Pontiac Election Case (Murray v. Lyon)

Pontiac Election Case (Murray v. Lyon)

The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court's general finding that corrupt practices had been committed by the appellant's agents satisfied the statutory requirement, that the trial judge validly enlarged time and fixed the trial date, that the fourteen‑day notice and other procedural objections were either sufficient or not appealable under the statute, and that the shorthand reporter's sworn notes were properly received; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the Superior Court judgment voiding the election was affirmed.

Citation
(1892) 20 SCR 626
Parties
Appellant: Thomas Murray; Respondent: Arthur Lyon; Respondent: Edward Davies
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 1892
Procedural Posture
Controverted Election Petition Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Superior Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Superior Court judgment setting aside election affirmed
Legal Topics
Controverted Election, Corrupt Practices, Jurisdiction of Trial Court, Extension of Time for Trial, Notice of Trial, Admissibility of Shorthand Reporter Notes, Appealability of Procedural Irregularities
Source Language
English
Elections Electoral Law Civil Procedure Controverted Election Corrupt Practices Jurisdiction of Trial Court Extension of Time for Trial Notice of Trial +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Murray

Appellant

Arthur Lyon

Respondent

Edward Davies

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Controverted Election Petition Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Superior Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a general finding that corrupt acts were committed by agents satisfies statutory requirement for findings of fact under R.S.C. c.9 s.43
  2. 2 Whether the trial court had jurisdiction and validly extended the six‑month period for commencing trial (R.S.C. c.9 ss.31,33)
  3. 3 Whether the notice of trial given (fourteen days) complied with statutory/rule requirements and whether such defect is appealable under R.S.C. c.9 s.50(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court's general finding that corrupt practices had been committed by the appellant's agents satisfied the statutory requirement, that the trial judge validly enlarged time and fixed the trial date, that the fourteen‑day notice and other procedural objections were either sufficient or not appealable under the statute, and that the shorthand reporter's sworn notes were properly received; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the Superior Court judgment voiding the election was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Superior Court judgment setting aside election affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Superior Court voiding the appellant's election is affirmed