in Canada proceeded to enact that all its Companies, however formed, should have this capacity which the Bonanza Creek Case attributed to Companies formed by Royal Letters Patent. That was a volt to the blue from which there has been a further volt to the ether itself through a generally all-prevailing opinion that all the Provincial Companies covered by these Statutory enactments are entirely exempt from the doctrine of ultra vires, and are de facto Common Law Corporations, with an absolute and unrestrained contractual and operative authority regardless of the purposes or objects defined by, and even of any restraints contained in, the Charter except only that the Crown might cancel the Charter for any violation of it. If this is the effect of the Bonanza Creek Case and the legislation which followed upon it, it is certainly time that the Profession should take cognizance of the fact; and those who are investors of money in Joint Stock Companies either as Shareholders or Debenture Holders should take into consideration their impotency of control and the risks they run. The question has been fully examined in an article in this issue and two conflicting view points are presented, one with the permission of the Honourable H. A. Robson, K.C., and the other by the Editor. It is hoped that this presentation of the case will evoke discussion, and that many of the readers of the CANADIAN LAW TIMES will avail themselves of the privilege and opportunity of presenting their own views whether for one side or the other in the CANADIAN LAW TIMES. We are aware that the view point is being largely acted upon that the doctrine of ultra vires has qua the Corporate Company completely ceased to exist, and when a contract has been made by a Corporate Company it is not deemed essential to any legal controversy that may ensue upon it to enquire whether it was made within the scope or authority of the Company or of the person who entered into it on behalf of the Company, but that all that is necessary to a valid contract is to have it made under the Seal of the Corporation or to have

it signed in conformity with some general authority legally given by the Corporation for that purpose.

Alimony in the West.

In consequence of the discussion which began in the January (1920) issue of the CANADIAN LAW TIMES upon the question of the right of a wife to alimony in Western Canada independent of divorce proceedings two cases have recently come before the Courts. One is the case of Rousseau v. Rousseau in the Court of Appeal in B. C. and reported in W. W. R. 1920, Vol. 3, p. 384, and the other is the case of Lee v. Lee before the Court of Appeal in Alberta and reported in W. W. R. 1920, Vol. 3, p. 530. Both these cases uphold the right though they present quite divergent problems. Both, however, have the problem of the Provincial legislative authority as against the Dominion legislative authority. Neither of the judgments went to any extent, or at all events to a satisfactory extent, into this problem. The question whether the right of action independent of divorce had been created by Statute in B. C. did not arise as it does arise in the enactments of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, where there is no attempt to establish or create a right but only a jurisdiction. But the problem arose in B. C., which does not arise in the other Provinces named, that the so-called right of action was created or conferred by Rule of Court.

The Editor proposes to discuss in the January issue, 1921, the whole problem anew in the light of any elucidation given to it by these two decisions; and it will be a fitting theme to inaugurate another year of advancement for the CANADIAN LAW TIMES seeing that the January issue of 1920 first projected the problem which has become so controversial, before the Profession.

The Editor, it may be here said, has no intention of receding from the position he has already taken upon the ultra vires character of the enactment

whether made by Statute or by Rule of Court having a Statutory authority.

In both the hearings before the Courts of Appeal, the articles in the CANADIAN LAW TIMES were freely used and discussed, and they were also referred to in the Judgments delivered. Neither of the Judgments is, we understand, under Appeal, so that the problem is still open for controversy as well as the ratio deci dendi of the decisions.

THE SAD TALE OF AN INDIAN WIFE.

BY WILLIAM RENWICK RIDDELL, LL.D., F.R.S., Can., Etc.,

Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario.

When in May, 1814, the Special Court of Oyer and Terminer sat in the White House or Union Hotel at Ancaster in Upper Canada to try those accused of High Treason against King George III. by joining the American invader, about seventy Indictments for High Treason were found by the Grand Jury. Only nineteen of those charged were in custody, and they were duly tried-four were acquitted, eight executed, three died in prison, one escaped and three were eventually allowed to go to the United States.

Many of those accused had gone to the United States before the Court sat; and many had otherwise eluded the Canadian soldiers and officers of the Crown, amongst them Epaphrus Lord Phelps.

Those who had gone to the United States, the country was well rid of; such of them as had no property were not thought of again, but those of them who had property were kept in mind, because by High Treason they forfeited all their property to the Crown. The forfeiture, however, took effect not on indictment, or even on conviction, but on attainder, that is, when judgment was pronounced upon the traitor. This was the law of England, for as Blackstone somewhat sententiously says: "After conviction only . . . there is still in contemplation of law a possibility of his innocence. Something may be offered in arrest of judgment, the indictment may be erroneous, which will render his guilt uncertain, and thereupon the

conviction may be quashed, he may obtain a pardon or be allowed the benefit of clergy But when judgment is once pronounced both law and fact conspire to prove him completely guilty

Upon

This had long been established law, but a decision to that effect is reported in our Courts in comparatively modern times: Doe dem Gillespie v. Wiron, 1848, 5 O. S. 132.

judgment, therefore, of death and not before, the attainder of a criminal commences or upon such circumstances as are equivalent to judgment of death."

Epaphrus Lord Phelps lived in the District of Niagara, and he had a lease for 999 years of one thousand acres of land on the Grand River from the well-known Mohawk Chief, Joseph Brant, and this valuable land was worth seizing for the Crown. But Phelps could not be arrested to be brought to trial and formal attainder was impossible-consequently other proceedings must be taken, that the land might be seized. The criminal law of England introduced in part of what was afterwards Upper Canada by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, confirmed in all the territory by the Quebec Act of 1774, was formally and specifically made the law of the Province by the Act of 1800. That law provided that when an Indictment was found against any person for treason and he was not in custody, a writ of Capias was to be issued by a Judge directing the Sheriff of the County in which the Indictment was found to take the accused and him safely keep to answer the charge; if the Sheriff could catch him he was in practice kept in gaol till the next Assizes; if not a return was made of non est inventus, the Indictment was moved by Certiorari into the King's Bench and the accused was then "put in the exigent in order to his outlawry." The Court of King's Bench issued a "writ of exigent" or "exegi facias" to the Sheriff commanding him to cause the accused "to be exacted from County Court to County Court until he shall be outlawed according to the law and custom of England if he shall not appear. If he shall appear that then you take him and him safely keep that you may have his body before us at West

Blackstone Commentaries, Bk. IV., p. 374-of course High Treason was without Benefit of Clergy. Blackstone is speaking of clergyable Felonies, but the same rule applied in non-clergyable Felonies and Treason.

The District of Niagara then contained an immense territory, including the present Counties of Lincoln, Welland and Wentworth.

The Quebec Act is (1774), 14 Geo. III., c. 83 (Imp.): the Provincial Act of 1800 is 40 Geo. III., c. 1 (U.C.).