(a) With intent to burn, maim, disfigure or disable any person, or to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, whether any bodily harm is effected

or not

(i) Causes any explosive substance to explode;

(ii) Sends or delivers to, or causes to be taken or received by, any person any explosive substance, or any other dangerous or noxious thing;

(iii) Puts or lays at any place, or casts or throws at or upon, or otherwise applies to, any person any corrosive fluid, or any destructive or explosive substance; or

(b) Places or throws in, into, upon, against or near any building, ship or vessel any explosive substance, with intent to do any bodily injury to any person, whether or not any explosion takes place and whether or not any bodily injury is effected. R. S. C. c. 162, ss. 22 and 23. 24-25 V. c. 100, ss. 29 & 30 (Imp.).

The words in italics are not in the Imperial Act.

Explosive substance" defined, s. 3.

The words "and maliciously" were in the repealed section after" unlawfully."

a

Indictment under s. 248 for sending an explosive subunlawfully did send (or stance with intent, etc. deliver to or cause to be taken or received by) to one J. N., certain explosive substance and dangerous and noxious thing, to wit, two drachms of fulminating silver, and two pounds weight of gunpowder, with intent in so doing him the said J. N. thereby then to burn (maim, disfigure or (Add counts disable, or do some grievous bodily harm). varying the injury and intent).

intent, etc.

Indictment under s. 248 for throwing corrosive fluid, with unlawfully did cast and throw upon one J. N. a certain corrosive fluid, to wit, one pint of oil of vitriol, with intent in so doing him the said J. N., thereby then to burn. (Add counts varying the injury and the

intent.)

In R. v. Crawford, 1 Den. 100, the prisoner was indicted for maliciously throwing upon P. C., certain destructive matter, to wit, one quart of boiling water, with intent, etc. The prisoner was the wife of P. C., and when he was asleep she, under the influence of jealousy, boiled a quart of water, and poured it over his face and into one of his ears, and

ran off boasting she had boiled him in his sleep. The injury was very grievous. The man was for a time deprived of sight, and had frequently lost for a time the hearing of one ear. The jury having convicted, the judges held that the conviction was right.

In R. v. Murrow, 1 Moo. 456, it was held, where the defendant threw vitriol in the prosecutor's face, and so wounded him, that this wounding was not the "wounding meant by the 9 Geo. IV. c. 31, s. 12; but it would now fall under this statute. The question of intent is for the jury: R. v. Saunders, 14 Cox, 180.

Indictment under 8. 247 for burning by gunpowder.—

unlawfully, by the explosion of a certain explosive substance, that is to say, gunpowder, one J. N. did burn (Add counts varying the statement of the injury, according to circumstances.)

Indictment charged defendants with having unlawfully, knowingly and wilfully deposited in a room in a lodging or boarding house (described) in the city of Halifax, near to certain streets or thoroughfares and in close proximity to divers dwelling houses, excessive quantities of a dangerous and explosive substance called dynamite, in excessive and dangerous quantities, by reason whereof the inhabitants, etc., were in great danger: Held, good, without alleging carelessness, or that the quantities deposited were so great that care would not produce safety: R. v. Holmes, 5 R. & G. (N. S.) 498.

SETTING SPRING GUNS, TRAPS, ETC., ETC.

249. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to five years' imprisonment who sets or places, or causes to be set or placed, any spring-gun, man-trap, or other engine calculated to destroy human life or inflict grievous bodily harm, with the intent that the same or whereby the same may destroy, or inflict grievous bodily harm upon any trespasser or other person coming in contact therewith.

2. Every one who knowingly and wilfully permits any such spring-gun, man-trap or other engine which has been set or placed by some other person, in any place which is in, or afterwards comes into, his possession or occupation, to continue so set or placed shall be deemed to have set or placed such gun, trap or engine with such intent as aforesaid.

3. This section does not extend to any gun or trap usually set or placed with the intent of destroying vermin or noxious animals. R. S. C. c. 162, s. 24, 24-25 V. c. 100, s. 31 (Imp.).

The last three words are new: see Wootton v. Dawkins, 2 C. B. N. S. 412; Bird v. Holbrook, 4 Bing. 628; Ilott v. Wilkes, 3 B. & Ald. 304; Jordin v. Crump 8 M. & W. 782.

Fine, s. 958.

The English Act has the following additional proviso: "Provided also that nothing in this section shall be deemed to make it unlawful to set or place or cause to be set or placed, or to be continued set or placed, from sunset to sunrise, any spring-gun, man-trap, or other engine which shall be set or placed, or caused or continued to be set or placed, in a dwelling-house for the protection thereof."

Indictment.unlawfully did set and place, and caused to be set and placed, in a certain garden situate a certain spring-gun which was then loaded and charged with gunpowder and divers leaden shot, with intent that the said spring-gun, so loaded and charged as aforesaid, should inflict grievous bodily harm upon any trespasser who might come in contact therewith.

Prove that the defendant placed or continued the springgun loaded in a place where persons might come in contact with it; and if any injury was in reality occasioned state it in the indictment, and prove it as laid. The intent can only be inferred from circumstances, as the position of the gun, the declarations of the defendant, and so forth; any injury actually done will, of course, be some evidence of the intent: Archbold.

A dog-spear set for the purpose of preserving the game is not within the statute, if not set with the intention to do grievous bodily harm to human beings: 1 Russ. 1052.

The instrument must be calculated to destroy life or cause grievous bodily harm, and proved to be such; and, if the prosecutor, while searching for a fowl among some bushes

in the defendant's garden, came in contact with a wire which caused a loud explosion, whereby he was knocked down, and slightly injured about the face, it was held that the case was not within the statute, as it was not proved what was the nature of the engine or substance which caused the explosion, and it was not enough that the instrument was one calculated to create alarm: 1 Russ. 1053.

INJURIES TO RAILWAYS, ETC.

250. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who unlawfully

(a) With intent to injure or to endanger the safety of any person travelling or being upon any railway,

(i) Puts or throws upon or across such railway any wood, stone, or other matter or thing;

(ii) Takes up, removes or displaces any rail, railway switch, sleeper or other matter or thing belonging to such railway, or injures or destroys any track, bridge or fence of such railway, or any portion thereof;

(iii) Turns, moves or diverts any point or other machinery belonging to such railway;

(iv) Makes or shows, hides or removes any signal or light upon or near to such railway;

(v) Does or causes to be done any other matter or thing with such intent; or

(b) Throws, or causes to fall or strike at, against, into or upon any engine, tender, carriage or truck used and in motion upon any railway any wood, stone or other matter or thing, with intent to injure or endanger the safety of any person being in or upon such engine, tender, carriage or truck, or in or upon any other engine, tender, carriage or truck of any train of which such first mentioned engine, tender, carriage or truck forms part. R. C. S. c. 162, ss. 25 & 26. 24-25 V. c. 100, s. 32-33 (Imp.).

The words "and maliciously" were in the repealed section after "unlawfully."

See remarks under next section.

ENDANGERING SAFETY OF PERSON ON RAILWAY.

251. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who, by any unlawful act, or by any wilful omission or neglect of duty, endangers or causes to be endangered the safety of any person conveyed or being in or upon a railway, or aids or assists therein. R. S. C. c. 162, $. 27. 24-25 V. c. 100, s. 34 (Imp.).

Fine, s. 958. A verdict of attempt may be given, if the evidence warrants it, s. 711.

The words "of duty" in this last section are not in the English Act.

Indictment under s. 251 for endangering by wilful neglect the safety of railway passengers. that J. S. on unlawfully did, by a certain wilful omission and neglect of his duty, that is to say, by then wilfully omitting and neglecting to turn certain points in and upon a certain railway called in the parish which points it was then the duty of him, the said J. S., to turn, endanger the safety of certain persons then conveyed and being in and upon the said railway (Add counts varying

the statement of defendant's duty, etc.)

An acquittal of the offence under s. 250 was no bar to an indictment for the offence under s. 251: R. v. Gilmore, 15 Cox, 85; but now it would be as a verdict for the offence provided for in s. 251 can be given on an indictment under s. 250: s. 713, post.

See post, remarks under s. 489. The forms of indictments there given may form a guide for indictments under the present section.

Prove that it was the duty of the defendant to turn the points; that he wilfully omitted and neglected to do so; and that, by reason of such omission and neglect, the safety of the passengers or other persons conveyed or being on the railway was endangered (which words will include, not only passengers, but officers and servants of the railway company): Archbold.

In R. v. Holroyd, 2 M. & Rob. 339, it appeared that large quantities of earth and rubbish were found placed across the railway, and the prosecutor's case was that this had been done by the defendant wilfully and in order to obstruct the use of the railway; and the defendant's case was that the earth and rubbish had been accidentally dropped on the railway: Maule, J., told the jury, that if the rubbish had been dropped on the rails by mere accident the defendant was not guilty; but "it was by no