Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 02.pdf/281

 254

which the appeal is to be heard. Fifteen days before such session each party files a factum, or points for argument in appeal, printed in the same style as the case; and fourteen days before the session the appel lant inscribes the appeal for hearing, — that is, requests the registrar to place the appeal on the list of appeals for hearing. If the appellant has neglected to deposit his factum within the prescribed time, the appeal is in scribed for hearing ex parte. The Statute provides for three sessions of the court yearly, beginning respectively on the third Tuesday in February, the first Tuesday in May, and the fourth Tuesday in October; and the court sits until the business before it is disposed of. After the judgment is rendered, the solicitors for both parties at tend on a day fixed by previous appointment before the registrar, who settles the minutes of the order in appeal, and taxes the costs. A word or two may be said here on the in teresting subject of costs. The tariff of fees is a combination of a detailed and a block tariff. The appellant is entitled to a fee of $25 on settling the case, a fee in the discre tion of the registrar up to $50 on preparing his factum, and a counsel fee on the hearing of the appeal may be taxed in the discretion of the registrar to $200. There is also a fee of $6 for settling the security, and a fee of 15 cents per folio on printing the case and factum. The fees to counsel on the prepa ration of the factum and on the hearing may be increased by order of the judge in cham bers. Only in cases of special importance is such an increase given. The bill of costs on the whole may range from $150 to $500, or over; but the average would be, for a re spondent, $250, and for an appellant $350, — about one fourth of the costs of an appeal to the Privy Council. After the final judgment is entered it is transmitted to the proper officer of the court of original jurisdiction, to be there enforced as if it were a judgment of that court The process of the Supreme Court of Canada runs throughout the Dominion, and is tested j

in the name of the Chief-Justice; but writs of execution, except to enforce the payment of interlocutory costs, have never been issued, owing to the provision just mentioned which throws upon the court below the duty of see ing to the carrying into effect of the final judgment in the cause. By the Act it is provided that the judg ment of the Supreme Court shall in all cases be final and conclusive, saving any right which her Majesty may be graciously pleased to exercise by virtue of her royal prerogative. The royal prerogative has been not seldom exercised. The right of appeal to the Privy Council from the provincial courts was left untouched by the creation of the Supreme Court of Canada, and a party has the alter native right of appealing either to the Su preme Court or the Privy Council. In the event of adopting the second alternative his appeal, as has been already stated, is regu lated by provisions of a special statute or imperial order in council; but an appeal from the Supreme Court is entirely in the discretion of their lordships of the judicial committee, and no definite rule has been laid down as to the cases in which this dis cretion will be exercised. In one of the earlier appeals brought before their lord ships, they held that leave to appeal would be confined to matters involving some im portant question of law or of public inter est, or affecting property of considerable amount. In the last case in which this subject was dealt with, their lordships held that even when these features occur, leave may not be granted if the judgment from which an appeal is sought appear to be plainly right, or at least to be unattended with a sufficient doubt to justify the granting of leave. The whole question of the right of appeal to the Privy Council in England re mains one for careful consideration in the near future. While not underrating the important advantages to be derived from the right to apply to that great tribunal, it seems an anomaly that Canadians, who have full power of legislating with respect to their