10 Q. B., 582. Hudson v. Macrae, 4 B. & S., 585, followed. See also Watkins v. Major, L. R., 10 C. P., 662.

The jurisdiction of the Justice is not ousted by the mere bona fide belief of the person offending that his act was legal (White v. Feast, L. R., 7 Q. B., 351), but it is restricted to cases where the Justices are satisfied of the fairness and reasonableness of the claim of right. R. v. Mussett, 26 L. T., N. S., 429.

32 & 33 VIC., CHAP. XXX.

An Act respecting the duties of Justices of the Peace, out of Sessions, in relation to persons charged with Indictable Offences.

[Assented to 22nd June, 1869.]

WHEREAS it is expedient to assimilate, amend and consolidate the Statute Laws of the several Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, respecting the duties of Justices of the Peace out of sessions in relation to persons charged with indictable offences, and to extend the same as so consolidated to all Canada: Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

It will be seen that the Act, as originally framed, applied only to the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. It was extended to the Province of British Columbia by the 37 Vic., chap 42; to Manitoba by the 34 Vic., chap. 14; to Prince Edward Island, by the 40 Vic., chap. 4; to the District of Keewatin by the 39 Vic., chap. 21,so far as respects indictable offences committed in the said District, and triable in Manitoba, or committed in some Province in Canada, and the offender apprehended in the said District. The Act was also extended to the North-West Territories by 38 Vic., chap. 49, schedule B, so far as respects indictable offences committed in the North-West Territories and triable in Manitoba or committed in some Province of Canada, and the offender apprehended in the North-West Territories.

1. In all cases where a charge or complaint (A) is made before any one or more of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace for any Territorial Division in Canada, that any person has committed, or is suspected to have committed, any treason or felony, or any indictable misdemeanor or offence within the limits of the jurisdiction of such Justice or Justices of the Peace, or that any person guilty or suspected to be guilty of having committed any such crime or offence elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of such Justice or Justices, is residing or being, or is suspected to reside or be within the limits of the jurisdiction of such Justice or Justices, then, and in every such case, if the

person so charged or complained against is not in custody, such Justice or Justices of the Peace may issue his or their warrant (B) to apprehend such person, and to cause him to be brought before such Justice or Justices, or any other Justice or Justices for the same Territorial Division.

Without an information properly laid, a Justice has no jurisdiction over the person of an offender; and if he issues a warrant without any information being laid, he is liable in trespass (Appleton v. Lepper, 20 C. P. (Ont.), 138); so if a Justice, after an offender is brought before him on a warrant, commits him for trial where there is no prosecutor, no examination of witnesses, and no confession of guilt under the statute, he is liable in trespass (1b., 138, citing Connors v. Darling, 23 Q.B. (Ont.), 541).

To give the magistrate jurisdiction there must either be an information for a criminal offence, or the information must be waived by the accused. Crawford v. Beattie, 39 Q. B. (Ont.), 26; Caudle v. Seymour, 1 Q.B., 889; R. v. Shaw, 12 L. T., N. S., 470–3; R. v. Fletcher, L. R., 1 C. C. R., 320.

Even where an information is properly laid, if the offence is not committed within the limits of the Justice's jurisdiction, the offender must reside or be within such limits (see sections 1 and 4). The commission of an offence within the Justice's jurisdiction gives him authority, on an information properly laid, to issue his summons or warrant, though the offender at the time the information is laid have departed from the county or place in which the Justice acts. In case of fresh pursuit the offender may be apprehended at any place in the next adjoining territorial division, and within seven miles of the border of the first-mentioned territorial division (see section 19). In other cases the warrant may be backed so as to authorize the apprehension of the offender at any place in Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the Justice issuing the warrant (see section 23).

The form of information given in the schedule to this Act does not contain any statement of the offence. The author has, therefore supplemented the Form A, with statements of offences in different cases. As we have already seen, the information should also contain a prayer for the issue of a summons or warrant. The information need not be written on parchment, nor does it require

the statement of any venue in the body thereof, but the district, county, or place named in the margin thereof, shall be the venue for all the facts stated in the body of the information.

Where it is necessary to state the ownership of property belonging to partners in trade, joint tenants, parceners, or tenants in common, it is sufficient to name one of such persons, and to state the property to belong to the person so named and another or others, as the case may be. See R. v. Cavanagh, 27 C. P. (Ont.), 537; 32 & 33 Vic., chap. 29, ss. 13, 15, 17. As to the description of property in the information in different cases, and when it is unnecessary to lay it in any person, see 32 & 33 Vic., chap. 29,. ss. 19-22.

The information is not to be held insufficient for want of the averment of any matter unnecessary to be proved, nor for the omission of the words, "as appears upon the record," or "as appears by the record;" or of the words, " with force and arms;" or of the words, “against the peace;" or for the insertion of the words, "against the form of the statute," instead of the words, against the form of the statutes," or vice versa, or for the omission of such words, or for the want of an addition, or for an imperfect addition of any person mentioned in the information, or for that any person mentioned in the information is designated by a name of office or other descriptive appellation instead of his proper name; or for omitting to state the time at which the offence was committed, in any case where time is not of the essence of the offence, or for stating the time imperfectly, or for stating the offence to have been committed on a day subsequent to the laying of the information, or on an impossible day, or on a day that never happened, or for want of a proper or perfect venue, or for want of a proper or formal conclusion, or for want of or imperfection in the addition of any defendant, or for want of the statement of the value or price of any matter or thing or the amount of damage, injury, or spoil, in any case where the value or price, or the amount of damage, injury, or spoil is not of the essence of the offence. 32 & 33 V., chap. 29, s. 23. Section 24 provides :

Whenever it is necessary to make an averment in an information as to any instrument, whether the same consists wholly or in

part of writing, print or figures, it shall be sufficient to describe such instrument by any name or designation by which the same may be usually known, or by the purport thereof, without setting out any copy or fac-simile of the whole or of any part thereof. Section 25 provides: Whenever in any information it is necessary to make an averment as to any money or to any note of any bank, or Dominion or Provincial note, it shall be sufficient to describe such money or note simply as money, without any allegation (so far as regards the description of the property), specifying any particular coin or note, and such averment shall be sustained by proof of any amount of coin, or of any such note, although the particular species of coin of which such amount was composed, or the particular nature of the note be not proved. See R. v. Cavanagh, 27 C. P. (Ont.), 537; as to informations for offences committed after a previous conviction, see 32 & 33 Vic., chap. 29, s. 26.

Informations before Magistrates must be taken as nearly as possible in the language used by the party complaining. See Cohen v. Morgan, 6 D. & R., 8; McNellis v. Garthshore, 2 C. P. (Ont.), 464.

If by reasonable intendment the information can be read as disclosing a criminal offence, the rule is so to read it. See Lawrenson v. Hill, 10 Ir. C. L. R., 177.

An information charging the plaintiff with having unlawfully taken away a pair of shutters belonging to the plaintiff, and having converted the same to his own use against the form of the statute, does not charge a felony. Tempest v. Chambers, 1 Stark., 67.

An information charging that the plaintiff did "abstract from the table in the house of John Evans, a paper being a valuable security for money," does not charge a felony. Smith v. Evans, 13 C. P. (Ont.), 60.

An information that "the said Ellen Kennedy has the key of a house in her possession, the property of the complainant, and would not give it up" to the complainant's agent, contains nothing which by reasonable intendment can be construed as charging criminality. Lawrenson v. Hill, 10 Ir. C. L. R., 177.