better opinion seemed to be that six aliens were required, without regard to nationality. S. 2 of 28 Ed. III. c. 13, says "the other half of aliens." However, this is now of historical interest only, and by the above clause aliens, all through the Dominion, when indicted before a criminal court, are on the same footing as British subjects as to the composition of the jury. In England also, now, an alien is not entitled to a jury de medietate linguæ: 33 & 34 V. c. 14 (Imp.). MIXED JURIES IN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC. 664. In those districts in the province of Quebec in which the sheriff is required by law to return a panel of petit jurors composed one half of persons speaking the English language, and one half of persons speaking the French language, he shall in his return specify separately those jurors whom he returns as speaking the English language, and those whom he returns as speaking the French language respectively; and the names of the jurors so summoned shall be called alternately from such lists. R. S. C. c. 174, s. 166. The right to a medietate linguæ jury exists in misdemeanours as in felonies: R. v. Maguire, 13 Q. L. R. 99. Sub-section 2 of s. 7, 27 & 28 V. c. 41 (1864), clearly gives that right to any prosecuted party. And though the Quebec Legislature, by 46 V. c. 16, s. 62 (1883), has repealed the said Act, this particular clause, giving the right to a mixed jury, must be considered as still in force, the Quebec Legislature not having had the right to repeal it. Otherwise, there is no statute in the Province giving the right to a mixed jury in any case whatever, s. 664, ante, merely taking it for granted that the right exists. If the Quebec Legislature had the power to repeal that clause the Dominion Parliament had not the right to enact for Manitoba s. 167 of the Procedure Act, now s. 665, post. Where in a case of felony, in which one half of the jury, on the application of the prisoner, were sworn as being Iskilled in the French language, it was discovered after Iverdict that one of such French half was not so skilled in the French language; held, that the trial and verdict were null and void: R. v. Chamaillard, 18 L. C. J. 149. The right to have a jury, composed of at least one half of persons skilled in the language of the defence, must, undoubtedly, both in Manitoba and Quebec, be exercised upon arraignment. Immediately after arraignment the venire is presumed to have issued, and if it issues without this order the jurors must be summoned in the usual manner, that is to say, without regard to language. In R. v. Dougall, 18 L. C. J. 85, it was held by Mr. Justice Ramsay: 1st. That where defendant has asked for a jury composed one half of the language of the defence six jurors speaking that language may first be put into the box, before calling any juror of the other language; 2nd. That the right of the Crown to tell jurors "to stand aside," exists for misdemeanours as well as for felonies; 3rd. That when to obtain six jurors speaking the language of the defence all speaking that language have been called, the Crown is still at liberty to challenge to stand aside, and is not held to show cause until the whole panel is exhausted. Mr. Justice Ramsay said that the calling the jurors' names alternately from the English and French lists, mentioned in s. 40, now s. 664, ante, is only directory, and applies only to the calling of the jury in ordinary cases, where no order has been given for a jury composed of one half English and one half French. The case was reserved, by the learned judge, for the consideration of the full court, but only on the one point thirdly above mentioned, given in the summary of the report of the decision of the court, at page 242, 18 L. C. J., as follows; "Where to obtain six jurors speaking the language of the defence (English), the list of jurors speaking that language was called, and several were ordered by the Crown to stand aside; and the six English-speaking jurors being sworn the clerk re-commenced to call the panel alternately from the list of jurors speaking the English and French languages, and one of those (English) previously ordered to "stand aside" was again called: Held, that the previous "stand aside " stood good until the panel was exhausted by all the names on both lists being called." MIXED JURIES IN MANITOBA, 665. Whenever any person who is arraigned before the Court of Queen's Bench for Manitoba demands a jury composed, for the one half at least, of persons skilled in the language of the defence, if such language is either English or French, he shall be tried by a jury composed for the one half at least of the persons whose names stand first in succession upon the general panel and who, on appearing and not being lawfully challenged, are found, in the judgment of the court, to be skilled in the language of the defence. 2. Whenever, from the number of challenges or any other cause, there is in any such case a deficiency of persons skilled in the language of the defence the court shall fix another day for the trial of such case, and the sheriff shall supply the deficiency by summoning, for the day so fixed, such additional number of jurors skilled in the language of the defence as the court orders, and as are found inscribed next in succession on the list of petit jurors. R. S. C. c. 174, s. 167. See remarks under preceding section. CHALLENGING THE ARRAY. (New). 666. Either the accused or the prosecutor may challenge the array on the ground of partiality, fraud, or wilful misconduct on the part of the sheriff or his deputies by whom the panel was returned, but on no other ground. The objection shall be made in writing, and shall state that the person returning the panel was partial, or was fraudulent, or wilfully misconducted himself, as the case may be. Such objection may be in the form KK in schedule one hereto, or to the like effect. 2. If partiality, fraud or wilful misconduct, as the case may be, is denied the court shall appoint any two indifferent persons to try whether the alleged ground of challenge is true or not. If the triers find that the alleged ground of challenge is true in fact, or if the party who has not challenged the array admits that the ground of challenge is true in fact, the court shall direct a new panel to be returned. This is taken in part from 39 & 40 V. c. 78, s. 17 (Imp.) (for Ireland). KK.-(Section 666.) Canada, v. CHALLENGE TO ARRAY. The said A. B., who prosecutes for our Lady the Queen (or the said C. D., as the case may be) C. D. J challenges the array of the panel on the ground that it was returned by X. Y., sheriff of the county of (or E. F., deputy of X. Y., sheriff of the county of case may be), and that the said X. Y. (or E. F., as the case may be) was guilty of partiality (or fraud, or wilful misconduct) on returning said panel. as the Relationship between the sheriff and the prosecutor or the defendant are no more by themselves grounds for challenging the array, and R. v. Rouleau, 16 Q. L. R. 322 cannot now be followed. The form above given is very general, but the court may order the party challenging to give particulars: see Archbold, 171. A challenge to the array is an exception to the whole panel of jurors returned, and must be made before the swearing of any of the jury is commenced. The ground of the challenge may be either that some fact exists inconsistent with the impartiality of the sheriff, or other officer returning the panel, or that some fact exists which makes it improbable that he should be impartial, or that some fact exists which does, in fact, interfere with his impartiality. The challenge must be in writing, and must set forth the fact on which it is grounded. The court must decide whether the alleged fact is in itself a good cause of challenge, in which case it is called a principal challenge, or whether it is merely a fact from which partiality may or may not be inferred, in which case it is called a challenge to the favour, or that the sheriff has been guilty of some default in returning the panel. If the court holds that the alleged fact is a good cause for a principal challenge, and the alleged fact is denied, or if the court holds that the alleged fact is good as a challenge to the favour, and either the fact or the partiality sought to be inferred from it, or both, are denied, two triers must be appointed by the court to try the facts in dispute. If the triers find in favour of the challenge the panel is quashed, and a new one is ordered to be returned by the coroners or other officers. If they find against the challenge the panel is affirmed: Stephen's Cr. Proc. Art. 280. Held, in an indictment against R. M., that it was ground of principal challenge to the array that the prisoner's husband had an action pending against the sheriff for an assault committed on the prisoner: R. v. Rose Milne, 4 P & B. (N. B.) 394. This case cannot now be followed. CALLING THE PANEL. (New). 667. If the array is not challenged, or if the triers find against the challenge, the officer of the court shall proceed to call the names of the jurors in the following manner: The name of each juror on the panel returned, with his number on the panel and the place of his abode, shall be written on a distinct piece of card, such cards being all as nearly as may be of an equal size. The cards shall be delivered to the officer of the court by the sheriff or other officer returning the panel, and shall, under the direction and care of the officer of the court, be put together in a box to be provided for that purpose, and shall be shaken together. 2. The officer of the court shall in open court draw out the said cards, one after another, and shall call out the name and number upon each such card as it is drawn, until such a number of persons have answered to their names as in the opinion of the court will probably be sufficient to provide a full jury after allowing for challenges of jurors and directions to stand by. 3. The officer of the court shall then proceed to swear the jury, each juror being called to swear in the order in which his name is so drawn, until, after subtracting all challenges allowed and jurors directed to stand by, twelve jurors are sworn. If the number so answering is not sufficient to provide a full jury such officer shall proceed to draw further names from the box, and call the same in manner aforesaid, until, after challenges allowed and directions to stand by, twelve jurors are sworn. 4. If by challenges and directions to stand by the panel is exhausted without leaving a sufficient number to form a jury those who have been directed to stand by shall be again called in the order in which they were drawn, and shall be sworn, unless challenged by the accused, or unless the prosecutor challenges them and shows cause why they should not be sworn: Provided that if before |