KUN 75 mi 1S92 py, CJorttfU ICam i^rl^inl IGtbtaty 5 -WW jj^y^ Llttt^AK.^ Cornell University Library KC 3269.5.D57 Digest of cases decided In the Review Co 3 1924 024 832 614 est ( ill Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924024832614 DIGEST OF CASES DECIDED IN THE REVIEM^ COURT OF BRITISH GUIANA, From 7856 to 1891, inc/usiue. THE •' ARGOSY " PRESS, DEMERARA. 1892. .i'^'''-^<'k ' -LAW ^i>jrf».^^v. preface:. This volume collects the cases under each heading and professes to do no more. There was no digest of Colo- nial cases before this, and I have had to do the work unaided. The public owe this ^volume to Mr. H. Kiekb, Sheriff of Demerara, .who interested himself in the work and got a grant-in-aid. My thanks are due'tp their Honours Sir D. P. Ohalmbes, C.J., N". Atkinson and W. A." M. Shbeiff, JJ., who encouraged me and aided my researches ; also to Dr. Caeeington, Mr. F. Villiees, and last, but not least, to His Excellency the G-overnor, Viscount Goemanston, all of whom helped in a material way the bringing out of the volume. I thank the Subscribers and the Staff of the Registrar's Ofl&ce who assisted me while the work was in the Press. I hope the Digest will be useful in its way, but I would call the attention of those who use the work to the fol- lowing valuable excerpt from Mr. Serjeant Robinson : — " The law is in fact codified as far as it usefully can be in many text books, which contain the decisions that have been given on multitudinous disputed points. But these compendia give you, in general, the bare decisions. You must see the report of the case itself, as well as the precise reasons g^iven for the judgment, in order to ascer- tain whether the facts coincide with those in the law respecting which you seek to be enlightened." E. A. V. ABRAHAM. ERRATA. Page 8, 3rd line, for " Corner v. Anderson" read " Coria v. An- derson." Page 20, 13th line from bottom, for " Wills" read " Wells." Page 25, 3rd line from top,/or " Daniel" read " Darrell." " Page 27, 7th line from bottom, /or " Collier v. Pullitlall" read " Coelho V. Pullitlall." Page 28, 8th line from top, _/br " Nicholson" read " Michelson." Page 42, 17th line from top, /or " Price" read " Prince." Page 43, 5th line from top, /or " Webster v. Ruck" read " Webster V. Birch." Page 49, 2nd line from top, /or " Madeno" read " Madeiro." Page 50, I ith line from top, /or " Neepaul" read " Serepaul." Page 58, 3rd line from top, /or " Davidson" read " Dawson." Page 62, 15th line from top, _/or "Bascomv. Relia" read "Ba.scom V. Relva." Page 67, 6th line from bottom, /or " Grant v. Josin" read " Grant v, Josa." Page 72, 1 2th line from bottom,yor " Ferreira" read " Teixeira." Page 78, 8th line from top, /or " AUibocus" read " Adams." Page 81, 7th line from bottom, ybr "Green v. Bean" read •' Goocal V. Bean." Page 82, 17th line from top, /or "Cumberland" read "Cumberbatch." Page 91, 14th line from bottom,y^r "Marks" read " Mars." Page 105, 7th line from bottom,/br " Farnum" read " Farmer." Page 112, 1 2th line from top, /or " Scantlebury v. Green" read " Scan- tlebury v. Breen." Page 133, 7th line from top, /or " Mussillah v. Massiah" read " Mussil- lah V. Manschott." TABLE OF OASES. Every case in which appeal was noted is given in this table. A great many cases were never argued or brought to a hearing, and some were withdrawn and . others decided on the merits. There are a few cases where no written decisions were given. These are all noted in this table with an asterisk. Page. Abendanon v. Sproston, 3 1 Mar. '83.— 30, 67, 68, 71, 76, 89 129 Abdoolah v. Barclay, 19 Oa. '65... ... ... 75 Abraham', Herbert v. „ ■ Horton v. ... „ Shervington v. Adams v. Agard, 3 Feb. '72 75 „ ' V. Clarke, 7 Aug. '69 - 33.51 „ James V. „ V. ■Ma:yers, 7 Oft. '65 103 „ V. Poonachie, 3 Aug. '72 ".. ' n, 78 Adolphus, Bunbury v. ... Ad. Genl. v. France, 30 June 1883 * „ V. King, 9 May 1883 84, 113 „ V. Marshall, 22 Sep. 1883... 133 Agard, AdamS v. „ Angallyv. „ v.Bean,2oSep.'62* „ 8 Nov, '62* „ V. Crosby, 17 Odt. ,1874 59 ' ,, Moonah v. Ah-chee v. Layton, 8 Oct. . 1889 ... ... ... 133 Ah-john V. Bethune, 25 ■Feb. 1865 ... . ... 133 Albert v.' Dougl'as,. 4 Aug. 1866-'... •".;'. ... 55,73 Alexander, Hookemchund V. ... „ Hohenkerk v. AUany, Regina v... Allen v. Austin, 5 July '62* Allick V.Joseph, 23Nov.'72.9, AUicock v. Cuckow, 10 Dec. 1870 „ v.VanLange, 9 Oct. '69 „ V.Wight, 8 Jan. 1870... Alty, Darrell v Ameerboccus, Halliday v. Ameeran, Ferreira v. Amosv.Haly, 4 Mar. '65 j Amson, Cameron v. Angally v. Agard, 19 Dec; 1884 ... Angoo v. Miller, i Dec. '83 Anderson v. Clarke* Corria v. Goulamally v. Mayers v. Serrao v. Sethv. ... Andrew v. Novel, 12 Nov. 1858 Anson, Bfelmonte v. 'Corria v. ... „ D'Nascimento v. „ De Souza v. „ Dias V.' ' ... ., Gonsalves v. „ "Henriques v. „ V.'Klien, i7May'9o Page. 67>94 81 83 37 67,97 a 39 78,79 17 67,84 IV. TABLE OF CASES. Page. 95 54 Anson, Leon-a-fat v. Lordv. ... ... Luckie v.... ... Murdoch v. Nascimento v. ... Ragjatteah v. Santos V V. Stuart, 1 6 Dec. '85 ... 7,8,23,24,65,145 Teixeira v.... V. Wong-a-hoy, 29 July 1882 „ v.Wong-a-sam Anthony, Macedo v. Antonio v. Crosby, 10 Apl. 1858* Antonio v. King, 21 Mar. 1882 Applewhaite v. Fauset, 30 May 1874* AppoUos V. Scott, 3 Sep. 1870* Arnold, Fernandes v. „ V. Gomes, ioMay'73 „ V. Tomside, 6 April 1867* Arthur V. Moore, 24 Apl. '69 „ Parris v. ... Ashby, King v Augusta V. Duncan, 31 May 1873 Austin, Alien v „ Gardner v. „ Miller V „ V.Moses, 30 Sep. '5 1 B. Bacchus, Edwards v. „ V. Warren, 4 Feb. 1865 Bab V. Wolseley, Aug. '72 Backer, D'Oliveira v. „ Fauset v Rodrigues v, „ Lopes V. ... „ V. Tappin, 5 Feb. 1859 „ Zitman v... Badderan v. Mulligan, 22 April 1865 ... ... Page. Bagot V. Gunga, 10 Apl. '80 „ Jones V Bahador v. Humphreys, 6 March 1858 '9 Baird, London v Baker v. Campbell, 27 Sep. 1858 147 „ Gonsalves v. „ V. McFarlane,27Sep. 1858* „ Sproston v ,. V. Tappin, Feb. '59 85, 97 Baptist, King v Barclay, Abidoolah v. „ v Tuan,Aug.'72* Smith V „ Swan, Aug. '72* Barla v. Mushet,7 June '57* Barnes. D'Aguiar v, „ Gilbert v. „ Nunes v. „ Popwell V. „ Silvano v. Barnwell, Reynolds v. ... Bascom v. Beeharry, 16 March 1861* ... „ V. Beete, 3 Apl. '67* „ Benjamin v „ Berengea V „ v. Busserat, 23 Nov. 1867* „ v. Chamroo, 14 Jan. 1865* » Cox V „ V. De Freitas, 27 Apl. 1872* „ Haynes, 14 Dec. '67* „ V.Haywood, 21 May 1864 „ V. Hazzard, 28 May 35,45 1864 89 „ V. Marshall, 19 June 1858* ... ... „ V. Peter, 27 Apl. '56* „ V. Relva, 27 Sep. '58 „ V. Stover, 21 Aug. '69 „ V. Norton, 6 Mar. '69 •]•], 104 85, 97 Batiste v. Burrowes, 15 Jan. Beanfkgardv. .V." ..^' *'' '^^ „ Goocal V 20 75 71 86,88 62, 90 42 TABLE OF CASES. Page, Beekhan, Rohela v. Beeharry, Bascom v. „ Bullock V. Beete, Bascom v „ V. Greedharry, 28 Feb. I874 ... ... 113 „ V. Kelly, 9 May '74* Belgrave, King v „ V. Sealy, 26 Feb. '59* Bell V. Samuel, 6 June '57 82 „ Wattv Belmonte v. Anson, 25 May, 1888 79 Ben, de Cambra v. „ V. Daniel, 3 Dec. 79... 75 „ David V „ V. Michelson, 21 Jan. 1865 28,64 Benjamin v. Bascom, 30 Dec. '68 76 „ V. de Freitas, 24 Feb. 1887 33 „ Gemmel v Berengea v. Bascom, 7 Sep. 1878 43 Bertyne, Younge v. Bethune, Ah-john v. Carreiro v. Chun-chai-ching v. Francis v Freitas v Gomes v Martins v Pereira v Valladares v., 16 Dec. 1865 ... 42 Bheekharry v. McLean, 16 Sep. 1876 ... 61, 66,67, 71 Binns, Carreiro v „ V. De Freitas, 22 March 1883 ... 123 „ Dundas v „ Gordon v „ HoUingsworth, 7 April 1883 ... 36 „ McKenna v. „ Pequeno v. „ Rocha V Birch, Cahuac v „ Gonsalves v. „ Martin v. , L4W LUaKEUgbt. Birch, Robello v „ Shing-a-lee_v. „ Simon v „ Webster, v. Blake, Salmon v Bland v. Iskenius, 7 July i860* „ V. Snelling, 6 Dec. '62* (fire brigade) „ Thomson v. Blank v. Mulligan, 2 Nov. 1867 104, 105, 106 Blasky, Patrick Bob, Samuel v „ V. Wolseley, Aug. '72 89 Boellen v. Straker, 22 Feb. 1873* Bogado V, King, 2 May '74* Boilers, Greaves v. Bolton, D'Oliveira v. „ V, Fernandes, 24 Dec. 1869 ... 80 „ Gonsalves v, ..." „ Jardine v. Bonham v. Francis, 15 April 1881 Boodha v. Bughoo, 1 1 Apl. 1874 „ v. Greenslade, 29 March, 1873 ... 51 „ V. Ramnarain, i May 1880 ... 5 Boodhoomina v. Ninia, 10 May 1873* Bourne, Reynolds v. Bowen v. Buttery, 19 Apl. 1889 67, 72 „ V. Chapman, 24 Aug. '73 ... 56 Boyle V. Nowell, 15 Dec. i860* Bracy v. Harris, 20 July '90 19 „ v. Frederick, i Sep. 1863* „ v. McTurk,. 18 Apl. 1874 ... 32,38,108 Brandon, Coates v. „ Glasgow v. ... Brassington, Doorastoola v. „ V. Ragbia, 23 •July '77 59 M. TABLE OF CASES. Page. Brathwaite v. Dummett, i May '59, holding under 3 9 of 46 that in ej eOmeni. cases there must be two Justices... Brathwaite v. Mayor & T. C, July '61* ... „ Swain v. ... Braud, Bunsee v „ Jonauth v... Brazao, Green v.., Brebner, Fraser v. .... „ Joycurn, 24 Dec. 1865 60 Breen, Corria v. ... „ Farinha V. „ Gpnsalves v. „ Scantlebury V. Bremner v. Wight, 7 Dec. 1867 37 B. G. Mining Company, Hodgkinson v. „ Seyler v. Brittlebank, King v. Brown, Coronel v. „ V. Dornford, 5 Dec. '90* Bruce v. Fraser, 17 Feb. 1885* , „ Gomes V Brumell, De Jesus v. „ .Gomes v. „ Whyte V. Buccus V. Sooeah, 18 Aug. i860*. Budal V. McLean, 22 Apl. 1876 ... 61, 100 fiughoo, Boodha v. Bugle V, Seconde, 23 Jan. '91, 20 March '91 ... 53 Bullock , y. Be^kharan, 6 May 1871, holding that withholding wages of an immigrant i§, a civil and not criminal matter Bunbury v. Ad.qlphus, 2 1 Juije, '83* .. „ V. Dick „ . Peters v. ,, V. Stephens, 27 Feb. '58 ...108,116 Page. Bunbury .V. Young, 14 Apl. .. i860* Bunsee V. Braud, 1 2 Aug. '76 62,67 Young V. Burgin v. Oliver, 21 May 1870*. Burnham, Van Battenburg V. Burrowes, Batiste v. „ Caddell v. „ Chan-a-poo v. „ V. Crawford, 16 Nov, '58 .. 14, 128 „ V. De Abreo, 11 June '86 (Lie.) „ V. de Cambra 28 Feb. 1874* „, „ . de Silva v. „ de Freitas v. ... „ D'Oliveira v „ Ellipie v. „ Eppillie v. „ V. Ferreira, 31 Oct. '76 ... 49 „ 31 Oct. 74* ,, Gomes v. ,, v. Gonsalves, 26 Jan.. '89 ... 48 „ Gonsalves v. ... ,. v. Grabes, 26 Jan. '89 ... 46 „ Jardine v. „ , Jeffrey v. „ v. Jouac(lijn, I r Feb. '89.-57, 91, 92, 147. 148 ,, Juan V. „ Martins v. „ Mend.es v. „ Montrose v. ... V. Nunes, 12 JuLy 1873* ... „ V.Peters, 1 3 Aug. 1886 45, 117 „ ... Porter v. „ . Rodrigues v. ... „ Tan-la-Ching v. „ , Unmaid v. „ Vogado V. „ V. Yip-li-king, 2 ... May 1874 .... ,; TABLE OF CASES. Page. 56.57 146 Bury, Duke v „ Garnett v. „ Wickham v. Bushell V. Solomon, 6 Mav 1887 ... Busserat, Bascom v. Bussunt, „ V. Butler, Coombs v. „ V. Douglas, 2 Tan. 1865 „ V. Vandyke, 5 Sep. '57, following Heyler V. Clouston Buttery, Bowen v. Butts, Satnple v Cabral v. YoMng; 24 June '82 ... 71, 108, 109, 131 Caddell v. Burrowes, 19 Feb. '76 48, 100 Cahuac v. Birch, 21 Jan. '65 64 Caimes v. Joseph, 25 Mar. '82 7 „ Soliman v. Callee v. Pullitlall, 10 Mar. 1877 27,125 CalKdin, Kennedy v. Cambridge,' Edwards v. ... „ James v. „ Joseph V. ... Cameron V. Anson 19 Jan. '61* „ V, Chan-ac-poo, 7 Oct. '65, Ord. repealed „ Taylor v. Campbell, Baker v. „ V. Romeo, 29 Aug. 1874*... Canterbury, Cleaver v. ... Canziar, Dundas v. Capell V. Pickering, 27 March, 1874* Capello V. Greaves, 6 Mar. 1880 .,. ... 44, 97, 116 ■ Carbery v. Dunn, 3 Apl. '69 83 Cardoza v. Ydunge, 31 May 1879 120 Page. 129 93 93 Carreira v.. Anderson, 15 April, 1882 ... „ V. Anson, 5 May :89 „ V. Bethune „ V. Binns, 22 May '85 ... ^..122,125 „ V. Breen, 5 Feb. '76 48 „ V. Cuckow, 5 Apl, '69 ... 31.34,55 „ Da Silva v. „ De Gar v. „ V.Green, 7.5.'86.. 3,40 „ v. Greenslade, 7 June '68 ... 14 „ v. Manthorp, 18 Dec. '69 87,8s, 133 „ V. Steele. 17 Feb. 1866* „ -V. Wright, 2 8 Aug. '85, 123 Carruthers v. Khoondan- sing, 13 Feb. '72 ...6,57,86 „ V. Joseph, 13 Aug. '70* „ Raddiah, 30 March 1867* Carthy, Waterman V. Cassie v. Milne, 24 Apl. '80 76 Castello V. Teixeira, 14 Oft. 1871 72,74 Castillo V. Mackenzie, 5 April 1873* , Chalmers, Bascom v. „ Dow v.... „ Gonsalves v. ,., ,, Mendinho v. ... Channess, Bascom, v. Chandler, Fong-a-ching v. Chan-a-foo, Cameron v. ... Chan-a-poo v. Burrowes, 10 May '73 131 Chan-a-shoo v. Francis, 19 Dec. '90 ... ... 122 Chapman, Bowen v. „ v. Dunn, 5 June '69 (Militia)... ,, Isaacs v. „ V. Pooler, 8 Feb. 1890 73,74 vm. TABLE OF CASES. Page. Page. Chapman, Straughan v. ... Coates V. Brandon, 17 Apl. Charles, Dem. River Co. v. 1885 ... 4 Cheeseman, Paris v. ..." CoUette V. Darrell, 20 Oft. Cheesewright, Hodgson v. 1861* Chester, Horton V. Colvin V. Leacock, 16 Sep. Toddv. 1865 118 Chin-a-soo v. Francis, 19 Comacho, Clementson v... Dec. 90 122 V. Joseph, 30 Chin-a-yow v. Walcott, 7 Dec. '64 ... Jan. 1871* Constantino v. Hubbard, 13 Chitto V. Kelly 42 June 1871* Choung V. Lashley, 26 Apl. Coombs v. Butler, 5 Feb. '90 II 1868 86 Chowdrie v. Layton, 8 Oft. „ Joseph, 8 oa. 70*... 1889 49 Coronel v. Brown, 5.6.'9i I' Chrisnere, Purris v. Corry v. Vieira, 6 June '90 67 Christie, Persaud v. Cowan, Younge v. Christopher v. McNicholl, Coyle, Poudarsing v. 8 Aug. '84 .. 39, 41.95 Cox v. Bascom, 16 Jan. Chun-che-Ching, Darrell v. 1869 ...28,30,34,42.61, 62,63 „ V. Bethune, 18 68, no, 126 Feb. 1869 64 „ V. Davis 3' Chung-chin-chung V. Cuck- „ v. Williams 126 ow, 2 Oa. '69, allowing Craigen v. Mungar, 5.7.'89 60 affidavit to be used on Crawford, Burrowes v. ... either side in Review „ Duggin v. ... Court V.Lewis, 1 3 July Chun-a-hing v. Isaacs, 15 '87*, following Richard- July 1885* son V. Dalgety Chun-lan-ting, Gray v. ... Cressall, dos Santos v. . Chootie, Halliday v. „ Gonsalves V. ... Clair V. Mencon9a, 16 Mar, „ Menezes v. 1867 99 „ Ramalho Clarke, Adams v. Cresbyt— „ Anderson v. „ V. Shields, 16 Sep. '76 ii4 „ V. Grey, 3 Nov. '62 „ (Moonah) V, Agard ... 57.59 ordering penalty of $4 85 „ Antonio v „ Gomes v. „ (Joycurn), Bremner v. 6e ,, Halyv „ (Dorastoola) v. Brass- „ Hooraman v. ington 61 „ Rugonauth v. ... „ (Bunsee) v. Brand ... 62 Cleaver v. Canterbury, 12 „ Craigen V oa. '67* „ Goopal V Clementson v. Comacho, „ Griffin v 18 Apl. '57 (concerning „ (Hoonaman) v. Clarke 61 immigrant) 146 „ (Rugonauth) v. „ ... 61 Clouston v. Fraser, 4 Oft. „ (Mathoora) v. Field ... 67 1858 14,4a „ (Soomarii), v Hunter 61 „ Hitzler v. „ Koonansing v. t For datei look under heading of Immigrants' names. TABLE OF CASES. ix. Page. Page. Crdsbyt— Cuckow, Sproston v. ,, Hoorabaccus v. „ V. Nascimento, 30 ,, (Moorandum) v. La Dec. '68 98 Roche 61 „ V. Perot 80 1, Mayers v „ V. Wight 125 ., (Dinmahomed) v. Mi- Culverhouse, Darrell v., i day 61 Feb. '68 ' 22 „ Mattaboodal v. Cumberbatch v. Hinds, i „ McConnachie v. March '79 82, 109 „ Monkhouse v. Cunningham v. Long, 16 „ (Beekharry), Mudal v. Nov. '89 32. "4 „ (Soohoo), McLean v. Cupido V. Zitman, 7 June „ „ V. Ozanne... 59 1867* „ Mavor v Cush, King v „ (Goolab) V. Porter, lo Customs (Davis) V. Fresson, Nov. '64 62 I Aug. '84 18 „ Ramchurran v. Cuvilje V. Landry, 15 Feb. „ Sooka V. '68 (Ordinance repealed) „ Tucker v Cross, Lewis v. D. „ Sproston v. Crossly v. Ramcharran, 1 5 D'Abreu v. Fitzgerald, 3 March '81 58 Nov. '77* Cruickshank, Jardine V. ... „ v. Francis, 24 Aug. „ La Rose v.. '88 5,8,9 , 4I) 42 8 Aug. '91 10 „ V. Hawker, 12 Mar. „ Lutchmee v. '59 49, n „ Serepaul v... „ V. Straker, 27 July'67 86 „ V. Wright, 22 D'Abrio v. Darrell, 31 Dec. Feb. '89 ... 117 '70 (Abettor, Costs) 2.3 Crump V. Da Silva, 3 May „ v. Griffin, 2 Mar. '62* '72 (Abettor) 2.3 Cuckow, Allicock v. „ V. Griffin, Jan. '73 ■ „ De Cross V. . (Costs) 33 „ De Jesus v. ^ Da Costa, Frank v. „ Corria v. „ V. King, 10 oa. „ Chin-chi-chang v. '84 • 95 „ Da Silva v. D'Aguiar v. Barnes, 3 June „ De Cross v. '90 7, 122 „ De Freitas v. ... ., V. Darrell, 24 Dec. „ v. De Jesus, 29 '69 51 Oa. '58 93 „ Dias V „ Francisco v. „ V. Francis, 21 Nov. „ Gomes v. '84 12, 113 „ V. Gonsalves, 24 „ V,. Francis, 24 Dec. Dec. '69 21 '88 (decided by „ Do. 25 June '70 88 Martins v. Fran- „ Do. 2 July '70 41 cis) „ Mingo V. „ Fitzgerald v. t For dates see under heading of Immigrants' names. TABLE OF CASES. Page. D'Aguiar, Gomes v. ... i „ V. Gordon, 21 Aug. '66 70, i?3 „ V. Harris, 21 Aug. '66 66, 135 „ V. Skeete, 4 Feb. '71* , „ V. Turton, 31 Oft. Darrell, Gonsalves v. ... „ Jesus V. Page. '57* „ V. Wright, 14 Aug. '85* Da John v. Gungapersaud, 3 March '66*. ■ Dalgleish v. King, 22 Mar. '83 98 Daly, Liverpool v. ,, Toney v. Da Mattos v. McDavid, i Feb. '91 53 D'Amil, Luckie v... D'Andrade v. Fitzallan, 14 Aug. '91 ... 120 „ V. Harrigan,24june '84 122, 124 „ V. Lang, 1.7 Jan. '74 103 „ V. Swain, 14 Dec. .'81 ... ... 81 Daniel, Ben v. „ Luckie, v. „ V. Ridley, 19 Sep. '68 ... 103, 104, 130 P'Nascimento v. Anson, 9 Feb. '84 ... 32, 33, 39 Darrell v.Alty, 29 Apl. '65* .„ V. C'hun-Che-Chung, , 18 Feb. '65* ... „ Collette V. „ Culverhouse v. ... „ D'Aguiar v. „ v.. Day, 12 Jan. '67 (Shipping) Ordi. nance repealeicj... ,, V. DaSilva, 25 Feb. ,'67* „ De Abrio v. ,., „ De Freitas v. „ DeJongev. „ D.'.OJiveira V. „ De Paiya v. „ V. Gardner, 20 09:, '62 12J 18 115 Mason V Maddeiras v. „ V. Mayers, 29 Nov. '62* „ Pequeno v. „ V. Rodrigues, 2 Nov. '^7 35.39 „ oantos V. ... „ Straghan v. Da Santos v. Cressall* ... „ V. James, 9 July '70 34 V. Layton, 2 Dec. '82 ... I, V. Turner, 23 June '77* ... Da Silva v. Burrowes, ^i oa.>4 .... :.. „ V. Corria „ David V. „ V. Greaves, iSJune '64. i2'9, 130 „ V. Griffin. 4 Jan. '73 33 „ V. Hill, 20 Aug. '70-1 3, 14, 116 „ V. Layton, 26 May '83 ... 18,21,69 I, V. do., 2 Dec. '82 „^ V. Mann, 18 Mar. '65 87, 135 ,,'v. Pereira, 31 Mar. '68 14 „ V. Swain, 9 Od. '88... „ V. Wright, 22 Jan. '86 „ Do. v., i4Aug.'85* David, Ben v. „ V. Da Silva, 26 Tune ;63 ... ... „ V. Hossannah, 23 Tune '66 „ V. Jackmap, 13 Aug. ^ '70 ■ ... ... „ London, v » Oglev Davidson v. Gopaul, 29 ^'83 58 Davis, Cox v. ,, v, Fresson, i Ausr. ' , '84 18 „ McGowah v. „ Perreija v, » V. Sampson, 2 7 Aug. '89 66,92 37 9. '7 u 77 46.54 54 TABLE OF CASES. Page. Dawes v. Dunn, 9 June '69 83 Dawson, Chastity v. „ V, Gopaul, 2p Sep. '83 ... ... 4,58 „ V. Gonsalves, 18 Nov. '76 ... 34,115 „ v.Mundlall, 12 June, '85 ... 60 Davson V. October, 18 June '89 ... 80 Day, Darrell v „ V. Gonsalves, 12 May' '91 26 „ V. Jessida, 18 Dec. '85 117 „ V. Teixeira, 24 Sep. '86 83, 112 De Abreia v. Francis, 14 Aug. '88... 41,42 „ V. Darrell, 31 Dec. '70 ... 2,3 „ Burrowes v. ... Dean, Garnett v De Cambra v. Ben, 8 Aug. '63 ...101,103 „ V. Straker, 20 Aug. '70 ... 44, 124^ De Chalus, Dornford v. =.. De Cross v. Cuckow, 21 Aug. '69.* Referred to Magistrate 18 Dec. '69 50,51 De Croitz v. De Freitas, 14 Sep. '72 n Deenaloolah, Smitfe v. ... De Faria v. Swain, 2 1 Nov. '84 16,115 De Farnissah v. Francis, 5 Dec. '90 122 De Freitas, Ben-jamin v.... „ Bascom v. ... V. Breen, 5 Feb. '76* ... „ Binns v. „ V. Cuckow, 16 Oa. '69 ... 55' „ V. Burrowes, i 26 Apl. '73 3i V. Darrell, 21 Jan. '68* ... „ De Croitz v.... V. Elliott, 14 May '81-46,^ 17,125! Page. Ill 120 De Freitas v. Ferreira, 6 Feb. '64 ... „ Fitz Allen, 14 Aug. '91 ... „ Gonsalves v.. „ v. Greenslade, 16 Oa. '65*- „ Glasgow V. ... „ Gordon v. ... „ V. Leacock, 7 Aug. '69 ... „ v. McAllister, 25.9.'8o-i5, 44, 115 „ V. Pitta, 4 Feb. '71* „ V. Seigert, 2 July '86 ... ,, V. Straker, 15 Aug. '68 ... „ „ 20 Aug. '70* V. Wight ... De Gar v. Coria, 20 Nov. '65 De Guara v. Watson, 19 Nov. '66 De Gouvia v. Greenslade, 21 Dec. '67 De Gra9a v. Wight, 30 Dec. '69 De Guare, Ned v. De Hart v. Harcourt, 21 Oa. '71 De Jesus v. Brumell, 19 June '58 „ Cuckow v. „ v. King, 31 Aug. r, T '§* ■••44, 50, 55,97 De Jonge v. Darrell, 2;9 Nov. ^73 ... ,„ 16, &8 De Mattos v. McDonneW, 14 Feb. '91 Dem. River Co. v. Charles, 15 March 90 Dem. Railway Co., Sumner v, De Nieun'kirk, Sampson v. De Paiva v. Darrell, 5 Aug. '65* „ V. Francis, 1 5 Nov. '84, following De Paiva v. Francis De Rouse, Harrigan v. ... 85 15 30, 82 36,38 31,34 28 17 30 133 •53 52 124 Xll. TABLE OF CASES. Page. 135 132 14 79.98 De Rush V. Watson, 26 ; ; May '66 2 De Santos v. Tames, 9 July 70 34 „ V. Turner, 23 June 'T]*... De Silva v. Cuckow, 1 1 Sep. '69, following Mingo V. Cuckow... „ David V „ V. Ferreira, io.5.'69* „ V. Graves, 2 July '64.129, 152 „ V. Griffin, 4 Jan. '73* „ V. Mann, 11 Mar. '65 „ V, Manthorp, 15 Apl. '71 „ V. Pereira, 3 1 Mar. '6 8 „ V. Rankin, 5 Aug.'65* „ Wright V. ... De Souza v. Anson, 260a. '87 „ v. Francis, 24 Mar. '88 I „ „ 3oDec.'82S.T..i23, 124 „ v. Griffin, 2 Mar. '72 122 „ v. Reach, 3 Apl. 'qi.. 67, 68 84,85, 104,108, 134, 135 „ v. Swain, 21 Nov. '84 ... 16, 115, 122 „ V. Wight, 23 Novr. 67 ...37,82,114,135 Devonish v. Small* ... 133 De Veuve, Ford v. !De Vries v. Fanset, 28 Sep. '69 50 De Waitson v. Cross, i Sep. '83* Dias v. D'Aguiar, 7 Mar. '90 86 Dick v. puggin 2 , „ V. Bunbury, 6 Apl. '67 99 Dinmahomed v. Halliday, , 9 Sep. '76 64 Dinez v. Swain, 15 Apl. '82 ... ... 70, 7i|i3i D'Oliveira v. Backer, 16 Nov. '61*... „ 14 Sept. '61 38,77 „ V. Bolton, 20 July '72 88 „ v. Burrowes, I Mar. '79'" 20,21,22 20 57 Page. D'Oliveira v. Darrell, 3 Aug. '67... 3^.46,79 „ 1.4.72, land or value „ v. Leacock, 7 Aug. '69* Doorastoola v. Brassington, 22 April '76 61 Dooraj v. Keenoo, 3 July '80 26,54,83,85 Doorgan, Hunter v. „ V. Miller, i Dec. '83 79 D'Omellas, v. Leacock, 7 May '65 20, 21, 22 „ V. Francis. 1 1 Nov. '84 ... 20, 124 „ Rocha V. „ V. Wills, 7 May '65 Dornford, Brown v. „ V. De Chains, 15 Aug. '80 „ Goolamally v.... „ Leakinv. „ Suckoworth ... „ Wong-a-Wingv. Dos Ramos v. Francis, 26 Mar. '86 44, 123 Dos Santos v. Cressall, 18 Nov.' 76 ... „ v. Layton, 2 Dec. '82 ... Dover v. Eraser, 26 June '74 „ V. McLean, 1 2 Dec. '90 „ Smith V. Douglas, Butler v. „ Albert v. „ Santos v. Dow V, Chalmers, 16 Dec. '82 ...37,39,45,81,108,129 Drayton, Gonsalves v, ... Dublin V, Gray, 10 Jan. '63 84,89,90 Do. 29 Nov. '62... 68 Duggin V. Crawford, 11 Feb. '6 1 ... 23 „ Dick V „ ,,v. Mendon9a, 17 July '63 ... 38 Duke V. Bury, 20 Feb. '75 86 Dumont, Brathwaite v. ... 33 84 TABLE OF CASES. xiii> Page. Page. Dunbar, Regina v. Fauset , Moonlight Scrutch- „ Scipio V. er v Dundas v. Binns, 30 May 4 » ^ '. Vaughan, 24 Sep. '90 '59* „ V. Cauza, 16 Mar. Fernandes v. Arnold, 27 '61 90 Jan. '72 ... 88 Duncan, Augusta v. .) Bolton V. Dunn, Carbery v. .) Francis, 24 Mar. „ Chapman v. '88 26, 120 „ Dawes v J* J) Glasgow V. V. Greenslade, 9 E. Nov. '79 19, 35 ,46 Ferreira v, Anaran, 23 Aug. Easton, Borman v. '58 108 Edwards v. Bacchus, 18 j> Burrowes v. May '72 ... 13* )J De Freitas v. ... „ V. Cambridge, 3 1 JJ V. Francis, 2 Jan. Aug. '72 ... 15. 17 '85* Edwin, Gray V. , >> V. Maxwell, 260a. Elliott, De Freitas v. '61* Ellipie, V. Burrowes, 24 ij V. Mclnroy, igjan. Dec. '69* '67 II .99 Eppilie V. „ 8 Aug. '68 10,29 ij V. Mendes, i Aug. Emamudhin v. Muller, 2 '83* Nov. '82, fafts reversing IJ Olton V decision » V. Waterman, 30 Evans v. Young-a-sam, 26 June '60* ... Aug. :65 ... 28,35, 43.128 ji „ 29 Oa. '64* Etadally V. Salmon, Aug. '72 104 if V. Wight, 4 Aug. Evelyn, Parker v '66-37,74,76,112, 130 „ Roheler v. Field, Mathoora v. Ewing Sugar Estate Co. v. tJ Routay v Seals, 3 June '87 53.99 J> V. Sohun, 16 Nov. '67* ^/ ••• ••• F. >> V. Wolsely, 16 Mar. '72 61 Fairman, v. Knoop, 4 Jan. Figueira, Greenslade v. ,., '58*... )y V. Solomon, 16 „ V. Read, 10 July '58 105 Sep. '87* ... Fan V. Moore, 15 Dec. '60* Fitzallan,,D'Andrade v.... Faria v. Innis, 14 Feb. jj De Freitas v. ... '91 ... ... 5. 78, loi, T34 Fitzgerald, D'Abreu v, ... Farinhay.Breen, 6Feb '76* jj V. D Aguiar, i Farley, Kelly v Mar. '79 (Remit to Farmer, Pontifex v. Magistrate) Farnum v. Reid, July '58 105 Fong- a- Ling v. Chandler, Fauset, Apple whaite v. ... 31 Dec. '81 10, 109, no „ V. Baker, 27 June '76 121 >t 15 Nov. '84* ... „ De Viveiros v. Fordi /. De Veuve, 13 July „ Gonsalves v. '86 31 „ Grovesnor v. •J V. Small, 12 June '87 99» no XIV. TABLE OF CASES. Pagf. Page. Forsyth v. Wight, J Mar. '70 6j37 French, Urquhart v. Fox, Gonsalves v. Fresson, Customs v. France, Ad. General v. ... „ Swan v.. Francis v. Bethune, 29 Oft. Frietas v. Bethune, 22 Oft. '64, followed by '64* Ping-.a-wing v. Fry, Verbeke v Pile, David v. Fulley, McTurk v. Hosannah 56 Furrey, Lewis v. ^) D'Abreu v. »9 D'Oliveira v. G. tJ De Souza v. rt De Farnissah v, ... Galbath v. Thompson, 4 D'Omellas v. ... Dos Ramos v. ... Nov. '76* Gangah, Intchsimg v. » Fernandes V. Gardner v. Austin, 30 Dec. ji Ferreira v. '68 4 yt Green v „ Darrell v. •) Gomasv „ Tbillamahv. ... M V. Haley, i8 Mar. '65* Garnett v. Bury, i June '67* J» Lee-a-ong v. „ V. Bean, 15 Nov. >» Marques v. '79 76.83 jj Martins v. „ V. Nicholson, 19 )) V. Mendes, i Apl. Sep. '84 82, 86, 92 . '83 21 „ Nurse v )J Sewsohoye v. „ Solomon v. V. Wight 38 „ Williams, 19 Sep. »» Young-a-sam v '84* Francisco v. Cuckow, lo „ Wright v. 00. '60* Garraway, Nurse v. Franck v. Da Costa, 31 Gay, Josiah v Nov ■ '59 4 Gemmel v. Benjamin, 4 Frank Hinds V. ... Aug. '67 80 It V, Mack, 28 July '6 2 89 Chastity v. Davson, 7 Sep. 1) Roheler V. '78 ... • 100 'Franklin, Adams v. Gibbons V. Austin, i Sep. >» Ferreira, i Aug. '83* '83 ■ „ v.Straker,24jnne Fraser v., Brebner, 24 May '74-25, 42, 53. "o, 146 '79 23 Gibson, White v ft Clouston V. Gilbert V. Barnes, 12 June >t Da Silvav. '91 16 66,68 j> V. Gonsalves, 2 Mar. '88* Gill, Seerkesoon V. Glasgow V. Brandon, 17 j» V. „ 21 June '82 94 Apl. '85—4,29, 31, 66 »j Kingston v. „ V. De Freitas, 30 tf Mendes v Apl. '8F..28, 67, 121, 132 JJ Thorne v ,j V. Fernandes, 13 JJ Welch V April '67* ... J) Ung-sam v. „ Hardeen, 14 May Freeman, Green v. '81 ... 64, 106, 107 TABLE OF CASES. XV. Page. Glasgow V. Kryenhoff, 17 April '80 ... 17, 121, 129 Gobin, Halliday v Gokul V. Bean, 20 Aug. '70 81 Golab V.Porter, i2.8.'76* Gomes, Arnold v.. . ,, v. Backer, 5 March •63 ... 28, 30, 58 „ V. Bruce, 7 Aug. '69 65 34,80 1, 121 25 48 131 74 V. Bethune, 10.3.68 \ „ (S.C.) 25.6.68 j V. Brunell, 15.12.60* V. Burrowes (s. juris.) 3 April '80 „ 3 April '80 ... „ (motion to pro- ceed) 22.2.73.. „ (weights) 5.2.76 1 „ („ testing J V. Clarke, 15.8.90 ... 11 V. Cuckow, 24.3.62.. V. D'Aguiar, 24. 1 1.79 i V. Francis, 31 May '54 ... 6,7,8,12^ 123, 125 Gonsalves v. V. Green, 20 Feb. '67 on old S. T. Ord. V. Harcourt (fiat), 24 May '75 „ (juris.) 17.1.74 „ (accomp.), 17 Jany. '74 ... >, (c. 1 ) I3-3-74* „ „ 24.5/73* V. Joseph, 29 June '6 9 King V. V. Olton, 27 Feb. '69 V. Phillips, 6.4.67*... V, Smith, 6 Dec. '73 V, Solomon, 13.9.79 V. Swain ' (gaming), 13 Dec. '83 ... ,. (S.C), 7.3.84 „ (Testing) 2 ■ Feb. '67 „ (Waiver), „ (Witness) ,. (Juris.) 1.9. I '83* ... J V. Young, 21. 12.61* 51 61,70 I. 3 80 6 32,84 52 52 126, 129 133 Page. Gomes v. Young, 1.5/59* Gomez v. Gonsalves, 30 Nov. 67* Gonga, Intchsing v. Gonsalves v. Anson, Z2 1 '^ ,, ,^ ■ Feb. '89 ... \ i^^W . Do. 12.5.89 J ^°'"3 T3,l 1 10.6.60* " ^ ^^^' I. 7.7-60* „ v. Birch, 2i.i.'65*... „ V. Bolton, 6 Aug. '70, appellant order'd by R.C. to appear and answer inter- rogatories. Did not appear ; case dismissed „ V. Breen, 6 Feb. '76 123 ., V. Burrowes, 22 Feb. '73 48 „ V. Chalmers, 18.3.83 129 „ V. Cressall, 11 Nov. 76* „ v. Cuckow, 19.9.68.. 41, 131 „ Cuckow V. ... „ V. Darrell, 25.4.70* ,> Day V „ Dawson v. ... .., „ V. De FreitaSj 6 Nov. '69 19 ,, V. Drayton, 12 Sep. '68* „ V. Eraser, 21 June '82 94 „ V. Fox, 22 May '91 13, 15 72, 104 „ Gomes v „ v. Green, 9 Ofit. '89 7, 122 „ V. Joseph, 24 Jun.e '69 42 „ V. Harcourt, 15 Oft. '85 33.36 „ V. King, 29 Aug. '74 ., V. Laurence, 21 Oft. '90* ... ... „ V. Layton, i7Apl. '85 iii „ V. ,, (testing rum) 16 Sep. '82-126, 131, 132 „ London v „ Oltpn V. „ V. Straker, 6 Nov. 69 3 „ V.Swain, 21 July '83 128 „ Wade V XVI. TABLE OF CASES. Gonsalves v. Young, i6 Oa., i6 Nov. '6i* ... Goocol V. Thompson, 4 Nov. '76 Goodhoy, Majhor v. Goolab v. Porter, 12 Aug. '76 Goolastankan v. Perreira, 18 Dec. '85 Goolamally v. Anderson, 8 July '82 Page. 62 tord, } 96 23.84 84, III 112 Goolamally v. Dornford, 2 oa & 30 oa, „ (evidence, opium) 22 May '85 46, 95 Gopaul, Davidson v. „ Dawson v. Gordon v. Binns, i9.'6.'67 56,90 „ D'Aguiar v. „ v. De Freitas, 26 May '60* „ v. Gomes, 27 Oa. '60* „ V. Gordon, 8 Oa. '58* „ V. Gouvia, ii.6.'59 65 „ v. Parkinson, 13 Nov. '58 ... 86 „ Pereira v. Goring v. Macier, 4 Oa. '58 (tax for troop horse) Goungerpersaud,Dajohnv. • Govia, David v „ Gordon v. „ King, 29.874—48,49.133 „ Simon v. ... „ Young, 8.8.60* ... Grabes. Burrowes v. Grant v. Josa, 24 Nov. '83..5, 27, 28 67,72 „ V. Hillis, 21. 2. 71*... „ Lang, 5 Dec. '74 ... 23 Greaves, Capellov. „ De Silva v. Gray v. Chin-lan-ching, 22 Dec. '60* „ Dublin V „ Josiah V. „ V. Khodaboccus 18 Jany. '73 ... 58,112 14 7 100 Page. Gray, Mattheison v. „ V. Rohory, 18.1.73... 63 „ V. Swain no Graves, De Silva v. Greaves v. BoUars (refer- ence) 27.ii.'69 „ Capello v. Greedharry, Beete v. Green v. Brazoa, 30.5.'86 24, 83 „ v. Bean ... ... 81' „ Corria v. ... „ Francis v.... „ V. Freeman, 9 Nov. '61* „ Gomes v „ Gonsalves v. „ Hillman, 26.5.73 ••• „ Jackman v, Portsmouth v. v. Smith, 6 Dec. '73 „ V. Tait, 29 Mar. '89 ., Trapv „ V. Watson, 22.7.'59 Greenslade, Boodhoo v.... „ Corria v. „ De Freitas v. „ De Gouvia v. „ Fernandes v. „ V. Figuiera, 30 May '59 .,.119,152 „ Hardeen v. ... „ Hicken v. ... „ Prince v, „ Ragabone v... „ Vieira v. Greig v. Miller, 29 Aug. '74* „ V. Ramdhansing, 27 Aug. '89 ... .9 Grey, Clarke v Dublin V „ V. Edwin, 20.7.'6i* „ V. Crosby, 9 May '63 60 Griffin, D'Abrio v. „ Da Silva v. „ De Souza v. „ V. Hoosenboccus, 2i Dec. '61* ... Griffith V. Adams, 25.6.'59 V. Griffith, 8.3.'84 „ Winter v ■ TABLE OF CASES. xvii. Page. Grose, Rich v Grovesnor v. Fauset, i6 Oa. '69 55 GuUifer v. Vaughan, 2y Sep. '58 117 Gumbleton v, Jackson, 4 Feb. '71 130 Gunger, Bagot v Gungadeen, Manson v. ... Gunness, McConnachie v. H. Haley, Amos v „ V. Baird, S.S.C. ... 103 „ V. Clark, 5 Nov. '60 73, 145 „ Francis v.... Halliday v. Ameerboccus, 27 Nov. '69 „ V. Chotee, do. ... „ Dinmahomed v. „ V, Gobin, 27.11. '69 „ V. Ramcalleah, 4 oa. '73 - 73 Haman, Newport v. Harcourt, De Hart v. „ Gomes v. „ Gonsalves v. ... Joev „ Li-a-she v. „ Martin v. „ Ramcharan v.., „ Roberts v. „ V. Sillia, i5.5.'8o 113 „ Silvano v. Hardeen, Glasgow v. Harel V. Gouvia, 20.5.'82.. 11 „ V. Straker, 9.io.'69 „ V. Windt, 10.10.90.. 80 Harlequin, Wood v. Harman, Newport v. Harrigan, D'Andrade v.... „ V. De Rouse, 1 9 July '90 ... 122 Harris v.Bracey, 26 July'90 19 „ D'Aguiar v. ... „ V. King, 1 1 Dec. '85 67, 72, 129 Hasting, Winter v. Hawker, D'Abrio v. Page. Haynes, Bascom v. Haywood v. Young, 23 Feb. '67 ... 34, 75 Hazzard, Bascom v. Heerah, Rughonauth v. ... Henderson v. Jardine, 29 Aug. '84 122 Henriques v. Anson, I4 June '89 .. ... 99, 120 Henry v. Solomon, 24.2.'83 42 Herbert v. Abraham, 7 May '86 132 Heyliger, McPhoy v. Hicken V. Greenslade ... 112 Hill, Da Silva v „ V. Klien, 11 Sep. '69 112 „ Pequeno v „ Small V Hillis, Grant v V. Young, 24.3.'6i* „ V. Wells, 16.7.60*... Hillman, Green v. Hinds, Cumberbatch v.... „ Cumberland v. ... „ v. Frank, 2 Dec. '82 72 ,, V. Lovell, 4.6.'8i...ni, 113 Hintyen v. Scott, 29.4.61.. 4, 152 Hitzlerv.CIouston, i2.8.'59 82 Ho-a-Hing v. Layton, 9 July '89 131 Hoare v. Duggin, 13 Apl. '66 ... 54,65,66 v. King, 30 Sep. '71 117,121 Hodge v. McBurnie, 24 April '89 ... 73 „ Nelson v. Hodgkinson v. B. Guiana Mining Co., 18 May '88 53 Hodgson v. Cheesewright, z8 June '90 10 Hohenkerk v. Royen, 5 July '89 39. no Hollingsworth, Binns v.... Holm V. Rhodius, 6 Oa. '83 92> 129. U+ Honil or Harel v. Straker, 9 oa. '69 — See Harel... Hookenchun v. Alexander, 9july'9o 105,134,142,153 Hoomanan v. Clarke, 5 Aug. '76 61 XVUl. TABLE OF CASES. Page. 45182 47 Hope V. Van Cooten, 6 J»ine '63* Hopkins V.Tucker, 3.1 1. '77 Hopkinson, Sample v. ... „ Mendon9a v. Horrell, McLean v, „ V. Straker, 9.io.'69 Horton v. Abraham, 23.9... „ V. Chester, 18 Aug. '60 ... 26, 79, 80 ,, Horton v.. ,, Jack V „ Stewart v... ,, V. Straker, 9.1.75... „ Young V Hossannah. David v, Howard. Rodrigues v. ... Howell v. Santos, i6.3.'67 Hubbard,- Constantine v... „ Luis v. Humphrey, Bahador v. .. ,, Soobrun v. ... Hunter v. Doorgau, 24 Oft. '74 59. 128 „ V. Ramsawmy, 24 Oa. '74* „ Soomaria V. „ Soobtoo v. Hutsonv. RobsonorRoson, 10 Oft '71. ... 6, 31, II, [32 L Im. Agent Genl. v. Shields, 16 Aug.'76 114 » >, „ — see Crosby Innis, Faria v „ Thornhill v, Isaacs V. Chapman, 15 Sep. '83 ... 6,29,87,129 Iskenius, Bland v. Itchsing V. Ganga, 13 July '87 77 ,, V. Menzies, 27 July '67 J. lack V. Horton, 15 Mar.'73 79, 80 „ V.Jack, 3o Dec. '68 83 , V.John, 5 Mar. '86... 10,78 Pagk, Jack, Johnson v Jackman, David v. „ Greene, 15 Dec. '60* Jacko V. Sarabjeth, 5 May '89 27,44 Jackson, Gumbleton v. ... Jacob V. Couchman, 2 Feb. '91 133 ,, V Richards 26.9 '9o James v. Adams. 24.II .'83 72 „ V. Cambridge, 14 May '64 „ De Santos v. ,; V. Lilmonie, 3I May '89 7, 43, 44, 60, 109 (this case is distinguished from Craigen v. Morgan as regards the difference of evidence required to prove locus of " immigrant" and " indentured immigrant"). James v. Telford, 16 9.64 116 Janoosing, Khodoboccus v Jardine V. Bolton, 5. 11.70 „ V. Burrowes, 10 July '69 ... 3 „ V. Cruickshank, 6 Oft. '77 33. 134, 155 „ V. Joaquim, 28 June '61 ,, Henderson v. ... „ Torrop v. „ V. Watson, 20 July '72* Jeffrey v. Burrowes, 28 Aug. '91 31,55,132 ,, Walcott v. „ Winter v. Jenauth v. Braud, 25.3.'87 69 Jessida, Day v, ... Jessy V. Robb, 12 Sep. , '68 7,33,95,78 Jesus V .Brumell. i8.6.'55* „ V. Darrell, 7 May '70 133 Joaquim, Burrowes v. „ Jardine v. Jodhan v. Mearns, 19 Dec. , '90 „ • 49,78,79 Joe v. Harcourt, 3 Dec. 79 133 John, Jack v TA lBLE of CASES. xix Page. Page. John V. Sargent, 9.3.'67* King V. Baptiste, 13 May Johnson V. Dawson, 2.4.'89 '65 „ V.Jack, 16.4.64... Ill it v. Belgrave, 23 Nov. ,, V. Reid, 26.7.62*. '89 [19, 120 „ V. Smith, 10.7.58.. 89 )> V. Brittlebank, 27 Jones V. Bagot, 7 Aug. '85 83 Nov. '91 37.38 „ V. Rankin, 15.2.73* ii V. Cush, 24 Aug. '78 23 „ Stewart v »> Da Costa v. „ Sumner v J> Dalgliesh v. „ V. Valtz, 13 July '80 105 J> v. De Jesus, 3 1 Aug. „ Young V '80 ... 44 . 50. 97 Josa, Grant v 7J v. Gomes (S. trad'g), Joseph, Allick v.... 25 Aug. '77... 122 „ Cairnes v. y) V. „ (penalty), 7 „ Cambridge v. ... Oa. '82 98, 117 „ Carruthers v. II V. „ (evidence), 15 „ Comacho v. June '90.. 46, 47 ,82,83 „ Lopes v J? V. „ (Sun. Trad'g) „ Martin v jj V. „ (affidavit), 28 V. Ruck, 5 Mar.) 9 '86 ... j 29.32 64,85 Jf July '77 V. „ (Service) ... 114 129 JJ Gouvia V. ... _ osiah V. Gray, 23 June '66 54 JJ Harrison v. ' bycurn, Bremner v. >) Hoare v [ uan V. Burrowes, 6.i2.'73* 79 Kallichurn v. [ ugranee v. Rose, 16.9.76. 99, 108 jj Lo-a-ting v. uly, Vyfhiiis V Lopes v. ... V. Nassebun, 5 Aug. K. JJ '82 Prince v 24 Kamall, Willams V. )J V. Ross, 7 oa, '87... 102 Kansarat, Tucker v. )J Turnkey v Keenoo, Dooraj v. J> Vasconcellas v. ... Kelly, Beete v JJ Van Brook V. „ Chittoo v Kingston v. Fraser, 7 0£t. „ V. Farley 78 '88 2.93 Kennedy v. Callydin, 27 )j V. Kingston, 28 Feb. '72 6 Jan. '71 114 Khodoboccus,. Gray V. ... Klien Anson v. ... V. Janoosing, J, Hill V 5 Apl. '79 104 Knoop, Farrman v. Khoondansing, Carruthers Kollicharrah v. King, (jun) V. 30.11.80.... Kiernan v. Mahomed Hoo- ,. (post) ■ 43,69 san, II Jan. '62* (immigrant) ■ King, Admin. Genl. v. ... i4-5-'8i iU4 „ v. Anneran, 21 Mar. Korimboccus v, Mavor, 30 '82 Sep • '76 5. 115 „ Antonio v „ V. Ashby, 30 Aug. '58&6Sep.'58 ■ 18 Kryenhoff v. Glasgow, 9") J'^ljl Nov.'79&i7Apl.'8ojj73.i^i^3 XX, TABLE OF CASES. Pagf. Lamaison, Napoleon v. ... Landry, Cuvilje v. Lang, D'Andrade v. „ Grans v. ... „ Nottv „ Surnpjeet Langevine, Sirdar v. Laroche, Moorandun v. ... Larose, Cruickshank V. ... Lashly V. Choung, 26.5.'90 Lay ton, Ah-chee v. „ Chowdrie v. „ Da Silva v. „ Dos Santos v. ... „ Gonsalves v. „ V. Hinsagay, 22 Aug. '84* ... „ Ho-a-hing v. „ V. Johnson, i Sep. '85* „ Marachea v. „ Mendes v. „ Patsa V „ V. Roheim, 17 July '91 „ Santos V .. Laurence, Gonsalves v. ... Lawson v. Westmaas, 18 Jan. '72* Leacock, Colvin V. „ De Freitas v ... „ D'Oliveira V. ... „ D'Omellasv. ... Lea-on-a-f at v. Anson, 1 1 July '90* Lee-a-ong v. Francis, J19 Dec. '90 Leggatt V. Mattabudal, 27 Sep. '89 ... 43. Lewis V. Cross, 25 Aug. '83 „ V. Furry, 16 Sep. '65 „ V.Romeo, 25.2.65... Li-a-kin v. Dornford, 16 Feb. '84 Lias V. Harcourt, 7 Oa.'7i* Light V. Chapman, 17.5.58 „ Goring, 9 Aprir59... Lilmonie, James v, Liverpool V. Daly, i.ii.'58 II 96 122 59,60 12 45 84 74 Page. Lloyd, Naughten v. Lo-a-ting-to v. King, 14 Dec. '72 21 „ i8Jau. '73* Logic V. Tramways Coy., 27 Sep. '89 27 London v. Baird, 6 Feb.'6o 16, 72 „ v. David, 6 „ '60 16,72 „ V. Gonsalves, 14 Jan. '65 ... 86 „ Stewart v. Long, Cunningham v, ... „ Ouckama v. Lopes V. Backer... „ v.King,27.ii.'85}4=';Jj „ 16,5.86* ... Lord V. Anson, 29 May '91 84 Lounck V. Underwood, 4 March '65 Lovell, Hinds v „ Pistano, 5 June'91 112 Low-a-yon, Solomon v. ... Lowing or Toyah v. Mo- rancie, ii.5.'85 (gaming) — See Toyah Luckie v. Anson, 16 Nov. '89 ... 10,29,113 „ v. D'Amil, I Nov. '89 ... 89,91,113 Luckputv.Najhoe,7.io.'82 5, 100 Luis V. Hubbard, 8.1. '70* Lutchnee v. Cruickshank, 2 Nov. '78 12 Lynch, Williams v. M. Macedo v. Anthony, 18 Mar. '65 ...loi, 103 „ Romeo, 5. 11.65.. Machedo, Teixeira v. ... Mack, Frank v Maclean, Spencer v. Madenov. Daniel, 9.io.'69 49 Mahomed Hossein, Kier- nan v. ... Mann, Da Silva v. „ Koronboccus v. ... „ v. McTurk, 8.7.'76 33, 50 Manschot, Nassadeah v.... TABLE OF CASES. Page. Manson v. Gungadeen, 23 Sep. '71 27 Manthorp, Covia v. „ De Silva v. ... Marachea v, Layton, 9 July '89 23 Marks, Reid v Marques v. Francis, 15 June '88 ... 21,70,82 Marrs V. Shaw, 1 2 Aug. '76 91 Marshal, Admin. Genl. v. Martin V. Birch, 21 Jan.'65 42,64 „ V. Burrowes (Inf. Def.), 5.8.'82 63 „ „ (convict) 2.2.'8i 54 „ (carriage) „ 23 „ (penalty) „ 98 „ V. Francis, 2 1.85* >. „ 24.3.88. ..9, 10, 46 „ V. Harcourt,j2 4 May '71* „ V.Joseph, 30.1 2.'69 57,120 „ V. Morgan ...117, 118 Massiah v. Peertunsing, i Feb. '79 ••• 114 „ Pultaroov. Mason v. Parnell, 29.11. '73 125 Mattabudal, Leggatt v. ... Matheison v. Gray, 12 Sep. '68...32, 54, 65,68, 70, 131 „ V. Straker, 20 Jan.'69 26,33 Matthias, Swain v. Mathoora v. Field, 18.3. '76 61 Maule, Young v.... Mavor, Korrimboccus v... „ Neemur v. May v. Mitchell, 27.iq.'87* Mayers, Adams v. „ V. Anderson, 14 May '81 24, 41, 127 „ v. Mohungoo, 9 July '69 ... 31 „ V. Newton, 4.7.'68 „ V. Poultee, 3 1 July '69 „ V. Paneallia, 13 Sep. '73 ... „ V. Ruggonauth, 13 Sep. '73 ... 59 Mayghon v. Gooday, 12 May '66* XXI. Page. 58 40,41 52 Mayor & Town Council, Brathwaite v. .:. Maxwell, Young v. McArthey, Waterman v... McAllister, De Freitas v. McBurnie, Hodge v. McConnachie v. Gunness, 13 Aug. '71 McDonnell, De Mattos v. McFarlane, Baker v. McGowan v. Davis, 5 Jnne '85 18,31,39, 125 Mclnroy, Ferreira v. McKenzie, Castillo v. ... McKenna v. Binns, 20 May '82 McKinnon v. Stoby, 2 2 Feb , '89 McLean, Bheekharry v. ... „ Budul V. „ Dover v. „ Horrell v. 23.5, '63, reducing fine to $24, on ground that Ord. 20 of '62 only allows fine and costs not to exceed $24, while Magis- trate adjudged $24 fine and costs „ V. Rebeira, i9.6.'67 McNichol, Christopher v. McPherson v. Thompson, II Dec. '58 McPhoy V. Heyllger, 10 May 73* McTurk, Bracey v. „ v.Fulley, 7. 5. '64 „ Mann v. McWatt V. Henry, 1 1 Dec. '58* ... Mearns, Jodhan v. Meertens, Thornhill v. ... Mendes v. Burrowes, 21 May 'yj ... „ v. Laytan, sAug. '82 V. „ (weight, bread), 27 Jan. '83 „ V. Taylor (read Lay- ton) 66 15 132 23>95 131 XXll. Mendinho v. Chalmers, 26 Mendon9a, Clair v. „ Duggin V. ... „ V. Hopkinson, 15 May '80 86, 90 Menzies v. Cressall, 18 Dec. '76* Menzies, Itchsing v. „ Seewootulah v... Mercier, Young v. Meyers. — See Mayers ... Michelson, Ben v. Miday, Dinmahomed v.... Mikia v. de Laulio, 13 Apl. '71* Miller, Angoo v „ V. Austin, i5.5.'84* „ Greig v. „ V Wong-a-sam, 26 Aug. '65* Young V „ Young-a-sam v. ... Milne, Cassie v Mingo V. Cuckow, 1 1.9.69 3, 47 Mitchell, May v „ Turton v. Mohun V. Turner, i6.6.'77 51, 134 Mohungoo, Mayers v. ... Molineaux v. Schultz, 24 May '73 Monick v. Solomon, 13 Jan. '83 Monkhouse v. Narrainsing, 25 Marck '82 Montrose v. Burrowes, 9 Sep. '76* ... „ V. Theobald, 26 March '90... Moonah v. Agard, 7.s'l°* V. „ i6 0a.l 57,64, 87 '69 I Moonie v. Dornford, 2 Dec. '82 11,98 Moonlight Scrutcher v. Fauset, 16 Oft. '69 ... 55 Moorandum v. La Roche, 22 April '76 61, 108 Moore, Arthur v „ Fan V. ... „ Seear v Mootrie v. Seear, i8.ii.'76 TABLE OF CASES. Page, 75 21,70 58 II, 12 64,87 90,92 Page. Morancie, Toyah v. Morgan V. Thome, i5.6.'72 Morris, Ramas Khan v. ... Morrison v. Ramdahin, 22 Moses, Austin v Muddle, Thome v. MuUer, Emamudhin v. ... „ Sewbode v. Mulligan, Badderan v. ... „ Blank v. „ V. Roberts, i April '65 „ Wellington v.... Mundlall, Dawson v. Mungar, Craigen v. Munro, Young v. Murdoch v. Anson, 10 1 93, 94 Jan. '90 I 117, 118 „ -V. Santos, 10 Jan. '90 ...117, 118 Mussillah v. Massiah, 29 Nov. '73 133 Musterd, Watson v. N. Najhoe, Luckput v. Napoleon v. Lamaison, 18 August '60 Narrainsing, Monkhouse v. Nascimento v. Anson, 2 Feb. '84. . 30, 117 Nassebeah v. Manschot, 29 Nov. '73 ... 133 „ Cuckow V. ... Nassebun, King v. Naughten v. Lloyd, 16 June '66 ... 23, 56,63 Nedv. DeGuara, 29.io.'84 78 „ V. Syce, 19 Sep. '68... 10, 31 Neemur v. Mavor, 9.9.'76 108 Nelson v. Hodge, 9 Jan. '57 Neptune v. Beaton, 1 1 . 5 .'74 15 Newport v. Haman, 27 Jan. '72 13,45 Newton, Mayers v. Nicholson, Gamett v. ... „ V. Robson, 21 Nov. '57... Ninia, Boodhoomina v. ... Nobrega, Sam v. — TABLE OF CASES. Page. Nojhan, Ramjohn v. Norton, Bascom v. Nott V. Lang, 8 Jan. '76... Novell, Andrew v. Newell, Ogle v Nunes V. Barnes, 5.12.90* „ Burrowes, v. „ V. „ 5.12.90* Nurse v. Garraway „ V. Garnett,3i.8,'6i* Nussebeah v.' Walcott, 29 Oa. '73* O. Oftober, Davson v. Ogle V. David, 17 May '62* „ V. Nowell, 15 Dec. '60 Olton V. Ferreira, 15. 12. '60 „ Gomes v. ... „ v. Teixeira, i4.7.'66* Ord (Mannassah Compy.), Rose v Ouckama V. Long, 23.5.'64 Oxley, Porter V. ... Ozanne, Sookhoo v. P. 23 32 24 Parker v. Evelyn, 7.4.'74 Parkinson, Gordon v. ... Parris v. Arthur, 1 8. 1 1 .'7 1* „ v. Cheeseman, 25 Nov. '71* Patoir v. Layton, 9.7.'89... 24, 127 Patrick v. Blasky, 18.9.69* Pearce v. Assam* Peertusing, Massiah v. ... Pemberton v. James, 15 June '67 Pequeno V. Binns, 22 | ^°' ^3 Mar. '83 C \\\' \\\ ^ ) i23> 124 „ 5 Apl. '90* „ V. Darrell, 28 Aug. '68 ... 2 „ V. Hill, 28 Nov. '69 20,80 Rogers V. „ V. Weddall, 27 May '65 ... 40 xxm. Page. Pequeno, Wright v. „ V. Younge, 20 Nov. '80 ...149, 151 Percival v. Tebbutts (bail- ing appel'nt) 24 Nov. '83* „ V. Tebbutts, 2 Feb. '84 41.85 Pereira v. Bethune, 30 Dec. '68 49 „ Bolton V „ V.Davis, 16. io.'85.. HI, 127 „ De Silva v. „ V. Gordon, 1 5 Dec. '60* Rodrigues v. ... 16 „ V. Sweetnam, 13 Aug. '66* ... „ V. Turton, 8.8,57 „ Warren v. „ V.Williams. 2 7 Aug. '70* Perot, Cuckowv Persaud v. Christie, 10 March '']'] no Pertaub, Walcott v. Peter, Bascom v Peters, Burrowes v, Phillip, Gomes V „ Rodney v. Pickering, Capel v. Pile, Pin-a-young V. Pilgrim, Thornhill v. Pimento, Swain v. Pin-a-young v. Pile, 24 Feb. '78 ... 56, 76, 78 Pistano, Lovell v Pompey, 29 Aug. '66 ... 15,34,46 Swam V... \ 34,35 V. „ 6Mar.'86 J 56, 87 „ V. Young, i3.5.'65 Pitta, De Freitas v. Politlall, Calla V Pompey, Pistano v. Pontifexv. Farmer, 8. 5. '91* „ V. Swain, 2 1. 1 1. '84 41 Pooler, Chapman V. Poonachie, Adams v. Popwell v. Barnes, 17 May, '89 .., 9,43,99,120 XXIV. TABLE OF CASES Page, Porter v. Burrowes, 26 June '89 2,46,99,120 „ Crosby v „ Goolaub V. „ V. Oxley, 20 May '65 ... ... „ V. Suramai, i6.9.'64 116 „ V. Telleyah, 1 7 Aug. '6i« Portsmouth v. Green, 5 March '70 54 Potts V. Cambridge Poudarsing v. Coyle, 20 March '91 114,130 Poultee. Mayers v. Powers V. Ruck, i8.4.'85... 40,72 Prime, Williams v. Prince v. Greenslade, 12 Dec. '72 V.King, 13 July '80 ... 55,92,121 „ V. Rickf ord, 1 3 July '80 ... 42,55.85 „ Tulman v. Pultaroo, V. Massiah, 22 Aug. '84* PuUitlall, Coelho v. Punawing v. Pile, 2 1 Dec. '78 56,76,78 Puncanshun v. Smith, i June '73* Q. Quashie v. Cuckow, 31 Dec. '70 116 Quinta v, Swain, 2 Dec. '82 ... ... 46, 50, 98 R. Raddiah, Carruthers v. ... Ragabone v. Andrew, 22 Aug. '8^*... v. Rodiah, 1.7. '73—. ••• 124 „ v. Greenslade, 2i-3-'7i--59> III, 130 Ragbia, Brassington v. ... Rajutteah v. Anson, 8 Feb. '90 - • ssj Page. Ralph V. Mcpherson, 13 March '58 Ramalho v. Cressall, 2 Dec. '76 123, 125 Ramas Ehan v. Morris, 28 March '90 ... ... 51 Ramcalleah, Halliday v.... Ramcharran, Crosby v. ... „ v. Harcourt, 24jan.'74 133 Ramdahan, Morrison v... Ramdaye v. Bascom, 12 Aug. '76* Ramdhansing, Greig vt ... Ramessur v. Russell, 8 July '82 ... :.. ... 5 Ramjohn v. Nojhan, 3 March 66* ' Ramnarain, Boodha v. ... Rampersaud, Soobharry v. Ramsorun v. Sicknurse N. Caledonia, 19 Dec. '84 29 Ramsawmy, Hunter v. ... Rankin, Jones v Read, Fairmanv „ Johnson v „ V.Marks, i6.3.'6i* Regina v. Allany, 20.9.'56 . 4 „ v. Dunbar, „ ... 69, 132 Reid V. Gowan, 31.12.59... Reiz V. Cuckow, 16 Jan. '69 Relva, Bascom v. 43 72 Reynolds v. Barnett, 12.4.66 1 „ v. Bourne, „ j Rhendany v. Field, i Aug. '83* ... Rhodius, Holm v. Rhogonauth V. Heira, 13 Aug. '86 Rhoyonauth v. Clark, 5 Aug. '76 ... - ... Robin, Semple V Robinson, Abdool Bohinv. „ Winter v. .., Robson, Nicholson v. ... Rocha V. Binns, 21 Dec. '88 ... 9,22, 129^137 „ V. D'Ornellas, 25 Jan. '89 ... 99- 120 Rodney v. Phillips, 2 Jan. 9' ••• 4, M Rodney v. Rodney, o Nov. '67* „ » II Feb. '<58 36, 72i75 „ V. Sampson, 29 Sep< '63 ... 15, 22, 30, 3^ 34, S5 56,^6,99 Rodricks V. Simmons, 14 Nov. '82 ... ... 78 Rice V. Eleune, 23.6.'59* Riqh V. Grose, 20 Feb. '91 85 „ V.Melville 109 Richards, Jacobs v. Rickford, Prince v. {Udley, Panielv..,. Roach, Pe feouza v. Robb, Jessy y, ... Robello V, Birch, 2i.i.'65 95 Robeira, McLean v. Robots y. Harcourt, 4 0£l. '73* „ WilUams v. Robertson v, Fraser, 5 TABLE OF CASES. Page. Do. Fraser, 5 ] Sep. '84 I' 12 ,. .. J Rpdrigoes v. Backer, 16 Nov. '161 ... Tj „ v. Burrowes, 20 May '87 „ V. Darrell, 2« Oft. '6j» „ V, „ 7,8.'69 35.39. 133 „ Darrell v „ V. Fraser, 22^6,'63* „ V. ijoward, 22 Mar. '62* , „ V. .Hereira, z'j.^.'ji.. 16, in „ V. Young, 2 1. 1 2. '6 1* Rogers v.Pequeno, 19 June „'65 52.73.74,75 Roheler v. Bheekhun, 30 March '59 „. 83 „ v. Evelyn, 28 Feb. '74 115 „ V. Frank, 12 May '91 ... ... 84 Roheim, Layton v. Rohen, Hphpnkerk v. ... Rohonauth, Mayers y. ... Rohory, Gray v Bcfton, Hutson y. ... Page. Romao or Ramalho v. Cressiill. 18 Nov. '76... 123, 125 Romeo, Campbell v. „ Lewis v..i. „ Macedo v. Rootay v. Field, i2.8.'76..,ioo, 108 Rosa V. Joseph, L C. 1891 129 Rose V. Ord^ 8 June '88... „ Jugranee v. „ Tucker v. ,.. Rpsin, Grant y Roson, Hutson v. Ross V. King, 26 Sep. '81* „ Kingv. Roybia, Brassington v. ... Royen v. Hohenkerk Ruck, Joseph v „ Powers V „ Van Cooten v. Rughonauth v. Clark, 5 Aug. '76 42, 61, 62 „ V, Heerah ... 120 „ Mayers v. Rughoon, Boodha v. Russell, Ramessur v. 34 12 14 16 Salmon v. Blake, 19,11. '65 „ Etadally v. Sam V, Nobrega, 2 5.5.'78 „ V. Simon, 25 May '78 Samplev.Butts,23.io.'8o.j7, 22, 79 „ V. Hopkinson, 30 April '64 „. „ V. Horton, 16 Nov. '71* - ... „ V. Robin, 5.7.'62*.. „ V. Williams, (ass'It) 9 Sep. '65... „ V. „ (Poor Law) 26 Sep. '84 102 „ V, „ (informal) 6 March '64... „ V. Young, 29 6.'6i 90 Sampson, Davis V, „ Rodney v. Saniuel v. Bell, 6 June '57 „ V. Bobb, i?.9.'59...i07, 115 Sandford v. Bobb, i4.4.'6o* Santos v.. Anson, 20.10.88.. 47, 48 Sxvr. TABLE OF CASES. Page. Page. Santos v.Dai)iel, 29 Aiig. ' ■ '68' ... 3,18,97,124 „ v.- Douglas, 4.8.'66 62 „ Howell V;.. ,, Layton v.- ,° ' Murdoch v. Sarabjeth, Jaekov. Saunders V. Douglas, 4 Aug. '66 Scantlebiiry v. -Breen, 30 Sep. '76 112 Schultz, Molyneaux v. ... Scipio V. Dunbar, 20.6. '74 14 Scott, AppoUos V. ,, Hintyen v... ... 4 Seal, Ewing Estate Coy... Seconde, Bugle v. Seear, Mootree v. Seejoree v. Thompson, 4 Nov. '76 • ... 8, 108', 129 Seeley, Belgrave v. Seer v. Moore, 27 July '69 65 Seerkesoon v. Gill, 29 0£t. '68 • ... . ... 104 Seewootoolah v. Menzies, 27 July 67' 43 Sample — See Simple Serepaul v. Cruickshank, : 15 April '82 10, 50 Serjeant, John v... Serrao v. Anderson, 15 May "80 115 Seth V. Anderson, 2i.5.'8i '95 Sewbode V, MuUer, 3.6.'76 31,112 Sewsohoye v, Francis, 13 Jan. '88 .. ... ... 45 Seyler v.B.G. Mining Co., 21 Jan. 91 53 Shaw V. Mars Shampaud v. Budely, 5 June 89*' Shepherd v. Meepaul, i Sep. '83 Shervington v. Abrahams, 8 May '91 52 ,, Stanislaus v.- Sherwood v, Williams, 12 May '66* Sheik Esanb v. Abdool, 23 Jan. '85 Shields, Crosby v. Shingalie v. Buck, i8.9.'75 Short V. Murdoch, 8.10.59* " Skeete, D'Aguia;rv. Sicknuf se New Caledonia, Ramsorunv. ... Siclra, Harcourt v. Siegart, De Freitas v. Silvano V, Barnes, 27.6/90 88,97 „ V. Harcourt, 22 Feb. '73 „ V. Wade, 4 Q-'Oi 1 ^'^^ " ' • ^ ^ j III, 112 Simmons, Roderick v. ,„ Simon, v. Birch, 4,8.'66* „ V. Gouvia, 8.3.'84 72, 129 „ Sam V. ... Simpsonv. DeNieunkerk, , 28 Mar '59 ... 51 „ Williams v. Sirdar v.Langevine,4.6.'8i.7, 29, 64 Small, Ford v „ V. Hill, 10 May '73 133 „ V. Sweetham, I90t1:. '67*. „ V. Wright, i9.8.'87 Smart v, Austin, 28 April 73 ...'83:..... ... „ Devonish v. .... „ V. Mathieson, 8 Sep. '81* ...■ Smith V. Barclay, 12 Apl. '89 ... 23,- 24, 127 „ V. Deenaloolah, 16 April '64 „ V. Dover, I4.i2.'e;7 105 „ Gomes v.... ' „ Johnson V „ Puncanshun v. ... „ V. Williams, 24 May '73*' Snelling, Bland v. Sobrun v^ Humphry, 7 July '58 Solimon v. CaineSj 21 Dec. „ V. Garnett,'-',, Solomon, Bushell v. „ Ferguson v. „ Figueirav. „ ■ ■ Gomes v.- ,, Henry v. 19 13 60 Solomon v. Low-a-yan, lo Oa. '84 ... 119 „ •Monick v. ... Soobharr}' V. Rampersaud; II Jan. '73* Soobrian V. Humphreys, 7' Feb. '58* Soobtoo V Hunter, exten- sion of term of indenture, 14 Nov. '74 ' Sookhoo V. Ozanne, 10 March ''j'j ... ... 59 Soomariav. Hunter. 2. 4.'76 61, 108 Sophia (pin.) v. Thome, 24 Dec. '81— 79, 83, 85, 93, 95 Soyah — See Toyah Spence v. Maclaine, 12 Dec. '90 ... „ v. Sutcha, 27 Sep. '79 ... 9, 60 Sproston, Abendanon v.... „ V. Baker, 9 & 16 June '60* ... „ V. Cross, 2 1 May '86 94 Stanislaus v. Shervington, 5 June '91 133 Steele, Corria v. ... Stephen, Bunbury v. Stewart, v. Horton, 15. 7. '60 53, 100 „ v.- Jones, 2i.i2.'74 ,, V. London, 1 9 Sep. 64 ... ... 116 Stoby, McKinnon v. Stover, Bascom v... Straghan V. Chapman, 28 July '77 and 11 Aug. '77 ...114,126 ■ v. Coxall, 26 March '70 ... 112 „ V. Dance, 5 Nov. ■ ■ '64 ...29,67,70,71,72 Straker, Bascom v. „ D'Abrio V. „ De Gambra v. ... ,, Gibbons v. „ Gonsalves v. ... ,, 'Horton v. .;. „ Honil v.... „ Mathieson v. „ v; Vieira; 6.5.'7i.. =' 119. TABLE OF CASES: Page xxvii.-: Page. Straker v. Yedhan, 4 Feb. ...,....,, '71* .„■ '*'' .'T'-'*'-'-,'^ Stuart, Anson v. ... . ..; . .' 'V „ Tyrell v. ... Suckoworth v. Dornfordi ,, 15 May '91 Sumner v. Demerafa River Co., 2 oa. '75 III „ v.. Jones, 2i.ii.'74 . 91 Suramai, Porter V. Surabjeth, Jacko V. Surupjeet V. Lang, I4.2.'74 .': ■ 40' Sutcha, Spence v. „. . ' :'[' Syce, Ned v ... ... ' • > Swain v.Brathwaite, i2.3..'88. 8 1' „ v.DaSilva, g.io.'Ss 37 „ De Faria v... ,, V. De Faria, 15 Aug. '84 ... 16, 122, 124 „ V. DeSouza, 21 Nov. '84 ... 17,115,133 „ Dinez v. „ V. Fresson, i8.8.'88 95 „ V. Fong-a-pan, 15 Nov '84 ... 35 „ Gomes v. . „ Gonsalves v. — „ V. Lopes, 1 9. II. '86 & 14. 1. '87... 23,39,77,94 „ V. Matthias, 27.1. '83 „ V. Pimento, i7.2.'83 ,, „ V. Pistano,S.C.,2i.8, '87 •••34i35. 515186, 112 „ Pistano v. ... „ Pontifex v.... ... >' „ Quinta v. ... ... „ Sam V ,, Teixeira v.... Swan, Barclay v Sweetnam, Perelra v. ... Small v.. Tacour, Thorhhill v. Tait, Green v Tan-li-Chin v. Burrowes, 12 oa, '72 5°»5i Tappih, Baker v.. Taylor v. Cameron, i4.4.'83 .77 . ,:, ■ Mendes v... XX«11I. TABLE OF CASES. Page. Page, Tebbuts, Petcival v. Wills V, Teixeira v. Anson, 19 Dec. '90 ,. Castilio V. I>ayv. „ V. Mftcbado, 31 Aug. '61* ... „ Olton V i „ V. Swain, iS.S.'Sj Telford, James v. Theobald, Montrose v. ... Thillana v. Gardner, 29 July '71 Thomas, v. Bland, 18/60 Thompson, Gatbath v. ... „ Goocool V. ... „ McPherson v. . „ Seejore v. ... Thome v, Fraser. i6.8.'73 „ Morgan v. „ V. Muddle, i6.7.'73 „ Sophia (pin.) v. Thornhill v. Innis, 2 3.'7i* „ V. Meertens, 24 Dec. '69* -.,. „ V. Pilgrim, 6 Jan. '72, bound by value in Reg. Office for '71 „ Tacour v. Tilleyah, Porter v. Todd *.' Chester, 2.9.'8i I '°'' J Tomside, Arnold v. ... Toney v. Daly, 2 Oa. '69* Toyah v. Morancie, 11 Apl. '85..28, 51, 52, 143, 144, 149 Torropv. Jardine,23.i2.'85 4O1 146 87 87 19.75 102 29 Trap V. Greeqr 3 Apl. '57 Tramways Co./v.LOgic v... Tucker, Hopkinson v. „. „ V. Kansut, i2.9.'84 „ V. Rose, 28.3.'59 Tulman v. Prince, 7.7.'? i Turner, Da Santos v. „ Mohun V. 27 58 117 84 Turton, D'Aguiar v. „ V. Mitchell, 24 oa. '87* ... „ Pereira v Tyce, Ned v Tyrell v. Stuart, 18.8.60 ... 26 U. Underwood, Lounck v. ... Unmaid v. Burrowes, 3 Feb. '83 64 Urquhart v. French, i6 Dec. '65 V. Valladares v. Bethune, 18 Feb. '65 42 Valtz, Jones v Van Battenburg v. Burn- ham, 19 May '66 ... 5 Van Brook V. King, 14 Dec. '80 .. 24,27,56,100,126,127 Van Cooten v. Ruck, 18 Sep. '85... 40, 72 „ Hope V. ... Van Dyke, Butler v. Van Lange, AlUcock v. ... Vasconcellos v. King, 8 Feb, '90* Vaughan, Gulliver v, „ Henry, io.7.'58* Verbeke v. Fry, 22.o.'83... 93 Verwayen v. Mahabun, 5 Nov. 59* Vieira, Corry v „ V. Greenskde, 6 Jan, '66 „ Straker v .. „ Vogado V. Burrowes 17 May 73* ,.. Vyfhuis V. July et al, 26 July '62 Turnkey v. King, 2 7 Aug. '64 W. Wade V. Gonsalves, Aug. '90 Silvano v... 28, 30 34. 62 120, 127 128, 154 j Waith, Winter v.,.. 29 93 TABLE OF CASES. XXIX Walcott, Chin-a-you v. ... „ V.Jeffrey, 21 Aug. '69 ... „ V, Pertaub, 13.5. '71* Warren, Bacchus v. Pagf. 95 V. Pereira Dec , 18) ^^' ^7 >ic \ 29. 44 ' ) 100, 129 Watson, D'Aguiar v. „ De Guara v. ... „ De Rush V. „ Jodhan v. „ V. Musterd, 10 Oa. '65* ... Watt V. Bell, 18 Apl. '57* Webster V. Birch, 9.4.'8i..3i, 43, 55 Weddall, Pequeno V. Welch V. Fraser, 15. 12. '83 131 Welchman v. Mongree, 26 Nov. '81* Wellington v. Mulligan, 29 July '71 * Wells, D'Oliveira V. „ D'Ornellas v. „ V. Tebbut, i6,io.'75 „ Wickham v. „ v. Young, 24.3.'6o.. Westmaas, Lawson v. ... White v. Brumell, 2.4.'59.. 21, i?i „ v. Gibson, 2i.2.'9i.. ' "53 Wickham v. Bury, 20.6.'74 106 ,. V. Wells, 16.7*70 (evidence held not suffi- cient to sustain convic- tion) Wight, Allicock v. „ Bremner v. „ De Freitas V. „ -De Gra9a v. „ De Souza v. ,. Ferreira v. „ Forsyth v „ Francis v.... Williams, Cox v „ v. Douglas, 1 5. 3. '8 1 „ Garnett v. „ V. Kamal, 30.io.'9i 76 „ V. Lynch, 3 Aug, '67-..27. 35. 43. 134,135 „ Pereira v Page, Williams V. Primo, i2.6.'85 33, 132 „ V. Roberts, i & 6 April '65 ... 34, 75 „ Sample v „ Simpson, 6.4.67 ... 6.5 „ Sherwood v. „ Smith V. ... Win^sam v. Fraser, 8.5.'8o 69, 96 Wint, Harel v Winter v. Griffith, 3.1 ©.'84* „ V. Hastings, 17.9,86 „ V. Jeffrey, 20.i2.'50.ii7, 121 ., V. Robinson, 30.3. '91 n6 „ V. Waith, i.9.'83 ... Wolesley, Bob v „ Field v. Wong-a-hoy, Anson v. ... Wong-a-sam v. Anson, 1 1 July'9o... 2,3.88 „ Evans v. .. „ Phillips v. ... Wong-a-wing v. Dornford, 29 Dec. '83* Woodv. Harlequin, 5.8.'65 Wright, Carrelra v. „ Cruickshank v. ... „ D'Aguiar v. „ Da Silva v. „ v. „ 22 Jan. '86 17, 122 1 14. 40 V. Garnett, 90a. •85 ... „ Pequeno, i3.5.'84 „ Small V Wyke V. Campbell, i.2,'59 Yadhan, Straker v, Yip-li-King, Burrowes v... Young v. Bertyne,3.i i.'6o* „ V. Bursaye, 21 Dec. 61* „ Bunbury v. „ Cabral v. „ Gorria v „ Cadogan v. „ V. Cowan, 7.1 1.' 58 „ D'Andrade v. 62, 63 ' 115, 118 145, 146 123 TABLE OF CASES. Young V. Dias, 4 June '59* „ Gomes v. ... „ v.'Gomes, 24.9/59* „ Gbnsalves V. „ Haywood v. „ Hillis V. „ V. Horton, 21 Dec. '61* „ V.Jones, 1 1. 2. '65... Light V „ V. Miller, 25.6.'59... „ V. Maule, 9.8.'73... „ V. Munro, 28.6.'6i.. „ Pequeno v. „ Pistano v Page. '9. 57 54,99 25 Page. Young, Rodrigues V. ... „ Sample v.... „ V. Vieira, t6.3.'6i... V. Walcott, 24.3.'6o 14-, 57 Younge — See Young ... Young-a-sam V. Francis, 19 Dec. '90 ... ^.. . 122 Zacharia v. Bacchus, 18 May '72* Zitman v. Backer, 3 Aug. '75 „ Ctipido V. 'K^-'^^ ■^^^^'^Rlh i^*,,^ X0' I*' LAW Ll«- •m\,s ^ DIGEST OF eASES DECIDED IN TflB REVIEW COURT OF BRITISH GUIANA FROM 1856 TO 1891 INCLUSIVE. Abatement. Of Wa^es see Mabtee and SteitvAN'T. Abettor. One whb instigates or sets on or promotes a criraev iSunday TiMiding Otdinanc6 — Participator. — A pefSdn pat'ticipating in a Bale on Sunday as a, buyter i§ an aider and abettor under Sec. 7 of the Sdndtty Trading Owii- aance. koines v. D'Aguiar. (B. i). Mulling cited for appellant and held not applicable.) The act of participation by the aider and abettol* does not excuse the act of the seller. Goities v. Hardourt* The mere fact that the person who Opened the shop or who sold or offered for sale or dfelivefed the goods was in the employ or service of the owner would not be enough to make the owner an aider or abettor. DeSdUZa V. Francis. GompUdty. — The Owner of a shop who is in complicity with the shopman to sell goods on Sunday Is an aidei* and abettor. De Souza v. Francis. Presewcei^Accidental presence in a gambling hisuse is HOt evidence that such person is an aider and abettoi*. Ramas Khan v. Morris. Where prima facie it is nSt aecidental it is evidence for juJfy ib. AOCOMPLIOB. One gTi^ltj^ of a felonious offence not principally; bUt by 'pAt'lsibipsMoii as by preMse, advice or coU'cealuietit. Abettor. 2 Aocomplioe. A person who acts the spy and gets another to sell goods when he could not so sell under his licence &c. is an accomplice. De Rush v. Watson. An acooraplioe is one charged with crime on his own confession and his object in giving information may be to purchase immunity to himself. An informer is more properly in the position of a spy. Pequeno v. Darrell ; Beg. V. Mullins, 3 Oox C 526. He is in a different position to an informer. D'Abrio v. Darrell; D'Abrio V. G-riffin Evidence of. — There is no rigid presumption of law which excludes the testimony of accomplices or which makes it incumbent on the tribunal to disbelieve them. Porter v. Burrowes ; B. v. Boyer 1 B. ^ 8. 311; Wong- a-Sam v. Anson. Although it is so general a practice that it is said almost to amount to a rule of law for Judges to advise juries not to convict on the evidence of an accomplice alone, nevertheless if the Judge does not give this advice, or if the jury being so advised chooses notwith- standing to convict upon the testimony of an accom- plice it is not a ground of appeal. Porter v. Burrowes, but his evidence must be taken with suspicion and must be corroborated. De Rush v. "Watson. If he is believed his testimony is unquestionably sufl&cient to establish the facts to which he deposes. D'Abrio v Griffin cit Bose V Jones 2 Campbell, 131. Indian Evidence Act. If the jury is satisfied with uncorroborated evidence of accomplice they may believe it and act upon it without any confirmation and their verdict may be a just and true one. Pequeno v. Darrell; Beg v. Mullins, 3 Oox CO 526. D'Abrio v. Griffin ; but it must be received with caution. D'Abrio v. Griffin. The unsupported testimony of an informer is not sufficient to convict. Dick v. Duggin ; contra D'Abrio V. Darrell ; Pequeno v. Darrell, cit Taylor on Ev Vol 2 p 834 B. V. Mullins 3 Oox p 526. If informer was himself connected through the instrumentality of Defend- ant with the offence charged against the latter and hia evidence is unsupported it is not sufficient to convict. Kingston v. Fraser. The Magistrate can convict on the Abettoe. 3 Absent Peopbietob. evidence of the informer alone if he believes him. D' Abrio V. Darrell ; Mingo v. Cuckow, but it must be received with caution. D' Abrio v. Darrell. An informer is a competent witness. Santos v. Darrell. Employment of. — The employment of spies and in- formers in the detection of crime is only justified if at all by necessity. It could not be necessary to employ officers of the law to tempt persons to commit an offence against the law for the purpose of informing on them, much less is it likely to conduce to the suppression of ofiences. Corria v. Green ; Gromes v. Harcourt ; D' Abrio V. Griffin ; Wong-a-Sam v. Anson. Abbreviation.— See Woeds. Absence. Holder of Licence : Absence from Colony. — Absence from Colony of holder of a licence for a spirit shop does not free him from liability, provided he is brought before the Court in the manner the law requires. Rodrigues v. Burro wes. Absence of Defendant on hearing vitiates proceedings if he has had no notice ; but Court will refer papers to Magistrate to take objections. Jardine v. Burrowes. Sentence passed in absence of Defendant who asked the Magistrate to allow him to appear by Attorney in a Revenue case and no evidence was given of service of summons is illegal. Gonsalves v. Straker. Sentence on a charge for unlawfully cutting canes passed in the absence of Defendant is irregular. Thil- lana v. Gardner. Sentence and proceedings -in absence of Defendant in Revenue prosecution is illegal, although Defendant signed a paper when under arrest for non appearance, consenting to case being heard in his absence. De Freitas v. Burrowes. Of Appellant in Review Court. — Court to decide on papers before it. Silvano v. Wade. (Practice.) Absent Proprietor.— See Agent. AbSBNX. 4 AcQ,mTTALi *' Absent from Service." Master and Servant Act. — Means a suspension of labpur or absence from work ; if withput reasonable ca,use tjlie servant refused to perform the amount of dajly wQrk -nrliich the custom of the district demands. ICintyen v. Scott. Abusive Words. Privileged : Abusive words used by a witness while he is under examination in a Court of justice as a witness are not punishable as libellous. Dundas v. Birana, oit.. Lake v. King 1 Saunders 131, Dawkins v. Lord Eokeby 8 L.R., Q.B. 255, 7 L.R. App. 744. Semi&rsony.Brome- head 4 H. & N. 669. Words with covert meaning.' — Where the words used are themselves unmeaning and unimportant but they bear a latent meaning understood by th« persop, to whom they are used to be offensive and insulting they come under the head of insulting language with intent &e. Reg. V. Allany. Intent. — A charge for using "insulting language" with intent to provoke a breach of the peace is good. Graid- ner v. Austia. It is for the Magistrate to ditermiue from the words used whether the whole element of the offepce exists. Glasgow v. Brandon. Frivolous Charge. — Where the words complained of were used in the hearing of the party complaining alone* the matter may be treated as a frivolous one aud disr missed by the Magistrate. Frank v. Da Costa. Where the complainant's name is not called the Mjagis- trate is to decide whether the words were meant foe? the complainant, Rodney v. Phillips. Accomplice. — See Abettor. Acquittal.— Not guilty. Reference bacJe. — Before the Court refers a case back to the Magistrate upon an acquittal it must appear that the adjudication has proceeded on some mistake in law. Dawson v. Gopaul. Acquittal. 5 AfFHJA.vifp^ Ow menis.-r-There is na review on technical grounds where there has been an acquittal on the merits. Ramessur v. Russell. It is not the practice to interfere with the verdict of acquitta,! in misdemeanors such as an assault, &c. Korimbpcus v. Mann, cit. B.eg. v, Russell^ 3 El. & Bl. 950. Gokal v. Bean et al. Adjudication.^— Appearance of Befendanti— ^See Absence — ^Appeabatstoe. 4dmitt^i;iC6.^0n Premises, Refusal. — May be by acts such as on seeing the officer approaching, to fasten the gate leading into the yard in which the shop is situated, and turning a deaf ear to the 4emftn<|^ of ijhe Police Constable for admittance. D' Abreu y. I'lf^npis, Affidavit- Mling — Leave of the Gourt. — Chalmees, C.J. — I would observe with reference to the Affidavit of the Magistrate — which I do not gather was requested by the Respondent in Review, who has not appeared — that even where, as here, the allegations in the reasons seek- ing Review touch the propriety of the Magistrai^p's conduct in the ease, it would a good rule that they should refrain from sending up rebutting affidiavits uflless on the request either of the Court or of the party who may be aSected by the appeal. Boodha v. Ramnarain, When laid over.- — Leave of the Oourt. — Answer. M^y be laid over as to matters of fact. {Pvactibe). When laid over the other side or the Magistrate affected i& at liberty to answer (Praetiee). Upheld in Batiste v. Rui»Fowes. Ah affi-davife should only be used under exceptional earcumstanees. Batiste v. Burrowes. Before an affidavit is laid over the leave of the GOurt must first be obtained. Luckput v. Najhoe, Magistrate may lay over a minute in answer to Appellant of what actuaity took place. Flaria v. Innis, but in all cases the proceedings on which affidavit is based must be laid over. Van Baten- biirg V. Burnham. Affiliation. 6 Agent. Affiliation.— See Pooe Law. Aggravated Assault. Age of Defendant — Need not be embodied in the oon- viction if the Magistrate took the right procedure as defined in the Ordinance of 1880 as to the age as " child, young person, adult, &c." G-rant v. Josa. Proof of age. — It may be proved by evidence, but the Magistrate may determine same by the physical appearance of child before him if age of child is at some considerable distance from the limit. Hutson v. Robson. Further — see Assault. Agent. Liability of Principal. — A principal is not liable for a misdemeanour committed by the agent. Isaacs v. Chapman. Liability of Principal when absent. — See Absence. Authority to act. — Where the Ordinance directs some- thing to be done by the principal or "by some one " authorised in writing by him " a recorded Power of Attorney is not contemplated, an authority stating "I " do hereby nominate, constitute and appoint — my true " and lawful agent from date " is suflGlcient. Forsyth v. Wight. Under Immigration Law. — The driver of the estate is for the purposes of the Immigration laws the agent of the Manager of the estate when he orders work to be done, and disobedience of his orders is equivalent to dis- obedience of the orders of the Manager. Oarruthers v. Khoon-Dun-Sing, Kennedy v. Oallydin. Sunday Trading Ordinance — Revenue Cases. — The Defendant must make his answer and have his witnesses examined and cross-examined by Counsel or by his duly constituted Attorney on his behalf and no other person is authorised to appear for him. Gomes v. Smith. QucBre whether Attorney of absent proprietor is liable under Sunday trading ordinance. Gomes v. Francis. In cases for breach of the revenue laws it must be shown that the Attorney of the absent owner has authority from his principal to represent him under, such . Agent. 7 Amendment. a prosecution as that in -which he appears or in legal proceedings generally; mere appearance of the Attorney or agent is not sufficient to cure an omission or irregu- larity in the service of summons which must then be specially proved. Rodrigues v. Burrowes. Amendment. Under s. 21 of 5 of 1868 the power of amendment is very wide, going beyond what is found in the correspond- ing clauses of the English, law. Sirdar v. Langeyine. Magistrate may at any time before decision amend charge of larceny to one of embezzlement in conformity with facts. Jessy v. Robb. Of error. — Where the Magistrate makes an error in calculating an amount the Court will refer the case back for amendment. Cairnes v. Joseph. Where Defendant is convicted of a charge under Sunday Trading Ordinance, Sec. 2 and appeals as under Sec. 3 the error is fatal and no amendment will lie. Gronsalves v Green. Amendment of Charge. Immigration Case. — Magistrate may amend charge in immigration cases by inserting after objection taken the word "immigrant" after name of the person alleged to be an immigrant. James v. Lilmonie. Prosecution Closed — Variance. — Where a case is con- cluded by the prosecution the Magistrate may amend charge by inserting, after the name of Defendant an "alias" such amendment being an immaterial variance and unnecessary. D'Aguiar v. Barnes (held as distin- guished fromjGromes v. Francis where the amendment altered the alleged ground of the Defendant's liability and in fact constituted a new charge) but he must amend before his final decision, Anson v. Stuart, for when he decides a matter he is functus officii and can- not amend, neither can the Court of Review if). In cases of amendment postponement should be granted. Mar- tins V. Francis. Under Ordinance 5 of 1868 Sec. 21 the Court cannot amend charge on which a conviction has taken place so as to ttiake a new bhilrge. Gomea V. Fi*antefe i Ansan v. Stuart. Amendment of ohaf ge froin " 1881" to " 1882 " allowable. Corner v. Anderson. Delect. — Whefe there iS a defect in the informatibn iii substance and forto irrespective of the ti^ilth and lii^ritS of the matter in question the Court of Review will amend under Sec. 21 of 5 of 1868 : but it is only where objec- tion w&s takfeu upon the hearing that the Review Gburt Can amend under {See. 21 Ordinance Q of 1868. Anaon V. Stuart. Where Defendant is charged with one otEeiace and tJOuVicted of another it is not a defect biit if anything a VtiWance &nd the Review Court cannot amend under Sec. 21. Anson v. Stuart. Chafge under Sunday trading Ordinance after hearing of prosecution may be amended from " Qpening a shop for the purpose of selling " to one charging Defendant with " beiiig the owner Of goods in the shop, &C. " Martins v. iVancie, but Defendant should be allowed a postponement to enable him to answer the new charge or the conviction will be quashed ib. Where the information charges two offences and the Magistrate convicts and there be evidence before the MagisWate to convict, the Court of Review will attifend the defect. D'Abreu v. Francis. To amend a defect it must be shown to the satisfaction of the Court that sufficient grounds were in proof before the Justice making the conviction to have authorised the drawing up of the conviction free from the defect. For that purpose the Court has to look at the evidence. By sufficient proof it must be understood to mean sufficient grounds of legal proof. Seegoree v. I'hompson. Where charge is bad for dui)licity and the duplicity is a defect in terms of Sec. 3 of Ordinance 5 of 1868 the Court of Review must amend if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that sufficient grounds were in proof before the justice in making the conviction. D'Abteu V. Francis. Examples. " Tmd6 of JKre."— The Review Court allowed an Amendment. 9 Examples, amendment from " trade or liire " to " hire" in Gon- salves V. Anson, cit. D'Abreu V. Francis. Shop. — Of charge for being foimd in a " shop " for some unlawful purpose, to " store " by the Magistrate allowable. Popwell v. Barnes. Immigration. — A charge under 4 of 1876, Sec. 19 for " attempting to persuade " an immigrant under indenture unlawfully to desist from work may be amended to one for " persuading" an immigrant, &o. Spence v. Sutcha. A charge for " attempting to persuade " an immigrant from working, may be amended to one for "persuading." Greig v. Ramdhansing ; cit. Martin v. Francis. A charge against an immigrant for " after being sent "to the hospital by the Manager did behave himself in " a disorderly manner while in hospital " maybe amended by striking out " after being sent to the hospital by the -" Manager." Spence v. Sutcha. Hackney Ordinance. — Where the hackney ordinance makes it an offence to refuse to "at once " take the carriage to the office of the Inspector and the charge is for refusing to " produce the ^ackney carriage for "inspection" the Magistrate should make an amend- ment on the matter being brought to his notice. Rocha V. Binns, if not, the Review Court will make the amendmeht ib. Sunday Trading. — Leaving out the word " Sunday" in charge under Sunday trading ordinance is a matter for amendment. Da Silva v. Wright. The case of Da Silvai V, Graves is overruled by this case. Da Silva v. Graves is not governed by the amending ordinance as it was decided 4 years before the ordinance. From " opening a shop," &c., to " being the owner," &c., allowable. Martin v. Francis. Uef vising Admittance. — Where the ordinance makes it an bfEence to refuse admittance to a policeman "into" the premises and the charge states "into and upon " the premises the Court of Review will amend under 5 of 1868. D'Abreu v. Francis. Damage. — A chargie stating that Defendant committed " damage, injury aind spoil " may be amended to anyone term. Joseph v. Ruck. ' Amendment. 10 Amendment. Misleading Defendant. — "Where an amendment is made through a charge having been stated defectively and Defendant's attention is called to such amendment and Defendant states before the Mp,gistrate that he was not misled by such amendment he has no right of appeal on the ground of such amendment. Hodgson v. Cheese- wright. Postponemevt. — Defendant is entitled to a postpone- ment on amendment of charge. Pequeno v. Binns; Martin v. Francis. Person to amend. — The actual hand to make the amendment is not limited to any particular person. Fong-a-Long v. Chandler. After fiat. — The amendment of a charge after fiat of Attorney General and service on Defendant is a fatal defect. Serepaul v. Cruickshank, but the amendment of the christian name of Defendant on a revenue prosecution after fiat of Attorney General does not preclude Jfelagis- trate from adjudicating. Cruickshank v. La Rose. Further see Fiat. On excess of Jurisdiction. — Where the Magistrate exceeds his jurisdiction by inflicting a heavier fine than the law allows him, the Court of Review will not amend the proceedings by inflicting a smaller penalty for two reasons. 1. That Defendant would have to pay the fine or go to the expense and trouble of appealing and then pay the smaller penalty. 2. That except the conviction was quashed it would deprive him of his right of action against the Magistrate for excess of jurisdiction. Eppilie V. Burrowes (conviction under 31 of 1850 Sec. 2). See case of Luckie v. Anson under head Conviction. Where the Magistrate imposes a fine of $24 and costs $2 1() for assault and the ordinance 20 of 1862 Sec. 43 only authorises imposition of a fine not exceeding $24 together with costs if ordered, the Court will amend the conviction to $24 in full. Ned v. Syce. Feloniously. — Adding the Word " feloniously " in charge of larceny not allowable after trial but, before trial. Jack V. John : further see Feloniously. To found jurisdiction. See Jurisdiction. Of conviction. See Conviction. Amicus Oueij;. 11 Appearance. Amicus Curiae. If a Judge is doubtful or mistaken in a matter of law a bystander may inform the Court as amicus curice. Not Recognized except on coming from the Bar of the Court, and private communications to a Judge on judicial business however legitimate in their object are irregular and undesirable. Perreira v. Mclnroy. Magistrate heard as of amicus curice on a rule requiring him to forward proceedings. Howell v. Santos. Appeal' — See Eeasons. Appearance. — Of Defendant. In Revenue Gases not necessary on the hearing or adjudication, Gomes v. Burrowes. Where Defendant does not appear, the Magistrate may proceed ex parte on proof of service of summons or issue warrant according to discretion ib. The appearance of a person bearing the same name as the Defendant, by himself or Counsel amounts to no more than a statement that Counsel represented the person who had been served ; it does not show the appearer to be the person mentioned in the summons. Gomes v. Clarke. On Peonounciation of Judgment. Magistrate not bound to give parties notice of pro- nounciation of judgment. Cuckow v. de Jesus. In Review Couet. Where the parties do not appear, the Review Court is still to decide the matter on the papers submitted. Mon- trose V. Theobald, Lashly et al v. Chung (Gold case?,) In Harel v. Govia it was held that where the parties do not appear in the Review Court the Magistrate's decision must be affirmed, and in Moonie v. Dornford it was laid that where the Appellant does not file his reasons within the period allowed, the Court must dismiss the applica- tion for review. Appearance. 1 2 Abeest. In Gold -Mining Oases. • Although no particular limit is prescribed as to the extent o£ opportunity of appearing which may be allowed in gold mining cases, it is clearly not intended that the non-appearance of parties (on appeal) should keep a matter open indefinitely. Montrose v. Theobald. Op Peosecutob. — See Peoseoutoe. Arrest. Restraint of a man's person, obliging him to be obedient to the law, . execution of a command of some Court of record or officer of justice, the beginning of an imprisonment by colour of a warrant or decreje of a Court. Discretionary Power. — Magistrate has discretionary power to order arrest upon informations for petty, offences ; Rodney v. Phillips, but this course should not be resorted to unless there is some special reason ih. Without Warrant, objection not taken. — Where De- fendant is illegally arrested and brought before the Magistrate on a legal charge, and takes no objection to his being in custody at the time, and pleads to the charge and hears evidence, he cannot plead such illegal custody before the Review Court. Sam v. Nobriga. No objection allowed. — Where a Defendant is brought before a Magistrate on a proper charge, it is immaterial whether the officer who brought the Defendant before him was justified in doing so or not. Lutchnee v. Oruick- shank (cit. Bowditch v. Fosberry, 19 L.J, Ex. 339 ; Gelen V. Hall 2 N. & H. 379 ; 27 L.J., M.C. 78). Whether a prisoner is legally or illegally arrested on a warrant is immaterial for the Magistrate to decide ; being before the Justice, however brought there, the Justice if he had jurisdiction in respect of time and place over the offence, is competent to entertain the charge then before him. Morrison v. Ramdahin, (cit. Beg. v. Hughes ; Beg. V. Bolton.) Plea of illegal arrest should be taken before the Magistrate ; Lutchnee v. Cruickshank. Abrest, 13 AmA-vvsi By Peac& Offiee^'^rr^A policeman cannot legaJly arrest on a verbal charge for breaking a lamp if he did not see the lamp broken, Sam v. Simon ; but he may arrest for an assaijlt in his presence ; Gonsalves v. Fox, explaining Da Silva v. Hill. An arrest cannot take place by a con'- stable for smoking in a church yard. Zitman v. Backer, Immigration Gases^ — Where an immigrant is larrested without a warrant for desertion, there being a warrant against him at the time, and he is sent on from station to station until he gpts to a station where the warrant is, and he is arrested on that warrant, the Magistrate caur not argue or enter into the legality of his arrest. Morri- son y. !B,amdahin. Assault- An attempt or offer with force and violence, to do a corporal hurt to another as by striking at him with or without a weapon, not necessarily a battery or blow, as a man may be found guilty of the assault and excused of the battery. If a person in anger lifts up or stretches forth his arm or offer to strike another, or meuaee any- one with a staff or weapon, it is trespass and assault in law. Technical — Putting on hospital clothes. — It is an assault to forcibly put on or assist to put on hospital clothes on a person not an in-patient of the hospital unless it is proved that the removal of the person's own clothes was absolutely necessary for the successful treatment of the disease frotn which he was suffering j or foi the protection of the other patients if the disease were of an infections or contagions character. Solomon v. Gaines. To forcibly take an imraigi^ant to the hospital is an assault. Halliday v. Ramcalleah, Evidence of previous threats.- — is admissible on a charge of assault, Newport v. Harman. On Peace Oehcer. — Public Officer. Justifiable. — Where an of&cer on informatioii arrests a Defendant on a verbal charge for brealdng a lapip and he gets beaten, the Defendant pannpt be convicted iSsAULT. 14 Pkaob Offioee. of beating the constable in tbe execution of his duty. Sam V. Simon. Where an owner of an estate is served with a notice to do certain repairs on a road and did not so repair, and the road officer sent men to repair and they were ordered off by the owner, and the road officer came up and the horse which the owner was riding at the time was nearly put into the trench by the road officer, held on a charge of assault that the owner had no right to molest or obstruct the road officer or his -workmen in the per- formance of a duty primd facie legal, and having done so, the road officer had a right to remove the obstruction and he was not guilty of excessive violence, and used that force only which was sufficient and no more. Young V. Miller. Not Justifiable. — Where the charge laid is informal or unfounded and is dismissed, it is no excuse for assault- ing the constable in the execution of his duty. Scipio V. Dunbar. It is no defence to urge that the constable was in plain clothes and without a staff; Dover v. Fraser, but it must be shown in evidence that at the time of the assault the person assaulted had the status of a Peace officer. Grreen v. Hillman. An Assault ib not justifiable by provoking words ; Clouston V. Fraser, Da Silva v. Pereirra. Queers whether it is a defence if constable was assaulted on arresting Defendant for an offence for which he could not be arrested, such as smoking in a church* yard. Zitman v. Backer. To prevent a levy on wages due by an estate to an immigrant is an unlawful resisting of the officer in the execution of his duty. Burrowes v. Crawford. After a Commissary has made a seizure and he is assaulted technically or otherwise, the matter is one of common assault and not an assault in the execution of his duty. Corria v. Q-reenslade. Where the Policeman exceeds his duty, such as shutting up a shop, &c., when he is not authorised by the ordinance, he cannot maintain a charge for assault in execution &c. Da Silva v. Hill; Sam v. Simon. A policeman is not Assault. 15 Aggeavatbd. protected when he does an act which the law does not authorise him to do ; nor is he protected when he uses unlawful means for eflFecting a lawful purpose, De Freitas V. McAllister. On a charge for assaulting a peace officer in the execution of his duty. Defendant cannot be convicted of common assault. Edwards v. Cambridge. Inciting. — ^Where a Defendant says to a constable who has charge of a prisoner, if the prisoner gets away from you no body has a right to arrest him, he may be con- victed of " inciting," but the words would not suffice to convict him of resisting the constable in execution, &c., or of a breach of the peace. McPherson v. Thomson et al. Force used in making arrest. — Where an arrest is legally made the constable may use force to overcome resistance, but not all or any kind of force ; he is not to beat, wound, &c., the person he has in charge. — De Freitas v. McAllister. Assault in presence of Constable. — Where an assault is committed in presence of a constable and he arrests and is assaulted, it is not necessary to show that the arrest was absolutely necessary, or that a further or more aggravated breach of the peace would have been com- mitted if the arrest had not been made. Gonsalves v. Fox. Justification under Warrant. — When an officer justifies the assault or arrests under a warrant, such warrant must be produced. Rodney v. Sampson. Aggravated. It is unnecessary that the particulars of an aggravated assault should be set out in a charge. Neptune v. Beaton ; Pistano v. Pompey. Where the Magistrate certifies or declares on the face of the proceedings for aggravated assault, that he is of opinion that the age of the child does not exceed 14 years, the Review Court will not interfere with his conviction, ib. Under Sections 43, 44 of offences against the person Ordinance 1862, the term "aggravated" is used to describe isSAlfLT. 16 AuTEBFOi^ AOQliflT. an assault of suoli a nature that it cannot in the 0|)iriion of the Magistrate trying the (^ha^e be sufficiently punishable as a common assault. The Magistrate can deal with the assault as an aggravated one in respect of the fapts emerging at the hearing, even although the information had not so described it. Gilbert v. Barries. Where the charge is for " assault " oq a f enable, the Magistrate has a right if evidence is sufficient, to convict of an aggravated assault. Rbdrigues v. Pereira. Disputed Title. Magistrate has no iurisdiction for assault in yard in dispute of title. Sample v. Hopkinson. Wh«re there is a welli-founded and bondjide interest in property, an assault in law may still be committed. London y. Baird. Further— see Jubisdiotion. At Once.^-See Words. Attorney. — See Agent. Auctioneer. Not liable for penalty for acts under the Tax Ordin- ance (whether is he liable under Ordinance 9 of 1S4A, not decided.) De Jonge v. Darrell. Authority — from principal under Crown Lands. — ^^See Agent. Autrefois Acquit.— Convict. lieference Back. — Where a case (not indictaible) is heard and the decision is appealed from, and on :teview the Magistrate's decision is reversed and the niatter is remitted back to be re-heard, and on rie-hearing by another Magistrate (the first convicting Magist^te having lef£ the Colony) and he convicts, it is not a case of aut ac. De Souza v. Swaiii ; De Faria v. Swa^in. Where the Magistrate dismisses a case OH the g'rotmd of supposed ouster of jurisdiction and the matter .is referred back to' him by thei Eevie\^r Court, the ti-ue Autrefois. 17 Acquit. construction of the order of the Court reversing the Magistrate's order dismissing the charge is, that it effaces the Magistrate's order of dismissal and reinstates the proceedings before him in the same position as if he had not made the order. Grlasgow v. Kryenhoff. Idem, when charge is withdrawn by Complainant with- out oppOsitrion by Defendant and without his asking for a decision on the withdrawn charge. (No bar to subsequent proceedings.) Sample v. Butts. Where the evidence on a case of assault before the Magistrate showed a brutal unprovoked battery, and the Magistrate dealt summarily with the matter instead of referring to a higher Court, the Eeview Court quashed the conviction and directed him to refer the case to the Inferior Criminal Court. Andrew v. Novel. A Certificate of Dismissal as against " B " is no bar to subsequent proceedings where the Magistrate dis- misses a charge against A, and the same prosecutor asks that a charge against " B " on the same grounds should be withdrawn, and the Magistrate refuses to allow with- drawal on objection by Defendant and dismisses case and grants certificate of dismissal. Wright v. De Silva, (cit. Hcmhin's P.O. c. 35, s. 8), Sec. 20 of Ord. 19 of .1856 read with Sec. 3 of 5 of 1868. Where the Magistrate acts on an hypothesis and no valid conviction could be passed on such hypo- thesis, entry of dismissal is no bar to subsequent pro- ceedings, ib. Dismissal by the Review Oourt for want of prosecution does not amount to a final sentence, and review may be reheard on prayer for relief by petition on merits show- ing that he did not really abandon his case, but was misled, or other excusable argument. Williams v. Roberts et al. A plea of Aui/refois acquit on a charge for " assault " does not arise on a charge for " assault of a policeman in execution of his duty." Edwards v. Cambridge. Proof — On a plea of aut ac. or convict, the only legal proof of conviction or dismissal is the record or ofl&cial copy. De Gracia v. Wight, cit. Hartley v. Mindmarch^ LR. 1, CP653.) A.UTEEF0I8 Convict. 18 Bill op Entbt. Convict. Jurisdiction.— Where Defendant is convicted and sucli conviction is quashed on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction, the first conviction is not a bar to a subsequent prosecution on the same set of facts. Da Silva V. Layton. Separate offences. — Where Defendant is charged with keeping 4 dogs without licences on different charge?, the conviction for keeping one of the dogs without a licence cannot be pleaded as aut con. Da Silva v. Burrowes. Where there are several sales on Sunday by the same person at the same shop, there can only be one convic- tion. Santos V. Darrell. (Cit. Grq)p v. Dundom, 1, S L C 649 ; Attorney General v. McLean 1 H & C 750.) Where defendant is charged for using indecent expres- sions and gestures on the public road and also for making use of language tending to provoke, &c., and the offences are both parts of one and the same transaction, a convic- tion on one charge puts an end to the other. King v. Ashby. Bail. Parties are generally bailed by the Magistrate when referred to a higher Court. When not so bailed a petition is sent to the Chief Justice who refers the same to the Attorney General for his report, and on his report the order is made. Bail is then to the satisfaction of the Sheriff or Crown Solicitor. The Bail Bond runs through the session though prisoner surrenders to bail. Bastardy. — See Poob Law. BiU of Bntry. Error. — Bill not truly disclosing goods is false, whether the amount of duty payable is or is not affected by the misdescription. Customs v. Fresson. Time to Produce. — There is no limit as to the time in which the Comptroller or Sub-Comptroller can call on an importer to produce invoice under sec. 90 of Ordinance 16 of 1884. McGowan v. Davis. Barbistee. 19 Business Pebmises. Barrister. — See Legal Practitioneb. Bitters- Not a drug. Gonsalves v. De Freitas. Breach of Contract.— See Contbact. Breach of the Peace.— See Subbtt. Breach of the Law By a person does not ptevent his prosecuting for a pub- lic wrong to himself, such as an assatilt. Bahadoo v. Humphreys ; Sobriun v. Humphreys. Breach of Trust. Lawful Excuse. — Under Ordinance V? of l86I, sec. 1, there must be a neglect to perform the contract within a reasonable time, and neglect or refuS&l to return the articles, &Ci, given to be repaired, &c., without lawful excuse. Harris v. Bracey. If the Defendant is grossly negligent in exposing the work entrusted to him so that it is injured ; this would deprive him of the excuse. lb. Bread.— Seller of. — See WEiafiT & Measubb. Building. Although in the trespass law the word "building" does not appear the word " premises" includes " hdldings" Thornhill v. Pilgrim; Chapman v Pooler. Buyer.— See Abbttoe. Business Premises. — How interpreted. The term " business premises" must be interpreted according to the subject msM&t and allocation. Fer- nandes v. Greenslade. It may include any part of the most extensive buildings, enclosures, wharves, &c., which by use occupation, structure or enclosure are subservient to or merely connected with a shop, an office or other Business Premises. 20 Business Pbemises. place of business. It may mean on the otter hand the very shop, office or place of actual business forming a part and often an insignificant part as regards position or structure of such premises. Its meaning again may be ascertainable by extensive application and restriction variable according to the circumstances of each case, but conforming to some general principle or interest to be ascertained by the Ordinance. Fernandesv.Greenslade. Liability of Owner. — The occupier of the shop is liable for rum found, without any scienter or proof that he was aware of the rum being secreted as he has full control over the premises and persons having access to them, and by due diligence can take care the rum was not unlawfully brought there. Batiste v. Burrowes. Idem as to places where he possesses and is entitled to exercise the like control if he chooses ib but there must be exclusive right of occupancy ib. What aee Business Premises. The words business premises under the licence ordi- nance includes any room or place adjoining or adjacent to any store or shop. But those words cannot be con- strued to include any place not in the occupancy of the person against whom the charge is directed, the prosecu- tor must show that it was in the occupancy of Defendant or in any event that due enquiry had failed to discover any other occupant. D'Oliveira v. Burrowes; citing D'Ornellas v. Leacock. D'Ornellas v. "Wills not applica- ble. Tivo contiguous Premises. — A licence does not cover sale of spirits in two separate house on same lot. Pequeno v. Hill. A Bridge attached to a shop and a portion of the shop is a place adjoining or adjacent to the store or shop. D'Ornellas v. Wills. 4 Boom in which gin was found immediately above the shop, where a trap door communicated from the shop to the room in which gin was found. Arnold v. Gomes et al; even when gin was in small quantity, B^ pint^ and 2. pints brandy, and bought as alleged for BUSINESS Peemises. 21 Peoop of. use of a sick person, Cuckow v. Gonsalves, or where only one bottle of brandy was found in room next shop. Lo-a-ting v. King. Gcurden. — Rum found in a small tomato garden adjoin- ing a baker's shop and within the boarding or paaling of premises. D'Ornellas v. Leacookj upheld on appeal^ toS.O. A Boom above a shop communicating with shop by staircase. Monick v. Solomon. An enclosed gallerf containing goods with stairs leading to shop. i)a Silva v. Layton. Private Boom of innkeeper on licensed premises. If he allows cards to be played for money ; if he allows cards to be played no matter how small the stake, even if he acts bond fide and is wholly innocent of any wrong intention ib. (Patten v. Rhymer, 29 L.J. Jf .S., M.G. 189.) Bench placed outside inn. If customer drank beer Ott it and innkeeper has no licence to sell beer to be drunk on premises ib. (Cross v. "Watts, L.J. N.S., M.O, 73.) A detached room is correctly described as a room although held by the same tenant as holds the shop. Marques v, Francis. Any room or place adjoining or adjacent to any store or shop; 25 of 1868, s. 4. Pkooi". Evidence must be given by prosecutor of prefcsimity where rum was found, and that place was in the occupancy of Defendant ; Monick v. Solomon ; D'Oliveira v. Bui*- rowes ; or that he had control of it ; Batiste v. Burrowes ; or that due liquify had failed to discover any other occu- pant ib. D'Oliveira v. Burrowes; (citing Cross v. Watts, 32 L.J. N.S., M.C., p. 73) D'Ornellas v. Leacock» and D'Ornellas v. Wells as different in point; (in' Batiste v. Burrowes rum was found near some staves between the house and a paling 7 feet from the shop) or that he had exclusive right of access. Batiste v. Burrowes. The words " wherein goods shall be exposed for sale" not necessary before Magistrate on evidiance. Lewis v. Gross. Cit. "White v. Brulneil. Business Peimises. 22 Oaeeiaqb, &o. Ohaegb. Wording of. — ^May be for having rum " in " the business premises or "on" business premises. D'Ornel- las V. Wells ; D'Ornellas v. Leacook. D'Oliveira v. Hur- rowes J oit. D'Ornellas v. Wells ; it should state Defendant to be the occupier of the business premises. Culver- house V. Darrell. Time for bringing charge for having rum on business premises to be within 30 days. D'Ornellas v. Leacock, By-Law. Authority to Act. — A Police Constable may act on a by-law of his own notion, but if directed to do an act by his superior officer the act done by him is the act of the superior officer. Rocha v. Binns. Cane Tops Not subject of larceny. Sample v. Butts. See Lar- ceny G-rowing Crops. Caption. That part of a legal instrument, as a commission, indictment, &c., which shows where and by what author- ity it is taken, founded or extracted. It should show the Magistrate's district, so that it should appear that the case fell within his jurisdictioD, Rodney v. Sampson. Carriage, Cart, Horse, &c.— Licences foe. Use — Onus. — Where the Tax Ordinance enacts that any person who keeps and uses or owns and permits to be used any carriage shall take out a licence, the prosecuting officer need not prove a using if he proves that the carriage was found on Defendant's premises. The opus of proving that it was not used lies on Defendant. Gon- salves V. Anson. Under Ordinance 5 of 1855, sec. 5, the onus of prov- ing that a mule was not used for hire is on Defendant. Careiagb, &o. 23 Oabeiage, &o. Smith V. Barclay. Idem, permitted to be used. Goola- mally v. Dornford. Inference. — A charge for " keeping and using for trade or hire a carriage and did then and there fail without lawful excuse to take out a licence to keep the same" infers that the failure of the taking out of the licence is with respect to the carriage. Gonsalves v. Anson. The evidence that Defendant owned and permitted a donkey and cart to be used is not sufficient to convict him of an offence for keeping and using for the purpose of trade. Marachea v. Lay ton. Excuse. — The failure to take out a licence for the finan- cial year is not exonerated because the charge is brought after a new financial year has begun and a new Ordinance passed before the case is proceeded with. King v. Gush. The keeping and using two carriages when there is only licence for one is an infraction of the Ordinance and it is not necessary to prove that Defendant used the two carriages on the same day. Fraser v. Brebner ; Martins v. Burrowes ; Mendes v. Layton. It is no offence to use in one county a horse and carriage for which a licence had been taken out in another county, even if the user is not the holder of the licence. Nott v Lang. A hearse is not a four-wheeled carriage liable to licence. Swain V. Matthias. (Repealed by Tax Ordinance.) Use of estate's horse by the manager for his own pur- pose is a user without licence by the manager. Duggin V. Crawford. Keeping and using a cart is an offence. Permitting it to be used is another offence. Mendes v. Layton. Agency. — A cart driven by Defendant's son for purposes of Defendant is in law a driving by Defendant qui facit per aliam facit per se. Anson v. Stuart. Where Defend- ant's boy uses mule, some evidence must be given to show or at least to lead reasonably to the inference that such use was by the instruction or in the employment of the Defendant. Mendes v. Taylor. Nam£ of Owner. — An employe of estate is not person- ally liable if name of estate is not legibly painted on cart. SO of 1866, s. 44. Grant v. Lang j Waughten v. Lloyd. OaEEIAGE, &0. 24 OEETmOATE. Leaving horse Sfc. on parapet of public road is an offence under 20 of 1856. Parker v. Ef elyn. Tbade Pubposes. Where a holder of a private licence to use a donkey and cart, &c. contracts to supply amongst other things milk to a hospital, he is a trader in milk and liable for using his donkey and cart, &c. without a licence for trade, if he conveys the milk to the hospital by such cart. Patoir v. Layton. Idem, — Where the proprietor of an oil factory carries cocoanuts to the factory in his carfc. Smith v. Barclay, following Mayers v. Anderson ; (citing Re Watts ex p. Sully 14 Q.B.D. 950.) Kem.— Where a person cuts cord wood and sells the game to an estate and conveys the wood in a cart for which he holds a private licence, he is liable to a con- viction for using a cart for purpose of trade. Anson v. Stuart. Idem,. — Where bread is conveyed from steamer stel- ling to Defendant's shop. Mayers v. Anderson. Idem,. — If he makes bread and supplies his customers who keep shops. King v. Nasebun. Idem. — When corned hassas are sold in the cart. Van Brook V. King ; contra if hassas were fresh, ih. Case. There is no provision in the Ordinance or Rules enabling a Magistrate to state a case for the Review Court. Greene v. Brazao. Cattle. — See Pound. Certificate. Of Dismissal. — Defendant is entitled to a certificate of dismissal of the charge when the complainant refrains from offering evidence. De Freitas v. McAllister et al. (cit. Bey. v. Wiltshire Justices 8 B. & C. 380 ; Bradshaw V. Vauffhton, 30 L.J. O.P. N. S. 93; TunnicUfeY. Tedd, 5 0.B. 558.) OERTmoATB. 25 Complain?'. Of Dismissal; case not proved, equals dismissal on merits and may be amended to a dismissal "not on merits." Daniel v. Day. Of Commissary . — Admission of — See Evidence . Cf Mdipistrate. — Other than certificate of dismissal is no part of the proceedings in Review and cannot be looked at. Gomes v. Burrowes. Of Receiver General. — See Bvidenoe. As a bar to further proceedings. — See Aut. Acq. Chapel, Church. A licence is not required for a lecture given by the Minister of a Church on a historical or religious subject illustrated by the magic lantern for raising money to repair the Church or to light or clean the same. Gib- bons V Straker (cit. Baxter v. Langley, L.R. 4 C.P. 21). Smoking in a church yard does not make the offender amenable to arrest by a constable for disorderly conduct. Zitman v. Backer. Offences. — ^Where a person persists in an act in a church yard innocent in itself, but indecent in respect of time and place and other circumstances, he may be removed at the instance of the Minister or other person in authority ib. (cit. Hawe v. Planner, t Sand. 13 : Com. Dig. Esglise P. 2.) Charge— See Information. Charge. — ^Amendment of. — See Amendment. Cocoanut. — See Growing Crop — Larceny. Commissary. A Su^-Commissary is not entitled to exercise any of the functions or authorities reposed in the "District Inspector " under the Road Ordinance of 1856. Young V. Munro. Compensation. — To Prosecutor. — See Compro- mise. Complaint. — See Information. D COMPllOMISE. 26 CONSWl), Compromise. Personal Offmce. — Where offence is of a private or personal nature not amounting to felony and not aggra- vated, involving damage to the individual for which an action would be mnintainable, it would not be unusual for the Magistrate to allow the complaint to be dropiped on terms that compensation be paid to the injured party. Dooraj, y, Keejioo. A private injury may generally be discharged by the agreement of the person injured ; it is different with an offence which is considered to be an injury against the community as well as aigainst a particular individual ; no discharge or forgiveness by the individual can be of effect in such a case. Bagot v. Grunga. (A case for neglecting to begin work without lawful excuse.) Licerire Ldw —Tendering of money to cover licence, after infortnation laid, does not condone offence for not taking out licence. Matheson v. Straker. The receiving of an instalment with interest for licence is no condonation of . offence committed prior to date of receipt. Day v. Gonsialves. "Where the Commissary gives permission to a person to use a gun, the party using the gun may still be con- victed of using the gun tvithout a licence, as the permis- sion of the CommisvSary cannot override the law which makes it imperative to take out a licence. Horton v. Chester ; Tyrell t. Stuart. Idem when a notice is issued calling on persons to take out licences up to a certain day on pain that those neglecting to provide themselves with a licence will be prosecuted, and an unlicensed gun is used in the interim. Bolton V. Fernandes,. Computation of Time.— ^See Timb. — Sunday. Condonation. — See Compromise. Consent. Evidence otherwise inadmissible cannot in criminal or summary proceedings be admitted by consent. Warren V. Pereira, Consent. 27 Conviction. The presumption of consent from silence is not abso- lute. Warren v. Pereira. In criminal charges it is not competent for an accused person to consent to anything. Such consent does not cure irregularities. Jacko et al v. Sarabjeth. Construction of Penal Ordinance.— See Cbihinal MatTee. „ of Ordinance. — See Ordinance. Contract. — Breach of. In cases against a labourer evidence mustibe given to show that Defendant is a contract labourer. Prince et al V, Rickford. There can be no conviction under a charge for fraud and deception whilst cutting canes if the fraud and deception took place after the canes had been. cut. , Ih. Contract is not illegal on the ground that parties agreed that the work must be finished in a, certain time or no part thereof would be paid for. Trap v. Grreen. Breach of — by Servant. — See MASTEii and Servant. Conviction Is the completion of the record and 'the Court of Review is governed bj it and not by the charge. Van Brook V. King. Requisites oi". Need not state age of Defendant, neither whethfer'he is an adult, &c. Grant v. Josa. Security .—On conviction, no imprisonment awarded, the Magistrate is to take security in Ca^e of appeairand not a deposit of money for Defendant to abide appeal. Collief V. Pullltlall. Signatwe. — The conviction must purport to bear the Magistrate's signature. Williams v. Lynch, Altering. — Conviction may be altered by Magistrate during the sitting of the Court. The Sessions have the power of altering a sentence before adjournment, butthi's should be done with much cautioti. Mansofl v. Guagadeen. Conviction. 28- Requisites. Inference. — ^Must not be supported by intendment. Glasgow V. De Freitas. Jurisdiction. — Must show that the offence was com- mitted within the local limits over which the jurisdiction extends, but there is no special method of proof for establishing this fact. Grant v. Josa. Specific. — Must be for the offence charged. Cumber- batch V. Hinds, cit. Ben v. Nicholson {Beg. v. Wheaimom. Douglas, 232; Beg. v. Smith 8 T.R. 588). Must contain offence committed, verdict and penalty, although the Ordinance defines the penal consequences. Cox V. Bascom (cit. Reg. v. Vipont, 2 Burr 1163 ; Beg. v. Harris, 7 T.R. 238; Paley 252.) Must be for a specific penalty. Gomes v. Backer. Paley 227 et seq. For Gaming. — Must contain an averment that Defend- ant is deemed a rogue and a vagabond. Soyah v. Morancie. Under Vagrancy Ordinance it must show under what head Defendant is convicted whether as an idle and dis- orderly person, &c. Turnkey v. King (cit. Fletcher y. Calthorpe, 14 L, J. M. 0. 49; Beg. v. Johnson, 8 Q.B. 102). Where this is omitted and no specific objection taken Court will remit to Magistrate for new conviction. Decision in form of English Act. Soyah et al v. Morancie. Under 20 of 1862 it is suflBcient for conviction to pur- port to be for an offence committod contrary to Ordi- nance 20 of 1862 which enacts (sec. 72) that no summary conviction under the Ordinance shall be quashed for want of form. Evans v. Young-a-sam. Where Ordinance makes a particular class of persons . amenable to an offence such as " baker", &c., the convic- tion must show on the face of it that Defendant belongs to such class. De Govia v. Greenslade. Conviction must be so framed that it is capable in its terms without being construed by means of intrinsic evidence of supporting the plea of aut. conv. in the event of a second prosecution being brought for same offence. This is not accomplished where the statute under which the conviction is made creates more offences than one by saying the Defendant was convicted of committing or of Conviction. 29 Dbfbot. abetting an offence against that statute ; it must express the particular offence. Warren v. Pereira. Must contain ascertained costs. — See Costs. Idem negative presumption. — See Criminal Matter. Excess. A conviction adjudicating a Defendant in case of wilful damage to pay a fine of $24 or 2 months' hard labour, and to pay for damage done $4 or in default 14 days' hard labour is in excess of the Magistrate's jurisdiction, but the alternative of 14 days' hard labour in default of payment of the $4 can be treated as ultra vires and the conviction can be amended by striking out that part. Luckie, et al, v. Anson. (See case Eppile v. Burrowes, under the head Amendment.) Appellant convicted of assault and sentenced to fine and imprisonment. Held that this was in excess of jurisdiction, and Court of Review had power to amend Ramsorun v. Sicknurse of Caledonia. In case of damaging property, where conviction awards in addition, compensation for the injury, it may be amended where there is no legal evidence as to the damage done, to one adjudicating a fine and costs with the alternative of imprisonment with hard labour, by striking out the compensation. Joseph v":' Ruck ; idem, where there is evidence to sustain the conviction. Sirdar V. Langevine. The Court cannot alter sentence if the Magistrate exceeds the limits of his statutory authority, Glasgow, et al, V. Brandon. Defect. Conviction cannot be quashed on a point which was within the knowledge of Defendant, but which he did not choose to raise before the Magistrate. Isaacs v. Chapman ; cit. Straghan v. Darrell. Where there is a defect or omission in stating a com- plaint or conviction which might be omitted altogether, it does not vitiate what is correctly stated. Martin v. Burrowes ; (cit. Paley 168 ; B. v. Hall, 1 T. R., 320 ; B. v. Jeffries, 4 T. R., 769 j B. v. Huntley, 29 L. J.M. C, 70). GalNviOTiON. 30 Formal, Sentence for breach of OrowQ Lands Ordinance for $48 and costs, and " if a grant-holder, to forfeit licence," is bad for uncertainty. Gomes v. Backer ; idem, if con- viction states sand " coals, &c." to be sold, ib; idem, if it condemns Defendant to pay A " and another," Coombs V. Butler. When bad for want of certainty, case can be remitted to Magistrate for formal conviction. De Frietas V. Siegert. It is bad if it simply finds Defendant guilty of the offence charged and contains no adjudication of pimish* ment. Cox v. Bascom. It is no answer to say that the punishment is fixed by law, ib. ; (cit. B. v. Vipont, 2 Burr., 1163; B. v. Harris, 7, T. R., 238; Pa%, 252). "Where it is bad for want of certainty, all doubts on the point can be removed by remitting the case to the Magistrate for him to draw up a formal conviction, De Freitas v. Siegert. A conviction to pay to A "and an- " other," is bad for uncertainty. Coombs y. Butler. A conviction is indivisible, and a fault in one part vitiates the whole. Abendanon v. Sproston. A conviction bad in part is fatal to the whole convic- tion. Nascimento v. Anson. A penal sentence is so clearly indivisible that it cannot be good in part and bad in part, and the decision must be removed altogether. Thus it becomes necessary for the Judge in Review to consider the facts of the caseinOi'der to impose a new sentence, although under ordinary cir- cumstances he would not reconsiderthe quantum of punish- ment awarded by the Magistrate's decision. Rodney v. Sampson. Contra in De Haart v. Harcourt, where convic- tion was amended. Further — See Conviotion, Amendment. The omission of a material averment will vitiate a conviction notwithstanding the proviso that " no con- " viction for any offence should be set aside for want of •" form or through a mistake of any fact, circumstance " or other matter, provided the material facts alleged " were proved." Turnkey v. King. Rodney v. Sampson ; (<;it. U. V. Jukes, 8, T. R. 536.) Formal. . , Magistrate not bound by conviction at Bar, and he may CosviOTioN. 31 Amendment. file an amended conviction before certiorari, when Court of Review will be bound by the formal conviction. McGrowan V. Davis; (cit. Chancy y. Payne, 1, Q.B., 722; Charter V. Graeme, 18, L.J., M.C., 73; B. v. Backer, 1, Bast., 188.) Webster v. Birch— tbe minute of the Magistrate must contain statement of conviction ; Hutson v. Roson. Where Magistrate orders imprisonment orally, and formal conviction shows no imprisonment, the proper sentence is to be taken from the formal conviction sent in to the Court. McGrowan v. Davis ; (cit. Jones v. Williams, 36, L.J., M.C., 555.) Where the formal conviction is not sent in, the order of the Ma,gistrate as laid in the proceedings will be taken as conclusive. De Gruara v. Watson. The formal conviction even if properly drawn up can- not supply defects in the charge and evidence. Sewbode V. Muller. Subsequent proceedings do not affect conviction. Jeffrey v. Burrowes. Amendment. The Review Court has no power to alter the sentence of a Magistrate where it transgresses the limits of his statutory authority. Glasgow v. Brandon. Where conviction is wrong. Court of Reviewr can alter sentence. Ford v. De Veuve. Under the Customs Ordinance a conviction decreeing " 3 months' imprisonment in default of payment of the " fine," may be amended by striking out the 3 months' imprisonment as surplusage, and the Court will remit the case back to the Magistrate for him to draw up a proper conviction. McGrowan v. Davis ; cit. Cox v. Davis ; Correa v. Cuckow. Where the conviction orders 30 days' imprisonment and fine of $24 and costs or 2 months' hard labour, the Court of Review has power to alter the same to one for 124 and costs. Rodney v. Sampson. Where conviction imposes a penalty and costs above the amount fixed by law, the Court may amend. Ned v. Tyce. Where conviction imposes a penalty less than the law Conviction. 32 Ambndmbnt. allows, the Magistrate exceeds Ws authority and the Court cannot amend the conviction. D'Nascimento v. Anson. Where there is a mere omission in the drawing up of the instrument wholly irrespective of the truth and merits of the matter in question, the Court of Review will order an amendment. Matheson v. Gray f (Omerod V. Ghadwich, 16, M. & "W., p. 367 ; B. n. Inhabitmits of Ghilverscotan, 8, T. R., 178 ; B. v. Daman, 2, B. & Aid., 378, held not in proof as having been decided before previous act.) Conviction stating " damage, injury and spoil," may be amended to either term. Joseph v. Ruck. Under Ordinance 6 of 1863, the Review Court has large powers of amendment, and wherever there is a conviction well founded as to the merits and a part of the adjudication is legally valid, so much as is valid should be sustained although joined with something else which was not valid, and provided injury or injustice is not attendant on or induced by the separation. Luckie v. Anson. The Court will adopt itself either by amending or remitting to the Magistrate with instruction when that course is more suitable, ib. "Where conviction is bad in part and good in part, the part valid will be sustained, the invalid part set aside, e.g., where conviction is for assault and binds the Defen- dant to keep the peace, the fine or imprisonment for the assault will be valid and sustained, and the adjudication to keep the peace will be set aside. Cunningham v. Long. Where the conviction is erroneous in part it is still good if the Magistrate decided rightly in so far as he had jurisdiction, yet decided on extraneous matter beyond his jurisdiction. Bracey v. McTurk. In this case the Magistrate tried a claim of Appellant under Crown Lands Act, dismissed the same and adjudged him to a fine or imprisonment, and forfeiture of his wood-cutting licence. Where the Magistrate in case of plantain stealing sentences Defendant to imprisonment and to a flogging within the time within which he has a right to appeal, the Review Court has power to affirm decision in regard Conviction. 33 CtosTS. to ihe imprisonment and ^et it E^side with regard to tlie flogging. Williams v. Primo. l^herg charge stated offence to be under Ordinance 14 of 1 855, and the conviction shoyyed Ordinance 25 of 1868, tihp Gpnrt held that the enactments under 3 & 21 ot" Review Ordinances werq adapted from 11 & 12 Vie c. 43, ^. 1 ; l'2, ^ 13 Vic. 43, s. 7 ; 21 & 22 Vic c. 43, a. 6, and 4id ?lot warrant amendnient of the conviction nor a rejnit tq the Magistrate Tvho is put pf the colonj at the time the matter is mentioned, Mann v. MoTurk. Atpendment Qf charge, bj adding in case of gambling " a,t a gemie of oh^inpe," aUqw^-blg? Aflanis v. Clarke. Cqnrt pf Review capnpt decrqe aTQendnient pf a good charge pf larceny where Magistrate convicts pf emhezzle- mgnt, sp a,s, to correspond with evidence and conviction. Jess^ey V; Rpbb. Conviction tP pay a penalty for using horse and nob taking out Ucenp? and to pay half apaount pf such licence, qijaghed as cegards pa^fing half anxonpt of the licence. Mattheson v. Straker. Where Magi§tra.te imposes a leas penalty thap is allowed by the Ordinance, the conviction is bad and cfinnqt be ajpenjied. JD'Nasciniento v. Ai^son. Copy of Minutes — See Evidence. Qorii. When grown on Cro\^n Land^, is not liable to seizure by a Commissary of Taxation under 9 of 1873. (yon- salves V. Sarcourt. Costs Ji^qp \ie auiq,rded under 19 of l|jS@, Sec. 24 on a charge fpj Hgiqg abn^iye wordg laid under 20 of 1856, ^eo. 1. Benjanjin y. Qo Ereitag ; and under aame Ordinance on a p'h§rg§ pf sglling gpodg on Sunday. Jardinp v. Bol- ton ; Pa, gilva, V. C riffin ; D'Abreo v. Criffin ; Pereira v. Bol]tpn. tinder Qrdinange 19 of 1856 the Magistrate can award C'g^t^^ in ca^es Q^ summary cflnvietiiin but can only E Costs. 34 Criminal Mattee. imprison for non-payment after distress or failure to find a sufficient distress. Rodney v. Sampson. Costs shuuld not be awarded to the agent of the prin- cipal but to the principal. Williams v. Roberts. No costs awarded. — Where case is dismissed and the record does not show whether for want of jurisdiction, or that the Magistrate declined to adjudicate, from the omission to make any order as to costs, the Court must imply that dismissal was for want of jurisdiction. Daw- son V. Gonsalves. Ascertained costs must be specified in the conviction. Haywood v. Young ; De Gruara v. Watson ; Turnkey v. King ; (cit. B. v. Abraham Hall Gomp., 60 ; E.v. Symonds, 1 East 189 ; Sellwood v. Mount, 1 Ad. & El., N. S. p. 726) ; or decision will be reversed. Gomes v. Bethune; de Guara v. Watson ; Da Santos et al v. Bxor. James. Are recoverable in the same manner as a penalty. Car- reiro v. Ouckow. Ord. 19 of 1856 Sec. 24 cited for contra, held not applicable. (Begina v. Barton, 13 Q.B., 389.) Of retainers to Barrister not allowable in Magistrate's Court. Salmon v. Blake. Discretion of Court. — The Review Court not bound to award costs to Appellant. Pistano v. Pompey. Counting House.— See Offioe. Criminal Matter. What Is. Summary Process. — Where Ordinance enacts that pro- ceeding is to be under Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance 19 of 1856 the matter is a Criminal one. Cox v. Bascom, Where a penalty is inflicted or where the accused besides other forfeitures is immediately or prospectively liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour, to fine or both, it is a Criminal matter, Swain v. Pistano, S. C. If the penalty is one which of many affects the Defen- dant at once by the imprisonment of his body in the event of a verdict of guilty so that he is liable, if goods or money are sought to be recovered by means of the pro- ceedings, it is a Criminal proceeding. Pistano v. Swain, Okiminal Matter. 35 What is not (cit. Gattel v. Ireson, B. B. & E. 97 (cited for Appellant, held not applicable.) {B. v. Dixon, 3 M. & S. 11 ; It.w. Marsh, 2 B. & C. 717 ; B. v. Stephens, I Q. B. 702 ; Barton Y. McQueen, 2 Moore P. C. 19; B. v. Medley, 6 0. & P. 299 ; B. V. Dean, 12 M. & W. 39 ; B. v. Eandley, 9 L. T. 127 : B. V. Halbrook, 3^Q. B. p. 64). (Sup. Civil Court). Breaches of the Fiscal Laws are Criminal matters and there can be equity. Williams v. Lynch. A prosecution under the Crown Lands Ordinance is a Criminal matter. Swain v. Pistano (cited for Appellant to show that the infliction of a penalty does not constitute a Criminal matter). Aitcheson v. Everett 1 Cowp. 382; Attorney General v. Siddons, 1 C. & J. 220. Information for Penalty under 6 G. iv. c. 108. Pistano V. Swain; (Parker v. Green, 31 L. J. M. C. 133.) Alehouse Keeper permitting bad characters to meet in his bouse against tenor of licence. Pistano v. Swain (cited by the judgment. Attorney Generalr. Badloff, 10 Ex. 96.) Selling Bum contrary to Ordinance 25 of 1868, Sec. 8, is a Criminal matter. Rodrigues v. Darrell. In affiliation cases. — See Poor Law. Peoop. It is sufl&cient for the prosecution to prove so muchof the charge as constitutes an offence punishable by law. Evans V. Young-a-Sam (cit. Bex. v. Hollingburg, 4 B. & C. 330.) In Revenue cases Prosecutor to be bound to submit proof. D'Oliveira v. Darrell. A penal law must not be strained beyond its plain terms and meaning, and where this meaning is doubtful it must be construed more narrowly tban more widely. Fernandes v. Greenslade. Where the Ordinance declares a thing to be unlawful if done without lawful excuse the circumstances must be specifically mentioned in the conviction, as it is the absence of such lawful excuse which imparts to the act a criminal character. Bacchus v. Warren (cit. B. v. Gordon 4 Burr 2279). What is Not. A bond fide belief deprives the act in question of a CEiki^At Matter. 36 C'eown Lands. crin^inal character although such acit per se was made punish'iable without reference to the intent. Rodney v. Rodney. Ilpgal vinp6un3,mg ii riot a Criminal matter. Blank V. Miilligan. Trespass on 'Wdwn land is not a Crirhihal or penal matter. De Freitas v. Wight. Act ()£ Defendaiii in Criminal matter. — See Witness. See Pound. Gross Charges Arising out of the same set of aVc?tTOsia«'ces.7— Each must l?e fully heard in the manner , prescribed by lawi hnt decision paay be reserved in the one until the other is lieard. Binns v. Boilings worth. Crdwn Lands. Chabge For breach should contain a description of the land. Pistano v. Swain. If Defendant goes to trial without applying for a post- ponement he is deemed to have waived objection thereto. ih. What not liable to Seizure. Uoi-n grown on Crown Lands not lial|l5 to seizure by Commissary of Taxation. (Gronsalves v. Harcourt. Goods liable to Seizure. Where Grantee deals with seller of shingles he should make enquiry and obtain clear and reliable information as lo the goods he purchases. If he neglects the duty and purchases without asking questions, he is playir^ into the hands of those who on a larger or smaller ^c?ile lis the case may be, are plunderers of the fprests of the colony, and he has only himself to thank if eventually the tran^-action turns to his own loss. Swain v. Lopes. Shingles cut on Crown L^iids by mistake gives the tiespasser no right to insist on a surrender of them because he niade a mistake. Be Freitas v. W'ig'ht. CfidwN Lands. 37 Coiiti^iai^iWdN. The fact that claiiaaant is not a tinabej:; merchant lies on claimant, ijot on seizing oflBcer. Mendinho v. Ohalmers. Although onus of proof is on claimant, everything should be taken .as far as possible in favour of claimatnt, and a v^ry slender amount of evidence ought to suffice in aid of possession to make out a primd facie (sase. By using the ,word pyimd facie it is not meant that such a ease might be afterwards strengthened^^excepc Jjy rebutting tl^e contra case of the. seizing officer. De Souza v. Wight ; BTemner V. Wight. It is not sufficient to prove that timber, &o., was cut from land in possession ^of another. ^ It must be proved that such land was held by such other person under an existing Giraht; Swain v. da Silva; Although the law ddes not in all cases riequird the production of written title to lund it does require the best eyid'ence that the nature of the thing will admit, and. when the question is whether a given land is Orowh Mnd or has been granted to a subject, the production of the Grrant should be urged uiiife'Sis gome satisfactory explana- tion be established for the non-production. Swain v. The onus is on claimant to prov6 that sei^M tiinbeb is not liable to seizure. King v. Brittlebahk. It is not necessary to prove a cutting by Defendant, nominal cutting qui facit per aXium facit per se is quite enough. Ferreira v. Wight. . Notice of claim ,to seized goods must be given ,m terms of ■ Ordinance , and on failure thereof claimant cannot review proceedings. Allicock v. Wight. Notice may be signed by any one duly authorised by claimant and need uot be recQI^ded, nor need not be a power of attorney. Forsyth v. Wight. CojtfDBMNATreS. ib decree forfeiture of Licence. — The Licence or Licen- ces intended ,1;6 Jbe affected should be proved, and. the forfeiture applied tb thein speoifibally. Dow v. Chalmerd. To decree that the holder " shall forfeit his Licenfce of Crown Land" is bad Tor "excess and for uncertainty, tb. Ceqwn Lands. 38 Sub-letting. On a claim for timber illegally seized, the Magistrate who finds the timber to have been legally seized cannot in the same proceedings impose a fine, costs and forfeiture of claimant's Licence as a wood cutter. Bracey v. McTurk. In cases of seizure the Review Court can find for Pursuer for part of plaint and for Respondent for part. Francis v. Wight. The property of the Crown would not be divested by non claim within the period allowed, and by the Ordi- nance 9 of 1873, S. 35 the proof of the illegality of the seizure is placed on the claimant. Bracey v, McTurk. Peoceeding foe Possession. Where lands are in the possession of a private party who got them from one who had possession since 1834, the Crown in 1 863 in order to get possession should take proper steps by process if need be before the Supreme Civil Court. G-omes v. Backer. Tebspass. Trespass on Crown Land not a criminal or penal matter. De. Freitas v. Wight. Peesoeiption. — see Prescription Sub-Letting. Sub-letting Licence is no offence except under certain circumstances. Duggin v. Mendonya. Such circum- stances must be negatived in the conviction, ih. cit. (Fletcher v. Galthorpe, 6 Q. B. ; Paley 182 ; B. v. Gordon, 4 Bmr 2279; B. v. Havell 13 Bast 141.) Holder of G-rant cannot sub-let or sub-divide. A donation of timber growing on Crown Lands without permission of the Governor is a sub-letting, and timber cut on such lands is liable to seizure. King v. Brittlebank. Holder of Crown Lands allowing a person to cut wood or burn charcoal on his lands for a portion of the pro- ceeds does not by such act sub-let the lands of any portion thereof. D'Qliveira v. Backer. Obown Lands. 39 Defect. A cHarge for sub-letting Grant should state that the Defendant sub-letted or sub-divided the interest in a wood-cutting " Mcence". Ih. Customs. Charge for breach of Customs law must be in the name and signed by the Comptroller or Sub-Comptroller of Customs. Hobenkirk v. Royen. Proof; onus. — ^AU the Prosecutor has to do in "Customs" cases is to show that the Defendant failed to do what the law required and that his failure was wilful. McGowan V. Davis. Date. Under Larceny Ordinance date of larceny need not be proved. Cbristoplier v. McNicholl. Charging Defendant with illegally cutting wood "during " or about the month of April 18S2" on Crown lands is sufficient if the actual date of the offence had been proved to have been within tbe time limited by the Ordinance. Dow V. Chalmers. Decision of Court. Where there is a decision of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction th.e otber Courts will adopt that as the basis of their decision, provided it can be appealed from. Angally v. Agavd; (cit. Jackson v. Wooley, 8 B. & B. 778, 784). Magistrates are to conform to the decisions of the Review Court which are binding on them until altered by due course of law, lb. Decision of Magistrate must be defiiiite in Revenue matters ; he must decide one way or the other. Darrell V. Eodrigues. Defendant. — See Appbaeanoe. Age of — See Age. Examination of — See Witness. Defect in Conviction. — See Conviction. ,, of Duplicity— See DuPLiciTi. ,, in Information — See Information. BQ^ert^pn Qf Immigrant — ^efj Immigeant. „ of Wife — See PooE Law, Dies Non.— See Holiday. Directions. Review Couyt l^asi lao ji^risdiction tQ give direetions. Corpeir^, v, Green, Discretion of Magistrate in believing evidence. — Se^ Magistbate— JuET. ~ DisG7etiQ^ary Power, When exercised by the Magistrate under circumstances which bring it within his pperation, not interfered with. Powers V. Ruck. Where Magistrate entertains a request for a summons and refuses to issue same in the due exercise of a discretionary power vested in him by law, it is not in the province of the Court to ipterfere. Wright v. Garnett. The Magistrate has no discretion in refusing to issue a summons ib. unless on some grounds duly ascertained which the law recognizes as sufficient. Torrop v. Jardine. The Judges are not autjiQri^ed to interfere with the discretion entrusted to a Magistrate in fixing the amount of fine. Surupjeet v. Lang ; Clouston v. Fraser. Of Magistrate as to believing evidence. — See Magis- trate — JUBT. Discretion as to Fine. — See Excessive Finbt- IjfPEISiPNM^INT, Dismissal-— See Qbbtipicate; Autre pois Acquit. Disorderly ass^blages in Bfitail Spirit Shop. Qrd. 25 1868, S. 49. To render Defendant liable it must be shown that he allowed these assemblies in an oy(iiiqj},ry or (lirect case. Pequeno v. Weddall. Disorderly Conduct Not synonynipus with " violent conduct". McKenna V. Binnp,. ^oL - ;; nam DiSOBDERLY CONDUOT. 41 DuPLICITY. On a public street. — Conduct "which interferes with the free and peaceable use of the street either as a thorough- fare or as a place where persons reside and carry on business is disorderly. lb. It is no excuse for Defendant to say he had a right to use the street in connection with the public. lb. Shouting and throwing somersaults on the street is a disorderly conduct. lb. Disputed Title. — Assault from— See Assault. ,, ,, See Jurisdiction. Distress. — See Haed Labour. Dog. Ownership. — The keeping of a dog without a licence is an offence, and the question of ownership cannot enter on the trial. Gonsalves y. Ouckow. Further — See Licence. Keeping more than one. — See Autbefois Acquit. Doubt. Review Court must give matter of doubt in favour of Defendant in the Court below. Percival v. Tebbutts. Drive Off. — ^See Words. Drugs. Licence to sell drugs does not cover sale of goods other than drugs. Pontifex v. Swain. Castor Oil is a drug. Teixeira v. Swain. Duplicity. Where charge is duplex Defendant or the Magistrate should call on Prosecutor to elect which he intends to proceed with. Christopher v. McNichoU; D'Abreu v. Francis. Chakges bad eoe Duplioitt. Charge for heeping and using for trade " pr'' hire is bad for duplicity, but it may be amended, (jonsalves v. Anson ; cit. Mayers v. Anderson, D'Abreu v. Francis. p. Duplicity. 42 Duplicity. , Charge in the disjunctive, such as " did unlawfully sell " or offer for sale barter or exchatige or otherwise dis- " pose of" is bad for duplicity. Gonsalves v. Joseph (cit. Newman v. Bendysche, 10 A. & E. 11) ; the fact that con- viction is for "disposing" alone does not render it good. lb. Charge for " breach of the peace for being disorderly in " an open yard and a nuisance to the police". Ben v. Michelson. Charge for keeping two dogs without a licence. Henry V. Solomon. Charge for refusing to admit a policeman " into a certain " shop and into and upon the premises belonging thereto." D'Abreu v. Francis (cit. I. A. Gr. rep. Ohitto v. Kelly ; I. A. G. rep, Bughonadth v. Clark.) Charge for breach of contract by committing "fraud " and deception." Price v. Rickford, cit, Gronsalves v. Joseph. Charge for holding a public entertainment for "money " or reward." Gibbons v. Straker. Charge for having " sold or suffered to be sold". Mar- tin V. Birch. Charge in the alternative. Martin v. Birch ; Valladares V. Bethune. Ohaeges not bad foe Duplicity. Charge for " receiving and harbouring immigrant," har- bouring being held to include "receiving" Cox v. Bascom (cit. B. v. Bowen, 1 Den C. C. 21 ; B. v. Qid- dens, 1 C. & M. 634; B. v. -Scott, 33 L. J..M. C. N. S. 15). Charge fdr "destroying defacing andinjuring a register." Cox V. Bascom (cit. Beg.y. Bowen, 1 Den. C. C. 22). Charge for " assaulting A. Sf B, and stealing from A." lb (cit. Beg. v. Giddens et al,lG. & M. 634 ; Beg. v. Scott, 33 L. J. N. S. M. C. 15). Charge for larceny and assault arising out of larceny. Bascom v. Stover. The Magistrate took evidence only of the larceny and adjudicated as for larceny ; on appeal held that the charge must be looked at as one for larceny. Charge, for being found in a shop for some unlawful purpose and not being able to give a satisfactory account. Duplicity. 43 Bvidencb. Popwell V. Barnes, the words *' not being" &c, being treated as surplusage. Charge for " ddmuge injury and spoil." Josepri v. Ruck. Charge for harboring two immigrants on board a vessel. Webster V. Ruck. Charge for assault and beat. Evans v. Yong-a-Sam (cit. Beg. v. Scott, ZdL. J.N. S.M. C. 15), as there may be an assault without beating, and a battery without an assault, and if Complainant failed to prove battery it would not excuse Defendant f dr so much of the complaint as charged an assault. lb. cit. Rex. v. HolUngburg, 4 B. & C. 330). Embezzlement.-^See Master and Servant and Laecent. Estate ; immigrant. — :See Immigbant. Cart used by Estate — See Carriage. Evidence. It must be taken in all proceedings before convictkrti, where Defendant does not plead guilty. Reiz v. Cucfcow. Immigrant. The only evidence that an Immigrant was absent from the Estate when he departs without leave of the Manager, &c., is a duly certified extract from a i-egister kept by the 1. A. G. in terms of Sec. 164, Ord. 7 of 1873. Leggatt V. Matabudul; contra James v. Lilmonie. Register of Immigrants kept on an Estate is evidence. Berangea v. Bascom ; Seeiwootulah v. Menzies. The indenture list made under Sec. 40 of Immigration Ordinance 1873 is not in the nature of secondary evidence. It is original evidence of the indenture and when coupled with the identification by the overseer of the immigrant proceeded against, it is sufficient* Kollichurrun v. King. Illegal. — Evidence taken against a Defendant who is sent from one county to another in order that such evidence may be laid before another Magistrate as to statements made by him cannot be admitted in the proceedings. Williams v. Lynch. ' Evidence. 44 Evidence. Evidence to he in writing. — The Court cannot intend that matters essential to the construction of an offence were proved where it is not shown by the Magistrate's notes. Oapello v. Greaves; De Jesus et al v. King. Production. — There is no rule that makes it impera- tive to produce the documents that may be capable of proving a particular fact if it can be proved aliunde. James v. Lilmonie. Evidence primd facie stands good till answered, and if not answered, it thereby becomes conclusive for the purpose of the trial in which it is adduced. Dos Eamos V. Francis. Op Magisteate's Minutes. A copy of the Magistrate's minutes of evidence in a summary prosecution is competently used in the Review Court for purposes of review (Sec. 20, 5 of 1868) but such minutes are not thereby made evidence either of fact or of statements either generally or for the purposes of another summary prosecution before another Magis- trate, nor are they evidence by any other enactment or by any general principle of law. Warren v. Pereira. Evidence by consent. Where evidence is otherwise inadmissible it cannot be admitted by consent on a criminal proceeding, (or in a case under the Sunday Trading Ordinance). Warren v. Pereira ; Jacko et al v. Sarabyeth. The presumption of consent is not to be taken as absolute from silence of the opposite party. Ih. Of Defendant — See Witness. Of husband of Defendant — See Witness. Of Documents — See Special Heads. On Distinct Charges. Must be taken on each charge even if they be against the same Defendant for similar offences. It is irregular to take the evidence given on one charge as taken on the other. De Cambra v. Straker. Evidence. 45 Eyidencb As TO PRioB Threats. Evidence of previous threats is admissible on a charge of assault. Newport v. Haman. As TO PRIOR Case. Witness^ was asked who was the complainant in a prior case. Objected to. Magistrate overruled objection and admitted evidence. Held on appeal that it was illegal evidence as the record of the previous case should have been produced. Sewsohoye v. Francis. Aftee Case closed Evidence given after sentence passed does not vitiate the proceeedings. Lewis v. Furry. To take evidence for defence before that of the prose- cution does not vitiate the proceedings. Horton v. Abrahams. Evidence as to jurisdiction — See Jurisdiction. „ J, Fiat of Attorney General — See Fiat. What TO Establish. Must establish the identical offence in the information, and evidence of another offence though of the same kind and subject to the same penalty is not sufficient. Ben V. Michelson (cit. B. v. Smith, 8 T. R. 588; B. v. Wheatman, 1 Douglas 345). Bacchus v. Warren. Oe Arrest. The particular of every arrest and imprisonment are to be proved by the written documents on which the constable acted, and not orally if there be a charge, &c. Burro wes v. Peters. Oepicial Cognizance. To take official cognizance of a fact such as a previous seizure of goods of the Defendant when the same is not in evidence, is not in the nature of illegal evidence such as to allow the proceedings to stand if there be other evidence to convict, but it vitiates the whole proceed- ings. Dow V. Chalmers. Further — See Jurisdiction. EviDENOB. 46 Evidence. Illegal Evidence: When admitted it must be taken that the Magistrate! was influenced by such evidence. David v. Hosannah. Idem if it has any connection with the subject matter, how- ever slight or unimportant. Fernandes v. Greenslade. If not acted upon or received, something should appear on the record to show the fact. Fernandes v. Gree,nslade. To allow a prosecutor's defective evidence to be eked out by what Defendant may say in defence is contrary to the practice of the Criminal law. . Goolamally v. Dornford. Unsworn Evidence Of lad under 14 on the ground that he did not appear to comprehend the nature of an oath is illegal, as a " boy" per se is not one of the class of persons whose unsworn statement may be received in evidence. Pistano v. Pompey. Licence Law. Evidence of Licence. — It is not necessary to show Defendant is not holder of a licence to sell rum without licence, as it lays on Defendant to prove his licence. Porter v. Burrowes. Magistrate not justified in receiving as evidence con- tents of a licence, tinless licence be produced or notice given to produce. Burrowes v. Grabes. If notice is given to produce and it is not produced evidence may then be given. De Freitas v. Elliott; D'Oliveira v. Darrell. Contra, in Sunday trading cases where no licence is required to be produced. King v. Gdmes. The production of the licence is an admission by Defendant that he is the person mentioned in the licence. Quinta v. Swain. An extract certified by the Chief Commissary or under hand of the Chief Commissary from books of bis depiart- raent of the entry recording the issue of a lipence (5 of 1885) is suflScientto prove licence, if sworn to be in the form required by Sec. 5. Martins v. Francis. Evidence that prosecutor visited the shop on lot 107, Boilrda, which is licenced to Dias and Santos, " I don't Evidence. 47 Evidbnge. " know the Defendant personally, I did not see the " Defendant in the shop " is not evidence of the licence. Saatos V. Anson. Magistrate has no right to dismiss a case for carrying a gun without a licence without hearing prosecutor's evidence, notwithstanding Defendant produces a licence bearing date the same day as the alleged carrying of the gtin. Burrowes v. D'Abreo. To prove by secondary evidence, i.e., the admission of Defendant who had notice to produce his licence, but did not, thatt she is the holder of the licence and forgot to bring it to Court, is illegal. De Freitas v. Elliott. Before Defendant can be called on to produce his licence it must be proved by primd facie evidence that a retail spirit shop licence had been issued to him and that a notice to produce the licence had been served on him, De Freitas v. Elliott; but under the Sunday Trading Ordinance it is immaterial whether the shop in which goods were exposed for sale was or was not licenced. King v. Gromes (Gatis qui tarn v. Winter, 3 T. R. 306) explaining D'Oliveira v. Darrell. List of licences under 25 of 1869, S. 44, not best evidence, and under S. 8 and 71. the onus to prove excepted right to sell spirits in a retail spirit shop for which a licence had been obtained rests on Defendant whose duty it is to produce such licence if existed. Mingo V. Cuckow ; Da Silva v. Cackow. Certificate of the Receiver General that " A who was the holder of an 11th class retail spirit shop licence on 30th June paid his instalment for the month of June on the 23rd July" is not evidence in a case against the holder of a spirit licence for having sold rum in June without having paid his licence. Horton v. Straker. Ordinance 26 of 1855, S. 189. Defendant in a criminal charge may be called on to produce a document in his possession, and if the document is not produced it may be proved by secondary evidence. De Freitas v. Elliott ; D'Oliveira v. Darrell. Peoop on Case. Not only must the licence be produced, but it must be BviDENOE. 48 Excessive Fine. shewn that the person mentioned in charge is the same person mentioned in the Hcence Dias v. Anson. In proceedings to recover a penalty where it is alleged against the party proceeded against, that he is licenced, it is usual to give notice to produce the licence. Gomes V. Burrowes (cafis qui tarn v. Winter 3 T. R. 306.) When the existence of a document is in question, notice may not be necessary, but if the contents are material such notice is required. lb. (cit. Reg. y. Elemthy L. R. 1 0. C. R. 103) ; Gonsalves v. Burrowes. Evidence that " rum was sold in the Black Lion" is not sufficient. The Black Lion must be connected with the Defendant's retail spirit shop, Defendant must be connected with the shop in which the rum was sold or with the rum sold as the owner or seller of it, by himself or those under his control. Oorreia v. Breen"; Santos V. Anson. It should be proved that the party mentioned in the licence is the Defendant. Santos v. Anson. A mere scintilla of evidence should not be left to the jury. Spencer v. Maclaine (cit. Maub J. in Feuelly. Parr, 13 0. B. 916 ; Ryder v. Wcmbell, 4 L. R. Ex. 32; Blach bum J. in R. v. Smith; Leigh v. Gave, C. 0. 630). Evidence of husband of Defendant on charge undar Excise law not admissible. Govia v. King. Belief of Magistrate m re — See Magistrate (Juet). Excess of Jurisdiction.— See Conviction (Amendment.) ,, ,, under Sunday Trading Ordinance — See Conviction and S. T. Obd. Excessive Fine. The fine appears a heavy one but the agiount was in the discretion of the Magistrate with which tii^"^ Court does not interfere. He may have been 'guided by his knowledge of the facts sworn to by the Oommifs^^ that Defendant's shop is within 10 roods of a retail spirit shop. Cadell v. Burrowes. " I shall be glad to see more discretion applied by the Magistrates in the imposition of fines under the Ordinance, Excessive PioirE. 49 FteMME Covkbt. which, though authorizea large- amounts as the maximum fines should be administered with moderation." Madeuo V. Darrell. If fine is within the competence of the Magistrate the Court of Review will not interfere on the ground that fine was excessive under the circumstances. Pereira v. Bethune. Punishment, Of Informer, &c. — See Abettoe. Where Defendant is ordered on a charge of usipg a pony for trade to pay a fine of |4j costs 72 cents, to tajke a licence $8, the whole to be recovered by distress or 14 days limder 8 of 1880, S. 3 the two sums are to be deemed as a penalty of $12, and imprisonment of a mouth is not excessive, as the penalty being over $10 the imprison- ment could be two months. Chowdrie v. Layton. Excuse from Work. — See Immigbant. Exposing Goods for Sale. Goods in a glass case in a shop is an exposure for for sale. Burrowes v. Ferreira. By Huckster — See Huckstbe. On Sunday— See St7Ndat Tbading Oedinanoe. Fact. Applying law to — See Magisteate (Juet), Feloniously. Where offence is a felony the word '* feloniously" must be used in the charge. Jodhan v. Mearns. An act done feloniously is done with no colour of right to excuse the act. D'Abrio v. Hawker. Leaving out feloniously in charge — See Laeceny. Femme Covert. A mjgrried woman may be convicted under a statute relating to the Excise or Revenue for an offence com- mitted by her without the actual or implied coercion of her husband, and it is not necessary that the husband should be joined in the conviction. Govia v. King (cit. Bex V. Crofts,2 Strange 1120. Paley 71). Q Fiat, ATToaNBT General. 50 Fiat, Attoenet General. Fiat of Attorney General. Must be obtained before tlie proceedings are begun by tlie Magi&traste ; De Vieveiros v. Fauset, Tan-le-Chin v. Burrawes, cit. De Cross v. Cuckow, Eagabone v. Greens- lade; even wbera all tbat was done on the first day was to bail Defendant. Teixeira v. Anson, cit. Quinta v. Swain. The obtaining of the fiat aftei'wards and before evidence is actually taken does not cure the defect, ib. May be put on the face of the charge. Quinta v. Swain. AWJpring charge after fiat of Attorney General, annuls proceedings. Neepaul v. Cruickshank. Goods were seized under Ord. 25 of 1868 and 3 of 1869 on 18 Oct. The charge was made out in duplicate and one of them filed with the Magistrate who issued the summons. After the charge was filed the Attorney General placed fiat 26 Oct. Case heard 13 Nov. and on that day the second information (duplicate) with the fiat was produced and objected to on the ruling of Quinta v. Swain. The objection was upheld and case dismissed. On 29 Nov. a second summons was issued on the same information with the fiat produced on first trial. Held that the action was not brought within 30 days after seizure (25 of 1868 sec. 68) and that the duplicate infor- mation was not a continuation of the proceedings first taken. Li-a-Kin v. Dornford. Necessary on charge for selling wine in a licensed wine and malt premises, said wine having been drunk on the premises. Santos v. Layton. If issued against D. an "individual as carrying on business with another under a name, style or firm," the proceeding must be entered in the record book under the same rubric, and conviction follow in terms. A con- viction against the " firm of D and A" is bad. De Jesus et al v. King. Where fiat is placed on a charge resembling the lan- guage of sec 18 of 14 of 1855 for selling rum by wholesale and the Magistrate in reply to Counsel said it was under 14 of 1865, a conviction showing that the Magistrate adjudicated under 25 of 1868 is bad. Mann v. McTurk. Where fiat is placed on a charge against " Midoo" a Fiat, Attorney G-enebal. 51 Gaminq. male and Midoo turns out to be a female, that particular charge must fall to the ground. Boodhoo v. Gceenslade. Proof. — Fiat must be proved in the legal way as the Ordinance does not dispense with proof of the signature of the Attorney General. De Cross v. Cuckow ; Tan-li- Ohin V. Burrowes ; Gomes v. Harcourt. Evidence. — " I have the authority of the Attorney General," sufficient. D'Aguiar v. Darrell. Magistrate may recall witness aftel* prosecution closed to prove fiat ; Mohun v. Turner ; even after Defendant objects that it had not been proved. Mohun v. Turner. Further, see Witness — Recall of. Fine, excessive. — See Excessive Fine. „ Imprisonment in lieu of — 'See Habd Labor. Fish — Selhng in cart. — See Carriage. Forms. Are to be considered merely as guides, and have no over-ruling authority against the positive enactments of the Ordinance. Simpson v. Denieunkerk. Defect in — See Amendment. Gaming. A conviction for " gambling in a house kept for the purpose of common or promiscuous gaming with dice" amended by insertion of the words "at a game of chance." Adams v. Clarke. Under 21 of 1856 Sec. 2 sub S. 3, the offence .of gaming is complete so long as the parties iplay for stakes; whether the stakes be large or small is immaterial. Ramas Khan v. Morris. Where a person is present accidentally in a house in which unlawful gaming is carried on, such presence is not evidence of aiding and abetting ; where such presence is primd facie not accidental it is evidence, but no more than evidence for the jur/. Ramas Khan v. Morris. Pieces of brass used for gaming come under the head of '* other instruments", 21 of 1856. Toyah et al v. Gaming. 52 Gold Minik©. Meirancie (cited for Appellant, beld not applicable, Oolborne v. Stockdale, 1 Strange 493). A house when kept for the purpose of common gaming is a " place" undet 21 of 1856. lb. OonvictionJ'or, must contain an averment that Defend- ant is deemed a rogue and a vagabond, Toyah v. Moranoie. In Retail Spirit Shop. — If proved, it is not necessary to prove that the owner of shop had connivance of such gaming. Gomes v. Swain. Idem, not necessary to prove knowledge of servant in charge of shop, but there must be some circumstances from which it may be inferred that the holder of the licence or his servants had connivance of what was going on, such as actual knowledge or con- structive knowledge. Gomes v. Swain (cit. Bosley v. Davis, L. R. 1 Q. B. p. 85; Bedgate v. Haynes, L. R. 1 Q. B. p. 89). The holder of the licence for a retail spirit shop is liable for connivance of shopmen when gambling takes place in his shop. Gomes v. Swain. If owner could not of himself prevent disorderly conduct he is not liable. Rogers v. Pequeno. Goats. — Impounding — ^See Pound. Gold Mining. Applications unopposed by Government Land Depart- ment remitted to Department. Shervington v. Abrahams. Where there is satisfactory proof of a previous la-Wful occupation of the locus in quo another person could not locate a placer dlaim on the same spot. Demerara River Co. V. Charles et al. (Two cases). Circumstances in which opposer held to have no inter- est. Nurse v. Garraway. Ac entry of opposition under the 49th regulation of 4 of 1887 may be filed by a duly authorised agent, the Crown Surveyor satisfying himself as to the person so filing being the agent. McKinnon v. Stoby. Dismissal on papers before the Court. Ooronelv. Brown. Where the party claiming has not the approval of the Crown Lands Department the Review Court will remit to that Department, there being no preferent right in the claimant. Abrahams v. Shervington. Gold Mening. 53 Haed Labour. Appearance in Review Court. — See Appeaeanoe. Gold Mining oases to be decided on equities. White v. Gibson ; Bugle v. Seconde ; Hodgkinson v. B. G. Mining Coy. The finding by the Government Land Department in favour of applicant for placer claim, lays the onus on the opposer of averting the primd facie case thus made in applicant's favour. Seyle v. B. G. Mining Coy.; Da Mattos v. McDavid. Growing Crop. Under Ord. 27 of 1880, Sec. 2, growing crop is crop planted by the tenant or the person from whom he has I derived his interest in the land. A crop in its ordinary meaning is something which is to be reaped or ingathered and a rqplaating after the reaping of the crop is exhausted until a new production takes place. Sometimes there is no new crop without a planting of seed, as in the case with all the tribe of cereals, or it may be a planting of suckers or rootlets equivalent to the planting of seed. Other crops are the gift of nature's bounty, as the succeeding crops of fruit on a fruit tree, although even this class of crop is capable of being aided and improved by some degree of labour in manuring, pruning, &c. Ord. 27 of 1880, Sec. 2, refers to these rather than the natural class of crops, i.e., that whatever nature they may be there must be some cultivation bestowed on them. Bwing Sugar Estate Go. v. Seal. Larceny of— See liAECENY. Guilty—See PiiEA. Gun. " Firing a gun on public road" is no offence at law. Stuart V. Hobton. Licence Tor — ^See Licence. Hard Labour. Awarding Imprisonment in first instance. — Where there is no previous warrant of distress and the Ordinance empowers distress the conviction is bad. Dos Santos v. Creasall ; Correia v.Guokow; but where Ordinance makes Haed Labour. 54 Haed Laboue. no provision for imprisonment in default of payment, the Magistrate may under the Small Penalties Ordinance of 1868 order imprisonment with, hard labour. David V. Jackman. Under 20 of 1856 imprisonment can be awarded for first offence without option of fine. Young v. Maule. The Magistrate may order a fine, and in default of pay- ment imprisonment under 19 of 1856. Matheison v. Gray. When sentence should have been simple imprisonment, and hard labour was awarded under Small Penalties Ordi- nance, it was held that no injury had resulted, " as the sentence had not yet been executed" and the conviction was remitted back to the Magistrate in order that the error may be rectified. Doraj v. Keenoo. Under 20 of 1856, Sec. 2 a conviction makes Defend- ant liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour not exceeding 30 days or to a penalty not exceeding $24, or to such penalty in addition to such imprisonment. Under 19 of 1856, Sec. 33, for which 15 of 1869, Sec. 2 is substituted, the penalty is to be levied by distress and in default of distress by imprisonment &o. Held. The Small Penalties Ordinance does not affect the power of imposing hard labour in addition to imprisonment in cases where hard labour might on non-payment of the penalty have been imposed. Hard labour might have been imposed under 19 of 1856, Sec 33 and now under 15 of 1869. Portsmouth v. Green. In cases for not taking out licences the Magistrate can order an alternative adjudication of imprisonment ia the event of the fine and the sum due for the licence not being paid. Martins v. Burrowes, oit. 3 of 1868 S. 34; but in cases under the Licence law, distress must be first issued. Hoare v, Duggin ; Antonio v. King. A conviction "to pay a sum of $20, and if the said sum " be not paid when due, or if there are not sufficient " goods or chattels to levy on, the Defendant to be " imprisoned for a further term of two calendar months" is bad, David v. Hosannah, a« the order for imprison- ment for want of goods to distrain is only to be granted after formal return to that effect. Josiah v. Gray. Ordinance 19 of 1856 only authorises: 1. imprison- Haed Laboue. 55 Haed Labotjb. ment after levy and no sufficient distress ; 2, when it is made to appear to the Magistrate judicially on evidence forming part of the proceedings and conviction and sentence tliat Defendant lias no goods or chattels. Rodney v. Sampson. Idem in trespass cases. Albert V. Douglas. And where hard labour can be imposed and the Magis- trate orders distress, the Defendant may be detained pending the return of the warrant of distress. Jeffrey V. Burrowes. Under 19 of 1856 S. 34 a Magistrate may order in writing that the Defendant go at large or he may detain Mm in safe custody until return be made to the warrant of distress unless security be given. Such order of detention may be given before distress warrant is actually made out, but the warrant must he completed and put in motion within as brief a time as is practicable. Rajut- teah V. Anson. Where the Ordinance authorises infliction of a fine and recovery under 19 of 1856 and 15 of 1859 S. 3 an adjudication of fine of " $24" and in the alternative awarding imprisonment in the first instance is bad. Prince v. King ; De Freitas v. Ouckow ; Prince v. Rick- ford; De Jesus v. King; Contra, Moonlight Scrutcher V. Fauset. Where the Ordinance makes the offence punishable by fine and in default imprisonment, and the Magistrate orders imprisonment on failure of distress and draws up the formal conviction in the words of the Ordinance, the Court is bound by the formal conviction. Webster v. Birch. Under 20 of 1856 the Magistrate has the. power to award 30 days' imprisonment for having possession of rum supposed to have been stolen without giving a good account of the same. In case the fine imposed cannot be levied by distress, he cannot sentence Defendant in that event to be imprisoned for two months to commence from the termination of the 30 days. Williams v. Simpson. Under Masters' and Servants' Act 4 of 1864 and 2 of of 1853, for refusing to do work &c., the conviction should be for 30 days with hard labour and not for "30 Saed Laboue. 56 Hawkee. days with hard labour and to be imprisoned for a further period of 30 days at the termination of the first sen- tence." Grordon v. Binns. Tebm of Impeisonmbnt. Under the Small Penalties Ordinance the intention of the Legislature is to limit the maximum terms of im- prisoment as the alternative for certain amounts of fines; but there is no limit fixed for a minimum term of imprisonment, and a Magistrate is within his jurisdiction in adjudging a period of 7 days' imprisonment in default of failure of payment of fine of $2, although the Ordinance (3 of 1868) limits the terms of imprisonment for a penalty not exceeding $2 to 7 days and for a penalty exceeding f 2 but not exceeding $5 to 14 days. Bowen v. Chapman. Where the Ordinance empowers imprisonment for " 80 days" the Magistrate cannot award imprisonment for " a month." Ping-a-Wing v. Pile ; David v. Hossannah. Fob Costs. Under 20 of 1856 the Magistrate has no power to award imprisonment in default of a payment of a penalty or costs for assaulting an officer in the execution of his duty in executing a distress warrant, or to award costs at all. Kodney v. Sampson ; Idem on charge for not having name legibly painted on cart. Naughten v. Lloyd. Hospital Regulations.— See Immigbant. Hawker. Those who instead of occupying a fixed place of business and waiting about for customers to come to them, carry their goods to meet their customers are Hawkers, Bushell V. Solomon (cit. Tax Ordinance 1886, S. 13, 8 of 1880 S. 7). A single act of selling does not constitute a man a Hawker, as that he ought to take out a licence. Van Brook V. King ; Burrowes v. Grabes ; (Ord. 16 of 1888) as distinguished from Bushell v. Solomon, where the Ordinance enacted that any " who carries on the trade" of a huckster and " carries" his goods and sells, barters, Hawker. 67 Immigrant. exposes, or offers to sell the same ; the words " carries his goods" being left out of the Ordinance 15 of 1888. The fact that Defendant had a board laid on two barrels, and on it exposed beef for sale on Sunday 2nd January and Sunday 9th January does not constitute him a Hawker. Bushell v. Solomon. A Huckster's licence does not entitle a person to sell fresh meat on the public road or in a cart. Burrowes V. Joaquim. Horses. A stud horse is hot exempt from taxation as a horse kept for trade or hire. Dornford v. De Chains. Licence fob — See Caeeiagb. Holiday. Notice served or made returnable on a dies non is illegal. Young v. Miller ; but where notice gives a cer- tain number of days in which to do a certain act, Sunday is not to be excluded, ib, in Martins v. Joseph it was held that where a thing is to be be done within a certain number of days and that time expires on a Sunday, the Sunday is to be reckoned one of those days. No judicial act ought to be done on a Sunday, but ministerial acts may be lawfully executed on Sunday. Young V. Miller (Maccally's case; 9 Golee 66). Service of notice of review on Sunday is good. Martin V. Joseph (cit. 29 Gar 2:7). Huckster. — See Hawkbb. Husband, desertion of wife. — See Poor Law. Illegal Arrest. — See Arrest. Immigrant. Not amenable to Master and Servant Act of 1853. Moonah v. Agard ; but he is bound to obey the orders of the driver ,''as the driver is the agent ad interim of the manager. Carruthers v. Khoondansing. JWMjpAW. J58 Absence, &o. Absence eeom Work, Excuse feom "Woek. EyideiiQf jnust shov that Defendant did not finisli wort without lawful excuse. Davidson v. Gopaul. Immigrant ip bound to begin his work on Monday, if required to do so. McConnachie v. Grunness. Onus of proving that work was not done without law- ful excuse lies on the prosecution. Dawson v. Gopaul. Charge for absence from the estate should lay that such absence was without leave. Gray v. Khodobaccus. Offence of absence from work is not cognizable by a Magistrate in isolated cases, but falls to be dealt with by the Immigration Department under S. 24 and a number of Sections of 4 of 1876, and it is only when by repeated offences of absences the immigrant has qualified himself under S. 15 as an habitual idler that the offence of absence from work comes under the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Abdul Roheman v. Robinson. Under Ordinance of 1876 S. 23 a certificate of the Immigration Agent General that the immigrant went to the Immigration Ofl&ce to complain about his wages does not protect the immigrant from a charge of unlawful absence. Monkhouse v. Narrainsing. It must be shown that the absence was for reasonable cause, that he had been refused a pass by the employer, and that the certificate of the Immigration Agent Gene- ral was produced to the employer on his return to the estate. Monkhouse v. Narrainsing; Crosby v. Ram- charran ; but these do not apply to charge of refusing to begin work arising out of the fact that the immigrant had left the estate without lawful excuse. Monkhous? V. Narrainsing. The reasonable or lawfulness of the excuse for being abs.ent from work is for the Magistrate to decide. Where the immigrant without le.ave attends the Magistrate's Court to sue a person owing him money and the Magis- trate decides that it is a lawful excuse the Court will not interfere. Tucker v. Kansut. Whether ill or well an immigrant is not justified in going off the estate without leave. Having left it with- out leave, the mere fact of his falling ill when off the estate ImMIGBANT. 59 HABIlitTAt IBLBBv would not prevent his becoming a deserter, although it might well induce the Magistrate to inflict a nominal punishment. Leggatt v. Mattabudal. The absence which makes an immigrant a deserter is absence "without leave", not an absence "without " lawful excuse". Ih. Deseetion. Charge against immigrant for deserting from the plantation from 1st July 1871 to 22nd November 1874;' he was arrested on 5th January 1877. The Magistrate imposed a penalty of $2 50 with imprisonment for 14 days with hard , labour, and extended his time from taking effect of Ordinance 7 of 1873 (1st July) to 22hd November 1874. Held on review that by effluxion of time (22nd November 1874) the indenture had expired, and that the past desertioiiin 1871 could not be prosecuted .under 7 of 1873, and that the continuing of any offence of desertion afterwards committed by the immigrant ceased with the expiry of his indenture. iSookboo V. Ozanne. Where an immigrant is indentured under 4 of 1864 (since repealed) and sentenced to penal servitude for a felony for five years while 4 of 1864 existed, and his term of penal servitude expires after the repeal of the Ordinance, his indenture is at an end on the completion of his sentence notwithstanding the passing of a later Ordinance 7 of 1873. Agard v. Crosby. BxTEA Time. Working extra time is not illegal if the immigrant is paid for the same at the rate not less than which ordin- ary time is paid for. Hunter v. Doorgan. If an immigrant is sentenced for a breach of the law and is; released before his term of imprisonment has expired, he is not bound to return on the estate for the period of his unexpired sentence. Mayers v. Ruggonauth. Habitual Idlbe. Under 4 of 1876 a woman is not an habitual idler. Brassington v. Roybia. H« Immigbant. 60 Rbsidbnoe, &o. Hospital Regulations. To make the immigrant amenable to hospital rules " he must have been sent to the hospital" by the manager or overseer acting under his authority. Spence v. Sookha. This ruling appllies to others than indentured immi- grants sent to the hospital by the manager, lb. It is not an offence for the mother of the child herself not being an in-patient to take her child then an in- patient in the estate's hospital from the hospital. Soli- mon V. Garnett. An indentured immigrant being on the estate and falling ill, has no right to quit the estate and go to the Colonial Hospital instead of to the estate's hospital. Leggatt V. Matabbuddal. Putting on hospital clothes on immigrants. — See Assault. Proof ov Indenture, &o. To prove that Defendant is an immigrant, the regis- tered contract must be produced and evidence of the identity of the party as party to the contract must be given. Craigen v. Mongar. The evidence in this case was the immigrant swearing " I am an indentured immi- grant to Pin. Aurora." This was held not to be evidence. Contra in James v. Lilmone. Commutation. If the immigrant is willing the manager of the estate may commute the indenture without any fee being paid to the estate. 7 of 1854, s. 28. GriflS.n v. Crosby. Residence on Estate. An immigrant is bound to inhabit the dwelling which the employer is bound to provide for him. Dawson v. Mundall; cit. 132-136 of 7 of 1873, 16 of 4 of 1876. He is not bound to sleep on the estate at night. Bremner V. Joycurn, the absence from the estate being a working day and night, ib, the employer must elect whether he proceeds under S. 16 of 4 of 1876 or under SS. 182-136 of 7 of 1873. Ib. Immigeant. 61 "Wilful Indolence. • Haebouring. Harbouring on board an immigrant with intent to take bim from tbe colony is an offence against public policy, and obarge may be brought by any person. Oox v. Bascom. To convict on a charge of harbouring, it is necessary to prove on the part of Prosecutor that such immigrant is on the estate of Defendant. Field v. Wolsey. Watchman (7 of 1873). To make an immigrant punishable for wilful indolence as a watchman, it must be proved that he was so employed at the time. Mathoora v. Field ; Budal v. M'Lean. It must be shown that there was a binding contract or agreement to serve as a watchman. Dinmahomed v. Miday. To prove that he is an indentured immigrant, and that he was not in the place where he ought to have been as watcbman, and that he was found lying on the top of a hogshead wrapped in a rag and apparently asleep, is not sufficient to convict a free immigrant for breach of duty as a watchman, much less an in'dentured immigrant. Mathoora v. Field. It must be alleged in the charge and proved that he entered into a formal agreement in the manner prescribed by law to serve as a watchman, or at least had voluntarily undertaken the duties and responsibilities of the office. Dorastoola v. Brassington. "When he is charged under S. 105 he cannot be con- victed of neglect of duty as a watchman. lb. Wilful Indolence. Eefusal to begin work is not the same as wilful indo- lence. Bheekharry v. McLean. A charge for wilful indolence during the week ending 29th July 1876 is bad on the ground that the offence of wilful indolence is one which must be commenced and ended on one particular day. Moorandum v. La Roche ; Soomaria V, Hunter; Hoonaman v. Clarke; Rugonauth V. Clarke. A charge for wilful indolence during the week ending 29th January is bad as it includes more than offence. lb. Immigeant. 62 Infoemation-. The fact that only a certain sum was earned by the immigrant, is not of itself sufficient to convict him of wilful indolence, ib. Idem.—li evidence is, that Defendant earned nothing and was not a patient in hospital. G-oolab v. Porter. A charge of wilful negligence " during working hours on Monday," 22nd May 1876, is good. Bunsee v. Braud. Imprisonment in lieu of Fine.— See Haed Labofb. Indenture, — best evidence of.— See Evidence; also Immigeant (Proof). Infant, Age of. — See Age. Inference. Gruilt is not inferred from the occurrence of what might have happened consistently with innocence. Bascom v. Kelia. The Court can intend nothing in favour of convictions and will intend nothing against them. Ih.; Turnkey v. King (cit. B V. Eazell, 13 Bast 141 ; Taylor on Evidence, 3rd Ed. 141, 142) ; Ned v. De Guara (cit. B v. Trelawny ■ 1 T. R. 122; B. v. Damon, 1 Chit. Rep. 156). See Infoemation and Jueisdiction. Information. For an offence against public policy may be laid and set in motion by any person. Cox v. Bascom (case of harbouring immigrants on board a vessel is a case against public policy, and is a matter punishable on conviction, which means summary conviction. Ib). An information that defendant did occupy " a store in " which goods were exposed for sale at ^ lot 9 or 12, " Werk-en-Rust, without being provided with a licence" is good. Lopes v. King; but if " for unlawfully enter- " ing on lot and stealing a certain portion of burnt " earth, &c." is bad, as it does not appear whether charge is for trespass or larceny. Santos v. Douglas^ Further, see DuPLiciTT. To be made in writing, but may be made orally to the Magistrate. Wright v. Gamett. Infoem^tjon, 63 Specipio Words. If in writins: it need not be signed by Complainant so long as Defendant pleads. Semple y. Williain?. It need pot be lodged witli'tlie Magistrate's Clerk before application for summons is made to Magistrate. lb. Wrigbt V. Garnett. It is not necessary to give or take evidence on oath on an information to lay foundation for summons. Wright V. Garnett ; as the fact of the oath lays no foundation in law. lb. (cit. Beg. Garden, 5 Q. B. D. 1.) Time to Lay. Where the law allows an information to be laid within a given time, say a month, no conviction can lie if information is laid after the expiry of the mojith. Cox V. Bascom. The time limited for commencing proceedings must be strictly a,dhered to. ib ; (cit. R. Tolly, 3 East, 467. The absence from colony of Defendant does not affect the question. It may be a good reason for suspending the issue of summons, ib ; (cit. Potts v. Gambridge, 8, E. & B., 847). Defect. A defect or omission, if it might be omitted altogether, does not vitiate what is correctly stated. Martin v. Burrowes (cit. Paley on Con. 168; B. v. ffall, I. T. E., 320; B.v. Jeffries, 4, T. R., 769; B. v. Huntley, 29, L. J. M. €. 70.) For using a mule and cart on the public road without having the name and number thereon in plain legible letters and figures, is bad for vagueness. Naughten v. Lloyd. When charge is vague the Court will not direct the Magistrate to entertain the same. Gray v. Rohory. Further, see Conviction. — Defect. Specific Woeds. Charge must be for a specific offence and not for an offence which in the opinion of the Magistrate is a matter of law, and it ought not to be left to the judgment of a Information. 64 Speoifio Words. witness. Ben. v. Michelson; (B. v. Spenling, I. Str., 497 ; B. V. Popplewell, I. Str., 686 ; B. v. Charency, 2, Ld., Ray, 1363; B. v. Boberts, I. St., 608.) A charge that Defendants being agricultural labourers, and employed at B. P., and left the service of their employer without giving 14 days previous notice, con- tains a sufficient averment that they had contracted into the service of their employer. Moonah v. Agard. Charge should be so specific as to inform Defendant of what part of the law he is charged with ; Unmaid v. Burrowes ; and thus enable the Magistrate to adjudicate according to the right of the matter. Semple v. Williams. If it does not show a legal charge and a conviction follows, it could be amended by the Review Court if there be evidence to convict. Sirdar v. Langevine. It is not requisite that the Statute should be specified in the charge when the offence created by the Statute is alleged in statutory terms. Joseph v. Ruck ; when the description of the offence is laid in the words of the Ordinance creating the offence, or in similar words, it is sufficient. Lopes v. King, cit. Ordmance 17 of 1880, S. 20 ; Glasgow v. Hardeen. In offences under the Opium Ordinance the information might be so specific as to inform Defendant what part of the law on this subject he is charged with transgressing. Unmaid v. Burrowes. Need not state particular Ordinance under which it is brought, but, if it is so specified. Complainant is bound by it if he makes a mistake as to the Ordinance. Martin V. Birch ; Cahuac v. Birch. Where information is for failure to make an entry in the Opium Book of Opium taken out by Defendant from Bond on 25th August 1864, on or about the time of his receiving 10 lbs. of opium (22 of 1861 S. 6) and the charge does not specify that the Opium was received in the shop, held that this was not an excessive intend:- ment in favour of the law to hold that the law and the cha,rge necessarily upheld that the alleged receipt of the Opium by the Defendant at his shop was at all events for and in respect of that shop, in law. Cban-chay- Ohing V. Bethune. Infoemation. 65 Joindbb. The Information must show that Defendant does not come under list of exemptions narrated under Section of Ordinance brought. Hoare v. Duggin. The Information or papers need not show under what Ordinance Magistrate convicted; 19 of 1856, S. 19, applies only to the Record Book. Matheison v. Gray. Varying with Bvidbnob. Where Information is for " permitting a donkey cart " to be used" and evidence shows thatj pef endant's son " drove the donkey and cart for Defemaant's purposes," Defendant cannot be convicted on the charge, as although the driving by the son was in law'a " drivitjg by the Defendant," yet the charge is not for " using" but per- mitting to be used. Anson v. Stuart. Defendant cannot be charged with one offence and convicted of another (charge of larceny, and evidence showed embezzlement.) Jessy v. Robb (cit. Martin v. Pridgem, 28 L. J. N. S. M. C. 179) ; B. v. Briciehall, 33 L. J. N. S. M. C. 157 ; but the Complainant may amend charge to suit the facts at any time before decision (from larceny to embezzlement). Ih, Absence of Complainant feom Colony. Where the party laying the charge is absent from the colony, his locum ienens, the acting manager of estate, cannot get a warrant to arrest the Defendant. Seear v. Moore. Informers* — See Abettoe. Interpreter. A foreigner is entitled to an Interpreter and to give his evidence through such Interpreter, notwithstanding that he may speak English. Gomes v. Bruce. Joinder. Joining more than one case in review is irregular (case dismissed). Gordon v. Gouvia et al. Of causes, action. — See Duplicity. Joint Offenders. 66 Jurisdiction. Joint Offenders. Where two or more labourers contract to work and commit a breacli of the contract, charges should be lodged against each, and not one charge against all guilty ol such breach. Davis et al v. Sampson et al. Where the information charges a joint offence ex facie against two or more persons it is for the Magistrate after ascertaining the nature of the case, to use his dis- cretion in determining whether he should trj the Defend- ants jointly or severally or no. Grlasgow and Coates V. Brandon. The joint award of one fine against several Defendants is erroneous, whether the offence is in its nature single Or joint. McLean v. Robeira et al ; but where several Defendants are joined, the conviction should be joined to to present accumulation of costs. Reynolds v. Bourne. Held doubtful whether if there be joint offenders there should be a separate conviction for each. Amos v. Halj. Joint Respondents' case may be withdrawn as against One and sustained as against an other. Jacobsv. Couchman. Judgment.— See Pronouncing. Jurisdiction. General. Want of jurisdiction cannot be amended under 5 of 1865, S. 25. Bheekharry v. McLean. The conviction must show day, year, and place where offence was committed. Hoare v. Duggin. Proceedings should show Caption, signature to the depositions, finding or judgment, and statement of De- fendant's presence. Johnson v. Jack : also, that the case fell within the Magistrate's jurisdiction. Rodney v. Samson. Caption. The Caption is to be taken as showing jurisdiction. Gilbert v. Barnes; and also that J. P. was acting in and for the colony. D'Aguiar v. Harris. JuEisDicTioN. 67 Of the Justice. Oe Review Court. The Review Court has no jurisdiction under the Land- lord and Tenant Ordinance for rent, damages, &c. Corry V. Viera ; Joseph v. Cambridge. The law under which the Review Court is constituted, confers no jurisdiction on the Court where there is not any question as to sufficiency of evidence, to decide that the Magistrate has found the facts erroneously ; on the other hand if finding the facts correctly he has not applied correct principles in drawing legal conclusions from such facts, the Court may remedy such error. Anson v. Klien. Further, see Post. Of the Justice. Of Magistrate. The Magistrate has no jurisdiction in cases of dispute between owners of property which is undivided. Bowen v. Buttery (case of damaging a privy put up by one proprietor without consent of the other). The Magistrate has no jurisdiction on a charge for obstructing the Police in the execution of duty. Allick V. Joseph. The Magistrate must act in the district in and for which he has been appointed to act, his jurisdiction in summary proceeding bein^ distinctly limited by the enactments under which his office and authority are constituted, not only with reference to the limits of the colony, but with reference to internal divisions or dis- tricts of the colony. Abendanon v. Sproston (oit. Ordi- nance 3 of 1837 S. 1 ; 22 of 1839 S. 2 ; Order in Council 7.8.38 S. 2 ; 5 of 1868 S. 29, 30 ; 18 Ed. 3 C. 2 ; 14 Ed. 3. 8. 21 ; Van Leeuwen b. 2, p. 10 ; Harrison v. King ; Glasgow V. De Freitas ; Straghan v. Darrell; (B. v. Hazell 13 Bast 139). The Magistrate must be satisfied by the evidence that he has jurisdiction as to the locality. Grant v. Josin. The evidence must be on record so that a Court of Review shall be able to see that the Magistrate had in fact jurisdiction. De Souza v. Roach ; Abendanon v. Sproston. His jurisdiction must be shown on the face of the charge. Bunsee v. Brand ; Bheekharry v. McLean. 12 Jurisdiction. 68 Op the Justice, Where the Caption shows that the Magistrate was sitting at " Vreed-en-Hoop in the Demerara River Judi- cial District," and the information bears that the offence was committed at a place named in the same district the averment of jurisdiction is sufficient. Gilbert v. Barnes ; be Souza v. Roach ; upholding Abendanon v. Sproston. Where the summons served on the Defe'ndaut gives the locus in quo of the offence as " Pin. Klien Pouderoyen" without stating that the place was in the Demerara River Judicial District, the Defendant on review of the proceed- ings must show that he was misled or embarrassed thereby as to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, or that he called attention to the defect when before the Magis- trate. Gilbert v. Barnes. When evidence is that the occurrence took place on "Brick Dam Georgetown," it must be understood to refer to the Georgetown in Demerara mentioned in the chai'ge then under investigation. It cannot be surmised that tlie witness meant some other place or town of that name in Halifax or elsewhere. De Jonge v. Darrell. Where offence is committed at Meadow Bank "in this " district" there can l)e no doubt that all the parties are spenkirig of " the Meadow Bank in the district, county " and colony mentioned" in the charge, and a jury would so find. Gomes v. Harcourt. " 'i he true test in cases of summary conviction appears " to me (Smith J.) is whether on the face of the papers " there is sufficient evidence to go to a jury if theconvic- " tion had been by tlie verdict of a jurv instead of by " the decision of the Magistrate." Mathieson v. Gray; cit. Dublin v. Gray {Brown v. Turner, 32 L. J. N. S. M. C. 106 >. Where the Ordinance declares that for doing a certain act defendant " shall be deemed guilty of an offence " and shall be liable to a fine" and " such fine shall " be prosecuted and recovered by summary execution by " Her Majesty's Attorney General" the Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the matter and adjudicate under 19 of 1856 Cox V Bascom (cit. Attorney General v. Badlof 10 Ex. 84 Oattel v. Ireson, 27 L. J. M. C. 167) and the matter can be tried on Summary Conviction. lb. JuBisDiCTiON. 69 Excess. Under 159 Section of the Immigration Ordinance 1873 every information, action &c., made under the Ordinance shall be laid before the S.J.P. of the district in which the offence was committed. On a charge for employing an indentured immigrant in a district other than the district in which he acts; where the actual employment took place at Essequebo and Magistrate's district is in Demerara, Magistrate has no jurisdiction, although immigrant's real estate is in his district. Kollichurn v. King ; Jeenauth v. Brand. If charge be for " inducing immigrant to quit estate " against will of employer" Magistrate has jurisdiction if the estate on which immigrant is indentured is in his district. lb. Where opium is seized and brought before the Magis- trate and the person in whose possession it was found is before him the Magistrate has jurisdiction to adjudicate whatever the circumstances of the seizure. Win-Sam v. Eraser. See Aerest. Where the charge is to be laid before the S.J.P. of the district in which the offence is committed or cause of complaint arose, there must be evidence to show that employment &c. took place in such district. Kollichurn v. King. Op Special Justice. Where matter is made an offence by a particular Statute and is by that Statute referred to a particular description of justice, the authority of all others should. be excluded by that express designation. Da Silva v. Layton. Further, see Words. Where the jurisdiction of a particular description of Justice is extended, the jurisdiction of all other Justices in that behalf is not ousted. lb. The original jurisdiction of Justices can only be taken away by express words. lb. Excess. Excess of jurisdiction is sufficient to quash the con- viction ; Reg. V. Dunbar ; for if the conviction is bad in part and good in part, it cannot stand; D'Aguiar v. JuBisDicTiON. 70 Proof by Inpeeenqe Gordon ; (cit. King v. Johnson, 1, T.R., 249). Furfclier, see Conviction and Amendment. Peoop of. When jurisdiction in revenue cases is not proved, the Magistrate may dismiss, but he is not bound to. He may hear the defence and prove jurisdiction by the defence. Marques v. Francis. Proof of locality to found jurisdiction does not differ in its nature from the proof of facts constituting an offence. Monick v. Solomon (cit. Beg. v. Inhabitants of Stemforth, 11. Q. B., 75). Peoof by Tnfeeence. Nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a Supreme Court but that which specifically appears to be so; nothing shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction of an Inferior Court but that which is so expressly alleged, and jurisdiction must be on the face of the charge and proved in the proceedings. Straghan v. Darrell; (cit. Peacock v. Bell, I. Saund, 74). Where the district Commissary makes a seizure, and evidence is that it took place at " Sparendaam," and that Commissary is in charge of " the East Coast Fiscal " district, and Sparendaam is in that district and on the " Bast Coast," and the Magistrate sits at Sparendaam, it must be held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction, although the words " County of Demerara, Colony of " British Guiana," be not used. Dinez v. Swain ; cit. Ord. 18 of 1864, S. 4. When charge lays offence as having been committed at a certain place, and jurisdiction is given in full in the charge, and the witness speaks of "the shop at Meadow " Bank in this district," the evidence must be taken aa held !to show that Meadow Bank is in the district, county and colony as laid in the charge. Gomes v. Harcourt. Where " the parish of St. Paul" is given as the place where the offence was committed. Smith 0. J. said : *' for my part following ex parte Attison {Pollock C. " B.) 24 L.J. N. S. M. 0. 72, if I considered it necessary, " I should not hesitate to order evidence to be adduced JuEisDiCTioN, 71 Peoof ey Inpeeence. " before me to prove the locality under 23rd S., but " seeing that the parishes of the colony are established by " Ordinance I am bound to take judicial notice that the " Parish of St. Paul is in the County of Deraerary in " this Colony." Mathieson v. Gray. The Court cannot take judicial notice that a plantation or parish is within a particular judicial district. Bheek- harry v. McLean. Where there is nothing in the charge or in the evi- dence to show offence as having been committed in the Magistrate's jurisdiction, the charge merely stating the offence as having been committed in " Bentinck Street, " North Oumingsburg," and the only reference to the locus in quo in the evidence is, " the Defendant's shop in " Bentinck Street," it must be taken as if no jurisdiction had been proved. Straghan v. Darell. The Magistrate before he Can convict, must have evidence that the Commissary was acting in his district (under Ord. 1864, s. 4) ; Dinez v. Swain ; not merely that he is an assistant Commissary. Cabral v. Younge, as a district Commissary without evidence of his employ- ment, is not within the purview of Ord. 18 of 1864, S. 4. lb. The jurisdiction to hear and convict in the absence of Defendant is a statutory one, and it is necessary that the facts to found the jurisdiction should be stated on record, or at least that they should be capable of being reduced by necessary inference from what is stated. The maxim omnia proesumter rite et solomnitur esse acta does not apply to proceedings before Magistrates, especially when the question is as to jurisdiction, and where the record book leaves it in doubt whether the Magistrate had juris- diction or not, the Court cannot supply the defect by intendment. Gomes v. Burro wes ; (cit. E. v. Inhabitants of All Saints, Southampton, 7, B. & C, 790; B. v. Eazell, 13, East, 141 ; Dempster v. Parnell, 4, Scott, N.S., 39, Stanton v. Styles, 5, Ex. 583 ; Taylor v. Glem- son, 11 CI. & Fin. 610). The Court of Review must be enabled from the pro- ceedings of the Inferior Court to see that there is juris- diction such as will support the proceedings, Abendanon Jurisdiction. 72 Disputed Title. V. Sproston (cit Taylor v. Clemson, 11 CI. and F. 610 ; Mayor Sfc. of London v. Gox, L. R. 2 H. L. 329); Straghan v. Darrell ; Reynolds v. Bennet ; Sanders v. Fox; Grant v. Josa; Harrison v. King. The facts requisite to found jurisdiction should be stated on the record, or at least they should be capable of being deduced by necessary inference from what- is stated. Gomes v. Burrowes. Jurisdiction need not necessarily be proved by direct statement. Powers v. Ruck. Consent. Jurisdiction must be shown on the record and the want of it where it is absent is not supplied by waiver or con- sent. Harrison v. King. In Cases oe Disputed Title. Magistrate has no jurisdiction in 'cases of dispute between owners of undivided land. Bo wen v. Buttery. Magistrate must not allow his jurisdiction to be ousted by a mere pretence of right or by a surmise or anticipa- tion of right whilst facts showing the foundation of the claim are not in evidence. KryenhofE v. Glasgow. When a question of title is in dispute, the Magistrate is to enter into the nature of the claim ; not in order to to determine its validity, but to discover whether the facts show a foundation on which Defendant might on some grounds known in law have believed he had a right. London v. David ; (cit. 7 & 8. Geo., 4, 329) ; 12 of 1846, s. 29 ; Simon v. Gouvia ; Castillo v. Ferreira ; Rodney V. Rodney. Idem, as to question raised whether complainant is the landlord entitled to sue. Hinds v. Frank. Where the evidence clearly shows a dispute as to the property. Magistrate is to dismiss the complaint. James V. Adams ; Kryenhoff v. Glasgow ; {Gornwall v. Saun- ders, 3, B. & A., 206 ; Leatt v. Vine, 30, L. J. M. C, 207; R. V. Nunnellei/, B. B. &E., 852; B. v. Black- bum, 32, L. J, M. C, 41 ; E. v. Stempson, 4, B. & S. ; ■Hutson V. McBae, 4, B. & S., 585; FoulgerY. Stead- man, L. R. 8, Q. B. 65). Jurisdiction. 73 Tebspass. In Cases of Trespass — Charge. The charge and conviction must describe the Zocws in. quo. Rogers v. Pequeno. A charge describing the locus in quo as " my work- place " at the Alms House, Stabroek," is sufficient. Chapman V. Pooler. Charge must state trespass to be wilful; Smart v. Austin; and that notice board was stuck up, or that Defendant was requested to quit, or Magistrate cannot call on Defendant to plead. Albert v. Douglas. If it states it as unlawful it is bad. Smart v. Austin. Application op Ordinance. The Ordinance 33 of 1850 applies to buildings in Georgetown. Chapman v. Pooler. Conviction. The premises trespassed on should be described in the conviction. Eogers v. Pequeno. What constitutes a Trespass. There must be a trespass board up at the time of the trespass and a demand made of the Defendant to leave the premises. Haly v. Clarke ; Albert v. Douglas. Where a lease is at an end and the lessee states that he " is going on the land to cut all that he could get" the Magistrate might or might not consider it a good defence to trespass. It is not a claim in the land, but a claim of access for the purpose of cutting growing crops. Kryen- hofi V. Glasgow. Setting up right of title. — It is for Magistrate to say whether right of title is set up reasonably and in good faith ; yet if he considers that such is not the case, that in other words, the claim of right is not made bond fide and with some show of reason and that consequently he has authority to adjudicate on the matter, such decision will be reversed if in the opinion of the superior Court it proceeded on insufficient grounds. But if he declared that the question of title was bond fide raised and that his jurisdiction was consequently ousted, although no K Jurisdiction. 74 Teespass. evidence thereof was offered, and though in fact title was not in dispute, his determination will not be dis- turbed, oven though the Supreme Court should on the same facts have arrived at a different, conclusion. The rule may be briefly expressed thus, that the Magistrate's determination will be overruled if he improperly decides that his jurisdiction is not ousted ; that it will not be disturbed if he decides that it is. Gomes v. Green (cit. B. V. Stempson, 4 B. & S. ; B. v. Peak, Cox M. C. vol. 2 320 ; Legg v. Pardow, Gox M. 0. vol. 1 241), A mere assertion of right where no ground for it or only an impossible ground is stated, is no answer for wil- ful trespass. Chapman v. Pooler. If Defendant has a colour of right however weak the claim, it will be suflB,cient to oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Gomes v. Green (cit. B. v. Speed, 1 Ld. Bay 583 ; Paley, 4 ed. 118) ; but where such a colour of right does not or cannot exist, the Magistrate has a right to decide summarily, ib ; (cit. Madden v. Porter, 1 Cox M.C. 53 ; Cornwall v. Saunders, 2 Cox M. C. ; Liatt v. Vine, 2 Cox M. C. 330; Kutson v. Macice, 1 Cox M. C. 470). The title mxist be clearly raised, Davson v. Gonsalves, and the Magistrate must judge of the boud fides of the claim of title in dispute. Rogers v. Pequeno. Questions of boundary may sometimes be matters of title in this special sense, but they often occur as matters of fact. Ferreira v. Wight. Where Magistrate enters into case where dispute as to title arises and it turns out that Prosecutor is owner in fee of the locus in quo and Defendant is a wilful tres- passer he is justified in convicting for an assault arising from the trespass. Liverpool v. Daly. Where the trespass is in fact through a mistaken idea of right, it is not a wilful trespass ; a wilful trespasser is not merely an intruder without having a right, he is one who goes on the land or building of another without believing that he has a right to go there. If he went in pursuance of an honest claim of right even although the claim was groundless and unreasonable, his so going does not make him a wilful trespasser. Chapman v. Pooler ; Castillo v. Teixeira. Jurisdiction. 75 Trespass. Where Defendant possesses himself of growing crops of another under a mistake and avers the fact that he had out them by mistake before he is questioned, it will be strong, evidence of a trespas?. Ben v. David (cit. East P. 0. 661 ; 2 Bus. on Grimes 158). Where Defendant goes on the land under a claim of title bond fide and aflB.xes a trespass board, he cannot be convicted of being on the land without excuse &c. under the Vagrancy Act. Williams v. Roberts ; Haywood v. Young ; Molineaux v. Schultz ; Rodney v. Rodney. A trespass vi et armis and in breach of the peace is not justified on the ground of disputed title. Rogers v. Pequeno. Where there is a trespass board near public road and the Magistrate believes that Defendant went on the land to look for and drive away his cow it is not wilful trespass. Barclay v. Swan. M\here there is no notice board near a mule pen and Defendant receives valid notice not to trespass, it must be shown that he refused to leave on request before he can be convicted of wilful trespass. Artbur v. Moore. The mere passing through a mule pen as a short cut to the estate's hospital is not per se a wilful trespass in the mule pen. Jb. Where Defendant has been previously warned not to go on the estate and he goes as a passenger in a boat into a private trench on the estate he is a wilful trespasser. Adams v. Agard. A labourer on an estate not specially warned not to go into the buildings is not a wilful trespasser if he goes there. Thornhill v. Pilgrim. Where Defendant is ordered to quit the estate and the order is not enforced, he being still allowed to remain on the estate and he commits a breach of the peace on the estate, and there is no proof of refusal to quit on request made within the meaning of the J st Section of Ordinance 33 of 1850 on the day he commits such breach, he cannot be convicted of trespass. Abidolah v. Barclay. Where a person worked on an estate and left and was found on estate excusing herself on the ground that she K2 Jurisdiction. 76 Teespass. had been sent for by her mother a located labourer on the estate, and that while there she was delivered of a child, she cannot be convicted of trespass. Bascom v. Norton. No one has a right to enter on premises on the invitation of employe of owner of land if after such invitation the owner warns such person not to enter. Williams v. Kanall. Mere trespass on foreshore not accompanied by destroy- ing, ensnaring, catching or " taking off crabs or other animals or attempting to do so, is not an offence under the Trespass Ordinance 33 of 1850. Benjamin v. Bascom. Mistake will be no excuse for trespass in a civil proceed- ing even if it be so in any measure upon criminal or penal proceedings, but still less could it give to the trespasser a right to persist in his mistake by insisting on the surrender of property which is not his. Perreira v. Wight. Where Defendant inputting up a fence went on plantifE's land and it is sworn that Defendant was on his own land or at all events on the boundary line, a title is in issue, and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction. Cassie V. Milne; James v. Adams. On Groivn Lands. — Trespass on Crown Lands is nb^ a criminal or penal matter. De Freitas v. Wight. Where Crown Officer swears on a charge of trespassing on Crown Lands that he believes the lands to be Crown Lands because " he does not see them in Bercheyk's " chart" and from information received and not from knowledge of his own, and Defendant establishes that the land had been worked as private property and that he had had them from the person who claimed them from the first, the Magistrate cannot decide the question of title raised. Lopes v. Backer. Larceny of growing crops includes a trespass on the land, but where Defendant is convicted of the larceny he cannot be convicted of the trespass arising from the larceny. G-arnett v. Dean. Where Defendant bond fide raises a claim of ownership on grounds possible in law and gives evidence in support of such claim, the Magistrate is to refrain from adju- dicating. Cassie v. Milne. JUET. 77 Laeoiny. Jury. — See Magistrate. Justice- — See JuEisDiOTioN. ,, —See WoEDS. Landlord. Magistrate has iurisdiction in cases where tenancy expires by effluxion of time, or by notice, or by forfeiture under express stipulation in contract. Taylor v. Cameron . Allowing a person to cut wood and burn charcoal on Crown Lands is not^er se a sub-letting by the holder df the Grant. Rodrigues v. Backer ; D'Oliveira v. Backer. Power of Review Court on question of Landlord and Tenant.— See Jueisdiction. Disputed. Ownership. — See Jurisdiction. Larceny. Larcdny is the wrongful or fraudulent taking and carrying away tlie personal goods of another from any place with a felonious intent to convert them permanently to the taker's own use, and make them his "prbperty without the consent of the owner. D'Abrio v. Hawker (cit. David v. Da Silva, 1 Eale 509). To constitute a Larceny there must be animus furandi and a Iv^ri causi. D'Abrio v. Hawker. Animus furandi is to be judged from the circumstances. Augusta V. Duncan ; David v. Da Silva. The tahing of articles from a shop openly in the face df day, in presence of Prosecutor's wife and other persons, and there being nothing clandestine or furtive in the acts of the accused, and done without force or intimida- tion negatives the animus furandi. Adams y. Pon-a-chee. Where the talcing is under colour df a right, and ddtie openly, thei-e is no animus furandi. lb ; De Croifcz v. De Freitas. Where Defendant takes away an article on the ground that he claims it and on being asked for the same, he says that it belongs to him, he cannot be convicted of larceny, as there is no animus furandi. Itchsing v. Ganga. Where goods actually lost are found arid the finder "^i)propriates them believing thkt the owner cannot be Laeoeny. 78 Geowing Cbop. found, it is not larceny in the finder. Rodericks v. Simons. Contra, if he believes that the owner can be found. lb. The belief in such case is to be inferred from the circumstances, lb (cit. Reg. v. Thurborn, 1 Den 0. 0. 387 ; Beg. v. Clyde, 37 L. J. M. 0. 107). _ Where all the facts deposed to are consistent teith inno- cence, the criminality of the accused ought not to depend on the inference of a witness. Allibocus v. Pon-a-chee. In cases of indictment for larceny, if the offence turns out to be embezzlement J Defendant may be convicted of embezzlement, but these powers do not extend to a sum- mary procedure. The Magistrate may amend complaint to one of embezzlement if facts turn out to be embezzle- ment at any time before his final decision and convict of embezzlement. Jessy v. Robb. OflAEGE FOE. Complaint must have the word "feloniously " in it or it is bad. Angoo V. Miller; Jack v. Johnj Adams v. Poona- chie ; Jodhan v. Mearns. The charge may, be amended by adding the word " feloniously " before trial, but not after. Jack v. John ; Jodhan v. Mearns. A charge for unlawfully stealing certain cocoanut trees of the value of $3.68 then growing in a garden is good. Jodhan v. Mearns ; see also Laecent of Gteowing Ceop. Property of several partners must be laid in the names of "A. and others," not in the name of the firm. Hodge V. McBurnie. Where property is laid in the name of " Timothy Pile" a conviction cannot lie if evidence shows property to be the property of "Samuel Pile." Pin-a-young v. Pile ; Faria v. Innis. See Amendment. The value of the goods must be laid and proved in the Magistrate's Court to constitute Petty larceny under 20 of 1856 and not merely the value of the property pro- duced in evidence. Kelly v. Farley ; Ned v. De G-uara. Larceny of Growing Crop. Things which savour of the realty such as growing trees are not subjects of larceny at common law. The Legisla- Lascent, Geowing Crop. 79 Licence Law. ture has made depredations upon growing plants, offences ; but not felonies under certain circumstances. Jodhan V. Mearns ; Semple v. Butts. The enactments are con. tained in the Larc«ny Ordinance, S-. 26-34 inclusive, ib iby cit. Angoo v. Miller ; Doorgan v. Miller as not in point. A conviction under 20 of 1856 (Petty Offences) for haying in possession a quantity of cane tops suspected to have been stolen is bad. Semple v. Butts. As things which savour of the realty, &c., see Supra. Lawful Excuse. — See Criminal Matter. Lease. — See Jurisdiction. Lecture for charitable purpose.— See Church — Chapel. Lees. Under Ordinance 1 of 1870 it is not necessary to prove that the trench into which lees was run, had previously fresh water or water that was not foul. Pin. Sophia v. Thome. Onus of origi mali lies on owner of estate, Ib. Legal Practitioner. Licence, — To be made liable for licence duty for keeping an office, it must be shown in evidence that he kept an office and transacted business there. Belmonte v. Anson. Where the Ordinance (8 of 1887) makes a Legal Practi- tioner amenable to a licence for keeping an office, an "Advocate" is a "Legal Practitioner", Ib, so is an Attorney-at-Law and a Barrister. De Souza v. Anson. Privilege. — ^A Barrister cannot claim privilege from giving evidence as to an application for a licence to keep a Tavern. D'Oliveira v. Darrell. Levy on Wages — Opposing. — See Assault. Licence Law. A Oom/missary cannot supersede the law and grant per- mission to do an act without licence, if licence is required for performance thereof. Jack v. Horton; Horton v. Chester. Keep and use. — The words of the Ordinance being Licence Law. 80 Separate Buildings. " keep and use", applies to private carriages and to tliJBe for hire, and where carriage is found in Defendant's place the onus is on him to show that it was not kept and used. Gonsalves v. Anson. GrUN. Where a gun is carried at 8 a.m. and licence is taken Out at 12,45 p.m., the licence does not exonerate holder from the effects of carrying the gun at 8 a.m. without licence. Harel v, Wint (cit. Gamjabell v. Strange- way, 3 C. P. D. 105 as not in point). The mere carrying of a gun is not illegal. Bolton v. Fern and es. AlthougL the law allows swine to be killed on authority of Commissary &o. when trespassing on public road, the person who kills by means of unlicenced gun is liable for using gun without a licence, as the Commissary cannot override the written law. Jack v. Horton following Horton v. Chester. LiQUOE. The penalty imposed by S. 10 of 8 of 1858 is limited to a case of selling spirituous liquor under proof from a cask or package holding less than 20 gallons. It does not apply to the case of a licensed dealer having in his shop rum of less than required proof. Gromes v. Bethune ; Gromesv. Olton. Separate Buildings. Where Ordinance enacts that where two or more per- sons not being partners shall be established as separate store or shop keepers in any premises, in each such case, such persons shall take out a separate licence, it does not extend to separate stores in separate buildings on the same lot. Cuokow v. Perot ei al. Where Defendant has a licence for a shop and he keeps another shop on the same lot even for the sale of the same goods for which he has a licence, he is liable for not having a licence for the second shop. Pequeno v. Hill. I^OENGE Law. 81 Luoei Cadsa* Dog. Defendant can be convicted on each of three charges for not having licences for three dogs kept by h.im. AUicock V. Cuekow. Evidence. — That a dog was lying down in a shop and another between kitchen and shop. Defendant who was in charge " of shop" said it belonged to a black man. The Commissary threw a stone at the dog and it ran under the shop. The yard was an open one where dogs from the village could come in as they will. Held, that this did not prove ownership of dog, but if house was proved to be Defendant's he could be convicted under 8 of 1880, Sec. 5 ; but it must be so proved and not merely that he was in charge. D'Andrade v. Swain. Where Defendant is convicted for not having a licence for his dog and is imprisoned in default of not having paid the fine and he still keeps the same dog, he is liable to another conviction for keeping a dog without a licence, as the first imprisonment does not purge the offence. Swain V. Brathwaite. Licence for Carriage, Cart, &c.. — See Oaeeiage. Business premises— See Business Peemises. Certificate for — See Evidence. Foregoing — See Condonation. Forfeiture of — See Ceown Lands. Hawker — See Hawkee. Notice to produce — See Evidence. Sub-letting — See Ceown Lands. Of Leojal Practitioner —See Legal Peactitionbb. "o Lien. A person cannot be convicted of detaining articles over which he holds a lien. Green v. Bean. Locus in €luo Should not be visited by the Magistrate exbept ini presence of the parties, unless the parties had noSce to attend and refused to go. Dow V. Chalmers. See Magis- trate, p. 85. Lucri Causa.— See Wobds. Magistrate. 82 Appeal. Magistrate. When no Appeal lies eeom his Decision. Where primd facie evidence is adduced of an offence and the accused person lias the means of rebutting and explaining that evidence if it were not leading to the truth, the Magistrate would rightly take into considera- tion that his omitting to do so furnishes a strong infer- ence against him, but much caution is requisite in applying this principle. Gomes v. Solomons. The conclusion of the Magistrate on matters of fact can- not be interfered with. Howell v. Straker. The Court will not interfere with the finding of the Magistrate on the question of fact if there is evidence sufficient to warrant him in the conclusion to which he arrived. De Freitas v. Seigart ; Garnett v. Nicholson. The Magistrate sits as a Jury and review is not allowed on the evidence when he decides on the evidence. Cum- berland V. Hinds ; Horton v. Abrahams, et al ; Beel v. Samuel ; Hitzler v. Clouston. Where the decision of the Magistrate enables the Court to come to the conclusion that he had weighed and disbelieved the evidence, the Court will not interfere. King v. Gomes. If the froof is such that the Magistrate could reason- ably come to the conclusion that the issue is proved there is no review of his finding. Marques v. Francis. Matter of fact and law. — Where the decision of the Magistrate would be a question of fact or mixed questions of law and fact the Review Court will not interfere. Horton v. Abrahams. The conclusion of the Gourt below from matters of fact and evidence unless evidently swayed by some misappre- hension of law or principle or so entirely inconsistent with what might appear to the Court above the direct and palpable result of the evidence, as to appear un- reasonable or perverse, will not be interfered with, as it is not desirable or even right for the Court of appeal to disturb such a decision. De Souza v. Wright; although the evidence might have warranted a different finding in favour of Defendant. Bolton v. Fernandes. The Review- Gourt has not the means of estimating the Magistrate. 83 Appeal. correctness of the weight of evidence in the Opart below, and it has not jurisdiction to do so. Green v. Brazo ; its jurisdiction in this respect being limited by Ordinance 5 of 1868 S. 10. Pin. Sophia v, Thorne. The Review Court no'doubt examines whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the findings, but the point once affirmed, all questions of the credibility and probative force of the evidence are to be determined solely by the Magistrate as they are to be determined by tho jury in criminal trials in the Supreme Court. Day v. Teixeira; Jones V. Bagot; AUicock v. Lange. The Mdgistrate might treat the evidence of the Prosecu- tor as unworthy of credit and dismiss the charge simp- licifer, in which case the decision is not reviewab'e ex parte. Deeraj v. Keeno (cit. British Sf Foreign Patent Invention Co., 2, W. H. & H., 57. Where an Ordinance (militia) does not give a right of appeal from the decision of the Magistrate no appeal lies, notwithstanding 5 of 1868 and 19 of 1856. Carburry et al, V. Dunn ; Dawes v. Dunn. Even in a doubtful case the Court will not interfere with the Magistrate's decision where there is no irregu- larity or illegality. Roheler v. Bheekun. The Magistrate's decision will not be disturbed except under special circumstances. Jack v. Jack. Oases in which Appeal libs. Error in Law. — Bond fides as to belief that Defendant took away the articles alleged to have been stolen under a claim of right is one of fact within the cognizance of the Magistrate, and the decision of the Magistrate is not subject to review unless for some error in law such as the improper reception or rejection of evidence or t!iMt the decision was wholly unwarranted by the evidence. G-arnett V. Dean. Where it is possible that the Magistrate may hive founded his dismissal on legal objection taken to the evidence on which he reserved decision, but expressed no opinion, the Court will interfere. King v. (jome--. Sufficiency of Evidence. — The Court of Review has no jurisdiction where there is not any question as to the L2J Magistrate, 84 Appeal. sufl&cieney of the evidence to decide ttat the Magistrate had found the facts erroneously ; on the other hand if finding the facts correctly he had not applied correct principles in drawing legal conclusions from those facts the Court can remedy such error. Anson v. Klien., The Court will enquire whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and the test is whether the evidence or the force of it, was such that had the trial been in the Supreme Court the case would rightly have been put to the jury, or in other words whether there was evidence before the Magistrate froni which a person of ordinary sound judgment might fairly have drawn the same inference as he did. Gomes v. Solomon (cit. R. V. Qlossop, 4 B. & Ad. 16 ; B. v. Davis, 6 T. R. 178; Byder v. Wombell, ex. Gh. 4 C. B. 32; Jewell v. Parr, 13 0. B. 915, Maule, J.) ; or if he applied the law wrongly to the facts. Administrator General v. King. The Court will not interfere with a Magistrate's decision upon a matter of fact unless it clearly appears that he was wrong. De Souza v. Roach ; Roheler v. Frank ; Sucko worth v. Dornford ; Lord v. Anson ; Goul- anally v. Dornford. It is the Court's duty to see that the Magistrate's conclusion from the evidence bears out the conviction. Silvand v. Wade; De Abrio v. Darrell {B V. Inhabitants ofOdell, 34 L. J. 534 as not applicable) ; and reverse the decision if necessary. Tulman v. Prince. The above rule applies to a dismissal. De Abrio v. Darrell. Idem as to acquittal. lb. In case of conflict of evidence, the Magistrate is the best judge of the weight of such evidence, and the crerlit due to the witnesses examined before him ; but the true test in such cases of summary conviction appears to be, whether on the face of the papers there is sufficient evidence to go to a jury instead of being the decision of the Magistrate. Dublin v. Grey. If the Magistrate applied the law wrongly to the facts proved, the Court of Review would set him right, but the Magistrate is sole judge of the facts. Administrator General v. King (cit. B. v. Goodridge, 10 L. J. 415 ; B. V. Bolton, 1 Q. B. 76). Anson v. Klien. A mere scintilla of evidence should not be left to the ' Magistrate. 86 • MaiIic^. ]ury, and by privity nf reasoning, a summary conviction is bad if it proceeds on a mere scintilla of evidence. Dover V. McLea.n (cit. Maule J. in Jewell v. Parr 1 3 0. B. 915 ; Eyder v. Womhell, 4 L. R. Ex. 32 ; B. v. Smith, Leigh Sf Gave, C. 0. 630) Prince v. Riokford ; Sophia v. Thorne. Douht. — Where the Magistrate entertains a doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence and decides on the evidence sent up the Court will look into such evidence and decide on the evidence sent up. Baker v. Tappin. In Percival v. Tebbuts the Court reviewed the evidence before the Magistrate on which Appellant was convicted, and held that there was considerable doubt as to identity of Appellant with the person alleged to have committed the larceny, and gave the benefit of the doubt to the Appel- lant, quashing the conviction but without costs. Discretion as to alleged greater injury. — The Magistrate might after hearing the evidence treat the greater injury of unlawfully and maliciously wounding a, cow, as an exaggeration and convict of the lesser crime. Dooraj v. Keeno (cit. ex p. Thomson, 6 Jurist N. S. 1247, 6 H. L. & N. 193 ; Wilkinson v. Dutten, 3 B. & S. 21 ; B.y. Elrington, 1 B. & S. 688). The Magistrate cannot impart his personal knowledge in deciding a case. Clarke v. Gray ; but his knowledge as to the locus in quo may be brought to bear on the subject matter. De Freitas v. Leacock.— See Locus in quo. Malice. Where words used in the Ordinance are " wilfully and " maliciously." the word " maliciously" necessarily im- plies that the matter charged was not done accidentally, and therefore wilfully. Joseph v. Huck. In eases of maliciously killing Sfc. animals, the mens rea must be proved. Rich v, Grose. The killing of a dog worrying sheep is not per se malicious. Tb. Where one in good faith kills a pig under authority of the owner of the land on which pig is straying or tres- passing, malice is not to be implied. De Souza v. Roach. Where Defendant having a right of way or believing that he had a right of way from having used a pertain path for some time and he finds a gate hawmg Ms fieo- Malice. 86 Master & Servant. gress, and he breaks it, he catinot be convicted oi " maliciously" damaging property. Coombs v. Butler. Where Defendant is attacked by dogs, and he chops one with a cutlass he has in his hand, it is not a malicious maiming or wounding of the dog. London v. Gonsalves. Malt Liquor to be drunk on the premises. To convict Defendant for selling without a licence it must be proved that he sold less than two gallons. D'Abrio v. Straker. Manager of Grant Means an agent of the owner ; not his servant. Swain V. Pistano. Mandamus- — See Rule. Married Woman. — See Femme covert. Master and Servant. Definition op Servant. A head shopman is not a servant under 2 of 1853. Dias V. D'Aguiar. Task Gang. — In the absence of any express evidence to the contrary, a person employed by a task gang driver, is a servant of the driver and not of the estate. Gordon V. Parkinson. A task gang driver is not a servant under Master and Servant Act. Bascbm v. Hazzard. An order given by the driver to an immigrant must be obeyed, as the driver is agent for the time being of the manager of the estate. Oarruthers v. Koondansing. A captain of a sloop engaged without any agreement as to time except that wages were agreed " to be at $75 a month", comes under S. 17 of Employer and Servant Act of 1853. Mendonpa v. Hopkinson. A manager of a grant is an agent of the owner, not a servant of the owner. Swain v. Pistano. , A pan boiler is a servant under 2 of 1853. Duke v. BUry ; Garnett v. Nicholson. Master & Servant. 87 When Liable. An East Indian immigrant is not amenable to Master and Servant Ordinance of 1853. Moonah v. Agard. Liability of Master. Although S. 65 of 25 of 1856 applies to certain per- sons only, a master may under general principles of law inmr a forfeiture by the act of his agent or servant. Oorreira v. Man thorp ; hut he is not liable for the act- of . the servant amounting to a misdemeanour. Isaacs v. Chapman. Nor is he liable for quasi criminal acts of his servant, e.g. where there is a fine or imprisonment, except by express enactment. Pistano v. Swain (cit. Attorney General v. Siddons, 1 C. & J. 220; Attorney General v. Burgess, 2 C. & J. 493; Mullins y. Collins,} L. R. Q.' B. 292 ; Somerset v. Hart, 12 Q. B. D. 360 ; Bedgagev. Haynes, 1 Q. B. D. 89 ; Booly v. Dawes, 1 Q. B, D. 784; B. V. Hawly, 9 L. T. N. S. 827; Searly v. Reynold, 14 L. T. 518; B. v. Barret, L. & C. 263; B. v.Sfamard, L. & C. 349) ; and e.g. a prosecution under S. 32 of Grown Land Ordinance 1873 (cutting shinges) S«'ain v. Pistano; neither is the employer liable for the illegal act of his ■ manager unless it is shown that he directed the agent or manager so to act or really meant that he should so act, or afterwards ratified the illegal act. lb. (cit. B, v. Smith, L. & C. 607 ; Cooper v. Steele, 6 H. L. C. A. 793), neither is the holder of a wood-cutting licence liable for trespass on adjoining lands, unless it be shown that trespass was done by the direction and with the know- ledge of the master. Da Silva v. Mann. The casual act or employment of another by a seller of bread does not make the seller liable under the 5th S. of Ordinance, for a sale of bread without scales and weights in his absence. Thorne v. Fraser ; Thome v. Muddle ; as the master is not liable for a sale by short Weight, unless he was present at the sale. Isaacs v. Chapman. When Liable. Absence of actual knowledge of owner of ganga shop of sale, is not enough for his exoneration, if the Magistrate considers he had consented to such sale, either by a Mastse & Servant. 88 ' Abatement of Wages. general order, or permission given his shopiian to trans- gress .the Ordinance, or in whatever way the consent was given. Wong-a.Sam v. Anson ; as the absence of owner of the shop does not relieve him from the responsi- bility of acts done by persons who had access to his shop, or control, or power, over the liquor sold from his shop which he was licenced to keep. Fernandes v. Arnold ; as it must be taken sls prima facie evidence that the owner of the shop, or his servant knew or consented to the selling of turn on Sunday if it is proved that rum was called for, drankj and paid for in the shop. D'Oliveira v. Bolton; " as it seems strange that a servant without benefit to "himself, but for his master's benefit, should have con- " traeted the liability of disobeying his master's orders ": i.e. not to sell. It was within the purview- of the " Magistrate to decide upon the credit dup to the wit- " nesses who swore to the contrary," 8nagg C.J. in Correia v. Mi^nthorp, The master is also liable for the acts of his servant when it is proved that he held the licence and that the servant got a part of the profit and slept upstairs of the shop, Ouckow V. Gonsalves. Liability of Owner when Absent from the Colony.— See Absence. Liability as Exeoutoe. . Where information lays Appellant's liability on the ground of his being the owner of the goods, as also employer of the actual owner of the shop, as in his capacity as Executor, and he takes exception in limine as Executor that he was not owner, he is entitled to a decision on the question thus raised independently of any particular circumstances that may have transpired in evidence. Silvano v. Barnes, Further, see Owner. Abatement of Wages, Under 2 of 1853, ' S, 10, the forfeiture made payable to the employer, is a penalty imposed on the servant. Bascom v. Hazzard. When charge states "A" to be the employer, and MkST.j:B & Servant. 89 Beeach'o]? Contract. wridfenee sbows thafeh« was only pa^^fc owner of fcheesfcab- lisbment Wihere the servant was employed, and there is no evidence as to who is the employer, tlie servant's wages cannot be abated. Abendanon v. Sproston. The employer cannot abate the wages himself. The Magistrate is the Judge as to whether wages are to be ^l^ated. Johnson v, §piith. If wages are abated by mastpr, enaploye ha;S a civil apd not a criininal actipn against hi^. Inferior Court, 6.5.71. The Magistrate in cases of breach of cpntracfc must award fine or inaprigonment ; the abj|t.epqnt qf wages is x^t suffioieijt. I)u)bliii v. G-ray. Where servaintis discharged for miscouduct, the master is. bound to. pay hi^i his w^gea due up tp the tip^ of his disph^rge. Johnson v. Soiith. A spryja^j; guilty pf habitual npglect; of pfders, such s|-s coming late, may be dipmiss.ed witl^out, w,arni?^g before the expiry of the period fpr ^Y^hiph hp, is l^iried, ^nd h^ is noteptitl,edtaany w^gesfrpn^ the day hp is sjp dismissed, if they ha4 ^oi, tjien accrae^,, Franjs v. ]V[,apk. {(fhitty oja, O^itrqct,?, 506, 5Q9). Contract as to Time. Whece no cjotraet is made as to term of service and Defendant is pai4 t^ the day and gets no wages for the days on which he does not work withouyt complaigt an his part, he puts it out of his power to allege a monthly service. Bab v. Wolsley. See Determination op Contract. Breach of Oontbagt. Where, a servant contracts to enter service and works npt on his master's land tp bleed balata, but on a neigh- bour's land under a misapprehension it was his master's lan^, the servant oaianot be Cimvieted on a charge of refusing to fulfil contract. Davson v. October. Where work has actudUy been cominemedj-tkerii is no necessity to show that such a contract was in wiititig or made before two witnesses. Gemmel v. Benjamin. To constitute a.jbreach (^contract bptween a person who contracts to serve a gold prospector, &c., the contract must be peoduoed, tjhe. r,egister under the Gold Mining Ordiuaaoe nofe being sufficient. Luckie v. D' Amil, M .Mastbk & Servant. 90 Refusal to bnteb Seevioe. Where servant is guilty of breach of contract the Magis- trate is bound to award fine or imprisonment, and he has no authority simply to order that the wages should be forfeited. Dublin v. G-ray. DeTBEMINATION 01" CONTEAOT. LENGTH OF CONTEACT. Notice of determination of contract or service should run for 14 days next preceding the termination of the month, and not that it shall run after termination. Men- donca v. Hopkinson. Notice given for the end of the month is not invalidated because it has to run for a longer period than 14 days. lb. Where a person enters upon a contract to work on an estate generally and without any contract verbal or written, his term of service is by law computed to be one calendar month. Dundas v. Cauza. See Conteact as to Time. Where contract is a daily hiring, and the master says to the servant, " if you don't wish to do the work you can leave it," the servant is at liberty to take the master at his word and le'ave the work. Sample v. Young. Breach. — Under 3 of 1853 which is partly taken from 4, Greo. 4, c. 34, the contract broken by one party is not dissolved. Moonah v. Agard (cit. Exp. Baker, B. & B. 696; Unwiny. Olarke, R. R., I. Q. B., 417); and the Magistrate can order return to service. lb. Neglect of Duty. To maTce a watchman liable for neglect of duty where goods are stolen, proof must be given of drunkenness, absence from, or sleeping at his post, or some direct evidence of a like nature. Bascom v. Relva. Liability of East Indian Immigrant. — See Immigrant. To make a servant liable for neglect of work &c. it must be alleged and proved that the refusal to work was without reasonable cause. Gordon v. Binns. Further, see Negligence. Refusal to entee See vice. A contract entered into according to the method pre- scribed by 2 of 1853 by a labourer . who is registered Mastee & Seevant 91 Meat. under 4 of 1887 (Grold Mining) is binding, but if entered only under 4 of 1887 and there is no stipulation as to wages in the contract, although an advance is given, a conviction for refusing to enter seryice is bad. Luckie V. D'Amil. It must be shown that the medicines and medical reme- dies prescribed under the Grold Mining regulations would be at the placer at the time the labourer would have reached had he fulfilled his contract, before he can be convicted for refusing to enter service. lb. Bmbezzlbmint. Where the steward of a ship is entitled to sugar and biscuits for his own use, he is guilty of embezzlement if he takes from the stores sugar and biscuits of small value to give to a woman on board (immigrant on passage from India) for illicit intercourse. Sumner v. Jones. As TO Conviction fob Embezzlement. — See Laeoent. Featjd. A person who contracts to do paalings at so much a foot and receives more than he is entitled to, is not liable under the Master and Servant Act for fraud and decep- tion, as it is no part of his duty to measure the work before he receives payment. Marks v. Shaw. He may be charged for receiving money under false pretences. lb. Liability ukdee Sunday Teading Oedinanob. — See Sunday Teading Oedinanoe. May. — See WoEDs. Meat. Where fresh meat is exposed for sale in a cart in a rural district on a public road "where a sort of market is " being held" and the person so exposing has a licence for a cart for hire and a huckster's licence he is as " occupier " and is amenable for " occupying a place " where fresh meat is exposed for sale without lawful " excuse and did fail to take out a licence." Burrowes V. Joaquim. Further, see Place ; Occupiee ; Haweee. M2 A Hiidicsfer's licence ddffs not dilHlle a'jjerson to sell fi'fesh nifeat on a public road in a mce. Qu«sti<>n'of negligfin^e is a mat'er-of fact to be decided by th^ Magastrate, and the Court of Review will not interfere. Grarn^tt v. Ndeholson. J'urtheir, see Master AND Servant-. ' : Where Ordinance makes 'neglect to keep the roads in good order5 evidence that road "was and is in bad order," is not sufficient evidence. Evidence of neglect must be given-. Prince V. King. Not 'Guilty. 93 Obstbuoting. Nat guilty.— See Pl^. Notice of Appeal (5 of 1868. S. 15.) Nofcice of appeal must be signed by Appellstiitj his Counsel or Attorney. The filing of reasons witiibut aiithetlti^^ation, even if they turn out to be correct copies, ife not Sufficient. Corfia, et al, v. Aiison. Further, see Waiver. Notice of Appeal not bad if erfor be committed therein, if D^feadaat be not misled. PequenO V. Binns; (cit. Piilidy on cmi., 5 ed., 351 ; B. v. Jusii&es of Osbfordshue, 4 Q. B., 177 i B V. Justices af DerhysUte, 9 Dowl, P.O. 509). The other side should be present if the reasons be given verbally. Ouckow v. De Jesus. Notice to produce. — See Ev^idenoe. Nuisance. Under 25 of 1860, S. 21, any person hot neoesisawiy the owner or occupier, is liable who allows the contents of a privy to overflow. Wade v. Gronsalves. Where the Magistrate convicts under this Section (21) he cannot sentence Defendant to a fine with the alterna- tive punis^hment of imprisonment. Verbeke v. Fry. The nuisance must be proved to be injurious to health. Sophia V. Thorne ; (cit. G. W. Rail Co. v Bishop, L. E., Q.B., 550 ; Melton Board of Health v. Melton Manure Co., L. Ri 4, Ex. Div. 302) ; but this is satisfied if it appears that a sick person might be made worse though not permanently, ib ; if a diminution of comfort merely were produced, ib. (Cit. Se* v. Ward, I. Burr. 337). Obstructing. Where a road officer or person employed under him is questioned by the proprietor of tho estate as to his taking wood, and he answers evasively, the proprietor should not treat him as a thief then and there, but should act reasonably and follow the enquiry if the answer he receives is such as reasonably to put him on enquiry. Murdoch v. Anson. It is not all interferences by words which amount to Obsteucting.' 94 Onus. an obstruction. It is for the Magistrate to judge with reference to the words used and ,the whole circumstances in any such case, whether obstruction would reasonably result from the words, and whether in fact it bad resulted. Ih ; Alliok v. Joseph. A charge of " wilfully obstructing " a police officer in the execution of his duty, is not within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. AUick v. Joseph. In order that a labourer should have the benefit of the protective clause (S. 13 S.S. 1 of Ordinance 3 of 1884) it should appear that he was employed or empowered by a road officer in the performance of some act authorised by the Eoad Ordinance. Murdoch v. Anson. Such authorisation when general must be in writing. lb. A Commissary may be obstructed by an act such as a threat to have him put off a stelling. Sproston v. Cross. He need not be doing a positive act W^hen obstructed. Ih. Obsteuoting Peace Opficeb — See Supra, also Assault, Aeeest. Occupier. — See Woeds. OcouPiBE OP Business Pekmises. — See Business Peemises. OflB.ce : Counting House. — See Woeds. Omission in conviction.— See Conviction. Onus. Crown Lands. — Seizure of goods lies on claimant. Kingston v. Fraser; Fraser v. Gonsalves; Swain v. Lopes; (cit. S. 35), The claimants should at least make out a primd facie case. Harcourt v. Sicla. The vitium reale which attaches under SS. 32 & 83, to shingles, &c., cut on Crown Lands, is not got rid of by mere sale and transfer, irrespectively of the attendant circumstances. Swain v. Lopes. Further — see Crown Lands. Onus of origi mali under Lees Ordinance lies on owner of estate. Sophia v. Thorne. Onus. 95 Opium Ordinance. Onus of shewing that Defendant has a licence for a retail spirit shop on a charge of having rum in his pos- session, lies on the Defendant. Anson v. Wong^a-Hoj ; (cit. Taylor on 'Evidence, 344). The evidence of reasonable inference that the use of a cart by Defendant's boy was by the instruction of the Defendant, or done by virtue of the employment of the boy, lies on the prosecution. Mendes v. Layton. Where charge alleges a sale as an offence, the condition being the exclusion of, the protection or exemption which a licence would afford, the law throws on the Defendant the proof that he had a licence ; whereas if the charge is for neglecting to take out a licence, the complainant would have to prove the neglect. Robella v. Birch; Walcott V. Jeffrey. Opium Ordinance. Onus of proving lawful possession is on the Defendant. Da Costa v. King. The law regulating opium, bhang, &c., prohibits a sale by wholesale dealers of not less than 25 lbs. to a retail dealer, therefore a sale of 10 lbs. opium and 15 lbs. bhang, making a sale of 25 lbs. of articles mentioned in the Ordinance, is in contravention of the Ordinance. Swain v. Fresson. Opium is liable to seizure if it is kept for a licenced customer by a person not licenced. Da Costa v. King, Entry in Book. If Magistrate is of opinion that entry in Book is incorrect, but not fictitious with intention of breaking the law, he is right in dismissing charge. Swain v. Fong-a-pan. The dealer need not make entry in the book at the time of receipt of opium ; he has up to the close of that day for making such entry. Goolamally v. Dornford, The keeping of a book by a dealer under Ordinance 26 of 1880, S. 7, does not'exonerate the dealer from keeping a book under Ord. 22 of 1861^ S. ,5. Seth y. Mdsrson. OPItfM ©EDINANGB. 96 OWKBfi. The owner is not bound to open his shop at all times fon the purpose of his books being inspected if his or^lin- ary business does not-require his shop being so opened. Goolomally v. Anderson. Where opium is seized as liable to forfeiture and is brought before the Magistrate along with the person in whose possession it was found, the Magistrate has Jiaris- diction to adjudicate, whatever were the cireurastanees of the seizure. Win-Sam v. Fraser; (cit. B. v. Bughes, L. E., 4, Q. B. D., 614). Gonstmction. — Sections 14 & 42 of Ordinance of 1889, are to b© construed together. Layton v. Rpheim. Possession. — Where opium is obtained by or on behalf of a licenced dealer, and not obtained from the Bonded Warehouse as required by law, there is- a vituim male attaching to it so long at least as it is held by the dealer or his agent, and the possession by the agent would be no answer to the charge of having in his possession illegally a certain quantity ef- opium. W-in-Sam v. Fraser ; cit. 22 of 1861, S.S. 11, 14 ; Tax Ordinanee 1879, S. 16. 8ale. — The mere sale of opium by retail, except in specified quantities, is illegal, and the purchase of opium of a larger quantity than that permitted, is also illfemil. BUipe V. Burrowesi Opposition, Entry of opposition under Gold Mining Regulations may be made by a Barrister, Solicitior, or duly authorised Attorney, or duly authorised Agent. McKinnon v. Stoby. Ordinance. An Ordinance imposing tax and iniport duties for sale and licence of certain goods, does not repeal thp Ordin- apqe thgretofore pa^^ed r^gulfttiog tjje salp, amd qljliga- tions arising from sg,le, and penalties qI ^ucJj, g9i9i4s- Sbjng-a-liee v. Bjroh. Qwnor. The owner in relation to immovaJbl© property is the Ot^Neb. 97 PAtePl^riB. person absolutely entitled to the property ; but he may be the owner either solely or jointly with some other person. He can have no estate of ownership in the pro- perty less than an absolute estate ; if the owner transfers not the possession, but the ownership of movable property to another person under conditions, sucli conditions may perhaps be enforcible on the principle of express or implied promises by the transferee, but not in respect of the conditions being impressed as qualificatfions of the ownership, which is absolute from the moment of trans- fer. Silvano v. Barnes. An owner of a shop is not necessarily tie occupier. Oapello V. G-raves. ^wher of & shop not h€c©ss9.rily being the occupier is ne/tprhid facie ihe ocGvLpier. Ib\ li is not flecessapy iu a calse for selling rum, to prove tfbe 0wn0riship of the b6ittse, or fehat Defendaot himself sold the run?, so long that it is proved that ib was his shop or houte in whidh the rum was sold. Backer v. Tappin. II dwnerfsMp is laid as the property of A., aliid con- viotioii follows on the evidence that it was the property of A, & B., the conviction is bad. Amos v. Hmley. FnrthePj see Laeoent. As to liability of owner und«r Sunday Trading OrJin- ance-^see Sunday Trading OrdinaiNoe. Of Bxegutoe, An Exeotitor is ntft aii owner in the plain and popular meaning of the term, nor is he owner under any valid legal ^Ofleepfeion of the term. Silvano v. Barnes. Partner. Where one member of a firm is proceeded agairnt as fJarrying on basiness with the other partner under the name, style, firm, &c., the entry in the record book, tiie evidence, and the conviction, must show the individual name, (following the charge) not the partnership name. De Jesus, et al, v. King. The omission to join a partner as particeps crimmift cannet be taken adwanta^e of by Defendant on a rovenne prpsecution. Santos v. Darrell. N , Paetnee. 98 Penalty. One partner may be proceeded against singly for selling rum if the firm was in arrears of licence dues. Quinta V. Swain. Service on partners — see Summons. Laying property in ctarge. — See Laeoent. Peace Oflacer, assaulting'.— See Assault. Peace, breach of. — See Secueitt. Pedlar. — See Hawkee. Penalty. Where disobedience of a law makes a person liable to a penalty, this is sufficient to constitute a criminal matter. Dalgleish v. King ; (cit. Millar v. Denham, L.R., 6, Q.B.D., 469, Bramwell, J.) Further, see Ceiminal MA-TTER. Penalties are to be recovered under 8 of 1877, S.S.43 44. De Souza v. Anson ; (cit. for appellant and held not applicable, 8 of 1880, S. H). Where the Ordinance under which a charge for failure to take out a licence is brought provides no penalty, the penalty is imposed and proceeded for under 39 of 1875, S. 2. Martin v. Burrowes. Where the law imposes, a penalty and a certain sum due for a licence to be paid (8 of 1880) the Magistrate oannot award a penalty and order tbat a licence be taken out. Moonie v. Dornford. Magistrate's decision amended and appellant con- demned by Review Court to pay a penalty and costs within three days after decision. Magistrate ordered to rectify conviction under 20 of 1860 . Rodney v. Sampson. Where the law imposes a penalty between $100 and $500, the Magistrate has no authority to impose a lower penalty than $100. King v. Gomes; (cit. li.Y. Solomons, 1,T.R., 249; Whitehead y. Begina, 7, Q.B. 586); and where this is done the Court will remit to the Magistrate to impose the legal penalty. lb; Cuckow v. Nascimento. Idem, if penalty is of a specific amount. Cuckow v. Ilascimento. Penalty. 99 Plea. Penalties may be dispensed with under Petty OfFences Ordinance, and imprisonment awarded without the option of a fine. Younge v. Maule. Further on this head, see Hard Laboub. Place — See Words. Plantains. A charge of " stealing plantains " is one of simple larceny, and flogging will not lie. Perreira v. Mclnroy. To order flogging, the charge must be for stealing " growing plantains," that is to say plantains growing on lands. lb. Clair v. Mendonca ; Dick t. Bunbury. Plantain Suokees. Where the season's crop has been reaped and no new suckers planted, but the old suckers allowed to remain, and no cultivation has been applied to them, they are not an industrial crop, and therefore not within the scope of Ordinance 27 of 1880 as growing crops. Ewing Estate Co. V. Seals ; contra, if cultivation has been bestowed on them. lb. — See Growing Ceop. Plantain Walk. Larceny from a plantain walk does not come within Ordinance 22 of 1862, S.S. 31, 32. lb. Plea. — :Statutoey Caution. Before a Magistrate enters into a charge he must state the substance of the information to the Defendant and ask him in the words of the Ordinance " if he had any- thing to ofier or say, &o." Popplewell v. Barnes ; Ford V. Small; Rocha v. D'Ornellas; Henriques v. Anson; but it is sufficient that the Court be judicially satisfied that the statutory caution was put, and the minute of the Magistrate " statutory question put," and the plea " not " guilty," is sufficient. Porter v, Burrowes ; bufeit would be better if the Magistrate had minuted " question put " as provided by S. 20 of Ordinance 19 of 1856." lb. Plea" oi Guilty. ' A plea of guilty does not supply imperfect description of prior convictions. Jugranee v. Rose. Na Plea.- 100 ?ot.ieB. A plea of guilty to an iBformation wbich charges po offence at law is inoperative. Stewart v. Hortpn. A plea of guilty to an informa,! charge ig not to be considered a plea, or tha-t I)efenda,nt is bound by his admission, unless it is shown that ^fhen the plea vras given Defendant ktiew and tindepst&ed the nature of the offence with which he was eh&jFged. Budal v. McLean. QxTALiFiBD Pleas. A plea of guilty to a cha;rge of wilful iiidqlence, '' arid " that Defendant had sores but did not go to tjie hos- " pitt).l," is one of not guilty. |i^OG(tay r. Field. Idem to charge for being absent from work without leave, with the addition that Defendant stated " I did not " go, I s^t down, I (iid not go to IjQ^gital," is not an u|} qualified plea of guilty. Ghastity y. Dawsofl. Id&m tQ ehargs of ass^iult " I did give complainant a "blow." Luckput y. Nehore. Id^m tp charge qf hjiying rum op business premises " that rum was in bed-rpom." Oadde| v. Burrpwe^^ Idem to charge of trading as a, hawker witlioiit a licence means that he did offer to sell in the manner mentioned in the Ordinance, and that he had no licence for selling thereof ; but it does not go so far as a plea of guilty that he is a hawker in term of the law. Van Brook V. King ; (cit. Eex. v. Uttle, 1 Burr., 610, 2 Ld., Ray, 317). Plea of Not Quiltt. A plea of not guilty puts proseeutioa upon legal proof not only of the alleged Qffenee in substance, but of any circumstance whi^h may assist m leading up to convic- tion. "Warren v. Pereira. In bastardy cases a plea of. not guilty puts thet com- plainant on proof that the mother of the ehild is a single woDfian. Green v. Taiti Police. The disciplinary tij^ie^l by l^is SMperior officer of a police- man for misconduct, section of the Qrdiaa^ce ^i^Vi\ PoiiicB. 101: Poor Xaw. presca-ibes no punisliment, cannot be urged as res judicata on a trial before a Magistrate. Waterman v. McArthy. RBSisiiKG^See Assault, Peace Ofeicee. Points of Oface Dp np|i apply to criminal procedure, !Faria y. Innis. Poor Law- Proof.— in all ba,stardy cases the evidence must show that the mother of the cbildis a single woman, and a plea of npt guilty is not an admission of the condition of the inpther as a single woman. G-reen v. fait. It must be proved on the record. lb. Adjudication mvist show that Defendant is the putative father ; that tbe money is to be paid to the mother so long as ste shall live, &c., for th.e maintenance of the child, and a limit, until the child is 14 years or shall die before attaining such age &c , is to be fixed, during which the order is to be continued in force. De Cambra y. Ben* An order to pay by instalments Is bad. Ih. All order to pay by instalments to the clerk of the district is bad. IV. A general order of imprisonment or of distress or ijpprispnraent in default of distress is bad. lb. The order is to be formally drawn up, and a copy served on Defendant. lb. Jurisdiction, — An allowance once determined cannot be increased, nor can the Magistrate reconsider an adjudica- tion pronounced by his predec(?ssor. Macedo v. Anthony. (%vil Matter. — Proceedings to enforce payment in affiliation cases are in the nature of civil proceedings (not Criminal). Todd v. Chester; (cit. R. v. Lightfoot, 6, E, & B., 822 ; B. v. B&rry, 29, L. J., M. C, 8fi) ; and the M^gistr^te has jnrisdiction to try cases to enforce pay- ment und.er an affiliation order. lb. Deseetion. Where a wife leaves the house because she was driven out by the husband, and the husband lives in adultery in the house, the Court can rightly commit for desertion of PooE Law. 102 Oonviotion, &o. the wife so that she may become destitute. Sample v. Williams, Ord. 6, 1855, Sec. 36 ; (oifc. B. v. Maidstone Union, L.R. 5, Q.B. 31 ; B. v. Goohham Union, L.R. 9, Q.B.D. 529; Flanagan y. Overseer of the poor of Bishops Wearmouth, 27, L.J., M.O., 46, cit. for the Defendant). To constitute desertion there must be evidence that the wife expressed her willingness to resume co-habita- tion, or that the husband refused to receive her, or by his misconduct rendered her return an impossibility; King V. Ross ; as the test of desertion is not whether the husband has " wilfully refused" to maintain his wife ; Sample v. Williams ; and there is no law which renders it compulsory in a husband to support his wife if, he having a home for her, she elects to remain away, and it is not incumbent on him to write to her to return. King V. Ross. Poverty is no excuse against making an order enforc- ing a previous order made in affiliation. Todd v. Chester. Conviction — Form of. Awarding Hard Labotje. Under an affiliation order a general order of distress or of imprisonment in default of distress is bad ; the order should be formally drawn up containing adju- dication that the Defendant is the putative father of the child and an order on him to pay the mother of the child so long as she lives and is of sound mind and shall not be in any prison, or the person who may be appointed to have the custody of the child a weekly sum to be then named until such child shall have attained the age of 14 years or should die, or the mother should marry, with such order as to costs and other incidental expenses as to the Justice shall seem meet; the order should be formally drawn up and a copy served on the Defendant, and if such order is disobeyed for the space of a month, the mother may apply for an order against him, verify^ ing her complaint or information upon oath, when the Justice shall issue his warrant for the apprehension of the Defendant to be brought before the Special Justice to be dealt with according to law. On the Defendant being brought and alleging no sufficient reason for non compliance with the order, the Magistrate may issue a PooE Law. 103 PosTPO&rfMBUTl; distress for tne arrears under the affiliation order, not exceeding the amount due for 12 months and if the Defendant has no goods and chattels upon which a distress can be levied, then a warrant of commitment may be issued ; but it must be borne in mind that inas- much as the Ordinance provides that not more than 12 weeks arrears are to be recovered in discharge of the whole debt, the mother to keep alive her claim for arrears under the order should apply for a fresh warrant as each 12 weeks expire without payment. De Cambra V. Ben; Macedo v. Anthony. In Haly v. Bawd, S. S. C. where the Magistrate ordered more than 12 weeks payment (and in default Haly was imprisoned) sentence for $300 was given in an action against the Magistrate for false imprisonment. Possession. On a charge of suspicious possession all that it is necessary to ensure conviction under Ordinance 20 of 1856 S. 2 p. 6 is a reasonable suspicion that the thing found in the possession of the party accused had been stolen or unlawfully obtained, coupled with a failure to account for the same to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. Adams v. Mayers (cit. in re Boothroyd, 15 M. & W. 1). Possession or Geowing Crop.— See Labobnt. Postponement. A summons was served at 3 p.m. on 11th September on Defendant to appear on 13th September at 11 a.m. Defendant applied for postponement. The Magistrate said he would take the evidence for the prosecution and see. He adjudicated. Review Court held that he should have postponed, and referred case back to him to hear the evidence for defence, Defendant being at liberty to summon witnesses. D' Andrade v. Lang. A summons served on Defendant one day to appear next day is not reasonable as to time. Daniel v. Ridley. "Whilst a Defendant should have all necessary facilities for obtaining witnesses and postponement if necessary Postponement. 104 Pousf). for that purpose, needless postponements on the Contrary- ought to be discouraged, and before a Defendant can complain with any effect of not having been granted a postponement, it lies on him to show that his application was made in good faith, and that there was at least some feasible reason for it. Gonsalves v. Fox. The fact that Defendant did not ask for a postpone- ment when case was called, does not debar him frotn applying after case for the prosecution is closed. Daniel V. Ridley ; (cit. B. v. Stone, 1 East, 639). Postponement is in the discretion of the Magistrq.te and it lies on the party applying to satisfy the Magis- trate that the postponement was of importance to hitt, and was reasonable. Kollychurn v. King ; Daiiiel v. Ridley ; Sewkisson v. Grill ; Btadalty v. Salmon. A postponement is allowable in order to enable the Defendant to compensate Plaintiff on a charge of cruelly maltreating a mule. Kollychurn v. King. A party has no right to have his case postponed or taiken out of its turn in order that Counsel or Attorney may attend on his behalf. Khodobaccus v. Janoosiug. As a rule complainant should be prepared Tjrith the necessary evidence, or should apply to the Magistrate lor a postponement, and not to wait until decision, and claim review on the statement of additional facts. Bascom v. Norton. Pound. Manager of estate is tiuthorised to send cattle to the pound as strays, so is the overseer of the estate when authorised by the manager. Bla.nk v. Mulligan ; and although he may be liable civilly, he i« not liable for a criminal offence. lb. Under S. 10, it is not obligatory that a stray taken up after sunset shall be actually - delivered to the pound- keeper before 8 o'clock on the following day. It is sufficient if it be sent from the place of its arrest before 8 o'clock, although it does not reach the pound until 8.55. Winter v. Hastings. A pig under the direct control of owner is not a stray. Do iSouza V. Roach. Pound. 105 Rescue. Taking to the Pound. Under the Ordinance, the person sending the stray to the pound is to send an authorisation in writing autho- rising the person sent to " take" the stray to the pound. The order must be to " take to the pound," and an order " that the pound-keeper is a^^thorised to receive the " stray sent and taken to the pound by A," is not suffi- cient. Practice and precedent in the Inferior Criminal Court. Driving off. Information for driving off an animal for the purpose of making it a stray, must state the ownership of the land on which the animal was. Hookenchun v. Alexander. Driving off from another's land with intent to make a stray, is a criminal matter. Blank v. Mulligan. But if Defendant deals with cattle as actually strays, and there is a dispute as to the right of property of the middle walk of an estate on which cattle strayed actually pending between Complainant and Defendant, it is not such as a "driving off" under the Ordinance. Van Battenburg V. Burnham. The Magistrate in such cases has no jurisdiction. lb. Under charge of illegally driving three head of cattle with the view of making them strays. Defendant cannot be convicted of "illegal driving off, and further did " impound." Jones v. Yaltz ; Smith v. Dover. Under charge for driving off, the Magistrate cannot impose a fine and costs, and further order Defendant to pay poundage fees. Smith v. Dover. Payment of the full amount of poundage and of returning animals to the property to which it belongs must be ordered in addition t@ the penalty imposed. Parnum v. Reid. In all cases of driving off, the fact that the owner had the undisputed ownership of the land must be shown by evidence. Van Battenburg v. Burnham. Rescue. To convict of rescuing a stray, the person taking such stray to the pound must be authorised to take such stray Pound. 106 iLfcsGAL Impoundingp. to the pound; his name must appear in the written authorit)' . An authority to take to the pound is always necessary. One in which it is stated that the pound- keeper is "to receive" such stray and ttere is nothing to show that the taker is anthorised to " take" to the pound is bad and Defendant cannot if he rescues, be con- victed. Practice of the Inferior Criminal Court and the cases decided therein. Illegal Impounding. Is not a criminal matter. Blank v. Mulligan ; Wil- liams V. Douglas. To make it a criminal matter the animals must be driven from the premises of which the taker is not the occupier or owner with a view of making it a stray. Blank v. Mulligan. Where stray is caught in a burial ground of a country church and the " Rector" sends it to the pound it is not an illegal impounding. Wickham v. Bury (in this case the Magistrate held that the Rector could not act for the vestry and that the vestry had charge of the land, and was a corporate body). To make an animal a stray it must be seized on the land where it trespassed ; if it goes off tlie land, even if it has been recovered, it cannot be re-taken. Griasgbw V. Hardeen ; (cit. London v. Hooper, 1 0. 414, Comyns dig. art. distress). Even if it had been caught and hkd got away. 3. If the Magistrate believes that the Defendant went to the i'rosecutor's pen and impounded the same cattle which had strayed on his land in consequence of sup- posing, although erroneously, that h.e had a right to do so, there would be grounds to negative the intent of making the nnimals strays and acquit the Defendant of the criminal charge, though, it does not satisfy the impounding. Douglas v, Hardeen. Where the defence was that the impounding was in pursuance of a right, and the Magistrate convicted, the Court recalled the conviction of the Magistrate on the condition that the Defendant paid the expense of Com- plainant for pound fees and the prosecutor in the Court below, lb. ^ovm. 107 Shooting Swine, &c. It is not every unlawful impounding which makes the offence of illegal impounding. lb. There must be the intent. lb. And the taking of the cattle must be with the intent to make them strays. Pemberton v. James. The charge must say that the cattle were taken '-' from " the land, not " on " the land. lb. Where a public road runs through a pasture, cattle crossing that public road are not strays. Samuel v. Bobb. Eecoveey oj Penalty. Where the sums adjudicated to be paid by the Magistrate under the Ordinance on a charge of illeo-al impounding amount to more than $24, the Small Penal- ties Ordinance 1868 does not apply, and the sums should be recovered by distress in the first instance, and not by imprisonment without previous warrant of distress. Wills V. Tebbutt. Shooting Swine, &o. Under a charge of killing swine, it was contended that under Ordinance of 9th December 1796, the owner of ground on which swine trespassed, was at liberty to shoot same after giving notice twice to the owner, and it was urged that in effect the act was repealed by 7 of 1666 S. 6, and if not repealed, the Magistrate would have no jurisdiction over the complaint under the Ordinance of 1796. Held, that tlie killing of swine was punishable under 21 of 1862 S. 37, and supposing with- out admitting that the act of the Defendant could be punished as a malicious injury to property under the Petty Offences Ordinance 20 of 1856 S. 2 p. 7, tho animal killed was valued at $20 which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. If the Defendant could have invoked the summary jurisdiction of the Magistrate under the Petty Damage Ordinance 23 of 1 861 the pro- ceedings were not under this Ordinance, and the appeal would be to the Inferior Civil Court and not to the Review Court. The Magistrate was not therefore authorised to exercise summary jurisdiction. Boodha V. Rughon. Where a pig is tied and kept under supervision of the 02 Pound. 108 Peoolamation. owner and is killed by order of owner of premises, it is unlawfully killed whilst so tied ; but if the person so killing acts in good faith under his authorization to kiU, believing that the owner of the premises had the right to give- such order, it would be somewhat more than a colourable excuse and sufficient to exclude malice. De Souza V. Roach. Under the proclamation of 9th December 1796, a party is bound to give special notice of trespass twice to the owner of goats before he is free to shoot or kill such goats. Bunbury v. Stephen; 7 of 1866; Ferreira v. Anaran. Prescription. Held in a case in review under Crown Land Ordinance that " it seems also as if the limitation of time in the " Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance ended as far as it " touches the Crown by 31 Eliz. C. I. S. 5." Dow v. Chalmers. The property of the Crown is not divested by non claim within the period of six months. Brabey v. MoTurk. Previous Conviction. Where it is intended to proceed as for a second offence under 7 of 1873, notice should be given to Defendant by alleging the previous conviction in the charge and prov- ing the same. Moorandum v. La Roche ; Soomaria v. Hunter ; Rootay v. Field ; Neemur v. Mavor. Where the record book of the district is produced by the Clerk to the Magistrate, showing previous conviction of " indolence", this is not sufl&cient to prove previous conviction of " wilful indolence during working hours." Jugranee v. Rose ; although the formal conviction is made up for " wilful indolence during working hours." lb. Previous conviction cannot be proved orally ; it must be proved by the record book or by the record. Seerogee y. Thomson (cit. Oahes Mag. 8yn., 10 Ed. 147). Proclamation. Of a new fiscal district is not of such a nature as to be judicially noticed. Cabral v. Yoiinge. Proclamation. 109 Peoseoutor. If the proclamation be of a public nature, judicial notice must be taken of the same, ib, or if so directed by statute, ib ; contra, if not of g, public nature ib (cit. Van Omeron v. Dowich. 2 Gomp. 44; Dupraysy. Shephard, 12 Mood Bep. 216 ; Badley v. Arthur, 4 B. & 0. 304 ; B. v Holt, 6 T. R. 446, 31 & 32 Vic. c. 37). Procurer.— See Words. Pronunciation of Judgment.— See Appeaeanoe. Prosecutor. Appeaeanoe. Any person may lay an information and appear on charge of assault on behalf of the aggrieved person if Buch aggrieved person consents to his doing so ; but the Magistrate must make sure as to the consent. James V. Lilmonie. In cases of assault the Police can appear on behalf of the aggrieved party and act as prosecutor. Cumber- batch V. Hinds, The charge and evidence must show that the Prose- cutor acts on behalf of the person aggrieved, ib, but there is no rule that the informer must be the person on whom the offence was committed. Any person may inform and prosecute in a public matter except where there is a limitation by statute to particular persons. Wright V. Gamett ; and a Police Inspector may inform and prosecute in a case of assaulting a policeman in the execution of his duty. Ib. Non appearance of Defendant at the adjudication does not vitiate the proceedings. Lopes v. King. The evidence of the Prosecutor not essential in cases of theft. Pong-a-ling v. Chandler. Signing or Charge. The charge must be by the party aggrieved, or some one in, or on his behalf. Cumberbatch v. Hinds; cit. Richv. Melville. Customs. — Where a party is charged with an offence under the Customs Ordinance 1884 and the information Pboseoutob. 110 Eatlwat. is not lodged in the name of the Attorney Greneral, the charge must be signed bj the Comptroller or sub Comp- troUer of Customs. Hohenkerk v. Eoyen. Larceny. — Where charge of theft of estate's property is laid and signed by the head overseer, it must be taken that the Manager is the real prosecutor. Fong-a-ling v. Chandler, cit Ordinance 19 of 1856. Contra in White V. Martin, where it was held that where the charge is signed by the overseer it must be taken that the overseer is the prosecutor and is not merely the agent of the manager. In a case of larceny of burnt earth from land of A in charge of B, B cannot bring charge. Saunders v. Douglas. A must bring charge. lb. Death of Prosecutor. — Where charge under Immigra- tion Ordinance is signed by the manager, and the manager dieSj the charge is not abated. Persaud v. Christie, Contra, if it be a common informer suing for a penalty. lb. Attorney General. — Where Ordinance enacts that for an offence, the offender shall be liable on conviction to a fine, and such fine may be sued for, prosecuted and recovered on summary conviction by the Attorney Gene- ral, the information need not be laid in the name of the Attorney General, as it is an offence against public Policy (harboring Immigrants without passports with intent to carry them out of the Colony is an offence against public policy.) Cox V. Bascom. Public Entertainment. The words " other public entertainments" mean pubr lie entertainments having something of the character of a dancing, singing, or theatrical entertainment, and not to religious or moral instructions in church or chapel dedi- cated to religious worship or devotional purposes. Gib- bons V. Straker. A person is not liable for assault for putting out another from a theatre, &c., at the instance of the entertainer if he does not use more force than was neces- sary. Gray v. Swain. Railway. A ticket covering a journey in the train from Mahaioa Railway. Ill Reasons of Review. to Vigilance covers a journey in the train between two intermediate stations between Mahaica and Vigilance. Sumner v. Railway Oo. (cit. B. v. Frere, 4 E. & B. 698, 24, L.J.M.O., 68). Reasons of Review. Beas(yns not stated. — It is for the Court to look at the whole record independently of the reasons of appeal which may be stated by Appellant. Gonsalves v. Lay- ton; but it cannot amplify in favour of Appellant the ground of appeal. Hinds v. Lovell ; it must decide on the papers where Appellant does not appear. Silvano v. Wade, the Court being bound to notice apparent defects in the proceedings brought under review and act on the same even when not brought specifically by Appellant's reasons. Van Battenburg v. Burnham. It is the duty of the Court to take notice or cognizance of what is essential to the right and lawful decision of the questions raised by the record whether adverted to in the arguments of parties or not. Warren v. Pereira (cit. Ordinance 22 of 1868, S, 5) ; and if the reasons are not applicable to the case, the Court is not precluded from taking notice of any error apparent on the record. Zitman v. Backer (see Amendment). The Review Court does not admit of discussion of other objections than are notified to the Respondent by the reasons. Pereira v. Davis the Appellant being con- fined by his reasons. Rodrigues v. Pereira. Signing. Notice of opposition and reasons of review must be signed by the party applying or by his Counsel or Solicitor, or appeal will be dismissed. Correia v. Anson ; Goola- maHy v. Dornford. The receipt of reasons not signed is a waiver of any objection or irregularity as to the irregularity for non-signing. Ragabone v. G-reenslade. Neither party can waive want of proper notice. Goola- mally v. Dornford; the Court of Review being bound to take notice of such defect, ib. The same remark applies to the non-signing of copy of the proceedings before the Magistrate. De Freitas v. Ferreira ; Johnson v. Jack. Reasons of Review. 112 Evidence. GrBNEEAL Issue. A general denial of guilt without alleging specific miscarriage of justice when the Magistrate has come to a different conclusion does not entitle the Appellant to have the case reheard by the Court of Review. Straghan V. Coxall. A plea of general denial is bad. Garnett v. Dean; Goolamallj v. Dornford ; Hutson v. Rosbn. The reasons should show in what respect the decision is erroneous, not merely that " the decision is erroneous in laW." Day V. Teixeira ; Sewbole v. Muller ; Hicken v. Green- slade ; Scantlebury v. Green ; Silvano v. Wade. A plea of not guilty is inept and the Court of Review has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the general issue. Goolamally v. Dornford. Reasons of Magisteatb. Not always desirable. Ferreira v. Wight. Reasons of Magistrate dismissing a case, S. 19 of . Ordinance 19 of 1856 not necessary when he dismisses a case on merits. Swain v. Pistano. They are necessary when he dismisses a case not on the merits, lb. The Magistrate is not bound to give reasons when he dismisses a case. Lovell v. Pistano, (cit. for Appellant and held not applicable 5 of 1868 S. 25), nor is he bound to give reasons when he upholds or dismisses a claim for seizure of goods under Crown Lands Ordinance. Fer- reira v. Wight. If he gives reasons he is not bound to forward them to the Court. Hill v. Klien. When the reasons of the Magistrate are delivered in the Court below and made known at the time they may be forwarded to the Review Court. Gray v. Khodoboc- cus. Cit. Broim v. Ougy, 2 M. P. C. JS". S. 341. As TO Evidence. Where Magistrate admitted illegal evidence, but re- jected the claim for return of goods seized under Crown Lands Ordinance on the ground that the claimant had failed to prove legal ownership, and such illegal evidence Reasons op Eeview. 113 Filing. does not affect the decision, Court of Review will not interfere. Serrao v. Anderson ; Harcourt v. Sillia. Misapprehension of party of the evidence before the Magistrate is no ground for quashing the conviction. Hinds V. Lovel. The decision of the Magistrate cannot be reversed on the ground that a document was laid over in the Court below and not entered on the minutes. Administrator General v. King. Filing. Copy of reasons and application for review must be filed with the Registrar 14 days after application for review, or appeal will be dismissed. D' Aguiar v. Francis (2 cases) ; or struck off. Beete v. Creedharry ; Roheler v. Evelyn. Where no copy of application for review and of the reasons are filed with the Registrar (rule 22 July 1871), the application for review must be dismissed. Gonsalves v. Anson. (4 cases.) A copy must be left with Respondent, but it need not set out the order of the Magistrate verbatim. Kryen- hoffv. Glasgow. Reasons of review in a case determined in Berbice may be filed in the Registrar's office in Georgetown. Deci- sion of Court 9 May 1883. Where a copy of the application and reasons are filed with the Registrar aud afterwards that copy is marked as being a true copy of the document served on the Magistrate, &c., the rule has been complied with, but it is irregular to use such documents for such purpose. Luckie v. Anson. It is not sufficient to lay over with the Registrar, affi- davit of service on Magistrate, and of a copy on respon- dent, to which affidavit a copy of the application and reasons are attached as being a true copy of the docu- ments so served. Copy of reasons &c. must be signed as such and laid over with Registrar before affidavit of service is filed. Luckie v. Anson ; Luckie v. D' Amil. Under the Immigration Ordinance, 1873, the Immi- gration Agent General has 14 days after the hearing to Reasons of Review. 114 RbgefViSg. appeal on behalf of an immigi'atit, but wliere the Immigra- tion Agent General in suing for a penalty under Ordinance S. 84, the time is limited to 10 days, and if he gives verbal notice of appeal at the time of the conviction, and such reasons are untenable, the time allovs^ed for Etppeal will count from the decision to the filing of written reasons. Immigration Agent General v. Shellds. Service. May be made by means of registered letter under S. 25, of Ordinance 7 of 1880, bxit if the last day for ser- vice is on the 4th February, and the reasons were posted by registered letter on 4th February, there must be evi- dence to show that they would be delivered in the ordinary course of post on 4th February, as is required by tlie terras of the enactment. Poudarsing v. Ooyte; A notice of review is not sufficient, the service must he of reasons of review. Kingston v. Kingston: Due service of application and reasons hieiag a statu- tory condition of the appeal cannot be waived. I*auaar- sing V. Coyle. The Court directed the applicant for review to give due notice to the respondent in writing of the intention to bring in review the decision of the Magistrates Ouckama v. Long. Affidavit of service must be sworn to before a Com- missioner of affidavits and not before a Justice of the teace. King v. Gomes. All service of notices of review must be proved by affidavit from this time. Straghan v. Chapman. From a refusal to convict no appeal lies. Massiah v. Peertunsing. Waiver op Reasons. — See Waiver. Receiving Stolen Property. On charge for receiving where there is evidence thdt the goods were in the physical control and disposition of the Defendant, the Magistrate ought to convict if he believes such evidence. Da Silva v. Wrig-ht. .Re&ed Book. 115 I^Efl]S4Biifa. Becord Boath to witness can be administered by Magistrate's Clerk raised but not decided in Abeu- danon v. Sproston. Words, interpretation of. Abbeeviation. To abbreviate " Superintendent" to "Sup" is irregu- lar. Da Silva v. Mann. The letters " S. J. P," after the Magistrate's signature do not show any jurisdiction or office. De Souza v. Wight; D'Aguiar v. Gordon (cit. Praevick v. Bell, 1 Saun. 74) ; D'Aguiar v. Harris. 21 OF 1891, S. 29. The rules of interpretation axidi construction herein- Words. 136 Acts op Paeliament. before contained with respect to Ordinances shall, unless the contrary intention appears, apply, mutatis mutandis and so far as they are not inapplicable thereto, to other Statutes except Acts of Parliament, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Ordinance. S. 2. In this Ordinance and in every Ordinance passed after the commencement of this Ordinance, and in every Official document made or executed after the commence- ment of this Ordinance, the following expressions shall, unless the contrary intention appears, have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them. This clause refers to the interpretation of all words herein noted, as under " Interpretation Ordinance" as against the words expressed under headings " Colony," " Governor," " Males," " Writing." Acts of Paeliament. — 21 op 1891. S. 30, S.S. 1. Where by any Statute, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, an Act of Parliament, or any poriion of an act, is declared to extend to this Colony, such Act or portion of an Act shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be deemed to extend to the Colony so far only as local laws and circum- stances permit; and in applying such Act or portion of an Act it shall be construed with such verbal alteration, not aflFecting the substance, as may be necessary to render the same applicable to the particular matter in question. S.S. 2. The Chief Justice or a Puisne Judge, orany officer or functionary exercising functions analogous to the func- tions of any Judge, oflB.cer, or functionary referred to in such Act or portion of an Act shall be deemed to be within the meaning of the enactment thereof relating to such last mentioned Judge, officer or functionary. S. 3, S.S. 1. Where in any Statute, or in any official or legal document passed or made after the commencement of this Ordinance, an Act of Parliament is referred to, such Act may be cited by reference to the short title, if any, of the Act, either with or without a reference to the chapter or by reference to the regnal year in which the Act was passed and where there are more Statutes or sessions than one in the same regnal year, by reference to the Statute or WoEDS. — Acts. 137 British Possession. the session, as the case may require, and where there are more chapters than one, bj reference to the chapter, and any enactment may be cited by reference to the Section or sub-Seetion of the Act in which the enactment is contained. S.S. 2. Such reference shall, unless a contrary intention appears, be read as referring, in the case of Statutes included in any revised edition of the Statutes purporting to be printed by authority to that edition, and in the case of Statutes not so included, and passed before the reign of King George the First, to the edition prepared under the direction of the Record Commission ; and in other cases to the copies of the Statutes purporting to be printed by the Queen's Printer, or under the superintendence or authority of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. S.S. 3. In any Statute passed after the commencement of this Ordinance, a description or citation of a portion of an Act of Parliament shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be considered as includmg the word, section, or other part mentioned or referred to as forming the begin- ning and as forming the end of the portion comprised in the description or citation. Admiralty. " The Admiralty" shall mean the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom for the time being, or the Gommis- sioners for the time being for executing the office of Lor 1 High Admiral of the United Kingdom. 21 of 1891, S. 5,, S.S. 9. Affidavit. — See " Governor." Affirming. — See „ Altering Ordinance. — See Construotion, S. 14. Amending „ „ ,> „ Rules.— See Rules, S. 14. At Once. " At once" means reasonable time. Rocha v. Binn,s (cit. Christie v. Richardson, 10 M. & W. 688). Breach of Roles. — See Rules. British Possession. S. 5, S.S. 3.—" British Possession" shall mean any part Words. — British. 138 ■ Oommbncembnt op Ord. of Her Majesty's dominipns exchisme of tie United King- dom, and where parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature, aH parts under the central legislature shall, for tbe purposes: of this defini- tion, be deemed to be one British Possession. S. 5, S.S. 4. — '* British Colony" shall mean any part of Her Majesty's dominions exclusive of the British Islands and of British India, and where parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature, all parts under the central legislature shall, for the purposes of this definition, be deemed to be one Colony. S. 5, S.S. 5. — "British India" shall mean, all territo- ries and places within Her Majesty's do-minions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty thrOugfh the Governor-General or other officer subordinate to the Governor- General of India. S. 5, S.S. 2. — " The British Islands' shall m.ean the • United Kingdom, the Ghannellslands, and the Isle of. Man. BiE-LAW.-^See Statutk. Colony.— 21 OP 1891. S. 4. — In this Ordinance and in every other Ordinance, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, and in every official document whether made or executed before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, unless the contrary intention appears, — The expressions " The ( 'olony" and " This Colony" shall severally mean the Colony of British Guiana and its dependencies. Combined Court.- S. 5, S.S. 11. — " The Combined Court" shall mean the Governor and Court of Policy of this Colony With the Financial Representatives thereof in Combined Court assembled. Commencement op Ordinance. — 21 op 1891. S. 10. — (1). Provisions as to the commencement of Ordinances are contained in Section 29 of the British Gvuiana .Constitution Ordinance, 1891 . WoEDs. — Commence. 139 Construction of Oed. 2. The pFovisi©ns of the said Section and also of Section 30 of the said Ordinance shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to Ordinances enacted by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Combinefl Court. S. 11.-^(1). In this Ordinance atnd in every other Ordinance, whether passed before or after the commence- ment of this Ordinance, the word " commeneemeni" when used with reference to an Ordinance, shall mean the time at which the Ordinance comes into operation. (2). Where any Ordinance passed after the com- mencement of this Ordinance, or any order of the Goverr nor and Court of Policy, order, warrant, scheme, letters patent, rules, regulations, or bye-laws, made, granted, or issued under a power Conferred by any such Ordinance, is expressed to come into operation on a particular day, the same shall be construed as coming into operatio;p immediately on the expiration of the previous day. CONSTEUCTION, &C., OF OeDINANOE. S. 12.— Every Section of an Ordinance shall have effect as a substantive enactment without introductory words* S. 13. — Every Ordinance passed after the conamence- ment of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be a. public Ordinance and shall be judicially noticed as such, unless the contrary is expressly provided by the Ordinance. S. 14. — Any Ordinance may be altered, amended, or repealed in the same session of the Court of Policy or the Combined Court, as the case may be. S, 15. — (]). Where an Ordinance, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, coiatains a short title, it shall be sufficient in all Courts ^nd for all other purposes whatsoever to cite such Ordinance by its short title. (2), In any Ordinance passed after the con^n^ence- ment of this Ordinance, a description or citation of a por- tion of another Ordinanpe shall, unless the contrary inteuT tion appears, be construed as including the word, section, or oltoer part mentioned or referred to as forcing the beginning and as forming ]bhe end of the portion com-, prised in the description or citation. S. 16.— Where an Ordinance, whether p,aSsed before Sa WOBDS.— CONSTEUCT. 140 CONSTEUCTION OF OrD. or after tha commencement of this Ordinance, is divided in Parts, Titles, or other ddvisions, the fact and particulars of such division shall, with or without express mention thereof in such Ordinance, betaken notice of in all Courts and for all other purposes whatsoever. S. 17. — (1). The preamble of an Ordinance may be referred to for assistance in explaining the scope and object of the Ordinance. (2). Every schedule or table to an Ordinance, or part of an JOrdinance, shall, together with any notes thereto, be construed and have effect as part of the Ordinance. S. 18. — (1). Where an Ordinance passed after the commencement of this Ordinance confers a power or imposes a duty, then, unless the contrary intention appears, the power may be exercised and the duty shall be per- formed from time to time as occasion requires. (2). Where an Ordinance passed after the com- mencement of this Ordinance confers a power or imposes a duty on the holder of an office, as such, then, unless the contrary intention appears, the power may be exercised and the duty shall be performed by the holder for the time being of the office. S. 19. — Where an Ordinance passed after the com- mencement of this Ordinance is not to come into operation immediately on the passing thereof, and confers power to make any ajypointment, to make, grant, or issue any in- strument, that is to say, any order of the Governor and Court of Policy, order, warrant, scheme, letters patent, rules, regulations, or bye-laws, to give notices, to prescribe forms, or to do any other thing for the purposes of the Ordinance, that power may, unless the contrary intention appears, be exercised at any time after the passing of the Ordinance, so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Ordinance into operation at the date of the commencement thereof, subject to this restriction, that any i/nstrwment made under the power shall not, unless the contrary intention appears in the Ordin- ance or the contrary is necessary for bringing the Ordinance into operation, come into operation until the Ordinance comes into operation. WoBDS. — Supplement. 141 Cobpobate Bodt. Supplemental Pbovisions. S. 3B. — In this Ordinance, unless the context other- wise requires, the expresg^ion " Orddnance " shall include a local and personal Ordinance and a private Ordinance. S. 34. — The provisions of this Ordinance respecting the constriction of Ordinances passed after the commencement of this Ordinance shall not affect the construction of any Ordinance passed before the commencement of this Ordin- ance although it is continued or amended by an Ordinance passed after such commencement. S. 35.— (1.) Ordinance No 9 of J856, entitled " An Ordinance for shortening the Language used in Ordin- ances," is hereby repealed: Provided that such repeal shall not affect the meaning of the word " lands " in any Ordinance passed after the 8th day of March 1856, and and before the commencement of this Ordinance. (2.) The formal words at present used at the commence- ment and conclusion of Ordinances on their publication as law shall no longer be used. CONSTEUCTION OP RuLES. 21 OF 1891. S. 20. — Where an Ordinance, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, confers power to make, grant, or issue any i/nstrument, that is to say, any order of the Grovernor and Court of Policy, order, warrant, scheme, letters patent, rules, regulations, or bye- laws, expressions used in the instrument, if it is made after the commencement of this Ordinance, shall, unless the contrary intention appears, have the same respective meanings as in the Ordinance conferring the power. Consul.— 21 oe 1891. S. 5 S.S. 16. — " Consular Officer" shall include Gon- sul-General, Consul, Vice-Consul, Consular Agent, and any person for the time authorized to discharge the duties of Oonsul-G-eneral, Consul, or Yice-Consul. OopiiNG Pebss — Weitino. — See Weiting, CoBPOEATE Body. — See Pbeson. WoEDS. — Crown. 142 Evidence op GUzbttb. Cbown.— 21 01- ]891. 3. 22. — No enactment shall in any manner whatsoever affedt the right of the Crown, unless it is therein expressly stated,, or unless it appears by necessary implioatioi^, that the Crown is hound thereby. S. 6. — In this Ordinance and in evevj other Ordinance, whether passed- before or after the co^lnle.nc^^lent of this Ordinance, references to the Sovereign reigning at the time of the passing of the Ordinance or to the Crown shall, unless the contrary intention appears, he constri^ed as references to the Sovereign for the time being; and this Ordinance shall be binding on the Crown. CouNTET House. — See Ofpioe. C'SCLOSTTLE WfiiTiNG. — See Weiting. Day.— 21 of 1891. S. 6, S.S. 10. — •' Days" shall mean clear days. „ 11. — " Day" shall mean twenty-four hows, to be reckoned de momenta in momentum, unless a Sunday or public holiday intervenes, in which case such Sunday or holiday shall not be included in the computation of such hours. Deliveet. — See Sale. Division of Oedinance. — See Construction. Drive Off. Under S. 9 of Ordinance 7 of 1866 the words " drive oflF" apply only to animals on the premises of the ovfner. Hookemchun v. Alexander. Duplicate Oeeenoes.^-21 op 1891. S. 24. — Where an act or omission constitutes an offence Under two or more laws, whether any such law came into force before or after the commencement of this Ordi- nance, the offender »hall, unless the contrary intention appears, be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of tho^e laws but shall not be liable to he punished twice for the same offence. Evidence of Gtazette. — See Eulbs. "WoKDS.— Females. 143 €I-oveenoe. Females. — See Males. Financial Tear. —21 OF 1891. S. 5, S.S. 12.— The " Financial Year" shall mean, as respects any matters relating to tlie revenue and expendi- ture of the Colony, the hvelm months ending on the thirty- first day of lilarch, inclusive, in any year. G-aming. "Pieces of brass used for gaming" come under the head of other instruments, 21 of 1866. To-yah et al v. Morancie (cit. for Appellant and held as not applicable, Oolborne v. StocJedale, 1 Str. 493). A house "when kept for the purpose of common gaming is a " place" under 21 of 1856. lb. Gazette. — 21 of 1891. S. 5, S:S. 15.—" The Gazette" shall mean The Official Gazette of British Guiana or other Official Gazette of this Colony. Gazette, evidence of. — See Rules. Give. — See Post. GOVEENOE. — 21 OF 1891. S, S.—In every Ordinance passed after the 8th day of March, 1856, whether before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, and in every official document made or executed after the commencement of this Ordinance, the following expressions shall, unless the contrary inten- tion appears, have the meanings hereby respectively assigned tb them, that is to say, — (1). " The Governor" shall mean the O^cer for the time being administering the Government of this Colony. (2). " Month" shall mean calendar month. (8). " Oath" and A§.davit" shall, in the case of persons for the time being allowed by law to affirm or declare instead of swearing, include affirmation and declaration, and "'Swear" shall, in the like case, include affirm and declare. Words. — Goveenor. 144 Lucri Causa. S. 5, S.S. 10.—" The Governor-m-Gouncil" shall mean the Governor acting with, but not necessarily in accordance with, the advice of, the ■ Executive Gouncil of this Colony. India.— 21 of 1891. S. 5, SS. fi. — "India" shall mean British India to- gether with any territories of any native Prince or Chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through tbe Governor-G-eneral of India or through any Governor or other Officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India. See British India. Instruments. Other instruments and pieces of brass used for gaming come under head of other instruments. 21 of 1856. To-yah et al v. Morancie (cit. for Appellant, held not applicable, Golhorne v. Stockdale, 1 Str. 493). Judicial Notice oe Ordinance. — See Construction, S. 13. Justice means " Magistrate " ; " Magistrate " means" Justice." Holm V. Rhodius. Magistrate.— See Justice. — 21 op1891. S. 5, SS. 17.—" Magistrate" shall mean a Stipendiary Magistrate of this Colony, and shall include the Police Magistrate and the Assistant Police Magistrate of George- town ; and also any Special Justice of the Peace of this colony. Land — meaning of — See Construction of Ord., S. 35. Letter by Post — See Post. Lithography — See Writing. Lucri Causa. " Lucri causa" means " animus furandi" , the purpose of converting articles taken to the taker's own use. D'Abreu v. Hawker. Words.— Males. 145 Mat, Males.— 21 of 1891. - ;- S 2, — :(1.) In this Ordinance and in every other Ordinance passed after the 8tli day of March 1856, whether before or after the commencement of this Ordin- nance, and in every n^cial document made or executed after the conimencemen£ of this Ordinance, unless the contrary, intention appears, (a). Words importing the masculine gander shall include females ; and (6). Words in ihe singular shall include the plural, and words in the plural shall include the singular. (2). The same rules shall be observed in the construc- tion of every enactment relating to an offence puoishable on indictment or on summary conviction, when the effiact- ment is contained in an Ordinance passed before the ^ih. day of March 1856. May. Under Section 3 of Ordinance 5 of 1868 in the words '• Justice may before his final decision award such, &c., " so as to state the offence in legal form," the vr >r I " wl^^' is imperative and the Magistrate is " boaad" to award costs. Auson v. Stuart. , /,■..] Under Trespass Ordinance every t -espasser *' shall" and "may" be detained and seized. I'he words " shall" and "naay" are "directory" and not impeiative and do not take away the right of allowing treVpassfers' to leave and be brought up, by summons. Haly v.: Olark'. , ;' J ' Where the Ordinance siys a Jastiiie of the Pe ice "may" do something, the word " miy" i^ p 'rmissive. Permissive words in theoiselVes c >nfer ^ifthoHty, bat are to be construed with reference to the sqbje6^-ttiaBt^r and to the objects of the particular Statdte in w1iM';they occur, atid according to such Bubjeot' and oBfecti^hey create also a duty on the pdrson onJv^haaii tliediify or authority is conferred, which renders it compulsory on him to exercise the authority when circumstances arise which call it into action. Wright v. Garaett (cit. Julius V. Lord Bishop of Oxford, 5 L. K. Ap. 2, 14). , . ■)-' Under S. 11 of Ordinance 19 of ISS^the.woa^dj^'.aay" WoEDS. — Mat. 146 Ooctjptee. equals " must" ; that isj a Magistrate must issue a sum- mons and has no discretionary pow'er when applicg^tiou is made to him on a well laid charge which on the face of it brings the case within his jurisdiction. Wright v. Garnett (cit. B. v. Barlow, Salk 413 ; R. v. Todd, 1 Str. 530 ; E. V. Bolton, 1 Q. B. 66 ; li. v. Adams, 1 Q. B. D. 201; R. V. Ingram, 14 Q. B. 306; Exp. Watson^ 4 L, R. Q. D. 573). The Magistrate cannot refuse to issue summons because he does not believe the truth of the matter after he had seen a witness on the information. Wright V. Garnett (cit. Cave v. Mountain, 1 M. & Gr. 2'"1) ; or unless he refuses on some grounds duly ascer- taiiied which the law recognizes as sufficient, Torropv. Jnrdine. If he disbelieved the statement of facts in an information and was refusing the summons on that ground, the informant would be entitled to know this and support his own assertion by other testimony. Torrop v. Jardine. Money. Under charge for holding entertainment f»)r " money or reward" the terms " money or reward " are not synonymous. The term " reward" can only apply to a person and not to the entertainment which could hot be capable of reward. Gibbons v. Straker. Month in penal enactments means " lunar" month of 28 days. Clementson v. Comacho. " Calendar" month means " month" as per calendar. lb. Under Section 2 of Ordinance 9 of 1856 (case of assault) " month" means " calendar" month unless words be added to show that a " lunar" month was intended. Butler V. Douglas. Interpretation of "month." — See Govbrnoe. Oath. — See Goveenoe. Offences, more than one. — See Duplicate Offences. Occupier. A p'^rson who exposes fresh meat for sale in a cart in a rural district on a public road where a sort oi market WoEDS. — OooupiEE. 147 Peace Oeeioer. is, is not an occupier of a sl^op, room, shed, stall, or place. Burrowes v. Joaquin ; (cit. Bows v. Fenwick, 9, L.a.C.P., 339 ; Doggay v. Gattems, 19, C.B.N.S., 765, over-ruling 17, C.B.N.S., 669 ; Shaw v, Morly, 3, Ejx., 137 ; and lield as not iij point ; Harris v. Jenns, 30, L.J.M.C., 83 J Young v. Qrattidge, L.R. 4, Q.B- 166). Office. Holder of. — Duty imposed on. — See Oonsteuotion.— S, 18. Under licence law means " place of business of Barris- " ters. Advocates, Attorn eys-at-Law, and the like"; Baker V. Campbell; and " Counting House" means office of bankers, agents, attorneys of absent proprietors, ih ; and does not include places where merchants, foundries, &c., keep their accounts and settle with those whom they employ, ib. Oe, Othee, Otheewise. — 21 op 1891. S. 5, S.S. 26.—" Or," " Other;' " Otherwise," shall h". construed disjunctively and not as implying similarity, unless the expression " similar," or some equivalent expression, is added. Oedbe in Council. — See Statute. Oedee oe Goveenoe.— See Statute, Oedinancb. — See Statute. „ Commencement of. — See Commencement. „ Repeal of. — See Repeal. Othbb. — See Oe. Othekwise. — See Oe. Pabliambnt.-i— 21 OP 1891. S. 5, S.S. 7. — The Imperial Pa/rUament" or "Parlia- merd"' shall mean the Parliament of the Ui^ited Kingdom. Peace Opfiobb. — 21 op 1891. S. 5, S.S. 18.— "Peace Offleer*' shall include any Magistrate or Justice of the Peace^ and any PoUce, or Bmal^ OT-Special Constable. T2 WoEDS. — Penalty. 148 Piacb. Penalty foe Beeaoh of RgLES.— See Roles. Person.— 21 or 1891. S. 5, S.S. 25. — " Person " shall mclude any body of persons corporate or unincorporate. S. 7. — (1.) — In the construction of every enaetrrient relating to an offence punishable on indictment or on summary conviction, whether contained in an Ordinance passed before or after the commencement of this Ordin- ance, the word "person" shall, unless the contrary intention appears, include a body corporate. (2.) — Where under any Ordinance, whether passed- before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, any forfeiture or penalty is payable to a party aggrieved, it shall be payable to a body corporate in every case where that body is the party aggrieved. Photogeaphy. — See "Weiting. Police Constable. — 21 of 1891. S. 5, S.S, 19.—" Police Constable " shall include any Member of the Police Force of this colony. Place under the Tax Ordinance must be construed ejusden generis with the words which precede it, unless the pre- ceding words are so exhaustive as to leave nothing which can be called ejusden generis. Burrowes v. Joaquin (cit. Fenwich v. Schnaly, L. R. 3 C. P. 315 ; Eastwood v. Miller, L. R. 9 Q. B. 440 ; Bows v. Fenwich, 9 L. R. 0. P. 339; Be Gett v. Gatterns, 19 C. B. N. S. 765; Ea/rris V. Jenns, 30 L. J. M. 0. 83 ; Young v. Grattridge, L. R. 4 Q. B. 166. • Undei; Tax Ordinance 1888 every person who occupies any shop, room, shed, stall, yard, or place in the rural districts where meat other than fresh pork or game is sold, shall take out a licence. The word " place" does not cover the case of a person who exposes fresh meat iij a cart on a public road where a sort of market is held. Burrowes v, Joaquin, cit. Mayers v. Anderson {Willes J»in Fermich v. Schnaly ^ L. R. Q. B. 441.) "WoEDS.^ — Place. 149 Begitlation. A house when kept for the purpose of common gaming is a place under Ordinance 21 of 1856. To-yah et al V. Morancie. Post, Service of.— 21 of 1891. S. 9. — Where an Ordinance passed after the commence- ment of this Ordinance authorizes or requires any docu- ment to he served by post, whether the expression "serve" or the expression " give" or " send" or any other expres- sion is used, then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly address- ing, pre-paying, and posting a letter containing the docu- ment,a.uA, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. Plueal Number. — See Males. Preamble.— See Construction. Printing.— See Writing. Proclamation. — 21 op 1891. S. 5, S.S. 14. — " Proclamation" shall mean a Proclama- tion of the Governor under the Public Seal. " Procurer " under Sunday Trading Ordinance means one who offers to purchase goods. Gomes V. D'Aguiar. Public Seal. — 21 of 1891. S. 5, — " The Public Seal" shall mean the Public Seal of this Colony. Publishing Rules. — See Rules. Cluart. The term or definition used to fix the meaning of the word " quart" is not needed in a charge or information, although in order to establish the charge it would be requisite that the evidence should show a quantity of rum exceeding the defined quart to 'have been disposed of. Pequeno v. Younge. Regulation. — See Rules. WOEBS. — RiEPBAL. 150 RbPEAL. Repeal op Obdinanoes, &o. — 21 op 1891. S. 25. — Where an Ordmance after the 8th. day of March 1856, whether before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, repeals in whole or in part any former enact- ment and substitutes provisions for the enactment re- pealed, the repealed enactment shall, unless the contrary intention appears, remain in force until the substituted provisions come into operation S. 26. — Where an Ordinance passed after the 8th day of March 1866, whether before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, repeals a repealing enactment, it shall not be construed as reviving any enactment previously repealed, unless words are added reviving that enactment. S. 27. — Where this Ordinance or any Ordinance passed after the commencement of this Ordinance repeals and re-enacts, with or without' modification, any provisions of a former Ordinance, references in any other Ordinance, or in any official or legal document, to the provisions so repealed, shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as references to the provisions so re-enacted. Where this Ordinance or any Ordinance passed after the commencement of this Ordinance, repeals any other enact- ment, then, unless the contrary intention appears, the repeal shall not, — (1). Revive anything not vn force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect ; or (2). Affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered under any enactment so repealed ; or (3). Affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under any enact- ment so repealed ; or (4). Affect any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment in- curred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (6). Affect any investigation, legal proceeding, or remed/y in respect of any right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment as aforesaid ; and any such investigation, legal proceeding, or remedy Wgeds. — Repeal. 151 Rules of Cotjet. may be instituted, continued, or enforced, aad any such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment may be imposed, as if the repealing Ordinance had not been passed. See CoNSTEUCTION, S. 14. Rescinding Rules. — See Rules. Beeaking. — See Rules. Rewaed.— See Monet. Rules.— 21 oe 1891. S. 21. — (1). Where an Ordinance, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, confers power on any authority to make rules, the following provisions shall, unless the conti'ary intention appears, have effect with reference to the making and operation of such rules : — (a). Any rule may be at any time amended, varied, rescinded, or revoked by the same authority and in the same manner by and in which it was made; (&). There may be annexed to the breach of any rule such penalty, not exceeding' twenty -four dollars as the rule making authority may think fit, and any such penalty may be sued for and recovered under the Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance, (c). No rule shall be incmisistent with the provisions of any enactment ; {d). All rules shall be published in the Gazette and shall have the force of law ; (e). The production of a copy of the Gazette containing any rule, or of any copy of any rule purporting to be printed by the Government printer, shall be primd facie evidence, in all Courts and for all other purposes whatsoever, of the due making and tenor of such rule. (2). In this section the expression " rwZes " includes rules and regulations, regulations, and bye-loMS. Further, see Statute. Rules, construction of .—See Oonsteuotion of Rules. Rules of Couet.— 21 of 1891. S. 8. (1). In every Ordinance passed after the com- mencement of this Ordinance, unless the contrary inten- WoEDS. — Rules OF OouET. 162 Seevice, tion appears, the expression *' Rules of Court,'' when used in relation to any Court, shall mean rules made by the authority having for the time being power to make rules or orders regulating the practice and procedure of such Court. (2). The power of the said authority to make Rules of ' Court as above de&D.ed shall include power to make Rules of Court for the purpose of any Ordinance passed after the commencement of this Ordinance and directing or authorizing anything to be done by Rules of Court. Bum. under Sunday Trading Ordinance comes under the head of provisions, and a sale in a tavern of this article during the hours allowed for the sale of provisions is not pro- hibited. Da Silva v. Grreaves. Ordinance afterwards passed taking rum out of the category of provisions. Sale means *' exposing" for sale. Greenslade v. Figueira ; and where Ordinance speaks of " exposing" for sale the sell- ing is an offence. lb. Under Ordinance 4 of 1877, Section 4, the word " sale" of more than one quart of rum is not synonymous with " delivery." Pequeno v. Younge. Schedule of Oedinanoe. — See Consteuotion, S. 17 ^ Seal. — See Public Seal. Seceetaet of State. — 21 of 1891. S. 5, S.S. 8.—" The Secretary of State" shall mean Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies for the time being. Section of Ordinance. — See Constbuction, S. 12. Send. — See Post. SEEVE.^See Post. Seevice by Post. — See Post. Service. under Master and Servant's Act means the daily labour or work for the performance of which the labourer is engaged. Hintyen v. Scott. Words.— Similar. 153 ■ United Kingdom. Similar. — See " Oe". Singular Number. — See Males. Statute. — 21 of 1891. S. 5, S.S. 23. — " Statute" shall mean, any Ordinance or Act of Parliament for the time being in force in this OoloTiy, and shall include any Order of the Queen-in- Council, rule or regulation, order of the Governor and Court of Policy, or bye-law for the time being having the force of law therein. Commencement op. — See Commencement. Summary Jurisdiction. — 21 or 1891. S. 5, S.S. 24. — "The Summary Jurisdiclion Ordinances" shall mean any Ordinance or Ordinance for the time being in force regulating the summary jurisdiction of Magistrates in respect of criminal and quasi-criminal oifences and matters. Suspending Clause.— 21 ov 1891. ; S. 23. — Where a suspending clause i» embodied in an Ordinance, such clause shall be in the following form, or to the like effect : — " This Ordinance shall not come into operation unless *' and until the Governor notifies by Proclamation " that it is Her Majesty's pleasure not to disallow '• the same, and thereafter it shall come into opera- " tion upon such day as the Governor shall notify "by the same or any other Proclamation." Swear. — See Governor. Table op Ordinance.— See Construction, S 17, SS. 2. t( TAKE" and "drive off" under Pound Ordinance are synonym- ous. Hookemchund v. Alexander. Time.— 21 OP 1891. S. hf S.S. 22. — Any expression of time shall mean local mean time. % Title op Oedinanob.— See Constbuotion, SS. 15 & 16. Type-writing.— See Writing. u WoBDS.— U. Kingdom. 154 Writing, United Kingdom. — 21 of 1891. S. 5, SS. 1. — " The United Kingdom" shall mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Vagrant. means one who frequently wanders about without having a fixed domicile or permanent place of abode, and not a person who is simply convicted of disorderly conduct, unless the operation of the Vagrancy law be committed to vagrants properly so called. An industrious orderly and honest man might for acts involving no greater moral delinquency than the wilful violation of any posi- tive law, find himself classed among idle and disorderly persons for the first offence, then among rogues and vagabonds for the second, and lastly among incorrigible rogues, and all for offences it may be of a trivial character. Turnkey v. King. Vaeying Rules. — See Rules. Weiting.— 21 OF 1891. S. 4. — In this Ordinance and in every other Ordinance, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, and in every official document whether made or executed before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, unless the contrary intention appears, — (2). Expressions referring to " Writing" shall he con- strued as including references to printing, lithography, photography, and other modes of representing or reproducing words in visible form. APPENDIX. CASES DECIDED FROM JANUARY TO SEPTEMBER, 1892. AUTHORITIES QUOTED. Vict. II & 12, c M. 10 j> 24 & 25, c S. 51. 5 S. 52 . C. 100 . ORDINANCES 1850, Trespass 1853, 2 of... 1856, 19 of S. 1856, 21 of... 1862, 21 of, S. [4 ... 48 ■.;■. 49- I. Captain v. Sobers. .Vyle V. King. ...Coelho V. King. ...Bartholomew v. Haynes. ...Captain v. Sobers. ...Captain v. Sobers. ...Vyle V. King. 1868, 25 of, SS. 32, 35, 64 ...Baptista v. Cameron. S. 20 „ „ 1873, 7 of, S. 160 Taylor v. Hunter. 1887, Gold Mining Winter v. Farnum & Co. 1890, 6 of Baptista v. Cameron. 1891, 2 of , „ 17 of Captain V. Sobers. AUTHORITIES CITED AND COMMENTED ON. Craigen v. Muilgar, R. C, B. G. ...upheld in Taylor v. Hunter. Kryenhoff v. Glasgow, R. C, B.G.. „ in Cgelho v. Ring. Luckie v. Anson, R. C, B.G. Rajutteah V. Anson, R. C, B.G. ... Heg. V. Martin, 8 Q.B.D. 54 „ V. Pemliton, L.R.2 C.C. 119, 12C0XC.C. 607 „ V. Ward, L.R. C.C. 356 „ V.Welch. 13 Cox C.C. 121... Simon v. Gouvia, R.C., B,G. in Captain v. Sobers. in ., >. in Vyle v. King ... |n .. •> jn .. » in » „ in Captain v. Sobers, APPENDIX. ii. CASES DECIDED. Baptista v. Cameron. Bartholomew v, Haynes & Walcott. Cameron, Baptista v. Captain v. Sobers. Coelho V. King. Farnum & Co., Winter v. Haynes, Bartliolomew v. Hunter, Taylor v. Joseph V. Lawrence. King, Coelho v. „ Vyle V. Lawrence, Joseph v. Sobers, Captain v. Taylor V, Hunter. Vyle V. King. Walcott, Bartholomew v. Winter v. Farnum & Co. AfSdavit giving effeft of oral statement by Magistrate of his reasons of decision not a habilis modus of bringing a question before the Review Court. Vyle v. King, 5 Feb. 1892. Amenduieilt. — Magistrate may properly make amendments to pre- vent proceedings being defeated on grounds not affefting merits. Bar- tholomew V. Haynes and Walcott, 5 Feb. 1892. Bond for Licence. See Evidekce. Contract' — See Master & Servant. Duplicity. — Where Defendant is charged on two informations stating different offences, and the informations are read consecutively and Defendant pleads to each without objeftion, and evidence taken as applicable to both charges and he is sentenced to separate penalties in respedt of each information, the proceedings are bad and are not cured by absence of objeftion by Defendant. Captain v. Sobers, 22 Jan. 1892. Entry, unlawful. — See Trespass. Evidence of Cashier of Receiver General's Office that licence was in arrear admissible. Baptista v. Cameron, 22 Jan. 1892. Of indenture of an indentured immigrant cannot be given aliunde ; the registered contraft must be produced, and the party to the contraft identified. Taylor v. Hunter, 2 Sep. 1892. Magistrate bound to notice statutory provisions. Baptista v, Cameron, 22 Jan. 1892 Bond for Licence. — Magistrate may take provisions of bond from the form in the Ordinance, and need not have bond itself produced lb. Excess of Pine.— See Penalty. Pine-— See Penalty. Gold.— A " Government Officer" has jurisdiftion in questions con- iij. APPENDIX. cerning location and occupation of claims, so far as such questions arise under the Regulations, but not in collateral questions ; test of lawful occupation. Semble — A Government Officer may at least by consent of parties determine as to priority of location, although the Bules provide also another Tribunal. The law regulating the proceedings before a Government Officer in disputes between party and party is similar as to principles to the law of magisterial proceedings ; secus as to technicalities. He may not afl: upon matters of private knowledge, in which there is not evidence in foro ; nor have recourse to powers arising out of his status as an Officer of the Executive Government. Defendant may bring into issue the title of a Complainant who alleges infringement of his rights, but onus lies on him of showing he has properly done so. Winter v. Farnum e/ al, 26 Feb. 1892. Case decided on fafts. Joseph v. Laurence, 21 June 1892. Imiui^ailt) Evidence of indenture. — See Evidence. Immigration Agent General- — Under S. 160 of Ord. 7 of 1873 a Sub Agent has no authority to aft for an immigrant unless specially authorised by the Immigration Agent General. Taylor v. Hunter, 2 September 1892. Injury to Property.— See Malice. Insolvent) evidence of. —See Evidence. Joint Charges. — See Duplicity. Licence Duty. — The holder of a retail spirit licence who had not paid the monthly instalment of duty until the 6th day of the month suc- ceeding that for which it was due, held in arrear, Baptista v Cameron, 22 January 1892. Magistrate's reasons.— See Affidavit Malice- — A person afts maliciously within the meaning of Seftion 49 of Ordinance 21 of 1862 who does an unlawful aft wilfully without just excuse. Personal ill-feeling is not essential but is not excluded. Vyle V. King, 5 February 1892. In order to be an offence under the enaftment, the aft must have produced injury, the probable and natural result of the aft. 16. Proviso to Seftion 49 of Ordinance explained. li. Master & Servant-- To make breach of contraft an offence it must be laid and proved that the person against whom it is laid is within the description of contraftors whose failure to comply with their obligations may be dealt with penally. Bartholomew v. Haynes and Walcott, 5 February 1892. Mischief.^-See Malice. APPENDIX. IV. Penalty- — Court of Review cannot alter fine of Magistrate because it is thought excessive. Baptista v. Cameron, 22 January 1892. Possession, vialafide. — See Trespass. Reasons of Magistrate —See Affidavit. Spirit Licence- — See Licence. Statutory Provisions-— See Evidence. Trespass- — An occupant who holds possession after sale and purchase and against the will of the true owner, and after the true owner has been put formally in possession, holds mala fide, and such occupancy is not a defence to wilful trespass. Coelho v. King, 8 January 1892, Waiver- — See Duplicity. Wilftll Trespass- — See Trespass. CO V)KU-< ^UL;^ iViJIRSlt *LAW Ui>"- 3^ ^