to which reference has been made, it has occurred that, with a singular inattention to this fact, other statutes have become law containing very unnecessarily numerous clauses, merely to effect the object of the beforementioned enactment.

The information.]—It being determined to proceed for any given offence by way of summary conviction, the first step to be taken is that of laying an information or making a complaint. Upon this subject the 1st section of the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, enacts :

That in all cases where an information shall be laid before one or more of her majesty's justices of the peace for any county, riding, division, city, borough, or place within England and Wales, that any person has committed or is suspected to have committed any offence or act within the jurisdiction of such justice or justices, for which he is liable by law upon a summary conviction for the same before a justice or justices of the peace to be imprisoned or fined, or otherwise punished, and also in all cases where a complaint shall be made to any such justice or justices upon which he or they have or may have authority by law to make any order for the payment of money or otherwise; then and in every such case it shall be lawful for such justice or justices of the peace to issue his or their summons, directed to such person, stating shortly the matter of such information or complaint, and requiring him to appear at a certain time and place before the same justice or justices, or before such other justice or justices of the same county, riding, division, liberty, city, borough, or place, as shall then be there, to answer to the said information or complaint, and to be further dealt with according to law.

In order, therefore, to initiate proceedings, an information should be made in the case of a proceeding with a view to a summary conviction, or a complaint in the event of an order being desired. To this end, application should be made to a justice for a summons or warrant, according to circumstances.

When to be upon oath—or in writing-by whom it may be laid.]-Unless the particular statute requires it, the information or complaint need not be in writing,

nor upon oath, and may be made by the complainant or informant in person, or by his attorney or any other person by his authority. Upon this subject, section 10 of the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, enacts:

That every such complaint upon which a justice or justices of the peace is or are or shall be authorized by law to make an order, and that every information for any offence or act punishable upon summary conviction, unless some particular act of Parliament shall otherwise require, may respectively be made or laid without any oath or affirmation being made of the truth thereof, except in cases of informations where the justice or justices receiving the same shall thereupon issue his or their warrant in the first instance to apprehend the defendant as aforesaid; and in every such case where the justice or justices shall issue his or their warrant in the first instance, the matter of such information shall be substantiated by the oath or affirmation of the informant, or by some witness or witnesses on his behalf, before any such warrant shall be issued; and every such complaint shall be for one matter of complaint only, and not for two or more matters of complaint; and every such information shall be for one offence only, and not for two or more offences; and every such complaint or information may be made or laid by the complainant or informant in person, or by his counsel or attorney, or other person authorized in that behalf.

Although the information or complaint need not be in writing (unless expressly required to be so by the particular act of Parliament), it will be convenient that it should be so in all cases out of the common run; in which case the form given at the end of this chapter may be adopted.

The 10th section, as we have before seen, not only dispenses with any oath or affirmation in support of a complaint or information, but directs that it may be laid or made by the complainant or informant in person, or by his counsel or attorney, or other person authorized in that behalf. This must be taken, however, as applicable to those cases only where the particular party to lay the information or make the complaint is not pointed out by the particular statute; for in cases in which he is so pointed out he only can do the act. Formerly, where, under certain statutes, portions of

the fines or penalties were to be awarded to the informant, it became of importance to see that the information was not laid at the instance of one whose testimony was necessary to support the case; since, as his interest would have excluded his evidence, the information would thereby have stood greatly in peril of falling to the ground. Now, however, as all objections on the ground of interest in the informant are at an end (14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 2), it is immaterial who lays the information, unless, as was before observed, some particular person is indicated by the statute.

Amendment of.]-Where the information (if in writing) is laid in respect of some offence governed by the practice under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, its technical accuracy is not a matter of very much importance, since by sections 1 and 9 of that statute no objections are to be allowed to any information, complaint, or summons for any alleged defect in substance or form, or for any variance between such information, complaint, or summons and the evidence adduced; but if such variation is calculated to deceive or mislead, the hearing may be adjourned. In such a case, therefore, an informality or defect in the information or complaint is of little importance; but in those numerous cases which are not governed by the practice under the before-mentioned act these defects may be of serious consequence, and a variance between the information, complaint, or summons and the evidence adduced may result in the dismissal of the complaint, &c., and the immediate discharge (if in custody) of the offending party. Such being the case, it will be useful to consider shortly what are the technical requisites of a complaint or information in cases not governed by the above statute, and then to show shortly in what particulars that statute effects an alteration.

FIRST.

OF INFORMATIONS AND COMPLAINTS THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE OPERATION OF THE 11 & 12 VICT. c. 43.

Statement of Time.]-The information (and herein also we include complaints) should state the day and year on and in which it is exhibited or laid, to the end that it may appear both that it was exhibited subsequently to the commission of the offence and within the time limited by the statute: (Rex v. Kent, 2 Ld. Raym. 1546; Rex v. Fuller, id. 510; Rex v. Picton, 2 East, 196; Rex v. Chandler, 14 East, 272.) But though the time must thus be stated with certainty, it need not be stated with strict accuracy, and it will be sufficient if it appear from the evidence that in fact the information has been exhibited in due time, and the time stated is within that limited by law.

Name and style of Justice.]-So, too, the information must give the name and style of the justice before whom it is taken, that it may appear he is one having authority in the district and over the subject-matter of the complaint: (Rex v. Johnson, 1 Str. 261; Kite and Lane's case, 1 B. & C. 101; Re Peerless, 1 Q. B. 143.) Stating the justice to be one "for the county," instead of "in and for,” is bad: (Reg. v. Stockton, 2 New Sess. Cas. 16; 14 L. J. 128, M. C.) And where the statute gives jurisdiction to the next justice, he should be so described, as none other has jurisdiction (Sander's case, 1 Saund. 263; Dalt. c. 6); but if the statute mention only in or near the place, it is merely directory and they need not be so described: (2 Keb. 559.) But where the act gives jurisdiction to certain justices only as "to the justices acting at a petty-sessional division of the county where the applicant resides," as in the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 2, or "to the justices acting at a petty sessions for the highways in which the highway is situated" (5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 50, ss. 94, 95), it must appear that at the

C

time of the exhibiting of the information the justices came within the statutable description: (Reg. v. Martin, 2 Q. B. 1037; Reg. v. Morice, 1 New Sess. Cas. 585; 2 D. & L. 952; Reg. v. The Justices of Hertfordshire, 1 New Mag. Cas. 256; 6 Q. B. 753.)

Names of Informant and Defendant.]-It should also contain the name of the informant (Rex v. Stone, 2 Ld. Raym. 1545) and also that of the defendant, the full name being accurately given. Styling a number of defendants as "Messrs. Harrison and Company" was held bad; Lord Kenyon saying, "It is impossible that a conviction of such an one and company can be supported:" (Rex v. Harrison, 8 T. R. 508.) No addition however need be given to the name of the defendant, and by the General Turnpike Act (3 Geo. 4, c. 126, s. 132), and the General Highway Act (5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 50, s. 78), certain parties may be proceeded against summarily, without stating their names, if they refuse to disclose them; but in such a case it would be desirable to state their description.

When to be stated as taken upon Oath.]-If the statute require the information to be exhibited on oath, it should appear to have been so taken: (Ex parte Aldridge, 2 B. & C. 600; Reg. v. Scotton, 5 Q. B. 493; 13 L. J. 58, M. C.)

Time and place of the commission of the Offence.]— The time of the commission of the offence should be stated, that it may appear that the information was laid in due time, and also as a protection for the defendant against another charge in respect of the same matter; the exact day however is immaterial, if the time be within the statutable limits: (Rex v. Crop, 7 East, 389; R. v. Huggins, 3 C. & P. 602; R. v. Simpson, 10 Mod. 248.) So also the place-namely, the parish and county where the offence was committed-should be stated, in order that the jurisdiction of the justices over it may clearly appear: (Rex v. Hazell, 13 East, 139;