March 3, 1902 (9th Parliament, 2nd Session)

I will read from the judgment of the Supreme Court the following extract:
I would say, apart from the reason that this rifie range was not a public work in the sense of the Act, that there is no evidence here that the suppliant's wounding resulted from the negligence of any officer or servant of the Crown while acting within the scope of his duties or employment, or that he suffered any injury on any public work. Moreover, it is not proved who fired the shot that wounded the suppliant. It may. have been fired by one of the amateurs, or volunteers not on duty, who were there practising on that day with the men having what is called in the case, government practise.
Motion withdrawn.