cell, asthma,

7 ' I "cgdiiéiiiiipierd , ‘pineal nurse's? ‘It hind‘

,flt'ifi

'. (Canada. m. “mli/lsiitlezi- ~

m mm a mallard plaster M 1’ wssroanlhfbw‘

ITO-bile Electors 0f Ward Fou

n, thc IGll-etors of IVard 4:

At the request of many electors o; win-ii 4, tllo undersigned again utters tor election in ‘the forth- nnnlug civic contest as a repro- aeutativo of this Ward.

‘ppm- six years past a sincere of- iiort has been nlade to faithfully serve the Ward and the City, and no record is before yoll.

'in' every civic activity making Th‘ its bcttoruieilt. in the practice 0t the utmost economy in. neces- gny and urlvisilble retrenchment. imthe cnfortronlent of law and [particularly in tile improvement of inn bye-lilw respecting inspection kl meut and milk products. our ef- iorls will be consistently directed. l. support will be given to such fdintinilanctl of pernlatient street ‘building as is provided for by the hllcral grant and to a more oqult- ‘able ussesstilvnl fur purposes of taxation. Any increase of thc lat- ter will be opposed. ‘

1f agaill ilonored by you, faith- ful service to thc interests of the citizens will be our constant aim. Thailking you for your appre- ciated support and Influence.

‘central Guardian

‘PECIAL QKKTE It Areflg1o. night. 2i

ACTION ALL ‘rue TIME at West Kent sports Friday night, n; Arena. l 1i

CHARLOTTETOWN DR|V|NG 111-115 meeting iflliight at a o'clock sharp.

LQTTETOWN Driving (jinn will be- held tonight at 8 o'clock. .

1."'I'HE GIRLS’ RACE ALONE is worth price ot admission 26 cents

Arena. 1|

P. W. C. v8. BANKERS 11/;

tonight. Admission 26 gentn,

HOCKEY MATCH, P. W. c. vn, Bankers starts at 7.30. with band after game.

B. Arsenault. city has receiver] the

his son-In-lnw, Isidore latterly oflmwrence, Mass, cause oi‘ death.

States.

Wage Dispute

(Continued froln Page 1)

reach sonle luoans of settlement

either by agreement. arbitration or that will bring about

conciliation,

province cannot much longer tol

crate the condition brought about

by employers and employees con tinuing a struggle. ruin to all concerned.“

M r. Barrett's Reply.

aliive to our

public at largo has been placed in

A MEETING or ras can.

at West Kent Sports Friday night,

hour's skate with band at Arena 2i

Skating 1i

RECEIVED SAD NEWS.——Mr. J

sad news of tho sudden death of Myers, forlncrly of St. Louis, l’. E. I., and No particulars were received as to the Tho fnnlily of the late Mr. Myers reside in United

which means

Mr. Barrett's reply said: “In reply to your tclegrunl, ilcrinit me. to say my associates and self are keenly responsibilities and have been for some time, and we regret very nluch thc position the

and willie we can realize -the gener- al inconveniences that have been brought about by tho lockout. that was put into effect, we must give

J udgmeni; in Chancery (Continuum; i pngg 1)

and "u" 1119l11lted strip” "The ‘ganged “"19" 111 Of the same f 5 north and south as the "12 oot strip" and is bounded on the gist byt trim “12 foot strip" and on and e1?! Y the old line of postg

ence formerly enclosing the Weatherbis Lot on the west end

thereof. > _ c At the 111111. on; defendenVs mmscl WW1‘ the first witness

John Molllaon, Ian‘! surveyor’ had been examined, "raised the ob- jection that the evidence of this witness disclosed the fact that there was a question of title in- volved in this suit and that there- fore this Court had no jni-lntiiciion that the remedy was at inw and that all issue should be directed. more was "0 lift-lumen! on the lioint, but on the suggestion n: tin, Court to which counsel on both 5m“ “"9911 111B tloint was left to be argued at the conclusion of the case and the taking . hi’ the 0V1. diillcfliwilfl proceeded with.

0n the argument and in support of his preliminary objection, coun. sci for the defendant. quoted inter aim. Wulkor on Partition Acts 2nd Ed. DD G1 to 64 and the cases therein referred to. After review“ dni-Z those cases. this author sums up tho law as follows: "The Court has jurisdiction under Sir John Rolls Act to decide legal questions which may incidently arise Ill actions for partition where the parties claim under the same title, and the question be- tween them is only one of con. structinn. but whore inn pflftkxg

It‘. II ii (I t101.l“11‘__ _ (liilllifltliltldxl 32a’ )cxlsifiiljtfolit1jlat)llg chm‘ “nder ‘Hfmrent m1” m‘ tnines. The public lntortists of this where “m cmwtr'wflon of 1015111

questions is not merely incidental 1-0 ll-‘trtition or sale but fornls the real gist of the action, then the Court has no jurisdiction given it by the Act." —(Slude v Barlow _ I-.. R. 7 Flq. 296; Bolton v Bolton i7

Ii. T. N. S. 556; (liffnrd v W11. hams 8 Eq. 494 in app. S chap 54G). '

I accept thc law as summed up above and in other authorities and can only repeat that in partition suits where the construction of legal questions is not merely incl- dental to partition and sale but forms thc renl gist of the action the Court Ital-s no jurisdiction given it by the Act.

. THE CHARLOTTETOWN GUARDIAN

lug of expense require such a eot an issue, but unless a "stroll! case Is made It will be reluctant to send the trial of the case into what l may call a foreign jurisdic- tion."

And again at Page 465 he goes on to say "Two grounds have been mainly suggested. > First of all there Is the general ground that it la a legal question. But l wholly deny that every ‘legal question is to he sent to a jury. There have been multitudes of eases decided by the Court of Chancery, and most p_operly decided, in which the question of nuisance has been tried by the Court. itself."

And at page 466 he sums up as follows: "To that I shall only add this, that although I have said- and l adhere most distinctly to what I have said-that it is com- petent for the Court, at any stage of the case, if it ‘thinks the ends of justice require it, to send the issue to a jury, It is not right to en- courage applications of this descrip- tion, for they obviously are very inconvenient and unnecessarily take up the time of the Court."

It I needed any further slither- ity on this point it is to be found in the case of Bovill V. Hitchcock (L. R. 3 Ch. Ap. 417) in which Lord Cairns L. J. reviews the law. At page ‘I18 he says: “This appeal la rested on two grounds-tho first being that as bcforo thc course of the Court of Chancery was zrltcretl so as to throw upon the Court the duty of deciding questions which, according to its former course, were sent to be tried at law, a ques- tion of this nature would have been tried before a jury, so now either party has a right to insist on its being so tried. I cannot accede to this zlrgtlnlcnt. The effect of the Acts is to impose on the Court the duty of deciding those questions, and, ill the absence of anything to the coillrary ill the Acts, the Court nlust try them according to its ord- inary coilrse oi’ practice. If the Court thinks it best that a question should be tried before a jury, a jury can be had, but if, in the op- inion of the Court, a trial without a jury is [lI‘0I(‘I‘t\1)|t‘., neither party

can claim a jury as a matter of right. It is a fallacy tn say that under thc

old practice. the Court required n legal question to be tried by a jury. What it required was a judg- nlent of a Court of Common Law. Ill most cases it was a necessary incident to DTOCOOGIIII-‘IS at law that there should be a verdict of a jury before judgment, but lhcsc cases were sent to law, not that they might be tried by a jury, but be-

course, I take It the Court will dlr- 26

Moillson gives the exact length M 8 fest. '

None of the witnesses examined before me with the exception of Mr. John Molltson. Land Surveyor seemed to be able to fix with any degree of accuracy the width of Bedford Row in feet (that is of “the l2 foot strip" and '1 "disputed strip") at any time within their

emory and various estimates as to width measured from the west side line of this street to the said fence or to posts to which a. fence was affixed oni the east, were giv- en. Many of the witnesses who referred to these posts and fence’ seemed to have regarded it as forming the western boundary of the Weatherble Lot. A3 to when thes posts were put down or the fence erected not even thc oldest witness could remember and none of the witnesses remembered that

the site of this fence or thcsc posts was ever changed or that the street was cvcr different in

width for a period extending Ilack in some cases to thirty-five years, except about the year 1919, when the alleged encroachment or nuis- ance was committed. Mr. John Mollislon at. page 3 of the evidence says that the first time he took ob- servation) S of tho street the part traveled or turnpikcd was 20 lo 22 feet wide, possibly 22 feet; and at pages 6 and 7 he says that after the street had been widened a few years after it measured 25 feet wide at the south end and 24 feet at the north end. These measure- ments were from the west boundary line of the street to the west edge of thc ditch or bank of the ditch on the east. It would serve no purpose the lavidcnce in (lctail. sum of thc cv-idonce I fin-d that "the twelve fool: strip" and "the disputed strip" have been used by thc public as a street or highway for foot and vehicular traffic for a period extc-ntliilg buck thirty five years and over;' that the east- crn boundary line of said "dis- puted strip" was a line of posts to which a fence was affixed to en- ciosc the western end of a field known as tho Wcatherbie Lot. That from the time of the fire ill Sulnmcrsltlc about the year 190T, this fence was allowed to go to de- cay but that its site is still ascer- talinahlc.

The question arises whether thcre ever was a dedication of this “disputed strip". it is not ques- tioned but that there was a dedi- cation of.the “twelve foot strip".

From the

case: "In order to constitute a valid dedication to the public of a 11181111111?- 11Y the owner of the soil, tt is clearly settled that there must ‘he an. intention to dedicate-there must: be an animus dedlcandl of which user by the public is evi. deuce and no more and a single act of interruption by the owner is of much more weight upon a qneg. tion of intention than lnany acts of enjoyment."

And Lord Blackburn in Mann v Brodie (10 a.c. p. 386) quoting Parke B. as above adds: "But it has been held that where there has been evidence of user by the public so long and in such inan- nor that the owner of the fee, “i110. ever he may he, must have been aware that the public were acting under the belief that the way had been dedicated and has taken no steps to dlsabusc them of that bc- lief. It is not conclusive evi- dence but evidence on which those who have to find the. fact niny find that there was a dedication by the owner whoever he was."

In the present case, posts were sunk, a fence put up and the public far many years extending beyond the memory or any witness examin- ed used the street. or so much thereof as was necessary for its purpose between this fenice and the western istret line. It. is further not denied that the owner Robert Wca therbie used to visit Summersidc

and consequently must have been

aware of thc user of the street by the public but never attentpteti to take stops an disabuse them of thc belief that ‘they had thc right to use it tn this way and in this con- nection I would like to give a quo- tation from the judgment of Lord

11611 t0 Chilvilfi ‘I-lalsilury in McPherson v Scottish

Rights of Way (13 Ap. C.) at page 748 and which l adopt as part nf my judgment: "However good nzat- ured the proprietor might be and however desirous of assisting his neighbours. ‘I think he would dc- sire to ‘protect his rights by in- lii-‘ilifll-l ilbon some record of his rights or some way of chewing that what was being done was by lic- ence and permission and not as of right, but I look in vain throughout the whole evidence for the ‘least intimation of any effort on the part of the proprietor to impose upon those per-sons who were using the road-any kind of ‘hindcrance which could be removed by his per- mission."

This ‘is the principle also follow- ed in the Quccn v. Pctrie (4 E & B 737) Turner v. Walsh (6 A. 1C 63G) and in numerous other decisions. In Turner v. Walsh which went to the iPrivy Council. ‘Sir Montague E.

“BETTER BABI

Lord and Lady Reading, Vicero day; ago opened the first of a seri They have been instituted with a they affect the children of India. in the women of India, and the pic looking over the plan; for the hos her. Just behind her is Colonel Ca George. The picture was taken at

"U sufilwl 3am Li"

ES” FOR INDIA

y of India and his wife, n few es of 500 baby shows in India. view to improving conditions n Lady Reading is keenly Interested turc shows her a short while iqo pita! to be erected and named for rey Evans, son-ln-iaw of Lloyd Simla.

the case of Harvey v Truro Rural Council (1908-2 Ch. D.) where Mr. Jilstice Joyce quotes with approv- al the law as laid down by Vaughan Willie-ms L, J.. in Necle v. Hcndon Urban iCouncil (81 L. T. 405) "The Dififiiimption is that prima facle, it there be nothing to the contrary, the public right of way‘ ilxtends over the whole space of ground lbc- tween the fences on either side of the road, that. is to say. that the fences may prima facle be taken to have been originally put up for the purpose of lseparating land ded icated as a highway from land not so dedicated."

There is only one other rpoint ar~ lsing in this case. Evidence was 411111110011 by illlc defendant that wircn the house which it is alleged in evidence is built tin part on this "111811111011 8115i)" vials under con- struction that the Town of Sunl- nicrsidc through its officers gave u permit for connecting the said house with the Town Water and Sewerage System, and‘ also that thc town entered Into negotiations with the defendant's predecessor in title. Mr. Maynard Sehurnlan i'or the purchase of 15 li-eet in width al- ong ‘the said Bedlford Row or Rail- way Alley and immediately east oi

ITEEDING COWS ON FISH

it see-ms somewhat startling to learn that cows are fed on fish.

~ Since, however, this information Ia contained in a consular report, it seems to be dependable, says an English writer. The cows which have become fish-eaters are owned by the Farce Island folk, and the fish on which they are fed is coal- flsh, a sort of poilack.

The fish is not cooked In any way. It is merely dried, and be; fore being given to the cows is pounded between two stones. It seems to agree with them, for they live on it during most of the win- ter and yield excellent milk.

Some cattle have queer tastes," for the writer has senn them down on a beach by the sea grazing on some sort of seaweed which they - seemed to appreciate. And whllo most animals know well enough what is good for them, cows some- times fail in t-hls respect.

A case is mentioned in which. some painters having left pots of paint behind a hedge in a meadow where cows were grazing, the an- imals went and licked up the paint. Ten were badly poisoned and two died.

Not long ago a wild dog, which

1 m“. thought to the miners and their But the present case; is not one 931159 11119 @011"- 111111 11° 1l1115i11¢‘ The “my Undone“ or ‘lemcafion I . . . . ,, . sinner-Cm families in the ntincrs being granlt- of partition and I am of the opin. tion to decide upon legal rights." 111111 0f 1116 "1W01V6 100i Strip" i8 5m1l11_ -‘111_1<1 111 111i Judgment 111 1110 12 100! B11111" 931m‘? fro"; §°“111I:"Te:11c€'1 3:;

I. J. YEO. ‘"1 i‘ MW“ ‘wit’ “*1 ""11 i119!’ and, loll that tllere is a (liffercnce lllfltll‘. 1111* 1110b" 1‘"1"<‘»'|Y i" i111“ “we "1 111° A"i1°"°“ P11"! ‘"7 1857- "a5" "31 . . gm] to He -(t)o'r~ 15:1 o u‘ k a p their families may he able to enjoy in cases o; Dal-two“ and sale and can only be applied by a Court. This plan would show on the part FY0111 1011K 0911111111“ 1151"‘ 01 a 11 illtliehred to me lirom the Qvj- dog. but a so: o m ng n he-n _.._.__ some of the tmnss that arc worth h, cases of injunctions m abate q "1 Equity: the court has exercised oi‘ thc owner Mr. Wcatherbie, whefmY by 111° 1111111“: ‘vhether the mud (191m) m“! I 11m”? "0 ‘1911171 111*" tween the. do? and the 10x’ T is ’ its discretion in hearing the cvld- 1101011Efi i0 1110 (P1011111 01‘ l0 a DPI- sluch was the fact, that in tilclse creature 1n "5 W114 “Me roams

Willie in iifc. 111 Yliltiy 119111111 1119 it is alleged owned the plan, an in- to say we will not be a party to or- dering tile minors to return to work until n contract has been negotiat-

ed, carrying‘ a substantial increase

nuisance. and such would appear from Daniel Chain. Prac. Vol. 2 (so. E11.) at page 147s wllere it is! suit "an injunction will also be granted. in some cases, where the

the beaches, and its principal food consists of crabs. the shells of xvhich it: cracks with its strong teeth. '

This reminds thc writer of the

tenltion to dedicate thi strip as a vine owner dedicano" {mm the highway m. street s I Submit lCrown or the private owner, zas the ' ‘icasc may be. in the absence of

however that an intention to de- - _ .‘ . anything to rebut the presumption ilicatc in law is not sufficient tolmay and indeed Ought to be we

negotiations thc town was simply endeavouring by an amicable settle meat of a ilisputen to avoid [a Ia-w suit, and that thereby there was no admission of Zvlir, Schurmanls tit

once before itself without the intcr- vention of a jury.

CARD

Tllc rcal question in issue here

T" 111"1'31"1‘1‘"'r1 "1 111C 0'11)’ 01 C1131‘- is not so much one of law as one

1"_“°1““’“*'" iag,,‘gi',f§iz},\y§,- lt)1?:l:,l,‘;;:,.:.t 1111111911 11l1vo both legal titles and n: fact, from which tho “mqmm” a ‘l“"11c““°“ 11111055 immsulnicd." 1c t pumw aim“, mm, impqn. ponies which were introduced a iladzes and tivniieluun, and mo“, fmmqivaw. ‘ ’ ' legal rlemcdles, but_ iI".'On(‘.!‘l11)1i‘-,1IlW proceeds. I considrvrod‘1191113111/ "1’°““"1 3111111811“ by m“ The further question also arises m,“ m the rfqct m.“ cwtlfln Offlc, good many years ago from South .\t the request oi‘ a ilurge nninbnr MONTRICAL ‘M1,, 4_“,m‘ n“, mischief would be done unless theyitilat 111F119 11°15 9011111 mom iiublic. In the present case what m, m the Mum] “qnth n5 the "dis-fink; unseimifol- L,'",‘,,-.r“.,§ ‘NYC U’, America to the lCook Islands in the oi electors l have decided t_o bv- zirrivai of Antirmv ‘Steele intcrua. were entitled to more complete conveniently be ascertained “'11s "viimnuY 11"'°“'“ 011°" "1111 putell strip" and taking its cast Inhéion m‘ connect’ Hwxvuinq, snntnem Pacific. These animals conic a candidate for Oonuhlissliru- Hana] Office,- ot m0 United Mme relief thun that-which they would by the Court than before a jury 1101111111)’ 115011 by the 111111118 W111i 1101- ilOllflll-Llfy as the fence or posts BGQérHIgG sysftelm or the [Ownkm m}, originally came from Chill, where

0111)’ “I110 twelve 1001 5111i)" 1111111 supporting the fence used to en- strin of much greater width. close the “7etltilefble Lot on thc Posts‘ and a fence on the cast side west. whether the public have of thc “disputed strip" having ircquirtitl rights over the whoilc of

presumably they lived, like other horses, on grass. But grass is not too common in the Cook Islands, and these ponies have got into the

which would only entail additional delay, expense and inconvenience, and no serious objection was taken to this course.

t'i‘ of Sewers and Water ‘Supply at thc iortiicomiirg Civic Election. I lune served follr ycalrs at thc

obtain at Law. It has according- ly been grantcdfeven where the injunction amounted in fact to an

tiweilling ‘house 01f the defendant. In any nvent no action on th-e lpart oif these officers or oi‘ the town

Workers, who joined the officials of thc union from (Iapo Breton in an attempt to settle the situation ty.