right to put hypothetically the case self will not be allowed to address of an attack upon the character of the jury also. Reg. v. Boucher, 8 any particular witness for the crown, C. & P. 141-Coleridge. S. P., and to state that, if such attack Reg. v. Burrows, 2 M. & Rob. 124 should be made, he should be pre--Bosanquet. pared to rebut it; he has also a right to read to the jury the general observations of a judge, made in a case tried some years before, on the nature and effect of circumstantial evidence, if he adopts them as his own opinions, and makes them part of his own address to the jury. Reg. v. Courvoisier, 9 C. & P. 362-Tindal and Parke. If additional evidence is discovered during the progress of a case, the counsel for the prosecution is not at liberty to open the nature of such evidence in an additional address to the jury. Ib. A prisoner's counsel, in addressing the jury, will not be allowed to state anything which he is not in a situation to prove, or which is not already in proof; nor will he be allowed to state the prisoner's story. Reg. v. Beard, 8 C. & P. 142; S. P., Reg. v. Butcher, 2 M. & Rob. 228-Coleridge. Counsel for the prosecution opening a case against one prisoner, statements made by that prisoner are not to be used except in a regular way of evidence. Reg. v. Gardner, 9 Cox, C. C. 332-Pollock. Two were indicted for manslanghter, the counsel for one of them having addressed the jury on his behalf, the counsel for the second prisoner did the same, and called witnesses, whose evidence tended to shew negligence on the part of the first:-Held, that the counsel for the prisoner had a right to cross-examine the witnesses for the second, and then to address the jury again, confining himself to comments on the testimony the second prisoner had adduced. Reg. v. Woods, 6 Cox, C. C. 224. If the prisoner's counsel has addressed the jury, the prisoner him But on the trial of a case of shooting, with intent to do grievous bodily harm, there having been no person present at the time of the of fence but the prosecutor and prisoner, the latter was, under these special circumstances, allowed to make a statement before his counsel addressed the jury. Reg. v. Malings, 8 C. & P. 242-Alderson. But the privilege is not to be considered as a precedent with respect to the general practice in such cases. Reg. v. Walking, 8 C. & P. 243Gurney. A prisoner charged with felony, who is defended by counsel, ought not to be allowed to make a statement in addition to the defence of counsel, unless under very particular circumstances; and the general rule ought to be, that a prisoner defended by counsel should be entirely in the hands of his counsel; and that rule should not be infringed on, except in very special cases. Reg. v. Rider, 8 C. & P. 539-Patteson. It is the duty of the counsel for the prosecution to be assistant to the court in the furtherance of justice, and not act as counsel for any particular person or party. Reg. v. Thursfield, 8 C. & P. 269—Gurney. Where no counsel is engaged for the prosecution, and the depositions are handed in by direction of the court, to a gentleman at the bar, he should consider himself as counsel for the crown, and act in all respects as he would if he had been instructed by the prosecutor; and should not consider himself merely as acting in assistance of the judge, by examining the witnesses. Reg. v. Littleton, 9 C. & P. 671-Parke. A prosecutor conducting his case in person, and who is to be examined as a witness in support of the in dictment, has no right to address | poaching, the defence being on the the jury as counsel. Rex v. Brice, 2 B. & A..606; 1 Chit. 352. But on the trial of an indictment for perjury, the judge will allow the defendant to address the jury and cross-examine the witnesses, and his counsel to argue points of law, and suggest questions to him for the cross-examination of the witnesses. Rex v. Parkins, 1 C. & P. 548; R. & M. 166-Abbott. question of identity, one of them calling witnesses to prove an alibi, the other calling no witnesses, the counsel for the prosecution was allowed a general reply on the whole case as against both. Reg. v. Briggs, 1 F. & F. 106-Williams. Where there are several prisoners, and they sever in their defences, if one should call witnesses and the others not, the right of reply is in practice confined to the case against the prisoner who has called witnesses. Reg. v. Burton, 2 F. & F. 788 Where, on an information for a misdemeanor, the defendant conducts his own defence, counsel may be heard on any point of law which-Wightman. arises. Rex v. White, 3 Camp. 98 The counsel for the crown, where -Ellenborough. the crown is the defendant in a But he cannot have the assistance writ of error, is not necessarily enof counsel in examining and cross-titled to the final reply, though the examining witnesses, and reserve to crown is the real litigant party. himself the right of addressing the O'Connell v. Reg. (in error), 11 C. jury. Ib. & F. 155; 9 Jur. 25. Not more than two counsel are entitled to address the court for a prisoner during the trial upon a point of law. Reg. v. Bernard, 1 F. & F. 240. A foreigner, indicted for felony, being unable to speak English, the proceedings were explained to him by an interpreter. He was defended by counsel, who cross-examined the witnesses for the prosecution; at the close of which the judge, through the interpreter, acquainted the prisoner that he might choose whether he would make his defence himself or allow his counsel to make it for him, but that both could not be heard. Reg. v. Teste, 4 Jur., N. S. 244-Williams. 3. Right of Reply. In General Cases.]-Where counsel for the prosecution, intending to put in evidence in reply, begins his reply to the jury before doing so per incuriam, he ought not, therefore, to be debarred from the right to put in his evidence in the usual course. Reg. v. White, 2 Cox, C. C. 192. Two being indicted for night Three were indicted for murder, and witnesses were called for the defence of one only:-Held, that the counsel for the prosecution was entitled to reply generally, and was not to be limited in his reply as against the prisoner for whom the witnesses were called, although the evidence adduced for the one did not affect the case as it respected the other two, but if the evidence against two affect them with different offences, such as larceny and receiving, and one calls witnesses, there is no right of reply against both. Reg. v. Blackburn, 3 C. & K. 330; 6 Cox, C. C. 333-Talfourd. The prosecuting counsel ought not to reply where witnesses are called to character only. Patteson's case, 2 Lewin, C. C. 262-Patteson. A prosecutor's counsel has, in strictness, the right of reply, though the counsel for the prisoner only calls witnesses to character. v. Stannard, 7 C. & P. 673—Patteson and Williams. A. was charged with feloniously carnally knowing and abusing a girl under ten. B. was charged with being present, aiding and abet ting. A.'s counsel called no witnesses; B., who had no counsel, called a witness to prove an alibi for A.-Held, that the evidence was in effect evidence for A., and that, in strictness, the counsel for the prosecution had a right to reply on the whole case, but that it was summum jus, and ought to be exercised with great forbearance. Reg. v. Jordan, 9 C. & P. 118-Williams. A statement of facts not intended to be proved gives a reply to the counsel for the prosecution. Reg. v. Butcher, 2 M. & Rob. 228-Coleridge. It is entirely at the discretion of the prosecutor's counsel, whether he will exercise his right of reply or Rex v. Whiting, 7 C. & P. 771-Bolland. not. of his representing the attorney-general, he was entitled to reply without reference to the prisoner's having called witnesses or not. Reg. v. Gardner, 1 C. & K. 628-Pollock. In conducting prosecutions for the post-office, where the solicitorgeneral appears on behalf of the attorney-general, he has, on the part of the crown, the right to reply on the whole case, although the prisoner calls no witnesses. Reg. v. Toakley, 10 Cox, C. C. 406-Mellor; S. P., Reg. v. Barrow, 10 Cox, C. C. 407-Gurney, Recorder. The attorney-general for the county palatine, though prosecuting in person, has no right to reply. Reg. v. Christie, 7 Cox, C. C. 506. In a prosecution directed by the poor law board, counsel for the crown cannot claim the right to re nesses. Reg. v. Beckwith, 7 Cox, C. C. 505-Byles. By the Attorney or Solicitor-Gener-ply where the prisoner calls no wital.]-The attorney-general may reply with new matter in collateral issues, though no evidence is given for the prisoner. Rex v. Radcliffe, 1 W. Bl. 3. 4. Summing up Evidence. By 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, s. 2, "if Where the attorney-general or a " any prisoner or prisoners, defendking's counsel states that he ap- ant or defendants, shall be defendpears officially to conduct a prose-"ed by counsel (and by s. 9, the cution on an indictment for misde-"word counsel includes attorneys meanor, he is entitled to reply, "where attorneys are allowed by though the defendant calls no wit-"law, or by the practice of any ness. Rex v. Marsden, M. & M." court, to appear as advocates), "but not otherwise, it shall be the Martin, B., intimated that he "duty of the presiding judge, at thought the right of reply on behalf " the close of the case for the proseof the crown a bad practice, and "cution, to ask the counsel for each that he should confine the right to prisoner or defendant so defended the attorney-general of England in" by counsel whether he or they inperson. Reg. v. Christie, 1 F. & F." tend to adduce evidence; and in "the event of none of them there 439-Tenterden. 75. 66 The right of reply, where no evi-" upon announcing his intention to dence is called for the defence on "adduce evidence, the counsel for behalf of the crown, in Mint cases "the prosecution shall be allowed was not admitted. Reg. v. Taylor," to address the jury a second time 1 F. & F. 535-Byles. "in support of his case, for the pur In a prosecution by the post-of-"pose of summing up the evidence fice for a felony, it being stated by "against such prisoner or prisoners, the counsel for the prosecution that "or defendant or defendants; he appeared as representative of the attorney-general. On the ground" "And upon every trial for felony or misdemeanor, whether the pris oners or defendants, or any of "them, shall be defended by coun"sel or not, each and every such prisoner or defendant, or his or "their counsel respectively, shall "be allowed, if he or they shall "think fit, to open his or their case or cases respectively; for the purposes of justice. Ib.: S. P., Reg. v. Webb, 4 F. & F. 862— Mellor. A. & B. were indicted for manslaughter; the counsel of A. called a witness, who gave evidence which brought home the crime to B., whereupon his counsel was allowed "And after the conclusion of to examine the witness and address "such opening, or of all such open- the jury after A.'s counsel had clos"ings, if more than one, such pris-ed his case and had summed up his oner or prisoners, or defendant or evidence; the counsel for the prose"defendants, or their counsel, shall cution being entitled to a general "be entitled to examine such wit- reply. Reg. v. Copley, 4 F. & F. nesses as he or they may think 1097-Smith. fit, and when all the evidence is "concluded, to sum up the evidence respectively; and the right of reply, and practice and course of proceedings, save as hereby alter"ed, shall be as at present. 66 66 66 The counsel for the prosecution ought not, in summing up the evidence, to make observations on the prisoner's not calling witnesses, unless at all events it has appeared that he might be fairly expected to be in a position to do so. Neither ought counsel to press it upon the jury, that, if they acquit the prisoner, they may be considered to convict the prosecutor or prosecutrix of perjury. Reg. v. Puddick, 4 F. & F. 497-Crompton. Witnesses merely called as to character do not give the counsel for the prosecution a reply. Reg. v. Dowse, 4 F. & F. 492-Pigott. It being a general principle of criminal procedure, that counsel for the prosecution should consider themselves not merely as advocates for a party, but as ministers of justice, and not as struggling for a verdict, but as assistants in the ascertainment of truth according to law. Reg. v. Berens, 4 F. & F. 842Blackburn. Therefore, counsel for the prosecution ought not to exercise their right of summing up the evidence where the prisoner calls no witnesses, unless counsel really, in their discretion, deem it to be necessary It being a general principle of criminal procedure, that counsel for the prosecution should consider themselves not merely as advocates for a party, but as ministers of justice, and not as struggling for a verdict, but as assistants in the ascertainment of truth according to law; therefore, counsel for the prosecution ought not to exercise their right of summing up the evidence where the prisoner calls no witnesses, unless counsel really, in their discretion, deem it to be necessary for the purposes of justice. Reg. v Berens, 4 F. & F. 842-Blackburn. Under 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, s. 2, the counsel for the prosecution ought not, when the prisoner calls no witnesses, to sum up the evidence. Reg. v. Webb, 4 F. & F. 862—Mellor. XLVI. EVIDENCE. 1. Confessions and Admissions, 535. 2. Depositions, 550. (a) Mode of taking, 550. (b) Returning, 555. (c) Illness, Death, Insanity or 3. Presumptions or Probabilites of 4. Accomplices, 562. 5. Government Spies, 564. 9. Ordering to leave Court, 570. 10. Names on Back of Indictment, 570. | sion which cannot be received, the 11. Declarations in Articulo Mortis, 571. 12. Examining and Cross-examining Witnesses, 571. 13. Declining to answer, 572. 14. Evidence of Character, 573. 15. Evidence of Identity, 574. 16. Privileged Communications, 574. 17. Evidence of other similar Offences, 18. Previous Conviction, 576. [576. 19. Maps or Plans, 578. 20. Letters, 578. by attesting 21. Proof of Handwriting, 579. 24. Production and Inspection of Doc uments, 580. 25. On other Points, 580. 1. Confessions and Admissions. Free and Voluntary.]-A prisoner's confession is sufficient ground for a conviction, although there is no other proof of his having committed the offence, or of the offence having been committed, if that confession was in consequence of a charge against the prisoner. Rex v. Eldridge, R. & R. C. C. 440. A confession obtained without threat or promise from a boy fourteen years old, by questions put by a police officer in whose custody the boy was on a charge of felony, and when he had no food for nearly a whole day, is rightly received. Rex v. Thornton, 1 M. C. C. 27. A voluntary confession of felony made by a prisoner on his examination before a magistrate, and reduced by the magistrate into writing, may be given in evidence on the trial, though the magistrate has neglected, and the prisoner has refused, to sign it. Rex v. Lambe, 2 Leach, C. Č. 552. party should be acquitted; unless the fact would be sufficient to warrant a conviction without any confession leading to it. Rex v. Harvey, 2 East, P. C. 658-Eldon. If a confession is improperly obtained, it is a ground for excluding evidence of the confession, and of any act done by the prisoner in consequence towards discovering the property, unless the property is actually discovered thereby. Rex v. Jenkins, R. & R. C. C. 492. The confession of a girl fifteen years old, occasioned by many applications by the prosecutor's relations and neighbors, amounting to threats and promises, is not receivable. Rex v. Simpson, 1 M. C. C. 410. So a confession obtained from a servant through hopes and threats held out by the wife of the master and prosecutor, is inadmissible. Rex v. Upchurch, 1 M. C. C. 465. A second confession made under the same influence as the first is not receivable. Meynell's case, 2 Lewin, C. C. 122-Taunton; S. P., Sherrington's case, Ib. 123-Patteson. A prisoner charged with murder, being a few days short of fourteen, was told by a man who was present when he was taken up, but not by a constable, "Now kneel you down, I am going to ask you a very serious question, and I hope you will tell me the truth, in the presence of the Almighty"; the prisoner, in consequence, made certain statements :-Held, strictly admissible. Rex v. Wild, 1 M. Č. C. 452. The confession of a prisoner before a magistrate is a sufficient A statement of a prisoner is adground to warrant a conviction, al- missible, although he was previthough there is no positive proof al- ously told that whatever he said. iunde that the offence was commit-"would be used against him." ted. Rex v. White, R. & R. C. C. Reg. v. Chambers, 3 Cox, C. C. 92 508; S. P., Rex v. Tippet, R. & R. Rolfe. C. C. 509. Where a knowledge of any fact is obtained by means of a confes A voluntary confession which enters into minute details of a crime, and states that the prisoner was |