star-Dominion Line suggested that their steamship Megantic," which sails from Montreal on July 12th might have accommodation for 50 or 100 passengers. They offer berths at the rate of $130 plus tax for "C" deck and $140 plus tax for "B" deck.

The Canadian Pacific Steamships sent letters from which the following quotations are taken:

"For those members of the Bar Association who failed to secure accommodation on Decks A,' 'B' and 'C' of the Montlaurier,' and who fear they may be less comfortable on Deck D,' we are prepared to offer an equally attractive proposition on the Melita,' which sails from Montreal and Quebec, July 9th, that is one day after the closing of the Bar Association meeting at Quebec.

"The Melita' while not quite as large as the Montlaurier,' is a very fine ship and has the same arrangement of cabins as the 'Montlaurier.' She has two promenade decks and the cabins on these decks are all outside, and most of them have two or three berths only. While a number of these rooms are not available, we have sufficient of them to take care of the requirements of any members who may decline space on Deck 'D' of the Montlaurier.' We will apply the same rate as quoted you for the Montlaurier."

"The Melita' can pick up members at Quebec on the evening of July 9th, and should reach Southampton not more than 24 hours later than the Mountlaurier.'

"We have also the Montcalm,' from Montreal on July 4th, but. as that sailing will not permit members to attend the Quebec meeting, I assume that no accommodation will be required on this ship.

"Following the 'Montcalm,' we have on July 11th a sister ship, the 'Montrose,' to Liverpool, which will land passengers at that port on July 19th, but as this would mean that members attending the Quebec meeting would require to spend three additional days at either Quebec or Montreal, it is assumed that there will be little demand for this sailing from Bar Association members.

"It seems to us, therefore, that the 'Melita' on July 9th should make the strongest appeal to those who are dissatisfied with the accommodation we are able to offer on the 'Montlaurier.' This ship has an excellent reputation, splendid decks and public rooms and will land passengers at Southampton, from which point they have a two-hours' rail journey to London.

"May I add that we have not the least fear of dissatisfaction through berthing members of your Association on "D" deck of the 'Montlaurier.'

"While admitting rooms on "A" and "B" decks are more desirable, those on "D" deck, which we are offering, are centrally located and are even larger cabins than those on the higher decks. We are assigning these very large four-berth outside rooms to married couples

After all, cabins are occupied only for sleeping purposes and the other attractions of the ship and desirability of all sailing together should more than offset the alleged disadvantage. It seems to us they should prove more attractive than better locations on another sailing. When you consider that more than half the entire cabin. accommodation of the ship is on Deck 'D' it must be apparent that the space cannot be objectionable in any way."

The Committee, therefore, has decided to place these facts before the members of the Association and will be pleased to do anything in its power to assist members in reserving suitable accommodation. It should be explained, however, that no member of the Committee and no officer of the Association undertook to make any allotment of the space on the Montlaurier.' This was handled entirely by the steamship company through its local agencies in the various cities. It may be mentioned that the President of the Association, His Honour Sir James Aikins, after making inquiries, has reserved his accommodation on Deck "D" of the Montlaurier.'

The Committee further urges all members who contemplate making the trip to make their reservations for the return voyage. This is important as the traffic from England to Canada is bound to be very heavy during the last two weeks of August and the first weeks of September.

RECENT DECISIONS.

1. SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.

On appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario. Judges present: Sir Louis Davies, C.J., and Idington, Duff, Anglin and Mignault, JJ.

December 21st, 1923.

REDICAN v. NESBITT.

Vendor and purchaser-Contract for sale-Completion-Cheque for purchase money-Stoppage of payment-Fraudulent misrepresentation— Instruction to jury-Misdirection.

A contract for the purchase and sale of property is completed when the purchaser receives an executed conveyance and then gives a cheque for the purchase price which the vendor accepts as cash though payment by the bank is stopped before it is presented.

In an action for the purchase money under such contract to which the purchaser pleaded fraudulent misrepresentations in respect to the property, the trial Judge misdirects the jury in telling them that proof of intention to deceive is essential to support such plea, and in refusing to submit to them the question of whether or not the vendor made the representations, without caring whether they were true or not, to induce the contract. A new trial was therefore necessary. Appeal dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario. Judges present:-Sir Louis Davies. C.J., and Idington, Duff, Anglin and Mignault, JJ.

December 21st, 1923.

GRAND TRUNK RY. CO. v. MURPHY.

Negligence-Railway-Injury to passenger-Announcement of stoppage -Stoppage short of station-Mistaken belief of passenger—Finding of jury.

M. was travelling to West Toronto on a Grand Trunk train. When the last station on his journey had been passed an official went through the train calling out "next stop," or next station," West Toronto. Before reaching that station, the train had to stop for a few seconds in

obedience to a stop signal and M. went to the platform of his car, on which there were no step doors, and alighted, falling to the ground and sustaining severe injury. In an action against the railway company, he admitted that he had understood the announcement to mean that the next station would be West Toronto. The jury found negligence by the company and that such negligence was-"We believe that the defendants should . when compelled to stop trains use precaution to prevent passengers from alighting." A verdict for M. was maintained by the Appellate Division.

Held, Idington and Duff, JJ., dissenting, that the action should be dismissed; that it was the duty of the officials of the company to stop the train as they did and they were under no duty, either statutory or imposed by regulations of the Railway Board, to warn passengers that the train had not reached the station. which was the only precaution suggested on M.'s behalf as available. And there was no breach of the common law duty to carry safely as, owing to the brief period of stoppage and the haste in which M. left the car, an effective warning was not possible in the circumstances.

Per Duff, J.-By the announcement "next stop West Toronto," M. was placed in a situation which, without further warning, might be one of peril, and the trial Judge refused to submit to the jury the sugges tion of counsel that the announcement should have been accompanied by a warning that the train might stop at the semaphore, basing his refusal on the admission of M. that he understood the announcement to mean that the next station was West Toronto. This may have been regarded by the jury as a direction that on this crucial question such admission was conclusive against M., and there should be a new trial, the finding of the jury as to negligence being too vague and uncertain to permit of a judgment against the company.

Appeal allowed with costs.

AUDETTE, J.

2. EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA.

January 30th, 1924.

THE KING v. WM. GOLDSTEIN ET AL.

Expropriation—Lease-hold-Compensation for damage to lessee—Loss of estimated profits of business not recoverable-Diminution in good-will -Elements of damage.

This was an information to have the compensation to be paid to a lessee of a store on premises expropriated by the Crown fixed by the Court in respect of damage done to his tenancy. The case was heard in Toronto and judgment was rendered on the 30th January, 1924, holding, that while under the rule observed by the Courts in assessing compensation in expropriation cases, allowance ought not to be made for loss of business or estimated profits, yet where a lessee of a store has suffered a diminution of good-will, he is entitled to compensation therefor although it is in the nature of a business loss.

2. That, in addition to an allowance for loss suffered in respect to the good-will, in assessing the compensation to a lessee of premises expropriated, allowance must be made for the reasonable cost of moving, loss of time, storage and depreciation in fixtures and dislocation of business occasioned by such removal.

EDITOR'S NOTE.-Lord Macnaughten in Trego v. Hunt (1896) A. C. 7 at p. 24, observes: "Often it happens that the good-will is the very sap and life of the business, without which the business would yield little or no fruit."

Plaintiff and defendant applied for patents and the Commissioner found there was conflict between the two applications. The plaintiff then took action before this Court to have it declared who was the first inventor. After issue joined, the defendant moved to have the record returned to the Commissioner of Patents for his further consideration, in view of the material and facts since disclosed, which, it was alleged, would satisfy the Commissioner that there was no patent right involved. Upon these facts his Lordship held (following Permutit Co. v. Borrowman, 1924, Ex. C. R. 6), that the Commissioner having declared a conflict between the applications had thereby become functus officio; and that, moreover, if the Court referred the record back to the Commissioner after the parties had had communication of each other's application, it would be doing something against the very spirit and letter of the Act, which requires absolute secrecy until completion of the application.

AUDETTE, J.

February 4th, 1924.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR CANADA v. A. E. PUGH.

Crown Soldier Settlement Act, 1919, Section 48-Warrant of possession— When may be obtained.

The petitioner herein moved in Chambers to obtain an order for the issue of a warrant of possession against the respondent, and Mr. Justice Audette held, that where the Crown had entered into an agreement with a returned soldier for the sale to him of land, under the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919, it was not open to the Crown, upon his failure to perform his part of the agreement, which had been cancelled as provided for by the Act, to obtain the warrant of possession referred to in Section 48 of the said Act; because that Section limits the issue of a warrant to cases where the Crown has acquired land either