to have had, the general capacity which the common law ordinarily attaches to corporations created by charter.'

Its enactment promptly followed the decision of the Privy Council in Bonanza Creek Gold Mining Co. v. The King; and, in the view of Ferguson and Lennox, JJ.A., to put it shortly, its effect is to render the doctrine of ultra vires no longer applicable to companies incorporated under the Ontario Companies Act. The action was on a promissory note of such a company, and Ferguson, J.A., puts the point involved with admirable conciseness, at p. 111, where he says:

"The objects of incorporation are to carry on a real estate business. The defence relied on is,-ultra vires in that the. note sued on was given on account of a purchase of machinery and patent rights for the manufacture of machines for pressing clothes."

In the Bonanza Creek case it was held, it will be remembered, as expressed at p. 584 of the judgment that

The words "legislation in relation to the incorporation of companies with provincial objects" (sc. in s. 92 of the B. N. A. Act, 1867),

"do not preclude the province from keeping alive the power of the Executive to incorporate by charter in a fashion which confers a general capacity analogous to that of a natural person. Nor do they appear to preclude the province from legislating so as to create, by or by virtue of statute, a corporation with this general capacity."

The Act 6 Geo. V., c. 35, s. 6, was passed to "prop" this decision, to quote an expression of Meredith, C.J. C.P., and make it quite clear that Ontario Companies were to have the capacity of natural persons, which, to quote again from the Bonanza Creek case, "at common law a corporation created by the King's charter has prima facie, and has been known to have ever since Sutton's Hospital case," namely, "the power to do with its property all such acts as an ordinary person can do, and to bind itself to such contracts as an ordinary person can bind himself to."

Meredith, C.J.C.P., dissents, and holds that the Bonanza Creek case, and Sutton's Hospital case, have been misunderstood; and that 6 Geo. V., c. 35, merely added a section (210) to the Ontario Companies Act, and is part and parcel of the Act, and to have effect as such, and to be interpreted so as to avoid rather than create contradiction or inconsistency. As he says (pp. 134-5), "if the view of Ferguson and Lennox, JJ.A., be correct, a company, though incorporated for the purpose of carrying on the business of mining only, can lawfully carry on the business of butchering only."

Rose, J.A., the remaining Judge, took a view of the case which rendered it unnecessary to discuss the effect of the Bonanza Creek case, and of 6 Geo. V., c. 35, s. 6.

The number of 41 D. L. R., issued on Sept. 1st, contains no cases which seem to call for special mention.

A. H. F. L.

RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

SASK.]

SHORTEN V. THE KING.

[JUNE 25TH, 1918.

Criminal Law-Indecent assault-Evidence-Complaint elicited by questions Admissibility Corroboration Criminal Code, sec. 1003.

The appellant was indicted for an indecent assault on a girl
of seven years of age. At the trial evidence was admitted of
the answers given by the girl to questions put by her mother
immediately on her return home after the assault, the mother
promising not to spank her if she told the whole truth.
Held, that the evidence was properly admitted as corroborating the
credibility of the girl (who told what had happened without
being sworn) as required by sec. 1003 of the Criminal Code.
Appeal dismissed with costs.

C. J. Bethune, for the appellant.
Harold Fisher, for the respondent.

ONT.]

IN RE GEORGE EDWIN GRAY.

[JULY 19TH, 1918.. Constitutional law-Parliament-Delegation of powers-GovernorGeneral in Council - Extent of delegated powers-War Measures Act, 1914-Military Service Act, 1917.

Section 6 of the War Measures Act, 1914, provides that "the Governor in Council shall have power to do and authorize such acts and things, and to make from time to time such orders and regulations as he may by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada."

Held, Idington and Brodeur, JJ., dissenting, that this legislation gave the Governor in Council power to pass an order in Council directing that certain exemptions from military service granted by the Military Service Act, 1917, should cease and the men affected thereby be ordered to report for duty.

The said section of the War Measures Act proceeded to declare that "for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, it is hereby declared that the powers of the Governor in Council shall extend to all matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated, that is to say: (a) Censorship and control and suppression of publications. etc.," and went on to specify other matters also more or less remote from the prosecution of the war.

Held, that this enumeration of matters which could be dealt with by the Governor in Council did not bring the section within the ejusdem generis rule.

Application for writ of habeas corpus refused.

Chrysler, K.C., Geoffrion, K.C., and C. C. Robinson, for the applicant.

Newcombe, K.C., and Tilley, K.C., contra.

CONTEMPORARY LEGAL REVIEWS AND
PERIODICALS.1

The fact that several legal periodicals are not published during the summer months lightens our task this month very considerably.

Bench and Bar for August has another most valuable Article under the heading of Actual Trial of Cases, being by Mr. Justice Clarence J. Shearn, of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, upon the Preparation and Argument of Questions of Law arising upon Trials and Requests for Instructions. We may hope that for the benefit of young lawyers in Canada, as well as in the United States, this valuable series of Articles will, when completed, be published in separate book form. Apart from everything else they possess a special interest for Canadian lawyers by the insight they give into differences of practice and procedure from our own. Some of the advice in the present Article may, as writer himself says, contain 'many things which law. yers will at once see are perfectly obvious,' but they are driven home by most apt illustrations from actual cases. Amongst that advice we may quote the fol

lowing:

the

'I want to emphasize, if I may, at the start, that in my opin ion the Trial Court is the place to win, is the place where the big effort should be centred. I cannot make that too strong. Your Trial Court is the place in which to centre your efforts, instead of look. ing ahead to the distant day of an appeal to the Appellate Divi. sion, and perhaps another to the Court of Appeals. For this there In the first place, there is the obvious reason that time and expense are saved. . . . Another reason is that most cases not only begin, but end in the Trial Court. When you consider the great number of cases that are finally disposed of at

are many reasons.

Trial Term, and then consider how very inconsiderable is

the

1 It is by no means the intention of the C. L. T. to make this monthly feature a mere jumble of extracts. Numerous exchanges from different parts of the Empire and from the United States are examined, and attention is called, month by month, to whatever seems most striking

and important in them.

number of cases reversed as against the weight of the evidence, I think you will agree with me that there is a natural and proper aversion to upsetting verdicts and judgments where it is possible to sustain them in the interest of justice. In this matter of preparation of legal questions that arise upon a trial

... all I can do, perhaps, will be to emphasize the importance of things which we often overlook, and sometimes forget. Not to make a painstaking preparation in advance of the trial of legal questions which are likely to arise upon a trial, is like-in the vernacular of the day-moving an army out to the attack without taking into consideration whether the streams that must be crossed have bridges that will sustain the weight of the artillery. Preparation for a trial is just as important as preparation for an attack.'

Here again is something for our budding Cicero' to absorb:

'We all know how much future success depends upon the impression that you make upon one client-it may be your first client. One of the encouraging things about the legal profession is that a young man need not care how insignificant a case may be, if he wins it, thus obtaining the regard and respect of his client, and thereby laying the basis for an ever-growing practice. Fortunately, people naturally feel a desire to speak well of those who have done well for them.'

We cannot refrain from one more extract:

'It is very unfair to the Trial Judge for a lawyer to come into Court without most careful preparation. I do not care how experienced a judge is, there is not one who does not in every week that he sits, no matter how commonplace the average run of litigation, meet with a brand new proposition. I had a reasonable amount of experience at the Bar, have always worked hard, and I certainly found in every single week of my experience in presiding at Trial Term, that things were coming up which made it necessary for me to go into my library and work before I came into Court in the morning. It is unfair to the Trial Judge who wants to do justice for a lawyer to come into Court and not give the judge the benefit of careful preliminary study.'

The Solicitors' Journal and Weekly Reporter for August 31st contains the following excellent little Article among its Current Topics:

'Trials, nowadays, are not taken as seriously as they were fifty years ago. To the accused, indeed, his trial must still be an occasion of terrible anxiety and solemnity; but it is different with the rest of the world. To witnesses, counsel, and spectators a criminal trial has become merely an interesting spectacle, unless, indeed, the circumstances are obviously tragic or pathetic. But