some distance from the court house, but in the same town. Gurney, B., directed that a messenger be sent to bring the stolen article and that another case be proceeded with, but that the prisoner be not taken from the dock. On the return of the messenger with the stolen article, the trial was resumed, several other cases having been tried in the meantime. And where, owing to the detention of a train, the witnesses for the prosecution had not arrived, and the case for the prosecution had been opened, the trial was adjourned and the jury locked up. R. v. Foster, 3 Car. & K. 206. On a trial for bigamy before Willes, J., and a jury in 1864, the jury were sworn, and counsel for the prosecution opened the case and called and examined the first witness. The other witnesses, on being called, did not answer, being temporarily absent, and Willes, J., said: "I could have adjourned the case, if no evidence had been called, but not after evidence called. If the witnesses do not appear, the prisoner is entitled to be acquitted for want of evidence." R. v. Robson (1864), 4 F. & F. 360. In R. v. Parr (1862), 2 F. & F. 861, it was held by Wightman, J., that on a jury trial for felony the judge has no authority to order an adjournment to another day, because of the absence of the prosecutor and his witnesses, after the prisoner had been arraigned and given in charge of the jury; and in a note to the report a similar ruling is referred to as having been made by Alderson, B. (2 F. & F. 862). 839. The judge shall have all the powers of amendment Powers of which are possessed by any court before which an indictment amendment. may be tried under this Act. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 778. Powers of amendment.]-An amendment of a charge under the speedy trials clauses, should not be allowed if it involves the investigation of entirely new facts not disclosed in the depositions. The King v. Clark, 9 Can. Cr. Cas. 125. A county judge holding a speedy trial upon a charge of seduction may substitute a new charge to conform to the evidence of the prosecution by stating it as of a prior date upon which a different occurrence is sought to be proved, but such substitution is subject to the right of the accused to re-elect the mode of trial. As regards the offence of seduction the change of the date of the alleged offence by an amendment of the indictment or charge is in substance the laying of a new charge to which a different defence might be applicable. Sections 889 and 890 annly to authorize an amendment as to time or place in a speedy trial charge without re-election, only where the act or transaction which forms the foundation of the charge is the same, and a mistake was made in the evidence or charge as to the true date of the occurrence. The King v. Lacelle, 10 Can. Cr. Cas. 229. secute or 840. Any recognizance taken under section six hundred Recognizand ninety-two, for the purpose of binding a prosecutor or a ance to prowitness, shall, if the person committed for trial elects to be give evitried under the provisions of this Part, be obligatory on each dence. of the persons bound thereby, as to all things therein men- Obligatory. tioned with reference to the trial by the judge under this Part, as if such recognizance had been originally entered into for the doing of such things with reference to such trial: Pro Notice. Witnesses to attend throughout trial. Contempt. Warrant may issue for witness. Detention or release on vided that at least forty-eight hours' notice in writing shall be given, either personally or by leaving the same at the place of residence of the persons bound by such recognizance as therein described, to appear before the judge at the place where such trial is to be had. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 779. 841. Every witness, whether on behalf of the prisoner or against him, duly summoned or subpoenaed to attend and give evidence before the judge sitting on any such trial on the day appointed for the same shall be bound to attend and remain in attendance throughout the trial. 2. If he fails so to attend he shall be held guilty of contempt of court, and may be proceeded against therefor accordingly. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 780. 842. Upon proof to the satisfaction of the judge of the service of a subpoena upon any witness who fails to attend before him as required by such subpoena, and upon such judge being satisfied that the presence of such witness before him is indispensable to the ends of justice, he may, by his warrant, cause the said witness to be apprehended and forthwith brought before him to give evidence as required by such subpoena, and to answer for his disregard of the same. 2. Such witness may be detained on such warrant before the thereunder said judge, or in the common gaol, with a view to secure his recognizance, presence as a witness; or, in the discretion of the judge, such witness may be released on recognizance with or without sureties, conditioned for his appearance to give evidence as therein mentioned, and to answer for his default in not attending upon the said subpoena, as for a contempt. Contempt. Penalty. Forms. 3. The judge may, in a summary manner, examine into and dispose of the charge of contempt against any such witness who, if found guilty thereof, may be fined or imprisoned, or both, such fine not to exceed one hundred dollars, and such imprisonment to be in the common gaol, with or without hard labour, and not to exceed the term of ninety days, and he may also be ordered to pay the costs incident to the execution of such warrant and of his detention in custody. 4. Such warrant may be in form 62 and the conviction for contempt in form 13, and the same shall be authority to the persons and officers therein required to act to do as they are therein respectively directed. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 781. PART XIX. PROCEDURE BY INDICTMENT. General Provisions as to Indictments. 843. It shall not be necessary for any indictment or any Need not be record or document relative to any criminal case to be written on parch on parchment. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 608. Indictments generally.]—“Wherever a person does an act which a statute on public grounds, has prohibited generally, he is liable to an indictment." Lord Denman, C.J., in Regina v. Buchanan, 8 Q.B. at p. 887. But where, in the clause containing the prohibition, a particular mode of enforcing the prohibition is prescribed, and the offence is new, that mode only can be pursued. The case is then as if the statute had simply declared that the party doing the act was liable to the particular punishment. Ibid. ment. 844. It shall not be necessary to state any venue in the Statement body of any indictment, and the district, county or place named of venue. in the margin thereof shall be the venue for all the facts stated in the body of the indictment. 2. If local description is required such local description shall Local be given in the body of the indictment. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 609. description. Venue.]-The venue mentioned in sec. 844 of the Criminal Code, means the place where the crime is charged to have been committed and, in cases where local description is not required, there is an implied allegation that the offence was committed at the place mentioned in the venue in the margin of the record. It is of no consequence whether or not the trial court should be considered an inferior court. Smitheman v. The King, 9 Can. Cr. Cas. 17, 35 Can. S.C.R. 490. In indictments for embezzlement, where the money has been received in one county and the receipt denied in another county, the venue has been holden to be well laid in either county. And in this and in all other cases in which the offence is begun in one county and completed in another, the venue may be laid in either county. R. v. Murdoch, 8 English Law and Equity Reports, 577; R. v. Taylor, 2 Leach, 974. The offence of fraudulent conversion of the proceeds of a valuable security, mentioned in Code sec. 355, consists of a continuity of acts-the reception of the valuable security, the collection of the proceeds, the conversion of the proceeds, and lastly, the failure to account for the proceeds; and where the beginning of the operation is in one district and the continuation and completion are in another district, the accused may be arrested and proceeded against in either district. R. v. Hogle (1896), 5 Can. Cr. Cas. 53. The place of trial-the venue is usually the place of the crime, i.e., the same county, district or place; and the trial then takes place by a 43-CRIM. CODE. Unnecessary statement. Form. Mistake in heading immaterial. Indictment for pretend ing to send money, etc., in letter. jury of that county or district taken from a panel summoned by the sheriff of the same. Mallot v. R. (1886), 1 B.C.R. pt. 2, p. 212; Sproule v. R., 1 B.C.R., pt. 2, p. 219, and sub-nom. Re Sproule, 12 Can. S.C.R. 140. But by reason of the extended jurisdiction of justices to hold preliminary enquiries in certain cases although the offences were not within the terri tory for which they were commissioned to be justices (see secs. 584-588), a committal for trial, and consequently the trial itself may be in another district. A justice has under sec. 653 jurisdiction to compel the attendance of an accused person for the purpose of a preliminary enquiry to be held by him if the charge against the person accused is that he has committed an indictable offence in any part of the same province, and is, or is suspected to be, or resides, or is suspected to reside, within the territorial limits of the justice's district. Section 653. Jurisdiction also attaches on a charge of receiving stolen property, if the theft took place within the justice's limits, or if the accused has the stolen property within such limits in his possession, although stolen or unlawfully acquired or unlawfully received elsewhere. Section 653. If, however, an accused person is brought before a justice charged with an offence committed out of the limits of the latter's jurisdiction but over which he has jurisdiction by reason only of such special provisions, the justice has a discretion after hearing both the prosecution and the defence on the question of removal, and at any stage of the preliminary enquiry, to order the accused to be taken by a constable before a justice whose territorial jurisdiction extends over the place where the offence was committed. Section 615. Objection to venue.]-An objection to the jurisdiction in respect of venue had formerly to be raised by a special plea to the indictment. R. v. O'Rourke, 1 O.R. 464, which plea was required to be duly verified by affidavit or otherwise. R. v. Malott (1885), 1 B.C.R., pt. 2, p. 207; Malott v. R. (1886), 1 B.C.R., pt. 2, p. 212; but sec. 631 abolishes that form of special plea, and any such ground of defence may now be relied on under the plea of not guilty. Section 905 (2). Change of venue.]-See secs. 884-886. 845. It shall not be necessary to state in any indictment that the jurors present upon oath or affirmation. 2. It shall be sufficient if an indictment begins according to form 63, or to the like effect. 3. Any mistake in the heading shall upon being discovered be forthwith amended, and whether amended or not shall be immaterial. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 610. Courts with jurisdiction to try indictment.]-See secs. 580, 582 and 583. Special Cases. 846. It shall not be necessary to allege, in any indictment against any person for wrongfully and wilfully pretending or alleging that he inclosed and sent, or caused to be inclosed and sent, in any post letter, any money, valuable security or chattel, or to prove on the trial, that the act was done with intent to defraud. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 618. Falsely pretending to mail money.]-See sec. 407. etc. 847. Every indictment for treason, or for an offence against Indictment any of the sections, seventy-six to eighty-six inclusive, shall for treason, state overt acts, and no evidence shall be admitted of any overt act not stated unless it is otherwise relevant as tending to prove some overt act stated. 2. The power of amending indictments in this Part contained Amendment. shall not extend to authorize the court to add to the overt acts stated in the indictment. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 614. 848. An indictment may be preferred against any person Indictment who steals any chattel let to be used by him in or with any for stealing by tenant or house or lodging, or who steals any fixture so let to be used, lodger. in the same form as if the offender was not a tenant or lodger, and in either case the property may be laid in the owner or person letting to hire. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 625. Theft of fixtures, etc., by lodger.]-See sec. 360. fact and 849. Every one charged with being an accessory after the Accessories fact to any offence, or with receiving any property knowing after the it to have been stolen, may be indicted, whether the principal receivers. offender or other party to the offence or person by whom such property was so obtained has or has not been indicted or convicted, or is or is not amenable to justice, and such accessory may be indicted either alone as for a substantive offence or jointly with such principal or other offender or person. 2. When any property has been stolen any number of re- Joining ceivers at different times of such property, or of any part or receivers. parts thereof, may be charged with substantive offences in the same indictment, and may be tried together, whether the person by whom the property was so obtained is or is not indicted with them, or is or is not in custody or amenable to justice. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 627. Accessories after the fact.]—See secs. 71 (definition); 76 (in treason); 267 (in murder); 574 and 575 (punishment). Receivers.]-See secs. 399-403 (punishment), and 954, 993 and 994 (procedure and evidence). If it be proved that one of the persons charged with jointly receiving, separately received any part of the property, the jury may convict him separately under the indictment against two or more. Section 954. 850. In any indictment against any person employed in the Indictment post office of Canada for any offence against this Act, or against in respect to any person for an offence committed in respect of any person |