any time before trial. R. v. Teal, 11 East, 307. And on motion for a new trial in the King's Bench on an indictment for a conspiracy against several defendants, the counsel for the crown, at the suggestion of the court, and having received the assent of the attorney-general (the attorneygeneral appearing as counsel for one of the defendants), entered a nolle prosequi as to two defendants, when the rule for a new trial was refused as to the rest; R. v. Rowlands, 17 Q. B. 671, 685; 2 Den. 364; 21 L. J. (M. C.) 81; and see R. v. Hempstead, R. & R. 344; and R. v. Butterworth, R. & R. 520. In R. v. Leatham, 30 L. J. (Q. B.) 205: 8 Cox, 498; 3 E. & E. 658; when the defendant had been found guilty on several counts of an information for bribery, the solicitor-general entered a nolle prosequi on one of them after a rule nisi for a new trial: and in R. v. Rowlands, ubi supra, on application for a rule nisi to arrest the judgment on an indictment for a conspiracy, a nolle prosequi was entered on three counts of an indictment, as to the sufficiency of which some doubts were entertained, and the court pronounced judgment on the remaining good counts, a verdict having been taken on each count. The following is the form of entering a nolle prosequi on record, given in Appendix to Cr. Off. Rules, 1886, Form 120:

Afterwards on the day of before our said lord the King at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, come as well the said coroner and attorney of our said lord the King, in the King's Bench Division of his Majesty's High Court of Justice, who for our said lord the King in this behalf prosecutes in his proper person, as the said A. B. by his solicitor. And the said coroner and attorney for our said lord the King says that he will not further prosecute (ait se nolle ulterius prosequi) the said A. B. upon the indictment [or information] aforesaid. Whereupon all and singular the premises being seen and fully understood by the court now here, it is considered and adjudged, by the said court here, that all proceedings upon the said indictment [or information] against the said A. B. be altogether stayed, and that the said A. B. be discharged of and from the said indictment [or information].

[NOTE.-In the case of an information filed by the attorney-general, his name must be used instead of that of the King's coroner and attorney.]

A nolle prosequi puts an end to the prosecution (see Gilchrist v. Gardner, 12 N. S. W. Rep. (Law) 181, and English authorities there cited) but does not operate as a bar or discharge or an acquittal on the merits. Goddard v. Smith, 6 Mod. 261: 3 Salk. 215: R. v. Ridpath, 10 Mod. 152; and the party remains liable to be re-indicted. It has been said that fresh process may be awarded on the same indictment. Goddard v. Smith, ubi supra; Com. Dig. Indict. (K.): but this dictum appears not to be law. See the judgment in R. v. Allen, 1 B. & S. 850; 31 Ì. J. (M. C.) 129; R. v. Mitchel, 3 Cox, 93; 6 St. Tr., N. S. 545; and Short & Mellor, Crown Office Practice, 249.

CHAPTER II.

INFORMATION.

SECT. 1. Preliminary, p. 142.

2. Information ex officio, p. 142.

3. Information by the Master of the Crown Office, p. 144.

SECT. 1.

PRELIMINARY.

PROSECUTIONS by information in respect of indictable misdemeanors or upon penal statutes, are not now in use before courts of oyer and terminer, or gaol delivery, or before courts of quarter sessions (Archbold, Quarter Sessions (5th ed.) 292). Informations on penal statutes are subject to the provisions of 18 Eliz. c. 5, and 31 Eliz. c. 5, except where the proceedings are of a civil nature, or are taken under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. Informations for misdemeanor are still occasionally laid before the K. B. D. of the High Court. These are dealt with in sects. 2 & 3, post. Informations in that court in customs and revenue cases are now treated as civil proceedings for purposes of evidence: see the Crown Suits Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 104), s. 34 (which got rid of doubts expressed in Att.-Gen. v. Radloff, 10 Ex. 84: 23 L. J. (Ex.) 240), and s. 259 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 36). Informations in quo warranto, are now civil proceedings: 47 & 48 Vict. c. 61, s. 15.

SECT. 2.

INFORMATION EX OFFICIO.

What and in what cases.]-The information ex officio is a formal written suggestion on behalf of the King of a misdemeanor committed filed by the King's attorney-general (or, in the vacancy of that office, by the solicitor-general, R. v. Wilkes, 4 Burr, 2527; 19 St. Tr. 1075; 2 Eng. Rep. 244; 4 Bro. P. C. 360) in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, without the intervention of a grand jury. The attorney-general for the Duchy of Lancaster cannot file an ex officio information in the High Court. Att.-Gen. of Duchy of Lancaster v. Duke of Devonshire, 14 Q. B. D. 195: 54 L. J. (Q. B.) 271.

It lies at common law for misdemeanors only, and not for treason or felony; Com. Dig. Information (A. 1): R. v. Prynn, 5 Mod. 459: R. v. Berchet, 1 Show. 106: R. v. Magee, Rowe (Ir. K. B.) 416; nor for misprision of treason for wherever any capital offence is charged, or an offence so highly penal as misprision of treason, the law of England requires that

the accusation should be warranted by the oath of twelve men, before the defendant be put to answer it: 2 Hawk. c. 26 s. 3. The usual objects of an information ex officio are properly such enormous misdemeanors as peculiarly tend to disturb or endanger the King's government, or to molest or affront him in the regular discharge of his royal functions; 4 Bl. Com. 308; such, for instance, as seditious or blasphemous writings or speeches (R. v. Horne, 2 Cowp. 672: 20 St. Tr. 651: R. v. Wilkes, ubi supra: R. v. Burdett, 1 St. Tr., Ñ. S. 1: R. v. Waddington, 1 St. Tr., N. S. 1339; 1 B. & C. 26: R. v. Mary Ann Carlile, 1 St. Tr., N. S. 1033); seditious riots not amounting to high treason; libels upon the King or his ministers, the judges, or other high officers, reflecting upon their conduct in the execution of their official duties (R. v. Harvey, 2 St. Tr., N. S. 1: R. v. Hunt, 31 St. Tr. 367, 408: R. v. Lord George Gordon, 22 Id. 177); libels on foreign sovereigns or ambassadors (R. v. Peltier, 28 St. Tr. 529: R. v. Vint, 27 Id. 627); obstructing public officers in the execution of their duties; obstructing the King's officers in the collection, etc., of the revenues; bribery at parliamentary elections (R. v. Leatham, 8 Cox, 425, 498: R. v. Charlesworth, 1 B. & S. 460); bribery, corrupt or oppressive conduct or neglect of duty by magistrates and public officials (R. v. Pinney, 3 St. Tr., N. S. 11); or against public officials for misconduct outside Great Britain. See 11 & 12 W. 3, c. 12; 42 G. 3, c. 85: R. v. Shawe, 5 M. & Sel. 403; 17 R. R. 370: R. v. Turner [1889] 24 L. J. Newsp. 466, 469, 479. In R. v. Brown and others, Q. B. Feb. 1858; 7 Cox, 442; sub nom. R. v. Esdaile, 1 F. & F. 213, informations ex officio were filed against directors of a banking company, for a conspiracy to defraud the shareholders by false reports of the pecuniary condition of the bank and otherwise. In R. v. Parnell, 14 Cox, 508, an ex officio information was laid in Ireland for conspiracy to commit an offence against the State. Ex officio informations are now rarely filed in England. The latest was R. v. Cate & Tarry, 9 July, 1887, for a libel imputing corruptibility to the Middlesex Justices.

Form.]-The form of an information ex officio is thus:

MIDDLESEX, to wit:-Be it remembered that Sir R. B. F., knight, attorney-general of our present sovereign lord the King, who for our said lord the King in this behalf prosecutes in his own proper person, comes here into court, before the King himself, at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, on the day of 190-. And for our said lord the King gives the court here to understand and be informed, that [state offence and then proceed in the same manner as if it were an indictment.] Second Count. And the said attorney-general of our said lord the King, for our said lord the King, further gives the court here to understand and be informed that, etc. To conclude:-Whereupon the said attorney-general for our said lord the King prays the consideration of the court here in the premises, and that due process of law may be awarded against him, the said B. G., in this behalf to make him answer to our said lord the King touching and concerning the premises aforesaid.

Filing.]-This information is filed in the crown office, without any leave previously obtained of the court for that purpose; and the court will not entertain a motion by the attorney-general for a criminal information at the suit of the crown; R. v. Philipps, 3 Burr. 1564: R. v. Phillips, 4 Burr. 2089; 1 Deacon, Cr. Law, 672 n.; R. v. Magee, Rowe (Ir. K. B.) 416; nor will the court, upon the application of the defendant, restrain the attorney-general from filing an ex officio information upon the ground that a criminal information has already been granted for the

same cause. R. v. Alexander, MS., E. T. 1830. But in that case, after both informations had been filed, the court stayed the criminal information until further order. See post, p. 152.

Quashing.]-The court will not quash an ex officio information at the instance of the prosecutor, because the attorney-general may, if he will, enter a nolle prosequi; R. v. Stratton, 1 Doug. 239; and even upon the motion of the defendant, they will seldom quash it, but will generally put the defendant to demur, etc.; see Com. Dig. Information (D. 4); R. v. Gregory, 1 Salk. 372. After demurrer the information may be amended. R. v. Holland, 4 T. R. 457; 2 R. R. 439. The attorney-general is also entitled as of right to amend the information on paying costs. Att.-Gen. v. Ray, 11 M. & W. 464.

Procedure.]-When the information has been filed, the defendant, after appearance, upon application to the court, is entitled to a copy of it free of expense. 60 G. 3 & 1 G. 4, c. 4, s. 8. This provision applies also to indictments where prosecuted by the attorney-general or solicitor-general in the King's Bench Division. Id. If the attorney-gencral delay bringing the information to trial, the defendant cannot take it down by proviso; R. v. M'Leod, 2 East, 202; but if it is not brought to trial within twelve calendar months next after the plea of not guilty has been pleaded, the defendant may, after twenty days' notice to the attorney-general or solicitor-general, apply to the court, which may authorize the defendant to bring on the trial, and he may bring it on accordingly, unless a nolle prosequi be entered. 60 G. 3 & 1 G. 4, c. 4, s. 9. See also Cr. Off. Rules, 1886, rr. 44, 45, for securing the speedy trial of the defendant, and his being speedily brought up for judgment, when he is in custody. The attorney-general is entitled, if he please, to a trial at bar; R. v. Johnson, 1 Str. 644: Paddock v. Forrester, 4 St. Tr., N. S. 557; 1 Man. & G. 583 : R. v. Pinney, 3 St. Tr., N. S. 17, n.; and to bring on the case out of its turn. Short & Mellor, Cr. Off. Pract. 278. As to the venue and procedure on a trial at bar, see Dixon v. Farrer, 18 Q. B. D. 43; Cr. Off. Rules, 1886, rr. 160-163. At the trial the attorney-general has the right of reply, even though the defendant call no witnesses. R. v. Marsden, M. & M. 439. The cases on this subject are collected in 2 St. Tr., N. S. 1019; and see post, p. 212.

Costs.]-On the trial of an information there is no jurisdiction to give costs for or against the crown, nor to direct their payment out of the local rate. As to the position of the crown with respect to costs, see Hullock, 557: R. v. Beadle, 26 L. J. (M. C.) 111: Thomas v. Pritchard [1903] 1 K. B. 209: R. v. Archbishop of Canterbury [1902] 2 K. B. 572,

SECT. 3.

INFORMATION BY THE MASTER OF THE CROWN OFFICE.

What and in what cases.]-An information by the master of the crown office is a formal written suggestion of an offence committed, filed in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice at the instance of an individual, with the leave of the court, by the master of the crown office, without the intervention of a grand jury. The right of private prosecutors to file informations for trespass, battery, or other misdemeanors without

the leave of the court was taken away by 4 Will. & Mar. c. 18, ss. 1, 5. See R. v. Robinson, 1 W. Bl. 541.

This, as does the information ex officio (see ante, p. 142), lies for misdemeanor only (2 Hale, 151; 2 Hawk. c. 26, ss. 7–12), and not for treason, felony, or misprision of treason. The court has power to give leave to file a criminal information of this description for any misdemeanor whatever, but usually grants leave only in the case of gross and notorious misdemeanors, riots, batteries, libels, and other immoralities of an atrocious kind, not specially concerning the state; Ex parte Crawshay, 8 Cox, 356; nor peculiarly tending to disturb the government, for those are left to the care of the attorney-general (R. v. Harvey, 2 St. Tr., N. S. 1; 2 B. & C. 257; 3 D. & R. 464), but which, on account of their magnitude or pernicious example, deserve the most public animadversion. 4 Bl. Com. 309. In substance informations are granted only in cases which before the abolition of the Star Chamber went to that court as too serious for the ordinary courts, or because justice could not be obtained in them. See R. v. Sedley, 1 Sid. 168; 17 St. Tr. 155, n.; Baildon, Star Chamber Reports. In a few cases informations have been granted for non-repair of roads or bridges where the grand jury has ignored a bill of indictment. R. v. Upton St. Leonards, 10 Q. B. 827. The cases in which they have been granted fall under the following heads :

Blasphemy.]-Informations have been granted for publishing a blasphemous libel; R. v. Richard Carlile, 4 St. Tr., N. S. 1423; 3 B. & Ald. 161; or an invective upon the established religion of the country. R. v. Waddington, 1 St. Tr., N. S. 1339: 1 B. & C. 26; 25 R. R. 288: R. v. Curl, 2 Str. 788; 17 St. Tr. 153.

Bribery and corruption.]--An attempt to bribe a privy councillor to obtain a patent of an office under government; R. v. Vaughan, 4 Burr. 2494; an attempt to bribe at an election for members to serve in parliament; R. v. Robinson, 1 W. Bl. 541: R. v. Isherwood, 2 Ld. Ken. 202: R. v. Pitt, 1 W. Bl. 380; 3 Burr. 1335; bribing persons, either by money or promises, to vote at elections of officers of corporations; R. v. Plympton, 2 Ld. Raym. 1377: R. v. Mayor of Tiverton [1723] 8 Mod. 186; bribery in the election of an alderman, who, by virtue of his office, is a justice of the peace; R. v. Steward, 2 B. & Ad. 12; attempting to bribe jurymen; R. v. Young, 2 East, 14, cit. ; or clerks in public offices; R. v. Beale, 1 East, 183, cit.; endeavouring to procure the appointment of certain persons to be overseers of the poor, with a view to derive a private advantage to the party. R. v. Jolliffe, 1 East, 154, n.; 4 T. R. 285.

Immorality.]—Where a music-master, in consideration of a sum of money, assigned over his female apprentice to a gentleman under pretence of her receiving lessons from him in music, but really for the purposes of prostitution, the court upon application granted a criminal information against the gentleman, the music-master, and the attorney who drew up the assignment. R. v. Delaval, 3 Burr. 1434; 1 W. Bl. 410, 439; and see R. v. Sedley, 1 Sid. 168; 17 St. Tr. 155, n.

Label.]-The court at one time used to grant criminal informations for libels reflecting on the conduct of private individuals, if attended with circumstances of aggravation. R. v. Benfield, 2 Burr. 980: R. v. Miles, 1 Doug. 284: R. v. Haswell, Id. 387: R. v. Staples, Andr. 228. With the repeal of the Acts de scandalis magnatum and change in opinion and circumstances the rule established by modern decisions is that a criminal

A.C.P.

10