~ v. agents; 10th. Cases of Deschamps and Clement-charge of 1878 bribery and intimidation by one John O'Neil, collector of SOMERVILLE tolls of the Lachine Canal as agent of the Respondent; LAFLAMME. 11th. Hurtubise case. Justinien Bélanger, as agent of Respondent, is accused by one Augustin Hurtubise, of having offered him the keeping of lighthouses, if he would be in favor of Respondent's party; 12th. Boudrias case-an alleged offer of money by one Latour at the lock in St. Anns; 13th. Cooke's case-Cardinal, as Respondent's agent, is charged with bribery for an alleged offer to help Cooke in a contract he had with the Government; 14th. Cousineau's case--Defendant's agents are charged with having promised to pay this person. money and with having paid him money, given him goods and other effects, and offered him other advantages to induce him to vote or prevent him from voting; 15th. Gravel's case-Mr. Gohier, as Respondent's agent, is charged with having corruptly given drink to one Jean Baptiste Gravel, to such an extent as to render him entirely insensible, with a view to prevent him from voting; 16th. Brunet's case-agents of Respondent, charged with having taken electors from Montreal to Ste. Geneviève in their vehicle, and treated and paid money to induce them to vote for Respondent; and lastly, 17th. The Ste. Geneviève quarry case. The charges of this case are as follows: "1st. Conspiracy between Defendant's agents and Mr. Rodgers, proprietor and workers of the quarry, to threaten the quarrymen employed there with immediate dismissal if they voted against the Defendant, and to send to Pointe Claire on voting day those who persisted in voting against the Defendant; 2nd. Employment given to François Meloche in the quarry to influence his vote; 3rd. W. S. Hemming, Antoine St. Denis and Edouard St. Jean, Defendant's agents, threatened to turn out from their work in the quarry the voters who worked under their 1878 control, with the object of aiding the Defendant's elecSOMERVILLE tion; 4th. The same agents, on the eve of voting, tried to send to Pointe Claire those men who persisted in desiring to vote against the Defendant, or in not abstaining from it. v. LAFLAMME. The material facts of the charges above set out fully appear hereafter in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice; and as the evidence given in support and against these charges is reviewed at length in the judgments of the Court a separate statement is unnecessary. Mr. Dalton McCarthy, Q.C., and Mr. C. P. Davidson, Q.C., for the Appellants, argued that the Respondent's evidence in his own behalf was inadmissible under the laws of the Province of Quebec, citing and commenting on 38 Vic.., cap. 8, s. 56, Q.; 37 Vic., cap. 1, ss. 45, 49, D.; Art. 251, C. C. P.; Taylor on evidence (1); Gilbert sur Sirey (2); Soulanges, Shefford and Jacques Cartier clection cases (3); and that treating by agents on the nomination or polling day, is a corrupt act sufficient to avoid an election, and referred to the Bodmin case (4); Carrickfergus case (5); The North Wentworth case (6); The North Grey case (7); The South Essex case (8); The Montreal West case (9); Mr. Justice Caron's opinion in the Portneuf case (10); and The Bonaventure case (11). They also contended upon the facts that the Respondent was guilty of corruption, undue influence and bribery through his agents, and cited the following authorities:--1st. With reference to Foley's (1) s. 1241, p. 1194. (2) Codes Annotés, on Art. 268. (4) 1 O. & H. 122 ; 20 L. T. (N.S.) (5) 10. & H. 265; 21 L.T. (N.S.) 352. (6) 11 C. L. J. 198 & 298. (8) 11 C. L. J. 247. (9) 20 L. C. Jur. 22. (10) 2 Q. L. R. 268. (11) 3 Q. L. R. 75. case: Bradford case (1); Coventry case (2); Westbury 1878 case (3); Blackburn case (4); North Norfolk case (5); SOMERVILLE Galway case (6); Northallerton case (7). 2nd. Lafleur's case: The Coventry case (8); Oldham case (9); Gloucester case (10); Dominion Elections Act (11). 3rd. Ouellette's case: Sligo case (12); Blackburn case (13); Westbury case (14); Halton case (15). 4th. Ste. Geneviève Quarry case: Staleybridge case (16); Blackburn case (17); North Norfolk case (18); Cox & Grady (19); Parsons on Contracts (20); C. C. L. C. Art. 995; 1 Demolombe No. 158. 5th. Speeches by the Respondent and his agents: Launceston case (21); Deakin v. Drinkwater (22); Simpson v. Yeend (23); Dublin case (24); Worcester case (25); Hertford case (26); Dover case (27); Reg. v. Gamble (28); Petersfield case (29). 6th. On the question of agency: Staleybridge case (30); (1) 1 0. & H. 32, 40; 19 L. T. (15) 11 C. L. J. (N.S.) 273. (N.S.) 278, 721. (16) 10. & H.70; 20 L.T.(N.S.) 75. (2) 1 O. & H. 97; 20 L. T. (N.S.) (17) 1 O. & H. 205 ; 20 L. T. (N.S.) 405. 823. (3) 1 O. & H. 50; 20 L. T. (N. S.) (18) 1 O. & H. 241; 21 L. T. (N. 22. S.) 264. (4) 1 0. & H. 203, 204; 20 L. T. (19) Pp. 324, 325. See 1 O. & H. (N.S.) 823. 173. (5) 1 0. & H. 241; 21 L. T. (20) P. 395. (N.S.) 264. (21) 2 O. & H. 130. (6) 10. & H. 305; 22 L. T. (N.S.) (22) L. R. 9 C. P. 626. (13) 10. & H. 205; 20 L. T. (N.S.) (29) 20. &. H. 94. 264. (14) 20 L. T. (N.S.) 16—23. (30) 1 O. & H. 70; 20 L. T. (N.S.) 75. v. LAFLAMME. 1878 Bewdley case (1); Blackburn case (2); Taunton case (3); SOMERVILLE Taunton case (4); Wakefield case (5); Durham case (6); Bolton case (7); Dublin case (8); Barnstaple case (9); Lichfield case (10); Cox & Grady (11). v. LAFLAMME. 7th. As to appeal on questions of fact: 38 Vic., ch. 11, ss. 48, 22; Symington v. Symington (12); The Glannibanta (13); Bigsby v. Dickson (14). Mr. E. C. Monk, contra, contended that all members of the House of Commons were to be tried by the same law; and that if the evidence of a Member was admissible in the Province of Ontario when his seat was contested, the evidence of a Member representing a County in the Province of Quebec was also admissible. He referred to and commented on The Dominion Controverted Elections Act, 1874 (15); C. C. L. C. (16); C. C. P. L. C. (17). The learned counsel then commented at length on the facts, and maintained that the judgment appealed from was based upon the most reliable appreciation of the evidence adduced, and that the numerous authorities cited by the Appellant's counsel were not applicable. The following, among many other statutory provisions and authorities, were also cited and relied on: 1st. As to the Ste. Geneviève Quarry case-St. Denis' Agency: Windsor case (18); Londonderry case (19); Taunton case (20); Shrewsbury case (21); Staleybridge (1) 10. & H. 18; 19 L. T. (N.S.) (10) 10. & H. 25. (2) 10. & H. 200; 20 L. T. (N.S.) (12) L. R. 2 S. App. 424. 823. (3) 10. & H. 185; 21 L. T. (N.S.) (14) L. R. 4 C. P. D. 35. case (1); Bolton case (2); Westminster case (3); Wigan 1878 case (4). SOMERVILLE v. Intimidation must be continuing at time of election: LAFLAMME. Windsor case (5); Bushby's Election Manual (6). 2nd. Ouellette's case: Sligo case (7). 3rd. Lafleur's case: Oldham case (8); Gloucester case (9); Westminster case (10). 4th. As to treating by Respondent and his agents: Leigh & Le Marchant Elec. Man. (11); Portneuf case (12); Dominion Election Act, 1874, Sec. 94. 5th. Speeches by the Respondent and his agents; Phillips on Evidence (13); Greenleaf on Evidence (14) ; Taylor on Evidence (15); Launceston case (16); Muskoka case (17). 6th. As to accumulation of charges and appeals upon questions of fact: Muskoka case (18); Gray v. Turnbull (19); Gray v. Turnbull (20). Mr. Dalton McCarthy, Q. C., replied. THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is an appeal from the judgment of the Honorable Mr. Justice Dorion, of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, dismissing the petition of James Somerville and others complaining of the undue election and return of the Hon. Rodolphe Laflamme to the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, for the electoral district of Jacques Cartier, in the Province of Quebec. (1) 1 0. & H. 70. (2) 20. & H. 141. (3) 10. & H. 92. (4) 2 O. & H. 91. (5) 2 O. & H. 91. (6) Last ed. 145. (7) O. & H. 302. (8) 10. & H. 152. (9) 20. & H. 63. (10) 10. & H. 91. (11) P. 37. |