2

1 ARTICLE 203.

COMPOUNDING PENAL ACTIONS.

[Every one commits a misdemeanor who, having brought, or under color of bringing, an action against any person under any penal statute in order to obtain from him any penalty, compounds the said action without order or consent of the court 3 (whether any offence has in fact been committed or not).]

ARTICLE 204.

CORRUPTLY TAKING A REWARD FOR HELPING TO RECOVER STOLEN PROPERTY WITHOUT USING DILIGENCE TO

BRING OFFENDER TO TRIAL.

Every one is guilty of felony and liable to seven years' imprisonment who corruptly takes any money or reward, directly or indirectly, under pretence or upon account of helping any person to any chattel, money, valuable security or other property whatsoever, which, by any felony or misdemeanor, has been stolen, taken, obtained, extorted, embezzled, converted or disposed of, as in The Larceny Act mentioned, unless he has used all due diligence to cause the offender to be brought to trial for the

same.

1 S. D. Art. 159. See R. S. C. c. 106, s. 120, as to compounding offences against The Canada Temperance Act.

[18 Eliz. c. 5, ss. 4, 5 (very much compressed). The punishment was the pillory, but see now 56 Geo. 3, c. 138, s. 2. See also R. v. Southerton, 6 East 126; R. v. Gotley, Russ. & Ry. 84.] Garrett v. Roberts, 10 Ont. App. R. 650. The statute does not apply to summary proceedings before justices; R. v. Mason, 17 U. C. C. P. 534. As to when proceedings may be compromised, see Kneeshaw v. Collier, 30 U. C. C. P. 265.

In Quebec," of the Crown." R. S. C. c. 173, s. 31.

4 [R. v. Best, 2 Moody C. C. 124.]

S. D. Art. 351 (d).

6 R. S. C. c. 164 s. 89; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96 s. 101.

ARTICLE 205.

UNLAWFULLY ADVERTISING A REWARD FOR RETURN OF STOLEN PROPERTY.

1

Every one is liable to a penalty of two hundred and fifty dollars for each offence, recoverable with costs by any person who sues for the same in any court of competent jurisdiction, 2 who

(a.) publicly advertises a reward for the return of any property, which has been stolen or lost, and in such advertisement uses any words purporting that no questions will be asked;

(b.) makes use of any words in any public advertisement purporting that a reward will be given or paid for any property which has been stolen or lost, without seizing or making any inquiry after the person producing such property;

(c.) promises or offers in any such public advertisement to return to any pawnbroker or other person who advanced money by way of loan on, or has bought, any property stolen or lost, the money so advanced or paid, or any other sum of money for the return of such property; or

(d.) prints or publishes any such advertisement.

1 R. S. C. c. 164 s. 90; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96 s. 102.

2 No action to recover any such penalty shall be brought against the printer or publisher of a newspaper, defined as a newspaper for the purposes of the Acts, for the time being in force, relating to the carriage of newspapers by post, except within six months after the cause of action arises; R. S. C. c. 164 s. 90; 33 & 34 Vict. c. 65 ss. 2, 3.

PART IV.

ACTS INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL.

CHAP. XVII.-UNDEFINED MISDE- CHAP. XX.-COMMON NUISANCES

ACTS INVOLVING PUBLIC MISCHIEF.

2 [ACTS deemed to be injurious to the public have in some instances been held to be misdemeanors, because it appeared to the court before which they were tried that there was an analogy between such acts and other acts

1 S. D. Art. 160.

2 [See 3 Hist. Cr. Law, 351-60, and 2 Hist. Cr. Law, 197-9; see the whole of chapter i. of Sir W. Erle's work on Trade Unions, pp. 1-51, particularly pp. 48-53; also his account of R. v. Rowlands and R. v. Duffield, Ibid. 81-7. Wright on the Laws of Conspiracy should be studied, and contrasted with this. See also my account of the law of conspiracy in Roscoe's Criminal Evidence (8th ed.), pp. 409-414. As to offences relating to the administration of justice, see 5th Rep. C. L. C. passim, but particularly p. 29, &c., p. 50, &c., and R. v. Opie, 1 Saund. 301; R. v. Ring, 8 T. R. 585, and other cases there cited. As to public officers, R. v. Bembridge, 22 St. Tr. 1. After quoting the judgment of Willes, J. (the colleague of Lord Mansfield), in Millar v. Taylor (4 Burr. 2312), to the effect that "justice, moral fitness, and public convenience, when applied to a new subject, make common law without precedent," Pollock, C. B., said, "I entirely agree with the spirit of this passage so far as it regards the repressing what is a public evil and preventing what would become a public mischief; but I think there is a wide difference between protecting the community against a new source of danger and creating a new right. I think the common law is quite competent to pronounce anything to be illegal which is manifestly against the public good; but I think the common law cannot create new rights," &c. (Jefferys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. C. 936). As to cheats affecting the public, see 2 East, P. C. 818-822.]

[which had been held to be misdemeanors, although such first mentioned acts were not forbidden by any express law, and although no precedent exactly applied to them.

This has been done especially in the case of agreements between more persons than one to carry out purposes which the judges regarded as injurious to the public, in which case such acts have been held to amount to the offence of conspiracy;

or when they have been done by a public officer in relation to his official duty;

or when they tended in any way to pervert the administration of justice, or to disturb the public peace; or when the proceeding has been by parliamentary impeachment.]

CHAPTER XVIII.

1 OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION.

2 ARTICLE 207.

BLASPHEMY DEFINED-ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS.

[EVERY publication is said to be blasphemous which contains

1 [See 2 Hist. Cr. Law, ch. xxv. 396-497, and Draft Code, Part XII.]

3 [There is authority for each of these views, as may be seen from a collection of all the]