though not necessarily quick with child. The poison or other noxious thing must have been administered, or the instrument used, with the intent to procure the miscarriage. It must be proved, according to the fact stated in the indictment, that the woman administered to herself, etc., or that the defendant administered, etc., or caused to be taken, etc., the drug, as therein stated, and that the drug was noxious, or that the defendant used the instrument, or other means, mentioned in the manner described in the indictment: 1 Burn, 14.

Where the prisoner gave the prosecutrix the drug for the purpose of procuring abortion, and the prosecutrix took it for that purpose in the prisoner's absence, this was held to be a causing of it to be taken within s. 272: R. v. Wilson, Dears. & B. 127; R. v. Farrow, Dears. & B. 164.

A man and woman were jointly indicted for feloniously administering to C. a noxious thing to the jurors unknown with intent to procure miscarriage. C., being in the family way, went to the male prisoner, who said he would give her some stuff to put her right, and gave her a light coloured medicine, and told her to take two spoonfuls till she became in pain. She did so and it made her ill. She then went to him again, and he said the safest course would be to get her a place to go to. He told her that he had found a place for her at L., and gave her some more of the stuff, which he said would take effect when she got there. They went together to L. and met the female prisoner, who said she had been down to the station several times the day before to meet them. C. then began Then the male

to feel pain and told the female prisoner. prisoner told what he had given C. They all went home to the female prisoner's, and the male prisoner then gave C. another bottle of similar stuff in the female prisoner's presence, and told her to take it like the other. She did so and became very ill, and the next day had a miscarriage,

the female prisoner attending her and providing all things. Held, that there was evidence that the stuff administered was a noxious thing within the 24 & 25 V. c. 100, s. 58 (Imp.). Also that there was evidence of the female being an accessory before the fact, and a party, therefore, to the administering of the noxious thing: R. v. Hollis, 12 Cox,

468.

Under s. 272, the fact of the woman being pregnant is immaterial: R. v. Goodhall, 1 Den. 187. But the prisoner must have believed her to be pregnant, otherwise there could be no intent under the section. Under an indictment for this offence the prisoner may be convicted of an attempt to commit it: s. 711; see R. v. Cramp, 14 Cox, 390 & 401, and Warb. Lead Cas. 120.

unlawfully did procure

Indictment under 8. 274.(supply or procure) a large quantity, to wit, two ounces of a certain noxious thing called savin, he the said (defendant) then well knowing that the same was then intended to be unlawfully used and employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of one A. N.

The drug supplied must be a poison or noxious thing, and the supplying an innoxious drug, whatever may be the intent of the person supplying it, is not an offence against the enactment: R. v. Isaacs, L. & C. 220.

In order to constitute the offence within the meaning of this section it is not necessary that the intention of employing the noxious drug should exist in the mind of the woman; it is sufficient if the intention to procure abortion exists in the mind of the defendant: R. v. Hillman, L. & C. 343.

The prisoner may be convicted of an attempt to commit this offence, upon an indictment under this section, s. 711.

Supplying a noxious thing with the intent to procure abortion is an offence under this section, whether the woman is pregnant or not: R. v. Titley, 14 Cox, 502.

Giving oil of savin to procure abortion is indictable: R. v. Stitt, 30 U. C. C. P. 30.

In R. v. Dale, 16 Cox, 703, upon the trial of an offence, as provided for in s. 272, ante, evidence was admitted that at various times, before and after the offence charged, the prisoner had caused other miscarriages by similar means.

See R. v. Whitchurch, 16 Cox, 743, 24 Q. B. D. 420, on a conspiracy to procure abortion.

PART XXII.

OFFENCES AGAINST CONJUGAL AND PARENTAL
RIGHTS-BIGAMY-ABDUCTION.

275. Bigamy is

DEFINITION.

(a) The act of a person who, being married, goes through a form of marriage with any other person in any part of the world; or

(b) The act of a person who goes through a form of marriage in any part of the world with any person whom he or she knows to be married; or

(c) The act of a person who goes through a form of marriage with more than one person simultaneously or on the same day. R. S. C. c 37, s. 10. (The Act cited is on Railways).

2. A "form of marriage" is any form either recognized as a valid form by the law of the place where it is gone through, or though not so recognized, is such that a marriage celebrated there in that form is recognized as binding by the law of the place where the offender is tried. Every form shall for the purpose of this section be valid, notwithstanding any act or default of the person charged with bigamy, if it is otherwise a valid form. The fact that the parties would, if unmarried, have been incompetent to contract marriage shall be no defence upon a prosecution for bigamy.

3. No one commits bigamy by going through a form of marriage

(a) If he or she in good faith and on reasonable grounds believes his wife or her husband to be dead; or

(b) If his wife or her husband has been continually absent for seven years then last past and he or she is not proved to have known that his wife or her husband was alive at any time during those seven years; or

(c) If he or she has been divorced from the bond of the first marriage; or

(d) If the former marriage has been declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction. R. S. C. c. 161, s. 4.

4. No person shall be liable to be convicted of bigamy in respect of having gone through a form of marriage in a place not in Canada, unless such person, being a British subject resident in Canada, leaves Canada with intent to go through such form of marriage. R. S. C. c. 161, s. 4.

The words in italics settle the law as it was held to be heretofore by the decision in R. v. Tolson, 16 Cox, 629, 23 Q. B. D. 168, Warb. Lead. Cas. 72.

As to the competency of a colonial legislature to punish bigamy committed outside of the colony, see MacLeod v. The Attorney-General of New South Wales, 17 Cox, 341, [1891], A. C. 455; and R. v. Brierly, 14 O. R. 525; R. v. Topping, 7 Cox, 103.

PUNISHMENT.

276. Every one who commits bigamy is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to seven years' imprisonment.

2. Every one who commits this offence after a previous conviction for a like offence shall be liable to fourteen years' imprisonment. R. S. C. c. 161, s. 4. 53 V. c. 37, ss. 10, 11. 24-25 V. c. 100, s. 57 (Imp.).

Sub-section 2 is new.

the

Indictment.

that J. S. on

at the parish of in

did marry one A. C., spinster, and her the said A. C. then and there had for his wife; and that the said J. S. afterwards, and whilst he was so married to the said A. C., as aforesaid, to wit, on the day at unlawfully did marry and take to wife one M. Y., and to her the said M. Y. was then and there married, the said A. C., his former wife, being then alive.

Bigamy is the offence of a husband or wife marrying again during the life of the first wife or husband. It is not strictly correct to call this offence bigamy; it is more properly denominated polygamy, i. e., having a plurality of wives or husbands at once, while bigamy according to the canonists consists in marrying two virgins successively, one after the death of the other, or in once marrying a

Upon an indictment for bigamy, the prosecutor must prove: 1st, the two marriages; 2nd, the identity of the parties: Roscoe, 294.

The law will not, in cases of bigamy, presume a marriage valid to the same extent as in civil cases: R. v. Jacobs, 1 Moo. 140.

The first wife or husband is not a competent witness. to prove any part of the case, but the second wife or husband is after the first marriage is established, for she or he is not legally a wife or husband: R. v. Ayley, 15 Cox, 328.

The first marriage must be a valid one. The time at which it was celebrated is immaterial, and whether celebrated in this country or in a foreign country is also immaterial: Archbold, 883.

If celebrated abroad it may be proved by any person who was present at it; and circumstances should also be proved from which the jury may presume that it was a valid marriage according to the laws of the country in which it was celebrated. Proof that a ceremony was performed by a person appearing and officiating as a priest, and that it was understood by the parties to be the marriage ceremony, according to the rites and customs of the foreign country, would be sufficient presumptive evidence of it so as to throw upon the defendant the onus of impugning its validity: R. v. Cresswell, 13 Cox, 126; see R. v. Savage 13 Cox 178; and R. v. Griffin, 14 Cox, 308; R. v. Brierly 14 0. R. 525.

In the case of R. v. McQuiggan, 2 L. C. R. note, 346, the proof of the first marriage was attempted to be made by the voluntary examination of the accused, taken before Thomas Clancy the committing magistrate, but this being irregular and defective its reception was successfully objected to by the counsel for the prisoner. The Crown then tendered the evidence of Mr. Clancy as to the story the prisoner told him when taken before him after his arrest. This the Court held to be good evidence, and allowed it to