JUDGMENT 1. The question raised in this case is whether a wall built of masonry is or is not a masonry building as defined by sec. 3, cl. (25) of Act III of 1899 (B. C.). "Building is not defined but masonry building" is defined as "any building other than a hut." "Hut" is defined as "any building no material portion of which above the plinth level is constructed of masonry." On the one hand it may be said that "what is built" is "a building" therefore a wall is a building and as it does not fall within the definition of a hut it is a masonry building. 2. On the other hand, it may be said that, having regard to the definition of a hut and to the definition of. "domestic building," "building of the warehouse class" and "public building" which are given in the act, the word "building" in the expression "masonry building" must mean something ejusdem generis with the term building as used in "domestic building," "building of the warehouse class" and "public building." 3. In these phrases the word "building" is applied to that which can be used as a warehouse or a dwelling-house or a public hall or hospital or for like purposes and is clearly inapplicable to a wall. 4. We think the latter view is correct, and that "Building" in the Act does not include "wall." 5. The wall in question is a detached wall and cannot be said to form part of any building, and it must be understood that the opinion we express in this judgment is confined to a detached wall such as we understand that to be to which this case refers. If a wall built of masonry were a masonry building within cl. 25 of sec. 3 of Act III of 1899, then it would follow that, under cl. 22 of the same section, if a wall were constructed from the plinth upwards of some material other than masonry it would be a "hut" which would lead to an absurdity. 6. This view is supported by secs. 351, 352 of the Act where the insertion of the word "wall" after the word "building" indicates that wall standing by itself is not included in the term building, and also by the provisions of Sch. 6. This view is supported by secs. 351, 352 of the Act where the insertion of the word "wall" after the word "building" indicates that wall standing by itself is not included in the term building, and also by the provisions of Sch. XVII, Part 3, which contains rules regarding masonry buildings generally which are not adapted to plain walls. 7. The answer to the first question submitted is "a masonry wall, does not fall within the definition of a masonry building as given by the Municipal Act." The second question is not one of law and so we do not answer it.