Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-The conviction was quashed, on appeal. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.-That was a very peculiar affair. I do not think the conviction was exactly quashed. I think it was rather evaded than quashed. No doubt it was felt at the time that it was a very severe punishment which was being inflicted.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-We will make it five years.

On section 384.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-I may explain that there is an Imperial statute to this effect, and a request was made by Her Majesty's Government two or three years ago that we should copy the provisions of that statute in order to prevent the secretion and stealing of Her Majesty's stores containing these marks; and that is the purpose

of this and the next six sections.

Committee rose and reported progress.

FRIDAY, 10th June, 1892.

(In the Committee.)

On section 423.

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)-Under sub-section (v.) the man who forges "any accountable receipt or acknowledgement of the deposit, receipt or delivery of money or goods," is liable to imprisonment for life, whereas for somewhat similar offences he is liable to 14 years' imprisonment or to 7 years imprisonment, although at first blush the latter offences appear to be just as deserving of great punishment.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-There is a theory for it all, and that is, that the heavier punishment for life shall attach specially to the forgery of those documents which are likely to be used fraudulently in commerce; as for instance bills of lading, bills of exchange, bank bills, transfers of stocks and everything of that kind and on that principle an accountable receipt, being a thing that is transferable, and likely to be transferred, has a special penalty attached to it. I think we ought either to restore the word " accountable put the offence in the other list.

or else

On section 428. (1)

Mr. MASSON.-Several members of the committee expressed strong opinions that some punishment should be provided for the sending of false telegrams, even where the intention was to alarm only. At present there seems to be no means of reaching criminally persons who do so, and if no financial injury is done there is no civil remedy.

M. DAVIES (P.E.I.)-I think the word "letter" ought to be put in there after the word "telegram."

(1) See Art. 429, ante.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-Very well; make it so.

On section 429.

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)-This is a very serious section, and likely to give rise to trouble. During an experience of many years' practice at the bar I have heard hundreds of people allege that they signed documents understanding them to be different from what they turned out to be. A man comes to a lawyer's office and the lawyer reads perhaps a lengthy document to him, and he is so impatient to sign that he signs it, but he afterwards says he understood it to be different from what it really was, this is a serious section and might be the means of ruining a man.

Mr. MASSON.-The intention was to provide for cases where these fraudulent agents go to the country and induce people to sign documents which may perhaps turn out afterwards to be a promissory note or an order for goods, or something different from what the person supposed he was signing.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-It is a change in the law, and I am inclined to agree with the Hon. members for Queen's (Mr. Davies) and to drop the section.

Section dropped.

On section 433.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-Our exchequer bills are made on paper prepared expressly in England for that purpose. We do not use exchequer bills much, but we want that same protection here that they have in England.

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)-Until you manufacture or use that special class of paper here, you are making this an offence by anticipation. Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-We will let sections 433 and 434 stand. Sections postponed.

On section 436.

Mr. DAVIES (P.E I.)-Imprisonment for life is a very severe penalty for merely injuring a register.

Mr. MASSON.-That may be a very serious matter. There was an important case in Ontario not long ago, which hinged on the proof that a certain party was married at a certain time. The register was produced but there was an erasure in it, and it was claimed that it was the names of the parties married had been erased

Mr. DAVIES (P.EI.)-I think it would be better to make provision for the erasure to meet such cases as the hon. gentleman has pointed out, but it seems to me the punishment for a mere injury is excessive.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-This is the wording of the present section and the same penalty.

Mr. MASSON.-I would suggest that the words be inserted in clause a: "or makes any erasure therein."

Section, as amended, agreed to.

On section 456.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-The authority for this section is a similar provision in the draft code of 1880, from which this was taken.

Mr. MULOCK.-The only case of the kind I can think of at present is the Tichborne case, in which the accused was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment, and I cannot conceive of an offence of this character more serious than that was.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-If you think the penalty too great, I have no objection to making it fourteen years.

Section, as amended, agreed to.

On section 484.

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)-This section has to be read, of course, in connection with 480, but I see this difficulty. Supposing two men have an interest in some wood, and one of them burns his share. Afterwards he has a dispute with his partner, who prosecutes him for the burning. The third paragraph of 480 says:

"Where the offence consists in an injury to anything in which the offender has an interest, the existence of such interest, if partial, shall not prevent his act being an offence."

Under this, the fact that the burning was not done with intent to defraud could not be pleaded.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-But you must read in connection with this the second paragraph of clause 430, which says:

(6

Nothing shall be an offence under any provision contained in this part unless it is done without legal justification or excuse, and without colour of right."

On section 486,

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)—Does municipal cover civic ?

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-Yes, by the definition, municipality includes city, town or village.

On section 491.

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)-This question is whether this is sound in principle and whether you should not apply it to any carrier by land or water. For instance, if I send a quantity of goods to the Maritime Provinces by steamboat, they ought at least to be in the same position as if sent by rail. I would suggest that the section be made to cover any common carrier, railway or ship.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-We will insert after the word "railway" he words, "or in any warehouse, ship or vessel."

On section 504.

Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.)-A year or two ago, I was present at a prosecution brought against a mortgagor, who after the term had expired and the mortgage had been foreclosed, and just before he was ejected, moved the building off the premises. The building constituted the chief part of the value, being worth about $2,000, while the land alone was not worth more than $1,000. The mortgagee prosecuted him under this section, but the Judge, -the late Judge Peters, who was a very eminent Judge in our part of the country,―ruled that the section did not apply, and the man got clear.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-I suppose because it was not a case of tenancy.

Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.)—The Judge held that the man was not a tenant according to this section; so that according to his ruling, a man might give a mortgage on a house and premises of which the house was the chief part of the value, and just before the Jury gave a verdict against him, he might move the house off, and there would be no way of punishing him criminally.

Mr. MASSON.-Was the house attached to the soil?

Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.)—It is hard to say when a house is attached to the soil in this country.

Mr. MASSON.-We generally have a clause in our mortgages creating the mortgagor a tenant at will in case of default.

Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.)—We have the same, but the Judge held that that was put in merely for the purpose of the mortgage, and that the man was not a tenant in the ordinary sense. It seems to me that this clause ought to apply to mortgagors holding over after the mortgage is foreclosed.

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).-I do not see why there should be any difference made between a mortgage which has not run out and one that has. It seems to me that the offence is the same, no matter when the building is removed.

Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.)-Until there is default made in the principal or interest, the mortgagee has no right to enter; but after default is made he is the owner. It may take him some time to obtain possession, and in the meantime while he is getting a writ of ejectment, the mortgagor may move the building off.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-The mortgagee is the owner all along. He has the legal estate.

Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.)-While he has the legal estate it is limited by the proviso that until default is made he shall not have the right of possession.

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).—I cannot see any difference between a mortgage that has not run out and one that has; the legal estate is in the mortgagee. The question is whether the offence is serious enough to justify punishing it criminally, or whether the parties should not look for a remedy to the civil law.

Mr. MASSON.-They would have a civil remedy by an injunction, but while that is being obtained the man may move out.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.—We might let the clause stand.
Section postponed.

On section 507.

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)-I do not think this section ought to pass in its present form.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-It provides punishment for destroying a boundary fence.

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)-In my experience, men are constantly disputing about their fences. A man says: Your fence is encroaching on me 10 fect, and he throws it off. That is a civil offence.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-It is only an offence under this section when he does it without colour of right. The question is whether there ought not to be a punishment for wilfully destroying the fence of another without any colour of right.

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)-I do not read it in that way.

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).-Is it contended that when a man undertakes to put up a boundary fence between his property and another, but places it not upon the line, but upon another's property, that he shall have the right to keep that fence up until by some legal proceeding it is removed? I think that would be putting the man against whom the wrong has been done to unnecessary trouble. If he undertakes to remove the fence it seems to me that he does so or ought to do so at the peril of being liable in case the fence is found upon the boundary because if it were found upon his property he ought not to be liable. If "A" erects a fence purporting to be a boundary between himself and "B," and erects it upon the property of "B," "B" ought to be at liberty to take it down without committing an offence. But if he has placed it in the proper position, and "B" tears it down, "B" commits an offence and ought to be made liable.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-Is not that the effeet of it when you take into consideration section 480 ?

Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.)-My trouble lies in the construction of section 480. If he pulls down a fence, &c., under bonâ fide colour of right, whether it turn out in the long run that he was justified or not, he should not be liable to criminal prosecution. I think we are all agreed on that. I think that sub-section 2 is so worded that he must have legal justification, or he is liable criminally whether he