White v. Greenwood (Shelburne Election Case)

White v. Greenwood (Shelburne Election Case)
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1891-11-03
Report
(1891) 20 SCR 169
Judges
Ritchie, William Johnstone; Strong, Samuel Henry; Taschereau, Henri-Elzéar; Patterson, Christopher Salmon; Fournier, Télesphore; Gwynne, John Wellington
On appeal from
Nova Scotia
Subjects
Elections
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
White v. Greenwood (Shelburne Election Case), (1891) 20 SCR 169
Date: 1891-11-03
CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS FOR THE ELECTORAL DISTRICTS OF
Shelburne, N. S. (White v. Greenwood); Annapolis, N. S. (Mills v. Ray); Lunenburg, N. S. (Kaulbach v. Eisenhauer); Anti-Gonish, N. S. (Thompson v. McGillivray); Pictou, N. S. (Tupper v. McColl); and Inverness, N. S. (McDonald v. Cameron).
1891: Nov. 2, 3.
Present.:—Sir W. J. Ritchie C.J., and Strong, Fournier, Taschereau, Gwynne and Patterson JJ.
Election petitions—Preliminary objections—Service of petition—Security—R. S. C. ch. 9 s. 10 and s. 9 (e) and (g).
In all these cases the appeals were from the decisions of the courts below dismissing preliminary objections to the election petitions presented against the appellants.
The questions raised on these appeals were also, 1st, whether a personal service on the respondent at Ottawa without or with an order of the court at Halifax, or at his domicile, is a good service. 2nd, Whether the payment of the security required by sec. 9 — (e) into the hands of a person who was discharging the duties of and acting for the prothonotary at Halifax, and a receipt signed by said person in the prothonotary's name—sec. 9 (g) were valid.
The court following the conclusion arrived at in the King's County (N. S.)[1] and Queen's County (P.E.I.) Election Cases[2], held the service and payment of security valid and a substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute.
Appeals dismissed with costs.
McCarthy Q.C. and J. A. Ritchie for appellants
E. T. Congdon for respondents.
[1] 19 Can. S. C. B. 526.
[2] 20 Can. S. C. R. 26.