a carriage way from the turnpike-road to the top of Orme House Hill, and from thence to Gravesend it was a footway, and the nuisance alleged was between the top of Orme House Hill and Gravesend; it was held that the indictment might be amended by substituting a description of a footway running from Orme House Hill to Gravesend as this appeared to be the very sort of case for which the statute provides: R. v. Sturge, 3 E. & B. 734.

Where an indictment for perjury alleged that the crime was committed on a trial for burning a barn, and it was proved that the actual charge was one of firing a stack of barley, it was held that the words stack of barley might be inserted instead of barn: R. v. Neville, 6 Cox, 69.

Where the indictment stated that the prisoner had committed perjury at the hearing of a summons before the magistrates charging a woman with being " drunk" whereas the summons was really for being "drunk and disorderly," the court held that it had power, under this statute, to amend the indictment by adding the words “and disorderly": R. v. Tymms, 11 Cox, 645.

In an indictment for perjury the perjury was alleged to have been committed at a petty sessions of the peace, at Tiverton, in the county of Devon, before John Lane and Samuel Garth, then respectively being justices of the peace assigned to keep the peace in and for the said county, and acting in and for the borough of Tiverton, in the said county. It appeared by the proof that these gentlemen were justices for the borough of Tiverton only, and were not justices for the county. Blackburn, J., allowed the indictment to be amended by striking out the words, the said county, so as to make the averment be, "justices assigned to keep the peace in and for, and acting in and for the borough of Tiverton, in the said county." The court of criminal appeal held that the judge had power so to amend: R. v. Western, 11 Cox, 93.

The secretary of a friendly society, of which A. B. and others were the trustees, was charged with embezzling

money belonging to the society. In the indictment, the property was laid as of "A. B. and others," without alleging that they were trustees of the society: held, that the indictment might be amended by adding the words, “trustees of" R. v Marks, 10 Cox, 367; see R. v. Senecal, 8 L. C. J. 287.

The description of an Act of parliament in an indictment may be amended: R. v. Westley, Bell, 193.

In an indictment for larceny of property belonging to a banking company the property was laid to be in the manager of the bank; the banking business was carried on by a joint-stock banking company, and there were more than twenty partners or shareholders. The judge amended the indictment by stating the property to be in "W. (one of the partners) and others:" held, that this amendment was right: R. v. Pritchard, L. & C. 34, 8 Cox, 461.

But an amendment changing the offence charged to another offence should not be allowed. Where the prisoner was indicted for a statutable felonious forgery, but the evidence only sustained a forgery at common law, the prosecutor was not allowed to amend the indictment by striking out the word "feloniously," and thus convert a charge of felony into one of misdemeanour: R. v. Wright, 2 F. & F. 320.

So upon an indictment for having carnal knowledge of a girl between ten and twelve years of age, it appearing by the proof that she was under ten, Maule, J., held that the indictment could not be amended: R. v. Shott, 3 C. & K. 206.

The words "felonious" or "feloniously," if omitted, can never be allowed to be inserted: 1 Russ, 935, note (a) by Greaves. An amendment altering the nature or quality of the offence charged cannot be allowed.

When an indictment against two bankrupts alleged that they embezzled a part of their personal estate to the value of £10-to wit, certain bank-notes and certain

moneys, and it rather seemed that the money converted was foreign money, it was held that "moneys" meant English moneys, and the court refused to amend the indictment: R. v. Davison, 7 Cox, 158. But Greaves is of opinion that the case seems to be one in which an amendment clearly might have been made: 3 Russ. 327.

An indictment alleged that the prisoner pretended that he had served a certain order of affiliation on J. Bell; but the evidence was, that the prisoner had said that he had left the order with the landlady at the Chesterfield Arms, where Bell lodged, he being out; it was held that this variance was not amendable under the English statute, as it was not a variance in the name or description of any matter or thing named or described in the indictment: R. v. Bailey, 6 Cox, 29. But in Canada such a variance would be amendable, being covered by the more general terms of the statute.

A woman charged with the murder of her husband was described as " A., wife of J. O., late of ," the judge ordered this to be amended by striking out the word " wife,” and inserting the word "widow: R. v. Orchard, 8 C. & P. 565.

Where, in an indictment for false pretenses, the words "with intent to defraud " are omitted, the indictment is bad, and cannot be amended under this statute: per Lush, J., R. v. James, 12 Cox, 127. The form given in form F. F. schedule one under s. 611, ante, omits the words "with intent to defraud."

An indictment charged the prisoner with stealing nineteen shillings and sixpence. At the trial, it was objected by the prisoner's counsel that there was no case, for the evidence showed that if the prisoner was guilty of stealing anything it was of stealing a sovereign. Thereupon the court amended the indictment by striking out the words nineteen shillings and sixpence," and inserting in lieu thereof

one sovereign." The jury found the prisoner guilty of

stealing a sovereign: held, that the court had power to amend under the 14 & 15 V. c. 100, s. 1: R. v. Gumble, 12 Cox, 248.

The words" with intent to defraud " allowed to be struck out of an indictment: R. v. Cronin, 36 U. C. Q. B. 342.

If an indictment for libel contains merely a general allegation that the newspaper in which it appeared circulated in the district of Montreal, an amendment for the purpose of alleging publication in that District of the special article complained of is not allowable: R. v. Hickson, 3 L. N. 139.

Where two or more names are laid in an indictment under an alias dictum, proof of one only will be sufficient: R. v. Jacobs, 16 S. C. R. 433.

FORM OF RECORD.

726. In making up the record of any conviction or acquittal on any indictment it shall be sufficient to copy the indictment with the plea pleaded thereto, without any formal caption or heading; and the statement of the arraignment and the proceedings subsequent thereto shall be entered of record in the same manner as before the passing of this Act, subject to any such alterations in the forms of such entry as are, from time to time, prescribed by any rule or rules of the superior courts of criminal jurisdiction respectively,—which rules shall also apply to such inferior courts of criminal jurisdiction as are therein designated. R. S. C. c. 174, s. 244.

There is no statutory enactment, in England, corresponding to this one, and there the caption has, yet, to be entered of record immediately before the indictment, when the record has to be made up in form.

The record of judicial proceedings in criminal cases is always, in the first instance, taken down by the clerk of the court in the way of short entries made upon his docket, or of endorsements upon papers filed, and the like. When he has to make the extended record, or record proper, resort is had to these docket entries, to the documents filed, and to the several endorsements upon them, which serve as memoranda for him. The record, formally made up, is the history or narration of the proceedings in the case, stating:

1st. The court before which the indictment was found, and where and when holden.

2ndly. The grand jurors by whom it was found.

3rdly. The time and place where it was found, and that the indictment was found under oath.

(These three particulars form the caption.)
4thly. The indictment.

5thly. The appearance or bringing in of the defendant

into court.

6thly. The arraignment.

7thly. The plea.

8thly. The joinder in issue, or similiter.
9thly. The award of the jury process.

10thly. The verdict.

11thly. The allocutus, or asking of the defendant why sentence should not be passed on him.

12thly. The sentence.

It is probably now only to prove autrefois acquit or autrefois convict that it will be necessary to draw up a formal record, as ss. 694, 695 and 743 take away the necessity of so doing in the other cases where it could have been wanted.

The necessity of a formal caption or heading to a madeup record is taken away by section 726.

The caption of the indictment is no part of the indictment itself, but only the style or preamble thereto, the formal history of the proceedings before the grand jury: 2 Hale, 165; 1 Starkie, Cr. Pl. 233. 2 Hawk. 349: 1 Chit. 325; Archbold, 37; 1 Bishop, Cr. Proc. 655.

The form of the caption is as follows: Dominion of Canada.

Province of Quebec. J

In the Court of Queen's Bench,
Crown Side.

District of Quebec.-Be it remembered, that at a term of the Court of Queen's Bench, crown side, holden at the