If my hon. friend will allow me, I will come to that question. This case happened to come under my personal observation, and I endeavoured to look into it so far as I was able. The award was attacked; we invoked every ground that we thought could be invoked. The ground that seemed to us to be the strongest to justify any expectation of the award being set aside was that originally in filing their claim the plaintiffs had described their property as containing a certain number of thousands of feet, and pending the proceeding they applied to the court to increase the number of feet for which their claim was made.' That was resisted, but the court allowed the amend. ment, and when the matter came before the arbitrator strong objection was taken to his considering any more than the original number of feet claimed. He ruled, however, that he was entitled to take into consideration the larger number. The case went before'the Superior Court and judgment was rendered by Mr. Justice Dorion- as eminent a judge, it would be superfluous to say, as we have in the province. Up to the time that I read the judgment by Mr. Justice Dorion I was personally confident as to the issue, but I have to confess that that confidence was dashed when I read his judgment. However, we carried the matter to the Court of Appeals of the province and they unanimously confirmed the judgment rendered by Mr. Justice Dorion. We were persistent, and-in the teeth, I may say, of the advice of Mr. Eugene Lafleur, K.C., that we were on a hopeless quest-we carried the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, but only to get the same result.
Topic: SUPPLY-DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Subtopic: REVISED EDITION. COMMONS