E. GC

« Dear Sir, | «Théberge vs. Landry.

«We had a long consultation with «our Counsel last night and we en- «close you herewith copy questions «submitted to them by us and their «joint opinion thereon. We accord- «ingly cabled you to-day that Coun- «sel think appeal may possibly suc- « ceed ; we made application for leave.

« You will see from the guarded «nature of the opinion, the maller «being one discretionary with the Court,

ie DA

« that our Counsel are by no means

« certain of success ; so far however, as the Quebec controverted Elections Act which provides that a decision of the court in review shall not be susceptible of appeal, they are of opinion that that act must be considered subservient to the act passed in 1844, 7&S8 Vict.

cap. 69 which provides that ‘he Privy Corncil may entertain appeal from any judgment af any Court within and iritish Colony. As the case seems t>; be one of very considerable importance to Mr. Landry...

we have decided to make the application and have instructed our Junior counsel to settle the petition accordingly.

« Yours faithfully,

« Biscnorr, Boupas & Bischorr,

J, G. Bossé Esq., Q. C.

« Quebec. »

Voici maintenant l’opinion légale de MM. Benjamin, Conseiller de la Reine, et Henry Bempas. Que leurs Honneurs les Juges Marc-Aurèle Plamondon et Wilfred Dorion ouvrent yeux et oreilleset qu’ils se rendent compte par eux mêmes du danger qu'ils ont couru et auquel aurait infailliblement succombé leur réputation d'hommes de loi, si l'appel m’eut été accordé.

«lo. Whether an application to «the Judicial Committee for special «leave to appeal from the Judgment «of the Superior Court declaring «his election void w’uld be likely «to be attended with success and if (80

«20. Whether from the evidence «appended to the factums such ai «appeal, if leave were granted,would «be likely to succeed and generally «to advise Mr, Landry as to his pro- «per course.