lant, a member of the said section. The council thereupon ordered the Syndic to bring an accusation against the appellant, for conduct derogatory to the honor of the body. This was done conformably to the provisions of the Act of incorporation; the appellant was summoned, appeared, pleaded; evidence as well for the accusation as for the defence was adduced before the council, the appellant was heard in his defence, and in February, 1875, at a meeting of the council duly convened, he was by a unanimous vote found guilty of conduct derogatory to the honor and interests of the Bar, and was suspended for three months. The appellant conceived himself entitled to prohibition, to restrain the council from proceeding further against him, and presented a petition to a Judge of the Superior Court, and requested him to append to it the authorization to proceed in prohibition, required by the Code of Procedure. The Judge declined to authorize; proceedings in prohibition, and in consequence none could be or were in fact taken before the Superior Court. In this condition of facts, the -appellant took a writ of appeal de plano out of the Court of Queen's Bench; it was returned in, due course, and the judgment of the 22nd June, 1875, was rendered, ordering a writ of prohibition to issue out of the Superior Court. Upon the production of this judgment to the Prothonotary of the Superior Court, this officer assumed it to be equivalent to an order of a Judge of the Superior Court, issued the writ, and proceedings were then for the first time taken before the Superior Court. A judgment was rendered in the latter Court in the terms of that of the Queen's Bench of the 22nd June, 1875. This judgment of the Superior Court was inscribed for revision before three Judges of the same Court, and reversed. An appeal was taken in turn from this judgment of the Court of Review to the Court of Queen's Bench, who reversed the judgment. A | motion for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Her Privy Council, from this last judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, has been made, and stands for argument in March next. Whether a member of the Quebec Bar behaved in an unbecoming manner or not, is a matter of comparatively little importance. But whether the Courts have the right, by prohibi tion, to interfere with the councils of sections of the Bar, in the exercise of the disciplinary powers over members conferred upon them by law as a corporate franchise, and whether the Court of Queen's Bench, a Court of exclusively appellate civil jurisdiction, can inaugurate proceedings in a Court of original jurisdiction, are matters of grave importance to the Bar and public. The opinion of counsel is requested upon the following questions in relation to the foregoing case. 1st. Did the council of the section of Quebec of the Bar of the Province of Quebec, in ordering an accusation to be brought by the Syndic against the appellant, in hearing him in his defence, in finding him guilty of conduct derogatory to the honor of the body, and in suspending him, exercise a corporate franchise and perform a mere corporate act? 2nd. If so, could they be interfered with, or restrained by prohibition ? 3rd. If the proceedings of the council were judicial in their nature, would prohibition lie, when the Act of incorporation provides an appeal to the general council of the Bar, and enacts that no judgment of a council of section shall be reversed, except by means of such appeal? 4th. Are the disciplinary powers vested in councils subject to the condition precedent, that the Corporation of the Bar shall frame and adopt by-laws defining infractions of discipline and what actions are derogatory to the honor of the body? 5th. Whatever lawful remedy (other than the appeal to the general council) be resorted to against decisions of councils, can the finding by them that a member has been guilty of conduct derogatory to the honor of the Bar, under any circumstances, be challenged or enquired into by Courts in collateral proceedings, such as prohibition, mandamus to restore or action? oth. Is the refusal of a Judge of the Superior Court to authorize proceedings in prohibition a definitive judgment of the Superior Court, from which appeal will lie to the Court of Queen's Bench? 7th. Has the Court of Queen's Bench any jurisdiction by appeal over proceedings which have never come under the previous cognizance of a Court of original jurisdiction? QUEBEC DECISIONS. The following is a digest of the principal decisions reported in the 3rd volume of the Quebec Law Reports (1877): Accident.-See Negligence. Adjudicataire.-Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the adjudication of an immoveable is always without warranty as to contents, and the adjudicataire cannot, by opposition afin de conserver on the proceeds of sale, claim the value of a deficit in contents.-Pelletier v. 2. That no Court had power to interfere with them unless they were usurping a jurisdiction not conferred on them, and in this case we think they were not acting without jurisdic-Chassé, 3 Q. L. R. 65; Douglas v. Douglas, Ib. 197. tion. Affidavit.-1. In an affidavit for attachment before judgment, the words may lose his debt or sustain damage" held sufficient.-Andersen v. Brusgaard, 3 Q. L. R. 287. 3. If the proceedings were judicial there would be power in our opinion in any Court of justice exercising general jurisdiction to prohibit the council from usurping jurisdiction; but 2. Affidavits to procure revendication, capias we think that in the present case there was no or attachment, are completely exhausted by the power to prohibit, as the council were exercis-issue of the writ, and are of no value as proof ing jurisdiction conferred by statute. in the case. Crehen v. Hagerty, 3 Q. L. R. 322. But otherwise held in Bergevin v. Vermillon, Ib. 134. 3. An affidavit for capias ad respondendum, alleging a debt to exist, need not state when the same was contracted, nor show that it was con 4. No. The Bar, like army or navy officers, are bound by honor, as well as by statutory and common law. It is common practice to try an officer on a charge of conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman." and the Court determines whether the acts specified are unbecom-tracted within the five years next preceding.— ing. So the council of the Bar may determine Maguire v. Rockett. 3 Q. L. R. 347. whether the conduct of a barrister is or not derogatory to the honor of the Bar. Their decision under their Act of incorporation cannot be questioned in Courts of law, where they are acting bona fide. Possibly, on proof that they were acting maliciously, under pretext of exercising their proper jurisdiction, some remedy might be found, but no such case is before us. 5. Answered above in No. 4. 6, 7 and 8. We prefer not to give an answer to these questions. They involve points of procedure under the local laws, to which the Privy Council would attach little or no weight, and on which we could only venture an opinion after an examination of local statutes, without 4. Nor that the sale and delivery were made to the defendant, when they are alleged to have been made at his instance and request."-Ib. 5. When the facts upon which his belief is based are sworn to directly, and not as hearsay, the deposant is not bound to disclose the name of any informant.—Ib. Agent.-A merchant in Quebec, acting as the agent of a principal in Ontario, and as such receiving goods subject to freight and demurrage, held personally liable for such charges, although the master of the vessel knew that the merchant so receiving the goods was acting as agent.-Thwaites v. Coulthurst et al., 3 Q. L. R. 104. 2. But the contrary would be held if the merchant were acting for a home principal.-Ib. 3. An agent doing an act that injures a third party is personally liable to the person injured, though he only carried out the orders of his principal, if such orders were illegal.-Holton & Aikins, 3 Q. L. R. 289. See Election Law. Appeal.-1. There is no appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench from a judgment rendered by the Superior Court in proceedings concerning municipal matters, and falling under the dispositions of Chapter 10 of the Code of Procedure.-Danjou & Marquis, 3 Q. L. R. 335. 2. The amount demanded determines the right of appeal, and not the amount of the judgment appealed from.-Boudreau & Sulte, 3 Q. L. R. 336; G. T. R. Co. & Godbout, Ib. 346. 3. There is no appeal to the Circuit Court from a decision of a County Council sitting in appeal on a valuation roll.-Meunier et al. & Corporation of County of Levis, 3 Q. L. R. 345. 4. There is an appeal to the Queen's Bench from a judgment homologating an uncontested report of distribution.-Shortis & Normand, 3 Q. L. R. 382. 5. The proceeding by opposition, granted to the creditor under 761 C. P., does not deprive him of his appeal.—Ib. Attorney. See Costs. Bet.-No action lies for the recovery of a bet made on a batteau race, this not coming within the exception mentioned in Art. 1927 C.C.— Wagner v. L'Hostie, 3 Q. L. R. 373. Capias. See Affidavit. Certiorari-A writ of Certiorari may issue after the six months from conviction, provided the application has been made within the six months.-Ex parte Fiset, 3 Q. L. R. 102. Clerical Intimidation.-See Election Law. Collision.-1. A steam tug proceeding down the St. Lawrence met two barques, and in passing between them came into collision with one which ported her helm. Held, that the tug was in fault for not keeping out of the way, and the barque also for not keeping her course. -The Rosa, 3 Q. L. R. 21. 2. Admissions of a master of a ship respecting a collision are evidence against the owners, although made after the collision; but the party affected by them may give counter evidence.-Ib. 3. Where two ships are each to blame for a collision in Canadian waters, an Act of the Parliament of Canada, which precludes recovery of damage by either, held operative, although the Admiralty rule which divides the loss prevails in England and has been recently applied in a case of collision on Canadian waters, on an appeal to the Privy Council, but without the Act being brought under special notice there.— The Langshaw, 3 Q. L. R. 143. 4. In a case of collision, the fault being mutual, the Admiralty rule will apply, as between the owners of cargo and the delinquent ships, dividing the loss; each ship is answerable for a moiety.-Ib. 5. On an appeal to the Privy Council, where their Lordships name assessors, an opinion on a nautical point given by Canadian assessors may be overruled.—Ib. Common Carrier.-There is an implied engagement on the part of public carriers of passengers for hire towards those carried that they shall not be exposed to undue or unreasonable danger in embarking on or landing from the vessels of such carriers. And therefore a Steamboat Company, being a public carrier, using a wharf for the purpose of embarking and landing passengers, is bound to take all possible precautions for the prevention of accidents by the crowding of the public on the wharf, and any dangerous portion of the wharf should be sufficiently lighted at night to ensure the protection and safety of passengers. -Borlase v. St. L. S. N. Co., 3 Q. L. R. 329. Contrainte par corps.-See Guardian. Costs. An attorney ad litem cannot recover from his client costs in suits which are still pending and undecided.-Molony v. Fitzgerald, 3 Q. L. R. 381. 2. An attorney is not bound to refund the costs which he received by distraction granted him, though the judgment under which he obtained them was afterwards set aside by the Court of Appeal.-Holton v. Andrews et al, 3 Q. L. R. 16. 3. Even if a party who has succeeded in first instance succeeds also in Review, the Court will not allow him costs in Review if it is of opinion that fraud has been proved against. him, and that he succeeds only on technical grounds.—Blouin v. Langelier, 3 Q. L. R. 272. Costs, Security for.-1. A seaman of a foreign vessel suing for wages, and describing himself as "of Norway, now at Quebec," will be compelled to give security for costs.-Andersen v. Brusgaard, 3 Q. L. R. 287. 2. Where, by a letter addressed to the suppliant, the Public Works Department offered the sum of $3.950 in full settlement of the suppliant's claim against the Department, an application on the part of the Crown for security for costs was refused, on the ground that the Crown in this case could suffer no inconvenience from not getting security, and the application was not made in proper time.Wood v. The Queen, 3 Q. L. R. 17. County Councils-County Councils have the same power as Local Councils to pass by-laws prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors.— Hart v. Corporation of County of Missisquoi, 3 Q. L. R. 170. Curé-See Election Law. Damages.-1. Physical and mental pain may give rise to the action of damages resulting from a bodily injury.-Pelletier v. Bernier, 3 Q. L. R. 111. 2. The measure of damages for the detention of a vessel after a collision is the amount she can earn while unemployed by reason of it.— The Normanton, 3 Q. L. R. 303. Decret-See Adjudicataire. Delivery.-Absence of delivery is only an indication of fraud, and it may be rebutted by other presumptions equally strong.-Bell & Rickaby, 3 Q. L. R. 243. Deposit.-See Notice of Deposit. Election Law.-1. The threat by a Catholic priest to refuse the Sacraments to those who should vote for a candidate, constitutes an act of undue influence within the terms of clause 258 of the Quebec Election Act.-Hamilton v. Beauchesne, 3 Q L. R. 75. 2. Where the curés of a county take an active part in an election in favor of one of the candidates who, in a speech to the electors, declared himself the candidate of the clergy, that he was brought out by the clergy, and that without the assurance of their support he would not have accepted the candidature, the cures will be considered agents of the candidate, and the latter will be responsible for their acts. Therefore, if a curé, so constituted agent, threatens his parishioners in the presence of a candidate with a refusal of the sacraments in case they vote for the opposite candidate, the candidate present will be deemed to have consented to this act of undue influence and to have approved it, and will be disqualified, if in a speech pronounced some hours afterwards he declares himself the candidate of the clergy, and does not disavow the threats or free himself otherwise from responsibility.-Ib. 3. It is "treating" within the meaning of Sec. 257 of the Que. Election Act, for a candidate to give a glass of liquor to the representatives of the two candidates and the deputy returning officer, in the poll, saying: "Gentlemen, if you wish to take a glass of brandy there is some in the room; go and help yourselves, but before | you go, go and vote for whom you like."—Ib. 4. A deed given to transfer property to a candidate merely to qualify him, and with the intention that the property shall for all other purposes remain in the possession of the transferor, is insufficient under Sect. 124 of the Election Act, even though it be clothed with all the formalities requred for the valid transfer of the property. And the proof of such intention appears in the fact of simulated payment of the price, and the transferor remaining in possession of the immovable as proprietor. Ib. 5. Even if the petitioner succeeds, each party will be ordered to pay his own costs where the defendant succeeds in a recriminatory case under section 55 of the Election Act.—Ib. 6. The Provincial Legislature, in enacting the Quebec Controverted Elections Act, havtribunal ing created the Superior Court a for the purpose of trying election petitions in a manner which should make its decisions final, the prerogative right to admit an appeal from such decisions to Her Majesty in Her Privy Council does not exist.—Landry v. Théberge, 3 Q. L. R. 202. 7. Under the Election Act of 1875, (1) the valuation roll is conclusive as to the value of the property. (2) No one can be on the list of electors if he is not on the roll. (3) All those who by the roll appear qualified should be on the electoral list, unless there be personal disqualification which does not appear on the roll-Electoral Lists of Kamouraska, 3 Q. L. R. 308. 8. The Municipal Code directs how a valuation roll may be attacked, and in a collateral proceeding, such as a contestation of the electoral lists, what has been finally decided as to this roll cannot be questioned.—Ib. under sections 245 and 246 of the Quebec Election Act, it is sufficient to allege and prove the giving of drink or other refreshment by a can 9. The Secretary-Treasurer has no right to didate, to an elector during the election, withcorrect the valuation roll.—Ib. 10. A and B own conjointly and in equal shares, a property valued on the roll at $200 or $300. Neither should be put on the list. Similarly, if A and B are conjointly and in equal shares tenants of a property for which they pay annually, according to the roll, $20 or $30, neither should be put on the list. In the i former case, to give both the right to vote, the property should be valued at $400 at least. In the second case, to entitle both to vote, the rent should be at least $40. But if A and B own together a property valued at $300, A one-third and B two-thirds, B may vote but not A.-Ib. out alleging or proving the existence of any wrong motive whatever.-Philibert v. Lacerte, 3 Q. L. R. 152. Evidence. In penal actions instituted under sections 125 and 130 of the Quebec Election Act, the strict rules of law will be applied to the evidence.-Neault & St. Cyr, 3 Q. L. R. 147. 2. Secondary evidence of the contents of an insurance policy will not be allowed, where the original policy, though deposited in another district, could have been obtained.-Reg. v. Bourassa, 3 Q. L. R. 359. 3. Parole. Although ambiguous terms in a written instrument may be explained by parole evidence of a usage, they cannot be explained by parole evidence of a conversation which took place when the contract was made.-Connolly v. Provincial Insurance Co., 3 Q. L. R. 6. 4. If secondary evidence be adduced without objection, it is presumed that the party who might have objected to such evidence, but failed to do so, has waived his right to urge such objection.-Thwaites v. Coulthurst, 3 Q. L. R. 104. Exception to the form.-Where the writ of summons sets forth only one of plaintiff's three Christian names, and indicates the others by their initial letters, the action will be dismissed on exception to the form.-Gauthier v. Callaghan, 3 Q. L. R. 384. 11. In the following cases complaint may be made to the Council against the list made by the Secretary-Treasurer, or an appeal taken to the Judge from the decision of the Council:(1) Under Sect. 33 of the Electoral Act of 1875, which provides that if, on proof, the Council is of opinion that a property has been leased, ceded or transferred solely to give some one a right to vote, it may strike from the list the name of such person, on written complaint to that effect. (2) On facts depriving a person of the right to vote who otherwise would have all the necessary qualifications, when these facts are not apparent on the valuation roll or the voters' list, as when a person on the list is not a subject of Her Majesty, or is afflicted with legal incapacity, as, for example, interdicted for ¦ mental alienation, or a felon. (3) If the Sec-stated and proved their loss in U. S. currency, retary-Treasurer has placed on the list a person the Registrar and merchants reported an equiwho is not entitled to vote, under arts. 11. 267 valent amount in gold, not at the current rate and 270 of the Act, Sect. 14, amended by 39 of exchange, but at the rate as on the day of Vict. c. 13, s. 2. (4) If the Secretary-Treasurer collision. The Court, upon contestation, mainhas omitted a person who by the roll is entitled tained the report.-The Frank, 3 Q. L. R. 193. to vote, and not otherwise disqualified, or has Expertise. Where, in consequence of a deed inserted the name of a person who by the roll improbated having been drawn up, and the difappears not to be qualified. (5) On facts af- ferent parts put together, in an unusual and fecting the right to vote, and which do not slovenly manner, doubt arises as to the genappear by the roll, as if a tenant does not re-uineness of a part of it, an expertise may be side at the place. (Sect. 2. par. 5, Election Act of 1875.)-Ib. 12. The curé, as occupying the presbytère, is not an occupant within the meaning of the Election Act.—Ib. Exchange, Rate of-The promoters having ordered as to the genuineness of that part of the deed to which such doubt relates.-Hamel et al. & Panet, 3 Q. L. R. 174. Fabrique.-1. Plaintiffs, styling themselves parishioners and freeholders, and seeking to 13. In an action for the recovery of a fine set aside resolutions of the Fabrique for the |