COMPENSATION COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2279, 22 July 1881, Page 3

COMPENSATION COURT.

[Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston. J THURSDAY, JtTPY 21. The Court opened at II a.m. This was a sitting for the argument of certain legal points in the case of R. Wilkin Y the Minister of Public Works. Mr Harper for claimant. Mr Joynt for the Minister. Mr Joynt in opening the case for the Minister, submitted that the Act of 1880 was retrospective, and was declaratory of the Act of 1876, and further that the case was not one for compensation, us it was beyond the limitation imposed by the Act. Ho should contend that the railway was completed under the Act of 1876, and that its legal date of completion was the date of the passing of that Act. [Cited Public Works Act, sec. 123,] Ho also referred to section 15 of the Interpretation Act, 1868, to show that the Act of 1880 was merely declaratory. [Authorities cited ; Regina v Leeds and Bradford Railway Company 21 L.J., M.C. 193 ; Oornhill v Hudson 27 L.J., Q B. 8 : Pardo y Bingham 4 L.R., Chancery 735 ; Wright v Hale 36 L.J., Exch 40; Attorney-General v Luton 33 LJ., Exch. 227.] Mr Harper contra , referred to the Act of 1870, and held that asc. 123 stood by itself, it having beeu passed for the convenience of the Government. Ho should submit that the section of the Act of 1880 was not declaratory, and that the Legislature by passing it showed that they did not intend the section of the Act of 1876 to apply in those oases. [Cited : Qilmour v Shooter, Loach’s 2 Mid. Rep. 210; Moon v Dearden, L.R. 2 Ex., p. 22 ; Wright v Hale, 30 L.J ; Edmunds v Langley, 6 M and W, 285 ; Young v Hughes, 28 L.J., Ex. 161; Doe y Page, 5 Q 8., 772.] Ho desired to point out that Lloyd on Compensation stated that the claimant should wait till the

damage could be foreseen, as he could not bring a second action. [Oases cited : Regina v Leeds and Selby Bail way Company, 3 Ad. and 8., 690; Oroft v London and N.W. Eailway Company, 32 L.J., Q. 8.; Hopkins v Midland R»ilway Company, 46 L.J., Q.. 8. 265,] He should further argue that it was not a question of alteration of procedure, and cited Begina v Leeds Bail way Company, 21 L.J., M.O. 193

Mr Joynt having replied, His Honor took time to consider. The Court then adjourned until August 23rd, it being understood that the Court would then proceed to hear the case on its merits.