have personated voters, but the election was not affected as they were not agents of the member. In the same case persons who were agents were proved to have attempted to induce the same individuals to vote, but as the agents did not know that such persons were not entitled to vote they were not guilty of aiding and abetting personation; it was said, however (per Cave, J., ibid.), that agents might be guilty of aiding and abetting personation who corruptly induced a person to vote, although such person was not guilty of personation because he did not know that he was not entitled to vote.

Evidence of Personation.-Where a person on the register of voters is proved not to have voted, and it is at the same time proved that a vote has been given in his name, this is evidence of personation (Finsbury, 1892, 4 O'M., & H. 175). As to the production of the registers and ballot-papers, see R. v. Beardsall, 1876, i Q. B. D. 452.

PROSECUTION FOR PERSONATION.-Under the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843, 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 85, the candidates may appoint agents to attend at the polling booths for the purpose of detecting personation. The same Act (s. 86) provides that if, at the time any person tenders his vote at an election, or after he has voted and before he leaves the polling booth, any such agent so appointed declares to the returning officer or his deputy presiding at the polling booth, that he believes and undertakes to prove that the person so voting is not in fact the person in whose name he assumes to vote, then the returning officer or his deputy must immediately, after such person has voted, by word of mouth, order any constable to take the person so voting into custody, and such order is a sufficient warrant and authority to the constable for so doing. The returning officer or his deputy is not, however, entitled to reject the vote of such person if he answers in the affirmative the questions authorised by the Act (see BALLOT); but the returning officer or his deputy is to cause the words "protested against for personation to be placed against the vote of the person so charged with personation when entered in the polling-book. Persons so charged with personation are to be taken before two justices of the peace; if two justices cannot be found within three hours after the close of the poll on the day of the arrest, one justice may liberate the person on his entering into recognisances with one surety; and if no justice can be found within four hours after the closing of the poll, then such person is to be forthwith discharged from custody; but in such case the charge may be subsequently inquired into, and a warrant may, if necessary, be issued for the apprehension of the persons charged (ibid., s. 87). If, upon hearing the charge, the two justices are satisfied upon the evidence on oath of not less than two credible witnesses that the person charged is guilty of personation, they must commit him for trial (ibid., s. 88); and if they are satisfied that there is no foundation for the charge, they are to make an order for the agent making the charge to pay any sum not exceeding ten pounds and not less than five pounds by way of damages and costs; if the person falsely charged consents to accept such compensation, no action or other proceedings will lie in respect of the charge (ibid., s. 89).

It is, moreover, the duty of the returning officer to institute a prosecution against any person whom he may believe to have been guilty of personation, or of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of the offence of personation, at the election for which he is returning officer (Ballot Act, 1872, 35 & 36 Vict. c. 33, s. 24).

The public prosecutor and the Attorney-General have also power to

institute a prosecution for personation as for any other corrupt practice (see the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, ss. 43, 45 and 60; see also under the head PROSECUTION FOR CORRUPT PRACTICES, supra).

As to indictments for personation, see R. v. Fox, 1887, 16 Cox C. C. 166; R. v. Garvey, 1887, ibid. 253; R. v. Clarke, 1900, 2 Ir. R. 304.

A recent instance of a conviction on indictment for the personation of a voter at a parliamentary election is the case of R. v. Westcott, which was tried at Exeter Assizes before Bucknill, J., on January 31, 1906 (see 70 J. P. News, 66).

(5) FALSE DECLARATION OF ELECTION EXPENSES.

RETURN OF ELECTION EXPENSES.-It is the duty of the Election Agent of every candidate, within thirty-five days after the day on which the candidates returned at an election are declared elected, to transmit to the returning officer a true return of the election expenses (see the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, s. 33 (1); as to what are election expenses and the mode of return, see ELECTION EXPENSES). The return so transmitted to the returning officer must be accompanied by a declaration made by the election agent before a justice of the peace in the form given in the Act; and at the same time that the agent transmits the return, or within seven days afterwards, the candidate must transmit to the returning officer a similar declaration as to the election expenses (see the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, s. 33 (2) and (4), and Sched. II.).

KNOWINGLY MAKING FALSE DECLARATION.-If any candidate or Election Agent knowingly makes the declaration required by the Act falsely, he is guilty of an offence, and on conviction thereof on indictment he is liable to the punishment for wilful and corrupt perjury. Such an offence is also a corrupt practice (ibid., s. 33 (7)); as to the punishment and consequences of which, see supra.

In a recent case in which the Election Agent had omitted to return the expenses of certain meetings held many months before the issue of the writ, and had also omitted other expenses which ought to have been returned, the judges stated that they were prepared to hold the election void on the ground that the return was not a proper or sufficient return of election expenses; but it was not necessary for them to decide this point as the election was void upon other grounds (Bodmin, 1906, 5 O'M. & H. 229).

II. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT MUNICIPAL AND OTHER

ELECTIONS.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.-The law as to corrupt practices at municipal elections is assimilated to that at parliamentary elections, and is now based upon the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, 45 & 46 Vict. c. 50, l'art IV., as amended by the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, 47 & 48 Vict. c. 70.

Corrupt practices at municipal elections are the same as at parliamentary elections, viz.-(1) Bribery; (2) treating; (3) undue influence; (4) personation, and aiding, abetting, counselling, and procuring the commission of the offence of personation (see sec. 2 and Sched. III. of the Act of 1884); and (5) knowingly making a false declaration as to

election expenses (ibid., s. 21 (5)). Under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, s. 77, which is adopted by the Act of 1884 (see sec. 2 and Sched. III.), bribery, treating, undue influence, and personation include respectively anything done before, at, after, or with respect to a municipal election, which, if done before, at, after, or with respect to a parliamentary election, would make the person doing the same liable to any penalty, punishment, or disqualification for bribery, treating, undue influence, or personation, as the case may be, under any Act for the time being in force with respect to parliamentary elections.

It is expressly provided by the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, s. 2 (2), that a person who commits any corrupt practice in reference to a municipal election is guilty of the like offence, and is, on conviction, liable to the like punishment and subject to the like incapacities as if the corrupt practice had been committed in reference to a parliamentary election.

A municipal election will also be avoided by such general corruption, bribery, treating, or intimidation, at the election as would, by the common law of Parliament, avoid a parliamentary election (Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, s. 81).

The procedure as to prosecutions for corrupt practices at municipal elections is regulated by the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, and is similar to that in force with regard to parliamentary elections.

Where, upon the trial of a municipal election petition, the Election Court report that any corrupt practice other than treating and undue influence has been committed by, or with the knowledge and consent of, any candidate, or that the offence of treating or undue influence has been committed by any candidate, that candidate is not capable of ever holding a corporate office in the borough, and if he has been elected, his election is void; and he is further subject to the same incapacities as if, at the date of the report, he had been convicted of a corrupt practice (ibid., s. 3 (1)). Upon the trial of a municipal election petition, where there is a charge of any corrupt practice, the Election Court must report in writing to the High Court whether any of the candidates has been guilty by his agents of any corrupt practice in reference to the election, and if the Election Court reports that he has, then he is not capable of being elected to or holding any corporate office in the borough during a period of three years from the report, and if he has been elected, his election is void (ibid., s. 3 (2)).

City of London Municipal Elections. The provisions of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, and of Part IV. of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, relating to corrupt and illegal practices and election petitions, are expressly applied to municipal elections in the City of London (see sec. 35 of the Act of 1884). The provisions of these two Acts relating to personation are applied to municipal elections in the City of London by the City of London Ballot Act, 1887, 50 Vict. c. xiii. s. 9. For this purpose "municipal election" means an election to the office of mayor, alderman, common council-man or sheriff, and includes the election of any officer elected by the mayor, aldermen, and liverymen in common hall (see sec. 35 (1) of the Act of 1884).

COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS.-The provisions of Part IV. of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, with regard to corrupt practices at municipal elections, as amended by the Municipal Elections (Corrupt

and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, are, subject to the necessary modifications, applied to county council elections by the Local Government Act, 1888, 51 & 52 Vict. c. 41, s. 75.

PARISH AND DISTRICT COUNCIL ELECTIONS, ETC.-The same provisions. are also extended by the Local Government Act, 1894, 56 & 57 Vict. c. 73, s. 48 (3) and (8), to parish and district council elections, and other elections regulated by rules framed under the Act, subject to adaptations, alterations, and exceptions made by rules framed under the Act. See also the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, s. 36; the Rural District Councillors Election Order, 1898; Urban District Councillors Election Order, 1898; Parish Councillors Election Order, 1901; Guardians (in London, and outside London) Election Orders, 1898.

Metropolitan Borough Council Elections.-The same provisions are also extended to the elections of mayors, aldermen, and councillors of Metropolitan boroughs by the London Government Act, 1899, s. 2 (4) and (5), which incorporates other legislation with the necessary modifications. See the Metropolitan Councillors Election Order, 1903. The result is that corrupt practices committed at these elections, or any of the elections mentioned above, involve the same penalties and incapacities as if committed at municipal elections.

III. CORRUPT PRACTICES BY PUBLIC BODIES
AND AGENTS.

As to bribery and corruption of and by members, officers, or servants of corporations, councils, boards, commissioners, or other public bodies, see the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, 52 & 53 Vict. c. 69; see also the article BRIBERY, ante, vol. ii., at p. 396.

As to the punishment of corrupt transactions by agents, see the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, 6 Edw. VII. c. 34. See also the article BRIBERY, ante, vol. ii., at p. 397.

See also AGENCY (ELECTION); BALLOT; CANDIDATE; ELECTION COMMISSIONERS; ELECTION EXPENSES; ELECTION PETITION; ILLEGAL PRACTICES; RELIEF (ELECTORAL); RETURNING OFFICER; SCRUTINY, etc.

[Authorities. See further, Rogers on Elections, 18th ed., 1906, vol. ii. (Parliamentary), vol. iii. (Municipal, etc.); O'Malley and Hardcastle's Reports of Election Petitions, vols. i.-v., 1869-1906; Returns of Controverted Elections, printed by order of the House of Commons.

Corruption of Blood.-Under the old law attainder for treason or felony involved the corruption of the blood of the person attainted; that is, he was rendered incapable of inheriting lands from his ancestors, of retaining those he was in possession of, or of transmitting them to any heir; further, no one could claim through him. Where the attainder was for treason his lands escheated to the king, and where it was for felony, to the lord, subject to the king's year and day. This barbarous relic of medieval times was finally abolished by the Forfeiture Act, 1870.

Corvée.-See STATUTE LABOUR.

Cost-book Companies.-See MINES.

Cost, Freight, and Insurance.-See C. F. I.

Costa Rica.-A Republic of Central America, till 1829 a State of the Confederation of Central America. Under the constitution promulgated December 7, 1871 (Hertslet's State Papers, vol. lxiii., p. 294), and frequently amended, the legislative power is in a Chamber of Representatives indirectly elected. The British Regulations of 1896 for Preventing Collisions at Sea apply to ships of Costa Rica whether within or beyond British jurisdiction (St. R. & O., Rev. 1904, vol. viii., "Merchant Shipping," p. 285).

The scope of this article is set forth generally in the preliminary Table of Contents.

Costs in bankruptcy have been already dealt with in Vol. II., at p. 52, under BANKRUPTCY. Questions relating to security for costs will be discussed hereafter under SECURITY FOR COSTS. Questions as to the various scales on which costs may be taxed, and as to the allowances that will be made, will be dealt with under TAXATION.

In this article the word "costs" is (except as regards criminal proceedings, where some modification of the proposition is necessary) restricted to what is indeed its proper meaning, namely, such sum of money as the Court or a judge orders an unsuccessful litigant to pay to his opponent to compensate the latter for the expense to which he has been put by the litigation. The sum so awarded seldom, if ever, fully recoups the successful party for the expense which he has incurred. The Court may, if it think fit, direct payment of a lump sum without taxation (Order 65, r. 23), and this rule is often acted on in chambers in the Chancery Division. But in all ordinary cases when the Court awards costs it directs that they be taxed; and a taxing-master very rarely allows the full amount which the successful party has to pay to his own