opinion "that the same jury ought not to be called upon to reconsider the same facts which have induced them to throw out a bill on a similar bill being presented to them." On the whole, therefore, the rule, as modified by the words in brackets, appears to contain the law.

If a bill which had been ignored at one sessions or assizes were to be presented to a grand jury at an ensuing sessions or assizes, it seems safe to say that, in the absence of special considerations, such as the discovery of fresh evidence, the judge would tell the grand jury to again ignore it.

RULE 74.-On a joint indictment for murder against two or more persons, a grand jury may find a true bill for murder against one and a true bill for manslaughter against another, but the latter finding will be treated as a nullity, and a fresh indictment for manslaughter should be preferred (R. v. Butt, 4 Cox, 457), or they may find a true bill against one for murder and no true bill against another (R. v. Cholmeley, Cro. Car. 464).

It is stated in a leading text-book that on such an indictment as above, a true bill for manslaughter may be found against all indicted, but this I cannot but think is wrong. It is, however, hardly necessary to discuss the point, as in practice the jury, if they wished to find such a bill on such an indictment, would ask the Court to change the indictment to one of manslaughter and then find it.

RULE 75.-If the grand jury at sessions find a bill which is outside the jurisdiction of sessions, or which, owing to the magnitude of the offence charged or other circumstances, should be tried in a Superior Court, the bill may, in the discretion of the justices (with which discretion the Court will not interfere), by virtue of the Commission of the Peace, be transmitted to the assizes, or to the Central Criminal Court, where such Court has jurisdiction, for trial (R. v. Wetherell, R. & R. 381; R. v. Wildman, 12 Cox, 354).

See also 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 36, s. 19; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 58, ss. 2, 3; 52 & 53 Vict. c. 12, s. 5; and 59 & 60 Vict. c. 57.

CHAPTER IV.

THE INDICTMENT-PARTICULARS-ESSENTIALS—DUPLI

CITY-MISJOINDER-APPEARANCE.

RULE 76.-The first duty of counsel for the defence is to examine the indictment and see that it is in all respects unexceptionable, and that all necessary formalities have been observed.

RULE 77.-In high treason and misprision of treason, the prisoner must be furnished with a copy of the indictment, a list of the witnesses for the Crown, and a copy of the jury panel ten days before arraignment (7 Anne, c. 21, s. 11, and 6 Geo. 4, c. 50, s. 21), or if the trial is in the King's Bench the jury panel may be delivered after arraignment so that it is not delivered less than ten days before the trial, and in any case the panel must be delivered in the presence of two credible witnesses wherever the place of trial may be, provided that the act charged is not the assassination of the King or any direct attempt against his life or person (39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 93; 57 Geo. 3, c. 6, s. 1; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 51, s. 3).

If a copy of an indictment is not delivered within the proper time in the cases where it is of right, there will be a postponement of the trial to give time for the proper delivery (R. v. Frost, 4 St. Tr. N. S. 85; 2 Mood. C. C. 140; 9 C. & P. 163; 4 Jur. 53). In all cases other than treason and misprision of treason, there is no right to a copy of the indictment, except in the High Court, as to which it is provided by C. O. R. 138 that a party may obtain a copy on payment of the proper charges; and in Excise cases (7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 53, s. 42).

Except in the cases referred to above, the indictment is not shown to the defence until after the bill has been found, when

it is always at the service of the accused. Depositions taken before magistrates can be obtained in all cases after committal for trial on payment (see 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 27, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 4, and 42 & 43 Vict. c. 22, s. 5).

The same applies to depositions taken before coroners (50 & 51 Vict. c. 71, s. 18, sub-s. 5). A person charged on a coroner's inquisition with murder or manslaughter must be supplied with a copy on payment (see R. v. Greenacre, 8 C. & P. 32).

RULE 78.-In cases of barratry, Particulars should be delivered without demand.

1 Hawk. C. 81, s. 13.

RULE 79.-In other cases, e.g., nuisance, offences relating to highways, conspiracy and embezzlement, obscene libel (51 & 52 Vict. c. 64, s. 7), Particulars of the acts charged should be asked for if desired. Application should be first made to the prosecution, and on refusal to the judge by motion supported by affidavits.

R. v. Hodgson, 3 C. & P. 422; R. v. Bootyman, 5 C. & P. 300, which were cases of embezzlement.

If particulars are ordered and not delivered, application should be made to put off the trial; but see R. v. Esdaile, 1 F. & F. 213, 227. If delivered, counsel are not allowed to go outside them. RULE 80.-An indictment consists of three parts:(1.) The Commencement; (2.) The Statement; (3.) The Conclusion.

The Commencement consists of the Presentment and the Venue. The Statement is the part in which the essentials of the charge are set out, and the Conclusion is the formal ending. The example given below will make this definition clear, the italicised words being explanatory.

Middlesex The jurors for our Lord the King upon their to wit oath present (presentment) that A. B., on the (the venue). 1st day of January in the year of our Lord 1903, three watches, of the goods and chattels of C. D.,

feloniously did steal, take and carry away (statement); against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lord the King, his Crown and dignity (conclusion).

RULE 81. An indictment must be presented within the time limited, if any, in a Court having jurisdiction to entertain the same.

The above rule is described more fully supra, pp. 35-39.

RULE 82.-The Statement of the indictment must set out clearly and consistently all the facts which are the essentials of the offence charged.

RULE 83.-The Christian name and surname of the defendant should be given if known; and if not known, he should be described; e.g., as "a person whose name is unknown to the jurors, but who is personally brought before the jurors by the keepers of the prison."

By 14 & 15 Vict. 100, ss. 1 and 24, power is given to the Court to amend an indictment in which, by the evidence given at the trial, the Christian name and/or surname of the defendant is incorrectly given, unless such variance is material to the merits of the case, and the amendment would be prejudicial to the defence on the merits.

Nowadays, as will be shown in detail in the rules dealing with motions to quash, nothing short of a material objection will invalidate an indictment.

RULE 84.-The name, Christian and surname, of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed must be set out in the indictment, unless such person is unknown, when he should be described as "a person to the jurors aforesaid unknown."

The name may be either that of baptism or reputation (R. v. Clark, R. & R. 358. And see 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, ss. 1, 24,

which gives ample power of amendment if the name is incorrectly set out).

RULE 85. The time or place of an alleged offence need not be stated in an indictment unless it is of the essence of the offence.

14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, ss. 23, 24.

It is necessary in indictments for burglary to allege that the offence was commitled during the night (see also R. v. Brown, M. & M. 163).

The place, or what is termed "local description," must be given in the following cases :-Indictments for not repairing a highway; burglary; housebreaking; stealing in a dwellinghouse; forcible entry; and all others which charge offences in their nature local.

RULE 86.-The value or price of any matter or thing, or amount of damage, need not be set out unless it is of the essence of the offence

14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 24.

An indictment under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 60, for stealing in a dwelling-house to the amount of 51. is an instance of a case where value is of the essence of the offence.

RULE 87.-An indictment for stealing the goods of a dead man must state them to be the property of the executor (whether the will has been proved or not) or administrator.

2 Hale, 181; 2 East, P. C. 652.

In the case of an intestacy, and before grant of letters of administration, the property may be laid in the name of the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice (21 & 22 Vict. c. 95, s. 19).

RULE 88.—In an indictment for larceny from— (1.) A bailee; the property may be laid in either the bailor or bailee (2 Hale, 181);

(2.) An unincorporated company; in the individuals composing it;