The Manitoba Reports (Volume 12) (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1900 Excerpt: ... 1899. W. F. Hull or defendant. The County Courts are courts;ument of limited jurisdiction. They have only authority to deal with matters given to them by statute: Craystonv. MasseyHartis Co., 12 M. R. 100; Grundy v. McDonald, 11 M. R. 1; Bicknell & Seager Div. Ct. Pr., 54. The sixty days within which the County Court Judge had to give judgment had elapsed, and he was functus officio. In Ontario they have a similar statute, and prohibition lies in such cases: Re Tiplingv. Cole, 21 O. R. 276; Forbes v. Michigan Central Ry. Co., 22 O. R. 568, 20 A. R. 584; McGregor v. Norton, 13 P. R. 223; Gibbons v. Chadwick, 8 M. R. 211. As to delay in moving: see Wortkington v. Jeffrits, L. R. 10 C. P. 379. F. Heap for plaintiff. The Court has a discretion to refuse prohibition, if inequitable: Maxwell v. Clark, 10 M.R. 406. As to delay in making application for prohibition: Short & Mellor's Crown Office Pr., 80; In re Denton, 1 H. & C. 654; Soules v. Little, 12 P. R. 534; In re Burrows, 18 U. C. C. P. 508. In Re Wilson v. Hutlon, 23 O. R. 29, prohibition was moved for promptly. In Elliott v. May, 11 M. R. 306, prohibition was refused because it was too late to renew the action. Defendant should have made an application in the Court below to set aside the judgment: Gibbins v. Chadwick, 8 M. R. 209; Wright v. Arnold, 6 M. R. 1; In re Burrows, 18 U. C. C. P. 508; Jones v. Gittins, 51 L, T. N. S. 599; In re Robinson v. Lenaghan, 17 L. J. Ex. 174. The proper remedy here is by appeal: Barker v. Palmer, 8 Q. B. D. 9; Ritz v. Froese, 12 M. R. 346; S. E. Ry. Co. v. Ry. Commrs., 6 Q. B. D. 599; Forster v. Forster, 4 B. & S. 187. As to how the section as to the 60 days should be interpreted, strictly or liberally: In re Burrows, 18 U. C. C. P. 508; McLean v. McLeod, 5 P. R. 467; Fee ...