Q. Were you making money here? A. Yes.

Q. Where are you located now? A. At

in the north country.

Q. Doing what? A. In same kind of business.

(a small village

Q. You sold out your business and real estate here? A. Yes. Q. In difficulty, were you? A. (After some hesitation). Well -yes.

Q. With a woman?

(Mr. Johnston said when men were in difficulties it was either financial or a woman, and the former answer had excluded the financial reason).

The witness now thought the counsel knew all about his case, for it was the fact that he had been threatened with a breach of promise suit, although the counsel did not then know of it.

After some hesitation and coaxing, the witness said "yes.'

The cross-examination then proceeded:

Q. You were going to be sued? A. Yes.

Q. And thought it best to get your property where a judgment could not reach it? A. Yes.

Q. Then do you mean to tell the Court that in those circumstances you bought another piece of property right under her nose? Tell us now-how much did you get out of the deal? A. $1,000. Q. And the agent got the other $7,000? A. Yes.

And the action was won.

The above incident was told me by the solicitor for the plaintiff, and he said it was the most brilliant piece of deductive examination he ever saw. There was nothing whatever on his brief to suggest the line of examination which he so successfully took.

Mr. Johnston was a very pleasing after-dinner speaker, and was heard by many societies and clubs throughout Ontario and elsewhere. And no one could better tell a good story or more enjoy and appreciate a humourous tale. He was a Bencher of the Law Society and took a deep interest in his duties as such, and in those of the profession at large. In politics he was a Liberal, and in religion a Presbyterian.

We deplore his passing.'

The Editor,

OUR LONDON LETTER.

44 BEDFORD Row, LONDON, W.C. 1.

"The Canadian Law Times,"

Toronto, Canada.

JANUARY 6TH, 1918.

SIR. The conclusion of the armistice and the consequent cessation of hostilities-the prelude to a victorious termination of the great struggle in which the Allies have been engaged for more than four years—has, of course, been the engrossing topic since my last letter. The end of the struggle, so swift in its last stages and so complete, has filled all hearts with joy and gratitude, and the expectation of the speedy return of the blessedness of peace has kindled a new hope for the future.

The late Parliament, the thirtieth Parliament of the United Kingdom, met on January 31st, 1911. It passed the Parliament Act in order to abolish the veto of the House of Lords upon legislation, after the opposition of that House had been overborne by the threat of a wholesale creation of new peers. The House of Commons then passed bills for the self-government of Ireland and the disestablishment of the Church in Wales in three successive sessions, and these bills were passed into law under the Parliament Act over the heads of the House of Lords, but simultaneously there was passed another Act suspending their operation until the end of the war.

One of the most enduring results of the labours of the late Parliament is the National Insurance Act of 1911. Its last session will, however, be notable not only because it saw the cessation of hostilities, but also because amid the pre-occupations of the war there were passed two far-reaching measures of social reform, the Representation of the People Act, effecting a revolution in the franchise and securing votes for women,

and the Education Act, effecting changes of great importance in the national system of education.

Elected in time of peace on purely domestic questions, the late Parliament found itself after some three and a half years suddenly transformed into a War Parliament faced with the supreme issues of national existence. It adapted itself slowly to the new conditions. In May, 1915, a purely Liberal Government was displaced by a Coalition Ministry with Mr. Asquith still as Prime Minister. In December, 1916, Mr. Asquith resigned his place to Mr. Lloyd George, who formed a new Coalition Government whose most remarkable feature was a small War Cabinet in the place of the large Cabinet previously existing. Elected for seven years the late Parliament had, under the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, reduced its term to five years, but as it was obviously undesirable that a General Election should be held during the continuance of hostilities, five successive Acts were passed extending its life, and it ultimately came to an end in the fourth quarter of its eighth year. During its long life the Parliament effected some of the most far-reaching constitutional and social changes in our history, and its war emergency legislation surpassed in originality and thoroughness anything that any politician has ever dreamed of.

Among the Acts to which the Royal assent was given prior to the prorogation of Parliament was the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act, enabling women to be elected as members of the House of Commons, and an Act-the Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act-dealing with the date at which the war is to be considered as terminated. It will be remembered that in an earlier letter I called attention to the Report of the Attorney-General's Committee, of which Mr. Justice Atkin was Chairman, on the meaning of the term "period of the War" and other similar expressions used in the Emergency legislation and in contracts and other documents. In the second interim

Report it was pointed out that the Emergency legislation and all orders made thereunder would necessarily lapse on the termination of the war, since the power to make regulations conferred by the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act, 1914, exists only during the war. As to what in substance is meant by the end of the war, the Committee expressed their opinion in the first interim Report. "Speaking," they said," of the legislation generally, the war cannot be said to end until peace is finally and irrevocably obtained; and that point of time cannot be earlier than the date when the treaty of peace is finally binding on the respective belligerent parties, and that is the date when the ratifications are exchanged." They advised that there should be some method of declaring authoritatively the exact date at which the country ceases to be at war with all or any of the enemy powers, and they were of opinion that statutory power should be obtained to enable this date to be fixed by Order in Council. This is the method adopted in the Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act, which provides that His Majesty in Council may declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of the present war, which shall be treated as having ended on that date for the purpose of any provision in any Act of Parliament, Order in Council or Proclamation, and (except when the context otherwise requires) of any provision in any contract, deed or other instrument referring expressly or impliedly to the present war. The date so declared shall be fixed with regard to, and shall not be later than, the date of the exchange or deposit of ratifications of the treaty or treaties of peace. It will apparently still be necessary to obtain special statutory authority in the case of any emergency legislation which may be required for any longer period.

The House of Lords have rejected the Bill introduced by Lord Buckmaster to enable the English Court to pronounce a decree of dissolution of marriage where there has been separation by wilful desertion of either

spouse, or by order of the Court, for a continuous period of five years. The number of peers voting on the Bill was small, 29 voting for it and 39 against it.

Under the authority of the War Cabinet the Attorney-General has appointed a Committee (of which Sir John Macdonell is chairman) to inquire into and report upon (1) the facts as to breaches of the laws and customs of war affecting members of the British forces or other British subjects committed by the enemy powers; (2) the degree of responsibility attaching to individuals; (3) the constitution and procedure of a proper tribunal for the trial of these offenders; and (4) other cognate and ancillary matters. The Committee will act in consultation with similar Committees in Allied countries.

In the recent case of Casdagli v. Casdagli the House of Lords has now authoritatively declared that it is judicially possible for a British subject to acquire a domicile in Egypt so as to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in England to entertain a petition for dissolution of marriage. The law as now finally settled by this decision will have far-reaching consequences on the status of British subjects in Egypt and other. Eastern countries where British subjects enjoy privileges and are governed more or less by the law of their own country instead of by the ordinary law of the place of their residence.

.Sir George Cave, who has been Home Secretary since December, 1916, has been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in succession to the late Lord Parker of Waddington, and the dignity of a viscount of the United Kingdom has been conferred upon him. The new Lord of Appeal, who is sixty-two years of age, had a distinguished career at the Chancery Bar, and has always enjoyed a very high reputation as a man of clear judgment and profound legal knowledge. Appointed Solicitor-General in October, 1915, in succession to Sir Frederick Smith, he held that office until