ishment by fine and imprisonment imposed by the Provincial Act stood abolished as long as the Mutiny Act was in force, and the imprisonment could in no case exceed six calendar months.

The power of trial by the Court of Oyer and Terminer, under the Con. Stat. U. C. c. 100, was not taken away by the Mutiny Act. It was, therefore, held no objection that a defendant had been tried by a Court of Oyer and Terminer, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, and a fine of 10s. imposed; for this was merely a nominal compliance with the Statute, and the Court had power to pass the proper judgment, if an improper one had been given. (a)

The 32 & 33 Vic., c. 25, seems to give no power of trial to a Court of Oyer and Terminer, so that the above case will scarcely apply to it. The offender may be convicted in a summary manner, before any two Justices of the Peace, on the evidence of one or more credible witness or witnesses, etc. By s. 5, every offence against the Act is a misdemeanor, and may be prosecuted as such, and nothing in the Act shall be construed to prevent any person being prosecuted, convicted, and punished, under any Act of the Imperial Parliament in force in Canada. (b) The defendant was indicted under the Con. Stat. U. C. c. 100, s. 2, and convicted of receiving and concealing a deserter from the Royal Nayy. The Naval Discipline (Imp.) Act, 29 & 30 Vic., c. 109, s. 25, authorizes a summary conviction before Magistrates for this offence; but the 101st section expressly preserves the power of any Court, of ordinary civil or criminal jurisdiction, with respect to any offence mentioned in the Act punishable by common or statute law:-Held, therefore, that the

(a) Reg. v. Sherman, supra, 166–172; Daw v. Metro. Board Co., 12 C. B. N. S. 161, 8 Jur. N. S. 1040.

(b) See also 34 Vic. c. 32, 33 Vic. c. 19.

defendant could be indicted under the Provincial Act, and that the conviction was right. (a) Where an indictment charged that the defendant did receive, conceal, or assist "one W., a deserter from the navy," the Court inclined to think that this was not sufficiently certain or precise; for although acts which would prove concealment must involve receiving, and still more certainly assisting, yet there might be acts of assistance quite apart from either concealment or receiving. (b) The Mutiny Act of 1867, 30 Vic., c. 13, has no applicability to the above case. The provisions of that Act relate only to soldiers, or to persons in connection with their conduct towards those who come within the meaning of the Act as soldiers. (c)

A warrant of commitment, in which it was charged that the prisoner, on the 20th June, 1864, " and on divers other days and times," at the City of Kingston, did unlawfully attempt to persuade one James Hewitt, a soldier in Her Majesty's service, to desert, was held bad; for it was impossible to say, upon reading the warrant, how many offences he had committed, or how the punishment was awarded to each specific offence. And if the prisoner were brought up again, he would be unable to say whether he had been tried or not, for he could not tell for which attempt he had already been imprisoned :— Held, also, that there was no conviction to sustain the warrant of commitment, nor, in fact, any conviction to sustain an imprisonment at all; for if the very words were used in the commitment which were cited in the alleged conviction, the commitment could not be sustained. (d)

When a soldier commits felony, by firing, without

orders, on a crowd of people, in the streets of a city, such conduct being insubordinate, unsoldier-like, and to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, he must first be held to answer before the constituted tribunals in the colony proceeding under the common law, before a military court, under the Mutiny Act, and the Articles of War can legally take cognizance of the charge. (a)

by

A volunteer is liable, by 29 & 30 Vic., c. 12, to be tried a Court Martial for misconduct while present at a parade of his corps, though not actually serving in the ranks at the time. (b)

Piracy. This offence at common law consists in committing those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high sers which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there. (c) It was not felony which was triable by jury at common law, but has been made so by the 28 Hy. 8, c. 15, and 11 & 12 Wm. 3, c. 7. (d) These two Statutes may, perhaps, be treated as in force here, being part of the law of England at the time of its introduction. In Canada, piracy is, in fact, felony committed within the jurisdiction of any Court of Admiralty; for any felony punishable under the laws of Canada, if committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts, may be dealt with, enquired of, tried, and determined in the same manner as any other felony committed within that jurisdiction. (e)

The Imp. Stat. 12 & 13 Vic., c. 96, extends to the Dominion, and makes further and better provision for the trial of piracy than is made in and by the two former Statutes, and may, perhaps, to some extent, supersede them. Commissions were required for the trial of offences

(a) Ex parte McCulloch, 4 L. C. R. 467.

(b) Ex parte Rickaby, 17 L. C. R. 270. (c) Russ. Cr. 144.

(d) Russ. Cr. 144.

(e) 32 & 33 Vic., c. 29, s. 136; see also 12 & 13 Vic., c. 96, s. 1.

under the earlier Statutes, but it is conceived that the later enactment is in itself a sufficient authority for the trial of these offences, and that commissions are now unnecessary.

The material enquiry in cases of piracy is as to the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts.

The Admiralty jurisdiction of England extends over British vessels, not only when they are sailing on the high seas, but also when they are in the rivers of a foreign territory, at a place 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. And all seamen, whatever their nationality, serving on board British vessels, are amenable to the provisions of British law. (a)

An American citizen, serving on board a British ship, caused the death of another American citizen, serving on board the same ship, under circumstances amounting to manslaughter, the ship at the time being in the river Garonne, within French territory, at a place below bridges, where the tide ebbed and flowed, and great ships went:-Held that the ship was within the Admiralty jurisdiction, and that the prisoner was rightly tried and convicted at the Central Criminal Court. (b)

Where, on a trial for maliciously wounding on the high seas, it was stated by three witnesses that the vessel on board which the offence was alleged to have been committed was a British ship, of Shields, and that she was sailing under the British flag, but no proof was given of the register of the vessel, or of the ownership:-Held that the Court had jurisdiction over the offence-first, because the evidence was sufficient to prove that the

(a) Reg. v. Anderson, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 161, 38 L. J. (M. C.) 12; and see Reg. v. Lopez, 1 Dears B. 1 C. C. 525; Reg. v. Lesley, 1 Bell, C. C. 220. (b) Reg. v. Anderson, supra; and see Keg. v. Allen, 1 Mood. C. C. 494.

vessel was a British vessel; secondly, because, even if it had appeared that the vessel was not registered, the Court would still have jurisdiction, as there is rothing in the Merchant Shipping Act to take away that jurisdicsion, and also by reason of s. 106 of the latter Act, 1854, which provides that, as regards the punishment of offences committed on board such a ship, she shall be dealt with in the same manner as if she were a recognised British ship. (a)

The prisoner was indicted for stealing three chests of tea from a vessel, which sailed from London, on the high seas, when the vessel was lying off Wampa, in China. The vessel lay twenty or thirty miles from the sea. No evidence was given of the flowing of the tide, or otherwise, where the vessel lay-Held, on a caso reserved, that the offence was within the Admiralty jurisdiction. (b) Where the sea flows in between two points of land in England, a straight imaginary line being drawn from one point to the other, the Courts of common law have jurisdiction of all offences committed within that line, though it is said the Admiralty has concurrent jurisdiction within such line. (c)

The great inland lakes of Canada are within the Admiralty jurisdiction, and by the Imp. Act 12 & 13 Vic., c. 9, there is authority in our Courts and Magistrates to take cognizance of an offence committed in the lakes, although in American waters, in the same manner as if committed on the high seas. The power may be exercised by all Magistrates in the colony, as if the offence had been committed in the waters within the limits of the colony, and within the limits of the local jurisdiction

(a) Reg. v. Sebery, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 264, 39 L. J. (M. C.) 133.

(b) Rex v. Allen, 7 C. & P. 664; Reg. v. Sharpe, 5 U. C. P. R. 138, per A. Wilson, J.

(c) Ib. 139, per A. Wilson, J.; Rex v. Bruce, R. & R. 243.