See R. v. Pruntey, 16 Cox, 344; R. v. Bullard, 12 Cox, 353; R. v. Bull, 12 Cox, 31; R. v. Clements, 2 Den. 251; R. v. Stephenson, L. & C. 165, Warb. Lead. Cas. 233; R. v. De Vidil, 9 Cox, 4; Ex parte Huguet, 12 Cox, 551.

Doubts have arisen in England whether, under this last cited clause of the Imperial Act, the prosecution must have been identically for the same offence as charged against the prisoner by the depositions against him as taken by the magistrate, and it has even been held that a deposition taken on a charge of assault could not afterwards be received on an indictment for wounding: R. v. Ledbetter, 3 C. & K. 108. Though in the subsequent case of R. v. Beeston, Dears. 405, it was held by the court of criminal appeal that a deposition taken on a charge, either of assault and robbery, of doing grievous bodily harm, or of feloniously wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, can, after the death of the witness, be read upon a trial for murder or manslaughter, where the two charges relate to the same transaction, yet it seems by the report of the case that if the charges on the two occasions had been substantially different the deposition would not have been admissible: see R. v. Lee, 4 F. & F. 63; R. v. Radbourne, 1 Leach, 457; R. v. Smith, R. & R. 339; R. v. Dilmore, 6 Cox, 52. But in Canada, by s. 688, post, all doubts on the question are removed, and a deposition taken on "any" charge against a person may be read as evidence in the prosecution of such person for "any other offence," when the deposition is otherwise admissible.

Prisoner's deposition. The depositions on oath of a witness legally taken are admissible evidence against him if he is subsequently tried on a criminal charge. The only exception is in the case of answers to questions which he objected to, when his evidence was taken, as tending to criminate him but which he has been improperly compelled to answer: R. v. Coote, L. R. 4 P. C. 599, 12 Cox, 557; R. v. Garbett, 1 Den. 236. Where a witness claims protection on

the ground that an answer may criminate him, and he is compelled to answer, the answer is inadmissible whether he claim the protection in the first instance or after having given some answers tending to criminate himself: R. v. Garbett, ubi supra. But it seems that the part of the deposition given before such witness has so claimed the protection of the court is admissible: R. v. Coote, ubi supra. And the witness need not have been cautioned or put upon his guard as to the tendency of the question in order to render his answer admissible. See, now, s. 5 of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893, 56 V. c. 31. accused persons only and not to witnesses; and s. 592 enacts specially that "nothing herein contained shall prevent any prosecutor from giving in evidence any admission or confession, or other statement made at any time by the person accused or charged, which by law would be admissible as evidence against him." See 3 Russ. 418, and R. v. Coote, ubi supra. Also, R. v. Wellings, 14 Cox, 105, and R. v. Beriau, Ramsay's App. Cas. 185.

S. 591, ante, is applicable to

The fact alone of the witness residing abroad at the time of the trial is not sufficient to admit his deposition: R. v. Austin, Dears. 612.

On a trial for murder the examination of the deceased cannot be put in evidence if the prisoner had not the opportunity to cross-examine him, he having knowledge that it was his interest to do so: R. v. Milloy, 6 L. N. 93.

Depositions not taken in presence of the accused cannot be submitted to the grand jury under s. 687: R. v. Carbray, 13 Q. L. R. 100.

The deposition, regularly taken by the committing magistrate, of a witness was allowed to be read at the trial, for the reason that a medical man proved that the witness was old, and that he thought, under her state of nervousness, that she would faint at the idea of coming into court, though he was of opinion that she could go to London to see a doctor without difficulty or danger: held, that her

deposition ought not to have been received: R. v. Farrell, 12 Cox, 605; R. v. Thompson, 13 Cox, 181.

The deposition of a witness who has travelled to the assize town, but is too ill to attend court, may be read before the grand jury: R. v. Wilson, 12 Cox, 622; R. v. Gerrans, 13 Cox, 158; R. v. Goodfellow, 14 Cox, 326.

Depositions taken abroad under the Merchant Shipping Act may be received in evidence if the witness cannot be had: R. v. Stewart, 13 Cox, 296.

Too much importance ought not to be attached to the variations between what a witness says at the trial and what his deposition before the magistrate makes him say, if there is a substantial concordance between both: R. v. Wainwright, 13 Cox, 171.

On a charge of murder, to prove malice or motive against the prisoner the deposition of the deceased against him, taken before the magistrates on another charge, was held admissible: R. v. Buckley, 13 Cox, 293; R. v. Williams, 12 Cox, 101.

Upon a prosecution for uttering forged notes the deposition of one S., taken before the Police Magistrate on the preliminary investigation, was read upon the following proof that S. was absent from Canada. R. swore that S. had, a few months before, left his (R.'s) house where she (S.) had, for a time, lodged; that he had since twice heard from her in the U. S. but not for six months. The chief constable of Hamilton, where the prisoner was tried, proved ineffectual attempts to find S., by means of personal inquiries in some places, and correspondence with the police of other cities. S. had for some time lived with the prisoner as his

wife :

Held, upon a case reserved, Cameron, J., dis., that the admissibility of the deposition was in the discretion of the judge at the trial, and that it could not be said that he had wrongfully admitted it: R. v. Nelson, 1 O. R. 500.

DEPOSITIONS MAY BE USED FOR OTHER OFFENCES.

688. Depositions taken in the preliminary or other investigation of any charge against any person may be read as evidence in the prosecution of such person for any other offence, upon the like proof and in the same manner, in all respects, as they may, according to law, be read in the prosecution of the offence with which such person was charged when such depositions were taken. R. S. C. c. 174, s. 224.

The deposition on oath of a witness is evidence against him on his trial if he is subsequently charged with a crime R. v. Coote, 12 Cox, 557, L. R. 4 P. C. 599: see R. v. Buckley, ante, under s. 687, and remarks under that section.

EVIDENCE OF PRISONER'S STATEMENT,

689. The statement made by the accused person before the justice may, if necessary, upon the trial of such person, be given in evidence against him without further proof thereof, unless it is proved that the justice purporting to have signed the same did not in fact sign the same. R. S. C. c. 174, s. 223. 11-12 V. c 48, s. 18 (Imp.).

As to confessions under inducements see R. v. Fennell, Warb. Lead. Cas. 250, and cases there cited.

See R. v. Soucie, 1 P. & B. (N.B.) 611. S. 689 must be read in connection with s. 591 ante.

ADMISSIONS ON TRIAL. (New).

690. Any accused person on his trial for any indictable offence, or his counsel or solicitor, may admit any fact alleged against the accused so as to dispense with proof thereof.

"At present if the accused is proved before his trial to have made an admission it is evidence against him, but though he offers to make the same admission in court it is thought that in cases of felony the judge is obliged to refuse to let him do so."-Imp. Comm. Rep.

EVIDENCE ON TRIAL FOR PERJURY.

691. A certificate containing the substance and effect only, omitting the formal part, of the indictment and trial for any offence, purporting to be signed by the clerk of the court or other officer having the custody of the records of the court whereat the indictment was tried, or among which such indictment has been filed, or by the deputy of such clerk or other officer, shall, upon the trial of an indictment for perjury or subornation of perjury, be sufficient evidence of the trial of such indictment without proof of the signa ture or official character of the person appearing to have signed the same. R. S. C. c. 174, s. 225. 14-15 V. c. 100, s. 22 (Imp.).

It is to be observed that this section is merely remedial and will not prevent a regular record from being still admissible in evidence, and care must be taken to have such record drawn up in any case where the particular averments in the former indictment may be essential: Lord Campbell's Acts, by Greaves, 27.

Before the same court, though not during the same term, the production by the officer of the court of the indictment with the entries thereon and the docket entries is sufficient: R. v. Newman, 2 Den. 390. But the record or a certificate under the above section are necessary when before another court: R. v. Coles, 16 Cox, 165.

that

EVIDENCE ON TRIAL UNDER SECTIONS 460, ET SEQ.

692. When, upon the trial of any person, it becomes necessary to prove any coin produced in evidence against such person is false or counterfeit, it shall not be necessary to prove the same to be false and counterfeit by the evidence of any moneyer or other officer of Her Majesty's mint, or other person employed in producing the lawful coin in Her Majesty's dominions or elsewhere, whether the coin counterfeited is current coin, or the coin of any foreign prince, state or country, not current in Canada, but it shall be sufficient to prove the same to be false or counterfeit by the evidence of any other credible witness. R. S. C. c. 174, s. 229.

The usual practice is to call as a witness a silversmith of the town where the trial takes place, who examines the coin in court, in the presence of the jury: Davis's Cr. L. 235.

EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 480.

693. On the trial of any person charged with the offences mentioned in section four hundred and eighty, any letter, circular, writing or paper offering or purporting to offer for sale, loan, gift or distribution, or giving or purporting to give information, directly or indirectly, where, how, of whom or by what means any counterfeit token of value may be obtained or had, or concerning any similar scheme or device to defraud the public, shall be prima facie evidence of the fraudulent character of such scheme or device. 51 V. c. 40, 8. 4.

PROOF OF PREVIOUS CONVICTION.

694. A certificate containing the substance and effect only, omitting the formal part, of any previous indictment and conviction for any indictable offence, or a copy of any summary conviction, purporting to be signed by the clerk of the court or other officer having the custody of the records of the court before which the offender was first convicted, or to which such summary conviction was returned, or by the deputy of such clerk or officer, shall, upon CRIM. LAW-51