Any three distinct acts of embezzlement committed against the same person, within the space of six months, may be charged in the indictment, and where, upon the trial, it appears that the offence amounts in law to larceny, the jury may return a verdict accordingly. The offence may be dealt with under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (see sections 11 and 12 of Act, EPITOME OF STATUTES, post).

In order to establish the offence of embezzlement the clerk or servant must have received the money or property from a third person on account of his måster. Where he receives it direct from his master the offence would be larceny. See title LABOUR LAWS, post, as to embezzlement of materials in particular manufactures.

Evidence.

The word evidence includes all the legal means exclusive of mere argument which tend to prove or disprove any matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation.

General rules. The following are some of the general rules of evidence: That the best evidence that the nature of the case will admit of shall be produced at the trial. Secondary evidence is inadmissible, unless some ground be previously laid for its introduction by showing the impossibility of procuring better evidence. Parole testimony is not receivable to vary or contradict the terms of a written instrument. Hearsay evidence (a) in general is inadmissible. Conversations which have taken place out of the hearing of the party to be affected cannot be given in evidence.

(a) Evidence of a complaint made shortly after a crime is committed, as by a woman of having been violated, is not hearsay but original evidence of a fact. The rule is to admit evidence of the fact of complaint, and in no case to admit anything more. See Roscoe on Criminal Evidence, p. 24 (Seventh ed.) for this and other exceptions.

The possession of stolen property recently after the commission of a theft is prima facie evidence that the possessor is either the thief or the receiver, but when direct or positive evidence of the facts cannot be supplied circumstantial evidence is admissible, but presumptive or circumstantial evidence should be admitted cautiously, for the law presumes every man to be innocent until the contrary be proved. Circumstantial evidence should be such as to produce nearly the same degree of certainty as that which arises from direct testimony, and to exclude a rational probability of innocence. The statement of one prisoner is not evidence for or against another prisoner (b). An accomplice may become a witness or Queen's evidence against his fellows, but the unsupported evidence of an accomplice ought not to be fully relied on without corroboration or collateral proof. No person charged with an offence is competent, or can be compelled to give evidence for or against himself, nor can any person be compelled to answer any question tending to criminate himself (14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 3). The witness is not the sole judge of whether the questions may tend to criminate him. The court must see that there is reasonable ground to apprehend danger to the witness. It was laid down by COCKBURN, L. C. J., on trial of an indictment, that a police constable is bound, on cross-examination, to give the name of his informant (R. v. Richardson, 3 F. & F. 693; 36 J. P. 238), but in ordinary cases it is for the judge to decide whether any such question would or would not be injurious to the administration of justice (Stephens' Digest, 116).

A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory by reference to any entry or memorandum made by himself at the time, or shortly after the occasion of which he is speaking,

(b) But where one of two prisoners jointly indicted has pleaded guilty, his evidence may be received against the other (R. v. Gallagher, 39 J. P. 502). If the prisoners be tried separately there could be noobjection to one prisoner being called as a witness for another prisoner.

although the entry or memorandum could not itself be received in evidence. Should the memorandum be referred to in the witness box, the notes may have to be handed in.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.-The 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 1, and 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14, prescribe the mode of proving public non-official documents, and the Documentary Evidence Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 37) prescribes the mode of proving, by a copy of the Gazette, or a copy by the government printer, or by extract or copy, certified by proper officer, various documents, such as proclamation orders, regulations of the Queen or Privy Council, &c.

The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, contains special provisions as to the proof of orders and documents under that Act.

The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 50, s. 24), prescribes mode of proving bye-laws made by the council of any borough, and similar provisions as to proof of bye-laws under Public Health Act, 1875, as contained in that Act (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55, s. 186).

By the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1879, copies of entries in books by bankers in course of business shall be admissible on proof orally or by affidavit by a partner or officer of the bank, and the banker cannot be compelled to produce such books, except by special order of a judge.

In criminal proceedings every instrument liable to stamp duty is admissible in evidence, although it may not have the stamp required by law (33 & 34 Vict. c. 97, s. 17), but this is not the case in civil proceedings. Depositions properly taken are admissible in evidence on the trial of the accused, if it is proved that the person making such deposition is dead, and that the deposition was taken in the presence and hearing of the accused, and that he had an opportunity of crossexamining the witness.

HANDWRITING.-The handwriting of a person may be proved by the writer himself; by a witness who saw the letter, signature, &c., written; by a witness who has a knowledge of the person's writing by having seen him write, &c. ; by comparison by witnesses acquainted with the writing; or by skilled witnesses (known as "experts") of the disputed writing, with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the court to be genuine.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION.-As to proof of previous convictions by record or extract of such conviction, signed by the clerk of the court or other officer having the custody of the records of the court where such conviction was made, see title PREVENTION OF CRIMES ACTs, post.

CHARACTER. In criminal proceedings the fact that an accused person has a good character is important, but the fact that he has a bad character unimportant, unless it is itself a fact in issue, or unless evidence has been given that the prisoner has a good character.

GUILTY KNOWLEDGE.-Where proceedings are taken against any person for having received goods knowing them to be stolen, or for having in his possession stolen property, evidence may be given at any stage of the proceedings that there was found in the possession of such person other property stolen within the preceding period of twelve months, and such evidence may be taken into consideration for the purpose of proving that such person knew the property to be stolen which forms the subject of the proceedings taken against him. Where proceedings are taken against any person for having received goods knowing them to have been stolen, or having in his possession stolen property, and evidence has been given that the stolen property has been found in his possession, then if such person has within five years immediately preceding been convicted of any offence

involving fraud or dishonesty, evidence of such previous conviction may be given at any stage of the proceedings, and may be taken into consideration for the purpose of proving that the person accused knew the property which was proved to be in his possession to have been stolen, provided that not less than seven days' notice in writing shall have been given to the person accused, that proof is intended to be given of such previous conviction; and it shall not be necessary for the purposes of this section to charge in the indictment the previous convictions of the person accused (34 & 35 Vict. c. 112, s. 19).

As to guilty knowledge in cases of false pretences, see R. v. Francis, under title FALSE PRETENCES, post. For definition of guilty knowledge, see title LEGAL PRINCIPI ES, TERMS DEFINED, &c., post.

CONFESSIONS, STATEMENTS, &c.-Confession of guilt freely and voluntarily made by the accused to any one may be given in evidence, but any evidence obtained from a prisoner in consequence of any threat, promise, or inducement made to the prisoner by any person in authority will render the evidence inadmissible, but any discovery made through the information so obtained is admissible in evidence.

See also heading "Prisoners," under title POWERS AND DUTIES OF CONSTABLES, ante, p. 4.

When prisoners have made confessions or statements to police the exact words used by them should be given in evidence.

DYING DECLARATIONS.-In cases of murder or manslaughter where the victim is likely to die, and there is no time to take his deposition in proper form, the statement of the injured person may be taken in the form of a dying declaration."

66

Dying declarations may be taken by a police officer, or by any person, but where time permits they should be taken before a magistrate. They need not be in writing, but, if