VOL. XI.] . EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 269 BETWEEN THE KING, ON THE INFORMATION OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE DOMINION PLAINTIFF 1908 OF CANADA January 7. AND A. B. PALMER, R. H.' PALMER AND DAVID DOIG ..: } DEFENDANTS. Mining -- Yukon Territory — Hydraulic privileges — Lease--Breach of conditions—Recovery of possession of demised lands by Crown. NFORM A TION to recover possession of certain mining lands in the Yukon Territory demised to the defendants, who were alleged to have broken . the conditions of the lease. July 26th, 1907. The case was heard at Dawson by the la,e Mr. Justice Burbidge: G. F. Shepley, K.C. and • X. C. Bleecker for the plaintiff; J. K. McRae for the defendants. The following judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice Burbidge on the 7th January,.1908. I venture to ask the parties and anyone who reads this short note not to come to the conclusion that the judgment which I am abolit to enter is given upon due consideration of the merits of the case. At the time when the evidence taken at Dawson was forwarded to the Registrar of the court at Ottawa, and the record thereby completed, and since that time, my engagements were such as prevented me from taking the matter up and dealing with it in an adequate manner. And now 19
270 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XI. 1" the state of my health prevents me from giving the case THE KING the consideration which it deserves. However, it does v. PAL 1ER. appear to me important that the litigation should be Season, for advanced another stage, and that it is in the interests of anagmeaa the parties themselves that it be put in a position where the questions in issue may be brought before the Supreme Court of Canada, rather than that there should be a rehear-ing or a re-argument in this court, and for that I am not without a precedent. For in the case of The Attorney-General for British Columbia v. The Attorney-General for Canada (1), the decision of the Exchequer Court was taken by consent, and without argument, in order to facilitate the bringing of the case directly to the Supreme Court, It is true that in this case I have not the consent of the parties, but I think I may take it for granted that they would consent to a course of procedure which appears to me to be so much in their interests. The main question, it seems to me, that I need to decide is as to the party upon whom the burden of bringing the appeal should be thrown, and in this case I think that burden should fall upon the defendants. There will be judgment for the plaintiff. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the plaintiff : Macdonald, Shepley, Middle- ton & Donald. Solicitors for the defendants : McGiverin & Haydon. (1) 14 S. C. R. M.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.