against a person for practising as an attorney whilst he was under-sheriff, was refused, because the affidavit did not mention what particular acts he did as an attorney, of which the court should judge. Rex v. Bull, 1 Wils. 93.

If, in the affidavit to found a criminal information, slanderous words on the defendant be introduced, it will be a sufficient ground to refuse the application. Rex v. Byrne, 2 N. & P. 152; 6 D. P. C. 36; 7

A. & E. 190.

Where a magistrate, in answer to a rule for a criminal information, stated that the applicant was "a shuffling and litigious fellow;" the court censured such language, although they would not reject the affidavit. Rex v. Burn, 7 Å. & E. 190; 1 Jur. 659.

Intitling.]-Affidavits on motions for leave to file criminal informations must not be intitled; and if they are, they cannot be read. Rex v. Robinson, 6 T. R. 642.

Nor need the affidavits produced on shewing cause against a rule. Rex v. Harrison, 6 T. R. 60.

But all affidavits made after the rule is made absolute, must be intitled. Rex v. Robinson, 6 T. R. 642.

An affidavit, to put off a trial at nisi prius, being returned to the court, they granted another information on it against the defendant, considering the affidavit taken at nisi prius as taken under the authority of the court. Rex v. Jolliffe, 4 T. R. 285.

Jurat.]-An affidavit purported in the body to have been sworn be fore a magistrate residing at A., in the county of York, and the jurat was "sworn before me (the magis trate) at A.," omitting the county, the court stated that they were not prepared to say that the jurat was wrong. Rex v. Burn, 7 A. & E. 190; 2 N. & P. 152; 6 D. P. C. 36; 1 Jur. 659.

The county in which a deponent is sworn to an affidavit to grant a rule for a criminal information, made before a commissioner, must appear in the jurat. Rex v. Younghusband, 4 N. & M. 850.

In Mitigation or Aggravation.]— Where a defendant was convicted of a libel, which purported to have been written in consequence of his having seen a statement of facts in different newspapers, an affidavit that he read those statements in such newspapers may be received in miti Affidavit intitled in the King's gation of punishment; but an affiBench, upon which the attorney-davit that the facts contained in general had filed an information ex- those statements were true, is not officio against the defendant, permit- admissible. Rex v. Burdett, 4 B. & ted to be read in aggravation after A. 314. judgment by default. Rex v. Morgan, 11 East, 457.

Before whom Sworn.]-Affidavits upon which an information is applied for, must not be sworn before the attorney in the prosecution. Rex v. Ipswich (Jailor), 2 Ld. Ken. 421. Semble, that an affidavit to found a criminal information for a libel published in England, in parts beyond seas, may be sworn abroad. Rex v. Satirist (Editor), 3 N. & M. 532.

When any defendant shall be brought up for sentence on any indictment, or information, after verdict, the affidavits produced on the part of the defendant, if any such be produced, shall be first read, and then any affidavits produced on the part of the prosecution shall be read; after which the counsel for the defendant shall be heard, and, lastly, the counsel for the prosecution. Reg. Gen., K. B., M. T. 29 Geo. 3. Rex v. Bunts, 2 T. R. 683.

When a defendant, who has suf

fered judgment by default in a criminal prosecution, is brought up for judgment, each party should come prepared with affidavits disclosing his own case (if he means to produce any affidavit at all): but, if in the course of the inquiry the court wishes to have any point further explained, they will give the defendant an opportunity of answering it on a future day. Rex v. Wilson, 4 T. R. 487.

Affidavits allowed to be read on a defendant's being brought up for judgment, stating that the defendant had made use of expressions aggravating his guilt, in the presence of two persons who related them to the persons making the affidavits, and the prosecutor swearing that the persons who heard the expressions refused to come forward, and were supposed to be under the influence of the defendant. Rex v. Archer, 2 T. R. 203, n.

not admissible; at least, not without swearing that such third person was under the control or influence of the defendant. Rex v. Pinkerton, 2 East, 357. And see Rex v. Withers, 3 T. R. 428, and Rex v. Mawbey, 6 T. R. 627.

11. Other Points of Practice.

Where a rule nisi for a criminal information, though served before, reached the hands of the defendant only the day before it was to be argued: Held, that it must be enlarged. Reg. v. Hely, 10 Jur. 1009 B. C.

A party applying for an information must waive his right of action; but if the court, on hearing the whole matter, is of opinion that it is a proper subject for an action, they may give the party leave to bring it. Rex v. Sparrow, 2 T. R.

198.

Where the party applied for time When a rule nisi, obtained for a to send to Trinidad for an affidavit criminal information for a libel in of the truth of certain matters in a the Queen's Bench, is discharged on libel, in order to show cause against showing cause, the applicant may such a rule, the court would not grant bring an action in another court for further time. Affidavits abroad, be- publication of the same libel. Wakfore judges there, and verified, al-ley v. Cooke, 16 M. & W. 822; 4 D. though receivable as affidavits of & L. 702; 11 Jur. 377; 16 L. J., debt, are not to be received on rules Exch. 225. to show cause, in opposition to affidavits made in K. B. Rex v. Draper, 3 Smith, 391.

When a defendant who has been convicted on an indictment comes up to receive judgment, the prosecutor may read affidavits in aggravation, though made by witnesses who were examined at the trial, and which affidavits he is at liberty to answer. Rex v. Sharpness, 1 T. R.

228.

When a defendant is brought up to receive judgment after conviction, an affidavit by the prosecutor in aggravation, stating that a third person, who refuses to join in the affidavit, had informed him that the defendant after the trial had repeated in his hearing the libellous matter for which he was indicted, is

A rule nisi for a criminal information will not be granted where a former rule for the same matter against the same defendant has been discharged, although the second motion is made upon additional affidavits. Rex v. Smithson, 1 N. & M. 775; 4 B. & Ad. 861.

Where a rule for a criminal information was enlarged, on condition that the defendant would appear and plead immediately, in the event of its being made absolute : Held, that he was entitled to reasonable time. Reg. v. Muntz, 2 Jur. 538—Q. B.

Before the defendant could instruct his London solicitors to plead to the information, the prosecutor had obtained a rule calling upon him to show cause why the prose

cutor should not be at liberty to enter an appearance and sign judgment. The court made the rule absolute, but awarded costs against the prosecutor. Ib.

was reserved for the purpose on the first application from very special circumstances, such as being met by affidavits which afterwards turned out to be based on perjury. Mun.

A joint information against sev-ster, Ex parte, 20 L. T., N. S. 612 eral cannot issue upon distinct rules-Q. B. for one or more information or informations against each. Rex v. Heydon, 3 Burr. 1270.

The court will not enlarge a rule for a criminal information, in order that the affidavit on which the rule was obtained may be re-sworn. Rex v. Cockshaw, 2 N. & M. 378.

The rule that when a party has failed in an application to the court in consequence of not being properly prepared, he shall not be allowed to renew it with new or amended materials, applies to public officers in the discharge of their duties, as well as to private individuals. Reg. v. Pickles, 6 Jur. 1039—Q. B.

12. Costs.

Under 4 & 5 Will. & M. c. 18, formation which is not tried, or in s. 2, a defendant in a criminal inwhich a verdict is given for the defendant, is entitled only to such an of the prosecutor's recognizance. amount of costs as equals the amount Reg. v. Savile, 18 Q. B. 703.

obtaining such costs is for the deSemble, that the proper mode of fendant to take out a side bar rule for taxing the whole costs; and,

upon

to so much of them as equals the that being done, he is entitled amount of the recognizance. Ib.

13. Conviction.

In a criminal information for the non-repair of a highway, the court. has no power, either by common law, or under 1 Will. 4, c. 22, s. 4, upon application by the prose- After conviction on a criminal incutor, to order the examination of a formation, to which objections were witness upon interrogatories. Reg. taken, the defendant must stand v. Upton St. Leonard's, 10 Q. B. committed, pending the considera827; 12 Jur. 11; 17 L. J., M. C. 13. tion of the judgment, unless the

The court will not permit a sec-prosecutor expressly consents to his ond application to be made for a standing out on bail. Reg v. Wad criminal information, unless leave dington, 1 East, 143.

CRIMINAL LAW.

If a man does, by means of an innocent agent, an act which amounts to a felony, the employer, and not the agent is accountable for the act. Reg. v. Bleasdale, 2 C. & K. 765Erle.

If A., by letter, desires B., an innocent agent, to write the name of S. to a receipt on a post office order, and the innocent agent does it, believing that he is authorized so to do, A. is a principal in this forgery, and it makes no difference, that, by the letter, A. says to B. that he is at liberty to sign the name of S., and does not in express words direct him to do so. Reg. v. Clifford, 2 C. & K. 202-Platt.

such case being criminal in form only. Reg. v. Stephens, 1 L. R. Q. B. 702; 12 Jur., N. S. 961; 14 W. R. 859; 35 L. J., Q. B. 251; 14 L. T. N. S. 593.

2. Insane Persons.

39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 94; 56 Geo. 3, c. 117; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 14, extended by 3 & 4 Vict. c. 54, and amended by 27 & 28 Vict. c. 29.

Defense of Insanity.]-To justify the acquittal of a prisoner indicted for murder, on the ground of insanity, the jury must be satisfied that he was incapable of judging between right and wrong; and that, at the time of committing the act, he did not consider that it was an offence against the laws of God and nature. Rex v. Offord, 5 C. & P. 168-Lyndhurst.

If, to an indictment for treason for attempting the life of the Sovereign, by shooting at her Majesty, the defence is insanity, the question for the jury will be, whether the prisoner was labouring under that species of insanity which satisfies them that he was quite unaware of the nature, character, and consequences of the act he was committing, or, in other words, whether he was under the influence of a diseased mind, and was really uncon

The owner of works carried on for his benefit by his agents and servants, is liable to an indictment for a nuisance, resulting from the mode of carrying on the busi-scious at the time he was commitness, although such nuisance was committed in opposition to his orders, and without his knowledge, the proceedings by indictment in

ting the act that it was a crime. Reg. v. Oxford, 9 C. & P. 525— Denman, Alderson, and Patteson.

Semble, that, notwithstanding a