A Digest of Cases - Forgotten Books for Scantlebury v. Green read Scan tlebury v. Breen. ” Page I...

P REFACE.

THISvolume collects th e cases un der each h eading and

professes to do n omore . Th ere w as no digest of 00 10n ial cases before th is, an d I h ave h ad to do th e w ork

unaided . Th e public ow e th is -volume to Mr . H . KIRKE,Sh eriff of Demerara , w h o in terested h imself in th e w orkand got a gran t

-in-aid .

My th anks are due'

toth eir H on ours Sir D. P . CHALMERS,C.J. , N; ATKINSO N and W. A.

M . SHERIFF, JJ., w h o

encouragedme and aidedmy research es ; a lso to Dr .

CARRINGTON , Mr . F. VILLIERS, an d last, but n ot least, to

H is Excellen cy th e Governor , Viscoun t GORMANSTON, allof w h omh elped in amaterial w ay th e bringing out of

th e volume .

I th ank th e Subscribers an d th eStaff of th eRegistrar’

O ffice w h o assistedme w h ile th e w ork w as in th e Press.

I h ope th e Digest w ill be useful in its w ay, but I w ould

call th e atten tion of th ose w h o use th e w ork to th e fol

low ing valuable excerpt fromMr . Serjean t ROBINSONTh e law is in fact codified as far as it usefully can be

inmany text books, w h ich con tain th e decision s th at h avebeen given onmultitudinous disputed poin ts . But th ese

compen dia give you, in gen era l, th e bare d ecision s. Youmust see th e report of th e case Itself, a s w ell a s th e

precise reason s given for tbejpldgmen t, in order to asoer

tain w h eth er th e facts coin cl de With those In th e law

respecting w h ich you seek to be en ligh ten ed .

E. A. V. ABRAHAM .

ERRATA.

, 3rd line for Corner v. Anderson read Coria v. Anderson .

, 1 3th line frombottom, for Wills r ead Wells.Pag e 2 5 , 3rd line fromtop,f or Daniel

”read Darrell.

7, 7th line frombottom, f or Collier v. Pullitla ll read Coelhov. Pullitlall.

, 8th lin e fromtop, f or Nich olson read Mich elson .

, 1 7th lin e fromtop , f or Price”r ead Prince .

, sth line fromtop, f or “Webster v. Ruck” r ead Websterv. Birch .

, 2nd line fromtop, f or Madeno”read Madeiro.

, I I th lin e fromtop, f or Ncepan l r ead Serepaul.Page 58, 3rd line fromtop, f or Davidson

”read

“ Daw son .

, I sth lin e fromtop, j ar Bascomv. Relia” read “ Bascomv. Relva .

, 6th lin e frombottom, j ar Grant v. Josin read Grant v.osa .

, 1lth line frombottom,f or Ferreira read Teixeira.

, 8th line fromtop, j br Allibocus” read Adams.

, 7th lin e frombottom, f or “ Green v. Bean”

r ead Goocalv. Bean .

, 1 7th lin e fromtop, f or “Cumberlan d” read “Cumberbatch .

1 , I4th line frombottom,f or “Marks” read Mars.

0 5, 7th lin e frombottom,f or “ Famum” r ead Farmer .

Page I 1 2 , 1 2th lin e fromtop, f or Scan tlebury v. Green read Scantlebury v. Breen .

Page I33, 7th line fromtop, f or Mussillah v. Massiah read “Mussillah v. Man sch ott.

TABLE O F CASES.

Every case in w h ich appeal w as noted is given in th is table . Agreatmany cases w ere n ever argued or brough t to a h earing , an d some w ere

w ith d raw n and oth ers decided on th emerits. Th ere are a few cases

w h ere no w ritten decision s w ere given Th ese are all noted in th is table

w ith an asterisk.

PAGE. Alexander, HookemchundAben danon v. Sproston , 31 v

’83. 68, 7 1 , 76, 891 29

Abdoolah v Barclay, 1 90 61 .

65Abrah am, Herbert v.

Horton v.

Sh ervington v.

Adams v. Agard , 3 Feb .

72‘v. Clarke , 7 Aug .

James y .

v. Mayers, 7 O ét.’

65v. Poonach ie, 3 Aug.

Adolphus, Bunbury v.

Ad . G en l . v. Fran ce, 30

June 1 883*

v King, May 1 883 84, 1 1 3v. Marsh a l, 2 2 bep .

1 883 . . u

Agard , Adams v.

Angally v.

v.Bean,2oSep .

8 Nov.

v . Crosby, I 7 O ét

Moon ah v.

Ah ch ee v. Layton , 8 O ct.

1 889Ah -joh n v. Bethune, 2 5Feb . 1 865

Albert v. Dougla s, 4Aug1 866

H oh enkerk v

Allany, Reg zrza v

Allen v. Austin , 5 July’

Allickv. ]oseph , 23Nov 67, 94Allicock v. Cuckow , 1 0

Dec . 1 870

v Van Lange, 9O ct.’

69v.Wigh t, 81am. 1 870

Alty, Darrell v.

Ameerboccus, Halliday V.

Ameeran , Ferreira v.

Amosv.H a ly, 4Mar.’

65v. 1 8

Amson , Cameron v.

Angally v. Agard , 1 9 Dec1 884

Angoo v. Miller, 1 Dec .

83An derson v. Clarke*

Corria v.

Goulamally v

Mayers v.

Serrao v.

Seth v.

Andrew v Novel, 1 2 Nov.

An son , Belmon te v‘

Corria v.

Nascimento v

De Souza v

Dias v.

Gon salves v.

Hen riques v.

3978, 79

Klien , 1 7May’

90 67, 84

TABLE O F CASES.

e \w ,

1_ w :

An son , Leon-a-fat vLord v.

Luckie v

Murdoch v.

Nascimento v.Ragiatteah v

San tos v

v. Stuart, 1 6 Dec .

’85 23. 24.Teixeirav. Wong-a-h oy, 29

July 1 882

v.Wong-a-samAn th ony, Macedo v.

Anton io v Crosby, 1 0 Apl1 858

An ton io v King , 2 1 Mar1 882

Applew h aite v. Fauset, 30May

AppO lIos v. Scott, 3 Sep.

IB7O"E

Arnold , Fernandes v.

v. Gomes, 1 0 May’

73v. Tomside, 6 April

1 867“

Arthur v. Moore, 24Apl . ’69Parris v.

Ashby, King v.

Augusta v. Duncan , 31May 1 873

Austin , Allen v.

G ardner v

Miller v.

v. Moses,30Sep.

Bacchus, Edw ards v.

v. Warren ,4Feb1 865

Bab v. Wolseleyy, Aug .

73Backer, D ’

O liveira v.

Fauset v.

Rodrigues v,

Lopes v.

v. Tappin , 5 Feb.

1 859 . . u

Z itman v.

Bad deren v. Mulligan , 2 2

April 1 865

Bagot v. Gunga , 1 0 Apl.’80

JonesBah ador v. Humph reys, 6March 1 858

Baird , London v

Baker v. Campbell, 27 Sep .

1 858Gon salves v.

v. McFarlane, 27Sep.

I858‘

Sproston v

v. Tappin , Feb.

59Baptist, Kin g v.

Barclay, Abid oolah v.

Smith vSw an . Aug .

Barla v.Mush et, 7june

Barn es. D’Aguiar vGilbert v.Nunes v.

Popw ell v.

Silvano v.

Barnw ell, Reynolds v.

Bascomv. Beeharry, 1 6March

v. Beete, 3 Apl.'67*

Ben jaminBerengeav. Busserat, 23 Nov

1 867*

v. Ch amroo, 14Jan1 865

Cox v.

1 864v. Haz zard , 28May

1 864v. Marsh all, 1 9 june

1 858*

v. Peter, 2 7 A l.'

v. Relva , 2 7 Spep.

v. Stover , 2 1 Aug .

v. Norton , 6 Mar.

69 77, 1 04Batiste v. Burrow es, 1 5 1m.

1 881Bean , Agard v.

Goocal v

85. 97

58 62, 90

5 , 2 1 , 1 35

( DMNEH : l i‘l l lN SlTY

TABLE O F CASES.JUL32:“WI

Beekh an , Roh ela v.

Beeh arry, Bascomv.

Bullock v.

Beete, Bascomv. Greedh arry, 28Feb1 874 0 0 0

v. Kelly. 9 May’

74*Belgrave, King

v. y,Seal 26 Feb .

Bell v. Samuel, 6 June ’

57Watt v.

Belmon te v. An son , 2 5May, 1 888

Ben , de Cambra v.

v. Dan iel, 3Dec. 79 .

David v.

v. Mich elson , 2 1 Jan1 865

Ben jamin v. Bascom, 30Dec.

V. dc Freitas, 24Feb1 887

Gemmel v.

Berengea v Bascom, 7 Sep.

Bertyne, Younge v.

Bethune, Ah—joh n v.

Carreiro v.

Ch un-ch ai-ch ing

Francis v .

Freitas v .

Gomes v.

Martin s

Pereira v.

Valladares v.

Dec. 1 865Bh eekh arry v. McLean , 1 6Sep. 1 876 6 1 , 66,

Binn s, Carreirov. De Freitas, 2 2

March 1 883Dundas v. .

Gordon v. .

Hollingsw orth ,April 1 883

McKenn a v.

Pequeno v

Roch a v.

Birch , Cahuac v.

Gon salves v

Martin v

Birch ,Robello v

Sh ing-a-lee vSimon v.

Webster, v.

Blake, Sa lmon v

1 1 3 Bland v. Iskenius, 7 July1 860*

v. Sn elling , 6 Dec.

’62* (fire brigade)

Thomson v.

Blank v. Mulligan , 2 Nov.

1 867 1 04, 1 0 5, 1 0 6Blasky, PatrickBob, Samuel v.

v. Wolseley,Aug .

Boellen v. Straker, 2 2 Feb .

1 873”

Bogado v.King , 2May’

74*Bollers, G reaves v.

Bolton , D’

O liveira v.

v. Fern andes, 24Dec . 1 869Gon sa lves v.

Jard ine v.

Bonh amv. Francis,April 1 881

Boodh a v. Bugh oo I 1 Apl .I 874

v. Greenslade, 29March , 1 873v. RamnarainMay 1 880

Boodh oomin a v N in ia, 1 0

May 1 873*

Bourne, Reynolds v.

42 Bow en v. Buttery, 1 9Apl.1 889

v. Ch apman ,

73Boyle v. Now ell, 1 5 Dec

1 860 *

Bracy v. Harris, 20 july’

v. Frederick, 1 Sep1 863

v. McTurk, 1 8 Apl.1 874 32 , 38, 1 0 8

Brandon , Coates v.

G lasgow v.

Brassington , Doorastoola v.

v. Ragbia, 23

JTHY’

TABLE O F CASES.

Brath w aite v. Dummett, 1

May’

59, h olding un der

390i’46 th at in ejeétment

cases th eremust be tw oJustices .

Brath w aite v. Mayor T.

C. July’

Sw ain v.

Braud , Bun see v

JonauthBraz ao, G reen v

Brebner, Fraser v.

Joycurn , 24Dec1 865

Breen , Corria v.

Farin h a v.

Gon salves v.

Scantlebury v.

Bremner v Wigh t, 7 Dec .

1 867B. G . Mimn g Company,Hodgkin son v.

Seyler v.

Brittlebank, King v.

Brow n , Coronel v.

v. Dornford , 5Dec .

Bruce v. Fraser, 1 7 Feb1 885

Gomes v.

Brumell, De Jesus v.

Gomes v.

Whyte v.

Encen s v. Sooeah , 1 8Aug .

1 860 ? . u

Budal v. McLean , 2 2 Apl1 876

Ba gh oo, Boodh a v.

Bugle v. Seconde , 23 Jan20 March

91Bullock v. Beekh aran , 6

May 1 87 1 , h old in g th atWith h old ing w ages of an

immigran t is a civil an d

n ot criminalmatterBunbury v. Adolph us,

June ,’

v. DickPeters v.

v. Steph en s,Feb .

58 1 0 8, 1 1 6

Bunbury v. Young , 14Apl1 86c*

Bun seev.Braud , 1 2Aug .

76 62 , 67Young v.

Burgin v. O liver, 2 1 May1 870

Burn h amVan BattenburgBatiste v.

Caddell v.

Ch an -a-poo v.

v. Craw ford , 1 6

v. De Abreo, 1 1

June’

86 (Lic.)V. dc Cambra 28

Feb . 1 874*de Silva v.

de Freitas v.

O llve lra v

Elh pie v.

Eppillie v.

v. Ferreira , 31

O ct.’

31 O ct. 74*Gomes v.

v. Gon sa lves, 26

89Gon salves v.

v. Grabes, 26

Jardme v.

Jefl unr v,

v. Jouaq’

in , 1 1

89.—57, 9 1 , 92 ,

Juan v.

Martins v.

Mendes v.

Mon trose v.

v. Nunes,

July 11873"

v.Peters, 1 3Aug1 886

Porter v.

Rodrigues v.

Tan-la-Ch ing v.

Unmaid v.

Voga do v.

v. Y Ip-li-kin g , 2

May 1 874

TABLEO F CASES.

Bury, Duke v.

G arnett v.

Wickh amv.

Bush ell v Solomon , 6May1 887

Busserat, Bascomv.

Bussun t, v.

Butler, Coombs v.

v. Douglas, 2 Jan .

1 865v. Van dyke, 5 Sep .

57, follow ing H eyler

v. Clouston

Buttery, Bow en v

Butts, Sample v

Cabral v Young , 24Jun e’

82 7 1 ,Cad dell v. Burrow es, 1 9Feb .

Ca huac v. Birch , 2 1 Jan .

Caimes v. Joseph , 2 5 Mar’

Soliman v.

Callee v. Pullitlall, 1 0 Mar

I 877Callid in , Kennedy v.

Cambridge , Ed w ard s v.

James v.

Joseph v.

Cameron v. An son 1 9 Jan .

’6 1 *

v. Ch an -a-poo, 7O ct.

’65 , O rd .

repealed

Taylor v.

Campbell, Baker v.

v. Romeo, 29Aug .

Can terbury, Cleaver v

Can z iar, Dundas v.

Capell v. Pickering , 2 7March , 1 874*

Capello v Greaves 6Mar.

1 880 44, 9Carberyv. Dunn , 3Apl .

69Cardoza v. Younge, 3 1

‘May 1 879

72 ; 74

731 74

Carreira v..Anderson ,

April, 1 882

v. Anson , 5 May789

v. Bethunev. a s 2 2 May

v. Breen, 5 Feb .

v.Sisuckow , 5Apl.9 I . 4.

Da Silva v.

3 3 55

De G ar v.

v. Green ,v. Green slade,

Jun e’

v. Manth orp , 1 8

’69 87, 88, 1 33

v . Steele . 1 7 Feb .

1 866*

Iv. Wrigh t, 28Aug’

85Carruth ers v. Kh oondan

sing , 1 3 Feb .

7 2 6, 57, 86v. Joseph , 1 3 Aug .

Radd iah , 30 March

1 867*

Carth y, Wa terman v.

Ca ss1e v. Milne , 24Apl. ’

Castello v.Teixeira , 14O ét.1 87 1

Cast1llo v Macken zie, 5AprIl 1 873

Ch a lmers, BascomvDow v

Gon salves v.

Men d in h o v.

Ch an ness, Bascom‘ v.

Ch and ler, Fong-a -ch ing vCh an -a-foo, Cameron v.

Ch an -a-poo v.Burrow es, 1 0

May’

73Ch an -a—sh oo v. Fran cis. 1 9Dec .

Ch apman , Bow en v.

v. Dun n , 5 June’

69 (Militia )Isaacs v.

v. Pooler 8 Feb .

TABLE O F CASES.

Ch apman , Straughan v.

Ch arles, Dem. River Co. v.

Ch eeseman , Paris v.

Ch eesew righ t, Hodgson v.

Ch ester, Horton v.

Todd v.

Ch in-a-soo v. Francis, 1 9Dec .

Ch in-a-yow v. Walcott, 7

Jan . 1 87 1*

Ch itto v. KellyCh oung v. Lash ley, 26Apl.9°

grdrie v. Layton , 8 O Et.

I 89Ch risnere, Putt is v.

Ch ristie, Persaud v.

Ch ristoph er v. McNicholl,8Aug .

84 39Chun-ch e-Ch ing, Darrell v.

v. Beth une, 1 8

Feb. 1 869Chung-ch in-chungv.Cuckow , 2 Gift.

69, allow ingaffidavit to be used on

eith er side in Review

Chun -a-h ing v. Isaacs, 1 5July 1 88

Chun -lan -ting , Gray v.

Ch ootie, Halliday v.

Clair v. Menconca, 1 6Mar.1 867

Clarke, Adams v.

An derson v.

v. Grey, 3Nov.

ordering penalty of $4Gomes v.

H aly v.

H ooraman v.

Rugonauth v

Cleaver v. Can terbury, 1 2

O ét.’

Clemen tson v. Comach o,1 8 Apl .

57 (concern ingimmigrant)

Clouston v. Fraser, 4O ét.1 858

Hitzler v.

t For data look under h eading of Immigrants’ names.

Coates v.Brandon , 1 7 Apl1 885

Collette v. Darrell, 20 O ft1 86I*

Colvin v. Leacock, 1 6 Sep1 865

Comacho. Clementson v

v. Joseph , 30

6Constantine v. Hubbard , 1 3June 1 87 1 *

Coombs v. Butler, 5 Feb.

Joseph , 8 0 a. 70*

Coronel v. Brow n ,

Corry v. Vieira , 6 June ’

90Cow an , Younge v.

Coyle, Poudarsing v.

Cox v. Bascom, 1 6 Jan .

1 86 o, 4,42 , 6 1 , 62 , 639 3 368, 1 1 0 , 1 26

v. Davisv. Williams

Craigen v. Mungar,Craw ford, Burrow es v.

Duggin v.

v.Lew is, 1 3Julyfollow ing Rich ard

son v. DalgetyCressall, dos Santos v

Gonsalves v.

Menezes v.

RamalhoCrosby

?v. Sh ields, 1 6 Sep.

(Moonah ) v.AgardAn tonio v

oycurn ). Bremner v.

orastoola) v Brass

ington

(Bunsee) v. BraudCraigen v.

G O Opal v.

Griffin v.

(H oonaman) v. Clarke(Rugonauth ) v.

(Math oora) v. Field(Soomaria), v HunterKoonansing v.

1 2660

TABLE O F CASES.

CrdsbyfH oorabaccus v.

(Moorandum) v. LaRoch eMayers v.

(Dinmah omed ) v MidayMattabooda l v.

McConn ach ie v.

Monkh ouse v.

(Beekh arry), Muda l v.

(Sooh oo), McLean v.

Mavor v.

(Goolah ) v. Porter, 1 9NCV.

64Ramchurran v

Sooka v.

Tucker v.

Cross, Lew is v.

Sproston v.

Crossly v. Ramch arran , 1 5March

Cruicksh ank, Jard ine v.

La Rose v. ,

8 Aug .

Lutchmee v.

Serepaulv. Wrig h t, 2 2

89Crump v. Da Silva , 3 May

Cuckow Allicock v.

De Cross v.

De Jesus v.

Corria v.

Ch in-ch i—ch ang v.

Da Silva v.

De Cross v.

De Freitas v.

v. De Jesus, 29O ct .

Francisco v.

Gomes v.

v. Gonsa lves, 24Dec .

69Do. 25 June

Do . 2 July’

Mingo v.

t For dates see under h eading of Immigran ts’ names.

7, 1 2 2

Cuckow , Sproston v.

v. Nascimen to, 30Dec .

v. Perot

v. Wigh t

Culverh ouse, Darrell v 1

Cumberbatch v Hinds, 1

March’

79Cunnmgh amv. Long , 1 6

89Cupido v Zitman , 7 June

1 867*

Cush , King v.

Customs (Davis)v.Fresson ,

1 Aug .

84Cuvilje v. Landry, 1 5 Feb.

68 (O rd inance repea led)

D’Abreu v. Fitzgera ld , 3

v. Francis, 24Aug .

88 5 , 8, 9,41 ,42v. Haw ker 1 2 Mar’

59v. Straker, 2 7 July

Abrio v. Darrell, 3 1 Dec.

70 (Abettor, Costs)v. Griffin , 2 Mar.

7 2 (Abettor)v. Grlfiin ,Jan .

73(Costs)

Da Costa , Fran k v.

v. n , 1 0 0 81 .’84

D’Aguiar v. Barnes, 3 June

v. Darrell, 24Dec.

69Dias v.

v. Francis, 2 1 Nov’

84vi rFrancis, 24Dec .

’88 (decided byMartins v Francis)

Fitzgerald v.

TABLE O F CASES.

PD’Aguiar, Gomes v.

v. Gordon , 2 1 Aug’

66v. Harris, 2 1 Aug66

Skeete, 4Feb .

v. Turton , 3 1 O éi

v. Wr1gh t, 14Aug’

Da Joh n v . Gun gapersaud ,

3 March’

Dalg leish v n ,2 2 Mar.

83Da ly, Liverpool v

Ton ey v.

Da Mattos v. McDavid ,

DAmil , Luckie v . .

D’And rade v F1tz allan ,

4Aug .

v. H a rr1gan , 24Jun e’

84v. Lan g , 1 7Jan .

74v. Sw a 1n ,

14Dec.

Dan iel Ben v.

Luck1e , v.

v. Ridley, 1 9 Sep .

’68 1 0 3, 1 04, 1 30D

Nascimen to v An son , 9Feb

84 32 33. 39Darrell v. Alty, 29Apl

v. Ch un Ch e Ch un g1 8 Feb .

Collette v.

Culverh ouse v

Aguiar v.

v.. Day, 1 2 Jan .

’67(Sh ipping ) O rdi.nan ce

v. Da Silva , 2 5 Feb .

De Abrio v.

De Freitas v.

De Jonge v.

De Pa iva v.

G ardn er, 20 G ift2

1 Darrell, Gonsalves vJesus v.

Mason v

Maddeiras v.

v. Mayers, 2 9 Nov.

’62*

Pequeno v.

v.Rodn gues, 2Nov.

67San tos v.

Stragh an v.

Da San tos v. Cressall*

v. James, 9 July’

v. Layton ,Dec .

82v. Turn er

, 23Jun e

Da Silva v. Burrow es, 31O Ct.

74v. CorriaDavid v.

v. Greaves, 1 8June'

64. 1 29, 1 30v. Griffin

. 4Jan .

73 33v. H III, 20 Aug .

— 1 3, 14, 1 1 6v. Layton , 26 May

83 1 8, 2 1 , 69do. , 2 Dec.

v. Mann , 1 8 Mar.’

65 87, 1 35v. Pereira , 3 1 Mar .

68 14v. Sw am, 9 0 61 .

88 37v. Wrigh t. 2 2 Jan .

86 9, 1 7D0 . v., 14Aug .

David, Ben v.

v. Da Silva, 26 June§63

v. H ossann ah , 23Jun e’

66v. Jackman, 1 3 Aug .

70London

O gle v.

Davidson v Gopaul, 29’

83Davis, Cox v.

v, Fresson , 1 Aug .

84McGow an v.

Perreira v.

v.Sampson , 2 7Aug1

TABLE O F CASES.

De Rush v. Watson , 26 D’

O liveira v.Darrell, 3Aug .

May’66 35146. 79

De Santos v.J7

ames, 99 July land orvalue

v. Leacock, 7Aug .

7Tumer, 23

’69"

(June Doorastoola v. Brassington ,

De Silva v. uckow , 1 1 2 2 April’

69, follow ing Dooraj v. Keenoo, 3 JulyMingo v. Cuckow ’

80 26, 54, 83, 85David v. Doorgan , Hunter v.

v. Ferreira , 1 0 .5.’

69* v. Miller , 1 Dec.

v. Graves, 2 July’

64. 1 29, 1 52 D’

Omellas, v. Leacock, 7v. Grifiin ,4Jan .

’ May’65 20 , 2 1 , 22

v. Mann , 1 1 Mar.’

65 v. Fran cis. 1 1

v. Manth orp, 1 5Apl . Nov.

’84 20 , 1 24

7 1 Roch a v.

v. Pereira, 31Mar.’68 v. Wills, 7 May

v.Rank1n , 5Aug’65

65Wrigh t v. Dorn ford , Brow n v.

De Souza v.Anson , 26O ét v. De Ch alus, 1 5’87 Aug .

v. Francis, 24Mar. Goolamally’

88 Leakin v.

30 Dec.

82 S.T.. 1 23, 1 24 Suckow orth

v. Griffin , 2 Mar.’

72 1 2 2 Wong-a-Wing v.

v. Reach , 3Apl .’

0 1 67, 68 Dos Ramos v. Francis, 26

84, 85, 1 04. 1 0 8, 1 34, 1 35 Mar .

86 44, 1 23v. Sw ain , 2 1 Nov. Dos Santos v. Cressell, 1 8

’84 1 6, 1 1 5, 1 2 2 Nov.

v. Wigh t, 23 Novr. v. Layton ,67 1 35 Dec.

Devonish v. Smali“ Dover v. Fra ser, 26June ’

74De Veuve, Ford v. v.McLean , 1 2 Dec.

De Vries v. Fauset, 28’

69 Smith v.

De Waitson v. Cross, 1 Douglas, Butler v.

’83 Albert v.

Dias v.D’Aguiar, 7 Mar.

90 Santos v.

ck v. Duggin Dow v, Ch a lmers, 1 6 Dec.

v. Bunbury, 6Apl .’67

82 39,45. 81 , 1 0 8, 1 29Dinmah omed v. Halliday, Drayton , Gon salves v,

9 Sep .

76 Dublin v. Gray, 1 0 Jan .

Dinez v Sw ain , 1 5 Apl .'63 84, 89, 90

’82 70 , 7 1 , 1 31 Do. 29 Nov.

’62 68

D’O liveira v. Backer, 1 6 Duggin v. Craw ford, 1 1

Nov. Feb.

6114Sept. '

6 1 38, 77 Dick v.

V. Bolton , 20 Jil ly v Mendonga, 1 772 July

63v.Burrow es, 1 Mar . Duke v. Bury, 2 0 Feb.

79 20 , 2 1 3 2 Dumont, Brath w aite v.

TABLE O F CASES.

Dunbar, Reg ina v.

Scipio v.

Dundas v. Binns, 30 May’

v. Cauz a , 1 6 Mar.’

Duncan , Augusta v.

Dunn , Carbery v.

Ch apman v

Daw es v

Easton , Borman v.

Edw ards v. Bacchus, 1 8

May’

v. Cambridge, 31Aug .

72 1 5, 1 7Ed w in , G ray v.

Elliott, De Freitas vEllipie, v. Burrow es, 24Dec .

Eppilie v. 8 Aug .

68 1 0 , 29Emamudh in v. Muller , 2

’82 faéts reversingdecision

Evan s v. Young-a-sam, 26Aug .

’65 28, 1 28

Etada llyv.Salmon ,Aug .

72 1 04Evelyn , Parker v.

Koh elet v

Ew ing Sugar Estate Co . v.

Seals, 3 June’

87 53, 99

Fairman v. Knoop, 4Jan .

v. Read , 1 0 July’

Fan v Moore, 1 5 Dec .

Faria v. Inn is, 14Feb .

91 5. 78, 1 0 1 , 1 34Farin h a v.Breen 6Feb ’

Farley, Kelly v.

Farmer, Pon tifex v.

Farnumv. Reid , July’

58Fauset, Applew h aite v.

v. Baker, 2 7 June’

De Viveiros v.

Gon sa lves v.

G rovesnor v.

Fauset, Moon ligh tScrutcher v

v. Vaugh an , 24Sep.

Fernandes v. Arnold , 2 7

Bolton v.

Fran cis, 24Mar’88

G lasgow v.

v. Green slade, 9Nov.

79 1 9, 35,46Ferreira v.An aran , 23Aug .

Burrow es v.

De Freitas v.

v. Fran cis, 2 Jan7

v. Maxw ell 26Gift’

v.McInroy, 1 9Jan’67

v. Mendes 1 Aug

O lton v

v. Waterman , 30

June’60 *

29 O ft.’

64*v. Wigh t, 4Aug .

66—37, 74, 76, 1 1 2 , 1 30Field Mathoora v.

Routay v.

v. Sohun , 1 6 Nov’

v. Wolsely, 1 6Mar7

Figueira, Greenslade v.

v. Solomon , 1 6

Fitz allan , D’

And rade v

De Freitas vFitzgerald , D

’Abreu v.

v. D’Aguiar, 1

79 (Remit toMagistrate)

Fong-a-Ling v. Ch andler,

31 Dec .

81 1 0 , 1 0 9, 1 1 0

1 5 Nov.

Ford v. De Veuve, 1 3 July’

v. Small, 1 2 June ’87 99, 1 1 0

TABLE O F CASES.

Forsyth v.Wigh t, 5Mar .

, Gonsalves v.

France, Ad . Gen era l v.

Francis v. Beth une , 29 O ét.’

64, foliow ed byPing

-a-w ing v.

Pile, David v.

Hosann ahD

’Abreu v.

O liveira v.

De Souza v.

De Farn issah v

O rn ellas v.

Dos Ramos v.

Fern an des v.

Ferreira v.

G reen v.

G omasv. Haley, 1 8 Mar.

Lee-a-ong v.

Marques v.

Martms v.

v. Men des I Apl .’

83Sew soh oye v.

v. Wigh tYoung-a-samv.

Fran cisco v. Cuckow ,1 0

0 81.’

Fran ck v. Da Costa, 31

59Frank, Hin d s v.

v. Mack , 28July’

Roh eler v.

rFranklin , Adams v.

Ferreira 1 Aug’

Fraser v. Brebn er , 24May’

7 9Clouston v.

Da Silva v.

v. G on sa lves 2M ar .

v. 2 1 Jun e’

n ston v.

Men des v

Th orne v.

Welch v.

Ung-samv.

Freeman , Green v.

1 6 66, 68

French , Urquh art v.

Fresson , Customs v.

Sw an v

Frietas v. Bethune, 2 2 O ét.

Fry, Verbeke v.

Fulley, McTurk v.

Furrey, Lew is v.

G albath v Th ompson , 4Nov.

G an gah , Intch sin g v.

G ardn er v. Austin , 30 Dec.

Darre ll v.

Th ii‘lamah v.

Garnett v. Bury, 1 Jun e’67

v. Bean ,1 5 Nov.

79v. Nich olson ,

1 9Sep.

84 82 86, 92

Nurse v

Solomon v.

Williams , 1 9Sep’

84*Wrigh t v.

G arraw ay, Nurse v

G ay, Josiah v.

G emmel v. Ben jamin , 4Aug

67Ch astity v. Davson , 7 Sep

G ibbons v. Austin , 1 Sep’

v.Striker , 24June’

71— 2 5.42 . 146

G ibson , Wh ite vG ilbert v. Barnes, 1 2 June

G ill, Seerkesoon v.

G lasgow v. Bran don , 1 7Apl.

— 4, 2 9, 31 , 66v. De Freitas, 30

Apl.’

8F 28, 67, 1 2 1 , 1 32

v. Fernandes, 1 3April

H ard een , 14May’

81 64, 1 0 6, 1 0 7

TABLE O F CASES.

Glasgow v. Kryenh ofi, 1 7April

80 1 7, 1 2 1 , 1 29Gobin , Halliday v.

Gokul v. Bean , 20 Aug .

70Golab v. Porter,Gomes, Arnold v

v. Backer, 5 March’63 28, 30 , 58

v. Bruce, 7 Aug .

6 65v. Bethune, 8034'v. Brun ell,v. Burrow es

3April’80 1 , 1 2 1

3April’

(motion to prooecd)(w eigh ts)(2 testing

v. Clarke,v. Cuckow ,

v. D’Aguiar,

v. Francis, 31 May’

54 " o 61 71 81 1 22

Gon salves v.

v. Green , 20 Feb.

on old S.T. O rd .

v. Harcourt (fiat), 24May

75 5 1

Ouris.) 6 1 , 70

1 7Jany.

74(c 1 ) 1 3-3-74*

n 34~5 r,73alev. Joseph , 29June

69King v.

v. O lton , 27'

69v. Ph illips,v. Smith , 6 Dec.

v. Solomon , 82 , 84ain (gaming),13Dec.

(SC ). 7-3-84(Testing) 2

(w aiver),(Witness)(Juris )

v. Young, 2 1 . 1 2 .61 at

G omes v. Young ,Gomez v.

Gon salves, 30Nov. 67

Gonga , In tch sing v.

Gon salves v. Anson , 2 2Feb .

89 1Do. 1 2 .

v. Birch ,v. Bolton , 6Aug .

70 ,appellant order

byR.C. to appear

an d answ er inter

rogatories. Did

not appear ; case

dismissedv. Breen , 6 Feb.

v. Burrow es, 22 Feb.

v. Baker

7 3v. Ch almers,v. Cressall, 1 1 Nov.

v. Cuckow , 41 , 131Cuckow v

v. Darrell, 2

Day v.

Daw son v

v. De Freitas, 6Nov.’69

v. Drayton , 1 2 Sep.’68"

v. Fraser, 2 1 June’

82v. Fox, 2 2 May

Gomes v.

v. G reen , 9 0 61 .’89 7, 1 2 2

v. Joseph , z4Jun ,e’

69 42v. Harcourt, 1 5 O &.

v. King , 29Aug .

74v. Laurence, 2 1 O dt.

v. Layton , 1 7Apl.’85

v. (testing rum)1 6 Sep .

82— 1 26, 1 31 , 1 32

London v

O lton v.

v. Straker, 6 Nov. 69v. Sw ain , 2 1 July

Wade v.

TABLE O F CASES.

Gonsalves v. Young, 1 6 Gray, Matth eison v.

0 a , 1 6 Nov. v. Roh ory. 1 3 1

Goocol v. Th ompson , 4 v Sw ainNO V 76 Graves, De Silva v.

G°°dh °Y1 Majhor G reaves v. Bollars (referGoolab v. Porter, 1 2 Aug ence)

76 Capello v.

Goolastankan v. Perreira, Greedh arry, Beete v.

1 8 Dec.’

85 G reen v. Braz oa ,Goolama lly v. Anderson , v. Bean 81

8 July’

82 Corria v.

Goolamally v. Dornford ,Fr

%ncis v '

Noa 3. 0 a .

.gfsma"?9

(evidence, opium) 2 2 Gomes v

85 Gon salves v.

Gopaul , David son v. H illman ,

Daw son v. Jackman v,

Gordon v. Binns,’

67 56, 90 Portsmouth v.

D’Aguiar v. v. Smith , 6 Dec .

73v. De Freitas, 26 v. Ta it, 29 Mar .

’60 * Trap v.

v. Gomes, 27 O ét. v. Watson ,

Green slade, Boodh oov . Gordon 8 O ét. Corria v.

58* De Freitas v.

v. Gouvia , De G ouvia v.

v. Parkin son , 1 3 Fern an des v.

58 v. Figuiera , 30

Pereira v. May’

59 1 52

Goring v. Macier, 4O ft. H ardeen v.

58 (tax for troop h orse) Hicken v.

G oungerpersaud ,Dajohn v Prin ce v,

Govia , David v. RagaboneGordon v. Vieira v.

King . 29.8 74— 48,49, 1 33 Greig v. Miller, 29 AugSimon v.

Young , 8.8.60 " v. Ramdh an sing , 2 7G rabes. Burrow es v. Aug .

89G ran t v. Josa , 24Nov.

83..5, 2 7, 28 Grey, Clarke v.

67, 72 Dublin v.

v. H illis, v. Ed w in ,

Lang , 5 Dec .

74 v. Crosby, 9May’

63G reaves, Capello v. G riflin , D

’Abrio v.

De Silva v. Da Silva v.

Gray v. Ch in lan -ch ing . 2 2 De Souza v.

60* v. H oosenboccus,Dublin v. 2 1 Dec .

Josiah v. Grifl‘ith v. Adams. 2 5 . 59v. Kh odaboccus 1 8 v. G riflith 8 3.

84Jany.

73 58, 1 1 2 Winter v

TABLE O F CASES.

Grose, Rich v.

’zr v. Fauset 1 6

Gullifer 3. Vaughan , 2734, 75

Gumbleton v. Jackson , 4Feb.

Gunger, Bagot v .

Gungadeen , Man son v.

Gunness, McConn ach ie v.

Haley, Amos v.

v. Ba ird , SS.C. 1 0 3v. Clark , 5 Nov.

60 73, 145Francis

Ha lliday v. Ameerboccus,2 7 Nov.

69v. Ch otec, d o .

Dinmah omed v.

v. Gobin ,

69v. Ramcalleah , 40 61

73Haman , New port v.

Harcourt, De Ha rt v.

Gomes v.

G on salves v.

Joe v.

L i—a—sh e v.

Ma rtin v.

Ramch aranRoberts v.

v. Sillia ,Silvan o v.

H ardeen , G lasgow v.

Harel v. Gouvia , 20 .5 .

v. Straker,v. Win dt,

Harlequin ,Wood v.

Harman , New port v. 39, 1 1 0

Harrigan , D'

An dradev. De Rouse, 1 9July

Harris v.Bracey, 26July’

D’Aguiar v,

v. King , 1 1 Dec.

85Hasting , Win ter v.

Haw ker, D’

Abrio v.

Haynes, Bascomv.

Hayw ood v. Young , 23Feb.

67H azzard , Bascomv.

H eerah , Rughonauth v

Henderson v. Jard ine, 29Aug .

84Henriques v. An son , 14June

89Hen ry v. Solomon , 3Herbert v. Abrah am, 7May

Heyliger, McPhoy v.

H icken v. G reen sladeHill Da Silva v

v. Klien , 1 1 Sep .

69Pequen o v

Small v.

Hillis, G ran t vv. Young ,v. Wells,

H illman , G reen v.

Hin ds, Cumberbatch v

Cumberland v.

v. Frank, 2 Dec.

v. Lovell, 1 1 1 , I 1 3H in tyen v. Scott, 4, 1 5 2H itz ler v.Clouston , 9 82

H o-a -H ing v. Layton , 9

July’

89Hoare v. Duggin , 1 3 Apl .

v. King , 30 Sep.

Hodge v. McBurn ie , 24April

89Nelson v.

Hodgkinson v. B. Guia na

M in ing Co . , 1 8 May’

Hodgson v. Ch eesew righ t,2 8 Jun e

H oh enkerk v. Royen , 5

July’89

H ollingsw orth , a s v.

H olmv Rh od ius 6 O ét .

83H on il or Harel v. Straker,9 O ét.

69— See H arel

H ookench un v. Alexand er,

9 July’

90 1 0 5, 1 34, 142 , 1 53H oomanan v. Clarke, 5Aug .

xviii. TABLE O F CASES.

Hope v. Van Cootch , 6

June’

H opkin sv.Tucker,H opkin son , Sample v.

Mendouga v

Horrell, McLean v,

Horton v.Abrah am,v. Ch ester 1 8Aug .

60 26, 79, 80

Horton v

Jack v.

Stew art vv. Straker,Young v.

H ossannah David v,

How ard . Rodrigues v.

How ell v. San tos, 1 1 , 82

Hubbard , Con stan tine v

Luis v.

Humph rey, Bah ador v.

Soobrun v.

l l un ter v.Doorgau, 240 61’

74v.Ramsawmy, 24O fl .

74"Soomaria v.

Soobtoo v.

H utson v.Robson orRoson ,

1 0 O &’

7 1 . 1 32

Im.Agent Gen l. v. Sh ields,1 6Aug .

76— see Crosby

In n is, Fa ria vTh orn h ill v,

Isa acs v. Ch apman , 1 5Sep.

83 6, 29, 87, 1 29Isken ius, Bland v.

l tt h smg v. G

anga , 1 3 July7

v. Men zies,July 67

Jack v. Horton , 1 5 Mar.’

73 79, 80v. Jack, 30 Dec .

68 83v. Joh n , 5 Mar . 1 0 , 78

2 7.44

Jack, Joh nson v.

Jackman , David v.

Greene, 1 5 Dec’60*

aoko v Sarabjeth , 5 May’

ackgson , Gumbleton v.

Jacob v. Couchman 2 Feb

v Rigch ards 26.9

ames v. Adams.v. Cambridge, 14May

De San tos v.

v. Lilmon ie, 31 May’

89 7,43.44, 60 , 1 0 9(th is ca se is d istinguish ed

fromCraigen v. Morgan as

reg ards th e d ifference of

eviden ce required to provelocus of immigrant and

in den tured

James v Telford , 1 6Jan oosing , Kh odoboccus v

Jard in e v. Bolton ,v. Burrow es, 1 0

July’69

v. Cruicksh ank, 6

v. Joaquim, 28

Jun e’61

Hen derson v.

Torrop v.

v Watson , 20 July’

Jeffrey v. Burrow es, 28

Aug . 1 1 , 1 z

Walcott v.

9 3 55’ 3

Win ter v.

Jen auth v. Braud ,

Jessida , Day v,

Jesgyé

v Robb 1 2 Sep.

Jesus v .Brumell 7

v. Darrell, 7 May’

Joaquim, But row es v.

Jardine v.

Jod h an v Mearns, 1 9Dec

90 4 8,Joe v. H arcourt, 3Dec.

’’

9 7122

Joh n , Jack v.

TABLE O F CASES.

Lamaison , Napoleon v.

Landry. Cuvilje v.

Lang , D'Andrade v

Gran s v.

Nott v.

SurnpjeetLangevine, Sirdar v.

Laroch e, Moorandun v.

Larose , Cruicksh ank v.

Lash ly v. Choung ,Layton , Ah -ch ee v.

Chow drie v.

Da Silva v.

Dos Santos v.

Gon salves v.

v. H in sagay, 2 2

Ho-a—h ing v.

v. Joh nson , 1 Sep

Marach ea v.

Mendes v

Patsa v

v. Roh eim, 1 7 July’

Santos v

Laurence, Gonsalves v.

Law son v. Westmaas, 1 8

Leacock, Colvin v.

De Freitas vD

O liveira v.

omellas v.

Lea-ou-a-fat v. Anson, 1 1

JulyLee-a-ong v. Francis, { 1 9Dec.

Leggatt v. Mattabudal, 27Sep

89 43.Lew is v. Cross, 25Aug .

v. Furry, 1 6 Sep .

v.Romeo,Li-a-kin v. Dornford , 1 6

84Liasv.Harcourt, 7 0 6137 1 "ELig h tv. Ch apman ,

Goring , 9April’

59Lilrnonie, James v.

Liverpool v. Daly,

Lloyd , Naugh ten v.

o-a-ting-to v. King , 14

1 8 Jau.

Logie v. Tramw ays Coy.,

2 7 Sep.

89London v. Baird , 6 Feb

60v.David , 6

v. Gonsalves, 14Jan .

65Stew art v.

Long , Cunn ingh amv.

O nekama v

Lopes v. Backerv. King ,

Lord v. Anson , 29 May’

91Lounck v. Underw ood , 4March

65Lovell, Hin ds v

Pistano, 5 June ’

91Low -a-yon , Solomon v.

ow ing or Toyah v. Morancie, 1 1 . (gaming)— See Toma

Luckie v. An son , 1 6 Nov.

’89 1 0 , 29, 1 1 3

v. D’Amil, 1 Nov.

89 89, 91 , 1 1 3Luckput 5, 1 0 0Luis v. Hubbard ,Lutch nee v. Cruicksh ank,2 Nov.

Lynch , Williams v.

62, 641 0 9: 1 34

Macedo v. Anthony, 1 8Mar. ’

65 1 03Romeo,

Mach edo, Teixeira vMack, Frank v.

aclean , Spencer v.

adenov. Dan iel,’69

Mah omed Hossein , Kiern an V.

Mann , Da Silva v.

flaiilbliiccus v

v. c rk, 0

Mansch ot. Nassadeah v.

TABLE O F CASES.

Mansmv. Gungadeen , 23Sep .

Manth orp, Covia v.

De Silva v.

Marach ea v. Layton , 9

July’

89Marks, Reid v.

Marques v. Francis, 1 5

June’88 2 1 , 70 , 82

Marrs v. Sh aw ,1 2Aug .

76 91Marsh a l, Admin . Gen l . v.

Martin v. Birch , 2 1 Ja n .

65 42 , 64v. Burrow es (Inf.

(convict) 2 2’

(carriage)(pen alty)

v. Francis, 2 1 .85*

24.3.88 . .9, 1 0 ,46v. Harcourt

‘24May

” 573

v. Joseph , 30 . 1 2 57, 1 20v. Morgan 1 1 8

Massiah v. Peertun sing ,

79Pultaroo v.

Mason v. Parnell,Mattabuda l, LeggattMa th eison v. Gray, 1 2 Sep .

68 32 54, 65 , 68 7o, I slv.Straker , 20 Jan .

69 26, 33Matth ias, Sw a in v.

Math oora v. F1eld , 1 8.3.

76Maule, Young v. .

Mavor, Korrimboccus vNeemur v.

Mayv. Mitch ell, 2 7 . 1 0 .

Mayers, Adams v.

v. Anderson , 14May

8 1 1 2 7v. Moh ungoo , 9

July’

69v. New ton ,4.7.

v. Poultee, 31 July’

69v. Panea llia ,

73v. Ruggonauth , 1 3Sep .

73Maygh on v. Gooday, 1 2

May’66*

0 0 0 0

v. (w eigh t,bread), 2 7 Jan .

v. Taylor (read Layton)

40 ,41

Mayor Tow n Council,Brath w aite v.

Maxw ell, Young v.

McArth ey, Waterman v

McAllister, De Freitas v

McBurn ie, Hodge v.

McCon n ach ie v. Gunness,1 3 Aug .

McDonnell, De Mattos v.

McFarlan e , Baker v.

McGow an v. Davis, 5 June’

85McInroy, Ferreira v.

McKen z re, Castillo v.

McKenn a v Binn s, 20 May’

McKmnon v Stoby, 2 2 Feb’

89McLean , Bh eekh arry v

Budul v.

Dover v.

Horrell v.

’63, reducing fine

to $24, on ground

th at O rd . 20 of’

on ly allow s fine and

costs not to exceed

$524, w h ile Mag is

trate ad judged $24fin e an d costs

v. Rebeira ,McNich ol, Ch ristoph er v.

McPh erson v. Th ompson ,1 1 Dec.

McPh oy v. Heyliger,May 73

McTurk, Bracey v.

v. Pulley,Mann v.

McWatt v Hen ry, 1 1 Dec .

Mearn s, Jod h an v.

Meerten s, Th orn h ill v.

Men des v. Burrow es, 2 1

May’

77v. La

grton , 5Aug2

TABLE O F CASES.

Men d inh o v. Ch almers, 26Men donca , Clair v.

Duggin v,

v. Hopkin son ,1 5 May

Men zies v. Cressall, 1 8

Men zies, Itch sing v.

Seew ootulahMerc1er, Youn g v.

Meyers— See Mayers

Mich elson ,Ben v.

Miday, D inmah omedMikia V. dc Laulio, 1 3Apl.

7 1“

Miller,Angoo v.

v. Austin , 1 5 .5.’

84"G reig v.

v Wong-a-sam, 26

1 1 7 , 1 1 8Young v.

Young-a-samv.

Milne , Cassie v.

Mingo v. Cuckow , 1 1 .9.69 3,47M1tch ell, May v.

Turton v

Mohun v. Turner, 1 6. 77 5 1 , 1 34Mohungoo , Mayers v.

Molin eaux v. Schultz, 24May

73Mon iek v. Solomon , 1 3

83Monkh ouse v. Narrain sing ,2 5 Marck ’

Mcn trose v. Burrow es, 9Sep.

v. Th eoba ld , 26March

’1 1 , 1 2

Moonah v. Agard , 7 5 .

v. 1 6 O ft.

}57, 64, 87

69 90 , 92

Moon ie v. Dornford , 2

Moon ligh t Scrutch er v

Fauset, 1 6 O ét.’

69Mooran dumv. La Roch e,2 2 April

76 6 1 , 1 0 8

Moore, Arth urFa n v.

Secar v

Mootrie v. Secar,

Moran cie, Toyah v.

Morgan v.Thorne,Morris, Ramas Kh an v.

Morrison v. Ramdah in , 2 2

Moses, Austin v

Mudd le, Th orne v.

Muller, Emamudh in v

Sew bode v.

Mulligan , Badderan v.

Blank v.

v. Roberts, 1

April’

65Wellington v

Mund lall , Daw son v.

Mungar, Craigen v.

Munro, Young v.

Murdoch v. An son , 1 0 1

90 1 1 7, 1 1 8~v. Santos,

Mussillah v. Massiah , 29Nov.

73Musterd , Watson v.

Najh oe, Luckput v.

Napoleon v. Lamaison 1 8

August’60

Narrainsing,Monkh ouse v.

Nascimento v. An son , 2

84. 30 , 1 1 7Nassebeah v. Man sch ot, 2 9

73Cuckow v

Nassebun , King v.

Naugh ten v. Lloyd , 1 6

June’66 23, 56, 63

Ned v.De G uara, 78

v. Syce, 1 9 Sep.

68 1 0 , 31

Neemur v. Mavor, 1 0 8Nelson v.Hodge, 9Jan .

57Neptune v.Beaton , 1 1

New port v. Haman , 27

New ton , Mayers v.

N ich olson , G arn ett v.

v. Robson , 2 1

5 7N in ia, Boodhoomin a v.

Nobrega, Samv.

TABLE O F CASES.

Nojh an , Ramjoh n v.

Norton , Bascomv.

ott v. Lang , 8 Jan .

Novel], An drew v.

Now ell, O gle v.

Nun es v. Barn es,Burrow es, v.

v. 5 . 1 2 .909k

Nurse v G arraw ayv. Garn ett, 31 .8,

Nussebeah v. Walcott, 29O Et.

O ttober , Davson v.

O g le v David , 1 7 May’

v. Now ell, 1 5 Dec .

O lton v. Ferreira ,Gomes v.

v.Teixeira ,O rd (Man n assah

RoseO uckama v. Long , 23.

O xley, Porter v.

O z anne, Sookh oo v.

Parker v. Evelyn ,

Parkin son , Gordon v.

Parris v. Arthur, 1 1 *

v. Ch eeseman ,

Patoir v. Layton ,

Patrick v. Blasky,Pearce v. Assam*Peertusing , Massiah v.

Pemberton v. James, 1 5

Jun e’67

Pequeno v. Binn s, 2 2

Ma r .

5 Apl .’

v. Darrell, 28

v. H ill, 28 Nov.

Rogers v.

v. Weddall, 27May

PAGE I

xxiii.

Pequeno, Wrigh t v.

v. Younge,Nov.

Perciva l v. Tebbutts (bailing appel

n t)24Nov.

v.Tebbutts 2 Feb7

84Pereira v. Beth un e , 30 Dec.

Bolton v

v. Davis, . 1 1 1 , 1 2 7De Silva v.

v. Gordon , 1 5 Dec.

’60 *

Rodrigues v.

v. Sw eetn am,Aug .

v . Turton ,

Warren v.

v.Williams 2 7Aug .

Perot, Cuckow v

Persaud v. Ch ristie

March’

77Pertaub, Wa lcott v

Peter, BascomvPeters, Burrow es v

Ph illip, Gomes vRodn ey v.

Pickerin g , Capel v.

Pile, Pin -a-young v.

Pilgrim, Th orn h ill v.

Pimen to, Sw ain v.

Pin -a-young v. Pile, 24Feb ’

78 561 761 78Pistano, Lovell v .

Pompey, 29Aug .

66 1 5: 34:46Sw a in v 34, 35v. 6Mar .

’86 } 56, 87

1 1V' Y oung y l 3~5 65

Pitta, De Freitas v.

Politla ll, Ca lla v.

Pompey, Pistano v.

Pon tifexv. Farmer, 8.5 .

v. Sw ain ,Pooler, Ch apman v.

Poonach ie, Adams v.

Popw ell v. Barnes, 1 7May.

89 9.43. 99. 1 20

TABLE O F CASES.

Porter v. Burrow es, 26

June’89 2 , 1 20

Crosby v.

Goolaub v.

v. O xley, 20 May’

65v.Suramai,v.T211eyah , .1 7Aug

Portsmouth v. Green , 5March ’

Potts v. CambridgePoudarsing v. Coyle, 20

Ralph v. McPh erson , 1 3March

Ramalho v. Cressall 2

Ramas Khan v Morris 28

March’

Ramcalleah , HallidayRamch arran, Crosby v.

v. Harcourt,2418" 74

Ramdah an , Morrison v. .

Ramdaye v. Bascom, 1 2

1 23, 1 25

March’

91 1 30 Ramdh ansing , Greig v.

Poultee. Mayers v. Ramessur v Russell, 8 JulyPow ers v.Ruck, ’

85: 40 , 72 ’

82Primo, Williams v. Ramjoh n v. Nojh an , 3Prince v. Greenslade, 1 2 March

72 Ramnarain , Boodh a v.

v. King, 1 3 July Rampersaud , Soobh arry v.

’80 55, 92 , 1 2 1 Ramsorun v. Sicknurse N .

v.Rickford, 1 3July Caledon ia, 1 9 Dec.

84’80 42, 55 , 85 Ramsawmy, Hunter v

Tulman v. Rankin , Jones V.

xtaroo, v. Massiah , 2 2 Read , Fairman v. .

’84* Joh nson v. .

tlga ll, Coelho v: v. Marks, 1 6.3.

’61 "E

Pun aw ing v. Pile, 2 1 Dec. Reg in a v. Allany, 20 9'

78 78 v. Dunbar,Puncanshun v. Smith , 1 Reid v. Gow an ,June Reiz v. Cuckow , 1 6Jan .

69Relva , Bascomv. .

Reynoldsv.Barnett, 66v.Bourne,

Quash ie v. Cuckow , 31 Rh en dany v. Field , 1 Aug .

Quin ta v. Sw ain, 2 Dec. Rh odius, Holmv.

82 46, RhAogon aé

ith v. Heira, 1 36

Rh oyonauth v. Clark, 5Aug .

Raddiah , Carruth ers v.

Ragabone v. Andrew , 2 2

Robin , SempleRobin son , Abdool Poh in v

Aug. Winter v.

v. Rod iah , Robson , Nich olson v.

1 24‘ Roch a v. Binn s, 2 1 Dec .

v. Greenslade,’88 9, 22 , 1 29. 1 37

2 1 .3. 7 1 ..50 , 1 v. D’

ornellas, 2 5Ragbia , Brassington v. Jan .

89 99, 1 20Rajutteah v Anson, 8 Feb Rodney v. Ph illips, 2 Jan .

9° 9I

TABLE O F CASES.

Rodneyv. Rodney, 9 Nov"

1 1 Feb.

’68v. Sampson , 29 Sep.’63

Rodricks v. Simmon s, 14Nov.

’82Rice v. Eleune, 23.

Rich v. Grose, 20 Feb . 9 1v. Melville

Rich ards, Jacobs v.

Rickford , Prin ce vRadley, Daniel vRoach , DeSouza vRobb, Jessy v,Robello v. Birch , 2 1 .

Robeira , McLean v.

Roberts v. Harcourt,4OR.

Williams v.

Robertson v. Fraser, 5Sep.

84Do. 1 2

Ro drigues v. Backer, 1 6Nov.

6 1v. Burrow es, 20 May

5» 39: 1 33

87v. Darrell, 26 O ét.

69 3Darrell v.

v. Fraser,’

1 : WH ow a rd 22 Mar .

v. Pereira ,v. Young ,

Rogers v.Pequeno, 1 9June’

65 5 2 ,Roh eler v. Bh eekh un ,

731 741 7530

March’

59v. Evelyn , 28Feb

74v. Frank 1 2 May

9 1Roheim, Layton v.

Roh en , H oh enkerk v.

Rohonauth , Mayers v

Rohory, Gray v.

Edition, Hutson v.

Romao or Ramalho v.

Cressall. 1 8 Nov. 1 25Romeo, Campbell v

Lew is v

Macedo v.

Rootsy v. Field , 1 0 8Rosa v. Joseph , I. C. 1 29Rose v. O rd, 8 June

Jugranee v.

Tucker v.

Rosin , G ran t v.

Roson , Hutson v.

Ross v. Kin g , 26 Sep .

King v.

Roybia, Brassin gton v.

Royen v. Hoh enkerkRuck, Joseph v.

Pow ers v.

Van Cooten v.

Rughon auth v. Clark, 5Aug .

76 42 , 61 , 62v. H eerah 1 20

Mayers v.

Rugh oon , Boodh a v.

Russell, Ramessur v.

Salmon v. Blake ,Etada lly v.

Samv, Nobrega, z 5 .5 .

78 1 2

v. Simon , 2 5 May’

78 1 3, 14Sample v. Butts, 2 2 2 , 79

v. Hopkin son , 30

April'

64v.Horton ,

1 6 Nov.

v. Robin ,

v.Williams, (ass’lt)9 Sep .

(Poor Law )26 Sep .

84(informal) 6March

64v. Young , 29

Sampson , Davis v.

Rodney v.

Samuel v. Bell, 6 June’

57v. Babb, 1 1 5

Sandford v. Bobb, 1

Santos v Anson , 47,48

TABLE O F CASES.

Santos v. Daniel, 29 Aug .

3, 1 8, 97 ) I 24v. Dougla s 4.8.

H ow ell v

Layton v.

1 Murdoch v.

Sa rabjeth , Jacko v.

Saun ders v. Douglas, 4Aug .

Scan tlebury v.~Breen , 30

Sch ultz , Molyn eaux v.

Sc Ip lO v Dunba r,Scott Appollos v.

H in tyen v . .

Sea l, Ew in g Estate CoySecon de , B

ngle v.

Secar, Mootree v.

Seejoree v . Th ompson , 4Nov.

Seeley, Belg rave v.

Seer v. Moore . 2 7 July’69

Seerkesoon v. G ill,29 O ét.

Seew ootoolah v Men zies,27 July 67

Semple— See SimpleSerepaul v. Cruicksh ank,

1 5 April'

82 1 0 , so

Serjean t, Joh n v

Serrao v. An derson , 1 5

Seth v An derson ,

Sew bode v. Muller,Sew soh oye v

, Francis, 1 3

Seyler v. B.G . Mining Co.,

2 1 Jan . 9 1

Sh aw v. Mars

Sh ampaud v. Budely, 5

Jun e 89"

Sh eph erd v. Meepaul, 1

83Shervmg ton v. Abra h ams,

8 May’

Stan islaus v.

Sh erw ood v. Williams, 1 2

May’

Sh e ik Esa nb v. Abdool,23 Jan .

85Sh ields, Crosby v.

Sh ingalie v. Buck ,Sh ort v. Murdoch ,

Skeete, D ’Aguiar v.

Sicknurse New Ca ledon ia ,Ramsorun v.

Siclra , Harcourt v.

Siegartx, De Freitas v.

Silvano v.Barn es, 88, 97

v. Harcourt, 2 2

v. Wade, 4Simmon s, Roderick v.

Simon , v. Birch ,v. Gouvia , 72 , 1 29Samv.

Simpson v. De Nieunkerk,

28 Mar’

59Will iams v.

Sirdar 29, 64Small Ford v.

v. H ill , 1 0 May’

73v. Sw eetn am, 1 90 thv. Wrigh t,

Smart v. Austin , 28 April

Devon ish v

v.Math ieson , 8 Sep’

Smith v. Barclay, 1 2 Apl .,

89 235 241 [ 27v. Deen aloolah , 1 6

April’

64v. Dover,Gomes v

Joh n son v.

Pun can shun v.

v. Williams, 24May

Snelling , Blan d v.

Soh run ~v,Humph ry, 7

July’

Solimon v. Cain es, 2 1 Dec .

v. Garn ett,Solomon , Bush ell v.

Ferg uson v.

Figueira v.

G omes vHen ry v.

xxviii.

Tebbuts, Percival v.

Wills v.

Teixeira v. An son , 1 9Dec .

Castilio v

Day v.

v. Mach ado.

O lton v . .

v. Sw a in ,

’83Telford , James v.

Th eobald , Mon trose v.

Th illana v. G ardner, 29

Jul)" 7 1Th omas, v. Blan d , 1 8

Th ompson , G albath v.

Goocool v.

McPh erson v

Seejore v.

Th orne v. Fraser. 1 6. 73Morgan v.

v.Mudd le.Soph ia (pln .) v.

Th ornh ill v. Innis, 2

v. Meertens, 24Dec .

69“E

v. Pilgrim, 6Jan .

TABLE O F CASES.

Turton ,D

’Aguiar v.

v. Mitch ell,0 61 .

Pereira v"

Tyce , Ned v.

Tyrell v. Stuart, 1 8.8.60 .

Un derw ood , Lounck v.

Unmaid v. Burrow es, 3Feb.

83Urquhart v. French , 1 6

72 , bound byva lue in Reg .

O flice for’

Tacour v

Tilleyah , Porter v.

Todd v:Ch ester,Tomside, Arnold v.

‘91 75

Toney v. Daly, 2 O ft.’

Toyah v. Morancie,Apl. 5 1 , 52 , 143.

1441 I49Torrop v. Jard ine, 23. 1 2385 40 , 146Trap v. Green, 3 Apl.

57Tramw ays Co. .LogieTucker, Hopkinson v.

v. Kan sut, 1 2 .9.

84v.Rose, 28.3.

59Tulman v. Prince. 7 .7 .

Turner, Da Santos v.

Mohun v.

Turnkeyv.King , 27Aug.’

28, 30 Wade v. Gon salves, 2934. 62 Ang e

90 n o

Silvano v. .

Waith ,

Va lladares v. Bethune, 1 8

65Va ltz , Jones vVan Battenburg v. Burn

h am, 1 9May’

Van Brook v. King , 14Dec.

80 24, 27 , 56, 1 0 0 , 1 26, 1 27Van Cooten v. Ruck , 1 8

Sep . 40 , 72Hope v.

Van Dyke, Butler v.

Van Lange, Allicock v.

Vasconcellos v. King , 8

Vaugh an , Gulliver v.

Hen ry,Verbeke v. Fry,Verw ayen v. Mah abun , 5Nov. 59

Vieira , Corry v.

v. G reen slade, 6

Straker v

Vogadov.Burrow es

1 7 May 73"

Vyfhuis v. July et a l, 26

TABLE O F CASES.

Walcott, Ch in-a—you v

v. Jeffrey, 2 1 Aug.’69 75

v. Pertaub,

Warren . Bacchus v.

v. Pereira , 1 8

Watson , D’Aguiar v.

De Guara v.

De Rush v.

Jodh an v.

v. Musterd , 1 0

O ét.’65*

Watt v. Bell, 1 8Ap .l’

Webster v. Birch , 9.4. ’81 . 43, 55Wed da ll, Pequeno v

Welch v. Fraser,Welchman v. Mong ree, 26Nov.

Wellington v. Mulligan , 29July

Wells, D’

O liveira v.

O rnellas v.

v. Tebbut,Wickh amv.

v. Youn g ,Westmaas, Law son v.

Wh ite v. Brumell, 2 1, 1 31

v. G ibson , 53Wickh amv. Bury, 1 0 6

v. Wells,

(evidence h eld not suffi

cien t to susta in convic Pequeno,tion) . Sma llWigh t, Allicock v. Wyke v. Campbell,

Bremner v.

De Freitas v.

~De Graca v.

De Souza v.

Ferreira v

Forsyth v

Francis v.

Williams, Cox v.

v. Douglas, 1 5.3.

Garnett v.

v. Kama], ’

v. Lynch , 3 Aug .

35.43. 1 34. xssPereira

Williams v. Primo, 33, 1 32

v. Roberts, 1 6

April’

65Sample v

Simpson ,

Sh erw ood v

Smith v.

Win-samv. Fraser, 8. 69, 96

Wint, Harel v.

Win ter v. Griffith ,v. Hastings, 86v. Jeffrey, 1 2 1

v. Robinson ,1

v. Waith ,Wolesley, Bob v

Field v.

Wong-a-h oy, An son v.

Wong-a-samv. An son , 1 1

J0 11’

90Evans v.

Ph illips v.

Wong-a-w ing v. Dornford ,29 Dec .

Wood v. Harlequin ,Wright, Carrelra v.

Cruicksh ank v

D’Aguiar v.

Da Silva v.

v 2 2 Jan .

86 1 7, 1 2 2

14. 40v. Garnett, 90 61 . 62 , 63

Y adh an , Straker v.

Y ip-li-King , Burrow es v

Young v. Bertyne, 3. 1 1

v. Bursaye, 2 1 Dec.

Bunbury v.

Cabral v.

Corria v.

CadOgari v.

v. Cow an ,D

’Andrade v.

Young v.

Dias,4June '

Gomes,Gon salves v.

v. Horton , 2 1 Dec .

LN “

Youn ge— See Young

Zach aria v. Bacchus, 1 8

LA“,

Lift?“ 1g

ADIGESTO F eAsesDECIDED IN THE

REVIEWCOURTO F BRITISH GUIANAFRO M 1 85 6 TO 1 891 INCLUSIVE.

Aba temen t .

O fWages see MASTERand SERVANT.

Abettor .

O ne w h o in stigates or Sets on or promotes a crime.

Sunday Tra ding O rdin an ce — A person

participa tin g in a sale on Sun d ay a s a buyer is an aider

an d abettor un der Sec . 7 of th e Sun dayTrad ing O rd ina nce. Homes 17 . D

’Aguia r . (R. v. Mu’llins cited for

appella n t an d h eld not applicable . )Th e act of pa rticipation by th e a ider an d abettor does

n ot excuse th e act of th e seller . Genres v. H a rcourt.

Th emere fact th at th e person w h o opened th e sh op orw h o sold or offered for sale or delivered th e goods w a s

in th e employ or service of th e ow n er w ould n ot been ough tomake th e ow n er a n a ider or abettor . DeSti’uZa17 . Francis .

Comp licify.

—Th e O w n er of a sh op w h o is in complicityw ith th e sh opman to sell g oods on Sunday is an aid er

a n d abettor . De Souz a v . Fran cis .

Pressma h Acciden ta l presen ce in a gamblin g h ouse isnot eviden ce t h a t such person is an aider an d abettoi‘.Rama s K h an v . Morris . Wh ere primei fa erie it is not

acciden ta l it is eviden ce for jury ib.

Acconrmcn .

lty of a felon ious offen ce n ot prin cipally ; but

ation as by premise, advice or contiealm’ent .

ABETTOR. 2 Accommon.

A person w h o acts th e spy an d gets anoth er to sell

goods w h en h e could n ot so sell un der h is licence &c . is an

accomplice. De Rush v. Wa tson .

A11 accomplice is on e ch arged w ith crime on h is ow n

confession an d h is object in giving informationmay beto purch ase ty to h imself . An informer ismoreproperly in th e position of a spy . Pequeno v. Dar rell ;Reg . v. Mullin s, 3 Cox C C 526 . H e is in a different

position to an informer . D’Abrio v . Darrell ; D

’Abriov. Griflin

Eviden ce of.— Th ere is n o rigid presumption of laww h ich excludes th e testimony of accomplices or w h ichmakes it in cumben t on th e tribun al to disbelieve th em.Porter v . Burrow es ; R. v. Boyer 1 B . 9

‘ S. 31 1 ;Wonga-Sa rn v. An son .

Alth ough it is so gen eral a practice th at it is saidalmost to amoun t to a rule of law for Judges to ad visejuries n ot to convict on th e evidence of an accomplicealon e , n everth eless if th e Judge does not give th is

advice, or if th e jury bein g so advil ed ch ooses notw ith

stan din g to convict upon th e testimony of an aecomplice it is n ot a groun d of appeal . Porter v. Burrow es,

but h is eviden cemust be taken w ith suspicion andmustbe corroborated . De Bush v. Wa tson . If h e is believed

h is testimony is unquestion ably sufiicien t to establish th e

facts to w h ich h e deposes . D’Abrio v Grifl

in cit.Rosev Jon es 2 Campbell, 1 31 . In dian Evidence Act .If th e jury is satisfied w ith uncorroborated evidence

of accomplice th eymay believe it an d act upon it w ithoutany confirmation and th eir verdictmay be a just and

true on e . Pequeno v. Darrell ; Reg Mullins,3 Cox

CC526 . D’Abrio v. Griffin ; but itmust be received w ith

caution . D’Abrio v. Griffin .

Th e un supported testimony of an informer is not

sufficient to convict . Dick v. Duggin con tra. D’Abrio

v. Dar rell ; Pequen o v. Darrell , cit Taylor on Ev Vol 2p 834R.

'v. Mullins 3 Cox C C p 526. If in former w as

h imself connected th rough th e in strumentality ofDefendan t w ith th e ofien ce ch arged ag ainst th e latter and hiseviden ce is un supported it is n ot sufficien t to convict.Kingston v. Fraser. Th e Mag istra te can convict on th e

ABETTOR. 3 ABSENT Paopmn'roa.

eviden ce of th e in former alon e if h e believes h im. D’Abriov . Darrell ; Mingo v . Cuckow , but itmust be receivedw ith caution . D

’Abrio v. Da rrell .

An in former is a competen t w itn ess . San tos v. Darrell .

Emp loymen t of.— Th e employmen t of Spies an d in

formers in th e detection of crime is on ly justified if a t

a ll by n ecessity. It could n ot be n ecessary to employofficers of th e law to tempt person s to commit a n offen ceagain st th e la w for th e purpose of in formin g on th em,much less is it likely to con duce to th e suppression of

offen ces . Corria v. Green ; Gomes v. H arcourt ; I”Abriov. Griffin Wong

-a-Samv. An son .

Abbrevia tion — See WORDS.

Absen ce .

H older of Licen ce :Absen cefromColony.— Absen ce from

Colony of h older of a licen ce for a spirit sh op does n ot

free himfromliability, provided h e is brough t beforeth e Court in th eman n er th e law requires . Rodrigues v .

Burrow es .

Absen ce of Defen dan t on h earing vitiates proceedings

if h e h as h ad n o n otice ; but Court w ill refer papers to

Magistra te to take objection s . Jardin e v . Burrow es .

Sen ten ce p a ssed in a bsence of Defen dan t w h o a sked th e

Magistra te to allow h imto appear by Attorn ey in a

Revenue ca se an d n o eviden ce w a s g iven of service of

summon s is illega l . Gon sa lves v . Straker .

Sen ten ce on a ch arge for un la w fully cutting ca nes

passed in th e absen ce of Defen dan t is irregular . Th illa n a v. Gardn er .

Sen ten ce a nd proceedings i n absen ce of Defend an t inRevenue prosecution is illegal , a lth ough Defen da nt

sign ed a paper w h en un der ar rest for non appearan ce,con senting to case being h eard in h is absen ce . De

Freitas v . Burrow es .

Of App ella nt in Review Court — Court to decide on

papers before it . Silva n o v. Wade . (Pr a ctice)

Absen t Propr ietor .— See AGENT.

ABSENT . 4Ab sen t fromService .

Ma ster and Servan tAct — Mean s a suspen sion of labour

or absence fromw ork ; if w ith out r ea son able cause th eserva n t refused to performth e amoun t of daily w ork

gh ich th e customof th e district d emands. Hmtyen v.

cott .

Abusive Wor d s .

Pr ivileged : Abusive w ord s used by a w itness w hile h eis un der examin ation in a Court of justice as a w itness

are n ot pun ish able a s libellous . Dundas v . Binns , citLake v . King 1 Saun d ers 1 31 , Daw kins v. Lord Rokebg8 L .R. , Q .B . 255 , 7 L .R. App. 744. Hen derson v. Bremeh ea d4H

,N . 5 69 .

Words w ith cover tmean ing .— Wh ere th e w ords used

a re th emselves unmeaning an d un importan t but th eybear a laten tmean ing un derstood by the .person to w homth ey are used to be offen sive and in sulting th ey comeunder th e h ead of in sulting language w ith in ten t 850.

Reg . v . Allany.

In ten t — Ach a rge for using in sulting languag e w ith

inten t to provoke a breach of th e peace is good . Gard

n er v. Austin . It is for th e Magistrate to determinefromth e w ords used w h eth er th e w h ole elemen t of the

offence exists . Glasgow v . Brandon .

Fr ivolous Ch a rge— Where th e w ords complained of

w ere used in th e h earing of th e party complaining a lone,th emattermay be trea ted as a frivolous on e and dis,missed by th e Mag istrate . Frank v. Da Costa .

Wh ere th e compla inan t’s n ame is n ot called th eMa n '

tra te is to decide w h eth er th e w ords w eremeant forth e complaina n t . Rodn ey v. Ph illips.

Accomp lice .— See ABETTOR.

AcquittaL— Not guilty.

Referen ce ba ck — Before th e Court refers a case back

to t h e Magistra te upon a n a cquitta l itmust appear th atth e a djudica tion h a s proceed ed on somemistake in law .

Daw son v. Gopaul .

AFFILIATION. 6 AGENT.

Afi l ia tion — See Peon LAW.

Ag g r avated Assault .

Age Of Defen da n t— Need n ot be embodied in th e con

viction if th e Magistrate took th e r igh t procedure as

d efin ed in th e O rd in an ce of 1 880 a s to th e age as ch ild,

youn g per son , adul t, Gran t v . Josa .

Proof of age— Itmay be proved by evidence, but the

Magistratemaydetermin e same by th e ph ysical appearanceof ch ild before h imif age of ch ild is a t some con siderabledistan ce fromth e limit . H utson v. Robson .

Furth er— see Assault .

Agen t .

Liability of Princip aL— Aprin cipal is not liable for amisdemean our committed byth e agen t. Isaacs v.Ch apman .

Liability of Pr incip a l w hen a bsen t — See ABSENCE.

Authority to a ct. —Wh ere th e O rdin an ce directs someth ing to be don e by th e prin cipal or by some one

auth orised in w riting by h ima recorded Pow er of

Attorn eyis n ot contemplated , an auth ority stating “I

do h ereby n omin ate, con stitute an d appoin t—my true

an d law ful agen t fromdate is sufficien t . Forsyth v.

Wi h t .

finder Immigra tion Law .~— Th e driver of th e estate is

for th e purposes of th e Immigration law s the agen t of th eMan ager of th e estate w h en h e orders w ork to be done,an d disobedien ce of h is orders is equivalen t to dis

obedien ce of th e orders of th e Man ager . Carruthers v.

Kh oon -Dun -Sing , Ken n edy v. Callydin .

Sunday Tr a ding O rdin ance— Revenue Ca ses — TheDefen dan tmustmake h is an sw er an d h ave h is w itnesses

examin ed an d cross-examin ed by Counsel or by h is dulycon stituted Attorn ey on h is beh a lf an d no oth er person is

auth orised to appea r for h im. Gomes v. Smith .

Queere w h eth er Attorn ey of a bsen t proprietor is liableun der Sun day trading ordin an ce . Gomes v. Francis.

In ca ses for breach of th e revenue law s itmust besh ow n th at th e Attorn ey of th e a bsen t ow n er h asauth ority fromh is principa l to represen t h imunder, such .

AGENT. 7 AMENDMENT.

a prosecution a s th at in w h ich h e appears or in legal

proceeding s gen erally ;mere appearance of th e Attorneyor agen t is n ot sufficien t to cure an omission or irregularity in th e service of summon s w h ichmust th en bespecially proved . Rodrigues v . Bur row es .

Amen dmen t .

Un der 8 . 21 of 5 of 1868 th e pow er of amen dment isvery w ide, goin g beyon d w h at is foun d in th e correspon d

ing clauses of th e English law . Sirdar v. Langevin e .

Magistratemay at any time before decision amen dch arge of larceny to on e of embez z lemen t in con formityw ith facts. Jessy v . Robb .

Of error .

— Wh ere th e Magistr atemakes an error in

calcula ting an amoun t th e Court w ill refer th e case back

for amen dmen t . Cairn es v. Joseph .

Wh ere Defen dan t is convicted of a ch arge under

Sun day Trad ing O rdin an ce , Sec . 2 a nd appeals as un der

Sec . 3 th e error is fatal a nd n o amen dmen t w ill lie .

Gon sa lves v Green .

Amen dmen t of Ch a rg e .

Immigr a tion Ca se — Magistra temay amen d ch arge in

immig ra tion ca ses by in ser ting after objection taken th e

w ord “ immigr an t a fter n ame of th e person a lleged to

be a n immigran t . James v . Lilmon ie .

Prosecution Closed— Va rian ce — Wh er e a ca se is con

clud ed by th e prosecution th e Magistra temay amendch arge by in serting after th e n ame of Defen dan t an

a lia s such amen dmen t being an imma terial va rian ce

an d un n ecessary. D’Aguia r v. Barn es (h eld as distin

guish ed frot omes v . Fran cis w h ere th e amen dmenta ltered th e a lleged groun d of th e Defen dan t

s liabilitya n d in fact con stituted a n ew ch arge) but h emustamen d before h is fin a l decision ,

An son v . Stuart, for

w h en h e decides amatter h e is fun ctus ofiicii an d can

n ot amen d , n eith er can th e Court of Review ib. In cases

of amendmen t postpon emen t sh ould be gran ted . Mar .

tin s v . Fran cis .

Un der O rdin an ce 5 of 1 868 Sec. 21 th e Court cannot

amen d ch a rge on w h ich a conviction h as taken place so

AMENDMENT. 8 EXAMPLES.

as tomake a new ch arge. Gomes v. Francis ; Ans0n v.

Stuart. Amen dmen t of ch arge from1881”to 1 882

a llow able. Corner v. An der son .

Defect — Wh ere th ere is a defect in th e in formation insubsta n ce an d formirrespective of th e truth andmeritsof th ema tter in question th e Court of Review w ill amendun der Sec . 21 of 5 of 1 868 : but it is on ly w h ere

tion w as taken upon th e h ea r in g tha t th e Review Courtcan amend un der Sec. 21 O rdin ance o of 1868. Ansonv . Stuart . Wh ere Defen dant is ch arged w ith one offenceand convicted of anoth er it is n ot a d efect but if anyth inga variance an d th e Review Court can not amend underSec. 2 1 . An son v. Stuart. Ch argeun derSunday tradingO rdin ance a fter h earing of prosecutionmay be amendedfromO pen ing a Sh ep for th e purpose of sellingto on e ch arging Defen dan t w ith being th e ow n er

of goods in th e sh op, &c . Martins v. Francis, butDefen dant sh ould be a l low ed a postponemen t to enablehimto answ er th e n ew ch a rge or th e conviction w ill bequash ed ib.

Wh ere th e information ch arges tw o offen ces and th e

Magistrate convicts an d th ere be eviden ce before th e

MagiStrate to convict , the Court of Review w ill amendth e defect . D

’Abreu v. Fran cis.

To amen d a defect itmust be sh ow n to th e satisfactionof th e Cour t th a t sufiicien t g roun ds w ere in proof before

th e Justicemaking th e conviction to h ave authorised th e

d ra w ing up of th e conviction free fromth e defect. For

th at purpose th e Court h as to look at th e eviden ce . Bysufficien t proof itmust be un derstood tomean sufficient

g roun ds of legal proof. Seegoree v. Thompson .

Wh ere ch arge is bad for du‘

plicit and th e duplicity isa defect in terms of Sec . 3 of rdin ance 5 of 1868th e Court of Revie wmust amend if it is sh ow n to

th e satisfaction of th e Court th a t sufficien t grounds w erein proof before the justice inmaking th e conviction .

D’Abreu v . Fran cis .

EXAMPLES.

Tra de of Hire.-Th e Review Court a llow ed an

AMENDMENT. 9 EXAMPLES.

amendmen t from“ trade or h ire to“ h ire in Gon

salves v . An son , cit. D’Abr en v. Francis.

Shop — O f ch arge for being foun d in a sh op for

some unla w ful purpose, to store by th e Magistra te

allow able. Popw ell v. Barn es .

Immigra timz..— A ch arge un der41 of 1 876,Sec . 1 9 fo r

a ttemptin g to persuade an immig ran t under in den tureun law fully to desist fromw orkmay be amen ded to on e

for persuadin g”an immigra nt , &c. Spen ce v . Sa toh a .

A ch a rge for attemptin g to persuade a n immigran tfromw orkin g ,may be amen d ed to one for “

persuading .

Greig v . Ramdh an sing ; cit. Ma rtin v. Francis.

A ch arge again st an immig ran t for after being sen t

to th e h ospital by th e Ma na ger did beh ave h imself ina disorderlyman n er w h ile in h ospita l may be amen ded

by strikin g out after bein g sent to th e h ospital by th e

Manag er .

” Spen ce v. Sa toh a .

H a ckn ey 0r0Mn an ce.— Wh ere th e h ackn ey ord inan cemakes it an offen ce to refuse to at on ce take th e

carriag e to th e office of th e In spector an d th e ch arge is

for r efusin g to produce th e ffhackn ey carriag e for“ in spection

”th e Magistrate sh ouldmake an amen dmen t on th ematter bein g broug h t to

_h is n otice .

Roch a v. Binn s, if not, th e Review Court w illmake th eamen dment ib.

Sunday Trading — Leaving out“

th e w ord Sun dayin ch ar 6 un der Sunday trading ordin an ce is amatterfor amenment . Da

Silva v . Wrigh t . Th e case of DaSilva

v . Graves is over ruled by th is case . Da Silva v.

Graves is n ot govern ed by th e amen din g ordin an ce as it

w a s d ecided4years before t h e ordina n ce.

Fromopenin a sh ep, &c ., to being th e o w n er ,

& c . ,a llo w able. artin v. Fran cis .

Refusing Admittance.—Wh ere th e ordinan cemakes it

a n Offen ce to refuse admittan ce to a policeman “ in

th e premises and th e cha rge states “ in to an d upon th e

premises th e Cour t of Revie w w ill amend un der 5 of

1 868 . D’Abreu v. Fran cis.

Dama ge.— Ach arge statin g th at Defen dan t committed

damage, in jury and ,

Spoil may be amen ded to any on e

term. Joseph v. Ruck.

AMENDMENT.1 0 AMENDMENT.

Mislea ding Defen da n t— Wh ere an amen dment ismade

th roug h a ch a rge h avin g been stated defectlvely an d

Defen dan t’

s a tten tion is called to such amen dmen t an d

Defen d an t sta tes before th e Magistra te th at h e w as notmisled by such amen dmen t h e h a s n o righ t O f appeal on

th e gr oun d of such amen dmen t . H odg son v . Ch eese

w r ig h t .

Postp on emen t — Defen dan t is en titled to a postpon emen t on amen dmen t of ch arge . Pequeno v . Binn s

Martin v . Fra n cis .

Per son to amend .— Th e actual h an d to make th e

amen dment is n ot limited to any particular person .

Fong-a-Lon g v . Ch an dler .

After fia t — Th e amen dment of a ch arge after fia t of

Attorn ey Gen era l an d service on Defen dan t is a fatal

defect . Serepaul v . Cruicksh an k, but th e amendmen t ofth e ch ristian n ame of Defen d an t on a revenue prosecution

after fia t of Attorn ey Gen era l does n ot preclude Mag ist ra te fromadjudicating . Cruicksh a nk v . La Rose .

Fur th er see FIAT .

O n excess of Jurisdiction .~ Wh ere th e Magistrate

exceed s h is jurisdiction by inflictin g a h eavier fin e th an

th e la w a llow s h im, th e Court of Review w ill n ot amendth e proceedings by inflicting a smaller pen alty for tw orea sons . 1 . Th a t Defen da nt w ould h ave to pay th e fin eor g o to th e expen se an d trouble of appealin g an d th en

pay th e sma ller pen a lty.2. Th at except th e conviction

w a s quash ed it w ould deprive h imof h is righ t of action

again st th e Magistra te for excess O f jurisdiction . Eppiliev. Bur row es (con viction un der 31 of 1850 See . Seeca se of Luckie v . An son un der h ead CONVICTION .

Wh er e th e Mag istrate imposes a fin e of $24an d

costs $2 1 13 for a ssault a nd th e ordin an ce 20 of 1862 Sec.

43 on ly auth orises imposition of a fine not exceeding $24tog eth er w ith costs if ordered , th e Court w ill amend theconviction to $24in full . Ned v . Syce .

Felmiously.

-Add ing th e w ord felon iously in ch arge

of larceny n ot a llow able after tria l but, before trial . Jack

v . Joh n : furth er see FELONIOUSLY.

To foun d jurisdiction . See JURISDICTION .

O f convIctl on . See CONVICTION.

AMICUSComa . 1 1 APPEARANCE.

Amicus Cur iae.

If a Judge is doubtful ormistaken in ama tter of la w

a bystan dermay in formth e Cour t a s amica s curiae .

Not Recogn iz ed except on comin g fromth e Ba r O f th eCourt, an d private communication s to a Judge on judicialbusiness h ow ever legitimate in th eir Object are irregula rand un desirable . Ferreira v . McInroy.

Magistra te h ea rd as of amica s curiae on a rule requiringh imto forw ard proceeding s. H ow ell v . Sa ntos.

Appea l — SEE REASONS.

Appear an ce — O E DEFENDAN T.

In Revenue Ca ses n ot n ecessary on th e h earin g or

adjudica tion , Gomes v. Burrow es . Wh er e Defen dan t doesn ot appear , th e Mag istratemay proceed ea pa r te on proofof service of summons or issue w arran t according to

discretion rib.

Th e appearan ce of a person bea ring th e same n amea s th e Defendan t , by h imself or Counsel amoun ts to n omore th an a sta temen t th at Coun sel represen ted th e

person w ho h ad been served ; it does n ot sh ow th e

appearer to be th e personmen tion ed in th e summon s .

Games v . Clarke.

O N PBO NOUNCIATIO N or JUDGMENT .

Magistrate n ot boun d to give parties n otice of pro

noun ciation of judgmen t . Cuckow V. de Jesus.

IN REVIEW COURT .

Wh ere th e parties do n ot appear , th e Review Cour t isstill to decide th ema tter on th e papers submitted . Montrose v . Th eobald , Lash ly et a t v . Ch ung (Gold cases.)In H arel v . Govia it w as h eld th a t w h ere th e par ties do

n ot appea r in th e Review Court t h e Mag istrate’

s decisionmust be affirmed , an d in Moon ie v . Dorn ford it w a s laid

tha t w h ere th e Appel lan t does n ot file h is rea son s w ith inth e period a llow ed , th e Courtmust dismiss th e applica

tion for review .

APPEARANCE. 1 2 ARREST.

IN GOLD AMINING CASES.

Alth ough n o par ticular l imit is prescribed as to

th e exten t of opportun ity of appear in g w h ichmay bea llow ed in g oldmin in g ca ses, it is clear ly n ot in tended

th a t th e n on -appea ran ce of parties (on appea l) sh ould

keep ama tter open in defin itely. Mon trose V . Th eobald .

Cr PROSECUTOR.— See PROSECUTOR.

Ar r est .

Restrain t of a man ’

s person , obligin g h imto be

obedien t to th e law , execution of a comma n d of someCour t of r ecord or officer of justice , th e beginn ing ofan imprisonmen t by colour of a w arran t or decree of a

Cour t .

Discr etion a ry Pow er .—Magistrate h as discretion ary

pow er to ord er arr est upon in formation s for petty ,

offen ces Rodn ey V . Ph illips, but th is course sh ould not

be resorted to un less th ere is some Specia l r ea son ib.

Without Wa r ra n t, obj ection n ot taken — Wh ere De

fen dan t is illega lly ar rested an d brough t before th e

Magistrate on a legal ch arge, an d takes n o objection toh is bein g in custody a t th e time , an d plead s to th e

ch arge a nd bear s evid ence , h e can not plead such illegal

custody before th e Review Court . SamV . Nobriga .

No obj ection a llow ed — Wh ere a Defen dan t is brough t

before a Magistrate on a proper ch arge , it is immaterialWh eth er th e officer w h o brough t th e Defen da n t before

h imw a s justified in doing so or n ot . Lutchn ee v . Cruick

sh a nk (cit . Bow ditch V . Fosberry, 1 9 L .J . Ex. 339 ; Gelen

V . H a ll 2 N . 85 H . 379 ; 27 L .J. , M .C.

Wh eth er a prison er is lega lly or illeg a lly a rrested on a

w a rran t is imma ter ia l for th e Mag istrate to decide ; beingbefore th e Justice , h ow ever brough t th ere, th e Justice

if h e h a d jurisdiction in r espect of time an d place over

th e offen ce , is competen t to en tertain th e ch arge th en

before h im. Morr ison V . Ramdah in, (cit . Reg . V . Hughes ;

Reg . v . Bolton .)Plea of illega l a r rest sh ould be taken before th e

Magistra te ; Lutch n ee V. Cruicksh a nk.

tSAULT. 14 PEACE O FFICER.

of beatin g th e'

con stable in th e execution of h is duty.

Samv. Simon .

Wh ere an ow n er of a n estate is served With a notice

to do certain repa irs on a road an d did n ot so repair,

an d th e road officer sen tmen to repair an d th ey w ere

order ed off by th e ow n er , a n d th e road ofiicer came upan d th e h or se w h ich th e ow n er w a s r idin g a t th e time w as

n early put in to th e tren ch by th e road officer , h eld on a

ch a rge of a ssault th at th e ow n er h ad no righ t tomolest orobstruct th e road officer or h is w orkmen in th e per

forman ce of a duty primé fa cie legal , an d h aving don eso, th e road officer h ad a righ t to remove th e obstructionand h e w as n ot guilty of excessive violence, and used

th at force on ly w h ich w a s sufficien t an d nomore . Youngv. Miller .

Not Justifiable.— Where th e ch arge laid is informal

or unfounded an d is dismissed , it is no excuse for assault

ing th e con stable in th e execution of h is duty. Scipiov. Dunbar .

It is n o defen ce to urge th at th e con stable w a s in

plain cloth es an d w ith out a staff ; Dover v. Fraser ,but itmust be sh ow n in eviden ce th at at th e time of th ea ssault th e person a ssaulted h ad th e status of a Peace

officer . G reen v. Hillman .

An Assault is not justifiable by provoking w ords ;Clouston v . Fraser , Da Silva v. Pereirra.

Queere w h eth er it is a defen ce if con stable w as

a ssaulted on arresting Defendan t for an Offence for w h ichh e could n ot be arrested , such as smoking in a ch urch

yard . Zitman V. Backer .

To pr event a levy on w ages due by an estate to an

immigran t is an un law ful resisting of th e officer in th e

execution of h is duty. Burrow es v. Craw ford .

After a Commissary h asmade a seizure an d h e is

a ssaulted tech n ica lly or oth erw ise, th ema tter is on e ofcommon a ssault an d not a n a ssault in th e execution of

h is duty . Cor ria v. Green slade .

Wh ere th e Policema n exceeds h is duty, such a s shuttingup a sh op, w h en h e is n ot auth orised by th e ordin ance,h e cannotma in ta in a ch arge for a ssault in execution 850 .

Da Silva v. H ill ; Samv. Simon . A policeman is not

ASSAULT. 1 5 AGGRAVATED.

protected w h en h e does an act w h ich th e law does not

auth orise h imto do ; nor is be protected w h en h e usesun law fulmean s for effectin g a la w ful purpose , De Freitasv . McAllister .

O n a ch arge for assaulting a peace officer in th eexecution of h is duty, Defen dan t cann ot be convicted of

common assault . Edw ard s V . Cambridge .

In citing— Wh ere a Defen dan t says to a con stable w h o

h a s ch arge of a prisoner , if th e prison er gets aw ay fromyou n o body h a s a r igh t to arrest h im, h emay be con

victed of “ in citing ,”but th e w ords w ould not suffice to

con vict h imof resisting th e con stable in execution , &c . ,

or of a breach of th e peace . McPh erson v. Th omsonet d l.

Force used inmaking a rr est. -Wh ere an arrest is

lega llymade th e con stablemay use force to overcomeresistan ce, but n ot a ll or any kin d of force ; h e is not

to bea t, w oun d , &c . , th e person h e h a s in ch arge .— De

Freitas v. McAllister .

Assa ult in pr esen ce of Con sta ble — Wh ere an assault is

committed in presen ce of a con stable an d h e arrests an d

is assaulted , it is n ot n ecessary to sh ow th a t th e a rrest

w a s a bsolutely n ecessary, or th at a furth er ormoreaggravated breach of th e peace w ould h ave been committed if th e a rrest h ad n ot beenmade . Gon salves v.

Justifica tion under Wa r ra n t.— Wh en a n oflicer justifiesth e assault or arrests under a w a r ran t, such w arran tmustbe produced . Rodn ey v . Sampson .

AGGRAVATED.

It is un necessary th at th e particulars of an aggravated

a ssault sh ould be set out in a ch arge. Neptune V.

Benton ; Pistan o v. Pompey.

Wh ere th e Magistra te certifies or declares O n th e face

of th e proceeding s for agg rava ted a ssault, th at h e is of

Opinion th at th e age of t he ch ild does n ot exceed 14yea rs, th e Review Court w ill n ot interfere w ith h is

conviction , ih .

Un der Section s 43, 44of offen ces ag ain st th e person

O rdinance 1862, th e term“aggrava ted” is used to describe

SAULT. AUTREFOISACQUIT.

an a ssault of such a n ature th at it can n ot in th e opinion

of(th e Mag istr ate tryin g th e ch ar e be sufiimently

pun ish able a s a common a ssault . h e Mag istra te can

deal w ith th e a ssault a s an a gg ravated on e in respect of

th e facts emergin g a t th e h earin g , even alth ough th e

in forma tion h ad n ot so described it . Gilbert V. Bar nes .

Wh ere th e ch arge is for “assault o n a female, th e

Magistrate h as a r igh t if eviden ce is sufi cien t , to con vict

of a n agg ravated a ssault . Rod rigues v. Pereira .

DISPUTED TITLE.

Magistra te h a s n o jurisd iction for assault in ya rd in

dispute of title . Sample v . H opkin son .

Where th ere is a w elt-foun ded an d bond fide in terest in

proper ty , an assault in la w may still be committed .

Lon don v. Ba ird .

Furth er— see JURIsDIOTIO N .

At O n ce — See WORDS.

Attor n ey .— See AGENT .

Auction eer .

Not liable for pen a lty for acts un der th e Tax O rdina nce (w h eth er is h e liable un der O rdin a nce 9 of 1 844,not decided .) De Jon ge V . Dar rell .

Auth or ity— fromprin cipal un der Crow n Lan ds .

Autrefois Acquit .—Convict .

Referen ce Ba ch — Wh ere a case (n ot indictable) ish eard an d th e decision is appealed from, an d on review

th e Mag istra te’

s d ecision IS reversed an d th ematter isremitted back to be re-h ea rd , a n d on r

e-h earing byan oth er Mag istra te (th e first con victing Magistrateh aving left t h e Colony) a nd h e convicts , it is n ot a case

of a ut a c. De Souz a v . Sw a in ; De Fa ria v. Sw ain.

Wh ere th e Magistra te dismisses a ca se on th e groun dof supposed ouster of jurisdiction and th ema tter isreferred back to

h imby th e Review Cour t, th e true

AUTREFOIS. ACQUIT.

con struction of th e order of th e Court reversing th eMagistrate

s order dismissing th e ch arge is,th at it

efiaces th e Magistrate’s order of dismissal an d rein sta tes

th e proceedin g s before h imin th e same position as ifh e h ad n otmade th e order . Glasgow v . Kryen h off.Idemw h en ch arge is w ith draw n by Complain an t w ithout opposition by Defen dant an d w ith out h is askin gfor a decision on th e w ith dra w n ch arge . (N0 bar tosubsequen t proceedings .) Sample v. Butts .

Wh ere th e eviden ce on a case of a ssault before th e

Magistrate sh ow ed a bruta l unprovoked battery, an d th e

Magistrate dealt summa rily w ith th ema tter in stead of

referring to a h ig h er Cour t, th e Review Court qua sh edth e conviction an d directed h imto refer th e ca se to th e

In ferior Crimin a l Cour t. An drew v . Novel .

A Cer tifica te of Dismissa l a s again st B is n o bar

to subsequen t proceedin gs w h ere th e Magistrate dismisses a ch arge ag ain st A, an d th e same prosecutor asks

th at a ch a rge again st B on th e same g roun ds sh ouldbe w ith draw n , an d th e Magistrate refuses to a llow w ith

draw a l on objection by Defen dan t a n d dismisses case

an d gran ts certificate of dismissa l . Wrig h t v. De Silva ,

(cit . H aw kin’

s RC. 0 . 35 , s . Sec . 20 of O rd . 19 of

1 856 read w ith Sec . 3 of 5 of 1 868 .

Wh er e th e Magistra te acts on an hypoth esis an d

n o va lid conviction could be passed on such h ymoth esis, en try of dismissa l is n o bar to subsequen t proceedings, ih .

Dismissa l by th eReview Cour t for w an t of prosecutiondoes n ot amoun t to a fin al sen ten ce, an d reviewmay bereh eard on prayer for relief by petition onmerits sh owing th at h e did n ot r eally aban don h is case , but Wasmisled , or oth er excusable a rgument . Williams v.

Roberts et a l.Aplea of Autrefois a cquit on a ch arge for assault

does n ot ar ise on a ch arge for assault of a policeman inexecution of h is duty.

” Edw ards v. Cambridge .

Proof— O u a plea of a n t a c. or con vict, th e on ly legal

proof of conviction or d ismissa l is th e record or officialcopy. De Gracia v. Wigh t, cit . H ar tley v. Hindmarch ,LR. 1 , c P

Aurssrors Comer. 1 8 BILL O F ENTRY

Cour ier .

Jur isdiction — Wh ere Defendant is convicted and 5 11 011

conviction is quash ed on th e groun d th at th e Mag istrate

h ad no jurisdiction , th e first conviction is not a bar to a

subsequen t prosecution on th e same set of facts. Da

Silva v. Layton .

Sepa r a te ofi'

encea — Wh ere Defen dan t 18 ch a rged w ithkeeping4dogs w ith out licen ces on differen t ch arges, th econ viction for keepin g on e of th e dogs w ith out a licen ce

can n ot be pleaded a s an t con . Da Silva v. Burrow es.

Wh ere th ere are several sa les on Sunday by th e sameperson at th e same sh op, th ere can on ly be on e convietion . San tos v. Darrell. (Cit. Crapp v. Dundorn , 1 ,SL C 649 ; Attorney Gen era l v. McLean 1 H 85 CWh ere defendan t is cha rged for using indecen t expres

sion s an d gestures on th e public road and a lso formakinguse of lan guage tending to provoke, and th e offences

are both parts of one and th e same transaction , a convic

tion on one ch arge puts an end to th e oth er . King v.

Ashby.

Ba il .

Parties are generally bailed b the Magistrate w hen

referred to a_

h igh er Cour t. hen not so h ailed a

petition is sent to th e Ch ief Justice w ho refers th e sameto th e Attorney Gen eral for h is report, and on h is reportth e order ismade. Bail is th en to th e satisfaction of the

Sh eriff or Crow n Solicitor . Th e Bail Bon d run s th roughth e session th ough prisoner surrenders to bail .

Bastardy .— SEE Poos LAW.

Bil l of En try .

Erma — Bill not truly disclosing goods is false, w h eth erth e amount of dut payable is or is not afiected by themisdescription . ustoms v. Fresson .

Time to Produce.— Th ere is no limit as to th e time in

w h ich th e Comptroller or Sub-Comptroller can ca ll on animporter to produce invoice un der sec. 90 of O rdinance1 6 of 1 884. McGow an v. Davis.

BARRISTER. 19 Busmsss PREMISES.Bar r ister — SEE LEGAL PRACTITIONER.

Bitter s .

Not a d rug . Gon salves v . De Freitas.

Brea ch of Con tra ct — SeeCommonBrea ch of th e Pea ce— See SURETY.

Breach of th e Law

By a person does not preven t h is prosecuting for a public w ron g to h imself, such as an assault. Bah adoo v.

Humph reys ; Sobriun v. H umph reys.

Brea ch of Trust .

Lawful Emma — Un der ordinance 1 7' of 186 1 , sec. 1 ,theremust be a n eglect to performth e con tract w ith in a

rea son able time, and neg lect or refusal to return th e

articles, &c., given to be repaired , &c., w ith out la w fulexcuse . H arris v. Bracey.

If th e Defendan t is g rossly negli’

en t in exposin g th e

w ork en trusted to h imso th at it is jured ; th is w oulddeprive h imof th e excuse . 1b.

Brea d — Seller O L— See WEIGHT MEASURE.

Build in g .

Alth ough in th e trespass law th e w ord “ building . does

not appear th e w ord premises” includes buildings.”

Th orn h ill v. Pilgrim; Ch apma n v Pooler .

Buyer . See Assrros .

Busin ess PremiSes .- How interpreted .

Th e termbusiness premises”must be in terpreted

according to th e subjectmatter an d allocation .

Fern an des v. Green slade . Itmay include any part of th emost exten sive buildings, enclosures, w h arves, &c . , w h ich

by use occupation , structure or en closure are subservien t

to ormerely conn ected w ith a sh op, an office or oth er

BUSINESSPREMISES.20 BUSINESSPREMISES.

place of busin ess. Itmaymean on th e.

oth er h an d th e

very sh 0p, office or place of actual busmess formmg apart an d often an in sign ifican t part as regards positlonor structure of such premises . Itsmean in g aga inmaybe a scertain able by exten sive applica tion and r estriction

var iable a ccording to th e circumstan ces of each case,

but con formin g to some gen eral principle or in terest tobe a scer ta in ed by th e O rd in an ce. Fernan desv.Green slade.

Liability of 0w n er .— Th e occupier of th e sh op is

liable for rumfoun d , w ith out any scien ter or proof th ath e w a s aw are of th e rumbein g secreted as h e h as fullcon trol over th e premises a nd persons h aving access to

th em, an d by due diligen ce can take care th e rumw asn ot un laivfully brough t th ere. Batiste v. Burrow es.Idema s to places w h ere h e possesses and is entitled toexercise th e like con trol if h e ch ooses ib but th eremustbe exclusive righ t of occupancy ib.

WHAT ARE BUSINESS PREMISES.

Th e w ords business premises under t he licen ce ordin a nce in cludes any roomor place adjoining or adjacentto any store or sh 0p. But th ose w ords cann ot be con

strued to in clude any place n ot in th e occupan cy of the

person again st w h omth e ch arge is directed , th e prosecatormust Sh ow th at it w as in th e occupan cy of Defen dan tor in any event th at due en quiry h ad failed to discoverany oth er occupan t. D

O liveira v. Burrow es citingD

orn ella s v. Leacock. D’

O rn ellas v. Wills not applicable .

Tw o con tiguous Premises.— A licen ce does n ot cover

sale of spirits in tw o separa te h ouse on same lot.Pequen o v . H ill .

ABridge attach ed to a sh 0p and a portion of th e sh 0pis a place ad join ing or adjacen t to th e store or shop.

O rn ella s v . Wills.

A,Roomin w h ich g in w as foun d immediately above

th e sh op, w h ere a trap door communicated fromth esh op to th e roomin w h ich g in w as found . Arnold v.

Gomes et a l ; even w h en gin w a s in small quan tity, 35pin ts an d 2g pin ts bran dy, an d boug h t a s alleged

BUSINESSPREMISES. 22 CARRIAGE, &O .

CHARGE.

Wording ofi— May be for h avin g rumin th ebusin ess premises or on busin ess premises . D

O rnellas v. Wells ; D

’O rn ellas v . Leacock. D

O liveira v. Burrow es ; cit . D

’O rnella s v .Wells ; it sh ould state Defendant

to be th e occupier of th e business premises. Culverh ouse v, Darrell .Time for bringing ch arge for h aving rumO n business

premises to be w ith in 30 days . D’

ornellas v. Leacock.

By-L aw .

Authority to Act.— A Police Con stablemay act on a

by-law of h is ow n notion , but if directed to do a n act byh is superior Officer th e act don e by h imis th e act of th esuperior Officer . Roch a v. Binn s.

Can e Tops

Not subject of larceny. Sample v. Butts. See Larceny Grow ing CrO ps.

Cap tion .

Th at part of a legal instrument, as a commission ,in dictment, &c., w h ich sh ow s w h ere an d by w h at authority it is taken , foun ded or extracted .

It sh ould Sh ow th e Magistrate’

s district, so th at it

sh oul d appear th at th e case fell w ith in h is jurisdiction .

Rodn ey v. Sampson .

Ca r r iag e, Ca r t , H or se, & c.— LIOENOESFOR.

Use— 0nus. —Wh ere th eTax O rdinance enacts th at anyperson w h o keeps an d uses or ow n s and permits to beused any ca rriage Sh a ll take out a licence, th e prosecutingO flicer n eed n ot prove a using if h e proves that th e

carriage w as found on Defen dan t’s premises. Th e onus

of proving th at it w a s n ot used lies on Defendant . Gonsalves v. An son .

Under O rdin an ce 5 of 1855 , sec. 5 , th e onus of prov

ing th at amule w as not used for h ire is on Defen dant.

CARRIAGE, &O . 23 CARRIAGE, & O .

Smith v. Barclay. Idem, permitted to be used . Goolav. Dorn ford .

rence.— Ach arge for keeping an d using for trade

or h ire a carriage and did th en an d th ere fail w ith out law fulexcuse to take out a licence to keep th e same” infersth at th e failure of th e taking out O f th e licen ce is w ithrespect to th e carriage . Gonsalves v. An son .

Th e eviden ce th at Defen dan t ow n ed an d permitted a

donkey and cart to be used is n ot sufficien t to convict h imof an offence for keepin g an d using for th e purpose oftrade . Marach ea v. Layton .

Er otica — Th e failure to take out a licen ce for th e fin ancial year is not exon erated because th e ch arge is brough t

after a n ew finan cial year h as begun an d a n ew O rdinan ce

passed before th e case is proceeded w ith . King v. Cush .

Th e keepin g a nd using tw o car riages w h en th ere is

on ly licen ce for one is an infraction of th e O rd in ancean d it is n ot necessary to prove th at Defen dan t used th etw o carriages on th e same day. Fra ser v. Brebn er ;Martin s v. Burrow es ; Men des v . Layton .

It is n o Offen ce to use in on e coun ty a h orse an d

carriage for w h ich a licen ce h ad been taken out in a noth er

coun ty, even if th e user is n ot th e h older of th e licen ce .

Nott v Lang .

Ah earse is not a four-w h eeled car riag e liable to licen ce .

Sw ain v. Matth ias. (Repea led _

by Tax O rdin an ce .)Use of esta te

s h orse by th eman ager for h is ow n purpOse is a user w ith out licen ce by th emanager . Duggin

v. Craw ford .

Keeping an d using a cart is an Offen ce . Permittin g itto be used is anoth er Offen ce . Men des v. Layton .

Agen cy.— Acart d riven by Defendan t

’s son for purposes

of Defendan t is in law a driving by Defen dant gui facit

p er a liamfa citp er se. An son v. Stuart . Wh ere Defendan t

s boy usesmule, some evidencemust be given to Sh owor at least to lead rea son ably to th e inferen ce th at such

use w as by th e in struction or in th e employmen t of th eDefendan t . Men des v. Taylor .

Name of 0w n er .— An employé O f estate is n ot person

a lly liable if n ame O f estate is not leg ibly pain ted on car t.

30 of 1 866, s.44. Grant v. Lang ; Naugh ten v. Lloyd .

CARRIAGE, & O . 24 CERTIFICATE.

Leaving horse gc. on p ar ap et of public road is an offence

under 20 of 1 856. Parker v . Evelyn .

TRADE PURPOSES.

Wh ere a h older of a pr ivate licence to use a donkeyan d cart, &c . con tracts to supply amon gst oth er th ingsmilk to a h ospital , h e is a trader inmilk an d liable for

usin g h is donkey an d ca rt , 850 . w ith out a licen ce for

trade, if h e conveys th emilk to th e h ospital by such

cart . Patoir v . Layton .

Idem.— Wh ere th e proprietor of an O il factory carries

cocoanuts to th e factory in h is car t. Smith v. Barclay,follow ing Mayers v . An derson ; (citing Re Wa tts ea: p .

Sully 14Q.E.D .

Idem— Wh ere a person cuts cord w ood a nd sells th e

same to an estate an d conveys th e w ood in a cart for

w h ich h e h olds a private licen ce, h e is liable to a con

viction for using a cart for purpose of trade. An son v.

Stuart.Idem— Wh ere bread is conveyed fromsteamer stel

ling to Defendan t’s sh O p. Mayers v. An derson .

Idem— If h emakes bread an d supplies h is customersw h o keep sh O ps. King v. Nasebun .

Idem— Wh en corn ed h assas are sold in th e cart. Van

Brook v. King ; con tra if h assas w ere fresh , ib.

Ca se .

Th ere is no provision in th e O rdin an ce or Rulesen abling a Magistrate to state a case for th e ReviewCourt. Greene v. Braz ao .

ca ttle .— SEE POUND.

Cer tifica te .

Of Dismissa l .— Defen d an t is en titled to a certificate of

dismissa l of th e ch a rg e w h en th e complain an t refrain sfromofiering eviden ce . De Freita s v . McAllister et a l.

(cit . Reg . v . Wiltsh ir e Justices 8 B . C. 380 Bradshaw

v . Va ugh ton , 30 L .J . C.P. N . S. 93 ; Tun niclifi’e v. Tedd,

CERTIFICATE. 25 COMPLAINT.

Of Dismissa l ; case n ot p roved , equals dismissal onmerits an dmay be amen ded to a dismissa not onmerits .

”Dan iel v. Day.

Of Commissa ry — Admission of— See EVIDENCE.

Of Magistra te.-O th er th an certificate O f dismissa l is no

part of th e proceedin gs in Review an d cann ot be looked

at . Gomes v . Burrow es .

Of Receiver Genera l . -See EVIDENOF.

AS a bar to furth er proceedin gs — See Aut. Acq.

Ch apel , Ch ur ch .

A licen ce is not required for a lecture given by th eMin ister O f a Ch urch on a h istorical or religious subjectillustra ted by th emagic lan tern for ra isingmon ey torepair th e Church or to ligh t or clean th e same . Gibbon s V Straker (cit. Bar ter v . Langley, L .R.4s C.P .

Smoking in a ch urch yard does n otmake th e Offen deramen able to arrest by a con stable for disorderly con duct .Zitman v . Backer .

0fien ces .-Wh ere a person persists in an act in a

ch urch ya rd inn ocen t in itself, but in decen t in respect

of time an d place an d oth er circumstances, h emay beremoved at th e in stan ce of th e Min ister or oth er personin auth ority ib. (cit . H aw e v. Plann er , l San d . 1 3 Com.Dig . Esglise F.

Ch a r g e See INFORMATION .

Ch a r ge .— Amendmen t of.— See AMENDMENT.

Cocoa nut .— See GROWING CROP— LARCENY.

Commissary .

A Sub-Commissary is not en titled to exercise any of

th e function s or auth orities reposed in th e District

In spector”

un der th e Road O rdin an ce O f 1 856. Y oungV. Mun ro .

Compen sa tion — To Prosecutor .~—See Commo

Comp la in t — See INFORMATION.

COM ROMI'

SE. 26 CONSENT.

Comp r omise.

Person a l O ffen ce — Wh ere Offen ce is of a private or

person a l n ature n ot amoun t in g to felony an d n ot aggra

va ted , involvin g damage to th e in dividual for w h ich an

action w ould bemain tain able , it w ould n ot be unusual

for th e Ma gistra te to allo w th e complaint to be droppedon terms th a t compen sation be pa id to th e in jured party.

Door aj ,V . Keenoo .

A priva te in jurymay gen era lly be disch arged by th eagreemen t O f th e person In jured it is difieren t w ith an

ofien ce w h ich is con side red to be an in jury against th ecommunity _

a s w ell a s ag ain st a particular individual ;n o disch a rge or forgiven ess by th e individualclient in such a case . Bagot v. Gunga . (A case forneglecting to begin w orkWith out law ful excuse .)Licence Law — Tenderin g ofmoney to cover licence

after information laid , does n ot condon e Offen ce for n ottaking out litten ce. Math eson v. Straker .

Th e receivin g of an in stalmen t w ith in terest for licenceis n o condonation of Offence committed prior to date ofreceipt. Day v. Gon sa lves .

Where th e Commissary g ives permission to a person

to use a gun , th e party usmg th e gunmay still be con

victed of using th e gun w ith out a licence, as th e permission of th e Commissary cannot override th e la w w hichmakes it imperative to take out a. licence . H orton v.

Ch ester ; Tyrell V. Stuart .

Idemw hen a n otice is issued calling on person s to

take out licen ces up to a cer tain day on pain th at th ose

n eg lecting to provide themselves w ith a licen ce w ill be

prosecuted , and an un licen sed gun is used in th e in terim.Bolton v. Fern andes.

Computation of Time .-SEETIME— SUNDAY.

Con d on a tion .— SEE COMPROMISE.

Con sen t .

Evid en ce oth erw ise in admissible can not in criminal orsummary proceeding s be a dmitted by con sen t. Warren

v. Pereira .

CONSENT. 27 CONVICTION.

Th e presumption of con sen t fromsilence is not absolute . Warren v. Pereira .

In crimin al ch arges it is not competen t for a n accused

person to con sen t to anyth ing . Such con sen t does n ot

cure irregularities. Jaoko et a l v. Sarabjeth .

Con struction of Pen al O rdin ance — SEE CRIMINALMATTER.

of O rdin an ce — SEE O RD‘

INANCE.

Con tr act .— Breach of.

In ca ses aga in st a labourer evidencemust be given tosh ow th at Defendan t is a contract labourer. Prince et

a l v . Rickford .

Th ere can be n o conviction under a ch a rge for fraudan d deception Wh ilst cuttin g can es if th e fr aud a n d

deception took place a fter th e can es h ad been cut . I6.

Con tract is n ot illega l on th e g round th a t parties ag reed

th at th e w orkmust be fin ish ed in a cer tain time or n o

part th ereof w ould be paid for . Tra p v. G reen .

Breach of— by Servan t — See MASTERAND SERVANT

Conviction

Is th e completion of th e record a n d t h e Cour t of

Review is govern ed by it a nd n ot by th e ch a rge. Van

Brook v. King .

REQUISITES OF.

Need not state age of Defendan t, neith er

is an adult, &c. Gran t v . Josa .

Security— O n conviction , no imprisonmen t aw arded ,

th e Magistra te is to take secur ity in‘

caSe O f appeal‘

not a deposit,

ofmoney for Defendan t to abide appea l .Collier v. Pullitlall .

Sign atw re.— Th e convictionmust purport to bear the

Magistrate’

s signature . Williams v . Lyn ch .

tering .— Conviction may be a ltered by Mag istra te

during th e sitting of th e Court . Th e Session s h ave th e

pow er of altering a sen ten ce before adjournment, but th is

sh ould be done w ithmuch caution. Manson v. Gunga deen .

CONVICTION. 28 REQUISITEs.

Inference.~— Must not be supported by inten dment.

Glasgow v. De Freitas.

Jur isdiction — Must sh ow th at th e offen ce w as committed w ith in th e local limits over w h ich th e jurisdictionexten ds, but th ere is n o specialmeth od of proof for

establish in g th is fact . Gran t v . Josa .

Specific.— Must be for th e Offen ce ch arged . Cumber

batch v. H in ds, cit . Ben v . Nich olson (Reg . v. VVhea tma/n.

Dougla s, 232; Reg . v . Smith 8 T.E.

Must contain ofience committed , verdict and pen alty,a lth ough th e O rdin an ce defin es th e pen al con sequences.

Cox v. Bascom(cit . Reg . v . Vigion t, 2 Ba rr 1 1 63 ; Reg.

v. H arris, 7 T.E. 238 ; Pa leyMust be for a specific pen alty. Gomas v. Backer .

Pa ley 227 et seq.For Gamin g — Must con tain a n averment th at Defend

ant is deemed a rogue an d a vagabond . Soyah v.

Moran cie.

Un der Vagran cy O rdinan ce itmust show under w h ath ead Defen dan t is convicted w h eth er a s an idle and disorderly person , &c. Turnkey v. Kin g (cit. Fletcher v.

Ca lthorp e, 14L. J.M. O .49 ; Reg. v . Johnson , 8 QB .

Wh ere th is is omitted an d n o specific Objection takenCourt w ill remit to Magistrate for n ew conviction .

Decision in formof English Act . Soyeh et a l v. Moras eis .

Under 20 of 1862 it is sufficien t for conviction to pur

port to be for an Offen ce committed con trary to O rdi

n ance 20 of 1 862 w h ich en acts (sec . 72) th at no summaryconviction under th e O rdin an ce sh all be quash ed forw an t of form. Evan s v. Y oung

-a-sam.Wh ere O rdinancemakes a particular class of persons

amenable to an offence such a s baker”, &c. , th e convic

tionmust sh ow on th e face of it th at Defendant belongs

to such class. De Govia v. Green slade .

Convictionmust be so framed th at it is capable in itsterms w ith out being construed bymean s of intrin sic

eviden ce of suppor ting th e plea of a n t. cone . in the event

of a secon d prosecution being brough t for same ofl'ence.

Th is is not accomplish ed w h ere th e statute un der w hich

th e conviction ismade createsmore offen ces th an one bysaying th e Defendan t w as convicted of committing or of

ConvICTION .30 FORMAL

Sen tence for brea ch of Crow n Lan ds O rdin an ce for

$48 a n d costs, an d if a gr an t-h older , to forfeit licence,

is bad for un certain ty . Gomes v. Backer ; idem, If con

viction states san d coa ls , &c .

”to be sold ,

’i h ' idem

it con demn s Defen da n t to payA an d an oth er , Coombsv . Butler . Wh en bad for w an t of certain ty, case can be

remitted to Magistrate for forma l conviction . De Frietas

v . Siegert .

It is bad if it simply fin d s Defen dant guilty O f th e

Offen ce ch a rged an d con tain s n o adjudica tion of pun ishmen t . Cox v . Ba scom. It is n o an sw er to say th at th e

pun ishmen t is fixed by law , ih . ; (cit . R. v . Vip ont, 2Burr 1 1 63 ;R. v. H arris, 7 , T. R. ,

238 ; Pa ley,Wh ere it is bad for w an t of certa in ty, a ll doubts on

th e poin t can be removed by remitting th e case to theMagistrate for h imto d raw up a forma l con viction . De

Freitas v . Siegert . A con viction to pay to A and an

oth er ,”is bad for uncertain ty . Coombs v. Butler .

A conviction is in divisible , an d a fault in one part

vitiates th e w h ole . Aben dan on v . Sproston .

A conviction bad in part is fa ta l to th e w h ole convio

tion . Na scimen to v. An son .

A pen a l sen ten ce is so clearly indivisible th at it cannot

be good in part an d bad in par t, an d th e decisionmustbe removed a ltogeth er . Th us it becomes n ecessary for th e

Judge in Review to con sider th e facts of th e case in Orderto impose a n e w sen tence , alth ough un der ordinary cir

cumstan ces h e w ould n ot recon sider th equan tumO f pun ishmen t aw arded by th e Magistra te’

s decision . Rodneyv.

Sampson . Con tr a in De H a a rt v . H arcourt, w h ere convic

tion w as amen ded . Fur ther— See CONVICTION, AMENDMENT.Th e omission of amateria l avermen t w ill vitiate a

conviction n otw ith stan ding th e proviso th at no con

viction for any offen ce sh ould be set aside for w a nt of

formor th roug h amistake of any fact, circumstanceor oth ermatter , provided th ema terial facts allegedw ere proved .

” Turnkey v . King . Rodneyv. Sampson;(c it . R. v . Julces, 8, T. R.

FORMAL.

Magistra te not boun d by conviction a t Bar, a nd h emay

CONVICTION. 31 AMENDMENT.

file a n amen ded conviction before cer tiora ri, w h en Court ofReview w ill be boun d by th e forma l conviction . McGow anv . Davis ; (cit . Ch an ey v . Payn e, 1 , Q .B . , 722 ; Ch a r terv . Gra eme, 18, L .J . , MC 73 ; R. v . Ba cker

,1,East ,

Webster v. Birch — th emin ute of th e Mag istratemust con tain sta temen t O f conviction Hutson v . Roson .

Wh ere Mag istrate orders imprisonmen t ora lly, an d

forma l conviction sh ow s n o imprisonmen t, th e proper

sen tence is to be taken fromth e forma l con viction sen t

in to th e Court . McGow an v . Davis (cit . Jon es v.

Williams, 36, L .J . ,M .C.

Wh ere th e formal con viction is n ot sen t in , th e order

of th e Mag istrate as laid in th e proceeding s w ill be taken

a s conclusive . De Guara v . Watson .

Th e forma l con viction even if proper ly dra w n up can

n ot supply defects in th e ch arge an d evid en ce . Sew bodev. Muller .

Subsequen t proceeding s do n ot afiect conviction .

Jeffrey v . Burrow es.

AMENDMENT .

Th e Review Cour t h as n o pow er to a lter th e sen ten ce

of a Magistrate w h ere it tra n sg resses th e limits O f h isstatutory auth ority. Glasgow v . Bra ndon .

Wh ere con viction is w rong , Cour t of Revie w can alter

sen ten ce . Ford v . De Veuve .

Un der th e Customs O rdin an ce a conviction decreeing3mon th s ’ imprisonmen t in default of paymen t of th elin e

”may be amen ded by striking out th e 3mon th s ’Imprl sonmen t a s surplusage , an d th e Court w ill remit th eca se back to th e Magistrate for h imto d ra w up a proper

conviction . McGow an v . Davis cit . Cox v. Davis ;

Corr ea v. Cuckow .

Wh ere th e conviction orders 30 days’

imprisonmen tan d fin e O f $24a n d costs or 2mon th s’ h ard labour , th eCourt O f Review h as pow er to a lter th e same to on e for

$24an d costs. Rodn ey v. Sampson .

Wh er e conviction imposes a pen a lty an d costs above

th e amoun t fixed by law ,th e Courtmay amend . Ned v.

T ce.yWh ere conviction imposes a pen a lty less th an th e law

CONVICTION . 32 AMENDMENT.

a llow s, th e Magistra te exceeds h is auth ority.

an d th e

Cour t can not amen d th e conviction . D’

Na smmen to v.

An son .

Wh ere th ere is amere omission in th e draw ing up of

th e in strumen t w h olly irrespective O f th e truth andmerits of th ematter in question ,th e Court of Review

w il l order an amen dmen t . Ma th eson v. Gray (Cmerodv . Ch a dw ick, 1 6, M. db W . , p . 367 ; R. c. Inhabitan ts ofCh ili erscoton , 8, T. R.

, 1 78 ; R. v. Daman,2, B. Ald

378,h eld n ot in proof as h aving been decided before

previous act .)Conviction statin g damage, in jury an d spoil , may be

amen ded to eith er term. Joseph v. Ruck.

Under O rdin ance 5 of 1863, th e Review Court h aslarge pow ers of amen dmen t

,an d w h erever th ere is a

conviction w ell foun ded a s to th emerits an d a part O f thead judication is lega lly valid , somuch a s is valid sh ould

be sustained a lth ough joined w ith someth ing else w h ich

w as n ot va lid , an d provided injury or in justice is not

a ttendan t on or in duced by th e sepa ration . Luckie v.

An son . Th e Court w ill adopt itself either by amen dingor remitting to th e Magistrate w ith in struction w hen

th a t course ismore suitable , ih .

Wh ere conviction is bad in pa rt an d good in part, th e

pa r t va lid w ill be sustain ed , th e invalid part set aside,

e.g . , w h ere conviction is for a ssault an d bin ds th e Defen

dan t to keep th e peace, th e fine or imprisonment for th ea ssault w ill be valid a nd sustained , an d th e adjudicationto keep th e peace w ill be set aside . Cunn ingh amv.

Long .

Wh ere th e conviction is erroneous in part it is still

g ood if th e Magistrate decided righ tly in SO far as h e h ad

jurisdiction , yet decided on extran eousmatter beyondh is jurisd iction . Bracey v . McTurk. In th is case th e

Mag istra te t ried a claimofAppellan t un der Crow n Lan ds

Act, d ismissed th e same an d adjudged h imto a fine or

impr isonmen t , a n d forfeiture of h is w ood-cutting licence.

Wh ere th e Magistra te in ca se of plan tain stealingsen ten ces Defenda n t to imprisonment an d to a floggingw ith in th e time w ith in w h ich h e h as a righ t to appeal,th e Review Court h a s pow er to affirmdecision in regard

CONVICTION. 33

to th e imprisonment and set it aside w ith regard to th eflogg ing . Williams v. Primo .

Wh ere ch arge stated ofience to be under O rdinan ce14of 185 5 , a nd th e conviction sh ow ed O rd inance 25 of1 868, th eCourt h eld th at th e en actmen ts under 3 21 of

Review O rdinan ces w ere adapted from1 1 1 2 Vic. c.

43, s. 1 ; 12, 56 13 Vic .43, s. 7 ; 2 1 22 Vic. c .43, s. 6,an d did not w arrant amen dmen t of th e conviction nor a

remit to th e Mag istrate w h o is out of th e colony at th etime th ema tter ismen tion ed . Mann v. McTurk.

Amen dmen t of charge, by adding in case of gamblingat a game of chance,” allow able. Adams v. Clarke .

Court of Review cann ot decree amendment of a goodch arge of larceny w here Mag istrate convicts of embez z lemgn t, so as to correspond w ith eviden ce and conviction .

Jesse} v, Robb.

Conviction to pay a penalty for using h orse and n o t

taking out licence and to‘

pay h a lf amoun t of such licence,quash ed as regards payin g h a lf amount of the licence .

Ma tth eson v. Straker .

Where Magistrate imposes a less pen alty th an is

a llow ed by th e O rdin ance, th e conviction is’

bad a nd

can n ot be amended . D’

Nascimen to v. Anson .

Copy of Minutes— See EVIDENCE.

Wh en grow n on Crow n Lan ds, is not liable to seiz ure

by a Commissary of Taxation under 9 of 1873. Gon

salves v.

Harcour t .

n he aw arded under 19 of M56, Sec . 24on a ch arge

for gsing abusive w ords laid under 20 of 1856;Sec. 1 .

Ben jamin 17. De Freitas ; an d under name O rd in an ceona ph grge of sglling goods on Sun day. Jardine v . Bolton ; Da:Silva v. Gridin D

’Abreo v. Gridin Pereira v.

Bolton .

Un der. O rdinance 19 of 1856 the Mag istrate can a w a rd

cgstq in cases of summary conviction but can on lyE

COSTS. 34 CRIMINAL MATTER.

imprison for non -paymen t after d istress or failure to fin d

a sufficien t d istress. Rodn ey v . Sampson .

Costs sh ould n ot be a w a rded to th e agen t of th e prin

cipa l but to th e prin cipal . Williams v . Roberts .

No costs a w a r ded — Wh er e case is dismissed and th er ecord does n ot sh ow w h eth er for w an t of jur isdiction , orth at th e Mag istr ate d ecl in ed to adjudica te , fromth eomission tomake any order as to costs, th e Courtmustimply th at dismissal w a s for w an t of jurisdiction . Dawson v. Gon sa lves .

Ascer ta in ed costsmust be specified in th e conviction .

H ayw ood v . Y oung ; De Guara v. Watson ; Turnkey v.

Kin g ; (cit. R. v . Abra h amH a ll Comp ,60 R.v . Symonds,

1 East 1 89 ; S'ellw ood v. Moun t, 1 Ad . EL, N. S. p.

726) or decision w ill be reversed . Gomes v. Beth une ;de Guara v . Wa tson Da San tos et a l v. Exor . James.

Are recorerable'

in th e sameman ner as a penalty. Car

reiro v. Cuckow . O rd . 1 9 of 1856 Sec. 24cited forcon tra , h eld n ot applicable . (Regin a v . Bar ton , 13 Q.B. ,

Of reta in ers to Barrister n ot allow able in Magistrate’

Court. Salmon v. Blake .

Discretion of Court — Th e Review Court n ot bound toaw ard costs to Appellan t . Pistano v. Pompey.

Coun tin g H ouse — SEE Omen .

Cr imin a l: Ma tter .

WHAT Is.

Summa ry Process — Wh ere O rdinan ce enacts th at pro

ceeding is to be un der Summa ry Jurisdiction O rdinance1 9 of 1 856 th ema tter is a Crimina l on e . Cox v. Bascom.Wh ere a p en a lty is infl icted or w h ere th e accused besides

oth er forfeitures is immed iately or prospectively liable

to imprisonmen t w ith o r w ith out h ard labour , to fine or

both , it is a Crimin alma tter . Sw ain v. Pistano, S. C.

If th e pen a lty is on e w h ich ofmany affects th e Defen

dan t a t on ce by th e imprisonmen t of h is body in the

even t of a verdict of guilty so th a t h e is liable, if goods ormon ey are soug h t to be recovered bymeans of th e proceedings, it is a Criminal proceeding . Pistano v. Sw ain ,

'vAW L l u fl r

CRIMINAL MATTER. 35 WHAT Is NOT

(cit . Ca ttel v. Ireson , E. B . E. 97 (cited for Appellan t,h eld n ot applicable .) (R. v . Dixon

, 3 M. S. 1 1 ; R. V .

Ma rsh , 2 B . C. 7 1 7 R. V . Step h en s. 1 Q . B . 702 ; Ba rton

v.McQueen ,2MooreP. C. 1 9 ; R. V .Medley, 6 C. 86 P. 299 ;

R. v. Dea n ,1 2 M. W. 39 ; R. v . Han dley, 9 L . T. 1 27

R. v . H a lbr oo/c, 3 ‘Q . B. p . (Sup. Civil Court) .Brea ch es of th e Fisca l La w s a re Crimin almatters a nd

th ere can be equity. Williams v . Lyn ch .

A prosecution un der th e Crow n Lan ds O rdin an ce is aCrimin alma tter . Sw ain v . Pista no (cited for Appellan tto sh ow th at th e infl iction of a penalty does n ot con stitutea Crimin a lmatter ) . Aitch eson v . Everett 1 Cow p . 382 ;Attor n ey Genera l v. biddons, 1 C. J. 220.

Informa tion for Pen a lty und er 6 Cr. iv. o. 1 08. Pista nov . Sw a in ; (Pa rker v. Green , 31 L . J. M . C

Aleh ouse Keep er p ermitting bad ch aracters tomeet inh is h ouse again st tenor of l icen ce . Pistan o v. Sw a in (citedby th e judgmen t. Attorn ey Genera l V . Rad lofi

'. 1 0 Ex .

Selling Rumcon trary to O rd ina nce 25 of 1868, See. 8,is a Crimin a lma tter . Rodrigues v. Darrel l.

In afiilia tion cases — See POORLAW.

PROOF.

It is sufficien t for th e prosecution to prove somuch of th ech arge a s con stitutes an offen ce punish able by la w . Eva n sv. Y oun g

-a-Sam(cit . Rea . v . H ollinyburg ,4B. C.

In Revenue cases Prosecutor to be bound to submitproof. D

O liveira V . Da rr ell .

A pen al la w must n ot be strain ed beyond its plain

terms an dmea ning , a nd w h ere thismean ing is doubtfulitmust be con struedmore n arrow ly t h anmore w id ely.

Fern an des v. Greenslade .

Wh ere th e O rdinance decla res a th ing to be un la w ful

if don e w ith out la w ful excuse th e c ircumstan cesmust bespecifica llymentioned in th e con viction , as it is the

a bsen ce of such la w ful excuse w h ich impar ts to th e act a

crimin al ch aracter . Bacch us V . Warren (cit. R. V. Gordon

4Bur rWHAT IS NOT.

A bond fide belief deprives th e act in question of a

CRIMINAT.MATTER. 36 CROWNLANbs.

cr in’

iinal ch aracter a lth ough such act p er so w asmadereferen ce toth e intent . Rodn eyv.

Illega l rmxp '

oundi/ng is n ot a Criminalmatter . Bl'

zifn‘

kV. hl il lligaiii.Tr espa ss o n

Jr ow n la n d‘

is not a Criminal or pén '

alma tter . De Freitas v . Wig h t .

Act of Defen dant in Cr imin al ina tter .— See WI’l‘NESS.

See Poun d .

Cross Ch a rges

Arising out cy‘

the same set of —Eachmustbe fully h eard In thema nn er prescribed by la w s butd ecisionmay be reserved in the one until th e other ish ea rd . Binn s V . Hollingsw orth .

Crow n La n ds.

CHARGE

For breach sh ould contain a d escription of thelaiid .

Pista n o V . Sw ain .

If Defendan t goes to trial w ith out applying for a post

pon emen t h e is deemed to h ave w aived objection th ereto.

WHAT NOTLIABLE TO SEIZURE.

orn g row n on Crow n Lan ds not liable to_

seiz ure byCommissary of Taxation . Gonsa lves v. H arcourt.

Goons LIABLE TO SEIZURE.

Wh ere Gran tee dea ls With seller of shingles _

h e sh ouldmake en quiry a nd obtain_

lear an d reliable in formationa s to th e goods h e pu l ch ases . It h s n eglects th e dutya n d purch a ses w ith out a sking questions, h e is playingin to th e h andsO f th ose w h o on a larger or _

smtil} er scaleas th e casemay be, a re plun derers of th e forests of thecolony , and he h as bn ly h imself to th ank if even tp allyth e t ra n ~action tur n s to h is ow n loss. Sw ain V . Lopes.

Sh ing les cut on Cro w n Lan ds bymistake gives thet

respa sser po rig ht to in sist on a surrender of thembecause h e niade amistake . De Freitas v. Wight.

CRQWN LANDS. 38 SUB-LETTING.

O n a claimfor timber illegally seiz ed , th e Magistrate

w h o fin d s th e timber to h ave been leg a lly seiz ed ca nn ot

in th e same proceedin g s impose a fin e , costs an d forfeitureof claiman t ’ s Licen ce as a w ood cutter . Bracey v.

McTurk .

In ca ses of seiz ure th e Review Cour t can fin d forPursuer for par t of plain t an d for Respon den t for par t.Fr a n cis v . Wig h t .

Th e property of th e Crow n w ould n ot be divested byn on claimw ith in th e per iod a llow ed , an d by the O rdin an ce 9 of 1 873, S. 35 th e proof of th e illega lity of th eseiz ure is placed on th e claiman t . Bracey v. McTurk.

PROCEEDING FORPOSSESSION .

Wh ere lan ds are in th e possession of a private par ty w ho

got th emfromon e w ho h ad possession since 1834, th e

Crow n in 1863 in order to get possession sh ould take

proper steps by process if n eed be before th e SupremeCivil Court. Gomes v. Backer .

TRESPASS.

Trespa ss on Crow n Lan d n ot a crimin al or pen almatter .

De Freitas v. Wigh t .

PRESCRIPTION — sea Prescrip tion

SUB-LETTING .

Sub-letting Licen ce is n o ofien ce except under certain

circumstan ces. Duggin v. Men donga . Such circumsta n cesmust be nega tived in th e conviction , ib. cit.

(F letch er v. C'a lth orpe, 6 Q . B Pa ley 1 89 ; R. v. Gordon,4Bw rr 2279 ; R. v . H a z ell. 1 3 EastH older of Gra n t can n ot sub-let or sub-divide . A

don a tion of timber g row ing on Crow n Lands w ithout

permission of th e Govern or is a sub-letting , an d timber cuton such lan d s is liable to seiz ure . King v. Br ittlebank.

H older of Crow n L an d s a llow ing a person to cut w oodor burn ch arcoa l on h is lan ds for a por tion of th e proceed s does n ot by such a ct sub-let th e lan ds or anypor tion th ereof. D

O liveira v. Backer .

CROWN LANDS. 39 DEFECT.

Ach arge for sub-lettin g Gran t Should state th at th e

Defen dan t sub-letted or sub-divided th e in terest in a

w ood-cutting licen ce”

Customs .

Ch a rge for breach of Customs lawmust be in th e n amean d Sign ed by th e Comptroller or Sub-Comptroller of

Customs . Hoh enkirk v . Royen .

Proof; onus — All th eProsecutor h a s to do in Customscases is to Sh ow th at th e Defenda n t failed to do w h at th e

la w required and th a t h is failure w as w ilful . McGow an

v. Davis .

Da te .

Under Larceny O rdin an ce da te of la rcen y n eed n ot‘

proved . Ch ristoph er v . McNich ol l .

Ch arging Defen d an t w ith illegally cutting w ood duringor about th emonth of April 1882

”on Crow n lan d s is

sufficien t if th e actual date of th e offen ce h ad been proved

to h ave been w ith in th e time limited by th e O rdin an ce .

Dow v . Ch a lmers .

Decision of Cour t .

Wh ere th er e is a decision of a Court of con curren t

jurisdiction th e oth er Cour ts w ill adopt th a t a s th e ba sis

of th eir decision , provided it can be appea led from.Anga lly v. Agard ; (cit . Ja ckson v. Wooley, 8 E. B.

778,Magistrates are to con formto th e d ecision s of th e

Review Court w h ich a re bin ding on th emun til a lteredby due course of la w . 1 b.

Decision of Magistr atemust be defin ite in Revenuema tters ; h emust decide on e w ay or th e oth er . Darrell

v . Rod rigues .

Defen d a n t — See APPEARANCE.

Age of— See AGE.

Examin ation of— SeeWITNESS.

Defect in Conviction .

— See CONVICTION .

of Duplicity See DUPLIClTY .

in In forma tion — See INFORMATION .

WSERTIO ff. 40 DISORDER“ Germain.

Deser tion Qi Immigr an t— see IMMIGRANT.

ofWife— See POOR LAW.

Dies Non — See H OLIDAY.

Dir ection s .

Review Court has n o jurisdiction to give directions.

0 0min» Vs Green.

Discr etion of iMagistr ate In believing evidence .

see MAGISTRATE— JURY.

Discretionary Pow er .

Wh en exercised by th e Magistra te under circumstancesw h ich bring it w ith in h is operation , not in terfered w ith .

Pow ers v. Ruck.

Wh ere Magistrate en tertain s a request for a summonsan d refuses to issue same in th e due exercise of a

discretionary pow er vested in h imby law , it is not'

th e province of th e Court to interfere . Wrigh t v . Ga rnett.

Th e Magistrate h as n o d iscretion In refusing to issue a

summon s ib. un less on some grounds duly ascer tamedw h ich th e law recogniz es a s suflicien t . Torrop v. Jard1ne

Th e Judges are pot authqrised to interfere w ith th e

discretion en trusted to a Magistrate 1n fixing th e amoun tof fin e . Surupjeet v. Lang Clouston v. Fra ser .

O f Magistrate as to believing evidence.— See MAGIS

TRATE— JURY .

Discretion as to Fin e.— See EXCESSIVE FINE

IMPRISONMENT .

Dismissal .-See CERTIFICATE ;AUTRE rors ACQUIT.

DIsord er ly assemblea es in Retail Spir it Shep.

O rd. 25 868,

To ren der Defen dan t liable itmust be sh ow n th at h e

a llow ed th ese assemblies in an ordinary or direct case.

Pequeno v. Weddell

Disor d er ly Con duct

Not synonympus Wl th ViO Ien t con duct McKenna

v. Binns.

DISORDERLY CONDUCT. DUPLICIT'

O n a public street— Con duct w h ich in terferes w ith th e

free an d peaceable use of th e street eith er a s a th oroughfa re or a s a place w h ere person s reside an d carry on

busin ess is disorderly.

It is n o excuse for Defen d an t to say h e h ad a righ t touse th e street in con n ection w ith th e public .

Sh outing an d th row ing somersaults on th e street is adisorderly con duct . Ib.

Disputed Title .—Assau1t fromSee ASSAULT.

See JURISDICTION .

Distress — See HARD LABOUR.

O w nersh ip — Th e keeping of a dog w ith out a licence isan offen ce, an d th e question of ow n ersh ip can not en ter onth e trial . Gon salves v. Cuckow . Furth er— See LICENCE.

Keep ingmor e th an one - See AUTREFOISACQUIT.

Doubt .

Review Courtmust givema tter of doubt in favour of

Defen dan t in th e Cour t below . Percival v. Tebbutts .

Dr ive 0 fl‘

.-See WORDS.

Drug s .

Licen ce to sell drugs does not cover sale of goods

oth er th an drugs . Pon tifex v . Sw ain .

Castor O il is a drug . Teixeira v. Sw ain .

Dup licity .

Wh ere ch arge is duplex Defendan t or th e Magistratesh ould call on Prosecutor to elect w h ich h e in ten ds to

proceed w ith . Ch ristoph er v. McNich oll ; D’Abreu v.

CHARGES BAD FORDUPLICITY.

Ch arge for keeping an d using for trade or h ire is

bad for duplicity, but itmay be amended . Gonsalves v.

An son ; cit . Mayers v. An derson , D’Abreu v. Francis.

DUPLICI'I‘Y . 42 DUPLICITY.

Cha rge in th e disjun ctive, such as did un la wfully sellor offer for sa le barter or exch ange or oth er w 1se d is

pose of is bad for duplicity. Gon salves v. Joseph (c1t.Newman v . Bendysche, 1 0 A. E. 1 1 ) th e fact th at con

viction is for disposing”

alon e does n ot ren der it

good . 1b.

Ch a rgefor breach of the p ea ce for bemg d isordan Open yard and a nuisan ce to th e poh ce

”. Ben v.

Mich elson .

Ch arge for heaping tw o dogs w ithout a licen ce. Henryv. Solomon .

Ch a rge for refusing to a dmit a policeman in to a certain

shop a n d in to an d upon th e premises belonging th ereto.

D’Abreu v. Fran cis (cit . I . A. G. rep. Ch itto v. Kelly;I . A. G . rep. Rugh onauth v. Clark.)Cha rge for brea ch of contract by committing frauda nd decep tion . Price v. Rickford , cit. Gon salves v.

Jose h .

C l a rgefor holding a public enter ta inment for moneyor rew a rd .

”Gibbon s v . Straker .

Ch a rgefor having sold or sufi'

ered to be sold Martin v. Birch .

Ch a rge in the a ltern a tive. Martin v. Birch ; Valladares

v. Beth un e .

CHARGESNOTRAD FOR’

DUPLICI'rY .

Ch a rgefor receiving and h arbourin g immigran t, har

bourin g being h eld to in clude “receiving

”Cox v.

Bascom(cit . R. v. Bow en , 1 Den 0 . C. 21 ; R. v. Gid

dens, 1 C. 85 M. 6341 ;R. v . Scott, 33 L. J.M. C. N. S.

Ch a rgefbr“ destroying defa cing and injuring a r egister.

Cox v. Bascom(cit. Reg. _v. Bow en, 1 Den . C. C.

Cha rge for assaulting A. g B. a nd stea ling fromAIb (cit . Reg . v . Giddens et a l, 1 C. StM. 634Reg. v.Scott,33 L . J . N . s. M.

Ch a rge for la rceny a n d a ssault arising out of larceny.

Ba scomv. Stover . Th e Magistrate took eviden ce onlyof th e larceny an d adjudica ted as for larceny ; on appeal

h eld th a t th e ch argemust be looked a t as one for larceny.

Ch arge for being foun d in a shop for some un lawful

purpose a nd not being a ble to give a satisfactory account.

DUPLICITY. 43 EVIDENCE.

Popw ell v. Barn es, th e w ords not being th e. beingtrea ted as surplusage .

Ch a rge for dama ge injury a nd spoil. Joseph'

v . Ruck.

Ch a rge for h a rbor ing tw o immigra nts on boa rd a vessel .Webster v . Ruck.

Ch a rge for assault a nd bea t. Evan s v. Y ong-a-Sam

(cit . Reg . v. Scott, 33 L . J. N . S.M. C. as th eremay

be an a ssault w ithout beatin g , an d a ba ttery w ith out a n

assault, an d if Complaina nt failed to prove battery‘

w ould not excuse Defen dan t far somuch of th e complain ta s ch arged a n assault . Ib. cit . Rec . v . Hollingburg,4B .

Embez z lemen t .-See MASTERAND SERVANT

a nd LARCENY.

Esta te immig ran t. -.See IMMIGRANT.

Cart used by Estate - See CARRIAGE.

Evid en ce .

Itmust be taken in a ll proceedings before conviction ,Wh ere Defen dan t does n ot plead guilty. Reiz v. Cucko w .

IMMIGRANT.

Th e on ly eviden ce th at an Immig ran t w a s absen t fromth e Estate w h en h e depa rts w ithout leave of th eMa nager ,&c is a duly certified extra ct froma reg ister kept byth e I . A. G . in terms of Sec . 1 64, O rd . 7 of 1 873.

Legga tt v . Matabudul con tra James v . Lilmon ie.

Register of Immigran ts kept on an Esta te is evidence .

Bera ngea v. Ba scom; Seew ootulah v . Men z ies.

Th e in den ture listmade un der Sec .40 of Immig ra tionO rdin an ce 1 873 is n ot in th e n a ture

of secon d a ryeviden ce . It is or igin a l evidence of th e in den ture an d

w h en coupled w ith th e iden tifica tion by th e overseer

of th e immig ran t proceeded against,‘it is sufficien t

Kollich urrun v . King .

I llega l— Evidence taken aga in st a Defenda nt w h o is

sen t fromon e county to an oth er in order th at such

eviden cemay be laid before anoth er Magistrate a s to

sta tementsmade by h imcan n ot be admitted in th e

proceedings . Williams v. Lynch .

EVIDENCE. 44 EVIDENCE.

Eviden ce to be in w riting— Th e Court cann ot in ten d

th atmatters essen tial to th e con struction of a n offence

w ere proved w h ere it is n ot sh ow n by th e Magistrate’

n otes . Capel lo V . Greaves ; De Jesus et a i v . King .

Production — Th ere is n o rule th atmakes it imperative to produce th e documen ts th atmay be capable of

provin g a par ticular fact if it can be proved a liunde.

James v . Lilmon ie .

Eviden ce p rima fa cie stan ds good till an sw ered , andif n ot an sw ered , it th ereby becomes con clusive for th e

purpose of th e trial in w h ich it is adduced . Dos RamosV. Fran cis .

O F MAGISTRATE’SMINUTES.

A copy of th e Magistrate’

sminutes of eviden ce in a

summary prosecution is competen tly used in th e ReviewCour t for purposes of review (See . 20, 5 of 1868) butsuchminutes are n ot th erebymade eviden ce eith er of

fact or of statemen ts eith er gen era lly or for th e purposes

of a noth er summary prosecution before an oth er Magistra te, n or ar e th ey eviden ce by an y oth er en actmen t orby any general prin ciple of law . Warren v. Pereira .

EVIDENCE BY CONSENT .

Wh ere eviden ce is oth er w ise in admissible It cann ot be

admitted by con sen t on a crimina l proceeding , (or in a

case un der th e Sun day Trading O rdin ance) . Warren V.

Pereira ; Jacko cl a t V . Sarabyeth .

Th e presumption of con sen t is not to be taken as

absolute fromsilen ce of th e opposite par ty. Ib.

O f Defen dant— See WITNESS.

O f h usban d of Defen dan t— See WITNESS.

O f Documen ts— See SPECIAL HEADS.

O N DISTINCT CHARGES.

Must be taken on each ch arg e even if th ey be against th esame Defen dan t for simila r offen ces. It is irregul ar totake th e eviden ce g iven on on e ch arg e a s taken on th e

oth er . De Cambra V. Straker .

EVIDENCE. 46 EVIDENCE.

ILLEGAL EVIDENCE

Wh en admitted itmust be taken th at th e Magistratew a s influen ced by such eviden ce. David V. H osannah .

Idem.if it h a s any conn ection w ith th e subjectmatter , h owever slig h t or un importan t . Fern andes V. Green slade.

If n ot acted upon or received , someth ing sh oul d appearon th e r ecord to Sh ow th e fact . Fern an des v. Green slade,To allow a prosecutor

s defective evidence to be ekedout by w h at Defendan tmay say in defen ce is con trary toth e practice of th e Crimin al law . Goolamally V. Dornford .

UNSWORN EVIDENCE

O f lad under 14on th e ground th at h e did not appearto compreh end th e n ature of an oath is illega l, a s a

boy”p er se is n ot one of th e class of person s w h ose

un sw orn statemen tmay be received in evidence . PistanoV. Pompey.

LICENCE LAW.

Eviden ce of Licence.— It is n ot necessary to Sh ow

Defendan t is not h older of a licence to sell rumw ith outlicen ce, as it lays on Defendan t to prove h is licen ce.

Porter v. Bur row es.

Magistrate not justified in receiving as evidence con

tents of a licen ce, tun less licen ce be produced or n otice

given to produce. Burro w es V. Grabes. If n otice is

g iven to produce and it is not produced eviden cemayth en be given . De Freitas V. Elliott ; D

O liveira V.

Darrell. Contra , in Sunday trading cases w h ere no

licence is required to be produced . King V. Games.Th e production of th e licen ce is eu

admissi_

on byDefendan t th at h e is th e personmentioned in th e licence.Quin ta V . Sw ain .

An extract certified by th e Ch ief Commissary or underh an d of th e Ch ief Commissary frombooks of his depmen t of th e en try recording th e issue of a licence (5 of1 885) is sufficien t to prove licence, if sw orn to be in the

formrequired by See . 5 . Martin s v. Francis.

Evidence th at prosecutor visited th e sh op on lot 107,Bod rda, w h ich is licenced to Dias and San tos, I don

47 EVIDENCE.

know th e Defendan t person ally, I did not see th e

Defen dan t in th e Sh op is n ot evidence of th e l icen ce .

Sa ntos V. An son .

Magistra te h as n o righ t to dismiss a case for carryin ga gun w ith out a licen ce w ith out h earing prosecutor

evid en ce, n otw ith stan ding Defendan t produces a licen cebearing date th e same day a s th e alleged

carrying of th e

gun . Burrow es V. D’Abreo .

To prove by s econ dary eviden ce , i.e. , th e admission of

Defen dan t w h o h ad n otice to produce h is licen ce, but did

n ot, th at sh e is th e h older of th e licence and forgot to

bring it to Cour t, is illeg al . De Freitas V . Elliott .

Before Defen dan t can be called on to produce h is

licence itmust be proved by p rimd fa cie evidence th ata retail spirit sh 0p licen ce h ad been issued to h iman dth at a n otice to produce th e licence h ad been served on

h im, De Freitas V. Elliott ; but under th e Sun dayTrading O rdinan ce it is immaterial w h eth er th e Sh op inw h ich goods w ere exposed for sale w as or w a s n ot

licenced . King V. Gomes (Ca tis gui tamV. Win ter , 3T. R. 306) explain ing D

’O liveira v. Darrell .

List of licen ces un der 25 of 1 869, S. 44, n ot best

eviden ce. an d under S. 8 a nd 71 . th e onus to prove

excepted right to sell Spirits in a retail Spirit sh 0p for

w h ich a licence h ad been obtained rests on Defen dan t

w h ose duty it is to produce such licence if existed .

Mingo v. Cuckow ; Da Silva V. Cuckow .

Certificate of th e Receiver General th at A w h o w as

th e h older of an 1 1 th class reta il spirit Sh op licen ce on 30th

Jun e paid h is in stalmen t for th emon th of Jun e on th e

23rd July is not eviden ce in a case ag ainst th e h older

of a Spirit licen ce for h avin g sold rumin Jun e w ith out

h aving paid h is licen ce. H orton V. Straker. O rdin ance

26 of 1 855 , S. 189.

Defen dan t in a crimin a l ch argemay be c a lled on to

produce a documen t in h is possession , and ifth e documen tis n ot produced itmay beproved by secon dary eviden ce.

De Freitas V. Elliott ; D’

O liveira v. Darrel].

PROOF O N CASE.

Not on lymust th e licen ce be produced , but itmust be

EVIDENCE. 48 EXCESSIVEFINE.

sh ew n th at th e“

personmen tioned in ch arge is th e samepersonmen tion ed in th e licen ce Dias v.Anson .

In proceedings to recover a pen alty w h ere it is allegedag ain st th e party proceeded again st, th at h e is licen ced,it is usua l to give n otice to produce th e licence. Gomesv . Bur row es (ca tis qui tamV . Winter 3 T. R.

Wh en th e existence of a documen t is in question,

n oticemay n ot be n ecessary, but if th e con tents aremateria l such notice is r equired . Ib. (cit.Reg.V

. ElémthyL . R. 1 C. C. R. Gon sa lves v. Burrow es .

Evid en ce th at rumw as sold in th e Black Lion isn ot sufficien t. Th e Black Lionmust be conn ected w ithth e Defen dan t

’s retail Spirit Sh op, Defen dan tmust be

con n ected w ith th e sh op in w h ich th e rumw as sold orw ith th e rumsold as th e ow n er or seller of it, by h imselfor th ose under h is control . Correia v. Breen Santosv. An son . It sh ould be proved th at the pa rtymen tionedin th e licen ce is th e Defen dan t . Santos V. An son .

Amere scin tilla of eviden ce sh ould not be left to thejury. Spencer v. Maclaine (cit. Man-b J. in Feuell v. Parr,1 3 C. B. 91 5 ;Ryder V . Wombell,4L . R. Ex. 32 ; Black

burn J. in R. V. Smith ; Leigh v. Cave, C. C.

Eviden ce of h usban d of Defendant on ch arge un der

Excise law not admissible . Covia V. King .

Belief of Magistrate in re— See MAGISTRATE (JURY).

Excess O f Jur isd iction . See CONVICTION(AMENDMENT.)un der Sunday Trading O rdinance

See CONVICTION and S. T. O RD.

Excessive Fine.

Th e fin e appears a h eavy on e but th e amoun t w as inth e d iscretion of th e Magistrate w ith w hich thfe"Courtdoes n ot in terfere . Hemay h ave been fgpidbd byh isknow ledge of th e facts s w orn to by th e Commiqsfi'

y th at

Defen dan t’

s sh op is w ith in 1 0 roods of a retail SpiritSh op . Cadell v. Burrow es.

I sh all be glad to seemor e d iscretion applied by th eMag istra tes in th e imposition offines under th e O rdinance,

EXCESSIVEFINE. 49 FEMME COVERT .

w h ich th ough auth oriz es large amounts as th emaximumfin es sh ould be administered w ithmoderation .

” Madeno

v. Darrell .

If fin e is w ith in th e competen ce of th e Magistra te th e

Cour t of Review w ill n ot in terfere on th e g round that

fin e w as excessive un der th e cir cumstances. Pereira v.

Beth un e .

PUNISHMENTO f In former , &e.

ee ABETTOR.

Wh ere Defen dant is ordered on a ch arge. of using a

pony for trade to pay a fin e of $4, costs 72 cents, to takea licence $8, th e w h ole to be recovered by distress or 14days un der 8 of 1 880, S. 3 th e tw o sums are to be. d eemedas a pen a lty of $1 2, and imprisonmen t of amonth is n otexcessive , as th e pena lty bein g over $10 th e impr isonment could be tw omon th s. Ch ow drie V. Layton .

Excuse fromW ork .— See IMMIGRANT.

Exposin g Good s for Sale.

Goods in a glass case in a sh op is an exposure for

for sale . Burrow es v. Ferreira .

By H uckster— See H UCKSTER.

O n Sun day— See SUNDAY TRADING O RDINANCE.

Fa ct .

Applying law to— See MAGISTRATE (JCRY).Felon iously .

Wh ere offence is a felony th e w ord felon iouslymustbe used in th e ch arge. Jodh an V. Mearns .

An act done felon iously is don e w ith n o colour of

r igh t to excuse th e act. D’Abrio V. H aw ker .

Leavin g out felon iously in ch arge— See LARCENY .

Femme Covert.A.married w omanmay be convicted under a statute

relating to th e Excise or Revenue for an offence committed by h er w ith out th e actual or implied coercion of

h er h usban d , an d it is n ot n ecessary th at th e h usband

sh ould be join ed in th e conviction . Govia V. King(cit. Rea: V. Crofts,

2 Strange 1 1 20. PaleyG

FIAT,ArreaNEY GENERAL. 50 FIAT,ATToRN-ExGENERAL.

Fiat ofAttorn ey Gen era l .

Must be obtained before th e proceedin gs are begun byth e Magistrate ; De Vieveiros v . Fauset, Tan-lo-Chin v.

Burrow es, cit . De Cross v. Cuckow , Ra abon e v . Green slade ; even w h ere all th at w a s don e on t e first day w as toba il Defen dan t . Teixeira v . An son , cit . Quinta v.

Sw ain . Th e obtain in of th e fiat afterw ards an d beforeevid en ce is actually ta en does n ot cure th e defect, ib.

May be put on th e face of th e ch ar ge. Quinta v. Sw ain .

Altering ch ar a fter fiat ofAttorney General, annulsproceedings eepaul v. Cruicksh ank.

Goods w ere seiz ed ni der O rd . 25 of 1868 and 3 of1 869 on 1 8 O ct . Th e ch arge w a smade out in duplicatean d on e of th emfiled w ith th e Magistrate w h o issued th esummon s. After th e ch arge w a s filed th e AttorneyGeneral placed fiat 26 O ct . Case h eard 1 3 Nov. and onthat day th e secon d information (duplicate) w ith th e fiatw as produced and objected to on th e ruling of Quinta v.

Sw ain . Th e objection w as uph eld and case dismissed .

O n 29 Nov. a second summon s w a s issued on th e samein formation w ith th e fiat produced on first trial. Held

th at th e action w as n ot brough t w ith in 30 days after

seiz ure (25 of 1868 see. 68) an d th at th e duplicate information w as n ot a con tinua tion of th e proceedin gs first

taken . Li-a-Kin v. Dornford .

Necessary on ch arge for selling w ine in a licensed w ine

andmalt premises, said w ine h aving been drunk on th e

premises. Santos v. Layton .

If issued against D. an individual as carrying on

busin ess w ith anoth er un der a n ame, style or firm,” th eproceedingmust be entered in th e record book under

th e same rubric, and conviction follow in terms. Acon

viction a inst th e firmof D and A” is bad . De

Jesus et a v. King .

Wh ere fiat is placed on a ch arge resembling th e language of sec 1 8 of 14of 1 855 for selling rumby w h olesalean d th e Magistrate in reply to ,

Counsel said it w as under

14of 1855 , a conviction sh ow in g th at th e Magistrateadjudicated under 25 of 1868 is bad . Mann v. McTurk.

Wh ere fla t is placed on a ch arge against“Midco” a

FIAT,ATTORNEY GENERAL . 51 GAMLNG.

male a n d Midco turn s out to be a female, th at par ticularch argemust fa ll to th e g roun d . Boodh oo v. G reen slade.

Proof — Fiatmust be proved in th e legal w ay as th eO rdi n ance does not dispen se w ith proof of th e signature

of th e Attorn ey Gen eral . De Cross v. Cuckow ; Tan-IiCh i n v . Burrow es ; Gomes v. H arcourt . Eviden ce . I

h ave th e auth ority of th e Attorn ey Gen era l,”

sufficien t .

D’Aguia r v . Darrell .Magistr atemay recall w itn ess after prosecution closed

to prove fiat ; Mohun v. Turn er ; even after Defendan t

objects th at it h ad n ot been proved . Moh un v . Tur ner .

Furth er , see WITNESS— Reca ll of.

Fin e , excessive— See Excassrvn FINE.

Imprisonmen t in lieu of—~See HARD LA'BOB.

Fish Selling in cart — SeeCARRIAGE.

F orms .

Are to be con sideredmerely as guides, an d h ave no

over-rulin g auth ority aga in st th e positive en actmen ts of

th e O rdin an ce . Simpson v. Den ieunkerk.

DEFECT IN -See AMENDMENT.

G amin g .

A conviction for g amblin g in a h ouse kept for th e

purpose of common or promiscuous gaming w ith d ice”

amen ded by in sertion of th e w ords “at a game of

ch an ce . Adams v. Clarke.

Un der 21 of 1 856 Sec . 2 sub S. 3, th e ofl'

ence o f

gaming is complete so long as th e parties ,play for stakes;

w h eth er th e stakes be la rge or small is immaterial .Ramas Kh an v. Morris.

Wh ere a person is presen t accidentally in a house in

w h ich un law ful gaming is carried on , such presence is not

evidence of aiding an d abetting ; w h ere such presen ce is

p rima fa cie n ot accidental it is evidence, but n omoreth an eviden ce for th e jury

’. Ramas Khan v. Morris.

Pieces of brass used for gaming come un der th e h eadof “

oth er instrumen ts 21 of 1 856. Toyah at at v.

GAMING. 52

Maraucie (cited for Appellan t, h eld not applicable,Colbomo v. Stockda le, 1 StrangeAh ouse w h en kept for th e purpose of common gaming

is a “place

”under 21 of 1 856. Ib.

Conviction f or ,must con tain an avermen t th at Defendant is deemed a rogue an d a vagabon d. Toyah v.Morencis.

In Reta il Spirit Shop — If proved , it is not n ecessaryto prove th at th e ow n er of sh op h ad conn ivan ce of such

gaming . Gomes v. Sw ain . Idem, n ot n ecessary to provekn ow ledge of servan t in ch arge o f sh op, but th eremust besome circumstan ces fromw h ich itmay be inferred th atth e h older of th e licen ce or h is servan ts h ad connivanceof w h at w a s going on , such as a ctual know ledge or constructive kn ow ledge . Gomes v. Sw ain (cit. Bosleg/v. Davis,L .R. 1 Q . B . p. 85 ;Redga tev. H ayn es, L .R. 1 Q . B. p.

Th e h older of th e licence for a retail spirit shop is

liable for connivance of sh opmen w h en gambling takesplace in h is sh op. Gomes v. Sw ain . If ow ner could not

of h imself preven t disorderly con duct h e is n ot liable.

Rogers v. Pequeno.

Goats.— Impoun ding— See POUND.

Gold Min in g .

Applications unopposed by G overnmen t Lan d Departmen t remitted toDepartmen t . Sh ervington v.Abrah ams.Where th ere is satisfactory proof of a previous la ul

occupation of th e locus in gun anoth er person could not

locate a placer claimon th e same spot . Demerara RiverCo. v. Ch arles et a l. (Tw o cases) .Circumstances in w h ich O pposer h eld to h ave no inter

est. Nurse v. Garraw ay.

An entry of opposition under th e49th regulation of4of 1 887may be filed by a duly authorised agen t, t he

Crow n Surveyor satisfying h imself as to th e person so

filin g being th e agen t . McKinnon v.-Stoby.

Dismissa l on papers before th eCourt. Coronelv.:Brow n .

Wh ere th e party cla iming h as not th e approval Of 'the

Crow n Lands Departmen t th e Review Court w ill remitto th a t Departmen t, th ere being n o preferent righ t in

th e claiman t. Abrah ams v. Sh ervington .

HARD LAROUR. 54 HARD LAROUR.

n o provision for imprisonmen t in default of payment, th eMagistratemay un der th e Small Pen alties O rdinan ce of1 868 order imprisonmen t w ith h ard labour . Davidv . Jackman .

Un der “

20 of 1 856 imprisonmen t can be aw arded forfirst ofien ce w ith out option of fin e . Y oung v. Maule .

Th e Magistratemay order a fin e, and in default of paymen t imprisonmen t un der 1 9 of 1 856. Math eison v. Gray.

Wh en sen ten ce sh ould h ave been simple imprisonmen t,an d h ard labour w as aw arded un der Small Pen alties O rdin an ce, it w as h eld th at no in jury h ad resulted , as th esen ten ce h ad n ot yet been executed

”an d th e conviction

w as remitted back to th eMagistrate in order th at th e errormay be rectified . Doraj v. Keenoo .

Under 20 of 1 856, Sec . 2 a convictionmakes Defenda n t liable to imprisonmen t w ith or w ithout h ard labourn ot exceeding 30 days or to a pen alty not exceeding

~$24,or to such penalty in addition to such imprisonment.Under 1 9 of 1 856, See . 33

, for w h ich 1 5 of 1 869, See.

2 is substituted , th e pen alty is to be levied by distress

an d in defa ult of distress by imprisonmen t &c . Held .

Th e Small Pen alties O rdin an ce does not affect th epow erof imposin g h ard labour in addition to imprisonment incases w h ere h ard labourmigh t on n on-payment of thepen alty h ave been imposed . H ard labourmigh t h avebeen imposed un der 1 9 of 1 856, Sec 33 and n ow under

1 5 of 1869. Portsmouth v. Gr een .

In cases for not taking out licences th e Magistrate

can order an alternative adjudication of imrisonmentmth e even t of th e fine an d th e sumdue for t e licence not

being paid . Martin s v. Burrow es, cit. 3 of 1868S. 34but in cases under th e Licence law ,

distressmust be firstissued . H oare v.

Duggin An tonio v. King .

Aconviction“ to pay a sumof $20, and If th e said sum

be not paid w h en due, or if th ere are not sufficient

goods or ch attels to levy on , th e Defen dan t to be“ imprison ed for a furth er termof tw o calen dar.

month sis bad , David v. H osan nah , a s th e order for imprisonmen t for w an t of g oods to distrain is on ly to be gran tedafter formal return to th at efiect. Josiah v. Gray.

O rdinance 1 9 of 1 856 .on ly auth orises : 1 . imprison

HARD LABOUR. 55 HARD LABOUR.

men t after levy and no sufficien t distress ; 2, w h en it ismade to appear to th e Magistrate judicially on eviden ceformin g part of th e proceedings an d conviction an d

sen ten ce th at Defendan t h as no goods or ch attels .

Rodn ey v . Sampson . Idemin trespass cases. Alber tv. Doug las .

An d w h ere h ard labour can be imposed and th e Magis

trate orders distress, th e Defen dan tmay be detain ed

pen din g th e return of th e w arran t of distress. Jeffreyv . Burrow es .

Un der 1 9 of 1856 S. 345 a Magistratemay order in

w riting th at th e Defen dan t go a t large or h emay detainhimin safe custody un til return h emade to th e w arr an tof distress un less security be given . Such order of

deten tionmay be given before distress w arran t is actuallymad e out, but th e w ar ran tmust .be completed an d put

inmotion w ith in a s brief a time a s is practicable. Ra jutteah v . An son .

Wh ere th e O rdinan ce auth orises infl iction of a fine

an d r ecovery un der 1 9 of 1 856 a nd 1 5 of 1859 S. 3 an

ad judication of fine of $241” an d in th e a ltern ative

a w arding imprisonmen t in th e first in stan ce is bad .

Prin ce v. King ; De Freitas v . Cuckow ; Prin ce v. Rickford ; De Jesus v. King ; Con tra , Moon ligh t Scrutch erv. Fauset.

Wh ere th e O rdin ancemakes th e offence pun ish able byfin e an d in default imprisonmen t, an d th e Magistrateorders imprisonmen t on fa ilure of distress an d dra w s upth e forma l conviction in th e w ords of th e O rdin an ce, th e

Court is boun d by th e formal conviction .Webster v.Birch .

Under 20 of 1856 th e Magistrate h as th e pow er to

aw ard 30 days’imprisonmen t for h aving possession of

rumsupposed to h ave been stolen w ithout givin g a good

accoun t of th e same . In case th e fine imposed can not

be levied by distress, h e can n ot sentence Defen dan t in

th at even t to be imprison ed for tw omon th s to commen cefromth e termination of th e 30 days. Williams v.

Simpson .

Un der Masters’an d Servan ts

’ Act4of 1864an d 2 ofof 1 853, for refusing to do w ork &c. , th e conviction

sh ould be for 30 days w ith h ard labour and not for 30

HARD LABOUR. 56

days w ith h ard labour an d to be imprison ed for a furth erperiod of 30 days at t he termination of th e first sen

tence .

”Gordon v . Binn s.

TERM OE IMPRISONMENT .

Un der th e Small Pen alties O rdin an ce th e intention ofth e L egislature is to limit th emaximumterms of imprisomen t a s th e altern ative for certain amounts of fines;but th er e is n o limit fixed for aminimumtermofimpr isonmen t , an d a Magistrate is w ith in h is jurisdictionin ad judgin g a period of 7 days

imprisonment in defaultof failure of paymen t of fin e of $2, alth ough th e O rdinance(3 of 1 868) limits th e terms of imprisonmen t for a penaltyn ot exceedin g $2 to 7 days an d for a penalty exceeding$2 but n ot exceeding $5 to 14days. Bow en v. Ch apman .

Wh ere th e O rdin ance empow ers imprisonment for 30

days”th e Magistrate cann ot aw ard imprisonment for

amonth .

”Ping-a

-Win g v . Pile David v. Hossann ah .

FORCOSTS.

Un der 20 of 1 856 th e Magistra te h as n o pow er to

aw ard imprisonmen t in default of a paymen t of a penaltyor costs for a ssaulting an officer in th e execution of h is

duty in executing a distress w ar ran t, or to aw ard costs

a t all . Rodney v. Sampson ; Idemon ch arge for not

h aving n ame legibly pain ted on car t. Naugh ten v. Lloyd .

H ospita l Regula tion s . See IMMIGRANT.

H a w ker .

Th ose w h o in stead of occupying a fixed place of

busin ess an d w a iting about for customers to come to th em,carry th eir g oods tomeet th eir customers are Haw kers,

Bush ell v . Solomon (cit . Tax O rdin an ce 1 886, S. 13, 8

of 1 880 S.

A single act of selling does not con stitute aman a

H aw ker , a s th at h e oug h t to take out a licen ce . Van

Brook v. King ; Burrow es v . Grabes (O rd . 1 5 of 1888)as distinguish ed fromBush ell v. Solomon , w h ere th e

O rdinance enacted th a t any w h o carries on the trade”

of a huckster and carries”h is goods an d sells, barters,

HAWKER. IMMIGRANT.

exposes, or offers to sell th e same ; th e w ords carries

h is goods”being left out of th e O rdin ance 1 5 of 1 888.

Th e fact th a t Defen dan t h ad a board laid on tw o

barrels, an d on it exposed beef for sale on Sun day 2mdJanuary an d Sun day 9th Ja nuary does n ot con stitute

h ima H aw ker . Bush el l v. Solomon .

A Huckster’s licen ce does n ot entitle a person to sell

freshmeat on th e public road or in a cart. Burrow es

v. Joaquim.H or ses .

A stud h orse is'

n ot exempt fromtaxation as a h orse

kept for trade or h ire . Dorn ford V. De Ch alus .

LICENCE FOR— See CARRIAGE.

H olid ay .

Notice served ormade returnable on a dies non is

illega l . Y oung v. Miller ; but w h ere n otice gives a cer

tain n umber of days in w h ich to do a certain act, Sun dayis n ot to be excluded , ih , in Martin s v . Joseph it w a s

h eld th at w h ere a th in g is to be be don e w ith in a certain

number O f d ays an d th at time expires on a Sun day, th eSun day is to be reckon ed on e of th ose days.

No judicia l act ough t to be don e on a Sun day, butmin isterial actsmay be law fully executed on Sun day.

Y oung v . Miller (Macca lly’

s case ; 9 Coke

Service O f n otice of review on Sun day is good . Martinv. Joseph (cit . 29 Car

H uckster .— See HAWKER.

H usban d ,desertion of w ife — See POORLAW.

I l leg a l Ar rest — See ARREST.

Immig ra n t .

Not amenable to Ma ster and Servant Act of 1 853.

Moon ah v. Ag ard but h e is boun d to Obey th e ordersof th e d riverf

a s th e d river is th e agen t ad in terimof th eman ager . Carruth ers v . Khoondan sing .

IMMIGRANT. 58 ABSRNOE,

ABSENCE FROM WORK, Excess FROMWORK.

Eyidencemust Sh ow th at Defen dan t did not finishw ork w ith out law ful .excuse . Davidson v. Gopaul.

Immigrant is bound to begin his w ork on Monday, ifrequired to do SO . McConn ach ie v . Gunn esn.

O nus of proving th at w ork w as n ot done w ith out lawful excuse lies on th e prosecution . Daw son v. Gopaul .Ch arge for absence fromth e estate sh ould lay that

such absen ce w as w ith out leave. Gray v. Khodobaccus.O fien ce of absence fromw ork is n ot cogn iz able by a

Magistrate in isolated cases, but falls to be dealt w ith byth e Immigration Depar tmen t un der S. 24and a numberof Section s of4of 1876, an d it is on ly w h en by repeatedOfien ces of absences th e immigran t h as qualified h imselfunder S. 1 5 as an h abitual idler th at th e Offence of

absence fromw ork comes un der th e jurisdiction of th e

Magistrate. Abdul Roh eman v. Robin son .

Under O rdin ance of 1 876 S. 23 a certificate of the

Immigration Agen t General th at th e immigran t w ent tothe Immigration Omoe to complain about h is w ages does

not protect th e immigran t froma ch arge of un law ful

absence . Monkh ouse v. Nar rain sing .

Itmust be sh ow n th at th e absen ce w as for reasonable

cause, th at h e h ad been refused a pass by th e employer,and th at th e cer tificate of th e Immigration Agen t General w as roduced to th e employer on h is return to th eestate. onkh ouse v. Narrain sin g ; Crosby v. Ramch arran ; but th ese do not apply to ch arge of refusingto begin w ork a rising out of th e fa ct th at th e immigranth ad left th e estate w ithout law ful excuse. Monkh ousev. Narrainsing .

Th e reasonable or law fuln ess O f th e excuse for beingabsent fromw ork is for th e Magistrate to decide . Whereth e immigran t w ith out leave attends th e Magistrate

Cour t to sue a person ow ing h immon ey and th e Magistrate decides th a t it is a law ful excuse th e Court w illnot interfere. Tucker v. Kan sut.

Wh eth er ill or w ell an immigran t is not justified in

going OEth e esta te w ith out leave. H aving left it w ith

out leave, th emere fact of h is falling ill w h en elf th e estate

IMMIGRANT. 59 HARITUAL IDLRR.

w ould n ot preven t h is becoming a deserter , alth ough itmigh t w ell in duce th e Magistrate to inflict a nomin a lpun ishmen t . Leggatt v. Mattabudal .Th e absen ce w h ichmakes an immigran t a deserter is

absen ce w ith out leave”

, not an absen ce “w ith out

“ law ful excuse”

DESERTION.

Ch arge again st immig ran t for deser ting fromtheplan tation froml st July 1 871 to 22n d November 1 874h e w a s arr ested on 5th Ja nuary 1 877. The Ma gistrateimposed a pen a lty O f $2 50 w ith imprisonmen t for 14d ays w ith h ard . labour , an d exten ded h is time fromtaking effect of O rdin an ce 7 of 1 873 (l st July) to 22nd »

November 1 874. Held on review th at by efiluxiou oftime (22n d November 1874) th e inden ture h ad expired ,an d th at th e pa st desertion in 1 871 could n ot be prosecutedun der 7 of 1 873, an d th a t th e con tinuing of a ny Offen ceof desertion afterw ard s committed by th e immig ran tcea sed w ith th e expiry of h is indenture . Sookh oov . O z ann e .

Wh ere an immigr an t is inden tured under4of 1 864(Sin ce repea led ) a n d sen ten ced to pen a l servitude for a

felony for five years w h ile 4of 1 864existed , an d h is

termof pena l servitude expires after th e repea l of th e

O rdin an ce , h is in den ture is a t an en d on th e completionof h is sen ten ce n otw ith stan din g th e passin g of a la ter

O rdin an ce 7 of 1 873. A'

gard v. Crosby.

EXTRATIME.

Working extra time is n ot illegal if th e immigran t ispaid for th e same a t th e r a te n ot less th an w h ich ordin

ary time is paid for . Hun ter v . Doorgan .

If an immig ran t is sen ten ced -for a breach of th e la w

and is released before h is termof imprisonmen t h as

expired , h e is n ot boun d to return on th e esta te for th e

per iod of h is un expired sen ten ce . Mayers v.Ruggon auth .

HABITUAL IDLER.

Un der 4of 1876 a w oman is n ot an h abitual idler .

Brassington v. Roybia .

IMMIGRANT. 60 RESIDENCE, &O .

H OSPITAL REGULATIONS.

Tomake th e immigran t amen able to h ospital rulesh emust h ave been sen t to th e h ospita l

”by th eman ager

or overseer actin g un der h is auth or lty. Spen ce v. Sookh a .

Th is rulin g appllies to oth er s th an in den tured immig ran ts sen t to th e h ospital by th eman ager . Ib.

It is n ot an offen ce for th emoth er of th e ch ild h erselfn ot

bein g an in -patien t to take h er ch ild th en an in

pa tien t in th e estate’

s h ospital fromth e h ospital . Solimon v . Garn ett .An in den tured immigran t being on th e estate and

fal ling ill , h as n o righ t to quit th e esta te an d go to theColon ia l H ospital in stead of to th e estate

’s hospital.

Leggatt v . Matabbudda l.

Putting on h ospital cloth es on immigran ts.-See

ASSAULT.

PROOF OF INDENTURE, &C.

To prove th a t Defendan t is an immig ran t, th e registered con tractmust be produced an d evidence O f th eid en tity O f th e party a s party to th e con tractmust beg iven . Craigen v. Mongar . Th e eviden ce in th is case

w as th e immigran t sw earing I aman inden tured immigran t to Pln . Aurora .

” Th is w as h eld not to be evidence.

Con tra in James v . Lilmone.

COMMUTATION .

If th e immigran t is w illing th eman ager O f th e estatemay commute th e in den ture w ith out any fee being paidto th e estate. 7 O f 1854, s . 28. Gridin v. Crosby.

RESIDENCE O N ESTATE.

An immigran t is boun d to inh abit th e dw elling w h ichth e employer is bound to provide for h im. Daw son v.

Mun da ll ; cit . 1 32— 1 36 of 7 of 1873, 1 6 O f4O f 1876.

H e is n o t boun d to sleep on th e esta te a t n igh t . Bremnerv . Joycurn ,

th e absen ce fromth e esta te being a w orkingd ay and n igh t, ib, th e employermust elect w h eth er h eproceed s un der S. 1 6 of4of 1 876 or un der SS. 132— 136

of 7 of 1 873. Ib.

IMMIGRANT 62 INFORMATION.

Th e fact th at on ly a certain sumw as earn ed by theImmig ran t, is n ot of itself sufiicien t to convict h imofw ilful in dolence . to.

Idem— If evidence is, th at Defen dan t earn ed nothingan d w as not a patien t in h ospital . Goolab v . Porter.

A ch arge of w ilful n eg ligen ce during w orking h ourson Mon day,

”22md May 1876, is good . Bunsee v. Brand .

Impr isonmen t in lieu of Fin e .— See HARD LABOUR.

In d en tur e , — best eviden ce of. —See EVIDENCE; alsoIMMIGRANT (Proof) .

In fa n t , Age O f. —See AGE.

In feren ce .

Guilt is not in ferred fromth e occurren ce of w h atmightl

re h appened con sisten tly w ith innocence. Bascomv.

e ia .

Th e Court can in tend noth ing in favour Of convictionsand w ill in ten d n oth ing again st th em. Ib. ; Turnkey v.

King (cit . Rv. H a z ell, 1 3 Ea st 141 ; Taylor on Evidence,

3rd Ed . 141 , 142) Ned v. De Guara (cit . Rv . Trelaw ny1 T. R. 1 22 ; R. v. Damon

,1 Ch it. Rep . See

INFORMATION and JURISDICTION .

In forma tion .

For an ofien ce again st public policymay be laid andset inmotion by any person . Cox v. Bascom(case ofh arbouring immigran ts on board a vessel is a case againstpublic policy, an d is amatter punish able on conviction,w h ichmean s summary conviction . It) .An in formation th a t defen dan t did occupy a store in

w h ich goods w ere exposed for sale at lot 9 or 12,Werk-em-Rust , w ith out being provided w ith a licence

is good . Lopes v. King ; but if for un law fully en ter

ing on lot an d stea lin g a certain portion of burnt

earth , &c . is bad , a s it does n ot appear w h eth er ch arge

is for trespass or larceny . San tos v. Douglas. Furth er,see DUPLICITY.

To bemade in w riting , butmay bemade orally to theMagistrate. Wrigh t v. Garn ett.

INFORMATION. 63 SPECIFICWORDS.

If in w riting it n eed n ot be signed b Complain an t SOlon g as Defendan t pleads. Semp le v. illiams.

It n eed not be lodged Magistrate’

s Clerkbefore application for summon s ismade .to Magistrate. Ih .

Wrigh t v. Garnett .It is n ot n ecessary to give or take evidence on oath on

an information to lay foun da tion for summon s. Wrigh tv . Garn ett ; as th e fact of th e oath lays no foun dationin law . 16. (cit . Reg . Ga rden

,5 Q . B. D.

TIME TO LAY .

Wh ere th e law allow s an in formation to be laid w ith ina g iven time , say amon th , n o conviction can lie if

in formation is laid after th e expiry of th emonth . Coxv. Bascom.Th e time limited for commen cin g proceedingsmust be

strictly adh ered to. ib ; (cit . R. Tolly, 3 East ,467 .

Th e absence fromcolony O f Defen dan t does n ot affect

th e question . Itmay be a good reason for suspen dingth e issue of summon s. ib (cit. Potts v. Cambridge, 8,E. B.

DEFECT.

Adefect or Omission ,if itmigh t be omitted altogeth er ,

does n ot vitiate w h at is cor rectly stated . Mar tin v.

Burrow es (cit . Paley on Con . 1 68 ; R. v. H a ll, I . T. R. ,

320 ; R. v . Jefiries,4, T. R. , 769 ; R. v. B rantley, 29,L . J. M . C.

For using amule an d car t on th e public road w ith out

h aving th e n ame an d number th ereon in plain legible

letters an d figures, is bad for vagueness. Naugh ten v.

Lloyd .

Wh en ch arge is vague th e Court w ill n ot direct th e

Magistrate to en tertain th e same . Gray v. Rohory.

Furth er , see CONVICTION — DEFECT.

SPECIFIC WORDS.

Ch argemust be for a specific offence an d n ot for an

ofl en ce w h ich in th e Opin ion of th eMagistrate is amatterof law , and it ough t not to be left to th e judgmen t O f a

INFORMATION. 64 SPECIFICWORDS.

w itn ess. Ben . v . Mich elson ; (R. v. Sp en ling, I . Str . ,

497 ; R. v. Popp lefw ell, I . Str . ,

686 ; R. v . Ch aren cy, 2,Ld . , Ray, 1 368 ; R. v. Roberts, I . St . ,

Ach arge th at Defen dan ts bein g agricultura l labourers,an d employed a t B . P . , an d left th e service of th eir

employer w ith out givin g 14days previous n otice, contain s a sufficien t averment th a t th ey h ad con tracted into

th e service of th eir employer . Moon ah v .Aga rd .

Ch arge Should be so specific a s to informDefen dan tof w h at part O f th e law h e is ch arged w ith ; Unmaid v .

Burrow es an d th us en able th e Magistra te to adjudicateaccording to th e righ t of th ematter . Semple v.Williams.

If it does n ot Sh ow a lega l ch arge an d a conviction

follow s, it could be amen ded by th eReview Court if th erebe eviden ce to con vict . Sirdar v. Langevin e.

It is n ot requisite th at th e Statute Sh ould be specifiedin th e ch arge w h en th e Ofien ce created by th e Statuteis al leged in statutory terms. Joseph v . Ruck ; w h enth e descr iption of th e Offen ce is la id in th e w ords of th e

O rdin an ce crea tin g th e Offen ce , or in Simila r w ords, itis sufficient . Lopes v. Kin g , cit . O rd in an ce 1 7 of 1 880,S. 20 ; Glasgow v . H ardeen .

In offen ces un der th e O piumO rdin an ce th e in formationmigh t be so specific a s to in formDefen dan t Wh at par t ofth e law on th is subject h e is ch arged w ith tran sg ressing .

Unmaid v. Burrow es .

Need n ot state pa rticular O rdin an ce un der w h ich it isbrough t , but , if it is so specified , Complain an t is boun dby it if h emakes amistake a s to th e O rdin an ce. Martin

v . Birch ; Cah uac v . Birch .

Wh ere in forma tion is for failure tomake an en try inth e O piumBook of O piumtaken out by Defen dant fromBond on 25th August 1 864, on or about th e time of h isreceivin g 1 0 lbs. of Opium(22 of 1861 S. 6) an d th ech arge does n ot Specify th at the O piumw as received inth e shop, h eld th a t th is w as n ot an excessive inten dment In favour O f th e law to h old th at th e law a nd th ech arge n ecessarily uph eld th at th e a lleged receipt of th eO pIumby th e Defen dan t at h is sh op w as at all even tsfor and in respect of th at Sh op, in law . Ch an -ch ayCh ing v. Bethun e .

JOINT O FFENDERS. 66 JURISDICTION.

Join t O ffen d ers .

Where tw o ormore labourers con tract to w ork and

commit a breach of th e con tract, ch a rg es sh ould be lodgedagain st each , an d n ot on e ch arge ag ain st all guilty of

such breach . Davis cl d l v. Sampson et d l.

Wh ere th e in formation ch a rges a join t ofien ce ea favieagain st t w o ormore per son s it is for: th e Mag istrate

after ascertaining th e n ature O f th e ca se, to use h is dis

cretion in determin ing w h eth er h e sh ould try th eDefend

an ts join tly O r severa lly or n o . Glasgow and Coates

v. Bran don .

Th e join t aw a rd of on e fin e again st severa l Defen dants

is erron eous, w h eth er th e offen ce is in its n atur e single

or join t .‘

McLean v. Bobeira et a l but w h ere several

Defen dan ts are join ed , th e conviction Sh ould be joined toto preven t accumulation O f costs

. Reynold s v . Bourne .

H eld doubtful w h eth er if th ere be join t offen ders th eresh ould be a separ a te con viction for each . Amos v . H aly .

Join t Respon den ts’

casemay be w ith draw n a s again st

On e an d sustained a s again st a n oth er . Jacobsv.Couchman .

Jud gmen t . See PRONOUNCING .

Jur isd iction .

GENERAL.

.Wan t of jurisdiction can not be amen ded un der 5 of1865 , S. 25 . Bh eekh arry v . McLea n .

Th e convictionmust sh ow day, year , an d place w h ere

offence w as committed . Hoare v. Duggin .

Proceeding s sh ould Sh ow Caption , Sign ature to th edeposition s, fin ding or judgmen t, an d s tatemen t of Defendan t

s presen ce . Joh n son v. Jack a lso, th at th e case

fell w ith in th e Magistrate’

s jurisdiction . Rodn ey v.

Samson .

CAPTION.

Th e Caption is to be taken as sh ow ing jurisdiction .

Gilbert v. Barnes ; and also th at J .P. w as acting in an dfor th e colony. D

’Aguiar v. H arris.

JURISDICTION . 67 O F THE JUSTICE.

O F REVIEW COURT .

Th e Review Cour t h a s n o jurisdiction un der the Lan d

lord an d Ten an t O rdin a n ce for ren t, damag es, &c. Cor ryv . Viera ; Joseph v . Cambridg e.

Th e law un der w h ich th e Review Court is con stituted ,con fers n o jurisdiction on th e Cour t w h er e th ere is n ot

any question a s to sufficien cy of eviden ce , to d ecide th a t

th e Magistrate h as foun d th e facts erron eously ; on th e

oth er h an d if finding th e facts cor rec tly h e h a s n ot applied

correct prin ciples in d raw ing leg a l con clusion s fromsuchfacts, th e Courtmay remedySuch error . An son v . Klien .

Furth er , see Post.

O F THE JUSTICE.

Of Magistra te . Th e Magistrate h as n o jurisdiction incases of dispute betw een ow n er s of property w h ich is

un divided . Bow en v . Buttery (ca se of d amag in g a privy

put up by on e propr ietor w ithout con sen t of th e o t h e r) .Th e Mag istra te h a s n o jurisd iction on a ch a rge for

obstructing th e Police in th e execution of duty. Al lick

v . Joseph .

Th e Magistra temust a ct in th e district in an d for

w h ich h e h a s been a ppoin ted to act, h is jurisd iction insummary proceed ing being distin ctly limited by th e

en actmen ts under w h ich h is Office a n d auth ority a r e

con stituted , n ot on ly w ith r efer en ce to th e limits of th ecolony, but w ith refer en ce to in ter na l d ivisions or d is

tr icts of th e colony . Aben dan on v . Sprosto n (cit. O rd in ance e O f 1 837 S. 1 22 of 1 839 s . 2 ; O rder in Council

S. 2 ; 5 of 1 868 S. 29, 30 ; 1 8 Ed . 3 C. 2 ; 14Ed .

3. 3. 21 Van L eeuw en b . 2, p . 1 0 ; H a rr ison v. King ;

Gla sgow v. De Freitas ; St rag h an v. Darrell ; (R. v . H a z ell

1 3 Ea st0

Th e Magistra temust be sa tisfied by th e evulence th a t

h e h as jurisdiction a s to th e loca lity. Gra n t v . JO SI n .

Th e eviden cemust be on record SO th a t a Cour t of Reviewsh a ll be able to see th at th e Magistra te h ad in fact

jurisdiction . De Souz a v .Roach Aben dan on V . Sproston .

H is jurisd ictionmust be sh ow n on th e face of th e

ch arge. Bun see v. Brand ; Bh eekh arry v. McLean .

JURISDICTION. 68 O F THE JUSTICE.

Wh ere th e Caption sh ow s th at th e Magistrate w as

sittin g a t Vreed-eu-Hoop in th e Demera ra River Judicial District, an d th e in formation bea rs th a t th e offen ce

w as committed at a place n amed in th e same d istrict th eavermen t of jurisdiction is sufficien t . Gilbert v . Ba rnes ;De Souz a v . Roach uph oldin g Aben dan on v. Sproston .

Wh ere th e summon s served on th e Defen da n t g ives th e

locus in gun of the Offen ce a s Pln . Klien Pouderoyen”

w ith out sta tin g th a t th e place w a s in th e DemeraraRiverJudicia l District, th e Defen dan t on review of th e proceed

ing smust sh ow th a t h e w a smisled or emba r rassedth ereby a s to th e jurisdiction of th e Magistra te, or th a t

h e called a tten tion to th e d efect w h en befor e th e Mag istra te . G ilbert v. Barnes .

Wh en evidence is th a t th e occurren ce took place onBrick DamGeorgetow n , itmust be understood to

refer to th e Georgetow n in Demer aramen tion ed in th ech a rge th en un der investig a tion . It can n ot be surmisedth a t th e w itnessmean t some oth er place or tow n of th atn ame in H a lifax or else w h ere . De Jonge v . Dar rell .

Wh ere Offen ce is committed a t Meadow Ban k “ in th is /

district”th ere can be no d oubt th a t a ll th e parties a re

speaking of th e Mea dow Ban k in th e d istrict, coun tya n d colonymen tioned” in th e ch arge, and a jury w ould

so fin d . Gomes v. H a rcour t .

'l h e true test in cases O f summary conviction appea rs

tome (Smith C J.) is w h eth er on the fa ce of th e papersth ere is sufficien t eviden ce to go to a jury if th e conviction h ad been by the verdict of a jur v in stead O f byt h e d ecision of th e Magistrate .

” Math ieson v. Gray ;cit. Dublin v, Gray (Brow n v. Turner . 32 L . J. N . S.

Wh ere th e O rdin an ce d ecla res th a t for doin g a certainact d efen dan t Sh a ll be deemed guilty of a n Offen cea n d Sh a ll be liable to a fin e

”an d such fin e sh a ll

be prosecuted an d recovered by summary execution byH er Majesty

s Attorn ey Gen era l"

th e Magistra te h asjurisdiction to try th ema tte r a nd ad judicate un der 19 O f1 85 6 Cox v Bascom(cit . Attorney Gen er a l v. Rad lofi

10Ex. 84Ca ttel v. Ireson ,

27 L . J. M . C. 1 67) a n d th ema tter "

can be tried on Summary Con viction . Ib.

JURISDICTION. 70 PROOF BY INFERENOE

Gordon ; (cit. King v. John son , 1 , T.E. ,Fur th er,

see CONVICTION an d AMENDMENT.

PROOF OF.

Wh en jurisdiction in revenue cases is n ot proved , th e

Magistratemay d ismiss, but h e is n ot boun d to. H emayh ear th e defen ce an d prove jurisdiction by th e defen ce .

Marques v . Fra n cis .

Proof of locality to found jurisdiction does n ot differin its n ature fromth e proof of facts con stitutin g an

offence . Mon ick v . Solomon (cit . Reg. v. In h abita n ts ofSternforth , 1 1 . Q . B. ,

PROOF BY INFERENCE.

Noth ing sh all be inten ded to be out of th e jurisdictionof a Supreme Court but th a t w h ich specifically appears

to be so ; n oth in g sh a ll be inten ded to be w ith in th e

jurisdiction of an In ferior Cour t but th at w h ich is so

expressly alleged , and jurisdictionmust be on th e face O fth e ch arge an d proved in th e proceeding s. Stragh an v.

Darrell ; (cit . Pea cock v. Bell, I. Saun d ,Wh ere th e district Commissarymakes a seiz ure , and

eviden ce is th at it took place a t Spar en daam,” an d

Commissary is in ch arge of th e East Coast Fiscaldistrict, an d Sparen daamis in th at district an d on th e

East Coast, an d th e Magistrate sits a t Sparen d aam,itmust be h eld th at th e Magistrate h ad jurisdiction ,

alth ough th e w ord s Coun ty of Demerara , Colony of

British Guian a , be not used . Dinez v. Sw a in ; cit .

O rd . 1 8 O f 1864, S.4.Wh en ch arge lays Offen ce a s h aving been committed

at a cer ta in place, an d jurisd iction is g iven in full in th e

ch arge, an d th e w itness Speaks O f the Sh op at Meadow

Bank in th is district ,”th e evidencemust be taken as

h eld {to Sh ow th a t Meadow Ba nk is in th e district, coun tyan d colony as laid in th e ch arg e. Gomes v. H arcourt .

Wh ere th e parish of St . Paul is g iven as th e place

w h ere th e Offen ce w as committed , Smith C.J . said

formy part follow ing ex p arte Atttson (Pollock C.

B.) 24L .J . N ._S. M. C. 72, if I considered it n ecessary,

I s h ould not h esitate to order eviden ce to be adduced

JURISDICTION. 71 PROOF RY INFERENCE.

beforeme to prove th e locality un der 23rd S but

seein g th at th e parish es O f th e colony a re establish ed byO rdin an ce I amboun d to take judicial notice th at th eParish of St . Paul is in th e Coun ty of Demerary inthis Colony.

” Math ieson v . G ray.

Th e Cour t can n ot take judicial n otice th at a plan tationor parish is w ith in a particular judicial district . Bh eek

h arry V . McLean .

Wh ere th ere is noth ing in th e ch arge or in th e evi

dence to Sh ow offen ce a s h aving been committed in th eMagistrate

s jurisdiction , th e ch argemerely statin g th e

offen ce a s h aving been committed in Ben tin ck Street,North Cumingsburg ,” a n d th e on ly referen ce to th e

loan s in quo in th e eviden ce is, th e Defen dan t’

s sh op in

Ben tinck Street,”itmust be taken as if n o jurisdiction

h ad been proved . Stragh an v. Darell .

Th e Magistrate before h e can convict,must h aveeviden ce th at th e Commissa ry w as actin g in h is d istr ict

(un der O rd . 1 864, s . 4) Din ez v. Sw ain n otmerelyth at h e is an assistan t Commissa ry. Cabral v. Y ounge,a s a distr ict Commissary w ith out eviden ce of h is employ.men t, is n ot w ith in th e purvie w of O rd . 1 8 of 1 864,S. 4. Ib.

Th e jurisdiction to h ear an d convict in th e absence of

Defen dan t is a statutory on e, an d it is necessary th a t th e

facts to foun d th e jurisdiction Sh ould be stated on record ,or at least th at th ey sh ould be capable O f being r educed

by n ecessary in ference fromw h at is stated . Th emaximomnia p raesnmter rite et solomn itnr esse aeta does not

apply to proceedings befor e Magistr a tes, especia lly w h en

th e question is as to jur isdiction , an d Wh er e th e record

book leaves it in doubt w h eth er th eMagistra te h a d jurisdiction or not, th e Court can n ot supply th e defect byin ten dmen t . Gomes v . Bur row es ; (cit . R. v . In h abitan ts

of All Sa in ts, Southamp ton , 7 , B. C. , 790 ; R. v.

H a zell, 1 3, East, 141 Dempster v. Parn ell, 4, Scott,N .S. , 39, Stan ton v. Styles, 5 , Ex. 583 ; Taylor v . Clemson ,

1 1 Cl . Fin .

Th e Court of Review must be enabled fromth e proceeding s of th e In ferior Court to see th at th ere is jurisdiction such as w ill support th e proceedings. Aben dan on

JURISDICTION. 72 DISPUTEDTITLE.

v . Sproston (cit Taylor V . Clemson ,1 1 Cl . an d F. 610

Mayor gm. of Lon don v . 00a , L . R. 2 H . L .

Stragh a n v . Darrell ; Reyn old s v . Benn et ; San ders v.

Fox ; Gran t v. Josa ; H arrison v . King .

Th e fa cts r equisite to foun d jurisdiction sh ould be

stated on th e recor d , or at least th ey Sh ould be capable

of being deduced by n ecessary in feren ce fromw h atvisstated . Gomes v . Bur row es .

Jur isdiction n eed n ot n ecessarily be p roved by direct

sta temen t . Pow ers V . Ruck .

CONSENT.

Jurisdictionmust be Sh ow n on th e record an d th e w an t

O f it w h ere it is absent is n ot supplied by w aiver or con

sen t. H a rrison v. King .

IN CASES OF DISPUTED TITLE.

Mag istrate h as no jurisdiction in'

cases of dispute

betw een ow ner s of un divided lan d . Bow en v. Buttery.

Magistratemust n ot a llow h is ju risdiction to be oustedby amere preten ce O f righ t or by a surmise or an ticipa

tion of righ t w h ilst facts sh ow in g th e foun dation of th e

claima re n ot in evid en ce . Kryen h off V. Glasgow .

Wh en a question of title is in dispute , th e Magistrate

is to en ter in to th e n ature of th e claim; n ot in order to

to determin e its validity, but to d iscover w h eth er th e

facts Sh ow a foun da tion on w h ich Defen dan tmigh t on

some g roun ds kn ow n in law h ave believed h e h ad a righ t .

Lon don v . David ; (cit. 7 8 . Geo . ,4, 1 2 of 1 846

S. 29 ; Simon v. Gouvia ; Ca stillo v. Fer reir a ; Rod neyv . Rodn ey.

Idem, a s to question raised w h eth er complain an t isth e lan d lord en titled to sue . Hin ds v . Frank.

Wh ere th e eviden ce clea r ly Sh ow s a dispute as to. th e

proper ty, Magistra te is to d ismiss th e complain t . Jamesv . Adams ; Kryen h off v . Glasgow ; (Cor n w a ll v. Saunders, 3, B . A. , 206 ; Lea tt v. Vin e, 30, L . J. M. C. ,

207 ; R. v . Nun n elley, E. B. E., 852 ; R. v. Bla ck

burn , 32, L . J . M . C.,41 ; R. v. Stempson ,

4, B. 85 S. ;

Hutson v. McRa e, 4, B. S. , 585 ; Foa lger v . Steadman,L . R. 8, Q . B .

JURISDICTION. 74 TRESPASS.

evidence th ereof w as ofiered , and th ough in fact title

w as not in dispute, h is determina tion w ill n ot be dis

turbed , even th ough th e Supreme Court sh ould on th e

same facts h ave a rrived at a d ifieren t, con clusion .

Th erulemay be briefly expressed th us, th a t th eMagistrate

d etermin ation w ill be overruled if h e improperly decidesth a t h is jur isdiction is n ot ousted ; th at it w ill n ot be

disturbed if h e decides th at it is. Gomes v. Green (cit .R. v . Stempson ,4B. S. R. v. Peak, Con M. C. vol . 2

320 ; Legg v. Pa rdow , Cow M, C. vol . 1

Amere asser tion of r igh t w h ere no groun d for it or

on ly an impossible groun d is stated , is no an sw er for w il

ful trespa ss. Ch apman v. Pooler .

If Defendan t h a s a colour of righ t h ow ever w eak th e

claim, it w ill be sufficien t to oust th e jurisdiction O f th e

Magistrate . Gomes v. Green (cit . R. v. Speed , 1 Ld .

Ray 583 Pa ley,4ed . 1 1 8) but w h ere such a colour O f

righ t does n ot or cannot exist, th e Magistrate h as a righ t

to decide summarily, ib (cit .Ma dden v. Por ter , 1 CoxM.C.

5 3 ; Corn w a ll v . Saun ders, 2 Cow M . C Lia tt v. Vine,2 Core M. C. 330 ; Hutson v. Ma cioe, 1 Con M. C.

Th e titlemust be clear ly ra ised , Davson v . Gon salves,a nd th e Magistra temust judge of th e baud fides O f th eclaimof title in dispute . Rogers v. Pequen o .

Questions of bounda rymay sometimes bematters of

title in th is specia l sen se , but th ey often occur asmattersof fact. Ferreira v.Wigh t .Wh ere Magistra te en ters in to ca se w h ere dispute as to

title arises and it turn s out th at Prosecutor is ow ner in

fee of th e locus in guo an d Defen dan t is a w ilful tres

passer h e is justified in convicting for an assault arisingfromth e trespass . Liverpool v. Daly.

Wh ere the tresp ass is in fact through amistaken idea ofrigh t, it is not a w ilful trespass ; a w ilful trespasser isn otmerely an in truder w ith out h aving a righ t, h e is onew h o goes on th e land or building of an oth er w ithoutbelieving th at h e h as a righ t to go th ere . If h e w entin pursuan ce of a n h on est claimO f r ig h t even alth oughth e claimw as groun dless a nd un reasonable

,h is SO going

does n otmake h ima w ilful trespasser . Ch apman v.

Pooler ; Castillo V . Teixeira .

JURISDICTION . 75 TRESPASS.

Wh ere Defendan t possesses h imself of grow ing crops of

anoth er un der amistake an d avers th e fact th a t h e h ad

cut th embymistake before h e is questioned , it w ill bestrong,

eviden ce of a trespa ss. Ben v . David (cit . EastP. C. 661 ; 2 Bus. on CrimesWhere Defen da n t goes on th e lan d un der a claimO f

title bondfide an d affixes a trespass boa rd , h e can n ot be

convicted O f being on th e lan d w ith out excuse 85 0 . un der

th e Vag rancy Act. Williams v. Roberts ; H ayw ood v.

Y oung ; Molineaux v . Sch ultz ; Rodn ey v. Rodn ey.

Atresp assfoi et a rmis an d in breach of th e peace is not

justified on th e groun d of disputed title . Rogers V .

Pequeno .

Wh ere th ere is a trespass board n ea r public road an d th e

Magistrate believes th a t Defend a n t w en t on th e lan d tolook for an d d rive aw ay h is cow it is n ot w ilful trespass .

Barclay v. Sw an .

Wh ere th ere is n o n otice boa rd n ea r amule pen an d

Defen dan t receives va lid n otice n ot to trespass, itmustbe Sh ow n th a t h e refused to leave on request before h ecan be convicted O f w ilful trespass . Arthur v. Moore .

Th emere p a ssing th roug h amule pen a s a sh ort cut

to th e estate’

s h ospita l is n ot per se a w ilful trespa ss in

th emule pen . 1 b.

Wh ere Defenda nt h as been p reviously w a rned not to go

on th e estate a nd h e goes as a pa ssen ger in a boa t in to a

priva te tren ch on th e esta te h e is a w ilful t respasser .

Adams v. Agard .

A labourer on a n esta te n ot"

sp ecia lly w a rn ed not to go

into th e building s is n ot a w ilful tr espa sser if h e goes

th ere . Thor nhill v. Pilg rim.Wh ere Defen dan t is order ed to quit th e esta te an d th e

order is n ot en forced , h e being still a llo w ed to remainon th e esta te a nd h e commits a breach of th e peace on

th e esta te, a nd th ere is n o proof of refusa l to quit on

requestmade w ith in th emean ing O f th e l st Section of

O rdin an ce 33 of 1850 on th e day h e commits such breach ,h e can not be con victed O f trespa ss . Abidola h v . Ba rclay.

Wh ere a p erson w orked on an esta te an d left a nd w a s

found on estate excusing h erself on th e g round th a t sh e

JURISDICTION. 76 TRESPASS.

h ad been sen t for by h ermoth er a located labourer onth e estate, a n d th at w h ile th ere sh e w a s delivered of a

ch ild , sh e can not be convicted of trespass. BascomV.

Nor ton .

No on e h a s a righ t to en ter on premises on th e invita tionOf employé of ow n er O f lan d if after such invitation th e

ow n er w ar n s such person n ot to en ter . Williams v . Kan all .

Mer e tresp a ss on foresh ore n ot accompan ied by destroying , en sn a ring , catch ing or taking ofi crabs or oth er

anima ls or attempting to do so , is not an offen ce un der

th e Trespass O rdinan ce 33 of 1 850. Ben jamin v . Bascom.Mistake w ill be no excuse for tr esp ass in a civil proceed

ing even if it be so in anymea sure upon crimin a l or penalpr oceedin gs, but still less could it g ive to th e trespa sser

a righ t to persist in h ismistake by in sistin g on th e

sur ren der of proper ty w h ich is n ot h is. Ferreira v.

Wigh t .Wh ereDefendan t in putting up a fen ce w en t on plantiff

lan d a n d it is sw orn th at Defen dan t w as on h is ow n

lan d or a t all even ts on th e boun dary lin e, a title is in

issue , an d th e Magistr a te h as n o jurisdiction . Cassie

v. Miln e ; James v . Adams .

O n Crow n Lands.— Trespass on Crow n Lan ds is uht a

crimin a l or pen almatter . De Freitas v. Wig h t.

Wh er e Crow n O flicer sw ears on a ch arge O f t respassmgon Crow n Lan ds th a t h e believes th e lan ds to be Crow n

Lan d s because h e does n ot see th emin Berch eyk’

ch a r t an d fromin formation received an d n ot fromkn ow ledge of h is ow n , a n d Defen dan t establish es thatth e lan d h ad been w orked a s private proper ty a n d th a th e h ad h ad th emfromth e person w h o cla imed th emfromth e first , th e Magistrate can n ot decide th e question of

title r a ised . Lopes v. Backer .

La rceny of grow ing crop s in cludes a trespass on th elan d , but w h ere Defen dan t is convicted O f th e larceny j

can n ot be convicted of th e trespass ar ising fromth elarceny . Ga rnett v. Dea n .

Wh er e Defen da nt bondfid e r aises a claimof ow n ersh ipon g roun ds possible in law an d g ives evidence in supportof such claim, th e Magistrate is to refrain fromadjudicating . Ca ssie v. Miln e.

LARCENY. 78 GROWING CROP.

foun d , it is not larceny in th e fin der . Rodericks v.

Simon s. Con tra , if h e believes th at th e ow n er can be found .

Ib. Th e belief in such case is to be in ferred fromth ecircumstan ces. 1b (cit. Reg . v. Thurbor n , 1 Den C. C.

387 Reg . v. Clyde, 37 L . J. M. C.

Wh ere a ll th e fa cts deposed to a re consisten t w ith inn o

cence, th e crimin a lity of th e accused oug h t not to depend

on th e in feren ce of a w itn ess . Allibocus v. Pon -a-ch ee.

In cases of in dictmen tfor la rceny, if th e offen ce turns

out to be embez z lemen t, Defen dan tmay be con victed O f

embez z lemen t, but th ese pow ers do n ot exten d to a summa ry procedure . Th e Mag istra temay amen d complaintto on e of embez z lemen t if facts turn out to be embez z lemen t a t any time before h is fin al decision an d convict of

embez z lemen t. Jessy v. Robb .

CHARGE FOR.

Comp la in tmust h ave th e w ord “feloniously in it or it

is bad . Angoo‘

v . Miller ; Jack v. Joh n ; Adams v. Poona

ch ie ; Jodh an v . Mearn s .

Th e ch arge may. be amended by addin g th e w ord

felon iously before tria l, but n ot a fter . Jack v. Joh n ;JOdh an v. Mea rn s.

Ach a rge for un la wfully stea ling certain cocoanut trees

of th e value O f th en g row in g in a garden is good .

Jodh an v. Mear ns see a lso LARCENY OF GROWINGr CROP.

Prep erty of sever a l p a rtn ersmust be la id in th e n amesof “A. an d oth ers,

”not in th e n ame of th e firm. H odge

v. McBurn ie .

Wh ere p roper ty is la id in th e n ame O f Timoth y Pilea conviction can n ot lie if eviden ce Sh ow s p roperty to beth e property of Samuel Pile .

”Pin -a-young V. Pile ;

Faria v . In n is . See AMENDMENT .

Th e va lue of th e goodsmust be laid and proved in th e

Mag istra te’

s Court to con stitute Petty larceny un der 20

of 1 856 an d n otmerely th e va lue O f th e property produced in eviden ce . Kelly v . Fa rley ; Ned v . De Guara .

L a r cen y of G row in g Crop .

Th ings w hich savour of th e r ea lty such a s g row ing trees

are not subjects of larceny at common law . Th e Legisla

LARCENY , GROWING CROP. 79 LICENCELAW.

tureh asmade depredation s upon grow ing plan ts, Offencesbut not felon ies under certain circumstan ces. JOdh anv. Mearn s ; Semple v. Butts. Th e enactmen ts are contain ed in th e Larceny O rd in an ce, S. 26—34inclusive, ibib, cit .An goo v. Miller Doorgan v. Miller as n ot in poin t.A conviction un der 20 of 1856 (Petty O ffen ces) for

h aving in possession a quan tity of ca n e tops suspected toh ave been stolen is bad . Semple v. Butts. As th ingsw hich savour of th e realty, &c . , see Supra .

L aw ful Excuse — See CRIMINAL MATTER.

Lease — See JURISDICTION.

Lecture for ch ar itab le purpose .—See CHURCH

—CIIAPEL.

Lees .

Under O rdinance 1 O f 1 870 it is not n ecessary to proveth at th e trench into w h ich lees w as run , h ad previouslyfresh w ater or w ater th at w a s n ot foul . Pln . Sophia v.

Th orn e. O nus O f origima li lies on ow ner O f esta te, Ib.

L eg a l Pr a ctition er .

Dicence,— To bemade liable for licence duty for keepingan ofiice, itmust be sh ow n in eviden ce th at h e kept a nOffice and tran sacted busin ess th ere . Belmon te v. An son .

Wh ere th e O rdinan ce (8 of 1887)makes a Lega l Fractitioner amen able to a licen ce for keeping a n Office, an

Advocate” is a Leg a l Practition er”, Ib, so is an

Attorn ey-a t-Law a nd a Bar rister . De Souz a v. Anson .

Pr ivilege— A Barrister ca nn ot claimprivilege from

givin g evidence as to an application for a licence to keepa.Tavern . D

oliveira v . Darrell .

Levy on Wa ges— O pposing .

-See ASSAULT.

L icen ce L a w .

ACommissa ry can not sup ersede the law an d g ran t permission to d o an act With out licence, if licen ce is requiredfor performan ce thereof. Jack v. H orton ; Hor ton 17.

Ch ester .

Keep and use.— Th e w ords of th e O rdinance being

LICENCE LAW. 80 SEPARATE BUILDINGS.

keep an d use a pplies to private carriages an d to th ose

for .h ire , an d Wh ere carriage is foun d in Defen dan t

place th e onus is on h imto Sh ow th at it w as n ot kept

a nd used . Gon salves v. An son .

Wh ere a g un is carried a t 8 am. and licence is

taken out at p.m. , th e licence does n ot exon erateh older fromth e effects O f ca rrying th e gun at 8 am.

w ith out licen ce . H arel v,Win t (cit . Campbell v. Str ange

w ay, 3 C. P . D . 1 05 as n ot in point) .Th emere carrying of a gun is n ot illegal . Bolton v.

Fern an des.

Alth ough th e law allow s sw in e tobe killed on auth orityof Commissary &c . w h en trespa ssin g on public road , th e

person w h o kills bymean s of un licen ced gun is liable forusing gun w ith out a licen ce, a s th e Commissary cannot

over ride‘

th e w ritten law . Ja ck v. Horton followmgH orton v. Ch ester .

LIQUOR.

Th e pen alty imposed by S. 1 0 of 8 of 1 858 is limitedto a ca se of selling Spirituous liquor un der proof froma cask or package h old ing less th an 20 gallon s. It does

n ot apply to th e case of a licen sed dea ler h avin g in h is

sh op rumof less th an required proof. Gomes v. Beth une

Gomes v. O lton .

SEPARATE BUILDINGS.

Wh ere O rdin an ce en acts th at w h ere tw o ormore person s n ot being partners sh a ll be establish ed a s sepa rate

store or sh op keepers in any premises, in each such case,

such person s sh all take out a separate licence , it does not

exten d to separate stores in sepa rate buildings on th e

same lot . Cuckow v . Perot et a l.

Wh ere Defenda nt h as a licen cefor a shop an d h e keeps

an oth er sh op on th e same lot even for th e sa le of the

same goods for w h ich h e h as a licen ce, h e is liable for

not h aving a licence for th e secon d sh op. Pequenov. Hill .

MAGISTRATE.82 APPEAL.

Magi str a te.

WHEN NO APPEAL LIES FROM HISDECISION .

Where p rvmd fa cie evidence is adduced O f an offence

and th e accused person h a s th emean s of rebutting an d

explaining th a t eviden ce if it w ere n ot leading to th e

truth ,th e Magistra te w ould righ tly take in to con sidera

tion th a t h is omitting to do so furnish es a stron g in fer

ence again st h im, butmuch caution is requisite inapplying th is prin ciple

. Gomes v. Solomon s .

Th e conclusion of the Magistra te onma tters of fa ct cannot be interfered w ith . How ell v. Straker . Th e Courtw ill n ot in terfere w ith th e fin din g of th e Mag istrate on

th e question O f fact if th er e is evidence sufficien t to

w arran t h imin th e con clusion to w h ich h e arrived . De

Freitas v. Seig art ; Garn ett v . Nich olson .

Th e Magistr a te sits a s a Jury an d review is not allow ed

on th e eviden ce w h en h e decides on th e eviden ce . Cumberlan d v. H in d s ; H or ton v . Abr ah ams, et a l ; Beel v.

Samuel ; H itz ler v. Clouston . Wh ere th e decision of th e

Magistra te en ables th e Cour t to come to th e con clusion

th a t h e h ad w eigh ed an d disbelieved th e eviden ce, th e

Court Will not in terfere. Kin g v . Gomes.

If th e proof is such th a t th e Magistrate could reason

ably come to th e con clusion th at th e issue is proved th ere

is no review of h is fin ding . Marques v. Fran cis .

Ma tter of fa ct a n d lam— Wh ere th e decision of th e

Magistrate w ould be a question of fact ormixed questionsof law an d fact th e Review Court w il l n ot in terfere.

Horton v . Abrah ams.

Th e conclusion of th e Cour t below fromma tters of factan d evidence un less eviden tly sw ayed by somemisappreh ension of la w or prin ciple or so en tirely inconsisten t

w ith Wh atmigh t appear to th e Cour t above th e direct

and pa lpable result of th e evidence, a s to appear nu

rea sonable or perverse, w ill n ot be in terfered . w ith , as

it is n ot desirable or even righ t for th e Court of appeal

to disturb such a d ecision . De Souz a v.Wrigh t; a lth ough

th e evidencemig h t h ave w arran ted a d ifferen t fin ding in

favour of Defen dan t . Bolton v. Fer nandes.

Th e Review . Court h as n ot th e“mean s O f estimating th e

MAGISTRATE. 83 APPEAL .

correctn ess of th e w eigh t of eviden ce in th e Court below ,

and it h a s n ot jurisdiction to do SO . Green v. Bra z o ;its jurisdiction in th is respect bein g limited by O rdina n ce5 of 1868 S. 1 0 . Pln . Soph ia v, Th or ne .

Th e Review 'ourt n o

d oubt examin es w h eth er th ere issufficien t eviden ce to sustain th e fin din gs, but th e poin t

on ce affirmed , all question s of th e credibility an d proba tiveforce of th e eviden ce are to be de termin ed so lely by th e

Magistrate a s t h ey a re to be determined by th e jury incrimin al tria ls in th e Supreme Court . Day v . Teixeira ;Jon es V . Bagot ; Allicock v . Lan ge .

Th e Magistra temigh t trea t th e eviden ce of th e Proseoutor a s un w orth y O f cred it an d dismiss th e ch arge simpliciter , in w h ich case th e decision is n ot revie w able ex

pa r te. Deeraj V. Keen o (cit. Br i tish g Foreign Pa ten tInven tion Co. ,

2, W. H . H . , 5 7 .

Wh ere an O rdin an ce (militia ) does n ot give a righ t ofappea l fromth e decision of th e Magistra te n o appea l

lies, n otw ith stan ding 5 of 1 868 a nd 1 9 of 1836 . Ca rberryet c l, v . Dun n Daw es v . Dun n .

Even in a doubtful ca se th e Court w ill n ot in ter fere

w ith th e Magistra te’

s decision w h ere th ere is n o ir regu

larity or illega lity. Roh ele r v. Bh eekun .

Th e Mag istra te’

s decision w ill n ot be disturbed except

under Special circumsta nces Jack v . Ja ck.

CASES IN WH ICH APPEAL LIES.

Error in La w .— Bond fides a s to belief th a t Defen da n t

took a w ay th e ar ticles a l leg ed to h ave bee n stolen un d er

a claimO f righ t is on e of fact w ith in th e Cogn iz an ce of

th e Magistra te , an d th e d ecision of th e Magist ra te is n ot

subject to review un less for some error in la w such a s

th e improper reception or rejection o f evidence o r t'

th e decision w a s w h olly un w a rran ted by th e eviden ce .

Garn ett v. Dean .

Wh ere it is possible th a t th e Magistratemay h ive

founded h is dismissa l on lega l Objec tion “taken to th e

eviden ce on w h ich h e reserved d eCISlO I] , but expressed n o

Opin ion ,th e Cou rt w ill in terfere . Kin g v . Gome

Suficien cy of Evidence — Th e Court of Review h a s n o

jurIsdiction Wh ere th ere is not a ny question as to th e

MAGISTRATE. 84 APPEAL.

sufficien cy of th e eviden ce to decide th at th e Magistrate

h ad found th e facts e rron eously ; on th e oth er h and if

finding th e fa cts cor rectly h e h ad n ot applied cor rect

prin cipl es in dra w ing lega l con clusion s fromth ose factsth e Court can remedy such error . An son v . Klien .

Th e Cour t w ill en quire w h e th er th e eviden ce w as

sufficien t to susta in th e conviction ,an d th e test is w h eth er

th e eviden ce o r th e force of it , w as such th a t h ad th e

tria l been in th e Supreme Court th e ca se w ould righ tlyh ave been put to th e jury , or in oth er w or ds Wh eth er

th ere w as eviden ce before th e Magistra te fromw h ich a

person of ordin ary soun d judgmen tmigh t fair ly h avedra w n th e same in feren ce a s h e did . Gomes v . Solomon(cit . R. v . Glossop,4B . Ad . 16 ; R. v . Davis

,6 T. R.

1 78 Ryder v . Wombell, ex Ch . 4C. B . 32 ; Jew ell v.

Pa r r,1 3 C. B . 91 5

,Maule, or it h e applied th e law

w rongly to th e facts . Admin istra tor Gen era l v . King .

Th e Cour t w ill n ot in ter fere w ith a Magistrate’

d ecision upon amatter of fact un less it clea rly appears

th a t h e w as w rong . De Souz a v . Roach ; Hebeler v .

Frank ; Sucko w orth v . Dorn ford ; Lord v . An son ; Goula n a lly v. Dorn ford . It is th e Cour t

s duty to see t hat

th e Magistra te’

s conclusion fromth e eviden ce bea rs out

th e conviction . Silvan o v. Wa d e ; De Abrio v . Da rrell

(R v. In h a bitan ts of O dell, 341 L . J . 534a s n ot a pplicable)a n d reverse th e decision if necessary . Tulma n v. Prince.

Th e above rule applies to a d ismissa l . De Abrio v.

Darrell . Idema s to acquitta l . II) .In case of conflict Qf evidence, th e Magistrate is th e best

judge of th e w eigh t of such eviden ce, an d th e cr ed it due

to th e Witn esses examin ed before h imbut th e true test

in such ca ses of summa ry con viction appear s to be,w h eth er on th e face of th e papers th ere is sufficien t

eviden ce to go to a jur y in stead of being th e decision of

th e Magistra te . Dublin v . G rey.

If the Magistr a te app lied th e la w w rongly to th e'

proved , th e Court of Review w ould set h imrigh t, but th eMagistra te is sole judge of th e facts . Admin istra torGen era l v . King (cit . R. v . Goodridge, 1 9 L . J .41 5 R.

v. Bolton , 1 Q . B. An son v . Klien .

Amere scin tilla of eviden ce sh ould not be left to the

MALIGE.86 MASTER SERVANT.

gress, and h e breaks it, h e can not be convicted ofma liciously” damag ing property . Coombs v . Butler .

VWter e Defendan t is a tta cked by dogs, an d h e ch ops one

w ith a cutlass h e h a s in h is h an d , it is n ot amaliciousma iming or w oun ding of th e dog . London V . Gonsa lves.

Ma lt L iquor to be drunk on th e premises.

To convict Defen dan t for sellin g w ith out a licen ce itmust be proved th a t h e sold less th an tw o gallons.

D’Abrio V. Straker .

Man a g er of G ra n t

Means an agen t of th e ow ner ; n ot h is servan t. Sw ain

v. Pistano.

Ma n d amus — SeeRULE.

Ma r r ied Woman — See Femme covert.

Ma ster a n d Servan t .

DEFINITION or SERVANT.

A h ea d shopman is n ot a serva n t under 2 of 1853.

Dias v . D’Aguiar .

Ta sk Gang — In th e absen ce of any express eviden ce

to th e con trary, a person employed by a task gangd river , is a servan t of th e d river an d n ot of th e estate.

Gordon V . Parkinso‘

A task gang driver is n ot a servan t un der Ma ster and

Servant Act . Ba scomv. H a z z ard .

An order given by th e driver to an immigran tmust beobeyed, a s t he d river is agen t for th e time being of th eman ager of th e estate. Carruth ers V . Koondan sing .

A capta in of a sloop engaged w ith out any agreementa s to time except th at w ag es w ere agreed to be at $75amon th ”, comes un der S. 1 7 of Employer an d Se rvantAct of 1853. Men donca v . H opkinson .

Aman ager of a gran t is an agen t of th e ow n er, n ot a

servan t of th e ow ner . Sw ain v . Pistan e .

A pan boiler is a servan t un der 2 of 1853. Duke v.

Bury ; Garnett V. Nich olson .

MASTER SERVANT. 87 WHEN LIABLE.

An East India n immigra nt is not amenable to Masterand Servan t O rdinance of 1853. Moon ah v.Agard .

LIABILITY or MASTER.

Alth ough S. 65 of 25 of 1856 applies to cer tain person s on ly, ama stermay un der gen era l principles of lawincur

a forfeiture by th e a ct of h is agen t or servant.

Correira V. Man th orp but h e i s not liable for th e act of

th e servan t amoun ting to amisdemeanour . Isaacs V.

Ch apman . Nor is h e liable for quasi crimin al acts of h isservan t . e.g . w h ere there is a fine or imp risonmen t, exceptb express en actmen t. Pistano v. Sw a in (cit . AttorneyGbner a l v. Siddons, 1 C. J. 220 Attorney Gen er a l V.

Burgess, 2 C. J . 493 ; Mullins v. (‘ollinsJ L . R. Q .

B. 292 ; Somerset v. H ar t, 1 2 Q . B. D . 360 ; Redgage v.

Hayn es, 1 Q . B. D. 89 ; Booty v. Da w es, 1 Q. B. D. 784;R. v . Ba w ly, 9 L . T. N . S. 827 ; Sea r ly V . Reynold, 14L. T. 5 18 ; R. v. Barret, L . C. 263 R. v. Stamard ,L. C. 349) an d e.g. a prosecution un der 8 . 32 of Crow nLand O rdin an ce 1873 (cutting sh inges) Sw ain v. Pistane ;neith er is th e employer liable for th e illega l a ct of hismanager un less it is sh ow n th at h e directed th e agent orman ager so to act or rea llymean t th a t h e sh ould so act,or afterw a rds ratified th e illegal act. Ih . (cit . R. V.

Smith,L . C. 607 ; Coop er v. Steele, 6 H . L . C. A.

n eith er is th e holder of a w ood-cutting licence liable

for trespa ss on adjoin ing la n ds, un less it be sh ow n that

spass w as . don e by th e d irection a n d w ith th e know

ledge of th emaster . Da Silva v. Man n .

Th e ca sua l act or employmen t of anoth er by a seller of

bread does n otmake th e seller liable un der th e 5th S.

of O rdin ance, for a sa le of bread w ith out sca les and

w eigh ts in h is absen ce. Th orn e V . Fr aser ; Th orne V.

Muddle ; as th emaster is n ot liable for a sale by sh ort

Weigh t, un less h e w as presen t at th e sale . Isaacs V.

Ch apman .

WHEN LIABLE.

Absence of a ctua l know ledge of ow ner of ganga Sh op of

sale, is n ot enough for h is exoneration , if the Magistrate

con siders h e h ad con sented to such sale, eith er by a

MASTER SERVANT . ABATEMENT or WAGES.

gen eral order, or permission g iven h is sh opman to tran sgress . th e O rdinance, or in w h atever w ay th e con sent

w as given . Wong-a .Samv. An son as th e absence of

ow ner of th e shop does n ot r elieve h imfromth e r espon si

bility of acts done by person s w h o h ad a ccess to h is sh op,or con trol , or pow er , over th e liquor sold fromh is sh opw h ich h e w as l icen ced to keep. Ferna ndes v. Arnold ;as ' itmust be taken asp rimafa cie evidence th at th e ow n er

of th e shop , or his servan t knew or consen ted to th e sellingof turn on Sun day if it is proved th a t rumw a s called for

dra nk, a nd paid for in th e sh op . D’

O liveira V . Bolton ;as it seems strange th a t a serva nt w ith out benefit to

, ,h imself, but for h ismaster ’s benefit, sh ould h ave con

‘f tracted th e liability of disobeying h ismaster ’s orders“h e. n ot to sell . It w a s w ith in th e purvie w of th e

Magistrate to decide upon th e credit due to th e Wit‘

nesses w h o sw ore to th e con tra ry. Sn agg O J . in

Correia V . Man th orp.

Th ema ster is also liable for th e acts of h is servan t

w h en it is proved th at h e h eld th e licen ce an d th at th e

servan t got a par t of th e profit an d slept upstairs of th e

sh op. Cuckow v . Gon sa lves .

LIABILITY OF O WNER WHEN ABSENT FROM THECOLONY.

See ABSENCE.

LIABILITY As EXECUTOR.

Wh ere in formation lays Appellan t’

s liabil ity on th e

groun d of h is bein g th e ow n er of th e goods, as also

employer of th e actual ow n er of th e Sh O p , a s in h is

capa city a s Executor , a n d h e takes exception in limineas Executor th at h e w as n ot o w ner , h e is en titled to a

decision on th e question th us raised indepen den tly of

any particular circumstan ces th at.may h ave tran spiredin eviden ce . Silvan o V . Barne s . Fur th er , see O WNER.

ABATEMENT or WAGES.

Un der 2 of 1 853, S. 1 0, th e forfeituremade payableto th e employer , is a pen alty imposed on th e servant.

Ba scomv . H az z ard .

Wh en ch arg e states A to be the employer, and

MASTER85 SERVANT. 90 REFUSALToENTERSERVICE.

Wh ere servan t is guilty of breach of contract th e Magis

trate is bound to aw ard fin e or imprisonmen t, and h e h asn o auth ority simply to order th at th e w ages sh ould be

forfeited . Dublin v. Gray.

DETERMINATION or CONTRACT. LENGTH or CONTRACT.

Notice of determin a tion of con tract or service sh ould

run for 14days n ext precedin g th e termin ation of th emonth , an d not th at it sh a ll run after termination . Men

don ca v. H opkinson .

Notice given for th e en d of th emon th is n ot invalidatedbecause it h as to run for a lon ger period th an 14days. Ih .

Wh ere a p erson en ters up o n a con tract to w ork on an

estategen era llyand w ith outanycon tract verbal or w ritten ,h is termof service is by la w computed tobe on e ca lendarmon th . Dun da s v. Cauz a . See CONTRACT As ToTIME.

Wh ere con tra ct is a daily h iring, an d th emaster saysto th e servant, if you don

t w ish to do th e w ork you

can leave it,”th e servan t is at liberty to take th emaster

a t h is w ord an d leave th e w ork. Sample v. Y oung .

Br ea ch .— Un der 3 of 1 853 w h ich is partly taken from4, Geo .4, c . 34, th e con tract broken by on e party is n ot

d issolved . Moonah v . Aga rd (cit . Esp . Baker , E. 85 B.

696 Unw in v . Clarke, R. B . , I . Q . B. , an d th e

Magistrate can order return to service. Ib.

NEGLECT OF DUTY.

Tomake a w a tchman liable for n eglect of duty w here

good s are stolen , proofmust be given of drunkenn ess,absen ce from, or sleeping a t h is post, or some directeviden ce of a like n ature . Bascomv. Relva . Liabilityof East In dian Immigran t — See IMMIGRANT.Tomake a servan t li able for n eglect of w ork &c. itmust be alleged an d proved th at th e refusal to w ork w as

w ith out reasonable cause . Gordon v. Binn s. Furth er ,see NEGLIGENCE.

REFUSAL TO ENTER SERVICE.

A contract en tered in to according to th emeth od prescribed by 2 oi 1 853 by a labourer w h o is registered

MASTER SERVANT 91

under4of 1887 (Gold Min in g ) is binding , but if enteredon ly under 4of 1887 an d th ere is n o stipulation a s to

w ages in th e con tr act, a lth ough an advan ce is given , a

conviction for refusin g to en ter service is bad . Luckiev. D

’Amil .Itmust be sh ow n th a t th emedicin es an dmedica l reme

dies prescribed under th e Gold Min in g regulation s w ould

be at th e placer at th e time th e labourer w ould h avereach ed h ad h e fulfilled h is con tract, before h e can beconvicted for refusing to en ter service . Ib.

EMBEZZLEMENT.

Wh ere th e stew a rd of a sh ip is en titled to sugar an dbiscuits for h is ow n use, h e is guilty of embez z lemen t ifh e takes fromth e stores sugar an d biscuits of sma ll valueto give to a w oman on board (immig ran t on passagefromIn dia) for illicit in tercourse . Sumn er v. Jon es .

As To CONVICTION FOREMBEZZLEMENT.— See LARCENY .

FRAUD.

A person w h o con tracts to do paalings at somuch a

foot an d receivesmore th a n h e is en titled to, is not liableunder th e Ma ster an d Servan t Act for fraud an d deception , a s it is n o part of h is duty tomeasure th e w orkbefore h e receives paymen t . Marks V . Sh aw . H emaybe ch arged for receivingmon ey under false preten ces. 1b.

LIABILITY UNDER SUNDAY TRADING O RDINANCE.—See

SUNDAY TRADING O RDINANCE.

May .—See WORDS.

Mea t .

Wherefreshmea t is exp osed for sa le in a cart in a rura l

district on a public road w h ere a sort ofmarket isbeing h eld

”an d th e person so exposing h as a licen ce

for a cart for h ire an d a h uckster’

s licen ce h e is a s

occupier a n d is amen able for occupying a place

w h ere fresh mea t is exposed for sa le w ith out law ful

excuse an d did fail to take out a licen ce .

”Burrow es

Joaquim, Furth er , see PLACE; O CCUPIER; HAWKER.

92 NEGLIGENCE.

A Huc'kster

s licence d oes not entitle a'

person to Sellfreshmeat o n a public road in a Cart . Burrow es v .

Joaquin } .

Mea sur e — See WEIGHT.

Min dr .

—See AGE O F DEFENDANT.

Wh ere seveiial pa rties Severa lty non /tract to se rve -asg old

diggers an d fa il to performsuch co ntra ct , ea chmust beseve ra l ly ch a rged . et a l . See JOINDERCO NVICTION .

Mistak e .

A par ty ca nn ot set up amistake in law as defen ce .

Moon ah v. Aga rd (Cit . Un w in v . Clarke , L .

M itig a tion .

Court o f Revie w h eld th at th ere w er e circumstan cesun d er w h ich th e sen tenc e of th e Ma g istra temigh t beamend ed , a n d a lte red th e sen ten ce of th e Mag istra te from“ 30

d ays’h a rd labour ,

”to $24or 7 days. HelmV.

Rh od ius . Fur th er , see CONVICTION .

Money or RCWa r fl .—See WORDS.

Mon th .— See WORDS.

N ame of ow n er of prop er ty in la rcen y cases.

— Sfee LAJRCENYe

Neg lig en ce .

Que stion le f negligence is ama t‘er '

of fact to be decided

by the Ma gistra te , a n d th e C our t of Review w ill n ot

in terfe re . Gar nett v. Nich o lson . Furth er , see MASTERAND SERVANT.

Wh ere O rd in an cemakes ln eglect to keep th e roads in

good ord er , evid en ce th at roa d w a s an d is in bad order ,”

is n ot sufficien t eviden ce . Evid ence of n eg lectmust begiven . Prin ce v . King .

O BSTRUCTING.

94an Obstruction . It is for th e Magistrate to judge w ith

referen ce to th e w ords used an d,th e w h ole circumstances

in any such ca se, w h eth er obstruction w ould reason ably

result fromth e w ords, an d w h eth er in fact it h ad resulted .

1 b Allick V . Joseph .

A ch arge of w ilfully obstructin g a police officer in

th e execution of h is duty, is n ot w ith in th e jurisdictionof th e Magistrate . Allick v . Joseph .

In order th a t a labourer sh ould h ave th e ben efit ofth e pro tec tive clause (S. 1 3SS. 1 of O rdinan ce 3 of 1 884)it sh ould a ppea r th a t h e w as employed or empow ered bya road officer in th e performan ce of some act auth orisedby th e Road O rdin an ce . Murdoch v. An son . Suchauth orisa tion w h en gen era lmust be in w riting . Ib.

A Commissa rymay be obstructed by an act such as a

th reat to h ave h imput O ff a stelling . Sproston v. Cross.

H e n eed n ot be doing a positive act w h en obstructed . Ib.

O BSTRUCTING PEACE O FFICER— See Sup ra ,a lso ASSAULT,

ARREST.

O ccup ier — See WORDS.

O CCUFIEROF BUSINESSPREMISES— See BUSINESSPREMISES.

O ffice : COUNTING H OUSE — See WORDS.

Omission in conviction — See CONVICTION .

Crow n Lan ds — Seiz ure of good s lies on claimant .Kin gston v . Fraser ; Fraser v . Gon salves ; Sw ain v.

Lopes ; (cit . S. Th e claiman ts Sh ould at leastmakeout a p rimd fa cie case . H arcourt v . Sicla .

Th e vitiumrea le w h ich a tta ch es un der SS. 32 33, tosh ingles, &c .

, cut on Crow n L an ds, is n ot got rid of bymere sa le a n d tran sfer , irrespectively of th e atten dan tcircumstan ces . Sw ain v. Lopes . Furth er— see Crow nLan d s .

Gun s of origima li un der Lees O rdin an ce lies on ow n erof estate . Soph ia v. Th orn e .

95 -O PIUM O RDINANCE.

Guns of sh ow ing th at Defendan t h as a licen ce for a

retail spirit sh O p on a ch arge of h aving rumin h is possession , lies on th e Defen dan t . An son v. Won g

-a-Hoy(cit. Taylor on Eviden ce,Th e eviden ce of rea son able in feren ce th at th e use of a

cart by Defen dan t’

s boy w as by th e in struction of th e

Defen dan t, or don e by virtue of th e employmen t of th e

boy, lies on th e prosecution . Men des v . Layton .

Wh ere ch arge alleges a sa le as a n Ofience, th e con dition

being th e exclusion of ,th e protection or exemption w h ich

a licen ce w ould afiord , th e la w th row s on th e Defen dan t

the proof th a t h e h ad a licen ce w h ereas if th e ch arge is

for n eglecting to take out a licen ce, th e complain an tw ould h ave to prove th e n eglect . Robella v. Birch ;Walcott V. Jeffrey.

O piumO r d in a n ce .

Gun s of proving law ful possession is on th e Defen dan t.

Da Costa v . King:

Th e law regula ting opium, bh an g , &c., proh ibits a sale

by w h olesale dealers O f n ot less th a n 25 lbs . to a retail

dealer, th erefore a sale of 1 0 lbs . opiuman d 1 5 lbs.

bh ang ,makin g a sa le of 25 lbs. of a rticlesmen tion ed inth e O rdin ance, is in con traven tion of th e O rdin ance .

Sw ain v . Fresson .

O piumis liable to seiz ure if it is kept for a licen ced

customer by a person not licen ced . Da Costa v. King .

ENTRY IN BOOK .

If Magistrate is of opin ion th at en try in Book is

incorrect, but not fictitious w ith in ten tion of breaking

th e law , h e is righ t in dismissing ch arge . Sw ain v.

Fong-a-pan .

Th e dealer n eed n otmake entry in th e book at th e

time of receipt of opium; h e h as up to th e close of th at

day formaking such entry. Goolamally v. Dorn ford .

Th e keeping of a book by a dealer under O rdin an ce 26

of 1880,S. 7, does not'

exon erate th e dea ler fromkeepinga book under O rd . 22 of 1861, S.

5 . Seth y . Anderson .

0 1mmO RDINANOE 96

Th e ow n er is n ot boun d to open h is sh op a t a ll timesfen th e purpose of h is books bein g in spected if h is ord ina ry busin ess does n ot -require his sh op being so Opened .

Groolomally v . An derson .

Wh ere opiumis seiz ed a s liable to forf eiture a nd is

brough t before th e Magist ra te a lon g w ith th e person in

w h ose possession it w a s foun d , th e Magistra te h a s jurdiction to adjudica te, w h atever w ere th e circumstan cesof th e seiz ure . Win -Samv . Fra ser ; (cit . R. v . Hugh es,L . B .

,4, Q . B. D. ,

Con struction .— Section s 1442 of O rdin an ce of 1889 ,

a re to be construed togeth er . Layton v . Roh eim.Possession — Wh e re Opiumis obta in ed by

- or on beh alf

of f a licenced dea ler , an d n ot obtain ed fromth e BondedWareh ouse as required by law ,

th ere is a O ituimrea leattach ing to it so long a t least a s it is h eld by th e dea leror h is agen t, an d th e possession by th e agen t w ould be

no an sw er to th e ch a rge of h aving in h is possession

illegally a certa in quan tity of O pium. Wi n-Samv.

Fraser ; cit . 22 of 1 861 , S.S. 1 1 , 14; Tax O rd inanc e

1879, S. 1 6 .

Sa le — Themere sa le of O piumby reta il , except in

specified quan tities , is illeg a l , a nd th e purch ase of Opiumof a larger qua n tity th an th at permitted , is a lso illegal .Ellipe v . Bur row es.

O pp OSition .

En try'

of opposition un der Gold Min ing Regula tion smay bemade by a Barrister, Solicitor , o r duly auth orised

Attorn ey, or duly auth orisedAg en t . McKinn on v. Stoby.

O r d in an ce .

An O rdinance imposing tax an d import duties for sa lean d licen ce of certain goods, does n ot repeal the O rdinance th eretofore passed regulating the sale, and obligation s a rising fromsale, an d pen alties of, such , ggads.

Shin g-a-Lee v . Birch .

O w ner .

Th e ow n er in relation to immovable property is th e

PARTNER.98 PENALTY.

O n e partn ermay be proceeded again st singly for

sellin g rumif th e firmw a s in ar rears of licen ce dues.

Quin ta v . Sw ain .

Service on par tn ers— see SUMMONS.

Laying property in ch arge— See LARCENY.

Pea ce O fl icer , assaultin g— See ASSAULT.

Pea ce , br ea ch of .-See SECURITY.

Ped la r .— See HAWKER.

Pen a lty .

Wh ere disobedien ce of a law makes a person liable

to a pen a lty, th is is sufficien t to con stitute a criminalmatter . Da lgleish v. Kin g (cit. Millar v . Den h wm, L .R5,

469, Br amw ell, J.) Furth er , see CRIMINAL

MATTER.

Pen a lties a re to be r ecovered under 8 of 1877, SS.4344. De Souz a v . An son (cit . for appellan t an d h eld n ot

applicable , 8 of 1 880 , S.

Wh ere th e O rdin an ce un d er w h ich a ch arge for failure

to take out a licen ce is brough t provides n o pen alty, th e

pen a lty is imposed an d proceeded for un der 39 of 1875 ,S. 2. Ma rtin v . Burrow es .

Wh ere th e law imposes.a pen alty an d a certain sum

due for a licen ce to be paid (8 of 1880) th e Magistrate

can n ot aw ard a pen alty an d order th at a licen ce be taken

out . Moon ie v . Dorn ford .

Magistrate’

s decision amen ded and appellant con

demn ed by Review Cour t to pay a pen al ty an d costs

w ith in th ree days after decision . Mag istrate ordered to

r ectify con viction un der 20 of 1 860 . Rodn eyv . Sampson .

Wh ere th e law imposes a pen a lty betw een $1 00 and

$500 , th e Magistrate h a s n o auth ority to impose a low er

pen a lty th an $1 00 . Kin g v . Gomes (cit . It. v . Solomon s,1,T.E. , 249 ; Wh iteh ea d v . Regin a , 7 , QB . an d

w h ere th is is don e th e Court w ill remit to th eMagistrate

t ) impose th e lega l pen alty. Ib Cuckow v. Nascimen to.

Idem, if pen alty is of a specific amount . Cuckow v.

Nascimen to.

PENALTY. 99

Penaltiesmay be d ispen sed w ith un der Petty O ffencesO rdinan ce, an d impr isonmen t a w arded w ith out th e Optionof a fin e. Y ounge v. Maule .

Fur th er on th is h ead, see HARD LABOUR.

Pla ce— See WORDS.

Pla n ta in s .

A ch arge of stealin g plan tain s is on e O f simplelarceny, an d flogging w ill n ot lie . Ferreira v . McIn roy.

To order flogging , th e ch arg emust be for stea lin gg row in g plan tain s, th at is to say plan tain s grow in g

on lands . Ib. Clair v . Men don ca ; Dick v . Bunbury.

PLANTAIN SUOKERs.

Wh ere th e season’

s crop h a s been reaped an d n o n ew

suckers plan ted , but th e old suckers a llow ed to rema in ,

an d no cultiva tion h as been applied to th em, th ey a re n ot

an in dustrial crop, an d th erefore n ot w ith in th e scope ofO rdin a n ce 27 of 1 880 a s g row in g crops . Ew in g EstateCO . v . Seals ; con tra , if cultiva tion h as been bestow ed onth em. Io.

— See GROWING CROP.

PLANTAIN WALK .

Larceny froma plan tain w alk does n ot come w ith in

O rdin ance 22 of 1 862, S.S. 31 , 32. To.

Plea .—7STATUTORY CAUTION.

Before a Magistra te en ters in to a ch arg e h emust stateth e substance of th e in formation to th e Defen dan t a nd

ask h imin th e w ords O f th e O rdinan ce if h e h ad a nything to Offer or say, 85 0 . Popplew el l v . Barn es Ford

v. Small ; Roch a v. D’

O rnellas ; H en riques v. An son ;but it is sufficien t th at t he Cour t be judicia lly sa tisfied

th at th e statutory caution w a s put‘ an d th emin ute of th eMagistra te sta tutory question put ,

”an d th e plea n ot

guilty,”is sufficien t . Porter v. Burrow es ; butit w ould

be better if th e Magistrate h adminuted question put

as provided by S. 20 of O rdin an ce 1 9 of Ib.

or GUILTY .

A plea of g uilty does n ot supply imperfect descriptionof prior conviction s. Jugran ee v. Rose.

1 00 Pon ce .

Aplea of guilty to an in formation w hich ch a rges no

Offen ce a t law is inoperative . Stew art v . Horton .

A plea of guilty to an in forma l ch arge is n ot to becon sidered a plea, or th at Defen dant is boun d by h is

admission ,un less it is sh ow n th at w h en th e plea w as

given Defen dan t knew an d un derstood th e nature of the

offen ce w ith w h ich h e w as charged . Budal v. McLean .

UALIFIED PLEAs.

Aplea of guilty to a ch arge of w ilful indolence, andth a t Defend an t h ad sores but d id n ot go to the hos~

pital,”is one of n ot guilty. fl oatay v, Field .

Idemto ch arge for being absen t fromw ork w ithoutleave, w ith th e a ddition th a t Defendan t stated I did not'5 go , I sat dow n, I did n ot go to is not anunqua lified plea of guilty . GhastityIdemto ch arge of assault I did give complainan t a.blow . Luckput y. Neh or e .

Idemto ch arge gf h aying ,

rumon business premisesth at rumw as in bed-room.” Caddel v. Burrow es.Idemto ch arge of t radin as a h a w ker w ithout a

licen cemean s th at h e did 0 er to sell in th emannermen tion ed in th e O rdin ance , and th at h e h ad n o licencefor sellin g th ereof ; but it does n ot go so far as a plea of

guilty th at h e is a h aw ker in termof th e law . VanBrook v. King ; (cit . Roe . v . Little, 1 Burn , 610, 2 Ld .,

PLEA or NOTGUILTY.

Aplea of not guil ty puts prosecution upon lega l proofnot on ly of th e a lleged qfien ee in substance, but of anycircumstance w h ithmay a ssist in leading up to conviction . Warren v . Pereira .

In bastardy cases a plea of, not guilty puts the

plaina n t on proof th at th emoth er of the ch ild is a singleWoman . Green v. Tait;

Police .

Th e disciplinary ttial by his superior officer of a poligeman formiscon duct, sect ion of th e O rdin ance which

Poo} ; LAW,1 02 CONVICTION, &0.

th e w ife so th at sh emay become destitute . Sample v.

Williams, O rd . 6, 1 855 , Sec . 36 ; (cit. R. v. MaidstoneUnion , L E. 5 , QB . 31 ; R. v. O ookh amUn ion , LB . 9,

Q.E.D. 529 F lan agan v. O verseer of th ep oor of BishopsWea rmouth , 27, L .J. ,

M.C 46, cit . for th e Defen dant).To con stitute desertion th eremust be eviden ce th at

th e w ife expressed h er w illin gness to resume co-h abita

tion , or th at th e h usban d refused to receive h er , or byh ismisconduct ren dered h er return an impossibilitKing v. Ross ; a s th e test of desertion is not w h eth er t e

h usban d h as w ilfully refused”tomain tain h is w ife ;

Sample v. Williams ; and th ere is n o law w h ich renders

it compulsory in a h usban d to support h is w ife if, h e

h aving a h ome for h er , sh e elects to remain aw ay, and it

is n ot incumben t on h imto w rite to h er to return .

King v. Ross .

Poverty is n o excuse again stmaking an order enforc

ing a previous ordermade in affiliation . Todd v. Ch ester .

CONVICTION— FORM or . AWARDING HARD LABOUR.

Un der a n afiiliation order a gen era l order of distress

or of imprisonment in default of distress is bad ; th e

order sh ould be forma lly draw n up con tain ing adjudication th a t th e Defendan t is th e putative fath er of th e

ch ild an d an order on h imto pay th emoth er of th e ch ildso lon g as sh e lives an d is of soun dmin d and sh all not

be in any prison , or th e person w h omay be appointed toh ave th e custody of th e ch ild a w eekly sumto be th enn amed un til such ch ild sh all h ave a ttain ed th e age of 14year s or sh ould die, or th emoth er sh ouldmarry, w ithsuch order as to costs an d oth er in cidental expen ses as

to th e Justice sh all seemmeet ; th e order sh ould be

formally draw n up an d a copy served on th e Defen dan t,a nd if such order is disobeyed for th e space of amonth ,th emoth ermay apply for an order again st h im, verifying h er complain t or information upon oath , w h en th e

Justice sh all issue h is w a rran t for th e a preh ension of

th e Defen dan t to be brough t before th eSpecial Justiceto be dealt w ith accordin g to law . O n th e Defen dant

being brough t an d a lleging n o sufficient reason for n on

compliance w ith th e order , th e Magistratemay issue a

‘UL Iv u

POORLAW. 1 03 POSTPORE’MIiii’i’fLAW Lln h 'A

distress for th e arrears un der th e affiliation order , n

btexceeding th e amoun t due for 1 2mon th s an d if th eDefendan t h as n o goods an d ch attels upon w h ich a

distress can be levied , th en a w ar ran t of commitmen tmay be issued ; but itmust be born e inmin d th at in asmuch a s th e O rdinance provides th at n otmore th an 1 2w eeks arrears are to be recovered in disch a rge of th e

Wh ole debt, th emoth er to keep a live h er claimforarrears un der th e order sh ould apply for a fresh w a rran t

as each 1 2 w eeks expire With out paymen t . De Cambrav. Ben ; Macedo v. An th ony . In H a ly v. Baird , S. S.

C. w h ere th e Magistrate orderedmore th an 1 2 w eeks

paymen t (an d in default H aly w as imprison ed) sen ten cefor $300 w a s given in an action again st th e Magistratefor fa lse imprisonmen t .

Possession .

O n a ch arge of suSpiciouS possession all th at it is

n ecessary to en sure conviction un der O rdin ance 20 of

1856 S. 2 p . 6 is a rea son able suspicion th at th e th ingfoun d in th e possession of th e pa rty accused h ad been

stolen or un law fully obtain ed , coupled w ith a fa ilure to

accoun t for th e same to th e satisfaction of th e Magistrate .

Adams v. Mayers (cit . in re Booth royd , 1 5 M. St W.

POSSESSION OF GROWING CROP.- See LARCENY .

Postpon emen t .

A summon s w as served at 3 pm. on 1 1 th Septemberon Defen dan t to appea r on 1 3th September a t 1 1 am.

Defen dan t applied for postpon emen t . Th e Magistrate

said h e w oul d take th e eviden ce for th e prosecution a n d

see . H e adjudicated . Review Court h eld th at h e sh ouldh ave postpon ed , an d referr ed case ba ck to h imto h earth e eviden ce for defen ce, Defenda n t being at liberty to

summon w itn esses. D’An drade v . L ang .

A summon s served on Defen dan t on e day to appear

n ext day is n ot rea son able as to time. Daniel v. Ridley.

Wh ilst a Defen dant Sh ould h ave a ll n ecessary fa cilities

for obtain ing w itnesses an d pos tponemen t if n ecessary

POSTPONEMENT . 104 POUND.

for th at purpose , n eedless postpon emen ts on th e con traryough t to be discouraged , a n d before a Defen dant can

complain w ith any effect of n ot h aving been g ranted a

postpon emen t , it lies on h imto Sh ow th at h is application

w asmade in good faith , an d th at th ere w as at least

some fea sible rea son for it . Gon sa lves v . Fox .

Th e fact th at Defen dan t did n ot ask for a postponemen t w h en ca se w a s called , does n ot debar h imfromapplyin g after ca se for th e prosecution is closed . Daniel

v. Rid ley ; (cit . R. v . Ston e, 1 East,Postpon emen t is in th e discretion of th e Magistrate

an d it lies on th e party applying to satisfy th e Magistrate th a t th e postpon emen t w a s of Impor tan ce to h im,an d w a s rea son able . Kollychurn v . Kin g ; Daniel v.

Ridley ; Sew kisson v. Gill ; Etad al ly v . Salmon .

Apostpon emen t is a llow able in order to en able th e

Defen dan t to compen sate Plain tifi on a ch arge of cruellymaltreating amule . Kollychurn v. King .

A party h as n o righ t to h ave h is case postpon ed or

taken out of its tur n in order th a t Counsel or Attorneymay attend on h is beh a lf. Kh odobaccus v . Ja n oosing .

As a rule complain an t sh ould be prepared w ith then ecessary evidence, or sh ould apply to th eMagistratefora postpon ement, a nd n ot to w a it un til decision , and claimreview on th e statemen t of addition a l facts . Bascomv.

Norton .

Poun d .

Man ager of estate is f auth orised to sen d cattle to th e

poun d a s strays, so is th e overseer of th e estate w h en

auth orised by th eman ager . Blank v . Mulligan ; and

a lth ough h emay be liable civilly, h e is n ot liable for a

crimin a l offen ce . Ib.

Un der S. 1 0,it is n ot obligatory th at a stray taken up

after sun set sh all be actually delivered to th e poun d

keeper before 8 o’

clock on th e follow ing day. It is

sufficien t if it be sen t fromth e place of its arrest before

8 o’

clock, alth ough it does n ot r each th e poun d until

Win ter v. H asting s .

Apig un der th e d irect con trol of ow n er is n ot a stray.

De Souz a v. Roach .

POUND.1 06 ILLEGAL IMPOUNDING’.

to th e poun d ; h is n amemust appear in th e w ritten

auth or ity . An auth ority to take to th e poun d is al w ays

n ecessary. O n e in w h ich it is stated th at th e poun d

keeper is to receive”

such stray an d th ere is n oth ingto sh ow th at th e taker is auth or ised to take

”to th e

poun d is bad an d Defen dan t ca nn otif h e rescues, be con

victed . Practice of th e In ferior Cr imma l Court an d

th e ca ses decided th erein .

ILLEGAL IMPOUNDING .

Is n ot a crimin a lmatter . Blank v . Mulligan ; Williams v . Doug las . Tomake it a crimin a lmatter th ean imalsmust be d riven fromth e premises of w h ich th e

taker is n ot th e occupier or ow n er w ith a view ofmakingit a stray. Blank v . Mulligan .

Wh ere stray is caugh t in a buria l groun d of a countrych urch an d t h e Rector” sen d s it to th e poun d it is not

a n illeg a l 1mpoun din g . Wickh amv. Bury (in th is caseth e Magistra te h eld th at th e Rector could n ot act for th e

vestry a n d th a t th e vestry h ad ch arge of th e lan d , and

w a s a corpora te body) .Tomake an a n imal a stray itmust be seiz ed on th e

la nd w h e re it trespa ssed if it goes off th e la n d , even if

it h a s been r ecovered , it ca n not be re-taken . Glasgow

V . H ardeen (cit. Lon don v . Hoop er , 1 C.414,('

omyn sd ig . a rt. d istress) . Even if it h ad been caugh t and h ad

got aw ay. 16.

If th e Magistra te believes th a t th e Defen dan t w en t

to th e Prosecutor’

s pen an d impoun ded th e same ca ttle

w h ich h ad strayed on h is lan d in con sequen ce of supposing , a lth ough erron eously, th at h e h ad a righ t to do

so , t h ere w ould be groun d s to n ega tive th e inten t ofmaking th e an ima ls strays a n d acquit th e Defen dant ofth e crimin a l ch a rge , th ough it d oes n ot sa tisfy th e

impoun d ing . Dougla s v, H ardeen .

Wh e re th e d efen ce w a s th at th e impoun ding w as in

pursuan ce of a righ t, an d th e Magistra te convicted , th e

Court reca lled th e con viction of th e Magistra te on th e

co ndition th a t th e Defen dan t paid th e expen se of Complainan t for poun d fees an d th e prosecutor in th e Court

below .

POUND. 1 07 SHOOTING SWINE, &0 .

It is n ot every un la w ful impoun d ing w h ichmakes th eOffen ce of illeg al impoun ding . Ib. Th eremust be th eintent . Ih . An d th e taking of th e cattlemust be w ithth e in ten t tomake th emstrays . Pemberton v. James .

Th e ch argemust say th at th e cattle w ere takenfromth e lan d

,n ot on th e lan d . l b.

Wh ere a public road run s th r ough a pasture, cattlecrossing th at public road a re n ot strays . Samuel v. Bobb .

RECOVERY or PENALTY .

Wh ere th e sums ad judicated to be paid by th eMagistrate un der th e O rdin an ce on a ch arge of illega limpounding amoun t tomore th a n $24, th e Small Pen a lties O rdin an ce 1 868 does n ot apply, an d th e sums sh ouldbe r ecovered by d istr ess in th e first in sta n ce, an d n ot byimprisonmen t w ith out previous w ar ran t of distress .

Wills v. Tebbutt .

SH OOTING SWINE, & 0 .

Un der a ch arge of killing sw ine,it w a s conten ded

th a t un der O rdin an ce of 9th December 1 796, th e o w ner

of g roun d on w h ich sw in e trespa ssed , w a s a t liberty tosh oot same a fter g ivin g n otice tw ice to th e ow ner , an dit w as urged th at in effect th e act w as repea led by7 of 1 666 S. 6 a nd if n ot repea led , th e Mag istra tew ould h ave n o jurisdiction over th e complain t un der th eO rdin an ce of 1 796. H eld , th a t th e killin g of sw in e w as

punish able un der 2 1 of 1 862 S. 37, an d supposing w ith

out admitting th at th e act of th e Defen dan t could be

pun ish ed as ama licious in jury to property under th e,

Petty O ffen ces O rdin an ce 20 of 1 85 6 S. 2 p. 7 , th eanima l killed w a s va lued a t $20 w h ich w as beyon d th e

jurisdiction of th e Magistra te. If th e Defen da nt could

h ave invoked th e summary jur isdiction of th e Mag istra te

under th e Petty Damage O rdinan ce 23 of 1 861 th e pro

ceedings w ere n ot under th is O rdinance, an d th e appea l

w ould be to th e In ferior Civil Cour t a nd n ot to th e

Review Court . Th e Magistrate w a s n ot th erefore

auth orised to exercise summary jurisdiction .

' Boodh a

v. Rugh on .

Wh ere ‘

a pig is tied an d kept un der supervmon of th e

POUND,1 08 PRO OLAMATION.

ow n er an d is killed by order of ow n er of premises, it isun la w fully killed w lu

lst so tied but if th e person so

killing a cts in good faith un der h is auth or iz ation to kill ,

believin g th at th e ow n er of th e premises h ad th e righ t to

give such order , it w ould be somew h a tmore th an a

colourable excuse an d sufficien t to excludemalice. De

Souz a v. Roach .

Un der th e proclama tion of 9th December 1 796, a

party is boun d to give specia l n otice of trespass tw ice to

th e ow ner of goats before h e is free to sh oot or kill such

goats. Bunburyv. Steph en ; 7 of 1 866 ; Ferreira v.Anaran .

Prescr ip tion .

H eld in a case in review under Crow n Lan d O rdinan ce

th a t “ it seems a lso a s if th e limitation of time in th eSummary Jurisdiction O rdin an ce en ded a s far as it

touch es th e Crow n by 3 1 Elie. C. I . S. Dow v.

Ch almers .

Th e property of th e Crow n is not divested by non

claimw ith in th e period of sixmon th s. Braceyv. McTurk.

Previous Conviction .

Wh ere it is in ten ded to proceed a s for a secon d Offenceun der 7 of 1 873, n otice sh ould be g iven to Defendan t bya llegin g th e previous conviction in th e ch arge and prov

in g th e same . Mooran dumv. La Roch e ; Soomaria V.

Hun ter ; Rootay v. Field ; Neemur v . Mavor .

Wh ere th e record book of th e district is produced byth e Clerk to th e Magistra te , sh ow in g previous conviction

of in dolen ce”,th is is n ot suflicien t to prove previous

conviction of w ilful in dolen ce durin g w orkin g h ours.

Jugr an ee v. Rose alth ough th e formal con viction ismadeup for w ilful indolen ce dur ing w orkin g h ours .

”Ib.

Previous conviction ca nn ot be proved orally ; itmustbe proved by th e record book or by th e record . Seerogeev. Th omson (cit . Cakes Mag . Sym, 1 0 Ed .

Proclama tion .

O f a n ew fiscal district is not of such a n ature as to be

judicia lly n oticed . Cabra l V. Y ounge .

PR0sECUTOR. 1 10 RAILWAY.

is n ot lodged in th e n ame of th e Attorn ey Gen eral , th ech argemust be sig ned by th e Comptroller or sub Comp,

troller of Customs . H oh enkerk v. Royen .

Larceny.— Wh ere ch a rge of th eft of estate

s propertyis laid an d sign ed by th e h ead overseer , itmust be takenth a t th e Man ager is th e rea l prosecutor . Fong

-a-ling v .

Ch an d ler , cit O rdinan ce 1 9 of 1 856. Con tra in Wh itev. Martin , w h ere it w as h eld th at w h ere th e ch arge is

sign ed by th e overseer itmust be taken th at th e overseer isth e prosecutor a n d is n otmerely th e agen t of th eman ager .

In a case O f larceny of burn t earth fromland of Ainch arge of B, B can n ot bring ch arg e . Saunders v.

Douglas . Amust brin g ch arge . Ih .

Dea th of Prosecutor .—Wh ere ch arge un der Immigra

tion O rdin an ce is sign ed by th eman ager , a nd th eman agerdies th e ch arge is not abated . Persaud v. Ch ristie.

Con tra , if it be a common in former suin g for a pena lty. Ib.

Attorn ey Gen er a l .— Wh ere O rdin an ce en acts th at for

a n offen ce, th e offen der sh a ll be liable on conviction to a

fin e, an d such fin emay be sued for , prosecuted and

recovered on summa ry conviction by th eAttorn ey Genera l

,th e in formation n eed n ot be la id in th e n ame of the

Attorn ey Gen eral , as it is an offen ce aga in st public Policy

(h a rborin g Immig ran ts w ith out pa sspor ts w ith in ten t to

car ry th emout O f th e Colony is an Offence again st public

policy.) Cox v . Ba scom.Pub lic En ter ta inmen t

Th e w ords oth er public en tertainmen ts mean public en tertainmen ts h aving someth in g of th e ch aracter of a

dan cing , sing in g , or th ea trica l en ter tainmen t, an d not to

religious;

ormoral in struction s in ch urch or ch apel dedi

cated to religious w orsh ip or devotion al purposes . Gib

bons v . Straker.A pe rson is n ot liable for a ssault for putting out

an oth er froma th ea tre , &c .,

a t th e in stan ce of th e

en tertain er if h e does n ot usemore force th an w asmecessary. Gray v. Sw ain .

Ra ilw ay .

Aticket covering a journ ey in th e train fromMah aica

RAiLWAY. 1 1 1 REASONS OF REVIEW.

to Vigilan ce covers a journey in th e train betw een tw oin termediate station s betw een Mah aica an d Vigilan ce.

Sumn er v . Railw ay CO . (cit . R. v. Fr ere,4E. B . 598,24,

Rea son s ofReview .

Reaso ns not sta ted — It is for th e Court to look at th e

w h ole record in depen den tly of th e reason s of appea l

w h ichmay be sta ted by Appellan t . Gon salves V . L ayton ; but it can n ot amplify in favour of Appellan t th eground of appea l. H in d s v . Lovell ; itmust decide on

th e papers Wh ere Appellan t does n ot appear . Silva n o v.

Wade, th e Court being boun d to n otice apparen t defects

in th e proceedin gs brough t un der review an d a ct on th e

same even w h en n ot brough t specifica lly by Appellan t’s

reason s. Van Ba ttenburg v . Burn h am.It is th e duty of th e Court to take n otice or cogn iz an ce

of w h at is essen tia l to th e rig h t an d law ful decision of

th e question s raised by th e record w h eth er adverted to

in th e argumen ts of pa rties or n ot. Warren v. Pereira

(cit. O rdin an ce 22 of 1 868, S. an d if th e reason s are

not applicable to th e case , th e Court is n ot precluded

fromtakin g n otice of a ny error appa ren t on th e r ecord .

Zitman v. Backer (see AMENDMENT) .Th e Review Cour t does n ot admit of discussion of

oth er objection s th an are n otified to th e Respon den t byth e reasons . Pereira V . Davis th e Appellant being con

fined by h is reason s . Rodrigues v. Pereira .

SIGNING .

Notice O f Opposition an d reason s of r eview must besigned by th e party applying or by h is Coun sel or Sol

icitor ,

or appeal w ill be dismissed . Correia v. An son Goolamally v . Dorn ford . Th e receipt of r eason s n ot Signed

is a w aiver of any objection or irregular ity as to th e

irregularity for n on -sign ing . Ragabon e v. Green slade .

Neith er party can w aive w an t of proper notice . Goolamally v. Dorn ford ; th e Court ofReview bein g boun d to

take notice of such defect, tb. Th e same remark applies

to th e n on -sign ing of copy of th e proceedings before th e

Magistrate. De Freitas v. Ferreir a ; Joh n son v. Jack.

REASONSor REVIEW. 1 12 EVIDENCE.

GENERAL ISSUE.

A gen eral den ia l of guilt w ith out alleging specificmiscar riage of justice w h en th e Magistrate h as come toa differen t con clusion does not en title th e Appellant toh ave th e case reh eard by th e Court ofReview . Stragh an

v . Coxall .

A plea of gen eral den ial is bad . Garnett v. Dean ;

Goolamally v . Dorn ford Hutson v. RosO n . Th e reasonssh ould sh ow in w h at respect th e decision is erroneous,n otmerely th a t “

th e decision is erron eous in law .

Day v . Teixeira ; Sew bole v . Muller ; H icken v . Green

slade ; Scan tlebury V . Green ; Silvan o v. Wade.

Aplea of n ot guilty is in ept and th e Court of Reviewh as n o jurisdiction to adjudica te on th e general issue.

Goolamally V . Dorn ford .

REASONSor MAGISTRATE.

Not alw ays desirable . Ferreira v . Wigh t .Reason s of Magistrate dismissing a case, S. 19 of

O rdin an ce 1 9 of 1 856 n ot n ecessary w h en h e dismissesa case onmerits. Sw ain v . Pistan o . Th ey are n ecessaryWh en h e dismisses a ca se n ot on th emerits . 1b.

Th e Magistrate is n ot bound to give r eason s w h en h e

dismisses a case . Lovell v . Pistan o, (cit . for Appellantand h eld not applicable 5 of 1868 S. n or is h e boun d

to give rea son s w h en h e uph olds or d ismisses a claimforseiz ure of goods un der Crow n Lan ds O rdin an ce . Fer

reira v . Wigh t. If h e gives reason s h e is n ot bound to

for w ard th emto th e Court . H ill v. Klien .

Wh en th e rea son s of th e Magistrate a re delivered in

th e Court below an dmade kn ow n a t th e time th eymaybe forw arded to th e Review Court . Gray v. Kh odoboc

cus. Cit. Brow n v. Ga gy, 2 M. P. C. N. S. 341 .

As TO EVIDENCE.

Wh ere Magistrate admitted illegal eviden ce, but rejected th e claimfor return of goods seiz ed un der Crow n

Lan ds O rdinan ce on th e g roun d th at th e claimant h adfailed to prove legal ow nersh ip, an d such illegal evidence

REASONS OF REVIEW. 1 14 RECEIVING.

appea l on beh a lf of a n immigrant , but w her e the Immigra .

tion Agen I.Gen era l in suin g for a pen a lty un der O rd inanceS 84, th e time is limited to 1 0 days, a n d if h e gives

verba l n otice of appeal a t th e time of th e conviction , and

such r ea son s a re un ten able , th e time a llow ed for appeal

w ill coun t fromth e decision to th e filin g of w ritten reason s .

Immig ra tion Agen t Gen era l V . Sh eild s .

SERVICE.

May bemade bymean s of reg istered letter under S.

25 , of O rd in an ce 7 of 1880 , but if th e last day for ser

vice is ou th e4th Februa ry, a n d th e r ea son s w ere[posted

by registered letter on4th Feb ruary, th eremust be evi

den ce to sh ow th a t th ey w ould be deliver ed in th e

ord in a ry cour se of post on4t h Februa ry, a s is requiredby th e terms of th e en actmen t . Poudar smg V . Coyle

A n otice of review is n ot sufficien t, th e servicemustbe of r ea son s of review . King ston v . K

Due service of a pplica tion an d reason s a statu

tory con dition of th e appea l can not be w aived . Poudarsin g v . Coyle .

Th e Court direct ed th e applican t for review to g ive

d ue n otice to th e respon den t in w ritin g of th e in ten tion

to brin g in r eview th e decision of th e Magistrate:

O uckama v . LongAffidavit of servicemust be sw o rn to before a Commission er of affid avits a nd n ot before a Justice of th e

Pea ce . Kin g V . Gomes .

All service of n otices of review must be proved bya ffidavit fromt h is time . Str ag h an v . Ch apma n .

Fi oma refusa l to con t n o appea l lies . Ma ssiah v.

Pcertun sin g .

WAIVER OF REASONS.— SEEWAIVER.

Receivin g Stolen Prop er ty .

O n ch arge fo r receiving w h ere th ere is evidence that

th e goods w ere in th e physica l con trol an d disposition of

th e Defendan t, th e Mag istra te ough t to convict if he

believes such eviden ce . Da Silva v . Wrigh t .

RmébRD BOOK. 1 1 5

Recor d Bonk — O rdinan ce 1 9 of 1 85 6, S. 19 .

Should con tain in fo rma tion sufficien tly full and expl icitto afio rdmater ia l for th e determin a tion of any question

raised in review w ith r egard to th e sufficiency or oth er

w ise r ot'

th e ground s o f refusa l to try th e ca se by th e

Magistrate . Wrigh t v Garn ett . Itmust con tain a ll

th e en tries r equired”

by th e O rdinan ce. Kor rimboccusv. Mavor ; Da w son v . Gon salves .

Referen ce to Ma g istr a te .

Un der 1 9 of 1856, S 30, th e Cour t of Review h a s th e

pow er to refer a case back to th e Magistra te for h imtoregsummon the Defen dan t an d inflict a pen alty . G reen

Slade v. Figueira ; a lso to con demn th e Defen dan t to paypouhdage , r etur n cattle impoun ded , an d costs . Samuelv . Bob.

Wh ere such r eferen ce—

takes pla ce t heMag istrate sh ould

re-h ea r the ca se an d refer th e pap ers and th e fresh

eviden ce to the Review Cour t an d n ot adjudicate h imself.Da Silva v . Cor reira . See RE-HEARING .

Refusa l O f M a g istr a te to en ter tain a prelimina rypoin t or issue ch a rge

— See RULE.

IdemSummon s — See SUMMONS; DISCRETIO N .

Reg ister of Immig r a n ts — See EVIDENCE.

Reh ea r in g .

An order Referrin g a ca se to t h e Magistrate w ith

opin ion of th e Court th a t th e Mag istra te oug h t to have

con victed ,is n ot a rule, of Court (27 of 1 847 h‘. 1 n ot in

poin t) ; it is for th e Appella nt to d ecid e w h eth er h ew ould go ba ck to the Mag istra te for h imto reh ear th e

case . If th e Magistr ate w h o tried th e case is absen t or

is out of th e colony, th e Mag istra te before w h omapplication ismademust re-try'

the w h ole caseoand n o t take th e

same fromth e poin t left by th e decid ing Magistra te.

De Freita s v . McAlliste r:

The Court of Review in cases n ot in d ictable, can or der

a treh earing . De Souz a v . Sw ain ; De Faria v. Sw ain ;P 2

REHEARING. 1 1 6

James v. Telford ; Stew art v. London . In Porter v.

Suramai th e proceeding s w ere referred back to th e

Magistrate for h imto take th e evidence alleged

been Offered in th e Court below and refused by th e

Magistrate. See REFERENCE.

It is a question for th e Court’

s discretion w h eth er in

any case proceedings ea facte regular sh ould be disturbed .

Win ter v. Robertson .

Removing Rum.— O rdinance 14of 1855 .A removal fromon e place to anoth er in the colony is

not a. removal froma foreign port to th e colony. Prince

v. Green slade .

Every person , even th e porter w h o removesmmisliable for th e removal of rumun der 14of 1856, S. 37.

Quash ie v. Cuckow .

Repea l .

Wh ere a later O rdinan ce imposes amilder penalty forth e same Offence for w h ich a h eavier penalty is imposedby a former O rdinan ce, th e latter O rdinance repeals th eformer one by implication . Bunbury v.Steph en .

Reta il Spirit Sh O p .

Th e O rdinance does n ot provide for closing a rumshopor tavern at or aftermidn igh t w h en person s are in it

beforemidnigh t. Desilva v . Hill .

GAMING iN.— See GAMING .

SELLINGRUM ONSUNDAY.— SeeSUNDAYTRADING O RDINANCE.

PROOF OF LICENCE— See EVIDENCE.

RUM FOUND IN.— See BUSINESSPREMISES.

UNJUST MEASURE iN.— See WEIGHT.

Retrospective.

A licence is not retrospective. Capella v. Greaves.

(Cit. Campbell v. Strangew ays, L .R. C. P.D

Rice .

Under O rdinan ce 9 of 1873, S. 23, a conviction for removing rice fromCrow n lan ds w ill not lie. Dayv. Jossida .

ROADSAND BRIDGES. 1 118

WHAT ISAPUBLICROAD

In ca ses w h ere th e proprietor is summon ed under

road O rdin an ce, it is n ot for th e Magistrate to determineor say w h eth er th e estate is a sug a r esta te or n o, it is

th e perog ative of th e Govern or a n d Court of Policy. Solong as th e public road of th e esta te ismain tain ed fromth e public fun ds, th a t fa ct is th e Immedia te con dition of

th e existen ce of th e pow ers of th e road O fiicer by theO rdin ance . Murdoch v . An son .

REPAIRS.

For neg lecting to repair roads, itmust be sh ow n on

th e fa ce of th e proceeding s th at th e defen dan t is th e

ow n er of th e pla n tation . Colvin v . Leacock; an d for

n eglecting to repa ir bridge kept up a t th e joint expenseof tw o estates, th e n ature o f th e r epairs to be donemustbe poin ted out a n d th e w ork appor tion ed . Mar tins ’

Morgan .

Rule .

Un der 5 of 1 868, S 1 1,th e Court h a s jurisdiction to

en tertain application s for an ord er on a Mag istrate to

en tertain , h ea r an d d etermin e a ch a rge . Wrigh t

Ga rn ett .

rl‘h e practice un d er S. 1 1 , is th e same as th e practice in

th e Queen’

s Ben ch in ca ses ofman d amus. If) .

Th e refusa l of th e Mag istra te to en tertain a preliminary poin t , an d th e declin in g of th e Magistra te to en ter on

en quiry on a question of fact or la w n ot going to themeritsof th e complain t, but w h ich th eMa gistra te believes w ould

put an en d to th e ca se on question of law or fact is amatter forma nd amus . K ryen h off v . Glasgow (cit. R.

v . Goodrich , 1 9 L .J . Q . B . con trafiw hen decisionis on a question of fact a n d la w . Ih .

Wh ere Mag istrate refuses to en ter ta in , or issue a

summon s th e Cour t w ill enquire w h eth er such refusal

w a s in pur suan ce of h is disc retion ary pow er over the

proceeding w h ich th e Magistrate w as legally justified inexercising . Wrigh t v . Garnett .

STAMPACT.

Rum.Un der 1 3 of 1 834it is n o offen ce to remove a less

quan tity of rumth an 2 g allon s. Cuvilye v . La n d ry ;an d selling rumw ith out a licence un der 1 5 of 1850 S. 2th e chargemust sta te it to be less th an 40 g a llon s.

Aguiar v. H ar ris .

Gun s of proof th at liquor foun d is not a spir ituousliquor is on Defen dan t . Solomon v . Lo-a-yew . SeeREMOVAL, SPIRIT, &c .

Rumun d er Pr oof — See TESTING RUM.

Sa le .

A ch arge for sellingmore th an on e quart of rumisbad . Pequen o v. Younge .

Sa le of ca rgo of vessel .— See VESSEL

by H a w ker .— See HAWKER.

defin ition O f. —See WORDS.

comes un der th e d efinition of drug s. Green slade v.

Figueira .

Sel ler , in citing to sell .— See ABETTOR.

Sen ten ce — See CONVICTION .

Service un der Ma ster Servan t Act — See WORDS.of Rea son s ofReview .

—See REASONS.

Sig n -b oa r d .

Question as to w h eth er sig n-board over spirit Sh op

h aving been on ce pa in ted in con formity w ith law sh ould

be re-pain ted a s n ecessity a rises, raised , but n ot decided .

Straker v. Vieira .

Stamp Act .

A deposit receipt or a ckn ow ledgmen t for sh ar es in a

company is a receipt un der th e Tax O rdin a n ce an d liablefor stamp duty. King v . Belgrave (Cit . Tomh z'n s v .Ash by,6 B . C. 541 , 542 ; Livingston e v . Wh itny, 1 5 Q . B . 723

R. v. Ha rvey, R. R. 227 In/on’

s ca se,2 Lea ch , 597

R. v. Geode”, C. C. 672 ; R. v. West,2 C. K .496 ; Clarke

v. New sam, 1 6 L . J. N . S. 297; Claw sV. Ch ap lin, 1 Ex

STAMPACT. 120 SUMMONS.O

Adocument reading deposited by th e sumof $20 for full instalmen ts on 5 sh ares in th e above

company” an d sign ed by th e H on . Sec. of th eCompanyis a receipt under th e Stamp O rdinance 6 of 1 888 S.

38, an d liable for stamp duty. King v. Belgrave (cit.Ashby, 6 B. C. 541 as n ot in poin t) .

An acknow ledgmen t formon ey deposited in a companya s investment is liable for stamp duty. Ib.

Statutory Question

in summary proceedings before a Magistratemust beput to th e Defendant or proceedings in Review w ill be

qua sh ed . Popw ell v. Bar nes ; H enriques v. An son ;D

’An drade v. Fitz Al lan (th e same rule a plies in th e

Petty Debt Court. Ford v. Small , I. C. 1 2. .87 ;Roch av. D

ornellas, I. C. Rugonauth v. H eera , I. C.

It is taken as h aving been put if Magistrate’s note is

statutoryquestion put”

. Porter v. Burrow es Furth er,see PLEA.

Statutory Provision s

a s to procedure n ot to be departed from. De Freita s

v. Fitz Allan ; D’Andrad e v . Fitz Allan . Furth er, see

REASONS.

Summons — Service.

Wh ere summon s is sw orn to h ave been served per

son ally w h en in fact it w as left w ith a th ird party, and

th e Magistrate adjudicates, it in va lidates th e proceedings.Ca rdoz a v. Younge

Service on w ife is good . Kryenh off v. Glasgow .

Service on Attorney of absen t proprietor O f spirit shopmust be proved notw ith stan ding th e appearance of th e

Attorn ey of such proprietor . Rodrigues v. Burrow es.

Evidence as to service th at th e summons w a s ha ndedto C

”th e sh op assistan t, is not enough to enable th e

Mag istrate to try a Sunday trading case under S. 3

again t F”

ch arging h imth at h e traded un der th e

n ame , style and firmof A. F. J. T. Fern andes v.

Francis.

SUNDAY TRADING .

'1 22 BAD CHARGES.

Ch arge against ow ner need not h ave th e w ords “ byh is servan t.

” Sw ain v. De Fa ria

Leaving out th e w ord Sunday in th e ch a rge is ama tter for amendmen t. Wrigh t v. Da Silva .

Pr esump tion of Sa le.— Wh ere a rumsh op is open and

the sh opkeepers are in th eir places and strangers are on

th e premises, th ere is such a degree of presumption th a tth e sh op w a s open ed for th e purpose of sale th at it is

competen t for th e Magistrate to find to th at effect in th e

absen ce of coun tervailing evidence. De Farn issah v.

Fran cis ; Ch un -a-sh oo v. Fran cis ; Lee-a-ong v . Fran cis ;Y oung

-a—samv. Francis ; or th e fact th atmon ey passedover th e counter . Gonsa lves v. Greene. Further, see

Th e liability to prosecution for Sun day trading doesn ot in any w ay depen d on th e h olding of a licence.

D’Aguia r v . Barn es ; King v. Gomes (cit . Ca tis qui tam

v. Win ter) .Th e onus of proving th a t th e seller is not th e Defend

an t lies on Defendan t . Ha rrig an V . De Rouse .

Selling beef in a ca rt w ith beef scale and w eigh ts aftermid-day on Sun day, is a n offence against th e O rdinance.

De Souz a v. Griffin .

BAD CHARGES.

To ch arge th e Defen dant as being th e ow n er of

goods in a shop w h ich said sh op w as Open &c . is bad ,a s th emere ow n ersh ip of goods sold on Sun day is nota n offen ce . Gomes v. Fra n cis ; Pequeno v. Bin ns

A ch arge th at th e Defendan t “ is ow n er of goods

to w it rumin a certain sh op situate at w hich

said sh op w as open on th e said Sun day for th e purposeof sel ling th ere certain of said goods is bad . Corria

v . Bin n s, cit . D’An dra de v. H arrigan ; Henderson V.

Jard ine ; follow ing D’An drade

v. Harrigan an d Sw ain v.

De Souz a .

Wh ere th e'

ch a rge is th at Defen dant is ow ner of

goods &c. w h ich w ere exposed &c.

”and th e conviction

is “th at Defen dan t being th e h older of a licen ce for a

sh op &c. , on Sunday th e 1 5th O ctober , he a t h is‘

sh op w as th e ow ner of certain Iice and oil t igh w ere

SUNDAr'

TRADING. 123 SECTION 3.

‘fl th en and th ere exposed for sale &c. it w as h eld th a t'

themean ing of the language used , is th at th e Defenda n t

w as convicted of th e offence ch arged and th e convictionmay be amended . Ramalh o v . Cressell .

PROOF.

Prove 1 . Shop in information is sh op of Defendan t 2.

that it w as opened for th e purpose of sellin g on th e Sun

day stated in th e ch arge ; 3. idem, by a person in

Defendant’

s employ ; 4. th a t th e Defendan t w as th e

ow ner“

of th e goods in th e sh op generally or o w n er of

some particular goods therein on th e Sunday n amed ”DosRamos v. Francis ; or by some oth er not by w h ich it

might be inferred th at he aided , abetted , counse lled or

procured th e sale by h is sh opma n . De Souz a v. Fra ncis .

Defendant is entitled to h ave th e place so described a s

to enable himto plead a con viction or acquittal in bar ofanoth er prosecution for th e same offence and th e place

in th e ch arge and th e place g iven in eviden cemust beproved as one and th e same . Corr ia v.Wrio'h t or theremust be evidence on w h ich a presumption can lie th a t the

goods w ere Defendan t’

s an d th e fact ofmon ey passingfor sale of such goods w ill be a presumption th at th e sa lew as by the Defendant

’s servan t. Gon salves v. Breen .

SECTIO N 2.

Actual seller liable, n ot th emaster. Binn s v. De Freitas .

Under thisSection it is not to be presumed a ga in st th eow ner by th e sale by a shopman in h is employ th a t h e

a breach of th e law . DeSouz a v. . Fran cis .

s not necessary to prove th e ow nersh ip .

of t he :goods . in th e shop, th is not being an element ofthe ch arge under th is Section . Ib.

Themaster is liable und er , Sec. 2 for. breach by h is

serva nt w h ere evidence is given framw h ich itmigh t beInferred that . he dire-end th e opening of th e shop fortraflic or the sale of goods. D

’Aguia r v.Wrigh t.

SECTIO N 3.

”Themaster. is liable for th e breach of h is servan t

Without evidence of h is“

know ledge. Gomes v. Francis ;Wright v. Pequeno ; follow ing Binn s v. De Freitas ;

SUNDAY TRADING . 1 24 SURETY.

Pequeno v. Binn s ; De Souz a v . Fran cis D'An drade v.

a rrigan (cit . Somerset v . H a r t, L . R. 1 2 Q . B. D. 362)Sw ain v . De Fa ria ; Sa n tos v . Darrell .

Un der S. 3 Defen dan t h as w ar ning th a t it is in tended

to prove h is liability an d th a t th e open in g of th e sh opw a s done by a pe rson in h is employ. De Souza v . Fran cis.

MISCELLANEOUS.

Severa l ca ses — Wh ere th ere a re severa l sa les on a Sun

day in th e same sh O p by th e same person th ere can be

on ly on e con viction . Sa n tos v. Da rrell (cit . Crepp v.

Dunba r , l. S. L . C. 649 ; Attorn ey Gener a l v. McLean,

1 H . O .

Quoerce w h eth er tw o sa les by Defen dan t in tw o several

sh ops on Sun d ay belon ging to th e same ow n er can be

pleaded as a n t. con . Raised in De Cambra v. Straker .

Not determin ed .

Th e op en ing of a shop in w h ich g oods are exposed for

sa le is an offen ce aga in st th e O rd in an ce , a lth oug h n o sale

actua lly took place . De Pa iva v . Fran cis ; D’

O rn ellas

v. Fra ncis .

Sur ety .

Th e process of ord erin g sureties of th e peace and committing in de lault as exercised by Justices of th e Peace

in En g la nd under th e old la w is d erived fromth eir commission s an d fromth eAct 34Ed . 3, c . 3. Quera w h eth er

Magistra tes in th is colony h ave th e pow er . Even a ssumingth at th ey h ave, itmust be sh ow n th at th e party seekingsuch protection goes in fear an d in danger of person al

violen ce fromth e per son against w h omh e sw ea rs th e

informa tion ; it is n ot a p rocess of pun ishmen t but forpreven ting crime . Cun n ing h am.V . Lon g . Evidencemust be g iven th at th e Complain an t w a s in fear of h erlife before Defen dan t can be bound . Ragabone v.Rodiah ;an d itmust be so laid in compla nt . 17 of 1880, Sec. 5 .

In ca ses of a ssault Wh ere th ere is n o allegation or

evidence sh ow ing th at th e pa rty prosecuting appreh ended

or th a t th ere w a s in fact d an ger to h imfromsubsequentviolen ce fromth e Defen dan t th e Magistra te exceeds h is

jurisdiction by binding Defen dan t to keep th e peace.

Cli nn ingh amv. Long .

TESTING RUM.126 TRADER.

Testin g Rum.Must be done by th e Commissary after th e

six hours’

notice a llow ed under 25 of 1 868 S. 54for th e ow ner toget th e same tested by an independen t person . Gomesv . Sw ain ; and rumseiz edmust be tested in th e Defendsan t

’s sh op before remova l by th e Commissary. Gonsalves

V . Layton .

Timber . See CROWN LANDS.

Time .

Wh ere . a th ing is to be don e w ithin a certain number .

of days,an d th at time expires on a Sun day, th a t Sunday.

is to be reckon ed on e of th ose days. Martin v. Joseph .

Th e time limited for commen cing proceeding s by th eSta tute relating to each particula r casemust be adh eredto , a nd th e . con sent of Defen da n t cann ot cure a defect

of jurisdiction in poin t of time . Cox v. Bascom(cit. R.

v . Tally, 3 East 467) but w h ere Defendan t is absen t

fromth e Colony, th atmay be a good reason for suspend

in g th e issue of a summon s, but it cannot dispense w ith

th e n ecessity of layin g th e in formation in proper time .

Cox v .Williams (cit. Potts v . Cambridge, 8 Ell. Bl.

Th e genera l rule in Eng land is, th at both terms or

en ding s of th e period for doing or sufiering someth ing isin cluded but O f late it is usua lly reckoned as ei clusive

of th e first and inclusive of th e last d ay. Th ere is no

gen era l rule‘

applicable to a ll ca ses . Strag h an v. Ch apman .

Under th e Roman la w w h ich th e Dutch considered th e

Written law ,th e computation of time w a s sometimes

reckon ed dememen to inmomen tum. Ib.

Th e term“eigh t da un der S. 5 of th e Review

O rdin an ce is con strued ememinmom, and not to th e dayafter th e h earing or pron un ciation of the sen tence. 1b.

Title to L ann ie — Assault arising in disputes— See

ASSAULT JURISDICTION.

Tra d er .

Aperson usmg a cart to sel l Ha ssas is not a trader .

Van Brook v. King ; but a person using a cart to delivermilk &c. in pursuance of a con t ract to supplymilk 65C.

TRADER. 1 27 VAGRANCY.

is a trader . Patoir v. Layton ; Mayers v. Anderson(bread) Smith v. Ba rclay (cocoanuts to bemanufacturedin Defendan t

s factory) . Fur th er , see CARRIAGE, 850 .

Tr amw ay .

In a case w h ere a travel ler gets on th e car , and doesnot y for a ticket w h ich h e receives on th e g round

that e h ad paid for th e same, it is for th e Magistrate to

con clude w h eth er h e inten ded to avoid paymen t of h isfare or n o. Log ie v. Tramw ays Company.

Th e By-La w s sh ould be placed con spicuously in th e

cars as required by By-Law 1 6. Perreira v. Davis.

Where th e By-Law enacts th at each passenger is bound

to sh ow or deliver up h is ticket w h en required to do so

by, or to th e con ductor or any a uth orised servan t of th e

Company, a n d th e passen ger takes h is ticket an d h an ds

it to th e conductor w h o return s h imh alf of th e ticket

and h e receives it, h e is liable for refusal to sh ow or

deliver up h is ticket if on demand h e refuses to deliverup th e h alf ticket to th e in spector . Ib. (In th is case itw as raised w h eth er th e passenger w as bound to receive

back th e h a lf ticket, but th e poin t w as n ot decided) .

Trespa ss — See JUBISDICTION— DISPUTED TITLE.

Va g r a n cy .

Ch argemust bea r the da te an d year in w h ich it is

exhibited , as w el l th at itmay appear to be subsequen t toth e offence, but prior to a ll th e oth er proceedings, in

order to ascertain th a t th e prosecution is w ith in th e timelimited by th e particula r Statute on w h ich it is founded .

Turnkey v.z

King (cit. It. V . Ken t, 2 Ld . Ray 1 546 ; R. v.

Euller, ib. 5 1 0 Pa/yleyTo con stitute

‘vag rancy un der th e O rd in ance,

w h ich

enacts th at any person beh aving in a riotous or d isorderlymann er or in any public street or thorough fare, or in any

ga rden immedia tely adjoin ing th ereto an d.

open to th e

public view , th e riotous or d isorder ly beh aviourmust beshow n to h ave taken place in the public street"immediately adjoining th ereto and open 859 . w h eth er th e

thoroughfar e &c . be in h is ow n yard or no . Ib.

VAGRANCY. 128

A ch a rge for riotous an d disorderly con duct at Pln .

E is irregular un der th e Vag ran cy O rdin an ce . Ib.

Va g r a n t, defin ition of.— See WORDS.

Va lue

of premisesmust be given before Magistrate can adjudicate th e cla ss of licen ce to be taken out on a cha rge for

selling goods w ith out a licen ce in a sh op . Gon salves

V . Sw ain .

Va r ien ce .—See AMENDMENT .

Vessel .

Amaster of a vessel w h o sells h is cargo first and th en

con sign s h is vessel afterw ard s, is liable to conviction for

selling th e cargo w ith out licen ce , even if th e buyer bemade th e Consignee. Darrell V. Gardn er .

Volun ta ry Sta temen t .

Wh ere Defendan t in a case un der licen ce law is summoued to produce a licence a n d proof is n ot given th at a

licence h ad been issued , or th a t n otice to produce had

been served , an d in an sw er to th e ca ll Defen dan t states

th at h e does n ot produce th e licence , th a t h e is h older

of th e licence an d forgot to bring it to th e Cou rt. Held,th is is n ot a volunta ry sta temen t . De Freita s v. Elliott .Fur th er , see PLEA.

W a g es .

Under 20 of 1 856 an d 1 8 of 1 858 w ages beingliquida ted an d a scer tain ed sums are debts in a legal sen se

of th e w ord andmay be levied on by distress w arran t.

Bur row es v . Craw ford .

PREVENTING LEVY O N .— See ASSAULT .

ABATEMENT or .— See MASTERAND SERVANT.

W a iver .

O bjection n ot taken in th e Court belowmust be h eldto h ave been con sented to, but w h ere proceedings are so

defective a s to amoun t to a nullity, it can not bemadevalid by con sent or w aiver ; a nd such objection th e.maybe

WAIVER. 1 80 WARRANT.

Itmust be remembered th at (w h atevermay be th epow er of th e Supreme Courts about exercising jurisdiction by con sen t w h ich is th e effect of w a iver in such a

ca se) con sen t could not cure such a defect in a pen a l

ch a rge , w h ile th e pow er of amend ing such ch arge is not

confided to th e Magistrate . Da Silva v. Greaves .

Act preceden t — Wh ere th e law requires a cer ta in th ingto be don e , such a s service of reason s O f review an d th e

service 850 . is late , n o w aiver or con sen t to a llow w hat

w a s don e could be of any effect . Poud a rsin g V . Coyle ;but w h ere proceedin g s a re to be adjudicated upon at or

n ea r th e Spo t w h ere th e a lleged trespass w as committed(revenuema 'ter , claimof sh ing les) th e par tiesmay w aive

r igh t of proceedin g s bein g taken some o th er place .

Ferreii a V . Wigh t .

Th e receipt O f rea son s of appea l n ot sig n ed is a w aiver

of a ny Objection a s to th e ir regula rity for n on -signature,Ragabon e V . Green slade . Furth er, see REASONS.

WAIVERof illega l a rrest — See ARREST.

O f Postponemen t —See POSTPONEMENT.

Wa r r an t .

Wh eth er a person is leg ally or illega lly a rrested on

a w a rran t is imma teria l for th e Magistrate to decide ;being before th e Justice h ow ever brough t th ere , th e

Justice if h e h ad jurisdiction in respect of time an d place

over th e Offen ce, is competen t to en tertain th e ch arge th enbroug h t before h im. Morrison V. Ramdah an (cit . R. v.

Hugh es ; R. v . Bolton ). Furth er , see O PIUM.

Wh ere an immig rant is a rrested w ith out a w a rran t for

d esertion , but th ere is a w a rran t a t th e time again st h im,an d h e is sen t fromstation to station till h e gets to a

sta tion w h ere th e w arran t is,an d h e is arrested on th at

w ar ran t th e Magistra te can n ot argue a s to th e illegalityof h is a rrest . Ib.

Wh ere th ema tter in revie w goes again st an Appellantw h o appeals froma conviction of th eMag istrate sentencingh imto imprisonmen t, a w arran t is issued again st th e

Appellan t. Gumbleton V. Jackson ; and in Dan iel V.

WARRANT. 1 31 WEIGHTS MEASURES.

d ley th e Court of Review issued th e w arran t for ar rest

of th e Appellan t .Th ere is n o general la w or O rdinance limiting th e time

for issuing execution on a summary conviction for n on

paymen t of a pena lty. Math eison V. Gray (cit. R.V. O a t

bush , et a l, 36'

L . J. N . S. M . C.

Wa tchman — See IMMIGRANT— MASTER SERVANT.

Weigh ts a n d Mea sures .

S. 1 1 of O rdin ance 1 3 of 1 85 1 does not limit possessionof un just w eigh t to ow n er, but includes every ca se ofna tural possession , th e production or possession of th ew eigh t by th e sh opman is eviden ce of possession , Dinez

v. Sw ain an d th e finding in th e sh op ofDefendan tmakesh imliable . Gon sa lves v . Cressa ll ; but th e ow ner ca nnot

be convicted ofmore th an on e Offence if th ere a re severa l

un just w eigh ts foun d in th e same sh op on th e same day.

Gomes v. Burrow es .

Th e possession of an un just w eigh t is differen t to th eu sing

”of th e same . Cabral v. Younge . Th e fin ding

of an un stampedmeasure on busin ess premises is n ot an

Offen ce un der 13 of 1 85 1 . Ch an-a-poo v. Burrow es.

Th e fin ding O f an un just w eigh t amongst oth ers over th ecoun ter of Defen dan t

s sta ll is sufficien t eviden ce for

th e Magistrate to convict of h aving in possession . Welch

V. Fraser ; but eviden cemust be given to Sh ow th at

goods w ere kept or exposed for sale on th e premises inw h ich th e un just w eigh ts w ere found . Wh ite V. Brumell.Abaker w h o sells bread to a retail dealer is n o t liable

for ca rrying bread for sa le w ith out scales (St e . Men des

v. Layton . As th emere possession O f un just w eigh t 850 .

is not sufficien t, th eremust be evidence th at th e w eigh t

85 0 . w a s seiz ed by a person under S. 1 1 of O rdina n ce.

Cabral v . Y ounge ; H O-a-h ing V. Layton (cit. Gon sa lves

V. Layton).TESTING .

Weigh t 850 . n eed not be tested in th e sh op in w h ich

it is foun d ; th e un just w eigh tmaybe removed to Georgetow n an d th ere tested w ith th e Imperial w eig h t. Men des

v. Burrow es Gomes V.Burrow es and it is not necessary

WEIGHTS MEASURES. 1 32 WITHDRAWAL.

to prove th at th e w eigh t w as tested in Defen dan t’

s Sh op.

Gon sa lves v . Layton 1 885 (h eld n ot applicable , Cabral

v. Y oun ge cit . for th e appellan t) ; th e w eigh t n eed n otbe compa red in th e sh op w h ere it is seiz ed . Jefirey v .

Burrow es, follow in g Gon sa lves v . Layton an d Gomes V.

Bur row es . In Men des V . Burrow es th e Court O f Reviewdirected th e Ch ief (

Ommissary to h ave th e w eigh t tested

a n d repor t th e result O f such testing to th e Court .

Quart — See WORDS.

W h ipp in g .

Th e conviction n eed n ot state th e person’

s n ame w h ois to impose floggin g . Hutson V. Roson .

Th e time fixed for w h ippingmust be in th e conviction .

H erbert V . Abrah ams ; or a l imit w ith in w h ich it is to

be don e Io, cit Ed w ar d s v . Bacch us (cit . Atkinson V .Rem,3 Brow n

s Pa r liamen ta ry Ca ses) Glasg ow v . De Freitas.

Adults — Th e w h ippin g can n ot be directed to take

pla ce w ith in th e period a llow ed for seekin g review (1 0d ays) . Williams v . Pr imo , cit . 1 9 of 1 856, an d 5 O f 1868.

Wh en a w arded — Wh ere th e va lue of th e propertystolen a n d prosecuted for un de r 20 of 1856 S. 41 exceeds$ 1 0 in va lue, floggin g can n ot be a w a rded by th e Magis

tra te . Reg . v . Dun bar .

Infan ts — Wh ere w h ippin g alon e is ordered th e boymust be d etain ed or boun d over to appea r on th e day th e

w h ippin g is to take place, a s th e Magistra te is functusofiicte by th e con viction , an d th ere is n ometh od O f

bringin g th e boy ba ck in to th e custody of th e executive

Officer for th e execution of th e sen ten ce . Herber t V .

Abrah ams .

W ith d r aw a l .

Case w ith draw n by con sen t, Appellan t agreein g not to

trespa ss on esta te ag a in , th e Respon den t agreein g n ot to

put in for ce con viction aga in st Appellan t for such tres

pa ss . Apollos V . Scott . Idemin revenue case. Da SilvaV . Man th orp.

In Review Cour t th e proceedings can be w ith draw n as

WITNESS. 134 PROVING JURISDICTION.

PROVING JURISDICTION.

If n ot objected to at th e time th e Magistratemay evenafter th e close of compla in an t’s case ca ll a w itn ess to

establish jurisdiction , but h e can n ot of h is ow nmotionprocure eviden ce to supplemen t th e Plain tiff

s case.

H ookem-ch un v . Alexan der . In De Souz a V. RoachCHALMERSC.J. says I do not th ink th at th eMagistrate

could re-open th e case for th e purpose of taking evidence

upon jurisdiction after h e h ad closed it to con sider judg.men t,an d th e w itn esses h ad been a llow ed to go

Ma teria l omission ; Proving Fia t — Th eMag istrate .mayr eca l l a w itn ess after th e prosecution is closed an d after

objection taken by Defen dan t th at th e fl at of th e Attorn eyGen era l h ad not been proved , to prove such fiat . Mohunv . Turn er but w h eth er a w itn ess ca n be recal led to prove

amaterial omission after th e case is closed w as questionedin Hookemchun v . Alexan der a nd decided th at such recall

w a s illegal in Williams V. Lyn ch .

In a ca se for n ot taking out a licen ce th e Magistratemay r eca ll a w itn ess after th e prosecution is closed to

prove th e va lue of th e premises so a s to rate th e licen ceun d er 8 . 3 of 8 of 1 880 (th e Tax O rdin an ce), even after

objection is taken . Lopes v . King (cit . R. V. Romdaut,R. 85 R. 1 36 ; Aldred v. H a liw ell, 1 Stark 1 1 7 ; Giles V.

Pow ell , 2 C. 85 P .

Supp lemen ting ea se — Th eMag istrate can n ot of h is ow nmotion procure eviden ce to supplemen t Plaintiff’s case

a fter th e case is closed,ib, or express any opin ion as to

th e effect of closed pr oof an d th en admit evidence in sup

plemen t . Faria v . Inn is, expla in ing Joseph v . Ruckuph old in g Lopes v . King (cit . Adams v . Ba nkh art, 1 C.

M. R. 68 1 ; Midd leton et a l v . Ba rn ed ,4Ex. 441 ;Sh eldon v. Attorn ey Genera l, 22 L T. N . S. 631 ;Reg. V.

H ayn es, 1 F . F.

Discretion of Magistra te.-Th e Magistrate h as not th e

like discretion a ry pow er a s a Judg e of th e Supreme Courtin dispen sin g w ith th e order of receiving proof . Lopes

v . King . H emay put a question to a w itn ess after th e

case h as been closed an d before giving h is decision ,the

question being on e th a t h emigh t h ave put during th e

WITNESS. 1 35 WORDS.

enquiry, an d as w ould brin g out legal eviden ce on ly.

Ba tiste v . Bur row es .

After a case is closed an d immediately after a w itness

is reca lled a n d a question put on th emerits an d th ere isno n ote of an ad jour nmen t for furth er h ea ring on eviden ce ,but on ly a n ote on ow n bail till to-morrow ”

th e recall

ing of th e Compla in a n t an d th e furth er h ear in g of h imisultr a t ires a nd vitia tes proceedings . De Souz a v .Roach .

Wh ere th e Magistra te sits in summa ry proceeding s itmust be a very exception al ca se in deed th a t can justifyh imin doingmore th an to a llo w each par ty th e fullest

oppor tun ity to complete h is case , oth er w ise h e becomesa party to th e ca se w h en h e takes upon h imself to directw h at evid en ce is to be put before h im. Williams v . Lyn ch .

A Mag istrate sittin g a s a jury can after prosecutor’

case is closed , recall a w itn ess tomake furth er en quiryrespectin g th e property, after Coun sel states th at h e h as

closed h is case, an d w h ere an objection is taken to th e

eviden ce, h emaymake a ny fur th er en quiries of th e

Witn esses if h e th inks fit in order to an sw er th e objection ,

an d in such ca se th e Coun sel for Defen dan t cross

examin es th e w itn ess . Jardin e v . Cruicksh a n k (cit . R.

V. Re’nnan t, R. R. C. C. R. 1 36, Roscoe’

s Dig . 7 ed .

132, In dian Eviden ce Act,

O ATH To WITNESS.

Question w h eth er o a th to w itn ess can be admin isteredby Magistra te

’s Clerk raised but n ot decided in Aben

dan on v. Sproston .

Wor d s , in terp r eta tion of .

ABBREVIATION

To abbreviate Superin ten dent.

to Sup is irregu

lar . Da Silva v . Ma nn .

Th e letter s S. J . P , after th eMagistra te’

s Sign ature

do not show a ny jurisdiction or office . De Souz a v.

Wigh t ; D’Aguia r V . Gordon (cit . Pr a evielc v . Bell

Saun . D’Aguia r v . H arr is.

21 or 1 891 ,

S. 29. The rules of in terp reta tion and con struction h erein

WO RDS. 1 36 ACTSor PARLIAMENT.

before con tain ed w ith respect to O rdin an ces sha ll, unlessth e con trary in ten tion appears, app ly,muta tismutandisa n d so far a s th ey a re not in applicable th ereto, to other

Sta tutes excep t Acts of Pa r liamen t, w h eth er pa ssed beforeor after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin an ce .

S. 2 . In th is O rdin an ce a n d in every O rdin an ce passed

after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin an ce, an d in everyOfiicia l documen tmade or executed after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin auce, th e follow ing expression s sh all,un less th e con trary in ten tion appea rs, h ave th emean ingsh ereby r espectively assign ed to th em.Th is clause refers to th e in terpreta tion of a ll w ords

h erein n oted , a s un der In terpreta tion O rd inance”

again st th e w ord s expressed under h eading s Colony,”

Govern or,” Ma les,

" Writing .

ACTSor PARLIAMENT.— 2l OF 1 891 .

S. 30, S.S. 1 . Wh ere by a ny Sta tute, w h eth er passed

before or after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin ance, an

Act of Pa r liamen t, or a ny portion of an act , is declared

to enten d to th is Colony, such Act or portion of an Actsh a ll, un less th e con trary in ten tion appears, be deemed toat tend to th e Colony so f a r on ly a s loca l law s a n d circums tances permit ; an d in applyin g such Act or portion of an

Act it sh all be con strued w ith such verba l a ltera tion ,n ot

affecting th e substan ce, asmay be n ecessary to ren der th esame applicable to th e par ticularmatter in question .

S.S. 2 . Th e Ch ief Justice or a Puisn e Judge, or anyofficeror fun ction ary exercising fun ction s an alogous to th e func

tion s of any Judge , officer , or fun ction ary referred to in

such Act or portion of an Act sh a ll be deemed to be w ithinth emean ing of th e en actmen t th ereof rela ting to such

lastmen tion ed Judge , officer or fun ction a ry.

S. 3, S.S. 1 . Wh ere in a ny Sta tute, or in a ny ofitcia l orlega l documen t passed ormade after t h e commen cemen tof th is O rdin an ce , a n Act of Pa r liamen t is refer red to, suchActmay be cited by referen ce to th e shor t title, if any, of theAct, eith er w ith or w ith out a referen ce to th e ch apter

or by referen ce to th e r egn a l yea r in w h ich th e Act w as

passed a n d w h ere th ere a remor e Sta tutes or session s th an

on e in th e same r egna l year , by r eference to th e Sta tute or

WORDS.—BRITISH . 1 38 COMMENCEMENT or GED.

of H er Majesty’s domin ions exclusive of the United King

dom, an d w h ere parts of such dominion s are un der botha cen tra l an d a loca l leg

islature, all pa rts un der th e

cen tral legislature sh a ll, for th e purposes of th is defini-tion , be deemed to be on e British Possession .

S. 5 , S.S.4. Br itish Colony”sha llmea n any part of

H er Ma jesty’

s domin ion s ez cbusive of th e British Islandsa n d of Br itish India , an d w h ere par ts of such dominionsa re un der both a cen tra l an d a loca l legisla tur e , all partsun der th e cen tral legislature sh a ll, for th e purposes of

th is definition , be deemed to be on e Colony.

S. 5 , S.S. 5 . Br itish In dia”

sha llmea n a ll territo

ries a n d p la ces w ith in H er Ma jesty’

s domin ions w hich

a re for th e time being gover ned by H er Maj esty th roughth e Govern or-General or oth er officer subordina te to theGovern or-Gen er al of India .

S. 5 , S.S. 2 . Th e British Islan ds’ sha llmean the

Un ited Kingdom, th e Ch ann el Isla nds , and th e Is le of Ma n .

BYE-LAw .—See STATUTE.

COLONY .— 21 or 1 891 .

S.4. -In this O rdin a nce a n d in every oth er O rdinan ce,w h eth er pa ssed before or a fter th e commen cemen t of th isO rdin an ce , an d in every ofi cia l documen t w h eth ermadeor executed before or after th e commen cemen t vof th is

O rdin an ce, un less th e con tra ry in ten tion appears ,Th e expression s Th e (

olony”

an d Th is Colonysh a ll sever a llymean th e Colony of

British Guiana and itsdep enden cies.

COMBINED COURT.~

S. 5 , S.S. Th e Combin ed Court sh a llmea n th eGovern or a nd Cour t of Policy of th is Colony w ith th e

Fin a n cia l Represen ta tives th ereof in Combined Court

a ssembled .

COMMENCEMENT or O RDINANCE.— 21 or 1891 .

S. 1 0 . Provision s a s to th e commencement of

O rdin an ces are con tain ed in Section 29 of th e British

Guian a Con stitution O rdina n ce, 1891 .

WORDS.-CO MMENCE. 1 39 CONSTRUCTION or O RD.

2. Th e provision s of th e said Section an d a lso of

Section 30 of th e said O rdin an ce sh all,muta tismutan dis,

apply to O rdin an ces en acted by th e Govern or w ith th e

advice a n d con sen t of th e Combined Court .

S. 1 1 . in th is O rdin an ce an d in every oth er

O rdin an ce, w h eth er pa ssed before or a fter th e commen cemen t of th is O rd in an ce, th e w ord commen cemen t” w h en

used w ith r eferen ce to an O rdin an ce, sh allmean th etime at w h ich th e O rdin an ce comes in to opera tion .

Wh ere any O rdin an ce pa ssed a fter th e commen cement of th is O rdinance, or any order of th e Cover

n or an d Cour t of Policy, order , w ar ran t, Sch eme, letters

patent, rules , regulation s, or bye-la w s,made , g ran ted ,

or issued un de r a pow er Con fer red by any such O rdin a n ce ,is expressed to come in to operation on a pa rticular d ay,th e same Sh all be con strued as coming in to opera tionimmedia tely on th e expira tion of th e previous day.

CONSTRUCTION, &C.,OF O RDINANCE.

S. 1 2.— Every Section of a n O rdin ance sh all h ave effect

as a substan tive en actmen t w ith out introductory w o rd s .

S. 1 3 .—Every O rdin an ce pa ssed after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin an ce sh a ll be deemed to be a public

O rdin an ce a n d sh a ll be judicia lly n oticed a s such , un less

the con trary is expressly provided by th e O rd in an ce .

S. 14. —Any O rdin an cemay be a ltered , amended , or

r ep ea led in th e same session of th e Court of Policy or th e

Combin ed Court, a s th e ca semay be .

S. 1 5 . Wh ere an O rdin an ce, w h eth er passed

before or after th e commen cement of th is O rdin a nce,

contain s a sh or t title, it sh a ll be sufficien t in a ll Cour ts

and for all oth er purposes w h atsoever to cite such

O rdin an ce by its sh ort title.

In any O rd in an ce passed.

after th eo

commencemen t of th is O rdin an ce , a descrip tion or ci ta tion of a p or

tion of a noth er O rdina nce sh a ll, un less th e con trary in ten

tion appea rs, be con strued a s in clud ing th e w ord , section ,

or oth er pa rtmen tion ed or referred to a s formin g th ebeginning an d a s forming th e en d of th e portion comPI

‘lsed in th e description or citation .

S. 1 6.-Wh ere an O rdin ance, w heth er passed before

WoRDs.— CONSTRUCT. 140 CONSTRUCTION OF O RD.

or after th e commencemen t of th is O rd in ance , is dividedin Pa r ts, Titles, or oth er division s, th e fact an d particulars

of such division sh a ll , w ith or w ith out expressmen tionth ereof in such O rdin a nce , be taken n otice of in all Courts

an d fo r a ll oth er purposes w h a tsoever .

S. 1 7 . Th e preamble of an O rdin an cemay bereferred to for assistan ce in explain ing th e scope and

object of th e O rd in an ce .

Every sch edule or table to a n O rdinance, or

pa rt of a n O rdin a nce , Sh all, togeth er w ith any notes

th ereto , be construed and h ave effect as par t of th e

O rd ina n ce .

S. 1 8. Wh ere an O rdin an ce passed after th e

commen cemen t of th is O rdin an ce confers a p ow er or

imposes a duty, th en , unl ess th e contrary in ten tion appears,th e pow ermay be exer cised a nd th e duty sh a ll be per

formed fromtime to time a s occasion requires .

Wh ere an O rdin an ce passed a fter th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin ance confers a p ow er or imposesa duty on the h older of a n ofiice, a s such ,

th en, un less th e

con tra ry in ten tion appears, th e pow ermay be exercised

an d th e duty sh a ll be performed by th e h older for th e

time bein g of th e office .

S. 1 9 .— Wh ere an O rdinan ce pa ssed a fter th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin a n ce is n ot to come in to Opera tion

immedia tely on th e passing th ereof, an d confers pow er tomake a ny appoin tmen t, tomake , gran t , or issue any instrumen t, th at is to say, a ny order of th e Governor an d

Cour t of Policy, order , w arran t, sch eme , letters paten t,rules, regula tion s, o r bye

-law s, to give n otices, top rescribe

forms, or to do a ny other th ing for th e purposes of th e

O rdinan ce, th a t pow ermay, un less th e con trary in ten tionappea rs, be exercised a t a n y time after th e p assing of th eO rdin an ce, so fa r a smay be n ecessa ry or expedien t forth e purpose of br in gin g th e O rdin an ce in to Opera tion at

th e d ate of th e commencemen t th ereof, subject to this

restriction , th a t any in strumen tma de un der th ep ow er sh a lln ot, un less th e con trary in ten tion appea rs in th e O rdinance or th e con tra ry is n ecessa ry for bringing th e

O rdin an ce in to operation , come in to opera tion un til the

O rdin ance comes in to opera tion .

WORDS.— CROWN. 142 EVIDENCE OE GAZETTE.

CROWN .-21 CE 1891 .

S. 22.— No en actmen t sh a ll in anymann er w h atsoever

afiect th e righ t of th e Crow n , un less it is th erein expressly

stated , or un less it appea r s by n ecessa ry implication,th a t th e Crow n is boun d th ereby.

S. 6.— In th is O rdin an ce an d in every oth er O rdin ance,

w h eth er passed before or after th e commen cemen t of th isO rdina n ce , refer en ces to the Sovereign reign ing a t th e timeof th e p assing of th e O rd in a n ce or to th e Crow n sh a ll,un less th e con trary in ten tion appea rs, be con strued a s

r eferen ces to the Sovereign for th e time being ; and th isO rdin an ce sh a ll be bindin g on th e Crow n .

COUNTRY H OUSE — See O FFICE.

CYCLOSTYLEWRITING .—See WRITING .

DAY .— 21 OF 1891 .

S. 5 S.S. 1 0 . Da ys sh a llmean clear days.

1 1 . Day”

sh allmea n tw enty-f our h ow s,

to be reckoned dememen to inmomen tum,un less a Sunday

or public h oliday in tervenes, in w h ich ca se such Sun dayor h olid ay sh a ll not be in cluded in th e computation of

such h our s .

DELIVERY .-See SALE.

DIVISION OF O RDINANCE — See CONSTRUCTION .

Dr ive O ff .

Un der S. 9 of O rdin an ce 7 of 1 866 th e w ord s drive

off”apply on ly to an ima ls on th e p remises of th e ow ner .

H ookemch un V. Alexa nder .

DUPLICATE O EEENCES.— 21 or

S. 24.— Wh ere a n a ct or omission constitutes an offenceun der tw o ormor e la w s, w h eth er any such law came intoforce before or a fter th e commen cemen t of th is O rdi

n an ce , th e ofien der sh a ll , un less th e con tra ry intention

appea rs , be lia ble to be prosecuted an d pun ish ed under

eith er or a ny of th ose la w s but sh a ll n ot be liable to be

punish ed tw icefor th e same offen ce.

EVIDENCE OF GAZETTE.— See RULES.

WORDS. -FEMALES. 143 G OVERNOR.

FEMALES.— See MALES.

FINANCIAL YEAR.—21 OF 189 1 .

S. 5 , S.S. 1 2.— Th e Fin an cia l Yea r sh a llmean

respects anyma tters relating to th e reven ue an d expendi‘

ture of th e Colony, the tw elvemon ths ending on. th e thir tyfirst dla

y of Ma rch , in clusive, in a ny year .

G amin g .

Pieces of bra ss used for gaming” come un der th eh ead of oth er in strumen ts . 21 of 1 856 . To-yah et a l V.

Morancie (cit . for Appellan t an d h eld a s n ot applicable,Colborn e v. Stockda le, Str .

A house w h en kept for th e purpose of common gamin gis a place

”un der 21 of 185 6. Ib.

GAZETTE.— 2 l or 1891 .

S. 5 , SS. 1 5 . Th e Ga z ette sh allmean Th e O flicia lGa z ette of British Guiana or oth er O fficia l Gaz ette of th isColony.

GAZETTE, eviden ce oi.- See RULES.

Gn u — See Post.

GOVERNOR— 21 OF 1891 .

'3.— In every O rdin ance p assed after th e 8th day qf

March , 1856, w h eth er before or after th e commencementof th is O rdina n ce, an d in every oflicia l documen tmade or

executed after th e commen cement of th is O rdin an ce,th e follow ing expression s Sh a ll , un less

th e con traryin ten

tion appears, h ave th emean in gs h ereby respectivelyassigned to th em, th a t is to say,

(l ) . The Govern or”sh a llmean th e Oficer for th e time

a dministerin g th e Governmen t of th is Colony.

Mon th”sh allmean ca len da rmo nth .

O a th”an dAffida vit

”sh a ll , in th e case of person s

for th e time being a llow ed by law to affirmor declareinstead of sw earing , include afiema tion a n d declara tion ,

and “ '

Sw ea r”sh a ll , in th e like case, include afirman d

decla re.

WORDS.—GOVERNOR. 144 LUCRI CAUSA.

S. 5 , S.S. 1 0 . Th e Governor-ih -Council” sh allmeanth e Govern or a cting w ith , but n ot n ecessarily in accordan ce

w ith th e advice of, th e . Ea ecutive Coun cil of th is Colony.

INDIA.—21 OF 1 891 .

S. 5 , SS. 6. India”

sh a llmea n British In dia to

geth er w ith any territories of a ny na tive Prince or t’

h iefunder th e suz era in ty of H er Maj esty exercised th rough th e

Governor-Gen era l of India or th rough any Governor or

oth er O fficer subordin a te to th e Governor-Gen eral of

India . See BRITISH INDIA.

Inst rumen ts .

O th er in strumen ts an d pieces of brass used for gamingcome und er h ead of oth er in strumen ts. 21 of 1856.

To-yah et a l V. Moran cie (cit . for Appellan t, h eld not

applicable, Colborne V. Stockda le, 1 Str .

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF O RDINANCE.— See CONSTRUCTION, S. 1 3.

Justice

mean s MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATE mean s“ JUSTICE.

Holmv. Rhod ius.

M a g istra te — See JUSTICE.-2l OE

1891 .

S. 5 , SS. 1 7. Magistr a te sh a llmean a Stipendia/ryMagistr a te of th is Colony, an d sh all in clude th e PoliceMagistra te and th e Assistan t PoliceMagistra te of George

tow n ; an d also any Specia l Justice of the Peace of th is

colony.

LAND—meaning of— See CONSTRUCTION or O RD., S. 35 .

LETTERBY POST- See POST.

LITHOGRAPHY— See WRITING.

Lucr i Causa .

Lucri causa mean s animusfurandi th e purposeO f converting articles taken to th e taker

s ow n use.

D’Abreu V. H aw ker .

WORDS.—MAY . 146 O CCUPIER.

equa ls must th at is, a Magistratemust issue a summon s an d h a s n o discretion ary pow er w h en a pplication

ismade to h imon a w ell laid ch arge w h ich on th e face

of it brings th e ca se w 1th in h is jurisdiction . Wrigh t V.

Gar n ett (cit . R. v . Ba r low , Sa lk413 ; R. v. Todd , 1 Str .

530 R. V . Bolton ,1 Q . B . 66 ; It. v. Adams, 1 Q. B. D.

20 R. V . Ingram, 14Q . B . 306 ; Exp . Wa tson,4L .

R. Q . D . Th e Magistr ate cann ot refuse to issue

summon s because h e does not believe th e truth of th ema tter after h e h ad seen a w itn ess on th e in formation .

Wrig h t V . Ga rn ett (cit . Ca ve v . Moun ta in , 1 M. Gr .

l ) or un less h e refuses on some g roun d s duly ascerta in ed w h ich t h e law recogn iz es a s sufficient . Torr O p v.

Ja rdin e . If h e disbelieved th e statemen t of facts in an

in formation a n d w a s r efusin g th e summon s on th at groun d ,th e informan t w ould be en titled to know th is an d support

h is ow n a ssertion by oth er testimony. Torrop v . Jardine.

Mon ey .

Under ch a rge for h olding en tertainmen t for moneyor rew a rd

”th e terms “mon ey or rew ard

”a re not

syn onymous . Th e termr ew ard”

can on ly apply to a

person an d n ot to th e en tertainmen t w h ich could not becapable of rew ard . Gibbon s v. Straker .

Mon th

in pen a l en actmen tsmean s “ lun ar mon th of 28 days.

Clemen tson V . Comach o .

“ Ca len d ar mon thmea n s “mon th ” a s per ca lendar . Ib.

Und er Section 2 of O rdin an ce 9 of 1856 (ca se ofa ssault) mon th ”mean s calen dar

”mon th un less w ordsh e added to Sh ow th at a

“ lun ar”month w a s in ten ded .

Butler v . Dougla s.

In terpreta tion of mon th .— See GOVERNOR.

O ATH .— See GOVERNOR.

CEPENCES,more th an one .-See DUPLICATEO FFENCES.

O ccup ier .

A pe rson w h o exposes freshmeat for sa le in a cart in

a rural district on a public road w h ere a sort ofmarket

WORDs.— O CCUPIER. 147 PEACE O FFICER.

is, is n ot a n occupier of a shop, room, sh ed , sta l l, orlace . Burrow es v, Joaquin ; (cit . Bow s v. Fenw iclc

, 9 ,339 ; Boggay v . Ca ttern s, 1 9, C.B.N .S 765

over-rulin g 1 7 , 669 ; Shaw v. Mar/y, 3, Ex . ,

137 ; a nd h eld a s n ot in poin t ; H arris v. Jen ns, 30,83 ; Young v. Gra ttidge, L .R,4, Q.B.

Da ce .

Holder oi .— Duty imposed ou.— See CONSTRUCTION.

S. 18.

Under licence lawmean s place of business of Ba rr is

ters, Advocates, Attor neys-a t-Law , and th e like

Baker v . Campbell ; a nd Coun ting House mean s officeof bankers , agents, attorn eys of a bs

en t proprietors , ih

and does not include places w h eremerchants, foun dries,&c. , keep th eir accoun ts an d settle w ith those w h omth eyemploy, ib.

O R, O THER, O THERWISE.— 21 O F 1 891 .

S. 5 , S.S. 26. O r ,”

O th er,

”O therw ise, sh a ll b

construed disjun ctively an d n ot as implying similar ity,un less th e expression similar ,” or some equiva len texpression , is added .

O RDER IN COUNCIL .— See STATUTE.

O RDER OF GOVERNOR.— See STATUTE.

O RDmANCE.— See STATUTE.

Commencemen t of.— See COMMENCEMENT.Repeal oil— See REPEAL.

O THER.— See O R.

O TIIERWISE.— See O R.

PARLIAMENT.-L—2l OF 1891 .

s. 5 , S.S. 7 .— Th e Imper ia l Pa rliament or Pa r liament sh a llmean th e Pa r liamen t of th e United Kingdom.PEACE O FFICER.

—2l O F 1891 .

S. 5 , S.S. 1 8. Peace Oflicer”

sh a ll include any

Magistrate or Justice of th e Peace, an d any Police, or

Rur a l, O b Speeia l Constable

WORDS. —PENALTY. 148PENALTY FORBREACH or RULEs. -See RULES.

PERSON .— 21 or 1 891 .

S. 5 , S.S. 25 . Person sh all include any body ofpersons corpora te or unin corpora te.

— Ia th e con struction of every en actmen tr ela ting to an offen ce punish able on indictmen t or on

summary conviction , w h eth er con tained in an O rdin an ce

pa ssed before or after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdinan ce , th e w ord “

person”

sh a ll, un less th e con traryin ten tion appears, in clude a body corpora te.

— Wh ere un der any O rd in a nce, w h eth er passedbefore or after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdinan ce, anyforfeitur e or pen alty is p ayable to a p a rty aggrieved, it

sh a ll be p ayable to a body corp ora te in every case w here

th a t body is the p a rty aggrieved .

PHOTOGRAPHY.-See WRITING .

POLICE CONSTABLE— 21 or 1 891 .

S. 5, S.S. 1 9. Police Con stable sha ll in clude any

Member of th e Police Force of th is colony.

Pl a ce

under th e Tax O rdin an cemust be con strued ejusden

gen eric w ith th e w ords w h ich precede it, un less th epre

ceding w ords are so exh austive as to leave noth ing w h ich

can be called ejusden gen eris. Burrow es v. Joaquin (cit .Fenw iclc v. Schn a ly, L . R. 3 C. P. 31 5 Ea stw ood v.

Miller , L . R. 9 Q . B . Bow s v . Fen w w h , 9 L . R. C.

P. 339 ; De Gett v. Ga ttern s, 19 C. B. N . S. 765 ; Harris

v. Jenn s, 30 L . J. M. C. 83 Young v. Gra ttridge, L . R.

4Q. B. 1 66.

Un derTax O rdinance 1888 every person w h o occupiesany sh op, room, sh ed , sta ll , ya rd , or place in th e rural

districts w h eremeat oth er th an fresh pork or game issold , sh all take out a licence . Th e w ord place

”does

not cover th e case of a person w h o exposes freshmeatin a cart on a ublic i-oad w h ere a sort ofmarket is h eld .

Burrow es v. oaquin, cit . Mayers v. An derson (WillesJ. in Femoick v. Sch/h a ly, L . R. Q . B.

WoRDs. -REPEAL. 1 50 REPEAL.

REPEAL or O RDINANCES, &O .-21 or 1 891

S. 25 .

— Wh ere an O rdinance after th e 8th day of Ma rch1856, w h eth er before or after th e commen cemen t of th isO rdin an ce , r epea ls in w h ole or in part any former en actmen t an d substitutes provision s for t he en actmen t re

pealed , th e r ep ea led en a ctmen t sh a ll, un less th e contraryin ten tion appears, rema in in force un til th e substituted

p rovisions come into Oper a tionS. 26.

— Wh ere a n O rdin an ce p a ssed after th e 8th day ofMa rch 1 856, w h eth er before or after th e commen cemen tof th is O rdin an ce , r epea ls a r epea ling en actmen t, it sh allnot be con strued a s reviving any en actmen t previouslyr epea led , un less w ord s are added revivin g th at en actmen t .S. 27 .

— Wh ere th is O rdin an ce or a ny O rdin an ce passedafter th e commencemen t of th is O rdin an ce repea ls and

re-ena cts, w ith or w ith outmodifica tion , any p rovision s ofa former O rdinan ce, refe ren ces in any oth er O rdinan ce

or in any official or leg al documen t , to th e provision s sor epea led , sh a ll , unless th e con trary in ten tion appears, becon strued a s referen ces to th e provision s so re-en acted.

Where th is O rdin a n ce or a ny O rdin an ce passed after the

commen cemen t of th is O rdin an ce , r ep ea ls any other enactmen t, th en , un less th e con trary in ten tion appears, the

rep ea l sh a ll n ot,Revive anything not in force or existing at th e timeat w h ich th e repeal takes effect ; or

ect th e previous Opera tion of any en actmen t sorepealed or anyth ing duly don e or suffered

un der any en actment so repea led or

Af eet a ny right, p rivilege, obliga tion , or liabilitya cquired , accrued , or in curred under any enactmen t so repealed ; or

Afl eet a ny pen a lty, forfeiture, or punishment incurr ed in respect of a ny Ofience committedagain st any en actmen t so repea led ; or

Afiect any in vestiga tion , lega l proceeding, or remedyin respect of any righ t, privilege, obligation ,liability, pen alty, for feiture, or pun ishmen t asa foresaid ;

a nd any such investigation , legal proceeding , or remedy

WORDS.— REPEAL. 1 5 1 RULESOECOURT.

may be in stituted , con tinued , or en forced , a nd any such

penalty, forfeiture, or pun ishmen tmay be imposed , as if

th e repealing O rdin an ce h ad not been passed . SeeCO NSTRUCTION, S. 14.RESCINDINGRULES.

-SeeRULES. BREAKING.-SeeRULES.

REWARD.-See MONEY .

RULES.—21 or 1891 .

S. 21 . Wh ere an O rdin an ce, w h eth er passed

before or after th e commen cemen t of th is O rdin an ce,confers pow er on any auth ority tomake rules, th e follow ingprovision s sh all , un less th e con tra ry in tention appears,ave effect w ith referen ce to th emaking an d operation

of such rules

(a). Any rulemay be a t a ny time amended , varied ,rescin ded, or revoked by th e same auth ority and

in th e samemann er by an d in w h ich it w asmade;(b). Th eremay be a nn exed to th e breach of any rule

such pen alty, not exceeding jtw enty-four dollarsas th e rulemakin g auth oritymay th ink fit, andany such pen altymaybe sued for an d recovered

under th e Summary Jurisdiction O rdin an ce.

(c). No rule sh a ll be in consistent w ith th e provisions ofa ny ena ctmen t ;

(d) . All rules sh all be published in th eGazette and sh allh ave th e force of law ;

(e). Th e production of a copy of th e Ga z ette con tainingany rule, or of any copy of any rule purportingto be prin ted by th e Governmen t printer , sh all

be p rimd facie eviden ce, in a ll Cour ts an d.

all oth er purposes w h a tsoever , of th e duemakingand ten or of such rule .

In th is section th e expression rules Includes

rules an d regula tions, regula tions, an d bye-lanes. Furth er,

see STATUTE.

RULES, construction of. —See CONSTRUCTION or RULES.

RULESOF COURT .— 21 OF 1 891 .

S. 8. In every O rdin ance passed after th e.

commencement of th is O rd inan ce, un less th e con trary Inten

WORDS.— RULE8 or COURT. 1 52 SERVICE.

tion appear s, the expression Rules of Court, w h en usedin relation to any Court, sh a llmea n rulesma de by theauthority h aving for th e time being pow er tomake rules ororders regulating th e practice an d proced are of such Court.

Th e pow er of the sa id auth ority tomake Rules ofCourt as above defin ed sh a ll include p ow er tomakeRulesof Cour t for th e purpose of any O rdinan ce passed afterth e commen cement of th is O rdinance an d d irecting or

auth oriz ing anyth ing to be don e byRules of Court .

un der Sun day Trading O rdin ance comes under th e h eadof provision s, and a sale in a tavern of th is article duringth e h ours allow ed for th e sale of provision s is n ot proh ibited . Da Silva v. G reaves. O rdinan ce afterw ards

pa ssed taln'

ng rumout of th e category of provision s.

Sa lemeans exposing for sale. Greenslade v. Figueira ; and

w h ere O rdin ance Speaks of exposing”for sale th e sell

ing is an offence . 1b.

Un der O rdin an ce4of 1877,Section4, th e w ord sa le

ofmore th an one quar t of rumis not syn onymous w ithdelivery.

”Pequen o v . Y ounge.

SCHEDULE or O RDINANCE— See CONSTRUCTION, S. 17 3

SEAL .— See PUBLICSEAL.

SECRETARY OESTATE— 21 OF 1891 .

S. 5 , S.S. 8. Th e Secretary of Sta te sh allmeanH er Majesty

s Principa l Secretary of Sta te for theColoniesfor th e time being .

SECTION or ORDINANCE — See CONSTRUCTION, S. 12.

SEND.— See POST.

SERVE— See POST.SERVICE BY POST.— See POST.

Service.

un der Master an d Servant’

s Actmean s th e daily labouror w ork for th e performan ce of w h ich th e labourer is

engaged . Hin tyen v. Scott .

WORDS.— U. KINGDOM. 1 54 WRITING.

UNITED KINGDOM.-2l OF 1 891 .

S. 5 , SS. 1 Th e United Kingdomsh a llmea n th eUnited Kingdomof Grea t Brita in a n d Irelan d .

Vagr an t ,

mean s on e w h o frequen tly w an ders about w ithout h avinga fixed domicile or permanen t place of abode, an d n ot a

per son w h o is simply convicted of disorder ly conduct,un less th e opera tion of th e Vag r an cy la w be committedto vag ra n ts properly so cal led . An in dustrious order lyan d h on estma nmig h t for acts involving n o g reatermora l delinquency th an th e w ilful Viola tion of a ny posi

tive law ,find h imself classed amon g idle an d disorderly

person s for th e first offence, th en among rogues and

vagabonds for th e second , a nd lastly amon g incorrigiblerogues , an d a ll for offen ces itmay be of a trivial

ch a ra cter . Turnkey v. King .

VARYING RULEs .— SeeRULES.

WRITING .— 21 OF 1 891 .

S.4.—~ In th is O rdin ance an d in every oth er O rdin an ce,w h eth er passed before or after th e commen cemen t of th isO rdinance, an d in every Official documen t w h eth ermadeor executed before or after th e commen cemen t of th isO rdin an ce , un less th e con trary in ten tion appears,

Expressio ns referring to Writing”

sh a ll be con

strued a s in cluding r eferen ces to p rin ting, lithography,

ph otography, and oth ermodes of representing or

reproducing w ords in visible form.

APPENDIX .

CASESDECIDED FRO M JANUARYTO SEPTEMBER, 1 892 .

AUTHO RITIES QUO TED.

Vict. I I 1 2. 1 0 v. Sobers.24 2 5, c. 97 v. King .

S. 5 1 , 58

O RDINANCESCITED AND CO MMENTED O N.

1 850 , Trespass v. King .

1 853, 2 v. Haynes.

1 856, 1 9 of S. I4 v. Sobers.1 856, z r v. Sobers.

1 862 , 2 1 of. S. 48 v. King .

1 868, 2 5 of, SSS

. 32 , 35, 64 v. Cameron .

1 873, 7 of. S. 1 60 v. Hun ter.1 887, Gold Min ing v. FarnumCo.

1 890 , 6 of v. Cameron .

1 891 , 2 of

I 7 of v. Sobers.

AUTH O RITIESCITED AND CO MMENTED O N .

Craigen v. Mungar, R. C., B. G . inTaylor v.. Hunter.Kryen h ofi v. G lasgow , R C. , B.G in Coelho v. Ring .

Luckie v. An son , R. C B.G . in Captain v Sobers.

Rajutteah v. An son , R. C., B.G

Reg . v. Martin , 8 Q .B.D. 54 in Vyle v. Kingv. Pem1iton , L .R. z Q C. 1 1 9

1 2 Cox CC.

v. Ward , L .R. Q C. 356

v.Welch . I 3 Cox Q C.

Simon v. Gouvia, R.C B.G . in Captain v. Sobers.

APPENDIX.

cern ing location and occupation of claims, so far as such questions ariseun der th e Regulation s, but not in collatera l question s ; test of law fuloccupation .

Semé le— A Governmen t O fiicermay at least by con sent of partiesdetermin e as to priority of location , a lth ough th e Rules provide alsoanoth er Tribun a l.

Th e law regulating th e proceed ings before a Governmen t O fficer ind isputes betw een party an d party is Similar as to prin ciples to th e lawofmag isteria l proceed ings ; secus as to tech n icalities. H emay not aftuponmatters of private know ledge , in w h ich th ere is not evidencemf or a ; nor h ave recourse to pow ers arismg out of h is status a s an O fficerof th e Executive Governmen t.Defen dan tmay bring in to issue th e title of a Compla inan t w h o alleges

infringemen t of h is righ ts, but onus lies on h imof sh ow ing h e h as

properly don e so . Win ter v. Farnumai d l, 26 Feb . 1 892 .

Case d ecided on faéts. Joseph v. Lauren ce, 2 1 Jun e 1 892 .

Immigrant , Evid en ce of ind enture — See EVIDENCE.

Immig ration Agent Genera l .— Un der S. 1 60 of O rd . 7 of 1 873a Sub Agen t h as n o auth ority to aét for an immigran t un less speciallyauth orised by th e Immigration Agen t G en era l . Taylor v. H unter,2 September 1 892 .

Injury to Property.— See MAL ICE.

In solvent , evidence of. —See EVIDENCE.

Joint Ch arges— See DUPLICITY .

Licence Duty .—Th e h older of a reta il Spirit licence w h o h ad not

pa id th emon th ly insta lmen t of duty un til th e 6th d ay of th emon th suc

ceed ing th at for w h ich it u as due,h eld in arrear. Baptista v Cameron ,

2 2 January 1 892

Mag istrate’

s reason s— See AFFIDAvn

Ma lice — A person aétsmaliciously w ith in th emean ing of SeEtion49 of O rd in an ce 2 1 of 1 862 w h o does an un law ful a& w ilfully w ith outjust excuse . Person a l ill-feeling is not essen tia l but is n ot excluded .

Vyle v. King , 5 February 1 892 .

In order to be an offen ce un der th e enaétment, th e aftmust h aveproduced in jury, th e probable an d natural result of th e aft. 1 6.

Proviso to Seftion 49 of O rdin ance explain ed . 1 6.

Master Servant — Tomake breach of con traét an offence itmustbe la id an d proved th at th e person aga in st w h omit is la id is w ith in th edescription of con traétors w h ose failure to comply w ith th eir obligationsmay be dealt With pen ally. Barth olomew v. Haynes an d Walcott, 5February 1 892 .

Misch ief. —See MALICE.

APPENDIX .

Penalty— Court of Review can not alter fine of Magistrate because

it is th ough t excessw e . Baptista v. Cameron , 2 2 January 1 892 .

Reasons ofMagistrate — See AFFIDAVIT.

Spirit Licence.— See LICENCE.

Statutory Provisions— See EVIDENCE.

occupan t w h o h olds possession after sale and purch ase

h e w ill of th e true ow n er, an d after th e true ow ner h as been

in possession , h oldsma la fide, and such occupancy is n ot

a defen ce to w ilful trespass. Coelh o v. King , 8 January 1 892 .

Waiver .— See DUPLICITY .

Wilful Trespass — See TRESPASS. m5.”

A Digest of Cases - Forgotten Books for Scantlebury v. Green read Scan tlebury v. Breen. ” Page I...

Documents

Transcript of A Digest of Cases - Forgotten Books for Scantlebury v. Green read Scan tlebury v. Breen. ” Page I...

Congratulations to EWSIS _June.pdf · family and friends. I am also very active in sports…. GO YANKEES !!!” Massiah Williams: What advice would you give us rising seniors as we

Cosa 2010 opening session scantlebury

FIVE TOWN CSD BOARD MEETING - PenBay Pilot | News · 2016. 4. 12. · Patti Forster Kimberly Scantlebury CONTINUING CONTRACTS Helen Scipione 15-16 Stipends ... Pohlman, Austin Throne,

Rules 4.2A Appendix 4D - PNGX · 2018. 9. 2. · Lady W.T. Kamit, CBE Director since 2005 P.W. Langslow Managing Director since 2015 (resigned from 27th August 2018) M.R. Scantlebury

EXPANDING OUR UNIVERSE · Mr. A. Charles Herbert Company Secretary Auditors Miss K. L. Scantlebury, LL.B. (Hons.), LL.M. (Dist.) Ernst & Young Attorneys-At-Law Bankers Clarke Gittens

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE - Shire of … Chief Executive Officer Mr. S. Collie Acting Executive Manager Corporate Services Mr. R. Scantlebury Executive Manager Technical Services

The DrosophilaGene RanBPMFunctions in the …...The DrosophilaGene RanBPMFunctions in the Mushroom Body to Regulate Larval Behavior Nadia Scantlebury.¤a, Xiao Li Zhao., Vero´nica

VI— R EGLEMEN T...V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Handel, Massiah

EVERY DAY...in their mother’s womb, growing side by side together. Only something would go wrong, terribly, terribly wrong for one. When Angela and Malcolm Massiah noticed that one

Finding and evaluating Open Educational Resources SCORE Fellows Workshop 6 th December 2010 Creator: Non Scantlebury The Open University Library Services.

Council of Michigan Foundations | To grow the impact of ... · Julie Ridenour Steelcase Foundation Joe Scantlebury W.K. Kellogg Foundation ... Duane Tarnacki (dtarnacki@clarkhill.com)

APRIL 2007 New Look and new faces for Butlers Reef - TOM · Scantlebury updates us on the Kaitake Track developments and our clubs and groups keep us well and truly informed. Remember

VI— R EGLEMEN T · v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v

The John Hankin Shield The Stan Scantlebury …...John Hankin and Stan Scantlebury Shields 2014. 18 Knock Out Punch Interesting placement, boxing pictures are not often seen in competitions

2500594-16 Scantlebury-Watson - Final · Case Number: 2500594/2016 3 1.8.3. Further or alternatively, did the respondent, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in such

The Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System · Dan G. Blair* Diane M. Disney* Martin C. Faga* Kip Hawley* Leo Hazlewood Janice Lachance* Michael G. Massiah* * Academy Fellow.

The Massiah Right to Exclusion: Constitutional Premises ...

Massiah, Escobedo, and Rationales for the Exclusion of ...

Finding and evaluating oe rs score short term fellows april 11 non scantlebury