marks indi 531. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable Injuring or to seven years' imprisonment who wilfully pulls down, defaces, removing, alters or removes any mound, land mark, post or monument cating lawfully erected, planted or placed to mark or determine the boundaries of province, boundaries of any province, county, city, town, township, parish or other municipal division. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 505. Before the Code it was held that the misdemeanour mentioned in sec. 107 of C.S.C. ch. 77, from which R.S.C. ch. 168, secs. 56 and 57, and afterwards Code secs. 531 and 532 are derived could only be committed in relation to boundaries or landmarks which had been legally placed by a land surveyor or with all the formalities required by that statute to mark the limit or line between two adjoining owners, and did not apply to the boundary marks of an Indian reserve placed on government property, and removed upon a new survey by the authority of the Government department although the land marks had meanwhile been adopted as a parish boundary for local purposes. Reg. v. Austin (1885), 11 Que. L.R. 76, Tessier, J. county, etc. other bound 532. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable Injuring or to five years' imprisonment, who wilfully defaces, alters or removing 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. ary marks. 2. It is not an offence for any land surveyor in his opera- Saving. tions to take up such posts or other boundary marks when necessary, if he carefully replaces them as they were before. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 506. Surveyors' boundary posts.]-See note to sec. 531. Colour of right.]-See sec. 541. Trees, Vegetables, Roots and Plants. 533. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, on sum- Injuries to mary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding twenty-five dollars trees, etc. over and above the amount of the 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 Second offence, afterwards commits any such offence is liable, on sum- offence. mary 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. Subsequent offence.. Injuries to vegetable productions in gardens. Subsequent offence. 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. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 508. Form of charge.]-No information, summons, conviction, order or other proceeding shall be glad to charge two offences, or shall be held to be uncertain on account of its stating the offence to have been committed in different modes, or in respect of one or other of several articles, either conjunctively or disjunctively, for example, in charging an offence under sec. 533 it may be alleged that "the defendant unlawfully did cut, break, root up and otherwise destroy or damage a tree, sapling or shrub"; and it shall not be necessary to define more particularly the nature of the act done, or to state whether such act was done in respect of a tree, or a sapling, or a shrub. Code sec. 725. This probably dispenses with the necessity of using the word "wilfully" in describing this particular offence. Compensation to person aggrieved.]-Where the expression "over and above the amount of injury done," is used, it does not mean that the penalty "over and above, etc," is to go to the Crown and the sum assessed as "the amount of injury done" is to go to the party aggrieved. It is not intended that there shall be two penalties, but that the amount of the whole penalty shall be arrived at by ascertaining the damages and then adding thereto such sum, not exceeding $50, as the justice may deem proper. By sec. 539 provision is made whereby the justice may award a sum not exceeding $20 in the cases there mentioned, as "compensation" to be paid in the case of private property to the person aggrieved. If it had been intended that the "amount of injury done" mentioned in sec. 533 should be ascertained and paid as compensation to the aggrieved person, it is fair to expect it would have so stated. Why the justice should fix the penalty by first ascertaining the amount of damage done is explained by reference to sec. 729, which authorizes the justice for a first offence to discharge the offender from his conviction upon his paying the aggrieved person the damages and costs, or either, as ascertained by the justice. R. v. Tebo (1889), 1 Terr. L.R. 196. Colour of right.]-See sec. 541. Proving previous conviction.]-See sec. 982. 534. 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. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 509. Colour of right.]-See sec. 541. Proving previous conviction.]-See sec. 982. 535. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, on sum- Injuries to mary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding five dollars over roots or plant growand above the amount of the injury done, or to one month's ing elseimprisonment with or without hard labour, who wilfully de- where. stroys, 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. offence. 2. Every one who, having been convicted of any such offence, Subsequent afterwards commits any such offence is liable, on summary conviction, to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 510. Colour of right.]-See sec. 541. Proving previous conviction.]-See sec. 982. Cattle and Other Animals. 536. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable Penalty. to two years' imprisonment who wilfully,— (a) attempts to kill, maim, wound, poison or injure any Attempt to cattle, or the young thereof; or, injure cattle. (b) places poison in such a position as to be easily partaken Poison of by any such animal. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 500. cattle. animals. 537. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, on sum- Injuries to mary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars other over and above the amount of injury done, or to three months' imprisonment with or without hard labour, who wilfully kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures any dog, bird, beast, or other animal, not being cattle, but being either the subject of larceny at common law, or being ordinarily kept in a state of confinement, or kept for any lawful purpose. 2. Every one who, having been convicted of any such offence, Subsequent afterwards commits any offence under this section, is guilty offence. of an indictable offence, and liable to a fine or imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the court. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 501. As to injuries to cattle see sec. 510 (B) (b), and the statutory definition of the word cattle in sec. 2 (5). Punishment on indictment.]-See sec. 1052 as to offences under the second sub-section. Enforcing penalty on summary conviction.]-See sec. 739 and 740. Threats by letters to injure cattle. Injuries to other pro perty. Penalty. Damage. Imprisonment. Award of costs and damages to owner.]-Where separate convictions have been irregularly made upon one information for killing two dogs, the magistrate may return to a certiorari a single amended conviction conforming to the minute of adjudication and apportioning the fine and damages for the killing of each dog. The award of costs to the owner of the dog on whose behalf his wife had laid the information, instead of to the informant is a mere irregularity which is cured by sec. 1124 of the Code. Ex parte Grey (1906), 12 Can. Cr. Cas. 481 (N.B.). 538. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who sends, delivers or utters, or directly or indirectly causes to be received, knowing the contents thereof, any letter or writing threatening to kill, maim, wound, poison or injure any cattle. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 502. Under sec. 510 it is an indictable offence to wilfully destroy or damage any cattle, or the young thereof, by killing, maiming, poisoning or wounding, and by sec. 2 (5) the term "cattle" includes any horse mule, ass, swine, sheep or goat, as well as any neat cattle or animal of the bovine species, and by whatever technical or familiar name known, and shall apply to one animal as well as to many. This definition seems wide enough of itself to include the young of any of the animals of the classes mentioned. It will be observed that threats to kill a dog or other animals not being cattle (see sec. 537) are not within this section. Cases not Specially Provided for. 539. 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, to be paid in the case of private property to the person aggrieved. 2. 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. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 511. Evidence.]-In Gayford v. Chouler, [1898] 1 Q.B. 316, the defendant walked across the respondent's field after notice to desist, and injured the high grass to the extent of 6d., and it was held by Day and Lawrance, JJ., that this constituted a malicious injury to property, for which the appellant could properly be convicted. In Roper v. Knott, [1898] 1 Q.B. 686, the defendant was a milk carrier in the employment of the prosecutor, and the alleged offence consisted in adding water to the milk delivered to him for carriage to the prosecutor's customers. The magistrate found that the addition was made for the purpose of enabling the defendant to make a profit for himself by selling the surplus milk and not accounting for it, but that there was no intention to injure the prosecutor. The court for Crown cases reserved held that an intention to injure the owner of the property was not essential to the offence and that the defendant should be convicted. 518. Railway property.]-See the Railway Act and Code secs. 510, 517 and Uncertainty in conviction.]-Upon a summary conviction under Code sec. 539 for wilful injury to property it is necessary that the conviction should specify the particular act done and the nature of the property damaged, otherwise the conviction will be void for uncertainty and will not support a commitment in similar terms. The King v. Leary, 8 Can. Cr. Cas. 141. But by Code sec: 725, "no information, summons, conviction, order or other proceeding shall be held to charge two offences, or shall be held to be uncertain on account of its stating the offence to have been committed in different modes or in respect of one or other of several articles, either conjunctively or disjunctively." Nor is it a sufficient objection to an information or summary conviction that it does not contain the name of the person injured or that it does not state who is the owner, or specify the means by which the offence was committed, or that it does not name or describe with precision any person or thing but particulars may be ordered to be given by the prosecutor as to these, if the justice thinks it necessary for a fair trial. Code sec. 723. A conviction which alleged that the defendant unlawfully and maliciously committed damage, injury and spoil to and upon the real and personal property of the prosecutor, but did not allege the particular act done and the nature and quality of the property damaged, was held bad for uncertainty. Re Donelly, 20 U.C.C.P. 165; R. v. Spain (1889), 18 Ont. R. 385; R. v. Coulson (1893), 1 Can. Cr. Cas. 114. A conviction under this section should clearly shew whether the damage, injury or spoil complained of, is done to real or personal property, stating what property, and what is the amount which the justice has ascertained to be reasonable compensation. R. v. Caswell (1870), 20 U.C.C.P. 275. Claim of right.]-See secs. 540 and 541. Limitation. Fair claim 540. Nothing in the last preceding section extends to,- (b) any trespass, not being wilful and malicious, committed Sporting. Claim of right.]—In R. v. Clemens, [1898] 1 Q.B. 556, the court for |