raise rebellion and levy war within | money taken from a prisoner charg ed with high treason be restored to him, unless it is made to appear to the court that the money forms no part of the proof against him. Ib. 132. the realm, and 2ndly, levying war within the realm at various places. There was evidence that he was a member of the directing body of a treasonable conspiracy, having for its object the overthrow of the Queen's government, and the establishment of a republic in Ireland. There was also evidence that he had planned an attack upon the castle of Chester, in England, for the purpose of seizing arms there, and conveying them to Ireland, with the view of raising an insurrection there. Evidence was also given that the directing body had, in February, 1867, given orders for a rising in Ireland. On the 23rd February, 1867, he was arrested while at tempting to land in Dublin. On the 5th March, 1867, he being in custody, an insurrectionary movement, the result of the commands of the directing body of the conspiracy, broke out in several places in Ireland, and various acts of war were committed :-Held, that those acts of war were receivable against him on the indictment in England. Reg. v. M'Cafferty, 1 Ir. R., C. L. 363; 15 W. R. 1022; 10 Cox, C. C. 603. The rule as to the necessity of having two witnesses in cases of high treason considered and discussed. Ib. Practice at Trial.]-The prisoner has a right to address the jury, in addition to the speeches of his counsel. Rex v. Collins, 5 C. & P. 305 -Bosanquet and Gurney. Where the crown gave evidence in reply, the witness in reply was called before the second counsel for the prisoner addressed the jury, and the leading counsel for the prisoner commented on the evidence in reply, also before the second counsel for the prisoner addressed the jury. Reg. v. Frost, 9 C. & P. 160. The court will not order that Counsel may be assigned for a prisoner charged with high treason, upon an application made to the clerk of the crown, during an adjournment of the commissioners, between the finding of the indictment and the arraignment, or the prisoner will be allowed, if he wishes it, to delay naming his counsel till he is brought up to be tried. Ib. Prisoners will be allowed copies of the depositions against them, on the terms prescribed by 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 114, s. 3. Ib. A person charged with high treason cannot be allowed by the court before which he is tried to have two attornies, unless they are partners. Ib. The court will not order that papers taken from his house should be restored to him; neither will they order that he shall be furnished with copies of them. Ib. 133. The only counsel who are recognized by the court, are the two counsel who are assigned by the court, and the court will not take notice of any assistant counsel. Ib. 135. In charging a jury with a prisoner, it is not necessary to read the whole of the indictment at length to the jury, unless the prisoner or his counsel wish it; it is sufficient for the clerk of the crown to state the subject of it. Ib. 138. During a trial for high treason, which was expected to last several days, the court ordered that the prisoner's attorney should have access to him every day, after the rising of the court, till 10 P.M., and before the sitting of the court, from 7 A.M., although it was stated by the governor of the prison that the prison was not open for any other Treason Felony.]-The 11 & 12 Vict. c. 12, declares it to be felony to "compass, imagine, invent, devise, and intend to deprive and depose our lady the Queen," &c., &c. In support of the charge of this offence under the statute, it is sufficient to allege as overt acts that the defendants conspired, combined, confederated and agreed to commit the offence. Mulcahy v. Reg. (in error), 3 L. R., H. L. Cas. 306. Where there are several overt acts charged in a count, and judg ment is given on a general verdict of guilty on that count, such judgment will be sustained, though some of the matters alleged as overt acts may be improperly so alleged, provided that the count contains allegations of overt acts that are sufficiently alleged. Ib. The allegation, in one count, of several different overt acts of felony is not objectionable under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 12. Ib. der the Treason Felony Act, 11 & 15 Vict. c. 12, in causing to be conveyed arms and ammunition into Ireland for the purpose of overthrowing the established government :-Held, that the party selling arms, knowing they are to be used for purposes of insurrection, is guilty of an overt act of conspiracy. Secret storing of arms, and sending them, under feigned addresses, into districts where the confederacy exists, and with the sanction and knowledge of the confederacy, is evidence of the offence. Reg. v. Davitt, 11 Cox, C. C. 676. XLII. TREASURE TROVE. Concealing and Appropriating.] In an indictment for concealing treasure trove from the crown, it is not necessary to aver that the person concealed it fraudulently. The words "unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly," are sufficient. Reg. v. Thomas, L. &. C. 313; 33 L. J., M. C. 22; 12 W. R. 108; 9 L. T., N. S. 488. Under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 12, s. 3, it is sufficient evidence to support a A., in ploughing, found large conviction to shew that the prisoner rings of old gold of considerable was a member of a foreign society value, and sold them for brass to B. having for its object the several for 58. 6d., saying where he found treasonable objects set out in the it. B. afterwards found out that several counts of the indictment, they were gold, and offered them to and also the existence of a domestic a jeweller for sale as gold. Then association of similar denomination, B. said he had sold them to C. for and connected with that abroad; and then to prove overt acts done within the venue, in promotion of those objects, by members of the association, and it is not necessary to prove any act of the prisoner himself done in Ireland, or even that he was in Ireland during any part of the period that the associations were shewn to exist either at home or abroad. Reg. v. Meaney, 15 W. R. 1082; 1 Ir. R., C. L. 500; 10 Cox, C. C. 506. The defendants were indicted un brass. Then B. and C. were at a bank together, depositing part of the proceeds for which C. had sold the gold rings:--Held, that there was evidence to support a conviction of both B. and C. for knowingly concealing treasure trove from the crown. Ib. An indictment for concealing treasure trove, averring that the Queen is entitled to the treasure, is good without any averment of any inquisition before the coroner, or office found as to the title of the 4. Pleas in Abatement, 509. 6. Demurrers, 514. 8. Commissions and Gaol Delivery, 517. 9. Restoring Money found on Prison ers, 518. 10. Contempt of Court, 519. 11. Affidavits, 519. 1. Indictment. (a) For what it lies in general. An indictment will not lie for a mere civil injury. Rex v. Storr, 3 Burr. 1698. As for pulling off the thatch of a man's dwelling-house. Rex v. Atkins, 3 Burr. 1706. Or for selling, as two chaldrons of coals, a less quantity. Rex v. Osborn, 3 Burr. 1697. That which is declared by statute to be a misdemeanor cannot be a felony. Rex v. Walford, 5 Esp. 62 -Hotham. An indictment lies not upon an act of Parliament which creates a new offence, and prescribes a particular remedy. Rex v. Wright, 1 Burr. 543. A person charged with an offence under an act of Parliament which is repealed before the time of trial comes, must not be put upon trial. Anon., 2 Lewin, C. C. 22-Park. Where a prohibition and a penalty are contained in the same section of a statute, the remedy must be by proceeding for the penalty; but where the prohibition is in one section, and the penalties are in a subsequent section, an indictment will lie. Reg. v. Buchanan, 8 Q. B. 883; 10 Jur. 736; 15 L. J., Q. B. 227. Acting as an attorney without having been admitted is a misdemeanor indictable under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 2, although a person so acting is incapable of maintaining an action for fees, and the so acting is a contempt of court. Ib. To sustain an indictment against ing an order of justices, in not a clergyman for refusing to marry abating a nuisance under the buildpersons who have obtained a reg- ing act, it appears to have been istrar's certificate for that purpose, founded on an order made in a case they must have presented themselves in which the justices had no juristo him to be married at some time diction, the judge at nisi prius will when he could legally have married direct an acquittal, although the dethem. Reg. v. James, 3 C. & K. fect appears on the record. Rex v. 167; T. & M. 300; 2 Den. C. C. 1; Hollis, 2 Stark. 536-Abbott. 14 Jur. 940. An indictment lies for disobeying an order of sessions. Rex v. Robinson, 2 Burr. 799; 2 Ld. Ken, 513. The 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 86, s. 20, which enacts, that the father or mother of a child, or, in case of their illness or absence, the occupier of the house in which the child should have been born, shall, within forty-two days after the birth, give information of the particulars thereof to the registrar, upon request, is imperative, and the party disobeying it is liable to an indictment. Reg. v. Price, 3 P. & D. 421; 11 A. & E. 727; 4 Jur. 291. The quarter sessions of a county made regulations as to the expenses to be allowed in cases of felony, and by one of them directed that the taxed bill of costs should be annexed to the order for their payment. These regulations were confirmed by a judge, under 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 26. In a case of felony, the clerk of assize made out the items of the costs allowed, and on the other half of the same sheet of paper wrote the order for the payment of their amount. The attorney for the prosecution tore off the first half of the paper which contained the items, and presented the other half to the county treasurer for payment. The treasurer refused to pay:-Held, that on account of the mutilation of the order the treasurer was not indictable for this refusal. Reg. v. Jones, 9 C. & P. 401; 2 M. C. C. 171. If, on an indictment for disobey If there is a positive averment of disobedience of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, an indictment is good, without a direct allegation of that which is the foundation of such jurisdiction; nor can a defendant otherwise avail himself, either at the trial or elsewhere, but by shewing a want of jurisdiction in the court. Rex v. Mytton, Cald. 536; 1 Bott's P. L. 428, n. ; 4 Dougl. 333; 3 Esp. 200, n. Upon the trial of an indictment for disobeying an order of justices, the recital upon the face of the order of the facts giving the magistrates jurisdiction is not evidence of the existence of such facts; nor is the setting out of the order in hæc verba in the indictment a sufficient allegation of the truth of the facts recited therein. Rex v. Gilkes, 2 M. & R. 454; 8 B. & C. 439; 3 C. & P. 52. An indictment lies against the president and stewards of a friendly society for disobeying an order of justices addressed to them to re-admit a member, though it is sworn that the power of doing so is not in the president and stewards, but in a committee. Rex v. Wade, 1 B. & Ad. 861. An indictment against overseers, on 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 47, for not accounting to the auditors of a union upon request, on a day appointed by him, is bad, unless it appears that there was some rule, order or regulation of the commissioners, that the overseers should account upon such request. Reg. v. Crossley, 2 P. & D. 319; 10 A. & E. 132; 3 Jur. 675. On dismissing an appeal against a poor-rate, it was ordered by the-Held, that the second order was sessions, that the appellants, "upon valid; and an indictment for disservice of the order, or a true copy obedience to such order was upheld. thereof, should pay to the respond- Reg. v. Brisby, 3 New Sess. Cas. ents 917. for their costs and charges 591; T. & M. 109; 1 Den. C. C. by reason of the appeal." An in- 416; 13 Jur. 520; 18 L. J., M. C. dictment for disobedience of the or- 157. der stating that a true copy of it was served on the defendants, who then and there had notice of the order, is sufficient. Reg. v. Mortlock, 7 Q. B. 459; 2 New Sess. Cas. 108; 9 Jur. 621; 14 L. J., M. C. 153. (c) Quashing. When.]-By 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 25, "every objection to any "indictment for any formal defect apparent on the face thereof shall In order to prove the service of "be taken, by demurrer or motion, the copy a witness was called, who "to quash such indictment, before stated, that the order, having been" the jury shall be sworn, and not drawn up from the minutes of the "afterwards." sessions on paper, and signed by the clerk of the peace, was read over by him to each of the defendants, whom he at the same time served with a true copy of it :Held, sufficient; and that it was not necessary to give notice to produce the copy served in order to let in such evidence. Ib. Held, also, that it was no objection to the order, that the amount of costs, having in the meantime been taxed by the clerk of the peace, was inserted in the order at an adjourned sessions, as the circumstances of the case warranted the conclusion that the parties assented to such a course. 1b. The Queen's Bench will not quash or stay proceedings on an indictment, if there is no obvious defect upon the face of the indictment. Reg. v. Burnby, 5 Q. B. 348; D. & M. 362; 8 Jur. 240; 13 L. J., M. C. 29. An indictment for perjury committed upon an examination before a surveyor-general of the customs did not aver that it was preferred under the direction of the commissioners, under 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 53, s. 112, and a motion was made to quash the indictment or to stay proceedings, upon an affidavit that such direction had not been given. The court refused to interfere sum Two indictments, the one for misdemeanor, the other for felony, had been removed into the Queen's Bench. The court refused to quash them upon an affidavit stating that they both related to the same transaction. Reg. v. Stockley, 2 G. & D. 728; 3 Q. B. 238. The general rule that an indict-marily. Ib. ment, and not a mandamus, is the proper mode of enforcing obedience by a ministerial officer to an order of sessions, does not prevail where the court sees that the ministerial officer is put forward merely as a nominal party, and that other persons are there who are to be compelled to perform the duty. Reg. v. Wood Ditton, 18 L. J., M. C. 218 -Q. B. Under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, an order in bastardy, invalid on the face of it, was made, and afterwards superseded, by the same magistrates; and, upon a fresh application, a second order was made, against which there was no appeal: Where a clear defect of jurisdiction appears on the face of an indictment, or is shewn by affidavit, the court will, on the application of a defendant, quash the indictment after he has pleaded. In a doubtful case the court will exercise its diseretion, and leave him to his remedy by writ of error. Reg. v. Heane, 4 B. & S. 947; 9 Cox, C. C. 433; |