vagrants; and these may be always within the limited time; and there are offences which may be constantly recurring, as where the law imposes a penalty for disobeying a notice or order, and each disobedience is a distinct offence, a fresh penalty being incurred every time a similar order or notice is served and disobeyed. (1) In such cases the time for laying the information runs from the date of the service of the fresh notice or order. (2)

66

Immediately" and forthwith" do not mean on the instant. but with reasonable promptness, and without unreasonable delay, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. (3)

Where a statute directs any act to be made within so many days, or a notice to be given so many days at the least," these words mean "clear days." i. e., a number of intervening days. (4)

Persons to whom the Criminal Law Extends.— The criminal law extends to all persons, except the reigning Sovereign, who is absolutely exempt from it, and foreign ambassadors. who are exempt to an extent not precisely determined. (5)

Extent of the Criminal Law of Canada as to Place. It is said that, "the criminal law of Canada extends to all offences committed in Canada, or on such part of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada as is within one marine league from ordinary low water mark, or is deemed, by International law, to be within the territorial sovereignty of Her Majesty, or committed by any person on board any British ship or boat, on the great lakes or on the high seas, or in any place where the Admiralty of England has jurisdiction, and to piracy by the Law of Nations wherever committed." (6)

(1) Allen v. Worthy, L. R. 5 Q. B. 163.

(2) Knight v. Halliwell, L. R. 9 Q. B. 412.

(3) R. v. Aston, 1 L. M. & P. 491; 19 L. J. M. C. 236; Hancock v. Somes 1 El. & El. 795; 28 L. J. M. C. 196; Costar v. Hetherington, 28 L. J. M. C. 198; Hudson v. Hill, 43 L. J. C. P. 273; R. v. Berkshire, J. J., 48 L. J. M. C. 137.

(4) Mitchell v. Foster, 12 A. & E. 472; Zouch v. Empsey. 4 B. & Ald. 522. (5) 2 Steph. Hist. Cr. L., 2-9, and 43-56.

(6) Bur. Dig. Cr. L. 9; R. v. Cunningham, Bell, C. L. 72; Atty.-Gen. (Hong Kong) v. Kwok-a-Sing, L. R.7 P. C., 179; 2 Steph. Hist. Cr. L. 27.

An Article to this effect was contained in our Criminal Code, when first introduced, but, in committee, it was allowed to drʊp, although considered to be a correct statement of the law.

A foreigner who commits a criminal offence against another foreigner, or against a British subject, on board a foreign ship. on the high seas, outside of the territorial waters of Her Majesty, is not triable in Her Majesty's Dominions. (1) This was held even in the case of a ship which (though foreign built) carried the British flag. The prisoner was one of the crew of a ship built in Holstein, whence she sailed to London, England. All the officers and crew were foreigners. The registered sole owner, one R., was an alien born, though described in the register as "of London, Merchant." The ship sailed on a voyage from London, under the British flag. While on the voyage, the prisoner killed the master, on board the vessel, when several thousand miles from England, and 200 miles from land. On the trial for murder, no evidence was given that R., the owner of the ship, had been naturalized, or had obtained letters of denization; and it was held that there was no evidence that the ship was British, and that, consequently, the prisoner could not be convicted in England. (2)

Formerly, Her Majesty's Courts had no jurisdiction over an offence committed by a foreigner on board of a foreign ship, even if, at the time of the crime being committed, the ship was within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions.

It was so held in the case of R. v. Keyn. (3) That decision led to the passing of the Imperial Statute, 41 & 42 Vic. c. 73, (The Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878), amending the law, so that a foreigner as well as a British subject on board a foreign ship may be tried by the courts of England or of any of Her Majesty's Dominions for an offence committed on the open sea, provided the occurrence takes place within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions (section 2), and subject to the consent, as to the United Kingdom, of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State,

(1) R. v. Lewis, 26 L. J. M. C. 104; R. v. De Mattos, 7 C. & P. 458; R. v. Kohn, 4 F. & F. 66; R. v. Depardo, R. & R. 134.

(2) R. v. Bjornsen, 34 L. J. M. C. 180.

(3) R. v. Keyn, 46 L. J. M. C. 17.

or,-as to cases arising in any part of Her Majesty's dominions outside of the United Kingdom, subject to the consent of the Governor of that part, (section 3).

The jurisdiction of the Admiralty extends over British ships, not only on the high seas, but also in foreign rivers, below bridges where the tide ebbs and flows, and where great ships go, although the municipal authorities of the foreign country may be entitled to concurrent jurisdiction. (1) So, that a person, whether a British subject or a foreigner, on board a British ship, on the high seas, or in foreign rivers below bridges, where the tide ebbs and flows, and where great ships go, is subject to the laws of England, the same as if he were on British soil, such a ship being, in law, part of the territory of the United Kingdom. (2)

Thus, where a foreigner was convicted, in England, of manslaughter committed on board a British ship in the river Garonne, in France, about 35 miles from the sea, and about 300 yards from the nearest shore, within the ebb and flow of the tide, the conviction was upheld. (3)

So, also, where a person committed a larceny on board a British ship lying afloat in the open river at Rotterdam, moored to the quay in a place where large vessels usually lay, 18 miles from sea, between which and the ship there were no bridges, and within the ebb and flow of the tide, it was held that the larceny took place within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, and, therefore, that a person who, afterwards, in England, received the property so stolen, could be tried at the Central Criminal Court, as the thief, himself, even if he had been a foreigner, not one of the crew, might have been so tried. (4)

Upon an indictment for larceny on board a vessel lying in a river at Wampu, in China, the prosecutor gave no evidence as to the tide flowing; but the judges held that the Admiralty had jurisdiction, it being a place where great ships go. (5)

(1) R. v. Anderson, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 161.

(2) R. v. Lopez, Dears & B. 525.

(3) R. v. Anderson, supra.

(4) R. v. Carr, 10 Q. B. D. 76: 52 L. J. M. C. 12.

(5) R. v. Allen, 1 Mood C. C. 494.

It has been held that the liability of a foreigner is not affected by the fact that he was, in the first instance, brought illegally on board the ship, unless the offence committed by him was one committed merely for the purpose of freeing himself from such unlawful restraint. Therefore, where a foreigner, having committed a crime in England. had fled to Hamburg, and was there arrested and forced on board an English ship, and, while kept in custody on board such ship, on the high seas, he killed the officer who had arrested him, not in order to escape, but of malice prepense, it was held that, even assuming such arrest and detention to be illegal, he was guilty of murder. (1)

By section 267 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 17 and 18 Victoria, chapter 104, (Imp.), all offences against property or person committed in or at any place either ashore or afloat out of Her Majesty's dominions, by any master, seaman, or apprentice, who at the time when the offence is committed is, or, within three months previously, has been employed in any British ship, shall be deemed to be offences of the same nature respectively and be liable to the same punishments respectively, and be enquired of, heard, tried, determined, and adjudged in the same manner and by the same courts, and in the same places, as if such offences had been committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England. (2)

A hulk containing the general appointments of a ship, registered as a British ship and hoisting the British ensign, although only used as a floating warehouse, is a British ship within the meaning of the above enactment. (3)

Section 21 of the 18 & 19 Vic. c. 91, enacts that if any British subject charged with having committed any crime or offence on board any British ship on the high seas, or in any foreign port, or harbour, or if any person not being a British subject charged with having committed any crime or offence on board any British ship on the high seas is found (that is to say, is found to be at the time of his trial), (4) within the jurisdiction of any court of justice in Her Majesty's dominions, which would have had cognizance of

(1) R. v. Sattler, Dears & B. 525.

(2) R. v. Dudley, 11 Q. B. D. 273; 54 L. J. M. C. 32.

(3) R. v. Armstrong, 13 Cox, 184.

(4) R. v. Lopez, Dears & B. 525.

such crime or offence if committed within the limits of its ordinary jurisdiction, such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and try the case, as if such crime or offence had been committed within such limits.

By section 11 of the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124, if a British subject commits a crime on board a British ship, or on board a foreign ship to which he does not belong, any court in the Queen's dominions, which would have cognizance of such crime if committed on board a British ship within the limits of the ordinary jurisdiction of such court, shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, as if the said crime had been committed as last aforesaid. (1)

Under section 9 of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, a British subject who, in a foreign country, within the dominion of a foreign power, murders a British subject or a foreigner, is triable in England. This, in fact, was the state of the law before the passing of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100. (2)

The legislative powers of a colonial legislature are confined to its own territory, and it cannot legislate for offences committed beyond the limits of the colony. (3)

A magistrate has authority to enquire into offences committed on the great inland lakes of Canada, though in American waters, for they are within the admiralty jurisdiction and as though committed on the high seas. (4)

Section 7 of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act defines the territorial waters of Her Majesty as being "such part of the sea adjacent to the coast of the United Kingdom, or the coast of some other part of Her Majesty's dominions, as is deemed, by international law, to be within the territorial sovereignty of Her Majesty," and declares that, "for the purposes of any offence declared by the act to be within the jurisdiction of the Admiral, any part of the open sea within one marine league of the coast,

(1) See Arch. Cr. Pl. & Ev. 21 Ed. p. 36.

(2) See R. v. Azzopardi, 2 Mood. C. C. 288.

(3) See McLeod v. Atty. Gen. N. S. Wales, 14 L. N. 402-405.

(4) R. v. Sharp, 5 P. R. (Ont.) 135. See, also, Art. 560 of the Code, p. 106, post.