Page images
PDF
EPUB

case reserved that, to give the magistrate jurisdiction, it was unnecessary to shew any summons, issued or any step taken, to bring the person complained of before the Magistrate, for, so long as he was present, the manner of his getting there was immaterial. (a)

The complaint before the magistrate was for selling liquor without licence, contrary to the (Ont.) 32 Vic., c. 32, and the indictment did not shew where the liquor was sold, and s. 25 of the Act requiring the proceedings, to be carried on before Magistrates," having jurisdiction in the municipality, in which the offence is committed, ' it consequently did not appear from the indictment that the Magistrate had jurisdiction, to hear the complaint or administer the oath, and the indictment therefore was insufficient in law. It would seem that it was also defective, for not shewing that the person complained against was present, or that a summons issued, and that the Magistrate was authorized to proceed ex parte, if the person complained against did not appear, after due service of the summons upon him. (b)

Defendant, by verbal agreement, engaged to work as a farm servant with one T., on the 9th of April, 1860, at $8 per month, the bargain being, that he should work for half a month, and as long after as he was found to suit, or until the fall ploughing was done. He left on the 21st of November, having told T., about three weeks previously, that he would like to go then, to which T. assented. Defendant complained of T., before a magistrate, for not paying his wages, and was indicted for perjury committed on that occasion, and found guilty :-Held, that this could not be treated as a hiring for a year, or any period beyond it, and that it was such a hiring as came within

(a) Reg. v. Mason, 29 U. C. Q. B. 431.

(b) Ib. 434, per Wilson, J.

Y

the Con. Stats. U. C., c. 75, and under the 12th section of the Act, gave the Magistrate jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter, and afford redress, and the conviction was affirmed. (a) The prisoner was indicted for perjury committed before a Police Magistrate, upon a summons taken out by him as an apprentice against his master, under the 4 Geo. 4 c. 34. s. 2, for non-payment of wages;—Held, that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint, although the summons was not taken out until the relation of master and servant had ceased, and that, at any rate, he had jurisdiction to enquire into the existence of that relation. (b) The prisoner was convict ed of perjury, alleged to have been committed upon the hearing of an application for an order of affiliation. The summons to the prisoner was not not produced on the trial, nor was secondary evidence given of its contents, nor was it proved that such summons had been served on the prisoner. The information laid by the mother was duly proved, and it was shewn that the putative father appeared before the Justices, and that evidence was given on both sides, and the prisoner gave the evidence which was the subject of the indictment for per jury --Held, that the father having appeared, and not having raised any objection to the summons, it was not necessary in order to shew jurisdiction in the Justices, to refer to it, or give any evidence of its existence on the trial for perjury. (c)

A woman, having obtained judgment against the defendant in a County Court, married, and afterwards, in her maiden name, took out a judgment summons against him in another district, which, on the hearing, the Judge amended by inserting her husband's name, and the de

(a) Reg. v. Walker, 21 U. C. Q. B. 34.

(b) Reg. v. Proud, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 71.

(c) Reg. v. Smith, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 110; 37 L. J. (M. C.) 6.

fendant was then sworn and examined, and was afterwards indicted and convicted at that hearing :-Held,that he was improperly convicted, as he had been sworn in a cause in which there was no judgment, and in which the County Court had no jurisdiction. (a)

The Con. Stats. U. C., c. 52, s. 73, empowers any Justice of the Peace to examine, upon oath, any person who comes before him to give evidence touching loss by fire, in which a Mutual Insurance Company is interested, and to administer to him the requisite oath.

The defendant was convicted on an indictment for perjury, assigned upon a clause in his affidavit, made in compliance with one of the conditions of a policy issued to him by a Mutual Fire Insurance Company, requiring the assured, in case of loss by fire, to deliver unto the company a detailed statement, under oath, of his loss, and value of the property destroyed. The policy of insurance containing this condition not having been produced: -Held, that, although the defendant's affidavit referred to the policy in such a way that its existence might have been fairly inferred, yet the conviction was bad, in consequence of the non-production of the policy, which would have shewn the authority of the Justice of the Peace, before whom the affidavit was made, to administer the oath, and also the condition above referred to, of which there had been no proof whatever, although the perjury assigned had been committed in complying with it. (b)

The condition of the policy, in this case, required the assured to make an affidavit touching a loss by fire, in which the company was interested, and the clause of the Statute above referred to empowered the Justice to ad

(a) Reg. v. Pearce, 9 U. C. I. J. 333; 3 B. & S. 531; 32 L. J. (M. C.) 75. (b) Reg. v. Gagan, 17 U. C. C. P. 530.

minister an oath, in such case coming within the condition; consequently, proof of the policy and condition was necessary to shew the authority of the Justice.

By the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 23, s. 4, the Justice or Commissioner is now required to take the affidavit or declara

tion.

On an indictment for perjury, on the hearing of a complaint for trespass in pursuit of game, it appeared that the complaint alleged that the defendant was in the close for the purpose of destroying game, but it did not allege that it was for the purpose of destroying game there. The complaint was held to be sufficient in form to give the Justices jurisdiction, so as to make false evidence, on the hearing, perjury. (a)

The Clerk of a Division Court, acting under the 13 & 14 Vic., c. 53, s. 102, issued an interpleader summons on his own authority, without the bailiff 's request. The Statute requires the summons to be issued upon the application of the officer charged with the execution of the process. Both parties attended before a Barrister appointed by the Judge of the Court, who was ill. They thereby submitted to the jurisdiction, and an order was made under this section. The Judge afterwards granted a new trial, which took place. The defendant was convicted of perjury, committed on the hearing, after the granting of the new trial :—Held, that both parties having appeared in the first instance, the proceedings then could not be considered void, for want of a previous application by the bailiff, and were, consequently, final and conclusive. was, therefore, not competent for the Judge to order a new trial, under s. 84 of this Act; consequently, the proceedings on the second trial were irregular and extrajudicial, and the false swearing taking place on it, the (a) Reg. v. Western, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 122; 37 L. J. (M. C.) 81.

It

conviction was illegal, as there was no authority to administer the oath. (a)

The prisoner being indicted for perjury, in giving evidence upon a charge of felony against one E. G., it appeared that the felony, if committed at all, was committed in the County of Middlesex. The Justices, before whom the examination took place, entertained the charge and examined the witnesses within the City of London. The defendant's counsel objected, at the trial, that the Justices, being Justices of the County of Middlesex, had no jurisdiction, sitting in London, to examine into an offence committed outside the limits of that city. The objection being overruled, the point was reserved for the opinion of the Court :-Held, that the conviction was illegal on the ground taken, and it was, therefore, reversed. (b)

The provisions of the 23 Vic., c. 2, s. 28, that all affidavits required therein may be taken before "any Justice of the Peace," does not empower a Justice of the Peace to administer the oath anywhere in the Province, but only in the place where he acts as such Justice. same interpretation of the Act applies to Commissioners for taking affidavits mentioned therein. (c)

The

Where the jurat of an affidavit states the place, it is prima facie evidence of administering the oath there. (d) A person is indictable who gives false evidence before a Grand Jury, on a bill of indictment, and the false swearing may be proved by the evidence of other witnesses, examined before them on the same bill. (e)

That part of the oath upon which the perjury is assigned must be material to the matter then under the considera

(a) Reg. v. Doty, 13 U. C. Q. B. 398.

(b) Reg. v. Row, 14 U. C. C. P. 307.

(c) Reg. v. Atkinson 17 U. C. C. P. 295.

(d) Ib. 301, per J. Wilson, J.

(e) R. v. Hughes, 1 C. & K. 519; Arch. Cr. Pldg. 815.

« PreviousContinue »