the ground of the application, they must be specifically stated, and no mere general statement will suffice. (a) Where the defendant, having been convicted on the information of a toll gate keeper of evading toll, appealed to the Sessions, where he was tried before a jury, and acquitted, this Court refused a writ of certiorari to remove the proceedings, the effect of which would be to put him a second time on trial. (b) It would seem that after an acquittal at the Sessions, the writ cannot be granted; at all events, at the instance of a private prosecutor. (c) A conviction, under the Con. Stats. L. C., c. 6, by a Judge of the Sessions of the Peace cannot be brought up before the Superior Court by certiorari. (d) Two persons were convicted of selling intoxicating liquors without licence, in a township, where the sale of intoxicating liquors, and the issue of licences authorising the sale, were prohibited under the "Temperance Act of 1864," 27 & 28 Vic., c. 18. A memorandum of the conviction simply stating it to have been a conviction for selling liquor, without a licence was given by the Justices to the accused. An application for a writ of certiorari to remove the conviction was refused, for it would seem, although the issue of a licence is prohibited by a by-law, it is still an offence under (Ont), 32 Vic., c. 32, to sell liquor without a licence, and even if the conviction had been under the Temperance Act of 1864, and not under (Ont.) 32 Vic., c. 32, it was amendable under 29 & 30 Vic., c. 50. (e) But, as neither the (Ont) 32 Vic., c. 32, or the 27 & 28 Vic., c. 18, authorize an appeal to any Court, it would (a) Re Kellett, 2 U. C. P. R. 102; Reg. v. Jowle, 5 A. & E. 539; Reg. v. Josephs, 8 Dowl. P. C. 128. (b) Re Stewart, 2 L. C. G. 24. (c) Ib. See Reg. v. Lafferty, 9 U. C. Q. B. 306. (d) Ex parte Vaillancourt, 16 L. C. R. 227. (e) Re Watts, 5 U. C. P. R. 267. defeat their objects to grant a certiorari to remove a conviction for the purpose of quashing it, in respect of a matter, not appearing upon the conviction itself to be a defect rendering it bad, and which, if the appeal had not been taken away would have been rectified on an appeal. (a) Proceedings had under the 31 Vic., c. 42, s. 18, are of such a character, as to be susceptible of being removed by certiorari. (b) An Ecclesiastical decree of the Archbishop of Quebec, for the erection of a parish is not a civil proceeding, subject to revision by certiorari, so long as no proceedings have been taken for obtaining a ratification of such decree by the civil authorities. (c) The powers exercised by commissioners, under the 2 Vic., c. 29, s. 4, as to erection of parishes are not judicial powers, subject to revision by certiorari (d) The Superior Court of Montreal has no jurisdiction to grant a writ of certiorari, to bring up a conviction had before a Justice of the Peace, in the district of ThreeRivers. (e) A certiorari only substitutes the Superior Court for the Court below, and, whatever ought to have been done there, had the case remained there, it must be the duty of Superior Court to do, when the case is removed. (f) An application for a certiorari should be made at the first term, after the conviction, but where the Justice had no jurisdiction in the matter, a certiorari was granted, though a term had elapsed (g) Where an appeal from a summary conviction is made to a Judge of this Court, (a) Re Watts, 5 U. C. P. R. 270, per Gwynne, J. (d) Ex parte Lecours, 3 L. C. R. 123. (e) Ex parte Cumming, 3 L. C. R. 110. (f) Reg. v. Wightman, 29 U. C. Q. B. 214, per Morrison, J. (g) Ex parte Mulhern, 4 Allen 259. under the (N.B.) 1 Rev. Stat. c. 161, s. 32, which provides that an appeal from a summary conviction shall be made in the same manner as from a judgment in a civil suit, (a) and refused by him, a subsequent application to this Court for a certiorari, should, in general, be made at the first term afterwards. The Court refused to interfere in such a case, after the lapse of one term, where the conviction appeared to be sufficient on the merits. (b) An application for a certiorari to remove proceedings under the Highway Act, 13 Vic., c. 4, though no time is limited, by law, should be made without unreasonable delay. But a delay of one term is not unreasonable. (c) By the 13 Geo. 2, c. 18, s. 5, the writ must be sued out within six calendar months, next after the making of the conviction, judgment or order sought to be removed. This provision does not bind the Crown. (d) A writ of certiorari allowed before the expiration of six months from the day of the conviction, but not sued out until after the expiry of the six months will be quashed. (e) A certiorari not prosecuted during six months will be dismissed on motion. (f) The Statute further enacts that no writ of certiorari shall thenceforth be granted, issued forth, or allowed, to remove any conviction, order, etc., made by or before any Justice or Justices of the Peace, or the General Quarter Sessions, unless it be duly proved upon oath that the party suing out the same hath given six days' notice thereof, in writing, to the Justice or Justices, or any two of them, if so many there be, by and before whom such conviction, etc, shall be so made to the end that such Justice, or the (a) See c. 137, s. 44. (b) Ex parte O'Regan, 3 Allen, 261. (c) Ex parte Herbert, 3 Allen, 108. (d) Rex. v. Justices, Newcastle, Draper 121. (e) Rex v. Chillas, Rob. Dig. 74. (f) Ex parte Boyer, 2 L. C. J. 188-9; ex parte Prefontaine, ib. 202. parties therein concerned, may shew cause against the issuing or granting of the said certiorari. A party was convicted of assault before three Justices, and sentenced to pay a fine and costs. He appealed to the Sessions, and the conviction was affirmed. He then obtained a certiorari, addressed to the Chairman of the Sessions, to remove the conviction affirmed by the Sessions. The caption of the order made by the Sessions, affirming the conviction of the defendant, stated it to have been made by the Chairman, and J. K. and W. G., Justices. On the ex parte application for the certiorari, the only notices, filed by the defendant, were notices served on the three convicting Justices. No notice was served on the Chairman of the Sessions, or any two of his associates. It was held, on a rule to quash the certiorari, that the notice required by the Statute should have been given to the Chairman of the Sessions, and his associates or any two of them, as required by the Statute, and the certiorari being obtained without such notice was set aside. (a) The notice should be given to the Justices actually present, when the order of Sessions is made. It has been held that, where a rule nisi for a certiorari has been first taken out, and served on the Justices, and a rule absolute obtained for issuing the writ, that such a proceeding is not notice to the Justices, and, in such a case, the Court have quashed the certiorari upon motion to do so. (b) Notice of application for a writ of certiorari must be given to the convicting Justice, and the want of such notice is good cause to be shewn to a rule nisi, to quash the conviction. (c) (a) Reg. v. Ellis, 25 U. C. Q. B. 324. (b) Ib. 326, per Morrison, J.; Rex v. Nicholls, 5 T. R. 281 n.; Rex v. Rattislaw, 5 Dowl. P. C. 539. (c) Reg. v. Peterman, 23 U. C. Q. B. 516. In Ellis' case, notice was given to the convicting Justices, but not to the Chairman of the Sessions, or his as sociates; and, in Peterman's case, notice was given to the Chairman of the Sessions, but not to the convicting Justice. It would seem therefore that notice to both parties is necessary. In a notice, under the Statute, of application for a certiorari to remove a conviction, the grounds of objection to such conviction need not be stated. (a) No notice is necessary, when the application is made by the private prosecutor, and not by the defendant, and the writ in such case issues of course, and without assigning any grounds. (b) The cases before referred to (c) apply only, when the writ is obtained by the defendant with the view of quashing the conviction. (d) An application to a Judge, in Chambers, for a certiorari, should be by a summons or rule nisi, in the first instance. (e) Where a rule nisi, for a certiorari, is discharged, because the affidavits are improperly entitled, the application may be renewed on amended affidavits. (ƒ) Where a certiorari is applied for, to remove a conviction with a view to quashing it, before the return to the writ is filed, affidavits and rules should not be entitled in the cause, for, until the return is filed, there is no cause in Court. So soon as the return to the certiorari has been filed, the cause is in Court, and the motion paper and rule nisi must be entitled in the cause. Where the rule was not so entitled it was discharged; but, being on a tech (a) Re Taylor v. Davy, 1 U. C. P. R. 346. (b) Reg. v. Murray, 27 U. C. Q. B. 134. (c) Reg. v. Ellis, 25 U. C. Q. B. 324; Reg. v. Peterman, 23 U. C. Q. B. 516. (d) Reg. v. Murray, supra. (e) Ex parte Howell, 1 Allen, 584. (f) Ex parte Bustin, 2 Allen, 211. |