house (or begin to pull down "or" demolish the said dwellinghouse or any part thereof.)

INJURIES TO LAND MARKS.

505. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to seven years' imprisonment who wilfully pulls down, defaces, alters or removes any mound, land mark, post or monument lawfully erected, planted or placed to mark or determine the boundaries of any province, county, city, town, township, parish or other municipal division. R. S. C. c. 168, s. 56.

506. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to five years' imprisonment who wilfully defaces, alters or removes any mound, land mark, post or monument lawfully placed by any land surveyor to mark any limit, boundary or angle of any concession, range, lot or parcel of land.

2. It is not an offence for any land surveyor in his operations to take up such posts or other boundary marks when necessary, if he carefully replaces them as they were before. R. S. C. c. 168, s. 57.

s. 506.

The words "pulls down" in s. 505 are omitted from
"So are the words erected or planted."
The words "by any land surveyors'
" in s. 506 are not

in s. 505.

The offence mentioned in s. 506 can only be committed in relation to boundaries or land marks which have been legally placed by a land surveyor: R. v. Austin, 11 Q. L. R. 76.

The punishment for the offence covered by s. 506 was three months' imprisonment, or a fine of one hundred dollars, or both, by the repealed clause.

INJURIES TO FENCES, STILES, ETC.

507. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding twenty dollars over and above the amount of the injury done, who wilfully destroys or damages any fence, or any wall, stile or gate, or any part thereof respectively, or any post or stake planted or set upon any land, marsh, swamp or land covered by water, on or as the boundary or part of the boundary line thereof, or in lieu of a fence thereto.

2. Every one who, having been convicted of any such offence, afterwards commits any such offence is liable, on summary conviction, to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. R. S. C. c. 168, s. 27. 53 V. c. 38, s. 15. 24-25 V. c. 97, s. 25 (Imp.).

The words in italics are not in the English Act.

The act must have been done maliciously (wilfully) to be punishable under this clause: R. v. Bradshaw, 38 U. C. Q. B. 564; see s. 481, ante.

INJURIES TO HARBOURS.

507a. Every one is guilty of an offence, and liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars, who wilfully and without the permission of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (the burden of proving which permission shall lie on the accused) removes any stone, wood, earth or other material, forming a natural bar necessary to the existence of a public harbour, or forming a natural protection to such bar. (Amendment of 1893).

INJURIES TO TREES, 25 CENTS.

508. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding twenty-five dollars over and above the amount of injury done, or to two months' imprisonment with or without hard labour, who wilfully destroys or damages the whole or any part of any tree, sapling or shrub, or any underwood, wheresoever the same is growing, the injury done being to the amount of twenty-five cents, at the least.

2. Every one who, having been convicted of any such offence, afterwards commits any such offence is liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars over and above the amount of the injury done, or to four months' imprisonment with hard labour.

3. Every one who, having been twice convicted of any such offence, afterwards commits any such offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment. R. S. C. c. 168, s. 24. 24-25 V. c. 97, s. 22 (Imp.). The punishments are altered.

If the injury does not amount to twenty-five cents the defendant may be punished under s. 511, post.

See s. 907, post, where it has been forgotten that the words "cut, break, root up" of the repealed clause have been left out in s. 508.

-

that J. S.,

on

Indictment after two previous convictions for cutting or damaging trees to the value of twenty-five cents wheresoever growing.one elm tree, the property of J. N., then growing on a certain land of the said J. N. in the unlawfully and wilfully, without legal justification or excuse, and without colour of right, did destroy and damage, thereby then doing injury to the said J. N., to the amount of forty cents. And the jurors aforesaid do say, that heretofore and before the committing of the offence hereinbefore mentioned (stating the two previous convictions and concluding as in form p. 379, ante). See ss. 628 and 676 as to indictments and procedure in indictable offences committed after previous convictions, and for

which a greater punishment may be inflicted on that account.

If, in answer to a charge under this section, the defendant sets up a bona fide claim of right the justices of the peace have no jurisdiction: R. v. O'Brien, 5 Q. L. R. 161.

DESTROYING VEGETABLES.

509. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding twenty dollars over and above the amount of the injury done, or to three months' imprisonment with or without hard labour, who wilfully destroys, or damages with intent to destroy, any vegetable production growing in any garden, orchard, nursery ground, house, hot-house, green-house or conservatory.

2. Every one who, having been convicted of any such offence, afterwards commits any such offence is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to two years' imprisonment. R. S. C. c. 168, s. 25. 24-25 V. c. 97, s. 23 (Imp.).

510. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary convic tion, to a penalty not exceeding five dollars over and above the amount of the injury done, or to one month's imprisonment with or without hard labour, who wilfully destroys, or damages with intent to destroy, any cultivated root or plant used for the food of man or beast, or for medicine, or for distilling, or for dyeing, or for or in the course of any manufacture, and growing in any land, open or inclosed, not being a garden, orchard or nursery ground.

2. Every one who, having been convicted of any such offence, afterwards commits any such offence is liable, on summary conviction, to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. R. S. C. c. 168, s. 26. 24-25 V. c. 97, s. 24 (Imp.).

one

Indictment under s. 509 for destroying plants after a previous conviction.— that J. S., on dozen heads of celery, the property of J. N., in a certain garden of the said J. N., situate

then growing, unlawfully and wilfully, without legal justification or excuse, and without colour of right, did destroy. And the jurors aforesaid do say that heretofore and before the committing of the offence herein before mentioned (state the previous conviction). And so, the jurors aforesaid, do say that the said J. S. on the day and year first aforesaid, one dozen heads of celery, the property of J. N., in a certain garden of the said J. N., situate then growing, unlawfully and wilfully, without legal justification or excuse, and without colour of right, did destroy.

OTHER INJURIES.

511. Every one who wilfully commits any damage, injury or spoil to or upon any real or personal property either corporeal or incorporeal, and either of a public or private nature, for which no punishment is hereinbefore provided, is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding twenty dollars, and such further sum, not exceeding twenty dollars, as appears to the justice to be a reasonable compensation for the damage, injury or spoil so committed,-which last mentioned sum of money shall, in the case of private property, be paid to the person aggrieved; and if such sums of money, together with the costs, if ordered, are not paid, either immediately after the conviction, or within such period as the justice at the time of the conviction appoints, the justice may cause the offender to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two months, with or without hard labour.

2. Nothing herein extends to

(a) any case where the person acted under a fair and reasonable supposition that he had a right to do the act complained of; or

(b) any trespass, not being wilful and malicious, committed in hunting or fishing or in the pursuit of game. R. S. C. c. 168, s. 59. 53 V. c. 37, s. 18. 24-25 V. c. 97, s. 52 (Imp.).

The words in italics were introduced by the Act of 1890.

The proviso in s-s. 3 of the repealed clause extending this enactment in express terms to trees, etc., where the damage is less than twenty-five cents has not been re-enacted: see R. v. Dodson, 9 A. & E. 704, and Charter v. Greame, 13 Q. B. 216.

The word "herein " is s-s. 2, would apply to the whole Act, and not merely to this section by R. S. C. c. 1, s. 7, s-s 5. It is clear, however, that here it applies only to this section.

W. was summoned before the justices under this clause. He was in the employment of D., and by his order he forcibly entered a garden belonging to and in the occupation of F. accompanied by thirteen other men, and cut a small ditch, from forty to fifty yards in length, through the soil. F. and his predecessors in title had occupied the garden for thirty-six years, and during the whole time there had been no ditch upon the site of part of that cut by D. For the defence D. was called, who stated that, fifteen years before, there had been an open ditch in the land which

received the drainage from the highway, and that he gave directions for the ditch to be cut by W. in the exercise of what he considered to be a public right. The justices found that W. had no fair and reasonable supposition that he had a right to do the act complained of, and accordingly convicted him: Held, that by the express words of the section and proviso the jurisdiction of the justices was not ousted by the mere bona fide belief of W. that his act was legal, and that there was evidence on which they might properly find that he did not act under the fair and reasonable supposition required by the statute: White v. Feast, L. R. 7 Q. B. 353.

A conviction by justices under s. 52, c. 97, 24 & 25 V. (s. 511, ante), cannot be brought up by certiorari, on the ground that they had no jurisdiction inasmuch as the defendant had set up a bona fide claim of right, but the exemption is impliedly restricted to cases where the justices are reasonably satisfied of the fair and reasonable character of the claim: R. v. Mussett, 26 L. T. 429.

See R. v. Prestney, 3 Cox, 505; Butler v. Turley, 2 C. & P. 585; Gardner v. Mansbridge, 16 Cox, 281, 19 Q. B. D. 217.