The inclination of the Courts is not to extend the rule for excluding confessions. (a)

Where a prisoner is willing to make a statement; it is the Magistrate's duty to receive it; but he ought, before doing so, entirely to get rid of any impression that may have been on the prisoner's mind that the statement may be used for his own benefit, and he ought also to be told that what he thinks fit to say will be taken down, and may be used against him on his trial. (b) The mode of doing this is now prescribed in terms, by the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 30, S. s. 31 and 32. The caution or explanation contained in s. 32 is not necessary, unless it appears that some inducement or threat has previously been held out to the accused. (c)

་་

The 66th section of the Statute declares that the several forms given in the schedule, or forms to the like effect, shall be good, valid and sufficient in law. The form N., of the statement of the accused before the Magistrate, contains the cautions specified in s. 31, and not that in s. 32. Therefore, a statement returned, purporting to be signed by the Magistrate, and bearing, on the face of it, the caution provided for by s. 31, is admissible by virtue of s. 34, without further proof. (d)

The object of taking depositions, under the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 30, is not to afford information to the prisoner, but to preserve the evidence, if any of the witnesses is unable to attend the trial or dies. This being the ground on which they are taken, until recently the prisoner had no right to see them. (e) Now he is entitled to inspect the depositions, that he may know why he is committed. (f)

(a) Reg. v. Finkle, 15 U. C. C. P. 459.

(b) See R. v. Arnold, 8 C. & P. 621; Arch. Cr. Pldg. 226.

(c) Reg. v. Sansome, 1 Den. 545; 19 L. J. (M. C.) 143.

(d) Ib.; See Reg. v. Bond, 1 Den. 517; 19 L. J. (M. C) 138; Arch. Cr. Pldg.

228.

(e) Reg. v. Hamilton, 16 U. C. C. P. 364, per Richards, C. J.

(f) Ib.; 32 & 33 Vic. c. 29, s 46.

It is not incumbent on the prosecution to abstain from giving any additional evidence, discovered subsequently to the taking of depositions; but it is only fair that the prisoner's counsel should be apprised of the character of such evidence. (a)

It would seem that depositions taken before a Coroner can only be proved by the Coroner himself, or by proving his signature thereto, and showing by his clerk, or by some person who was present at the enquiry, that the forms of law have been duly complied with. (b)

It was not however necessary to prove depositions by the Magistrate, or his clerk, when taken before Justices of the Peace; though, it was intimated that, in important cases, it would be better if they were present at the trial. (c)

Now, an examination taken, under the 31 & 32 Vic., c. 30, may be given in evidence without further proof, unless it be proved that the Justice purporting to have signed the same, did not in fact sign the same. (d) The signature of the prisoner is not absolutely necessary. The effect of the Statute, so far as regards the evidence of a confession, seems to be that a written examination, taken as the Statute directs, is evidence per se, and the only admissible evidence of the deponents having made a declaration of the things therein contained. (e)

The Statute authorizes the reading of the depositions before the Grand Jury, for the purpose of finding a bill, as well as before the petty jury at the trial. (f) In order, however, that the deposition may be admissible before the Grand Jury, the presiding Judge must, by evidence taken

(a) Reg. v. Hamilton, 16 U. C. C. P. 365, per Richards, C. J.

(b) Reg. v. Hamilton, supra, 340; Taylor, Ev. 473; Reg. v. Wilshaw, C. & Mar. 145.

(c) Reg. v. Hamilton, supra, 353, per Richards, C. J.

(d) S. 34.

(e) Arch. Cr. Pldg. 233.

(f) Reg. v. Clements, 2 Den. 251; 20 L. J. (M. C.) 193.

in the presence of the acccused, satisfy himself of the existence of the facts required by the Statute to make such deposition admissible in evidence. (a)

Under the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 30, s. 29, it is not necessary that each deposition should be signed by the Justice taking it. Therefore, where a number of depositions, taken at the same hearing on several sheets of paper, were fastened together, and signed by the Justices taking them once only at the end of all the depositions, in the form given in the schedule (M) :—Held, that one of the depositions was admissible in evidence, under s. 30 of this Act, after the death of the witness making it, although no part of it was on the sheet signed by the Justice. (b)

A deposition, properly taken, under 32 & 33 Vic., c. 30, s. 30, before a Magistrate, on a charge of feloniously wounding, is admissable in evidence against the prisoner on his trial for murder, the deponent having subsequently died of the wound. To render a deposition so taken admissible at the trial of a prisoner, it is not a condition that the charge, on which he is indicted, must be identically the same as that made against him before the magistrate, but the question is whether the charge was such that the prisoner had full opportunity, before the Magistrate for cross-examination, as to the circumstances appearing at the trial. (c)

Where a conviction for selling liquor without license has been appealed to the General Sessions, the depositions of witnesses, upon whose evidence in the Police Court the appellant was convicted, are not admissible on the trial of such appeal, though the witnesses are then absent from the Province. (d)

(a) Reg. v. Beaver, 10 Cox, 274, per Byles, J.; Arch. Cr. Pldg. 250.

(b) Reg. v. Parker, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 225; 39 L. J. (M. C.) 60.; Reg. v. Richards, 4 F. & F. 860, overruled.

(c) Reg. v. Beeston, 1 U. C. L. J. 17; Dears. 405; 24 L. J. (M. C.) 5. (d) Re Brown, 8 C. L. J. N. S. 81.

Formerly depositions were receivable only where the indictment was substantially for the same offence as that with which the defendant was charged before the Justice. (a) Now, by the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 29, s. 58, deposi tions, 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 whatsoever.

66

Upon the trial of the prisoner for obtaining money by false pretences, it was proved, by a female servant and the brother of the prosecutrix, that she was daily expect ing her confinement, and the latter stated that she was poorly otherwise," and was, therefore, too ill to travel: -Held, upon this evidence, the Statute 32 & 33 Vic., c. 30, s. 30, authorized the presiding Judge to receive the depositions of the prosecutrix, taken before the committing Magistrate; that there may be incidents with regard to parturition to bring the case within the Statute; that it is in the discretion of the presiding Judge to determine whether the evidence of illness is sufficient; that it is not necessary, in such case, to produce medical evidence. (b)

The statement of a deceased witness, taken on oath by a Magistrate, detailing the circumstances under which a felony was committed, is admissible in evidence on the trial, under the (N. B.) 1 Rev. Stat., c. 156, s. 7, though it is headed "the complaint of," etc., instead of "the examination" of the deceased, and does not state, on its face, to have been taken in the presence of the accused, it being proved that it was taken in his presence. (c)

Upon an indictment for obtaining money, from H., by false pretences, it appeared that the defendant was em

(a) See Reg. v. Beeston, 1 U. C. L. J. 17; Dears. 405; Reg. v. Ledbetter, 3 C. & K. 108.

(b) Reg. v. Stevenson, 9 U. C. L. J. 139; L. & C. 165; 31 L. J. (M. C.) 147. See, however, Reg. v. Welton, 9 Cox, 296.

(c) Reg. v. Millar, Sup. Ct. N. B., H. T., 1861.

ployed to take orders for goods, but had no authority to receive the price, and that, eleven days after he was so employed, he obtained the money from H. by representing that he was authorized by his employer to receive it for goods delivered, in pursuance of an order which the defendant had taken. Evidence of an obtaining by a similar representation from another person, within a few days of the time when the moneys were obtained from H., not charged in the indictment, was tendered for the prosecution to prove the intent, and, after objection, admitted-Held, that the evidence objected to was inadmissible. (a)

But where several felonies are connected together, and form part of one entire transaction, evidence of one is admissible to shew the character of the others. (b)

In criminal prosecutions for receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, or for passing counterfeit money or bills, witnesses are allowed to be called, on the part of the Crown, to speak to facts having no immediate connection with the case under trial, as, for instance, to prove that when the stolen goods, mentioned in the indictment, were found in possession of the prisoner there were found, also, in his possession various other articles that can be shewn to have been recently stolen from other people. So, in the case of persons who have passed counterfeit money or bills, when it is necessary to establish a guilty knowledge, on the part of the prisoner, the prosecutor is allowed to give evidence of the prisoner having, about the same time, passed other counterfeit money or bills, or had many such in his possession, which circumstances tend strongly to shew that he was not acting innocently, and had not taken the money cas

(a) Reg. v. Holt, 8 U. C. L. J. 55; Bell, 280; 30 L. J. (M. C.) 11. (b) Clark v. Stevenson, 24 U. C. Q. B. 209; Rex v. Egerton, Russ. & Ry. C. C. 375; Rex. v. Ellis, 6 B. & C. 145.