RINFRET J.:—Mr. Russell, the Court has come to the conclusion that it will not be necessary to hear you.
We are unanimously of the opinion that the present case cannot be distinguished in principle from the decision of the Privy Council in the Birtwistle case (Minister of Nat f l Revenue v. Trusts & Guar. Co.), [1939] 4 D.L.R. 417, [1940] A.C. 138. We think that the two points submitted by Mr. Walker were covered by the decision in that case; and that concludes the question so far as we are concerned. I must add, perhaps, that this is no disparagement of the argument of Mr. Walker. He certainly made the best of his case. It should not be forgotten that when the same points were argued before this Court in the Birtwistle case, [1939] 1 D.L.R. 365, S.C.R. 125, before it went to the Privy Council, four of our learned. brothers were of the ‘same opinion as that put forward by counsel for the appellants in the present case. But now that the Privy Couneil has given its decision, we are bound by it, and that concludes the matter. The appeal, therefore, will be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.