Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I would like to understand the purport of this. These two sections are not prepared in a way which, I think, is approved by most workers on the subject, that is to say, to re-enact a section with an amendment instead of inserting the necessary words. Without the previous statute before us, we cannot understand it, and would the hon. gentleman say what is the effect of it.

Under the Exchequer Court Act, as we have it now, the government has authority to appoint a registrar to the Exchequer Court. He must be a barrister of five years standing, and he shall receive, according to the statute which authorizes his appointment, a salary of $2,000 a year. As I pointed out when I introduced the resolution, the registrar has been in the habit of receiving, under an agreement as he represents, an annual increase of about $50 a year, the original intention being to increase his salary to $2,400. At the present time, as a result of the actual increases given to him, his salary amounts to $2,375. In order to get rid of this obligation to take an annual vote for the sum of $50, we suggest the propriety of fixing the salary at $2,400, which he says was the amount at which it was fixed originally. I agree the drafting might have *been a little better.

On section 2,

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Would the minister tell us what the effect of this section is 7

As my hon. friend is aware at the present time there is no appeal from a judgment in the

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Exchequer Court unless that judgment is a final judgment. Now, you may demur, and if the demurrer is dismissed, there is no appeal, but if the demurrer is maintained there would be an appeal. But there maybe cases in which it may be advisable to have the whole matter disposed of on a question of law, and this is to enable us to have an appeal in a case where the demurrer has been dismissed.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I recollect now the minister made that explanation.

On section 3, subsection 2,

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

There is no need I suppose of any limitation as to the cases in which service may be made abroad?

Difficulties have arisen in the Justice Department, and we found it necessary in some cases to serve a process on persons living in the United States, and we had no provision to enable us to do it. It was in order to meet that difficulty that this amendment is suggested.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I think in the English Judicature Act and in the Acts of the several provinces following it, the right to serve a defendant in a foreign country is somewhat restricted. Does this apply to a foreigner as well as a British subject 7

Yes.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

It does not provide, I see, for the service of a writ, but simply the notice. The rules of international courtesy, I think, forbid the service of a writ upon a foreigner residing in a foreign country, only a notice can be served. The Bill seems to have provided for that.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

I noticed an important decision in one of the papers as to the jurisdiction of this government even to legislate in the direction of making a service over a subject in a foreign country. It is following the line of the navigation laws that we have no jurisdiction over a British subject beyond the marine league. The effect of that would be, I think-I saw it argued in that direction anyway

that even in processes in a foreign country we would not have jurisdiction to legislate in that direction.

This I think would be a matter affecting the procedure of our own courts. We authorize the court to make the service, at} least we authorize the service or the process out of the court. But as to whether it would be binding upon a foreigner abroad is another question.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

It may be that a foreign court, in dealing with tha rights of a citizen of a foreign country, if a case was brought in that foreign court upon a judgment here, would not recognize it.

Different laws prevail in different countries with regard to that subject. But I assume that this particular section has been drawn with care; I have not had time to consider it.

It has been drawn by the deputy minister, after consultation with the judge of the Exchequer Court. I think that is a fairly safe guarantee.

Bill reported.

Mr. Chairman, it is intended to limit the number of expert witnesses. The number is limited to five, but if the judge presiding at the trial desires to add to the number, of course, it is optional with him to give permission to counsel to have any number in excess of five that the court may fix. I think it is quite proper that there should be some limitation to the nnmber of expert witnesses that are produced in certain cases in our courts.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

What would be the operation of the Bill ? Is it confined to the Exchequer Court or to criminal courts ?

This would apply to all cases to which the Canada Evidence Act would apply. That would be the Exchequer Court and also the criminal courts. In case of murder by poisoning, for instance, there is often an unlimited number of expert witnesses uselessly brought forward, and in this way the public expenditure is increased. The Chancellor of Ontario and the Chief Justice of Ontario have both agreed in recommending that this Bill should be passed.

Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.