Q. What is a peremptory challenge and how many are allowed?

A.-In felonies the prisoner is allowed to arbitrarily challenge, and so exclude a certain number of jurors without showing any cause at all. He cannot claim this right in misdemeanors, but it is usual on application to the proper officer for him to abstain from calling any name objected to by the prosecutions or defendant within reasonable limits, and this course has been sanctioned by the court. The defendant may peremptorily challenge to the number of thirty-five in treason, except in that treason which consists of compassing the Queen's death by a direct attempt against her life or person. In such excepted case, in murder, and all other felonies, the number is limited to twenty. If challenges are made beyond the number allowed, those above the number are entirely void, and the trial proceeds as if no such extra challenge had been made. (Har. Crim. Law, p. 392.)

The Hearing.

Q.-State the course of proceedings upon a trial. A.-After the jury has been sworn and the crier has made proclamation of the nature of the offence, the counsel for the prosecution opens the case to the jury, stating the principal facts upon which he intends to rely. He calls his witnesses, who are sworn and examined by him, and then subjected to cross-examination by the counsel for the defence; or if the prisoner

is not defended by counsel, to any questions which the prisoner may put to them. The counsel for the prosecution may re-examine on matters referred to in the crossexamination. The court also may at any time interpose and ask questions of the witnesses. After the case for the prosecution is closed, it is ascertained whether the defence intend to call any witnesses. If they do not, the counsel for the prosecution may address the jury a second time in support of his case, for the purpose of summing up the evidence against the prisoner, but this right will be exercised only in exceptional cases, as where the evidence materially differs from the counsel's instructions. But if the prisoner has witnesses whom he wishes to call, his counsel opens the case for the defence and calls these witnesses in support thereof. They are also subject to cross-examination. The counsel for the prisoner is now entitled at the close of the examination of his witnesses to sum up his evidence.

After this address by the counsel for the defence, the counsel for the prosecution has the right of reply. This is in consequence of the defence having adduced evidence, written or parol, in defence (but mere evidence to character has not in practice this result), for, if he has not done so, the address of the counsel for the defence is the last. There is, however, one exception. When the Attorney-General, or some one else as his representative, is prosecuting, he has the right of reply, although no evidence has been adduced for the defence. If two prisoners are jointly indicted for the same offence, and only one calls witnesses, the counsel for the prosecution has the right to reply generally, but not if the offences are separate, and the prisoners might have been separately indicted.

If the prisoner is not defended by counsel, he may cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution, and examine his own witnesses, and at the end of such examination address the jury in his own defence. And if one only of two prisoners jointly indicted is defended by counsel, the undefended one may cross-. examine as above, and make his statement to the jury before or after the address of the counsel for the other, as the court thinks fit; if the prisoners jointly indicted are defended by different counsel, each counsel cross-examines and addresses the jury in order of seniority at the bar, or, if the judge thinks desirable, in order of the names of the prisoners on the. indictment. (Har. Crim. Law, pp. 396 et seq.)

Q. How many witnesses must there be to support a charge of treason?

A.-By statutes 1 Edw. VI. c. 12, 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 11, and 7 Will. III. c. 3, two lawful witnesses are required to convict a prisoner, unless he shall willingly and without violence confess the same. And both witnesses must be to the same overt act of treason, or one to one overt act, and the other to another overt act of the same species of treason, and not of distinct heads or kinds; and that no evidence shall be admitted to prove any overt act not expressly laid in the indict

ment.

Q.-State any other case you know in which there must be more than one witness.

A. In prosecutions for perjury there can be no conviction except on the oath of two witnesses, though it will be sufficient that the perjury be directly proved by one witness, and that corroborative evidence on

some particular point be given by another; and where the alleged perjury consists in the defendant's having contradicted what he himself swore on a former occasion, the testimony of a single witness in support of the defendant's own original statement will support a conviction. But in almost every other accusation the oath of one positive witness will be sufficient, the exception in case of treason being allowed in order to secure the subject more effectually from false accusation in a case so penal, and where there may be danger of his being made the victim of political oppression in the case of perjury, because it would not be reasonable to convict where there is only one oath against another. (4 Steph. Comm. p. 428.)

Q.-At what stage of the hearing may evidence be given of a previous conviction?

A. By 24 & 25 Vict. cc. 96, 99, it is provided that in an indictment under those acts alleging the offence to have been committed after a previous conviction, the defendant shall in the first instance be arraigned upon so much of the indictment as charges the subsequent offence concerning which only the jury shall in the first instance be charged to inquire; and that if they shall find him guilty thereof, or if on arraignment he shall plead guilty to the subsequent offence, then, and not before, the previous conviction shall be enquired into. But there is an exception as to this if the prisoner gives evidence as to character, for in that case the prosecutor may in answer thereto give evidence of the previous conviction before the subsequent offence is found, and the jury shall then inquire of the previous conviction and of the subsequent offence at the same time.

Q.-When is a defendant allowed to defend in formá pauperis?

A.—Where he will swear that he is not worth 57. besides his wearing apparel after payment of debts on petition to the Queen's Bench Division supported by affidavit. The petition is presented to the court or a judge in chambers; if granted a rule is drawn up mentioning the counsel and solicitor for the defence. The defendant then pays no fees on any steps taken.

Evidence.

[1 am indebted for the principal points referred to under the above heading to Mr. Justice Stephen's "Digest of the Law of Evidence," to which the Student is referred for further information.]

Q. In a question whether A. and B. conspired together to defraud the custom-house of duty, may evidence be given as against B. that A. made a false entry to carry out the fraud?

A.-Yes; for when two or more persons conspire together to commit any offence or actionable wrong, everything said, done or written by any one of them in the execution or furtherance of their common purpose, is deemed to be so said, done or written by every one, and is deemed to be a relevant fact as against each of them, but statements as to measures taken in the execution or furtherance of any such common purpose, are not deemed to be relevant as such as against any conspirators, except those by whom or in whose presence such statements are made.