The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

j'npon The employer or upon me pm- Fits owning the machine". One of the Instant dimcutties in connection with the trials in workmen's actions for compensation heretofore has been that the proof that the machinery was not protected precisely as it should have been has been difficult, and the work- man has often been compelled at great expense to call experts in machinery to establish his first proposition, to show that the machinery was out of order of did not comply with the requirements of the law. This expense has often been enormous. so much so that it almost always happens when the work- man obtained a verdict the expense has been so great that by the time he l has paid his costs there is very 1lt-i tie left for him. it having been frit- tered away in expenses and witness fees. It appeared to him. therefore, that the onus of proof might well be thrown upon the owner of the machin- ery to show he kept his machinery in proper condition and that dangerous places were covered or protected wherever it was required to be " tho act. It does not follow, he pointed out. that in all cases a verdict woul'd go against the employer. even if ttw proof that the ronuiremonts had not been observed was forthcoming. as there are three or four propositions to he established before the plaintiff could get a verdict. It might, for instance. be shown that the Workman was guilty of contributory negligence: secondly. that it was not owing to the defect in the machinery used which gave rise to the action. In View of these facts, it was proposed to throw the onus of - ML~ A's--1. ...II| Ilease the Judge may order the matter ito proceed by avtlon in the ordinary 'way. . It is left to the plaintiff to de- cide whether he will proceed to arbi- ltration or by Judge and Jury. The costs are to be as in the County 1'ourt; $10 will be the utmost fee that will be charged for arbitration. and the teen of the court will be the ordinary County .Court fees. The award ot the arbi- the or upor? the In reply to a question by Mr. \Vhlt- noy. Hr. Hardy stated that Mc. Thog. Dawson has been appointed Sheriff of Frontenac. but that a telegram receiv- ed by Hon. Mr; Barty (rem a Mr.' 'Lawson had no connection with the L appointment. tration is to be fyled with the court. and an appeal will lie to the Divisional Court, whose decision shall be ttnal. The costs will he small. and it will render usefulvto a much larger extent the workmen's compensation act. In addition to lessening the expenses it will expedite procedure. It might be asked why the whole English act was not accepted. and his reply was be- cause the public mind is not ripe for it in this country. It was, therefore. he'- ter to await a longer experience of its workings in order that some of its dini- culties may be removed and tsimpllfted. He had, therefore, adopted some of its best clauses which are applicable to the conditions existing in Canada. Mr. Whitney Approves. Mr. Whitney, while not desiring to discuss the subject at this stage. ex- pressed a preference for the bill intro- duced by the hon. member for west Toronto (Mr. Crawford). which. speak- ing broadly. appeared to him more desirable in some respects than that of the Attorney-General. He was glad to observe that imboth bills there is a tendency to make the greatest possih'e effort to simplify the method and man- ner by which rights under this act can be proved and recovered in a court of law. He saw no reason why thn same methods should not be successfully adopted to simplify all legal procedure. and hc hoped the time is not far (lis- tant when some person occupying the position of his hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Hardy) would adopt the same principle to the entire legal procedure of the Province. In replyRo Mr. Whitney, Hon. Mr. Harcourt said: There are no patients in any of the asyiunis who have been admitted from other. Provinces of the Dominion or from the United States. There are no patients in any of the mils of the Province who have ever been refused admission into any of the asy- iums, while the admission of patients from other Provinces or the. United States has been allowed. The Question of the admission of patients not belong- ing to the Province is governed by can. 317, sec. M, H.S.O., which section provides for their return to the Mace. of nativity or residence if their insani- ty appears within thirty days utter coming to Ontario. The practice in London. England. is not to deport any foreigner or non-resident or traveiier who may he overtaken with insanity in that city. as it is understood that the due observance of International comity would prohibit the deportation In such cases when seized with insanity in the city. Mr. Powell (Ottawa) moved for all corrvspondence in connection with the abduction of an Ontario man named Meagher by a customs ott1cer of the United States of America. He declared The Meagher Abduction. Questions by Members. 115