294 Timehr. 
night before extended into and, as it were, absorbed the morning after : 
and I have not had time to reduce anything to writing. But it 
may perhaps console you a little bit to know that some years ago 
I wrote for my friend, Dr. Lawson, the Dean of the Faculty of 
Law in the University of Missouri, a short article upon the Courts 
and the Practice in Ontario. I did not know until I came to 
this city, and indeed not until yesterday. that he had published it; 
but you will find some of it in the forty-fourth volume of the “ American 
Law Review” at page 597. If, however, you or your secretary desire I 
should write a paper so that it may appear upon your minutes, I shall 
be delighted to do so as soon as I get home and shake off that tempera- 
ment which I find growing upon me as years go by, and get a little leisure 
so I can do so. 
The courts in Ontario are all one court (speaking of the Superior 
Courts). Before 1881 we had two concurrent Law Courts and a Court 
of Chancery. In 1881, following the Mother country—and the Mother 
country following the State of New York, because of course the State of 
New York was the pioneer in that regard—we abolished all the courts 
then existing in the Province of Ontario, which were the two Common 
Law Courts, the Court of Chancery and a Court of Appeal ; and made 
one general court, the Supreme Court of Judicature. That we divided 
into two branches, one the Court of Appeal and the other the High 
Court of Justice; and the High Court of Justice was divided into 
three branches or divisions. A fourth division has since been added 
to the High Court. A Judge can sit in any of these divisions or 
in the Court of Appeal; any Judge of the Supreme Court of 
Judicature to-day may be trying a murder case and to-morrow be 
sitting in the Court of Appeal or Divisional Court; but as a rule 
the High Court Judge remains in the High Court and does not sit in 
the Court of Appeal—although he may do so when called upon by the 
Chief Justice. In our practice there is no distinction between law and 
equity ; and everything is tried in the same court ; where the rules of 
equity and the rules of law do not agree, the rules of equity prevail—we 
have abolished (following the Mother country) the distinction betw een 
law and equity in that regard. With the exception of a few cases, few 
comparatively in number, although of great importance sometimes, every 
matter which is brought before the Court is brought by writ. If you 
want a will interpreted, or anything of that kind where there are no 
facts to be determined, then you may bring it before the Court by an 
originating summons or notice of motion. Sometimes counsel get 
together and state a case and that may be heard before the Court with- 
out writ. Feigned issues are not allowed with us ; neither is there any 
compulsory submission to arbitration. Outside of such cases as I have 
mentioned, everything is begun by writ, and that is so whether it be for 
damages, for slander or upon a promissory note or on a mortgage—what- 
ever anybody wants to sue for is sued for by way of a writ. In this writ 
the cause of action is set out in the most general terms. The writ is 
