refused to amend a commitment by adding a necessary allegation that the previous information had been on oath; for, though they could assume that all the Justice's acts after he had jurisdiction were regular, they could assume nothing as to the acts which were to give jurisdiction. (Ex parte Ryan, July, 1854). If, however, the fact be stated in the conviction, the Court will not look to the depositions, but will amend the warrant of commitment by the former; for the depositions are only required by them where the conviction or warrant is defective; and they will not, under this section, look into the evidence for the purpose of rendering the commitment or conviction invalid, but for the purpose only of upholding them, if in want of such assistance to render them valid. Under this section, the information, if any, together with the depositions and conviction, should be returned. The latter is, in practice, seldom drawn up at once; but, if a defective one has been drawn up at the time, and a copy of it delivered to the defendant, on his application for it under s. 15, the Justices will not be bound by it, and a good one may subsequently be supplied. (Chaney v. Payne, 1 Q. B., 711, 722; Selwood v. Mount, 1 Q. B., 729; 2 C. & P., 75; R. v. Richards, 5 Q. B., 926). In a very recent case before the full Court, (in re Alfred Lawless,-April, 1860), the operation of s. 9, with regard to the amendment of commitments, was limited to cases in which the Justices had acted under their power of summary conviction, and therefore did not extend to the case in question, where the appellant had been committed on failing to find sureties to keep the peace. The language of s. 9 has not been found to be a very clear exposition of the manner in which it was intended to be practically worked. The defendant himself, or his Attorney, should give the required notice, and make the requisition to the Magistrates, either personally or by post. Practical Suggestions in working the Act].-The course recommended to the Justices to pursue, on receiving the notice and requisition mentioned in s. 9, is, if the conviction has not been previously drawn up, to cause it to be drawn up forthwith, and then to direct copies of that, and of all the depositions and information, if any, to be made and certified, either by themselves or by the clerk or party copying them. The whole, when copied, should be fastened securely together, and attached thereto should be a certificate on a separate piece of paper, bearing the following memorandum : Form of Certificate on transmission of Depositions, &c., by either the Justice or his Clerk. Between A. B., Complainant, and C. D., Defendant. Whereas, I, E. F., one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace, &c., by a notice bearing date, &c,, have been required to transmit to Her Majesty's Supreme Court of New South ), committing months, was founded, the accompanying information, depositions, and conviction (or order), are those which (or, that the accompanying documents are true copies of the information, &c., which, &c.) I have been so required to transmit, and which I hereby accordingly transmit, in pursuance of such requisitions. As witness my hand, this day of in the Colony aforesaid. at E. F. Where the Justice is absent, and the Clerk transmits and certifies the depositions, &c., the above Form may be easily altered to meet the case. The recital will be the same, excepting that the Justice will be spoken of in the third person, and the Clerk's name will not appear until the part commencing "Now I, &c.," which may be altered thus: "Now I, G. H., being the Clerk, &c.," and so on to the end. The depositions, &c., when ready for transmission, shall be directed according to the terms of the requisition respecting them. If one of the Judges be named, they should be enclosed, under cover, to him; or, if the directions are generally to transmit them "to the Supreme Court, or a Judge thereof," as would be the case, if the notice were given prior to the application for a Habeas, they should be directed to "The Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court Office." They should always be transmitted at the earliest possible opportunity, and, where it can be done, by return of post; or, if any unforeseen impediment should arise, a communication might be made to that effect to the Crown Solicitor. Transmission of Depositions, &c.]-If the recommendation previously given be attended to, of recording all the proceedings in summary cases in a book, only copies can be transmitted; but whether they be so recorded or not, the more proper course would be to send copies, and preserve the originals in their regular place of deposit. There is nothing under s. 9 which makes it imperative on the Justices to comply with the transmission of depositions, &c., or to furnish depositions for any purpose, except on the terms mentioned in s. 15; but they would, probably, for their own justification, not hesitate to transmit them, if required to do so by the party applying for his discharge. It is true that the party could have obtained such copies for his own use, by an application under s. 15; but as their production might cure any defect in the warrant under which he was committed, and the Court would only look at them for that purpose, it is unlikely, in many cases, that the defendant or his Attorney would take any step not required by the Act to cause them to be produced. There are certain cases, however, partaking of the nature rather of a civil action than of an offence concerning the public, where the Justices, when required to transmit the proceedings, on receiving notice of the defendant's application for his discharge, might reasonably expect "the prosecutor or party interested" to support the commitment, and to be at the trouble and expense of procuring copies of the depositions, &c., and "causing them to be transmitted" to the Court or a Judge for that purpose. It is left optional to the party giving notice, whether it shall be to the Justice before whom the case was heard, "or to the prosecutor or party interested," and as such notice may, by s. 11, be given either before or after the issue of a Habeas Corpus, it is not always in the power of the Court or a Judge to suggest, in the first instance, if they should think fit to do so, to whom notice should be given. Where, however, they had an opportunity of exercising a discretion in this respect, in all probability they would do so, if the particular case should seem to invite it. Suggestion to Attorneys].—As a preliminary to what may be required of the Justices, some directions are suggested by Sir W. A Beckett as to what should be done by a defendant or his Attorney, before applying for his discharge by Habeas Corpus on the ground of a defective commitment. In all cases, the proper course to pursue would be-first, to obtain copies of the depositions, information, and conviction, and to ascertain from their perusal, whether any defect discovered in the commitment, in respect of which an application for a Habeas is contemplated, is one which can be cured. If the Attorney sees clearly that, on inspection of the depositious, &c., by the Court, the defect will be curable, it is his duty to inform his client of that opinion, and its probable consequences; and he will do well to consider whether, after having formed such an opinion, he can conscientiously make the affidavit, or advise his client to do so, which is required by the Court or a Judge before directing a writ of Habeas Corpus to issue. It has been, however, too much the practice for Attorneys to make applications for a defendant's discharge from prison under a summary commitment, without taking the precaution above suggested, and the consequence, in many cases, has been a fruitless proceeding, and, of course, a fruitless expense. . Effect of Sec. 11].-Defendants may be so situated that the delay which must elapse before the Attorney could obtain the depositions, &c., would justify an application to the Court without them, if the commitment were clearly bad; and, of course, if it were incurably defective, no end could be attained by their production. Where, however, the depositions can be obtained without delay, the Attorney should always procure them; for if the defect in the commitment be not remedied by them, he can at once show that to the Court, and save the delay of a notice to the Justices; for, under s. 11, "where copies of the conviction or order and depositions shall be produced at the time of applying for the writ, it shall be lawful for the Court or a Judge to dispense with such notice, if such Court or Judge shall think fit." It is true that s. 9 prescribes both a notice of defendant's intention to apply for his discharge, and a requisition to transmit the depositions, &c.; but if these were already authen ticated before the Court at the time of applying for the writ, they would hardly consider it obligatory on them to go through the form of having a requisition made to the Justices to transmit them. Notice under Sec. 9].-Assuming, however, that the application has been made, or is intended to be made, for a Habeas Corpus before procuring the depositions, &c., the notice is recommended to be given, where practicable, both to the prosecutor and the Justices; for the Court or a Judge might possibly require, in the event of the latter only having had notice, and failed to transmit the depositions, that notice should be given also to the former. The notice might be in the following form :Form of Notice to either Justice or Prosecutor. Between A. B., Complainant, Take notice, that I, the above-named defendant, intend applying to Her Majesty's Supreme Court, or one of the Judges thereof, for a writ of Habeas Corpus, in order that I may be brought up on such day as the said Court or a Judge may appoint, for the purpose of praying that I may be discharged from my imprisonment, under a warrant issued by you, (or, by E. F., one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace, &c.), in the above case against me, and under which I have been committed to gaol, for a period of months; and I further give you notice, and require you to transmit (or, cause to be transmitted) to the Supreme Court, or one of the Judges thereof, the information, depositions, and conviction taken and made before you, (or, before the said Justice), in the above case, or certified copies thereof, with as little delay as possible, in order that the same may be laid before the said Court or a Judge, on such day as shall be appointed for hearing the application for my discharge. day of Dated this gaol. Service of Notice.-Address on letter enclosing Notice].-The notice may be given by the defendant's Attorney; but the Form will be, in other respects, the same as the above. If the notice be given after the Habeas has been made returnable, the day must of course be specified in the notice, and the name of the Judge or Court, as the case may be, stated. The parts between brackets mark the only variation necessary where notice is given to the prosecutor. If personal service can be readily effected, the Court would probably require that to be shown; but, having reference to the circumstances of the Colony, it has been in the habit of being satisfied. with service by post. No rule, however, can be laid down on the subject, and, in any event, a duplicate of the notice should be preserved, in order that the contents of the service may be clearly shown, as well as the time of its transmission, and the probability of its receipt by the party to whom it is addressed. It is suggested that the superscription of the envelope enclosing the notice to the Justices should be addressed to the Magistrate by name, or, the Clerk of the Bench where the conviction has taken place. If two Magistrates have convicted, notice to one is sufficient. The alternative address to the Justice or Clerk is recommended, because it would enable the latter-and might become his duty, in the absence of the former to certify and return the depositions, &c., under his own hand; for the Act, although it requires notice to be given to the Justices as to the transmission, does not require that it shall be made by them. - Court or Judge may admit to bail].-In addition to the above remarks, it is to be remembered that where any person, committed to prison by virtue of any summary conviction or order, shall be brought up by writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Court or Judge shall postpone the final decision of the case, such Court or Judge may admit such person to bail, with or without sureties, for his appearance at such time and place, and upon such conditions, as such Court or Judge may appoint. (S. 6 of 17 Vic., No. 9). Any Judge on circuit may exercise the powers given by these Acts. (S. 7). Proceedings against Erroneous Convictions].-The contents of ss. 12 & 13 (14 Vic., No. 43) will now be considered. Under these sections, a defendant may apply to the Supreme Court, or one of the Judges, for a prohibition to restrain the Justice or prosecuting party from proceeding in respect of any order or conviction, provided the application be made within a certain time, on an affidavit, "showing a primâ facie case of mistake or error on the part of the Justices." On the matter coming before the Court, they may test the conviction by the evidence, if it be attacked on the merits; and if it be assailed only on the ground of error or mistake, they may, if such error or mistake be amendable, direct the conviction or order to be amended accordingly; and, in all proceedings under these sections, a discretion is given them to award costs in such manner as they shall think fit. "The object of this enactment," says Mr. Justice Wise, (ex parte Lannoy,-20th March, 1860), "is to allow an amendinent whenever the truth and merits of the question, established by the actual proceedings before the Justices, show that the omission or mistake in the order would have been avoided if they had correctly understood the application of the law to the facts, provided the mistake did not affect the exercise of any discretionary power. It will be seen, also, from a full perusal of the above sections, that formerly, although the rule might issue calling on the Justices to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue, it could only be made returnable before the full Court in Term, or in some day in Vacation on which the Court sits as in Banco before two Judges, and could, of course, only be made absolute at either of those times. But, by s. 5 of the Amendment Act, (17 Vic., No. 39), jurisdiction has been given to any Judge of the Supreme Court, "if he shall think fit, as well in Term time as in Vacation, (in all cases where imprisonment shall have been directed, or where the fine awarded, or the amount ordered to be paid, or the value of the matter adjudicated upon, shall not exceed thirty pounds), to hear and determine applications for Writs of Prohibition directed to any Justice or Justices, and, for that purpose, to make such rules or orders, and issue such writs, and allow such amendments, as might have been made, issued, or allowed by the Court," subject, however, to be "discharged, varied, or set aside" by the full Court in Term. Ss. 12 & 13 of 14 Vic., No. 43, and s. 10 of 17 Vic., No. 39, it will be observed by practitioners, involve proceedings of a different nature from those prescribed by s. 9. In the first place, the affidavit must state distinctly the express ground of the application, and ought to show clearly on the face of the proceedings the particular error complained of. For this purpose, verified copies of all the proceedings ought to accompany the affidavits, in order that the Court may see whether there are any primâ facie grounds for the application; for, as the defendant himself may procure these under s. 15, the Court would not throw it upon the Justices to produce them in reply, but leave it to the defendant who complains of their insufficiency to establish that fact, if he can, by their production. By s. 10 of 17 Vic., No. 39, it is provided that, in every case where the facts or evidence appearing by the depositions shall in substance support the adjudication of the Justices, (provided such adjudication do not extend beyond the complaint or charge), and in every case where such facts or evidence would have justified or shall justify any necessary allegation or finding omitted in such adjudication, or in the formal conviction or order, or any warrant issued in pursuance of such adjudication, the powers of amendment conferred by this and the above-mentioned Act respectively shall and may be exercised; and where a conviction shall be bad in |